Loading...
03-18-2015 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/18/2015) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING MARCH 18, 2015 INDEX Area Variance No. 11-2015 Maurice Combs 1. LEAD AGENCY REQUEST FROM P.B. Tax Map No. 308.18-1-1 Sign Variance No. 4-2015 Wesley Padgett for RCG Ventures, LLC 2. Tax Map No. 296.18-1-47 Area Variance No. 88-2014 McDonald's USA, LLC 5. Tax Map No. 302.6-1-48 & 49 Sign Variance No. 87-2014 McDonald's USA, LLC 10. Tax Map No. 302.6-1-48, 49 Sign Variance No. 8-2015 Jason Christiana & Mary Peyton for 10. Berkshire Hathaway Home Services Tax Map No. 302.6-1-3 Sign Variance No. 9-2015 Action Sign Co. for Dollar General 14. Tax Map No. 309.10-1-57 Area Variance No. 10-2015 Lou Anne Rice/Stephen A. Rice 18. Tax Map No. 309.18-1-10.1, 11 THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTHS MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES. 1 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/18/2015) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING MARCH 18, 2015 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT STEVEN JACKOSKI, CHAIRMAN ROY URRICO, SECRETARY KYLE NOONAN MICHAEL MC CABE RICHARD GARRAND MEMBERS ABSENT JOHN HENKEL RONALD KUHL LAND USE PLANNER-LAURA MOORE STENOGRAPHER-SUE HEMINGWAY MR. JACKOSKI-Welcome, everyone. I'd like to call to order this evening's meeting of the Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals. For those of you who haven't been here in the past, it's a quite simple process. We'll call each item by application up to the table when appropriate. We do have a sheet out on the back that provides you with our agenda, as well as our general operating rules and procedures. We'll ask the applicant some questions. After reading their application into the record, we'll open a public comment period when one has been advertised. We'll possibly poll the Board, take action accordingly, close the public hearings when appropriate. So it's very straightforward. We do have some administrative matters to take care of, some housekeeping, and the first thing is this evening is to get a motion to approve the meeting minutes from February 18tH APPROVAL OF MINUTES February 18, 2015 MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 18, 2015, Introduced by Richard Garrand who moved for its adoption, seconded by Michael McCabe: Duly adopted this 18th day of March, 2015, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Garrand, and Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Noonan (not present at 2/18/15 meeting) MR. JACKOSKI-For the students in the audience, if you haven't had us sign an agenda for you to prove you were here, come on up during the meeting and I'll sign it for you. Next item on the agenda for this evening is an Administrative Item. ADMINISTRATIVE ITEM: AREA VARIANCE 11-2015 MAURICE COMBS - TO CONSIDER PLANNING BOARD REQUEST FOR LEAD AGENCY MR. JACKOSKI-Is there any further discussion? Everyone's okay with making them the Lead Agent? Can I have a motion, please? The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Maurice Combs for a variance from Chapter 183 of the Zoning Code of The Town of Queensbury. Applicant proposes removal of existing single-family dwelling and development of a 7-lot residential subdivision with lot sizes ranging from 1.01 acres to 1.45 acres. Relief requested from minimum lot size requirements for the MDR district. 2 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/18/2015) RESOLUTION TO ACCEPT THE PLANNING BOARD'S REQUEST TO BE LEAD AGENCY FOR SEQRA PURPOSES, Area Variance No. 11-2015, Maurice Combs, Tax Map No. 308.18- 1-1 Introduced By Michael McCabe who moved for its adoption, seconded by Kyle Noonan: Duly adopted this 18th day of March, 2015 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Noonan, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Henkel, Mr. Kuhl MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. Under Old Business, this evening. OLD BUSINESS: SIGN VARIANCE NO. 4-2015 SEQRA TYPE UNLISTED WESLEY PADGETT FOR RCG VENTURES, LLC AGENT(S) TONY STELLATO-CHA CONSULTING OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING CI LOCATION 820 ST. RT. 9 - NORTHWAY PLAZA APPLICANT HAS REVISED THE APPLICATION TO REMOVE THE FREESTANDING SIGN. THE PROJECT STILL CONTAINS A WALL SIGN FACING UPPER GLEN STREET THAT EXCEEDS THE 30 SQ. FT. MAXIMUM SIZE. CROSS REFERENCE SB 1-2015; SP 4-2015 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING JANUARY 2015 LOT SIZE 22.87 ACRE(S) TAX MAP NO. 296.18-1-47 SECTION CHAPTER 140 TONY STELLATO, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFFINPUT Notes from Staff, Sign Variance No. 4-2015, Wesley Padgett for RCG Ventures, LLC, Meeting Date: March 18, 2015 Description of Proposed Project: Applicant has revised the application to remove the freestanding sign. The project still contains a wall sign facing Upper Glen Street that exceeds the 30 sq. ft. minimum. Relief Required: Parcel will require a sign variance from Section 140 for size of wall sign Size of wall signs-front Upper Glen Street Required 30 sq. ft. Proposed 128.5 sq. ft. Relief 98.5 sq. ft. in excess of allowed maximum Criteria for considering a Sign Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination, the board shall consider: 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. Minor impacts to the neighborhood 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 are available to reduce the wall sign size from 128.5 sq ft. to a more comoliant sign. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered substantial relevant to the code. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The relief requested may be considered to have minimal to no impact on the neighborhood. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self- created. Staff comments: 3 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/18/2015) The applicant proposes a 7,319 sq. ft. restaurant with associated wall signage. The proposed front wall sign on Route 9 exceeds the 30 sq. ft. sign maximum with a 128.5 sq. ft. The applicant has indicated the signage is consistent with the signage along Route 9 and Quaker Rd. The plans show the location of the signage and the color rendition of the signage on the structure. The construction of the new restaurant is subject to site plan review." MR. JACKOSKI-Welcome. MR. STELLATO-Hello. Tony Stellato from CHA, representing RCG Ventures. I have a brief PowerPoint if you'd like to see the presentation. All the way on the bottom, that one. I'll just go through it quickly. The next slide just gives you an overview of what is in Northway Plaza. Just a quick plan. The T.J. Maxx, or, I'm sorry, the Texas Roadhouse is the outparcel, which is that building right there. The next slide gives you an aerial view with the two existing freestanding signs which will remain unchanged. The original application, if you flip to the next slide, Laura, actually two slides, this is the approved site plan that got approved by the Planning Board last night, and then the next slide shows, in this area here, we originally showed a freestanding sign. In discussions with Laura and Craig and the Planning Board, it was felt that that sign was something that Texas Roadhouse was willing to give up if they could basically keep their wall signage intact. If you flip to the next slide, Laura, this was the sign proposal as it was originally proposed. The large sign, the wall sign number one, the one that we're requesting the variance for, goes along the front face of the building. There's a smaller sign on the side of the building. That's 11 square feet, and that really is just a sign that goes over the door that tells the customers where the entrance to the building is, and then the freestanding signage was eliminated. Interestingly enough, if we would just rotate the building 90 degrees, and put the large sign on this side of the building, it would be compliant, because your Code allows for signage up to 200 square feet, as the building increases in distance from the right of way. So we're just under 80 feet from the right of way. So we're at that low threshold of 30 square feet. If we were 100 feet from the right of way, just 20 feet more, we would be allowed a 100 square foot sign, and at 200 feet we'd be allowed 200 square feet. So, I just thought it was interesting that if we, if the building faced the other way, there would be no need for a variance. Laura, if you would please flip to the next one. This is a detail of the two signs, and we don't need to spend too much time on that one. The next slide, I believe, shows what we've modified the proposal to, and then finally on the next slide we show that, of the building with the sign, and while we exceed the allowable sign area by 98 and a half square feet, we have wall sign number two, which is 108 square feet less than the Code allows. The freestanding sign eliminated. So if we went with what Code allow, with two wall signs and a freestanding sign, the total sign area allowed would have been 239 square feet. We're asking for 139 square feet or 58% of what total sign area would be allowed by Code, and finally we, the reason that Texas Roadhouse was eager to make that concession to eliminate the monument sign was that anything less than this in that space in the building just wouldn't fill it up. It just wouldn't look right. So if you flip to the next page there's an actual photograph of what the building looks like. This is a site that was, I think, out in Illinois. The building is very similar. The signage is the same, and this is what we're looking to achieve. The signage is lit around the perimeter with neon. It's a nice effect. It's not traditionally back lit, and that, with the lighting on the building and the lighting on the flags, we think is going to give it a nice effect on that corner. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Anything else? MR. STELLATO-I think that's it. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. I do want to note this evening that we are short some Board members and it's certainly your prerogative to decide if you want us to continue with the application, once we get through some more of the process here, or if you'd like to table it, as a convenience to you, being a short Board. Any questions from Board members at this time? We do have a public comment period scheduled for this evening. Is this anyone here in the audience, as I open that public hearing, who would like to address the Board? PUBLIC HEARING OPEN AUDIENCE MEMBER-1 think it's aesthetically pleasing to the building. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. Okay. Seeing no other public comment, is there any written comment? MR. URRICO-No. 4 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/18/2015) MR. JACKOSKI-Having no written comment, no further comment, I'll leave the public comment period open, and I'll ask for Board member comment. I'll start with Kyle. MR. NOONAN-With the plan proposed currently, I would be more in favor of this than I would have been had we talked about it the first time through, so that sign that was to be eliminated from the plan, I'm happy it was eliminated because there's enough signage already in that Plaza. The architecture of the building is designed for that space to have that sign where it is. The size of the sign, for the building, for the business that we want in this Town is, I think it all goes hand in hand. I'd be in favor of the project. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Rick? MR. GARRAND-1 agree with Kyle. The original proposal with the pole sign was over the top, and I would definitely have sought to eliminate one of the two signs. I'm glad they eliminated the pole sign in favor of this. I'd also be in favor. MR. JACKOSKI-Mike? MR. MC CABE-It seems like the sign fits the architecture. I'd be in favor of the project. MR. JACKOSKI-Roy? MR. URRICO-I'm also in agreement. MR. JACKOSKI-There we go. I'll close the public comment period. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. JACKOSKI-And seek a motion, and I do believe Staff has prepared a motion. MR. NOONAN-I'll make a motion. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, Kyle. MRS. MOORE-Do you want to start with the SEAR? MR. JACKOSKI-I'm so sorry. I need a SEAR motion. That's Rick's job. The applicant proposes to remove the freestanding sign. The project still contains a wall sign facing Upper Glen Street that exceeds the 30 sq. ft. maximum size. The Zoning Board has determined that the proposed project and Zoning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act; The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury; Motion regarding Sign Variance No. 4-2015 Wesley Padgett, Development Manager / RCG Ventures, LLC (Texas Road House Restaurant) based upon the information and the analysis of the above supporting documentation provided by the applicant, this Board finds that this will not result in any significant adverse environmental impact. So we give it a Negative Declaration, Introduced by Richard Garrand who moved for its adoption, seconded by Michael McCabe: Duly adopted this 18th day of March, 20151 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Noonan, Mr. Urrico, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Henkel, Mr. Kuhl MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, and now, Kyle, please, if you would. MR. NOONAN-Okay. Wesley Padgett for RCG Ventures has revised the application to remove the freestanding sign. The project still contains a wall sign facing Upper Glen Street that exceeds the 30 sq. ft. maximum size and have applied to the Town of Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals for a Sign 5 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/18/2015) Variance. Relief requested from the maximum size requirements for the Cl district from Chapter 140 of the Town Zoning Law; As required by General Municipal Law Section 239-m the variance application was referred to the Warren County Planning Department for its review; on 3-14-15 there was a recommendation of No County Impact; SEAR Type Unlisted; The ZBA conducted a public hearing on Wednesday, March 18, 2015; Upon review of the application materials, information supplied during the public hearing, and upon consideration of the criteria specified in Section 179-14-080(A) of the Queensbury Town Code and Chapter 267 of NYS Town Law and after discussion and deliberation, we find as follows: 1. There is not an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood nor a detriment to nearby properties because this business fits the corridor where it will be. 2. Feasible alternatives are not necessary at this point; we have not considered any feasible alternatives. 3. The requested variance is substantial based on the amount of requests being asked, but we find it not to be a hindrance. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. 5. In addition, the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from granting the requested variance would outweigh the resulting detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or the community. 6. The Board also finds that the variance request under consideration is the minimum necessary. Based on the above findings I make a MOTION TO APPROVE Sign Variance No. 4-2015, Wesley Padgett, Development Manager/ RCG Ventures, LLC (Texas Road House Restaurant), Introduced by Kyle Noonan, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Michael McCabe: Duly adopted this 18th day of March 2015 by the following vote: MR. JACKOSKI-I'd like to ask Staff, could they come back and ask for a monument sign in the future without a variance? MRS. MOORE-1 believe it still would trigger a variance because there's already a monument sign, a freestanding sign on the property. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Thank you. AYES: Mr. Garrand, Mr. Urrico, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Noonan, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Henkel, Mr. Kuhl MR. JACKOSKI-Congratulations. Thank you. MR. STELLATO-Thank you very much. TABLED ITEMS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 88-2014 SEQRA TYPE II MCDONALD'S USA, LLC AGENT(S) BOHLER ENGINEERING, LLC OWNER(S) MCDONALD'S USA, LLC ZONING CI LOCATION 819 STATE ROUTE 9, WARD 2 APPLICANT PROPOSES DEMOLITION OF EXISTING 4,800 SQ. FT. RESTAURANT AS WELL AS DEMOLITION OF THE EXISTING 411 SQ. FT. DETACHED SHED/GARAGE. APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW 4,365 SQ. FT. RESTAURANT. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MINIMUM FRONT YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENTS AS WELL AS FROM MAXIMUM PERMEABILITY REQUIREMENTS IN THE CI ZONING DISTRICT. CROSS REF SP 75-14, SV 87-14, SP 16- 6 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/18/2015) 93, BP'S 00-3463, 1101 & 1535 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING DECEMBER 2014 LOT SIZE 0.30 AND 0.71 ACRE(S) TAX MAP NO. 302.6-1-48 &49 SECTION 179-3-040 STAFFINPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 88-2014, McDonald's USA, LLC, Meeting Date: March 18, 2015 "Project Location: 819 State Route 9, Ward 2 Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes demolition of existing 4,800 sq. ft. restaurant as well as demolition of the existing 411 sq. ft. detached shed/garage. Applicant proposes construction of a new 4,365 sq. ft. restaurant. Relief Required: Parcel will require area variances from Section 179-3-040 dimensional requirements of the Cl zone: Relief requested from minimum front yard setback requirements as well as from maximum permeability requirements in the Cl zoning district Front-Route 9 Front- Old Permeability Aviation Required 75 ft. 75 ft. 30% Proposed 57.3 ft. 28 ft. *Lot 127.5 %, Lot 2 14% Relief 17.7 ft. 47 ft. *Lot 12.5 %, Lot 2 16% • The Applicant has submitted revised information for the Board to review and provide comment. The Applicant will not be attending. The applicant has provided a letter describing the changes. The rear access has been updated for ingress only. The patio area has been replaced with a landscaped area. The permeability has been increased by 5.8%. The Applicant will attend a meeting at a later date scheduled by the ZBA for the project. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination, the board shall consider: 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. Minor impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. Feasible alternatives may be available to have a more compliant building with reorientation and size. Permeability may also be improved on the site with reduction of parking spaces to green space and consideration to permeable pavement. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered substantial relevant to the code. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The project may be considered to have limited impact on the environment of the neighborhood. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self- created. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): SP 75-14: Pending BP 00-3463: 24 sq. ft. add-on to existing sign SV 87-14: new signage Staff comments: The applicant has completed a variance and site plan application for demolition 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 front setbacks on both roads Route 9 and Old Aviation Rd; relief is also for permeability for both lots as site improvements include reconfiguration of the parking areas. The applicant's plans have been forwarded to the Town Engineer for review and comment. The plans show the location of the new building and site improvements. The site plan shows there is to be 66 seats and only 7 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/18/2015) 29 spaces are required where 34 are proposed. The site permeability could be improved with both additional green space by removing parking spaces and to include permeable pavement. Improving the permeability will also assist with snow storage location where currently the applicant removes snow from site and has limited area for storage. SEAR Status: Type II" MRS. MOORE-Can I give some guidance on this? MR. JACKOSKI-Yes. MRS. MOORE-That I did highlight in bold on your Staff Notes the information that the applicant has revised, increasing the permeability by a couple of percentages. However, they're not present to discuss that. They want to see if there were any comments from the Zoning Board so that they could move forward with the project. So, there's no one in the audience for this. MR. URRICO-So I'll read the new highlighted, and the letter. MRS. MOORE-Okay. MR. URRICO-And this is the letter. "On behalf of our, McDonald's USA, LLC, we are pleased to submit ten (10) copies of the revised site plan for review at the March 18th Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting. As you are aware this project would be a large investment made by McDonald's and the franchisee. McDonald's has reviewed the Zoning Board's comments over the past months in hopes to determine if the project will move forward and also to ensure that the proposed site is viable for McDonald's well into the future. As a result of that review the following revisions have been made to the plans in an attempt to satisfy the Zoning Board's request: • The rear access has been shown as ingress only. We cannot close any other curb cuts/access points. • The patio area has been removed and replaced with a landscape area. This increases the green space by approximately 760 SF from the original plan and increases green space by almost 1,200 square feet from the existing conditions. We cannot remove parking spaces, drive around front or provide pervious pavement. To meet the ZBA's request for additional green space we have opted to remove the patio providing a large increase in green space. As discussed at our last meeting this redevelopment project is a substantial loss of building size (no basement, smaller footprint, no outbuilding/storage, etc.)" MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. I appreciate it. Do we have, let's have some Board member discussion, if any, before I re-open the public comment period. Any thoughts? MR. GARRAND-They did what I asked them to do. I wouldn't, at this point, ask them to do more. It might seem punitive. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. MR. NOONAN-I have a question, thought. Is there any reasoning given as to why their curb cuts or access points in the back cannot be closed? Is that a requirement because of the type of business that is? I know that was a big discussion we had as a Board, with the traffic that would be zipping up through that neighborhood and that was some of the concern with the neighbors as well. I know at that time it was in and out, and now it's in only. Is there any reason given why it can't be closed all the way? They didn't give any reasoning? MRS. MOORE-Right. They gave no reason. MR. URRICO-My only concern would be on the ingress only, and in that if traffic came in through that direction, how would it queue, how would it get into a queue line? It would have to come out, go across the road or cut, you know, cut through southbound traffic in order to get over to the other. MR. JACKOSKI-They still have a front driveway, right, don't they still have the front driveway? MRS. MOORE-They still have the front driveway, so that a car would go across the parking lot. MR. JACKOSKI-They still have that. MR. URRICO-I didn't notice that. Okay. Then I would be okay with it. It's an improvement from what we saw. They worked with us on it. 8 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/18/2015) MR. JACKOSKI-I think they improved what they did, but, you know, I still go back to the potential concern of that second lot not being forever. They only have a lease on that lot for a certain period of time. We make applicants combine lots all the time to get what they want, and they're using this lot that they don't have a permanent easement to or a permanent title to, and I think that's a big thing for the Town of Queensbury when that lease expires. MR. GARRAND-They have to redesign their lot. MRS. MOORE-1 know the franchise owner is looking at how that property works. So it's not that they're not exploring. They are exploring it. I just don't know what the status is at this time. MR. JACKOSKI-Yes, well, that's a tough one. MR. MC CABE-1 was just going to say, it seems like they've made some nice compromises. MR. JACKOSKI-Well, you come in with a very, very aggressive plan, and then you give us some compromises and then, oh, we're thankful that they gave them to us when in reality the plan was unrealistic to begin with. So are we falling victim to come into the Board, give us back a little bit and we'll approve it, just because they gave us back something? Or is this really the right development for this site, when they don't have control of that large parcel of land. MR. URRICO-Well, they didn't even address that. MR. JACKOSKI-I know. They're being silent about it because they don't have a solution. MRS. MOORE-And if that's the comments. MR. JACKOSKI-Yes, I think legal needs to advise us as to what to do with knowing that that lot could no longer be attached to this parcel at the end of that lease, and then what? MR. GARRAND-Should that happen we can impose conditions upon the applicant. MR. JACKOSKI-They don't have enough parking. MR. URRICO-They won't have enough parking, and they wouldn't have enough green space. Right? MR. JACKOSKI-There's a million things that they don't have, permeability and everything else. MR. GARRAND-We can impose conditions upon any approval. MR. JACKOSKI-What would we do? MR. GARRAND-If they lose a lot, hypothetically they'd have to close off that rear ingress permanently, possibly redesign the parking lot. We'd have to talk that over with the applicant, though. MR. JACKOSKI-I think the applicant and our legal counsel. MR. URRICO-1 agree with Steve. I think that's a good point. MR. JACKOSKI-We do have a public comment period scheduled for this evening. I'm going to re-open the public hearing. Is there anyone here in the audience who'd like to address the Board concerning this application? If you could, sir, join us at the table and identify yourself. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN RICHARD SPOERL MR. SPOERL-I didn't see the new site plan. Do you have a copy of that? MRS. MOORE-I'll put it up on the Board. Do you want to look at this while I get it? MR. SPOERL-Sure. Good evening. My name is Richard Spoerl. I live at 21 Old Aviation Road. I was here in January to voice a couple of concerns about the egress and opening on to the back of that. So looking at this now, I had three concerns. One was the egress was most important because I live in that area and there is a lot of traffic that comes up there. With this snow melt it can be proven with the water going down through the drainage ditch, look at which way the water goes, most of it goes up Old Aviation Road. The purpose, I guess Mr. Noonan asked what the purpose of that opening was, and if I recall correctly from January that they do 9 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/18/2015) get a considerable amount of like morning traffic and traffic through that way from the Mall on the upper end. Instead of going all the way around the Glen Street intersection, they can get into there, you can get into, you know, the drive thru that way. So they do get a considerable amount and, you know, that's a reason to keep it open. Their modification here is a simply straight curb cut which is actually worse than what they have now. What they have now, in order to make that, you'd have to go against traffic in all directions, or do a three point turn if you come in on the north side of the lot. So I would ask you, again, that they just re-address the design of that curb cut, not to eliminate it, but just re-address it so it severely restricts outgoing traffic from that lot. The second thing was on the permeability, which kind of goes with the third thing, which is the second lot that's not theirs, which you've already mentioned. Most of the permeability for the total project is on that first lot, the vacant lot. So if they do ever lose that, then they've lost their permeability, but more important, a lot of that is their parking. So now where do the people park? Where do you get into the congestion, things like that, their green space? Other than that, I really do want to see the project go through. I think it's a good branding mode. It keeps up with the way their corporation goes, but I just think that a little bit of redesign of the ingress, I guess it would be the curb cut on Old Aviation, should be reconsidered. If they put the curb cut down on that vacant lot, that would pretty much lock them into having to have that for part of their traffic and their business. So it would be advantageous to them to then own that lot, if that's the way people are coming in to their business. Since Kentucky Fried Chicken's open, a lot more traffic comes through McDonald's. I guess people have decided that it's easier to go through McDonald's than it is to make that turn because of the curb extension they put in at Kentucky Fried Chicken. That's it. I MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. MR. SPOERL-Thank you. MR. JACKOSKI-Anyone else who'd like to address the Board? Is there any additional written comment? MR. URRICO-Having no additional written comment, we're not seeking a motion. They're just seeking comment. So I think they can hear, read the record. I, personally, would still like to see more permeability. I don't know that they gave a good explanation as to why they couldn't use more permeable pavers. Is that correct? MRS. MOORE-They weren't going to install permeable pavement. MR. JACKOSKI-But they didn't say why? Their prerogative. Anything else? Is Staff satisfied with the Zoning Board comments? MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. JACKOSKI-We'll move on to the next application. The public hearing is still left open. MR. GARRAND-Do we need to table it for another time? MR. JACKOSKI-I don't, do we table? It was tabled. So do we need a motion to table it again? MRS. MOORE-You need a motion. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 88-2014 MCDONALD'S USA, LLC, Introduced by Kyle Noonan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Richard Garrand: Tabled to the first May meeting with an April 15th deadline. Duly adopted this 18th day of March, 2015, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Noonan, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Henkel, Mr. Kuhl MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. The sign variance for the same applicant. SIGN VARIANCE NO. 87-2014 SEQRA TYPE UNLISTED MCDONALD'S USA, LLC AGENT(S) BOHLER ENGINEERING, LLC OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT & FREEBURN ZONING CI LOCATION 819 STATE ROUTE 9, WARD 2 APPLICANT PROPOSES 6 NEW SIGNS. THREE WALL SIGNS PROPOSED TO READ AS A SINGLE LETTER "M" AND TWO WALL SIGNS TO 10 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/18/2015) READ "MCDONALD'S" WHERE WALL SIGNS TOTAL 108 SQ. FT. IN LIEU OF THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE TWO WALL SIGNS TO TOTAL 30 SQ. FT. EACH. ALSO, ONE COMPLIANT 45 SQ. FT. FREESTANDING SIGN WILL BE INSTALLED. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM NUMBER OF ALLOWABLE WALL SIGNS FOR A BUSINESS AND MAXIMUM SIZE. CROSS REF SP 75-14, SV 87-14, SP 16-93, BP'S 00-3463, 1101 & 1535 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING DECEMBER 2014 LOT SIZE 9.41 ACRE(S) TAX MAP NO. 302.6-1-48 & 49 SECTION CHAPTER 140 MR. JACKOSKI-They're only looking for comments again, Staff? Correct? MRS. MOORE-There's no additional information about the sign. You did not open a public hearing for the sign. MR. JACKOSKI-So tonight we should open the public hearing because we've advertised such. Correct? MRS. MOORE-It wasn't advertised. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. It wasn't advertised. It is an Unlisted SEAR. We won't do SEAR. So what is it you're looking for from us tonight, other than tabling it to a new date? MRS. MOORE-Tabling it to a new date. No new information to share. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Can I have a motion to table it to the same date, Kyle? MOTION TO TABLE SIGN VARIANCE NO. 87-2014 MCDONALD'S USA, LLC, Introduced by Kyle Noonan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Michael McCabe: Tabled to the first May meeting with an April 15th deadline. Duly adopted this 18th day of March, 2015, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Noonan, Mr. Garrand, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Henkel, Mr. Kuhl MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. NEW BUSINESS: SIGN VARIANCE NO. 8-2015 SEQRA TYPE UNLISTED JASON CHRISTIANA & MARY PEYTON FOR BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY HOME SERVICES OWNER(S) CLJB PROPERTIES, LLC ZONING CI LOCATION 699 GLEN STREET APPLICANT PROPOSES TO REPLACE EXISTING 15 SQ. FT. SIGN WITH A NEW 45.38 SQ. FT. SIGN. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MINIMUM PROPERTY LINE SETBACK LESS THAN 15 FEET AND FROM MAXIMUM SIGN SIZE. CROSS REFERENCE BP'S 15-020, 92-1488, 6175 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING MARCH 2015 LOT SIZE 0.19 ACRE(S) TAX MAP NO. 302.6-1-3 SECTION CHAPTER 140-6 JASON CHRISTIANA & MARY PEYTON, PRESENT STAFFINPUT Notes from Staff, Sign Variance No. 8-2015, Jason Christiana & Mary Peyton for Berkshire Hathaway Home Services "Project Location: 699 Glen Street Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to replace existing 15 sq. ft. freestanding sign with a new 45.38 sq. ft. sign. Relief Required: Parcel will require sign variances Section 140 Signs. Setback Maximum Size Required 15 ft. 45 sq. ft. Proposed 13.4 ft. 45.38 sq. ft. Relief 1.6 ft. 0.38 sq. ft. 11 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/18/2015) Criteria for considering a Sign Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination, the board shall consider: 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this sign variance. 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 a sign variance. Feasible alternatives are available to reduce the sign size. Alternatives to the location may be limited due to the location of the existing structure on the site as well as being a corner lot. 3. Whether the requested sign variance is substantial. The proposed project is minor 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 proposed project may have minimal impact on the,physical and en vironmental conditions of the area. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self- created. Staff comments: The applicant proposes to replace an existing monument sign structure to place a new 45.83 sq. ft. free standing sign. The sign is also proposed to be located 13.5 ft. from the front property line. The plans show the location of the sign on the site. The applicant has included a letter from a survey that indicates the existing sign and proposed sign distance from the front property line." MR. JACKOSKI-Pretty straightforward application. Are you sure you can't get rid of that .38? MR. CHRISTIANA-We tried. The national team has certain standards, unfortunately. Is there anything you wanted to bring up in terms of the sign? MS. PEYTON-Yes. We just want to put it where the existing sign is. MR. CHRISTIANA-That's all. That's all, basically, we're asking. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Any questions from Board members of this application? MR. NOONAN-1 have a question, Mr. Chairman. In our packet, the letter from Chris Harrington details the location of the current sign. Let's see, it's in a utility easement needed by the Town for maintenance of the sewer. The Town's Wastewater Department reserves the right to direct the applicant in the sign's removal for any necessary maintenance for that sewer line. In an emergency situation, the Wastewater Department will take necessary measures to effectuate access to the sewer line. We could still grant this variance and then be okay, as a Town can't be in trouble if they take the sign out? MR. JACKOSKI-I think we can note that as a variance, but, yes, they run that risk. MS. PEYTON-1 talked to Chris Harrington and they came and marked the property for us today. There's a manhole cover right near the sign which it would be with the existing sign anyhow. So, yes. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. You couldn't move your building back? Any other Board member discussion? Public hearing scheduled for this evening. Is there anyone here in the audience, as I open that public hearing, to address this Board on this matter? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. JACKOSKI-Seeing no one, is there any written comment? MR. URRICO-Well, the aforementioned Christopher Harrington comments. I shall read the comment. "The applicant shall be made aware that it appears the placement of the sign is in a utility easement needed by the Town for maintenance of its sewer. The Town's Wastewater Department reserves the right to direct the applicant in the sign's removal for any necessary 12 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/18/2015) maintenance for that sewer line. In an emergency situation, the Wastewater Department will take necessary measures to effectuate access to the sewer line." MR. JACKOSKI-We'll make that a notation in the motion. No more written comment? MR. URRICO-No. MR. JACKOSKI-Board member discussion? Do I need to do a roll call vote? No, okay. Can I seek a motion as I close the public hearing? PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. GARRAND-We've got to do SEAR. MR. JACKOSKI-SEAR. That's right. UPON REVIEW OF THE INFORMATION RECORDED IN THIS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT, IT IS THE CONCLUSION OF THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS, AS LEAD AGENCY FOR THIS PROJECT, THAT THIS WILL RESULT IN NO SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACTS ON THE ENVIRONMENT, AND THEREFORE THIS BOARD DEEMS THIS A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR SIGN VARIANCE NO. 8-2015, Introduced by Richard Garrand who moved for its adoption, seconded by Michael McCabe: Duly adopted this 18th day of March, 2015, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Noonan, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Henkel, Mr. Kuhl MR. JACKOSKI-Now may I please have a motion for approval of the Sign Variance. JASON CHRISTIANA & MARY PEYTON FOR BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY HOME SERVICES. Applicant proposes to replace existing 15 sq. ft. freestanding sign with a new 45.38 sq. ft. sign. Relief requested from minimum property line setback less than 15 feet and from maximum sign size. As required by General Municipal Law Section 239-m the variance application was referred to the Warren County Planning Department for its review; on 3-14-15 there was a recommendation of No County Impact; SEAR Unlisted - UPON REVIEW OF THE INFORMATION RECORDED IN THIS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT, IT IS THE CONCLUSION OF THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS, AS LEAD AGENCY FOR THIS PROJECT, THAT THIS WILL RESULT IN NO SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACTS ON THE ENVIRONMENT, AND THEREFORE THIS BOARD DEEMS THIS A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR SIGN VARIANCE NO. 8-2015, Introduced by Richard Garrand who moved for its adoption, seconded by Michael McCabe: Duly adopted this 18th day of March, 2015, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Noonan, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Henkel, Mr. Kuhl The ZBA conducted a public hearing on Wednesday, March 18, 2015; Upon review of the application materials, information supplied during the public hearing, and upon consideration of the criteria specified in Section 179-14-080(A) of the Queensbury Town Code and Chapter 267 of NYS Town Law and after discussion and deliberation, we find as follows: 1. There is not an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood nor a detriment to nearby properties because the relief requested is minimal. 2. Feasible alternatives have been considered by the Board, but not deemed reasonable. 13 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/18/2015) 3. The requested variance is not substantial because the setback and size of the sign require minimum variances. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district because a similar sign and signs have existed for quite a period of time. 5. Is the alleged difficulty is not self-created. 6. In addition the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from granting the requested variance would outweigh the resulting detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community; 7. The Board also finds that the variance request under consideration is the minimum necessary; 8. The Board also proposes the following conditions: a) That if it's necessary to access the public sewage in the area, that the sign will be removed, if necessary. b) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution. BASED ON THE ABOVE FINDINGS I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE SIGN VARIANCE NO. 8-2015 JASON CHRISTIANA & MARY PEYTON FOR BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY HOME SERVICES, Introduced by Michael McCabe, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Richard Garrand: Duly adopted this 18th day of March 2015 by the following vote: MR. JACKOSKI-Would we be able to condition it simply to state that it is per the letter provided by Chris Harrington in the conditions? MRS. MOORE-Actually the way it's read into the record so that it's with that resolution forever. MR. JACKOSKI-Yes, but that gets missed. MRS. MOORE-Someone doesn't have to go find the letter. MR. MC CABE-1 think I just summarized the letter. All it said was if they have to remove the sign, they will. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. If the applicant's okay with it, we're okay with it. Very good. AYES: Mr. Noonan, Mr. Urrico, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Henkel, Mr. Kuhl MR. JACKOSKI-Congratulations. MR. CHRISTIANA-Thank you very much. We appreciate it. MS. PEYTON-Thank you very much. MR. JACKOSKI-Staff, do we go ahead with the Dollar General one now? Are they here? MRS. MOORE-1 do have someone from Dollar General here. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. MRS. MOORE-1 will try to call up my e-mails and see if that information is available so I can display it, but he can describe the information that he has provided and share the information with the Board, and you can determine whether you wish to have the Planning Board re-review that information, or if you wish to move forward. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. We'll bring up the application of Action Sign Co., for Dollar General. 14 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/18/2015) SIGN VARIANCE NO. 9-2015 SEQRA TYPE UNLISTED ACTION SIGN CO. FOR DOLLAR GENERAL AGENT(S) LAWRENCE J. MERACLE, JR. FOR ACTION SIGN CO., LLC OWNER(S) PRIMAX PROPERTIES, LLC ZONING MS LOCATION 61 MAIN STREET APPLICANT PROPOSES PLACEMENT OF 3-WALL SIGNS AT 69 SQ. FT. EACH ON A PROPOSED PLANNING BOARD APPROVED BUILDING. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM NUMBER OF ALLOWABLE WALL SIGNS, MAXIMUM SIGN SIZE LIGHTING, AND PLACEMENT REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REFERENCE SP 15-15; SP 76-14; SUP 77-14; BP 14-030 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING MARCH 2015 LOT SIZE 0.87 ACRE(S) TAX MAP NO. 39.10-1-57 SECTION CHAPTER 140 WAYNE GENDRON, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFFINPUT Notes from Staff, Sign Variance No. 9-2015, Action Sign Co. for Dollar General, Meeting Date: March 18, 2015 "Project Location: 61 Main Street Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes placement of 3 wall signs at 69 sq. ft. each on a proposed Planning Board approved building - Dollar General. Relief Required: Parcel will require sign variances from Section 140 Signs: # of Allowable Maximum Illumination Placement signs sign size Allowed 1 wall 1 free 30 sq. ft. Downcast external Front -centered over store standing fixture front Proposed 3 wall signs 69 sq. ft. x 3 Internal illumination West sign over door, south (207 sq. ft.) of all proposed signs sign over windows and east placement on brick wall Relief Excess of 2 wall Excess of 177 Not over storefront signs sq. ft. Criteria for considering a Sign Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination, the board shall consider: 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this sign variance. Moderate to substantial impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated. -multiple wall signs denoting one business maybe excessive for a main street corridor 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than a sign variance. Feasible alternatives may be,possible where it does not appear as though strict compliance would deprive the applicant of adequate signage or the project. 3. Whether the requested sign variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered substantial relevant to the code. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The ,project as ,proposed may have an adverse impact on the main street corridor that may be mitigated with less signs, non poly carbonate and non-internal illumination 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self- created. Staff comments: The applicant proposes to install 3 wall signs on an approved building. The signs do not meet the number of signs allowed, the location of signs on the building, and illumination. The code allows for 1 wall sign at 30 sq. ft., the code allows for signs to be centered over the front entrance of the store, the materials are encourage to be of wood, metal, stone, brick where the proposed of poly carbonate, the signs are proposed to be internally illuminated where the code requires exterior downcast lighting." 15 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/18/2015) MR. URRICO-And then the motion to make a recommendation on behalf of the Planning Board to the Zoning Board, and based on its limited review they identified the following areas of concern: The internal illumination, the size of the sign and the extent of the variances, and that was approved March 17th unanimously. MR. JACKOSKI-Welcome. MR. GENDRON-Good evening. MR. JACKOSKI-If you could identify yourself for the record. MR. GENDRON-Wayne Gendron of Action Sign Company representing Dollar General. MR. JACKOSKI-Is there anything you'd like to add at this time? MR. GENDRON-Yes. After hearing what the Planning Board had to say last night, I went back and advised them that they're looking for something that's a little excessive and we need to come up with a Plan B in order to hopefully accommodate the Board. What they're proposing at this time, which I know you guys don't have in front of you, but they did send me some e-mails at six o'clock as I was driving over here, was individual channel letters that would have LED lighting. They'd be flush mounted to the building. There would be no white stripes. We know there's no white stripes allowed on that particular location, and they downsized the sign from 69 square feet to roughly 48 square feet, and overall just a back note. If we went with a freestanding sign, each sign face that faces the oncoming traffic in both directions is allowed to be 45 square feet apiece. They're foregoing the freestanding sign because of the setback requirements. I only have 27 feet from the property line. Setback's 15, and that would eliminate parking on, from the store, which they do not want to do. So they're looking to put a sign on both sides of the building facing the oncoming traffic and one on the front to denote the building as well. So in theory the 48 square feet would be three square feet over each side of a monument sign, which I don't think is excessive, and the monument sign really isn't feasible for the setbacks of the building on the parcel, and so they'd be individual letters, LED lighting, no big transformers. No fluorescent bulbs. I think for the size of the building they're aesthetically pleasing. I know for each side of the building that they're proposing to put them on, I know that you guys only allow a maximum of 30 square feet, but if you look at the 20%, 20% of each side of the building is over 300 square feet on each side of the building, which we're not looking to do. We're looking to do 48 square feet. So, I mean, it's pretty straightforward, but I know we have some things to talk about. MR. JACKOSKI-So how do they reduce the overall size from 69 square feet to 48? MR. GENDRON-Because they were originally going to put up embossed faces with boxes around them, and by going with the channel lettering you're eliminating the box. You're shrinking everything down a little bit. MR. JACKOSKI-But the letter size itself is still the same. MR. GENDRON-No, I don't believe it is, because of the three foot box, the letter's only two foot. So we went from a three foot box sign by, I don't remember what it was, 25 feet long, I have it in here, but now we're going down to 24 feet long by two feet tall. So we shrunk it down to 48 square feet versus 69, and the previous proposal that I brought last night was 207 square feet total. The new proposal is 144, and if we did go with a road sign with two faces at 45 square feet apiece, and a wall sign, it would be 120 square feet total. So, in theory we're looking for an extra 24 square feet overall, and we're just looking to put the sign faces that would be on the monument sign on each side of the building for the oncoming traffic due to the setback. We only have 27 feet, take away 15 for your setback requirements. It doesn't leave any room for parking. MR. JACKOSKI-Have we ever had a sign in the Town of Queensbury that was 24 feet wide as a monument sign? What they're suggesting is taking the monument sign, 24 feet by 2 feet, and just sliding it over to the side of the building. That's the theory, but have we ever had a sign, a monument sign, in theory, that wide? MR. GARRAND-In the old days, before a lot of the zoning. MR. JACKOSKI-Not my favorite concept, but. We heard from the applicant, are there any Board member questions at this time? We do have a public comment period scheduled for this evening. Is there anyone here in the audience who'd like to address this Board on this particular application as I open the public comment period? Okay. Sir. 16 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/18/2015) PUBLIC HEARING OPENED RICHARD SPOERL MR. SPOERL-Richard Spoerl, Queensbury, Old Aviation Road again. My question I guess for the Board is this is presumably the first new building in the Main Street corridor that's had a lot of time and effort put in to designing it, and thought process of where it is. It's not for this project specifically, but for the overall integrity of the thought of Main Street. If we start in our Sign Variances going from what the plan was, at what point is there going to be a barrier to stop the growth or the expansion of newly placed signs or thinking outside the box to re-locate signs to walls, etc., etc. So just to keep in mind when you're making a decision, you know, not only on this project, but on your sign requests, keep the thought process that is planned for the neighborhood in mind. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. Is there any written comment, Roy? MR. URRICO-No, I don't see any. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. If you could join us back at the table. I'm going to poll the Board. I'm going to start with Rick. MR. GARRAND-I'm not ready to make a decision. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. I'll start with Kyle. MR. NOONAN-As, you know, looking at the plan as proposed and then looking at the new plan, I guess ultimately I'd like to see more of a plan on paper before I can weigh the actual application. I certainly don't want to stifle any sort of growth in business on that corridor. It's kind of a new project in the Town, but I prefer to have more of the paperwork correct, you know, that's not reflected right now, than what we have. MR. GENDRON-1 understand. It was a last minute decision. MR. NOONAN-Right. MR. JACKOSKI-And just so the Board knows that we can grant less relief than what was actually applied for, if we so chose. Mike? MR. MC CABE-1 would have no problem with this type of sign on the storefront. I think putting the signs on each side degrade it a little bit. So that's kind of the way I feel. I'd go for one of the three signs, but not all three. MR. GENDRON-Can I make a comment on that? MR. MC CABE-Sure. MR. GENDRON-By only having a sign on the front of the building it really comes down to visibility and being able to make an educated decision when they're going to turn into the establishment. As you're driving by a building, if you have to turn your head to the right or the left to see the sign on the front of the building, you may not have time to pull in. With a monument sign, which, because of the way the building is set on the parcel and the setback requirements, by having a monument sign, you see that monument sign well before you reach the establishment. You know if you're going to turn in or not because not everybody's planning to go everywhere. Sometimes it's spontaneous. They see something maybe they didn't see before. So we need visibility coming from each direction of traffic in order to achieve that educated decision to pull in and not have, not necessarily a traffic jam, but having somebody abruptly put on their brakes to turn into a building that they didn't see until they were right on top of it. MR. MC CABE-Yes. I guess I'm old. I can't see that well, and so I kind of prefer the big sign, but, you know, on the other hand, there's probably not too many people that pull into a Dollar General or a Dollar Store on a last minute, and the other thing is that you're not set back that far, and so you can actually see the sign pretty well as you're coming down the street, and I base that on, you know, I passed one of those in South Glens Falls, and that's what it has, just the sign in the front, and as I'm coming along 9, you know, I can pick that out pretty easily. Plus the color of your sign is consistent, and, you know, I think that you don't even have to read it to know what's coming up, but also I can see where it's fair to advertise your business, so I can see both sides of the argument. I'm simply stating my opinion. MR. JACKOSKI-Roy? 17 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/18/2015) MR. GENDRON-If I could just make one quick comment. MR. URRICO-1 think we have to allow the comments to be made here first. MR. JACKOSKI-Yes. MR. GENDRON-Understood. MR. URRICO-My inclination is I want to see the paperwork first here, but I'm also inclined to think that we don't want to go overboard in granting this type of a variance. That's just my first comment and my only comment for tonight. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Thank you. Rick? MR. GARRAND-We advertised for this, on this application. I wouldn't be comfortable making any decision on this tonight, and I'd like to see us table it for another time, the complete application, as advertised. MR. JACKOSKI-Fair. I kind of agree with Roy and Mike. I'm very hesitant to move forward with such large signs on the side of the building. The intent of the monument signs were they were monument signs and they were viewed closer to the road, but I think the configuration of the sign is what's troubling me the most. It is just so wide, and the impact is, for me anyway, I don't know that that's what I want to see in this corridor. So, I think if you could provide us with a detailed and revised application with all of the details, we'll certainly take a look at it. MR. GENDRON-1 just want the Board, in your decision making and reviewing it, to think of the hardship, in terms of the monument sign, and not being able to place it there without taking away parking spaces. We really can't have a monument sign in that location because of the property lines and everything that's going on. So to hopefully consider that and each sign face on the monument sign would be 45 square feet. These would only be, they'd be three square feet over that size. I do understand the length of them. I do understand your concern. MRS. MOORE-Can we just go over and describe why the monument sign is not a practical solution? MR. GENDRON-You have 27.8 feet from the edge of the road back to the building. You have a setback requirement of 15 feet from the property line, which would leave 12 feet to the front of the building, and we would it have enough room for parking spaces for cars to drive through there. They'd basically be in the middle of the parking lot. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. The public hearing is still open. Do we have to do SEAR if they're going to request a tabling? MR. GARRAND-No, not yet. MR. JACKOSKI-I think that's fair, because we don't know the final application. So could I have a motion to table please, at the request of the applicant? MR. GARRAND-Okay. I'll do it. ACTION SIGN CO., LLC FOR DOLLAR GENERAL; Applicant proposes placement of 3-wall signs at 69 sq. ft. each on a proposed Planning Board approved building. Relief requested from number of allowable wall signs, maximum sign size lighting, and placement requirements. As required by General Municipal Law Section 239-m the variance application was referred to the Warren County Planning Department for its review; on 3-14-15 there was a recommendation of No County Impact; SEAR Type Unlisted; The ZBA conducted a public hearing on March 18, 2015 and the public hearing was left open; Upon review of the application materials, information supplied during the public hearing, and upon consideration of the criteria specified in Section 179-14-080(A) of the Queensbury Town Code and Chapter 267 of NYS Town Law and after discussion and deliberation, we find as follows: 18 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/18/2015) MOTION TO TABLE SIGN VARIANCE NO. 9-2015 ACTION SIGN CO., LLC FOR DOLLAR GENERAL, Introduced by Richard Garrand who moved for its adoption, seconded by Kyle Noonan: Tabled until the May meeting with a submission deadline of April 15tH Duly adopted this 18th day of March, 2015, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Noonan, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Henkel, Mr. Kuhl MR. JACKOSKI-Good luck and thank you. MR. GENDRON-Thank you. MR. MC CABE-It'll be the third and fourth Wednesday in May. MR. JACKOSKI-Did you want April? MR. GENDRON-You'll table it to May, I believe is what you said. MR. GARRAND-April's full? MR. JACKOSKI-We're past the deadline. MR. GARRAND-It's going to have to be May. MRS. MOORE-So May meetings are the 20th and the 27tH MR. GARRAND-How full is the first one? Cool, the first May meeting. MR. GENDRON-Have a good evening. AREA VARIANCE NO. 10-2015 SEQRA TYPE II LOU ANNE RICE/STEPHEN A. RICE AGENT(S) S. BITTER, ESQ. BPSR OWNER(S) APPLICANTS & MARY LOU EMERY/DANNY LEE EMERY ZONING WR LOCATION 10 EAST BRANCH DRIVE & 4 EAST BRANCH DRIVE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO REDUCE A 1.06 ACRE PARCEL BY 0.056 ACRES FOR A REMAINING LOT SIZE OF 1.004 ACRES. THE 0.056 ACRE PORTION WILL BE MERGED WITH ADJOINING LOT THAT IS CURRENTLY 0.36 ACRES AND WILL HAVE A NEW LOT SIZE OF 0.416 ACRES. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM THE 2-ACRE MINIMUM LOT SIZE FOR THE WR ZONING DISTRICT FOR THE PROPERTY OWNED BY EMERY. CROSS REFERENCE BP 94-210 INGROUND POOL WARREN COUNTY PLANNING MARCH 2015 LOT SIZE 1.06 & 0.37 ACRE(S) TAX MAP NO. 309.18-1-10.1, 11 SECTION 179-4-030 STEPHANIE BITTER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFFINPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 10-2015, Lou Anne Rice/Stephen A. Rice, Meeting Date: March 18, 2015 "Project Location: 10 East Branch Drive & 4 East Branch Drive Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to reduce a 1.06 acre parcel, owned by Emery, by 0.056 acres for a remaining lot size of 1.004 acres. The 0.056 acre portion will be merged with adjoining lot, owned by Rice, that is currently 0.36 acres and will have a new lot size of 0.416 acres. Relief Required: Parcel will require area variance for section 179-3-040 establishment of districts for the Waterfront Zone area requirements. Relief requested from the 2-acre minimum lot size requirement for the WR zoning district for the property owned by Emery. Lot size Emery Required 2 acres Proposed 0.946 ac Relief 1.054 ac 19 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/18/2015) Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. Minor impacts to the neighborhood 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 are limited as the existing lot does not meet the current lot size requirements. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered moderate to substantial relevant to the code. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The project will have minimal to no adverse effects or Impact on the physical or environmental impacts. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self- created. Staff comments: The project activity will convey .056 ac of land owned by Emery to their neighbor the Rice's. The information of the conveyance is shown on the plans. The Rice property currently at 0.36 acres will now include a 0.056 ac. for a total of .0416 ac. The Emery property currently 1.06 will be reduced by 0.056 ac for a total of 1.004 ac. to remain. The change in lot size for Emery less than 2 ac. requires relief as the code requires 2 ac. in the WR zone per lot." MS. BITTER-I'm going to approach the map, if that's okay. Our whole conversation was relative to what I'm going to refer to as this little tail here. We're doing this for the purposes of trying to correct the boundary lines of these two parcels. This is Rice and their house faces East Branch, and this is Emery. Their house faces East Branch. When, what I could guess, East Branch was dedicated or conveyed, it didn't meet the subdivision of what they thought was where East Branch was actually located. So the Emery's parcel consists of this little tail, as well as some property across the street, making up the 1.6 acres that it currently maintains. Both Rice and Emery are in the process of trying to sell their homes, and they're really trying to rectify this to clear title. The Rices always believed they owned the frontage of their house. So this was part of this correction with neighbors. So really all this is is a paper change. There's no physical change. If you've driven by East Branch or down East Branch to check these properties out, you really wouldn't know anything, except a few snowbanks, but you wouldn't notice that there's a distinction, that this property is not owned by the Rice's. So what we're trying today is really just obtain an Area Variance to convey that small strip of property from what's already a substandard lot in a WR zone. MR. JACKOSKI-Straightforward. Thank you. MS. BITTER-Let us convey the tail. That's our request. MR. JACKOSKI-Any Board member comments at this time before I open the public hearing? I do have a public hearing scheduled for this evening. Is there anyone here in the audience who'd like to address the Board concerning this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. JACKOSKI-Seeing no one, is there any written comment? MR. URRICO-No. MR. JACKOSKI-Is there a reason to poll the Board? MR. URRICO-No. MR. JACKOSKI-I'm going to close the public hearing and seek a motion. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MC CABE-I'll make a motion. 20 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/18/2015) Lou Anne Rice & Stephen Rice are proposing a lot line change between 10 East Branch Road (Emery), and 4 East Branch Drive (Rice). Applicant (Rice) proposes to reduce a 1.06 acre parcel, owned by Emery, by 0.056 acres for a remaining lot size of 1.004 acres. The 0.056 acre portion will be merged with adjoining lot, owned by Rice, that is currently 0.36 acres and will have a new lot size of 0.416 acres. As required by General Municipal Law Section 239-m the variance application was referred to the Warren County Planning Department for its review; on March 14, 2015 there was a recommendation of No County Impact; SEAR Type II -no further review required; The ZBA conducted a public hearing on Wednesday, March 18, 2015; Upon review of the application materials, information supplied during the public hearing, and upon consideration of the criteria specified in Section 179-14-080(A) of the Queensbury Town Code and Chapter 267 of NYS Town Law and after discussion and deliberation, we find as follows: 1. There is not an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood nor a detriment to nearby properties because it looks like this exists. So the Rice is the highland and the other is the low land. 2. Feasible alternatives are extremely limited or basically not possible. 3. The requested variance is not substantial because there's just a very small parcel of land being conveyed. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district because a very small change is being made. 5. Is the alleged difficulty is not self-created. It's something that came about years ago for reasons unbeknownst to anybody at this particular time. 6. In addition the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from granting the requested variance would outweigh the resulting detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community; 7. The Board also finds that the variance request under consideration is the minimum necessary; BASED ON THE ABOVE FINDINGS I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 10-2015 LOU ANNE RICE & STEPHEN RICE & MARY LOU EMERY & DANNY LEE EMERY, Introduced by Michael McCabe, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Kyle Noonan: Duly adopted this 18th day of March 2015 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Noonan, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Henkel, Mr. Kuhl MS. BITTER-Thank you very much. MR. JACKOSKI-You're welcome. Any other business in front of the Board? MRS. MOORE-1 apologize. Information for April's meetings, you do have five potential items on the agenda, and I didn't know if you wanted to discuss whether you wanted to put, I guess the except to the Dollar General to have the submit information, I just wanted to make sure you knew there were five items. MR. JACKOSKI-I think they've got to submit it. I think the public has to have time to review in May. MRS. MOORE-That's fine. MR. JACKOSKI-May I have a motion to adjourn? 21 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/18/2015) MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING OF MARCH 18, 2015, Introduced by Michael McCabe who moved for its adoption, seconded by Kyle Noonan: Duly adopted this 18th day of March, 2015, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Garrand, Mr. Urrico, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Noonan, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Henkel, Mr. Kuhl MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Steven Jackoski, Chairman 22