Loading...
02-17-2016 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/17/2016) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 17, 20116 INDEX Area Variance No. 7-2015 J.H. Land Development, LLC 2. Tax Map No. 278.-1-14 Area Variance No. PZ-0069-2016 Switchco, LLC 2. SEQRA COORDINATION Tax Map No. 309.13-1-23 Area Variance No. PZ-0074-2016 Big Bay Lodging, LLC 3. SEQRA COORDINATION Tax Map No. 309.13-2-2 thru 9 Sign Variance No. PZ-0072-2016 Russell Faden/Faden Enterprises 4. SEQRA COORDINATION Tax Map No. 309.10-1-47, 48, 49 Area Variance No. 88-2014 McDonald's USA, LLC 4. Tax Map No. 302.6-1-48 &49 Sign Variance No. 87-2014 McDonald's USA, LLC 13. Tax Map No. 302.6-1-48 &49 Area Variance No. PZ-0065-2016 Jason Southwood 17. Tax Map No. 296.13-1-68 Area Variance No. PZ-0064-2016 Curtis D. Dybas 21. Tax Map No. 289.17-1-35 Area Variance No. PZ-0059-2016 Ronald & Cynthia Mackowiak 25. Tax Map No. 9 Glen Hall Drive, Glen Lake 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 02/17/2016) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 17, 2016 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT STEVEN JACKOSKI, CHAIRMAN ROY URRICO, SECRETARY KYLE NOONAN MICHAEL MC CABE JOHN HENKEL MEMBERS ABSENT HARRISON FREER RONALD KUHL LAND USE PLANNER-LAURA MOORE STENOGRAPHER-SUE HEMINGWAY MR. JACKOSKI-Hello, everyone. I apologize for being a few minutes late here. Welcome to this evening's meeting of the Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals. There is an agenda on the back table, and for those of you who haven't been here before, it is actually a very simple and easy process. We'll call each application to the small table here so the applicants can join us at the table. Roy will read the application into the record. We will then open up a discussion which we'll then ask you if you'd like to add anything to the application or if we could just ask you some questions. We'll open up a public hearing when a public hearing has been scheduled. The Board will take a poll of the Board members to see where we stand on an application before we actually close the public hearing and take a vote. We do have a five member Board this evening, not a seven. Each applicant will obviously be able to request a tabling of their application if they'd like to wait for a seven member Board, but that's certainly up to the applicants themselves. So we do have a bit of housekeeping to do here first this evening, and I'm going to begin with asking for a motion to approve the meeting minutes of December 16, 2015. APPROVAL OF MINUTES December 16, 2015 MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING MINUTES OF DECEMBER 16, 2015, Introduced by Michael McCabe who moved for its adoption, seconded by Kyle Noonan: Duly adopted this 17th day of February, 2016, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Noonan, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. McCabe January 20, 2016 MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING MINUTES OF JANUARY 20, 2016, Introduced by Michael McCabe who moved for its adoption, seconded by Kyle Noonan: Duly adopted this 17th day of February, 2016, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Noonan, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE January 27, 2016 2 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/17/2016) MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING MINUTES OF JANUARY 27, 2016, Introduced by Michael McCabe who moved for its adoption, seconded by Kyle Noonan: Duly adopted this 17th day of February, 2016, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Noonan, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, everyone, and then we'll move on to an Administrative Item. ADMINISTRATIVE ITEM: REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF APPROVAL AREA VARIANCE NO. 7-2015, J.H. LAND DEVELOPMENT, LLC LEDGEVIEW RV PARK EXPANSION 321 ROUTE 149 MR. JACKOSKI-And I'll ask Staff for some brief explanation. MRS. MOORE-The applicant still needs information from DEC, and they're asking for a year extension, and the year extension would be until February 15, 2017. MR. JACKOSKI-That would be a February 15th application submittal deadline or? MRS. MOORE-The extension extends until then. MR. JACKOSKI-They don't need to do anything else? MRS. MOORE-Correct. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received a letter requesting an extension of approval for Area Variance No. 7-2015 J.H. Land Development, LLC, 321 State Route 149, Tax Map No. 278.00-1-14 and 18 which was previously approved on February 18, 2015. The project approval is for the expansion of Ledgeview RV Park for an additional 72-campsites on a 42-acre parcel. The applicant is required to combine the lots prior to issuance of a building permit for the new structure. Relief from the permeability requirements in the LC-10A zone was approved. The letter of request dated February 1, 2016 from Patricia Green, J.H. Land Development, LLC states that they are awaiting approval from the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) who is awaiting the completion of an archaeological study on the site. Upon the approval from DEC, final approved plans will be submitted to the Community Development Office. BASED ON THE ABOVE , I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE REQUEST FOR AN EXTENSION OF APPROVAL FOR ONE-YEAR UNTIL FEBRUARY 15, 2017 AREA VARIANCE NO. 7-2015, J.H.Land Development, LLC, Introduced by Kyle Noonan, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Michael McCabe: Duly adopted this 17th day of February 2016 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Noonan, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Freer SEQRA COORDINATION: AREA VARIANCE NO. PZ-0069-2016 SEQRA TYPE UNLISTED — COORDINATED WITH PLANNING BOARD SWITCHCO, LLC AGENT(S) BOHLER ENGINEERING; BARTLETT, PONTIFF, STEWART & RHODES OWNER(S) SWITCHCO, LLC ZONING Cl LOCATION CORINTH RD. & 1-87 EXIT 18 (NW) APPLICANT PROPOSES TO DEVELOP A PORTION OF A 16.38 ACRE PARCEL FOR A 13,800 SQ. FT. (FOOTPRINT) 4-STORY 100-ROOM HOTEL (HOLIDAY INN EXPRESS) AND ASSOCIATED SITE WORK. SEAR PLANNING BOARD REQUEST FOR LEAD AGENCY. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM HEIGHT RESTRICTIONS IN THE Cl ZONING DISTRICT. CROSS REF SP PZ-0051-2016 WARREN 3 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/17/2016) COUNTY PLANNING FEBRUARY 2016 LOT SIZE 16.38 ACRE(S) TAX MAP NO. 309.13- 1-73 SECTION 179-3-040 MR. JACKOSKI-Do we need Roy to read it all into the record? MR. URRICO-What if I just read the motion. The Planning Board is seeking Lead Agency status with this, and they voted and adopted that on February 16th unanimously. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Switchco, LLC. The applicant proposes to develop a portion of a 16.38 acre parcel for a 13,800 sq. ft. (footprint) 4-story100- room hotel (Holiday Inn Express) and associated sitework. SEAR Planning Board request for Lead Agency. Relief requested from height restrictions in the Cl zoning district. SEQR Type Unlisted — Coordinate with Planning Board; MOTION TO ACCEPT THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD AS LEAD AGENCY FOR THE SEAR STATUS, PZ-0069-2016 SWITCHCO, LLC — HOLIDAY INN EXPRESS, Introduced by Michael McCabe, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roy U rrico: Duly adopted this 17th day of February 2016 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Noonan, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Urrico, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Freer MR. JACKOSKI-The next item is also SEQRA coordination. AREA VARIANCE NO. PZ-0074-2016 SEQRA TYPE UNLISTED — COORDINATE WITH PLANNING BOARD BIG BAY LODGING, LLC AGENT(S) BOHLER ENGINEERING MA, LLC OWNER(S) FRANK J. PARILLO ZONING Cl LOCATION BIG BAY ROAD, SOUTHEAST OF THE INTERSECTION OF CORINTH ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 15,095 SQ. FT. (FOOTPRINT), 89-ROOM, 4-STORY HOTEL (HILTON HOME2) AND ASSOCIATED SITE WORK. SEAR PLANNING BOARD REQUEST FOR LEAD AGENCY. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MAXIMUM HEIGHT RESTRICTIONS, ALLOWABLE FLOOR AREA RATIO, AND MINIMUM ROAD FRONTAGE REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REF SP PZ-0054-2016; BP 2012-240 COWL BLDG (TACO BELL SITE) WARREN COUNTY PLANNING FEBRUARY 2016 LOT SIZE BASED ON 2.3 ACRE(S) OF 6.7 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 309.13-2-2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 & 9 SECTION 179-3-040 MR. JACKOSKI-Request on behalf of the Town of Queensbury Planning Board to be Lead Agency. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Big Bay Lodging, LLC — Hilton Home2. The applicant proposes construction of a 15,095 sq. ft. (footprint), 89-room, 4-story hotel (Hilton Home2) and associated sitework. SEQR Planning Board request for Lead Agency. Relief requested from maximum height restrictions, allowable Floor Area Ratio, and minimum road frontage requirements. SEQR Type Unlisted — Coordinate with Planning Board; MOTION TO ACCEPT THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD AS LEAD AGENCY FOR THE SEAR STATUS, PZ-0074-2016 BIG BAY LODGING, LLC — HILTON HOME2, Introduced by Michael McCabe, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Kyle Noonan: Duly adopted this 17th day of February 2016 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Noonan, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Urrico, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Freer 4 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/17/2016) MR. JACKOSKI-Next item is SEQRA coordination. SIGN VARIANCE NO. PZ-0072-2016 SEQRA TYPE UNLISTED — COORDINATE WITH PLANNING BOARD RUSSELL FADEN/FADEN ENTERPRISES AGENT(S) LANSING ENGINEERING, PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED OWNER(S) ROBERT GOODWIN ZONING MS LOCATION 75-79 MAIN STREET APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 45 SQ. FT. FREESTANDING SIGN (SUBWAY AND FUTURE TENANT NAMES) WITH A 5 FT. FRONT SETBACK ON MAIN STREET. SEAR PLANNING BOARD REQUEST FOR LEAD AGENCY. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM SIGN SETBACK RESTRICTIONS FOR THE MAIN STREET ZONING DISTRICT. CROSS REF AV PZ-0071-2016; SP PZ-0073-2016 SUP PZ-0068-2016 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING FEBRUARY 2016 LOT SIZE 0.24; 0.42; 0.46 ACRE(S) TAX MAP NO. 309.10-1-47, 48, 49 SECTION CHAPTER 140 MR. JACKOSKI-The request is that the Planning Board be the Lead Agency for the SEQR process. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Russell Faden / Faden Enterprises for a variance from Chapter 140 of the Sign Code of The Town of Queensbury. The applicant proposes construction of a 45 sq. ft. freestanding sign (Subway and future tenant names) with a 5 ft. front setback on Main Street. SEAR Planning Board request for Lead Agency. Relief requested from sign setback restrictions for the Main Street zoning district. SEQR Type Unlisted - Coordinate with Planning Board MOTION TO ACCEPT THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD AS LEAD AGENCY FOR THE SEAR STATUS, PZ-0072-2016 RUSSELL FADEN / FADEN ENTERPRISES, Introduced by Michael McCabe who moved for its adoption, seconded by Kyle Noonan: Duly adopted this 17th day of February 2016 by the following vote: MR. JACKOSKI-Is the applicant interested in addressing the Board at this time, or should we just keep moving forward? You don't have to. SCOTT LANSING MR. LANSING-Good evening. My name's Scott Lansing with Lansing Engineering. Just one thing I did want to clarify. We did notice that in the resolution it dealt on just strictly the Sign Variance, the setback for the sign. We did just also want to make mention that the variance application does also include a request for a drive-thru and also a request for a setback variance from Pine Street. MR. JACKOSKI-Correct. It's the sign part that requires the SEQR process, not the other part. MR. LANSING-Thank you. MR. JACKOSKI-No problem. AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Henkel, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Noonan, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Freer, Mr. Kuhl Thank you very much everyone. We've moved on through all of that, six items in seven minutes. Moving right along. Old Business. OLD BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 88-2014 SEQRA TYPE II MCDONALD'S USA, LLC AGENT(S) BOHLER ENGINEERING, LLC OWNER(S) MCDONALD'S USA, LLC ZONING Cl LOCATION 819 STATE ROUTE 9, 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 Cl ZONING DISTRICT. CROSS REF SP 75-14, SV 87-14 (NEW SIGNAGE), SP 16-93, BP 00-3463 ADD-ON OF 24 SQ. FT. TO EXISTING FS SIGN. BP 1101, BP 1535 WARREN 5 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/17/2016) 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 JON LAPPER & CHRIS BOYEA, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFFINPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 88-2014, McDonald's USA, LLC, Meeting Date: February 17, 2016 "Project Location: 819 State Route 9 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. Applicant has submitted revised plans increasing the project permeability. 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 - Front- Old Permeability Route 9 Aviation Required 75 ft. 75 ft. 30% Proposed 51.2 ft. 38.1 ft. Lot 1 21.2 % (lot 1 existing 21%), Lot 2 20% (lot 2 existing 13%) Relief 23.8 ft. 36.9 ft. Lot 1 8.8 %, Lot 2 10% 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 considered limited due to lot size and shape —the applicant has provided revised plans with reorganization of the parking and drive area to increase permeability and redesign access to the Old Aviation Road area. 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 60 plus seats and 6 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/17/2016) only 29 spaces are required where 32 are proposed. The site plan has been revised permeability with additional greenspace." MR. JACKOSKI-Welcome, Mr. Lapper. MR. LAPPER-Good evening. For the record, Jon Lapper with Rene Reardon the franchisee for both this McDonald's and the one at Exit 18 that was recently re-developed. Chris Boyea from Bohler Engineering. I'd like to make some general comments and then I'll turn it over to Chris to walk you through the site plan. So the last time this application was before you I was here on another project and I was watching Chris and watching the Board and especially watching Roy saying we understand this is positive. We want to work with you but you've got to give us something, and I think that was, I read all the minutes again and that was really the view of all of you, and it was so painful for me to watch, and I'm sure even more painful to Chris because at that point he didn't have the authority to modify any of the variances, but after that time, we all put our heads together, especially with Renee, and came back with what we submitted tonight which I think addresses what you were looking for last time. What we heard then was that you wanted more green space, more permeable, and that you were concerned about the interior traffic movements. So McDonald's is now offering to give up one of the three curb cuts on Route 9, which is, you know, you never get a retailer to want to give up a curb cut, but in this case it provides additional green space just where you want to see it, along that hard scape front of the frontage on Route 9. It also makes the internal circulation work a lot better because you don't have so many conflicting movements. We've also added some additional permeable pavement, which of course this is a re-development of an existing site, and, you know, they could leave it that way until the end of time, but, you know, all the McDonald's are changing and it's a really nice upgrade architecturally and more important, you know, functionally for Rene and her staff and for the customer. So this building is getting smaller than what's there now. So in terms of the variances that are before you tonight, we're adding green space, adding permeability, shrinking the size of the building, all items that make this a better site. We're stuck with an awkwardly shaped site that was there since retail first came to Queensbury. We've got Old Aviation Road in the back that used to be the main drag before Aviation Road was re-located. So with those constraints, I think that this is dramatically different and better than what you were looking at last time, that you just couldn't get your arms around, but we hope that you'll view this differently. So I'm going to ask Chris to walk you through the changes in the site plan. MR. BOYEA-Good evening. For the record my name is Chris Boyea. I'm with Bohler Engineering, and I've got a few exhibits here to kind of give an update as to where we are and where we've been and how the project has changed over the last four or five months or six months maybe. It's been a little bit since you've seen it last. So the proposal in general is to make a substantial investment into the site as we've done with the other projects, McDonald's in the area, the other two, and it would be a full scrape and re-build for this location. This is an aerial showing the existing facility, and how it functions today. Old Aviation Road in the back. We've got a one way in here. We've got the three curb cuts here. Geez, we're probably going back now several months, maybe a year. We were at the Planning Board to start this process. They liked the overall plan to re-develop it, but we needed the variances from this Board. So we've been working, as Jon has said, on those variances before we can return back to the Planning Board to finish any kind of site plan approval process. This is the plan that was last submitted to this Board and discussed at the last meeting. So this has the three curb cuts that were remaining out here. It has a change where we went to a one way in only. That was the last request that the Board had here, instead of having two way here. This we went to one way, which is where it's at, and then the Board asked also could, we increase the green space, or not that, it was pervious. We're already increasing it, but the Board wanted a little bit more, and so the clouds are here because we went to a one way in, which the Board wanted, and then this is clouded here. There's a patio area out here that's concrete today, and so we had said, okay, if we're going to get the additional green space, we'll remove the hard scape that's in here and increase the green space at that spot. To Jon's point, the Board wanted a little bit more, and we just couldn't at that time. There was a lot that was given in. So the plan that's up on the screen and this now shows where we are today. As Jon mentioned, we got rid of the curb cut that's here. There's been a lot more green space to be provided along the highway, and we moved and made the curb cut even smaller, and to put down here, and those were the comments that were received. So all in all, this building also, as you can see, got smaller. If you look at the bottom image and then the top, it's in the same general orientation and shape, but it's now substantially smaller. So just a couple of the statistics for the new plan. Out there today is 5,211 square feet, plus a basement. The plan that we came in with a few months ago was 4,400 square feet. The new building here is 3,900 square feet. So we're now 1,311 square feet smaller facility, without including, we don't have a basement in the new one. So it's a substantially reduced building. That helps us get our green space even higher. The amount of green space was increased from the last one. So we're already increased here from an 7 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/17/2016) existing, but since you saw the plan last, this plan now has an addition 1,100 square feet of green space. MR. MC CABE-Excuse me just a second. So our information here is wrong? MRS. MOORE-Just that the, the square footage of the building is incorrect and they're just looking for the setbacks. So I'll correct those as we go. MR. BOYEA-The plan says 3900 square feet. MR. MC CABE-And our sheets say 4,365. MRS. MOORE-It wasn't updated to that new square footage. MR. LAPPER-Right, and that was the second to last. MR. BOYEA-Yes, I think that was the second to the last. MR. MC CABE-Okay. So what's the present number? MR. BOYEA-3,900. I see. So the application hasn't been updated for all the existing. So the application was originally submitted. Then we've been kind of negotiating since the application. So per the request of this Board we've been making modifications to the plan. MR. MC CABE-Okay. So let's get this right, then. So what is the square feet right now? MR. BOYEA-The proposed building is 3,900 square feet. MR. MC CABE-And does that change the setbacks at all? MR. BOYEA-Yes, it does. So those got better. MR. MC CABE-Okay. MR. BOYEA-Everything got better, you know, based on the changes that were made. So most notably it's the rear yard setback. So as you can see here on this plan, on the one that was submitted originally, months ago, it was 28 feet was the front yard setback to Old Aviation Road. That's where it was, now with the smaller building, you can see that we've gotten 38.1 feet. MR. MC CABE-Okay. So that information is right on ours. MR. BOYEA-Yes. Everything is getting better. It's taken steps to get there for sure, and it's just in that process. So those are the main points and attributes of what has changed. So the building got smaller. We got further away from Old Aviation. The green space has gone up. The way we achieved that was getting rid of the entrance here and adding more green space, and then the smaller building, we took and we just held the front of the building, we just brought the back of the building in to create more room to Old Aviation, and that allowed us to move that and make that entrance smaller over here, and so those are the, the other part of this application was some signage, but we went over that in detail and there's been some time now. The signage wasn't the hang up. Everybody kind of understood that. It was the site that was the hang up, but signage is part of this application, and so these are the old exhibits that we saw where we're getting rid of the double mansard roof with the lighted roof beams and the illuminated fascia signs, and we're going to a design that you guys have seen before. It's very similar to the other design. So the overall number of signs stays the same. The square footage does get reduced. So it is an improvement over existing conditions, but nonetheless it would still be more than what the Codes allow, and that's it. MR. LAPPER-Ask away. MR. JACKOSKI-Zoning Board questions at this time before I re-open the public hearing? MR. HENKEL-Just one of the concerns that's still. Steve, we talked about this, the problem wit Lot One and Two not being together. What's the contract look like? MR. LAPPER-Unfortunately that's a lease, and that's, it exists now with the bigger building and the, you know, the less improved site, and McDonald's, if they had the ability to purchase that, they would, but it's a lease, and as it stands now, it's just going to stay. They expect it'll be renewed. There's a number of years left and they expect it'll be renewed. Unfortunately their 8 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/17/2016) hands are tied because there's a landlord. They don't own it. So, you know, it doesn't have value as a standalone piece because it doesn't have enough area for somebody to build something there. So we don't expect a change, but it is what it is unfortunately, but it is what it is now, and this will be a better site development. MR. HENKEL-What is the lease now? RENEE REARDON MS. REARDON-2029. MR. NOONAN-Could we, as a Board, put a condition on that lot, Number One, that says it can never be anything other than what it is right now? MR. JACKOSKI-No, the courts would argue you can't do that. Can you tell us how many actual parking spaces you have on your north lot, I guess it's not the north lot, it's the east lot. MR. LAPPER-We're down to the south lot. MR. BOYEA-We're down to 32 total, and I don't know. MR. JACKOSKI-I just want the ones on the building lot. MR. BOYEA-On the building lot? I'm sorry. MR. JACKOSKI-How many whole parking spaces are there actually on the Reardon lot. MR. LAPPER-Some of them are split. MR. JACKOSKI-Right, whole parking spots. MR. BOYEA-It would be five whole parking spots. MR. JACKOSKI-And where are they? MR. BOYEA-There's four here, on this side, and there's only one right here. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. So, Staff, why don't we have to have variances of allowing only five parking spots on that one lot? But the applicant doesn't own both lots and doesn't have guaranteed interest to the second one. MR. LAPPER-It's not unusual. The Taco Bell lot is leased. MR. JACKOSKI-But the whole lot is leased. MR. LAPPER-The whole lot is leased, yes. MR. JACKOSKI-So they get the building when they don't. MR. LAPPER-1 know, but that's unfortunately the fact MR. JACKOSKI-What is the Town of Queensbury going to do when you have no parking spots (PROBLEMS WITH RECORDING MACHINE SOME MEETING DIALOGUE LOST) MR. JACKOSKI-I mean, that's my fear is you haven't been able to go back to the owners of that land and negotiate an extension of your lease. MR. LAPPER-There's nobody else that, and it's not up for another 13 years. MR. JACKOSKI-I hope Ms. Reardon's building has got a lot more than 13 years. MR. LAPPER-That's the way it is now. Obviously McDonald's has got to do what they've got to do to work it out on the site. MR. JACKOSKI-I just don't know that we've ever had an application with such a short term lease before. 9 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/17/2016) MR. JACKOSKI-I know Staff is looking at it, but it's going to be a problem if they don't renew that lease and then we don't have any parking for that facility. MR. MC CABE-Yes, but like they say then they're going to have to come back for. MR. JACKOSKI-What good is it. They've already built. We don't disagree with tonight's project. We don't disagree with the design. I just don't know how I approve something that you don't have control over. I'd like to build a bigger house on my property if I could lease Mr. Hillman's little piece of his land to get a bigger building. It doesn't work. MR. LAPPER-They have a lease now. They can negotiate. MR. NOONAN-Is there any way to say okay, so what we have right now, essentially, is out of your control? This is a situation as it is? Taking a look at the current lot on Lot 2 and say, well, not that I want to take any of our permeability issues and throw them out the window. Could we come up with 32 spaces around that perimeter, cut down to a single lane drive through, not for today, for 2029, should the lot go, should Lot One go away, you've got yourself a contingency plan for 2029 that ultimately, okay, so you get rid of the, I'm trying to figure out a way. MR. URRICO-1 don't know if you can speculate on what's going to be in 2029. Everybody will have self-driving cars. I just think we have to take, we don't always know what the situation is behind the curtain. MR. JACKOSKI-Usually it's a whole parcel. This is a unique situation where we've got two landowners and one building. They're using the other parcel for their parking. MR. URRICO-Yes, and how long is it going to be? MR. JACKOSKI-Roy, nothing's guaranteed. We're in the middle of fixing a problem that exists in the Town of Queensbury. MR. LAPPER-It's been there forever. MR. BOYEA-That's a good point. I would just like to address that because actually, I didn't look at it like that. You do have a good point as far as that goes. So two things I wanted to mention. One is that, you know, both of the McDonald's in Queensbury that we've done, and then this one. The drive thru is an integral part of the business. We can talk about the one in Lake George where all we have is the drive thru, but it's seasonal. So, you know, it's someone feasible that this could operate on a reduced, you know, in 13 years if there was some catastrophic failure with negotiations or something of that nature. Sales could be dramatically reduced and it would have to be a business decision, but there is some merit to, you know, this could be a drive thru location to operate there, but you, think about a contingency plan, and we didn't have one because we're not expecting it, but if there was a problem with that, we actually have enough room here to go ahead and put a curb out there and put angled parking in this whole side. We actually didn't think about that until you had brought that up. So we're not going to get the. I don't see that happening, but we probably could come back at that point, if that were the case, and add in one row of parking over here, maybe enough to operate the restaurant, with the sales and the drive thru, and who knows may be ever more. Maybe 80% percent of the business is drive thru at that point. I don't know. MR. NOONAN-Ultimately you're here for frontage and permeability. That's what you're here for, but this is a big part of our decision, and I'm just trying to throw out there, get these ideas out there that, if in fact it comes down to it and someone decides that a drive thru coffee but is going to be more profitable for the owners of Lot One in 2029, or something like a McDonald's, can you come up with more parking, given the current, what you've got, what's there. You'll need a variance for something else, permeability or something like that, but could you get most of your customers on that lot? MR. BOYEA-Roughly we could get 18 spaces comfortably, maybe squeeze a few more on our own lot. By doing that, parking just on that side. MR. JACKOSKI-If this were presented to me that you were asking for a variance on the number of parking spots on Lot Two and we granted those is one thing, but being that we are combining the two lots, we don't have permanent accessibility to that lot. I'm struggling with it, Jonathan, I'm sorry. I just can't get my head around it. MR. LAPPER-I hear you, Steve, but that's what you have right now. So we're not asking for a new concept, and what we're coming to you with is way better than what we have now. You 10 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/17/2016) still have the lease lot and this lot, but a smaller building, better circulation, more green space. Only positive. The negatives already exist, and the positives are much better. This is positive for the neighborhood and positive for the Town and positive for the environment, the green space. MR. JACKOSKI-It would be precedent setting for us, to use somebody else's lot for parking without a permanent lease. MS. REARDON-I've been here three times and this was never brought up before. MR. JACKOSKI-Yes, it has been brought up. I brought this up before. MS. REARDON-Not in. MR. JACKOSKI-I brought it up. You sat at the table. MS. REARDON-It wasn't brought up with the number of parking spots in Lot One. I'm sorry, I do have a pretty good memory. That I would have remembered, because I would have gone to the corporation and said what are you doing with Lot Two so I can at least give them an answer. Because I would have remembered that this was an issue, the number of parking spaces. The last time an issue with permeability and the entrance and whatever. Even when I was here in the summer to give you an update, nobody, it wasn't said, and by the way, we're not in Ward Four. So if you want to correct. So I didn't know. So that kind of frustrated me. I kind of feel like each time something new pops up. So when I leave tonight, can I have the list? I don't care if it's this long, and then we'll work on it and we'll come back and I'll talk, and I did not know about the parking. MR. JACKOSKI-Unfortunately I brought up the second lot issues before. That's where you're parking is. MR. NOONAN-Another question before we go forward. I think another issue, you are aware that we did bring up the entrance to Old Aviation Road. MS. REARDON-Right. MR. NOONAN-And it's moved a couple of times, right, and it's gotten smaller. I'll ask it if someone else doesn't, what's the necessity of that entrance, or at this point, your only entrance. I know you're only here for permeability and frontage, but that's going to be a question that's going to arise. What's the importance of that? MR. LAPPER-People, locals know about it, and they come in the front of the mall, they come down and they use it. It's just that it brings, it takes pressure off of Route 9 and off of people making left turns. So it actually helps traffic. MR. NOONAN-So one of the other points that was brought up last time is now that you can drive around the front of the building, it's going to bring more traffic down Old Aviation, because you can't come down and around the front without having to go out onto Route 9, like you had to before, in order to get around the building, and it may certainly increase traffic down Old Aviation Road, because the ability to get all the way around the building now is known. That's going to probably increase. MR. LAPPER-Most of the argument is going to be that it probably will eliminate some left turns on Route 9 at busy times of the day. People come, because you'd be coming up from the south, if you didn't come in through the back, otherwise it would be helping the situation. MR. JACKOSKI-Any other Board member questions? MS. REARDON-The people who use it for the drive through now, the back entrance, when they come in, they come in and they just sit there. So if they're going to use it for the drive thru, if not, they have to go around the building here, but now they just sit there and then they pull over into the drive thru when it's their turn. MR. JACKOSKI-I come in the back, I go along the side, I do a U turn, I go back a ways and then I go through the drive thru. MR. LAPPER-Now you won't have to. MS. REARDON-You're one of the few. The rest of them just sit there. 11 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/17/2016) MR. JACKOSKI-I'm that guy, but at least I can go to McDonald's. Any other questions before I re-open the public hearing? We do have a public hearing scheduled for this evening. is there anyone here who would like to address tis Board concerning this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPEN MR. JACKOSKI-Seeing no one I'll leave the public hearing open. I'll poll the Board. I'll start with Mike. MR. MC CABE-1 support the project. I have all along. I think they did a real nice job on Exit 18, and I believe this project will enhance that particular area of our Town. MR. JACKOSKI-Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes, I'm also in favor of the project as presented. If you're that concerned about the parking on that second lot, if something happens 13 years from now, I suggest we put a note in the file or something like that, but that there is concern, and it should be followed up on, but I wouldn't hold up the project any longer on that fact alone. MR. JACKOSKI-Kyle? MR. NOONAN-1 do like the changes that have been brought forward today. I do feel that, in the past I think you came back one time with zero, three at one point, and that was one of the reasons I wasn't so for the project in the past. It sounds like the issue of the two parking lots will certainly have to be addressed in a way, if it becomes an issue in 2029, so it will have to be addressed then. I know it doesn't help us today in trying to build a more efficient Queensbury the way we do things, by pushing something off down another 13 years. It may not be an issue in 13 years. My biggest issue was the cut through at Old Aviation Road, but Mr. Spoerl, who used to come often and talk about to us about it didn't come today. He's probably happy with what's going on there, and if I'm the only one voicing that concern, well, that's no way to make a decision. So at this point I guess, with this project that we see here, I'm in favor. MR. HENKEL-If this was a new project coming to us, I'd have to say no, but I think you've done a nice job there. McDonald's is a good neighbor, good to the community. They've made a lot of definite improvements here with the curb cuts. They've eliminated one of the curb cut on the main 9 there, and they moved the entrance in the back there to a nice position. I think it's definitely a much better project that's there. They can't really help the situation with the Lot One there. So I'd have to definitely say it's a go for me, too. MR. JACKOSKI-All right. So I'll support it if we can come up with an approval resolution that has a condition that should the applicant lose use of, or control of Lot Number One, that they would be required to seek any and all approvals of newly established, I use that term loosely, variances that would result from losing control of Lot Number One, maybe parking, maybe permeability, all that other stuff. MR. LAPPER-We'll accept that condition. MR. JACKOSKI-I'll close the public hearing and seek a motion, Mike, if you can. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MC CABE-1 will. So let me get this clear. So the condition is that if control. MR. JACKOSKI-Should the applicant lose control of use. MR. MC CABE-If control is lost. MR. JACKOSKI-Use of or control of Lot Number One. MR. MC CABE-Of Lot One. MR. JACKOSKI-That they would be required to immediately seek any and all approvals of the newly acquired variances based on Town law at that time, in order to continue. I guess it's just getting it back in front of us and all working together and figuring it out because you do have one less curb cut. You are going to have a problem with exiting that property and entering that property. I mean, all of a sudden all the traffic's going to go out Old Aviation Road. So I'm just being prepared for Queensbury's sake moving forward. 12 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/17/2016) MR. LAPPER-That seems like a fair compromise. MR. MC CABE-Okay. I think I can do it. MR. JACKOSKI-Go for it. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from McDonald's USA, LLC. Applicant proposes demolition of existing 4,800 sq. ft. restaurant as well as demolition of the existing 411 sq. ft. detached garage. Applicant proposes construction of a new 3,900 sq. ft. restaurant. Relief requested from minimum front yard setback requirements as well as from maximum permeability requirements in the Cl zoning district. SEQR Type 11 — no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on: December 17, 2014 and Tabled to March 18, 2015 and further Tabled to February 17, 2016; 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 changes will result in a better looking facility. 2. Feasible alternatives have been considered by the Board, but are not reasonable. 3. The requested variance is not substantial because it's essentially an improvement on the existing structure. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. 5. Is the alleged difficulty is, of course, self-created. 6. In addition the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from granting the requested variance would outweigh (approval) the resulting detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community; 7. The Board also finds that the variance request under consideration is the minimum necessary; 8. The Board also proposes the following conditions: a) That if control and use of Lot One is lost, then the applicant must immediately seek approval of the variances that would be applicable at that time for the remaining lot. BASED ON THE ABOVE FINDINGS, I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 88-2014, MC DONALD'S USA, LLC. Introduced by Michael McCabe, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Kyle Noonan: Duly adopted this 17th day of February 17, 2016 by the following vote: MR. JACKOSKI-So let's modify that slightly to say the control and use of, and let's say that the variances that would be applicable at that time. MR. MC CABE-That's what I meant to say. MR. JACKOSKI-Is that okay? I mean, we all know what our intent is, but let's just make sure it's clear. Are you okay? MRS. MOORE-Yes, I just have two clarifications. It's Ward Two, and the size of the building now changes to 3,900 square feet. MR. MC CABE-Yes, I said that. 13 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/17/2016) MRS. MOORE-You did in the beginning? Okay. MR. LAPPER-3,901, depending on. MR. JACKOSKI-We're not worried about that, but 3,999 might be a problem. MR. BOYEA-Understood. AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Henkel, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Noonan, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Freer MR. JACKOSKI-Congratulations. Moving forward. MS. REARDON-We're not done yet. SIGN VARIANCE NO. 87-2014 SEQRA TYPE II MCDONALD'S USA, LLC AGENT(S) BOHLER ENGINEERING, LLC OWNER(S) MCDONALD'S USA, LLC & FREEBERN ZONING Cl LOCATION 819 STATE ROUTE 9, APPLICANT PROPOSES INSTALLATION OF 6 NEW SIGNS. THREE WALL SIGNS PROPOSED TO READ AS A SINGLE LETTER "M" AND TWO WALL SIGNS TO READ "MCDONALDS" 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; BP 00-3463 ADD-ON OF 24 SQ. FT. TO EXISTING FS SIGN, AV 88-2014 (NEW CONSTRUCTION), SP 16-93, BP 1101, BP 1535 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING DECEMBER 2014 LOT SIZE 9.41 ACRE(S) TAX MAP NO. 302.6-1-48 &49 SECTION CHAPTER 140 JON LAPPER & CHRIS BOYEA, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFFINPUT Notes from Staff, Sign Variance No. 87-2014, McDonald's USA, LLC, Meeting Date: February 17, 2016 "Project Location: 819 State Route 9 Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes installation of 6 new signs. Three wall signs proposed to read as a single letter "M" and two wall signs to read "McDonalds" 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 Required: Parcel will require a sign variance from Section 140 signs: Relief requested from number of allowable wall signs for a business and maximum size. No. of allowable wall signs Size Allowed Two wall signs allowed having 30 sq. ft. each frontage on two roads. Proposed 3 additional wall signs for a Two 33 sq. ft. "McDonalds and total of five Three 14 sq. ft. "M" logos Relief 3 in excess of two allowed 48 sq. ft. in excess of 60 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 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 more compliant signage on the site. Reducing the McDonald's 14 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/17/2016) word signs to 30 sq. ft. and or eliminating an M at the building front where the word sign and the free standing are more prevalent may be some options. 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. The comprehensive plan recommends elimination of the visual clutter of commercial corridor signage. 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 AV 88-14: New construction, Pending BP 00-3463: Add-on of 24 sq. ft. to existing freestanding sign Staff comments: The applicant has completed a sign variance application for a request to have 5 wall signs total where only two are allowed. The plans indicated two of the signs are for "McDonalds" at 33 sq. ft. each and three of the signs are for"M" logo at 14 sq. ft. each. The plans show the location of each of the signs to be on three sides of the building. In addition, there are several directional signs at the front due to the new traffic pattern and two aisle ordering lanes. The front side facing Route 9 would have one McDonalds, one M and a 45 sq. ft. free standing sign; staff would encourage a reduction of signage at the front of the building. The applicant has indicated the free standing sign is to remain an no changes to the size or location are proposed. The applicant has also completed a site plan and area variance applications for the proposed new McDonalds." MR. JACKOSKI-Very simple straightforward application. I suspect you don't even need us to do anything but ask you questions. MR. LAPPER-Absolutely. MR. JACKOSKI-The welcome signs don't count in the square footages? They're on the plan. MR. HENKEL-Yes, there's one by the front door and one by the side door. MR. LAPPER-That wouldn't be visible from off site. MR. BOYEA-Let me just add some clarification because of what was just done. So the revised site plan, there is, I think I overhead one correction that we need to talk about. When we revised the site plan and added the green space, closed an entrance, we no longer need a new freestanding sign. So I think what you just read was part of the old application where we were going to have a new freestanding sign proposed. The existing freestanding sign is just existing to remain at this point. MR. URRICO-So that 45 square foot freestanding sign? MR. BOYEA-Yes. It's existing to remain. MR. URRICO-It's remaining. MR. BOYEA-That's right. So we're not proposing a new freestanding sign anymore. We don't need to make that, because the green space out front now allows the existing one to remain. So that's the only change. MR. JACKOSKI-But it still counts in my decision to allow you additional signage and additional square footage of signage because you're using that existing sign. MR. LAPPER-Yes. 15 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/17/2016) MR. BOYEA-That's correct, and so the overall building signs that are there, same number. Square footage just drops. All the numbers that they had mentioned are correct. MR. JACKOSKI-And these are all the same signs that are at Exit 18? MR. BOYEA-The exact same signs. MR. MC CABE-The same size? MR. BOYEA-The same shape and size signs that have been used at the other two locations. That's correct. MR. JACKOSKI-Any other questions from Board members? MR. LAPPER-Obviously McDonald's has gotten more sensitive to signage because it's always an issue. So the "M" is more subtle, and that's the intention. Everyone knows it, so you don't have to say McDonald's everywhere, and it's designed to match the building, new building, new signs. MR. HENKEL-And they're all going to light up. MR. BOYEA-Internally. MR. JACKOSKI-Any other questions from Board members before I open the public hearing? There is a public hearing scheduled this evening. I'll open the public hearing. Is there anyone here this evening who'd like to address this Board? PUBLIC HEARING OPEN MR. JACKOSKI-Is there any written comment? MR. URRICO-There is no written comment. MR. JACKOSKI-I'll poll the Board. Anybody want to go first? MR. NOONAN-I'll go first. MR. JACKOSKI-Kyle? MR. NOONAN-I'm in favor of the Sign Variance. I get there's a lot of change happening everywhere, in every State, every town, whatever, but the Golden Arches are kind of an American thing, and I'm okay with it. MR. JACKOSKI-John? MR. HENKEL-Yes, I'm not really big on signage, but this, you know, the one on Exit 18's good in my book, so I'm all for it. MR. JACKOSKI-Mike? MR. MC CABE-1 have no problem with it. I think it looks modern and I don't think there's anything outlandish about it. MR. JACKOSKI-Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes. I think it's good. MR. JACKOSKI-Renee's waiting for me. We're all set. I'm going to close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. JACKOSKI-And I'm going to ask Mike to do a SEQR. MRS. MOORE-1 just have a quick question. Can you just go through the square footage of each of the signs that you're proposing? Because I did not have any additional new information until this evening about the signage. 16 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/17/2016) MR. BOYEA-So there's no change in the information that you've got. The signs are still the same. I think the "M" is 14 square feet, and the McDonald's I think is 32. MR. MC CABE-33. MR. BOYEA-Thirty-three. MRS. MOORE-Okay. MR. BOYEA-So it's the same size. MRS. MOORE-Okay. Just verifying. Thank you. MOTION REGARDING SIGN VARIANCE NO. 87-2014 MCDONALD'S USA, LLC 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 Michael McCabe who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Henkel: Duly adopted 17th day of February 2016, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Noonan, Mr. Urrico, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Freer MR. JACKOSKI-Next the motion. MR. LAPPER-You didn't have to do a Neg Dec on the Area Variance. MR. MC CABE-Because it was a Type II. MR. JACKOSKI-We do have to do it on this one. MR. JACKOSKI-Go ahead, Mike, on the actual approval of the Sign Variance. MR. MC CABE-Okay. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from McDonald's USA, LLC for a variance from Chapter 140 of the Sign Code of The Town of Queensbury. Applicant proposes installation of 6 new signs. Three wall signs proposed to read as a single letter " W and two wall signs to read "McDonalds" where wall signs total 108 sq. ft. in lieu of the maximum allowable two wall signs to total 30 sq. ft. each. Relief is requested for the number of allowable wall signs for a business and maximum size. SEQR Type: Unlisted Motion regarding Sign Variance No. 87-2014 McDonald's USA, LLC 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 Michael McCabe who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Henkel: Duly adopted 17th day of February 2016, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Noonan, Mr. Urrico, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Freer A public hearing was advertised and held on December 17, 2014 and Tabled to March 18, 2015 and further Tabled to February 17, 2016; 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: 17 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/17/2016) 1. There will be no undesirable change produced in the character of the neighborhood nor will there be a detriment to the nearby properties created by granting the Sign Variance. 2. The benefit sought by the applicant cannot really be achieved by any feasible method other than a Sign Variance, since this is standard corporate policy. 3. The requested Sign Variance is not substantial. 4. The proposed Sign Variance will not have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. 5. The alleged difficulty is, of course, 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; BASED ON THE ABOVE FINDINGS I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE SIGN VARIANCE NO. 87-2014 MCDONALD'S USA, LLC, INTRODUCED BY MICHAEL MCCABE, who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Henkel: Duly adopted this 17th day of February 2016, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Noonan, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Freer MR. JACKOSKI-Now you can celebrate. MR. LAPPER-Thanks for working with us. It's going to be a big improvement for Route 9. MR. BOYEA-Thank you. MR. JACKOSKI-You're welcome. NEW BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. PZ-00-65-2016 SEQRA TYPE II JASON SOUTHWOOD OWNER(S) JASON SOUTHWOOD ZONING CM LOCATION 974 STATE ROUTE 9 APPLICANT PROPOSES TO REFACE AN EXISTING 2,040 SQ. FT. BUILDING AND CONSTRUCT A NEW FACADE WITH PEAKED ROOFS OVER THE DOORS. ALSO INCLUDES NEW FRONT STONE FACING. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MINIMUM FRONT YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENTS IN THE CM ZONING DISTRICT. CROSS REF SP PZ- 0053-2016; BLDG PERMIT CC-000440-2015; PERVIOUS BUSINESSES: PHANTOM FIREWORKS; ADK TRAINING COMPOUND; FITNESS IN MOTION WARREN COUNTY PLANNING FEBRUARY 2016 LOT SIZE 0.66 ACRE(S) TAX MAP NO. 296.13-1-68 SECTION 179-3-040 JASON SOUTHWOOD, PRESENT MR. JACKOSKI-For the record, I own a property, or at least one of my company's owns a property within 500 feet of the building, so I just want to make that known so there's no appearance of impropriety, but I have no conflict of interest whatsoever. STAFFINPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. PZ-00-65-2016, Jason Southwood, Meeting Date: February 17, 2016 "Project Location: 974 State Route 9 Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to reface an existing 2,040 sq. ft. building and construct a new facade with peaked roofs over the doors. Also includes new front stone facing. Relief Required: 18 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/17/2016) The applicant requests the following relief: Relief requested from minimum front yard setback requirements in the CM zoning district. Section 179-3-040 establishment of districts dimensional requirements Proposed facade front face over hangs to be 35.4 ft. from the front setback and travel corridor overlay where a 75 ft. setback is required. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination, the board shall consider: 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. The propose project would appear to be consistent with the north property facade improvements. 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. The existing location may be considered limiting feasible alternatives for improvements to the building that currently does not meet the required setback requirements. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief 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 be considered to have minimal to no adverse impact on the environmental conditions of the area. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. The difficult may be considered self created. Staff comments: The applicant proposes to renovate an existing commercial building with new front facade features that include a new overhang, peaked roof over the doorways and frontage cover of the building." MR. URRICO-And the Planning Board passed a motion, a recommendation that based on its limited review they did not identify any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with the current project proposal, and that was adopted February 16, 2016 by 6 to 0 vote with one person absent. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you very much. A very straightforward application. Do you want to add anything to the record, or should we just ask you questions? MR. SOUTHWOOD-No. I'm Jason Southwood, for the record. Basically, like he said, we're looking to reface the building, and I believe we're looking for four inches, is what it is. In the drawing you can see it. This is what the front of the building will look like. Stone facade, green metal roof. The existing cedar shake roof will be torn off, and small gables will be put over each entrance door. If you look on A-3 of the drawing, you can actually see over to the left here the gable roof will stick out approximately four inches from the existing overhang roof already. MR. JACKOSKI-Any other questions from Board members at this time before I open the public hearing? We do have a public hearing scheduled for this evening. Is there anyone here in the audience who'd like to address this Board concerning this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED ETHAN HALL MR. HALL-Good evening. For the record, Ethan Hall. I'm a principle with Runcinski Hall Architecture. Here tonight representing Alyssa and David Dawkins right next door, and I know the issue that you have. It's really an issue for this Board. They're really in favor of everything that they're doing here. When we had our site plan review, there's an ingress that comes in off of their side that's to the south of their lot north of his lot. The way that that comes in, they 19 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/17/2016) noticed that when the other fireworks sales that were going on there last year, people were going out through that ingress, and they just want to be able to put some landscape stone there so that people don't come from this lot out through that ingress because they're concerned that that's an ingress only. I realize that that's a site plan issue, but. MR. JACKOSKI-Yes, is that going to change your site plan? MR. HALL-No. Other than the landscaping. MR. SOUTHWOOD-I have no objection to it. Right where that truck is. MR. HALL-Yes, right where that truck is. People were going out, and the way that Jason's parking lays out. MR. JACKOSKI-They back out and go right. MR. HALL-Yes, and that's an ingress only now. That's an in only for her. She's concerned that somebody going out there would meet somebody coming in. When it was originally done there used to be two big pieces of arm coat across there, and when they put the manhole in, they took one of the pieces of arm coat out and re-paved everything and never put the arm coat back in. MR. JACKOSKI-But don't we favor interconnection in Queensbury? MR. HALL-We do, but going in that direction won't work for his parking. That's the thing that we looked at, because the way that his. DAVID DAWKINS MR. DAWKINS-The way the parking spaces are angled in the front of the building, if you came in that way. MR. HALL-You would be facing against traffic. MR. DAWKINS-Right. MR. HALL-So that was the only thing we have, and we think it's great that somebody's grabbing a hold of this building and bringing the facade along. David and Melissa are about two weeks away from opening, hopefully, and that project has come along very nicely. So that was all we had. Thank you. MR. JACKOSKI-I'm looking forward to walking across the street. ALYSSA DAWKINS MRS. DAWKINS-It's beautiful. The inside is absolutely beautiful. So I hope everyone takes the opportunity to come. MR. HALL-Tile work is getting finished now and in about two weeks. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. MR. HALL-Okay. Thanks. MR. JACKOSKI-Any other comments? Seeing no other comments, are there any written comments? MR. URRICO-No. MR. JACKOSKI-All right. So, Staff, regarding the public comment, are those site plan issues? MRS. MOORE-It's a site plan issue. MR. JACKOSKI-And this project is going in front of site plan? MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. JACKOSKI-And the spa project, that went through site plan. 20 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/17/2016) MRS. MOORE-Yes, it did. MR. JACKOSKI-Did they rely on that interconnect when they were addressing that building? MRS. MOORE-No, they did not. MR. JACKOSKI-All right. So we don't have anything to do with the variance of it. Correct? MRS. MOORE-Correct. It's not a variance. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. I'm going to leave the public hearing open. I'm going to poll the Board on the application. I'll start with whoever would like to go first. MR. MC CABE-1 think it'll be an improvement to the neighborhood and I support this project as it's been submitted. MR. JACKOSKI-Kyle? MR. NOONAN-1 support the project. I think it'll look great. MR. JACKOSKI-John? MR. HENKEL-I'll agree with my Board members. Go for it. MR. JACKOSKI-Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes, I'm satisfied it passes the balancing test. MR. JACKOSKI-All right. Focus on the balancing test. That's important. I'm going to close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. JACKOSKI-And I'm going to seek a motion for approval. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Jason Southwood. Applicant proposes to reface an existing 2,040 sq. ft. building and construct a new facade with peaked roofs over the doors; also, includes new front stone facing. Relief requested from minimum front yard setback requirements in the CM zoning district. The proposed front facade overhangs to be 35.4 feet from the front setback corridor overlay where a 75 foot setback is required. SEQR Type 11 — no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, February 17, 2016; 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 as most of the Board members found that this would improve the appearance of the neighborhood. 2. There were no feasible alternatives. Again, as we all feel that this will be an improvement. 3. The requested variance is not considered substantial. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. 5. The alleged difficulty could be considered self-created as this is a change from the existing plan. 21 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/17/2016) 6. In addition the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from granting the requested variance would outweigh (approval) the resulting detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community. It should also be noted that a neighboring property had concern over an ingress/egress, but we determined it would be dealt with at Site Plan Review. 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. PZ-0065-2016 JASON SOUTHWOOD, Introduced by Kyle Noonan, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Michael McCabe: Duly adopted this 17th day of February 2016 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Henkel, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Noonan, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Freer MR. JACKOSKI-Good luck. AREA VARIANCE NO. PZ-0064-2016 SEQRA TYPE II CURTIS D. DYBAS AGENT(S) CURTIS D. DYBAS OWNER(S) DOMINICK & KATHLEEN DI MARTINO ZONING WR LOCATION 97 BIRDSALL ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 100 SQ. FT. BREEZEWAY BETWEEN THE GARAGE AND HOUSE ON THE SECOND FLOOR. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE AND FROM FLOOR AREA RATIO REQUIREMENTS FOR THE WR ZONING DISTRICT. CROSS REF SP PZ-0062-2016; BP 2002-334 DOCK; BP 93-658 RES. ALTERATIONS WARREN COUNTY PLANNING FEBRUARY 2016 LOT SIZE 0.179 ACRE(S) TAX MAP NO. 289.17- 1-35 SECTION 179-3-040 CURT DYBAS, PRESENT STAFFINPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. PZ-0064-2016, Curtis D. Dybas, Meeting Date: February 17, 2016 "Project Location: 97 Birdsall Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a 100 sq. ft. breezeway between the garage and house. Relief Required: The applicant requests the following relief: Relief requested for expansion of a nonconforming structure and from Floor Area Ratio requirements for the WR zoning district. 179-3-040 establishment of districts dimensional requirements Proposed is 47% floor area ratio where 45% floor area ratio currently exists and only 22% floor area ratio is allowed 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. The project may be considered to have little to no impact on the neighboring properties as the construction of the 100 sq. ft. breezeway occurs between two buildings that are already connected by walkways. 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. The feasible alternatives may be limited to consider reducing other floor area square footage on the site. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief may be considered substantial relevant to the code. 22 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/17/2016) 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 be considered to have minimal to no impact on the environmental conditions of the site or area. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. The project as proposed may be considered self-created. Staff comments: The applicant proposes the construction of 100 sq. ft. breezeway over an existing walkway patio area between the garage and existing home. The new roofline creates additional floor area requiring relief. Currently, the breezeway is roof connection where the board may consider a condition that it never be enclosed breezeway. The plans show the location of the breeze way area with existing condition photos and drawings of the proposed conditions." MR. URRICO-And then the Planning Board based on its limited review did not identify any adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with the current project proposal. That was a motion that they passed on February 16, 2016 by a vote of six to zero. MR. JACKOSKI-Welcome. MR. DYBAS-Good evening. For the record, Curt Dybas representing the DiMartinos. The DiMartinos purchased this property in 1996, and there's been no expansion on the property since their purchase. I guess a couple of years ago they did get a permit to re-build their dock, and then realizing that time is marching on and the connection between the garage and the house has become a walking hazard in the winter when they come up late at night, and I was asked last summer to explore the possibilities of putting a roof over this connection. It would be just an open roof. The walkway is about six feet wide, which is basically the width of the concrete and then the roof overhang is 18 inches each side. So it's like nine by eleven is the roof area that we're proposing the connection. We are moving one set of exterior concrete steps. So when they do come down from the driveway along their property line they can access the entryway. Right now you have to walk all the way down to the first floor level, and if you're coming down those stairs, there's no cross over. It's my understanding they've had some landscaping change, but the variance before you is for the breezeway roof, and the site is overdeveloped as you can tell by the numbers, but I think the two percent increase is minimal for the safety factor, and also we're going to rail a lot of these platforms. MR. JACKOSKI-Mr. Dybas, you mentioned that they haven't done any expansion of the property since they purchased in '96. When were the decks put on the front of the building that are so close to the shore? MR. DYBAS-That was all there to the best of my knowledge. You mean on the Iakeshore? To the best of my knowledge it was all there. MR. JACKOSKI-Staff, do you know when the permits were issued for those decks? MRS. MOORE-1 don't know off the top of my head. MR. JACKOSKI-Is it on the website? You're right, it is overdeveloped. MR. HENKEL-That's the problem. There's so much concrete there. There's nothing they can do more to improve that? MR. DYBAS-When they purchased that property, I had a survey that was done in 1996, and it was done as part of the purchase agreement, and that was all there. MR. HENKEL-Is there any way they can improve that even anymore, if we give them the variance to do that, is there a way that they can do something to that lot? Because I walked around that lot. That's unreal how much concrete. MR. DYBAS-They have removed some of the paving down on the lakeside. MR. HENKEL-Is there any more they can do like flower gardens or something closer to the lakeside there to absorb some of that? They just keep on shedding more and more water off the property. I mean, the only place you can go is back, but you can't really. The road's there. It separates the property, the road does, the right of way. 23 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/17/2016) MR. NOONAN-So the new cover is going to cover some current concrete that's there. Correct? MR. DYBAS-That is correct. MR. NOONAN-So even if you put permeable pavers down there, not that you could, you're still going to cover it, correct? So the permeability is still not going to be, ultimately, increased, because you're still going to cover it. I mean, I'm erring on the side of safety, just so you know. I'm just trying to take a look at this just to make, I mean, everything everyone has said so far is correct, but even if, I'm just saying, being completely rational, if you took all the impermeable stuff out and still put a roof over it, it's still not going to be, so just looking at it from that standpoint. I mean, you look at the weather we had in the last 24 hours, my front sidewalk is an ice rink, downhill. I can understand the reason to try and be safe. MR. HENKEL-I understand that, too. MR. DYBAS-What I mentioned, the removal of the sidewalk down by the lake, there are some walkways and stuff down in front of the property that goes from the lowest level to the lakefront. We're going to be taking that out and that will be more permeable. We even looked at, there is a stairway on the west side, and it comes down and it's not used, and I even looked at taking that out, as far as increasing the permeability, but whoever did the site development, the prior owner, that stairway is basically a retaining wall that holds up the property line that abuts to the Lockhart's property next door, and I looked at it and I said, no matter what I put there, I can't. MR. HENKEL-Yes, I totally understand the stairs, I mean, because it's sloped property and I understand that, but it's scary. MR. NOONAN-So some of those pieces of concrete you're talking about that might increase the permeability. MR. DYBAS-I'd have to look at the calc, but I do believe the permeability did increase. The permeability did increase by removing some of the lakefront paving. There is little that I can do, you know, to take the stairs out of there along the side. MR. NOONAN-I'm not saying you should, you realize that. MR. DYBAS-I know. MR. NOONAN-I'm just trying to make a point, the idea that you're looking for a safer place. MRS. MOORE-1 do have an answer for you. There hasn't been any alterations, exterior, forever. There's no record of anything. MR. JACKOSKI-What you're saying is there are n permits that were filed for exterior renovations since 1983, correct? MRS. MOORE-Correct. There's nothing in the property record. MR. HENKEL-What about the hot tub area that was added? That had to be, you know, that's got a pad under it and everything. That was there, the hot tub was there? MR. DYBAS-I have no recollection of it being. MR. JACKOSKI-Do you have a copy of that survey that was done in 1996 that you referenced? MR. DYBAS-I believe you had a copy of it. I gave you a copy of it. MR. JACKOSKI-What I have is a copy of VanDusen and Steves notes that they referenced a survey that was done in 1996. MR. DYBAS-What I originally gave, I submitted it, I believe, as part of the original. MR. JACKOSKI-I don't see one here. Let me keep looking. MR. DYBAS-If there's a deck, it's my understanding, in the Town of Queensbury, that is considered. MR. JACKOSKI-Hard surfacing within that waterfront. 24 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/17/2016) MR. DYBAS-Hard surfacing, yes, and the hot tub is underneath that deck. I believe. MR. HENKEL-That is definitely newer than '96 was it you said. MR. DYBAS-'96. MR. HENKEL-Yes, that's definitely newer than '96. MR. JACKOSKI-I just want to correct the record that no site improvements have been made to that property since 1996 when in fact if you look at the survey that Mr. Dybas just showed me and you look at what's there now, we certainly have a lot of differences, but that's not in front of us, I guess. Anybody have any issues with the 100 square feet of breezeway? MR. MC CABE-I have no issue. I promote a safe entrance or egress from the garage to the house. MR. JACKOSKI-There is a public hearing scheduled for this evening. I'll open the public hearing. There's no one here in the audience to address the Board. Is there any written comment? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-There is no written comment. MR. JACKOSKI-Having no written comment, I'll leave the public hearing open. I'll seek a polling of the Board. I'll start with Roy. MR. URRICO-I have no problems with the breezeway, but I think it should be noted that there seems to be some changes to the property that didn't come before the Board that probably should have. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, Roy. Mike? MR. MC CABE-I support the project. MR. JACKOSKI-John? MR. HENKEL-I feel, yes, there's definitely a need for that breezeway, but I think it needs to be done something with the permeability. So I'm not for the project as presented, without some adjustment to the permeability. MR. JACKOSKI-Kyle? MR. NOONAN-I am in favor of the project as proposed. MR. JACKOSKI-I'll move forward with approving the project, but let the record state that I agree with Mr. Urrico that we do need to have Staff look into site improvements on that property that may not have been permitted or certainly have been made close to the shoreline. MRS. MOORE-Okay. MR. JACKOSKI-I'll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. JACKOSKI-And seek a motion for approval. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Curtis D. Dybas for Dominick & Kathleen DiMartino. Applicant proposes construction of a 100 sq. ft. breezeway between the garage and house on the second floor. Relief requested for expansion of a nonconforming structure and from Floor Area Ratio requirements for the WR zoning district. SEQR Type II — no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, February 17, 2016; 25 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/17/2016) 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 essentially we're just providing a cover over an existing walkway. 2. Feasible alternatives are limited. For safety there should be a covering over this walkway. 3. The requested variance is not substantial because the walkway already exists. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district? 5. The alleged difficulty is self-created. 6. In addition the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from granting the requested variance would outweigh (approval) the resulting detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community; 7. The Board also finds that the variance request under consideration is the minimum necessary; BASED ON THE ABOVE FINDINGS, I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. PZ-0064-2016, CURTIS D. DYBAS FOR DOMINICK & KATHLEEN DIMARTINO, Introduced by Michael McCabe, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Kyle Noonan: Duly adopted this 17th day of February 2016 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Noonan, Mr. Jackoski NOES: Mr. Henkel ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Freer AREA VARIANCE NO. PZ-0059-2016 RONALD & CYNTHIA MACKOWIAK AGENT(S) HUTCHINS ENGINEERING; LITTLE & O'CONNOR OWNER(S) RONALD & CYNTHIA MACKOWIAK ZONING WR LOCATION 9 GLEN HALL DRIVE, GLEN LAKE APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 530 SQ. FT. 2-CAR DETACHED GARAGE WITH PROPOSED HEIGHT OF 23.6 FT. WITH WATER AND ELECTRICAL CONNECTION. THE SECOND FLOOR IS PROPOSED TO BE OPEN STORAGE. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR A SECOND GARAGE WHERE ONLY ONE IS ALLOWED. ALSO, RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE HEIGHT FOR SUCH STRUCTURE LOCATED IN THE WR ZONING DISTRICT. CROSS REF SP PZ-0057-2016 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 0.82 ACRE(S) TAX MAP NO. 289.11-1-33 SECTION 179-3-040 MR. JACKOSKI-This is being requested to be tabled. There is a public hearing scheduled for this evening. I will open the public hearing, but let everyone note that there is no one here to address the Board, and we're not going to read it into the record. It's not necessary given that there's a tabling motion in place, and there was no written comment. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. JACKOSKI-When are we tabling the application to? MR. MC CABE-To June 22"a MR. JACKOSKI-Could I please have a motion to table this application. MOTION TO TABLE AV PZ-0059-2016 RONALD & CYNTHIA MACKOWIAK, Introduced by Michael McCabe who moved for its adoption, seconded by Kyle Noonan: Until June 22, 2016 with information to be submitted by May; typical submission deadline. 26 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/17/2016) Duly adopted this 17th day of February, 2016, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Noonan, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Freer, Mr. Kuhl MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, everyone. Can I have a motion to adjourn? MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING OF FEBRUARY 17, 2016, Introduced by Michael McCabe who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Henkel: Duly adopted this 17th day of February, 2016, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Noonan, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Freer On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Steven Jackoski, Chairman 27