Loading...
03-23-2016 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/23/2016) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SECOND REGULAR MEETING MARCH 23, 2016 INDEX Area Variance PZ-0076-2016 Howard Yeaton & Christa Lance 1. Tax Map No. 289.11-1-1 Area Variance PZ-0087-2016 Ted and Shari Chrimes 4. Tax Map No. 266.1-1-14.7 Area Variance PZ-0095-2016 Brett R. & Pamela T. West 14. Tax Map No. 226.15-1-17 Area Variance PZ-0084-2016 Larry Clute 23. Tax Map No. 308.19-1-20 Sign Variance PZ-0097-2016 Landmark Signs and Graphics —Anthony L. Mishoe26. Tax Map No. 302.6-1-54 Area Variance PZ-0094-2016 Daniel W. Brown 34. Tax Map No. 289.7-1-41 Sign Variance PZ-0100-2016 Sign Studio, Inc. — Ronald Levesque 39. Tax Map No. 303.16-1-1.1 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. QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 1 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/23/2016) SECOND REGULAR MEETING MARCH 23, 2016 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT STEVEN JACKOSKI, CHAIRMAN ROY URRICO, SECRETARY MICHAEL MC CABE JOHN HENKEL HARRISON FREER KYLE NOONAN MEMBERS ABSENT RONALD KUHL LAND USE PLANNER-LAURA MOORE STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI 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 and for the students it's actually quite an easy process. There is an agenda on the back table. There is basically an outline of how we conduct ourselves. We'll identify each application here. Roy will read the application into the record. We'll ask the applicants and their agents to join us at the smaller table. The applicants can feel free to add any comments they'd like to as the Board listens to them. We may ask some questions and at one point or another we'll open a public hearing when there has been one advertised. We will then ask the applicants to re-join the table, address the public comments, if there were any, and then probably poll the Board members to see where we're moving with the application and then take action accordingly. Sometimes it'll be a motion to approve. Other times it may be a motion to table the application until another meeting because the applicant wants to provide us with additional data. So we've got quite a long agenda this evening, quite a complex agenda. Fortunately for all of you we don't have any housekeeping to deal with early on. So it is all New Business. NEW BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. PZ-0076-2016 SEQRA TYPE II HOWARD YEATON & CHRISTA LANCE AGENT(S) ETHAN P. HALL — RUCINSKI HALL ARCHITECTURE OWNER(S) HOWARD YEATON & CHRISTA LANCE ZONING WR LOCATION 47 BARBER ROAD — EAST SHORE OF GLEN LAKE APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 400 SQ. FT. 3-SEASON PORCH ADDITION TO AN EXISTING 1,367 SQ. FT. (FOOTPRINT) HOME. FLOOR AREA FOR SITE; EXISTING IS 3,162; PROPOSED 3,567.75 SQ. FT. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MINIMUM SETBACK REQUIREMENTS FOR THE WR ZONING DISTRICT. CROSS REF BP 99-064 SFD; BP 99-306 TWO DOCKS WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 0.88 ACRE(S) TAX MAP NO. 289.11-1-1 SECTION 179-3- 040; 179-13-010 ETHAN HALL, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFFINPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. PZ-0076-2016, Howard Yeaton & Christa Lance, Meeting Date: March 23, 2016 "Project Location: 47 Barber Road — east shore of Glen Lake Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a 400 sq. ft. 3-season porch addition to an existing 1,367 sq. ft. (footprint) home. Floor area for site; existing is 3,162; proposed 3,567.75 sq. ft. Relief Required: The applicant requests the following relief: Relief requested from side yard setback requirements in the WR zoning district. Section 179-3-040 establishment of districts dimensional requirements Proposed construction of the three seasoned porch does not meet the south side setback where 25 ft. is required and 23 ft. 9 in is proposed. 2 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/23/2016) 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 400 sq. ft. porch is in an area that had an existing Jacuzzi area. 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 possible to adjust the overall square footage of the porch. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief may be considered minimal 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 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 to construct a 400 sq. ft. porch addition to an existing single family home. The addition does not meet the side setback. The plans show the addition will be over the existing Jacuzzi area." MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, Roy. Welcome. MR. HALL-Good evening. Ethan Hall, principle with Rucinski Hall Architecture here tonight representing Howard Yeaton and Christa Lance for the project over on Barber Road. My clients have asked to, they have an existing walkway and deck area that's in front of the house. They'd like to put a screened porch off on the side of the house. There's current a couple of steps down to another platform that has a Jacuzzi on it. That platform and the steps down and everything would come off and the screened porch will go in its place. Pretty straightforward project. We're just a little bit short on side yard setback. That's the only thing we're short on. MR. JACKOSKI-Are there any questions at this time from Board members before I open the public hearing? Seeing none, 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? Seeing no one, is there any written comment? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-There is no written comment. Given there's no written comment and no public comment with attendees, are there any comments by Board members before we take a polling of the Board? Anyone want to go first? MR. NOONAN-I'll go first. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. MR. NOONAN-You're asking for one foot and three inches. I'm okay with it. I approve. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, Kyle. Harrison? MR. FREER-I also have no major issues with this and would support it as is. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. Mike? MR. MC CABE-Five percent is hardly detectable by the eye. I'll support the project. 3 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/23/2016) MR. JACKOSKI-John? MR. HENKEL-I'm also in support of the project. I have no problem. MR. JACKOSKI-And Roy. MR. URRICO-I'm okay with the project. MR. JACKOSKI-All right. So we'll move on. We'll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. JACKOSKI-And seek a motion for approval, please. MR. NOONAN-I'll make the motion. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Howard Yeaton & Christa Lance. Applicant proposes construction of a 400 sq. ft. 3- season porch addition to an existing 1,367 sq. ft. (footprint) home. Floor area for site; existing is 3,162; proposed 3,567.75 sq. ft. Relief requested from minimum setback requirements for the WR zoning district. SEQR Type II - no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, March 23, 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. 2. Feasible alternatives are possible. It was mentioned that there could have been a change in the square footage asked. 3. The requested variance is not substantial. 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-0076-2016 HOWARD YEATON & CHRISTA LANCE, Introduced by Kyle Noonan, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Harrison Freer: Duly adopted this 23rd day of March 2016 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Freer, Mr. Noonan, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl 4 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/23/2016) MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. MR. HALL-Thank you very much. AREA VARIANCE PZ-0087-2016 SEQRA TYPE II TED AND SHARI CHRIMES AGENT(S) MARK J. TABER, THE LA GROUP, P.C. OWNER(S) TED AND SHARIE CHRIMES ZONING RR-3A LOCATION LOT 3, OAK VALLEY WAY APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 4,398 SQ. FT. (FOOTPRINT) SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING ON A VACANT 2.76 ACRE LOT. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM SHORELINE/WETLAND SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. PLANNING BOARD: SITE PLAN REVIEW REQUIRED FOR HARD SURFACING WITHIN 50 FT. OF A WETLAND; PROJECT OCCURS WITHIN THE 100 FT. WETLAND AREA. CROSS REF SP PZ-0077-2016; FWW- 0101-2016; SB 3-87 NORTH FORTY WARREN COUNTY PLANNING MARCH 2016 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY ALD LOT SIZE 2.76 ACRE(S) TAX MAP NO. 266.1-1- 14.7 SECTION 179-3-040 MARK TABOR, REPRESENTING APPLICANTS, PRESENT STAFFINPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance PZ-0087-2016, Ted and Shari Chrimes, Meeting Date: March 23, 2015 "Project Location: Lot 3, Oak Valley Way — North Forty Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a 4,398 sq. ft. (footprint) single-family dwelling on a vacant 2.76 acre lot. Relief Required: The applicant requests the following relief: Relief requested from shoreline/wetland setback requirements. Rural Residential Zone 5ac but was part of the North 40 Subdivision in 1987 with setbacks for zoning at that time except wetlands use today setbacks. Section 179-3-040 establishment of districts dimensional requirements Proposed single family home and patio area to be installed within 75 ft. of the wetland where the applicant proposes 43 ft. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination, the board shall consider: 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. The project may be considered to have little impact on the neighboring properties as the applicant has placed the home on the lot to minimize impacts. 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 due to the lot containing wetlands. The wetlands have been verified by the APA. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief may be considered minimal 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 on the environmental conditions of the site or area. The applicant has proposed locating the home and site work to minimize impacts on the environment and to install additional measures on the site including plantings and stormwater measures. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. The project as proposed may be considered self- created. Staff comments: The applicant proposes to utilize a 2.76 ac parcel to construct a single family home and complete site work for installation of stormwater measures, septic, well, patio area and 5 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/23/2016) landscaping. The plans show the site work and elevations to minimize impacts on the adjacent wetlands and the neighboring home." MR. URRICO-And then the Planning Board, based on its limited review, did not identify any significant adverse impacts that could not be mitigated with the current project proposal. That was approved on March 15th by a vote of five to zero with two absent. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, Roy. Welcome. This is a very straightforward application. Is there anything you'd like to add to it at this time or just have Board members ask you questions? MR. TABOR-We were going to give just a very quick presentation just to give you guys some kind of a thinking behind us locating the house where it was, and then if you guys have questions, obviously, yes, we'd like to give just a quick presentation. Okay. So for the record my name is Mark Tabor. I'm with the LA Group. We're landscape architects and engineers. With me tonight is Charlotte Absnosky, also with our firm, and Ted Chrimes who's the applicant. Like I said, I just wanted to give you a quick run through of our thinking in terms of siting the house. So the project itself is located in the North Forty subdivision, which was a subdivision approved back in 1997. It's located off of Ridge Road here. It's about one and a quarter acres north of Route 9 and the Queensbury Country Club and it includes essentially this group of houses here along this cul de sac road. The lot in question is a 2.67 acre lot right in this area here in the middle of the subdivision, and it's essentially split down the middle there. There's wetland in the northern portion of the property and the southern portion of the property is mostly maintained grassy area with some sporadic trees throughout. Just a quick blow up of the survey here of the lot and the critical piece is the edge of the wetland which is located right here. Again, this is just a grassy area with some sporadic trees. So the lot is constrained, and the result is what you see here. The shaded area indicates the area within which you could build a compliant project. There's a 75 foot setback located on this edge, the northern side of that gray area here, setback from this wetland edge. In addition there's a 20 foot side yard setback down here, but also a 50 foot structure setback which is part of deed restriction that's included with the lot. What that results in is the gray area and that area, like I said, represents the area within which you could build a compliant project. Obviously that area is very limited and it's not feasible to build a house within that area. In addition there are sanitary setbacks from the adjacent wells which are indicated by that circle there, that circle there, and there's also a 100 foot sanitary setback from the wetland as well. So taking those constraints in mind, we wanted to locate the sanitary first and get that taken care of and out of the way. That's this blue area here is where we decided to put the septic system. It's located outside of all the setbacks, and we had good test pits in that area, conducive soils for the sanitary system. With that in mind we then went to locate the house, and you can see initially our thinking was to try to and minimize the encroachment on both, not only the wetland setback to the north, but also that deed restriction, that 50 foot deed restriction to the south. So we split the difference as you can see and, like I said, try to minimize it on both ends. An additional thing we've considered is the potential impact to the neighbor's house which is right here. Initially we had located the house a little further back in this area here, but going on the site to check it against the location of the neighbor's house there, we realize that if we pushed it a little bit further to the south and east here, we could take advantage of these two existing evergreen trees, which help screen potential views to the house from both sides, and then we also turned the house a little bit, rotated it, so that we didn't create a face to face view and again try to minimize any potential impacts to the neighbors. So that was the basic thinking, and we kind of felt that that balancing, we were doing the best we could there. Realizing we were in a variance situation we wanted to do a little bit more as well. We created a very detailed sediment and erosion control plan which includes slope stabilization on the back side here. We also have two rows of silt fence, one at the edge of construction, which is fairly typical, and then we have an additional row here along the edge of the wetland just as a redundant protective measure. There's also wetland protection fence along that boundary, which is like an orange snow fence, to alert anybody on site to the presence of that wetland and to make sure that everybody stays out of it. We also have six stormwater management devices located on the property to handle the impervious area, to manage the stormwater runoff, with rain gardens and stormwater planters, and they're located around the periphery of the house. There was one comment I wanted to make. In the north, looks like the northeast corner there, that, there was a comment from one of the engineers about the fact that that was going to be a rain garden and therefore infiltration device. That was something that was changed in my process when I was making the submission. It didn't get carried over into one of the plans. That's supposed to be a stormwater planter which has a liner in it. Therefore there is no infiltration in that specific location. So I just wanted to point that out quick. Here this is obviously, it's a planting plan, pretty detailed landscaping plan not only for the stormwater areas, but we also provided an addition buffer of extra vegetation along that edge of the wetland there to provide a little extra buffer between the house and the wetland area. So that was generally our thinking as we went through the process there of locating the house, and we're here to answer any questions that you guys might have. 6 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/23/2016) MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Thank you. I'm actually glad you went through the presentation because now I have a couple of questions that I didn't have before and I'm kind of wondering about the project. So tell me how you avoided or are dealing with the fact that you're encroaching on your 50 foot setback that's in the deed? MR. TABOR-We've talked to the original deed, I don't know what the right word is, not attorney, but lady who originally set the deed restrictions up and she has waived it. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Do you have confirmation on that? MR. TABOR-We have a verbal confirmation with her and the attorneys are putting the paperwork together. So, and we have a, I'll leave it at that. So that's all on your way. My understanding is it's not the jurisdiction of the Town to deal with deed restrictions. I don't know, again, not being an attorney I don't know whether that's the right way to say that or not. I'm just trying to build a house. MR. JACKOSKI-We can't enforce them, but we understand that when they're there, they hamper you from developing the way you expect to develop, and so we grant you all these variances and then you've got to do something different because somebody enforces that deed restriction, well then it gets mucky. So, especially when there are wetlands involved. So that's why I'm asking. MR. TABOR-Yes. Joan Kubricky originally owned the whole development, and we've been in contact with her and she had to actually approve two things related to this. One she had to approve the design of the house, which she has done, verbally, and she has also approved a, I don't know what the rights words, again, are, but a waiver of the setback requirement and the deed restriction and that's all being codified in writing. MR. JACKOSKI-So, Laura, was that 50 foot restriction part of the subdivision plan that went through? MRS. MOORE-No. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Any other Board member questions before I open the public hearing? MR. FREER-Yes. So when did you purchase the land, sir? TED CHRIMES MR. CHRIMES-About a year ago. MR. FREER-And you knew you were getting into wetlands? MR. CHRIMES-Not exactly. So, yes, so I'd say two things about it. One when we stepped on the property and had an opportunity to think about it, we looked at it and loved it. So that's the way I would say it. Did we want to, we love it, we think it's a great feature of the lot, and we want to do everything we can to protect that and be a part of making sure that that's as it should be. So, you know, did we understand how complicated this was going to turn out to be? Absolutely not. I'll be completely honest with you. That's why we hired who we think is a wonderful engineering firm to help us think through this who does a lot of work up here around the lake. MR. FREER-So your realtor didn't say that you were buying swamp land, right? Just kidding. MR. CHRIMES-So, I don't know how to take your comment, but I'll tell you that I don't think we're buying a swamp land. I don't really appreciate the way you put that honestly. MR. FREER-Sorry. MR. CHRIMES-We're not buying a swamp land. We're buying a piece of property that's in the Adirondack Park and the Lake George Commission, the Lake George Park. We think it's beautiful. As you sit on the lot and you look around, you see the French Mountains to the right. You see off to the left, over towards, you know, the other side of Lake George, beyond Bay Road and beyond you, we don't see anything else. We love being a part of this community. We'd love to pay taxes up here, swamp land or other. MR. FREER-My comment, I'll retract my comment. 7 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/23/2016) MR. CHRIMES-1 appreciate that because I'm sorry, I didn't mean to react so strongly, but. MR. JACKOSKI-We know it's a difficult situation. MR. CHRIMES-Yes, we get that. MR. JACKOSKI-You are asking for a lot of relief in an environmentally critical area where wetlands are and we respect it and appreciate it, and we'd like to protect it. So when you're asking to go inside that buffer, it does raise red flags for us. MR. TABOR-Yes, no, we get that. We completely get that. As a matter of fact, we've been talking to Dave Deval on a regular basis, our Deputy Superintendent of Highways up here. We happen to live in Clifton Park today, because you may not know this, but there's a storm sewer, you know, runoff from the highway that has an easement that goes basically off to the side, which side of the property would it be? How would I describe it? MR. TABOR-East side. MR. CHRIMES-As you face the property on the right hand side, and here's the way it got set up. All the water from the neighborhood runs into that storm sewer, comes on to the property about 40 feet and floods the lot. MR. FREER-Not your lot. MR. CHRIMES-Yes, my lot. MR. JACKOSKI-I mean, I always thought that lot was not buildable but obviously it might be. MR. CHRIMES-So before we bought, we didn't have a realtor, by the way. This was a private sale, and we talked to the Town before we bought the lot and asked if it was an approved building lot and that was affirmed. So we took it on face value that when we got a representation from the community, if you will, that in an neighborhood that was approved 30 years ago that we were buying a piece of property that was approved for building a home on, that that's what we had. MR. JACKOSKI-Any other Board member questions at this time? There is a public hearing scheduled for this evening. Is there anyone, I'll open the public hearing. Roy, is there any written comment? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-There's no written comment. MR. JACKOSKI-Given no written comment, is there anyone here in the audience that would like to address this Board concerning this particular application? Seeing no one, maybe you could answer a few questions for us. In the buildable gray zone in which you identified, what is the maximum, I'm sorry, what is the maximum width where a home could be built in compliance with all of the setbacks and requirements of the deed restrictions, etc.? MR. CHRIMES-1 believe it's the end there on the left side of the plan, I believe it's 25 to 30 feet from that side. This area right here. I believe that that width right here is about seven feet wide at its widest. MR. JACKOSKI-And so if you've gotten this waiver, you could take that 25 to 30 feet and add another 30 feet to it. You can have a home that was 60 feet wide-ish? If you met the 20 foot setbacks and were in that deed restriction area plus the allowed buildable lot? MR. CHRIMES-Yes. MR. JACKOSKI-So a home could be built on the lot without these variances. MR. CHRIMES-1 think it could be built back in this area. However, I think it would start to conflict here with the neighbor's location, and I'm not sure the configuration would work with the driveway. I mean, obviously we'd have to take a look at all of that stuff, and you consider the stormwater and those types of things, but I guess at face value, yes, if you could put an encroach back into this 50 foot deed restriction that it's possible you could fit a wider house in that location. 8 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/23/2016) MR. HENKEL-Did they give you any indication how far you could come over more? Or is that what she told you that's it? MR. CHRIMES-Here's, for a moment if I could, just as a man on the street, somebody who's trying to build a house, answer that question for you guys. So as we stood there, we originally tried to site it back that way and tried to site it as compliantly as possible, and respecting the wetland and that puts basically two houses, one on a six acre lot and one on a three acre lot, almost door to door, and that's not, in my view, the character of the neighborhood. So what we tried to do was compromise as much as we could, again, to do plantings and all the rest and to respect the wetland and be careful about that and place the house in a spot that was respectful of our neighbor on the left hand side, to not have it be door to door. There are neighborhoods like that. We could have made that decision. It wasn't the decision we made, and we love those kind of neighborhoods. It's just not what we want to do today, and that's not what they wanted when they bought their house, and we were trying to respect that. So that's why we kind of shoved it down towards the wetland a little bit and towards the front. MR. HENKEL-What do you mean by door to door? I mean, I went to that property and walked around. I mean, that house is way off, well way behind you. MR. TABOR-It's right here in this location, and I think it's about 100 feet away from the property, maybe a little less from here to here. Their front door is right here, on this eastern side, and the way that the house would have to fit here, long way, similar, to the way we have it aligned now. The front door of the proposed house would literally be right, face to face. So the two houses would literally be facing one another which, and if you go, can you go one more forward, please. MR. HENKEL-But you're talking about at least 150 feet if not more than that. MR. TABOR-Yes, but if you're out on site, I mean, we were out on site looking at that exact thing and you're literally staring right at the house. It's not like it's, you know, pushed far way back. I mean, it's pretty in your face. There's nothing there, and there's some very, I don't know, these are 25, 30 foot tall pine trees right here, which provide an excellent buffer between the two. So that, I mean that, you know, like Ted said, we did think about locating the house back in that area, but we were trying to consider, you know, not only the wetland setbacks, but the septic, the stormwater, the neighbors and everything else that we possibly could in that location. If you stood there in the site where that house goes, at least in my mind I was kind of surprised at how close it looked. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Any other questions before I continue with the polling of the Board? I'm leaving the public hearing open. Does anybody want to go first on their thoughts on this particular application? MR. MC CABE-I took a look at it and it's a tough situation. To really fit the neighborhood you can't be putting a real small house in here, and I think that applicant has done a commendable job at trying to keep the character of the neighborhood and fit the house on a lot where there's restrictions, and so I would support this project. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. Any other volunteers? MR. NOONAN-I'll go. MR. JACKOSKI-Kyle. MR. NOONAN-I, too, feel that the applicant has presented us with a plan that is more than what we normally see, because you were aware of the situation you were getting in. Working with the LA Group to put this together, I do feel like you exhausted your possibilities with the lot to come forward with the best project that you could propose, and so I like your commitment to the environment with your engineering, you know, that you're looking forward to doing on this project. So I am in favor of this project. MR. FREER-I also will support this project. I think you have done a compromise of many constraints, and I think you're a little victimized by our, and I used the term swamp because that's how we used to talk about wetlands, all right, and so times change and what was, but, you know, they subdivided this, somebody subdivided this as a buildable lot, all right, in a pretty high scale kind of thing, and so you probably paid these guys more than you would have had to in 1987 if you had built on this lot. So I, too, think you tried to balance all of the environmental and neighborhood pieces to that. So I would support it. 9 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/23/2016) MR. JACKOSKI-John? MR. HENKEL-Yes, I also agree with my Board members. I think if you built too small of a house it would definitely be out of place in that area to try and make it fit in all the setbacks. I guess that's the best they could do. I would be for it also. MR. JACKOSKI-Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes, I'm in support of the project. I think it passes the balancing test. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. We have all our Board members acknowledging approval so I'm going to close the public hearing and seek a motion. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Ted and Shari Chrimes. Applicant proposes construction of a 4,398 sq. ft. (footprint) single-family dwelling on a vacant 2.76 acre lot. Relief requested from shoreline / wetland setback requirements. Planning Board: Site Plan Review required for hard surfacing within 50 ft. of a wetland; project occurs within the 100 ft. wetland area. SEQR Type 11 — no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, March 23, 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 design of the house basically fits the neighborhood. 2. Feasible alternatives are very limited and have been considered by the Board, but they're not particularly feasible. 3. The requested variance is not substantial because of the limitations of the lot. 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) The structure, in its final phase, will not encroach into the buffer zone by any more than 5% (square footage) of the plan as show to us on this particular day. 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 AREA VARIANCE NO. PZ-0087-2016, TED AND SHARI CHRIMES, Introduced by Michael McCabe, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Kyle Noonan: Duly adopted this 23rd day of March 2016 by the following vote: MR. JACKOSKI-Any further discussion? So, Staff, do we need to address the fact that while we've given this significant amount of relief in the buffer zone that should they not get the 50 foot waiver or however you want to call that, that this variance approval isn't to allow that amount of relief anywhere along that area, that it's based on how it's been presented to us at this time? 10 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/23/2016) MRS. MOORE-You're potentially approving the plan as submitted. MR. JACKOSKI-Correct. So the variance is based on how it is submitted, and if that house ends up moving north, for whatever reason, because of that 50 foot buffer or whatever, that we're not necessarily approving the variance for that amount of wetlands to be up there. What I'm trying to do is understand, you know, are we granting them all that relief, wherever it is on the parcel, or just as it's been presented today to us, given that we've looked at it, we don't have to have more driveway, we don't have to have all that kind of stuff. MRS. MOORE-I'm trying to think in advance. So there are times when some feature of the application is adjusted and that's the discussion between the Code Compliance Officer and the Zoning Administrator. I don't anticipate that in this case because of the amount of work that's been done and its location. MR. JACKOSKI-Well, can we make this a condition that it's based on that there are no adjustments, as you call them, to what's been presented to us this evening and then we're fine? MRS. MOORE-You can. I don't anticipate any additional maneuvering of the house, but I'd, say the porch needs to be adjusted a little bit. So I don't, I'm trying to, if you tie them to the exact submission they have, then there's no movement for the porch or any other features on that lot. MR. TABOR-If I may just add something just quickly to that. The intention is to build the house exactly where it is. Just in the normal course of construction it's going to be shifted slightly one way or the other. It will be no closer to the wetland than it currently is now. So there's 43 foot distance relief from the closest point of the house to the edge of the wetland. In no case will it be any closer than that. It may shift five feet to the north or five feet to the south or one way or another. Typically that, as Laura you said that happens sometimes, and it's a Code Compliance thing. If it were to be significant I would think that would be up to you guys to determine whether it was just something we would come back for, but there likely will be a little bit of adjustment to that foundation as it moves forward, but in no case will it be any closer than what is shown there. MR. JACKOSKI-And I think my concern is if you change the orientation of the house much more of it will be in this approved variance area, and that's what I'm trying to avoid. I understand what you've given us, that that closest point and the way it's orientated and we're minimizing our impact on the buffer, but you could change the orientation and have much more of the area of that house, and that bothers me. MR. CHRIMES-That we wouldn't do. I have no intention of changing the, so this is just me talking again. I'm not an engineer, I'm not an attorney, just a guy trying to build a house. The orientation we actually picked because we love kind of the view out the back of the house. So the back faces out to the wetland which is what we want, and so if you think about this way, that way, other than. MR. JACKOSKI-We're just trying to protect the buffer from as little development as possible and right now, with what it is now, but given that this variance runs with the land and it's not specific as to where on the land it runs, we're giving all of that relief on that side of the wetlands for whatever development you might request, and that's what I'm concerned with. If a second garage comes on to the property, is that allowed to be built in that buffer zone that we gave the variance on because they can build in that area? But it's a new structure, but if we granted it once, why don't we grant it again? And then there's more relief required within that buffer. MRS. MOORE-They'd have to come back before this Board. A new structure would have to come back before this Board. MR. JACKOSKI-If there's no concern with it we'll move on. No concern? MR. FREER-I mean, I would support a constraint if you can. MR. JACKOSKI-Wordsmith it. MR. FREER-Get it so that it can be clear and not tie their hands to no move. MR. JACKOSKI-All I'm saying is if they take this whole house and move it and locate it on, because of all that topography, and move it all there, there's a lot more of the house sitting in the variance area. MR. FREER-So can we say as essentially presented in the plans? 11 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/23/2016) MRS. MOORE-That word essentially. Yes. I guess what would happen. I guess you could use the word essentially. I'm still concerned that it's not a tangible word, I guess, it's not an enforceable word. MR. FREER-Okay. So what kind of, 10 feet either way or, you know? MR. URRICO-Based on the orientation of the house as currently presented. That's what we're approving. The basic orientation of the home as it's currently presented. MR. JACKOSKI-Or we could say no more than the currently plan amount of square footage or development within those wetland buffers, because then they could move the house wherever they want, but no more than that current square footage of that perimeter, whatever you want to call it, encroaching on that. MR. URRICO-Minimal encroachment. MRS. MOORE-That's fine. MR. JACKOSKI-Is that fair? MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. JACKOSKI-Is that fair? MR. CHRIMES-You guys are beyond me. So just to be, again, somebody trying to build a house. MR. JACKOSKI-Well, you have a representative here. So they've probably been dealing with this in the past. So our concern is no more than the overall footprint of the home is in that buffer zone than what's currently presented to this Board. MR. TABOR-Right. So what that means is if you have a footprint adjustment on one side, it would take up a little bit more of the area, it would have to come out of somewhere else. It would have to come back in front of the Board, if it were to increase the amount of square footage within the buffer zone. Now when you say buffer zone you're speaking about the area within 75 feet of the wetland. Yes, I think that that would be okay. I mean, if you want a sidebar we can go out back and discuss it a little more. MR. CHRIMES-Just, again, as the guy trying to build a house, can, in trying to join the community and trying to pay taxes, can you share with me the concern. I'm not sure I'm completely understanding, and I apologize. MR. FREER-Sure. Again, what used to be, you know, unbuildable has now become semi- sacred to people, and by the Code and by all of the Department of Environmental Conservation, Army Corps of Engineers, EPA, all of our laws require us to protect that, that wetlands for all kinds of legitimate reasons, and that's our charge, to try to minimize that. MR. CHRIMES-I don't disagree with any of that. MR. JACKOSKI-So all we're trying to do is, again, we've had applicants who come in and get the relief and then all of a sudden the whole project's built within that relief and shifted over there because of the topography and the hills and all that other stuff, and what we're saying is we're trying to minimize that opportunity to, you know, present it to us as minimally encroaching based on the orientation, but all of a sudden then you're building right on that hillside and it's all there, and that's too much going on in that buffer zone. So as presented we get it. We're okay with it, but if all of a sudden the house gets, because we don't have a way to restrict where you build within that variance, it's a problem. We're simply trying to protect the wetlands of the Town of Queensbury. MR. CHRIMES-I'm just thinking, you know, if the house changes, we're still in the design process, we didn't want to finish the design of the house. Look, we don't want to, I don't have any intention, this is just me talking as a member of the community, I don't have any intention of moving closer, Mark, as you said, right? But we're still in the design process. We do have a challenging process, as some of you had mentioned, and we respect that, and I didn't want to spend a ton of money on finishing the design until we knew we had a footprint that you guys and the Planning Board agreed was reasonable to take on. I don't know if that's the way to say it. 12 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/23/2016) MR. TABOR-1 guess if the plan rotates, if the building even rotates, you know, it could rotate, kind of getting back to what Laura said, it could rotate, you know, three degrees in one direction and that would increase the square footage. If that rotated, say, three degrees but you weren't any closer to the wetlands as you are now, if you rotated that three degrees you would theoretically increase the square footage of footprint within that buffer area. MR. JACKOSKI-So would you like us to give you an allowance of how much? MR. TABOR-Yes, a percentage or something like that. MR. JACKOSKI-Two and a half to three percent? MR. TABOR-1 guess. MR. MC CABE-Well, why don't we make it a little more reasonable. Why don't we make it 10%. MR. URRICO-I feel like we're throwing darts at a dart board. MR. MC CABE-Yes. MR. URRICO-I mean, the hesitation scares me, actually, more so than the presentation. Can't we just agree on. MR. CHRIMES-1 don't mean to hesitate. I've just never been involved in this process before. MR. URRICO-But your representative is hesitating, and that scares me, too. MR. TABOR-Well, but the reason I'm hesitating is because I've been through his process numerous times. MR. URRICO-And so have we. MR. TABOR-Right, no, I understand that, but the footprint is going to change slightly. There's no question about that. It will. It won't' change significantly, but I can't tell you. MR. URRICO-Is it going to bring the majority, is it going to bring more of the house within 43 feet of the buffer zone. MR. TABOR-It will not be any closer than 43 feet away. MR. URRICO-But what about more of the house? MR. TABOR-In terms of square footage of footprint, like I said, if that house changes one degree, you could have two additional square feet within that buffer area. Now I know that's splitting hairs. MR. URRICO-You've already gotten 32 feet of relief. MR. TABOR-Yes. MR. URRICO-So you're talking about another two feet. That's not insignificant. MR. FREER-No, you're talking about square foot. He's talking about two square foot. MR. URRICO-Still, it brings the house more of the house into that wetland. MR. TABOR-Well, I think at this point if the Board is comfortable with the language as you've presented it, two and a half to three percent, whatever that number is, then we're comfortable with that. I just, I mean, I'm hesitant because I think it could potentially significantly handcuff you. MR. JACKOSKI-But the other alternative is build a smaller house. I mean, we're not asking you to give up 5 or 600 or 1,000 square feet of house. We're asking you to assure us that you're not going to encroach anymore on the maximum impact on that buffer zone. Normally we don't give any relief. We're pretty restrictive. We're trying to work with you here. MR. TABOR-Okay. No, I completely understand that. I guess I'm just a little gun shy that's all, but no, that's. 13 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/23/2016) MR. JACKOSKI-And so are we, and we're getting more gun shy and that's what I'm worried about. MR. TABOR-Okay. MR. HENKEL-Because the house could be 4300 square feet or whatever and have no problem. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. MR. HENKEL-It still would fit in that neighborhood. Most of those houses are approximately that, right? MR. CHRIMES-Yes. I think some are probably bigger. The actual house is like 3,000 square feet. It's not some giant. It's a ranch. It's not a, it's a one story. We're planning on a ranch. It's not some giant house. When you get to the 4300, it includes all the other space right. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. So, Mike, is it possible for you to amend your motion slightly with a condition. MR. MC CABE-So I'll say the Board proposes the following conditions. The orientation of the house will not involve any more than, encroachment of any more than 10% of the, greater than the existing encroachment. MR. JACKOSKI-Of the square footage on the buffer zone, and did we agree to 10%? I thought we were at two to three percent. MR. MC CABE-No, I threw that out there. Two to three percent kind of restricts him too much. I'm saying 10%'s not going to hurt us that much. MR. JACKOSKI-Roy, what do you think? You're usually the voice of reason. MR. URRICO-I'm probably going to change my vote. I'm not comfortable with it any longer. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. How about we settle on five? All right. So the differential in square footage as presented can increase by no more than five percent on the square footage that is currently located in the buffer zone as presented on these maps. Is that fair, Laura? MRS. MOORE-It is. MR. MC CABE-Okay. So I'm going to amend my resolution and I'm going to add as follows. The Board also proposes the following conditions. That the structure in its final phase will not encroach into the buffer zone by any more than five percent of the plan as shown to us on this particular day. MR. JACKOSKI-That's fine. The plan square footage presented. That's perfectly fair. All right. We're all on board with that? MR. MC CABE-So based on the above, I make a motion to approve Area Variance PZ 87-2016. MR. JACKOSKI-Great. I do have a motion and it was amended. MRS. MOORE-I'm sorry, before you do that, I wanted to interject something. So in practice, this is unusual for us to see that. MR. JACKOSKI-Right. MRS. MOORE-Just make sure you're aware of that. I do on occasion, sometimes with the Planning Board in a subdivision we would see the clearing limit and the applicant could adjust that clearing limit location and still build their home within that clearing limit. So that is common in a Planning Board situation. In a Zoning Board situation this is something that, I have not seen you do that in the past. So the other opportunity is the applicant, you could approve it as presented, and if the applicant changes its orientation at all, it could come back before this Board. MR. JACKOSKI-But they weren't comfortable with that. They were hoping to get some leeway and not come back to us. So we're trying to give them a vehicle to do that. To move forward and not have to come back to us. 14 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/23/2016) MRS. MOORE-Right. So I'm just making sure, that's my observation. MR. JACKOSKI-Correct. MRS. MOORE-Okay. AYES: Mr. Freer, Mr. Henkel, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Noonan NOES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Jackoski ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl MR. JACKOSKI-You're through. Congratulations. Good luck. MR. CHRIMES-Thank you. AREA VARIANCE PZ-0095-2016 SEQRA TYPE II BRETT R. & PAMELA T. WEST AGENT(S) HUTCHINS ENGINEERING/BARTLETT, PONTIFF, STEWART & RHODES OWNER(S) BRETT R. & PAMELA T. WEST ZONING WR LOCATION 106 BAY PARKWAY, NORTHWEST POINT OF ASSEMBLY POINT APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 785 SQ. FT. 3-SEASON PORCH ADDITION — SHORELINE SIDE, AND 880 SQ. FT. OF NEW PORCHES AND A PORTE-COCHERE. PROJECT INCLUDES PERMEABLE DRIVEWAY, NEW SEPTIC SYSTEM, NEW STORMWATER MANAGEMENT, AN ALREADY CONSTRUCTED 158 SQ. FT. +/- DECK. PROJECT SUBJECT TO SEPTIC VARIANCE FROM TOWN BOARD OF HEALTH. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM SHORELINE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS FOR PREVIOUS CONSTRUCTED DECK AND NEW CONSTRUCTION, AND FOR A SECOND GARAGE WHERE ONLY ONE IS ALLOWED IN THE WR ZONING DISTRICT. PLANNING BOARD: SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR HARD SURFACING WITHIN 50 FT. AND EXPANSION IN A CEA. SP PZ-0089-2016; AV 47-2007; BP 2007-57 DOCK, DECK; BP 2007-359 RES. ALT.; BP 99-566 DOCK; BP 97-676 BOAT SHELTER, DOCKS & COVERED PORCH WARREN COUNTY PLANNING MARCH 2016 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY ALD LOT SIZE 0.96 ACRE(S) TAX MAP NO. 226.15-1-17 SECTION 179-3-040 JON LAPPER &TOM HUTCHINS, REPRESENTING APPLICANTS, PRESENT STAFFINPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance PZ-0095-2016, Brett R. and Pamela T. West, Meeting Date: March 23, 2016 "Project Location: 106 Bay Parkway, northwest point of Assembly Point Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a 785 sq. ft. 3-season porch addition — shoreline side, and 880 sq. ft. of new porches and a porte-cochere. Project includes permeable driveway, new septic system, new stormwater management, an already constructed 158 sq. ft. +/- deck. Project subject to Septic Variance from Town Board of Health. Relief Required: The applicant requests the following relief: Relief requested from shoreline setback requirements for previous constructed deck and new construction, and for a second garage where only one is allowed in the WR zoning district. Section 179-3-040 establishment of districts dimensional requirements Proposed three seasoned porch is to be 26.6 ft., porch to be 25.7 ft. and an already constructed deck is 19.6 ft., from the shoreline where a 50 ft. shoreline setback is required. Section 179-5-020 accessory structures -garage Proposed porte cochere is a second garage 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 15 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/23/2016) this area variance. The project may be considered to have minimal or marginal impact on the neighboring properties as the construction brings the home closer to the shore. 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 possible to reduce the overall size of the structure. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief 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 as proposed may be considered to have minimal impact on the environmental conditions of the site or area. The applicant has included new stormwater measures that did not exist prior and proposes a new septic system. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. The project as proposed may be considered self-created. Staff comments: The applicant proposes residential additions to an existing home. The additions will be on the shoreline and non-shoreline sides of the home. The relief requested may be considered moderate to substantial. The plans submitted show the location of the existing home and the additions, elevations area also included. The applicant's plans show new shoreline plantings, new septic system and stormwater measures for the driveway and around the home." MR. URRICO-And the Planning Board, based on its limited review, did not identify any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with the current project proposal, and that motion was approved on March 15th with a five to zero vote. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, Roy, and I just want to address for the record that I have used some of the current agents of the applicant as well as I do sit on a board with one of the owners' representatives this evening, but I see no conflict of interest on my part whatsoever. So welcome. Pretty straightforward application, very detailed. Is there anything you'd like to add now before the Board asks you questions? MR. LAPPER-We would. Thanks. For the record, Jon Lapper with Tom Hutchins, the project engineer and Andy Allison the project architect and Carol Merchant, who is Brett West's mom. We're here on behalf of Brett and Pam, but they're traveling. They had planned that we would have been on last week, the Planning Board, Zoning Board and we talked about this two months ago anticipating the agenda, and we were wrong, and we apologize that Brett couldn't be here, but he sent his mom to answer any questions because she has more specifics than we do if something comes up. So just to sort of put this in perspective, I'd like to just make some general comments and then I'll turn it over to Andy and Tom to talk about the details, but Brett grew up in Queensbury, moved to Connecticut to build his business and eight years ago this property became available. This was the Bob and Maggie Stewart property for many, many decades. The house is 75 years old. It was built in approximately 1840, and there are a lot of constraints on this property, obviously, in terms of the lake setback, and obviously we're here to make a nonconforming structure a little bit less nonconforming, but what's really going on here. MR. FREER-A little bit less nonconforming? MR. LAPPER-I'm sorry, a little bit more nonconforming, less nonconforming is only as to stormwater and I'll get to that. I apologize, I misspoke. Anybody else, or most people that put a beautiful piece of property like this on the lake on the point on Assembly Point would want to scrape the house and start all over again because it is an antiquated, although very classic architecture of this wood house, log house on the outside, wood house on the inside, and there is an area on the site that could accommodate a much larger house where what we're talking about is ultimately 17% floor area ratio where this could go to 22. So the lot would support a much larger house. That's not what Brett & Pam want to do. They really want to just tweak the house, keep the character and make what we hope you'll see are modest changes to make it more livable, but with the whole intent of keeping what's been there for 75 years there and just make it a little bit better. So they started out. They went to Andy. He'll talk about this a little bit more in terms of the program of what they could do, and he looked at this and said this can be removed and we have area to build another house here, but came up with this project instead to improve upon what's there, not adding any bedrooms, and some of the variances, although, you know, it's a list of variances that, for example, the porte cochere is over the 16 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/23/2016) existing driveway. So Queensbury is kind of unique where there's a limit on the number of garage stalls. Other municipalities don't have that. This isn't intended as a place, as a garage to use it as a garage. It's just an architectural feature to pull up in front of the house, you know, obviously in inclement weather to have a place to unload packages, but it's really just to make it look more attractive from the land side because that porte cochere in Queensbury requires a variance because it's considered a garage. So that's that explanation. In order to justify the variances that we're requesting, Brett was willing to remove the existing septic system which is, you know, still functioning but very antiquated and obviously doesn't meet Code, and replace it with three 2,000 gallon holding tanks which is, you know, an expense and an inconvenience for the owners, but obviously better for the lake, especially when you're on a point. So two weeks ago Tom and I went to the Town Board, acting as the Board of Health, to request a variance for holding tanks. We were very pleased that Chris Navitsky who is here today was supportive of that variance. It's obviously the right thing to do for this lot, and the Town Board unanimously approved that. At the same time, part of what's being proposed to make this a better project is to remove the existing impervious driveway and to replace it with a pervious driveway which will have stormwater infiltration. One of the variances we're asking for is because that stormwater infiltration doesn't comply fully with the depth to groundwater, but it's still much better than what you have here. It's another rare case where Chazen's letter reviewing this stormwater variance recommended and acknowledged that this is better for the site, and so we're making this site less impervious, as it relates to stormwater. So even though we're adding a little bit to the house, we're making it better. So it's 17% floor area ratio where you could have 22, and it's less impervious than it is to begin with. So in terms of the project itself, I spoke about what's on the non-lake side. On the lake side it's a three season room, and two porches. When we go through the design, it's really attractive but it's in keeping with what's there. Brett had looked into, the house is really, really hot, and so he had looked into whether or not they could add air conditioning and there was nothing that anybody could come up with that wouldn't affect the character of the house, inside or out, to air condition this because it's all, the logs on the outside and wood on the inside. So the real purpose of the three season room is just to create something that'll allow a breeze to make it less unbearable in the summer. The reason why it's being located where it's proposed is because to locate it on the south side would have impacted the, that's actually the west side, would have impacted the neighbor's view, and there it doesn't impact any of the neighbors. So the program was to try and be as modest as possible with the addition, and as careful in terms of the neighbors. That's how we got to where we are with the Planning Board. They grilled us and were very supportive last week, and obviously we got the septic variance from the Board of Health. So we're here to explain the variances and hope you'll see that although it may appear, to begin with, that we're getting closer to the lake and that might be significant, that this is really a very modest project. So I want to first turn it over to Andy to talk about the program for the house, and then Tom will go through the site statistics. ANDY ALLISON MR. ALLISON-Just for the record, Andy Allison with AJ Architecture and Planning. So Laura, can you pull the site plan back up. When Brett approached me back in the fall, he really came to me and said we really want a three season porch that we can add on. He really wanted to build a three season porch out on the point to really take advantage of the lake, the views, and we started talking about different opportunities and constraints and, you know, I told him I said if we're going to do something like that, you can't really just go ahead and keep on increasing impervious area here, so you need to find ways to mitigate that if you're going to have a chance of making this a good project, and as we were standing there, it happened to be raining that day, and we walked around here and I sort of stood right around in here where there's about eight or ten inch deep puddle of water that was sort of had a nice sheen of oil on top of it because of all the water that runs down Bay Parkway here and catches right on the asphalt driveway and runs across and just picks everything up and then it sifts into a yard drain that's right here which is in a PVC pipe that goes right to the lake. So that's where most of this water flow happens, and then I asked him about where the septic was, which sits over here, which as many of you know there's a stream that drains most of Assembly Point, and that is sitting right on the edge of the leach field, literally within 20 feet. You really have an opportunity out here to make the whole site better. If we're going to do something like that we can try to offset that burden by addressing out here and he was all for it almost immediately without compromise. So I commended him on that, and the more I look at this project, you know, when we're designing we are always concerned about the same things the Board is which is water quality, Number One. We're also worried about impact to our neighbors, Number Two, and then out here one of our neighbors has every boat that's on the lake so we're worried about that as well, and I said, well, out of all three of those things, the one that, as a designer, I have the most control over is what this thing will look like. So I need to find some ground that will let me put this thing in the right place that will mitigate what's going on with the site to the neighbors, and if you look on your plans it says 40 feet to the neighbor's house. The neighbor's corner house sits right about here. So when we started talking about the addition being up in this zone, it really was going to 17 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/23/2016) be right in their view shed of the islands and even looking up north on the lake. So we talked about pushing it over here to the side, which presented a lot of design challenges to make that look good, but I thought we could be okay with that, and then we also looked at this side of the lake as well, and he's already sort of out here. So we really tried to keep it as close as possible to the encroachments that exist there right now, and the reality of what happens on this site, by geology and hydrology, it's probably the part of the site that's only impacted by what's happening on that site. It's not taking water from anywhere else, and so as I designer I started looking at this and I said, you know, if we really came back here and built a much larger structure and building that structure in the one area where I right now have pervious capabilities, and if I start taking up this land for building, it's actually much more detrimental to the water quality than to take up land out here. Now, yes, you could always come back and say, well, don't do anything, that would be great. Then we don't get this, and right now it's not good. What's going on out there is not good, and there's no burden to fix that. So what we looked at is really the burden is we want to address this, but we need to make this house so it has a little bit of extra square footage, and initially it was much bigger. Initially this thing started off being, you know, sort of rectangular in shape because that's what we always think of, and we said, well, if we start cutting the corners off it's going to make the view shed less of an impact from the boats because now it's not so massive and you can see that in the renderings that we produced. Also by cutting the corners, this view from here, you know, their view really pulls it back, but when we were back in here it was massive. So we've been through multiple design iterations in the last six months to get this thing so it's as, one, it provides the biggest benefit we can to this site, in terms of hydrology. Number Two, it's the least amount of impact that you could possibly do building on that site to any of the neighbors' views, and, three, it's actually probably a great improvement to the way the house looks from this side from the boats because this is quite a hodgepodge over on this side right now. The porte cochere is also an aesthetic improvement that the actual roadside of that house looks like the back of the house. It's not very warm or welcoming. It's kind of just sort of cut off very squat. So the porte cochere I guess is that more than anything. So can you find the rendering real quick, and I certainly would go for answering any questions about the plan, but it's really just an outdoor living room. There's a small wet sink there. So that will be back into the house, but there's no other, there's nothing really there. There's a little bit of, there's a modest amount of heat in the floor. We have a little bit of radiant heat, but the building is not insulated. So it's not meant to be sleeping area or four season. Do you have the rendering one from the lakeside? So this is the existing condition from the lake, and it looks like summer but the white is actually snow. That was the day after New Year's Eve when we took this photo, and you can see it's just a small, small building. We really tried to maintain that character. At one point we talked about, what if we added a second story on top of this thing and put a nice big living room up there that had nice views, 360 degree views, and that would really ruin the interior character of that building. This building, on the inside, has a big cathedral ceiling up here right now which really acts kind of like an internal solar panel that just heats the house up. If you can go to the next slide, and then the addition, you can see this octagon shape that we came up with. It's quite nice how it just tucks in, and in character it's very similar to the project that was done on the other Assembly Point which actually used to be my in-law's house before they sold that, but that has the same character. They came out on their property and built a little four season porch. This one is only three season, and the reason it works for Brett & Pamela is this, it's really, it's all open glass. These doors are meant to be open all summer long, and it gives them a place to be under cover in the middle of the summer when it's really hot inside the house, and this is a way to do it without having to put in a massive air conditioning system that won't work anyway because it's a true log house, you know, it's log outside, log inside, and to insulate that house in any significant manner would either ruin the outside or ruin the inside, and it's not the right thing to do. I'll let you do the hydrology numbers. MR. HUTCHINS-For the record, I'm Tom Hutchins. I'm going to just briefly touch on what I think are the three major benefits from a site perspective that were shown here. First is replacement of an antiquated septic system that's, it's really undocumented. There's no documentation. We know it's generally about here. It's close to the lake, very close to the drainage area, and, yes, it works, but it's antiquated. This project presents us the opportunity to replace that with a fully compliant system, granted with variances, but the variances from the local board of health are in hand, and we've located, the septic system is on the highest point of the property, but the highest point of the property is around elevation 326, and we know mean high water is 320.2. So this is a relatively flat site. There's not a lot of relief, and this allows us to get a system in the most beneficial area of the site and maximize the setback. The second item is removal of an existing asphalt drive. There are inherent drainage issues there, and they're completely removing the asphalt drive and replacing it with permeable pavers, which manage stormwater both running off the pavers but running through the pavers, as well an any adjacent areas that may run to the pavers, which formerly were treated by the four inch PVC pipe that directs to the lake, which will be removed, and thirdly we've installed stormwater controls around the lakeside perimeter of the house which will provide some infiltration from 18 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/23/2016) rooftop runoff from the house which presently doesn't exist. So we've got a net reduction in impermeable area from 21% to 19%, and floor area ratio is at 17% and with that I'd turn it back to the Board for questions. MR. JACKOSKI-Are there any Board member questions at this time before I open it up for a public hearing? MR. HENKEL-The only question I have is what about the sheds. I mean, I know the one shed has to be there for the water pump for the lake, right? MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. HENKEL-That's the one closest, and then you've got two other ones there. MR. LAPPER-And one of them is the log, firewood that's really, you know, classic design to match what's there. So anticipating that that would be a question, I kind of pushed Brett hard and he said that in addition to giving up the gazebo, which is going away, of course, that the shed next to the garage would be something, you know, he likes to have that because that's where they have the bicycles and the kids' play equipment, but if he had to give that up, he said he could give that up. MR. ALLISON-And the one that's closer to the lake it actually a, it's a historic lean-to, you know, it was built the same time period, or near the same time period as the home. It's the same construction. MR. HENKEL-That houses the pump. MR. ALLISON-No, the other shed. MR. LAPPER-The firewood. MR. ALLISON-On the south side there. MRS. MOORE-So this is the pump area? MR. LAPPER-On top. MR. JACKOSKI-It's way up. Straight up. MR. HENKEL-Right there. MRS. MOORE-This is the lean-to. MR. LAPPER-And that's the one that can go. MR. JACKOSKI-Any other Board member questions before I open the public hearing? I'll open the public hearing at this time. Is there any written comment? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-There is no written comment. MR. JACKOSKI-Having no written comment, and seeing the Water Keeper out there, I don't know, Mr. Water Keeper, would you like to address the Board? Please. CHRIS NAVITSKY MR. NAVITSKY-Thank you. Chris Navitsky, Lake George Water Keeper. We do recognize that the applicant's proposal does propose stormwater management measures such as permeable pavers, and the new septic holding tank which can all provide water quality benefits and we appreciate that being part of the plan. We would hope that that would be, that these could actually be two separate plans and that that would go ahead anyway. However, the Water Keeper does have concerns about the continued encroachment into the Critical Environmental Area surrounding Lake George and the protection zone and the potential impacts that this may have on natural conditions. We heard the presentation by the applicant's agent, but we do feel that there are alternatives available for the porch other than a shoreline variance and possibly that those could be presented. Three season porch location is within the shoreline setback and increases impervious area within the Critical Environmental Area around 19 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/23/2016) the Lake. There are alternatives available that include relocating the porch to the center of the western side and/or decreasing the size of the porch. This allows the applicant to achieve the goal of additional space while eliminating or reducing variances requested. There will be impacts to the environment from granting the shoreline variance for the proposed porches. The adoption of the shoreline setback was to protect the exceptional water quality and natural resources of Lake George and is the basis of the establishment of the Critical Environmental Area surrounding the lake. The encroachment of impervious surfaces within the setback alters natural resources, removes soils and vegetation within the critical area surrounding the lake which will have impacts. The stormwater management is proposed, but it should be noted that it will be within 21 feet of the lake and that there is concern about a limited depth to groundwater as provided during the septic variance hearing. The applicant should consider alternatives which may include surface capturing such as rain gardens to be more effective. We'd recommend that the Town of Queensbury Zoning Board request the applicant to provide an alternative so that you can see what those alternatives may be in regards to the shoreline variance setback request. Thank you. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, Mr. Navitsky. Is there anyone else here this evening who'd like to address this Board concerning this application? Seeing no one, if the applicant wants to join us back, and for the students that are in the audience, you don't have to stay for the rest of the meeting, we can tell you you can go if you wish. So, I can't imagine why you'd want to stay here any longer, but feel free to. So if you could address some of the Water Keeper's comments, please. MR. LAPPER-And we feel, like with all variances, this is a balancing test. It's about the benefit versus the burden, and we think that, although these are modest improvements to the house, it's a great benefit in terms of the usability of the house, of the property, and we do feel like there've been a lot of careful decisions made to try and get the minimum variance, but in terms of the balance, what Tom and Andy went through with the stormwater and the septic, we think those are really great benefits for the lake, and I understand that, you know, Chris has to take that position on any project that encroaches on a setback, but, you know, he supported the septic and he said that tonight, and I think that's really what this is. It's a proposal that's a compromise that does a lot of good things for the lake and it's still just a modest addition to the house. What we didn't mention, what we should have, is that we are proposing additional plantings along the lake. So I'm going to have Tom address that. MR. HUTCHINS-Yes, we've shown an area of buffering plantings. The actual landscaping plan hasn't been completely finalized at this point, but we have shown plantings to the north at the closest area, which would be shoreline buffer type plantings, and with regard to Chris' comments on the stormwater, the variance requested for stormwater has primarily to do with the permeable driveway, and I hope you received the comment letter from your engineer and hopefully you had a chance to read it, and what they had highlighted on there. I won't read it direct, but that they recognized that this plan does reduce the impervious area of the site and does provide stormwater management in the areas where none exists presently, and will be considered a vast improvement with regards to stormwater, and that's really what we're trying to accomplish here. As you know, stormwater management for driveways is by ordinance 100 feet from the lake. It's supposed to be 100 feet from the lake, and that's one of the variances we're asking for. We can build a house 50 feet from the lake but it's hard to site stormwater 100 feet from the lake in certain situations, and we believe that this is a vast improvement, as well as the, we've shown infiltration trenches around the perimeter of the house, shallow trenches, and that's what we thought was best. It does maximize the distance from the lake and it treats the stormwater as close to the source as possible. MR. LAPPER-And you have to compare it to what's going on now where it's all running untreated into the lake. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Thank you. MR. HENKEL-Yes, because you go there, can you move that back to where it used to be in the lake there? Years ago there used to be a little porch out there. MR. JACKOSKI-At the end of the dock. MR. HENKEL-At the end of the dock. MR. LAPPER-That's gone. MR. JACKOSKI-So can you, Mr. Lapper, can you confirm that in the application, regarding setback requirements, shoreline existing, the existing deck is 19.6 feet from the shoreline? 20 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/23/2016) MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. LAPPER-And the new proposal which you have in front of us has no closer encroachment to the lake than 25.7 feet. Correct? Which is an improvement, correct? MR. LAPPER-Yes, it's 25.7 to the closest, yes. MR. JACKOSKI-To the porch. So there is an improvement there. Correct? MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. JACKOSKI-So we're not as close with development as we currently are with the future plan. MR. LAPPER-Right. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. MR. FREER-So you're talking about that deck on the top is closer? That's coming off? MR. LAPPER-No, that's staying. So we're not getting as close. MR. FREER-You're not getting as close as that deck. MR. ALLISON-This is the 19 foot setback, and this, when we extended this porch on here, that's at 25 feet. The part of the thing I didn't explain was that this porch on the front, this house takes an absolute beating from the northern winds in the winter, and it gets ice that piles up three or four feet on the wood and it's starting to rot out the wood. So that was the, that's really the reason for these overhangs is to get us some relief and hopefully preserve that historic wood on those two sides. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. MR. ALLISON-An then in here we're about 26 feet. MR. HENKEL-You're also putting some deep trenches of crushed stone in around that whole border there. So that's kind of a nice. MR. ALLISON-Yes. The other thing we did with the rooflines, Chris, this kind of gets to your point. The original design was a rectangle that came out this way with a ridge that ran this direction, and what we didn't like about that was it took 50% of all the roof load and put it on that area where we had the least amount to deal with it so this octagonal shape, which comes at cost, and we spent a few late nights with how to make it look great, but that house, it takes smaller areas of the roof and sheds them all off from different directions. So now instead of having whatever it was, 350 square feet of roof all shedding into one zone, we now have much smaller pieces of that shedding into the small zones and the stone drip edges all heading off the roofline. So everything falls into that and permeates into those. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Thank you. MR. URRICO-Is there any way to shave a little bit of the permeability? I know it's only a little bit more than it is now, but it was almost four percent greater than what was required before, 75% was required and it was 70.7 was existing, and now we've gone up just a little bit more, but now it's almost six percent, seven percent more than. Is there any way to shave a little bit off that? MR. LAPPER-I'm just, I'm not sure that I understood. We're making it better for permeability. MR. URRICO-Okay. I'm getting 80.9%. Right? Okay. Sorry, I'm misreading this. MR. JACKOSKI-The number's got to go up to be better, down to be worse. MR. URRICO-Sorry. MR. LAPPER-That was a trick question. MR. URRICO-Yes. 21 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/23/2016) MR. JACKOSKI-Any other questions from Board members? The public hearing is still open and I know there's no one else in the audience who wishes to address this Board on this application. I'll poll the Board at this time. Anyone want to volunteer to go first? MR. NOONAN-I'll go first. MR. JACKOSKI-Kyle? MR. NOONAN-Well, Mr. Lapper said it but I was thinking it's a compromise. The evidence, you know, presented from Mr. Allison about the standing water and with the water slick going right into the lake, which I wouldn't have known that, then where the septic is near a stream and runoff. I can only imagine it would make that entire area better for the lake. So granted there's a few, there's some give, there's some take in this one, again, I think it's going to be an overall benefit to the lake. I'd be in favor. MR. JACKOSKI-Mike? MR. MC CABE-1 think when I consider what we're giving up, allowing a structure to be within the boundaries closer to the lake, and allowing a second garage I don't think is as bad as the benefit that we're getting from a defined septic system and a more positive way to control the standing water on the site. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, Mike. MR. HENKEL-I like the project just the way, and it's nice that they're keeping a house there, a log house that's been there for so many years instead of tearing it down, they could build something much larger, and the only thing I don't really care for is the extra shed there, but I mean, I'd go with the project. The permeability's great. It looks good. They've done a lot of pluses with the septic system with the stormwater management. So I'd be definitely in favor of it, too. MR. JACKOSKI-Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes, I'm actually familiar with this house from its prior occupants and I didn't think there was much you could do to improve it, but I think you have. I believe that you've kept the nature of the house and still made some improvements that improve the quality within the Code. So I would be in favor of it. MR. JACKOSKI-Harrison? MR. FREER-Well, I think that you could try a little harder to stay away from the lake, and so I'd like, you know, I'd like to see you squeeze a few more feet back from the southwest corner. You could do that by thinking about how you'd do that, and just shrinking the octagon shape another couple of feet and get some more relief on the most critical part of the lake. so I'm going to listen to the rest of my colleagues before I decide how I'm going to vote. MR. JACKOSKI-You're going to make me talk? MR. FREER-Yes. MR. JACKOSKI-So I think the agents certainly know that I'm pretty rigid on the setback requirements regarding the shoreline and this is a balancing test and this is one of those applications where I commend the applicant for not overdeveloping the property and tearing it down and keeping the integrity of old Lake George. I think that's very critical to the neighborhood. So I don't think there's an undesirable change in the neighborhood character by doing this small addition where they've oriented it. I think in fact the neighbors will be pleased that the house isn't becoming a McMansion. So that's impressive., I don't think it truly is substantial as a whole, as the project as a whole because of so much of the offset that we're getting with the improved permeability, with the addressing of a new septic system that will be Code compliant to today's standards with the holding tanks, etc., and the fact that you've identified and addressed the stream that runs along that east boundary and how that's going to be handled, plus getting rid of that four inch PVC drainage pipe. So, balancing wise, I always pay attention to that shoreline setback and I don't like encroaching on it ever, but I do see the benefits of this project because as Mr. Raymond suggested, I think it was Mr. Raymond, you know, the burden of stewardship to fix those problems that are there now isn't required, and so the applicants did make a nice effort here to do the right thing for the lake and the community and address some issues that quite frankly aren't his because they're coming off the road. So 22 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/23/2016) I'm going to be in favor of this. I know that's a little bit of a departure on my part, but I do see the benefits to the balancing test here on this one. MR. LAPPER-1 have a procedural point before you make a resolution. Because this is in the Adirondack Park and it's a shoreline variance, hey have the right to look at it, and their standard is still the practical difficulty standard. So if you could just recite in any approval resolution the practical difficulty here as we see it is that we have an existing home located close to the lake, as it was permitted to be in 1940, and because we're trying to maintain the architectural integrity and not penetrate the house with air conditioning, that the practical difficulty is adding a three season room for temperature control, but we're constrained by the location of the house on the site. So if you could just incorporate that into the resolution as well, we'd appreciate it, just so that's clear. MR. JACKOSKI-We'll attempt to do that, and I'm still looking for Harrison's thoughts on the project. MR. FREER-Yes, so I'm going to vote no, just because I think that the Iakeshore setback relief is something that we're charged to be vigilant with. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Having polled the Board, I'm going to close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. JACKOSKI-And seek a motion. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Brett R. & Pamela T. West. Applicant proposes construction of a 785 sq. ft. 3-season porch addition — shoreline side, and 880 sq. ft. of new porches and a porte-cochere. Project includes permeable driveway, new septic system, new stormwater management, an already constructed 158 sq. ft. +/- deck. Project subject to Septic Variance from Town Board of Health. Relief requested from shoreline setback requirements for previous constructed deck and new construction, and for a second garage where only one is allowed in the WR zoning district. Planning Board: Site Plan Review for hard surfacing within 50 ft. and expansion in a CEA. SEQR Type 11 — no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, March 23, 206; 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 basically the character of the old home was maintained. 2. Feasible alternatives have been considered but found not to be reasonable or possible because of the attempts to incorporate the new design such that it didn't interfere with the old design of the home. It was a difficult situation because the three season home was designed to eliminate the necessity or the requirement for air conditioning in the summertime. 3. The requested variance is not substantial because this property has existed in essentially this orientation for quite a period of time. 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; Further the practical difficulty of the project application is to add a three season room to be constrained by the existing location. 23 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/23/2016) BASED ON THE ABOVE FINDINGS, I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. PZ-0095-2016 BRETT R. & PAMELA T. WEST, Introduced by Michael McCabe, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Kyle Noonan: Duly adopted this Wednesday, March 23, 2016 by the following vote: MR. JACKOSKI-Is there any further discussion? MRS. MOORE-Do you want to add to the practical difficulty, maybe this would be a suggestion. Further the practical difficulty of the project application is to add a three season room to be constrained by the existing location. MR. JACKOSKI-Is that fair? MR. MC CABE-That's what I meant to say. I'll amend my resolution to include what Laura said. AYES: Mr. Henkel, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Noonan, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Jackoski NOES: Mr. Freer ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl MR. JACKOSKI-And thank the applicant for doing what they've done to the point. MR. LAPPER-Thank you. We really appreciate it. AREA VARIANCE PZ-0084-2016 SEQRA TYPE II LARRY CLUTE OWNER(S) LARRY CLUTE ZONING MDR LOCATION 32 DIVISION ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 20 FT. BY 20 FT. GARAGE ADDITION TO AN EXISTING 26 FT. BY 48 FT. SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM SIDE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS FOR THE MDR ZONING DISTRICT. CROSS REF RC-000263-2015 SFD; BP 2015-304 DEMO MH WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 0.47 ACRE(S) TAX MAP NO. 308.19-1-20 SECTION 179-3-040 LARRY CLUTE, PRESENT STAFFINPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance PZ-0084-2016, Larry Clute, Meeting Date: March 23, 2016 "Project Location: 32 Division Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a 20 ft. by 20 ft. garage addition to an existing 26 ft. by 48 ft. single-family dwelling. Relief Required: The applicant requests the following relief: Relief requested from side setback requirements for the MDR zoning district. Section 179-3-040 establishment of districts dimensional requirements Proposed garage addition does not meet the south side setback where 25 ft. is required and 10.4 ft. is proposed. 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. 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 due to the size of the parcel and location of the existing home. 24 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/23/2016) 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief may be considered moderate relevant to the code. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The project 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 a 400 sq. ft. garage addition to an existing home. The information submitted shows an elevation with a one door garage. The applicant has indicated it is similar to neighboring properties." MR. JACKOSKI-Welcome, Mr. Clute. MR. CLUTE-How are we tonight? MR. JACKOSKI-We're well. Do you have anything to add, or can we just ask questions? MR. CLUTE-Questions, please. MR. JACKOSKI-Any Board member questions at this time before I open the public hearing? When was the house actually built? MR. CLUTE-Within the last six months. It was actually the BOCES modular, the fifth one I've done for Warren County. MR. JACKOSKI-And has this property been in front of this Board before? MR. CLUTE-Not that I'm aware of. I ended up with the property. It had a dilapidated trailer on it that I had to remove. MR. JACKOSKI-And so when you sited the BOCES house, was there a reason why you didn't allow for a garage at the time and this would have centered the entire project instead of just the house first then the garage? MR. CLUTE-I don't have the survey in front of me, but I hugged the setback line. The MDR requirements are pretty tough in these pre-existing neighborhoods, 100 foot width on the lot, we hugged the one side, which is at the 25 foot mark, left me 30 foot on the other side, and to be honest with you, at the time I did the home, I inherited the home. It's a modular. So it comes as is. It's not a stick built. So I was just going to finish it as I've done always, and market it as such, and during the marketing clients kept on asking over and over again, can you do a garage, can you do a garage, and obviously the answer is yes, but I've got to come for a variance, and the variance would have to be approved in order to accomplish it, but anyway, the centering of the home was the best that was able to be done with the particular design that BOCES builds. Did I answer that question? That seemed awfully long. MR. JACKOSKI-I guess the real question is your home now is a total, with the garage. MR. CLUTE-The home is 48 foot wide. MR. JACKOSKI-Plus 24? MR. CLUTE-Yes, sir. MR. JACKOSKI-So that's 72, and that 72 feet could have been centered on the overall width of the lot, thus reducing the encroachment closer to one side than the other. MR. CLUTE-No. It was already, you have a width of a lot, and you've got 25 foot setbacks to either side. I hug that one 25 foot. MR. JACKOSKI-I understand, but you could have moved the house into that 25 feet to more center the garage and the house on the lot. 25 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/23/2016) MR. CLUTE-If I'd have come previous, yes, in other words, could I have done? Yes, I could have. MR. JACKOSKI-So that's what I was asking is why, at the time you sited the house, there really was no anticipation of a garage? MR. CLUTE-No. There wasn't. At the time it was just a, the neighborhood price point is very modest. So at the time the garage, I wanted to be at a particular price point and the garage actually puts it above that particular price point, and then the expediency of BOCES needing to get their modular off their site at a particular time prompted me, I've got to put this box on this lot where I can. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Any other questions from Board members? Hearing none, I'll open the public hearing at this time. Is there any written comment? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-There's no written comment. MR. JACKOSKI-No written comment. Is there anyone here in the audience who'd like to address this Board concerning this application? Seeing no one, I'll poll the Board. I'll start with Kyle. MR. NOONAN-No, I'm fine with the project. I guess I got spoiled with the last two in front of us in plans. This is a little more simple. I got it. I'm okay with the project. MR. JACKOSKI-Harrison? MR. FREER-Yes. I can live with this. It would have been nice, as the Chairman indicated, that we try to spread out the pain in terms of side variances, but I think that the ship has left the harbor. MR. JACKOSKI-John? MR. HENKEL-Yes. Most of the houses around there are pretty much similar, close to the side setbacks. It would have definitely been better planning, like Mr. Jackoski said, but I'd be for it, yes. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Mike? MR. MC CABE-1 think the addition of a garage improves the overall appearance of the house on the property and therefore I'd support the project. MR. JACKOSKI-Roy? MR. URRICO-I'm in favor of the project. I think it passes the balancing test. MR. JACKOSKI-I'll close the public hearing and seek a motion. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. NOONAN-I'll make a motion. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, Kyle. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Larry Clute. Applicant proposes construction of a 20 ft. by 20 ft. garage addition to an existing 26 ft. by 48 ft. single-family dwelling. Relief requested from side setback requirements for the MDR zoning district. SEQR Type 11 — no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, March 23, 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: 26 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/23/2016) 1. There is not an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood nor a detriment to nearby properties. 2. Feasible alternatives have been discussed, coming in to get a variance earlier or coming in now. 3. The requested variance is not substantial. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district? 5. The alleged difficulty is considered self-created because you did not have to add a garage. 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-0084-2016 LARRY CLUTE, Introduced by Kyle Noonan, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Michael McCabe: Duly adopted this 23 d day of March 2016 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Henkel, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Freer, Mr. Noonan, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl MR. JACKOSKI-Good luck, Larry. Thank you. SIGN VARIANCE NO. PZ-0097-2016 SEQRA TYPE UNLISTED LANDMARK SIGNS AND GRAPHICS ANTHONY L. MISHOE AGENT(S) LANDMARK SIGNS AND GRAPHICS OWNER(S) TOM HOFFMAN ZONING CI LOCATION 730 GLEN STREET APPLICANT PROPOSES TO UTILIZE AN EXISTING FREESTANDING SIGN POLE WHILE REMOVING THE EXISTING SIGN BLOCK AND REPLACING IT WITH A NEW 77 SQ. FT. SIGN-BLOCK TO ACCOMMODATE 3 TENANTS IN THE BUSINESS PLAZA. IN ADDITION, THE HEIGHT OF THE FREESTANDING SIGN IS PROPOSED TO BE 24 FT. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE SIGN SIZE AND HEIGHT FOR SUCH SIGN IN THE CI ZONING DISTRICT. CROSS REF SIGN PERMIT BOTH-060-2016; BP 2013-175 SIGN HANK'S QUALITY FLOORING; BP 2004-367 JACK'S FS SIGN; BP 2006-804 SPRINT FS SIGN WARREN COUNTY PLANNING LOT SIZE 1.16 ACRE(S) TAX MAP NO. 302.6-1-54 SECTION CHAPTER 140 ANTHONY MISHOE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFFINPUT Notes from Staff, Sign Variance PZ-0097-2016, Landmark Signs and Graphics, Meeting Date: March 23, 2016 "Project Location: 730 Glen Street Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to utilize an existing freestanding sign pole while removing the existing sign block and replacing it with a new 77 sq. ft. sign-block to accommodate 3 tenants in the business plaza. In addition, the height of the freestanding sign is proposed to be 24 ft. Relief Required: The applicant requests the following relief: Relief requested from maximum allowable sign size and height for such sign in the Cl zoning district. Section 140 signage 27 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/23/2016) The applicant proposes to remove the signage block on an existing pole to place a 77 sq. ft. sign block where the maximum allwed is a 45 sq. ft. sign. The sign is also proposed to be 24 ft in height where the maximum allowed is 20 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. Minor impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated as the sign is larger than allowed. 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 considered to reduce the size of the signage or lower the sign. 3. Whether the requested sign 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. Minor to no impact to the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood may be anticipated. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. The difficulty may be considered self- created. Staff comments: The applicant proposes a 77 sq. ft. sign for the advertisement of 3 tenants in a plaza. The applicant has indicated that it is similar to the adjacent plaza sign." MR. JACKOSKI-Welcome. MR. MISHOE-My name is Tony Mlshoe. MR. JACKOSKI-Tony, is there anything you'd like to add to this application or can Board members just ask questions? MR. MISHOE-You can just ask questions. MR. JACKOSKI-Any Board member questions at this time? MR. NOONAN-I have a couple of questions. So Jack's and Sprint is there now. You want to add Hank's. What if you wanted to add Sherwin Williams, the hockey, the Chinese food restaurant, all of those? How high are we going to go and how low are we going to go with the sign, considering the current dimensions you're giving each tenant. MR. MISHOE-Well, the businesses that you're referencing, that's in the other plaza. MR. NOONAN-So that's not part of your? MR. MISHOE-No, it's not. MR. NOONAN-Okay. MR. MISHOE-There's a sign. MR. NOONAN-Yes, because there's a driveway in between the two buildings, isn't there? MR. MISHOE-Yes, and this particular building, that's all they allow for tenants. That's the only space that's left. MR. NOONAN-Thank you. Sorry for my oversight on the fact that that is a different piece of property. MR. JACKOSKI-And it should be noted that it is all owned by the same owner. 28 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/23/2016) MR. NOONAN-Okay. MR. JACKOSKI-Not that I know anything about that parcel. MR. HENKEL-Anyway, would it cost anything to drop it down to the 21, a few feet, 21 feet? MR. MISHOE-Well, the roofline is what's the concern because we can't really come down anymore, and the sign is pushed back purposely to allow cars to pull in. You've got a big truck, something would hit the sign, and it's really close to the road. MR. FREER-So those two signs, are you going to re-use those signs or are they totally different? MR. MISHOE-No, the width is the same, well, the sign on the top, the existing sign, Jack's Bistro sign is 36 inches tall and 7 feet wide. The Sprint sign is 30 inches tall. That was the sign when Victory Lane was there. So that sign is going to, the new size is going to be 36. It's going to be equal, all sides would be equal size, you know, 36, 36 and 36 in height. MR. JACKOSKI-What are the heights of the signs in the other plaza that you're referencing? MR. HENKEL-Sherwin Williams' is quite a bit higher than the Hank's. MR. JACKOSKI-Well, the overall signpost is, but what are the overall heights of the actual sign boards for each of the individual stores in that plaza? MR. MISHOE-Well, they're a little bit smaller because there are more spaces in that plaza, and I think I may have that. MR. JACKOSKI-Do you know what I'm getting at, Staff, that the signs for Sherwin Williams and the Chinese restaurant and Sports Zone, those signs are only like two feet tall each. MR. MISHOE-1 think so, well, actually they're less than that I think. MRS. MOORE-Yes, I don't know what their square footage is. MR. FREER-So you're making Jack's sign taller than it is now, right? MR. MISHOE-No, Jack's sign now is 36 inches tall. MR. FREER-Yes, but you're putting something on top of it. MR. MISHOE-Well, that's the name of the plaza. MR. FREER-Which wasn't on there before. MR. MISHOE-Correct. Right, because the Sherwin Williiams' plaza. This is Jack's. MR. URRICO-I'm really concerned that this sign is so big compared to what's there now, or what's allowed. Is there any way to reduce the sign so that the three tenants are displayed but it's not as big as it is. MR. MISHOE-Well, the Jack's Bistro sign I think was recently purchased, which are illuminated channel letters, which will be, I think, a big expense to him to reduce his sign. We're just taking his existing sign and sliding it inside of a new sign cabinet, and I think that could be significant expense for him to re-make that sign. MR. URRICO-And he also has a sign on the building as well, right? MR. MISHOE-Yes, I think there's channel letters. MR. URRICO-All three businesses also have wall signs? MR. MISHOE-Yes, sir. MR. URRICO-So I still think you have to take a look at Sprint and Hank's and maybe take out the address to reduce that sign, because it's really, we're talking about 30 feet, 30 square feet. 29 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/23/2016) So you're talking about 32 square feet that we have to give you relief for, and we're trying to keep signs, especially on Route 9, minimized as much as possible. MR. FREER-So the Jack's sign that you said you're going to re-use, if you go back to the other picture, it doesn't have the name on top and it doesn't have that, so that's the part that I think you need to just stay with. MR. HENKEL-Jack Gates' plaza you want to eliminate you mean? MR. FREER-Yes. Jack's is 36, but when you put something on top of that, right? MR. JACKOSKI-But doesn't it look more attractive to, now I'm looking at aesthetics, like I agree, I understand all this, and I've got to say the, I don't know what you call the dome on top, but I'll call it the dome on top, is a little bit more attractive to me because even I'll admit that my ugly sign on Route 9 at the K of C building is nothing more than a big square blob and I hate it, but I don't want to come back in front of the Zoning Board to have to deal with it. MR. URRICO-I agree it's more attractive, but what's the price? MR. JACKOSKI-So they go to two feet, two feet, and two feet on the signage and they keep that aesthetic, or. MR. URRICO-So we're saying that as long as it's an attractive sign they can build it as big as they want. MR. JACKOSKI-No, I'm saying that I want them to reduce those panels, the three, three and three. MR. HENKEL-He's saying two, two and two. So that's six. MR. JACKOSKI-If the two, two and two is still bigger than the sign next door, which they're comparing it to, saying they have the height, why cdan't we have the height, I'd turn it around and say, look, there's more tenants there. Use the same sign panel size as height wise and cap it off with that decorative element and whatever that ends up being, as long as it's not that many more feet off of the, you know, above the standard then maybe that's okay. I don't know. I understand why Jack's wouldn't want to replace that panel, but is that a $5,000 expense to replace that panel, is it a $10,000 expense? How many steaks do they have to sell over there? MR. MISHOE-Well, that I'm not sure. I think it's all LED, channel letters illuminated that was recently put up, I think. MR. JACKOSKI-So it's not cheap. MR. MISHOE-1 don't think so. I don't think he would want to go through the expense of. MR. JACKOSKI-So what you're saying is that the signs at the Sherwin Williams' plaza, those signs aren't of the caliber. MR. MISHOE-As the Jack's sign. MR. JACKOSKI-I understand. MR. URRICO-So are they re-purposing the Sprint sign as well? MR. MISHOE-Well, no. I think right now they're going to just move the panels over. I don't think they're putting in, not the yellow background like what I've displayed. They're just going to move those existing panels over. MR. FREER-I thought you said they were 30 inches now and you're going to 36? MR. MISHOE-No. The bottom one which is the Sprint is 30 inches, but the Jack's is 36, but they have given us the okay to change their sign. I'm asking for, just in case if they say yes, let's do it, they know what it's going to look like, we can go ahead and change it. Right now that panel could be blank until they make a decision because there's some corporate changes in their logo that went from, right now I think it's white and they want to make it a yellow. MR. URRICO-Sprint you're talking about? 30 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/23/2016) MR. MISHOE-Sprint, that's right. MR. FREER-But the Sprint sign is not getting any bigger than that? Is that what you said? MR. MISHOE-Yes, the Sprint sign is going to increase at about six inches in height, yes. MR. NOONAN-Because that doesn't match the paperwork that we have. MR. JACKOSKI-I heard him say he might move it over, but he wants the flexibility to get it up to 36 if they so choose to do a new sign and a new logo. MR. MISHOE-Are you talking about this paperwork here? MR. JACKOSKI-Yes, that says 30 inches, right? MR. MISHOE-Well, it says 36, it says three feet. The bottom sign, that's incorrect. It's 30 inches actually. MR. URRICO-So it's 30 inches. MR. NOONAN-Okay. So it's smaller, currently, than what you're proposing with the existing sign. Got it. MR. JACKOSKI-Well, I think we go back to what Roy's suggesting and that is what is the right height, overall, for the sign, and then how do we deal with the square footage associated with that. Correct? MR. URRICO-Yes. MR. NOONAN-I mean, if you did, I think it's too big as proposed. I'll say that. If you did the two feet for each one plus Jack Gate's plaza two feet, how long are they, seven feet long? MR. MISHOE-Correct. MR. NOONAN-That's going to bring you 56 square feet. That's a better variance to look at than one for the current proposal. If you go up Route 9 you'll see multiple tenant signs and even smaller, you know, Mt. Royal Plaza was in and I think we cut those down to three inches. So two feet I think is still pretty good. I do think Hank's Quality Flooring needs a sign because I've been wondering where it was. MR. JACKOSKI-So what we all acknowledge is that they can't go any lower than the 13 feet where they are at the moment. Right? MR. URRICO-Yes. MR. JACKOSKI-And if we go 13 plus two for Hank's, two for Sprint, three for Jack's and none for the plaza sign. Is that what we're saying? MR. HENKEL-Well, could you incorporate that in those three feet, Jack's plaza? MR. JACKOSKI-So then what have we done? We've taken 14 square feet out, by just going three, two, two and two? MR. HENKEL-Or two, two and three. MR. NOONAN-Does Sprint stay at three, you mean? MR. JACKOSKI-No, I'll work on the bottom. Two on Hank's and Sprint, three on Jack's in order to avoid the additional expense, and then leave the remaining two at the top. Is that what I'm hearing? MR. URRICO-Isn't it more like two and a half, I mean the Hank's sign. Thirty inches is 2.6, isn't it? MR. FREER-Thirty inches would be two and a half, three. MR. NOONAN-So that's 63 square feet. 31 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/23/2016) MR. JACKOSKI-Is it more important to the owner to have the decorative element or the Jack Gates' plaza designation? MR. MISHOE-1 think he wants the plaza to have a name, just like the Sherwin Williams' plaza, you know, I think Jack recently passed away and they named the plaza after Jack. MR. JACKOSKI-All right. Well, there is a public hearing scheduled for this evening. I'll open the public hearing. Is there anyone here that would like to address this Board concerning this application? Is there any written comment? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-There is no written comment. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. So I'll leave the public hearing open and at this time I will ask for Board member comments on the application as presented. Does anyone want to start? MR. HENKEL-Well, I'd like to see it reduced to like we were talking about, two, two feet, two feet and three feet with the Jack Gates' plaza. Two feet for Sprint, two feet for the Hank's Quality flooring. MR. JACKOSKI-Which would mean we would reduce the overall square footage by 14 feet from what is currently being requested, and we'd reduce the height of the sign from a total of 24 feet down to 22 feet. MR. HENKEL-That's my opinion. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay, John. Thank you. Anyone else? MR. MC CABE-When I took a look around to see how the sign fit compared to the other sign, I look at the Five Guys sign, which is huge. I look at the Sherwin Williams' sign which is real high. So it would be hard for me to argue against what he's proposed here. So I would support the design as shown. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Thank you, Mike. MR. FREER-So I think it's too big. I think there's things that can be done to reduce the variance required. We're required to, you know, provide the minimum variance and you can get the message out without that much of a square footage variance and not much of a height variance. MR. JACKOSKI-Roy? MR. URRICO-I'm in agreement with what John suggested. I think that would be beneficial to all parties. It would still give it a presence without being overly obtuse. So I'd be in favor of that. MR. JACKOSKI-And to reiterate that is working from the top down, two, three, two, two. MR. URRICO-Yes, right. MR. HENKEL-No, the top down would be three, two, two. MR. JACKOSKI-Yes, you want to keep Jack Gates' plaza, right? So that's two, and then Jack's is three and then Sprint is two and then Hank's would be two. MR. URRICO-1 would just leave it as three, two, two and let them decide who gets what. MR. HENKEL-Yes, three, two, two. Not, you know, incorporate. MR. JACKOSKI-Yes, I understand what you're saying. MR. URRICO-Yes, in case the building, the business ever gets sold and Jack's becomes Hank's or whatever. MR. JACKOSKI-All right. So to clarify, the top section, the Jack Gates' plaza and dome is okay at two feet high. Then the next three sections are a total of seven feet in height, and they can divvy it up any way they way. 32 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/23/2016) MR. URRICO-Yes. MR. JACKOSKI-So, in other words overall square footage of tenant signs is 49 square feet, and I don't know how you calculate the overall square footage of the top section, given there's no signage around the dome. I don't know what that square footage is. MRS. MOORE-It would be part of the 49 square feet. MR. JACKOSKI-No, that's not what we're saying. The tenant signage is a maximum of seven feet high, however they divide it, and seven feet wide. That's 49 feet. MR. FREER-The three tenants. MR. JACKOSKI-The three tenants. MR. URRICO-The sign is everything on that sign, the top down to the bottom. MR. JACKOSKI-Plus the square footage is presented on that two foot section at the top. I don't know how to calculate that square footage. Do you know what that is, Tony? MR. MISHOE-Well, I thought about that as I was driving here and I didn't. MR. URRICO-You have it as two feet. MR. HENKEL-So your identification of your plaza is going to be two feet, you're saying. MR. JACKOSKI-But not square footage wise. To me it looks like it's one foot for Jack Gates' plaza. So that's seven square feet, and then that ellipse is probably somewhere around three to three and a half square feet. MR. MISHOE-Correct, 12 inches. MR. JACKOSKI-Does that make sense to everybody that that's what they would agree to and then we they can figure that out? MR. MC CABE-Sure. MRS. MOORE-So, Laura, I'll reiterate. Copy of the sign for the tenants is a maximum of 49 square feet, given the seven width and seven feet in height, however they divide it up among the three tenants. The top portion of the sign, the next one foot up, is to designate what the plaza name is, and then the next one foot of that, or approximately one and a half square feet, is the dome. I'm sorry, three and a half square feet. My apologies. So the bottom section is 49 square feet. The name of the plaza is seven square feet, and the dome is approximately three and a half square feet. What are we missing? How do you calculate the square footage of the dome when there's a lot of white space around it and the rectangle? MRS. MOORE-The whole dome is the sign. MR. JACKOSKI-How big is that dome part? It's one foot tall and three, three and a half feet wide. MR. URRICO-In other words, you square it up, right? MRS. MOORE-The applicant comes up with that square footage. MR. JACKOSKI-We're saying it seems to us approximately no more than three and a half square feet for that ellipse. MR. MC CABE-So 59 and a half square feet is what we're saying. MR. JACKOSKI-Total. MRS. MOORE-That's what I was, whether it's 49 plus three, 51 square feet. You're adding that other one foot. MR. FREER-One by seven for the Jack Gates'. So that gets you to 56, plus three and a half. So I say 60. It might be more than three and a half. I can't do that computation in my head. 33 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/23/2016) MRS. MOORE-Fifty-nine, but you've actually defined it out. So that's fine as long as you maintain that. So you have 59. You have seven foot width, seven feet in height addresses the three tenants, however they wish to divide that up. One foot is the plaza name, one foot by seven foot is the plaza name, and the one foot, it would be approximately one foot by three feet, and that comes to the 59 square feet. So I do now get it. MR. JACKOSKI-Are you all right with that, Tony? MR. MISHOE-So the height will go to 24 feet? MR. JACKOSKI-I'm going to do the math, one foot, plus one foot is two, two plus seven is nine, nine plus thirteen is twenty-two. Basically we eliminated a foot in the Sprint sign and the Hank's Flooring sign in your concept. Assuming that's how you're going to present it to us in the future. Is everybody okay with 22 feet in height? Is everybody okay with roughly 59 and a half square feet in overall space. I know Laura's calculated it at 59, but I think it is 59 and a half. They can divvy it up with the tenants however they want in that 49 square feet. Who's going to do this motion? We do have SEQR. So I'm going to close the public hearing and seek a SEQR motion. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MOTION REGARDING SIGN VARIANCE NO.PZ-0097-2016 LANDMARK SIGNS AND GRAPHICS — ANTHONY L. MISHOE 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 Harrison Freer: Duly adopted this 23rd day of March 2016, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Noonan, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Freer, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl MR. JACKOSKI-So, Tony, to clarify for you, you technically have to request a revision to your application that you would like us to address a 22 foot high sign that is 59 and a half square feet. Because basically what you're doing is you're modifying your request because you've listened to the Board and the Board is suggesting that they would be in favor of, but they can't tell you what they're in favor of so you have to request it and that's what you're doing. MR. MISHOE-Yes. MR. JACKOSKI-You've amended your application accordingly. Okay. Thank you. Formality, technicality, I know, but we want to make sure that you're okay with it. So having the applicant modify their request for less relief than originally presented in height and square footage, I will seek a motion as discussed. MR. FREER-I'll try to make that motion. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Landmark Signs and Graphics—Anthony L. Mishoe for a variance from Chapter 140 of the Sign Code of The Town of Queensbury. Applicant proposes to utilize an existing freestanding sign pole while removing the existing sign block and replacing it with a new 59 and Y2 sq. ft. sign- block to accommodate 3 tenants in the business plaza. In addition, the height of the freestanding sign is proposed to be 22 ft. Relief requested from maximum allowable sign size and height for such sign in the Cl zoning district. (49 sq. ft. of signage for the tenants and 7 sq. ft. for the name of the plaza and then the balance of the 59 and a Y2 sq. ft. for the "decorative dome" at the top of the sign, all under 22 ft. in height from the top of the dome to the ground). SEQR Type: Unlisted [ Resolution /Action Required for SEQR] Motion regarding Sign Variance No.PZ-0097-2016 Landmark Signs and Graphics — Anthony L. Mishoe 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 Harrison Freer: 34 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/23/2016) Duly adopted this 23rd day of March 2016, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Noonan, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Freer, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, March 23, 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. Will an undesirable change be produced in the character of the neighborhood or will a detriment to the nearby properties be created by the granting of the requested sign variance? No significant undesirable change. There's lots of bigger signs and some are almost as high. 2. Can the benefit sought by the applicant be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than a Sign Variance? We have reduced the variance required and we find it reasonable that this is the best feasible alternative. 3. Is the requested Sign Variance substantial? It could be considered moderate. 4. Will the proposed Sign Variance have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district? We don't believe there's any physical or environmental impact. It's more a cultural and aesthetic impact. 5. Is the alleged difficulty self-created? Yes, it is self-created, but the applicant has listened to the concerns of the Board and has modified his proposal to be less intrusive. 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. PZ- 0097-2016 Landmark Signs and Graphics — Anthony L. Mishoe, Introduced by Harrison Freer, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Kyle Noonan: As per the resolution prepared by staff with the following: A. The variance approval is valid for one (1) year from the date of approval; you may request an extension of approval before the one (1) year time frame expires; B. If the property is located within the Adirondack Park, the approved variance is subject to review by the Adirondack Park Agency (APA). The applicant is cautioned against taking any action until the APA's review is completed; C. Final approved plans in compliance with an approved variance must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building & codes personnel. D. Subsequent issuance of further permits, including sign permits are dependent on receipt of these final plans; E. Upon approval of the application; review and approval of final plans by the Community Development Department the applicant can apply for a sign permit unless the proposed project requires review, approval, or permit from the Town Planning Board and/or the Adirondack Park Agency, Lake George Park Commission or other State agency or department. Duly adopted this 23rd day of March 2016, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Freer, Mr. Noonan, Mr. Jackoski 35 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/23/2016) NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl MR. JACKOSKI-Tony, thank you. Sorry it was so painful, but we got through it. MR. MISHOE-Thank you very much. AREA VARIANCE NO. PZ-0094-2016 SEQRA TYPE II DANIEL W. BROWN OWNER(S) DANIEL W. BROWN ZONING WR LOCATION 24 REARDON ROAD EXTENSION APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF 1,080 SQ. FT. DETACHED GARAGE AND A 624 SQ. FT. BREEZEWAY. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE HEIGHT FOR AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE (GARAGE) WITHIN THE WR ZONING DISTRICT. CROSS REF BOTH-030-2016 DETACHED GARAGE; BP 2006-254 SFD; BP 2006-226 DEMO SFD WARREN COUNTY N/A LOT SIZE 2.83 ACRE(S) TAX MAP NO. 289.7-1-41 SECTION 179-5-020 DANIEL BROWN, PRESENT STAFFINPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. PZ-0094-2016, Daniel W. Brown, Meeting Date: March 23, 2016 "Project Location: 24 Reardon Road Extension Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of 1,080 sq. ft. detached garage and a 624 sq. ft. breezeway. Relief Required: The applicant requests the following relief: Relief requested from maximum allowable height for an accessory structure (garage) within the WR zoning district. Section 179-3-040 establishment of districts dimensional requirements Proposed construction of detached garage to be 26.10 ft. +/- where a 16 ft. accessory structure is the maximum height 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. 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 considered to include as an addition. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief may be considered moderate relevant to the code. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The project 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 to construct a detached 1080 sq. ft. garage to be 26.10+/- ft. in height. The relief requested in the waterfront zone for accessory structure over 16 ft. The plans submitted show the elevation and arrangement of the building on the site. The project includes construction of an open breezeway between the house and the garage- the garage is considered a separate structure. The floor plans show garage area with a bathroom and a second floor storage with internal stair access." 36 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/23/2016) MR. JACKOSKI-Welcome. I'm sorry that it's been a long evening. MR. BROWN-No, it was quite interesting. MR. JACKOSKI-We apologize, but if you could state your name for the record and if there's anything you'd like to add or if you'd just like to listen to questions. MR. BROWN-My name is Daniel Brown. It's better if you just ask me questions because I really don't know what else to say. MR. JACKOSKI-Any questions from Board members at this time concerning this application? MR. HENKEL-Yes, I've got questions. You've got attic trusses of, you're going to have head room of eight feet one inch. Is that, are you looking to put a bedroom up there or anything? I mean, you've got a bathroom. MR. BROWN-No, the bathroom is going to be downstairs. MR. HENKEL-Right, and I realize you have a bathroom downstairs. MR. BROWN-I'm kind of like the guy on tv. MR. HENKEL-I mean, you've got an entrance outside plus an entrance through the garage going upstairs obviously. MR. BROWN-Yes, well upstairs is going to mainly be like my workshop. We had another house in Long Island where I used to have my workshop stuff out in my garage and now I'm going to bring all my table saws and drill presses and stuff upstairs, plus we have like a lot of dry storage stuff like all the kayaks and the canoes and stuff. They've got to go up there. MR. HENKEL-You have quite a bit of stuff. MR. BROWN-Yes, because now that my sons are driving now we have four cars, you know, then we have like, you know, the ATV's and I've got two boats on the property and right now everything is just scattered over the property with tarps over it and it kind of more or less looks like a junkyard, you know. Originally when we built the house, it was supposed to be for our retirement, but then like a year after we bought it they had the big windstorm up there and two trees crushed the existing house. So we had these plans drawn up and the garage was supposed to be attached to the house, but then when we looked at it the only way to get around to the back of the house is right now where the breezeway is going to go. So, you know, we had to move the garage over a little bit because otherwise I would have had to remove, I don't know, you can't really see the way the property is, but if you drive straight into the property, it's all flat, but then the bank goes all the way up and there's a whole big plateau in the back that we use like for picnic and parties and stuff. So like half of this garage s going to be built in to the bank itself, and we were hoping that the breezeway, you know, we really have no outdoor covered like picnic area other than the deck in the back of the house and, you know, that requires everybody to go all the way up the deck and around the house if we wanted some place to sit out front, and this way I could still get like the riding mower and stuff around to the back of the house. If we would have attached the garage to the house, they said there really wouldn't have been a height variance because there was an attached garage, but then I would have had to remove a whole big section of that embankment so I can get around the back of the garage to cut the grass around the back of the house. So it was removing less dirt, you know, by almost the size of the garage to have to level it out so you could drive around the back of the garage, and then that would just about cut us off from the whole plateau up on top. So the breezeway was kind of like the afterthought because it just made more sense to put the breezeway there and it gave us more roof space on top because we're going to have solar panels put on and when the solar people came out they said it would be better for us if they had more square footage to put the solar panels up, and they're actually, they're waiting for me to find out if this gets okayed before they come out and measure everything. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Thank you. MR. NOONAN-I've got a question. What's the height of the peak to the top of the highest part of the hill? So your 26 10, if I read that right, your 26 10 is from the driveway to the top. MR. BROWN-Right. MR. NOONAN-What's the height from the back of the garage where the grass hill is, to the top? 37 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/23/2016) MR. BROWN-1 didn't measure it, but I think it's probably about, maybe 16 feet. MR. NOONAN-So it's about a 10 foot hill. MR. BROWN-Yes, it's about a 10 foot hill. It's a pretty big hill, and, you know, I meant to take pictures but I had a kind of like emergency and I had to drive out of town. I just got back in tonight, but the whole hill that goes around from where the left side of the garage is to the back, that goes around to the lake, that's all landscaped, and then the drainage from the gutters on the left side of the garage is going to be used to go ahead and irrigate all the landscaping with all the junipers on one side and the right side of the garage we were putting the drainage ditch for planters and plants on the other side, and the back side, this way, if it's not raining out, I can bring the stuff right in and out the back door without having to go ahead and, you know, if I had the wintertime and I had the cars in the garage and, you know, I've got a big bobcat that she uses for landscaping, and if the garage is full of everything, then I've got to go ahead and kind of take everything out or squeeze by it to get up the stairs. So it was easier to go in through the back door. MR. NOONAN-1 understand, and this is obviously going to be your only garage. MR. BROWN-Yes, that's the only garage. The reason that we, we actually had these plans drawn, you know, years ago, but we want to do this, you know, we want to pay cash for it. We don't to go ahead and take out a loan because I'm retired and I don't have the opportunity to work any overtime, and she retires in about four more years. So, you know, we're doing this whole thing cash as we go. So it's, you know, we've been saving up. Now we've got the money to do it again. MR. HENKEL-So you could have access to the backyard if you put another garage door. I mean, if you connect this garage to your house and put another garage door in the back of it, you can go right straight through. Do you know what I'm saying? MR. BROWN-Yes, but then we would have to put, we were looking for covered space that we could have like, you know, picnic and family over, because then we'd have to take that breezeway and then, you know, put the paver, you know, the same space on the other side of the garage. MR. HENKEL-But you have room in the back of that that you could do that, of that garage, because you do have space before you get to that hill. MR. BROWN-1 don't know what you mean. MR. HENKEL-Well, when I looked at the property, you know, I think if you pushed the garage, connect it to the house. MR. BROWN-But then I'd have to eliminate all the bedroom windows that are right there. MR. HENKEL-You're talking about the two bedroom windows? MR. BROWN-Yes, that's bedroom windows. That's our two bedrooms right there. MR. HENKEL-How many windows do you have? MR. BROWN-Well, there's one on the front, one on the back and two on the side. I'd have to eliminate the two windows on the side of the house, and then I'd have to move that breezeway to that far right hand side. It just makes it further to walk from the house, you know, carrying out all the food and stuff. MR. HENKEL-Those are all single family dwellings in that area. MR. BROWN-Right. MR. HENKEL-Later this could become very easily become an apartment, a rental. MR. BROWN-Well, the original plan is we want to leave the property to my kids, and we're hoping that, you know, they want to bring their family here, and originally it was supposed to be, the original plans for the house was a four bedroom house, and that's why when we had the septic put in we had a septic put in for a four bedroom house. Even though it's only two bedrooms now. So when we leave them the house, they have, you know, we're trying to plan ahead into the future the same way. They can put the dormer on up and then when that gets 38 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/23/2016) built back into the garage and it's all still the same level. So we're trying to anticipate the future families living there. Right now it's just me and my wife. Both my sons are off in college, and, you know, knock on wood they don't get married until after they graduate. MR. JACKOSKI-Any other questions from Board members? There is a public hearing scheduled for this evening. I'll open the public hearing. Seeing no public in the audience, 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 some comments from the different Board members. MR. NOONAN-I'll go. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, Kyle. MR. NOONAN-This project as proposed, I am okay with it. I'll give you a couple of reasons why. Because you're here today for this, you're not here to increase the size of your living space. There's a lot of homes in the area that have bonus rooms above their garage. I like your idea of the breezeway today. It's a nice spot up there on Glen Lake. I see your vision here. I like it. I'm for it. I've said my piece. MR. JACKOSKI-Anyone else volunteer? All right. Harrison? MR. FREER-Yes. I would like to see us give less relief. However, you know, as you suggested, it's a lot to do with the lot and topography, and if it was connected to the house and thought about the windows beforehand, you wouldn't be here. So I can live with this. MR. JACKOSKI-John? MR. HENKEL-Yes. I'm kind of struggling with it. I'm just afraid for the future. If it was connected to the house, I'd have no problem with it. MR. BROWN-If it was connected to the house then I wouldn't need the variance. MR. HENKEL-Right. Yes, I'm going to say no the way it's laid out. MR. JACKOSKI-Mike? MR. MC CABE-Normally we've been pretty restrictive with heights in the WR zoning district, but I think that the topography makes a difference here, and so when I took a look at the bank in back I realized why, you know, you had to have the additional height. So where 10 foot's kind of a lot to give away, I don't think it's feasible to do something other than that. So I would support the project. MR. JACKOSKI-Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes. Normally I don't waver too much on the height, but I agree with Mike. I think, in this case, that's why we take every case individually, I think it makes sense. I think because of the embankment it sort of mitigates it quite a bit. So I would be in favor of it as presented. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay, and I agree with my fellow Board members, especially as it relates to height. It's a struggle. It's a balancing act, and the balancing test, and I think that because you wouldn't be here if it was attached, that mitigates it a little bit for me. I mean, it is tall and there are alternatives to making it so tall. I think you could cut it down two or three feet, given the roof pitches and stuff, but at this time I'm okay with the project as well, as presented. So I'm going to close the public hearing and seek a motion for approval. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MC CABE-Just again, this is Reardon Road Extension, not Reardon Road. So Reardon Road's the other way. So I think we should correct the address. 39 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/23/2016) The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Daniel W. Brown. Applicant proposes construction of 1,080 sq. ft. detached garage and a 624 sq. ft. breezeway. Relief requested from maximum allowable height for an accessory structure (garage) within the WR zoning district. SEQR Type II — no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, March 23, 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. 2. Feasible alternatives were discussed at length and the results ultimately came back with the plan as proposed. 3. The requested variance is not 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. 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-0094-2016 DANIEL W. BROWN, Introduced by Kyle Noonan, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Michael McCabe: Duly adopted this 23rd day of March 2016 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Freer, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Noonan, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Jackoski NOES: Mr. Henkel ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. You're all set. MR. BROWN-Thank you very much. MR. JACKOSKI-I apologize for being so late. SIGN VARIANCE NO. PZ-0100-2016 SEQRA TYPE UNLISTED SIGN STUDIO, INC. — RONALD LEVESQUE AGENT(S) SIGN STUDIO, INC. — RONALD LEVESQUE OWNER(S) LIA DIX AVENUE REALTY, LLC ZONING CI LOCATION 373 DIX AVENUE APPLICANT PROPOSES INSTALLATION OF TWO ADDITIONAL WALL SIGNS TO READ AS "EXPRESS" AND "SERVICE". RELIEF REQUESTED FROM ALLOWABLE NUMBER OF WALL SIGNS PER THE TOWN SIGN ORDINANCE. CROSS REF BOTH-01-2016 WALL SIGN (EXPRESS), BOTH-0424-2015 WALL SIGN (SERVICE); BP 2015-027 SIGN; BP 2015- 028 SIGN; CC-0312-2015 COWL BLDG. WARREN COUNTY PLANNING MARCH 2016 LOT SIZE 13.35 ACRE(S) TAX MAP NO. 303.16-1-1.1 SECTION CHAPTER 140 RONALD LEVESQUE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFFINPUT 40 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/23/2016) Notes from Staff, Sign Variance No. PZ-0100-2016, Sign Studio, Inc. — Ronald Levesque, Meeting Date: March 23, 2016 "Project Location: 373 Dix Avenue Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes installation of two additional wall signs to read as "Express" and "Service". Relief Required: The applicant requests the following relief: Relief requested from allowable number of wall signs per the Town Sign Ordinance. Section 140 signage The applicant proposes two additional wall signs where only one wall sign is allowed. The existing signage includes Nissan logo, Nissan Letters and Lia Letters as one sign. The two additional signs are for service area will be illuminated and have Express letters and Service Letters. 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 may be anticipated as the signs are located 156+/- ft. from the front property line. 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 considered limited to address location of services on the site for the customer. 3. Whether the requested sign 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. Minor to no impact to the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood may be anticipated. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. The difficulty may be considered self- created. Staff comments: The applicant proposes two additional wall signs to be placed at the services entrance access area. The "Service" sign is to be 16.96 sq. ft. and the "Express" sign is to be 18.15 sq. ft. The applicant has indicated the signage will provide direction to customers entering the site that need vehicle service." MR. JACKOSKI-Fairly straightforward application. Is there anything you'd like to add at this time, other than for the record stating your name. MR. LEVESQUE-Yes. My name is Ronald Levesque. I'm with the Sign Studio here representing LIA Nissan/Nissan of Glens Falls. MR. JACKOSKI-All right. Any Board member questions at this time before I open the public hearing? MR. NOONAN-I've got a couple. MR. JACKOSKI-Go ahead. MR. NOONAN-Are these corporate franchise specifications for these signs? MR. LEVESQUE-Yes they are, and the size that we're using is based upon the distance from the main road to where they have to go. The number one thing we consider when we do the size of the sign is when somebody pulls into that service center or to the sales center, we want to direct them to whatever services they're looking for. We don't want them to turn in and then pause, which most people do, and look to see which way they should go, especially being on a main road turning in. We don't want cars to back up or actually have somebody stop in the middle of the road. So what we try to do is look at the distance, the visibility from the main road to the building. The building is approximately 150 feet back from the road. Basically these 41 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/23/2016) services and express will be a secondary type business. Basically what you see is like a whole society change now to these drive thru facilities where not only do you go there and you drive in, you also meet with your service advisor and you're greeted with a reception area. Now if you were to notice the trends that have been happening over the last five years, if you go to your service station now at your major car manufacturer, the older buildings aren't suited for that anymore so now you see a lot of new buildings being built, and they're built within a business center built within a service center and a reception area center. You've got free Wi-Fi. You have coffee, you have all those things. So you'll see a trend that people now maintain their cars more often because to go to the service facility is a lot easier. There's a lot more services offered there. So some people can actually do work while they're getting their car serviced. So this trend is happening through society, and because of that you'll start seeing more of these drive up facilities. They'll have to be labeled because they are a secondary service. Not only do you have your sales department now you have your service department and you have your parts department. So if you saw most of your new buildings being built in Queensbury, your Honda dealership was done over not too long ago. I believe you also have a Buick that was done not too long ago. Then you have a Ford. All the same things come into play as these drive thru facilities now. Americans with Disabilities organization embraces these because now people that are handicapped can pull right in for their services with their vehicle. They don't have to stop, park their car, get out of their car in a handicap spot, go inside. So those are all things that are guiding society towards this way, but to do this they have to have proper signage. Even New York State DOT says that you should incorporate proper way finding in any facility or destination that you're going to. So this is all part of that. MR. JACKOSKI-So I understand the proper way finding when you are close to the road, but when they turn in they've got 150 feet to get to where they've got to get to, and we have two additional wall signs here from what the Code allows. Correct? MRS. MOORE-Correct. MR. JACKOSKI-I understand the services you provide, but I'm just not sure that, you know, there aren't too many signs here or they aren't too big. MR. LEVESQUE-Well, if you look at it this way, if you look at any automotive manufacturer, it's an industry on its own. This is probably some people's number one purchase they make in their life. It's the biggest expense they may ever have if they don't own a home. That being said, all car manufacturers have to have their name on the building. They also have to have, they usually incorporate their logo for identification and they have to have the dealer's name on there. Legally they have to have that name on there. They also offer a drive in service. This is identical to what you see in banks, Dunkin Donuts, the express Tube car washes, all the ones that have drive thrus have a name on the drive thru. Either they say drive thru, they say service, they say parts, they say landscaping supplies. They all have it. Society, basically, is demanding it. If you talk to most people, when they go to a car service station, they go pull right up to the door and they drive in. If you didn't have it labeled, then you may see them parking out front, getting out, going into the sales area, asking the sales person where's the service and they'll say just drive right in. Without a sign on there you're going to have total chaos. It's just that simple. These signs here, if you add them all up, I know there's two extra signs, but if you add them all up, it's 127 square feet, which is less than what's allowed for sign square footage. So we're not overseeing the maximum square footage. We're just overseeing the number of signs, but like I said, it's just, if you go up and down the main ave you'll see other buildings just like it with the same type of signs on it and the same number of signs. We're not asking for anything more than what's compatible and comparable to what exists in the neighborhood right now. MR. JACKOSKI-And I thank you. Do I have any other Board member questions at this time before I open the public hearing? Seeing we have no other Board member comments at this time, and seeing no one in the audience for the public hearing that I have opened, is there any written comment? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-There's no written comment. MR. JACKOSKI-No written comment. I will leave the public hearing open. I'll poll the Board. I'll start with Roy. MR. URRICO-Yes. I think I don't have any objections to the signs. MR. JACKOSKI-Mike? 42 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/23/2016) MR. MC CABE-I'll support this project. MR. JACKOSKI-John? MR. HENKEL-I'd like to see it a little bit smaller. MR. JACKOSKI-Harrison? MR. FREER-I support the project as presented. MR. JACKOSKI-Kyle? MR. NOONAN-1 also support it. Your neighbor up the street, Nemer Group, came in not too long ago looking for something similar, and we were amicable to that as well. I support this project. MR. JACKOSKI-After having polled the Board, I'm going to close the public hearing and seek a motion for SEAR. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MOTION REGARDING SIGN VARIANCE NO. PZ -100-2016 SIGN STUDIO, INC. - RONALD LEVESQUE, AGENT FOR THE BUSINESS LIA NISSAN, 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 Harrison Freer: Duly adopted this 23`d day of March 2016, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Henkel, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Freer, Mr. Noonan, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl MR. JACKOSKI-Now may I please have a motion for approval of the project as presented. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Sign Studio, Inc. — Ronald Levesque, Agent for the business Lia Nissan for a variance from Chapter 140 of the Sign Code of The Town of Queensbury. Applicant proposes installation of two additional wall signs to read as "Express" and "Service". Relief requested from allowable number of wall signs per the Town Sign Ordinance. SEQR Type: Unlisted [ Resolution /Action Required for SEAR] Motion regarding Sign Variance No. PZ -100-2016 Sign Studio, Inc. — Ronald Levesque, Agent for the business Lia Nissan, 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 Harrison Freer: Duly adopted this 23`d day of March 2016, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Henkel, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Freer, Mr. Noonan, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, March 23, 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. Will an undesirable change be produced in the character of the neighborhood or will a detriment to the nearby properties be created by the granting of the requested sign variance? No undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood 43 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/23/2016) nor will a detriment to nearby properties be created by granting this requested Sign Variance. 2. Can the benefit sought by the applicant be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than a sign variance? The benefit cannot be achieved by some other method. There needs to be indication where a customer has to go. 3. Is the requested sign variance substantial? We do not believe it's substantial. It's moderate at worst. 4. Will the proposed sign variance have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district? The proposed Sign Variance will have no adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. 5. Is the alleged difficulty self-created? The alleged difficult is 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. PZ -100-2016 SIGN STUDIO, INC. — RONALD LEVESQUE, AGENT FOR THE BUSINESS LIA NISSAN, Introduced by Michael McCabe, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Harrison Freer: As per the resolution prepared by staff with the following: A. The variance approval is valid for one (1) year from the date of approval; you may request an extension of approval before the one (1) year time frame expires; B. If the property is located within the Adirondack Park, the approved variance is subject to review by the Adirondack Park Agency (APA). The applicant is cautioned against taking any action until the APA's review is completed; C. Final approved plans in compliance with an approved variance must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building & codes personnel' D. Subsequent issuance of further permits, including sign permits are dependent on receipt of these final plans; E. Upon approval of the application; review and approval of final plans by the Community Development Department the applicant can apply for a sign permit unless the proposed project requires review, approval, or permit from the Town Planning Board and/or the Adirondack Park Agency, Lake George Park Commission or other State agency or department. Duly adopted this 23`d of March 2016, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Noonan, Mr. Urrico, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Freer, Mr. Jackoski NOES: Mr. Henkel ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. Good luck. We appreciate it. MR. LEVESQUE-Thank you, sir. MR. JACKOSKI-Any additional business to be brought in front of the Board? Can I have a motion to adjourn, please. MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING OF MARCH 23, 2016, Introduced by Michael McCabe who moved for its adoption, seconded by Harrison Freer: 44 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/23/2016) Duly adopted this 23 d day of March, 2016, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Freer, Mr. Noonan, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Steven Jackoski, Chairman 45