Loading...
04-27-2016 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/27/2016) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SECOND REGULAR MEETING APRIL 27, 2016 INDEX Area Variance PZ 0071-2016 Russell Faden/Faden Enterprises 1. Tax Map No. 309.10-1-47, 48, 49 Sign Variance PZ 0072-2016 Russell Faden/Faden Enterprises 2. Tax Map No. 309.10-1-47, 48, 49 Sign Variance PZ 0119-2016 Cumberland Farms, Inc. 2. Tax Map No. 309.14-1-80 Area Variance PZ 0122-2016 Planned Parenthood Mohawk-Hudson 9. Tax Map No. 296.11-1-42 Area Variance PZ 0083-2016 Michael & Cindy Trombley 13. Tax Map No. 263.00-1-16 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 SECOND REGULAR MEETING 1 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/27/2016) APRIL 27, 2016 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT MICHAEL MC CABE, ACTING CHAIRMAN ROY URRICO, SECRETARY JOHN HENKEL HARRISON FREER RONALD KUHL JAMES UNDERWOOD, ALTERNATE MEMBERS ABSENT STEVEN JACKOSKI STENOGRAPHER -SUE HEMINGWAY LAND USE PLANNER -LAURA MOORE MR. MC CABE-Welcome to tonight’s meeting of the Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals. I’d like to open the meeting. For those of you who have not been here before, it’s kind of a simple process. There’s an agenda on the back table. We’ll call the application. We’ll read the application into our record. We’ll have the applicant provide additional material if necessary. We will question the applicant. If a public meeting has been advertised then we’ll open the public meeting and solicit opinions from the audience. At that point we’ll close the meeting. We’ll solicit the members of the Board hereto see what the feelings are about the application, and then if appropriate we’ll take a vote on the application. So before we get started, we have a couple of Administrative matters to take care of. We have a couple of applications that need to be postponed. Would somebody like to make a resolution? ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS: REQUEST TO FURTHER TABLE UNTIL MAY 2016 ZBA REVIEW: AREA VARIANCE PZ-0071-2016 RUSSELL FADEN/FADEN ENTERPRISES 75-79 MAIN STREET SIGN VARIANCE PZ-0072-2016 RUSSELL FADEN/FADEN ENTERPRISES 75-79 MAIN STREET AREA VARIANCE NO. PZ-0071-2016 SEQRA TYPE II RUSSELL FADEN/FADEN ENTERPRISES AGENT(S) LANSING ENGINEERING, PC OWNER(S) ROBERT GOODWIN ZONING MS LOCATION 75-79 MAIN STREET APPLICANT PROPOSES DEMOLITION OF THREE MAIN BUILDINGS, SHED AND SOME SITE GRADING TO CONSTRUCT THREE NEW BUILDINGS IN THREE PHASES. FIRST BUILDING TO BE 4,200 +/- SQ. FT. WITH PARKING FROM MAIN ST. TO PINE ST. PROJECT INCLUDES MERGING PARCELS CREATING TWO PARCELS. SECOND PHASE TO BE REMAINDER OF THE FIRST BUILDING 4,200 +/- SQ. FT., THEN THIRD PHASE IS TWO ADDITIONAL BUILDINGS 2,400 SQ. FT. AND 1,600 SQ. FT. WITH A DRIVE THROUGH. SEQR PLANNING BOARD REQUEST FOR LEAD AGENCY. RELIEF REQUESTED BLDG. 2 AND BLDG. 3 REQUIRE RELIEF FROM MINIMUM SETBACK REQUIREMENTS (PINE STREET SIDE) AND BLDG. 3 REQUIRES MINIMUM SETBACK RELIEF FOR THE BANK DRIVE- THRU FOR THE MAIN STREET (MS) ZONING DISTRICT. CROSS REF SP PZ-0073-2016; SV PZ-0072-2016; SUP PZ-0068-2016 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING FEBRUARY 2016 LOT SIZE 0.24; 0.42; 0.46 ACRE(S) TAX MAP NO. 309.10-1-47, 48, 49 SECTION 179-3- 040; 179-7-030; 179-7-070; 179-10-040 The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Russell Faden / Faden Enterprises. Applicant proposes demolition of three main buildings, shed and some site grading to construct three new buildings in three phases. First building to be 4,200 +/- sq. ft. with parking from Main St. to Pine St. Project includes merging parcels creating two parcels. Second phase to be remainder of first building 4,200 +/- sq. ft., then third phase is two additional buildings 2,400 sq. ft. and 1,600 sq. ft. with a drive through. SEQR Planning Board request for Lead Agency. Relief requested; Bldg. 2 and Bldg. 3 require relief from minimum setback requirements (Pine Street side), and Bldg. 3 requires minimum setback relief for the bank drive-thru for the Main Street (MS) zoning District. 2 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/27/2016) SEQR Type II – no further review required; Wednesday, March 16, 2016 A public hearing was advertised and held on and Left Open; Upon review of the application materials, information supplied during the public hearing, and upon consideration of the criteria specified in Section 179-14-080(A) of the Queensbury Town Code and Chapter 267 of NYS Town Law and after discussion and deliberation, we find as follows: MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE PZ-0071-2016 RUSSELL FADEN / FADEN ENTERPRISES75-79 MAIN STREET , Introduced by Ronald Kuhl who moved for its adoption, seconded by Harrison Freer: Tabled until the May 18, 2016 meeting. th Duly adopted this 27 day of April 2016, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Freer, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Jackoski SIGN VARIANCE NO. PZ-0072-2016 SEQRA TYPE UNLISTED – COORDINATE WITH PLANNING BOARD RUSSELL FADEN/FADEN ENTERPRISES AGENT(S) LANSING ENGINEERING, PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED OWNER(S) ROBERT GOODWIN ZONING MS LOCATION 75-79 MAIN STREET APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 45 SQ. FT. FREESTANDING SIGN (SUBWAY AND FUTURE TENANT NAMES) WITH A 5 FT. FRONT SETBACK ON MAIN STREET. SEQR PLANNING BOARD REQUEST FOR LEAD AGENCY. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM SIGN SETBACK RESTRICTIONS FOR THE MAIN STREET ZONING DISTRICT. CROSS REF AV PZ-0071-2016; SP PZ-0073-2016 SUP PZ-0068-2016 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING FEBRUARY 2016 LOT SIZE 0.24; 0.42; 0.46 ACRE(S) TAX MAP NO. 309.10-1-47, 48, 49 SECTION CHAPTER 140 The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Russell Faden / Faden Enterprises Chapter 140 for a variance from of the Sign Code of The Applicant proposes construction of a 45 sq. ft. freestanding sign Town of Queensbury. (Subway and future tenant names) with a 5 ft. front setback on Main Street. SEQR Planning Board request for Lead Agency. Relief requested from sign setback restrictions for the Main Street zoning district. MOTION TO TABLE SIGN VARIANCE PZ-0072-2016 RUSSELL FADEN / FADEN ENTERPRISES 75-79 MAIN STREET, , Introduced by Ronald Kuhl who moved for its adoption, seconded by Harrison Freer: Tabled to the May 18, 2016 Zoning Board of Appeals meeting. th Duly adopted this 27 day of April, 2016, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Freer, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Jackoski NEW BUSINESS: SIGN VARIANCE PZ 0119-2016 SEQRA TYPE UNLISTED CUMBERLAND FARMS, INC. AGENT(S) CAROLYN A. PARKER CONSULTING OWNER(S) CUMBERLAND FARMS, INC. ZONING MS LOCATION 110 MAIN STREET APPLICANT IS PROPOSING EIGHT 2.14 SQ. FT. LED LIGHTED GASOLINE PUMP TOPPER SIGNS TO EXISTING FUEL DISPENSERS TO ADVERTISE GAS PRICES. THE EXISTING MANUAL PUMP TOPPERS WILL BE REMOVED. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM THE SIGN CODE RESTRICTION FOR LED LIGHTS. IN ADDITION, RELIEF REQUESTED FROM THE MINIMUM FRONT AND SIDE SIGN SETBACK REQUIREMENTS IN THE MAIN STREET (MS) ZONING DISTRICT. PLANNING BOARD; SIGNAGE IN THE MS ZONING DISTRICT REQUIRES SITE PLAN REVIEW. SP PZ-0121-2016, CUMBERLAND FARMS; SP 38-2012; SV 95-2001 FS SIGN; 3 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/27/2016) AV 94-2001; SP 49-2001 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING APRIL 2016 LOT SIZE 1.93 ACRE(S) TAX MAP NO. 309.14-1-80 SECTION CHAPTER 140-5-B CAROLYN PARKER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Sign Variance PZ-0119-2016, Cumberland Farms, Inc., Meeting Date: April Description of the Proposed Project: 27, 2016 “Project Location: 110 Main Street Applicant is proposingeight 2.15 sq. ft. LED lighted gasoline pump topper signs to existing fuel dispensers to advertise gas prices. The existing manual pump toppers will be removed. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief from Section 140 Sign Code -prohibiting LED lights. Section 140 Sign Code Applicant proposes 8 double sided LED price signs at 2.15 sq. ft. Relief is requested for LED 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. Significant impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated. The sign code prohibits LED signage. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than a sign variance. Feasible alternatives may be possible to consider mechanical scrolling signs on the pumps. 3. Whether the requested sign variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered substantial relevant to the code. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The project as proposed may have an adverse impact on presence of signs in the Town. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created . The difficulty may be considered self- created. Staff comments: The proposed LED toppers are 12 in high and 25.75 in length and will have LED pricing figures on each side. The sign will also have permanent vinyl lettering with fuel type -“regular, mid- grade, premium” with “9/10” for each price space, also at the bottom will be “all taxes included”. “ MR. URRICO-There was a concern by the Planning Board. The Planning Board based on its limited review identified the following areas of concern: one concern that this may lead to other applications from other stations in Town; two, the strength of the LED’s and that they will have the ability to be different colors, brightness, etc.., and three, It is in direct and specific opposition th to the current Town Code, and this was adopted six to one on April 26. MR. MC CABE-So welcome to the meeting. Is there anything you’d like to add to this? You’re Carolyn? MS. PARKER-I’m Carolyn. MR. MC CABE-Okay. MS. PARKER-I’m here representing Cumberland Farms. MR. MC CABE-May I ask you a question first, Carolyn, before you get started? Since this is in direct opposition to the Town zoning, did you approach the Town Board about changing the zoning? Because, you know, this really has application to all of the gas stations in Queensbury. 4 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/27/2016) MS. PARKER-Well, that came up last night. The one gentleman that was for me mentioned that they possibly need to have a zone change. Basically I’ve been doing, coming to hearings for permitting these pump toppers for about two and a half years for Cumberland Farms. So first round was we call the Town, they say, no we don’t allow LED. All right, you go to the back burner type of thing. So out of 300 gas stations, we started with the ones that allowed it. In actuality the normal ones that we would come to the Town with would be the ones that say Smart Pay and Non-Member and the prices would alternate, all right. So we know that we’re not going to get that here. So what we’ve done is we’ve set a standard one. So the Chairman also said maybe it’s time to look at the by-laws. Because what happens is a lot of towns just say no LED. Well, yes, I understand you don’t want big message boards that are flashing and are changing every couple of seconds and, you know, making the people that are close to the roadway. This type of sign is inbound from the property. When it was a manual sign or manual, I don’t even recall the sign, it was just part of a gas station. It’s required by the State. You put a gas station, if you put a pump up, you put a pump topper on it. So all of a sudden when we want to be able to have them change with the store, all of a sudden they become a sign. So I go to the town with, I go to the Zoning Board, they say we don’t even consider it a sign or something like that. So I’ve been through every type of scenario. So what we have done is last night when I came to the Planning Board, if you look at the price, $ 1.44, that was what I came in presenting to them. That has two coats of film. It’s just a film that is going to dim down the numbers even more. All right. That’s set at a brightness of a three, which a ten is the brightest. So Cumberland Farms normally sets them at six. We’ve lowered them to three for the towns that don’t like this. So what I did when I went back is I added a third layer of film to the $1.64 and then I put a fourth layer, and you can see how that sign is dimming even more. So we’re not trying to offend anybody by any means. The by-laws state that electronic display panels and similar digital advertised displays shall be prohibited. Digital advertising. We’re not advertising anything. This is required by law. It’s just the price. It’s going to change once a day. They’re able to change the prices on the main pylon sign from within the store, yet every day somebody has to come out and change these pump toppers. MR. MC CABE-So I just had a general question for you. MS. PARKER-I mean, that might be the next phase. I don’t know. MR. MC CABE-So I’ll let you go into your, or was this part of your regular presentation? MS. PARKER-I guess I got a little carried away. MR. MC CABE-Yes. MS. PARKER-Sorry. So basically what I stated, your by-laws state. MR. MC CABE-The zoning laws. MS. PARKER-The zoning by-laws, and you know the Planning Board, for them to say they’re not allowed in the by-laws, well, that’s why I’m here to seek a variance. Everybody here tonight is trying to get something that is not allowed in your by-laws. All right. So another thing I want to mention is that these do dim as it gets darker. Like if we shut the lights off, those would dim even more. So they’re brighter during the day and they dim at night. So, you know, I have three locations. One of them is in the Main Street zone. So that’s the only site that I went to the Planning Board for. So the other two I didn’t have to go the Planning Board. All of these are actually in a commercial zone. The one on Main Street is across the street from a graveyard. I drove around the Town last night and, you know, the one on Route 9, State Route 9, that’s across from a little shopping mall that has, every single sign is internally illuminated. They have neon signs in the windows. So when, you know, what is this pump topper? It’s under a canopy that’s already internally, the canopy is lit. So how am I adding more, you know, ruining the lighting of the Town? So, I mean, we would, you know, and what you could do is, you know, when they mention different colors, different brightness, we can make these you know like they’re more of an orange, amber, they call it amber. So Keene, New Hampshire, for instance, they didn’t want the red. They put in amber. I have a photo on my phone. MR. MC CABE-Again, that’s kind of beyond us. So, with the LED, you have a full spectrum of possibilities. MS. PARKER-Right, and, you know, you could set the standard with, they’re set at a three, blah, blah, blah and so if the next gas station does come in front of you, then you’ve already set the precedent, and this is, so you won’t have 50 different color lights in the Town, you know what I mean? So, I mean, I feel we have a good fight here. 5 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/27/2016) MR. MC CABE-Other questions? MS. PARKER-Do you want me to go over the criteria? I don’t know, I mean, you’ve all read it. MR. MC CABE-We’ve got that. I mean, we’re just looking for, this is the first one. So this is on Main Street. So this is the topper. I guess the other thing is will you maintain the existing freestanding sign? MS. PARKER-Yes. MR. MC CABE-Okay. MS. PARKER-So basically every day someone has to shut the lanes down with cones, go out there, manually change these prices, you know, and it’s dangerous, you know, and when it’s two degrees ad it’s icy, you know, we are in upper New York here. MR. KUHL-Maybe you should just leave the price at $1.44. MS. PARKER-That could be arranged. MR. KUHL-Could I ask a question, Mr. Chairman? MR. MC CABE-Absolutely. MR. KUHL-Now your example out there, I see the $1.44 is bright. The $1.64 is something less than $1.44. Now what is that? Are there certain screens you put in? You’re talking about your three to ten levels. MS. PARKER-It’s a film. It’s like a 3M film. MR. KUHL-Okay. MS. PARKER-So what we do is just cut it up the size of a square and you attach it to it. MR. KUHL-Well, what are you asking us to approve? MS. PARKER-Well, I mean, this would be, if you approve me, and we say, all right, well, I’m going to approve it with a level three brightness with four coats of film, that’s what we would do, and any lower than the three, the lights tend to burn out. What it is, if you want to think, this is the little bulb and then ten, the bulbs would be a full size bulb. MR. FREER-Can you turn it to ten right now? MS. PARKER-You know, I really can’t because it takes about twenty minutes. MR. KUHL-Okay. You also said that they dim at night. Is that a function of darkness that they turn down, or they’re manually dimmed? MS. PARKER-Well, they’re set to manually dim at night, yes. So it is, when it gets dark, they dim. MR. KUHL-Automatically? MS. PARKER-Automatically. MR. KUHL-Okay, and again, I don’t mean to be stupid here, but what level are you asking us to approve, the $1.44, the $1.64, the $1.84? MS. PARKER-$1.84. MR. KUHL-$1.84, and that is your level three? MS. PARKER-That is a level three with four coats of, they call it 3M Scotch marking film. MR. URRICO-The freestanding signs that you have, they’re changeable right now, right? But they’re not digital, they’re scrolling? 6 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/27/2016) MS. PARKER-Right. I noticed that that was a comment that could we make, you know, the pump toppers like that. If you look at that sign, you know what a scroll looks like in the old days? You turn that scroll, there’s three of those scrolling mechanisms within that sign, and if you look at the width of that sign, I mean, it’s quite thick so they just can’t make that mechanism that small, you know, to work that. MR. URRICO-But those digital lights will change as well, right, because you have two prices for each pump. You have the Smart Pay price and the regular price? MS. PARKER-No, these are just going to remain the normal, without the Smart Pay. Unless you want to let us have the, no. MR. URRICO-They’re going to remain what they are. They’re not going to change. Now how long does it take one of the attendants to actually change the signs? MS. PARKER-Well, I went in to the 110 Main Street because it was right where I’m staying, and I asked the kid at the counter and he said it could take up to a half an hour. MR. URRICO-And how often do they change? MS. PARKER-Once or twice the most, depending on what Stewart’s down the street. MR. URRICO-Depending on which way it’s going. It goes up faster than it goes down. MS. PARKER-No, actually I think their prices are pretty good. They’re not $3.98 anymore. When I started it was .99. MR. URRICO-I have a question for Staff. Are we specifically talking about LED lighting? Because I’m looking at the Sign Code and it says sign, digital or electronic. I don’t see where LED is mentioned. MR. HENKEL-Yes, LED is specifically mentioned in there. MR. URRICO-So are we talking about two different sections in the Code? MRS. MOORE-No, we’re only talking about prohibiting LED signs. MS. PARKER-It’s a pretty lengthy. MR. URRICO-I see it, but I just, I see also the definitions as well. MS. PARKER-Well, and a lot of towns, because somebody put this huge sign up that scared the bejesus out of them they all of a sudden said no LED’s. So it does restrict you, and that’s why we’re here. MR. URRICO-I’m just curious. In other locations, you have signs, you have digital displays on the freestanding sign. Did you try back here and they told you you won’t get it or why are you not going for that as well? MS. PARKER-Well, five years ago I started doing all the LED signs on the main road, and we were told no, but Cumberland Farms had a second option for that. So they put in what we call the scroller type sign, and I noticed Stewarts has a couple of them in, too. It’s a good alternative to LED. Now, like I said, we’re down to the last 40 sites left that we went back and said all right, they said no, but do we want to go forward and try and get a variance. So that’s what I’m doing. MR. FREER-So you mentioned that you’ve gone through hundreds of these, can you tell us your track record? MS. PARKER-My track record? MR. FREER-No, I mean, are you seeing everybody approve them or nobody approve them? MS. PARKER-Like 95% approval. The people that won’t, the people that didn’t approve it is like your Cape Cod. I turned it on and they all just went, ah. MR. MC CABE-Any other questions? 7 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/27/2016) MS. PARKER-And, you know, I would like to offer that this site is in your Main Street site, and I don’t want to make precedent that if this one was denied that possibly the other two couldn’t get approved because they’re not in your Main Street. I mean, I think it’s right off a ramp, highway ramp, surrounded by all, you know, commercial stuff. So I don’t know. MR. MC CABE-Okay. Are you all set, then? Does anybody have any other questions? So at this point I’m going to open the public meeting. Is there anybody in the audience that would like to speak on this matter? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. MC CABE-Is there any correspondence, Roy? MR. URRICO-No, at least not with this one. MR. MC CABE-So I’m going to close the public meeting at this point, seeing nobody who’s looking to talk. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MC CABE-And I’m going to do a little poll of the Board here. Jim, how do you feel on this issue? MR. UNDERWOOD-I think that we need to be careful because, you know, if you look at it from the perspective of the Town Board adopting the Code as it exists, you know, I think that’s where the Planning Board was coming from last night. They were saying no way because it doesn’t conform to the current Code as prescribed by the Town Board, but I think that at the same time we have to look at the change in technology. I mean, LED’s are something that’s relatively new, and I think that there’s three different examples up there of the kind of lumens that are going to be produced by the LED’s, and I think that if you went to the Town Board and gave the presentation it might be better to go to the Town Board and have them make the decision because, you know, I think we should be open-minded about it nonetheless, regardless of whether it’s permitted at the present time or not, but presently as it exists I don’t think we can go for an approval at this point in time without hearing from the Town Board. MR. MC CABE-Ron? MR. KUHL-Well, LED’s are a thing of the future. I mean, if you take a look at the traffic lights, they unscrewed the bulbs and put LED lights in. I mean, LED lights are here to say. I think the Code is saying we don’t want these big bright story boards. This, to me, doesn’t enter into that story board category. I agree with Jim about an overall ruling, but as I look forward for here tonight, I think they should be, I would be in favor of it as long as it’s in that low screen, because I don’t look at these as being a big story board. I look at these as being a price thing on top of a gas pump. So I would be in favor of it. MR. MC CABE-Harrison? MR. FREER-Yes. Both good points made. I, too, think that the technology’s going faster than the Code in this example, to the point of LED’s can be very disturbing and distracting. I don’t see this as so, and I think that we would constrain it to the lowest feasible setting of three with the four coats there. That would be the only way I would support it, but with those constraints, I would support this variance. MR. MC CABE-John? MR. HENKEL-I also agree with my Board members, too. It’s kind of hard to, there’s signs already in this Town with open/closed that have LED, but until the Town changes the Code, I would have to say that I’m not for this at this point, until the Town changes the Code. MR. MC CABE-Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes. I think there’s a quandary here. I think, in my opinion, this is something that’s much needed for the businesses that operate in the Town, specifically the gas stations because it is kind of dangerous for them, especially in the winter, to go out there and change the signs. However, you know, we’re constrained by the Code, which is very specific and very, you know, doesn’t allow for it on gas stations or mostly anything else. So I think the way to go with this is to have the Code changed. That’s something that’s needed, because once we, Cumbies has three stations in Town. We have, you know, they’re all near other gas stations for the most 8 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/27/2016) part, and you know as soon as we let this go, we pass this, then the other stations are going to come and ask for the same, and, you know, there is a certain precedent established when we change one like this and then we cannot refuse the ones coming down the road. So in essence we’re changing the sign code by passing this I think, and I think that’s the province of the Town, the Town Board changes the sign code when they see fit, not when we see fit. So I’d be against the proposal, but I do favor it if the Code says so. MR. MC CABE-And my opinion is that there’s no problem with the LED. Obviously it’s not intrusive in any way, shape or form, and the other problem is that all you have to do is to go a little bit further down the street and you have Walgreen which has the big freestanding sign with the LED. So for the average traveler on Main Street there, they wouldn’t really see a difference. So I’d be inclined to okay the one for Main Street, but the problem is that we open up the floodgates, and so I really feel that this is a Town Board issue that they need to make the decision here which way they want to go, and I believe that for the safety of the operator, for the convenience of the operator, for the clarity of the display, the LED is the proper way to go, but, you know, and I would approve the one, but I’d have a hard time approving the other two because you have to go quite a ways before you see other LED displays. So my advice would be to do your presentation to the Town Board. I think it’s high time. MS. PARKER-So that would be? MRS. MOORE-Sometimes that occurs that way. In this case you would potentially table your application at this meeting and for the other ones and then work with our Zoning Administrator and Staff to, and potentially an attorney to come up with language that you would propose to the Town Board about changing the Sign Code, and then that in itself is a process. MS. PARKER-Some towns have, you know, you could just turn around and say it’s not a sign. MR. MC CABE-Well, it would be the cleanest way for you to do it, and you’d be doing a favor to everybody else. So you have the opportunity here to do that. So you can do whatever you want, but that’s kind of what I’m urging. MS. PARKER-Should I find out? MR. MC CABE-Well, you already have four noes versus two yeses here. MR. UNDERWOOD-I would make the suggestion, too, since we’re looking at the LED’s across the board, you know, if we’re going to open that up for the Town Board, it would probably make sense to look at the LED’s being used in monument signs and the pedestal signs for the gas stations, too, because I can see that in the future, that that will probably come up. So you may as well ask for everything and just say, you know, what are your suggestions as far as this goes, too because that way you won’t have to come back numerous times. I think that the Town Board, if you showed them this display here, they’re going to have a better understanding as to how bright it is and things like that and maybe their eyes will be opened up to the fact that it’s not, with film on it, that intrusive, you know, it’s not as bright. MR. URRICO-Those are very effective. MR. MC CABE-Yes, that’s a great display. MR. URRICO-Bring that with you. MR. MC CABE-So that’s our recommendation, but the ultimate decision is yours. MS. PARKER-Well, I mean, I’d rather table and then just write a letter and say we withdraw without prejudice and then talk to the Town. MR. MC CABE-Well, we can table this for three months. MRS. MOORE-It would be tabled to. MS. PARKER-So if the Town says, changes their mind, they would re-write the by-laws. MR. HENKEL-Then you wouldn’t need to come back before us. MR. URRICO-So you can table it for up to three months. MR. MC CABE-So do you want to table? 9 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/27/2016) MS. PARKER-If I’m going to be denied for all three, I guess I would table. MR. MC CABE-Okay. So I’ll need a resolution to table these variances. Can we do all three with a single? MRS. MOORE-You can. I would definitely identify them. I’m just looking at the table of dates, so that I can give you a specific date to table it to. MR. URRICO-Laura, she can be tabled for up to three months? What’s the most? MRS. MOORE-You do not have a specific timeframe for tabling that I’m aware of. MR. URRICO-Okay. So then we can, she could be tabled indefinitely until she’s ready to come back? MRS. MOORE-No, you should table it to a specific date, but you can, you could potentially8 table it until next year, but I wouldn’t suggest that is what I’m trying to say. MS. PARKER-Now what do I do, I file something with the Town Board? MR. KUHL-You go make your presentation in front of the Town Board. MS. PARKER-That’s it? MRS. MOORE-There’s a whole process. It’s not just making your presentation. So there’s a letter. So you’d be preparing documents in support of changing the Sign Code, and as Mr. Underwood explained, you might want to ask for more than just the price signs. MR. KUHL-So what do you want me to suggest, Mr. Chairman, that we? MR. MC CABE-I’d like you to table Sign Variance PZ 119-2016, PZ 0111 and PZ 0114 until the August meeting. MR. UNDERWOOD-Pending review by the Town Board. MR. URRICO-Sounds good. MOTION TO TABLE SIGN VARIANCE PZ-119-2016; PZ-111-2016 and PZ-114-2016, CUMBERLAND FARMS, LLC AT 110 MAIN STREET, 410 QUAKER ROAD, AND 966 STATE ROUTE 9 , Introduced by Ronald Kuhl who moved for its adoption, seconded by Harrison Freer: Tabled to the August 17, 2016 Zoning Board of Appeals meeting (Pending review by the Town Board). th Duly adopted this 27 day of April, 2016, by the following vote: th MRS. MOORE-Okay, and the August meeting would be August 17. AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Freer, Mr. Kuhl NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Jackoski MR. MC CABE-So, Carolyn, sorry about that, but I think it’s really the best way to do it, and you may get a lot more than what you originally bargained for. AREA VARIANCE PZ-0122-2016 SEQRA TYPE II PLANNED PARENTHOOD MOHAWK – HUDSON AGENT(S) GARY MC COOLA ARCHITECT, PLLC OWNER(S) PLANNED PARENTHOOD MOHAWK-HUDSON ZONING OFFICE LOCATION 543 BAY ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES BUILDING ADDITIONS; 336 SQ. FT. MECHANICAL ROOM; 128 SQ. FT. ADDITION AND ENTRYWAY, AND A 70 SQ. FT. LANDING AND RAMP LOCATION. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MINIMUM SETBACK REQUIREMENTS FOR THE OFFICE (O) ZONING DISTRICT. PLANNING BOARD: SITE PLAN REVIEW REQUIRED FOR SITE AND BUILDING ALTERATIONS. CROSS REF BP 88-014 OFFICE BLDG; BP 2004-664 ADDITION; BP 2008-116; SIGN, BP 2007-012 SIGN; BP 2001-061 SIGN WARREN 10 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/27/2016) COUNTY PLANNING APRIL 2016 LOT SIZE 0.83 ACRE(S) TAX MAP NO. 296.11-1-42 SECTION 179-3-040 GARY MC COOLA, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Sign Variance PZ-0122-2016, Planned Parenthood Mohawk-Hudson, Meeting Description of Proposed Project: Date: April 27, 2016 “Project Location: 543 Bay Road Applicant proposes building additions; 336 sq. ft. mechanical room, 128 sq. ft. addition and entryway, and a 70 sq. ft. landing and ramp relocation. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief from minimum setback requirements for the Office (O) zoning district. Section 179-3-040 establishment of districts dimensional requirements The new construction of the additions and exterior renovations does not meet the required setbacks of the zone where 75 ft. is required for Baywood (South) and 13.6 ft. is proposed, Baywood (West) and 58.8 ft. is proposed, Bay Rd and 61.6 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. The new construction allows for the rearrangement of the interior space and installs stormwater management on the site. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. The feasible alternatives may be limited to due to the existing location of the building on a corner lot so three sides are front setbacks. The front setback requirement is 75 ft. and the existing building prior to new construction did not meet the front setback requirements. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief may be considered substantial relevant to the code. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The project as proposed may be considered to have minimal to no 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 renovate an existing 5,695 sq. ft. building with a 16 x 24 mechanical room addition, 8 x 16 addition and entry way improvements. The project also includes a 70 +/- sq. ft. new landing and ramp relocation. The parking is to be amended for new spaces and arrangement of the existing lot. The plans show the location of improvements to the building and site.” MR. URRICO-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 they adopted that on April 26, 2016 by a unanimous vote. MR. MC CABE-So you’re Gary? MR. MC COOLA-Yes, I am. MR. MC CABE-Identify yourself for the record. 11 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/27/2016) MR. MC COOLA-Gary McCoola, architect, acting as agent for Planned Parenthood Mohawk- Hudson, and I’ll walk you through the project. MR. MC CABE-Sure. MR. MC COOLA-Okay. My client is looked to re-develop and renovate the property at 543 Bay Road. This is the existing property. There’s a single story wood frame building roughly in the center of the property, existing asphalt paved parking lot along the west side with access points on Baywood Drive. The property is unique in that it has street frontage on three sides of the property, and therefore the 75 foot setbacks from those three streets are indicated by this colored line here. So you can see the existing building encroaches into the setbacks on basically the west, south and the east sides, as it currently stands. So we looked at lots of options through the course of design and we’re designing the project basically for health codes and guidelines for the New York State Department of Health and one of the requirements is that the entrance/exits to the building be under cover, basically to shelter those entrances. So the existing building, the main entrance Is an enclosed vestibule, but it’s accessed by an open wooden porch and ramp that is built on top of the existing parking lot. So the first thing we looked at was a way to put a roof over that and because of its encroachment onto the asphalt pavement, it would be a significant structure to build out over that and it would require a variance to do that work. Another option we looked at was putting another entrance on the south side of the building. The current door that’s there is an exit. It’s recessed into the facade of the building and it does not meet any accessibility requirements. It’s not deep enough and it’s not wide enough for the door that’s there. So to make it accessible and to provide the coverage, we would have to build another stoop and a roof out over that doorway to get the current step we’d like to have there. So what we are proposing, to go through several design concepts, we will be locating the main entrance door to the south here and constructing a new concrete landing with steps coming up to it, and then adjacent to that would be a mechanical handicap lift, and there would be a roof structure built over the top of that. Basically an open porch, and then just a small addition to the building adjacent to that. It comes out approximately 10 feet away from the building. The existing entrance to the building will now be considered an exit from the building so we’ll maintain the enclosed vestibule but remove the door from the front and put a new door to the side, a new concrete stoop there with a roof over it and then an accessible ramp coming down parallel to the building that will be a concrete ramp that’s easier to maintain. So the existing wood ramp that’s in the front of the building will be removed. The third addition will be a one story mechanical room addition on the north end of the building. That will be constructed within the setback requirements. So what we’re looking for is relief from the setback variance to construct this addition here and also this addition on that side. You’ll note that both of these additions with the roof and the enclosure do not come out as far as the existing wooden ramp that’s being removed. So in addition to removing that ramp we’ll be removing a strip of asphalt pavement all along that side of the building to accommodate basically the walkways and new landscaping. There’ll be other sit improvements. The parking lot will be expanded slightly to the north. We are re-paving the entire parking lot, taking care of stormwater drainage, both for the parking lot at the perimeter and on the north end of the site. There will be new site lighting with light poles around the perimeter of the parking lot, and also new landscaping on both sides of the building, and if I can just go to the elevations. This top drawing shows the western elevation. This is the new entryway that we’re constructing, so the entry with the stoop, the gabled roof over it to signify it as the main entrance, and then the small addition to the building. So the building, we’re trying to downplay the overall construction of that. So we have a hip roof coming in, which is the small gable over that entryway. The portion of this porch, again, hip roof over that, just to kind of diminish the impact of that construction, and then the ramp coming down, and then we have signage on the building, basically designating that as the main entrance. The audition on the north end of the building for the mechanical room, again, hip roof to downplay the size of that addition. It does not exceed the height of the existing building. So everything is much lower than the existing building. The general look of the building will all have clapboard siding, matching what’s there right now. So the building will not look much different than the building that’s currently there. Although we will propose to change the colors, which we have not determined yet. So I’ll leave it at that and take any questions you might have. MR. MC CABE-Okay. Does anybody have any questions? It seems pretty straightforward to me. So there is a public meeting advertised. At this point I’ll open the public meeting. Is there anybody in the audience that would like to speak on this matter? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. HENKEL-Did they ever think about this parking on the side here to the south side, kind of ridiculous that it backs into the path of the road there. 12 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/27/2016) MRS. MOORE-That’s the Town’s property. MR. HENKEL-I know it’s been there for a long time but it’s just kind of, you know, in expanding the parking lot, can they make more green space there? MR. MC COOLA-These spaces here? They are existing spaces. We will retain those, and again, it was basically because we could use the parking spaces for the project. So the only expansion, really, to the site, given the fact that the building runs down the center of the site as a linear building, we are making a slight expansion on the north end, adding a couple of spaces. I think overall we’re adding about three or four spaces to the project. We really can’t build anywhere beyond. MR. HENKEL-I was wondering if that was considered, because that is a hazard, people backing out, that’s a pretty busy, there’s a lot of doctor’s offices in there, and when they’re parked they’re backing up into traffic. MRS. MOORE-So let me just share something. Mr. McCoola and I did talk about those parking spaces that back out to the road. That’s actually Town property, and the applicant has already discussed with the Town Highway Department about use of those spaces, and the Town Highway Department already submitted a letter saying that that was not an issue to them. MR. MC COOLA-So Planned Parenthood will maintain this for snow removal and clean those spaces. Another thing just to point out that these will be designated as Staff spaces. So Staff that comes to the building will park there in the morning and basically leave those spaces in the evening. These spaces are designated for the patients that are coming in on the site. So there will not be cars pulling in and out of these spaces through the course of the day. MR. HENKEL-Makes sense. MR. MC CABE-Roy, are there any letters? MR. URRICO-There are no letters. MR. MC CABE-So at this point I’m going to close the public meeting. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MC CABE-I’m going to poll the Board. Jim, what are your thoughts on the project? MR. UNDERWOOD-As explained by the applicant, I think all the improvements will add to the functionality of the building. I don’t think it’s going to create any new situations as far as parking and things like that, and I think that the building has sat there for quite some time. I would rather see it utilized for a good purpose, and I think in this case here we can grant the variance as requested. MR. MC CABE-Ron? MR. KUHL-Yes, I think it’s a good utilization of the property. It’s been sitting empty too long, and it’s just a function of it being on three different roads. I think it’s a good use of the property. I’d be in favor of it. MR. MC CABE-Harrison? MR. FREER-Yes, I support this request as well. I think that, you know, the one setback is sort of substantial, but, given what you’ve just presented and sort of the catch-22 of trying to maintain State health code requirements and Town zoning requirements and who knows what else, you’ve done a good job of balancing that. So I support it. MR. MC CABE-John? MR. HENKEL-Yes, I also support it. It’s a good looking project. Go for it. MR. MC CABE-Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes, I’m in favor of the project as presented. 13 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/27/2016) MR. MC CABE-And I also am in favor of the project. I think that the variances are very minimal given that it’s a non-conforming lot to begin with, and that was a very good presentation. So at this point I’m going to ask for a resolution. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Planned Parenthood Mohawk – Hudson.Applicant proposes building additions; 336 sq. ft. mechanical room, 128 sq. ft. addition and entryway, and a 70 sq. ft. landing and ramp relocation. Relief requested from minimum setback requirements for the Office (O) zoning district. Planning Board: Site Plan Review required for site and building alterations. SEQR Type II – no further review required; Wednesday, April 27, 2016 A public hearing was advertised and held on ; 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: There will be no undesirable change created in the character of the neighborhood. Feasible alternatives do not seem to be available and I don’t think that there are any that are necessary at this point and time. I think everything is a reasonable request. The alleged difficulty is not really self-created because it is created by the fact that there are three frontages on this site which creates a unique situation requiring relief from the 75 foot setback. BASED ON THE ABOVE FINDINGS, I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. PZ-0122-2016 PLANNED PARENTHOOD MOHAWK-HUDSON , Introduced by Mr. Underwood, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Mr. Urrico: th Duly adopted this 27 day of April by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Freer, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Henkel, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Urrico NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Jackoski MR. MC COOLA-Thank you very much. AREA VARIANCE PZ-0083-2016 SEQRA TYPE II MICHAEL & CINDY TROMBLEY OWNER(S) MICHAEL & CINDY TROMBLEY ZONING RR-3A LOCATION 80 ELLSWORTH LANE APPLICANT PROPOSES A TWO-LOT SUBDIVISION. LOT 1; 3.75 ACRES TO RETAIN OWNER/APPLICANT’S RESIDENCE. LOT 2; 3.22 ACRES TO BECOME NEW VACANT BUILDING LOT. RELIEF IS REQUIRED AS THE SUBDIVISION OF LAND WITH TWO NEWLY CREATED LOTS WILL NOT MEET THE MINIMUM ROAD FRONTAGE AND LOT WIDTH REQUIREMENTS FOR THE RR-3A ZONING DISTRICT. CROSS REF SB PZ-0078-2016; BP 2002-781 SFD WARREN COUNTY PLANNING MARCH 2016 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY ALD LOT SIZE 6.97 ACRE(S) TAX MAP NO. 265.00-1-16 SECTION 179-3-040 LUCAS DOBIE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance PZ-0083-2016, Michael & Cindy Trombley, Meeting Date: Description of Proposed Project: April 27, 2016 “Project Location: 80 Ellsworth Lane Applicant proposes a two lot subdivision of a 6.97 acre lot. Lot one to retain owner occupied residence, 3.75 acres; lot two to become new vacant lot of 3.22 acres. The project includes retaining and already constructed second garage on Lot one. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for the subdivision of land for two lots that will not meet the minimum road frontage and lot width requirements for the RR-3A zoning district. Request is also for a second garage Section 179-3-040 establishment of districts dimensional requirements 14 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/27/2016) Proposed subdivision for two lots where 400 ft. required for road frontage and lot width. Lot 1 proposed 108.7 ft. and Lot 2 proposed 250 ft. for road frontage. Lot 1 proposed 303.8 ft. and Lot 2 proposed 250 ft. for lot width. Section 179-5-020 accessory structures –garage Lot 1 to be retained has an existing attached garage and an already constructed second garage. Relief requested for 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 this area variance. Minorimpacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. Feasible alternatives may be limited as the lots are compliant in size and adjustments may trigger other variance relief. 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 variance requested may have minimal physical or environmental impacts in the area. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created . The difficulty may be considered self- created. Staff comments: The applicant proposes a two lot subdivision to maintain an existing home and to create a new building lot. The submission shows the existing conditions on the site including the existing home and an already constructed second garage. The new lot to be created is also shown with a proposed house location, septic and well area.” 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 they adopted that motion on April 26, 2016 by a unanimous vote. MR. MC CABE-Welcome. Identify yourself, please, for the record. MR. DOBIE-Good evening, Board, thank you very much. Lucas Dobie with Hutchins Engineering, representing the owner and applicants Michael Trombley, Cindy Trombley and their daughter Brianna and her fiancé Jordan, who hope to become the owners and build a new lot on Lot 2 this summer if we’re successful with the project. Just real briefly, we’re proposing a two lot subdivision to the northeast end of Ellsworth Lane, which is about two miles north of 149, and the applicants have discussed with the neighbors in the community looking for their support and that’s my understanding that the neighbors support the project and we’re able to meet our density, our setbacks. We’re just coming up a little bit short of road frontage and the lot width. MR. MC CABE-Is there any documentation from the neighbors or just? MR. DOBIE-Just unofficial. MR. MC CABE-Okay. MR. DOBIE-We did not have them in time for the submission. MR. MC CABE-That’s okay. MR. DOBIE-And there’s no material changes proposed to Lot One, which is Michael and Cindy’s home, and we’re just looking for your support on the project, and it’s pretty straightforward. So very simple. Thank you. 15 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/27/2016) MR. MC CABE-Do we have any questions of the applicant here? MR. KUHL-It looks like a garage, that’s already there? MICHAEL TROMBLEY MR. TROMBLEY-Yes, sir. MR. KUHL-So you never had approval for it? MR. DOBIE-I can give you a little background on that. Prior to 2005, I built the house in 2001. A few years later I approached the Town about building a second garage to store my mowers, four wheelers snow machines, things like that. I already have a two car garage attached to the house. At that time I dealt with the late Joel Clugstone who advised me that a second garage couldn’t be had. So he said at that time, you know, those little metal buildings that you see popping up was no problem because there were no Town Codes concerning those or anything at that time. I didn’t want to go that way because it was so little, but I didn’t have much of a choice. So his only advice to me at that time was keep it 10 feet off the property line, in case there was ever an issue with the property line. At that time I guess that’s what the setback was. That was constructed in late 2005 I had that put up, not ever knowing there was an issue with that. So I guess here we are today going backwards to address that now. MR. URRICO-You were told by the Town that it was okay to put up a second garage? MR. DOBIE-Yes, the metal buildings that you see. MR. URRICO-2005? MR. TROMBLEY-It was a year or two before that, but by the time I got around to doing that, purchasing it and having it put up. MR. URRICO-I just have a hard time believing that somebody from the Town would tell you that when the Town Code was pretty well set by that time. MR. TROMBLEY-The metal buildings? I don’t believe today there’s any. MR. URRICO-It’s considered an extra shed, at the very least. MR. HENKEL-Because of the openings of it it’s considered a second garage. MR. URRICO-Yes. MR. HENKEL-What’s the square footage of that? MR. TROMBLEY-That is 470 square feet, sir. MR. UNDERWOOD-I can think back, historically, Roy, you can probably back me up on this. When we had that further subdivision further up the hill above there, I can’t remember the people’s name, that was quite some time ago, I don’t know if that was back at the same time that this building would have been put up there, too, and I’m not sure, as far as the statute of limitations. I know when we do have, we do discover things after the fact, I think sometimes there’s concern on the parts of the Board, but if it was put up in 2005, it’s a long time since then. I think the big issue that we need to address, primarily, is it’s a family subdivision and we’ve had numerous examples of these through the years created all through the Town and I think you basically have to look at it for what it is, and I think the issue really is the road frontage relief that’s necessary for this one, and I think as far as road frontage relief goes, the difference there is that, on the primary arterial roads, that’s where we’re concerned about having the 400 feet so we don’t have a proliferation of driveways and things like that, but I think that the difference here on Ellsworth Road is that we have a dead end road, this is at the end of a dead end road, you know, so as far as an impact, I think that’s something to consider, too. MR. MC CABE-Anybody else have questions? MR. HENKEL-We’ve given variances for second garages for three acre lots anyway. MR. MC CABE-Well, this would have been for a seven acre lot. 16 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/27/2016) MR. HENKEL-Right. MR. MC CABE-So I would have been surprised if they hadn’t let you have a second garage. MR. HENKEL-If you had come in for a variance, I’m sure you would have gotten it from us. MR. TROMBLEY-I would have loved to have built a nice garage to match my house. MR. MC CABE-So at this time, we do have a public meeting scheduled. So at this time I’m going to open the public meeting and ask if there’s anybody in the audience that would like to address this Board on this matter? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. MC CABE-Seeing no one. MR. URRICO-There’s still no commentary. MR. MC CABE-Still no commentary. Okay. So I’m going to close the public meeting and I’m going to poll the Board. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MC CABE-Jim? I think you kind of made yourself pretty clear here. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, pretty clear as far as that goes, and I think as far as the relief that we can, the relief is not significant. It’s 400 feet, and I think one is 300 feet wide, the other one is 250 feet wide, which is more than enough space. It’s a family living next door and they’re going to create a lot for their family members to the west of where their home is at the present time. I don’t really see this as an insurmountable task for us to grant the relief that’s necessary for this request. MR. MC CABE-Ron, how do you feel? MR. KUHL-Yes, I mean, Lot One you’re just looking for 96 feet and Lot Two is 150. I mean, they’re staying within the better than three acre zoning. I have no issue with it. MR. MC CABE-Harrison, how do you feel? MR. FREER-I agree with my colleagues that this is the kind of reason that we have Zoning Boards of Appeals, so that when something makes sense that doesn’t comply with the rigid piece of the Code and we go through our criteria about whether it’s going to be an impact to the neighborhood or environmental and you come up with no good answer to that, we should be open to granting these kind of variances. So I support it. MR. MC CABE-John? MR. HENKEL-Yes, I also support it. I think it’s great that they’re giving a piece of property to their family members and they’re not looking for something to be subdivided into many lots and what they’re asking for, the road frontage seems very minimal for the project. MR. MC CABE-Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes. I’d be in favor of it. MR. MC CABE-And I, too, am in favor of the project. So I’m going to ask for a resolution for Area Variance PZ 83-2016. MR. KUHL-Can I make that recommendation, Mr. Chairman? MR. MC CABE-Absolutely. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Michael & CindyTrombley. Applicant proposes a two-lot subdivision of 6.97 acres. One lot to retain owner residence; 3.75 acres. Lot 2 to become a new vacant lot of 3.22 acres. The project includes retaining an already constructed second garage on Lot number 1. The relief requested is 96.2 feet for lot number one and 150 ft. relief for lot number two. The approval of the existing garage is on Lot number 1. 17 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/27/2016) SEQR Type II – no further review required Wednesday, April 27, 2016 A public hearing was advertised and held on ; 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: Whether an undesirable change will be produced to the character of the neighborhood; minor impacts for the neighborhood are anticipated. Whether the benefits sought by the applicant could be achieved by some other method; feasible alternatives may really be limited. Whether the requested area variance is substantial; I’d say it is moderate at best. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood; it’s minimal, at best. And, although the difficulty is self-created. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. PZ-0083-2016, MICHAEL & CINDY TROMBLEY ,Introduced by Ronald Kuhl, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Harrison Freer: th Duly adopted this 27 day of April 2016 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Freer, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Jackoski MR. MC CABE-Enjoy your new house. MR. TROMBLEY-Thank you. MR. MC CABE-I believe that concludes the business for today. Could I have a resolution to close our meeting? MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING OF APRIL 27, 2016 , Introduced by Roy Urrico who moved for its adoption, seconded by Harrison Freer: th Duly adopted this 27 day of April, 2016, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Freer, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Henkel, Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Jackoski On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Michael McCabe, Acting Chairman 18