Loading...
05-25-2016 QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SECOND REGULAR MEETING MAY 25, 2016 INDEX Area Variance No. 51-2015 Burnett Family Trust 1. Tax Map No. 239.18-1-12 Sign Variance PZ-0134-2016 Lake George Assoc. DXL Men's Apparel 5. Tax Map No. 288.12-1-15 Area Variance PZ-0130-2016 Lester H., III and Thalia M. Chase 11. Tax Map No. 239.19-1-17 Sign Variance PZ-0133-2016 Saxton Sign Corp. 13. Tax Map No. 309.17-1-24 Sign Variance PZ-0137-2016 Tony Mishoe 18. Tax Map No. 302.6-1-54 Sign Variance PZ-0136-2016 Christopher Della Bella 22. Tax Map No. 296.20-1-5 and 296.20-1-19 Sign Variance PZ-0141-2016 North Country Imports, Inc. 26. Tax Map No. 303.10-1-12 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 MAY 25, 2016 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT STEVEN JACKOSKI, CHAIRMAN ROY URRICO, SECRETARY MICHAEL MC CABE JOHN HENKEL RONALD KUHL HARRISON FREER JAMES UNDERWOOD, ALTERNATE LAND USE PLANNER-LAURA MOORE STENOGRAPHER-SUE HEMINGWAY MR. JACKOSKI-Hello, everyone and welcome. I'd like to call to order this evening's meeting of the Zoning Board of the Town of Queensbury. For those of you who haven't been here in the past it's a very simple process. We'll introduce each application. We'll read the application into the record. We'll call the applicants to the small table. They will add information to their application if they so choose. The Board will ask them some questions or comments. When there is a public comment period advertised, which everything this evening has a public comment period associated with it, we will go ahead and open up a public comment period, take public comment, listen to what the public has to say, read any public comment into the record, bring the applicant back to the table to address anything they may have heard during the public comment. The Board may possibly have more questions or poll the Board to see where it's leaning with the project and then move forward accordingly. So we do have a full Board tonight. Thank you, Jim. I'd like to, I guess, begin with the Administrative Item of the Burnett Family Trust. MRS. MOORE-You can, but there's no one here present in the audience for the Burnett application. DEBORAH SLEZAK MS. SLEZAK-I am. MRS. MOORE-1 apologize. MS. SLEZAK-That's okay. MR. JACKOSKI-So, being this is just a continuum of where we left off last week, we did close the public hearing. Correct, Sue? MS. HEMINGWAY-1 wasn't here last week. MR. JACKOSKI-Yes, I'm trying to remember. Well, how about this, officially the public hearing is closed. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MRS. MOORE-Okay. MR. JACKOSKI-So we do have a resolution that Counsel has worked with us on. Jim, thank you very much for all that you've done associated with this. AREA VARIANCE NO. 51-2015 SEQRA TYPE II BURNETT FAMILY TRUST AGENT(S) THOMAS R. KNAPP. ESQ, STAFFORD, CARR, MCNALLY OWNER(S) BURNETT FAMILY TRUST & ESTATE OF DAVID BURNETT ZONING WR LOCATION 11 ANDREW DRIVE APPLICANT PROPOSES A 2-LOT SUBDIVISION; LOT SIZE 28,639 SQ. FT. LOT A AND 28,754 SQ. FT. LOT B; NO CHANGES TO EXISTING HOMES OR FEATURES, DRIVEWAY. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MINIMUM ROAD FRONTAGE, WATER FRONTAGE, LOT WIDTH REQUIREMENTS, AND LOT A FOR NOT HAVING PHYSICAL ROAD FRONTAGE. ALSO, RELIEF IS REQUESTED FROM MINIMUM LOT SIZE, PROPERTY LINE SETBACKS FOR THE WR ZONING DISTRICT. SUBDIVISION APPROVAL IS REQUIRED FOR THE CREATION OF TWO LOTS FROM THE ONE PARENT LOT. CROSS REF SB 8-2015; BP 2004-677 DOCK WARREN COUNTY PLANNING SEPTEMBER 2015 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY ALD LOT SIZE 1.32 ACRE(S) TAX MAP NO. 239.18-1-12 SECTION 179-4-050; 179-3-040 MR. JACKOSKI-And again, the meeting we had was for last Wednesday evening, May 18tH Being that this is a record of the resolution, Staff, I assume we should just read this in as the record? MRS. MOORE-Yes. If you want. If any of the Board members wish to discuss any of the items in that resolution, they should do that, and if you have any amendments, you should include that prior to you making the motion itself. MR. JACKOSKI-Sounds perfectly fair. MR. KUHL-I have an issue with Item Number Two, the feasible alternatives available to the applicant. The applicant whose goal is to divide the ownership of the parcel appear to be limited as the most efficient way to achieve this is to subdivide the property. We're denying the subdivision. How can you suggest that as a feasible alternatives? For me I think the only way that this can be rectified is for one owner, because we're denying a subdivision. So I don't see that as a feasible alternative. MR. FREER-I agree. MR. HENKEL-Yes, that makes sense. MR. FREER-The most reasonable approach is for someone to buy someone out. MR. UNDERWOOD-The other suggestion that I made to Staff was that there would be a possibility of using it as a rental property, so that way you could accrue some return on your owning the property and then at some point in the future get together with the other party that's involved, as far as wanting to maintain the other camp on the property, you know, in the future I think the value of the property will continue to accrue to both parties and I think at some point they will probably both decide in mutual agreement to sell the single lot. MR. JACKOSKI-I'm writing, so keep going. Is there anything else that Board members want to address? MRS. MOORE-1 guess I'll focus you on Question Number One, or the criteria number one. The proposed subdivision would produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood and would be a detriment to nearby properties. Is there any additional information that the Board wants to include in that Number One? MR. KUHL-No, it's straightforward. MR. URRICO-I would add in, after where two acres is, the word currently the minimum lot size, where two acres is currently the minimum lot size. MRS. MOORE-And I just want to bring to your attention that that Number One is really repeating what the applicant's request is, to subdivide their property and that's their right to do that. So if the Board feels that there's a detriment, you know, is there a property issue, constraints on the property that identify it as a detriment as this proposed subdivision? MR. HENKEL-Greater than 15 degrees as far as the slope. Would that also be put in there? MR. JACKOSKI-So let me read what thoughts I might have heard while we were talking about Number Two? I probably can read my own writing. Feasible alternatives available to the applicant whose goal is to divide the ownership of the parcel appear to be limited, but a subdivision is not necessary as the parcel could remain under ownership of one owner or a corporation or company with a rental structure. A partition sale could take place. Joint ownership could continue with a non-family member. One owner purchases the other owner interest outright at a discounted rate, and the topography, access, current improvements, dock structure, etc., make this subdivision cumbersome and not a typical subdivision which would have been granted. No other lots in the area are of this irregular and complicated shape. MRS. MOORE-Would you pull that out and put that particular item for Number One versus keeping it as an alternative? MR. JACKOSKI-I think we can duplicate it. MRS. MOORE-Okay. MR. JACKOSKI-I'll add, so complicated shape requiring so many variances. Does that seem reasonable? So where did Staff want me to put all of that. MRS. MOORE-You're going to duplicate it. I would include it in Number One because you're talking about the detriment to the nearby properties, and the character, undesirable change to the character of the neighborhood. MR. JACKOSKI-Any other comments? MR. HENKEL-Six total variances, right? MR. JACKOSKI-Yes. So I had asked when we develop this that we do the balancing test for every single variance, which we do not have here. Right? That was our goal. MR. HENKEL-Yes, you did say that. MR. JACKOSKI-I mean, what I'm concerned about is if this goes to court, when we, in the past, have lump sum and generalized everything, is that we didn't address is more thoroughly. Each one of these variances requires a balancing test. All right, so what's the will of the Board? We can go through and do all of this but we'll get overturned in the courts because they're going to tell us we weren't more thorough. What would the Board like to do? MR. MC CABE-I'm in favor of granting the variance because it makes the two structures autonomous and they can't do anything to either structure without coming to us. The existing property is nonconforming . The structures on the existing property are nonconforming. So granting the variance really doesn't do anything except for maintaining the status quo, which is what'll happen if we deny the variance. MR. JACKOSKI-I disagree. I think you're going to end up with two brand new buildings there, a more heavily populated density. MR. MC CABE-Not without coming to us. MR. JACKOSKI-I don't see adding two more homes in that neighborhood of a larger size and larger capacity is of benefit, especially. MR. HENKEL-Down the road a different Board could be here. I understand what you're saying. MR. MC CABE-They're already there, and, you know, we can't speculate. We have to make a judgment based on the hearing now, and the way I feel is that there's something to be gained by making these two properties autonomous. MR. JACKOSKI-Could you tell us what is to be gain? MR. MC CABE-The family. MR. JACKOSKI-That's not, what does the Town gain by? MR. MC CABE-The Town gains that the two properties are autonomous. Right now the two properties are not autonomous. You have two houses on one property. MR. JACKOSKI-Well I'd rather have one large parcel without so many variances. MR. MC CABE-But the parcel is nonconforming right now. MR. JACKOSKI-Yes, well, it's a lot bigger right now. It doesn't have to be, I mean, the variances go away right now. MR. MC CABE-And again, if you look at the neighborhood, most of the houses don't fit the zoning. MR. JACKOSKI-But a lot of them do. Anyway, it's not my recommendation that we move forward with this resolution as presented. MR. UNDERWOOD-1 think I would make a motion that we accept the language as presented by Staff and Counsel as we have it on this piece of paper. They spent time on this this week. That was the whole point of having them do that. I mean, I think we can always speculate as to outcomes, futures and everything else. That's fine, but you asked Staff to do this, you asked Counsel to do this, and I think at this point in time we have to accept the end product of what they came up with as what they thought was acceptable, and I think their expertise is greater than ours. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. So if someone would like to go ahead and make this motion and move this forward. MR. UNDERWOOD-All right. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from: Burnett Family Trust & Estate of David Burnett. Applicant proposes a 2-lot subdivision; lot size 28,639 sq. ft. Lot A and 28,754 sq. ft. Lot B; no changes to existing homes or features, driveway. Relief requested from minimum road frontage, water frontage, lot width requirements, and lot A for not having physical road frontage. Also, relief is requested from minimum lot size, property line setbacks for the WR zoning district. Subdivision approval is required for the creation of two lots from the one parent lot. SEQRA Type II — no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on; September 16, 2015, November 18, 2015, December 16, 2015; January 20, 2016; March 16, 2016 and left open for May 18, 2016 and including this evening, 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 Section 267 of NYS Town Law and after discussion and deliberation, we find as follows: 1. The proposed subdivision would produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood and would be a detriment to nearby properties because the existing lot is a non-conforming parcel of 1.32 acre proposed to be divided into two 0.66 acre lots where 2 acres is currently the minimum lot size in the area. As a result, further development of the proposed lots, given their narrowness, configuration, and steepness would likely result in further variance requests. Topography, access, current improvements, dock structures, etc. make this subdivision cumbersome and requires excessive numbers of variances which would not have typically been looked at when doing a standard subdivision. No other lots in the area are of this irregular and complicated shape. 2. The feasible alternatives available to the applicant, whose goal is to divide the ownership of the parcel, appear to be limited, as the most efficient way to achieve this is to subdivide the property. We also have noted the possibility that half ownership of the parcel could be sold to a second party or the party that wants to sell the property presently could use the property as a rental and accrue some return on their investment on the half of the lot. It is not necessary to do the subdivision as the parcel could remain under ownership of one owner. A corporation could be created with a rental structure. A partition sale could be had. A joint ownership continues without a family member being involved, or one owner could possibly buy out the other owner's interest at a discounted rate for fair market value of that owner's interests' value. Topography, access, current improvements, dock structures, etc. make this subdivision cumbersome and requires excessive numbers of variances which would not have typically been looked at when doing a standard subdivision. No other lots in the area are of this irregular and complicated shape. Therefore we are requesting that the variance be denied. 3. The requested variances are substantial given the number of components of their plan which require the following relief from the minimum area and setback requirements; • 63 ft. or 42% from the 150 ft. road frontage • 60 ft. or 40% from the 150 ft. water frontage • 63 ft. or 42% from the 150 ft. lot width • 1.34 acres or 67% from the 2 acre lot size • 14.81 ft. or 74% from the side setback on Lot A • 17.2 ft. or 86% from the side setback on Lot B a 4. The proposed project would result in adverse impacts on the physical and environmental conditions in the neighborhood because the existing and proposed lots would not meet the standards for onsite wastewater containment and potentially any drilled well or surface water usage of Lake George could continue to be compromised as a potable source of drinking water. 5. The alleged difficulty is self-created due to the applicants' desire to subdivide an existing non-conforming parcel into two less conforming parcels. 6. The Board finds that the benefit to the applicants from granting the requested variances would be outweighed by the resulting adverse impacts and detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood and community; BASED ON THE ABOVE FINDINGS I MAKE A MOTION TO DENY AREA VARIANCE NO. 51-2015 and PZ-0021-2015, Burnett Family Trust & Estate of David Burnett, Introduced by James Underwood, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Ronald Kuhl: 11 Andrew Drive. Tax Map No. 239.18-1-12 Duly adopted this 25th day of May 2016 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Freer, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Jackoski NOES: Mr. McCabe MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Thank you. NEW BUSINESS: SIGN VARIANCE PZ-0134-2016 SEQRA TYPE UNLISTED LAKE GEORGE ASSOC. DXL MEN'S APPAREL AGENT(S) JONATHAN C. LAPPER, ESQ BPSR OWNER(S) LAKE GEORGE ASSOCIATES ZONING Cl LOCATION 1498 STATE ROUTE 9 APPLICANT PROPOSES TO REPLACE BOTH SIGN PANELS FOR DXL MEN'S APPAREL STORE ON THE FREESTANDING SIGN LOCATED ON ROUTE 149 AND ON ROUTE 9. THE PROPOSED PANEL SIGN ON ROUTE 149 IS TO BE 23.25 SQ. FT. AND THE PANEL SIGN ON ROUTE 9 IS TO BE 21.39 FT. THE FREESTANDING SIGN ON ROUTE 149 IS 52.60 SQ. FT. AND ON ROUTE 9 IS 52.47 SQ. FT. RELIEF IS REQUESTED FOR SIZE AND LOCATION OF FREESTANDING SIGNS. CROSS REF BP 2015-418 DXL COWL ALT.; SP 9-2015; AV 5-2015; SV 90-1996; SV 23-1993, SV 1395 YR. 1988; SV 1571 YR. 1988 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING MAY 2016 LOT SIZE 1.61 ACRE(S) TAX MAP NO. 288.12-1-15 SECTION CHAPTER 140 JON LAPPER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFFINPUT Notes from Staff, Sign Variance PZ-0134-2016, Lake George Assoc. DXL Men's Apparel, Meeting Date: May 25, 2016 "Project Location: 1498 State Route 9 Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to replace both sign panels for DXL Men's Apparel store on the freestanding sign located on Route 149 and on Route 9. The proposed panel sign on Route 149 is to be 23.25 sq. ft. and the panel sign on Route 9 is to be 21.39 ft. The freestanding sign on Route 149 is 52.60 sq. ft. and on Route 9 is 52.47 sq. ft. Relief Required: The applicant requests the following relief: Relief is requested for size and location of freestanding signs. Section 140 Signs for which permits are required—location of signs and size of signs The applicant proposes a free standing sign on Route 149 maintaining the setback at 10 ft. 7 in and 52.60 sq. ft. and then a free standing sign on Route 9 maintaining the setback of 0 ft. and 52.47 sq. ft. sign where a 15 ft. setback is required and a 45 sq. ft. maximum sign is allowed. Criteria for considering a Sign Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination, the board shall consider: q;b 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. Minimal impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than a sign variance. Feasible alternatives may be considered to be limited for setbacks due to the lot configuration, the current parking area, and existing building location. The size of the sign may be reduced as a feasible alternative to be compliant with the code. 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 a minimal impact within the district. The applicant proposes to maintain the existing free standing signs in their current locations. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self- created. Staff comments: The applicant proposes to maintain a free standing sign on Route 149 and Route 9 maintaining the setback and size. The plans show the signage panels to be installed and the entire sign current conditions. The signage on 149 has been installed without approvals. UPDATE per discussion with applicant. Route 9 sign width is 70 inches, Proposed sign square footage for Route 9 is 50.76 sq. ft. this includes Family footwear 39 in x 70 (18.95 sq. ft.), Sox Market 17.5in x 70 in (8.51 sq. ft.) and DXL 48 in x 70 in (23.3 sq. ft.) Route 149 sign width is 72 inches. Proposed sign square footage for Route 149 is 47 sq. ft. this includes Family Footwear at 23 inches x72 inches (11.5 sq. ft.), Sox Market at 24 in x 72 in (12 sq. ft.), DXL at 47 in x 72 inches (23.5 sq. ft.)" MR. LAPPER-Good evening, everyone. For the record Jon Lapper. So I looked up and saw Jim Underwood and thought I was four years younger. So here's the story of how we got here on this variance application. We were here to re-do the plaza two years ago. There was not an attractive plaza and it was reduced to the owners and the architects that had designed it two new plazas, Montcalm and where Polo is, and those are the guys that designed the building and then Tom Nace designed the site, and it certainly looks a lot better than it used to, but at that point they were just doing this as the signs were grandfathered and they'd be changing out the sign panels, but of course that's not true because the Queensbury Ordinance says that signs can only go five years after the Ordinance was updated. So that just slipped and nobody thought about it when we got this approval. So when the sign contracts came in to just get permits for new signs, that's when this all came up. First I'd like to address the location of the signs. The one by Route 9 has always been in the same place and what's changed is that DOT did a taking at the corner there and that's why it's not 15 feet and in fact it's a foot over the line, and the problem there to move that would be to put it into the drive aisle which wouldn't work. So there's nowhere to re-locate it. So we'd like to just keep it where it is. It's in an island. It doesn't impact traffic and in terms of the distance from the property line, there's plenty of distance within the right of way, sidewalk, curbing, grass area in front. On the sign on 149, which, you know, admittedly looks kind of silly, if it were moved further back, then it would be right in the drive aisle for the plaza. So it's only off by a very little bit. It's 15 feet from the front, but if you measure it from the closest point, it's a little bit less than that. So there's just, again, no practical place to re-locate it. So that's why we're requesting that that stays in the same place. So it just would impede traffic it if were moved a couple feet more into the drive aisle. In terms of the size, it was the intention of the applicant that, on 149, that it would not require a size variance, that it was just to replace the panels. Previously it was 50 square feet. Now it's 45 square feet. There's, I think Craig and I have to agree on the math, but I think that it is in conformity, 45 feet, but I would agree, as a condition, that that would be something that the Zoning Administrator has to concur. Just in terms of the measurements, there were a couple of different things submitted by the sign contractor that measured in to the outside of the poles instead of the inside of the poles, but we measured it with the actual, what the sign company did in terms of the drawings. I believe it comes out to 45 square feet. So I'm not seeking a variance for size on that, but I understand that that has to be verified by the Zoning Administrator, that the math is correct. On the one on the front, the way that it's written up in your notes it looks like it's over 50 square feet, and there's a discrepancy about measurement on that, too, but what I believe they're seeking is 47.39, which is less than two and a half square feet larger. They're just concerned that that's kind of a busy intersection and concerned about visibility. On that one they're asking for a small variance of less than two and a half square feet, but that's how we got here and we're open to questions. MR. HENKEL-I've got a question. Why couldn't you do away with that sign on 149 and do a sign at one spot like this, and now it'll hit, on Route 9, it'll hit 149? MR. LAPPER-It's always hard to get retailers to give up signs, and so I'm here on behalf of one of the tenants that my client's also the landlord, but it's the other tenant that has the sign, the Footwear and Sox Market. They're leases give them the right to put that there, so they're not going to agree to give that up. MR. HENKEL-They could still have the names on the sign, though. MR. LAPPER-I mean, I could certainly go back and suggest that, but I just know that with retailers that's always an issue, and they are allowed to have two signs because of two entrances. MR. JACKOSKI-How long have the signs been in the current locations? MR. LAPPER-A long, long time. MRS. MOORE-A long time. MR. LAPPER-Probably 30 years. I saw plans from the late 80's when the building was begun. MR. UNDERWOOD-1 think the one on Route 9, if you're in the right hand lane, you're making the right hand turn there, so there's no issues with traffic, you know, unless somebody's drunk and driving in the wrong lane or something. So I think that the Route 9 sign has been there for well over 20 years, that I can remember, and I don't think there was any issues with changing the panels, it's a re-do of what you already have, and I think to move it back to the travel lane, you know, where the interior parking is, doesn't really make any sense. I mean, it would be a stamped call, you know, whether that's necessary, but I think that that sign as it exists could be modified, and I think you're pretty close on your square footage as far as that goes. Two and a half feet is not much. MR. KUHL-I have a question for Staff. Are his assumptions correct on the square footage? MRS. MOORE-My understanding is the photos that you were submitted are definitely inaccurate because they're taking it from the center of the post. That's driving the width. So the width that was provided is actually shorter because it needs to be taken from inside the posts. So I understand that. There's still a discrepancy about the square footage total. There's, my understanding was that the square footage total is taken for the whole sign and Mr. Lapper had discussions where, that there may be, where each sign has a bar. MR. LAPPER-A frame around it. MRS. MOORE-A frame around it, that the frame may not count. MR. JACKOSKI-I understood that it was always the visible, printable, signable space and not necessarily the structure. If you're going to start measuring the structure, then we've got all these complicated landscaping signs. How do you? MR. KUHL-Yes, well, I'm asking a clarification from Staff because this location as proposed has got different numbers than Mr. Lapper is suggesting. MRS. MOORE-Right. So I'm saying that this bar right here that's typically counted in the overall square footage, because you're taking it from the square. I mean, that's the square footage of the entire sign. MR. KUHL-I have no problem with that, but is this application correct? Mr. Lapper's saying it's not 52.6, it's 45 square feet. He's saying that it's not 52.47, it's 47.39. What is it? MRS. MOORE-Those numbers need to be verified. I can't confirm them other than our discussions of today. MR. KUHL-So then we can't go any further. MR. UNDERWOOD-1 would say the greater number includes all the separations between each of the individual signs. MR. LAPPER-That's part of it, but the greater number did go to the center of the pole. I'm sure that Craig and I can come to terms with the measurement. We're certainly not looking for more than 45 square feet on that. MR. JACKOSKI-Well, so, Staff, how do we grant relief that is measureable without knowing the measurements? MR. KUHL-That's like writing Mr. Lapper a blank check. MR. UNDERWOOD-You could give him a blank check but you could say if you could get together with Craig in a gentleman's agreement and bring it into conformance. MR. LAPPER-Yes, as a condition, sure. MR. UNDERWOOD-That would simplify him not having to come back, and it could be a. MR. JACKOSKI-Well, it would have been nice if the application was. MR. LAPPER-This is my fault and what happened was I was away out of the country visiting my daughter and a sign consultant, Craig had asked for dimensions of, not the signs that we're applying for, but the other tenant signs, and that was submitted while I was gone and I didn't realize, I couldn't figure it out until this week how it grew, and that's why Craig and Laura and I are still talking about it. MRS. MOORE-And it's clear on this drawing. You can see the measurements provided by the contractor are definitely in the middle of the signpost. So that he's showing his width, from post to post. MR. JACKOSKI-And when they re-do the signs, are they going to end up having the signs be that wide and overlap the posts? I don't know what I'm agreeing to here. MR. LAPPER-Well, I will stipulate, this one on 149, it's measured correctly, in terms of the width. MR. JACKOSKI-But when you said it's 45 square feet and no more. Correct? MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. JACKOSKI-So we don't have a sign variance for size here. MR. LAPPER-On the 149 side. MR. URRICO-Could I just take this back a step? Are we just looking at the Casual Male DXL part of it? Are we looking at the entire sign? MRS. MOORE-You need to look at the entire sign. MR. URRICO-Okay. So how does Casual Male answer for the entire sign? MR. LAPPER-They're the last guy in so they're the one that needs the variance because the other ones are already up there. MR. URRICO-But the entire sign is going to be. MR. LAPPER-Is the 45 square feet. MR. URRICO-So I don't understand how we're granting just one variance for one retailer and the whole sign gets approved. MR. JACKOSKI-I think this is the plaza. MR. LAPPER-Yes, 45 square feet is the plaza. MR. URRICO-Is the plaza? So that's really two variances we're asking for? MR. LAPPER-No, it's really that if Craig and I disagree and the math changes by a foot, the guy on the bottom, you know, the last guy in is going to have to lose because the other two are already there. So it is what it is. MR. URRICO-Isn't this a problem that the plaza has to work out? MR. LAPPER-Yes, but DXL. MR. URRICO-That's the way we usually do business. Right? I mean, we usually approve the entire sign and let the landlord take care of who gets what. MR. LAPPER-And this is, the applicant is the tenant here. Because the other tenant already had what they wanted. MR. URRICO-So he gets the approval and then down the road what happens if one of the tenants changes and wants a different size sign? MR. LAPPER-If they change it within the same size, it'll just be a sign panel. MR. URRICO-I'm not comfortable with granting a variance for one tenant that covers the entire sign. MRS. MOORE-Actually, I mean, there are similar sign variances that you have reviewed. MR. JACKOSKI-I don't know that we've ever granted the plaza a variance. It's the tenant. MR. LAPPER-So the applicant is the tenant, but the plaza owner consented to them getting the variance. MR. URRICO-Where is he? MR. LAPPER-Where's? MR. JACKOSKI-The plaza owner. MR. LAPPER-It's on the agency form. MR. JACKOSKI-But that's the agent as the applicant. MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. JACKOSKI-I say this gets tabled until it gets clarified, but that's my opinion. MR. MC CABE-1 have to agree. We can't just vote on something that might be like that. I think we really have to know what we're voting on. MR. LAPPER-Is the clarification the size? Is that what you're? MR. JACKOSKI-I think the size is. MR. MC CABE-Yes. The size has to be. MR. JACKOSKI-And then the location's got to be verified. MRS. MOORE-1 mean, the location of the sign, that's been clarified by the survey that's been provided. MR. HENKEL-Well, maybe we should listen to, we have a gentleman here who wishes to speak. MR. JACKOSKI-Can you come to the microphone? JEFF HOLBROOK MR. HOLBROOK-My name is Jeff Holbrook and I own Fish 307 and the building that, is in which is affected by the sign on 149, which I didn't measure, but it appears to me to be a little nn larger than the old sign and it obscures my signs totally. I mean, it's difficult to see them until after you're past that big sign and by that time you're gone. So what I would like is rather than have an issue with them, because they're in business and I'm in business, is to be able to get a variance to equal the size of their sign for two businesses, that are lighted with the proper structure, as an equal. So that way I'm not obscured. Because right now my signs are obscured. You can't see that on there, which negatively affects my business. MR. JACKOSKI-Well, I can honestly say to you I've never noticed the 149 signs, but I have noticed, and 307's. Now I know exactly what you're talking about. I know your sign. I know your building, but I've never even paid attention to that sign on 149. MR. HOLBROOK-You see it now, but you won't see my signs anymore. That's the other thing is they're already installed. MR. JACKOSKI-On my way home tonight I will definitely take a look at it. It's lit, too. MR. HOLBROOK-Yes, and that's the other thing, too. I know that when I came here eight years ago I was told I can put up what I had and that was it, but now that there's these changes, we would like to have the ability to do the same. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Thank you. Not that I can grant that to you, but thank you. You'll have to go through the process. MR. HOLBROOK-I'll go through the process. I understand that, but the way the sign is, the way my sign is versus what has just taken place, this is, he's looking for a variance that negatively affects me. MR. URRICO-Wasn't that the case before? MR. HOLBROOK-If you see the way it was broken up, it was in four pieces, and it didn't show as much and it wasn't, now you've got this great big block, and I mean you can see it. The new sign appears larger. Now I didn't measure it, but there were four signs before in his plaza, and I had two, and with the four breakdown, you can see that DXL sign being so larger it obscures anything that would be behind it. So it is a change. MRS. MOORE-And just to verify, you've opened the public hearing? MR. JACKOSKI-Apparently. I thought he was with the applicant. But thank you for that public comment. MR. HOLBROOK-It was my pleasure. MR. JACKOSKI-Roy, is there any other written comment? MR. URRICO-No. MR. JACKOSKI-The public hearing is open. Is there anyone else in the audience who'd like to address the Board? I never actually had the public open the public comment period before. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. LAPPER-This is pretty good to show what was there and what's there now in front, and it's the same size. It's just that there were four panels and now there's three. MR. JACKOSKI-Anyway, I think what the Board is requesting is a tabling of the sign issue for size, but I think the Board can make a motion if it so wishes on the current existing and prior location. Correct? MR. UNDERWOOD-Why don't we just hold off and do it all in one shot? MR. KUHL-I think that's the right way to do it. MR. UNDERWOOD-Because that way Staff can provide us further. MR. JACKOSKI-Is that the will of the Board that the plaza owner deals with the locations and the plaza owner deals with the overall size and that the tenant doesn't come back to us or comes back to us? How does that work? MR. UNDERWOOD-1 think the applicants that are here this evening can come back and in the interim period you can get together with Craig. I would like a clarification as to whether the 149 sign has been increased in size, and I think that th4ere's a reasonable alternative on that DXL side over there. I think the lower panel definitely changes the whole aspect of that sign. I think that's something that needs to be considered because we're going to have similar requests from the next door neighbor to do the exact same thing. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. So does the applicant request a tabling of this current application? MR. LAPPER-Absolutely. MR. JACKOSKI-I suspected that that was what the applicant was going to request. We do have a request from the applicant to table the application. The public hearing remains open. Would someone please make that motion, and when would you like us to re-schedule it to, Staff? MRS. MOORE-Currently your agendas are five and five for June, and our deadline has passed for June. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Lake George Assoc. DXL Men's Apparel for a variance from Chapter 140 of the Sign Code of The Town of Queensbury. Applicant proposes to replace both sign panels for DXL Men's Apparel store on the freestanding sign located on Route 149 and on Route 9. The proposed panel sign on Route 149 is to be 23.25 sq. ft. and the panel sign on Route 9 is to be 21.39 ft. The freestanding sign on Route 149 is 52.60 sq. ft. and on Route 9 is 52.47 sq. ft. Relief is requested for size and location of freestanding signs. MOTION TO TABLE SIGN VARIANCE PZ 134-2016 LAKE GEORGE DXL MEN'S APPAREL, Introduced by Michael McCabe who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Henkel: Tabled until the July Zoning Board of Appeals meeting with the information to be submitted by the June deadline. Duly adopted this 25th day of May, 2016, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Freer, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE MR. JACKOSKI-Sorry, Jonathan. MR. LAPPER-I'll get it worked out with Craig and I should have done that before tonight, but I'll just figure it out. See you in July. AREA VARIANCE PZ-130-2016 SEQRA TYPE II LESTER H., III & THALIA M. CHASE OWNER(S) LESTER H., III & THALIA M. CHASE ZONING RR-5A LOCATION 3219 STATE ROUTE 9L APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 355 SQ. FT. RESIDENTIAL ADDITION WITH A HEIGHT OF 25 FT. TO THE SOUTH END OF EXISTING HOUSE (1,180 SQ. FT. FOOTPRINT). RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MINIMUM SETBACK REQUIREMENTS FOR THE RR-5A ZONING DISTRICT. CROSS REF RC-384-2015 SEPTIC ALT. WARREN COUNTY PLANNING MAY 2016 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY ALD LOT SIZE 2 ACRE(S) TAX MAP NO. 239.19-1-17 SECTION 179-3-040 LESTER & THALIA CHASE, PRESENT STAFFINPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance PZ-130-2016, Lester H. III & Thalia M. Chase, Meeting Date: May 25, 2016 "Project Location: 3219 Sate Route 9L Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a 355 sq. ft. residential addition with a height of 25 ft. to the south end of existing house (1,180 sq. ft. footprint). Relief Required: The applicant requests the following relief: Relief requested from minimum setback requirements for the RR-5A zoning district. Section 179-3-040 establishment of districts dimensional requirements, The proposed addition is to be located 98.6 ft. from the front setback where 100 ft. setback is required; 65.8 ft. on the east side where 75 ft. setback is required. Criteria for considering a Sign Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination, the board shall consider: 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. Minor impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. Feasible alternatives may be considered limited due to the lot size 2.077 ac and the lot shape. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested 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 will have minimal impact on the physical or environmental impacts. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. The difficulty may be considered self- created. Staff comments: The applicant proposes a 355 sq. ft. addition to an existing home on a 2.077 ac parcel where the zoning is RR-5ac. The applicant has provided the existing and proposed conditions of the home. The plans submitted show the elevation and floor plan." MR. JACKOSKI-Welcome. It's pretty straightforward, but is there anything you'd like to add at this time or just have Board members ask questions? MR. CHASE-1 think it's simple. We're just trying to re-work the house to add a four bedroom, and you have a septic system under construction to do so. So we're just trying to re-work the house which places the dining room and a small addition on the back for that. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Thank you. Any questions from Board members at this time? No questions from Board members I'll open the public hearing. Is there anyone here in the audience who would like to address this Board on this application? Looks like no one. Is there any written comment? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-There is no written comment. MR. JACKOSKI-I'll poll the Board on this application. Any thoughts on the application? I'll start with Ron. MR. KUHL-Yes, it's a pretty straightforward request, and I would be in favor. MR. JACKOSKI-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-It's a minor request. I think the setback difference from 98.6 feet to 100 is nothing, and likewise from 65 to 75 feet. I mean, there's no one affected by this at all. MR. JACKOSKI-Harrison? MR. FREER-Yes, I agree with my colleagues. This is not a substantial variance request and that the criteria support it. MR. JACKOSKI-Mike? MR. MC CABE-The request is minimal and I would support the project. MR. JACKOSKI-Roy? MR. URRICO-1 compliment the applicants presenting the minimal requested variance. MR. JACKOSKI-John? MR. HENKEL-I know they're required to have a minimum of five acres and they only have two, but with that 1.4 of relief on the front and 9.2 relief on the east side that's very minimal and it's not going to affect anybody. So go for it. MR. JACKOSKI-Having heard from the Board members and their decision, we know which way this application is moving forward, so can I have a motion to approve the application? I'll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Lester H., III & Thalia M. Chase. Applicant proposes construction of a 355 sq. ft. residential addition with a height of 25 ft. to the south end of existing house (1,180 sq. ft. footprint). Relief requested from minimum setback requirements for the RR-5A zoning district. SEQR Type 11 — no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, May 25, 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 requested variances are minimum. 2. Feasible alternatives are limited because of the size of the lot and the physical structure behind the lot. 3. The requested variance is not substantial because the variances are very small. 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-0130-2016 Lester H, III and Thalia M. Chase, Introduced by Michael McCabe, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Harrison Freer: Duly adopted this 25th day of May 2016 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Henkel, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Freer, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE MR. JACKOSKI-Good luck. MR. CHASE-Thank you. SIGN VARIANCE PZ-0133-2016 SEQRA TYPE UNLISTED SAXTON SIGN CORP. AGENT(S) SAXTON SIGN CORP. OWNER(S) BIG BOOM LLC ZONING CLI LOCATION 60 BIG BOOM ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES INSTALLATION OF TWO FREESTANDING SIGNS. ONE SIGN IS TO BE 54.5 SQ. FT. AND TO BE LOCATED AT THE REAR OF THE PROPERTY NEAR 1-87. THE OTHER SIGN IS TO BE 45 SQ. FT. AND TO BE LOCATED AT THE FRONT OF THE PROPERTY ON BIG BOOM ROAD. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM NUMBER OF ALLOWABLE FREESTANDING SIGNS AND MAXIMUM SIGN SIZE IN A CLI ZONING DISTRICT. CROSS REF. CO-00075-2016 CONCORD POOLS C/O'S; SP 39-2015 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING MAY 2016 LOT SIZE 1.93 ACRE(S) TAX MAP NO. 309.17-1-24 SECTION CHAPTER 140 PAT BONI & MIKE GIOVANONE , REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFFINPUT Notes from Staff, Sign Variance PZ-0133-2016, Saxton Sign Corp., Meeting Date: May 25, 2016 "Project Location: 60 Big Boom Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes installation of two freestanding signs. One sign is to be 54.5 sq. ft. and to be located at the rear of the property near I-87. The other sign is to be 45 sq. ft. and to be located at the front of the property on Big Boom Road. Relief Required: The applicant requests the following relief: Relief requested from number of allowable freestanding signs and maximum sign size in a CLI zoning district. Section 140 Signs for which permits are required-number of free standing signs and size of sss n Applicant proposes two free standing signs where only one is permitted and the proposed second sign to be 54.5 sq. ft. where 45 sq. ft. is the maximum allowed. Criteria for considering a Sign Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination, the board shall consider: 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this sign variance. Moderate impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated. The zoning code allows for one free standing signage to be a 15 minimum setback 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 to have only one free standing sign at Big Boom Rd. 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 a moderate impact within the district where there are a small amount free standing/wall signs facing the Northway. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self- created. Staff comments: The applicant proposes a 54.5 sq. ft. second sign free standing at 18 ft. in height for Concord Pools. The plans show the sign location to be at the rear of the property facing the Northway." MR. JACKOSKI-If you could identify yourselves for the record, please. MR. BONI-Yes. Pat Boni with Saxton Signs. MR. GIOVANONE-Mike Giovanone with Concord Pools. MR. JACKOSKI-Just to clarify, the sign itself is 18 feet tall, but the graphic is 18, what did we say. MRS. MOORE-Twenty-two inches. MR. URRICO-Well, actually it says 18 feet, inches in height. So it should be one or the other. MR. BONI-Okay. I'll start off by telling you what we would be allowed. We would be allowed one wall sign at 100 square feet, and we'd be allowed one pylon sign at 45 square feet with a 15 foot setback and 60 square feet with a 25 foot setback, and we did make a change on the monument sign. The sign's the same size, but we added a planter for flowers on the bottom of it. It's the same square footage and everything. The one you have has a planter on the bottom. You can pass that around. If you want. MR. HENKEL-That's the one that's going to be in the front? MR. BONI-Yes, that's in the front. MR. GIOVANONE-So in the front of this building, instead of putting a 100 square foot wall sign that we're allowed, we'd like to put a 45 square foot monument sign with a planter so it's much nicer looking and it's perpendicular to the road so you can see it so you don't pass the building before you see the sign. On the Northway elevation for the pylon sign, we're allowed a 60 square foot sign with the 25 foot setback. So we'd like to put it 10 foot closer to the road with a 15 foot setback and only use 54.5 square foot. Here's a comparison of the two signs. That's how much bigger we want to go over what we're allowed, which isn't much difference, and at the end of the day we'll have a lot less square footage than what we're allowed. We'd be allowed 145 square feet, 100 for the wall and 45 for the pylon, if we went legal. MR. HENKEL-What kind of lighting would be involved in that? MR. BONI-It's going to be LED. Externally illuminated LED. MR. KUHL-Are both of them going to be illuminated? MR. BONI-Yes. MR. KUHL-Why didn't you go bigger by the Northway? Why only 54 and a half. You're asking for a variance, why didn't you go 60 or 70? MR. BONI-Well, we'd love to do that. MR. KUHL-Well, I mean, I think they're going to see the sign. Are you going to cut some of the trees or just the branches or do you think there's enough visibility the way it is now? Are you going to cut trees? Or just branches? Is that a yes or a no? MR. GIOVANONE-I'm not planning any. MR. KUHL-No, no, to see your sign off the Northway. Are all the trees going to stay the same or are you going to cut branches? MR. GIOVANONE-Yes, sir. MR. KUHL-No, no, but you're going to put your sign 15 feet off the property line. MR. GIOVANONE-Yes. MR. KUHL-I would have gone bigger. MR. BONI-Can we go bigger? MR. KUHL-No, no. This is your application. MR. HENKEL-You can go smaller. MR. BONI-Well, what we're trying to do is place the signs where they'll be, we'll have a visual impact to the Northway and there's no secret that that's why we purchased the land and we located there for Northway impact. The sign on the front of the building just makes much more sense to us that we cut it down in half, but put it where the old sign that was on that building for about 20 years was located in the front as a freestanding sign, but we'd like to build a, we're going to put a beautiful display lot in there and we want a beautiful sign, and quite frankly 100 square foot wall sign is not a beautiful sign. You just want to do it the right way. �h MR. JACKOSKI-So with the pylon sign they're requesting, you'll no longer need all the banner signs you have all over the property? MR. GIOVANONE-The one on the trailer, we have a banner sign. MR. JACKOSKI-All the signs, I mean, I notice the property. MR. BONI-These will be the only signs. MR. JACKOSKI-So you won't use the banners anymore across the pools themselves? MR. GIOVANONE-No, there'll be no banner signs. We have that one now on a registered trailer that's, it's temporary until we got in front of you folks. There'll be one out front and one in the back. MR. JACKOSKI-You could get all your future customers to have Concord stamped on the bottom of the pool. Any other questions from Board members before I open the public hearing? I will remind you all there is a SEQR for this. I'll open the public hearing. Is here 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-No written comment. MR. JACKOSKI-No written comment. I'll poll the Board. I'll start at the other end this time. Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes, I'm afraid I'm going to come down on the negative side on this. I don't believe in granting a second sign where only one is allowed. MR. JACKOSKI-Mike? MR. MC CABE-1 could see the wisdom in having the sign on the Northway side and I think it's fair to trade basically half of the building sign for the additional sign. So I'll support it. MR. JACKOSKI-John? MR. HENKEL-Yes. Also being there's two acres of land there and you have basically two fronts, one on Big Boom Road and then on the Northway, I agree with the two signs needed definitely. MR. JACKOSKI-Ron? MR. KUHL-Yes, I agree with my Board members that are in favor of it. I think that the sign on the Northway is a good advertisement and I like what they did on the front instead of putting it on the building. I'm in favor of this. MR. JACKOSKI-Harrison? MR. FREER-Yes, I can support this. I don't think it's going to have a detrimental effect to the neighborhood. . I support it. MR. JACKOSKI-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-I'm going to have to come down on the negative side of this. I think that, you know, it's going to set a precedent for every business that's along the Northway to put up a sign, and I think that, you know, our Code strictly defines the fact that you have one front yard. The building, the operation, you know, even though it's two acres, it's significantly a long, narrow lot that goes way back, and I think for us to do this it's wrong, and I'm not in favor of it. MR. JACKOSKI-I'm not in favor as proposed either, however, I did appreciate that the applicant was willing to not have any temporary signs or any other wall signs, but I agree with Jim and Roy, even though the offset was that there was to be no large wall sign. I'm not in favor of starting to have all these pylon signs out along the Northway. So I think that does change the character of that whole area. So I'm not in favor of it either. However, we do have four Board members who have expressed a yes interest. So I'm going to close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. JACKOSKI-I'm going to ask for a SEQR motion. MOTION REGARDING SIGN VARIANCE NO. PZ-0133-2016 SAXTON SIGN CORP. FOR CONCORD POOLS 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 Ronald Kuhl: Duly adopted this 25th day of May 2016, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Henkel, Mr. Freer, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. McCabe NOES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Jackoski MR. JACKOSKI-Can I have a motion for approval? The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Saxton Sign Corp. for Concord Pools for a variance from Chapter 140 of the Sign Code of The Town of Queensbury. Applicant proposes installation of two freestanding signs One sign is to be 54.5 sq. ft. and to be located at the rear of the property near 1-87. The other sign is to be 45 sq. ft. and to be located at the front of the property on Big Boom Road. Relief requested from number of allowable freestanding signs and maximum sign size in a CLI zoning district. SEQR Type: Unlisted [ Resolution /Action Required for SEAR] Motion regarding Sign Variance No. PZ-0133-2016 Saxton Sign Corp. for Concord Pools 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 Ronald Kuhl: Duly adopted this 25th day of May 2016, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Henkel, Mr. Freer, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. McCabe NOES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Jackoski A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, May 25, 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? There will be no undesirable change produced in the character of the neighborhood nor will a detriment to nearby properties be created by granting the requested sign variance. 2. Can the benefit sought by the applicant be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an sign variance? The benefit sought by the applicant cannot really be achieved in any feasible method because he wants traffic on the Northway to be aware of his business. 3. Is the requested sign variance substantial? We believe it's moderate. 4. Will the proposed sign variance have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district? We believe not. This is primarily a commercial district. 5. Is the alleged difficulty self-created? Yes, it 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; nQ 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-0133- 2016 Saxton Sign Corp. for Concord Pools, 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 applicant has agreed that there will be no additional temporary signs or banners or wall signs on the site. B. 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; C. 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; D. 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' E. Subsequent issuance of further permits, including sign permits are dependent on receipt of these final plans; F. 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 25th day of May 2016, by the following vote: MR. JACKOSKI-Conditions? MR. FREER-Yes, your comment that there's no other additional signs, no additional signs. MR. JACKOSKI-So we're putting it as a condition that the applicant has agreed that there will be no additional temporary signs or banners or wall signs on the site. MR. MC CABE-So I'll add that to my motion. AYES: Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Henkel, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Freer NOES: Mr. Underwood, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Jackoski MR. JACKOSKI-You're all set. Congratulations. Good luck. MR. BONI-Thank you. SIGN VARIANCE PZ-0137-2016 SEQRA TYPE UNLISTED TONY MISHOE AGENT(S) LANDMARK SIGNS/TONY MISHOE OWNER(S) TOM HOFFMAN ZONING CI LOCATION 730 GLEN STREET APPLICANT PROPOSES TO REMOVE EXISTING FREESTANDING SIGN POLE AND SIGN BLOCK AND REPLACING IT WITH A NEW 63 SQ. FT. SIGN-BLOCK TO ACCOMMODATE 3 TENANTS IN THE BUSINESS PLAZA WITH AN EXISTING SETBACK OF 23.1 FT. IN ADDITION, THE HEIGHT OF THE FREESTANDING SIGN IS PROPOSED TO BE 22 FT. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE SIGN SIZE, MINIMUM FRONT SETBACK, AND HEIGHT FOR SUCH SIGN IN THE CI ZONING DISTRICT. CROSS REF PZ-0097-2016 SIGN VARIANCE APPROVAL; SIGN PERMIT BOTH-060-2016; BP 2013-175 SIGN HANK'S QUALITY FLOORING; BP 2004-367 "n . JACK'S FREESTANDING SIGN; BP 2006-804 SPRINT FS SIGN WARREN COUNTY PLANNING MAY 2016 LOT SIZE 1.16 ACRE(S) TAX MAP NO. 302.6-1-54 SECTION CHAPTER 140 TONY MISHOE, PRESENT STAFFINPUT Notes from Staff, Sign Variance PZ-0137-2016, Tony Mishoe, Meeting Date: May 25, 2016, "Project Location: 730 Glen Street Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to remove existing freestanding sign block and replacing it with a new 63 sq. ft. sign-block to accommodate 3 tenants in the business plaza with an existing setback of 23.1 ft. In addition, the height of the freestanding sign is proposed to be 22 ft. Relief Required: The applicant requests the following relief: Relief requested from maximum allowable sign size, minimum front setback, and height for such sign in the Cl zoning district. Section 140 Signs for which permits are required-size, height and setback of sign Applicant proposes a 63 sq. ft. freestanding sign where a 60 sq. ft. sign is maximum allowed, sign location is existing at 23.1 ft. where 25 ft. is the required for a 60 sq. ft. sign, and the height is proposed to be 22 ft. where 20 ft. is the maximum allowed. 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. Minimal impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated. The applicant has indicated the neighboring sign is at 25 ft. in height. 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 for a compliant size sign. 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 a minimal impact within the district. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self- created. Staff comments: The applicant proposes a 63 sq. ft. sign block for three tenants replacing an existing sign that currently has two tenants. The applicant has indicated the existing building interior was reconfigured with multiple tenants and the sign will allow for identification of the plaza and the tenants. The plans show the existing and proposed signage." MR. JACKOSKI-So it's pretty straightforward. You've presented everything here. You're asking for two additional feet in height. We all know that the sign is existing at the current location off the road, and you're asking for an additional, I forgot, three square feet. Any questions from Board members at this time? MR. UNDERWOOD-No. I just had a question. The three foot wide panels, is that a standard for the industry? MR. MISHOE-Well, the one sign that is there is three feet. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, they are. The one is 2.6 and I saw the other. MR. MISHOE-I wouldn't say it's standard. I mean, we're trying to keep them uniform with what's there, because the one sign is currently, that's currently there is an expensive sign with channel letters LED. So we're trying to build a new sign where we can accommodate that signage. MR. JACKOSKI-So Tony the original application was for 30 inch signs below that, right? MR. MISHOE-Correct. MR. JACKOSKI-So if you went to 21 feet off the ground instead of the 22, you wouldn't need that extra three feet of square footage, correct? MR. MISHOE-Say again? MR. JACKOSKI-If you went to 30 inch tall secondary signs for Sprint and Hank's, which is one total foot in height, with your seven feet in width, that's seven feet less in overall signage, correct? Is it because these are already made, because you didn't expect the application to take this long and that's what you're trying to use is the three footers? MR. MISHOE-Well, yes, we decided not to put the top on it, the radius top, because there's really no reason to identify the plaza, and we'd rather use that space for the tenants. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Any questions from Board members? MR. MC CABE-We've already heard this before, right? MR. JACKOSKI-And that was considered part of the sign and the square footage was different and all that other stuff. MR. HENKEL-And it identified the plaza as Jack's. MR. JACKOSKI-Any other questions from Board members. There is a public hearing scheduled for this evening. I'm opening the public hearing. Is there anyone 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-No written comment. MR. JACKOSKI-Having no written comment, I'll poll the Board. I'll start in the middle. Ron? MR. KUHL-I almost think if you had brought back the old Sprint sign at 2.6 and then done the Hank's Flooring at 2.6 you'd be under the 60 square feet. MR. JACKOSKI-Right. MR. KUHL-I don't understand why you're going over 20 feet? Why 22? I mean, 13 feet off of the asphalt is what you're asking for. If you drop that down two feet and make it eleven feet off the asphalt. MR. HENKEL-The roof is there. MR. JACKOSKI-That's the issue with lowering the sign. The roof is in the way. MR. KUHL-Okay. I'm going to be quiet then. MR. JACKOSKI-No, no, but they could get rid of one foot. MR. KUHL-You're still looking for relief, though. MR. JACKOSKI-So, Ron, where would you be on this one? MR. KUHL-I'd be in favor of it. MR. JACKOSKI-Harrison? MR. FREER-Yes. I understand that that sign was the one that you were trying to get at, that was already built. You've tried to appease some of our concerns. So I would support it. I � MR. JACKOSKI-Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes, I agree. I think he's made some concessions here. I think it's an odd shaped plaza in an awkward location for visibility, and I think, you know, not moving that post would be very helpful, too. So I would be in favor of the application. I think he meets the criteria. MR. JACKOSKI-Mike? MR. MC CABE-1 support the project. I don't think that the requests are very much at all. MR. JACKOSKI-John? MR. HENKEL-Yes, I also support the project as is. MR. JACKOSKI-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-1 have no problems with it. MR. JACKOSKI-I'm going to close the public hearing and seek a SEQR resolution. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MOTION REGARDING SIGN VARIANCE NO. PZ-0137-2016 TONY MISHOE — LANDMARK SIGNS FOR JACK GATES PLAZA 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 Ronald Kuhl: Duly adopted this 25th day of May 2016, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Underwood, Mr. Freer, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Urrico, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE MR. JACKOSKI-Could I have a motion for approval of the variance application. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Tony Mishoe — Landmark Signs for Jack Gates Plaza for a variance from Chapter 140 of the Sign Code of The Town of Queensbury. Applicant proposes to remove existing freestanding sign pole and sign block and replacing it with a new 63 sq. ft. sign-block to accommodate 3 tenants in the business plaza with an existing setback of 23.1 ft. In addition, the height of the freestanding sign is proposed to be 22 ft. Relief requested from maximum allowable sign size, minimum front setback, and height for such sign in the Cl zoning district. SEQR Type: Unlisted [Resolution /Action Required for SEAR] Motion regarding Sign Variance No. PZ-0137-2016 Tony Mishoe — Landmark Signs for Jack Gates Plaza 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 Ronald Kuhl: Duly adopted this 25th day of May 2016, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Underwood, Mr. Freer, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Urrico, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, May 25, 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? There will be no undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or detriment to nearby properties by granting this variance because the sign is well known and they've made some constraints to limit the variances that were requested. 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 roof location impacts the setback and we discussed the fact that we're fitting in new signs to ones already existing and the reasons to support allowing that to happen. 3. Is the requested sign variance substantial? I'd say it's moderate. It's a combination of trying to do what has already been partially done and not changing things too dramatically. 4. Will the proposed sign variance have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district? No. 5. Is the alleged difficulty self-created? It 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-0137-2016 TONY MISHOE — LANDMARK SIGNS FOR JACK GATES PLAZA, Introduced by Harrison Freer, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Michael McCabe: 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 25th day of May 2016, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Freer, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE MR. JACKOSKI-Congratulations, and I see you're working on the Billington sign down in South Glens Falls. That one looks pretty good, too. MR. MISHOE-Thank you. Thank you very much. SIGN VARIANCE PZ-0136-2016 SEQRA TYPE UNLISTED CHRISTOPHER DELLA BELLA AGENT(S) CHRISTOPHER DELLA BELLA OWNER(S) FAMIGLIA BELLA, LLC ZONING CI LOCATION 293 QUAKER ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES INSTALLATION OF A 17.88 SQ. FT. WALL SIGN TO READ "CERTIFIED SERVICE". CURRENTLY THERE ARE FOUR WALL SIGNS. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM NUMBER OF ALLOWABLE WALL SIGNS. CROSS REF BOTH 207-2015 SIGN FOR CHEVROLET BUICK GMC CADILLAC; BP 2012-324 SIGN FOR BUICK GMC CADILLAC; BP 2006-344 SIGN FOR PONTIAC BUICK "ii GMC WARREN COUNTY PLANNING MAY 18, 2016 LOT SIZE 6.16 ACRES; PORTION OF 4.97 &2.36 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 296.30-1-5 AND 296.20-1-19 SECTION CHAPTER 140-6 CHRISTOPHER DELLA BELLA, PRESENT MR. URRICO-1 want to say, in terms of full disclosure, a relative of mine is an employee of the Della Group, but I don't think it'll impact my voting. STAFFINPUT Notes from Staff, Sign Variance PZ-0136-2016, Christopher Della Bella, Meeting Date: May 25, 2016 "Project Location: 293 Quaker Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes installation of a 17.88 sq. ft. wall sign to read "Certified Service". Currently there are four wall signs. Relief Required: Section 140 Signs for which permits are required-number of wall signs The applicant proposes a 17.88 sq. ft. "Service" wall sign for the existing service area, where there are four existing walls signs allowed through a variance and the new wall sign would be a fifth wall sign where one is the maximum allowed. 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. Minimal impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than a sign variance. Feasible alternatives may be considered to not allow additional wall signage. 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 a minimal impact within the district. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self- created. Staff comments: The applicant proposes a 17.88 sq. ft. "Service" wall sign where one existed previously but did not have a permit has been removed. The applicant has indicated that the new wall sign is updated signage and will be located in a similar location —no changes to the service area is proposed. Staff would request a condition the applicant submit an updated drawing showing the proposed lot as approved in previous applications prior to sign permit issuance." MR. JACKOSKI-Welcome. It's very straightforward. Any questions from Board members before I open the public hearing? MR. KUHL-Interesting, the word Certified. What does that mean? MR. DELLA BELLA-It means that it's like basically we're certified to work on a GM product where somebody else may not be. MR. KUHL-Okay. MR. HENKEL-I assume the franchise requires them to say that, too. What if you didn't have it there? MR. DELLA BELLA-Yes. It brings us into alignment with their brand wishes. So, yes, unfortunately. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, I think over the past few decades they've been re-branded a couple of times. I remember being on the Board previously when you had to do your front signs, wall signs also and it was just another instance of the same thing occurring. MR. JACKOSKI-So I'll open the public hearing. Is there anyone here who'd like to address the Board concerning this application? Seeing no one, is there any written comment? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-There is one letter. The Tire Warehouse fully supports Mr. Della Bella's request for this project. Mr. Della Bella's properties are always super maintained and immaculate. He fully supports and helps our Town business community. And that's the Tire Warehouse, Inc. concurs with this request fully. That's John McCall owner of the Tire Warehouse. That's it. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Thank you. MR. KUHL-Now we know where he gets his tires for his used cars. MR. JACKOSKI-So anyway, could we poll the Board, please, on how we feel on this one? I think it's pretty straightforward. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, I don't have a problem with it. It's a replacement with something that was previously there and it's necessary for identification. MR. FREER-I'm good with it. MR. KUHL-Yes, this is standard branding for them. MR. HENKEL-I'm all in favor. MR. MC CABE-I'll support the project. MR. URRICO-I'm on board. MR. JACKOSKI-I'll close the public hearing. Could I have a SEQR please? PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MOTION REGARDING SIGN VARIANCE NO. PZ-0136-2016 CHRISTOPHER DELLA BELLA BASED UPON THE INFORMATION AND THE ANALYSIS OF THE ABOVE SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT, THIS BOARD FINDS THAT THIS WILL NOT RESULT IN ANY SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT. SO WE GIVE IT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION, Introduced by Michael McCabe who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Henkel: Duly adopted this 25th day of May 2016, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Underwood, Mr. Freer, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Urrico, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE MR. JACKOSKI-Could I please have a motion for approval of the Sign Variance. MRS. MOORE-Just for clarification, in the notes I indicated I needed additional information about the property arrangement. That's been resolved. So it's no longer needed as a condition. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Could I have a motion for approval, please. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Christopher Della Bella for a variance from Chapter 140 of the Sign Code of The Town of Queensbury. Applicant proposes installation of a 17.88 sq. ft. wall sign to read "Certified Service". Currently there are four wall signs where one is the maximum allowed. Relief requested from number of allowable wall signs. ".."a SEQR Type: Unlisted [ Resolution /Action Required for SEAR] Motion regarding Sign Variance No. PZ-0136-2016 Christopher Della Bella based upon the information and the analysis of the above supporting documentation provided by the applicant, this Board finds that this will not result in any significant adverse environmental impact. So we give it a Negative Declaration, Introduced by Michael McCabe who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Henkel: Duly adopted this 25th day of May 2016, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Underwood, Mr. Freer, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Urrico, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, May 25, 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? I don't believe so. It goes along with the branding. 2. Can the benefit sought by the applicant be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an sign variance? I don't believe so. 3. Is the requested sign variance substantial? Not really. 4. Will the proposed sign variance have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district? No, I don't believe so. Again, it goes along with branding. People expect to see these signs. 5. Is the alleged difficulty self-created? You might say it is, but again, it's going along with the standard. 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-0136- 2016 Christopher Della Bella Introduced by Ronald Kuhl, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Michael McCabe: 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. "..„q Duly adopted this 25th day of May 2016, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Henkel, Mr. Freer, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Urrico, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE MR. JACKOSKI-Congratulations. Good luck. MR. DELLA BELLA-Thank you very much. I appreciate it. SIGN VARIANCE PZ-0141-2016 SEQRA TYPE UNLISTED NORTH COUNTRY IMPORTS, INC. AGENT(S) JARED LENDRUM OWNER(S) NORTH COUNTRY IMPORTS, INC. ZONING Cl LOCATION 616 QUAKER ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES INSTALLATION OF A 15.5 SQ. FT. "SERVICE" WALL SIGN TO BE LOCATED ABOVE THE ENTRANCE TO THE CUSTOMER DRIVE-IN BAYS. CURRENTLY TWO WALL SIGNS EXIST. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR NUMBER OF ALLOWABLE WALL SIGNS. CROSS REF SP PZ-123- 2016 ADDITION; SP 18-2011 NEW FACADE & 8 FT. BY 8 FT. SIGN TOWER AND OTHER SIGN BUILDING PERMITS WARREN COUNTY PLANNING MAY 18, 2016 LOT SIZE 4.55 ACRE(S) TAX MAP NO. 303.10-1-12 SECTION CHAPTER 140-6 JARED LENDRUM, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFFINPUT Notes from Staff, Sign Variance PZ-0141-2016, North Country Imports, Inc., Meeting Date: May 25, 2016 "Project Location: 616 Quaker Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes installation of a 15.5 sq. ft. "service" wall sign to be located above the entrance to the customer drive-in bays. Currently two wall signs exist. Relief Required: The applicant requests the following relief: Relief requested for number of allowable wall signs. Section 140 Signs for which permits are required-number of wall signs The applicant proposes a 15 sq. ft. "Service" wall sign for the new service area addition, where there are two existing walls signs allowed through a variance and the new wall sign would be a third wall sign where one is the maximum allowed. 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. Minimal impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than a sign variance. Feasible alternatives may be considered to not allow additional wall signage. 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 a minimal impact within the district. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self- created. Staff comments: The applicant proposes a 15 sq. ft. "Service" wall sign to provide customers with the area of the building where auto service is offered. The applicant has indicated that the new addition and service sign will allow customers to stay in their vehicles when entering the service area — eliminating the need to park first. The plans show the location and signage details." MR. JACKOSKI-Good evening. A very simple application. I'm guessing you just want Board members to ask questions. MR. HENKEL-They're not certified? MR. LENDRUM-They didn't come up with that yet. I'm sure that in about five years they're going to decide they need to say that. It's very straightforward. it's the addition that we went in front of the Planning Board for last time. We hope to have it substantially completed by the end of the year, and this just helps clarify the situation for customers. So that it makes sense for the customers. We requested the 10 foot wide sign because we thought it was in proportion with the size of the service drive that we hope to install. The larger size I think would look disproportionate. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Do any Board members have any questions? Seeing no Board member questions, I'll open the public hearing. Is there anyone here in the audience who'd like to address the Board concerning this application? Seeing no one, is there any written comment? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-No comment. MR. JACKOSKI-No written comment, I'll poll the Board. I'll start with Harrison. MR. FREER-I support the variance. MR. JACKOSKI-Roy? MR. URRICO-I'm in favor of the application. MR. JACKOSKI-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-No problem. MR. JACKOSKI-Ron? MR. KUHL-Yes, I agree with it. MR. JACKOSKI-John? MR. HENKEL-Go for it. MR. JACKOSKI-Mike? MR. MC CABE-1 have no problem. MR. JACKOSKI-I'll close the public hearing and seek a motion for a Negative Declaration on the SEAR. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MOTION REGARDING SIGN VARIANCE NO. PZ-0141-2016 NORTH COUNTRY IMPORTS, INC., 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 Ronald Kuhl: Duly adopted this 25th day of May 2016, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Freer, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Urrico, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE MR. JACKOSKI-Now can I have a motion for approval, please. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from North Country Imports, Inc. for a variance from Chapter 140 of the Sign Code of The Town of ••a Queensbury. Applicant proposes installation of a 15.5 sq. ft. "service" wall sign to be located above the entrance to the customer drive-in bays. Currently two wall signs exist. Relief requested for number of allowable wall signs. SEQR Type: Unlisted [Resolution /Action Required for SEAR] Motion regarding Sign Variance No. PZ-0141-2016 North Country Imports, Inc., 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 Ronald Kuhl: Duly adopted this 25th day of May 2016, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Freer, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Urrico, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, May 25, 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? An undesirable change will not be produced to the neighborhood nor will a detriment to nearby properties be created in granting the sign variance. 2. Can the benefit sought by the applicant be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an sign variance? The benefit sought by the applicant cannot really be achieved by any other method. 3. Is the requested sign variance substantial? It's not really substantial. I'd call it moderate. 4. Will the proposed sign variance have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district? No. 5. Is the alleged difficulty self-created? The alleged difficulty is, of course, self-created. 6. In addition the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from granting the requested variance would outweigh the resulting detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community; 7. The Board also finds that the variance request under consideration is the minimum necessary; Based on the above findings I make a MOTION TO APPROVE Sign Variance No. PZ-0141- 2016 North Country Imports, Inc., 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 25th day of May 2016, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Henkel, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Freer, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE MR. JACKOSKI-Congratulations. MR. LENDRUM-Thank you. MR. JACKOSKI-Is there anything else to come before the Board this evening? A motion to adjourn? MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING OF MAY 25, 2016., Introduced by Ronald Kuhl who moved for its adoption, seconded by Michael McCabe: Duly adopted this 25th day of May, 2016, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Freer, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Henkel, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Steven Jackoski, Chairman ,�q�