SV 38-2015 Cedars I, L.P. Approval Resolution July 22, 2015 Zoning Board of Appeals—Record of Resolution
Town of Queensbury 742 Bay Road Queensbury,NY 12804 (518) 761-8238
Town of Queensbury
RESOLUTION TO: Approve Sigh Variance No. 33-2015,
Cedars I, L.P.,
35 Evergreen Lane;
Intersection of Evergreen Lane and Bay Road
at Cedars Senior Living Community
Tax Map No. 289.19-1-15
The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Cedars I, L.P.,
for a variance from Chapter 140 of the Sign Code of The Town of Queensbury. Application proposes
construction of a 12 sq. ff.freestanding sign to be placed on the northerly entrance drive; Cedars Senior
Living Community. Relief requested from minimum front and side yard setback requirements for signs.
SEQR Type: Unlisted;
Matron regarding Sign Variance No. 38-2015, Cedars I, L.P.; based upon the information provided by the
applicant and the supporting documentation,this Board finds that this will not result in any significant
adverse environmental impact. So we give it a Negative Declaration, Introduced by Richard Garrand
who moved for its adoption, seconded by Ronald Kuhl:
Duly adopted this 22nd day of July, 2015, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Garrand, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Jackoski
NOES: NONE
A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, July 22, 2015;
Upon review of the application materials, information supplied during the public hearing, and upon
consideration of the criteria specified in Section 179-14-080(A) of the Queensbury Town Code and
Chapter 267 of NYS Town Law and after discussion and deliberation,we find as follows:
1. 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? We've determined
that an undesirable change to the neighborhood will not be produced.
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 cannot be by other practical methods.
3. Is the requested Sign Variance substantial? We feel it's moderate.
Page 1 of 2
ZBA Decision Resolution (continued)
ZBA Meeting Date: Wednesday, July 22, 2015
Sign Variance Application No. 38-2015, Cedars I, L.P.
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 difficulty 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. 38-2015
Cedars I, L.P., Introduced by Michael McCabe,who moved for its adoption, seconded by Ronald Kuhl:
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 22nd day of July, 2015, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Garrand, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Urrico, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Jackoski
NOES: NONE
Page 2 of 2