Loading...
03-29-2017 �Qa,ueeir°u,ruba,uiry e I:"3/2'9/20�./,� QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SECOND REGULAR MEETING MARCH 29, 2017 INDEX Area Variance Z-AV-14-2017 John Jarosz 1. Tax Map No. 227.17-2-24 Area Variance Z-AV-16-2017 Paul Poirier 3. Tax Map No. 309.14-1-46 Area Variance Z-AV-20-2017 Magical Shore Acres, LLC 5. Tax Map No. 239.18-1-21 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 �Qa,ueeir°u,ruli::a,uiry e I:"3/2'9/20�./,� MARCH 29, 2017 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT STEVEN JACKOSKI, CHAIRMAN MICHAEL MC CABE, VICE CHAIRMAN ROY URRICO, SECRETARY JOHN HENKEL JAMES UNDERWOOD MICHELLE HAYWARD, ALTERNATE MEMBERS ABSENT HARRISON FREER LAND USE PLANNER-LAURA MOORE MR. JACKOSKI-Welcome, everyone. I'd I like to welcome everyone to the Town of Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals meeting for this evening. March 29th here in the Activities Center. For those of you who haven't been here in the past, there is an agenda on the back table as well as a little outline of how we conduct ourselves here. We'll do some housekeeping if we have any to do. We'll address Old Business followed by New Business. Fortunately for this evening there is no housekeeping or Old Business. We have three items on the agenda. We'll open each item. I'll ask Roy to read the application into the record. We'll ask the applicants to join us at the table. We'll have some discussion. When I feel it is appropriate, I will open a public hearing. Every single one of our items on this evenings agenda have public hearing notices made, and after the public hearing I will take a polling of the Board to see where the Board members think they're going with the application and move forward accordingly and possibly close the public hearing. So without further delay, we'll call Area Variance Z-AV-14- 2017, a Type 11 SEAR. It is John Jarosz, 23 Churchill Road in Queensbury. There is a public hearing. NEW BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE Z-AV-14-2017 SEQRA TYPE II JOHN H. JAROSZ OWNER(S) JOHN J. JAROSZ ZONING WR-1A LOCATION 23 CHURCHILL ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A SWIMMING POOL IN THE SIDE YARD FACING SOUTH. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM PLACEMENT OF A POOL IN A YARD OTHER THAN THE REQUIRED REAR YARD. CROSS REF POOL-45-2017 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING MARCH 2017 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY ALD LOT SIZE 0.69 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 227.17-2-24 SECTION 179-5-020 JOHN JAROSZ, PRESENT MR. JACKOSKI-I'll turn it over to Roy to be read into the record. If you could join us at the table, please. STAFFINPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance Z-AV-14-2017, John H. Jarosz, Meeting Date: March 29, 2017 "Project Location: 23 Churchill Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a swimming pool in the side yard facing south. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief from placement of a pool in a yard other than the required rear yard. 179-5-020 Accessory Structures -pool The applicant proposes location of a pool in the side yard Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination, the board shall consider: �Qa,ueeir°u,ruli::a,uiry e I:"3/2'9/20�./,� 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 for the location of the pool due to the lot configuration. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered moderate relevant to the code. The relief is for location of the pool to be in the side yard where the rear yard is required. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The project may be considered to have minimal impact on the physical or the environmental conditions of the area. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self- created. Staff comments: The applicant proposes to install a 12 ft. by 23 ft. pool on the south side of the existing home. The applicant's home is located at the end of Churchill Rd. The location of the pool is for privacy due to the neighboring properties." MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, Roy. Welcome, Mr. Jarosz. MR. JAROSZ-Thank you. MR. JACKOSKI-Self-explanatory. Do you want to add anything to the record or just have Board members ask you questions? MR. JAROSZ-They can ask questions. MR. JACKOSKI-Do any Board members have any questions at this time? MR. HENKEL-Is it in-ground or above ground? MR. JAROSZ-In-ground. MR. HENKEL-That's kind of a funny shape for a pool, 12 by 23. It's like an uneven number. MR. JAROSZ-It's a kidney shaped pool. MR. HENKEL-Okay. I gotcha. MR. JAROSZ-And they used the furthest diameter of the pool, and the furthest, the width, the widest part is 12 foot. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. There is a public hearing scheduled for this evening. I'll open the public hearing. Is there any written comment? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-Yes. There are three letters. They're very similar so I'll read the first one and then I'll add the names for the second and third. "My name is Leslie Grasso and I live on Churchill Road in the Town of Queensbury. I am writing to the Zoning Board today after reviewing site plans for the proposed swimming property pool at my neighbor John Jarosz' home. I feel that placement of the proposed pool in the side yard instead of the required backyard area would be the most beneficial and least invasive to the surrounding neighborhood. Thank you for your consideration on this matter. Sincerely, Leslie Grasso" The second letter is from Wayne D. Williams, and he lives on Seelye Road, and the third letter is from Molly Delaney and she lives on Churchill Road. MR. JACKOSKI-So let it be known Molly is an adjoining neighbor. MR. JAROSZ-Adjoining neighbor. 3 �Qa,ueeir°u,ruba,uiry e 1:"3/2'9/20�./,� MR. JACKOSKI-Mrs. Grasso is across the street. MR. JAROSZ-Yes, and Wayne and Michelle are directly behind me. MR. JACKOSKI-And they would be most affected by the placement. Seeing no one, I'm going to leave the public hearing open. I'm going to poll the Board. I'll start with Mike. (PROBLEMS WITH RECORDING MOST OF RECORDING LOST) WHAT FOLLOWS IS A SUMMARY OF THE REST OF THE JAROSZ HEARING AND THE PAUL POIRIER HEARING, AND THE FIRST PART OF THE MAGICAL SHORE ACRES HEARING. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from John J. Jarosz. Applicant proposes construction of a swimming pool in the side yard facing south. The applicant requests relief from placement of a pool in a yard other than the required rear yard. 179-5-020 Accessory Structures -pool The applicant proposes location of a pool in the side yard SEQR Type 11 — no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, March 29, 2017; Upon review of the application materials, information supplied during the public hearing, and upon consideration of the criteria specified in Section 179-14-080(A) of the Queensbury Town Code and Chapter 267 of NYS Town Law and after discussion and deliberation, we find as follows: 1. There is not an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood nor a detriment to nearby properties. 2. Feasible alternatives have been considered and are not possible. 3. The requested variance is not substantial 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district? 5. Is the alleged difficulty is of course self created. 6. In addition the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from granting the requested variance would outweigh (approval) the resulting detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community; 7. The Board also finds that the variance request under consideration is the minimum necessary; BASED ON THE ABOVE FINDINGS, I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE Z-AV-14-2017, JOHN J. JAROSZ, Introduced by Michael McCabe, who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Henkel: Duly adopted this 29th day of March 2017 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Henkel, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Freer AREA VARIANCE Z-AV-16-2017 SEQRA TYPE 11 PAUL POIRIER AGENT(S) TOM CENTER — NACE ENGINEERING OWNER(S) PAUL POIRIER ZONING WR LOCATION BETWEEN ISLAND VIEW DRIVE AND RIVERSIDE DRIVE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO SUBDIVIDE A 18.5 ACRE PARCEL INTO FOUR TWO-ACRE RESIDENTIAL LOST WHERE LOTS 1, 2, 3 AND 4 DO NOT HAVE THE REQUIRED ROAD FRONTAGE. 4 �Qa,ueeir°u,ruli::a,uiry e I:3/2'9/20�./,� RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MINIMUM ROAD FRONTAGE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF NEW LOTS. CROSS REF P-SB (PRELIM) 6-2017; P-FWW-2-2017 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING MARCH 2017 LOT SIZE 18.91 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 309.14-1-46 SECTION 179-3-040 STAFFINPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance Z-AV-16-2017, Paul Poirier, Meeting Date: March 29, 2017 "Project Location: Between Island View Drive and Riverside Drive Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to subdivide a 18.5 acre parcel into four two-acre residential lots where lots 1, 2, 3 and 4 do not have the required road frontage. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief from minimum road frontage requirements for the development of new lots. 179-4-050 Frontage on public or private streets The applicant a 4 lot subdivision where lots 1, 2, & 3 access is from Island View Drive and Lot 4 access is from Riverside Drive. Parcel size is Lot 1 — 4.9 acres, Lot 2 - 2.1 acres, Lot 3 — 2.1 acres, Lot 4 —9.4 acres. Both streets are private Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination, the board shall consider: 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. The project may be considered to have minor impact on the neighboring properties as the access through private drives exist the project extends the road for the proposed homes. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. Feasible alternatives may be limited due to the lot configuration and location. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered substantial relevant to the code. The project utilizes existing private drive for access where relief is for not having direct access to the Town road. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The project may be considered to have minimal impact on the physical or the environmental conditions of the area. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self- created. Staff comments: The applicant proposes a four lot subdivision — lots 1, 2, & 3 access is from Island View Drive and Lot 4 access is from Riverside Drive. Parcel size to be Lot 1 —4.9 acres, Lot 2 - 2.1 acres, Lot 3 —2.1 acres, Lot 4 — 9.4 acres. The Board may request further discussion in regards to lot 4 where there wetland may interfere with the house location and a variance may be needed." The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Paul Poirier. Applicant proposes to subdivide an 18.5 acre parcel into four two-acre residential lots where lots 1, 2, 3 and 4 do not have the required road frontage. The applicant requests relief from minimum road frontage requirements for the development of new lots. 179-4-050 Frontage on public or private streets The applicant a 4 lot subdivision where lots 1, 2, & 3 access is from Island View Drive and Lot 4 access is from Riverside Drive. Parcel size is Lot 1 — 4.9 acres, Lot 2 - 2.1 acres, Lot 3 — 2.1 acres, Lot 4 —9.4 acres. Both streets are private SEQR Type 11 — no further review required; �Qa,ueeir°u,ruli::a,uiry e I:3/2'9/20�./,� A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, March 29, 2017; 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: BASED ON THE ABOVE FINDINGS, I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE Z- AV-16-2017, PAUL POIRIER, Introduced by Michael McCabe, who moved for its adoption, seconded by James Underwood: Duly adopted this 29th day of March 2017 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Underwood, Mr. McCabe, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Freer AREA VARIANCE Z-AV-20-2017 SEQRA TYPE II MAGICAL SHORE ACRES, LLC AGENT(S) DENNIS MAC ELROY OWNER(S) MAGICAL SHORE ACRES, LLC ZONING WR LOCATION: 10 WOOD POINT LANE APPLICANT PROPOSES A 1,284 +/- SQ. FT. (FLOOR AREA) RESIDENTIAL ADDITION. THE PROJECT ALSO INCLUDES CONSTRUCTION OF A 960 SQ. FT. THREE-CAR GARAGE WITH NEW ACCESS PATHWAY FROM EXISTING DRIVEWAY TO A NEW 336 SQ. FT. CARPORT AND NEW HOUSE ENTRYWAY AREA. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MINIMUM SETBACK REQUIREMENTS AND FOR A NEW CARPORT AS THE SECOND GARAGE. PLANNING BOARD: SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR PROJECT WITHIN 50 FT. OF 15% SLOPES AND FOR EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE IN A CEA. CROSS REF P-SP 20-2017; SP 18-1992; AV 34-1992; SP 8-1997 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING MARCH 2017 LOT SIZE 2.63 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 239.18-1-21 SECTION 179-3-040; 179-13-010 DENNIS MAC ELROY, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFFINPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance Z-AV-20-2017, Magical Shore Acres, LLC, Meeting Date: March 29, 2017 "Project Location: 10 Wood Point Lane Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes a 1,284 +/- sq. ft. (floor area) residential addition. The project also includes construction of a 960 sq. ft. three-car garage with new access pathway from existing driveway to a new 336 sq. ft. carport and new house entryway area. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief from minimum setback requirements and for a new carport as the second garage. 179-3-040 Establishment of Districts—dimensional requirement WR zone The applicant proposes a 447.3 sq. ft. residential infill in the court yard area of the home where 197.3 sq. ft. is 61 ft. from the shoreline and there is 187 sq. ft. residential infill in the lower level where 91 ft. is 65 ft. from the shoreline where a 75 ft. setback is required. Section 179-5-020 accessory structures -garage, The applicant proposes 336 sq. ft. car port area for the utv parking -a car port is considered a second garage, where only one garage is allowed 179-13-010 Expansion of non-conforming The existing home is pre-existing non-compliant and the addition furthers the non-compliance towards the shoreline. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination, the board shall consider: 6 �Qa,ueeir°u,ruli::a,uiry e I:"3/2'9/20�./,� 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 to no 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 design of the home and location on the site. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered moderate relevant to the code. Relief is requested for shoreline of 14 ft. for the courtyard and 10 ft. for the lower level. Relief is also requested for the second garage. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Minor to no impact to the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood may be anticipated. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self- created Staff comments: Applicant proposes to renovate the existing home with two infill areas, additions for a new entryway and carport, and a new garage. The project includes a new 6ft wide path from the existing driveway to the new entryway carport area. The purpose is for a utv usage from the new garage area for grocery and other items for easy transport. The applicant has provided elevations and floor plans detailing the location of each improvement to the home and site." (RECORDING PICKS UP AGAIN AS DENNIS MAC ELROY IS SPEAKING) MR. MAC ELROY-Is a pathway down that would serve a utility type vehicle like a golf cart or an ATV type thing, and down at that entry, adjacent to the structural addition at the entry is a covered area, and I think that's shown on the architectural in a rendering form. Technically it qualifies as a second garage because it's a covering. It's an open, not an enclosed garage, but by definition, in reviewing it with Staff, it was decided that that qualified as a second garage and therefore requires a variance request. So those are the three variances that are being requested. It's kind of a complicated house in terms of its design, and roof configuration. I'd leave any explanation of that to Mike because obviously he has, is better versed in that, and it's a job, it was a job for me to sort of get my head around. (Tape cut out for a couple of seconds). So I had some familiarity with it, but it's still kind of a complicated floor plan and roof system and now with Anil and Jean's desires to make some changes it becomes an architectural challenge to make that all work, and I think that Mike and his staff have achieved that. It's just that it requires a couple of variances. MR. JACKOSKI-Any questions from Board members before I open the public hearing? Having none, we have a public hearing this evening. I'll open the public hearing. Is there any written comment? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-There is one. "I own the property at 23 Woods Point Lane adjacent to Anil Crasto's property at 10 Woods Point Lane. I have no objections to Mr. Crasto's proposed project. John Boomer" And that's the only other letter I have, other than the APA letter. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. Is there anyone in the audience this evening that would like to address the Board on this application? Seeing no one, I'll poll the Board. I'll start with Roy. MR. URRICO-Again? MR. JACKOSKI-All right. I'll give you a freebie. Mike? MR. MC CABE-First of all, I'd like to thank the applicant for clearly marking the location of the house. Sometimes when you get off the beaten path here it's difficult to determine just exactly what property you're looking at, and this one there was no question. So I thank the applicant for making things easy in that respect. I just had one quick question that I thought of. The existing carport, did that have any collection area for runoff? MR. MAC ELROY-Currently? 7 �Qa,ueeir°u,ruba,uiry e 03/2'9/20�./,� MR. MC CABE-Yes. MR. MAC ELROY-There's no formal stormwater system. MR. MC CABE-All right. So that'll be new? MR. MAC ELROY-Correct, yes. I didn't really cover that. It isn't necessarily part of the variance, but it is part of the project. That carport will be moved, and within that footprint area is a new enclosed detached garage, and there will be stormwater management for it. MR. MC CABE-And so we're being asked to okay that, and so I'm just looking for some quid pro quo here. What are we getting for putting, or, you know, allowing a second garage and so we're getting improved handling of the water coming off the. MR. MAC ELROY-Although technically, not to dispute that nice thought, the second garage we're asking for is the entryway down to the house, the covering down by the house, not necessarily a three car garage to replace the carport. MR. MC CABE-Okay. MR. MAC ELROY-Just to clarify, if you look at what is labeled as Site Section Two in the architectural, it's the lower left corner, and it shows, if you look at it it shows a roof section. It shows a door, the entry, and then a wall behind it. That covering is what we're talking about. Because, I mean, by rights they're entitled to the other garage, a detached garage, and that's important. You want to maintain that right, but the extra one we're asking for is this covering. MR. MC CABE-All right. MR. MAC ELROY-So thank you for that thought, but just to clarify, this is a different structure. MR. HENKEL-But it looks like you've got a system that's coming off that new garage that's got a very downspout. MR. MAC ELROY-Yes, we're providing stormwater management for the new areas of the structure, the new impervious. MR. MC CABE-Will there be a new septic system with this? MR. MAC ELROY-No, there's an existing system that I still need, from the Planning Board's standpoint, need to be able to certify. Anything that requires a building permit needs to be certified. I haven't been able to do that during the winter months, but before a Planning Board meeting. I've written a letter. MR. MC CABE-But what we're getting out of it is a registered septic system. MR. MAC ELROY-Right. MR. MC CABE-Where the existing system is not registered officially. MR. MAC ELROY-It's safe to say. MR. MC CABE-Yes. So I guess my feeling is that it is a unique project, and I guess I would have to agree with the addition of the utility path just for safety conditions to manage that particular area in the wintertime where trying to walk down there could be a hazard, and we are indeed improving the environment as a result of this project, and so I'm in favor of the variances. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. John? MR. SHAFER-Yes. I'd definitely agree with Mike. Being it's 2.6 acres. It's a large piece of property. We're not infringing on any permeability. They're keeping that down. Yes, they are building closer than 70 feet to the lake, but no closer than what the existing which is 30 feet, and they're going to be about 61 and 65 feet from the new buildings. I don't see any problem with it. It's a nice piece of property. I think it's going to be a nice project. Go for it. MR. JACKOSKI-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, it's a non-traditional design. It's quite different than anything else up on the lake, and I think that the attempt to tie the roofing system in together makes sense for the 8 �Qa,ueeir°u,ruba,uiry e I:"3/2'9/20�./,� longevity of the place. It's, that hodgepodge of rooflines and angles and dangling things, and in the middle of nowhere. The request for the extra garage per se, which is really for the utv, makes sense. You don't have any big overhangs on this house or places to get out of the weather, and it makes sense when you're bringing up groceries, unloading people and their luggage from the road, it makes sense to have a covered area to do that in. I don't think that's a big huge request. Everything that you're requesting as far as improvements on the house is in-fill and it's not really going to change the whole atmosphere of the lake in that it's a unique situation. So I'd be all for it. MR. JACKOSKI-Michelle? MRS. HAYWARD-I agree with my fellow Board members. What I'm impressed with is the location of the house and the very difficult landscape and making it work and also keeping the spirit of the original house which is one of my favorites, too. I go kayaking by it about every day. So I'm I favor of the project. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay to go last, Roy? MR. URRICO-I'm ready. MR. JACKOSKI-All right. MR. URRICO-I agree with everything that's been said so far. It's a somewhat complicated project made uncomplicated by the design and location of the property and I would be in favor of it. MR. JACKOSKI-So far so good. I'll close the public hearing and seek a motion for approval. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Magical Shore Acres, LLC. Applicant proposes a 1,284 +/- sq. ft. (floor area) residential addition. The project also includes construction of a 960 sq. ft. three-car garage with new access pathway from existing driveway to a new 336 sq. ft. carport and new house entryway area. The applicant requests relief from minimum setback requirements and for a new carport as the second garage. 179-3-040 Establishment of Districts—dimensional requirement WR zone The applicant proposes a 447.3 sq. ft. residential infill in the court yard area of the home where 197.3 sq. ft. is 61 ft. from the shoreline and there is 187 sq. ft. residential infill in the lower level where 91 ft. is 65 ft. from the shoreline where a 75 ft. setback is required. Section 179-5-020 accessory structures -garage, The applicant proposes 336 sq. ft. car port area for the utv parking - a car port is considered a second garage, where only one garage is allowed 179-13-010 Expansion of non conforming The existing home is pre-existing non-compliant and the addition furthers the non-compliance towards the shoreline. SEQR Type 11 — no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, March 29, 2017; Upon review of the application materials, information supplied during the public hearing, and upon consideration of the criteria specified in Section 179-14-080(A) of the Queensbury Town Code and Chapter 267 of NYS Town Law and after discussion and deliberation, we find as follows: 1. There is not an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood nor a detriment to nearby properties because the changes that are being made are very superficial compared to the overall layout of the land. 2. Feasible alternatives have been considered but are deemed not reasonable. 9 �Qa,ueeir°u,ruba,uiry e I:"3/2'9/20�./,� 3. The requested variance is not substantial because the changes that are being made are more for safety and for improvements to the overall layout of the property. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district? In fact we feel that this project will improve the environmental conditions. 5. Is the alleged difficulty is of course self-created. 6. In addition the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from granting the requested variance would outweigh (approval) the resulting detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community; 7. The Board also finds that the variance request under consideration is the minimum necessary; BASED ON THE ABOVE FINDINGS, I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE Z- AV-20-2017, MAGICAL SHORE ACRES, LLC, Introduced by Michael McCabe, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Michelle Hayward: Duly adopted this 29th day of March 2017 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McCabe, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Freer MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. MR. MAC ELROY-Okay. Thank you very much. I appreciate it. I just want to mention a little oversight. I didn't really introduce Anil Crasko, but he's in the audience. Thank you. We are thankful for your help. MR. MC CABE-And you misjudged us. You thought the preceding would be quicker, didn't you? MR. JACKOSKI-All right. You're all set. Any other business before the Board this evening? So one discussion might want to have at future meetings as an agenda item is signage within the Town. Maybe making a recommendation to the Town Board because I'm getting some feedback from several of you about compliance issues and enforcement issues and why are we being so hard on people with signage when there's so much other signage on other properties that, where's the consistency. So I'm willing to do that as a Board. We can have that discussion at a future date in May if that's okay with you guys. So, Staff, please note we'll have an agenda item for discussion. I know May could be busy because we've got overflow possible from April, but the Board wants to have a discussion about signage and making a possible resolution for a recommendation to the Board about enforcement and/or. MRS. MOORE-Do you want other Staff present that handle more signage issues? MR. JACKOSKI-I don't know. Let's talk about it at our April meeting now that we've at least addressed this part. Let's see what we want to do for May. Is that fair? MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. JACKOSKI-Is everybody okay with that? MR. UNDERWOOD-So we're looking at signage in general? MR. JACKOSKI-From Code Enforcement. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, I had one on, when you come off the exit on 18, there's that place that has the rental business there. There's signs for Saratoga Honda on that building now, and there's like two or three of them on two different buildings there, and I think that, you know, that's something that the Town should probably go down there and, well, it's one thing if it's the business in Town, but I think, you know, we've been clear in the past about not having extraneous signage, you know, that doesn't even have anything to do with our community out there, which clearly is illegal. °10 �Qa,ueeir°u,ruba,uiry e I:"3/2'9/20�./,� MR. HENKEL-What happened to the signage for Concord Pools sign we denied? That's still all lit. Right? Didn't we deny that? It's still lit. It's still there. Right? MR. UNDERWOOD-No, they came in and revised what they had because they went to a bigger sign and we approved it, I believe. MR. URRICO-Steve, is there something we can start listing to be brought up? MR. JACKOSKI-I think if Board members feel it appropriate, by all means, if you think there are projects out there that don't quite fit what the Sign Code is and you're questioning it because applicants come in front of us, we deny them or we make them shrink, but yet we know when all these other things are happening, why are the folks that are in front of us following the rules getting penalized, Board member's terms getting penalized, when there are other people just going and doing what they're going to do? So I understand there's questions about temporary signs. I understand what fagade sigs and when you start looking at convenience stores and you've got all kinds of signs on gas pumps and you've got all kinds of signs all over with logos, I get it, but if we want to talk to the Board about making that better, by all means I don't have a problem doing that. There's a lot of discussion behind the scenes. So let's bring it to a head and decide what we're going to do, because I think I do understand some of the concerns. Fastrac in particular wanted some signage and we turned it down, we kind of poo pooed it but in reality you look around Town and you're like, there's signage everywhere. So I get it. I understand. Let's have a discussion about it out in the open. MR. MC CABE-The other thing is their property is on the border with Hudson Falls, and we've had to deal with property that's on the border of Glens Falls, and property on the border with Lake George, and we shouldn't be penalizing Queensbury businesses that are close to the Town lines, too. In my opinion. MR. JACKOSKI-What I'd like to do is I'd like to inform the Town Board that we're going to have a discussion, and by all means they can feel free to attend, but I'd like to make sure we give them plenty of advanced notice that there is some concern and that we would like to have an open discussion about it and what we might recommend. MR. MC CABE-They approved the LED's. MR. UNDERWOOD-I think one of the things the Town Board has done well, though, is they've adopted a conservative view point that we don't have to be like every other community. We can set our own standard and then we don't have to lower our standard down to where anything goes, and I think in the past that's why the Town has reflected a conservative view point on signage. You can ha a sign but it's going to be the minimum amount necessary. It doesn't have to be grandiose. MR. JACKOSKI-But it will do us no good to have that guideline, code, whatever you want to call it, if we're going to just allow non-enforcement. MR. UNDERWOOD-Exactly. MR. JACKOSKI-So I know, the other issue I know we should talk about is window signs, because there is a limitation as to how many square feet of your window can be utilized, and as you all know, there's a lot of businesses you can't even see inside them. So I get it. It's time to have that discussion, pass it on to the Board and let them do as they deem appropriate, but if this Board's going to become very stringent to the Code, that of course is going to raise some ire, and that's okay. We just need to be consistent. So I'm okay with that. I think that's it. All right. Can I have a motion to adjourn? MR. MC CABE-I make a motion that we adjourn our meeting tonight. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, Mike. Thank you, Roy, for seconding it. MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING OF MARCH 29, 2017, Introduced by Michael McCabe who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roy Urrico: Duly adopted this 29th day of March, 2017, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Jackoski �Qa,ueeir°u,ruba,uiry e 03/2'9/20�./,� NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Freer On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Steven Jackoski, Chairman