01-24-2018 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/24/2018)
QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
SECOND REGULAR MEETING
JANUARY 24, 2018
INDEX
Area Variance Z-AV-4-2018 Michael & Karen LeBlanc 1.
Tax Map No. 308.6-1-67.1
Area Variance Z-AV-2-108 D. Paul Kruger
4.
Tax Map No. 303.5-1-89
Sign Variance Z-SV-2-2018 Tabassum Sheikh/ASAD Petroleum 9.
FURTHER TABLED Tax Map No. 266.3-1-78
Sign Variance Z-SV-1-2018 AJ Signs (for Adirondack Trust Co.) 10.
Tax Map No. 296.20-1-45
THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND
STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTHS MINUTES
(IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES.
QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
1
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/24/2018)
SECOND REGULAR MEETING
JANUARY 24, 2018
7:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
HARRISON FREER, CHAIRMAN
MICHAEL MC CABE, VICE CHAIRMAN
ROY URRICO, SECRETARY
JAMES UNDERWOOD
JOHN HENKEL
MICHELLE HAYWARD
MEMBERS ABSENT
RONALD KUHL
LAND USE PLANNER-LAURA MOORE
STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI
MR. FREER-I'd like to open the Town of Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals for today,
January 24th, 2018. For those of you who have not been here in the past it's actually quite a
simple process. On the back table there's some information about each application and a bit of
information about the process. We'll call each applicant to the table here for a presentation of
each application. We will read the application into the record, ask questions of the applicant,
open up a public hearing, if I remember, and if not Laura will keep me honest. We'll poll the
Board on the application and we'll make a motion if applicable and then we'll move on to the
next application. So today we have six Board members. The full quota is seven. So if any
time you decide you want the full Board to hear your application you can table it and move it to
the next meeting when we will have two alternates available to fill in as the seventh member of
the Board. So with that, if there's no question, I think we're ready for the first application.
Michael & Karen LeBlanc, Area Variance 4-2018. Do you want to come up to the table?
AREA VARIANCE Z-AV-4-2018 SEQRA TYPE II MICHAEL & KAREN LE BLANC
OWNER(S) MICHAEL & KAREN LE BLANC ZONING MDR LOCATION 34 WARREN
LANE APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 560 SQ. FT. DETACHED ONE
DOOR GARAGE. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MINIMUM SETBACK REQUIREMENTS
FOR THE MDR ZONING DISTRICT. CROSS REF Z-AV-55-2017; P-SUB-15-2017 FINAL
STAGE WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 2.57 ACRE(S) TAX MAP NO.
308.6-1-67.1 SECTION 179-5-020; 179-3-040
MICHAEL & KAREN LE BLANC, PRESENT
STAFFINPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance Z-AV-4-2018, Michael & Karen LeBlanc, Meeting Date:
January 24, 2018 "Project Location: 34 Warren Lane Description of Proposed Project:
Applicant proposes construction of a 560 sq. ft. detached one door garage. Relief requested
from minimum setback requirements for the MDR zoning district.
Relief Required:
The applicant requests relief from minimum setback requirements for the MDR zoning district.
Section 179-3-040 establishment of districts-dimensional requirements
The applicant proposes construction of a detached garage where the setback is to be 10 ft. on
the west side and a 25 ft. setback is required.
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. Minor to no impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated.
2
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/24/2018)
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 location of the existing home and driveway area.
3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be
considered moderate relevant to the code. Relief is requested for 15 ft. on the west property
line.
4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical
or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Minor to no impact to the
physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood may be anticipated.
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-
created.
Staff comments:
The applicant proposes to construct a detached garage associated with their existing single
family home. The applicant has explained the existing garage was to be removed as part of the
subdivision and left them with no garage. The garage is for their vehicles and storage. The
plans show the location of the home and the proposed garage."
MR. FREER-Okay. Welcome. Can you identify yourselves?
MR. LE BLANC-Michael and Karen LeBlanc.
MR. FREER-Okay. It's pretty straightforward. Would you like to add anything to the
application?
MR. LE BLANC-Not unless I have to I guess.
MR. FREER-You don't have to. Okay. So we have a public hearing. Is there anyone in the
audience that would like to make a comment on this application? Seeing no one, do we have
any written comments, Roy?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. URRICO-There is no written comment.
MR. FREER-Okay. With that I will poll the Board and see what their thoughts are and
discussion on this application. So, Jim, I'm going to start over here.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure. I think everybody's aware of the previous subdivision of the property
so you could gift it to your kids and I think everybody understands that probably here in the
North Country in a winter like this probably everybody appreciates having a garage. I think that
the small lots in this area are all pre-existing zoning law and I think everybody understands
everything's kind of tight and fitting in to the pieces of the puzzle it's important. I don't really
think I would have a problem with this. I think it is an over the top request but I don't think it's
unreasonable.
MR. FREER-Okay. Thanks, Jim. Michelle?
MRS. HAYWARD-1 think that it looks like a great plan and like Jim said you certainly need a
garage, not just for your car but to maintain your property. I do have a question. I'm not sure if
it's appropriate for me to ask a question of the applicant at this time, but have you considered
moving the garage behind your house where you have more property?
MR. LE BLANC-Well, we thought about that, but there's such a drop off. There's probably like
six or seven feet difference in elevation from up, from where we are.
MRS. HAYWARD-Yes, I noticed when I drove by it was.
MR. LE BLANC-Yes, it drops right off.
MRS. LE BLANC-Plus we're getting older. Our idea is to walk from one area to the other.
MRS. HAYWARD-Yes. It would be more convenient Thank you very much.
3
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/24/2018)
MR. FREER-Okay. John?
MR. HENKEL-You haven't thought about adding that to the addition behind the mobile home?
No? Because in the future if you wanted a truck to go through to your property in the back
there it would really be hard to get a truck, you know, a semi or something like that. I
understand you want to connect it to the existing driveway.
MRS. LE BLANC-Yes.
MR. HENKEL-Yes. It makes sense there. Yes. I'm on board with it.
MR. FREER-Mike?
MR. MC CABE-Yes. I think the garage will enhance the value of the property and thus make
the neighborhood more valuable. It makes sense and there is quite a bit of property there, but
it's long and narrow. So I can see why you'd need relief from the setback, and so I would
support the project.
MR. FREER-Okay. Roy?
MR. URRICO-Yes, I'm in agreement with my fellow Board members. I believe it passes the
balancing test.
MR. FREER-Okay, and I, too, don't have any huge issues with this. I've looked at it and I
understand what you're trying to do and that's why we have a Zoning Board of Appeals so that
when the rules need to be looked at on a case by case basis we can do that. So I guess we
can close the public hearing and I'll seek a motion.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from
Michael & Karen LeBlanc. Applicant proposes construction of a 560 sq. ft. detached one door
garage. Relief requested from minimum setback requirements for the MDR zoning district.
Relief Required:
The applicant requests relief from minimum setback requirements for the MDR zoning district.
Section 179-3-040 establishment of districts-dimensional requirements
The applicant proposes construction of a detached garage where the setback is to be 10 ft. on
the west side and a 25 ft. setback is required.
SEQR Type II — no further review required;
A public hearing was advertised and held on January 24, 2018;
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. We think the garage will enhance the value of the property and
thus improve the neighborhood.
2. Feasible alternatives have been considered by the Board but are not deemed
reasonable at this particular time.
3. The requested variance is not substantial. The setback variance, considering the size
of the property, is really kind of moderate.
4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the
neighborhood or district.
5. The alleged difficulty is of course self-created.
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/24/2018)
6. In addition the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from granting the requested
variance would outweigh (approval) the resulting detriment to the health, safety and
welfare of the neighborhood or community;
7. The Board also finds that the variance request under consideration is the minimum
necessary;
8. The Board also proposes the following conditions:
a) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution.
BASED ON THE ABOVE FINDINGS, I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE Z-
AV-4-2018 MICHAEL & KAREN LEBLANC, Introduced by Michael McCabe, who moved for its
adoption, seconded by Michelle Hayward:
Duly adopted this 24th day of January 2018 by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Underwood, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Freer
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl
MR. FREER-Okay. Good luck.
MR. LE BLANC-Thank you.
MR. FREER-Hope not to see you in the near future. Okay. The next applicant is Paul Kruger,
Area Variance 2-2018.
AREA VARIANCE Z-AV-2-2018 SEQRA TYPE II D. PAUL KRUGER AGENT(S) MARIA
KRUGER OWNER(S) D. PAUL KRUGER ZONING MDR LOCATION 56
MEADOWBROOK ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 1,092 SQ. FT.
SINGLE-FAMILY HOME WITH A 400 SQ. FT. ATTACHED GARAGE AND ASSOCIATED
SITE WORK. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MINIMUM SETBACK REQUIREMENTS FOR
THE MDR ZONING DISTRICT. CROSS REF AV 34-2009 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING
JANUARY 2018 LOT SIZE 0.80 ACRE(S) TAX MAP NO. 303.5-1-89 SECTION 179-3-
040
LARRY CLUTE & MARIA KRUGER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFFINPUT
Notes from Area Variance Z-AV-2-2018, D. Paul Kruger, Meeting Date: January 24, 2018
"Project Location: 56 Meadowbrook Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant
proposes construction a 1,092 sq. ft. single-family home with a 400 sq. ft. attached garage and
associated site work. Relief requested from minimum setback requirements for the MDR zoning
district.
Relief Required:
The applicant requests relief from minimum setback requirements for the MDR zoning district.
Section 179-3-040 establishment of districts-dimensional requirements
The applicant proposes construction of a new single family home with an attached garage
where the setback is to be 22.2 on the north side and 22.3 on the south side where a 25 ft.
setback is required.
Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law:
In making a determination, the board shall consider:
5
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/24/2018)
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 lot configuration with a lot less than 100 ft. in width.
3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be
considered minimal relevant to the code. Relief is requested for 2.8 ft. on the north and 2.7
ft. on the south.
4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical
or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Minor to no impact to the
physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood may be anticipated.
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-
created.
Staff comments:
The applicant proposes to construct a new single family home with an attached garage and an
entry porch on a vacant parcel. The project includes associated site work for installation of
utilities, connections to municipal water and sewer, driveway and construction of the home.
Plans show a typical home with elevations."
MR. FREER-Okay. Would you identify yourself and then add anything you'd like to the
application?
MR. CLUTE-Hi. Larry Clute with Maria Kruger, owner of the lot. I think the application is pretty
straightforward so I'll entertain any questions you guys might have.
MR. FREER-Okay. Anybody have any questions for the applicant? Seeing none, there's a
public hearing scheduled for this evening. Is there anyone in the audience that would like to
make a comment on this application? There is someone. So if you wouldn't mind giving up
the seat and, sir, please come forward. State your name for the record, please.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
ED GAIOTTI
MR. GAIOTTI-Ed Gaiotti, 44 Meadowbrook Road. My property is due south of the suggested
building lot. My question, I have two questions. I'm not really sure how much property is there
to start with, total property.
MR. HENKEL-It's .89 acres.
MR. GAIOTTI-There's more than that to the lot, however, isn't there?
MR. HENKEL-Excuse me?
MR. GAIOTTI-There's more acreage that goes with that. Isn't there? What's the total lot size
of that whole thing?
MR. UNDERWOOD-.89.
MR. FREER-That's what we were given. It's a long narrow lot
MR. GAIOTTI-I thought it was more than that. Okay. The other issue I have is that's a wet
area and water backs up in my yard which is almost due east of there, east and south. So my
concern is what's going to happen when they start digging in there and even the drainage?
What's it going to do to the water flow? Because I believe there used to be a stream that ran
down through there at one time. Now how long ago I have no idea, but the water always seems
to follow a certain course down through there, regardless of whether it's rain or snow melt. The
other question I have, the layout of the actual house, how is it going to lay out on the lot?
MR. UNDERWOOD-Kind of parallel with the sidelines. Do you want to look at it?
6
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/24/2018)
MR. FREER-Meadowbrook Road is on the left. That's the long lot.
MR. GAIOTTI-Mead's Nursery is there, right?
MRS. MOORE-Yes, and this is you.
MR. GAIOTTI-So the house is actually going to set?
MR. HENKEL-Long ways.
MR. FREER-The middle of that lot.
MR. GAIOTTI-East to west?
MR. FREER-Correct.
MR. GAIOTTI-Okay, and so the finished house will be how far from my property line?
MR. FREER-Well, the applicant's asking for a waiver to 22.
MR. HENKEL-22.3 feet is what they're saying.
MR. GAIOTTI-And it's presently 25. Right?
MR. FREER-The requirement is 25. They're asking us to allow, because it's a long.
MR. GAIOTTI-Okay. There is no, there will not be room to do anything behind, further east of
that lot after this is all done?
MR. HENKEL-They're going to be approximately 219 feet from Meadowbrook Road back. So
the back corner will be towards your property, yes. About half of that house.
MR. GAIOTTI-The rest of that property in that lot is not big enough to do anything with in the
future.
MR. FREER-Correct, well the future is hard to predict.
MR. GAIOTTI-The way it's laid out now.
MR. FREER-But they're just talking about putting a single family house on that.
MR. HENKEL-That whole area is full of water. I grew up on 287 Ridge Street and it's
constantly, wherever you go there's going to be a water problem.
MR. GAIOTTI-Now this drainage and everything will be overseen and made sure that?
MRS. MOORE-The requirement is that any stormwater generated on their site has to stay on
their site. So however that comes to be when he goes to apply for a building permit, the
information may appear on that plot plan about the stormwater that's generated by mew hard
surfacing.
MR. GAIOTTI-Now will it be necessary for that drainage closer to the line?
MRS. MOORE-I'm thinking that this project would require eaves trenches and the applicant can
speak to that.
MR. GAIOTTI-So none of this will go any closer than 22.5 feet?
MR. FREER-Well, the house is going to be that close. The requirement for keeping stormwater
is on the property, not 25 feet from your property. So that will go through the permitting
process.
MR. GAIOTTI-So his actual foundation will only be 22 feet from my line?
MR. HENKEL-It looks like it's not going to have a cellar. Right? It's going to be a floating pad.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Slab on grade.
7
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/24/2018)
MR. CLUTE-Full basement.
MR. FREER-Well, thank you for your input, I hope we answered most of your questions and the
water issue is part of the Town permitting, that you have to deal with any stormwater that's
created on their lot. So they can't run it through your lot is the bottom line, which is what your
worry is.
MR. GAIOTTI-So the house is approximately the same footage from Mead's line as well as my
line?
MR. FREER-Right.
MR. GAIOTTI-Okay.
MR. FREER-Thank you. Any other comments from the public hearing? Do you want to come
back up to the table? Can you address any of that?
MR. CLUTE-Yes. Like Laura had said, this has to be addressed during the construction
process anyway, and the area is definitely obviously sopping wet, and the way, well it's not just
the lot, the area, and the way it rolls right now without any disturbance essentially it rolls I guess
to the north. The property rolls to the north. So the water is actually catching on the northerly
lot, but if you look at this lot, it actually comes in, bellies down a little bit, and then rises, and
where we're proposing the house is just right where it starts to rise, and then a catch basin.
Obviously that's got to be designed and it will be part of the permit process. A catch basin
would be designed to one side of the driveway to accommodate. So to be honest with you,
with the development of the lot I think the stormwater management would be improved, not only
for that lot, but for the neighboring lots as well because we are going to be catching the runoff
as it goes across the lot which it's doing automatically right now.
MR. FREER-Okay.
MR. CLUTE-Hopefully that's helpful.
MR. FREER-Okay. Is there any written comment? You're going to have to come up to the mic
again.
MR. GAIOTTI-Which side of the lot is the driveway going to be on?
MR. FREER-We don't have that planned yet.
MR. HENKEL-That's not part of what we do.
MR. FREER-We're just concerned with allowing them to build on this lot closer than the current
zoning allows in this zone. So just an Area Variance is what we're addressing here. They'll
have to address the rest of the planning in the permitting process and with the Planning Board if
that's required. Okay. So, Michelle, any thoughts?
MRS. HAYWARD-Actually my concerns were already addressed. So, you know, as it stands
now I think the variance is minimal compared to the Code. So I'm in favor of the project as
presented.
MR. FREER-Okay. John?
MR. HENKEL-Yes. They're only asking for relief of 2.8 on one side and 2.7 on the other side,
and that's not a lot of relief. So I'd be in favor of this project as it is.
MR. FREER-Mike?
MR. MC CABE-Yes. Less than 10% is basically what we're approving and that's normally
always good with me. So I would favor this project.
MR. FREER-And Roy?
MR. URRICO-Yes. I'm in agreement. I think the relief is less than three feet on each side. I
think that's the only relevant issue we're dealing with and I'd be in favor of it.
8
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/24/2018)
MR. FREER-Okay. I, too, see no reason why we shouldn't approve this variance and I'll close
the public hearing and seek a motion. I'm sorry, Jim?
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I think that the intent of the regulations is satisfied. It's a minimal
amount of relief on both sides, and I don't think anybody's going to notice the difference. I
agree.
MR. FREER-Sorry. Okay. So this is only my second meeting as Chair and 1, last time,
admitted that I would be bumbling a bit, but I guess now we'll close the public hearing and seek
a motion.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from D.
Paul Kruger. Applicant proposes construction a 1,092 sq. ft. single-family home with a 400 sq.
ft. attached garage and associated site work. Relief requested from minimum setback
requirements for the MDR zoning district.
Relief Required:
The applicant requests relief from minimum setback requirements for the MDR zoning district.
Section 179-3-040 establishment of districts-dimensional requirements
The applicant proposes construction of a new single-family home with an attached garage
where the setback is to be 22.2 ft. on the north side and 22.3 ft. on the south side where a 25 ft.
setback is required.
SEQR Type 11 — no further review required;
A public hearing was advertised and held on January 24, 2018;
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 since the variance requested is very small, less than 10%, and
stormwater management could possibly make an improvement to the area.
2. Feasible alternatives have been considered but are not possible at this particular time.
3. The requested variance is not substantial. It's very minimal.
4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the
neighborhood or district.
5. The alleged difficulty is of course self-created.
6. In addition the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from granting the requested
variance would outweigh (approval) the resulting detriment to the health, safety and
welfare of the neighborhood or community;
7. The Board also finds that the variance request under consideration is the minimum
necessary;
8. The Board also proposes the following conditions:
a) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution.
BASED ON THE ABOVE FINDINGS, I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE Z-
AV-2-2018 D. PAUL KRUGER, Introduced by Michael McCabe, who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Michelle Hayward:
Duly adopted this 24th day of January 2018 by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Underwood, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Freer
9
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/24/2018)
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl
MR. FREER-Okay. Thanks. Good luck. The next application is Tabassum Sheikh/ASAD
Petroleum. Sign Variance.
SIGN VARIANCE Z-SV-2-2018 SEQRA TYPE UNLISTED TABASSUM SHEIKH/ASAD
PETROLEUM OWNER(S) TABASSUM SHEIKH ZONING NC LOCATION 985 STATE
ROUTE 149 APPLICANT PROPOSES TO ADD ONE TENANT PANEL OF 7.23 SQ. FT. TO
THE PERMITTED 54.58 SQ. FT. FREESTANDING SIGN FOR A TOTAL OF 61.81 SQ. FT.
RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MAXIMUM FREESTANDING SIGN SIZE ALLOWABLE AT A 25
FT. SETBACK FROM THE ROAD. CROSS REF SIGN 742-2017 FREESTANDING SIGN;
[SP-PZ 157-2016 (AKA SP 36-2015)]; AV 29-2015 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING
JANUARY 2018 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY ALD LOT SIZE 3.63 ACRE(S) TAX
MAP NO. 266.3-1-78 SECTION CHAPTER 140
MRS. MOORE-Mr. Chairman, Toby and I, 1 call him Toby. That's the name he's asked us to
use. So Toby is not able to be here tonight. He is actually requesting that the application be
tabled. We don't have it in writing from him, but he's not here. He can't be heard. He's
actually proposing some additional signage that happens on the canopy. He will see it at either
the Zoning Board or the Planning Board level, but right now he's going to table this application
request so he can get in the information that he needs to update his application materials.
MR. MC CABE-Table it how long?
MRS. MOORE-Until the March meeting, please.
The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from
Tabassum Sheikh/ASAD Petroleum for a variance from Chapter 140 of the Sign Code of The
Town of Queensbury. Applicant proposes to add one tenant panel of 7.23 sq. ft. to the permitted
54.58 sq. ft. freestanding sign for a total of 61.81 sq. ft. Relief requested from maximum
freestanding sign size allowable at a 25 ft. setback from the road.
Relief Required:
The applicant requests relief from maximum allowable sign size for a freestanding sign.
MOTION TO TABLE SIGN VARIANCE Z-SV-2-2018 TABASSUM SHEIKH/ASAD
PETROLEUM, Introduced by Michael McCabe who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roy
Urrico:
Until a March meeting with the applicable materials to be submitted by the middle of February.
Duly adopted this 24th day of January, 2018, by the following vote:
MR. HENKEL-Can I ask a question? I thought this was for the APA? Doesn't the APA have to
give approval?
MRS. MOORE-So we have jurisdiction first.
MR. HENKEL-So if we give it approval and they say no?
MRS. MOORE-He potentially would have to come back to this Board and propose something
different or that detail would be also discussed with the APA to determine what they were
looking for. There's other applications.
MR. HENKEL-You'd think it would be easier to go to the APA first and then come to us.
MRS. MOORE-No, your applications that are in the APA now do the same thing. So we had,
the only variance that I've seen come back and forth between the APA was a waterfront project
probably a couple of years ago where the APA said this is not the project that you should be
looking at. So they actually, I don't think they've been back before the Board, but they
appeared before you twice and the APA said no twice.
MR. HENKEL-Okay.
MR. FREER-Okay. So we have a motion to table this Sign Variance 2-2018.
10
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/24/2018)
MR. URRICO-I'll second.
MR. FREER-Thank you, Roy. Call the vote.
AYES: Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Urrico, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Freer
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl
MR. FREER-Okay. Next is AJ Signs for Adirondack Trust Company.
SIGN VARIANCE Z-SV-1-2018 SEQRA TYPE UNLISTED AJ SIGNS (FOR ADIRONDACK
TRUST CO.) AGENT(S) AJ SIGNS OWNER(S) ADIRONDACK TRUST CO./DEAN
KOLLIGAN ZONING Cl LOCATION 376 BAY ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO
REMOVE EXISTING 40 SQ. FT. MONUMENT SIGN TO BE REPLACED WITH A NEW 71 SQ.
FT. MONUMENT SIGN. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE SIGN SIZE
FOR A FREESTANDING SIGN (MONUMENT SIGN). CROSS REF SIGN 648-2017; SP 21-
2008 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING JANUARY 2018 LOT SIZE 1.54 ACRE(S) TAX
MAP NO. 296.20-1-45 SECTION CHAPTER 140
TOM WHEELER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFFINPUT
Notes from Staff, Sign Variance Z-SV-1-2018, AJ Signs (for Adirondack Trust Co.), Meeting
Date: January 24, 2018 "Project Location: 376 Bay Road Description of Proposed
Project: Applicant proposes to remove existing 40 sq. ft. monument sign to be replaced with a
new 71 sq. ft. monument sign. Relief requested from maximum allowable sign size for a
freestanding sign (monument sign).
Relief Required:
The applicant requests relief from maximum allowable sign size for a freestanding sign
(monument sign).
Section 140-6 Signs for which permits are required
The applicant requests to construct a new 71 sq. ft. sign where 45 sq. ft. is the maximum
freestanding sign 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 reduce the sign to a compliant size.
3. Whether the requested sign variance is substantial. The relief requested may be
considered moderate relevant to the code. Relief is requested for 26 sq. ft. in excess.
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 minimal impact on the environmental conditions of the district.
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-
created.
Staff comments:
11
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/24/2018)
The applicant proposes to remove an existing 41 sq. ft. freestanding sign to place a 71 sq. ft.
monument sign. The new signage rearranges the logo and text with the sign structure
connected to the base. The plans show the location and design of the new sign."
MR. FREER-Good evening. Would you like to make some comments about why you're here?
MR. WHEELER-Yes. I'm Tom Wheeler with AJ Signs. Basically what we have, the existing
sign, if you look at it, there's two six by six treated posts on the outside. Those posts go into
that concrete base and then the cap on the base is cast in place. So those posts are cast into
that base. What we want to do is remove the existing sign and then obviously utilize that base
and those posts and this new sign would basically slip over those posts. So rather than the
posts being on the outside of the sign they're now on the inside. So it gives you some greater
area. Adirondack Trust is re-branding all their banks and this is the new logo lock up that
you're starting to see everywhere. We want to keep this uniform amongst all the branches and
obviously use as much of the old structure, as many of the old structure as we can. All the
towns that have this same base with these posts that are cast into the base we're doing the
same thing. We slip the new sign over the posts to obtain this look. The sign is internally
illuminated. The way it's built it's an aluminum face. The letters are cut into the face and
backed in acrylic. So at night just the letters light up not the whole background of the sign.
Typically cast less light than a spotlight which is there now. The spotlights can get in the
driver's eyes and if they're a little off it's brighter, whereas this you just get a soft glow behind
the letters. It's a classy look, and like I said we really want to utilize those bases because
they're in great shape.
MR. FREER-Okay. Questions?
MR. HENKEL-I've got a question. Is that going to be the standard size for all of the Adirondack
Trust banks or is that going to be used as something?
MR. WHEELER-They're not all the same now. This, we're designing the new sign to fit the
existing bases at each branch. So there's a little bit of variation amongst all the branches.
MR. URRICO-Is there a way you could reduce the size of the sign? This is way over what's
allowed.
MR. WHEELER-The posts where they are, you know, it's an aluminum bodied sign.
MR. URRICO-The answer's yes or no. You can't reduce it?
MR. WHEELER-No.
MR. HENKEL-So you're actually going to keep those four by fours. You're just going to slip it
right over those four by fours?
MR. WHEELER-It slips right over, yes, they're six by six pressure treated posts that are, yes,
they're built right, they put the posts in and then they cast in place that concrete top. They're
built into that stone structure. The only way to get them out would be to destroy the whole
stone structure and start over.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Question for Staff. The sign, you're counting that space below the sign
that's green and filled in, so that's what kicks it up to 71?
MRS. MOORE-Yes.
MR. MC CABE-How far, where is the edge of the road that's considered that 25 feet that they're
set back?
MRS. MOORE-Are you able to see the screen?
MR. MC CABE-Yes. Well what my thought is, at first here the 71's a big stretch from 45, but
the other consideration is Bay Road in this area was kind of artificially extended so that you're
actually further back than, you know, what would normally be measured for 25 feet. So that
would help me make my decision if that's indeed the case. Where they're at is that portion
that's all kind of hash marked where you're not supposed to drive but people do, right?
MR. HENKEL-There's a concrete sidewalk in front of it.
12
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/24/2018)
MR. FREER-So I think what Mike's asking is, if it was, what's the next criteria that was further
back?
MRS. MOORE-So the applicant can be 25 foot setback and receive a 60 square foot sign, 15
foot setback is a 45 square foot sign.
MR. HENKEL-Yes, supposedly 17.2 is what they're showing.
MR. MC CABE-Okay.
MR. HENKEL-So they don't have that 25 feet.
MR. MC CABE-But if Bay Road were a normal width they'd be a lot more. I mean Bay Road in
that area is kind of screwy. It's not the way it used to be.
MR. HENKEL-You're right.
MR. MC CABE-I'm trying to help them out.
MR. FREER-Okay. Any other questions for the applicant?
MRS. HAYWARD-1 have a question that has to do with size, again. I'm just looking at the
design. It's a very nice design. I see the logo is rather large, and of course it should be. You
want to, you know advertise your brand. Any way of decreasing the size of the logo and, you
know, bringing that down or moving that logo that might impact the amount of square footage of
the sign to at least decrease the size of the variance?
MR. WHEELER-We could. It's not really going to decrease much, though.
MRS. HAYWARD-No?
MR. WHEELER-I don't know if it's going to make enough of a difference to change the logo lock
up.
MRS. HAYWARD-Okay, and you wouldn't' want to move it to the bottom because that would not
match the rest of your signs.
MR. WHEELER-Right. This is the look. You'll see this at every branch.
MRS. HAYWARD-Okay.
MR. UNDERWOOD-The blank space at the bottom is about 25 square feet of the 71 would you
guess?
MR. HENKEL-See you pick up the height of the six by sixes down and make that sign smaller.
MR. UNDERWOOD-It's 28 inches by 155. So I'm guessing that's about.
MR. FREER-Yes. Okay. Any other questions for the Staff or for the applicant? Okay. We
have a public hearing scheduled on this issue. Is there anyone in the audience that wants to
make a comment on this application? Seeing no one, do we have any written comments?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. URRICO-There is no written comment.
MR. FREER-Okay. No written comments. So I think we'll close the public hearing.
MRS. MOORE-You can poll the Board first.
MR. FREER-Okay. We'll poll the Board first. I'm sorry. And I'll start, and I'm not a sign
gestapo. You presented to me a logical reason for the variance and therefore I would support it.
It would be nice if we could get it smaller, but it appears to be attractive and in sort of keeping
with that. So, John, your thoughts?
MR. HENKEL-Yes. I'd like to see definitely a little smaller sign but I would be on Board with it
as is.
13
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/24/2018)
MR. FREER-Mike?
MR. MC CABE-It kind of pains me because most of the other signs in this area are smaller in
nature, but I also understand the applicant's request to have a uniform type sign so that it's
readily recognized in other branches. So I'll reluctantly agree to this variance.
MR. FREER-And Roy?
MR. URRICO-1 am not in favor of it. I think there are feasible alternatives. I think the relief
requested is substantial or more than moderate, and I think it could have an effect on the
neighborhood as well. As more businesses see we've granted relief for a 26 square foot excess
sign they're going to want the same thing especially if they're a bank or a credit union. Sol
would be against it.
MR. FREER-Jim?
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I think if you look up on the screen here it's pretty apparent that it's
very difficult to read the current sign that you have there based upon the setbacks of where you
took the pictures from. The new sign appears to be much more intelligently designed and
straightforward and it actually accomplishes what you want and that is to identify the business
and how you would get to the business, and I would agree. I think some of the comments that
were made, the setbacks from the actual edge of Bay Road are more than the 25 feet from the
property line. So I think we have to consider that when you drive by there and you look at the
current sign, it's not easy to read it, and I think that when you're looking to streamline things and
make things better, your approach to re-designing the sign, even though it's oversized, that
blank space on the bottom of the sign, if you subtract that out, you're, ballpark, you're probably
within 10% of the, you're probably about 51, 52 square feet as opposed to 71 square feet. So I
think that's close enough and I think that achieves what you're trying to do and the balancing act
is in your favor.
MR. FREER-Okay, and Michelle?
MRS. HAYWARD-I'm not in favor at this time. I really think it could be a bit smaller. I
appreciate you wanting to use the current base and the current posts that are there. I do
appreciate, too, that you're changing the lighting from spotlight to an interior light which would
be less lumens of output. So I'm not in favor at this time.
MR. FREER-Okay. I think we'll close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. FREER-We do have four yeses, unless somebody, based on the discussion, wants to
change their vote, and I'll seek a motion.
MR. MC CABE-First you've got to do a motion for SEAR.
MR. FREER-Okay. Yes, I'm sorry.
MOTION REGARDING SIGN VARIANCE Z-SV-1-2018, AJ SIGNS FOR ADIRONDACK
TRUST CO. 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 24th day of January 2018, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Underwood, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Freer
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl
MR. FREER-Okay. So now I guess we're ready for a motion for the application.
The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from AJ
Signs for Adirondack Trust Co. for a variance from Chapter 140 of the Sign Code of The
Town of Queensbury. Applicant proposes to remove existing 40 sq. ft. monument sign to be
1
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/24/2018)
replaced with a new 71 sq. ft. monument sign. Relief requested from maximum allowable sign
size for a freestanding sign (monument sign).
Relief Requested:
The applicant requests relief from maximum allowable sign size for a freestanding sign
(monument sign).
Section 140-6 Signs for which permits are required
The applicant requests to construct a new 71 sq. ft. sign where 45 sq. ft. is the maximum free
standing sign allowed.
SEQR Type: Unlisted [ Resolution /Action Required for SEAR]
Motion regarding Sign Variance Z-SV-1-2018, AJ Signs for Adirondack Trust Co. 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 24th day of January 2018, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Underwood, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Freer
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl
A public hearing was advertised and held on January 24, 2018;
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 not be an undesirable change produced in the character of the
neighborhood nor a detriment to nearby properties created because the setback is from the
actual edge of Bay Road.
2. Can the benefit sought by the applicant be achieved by some method, feasible for the
applicant to pursue, other than a sign variance? We could ask them to make a smaller sign
but currently the sign is very difficult to read due to the current setback from the road. The
new sign is much more readily readable.
3. Is the requested sign variance substantial? Even though it will be at 71 square feet as
opposed to 40 square feet, the Board finds that the monument sign that it would be
replacing is not substantial.
4. Will the proposed sign variance have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental
conditions in the neighborhood or district? There will not be any significant environmental
impacts as a result of this larger sign. The Board recognizes that the sign will be blank on
the bottom which is included in the 71 square feet of space that the sign fills. Even though
the sign is slightly larger than permitted we do not find that it will create a negative impact on
the neighborhood.
5. Is the alleged difficulty self-created? We would say, yes, it is.
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; It appears that by re-utilizing the base of the sign it will bring all their signs in the
area into compliance with each other, and even though each one is slightly different in size,
it creates an opportunity for them to do this in a reasonable cost-effective way.
15
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/24/2018)
BASED ON THE ABOVE FINDINGS I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE SIGN VARIANCE Z-
SV-1-2018, AJ SIGNS FOR ADIRONDACK TRUST CO., Introduced by James Underwood,
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 24th day of January 24, 2018, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Henkel, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Freer
NOES: Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Urrico
ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl
MR. FREER-Okay. Thank you. Good luck.
MR. WHEELER-Thank you.
MR. FREER-Two more things. We didn't get a chance to look at the minutes. Do we approve
those minutes, Laura?
MRS. MOORE-Is that on the agenda?
MR. MC CABE-Normally we do that.
MR. FREER-We'll do that next month. Okay, and thanks for your adept computer skills over
there and getting this stuff up for us. And I guess we'll see everybody next month. Do we
need a motion to adjourn?
MR. MC CABE-I'll make a motion that we adjourn tonight's meeting.
MR. URRICO-Second.
MR. FREER-Okay. This is record time. Thank you very much.
MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING OF
JANUARY 24, 2018, Introduced by Michael McCabe who moved for its adoption, seconded by
Roy Urrico:
Duly adopted this 24th day of January, 2018, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. McCabe, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Freer
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl
16
KQueenSburyZBAPWeetng 01/24/2018>
[Jnmotion meeting was adjourned.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Harrison Freer, Chairman
17