Loading...
09-18-2019 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/18/2019) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING SEPTEMBER 18, 2019 INDEX Area Variance No. 35-2019 Beth & Tom Portuese 2. Tax Map No. 316.9-1-26; 316.9-1-25 Area Variance No. 37-2019 Joseph & Cynthia Didio 9. Tax Map No. 239.20-1-7 Area Variance No. 38-2019 George R. Hearst III & Christine Hearst 14. Tax Map No. 226.19-1-79; 226.1-1-74 Sign Variance No. 9-2019 Ronald J. Levesque, Sign Studio, Inc./AT&T 19. Tax Map No. 302.6-1-62 (AT&T) 302.6-1-66 (Niagara Mohawk) THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTH’S MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES. 1 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/18/2019) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING SEPTEMBER 18, 2019 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT HARRISON FREER, CHAIRMAN MICHAEL MC CABE, VICE CHAIRMAN ROY URRICO, SECRETARY JAMES UNDERWOOD MICHELLE HAYWARD JOHN HENKEL RONALD KUHL LAND USE PLANNER-LAURA MOORE STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI th MR. FREER-Welcome, everyone, to the September 18 Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals. For those who aren’t familiar with the process it’s actually quite simple. There’s a bunch of information on the back table if you’re interested. We’ll call each application to the table. We’ll read in the application. We’ll ask questions. We’ll open a public hearing. I believe there’s public hearings scheduled for all of our advertised actions this evening. I’ll poll the Board and we’ll make a motion as appropriate and then we’ll go on to the next application. So this evening if we have, and I believe we’ll have a couple of situations where there’ll be less than a full Board, and so the full Board is seven. We have one alternate. If more than one person recuses themselves then you’ll have six voting members, and the applicant is allowed to and can request that it be tabled until we get a full Board because you’ll need four positive votes, even if there’s six members, in order to get the variance approved. Are you good with all that? MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. FREER-And if there’s questions that come up for each application we can talk about that. So I think we’re ready. MR. MC CABE-Not quite. APPROVAL OF MINUTES August 21, 2019 MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING MINUTES OF AUGUST 21, 2019, Introduced by Michael McCabe who moved for its adoption, th Seconded by Ronald Kuhl. Duly adopted this 18 day of September, 2019, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. McCabe, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Underwood, Mrs. Hayward NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Freer MR. FREER-Okay. Under New Business, Beth & Tom Portuese. Come on up. NEW BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 35-2019 SEQRA TYPE TYPE II BETH & TOM PORTUESE OWNER(S) BETH & TOM PORTUESE ZONING WR LOCATION BIG BAY RD. & IRONGATE RD. APPLICANT PROPOSES A LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT BETWEEN TWO EXISTING PARCELS. PARCEL 316.9-1-25 IS 1.38 AC. AND WILL BE 1.03 AC. AND PARCEL 316.9-1-26 IS 1.02 AC. AND WILL BE 1.37 AC. BOTH PARCELS ARE VACANT AND NO DEVELOPMENT IS PROPOSED AT THIS TIME. RELIEF IS REQUESTED FOR SHORELINE FRONTAGE AND ROAD FRONTAGE. CROSS REF N/A WARREN COUNTY PLANNING SEPTEMBER 2019 LOT SIZE -26 (1.02 AC.); -25 (1.38 AC.) TAX MAP NO. 316.9-1-26; 316.9-1-25 SECTION 179-3-040 2 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/18/2019) BETH & TOM PORTUESE, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 35-2019, Beth & Tom Portuese, Meeting Date: September 18, 2019 “Project Location: Big Bay Rd. & Irongate Rd. Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes a lot line adjustment between two existing parcels. Parcel 316.9-1-25 is 1.38 ac. and will be 1.03 ac. and Parcel 316.9-1-26 is 1.02 ac. and will be 1.37 ac. Both parcels are vacant and no development is proposed at this time. Relief is requested for shoreline frontage and road frontage. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for shoreline frontage and road frontage for a lot line adjustment. Section 179-3-040- dimensional requirements. The plans show parcel 316.-1-26 is to have a shoreline frontage of 253.17 and road frontage of 119.11 where 150 ft. is required for both. Parcel 316.9-1-25 is to have shoreline frontage of 121.5 ft. and the road frontage is to be 154.45 ft. 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 character 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 as the pre-existing lots do not have enough frontage for shoreline or road side. An alternative would be to combine the lots into one lot. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered minimal relevant to the code. Relief for road frontage is 30.89 ft. and the relief for shoreline frontage is 28.5 ft. 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 a lot line adjustment between two existing parcels to reconfigure to place a home and septic on the site away from the shoreline. The plans show the existing configuration and the proposed configuration. The applicant does not plan to construct homes at this time.” MR. FREER-Okay. So welcome and would you like to add anything or provide sort of the rationale before we get into questions? MRS. PORTUESE-Well I’m Beth Portuese. MR. PORTUESE-Tom Portuese. MRS. PORTUESE-As far as I know we have existing buildable lots and we have no intention of building them. We’re not builders. I’m a nurse. He’s a doctor. We don’t have endless supplies of money and we’re looking down the road, we have three sons and we have three empty lots that maybe someday they’re going to want one and re-configuring the lots from the old camp lots that they were, they were old historic camps on the lots, this makes more sense to have lots that have road frontage in areas where our septic could be away from them. 3 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/18/2019) MR. PORTUESE-And I’ll just add that this is the culmination of a couple of year process. That dotted line kind of going mainly vertical through the property lines was, we purchased it from the Town as a paper road. It took about two and a half years to negotiate that process. MRS. PORTUESE-This is all wooded. It’s completely wooded. MR. PORTUESE-Yes, it’s a paper road. So all workings towards trying to get lots that were more reasonable. MR. FREER-Okay. Any questions from the Board? MR. HENKEL-I’ve got a question. MR. FREER-Go ahead, John. MR. HENKEL-Would it have been possible to eliminate one of those variances by making each lot have 150 feet on the lake? MRS. PORTUESE-I think we’re short. MR. HENKEL-Doesn’t it come out to be 355 feet total? MRS. PORTUESE-Three hundred and twenty-nine feet I believe, one hundred plus two twenty-nine MR. HENKEL-Is it? Okay. Yes, you’re right. MRS. PORTUESE-This map obviously doesn’t, the survey doesn’t show the topography, and so the way that, why it’s kind of odd like that is because there is a significant drop off there, kind of right where the property line they’re proposing. So that just made sense with the topography. MR. FREER-Any other questions from the Board? So I’m trying to understand the rationale here a little bit better. You’re trying to create more buildable lots by doing this lot line adjustment. Is that what? MRS. PORTUESE-No, we have two lots that are buildable and we’re just adjusting the lines to make it reasonable. MR. PORTUESE-The one of them as it’s current is 21 feet of waterfront and this other one, the other is several hundred feet. So I love my kids all equally. So however they end up getting the land, the one with 21 feet would have gotten the short end of the straw. So I mean that’s it. It’s so unevenly distributed. Additionally one of them has almost all the waterfront, the big bay frontage, and the other one is almost landlocked. Yes, it is landlocked. It’s landlocked by there’s no road frontage. MR. FREER-Okay. MR. PORTUESE-Just trying to divvy up the road frontage and water frontage. MR. FREER-And some topography thrown in. MR. PORTUESE-Some topography thrown in there. MR. KUHL-So you anticipate that you’re children are going to be building on these lots? MRS. PORTUESE-We have three sons. I’m sure they’ll be married off. MR. KUHL-Yes or no? MR. PORTUESE-Yes. MRS. PORTUESE-We have no interest in building on them in the near future. Ten years. MR. FREER-Okay. We have a public hearing scheduled for this activity. MRS. PORTUESE-Are we allowed to respond to the public hearing? 4 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/18/2019) MR. FREER-Yes. So just stand by and see I we have anybody in the audience that would like to make comment on this. Do we have anybody in the audience that would like to make a comment on this? Is there any written comment? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-“Margaret and I are owners and residents of 4 Iron Gate Rd. We are concerned about the variance request made by the Portuese family for their property that borders our neighborhood. On the surface, the request seems reasonable. But in looking at what has happened, we are concerned about how their actions will change the character of our neighborhood. When the Portuese purchased the property at 271 Big Bay Rd, they did a beautiful job renovating the property. During that process, we were led to believe that the Portuese intended to include, as part of their renovations, space for their parents to live with them to aid in caring for them. Instead, they turned that property into a short-term rental property and have transferred the property into an LLC owned by them, Sunset Bay Riverbeds, LLC. We realize this is within their rights, but this is what causes our concern. It seems that their intent is to divide the properties to create better water views for their short-term rental properties. Our concern is by doing this, they will forever change the character of our neighborhood because the rental properties will create a significant increase in vehicle traffic on Iron Gate Rd. We witnessed a summer of rentals at 271 Big Bay Rd and we cannot under estimate the volume of cars. Their rentals typically had 6-12 cars in the driveway, along with boat trailers and even 4- wheel off-road vehicles. On more than one occasion their renters rode those 4-wheelers through our neighborhood late in the night. Having this kind of behavior directly on Iron Gate Rd will certainly create tension and an undesirable change to our neighborhood. We, like our neighbors, are not trying to stop the Portuese from developing their property, but we would like the impact of their rentals to our neighborhood to be minimized. We believe we can achieve this by stipulating the access to these properties be from Big Bay Road, and not from the end of Iron Gate Rd. We thank you for your invitation to be heard on this matter, and we appreciate your consideration of this request. Thank you. Regards, Ralph & Margaret Dimola 4 Irongate Rd.” The second one is from Susan Alden and she lives at 10 Irongate Road. “I am a resident of Iron Gate Road and I am deeply concerned about the variance request from Beth Portuese and how this will change the character of our neighborhood. My concern is the extension of Iron Gate Road to be used for access to the properties in question. When my late husband (Albert) and I purchased our property on Iron Gate Rd, the road did not extend to where it is now. In fact, when we purchased an adjoining piece of property (tax map 316.9-1-24) in the summer of 1997, it was a "land locked" piece of property. Subsequent to that purchase, my husband and I were approached by the Town of Queensbury for permission to extend Iron Gate Road through our property for the sole purpose of providing a turn-around for the town plow in the winter. We granted that permission and a one-lane road was constructed. I am now viewing the request by the Portuese to re- draw their property lines with trepidation. My fear is that they plan to create two waterfront properties and build houses on those for the purpose of creating short-term rental properties. They did this with their property on Big Bay Rd. Watching the high number of cars in that driveway this past summer and this fall leaves me with anxiety that the same will happen with these properties. My anxiety stems from that we currently live in a quiet neighborhood that allows for my grandkids to visit and play in my yard with minimal concern. When these properties become short-term rentals, I am fearful about the increase in traffic that will occur. Iron Gate Rd was not intended to be used beyond our property. I do understand that the Portuese should have the right to use their property, but I am requesting that with the redrawn lines, both "new" properties be stipulated to have their driveways connect to Big Bay Road and not be connected to Iron Gate Rd. With that stipulation to the variance request, I would have no objections. Sincerely, Susan Alden, 10 Irongate Rd., Queensbury, NY” Okay. This one is from Paul and Jeannine Gasparini, 11 Irongate Rd. “As residents of Iron Gate Road, we are concerned about the variance request from the Portuese and how this will change the character of our neighborhood. Our concern is the use and access to Iron Gate Road of these properties. Our past experience with Beth and Thomas Portuese leads us to believe their intentions are not as altruistic as they seem. When they purchased the property on Big Bay Rd (271,tax map id 316.9-1-27.1) they approached us as new neighbors asking for our signatures to support their variance request to build an "in-law dwelling" as part of that for their aging parents. Of course, we signed it. But the house is not being used by the Portuese family or their aging parents. Instead that property is being used as a short-term vacation rental (see VRBO.com listing for "Sunset Bay" in Queensbury, NY). On any given day this past summer there were 4 to as many as 12 cars at the house in the driveway, frequently with cars parking on Big Bay Rd. We have also noticed that they have since transferred this property in the "Sunset Bay Riverbeds, LLC." Because of this past experience and their recent actions, we have no reason to doubt that their intent is to build houses as short-term rental properties. The increased traffic on Iron Gate Rd would most definitely produce an undesirable change in the character of our neighborhood. As has been seen on Big Bay Rd, there is also the high potential for the overflow cars to park on Iron Gate Rd. Iron Gate Rd was not constructed for this volume of activity. This is of great concern to us. For these reasons we request the driveways for these properties be located on Big Bay Road. This would keep the volume of cars in and out of our neighborhood as-is and 5 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/18/2019) reduce the chances of an undesirable change to our neighborhood. With that stipulation to the variance request, we would then have no objections to the variance request. Respectfully, Paul and Jeannine Gasparini” Okay. That’s it. MR. FREER-Thank you, Roy, and go ahead and make your comments about those inputs. MRS. PORTUESE-When we purchased Big Bay Road it was a 1,000 foot ranch with two bedrooms. We have three kids and two of us. So we had three kids in one bedroom and us in the other bedroom. We extensively renovated it and added an addition onto it, which we realized was way over our heads financially and subsequently they inadvertently became short term rentals in order to pay back the extraordinary debt that we had after we finished our construction. So I said as a nurse and a doctor we still couldn’t have made the payments that we needed to after the construction of our addition. Therefore staying with my parents who live in Queensbury and renting out the house in order to get that money to pay our bills. So I just want to make that clear that this was all accidental. When it comes to the apartment that we asked for a variance for, we have still not pulled the permit for that. It has not been built because we didn’t have the money for it. Being able to rent out our home in order to get funds to convert into an apartment was what we were trying to accomplish, with full intentions of moving back into the home with Tom’s aging parents. Additionally, when we purchased the home three years ago, the lots next to us, these two lots, were for sale for five years. All of our neighbors had the opportunity to purchase them for those five years and we were not aware of this. When we purchased our 1,000 square foot ranch with all those lots for sale, we said we better buy them up so nobody else builds next to us because they sit up higher than our house. So that was also a huge amount of money that we didn’t have and we were able to get a loan for that, putting some down, that thankfully the short term rentals we’ve been able to pay towards that loan and buy those lots. So this has been, we work very, very hard for what we have, and to make a couple of comments about short term rentals, there has, we live right next door to the rental house because we bought our neighbors’ property. So there has never, ever been parking on Big Bay Road because I am right there. I am watching these renters like a hawk. Because that is my home. So to say that there has been parking on Big Bay Road is completely false, and as those letters have stated, they live in a nice quiet neighborhood and this short term rental has never disturbed that. So keep that in mind. MR. PORTUESE-If I could just add another thought to that. We appreciate the feedback from our neighbors. That’s all. MR. FREER-Okay. I’m going to close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. FREER-And poll the Board, and I’ll start with Roy if I may. MR. URRICO-Well if I’m not mistaken this is for a lot line adjustment. That’s all we’re being asked to do. We’re not being asked to re-zone it. We’re not being asked about their future plans for it. We’re just asked for the lot line adjustment. Right? MRS. MOORE-That’s the question? Yes. MR. URRICO-So on the basis of that, I’m in favor of the application. MR. FREER-Okay. Thanks, Roy. Mike? MR. MC CABE-That’s basically what we’re asked to pass judgment on here is a lot line adjustment. It wouldn’t be proper for us to speculate as to what’s going to happen in the future with these properties. Therefore it would be difficult for us to condition this on driveways going to Big Bay since we don’t know anything about the proposed structures or driveways or anything like that. We just can’t speculate on that. So therefore it wouldn’t be proper for us to put that type of condition on granting this particular variance. So, like Roy, I would have to say that this request is basically pretty straightforward and I would support the project. MR. FREER-Okay. Thanks. John? MR. HENKEL-Aren’t we also asking for a variance, to give them, because of a lack of road frontage and shoreline? MRS. MOORE-It’s a lack of measurement road frontage. 6 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/18/2019) MR. HENKEL-So is that something we have to consider, too? MRS. MOORE-So it’s not that they lack road frontage in itself. They have road frontage. They just don’t have enough road frontage defined by the Code. So it’s a different question. MR. HENKEL-They would have road frontage on Big Bay Road, though, right? MRS. MOORE-Both lots have road frontage on Big Bay Road. Only one lot would have frontage on Irongate Road. MR. HENKEL-So they have a problem with both roads. MRS. MOORE-No. MR. HENKEL-Well they would if. MRS. MOORE-No, because they have road frontage. MR. HENKEL-Right, but they’re dividing it into two lots. MRS. MOORE-It’s already in two lots. MR. HENKEL-Right, but a different direction. Now they’re changing the road frontage. The road frontage as it is now, well, yes, the other way, yes, I guess if that’s all we’re being asked is the lot line adjustment, I agree with my other Board members that I would be in favor of it, too, as is. MR. FREER-Okay. Thanks. Michelle? MRS. HAYWARD-I, too, am in agreement with my fellow Board members. I would like to make a point that I appreciate the thought that went into planning the subdivision to include language about the environment and where the septic would potentially be placed if the property is to be developed for the future. MR. FREER-Thank you. Ron? MR. KUHL-I agree with my other Board members. I have no issue. It’s two lots now. This minor adjustment, I’d be in agreement with it. MR. FREER-Okay. Thank you. Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-In effect what we’re doing is mirror imaging. We’re swapping one lot for the other lot. Dimensionally it appears to me it’s a swap from what is already pre-existing there. As far as the road frontage, it’s only that one lot that’s deficient about 20 feet or so. So it’s not like it’s a major big deal or anything like that on the back road. I think the concerns that have been expressed from the neighbors to you, it will be incumbent upon you when it comes time to develop those lots, you’re going to have to go through site plan review because you’re in Waterfront Residential anyway, but I think I would keep in mind the fact that you don’t waste your time and your neighbors’ time and think about putting the access off of Big Bay Road. That way you would appease your neighbors’ concerns about the traffic on the road to the south. So I think that that would ease the thing through for you. I’d be in favor of the project. MR. FREER-Okay. And, I, too, can support this variance, but this whole issue of short term rentals and disrupting the character of the neighborhood is a hot topic here and I would urge you to work together, as I’m sure my colleague in his shorts would urge you to try to get along with your neighbors instead of getting into any adversarial relationships. So with that I will seek a motion on the application. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Beth & Tom Portuese. Applicant proposes a lot line adjustment between two existing parcels. Parcel 316.9-1-25 is 1.38 ac. and will be 1.03 ac. and Parcel 316.9-1-26 is 1.02 ac. and will be 1.37 ac. Both parcels are vacant and no development is proposed at this time. Relief is requested for shoreline frontage and road frontage. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for shoreline frontage and road frontage for a lot line adjustment. 7 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/18/2019) Section 179-3-040- dimensional requirements. The plans show parcel 316.-1-26 is to have a shoreline frontage of 253.17 and road frontage of 119.11 where 150 ft. is required for both. Parcel 316.9-1-25 is to have shoreline frontage of 121.5 ft. and the road frontage is to be 154.45 ft. SEQR Type II – no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on September 18, 2019; 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 property line adjustment basically is a mirror image of what already existed. 2. Feasible alternatives have been considered by the Board but are not deemed reasonable to fit the requirements of the applicant. 3. The requested variance is not substantial. It’s generally minimal. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. All we’re doing is making a slight adjustment to the property line. 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 NO. 35-2019 BETH & TOM PORTUESE, Introduced by Michael McCabe, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Ronald Kuhl: th Duly adopted this 18 day of September 2019 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Underwood, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Freer NOES: NONE MR. FREER-Okay. Thanks. Good luck. Please try to work things out in a neighborly fashion. MR. PORTUESE-Thank you. MRS. PORTUESE-Thank you. MR. FREER-Okay. We’re off to the next application, Joseph & Cynthia Didio. Before we get started with that, I think a couple of the Board members intend to recuse themselves. John and Michelle. Okay. AREA VARIANCE NO. 37-2019 SEQRA TYPE TYPE II JOSEPH & CYNTHIA DIDIO AGENT(S) ANDREW DIDIO OWNER(S) JOSEPH & CYNTHIA DIDIO ZONING WR LOCATION 2966 STATE ROUTE 9L APPLICANT PROPOSES 174 SQ. FT. SINGLE STORY ADDITION OVER AN EXISTING DECK AND UNDER THE MAIN FLOOR DECK. PROJECT INCLUDES ADJUSTING OUTSIDE STAIRS AND ADDING NEW STAIRS TO PATH AT GRADE. THE EXISTING HOME HAS 1,096 SQ. FT. FOOTPRINT, NEW FOOTPRINT TO BE 1,270 SQ. FT./EXISTING FLOOR AREA 2,096 SQ. FT. (28%) AND PROPOSED FLOOR AREA TO BE 2,230 SQ. FT. (30%). RELIEF IS SOUGHT FOR SETBACKS, FAR, AND EXPANSION OF A NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE IN A 8 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/18/2019) CEA. PLANNING BOARD SITE PLAN FOR EXPANSION OF A NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE IN A CEA. CROSS REF SP 10-2018; SP 58-2019; AV 14-2018 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING SEPTEMBER 2019 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY ALD LOT SIZE 0.17 AC. TAX MAP NO. 239.20-1-7 SECTION 179-13-010 ANDREW DIDIO, REPRESENTING APPLICANTS, PRESENT; JOSEPH DIDIO, PRESENT MR. FREER-Okay. Welcome. Just let me reiterate what I said broadly is that Cathy will be substituting, so you have six members. You have to get four members to approve what you’re trying to do. If that becomes an issue you can table it and try to get the seventh member here since we’re only a six member Board. Does that make sense? Okay. Roy, can you read it into the record, please. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 37-2019, Joseph & Cynthia Didio, Meeting Date: September 18, 2019 “Project Location: 2966 State Route 9L Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes 174 sq. ft. single story addition over an existing deck and under the main floor deck. Project includes adjusting outside stairs and adding new stairs to path at grade. The existing home has 1,096 sq. ft. footprint, new footprint to be 1,270 sq. ft. / existing floor area 2,096 sq. ft. (28%) and proposed floor area to be 2,230 sq. ft. (30%). Relief is sought for setbacks, FAR, and expansion of a non-conforming structure in a CEA. Planning Board site plan for expansion of a non-conforming structure in a CEA. Relief Required: The applicant requests for setbacks, FAR, and expansion of a non-conforming structure in a CEA. Section 179-3-040 Dimensional requirements for Waterfront Residential zone. The new addition is proposed to be 6 ft. 6.5 inches on the north side and 3 ft. 5 inches is proposed on the south side where a 12 ft. setback is required. Relief is also requested for floor area where the existing floor area 2,096 sq. ft. (28%) and proposed floor area to be 2,230 sq. ft. (30%). 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 impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated. The new addition is over an existing deck area on the lower level. 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 location of the home on the parcel and size of the existing home. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered moderate to substantial relevant to the code. Relief requested for side setback is 5 ft. 5 ½ in on the north side and 8 ft. 7 in on the south side and Floor area relief is 8 % 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 may be considered to have minimal impact. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-created. Staff comments: The applicant proposes a 174 sq. ft. addition to an existing home on the a portion of the lower deck. The plans show the elevation for each side of the building with the new addition. The applicant has provided a floor plan showing the new bedroom areas on the lower floor. The septic system was upgraded with a new tank for up to 4-bedrooms and only three are existing and to proposed.” MR. FREER-Okay. Welcome. Please identify yourself. I know this is not your first time on the docket here. MR. A. DIDIO-Sure. Andy Didio with Taconic Engineering. 9 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/18/2019) MR. J. DIDIO-Joe Didio, owner of the property. MR. FREER-Okay. Would you like to add anything? MR. A. DIDIO-I think just briefly to re-cap, last time we were here in June we were seeking variances for a second story addition to the residence which was in the neighborhood of 565 square feet, which required a height variance as well as a gross floor area variance, just to establish the three bedrooms all on the main, the upper levels so that all the bedrooms would be consolidated with the bathroom available for essentially their kids and their grandkids. Response from the Planning Board and ZBA, there was concern about the height variance request as well as the gross floor area being far in excess of what you’re required because of the non-conformance of the structure. So we took that feedback, went back and looked at a plan to expand the lowest level which is now an exercise/t.v. room. So that would get converted to two bedrooms with a bathroom. The existing dimensions of that wouldn’t accommodate those two bedrooms. So they have a master bath in the second story and then those two bedrooms with the bathroom on the lowest level. So to accommodate that there would be five foot four inch addition to the west side of the house and then roughly a two foot addition to the south side where it’s currently cantilevered and in doing so would require the stairs be flipped and that’s where the side yard variance on the south side is required because the stairs coming down from the driveway to the lowest deck are against the house, so that addition to allow for the bedrooms, to accommodate the bedrooms would require that we push the stair on the south side. MR. FREER-Okay. So any questions from the Board? MR. KUHL-So you’re basically going to do away with the lower deck, is that it? MRS. MOORE-No, it’s only a portion of it. MR. J. DIDIO-A portion of it, yes. MR. KUHL-You’re pushing the lower portion of the house out? MR. J. DIDIO-Right, onto part of the deck. The deck would still be, I don’t know how many feet left, but it’s a fairly sizeable deck. So there will be some deck left. MR. A. DIDIO-And there’s an upper deck there now that comes out over the first floor. This addition would be entirely tucked under it. MR. KUHL-Who’s doing the work now? Is that your trailer? MR. J. DIDIO-That’s my trailer. MR. KUHL-That’s your trailer? MR. J. DIDIO-Yes. I just hang the sheet rock for my bedroom. I handled it for 20 years. MR. FREER-Any other questions? Okay. We do have a public hearing scheduled for this application. Is there anyone in the audience that would like to make comment on this application? Seeing no one, Roy, do we have any written comments? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-Yes, there are two. “I’m writing regarding the expansion project my neighbors, Joseph & Cynthia Didio, of 2966 State Route 9L are proposing on their property. It does not impact my property at all and I recommend the Boards pass the variances to allow their expansion project. Sincerely, Eleanor Strack” MR. FREER-Her address? MR. URRICO-There’s no address listed here. MR. DIDIO-She’s the neighbor to the north. 10 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/18/2019) MR. URRICO-And this one is “I’m writing to inform the members of both Boards that the project that the Didio family is planning for their home will have no impact on us. In fact we are all for it! Best Regards, Lisa Cadena 2962 State Route 9L” MR. DIDIO-And that’s one more north. MR. FREER-So. MR. URRICO-That’s the two letters. MR. FREER-And do you want to respond to any of those comments? Okay. So I’m going to poll the Board and start with Mike. MR. MC CABE-This variance request is considerably less than what we were asked to pass judgment on before. So I have to commend the applicant for taking a look at our concerns and reducing his overall plan, and so I would support this plan. MR. FREER-Okay. Ron? MR. KUHL-I have no issue with this. I’d be in agreement. MR. FREER-Okay. Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-I think we have a number of factors in play here. It’s a very small lot of .17 acres. You’re stuck with that lot no matter what you want to do, and I think that the Board, you listened to the Board the last time. They didn’t want you to go up higher because I think that would have been way over the top, but I think due to the fact that you’re internally accommodating what you want to do previously, I think it’s reasonable change and I think it’s change in the direction we’d like to see. We can’t make the lot bigger, you know, we can be real literal sense believers in the rules before us and the rules and regulations before us about floor area ratio, but changing the floor area ratio by two percent is not going to be a huge major gain, and I think the fact that you guys are set back 50 feet from the lake, that’s a huge change from most of the properties we see before us. So I’d be okay with this. MR. FREER-Okay. Thank you. Catherine? MRS. HAMLIN-You’ve basically stayed within the same footprint by in large. MR. FREER-Okay. Roy. MR. URRICO-Yes, in my mind the applicant satisfies the criteria that we use for the balancing test. So I’d be in favor of it. MR. FREER-I, too, support this application, and I know it was a lot of work to get this within the comfort level, and have they been to the Planning Board? MRS. MOORE-The Planning Board, they go back again after this review and decision. MR. FREER-Okay. So I’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. FREER-And with that I’ll ask for a motion. MR. KUHL-Can I make that motion, Mr. Chairman? MR. FREER-Please. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Joseph & Cynthia Didio. Applicant proposes 174 sq. ft. single story addition over an existing deck and under the main floor deck. Project includes adjusting outside stairs and adding new stairs to path at grade. The existing home has 1,096 sq. ft. footprint, new footprint to be 1,270 sq. ft. / existing floor area 2,096 sq. ft. (28%) and proposed floor area to be 2,230 sq. ft. (30%). Relief is sought for setbacks, FAR, and expansion of a non-conforming structure in a CEA. Planning Board site plan for expansion of a non-conforming structure in a CEA. 11 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/18/2019) Relief Required: The applicant requests for setbacks, FAR, and expansion of a non-conforming structure in a CEA. Section 179-3-040 Dimensional requirements for Waterfront Residential zone. The new addition is proposed to be 6 ft. 6.5 inches on the north side and 3 ft. 5 inches is proposed on the south side where a 12 ft. setback is required. Relief is also requested for floor area where the existing floor area is 2,096 sq. ft. (28%) and proposed floor area to be 2,230 sq. ft. (30%). SEQR Type II – no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on September 18, 2019; 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 as the house is 50 feet from the lake. It’s a .17 acre lot and they’re just building out on the deck. 2. Feasible alternatives really are very limited due to the size of the lake and they have been considered, and the request is minimal. 3. The requested variance is not substantial as they are building almost within the confines of the footprint of the house. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. 5. We could suggest the alleged difficulty is self-created only because of the size of the lot. 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; 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 NO. 37-2019 JOSEPH & CYNTHIA DIDIO, Introduced by Ronald Kuhl, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Michael McCabe: th Duly adopted this 18 day of September 2019 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Underwood, Mr. Urrico, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Kuhl, Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. Freer NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Henkel MR. FREER-Okay. Thanks. Good luck. MR. A. DIDIO-Thanks. MR. FREER-Okay. The next is George Hearst and Christine Hearst. AREA VARIANCE NO. 38-2019 SEQRA TYPE: TYPE II GEORGE R. HEARST III & CHRISTINE HEARST AGENT(S) HUTCHINS ENGINEERING OWNER(S) GEORGE R HEARST III & CHRISTINE HEARST ZONING WR LOCATION 244 LAKE PARKWAY, ASSEMBLY POINT APPLICANT PROPOSES TO MAINTAIN A 1,480 SQ. FT. HOME WITH ADDITIONS FOR A NEW DECK 144 +/- SQ. FT., SCREEN PORCH 143.75 +/- SQ. FT., 12 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/18/2019) ENTRY PORCH 84 +/- SQ. FT., DORMER ON SECOND FLOOR, NEW BASEMENT AND A NEW FOUNDATION FOR THE EXISTING HOME. FLOOR AREA EXISTING IS 2,135 SQ. FT. AND PROPOSED IS 3,895 SQ. FT. RELIEF IS SOUGHT FOR SETBACKS. PLANING BOARD SITE PLAN FOR EXPANSION OF A NON- CONFORMING STRUCTURE IN A CEA AND CONSTRUCTION OF NEW FLOOR AREA. CROSS REF SP 62- 2019 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING SEPTEMBER 2019 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY ALD LOT SIZE -79, 0.44 AC./-74, 0.28 AC. TAX MAP NO. 226.19-1-79; 226.19-1-74 SECTION 179-13-010 TOM HUTCHINS & MATT CIFONE, REPRESENTING APPLICANTS, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 38-2019, George R. Hearst III & Christine Hearst, Meeting Date: September 18, 2019 “Project Location: 244 Lake Parkway Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to maintain a 1,480 sq. ft. home with additions for a new deck 144 +/- sq. ft., screen porch 143.75 +/- sq. ft., entry porch 84 +/- sq. ft., dormer on second floor, new basement and a new foundation for the existing home. Floor area existing is 2,135 sq. ft. and proposed is 3,895 sq. ft. Relief is sought for setbacks. Planning Board site plan for expansion of a non-conforming structure in a CEA and construction of new floor area. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for setbacks in the waterfront residential zone. Section 179-3-040 –WR shoreline setback The applicant proposes to maintain the home and new construction 51.5 ft. from the shoreline where 67 ft. is the average setback to the adjoining homes on either side. 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. 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 but would require additional disturbance at the shoreline area. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered minimal relevant to the code. The relief requested is 15 ft.7inches to shoreline setback. 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 proposed additions include a new basement area of 1,480 sq. ft. an open deck of 144 sq. ft., a screen porch of 143.75 sq. ft., an entry porch of 84 sq. ft. and a larger dormer on the second floor. The plans show the location of the existing home in relation to the adjoining homes.” MR. FREER-Okay. Welcome. Please identify yourself and add anything you’d like to what was just read in. MR. HUTCHINS-Good evening. My name is Tom Hutchins and I’m here with Matt Cifone. We’re on behalf of applicants George and Christine Hearst, and the Hearsts are the owners of a 1940’s era camp on this property that they propose to renovate. The proposed renovation involves lifting the residence on its existing footprint, installing a true foundation, and setting the residence on the new foundation and then renovating the interior of the structure. As part of those renovations they would add a small deck, 140 square feet, and a porch area. Presently the structure is 51 and a half feet from the shoreline. It’s 13 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/18/2019) compliant with all other setbacks. What we’re proposing is compliant with all side setbacks, rear, FAR, permeability. We’re compliant on everything. The reason we’re here is because the property to the north, which is coincidentally also owned by the applicants, is 83 feet from shoreline. They need to use the average of the two adjoiners for their shoreline setback. Which means they’re 51 and a half feet. At this property it’s technically non-compliant because the average is 67 feet. So what we are proposing is to maintain the footprint of the residence as shown, maintain the 51 and a half foot shoreline setback, and renovate this cabin in a unique way and that’s it. Do you have anything to add, Matt? I would add the project includes a new completely compliant wastewater system to serve the new residence, and with that we’d turn it over to the Board. MR. FREER-Okay. We have a public hearing scheduled for this application. Is there anyone in the audience that wants to make a comment about this application? Seeing no one, do we have any written comments, Roy? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-No, there are none, but do you want to ask the Board if they have any questions? MR. FREER-Do any Board members have questions for the applicant? MR. KUHL-I just have one. When I looked at this property, I said to myself, well suppose this house was here first and everybody else around them moved in later. Now all of a sudden they’re non-compliant. Right? I mean they were there first, 51 and a half feet. They’re 50 feet off the water. They built the house. They were compliant. Now later on, here comes a house and they move it back. So all of a sudden they’re non-compliant. It’s kind of. MR. FREER-Are you making a comment about our zoning laws? MR. KUHL-Well, you know, the applicant, I realize that he brought a high powered guy. We’ve got Tom Hutchins and Matt, and they’re here spending a lot of money, and I mean they’re compliant, 51 and a half feet off the water, but the regs say average of the neighbors. Well who showed up first was my question. MR. FREER-Okay. MR. KUHL-But I think it’s a good project. MR. FREER-Well we’ll get to that in a second. We’re still asking questions. So my question is, did you guys look at, or could you just, why didn’t you just build a new structure on the existing? MR. FREER-This cabin has some history. MR. FREER-That was my question. MR. CIFONE-It has some sentimental value, too. They want to preserve the existing integrity of the house. MR. HENKEL-The properties are staying on two different, they’re not combining them as one deed? MRS. MOORE-No. It’s a separate parcel. MR. HUTCHINS-No. This parcel they own. This parcel, which is the subject parcel. MR. HENKEL-I realize that. My question is why aren’t they combining them? MRS. MOORE-They shouldn’t. MR. KUHL-Why should they? MR. FREER-Why should they? MRS. MOORE-They’re separate parcels. MR. HENKEL-Okay, but they’re also bringing the septic over into that area, right? MR. HUTCHINS-This is a separate parcel from this. 14 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/18/2019) MR. HENKEL-Well that’s where they’re draining their leach. MR. HUTCHINS-There’s plenty of room on that parcel. MRS. MOORE-And they can do that. MR. FREER-Okay. So now we’re going to close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. FREER-And we’re going to poll the Board and we’re going to start with John. MR. HENKEL-Yes, I think what they’re asking is very minimal. I think the permeability is great, 81.7, with a new septic system. They’re really not asking for anything. It’s very minimal. It’s not going to change the neighborhood or anything. So I would be on board with the application as is. MR. FREER-Okay. Thanks, John. Michelle? MRS. HAYWARD-I also support the project. I think that they’re preserving the integrity of the existing home the original footprint. MR. FREER-Okay. Thank you. Ron? MR. KUHL-Yes, I think it’s a good project. You’ve got my feelings about who came first. It’s good for you that you’re going to keep the character. MR. FREER-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-In essence it preserves a historic dwelling. It keeps the neighborhood charm intact as opposed to someone coming in with a mega mansion or something. I think if you were to move this back to where it was supposed to be there would be more disturbance on site. So I’m all for it. MR. FREER-Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes, this is a minimal application. I’m on board with it. MR. FREER-And, Mike? MR. MC CABE-I’m in favor of the project. MR. KUHL-Matt, just off the record, would it be easier to build a foundation behind it and move it to that? I mean logistically it’s easier to jack it up and build on the new foundation. Is that what you’re saying? MR. CIFONE-Yes, that’s what we’re proposing to do. It’s a Montgomery Wards package. He wants to keep that. MR. KUHL-I mean build a foundation behind the house and move it on that. MR. CIFONE-Moving it is moving it. MR. KUHL-Gotcha. It’s all the same. MR. HUTCHINS-The other interesting thing is if he had a 30 foot deck on the front of that house, then that setback would be 52 feet. MR. FREER-Right, and you wouldn’t need a variance to build the deck. MR. HUTCHINS-He doesn’t want to do that. MR. FREER-Okay. I digress. I’m going to close the public hearing. Did I already do it? MRS. MOORE-You already closed the public hearing. 15 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/18/2019) MRS. DWYRE-Yes, the public hearing is closed. MR. FREER-And I’m going to request a motion. MR. MC CABE-I’ll make that motion. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from George R. Hearst III & Christine Hearst. Applicant proposes to maintain a 1,480 sq. ft. home with additions for a new deck 144 +/- sq. ft., screen porch 143.75 +/- sq. ft., entry porch 84 +/- sq. ft., dormer on second floor, new basement and a new foundation for the existing home. Floor area existing is 2,135 sq. ft. and proposed is 3,895 sq. ft. Relief is sought for setbacks. Planning Board site plan for expansion of a non- conforming structure in a CEA and construction of new floor area. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for setbacks in the waterfront residential zone. Section 179-3-040 –WR shoreline setback The applicant proposes to maintain the home and new construction 51.5 ft. from the shoreline where 67 ft. is the average setback to the adjoining homes on either side. SEQR Type II – no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on September 18, 2019; 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 there is no change in the setback to the lake. 2. Feasible alternatives have been considered by the Board but don’t meet the needs of the applicant. 3. The requested variance is not substantial. It’s actually non-existent except for action taken by neighbors. 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 NO. 38-2019 GEORGE R. HEARST, III & CHRISTINE HEARST, Introduced by Michael McCabe, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Michelle Hayward: th Duly adopted this 18 day of September 2019 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Underwood, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Freer NOES: NONE MR. HUTCHINS-Thank you. 16 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/18/2019) MR. CIFONE-Thanks. MR. FREER-These guys know what they have to do. Right? MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. FREER-Okay. Last but not least, Ron Levesque, Sign Studio, Inc. SIGN VARIANCE NO. 9-2019 SEQRA TYPE UNLISTED RONALD J. LEVESQUE, SIGN STUDIO INC./AT&T AGENT(S) RONALD J LEVESQUE, SIGN STUDIO INC. OWNER(S) REMO MUSCEDERE, NIAGARA MOHAWK POWER CORP. ZONING CI LOCATION 74 QUAKER ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO REPLACE A 7 X 7 PANEL SIGN WITH A NEWER AT&T SIGN PANEL OF 7 X 7. THE SIGN IS LOCATED ON THE NIAGARA MOHAWK POWER LINE PROPERTY. THE APPLICANT HAS PROVIDED THE LICENSE AGREEMENT WITH NIAGARA MOHAWK TO MAINTAIN THE SIGN ON THE PROPERTY. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR SIGN SETBACK, SIZE, AND FOR THE SIGN TO BE LOCATED ON PROPERTY OWNED BY NIAGARA MOHAWK. CROSS REF N/A WARREN COUNTY PLANNING SEPTEMBER 2019 LOT SIZE 62- 0.25 AC; 66-19.75 AC TAX MAP NO. 302.6-1-62 (AT&T); 302.6-1-66 (NIAGARA MOHAWK) SECTION CHAPTER 140 RON LEVESQUE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Sign Variance No. 9-2019, Ronald J. Levesque, Sign Studio Inc./AT&T, Meeting Date: September 18, 2019 “Project Location: 74 Quaker Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to replace a 7 x 7 panel sign with a newer AT & T sign panel of 7 x 7. The sign is located on the Niagara Mohawk Power line property. The applicant has provided the license agreement with Niagara Mohawk to maintain the sign on the property. Relief requested for sign setback, size, and for the sign to be located on property owned by Niagara Mohawk. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for sign setback, size, and for the sign to be located on property owned by Niagara Mohawk. Section 140 – Signs. The applicant proposes to replace the panel of 7x7 sq. ft. where a 45 sq. ft. sign is the maximum allowed. The sign is also located 6 ft. from the property line where a 15 ft. setback is required. In addition relief is requested to have an off premise sign as it is located on Niagara Mohawk property. Criteria for considering a Sign Variance according to Chapter 140 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 minimal relevant to the code. Relief is requested for 4 sq. ft. in excess. Setback relief is 9 ft. Relief is requested for the sign to remain on the Niagara Mohawk property. 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: 17 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/18/2019) The applicant proposes to replace a sign panel for AT&T in an existing sign frame as shown for 49 sq. ft. The sign is located on the Niagara Mohawk property and the applicant has obtained permission from Niagara Mohawk for the sign to remain in the same location. The plans show the signage and sign location.” MR. FREER-Okay. If you could identify yourself and add anything you’d like. MR. LEVESQUE-My name is Ron Levesque. I’m with the Sign Studio. I’m here representing AT&T and I have authorization from both property owners to go ahead and move forward on their behalf to represent AT&T at this hearing, both property owners being Niagara Mohawk and the property owner adjacent where AT&T is leasing the property. MR. HENKEL-I’ve got a quick question. Niagara Mohawk doesn’t exist anymore. Or at least all their buildings out in Syracuse changed. MRS. MOORE-No, even the paperwork that they signed says Niagara Mohawk on it. I understand what you’re asking because I went back and I looked because I was assuming it would say National Grid and it doesn’t. It all says Niagara Mohawk. MR. LEVESQUE-Legally I represent Niagara Mohawk on this thing. Niagara Mohawk, National Grid, the same thing. So this project started well over a year ago, maybe two years ago. This is an existing sign. The existing sign was acquired by National Grid/Niagara Mohawk when they purchased the property from the adjacent owner. At that time the sign was there. National Grid took possession of it in the purchase property and there were leases at the property where it allowed the tenants to utilize the sign that was there. So it’s a multi-tenant sign. So AT&T, approximately two years ago, proposed to change the branding. They have a new logo. So what happened was throughout the nation all the AT&T’s had to remove all the old logos and occupy new logos on their building sign, stationery marketing, etc. So we had proposed, with a sign permit back a couple of years ago, to take that sign and put a new panel in there with a new logo on it. They were denied at the time, but they were allowed to go ahead and change the building sign. So the building sign was changed. So AT&T said, we went back to AT&T and said can we utilize the old branding on the pylon sign and leave it alone and we’ll do the new branding on the building. They considered it and they said no. Went back to the Town and they said that we’d have to go for a variance. Well when we tried to get all the parties together, National Grid, the owner, AT&T, and get the paperwork needed to fulfill the obligations of the variance, it was very difficult to get all the parties together. You go to National Grid and you say we just need a licensing agreement, the original, right, National Grid/Niagara Mohawk, they would have to find the original. No one had the original. They couldn’t find it. So we waited months and months, and then we asked for maybe a new agreement. They said, sure, probably one of our attorneys, maybe an hour and a half, you’re like 2000 and something on the list for an hour, an hour and a half of attorney time. You’re going to have to wait. We waited. So basically the sign that’s there now has always been there, and the only thing that changed was that the logo was taken off the sign. All right. So the sign has been maintained there for all those years, but it’s a blank panel. So we thought we’d come in here now, get all the parties together, we got the variance and we’re here now. The only thing we can’t do is we can’t move it back further because it’s a multi- tenant sign. The other tenants on there. So we’re asking for relief from the setback for an existing sign that’s been there for years. We’re asking for an off premise sign for a sign that’s been there for years. We can’t change that. So we thought that maybe we would come in with a black background and just illuminate 64 square feet, I mean, excuse me, 36 square feet as opposed to 49 square feet. That there being six feet by six feet would be the area that you would see illuminated which would be just the blue logo and the AT&T and the rest of it would be blacked out. MRS. MOORE-The size of the sign is still considered seven by seven. MR. LEVESQUE-I’m not changing that. It’s still going to be a 49 square foot panel, existing panel. We’re not going to put a new one in there. We’re just going to go there and put vinyl on it. It’s going to just illuminate a portion of it. We brought that down so you wouldn’t see all that white out there, so it wouldn’t be 49 square feet of white. So we toned it down, put the black around it and we came down to 36 square feet where we have the branding on it. MR. FREER-Okay. So we have a public hearing. There’s nobody in the audience. Is there any written comment? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-There is no written comment. 18 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/18/2019) MR. FREER-Okay. I’m going to close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MRS. MOORE-Don’t you want to ask the Board members if they have any questions first? MR. FREER-I’m sorry. Any Board members have any questions for the applicant? MR. URRICO-When the original document was signed, was it AT&T or was it Cell One at the time? MR. LEVESQUE-We don’t know. MR. URRICO-So we don’t know who signed it and when it was signed. MR. LEVESQUE-We believe it was signed for, this is what we believed. National Grid only signs it with the landlord. Then the landlord has the right to go ahead and include that in his lease with the tenants. MR. URRICO-And the landlord has changed since with the sign? MR. LEVESQUE-It has changed since the sign, they may have been changed many times, but what we did is we went to update it and we had it signed for the new landlord, which will transfer over successfully to every landlord afterwards. MR. FREER-Any other questions from the Board? MR. KUHL-No. MR. FREER-Okay. With that we’ll close the public hearing and I’m going to poll the Board and start with Michelle. MRS. HAYWARD-This is a pre-existing sign. It’s been there for as long as I can remember. I don’t think it’s a substantial request. It’s not a detriment to the neighborhood. MR. FREER-Ron? MR. KUHL-I have no issue with it. Once again it’s an existing sign. MR. FREER-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-You can’t make it more compliant that what it already is. It’s non-compliant. It’s existing and there’s nothing that we can really do to alter that as far as I’m concerned. I think the sign as proposed makes more sense than a black and white sign that’s been sitting there for years. So I’d be in favor of it. MR. FREER-Okay. Thank you. Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes. I’m in favor of the application. I think we need to identify where it is, and that’s what they’re doing. MR. FREER-Right. Mike? MR. MC CABE-I support the project. MR. FREER-John? MR. HENKEL-They’re asking for relief of four square feet. No big deal. I would be in support of it. MR. FREER-Yes, I’m in support of this and I’ll save the rest of my editorial comments. So with that. I’ll seek a motion. MR. MC CABE-Well first we’ve got to do SEQR. MR. FREER-I’m sorry. Yes, you’re right. 19 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/18/2019) MOTION REGARDING SIGN VARIANCE NO. 9-2019 APPLICANT NAME: RONALD J. LEVESQUE, SIGN STUDIO 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: th Duly adopted this 18 day of September, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Henkel, Mr. Underwood, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Freer NOES: NONE MR. FREER-And now we’ll seek a motion for the variance. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Ronald J. Levesque, Sign Studio Inc. Applicant proposes to replace a 7 x 7 panel sign with a newer AT & T sign panel of 7 x 7. The sign is located on the Niagara Mohawk Power line property. The applicant has provided the license agreement with Niagara Mohawk to maintain the sign on the property. Relief requested for sign setback, size, and for the sign to be located on property owned by Niagara Mohawk. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for sign setback, size, and for the sign to be located on property owned by Niagara Mohawk. Section 140 – Signs. The applicant proposes to replace the panel of 7x7 sq. ft. where a 45 sq. ft. sign is the maximum allowed. The sign is also located 6 ft. from the property line where a 15 ft. setback is required. In addition, relief is requested to have an off-premise sign as it is located on Niagara Mohawk property. SEQR Type Unlisted – \[ Resolution / Action Required for SEQR\]; Motion regarding Sign Variance No. 9-2019 Applicant Name: Ronald J. Levesque, Sign Studio 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: th Duly adopted this 18 day of September, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Henkel, Mr. Underwood, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Freer NOES: NONE A public hearing was advertised and held on September 18, 2019; 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 this has been a pre-existing sign for many years and it’s already non- conforming pre-existing and there won’t be any change. 2. Feasible alternatives have been considered by the Board and are not possible because it’s a pre- existing sign that’s been determined it would be allowable to leave it there. 3. The requested variance is not substantial. It’s a total of 4 square feet in excess of sign criteria and it’s nine feet of relief of setback from the road. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The sign maker has considered minimizing the light that emits from the sign thereby minimizing the environmental impact. 20 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/18/2019) 5. The alleged difficulty is definitely 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 SIGN VARIANCE NO._9-2019 RONALD J. LEVESQUE, SIGN STUDIO INC./AT&T, Introduced by Michelle Hayward, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Michael McCabe: th Duly adopted this 18 day of September 2019 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Freer NOES: NONE MR. FREER-Okay. Good luck. MR. LEVESQUE-Thank you for your time. MR. KUHL-Dunham’s Bay. MRS. MOORE-It did get pulled. So that application is hopefully coming back in November with some new information. MR. FREER-So was there an e-mail on that? MRS. MOORE-There was an e-mail that said that it had been pulled. MR. FREER-Let’s do training. MRS. MOORE-You can adjourn first. MR. FREER-Okay. MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 18, 2019, Introduced by Roy Urrico who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Henkel: th Duly adopted this 18 day of September, 2019, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Henkel, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Freer NOES: NONE On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Harrison Freer, Chairman 21