Loading...
12-04-2019 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/04/2019) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SECOND REGULAR (NOVEMBER) MEETING DECEMBER 4, 2019 INDEX Area Variance No. 55-2019 Daniel T. Green 1. Tax Map No. 308.17-1-3 Area Variance No. 56-2019 Mike & Julie Baird 4. Tax Map No. 308.15-1-44 Area Variance No. 58-2019 Hilary Haskell & Richard Rodriguez 7. Tax Map No. 308.7-1-70 Area Variance No. 59-2019 O’Reilly Auto Enterprises, LLC 9. Tax Map No. 302.7-1-28 Sign Variance No. 11-2019 Northway Outlets, LLC 24. Tax Map No .288.-1-53 THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTH’S MINUTES AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES. 1 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/04/2019) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SECOND REGULAR (NOVEMBER) MEETING DECEMBER 4, 2019 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT HARRISON FREER, CHAIRMAN MICHAEL MC CABE, VICE CHAIRMAN ROY URRICO, SECRETARY MICHELLE HAYWARD JAMES UNDERWOOD JOHN HENKEL CATHERINE HAMLIN, ALTERNATE MEMBERS ABSENT RONALD KUHL LAND USE PLANNER-LAURA MOORE STENOGRAPHER-KAREN DWYRE th MR. FREER-I’d like to open tonight’s Queensbury ZBA meeting of the 4 of December. For those of you who haven’t been here before and aren’t familiar with the process, there’s some information back on the table and we’ll bring each applicant up, read into the record what the issue is, ask for clarification and then we’ll have a public hearing. We’ll hear from the public, either written or verbal comments. I’ll poll the Board and we’ll figure out what kind of motion is applicable. APPROVAL OF MINUTES November 20, 2019 MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 20, 2019, Introduced by Michael McCabe who moved for its adoption, seconded by Michelle Hayward: th Duly adopted this 4 day of December, 2019, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Henkel, Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. Freer NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl (THE FIRST 40 MINUTES OF THE MEETING WERE LOST DUE TO PROBLEMS WITH THE RECORDER. WHAT FOLLOWS IS A SUMMARY OF THE MINUTES FOR THE FIRST PART OF THE MEETING. TAPE PICKS UP WITH O’REILLY’S APPLICATION.) NEW BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 55-2019 SEQRA TYPE TYPE II DANIEL T. GREEN OWNER(S) DANIEL & CAROLYN GREEN ZONING MDR LOCATION 131 WEST MOUNTAIN ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO MAINTAIN AN EXISTING 240 SQ. FT. GARAGE-STORAGE BUILDING. GARAGE HAS DOOR WITH GREATER THAN 6 FT. AND IS USED FOR STORAGE OF LAWNMOWER AND YARD MAINTENANCE EQUIPMENT. THE SITE HAS AN EXISTING 2,208 SQ. FT. (FOOTPRINT) HOME WITH AN ATTACHED GARAGE. PROPERTY HAS EXISTING SHEDS USED FOR MAINTENANCE OF POOL, GARDENS AND WOODSHED. RELIEF REQUESTED ND FOR A 2 GARAGE AND NUMBER OF SHEDS. CROSS REF AST 688-209; P20050835-29481; P20090367- 36065 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING DECEMBER 2019 LOT SIZE 2.06 AC. TAX MAP NO. 308.17-1-3 SECTION 179-5-020 DAVID & CAROLYN GREEN, PRESENT STAFF INPUT 2 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/04/2019) Notes from Staff, Area Variance No .55-2019, Daniel T. Green, Meeting Date: December 4, 2019 “Project Location: 131 West Mountain Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to maintain an existing 240 sq. ft. garage-storage building. Garage has door width greater than 6 ft. and is used for storage of lawnmower and yard maintenance equipment. The site has an existing 2,208 sq. ft. (footprint) home with an attached garage. Property has existing sheds used for maintenance of pool, gardens, and woodshed. Relief requested for a 2nd garage and number of sheds. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for the number of garages and sheds in the MDR zone. Section 179-5-020 –Accessory structures -garages The applicant requests to maintain an existing 240 sq. ft. garage –storage building, where only one garage is allowed. Section 179-5-020 –Accessory structures –storage shed The applicant requests to maintain three existing storage sheds with a total 336 sq. ft. where only two sheds are allowed totaling 500 sq. 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. The garage and sheds may be considered to have little to no impact on the neighboring properties or neighborhood character. 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. The feasible alternatives may be considered to reduce the number of sheds. Also, the reduction in the door size of the garage – note additional relief would be needed. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief may be considered substantial relevant to the code. Relief is requested for second garage where only one garage is allowed. The relief for 3 sheds is minimal relevant to the code. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The project as proposed may be considered to have minimal to no impact on the environmental conditions of the site or area. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The project as proposed may be considered self- created. Staff comments: The applicant requests to maintain a 320 sq. ft. garage-storage building to assist with maintaining the garden area near the shed. The number of sheds is preexisting to assist with maintenance of the property: pool shed, garden shed to the rear side of the garden, and a wood shed to have easy access from the house. The applicant has indicated they were not aware of the regulations for the number of sheds and door size requirements for a garage.” In discussions with the Board it was noted that Staff Notes were incorrect. It is actually a 240 square foot garage-storage building. A public hearing was held. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED Mike Parwana, a neighbor at 137 West Mountain Road, spoke in favor of the project. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED 3 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/04/2019) A poll was taken in which it was unanimously decided to approve the variance application. A motion was made. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Daniel T. Green. Applicant proposes to maintain an existing 240 sq. ft. garage-storage building. Garage has door width greater than 6 ft. and is used for storage of lawnmower and yard maintenance equipment. The site has an existing 2,208 sq. ft. (footprint) home with an attached garage. Property has existing sheds used for maintenance of pool, gardens, and woodshed. Relief requested for a 2nd garage and number of sheds. The applicant requests relief for the number of garages and sheds in the MDR zone. Section 179-5-020 –Accessory structures -garages The applicant requests to maintain an existing 240 sq. ft. garage –storage building, where only one garage is allowed. Section 179-5-020 –Accessory structures –storage shed The applicant requests to maintain three existing storage sheds with a total 336 sq. ft. where only two sheds are allowed totaling 500 sq. ft. SEQR Type II – no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on December 4, 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. 2. Feasible alternatives are not possible. 3. The requested variance is substantial. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. 5. The alleged difficulty is self-created. 6. In addition, the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from granting the requested variance would outweigh (approval) the resulting detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community; 7. The Board also finds that the variance request under consideration is the minimum necessary; 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. 55-2019 DANIEL T. GREEN, Introduced by Michael McCabe, who moved for its adoption, seconded by James Underwood: th Duly adopted this 4 Day of December 2019 by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Henkel, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Freer NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl AREA VARIANCE NO. 56-2019 SEQRA TYPE TYPE II MIKE & JULIE BAIRD OWNER(S) MIKE BAIRD ZONING CLI LOCATION 414 CORINTH ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO REMOVE A 308 SQ. FT. ATTACHED GARAGE TO CONSTRUCT A NEW 1,200 SQ. FT. ATTACHED GARAGE. PROJECT INCLUDES 4 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/04/2019) ADDING PAVEMENT TO ALIGN WITH THE DOORS OF THE NEW GARAGE. THE EXISTING HOME IS 1,652 SQ. FT. WITH THE ATTACHED GARAGE. THE SITE ALSO CONTAINS EXISTING BUSINESSES TOWARD THE FRONT OF THE PROPERTY. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR SETBACK. CROSS REF. SP 44-2018; SUP 2-2018 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING DECEMBER 2019 LOT SIZE 1.4 AC. TAX MAP NO. 308.15-1-44 SECTION 179-5-020 MIKE BAIRD, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 56-2019, Mike & Julie Baird, Meeting Date: December 4, 2019 “Project Location: 414 Corinth Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to remove a 308 sq. ft. attached garage to construct a new 1,200 sq. ft. attached garage. Project includes adding pavement to align with the doors of the new garage. The existing home is 1,652 sq. ft. with the attached garage. The site also contains existing businesses toward the front of the property. Relief requested for setback. Relief Required: The applicant requests to construct a 1,200 sq. ft. garage addition in the Commercial Light Industrial zone (CLI). Section 179-5-020 –Accessory structures -garages The garage is to be located 10 ft. to the East property line where a 30 ft. setback is required. Also, the garage is to be 1,200 sq. ft. where the maximum allowed on lots less than 5 ac. is 1,100 sq. 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. The project may be considered to have little to no impact on the neighboring properties or neighborhood character. 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. The feasible alternatives may be limited due to the location of the existing home. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief may be considered moderate relevant to the code. Relief is requested for 20 ft. to the east property line and 100 sq. ft. more than allowed for a garage on less than 5 acres. 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 be considered to have minimal to no impact on the environmental conditions of the site or area. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The project as proposed may be considered self- created. Staff comments: The applicant proposes to remove 308 sq. ft. garage addition to construct 1,200 sq. ft. garage addition. The plans show the location of the existing and proposed garage.” Discussion was had with the applicant and a public hearing was held. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED Secretary Roy Urrico read the following letter into the record. “As owner of property located at 408 Corinth Rd. I have no objection to Mike Baird’s variance to build an extended garage on my neighbor’s property and therefore authorize my approval. Vito Cavallari” 5 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/04/2019) PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED A poll was taken in which the majority of the Board was in favor of the variance application. A motion was made. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Mike & Julie Baird. Applicant proposes to remove a 308 sq. ft. attached garage to construct a new 1,200 sq. ft. attached garage. Project includes adding pavement to align with the doors of the new garage. The existing home is 1,652 sq. ft. with the attached garage. The site also contains existing businesses toward the front of the property. Relief requested for garage size and setback. The applicant requests to construct a 1,200 sq. ft. garage addition in the Commercial Light Industrial zone (CLI). Section 179-5-020 –Accessory structures -garages The garage is to be located 10 ft. to the East property line where a 30 ft. setback is required. Also, the garage is to be 1,200 sq. ft. where the maximum allowed on lots less than 5 ac. is 1,100 sq. ft. SEQR Type II – no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on December 4, 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. 2. Feasible alternatives are not possible. 3. The requested variance is not substantial. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. 5. The alleged difficulty is self-created. 6. In addition, the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from granting the requested variance would outweigh (approval) the resulting detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community; 7. The Board also finds that the variance request under consideration is the minimum necessary; 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. 56-2019 MIKE & JULIE BAIRD, Introduced by James Underwood, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Michael McCabe: th Duly adopted this 4 Day of December 2019 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Underwood, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Henkel, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hamlin NOES: Mr. Freer ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl AREA VARIANCE NO. 58-2019 SEQRA TYPE TYPE II HILARY HASKELL & RICHARD RODRIGUEZ OWNER(S) HILARY & RICHARD RODRIGUEZ ZONING MDR LOCATION 62 RICHMOND HILL DRIVE APPLICANT REQUESTS TO MAINTAIN 320 SQ. FT. STORAGE SHED THAT HAS BEEN CONSTRUCTED ON 6 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/04/2019) THE PROPERTY. THE EXISTING HOME IS 1,699 SQ. FT. (FOOTPRINT). THE PROPERTY IS A CORNER LOT. RELIEF IS REQUESTED FOR SETBACKS. CROSS REF AST 716-2019; RC 118-2017 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 0.57 AC. TAX MAP NO. 308.7-1-70 SECTION 179-5-020 HILARY HASKELL & RICK RODRIGUEZ, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 58-2019, Hilary Haskell & Richard Rodriguez, Meeting Date: December 4, 2019 “Project Location: 62 Richmond Hill Drive Description of Proposed Project: Applicant requests to maintain 320 sq. ft. storage shed that has been constructed on the property. The existing home is 1,699 sq. ft. (footprint). The property is a corner lot. Relief is requested for setbacks. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for the number of garages and sheds in the MDR zone. Section 179-5-020 –Accessory structures –storage shed The applicant requests to maintain an existing 320 sq. ft. shed at a setback of 15.5 ft. where a 20 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. The project may be considered to have little to no impact on the neighboring properties or neighborhood character. 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. The feasible alternatives may be to relocate the shed to a compliant location. The applicant has indicated a future pool project and existing septic would be difficult to relocate the shed. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief may be considered minimal relevant to the code. Relief is requested for 4.5 ft. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The project as proposed may be considered to have minimal to no impact on the environmental conditions of the site or area. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The project as proposed may be considered self- created. Staff comments: The applicant requests to maintain a 320 sq. ft. storage shed too close to the property line. The parcel is a corner lot where the setback is 30 ft. on all sides. The applicant was not aware of the corner lot setbacks when the shed was constructed. The survey shows the location of the shed on the parcel.” Discussion was had with the applicant and a public hearing was held. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED Secretary Roy Urrico read a letter with petition of signatures into the record. “We are asking your support to have a storage shed on our property at 62 Richmond Hill Drive. The storage shed is to be 16 by 20 and has been built on the back side of our property. The shed currently sits at 15 feet from the property line of our neighbors, however the corner lot requires a separation of 20 feet. We do have approval of the neighbors that this directly affects, Christian Raeth & Courtney Gagnon.” With 13 signatures. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED 7 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/04/2019) A poll was taken of the Board in which unanimously decided to approve the variance. A motion was made. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Hilary Haskell and Richard Rodriguez. Applicant requests to maintain 320 sq. ft. storage shed that has been constructed on the property. The existing home is 1,699 sq. ft. (footprint). The property is a corner lot. Relief is requested for setbacks. The applicant requests relief for the number of garages and sheds in the MDR zone. Section 179-5-020 –Accessory structures –storage shed The applicant requests to maintain an existing 320 sq. ft. shed at a setback of 15.5 ft. where a 20 ft. setback is required. SEQR Type II – no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on December 4, 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. 2. Feasible alternatives are not possible. 3. The requested variance is not substantial. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. 5. The alleged difficulty is self-created. 6. In addition, the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from granting the requested variance would outweigh (approval) the resulting detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community; 7. The Board also finds that the variance request under consideration is the minimum necessary; 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. 58-2019 HILARY HASKELL & RICHARD RODRIGUEZ, Introduced by Michael McCabe, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Michelle Hayward: th Duly adopted this 4 Day of December 2019 by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Henkel, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Freer NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl AREA VARIANCE NO. 59-2019 SEQRA TYPE TYPE II O’REILLY AUTO ENTERPRISES, LLC AGENT(S) BOHLER ENGINEERING OWNER(S) O’REILLY AUTO ENTERPRISES, LLC ZONING CI LOCATION 682 GLEN STREET APPLICANT REQUESTS APPROVAL OF THE LOCATION OF THE 7,453 SQ. FT. O’REILLY’S BUILDING. THE CURRENT AS-BUILT SURVEY FOUND THE BUILDING WAS NOTT CONSTRUCTED ACCORDING TO THE SETBACKS GRANTED. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR SETBACKS. CROSS REF. SP 12-2018; SP 44-2017; AV 41-2017 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING DECEMBER 2019 LOT SIZE 0.76 AC. TAX MAP NO. 302.7-1-28 SECTION 179-3-040 8 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/04/2019) ROB OSTERHOUDT, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 59-2019, O’Reilly Auto Enterprises, LLC, Meeting Date: December 4, 2019, “Project Location: 682 Glen Street Description of Proposed Project: Applicant requests approval of the location of the 7,453 sq. ft. O’Reilly’s building. The current as-built survey found the building was not constructed according to the setbacks granted. Relief requested for setbacks. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief from setbacks for a commercial building already constructed in the Commercial Intensive zone (CI). Section 179-3-040 dimensional requirements The existing building was constructed with a front setback to Route 9 of 70.3 ft. where 75 ft. is required and 72.6 ft. was granted. The front setback on Glendale is 24 ft. where a 75 ft. setback is required and 21.1 ft. was granted. 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 limited due to the location of the building and the existing site work for the parking area, landscaping and stormwater management. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered minimal relevant to the code. The relief requested is 4.7 ft. from Route 9 and 51 ft. from Glendale. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The project may be considered to have minimal impact on the physical or the environmental conditions of the area. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-created. Staff comments: The applicant has indicated they were unaware the building wasn’t staked correctly during construction. The Town’s Code Compliance Officer has been to the site to review the site for compliance and at this time the site is compliant other than the setbacks.” MR. FREER-Hello. Please identify yourself and add anything you’d like. MR. OSTERHOUDT-Great. Good evening. My name’s Rob Osterhoudt with Bohler Engineering. It’s good to be in front of the Board tonight. I wish it was under better circumstances. The Zoning Board had seen this project back in 2017, reviewed these two variances that we’re back in front of the Board for this evening and the Board had approved some variances for these very items at that time. The project went through construction this past year. It was found out during construction that the building foundation had been installed in a slightly different location than what was on the approved plans. MR. FREER-So how did that? Go ahead, I’ll let you finish. MR. OSTERHOUDT-I’ll answer that right now because that was part of what I was going to say. I don’t know how that happened. In talking with the surveyors, they staked out the building per the approved plans. Somehow something got adjusted during the construction of the building and basically the building got shifted a little bit. So this is the plan that was approved by the Zoning Board and by the Planning 9 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/04/2019) Board. This went to the Planning Board, with the building in this location. This is the 2017 plan. If I hold up the current plan right over top of that, you really can’t see much of a difference, but the building was actually shifted and rotated just slightly be a couple of feet, and I’ve got an exhibit here that shows what the difference is. So right here in red is the approved 2017 layout of the building and during construction the building got kind of shifted a little bit and rotated so that this back corner was pretty close and it kind of rotated counterclockwise. So this corner wound up shifting a little bit closer to Route 9 but further away from Glendale, and that difference is what we had just noted in the application. It’s about a 2.3 foot difference right here from Route 9 and then about 2.9 foot further away from Glendale over on the north side here. So not really sure how that happened. Something happened with the grade stakes or the layout of the corners. I’m not really sure. MR. FREER-Who’s responsible? MR. OSTERHOUDT-So Bohler Engineering represented O’Reilly Auto Parts as we designed the site, but we’re not out there full time during construction. So I really can’t say. I don’t know what happened. Why the shift happened,, but I know that it shifted and that’s why we’re here tonight. So I really have no idea, but as far as the shift went, it didn’t really affect much on the site plan because what we did was, with the layout of the site, we had a 30 foot wide drive aisle out front here. So because the building shifted a couple of feet closer we just basically took that couple of feet out of the 30 foot wide drive aisle and were able to accommodate it. We didn’t have to move any parking or anything any closer to Route 9 or to Glendale for that matter. So everything kind of worked out fairly easily where we didn’t have any non-compliance issues with drive aisles or parking stall sizes or anything like that. MR. URRICO-So is the drive aisle smaller than it was, what was approved for? MR. OSTERHOUDT-It was originally approved at 30 feet. MR. URRICO-Now what is it? MR. OSTERHOUDT-Now it’s like 27.7 or something like that. MR. URRICO-So it’s effected two items. It’s effected the setback and the drive aisle. MRS. MOORE-Well, the drive aisle, the minimum car drive aisle is 24. MR. URRICO-All right, but it’s not what we approved. MRS. MOORE-But it’s not part, that wasn’t part of the request. MR. HENKEL-When a surveyor does this they always put the stakes in all over. Actually they’re supposed to measure every time when they’re getting ready to put the footings in. So obviously whoever, they probably didn’t check those measurements. Because the surveyor does put points all over that they’re supposed to measure from. MR. FREER-Does anybody else have any questions for this gentleman? So my interest is to find out, you know, two feet, more than two feet is to me not really a good reputation for Bohler Engineering. That’s what I’m trying to understand. Did you subcontract the surveyor? Because I might not want to hire you guys in the future. MR. OSTERHOUDT-So let me be very clear. This has absolutely nothing to do with Bohler Engineering. MR. FREER-So that’s what I was asking. MR. OSTERHOUDT-So this, we designed the plans. We got the plans approved by the Town, by the Zoning Board, by the Planning Board. When the project went to construction, O’Reilly’s or the contractor, I’m not sure who, somebody hired a surveyor to go out there and stake out the building. As we were talking, the building gets staked out, the corners get staked out. There are offset stakes put in so that the contractor can set their forms for the concrete foundation and so on. MR. FREER-Well who was the contractor? MR. OSTERHOUDT-The contractor was Visible Construction. So somewhere along the line something happened where the building shifted and I don’t know what it is. I can tell you 100%, though, that it had nothing to do with Bohler Engineering. 10 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/04/2019) MR. FREER-Well then why are you here asking for the variance. MR. OSTERHOUDT-I’m a representative for O’Reilly. We did the original approvals. We were before this Board when we got the original variances. We were before the Planning Board when we got the site plan approvals, and we work for O’Reilly on various projects throughout Upstate New York. MR. FREER-Does O’Reilly have a bad rep for this? MRS. MOORE-Not that I’m aware of. MR. UNDERWOOD-No, it would be whoever did the cement work because they probably, their laser level probably wasn’t. MR. FREER-Calibrated correctly? MR. UNDERWOOD-Wasn’t calibrated, because to be off two feet on a corner would have been obvious. MR. FREER-Yes. MR. UNDERWOOD-I’ve done a lot of cement work, and I would have said how did we screw this up? MR. FREER-A couple of inches, yes, that’s kind of what I’m trying to figure out, because you guys are representing professionalism to this Board and, you know, I wouldn’t give you a passing score. MR. OSTERHOUDT-Please don’t hold this against Bohler Engineering. I’m the messenger. MR. HENKEL-I understand what he’s saying. MR. FREER-That’s why I’m trying to understand. MR. UNDERWOOD-If you look at the difference in the plot you can still see it’s still square corners, you know, so you just wonder why somebody would have done a diagonal going across from corner to corner. MR. HENKEL-It’s definitely the excavator, whoever started to set the forms. It’s not his fault. MR. OSTERHOUDT-I have my own kind of suspicions as to what happened and it’s purely speculation so I don’t even want to get into that and share that. MR. UNDERWOOD-It’s all water under the dam at this point. MR. OSTERHOUDT-Yes. MR. URRICO-I don’t want to belabor the point, but the foundation was found to be incorrect. This is way back, and then the adjustment was made after that? MR. OSTERHOUDT-That’s a really good question. I’m glad you asked that because when I said that, I figured that might pose a question from somebody. So the building was actually constructed, this was th very late in the game. The surveyors actually went out, September 19 is when they found this issue. So this was actually something where they were surveying for. MR. FREER-The Certificate of Occupancy, right? MR. OSTERHOUDT-It was getting to that point. So they were going out there to confirm grades. MR. FREER-But they already gave it to them. Right? MR. OSTERHOUDT-They have a Temporary CO right now. MR. FREER-We should have made it harder on them. Two feet, gosh, that’s a lot. MR. UNDERWOOD-I still think you have to look at it in the context of what was there. MR. FREER-No, I understand. 11 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/04/2019) MR. HENKEL-It’s good to see something there, but. MR. UNDERWOOD-You can always retrospectively say what should have been done but it wasn’t done. So I mean there’s nothing you can do to change it. MR. HENKEL-If they screwed up the parking or where they were going to make deliveries it would probably be more of a concern, but. MR. FREER-I just, when I read this I just went, that’s a lot. MR. OSTERHOUDT-It is. Like I said we typically see a few inches. MR. FREER-Yes. I can see a couple of inches and not even worry about it. Okay. Any other questions? We do have a public hearing scheduled. I think there’s somebody who would like to make a comment about this. Starr, identify yourself, please PUBLIC HEARING OPENED STARR BAKER-MOWRY MRS. BAKER-MOWRY-Starr Baker-Mowry as a bordering neighbor. My big thing is I was told it was four feet by Dave Hatin today, not two feet. So I don’t know if there’s a discrepancy even there but Dave actually stopped looking at the cape that I’m working on and we had talked about the meeting tonight and he said yes, I heard it was off four feet. So I don’t know, but anyway I’m here because of two reasons. I was told that there needs to be a border or barrier between my residential use cape or ranch which is right behind O’Reilly’s back parking lot, and I have pictures showing, when I bought this property two years ago the fence was fine. There’s nothing wrong with it. It’s been there since the flower shop. George Pfeiffer put it in, and the mid 80’s, right, until construction started with O’Reilly’s and Vinnie is the general contractor. I let them park 10 cars on my property. I had no problem doing the neighborly thing because the construction was hectic. It’s a narrow street, and then when they took down a big tree and all the roots and everything, two big sections of my fence comes down, and I said, are you able to fix that fence for me? And he said that’s not my contract to fix it. Now the cops were called there three times. There was the fist fight I guess there was a lot of tension with the general contractor and the project manager. Those are all side notes, but I couldn’t get anywhere with him and I said can you please have, your boss call me, I need something done with my fence to fix it. In the meantime they have a forklift come up, take down another big section of it, and then just all the tampering where the garbage area is. There’s a stormwater pit underneath that. So all of the dirt which is the size of a two car garage was piled up against my fence. Needless to say the fence is not there anymore. It’s still there, but it’s down. It’s a mess and it’s down. The reason I know there needs to be a barrier is at the funeral home I innocently took down the last of the Woodbury’s Lumberyard fencing by my pole barn and I was told that I had to stop and desist or whatever and I had to put something back up there because my commercial use funeral home, even though I own the residential use behind it, still requires a border and a barrier, a fencing, and a 40 foot buffer. So my question is, when I asked Mr. Frank, Bruce Frank, why aren’t they required some kind of a barrier and a buffer and he said good question, but it’s too late now. Zoning’s already passed it. There’s nothing we can do about it, and I could not seem to do anything with the general contractor to say can you please, because I was told today by Dave that the fence is technically on my property. If I remove it now it’s my burden to put something back up there because there needs to be something between commercial and residential use. My request is can there be some kind of an obligation put on O’Reilly to do something to have, it’s just a simple stockade fence. Is there something that we can do to go back the way we were, and again I did everything the right way. MR. FREER-Okay. We’ve got it. MRS. BAKER-MOWRY-Thank you. MR. FREER-We can discuss it but let’s see if there’s any other written comments for the record. MRS. BAKER-MOWRY-Okay. Thank you. MR. URRICO-There’s no written comment. MRS. BAKER-MOWRY-And I have one more request. The other thing, when they got the approvals on the side of Glendale you’ll see that it kind of cuts into their property originally meant for tractor trailers to do 12 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/04/2019) back deliveries, and it was passed in the meetings or whatever that because of kids playing all over that neighborhood, that dead end street, including my own grandchildren, that they were not allowed tractor trailers. So no tractor trailers are allowed back there, but yet the plans never got changed and they still allowed, tractor trailers are going in and out of there and we had a terrible scare because my grandchildren are at the funeral home and they ran back to the apartment which is on the dead end street and everybody is looking for the children to make sure as they’re beeping and backing up that no kids got ran over. So it is a legitimate concern that please can we enforce no tractor trailers. Thanks. MR. FREER-Wow. Okay. I’m going to close the public hearing and do you want to say anything about the public comments that you just heard? PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. OSTERHOUDT-Yes, sure, I would. Thank you. So I did speak with Ms. Baker out in the hallway prior to the meeting. She mentioned her concern about the fence. I did stop out to the site before the meeting. There is still a wood stockade fence or portions of a wood stockade fence back there along the rear property line, but they are on the adjacent property, on Ms. Baker’s property. So that fence was not replace as part of the Site Plan approval because there was an existing fence there at the time. Again, I wasn’t out there during all of the construction. I have no idea if O’Reilly affected that fence, if it’s just an old fence and it fell down or what, but I did see sections of the fence that were down. As far as the truck traffic, the Site Plan approval process that we went through with the Planning Board, we had identified and we had actually widened out the pavement there for the delivery trucks. So I’m not sure where that’s coming from, but the deliveries are made to the rear of the store. That was disclosed throughout the permitting of the project. The delivery door, what they call the dealer door, is the actual location where parts are delivered to the store, and that’s around the back of the facility. So I’m not sure where that’s coming from, but as far as that’s concerned, that’s what I wanted to offer up in response. MR. FREER-Okay. MR. HENKEL-Could we require them to put a fence on their property if we grant that variance? We can’t do that now? MR. UNDERWOOD-That would have to be an enforcement action from the Town. MRS. MOORE-So, again, and this was explained, when the Planning Board reviewed this application there was no identification of a buffer at that time. So as Bruce mentioned, there’s no action that the applicant is required to take. Is it something the Zoning Board could potentially ask for? It’s not something I’ve seen you typically do, other than if someone has too many sheds you ask them to take down an extra shed, but this is typically a site plan issue. MR. FREER-Right, but there’s no mechanism for review of the site plan that Ms. Baker could make her argument to, right? MRS. MOORE-Right. MR. FREER-So we’re kind of in a pragmatic situation in my view. MR. HENKEL-We can’ t make it a condition of the variance? MR. URRICO-Yes, that’s what I was. MR. HENKEL-If they need our variance, we can’t make it a condition that they should? I mean what’s a vinyl fence going to cost them on that side? Can we make that condition? MRS. MOORE-You could potentially make that condition. I don’ t know if the applicant would agree with that. MR. HENKEL-That sounds fair. MR. OSTERHOUDT-What I did offer up to Ms. Baker, as we spoke out in the hall, you know, I can’t speak for O’Reilly on a fence, to say yes or no to putting up a fence to address her concern, but I did commit to going back to discuss that with O’Reilly, for whatever that’s worth. It’s not a yes or no. I understand that, but I wanted to share that as well. 13 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/04/2019) MR. FREER-So my question is how long is the Temporary CO for? MRS. MOORE-I don’t follow that, so I don’t know when that was granted. They would simply request an extension of the Temporary CO if this wasn’t granted. MR. FREER-Yes, but the Town doesn’t have to grant it if there’s a fence that needs to be dealt with. Right? MRS. MOORE-If this Board puts it as a condition, then the applicant has to comply. MR. HENKEL-I think it’s fair. MR. URRICO-I would also like to say, I know it’s not our purview, but in their presentation to us the first time, I remember this very distinctly, that the promise was made that no tractor trailers would be brought through that. There would be smaller trucks brought in to bring in supplies and what not. So the fact that the driveway is now smaller and that is the street. That driveway is the street. There’s no back of the store. It is that. That is the main road in and out of there. Am I right? MRS. BAKER-MOWRY-Correct. MR. URRICO-And so it’s not our purview, but it shows that there has been unwillingness or they haven’t followed through on some of the promises they’ve made, including this variance. So I think that’s something to consider when we’re thinking about granting the extension of the variance now. MR. FREER-Okay. MRS. HAMLIN-I have a question. Is this technically considered a new variance? MRS. MOORE-It’s a new variance. MRS. HAMLIN-It’s a new variance. So, I mean just my own knowledge, having taught Zoning Board of Appeals classes, you do have a statutory ability to set conditions as long as there’s a nexus between the reason for it and this, it’s a huge variance already. I mean originally they were given, they’re really close to the property line of that in the back, that residential unit. MRS. MOORE-Actually they’re further, that building is now further away. MRS. HAMLIN-Okay which one is Yard One and which one is Yard Two? MRS. MOORE-So Yard One. MR. UNDERWOOD-The building has shifted away from what was. MRS. HAMLIN-But I mean front yard and back yard, what’s considered? MRS. MOORE-So there’s a Glendale Road access, and that’s 21 MR. OSTERHOUDT-Yard Two is Glendale. MRS. MOORE-Yard Two is Glendale, and that’s 21.1 feet. MR. HAMLIN-Front Yard One would be off of the 9. Okay. So that’s a change. So what was the rear yard? Okay. So how much of a variance do we have between the residential and the back? MRS. MOORE-So there wasn’t a variance for what we would call the rear yard. There’s only a setback request for. MRS. HAMLIN-So they were in complete compliance there. Okay. It’s still pretty close. MR. OSTERHOUDT-The rear yard actually got a little larger since the building shifted forward. So the rear yard got a little bit bigger, and relative to the original restaurant building that was on the site prior to O’Reilly, that building was like twelve and a half feet off of Glendale. MRS. HAMLIN-You’re not as close. 14 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/04/2019) MR. OSTERHOUDT-Right. So we actually improve the existing conditions with the O’Reilly. MRS. HAMLIN-Still, we’re always looking to make improvements. MR. FREER-Okay. Any other Board discussion? I’m going to skip and start with Roy because you had some pretty strong opinions about possible conditions on this proposal. MR. URRICO-Well on the face of it 70 feet is still a larger distance from Route 9, but the fact of the matter is, you know, I think there’s been some steps along the way here that were not followed as they said they would, and part of that is adhering to the variance that we provided to them. I think there’s a responsibility to adhere to that and not come in for permission after the fact. So I would suggest that in exchange for granting this additional relief, that they be required to put up that buffer fence. MR. FREER-Okay. Cathy? MRS. HAMLIN-I agree. MR. FREER-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes I think, you know when we look at the effect on the Baker properties in the back, I think that there’s been a lessening of the effect on the Baker properties in the back. As far as the fence goes, we can condition the fence, but at the same time I don’t know if I’m comfortable with doing that because it’s almost like saying it’s like a carrot and stick approach to everything we do. If we look at the changes we actually have less relief necessary on the Glendale side. We have more relief, the two feet from the road, on Route 9, but at the same time as Laura pointed out the travel lane inside the plaza there can be 24 feet and it’s currently 27 down from the 30 from what we originally approved. So I think I would grant the relief without any conditions at this point. MR. FREER-But again we didn’t waive anything to do with the travel lane, right? That was the Site Plan. MRS. MOORE-Right. Drive aisle is. MR. UNDERWOOD-But I’m just saying in general I don’t see that there’s a significant change in the parking area that has been affected by the moving of this two feet closer to Route 9. MR. FREER-Okay. Michelle? MRS. HAYWARD-I’m in agreement with the conditions. MR. FREER-Okay. John? MR. HENKEL-Yes, I think we probably missed that. We should have made that a condition to begin with, with being residential there and now you have a business with bright lights and that, and it’s a good noise barrier. It’s just going to be a good neighbor I think. It’s something they can do, and it’s not that expensive to put a vinyl fence in for the project here. So I would say with the conditions of that fence, I’d be okay with the variances. MR. MC CABE-They already have a fence. Right? MR. FREER-Well, it’s not. MR. MC CABE-Well, if you have a fence and it needs repair, then the existing fence should be repaired, but I can’t see putting in a second fence because the first fence is in disrepair. MR. FREER-Okay. So repair or replace. Right? Is that kind of what you’re saying, Mike? MR. MC CABE-Well except that the fence isn’t on his property. So if he damaged the fence, he ought to fix the fence, but I don’t see where putting a second fence in solves the problem. MR. FREER-Well, yes. Okay. MRS. BAKER-MOWRY-I guess what I was saying is definitely get it on the line where it belongs. It’s off on the line. I’m five feet on my side on the front, one foot on their side in the back. It should go where it 15 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/04/2019) belongs. I’m willing to split the cost of the fence if I have to, but there needs to be something put back there. MR. UNDERWOOD-I would make a suggestion that they split the cost of a new fence. 50, 50. MRS. MOORE-That’s out of your hands. MR. FREER-It’s a good idea. MRS. BAKER-MOWRY-From what I was told originally somewhere it was missed that there needed to be the barrier there. MR. HENKEL-I agree with that. It’s probably our fault. MRS. BAKER-MOWRY-That’s what Bruce Frank told me that. MR. FREER-But zoning doesn’t put barriers. That’s planning. MRS. MOORE-It’s a buffer requirement. MR. MC CABE-Well it was never brought up as an issue to us. MR. HENKEL-Sure, it’s a business with residential. MR. FREER-But Site Plan Review should have done that, not us. MRS. MOORE-So if the fence was up that also stands as a barrier. That’s the buffer. You can use a fence as a buffer. MR. FREER-Right. MRS. MOORE-If that fence was in place then it really didn’t become an issue. MR. FREER-To either the Planning Board or the Zoning Board until they couldn’t measure the foundation. Okay. So, Mike, where are you with this? MR. MC CABE-I’m not going to put any condition on it. I’ll approve the variances, the setback variances, as written here. MR. FREER-Okay. So let’s see I have, you want conditions? MR. HENKEL-I want conditions of the fence, yes. MR. FREER-So we have a majority that want conditions. So I’m okay with conditions. I hope you guys can find a solution before you have to get your Certificate of Occupancy renewed or extended. Because, you know, we’re trying to do the right thing I think. You’re going to have to make that a motion there, Roy. I think repair or, deal with the buffer. I think if we keep it generic and let folks work out a reasonable solution to a buffer, I think that’s where. MR. URRICO-I just want to make it clear, without that condition I would not approve this variance. MR. HENKEL-Same here. MR. FREER-And I think there’s four or five of us in that boat. MR. URRICO-Okay. MRS. MOORE-So could I just add to some of your discussion that you had in reference to the condition. So that property line to the rear is 143 feet. Obviously the current fence isn’t 143 feet in length. I mean I can do a quick measurement, but I don’t know if the Board’s looking to have that full length of the property line to be? MR. HENKEL-Would that affect the wetlands back there, though? Then you’d have to get approval through, because now you’re going to get into the wetlands if you start putting a fence in there. 16 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/04/2019) MR. UNDERWOOD-I don’t see how you can create a condition, though, that wasn’t a part of the original approvals from both the Planning and Zoning Board. MR. URRICO-Isn’t this a whole new variance? MR. UNDERWOOD-You would have to go back to the Planning Board because they’re the ones that set the conditions. MRS. MOORE-I’m looking for a specification only because the applicant’s going to come to me and say. MR. HENKEL-The length of Mrs. Baker’s property or whatever. MR. URRICO-There’s already been an adverse impact on the environment or the neighborhood. MR. FREER-The construction, yes, which is temporary, hopefully temporary. MR. OSTERHOUDT-Mr. Chairman, so the existing fence, as Ms. Baker said, it’s like 5.6 feet into the adjoining property on this end of the site over by Glendale, and then it kind of angles in and it’s 1.1 feet into the project site, into the O’Reilly site over on this end. MR. FREER-The same surveyor must have drawn that line crooked. MR. OSTERHOUDT-That’s an old fence, that was there before. MR. HENKEL-We have it on h ere. We’ve got the wooden fence on here. MR. OSTERHOUDT-Yes, it is on that plan. So that fence appears to run from here to here. MR. HENKEL-Right. MR. OSTERHOUDT-So if there was going to be a new fence put up, my request would be that we replace it where it is, you know, the length of what it is today. We obviously wouldn’t want to put it along that entire property line because then that fence line right out to the edge of the road and that would be sight distance issue. So perhaps we replace it where it is today, maybe even bring it back a little bit further to help with sight distance there, but in general I think those limits that are out there today are probably appropriate if we’re going to put a new fence up. MR. FREER-Okay, Roy, we’re ready for your motion. MR. URRICO-I’m thinking. MRS. MOORE-So it’s 120 feet. MR. FREER-So who knows how much fences cost? We’re not talking about a huge amount. MR. HENKEL-Per section, you’re looking at about $120 per section with vinyl, because you’ve got the post and the section itself. MR. FREER-But the point, if it’s repairable. I’m trying to, in my own mind, think of keeping it general enough so that we don’t, we want to try to find a solution that’s close, that they can agree to. So repair or replacement or a suitable buffer. MR. UNDERWOOD-Of the broken sections. MR. FREER-Yes, whatever. MR. HENKEL-That’s going to look like a hodgepodge then. It’s never going to look right, but that’s up to you guys. I would rather say for this project, what they did, they deserve to put a nice new fence on the property line, but that’s my comment. MR. FREER-Okay. Go ahead, Roy. 17 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/04/2019) MR. URRICO- How about we let him make the motion? He seems to have a better idea of what he wants. All right. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from O’Reilly’s Auto Enterprises, LLC. Applicant requests approval of the location of the 7,453 sq. ft. O’Reilly’s building. The current as-built survey found the building was not constructed according to the setbacks granted. Relief requested for setbacks. The applicant requests relief from setbacks for a commercial building already constructed in the Commercial Intensive zone (CI). Section 179-3-040 dimensional requirements The existing building was constructed with a front setback to Route 9 of 70.3 ft. where 75 ft. is required and 72.6 ft. was granted. The front setback on Glendale is 24 ft. where a 75 ft. setback is required and 21.1 ft. was granted. SEQR Type II – no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on December 4, 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 we’re asking for an additional setback of 2.3 feet on Route 9 and 2.9 feet on Glendale. 2. Feasible alternatives were considered by the Board, but they are not reasonable and have not been included in the minimum request or are not possible. 3. The requested variance is not substantial because it’s only 2.3 feet. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. 5. The alleged difficulty is self-created because it was mis-measured. 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; Because it would require them to actually change the structure of the building and it could result in a 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) Applicant will place a new fence on O’Reilly’s property as shown on the drawing. b) 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. 59-2019 O’REILLY AUTO ENTERPRISES, LLC, Introduced by Roy Urrico, who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Henkel: th Duly adopted this 4 Day of December 2019 by the following vote: MR. URRICO-Upon consideration, the applicant has agreed to replace of fix, repair, the rear, the northeast buffer separating the Baker property with the residences from O’Reilly, and that’s the only condition we’re requesting as part of this variance. MR. FREER-So, just to review the, conditional on repair, replace. MR. URRICO-Repair or replace. 18 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/04/2019) MR. FREER-Right. Do we want to say or some mutually agreed upon neighbor buffer? I mean a fence sounds like the right thing. So do we, we probably don’t need to add anymore. Okay. So you got that, repair or replace the northeast buffer? Okay. MRS. MOORE-So I have just a clarification. I wasn’t sure if I heard the Item Number Four, whether the project has an adverse effect on the environmental conditions. MR. URRICO-I said it does not. MRS. MOORE-It does not. Thank you, and then just a clarification. The setback relief was also granted for, specifically, Route 9 and Glendale. MR. URRICO-Yes. MRS. MOORE-You only talked about Route 9 in the motion. So it’s Glendale and Route 9. MR. HENKEL-Glendale is 2.9. MRS. MOORE-Okay, and then in reference to the actual fence, typically I’ve seen the Board use the terminology with the specific distance and give some direction. So right now that existing fence is somewhat not on the applicant’s property. You could give direction to the applicant that a fence be installed, whether it’s repaired or replaced, to be on their property line. So you’re not getting that kilter effect. MR. HENKEL-The question is how many of you really actually saw the fence? Okay, and you think that’s reparable? Where it’s going to match up and look normal? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, but. MR. HENKEL-Yes but, what? Is that fair to the homeowner? MR. UNDERWOOD-How old is that fence? MRS. BAKER-MOWRY-Early 80’s. MR. HENKEL-But that’s not the point. We should have actually, like I said. MR. FREER-So if we put it on their property line we use that term, then, that repair doesn’t effect. MR. HENKEL-I would not be comfortable with a repair. MRS. BAKER-MOWRY-Thank you. I feel the burden should be on the commercial. Sorry. MR. FREER-Yes. Okay. MR. HENKEL-Do you want to live there where someone’s going to put a screwed up fence that looks, you know, it’s not going to blend. When you talk about age difference and everything, it’s never going to look the same. Would you want to live there at your house with? MR. UNDERWOOD-I don’t think we’re in a position where we’re going to make assessments about what parts of fences are replaceable. It might just need two new posts to stick back in the ground. MR. HENKEL-It’s more sections than that. I saw it. MRS. BAKER-MOWRY-I have pictures of before, literally. They’re right here if you want copies of them. There was nothing wrong with the fence. MR. UNDERWOOD-I think we’re inventing it as we go. MRS. HAMLIN-I have one quick question, though. I used to be on the Board in Glens Falls and do you have this in Queensbury? We can’t put a fence directly on the property line. It had to be within? You put it right on the property line? 19 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/04/2019) MR. HENKEL-In Queensbury you can do it right on the line. MRS. HAMLIN-Okay, but not in Glens Falls. The other thing, I’m not really sure if you’re allowed. I would have to say you’re probably not allowed to dictate what happens on a parcel that isn’t the subject of the variance. MR. FREER-Right. I think that’s what Laura’s getting to is that we should make the condition, the fence be on the property line of the applicant. Right? MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. FREER-I think that’s what she’s trying to steer us toward. MRS. HAMLIN-I think it’s true. You can’t usually condition something on a property that isn’t the subject. MR. FREER-Okay. So we add that to the condition. Are you okay with that, Roy? MR. URRICO-So then we’re talking about a new fence. MR. FREER-Yes. That solves everyone’s problem. MR. UNDERWOOD-You’d have to grant a variance, then. MR. HENKEL-That’s a condition. MR. URRICO-We can put a condition. MR. FREER-Yes, it’s just a condition. MR. URRICO-Well we could disapprove it. Then they’d have to come back here with a whole new plan and bring it into compliance. So what is the alternative? It seems like a fair tradeoff. You keep saying no, but what’s the alternative? What do you propose? Disapproving it? MR. UNDERWOOD-They propose to put the fence back exactly where it was. It’s not on their property. MRS. MOORE-That’s a civil matter. That wouldn’t be a condition of the Board, and in this case it sounds like some of the Board members say, well, if the adjoining neighbor is going to take down their fence, if the condition is to put up a new fence, what the neighbor does with the existing fence, that’s up to them. MR. FREER-Okay. Are you good with that? MR. URRICO-I’d amend the condition to replacing the broken fence with a new fence on their property. MR. HENKEL-On O’Reilly’s property. MR. URRICO-On O’Reilly’s property. MR. FREER-Okay. Thank you. MRS. MOORE-And just to confirm, and the applicant made the specification, too, is that it’s not the entire length. It’s to the point, that fence in kind as shown on the drawing. MR. FREER-Right. Yes. AYES: Mrs. Hamlin, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Freer NOES: Mr. McCabe, Mr. Underwood ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl MR. FREER-Okay. I hope we don’t see you next week, Starr. MR. OSTERHOUDT-Thank you for your time. 20 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/04/2019) MR. FREER-Okay. Onto Sign Variance 11-2019. SIGN VARIANCE NO. 11-2019 SEQRA TYPE UNLISTED NORTHWAY OUTLETS, LLC AGENT(S) JON C. LAPPER, ESQ. OWNER(S) NORTHWAY OUTLETS, LLC ZONING CI LOCATION 1415 STATE ROUTE 9 APPLICANT PROPOSES TO INSTALL TWO WALL SIGNS WHERE ONLY ONE IS ALLOWED. SIGN 1 IS TO BE LOCATED IN THE INTERIOR OF THE PLAZA SOUTH ELEVATION AND SIGN 2 IS TO BE LOCATED AT THE EXTERIOR EAST ELEVATION. PROJECT IS FOR A TENANT AT THE NORTHWAY OUTLETS. THE SIGNS ARE TO BE EXTERNALLY LIT. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR MORE THAN ONE WALL SIGN FOR A TENANT. CROSS REF SV 2-2019 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING DECEMBER 2019 LOT SIZE 6.21 AC. TAX MAP NO. 288.-1-53 SECTION 140-6B(3)(d)(2)(b) JON LAPPER & COREY SHANUS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Sign Variance No. 11-2019, Northway Outlets, LLC, Meeting Date: December 4, 2019 “Project Location: 1415 State Route 9 Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to install two wall signs where only one is allowed. Sign 1 is to be located in the interior of the plaza south elevation and Sign 2 is to be located at the exterior east elevation. Project is for a tenant at the Northway Outlets. The signs are to be externally lit. Relief requested for more than one wall sign for a tenant. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief from number of allowable wall signs for a tenant in a business complex. Section 140 –Signs The applicant proposes two wall signs for a tenant space that faces Route 9 and the interior of the shopping center. Sign 1 to be 48 sq. ft. and Sign 2 to be 70.75 sq. ft. 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 number signs. 3. Whether the requested sign variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered substantial relevant to the code. Relief is requested for an additional wall sign where only one wall sign per tenant in a business complex is allowed. 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: The applicant proposes two wall signs to be located on each side of a tenant space at the Lake George Outlets West. The plans provided show sign locations and they are to be externally lit with goose neck light fixtures.” MR. FREER-Hi. Welcome. Please identify yourself and add anything you’d like. MR. LAPPER-Good evening, everyone. Jon Lapper with Corey Shanus. Corey’s been before you before. Corey is a principle of the developer he and his sister own, this plaza and the one across the street where Polo is. I know you know the history of this, but Corey bought the Montcalm site. He brought in architects to re-design both plazas and to really step it up from what was in the corridor in terms of the Outlet 21 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/04/2019) centers. He’s been very careful to get a mix of high end tenants and at this point both centers are almost completely tenanted with volume tenants, but at the same time we’re in a challenging retail environment that everybody knows about. I think one of the adjacent property owners was at the Planning Board recently. There was an article about that and how challenging it is for them to find tenants. Adidas feels strongly that they’re not properly signed because they’re on the corner and they face both south and east and they really need to be identified on both facades for drivers driving north or south, but in terms of your criteria, this Adidas space is a pretty large space and this could accommodate separate tenancies just like across the street where Michael Kors is. So there could be a lot more signs because each tenant could have their own, each storefront could have their own sign and there could be easily three or four storefronts in this space. It’s also not over signed because these two signs together, the way Queensbury measures it with the distance to the road, they could have one sign that equals the same size as this that would look good but it wouldn’t require a variance, and one massive sign that would look out of place. Corey’s been really careful to require minimal signs and it’s certainly not over signed in that plaza there. They’re all small and that’s why this isn’t a case where we’re trying to make this as large as you could and it looks good. It’s classy, but Adidas feels strongly that they need these signs to attract more tenants, more customers. I’ll turn it over to Corey. MR. SHANUS-Good evening. Yes, I want to add, too, that there is a genuine safety issue here that this is just one of these stores that you can’t make up that the Adidas manage told me about a year or so ago some customer was heading south on Route 9 looking for Adidas. There was no sign facing Route 9 and actually went into some pole on the sidewalk. That’s not the kind of publicity we want. It’s also an end cap store, and it just looks better when you have two signs and you can get exposure for the customers heading north and heading south. It’s tasteful and it’s consistent with the signage in really the rest of that center, the one across the street at our adjacent outlets, with the corner stores. MR. FREER-Okay. Thank you. Any questions for the applicant from the Board? MR. URRICO-Corey, have you done any studies about signs, besides the person running into the pole. Have there been studies about percentages of people that actually paid attention to the signs, in terms of pulling off? MR. SHANUS-Yes, I mean it’s a big thing. As a matter of fact, when we are leasing space, you get a premium for space that has actual exposure on Route 9, that people going down the strip will see the Adidas name. The logo is specific to their identity. In the eyes of our tenants, it’s just commonsense. When you see the Adidas name, they feel it generates more business, and this is a challenging retail environment. I don’t have to tell you that. MR. URRICO-But it is on the sign out in front, though? MR. SHANUS-The pylon sign. MR. FREER-Any other questions? There’s nobody in the audience so I won’t even run through that because the t.v.’s aren’t here. Do we have any written comments, Roy? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-There’s no written or otherwise. MR. FREER-Okay. With that I’m going to close the public hearing and poll the Board. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. FREER-We want to poll the Board and then do our SEQR, right? MR. MC CABE-Yes. MR. FREER-So I’ll let you start, Mike. MR. MC CABE-I have no problem with the project. I agree with the applicant. I was looking for the Adidas sign the other day and I couldn’t see it. MR. FREER-Okay. Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes I was going to object but I’m not going to. I’ll be in favor of it. 22 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/04/2019) MR. FREER-Okay. Cathy? MRS. HAMLIN-Yes. I’m voting yes. MR. FREER-Okay. Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes everybody should know that the real name of the business is Adidasler so it could be even longer, but anyway I’m all for the sign. I don’t think it’s any different than what we did over at Old Navy. We did the same situation. MR. FREER-Okay. Michelle? MRS. HAYWARD-I’m also in support. They’ve already considered alternatives and as Mr. Lapper brought up it could be a much bigger sign. I think these two signs fit in the scale of the building. It certainly would increase the safety factors. MR. FREER-I, too, will support this. Six years ago when I joined this Board I had no idea we would be in the sign business as deep and as wide as we are. MR. HENKEL-With being 128 feet from the road it would definitely be warranted to even, like you say, maybe even be bigger, but I’d be in favor. MR. FREER-You’re okay? MR. HENKEL-Yes. MR. FREER-Okay. SEQR please. MOTION REGARDING SIGN VARIANCE NO. 11-2019 APPLICANT NAME: NORTHWAY OUTLETS, LLC 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 Michelle Hayward: Duly adopted this 4th day of December 2019, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Henkel, Mr. Underwood, Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. Urrico, Mr. McCabe, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Freer NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl MR. FREER-Okay, and now a motion for the variance. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Northway Outlets, LLC. Applicant proposes to install two wall signs where only one is allowed. Sign 1 is to be located in the interior of the plaza south elevation and Sign 2 is to be located at the exterior east elevation. Project is for a tenant at the Northway Outlets. The signs are to be externally lit. Relief requested for more than one wall sign for a tenant. The applicant requests relief from number of allowable wall signs for a tenant in a business complex. Section 140 –Signs The applicant proposes two wall signs for a tenant space that faces Route 9 and the interior of the shopping center. Sign 1 to be 48 sq. ft. and Sign 2 to be 70.75 sq. ft. SEQR Type: Unlisted \[ Resolution / Action Required for SEQR\] Motion regarding Sign Variance No. 11-2019 Applicant Name: Northway Outlets, LLC 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 Michelle Hayward: 23 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/04/2019) Duly adopted this 4th day of December 2019, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Henkel, Mr. Underwood, Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. Urrico, Mr. McCabe, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Freer NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday December 4, 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. 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? No. The applicant has been very careful to specify the sign in a manner that doesn’t make it garish or out of character with the other signs. 2. Can the benefit sought by the applicant be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than a sign variance? Not really and suit the needs of the applicant. 3. Is the requested sign variance substantial? No. We feel the requested variance is really minimal. 4. Will the proposed sign variance have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district? Certainly not. 5. Is the alleged difficulty self-created? It is indeed self-created. 6. In addition, the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from granting the requested variance would outweigh the resulting detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community; 7. The Board also finds that the variance request under consideration is the minimum necessary; BASED ON THE ABOVE FINDINGS I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE SIGN VARIANCE SV 11-2019 NORTHWAY OUTLETS, LLC, Introduced by Michael McCabe , who moved for its adoption, seconded by James Underwood: 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 4th day of December 2019, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Henkel, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. Underwood, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Freer NOES: NONE 24 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/04/2019) ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl MR. FREER-Okay. Good luck. MR. LAPPER-Thanks everybody. MR. SHANUS-Thank you. th MR. FREER-So last order of business, I will not be in attendance for the 18 of December meeting. So I’d just like to thank my fellow Board members for all the support and the professionalism. I think I certainly learned a lot about signs and other things,. Anyway, I’ll be in Portland with my two granddaughters. I actually will be flying. It’s been a pleasure. I’ll be around. Good luck to the Board. MR. URRICO-You, too. MR. FREER-And thank you. So with that, I guess we’ll adjourn if there’s no objection. Okay. So we can do that. TH MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING OF DECEMBER 4, 2019, Introduced by Michael McCabe who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Henkel: th Duly adopted this 4 day of December, 2019, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. McCabe, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Underwood, Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Freer NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl MR. FREER-Okay. Have a great holiday, folks. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Harrison Freer, Chairman 25