The URL can be used to link to this page

01-22-2020 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/22/2020) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 22, 2020 INDEX Area Variance No. 1-2020 Queensbury Square, LLC (Monty’s) 2. Tax Map No. 296.17-1-38 Sign Variance No. 1-2020 AJ Signs (for Queensbury Plaza Sign) 5. Tax Map No. 302.6-1-51.2 Sign Variance No. 2-2020 McDonald’s Corporation 10. Tax Map No. 303.20-1-3.2 Area Variance No. 61-2019 Don Bernard 15. Tax Map No. 239.8-1-5 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 01/22/2020) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 22, 2020 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT MICHAEL MC CABE, CHAIRMAN JAMES UNDERWOOD, VICE CHAIRMAN ROY URRICO, SECRETARY JOHN HENKEL MICHELLE HAYWARD CATHERINE HAMLIN JOHN WEBER, ALTERNATE MEMBERS ABSENT RONALD KUHL LAND USE PLANNER-LAURA MOORE STENOGRAPHER-KAREN DWYRE MR. MC CABE-I’d like to open tonight’s meeting of the Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals. Just for safety’s sake, there’s an exit in the back that most of you entered. There’s two exits to the east here at either end of the wall and there’s an exit to the south in the far corner. If you’ve not been to our meeting before, it’s pretty straightforward . There should be an agenda on the back table. We’ll call each case, read the case into the record. We’ll question the applicant. If a public hearing is advertised then we’ll open the public hearing and seek input from the audience or written. At that point we’ll poll the Board and see how we feel about the case and proceed from there, but first we have a little bit of administrative th work to do. So, John, could I get a motion on the meeting of December 4, 2019. APPROVAL OF MINUTES th December 4, 2019 MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING TH MINUTES OF DECEMBER 4, 2019, Introduced by John Henkel who moved for its adoption, seconded by Michelle Hayward: nd Duly adopted this 22 day of January, 2020, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Henkel, Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl th MR. MC CABE-Okay. We need a motion for December 18, 2019. th December 18, 2019 MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING TH MINUTES OF DECEMBER 18, 2019, Introduced by John Henkel who moved for its adoption, seconded by James Underwood: nd Duly adopted this 22 day of January, 2020, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Hayward, Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Henkel, Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl MR. MC CABE-So our first application is Area Variance 1-2020, Queensbury Square, LLC. NEW BUSINESS: 2 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/22/2020) AREA VARIANCE NO. 1-2020 SEQRA TYPE TYPE II QUEENSBURY SQUARE, LLC (MONTY’S) AGENT(S) HUTCHINS ENGINEERING OWNER(S) QUEENSBURY SQUARE, LLC ZONING CI LOCATION 909 STATE ROUTE 9 APPLICANT PROPOSES A MODIFICATION TO A 5,460 SQ. FT. BUILDING UNDER CONSTRUCTION WITH 3 COVERED DELIVERY ENTRY AREAS FOR 170 SQ. FT. TOTAL, 57 SQ. FT. PAD WITH CANOPIES ON EACH PAD. THE SITE HAS AN EXISTING 7,000 SQ. FT. LIQUOR STORE AND THE NEW BUILDING ALLOWS FOR 6 TENANTS. RELIEF IS REQUESTED FOR SETBACKS. SITE PLAN: SITE PLAN MODIFICATION. CROSS REF SP 1-2020; SP 76-2017; AV 78-2017; SP 8-2015-41585; SP 70-2010M- 41586; SP 70-2010-37256; AV 59-2010-37303 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING JANUARY 2020 LOT SIZE 1.41 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 296.17-1-38 SECTION 179-3-040 LUCAS DOBIE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; MONTY LIU, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 1-2020, Queensbury Square, LLC (Monty’s), Meeting Date: January 22, 2020 “Project Location: 909 State Route 9 Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes a modification to a 5,460 sq. ft. building under construction with 3 covered delivery entry areas for 170 sq. ft. total, 57 sq. ft. pad with canopies on each pad. The site has an existing 7,000 sq. ft. liquor store and the new building allows for 6 tenants. Relief is requested for setbacks. Site Plan: site plan modification. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for setbacks in a Commercial Intensive zone, CI. Section 179-3-040 dimensional requirements The building is currently under construction and the new delivery entry doors require covers where relief is requested for the setback to Weeks Road. Previous approved 32 ft. and proposed is 27 ft. where a 75 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 as proposed does not produce an undesirable change in the neighborhood. The neighborhood is a mixed use of residential and commercial. 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 project is currently under construction and had a precise approved setback variance, as the parcel is a corner lot. A variance would most likely be required for any project on the parcel. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered moderate relevant to the code. Relief is requested for 48 ft. for the front setback on Weeks Rd. 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 does not have an adverse impact on the environmental conditions of the neighborhood. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-created. Staff comments: The project remains the same with a 5,460 sq. ft. commercial building with potential for six unit retail areas. The relief is requested for the back of the building facing Weeks Rd. The applicant has indicated this is the area that will be used for deliveries to the tenant spaces and is a one way access. Project work includes associated site work for the new building and for the existing 7,000 sq. ft. liquor store that is to remain. The information submitted shows the amendments to the delivery entry areas.” MR. URRICO-Then the Queensbury Planning Board, based on its limited review did not identify any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with the current project proposal, and that was st approved January 21, 2020 by a unanimous vote. MR. MC CABE-State your name for the record. 3 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/22/2020) MR. DOBIE-Yes. Good evening, Mr. Chairman and good evening, Board and Staff. For the record, Lucas Dobie with Hutchins Engineering representing Queensbury Square, LLC. The managing member, Monty Liu, is with me at the table. As you may recall this project, we were here December of 2017 for the building which is under construction, or was under construction. We’re stopped now. We received the front setback relief along Weeks Road to go to 32 feet with the back plane of the building, if you will, the Weeks Road side. Where we got a little sideways was that our original submission we had the architectural renderings from the building manufacturer and we just showed a flat plane to the whole back of the building. Subsequently, once we did a full architectural design, Rucinski Hall Architecture, he had to add these three pump outs five feet, eleven and a half feet wide, that were essentially porches. The reasoning being the Commercial Building Code, which I didn’t know, requires roof areas over the swing of your doors. So if you have a three and a half foot door, you need a four foot swing or four foot porch covering. So that’s what Mr. Hall designed was nice looking gabled roofs off of the back with a five foot concrete pad under it. I wish I would have known myself professionally two and a half years ago we would have had them on our original proposal, but I didn’t, and Mr. Hall added them nicely and we did get a building permit and I missed that revision. So put it on me when we submitted our final plans that we got a building modification. So it’s been poured, and the foundation formed, the frost walls, and I discovered it during the site inspections, let’s put the brakes on, talked to the Zoning Administrator and we shut the project down. We’ll hopefully get this rectified. So we believe it’s a very unsubstantial change to the building . It should be nicer architecturally having those lower gables off the back. The Planning Board seemed to have a positive agreement with it last night. They appreciated that we didn’t continue, even begin the framing on it so we wouldn’t have a severe after the fact situation . We’re here to ask for this additional relief and answer any additional questions the Board might have. Thank you. MR. MC CABE-So does the Board have any questions? MR. URRICO-Yes, I do. The one way access to the rear for deliveries, where is that through? Is that through Weeks Road? MR. DOBIE-That is from Weeks Road, sir, yes, right by where the dumpsters are now. MR. URRICO-So it’s coming through where the Wal-Mart, back of the Wal-Mart docks are? MR. DOBIE-No. Our thought is if he has some small deliveries to come down Weeks Road and make that left just behind the liquor store. MR. URRICO-And that’s not restricted by the issue that, remember we had the Wal-Mart issue? MRS. MOORE-So that was specific to Wal-Mart. MR. URRICO-Only Wal-Mart delivery trucks? MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. URRICO-What if there’s. MRS. MOORE-And so all delivery trucks for Wal-Mart need to come through the Route 9 entrance. MR. URRICO-But they’re not restricted by that? MRS. MOORE-They’re not. That was specific to Wal-Mart. MR. URRICO-Okay. MR. MC CABE-Other questions? So we have a public hearing scheduled. So at this time I’ll open the public hearing and ask is there anybody in the audience that has a comment on this particular project? Seeing no one, I’ll check and see if there’s any written comment. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-There’s no written comment. MR. MC CABE-Okay. So at this particular time I’m going to close the public hearing and I’m going to poll the Board here and see how we feel. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MC CABE-I’m going to start with you, John. 4 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/22/2020) MR. HENKEL-I don’t see any problem with this. It would be different if it was restricting that road off Weeks. It’s not going to cause any problem there. So I think it’s definitely something that’s needed anyway. You’d think a project like that would be something that was in it anyway just to cover the openings of doors. It makes sense to me. I’d be in favor of the project. MR. MC CABE-Roy? MR. URRICO-I agree with John. I think it’s a minor change to what we already approved. It looks like the project is going the right way and I’d be in favor of it. MR. MC CABE-John Weber? MR. WEBER-I have no objections to this project. MR. MC CABE-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-I think we originally approved 32 feet and it’s going to 27. That’s not much of a change. It makes sense to have a covered space in the back when you’re going to have people making deliveries. I’m all for it. MR. MC CABE-Catherine? MRS. HAMLIN-I’d be in favor of it. MR. MC CABE-Michelle? MRS. HAYWARD-I’m also in agreement. There really is no other alternative because of the Building Code. MR. MC CABE-So in my opinion it makes sense and it’s a rather minor request, and so I’ll support the project also. MR. HENKEL-We really don’t have a choice in it anyway. It’s a Code. It has to be done anyway. MR. MC CABE-We could ask them to tear the building down. So at this particular time, Jim, I wonder if you’d make a motion for us. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Queensbury Square, LLC. Applicant proposes a modification to a 5,460 sq. ft. building under construction with 3 covered delivery entry areas for 170 sq. ft. total, 57 sq. ft. pad with canopies on each pad. The site has an existing 7,000 sq. ft. liquor store and the new building allows for 6 tenants. Relief is requested for setbacks. Site Plan: site plan modification. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for setbacks in a Commercial Intensive zone, CI. Section 179-3-040 Dimensional requirements The building is currently under construction and the new delivery entry doors require covers where relief is requested for the setback to Weeks Road. Previous approved 32 ft. and proposed is 27 ft. where a 75 ft. setback is required. SEQR Type II – no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, January 22, 2020. 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. It’s a slight change to the previous approval but it doesn’t seem to encroach that much closer to Weeks Road. 2. As far as feasible alternatives, it’s required by Code to have covers over openings where doors open out so we find the request reasonable. 3. The requested variance is not substantial even though it’s more than what was previously approved. 5 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/22/2020) 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. There’s no neighborhood concern over this and the Board does not feel there should be any either. 5. The alleged difficulty is indeed self-created but it’s not anything that we probably would not have approved had it been before us initially when we made our first approvals. 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. 1- 2020 QUEENSBURY SQUARE, LLC, Introduced by James Underwood, who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Henkel: Duly adopted this 22nd day of January 2020 by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Hayward, Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. Weber, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl MR. DOBIE-Thank you very much for your time, Board. MR. MC CABE-So our next application here is Sign Variance 1-2020, AJ Signs for Queensbury Plaza Sign. SIGN VARIANCE NO. 1-2020 SEQRA TYPE UNLISTED AJ SIGNS (FOR QUEENSBURY PLAZA SIGN) AGENT(S) AJ SIGNS OWNER(S) QUEENSBURY PLAZA I LLC ZONING CI LOCATION 756 GLEN STREET APPLICANT PROPOSES TO REPLACE AN EXISTING 76.2 SQ. FT. FREESTANDING PLAZA SIGN WITH ONE OF 75.38 SQ. FT. THE NEW SIGN WILL IDENTIFY THE PLAZA TENANT AND THE MAIN PLAZA. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR SIZE OF SIGN: EXCEEDS 45 SQ. FT. CROSS REF SP 57-2018 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING JANUARY 2020 LOT SIZE 12.23 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 302.6-1-51.2 SECTION 140-6B2(a) TOM WHEELER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Sign Variance No. 1-2020, AJ Signs (for Queensbury Plaza sign), Meeting Date: January 22, 2020 “Project Location: 756 Glen Street Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to replace an existing 76.2 sq. ft. freestanding plaza sign with one of 75.38 sq. ft. The new sign will identify the plaza tenants and the main plaza. Relief requested for size of sign: exceeds 45 sq. ft. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for size of sign that exceeds 45 sq. ft. in the Commercial Intensive zone CI. Section 140- Signs The applicant proposes removal of an existing 76.2 sq. ft. monument sign to construct a 75.38 sq. ft. sign. There has not been a previous sign variance for the existing sign and the proposed sign exceeds the 45 sq. ft. signage maximum allowed. 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 are anticipated. 6 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/22/2020) 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 possible to reduce the size of sign. 3. Whether the requested sign variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered substantial relevant to the code. The relief for the size of the sign where 45 sq. ft. is the maximum allowed and relief is requested for 30.38 sq. ft. in excess. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The project as proposed may have minimal impact on the physical or 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 to remove an existing freestanding sign for the Queensbury Plaza and replace it with a new sign that is to include the tenant’s names that are in the plaza. The plans show the new sign with 10 panels and the panels further divided with some tenants sharing a panel. The existing sign has very few tenants in the plaza listed. The plans show the location of the sign on the site in a similar location to the existing.” MR. MC CABE-State your name for the record, please. MR. WHEELER-Tom Wheeler with AJ Sign Company. Basically what we’re looking to do is replace the existing sign with a sign that’s actually a little bit smaller. We’re going to use the same posts. We’re going to have the same setbacks which is a little bit of a distance off the road. The big difference is the new sign will have tenants in the Plaza listed on it. So it’s more of a directional sign for people getting to the Plaza. When we designed this initially we figured there had to be a variance in place for the existing signs. We kept it almost like what was there. Ideally I’d like to make the sign bigger, but like I said we’re trying to keep it to conform with what was there already. The sign’s internally illuminated. MR. MC CABE-It’s been there quite a while. MR. WHEELER-It’s been there a long time. MR. MC CABE-Which is why it didn’t need the variance because we probably didn’t even have that kind of zoning back then . MRS. MOORE-Probably not. I just know that the research we did, I couldn’t find any reference to a variance previously. So that’s where it falls now. MR. MC CABE-Originally that was Sears, with a little liquor store all the way up at the far end there where the parking is for Olive Garden. So anyway that’s a little history. So do we have any questions of the applicant? MR. HENKEL-I was going to say, why didn’t you make that Plaza come down from the Q? Then you could have put more, because it’s kind of sad that you have to share panels there, where you could make that actually, put panels up in there and make that, you know where it says Plaza below the Queensbury, put the Plaza down and have panels up there. MR. WHEELER-I guess we could change the design somewhat to make the tenant area bigger. MR. HENKEL-I just think those tenants would be a little bent out of shape because they’re sharing. MR. WHEELER-They’re happy to have anything. Right now they’re. MR. HENKEL-I think you’re deserving of, I talked to Laura earlier. That Plaza’s over 12 acres of land. You should be granted bigger signage than you have there. If you had come in with a bigger sign I would have even gone with it. MR. WHEELER-So if we went bigger you guys would be okay with that? MR. MC CABE-He can speak for himself. MR. URRICO-I remember that the reason Staples was granted such a big sign in front of their building was the size of the sign. So I think it’s positive that we’re making it smaller. Even though you’re increasing the tenants on there, because the tenants were allowed bigger signs on the front of their building there because the sign didn’t include their names on here. So if we’re going to change the formula when we need 7 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/22/2020) to start looking at the signs on the side of the buildings, too. So if you want to make that change, I’ll agree with it. MR. HENKEL-Can you see Staples, though? It’s hard. MR. URRICO-I can see Staples from Miller Hill. MR. MC CABE-Do we have other questions? MRS. HAMLIN-How’s the legibility in regards to those extremely small signs from a distance? MR. HENKEL-Can you see it from there? MRS. HAMLIN-Not really well, no. MR. WHEELER-If you know what you’re looking for, you know, the Moe’s logo. You know the Jersey Mike’s logo. You know it’s near there, GPS got you that far, you’ll see it. MRS. HAMLIN-That’s what bothers me. I don’t want to have to look for it hard because that’s a difficult intersection. So I think they’/re saying maybe rob from Peter to pay Paul and make those a little bigger somehow. MR. HENKEL-Actually I think that was a good idea with the Plaza putting it down. You could move that panel. Plaza down, have it coming down from the Q. So Queensbury at the top and then Plaza coming down that. That would give you more signage space. MR. WHEELER-Because as long as I keep within the square footage. MR. HENKEL-That’s right. MR. MC CABE-Just something to think about. So if there are no more questions, are there any more questions? So a public hearing has been advertised and so at this particular time I’ll open the public hearing and see if there is anybody in the audience that has anything to add or any opinions about this project? Seeing no one, I’ll inquire, is there any written communication? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-There’s no written comment. MR. MC CABE-So at this particular time I think I’m going to close the public hearing and I’m going to poll the Board. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MC CABE-And I’m going to start with Jim. MR. UNDERWOOD-I think in this instance here we’re basically swapping, you know, we’re slightly less in square footage than what we had previously. I think some of the comments from the Board, though, are pertinent to the size of what each one of those equals, and I would agree the small ones on the bottom don’t really make such sense because they’re so tiny and your setback from the road is so great. I would think I would rather see a modification where you try to keep everybody the same size. I don’t think there’s any difference or parity difference whether it’s Olive Garden or Staples or bigger boxes in there, but in any case I think identification for the places within the mall makes sense, but it should be reasonable so you can read all of them equally. I don’t think you want to be hunting and pecking and rubbernecking when you’re driving down that busy road. MR. WHEELER-I agree. MR. UNDERWOOD-So maybe that’s something we should not vote on this and you should go back and try and come up with a reasonable size that fits that square footage or a reconfiguration of what you have proposed here tonight. MR. WHEELER-The problem we run into is Staples and the bigger stores are paying more rent. They have more square footage so the landlords tend to give them, or it’s in their lease that they have a bigger spot on a sign like this. MR. UNDERWOOD-I mean if that’s the preference of the landlord then I guess I can live with what you’re requesting then. I don’t want to hold you up if you’re not going to change. 8 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/22/2020) MR. WHEELER-It’s a battle we have with multi-tenant signs where their lawyers fight over who gets what, who’s bigger here, who’s on top. MR. URRICO-I’m sorry. Can I ask a question? What is the sign? Is it changeable? Are the panels inter- changeable? MR. WHEELER-Yes. The panels are changeable. We can take them out with the new tenants. MR. URRICO-But they’re panels. They’re not electronic signs that you can interchange? MR. WHEELER-No . MR. URRICO-Never mind. Sorry. You’re right. MR. MC CABE-Catherine? MRS. HAMLIN-I mean I agree rubbernecking and all that. If a change is made and it only adds enough signage area to make those smaller ones bigger, if that doesn’t work for you, then I’m good with going with what he’s presented. Do you know what I’m saying? If he was going to take that extra little space for himself I would want it apply to the smaller signs and the other ones stay the same. They’re not going to get as big as the big ones, right? But if that’s a problem for your tenants, then I’m good with what you’ve got. MR. MC CABE-Michelle? MRS. HAYWARD-I’m in favor as well with the project as proposed. My concern is you’ve got a lot going on with that sign and the rubbernecking. I can see me driving by at 30 miles an hour and trying to find those small signs. So like what John was suggesting, is there a way to make those smaller signs a little bigger? MR. MC CABE-John? MR. HENKEL-I’m definitely in favor. No problems. MR. MC CABE-Roy? MR. URRICO-I’m generally in favor of it. I am concerned that this exceeds by 35 feet or thereabouts what’s allowed for that area and that it’s gone unnoticed for so long. I’m not sure why it went unnoticed, but that Plaza has been re-vamped at least twice since I’ve been on the Board. So I know things have changed there but I don’t remember if the signs were changed. We did add a sign I think to the back of the Plaza at some point. So it was reviewed at some point. I do agree with the signage and how it needs to be, not create more of a problem than it does right now. Because I think most people find stores or find locations by GPS now and I would think that that’ll fix most of the problems. So you just need assurance that that store or retail business is in there. So I think if you can look at that, maybe reduce the Queensbury Plaza portion of it so that the tenant area is clearer for travelers than that would be great, but that’s not conditioned on my approval. I’m fine with it. MR. MC CABE-And my feeling is I’m impressed that the applicant basically kept the same size sign that’s existed for a long time by my memory and hasn’t caused any particular problem. So I will support continuing that size sign. MRS. DWYRE-You just didn’t ask John Weber yet. MR. MC CABE-Excuse me. MR. WEBER-I don’t have any problem with the sign. I have a suggestion. Go back to the people with the small signs and tell them to pay more. Then they can have a bigger one. MR. MC CABE-So I’m going to ask for a motion. MR. HENKEL-We have to do the SEQR, don’t we? MR. MC CABE-Excuse me. That’s right. We have to do SEQR. So I’m going to ask John for a motion on SEQR. MOTION REGARDING SIGN VARIANCE NO. 1-2020. APPLICANT NAME: AJ SIGNS, 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 9 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/22/2020) A NEGATIVE DECLARATION, Introduced by John Henkel who moved for its adoption, seconded by James Underwood: nd Duly adopted this 22 Day of January 2020, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. Weber, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Henkel, Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl MR. MC CABE-And now, Michelle, I’ll ask you for a motion for the overall approval. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from AJ Signs. Applicant proposes to replace an existing 76.2 sq. ft. freestanding plaza sign with one of 75.38 sq. ft. The new sign will identify the plaza tenants and the main plaza. Relief requested for size of sign: exceeds 45 sq. ft. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for size of sign that exceeds 45 sq. ft. in the Commercial Intensive zone CI. Section 140 –Signs The applicant proposes removal of an existing 76.2 sq. ft. monument sign to construct a 75.38 sq. ft. sign. There has not been a previous sign variance for the existing sign and the proposed sign exceeds the 45 sq. ft. signage maximum allowed. SEQR Type: Unlisted \[ Resolution / Action Required for SEQR\] Motion regarding Sign Variance No. 1-2020. Applicant Name: AJ Signs, 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 John Henkel who moved for its adoption, seconded by James Underwood: nd Duly adopted this 22 Day of January 2020, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. Weber, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Henkel, Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, January 22, 2020; 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. This actually is a net, small decrease in the size of the sign. It won’t have any bearing. 2. Can the benefit sought by the applicant be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than a sign variance? As discussed in tonight’s meeting, all the other methods have been considered and there were no other feasible methods. 3. Is the requested sign variance substantial? We would say it technically is. The allowed sign size is 35 feet, but the pre-existing sign that’s been there for many years, I think for all our memories, this sign is slightly smaller. 4. Will the proposed sign variance have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district? No because the sign is slightly smaller than the pre-existing sign. 5. Is the alleged difficulty self-created? Yes, it is. 6. In addition, the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from granting the requested variance would outweigh the resulting detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community; 10 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/22/2020) 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 1- 2020, AJ SIGNS, Introduced by Michelle Hayward, who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Henkel: 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. nd Duly adopted this 22 Day of January 2020, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. Weber, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Henkel, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl MR. MC CABE-Congratulations. MR. WHEELER-Thank you very much. MR. MC CABE-So our next application is Sign Variance 2-2020, McDonald’s Corporation. They applied for a waiver of a survey and I said I’ll waiver the survey if everybody else agrees? Does anybody have any reason why we shouldn’t, or why we should have a survey for this particular sign? MR. HENKEL-It’s got a survey. It’s an old one. MRS. MOORE-I’ll explain. So there’s a survey in the packet. It is a dated one and it only includes past development. It doesn’t include the new addition on the site. So just making the applicant aware and the Chairperson has already granted a waiver, but the Zoning Board can, if they feel it necessary to have the applicant come up with a more current survey, they can request that. MR. HENKEL-They kind of highlighted where the spots were anyway on this. They’re not moving it any. MR. MC CABE-So the waiver stands. SIGN VARIANCE NO. 2-2020 SEQRA TYPE UNLISTED MC DONALD’S CORPORATION AGENT(S) TRACEY DIEHL OWNER(S) MC DONALD’S CORPORATION ZONING CI LOCATION 364 DIX AVENUE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO REMOVE MENU BOARDS AT THE DRIVE THRU AREA. THE MENU BOARDS EXISTING 43.7 SQ. FT. EACH (QUANTITY OF 2) AND PRE-MENU BOARD 10.2 SQ. FT. (1) WILL BE REMOVED AND REPLACED WITH 4 DIGITAL SIGN BOARDS (2 MENU BOARDS AT 17.6 SQ. FT. EACH AND 2 PRE-MENU BOARDS AT 8.8 SQ. FT. EACH). THE EXISTING FREESTANDING SIGN TO REMAIN. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR NUMBER OF FREESTANDING SIGNS ALLOWED. CROSS REF AV 2-1995- 40139; SP 47-2013-40215; SP 5-1995—40138 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING JANUARY 2020 LOT SIZE 1.81 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 303.20-1-3.2 SECTION 140-6B.3(c) TARA PUNTASECCA, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT 11 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/22/2020) Notes from Staff, Sign Variance No. 2-2020, McDonald’s Corporation, Meeting Date: January 22, 2020 “Project Location: 364 Dix Avenue Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to remove menu boards at the drive thru area. The menu boards existing 43.7 sq. ft. each (quantity of 2) and pre-menu board 10.2 sq. ft. (1) will be removed and replaced with 4 digital sign boards (2 menu boards at 17.6 sq. ft. each and 2 pre-menu boards at 8.8 sq. ft. each). The existing freestanding sign to remain. Relief requested for number of freestanding signs allowed. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for number of freestanding signs in the Commercial Moderate zone, CM. Section 140 –signs The applicant proposes four additional free standing signage at the drive-thru areas of the McDonald’s site. The new signs are to be two double panels of 17.6 sq. ft. each and two single panels of 8.8 sq. ft. (Removal of 43.7 sq. ft., 43.7 sq. ft. and a 10.2 sq. ft. signage at drive-thru to replace with 17.6 sq. ft. , 17.6 sq. ft., 8.8 sq. ft. and 8.8 sq. ft. signage; free standing road side sign of 50 sq. ft. to remain). 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 to no impacts to the neighborhood are 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 possible to reduce the number of signs. 3. Whether the requested sign variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered substantial relevant to the code. The relief for the number of signs is four additional signs that are to be digital. 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 physical or 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 to update the drive- thru signage on the site for McDonalds. The plans show the existing signage at the drive-thru, noting there is no change to the road side free standing sign. The submission shows the new digital sign panels for pre-menu and menu boards. The applicant has indicated only McDonalds items are posted on the digital boards.” MR. MC CABE-Good evening. MS. PUNTASECCA-Good evening. I’m Tara Puntasecca with Expedite the Diehl of 27 Van Orden Place, Hackensack, New Jersey. I’m here today for the digital menu boards as read. There’s a small discrepancy in the application. There are no pre-menu boards in place now. There’s just two main menu boards and each of these two main menu boards are the exact same size as read. They all have four panels per side, per footer. So this Board has been presented with this menu board system in the past for other locations. I’d like to make the Board aware that the way the menu board system is to work together, as I said, as a system. You’ll now have a sign that, for the main menu board has got half the size of the existing main menu board. Instead of a main menu board that has four panels you’ll now have two panels and those two additional pre-menu boards will just be one panel as you see here, and they work in conjunction with each other really to help move customers through the drive-thru. The McDonald’s will feature items that are quick to make or things that they see that are trending. That way when customers pull up to actually order they might have more of a decision made. So this will create a good thing for the Town of Queensbury because now you won’t have angry customers leaving and pulling on to Dix Avenue, but right now as mentioned there’s the one freestanding sign in place of two menu boards. So really it would become five on the site. MR. MC CABE-So what we’re approving is five signs instead of four. MS. PUNTASECCA-Right. Correct. 12 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/22/2020) MR. HENKEL-But the square footage is still the same? MS. PUNTASECCA-Yes. Each sign. MR. HENKEL-I come up with about 52.8. MS. PUNTASECCA-52.8, yes. So that was accurate on the submittal. The existing was inaccurate on the submittal. MR. HENKEL-Still getting smaller. MS. PUNTASECCA-Right. MRS. MOORE-So this menu board here, there’s two of those? MS. PUNTASECCA-Right. So this is a tandem drive thru. There’s two drive thru lanes. So each drive thru lane would get a main menu board which measures at the 17.6 square feet and then one of these pre- browse boards which measure at the 8.8 square feet. MRS. MOORE-And you have two of these boards. MS. PUNTASECCA-Right. MRS. MOORE-So it’s still four boards. MS. PUNTASECCA-Yes. The proposal is correct. Just the existing is incorrect. MR. MC CABE-Okay. So there are four. MS. PUNTASECCA-Yes, so we’re still proposing four. There was only two existing, not three. MRS. MOORE-Okay. MR. HENKEL-So there’s on pre-menu board per lane or two? MS. PUNTASECCA-One pre-browse per lane and one main board per lane. MR. HENKEL-Gotcha. MR. URRICO-And the menu board exist behind the order panels? It’s part of that order panel. MS. PUNTASECCA-Yes, it’s essentially, if you look at that plan, if you look at the Site Plan which you can see that the two lanes will each have their own menu board, but just a little bit in front of that you’ll have the pre-browse board so that second car in line can access some of the menu while they’re waiting. MR. URRICO-Good idea. MS. PUNTASECCA-And the boards are digital. I know the Code falls silent for digital signs, but they are not flashing, blinking. They only change three times a day for each meal. MR. HENKEL-And they’re out at night. Right? MS. PUNTASECCA-They will be. They are dimmable, though. So we can set them at the lowest setting if necessary. MR. MC CABE-So do we have questions of the applicant? Additional questions? MRS. HAMLIN-I still want to make absolutely certain. So basically what you’re putting in now will have a lower total square footage than what is existing. MS. PUNTASECCA-Right. Exactly. So it’s a higher number of footers, but a smaller overall square footage. MRS. HAMLIN-Okay. MR. HENKEL-The old one’s 97.65 and the new one’s 52.8. MRS. HAMLIN-So just to be clear, I think you might have mentioned this the last time you were here, but the way I read this, if they didn’t get their approval, are they going to pull the franchise license? 13 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/22/2020) MS. PUNTASECCA-Because last time I was here I mentioned they were court mandated signs. MRS. HAMLIN-Yes. MS. PUNTASECCA-I don’t know into that end of it, but I do know that we’re doing this across the country and they hope to get this in place. They’re not customized for each area. MRS. HAMLIN-The language was pretty strongly worded. MS. PUNTASECCA-I’m sorry that was my boss coaching me. MR. HENKEL-But I remember when Mrs. Reardon came to us for the other two McDonald’s, she said that they weren’t going to do it at the one McDonald’s, but it was being required. MR. MC CABE-Well we approved it for Glen Street, but they didn’t install it. We approved it for Exit 18 and they did it just the way you’re showing here. Right? MS. PUNTASECCA-Right. Correct. I’ve been told through the grapevine that there might be a fine involved for any site that doesn’t have these in place as proposed. MR. HENKEL-That’s why it was weird that she said she was doing it at one but. MR. MC CABE-Well that’s because the first one they didn’t really give her all the information is what it was, that was a very early one that they did. MS. PUNTASECCA-Right. Yes. We weren’t involved in that first one I believe. MR. MC CABE-That’s the way I understood it. MS. PUNTASECCA-Right. MR. MC CABE-Other questions? So we do have a public hearing advertised tonight. So at this particular time I’m going to open the public hearing and see if there’s anybody in the audience that has comment on this. Seeing no one, I’m going to see if there’s any written comment. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-No, no written comment. MR. MC CABE-So at this particular time I’m going to close the public hearing, and I’m going to poll the Board and I’ll start with Catherine. MRS. HAMLIN-Apparently quite a bit of precedence for this. So I would have to approve. MR. MC CABE-And Michelle? MRS. HAYWARD-Yes, I agree with Catherine, and I approve as well. MR. MC CABE-And John? MR. HENKEL-I agree with Roy. Smaller is better. MR. MC CABE-And Roy? MR. URRICO-I agree with John. MR. MC CABE-And the other John? MR. WEBER-I agree with the other John. MR. MC CABE-How about you, Jim, do you agree with John? MR. UNDERWOOD-I agree with John and John. MR. MC CABE-And so, yes, we’ve certainly been through this a couple of times before, and no catastrophes have happened at the other two locations so I don’t anticipate one here, and so I, too, will agree. So I’m going to first seek a SEQR. 14 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/22/2020) MOTION REGARDING SIGN VARIANCE NO. 2-2020; APPLICANT NAME: MCDONALD’S CORPORATION 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 John Henkel who moved for its adoption, seconded by James Underwood: nd Duly adopted this 22 Day of January 2020, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Weber, Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Henkel, Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl MR. MC CABE-So now, Catherine, I’m going to ask you for a motion regarding Sign Variance No. 2-2020. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from McDonald’s Corporation. Applicant proposes to remove menu boards at the drive thru area. The menu boards existing 43.7 sq. ft. each (quantity of 2) and pre-menu board 10.2 sq. ft. (1) will be removed and replaced with 4 digital sign boards (2 menu boards at 17.6 sq. ft. each and 2 pre-menu boards at 8.8 sq. ft. each). The existing freestanding sign to remain. Relief requested for number of freestanding signs allowed. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for number of freestanding signs in the Commercial Moderate zone, CM. Section 140 –Signs The applicant proposes four additional free standing signage at the drive-thru areas of the McDonald’s site. The new signs are to be two double panels of 17.6 sq. ft. each and two single panels of 8.8 sq. ft. (Removal of 43.7 sq. ft., 43.7 sq. ft. and a 10.2 sq. ft. signage at drive-thru to replace with 17.6 sq. ft. , 17.6 sq. ft., 8.8 sq. ft. and 8.8 sq. ft. signage; free standing road side sign of 50 sq. ft. to remain). SEQR Type: Unlisted \[ Resolution / Action Required for SEQR\] Motion regarding Sign Variance No. 2-2020; Applicant Name: McDonald’s Corporation 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 John Henkel who moved for its adoption, seconded by James Underwood: nd Duly adopted this 22 Day of January 2020, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Weber, Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Henkel, Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday January 22, 2020; Upon review of the application materials, information supplied during the public hearing, and upon consideration of the criteria specified in Section 179-14-080(A) of the Queensbury Town Code and Chapter 267 of NYS Town Law and after discussion and deliberation, we find as follows: 1. Will an undesirable change be produced in the character of the neighborhood or will a detriment to the nearby properties be created by the granting of the requested sign variance? We have determined no. 2. Can the benefit sought by the applicant be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than a sign variance? We’ve determined no. 3. Is the requested sign variance substantial? Actually it’s less than what’s existing so the answer would be no. 4. Will the proposed sign variance have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district? Actually according to the applicant there are environmental positives here. So the answer again is no. 15 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/22/2020) 5. Is the alleged difficulty self-created? Yes. 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 2- 2020 MCDONALD’S CORPORATION, Introduced by Catherine Hamlin , who moved for its adoption, seconded by Michelle Hayward: 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. nd Duly adopted this 22 Day of January 2020, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Weber, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Henkel, Mrs. Hayward, Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. Urrico, Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl MR. MC CABE-Another successful visit. MS. PUNTASECCA-Thank you. Thank you for your time. MR. MC CABE-So our next case is Area Variance No. 61-2019, Don Bernard. AREA VARIANCE NO. 61-2019 SEQRA TYPE TYPE II DON BERNARD AGENT(S) AJA ARCHITECTURE OWNER(S) DON BERNARD ZONING WR LOCATION 20 BRAYTON ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO DEMOLISH AN EXISTING 1,048 SQ. FT. HOME (FOOTPRINT) TO CONSTRUCT A NEW HOME OF 1,060 SQ. FT. WITH A FLOOR AREA OF 3,711 SQ. FT. PROJECT INCLUDES SITE WORK FOR LANDSCAPING AND STORMWATER. SITE PLAN AND FRESHWATER WETLAND – NEW FLOOR AREA IN A CEA. CROSS REF SP 79-2019; FWW 8-2019 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING JANUARY 2020 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY APA/LGPC; CEA LOT SIZE 0.28 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 239.8-1-15 SECTION 179- 3-040-5b3 ANDREW ALLISON & CHRIS JONES, REPRESENTING THE APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 61-2019, Don Bernard, Meeting Date: January 22, 2020 “Project Location: 20 Brayton Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to demolish an existing 1,048 sq. ft. home (footprint) to construct a new home of 1,060 sq. ft. with a floor area of 3,711 sq. ft. Project includes site work for landscaping and stormwater. Relief is sought for setbacks, height & floor area. Site Plan and Freshwater wetland—new floor area in a CEA. 16 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/22/2020) Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for new floor area, setback and height in the Waterfront Residential Zone and CEA. Section 179-3-040 dimensional requirements The parcel is an odd shaped lot as relief is requested from three sides where a 12 ft. setback is required: North side where a 6 ft. setback is proposed, West side where a 4 ft. 3 in. setback is proposed, and South side where an 8 ft. 6 in. setback is proposed. Relief is requested for height where 35 ft. 4.5 inches is proposed and the maximum allowed is 28 ft. Relief is requested for Floor area where proposed is 3,594 sq. ft. (29%) and allowed is 2,690 sq. ft. (22%). 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 configuration of the lot and proposed location of the new home. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief may be considered moderate to substantial relevant to the code for setbacks. The side setback relief ranges from 7 ft. 9 in. to 6 ft. The height relief is 7 ft. 4.5 inches in excess. The Floor Area relief is 7% in excess. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The project as proposed will have minimal impact to the neighborhood. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-created. Staff comments: The applicant proposes to demolish an existing home and to upgrade the site of 0.28 acre odd shaped parcel. The applicant has indicated the new home is to be in a similar location as the home to be demolished. The plans show new areas of low native plantings, a rain garden area, lawn area and areas of vegetation to remain. The existing garage is to remain along with the shoreline deck area, four sheds to be removed and one shed to remain.” MR. URRICO-The Planning Board based on its limited review did not identify any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with the current project proposal, and that was passed unanimously on st January 21, 2020. MR. MC CABE-Good evening. Could I get your name for the record. MR. ALLISON-So my name’s Andrew Allison. I’m with AJ Architecture and Planning. To my right is Chris Jones who’s also lead designer on the project and Don Bernard is the owner of the parcel. If it’s okay with the Board I’ll walk you through the project and answer any questions you may have. So Mr. Bernard came to us with the project about a year ago and presented us with what I think is one of the more challenging sites on Lake George and I’ve seen quite a number of challenging sites. The drawings that we’ve prepared for you that are in your packet, I just want to get people used to what you’re looking at here as we get into the discussion, but the dark red sort of shape there, that would be the shape of a building that you could build on this lot and stay within the setbacks. So he was fairly challenged there because I haven’t designed many 20 by 20 houses that really work well on the lake that have no view, and the existing building itself is sort of the light red line and it was a larger footprint than what we’re doing right now and actually extended over one of the lot lines in one of the areas. So the existing house is not in a condition that renovating is going to be more affordable than sort of starting over, slab on grade, it’s got all kinds of issues. So we proposed to Don a couple of things to do with this project. One would be the most affordable way to go about this is actually to remove the existing structure rather than to try to stabilize it so that you could add a second story to it. The second thing would be to really work with the Town to try to do the best project that you could that meets the intention of the Code on the site that you’re given. Knowing that you can’t really change the lot lines. One interesting thing about the parcel also is you’ll notice that there, you know, the other houses are actually in front of this in terms of the lake. There is a deeded, shared driveway that comes across his property right in this area where Don can’t actually park on part of his parcel. His neighbor has the right to park there. They’ve talked about that and discussed 17 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/22/2020) that in the project and we haven’t done anything physically on this that’ll get in the way of that. So by deed that still exists and by design, but when I came to Don I said really I think what we have to do here is do the greatest extent possible that we can to mitigate the water impact to the lake. That’s going to be the Number One priority and then let’s look at how to build this new project so that it’s the least impact to your neighbors, and I’m being a little selfish here. I’m more concerned about the residential neighbors who are on the waterfront not as much as the Marina to the left. So what we designed was a house that somewhat shifts to the south and to the east to get this house slightly farther away from the property lines on the two closest sides where the setbacks were but yet doesn’t encroach the interior livable space of the house any further towards the neighbors down here, and we re-worked the entrance scenario to the house to pull it farther back to the north here so that it’s further away from the shared driveway for the other people, and then we really took the opportunity through this whole stretch leading down to the dock that’s going to remain to do, get rid of as much hard surface as we could and put in as much plantings and rain gardens in that area as we could to deal with that. So this is currently a concrete pad and we’ll replace with a permeable stone and all this landscaping and rain garden down in here since none of the project really touches the dock area. It’s really tight down through here. There really isn’t much you can do, and there’s a pretty big visual impact from the Marina so there’s a fence that goes up there and we don’t want to get into anything down there, anything close to the edge. So really the project limit line for us is to stay as far away from the shoreline as possible, and the larger Site Plan, you know the property that he inherited has multiple sheds, some of which were actually over the property lines, and sheds, everybody loves sheds up on the lake but he’s choosing to get rid of more than half of his, and then, you know, a new septic system going in because we think the existing septic tank is somewhere under the house or something like that. So we’ve moved that as far away from the lake as we can. So visually you know the house as it appeared really wasn’t what I’d call one of the more attractive buildings on the lake, and Don, you know, challenged us to come up with a design that would work well, not, you know, to maximize views and sites towards the lake without impacting sort of the character of the other houses around this. So we came up with this design. This would be sort of the side that’s facing, you know, we’re at 35 feet, the lowest point of grade, but the lowest point of grade we’re actually creating because we wanted to do a little bit of a walk out basement on one corner. This edge of the building actually abuts the Marina side and the grade, the natural grade comes across high and then there’s a fence line and it literally drops straight down to where this is almost at grade with the Marina side on that side. So at one point this had been filled when the Marina came in and probably dug out to get more level parking area. So it’s a very minimal part of the building that has this 35 feet. It might be all of 8 feet wide across the entire perimeter of the house. The rest of it is well within the 28 feet if you look at it, and we did that on purpose because we didn’t want to go up with like trying to get a third story to get more views out of it. He just wanted more useable space. MR. MC CABE-So as it faces us on our right what’s the height from grade to that slightly lower roof line there? MR. ALLISON-From here to here. MR. MC CABE-No, to your right a little bit more. MR. ALLISON-In this zone here? MR. MC CABE-Right. MR. ALLISON-Well this from here to here is going to be about 25 feet. MR. MC CABE-Okay. So that’s even less. MR. ALLISON-The rest, if you did, came straight across, we didn’t do the walk out, we’d be under the 28 feet, and we’re well under the neighboring houses. The neighboring houses are actually taller. So that was one of the things that Don was pretty happy with was willing to give up going even a higher here to get lake views and just wanted some space for friends and family to come crash in the basement , but not just be lit by window wells and things like that. MR. HENKEL-So you’re not changing the grade. You’re not going to bring the grade up. MR. ALLISON-No. This is the existing grade. We are changing the grade in that we’re going to dig out right here. MR. HENKEL-Yes, but you’re not bringing it up. MR. ALLISON-Right. We just, a Site Plan, it’s right in this area here. It’s this little zone right here. So just this little square we’re going to dig down, put a little retaining wall in over here and here and just, that’s going to walk out and then eventually tie in to natural grade. MR. HENKEL-That’s having a whole cellar right underneath it. 18 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/22/2020) MR. ALLISON-Yes, the whole house will have a full basement. So that also gets to some of the Floor Area Ratios. More than a third of the building is actually subterranean on Floor Area Ratio counts. The permeability counts, you know, we’ve actually increased the permeability of the site by five percent. We didn’t get to 78%. Don is at a bit of a hardship because he has a Town road that goes through his site which is about seven percent. So if I were to look at that I’d say okay well 78% is what we have to get to, but the Town’s kind of forcing him to carry seven percent. We’d be at 71% then that’s all he could do in his own right, and so we’re at 65.. So in my mind what we’re requesting is about a six percent variance, and I think he’s done a pretty good job at trying to make that and we’ve actually reduced the square footage of the footprint of the building on the site by 12 square feet. So it’s kind of, I’m sorry, no, we’ve increased it by only 12 square feet. So I think that’s kind of negligible. I think it’s an appropriate design, and again really no way that you can meet the Code. I think we did a good job of meeting the intention of the Code. MR. MC CABE-So do we have questions? MR. WEBER-I have a question. I’m just trying to get the picture of where this is coming out. What is your frontage on that part of the waterfront? MR. ALLISON-Across here? MR. WEBER-Yes, down at the bottom. Because I know there’s not a lot of room. MR. ALLISON-It’s about 20 feet, and it’s kind of, you know, a lot of it is tucked in behind the boathouse and things like that. So there’s really not, this isn’t a property where you can go down there and sort of take in the great views. You’ve got to strain your neck. MR. WEBER-Yes, because I actually built a house two houses down from where you are, at 24 Russell Harris which goes down in. I’m just trying to figure out how you’re going to get that in there. MR. HENKEL-There’s no living quarters in that garage right? Because that back end looks like there’s living quarters. MR. ALLISON-No. That’s an existing garage. He’s just going to maintain it as a garage/ MR. HENKEL-I was just kind of looking around there. It looked like almost like there was some kind of living quarters in there. MR. MC CABE-Any other questions? So we do have a public hearing scheduled for this evening. So at this particular time I’m going to open the public hearing and see if anybody has input on this particular project. Okay. Seeing nobody, do we have anything written? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-Yes. So it’s kind of written. It’s, “On January21st, 2020 Staff Land Use Planner Laura Moore received a phone call from Russell Merwin at 28 Brayton Road neighbor to the property. Concern was expressed for project construction. There is little room for construction vehicles and staging, neighbor to make it clear parking in the driveways/property of the neighbors should not be allowed as there are septic systems and existing site conditions that could be damaged by construction vehicles. In addition, the concern about Brayton Road is very narrow and would not support construction vehicles and residential vehicles at the same time and the Road should not be blocked by construction vehicles. Laura Moore explained that the information would be shared with the Board.” MR. ALLISON-So I’ll talk to that a little bit. One of the things we’re actually considering with this project, it’s not a foregone conclusion, but we’re actually looking at modular construction, which, for one reason greatly reduces the amount of people you have to have on site at one time. It may get built standard construction. We’re not sure yet, but, you know, we’ve looked at this a little bit because we certainly don’t want any, you know, construction vehicles other than the ones that are required to be there at that time on the actual, they would be parking and staging back here across the road on his property, either in the driveway or in this area back in here. So I think there’s plenty of space for that, and that’s one thing that we’d make out. MR. HENKEL-Probably with a modular you’d need a crane. That would be quite a few pieces. MR. ALLISON-Yes. You’d set this house in one day, though. You’d be in and out in a day, and those guys always are staging from roadways. They have to get permits to do that. So it’s no different than it would be if you were in Downtown Glens Falls or Queensbury. MR. MC CABE-So anything else, Roy? MR. URRICO-No, that’s it. 19 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/22/2020) MR. MC CABE-So at this particular time I’m going to close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MC CABE-And I’m going to poll the Board, and I’m going to start with Jim. MR. UNDERWOOD-I think that we have to be careful on this one here because I think if we were looking at a blank lot with nothing built on it I think all of us would probably have a very difficult time approving anything other than a small cottage here, and I think the situation is very similar to what we have over at Takundewide, you know, where we have very small lots, postage stamp sized lots. I think that, you know, even though you presented this and it seems reasonable, I think because you’re at 29% in your Floor Area Ratio and I think that because you’re , even though you’re not going to be over height per se with the natural grade on the site here, I think you’re still trying to pack a lot on to this small site. I think we need to keep in mind the fact that you don’t have any place to have on site wastewater. You’ve got to have a holding tank. You only have 20 feet of frontage down on the lake, and if this were any empty lot it would never be approved for anything to be built on. MR. ALLISON-Just one point of clarity there. We are not a holding tank. We’re a full septic system. There is no holding tank designed. MR. MC CABE-So, Jim, you’re saying no? MR. UNDERWOOD-I’m saying no. MR. MC CABE-Catherine? MRS. HAMLIN-I agree to an extent, yes, I think there’s a little too much going on on this small site. I certainly know that we need to compromise somewhere along the line, but they could go back and reduce, I’m concerned about the FAR, that that could be reduced down. I don’t think there’s much you can do about permeability at this point. That’s a big jump in floor area. MR. MC CABE-Michelle? MRS. HAYWARD-I’m also in agreement. I’m not supportive of this project as it’s proposed. Because of all the setbacks and the floor area ratio and the height altogether. I think a much smaller project would fit the character of the neighborhood much better than this. MR. MC CABE-John? MR. HENKEL-There’s no doubt it’s a tough lot to build a house on. I don’t have a whole lot of problem with the setbacks but I’d probably have a little bit of a problem with the Floor Area Ratio as far as the 905 feet over the allowable. So I would definitely think a smaller house should be built there. So I would not be in favor of this as is. MR. MC CABE-Roy? MR. URRICO-I hate to pile on, but I agree with my fellow Board members. I think we need to take a look at the height and the floor area and see if we can reduce those two mainly. I’m okay with most of the setbacks. MR. MC CABE-And, John. MR. WEBER-I haven’t had an opportunity, since this is my first meeting, to go over there. So I think I’ll just pass on this. MR. MC CABE-Okay. I guess I’m probably the lone one in favor of it. I think that the applicant has done a really good job with not so much to work with. I don’t have a problem with the setbacks, and I originally had a problem with the height, but when the height was clarified, that went away. I guess I’m a little skittish with the floor area, but again that’s not out of line with other projects that we’ve approved on this small a lot. So I would favor the project, but I stand alone on this. So you’ve got choices here. You can call for a vote, but it doesn’t sound like you’re going to make out very well, , or you could ask for the project to be tabled and go back and look at perhaps reducing the size of the project somewhat. It looks like probably floor area ratio would be the main item. MR. ALLISON-Yes, I think I’d like to table it. MR. MC CABE-For how long? 20 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/22/2020) th MRS. MOORE-So our next meeting, they would have to submit by February 15 to be on a March agenda. MR. ALLISON-We can submit by then. MR. MC CABE-Okay. So, John, we’ll do March. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Don Bernard. Applicant proposes to demolish an existing 1,048 sq. ft. home (footprint) to construct a new home of 1,060 sq. ft. with a floor area of 3,711 sq. ft. Project includes site work for landscaping and stormwater. Relief is sought for setbacks, height & floor area. Site Plan and Freshwater wetland—new floor area in a CEA. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 61-2019 DON BERNARD, Introduced by John Henkel who moved for its adoption, seconded by Catherine Hamlin: th Tabled to the March 18th, 2020 meeting with paperwork to be submitted by February 17, 2020. nd Duly adopted this 22 day of January, 2020, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Weber, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. Henkel, Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl MR. MC CABE-So we’ll see you back here in a couple of months. MR. ALLISON-Okay. Thank you. MR. MC CABE-So I’ve got a couple of things to go over. So the first item is, to help the Town out, they’ve asked if we’d pick up our packets instead of having them mailed to us. So you guys would e-mail us when the packets are ready and we’d pick them up downstairs rather than having the packets mailed. MRS. DWYRE-Yes. MR. MC CABE-You’ll still mail out Staff Notes? MRS. DWYRE-Yes. MR. HENKEL-The only problem with that is like it’s got to be at least a week ahead. I can’t get there during the week, other than the Monday before. MRS. MOORE-So it’s difficult for you. MR. HENKEL-Difficult for me. MR. UNDERWOOD-I think if we set a regular date like say the first week of the month, end of the first week of the month if they were ready by then. th MRS. MOORE-So let me explain a little bit. They come in on the 15 of the month typically or the day, depending on when it falls, or the day after. So then I go through that information and then packets are assembled. We do final agenda in the two weeks that there’s Board meetings and after the final agenda then those packets are put together. So it is typically the first week, pretty much by that first Friday. So you’d probably have almost a week before the meetings to look at that, but again, if you end up saying I’m not going to make it and you know ahead of time, those packets can be mailed, but just, you know, the idea is to reduce the postage cost. MR. HENKEL-And I understand that. Sue used to call me ahead and say, hey, it’s ready, come pick it up and I would pick it up on that one day. MR. MC CABE-So the other thing I want to bring up is e-mails, and if anybody’s using a personal e-mail, that could be a problem because if we get a FOIL, then your personal e-mail becomes part of the FOIL. So it’s better if you’re using a Town e-mail address to get information from Staff. MR. URRICO-I’m okay not getting the packet mailed to me. I’m okay looking on line. MRS. MOORE-On line. Okay. That’s what I’ve been using at any rate for a while. MR. MC CABE-Okay. So we have a new member. Unfortunately he got drafted under fire tonight. 21 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/22/2020) MR. WEBER-I was on a roll until that last one. MR. MC CABE-So that’s all right. The last one was a little. So some of you, this is John Weber. So some of you have to re-do your oath. So that would be Jim. MR. UNDERWOOD-I did mine. MR. MC CABE-John. Catherine. So make sure you do that, and in particular do it before March, because that’s when we’re going to have the cell tower case. MRS. MOORE-Okay. Yes. MR. MC CABE-So, again, the cell tower case, no matter which way we go, is probably going to be litigated. So we want to make sure that we have all our ducks in a row, so to speak, and, you know it’s going to be a difficult decision, and again, somebody’s not going to be happy, and there’s lawyers involved in both sides. So I suspect that we’re going to be facing some sort of litigation there. So it’s a Use Variance, but it’s a different Use Variance. There are three criteria and you have to answer each of the three criteria and it can’t be I agree or I disagree. You have to give the reasons why. So you can’t say I agree with my fellow Board members. You have to address each of the criteria and you have to give specific reasons why you think that that criteria was met or not met. If we do that, then that’s as good as we can do. The other thing is that we don’t have to make a motion that night. We can postpone it for 60 days, but I don’t see any value in doing that. We’re going to have to make a decision one way or another. The other thing I thought about was bringing in our lawyer, but he’s going to say give reasons for your, you know, why you don’t believe that they met each of the criteria. So I think that we’re all capable of doing that and so just be prepared. There can’t be anything, I agree with so and so you’ve got to state your own opinions. MR. URRICO-I think it would be helpful to get Mark Schachner in here beforehand at least to give us some ideas of what some of the cases that have been coming up recently, because everybody goes back to the, was it the 1966 case study, and that, it’s 20 something years now since that came about. It would be nice to hear what’s going on more recently. MR. HENKEL-We had that a few years ago where we met him before. MR. MC CABE-Yes, except that, you know, what he says is make sure you give reasons for all of your, I mean we can request that he do a talk for us, but it almost always comes down to your. MR. UNDERWOOD-You can’t bring up this case, though. MR. MC CABE-That’s right. He can’t tell us. MR. URRICO-No, he can’t bring up this case, but he can talk to us about similar cases that have come up. MR. MC CABE-Well, I’m going to guess that there’s probably not too many similar case. MR. URRICO-It sounds like they’ve been at it before, these two attorney teams. They sounded familiar to each other and it sounded like they’ve battled before over a similar case. I’d like to know what took place. MRS. MOORE-I mean it is something that we can ask Mark to give us some purview, an overview of what today’s cases are. MR. URRICO-How would it hurt? I mean the more information we have. MRS. MOORE-And so he can either do that by coming in with us or actually writing a memo back to you. MR. MC CABE-So you’ll investigate that, then? MRS. MOORE-I will look into it and see what he can come up with. MR. MC CABE-Okay. So also we’ve got to make sure, we all have to do four hours of training this year. th The first opportunity is February 5 down in Saratoga. I usually go to that. Jim usually goes to it. It’s a pretty worthwhile presentation. MR. HENKEL-What day is that on? th MRS. MOORE-It’s Wednesday, February 5. MR. MC CABE-It’s a Wednesday. And then you guys usually go to the one at the Sagamore. That’s coming up in April. Laura, are you speaking at that? 22 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/22/2020) MRS. MOORE-I’m not speaking this year at either of them. MRS. HAMLIN-Is that Planning Federation? MRS. MOORE-Correct. MR. UNDERWOOD-I think one question you could ask Mark is about co-location of secondary antennas because I think, you know, we have four antennas in the neighborhood. You have the one down, the bible, the church tower down there that now has microwave on it, down at the end of Glen Lake. You have the Municipal Center. You have the County communications for the Sheriff’s Department. You have this one on the corner of 149, and now we have this fourth one being proposed co-located with that one. MRS. MOORE-So the applicant’s responsible for some of that information to share back with the Board, and both Boards sort of gave them that direction that they wanted additional information about why they couldn’t do X, Y, and Z. So I think that that’s something that is forthcoming to this Board. MR. UNDERWOOD-Because I think, you know, like in the case of Prospect Mountain where you have multiple towers up there. You have probably 10 towers up on top of the mountain. So are we under any obligation to provide 10 towers on this corner? I mean I don’t know what the legal ramifications of that are, you know, where does it end with one or multiple automatically. MR. MC CABE-Okay. So the other thing is we’re all going to make motions. John has trouble with the full motion so he’s going to do our smaller motions. He’ll do all of our SEQR, all of our meeting minutes, and all of our tabling, and then the rest of us will do the other motions. So, I mean it used to be a little bit more of a chore, but the Staff Notes provide us with a really nice outline, and just so you understand it, our stenographer basically has a template, and so when you’re making a motion, what’s important is just to give the number, AV 61-2019. You don’t have to give Don Bernard. You don’t have to give the address or anything like that. You don’t have to give what we’re approving unless it’s different from what’s in the Staff Notes here. She’ll just pick that up off of our Staff Notes. So basically what you have to do is say public hearing was held, was advertised and held, based on the results of that public hearing we find that, and then address each of five criteria, and you should give a specific reason for at least two. You don’t have to give a specific reason for all five, but you should give a specific reason for two. It’s a nicer looking structure so it’s going to improve the neighborhood or it’s going to do something to improve the environment, something like that. You don’t have to give a reason for each one, but a solid reason for at least two, and if it’s contentious maybe a third one, and then the important thing is that you find that the variance, the request under consideration is the minimum necessary. So that’s in essence it. You don’t have to give a real long explanation. Because she’ll pick all that up from the template. So you just have to provide a little fill in the information. So we’re all going to take part in that. And that’s all I’ve got. MR. URRICO-That’s for the Area Variance, though. MR. MC CABE-For an Area Variance. A Sign Variance is similar. A Use Variance is a little different. You have to meet all the criteria for a Use Variance. So that’ll be the situation with the cell tower. They have to meet, but there’s only three. Normally there are MRS. MOORE-Cell towers are a little bit different. Just remember cell towers are different. MR. MC CABE-Right. MRS. MOORE-Even as a Use Variance. MR. MC CABE-Right. It’s a public utility. So it’s a Use Variance, which normally have four criteria, but this Use Variance only has three. MRS. MOORE-Right. And my understanding is that you don’t need to meet all the criteria like you do for a Use Variance on a non-cell tower. So you still have to address the comments, but you don’t have to find, I don’t know how to say it, just not in favor of it, but you don’t have to find positive on all three elements that I’m aware of. MR. MC CABE-You better check on that, because I think you do have to have all three. MRS. MOORE-I will ask him. MR. HENKEL-When’s this one coming up? MRS. MOORE-It will be coming up in March. MR. MC CABE-So with that I make a motion that we close tonight’s meeting. 23 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/22/2020) MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING OF ND JANUARY 22, 2020, Introduced by Michael McCabe who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Henkel: nd Duly adopted this 22 day of January, 2020, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Henkel, Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Weber, Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Michael McCabe, Chairman 24