Loading...
02-19-2020 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/19/2020) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 19, 2020 INDEX Area Variance No. 3-2020 Aftab Sam Bhatti 1. Tax Map No. 302.5-1-51 Area Variance No. 4-2020 Manfred Unkauf & Joan McGrath 3. Tax Map No. 290.10-1-7 Area Variance No. 5-2020 Thomas Heinzelman 5. Tax Map No. 289.7-1-19 Sign Variance No. 3-2020 1454 State Route 9, LLC 7. Tax Map No. 288.12-1-21 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 02/19/2020) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 19, 2020 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT MICHAEL MC CABE, CHAIRMAN JAMES UNDERWOOD, VICE CHAIRMAN ROY URRICO, SECRETARY CATHERINE HAMLIN MICHELLE HAYWARD JOHN HENKEL JOHN WEBER, ALTERNATE MEMBERS ABSENT RONALD KUHL LAND USE PLANNER-LAURA MOORE STENOGRAPHER-KAREN DWYRE MR. MC CABE-So I’d like to open tonight’s meeting of the Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals. Just for safety’s sake, there’s exits in the back that most of you came in through. There’s two doors on the east side here and there’s a door on the south side in the far corner. If you’ve not been here before, our procedure is kind of simple. There should be an agenda on the back table. We’ll call each application up to the table. We’ll read the application into the record. We’ll question the applicant. If a public hearing is indicated, then we’ll open the public hearing, look for input from the public. Then we’ll poll the Board to see what their feelings are and we’ll go from there. Tonight although we have kind of an unusual situation. We did not get our notice into the paper in time to hold public hearings. So therefore we can’t make any decisions tonight. So what we’ll do is we’ll read the application into the record. We’ll allow the applicant th to present their case, ask questions of the applicant and then we’ll table the application until March 18. MR. URRICO-So there won’t be any public hearing tonight. MR. MC CABE-There’ll be no public hearings tonight because they weren’t advertised in time. So first I have a bit of administrative business. So I’m going to look for a motion to approve the minutes of January nd 22. APPROVAL OF MINUTES January 22, 2020 MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING MINUTES OF JANUARY 22, 2020, Introduced by John Henkel who moved for its adoption, seconded by Michelle Hayward: th Duly adopted this 19 day of February, 2020, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Underwood, Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. Weber, Mr. Henkel, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Urrico, Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl MR. MC CABE-So our first application is Area Variance AV 3-2020. NEW BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 3-2020 SEQRA TYPE TYPE II AFTAB SAM BHATTI OWNER(S) AFTAB SAM BHATTI ZONING CI LOCATION 547 AVIATION ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO UPDATE THE EXISTING QUALITY INN MOTEL TO ENCLOSE A 288 SQ. FT. SUNROOM OFF OF POOL AREA. THE PROJECT INCLUDES CONSTRUCTION OF A 240 SQ. FT. COVERED PORCH ADDITION TO REAR OF MOTEL. THE SITE CONTAINS TWO LODGING ESTABLISHMENTS THAT SHARE PARKING AND ACCESS ON AVIATION ROAD. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR FAR AND SETBACKS. CROSS REF SP 5-2020; SP 71-2019; SP 82-2019 2 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/19/2020) WARREN COUNTY PLANNING FEBRUARY 2020 LOT SIZE 10.31 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 290.10-1-7 SECTION 179-5-020 AFTAB SAM BHATTI, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 3-2020, Aftab Sam Bhatti, Meeting Date: February 19, 2020 “Project Location: 547 Aviation Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to update the existing Quality Inn motel to enclose a 288 sq. ft. sunroom off of pool area. The project includes construction of a 240 sq. ft. covered porch addition to rear of motel. The site contains two lodging establishments that share parking and access on Aviation Road. Relief requested for FAR and setbacks. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for FAR and setbacks. Section 179-3-040 Dimensional Requirements and Section 179-4-080 Porches, Canopies and Decks The application proposes to enclose an existing open deck area to the side of the building for the interior pool area. The deck area is to be 20 ft. 5 in. where a 75 ft. setback is required. Relief is also required for Floor area where 30% is required and 43.5 % is proposed (41688) and 42.9% (41160) is existing. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination, the board shall consider: 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. Minor to no impacts to the neighborhood character may be anticipated. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. Feasible alternatives may be considered limited as the existing open deck is not compliant to the front setback. Feasible alternatives for floor area would be to have an open porch or deck area. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief may be considered moderate relevant to the code. The relief requested on the front property line is 54.5 ft. and Floor area is 12.9% in access. 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 environmental conditions of the area. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-created. Staff comments: The applicant proposes to enclose an existing 288 sq. ft. open deck for the existing indoor pool to have access to a covered porch/sunroom. The rear porch addition of 240 sq. ft. is also for patrons to have a covered area to be out of the bad weather. The applicant has indicated there are no other site changes for the Quality Inn.” MR. MC CABE-State your name for the record, please. MR. BHATTI-My name is Aftab Sam Bhatti and I’m proposing a 288 square foot enclosed sunroom over an existing porch and adding a new 240 square foot porch canopy covered at the rear of the building. MR. MC CABE-Anything additionally that you think we should be aware of? MR. BHATTI-No. MR. MC CABE-So do we have questions of the applicant? MR. HENKEL-I guess the only question is that you’re looking at way over the FAR variance obviously. You’re, what, 12,000 feet over the FAR variance? MR. MC CABE-Well, but it’s really no different. MR. HENKEL-But he’s going to add another 200 some odd feet to the above. 3 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/19/2020) MR. MC CABE-So do we have other questions? So, John, can I have a motion to table this? MR. URRICO-What about the recommendation from the Town Planning Board. MRS. MOORE-You could read that into the record, yes. MR. URRICO-The Planning Board made a motion, a recommendation on behalf of the Planning Board to the Zoning Board of Appeals for this Area Variance and based on its limited review they did not identify any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with the current project proposal. And that was th adopted February 18, 2020 by a unanimous vote. MR. MC CABE-So could we have a motion to table this application? MR. HENKEL-Yes. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Aftab Sam Bhatti. Applicant proposes to update the existing Quality Inn motel to enclose a 288 sq. ft. sunroom off of pool area. The project includes construction of a 240 sq. ft. covered porch addition to rear of motel. The site contains two lodging establishments that share parking and access on Aviation Road. Relief requested for FAR and setbacks. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 3-2020 AFTAB SAM BHATTI, Introduced by John Henkel who moved for its adoption, seconded by Michael McCabe: th Tabled to the March 18, 2020 Zoning Board of Appeals meeting. th Duly adopted this 19 day of February 2020, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Hayward, Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. Weber, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Urrico, Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl th MR. MC CABE-So sorry about that. So you’ll have to come back on the 18. MR. BHATTI-Thank you. MR. MC CABE-So our next application is AV 4-2020. AREA VARIANCE NO. 4-2020 SEQRA TYPE TYPE II MANFRED UNKAUF & JOAN MC GRATH OWNER(S) MANFRED UNKAUF & JOAN MC GRATH ZONING RR-3A LOCATION 38 HILAND DRIVE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO REMOVE AN 864 SQ. FT. GARAGE TO CONSTRUCT A 1,680 S. FT. NEW GARAGE WITH SECOND STORY. THE PROPOSED GARAGE TO BE USED FOR VEHICLE AND HOUSEHOLD STORAGE AS WELL AS WORKSHOP AREA. SITE HAS AN EXISTING ATTACHED GARAGE TO THE HOME AND A 672 SQ. FT. GARAGE/WOODSHED STORAGE BUILDING. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR NUMBER OF GARAGES. CROSS REF N/A WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 10.31 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 290.10-1-7 SECTION 179-5-020 MANFRED UNKAUF & JOAN MC GRATH, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 4-2020, Manfred Unkauf & Joan McGrath, Meeting Date: February 19, 2020 “Project Location: 38 Hiland Drive Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to remove an 864 sq. ft. garage to construct a 1,680 sq. ft. new garage with second story. The proposed garage to be used for vehicle and household storage as well as workshop area. Site has an existing attached garage to the home and a 672 sq. ft. garage/woodshed storage building. Relief requested for number of garages. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for number of garages. Section 179-5-020 – Garages The applicant proposes to remove an existing detached garage and construct a new garage where the applicant has three garages already. One attached to the home, one woodshed, and a detached garage. 4 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/19/2020) 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 as the parcel is 10.31 ac. 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 as the applicant would like to maintain all three garages for different uses – attached garage for vehicles, woodshed, and detached garage. (Noting the door width is 6 ft. or greater, the buildings are then treated as garages.) 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief may be considered substantial relevant to the code. Relief is requested to have three garages where only one garage 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 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 3 garages on an existing 10 +acre parcel. The plan shows the location of the three garages.” MR. MC CABE-Would you state your name for the record, please. MR. UNKAUF-Yes. I’m Manfred Unkauf and this is my wife, Joan McGrath. Just to give you a little bit of history, the house was built about 40 years ago. We bought it about 20 years ago as a vacation home and with our primary residence being in Massachusetts. We’ve since decided recently that we prefer to live up here. So we plan to make this our permanent home. That’s fine. It was fine as a vacation home, but we also have some hobbies we’d like to bring up here. Unfortunately the house as it was built was all finished inside and there’s really no storage room or extra utility rooms. So basically we have already hobbies including my metal working shop and woodworking shop, my repairing antiques and Joan’s sewing room and all the materials that go with it that needs something on the order of 1600 additional square feet at least, and so we decided that perhaps the best thing to do would be to make one of the garage buildings larger. The house has had three garage buildings pretty much since it was built40 years ago and frankly I was surprised when I came in. I thought I was going to ask for a variance to make a building bigger but it turns out the variance is because we have three garages. We would still have three garages if the variance is granted as we did before. The only difference is that one of them would be somewhat bigger and be able to accommodate two vehicles instead of one. We have the need for seven parking places that includes the five cars that we now have, ourselves and my friends and our grandson, and the place for the tractor that we use for maintaining the property and then one additional space for a guest which would be an uncovered one. It snows a lot up here and it’s getting difficult for us to do snow removal unless we have all the cars off the driveway, but once we do that, we think that will work out pretty well for us. We’ll have all our hobbies and we’ll be very happy living up here. MR. MC CABE-Thank you. Any questions of the applicant? MRS. HAMLIN-I would like to clarify. I visited your site. Now which one of the two garages is the one that’s coming down, the one with the wood inside? MR. UNKAUF-No. The one with the wood, that’s the garage wood shop. That’s the one that’s staying. It’s not really a closed in garage. Animals, raccoons, whatever can get in there very easily. So it’s fine as a woodshed and storage temporarily of some garden equipment. We’ll take off the garage with the greenhouse attached. The greenhouse never really worked for us. It’s falling apart and it’s very high humidity. So our plan is to take it down and put up a barn looking structure which I believe is in there that I think will look much nicer with the same type of siding as the main house and the same type of roofing as the main house instead of the tin roof which is also rusting at this point. So the building as it stands would need major rehab and even if we did that, it really wouldn’t satisfy our needs. It would be far too small. 5 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/19/2020) MR. HENKEL-I have a question. Why is there a need for there to be a second story on that, if you’re just looking for garage space and not? MR. UNKAUF-There’s a need for, the two downstairs garage doors or units would be for the workshop. One would be for metalworking. The other one would be for woodworking. If I do metalworking in the woodworking shop I’ll have greasy fingerprints all over the nice wood. If I do woodworking in the metalworking shop I’ll have sawdust on all of the machines. So I’d like to keep those two separate. Upstairs we need a place to store my wife’s materials, a lot of expensive fabrics that need to be in a fairly well protected area with air conditioning as well as heat, using the heat pump in the future. That’s what we have now in Massachusetts and that works out very well for us. MR. HENKEL-This looks like it’s kind of, you’ve got a deck coming out of a second story almost like you’re trying to make that a living space. MR. UNKAUF-Correct. We probably will forget about the deck. The only purpose of the deck was a place to load heavier items that would go upstairs and I would use either the forklift attachment on my tractor or I have another small forklift that would be able to lift up to that deck and put it in, but the more I think about it I probably will forego the deck and just simply be able to put it into that door on top, which is what we have in Massachusetts. MR. HENKEL-So you’re going to lift it over a railing. You’ve got a railing on that deck and everything. It would be kind of strange to be lifting it. It wouldn’t make sense. MR. UNKAUF-Yes. There was initially a thought of trying to minimize the driveway on that side. Otherwise I’d need just a little bit more room to turn around to be able to put the forklift into the door, but actually that’s a lot easier if I do that. I can put something right in there as opposed to putting it up on the deck and then having to. MR. HENKEL-That makes sense. MR. MC CABE-Other questions? So could I have a motion to table this application? The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Manfred Unkauf & Joan McGrath. Applicant proposes to remove an 864 sq. ft. garage to construct a 1,680 sq. ft. new garage with second story. The proposed garage to be used for vehicle and household storage as well as workshop area. Site has an existing attached garage to the home and a 672 sq. ft. garage/woodshed storage building. Relief requested for number of garages. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 4-2020 MANFRED UNKAUF & JOAN MC GRATH, Introduced by John Henkel who moved for its adoption, seconded by Michael McCabe: Tabled to the March 18, 2020 Zoning Board of Appeals meeting. th Duly adopted this 19 day of February 2020, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Underwood, Mrs. Hayward, Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. Weber, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Urrico, Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl th MR. MC CABE-Sorry about that. So we’ll see you March 18. Our next application is AV 5-2020. AREA VARIANCE NO. 5-2020 SEQRA TYPE TYPE II THOMAS HEINZELMAN AGENT(S) HUTCHINS ENGINEERING & CURT DYBAS OWNER(S) THOMAS HEINZELMAN ZONING WR LOCATION 52 REARDON ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO DEMO EXISTING HOME TO CONSTRUCT A NEW HOME WITH 1,510 SQ. FT. FOOTPRINT AND A 2,604 SQ. FT. FLOOR AREA. SITE WORK INCLUDES GRADING, STORMWATER, LANDSCAPING, WELL AND SEPTIC. PROJECT SUBJECT TO SITE PLAN FOR NEW FLOOR AREA IN A CEA. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR PERMEABILITY AND SETBACKS. CROSS REF SP 8-2020 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 0.29 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 289.7-1-19 SECTION 179- 3-040 LUCAS DOBIE & CURT DYBAS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 5-2020, Thomas Heinzelman, Meeting Date: February 19, 2020 “Project Location: 52 Reardon Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to demo 6 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/19/2020) existing home to construct a new home with 1,510 sq. ft. footprint and a 2,604 sq. ft. floor area. Site work includes grading, stormwater, landscaping, well, and septic. Project subject to Site Plan for new floor area in a CEA. Relief requested for permeability and setbacks. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for permeability and setbacks. Section 179-3-040 Dimensional requirements. The applicant proposes a new home where the open deck is to be located 38.3 ft. where a 50 ft. setback is required. The permeability is proposed to be 58.6 % where 75% is required and 62.6% is existing. 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 as the home is in a similar location. 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 to location due to the lot shape. There may be feasibility to reduce the permeability to existing conditions however, the driveway is shared with the neighboring property. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief may be considered minimal relevant to the code. Relief for the deck setback is 11.7 ft. and permeability is 16.4%. 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 construct a new home on the site with associated site work. The plans show the location of the proposed deck. The applicant previously had a variance for the existing deck to be at the proposed setback. The plans also show the location of the shared driveway that is to remain.” MR. URRICO-The Planning Board made a recommendation that based on its limited review did not identify any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with the current project proposal and th that motion was adopted and passed February 18, 2020 and that was a unanimous vote as well. MR. MC CABE-Welcome. State your name for the record, please. MR. DOBIE-Good evening, Mr. Chairman, Board. And Staff. Thanks for having us. For the record Lucas Dobie with Hutchins Engineering and with us tonight is the applicant Tom Heinzelman and architect Curt Dybas. It’s a project that we’re proud to be a part of. It’s about a 1,000 or 1500 from my home. So we’re re-developing the neighborhood nicely and Mr. Heinzelman was the athletic director when I was in high school in Hudson Falls. We’ve known each other for 25 years. He owns a relatively old camp. I think it’s from the 40’s or 50’s. It’s tired and he’s looking to re-develop the property and the coach has worked with Curt through the summer and actually for several years on and off on tuning in the house plan. We feel we have a nice efficient layout that’s not obtrusive on the lot by any means. It meets our floor area ratio and what we’re asking for is to re-construct holding the plane of the existing deck which is at 38 feet which he received a variance in 2004 to construct. So our logic is to hold that plane of the deck with our new deck and construct the home outside of the 50 feet. So we’d have to re-affirm that 30 foot shoreline variance as part of the application and then as with so many of the lots around Glen Lake we’re already non-conforming in our permeability so we’re asking to add 465 square feet of additional site coverage on it, which we’ve shaved the driveway, tried to claw back a little bit of green space where we can. So we don’t think it’s too terrible of a request, and we’re providing a brand new septic system on the southerly lot which Mr. Heinzelman’s a part owner in and a new well so it’ll improve the site conditions and health for himself and his family considerably and provide new stormwater management as well for the project. Again, it’s a relatively small lot, typical of Glen Lake, just under 12,000 square feet. It’s a little bit wider. It has 69 feet of frontage. So we do have a little room to work and we’re happy with the home layout and 7 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/19/2020) we’re here to ask for those variances and we understand that that will be tabled. So we’ll be happy to answer any questions from the Board and anticipate coming back next month. MR. MC CABE-So do we have questions of the applicant? No questions? So could I have a motion to table this application. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Thomas Heinzelman. Applicant proposes to demo existing home to construct a new home with 1,510 sq. ft. footprint and a 2,604 sq. ft. floor area. Site work includes grading, stormwater, landscaping, well, and septic. Project subject to Site Plan for new floor area in a CEA. Relief requested for permeability and setbacks. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 5-2020 THOMAS HEINZELMAN, Introduced by John Henkel who moved for its adoption, seconded by Michael McCabe: Tabled to the March 18, 2020 Zoning Board of Appeals meeting. th Duly adopted this 19 day of February 2020, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Hamlin, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Weber, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl MR. MC CABE-Sorry about that. We’ll see you in March. MR. DOBIE-Okay. Thank you. MR. MC CABE-So now we have application SV 3-2020. SIGN VARIANCE NO. 3-2020 SEQRA TYPE UNLISTED 1454 STATE ROUTE 9, LLC AGENT(S) HUTCHINS ENGINEERING OWNER(S) 1454 STATE ROUTE 9, LLC ZONING CI LOCATION 1454 STATE ROUTE 9 APPLICANT PROPOSES TO REPLACE A 130 SQ. FT. SIGN WITH A 59.75 SQ. FT. SIGN. SIGN TO ADVERTISE TENANTS FOR NEW COMMERCIAL BUILDING AND EXISTING LODGING. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR SETBACK REQUIREMENTS FOR A FREESTANDING SIGN. CROSS REF SP 65-2019; SP 35-2018; CC 23-2020; CC 800-2019; DEMO 793-2019 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING FEBRUARY 2020 LOT SIZE 3.4 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 288.12-1-21 SECTION 179-3-040 DAVID KENNY & LAURA KOHLS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Sign Variance No. 3-2020, 1454 State Route 9, LLC, Meeting Date: February 19, 2020 “Project Location: 1454 State Route 9, LLC Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to replace a 130 sq. ft. sign with a 59.75 sq. ft. sign. Sign to advertise tenants for new commercial building and existing lodging. Relief requested for setback requirements for a freestanding sign. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for setback requirements for a freestanding sign. Section 140 – Signs. The applicant proposes a 59.75 sq. ft. sign at 5 ft. 9 in. setback where a 25 ft. setback is required. 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 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 limited due to the design of the existing parking lot and building to be constructed. 8 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/19/2020) 3. Whether the requested sign variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered substantial relevant to the code. Relief is requested for 19 ft. 3 in. for the previous signage location. 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 to no 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 applicant proposes a 59.75 sq. ft. free standing sign which contains the space for multiple tenants. The plans show the location of the sign and the sign type. The applicant has indicated the sign is an upgrade to the existing sign on site.” MR. MC CABE-Good evening. MS. KOHLS-Hi. MR. KENNY-Good evening. MR. MC CABE-State your name for the record, please. MR. KENNY-I am David Kenny. This is my daughter Laura Kohls. MS. KOHLS-Laura Kohls. MR. KENNY-We’re the owners of the property. The existing sign is there. MR. KOHLS-It has been for 40 years that we’ve owned the property. MR. KENNY-It has been for 40 years since we’ve owned the property. We’re taking it down and replacing it with a sign half that size. The setback is where it’s at now. We’re replacing it in the same location. There really is no other site on this site, and one of the issues here is at one time it was in compliance, and the State came in and took 15 feet of our property. MR. MC CABE-So, yes, that’s pretty common all along Route 9. MR. KENNY-On that side of the road. They didn’t take it off the other side. When they expanded the highway, which was fine. It was a good thing. It wasn’t a bad thing. It just makes the sign closer to the road, closer to the property line I should say. MR. MC CABE-So do we have any questions of the applicant? So I’/m going to ask for a motion to table this application. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from 1454 State Route 9, LLC. Applicant proposes to replace a 130 sq. ft. sign with a 59.75 sq. ft. sign. Sign to advertise tenants for new commercial building and existing lodging. Relief requested for setback requirements for a freestanding sign. MOTION TO TABLE SIGN VARIANCE NO. 3-2020 1454 STATE ROUTE 9, LLC, Introduced by John Henkel who moved for its adoption, seconded by Michael McCabe: Tabled to the March 18, 2020 Zoning Board of Appeals meeting. th Duly adopted this 19 day of February 2020, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Weber, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood, Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. Henkel, Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl MR. MC CABE-I’m sorry about that. MR. KENNY-No problem. MR. MC CABE-So do you expect a bunch of people to come and compliant? 9 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/19/2020) MS. KOHLS-I would hope not. I would think they would be happy with it. MR. KENNY-Thank you. MR. MC CABE-So that’s our show for this evening. So anything to add from Staff? MRS. MOORE-I have no comments, but thank you. MR. MC CABE-So that’s the best we can do. So I’ll make a motion that we adjourn tonight’s meeting. MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING OF FEBRUARY 19, 2020, Introduced by Michael McCabe who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roy Urrico: th Duly adopted this 19 day of February, 2020, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Weber, Mrs. Hamlin, Mrs. Hayward, MR. McCabe NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Michael McCabe, Chairman 10