Loading...
05-20-2020 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/20/2020) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING MAY 20, 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 4. Tax Map No. 290.10-1-7 Area Variance No. 5-2020 Thomas Heinzelman 7. Tax Map No. 289.7-1-19 Sign Variance No. 3-2020 1454 State Route 9, LLC 11. Tax Map No. 288.12-1-21 Sign Variance No. 5-2020 Saxton Signs (Starbuck’s) 14. Tax Map No. 288.12-1-21 Sign Variance No. 4-2020 Teresa Jones 19. Tax Map No. 296.17-1-36 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 05/20/2020) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING MAY 20, 2020 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT MICHAEL MC CABE, CHAIRMAN JAMES UNDERWOOD, VICE CHAIRMAN ROY URRICO, SECRETARY JOHN HENKEL MICHELLE HAYWARD CATHERINE HAMLIN RONALD KUHL LAND USE PLANNER-LAURA MOORE STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. MC CABE-I would like to open tonight’s Zoning Board of Appeals meeting. Tonight’s meeting is a little different. We would ask only one person represent an applicant unless it is absolutely necessary to have more than one. Please wipe the microphone and table after you leave the table and throw the wipe away. We have four items on the agenda for Old Business and two New Business items. I will ask for a motion to approve the meeting minutes of February 19, 2020. APPROVAL OF MINUTES February 19, 2020 MOTION TO APPROVE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 19, 2020, Introduced by John Henkel who moved for its adoption, seconded by Michelle Hayward: th Duly adopted this 20 day of May, 2020, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Henkel, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood, Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE OLD 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 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING FEBRUARY 2020 LOT SIZE 2.19 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 302.5-1-51 SECTION 179-3-040 SAM BHATTI, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 3-2020, Aftab Sam Bhatti, Meeting Date: May 20, 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 – Commercial Intensive Zone- CI 2 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/20/2020) 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-I’m going to open the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN MRS. MOORE-I’ll also note that folks that would like to call in for the public hearing can call in at 518- 761-8225, and we’d go from there. I would wait at least a minute. MR. MC CABE-Okay. So I’ll ask has anything changed since the last time you were here? MR. BHATTI-No. MR. HENKEL-And obviously there’s no entry doors or exit doors in that sunroom, other than into the pool room. MR. BHATTI-Just the pool area, yes. MR. HENKEL-Is that any kind of fire hazard or problem with that not having an exit door? I would imagine that was handled by, that’s not a problem? MRS. MOORE-I’m sorry, what did you ask? MR. HENKEL-I was just, you know, that’s not a problem having no exit there on that addition? MRS. MOORE-On that addition? That would be in regards to Building and Codes, and really there’s no closed door to that addition of the sunroom. It’s an open walkway. MR. HENKEL-Okay. MR. MC CABE-So when you leave I’m going to ask if you’d wipe down the area and take your wipes with you. MRS. MOORE-There’s a garbage can next to the table. MR. MC CABE-Okay. I see. Yes. MRS. MOORE-Okay, Mr. Chairman. 3 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/20/2020) MR. MC CABE-Okay. At this time 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 Michelle. MRS. HAYWARD-I was in favor at our last meeting so I continue to be in favor of this application. MR. MC CABE-Ron? MR. KUHL-I think it’s straightforward. I have no issue with it. I think it’s a good project. MR. MC CABE-Roy? MR. URRICO-I’m in favor of the application. MR. MC CABE-John? MR. HENKEL-Yes, I think it’s better for the neighborhood, especially having an open deck there. The neighborhood’s pretty close in the back there. So being enclosed that’ll take care of any kind of noise problem. So I’m in favor of it. Yes. MR. MC CABE-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-They’re minor modifications . I don’t think there’s any negative aspect to this project. MR. MC CABE-Catherine, is that you down there? MRS. HAMLIN-Yes, it is. I agree they’re not asking for a lot. It will make it better for the customers. MR. MC CABE-And I have no problem with the application either. So at this particular time I’m going to ask for a motion. Ron? MR. KUHL-Yes, Mr. Chairman, I can do that. Can I make a point at this time? I was not at the original meeting, although I did read the meeting minutes. I am in favor of it. So is it okay if I make the recommendation? MR. MC CABE-Absolutely. MR. KUHL-All right. 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. 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. SEQR Type II – no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, May 20, 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: PER THE DRAFT PROVIDED BY STAFF 4 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/20/2020) 1. There is not an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood nor a detriment to nearby properties as this is a simple job of just enclosing an existing deck as a sunroom and construction of an enclosed rear porch. 2. Feasible alternatives have been presented and there are really none, and they are reasonable and have been included to minimize the request. 3. The requested variance is not substantial. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. 5. The alleged difficulty we could suggest is self-created but it’s only because he is closing in the existing deck. 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) __________ b) __________, c) 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. 3-2020 AFTAB SAM BHATTI, Introduced by Ronald Kuhl, who moved for its adoption, seconded by James Underwood: th Duly adopted this 20 Day of May 2020 by the following vote: MRS. MOORE-Mr. Chairman, I’d like the motion to be amended to include the rear porch and the sunroom. Right now it just mentions the sunroom. MR. MC CABE-Okay. MR. KUHL-That’s fine. MR. MC CABE-The motion is amended as stated. AYES: Mr. Henkel, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Kuhl, Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE MR. MC CABE-Congratulations. MR. BHATTI-Thank you. MR. MC CABE-So you’re the first person that we’ve had under our new format here. MR. BHATTI-Thank you. MR. MC CABE-Thank you. MRS. MOORE-Thank you. MR. MC CABE-So our next application is Manfred Unkauf at 38 Hiland Drive, and it’s Area Variance 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 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 5 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/20/2020) 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, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 4-2020, Manfred Unkauf & Joan McGrath, Meeting Date: May 20, 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 –Rural Residential 3 acres –RR3A 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. 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-So basically the applicant proposes to remove an existing garage and construct a larger one with a second story and he’s looking for relief for number of garages. So has anything changed since the last time you were here? MR. UNKAUF-No. MR. MC CABE-So at this particular time I’m going to open the public hearing and ask if there’s anybody in the audience or anybody that would like to call in at 761-8225 to give us input on this particular application. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN MR. MC CABE-Roy, do we have anything that’s written? MR. URRICO-There’s one comment. “This is to notify you that I, Mary Jane Sotanski, residing at 21 Hiland Drive, Queensbury, NY, 12804, have no objection or concerns regarding the Area Variance that has 6 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/20/2020) been proposed for approval by Manfred Unkauf and Joan McGrath for their application proposal to remove the old garage and construct a new garage with a second story.” That’s 21 Hiland Drive. That’s all I have. MR. MC CABE-So we’ll just wait for a couple of minutes and see if anybody will call in. MRS. MOORE-Mr. Chairman, you’re all set with the public hearing. It’s been two minutes. MR. MC CABE-Okay. So at this particular time I’m going to close the public hearing and poll the Board, and I’m going to start with Catherine. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MRS. HAMLIN-Okay. I think I asked exactly the same question the last time. MR. MC CABE-Well, we’re done with the questions. So this is, you’re going to give your opinion. MRS. HAMLIN-Okay. I just wanted to be sure I was looking at the right thing. MR. MC CABE-Okay. MRS. HAMLIN-The wood shed is what’s remaining, the one with the wood? MR. UNKAUF-Yes. MRS. HAMLIN-Yes, okay. So I think I know which building it is, and I would approve it. MR. UNKAUF-And the little deck on the side, it was supposed to be a loading platform. I’m going to just eliminate that because I can load with a forklift. MRS. HAMLIN-Well it’s a large parcel and wooded. So I would have no problem. MR. MC CABE-So, John? MR. HENKEL-Yes, also it’s 10.31 acres there. They’re obviously in an RR-3A area. I would say the property warrants many accessory buildings and so I would not have a problem with it. It’s not creating any problems with setbacks or anything so I would have no problem with it. MR. MC CABE-Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes, normally I would object to this type of proposal even though the Zoning Codes does not specify acreage in terms of what’s allowed and what isn’t allowed, but I think in this case it’s a good application. I’d be in favor of it. MR. MC CABE-Ron? MR. KUHL-I agree with my previous Board members’ comments and I would have no problem. MR. MC CABE-Michelle? MRS. HAYWARD-I’m also in favor of the project. MR. MC CABE-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-I have no problem with this request. MR. MC CABE-I closed the public hearing so I’m going to ask for a motion and, Catherine, could you possibly make the motion for us? MRS. HAMLIN-Okay. 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. Relief Required: 7 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/20/2020) 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. SEQR Type II – no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, May 20, 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: PER THE DRAFT PROVIDED BY STAFF 1. There is not an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood nor a detriment to nearby properties and we have noted in particular that the site is wooded and ample. 2. Feasible alternatives might be considered, but given the minimal nature of the request it seems reasonable. 3. The requested variance is not substantial in terms of the number of garages and the way we see it some of them are not actually garages in a technical nature. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. It’s practically in the same area almost on the same footprint. 5. The alleged difficulty is self-created. 6. In addition, the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from granting the requested variance would outweigh (approval) the resulting detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community; 7. The Board also finds that the variance request under consideration is the minimum necessary; 8. The Board also proposes the following conditions: a) __________ b) __________, c) 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. 4-2020 MANFRED UNKAUF & JOAN MC GRATH, Introduced by Catherine Hamlin, who moved for its adoption, seconded by James Underwood: th Duly adopted this 20 Day of May 2020 by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Kuhl, Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Henkel, Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE MR. MC CABE-Thank you. MR. UNKAUF-Thank you. MR. MC CABE-So our next application is Area Variance 5-2020, Thomas Heinzelman, 52 Reardon Road. AREA VARIANCE NO. 5-2020 SEQRA 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 8 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/20/2020) LUCAS DOBIE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 5-2020, Thomas Heinzelman, Meeting Date: May 20, 2020 “Project Location: 52 Reardon Road Description of Proposed Project: 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. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for permeability and setbacks. Section 179-3-040 Dimensional requirements.-Waterfront Residential Zone- WR 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. MC CABE-We’re going to ask that unless you really think it’s necessary that only one of you come and present the case. You’ve actually already presented your case. So all we’re going to, unless something’s radically changed since the last time you were here. Has anything changed? MR. DOBIE-No. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just for the record, again, Lucas Dobie with Hutchins Engineering and Curt Dybas the architect and Tom Heinzelman the project sponsor and landowner. We talked about it in February. I’m just here to reaffirm our support for. MR. MC CABE-Well, what we have to do is, we didn’t have the public hearing. So we need to have a public hearing and then proceed from there. MR. DOBIE-Okay. MR. MC CABE-So at this particular time I’m going to open the public hearing and ask if there’s anybody in the audience that would like to present information on this application., and hold on just a second. Also I’m going to ask if there’s anybody who would like to call in to 761-8225 to comment on this application. So state your name for the record. 9 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/20/2020) PUBLIC HEARING OPEN PETE ROZELL MR. ROZELL-My name is Pete Rozell. I live at 47 Reardon Road which borders the west side of Mr. Heinzelman’s property. I also own property on the north side and property on the south side. I think it’s a great project. I’ve seen the drawings. I don’t think there’s going to be any negative impacts and I think you should hopefully pass this thing. MR. MC CABE-Okay. Thank you. Now I’m going to ask you to take a wipe, wipe the surface there and he microphone and then throw the wipe away when you’re done. Thank you. Is there anybody else who’d like to comment on this particular application? Roy, is there anything written? MR. URRICO-Yes. There’s several letters. One is from Seidel Claims Services, and they attached some letters. One, “We are nearby owners of Thomas Heinzelman and we urge approval of the above referenced Variance Application.” A similar letter, same wording, and this is Rachel Murray and Elizabeth Giblin. And that’s 70 Reardon Road. “Patricia Pietropaolo who lives at 60 Reardon Road stopped in the Zoning Office to state that she has no objections to the work that Thomas Heinzelman wishes to do at 52 Reardon Road.” She spoke with Maria Gagliardi and she also sent a fax in as well. And then, “We are nearby neighbors of Thomas Heinzelman. This is the same letter I read earlier. This is the Seidel Family Irrevocable Trust, and that’s 70 Reardon Road. So that’s it. MR. MC CABE-So we’ll just wait for a couple of minutes to see if anybody calls in. Okay. So at this particular time I’m going to close the public hearing and I’m going to poll the Board and I’m going to start with Michelle. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MRS. HAYWARD-Based on our discussions from our previous meeting about this and tonight’s discussion, I’m in favor. I think it’s going to be an improvement of the property and fit in with the character of the neighborhood. MR. MC CABE-John? MR. HENKEL-Yes, the pluses definitely outweigh the negatives with the septic system being 200 feet from the lake. That’s a plus. He’s going to do some stormwater management, some landscaping. It’s definitely a plus to the lake and to the neighbors. So it definitely outweighs the relief they’re asking for in the variances. So I’d definitely be on board with it. MR. MC CABE-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-I have no problem with the request. It’s a replacement and an upgrade from what’s there. The deck’s going to be essentially in the same place which is 38 feet back. That’s much further back than most of the decks on the lake. MR. MC CABE-Catherine? MRS. HAMLIN-Yes, I’m in favor. MR. MC CABE-And, Ron? MR. KUHL-Do you expect me to say no? This is another situation that we get because of the lineup of the houses, although he’s asking for relief with the 38 feet. It’s a good project, it really is. It blends in with the whole community. So I’d be in favor of it. MR. MC CABE-And I’m impressed that the applicant got so many people that live around them to approve of the project and so I, too, would okay this application. MR. URRICO-I’m in favor of the project as well. MR. MC CABE-I’m not used to this new arrangement here. So at this particular time, Jim, I’m going to ask for a motion. MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure. 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 10 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/20/2020) 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. SEQR Type II – no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, May 20, 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: PER THE DRAFT PROVIDED BY STAFF 1. There is not an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood nor a detriment to nearby properties with this proposed project. 2. Feasible alternatives this is about the only alternative you could do a replacement in kind for what’s there already. It will improve the situation with a new septic system. 3. The requested variance is not substantial because the deck will be located in the exact same setback as previously and it will be an improvement in the permeability of the project. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. All the neighbors locally and living nearby next door have approved of this project as proposed. 5. The alleged difficulty is self-created by the fact that the lot is a smaller substandard size lot that pre-exists on Glen Lake along with all the other ones on that side of the lake. 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) __________ b) __________, c) 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. 5-2020 THOMAS HEINZELMAN, Introduced by James Underwood, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Ronald Kuhl: th Duly adopted this 20 Day of May 2020 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Kuhl, Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Henkel, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE MR. MC CABE-Congratulations. MR. DOBIE-Thank you very much. MR. MC CABE-So our next application is SV 3-2020, and it’s Hutchins Engineering, 1454 State Route 9. 11 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/20/2020) 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 LAURA KOHLS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Sign Variance No. 3-2020, 1454 State Route 9, LLC, Meeting Date: May 20, 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. – Commercial Intensive Zone -CI 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. 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.” MRS. KOHLS-I’ll try not to touch anything. MR. MC CABE-Well, we’re going to ask that when you leave that you wipe everything down, throw the wipe away. MRS. KOHLS-Okay. MR. MC CABE-So for the record state your name, please. MRS. KOHLS-I’m Laura Kohls. I’m one of the owners of the property at 1454 State Route 9. MR. MC CABE-And so has anything changed since you were here the last time? MRS. KOHLS-No, sir. 12 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/20/2020) MR. MC CABE-So at this particular time I’m going to open the public hearing on SV 3-2020, and I’m going to ask if there’s anybody in the audience who would like to present information on this application? And I would like to invite any of the public watching from outside of our location here to call at 518-761-8225 to provide comment on this particular application. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN MR. MC CABE-Seeing nobody in the audience, Roy, do we have any written comments? MR. URRICO-There is no written comment. MRS. KOHLS-Our hope is obviously that this is a much smaller sign than what exists now. It’s been there for the 40 years that we’ve owned that property. MR. MC CABE-We don’t normally have people wanting to make their signs smaller. MRS. KOHLS-We’re trying to modernize, make it a little bit more appropriate with the look and feel of what is up there now. MR. HENKEL-And Roy always says smaller is better. Right? MR. URRICO-You’re stealing my thunder. MRS. MOORE-Mr. Chairman, you’re all set. MR. MC CABE-So at this time I’d like to close the public hearing and poll the Board and, Roy, I forgot you the last time so I’ll start with you this time. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. URRICO-I’m in favor of the application. I just hope you know you’re setting a bad precedent for some of your neighbors up and down the road there actually requesting a smaller sign. They might get upset, but I’d be in favor of it. MR. MC CABE-Catherine. MRS. HAMLIN-I’m in favor. Smaller is better. MR. MC CABE-John? MR. HENKEL-Yes, definitely. They could utilize it for other businesses also it looks like. So that’s great. It’s going to be smaller. MR. MC CABE-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-It’s the most reasonable request we’ve had for signs in quite some time. MR. MC CABE-Michelle? MRS. HAYWARD-I’m also in favor. MR. MC CABE-Ron? MR. KUHL-Thank you. It’s a good project. I’d be in favor of it. MR. MC CABE-And I, too, support the project. So first we’ve got to do SEQR. MOTION REGARDING SIGN VARIANCE NO. 3-2020. APPLICANT NAME: 1454 STATE ROUTE 9, 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 Michelle Hayward: Duly adopted this 20th Day of May 2020, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Kuhl, Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Henkel, Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE 13 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/20/2020) MR. MC CABE-So now I need the application for the variance and, Ron, would you help me out there? MR. KUHL-Yes, I will. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity. 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. 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. SEQR Type: Unlisted \[Resolution / Action Required for SEQR\] Motion regarding Sign Variance No. 3-2020. Applicant Name: 1454 State Route 9, 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 Michelle Hayward: Duly adopted this 20th Day of May 2020, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Kuhl, Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Henkel, Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, May 20, 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 basically thank the applicant for reducing the size of the sign and modernizing it. 2. Can the benefit sought by the applicant be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than a sign variance? No, it is, again, a situation to where the signs are close to the road and there’s just not any room to move it back. 3. Is the requested sign variance substantial? It is really not substantial. 4. Will the proposed sign variance have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district? No, it will not as it is a smaller sign. 5. Is the alleged difficulty self-created? We could say that, but that’s just a product of the sign being close to the road. 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; BASED ON THE ABOVE FINDINGS I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE SIGN VARIANCE SV 3- 2020, 1454 STATE ROUTE 9, LLC, Introduced by Ronald Kuhl, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Michelle Hayward: As per the resolution prepared by staff with the following: A. <insert conditions / comments>: B. 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; 14 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/20/2020) C. 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; D. 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’ E. Subsequent issuance of further permits, including sign permits are dependent on receipt of these final plans; F. Upon approval of the application; review and approval of final plans by the Community Development Department the applicant can apply for a sign permit unless the proposed project requires review, approval, or permit from the Town Planning Board and/or the Adirondack Park Agency, Lake George Park Commission or other State agency or department. Duly adopted this 20th Day of May 2020, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Henkel, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Kuhl, Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE MR. MC CABE-Congratulations. MRS. KOHLS-Thank you. Have a good evening. MR. MC CABE-So that concludes our old projects and now we start a couple of new ones. The first one will be SV 5-2020, also 1454 State Route 9, and the agent is Saxton Signs. NEW BUSINESS: SIGN VARIANCE NO. 5-2020 SEQRA TYPE UNLISTED SAXTON SIGNS AGENT(S) SAXTON SIGNS OWNER(S) 1454 STATE ROUTE 9 ZONING CI LOCATION 1454 STATE ROUTE 9 APPLICANT PROPOSES 5 WALL SIGNS: 2 STARBUCKS CIRCLE LOGO SIGNS (19.62 SQ. FT. EACH); 1 STARBUCKS WORD SIGN (21.75 SQ. FT.); AND 2 DRIVE-THRU SIGNS (6.96 SQ. FT. EACH). PROJECT INCLUDES INSTALLING FREESTANDING DIGITAL SIGNS (PRE-MENU BOARD 1 PANEL AT 6.72 SQ. FT.) AND ORDER MENU BOARD WITH 3 PANELS (22.9 SQ. FT.). PROJECT INCLUDES DIRECTIONAL SIGNAGE CONSISTENT WITH CHAPTER 140. RELIEF FOR NUMBER OF WALL SIGNS AND NUMBER OF FREESTANDING SIGNS. CROSS REF SP 35-2018; SP 65-2019; SV 3-2020; SV 5-2020; CC 23-2020, CC 80-2020 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING APRIL 2020 LOT SIZE 17.74 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 288.12-1-21 SECTION 140 TERRY MEISSNER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Sign Variance No. 5-2020, Saxton Signs, Meeting Date: May 20, 2020 “Project Location: 1454 State Route 9 Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes 5 wall signs: 2 Starbucks circle logo signs (19.62 sq. ft. each); 1 Starbucks word sign (21.75 sq. ft.); and 2 Drive-Thru signs (6.96 sq. ft. each at top of building). Project includes installing freestanding digital signs (Pre-menu board 1 panel at 6.72 sq. ft.) and order menu board with 3 panels (22.9 sq. ft.). Project includes directional signage consistent with Chapter 140. Relief for number of wall signs and number of freestanding signs. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for number of wall signs and number of freestanding signs. Section 140- Signs in the Commercial Intensive zone CI The applicant is currently constructing a commercial building that proposes wall signs and free standing signs. The proposed business is allowed one wall sign and one free standing sign. The plans indicate 5 walls signs are proposed where only one is allowed. The plans indicate 3 free standing signs are proposed and only one is allowed---note the applicant has a separate sign variance SV 3-2020 application for a free standing sign to include space for the hotel, Starbucks, and a future tenant. Relief for that sign is for setbacks. Criteria for considering a Sign Variance according to Chapter 140 of Town Law: In making a determination, the board shall consider: 15 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/20/2020) 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 considered to reduce the number of signs requested. 3. Whether the requested sign variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered substantial relevant to the code. Relief is requested to have 4 additional walls signs and 2 additional free standing signs. 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 to install 5 wall signs and 3 freestanding signs for the new proposed Starbuck restaurant. The plans show signage on each side of the building, a pre-menu digital free standing sign and a menu digital free standing sign. The project site is within the Shopping Plaza Outlets and has an existing hotel building behind where Starbucks is to be located.” MR. MC CABE-State your name for the record, please. MR. MEISSNER-My name’s Terry Meissner from Saxton Sign Corp. So basically your standard Starbuck’s. It’s got the logo on two sides and the name on one side, and then the drive thru is kind of a directional drive thru. They are all illuminated. The directional are there to guide you in the right direction. They’re all under four feet. We’re looking for two logos, two drive thrus, and the directionals as well, and a clearance sign, and as far as the drive thru as you go through, we’re going to need the menu boards so you can see the menu. They’re more like a t.v., not like what you see on the side of the road that are really bright. MR. MC CABE-So kind of similar to what McDonald’s does. Right? MR. MEISSNER-Yes. MR. MC CABE-So do we have questions of the applicant? John? MR. HENKEL-So some of that stuff will shut off obviously when it’s not in use at night. MR. MEISSNER-Well, yes, when we’re not using it. MR. HENKEL-Right. MR. MEISSNER-And they’re not bright. MR. URRICO-Are they angled so only the driver can see them? MR. MEISSNER-Yes. MR. KUHL-Are you part of Hilton Signs, or are you the owner? MR. MEISSNER-No. I’m part of Saxton Sign. Hilton. MR. KUHL-You’re the sign man. MR. MEISSNER-Yes. They hired us to install them. MR. KUHL-Now, so you have nothing to do with the old Starbuck’s on Aviation Road. Right? MR. MEISSNER-No. We’ll move the signs that are there. MR. KUHL-Okay. Your “B” signs, right, the directional wall signs, you could paint that in the asphalt. The way America goes to Starbuck’s and McDonald’s and all the fast food places, they always look for the drive up windows. You could eliminate those “B” signs real easy. You could even eliminate the “F” sign, 16 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/20/2020) too. I mean, people know where they’re going. You’re asking for an awful lot. But I think your directional ones you have, the “B” signs, they could be done in the asphalt. You’re probably going to mark the asphalt, right, with lanes. They’re going to see the directional bar. They’re going to know where they’re going to go. They’re going to go around the back and, you know, the world is into drive up. So I think you’re asking for an awful lot. I think you should re-think some of the things, but my opinion is at least those B’s could go away if not even the “F”, but that’s all I have to say. I guess I should ask you. Could those directionals be put in the asphalt? Yes or no? You’re not the asphalt man. You’re the sign man. Right? MR. MEISSNER-Yes, anything is possible, but the signs, this is what Starbuck’s wants. This is kind of their corporate thing that they’ve been doing with all these stores. MR. KUHL-I understand that. That’s a good way to approach it, but I could take you down to Clifton Park where Walmart is always blue and it’s green down there. So that’s fine that Starbuck’s wants to do it, but you also have to do your signage based on the local requirements and I think you’re asking for an awful lot. So anyway, thank you. MR. HENKEL-The only problem is our zoning and our rules, we really don’t have anything that’s different for drive thru businesses compared to, so you’re going to need more signage for drive thru businesses compared to regular businesses. MR. KUHL-Well, if you look at the other Starbuck’s on Aviation Road, there are no arrows, and people just truck around the back. MR. HENKEL-I understand what you’re saying, and I agree. There’s no need for those signs, I agree with that, but I’m just saying that the relief that they’re asking for, there should be different zoning for drive thru as compared to just a regular business. MR. KUHL-Well either that, you’re suggesting that we have to change our sign regs. Right? MR. HENKEL-Yes, for drive thrus. I’m just saying drive thrus you would need a little bit more signage. MR. KUHL-Well, I guess that’s part of the things you should recommend to Mr. Craig Brown when we get together and change them, but I mean we’re living by the rules that we have now. MR. HENKEL-Well, I realize that, and you’re right. MR. KUHL-Okay. MRS. MOORE-Can I clarify the “F” sign, that directional sign? That’s compliant. The drive through sign on top of the building, that’s the one that’s not compliant. MR. KUHL-Yes, I mean I don’t even think they need the Starbuck’s sign on the back. Once they go into that building, they know where they’re going. MR. HENKEL-I agree with that. MR. KUHL-And I’ll tell you very honestly. I’m not a hawk on signs, but I just took a look at the one on Aviation Road today and I said, holy. There’s nothing, the one in the front, everybody knows how to get around the back. MR. HENKEL-I agree. What’s the benefit of the sign in the back? I mean other than maybe for the hotel in the back. People in the back are probably going to know that’s a Starbuck’s anyway. So I agree with that. I think that’s something that should be considered, that sign not be there. MR. MC CABE-Well the only thing is it’s not really a good comparison apples to apples with, you know, in the complex there versus the one on Aviation which is a standalone and kind of has developed over the years, and, you know, the drive thru didn’t used to be as popular as it is now. That Starbuck’s has evolved, where this one has got to establish itself so to speak. MR. KUHL-Would you tell me what the “I” sign is, the DOS on Canopy. I think it says on here a pre- menu board. Is that kind of a looking board so they can look at what’s being served? MR. MEISSNER-They’re usually like a speaker so you can place your order and like a menu it tells you, if you go to McDonald’s it tells you what you’re ordering. MR. KUHL-Okay. Gotcha. MR. MC CABE-So are there any more questions for the applicant? Seeing none, at this particular time I’m going to open the public hearing and ask if there’s anybody in the audience that would like to comment on 17 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/20/2020) this application and invite viewers from the outside to call in at 518-761-8225 if you have comments on this particular application. Roy, do we have any written comment on the application? So there’s a comment from the public. I’m going to ask that you wipe down the area. So give him just a second. State your name for the record. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-No, there is no written comment. LAURA KOHLS MRS. KOHLS-Laura Kohls, again, the owner of 1454 State Route 9. We will be the landlord of this particular tenant. We’re okay with them having the signs that they’ve requested. I would point out that this is a more commercial area as compared to the Exit 19 Aviation which is more of a residential. It’s been there for quite a long time. It’s more locals that go there and know what they’re doing. MR. MC CABE-I wouldn’t call it exactly residential. MRS. KOHLS-Well it’s more local, a local destination, as compared to the outlet destination where there will be much more commercial traffic who may need more assistance in understanding where they’re to go at this point with all the transient and the various people that come through. So we have obviously looked at it as well and consider it to be consistent with a lot of their other signage packages around the country. So we, as the landlord, are okay with the project. MR. MC CABE-Okay. Thank you. Hold on a second. I’m going to ask you to wipe down the area. So you can come back. MR. HENKEL-I don’t go to Starbuck’s so I don’t know. Is this common? Are all these signs necessary? Is this what the company says that they have to have? MRS. MOORE-That’s one of their new sign programs. I don’t know if I’d call some of it necessary. That’s why I pointed some of that information out in the Staff Notes. MR. HENKEL-I’m kind of like thinking like Ron Kuhl there, the unnecessary sign in the back there. MRS. MOORE-Mr. Chairman, you’re all set. MR. MC CABE-So at this particular time 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-Yes, I think the request is excessive. I don’t care what corporate says. Our current Code allows you to have one wall sign, and that’s been adequate for, I don’t think we make the distinction for fast food restaurants or quick pickups, quick stop places and things like that. So I think that you could eliminate the two round logos and just have Starbuck’s written on the front of the building. People are traveling slow on that road during the busy times of year. I don’t think it’s an issue with finding a place. Everybody has an app on their phone when they’re looking for places now. So I think one sign on the front that says Starbuck’s is fine for me. MR. MC CABE-So you’re a no? MR. UNDERWOOD-I’m not in favor of it. MR. MC CABE-Okay. So Michelle? MRS. HAYWARD-I’m also not in favor as proposed. I think you could achieve your goal with at least half of the signs. I’m in agreement with all my Board members, especially the wall signs for the drive thru. I don’t think people would see them up there. People shouldn’t be having their eyes on the roof. So that’s my opinion. MR. MC CABE-So, Catherine? MRS. HAMLIN-Yes, I’m in agreement that it’s excessive and what I’d like to look at is an aggregate. So whatever the size of the one wall sign that’s allowed. I think it could be less than this, closer to the aggregate. Not as presented, no. 18 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/20/2020) MR. MC CABE-So, Roy? MR. URRICO-I’m in agreement with everybody else. I think there’s an excessive amount of signs here and given where it’s located, we already have a pollution of signs in that area. So I would recommend that we not approve this. MR. MC CABE-Ron? MR. KUHL-You could eliminate the one sign on the front, the “C” sign, and put an “A” sign, but I’m not in favor of the way it’s presented. I realize that you need a monument panel, you need a DOS canopy, you need a menu board, you need a pre-menu board, you know, and the “F” sign, that has to be there according to our regs, but you want two “A” signs. You don’t need two “A” signs, but anyway, I’m not in favor of it the way it’s presented. MR. MC CABE-John? MR. HENKEL-Yes, I pretty much agree with what Ron has said. It’s too much signage at this time. MR. MC CABE-So it sounds like you’re not going to get very far. So you’ve got a couple of possibilities here. You can ask that we table this and come back and take a look at it, or you can ask that we take a vote. You know what the results are going to be. MR. MEISSNER-I’ll probably table it. MR. MC CABE-Okay. So I’m going to, John, ask for a motion to table. MRS. MOORE-So my question is, right now the way the schedule works, it will be tabled until July, and I wanted to confirm, I knew there was an issue with opening in July. I apologize. MRS. KOHLS-We’re okay with tabling. MRS. MOORE-Table until July. Okay. I would encourage you to table. I was just trying to find an appropriate timeframe. MR. MC CABE-So information submitted. First meeting of July, information submitted by the middle of June. th MR. HENKEL-June 15. MR. UNDERWOOD-Can I just interject for a moment? Would it be allowable for them to put up a single wall sign, if they’re going open earlier? They can have a single wall sign, just the Starbuck’s one will work for sure. MRS. MOORE-Any sign that is 30 square feet, they can potentially get a permit for. MR. UNDERWOOD-Right. MRS. MOORE-So right now it’s on hold in a sense for all of the signs but if the applicant wishes to apply for one sign at 30 square feet they can potentially do that. MR. HENKEL-Okay. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Saxton Signs (for Starbucks). Applicant proposes 5 wall signs: 2 Starbucks circle logo signs (19.62 sq. ft. each); 1 Starbucks word sign (21.75 sq. ft.); and 2 Drive-Thru signs (6.96 sq. ft. each at top of building). Project includes installing freestanding digital signs (Pre-menu board 1 panel at 6.72 sq. ft.) and order menu board with 3 panels (22.9 sq. ft.). Project includes directional signage consistent with Chapter 140. Relief for number of wall signs and number of freestanding signs. MOTION TO TABLE SIGN VARIANCE NO. 5-2020 SAXTON SIGNS, Introduced by John Henkel who moved for its adoption, seconded by Ronald Kuhl: th Tabled to the first meeting in July, with new information to be submitted by June 15. MRS. KOHLS-I’m sorry. Could I ask one question? So the issue that they’re going to have is with the signage mounted on the building. Do you foresee there being a problem with the signage that goes to the drive thru? Because I believe that’s. 19 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/20/2020) MR. MC CABE-I think the issue is too many signs. So I think if you could reduce the number of signs, that would go a long way in getting your project approved. MRS. KOHLS-Let me clarify. Because we have to run electrical to the back side, is that, doesn’t sound to me like that’s the biggest issue. It sounds like it’s more the number of signs that they have physically on the building not their drive thru order menus. MR. MC CABE-The order menus are, I think okay. MRS. KOHLS-Okay. Thank you. MRS. MOORE-So you’re not necessarily installing those. MRS. KOHLS-Yes, but we have to run power. So we’d like to know if we’d get approval. We don’t want to have to cut through too much concrete if we don’t have to for their power. MRS. MOORE-Okay. MR. MC CABE-So I have a motion, I have a second. Call the vote, please. th Duly adopted this 20 day of May, 2020, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Henkel, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE MR. MC CABE-We’ll see you in a couple of months. MR. MEISSNER-Thank you. MR. MC CABE-And so our last application is SV 4-2020, which is Wal-Mart. SIGN VARIANCE NO. 4-2020 SEQRA TYPE UNLISTED TERESA JONES AGENT(S) TERESA JONES OWNER(S) WALMART R.E. BUSINESS TRUST ZONING CI LOCATION 891 STATE ROUTE 9 APPLICANT PROPOSES UPDATES TO 7 OF THE 11 WALMART SIGNS: “WALMART” WITH SPARK EXISTING 298 SQ. FT. TO 299.04 SQ. FT.; REPLACE THE WORD “MARKET” WITH “GROCERY”, EXISTING 17.97 SQ. FT, TI 26.27 SQ. FT.; “HOME & PHARMACY” EXISTING 61.85 SQ. FT. REDUCED TO 60.74 SQ. FT.; REPLACING “TIRE & LUBE” AT 16.34 SQ. FT. TO “AUTO CENTER” AT 17.23 SQ. FT.; FOUR “TIRE” SIGNS, EXISTING 2.38 SQ. FT. EACH, PROPOSED 2.58 SQ. FT. EACH; TWO “LUBE” SIGNS, EXISTING 3.13 SQ. FT. EACH, PROPOSED 2.98 SQ. FT. EACH. OVERALL SIGNAGE EXISTING 433.49 SQ. FT. AND PROPOSED IS 443.11 SQ. FT. PROJECT INCLUDES REPAINTING EXTERIOR, SAME COLORS. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR NUMBER AND SIZE OF SIGNS. CROSS REF SV 71-2003; SP 20-2019; SP 60- 2017; SSE 9-2019; SSE 14-2017; SV 8-2017 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING MARCH 2020 LOT SIZE 17.74 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 296.17-1-36 SECTION 140 MICHELLE YODER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, ON THE PHONE MR. MC CABE-All right. So right now you’re on speaker phone, and besides the Board, you’re the only person in the room. MRS. MOORE-If she would like to say her name. MR. MC CABE-Yes. All right. So what I’m going to do is I’m going to read your application into the record and then I’ll ask you to state your name and you can provide any additional information that you think is proper. So right now we’ll proceed with reading your application into the record. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Sign Variance No. 4-2020, Teresa Jones, Meeting Date: March 25, 2020 “Project Location: 891 State Route 9 Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes updates to 7 of the 11 Walmart signs: “Walmart” with spark existing 298 sq. ft. to 299.04 sq. ft.; replace the word “Market” with “Grocery,” existing 17.97 sq. ft. to 26.27 sq. ft.; “Home & Pharmacy” existing 61.85 sq. ft. reduced to 60.74 sq. ft.; replacing “Tire & Lube” at 16.34 sq. ft. to “Auto Center” at 17.23 sq. ft.; four “Tire” signs, existing 2.38 sq. ft. each, proposed 2.58 sq. ft. each; two “Lube” signs, existing 3.13 sq. ft. each, proposed 2.98 sq. ft. each. Overall signage existing 433.49 sq. ft. and proposed is 443.11 sq. ft. Project includes repainting exterior, same colors. Relief requested for number and size of signs. 20 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/20/2020) Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for number and size of signs. Chapter 140 – signs. Commercial Intensive Zone –CI. “Walmart” with spark existing 298 sq. ft. to 299.04 sq. ft.; replace the word “Market” with “Grocery,” existing 17.97 sq. ft. to 26.27 sq. ft.; “Home & Pharmacy” existing 61.85 sq. ft. reduced to 60.74 sq. ft.; replacing “Tire & Lube” at 16.34 sq. ft. to “Auto Center” at 17.23 sq. ft.; four “Tire” signs, existing 2.38 sq. ft. each, proposed 2.58 sq. ft. each; two “Lube” signs, existing 3.13 sq. ft. each, proposed 2.98 sq. ft. each. Overall signage existing 433.49 sq. ft. and proposed is 443.11 sq. ft. Project includes repainting exterior, same colors. Relief requested for maintaining the number of 11 signs and size of signs Criteria for considering a Sign Variance according to Chapter 140 of Town Law: In making a determination, the board shall consider: 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this sign variance. Minimal impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than a sign variance. Feasible alternatives may be considered to replace signage with same or smaller. The applicant has indicated the brand has changed the font scheme for signage. 3. Whether the requested sign variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered substantial relevant to the code. Relief is requested for maintaining 11 signs and 7 of the signs are modified in size. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The project as proposed may have minimal impact on the environmental conditions of the district. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-created. Staff comments: The applicant has indicated 7 of the existing 11 signs to be modified. The plans show the location and the font change for the 7 signs.” MR. MC CABE-So at this particular time if you could state your name for the record. MS. YODER-Hello. My name is Michelle Yoder and I am speaking on behalf of the architect for the Wal- Mart re-model at 891 State Route 9. MR. MC CABE-Could you hear the information that was read into the record okay? MS. YODER-Yes. MR. MC CABE-Do you have anything to add? MS. YODER-I would just like to reiterate we are not asking to update the number of signs. We are asking to keep the number of signs the same. The reasoning behind updating signage is due to Wal-Mart’s newer branding initiative which included both a font change as well as just verbiage change such as changing “Market” to “Grocery” and “Tire and Lube” to “Auto Center”. That’s about it otherwise. MR. MC CABE-So it must have been at some previous time you got the okay to have more than the normal number of signs. So you’re not adding any signs. All you’re doing is increasing the square footage by 10 square feet and moving the signs around, changing the font and information on the signs. Is that correct? MS. YODER-That is correct. We are keeping each sign. We are replacing it at the same location of where the existing sign is. We’re not necessarily moving any signs, but, yes, we are just replacing the existing signs that are currently on the building. MR. MC CABE-So do we have any questions for the applicant? 21 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/20/2020) MR. URRICO-I do have a question. Is there any possibility of reducing the number of signs? Because we just expanded your signage recently to accommodate the pickup area. So you actually have two more signs, I believe maybe three, than you had last year at this time. MRS. MOORE-They actually reduce the number of signs due to that. MR. URRICO-But it’s still more than we originally gave them when they first came in in 2003? No? MRS. MOORE-No, they removed a sign so that the pickup sign could go in. MR. URRICO-Okay. MR. MC CABE-Other questions? So at this particular time I’m going to open the public hearing and ask if there’s anybody who has input on this particular project? Now how do I invite people to call from the outside? MRS. MOORE-She will have to hang up and call us back in two minutes. MR. MC CABE-So, Michelle, can I request that you hang up and call us back in about two and a half minutes? MS. YODER-Yes, I can do that. MR. MC CABE-Okay. MS. YODER-Thank you. MR. MC CABE-So now I’ll invite anybody who’s watching from the outside who wants to comment on this particular project to call us at 518-761-8225. Roy, is there anything? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-There’s no public comment. MR. MC CABE-So, Michelle, our time is up. So you can call back any time. Okay. Can you hear us all right? MS. YODER-Yes, I can. MR. MC CABE-Okay. So there were no comments from the public. So at this particular time I’m going to close the public hearing and I’m going to poll the Board. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MC CABE-And I’ll start with Ron. MR. KUHL-I have no problem with this project. The little bit of re-branding that they’re doing is good. I have no problem with it. MR. MC CABE-Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes, I’m in favor of it. On the face of it it looks like a wash. It’s really only a difference of about 10 feet. So I’d be okay with it. MR. MC CABE-John? MR. HENKEL-Yes, it is a lot of signage, but it’s pre-existing and I’d be on board with it at this time. MR. MC CABE-Catherine? MRS. HAMLIN-I guess I would go along. I am a little concerned that one size is a little bit increased but the number is the same. MR. MC CABE-Michelle? MRS. HAYWARD-I’m in favor. The net change is so minimal compared to the existing. So I can be in favor of it. MR. MC CABE-Jim? 22 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/20/2020) MR. UNDERWOOD-It’s for the same relief that was requested previously for signage. It’s just a slight minimal increase. MR. MC CABE-And so I, too, approve the project. It’s a huge property and so I think that they’re worthy of the signage that they have and it goes along with their re-branding if you would. So first we have to do SEQR. So, John, I’m going to ask for a motion for SEQR. MOTION REGARDING SIGN VARIANCE NO. 4-2020. APPLICANT NAME: TERESA JONES (WALMART), 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: Duly adopted this 20th Day of May 2020, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Underwood, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. Kuhl, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Henkel, Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE MR. MC CABE-So now I need a motion on the application and, Catherine, I’m going to ask if you’ll do that. MRS. HAMLIN-Okay. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Teresa Jones (Walmart). Applicant proposes updates to 7 of the 11 Walmart signs: “Walmart” with spark existing 298 sq. ft. to 299.04 sq. ft.; replace the word “Market” with “Grocery,” existing 17.97 sq. ft. to 26.27 sq. ft.; “Home & Pharmacy” existing 61.85 sq. ft. reduced to 60.74 sq. ft.; replacing “Tire & Lube” at 16.34 sq. ft. to “Auto Center” at 17.23 sq. ft.; four “Tire” signs, existing 2.38 sq. ft. each, proposed 2.58 sq. ft. each; two “Lube” signs, existing 3.13 sq. ft. each, proposed 2.98 sq. ft. each. Overall signage existing 433.49 sq. ft. and proposed is 443.11 sq. ft. Project includes repainting exterior, same colors. Relief requested for number and size of signs. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for number and size of signs. Chapter 140 – signs. Commercial Intensive Zone –CI. “Walmart” with spark existing 298 sq. ft. to 299.04 sq. ft.; replace the word “Market” with “Grocery,” existing 17.97 sq. ft. to 26.27 sq. ft.; “Home & Pharmacy” existing 61.85 sq. ft. reduced to 60.74 sq. ft.; replacing “Tire & Lube” at 16.34 sq. ft. to “Auto Center” at 17.23 sq. ft.; four “Tire” signs, existing 2.38 sq. ft. each, proposed 2.58 sq. ft. each; two “Lube” signs, existing 3.13 sq. ft. each, proposed 2.98 sq. ft. each. Overall signage existing 433.49 sq. ft. and proposed is 443.11 sq. ft. Project includes repainting exterior, same colors. Relief requested for maintaining the number of 11 signs and size of signs SEQR Type: Unlisted \[ Resolution / Action Required for SEQR\] Motion regarding Sign Variance No. 4-2020. Applicant Name: Teresa Jones (Walmart), 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: Duly adopted this 20th Day of May 2020, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Underwood, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. Kuhl, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Henkel, Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, May 20, 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? Upon discussion, it’s 23 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/20/2020) a commercial area. They’re not asking for any additional signage, just a slight increase in size. So the answer is 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? No, the change is in coordination with the nationwide brand changes. So there’s not too much around that. 3. Is the requested sign variance substantial? There’s a minimal increase to size but no increase in the number of signs for which they previously received variances. 4. Will the proposed sign variance have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district? Again, a very commercial area and therefore there should be no environmental or physical impact. 5. Is the alleged difficulty self-created? Yes, it would be considered self-created. That’s just one criteria to consider. 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; BASED ON THE ABOVE FINDINGS I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE SIGN VARIANCE SV 4- 2020, TERESA JONES (WALMART), Introduced by Catherine Hamlin, who moved for its adoption, seconded by James Underwood: As per the resolution prepared by staff with the following: A. The variance approval is valid for one (1) year from the date of approval; you may request an extension of approval before the one (1) year time frame expires; B. If the property is located within the Adirondack Park, the approved variance is subject to review by the Adirondack Park Agency (APA). The applicant is cautioned against taking any action until the APA’s review is completed; C. Final approved plans in compliance with an approved variance must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building & codes personnel’ D. Subsequent issuance of further permits, including sign permits are dependent on receipt of these final plans; E. Upon approval of the application; review and approval of final plans by the Community Development Department the applicant can apply for a sign permit unless the proposed project requires review, approval, or permit from the Town Planning Board and/or the Adirondack Park Agency, Lake George Park Commission or other State agency or department. Duly adopted this 20th Day of May 2020, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Henkel, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Kuhl, Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE MR. MC CABE-So congratulations your application has been approved. MS. YODER-Thank you very much. MR. MC CABE-What do you think? MRS. MOORE-You can adjourn your meeting unless there’s something else. MR. MC CABE-So I guess I’m looking for input from you. Was that kind of what you had in mind? MRS. MOORE-Yes. It is. MR. MC CABE-Okay. 24 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/20/2020) MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING, Introduced by Michael McCabe who moved for its adoption, seconded by James Underwood: th Duly adopted this 20 day of May, 2020, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Underwood, Mrs. Hayward, Mrs. Henkel, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Kuhl, Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Michael McCabe, Chairman 25