Loading...
2011.05.25 Queensbury ZBA Meeting: May 25, 2011 QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING MAY 25, 2011 INDEX Agenda Items: Area Variance No. 20-2011 Susan Clermont Page 1 Area Variance No. 27-2011 Joseph Thouin Page 15 Area Variance No. 28-2011 Chip Esper Page 17 Sign Variance No. 29-2011 David Kenny Page 17 Sign Variance No. 30-2011 Ed Moore, Jr. DKNY Page 22 Area Variance No. 31-2011 Schermerhorn Commercial Holdings, LP Page 28 THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTHS MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES 1 Queensbury ZBA Meeting: May 25, 2011 QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING MAY 25, 2011 7 PM MEMBERS PRESENT Steven Jackoski, Chairman Richard Garrand, Jr. Vice Chairman Roy Urrico, Secretary Ronald Kuhl James Underwood Brian Clements Joyce Hunt Community Development Office Staff Present: Keith Oborne, Land Use Planner Sue Hemingway, Stenographer Mr. Jackoski: Good Evening, I’d like to call to order this evenings meeting of the Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals, it is 7 o’clock on Wednesday, May 25. For those of you who haven’t participated in these evenings proceedings in the past, we do, on the back table, a small sheet, explaining the process and procedures here, if you’d like to make reference to that throughout the evening. The first item of business under old business is applicant Susan Clermont, Owner: Susan Clermont, Area Variance No. 20-2011. There is a public hearing scheduled for this evening and SEQRA is not applicable. Mr. Urrico: Area Variance No. 20-2011, Susan Clermont, Old Assembly Point. The applicant has constructed a 200 +/- sq. ft. deck over an existing patio and proposes reconfiguration / downsizing of existing 120 +/- sq. ft. non-conforming dock to 48+/- sq. ft. Relief is requested from side setback for both the deck and dock as well as shoreline relief for the deck. Site Plan review is required for hardsurfacing within 50 ft. of the shoreline. The relief required, the parcel will require an area variance as follows: The Deck portion of project is: ? Side setback relief – request for 12 feet of north and south side relief from the 12 foot side setback requirement for the WR zone as per §179-3-040. ? Shoreline setback – request for 50 feet of shoreline relief from the 50 foot shoreline setback requirement for the WR zone as per §179-3-040. The Dock portion of project is: ? North side setback - request for 12 feet of north side setback relief from the 12 foot side setback requirement for the WR zone as per §179-3-040. ? South side setback – request for 9.6 feet of south side setback relief from the 12 foot side setback requirement for the WR zone as per §179-3-040. Just as a reminder, there are criteria for considering an Area Variance per Chapter 267 of Town Law. In making this 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. Staff says that minor impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance? There are lot limitations and the nature of the project precludes any feasible method by which to avoid an area variance. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial? The request for 12 feet or 100% relief from both north and south side setbacks requirements associated with the deck as per §179-3-040 may be considered severe relative to the ordinance. Further, the request for 50 feet or 100% relief from the 50 foot shoreline setback requirement for the proposed deck as per §179-3-040 may be considered severe relative to the ordinance. Additionally, the request for 12 feet or 100% relief from the north side setback requirement as per §179-3-040 may be considered severe relative to the ordinance. Finally, the request for 9.6 feet or 80% relief from the south side setback requirement as per §179-3- 040 may be considered severe relative to the ordinance. 2 Queensbury ZBA Meeting: May 25, 2011 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district? Minor impacts on the physical and environmental conditions of the neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of this request. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. Staff says that lot limitations appear to dictate the need for an area variance and may not be considered self-created. Staff also comments that the 0.01 or 235 sq. ft. parcel in question is associated with a land-locked parcel located approximately 600 feet to the southeast and separated by both Assembly Point Road and Old Assembly Point Road. Mr. Jackoski: Thank you. Would you please join the table, and if you could, could you identify yourself. And, also for the public record this evening I would just like to note that we have received a handout to the adjoining neighbor to the north. I’m Stephen Bean representing Sue Clermont. Mr. Jackoski: Welcome, Hello. Would you like to add anything? Mr. Bean: From last month’s meeting we have provided that answers requested from the Lake George Park Commission to whether you can dock a boat and the permit for the dock itself. We have provided that. We have also provided some additional pictures that you can see the properties to the north and to the south about how far away the docks are, the shoreline etc. We are still looking for the variance. Mr. Jackoski: Okay, would you like to add anything to that? Mr. Rehm: Not right at the moment, if there are any questions from the Board, I’d be happy to clarify where I can. Mr. Jackoski: I do want to remind everyone, there is a public hearing scheduled this evening to be continued. So does anyone have any questions for the applicant? Mr. Kuhl: As I understand it, this is what has been done? Mr. Jackoski: Correct. Mr. Kuhl: Okay and the crib dock is finished and all covered? Mr. Bean: Well, the crib dock, the closet part to the shore, I did put the Boards over it to make it safer. Mr. Kuhl: And the construction was done without a permit? Mr. Bean: Yes sir. Mr. Garrand: You are aware that a letter submitted tonight was a letter from the Lake George Park Commission dated 2002, have you been made aware of this letter? Mr. Bean: 2002? Mr. Garrand: Yeah. Mr. Bean: I’m not aware of that. Mr. Jackoski: It looks like Counsel has it there. Mr. Rehm: Mark Rehm, I have two letters, one from a Joanne Randalls and another from …I don’t have in may stack here the Park Commission letter. Mr. Garrand: Okay Mr. Rehm: I apologize. Mr. Garrand: It’s basically a letter address to Darcy Harding stating that no vessels shall be berthed at a dock or at a mooring without the prior consent of the adjoining land owner so as to encroach beyond the adjacent property line extended in to the lake on the same axis as the property line runs. Mr. Rehm: I think that’s consistent language with the letter, I believe, that was dated May 19, 2011 that was provided to the Board, where they put it in italics, right in the middle. I believe that says the same 3 Queensbury ZBA Meeting: May 25, 2011 exact wording and I think the way the presentation went and the application has been set forth. A boat would not be berthed so as to encroach upon another’s property. As you extend their property lines out in to the lake, that is. Mr. Jackoski: There was discussion at the last meeting, about the ability to swing the dock to the south and allow it to be adjacent to and on the property line. And, also by skinning it up, has that been reconsidered at all by the applicant? Mr. Bean: We considered it but in talking with the Park Commission, because this was a nonconforming pre-existing nonconforming dock and it’s been permitted to be rebuilt the way that we’re asking for it. It is our belief and our want that we want to still build it the way that the Park Commission permitted it to do. Did you see the minutes from the Park Commissions meeting about this back in 2008? Mr. Underwood: Yes Mr. Bean: And they came out and looked at the dock and they all agreed that it could be built because it was a preexisting nonconforming dock that it could be built that way. Mr. Jackoski: Yeah, I understand that. I’m reading in October 13, 2010 Lake George Park Commission Permit modification addressed to Susan Clermont which states that project is to remove a 5 ft. wide, 21 ft. long crib pier and replace it with a 2 ft. to 3 ft. wide, 21 ft. pile supported pier in accordance with plans attached. Does that suggest they were asking you to remove the cribs? Mr. Bean: No. The previous owner: Darcy Harding I guess had the Dock Doctors come in and look at the dock and suggested that method of a dock, a pile driven dock. To my knowledge, they didn’t say to remove the crib too, but they’ve got to move the crib to get to the pile dock. Mr. Underwood: So in essence you’re going to go to a much narrower dock than what you have now to allow for the space for a boat to get in there. Mr. Bean: Correct. Mr. Underwood: And, if we swung the dock, that would narrow the space so you wouldn’t catch the beam of the boat, the boat wouldn’t fit. Mr. Bean: Correct. Mr. Jackoski: What size boat do you have? Mr. Bean: She doesn’t have one at present. Mr. Jackoski: I have to tell you, I’m struggling with 8 ft. beamed boat not fitting in a 10 ft. space with a 2ft. dock, or a 7 ft. beam boat fitting in with a 2 ft. dock. Mr. Bean: It would be 10 ft. of water space. Mr. Jackoski: What would be? Mr. Bean: If you’re looking at where the dock is going to be … Mr. Jackoski: I understand that, I’m thinking if you swung it into conformance to be within your projected property lines which are 10 ft. 10 one-hundredths of a foot. Mr. Bean: We wouldn’t make it, you’re right, Mr. Jackoski: You wouldn’t make it? Mr. Bean: We wouldn’t make it, with an 8 ft. beam and 2 ft. dock with your bumpers that would go into the Randall’s, almost to Randall’s dock. Mr. Jackoski: So how about a 7 ft. beam boat instead? Mr. Bean: Well, she hasn’t decided what type of boat she wanted to get, but she wanted something that was going to be able to handle the water in Lake George; it’s not like Saratoga Lake or some small lake. But that being said, we’re just still asking for the way it’s been permitted to be built by the Park Commission. Mr. Jackoski: Okay, does any other Board member have anything at this time? 4 Queensbury ZBA Meeting: May 25, 2011 Mrs. Hunt: What about the comment that the dock is one someone else’s property? Mr. Bean: The dock is…what do you mean as far as water rights? Mrs. Hunt: Well, one of the letters claims that the dock is on her property. Mr. Rehm: In speaking to that, if we’re talking about the dock. The dock certainly extends from Susan Clermont’s property – totally. The dock extends from her parcel of property. I think the question, or the point they’re trying to get at is that it crosses the lateral property line extension as it’s shown on this map, at some point out farther. Literal rights, which they call them, water rights some people call it, they extend out into the water, and there are several different methods to calculate them. One of which is the lateral property line extension. The fact is that nobody owns underneath the water. No one owns the water itself. The way we collectively, the way the Office of General Services who has jurisdiction over it in the Attorney General’s Office, the way they deal with it is, you can’t, that’s the reason why the Park Commission has said you can’t park a boat permanently in those waters. It’s not necessary…number one it’s geared towards trying to prevent people from blocking other’s access to and from but at the same time, if it’s shown to have been there in the parties of aqueous to a certain situation which this has been there in some form, shape, you know, again, this dock has been in its existing location, the many changes of it, however, it may be, it seems to be acquiesced to. No, we can’t park a boat so it crosses into other’s water, but the existence of the dock itself isn’t necessarily on anyone else’s property, it extends over public water and we can’t park a public boat in that public water. That’s my take in the position of Ms. Clermont on the argument. And, you know, it’s really intended to see if, and whether someone is blocking unimpeded access to their shores. Mrs. Hunt: How wide is the property at that point at the waterfront? Mr. Rehm: 10 ft. along the shore shown on the survey, 10.05 ft. Mrs. Hunt: Thank you. Mr. Jackoski: May I ask a couple of more questions concerning, I do recall at the last meeting, there was discussion about the actual rock wall, the concrete rock wall that is currently there that the onshore deck abuts. There was concern the last time, I think you confirmed that you did not own, or Ms. Clermont did not own that wall. When I look at the survey, I think that is what the survey is telling also. Mr. Bean: According to the survey that wall is built right on the property line. Basically, the wall is on the line; on the north side. On the west side, that wall, according to the survey, is over on Clermont’s property line by, well, according to the survey, up to the chain linked fence that sits on top of that wall. Mr. Jackoski: And you were going to use that chain linked fence as your protection for someone falling off the deck or stepping off the deck, correct? Mr. Bean: Well, yeah its right there but I can, but I would put up a fence if you’d let me. Mr. Jackoski: I’m looking at a survey from VanDusen and Steves dated January 31, 2011 which I guess is a revision to the January 6, 2010 map. It suggests that the face of the wall is right on the property line, so it’s not over the line. How will the current owner of that wall be able to maintain that wall on the south side if any deck goes over and they can’t get to it? They don’t have to come out into the Clermont property, I understand, but they could reach over and maintain their wall. How will they be able to maintain the wall with that deck there? Mr. Bean: Well, I guess he would have to take his fence down first. Mr. Jackoski: I understand that. Mr. Bean: And to be perfectly honest with you, that’s not an issue for an adjoining property owner to worry about. He puts a wall smack on a property line and doesn’t leave any room for him to maintain his property properly or whatever, that really doesn’t seem to me to be the adjoining property owner’s problem, to me. Ms. Clermont didn’t build it and she didn’t put it there. Mr. Jackoski: I understand. I think my concern is that if you’re going to rely on that wall and it cannot be maintained, then I’m just suggesting they can’t maintain it, I’m uncomfortable relying on it to provide safety from that. Mr. Bean: I’m in total agreement with you. And I’ll put a railing all the way around the dock, that’s not a problem, on Clermont’s property. I’ll put a 4 ft. high fence all the way around the deck, if you let me, as far as a safety point from Clermont’s property line, I’ll do whatever the Building Department requires me to do of course. 5 Queensbury ZBA Meeting: May 25, 2011 Mr. Underwood: Keith can I ask a question. I don’t believe that the statues allow fences to be right down to the water; it’s an illegal fence as it exists. Mr. Jackoski: I don’t know if it’s illegal, I just think it’s nonconforming to current code. Mr. Underwood: To replace that fence you would have to come in and get a variance to replace it. Mr. Jackoski: Yep, I understand. But I don’t think it’s illegal; it’s just nonconforming. Mr. Underwood: Yes Mr. Jackoski: Any other questions? There is a public hearing open this evening. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to address the Board at this time? Come up to the table and identify yourself for the record please. And, if you could give up the table for … Mr. Brown: Good Evening, my name is Gary Brown, 45 Assembly Point Road, residing just north of Sue Clermont property. For the Board member who wasn’t here a month ago, I’m going to give a brief, even though a lot of it is in this letter that was brought to the Board. In 1993, the Grachmal’s owned that property and they had stake dock on it, they took in and out every fall. And the summer of 1993 Nancy and myself the Randall’s, the people to the south, witnessed the Grachmals’ taking this stake dock out of the water and putting a crib dock in place of it, without a permit. At that time, Nancy’s aunt resided at 45 Assembly Point Road and her wishes being known and in her 80’s, and living by herself don’t report this because they may burn my house down. Three months later, I mean somebody’s that’s in their 80’s, three months later she goes to a nursing home. At that time, I went to the Lake George Park Commission. It was being handled by Mr. Finlayson. And, I’ve dragged my feet because it was the wishes of Mary Walsh; for 3 months, so I kind of dragged my feet and let the Lake George Park Commission investigate this. And then it went on to 6 months and I’d go back and Mr. Finlayson would say, I’m working on it – I’m working on it, then I’d go back and Mr. Finlayson says I’m working on it, we’re getting’ close. And this was in an 18 month period. The next time he tells me we’re getting close within a couple of weeks, I go back, and Mr. Finlayson is not working at the Lake George Park Commission anymore. And our file has disappeared. With a year and half of work that Mr. Finlayson was supposedly doing, our file has disappeared. And, I’ve gone back over looking for the file within 2 years ago. In 2002, 2001 the Grachmal’s were selling this piece of property and went to the Lake George Park Commission to get a permit for this dock. And, the paperwork is here, dated August 22, 2001; that it as a swim platform, only, and therefore didn’t need to be registered with the Lake George Park Commission. But then, they did register it. It was their excuse that that wasn’t registered before and the Lake George Park Commission couldn’t really tell if it was a stake dock or a crib dock. They must have had some other ways of doing things; but they couldn’t tell whether it was a crib dock or a stake dock. And, at that time the Grachmal’s also stated that it wasn’t registered due to the fact that it was used for swimming only. Lake George Park Commission ruled in June 12, 2002 that no dock, no boat could be moored at that dock, on the north side and, probably not on the south side. And the probably not at the south side was, I’m assuming, that the Randall’s objected to it. I have a letter here from Mrs. Randall that she wrote to the Lake George Park Commission, October 21, 2008 stating that they witnessed the Grachmals’ changing from a stake dock to a crib dock without a permit. It doesn’t state here that it wasn’t without a permit but it is was without a permit. There was no permit to be found. And, at the same time, the Grachmal’s moved the dock farther to the north to give them more room. This stone wall that is in question at the present time was built in 1947. I have the bill. The fence went up in 1958 on that stone wall, that’s on the stone wall after they closed Assembly Point Road and went from Old Assembly Point Road to New Assembly Point Road, in 1957 that was done in the gate, the fence went up on that property in 1958. We’re asking that the deck, the deck, my personal belief is right now, that that deck is over the property line, because it’s over the wall. We feel that having a setback there is not asking for something that is unreasonable, off of that wall and certainly don’t want somebody falling off that deck that’s 6 feet higher than the existing deck that they had down on the dock, and falling on to that fence or the stone wall. I feel that a setback on the wall would be reasonable. Mr. Clements: Can I ask a question? Mr. Brown: Yes. Mr. Clements: Mr. Chairman? Mr. Jackoski: Yes, go ahead. Mr. Clements: What are you asking for, for the amount of a setback, what is your idea about that? Mr. Bean: 2 or 3 feet. Mr. Clements: Thank you. 6 Queensbury ZBA Meeting: May 25, 2011 Mr. Brown: I spoke to Steve before in regards to maintaining that wall. The stone that’s in the crib system there; came off the seawall there, and it has eroded. And I have done some construction work patching that wall. I’ve brought the issue to Steve before about maintaining that wall; whether the fence comes down or ever does get replaced or whatever, that’s here nor there. But the fence has been up since 1958 and the stone wall was put in there in 1947. Mr. Jackoski: If you wouldn’t mind, the Board would like to ask a couple of more questions for clarification. Mr. Clements: One was this we have a copy of the Lake George Park Commission meeting, number 370 on October 2008. It has a Gary Brown here, as others present, would that be you? Mr. Brown: Yes Mr. Clements: It’s your quote in here that says that the dock was not placed in kind; you said it is in a different location and that it went from a stake dock to a crib dock. Would you just explain? And, I just had one other question. You’re saying that a boat could not be or should not be docked on the north side of that dock. Mr. Brown: There’s a letter that I gave the Board members this evening. Mr. Clements: Yes, I know that letter, I’m saying. Mr. Brown: You cannot be parked there without the other property owner’s consent. Mr. Clements: That’s your understanding. I’m asking you this but I know that the neighbor to the south is going to have a question about this too. Is it your understanding that a boat could be docked on the other side; on the south side of that dock? Mr. Brown: It’s my understanding that if the Randall’s complain about it to the Lake George Park Commission. Can I take 2 seconds here to try to explain? Darcy Harding bought this property; she moved a boat down there. I approached her and I said Darcy I have statement here from the Lake George Park Commission that there can’t be a boat on the north side of that. At that time we had to survey Darcy Harding’s boat or dock to prove that it was on our property line, or over the property line. At that time the Lake George Park Commission rules; they cannot put it there. And when I was at the Lake George Park Commissions meeting. Mr. Clements: They can’t put a boat on the north side? Mr. Brown: And they told Darcy Harding she could do, at a later date, she could rebuild the dock, there’s a question whether she would ever be able to use it. Mr. Jackoski: To dock a boat? Mr. Brown: To dock a boat there due to the fact that the Grachmal’s hadn’t registered that and said. I made a statement the last time I was in here there had been a boat on that dock at time. Very few times, and when I say a boat, I’m talking about a row boat that has a very small motor on it. And, I had seen it, even though Grachmal’s stated it wasn’t in there. Mr. Jackoski: Okay, that’s fine. Thank you. Mr. Clements: Thank you Mr. Chairman. Mr. Jackoski: If you’d like to return to the table please. Is there anyone else in the audience who would like to address the Board? I am going to leave the public hearing open for the moment. Do you have any comment? Mr. Bean: My comment, I guess I know we’re entertaining a lot of hearsay and folklore and back in the day type of stuff, but the latest letter from the Park Commission that everyone got; it says you can moor the boat there and have a boat there; we can change the dimension of the dock to narrow it up and as far as wanting to moor up the deck, so that evidently so that he can get at his stone wall, somehow. I’m not sure how he’s going to do it but, I can cut the deck back a few inches, you know, so it doesn’t rub, so to make sure it doesn’t rub the stone on that side. I don’t want to cut it back 2 feet. If the deck is not there, the whole property is going to be used the way it was before, you know, in some fashion. It’s not like it’s going to be cut down in size and ….unintelligible..use of it. I’d just like to stick to the facts as we know them today. 7 Queensbury ZBA Meeting: May 25, 2011 Mr. Jackoski: Okay. Mr. Rehm: I just want to remind the Board that we will certainly have to comply with the conditions that we don’t park a boat where the boat is not allowed to be parked. We’re simply trying to put in a structure that is allowable by the Park Commission according to today’s standard and in looking through the history of the property, I’m familiar with the history of the property, there are no deed restrictions or anything of record, other than maybe discussions in the, prior Lake George Park Commission discussions that would indicate that you could not put a dock, or you could not put a boat in this space. I mean, our position, I think, remains, if we can comply with the standards that they have set forth, which we will have to do, then we will abide by those rules and we won’t be parking a boat in someone else’s literally rights, or water rights, areas. Mr. Jackoski: Okay. If, maybe staff could remind me, I believe that, at the last meeting, the neighbor to the south, I believe I asked them if they’ve felt they had, and I know it may not be the correct legal term, adverse possession rights of the water to the north of their dock, which would basically be in this property, literal rights. Do you recall that conversation? Mr. Oborne: I do recall that, I don’t know how important that is. Mr. Jackoski: I just want to make sure that we… Mr. Oborne: Based on Mary’s letter of last Thursday, to be honest with you. Mr. Rehm: And I can tell you, from a legal standpoint, adverse possession deals with land and adverse possession does not apply. Mr. Jackoski: I don’t know if I had the right term, it’s just that the neighbor to the south clearly suggested that they had the right to park their boat there. Mr. Rehm: Absolutely. And, the only reason that I clarify, let’s say the dock started on their property and or the neighboring dock was on our property, that would be a valid discussion but since the waters themselves are owned by the State of New York. Mr. Jackoski: We are not going to get in to the battle of whether you can or cannot park the boat there; we will simply talk about the configuration of the dock. Mr. Rehm: Absolutely. Okay Mr. Jackoski: And, or the deck. Mr. Rehm: Yes, and thank you. Mr. Bean: If anybody has any concerns that I can address. I’m not sure, Mr. Garrand, if you had something because of that letter from the, the previous letter from the Park Commission. Mr. Garrand: It’s the rules of the Park Commission, you can’t have a dock that extends out in to the water across property lines, or you can’t have a boat over somebody else’s property. Mr. Bean: Yes, right, the same thing here. I just wanted to be clear, we are clear. Mr. Garrand: My concern is that we may get in to a situation here where she docks a boat there and it extends in to the water ways to the Randalls, what recourse do they have? Mr. Bean: The boat you mean? Mr. Garrand: Yeah Mr. Bean: If you put a bigger boat and it encroaches on the their water rights, if you’re saying, 10 ft. beam or 12 ft. beam boat and it goes right against their dock, they got a little over 1 foot of water to the north of their dock on that side. If they went into those water rights, I’m sure they could go to the Park Commission, I’m sure the Park Commission would do what’s necessary to have the boat removed, you know, tell the landlord to remove the boat because it’s encroaching on their water rights. This thing, talks about the, not the dock, it talks about this –Phrase you are talking about – talks about the boat on the water. It doesn’t talk about the dock, you know, that’s what this..on a new letter, says the same thing. It doesn’t say about the docks, it says about the boat. Mr. Garrand: Ultimately, in areas where I have seen 10 foot access to the lake, the intent was to allow somebody to have a mooring out there; a way to enter and egress the waterway to get to their boat. This, it seems, it almost seems as though she is trying to maximum usage out of that 10 ft. and then some, if it 8 Queensbury ZBA Meeting: May 25, 2011 was me, I think I would have aligned it with the property line, extending out into the lake and shorten it up a whole lot more coming in. I think it would have made the property owners to the north a whole lot happier than to not have a dock going over the access. That would have been preferable before any of this had happened. Mr. Rehm: And, on the flip side of that, again, we are looking at the lateral boundaries as they are presented on the map here. And, that’s one of four standard that you could use and there is feasibly, and the problem with these types of matters, the four different types, one of which would allow you to use the angle of the property, which if you are to use the angle of the property; line and extend them out, you’ll notice that it’s not a straight line along the shore. In fact, what may be acceptable, might be even more encroaching on the lands to the south, according to this map, because if you look at the angle of the shoreline, some methods use that angle as a part of the calculation and would extend them out at that angle, allowing for that dock, excuse me, I was looking at it backwards. The property to the north, excuse me, I was looking at the shoreline but if you look at that shoreline, feasibly, looking at this, from a picture, would extend farther into theirs and would be allowable, if you use that methodology. I mean, so it’s really tough. There’s no clear cut answer. Mr. Kuhl: Well, the document you have in your hand is legal tender and it was drawn by a surveyor, correct. Mr. Rehm: It’s drawn by a surveyor. Mr. Kuhl: So using that document, you’re admitting by that, that the dock is on Mr. Brown’s property. Mr. Rehm: We’re admitting that the property extends in to New York States waterway, which crosses over the property line extension. Mr. Kuhl: The property line extension, indicates that the dock is not on Ms. Clermont’s property, it’s on the neighbor’s property, correct? Mr. Rehm: The dock is completely on her property. Mr. Kuhl: It extends over the line going out in to the water. Mr. Clements: I think you want to distinguish between the dock and the deck. You’re coming at the deck right there. Mr. Kuhl: I’m talking about the dock. Mr. Rehm: The dock Mr. Rehm: The dock is over, is not on your client’s property. It’s on the neighbor’s property, correct? Mr. Jackoski: It’s actually in their literal rights. Mr. Rehm: Yes, It’s in the State of New York. Mr. Jackoski: We understand. Generally, we look at things that you project the property lines forward or you take the least restrictive right angle to the shoreline or the projection. That’s generally how we’ve looked at things. Mr. Kuhl: If you would just take everything and move it south, everything would be fine. You could also take that dock out there and make it a 2 foot wide and then she could still get an 8 ft. beam boat in there. Mr. Urrico: Is there any compromise, reconfiguration or anything that you could ask that will change the significant number of variances that you’re asking for? Mr. Rehm: We’re simply trying to seek what was permitted by the Lake George Park Commission, unfortunately. Mr. Urrico: So the variances would remain the same that you’re asking for? Mr. Rehm: Correct Mr. Jackoski: I think that what I heard from the adjoining neighbors was that they would like to see a setback of the deck itself on land. I think I heard 3 feet. I think that it has been mentioned or discussed about narrowing the dock and bringing it more in line with the literal rights. But, we’re simply looking to you, this is your application, and these are the variances you’re requesting. 9 Queensbury ZBA Meeting: May 25, 2011 Mr. Bean: The deck itself, not the dock, the deck, is going to make it safer and easier to use the property, such as slope, by building a deck over what was existing, the stone patio, the retaining wall, it doesn’t block anybody’s view, it doesn’t encroach on anybody, maybe Gary’s wall. But I can cut a little bit back off the property line. Ms. Clermont feels she should have a right to use her property; it’s not hurting anybody in the way it’s configured now. The dock has been in that place for a long long time. And, it obviously hasn’t hurt anybody up to this point where it is. We’re just asking to get it skinnier. I don’t really understand where it’s hurting anybody if to narrow the dock as it is; it’s been lived with where it is for, I don’t know, how many years, but’s it been quite a while. Mr. Randall, if he needs another berth for a boat, his tin boat that he throws in on Sue’s side, and by the way, I was present when he asked Sue Clermont if he could launch his boat in that water and she said yes and you can do it anytime you want and he was doing it. But he asked permission and I was present there. And, she said as long as I don’t have my boat in here when I reconfigure the dock and put a boat in, there’s no problem. She didn’t have a problem with it. But he has the ability, if he needs another berth, now first of all, he can take his tin boat to the other side. Mr. Jackoski: We understand and we’re going to let you, as neighbors, work out how you use that water space. We are just going to focus on the configuration of the docks, the setbacks that are required, and the variances that are being asked for. I do want to ask Staff, we do have a shoreline buffering requirement in our Code, correct? Mr. Oborne: Yes Sir Mr. Jackoski: And in that shoreline buffering requirement, requires us to have planting 15 ft. off the shore, correct? Mr. Oborne: It does. Mr. Jackoski: And, in this arrangement we would have no buffering what-so-ever? Mr. Oborne: Obviously, yes sir. Mr. Jackoski: Well, I think at this time, anybody on the Board have any more questions for the applicant? I think the applicant has made it clear that they are looking for the exact variance and application that they have put forth in front of us. I will close the public hearing at this time and no SEQRA action required, so I’d like to poll the Board. Why don’t I start with you Brian? Mr. Clements: Thank you. This is a difficult situation here and I think that after we get through this, having the owners of all 3 properties would probably be a good idea to sit down and hash out how they’re going to do things. But, in looking at the information that I have, the letter from the Lake George Park Commission of 2002 and the meeting of the Lake George Park Commission in 2008 and as a matter of fact, in that document, they say that they approved the resolution and it was in the permit that was applied for to remove the 5 ft. wide, 24 ft. long crib dock and replace it with a 2 to 3 ft. wide 21 ft. long pile supported pier. In looking at the maps and the dock that’s there now, and the deck that’s there now, I would suggest, I guess, to the builder that he move the deck back a foot away from the wall and I would say that the dock part, I would be in favor, as you showed here. I know that, you know and understand that you shouldn’t be able to park a boat on the north side of that dock. I think that probably you could make some concessions with the neighbors to the south and so, except for the deck being moved back slightly, I would be in favor of the application. Mr. Jackoski: Ron Mr. Kuhl: This goes to, its nonconforming the way it is and it encroaches the literal property line and our specs say it shouldn’t, so I wouldn’t be in favor of it the way it is. Mr. Jackoski: Rick. Mr. Garrand: If it was me originally, and this was my property I think I would have done the exact same thing with this decking and the docks. But that wouldn’t make it in the best interest of the neighbors on either side. I don’t want to open a door to where we’ve allowed encroachment onto the water rights of a neighbor to the south especially. We don’t have anybody that can be up there to monitor this; Lake George Park Commission doesn’t have anybody that can spend the time and babysit a project like this. I just can’t be in favor of it. Mr. Jackoski: I’ll go next. I think that, I’d like to see less relief sought than what’s here. I think that there’s an opportunity to rectify the situation more to satisfy, more of the neighbors that are involved in this. It does seem like there’s a long history of unsatisfied parties, so I too would not be in favor of the project. 10 Queensbury ZBA Meeting: May 25, 2011 Mr. Jackoski: Jim Mr. Underwood: I think the reason that I suggested the last time that we send this to the Park Commission for their review was that I wanted them to sign off because they’re the ultimate authority. We don’t have jurisdiction over the waters of Lake George; that’s why we have a Lake George Park Commission. And, I think in their deliberations, they supported what you had proposed here. The dock has a legal standing; it’s been there for many years. You’re asking to narrow that dock down. The encroachment on the property to the north side is going to remain as it is. The south side setback from the boathouse there is going to be better than what exists now. There will be a boat berth there, but that boat has to be within the confines of the 10 ft. plus or minus a few inches, I guess, of shoreline as it exists on the deed. And, I think realistically speaking here; we’re making mountains out of mole hills. That fence has been there; the wall has been there since 1947; people have used this lot in some way, shape, or form, either as a stake dock or a crib dock. It’s now going to be a pile driven dock. Nothing is going to have changed. A boat will be there and there are plenty of boats on Lake George. The Park Commission has signed off that they think that it’s a reasonable solution to the problem. It’s not within our prevue, I mean, we can make suggestions to make the situation better, move the dock, but we don’t have any right to impose that on any property owner. The Park Commission will follow up on where the dock is built. And if it’s done as applied for here, I don’t have a problem with approving it. Mr. Jackoski: Okay, Joyce. Mrs. Hunt: Yeah, I would say this is rather a convelueded problem; talking about here say, folklore, back when, a neighbor did this, a neighbor did that, but for me personally, 3 of the reliefs are 100 percent and one is 80 percent and that’s not acceptable. I would not be in favor. Mr. Jackoski: Roy Mr. Urrico: I kind of agree with both sides here. I think there’s room to compromise on both angles. I think the true test for me is what the Lake George Park Commission ruled on. They’ve said that they authorize the modification of this preexisting nonconforming dock for the purpose of enlarging the boat slip to the north of the dock. So they’ve also considered the history of this and what existing before and what will happen after, if this is approved. I think that they have done some of our work for us in this instance by giving us their reasoning. But I also feel that there is some room for compromise here. I think Mr. Clements talked about maybe downsizing the deck somewhat rather than the dock and I think if we can see some give back on that I think I would be in favor of it. Mr. Bean: Well, I’m willing to narrow the width of the deck up, you know, for the deck, if that’s what, or one of the bigger hang ups is, I don’t know, with the ones that are not in favor of it. Because you’re, I guess you don’t like to give 100 percent relief, I guess. So, if I narrow the deck up as Mr. Clements suggests, taking one foot off the property line towards the wall , would that make anybody feel better? Mr. Urrico: It’s not a question of feeling better, it’s a question of the amount of relief we grant, we’re supposed to grant you the minimum amounts of relief. It’s not a question of whether we feel good about it; it’s a question of doing our job. Mr. Bean: Well, Gary wanted to do the 3 feet, he said, I’ll cut it a foot back and you know, and if has to go over the wall to do something, that gives him enough room to do it. Mr. Jackoski: May I suggest to my fellow Board members, that, while I certainly wouldn’t, I mean, obviously seems to me that there isn’t a favorable Board resolution, should we go to a vote. What I’m wondering is, that if we table this so that the applicant could provide us with revised deck plans, railing plans that they’ve mentioned that they would be looking to put railings in, better determine how far off the property lines they would be willing to move this deck. Would that be something the Board would be interested in? Mr. Garrand: Yes Mr. Clements: I’d be interested in that because I’d also like to see what they might do on that side where the wall is, where some kind of a, something to put up there as a railing or fence, something to keep people from falling off there. Mr. Jackoski: So would you like to request a tabling motion? Mr. Bean: Yeah, and I’ll come back with another plan for the deck. Mr. Jackoski: And, please, there is a shoreline buffering requirement in our Code, so if you could pay attention to that somehow; or at least take a look at it. Staff can certainly help you with that. 11 Queensbury ZBA Meeting: May 25, 2011 Mr. Oborne: I would suggest, as far as a shoreline buffering, obviously that is something the Planning Board and it is something that they can waive also. I think we’re aware of that. With that said, if you’re going to table this, I suggest you open the public hearing again. Mr. Jackoski: Yeah, right. Mr. Oborne: And to also notify the Board that when you do these types of deliberations, you really should use the balancing test. And I know that there seems to be more of a subjective feel to this and I just want to throw that out there; the balancing test is there for a reason. And with that I would suggest that you open the public hearing again. Mr. Underwood: Do you want to go through the balancing test so we have some concrete, so he has something to come back to. Mr. Jackoski: Would you be willing to lead that? Mr. Underwood: Sure Mr. Jackoski: That would be great. I wasn’t feeling that I was being subjective, but maybe I’m wrong. Mr. Underwood: In making a determination for the Board I think what we need to look at here, is whether an undesirable change or change in character in the neighborhood and keep in mind, this preexists; it’s been there since the 1940’s in some way shape or form. So I think that the Board members have asked, the majority of the Board members have asked for some alteration from what was suggested by the applicant. Alright, and that either a narrowing of the deck. You guys have got to give him something more than, it’s got to be a foot, two foot, three feet, I don’t know what you guys are looking for, you know, that previously existing decking up there, where the deck is now proposed to be built, is a patio, it’s a solid rock and cement; it’s been there since the 1940’s. Is the deck going to change things from the 1940’s? You have to ask yourself that question. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method feasible for the applicant to pursue other than an area variance. Anything that you would propose to build here, in the dock form, or leaving as is, or building a deck is going to require relief. But it’s not going to require anymore relief than already exists. I think that the question answered on that one. And whether the request for the variance is substantial? The request is substantial but it already exists. We’re not going to be increasing any of the relief that already doesn’t existing. In fact we are going to be relieving some of the relief because we are narrowing the dock. The only thing is that the point of that dock does extend over onto the north side, slightly into the property on that side; that’s going to remain the same as they proposed. And, I know some Board members made the suggestion of swinging the dock so it’s directly straight out and I think that the applicant made the argument at that point that that would narrow the space where you could move the boat on the south side where it would be permitted. Whether the proposed variance would have an adverse effect or impact on the physical and environmental conditions of the neighborhood? The impacts to the north side will not change as per proposed because they’re already there; that dock, just the point of that dock encroaches. We do have the wall situation, which was built in 1947 with the anchor fence added at some point, over the top of that. Brian’s suggestion was to move it back a foot. And I think that the suggestion was, at some point, in the future, if the wall needs to be repaired that they have to have access to it. So maybe a foot seems reasonable, you can get your hand in there to fill it up with cement if you wanted to rebuild that wall. But it doesn’t look like it’s falling down to me. And last, whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-created. The lot as it exists because it’s only 10 feet wide, we’re working with very short parameters as to what we can and cannot do. We’ve already made the determination that nothing is going to ever be done on the north side, to the north, because that property does not allow for any boat to be moored on. But the south side between the boathouse and the dock; are of reasonable size to use on Lake George could be placed on that side of the dock. Mr. Jackoski: I would just like to clarify for the record, it does seem that, according to the pictures from the site visit, there’s actually exposed earth and grass and ground under the decking that has been added to the property. So it necessarily wasn’t all patio. Mr. Bean: No, it was all slate patio, I mean there’s Mr. Jackoski: So, that’s now covered over by the new deck. That’s not new patio. Mr. Bean: That’s not been covered over yet. I mean, where the top steps, where the grass is? Mr. Jackoski: All of that grass in front of the wall that faces the lake. Just want to make sure, because Mr. Underwood: Suggested that it was all patio to begin with. Mr. Bean: Well, it’s all patio the last wooden steps up there. 12 Queensbury ZBA Meeting: May 25, 2011 Mr. Jackoski: Correct Mr. Bean: There is Mr. Jackoski: Thank you. Well, is there any more guidance or suggestions for the applicant? Mr. Bean: So after hearing this, does it change anybody’s mind at all? Mrs. Hunt: I would like to see 2 feet off of that stone wall. Mr. Jackoski: Would that be earth that be ground? Actual or is that the exposed old patio, under, whatever was there? So the suggestion has been made, if you could keep the deck and the railings 2 feet off of the north boundary and I guess the east boundary. Mr. Bean: 2 feet off of each side? Mr. Jackoski: No, not the south, I didn’t hear anything about the south boundary. Mr. Bean: The south boundary is all bushes and stuff. Mr. Oborne: I do think the applicant has got good direction from the Board at this point and should submit a plan that they hope will be approvable at this point. The onus is on the applicant. The exercise for the balancing test was basically, that is what you are charged with doing. I just want to remind the Board of that and I will leave it at that. Mr. Bean: So just come back with a new application, in other words, instead of 10 ft. wide deck, I want an 8 ft. wide deck and 2 feet off of the wall. I just want to make clear; I just want to get it right when I come in here; if that’s what you’re asking for. Mr. Clements: Someone suggested 2 feet; I would certainly be in favor of that because I had suggested 1 foot Mr. Jackoski: Okay. Mrs. Hunt: Do you need a motion now? Mr. Jackoski: Well, why don’t I poll the Board members one more time to make sure we’re clear to go to tabling and then I would feel more comfortable. So, if Ron, you wouldn’t mind. Are you okay with the 2 feet? Mr. Kuhl: And then what’s going to happen with the dock? Mr. Jackoski: He’s suggesting that he would like to leave it as, his application, as suggested. Mr. Kuhl: But you’re working on the dock right? Mr. Bean: The main crib, the first crib dock part, I just put a new top on it. The arm on the dock will … Mr. Kuhl: Will stay just the way it is, the same width and everything? Mr. Bean: When we get a permit, we’re going to narrow it. Mr. Kuhl: To what width? Mr. Bean: 2 to 3 feet, tapers the way the permit is. Mr. Kuhl: Why don’t you move it so you’re not encroaching the literal property line? Make it 2 feet on the line, all the way, right on the line. Mr. Bean: You’ve got to get a really small boat that way. Mr. Kuhl: 6 ft. beams, 7 ft. beams are going to work. Mr. Bean: We would like to permit it the way that the Park Commission, and Mr. Kuhl: They like that? Mr. Bean: They did. 13 Queensbury ZBA Meeting: May 25, 2011 Mr. Kuhl: And what about Mr. Brown saying that you’re on his property? Mr. Bean: Well, I’m sorry about that. Mr. Kuhl: I’m going to stay right where I am, I am against it. Mr. Jackoski: Rick Mr. Garrand: At this point I see that as a compromise. I think that it will help out the property owner to the north and that he doesn’t have to worry about people so much falling over onto his property and him getting sued. Mr. Bean: I would also like to remind the Board; Ms. Clermont isn’t gripping about his wall being on her property, on the east side. And it encroaches on her property, I’m not positive. Mr. Jackoski: I see that on the survey. Mr. Bean: Ms. Clermont isn’t gripping about that and you know, if I had to take that down, at some point, because I’m not advocating that, but she is not complaining about that. Mr. Jackoski: That’s good, now we don’t have another problem to deal with. Mr. Garrand: The survey doesn’t appear that, there’s a lot of that on her property. Mr. Bean: Well, it’s not a lot, okay, but you’re worried about the deck being against the wall, right on the property line; his wall, you know, I could complain that his wall is going to touch my deck. Mr. Jackoski: And, that wouldn’t be a Zoning Board issue, that’s a legal matter between the property owners. Mr. Bean: Yeah, but I’m just saying, she’s not complaining anything, about that wall, encroaching on her property. Mr. Urrico: Can we get through the polling? Mr. Underwood: Yeah, okay Mr. Garrand: I don’t think it’s a bad compromise. I think I would be in favor of it. Mr. Jackoski: Jim Mr. Underwood: I haven’t changed my mind. I think shrinking the dock from 10 to 8 ft. is going to make things a little bit better; I don’t really see any need to do that, you know, I think, as long as you’re going to have a railing up on that deck, around the whole thing, it’s going to be safety proof as far as anybody falling over the fence. So, I would be all in favor of leaving it as is. I would vote for it. Mr. Jackoski: Joyce Mrs. Hunt: I’m in favor of 2 ft. Mr. Urrico: I think this better satisfies the balancing test. I would still be in favor of it. Mr. Jackoski: I personally, I think that the balancing test, I think it’s still too much relief, so I would be against it. But it sounds to me like the majority of the Board here is in favor of that proposed revision to the project. I would request that when you do reapply, if you could give us the drawings of the deck location and the railings that would help the height, especially. Okay, so I’m going to re-open the Public Hearing because of this request by the applicant to Table the Motion, to table the applicant. Does anyone have a motion? th Mr. Oborne: The 29is available, of June, at this point. And the Board may want to give them a deadline date for submission; revised materials. Mr. Jackoski: Does Staff have a suggested date as to when they would like to see submitted materials? Mr. Oborne: I would say, how about June 3rd? 14 Queensbury ZBA Meeting: May 25, 2011 Mr. Jackoski: If whoever makes the motion; request that we table it to the second meeting, we haven’t yet established, as specific date for the second meeting in June. To the applicant, I suspect that the th second meeting will be June 29. Would anyone like to make a motion? Mr. Clements: I’ll do it. Mr. Jackoski: Thank you. Mr. Clements: I’ll make a motion to table Area Variance 20-2011 Mr. Clements: MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 20-2011, SUSAN CLERMONT OF OLD ASSEMBLY POINT ROAD, Introduced by Mr. Clements, seconded by Mrs. Hunt To the second meeting in June to be determined with a submission deadline of June 3, 2011. th Duly adopted this 25 day of May 2011 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Underwood, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Clements, Mr. Jackoski NOES: None Mr. Jackoski: And I apologized to everyone here; this was a long application. The Board members don’t like to take this long but this is a very difficult application for us. So, thank you for bearing with us and I appreciate your time. Okay, on to new business; the next item on our agenda and I should have asked staff how to pronounce this last name, Staff? Mr. Oborne: Thouin. Mr. Jackoski: Joseph Thouin at 1 Vista Court, Area Variance no. 27-2011. This is a Type II SEQRA. If Mr. Thouin, could you join us at that table; that would be great. And, I will turn it over to Roy. Mr. Urrico: The applicant is proposing construction of a 6 ft. high privacy fence in the non-archetectural front yard and in doing so he needs relief from maximum height restrictions and for privacy fences located in the front yard. The parcel will require the following area variance; request for 64 linear feet for placement of a 6 foot privacy fence along the eastern front boundary. And again, as a reminder, we have to consider the criteria, the balancing test. Staff has suggested there will minor impacts to the neighborhood. That a feasible alternative could include placing the fence in a compliant location. That the request for 64 linear feet or 100% relief for the placement of a privacy fence within the 30 foot frontline setback for the MDR zone as per §179-5-070C(4) may be considered severe relative to the ordinance. And there will be minor impacts on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. And that the difficulty may be considered self-created. However, Staff thinks that the unique configuration of this lot, three (3) front yards, may contribute to the difficulty. And they also made comment on that there is a Clear Vision Zone of approximately 60 feet and that satisfies the 35 foot requirement as per §179-5-070A(3). And the SEQRA status is Type II, no action is required. Mr. Jackoski: Thank you, welcome, and I trust you are not going to be putting a boat anywhere near this property, right! Would you like to add anything to the application that was read into the record? Mr. Thouin: That was pretty comprehensive; again, my name is Joe Thouin. Basically, we would like to construct a 6 ft. high privacy fence on what we consider to be our backyard, according to Town regulations because we are adjacent to Town roads. All of our backyard or a big portion of it is considered front yard so we need variances for a fence, which I am very happy that I called up a couple of times and kept on asking because my original thought was, fences don’t need permits, okay it’s fine, and I almost put it up but I’m glad I didn’t. That would have been embarrassing if I got myself into a violation. So basically we’ve got a road front of approximately 279 feet, we’re looking to put up a fence parallel and adjacent to June Drive. I’ve located the property pins; this would be located, obviously no closer to the road that our property lines would allow which is approximately 11 feet off the edge of the pavement. There will be some green space there between the road and the fence. If you have any questions, I’d be happy to entertain them. Mr. Kuhl: Are you going to replace the wooden fence you have there now with something new or is it going closer to the road? Mr. Thouin: The fence would be closer to the road; from this angle it would be basically between that large evergreen and the shrub, backed up against the shrub. You can see on the side of the house where that down spout is; there’s a little flower box, built in to the house. It would be on the far side of that flower box and come approximately 21 feet and then head parallel with the road. Once the fence is 15 Queensbury ZBA Meeting: May 25, 2011 up you wouldn’t see that existing wooden fence; we’re planning on taking that down if our variance is granted. Mr. Garrand: Most of the houses on June Drive with fences have wooden fences; not plastic fences. Mr. Clements: Do most of them have wooden fences? Mr. Thouin: They do. Mr. Garrand: I’ve been through that whole area; a hundred times. Mr. Clements: A couple even have chain link. Mr. Thouin: Yeah Mr. Garrand: That’s legal Mr. Kuhl: Joe is there any reason why you wouldn’t think about just doing the 5 ft. fence rather than a 6, isn’t a 6 kind of stark and tall? Mr. Thouin: I just thought 6 is kind of a standard fence height that you find at Lowe’s or Home Depot. We did consider 4 ft. One of the reasons we’re looking for 6 or more than 4 is, we just got a dog and we were doing a little research on what can a dog jump if it’s really motivated? Mr. Garrand: Is it a lab? Mr. Thouin: It’s a wire-haired point and griffin; it’s similar to a german pointer and there’s a little more research on german pointers, so that’s… Mr. Garrand: so it would be over 4 footer Mr. Thouin: so just standard sizing basically Mr. Jackoski: Any other questions from the Board members? Okay, I’d like to open the public hearing and seeing that there is no one in the audience at this moment, I guess we would probably go right to polling the Board. So, let me close the public hearing. Mr. Clements: Are there any letters? Mr. Jackoski: I apologize, are the any written comments? Mr. Urrico: no private comments, nothing. Mr. Jackoski: Thank you Roy. Let’s start the poll at Roy’s end this time. Mr. Urrico: Alright, this is an easy one. I think he is a victim of his location more than anything else. I think there will not be any changes to the neighborhood as far as I can tell. The alternative would be to place it somewhere else, but where else is he going to place it; there’s only one place in the yard, I mean there is only one place a fence can go, it’s around the front. And Staff has already said that the clear vision zone is satisfied by the placement of this, so I think that satisfies me in terms of whether or not the variance is substantial. I think there is no physical changes and I think, again, I think it’s self-created, not self-created, but because of its location. Mr. Jackoski: Joyce Mrs. Hunt: Yeah, I have to agree. I think because of this unique configuration of your lot here, you have no choice and having a dog, I can understand why a 6 ft. fence. And we’ve had this sort property before and we have granted it. I would be in favor. Mr. Underwood: I have no problem with it. I think the 6 ft. fence makes more sense to me, it will give you a little privacy, you’ve got people rolling past you 24/7 on the those roads. It’s a reasonable request. The fence isn’t any where’s near the corner so it’s not going to interfere with people seeing and cars downing the other way either. Mr. Jackoski: Rick? 16 Queensbury ZBA Meeting: May 25, 2011 Mr. Garrand: I’d be in favor of this, having lived on a corner lot. The Board was this generous with me when I put my fence up, I would like to see wooden though, because it would match the character of the neighborhood. Mr. Kuhl: Yeah, now you know why I don’t have dogs. You know, when I went by your house, something I said, white plastic, is that what you’re doing. Mr. Thouin: You know, that’s what we’re leaning towards. The 3 options we were weighing was your typical pressure treated spruce of pine, dog eared top, or a cedar, just because they last a little longer and they tend to age a little better, or the vinyl – the white vinyl. I tend to personally be towards more the cedar because it’s natural. But one of my neighbors, asking, you know he’s got a fence to be painted white. And I said, well, what do you think? He said, well, vinyl is final. It’s going to look that same 10 years down the road as it does the day we put it in. So we thought, in a neighborhood such as that with a white house, with white trim, that the vinyl with black hardware would look sharper and maintain its aesthetic quality over time. Mr. Kuhl: I have no problem with it on the location you’re putting it in. You’re not going to block anybody on the traffic, the clear vision is left, what I think is important. And besides you’re going to give the kids on Halloween a target. Mr.Jackoski: Brian Mr. Clements: How do you like having 3 front yards? Mr. Thouin: It’s nice; I got to get to know the neighborhood which is nice as it helped out with the public hearing. Mr. Clements: I agree with the rest of the Board members, I would be in a favor of the application. Mr. Jackoski: I too would be in favor and I actually would be leaning towards the character of the white vinyl. I think that something to consider is road salt and snow plow effect on the wood fence. Mr. Garrand: I think the white does stay in character with your house. Mr. Jackoski: Having said all of that, would anyone like to make a motion. Mrs. Hunt: MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 27-2011 JOSEPH THOUIN, 1 VISTA COURT, Introduced by Mrs. Hunt, second by Mr. Clements Applicant proposes construction of a 6 ft. high privacy fence in the non-archetectural front yard. Relief requested from maximum height restrictions and for privacy fences located in the front yard. The privacy fence for the front yard request is for 64 linear for placement of a 6 foot privacy fence along the eastern front boundary. Minor impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated. There really is no feasible alternative because of the location of the house and the lot configuration. And, although the request might be substantial, again, it’s because of the lot configuration and house placement. There will be minor impacts on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood and this difficulty is not really self-created because the lot has three (3) front yards. Duly adopted this 25th day of May 2011 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Underwood, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Clements, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Jackoski NOES: None Mr. Jackoski: I’d like to call the next item on tonight’s agenda, applicant’s Chip Esper, Owner: Patricia Kelly, 67 Peachtree Lane, Sherman Pines; Phase 2, Area Variance Number 28-2011, and I’ll turn it over to Roy. Mr. Oborne: If you could hang on a second, because it appears that the applicant is not here. I’ll do a quick run out there and see if he’s here. Mr. Oborne: You may want to consider a tabling motion to a future date. Mr. Jackoski: How about this, why don’t we revise the agenda slightly and hold that application until the end in case the applicant shows up. Would that be fair to the Board? Okay, so we will now call David Kenny, David Kenny owner of 1444 State Route 9, the Adirondack Factory Outlet Mall, Sign Variance No. 29-2011, it is an Unlisted SEQRA and I will turn it over to Roy. 17 Queensbury ZBA Meeting: May 25, 2011 Mr. Urrico: These are the summation of the Staff Notes: The applicant is proposing an additional 75 square foot tenant wall sign located above the store front in addition to the approved 40 square foot wall sign located on the tower of the building facing State Route 9 to the south. The parcel will require an area variance; relief from the maximum number of allowable wall signs for one tenant in a business complex as per §140-6B(3)[4][b]. Staff has suggested that in looking at the balancing test that there will be minor impacts to the neighborhood as anticipated. It appears the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by the placement of the tenant’s business on the existing pylon sign fronting State Route 9. That the request for an additional wall sign or 100% relief from the maximum number of allowable wall signs for one tenant in a business complex as per §140-6B(3)[4][b] may be considered severe relative to the Ordinance. That the minor impacts on the physical or environmental conditions of the neighborhood may be anticipated. And the difficulty may be considered self-created. Staff says also that the ZBA may wish to ascertain if any other tenants in the plaza will require additional wall signs. Staff has concerns that if approved, precedent will be set for additional requests. And this is a type, Unlisted SEQRA. And, the Warren County Planning Board also looked at this and they determined that there was no County impact. Mr. Jackoski: Thank you. Roy read in a fairly descript description of this application. If you could identify yourselves for the record and if you’d like to add anything to this. Mr. Lapper: Yes, Thank you, for the record, Jon Lapper with Laura Kohls who is Dave Kenny’s daughter. I’ve been here for years presenting sign variances and I know how careful the Board is about signs. We want to show, in this case, that there’s really a specific need that is, not precedent setting, but unique to the layout of this particular store in this plaza that makes it difficult to see the main sign and that it’s a really important benefit to the applicant but not a burden on the neighborhood. And, I hope that when we get done, you’ll agree. To begin with, we have a whole series of pictures but, just in terms of the magnitude of the variance, the Children’s Place is a high end retail, for those of us who don’t have little kids anymore, may not shop there but a real important addition to the outlet s to have this kind of a quality tenant which has picked up more here and Ed Moore’s Plazas; coming up later tonight. It’s really improved over the last few years and especially some of these high end tenants, to really focus coming in to a new Town on signage but it doesn’t mean we’re going to come in and ask for 250 sq. ft. sign, but it means that it’s a really important issue for them. So it’s really critical to get the Children’s Place. They also took what was originally built as 3 store fronts and recently has been 2 store fronts so when you just compare those in terms of the square footage of what the applicant seeks tonight, which is one sign of 75 sq. ft. and the second sign of 40 sq. ft. And, 40 sq. ft. would argue as pretty modest. But the two of those together at 115 sq. ft. you could easily have two of those because in the way, a business complex, when you measure for the distance from the road at 140 ft. from the road, you could have more than 115 sq. ft. for each sign. So just in terms of not what is going on here, but what could go on here, just want to put that on the table, if this was, if the same space was leased out to two tenants you’d have two wall signs in the place; just to put that in perspective. But the reason that we’re here asking for the variance, isn’t for that reason. It’s because the architecture of the plaza, I’ll pass these around, which was upgraded a number of years ago, with Planning Board support, to have these towers. So it architecturally creates some interest, but it means that where the store, are set back, it doesn’t mean that if you’re driving north on Route 9 you can’t see it, but if you’re coming in, if you’re driving in from the curb cut on Route 9 as you’re east towards the back of the plaza to where the new Reebok Store is in the back, the tower blocks the sign, The Children’s Place and that’s really the issue. So, all they’re looking for is a 40 sq. ft. sign on the Tower so you know what’s behind the tower. And you know where you’re going. Mr. Kuhl: Jon, Mr. Lapper: Yes Mr. Kuhl: This pictorial, is incorrect right Mr. Lapper: Yes Mr. Kuhl: Because this sign is going to be on the front, not this way Mr. Lapper: Right, the sign when held is west facing, it’s facing towards Route 9 Mr. Clements: It’s not shown correctly on here then, it would be on this side over here. Mr. Lapper: Exactly, I think that also in the Staff Notes it appeared that we were asking for a 75 ft. sign and a 75 ft. sign is what’s there. Mr. Oborne: That’s been approved Mr. Lapper: That, Yes, and this is the 40 ft. smaller sign on the tower. So in term of the benefit to the applicant; it’s that visibility issue. In terms of the burden on the neighborhood, I would argue that the, 18 Queensbury ZBA Meeting: May 25, 2011 because of the way that the Children’s Place sign on the façade is located, it’s hard to see and you need to have a sign facing west. Laura also points out that in the pictures that you have, being passed down, you’re actually enter the sidewalk area by going underneath that tower because they previously upgraded the Plaza by adding landscaping. So, it’s not just open storefronts and everyone walks from the parking lot, pedestrian traffic is channelized so you don’t walk over the landscaping. So you’re actually coming in underneath that column and for that reason the tenant would like people to know that that’s where they are and especially cars driving in from the road. Mr. Kuhl: But what are you going to do when you rent out 3 more store? Were you gonna, you know, there’s not enough room to hang all of those signs. Mr. Lapper: The plaza is now finally almost completely rented. Mr. Kuhl: Are the other tenants going to come to us and say hey she got hers, what about us. Mr. Lapper: Well, in 1986 a variance was granted so that the signs on the north, stores on the north side, which is Dress Barn, Corning has signs towards the road on the tower in front where Timberland is. They’re small signs. But, that was really already addressed. But you can’t see what’s in the back. Mr. Garrand: With the same argument, you’d also, instead of having the large Children’s Store sign you’d have a smaller one. Mr. Lapper: At the Children’s Place. Yeah and I don’t disagree that that’s a valid argument, but because they have two store front, that’s 75 ft. , when you look at the whole expanse of how many square feet is the store. Ms. Coles: Just over 5,000 sq. ft. Mr. Lapper: Yeah, so for 5,000 sq. ft. space you could easily have two , 2,500 sq. ft. spaces and you’d have 200 and something sq. ft. signs. So it’s not like that’s over signage, the fact that they chose 75 ft. is not the biggest and best sign you could have there. You could easily have 2 stores as they use to. At the end of the day, it’s not going to scream signs, it’s a commercial plaza, there are trees in the front now which are maturing, and it’s just a matter of making sure that this gets identified. There’s another argument to consider that, I mentioned that, under the Sign Code for the business complex, the size of the sign starts at 80 sq. ft. for100 ft. and it goes 10 sq. ft. for every 10 ft. back from the road. If you take these 2 signs together, 75 and 40; if you envision, I’m not saying this to make an intellectual argument, but just to lay it out, what you could do without a variance, if you could envision a barbell sign, where you’d have a sign attached to another sign. I think we once did this at Brueggers a long time ago in Queensbury Plaza. You could have the sign in the front and the Town would consider it one sign if it was attached, not that that would visually look good, but it wouldn’t require coming to this Board for a variance because, again, the total square footage of the 40 plus the 75 is not excessive and it’s just a matter of the fact that there are two. And, I think it’s just visually better for this to be facing west and the other one to be facing south. Mr. Oborne: Can I ask a question Mr. Chairman. Mr. Jackoski: Sure Mr. Oborne: The Children’s Place, on the tower, that was the one that was approved, is that not being installed? Mr. Lapper: No Mrs. Kohls: The one that was approved is the one that’s over the store front and I received a sign permit for that. Mr. Oborne: Okay. That’s fine and that’s not an issue as far as the notes go. Mr. Jackoski: Any discussion by Board members? We do have a public hearing that’s scheduled for this evening. Is there any written comment? Mr. Urrico: No. I do have a question, I’m sorry. The other tower has 3 or 4 signs there. Mr. Lapper: Yes Mr. Urrico: Those businesses are not located right behind the tower. 19 Queensbury ZBA Meeting: May 25, 2011 Mr. Lapper: Because that’s what I mentioned from the 86 variances, those are the ones on the other side. Mr. Urrico: But you’re reasoning was that; this sign on the other tower is because the business is located behind it and you can’t see it. Mr. Lapper: Because that’s another visual issue; it has two issues. Mr. Urrico: No, three issues. Mr. Lapper: The issue is with the tenants on the other side is already accomplished previously. The north facing tenants have a south facing sign. Mr. Urrico: But the reasoning for it to be on the tower, on this side, is not the same reasoning. Mr. Lapper: No, that’s because when you drive in, the tower, if you’re driving in you don’t know Children’s Place is there because the tower blocks your view of the primary façade sign. Mr. Urrico: But if you can’t see the other signs either, they’re blocked as well. You can’t see the Corning sign from the road. I mean, you can’t see where the business is located. Mr. Lapper: Well, it depends if you’re going north or south. If you’re coming south you would see it from the road. And if you’re coming north you would see the tower sign. Mr. Urrico: You can’t see the shoe store. That’s part of the reason for having pylon signs out front because you can list all of the signs for the stores that are there. So we went to the tower signs instead of the pylon signs and now we have this additional problem. Mr. Lapper: Well, I think every case is unique and we’re not asking for a blanket anything, just for the fact that this is a 5,000 sq. ft. store, which is a sizeable store and the tower does block the façade and hopefully you’ll agree that 40 sq. ft. is not a major sign and these are all very similar in size, shape, color, so these aren’t screaming out at you. It’s just for information for direction. And at the end of the day, this corridor generates a lot of sales tax, property taxes for all of us, you know it’s just a good thing to have people drive by and open their wallets. Mr. Kuhl: My wife practices that a lot. Mr. Lapper: Thank you Mr. Kuhl: Personally, though, I don’t understand Jon why the sign is going to, the lettering is going to bigger than the other pylon. Isn’t that going to make it unbalanced? I mean the left pylon has four stores listed, correct. They have four stores and now on the right pylon you want to put the Children’s Place; don’t you want to make it the same, the lettering the same height. Mr. Lapper: The tower over here, you would see only, when you come in, from Route 9, so they’re really visually separate. Mr. Kuhl: Okay, so you’re saying you’re not going to see both towers at one time. Mr. Lapper: I’m not saying that they’re invisible. Mr. Kuhl: I just was talking aesthetically. My wife can find that store with or without that sign. Mr. Jackoski: I did open the public hearing and did not see anyone in the audience who would like to address the Board. There is no written comment so I think I can close the public hearing. Is there any discussion by the Board before we go to SEQRA? Mr. Jackoski: Let’s poll the Board and start with Brian this time. Mr. Clements: I guess, generally, I would be in favor of this. I guess my only question would be if there are other stores who want to put a sign up there, would you be willing to make that sign smaller so that you could put signs like it on the other tower, over there, like Ronald’s talking about. Mr. Lapper: Do you think anyone else would want to be on that tower, probably not. Ms. Kohls: The tenants that we have, the current tenant, next that we have, no, I couldn’t say that that might not happen in the future because we’re all trying to upgrade the tenants that are coming to the area. One of the biggest things, all of the tenants, and I’m sure the Moore’s will speak to this as well. 20 Queensbury ZBA Meeting: May 25, 2011 They all want the maximum best visibility, best directional signage that they can get to make sure people know where their stores are and how to get there. I can’t promise you that another tenant will never come and ask. Mr. Jackoski: Even if you come back again, that’s when we can address, for modifying that sign. Mr. Clements: Other than that, I’d be in favor. Mr. Jackoski: We are just polling the Board at this point. Ron Mr. Kuhl: I think that’s going to become, that could become an issue; that everybody, other stores want the visibility, want the sign up. I have really no problem with it. I think you’re making an error in judgment by not making them smaller. But I would hope that if you came back and wanted a modification; because you only have so much area you can hang signs. That you don’t then don’t reduce this sign. Mr. Jackoski: Rick Mr. Garrand: I drove by it twice today, once going north and once going south and didn’t see the Children’s Store sign either time. Seriously, I didn’t see it, either time, north or south. It is hard to see but with that in mind, I think a feasible alternative would be a smaller sign that would also allow other tenants to have some visibility in there too should they have the same visibility problems. I don’t think it will change the character of the neighborhood. It may be considered substantial. I’d like to see a smaller sign. Mr. Jackoski: So you would not be in favor? Mr. Garrand: No. Mr. Jackoski: Jim? Mr. Underwood: I too would not be favor of it unless it were a smaller sign like the ones on the other side there, and even then, I’m still skeptical because I think we’re reinventing the Sign Code again. I think, Ed Moore was up there when they went to the smaller signs on the businesses. You know, if you’re going to have a big wall sign, then you want another wall sign out on front of the building I think that’s asking for too much. I would prefer in the long term see smaller hanging signs over the businesses like we did up in the other one. I think everybody really thought , we did the same thing with Price Chopper and I know it’s a big thing to change over all the signs and the whole processes, but it’s the way we use to do things isn’t the way we need to do things in the future. I’m going to hold off. Mr. Jackoski: Joyce Mrs. Hunt: Well, I think this is a unique situation, I don’t think it’s something that somebody else could come back, and say, we want it because the Children’s Place got it. I think it’s unique because you cannot see that sign from the parking lot. I would be in favor. Mr. Jackoski: Roy Mr. Urrico: I’m only concerned about what is happening up in that neck of the woods and basically throughout the Town of Queensbury. I’ve said this before and I’ll say it again. I think we’ve been, we’ve done sign variances, we’ve done the sign code and I really think that the results we are seeing are at the outlets. I really do think we’re being inundated with too many signs. And the size of the signs is getting bigger, and that concerns me as well. I think this might be a minor impact to the neighborhood but I think it will be major, I think it’s the start of the ball rolling again to second wall sign and a larger one, not even a smaller one. It appears the benefit sought can be achieved by change, changing the placement; you have a pylon sign out front that can be used. I don’t think people, people need to know that’s there’s something there but they don’t need to know exactly where the store is. I don’t think they shop that way. They go to a complex, they park in the parking lot, and then they walk to the store they want to walk to, usually several of them especially in that complex. And, so I think I would be against this one at this point. Mr. Jackoski: Okay, I have also considered the balancing test of the five items and I think in order to attract the tenants that want to invest in Queensbury and stay here; especially in this corridor where we have concentrated these types of retail stores, I personally think that, it may be considered self-created, I think it’s a minor impact given everything that’s there, given how far off the road it is, so I would be in favor. Mr. Jackoski: So the public hearing is closed and we should go to SEQRA, if you would please Rick Mr. Garrand: Having reviewed the Short Environmental Forms for Unlisted Actions, 21 Queensbury ZBA Meeting: May 25, 2011 Mr. Garrand: MOTION FOR A SEQRA NEGATIVE DECLARATION SIGN VARIANCE NO. 29-2011 DAVID KENNY, Introduced by Mr. Garrand, seconded by Mrs. Hunt: There are no adverse environmental impacts with this application. Duly adopted this 25th day of May 2011 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Clements, Mr. Kuhl, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Jackoski NOES: Mr. Underwood, Mr. Urrico Mrs. Hunt: MOTION TO APPROVE SIGN VARIANCE NO. 29-2011, DAVID KENNY, 1444 STATE ROUTE 9 Introduced by Mrs. Hunt, seconded by Mr. Clements: Applicant proposes an additional 75 square foot tenant wall sign located above the store front in addition to the approved 40 square foot wall sign located on the tower of the building facing State Route 9 to the south. The relief requested is from the maximum number of allowable wall signs for one tenant in a business complex as per §140-6B(3)[4][b]. There will be minor impacts to the neighborhood. Because of the unique placement of the store and the tower, the benefit could not be achieved in any other way. The request for an additional wall sign may be considered severe but after the total of the two signs; it’s still within the range. Minor impacts on the physical or environmental conditions of the neighborhood may be anticipated. The difficulty may be considered self-created in that the tenant in which to advertise, is where they are. Duly adopted this 25th day of May 2011 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Clements, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Jackoski NOES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Underwood Mr. Jackoski: Continuing with our new business, on the agenda this evening, Ed Moore, Jr. DKNY location 1476 State Route 9, Log Jam Outlet Center, Sign Variance No. 30-2011, It’s an Unlisted SEQRA and we do have a public hearing. Mr. Urrico: The applicant is proposing two additional 64 sq. ft. wall signs to be placed on existing building tower. They are requesting relief from maximum number of allowable wall signs for one tenant in a business complex as per §140-6B(3)[4][b]. Staff has also looked at the balancing test and said that there are minor impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated. One feasible method would be to erect an allowable pylon sign to achieve the desired visibility along State Route 9. The request for two (2) additional wall signs or 200% relief from the maximum number of allowable wall signs for one tenant in a business complex as per §140-6B(3)[4][b] may be considered severe relative to the ordinance. Staff also says that minor impacts on the physical or environmental conditions may be anticipated and that the difficulty may be considered self-created. Staff also says that the applicant references on the application that the tower be used as their pylon sign; this is not allowable per the code as a tower is not a freestanding pylon sign. Further, the relief requested before this Board is for four additional wall sign for two tenants and potentially four additional wall sign for two future tenants. And this is a Type II SEQRA Unlisted. The Warren County Planning Board also looked at this and determined there was no County impact. Mr. Jackoski: Thank you, good evening, if you could state your name for the record and if you’d like to add anything to what was already read in. Mr. Moore: I’m Ed Moore Jr. and this is Ed Moore, Sr. Basically what we’re trying to do here is the same thing as the prior person was, is to create visibility for the tenants. We had a pylon sign years ago and it was god awful ugly thing and was close to the prior owners, got a variance to put it closer to the road and we thought it construed the road and it just wasn’t very pleasant looking and took that down and put some green area in and put the Brook Brothers and a couple of other wall signs underneath. As the business has evolved and we lease more spaces up as they go down towards the east or towards the back of the mall; there’s no visibility for those signs when people are heading, for those tenants when people are heading north or even heading from the south. What we would like to do is, in place of our pylon sign put what is called a wall sign, but really it’s only going to be 8 ft. wide by 1 ft. high which is basically the size of the banner we had up there. We have three stores now that are going in with potential for two more. So that’s what we’re looking to do and you know, to create visibility, you need sales and stuff like that. Mr. Moore, Sr.: If I may say that, little history here, I know we’ve been here before for the Brooks Brothers sign to get that done. Like my son says, we took down the pylon sign because we thought it 22 Queensbury ZBA Meeting: May 25, 2011 was very obtuse to the whole environment there. But our center here, this particular center, as you know we own the French Mountain Commons across the road, is just straight back, like on a 90 degree angle from the road. And those signs back there, they can’t be seen. And, we purchased this center four years ago, and in trying to turn it around and finally after four years we have some great names, Donna Caron, Guess, and Wilson’s coming in. And, just like the clients before, people demand that their name be out there, you know, they say that I’m Donna Caron, I’m Guess, people just don’t pull in and see who I am, they’ll pull off the road because I am who I am, whether I’m Polo or something and people look for those name brands. So, one of the things that they request, that, and we lost tenants, believe it or not, because they said, you know, you’re going to put us back here; they can’t see us from the road. We’ve had a couple of very good perspective tenants a couple of years ago and we said what are we going to do. Believe it or not, like this tower thing has become quite popular throughout the United States of America, in these shopping centers. So we said, Hey, look we’ve got a tower there, let’s try to use that tower. So, that’s where we are coming from and in reality we allowed one sign on the front of a building, a little overhang sign and then on the pylon sign, one on either side. So, in some cases, with some of the stores, which we have underneath, we’re not going to have two signs. We’re only going to have the front sign and one that hangs below on the picture you see. But in this case, we’re asking for basically what we normally would ask, although it’s on a tower, the sign on either side of the pylon side, and then the main sign in the front. So, and it’s for the visibility, it’s for the attraction of the shoppers to come in to the center. That’s why we’re here today for this and request these signs. Mr. Jackoski: Okay, thank you. Are there any questions from our Board members? Mr. Urrico: Why not put it under the Brooks Brother’s sign. Mr. Moore, Sr.: Because of when they come from the south, Mr. Urrico: From the north Mr. Moore, Jr.: From the north heading south, the stores in the back, you will not see Mr. Kuhl: You can’t see them Mr. Moore, Jr.: They can’t see them because they’re facing the other way. Mr. Moore, Sr. If you’ve every stood at the light. The light there on Route 149, if you park the car there, you see the first three signs, after that you don’t see anything. Mr. Garrand: You don’t see a lot because you have to be on your toes driving through there. There is a lot of distractions and traffic is stop and go. I mean somebody turns in front of you, they don’t put on a directional; somebody says turn here and they just go. So you don’t have a lot of time to see the signs. Mr. Moore, Sr.: Right and you really can’t turn your head too far because then you’ve really got a problem. Mr. Garrand: Yeah Mr. Moore, Sr.: So that’s why out there closer in the environment at least you can see it ahead of you as opposed to doing this, as opposed to trying to look down. Mrs. Hunt: I’d like to compliment Mr. Moore on what you have done with the plaza. And removing that ugly pylon sign, it’s certainly much more attractive. Mr. Moore, Sr. Thank you very much Mr. Jackoski: How far off the grade is the Brook’s Brothers sign, the top of the Brook’s Brother’s sign, about how far off from the grade? Mr. Moore, Jr.: Far up from the height. You mean down. Mr. Jackoski: Top of the sign down to the ground. Mr. Moore, Jr.: Down to the ground, I think that’s probably about 20 ft. Mr. Jackoski: It’s more than that. Mr. Moore, Jr.: No, I don’t believe so, because the first floor has 10, so maybe 20 to 25 ft. Mr. Jackoski: How high will the top of the new signs be on the tower? 23 Queensbury ZBA Meeting: May 25, 2011 Mr. Jackoski: They will not go higher. Mr. Moore, Sr.: No. Well, you might have one go higher, but it’s about similar within reason. Mr. Moore, Jr.: If you look at the picture on the top, we’d like to keep them. We probably start with the top of that open area, that’s on the one picture and work up and work and work down from the there. So I think the top of that goes with the brown, if you see the brown strip over the Brook’s Brothers sign; those are pretty symmetrical. So, it will start there. Mr. Moore, Sr.: And I will say this about that, we will maintain continuity like we have at French Mountain Commons with the signage, the continuity, it’s my belief I kind of like that, the continuity of similar signs. So we will maintain that other than the Brooks Sign. Mr. Jackoski: Is this sign going to be illuminated. Mr. Moore, Sr.: No, we might put a light in that tower, just to give it backdrop. Not being backlit sign. Mr. Jackoski: It won’t be moving, it won’t be flashing. Mr. Moore, Sr.: No. Mr. Garrand: From a …perspective, you’re asking for a 200 percent relief here. Going by there I can easily see how one sign would have pretty much the same effect as two. I mean, it would provide a lot more visibility having that sign on the front as opposed to having one on either side. It’s a lot of relief you’re asking for; 200 percent. Mr. Moore, Jr: I don’t get that because if it was in the front and we had a pylon sign, we’d have one on each side. We don’t have a pylon sign. And the law would allow us to have a sign on either side of the pylon sign and it would allow us to have a sign on the building. We have the sign on the building so then you can see and we’re asking for a sign on either side of that tower. Mr. Garrand: Instead of having one sign on the building now, we’re going to have three. Mr. Moore, Sr.: No, one sign on the building. Mr. Moore, Jr.: Yes, in regards to your saying the tower is part of the building. And, I’m saying that I’m looking at it as the tower being the pylon sign so that they can see it from the road. Mr. Urrico: You also have the small hanging signs underneath the overhang, right. Mr. Moore, Jr.: And those are the only other stores. There will not be a third sign. Those are for the couple of the stores that you can see, like Carters. Mr. Urrico: I’m talking about underneath the overhang. Mr. Moore, Jr.: Oh, the blade signs. Yes when they walk down the corridor. Mr. Jackoski: When you say this but aren’t they really 8 feet. Mr. Moore, Jr.: No, they pylon signs. Mr. Jackoski: No, the blade signs. Mr. Moore, Jr.: The blade signs that are underneath the walkway. Mr. Moore, Sr.: They’re 30 inches by maybe 10 inches. Mr. Jackoski: Are there any other questions currently. Mr. Kuhl: For each one of your tenants, what size is the dimension going to be on the tower. Mr. Moore, Jr.: 8 ft. long by 1 ft. high Mr. Kuhl: Okay and you’re also asking for the same 8 by 1 to hang underneath. Mr. Moore, Jr.: No Mr. Kuhl: These are going away; they’re not going to be. 24 Queensbury ZBA Meeting: May 25, 2011 Mr. Jackoski: Those are new. Mr. Moore, Jr.: Those are the signs that are hanging underneath, 2 of those that are there have been removed because we lost those tenants and so those were existing stores. Carters and Brooks Brothers that you can see from the road, on both sides, they’ll be for existing stores. Mr. Kuhl: You’re not going to take these signs and put them up her Mr. Moore, Jr.: No Mr. Kuhl: How come? Mr. Moore, Jr.: Why, because we potentially have 3 more store here. So they can’t have those signs. Mr. Kuhl: So, in theory you’re going to have 1 by 8 for store number 1; 1 by 8 for store number 2, and so forth Mr. Moore, Jr.: Correct and those signs over there will be for stores that are already in the plaza and not existing. Mr. Urrico: You said that you have picture that’s up there. Mr. Moore, Jr.: Yep Mr. Urrico: That red sign, there, that’s a DKNY sign, right. Mr. Moore, Jr.: No that’s Carters Mr. Jackoski: Are they all going to blue now. Mr. Moore, Jr.: Yes, we’re going to change them to look like French Mountain. Mr. Moore, Sr. It will be all changed to look like French Mountain. Mr. Kuhl: If you are only allowed one sign on this structure, which side would you want it on; the north side or the west side. Mr. Moore, Sr.: That’s tough. The drawback would be because you can’t see those signs back there. Mr. Moore, Jr.: I mean that’s the reason why we want it on both sides. Mr. Moore, Sr.: That’s a tough question Mr. Clements: Depends on how slow the traffic is going Mr. Moore, Sr.: I understand your question, but that’s really tough because, like we say, when you’re driving down there and the stores that are back, you can’t see them, so you definitely need them if you’re coming down. Mr. Kuhl: Okay, my contention is that if you hang the signs on the west sign, you’d see it because that’s the front of your structure, right. Mr. Moore, Sr.: The west side Mr. Moore, Jr.: Right but it doesn’t face that way Mr. Moore, Sr.: The trouble with that really doesn’t face down from south to north, it faces pretty much west, like you’re saying, so you can’t see it coming up, it’s a little angle and it gets you somewhat Mr. Moore, Jr.: So when you’re coming from the north heading south you wouldn’t even see that until you’re well passed it. Mr. Moore, Sr.: Until you’re well passed it. Mr. Jackoski: Any other questions by the Board members. 25 Queensbury ZBA Meeting: May 25, 2011 Mr. Moore, Sr.: I’d say on other thing; this particular piece of property, if you look back on the taxes, I live and work in this community; I love this area and I mean, honestly, I’ve been here for 24 years and this is a great place. This piece of property, one time, paid about $60,000 a year in taxes to the Town. And the owners before us who bought and it has gone down over the last many years. And, it now pays about $26,000 a year because it was half empty and done. So, when you look at this, you see what we have done to French Mountain, you seem to know who we are, we have a track record of doing the right thing. I would hope someday, I could fill this up and I’m paying you $70,000 a year in taxes. Because that means my property will be back up good and everything will be good. And when tenants come in here, these particular …..just moved in; they’re 80 percent above their plan in 3 weeks. So this is a good source of revenue for our area, our community, and these tenants need signage in the proper way and I don’t think we’re anything unreasonable that is derogating the area or demeaning the area. It’s what some of these stores really need and request and I think done properly and classically we can all benefit as citizens and people in this area, and I believe that firmly. Mr. Kuhl: I just have another question. At full occupancy, everybody rented, how much signage are you going to have on the tower, 8 ft. wide by how long, how high? Mr. Moore, Jr.: I believe we can only put aesthetically based on what we’re doing down there, the most, 3 more signs in there. We show 3 there, we could put 3 more. I’m not going to run those signs all the way dot dot dot to the ground. So I think it’s going to control itself with about 3 more signs. So I’m going to have to hope that I can get 3 tenants after that and the last tenant to say hey we have such an impact here, like somebody said before, that they’ll come in because the other 6 names that are up there; you know what I mean, so, we technically now have a 3,000 sq. ft. space empty, and we have an 8, so which could be another 3 stores. Mr. Oborne: You’re asking for 8 sign right now, though; 4 on each side Mr. Moore, Sr.: He means it that way, I’m thinking singularly. Mr. Kuhl: It would be 4 and 4 Mr. Oborne: It’s 4 and 4 what’s currently being asked. Mr. Moore, Sr.: The most I see being able to put in there is 6 and 6 if you went right to the top Mr. Urrico: Hey Keith, when they looked over the sign variance; the sign ordinance, did this come at all, I mean do you know… Mr. Oborne: Towers Mr. Jackoski: The towers Mr. Oborne: Not that I recall Mr. Urrico: To me these are going to become the common method of advertising, not only her but out of Town, it really needs to be looked at. Mr. Oborne: I can’t disagree with you. I think this case is everything is unique. I will say that they removed that pylon sign which was, I agree, an eye sore, absolutely, but you now, what do you do. It’s the age old question in sign codes and zoning. What is the max you’re going to allow? Every community struggles with this. Mr. Jackoski: Okay, I don’t necessarily see any more questions at the moment. So, I would like to open up the public hearing. Is that any written comments for the record? Okay, I do see someone in the audience who would like to speak, so if you could, identify yourself again. Ms. Kohls: Laura Kohls, Adirondack Outlet Mall: I can just support the Moore’s position in that all the tenants that come up they’re asking about signage, every single one of them. To get the bigger names, the better names, to upgrade the centers, to get the national tenants that is becoming their expectation, that they will get significant visible signage and they had been getting it, not that we should do, necessarily what every other Town across the country is doing, but in many many major markets they are getting a lot of signage and as I think Mr. Moore mentioned earlier, the towers are becoming big elements of where they’re looking for that visibility. I can back up his whole conversation, because we have the same exact conversations ourselves. Mr. Urrico: How do communities like Manchester for instance, has every outlet that you can imagine that we have here, get away without having signs, the same amount of signage. 26 Queensbury ZBA Meeting: May 25, 2011 Mr. Moore, Sr.: Let me address that question. Good question. You know, 20 years ago, all of you have been around here; Manchester – go shopping in Manchester. Well, if you go to Manchester today, it doesn’t compare what’s going on here. Little by little they spread themselves out. Some of the stores that we have here have left over there. We have new tenants we’ve just brought in, why did we go to Manchester, they’re kicking butt here? They didn’t do it right. They go out too far, that little quaint little village which was cool and we could all walk around. It’s was there, once they went outside that, somehow it didn’t work. We’re fighting here to keep making this work. And, we’re trying to be progressive and that’s what we’re doing. And, it hasn’t been an easy chore and in these times to bring in 5 new tenants in this area, between Lake George Plaza, Levis, and 3 in here and more working towards it. With a little bit of luck, in the next 6 to 8 months we’ll have 2 or 3 more. That bodes well for our region, for our community and for what we as developers are trying to do and what the Town is helping us to do. Mrs. Coles: The only other comment I might make towards how come, if you have let’s say, I think right now we’re about 50 stores total in the outlets of Lake George region. All 50 of them are not obviously going to command all visibility like some of the other ones. And the tenants do know that. Just as there are tears across the country as far as A, B, C, Markets, there are similar tears as far as the tenants. And certain tenants are much bigger draws and are going to be able to demand or request more of the developers because they are bigger draw. The names that Ed and we are brining and hoping to bring in are the bigger names. You’re seeing the smaller brands, or what have you, are not here anymore. I mean some of the tenants that have been here for a long time, just don’t drive the shopping the way the newer tenants do. And so, we as developers are trying to bring in the best tenants we can, but also have to work with them, and they realize who, a DKNY is a totally different name than Easy Spirit, frankly. You know, and we have to work with those retailers to make it work for everybody. Mr. Jackoski: Okay, thank you. Seeing no others wishing to address the Board during the public comment period. I’ll close the public hearing and I’ll poll my Board, I’m going to mix it up this time. I’ll start with Joyce. Mr. Hunt: Well, as I said before. I really appreciate what the Moores have done with the property and I can understand the need for the signage. I think it’s preferable to the pylon and if it’s kept, in keeping with what you’ve already got, I would be in favor. Mr. Jackoski: I’m going to go to Brian Mr. Clements: Thank you. I too appreciate what you’ve done with the property. You know when you came in here, the last time you came in here and we talked about the pylon sign and that came down, I think that was a positive thing. I understand what the Sign Ordinances are but I like this thinking outside of the box. I also think that it’s aesthetically pleasing. I know that 200 percent seems like a lot, but you have to remember that there’s no pylon sign out there either, which I think is good, because I think that that messed up the view and I think you’ve done a much better job of landscaping, where that pylon sign was. So I would be in favor. Mr. Jackoski: Roy Mr. Urrico: I’m still having a tough time with these, and it’s not…they’re very attractive; you’ve done an excellent job there. And, I really think that in this sense more so than the Adirondack Outlet Center, this plaza, this street, this segment of stores is facing the wrong direction. And we know that. It’s not facing, it’s the last time you were in here, you came in for the Brook’s Brothers signs. And, we thought that was good. But also, I just feel that you can do with one sign rather than the two signs on the tower. I really think that 2 signs on the tower is overdoing it a bit. I understand what you’re trying to achieve, and I think it’s very positive but at this stage, I would say no to two signs and yes to the one sign. Mr. Jackoski: And what you mean by one sign is you mean one side. Jim Mr. Underwood: I’d be in agreement with Roy. I think what you’ve done is great so far, set us on the right track and everything else as far as that goes, but I think, really, realistically, if we go to two more signs on two signs of the tower, it’s overkill and that’s overdoing it. And, my suggestion is to go with one, your choice, north, or west. But I really think it’s going to start pushing the limits and it’s not something that we even allow in the code book. You know, it’s not a pylon sign; we don’t have anything that addresses this. And, maybe the Town Board needs to spend some real serious time looking at the issue because obviously you want to add more. And, I would go for the 4 on one side only. Mr. Jackoski: do you want me to go next Rick or would you like to go. Mr. Garrand: I’ll go, I have to agree with Roy and Jim on the this one. I think the same effect can be had by one sign on the west side of the building. Mr. Jackoski: I was in favor before as it’s proposed, but it sounds to me like we have 4, that are interested in a modified. 27 Queensbury ZBA Meeting: May 25, 2011 Mr. Kuhl: You forgot one. Honestly, I think that one sign is the right way to go if you’re building was lineup perpendicular to the highway. But because it’s not; the way it is, if you had a pylon you’d have two signs on each side. So, as the tie breaker, I’d say two, one on each side is the right way, this time. Only because of the location of the building, if it weren’t right on 90 degrees, I would say one sign. Mr. Jackoski: Now we just swung around the other way. We have 4 and 3, so I guess we should go to a SEQRA. Mr. Garrand: Based on the Short Environmental Assessment Form for Unlisted Actions, Mr. Garrand: MOTION FOR A SEQRA NEGATIVE DECLARATION, SIGN VARIANCE NO. 30-2011, EDWARD MOORE, JR. DKNY by Mr. Garrand, second by Mr. Clements There are no adverse environmental impacts from this project. Duly adopted this 25th day of May 2011 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Clements, Mr. Jackoski, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Garrand NOES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood Ms. Hunt: MOTION TO APPROVE SIGN VARIANCE NO. 30-2011 EDWARD MOORE, JR. DKNY, 1476 State Route 9, Log Jam Outlet Center by Mrs. Hunt, second by Mr. Kuhl. Applicant proposes two additional 64 sq. ft. wall signs to be placed on existing building tower. The relief requested from the maximum number of allowable wall signs for one tenant in a business complex as per section 140-6B(3)[4][b]. There will be minor impacts to the neighborhood. The reason is that the pylon sign was taken down and that would have allowed 2 signs, one on either side, instead the applicant wishes to put 2 signs on the tower to achieve the desired visibility along State Route 9. The request for two (2) additional wall signs or 200% percent relief is severe because of the location of the tower in line with the road; so the 2 signs are needed. There will be minor impacts on the physical or environmental conditions of the neighborhood and it is self-created, in the sense, the applicant wishes to advertise the tenants for the complex. Duly adopted this 25th day of May 2011 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Clements, Mr. Kuhl, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Jackoski NOES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Garrand Mr. Jackoski: Okay, we have one more item on the tonight’s agenda. The next items on this evenings agenda is Schermerhorn Commercial Holdings, LP, Area Variance No. 31-2011, Jonathan Lapper is the agent, the location is lot 9, south side Willowbrook Road. It is a Type II SEQRA and there is a public hearing scheduled. And I’ll turn it over to Roy. Mr. Urrico: There is the summation of the Staff Notes. The applicant is proposing a 49,590 +/- sq. ft. approximately 35 unit 45 foot tall three story senior apartment building on a 9.15 acre lot in the Baybrook Professional Park The applicant is also seeking 5 ft. of relief from the 40 foot maximum allowable building height in the Office zone as per §179-4-030. Staff looked at the balancing test and they said that the minor impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated. And that there are feasible alternatives would be to design and build a compliant structure in regards to height. The applicant wishes to avoid the 100 foot wetland setback on the parcel and as such proposes permeable pavement to avoid disturbance, necessitating additional grading and this request. Staff says that it’s substantial. The request for 5 feet or 12.5% relief from the 40 foot maximum height requirement for building in the Office zone as per §179- 4-030 may be considered minor relative to the ordinance. I’m sorry I do want to correct that. They didn’t say it was substantial, the criteria was whether the requested area variance is substantial, and staff said that is minor relative to the ordinance. And minor impacts on the physical conditions of the neighborhood may be anticipated. And the difficulty may be considered self-created. They’ve also commented that the applicant has proposed a reduction of 24 parking spaces from the 79 spaces required per Code and was granted relief that was Area Variance 10-2011 by this Board on February 23, 2011. The plan now calls for 42 spaces instead of the 55 spaces granted and as result applicant’s desire to avoid disturbance within the 100 ft. wetlands setback. SEQRA is no further action required. Mr. Jackoski: Thank you and good evening and just for the record I want to make mention, although I do not think it is a conflict. I am on the executive board at the Glen at Hiland Meadows and some people may suggest that these two complexes could be competing with each other but I don’t believe that. But I certainly could recuse myself if counsel feels it. 28 Queensbury ZBA Meeting: May 25, 2011 Mr. Lapper: No, now because of the different nature of the market, Rich’s are market rent and it’s a completely different situation economically so we don’t feel they compete, there’s no issue but certainly respect that you put that on the record. For the record, I’m Jon Lapper with and on behalf of Rich Schermerhorn. And with Tom Nace, the project engineer. Since we’re at the end of the night, I’m just going to give you the simple story and we could get into any level of detail and Rich is here to answer any questions. But, I’ll just tell you what our main arguments are and let Tom show you on the map and see where we go from there. But, very simply in terms of the balance test of the benefit to the applicant; this was originally designed before the new storm water regulations came out. And in order to achieve the proper depth to ground water and be able to infiltrate that storm water that was determined between Tom and Town Engineer, that raising the site 3 feet would create that separation and would allow the site to function and to comply with storm water regulations and not require Rich to go into the Wetland buffer; he would never have to go into the wetland, but he would need a buffer permit and just better to avoid the regulations, avoid the permit if it wasn’t necessary. This is really an aesthetic issue because we could be here without the variance and have a flat roof which is not; well the Queensbury Code requires a peak roof 300 ft. back from Bay Road where there is design standards. This building is beyond that, so they don’t apply. If you were just to make a flat roof, we could go home. But it really wouldn’t look as good, in terms of all those buildings in that corridor. So, we just think, aesthetically, it’s a benefit to have the peaked roof and when you look at the scale of the other buildings and the distance of the other buildings in that complex, many of which Rich owns, but some of which he doesn’t that he built for other people, you won’t notice 5 ft. because the buildings are so far apart. So this accomplishes the storm water, it visually looks good and no one’s going to really be able to see 5 ft. over the course being 100’s of feet away or way more than that if you’re at the Bay Meadows Golf Course. And that’s really our request. Mr. Underwood: Your narrative; it’s only the back side that this kicks in anyways. Mr. Lapper: That’s not true because of the way you count, you counted from the lowest to highest but because of the way it gently goes up from the road, the only place where you could really see it would be from the gold course, which is still 100’s of feet away. Mr. Underwood: I think that in the long term, keeping the buildings with the roofs on them is pretty important. You don’t want to go to that urban look. And it’s a pain anyways, with a flat roof; it’s a headache, with snow load and everything else. Mr. Kuhl: I’ve got a question for you Keith, if I could. When they came for the parking lot how come they didn’t come for the height? Mr. Oborne: Because of the change to the storm water regulations at this point. And this Board should definitely be part of a workshop considering Chapter 5 of Storm water Regulations. With that said you need to have substrate underneath this pavement, they need to raise the grade for that, if I’m not correct, tell me. So they want to avoid the buffer and as such what that does is capture the rain that does come down in-situ on the ground on the porous pavement. Which means that they don’t have disturb in to the buffer for storm water issues. Now as far as the parking goes, the Code changed. Mr. Kuhl: This is the second time that they are here on this project. Mr. Lapper: The parking code changed after we were here. So we needed relief then to get this thing done before the code changed. We didn’t know when the Town Board would change this. Mr. Kuhl: And the height was not an issue until they looked at storm water. Mr. Oborne: Yes that is correct, and that was through discussion with the Town Engineer also, that’s when he changed the pitch of the roof so it was a little bit taller too, I believe. Mr. Schermerhorn: Yes, to match the one that’s at the Willows now. The building is going to look identical, very close to the one that’s existing now, same with the landscaping as well. We’re going to try, as a matter of fact I might call it Willows South or something, because it’s going to be part of that whole senior project that I have. And this is project that’s again, it’s going to be 55 and older, which are primarily seniors. Mr. Kuhl: Is this going to look like the project you’ve got going on Gurney. Mr. Schermerhorn: It’s going to be similar. But the Gurney project is more of a, I call it, Adirondack flair. That one, they wanted more of, it has a grey roof, some cedar shakes on it, cultured stone, it’s a little more of what I call an Adirondack style. This one is going to be more classic style, colonial like what I have over on Bay Road now that exists. 29 Queensbury ZBA Meeting: May 25, 2011 Mr. Underwood: And, changing the roof trusses isn’t going to lower it more than 2 feet, there’s not any sense changing that either. It will be architectural shingles just like the other building as well. Mr. Jackoski: Any more discussion at this point. There is a public hearing this evening and is there any written comment for the record. Mr. Urrico: No Mr. Jackoski: No written comment, I see no one in the audience at this time wishing to address the Board. I’m going to close the public hearing and poll the Board. And I’m not going to mess myself up this time. I’m going to start with Roy. Mr. Urrico: I am fine with the project. I think it’s a good plan. I’d be in favor of it. Mr. Jackoski: Joyce Mrs. Hunt: I have no problems with it, I’d be in favor. Mr. Jackoski: Jim Mr. Underwood: No problem Mr. Jackoski: Rick Mr. Garrand: I think it would be good for the area. Mr. Jackoski: Ron Mr. Kuhl: Yes, it blends in with the whole concept of that whole area. Mr. Jackoski: Brian Mr. Clements: I’d like to see a few more Rich. I appreciate the applicant recognizing the fact that the height he measured from the lowest existing grade, I feel that there is minor relief. This isn’t looking over any view of Lake George or anything like that, so I think that its minimal relief and I’d be in favor also. Mr. Garrand: good point Brian Mr. Jackoski: Thank you, I’d be in favor also. Mr. Underwood: MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 31-2011, SCHERMERHORN COMMERCIAL HOLDINGS, LP, Lot 9 south side Willowbrook Road, by Mr. Underwood, second by Mr. Garrand The applicant is proposing a 49,590 +/- sq. ft., 45 ft. tall, and 3-story senior apartment building on a 9.15 acre lot in the Baybrook Professional Park. As far as the relief is required, the parcel will require an area variance for building height and relief is requested for 5 ft. of relief from the 40 ft. maximum allowable building height in the Office-zone. As far as whether an undesirable change will be created in the neighborhood, the building should fit because it will match the other ones previously constructed in the area that Schermerhorn Holdings built. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant could be achieved by some method feasible for the applicant to pursue. Again, feasible alternatives would be to redesign it, but its 3-stories, it’s got a truss roof on it, and other than modifying the trusses you wouldn’t gain the full 5 ft. back to what you wanted to 40 ft. anyway. It seems reasonable what’s been done. Whether the requested Area Variance is substantial; the request is for 5 ft., which is 12 ½ percent of relief from the maximum 40 ft. relief, but the reason for this project is because the Storm water Regulations have changed and they had to add fill to the parking lot to deal with the pond-site water, infiltration. And this is the primary reason we have to go to a higher height. And, whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect on the physical and/or environmental conditions; the new storm water regulations were dialed in to make sure that we had less of an impact and this is going to accomplish that. And whether the alleged difficulty is self-created; it’s considered to be self-created but it’s really a reflection of the change in the code with the storm water regulations. Duly adopted this 25th day of May 2011 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Clements, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Jackoski NOES: None 30 Queensbury ZBA Meeting: May 25, 2011 Mr. Jackoski: The last item on tonight’s agenda is the application of Chip Esper, Area Variance No. 28- 2011. Since the applicant has not appeared, I’d like to have a tabling motion. And do we have any recommended dates from Staff. ndth Mr. Oborne: You can either choose the 22 or 29 of June I don’t think that there are any revisions that we’re going to have to have. The application was complete. And with that, I leave you with these two dates. Mr. Jackoski: Does the Board have any preference. Are we full on both of those dates? th Mr. Oborne: I would say that the least would be 29 if that’s a factor, the least would be the second meeting. The second meeting has less. Mr. Garrand: MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 28-2011, CHIP ESPER AND PATRICIA KELLY, 67 Peachtree Lane, Sherman Pines by Mr. Garrand, second by Mr. Kuhl To the second meeting in June. Duly adopted this 25th day of May 2011 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Clements, Mr. Underwood, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Jackoski NOES: None Mr. Jackoski: And finally this evening there has been a request by staff to modify the scheduled dates of the June Zoning Board of Appeals meetings to be June 22 and June 29 instead of June 15 and June 22. Does anyone on the Board have a concern with making those revisions? We need an actual motion. Mr. Clements: Excuse me, is that the way it is on the calendar now. Mr. Oborne: That is the way it is on the calendar. Through research that has not been approved by this Board. Mr. Jackoski: MOTION TO MODIFY THE MEETING SCHEDULE FOR THE MONTH OF JUNE MEETINGS, Introduced by Mr. Jackoski, seconded by Mrs. Hunt: To be June 22 and June 29 respectively Duly adopted this 25th day of May 2011 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Clements, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Garrand, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Jackoski NOES: None Meeting Adjourned 31