Loading...
04-20-2022 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/20/2022) QUEENSBURYZONINGBOARD OFAPPEALS FIRSTREGULAR MEETING APRIL 201r,2022 INDEX Area Variance No.5-2022 Cerrone Land Holdings L Tax Map No. 301.1E-2-1 Area Variance No.13-2022 Queensbury Square LLC 11. Tax Map No.296.17-1-3S Sign Variance No. 3-2022 Hoffman Development Corp. 15. Tax Map No.296.17-1-42 THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTH'S MINUTES(IF ANY)AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES. 1 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/20/2022) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING APRIL 20TK,2022 7.00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT MICHAEL MC CABE,CHAIRMAN JAMES UNDERWOOD,VICE CHAIRMAN ROY URRICO,SECRETARY BRENT MC DEVITT CATHERINE HAMLIN RONALD KUHL BRADY STARK,ALTERNATE MEMBERS ABSENT JOHN HENKEL MR. MC CABE-Good evening. I'd like to open tonight's meeting of the Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals,April 20`h,2022. If you haven't been here before,our procedure is fairly simple. There should be an agenda on the back table. We'll call each application up,read the application into the record,allow the applicant to present his case. We'll question the applicant. If a public hearing has been advertised,then I'll open the public hearing,listen to input from the public,and then we'll close the public hearing and poll the Board and see where we stand and then we'll proceed accordingly. First we have a couple of administrative items,and so,Ron,I wonder if you could make a motion on the meeting minutes for March I6`h. APPROVAL OF MINUTES March 16,2022 MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING MINUTES OF MARCH 16,2022,Introduced by Ronald Kuhl who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roy Urrico: Duly adopted this 20`h day of April,2022,by the following vote: AYES: Mr. McDevitt,Mr. Underwood, Mr. Kuhl,Mrs.Hamlin,Mr. Stark,Mr. Urrico, Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Henkel MR. MC CABE-And how about March 23ra March 23,2022 MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING MINUTES OF MARCH 23,2022,Introduced by Ronald Kuhl who moved for its adoption,seconded by Brady Stark: Duly adopted this 20`h day of April,2022,by the following vote: AYES: Mr.Kuhl,Mrs. Hamlin,Mr. Stark,Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood,Mr. McDevitt,Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Henkel MR. MC CABE-So our first application is AV 5-2022,Cerrone Land Holdings. OLD BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO.5-2022 SEQRA TYPE TYPE II CERRONE LANDHOLDINGS AGENT(S) HUTCHINS ENGINEERING OWNER(S) CITY OF GLENS FALLS ZONING MDR LOCATION SHERMAN AVENUE APPLICANT PROPOSES A 45 LOT RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION OF A 49.5 ACRE PARCEL. THE LOTS RANGE IN SIZE FROM 0.47 AC.TO 1.57 ACRES. THE PROJECT 2 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/20/2022) INCLUDES A HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION PROPERTY. THERE ARE TO BE TWO ACCESS POINTS TO SHERMAN AVENUE. THE SITES WOULD HAVE ON SITE SEPTIC AND BE CONNECTED TO MUNICIPAL WATER SUPPLY. PROJECT INCLUDES A 20 FT. NO CUT BUFFER ON THE NORTH PROPERTY LINES. PLANNING BOARD REVIEW FOR A SUBDIVISION. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR LOT SIZE AND SETBACKS. CROSS REF SUB 2-2022; SUB 7-2021 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 4998 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 301.18-2-1 SECTION 179-3-040 JON ZAPPER,MATT STEVES&TOM CENTER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT,PRESENT MR. MC CABE-So I believe we've read this into the record,this motion into the record, Roy. MR. URRICO-I don't remember if we read the motion. We read some of the letters into the record. MR. MC CABE-Okay. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 5-2022, Cerrone Land Holdings, Meeting Date: April 20, 2022 "Project Location: Sherman Avenue Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes a 45 residential subdivision of a 49.5 acre parcel. The lots range in size from 0.47 ac. to 1.57 acres. The project includes a homeowners association property. There are to be two access points to Sherman Avenue. The sites would have on-site septic and be connected to municipal water supply. Project includes a 20 ft. no cut buffer on the north property lines.Planning Board review for a subdivision.Relief requested for lot size and setbacks. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for lot size and setbacks for a proposed subdivision in the Moderate Density Residential zone. MDR. Parcel is 49.5 acres. Section 179-3-040 Dimensional The applicant proposes 45 residential lots ranging in size from 0.47 ac to 1.57 ac where a two acre lot minimum is required where lots do not have access to both sewer and water. The project has access to municipal water but will have on-site septic systems. In addition, relief is requested for the setbacks for Moderate Density Zone- Rear setback required is 30 ft. proposed is 20 ft., Side setback required is 25 ft. and 15 ft.is proposed,the front setback of 30 ft.is not proposed to change. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination,the board shall consider: 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. The project minimal to moderate impact on the neighboring properties. The applicant has indicated some lot sizes are similar to adjoining neighborhoods. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method,feasible for the applicant to pursue,other than an area variance. The feasible alternatives are available to develop the parcel with compliant lots. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief may be considered substantial relevant to the code. The number of allowable lots would be 22. The setback relief would be 10 ft. to the rear and 10 ft.to the sides. Lot size relief ranges from 1.53 ac to 0.43 acres. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The project as proposed may be considered to have minimal impact on the environmental conditions of the site or area. The project would convert an existing leaf dump to residential lots. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The project as proposed may be considered self- created. Staff comments: The applicant proposes a 45 lot subdivision for a 49.5 acre parcel. The plans show the lot arrangement with two access points to Sherman Avenue. The lot arrangement also shows the Homeowners Association land and the applicant has noted services would be part of the agreement (i.e. garbage removal, septic 3 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/20/2022) pump outs etc.). The board may wish to discuss constraints of the property for decks, pools, sheds as common accessory buildings. The application had been tabled at the previous meetings 1/26/22,2/23/2022, 3/16/2022 for a full board." MR. MC CABE-Good evening. MR. ZAPPER-Good evening, everyone. For the record,Jon Lapper with Matt Steves, surveyor, and Tom Center, engineer, and the Cerrones are here to answer questions as well. So to begin with this is a very unique piece of property in this neighborhood. As Roy read,this was originally a sand pit and then a leaf dump for the City of Glens Falls. Everything else has developed around it. This has sat idle until now. Because of what is in the center of the site, Tom will go through it, which is going to be impacted and changed and made into common property that can be used for the homeowners, that area is not suitable for houses. So in terms of whether it's self-created,you have to have a road that goes around the outside of that dump area and the issue with two acre lots is just how much frontage you have and how much yo0u pave for a road. It would be in appropriate, we argue, to have two acre lots, estate lots in this neighborhood. This is completely compatible with the size, and in fact larger,we'll go through that,than a lot of lots around it. In terms of what's proposed to be developed,you're probably all familiar with it, and Matt will show pictures, of Villages at Sweet Road, right over where Gambles Bakery is, which is a Cerrone project, the identical houses. What they're proposing here, it's a really lovely subdivision, and those are around a third of an acre sites. These are minimum of a half-acre and some larger. So if it works really well on a third of an acre,they're going to look even better here,but the reason for the variance is not only the compatibility of two acre lots,and the difficulty to build that because of what's in the center,but this just is essentially what the rest of the neighbors have in the neighborhood. So we think this is really a good thing to finally develop this. It's somewhat of an attractive nuisance because people are in there now. It's uncontrolled. It's not maintained, and finally there's some sort of a fairness argument for the City that, that the City bought this way before it was two acre zoning. So the fact that Town imposed two acre zoning on this lot is incompatible with the neighborhood makes it difficult to sell,to develop it two acres. So the Cerrones have an agreement with the City,so the City can turn this back into cash and the Town,we can have residents and hopefully kids in the school district. So we think it's the right project for this property which is a unique piece of property. It has some constraints on development. So we certainly think that what's proposed for the lot size works really well and Matt and Tom will go through the porches and decks and why we don't see that there's going to be issues with variances here. Let me turn it over to Matt next. MATT STEVES MR. STEVES-Good evening. Matt Steves again. I know some of the concerns or comments were the size of the lots and whether, they setbacks could accommodate with a deck or a porch or a potential pool or something, and so I did do a couple of slides which I will talk to you about in a few minutes, but one correction and one addition. I just want to make sure when Roy read this in, the 20 foot no cut zone is also on the westerly side of the subdivision as well,that's in there. All of the ones along Algonquin Drive that backup to the Algonquin Drive lots,that is also a 20 foot no cut zone. And like Jon was saying,as far as the size and height of homes,it's very similar to what has been built in the Village at Sweet Road that the Cerrones did develop and build houses in, and what I did is I took, one of their larger homes in that subdivision of 1500 square feet,the front load garage with the garage sticking out a little bit farther than a lot of the other houses, and placed them on three lots, and I gave Laura those,too. Lot 6,Lot 9 and Lot 21 are three of the smaller lots in this proposed development, and you can see on those slides, Lot 6 is a .66 acre lot,but it's one of the shallower ones at 140 feet and even placing the house kind of toward the south end at 32, 33 feet off the road with the larger front load garage, and then showing a 12 by 14 screen room with a deck off the back,that deck would still be at 45.9 feet,basically 46 feet off the back property, and obviously we could rotate that house a little farther to the north on that lot and you'd gain even more of a setback in the back. I know that there were some comments as far as can you place a deck or can you place a pool. This is one of the smaller lots. If you go to the next one, Lot 9, same thing,the same house, and like I say,kind of center it on that lot,you still would be able,if you were to put a deck or a screen room or something on the back,you'd still have 4S feet. So you'd have 2S feet left outside the no cut buffer, and then the last one would be on the far easterly side, which would be Lot 21, and again, on that lot, that is one of the shallower lots on the easterly side at 162 feet deep, and with the 1500 square foot front load garage you would have almost 61 feet from the potential deck or screen room to the back of the property, but as you can see, even one of the larger models that the Cerrones build would fit on these lots comfortably,and that is one of the houses that is currently built in the subdivision at the Village at Sweet Road,and then as far as these lot sizes here, all of the lots that we're proposing at 110 foot minimum on the road frontage. The lots in the Village at Sweet Road are 100 feet,and one third of an acre. The difference between the two is obviously the Village at Sweet Road has sewer, so you don't have to worry about the septic system in the back,you know, so we can shorten up the depth of those lots with the HOA behind those. Here, one of the other criteria you're worried about is if you put the septic in the back you have to be 20 feet from the house for the septic system. So therefore you'd have a deck or a patio and you'd come up to the septic system, you still would not be anywhere near the rear setback for any potential encroachments, and then I sent Laura this earlier today, a bunch of photos that we took of all the houses that were built and the size of the lots in the Village at Sweet Road are one third acre lots, and these are, 4 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/20/2022) like I say. .47. I think the largest one there is .34 or 35 and it gives you an indication of the sizes of these houses and the separation even on lots that are half the size. MR. CENTER-Tom Center with Hutchins Engineering. Some of the questions from the last meeting that I had with you folks was in regards to the central portion of the parcel. We did work with DEC. They went through an Environmental Assessment,Phase I and Phase II,and the findings were the soil was clean. There were no contaminants in the soil,but because of the depth and the amount of material that's there, they restricted us to only passive recreation in those areas, that we could not build foundations on those because it would be incompatible to pull all the material out and refill that,but it is safe. Our plan for that area is to take down the high mounds. It's mostly trees and stumps, sent through a mulch, and then de- compact the top,compact everything,and then de-compact that again and allow grass to grow on the top. So we're going to find any void spaces,create a passive recreation area through that center parcel and tie it in back to the road areas. In regards, I know there were some questions about buffering. Talking about the existing buffering, on Algonquin Drive, except for one lot, there's about 10 to 20 feet of an existing buffer from the property line going towards Algonquin Drive. On McEchron Lane area,from that property line towards McEchron Lane,there's about 50 feet of a buffer,if you measure off the GIS, existing buffer, between the property line on the McEchron side going towards,if you want to call that one up,Laura,we can kind of see it, and that's using GIS, and you can see that those lots on McEchron Lane are already developed. They have pools in the backyard. So that 50 foot buffer, and we're adding a 20 foot buffer on our side to that close to 50 foot buffer that's there. And you can see,what we were talking about with the character of the neighborhood, showing the neighboring subdivisions that are around us, we are compatible with the existing subdivisions and the size of our lots in comparison to those other neighboring subdivisions. Can you go to the next slide,Laura. Along McEchron Lane this is where you can see along this property line you can see these lots are developed, and that's about,according to the GIS,is about 50 foot from our property line going to the north. So there's an existing buffer there. We're also going to add 20 feet on our side to that,from that side. Go to the next. Along Algonquin Drive there's about a 10 to 20 foot buffer,except for one lot right here that's cleared over the line,but there is a buffer,and that would be a 20 foot buffer along this property line,on this,and Lambert Drive,we have to do some grading along the narrower lots. That's why we didn't offer a buffer there, as we come down towards the bottom,but there is a natural buffer along most of the parcels, again, except for just one right here, and that buffer is about 10 to 20 feet along that property line, and that would only be down in this little corner right here, that they're, again,clearing as close to or over the property line in that area,but it also is adjacent to our HOA lands,the very tip of the HOA lands that are on the back side of the southeast corner,which acts as,there is some buffer there. So there is a partial buffer there along that property line on our side. MR. MC CABE-That's it? MR. ZAPPER-Yes. MR. MC CABE-So do we have questions of the applicant? MR. URRICO Jon,you had indicated earlier that this was previously owned by the City. MR. ZAPPER-Still is. MR. URRICO-And before, when they purchased the property, it was zoned differently. Do you know what the zoning was? MR. ZAPPER-They might have purchased it before there was zoning. The two acre was imposed subsequent to that. MR. URRICO-And the properties that are located nearby,do we know what they were zoned when they were built? Was it 10,000 square feet at the time? MR. ZAPPER-I think 20,000 square foot. MR. URRICO-It was 20,000 or 10,000? MR. ZAPPER-Half an acre I think,less than half an acre. MR. URRICO-Okay. MR. MC CABE-Brent,you had a question? MR.MC DEVITT-I do. I just,when Laura's done with this,if you could go back to the buffer slides,Laura, but if you're doing something here,we could circle back. So Lambert,Algonquin and McEchron,just walk me through,if you'd be kind enough one more time,relative to,you kind of gave how many feet and then adding. 5 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/20/2022) MR.CENTER-This is Lambert Drive,and there's about 10 to 20 feet,give or take some or more. As you're going north there's a large buffer,but being conservative I call it 10 feet,except for down here on the very bottom. This lot right here,pretty much this one is cleared up to the line. This one is kind of close to the line,but as you go north, all those have a larger buffer. It's 15 to 25 feet,maybe more. This is Algonquin Drive. All those are 10 to 20 feet, except for that one lot right there has,is actually cleared over the line, according to GIS, and we're providing 20 feet on our side, and we can re-plant that area as part of the conditions,it wouldn't be a problem that 20 foot buffer along that lot. MR. MC DEVITT-Okay, and then the next. MR.CENTER-And then Algonquin,McEchron. McEchron,that is,they're all out 50 feet as you go down, and that's from our property line going north, and we're providing another 20 feet on our side. So that's 50 feet plus the 20 feet and most of those are built out with pools and cleared areas towards the back of the lots. MR. MC DEVITT-Okay, and you indicated you would re-plant. What do you mean by that? MR. STEVES-The areas that neighboring properties have improved,clearing out,that that we're retaining has been eliminated,per se,by neighboring property,we will plant some trees there to help fill that buffer. MR. MC DEVITT-Okay. That's all I have. Thank you. MR.KUHL-So what you're saying,in the buffers there'll all be plantings. Existing? MR. STEVES-Existing and new where it's already been cleared by other parties. MR. CENTER-Also, Matt had explained before,but the HOA's work,like Sweet Road, once the lots are cleared for the houses and constructed,if the occupant wants to clear further,they have to go to the HOA to get a clearing plan and show to us what hasn't been cleared and what they propose to do additional to what has been cleared when the house was built. So there's a two layered protection here. We have our 20 foot no cut buffer that would be imposed by the Town,but also the HOA has some mechanism to review additional clearing beyond what's cleared for the house and the septic system. MR. KUHL-That begs the question of when does the HOA really take over? Until so many houses are built? MR. STEVES-The developer basically controls the HOA until he sells the last lot and conveys it over. So he has total control of that until the last lot is sold. Then they offer a transfer to the HOA,just like they did where I live. I happen to live in the Villages at Sweet Road and so that was turned over to the HOA after the last house was sold and the CO was granted. Then that transfer took place. MR.KUHL-Does that HOA document that he produces,Cerrone produces,stipulate size of houses,like a minimum of this,a maximum of that? MR. STEVES-I believe in that particular case it did have a minimum square footage. I don't know if it had a maximum. I would have to go back through the document,but typically they do place that in there and they place like I say what you can do as far as clearing. For example through the windstorm last year a tree in my backyard has come down. I have to approach the HOA. I have to have permission to cut it down even though it was wind damaged. It's the right thing to do. That way people aren't going into the back of their yard and just clear cutting anything they want when you purposely leave a 25 or 20 foot buffer. Now you have control of the HOA and the developer has built all the houses and sold them. Now that HOA controls it and it polices itself. Especially where I live I know it's policed extremely well. MR. ZAPPER-Here it would also be on the subdivision map as a condition imposed by the Town. MR.KUHL-I mean I was thinking if somebody wanted to come in and build a six or seven thousand square foot house on a lot like this. MR.STEVES-I don't foresee that. I mean if you're going to be,typically I see,on the models that they have built in mine, anywhere from like 1400 square feet to about 27,2500 square feet. MR. KUHL-Right, but my question is, is it stipulated so in the HOA document, that's all, you know, without words on paper,good intentions can go the wrong way. MR. STEVES-We could do that. I'm sure there's a minimum. I don't know if they've had a maximum. I could ask. Do you have a maximum? AUDIENCE MEMBER-No,not that I recall. 6 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/20/2022) MR.KUHL-Thank you. MR. STEVES-And the other nice thing about the HOA is like I say,you know,your septics are controlled by the HOA so people aren't letting them go or they're not abusing maintenance of those, and plus the fact that you have one garbage and recycling service that comes in because the HOA contracts with them. So instead of having 45 homes with 25 different pick up services running through there. One day a week, one truck. Boom. Done. MR. ZAPPER-And most importantly they'll be maintained in the common area. MR. STEVES-Exactly. MR. MC DEVITT-They being? MR. STEVES-The HOA. MRS.MOO RE-So I do have a response for the subdivisions that are around there. Soon Algonquin it was Tyneswood,1970 the zone was R-3, and,no,I don't know off the top of my head what that was, and then for McEchron it was the Grove subdivision done in 2000, and that was SR-IA, and for Lambert it was Oakwood, and that was SR-20. MR. URRICO-10,000. MR. STEVES-I think the 3 was 20,000 square feet back then. MR. URRICO-And 1-A was one acre. MR. ZAPPER-The other thing that we didn't mention is that, this is in a cluster subdivision per se, but when you take the common property plus the lot size, the average lot size here is over eight tenths of an acre, taking that all into account in terms of the real density here. So it's much larger than what we're talking about for the actual lot sizes because that area won't be developed. MR. URRICO-That includes that.47. MR. CENTER-.47 plus there's just over 15 acres of common area. So you divide that by 45 lots,it's about .34. So you're looking at just over .S acres per lot if you include the common area with the smallest lot that's out there. MR. MC CABE-Other questions? MRS.HAMLIN-Fifteen acres includes what again? MR. CENTER-That's the common area. The common area being the HOA portion in the middle which is 12.2,and then on the east and the west along Sherman Avenue there's two pieces that are 1.7 and 1.54. So that's a total of just over 15 acres divided by 45. That's .34 I believe and you added it to the smallest lot, that gives you about.S acres. MRS.HAMLIN-And that doesn't include things like roadway and things like that? MR. CENTER-No, no. That's just those areas that are homeowners association, and it also does not include the 20 foot buffer across the west. MR. MC CABE-Other questions? MR. MC DEVITT-The middle section,the passive recreation area,what does that mean? MR. CENTER-Well, like I said, what we're going to do is take the high mounds that you see out there, bring everything down to grade, actually run a roller over it,find any spots that need to be filled in,then decompact,grow grass,put trails in there,possibly other amenities,passive amenities maybe a fort,maybe an open field,most likely trails through them that will connect to the,you know,there's two connections back to the road, one connection here, one connection here and then you come around the perimeter all the way around,it's just over a quarter of an acre,so you could almost do a quarter acre track,quarter of a mile trail in that central portion. MRS.HAMLIN-And you said you're making connections to those? MR. CENTER-Yes,there'll be connections from the road,in those two areas, at the north along here, and then along the west,and then also we can put one in that area. 7 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/20/2022) MR. STEVES-The lots are also buffered in the back from Sherman Avenue. So you have access to all the common areas off this. MR.MC DEVITT-What does the HOA,the HOA that will become,what verbiage is associated relative to decks,pools,common accessory buildings? MR.ZAPPER-So these lots have sufficient room. So I mean that'll really be what the Cerrones contract to build for what people want, and if somebody wanted to add a deck, you know, they would need homeowners association approval,but there's not going to be a prohibition because as long as it fits,there's plenty of room. MR. MC DEVITT-Okay. MR. STEVES-As long as it doesn't interfere with the setback and/or the no cut buffer. MR. MC DEVITT-Gotcha. MR. MC CABE-Other questions? So you'll have to refresh my memory. Is the public hearing still open from our last meeting? MRS. MOORE-Correct. The public hearing is still open. MR. MC CABE-Okay. So at this particular time I'm going to see if there's anybody in the audience who would like to add information on this particular project. First of all,you have to state your name for the record. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN MIKE FRANCO MR. FRANCO-Mike Franco and I live at 61 Peachtree Lane in Queensbury,and I've had some questions. MR. MC CABE-So we don't answer questions. What we do is we take input from you. MR. FRANCO-Okay. Well,my input are just questions. MR. MC CABE-And so, again, is a period for you to provide information that we should take into consideration. It's not for you to ask questions. MR. URRICO-I've seen the questions,Mike. I think he can. MR. MC DEVITT-Raise that information. MR. URRICO-I would have to read it in anyway. So why don't we let him. MR. UNDERWOOD-Why don't you come back up and ask your questions. MR. MC CABE-All right. So what you can do is ask your questions,but we're not going to provide any answers. MR. URRICO Just read your letter. That's all. MR. FRANCO-Even if I put them in writing? MR. MC CABE-This is a public hearing, and what the public hearing does is it allows you to provide information to us. Our lawyers would say to us that we don't have to answer you and in fact we'd be better off not answering you. So that's what a public hearing does. MR. FRANCO-Okay. You don't have to answer them. So , "Has the Town done any preliminary projections on the property tax revenue the subdivision would generate? Would the developer still move forward with the purchase of property if the Town of Queensbury denied its request to change the current zoning and increase the number of lots and reduce the setbacks from the homes in the surrounding neighborhoods? What were the insignificant issues the Planning Board found that in it's view, as stated in their report,could be mitigated by the project plan? What form would the mitigation take? Does the Town of Queensbury own any undeveloped property in the City of Glens Falls? Have any hazardous materials ever been disposed at the Glens Falls Leaf Dump? Has the site been tested for the presence of any Cancer causing substances like Radon? What assessment has there been to determine the impact to bicycle and pedestrian use as well as school bus service for children because of the increase I motor vehicle traffic to and from the subdivision on Upper Sherman and Lambert? On what approximate date does the S (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/20/2022) developer plan to start clearing the property? And approximate start date for home construction? How many phase would there be? What is the target date for completion? After this meeting of the Zoning Board, what are the next steps by this Board or other agencies of the Town of Queensbury or Warren County?" An additional question would be, are there more than two access points to the proposed development,other than the two that are shown on the map,to Upper Sherman? And remember when I spoke with Laura she alluded to the fact that there was a cut back on the upper right hand side,and I don't see that on the map. And in what phase will the recreation area be developed in this project and when would it be complete? That's it. Thank you. MR. URRICO-Thank you. MR. MC CABE-Is there anybody else that would like to give input on this? In the back there. KEITH FERRARO MR. FERRARO-Good evening. My name's Keith Ferraro. I live over on McEchron Lane. My house would back up to Lot Number 10, .47 acres. My lot is two acres over there. As other people have talked about in different public hearings before this,I think all the property owners,I bought my property,built the house 20 years ago, specifically chose this location because of the fact that this was owned by another municipality which actually had the unique opportunity of dumping leaves and things that they didn't want in somebody else's backyard,but yet it would remain probably vacant forever. So the zoning overlay that Queensbury placed on this property didn't really apply,okay,if that makes any sense. So I expected this to be owned by the Town forever. So we kind of had a diamond in the rough where we would have the ability to look out to 50 acres of woodlands forever,if that makes sense. I think probably a lot of the property owners who are adjoining this in each of the neighborhoods kind of anticipated this result in purchasing their property. Not being said that things can change,because this is obviously a change that has come to be, and they have talked about the fact along properties on McEchron Lane. We have not cleared approximately 50 feet of our back lot that we own ourselves just in anticipation of possibly something like this ever happened. So that being said, there's probably 70 feet that won't be developed but if this makes any sense,the back of my lot,my house faces south,so the back woodlands along the back of my property face north. So that means there's very little development. I can't even hardly grow grass in that area because I have standing trees that are 7S feet tall. That being said,I've got a bunch of QTips that are there without a lot of dense undergrowth. So I can easily see 100 feet into this woodlands,which would be that house that is going to be behind me which is only,you know,on one of the smaller lots being cleared close to the back. I personally have already purchased several hundred dollars in trees that I'm going to plant on the back of my lot to help maintain the integrity of the woodlands that I anticipated having there for the rest of my life. So I guess my question is,I mean obviously what Cerrone does in other neighborhoods,they're very nice. Obviously this will be a feather in the Town of Queensbury's cap because it's more tax dollars that are going to be generated,but at the end of the day,if you could help us honor the integrity of what our vision was when we purchased our properties adjoining this,and that is maintaining that woodland appearance, it would be appreciated,if that makes any sense. Because that's the integrity of our dream when we purchased this property,that we had. Some people get lakefront property,that's hard to come by. This piece of property here,we own a little more than an acre ourselves and we wanted that privacy,and you look out the backyard,out that window,it's little serenity you just get every day,that kind of thing. So if you guys could just help us honor that,all those properties that,I mean some properties are very dense and well beyond the no clear zone. Unfortunately mine is one of the ones that will be impacted. I mean there's probably eight of them when it's all said and done that are being cleared close to the adjoining property lines. So if that makes any sense to you guys. I'd just like to help you guys,that's part of this process anyway is to help ensure this development fits into the integrity of the Town where it's located, because this is a unique opportunity. I mean there's only a couple of places where another municipality like Glens Falls owns property in the Town of Queensbury. So unlike other properties that were farmland or whatever else before them,you can anticipate them being more developed than this is. So if you guys could just help us,like I said,maintain the integrity of our dream and our vision when we purchased our properties,it would be appreciated. Thank you. MR. MC CABE-Anybody else? Roy,do we have anything written? MR.URRICO-Yes. "We are the owners of properties in the immediate vicinity of the project on Sherman Avenue. We are pleased to hear quality homes are being built. The concerns we have areas follows: 1. Relief requested for lot size and setbacks; 2. Density of the number of homes. We would like to see: 1. No less than one acre lots. 2. 40'no cut buffer on the north side. 3. Decrease the density of the number of homes on the north side. A big concern for Lambert Drive(North Side)residents is that Lambert Drive became a major cut through for other new developments on Upper Sherman to Peggy Ann. Lambert Drive is a very windy and hilly road. West Mountain is also a very busy road and the intersections at Luzerne and Upper Sherman have many accidents. Please consider these changes." And this petition or this letter is signed by 26 people. I looked through,the addresses are in the surrounding area. That's it. MR. MC CABE-So do you guys have any responses? 9 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/20/2022) MR.ZAPPER-So just to go down the list. Property tax revenue,these'll be$350 to 450. Perhaps that'll be a positive for Queensbury in terms of property tax revenue. The Cerrones would not purchase without variances because they can't build what makes sense here. They can't build two acre estate lots. So Tom can talk about hazardous materials,but that was all checked with DEC and there aren't any. I'll hand it over to him when I'm done. The school impact is that school enrollment is diminishing in Queensbury and we need more kids in school. Traffic is roughly one and a half cars per house peak hour. So you're talking about one car a minute basically. Nothing significant. They want to get started immediately as soon as it's approved, and it would still need Planning Board approval, subdivision approval after the variances are done, and in terms of Keith's comments about the understory,that's mature forest and that makes sense, but he is proposing for himself, if somebody wants to put some shrubs underneath the canopy,but having 50 feet on their lot and 20 feet on Cerrone's lot,there's plenty of area for woods. I think just the petition from the neighbors,their lots are far smaller than an acre. Most of the lots around here are. So we're not doing anything different than most have. MR.CENTER-Like I said,we did a full Phase I,Phase II environmental assessment,reviewed it with DEC, and there were no issues with contamination within the soils or groundwater in those areas. Samples were taken. Samples were sent. All that information was forwarded to DEC in the report. I think it was analyzed and there were no issues that needed to be remediated or mitigated. MR. MC CABE-Okay. So at this particular time I'm going to close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MC CABE-And I'm going to poll the Board, and I'm going to start with Cathy. MRS.HAMLIN-I would be opposed to this at this time. I feel it's too big an ask. There was some wisdom behind the Town Board as to why they changed this zoning on this lot, and I think I'd like a little more clarification in terms of when that zoning happened. Did it happen when it was under Glens Falls ownership or under yours? MR. CENTER-They bought it somewhere in the S0's. MR. ZAPPER-So it did happen after Glens Falls purchased it. MRS.HAMLIN-So this is self-created. MR. ZAPPER-They changed the zoning after Glens Falls purchased it. MRS. HAMLIN-You have it under contract. Okay. All right. That's it. I would not be in favor at this time. MR. MC CABE-Roy? MR. URRICO-I'm kind of torn because I see this as a pretty good project. There's a lot of thought being put into it. You have the buffers. The setbacks are a little narrower than they could be,and I understand that the lot sizes are substantially less than what it's zoned for,but when you look at the neighborhood, they're not out of line with the neighborhood,and one of the criteria is how this fits into the neighborhood it's sitting in,and this is actually even bigger than what most of the houses in the neighborhood are,20,000 square feet is.45 acres I believe, and in 2000 it was one acre lots. So I think what we have here is a pretty decent project,and I would be in favor of it. MR. MC CABE-Brady? MR. STARK-As the applicant stated, the Villages at Sweet Road have very similar houses with smaller lots,passive recreation in the center of the neighborhood. It's obviously a great idea. There seems to be no environmental issues that were brought up or anything like that. The houses,you know, are definitely going to be very nice that are going in there, and I think it's a well thought out good project and I'd be in favor of it at this time. MR. MC CABE-Brent? MR. MC DEVITT-They say all arguments you could sort of argue both sides of the points and I think sometimes that's the case in life. What I have to fall back on here is the reality of the situation which is the other neighborhoods,other streets that are close or contiguous in some case are in fact smaller lots,and so at the end of the day, that is one thing that really stands out to me. Additionally, and I certainly recognize the neighbors. I recognize their thoughts. I appreciate their thoughts. I think this is well thought out. I like the passive recreation area. I really think you have some opportunities to do some great things there and make that pop. The individuals in the development,I think it's very important that the developer just be as careful and cognizant as possible relative to the buffers and the plantings and 10 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/20/2022) trying to just be good neighbors and good stewards to the folks on the streets that are associated in the area. So in total here I am in support of the project. MR. MC CABS Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-I think if you look at the Lambert Drive side of the property, and you count up the number of lots on that side compared to the number of lots proposed in yours,likewise with the ones over on Algonquin,I think you're a little squeezed in and tight up on the top,you know,on the north side with McEchron and I think that there's wiggle room to make some of those lots a little larger over there and not so small. Your internal lots on the curve,both of them are, all those lots are very narrow lots and I think they're going to also end up causing a lot of headaches for people who purchase those lots because they're going to need variances for sheds and everything else,unless they're properly placed in the backyard. Pools are going to be a non-entity in this whole project because I don't think you really have the capacity with the septic in the backyard to put both pools and other things in at the same time. So I think there's wiggle room here and I don't think we should be speeding this process along and this is only the first time we've ever really discussed it here and I think there's room for you to reconfigure those ones across the northern part on the top of the map and also make those ones a little bit wider over on the side on the east side on the interior of the east side and so I think at this point I would not be in favor of the project. MR. MC CABE-So there's a couple of things that bother me here. On a new project, having to give a variance on a side of the house,just doesn't seem right. I don't mind the variance in the back because of the buffer zone,but I really don't care for the 15 feet on the side when you need 20. The other thing that I really don't like here is that the Town went to two acre zoning to reduce the load on this particular area, and so if you continue to use the argument, well, that's what the neighbors have, then how are you ever going to make a change? And I think that's really what the Town was trying to do when they went to two acre zoning here. This is a pretty big project, and I think if we neglected the two acre zoning, we'd be usurping Town authority without really the proper authority. So I can't support this project as it stands right now,but like Jim said,there is some room here. Ron,now you can go. MR.KUHL-Looking at this project,I looked at it and I thought you were asking for an awful lot with two acre zoning,but you brought up the point of your 12 or 14 acres of common land, and if you take that.32 and add it on to the lots,I can come up with about 26 or 45 that are an acre or better. So I can't disagree with the Chairman talking about that's why they made two acre zoning,but on the other side,it blends in to the neighborhood,the neighboring lots. So with that in mind I would be in favor of the project. MR. MC CABE-So it looks like you're good to go here. So I'm going to ask Brent for a motion. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Cerrone Land Holdings.Applicant proposes a 45 residential subdivision of a 49.5 acre parcel. The lots range in size from 0.47 ac.to 1.57 acres. The project includes a homeowners association property. There are to be two access points to Sherman Avenue. The sites would have on-site septic and be connected to municipal water supply. Project includes a 20 ft. no cut buffer on the north property lines. Planning Board review for a subdivision. Relief requested for lot size and setbacks. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for lot size and setbacks for a proposed subdivision in the Moderate Density Residential zone. MDR. Parcel is 49.5 acres. Section 179-3-040 Dimensional The applicant proposes 45 residential lots ranging in size from 0.47 ac to 1.57 ac where a two acre lot minimum is required where lots do not have access to both sewer and water. The project has access to municipal water but will have on-site septic systems. In addition, relief is requested for the setbacks for Moderate Density Zone- Rear setback required is 30 ft. proposed is 20 ft., Side setback required is 25 ft. and 15 ft.is proposed,the front setback of 30 ft.is not proposed to change. SEQR Type I Coordinated; A public hearing was advertised and held on January 26,2022,February 23,2022,March 16,2022,&April 20,2022 Upon review of the application materials, information supplied during the public hearing, and upon consideration of the criteria specified in Section 179-14-OSO(A)of the Queensbury Town Code and Chapter 267 of NYS Town Law and after discussion and deliberation,we find as follows: 1. There is not an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood nor a detriment to nearby properties. We did talk about the buffer zone being part of this project. 2. Feasible alternatives have been considered. 11 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/20/2022) 3. The requested variance, while it could be considered substantial, I believe due to the discussions and the deliberations we've had here, that it is not because of the discussions we've had here relative to lot sizes in the area, and contiguous streets and properties. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. 5. The alleged difficulty,while it could be suggested that it is self-created,I believe, again,due to the discussions we've had here today that it is not. 6. In addition,the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from granting the requested variance would—Outweigh (approval) the resulting detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community; 7. The Board also finds that the variance request under consideration is the minimum necessary,- S. The Board also proposes the following conditions: a) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution. BASED ON THE ABOVE FINDINGS, I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 5-2022 CERRONE LAND HOLDINGS, Introduced by Brent McDevitt, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Ronald Kuhl: Duly adopted this 20th Day of April 2022 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stark,Mr. Urrico,Mr.Kuhl,Mr. McDevitt NOES: Mrs. Hamlin,Mr. Underwood,Mr. McCabe ABSENT: Mr. Henkel MR. MC CABE-So our next application is AV 13-2022,Queensbury Square LLC. AREA VARIANCE NO.13-2022 SEQRA TYPE TYPE II QUEENSBURY SQUARE LLC AGENT(S) HUTCHINS ENGINEERING OWNER(S) QUEENSBURY SQUARE LLC ZONING Cl LOCATION 909 STATE ROUTE 9 APPLICANT PROPOSES A 9,220 SQ.FT.ADDITION TO THE EXISTING 7,000 SQ. FT. LIQUOR STORE WHERE A 5,460 SQ. FT. FOUNDATION HAS BEEN CONSTRUCTED. THE TOTAL BUILDING TO BE 16,220 SQ. FT. THE FACADE HAS BEEN UPDATED TO REFLECT ONE BUILDING ENTRANCE FOR THE ADDITION. THE MAIN BUILDING TO REMAIN THE SAME. PROJECT INCLUDES SITE WORK FOR LIGHTING, LANDSCAPING, AND STORMWATER. SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR COMMERCIAL CONSTRUCTION IN THE COMMERCIAL INTENSIVE ZONE. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR SETBACKS, EXPANSION OF A NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE,AND PARKING. CROSS REF SP 23-2022;AV 1-2020;SP 1-2020;AV 78-2017,SP 76-2017,SP 8-2015;AV 59-2010;SP 70-2010 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING APRIL 2022 LOT SIZE 1.41 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 296.17-1- 38 SECTION 179-3-040;179-13-010;179-4-090 LUCAS DOBIE,REPRESENTING APPLICANT,PRESENT; MONTY LIU,PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 13-2022, Queensbury Square, LLC, Meeting Date: April 20, 2022 "Project Location: 909 State Route 9 Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes a 9,220 sq. ft. addition to the existing 7,000 sq. ft.liquor store where a 5,460 sq. ft. foundation has been constructed. The total building to be 16,220 sq.ft. The facade has been updated to reflect one building entrance for the addition. The main building to remain the same. Project includes site work for lighting,landscaping, and stormwater. Site plan review for commercial construction in the Commercial Intensive zone. Relief requested for setbacks,expansion of nonconforming structure, and parking. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for setbacks, expansion of nonconforming structure, and parking. The zone is Commercial Intensive and the lot is a corner lot. The parcel is 1.42 acres. Section 179-3-040 Dimensional,Section 179-13-010 12 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/20/2022) Relief for the new building area where the building is to be 27 ft.to covered entrance areas on Weeks Road where a 75 ft. setback is required. Front setback relief from Route 9 to the stairs is 72.5 ft. and 73 ft.from the porch and post where 75 ft.is required. In addition,relief for parking is requested where 62 spaces are required and 55 are proposed. The existing loading dock is to remain and is I.S ft. from the property line on Weeks Road where a 75 ft. setback is required. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination,the board shall consider: 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. 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. Feasible alternatives for the setbacks may be limited due to the location of the existing building. The feasible alternatives for parking may be considered for reducing the building size, altering the building so deliveries are on the south or west side of the building as the building is now for one tenant. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered moderate relevant to the code. Relief requested to Weeks Road is 4S ft. and to Route 9 is 2.5 ft.,.3 ft. and 73.2 ft. (loading dock). 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The project will have minimal impact on the physical or environmental conditions. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-created. Staff comments: The applicant proposes a 9,220 sq.ft.building addition for a total building of 16,220 sq.ft. The plans show the foundation of the approved building of 5,460 sq.ft. The building is to be one tenant for a Liquor Store. The Main building facade and porches are to be altered so they will be consistent with the addition and entryway." MR. DOBIE-Good evening, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for having us. Board, good evening. For the record, Lucas Dobie, Professional Engineer, Hutchins Engineering in Queensbury, representing Queensbury Square LLC, and the managing member, Monty Liu,with us tonight. Just real briefly,just a project history,in 201E we received the variances and site plan approval for the detached 42 by 130 building which if you drive up there today you'll see the foundation in the ground for, and during construction we had a misstep with having to put covered entrances on the Weeks Roadside. So we shut the project down with the foundation poured, and we said let's get this sorted and we came back, got our site plan modification and the additional area variances in January of 2020. Subsequent to that we did not re-start construction,put a lot of thought into it and did a business model and Monty's decided to forego having six tenants in that previously approved building and make it his own building as an extension to the liquor store. So our plan is to continue the foundation as it sits today to the east, tie it into the liquor store building, and build one comprehensive building, and during this re-design, we decided to eliminate the parking on the Route 9 side of the building so that it would become green space, and also we had a previously approved delivery access road to the north coming off Weeks Road. We've eliminated that as far as this project. So we're very happy with the re-designs,put a lot of thought into it over the last several months, and we've received favorable recommendations from the Planning Board last night and again our four variance requests are for this front setback to Weeks Road, which would be the same distance as previously approved; the setback to Route 9 to re-construct our canopy entrance. We're taking off the porch that's there and re-constructing the new covered entrance that will need the setback relief,the two and a half feet from the seventy-five feet, and the parking we're asking for seven spaces of relief from the sixty-two required, fifty-five proposed, and finally since we're connecting to the existing liquor store building,it's technically an extension of that non-conforming structure so that's the fourth variance. We're very happy with how the project shaped up here and we'd be happy to answer any questions. We'd like to get your approval tonight so we can continue with our Site Plan Review process. Thank you for your time. MR. MC CABE-So do we have questions of the applicant? MRS. HAMLIN-What was the reasoning behind eliminating the access road off of Weeks Road for your deliveries? 13 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/20/2022) MR. DOBIE-Since it's one comprehensive tenant now we're proposing to keep the loading dock for the liquor store as it is and the previous logic with having that access road off of Weeks Road was if you had six different tenants to be able to pull up to their back door and make deliveries on the north side. MRS.HAMLIN-But your loading dock is still back there. Correct? MR. DOBIE-It's still where it is today. MRS. HAMLIN-Well, I mean, not to get ahead, but I like a lot about this,but just in my mind, and I'm throwing it out there when you talk to the Planning Board,you have access coming off of Route 9,and then we have Weeks Road and we also have that access to Wal-Mart,and I don't pretend to know exactly how Queensbury's Code works,but I mean personally I think in some way in eliminating that curb cut would just be good for the flow of traffic and Town Engineer or traffic engineers might want to take a look at that where you would come in, customers would come in at that lighted intersection, It makes ingress and egress back out onto 9L a lot easier, and maybe they could come in through the back side of your property and then still maintain an entrance in the back off Weeks,just taking,you know,that's just a lot of entry points onto Route 9,just from my point of view, but that certainly wouldn't affect my decision making today, just suggesting to think about it when you see the Planning Board. MR. MC CABE-Other questions? MR. KUHL-How come you just didn't build on the 5400 square foot you got approved for before? How much wine can you put in the additional 4,000 square feet? MR. LIU-It all connects to one storefront. So it just makes sense. MR. KUHL-More room to park your cars with the drums on top. Right? I was just wondering. Thank you. MR. MC CABE-Other questions? MR. MC DEVITT-What was the fourth variance you kind of itemized there? MRS. MOORE-It was probably expansion of a non-conforming structure. Because it currently doesn't meet setbacks. So it's considered an expansion of a non-conforming structure. MR. MC DEVITT-I understand. Thank you. MRS.HAMLIN-Even though it's pretty much the same. MR. MC CABE-Other questions? So a public hearing has been advertised, and so at this particular time I'm going to open the public hearing and see if there's anybody in the audience who would like to speak on this particular project. Sir? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED JAMES VALENTE MR.VALENTE-Good evening. MR. MC CABE-State your name for the record,please. MR. VALENTE James Valente. I'm one of the owners of the Whispering Pines apartments on Weeks Road. I'm so glad to see him close the curb cut on Weeks Road that they had approved back in 2015. Weeks Road has enough problems as it is with traffic. Second of all, as far as the loading dock, the still existing loading dock there,can they incorporate that to the south side of the building? Okay. That truck usually is hanging out on Weeks Road when they're delivering. Okay, and if they can incorporate that loading area, the loading dock on the south end, it will help Weeks Road out a lot because that truck is usually hanging out there in the middle of the road. Otherwise I think the project's great. Good luck to Monty on it. Thanks a lot. I appreciate it. MR. MC CABE-Anybody else? So do we have anything written, Roy? MR. URRICO-No. MR. MC CABE-So at this particular time I'm going to close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED 14 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/20/2022) MR. MC CABE-And I'm going to poll the Board, and I'm going to start with Brady. MR. STARK-Yes, Mr. Chairman. I think it's a well thought out project. It looks very nice from the presentation that they had, and I'd be in favor. MR. MC CABE-Brent? MR. MC DEVITT-I'm absolutely in favor of the project. I just guess I would maybe like to understand a little bit better what Mr.Valente is referencing with the loading dock and whether that is a possibility or not. I'm in favor of the project. I think aesthetically it's very eye pleasing. I like the design. I think traffic up there can be a little dicey at certain times of the day,but it is what it is,and so this is well thought out. It's well drawn up and I'm in favor of the project. MR. MC CABE Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, all of our previous approvals are essentially intact here. As far as the parking on here, I don't think you need 62 parking spots. Fifty-five is more than adequate for any building up on that road there, and I think the attachment to the old building makes sense. I don't have a problem with that variance. So I'd be in favor. MR. MC CABE-Ron? MR. KUHL-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We approved the last variances for this. So I don't think this is any big deal. I'd be in favor. MR. MC CABE-Cathy? MRS. HAMLIN-Well, first I want to rescind my comment about Weeks Road. I didn't know it was an issue for the tenants nearby. So as far as traffic is concerned,that's the Town's issue and they need to deal with it subsequently, but overall, yes, I don't think they're asking for very much. I believe it's a vast improvement and we're really just upholding previous decisions by this Board. So I will vote in favor of the variances. MR. MC CABE-Roy? MR.URRICO-I'm in favor of the project. I just also would like to reference Mr.Valente's suggestion about the Weeks Road loading dock,because if you're going to have a bigger building, I imagine you're going to have more deliveries than before. So it would be nice to have that off the road as much as you can. MR. MC CABE-And I,too, support the project. I supported the request before and I think this is a good project. So at this particular time I'm going to ask Cathy for a motion here. MRS. MOO RE-Can I just interrupt for just a second. So you discussed twice in reference to that loading dock. That's up to you if you wish to continue that variance,or not grant that variance. MR. MC CABE-I think we're accepting the project as it is. MRS. MOORE-Okay. MR. MC CABE-Cathy? The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Queensbury Square,LLC. Applicant proposes a 9,220 sq. ft. addition to the existing 7,000 sq. ft.liquor store where a 5,460 sq. ft. foundation has been constructed. The total building to be 16,220 sq. ft. The facade has been updated to reflect one building entrance for the addition. The main building to remain the same. Project includes site work for lighting,landscaping,and stormwater.Site plan review for commercial construction in the Commercial Intensive zone. Relief requested for setbacks, expansion of nonconforming structure, and parking. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for setbacks, expansion of nonconforming structure, and parking. The zone is Commercial Intensive and the lot is a corner lot. The parcel is 1.42 acres. Section 179-3-040 Dimensional,Section 179-13-010 Relief for the new building area where the building is to be 27 ft.to covered entrance areas on Weeks Road where a 75 ft. setback is required. Front setback relief from Route 9 to the stairs is 72.5 ft. and 73 ft.from the porch and post where 75 ft.is required. In addition,relief for parking is requested where 62 spaces are 15 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/20/2022) required and 55 are proposed. The existing loading dock is to remain and is I.S ft. from the property line on Weeks Road where a 75 ft. setback is required. SEQR Type II—no further review required, A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday,April 20,2022. Upon review of the application materials, information supplied during the public hearing, and upon consideration of the criteria specified in Section 179-14-OSO(A)of the Queensbury Town Code and Chapter 267 of NYS Town Law and after discussion and deliberation,we find as follows: 1. There is not an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood nor a detriment to nearby properties. In fact the aesthetics will vastly improve the character of the neighborhood. 2. Feasible alternatives were not considered. The feasible alternatives are reasonable and have been included-to minimize the request. 3. The requested variance is not considered to be substantial. It's a pre-existing building and we're just looking at making it fit in that particular parcel. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. 5. The alleged difficulty is self-created, but as that's only one factor, it is considered but not outweighing other factors. 6. In addition,the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from granting the requested variance would—Outweigh (approval) the resulting detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community; 7. The Board also finds that the variance request under consideration is the minimum necessary,- S. The Board also proposes the following conditions: a) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution. BASED ON THE ABOVE FINDINGS, I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 13-2022 QUEENSBURY SQUARE LLC, Introduced by Catherine Hamlin, who moved for its adoption, seconded by James Underwood: Duly adopted this 20th Day of April 2022 by the following vote: AYES: Mr.Kuhl,Mr. McDevitt,Mr. Stark,Mrs. Hamlin,Mr. Urrico,Mr. Underwood,Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Henkel MR. MC CABE-Congratulations,you have a project. MR. DOBIE-Thank you very much. MR. LIU-Thank you. MR. MC CABE-So the next application is SV 3-2022,Hoffman Development Corp. SIGN VARIANCE NO. 3-2022 SEQRA TYPE UNLISTED HOFFMAN DEVELOPMENT CORP. AGENT(S) FRANK PALUMBO (CT MALE) OWNER(S) 919 STATE ROUTE 9,LLC ZONING Cl LOCATION 919 STATE ROUTE 9 APPLICANT PROPOSES A 138 SO. FT. FREESTANDING SIGN. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR FREESTANDING SIGN GREATER THAN 45 SQ.FT. CROSS REF SP 71-2021;PZ-DISC-0005-2021;P-SSE-0008-2017,PZ-0189-2016;SP 53-2011;SP 57-95;SP 38- 90 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING APRIL 2022 LOT SIZE 2.01 ACRES TAX MAP NO.296.17- 1-42 SECTION 140 FRANK PALUMBO&MARTY ANDREWS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT,PRESENT STAFF INPUT 16 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/20/2022) Notes from Staff, Sign Variance No. 3-2022, Hoffman Development Corp., Meeting Date: April 20, 2022 "Project Location: 919 State Route 9 Description of Proposed Project Applicant proposes a 13S sq. ft. freestanding sign. Relief requested for freestanding sign greater than 45 sq.ft. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for freestanding sign greater than 45 sq.ft.The parcel is 2.011 acres and located in the Commercial Intensive zone. Chapter 140- signs The project is for a 13S sq.ft. sign where a 45 sq.ft. sign is the maximum allowed. Criteria for considering a Sign Variance according to Chapter 140 of Town Law: In making a determination,the board shall consider: 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this sign variance. Minimal to no impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method,feasible for the applicant to pursue,other than a sign variance. Feasible alternatives may be considered to reduce the sign size. 3. Whether the requested sign variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered substantial relevant to the code. Relief is 93 sq.ft.greater than allowed. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The project as proposed may have minimal to no impact on the environmental conditions of the neighborhood. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-created. Staff comments: The project is for a new sign to advertise for the Hoffman's car wash. The plans show the sign to indicate the services offered at the site. The sign includes the words Hoffman Car Wash, The Home of Unlimited Washing,Free Vacuums,and 24 hour self-service. The plans show a stone base structure to hold the sign." MR. PALUMBO-Good evening. Frank Palumbo with C.T. Male Associates, and also with me is Marty Andrews from Hoffman Development Corporation. Thank you for entertaining our variance request. So to advise the Board where we are in our process,we are currently with the Planning Board for a Site Plan Review. We'll back with them May 17`h, and so the purpose that we're seeking is the freestanding Sign Variance as was just read into the record. The sign is located on our site,closest to the traffic side of the property. So you can all see that the striped area along the front is an easement that is to the Town,sanitary easement that runs through there, and so we needed to stay outside of that easement. So for various reasons,the reason that we placed the sign where we did,was to be near the traffic signal where we would like people to be accessing the site. We didn't want to sort of advertise the Weeks Road side of the site, even though there will be an entrance there. It also with the sanitary easement and the way that we have the site designed, was that we would have to have that sign sort of set back if we had it on that side. It wasn't working in that other location. That being the case,it is a standard sign for Hoffman's. So the size that they use at all,many of their sites, and we realize that we have to now reconcile that with you in terms of what the Code is, but what we did want is a sign of that sign and to represent not only what services that can be there,because as you can see the vacuums are situated at the rear of the site. So that was one of the things that we wanted to have on the sign,but we wanted to sort of promote and have a large enough sign that people who are approaching the site would know that the sign is closest to the entrance at the signalized intersection,which we think is the safest way to manage the site, and so that's why we have a sign there. That's why we did ask for the size of that sign,so that it was clearly recognizable and noticeable. One thing that I can say, as Marty and I were just talking, we've already made a commitment with the Planning Board. After one of our first meetings, and I apologize because this was, Laura,probably in our application before we had had some discussions on this,but our,this will not be a 24 hour service site. We've made that determination in concert with the Planning Board and the operations side of things that we'll be closed at eight o'clock. So that section that we had on the sign for 24 hour self-service, we can commit now to saying that we don't need that. So I'm sorry that that was already in the application at that time. So that is a reduction from the request that we had. That area is about ISA feet. So it would take us down to the relief as it was noted in the reading there,that the relief that we're seeking was 93 square feet. That'll take us down to 74 square feet.6. 17 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/20/2022) MR. MC CABE-So the total for the sign isn't the 135. It's the 13S minus 1S? MR. PALUMBO-Yes. MR. MC CABE-So it's 120. MR.PALUMBO-Roughly 120. At 119.6,but 120 is probably the better thing to do in terms of making sure on the final. So that is really our case. It is the typical type of sign that Hoffman's,you're probably all familiar with Hoffman's sites, and their present, many sites they've been building trying to create that brand to have something that is very recognizable to people. They have,as you know,unlimited,so people know to look that if they're in a community that that's what the sign says,but I'd like to keep the signs all the same type. So we think it has purpose,not just for branding but also for leading people into the safest entrance into the site, and the uniqueness of the easement across the front of the property line sort of limited where we could place the sign otherwise, and we think that that relief is something that is manageable I would say or we would like to think that you see it that way as well. MR. MC CABE-So do we have questions of the applicant? MR. URRICO-You're going to be sharing a driveway with 40 Oak Grille or how is that? MR. PALUMBO-That is the plan. That is the plan that we are talking with the Planning Board about. We believe that that is,we know that that was the intention of that driveway on their site plan called out to be a shared access, an interconnect would be made so that traffic could enter and exit for future development at the traffic signal. MR. URRICO-Now you're also going to have a sign on the building itself? MR. PALUMBO-Yes,there are signs on the building and I believe. MR. URRICO-From both sides? MR.PALUMBO-Yes, and I believe that those both met Code. MR.URRICO-So I don't understand why you need a sign this size. Because that used to be a carwash and I don't recall people having trouble finding out that there was a carwash there, nor do I find it hard to understand that they won't know what Hoffman's is. MR. PALUMBO-Well the signs on the buildings are flat against the building, not really directional with the flow of traffic. The sign that we're placing is in that,perpendicular to the road so that the view is in this one. Yes,I do think people will know that it's a Hoffman's by the way we design the building and the usage, but we still think that for visibility for the driver approaching the site, that having a sign that is perpendicular to the road,which is consistent with what is in the area. MR. URRICO-I think every car that travels up and down that corridor does it at least twice a day that they're going to know where it is. MR. PALUMBO-I don't disagree with you, but I think that the, if you go through the corridor, you see that every business has a similar sign in a similar perpendicular nature because that's what the drivers see. MR. MC CABE-Other questions? MR. MC DEVITT-When we talk about uniformity of signs, and I saw that somewhere,the Quaker Road site that Hoffman's has, I don't believe that the unlimited washing and this type is in front, that type of sign. MR.ANDREWS-So that sign sets all the way back to our property because that's a National Grid easement all the way out to the road. So we could not place the sign in that easement. If you drive by it's offset maybe 100 feet off the road. MR. MC DEVITT-Because of the easement. MR.ANDREWS-Because of the easement. MR. MC DEVITT-Okay. MR. ANDREWS-We're building several places very similar to this. That's the sign. The other places have digital signs which say Unlimited Washing and we would like that to be an interchangeable sign so that we could have our Mother's Day special coming up,we could have that an interchangeable animal. So it's an advertising also. Nothing on the building. It talks about free vacuuming, and that sign sets way 1S (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/20/2022) back. You can't see the vacuums from. They're going to be hard to see from Route 9 here because they're all way back. We don't have free vacuuming on the other site now. MRS. HAMLIN-I do have one quick question. The font size pointing to this hashtag area, is that the easement you were speaking of,the hashtag area in the front along Route 9? MR. PALUMBO-The hatched area there? Yes. It says sanitary sewer easement granted to the Route 9 Sewer District as described. MRS.HAMLIN-And so you're saying you can't go into that obviously with the sign. Okay. Thank you. MR. MC CABE-Other questions? MR. MC DEVITT Just one last one. Is losing the 24 hour self-service portion here, you're giving that portion up,just,again,I just want to make sure I'm clear,of getting us to 74.6 feet? MR.PALUMBO-Getting us to,you,to a relief of 74.6 feet,call it 75 if you use the 120. MR. MC DEVITT-The 120. Right. MR. PALUMBO-So that is the relief requested. MR. MC DEVITT-Okay. MR. PALUMBO-And also I think that you made the point,the building style is also, we believe, quite an attractive building,well done, and the signs that are on the building are well situated within the building. They're not extremely large on the building. They fit within the design of the building, and that is the intent. So really those are,yes,people will know where Hoffman's is,but we still believe that that front sign being well visible is an important factor. MR. MC DEVITT-Similar to your Ballston Spa one. MR.ANDREWS-Exactly. MR. MC DEVITT-Thankyou. MR. MC CABE-So a public hearing has been advertised. So at this particular time I'm going to open the public hearing and see if there's anybody in the audience that would like to provide information on this particular project. He was up first. You're together? Okay. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED HAL HALLIDAY MR.HALLIDAY-Good evening,ladies and gentlemen. My name is Hal Halliday. I am the project manager nationwide for Atlantic National Trust out of Portland, Maine. We own the Queensbury Holdings property which is now leased to 40 Oak,the restaurant next to Hoffman's Car Wash. I did a little bit of homework regarding the sign and I haven't done a lot of these meetings so I did my homework. We owned the Red Roof Inn and the Outback Steakhouse at one time, and as some of you know,in 2011 we split the property into two separate lots, and for your reference we share both lots. The Outback shares the Red Roof lot. The Red Roof shares the 40 Oak lot and anybody can park anywhere. In December of 2005 the Outback Steakhouse got a sign permit from the Town for a 50 square foot sign,which was approved and put up. In February of 2010 Atlantic National Trust got a sign for the Red Roof Inn for 50 square feet and it was approved and put up. Just for reference in 2011 Monty's Liquor Store got a sign permit and put up a sign for 4S square feet and it was put up. I have read the five criteria for sign variances regarding the Town's Chapter 140. In my opinion this entire project as planned will have an impact on all surrounding properties. This request for a sign three times the allowed size is unacceptable. It was 93 square feet greater than originally allowed, and after hearing the previous representatives get up, I might suggest leaving the extra ISA square feet in the request, and maybe put on the bottom of the sign,please stay off the property when the traffic backs up onto Route 9 and Sweet Road. Our company, as well as many others,have made many concerns at meetings with the Planning Board regarding traffic, safety,property easements and proposed cross connection,interconnection agreements and these concerns have fallen on deaf ears. Please do not compound this proposed project by allowing a sign three times the size our law allows. Thank you. I'd like to introduce our company's attorney. JOSEPH NICHOLS MR.NICHOLS-My name is Joseph Nichols. I'm the attorney for Queensbury Holdings LLC which as Mr. Halliday indicated own the adjacent lot,which is where the 40 Oak Grille currently is situated. I would 19 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/20/2022) just not, with regard to the proceedings before the Planning Board, there is a point of contention with regard to the interconnect and with the easement, but the proposal that Hoffman's has put forward proposes to use that ingress/egress off of Route 9 which it would share with my client's property,but that, as I've indicated,has been a point of contention at the Planning Board meeting level and Hoffman's is aware of my client's position with regard to that issue. Turning specifically to the sign, it seems to me, just listening to the presentation, that,just as a practical matter, I'm questioning why Hoffman's would need to advertise all their services on the sign. I would think that the purpose of the sign would be simply to indicate that there's a carwash there and that carwash is Hoffman's Car Wash. When you think about the other businesses that are in the area,I'm struggling to think of a business that is listing all of the services that they provide on the sign that is present on Route 9, and it would seem to me that if Hoffman's would scale down what they're expecting people driving by their sign to become aware of, then they would be able to put a sign up that is within the Town ordinance of 45 square feet. Following that point, if Hoffman's is not intending to be open 24 hours, it would seem that that would obviate the need for so much information on the sign. I don't know what hours they plan to be open,but it would seem to me that if they're not going to be open for 24 hours they would not need such a significant sign on Route 9. According Chapter 140 criteria,it's clear that this is significant signage that they'd be placing and granted it is not three times now, but it is still two and a half times approximately what the Town ordinance provides and my client would be concerned that their property would be overshadowed by the Hoffman property in many ways, but the signage would be one more instance that the Hoffman property would, and I'm thinking of where it's located,might distract potential patrons that would be going to my client's business by seeing the Hoffman's sign which is nearly three,two and a half times the size of what the Town would envision under normal circumstances. The variance requested under Part 3 under 140 clearly constitutes a substantial variance it being, even on a scaled down version, two and a half times what the Town would envision. Again, factor four, we believe it would have an adverse effect or impact on the physical conditions of the neighborhood,being oversized,particularly compared to the sizes of the signs that are nearby. As Mr.Halliday indicated when he stated what size had previously been approved for the other businesses in the area,and lastly there's no question that this is a self-created situation at Hoffman's. They don't need that sign that large. So I believe that is all I wanted to cover this evening. MR. MC CABE-Thank you. MR. NICHOLS-Thank you. Thank you for your time. MR. MC CABE-Is there anybody else that would like to speak on this matter? CLAUDIA BRAYMER MS. BRAYMER-Good evening. Thank you, Chairman. My name is Claudia Braymer. I'm an attorney with Braymer Law representing Whispering Pines and with me here tonight is Mr. Valente, one of the owners who spoke to you earlier this evening. Whispering Pines along with another apartment complex and other condos at the end of Weeks Road represent hundreds of residents who rely on Weeks Road as their only way to get to their homes and to get out of their homes back to Route 9. I do want to reference, and I believe there are several different variances being requested tonight,two on the wall mounted signs, unless I'm wrong. You can always check with Laura. They're a little bit larger. MR. MC CABE-You're wrong. The wall mounted signs aren't in question here. The only sign that's in question is the freestanding sign. MS. BRAYMER-The other two are exactly the right size? MRS. MOORE-They're less actually. MS. BRAYMER-Okay. Great. So the one freestanding sign,correct me if I'm wrong on this one,that it's both the size and the distance from the sides of the property? MRS. MOORE-It's not a distance issue at this time. MS. BRAYMER-It's not a setback? MRS. MOORE-It's just a size at this point. MS. BRAYMER-They're allowed to be within 25 feet,even though they're greater than 60 square feet? MRS. MOORE-That's what the request is,is for the size of the sign. MS. BRAYMER-So it's the size of the sign and the setback. MRS. MOORE-So it's a 15 foot setback for that size sign. 20 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/20/2022) MR. MC CABE-So if they had it back further,they could have a bigger sign. MS. BRAYMER-Is that true? They can have it as big as they want? The don't have to stick to 45 feet? MRS. MOORE-That's what the variance is for,is for the size of the sign. MS. BRAYMER-I'm going to go through my presentation. MR. MC CABE-Go ahead,but it's supposed to be three minutes. MS. BRAYMER-All right. I will be very quick. Mr. Valente has comments to make as well. I know he has a different point to make. What I want to say to you tonight is our client is opposed to the entire project, and as you may imagine we've been to many Planning Board meetings. We are also opposed to this Sign Variance for kind of the reason that was stated earlier. This project is overshadowing the entire area,and the sign itself is going to overshadow the entire area. I want to talk to you about traffic impacts, and please don't tune me out because I understand that that's not exactly what the criteria is. you do have a responsibility to take a look at the overall impacts of this project, especially because this is an Unlisted action. MR. URRICO-I have to disagree with you. That's not what we do. We have the one variance to think about here. We can't,we have no control over the traffic patterns or anything about the traffic. MR. MC CABE-That's the Planning Board. MS.BRAYMER-I understand. Please allow me to finish and you can ignore me. This is an Unlisted action. The Planning Board did not take the coordinated review of this,and I'm asking you to consider the traffic impacts. MR. MC CABE-Unlisted is the SEQR. MS.BRAYMER-When you do your SEQR review,this was not a coordinated review. The applicant's own traffic study talks about negative impacts and the decrease in level of service. If anyone has been by the Quaker Road site,you will know the traffic backs up onto Quaker Road. It does happen and it's going to happen here on Route 9 and on Weeks Road which is a tiny road that people use to get to their homes. There is no turning lane provided on Weeks Road. There is no turning lane provided on Route 9. There is going to be a serious problem if there is an emergency at one of these residences and there is a backup on Weeks Road. In addition if t here's a backup on Weeks Road, people are bound to go around it into oncoming traffic. These are all serious problems. The Warren County Pathway Corridor Study came up with a recommendation to connect Weeks Road to Sweet Road right through this project. We're asking both the Planning Board and this Board to take that into consideration. We are urging you to issue a Positive Declaration on your SEQR review. Finally this Board should deny the requested variances because there will bean undesirable change in the neighborhood. This is too large and it is way too close to Route 9,combined with the amount of traffic at the site. It is going to have a negative impact. There are certainly other alternatives that the applicant can pursue. Move the freestanding sign back,make is smaller,have it just say Hoffman's. Look at the Wal-Mart sign. It only says Wal-Mart. The requested variance is significant, substantial. It is almost no longer 300 times,but almost 3000/o greater than the amount,the size allowed and it is closer than it is allowed to be by your own Code. Finally the alleged difficulty is certainly self-created. Weighing these factors and considering that there are no exceptional physical conditions to this particular lot,we ask that you deny all of the requested variances. Thank you. JAMES VALENTE MR.VALENTE-Hi. James Valente. I just think that there's a lot going on with that sign as far as reading it. It's close to the road. Weeks Road is right there. People are going to,they're going to have to shoot out on Weeks Road. That's what they do to try to get out of Weeks Road because Route 9 is so busy. The less words on the sign will be easier for the drivers that are coming south or north to keep their eyes on the road, especially our residents on Week Road. I'm just trying to keep the residents that live in my apartment complex safe going on to Route 9. Because right now it's dangerous, especially on a left hand turn going out there. You look there you can see a big sign. Are they going to see the cars coming with a sign that's that size? A normal,what is it,50 square feet is? MRS. MOORE-Forty-five. MR.VALENTE-Forty-five square feet,everybody up and down that road. MR. MC CABE-Do you think Martha's sign is 45 square feet? You don't have to answer that. Go ahead. MR.VALENTE-Thank you. 21 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/20/2022) MR. MC CABE-Sure. Is there anybody else that would like to speak on this particular matter? Would you guys care to comment? MR.ANDREWS-Hi. Again, Marty Andrews, Hoffman Development. I just want to touch on one thing about the traffic, and we've been through this before the Planning Board,but they keep bringing up 265 Quaker Road, and this past year, I just want to make sure everybody's aware, the Smart Wash down the road closed. The Smart Wash in South Glens Falls closed. We were the only carwash in Town for a year. Everybody came to us. If you only had one gas station in Town,what would happen? Lines of cars. That's what we ended up with. We understand that. We're hoping Tidal Wave opens up. We've know they're our competition,but we can't handle the amount of cars that are in this Town at one carwash. So we're going to build another carwash to alleviate that. We're also going to build one in South Glens Falls in the Town of Moreau at 197. We already got approval. So we understand there's 50,000 people in this Town and we have one carwash. One viable carwash. And there's nothing we can do. We can't turn people away. So when they bring up the pictures of all these cars, and we understand that was the problem,and so we didn't create the problem when they closed the carwashes in the middle of winter,both of them. MR. PALUMBO-And just since it was commented upon, the sign would not be in the line of sight of someone turning at Weeks Road. It's set back far enough. It just wouldn't be in the line of sight. The claim is that,what was stated is someone has to be concentrating on turning out from Weeks Road they don't want something in their view. They don't want something that's distracting to the other drivers. It's not distracting because it is actually easier to read at the size that we're proposing. So it does not cause, in any way,mainly because it is set back as far as it is from the road because of the easement that it's not in the line of sight of anything that would be causing a hazard to the drivers. We do believe it's a sign that will be in character with the site,with the development. We do not think that it is going to overshadow everything else. The comment about the wall mounted not having fully looked at the Wal-Mart building, but I know that many of the Wal-Mart buildings have on their walls and most likely may have gotten variances. I know in many towns they had to when they had a pharmacy, and all the other signs of what their services are on the building. So, yes, they have a sign that doesn't have that out front, but every business is somewhat unique. We areas well and we do not think it's extravagant,but anymore questions the Board has,we think it's a viable application. MR. MC CABE-Do we have anything written on this,Roy? MR. URRICO-No. MR. MC CABE-So at this particular time I'm going to close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MC CABE-And I'm going to poll the Board, and I'm going to start with Jim. MR. UNDERWOOD-I think there's wiggle room here as far as the size of the signage you're proposing here, and it should be kept within the reasonable allowance of what your neighboring signs are in the vicinity. At the same time I think your traffic flow pattern,you know, I can understand having an exit that allowed people to turn to the west on Weeks Road if they wanted to go to Wal-Mart or something like that, but I think in general most of your traffic was directed just the same as you have on Quaker. You've got one entrance way to make your way clockwise around through the car washes and you exit out the same drive. I wonder why the Planning Board hasn't stipulated that you have exit out only onto that driveway that leads in between the restaurant and the other place there through the light. MR.PALUMBO-I'd make a quick comment on that. We did address that with the Board. A traffic study was done by our engineers,VHP who was the traffic consultant, and made the claim that having the two fully functioning actually was the best in order to control or limit the impact in its entirety. That report was reviewed by the Town's Engineer, LaBella/Chazen, and they found the same, that that was credible, and the Planning Board is still reviewing the project, but that was, the determination was made that it functions better by allowing the full access and use. MR. UNDERWOOD-And I think most people would probably figure out eventually that it makes more sense to turn at the traffic light to enter and make that entrance way into the car wash. The people will figure Weeks Road is going to be a backup,you know,because people will, they're going to need all the traffic stacked up in your stacking parking area. MR. PALUMBO-And so you also know one discussion at the Planning Board also was how we can, as Marty had just talked about, but means to mitigate during those extreme periods when everybody is getting their salt off their cars, on the first sunny day after you've been sloshing through snow and everything else. Yes, we have those extreme days. We think that the fact that we'll now have two car washes will balance some of that out. So I think your comments are all well taken, but they are being addressed at the Planning Board level. 22 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/20/2022) MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure. MR. URRICO-Mr. Chairman,isn't this a polling session? MR. MC CABE-You're right. So,Jim,are you in favor or not? MR. UNDERWOOD-So as far as the sign goes now, I mean you're two and a half times what you're allowed. I mean I could see allowing one and a half times,but I think two and half times is way in excess of what we should allow at this point in time. MR. MC CABE-Brent? MR.MC DEVITT-You have a sign as you come out of the tunnel. I also notice you have an open sign here. Is that going to be illuminated or open? On the diagram it says open. MR.ANDREWS-Yes. MR. MC DEVITT-So you're going to have that. You're going to have open,right,when you're open. So that would be illuminated, and that's coming from the north,looking at the diagram. But this is going to be the second car wash. MR. MC CABE-We've got to move along here. So are you in favor or not? MR. MC DEVITT-I'm going to finish my thought. Sol,like Jim,I will be in favor of it,but I am not at the current size it's at right now. It's too large as it is. MR. MC CABE-Brady? MR. STARK-I agree with Brent and Jim. The sign seems rather large. I would like to see us come to a compromise where we could impose a condition of a sign being a certain square footage. I just think the 120 square feet is a bit big. MR. MC CABE-Roy? MR. URRICO-I'm not in favor of a sign at this size. To me it's way oversized. There are feasible alternatives to the sign size as well as options like utilizing a QR code on the sign that might alleviate the need to put everything on the sign that needs to be read. I think it would be detrimental to the neighborhood,not just in terms of traffic,having to deal with traffic,but in terms of the other businesses in the area,which if we allow a sign of this size,will be requesting a bigger sign for themselves. So I think it would have a negative effect on the neighborhood as well. So I'm against it for those reasons. MR. MC CABE-Cathy? MRS. HAMLIN-I agree. I think that it does set a bad precedent in terms of size. It is excessive. Future requests diminishing relief for the size I would look at it,but not at this time. MR. MC CABE-Ron? MR. KUHL-I think your brand is well known the way it is with Hoffman Car Wash. You talked about when we want to run a special we'll put it up there. You're asking for an awful lot. You're asking for too much. You could do your specials with just flags in the lawn,but you're asking for too much. So I would not be in favor of it at this time. I think you can. I think you can get your brand,your Hoffman Car Wash is what you need and that's what you should have,but not at 120 square feet. MR. MC CABE-And so you don't have many friends here, but I'll finish with we have allowed the car dealers down Quaker to go bigger than the standard sign. So if you did a little control down there,you'd find that just about all the car dealers signs are over our standard size because they comply with what their parent company requires them to do, and we've granted those. So I guess it would be hypocrisy if we granted it for them and didn't allow Hoffman to do the same thing, and, you know, Hoffman might be familiar with local residents just because they're the only show in Town,but,you know, we have a lot of people that come in here,both in the winter and in the summer who aren't generally familiar with the area, but,you know,might need a car wash. So I guess I would approve it, and also I'm in favor of a little bit bigger sign just because my eyes are bad and I can't see the real small signs, but regardless, the other members want to see something smaller. So you're going to have to scale it down a little bit. MR. PALUMBO-So would you be tabling? MR. MC CABE-That's up to you. 23 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/20/2022) MR. PALUMBO-So if we were to,one of the things we were just saying,we're hearing was, and this is not meant to be a negotiation tactic,I'm just saying,we will look at those signs that you're talking about and get a better feel,but what we were saying is we could probably bring this sign down to 100 feet,but I don't want to go and start doing that if the Board says,no,100's not what we're looking at. MR. MC CABE-What I would suggest is you take a good hard look at it and figure out what is the minimum that would provide you with what you need. So you're going to ask for a tabling. MR. PALUMBO-Table and we'll come back. As I said, we're going back to the Planning Board on May 17`h. If there is any possibility of us being scheduled next month we'll have that time to get a revised submission. MR. MC CABE-So do we have room in May? MRS. MOORE-Yes,for a Sign Variance. MR. MC CABE-Okay. First or second meeting,does it make a difference? MRS. MOORE-It does not make a difference. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Hoffman Development Corp. Applicant proposes a 120 sq. ft. freestanding sign. Relief requested for freestanding sign greater than 45 sq.ft. MOTION TO TABLE SIGN VARIANCE NO. 3-2022 HOFFMAN DEVELOPMENT CORP, Introduced by Michael McCabe who moved for its adoption,seconded by Ronald Kuhl: Tabled to the May 18th,2022 Zoning Board of Appeals meeting,with new information to be submitted by May 5th,2022. Duly adopted this 20`h day of April,2022,by the following vote: AYES: Mrs.Hamlin,Mr. Stark,Mr. Kuhl,Mr. Urrico, Mr. McDevitt,Mr. Underwood,Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Henkel MR.PALUMBO-Thankyou. MRS. MOORE-Your public hearing was closed. Do you wish to re-open the public hearing? MR. MC CABE-We'll re-open the public hearing at the next meeting. MRS.HAMLIN-Is that a new public hearing? MRS. MOORE-It is. Leaving this public hearing open. MR. MC CABE-So we're all set? MR.PALUMBO-Thankyou. MR. MC CABE-So I make a motion that we adjourn tonight's meeting. MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING OF APRIL 20TH,2022,Introduced by Michael McCabe who moved for its adoption,seconded by Ron Kuhl: Duly adopted this 20`h day of April,2022,by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. McDevitt,Mr.Kuhl,Mrs.Hamlin,Mr. Stark,Mr. Underwood,Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Henkel On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Michael McCabe,Chairman 24