05-17-2023 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/17/2023)
QUEENSBURYZONINGBOARD OFAPPEATS
MAYI7" 2O23
FIRSTREGUTAR MEETING
INDEX
Area Variance No. 3-2023 Neil&Sandra Rypkema 1.
FURTHER TABLING Tax Map No. 302.7-1-34
Area Variance No.4-2023 Geraldine Eberlein 1.
FURTHER TABLING Tax Map No.227.17-1-25
Area Variance No. 63-2022 3 Sons&Holly,LLC (Michael Carey,Jr.) 2.
Tax Map No.239.12-2-57
Area Variance No. S-2023 Sharon Serini 6.
Tax Map No.240.9-1-4
Sign Variance No. 3-2023 Hospitality Syracuse,Inc. (Mike McCraken) 10.
Tax Map No. 303.15-1-27
Notice of Appeal No.1-2023 Edward Ostberg 15.
DRAFT RESOLUTION Tax Map No.290.-1-S
THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF
REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTH'S MINUTES(IF ANY)AND
WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES.
1
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/17/2023)
QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
FIRST REGULAR MEETING
MAY 17TK,2023
7.00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
MICHAEL MC CABE,CHAIRMAN
JAMES UNDERWOOD,VICE CHAIRMAN
ROY URRICO,SECRETARY
JOHN HENKEL
RICHARD CIPPERLY
RONALD KUHL
ROBERT KEENAN
LAND USE PLANNER-LAURA MOORE
STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI
MR. MC CABE- Good evening. I'd like to open tonight's meeting of the Queensbury Zoning Board of
Appeals,Wednesday,May 17`h,2023. If you haven't been here before,our procedure is pretty simple. We'll
call each case up. There should be a schedule on the back table. We'll read the case into our record. We'll
allow the applicant to present the case. We'll question the applicant. If a public hearing has been
advertised,then we'll open the public hearing,seek input from the public. We'll close the public hearing,
poll the Board,and then we'll proceed accordingly. First we have a couple of Administrative Items to take
care of. So,John,could you make a motion for the meeting minutes.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
April 19`h,2023
MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING
MINUTES OF APRIL 19, 2023, Introduced by John Henkel who moved for its adoption, seconded by
Ronald Kuhl:
Duly adopted this 17`h day of May,2023,by the following vote:
AYES: Mr.Henkel,Mr. Cipperly,Mr.Kuhl,Mr. Underwood,Mr. Keenan,Mr. Urrico,Mr. McCabe
NOES: NONE
ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS:
REQUEST TO TABLE AV 3-2023(RYPKEMA)TO JUNE 21,2023
MR. MC CABE-And the tabling request for AV 3-2023
The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Neil&z Sandra
Rypkema. Applicant proposes to construct two single family homes: Building A of 2,500 sq. ft. with an
attached garage; and Building B of 1,200 sq. ft. and maintain an existing 1,200 sq. ft. garage on-site. The
project work includes minimal clearing for the new homes and municipal connection for sewer and water.
Relief is requested for two single family homes (not connected) on a parcel and for more than one garage
on a parcel.
MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 3-2023 NEIL&z SANDRA RYPKEMA,Introduced by
John Henkel who moved for its adoption,seconded by Robert Keenan:
Tabled to June 21,2023.
Duly adopted this 17h Day of May 2023 by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Henkel,Mr. Cipperly,Mr. Kuhl,Mr. Underwood, Mr. Keenan,Mr. McCabe
NOES: NONE
REQUEST TO TABLE AV 4-2023(EBERLEIN)TO JUNE 21,2023
2
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/17/2023)
The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Geraldine
Eberlein. (Revised)Applicant proposes demolition of an existing home and guest cottage to construct a
new home with a footprint of 2,411 sq.ft.,-an outdoor kitchen of 234 sq.ft.,-and a new floor area of 3,343 sq.
ft. The project includes associated site work for anew permeable driveway,stormwater management,and
shoreline landscaping; the project also includes installation of a new septic system on the adjoining
property to east property line. Site plan for new floor area in a CEA and hard surfacing within 50 ft.of the
shoreline. Relief is requested for setbacks,floor area, and permeability.
MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 4-2023 GERALDINE EBERLEIN, Introduced by John
Henkel who moved for its adoption,seconded by Ronald Kuhl:
Tabled to June 21,2023.
Duly adopted this 17h Day of May 2023,by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Underwood, Mr. Keenan,Mr. Urrico, Mr. Henkel,Mr. Cipperly,Mr. Kuhl,Mr. McCabe
NOES: NONE
MR. MC CABE-Okay. So our first application here is AV 63-2023,3 Sons and Holly,LLC.
TABLED ITEMS:
AREA VARIANCE NO.63-2022 SEQRA TYPE TYPE 11 3 SONS AND HOLLY,LLC (MICHAEL
CAREY, JR.) AGENT(S) STUDIO A LANDSCAPE, ARCH. &z ENG.; JON LAPPER, ESQ.
OWNER(S) 3 SONS AND HOLLY, LLC ZONING WR LOCATION 28 HOLLY LANE
(REVISED)APPLICANT PROPOSES ALTERATIONS TO AN EXISTING HOME AND SITE. THE
PROJECT INCLUDES A 72 SQ. FT. COVERED PORCH AND A 238 SQ. FT. ADDITION TO THE
EXISTING HOME. THERE IS TO BE A DECK ADDITION OF 199.6 +/- SQ.FT., GROUND LEVEL
PATIO OF 297 SQ. FT. AND LANDSCAPE ROCKS FOR PATH AND FIRE PIT AREA. THE
PARKING AREA IS TO BE REDUCED HARD SURFACING AND INSTALLING AN AREA OF
REINFORCED TURF. IN ADDITION, THERE IS TO BE A RAIN GARDEN AND SHORELINE
PLANTINGS ADDED TO THE SITE. THE EXISTING FLOOR AREA OF 2,809 SQ. FT. TO BE
INCREASED TO 3,047 SQ. FT. THERE ARE NO CHANGES TO THE EXISTING 1,152 SQ. FT.
FLOOR AREA GARAGE WITH LIVING SPACE. SITE PLAN FOR NEW FLOOR AREA IN A CEA,
EXPANSION OF NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE,AND HARD-SURFACING WITHIN 50 FT.
OF THE SHORELINE. RELIEF IS REQUESTED FOR EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING
STRUCTURE AND SETBACKS. CROSS REF SP 76-2022 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING
NOVEMBER 2022 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY: ALD LOT SIZE 0.38 ACRES TAX MAP
NO.239.12-2-57 SECTION 179-3-040;179-6-065;179-4-080;147
JON LAPPER&r KIRSTEN CATELLIER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT,PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff,Area Variance No. 63-2022, 3 Sons and Holly, LLC (Michael Carey,Jr.), Meeting Date:
May 17,2023 "Project Location: 28 Holly Lane Description of Proposed Project: (Revised)Applicant
proposes alterations to an existing home and site. The project includes a 72 sq. ft. covered porch and 238
sq. ft. addition to the existing home. There is to be a deck addition of 199.6 +/-sq. ft., a ground level patio
of 297 sq.ft.and landscape rocks for path and fire pit area. The parking area is to be reduced hard surfacing
and installing an area of reinforced turf. In addition, there is to be a rain garden and shoreline plantings
added to the site. The existing floor area of 2,809 sq.ft.to be increased to 3,047 sq.ft.There are no changes
to the existing 1,152 sq. ft. floor area garage with living space. Site plan for new floor area in a CEA,
expansion of nonconforming structure, and hard-surfacing within 50 ft. of the shoreline. Relief is
requested for expansion of a nonconforming structure and setbacks.
Relief Required:
The applicant requests relief for setbacks for a deck addition. The project site is on a 0.34 ac parcel in the
WR zone.
Section 179-3-040 dimensional
Relief is requested for the deck to be setback 39 ft. where a 50 ft. setback to the shoreline is required. The
existing deck to be removed is 28.3 ft.from the shoreline and the home is 44.20 ft.
Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law:
3
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/17/2023)
In making a determination,the board shall consider:
1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a
detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. Minor to no
impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated. The applicant proposes alterations to an existing
home and site.
2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method,feasible for the
applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. Feasible alternatives may be limited due to the
location of the existing home near the shoreline.
3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered
minimal relevant to the code. The relief requested for shoreline setback relief is It ft.for the deck.
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 maybe considered to have
minimal to no impact on the physical or the environmental conditions of the area.
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-created.
Staff comments:
The applicant provided drawings specific to the deck relief requested. In addition, the applicant has
provided photos of the existing conditions. The project remains the same with alterations to the existing
home to create a new entryway. The work also includes a new deck to the back of the home and patio area
improvement. The plans show the new addition entry elevation and the new deck."
MR. ZAPPER-Good evening, everyone. Jon Lapper with Kirsten Catellier from Studio A, project
landscape architect. So we've been here a number of times on this project and have had discussions and
heard comments from the neighbors on this,but we now are down to a very simple application. The deck
on the lakeside is currently 2S feet from the lake and we're moving it back to 39 feet from the lake. There
are no stormwater facilities currently and there's stormwater facilities being added to take care of the
whole backyard by the lake and substantial plantings on the north side on the neighbor's property. Even
though it's expansion of a non-conforming structure, it doesn't require a FAR variance because it's still
under what could be supported on that lot. It's a very modest addition on the front,a few hundred square
feet, and the deck is getting smaller and closer to the house and away from the lake, and on balance it's
good for the lake because the stormwater facilities that aren't there now and in truth you could leave the
deck and it would be closer to the lake but not as nice as what's proposed. So we think it's been whittled
down to a bare minimum request and that it's a positive project. Kirsten,did you want to just talk about
the landscaping improvements?
MS. CATELLIER-So we're still proposing landscaping at the shoreline along that entire front slope that's
there to help stabilize the slope. Additionally we are still including proposed plantings out on Holly Lane
to buffer between the applicant and the neighbor to the north along the north property line as well. I
think that's about it.
MR. MC CABE-Do we have questions of the applicant? So a public hearing I believe is still open from the
last time.
MRS. MOORE-Yes.
MR.MC CABE-So I'm going to see if there's anybody in the audience that would like to address us on this
particular application.
PUBLIC HEARING OPEN
CHRIS NAVITSKY
MR. NAVITSKY-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good evening, Board. Chris Navitsky, Lake George
Waterkeeper. Just a couple, I don't like to reiterate stuff,but I still have confusion on the application. I
believe, despite what was said into the record, Page Two of the recent application on record still states
that the existing impermeable area is 25.40/o while stating that the existing permeability is 75. They didn't
submit anew or updated application materials. So I still find that confusing. The other thing is they
submitted a photo. I'd just like to point something out on that because they show where the existing
deck is that goes out below the steps towards the lake. That's actually going to be the elevation of the
new on-grade patio and tome that doesn't appear that it's on-grade. It's not ground level. They're building
that up so that it's still going to have a raised area back there. I would recommend that the ZBA deny the
variance based on the excessive hard scape proposed and the associated impacts with the application. I
feel the applicant should eliminate all proposed lakeside development improvements for the variance to be
4
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/17/2023)
improved. They want both things. If they want their addition,I don't have a problem with that addition
as long as there's no other development on the lakeside. That way I think that's a good compromise.
Thank you.
MR. MC CABE-Sure. Is there anybody else that would like to speak?
BRIAN HOGAN
MR.HOGAN-Good evening. Brian Hogan. I'm the neighbor to the north. I will say that the project has
improved considerably over what was initially proposed. It's a smaller addition and the driveway's gotten
smaller. I still have to say two concerns that I've had all along. First of all the removal of the stormwater
controls along Holly Lane. That's now being replaced with reinforced turf. Now I understand that the
driveway itself is now permeable,but the entire water that's coming off the garage has not been addressed
yet. That's considerable. It still floods my property and I've requested on numerous occasions that at
least LaBella look at this from an engineering standpoint to make sure that they are treating that
stormwater, which is considerable. I'm required to treat it on my property. I had to do that for Chris
Abele and I was supportive of his project, and I was just hoping that these folks would do the same.
Secondarily, the deck with the fire pit, we have some improved development there, and the patio that
they're proposing is more than twice the size of what anybody else has in the neighborhood and I think
that that's excessive and the reason that they're doing it is to support their short-term rental. Thank you.
MR. MC CABE-Is there anybody else that would like to speak on this particular project? Seeing nobody.
Laura,from a Staff standpoint,can you answer Chris'question about the?
MRS. MOORE-So the application materials that I have say 24.660/o impermeable. So they're at
permeability is 75.30/o, and that is from the,I have updated info. from March 2023. So I'm not sure. I try
to organize the Laser Fiche folders so that any new information would be identifiable. So I apologize if it
wasn't clear.
MR. NAVITSKY-Okay. I didn't see it.
MRS. MOORE-Okay.
MR. MC CABE-So,Jon,do you have any answers to the others?
MR. ZAPPER-Yes. So I should have mentioned to start with that we do have a signoff from LaBella,that
this was reviewed for stormwater. It was just months ago, and that was actually when there was more
impermeability than what we have now, and they signed off on it. So in a sense it's designed now based
on the LaBella approval letter so Laura can verify that, you have that in the files, or we're done with
stormwater. Everything that Kirsten has designed is going to improve this in terms of the backyard and
the front. What Mr.Hogan talked about,that the stormwater issue on Holly Lane hasn't been created by
this property. It's water that comes down Holly Lane and we're helping now to deal with the in the front
of the property,but that's nothing that's being created by this property.
MR. MC CABE-So at this particular time I'm going to,is there anything further written,Roy?
MR. URRICO-No.
MR. MC CABE-Okay. You can come back, Mr. Hogan.
MR. HOGAN-Again, Brian Hogan. I have a copy here in front of me of the letter that Jon's referencing
from LaBella which indicates that the stormwater's been approved and reviewed and again this was done
on November II`h, 2022. We're talking about the response here. It only refers to the stormwater that is
on the lakeside. There is no reference whatsoever to the stormwater on Holly Lane, the driveway or the
removed stormwater controls. Again,it was not requested of LaBella to review it, so therefore it's not in
here and it's not approved.
MR. HENKEL-Well basically isn't LaBella saying that they're taking care of what their water problem is,
not the whole lane. Why should they be taking care of everybody on that lane,especially on the other side.
That west side of the street is a little bit higher than that side of the lake. So of course everything's going
to come from that one side over to your side where you live.
MR. HOGAN-Mr. Henkel, I'm totally in agreement with that. What I'm talking about is this letter from
LaBella doesn't mention the driveway expansion whatsoever. They added S90 square feet of pavement
and it hasn't been addressed by this letter,and it wasn't requested of them.
MR.HENKEL-I thought they decreased it.
5
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/17/2023)
MR. HOGAN-I mean you can't put pavement in and then take some of it out and then say that it didn't
increase.
MR. MC CABE-That's fine.
MR. ZAPPER-We stand by the LaBella letter and what we're doing in the front yard is an improvement.
MR. MC CABE-Sure. So at this particular time I'm going to close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. MC CABE-I'm going to poll the Board, and I'm going to start with Roy.
MR. URRICO-Well based on what the variances are right now being requested,I would be in favor of the
application.
MR. MC CABE-Ron?
MR. KUHL-Yes,this is a very difficult thing, and I agree with what Roy just said, everybody on the lakes
want to enjoy their lake frontage and I think that that's, we're offering them a minimal variance. The
neighbor with the problem on Holly Lane. How can you expect one homeowner to solve the whole water
problem on Holly Lane. So for what they've been asking,which is the 39 feet instead of the 50 feet from
the lake,I'd be in favor of this variance.
MR. MC CABS John?
MR. HENKEL-Yes, I agree with my Board members. There's no doubt. This project only has 100 feet on
Holly Lane and there's a lot of camps there with even more frontage than that so you've got to blame
everybody. I think they've come a long way with this project and I think it's a very minimal request and
I'm on board as is.
MR. MC CABE Jim?
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, unfortunately they're only requesting relief for where the deck is and I think,
you know, cumulatively, with the patio and construction and the slight improvement in the Back 40 and
what parking is along Holly Lane back there,I think I will approve it at this point in time,but I still think
that we need to start setting some kind of maximum capacity numbers for all these smaller camps on these
smaller lots. You just can't sustain having ten cars there or six cars there and all the people and all the
traffic that comes through and the effect on groundwater and septic,too.
MR. MC CABE-Dick?
MR. CIPPERLY-I guess I agree with Ron. The one question, the addition in the back is scaled down.
Correct?
MR. ZAPPER-Yes.
MR. CIPPERLY-Okay. There aren't any dimensions on here,but I'll take whatever it is. Other than that,
I can live with it.
MR. MC CABE-Bob?
MR.KEENAN-Yes,I think I agree with my fellow Board members. We've whittled them down to what's
reasonable, and I think I would approve it at this time.
MR.MC CABE-And I,too,support the project. Basically what we're approving here is this 10 feet and the
house is almost that far back. There's been a lot of concessions here and we appreciate the fact that the
applicant has made these concessions and for these concessions basically we're getting treatment of runoff
that we haven't had before. So the way I look at it, to let things go the way they are, this is certainly a
much better situation than what we have. So I approve the project. So,Ron,I'm going to ask for a motion
here.
MR.KUHL-Thank you,Mr. Chairman.
The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from 3 Sons and
Holly,LLC (Michael Carey Jr.). (Revised)Applicant proposes alterations to an existing home and site.
The project includes a 72 sq.ft.covered porch and 23S sq.ft. addition to the existing home. There is to be
a deck addition of 365 sq. ft., a ground level patio of 297 sq. ft. and landscape rocks for path and fire pit
area. The parking area is to be reduced hard surfacing and installing an area of reinforced turf.In addition,
6
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/17/2023)
there is to be a rain garden and shoreline plantings added to the site. The existing floor area of 2,809 sq.ft.
to be increased to 3,047 sq.ft. There are no changes to the existing 1,152 sq.ft.floor area garage with living
space. Site plan for new floor area in a CEA, expansion of nonconforming structure, and hard-surfacing
within 50 ft.of the shoreline. Relief is requested for expansion of a nonconforming structure and setbacks.
Relief Required:
The applicant requests relief for permeability, expansion of a nonconforming structure, and setbacks for
residential additions and site work. The project site is on a 0.34 ac parcel in the WR zone.
Section 179-3-040 dimensional
Relief is requested for the deck to be setback 39 ft. where a 50 ft. setback is required. The existing deck to be
removed is 28.3 ft.from the shoreline and the home is 44.20 ft.
SEQR Type II—no further review required,
A public hearing was advertised and held on November 16, 2022, December 14, 2022,January 18, 2023,
March 22,2023,&May 17,2023
Upon review of the application materials, information supplied during the public hearing, and upon
consideration of the criteria specified in Section 179-14-080(A)of the Queensbury Town Code and Chapter
267 of NYS Town Law and after discussion and deliberation,we find as follows:
1. There is not an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood nor a detriment to nearby
properties as this is a pre-existing, non-conforming building as it is, and there has been minimal
relief given.
2. Feasible alternatives are really limited and have been included to minimize the request.
3. The requested variance is not substantial. Again as the property is a pre-existing,non-conforming
and there is very little you can do with it.
4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood
or district.
5. We could suggest that the alleged difficulty is self-created, again because it is a pre-existing,non-
conforming property.
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.
63-2022 3 SONS&z HOLLY,LLC(MICHAEL CAREY,JR.),Introduced by Ronald Kuhl,who moved for
its adoption,seconded by Michael McCabe:
Duly adopted this 17th Day of May 2023 by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Cipperly,Mr. Kuhl,Mr. Underwood,Mr. Keenan,Mr. Urrico,Mr. Henkel,Mr. McCabe
NOES: NONE
MR. MC CABE-Congratulations,you have a project.
MR. ZAPPER-Thanks,everybody. We really appreciate it.
MR. MC CABE-So our next application is AV 8-2022,Sharon Serini,15 Private Road#1.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 8-2023 SEQRA TYPE TYPE 11 SHARON SERINI AGENT(S) NICK
ZEGLEN(EDP) OWNER(S) SHARON SERINI ZONING WR LOCATION 15 PRIVATE
ROAD # 1 (REVISED) APPLICANT PROPOSES A 2-STORY HOME WITH A FOOTPRINT OF
1,388 SQ. FT.,PORCH AREA OF 240 SQ. FT.,AND A FLOOR AREA OF 2,388 SQ. FT. LOT LINE
7
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/17/2023)
ADJUSTMENT FROM 8,250 TO 13,601 SQ. FT. THE PROJECT INCLUDES A SEPTIC SYSTEM
AND STORMWATER MANAGEMENT. THE PLAN INCLUDES A VEGETATIVE PLAN FOR
REMOVAL AND PLANTINGS TO REMAIN. SITE PLAN FOR NEW FLOOR AREA IN THE CEA.
RELIEF IS REQUESTED FOR HEIGHT AND ROAD FRONTAGE. CROSS REF SP 10-2023;FWW
2-2023 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING FEBRUARY 2023 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY:
ALD LOT SIZE 0.2 ACRES INCREASE TO 13,601 SQ. FT. TAX MAP NO. 2409-1-4 SECTION
179-3-040
NICK ZEGLEN,REPRESENTING APPLICANT,PRESENT; MIKE SERINI,PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff,Area Variance No. 5-2023,Sharon Serini,Meeting Date: May 17,2023 "Project Location:
15 Private Road #1,Description of Proposed Project: (Revised)Applicant proposes a 2-story home with
a footprint of 1,3SS sq.ft.,porch area of 240 sq.ft.,and a floor area of 2,3SS sq.ft. Lot line adjustment from
5,250 to 13,601 sq.ft. The project includes a septic system and stormwater management. The plan includes
a vegetative plan for removal and plantings to remain. Site plan for new floor area in the CEA. Relief is
requested for height and road frontage.
Relief Required:
The applicant requests relief for road frontage and height for the construction of a new home. The project
is on a 0.19 ac parcel in the Waterfront Residential zone,Lake George;the current site is vacant.
Section 179-3-040 dimensional 179-4-050 frontage
The height of the new home is to be 29 ft. where the maximum height allowed is 2S ft. Floor area relief is
also requested for developing on a vacant lot with access from a private drive with no physical road
frontage to a town road.
Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law:
In making a determination,the board shall consider:
1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a
detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. The project
may be considered to have minimal impact on the neighboring properties.
2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method,feasible for the
applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. The feasible alternatives may be considered to
construct the new home with a compliant height.
3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief may be considered minimal relevant
to the code. Relief for the height is I ft. Relief for the road frontage as the lot doesn't front on a town
road.
4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or
environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The project as proposed may be
considered to have minimal to no impact on the environmental conditions of the site or area.
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The project as proposed may be considered self-
created.
Staff comments:
The applicant proposes the construction of a new home on a vacant parcel. The new home will have access
to Cleverdale Road from Private Road#1. The plans show the home to be two-story constructed on a slab.
The plans include stormwater management,clearing,vegetative plantings. The revised plans indicate a lot
line adjustment where the home is able to meet the setbacks and floor area ratio requirements."
MR. ZEGLEN-Good evening. Nick Zeglen with Environmental Design Partnership. Here tonight with
the applicant, Mike Serini. We're here tonight seeking variance relief for the proposed single family
residence located on Private Road#1 off of Cleverdale Road. So this project was before you in March of
this year where we had requested three variances, floor area ratio,building height and side yard setback.
So at that meeting the project was tabled with the recommendation to look at a lot line adjustment and
anything we can do to the house to eliminate those variances. So we did submit a lot line adjustment to
add additional area to this lot because the applicant does own the lot to the south. So we added enough
area to eliminate the floor area ratio variance. We also made the house narrower in order to eliminate the
side yard setback to the south. So we were able to eliminate that two foot of relief on the house, and we
S
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/17/2023)
were also able to adjust the roof pitch and work with the grading slightly to get the height variance down
to 29 feet where 2S feet is required and again, the height was something that we had to do just to keep
positive drainage away from the house,keep the house and the stormwater devices up above any bedrock
and limiting conditions. So that was something that is just kind of part of the site. With that we feel like
we've taken a lot of the recommendations and concerns into our understanding and address them, and
we'd be happy to answer any further questions that you may have. Thank you.
MR. MC CABE-So do we have questions of the applicant? So seeing none, I believe the public hearing is
still open from the last time. So is there anybody in the audience that would like to address the Board on
this particular application? Is there anything written,Roy?
PUBLIC HEARING OPEN
MR. URRICO-There's one letter. I might have read this in already. It was read in on 3/22. No,we have
no additional.
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'm still questioning why you would build a place with no storage capacity. You're
on a slab,and a storage building. So I would see that that's going to be basically truncating and coming in
and asking for it again after the fact. So I still think that even though you've added on a small amount of
land to this, it's still just under like .3 acres of land and I still think it's maximizing build out with no
forethought to future. So I'm not in favor of it.
MR. MC CABE John?
MR.HENKEL-I understand what Jim's saying definitely about the storage. I think they've done a nice job
and kind of answered all our problems that we've had on this project. They're only asking for one foot of
relief for the height. So,yes,I do have a little concern about the storage,too,but I'd be willing to pass this
project as is.
MR. ZEGLEN-Can I just address the storage concern?
MR. MC CABE-Sure.
MR. ZEGLEN-So with the new floor area ratio there is approximately 600 square feet of additional floor
area now. So that could be a 20 by 30 shed or something that could be built,you know, we'd obviously
come back for,but there is additional space for a shed. It's not,floor area is not currently maxed right out
at that 220/o. There is, again,600 square feet that could be built into a shed.
MR.HENKEL-There's quite a bit of property on the other side of that road there,that private road where
it could actually be way away from the lake. So I'm on board.
MR. ZEGLEN-Right. Exactly.
MR. MC CABE-Ron?
MR. KUHL-The regulations of 2S feet took a lot of effort to make, and I can't accept your explanation of
runoff,you couldn't design a house at 2S feet. So I'm not in favor of it.
MR. MC CABE-Roy?
MR. URRICO-Yes, I'm in favor of the application as currently presented. I think they made some
adjustments that we requested and I think for what's currently on the table I would be in favor of it.
MR. MC CABE-Bob?
MR. KEENAN-Yes, I think they put in a good effort to get what we asked for. I guess it's their option to
come back to us for additional storage. So I would be in favor of this.
MR. MC CABE-Dick?
MR. CIPPERLY-The same. I think the compromise has worked out,and with the lot across the road,you
could put a garage or a parking lot or whatever you need to put. Distance wise it's not that far from the
house. So I can support this.
9
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/17/2023)
MR. MC CABE-And I,too, support the project. I would have liked to have seen the small lot just a little
bit bigger,but I can't say that it's a lot smaller than any of the other lots around there,and certainly they've
made an effort to reduce our variances required here. So I will support the project. So, Dick, I wonder if
you could configure a motion for us here.
The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Sharon Serini.
(Revised)Applicant proposes a 2-story home with a footprint of 1,388 sq.ft.,porch area of 240 sq.ft.,and
a floor area of 2,388 sq. ft. Lot line adjustment from 8,250 to 13,601 sq. ft. The project includes a septic
system and stormwater management. The plan includes a vegetative plan for removal and plantings to
remain. Site plan for new floor area in the CEA. Relief is requested for height and road frontage.
Relief Required:
The applicant requests relief for road frontage and height for the construction of a new home. The project
is on a 13,601 sq.ft.parcel in the Waterfront Residential zone,Lake George;the current site is vacant.
Section 179-3-040 dimensional 179-4-050 frontage
The height of the new home is to be 29 ft. where the maximum height allowed is 28 ft. Frontage relief is
also requested for developing on a vacant lot with access from a private drive with no physical road
frontage to a town road.
SEQR Type II—no further review required,
A public hearing was advertised and held on February 15,2023,March 22,2023,&May 17,2023.
Upon review of the application materials, information supplied during the public hearing, and upon
consideration of the criteria specified in Section 179-14-080(A)of the Queensbury Town Code and Chapter
267 of NYS Town Law and after discussion and deliberation,we find as follows:
1. There is not an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood nor a detriment to nearby
properties. They've compromised on the setback,building height,I don't think that's a big deal.
2. Feasible alternatives have been considered. They are reasonable and have been included to
minimize the request.
3. The requested variance is not substantial. The compromise has brought it to within just a foot
and a half of where we were looking for.
4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood
or district.
5. The difficulty is,by nature,self-created.
6. In addition,the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from granting the requested variance
would outweigh(approval) the resulting detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the
neighborhood or community;
7. The Board also finds that the variance request under consideration is the minimum necessary,-
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.
8-2023 SHARON SERINI, Introduced by Richard Cipperly, who moved for its adoption, seconded by
John Henkel:
Duly adopted this 17h Day of May 2023 by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Henkel,Mr. Cipperly,Mr. Keenan,Mr. McCabe
NOES: Mr.Kuhl,Mr. Underwood
MR. MC CABE-Congratulations,you have a project.
MR. ZEGLEN-Thank you very much.
MR.MC CABE-So our next application is SV 3-2023,Hospitality Syracuse Incorporated,773 Quaker Road.
10
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/17/2023)
NEW BUSINESS:
SIGN VARIANCE NO.3-2023 SEQRA TYPE UNLISTED HOSPITALITY SYRACUSE,INC.(MIKE
MC CRAKEN) AGENT(S) BOHLER ENGINEERING(TIMOTHY FREITAG) O WNER(S) EAST
HURON STREET LLC (MIKE MC CRAKEN) ZONING Cl LOCATION 773 QUAKER ROAD
APPLICANT PROPOSES TO INSTALL A 50 SQ. FT. FREESTANDING SIGN, TWO 25 SQ. FT.
MENU BOARDS, AND 3 WALL SIGNS OF 24.4 SQ. FT. THE PROJECT INCLUDES THE
DEVELOPMENT OF A 2,650 SQ. FT. TACO BELL DRIVE THRU RESTAURANT AND
ASSOCIATED SITE WORK. RELIEF IS REQUESTED FOR SIZE OF SIGNS AND NUMBER OF
SIGNS. CROSS REF SP 13-2023; SP 14-2023; SUB 1-2023; SUB 2-2023 WARREN COUNTY
PLANNING MAY 2023 LOT SIZE 7.21 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 303.15-1-27 SECTION: 140
TIM FREITAG&MIKE MC CRAKEN,REPRESENTING APPLICANT,PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Sign Variance No. 3-2023, Hospitality Syracuse, Inc. (Mike McCraken), Meeting Date:
May 17, 2023 "Project Location: 773 Quaker Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant
proposes to install a 50 sq. ft.freestanding sign,two 25 sq. ft.menu boards, and 3 wall signs of 24.4 sq. ft.
The project includes the development of a 2,650 sq. ft. Taco Bell drive thru restaurant and associated site
work. Relief is requested for size of signs and number of signs.
Relief Required:
The applicant requests relief for size of signs and number of signs. The parcel is 1.35 ac as part of a recent
subdivision in the Commercial Intensive zone.
Section 140 signs
The project includes a 50 sq. ft. freestanding sign, two 25 sq. ft. menu boards that are freestanding signs
where only one free standing sign is allowed at 45 sq.ft. The project also proposes 3 wall signs of 24.4 sq.
ft.where only one wall sign is 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 number of walls signs. Also the reduction of the freestanding sign to a compliant size and the
number of freestanding signs could be reduced.
3. Whether the requested sign variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered
moderate relevant to the code. Relief is requested for three freestanding signs noting two of them are
digital menu boards. Relief requested for the size of the freestanding sign is 5 sq.ft. Relief is requested
for three wall signs where only one wall sign is allowed.
4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or
environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The project as proposed may have
minimal to no impact on the environmental conditions of the neighborhood or district.
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-created.
Staff comments:
The applicant proposes to install the Taco Bell brand signage package to a new restaurant building. The
plans show the location of the digital menu boards to be at the drive —thru area. The menu boards are
digital advertising the items offered for sale. The wall signs include the logo bell and the word Taco Bell
where two of the signs are on the tower and the other over a door. The sign color includes purple and
white. The building colors also include wood color,grey,purple and white.Note on EAF question#2 is yes and
Zoning Board of Appcals should be listed per NYSDEC."
MR. FREITAG-Good evening. Tim Freitag with Bohler Engineering, here on behalf of the applicant,
Hospitality Syracuse, Inc. Along with me tonight is Mike McCraken, representing the applicant and
owner of this parcel. It's good to see everybody this evening. This is the first time I believe this Board is
11
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/17/2023)
seeing this project. So I can give you just a brief overview of the project in general, and then talk through
the proposed three area variance requests we're seeking tonight in regards to signage. So earlier this year
the Planning Board recently approved site plan approval for a proposed quick serve restaurant here on a
1.35 acre recently subdivided parcel off of the Binley Florist center on Quaker and Dix Avenue here in the
Town of Queensbury. The site plan was approved variance free,which is why this Board wasn't involved
as part of the site plan review process,but we are seeking some additional relief for signage. It's a 2650
square foot restaurant. It's going to be occupied by Taco Bell. There's a single lane drive through. It
enters in the back, wraps around the west side of the building. Access is going to be off of Dix Avenue
along with shared access to the Binley center that's proposed to remain at this time. The access was
requested to be as far east as possible so you can see that on the plan here. The access drive off Dix Avenue
is on the southeast corner of the site. That'll be shared access with the Binley center as well. So tonight
we're in pursuit of three area variances for signage. We've got freestanding signage and wall signage
proposed. Freestanding signage, as mentioned in the notice,we've got a pylon sign out front,20 feet tall,
50 square feet over the 45 square feet maximum requirement. So we're seeking a five square feet relief of
that freestanding sign. We've got two other freestanding signs which are the menu boards and the
preview menu board that is located and shielded from the public right of way in the back of the building.
This is obviously important for this quick serve restaurant and drive thru use. Wall signage, we've got
three walls with proposed signage. These are relatively minor signs at 24 with some change square feet a
piece. We feel it's important here to get three sides for visibility of the traveling public. So quick serve
restaurants rely heavily on pass by trip generation. So the success of the business and the majority of the
customers come from the traffic that's already on the road. So it's when you're on your way home from
work or driving by and you're hungry. You stop in, grab a bite to eat, and you continue on your way.
Destination use is relatively minor here. So people aren't necessarily leaving their house to go to this
location to get dinner. They're usually on their way. It's a convenience factor. So that's why signage is
critical for the success of this type of business. The freestanding sign and the sign on the west face of the
building,which is the top elevation here,faces a unique intersection. You'll see this intersection of Quaker
Road and Dix Avenue is very unique in alignment. So it's not quite a crosshair type style intersection.
We've got different alignments here, different travel lanes and potential customers need to navigate into
proper turn lanes to access our site. So visibility, as you approach this intersection from Dix Avenue
eastbound,you really need to see this site on the other side of the intersection. You need to see the site if
you're going to navigate to Taco Bell. You have to make some decisions on which turning movements to
make ahead of that intersection. So that's why we've designed the wall signage on the west facing side of
the building and the freestanding sign at the size it is,to really make sure guests and customers can see it
at this intersection to make the proper maneuvers they need to make to turn into the site. The front wall
sign is important as you look across the street both from Dix Avenue but also as you travel northbound on
Quaker. Again,you're approaching the signalized intersection. You'll need to see the front of the building
because you're only going to see, you're not going to see the freestanding sign because that's going to be
your east/west direction. You're going to seethe north face of the building and that direction,as you travel
north, and lastly, the sign on the east side of the building, that marks the entrance to the store and
restaurant traffic on Dix Avenue as well. So anybody parking in the parking lot that's on the east side of
the building can park and see where they need to enter the facility. So in our application package that we
submitted to this Board included justification for Questions One through Five, on why we believe this
application is, A, consistent with the neighborhood. If you look at the signage of McDonald's and
Speedway and the Lia dealership next door, consistent signage packages, the amount of signage and the
size of signage that we feel we are in harmony with those neighboring businesses. We don't believe the
benefit could be sought by any other methods that would reduce or eliminate the variances. We could
certainly look at adding freestanding signage closer to that intersection,but that would be off our property,
and additional freestanding signs will not relieve the variance request. We don't believe these are
significant. We've talked through the three signage variances. So five square feet over the fifty square
feet allowed for the freestanding sign. So that's a relatively minor relief and not substantial in our opinion.
The two additional freestanding signs are relative to the drive thru use and not necessarily for
advertisement. So we don't see that as substantial, and the two additional wall signs are important for
vehicle maneuvering and safety of our guests entering our site. So we don't see that as substantial. We
don't believe it will have an adverse impact on the environment, and even though this could be perceived
as self-created, again, this business really thrives on pass by trip generation that guests and individuals
who are traveling by really need to see this site and to see that it's identified as Taco Bell for this site to be
financially feasible and successful over the future use. So,Mr. Chairman,that's just a brief overview of the
project. I'll turn it back to you and the Board for any questions or comments.
MR. MC CABE-Sure. So do we have questions of the applicant?
MR.KUHL-You have two,you have a preview board and a menu board. Where's the preview board,right
as you make the turn?
MR. FREITAG-That's right. It's about a car length ahead of the menu board.
MR.KUHL-Okay.
MR. MC CABE-Other questions?
12
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/17/2023)
MR. HENKEL-Would there be a way of maybe making the signs on the sides of the building a little bit
smaller? You know your building is 76 feet from the road. I can understand the five feet overage on the
freestanding sign. That's going to draw some people, and the front sign on the front of the building,but
the two Taco Bell signs, one on each side, I don't think they need to be that big. That would be my
complaint. That would hold me back. I mean I understand the menu board. You've got to have those,
but the two large signs on the side,one on each side,I have a little problem with.
MR.FREITAG-So the size of those signs are relatively minor at 24 square feet. That's,a sheet of plywood
say is 32 square feet. So it's less than your typical sheet of plywood hanging up there 24 feet in the air.
You want to make sure they're legible from the distance of the intersection, and also aesthetically they're
designed to fit within that tower and backdrop. So a little smaller might make it look a little unscalable
to the building.
MR. HENKEL-I don't really see how you can see that from the intersection. I mean if you're going to see
anything you're going to see the freestanding sign in front plus the sign that's on the front of the building
because you're back far enough that there's going to be other things that are going to be hiding those signs.
So there's really no need for those large signs there. That's just my opinion.
MR.FREITAG-I think it's the southbound traveling on Quaker that is probably going to see that wall sign
more than the freestanding sign just because of the unique alignment of that intersection.
MR. MC CABE-Other questions?
MR. URRICO-Would you rather have three signs or a smaller three signs? Or two signs that are at that
size or three signs that are smaller?
MR. FREITAG-Is the question would we rather have three smaller signs or two signs at the same size?
MR. URRICO-You're asking for relief for a third sign,wall sign. If we grant you that relief,would you be
willing to make them smaller or would you rather have two signs at the signage size that you requested?
MR. FREITAG-I think the, and correct me if I'm wrong, Mike,but the presence of the three signs would
be more important than the size of them, and one thing we might be able to consider is reducing the Bell
with the script text versus eliminating that sign.
MR.MC CRAKEN-Yes,I would be in agreement with you,I think. I think there's two typical sizes. That
is the brand standard for that size on the tower element. This building is challenged a little bit in that we
have created a connecting drive aisle with Binley Florist. So we're back a little further than we normally
would like to be. Normally our drive thru would either exit directly onto the street. That isn't really
feasible here with all the traffic,and so we decided to begin with the end in mind and think that,down the
road,whatever happens with there,whether Binley's stays for the next 10,15 years or not,there's probably
something we wanted to have that interconnectivity between the sites which pushed our building back a
little further than normal. So the size of that sign would be kind of important to us, and again what Tim
said is the intersection's kind of unique in that you don't have a perpendicular view of the sign. So as you're
coming down Quaker,you're looking across the site,you're actually going to see that tower probably before
you ever see the monument sign on the road or the pylon sign on the road. So we would hope to have the
wall signs that we requested, but if we had to go smaller, they have another version that is a little bit
smaller. I think the lettering is two inches shorter and the bell,I don't know exactly off the top of my head
what the square footage is,but I still believe it's probably in the 20 foot range,22 feet. So there would be
a little bit of a reduction that we could live with if that were this or that. I think we'd be okay with that,
reducing those down a little bit.
MR. MC CABE-Other questions? So a public hearing has been advertised. So at this time I'm going to
open the public hearing and see if there's anybody in the audience who would like to address the Board on
this particular project. Do we have anything written,Roy?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. URRICO-No,there's nothing written.
MR. MC CABE-So at this 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 Bob.
MR.KEENAN-I think I like Roy's suggestion of the smaller. If we're going to have three signs,that a little
bit smaller to meet the square footage. That would be an improvement.
13
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/17/2023)
MR. MC CABE-Dick?
MR.CIPPERLY-I think with the setback of the building that I really don't have any problem with the size
that they request.
MR. MC CABE Jim?
MR.UNDERWOOD-I fully agree with Dick. I think because you're 75 feet back from the road,you know,
we've granted similar requests for extra signage across your competitor on the other side of the street. So
I have no problem with your requests.
MR. MC CABE John?
MR. HENKEL-I understand what Jim and Dick are saying,but how is it going to be visible if they're that
far and it's being blocked? I mean the only signs that are really going to be visible are the freestanding and
the front sign. So I still have a little problem with the size of the signage being that big on the sides. So
I'm not on board as is unless they give us the exact amount of signage that would be on the other sides.
MR. MC CABE-Ron?
MR.KUHL-Well the freestanding signs,you know,because of the menu board and the preview board and
you can't blame them for wanting that. I imagine when we first started our signage we didn't have that
many drive thru restaurants. The majority of the Board is saying fine with the size. I like your suggestion
about yes there is a smaller size and that's the challenge we have is to give minimal relief. I would like to
see it,but you don't know the size. So what do we do? Do we give a recommendation with a contingency
that we don't know? I'll go along with the majority of the Board and I'll be in favor of it the way it's
presented.
MR. MC CABE-Roy?
MR. URRICO-I would be in favor of it if the signs are reduced in size,if the wall signs are reduced in size.
Only then. I understand the unique situation that you have there,but we have the option to go smaller,
and I think that that's what we're supposed to do.
MR. MC CABE-And,you know, again, I've had visibility problems and so I appreciate the fact that it's a
little bit larger sign that's required for being a little bit further back than normal,and I think from a safety
standpoint you don't want people sweating to see what the sign actually is. So I would support the project,
as per design. So I think that's four of us that are okay with the size of the sign. So you're okay there. So
with that,we've got to do SEQR here.
MOTION REGARDING SIGN VARIANCE NO. 3-2023. APPLICANT NAME: HOSPITALITY
SYRACUSE, INC. (MIKE MCCRAKEN) BASED UPON THE INFORMATION AND THE
ANALYSIS OF THE ABOVE SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION PROVIDED BY THE
APPLICANT, THIS BOARD FINDS THAT THIS WILL NOT RESULT IN ANY SIGNIFICANT
ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT. SO WE GIVE IT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION,
Introduced by John Henkel who moved for its adoption,seconded by Ronald Kuhl:
Duly adopted this 17h Day of May 2023,by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Cipperly,Mr.Kuhl,Mr. Underwood, Mr. Keenan,Mr. Urrico,Mr. Henkel,Mr. McCabe
NOES: NONE
MR. MC CABE-And so we need a motion on the sign variance. So,Jim,could you make a motion.
The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Hospitality
Syracuse,Inc. (Mike McCraken). Applicant proposes to install a 50 sq. ft. freestanding sign,two 25 sq.
ft.menu boards,and 3 wall signs of 24.4 sq.ft. The project includes the development of a 2,650 sq.ft.Taco
Bell drive thru restaurant and associated site work. Relief is requested for size of signs and number of
signs.
Relief Required:
The applicant requests relief for size of signs and number of signs. The parcel is 1.35 ac as part of a recent
subdivision in the Commercial Intensive zone.
Section 140 signs
14
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/17/2023)
The project includes a 50 sq. ft. freestanding sign, two 25 sq. ft. menu boards that are freestanding signs
where only one free standing sign is allowed at 45 sq.ft. The project also proposes 3 wall signs of 24.4 sq.
ft.where only one wall sign is allowed.
SEQR Type:Unlisted [Resolution/Action Required for SEQR]
Motion regarding Sign Variance No. 3-2023. Applicant Name: Hospitality Syracuse, Inc. (Mike
McCraken) based upon the information and the analysis of the above supporting documentation
provided by the applicant, this Board finds that this will not result in any significant adverse
environmental impact. So we give it a Negative Declaration,Introduced by John Henkel who moved
for its adoption,seconded by Ronald Kuhl:
Duly adopted this 17h Day of May 2023,by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Cipperly,Mr.Kuhl,Mr. Underwood, Mr. Keenan,Mr. Urrico,Mr. Henkel,Mr. McCabe
NOES: NONE
A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday,May 17,2023.
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. Will an undesirable change be produced in the character of the neighborhood or will a detriment to
the nearby properties be created by the granting of the requested sign variance? We find that there
will be no undesirable change produced in the character of the neighborhood.
2. Can the benefit sought by the applicant be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to
pursue, other than a sign variance? They could go to smaller signs, but they would only be slightly
smaller than what is proposed.
3. Is the requested sign variance substantial? I don't believe it is given the fact they're set 75 feet back
from the road,from Dix Avenue.
4. Will the proposed sign variance have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions
in the neighborhood or district? No.
5. Is the alleged difficulty self-created? Yes, it is, but it's only created by the fact that we've granted
similar requests in the neighborhood also based upon the weird layout of the road as it passes by in
front.
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.
A. The variance approval is valid for one (1) year from the date of approval; you may request an
extension of approval before the one(1)year time frame expires;
B. If the property is located within the Adirondack Park,the approved variance is subject to review
by the Adirondack Park Agency(APA). The applicant is cautioned against taking any action until
the APA's review is completed;
C. Final approved plans in compliance with an approved variance must be submitted to the
Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or
Building&codes personnel'
D. Subsequent issuance of further permits,including sign permits are dependent on receipt of these
final plans;
E. Upon approval of the application; review and approval of final plans by the Community
Development Department the applicant can apply for a sign permit unless the proposed project
requires review, approval, or permit from the Town Planning Board and/or the Adirondack Park
Agency,Lake George Park Commission or other State agency or department.
15
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/17/2023)
BASED ON THE ABOVE FINDINGS I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE SIGN VARIANCE 3-2023,
HOSPITALITY SYRACUSE, INC. (MIKE MCCRAKEN), Introduced by James Underwood, who
moved for its adoption,seconded by Ronald Kuhl:
Duly adopted this 17h Day of May 2023,by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Cipperly,Mr.Kuhl,Mr. Underwood, Mr. McCabe
NOES: Mr.Henkel,Mr. Keenan,Mr. Urrico
MR. MC CABE-Congratulations,you have a project.
MR. FREITAG-Thank you.
MR. MC CRAKEN-Thank you for your time.
NOTICE OF APPEAL NO.1-2023 EDWARD OSTBERG(DRAFT RESOLUTION)
MR. MC CABE-Okay. So just for you that are new on the Board, normally we give an answer to an
application on the night we receive it,but we don't have to. We have 62 days from the close of the public
hearing to provide an answer to the applicant,and so we don't do this on a regular basis but every once in
a while we'll do it just to seek advice from our Counsel and so that we're on a little bit stronger ground. So
you've actually experienced that with our challenge to the Zoning Administrator's decision. So the
applicant appealed the decision made by the Zoning Administrator, and so I'm going to read a motion.
RESOLUTION TO: Disapprove Appeal No. 1-2023 , Appellant Name Edward Ostberg, regarding
property owned by Edward Ostberg at 639 County Line Road,Tax Map No.290.-1-8
WHEREAS, The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from
Edward Ostberg appealing the Zoning Administrator's February 10, 2023 Determination that a
proposed Microbrewery at 639 County Line Road is not an allowed use in the Commercial Light
Industrial District and involving interpretation of Town Zoning Code provisions including Town Code
Sections 179-2-010 and 179-3-040(C),as well as Land Use Tables 3 and 4 of the Code; and
WHEREAS, a public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, April 19, 2023; and now therefore
be it
RESOLVED,that upon review and consideration of the application materials,information from the Town
Zoning Administrator,information supplied during the public hearing and the applicable Sections of the
Queensbury Town Code and after discussion and deliberation,we find as follows:
1. There is no ambiguity in the Town Code provisions at issue in this Interpretation Appeal.
2. "Microbrewery"is a term defined at Section 179-2-010 of the Town Code. The underlying proposed
project that resulted in the Zoning Administrator's Determination meets the definition of
"Microbrewery" and the Appellant has agreed that the project meets the definition of
Microbrewery(See Page 2 of the Application narrative).
3. The Property is located in the"Commercial-Light Industrial District" (CLI District). Town Code
Section 179-3-040 (C)(1)(a) states "A complete list of the uses allowed in this CLI District is set
forth on Table 4 of this chapter."
4. Table 4 of the Town Zoning Code lists the uses allowed in the CLI District as of right,by Site Plan
Approval and by Special Use Permit. If a defined use is not listed on this Table for the CLI District,
it is not an allowed use in this District.
5. "Microbrewery" is not listed whatsoever on the CLI Use Table at Zoning Code Table 4 and is
therefore not an allowed use in the CLI District. The Board notes that"Microbrewery"is listed as
an allowed use by either Special Use Permit or Site Plan Review in other Zoning Districts while it
was clearly omitted from the CLI District.
6. Appellant's arguments that the Microbrewery should be allowed as he believes separate
components of the Microbrewery are allowed uses in the CLI District is unavailing. Such a
strained interpretation of the Code would lead to absurd results. Where a specific use is defined
in the Code,we must consider whether or not the specific use is allowed. Allowing applicants to
use the "component" interpretation that the Appellant has created could render the Land Use
Tables meaningless as applicants could simply choose to ignore the application of clearly defined
uses in the Code in order to avoid the requirements of the Code.
16
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/17/2023)
7. The merits of the argument as provided by the Appellant with responses from the Zoning
Administrator have been considered. It is our finding that the positions offered by the Appellant
are not sufficient to warrant overturning the Zoning Administrator's Determination.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED,that based upon the above findings,this Board DENIES Appeal No.1-2023,
EDWARD OSTBERG , and therefore upholds the Zoning Administrator's Determination of February S,
2023,finding that the proposed Microbrewery is not an allowed use in the CLI District.
Introduced by Michael McCabe,who moved for its adoption,seconded by Richard Cipperly:
Duly adopted this 17h Day of May 2023 by the following vote:
AYES: Mr.Kuhl,Mr. Keenan,Mr. Urrico, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Cipperly,Mr. McCabe
NOES: Mr. Underwood
MR. MC CABE-So this information will be transferred. Are you Counsel?
EDWARD OSTBERG
MR. OSTBERG-I'm the owner.
MR. MC CABE-Okay.
MR.KUHL-So how does he get this done?
MRS.MOORE-So it's been suggested that they make a Petition of Zone Change to the Town Board to add
that use.
MR.KUHL-Okay.
MRS. MOORE-And ultimately that may align with re-evaluating the terminology of microbrewery. I
think it's a good idea at this point because I think microbrewery may include other items other than,right
now I think it's,would include other uses besides microbrewery that are not listed in that area because the
CLI zone has a winery in there. So if you really evaluate the word microbrewery,you want to be inclusive.
So it might update what our Code is.
MR.KUHL-How long,optimistically,should it take for that to be presented and perhaps improved.
MRS. MOORE-I think they're working on the Petition of Zone Change now.
MR.KUHL-Is it like Congress is working on things?
MRS. MOORE-No, I'm sorry, I could be more specific. So if they tried to submit for July, we would
probably see a potential application back in front of the Planning Board maybe in September. It depends
on how that transpires,but it could be three months as for the process.
MR.KUHL-There's hope.
MR. OSTBERG-Yes, I mean we're meeting with Stu Baker next week for a workshop meeting,but three
months is three months. It's more than we had anticipated,but for a use that really makes sense for what
Commercial Light Industrial is,but we'll have to present that to the Town Board.
MR. MC CABE-And it's not our job to say whether this is a worthy project or not. It's just our job to
interpret the rules,and if we did otherwise than we could be accused of making the law,and that's not our
job.
MR. MC CABE-So with that I make a motion that we close tonight's meeting.
MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING OF MAY
17",2023,Introduced by Michael McCabe who moved for its adoption,seconded by John Henkel:
Duly adopted this 17`h day of May,2023,by the following vote:
AYES: Mr.Henkel,Mr. Underwood, Mr. Cipperly, Mr. Kuhl,Mr. Urrico,Mr. Keenan,Mr. McCabe
NOES: NONE
17
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/17/2023)
On motion meeting was adjourned.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED
Michael McCabe,Chairman
18