Loading...
01-17-2024 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/17/2024) QUEENSBURYZONINGBOARD OFAPPEATS FIRSTREGUTAR MEETING jANUARY17` 2O24 INDEX Area Variance No.57-2022 Russell Thomas 1. REQUEST FOR ONE YEAR EXT. Tax Map No.296.5-1-17 Area Variance No.4-2023 Geraldine Eberlein 4. FURTHER TABLING Tax Map No.227.17-1-25; 227.17-1-24 (SEPTIC) Area Variance No.45-2023 Lauren&Christian Freyer 4. FURTHER TABLING Tax Map No.227.14-1-7 Area Variance No. 3-2024 David Howard Jr. (Cont'd Pg.22) 4. FURTHER TABLING Tax Map No. 30S.7-1-4S.1 Area Variance No.4-2024 Jay&Kim Ogden(Cont'd Pg.23) 5. FURTHER TABLING Tax Map No.2S9.1S-1-13&2S9.1S-1-15 Area Variance No.47-2023 Cypress Pools 5. Tax Map No.296.10-1-4 Sign Variance No.1-2024 Volta Charging,LLC S. Tax Map No.295.E-1-3 Area Variance No.1-2024 Liberty Restaurants Development 15. Tax Map No. 302.6-1-12,13&14 Area Variance No.2-2024 Georgianna Bodner 20. Tax Map No.226.15-1-22 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 O1/17/2024) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 17TK,2024 7.00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT MICHAEL MC CABE,CHAIRMAN ROY URRICO,SECRETARY RICHARD CIPPERLY JOHN HENKEL ROBERT KEENAN MARY PALACINO,ALTERNATE MEMBERS ABSENT RONALD KUHL JAMES UNDERWOOD LAND USE PLANNER-LAURA MOORE STENOGRAPHER-KAREN DWYRE MR. MC CABE-So good evening. I'd like to open tonight's meeting of the Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals,Wednesday,January 17`h,2024. If you haven't been here before, our procedure is pretty simple. I'll call each case up,read the case into our record, allow the applicant to present their case. Question the applicant. If a public hearing has been advertised,then we'll open the public hearing,take input from the public,close the public hearing,poll the Board,see where we stand,and proceed accordingly,but first we have a couple of administrative items. So,John,can I have a motion for the minutes? APPROVAL OF MINUTES December 13`h,2023 MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING MINUTES OF DECEMBER 13TK, 2023, Introduced by John Henkel who moved for its adoption, seconded by Mary Palacino: Duly adopted this 17`h day of January,2024,by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Cipperly,Mr. Cipperly,Mr. Urrico, Mr. Henkel,Mrs.Palacino NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr.Keenan,Mr. McCabe ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl MR. MC CABE-We have an extension. ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS: AV 57-2022(RUSSELL THOMAS) REQUEST FOR ONE YEAR EXTENSION RUSSELL THOMAS,PRESENT Applicant requests to install a 160 sq.ft.shed 3 ft.from property line.The existing home of 2,717 sq.ft.with porches to remain with no changes. The existing 192 sq. ft. shed received a permit in 2006 for a location different than current location. Relief is requested for setbacks. The Zoning Board of Appeals approved Area Variance 57-2022 on January 1S,2023.Applicant is requesting a one year extension. With this resolution the Zoning Board of Appeals grants a one year extension that is valid until January 1S,2025. MOTION TO APPROVE A ONE YEAR EXTENSION FOR AREA VARIANCE 57-2022, RUSSELL THOMAS. Introduced by John Henkel,who moved for its adoption;seconded by Michael McCabe. Extended to January 1S,2025. 2 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting O1/17/2024) Duly adopted this 17h Day of January 2024 by the following vote: MRS. MOORE-So before you call the vote,I know that the applicant is in the audience, and I just want to make sure the Board understands the reasoning for the extension request. If you have any questions or comments of the applicant. MR. MC CABE-Sure. MRS. MOORE-The Zoning Board doesn't typically get an extension request. So this is why it was good. Thank you. MR. MC CABE-First identify yourself for the record. MR. THOMAS- I'm sorry. Russell Thomas at 23 Highpoint Drive. Okay. The reason that I'm needing the extension is because we've been trying to do this but our neighbor who,I don't know if she's written a letter this time opposing it,but has put graffiti up on this fence that's supposedly illegal. It's a six foot high fence. I believe you have some pictures of it. MRS. MOORE-I do have pictures of the fence,but it's not illegal. MR. THOMAS-Our lawyers say something different. But you can see, kind of see what we're going through with the other pictures besides this, but like right here. We go to do something, they've got cameras so that they can see when we go out to do the trash. Do some work there. They come out and they harass us. We had to put a stop sign up because of the fence because they hide behind the fence and zoom out and almost hit my grandson and my kids. It's just numerous things that we've informed the Town about. Nobody will do anything for us, and we can't do anything up there until we can get something straightened out. MRS.MOORE-So the Town has been up there,and there's no enforcement action that the Town can take. It's a civil matter between the neighbors. MR. MC CABE-But we can grant the extension. MRS. MOORE-You can grant the extension. MR.HENKEL-Where is that fence on their property? Is it right on the property line or no? MR. THOMAS-It's right in front of their house. MR.HENKEL-Right,but it's not as far as. MRS. MOORE-It's on the neighbor's property. MR.HENKEL-So when they're walking on the other side of the fence,they're still on their own property? MRS. MOORE-Correct. MR. THOMAS-Yes,that's correct,but they walk on both sides. MR.HENKEL-Well they can if they have property on the other side. MR.THOMAS-Not enough,but I'm not even caring about the walking on. I'm caring about the signs that they put up. They just went and, over Christmas they went and put a Santa up therewith a condom on it. MR. HENKEL-Their big problem is because of where you're trying to put the shed? Is that what the problem is? MR. THOMAS-I don't know what the problem is. MR. HENKEL-Because originally you were granted permission to put a shed in a certain location in 2006 and then you changed it,right? MR. THOMAS-Yes,that is correct. MR.HENKEL-You didn't put it where you were supposed to put it in 2006. Right? 3 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting O1/17/2024) MR.THOMAS-We put it where it was approved. Let me re-phrase that. Okay. It was in the wrong spot, but Bruce Frank had marked that, we went over it with Mr. Bruce Frank, and that's where it was put, because it was farther down. It was farther off the line. MR.HENKEL-But it wasn't put where. MR. MC CABE-But wasn't there a disputed property line there. Right? MR. THOMAS-Yes, there is. And also this was the one that it was granted where they put the original driveway. Their construction driveway was on private property and cost me over $150,000 worth of damage so far. MRS.MOORE-So with the shed,you were going to replace the shed with a different shed and it was going to be closer to the line. Is that something that can be accomplished by June of this year? MR. THOMAS-I don't know. It all depends on how much,we've had the police called on us. We've gone through numerous lawyers. MR. MC CABE-I understand that, too, but what does that have to do with what you're supposed to be doing? MR. THOMAS-When we're trying to do this, sir,they come out. They harass us. If you had the videos, which I don't believe you were able to get. MRS. MOORE-They don't have videos. MR.THOMAS-They verbally abuse us and things of that nature. I mean you can seethe other signs where it says FU on the,you know,trash,pigs. They threw garbage on our property, all laid out in between for over a month,okay. They called the Town on me because I went to put up a flagpole,okay, and they said I hate a septic that was spewing out,okay,and I had the Town up there and they promised me they'd clean up the garbage and nothing ever happened. Then they threw the garbage farther onto my property. We cleaned it up. We have video, all of it MRS. MOORE-Again,that's more of a civil matter between the two parties. MR. THOMAS-No,that is not,because the Town was supposed to have them clean that up. I have it in writing that Mr. O'Brien was going to have them come up that day. MRS. MOORE-And that's between you and Building and Codes,not this Board. MR. THOMAS-Okay. I'm sorry. I don't mean to be that way. I understand. I didn't mean it directed necessarily toward any individual. MRS. MOORE-I understand. MR. THOMAS-Is that a better way to put it? But that's my reasoning for why we need the extension. MR. MC CABE-Sure. MR. THOMAS-Because we're using the shed to cover up their,you know. MR. MC CABE-Right. I remember that from the other. MR. THOMAS-But it's only gotten worse now. MR.HENKEL-When I said the motion,I didn't say the 1S`h of January,did I? MRS. DWYRE-You said January of 2025. MR.HENKEL-Okay. So should I re-do that? MRS. MOORE-You can update it. You can amend it,yes. MR.HENKEL-I'll make the extension to January 1S`h,2025. I said no on the application the first time. So I can't say yes on the extension. AYES: Mr. Cipperly,Mr.Keenan,Mrs.Palacino,Mr. Urrico,Mr. McCabe 4 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting O1/17/2024) NOES: Mr. Henkel ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl,Mr. Underwood MR. MC CABE-So you have an extension. MR. THOMAS-Thank you very much. MR. MC CABE-Sure. So now we have more tablings. REQUEST TO TABLE AV 4-2023(EBERLEIN)to FEBRUARY 21,2024 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 Mr. Urrico: Tabled to February 21,2024. Duly adopted this 17h Day of January 2024 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Cipperly,Mrs.Palacino,Mr. Keenan,Mr.Henkel,Mr. Urrico,Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl,Mr. Underwood REQUEST TO TABLE AV 45-2023(FREYER)TO FEBRUARY 21,2024 The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Lauren &z Christian Freyer. Applicant proposes to construct a 2,028 sq.ft.footprint home with a floor area of 3,456 sq. ft. The project includes associated site work for stormwater management and shoreline planting plan. The septic system approved by local BOH is proposed for construction across Pulver Road and connection to adjoining property by the same owner. Site Plan for new floor area in a CEA,hard surfacing within 50 ft. of the shoreline, and work within 100 ft.of a wetland. Relief requested for setbacks and permeability. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 45-2023 LAUREN &z CHRISTIAN FREYER, Introduced by John Henkel who moved for its adoption,seconded by Mary Palacino: Tabled to February 21,2024. Duly adopted this 17h Day of January 2024,by the following vote: AYES: Mr.Keenan,Mr. Cipperly,Mr. Urrico,Mr.Henkel,Mrs. Palacino,Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl,Mr. Underwood NEW BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 3-2024 SEQRA TYPE TYPE II DAVID HOWARD JR. AGENT(S) HUTCHINS ENGINEERING OWNER(S) DAVID HOWARD JR. ZONING MDR LOCATION SHERMAN AVE (WEST SIDE OF RICHMOND HILL DR.) APPLICANT TO SUBDIVIDE A 25.78 ACRE PARCEL INTO TWO LOTS. ONE LOT IS TO BE 24.70 AC AND THE OTHER LOT IS TO BE 1.08 AC. THE PROJECT IS LOCATED IN THE MDR ZONE WHERE 2 ACRES IS REQUIRED FOR LOTS WITHOUT SEWER AND WATER TOGETHER. PROJECT SITE IS IN THE BARRINGER HEIGHTS SUBDIVISION PREVIOUSLY APPROVED FOR SR-IA CLUSTER SUBDIVISION OF 32 LOTS NOT TO EXCEED 40 LOTS PER SUB 4-2003. THE PROJECT AREA WAS PREVIOUSLY APPROVED FOR A 4-LOT SUBDIVISION UNDER SUB 19-2018. THE PROPOSED SUBDIVISION WOULD BE 36 LOTS IN TOTAL WHERE LOT 1 E WOULD BE 24.70 AND TIED TO DEED TO ANOTHER PARCEL 308.6-2-18 TO PARCEL.AND LOT 1 D WOULD BE 5 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting O1/17/2024) 1.08 AC TO BE DEVELOPED FOR A SINGLE FAMILY HOME. RELIEF IS REQUESTED FOR CREATING A PARCEL LESS THAN 2 ACRES. CROSS REF SUB 1-2024 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 25.78 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 308.7-1-48.1 SECTION 179-4-030;183 The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from David Howard, Jr. Applicant proposes to subdivide a 25.78 acre parcel into two lots. One lot is to be 24.70 ac and the other lot is to be 1.08 ac. The project is located in the MDR zone where 2 acres is required for lots without sewer and water together. Project site is in the Barringer Heights subdivision previously approved for SR- IA Cluster subdivision of 32 lots not to exceed 40 lots per SUB 4-2003. The project area was previously approved for a 4-lot subdivision under SUB 19-2018. The proposed subdivision would be 36 lots in total where Lot 1 E would be 24.70 and tied to deed to another parcel 308.6-2-18 and Lot 1 D would be 1.08 ac to be developed for a single family home. Relief is requested for creating a parcel less than 2 acres. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 3-2024 DAVID HOWARD, iR, Introduced by John Henkel who moved for its adoption,seconded by Roy Urrico: Tabled to March 20,2024 with any new information by March 1,2024. Duly adopted this 17h Day of January 2024 by the following vote: AYES: Mrs.Palacino,Mr. Urrico,Mr. Henkel,Mr. Cipperly,Mr. Keenan,Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl,Mr. Underwood AREA VARIANCE NO.4-2024 SEQRA TYPE TYPE II JAY&z KIM OGDEN AGENT(S) ETHAN HALL-RUCINSKI HALL ARCHITECTURE OWNER(S) JAY&z KIM OGDEN ZONING WR LOCATION 17 FITZGERALD RD. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT A 1,526 SQ. FT. DETACHED SECOND GARAGE FOR VEHICLE STORAGE. THE GARAGE IS TO BE 18 FT. 10 INCHES IN HEIGHT. THE SITE HAS AN EXISTING 2,061 SQ. FT. HOME WITH 336 SQ. FT. PORCH AREAS THAT ARE TO REMAIN WITH NO CHANGES. PERMEABILITY IS DECREASED FROM 75.22%TO 69.29%. RELIEF IS REQUESTED FOR SECOND GARAGE AND HEIGHT OF GARAGE,HEIGHT OF GARAGE AND PERMEABILITY. CROSS REF AV 2-2021;SP 2-2021;AV 33-1995;AV 28-1995 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 0.71 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 289.18-1-13&z 289.18-1-15 SECTION 179-3-040;179-5-020 The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Jay &z Kim Ogden. Applicant proposes to construct a 1,526 sq. ft. detached second garage for vehicle storage. The garage is to be 18 ft. 10 inches in height. The site has an existing 2,061 sq. ft. home with 336 sq. ft. porch areas that are to remain with no changes. Permeability is decreased from 75.220/o to 69.29%. Relief is requested for second garage and height of garage,height of garage and permeability. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 4-2024 JAY &z KIM OGDEN, Introduced by John Henkel who moved for its adoption,seconded by Robert Keenan: Tabled to February 21,2024. Duly adopted this 17h Day of January 2024 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Henkel,Mr. Cipperly,Mrs.Palacino,Mr. Keenan,Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl,Mr. Underwood MR. MC CABE-So we'll start with our first application here, AV 47-2023, Cypress Pools, 43 Wincrest Drive. TABLED ITEM: AREA VARIANCE NO.47-2023 SEQRA TYPE TYPE II CYPRESS POOLS AGENT(S) NADIA WRIGHT OWNER(S) MARY CARDINALE ZONING MDR LOCATION 43 WINCREST DRIVE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO INSTALL A POOL ON A CORNER LOT WHERE THE PLACEMENT IS CONSIDERED A FRONT YARD. THE SITE HAS AN EXISTING HOME OF 1,812 SQ. FT. WITH A 612 SQ. FT. PATIO/PORCH THAT IS TO REMAIN WITH NO CHANGES. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR POOL LOCATION IN A FRONT YARD,REAR SETBACK,AND A 6 FT. 6 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting O1/17/2024) PRIVACY FENCE IN FRONT YARD. CROSS REF N/A WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 0.75 ACRES TAX MAP NO.296.10-1-4 SECTION 179-3-040,179-5-020 JEFF MOECKEL,REPRESENTING APPLICANT,PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 47-2023, Cypress Pools, Meeting Date: January 17, 2024 "Project Location: 43 Wincrest Drive Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to install a pool on a corner lot where the placement is considered a front yard. The site has an existing home of 1,SI2 sq. ft. with a 612 sq.ft.patio/porch area that is to remain with no changes. Relief requested for pool location in a front yard,rear setback,and 6 ft.privacy fence in front yard. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for pool located along Orchard Street. The project is located on a 0.74 ac parcel in the Moderate Density Residential zone. Section 179-5-020 pool, Section 179-5-070 fence The proposed pool is to be located in a front yard along Orchard Street where the rear setback is to be 13.6 ft. where a setback of 20 ft. is required. The proposed privacy fence along Orchard Street is to be 6 ft. in height relief is requested for privacy type and over 4 ft.in the front yard. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination,the board shall consider: 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance.Minor to no impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue,other than an area variance. Feasible alternatives may be limited due to the location of the home on the parcel and the lot shape. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered moderate relevant to the code. Relief requested for pool in the front yard. Relief for rear setback of 6.4. Relief for type of fence and height of fence in front yard. 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 may be considered to have minimal impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-created. Staff comments: The existing home is to remain with no changes. The applicant proposes to place a pool in the front yard on Orchard Drive. The site plan provided shows the location of the pool along with proposed and existing plantings. The applicant has also provided photos of the site." MR. MOECKEL Jeff Moeckel. I'm the owner of Cypress Pools. With me is Kerry Stratton who's one of my employees. So the pool is now about 13 and a half feet off the rear property line. We can't put the pool directly behind the house because of an existing septic system. The homeowner has agreed to put a six foot tall privacy fence in front of the pool that would tend to the existing fence on the rear property line, and the plant approximately three to five blue spruce trees to provide even more coverage. So in addition to not being able to see the pool from any of the neighbors' properties, between the fence and the blue spruce, I believe one neighbor had brought up the issue of noise with kids swimming in the pool. I'm assuming that,with the trees and the fence,that noise will be fairly well mitigated. MR. MC CABE-So do we have questions of the applicant? MR. HENKEL-So you said you're going to put a six foot fence on three sides of it. Is that what you're saying? MR. MOECKEL-Well,the whole entire yard. Correct. Well,one to correct three sides of it,yes. 7 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting O1/17/2024) MR.HENKEL-Okay. So then obviously knowing where the septic was,because when you came to us the first time,the septic was in the front yard,well it was on Orchard. Right? So actually you know for sure where it is. MR. MOECKEL-Yes. We had a permitting person who just flipped it by accident. It was a complete CAD mistake. MR.HENKEL-Okay. Good thank you. MR. MC CABE-Other questions of the applicant? Seeing none, 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 out there who would like to address us on this particular application? Roy, do we have anything written? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-Yes, there's one letter, an additional letter. "I am Faye Brennan, owning/residing at 39 Wincrest Dr. for the past 41 years and 2 houses from the applicant's (Mary Cardinale, 43 Wincrest Dr). Rather severe anxiety prevents me from participating in any group/public meetings but I hope that my comments in this email will be accepted. This area of Old Orchard was developed by Oliver Laakso with the purpose of having an upscale residential neighborhood.Not only will the addition of a pool in the front yard be an eyesore and affect the tenor of the area,it will adversely affect the value of the houses.But more importantly,everything in this application is actually not allowed.Every property has restrictive covenants attached and I absolutely and completely object to granting this application. The pertinent restriction states that nothing can be erected in the front yard, especially (and specifically) ANY type of fence or fencing (including hedges). There are several pools in Old Orchard,ALL in the backyards. Please uphold the restrictive covenants and deny this application. Thank you. Faye Brennan" That's it. MR. MC CABE-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 Bob. MR. KEENAN-I think you made some of the changes that the Board was looking for last time. I don't think that I have a problem with the application. MR. MC CABE-Dick? MR. CIPPERLY-No, I don't, either. There's a covenant in the deed that's not for us to deal with, but if there is,I'm sure your neighbors will tell you. MR. MC CABE-And that house is on Wincrest. The covenant was for Orchard. MR. CIPPE RLY-That's right. No,I think you did what you needed to do to site the pool. MR. MC CABE John? MR.HENKEL-Yes,it's definitely in a better location than when you first came to us,and I think with the shrubs and the fence, it's not going to be too bad. It's 53 feet from the road, or roughly. I'd be on board. Yes. MR. MC CABE-Mary? MRS. PALACINO-Yes, I think the placement of the pool is much better where it is, and I'd have no objection to it. MR. MC CABE-Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes,I'm happy with the way things have evolved and I'm happy with the current location. So I'd be in favor of it. MR. MC CABE-And I, too, support the application. I think the applicant listed to the Board and made the appropriate changes and so I agree with it. So I wonder if,Dick,could you fashion us a motion here? The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Cypress Pools. Applicant proposes to install a pool on a corner lot where the placement is considered a front yard. The site has an existing home of 1,SI2 sq.ft.with a 612 sq.ft.patio/porch area that is to remain with no changes. Relief requested for pool location in a front yard,rear setback, and 6 ft.privacy fence in front yard. S (Queensbury ZBA Meeting O1/17/2024) Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for pool located along Orchard Street. The project is located on a 0.74 ac parcel in the Moderate Density Residential zone. Section 179-5-020 pool, Section 179-5-070 fence The proposed pool is to be located in a front yard along Orchard Street where the rear setback is to be 13.6 ft. where a setback of 20 ft. is required. The proposed privacy fence along Orchard Street is to be 6 ft. in height relief is requested for privacy type and over 4 ft.in the front yard. SEQR Type II—no further review required, A public hearing was advertised and held on December 13,2023 and January 17,2024. 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. 2. Feasible alternatives have been considered by the Board,are reasonable and have been included to minimize the request. The benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved really by no other means. They looked at the back lot. 3. The requested variance is not substantial. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. 5. The alleged difficulty is self-created. 6. In addition,the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from granting the requested variance would outweigh (approval) the resulting detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community; 7. The Board also finds that the variance request under consideration is the minimum necessary,- 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. 47-2023 CYPRESS POOLS, Introduced by Richard Cipperly, who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Henkel: Duly adopted this 17h Day of January 2024 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Cipperly,Mrs.Palacino,Mr. Keenan,Mr. Henkel, Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl,Mr. Underwood MR. MC CABE-Congratulations,you have a project. MR. MOECKEL-Thanks,guys,I appreciate it. MR. MC CABE-So our next application is SV 1-2024 Volta Charging LLC,1137 State Route 9. NEW BUSINESS: SIGN VARIANCE NO.1-2024 SEQRA TYPE UNLISTED VOLTA CHARGING,LLC AGENT(S) KRISTEN MOTEL,ESQ. OWNER(S) GREAT ESCAPE THEME PARK ZONING Cl LOCATION 1137 STATE ROUTE 9 APPLICANT PROPOSES TO INSTALL 8 CHARGING STATIONS EACH WITH A DUAL SIDED DIGITAL SIGN DISPLAY. THE SIGNS ARE TO BE 23.3 SQ. FT. WITH MULTI-CHANGING DIGITAL ADVERTISING SIGN ON EACH SIDE. THE PARKING AREA TO BE USED IS ASSOCIATED WITH THE GREAT ESCAPE THEME PARK AND NEAR TO THE BRIDGE. THE PLANS INDICATE THERE IS TO BE A LOSS OF THREE PARKING SPACES DUE 9 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/17/2024) TO A SPECIFIC STRIPING/PAINT SCHEME FOR THE CHARGING SPACES. RELIEF IS REQUESTED FOR NUMBER OF SIGNS AND DIGITAL-CHANGING SIGNS. CROSS REF PZ 24-2015;SP 37-2004 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING JANUARY 2024 LOT SIZE 26.04 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 295.8-1-3 SECTION 140 KRISTIN MOTEL&SCHNIPKE,REPRESENTING APPLICANT,PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff,Sign Variance No.1-2024,Volta Charging,LLC,Meeting Date: January 17,2024 "Project Location: 1137 State Route 9 Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to install S charging stations each with a dual sided digital sign display. The signs are to be 23.3 sq. ft. with multi-changing digital advertising sign on each side.The parking area to be used is associated with the Great Escape Theme Park and near to the bridge. The plans indicate there is to be a loss of three parking spaces due to a specific striping/paint scheme for the charging spaces. Relief is requested for number of signs and digital-changing signs. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for number of signs and digital-changing signs. The property is 26.04 ac and is in the Commercial Intensive Zone—CI. Section 140 Signs The proposed signs are considered freestanding where only one sign would be permitted. Relief is also requested for the type of sign where each side would be digital with advertisement. There is not a primary sign on the site as it is used for parking patrons of the Great Escape park and lodge. 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 available to have non- digital charging stations units. 3. Whether the requested sign variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered substantial relevant to the code. Relief is requested S vehicle charging stations to have digital signs on each side. 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 plans show the location of the electric car charging stations to be at the front of the lot near the area of the bridge access area. The digital signs are also provided showing the panels that allow advertising to be 23.3 sf." MS. MOTEL-Good evening, Chairman, members of the Zoning Board of Appeals. I'm Kristen Motel, partner with the law firm of Cuddy&Feder on behalf of Volta Charging which is a corporation owned by Shell. With me tonight is Richard Schnipke from Volta and Dina Postalurus from Kimley-Horn, the project engineers here. Before we go any further,and I will give a brief overview,Richard's asked to address the Board to tell you a little bit about the charging. So, Richard,if you don't mind. MR. SCHNIPKE-Greetings,everybody. Like she said,my name's Richard Schnipke. I am an employee of Volta Charging. I'm Employment Manager for Construction on this project, and again, Volta's been in service and operation for over 11 years and most recently,in the last six months to a year,Shell Oil has taken an interest and has purchased our company. So we have strong backing and we are also the first industry to be backed by oil. So, again, Shell believes in us. So we do have some financial equity into this, to continue with this type of service,and again,one of the situations out there,there's chargers out there that may not be working all the time,but again,the way Volta is set up,we have a subsidized model where we 10 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/17/2024) have advertising that goes out and that's what the media is used for is to help subsidize the use of the system. So that also pays for the system to be put in place and that system is also being used to go ahead and deliver the rate that is very affordable compared to other networks. Again,we have a Tesla network that's pretty much for Tesla cars. The Volta model works for all types of cars. We can charge all types of cars on this unit. MRS. MOTEL-So as you're aware, Volta is seeking the Sign Variances to permit the EV chargers within the Six Flags parking lot. They're hybrid,co-dependent displays that are built into the charging stations themselves. It's just the way the units are manufactured,and as a publicly traded company,Volta partners with a lot of large retailers, amusement parks,to install these kind of chargers. They're looking for places for customers or patrons are spending long periods of time. So amusement parks. They also partner with Stop N Shop, or shopping malls, that sort of thing, and in order to do that, as Richard mentioned, they defray the cost of charging through advertising and since the zoning regulations don't necessarily address this sort of infrastructure, the EV infrastructure, we're requesting variances to accommodate it. The displays themselves, they do not produce any sound. They're only static images, there's no video, no moving,so kind of like gas pump t.v.,only they're quiet and they're silent displays. We have them further south where I live. There's a Stop N Shop that has them in the parking lot. You could really barely notice them. They're,the displays are so subtle and they're auto adjusting,too. So they're adjusting to ambient light,not just like this garish,glaring screen. They're also not intended for any off-site visibility. So they're a little bit different than your typical sign. They're really only intended to be viewed locally in the immediate area, and Volta. MR.SCHNIPKE-Recently I just took up a project in New York also down the road from here. Darian Lake has a project that was completed in the last few months. It's a similar type of model as this. MS. MOTEL-So here the 11 parking spaces are going to be converted to a Level Two charging station,and that's to accommodate the equipment and the chargers themselves,and as noted,the variances are required to permit the illuminated, digital advertising content and also the number of signs themselves and when viewing this in the context of the overall area, there's, as everyone's aware, this is a very isolated parking lot in the sense that there's the indoor water park and Six Flags across the street There's a billboard across the street that's illuminated. These are going to be set back a significant distance from the roadway,47 to 52 feet. There is existing landscaping there now,trees and fencing. So these aren't going to be right along the road by any means. The impact, we would submit, is pretty minimal, especially you're talking no sound. Static images. They have an eight second refresh rate. So if you kind of think in your head,count to eight,and then the image changes. It's a significant amount of time. We would submit that they're not substantial. While the variances themselves may be, the impact, with the totality of the circumstances here, is not substantial. There's also, instead of negative environmental impacts, there'll be positive environmental impacts. The whole purpose here is to encourage EV adoption and also to accommodate any tourists or customers to the Six Flags that are already driving electric vehicles that has some place to charge, and Dina,if you want to just run through the C 101 Site Plan so that everyone can get a better feel for where these are being proposed. DINA POSTALARUS MR. POSTALARUS-My name is Dina Postalarus. I'm here with Kimley-Horn Associates. We're the engineering firm for the project. If you could actually go to the sheet right before that,to give a little bit better perspective. We're heading in the northeast section of the site,in a parking lot that abuts Route 9 on the east side, and so we're in that sort of northeast section of the site there. On the right side. On the east side we abut Route 9. Towards the north and where the charging stations are installed,it's a small sloped grass area where we're installing some charging stations as well,which kind of separates that front lot. On to the next page. So like Kristen said, we're installing eight electric vehicle charging stations. We are taking up It parking stalls to install those eight vehicle charging stations. So it is a loss of three stalls,and the reason for that is to accommodate the electrical equipment that you need in order to actually have the chargers be able to reach the vehicles and charge them from an adequate distance with the cord range. If any of you are familiar with electric vehicle charges, sometimes the cord on those chargers is a big,is the hot topic with EV drivers,not having the cord reach far enough,having the cord get tangled up, where the cord gets placed when the charger is not in use is kind of a big deal for EV drivers, and in order to sort of ameliorate that issue, we place these charging stations within those stalls there to allow for a seamless customer experience. So just kind of moving from left to right on the site plan here,like I said, that small grass strip towards the top of the page there, that's a little bit of a sloped area. That concrete section that you see there in the middle is actually a stairway which allows pedestrians to travel between the parking lot itself and the parking lot to the north. It's similar to accommodate like I was talking about the reach range of those cords. We place those charging stations with like a modular block wall,just about four feet high. It's not,you know, a structural retaining wall of any kind. It's just designed to sort of retain that small amount of soil so the charging station can sit on a flat piece of land and we don't have, you know, erosion or anything like that, in the foundations and the housekeeping pads would sit there appropriately. So moving down towards the right side, like I had mentioned, we have another four charging stations over there. The one towards the top side of the screen is actually placed in an existing landscaped area that accommodates the adjacent stall and the consecutive next three charging stations 11 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/17/2024) there that service the adjacent stalls,the ones that are taking up those three stalls. The sizing for the stalls will be to match existing. The only striping that we do is to place the EV charging striping and the signage that's placed is just to denote that the parking stalls are therefor EV charging. I will also mention that the parking stalls are not designated for EV only. These are charging stations to accommodate visitors and guests at the Six Flags site, and so we do not enforce the use of the parking stalls specifically for EV. They're for anybody. It can be compared to,you know, like a grocery pickup type of stall where they're not designated specifically for EV drivers to charge. We're not enforcing or policing that,but they're there for the guests to use. In terms of the power,just to go through that real quick. We are pulling power and re-service from what the utility poles,the right of way. It will be a pole-mounted utility transformer and underground power to a specific electrical equipment area you can see there in the gray box outlined in red and from there we'll have panels that will push the power to all the charging stations. Volta actually has a pretty unique way to run power conduit to all their charging stations. They use a horizontal directional drilling. This is actually a trenchless technology. Some of you might be familiar with that. There's no tearing up of the asphalt pavement. There's no barricading off. There's no destruction,really, to the nature of how this parking lot operates. The construction's fairly quick. I've seen some of these sites in and out in a week's time,sometimes quicker. Of course depending on procurement of the charging stations it's quick. It's a very non-invasive construction technology and I think that pretty much sums it up in terms of the proposed equipment. I'll just reiterate a little bit about the setbacks. On Route 9,the closest station that we have there,it's about 49 feet away from the property line along Route 9, a little bit further there,it's probably 103 feet from the actual center of the nearest drive aisle, travel lane there, and on the other side we don't have really much exposure to a travel lane. They are about 17 feet from that actual,that property line there that separates those two parking lots. MRS. MOORE-I'd like to ask a question. You mentioned that there's a retaining wall system, not very much,but is that detail included in one of the pages? MR. POSTALARUS-There is typical detail included. I don't want to call it a retaining wall, because I know that terminology typically has a structural designation to it. It is not a structural retaining wall. It's just a simple concrete block knee wall I can call it that just allows that soil to be kept at bay from where the charging station is so we can install that in an area that's appropriate to house the size. MRS. MOORE-I just wanted to make sure that that detail's included in the plan set. MR.POSTALARUS-It is. MRS. MOORE-Okay. I just wasn't sure. I didn't want to go flipping if you knew where it was. MR.POSTALARUS-I do. Here,let me do this. It's Detail Number 31 on Sheet C-3 of 3. MRS. MOORE-All right. Thank you. MS. MOTEL-I think that wraps it up. The only other piece of information. MR. SCHNIPKE-Again,there's service,here's incentives to do this and National Grid has an incentive to do this because they want to go ahead and help charging statewide so they have an interest in this, too. That would be something we would be able to utilize and pass on to the end user. MS. MOTEL-So National Grid has an interest in this site,the Six Flags site. MR. SCHNIPKE-Yes. MR. MC CABE-All set? MS. MOTEL-We're all set. We'd be happy to answer any questions. MR. HENKEL-I've got a question. The location of it,you'd think it would be in a better location to be used year round. It looks like in that parking lot,you know, I go by there all the time,that parking lot is not being utilized during the winter months. So why isn't it closer to where they're going to be turning in to Johnny Rocket's? MR. POSTALARUS-Well, we have some software. We do our modeling and all that, and again, during the peak season when the Park is open,this is something that we want to go ahead and utilize because we believe there's an interest to do that and it's feasible in our modeling to make it work. MR.HENKEL-Well,why wouldn't you want to make money year round? MS. MOTEL-I think it's also in their lease agreement that was negotiated with Six Flags. So this isn't just where Volta prefers to put it. It's also where Six Flags prefers to put it. 12 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/17/2024) MR. SCHNIPKE-Correct. Six Flags,yes. MR. HENKEL-Obviously you've been getting probably kickbacks from the State of New York, Federal government, and also NiMo. They don't have a requirement? You would think that the Federal government and State would have a requirement that it has to be a place where people use it year round. MR. SCHNIPKE=That might be,but what we're looking at is not part of that. MR.HENKEL-So you're not getting any kickbacks other than NiMo? MR. SCHNIPKE-I can't say that,don't know at this time. MR.HENKEL-Also this looks like a charging unit that takes one hour or 30 miles to charge. MR.POSTALARUS-It's a Level 2 system,correct. MR.HENKEL-Okay. MR. MC CABE-Other questions? MS. MOTEL-The Level Two is the reason that it's at the Six Flags and not like at a Walgreens or, you know, a gas station,because people are going to be spending extended times here. So the average stay can accommodate that. MR.HENKEL-Okay, and there's no regulations on that? About quick charges? MS. MOTEL-There's no requirements. MR. SCHNIPKE-Again,like she said,the customers are probably going to be there for four plus hours. MR.HENKEL-Right,I realize that. MR.POSTALARUS-Also there's charging stations up at the Warren County Municipal Center. MR.KEENAN-Who controls the content of the signage? MR. SCHNIPKE-It's negotiated with the site partner and us, and local jurisdictions. So again it's something that follows code. MS. MOTEL-And Volta also, I can tell you from representing them for several years now, they're advertising partners are pretty benign in the sense that you're talking like electric vehicles,perfume ads, Amazon, Target. They're mostly food and good space. There are no, like political advertisements, no alcohol. MR. URRICO-So you're depending on Six Flags to promote where it's located,because I would imagine cars using EV have to know in advance where those are located. It's not something that's easily gotten to. It's a preferred side of the parking lot,and it's not accessible from the other side at all. So somebody using EV and wanting to access that would have to know in advance where that's located. MR.HENKEL-Don't they have that already hooked up to your car? The car will tell you where it is. MR. SCHNIPKE-That's a very good question. The Volta app itself,it tells you exactly where the chargers are and the people that are having these vehicles are pretty tech savvy. They look on their trips when they're going. When they're going on their trips they plan it out. So, again,they know where it's at. MR. URRICO-Okay. MRS. PALACINO-Will the visuals be on both sides of the pump if you will? MS. MOTEL-Yes. That's correct. MRS. MOORE-Are they timed so they turn off at the end of the night or do they run 24/7? MS. MOTEL-So right now they're slated to be available 24/7,but they do auto-dim,so at night the screen dims, and that's something that,you know, if the Board has any sort of guidance or preference, in other jurisdictions we've been able to accommodate requests. For example,like a few hours after closing, a few hours before it opens the stations become available. 13 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/17/2024) MR. SCHNIPKE-Yes, and they dim like 750/o of what they are. So it's like your cellphone. If it's bright out it's brighter and at night it dims. So, again it produces at least 750/o. That's how we've got it set up initially. MR. URRICO-Is it going to be available year round? MR. SCHNIPKE-Yes. MR. URRICO-So when the Park's closed it's still going to be available? MR. SCHNIPKE-Yes. MR.MC CABE-Other questions? So a public hearing has been advertised. So I'm going to open the public hearing and see if there's anybody out there who would like to address us on this particular project. Is there anything in writing,Roy? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-No. So 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-Yes,I'm in favor of the project. I think we're moving to a period of time where they're going to have to be available in most places. As far as placement,I think that's up to The Great Escape and Volta and I think it's in a good location. MR. MC CABE-Bob? MR.KEENAN-I think it's a good use of the parking area. I have no problem with the project. MR. MC CABE-Dick? MR. CIPPERLY-I think it's a unique opportunity. Go for it. MR. MC CABE John? MR.HENKEL-I don't really like the location of it,but I'm on board with it. MR. MC CABE-Mary? MRS.PALACINO-I'm in favor of it. I think electric cars are where we're going. MR. MC CABE-And I, too, support the project. Certainly additional charging stations are in need. So first we have to do SEQR here. So could I have a motion,John. MOTION REGARDING SIGN VARIANCE NO.1-2024.APPLICANT NAME:VOLTA CHARGING LLC 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 Richard Cipperly: Duly adopted this 17th Day of January 2024,by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Cipperly,Mrs.Palacino, Mr. Urrico,Mr.Keenan,Mr. Henkel,Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl,Mr. Underwood MR. MC CABE-And so,Bob,I wonder if you could grab this motion for the sign. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Volta Charging LLC. Applicant proposes to install S charging stations each with a dual sided digital sign display. The signs are to be 23.3 sq.ft.with multi-changing digital advertising sign on each side. The parking area to be used is associated with the Great Escape Theme Park and near to the bridge. The plans indicate there is to 14 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/17/2024) be a loss of three parking spaces due to a specific striping/paint scheme for the charging spaces. Relief is requested for number of signs and digital-changing signs. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for number of signs and digital-changing signs. The property is 26.04 ac and is in the Commercial Intensive Zone—CI. Section 140 Signs The proposed signs are considered freestanding where only one sign would be permitted. Relief is also requested for the type of sign where each side would be digital with advertisement. There is not a primary sign on the site as it is used for parking patrons of the Great Escape park and lodge. SEQR Type:Unlisted [Resolution/Action Required for SEQR] Motion regarding Sign Variance No. 1-2024. Applicant Name: Volta Charging LLC 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 Richard Cipperly: Duly adopted this 17h Day of January 2024,by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Cipperly,Mrs.Palacino, Mr. Urrico,Mr.Keenan,Mr. Henkel,Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl,Mr. Underwood A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday,January 17,2024. 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 is not an undesirable change to 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? No,I think the signs are necessary for the business of Volta. 3. Is the requested sign variance substantial? While it may be considered substantial, we find it represents a good application for the project. 4. Will the proposed sign variance have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district? We find that it will not have an adverse impact. 5. Is the alleged difficulty self-created? Yes,if you consider the fact that it's self-created by Volta itself, but not an issue. 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: Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution. (ZBA Board Member does Dot Deed to read the followingA through F): 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; 15 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/17/2024) 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. BASED ON THE ABOVE FINDINGS I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE SIGN VARIANCE 1-2024 VOLTA CHARGING,LLC,Introduced by Robert Keenan,who moved for its adoption,seconded by John Henkel: Duly adopted this 17h Day of January 2024,by the following vote: AYES: Mr.Keenan,Mr. Cipperly,Mrs.Palacino,Mr. Urrico,Mr.Henkel,Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl,Mr. Underwood MR. MC CABE-Congratulations,you have a project. MS. MOTEL-Thank you very much. MR. SCHNIPKE-Thankyou. MR. MC CABE-So our next application is AV 1-2024, Liberty Restaurants Development, 717-721 Glen Street. AREA VARIANCE NO. 1-2024 SEQRA TYPE 11 LIBERTY RESTAURANTS DEVELOPMENT AGENT(S) BRETT L. STEENBURGH PE OWNER(S) PARKER HAMMOND DEVELOPMENT ZONING: Cl. LOCATION: 717-721 GLEN ST. APPLICANT PROPOSES DEMOLITION OF ALL BUILDINGS 4,260 SQ. FT. OVER THREE PARCELS TO CONSTRUCT A NEW 1,993 SQ. FT. POPEYE'S FAST FOOD RESTAURANT WITH ASSOCIATED SITE WORK FOR STORMWATER, LIGHTING, LANDSCAPING, AND ON-SITE VEHICLE PARKING, AND DRIVE-THRU AISLES. SITE PLAN FOR NEW FOOD SERVICE USE IN THE Cl ZONE AND FRESHWATER WETLANDS PERMIT FOR WORK WITHIN 100 FT.OF A DESIGNATED WETLAND. RELIEF IS REQUESTED FOR SETBACKS. CROSS REF SP 1-2024; FWW 1-2024 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING JANUARY 2024 LOT SIZE 093 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 302.6-1-12,13 &z 14 SECTION 179-3- 040 BRETT STEENBURGH, REPRESENTING APPLICANT,PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff,Area Variance No. 1-2024,Liberty Restaurants Development,Meeting Date: January 17, 2024 "Project Location: 717-721 Glen St. Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes demolition of all buildings 4,260 sq.ft.over three parcels to construct a new 1,993 sq.ft.Popeye's Fast Food restaurant with associated site work for stormwater,lighting,landscaping,and on-site vehicle parking and drive thru aisles.Site plan for new food service use in the CI zone and freshwater wetlands permit for work within 100 ft.of a designated wetland. Relief is requested for setbacks. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for setbacks. The project location consists of three properties located at 717- 721 Glen Street with a total size of 0.93 ac in the Commercial Intensive zone Section 179-3-040&Chapter 94 Wetlands The proposed building is to be located 41 ft. to the edge of the wetland where a 75 ft. setback is required. The front canopy is to be located 72 ft.from the front setback where a 75 ft. setback is required. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 16 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/17/2024) 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 construction of a new fast food restaurant would be consistent with nearby fast food restaurants. 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 reduce the building size or canopy size to minimize the variance being requested. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief maybe considered moderate relevant to the code. Relief is requested 34 ft.from the building to the wetlands. The front canopy relief would be 3 ft. 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 includes wetland disturbance of 0.017 ac and subject to review with the Army Corp. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The project as proposed may be considered self- created. Staff comments: The new building is to be 1,993 sq.ft. and the building will have canopies at the drive-thru and door entry. The canopies are shown to be 3 ft. in depth as such they are part of the structure needing to meet the setback requirements. Signage-The signage plan as proposed on the elevations and rendition will require sign variances. Ten wall signs are proposed where no overall square footage is provided for each sign. Missing information for the free-standing sign should be provided. The rendering freestanding chicken in a vertical position and the street sign would also be part of the sign variance required." MR. URRICO-And then the Planning Board,based on its limited review, did not identify any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with the current project proposal,and that motion was adopted January 16`h by a unanimous vote. MR. STEENBURGH-Good evening. My name's Brett Steenburgh. I'm the engineer for the applicant, Liberty Restaurants Development and their proposal for a Popeye's Restaurant. A couple of things. We actually went through some of the numbers with regard to the front canopy setback over the past few weeks and I think probably this was drafted before we actually made some slight modifications. I was under the impression,and I was wrong,that you were permitted 1S inches of overhang in the Code. Which I think you're permitted an 1S inch overhang if that's all it is is an 1S inch overhang. So what I did was I actually was able to tighten up some of the area behind the building here. I moved the building back 1S inches. So instead of 72 inches from the front setback, it's 73.5 feet from the front, with an 1S inch protrusion into that front overhang area. We didn't want to move the building back any further because we do have a wetland, U.S. Army Corps wetland jurisdictional, located in the rear of the property here which is a result of everybody's parking lot, everybody's drainage coming down to a low area where it basically spills out the side, goes into a culvert and into the New York State DOT Right of Way. It's a very low quality wetland that's mostly fragmite's,cattails,not,typically the high quality wetlands would be your forested wetlands or some of your scrub shrub wetlands. This is really just a low area and drainage, but one of the things that we've done, since we've started this project, which was some time ago, we actually had a 24 seat restaurant proposed on this site, and do you have that plan,Laura,that I sent you? MRS. MOORE-The other? No,I do not. MR.STEENBURGH-Okay,and actually it's considerably longer than this building,and actually protruded quite a bit into the wetland area. We were still under the Army Corps Nationwide permit,under a tenth of an acre, but we felt, you know, in keeping with trying, and the shoreline setbacks and the variances required,we wanted to reduce it. So this building is actually a 12 seat building,half as many seats in the restaurant. Same double drive thru,but we were able to reduce that wetland to almost minimal,.017 acres. You can see the wetland boundary kind of zigzags through where the rear of the parking lot is here. We do have North Country Ecological Services working on the wetland permit application for that impact in the Nationwide permit,but this site wasn't without its challenges. Evidently there was,a number of years ago, there's an existing pipe which actually goes through a retaining wall right along the side of the property here. Actually the retaining wall is off the property on the neighboring property. It goes right along the foundation of the multi-family residential house there and then goes into the State system. It 17 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/17/2024) wasn't quite a year ago we met with New York State DOT out there because that pipe, given the configuration that it's in and it's made of various types of materials,it actually collapsed, clogged up and there's a drainage from the neighboring commercial property to the northwest as well as drainage from the apartments to the southwest all comes into that area and evidently it flooded Glen Street and it and DOT was very concerned about that. So we met with DOT to try to come up with a solution that would be best for them. So one of the items that we're proposing is actually removing that whole portion of the culvert. We're trying to work with the neighbor,but weren't able to,to try to get some grading easement on their property. So we have to install a retaining wall along the property here in order to do this,but what it's allowing is an open channel right to a New York State DOT standardized end section that will have the trash grade on it and can easily be seen. So there won't be that instance of,you know,we don't know that this clogged up and all of a sudden things are flooding and Glen Street's icing. There will be a small stormwater attenuation basin located here, which will take all of the stormwater from the proposed development into a,some of the things that really don't apply to the variance,you know,we'll be cleaning up the curb cuts. It's one big gigantic curb cut out there,to better channelize traffic out onto Glen Street. Overall the impression from the Planning Board last evening, they liked the project. We'll be looking at some traffic issues,but they actually liked leaving,I offered up,do you want us to move the building back another 1S inches and get that canopy behind the 75 foot setback line and impact a little bit more wetlands and move it a little bit closer to the wetland boundary,or do you want to leave it like it is and have it, and their opinion generally across the Board was they liked it the way it is. They felt the building looked good, and having that 1S inch protrusion of the canopy into the 75 foot front yard setback was actually preferable over moving the building back towards the property,but,you know, the important thing to know is we actually already did try to scale this project back to try to minimize these variances from a 24 seat to a 12 seat restaurant,and,you know,out of respect to the Town and the Town's Codes. MRS. MOORE-So just to clarify,that setback to the canopy is 73 and a half? MR. STEENBURGH-73.5 feet. MRS. MOORE-Versus 72. So that would be a change on the Staff Notes would be the 73.5,not 72. MR. STEENBURGH-Correct. MRS. MOORE-And the only swap here is the trash container is flipped now to the other side. MR. STEENBURGH-Right,yes,we moved the trash container to the other side of the site. MRS. PALACINO-You moved it where? MR. STEENBURGH-At the previous design with the larger building,the trash receptacle was on the side of the building, it was a little bit narrower but longer. We ended up moving the trash enclosure to the side, and Popeye's,they do a very nice trash enclosure. It matches the building,the building facade, as a pedestrian access. When they come out to remove the trash,they don't have to open the gates. They can just go in the side,and the only time the gates are open is when the truck comes to empty the trash facility. MR. MC CABE-So do we have questions of the applicant? MR.HENKEL Just like all these projects,lack of parking. How many employees are you going to have in there working? I mean, I know it's only 12 seats,but,boy,you only have IS spots. I hope that everybody takes the bus. MR. STEENBURGH-Yes,it's typically about eight employees in the max shift. The rule of thumb I tend to like to go with with these,we actually are exceeding the Town's requirement for parking spaces, and I think the Town Code is. MR.HENKEL-Required eight. MR.STEENBURGH-One for four seats,plus five employees,so eight spaces. We're actually providing IS. I typically like to think of one space per three seats plus the number of employees, you know, four plus eight,that's twelve,but we've got a few more on here. MR. MC CABE-There's no variance required for parking,right? MRS. MOORE-Correct. MR. MC CABE-Other questions? MRS.PALACINO-So you're here for a variance for the setbacks,but you're not here to address the issue of signage? 1S (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/17/2024) MR. STEENBURGH-That is correct. We'll be coming back once we have the full sign package from the manufacturer of the signage. So we can get you the accurate information,you know,with the exact square footage of the signage and then we can talk about what signs you like,what signs you don't like, and,you know,hopefully come to some resolution there. MR. MC CABE-Other questions? 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 who would like to address us on this particular project. Do we have anything written,Roy? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-No written comment. MRS. MOORE-You have somebody in the back. CHARLIE RUDNICK MR. RUDNICK-I'm Charlie Rudnick, the owner of Queensbury Gardens Apartments, the small parcel next door, and our concern is just,you know,we don't want to impact the wetlands. So I've been talking to Environmental Partners and they suggested we flag the lot. So we're in support of the project. We just don't want to impact the wetlands on our property in any way because it is,if you're familiar with the area, you know,it's kind of tight in there. So we're just going to flag it. So if you see flags,that's our intention, just so we don't have any liability because we don't want to get in trouble with the Army Corps. MR. MC CABE-Sure. MR. RUDNICK-Thank you so much. MR. MC CABE-Sure. So nothing written,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-I'm going to poll the Board, and I'm going to start with John. MR.HENKEL-Yes,I see where has a parking with the way the diagonal parking is,people backing up with the traffic coming in,it's tough. I'm for the project,but I wish they'd take more consideration in the future with these smaller lots with these drive thrus and the parking arrangements,but I'm on board as is. MR. MC CABE-Mary? MRS. PALACINO-Yes, I'm in favor of it, too. I think the fact that you listened to the concerns of the community with regard to the size of the restaurant and,you know,I'd be in favor. MR. MC CABE-Roy? MR.URRICO-Yes,I'm in favor of the project. I think a lot of the residual problems date back to when the Northway was built and some of the stores were moved,some of those houses were moved to that location. So I would be in favor of this. I think it will be an improvement to that area. MR. MC CABE-Bob? MR. KEENAN-I actually think it'll kind of clean up the area a little bit,even if it is a fast food restaurant. So I guess I'm in favor of the project. MR. MC CABE-Dick? MR. CIPPERLY-I'm in favor of the setbacks that the applicant requested. MR.MC CABE-So I do support the project. The setbacks that we're asked to approve here are really quite minimal compared to some of the other projects that we've dealt with. So I guess, Mary, I wonder if you could configure us a motion here. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Liberty Restaurants Development. Applicant proposes demolition of all buildings 4,260 sq.ft.over three parcels to construct a new 1,993 sq. ft. Popeye's Fast Food restaurant with associated site work for stormwater, 19 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/17/2024) lighting,landscaping, and on-site vehicle parking and drive thru aisles. Site plan for new food service use in the CI zone and freshwater wetlands permit for work within 100 ft. of a designated wetland. Relief is requested for setbacks. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for setbacks. The project location consists of three properties located at 717- 721 Glen Street with a total size of 0.93 ac in the Commercial Intensive zone Section 179-3-040&Chapter 94 Wetlands The proposed building is to be located 41 ft. to the edge of the wetland where a 75 ft. setback is required. The front canopy is to be located 7-2 (73.5)ft.from the front setback where a 75 ft. setback is required. SEQR Type II—no further review required, A public hearing was advertised and held on January 17,2024. 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 because you're working with other property holders and looking to clean up an area that is in disrepair right now. 2. Feasible alternatives have been considered by the Board, and it's been determined that no other feasible alternatives are possible. 3. The requested variance is not substantial. Again, working with the Army Corps to respect the wetland area. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. 5. The alleged difficulty may be considered self-created but given the current site of the project it's the best option available. 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.1- 2024 LIBERTY RESTAURANTS DEVELOPMENT, Introduced by Mary Palacino, who moved for its adoption,seconded by Roy Urrico: Duly adopted this 17h Day of January 2024 by the following vote: MRS. MOORE-I'm just going to ask you to amend or clarify that under Relief Required that there was a change from 72 feet to 73.5. So just add that as an amendment. MR. MC CABE-So what she said. MR. URRICO-That was the overhang that we were talking about. AYES: Mr. Henkel,Mr. Keenan,Mrs.Palacino,Mr. Cipperly,Mr. Urrico,Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl,Mr. Underwood MR. MC CABE-Congratulations,you have a project. MR. STEENBURGH-Thank you very much. I appreciate it. 20 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/17/2024) MR. MC CABE-So our next application is AV 2-2024,Georgianna Bodnar,7S Bay Parkway. AREA VARIANCE NO. 2-2024 SEQRA TYPE TYPE II GEORGIANNA BODNAR AGENT(S) HUTCHINS ENGINEERING PLLC OWNER(S) GEORGIANNA BODNAR ZONING WR LOCATION 78 BAY PARKWAY APPLICANT PROPOSES TO DEMO AN EXISTING 3-SEASON PORCH TO BE REPLACED WITH A 315 SQ. FT. MASTER BEDROOM ON THE FIRST FLOOR. THE BASEMENT AREA WILL ALSO BE ENLARGED BY 315 SQ. FT. THE EXISTING PORCH WILL BE DEMOLISHED TO CONSTRUCT A MUDROOM AND CRAWL SPACE OF 62 SQ. FT. THE MUDROOM AREA WILL HAVE A NEW DECK AREA OF 216 SQ. FT. THERE ARE NO CHANGES TO THE SECOND FLOOR PROPOSED. SITE PLAN FOR NEW FLOOR AREA IN A CEA AND HARD SURFACING WITHIN 50 FT. OF SHORELINE. RELIEF IS REQUESTED FOR HEIGHT AND SHORELINE SETBACKS. CROSS REF SP 2-2024 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING JANUARY 2024 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY ALD LOT SIZE 0.43 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 226.15-1-22 SECTION 179-3-040 LUCAS DOBIE,REPRESENTING APPLICANT,PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff,Area Variance No.2-2024,Georgianna Bodnar,Meeting Date: January 17,2024 "Project Location: 7S Bay Parkway Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to demo existing 3- season porch to be replaced with a 315 sq.ft.master bedroom on the first floor.The basement area will also be enlarged by 315 sq. ft. The existing porch will be demolished to construct a mudroom and crawl space of 62 sq. ft. The mudroom area will have a new deck area of 216 sq. ft. There are no changes to the second floor proposed. Site plan for new floor area in a CEA and hard surfacing within 50 ft.of shoreline. Relief is requested for shoreline setbacks. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for height and shoreline setbacks. The project site is located at 7S Bay Parkway on a 0.43 ac parcel in the waterfront residential zone. Section 179-3-040 The master bedroom addition is to be 45.5 ft. from the shoreline where 50 ft. is required.A deck addition is to be 44.7 ft. where 50 ft. setback is required. No height requested as it is an existing height and not changing the second floor. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination,the board shall consider: 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. Minor to no impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method,feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. Feasible alternatives may be limited as the additions are to an existing home where the home is currently not compliant. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered moderate relevant to the code as the additions are on either side of the home. 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 to no adverse effects or impact on the physical or environmental conditions of the neighborhood. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-created. Staff comments: The site has an existing home that is to remain with the proposed alterations. The existing garage is to remain with no changes. The existing home is 995 sf footprint with S95 sf porch/deck area. The addition to the home includes IS5 sf to the building footprint. The floor area is increased 435 sf, this includes the additional basement space,mudroom,and master bedroom suite addition." MR. URRICO-And then Planning Board, based on its limited review, did not identify any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with the current project proposal, and that was passed by a unanimous vote on January 16`h,2024. 21 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/17/2024) MR. DOBIE-Good evening, Board. Thank you for having us. For the record, Lucas Dobie,professional engineer with Hutchins Engineering. Our client is Miss Georgianna Bodner at 7S Bay Parkway which is up towards the northeast corner of Assembly Point,Harris Bay, and they've owned the property since the late 1970's they built their home, and the home is non-conforming in its location, approximately 30 feet from the shoreline to the deck, and then 36 for the main body of the house. So the expansion is a variance item is my understanding, and then the project entails taking off the existing 12 by 16 three-season porch to the northerly side of the house,demo that which is on piers,put a foundation in and a first floor addition of 15 by 21 for a master bedroom suite so she can have everything on the first floor. Her bedroom's upstairs now and it's not as functional. Just going to renovate the home,got a great contractor lined up and great site guys, and we're going to freshen up the site. So it's a lot of Planning Board items. Are variance is for deficient shoreline setback for the addition. Right now at the northeast corner of the house is a big,stone chimney, and so we're holding the same plane towards the lake as the existing porch is. We're just extending it out a little more and then it extends towards the roadside,but that addition,the master suite, is 45.5 feet from the shoreline. So it's 1S inches within the 50 foot lake setback, and then we have a little deck addition to get a landing for the new stairs that will be 44.7 feet from the shore. So it's really a minimal request we feel. The addition,there's only 12 square feet of that,I checked it again today,12 square feet within the 50 foot setback, and the deck addition is 1S square feet within that setback. So we really believe it's a minimal request. We're zoning compliant for our other site features and we had a discussion with the Planning Board last night. They asked us to look at planting two more trees,which our client is agreeable to doing that and we're going to freshen up the site with shoreline plantings, stormwater management,and a new compliant septic system. We're here to ask for your approvals tonight so we can hopefully go back to the Planning Board next week and get this wrapped up for her because it's her goal to start construction in the spring. So I'd be happy to answer any questions,and thank you for having us. MR. MC CABE-Do we have questions of the applicant. 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 who would like to address us on this particular project. Okay. Anything written, Roy? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-Nothing written. MR. MC CABE-So I'm going to close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MC CABE-And I'm going to poll the Board, and I'll start with Mary. MRS. PALACINO-I have no difficulty with this application. I look at this and I see something similar to what I had considered doing atone point. I think it's a good project. I have no objection. MR. MC CABE-Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes,I'm in favor of the project as proposed. MR. MC CABE-Bob? MR.KEENAN-Yes,this is very minimal. I think it's a good project. MR. MC CABE-Dick MR. CIPPERLY-I think we're going to get some site improvements and it's a good tradeoff. MR. MC CABE John? MR.HENKEL-Yes,definitely they're asking for very minimal and they are giving us better on permeability and like Dick was saying,definitely good improvements. MR. MC CABE-And I, too, support the project. It's seldom that we're asked to approve such a small setback amount. So we appreciate that. So, at this particular time,I'm going to ask Dick if he's fashion us up a motion. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Georgianna Bodnar. Applicant proposes to demo existing 3-season porch to be replaced with a 315 sq. ft. master bedroom on the first floor. The basement area will also be enlarged by 315 sq.ft.The existing porch will be demolished to construct a mudroom and crawl space of 62 sq.ft. The mudroom area will have a new deck area of 216 sq. ft. There are no changes to the second floor proposed. Site plan for new floor area in a CEA and hard surfacing within 50 ft. of shoreline. Relief is requested for height and shoreline setbacks. 22 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/17/2024) Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for height and shoreline setbacks. The project site is located at 7S Bay Parkway on a 0.43 ac parcel in the waterfront residential zone. Section 179-3-040 The master bedroom addition is to be 45.5 ft. from the shoreline where 50 ft. is required.A deck addition is to be 44.7 ft. where 50 ft. setback is required. No height requested as it is an existing height and not changing the second floor. SEQR Type II—no further review required, A public hearing was advertised and held on January 17,2024. 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. This is a very minimal change to the whole site and the lot. 2. Feasible alternatives have been considered by the Board. This is what the owner wants, and I don't think it's substantial. 3. The requested variance is not substantial. It's such a minimal alteration to the footprint of the building. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. 5. The alleged difficulty actually is self-created. They want to put the addition on the house. That's fine. 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. 2-2024 GEORGIANNA BODNER, Introduced by Richard Cipperly, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Michael McCabe: Duly adopted this 17h Day of January 2024 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Henkel,Mr. Cipperly,Mrs.Palacino,Mr. Keenan,Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl,Mr. Underwood MR. MC CABE-Congratulations,you have a project. MR. DOBIE-Thank you so much. I appreciate your time. MR. MC CABE-So I'll make a motion that we close tonight's meeting. (AREA VARIANCE NO. 3-2024 DAVID HOWARD,JR.) BRIAN BORIE MR.BORIE-Can I ask a question? MR. MC CABE-Sure. 23 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/17/2024) MR. BORIE-First off, I'm Brian Boric from McPhillips, Fitzgerald & Cullum. I'm here with two quick comments, questions. One I thank Karen and Laura for fielding all the emails and calls from my neighborhood in connection to the Dave Howard application which has been tabled until March. MR. MC CABE-Okay,yes, so I apologize. What I need to do here is I need to open the public hearing, because the public hearing was advertised on this particular project. So let me do that. Let me open the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. MC CABE-So now just repeat your name. MR. BORIE-Of course. Brian Boric from the law firm of McPhillips, Fitzgerald&Cullum, and this is in relation to AV 3-2024, Dave Howard. Simply a question. Has there been a recommendation from the Planning Board last night to this Board in relation to this project? MRS. MOORE-There was. MR.BORIE-And what was that recommendation? MRS. MOORE-There was no adverse impacts. I think I read that information earlier. MR.BORIE-Okay. All right. Thank you. I wasn't sure. I just wanted to confirm that. MR. MC CABE-Sure. MR.BORIE-That's it. So I'll see you back on March 20`h (AREA VARIANCE NO.4-2024 JAY&z KIM OGDEN) MR. MC CABE-Okay. So this public hearing will remain open,and also I have to open the public hearing for Ogden, and so I'll open the public hearing for AV 4-2024. Is there anybody here who'd like to address us on that particular project? Seeing nobody. So we'll leave that public hearing open also. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. MC CABE-I knew I'd forget something. So now I can close the meeting. MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING OF JANUARY IrH, 2024, Introduced by Michael McCabe who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Henkel: Duly adopted this 17`h day of January,2024,by the following vote: AYES: Mrs.Palacino,Mr. Keenan,Mr.Henkel,Mr. Urrico,Mr. Cipperly,Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl,Mr. Underwood On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Michael McCabe,Chairman 24