04-24-2024 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/24/2024)
QUEENSBURYZONINGBOARD OFAPPEALS
SECOND REGULAR MEETING
APRIL 24Tr;2024
INDEX
Area Variance No.23-2024 Seeley Machine Inc. (Lot 1) 1.
Tax Map No. 309.1E-1-1
Area Variance No.24-2024 Seeley Machine Inc. (Lot 2) 4.
Tax Map No. 309.1E-1-1
Area Variance No.21-2024 Jennifer Ivanov 6.
Tax Map No.297.10-1-40
Area Variance No.22-2024 Jennifer Ball 10.
Tax Map No.266.1-1-9.11
Area Variance No.25-2024 Furniture House North,LLC 12.
THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF
REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTH'S MINUTES(IF ANY)AND
WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES.
1
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/24/2024)
QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
SECOND REGULAR MEETING
APRIL 24TK,2024
7.00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
JAMES UNDERWOOD,ACTING CHAIRMAN
ROY URRICO,SECRETARY
JOHN HENKEL
RICHARD CIPPERLY
RONALD KUHL
MARY PALACINO,ALTERNATE
BRENT MC DEVITT,ALTERNATE
MEMBERS ABSENT
ROBERT KEENAN
MICHAEL MC CABE
LAND USE PLANNER-LAURA MOORE
STENOGRAPHER-KAREN DWYRE
MR. UNDERWOOD-All right. I'll call to order the April24`h, 2024 meeting of the Town of Queensbury
Zoning Board of Appeals. First we'll do a quick review of our procedures. In general,for each case I'll call
the application by name and number. The secretary will read in the pertinent parts of the application,
Staff Notes,as well as the Warren County Planning Board decision,if applicable. The applicant will then
be invited to the table to provide any information they wish to add to their application. The Board will
then ask questions of the applicant. Following that,we'll open the public hearing. The public hearing is
not a vote. It's a way to gather information about concerns, real or perceived, and it's a way to gather
information and insight in general about the issue at hand. It should function to help the Board members
make a wise, informed decision but does not make the decision for the Board members. As always we'll
have a limit on speakers, but I don't think we have that much going on here this evening. First on the
agenda this evening is Seeley Machine, and that's Lot Number One,Area Variance 23-2024.
TABLED ITEMS:
AREA VARIANCE NO. 23-2024 SEQRA TYPE TYPE 11 SEELEY MACHINE INC. (LOT 1)
AGENT(S) HUTCHINS ENGINEERING PLLC OWNER(S) SEELEY BOOM WORKS LLC
ZONING CLI LOCATION 75 BIG BOOM RD. APPLICANT PROPOSES A TWO-LOT
SUBDIVISION OF A 7.25 ACRE PARCEL. LOT 1 PARCEL IS TO BE 3.04 AC AND WILL CONTAIN
THE EXISTING 21,300 SQ.FT.BUILDING PORTION NOTED AS SEELEY MACHINE LLC;LOT 2
IS TO BE 4.21 AC PARCEL AND CONTAINS THE 15,000 SQ.FT.WAREHOUSE BUILDING WITH
AN EXISTING TENANT AND STORAGE. THE PROPOSED LOT LINE WILL SEPARATE THE
TWO BUILDINGS BETWEEN THE SHARED COVERED DOCK LOADING SPACE. THERE ARE
NO CHANGES PROPOSED TO THE SITE. SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR SITE WORK COMPLETED
IN 2019. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR SETBACKS. CROSS REF AV 24-2024; SP 18-2024; SUB 3-
2024;SUB 4-2024;SP 67-2014;SP 65-2005 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING APRIL 2024 LOT
SIZE 7.24 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 309.18-1-1 SECTION 179-3-040
TOM HUTCHINS&ED LEONARD, REPRESENTING APPLICANT,PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff,Area Variance No. 23-2024, Seeley Machine Inc. (Lott), Meeting Date: April 17, 2024
"Project Location: 75 Big Boom Rd. Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes a two-lot
subdivision of a 7.25 acre parcel. Lot 1 parcel is to be 3.04 ac and will contain the existing 21,300 sq. ft.
building portion noted as Seeley Machine LLC; Lot 2 is to be 4.21 ac parcel and contains the 15,000 sq.ft.
warehouse building with an existing tenant and storage. The proposed lot line will separate the two
buildings between the shared covered dock loading space. There are no changes proposed to the site. Site
plan review for site work completed in 2019. Relief requested for setbacks.
Relief Required:
The applicant requests relief for setbacks for a two-lot subdivision. The project site is to be on a 3.04 ac
parcel in the Commercial Light Industrial zone.
2
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/24/2024)
Section 179-3-040,Chapter 1S3
The relief requested is for a zero setback for the covered loading dock between the buildings where 30 ft.
setback is required.
Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law:
In making a determination,the board shall consider:
1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a
detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. Minor 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 appear limited due to the
location of the existing buildings.
3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered
substantial relevant to the code. The relief for the entryway boundary line to the existing covered
loading dock is 30 ft.
4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or
environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Minor impacts on the physical or
environmental conditions in the neighborhood may be anticipated.
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-created.
Staff comments:
The applicant proposes a two-lot subdivision creating lot 1 of 3.04 ac and to maintain the existing building
of 21,303 sf. There are no proposed changes to the existing site conditions, exterior storage, or parking
area. The plans show the location of the existing building and site arrangement.
Note-Project review is slightly different due to variance that is created with the proposed subdivision-
tentative review process:
1. April 16`h Seeley Machine Inc. Subdivision Planning Board Recommendation
2. April 17`h Seeley Machine Inc. Area Variances -open public hearing, hear application, tabled
application pending subdivision(the subdivision has to be completed to create the area variances)
3. April 23rd Seeley Machine Inc. Subdivision Preliminary Public hearing, SEQR&Final Stage
4. April24`h Seeley Machine Inc.Area Variances decision
5. April25`h Seeley Machine Inc. Site Plans decision"
MR.HUTCHINS-Good evening,Board. Tom Hutchins,Hutchins Engineers,with Ed Leonard,co-owner
of Seeley Machine and we went through the whole story last week with regards to, the driving force to
separate these two buildings into two separate parcels,and if you want to hear that again,I'd be glad to do
it,but keeping it brief, we're talking about Lot Number One, which would be this lot. We met with the
Planning Board last night and they approved the subdivision to create this line bisecting the entire lot into
Lot One and Lot Two. This application we're talking about Lot One which contains Seeley Machine.
They've been there for how long,Ed?
MR. LEONARD-Since 1995.
MR. HUTCHINS-Since 1995. They have 30 some odd semi permanently installed machine tools. They
employ a bunch of people and they want to stay in their building and just the logistics that we need to
separate the two buildings into two separate parcels. Ed and Scott have worked really hard to pull this
deal together with a lot of moving parts and technically we're asking for zero relief for this new line to go
through the open canopy that connects the two buildings. There will be reciprocal access and maintenance
easement for the two property owners to both have access through there and maintenance obligations of
the structure,and with that,I'd turn it over to the Board and ask for your support. Ed,do you want to add
anything?
MR. LEONARD-No,I think you covered everything.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Any questions from Board members? I think we had a pretty good explanation.
People put their thoughts out last week. Seeing none,I'll open the public hearing. Anybody in the public
wishing to speak on the matter? Any correspondence, Roy?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
3
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/24/2024)
MR. URRICO-No correspondence.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. You guys ready,I guess we'll do a vote on it,then.
MRS. DWYRE-Would you like to close the public hearing.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes,I'll close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MRS.MOO RE-Does someone want to make that resolution? So Jim's asking,does someone want to make
that resolution.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Does someone want to make the resolution?
MR.KUHL-I'll do that for you,Mr. Chairman.
The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Seeley Machine
Inc. Applicant proposes a two-lot subdivision of a 7.25 acre parcel. Lot 1 parcel is to be 3.04 ac and will
contain the existing 21,300 sq.ft.building portion noted as Seeley Machine LLC;Lot 2 is to be 4.21 ac parcel
and contains the 15,000 sq. ft. warehouse building with an existing tenant and storage. The proposed lot
line will separate the two buildings between the shared covered dock loading space. There are no changes
proposed to the site. Site plan review for site work completed in 2019. Relief requested for setbacks.
Relief Required:
The applicant requests relief for setbacks for a two-lot subdivision. The project site is to be on a 3.04 ac
parcel in the Commercial Light Industrial zone.
Section 179-3-040,Chapter 1S3
The relief requested is for a zero setback for the covered loading dock between the buildings where 30 ft.
setback is required.
SEQR Type II—no further review required,
A public hearing was advertised and held on April 17,2024&April24,2024.
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 as we're separating Lot Number One from Lot Number Two because of the two existing
buildings.
2. There really aren't any alternatives that we could have considered and whatever we did consider
are reasonable and have been included to minimize the request.
3. The requested variance is substantial because of the way the Code is written and what we're
asking for is a zero lot line.
4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood
or district.
5. The alleged difficulty is really self-created but there's a need to do this so their business can
continue to operate.
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.
4
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/24/2024)
BASED ON THE ABOVE FINDINGS, I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO.
23-2024 SEELEY MACHINE INC. (LOT 1), Introduced by Ronald Kuhl, who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Brent McDevitt:
Duly adopted this 24`h Day of April 2024 by the following vote:
AYES: Mr.Henkel,Mr. Urrico, Mr. Cipperly,Mr. Kuhl,Mrs.Palacino,Mr. McDevitt,Mr. Underwood
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Keenan,Mr. McCabe
MR.HUTCHINS-Thank you.
MR. UNDERWOOD-All right, and Part Two of this operation here tonight is we're going to hear Area
Variance No.24-2024,again,Seeley Machine. This is for Lot Two,which we just did Lot One on.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 24-2024 SEQRA TYPE TYPE 11 SEELEY MACHINE INC. (LOT 2)
AGENT(S) HUTCHINS ENGINEERING PLLC OWNER(S) SEELEY BOOMWORKS ZONING
CLI LOCATION 75 BIG BOOM RD. APPLICANT PROPOSES A TWO-LOT SUBDIVISION OF
A 7.25 ACRE PARCEL. LOT 2 IS TO BE 4.21 AC. PARCEL AND CONTAINS THE 15,000 SQ. FT.
WAREHOUSE BUILDING WITH AN EXISTING TENANT AND STORAGE;LOT 1 PARCEL IS TO
BE 3.04 AC.AND WILL CONTAIN THE EXISTING 21,300 SQ.FT.BUILDING PORTION NOTED
AS SEELEY MACHINE LLC. THE PROPOSED LOT LINE WILL SEPARATE THE TWO
BUILDINGS BETWEEN THE SHARED COVERED DOCK LOADING SPACE. THERE ARE NO
PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE SITE. SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR SITE WORK COMPLETED IN
2019. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR SETBACKS. CROSS REF AV 23-2024;SP 19-2024;SUB 3-204;
SUB 4-2024;SP 67-2014;SP 65-2005 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING APRIL 2024 LOT SIZE
7.25 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 309.18-1-1 SECTION 179-3-040
TOM HUTCHINS&ED LEONARD, REPRESENTING APPLICANT,PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff,Area Variance No. 24-2024, Seeley Machine Inc. (Lot 2), Meeting Date: April 17,2024
"Project Location: 75 Big Boom Rd. Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes a two-lot
subdivision of a 7.25 acre parcel. Lot 1 parcel is to be 3.04 ac and will contain the existing 21,300 sq. ft.
building portion noted as Seeley Machine LLC; Lot 2 is to be 4.21 ac parcel and contains the 15,000 sq.ft.
warehouse building with an existing tenant and storage. The proposed lot line will separate the two
buildings between the shared covered dock loading space. There are no changes proposed to the site. Site
plan review for site work completed in 2019. Relief requested for setbacks.
Relief Required:
The applicant requests relief for setbacks for a two-lot subdivision. The project site is to be on a 4.21 ac
parcel in the Commercial Light Industrial zone.
Section 179-3-040,Chapter 1S3
The relief requested is for a zero setback for the covered loading dock between the buildings where 30 ft.
setback is required.
Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law:
In making a determination,the board shall consider:
1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a
detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. Minor 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 appear limited due to the
location of the existing buildings.
3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered
substantial relevant to the code. The relief for the entryway boundary line to the existing covered
loading dock of 30 ft.
5
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/24/2024)
4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or
environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Minor impacts on the physical or
environmental conditions in the neighborhood may be anticipated.
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-created.
Staff comments:
The applicant proposes a two-lot subdivision creating lot 2 of 4.21 ac and to maintain the existing building
of 15,755 sf. There are no proposed changes to the existing site conditions, exterior storage, or parking
area. The plans show the location of the existing building and site arrangement.
Note—Project review is slightly different due to variance that is created with the proposed subdivision—
tentative review process:
6. April 16`h Seeley Machine Inc. Subdivision Planning Board Recommendation
7. April 17`h Seeley Machine Inc. Area Variances -open public hearing, hear application, tabled
application pending subdivision(the subdivision has to be completed to create the area variances)
S. April 23rd Seeley Machine Inc. Subdivision Preliminary Public hearing, SEQR&Final Stage
9. April24`h Seeley Machine Inc.Area Variances decision
10. April25`h Seeley Machine Inc. Site Plans decision"
MR. HUTCHINS-The same explanation. We're talking about Lot Two versus Lot Number One. The
numbers are the same.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Ron,do you want to do it again?
MR.KUHL-Sure,I'm getting excited here.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I'll close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Seeley Machine
Inc. Applicant proposes a two-lot subdivision of a 7.25 acre parcel. Lot 2 is to be 4.21 ac parcel and contains
the 15,000 sq. ft. warehouse building with an existing tenant and storage; Lot 1 parcel is to be 3.04 ac and
will contain the existing 21,300 sq.ft.building portion noted as Seeley Machine LLC. The proposed lot line
will separate the two buildings between the shared covered dock loading space. There are no proposed
changes to the site. Site plan review for site work completed in 2019. Relief requested for setbacks.
Relief Required:
The applicant requests relief for setbacks for a two-lot subdivision. The project site is to be on a 4.21 ac
parcel in the Commercial Light Industrial zone.
Section 179-3-040,Chapter 1S3
The relief requested is for a zero setback for the covered loading dock between the buildings where 30 ft.
setback is required.
SEQR Type II—no further review required,
A public hearing was advertised and held on April 17,2024&April24,2024.
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 as we are, again,separating Lot Two from Lot One.
2. There are really not many feasible alternatives. Whatever alternatives were there, we've
considered them. They seem to be reasonable and have been included to minimize the request.
3. The requested variance is substantial as per the Code where 30 foot is required and we are granting
a zero lot line.
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
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/24/2024)
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.
24-2024 SEELEY MACHINE INC. (LOT 2), Introduced by Ronald Kuhl, who moved for its adoption,
seconded by John Henkel:
Duly adopted this 24`h Day of April 2024 by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Cipperly,Mrs.Palacino,Mr. McDevitt,Mr. Kuhl,Mr.Henkel, Mr. Urrico,Mr. Underwood
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Keenan,Mr. McCabe
MR.HUTCHINS-Thanks a lot,Board.
MR. LEONARD-Thank you very much.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Next upon the agenda is under New Business,project for Jennifer Ivanov.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 21-2024 SEQRA TYPE TYPE II JENNIFER IVANOV OWNER(S)
JENNIFER IVANOV ZONING MDR LOCATION 55 WINCOMA LANE APPLICANT
PROPOSES A 2-CAR DETACHED GARAGE OF 784 SQ.FT. THE EXISTING HOME OF 2,984 SQ.
FT. FOOTPRINT WITH 584 SQ. FT. PORCH/DECK AREAS ARE TO REMAIN WITH NO
CHANGES. THE EXISTING HOME HAS AN ATTACHED GARAGE TO REMAIN. RELIEF
REQUESTED FOR A SECOND GARAGE. CROSS REF N/A WARREN COUNTY PLANNING
N/A LOT SIZE 0.85 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 297.10-1-40 SECTION 179-5-020
JENNIFER IVANOV,PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 21-2024,Jennifer Ivanov, Meeting Date: April 24`h, 2024 "Project
Location: 55 Wincoma Lane Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes a 2-car detached
garage of 7S4 sq. ft. The existing home of 2,954 sq. ft. footprint with 5S4 sq. ft. porch/deck areas are to
remain with no changes.The existing home has an attached garage to remain. Relief requested for a second
garage.
Relief Required:
The applicant requests relief for a second garage. The project site is located on a 0.S4 ac parcel in the MDR
zone—Rolling Ridge Subdivision
Section 170-3-040, Section 179-5-020
The applicant proposes to construct a detached garage and maintain an existing garage attached to the
existing home where only one garage is allowed.
Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law:
In making a determination,the board shall consider:
1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a
detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. The project
may be considered to have little to no impact on the neighboring properties.
2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method,feasible for the
applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. The feasible alternatives may be limited as the
existing garage would not accommodate architectural addition.
7
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/24/2024)
3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief may be considered substantial
relevant to the code. Relief is requested for a second garage where only one garage is allowed.
4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or
environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The project as proposed may be
considered to have minimal to no impact on the environmental conditions of the site or area.
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The project as proposed may be considered self-
created.
Staff comments:
The plans show the proposed garage location and the elevations of the garage. The existing garage plans
are included as well."
MRS. IVANOV-I'm Jennifer Ivanov. I'm the homeowner, and my husband Hank Ivanov.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Anything you want to add as to why you want to have the project completed?
MRS. IVANOV-Florida girl. Doesn't like to go with the cars outside. Generally the premise is just that
we've got four vehicles. We'd like to keep them inside. I've never been one of those families that have
more kids toys and collected stuff in the garage. We've always parked our cars in the garage,and just have
a desire to be able to do that.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay, any questions from the Board at this point?
MR.HENKEL-Obviously you're going to have power there,to the garage. Right?
MRS.IVANOV-Correct.
MR.HENKEL-Nothing else,no water?
MRS. IVANOV-No.
MR.KUHL-But the reason for the garage is because you have four cars?
MRS. IVANOV-We need it.
MR.KUHL-Wow.
MRS.IVANOV-He does have a car collection problem.
MR.KUHL-Say no more.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Anybody else?
MRS. PALACINO-You made comment in here about the existing garage not working with some changes
to the main home. Can you elaborate?
MRS. IVANOV-So the structure of the home is such that if you're looking at the front of it,you come up,
drive around the left hand side,you see the two garage bays in the lower left hand corner. There really is
no logical space to add on to that property in a meaningful way to create an additional garage. That was
really the challenge that we have.
MRS. PALACINO-So you're really not looking to make an addition to the primary home. You're just
looking for garage space for the kids toys.
MRS.IVANOV-That's correct.
MRS.PALACINO-Or your husband's toys.
MRS. IVANOV-His toys.
MR.HENKEL-There's no doubt,the way that house was designed,there's no way.
HANK IVANOV
MR. IVANOV-The roof line's problematic.
S
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/24/2024)
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes,it would look odd.
MR. IVANOV-Yes.
MR.HENKEL-I was there when Connie and Peter built that. Peter was a correction's officer.
MRS.IVANOV-Gotcha.
MR.HENKEL-He worked hard on it.
MRS. IVANOV-It's a beautiful home.
MR.HENKEL-Yes.
MRS. IVANOV-Amazing sunlight,amazing windows. For our purposes,it needs two garages.
MR.HENKEL-It's kind of a different design.
MR.UNDERWOOD-Any other questions? All right. At this point I'll open the public hearing. Anybody
from the public wishing to speak on the matter? Any correspondence, Roy?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. URRICO-No.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Everybody's pretty straightforward as to what the purpose for this proposal
is? So I guess at this point I'll have somebody make a motion.
MRS. DWYRE-You've just got to close the public hearing.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I'll close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. URRICO-You're not going to poll the Board?
MR. UNDERWOOD-I'll poll the Board first. Roy,do you want to go first?
MR. URRICO-I'm against it. I think it would set a bad precedent for that subdivision and for that area.
It's not an exceptional large lot, and putting up a second garage, one that only allows one,I don't think is
a great idea. So I would be against it.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Ron?
MR.KUHL-I have no,I'll agree with it. I have nothing against it.
MR. UNDERWOOD John?
MR. HENKEL-I mean, I agree everybody should have a four car garage with every house because
everybody's got so many cars and it would eliminate maybe having sheds and things like that,but like Roy
said,it is kind of a small piece of property. I would rather see a little bit smaller second garage there,but
I guess there's nobody against it in the neighborhood. Right?
MR. IVANOV-Yes.
MR.HENKEL-So I guess I would be on board as is.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Dick?
MR.CIPPERLY-I guess I'm looking at less than an acre lot and adding a second garage,and I tend to agree
with Roy that in this area it probably doesn't set a very good precedent. So I guess I would not support it
at this time.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Mary?
MRS.PALACINO-If you look at the property and you don't see the two garage doors under the house,you
wouldn't know that you had a two car garage,and I recognize that the area is smaller than it's on the books
allowed for that size property. I would be in favor of it.
9
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/24/2024)
MR. UNDERWOOD-Brent?
MR. MC DEVITT-I'm in favor of the project.
MR. UNDERWOOD-And I,too,will be in favor of the project. I think that second garages,you know,if
you have two extra vehicles and they're sitting outside all year long,you know,whether it's boats,junk in
the yard or whatever it happens to be, it makes more sense to put it under cover. I don't think it's a
detriment to the neighborhood. I see it as a positive, and so I'll ask somebody to make a recommendation
for this project.
MR. MC DEVITT-I can take it,Mr. Chair.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Thank you.
The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Jennifer Ivanov.
Applicant proposes a 2-car detached garage of 7S4 sq.ft. The existing home of 2,954 sq.ft.footprint with
5S4 sq. ft. porch/deck areas are to remain with no changes. The existing home has an attached garage to
remain. Relief requested for a second garage.
Relief Required:
The applicant requests relief for a second garage. The project site is located on a 0.S4 ac parcel in the MDR
zone—Rolling Ridge Subdivision
Section 170-3-040, Section 179-5-020
The applicant proposes to construct a detached garage and maintain an existing garage attached to the
existing home where only one garage is allowed.
SEQR Type II—no further review required,
A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday,April24,2024.
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. I believe that the facade,the look of this structure,fits in. It is not having any negative
effect on the neighborhood.
2. Feasible alternatives have been discussed and considered for this application,but as discussed,we
would believe this is the minimum request.
3. The requested variance could be considered substantial in nature,but we do believe that,again,it
fits in with the character of the neighborhood.
4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood
or district.
5. The alleged difficulty is self-created, but for the aforementioned reasons, we would approve the
application.
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.
21-2024 JENNIFER IVANO V,Introduced by Brent McDevitt,who moved for its adoption,seconded by
Mary Palacino:
Duly adopted this 24th Day of April 2024 by the following vote:
AYES: Mr.Henkel,Mr.Kuhl,Mrs.Palacino, Mr. McDevitt,Mr. Underwood
10
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/24/2024)
NOES: Mr. Cipperly,Mr. Urrico,
ABSENT: Mr. Keenan,Mr. McCabe
MR. UNDERWOOD-You're all set.
MR. IVANOV-Thank you very much.
MRS. IVANOV-Thank you.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Next upon the agenda is Area Variance 22-2024. This is a re-hearing for Jennifer
Ball. Her agent is Hutchins Engineering.
AREA VARIANCE NO.22-2024 SEQRA TYPE TYPE II JENNIFER BALL AGENT(S) HUTCHINS
ENGINEERING PLLC OWNER(S) JENNIFER BALL ZONING RR-3A LOCATION 237
PICKLE HILL ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT NEW SINGLE FAMILY HOME
WITH AN ATTACHED GARAGE. THE NEW HOME IS TO BE 4,360 SQ. FT. WITH 765 SQ. FT.
PORCH/DECK AREA FOOTPRINT. THE ATTACHED GARAGE IS TO BE 1,066 SQ.FT.AS PART
OF THE HOME AND HAS THREE BAYS. THE APPLICANT HAS COMPLETED THE
RENOVATION TO THE EXISTING DETACHED GARAGE INCLUDING THE FACADE THAT
WAS UPDATED PER PREVIOUS APPROVALS. THE ZONING BOARD APPROVAL FOR TWO
GARAGES HAS EXPIRED AS THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE HOME HAS NOT BEEN
COMPLETED. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR SECOND GARAGE. CROSS REF N/A WARREN
COUNTY PLANNING APRIL 2024 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY ALD LOT SIZE 12 ACRES
TAX MAP NO. 266.-1-1-9.11 SECTION 179-5-020
LUCAS DOBIE,REPRESENTING APPLICANT,PRESENT
MR. UNDERWOOD Just as a short explanation, the project was vetted by the Board last year. The
variances were all given,but the project was not fulfilled because they didn't proceed with construction.
So the expiration of the variance has to be re-heard again.
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 22-2024,Jennifer Ball, Meeting Date: April 24`h, 2024 "Project
Location: 237 Pickle Hill Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to construct new
single family home with an attached garage. The new home is to be 4,360 sq.ft.with 765 sq.ft.porch/deck
area footprint. The attached garage is to be 1,OS5 sq. ft. as part of the home and has 3 bays. The applicant
has completed the renovations to the existing detached garage including the facade that was updated per
previous approvals. The Zoning Board approval for two garages has expired as the construction of the
home has not been completed. Relief requested for second garage.
Relief Required:
The applicant requests relief for a second garage.The project site is on a 12 ac parcel in the Rural Residential
3 acres zone.
179-3-040,179-5-020
The site has an existing garage 2400 sq.ft.to remain with no changes and to construct an attached garage
of LOSS sq.ft.where only one garage is allowed.
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 existing
garage location is towards the road side and the attached second garage is to be located with the home.
3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered
substantial as only one garage is permitted per parcel.
11
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/24/2024)
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 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 plans show the existing garage at the road is to remain. The garage at the road side was approved
previously with upgrades that have been completed. The attached garage was part of the original approval
but has expired as the construction of the new home hadn't started. The plans show the new home with
the attached garage."
MR. UNDERWOOD-Go ahead.
MR. DOBIE-Good evening,Board. Thank you for having us. For the record,Lucas Dobie with Hutchins
Engineering, and my clients Jennifer Ball and Daniel Davies are with me tonight. Thank you, Mr. Urrico,
for reading that, and, Laura, for preparing those Staff Notes. It explains it quite well. I'll just detail it a
little bit more,that we received our final subdivision area variance approvals in February 2021. The proj ect
was a compliant two lot subdivision. The variances were with respect to the second garage,was to rehab
the 40 by 60,used to be a truck garage for commercial use. That's obviously gone away and they've done
a beautiful job of rehabbing that building,and they've done we'll call it Phase I,if you will,of the site work
this past fall,the grading and re-paving,removing some gravel and the stormwater management has been
installed for around the garage near Pickle Hill Road. So put the heat on me. I let this lapse. I didn't
realize the one year applied to the building itself. I messed up. I thought the variance stayed with the
land,if you will,because it was a subdivision,but because the variance was for the second garage that had
the one year timeframe. So I missed that. We've worked on updating the plans. They've reduced the size
of the home. Other than that,the project is identical to what was approved by the Board and the Planning
Board as part of their subdivision review. So we're actually just over 1100 square feet smaller than the
proposed main house with the attached garage from what was approved by the Boards in February 2021.
So we're here to ask for your re-approval because they'd like to build the house this summer is my
understanding. So I'd be happy to answer any questions the Board may have,and thank you for your time
tonight.
MR.UNDERWOOD-Any Board members have questions? If there's no more questions,then I'll open the
public hearing. Anybody from the public wishing to speak? Any correspondence, Roy?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. URRICO-No.
MR. UNDERWOOD-All right. Then I guess we're all set. I'll poll the Board. Ron?
MR.KUHL-I have no issue with this. We approved it once before. Why shouldn't we approve it again.
MR.HENKEL-It's a good project.
MR. MC DEVITT-It looks good to me.
MRS.PALACINO-I'm in favor.
MR. CIPPERLY-I'm fine.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes,I'm all for it,too. Does somebody want to make the recommendation?
MRS. DWYRE-Mr. Chairman,would you like to close the public hearing?
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes,I'll close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. UNDERWOOD-Dick,do you want to do it?
MR. CIPPERLY-Sure.
The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Jennifer Ball.
Applicant proposes to construct new single family home with an attached garage. The new home is to be
4,360 sq. ft. with 765 sq. ft. porch/deck area footprint. The attached garage is to be 1,OS5 sq. ft. as part of
the home and has 3 bays. The applicant has completed the renovations to the existing detached garage
12
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/24/2024)
including the facade that was updated per previous approvals. The Zoning Board approval for two garages
has expired as the construction of the home has not been completed. Relief requested for second garage.
Relief Required:
The applicant requests relief for a second garage.The project site is on a 12 ac parcel in the Rural Residential
3 acres zone.
179-3-040,179-5-020
The site has an existing garage 2400 sq.ft.to remain with no changes and to construct an attached garage
of LOSS sq.ft.where only one garage is allowed.
SEQR Type II—no further review required,
A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday,April24,2024.
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 has been gone through before previously.
2. Feasible alternatives are really not possible.
3. The requested variance is not substantial. It's identical to what was approved in the past and
actually the main house is a little smaller.
4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood
or district.
5. The alleged difficulty,once again,is really self-created they want a second garage.
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.
22-2024 JENNIFER BALL, Introduced by Richard Cipperly, who moved for its adoption, seconded by
Brent McDevitt:
Duly adopted this 24th Day of April 2024 by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Kuhl,Mr. Cipperly,Mrs. Palacino,Mr.Henkel,Mr. McDevitt,Mr. Underwood
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Keenan,Mr. McCabe
MR. UNDERWOOD-You're all set.
MR. DOBIE-Thanks,guys.
JENNIFER BALL
MS. BALL-Thank you,guys.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Next up on the agenda tonight is Area Variance 25-2024, this is Furniture
House North LLC,1066 State Route 9.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 25-2024 SEQRA TYPE TYPE 11 FURNITURE HOUSE NORTH, LLC
AGENT(S) ETHAN HALL(RUCINSKI HALL ARCHITECTS) O WNER(S) FURNITURE HOUSE
NORTH, LLC ZONING CM LOCATION 1066 STATE ROUTE 9 APPLICANT HAS
COMPLETED FACADE WORK INCLUDING PAINTING, WINDOW LOCATION,AUTO PART
13
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/24/2024)
ART FIXTURES, AND UPDATED LIGHTING FIXTURES. THE OUTDOOR PATIO AREA
ROOFLINE HAS BEEN EXTENDED AND THE PATIO AREA HAS BEEN UPDATED WITH
CONCRETE. PLANTERS AND SEASONAL SEATING ARE TO BE ADDED TO THE OUTDOOR
PATIO AREA NOTING ONE TREE HAS BEEN REMOVED CLOSEST TO THE STORE ENTRY.
THE BUILDING WILL REMAIN AS A RESTAURANT AND STORE. THERE ARE NO CHANGES
IN THE NUMBER OF SEATING FOR THE RESTAURANT. SITE PLAN FOR ADDITION TO
COVERED PATIO AREA AND UPDATED FACADE. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR SETBACK OF
ROOF OVER PATIO. CROSS REF SP 20-2024 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING APRIL 2024
LOT SIZE 2.8 ACRES TAX MAP NO.2969-1-10.12 SECTION 179-3-040
ETHAN HALL, REPRESENTING APPLICANT,PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff,Area Variance No.25-2024,Furniture House North,LLC,Meeting Date: April 24,2024
"Project Location: 1066 State Route 9 Description of Proposed Project: Applicant has completed facade
work including painting, window location, auto part art fixtures, and updated lighting fixtures. The
outdoor patio area roofline has been extended and the patio area has been updated with concrete.Planters
and seasonal seating are to be added to the outdoor patio area noting one tree has been removed closest to
the store entry. The building will remain as a restaurant and store. There are no changes in the number of
seating for the restaurant.Site plan for addition to covered patio area and updated facade. Relief requested
for setback of roof over patio.
Relief Required:
The applicant requests relief for setback of roof over patio. The project site is located on a 2.76 ac parcel
within the Commercial Moderate zone.
Section 179-3-040
The roofline upgrade with new roof area is to be 45.5 ft.from the front of the building and 62 ft.to the patio
roof where a 75 ft. setback is required.
Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law:
In making a determination,the board shall consider:
1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a
detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. Minor 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
existing building location.
3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The request for relief may be considered
moderate relevant to the code. The relief requested is 29.5 ft.for the building and 13 ft.for the covered
patio roof from the front setback.
4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or
environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Minor to no impact to the physical or
environmental conditions in the neighborhood may be anticipated.
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-created.
Staff comments:
The applicant proposes to complete several facade renovations including the expanded covered patio roof.
The plans show the facade renovations including building color and features attached to the building. The
survey shows the setbacks to the front property line."
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
on April 23rd,2024 by a unanimous vote.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Ethan?
MR. HALL-Good evening. For your records, my name is Ethan Hall, principle with Rucinski Hall
Architecture. Here tonight representing Mario DiSiena and Furniture House North. Mario purchased
14
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/24/2024)
the property from the Suttons many years ago. He owns The Furniture House down on Saratoga Lake.
Basically he took over the whole property. Suttons were still operating Farm Stand and Flat Bread. This
was originally the restaurant that's there. Subsequently they stopped running the business. Mario bought
the business, bought the building from them, and over the past 1S months or so has been extensively
renovating the interior. It was a pretty bad state of repair inside. The sprinkler system is a dry system
inside because it does do the attic and everything else. The compressor that keeps the air on was running
continuously which shouldn't happen. I mean the compressor holds the air back against the valve to keep
the water from getting into the system,and it's only there if there's a small bleed. They went through and
replaced much of the piping because it was just draining out of the system and the compressor was fighting
to keep ahead of it. So he spent a significant amount there. They've been through the whole building.
There was a lot of rot that had happened just because the way the rooflines dove down and everything
came back against the building. So he's gone through and done a whole bunch of that. The biggest thing,
and I'm going to go up and point this out. The area where he's gone ahead and done the facade change is
here. This was, do you have the old picture, Laura,the one you had up before? Yes,leave that there. So
this is the original piece of that front facade,and when this was the outdoor dining area,originally this was
all paved with brick. He's taken the brick out because it was completely deteriorated underneath, and
this front fascia lines up with the fascia on the other side. Can you go back to the other picture, and we
re-built it. This little roof here is where we ran into the problem. So this is the portion that you could see
in there before and this roof, he extended it out to line this fascia line up and that's where he got into
trouble doing this. The 75 foot setback line is here. So that's where we need. It's about half of that roof
that he expanded that actually needs the area variance. So outside of that,everything stays the same. He
actually has two building permits that are on the verge of being closed already. One of them was for the
change of the windows on the front of the building and the other one was for adding bathrooms inside the
building on the upstairs.
MR. UNDERWOOD-So the car clips don't come into play at all,even though they stick out a little bit?
MR.HALL-Right.
MR. UNDERWOOD-They're just considered ornamental.
MR.HALL-It's considered ornamental.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. All right. Any questions from Board members? Okay. At this time I'll open
the public hearing. Anybody from the public wishing to speak?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
THOMAS J. MCDONOUGH
MR. MCDONOUGH-Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. My name is Thomas J. McDonough, 2S
Twicwood Lane, and I'm here just to verbalize our support for Mr. DiSiena on his application. We own
and operated Greycourt Motel for 60 years,and we sort of slowed down after that. We abut the property
on the north of the premises by 400 feet and our residence also abuts the property 100 feet on the back.
What Mr. DiSiena has done here,I'd almost say it's a miracle,from what it looked like before. He's done
an excellent job and we support him as much as we can and our neighbors do also. I speak on behalf of
my wife and myself. I think I stated my purpose.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Thank you. Any correspondence, Roy?
MR. URRICO-No correspondence.
MR. UNDERWOOD-All right. So for the Board members it's simply the Travel Corridor Overlay, The
75 foot setback is what we're giving him relief for for that canopy and he's pretty much explained it.
Seventy-five feet would be about half down the canopy. So I'll poll the Board at this time. I'll start with
you,Dick.
MR. CIPPERLY-Except that the application was probably not received from Jennifer Ball,probably from
DiSiena Furniture. Other than that,I think it's a great project.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Mary?
MRS.PALACINO-Yes,I have no difficulty with it at all.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Brent?
MR. MC DEVITT-I think it looks great.
MR. UNDERWOOD John?
15
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/24/2024)
MR.HENKEL-The positives outweigh the negatives. Yes,it looks good.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Ron?
MR.KUHL-I'm in favor of the way it's presented.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Roy?
MR. URRICO-I'm in favor as well.
MR. UNDERWOOD-And I,too, am in favor of it. I don't think it presents any difficulty. Does somebody
want to make a motion?
MRS. DWYRE-Would you like to close the public hearing?
MR. UNDERWOOD-I'll close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR.KUHL-Can I make that recommendation,Mr. Chairman?
MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure, Ron.
The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Furniture
House North LLC. Applicant has completed facade work including painting,window location,auto part
art fixtures,and updated lighting fixtures. The outdoor patio area roofline has been extended and the patio
area has been updated with concrete. Planters and seasonal seating are to be added to the outdoor patio
area noting one tree has been removed closest to the store entry. The building will remain as a restaurant
and store.There are no changes in the number of seating for the restaurant.Site plan for addition to covered
patio area and updated facade. Relief requested for setback of roof over patio.
Relief Required:
The applicant requests relief for setback of roof over patio. The project site is located on a 2.76 ac parcel
within the Commercial Moderate zone.
Section 179-3-040
The roofline upgrade with new roof area is to be 45.5 ft.from the front of the building and 62 ft.to the patio
roof where a 75 ft. setback is required.
SEQR Type II—no further review required,
A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday,April 24,2024.
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 as these were additions that were needed as they were re-modeling.
2. Feasible alternatives have been considered by the Board,are reasonable and have been included to
minimize-the request.
3. The requested variance is not substantial. It's due to the 75 foot offset off the main road.
4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood
or district.
5. The alleged difficulty you could say is really not self-created. There was a need as they did the
construction.
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;
16
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/24/2024)
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.
25-2024 FURNITURE HOUSE NORTH,LLC,Introduced by Ronald Kuhl,who moved for its adoption,
seconded by John Henkel:
Duly adopted this 24th Day of April 2024 by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mrs.Palacino,Mr. McDevitt,Mr.Kuhl,Mr. Cipperly,Mr. Henkel,Mr. Underwood
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Keenan,Mr. McCabe
MR.HALL-Thank you very much. I appreciate your time tonight.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Thank you. Do we have any other business this evening?
MRS. MOORE-I have nothing else.
MR. UNDERWOOD-All right. Then I guess I'll end the meeting.
MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING OF
APRIL 24TH, 2024, Introduced by James Underwood who moved for its adoption, seconded by John
Henkel:
Duly adopted this 24`h day of April,2024,by the following vote:
AYES: Mr.Henkel,Mr. Cipperly,Mrs.Palacino,Mr. Urrico,Mr. McDevitt,Mr.Kuhl,Mr. Underwood
NOES: NONE
On motion meeting was adjourned.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
James Underwood,Acting Chairman
17