Loading...
1998-05-27 (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 5/27/98) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SECOND REGULAR MEETING MAY 27, 1998 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT CHRIS THOMAS, CHAIRMAN ROBERT MC NALLY LEWIS STONE PAUL HAYES BRIAN CUSTER JOSEPH PORTER MEMBERS ABSENT BONNIE LAPHAM EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR -CHRIS ROUND CODE COMPLIANCE OFFICER -CRAIG BROWN STENOGRAPHER -MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. THOMAS-We’re going to deviate just a touch from the agenda tonight, because of an application from last week. AREA VARIANCE NO. 20-1998 TYPE II CR-15 RANDOLPH K. WINSLOW OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE 60 MAIN STREET APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONVERT EXISTING GARAGE INTO A CAR AUDIO/ELECTRONICS SALES AND INSTALLATION FACILITY. APPLICANT INTENDS TO CONTINUE USE OF THE EXISTING HOUSE AS A RESIDENCE. RELIEF IS SOUGHT FROM THE DENSITY REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 179-24, WHICH REQUIRE 15,000 SQ. FT. PER DWELLING UNIT AND ONE ACRE FOR COMMERCIAL USE. CROSS REF. SPR 16- 98 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 5/13/98 TAX MAP NO. 134-6-3 LOT SIZE: 0.51 ACRES SECTION 179-24 RANDOLPH WINSLOW & TOM O’HARE, PRESENT MR. THOMAS-Have you got the tabling motion over there, Chris? MR. ROUND-That’s what I’m looking for. Zoning Board of Appeals Record of Resolution, Randolph Winslow and Tom O’Hare, Killer Audio, 60 Main Street, Variance File No. 20-1998, Meeting Date: May 20, 1998 “Motion To Table Area Variance No. 20-1998 RANDOLPH K. WINSLOW, Introduced by Chris Thomas who moved for its adoption, seconded by Lewis Stone: th For a period of one week until the May 27 Zoning Board of Appeals hearing.” Duly adopted by all members. Bonnie Lapham was absent. There was no indication as far as the, and it was tabled for additional information in regard to the traffic, ingress/egress on site and parking on site. MR. THOMAS-All right. Mr. Winslow. MR. WINSLOW-I’m Randolph Winslow. I’m a resident of Queensbury. MR. THOMAS-Okay. We brought you back from the edge last week and killed off a no vote on this, and you’ve brought back some plans showing additional parking within the confines of the property that you propose to use as a commercial enterprise. MR. O’HARE-Yes. MR. THOMAS-And about the ingress and egress, have you got anymore comments or any further information on that? MR. WINSLOW-The only thing I have is just the permission from Mr. Aronson to use his half of that, the driveway for backing and turning around purposes. 1 (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 5/27/98) MR. THOMAS-Okay. So all the cars would pull out nose first into traffic. MR. WINSLOW-Would be able to drive out, yes, forward. MR. THOMAS-You wouldn’t back out, okay. MR. O’HARE-Nobody would have to back out, no. MR. THOMAS-Okay. I do have a copy of that letter here somewhere. I think I closed the public hearing last time. I’’ll re-open it. Is there anybody on the Board that has any further questions for Mr. Winslow? MR. MC NALLY-I’ve got a copy of a permission from Mr. Aronson, and it says that this is a verbal agreement and in no way implies any deeded rights for either party. MR. WINSLOW-Correct. MR. MC NALLY-Did you speak to him about getting an actual deeded easement across this driveway? MR. WINSLOW-He has to use this property also, eventually, for things of his nature, but it shouldn’t affect us at all. MR. MC NALLY-Am I to take it, though, he wouldn’t give you a deeded easement? MR. WINSLOW-I really never got into talking to him in length about it. MR. MC NALLY-It looks to me like this is something that can be revoked at any time. I mean, if he wanted, tomorrow, to say, I’m sorry, you can’t use my property, is that something he can do? MR. WINSLOW-If you look at the plans, the way things are set up, here, we really don’t, he can put a fence right down the property line now and we have plenty of space for complete backing. We used a 22 foot long car to practice backing in there. It’s not difficult to stay within our own boundaries. MR. O’HARE-But there’s been no indication from him, in fact, he’s all in favor of the project. There’s been no indication from him that he has any plans to do that. MR. STONE-Well, Bob, this is a written piece of paper with his signature on it, though. I mean, there is an original to this letter which he says. MR. MC NALLY-This looks like it’s a mere permission. So it can be revocable at will. MR. STONE-Okay, but you have drawn on here, it appears, access to resident’s parking behind the garage now, which is one of the things we asked you about, and you found it’s possible to do? MR. O’HARE-Absolutely, without question, and there is also room, if necessary, on the other side of the house, still leaving room between the property line and the cars and the neighbor’s driveway. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Anymore questions for the applicant? If not, I’ll open the public hearing. Anyone wishing to be heard in favor of? In favor of? Anyone wishing to speak against? Against? Additional correspondence. Just read that letter in from Aronson. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. ROUND-“Attention Zoning and Planning Board, Town of Queensbury: We have no objection to allow overlapping use of our driveway to facilitate customer parking for Killer Audio. This also allows us the same privilege, if needed by us, on an adjoining driveway. This is a verbal agreement and in no way implies deeded rights for either party.” Signed Ben Aronson and Randolph Winslow. MR. THOMAS-Okay. I’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED 2 (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 5/27/98) MR. THOMAS-Does the Board have anymore questions for the applicant? If not, lets talk about. I’ll start down there with Bob. MR. MC NALLY-I start from the proposition that we did last week, as part of this record. So I’m not going to repeat myself unnecessarily. The applicants have made an effort to secure permission from the Aronsons with respect to the driveway. When I was there, I’m not convinced that it’s going to allow easy access, given the traffic on Main Street, even with this written permission. If it were a deed, if it were an easement, if it were something permanent that I, as a Board member, could be satisfied that in five years, or even tomorrow, it’s going to be, to allow you to use that next door neighbor’s property, I’d be happy, but I don’t see it. I still think it’s too condensed. I think it’s too dense. They’re shoehorning a commercial business on an undersized lot to begin with, and they’re not even using all of that undersized lot. They’re using 10% of it at best, or approximately 10%. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Joe? MR. PORTER-I agree with Bob on it. They’ve made some reasonable changes, but there’s still area to improve in it. MR. THOMAS-Brian? MR. CUSTER-I tend to agree. I had concerns about the parking, the last time around. I’m also concerned that we’re granting a substantial amount of relief, in relationship to the Ordinance, requesting 58,560 square feet. They only have 21,677. That’s a 45% greater addition of relief that they need in order to meet the variance, and I think that’s too much. MR. THOMAS-All right. Lew? MR. STONE-Well, I guess I differ with my colleagues. I’m surprised at myself that I am. I think a reasonable attempt has been made. I think we can condition the variance in the motion on this verbal agreement, if we call it a verbal agreement. It looks in writing to me. It can be, obviously, abrogated by either side, at any time, but as long as that continues in place, I think that can be put into the variance, as far as I’m concerned. This is a crowded corridor. There’s no question about it, but this is not going to make it any more crowded. We’re not allowing construction. We’re not allowing anything to encroach upon the right-of-way. All we’re saying is that in this garage, which exists, a business can be maintained because there seems to be adequate parking as long as cars can, in fact, go out head first. So, I do not object to granting of the variance, with those provisions in mind. MR. THOMAS-Jamie? MR. HAYES-I think I agree with Bob. I think there was a substantial amount of relief that’s on the table, and I think that Broad Street is a problem, and I think that not, you know, not drawing the line in circumstances when the relief is such a high percentage of the requirement, I think we’re just setting ourselves up for the possibility of expectations of other applicants coming in to this Board and expecting similar relief, and I think that, I think it outweighs the benefits, you know, based on the impact of the neighborhood. I would oppose the motion. MR. THOMAS-Okay. I have to agree with Lew. I think the applicant has made a monumental effort to try and get all the parking spaces that are required. I do believe the Ordinance calls for five parking spaces, and the applicant has come up with the five parking spaces. With the additional permission to use the driveway next door, from Mr. Aronson, that additional area could be used so that the car vehicles can back up and drive nose out into or onto the Corinth Road or Broad Street, whichever it’s called, Main Street. I think the applicant has stated last week that there will be some working in this garage, but that a lot of his work is done at the car dealer’s sites, and I think he has made every effort to show us that this variance is a viable operation, and so I have no problem whatsoever in passing this application. Having said that, I will ask for a motion. MOTION TO DENY AREA VARIANCE NO. 20-1998 RANDOLPH K. WINSLOW , Introduced by Robert McNally who moved for its adoption, seconded by Paul Hayes: 60 Main Street. The applicant proposes to convert an existing residential garage into a car and audio electronics installation and sales facility. The applicant requests relief from the density requirements of Section 179-24, which requires 15,000 square feet per dwelling, and one acre for commercial use. While there would be a benefit to the applicant, in that he would be permitted to 3 (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 5/27/98) establish and operate a commercial facility and have his continued residence at the same site, I don’t believe that, on balance, the factors that we’re to consider in this application weigh in the applicant’s favor. The relief is substantial relative to the Ordinance. The required square footage for both a residential and a commercial use is 58,560 square feet. The existing parcel contains only 21,677 square feet, and if you look at the project application, the actual portion of that 21,677 square feet, which is dedicated to this commercial business, is far less than that amount, and I would estimate on the order of 10% of that 21,000 square feet. In my opinion, it’s a substantial relief that’s been requested, and while I sympathize with the applicant in his desire to commence a business, this is not appropriate for a large travel corridor such as Main Street. There will be substantial effects on the neighborhood, in my opinion. We have a difference of agreement with respect to whether or not cars can get in and get out of this parking area. In my visits to the site, it seems to me that there is really no way that you can go end out on this property and still park five cars in front of the garage where the work and sales would take place. I understand that the applicant has secured a written letter from the neighbor, and while this certainly is better than his application was last week, it does occur to me that this is not enough, and is not a binding agreement which would obligate his neighbor to dedicate a portion of the neighbor’s property to commercial use. With that additional use, it might even be possible to use, even then I’d be leery given the small size of the parcel. I do see the difficulty as self created, since it is an application made on a limited portion of the parcel. It’s a continuation of a residential use, plus the addition of a commercial use. I think there might be feasible alternatives, and that might involve some major modifications. In the circumstances, whether it’s feasible, I think it’s a toss up, but on balance, I’d have to ask that this motion be denied, and move for that belief. th Duly adopted this 27 day of May, 1998, by the following vote: MR. THOMAS-Go ahead and vote, Maria. MS. GAGLIARDI-Mr. Porter. MR. PORTER-No. MS. GAGLIARDI-Mr. McNally. MR. MC NALLY-Yes. We’re voting yes that the motion be granted? MR. THOMAS-Yes, yes denies the motion. Do you want to change your vote, Joe? MR. PORTER-Yes. MR. THOMAS-Okay. AYES: Mr. Porter, Mr. McNally, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Custer NOES: Mr. Stone, Mr. Thomas ABSENT: Mrs. Lapham MR. THOMAS-Four to two. Warren County had no impact. So, I’m sorry, the application is denied. MR. O’HARE-May I say one thing for the record? MR. THOMAS-Yes. MR. O’HARE-Mr. McNally, in your comments, you did make one error in that. There would not be five cars parking in front of the garage. We did provide the two resident’s parking spots between the garage and the shed with easy access to them for us, and if you would wish, at your convenience, I could demonstrate turning around a 20 foot long car in the property, in the parking lots, parking spots we have designated, without even crossing the line. Thank you. MR. THOMAS-Thank you. NEW BUSINESS: 4 (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 5/27/98) AREA VARIANCE NO. 19-1998 TYPE II WR-1A SCOTT CARTIER OWNER: SCOTT & DEBRA CARTIER 26 REARDON ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF AN ADDITION TO A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING. SEEKS RELIEF FROM THE FLOOR AREA RATIO (FAR) REQUIREMENTS OF THE WR-1A ZONE. WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 5/13/98 TAX MAP NO. 45-3-2 LOT SIZE: 0.271 ACRES SECTION 179-16 SCOTT & DEBRA CARTIER, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 19-1998, Scott Cartier, Meeting Date: May 27, 1998 Project Location:Description of Proposed Project: “ 26 Reardon Road Applicant proposes construction of a 598 sf addition to a single family dwelling as well as construction of 440 sf of Relief Required: covered decks. Applicant requests relief from the Floor Area Ratio requirements of the Waterfront Residential 1 acre zone (WR-1A). Current Floor Area Ratio calculations allow for 2597 sf for buildings. Existing buildings total 2658 sf, leaving a balance of Criteria for minus 59 sf. Applicant proposes an additional 1038 sf of building square footage. considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be permitted to construct the desired addition and increase living 2. Feasible alternatives: space significantly. Feasible alternatives are limited to no construction. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?: The requested relief of an additional 1038 sf to a site which is currently exceeding the Floor Area Ratio may be interpreted as 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: substantial. Moderate to substantial effects may 5. Is this be anticipated on the neighborhood as this may be viewed as considerable relief. difficulty self created?Parcel History The difficulty may be interpreted as self created. (construction/site plan/variance, etc.):Staff comments: None applicable. While all of the setbacks are met for the new construction, this addition would be an addendum to a non conforming site. Would this be a Continuation issue 179-79. Is septic sized for increase? What and where is the septic system? 179-16 - (G) requires compliance with septic regulations outlined SEQR Status: in Chapter 136. Type II” th MR. ROUND-“At a meeting of the Warren County Planning Board, held on the 13 day of May 1998, the above application for an Area Variance for the construction of an addition to single family dwelling was reviewed, and the following action was taken. Recommendation to: No County Impact. Tracey M. Clothier, Chairperson.” MR. THOMAS-Okay. Mr. and Mrs. Cartier. Tell us your story. Is there anything else you’d like to say, add, talk about? MR. CARTIER-I’d just like to add a letter from a neighbor in support of our addition project. MR. THOMAS-Are there any letters in the file, Chris, under the correspondence? MR. CARTIER-We just received this today. MR. THOMAS-You just got it today. MR. ROUND-I don’t see any in the file. MR. THOMAS-Yes. We’ll read it in when we get to the correspondence part. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. THOMAS-All right. So just tell us basically what you want to do. MR. CARTIER-Basically we want to take our dining room table that’s in our living room and move it into a breakfast nook, and make a family room with a mud room. That’s basically all we want to do, and removing the existing bathroom, which is downstairs, to the other side of the mud room. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Is this just a one story addition? MR. CARTIER-Yes. 5 (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 5/27/98) MR. THOMAS-Okay. Where the dining room is on the, well, as you look from behind the building on the left hand side, is there a possibility in the future that there would be an addition onto that, going up? MR. CARTIER-No. MRS. CARTIER-No. MR. CARTIER-It’s not feasible. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Where the dog pen sits now, is that yours? MR. CARTIER-No. MR. THOMAS-That’s not your dog pen? MR. CARTIER-Yes, that’s our dog pen, yes. MR. THOMAS-But it’s not your property it sits on. MR. CARTIER-No, it’s not. MR. THOMAS-Okay. MR. CARTIER-It’s Mr. Keatworth’s, Richard’s. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Did you ask permission from him to? MR. CARTIER-Yes. MR. THOMAS-Okay. MR. HAYES-So this laundry room would go immediately to the right, when you’re looking at the property now, of that, there’s like a little kick out there? MRS. CARTIER-Well, there’s two buildings, the front building. You know where that mud room is on the back of the house? That would come off. MR. HAYES-Come off? MRS. CARTIER-Yes. MR. STONE-You call that the enclosed porch on this particular drawing? MRS. CARTIER-Yes. MR. STONE-It was confusing to me, as I looked at the property and looked at the (lost word). MRS. CARTIER-My father-in-law left that on there just so you could see what was existing and where we’re going to go from there. MR. STONE-Okay. MRS. CARTIER-So we’d go out 11 feet from what’s existing to the left, if you’re facing it from the driveway, going 11 feet out, and then you’re going. MR. ROUND-Excuse me. We’ve got a copy of the floor plan with it highlighted. So that might help you folks. MR. STONE-That would be quite helpful. MR. THOMAS-Okay. This is the room that they’re going to tear off. MR. STONE-This is the room, this is the little entrance way, as well call it. 6 (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 5/27/98) MR. HAYES-It’s got glass around it? MR. CARTIER-Yes. MR. HAYES-Okay. The other question I had is, what is the usage of that, that front building is yours too, right? MR. CARTIER-The garage? MR. HAYES-Yes. That’s what it is, just a garage? MR. CARTIER-Yes. MRS. CARTIER-With an apartment. MR. CARTIER-It’s a garage with a two bedroom apartment over the top. MR. STONE-With all facilities? MR. CARTIER-Yes, with separate septic. MR. STONE-And but kitchen facilities? MR. CARTIER-Yes. MR. STONE-So in other words, there are two living units on the property? MR. CARTIER-Yes. When we first decided to do this project, we had an architect who supposedly knew the Codes, and he never told us that we had to include the garage as the area of space for the property. So we kind of were like kind of set back from that. MR. MC NALLY-You said the other building does have living facilities? MR. STONE-Yes, it does. MR. MC NALLY-And is it, in fact, used? MRS. CARTIER-It’s rented. It was grandfathered in when we bought it, that we could use it as a. MR. THOMAS-Yes. I was in the Assessor’s Office today, and that was way before the Waterfront Residential was even started. I think it was 1980 that was put on, put in. MR. CARTIER-There’s one person living there. MRS. CARTIER-Who’s never there. MR. PORTER-You have two septic systems? MR. CARTIER-Yes. MR. STONE-Is this an open deck, covered deck, or a combination of the above? MRS. CARTIER-The side one would be a covered, and then the front would be open. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. THOMAS-What kind of cover would be on it? Would it be a full roof? Just a porch roof, shingle roof on it? MRS. CARTIER-Yes. MR. THOMAS-A screened in porch? MR. CARTIER-No, open. 7 (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 5/27/98) MRS. CARTIER-It would be open at this point. We want to be able to walk out if it’s raining. At this point, we don’t want to enclose. MR. THOMAS-Okay. MR. STONE-The front deck, you mean? MRS. CARTIER-No, I’m talking about the side deck. MR. THOMAS-The side deck. MR. STONE-The side deck has a roof you could go out on if it rains. MRS. CARTIER-That’s what we’d like. MR. CARTIER-Right, but not enclosed. MR. STONE-Okay, that’s what I thought you said, but I wanted to be sure, and obviously this deck in the front is still going to be 85 feet to the lake, so there’s no problem with setback from the lake. MRS. CARTIER-No, we’re 100 feet back from the lake, aren’t we? MR. HAYES-Well, you’re 95 now. MR. STONE-There’s 95 now, and you’re putting 10 more on. MR. THOMAS-Yes. So you’re way within. MR. STONE-Yes. I didn’t pace it off. MR. THOMAS-How far from the back of the existing entrance porch, on the back, are you going back toward the garage? MR. STONE-Yes, but where is the garage here? MR. CARTIER-Twelve feet. MRS. CARTIER-No, it’s 12 feet already MR. THOMAS-I don’t see this measurement from this dotted line down, but I can see this 10 feet. MR. STONE-So it’s about 12 feet. MRS. CARTIER-It’s 10 feet more back, 10 feet more to include that mud room in there, 10 feet in back from that existing mud room. MR. THOMAS-From the existing door. MRS. CARTIER-Right. If we were to take that down, it would be a total of 22 feet from the house. MR. CARTIER-Let me clarify. From the existing house, it’s going to be 22 feet out. MR. THOMAS-Okay, from the back of the existing house. MR. STONE-From the main wall of the house. MR. CARTIER-The main wall. MR. THOMAS-The main wall of the house back is 22 feet. MR. STONE-And how close is it going to come to the garage? MR. CARTIER-The new house? 8 (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 5/27/98) MR. THOMAS-The addition. MR. CARTIER-I would say approximately 20 feet. MRS. CARTIKER-Fifteen or twenty feet. MR. STONE-It’s got 18 feet maybe in here. MR. CARTIER-If you have a scale, we can measure between, with the survey map. MR. THOMAS-Have you got one? You can measure it, Craig. Just measure from the back of the house to the front of the garage there. MR. BROWN-From the porch area? MR. CUSTER-No, from the house. MR. THOMAS-From the back of the house. MR. STONE-It’s not the concrete patio, just the. MR. BROWN-Right. You’ve got 46 feet to where it says “one story”. MR. CARTIER-So it would be 22 feet. MR. THOMAS-Okay. How close is that going to be to that power pole? MRS. CARTIER-There’s exactly eight feet. MR. CARTIER-I don’t know to the power pole. MRS. CARTIER-It’s going to be away, because we’re jutting in, and the power pole is close to the fence. MR. THOMAS-Okay. The existing service goes over that area right now. Are you going to put a new service in? MR. CARTIER-Yes. MR. THOMAS-Who’s your electrician? MR. CARTIER-Mr. Cartier. MRS. CARTIER-Mr. Bill Cartier. MR. THOMAS-Is he licensed? MRS. CARTIER-He is licensed. MR. CARTIER-No. MR. THOMAS-Are there any other questions for the applicant? If not, I’ll open the public hearing. Anyone wishing to speak in favor of this application, in favor of? Anyone wishing to speak against? Against? Correspondence. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. ROUND-This letter’s from Mark Schachner, 36 Reardon Road “Dear Zoning Board of Appeals: I’m a resident of Reardon Road in the Town of Queensbury. I believe that my residence is located within 500 feet of the property owned by Scott and Debby Cartier which is the subject of th an Area Variance application scheduled to be heard by the ZBA on Wednesday, May 27. I have discussed the proposal with the Cartiers and I believe that it will not be detrimental to the neighborhood in any way. The property that the Cartiers now own was previously one of the least attractive on our road, and in the few short years that they have owned it, the Cartiers have 9 (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 5/27/98) transformed it quite remarkably through substantial improvements. The Cartiers are excellent neighbors, and their current plan should further enhance both their property and our neighborhood. Therefore, I support their variance application and urge it’s approval by the ZBA.” MR. THOMAS-And that takes care of it for all the correspondence? MR. ROUND-Yes. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. THOMAS-Are there anymore questions of the applicant from the Board members? MR. HAYES-I have one question. Is this a year round or is this? MR. CARTIER-Yes, it’s year round. MR. HAYES-It is year round now? MRS. CARTIER-Yes. MR. ROUND-Yes, it would come into play if it came to that front corner, but all the setbacks are met. The only thing we’re worried about here is the Floor Area Ratio, and we don’t even get into the 50% expansion here, because the expansion is less than 50% of the original building. So the only thing we have to worry about is Floor Area Ratio. MR. ROUND-Excuse me, under Expansion of Nonconforming Structures, if you look under Section 179-79F, it’s site plan approval by the Planning Board shall be required for any enlargement or extension of a nonconforming structure if it’s in a CEA, and it has been identified that’s in a CEA. MR. THOMAS-That is in a CEA. So I was going to make it part of the motion to send it to the Planning Board for a couple of things. MR. ROUND-Okay. MR. THOMAS-All right. That takes care of that one. All right. Joe, lets start with you. What do you think? MR. PORTER-You did say, Chris, you plan on sending it to the Planning Board? MR. THOMAS-Yes. I want to, I’d like to send it to the Planning Board for the septic, and also for stormwater runoff. MR. PORTER-Yes, that was one of my major concerns with the addition, and seeing it is a high water area, with any addition, of course, you expand the system, the system, I’m sure, naturally works, functions properly, but with any system, after you add onto it, it functions, but it functions because there’s no percolation, and that’s my only concern. Your septic system, once you influx so much water into it, with your additions onto it, will it maintain it. That’s my only concern. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Brian? MR. CUSTER-Well, at first look, I think it’s obvious that it’s a substantial relief, but after you start looking into the factors behind it, and why the applicant is here before us, I’m not as concerned. Not hearing any negative comments from the neighbors, and only hearing positive, lends me to be more favorable toward granting a variance, and I think if we can structure the motion so that it addresses the issues, going before the Planning Board, I will be able to support it. MR. THOMAS-All right. Lew? MR. STONE-Well, I have a fair amount of concern about the ratio. I mean, and I’ve said this many times, the Waterfront law is still, zoning, is still relatively new. It’s a year and a half, and we haven’t really looked at it very many times, in terms of the Floor Area Ratio, and 22% was a number that was deliberated long and hard by the Town Board before it was accepted. This, I don’t have the numbers, but I guess it’s over 40%, or just about 40%. MR. THOMAS-No, I think we figured it at. 10 (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 5/27/98) MR. CARTIER-Twenty-nine, if the front deck’s not going to be covered. I just took that off, 29%. MR. STONE-Even if it’s not covered? MR. CARTIER-If the front deck’s not covered. MR. THOMAS-If the deck is covered, it’s counted. If the deck is not covered. MR. CUSTER-If it’s not covered, you don’t count it. MR. STONE-Still, 29%, I’m still concerned, but I’m listening to my fellow Board members, and I will certainly be guided by the input that I hear as we go along, but, as I say, this law is relatively new. We have a lot of lake property and river property in Queensbury. It’s obviously very valuable property, as far as income to the Town and the County is concerned. I know because I pay some myself, and I’m just concerned about it, and I would like to hear what at least the three remaining Board members say. MR. THOMAS-All right. Jamie? MR. HAYES-Well, the applicants have indicated that this is, indeed, a year round home, and looking at the size of the home and the configuration, I can see that the benefits to the applicant, to me, are overwhelming, really, if it’s a year round home, and I think if anything, some of the things that they’re attempting to do, including the correspondence from the neighbors, are of benefit to the neighborhood. So I think that, when you consider both benefits, I think I would support the application, with the provisos both to the Planning Board to make sure we touch all the bases around the lake. Additionally, they are significantly back, as far as setback from the lake, and that’s a very important aspect of our examination, and they’re going to remain 85 feet back from the lake, and that’s a good ways back from the lake. So, I’m comfortable. I would support it. MR. THOMAS-All right. Bob? MR. MC NALLY-In many respects, I agree with Lew in the fact that this is a new law, and we should stick to what the Town Board has decided is an appropriate Floor Area Ratio, but if Brian and Jamie’s comments and Joe’s comments about the property and the equities of the people, when you take them into consideration, I really don’t have a problem with it. I see, though, from the floor area worksheet that it says that there are two covered decks. You folks said the decks are not covered. MR. CARTIER-One is. MR. MC NALLY-One is, the side one is. MR. CARTIER-The side. That might have been an error on our part. MR. MC NALLY-As long as the provision would be made, if that’s the contingency, I don’t have a problem with it. MRS. CARTIER-If that’s even a problem, we could leave it uncovered. MR. MC NALLY-I just want to make sure I understood exactly what your plans were. MRS. CARTIER-Yes. We just wanted one where we could walk out and sit if it’s raining, and the front we want left open because of the sun. MR. THOMAS-Okay. All right. Listening to the other Board members, I have no problem with this application. The 22 to 29% for this particular piece of property is not a problem. I will make a recommendation that whoever makes the motion for this also add in that the septic and stormwater runoff aspects of this application be sent to the Planning Board for their review. Other than that, this is really just a very cut and dried. So, like I said before, I have absolutely no problem with it. MR. STONE-I have a question of Staff, if I may, before we go and do a motion. If the Cartiers want to cover that front deck at some point, that will require a variance? 11 (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 5/27/98) MR. ROUND-Yes. They’d be increasing their Floor Area Ratio. They’d have to come back for a Floor Area Ratio relief. MR. STONE-Okay. So we don’t have to put it in the motion, then. MR. ROUND-Correct. MR. STONE-If we, okay. MR. ROUND-I guess it’s just important that you’re clear what relief you are granting and what is covered, what’s uncovered. MR. STONE-I understand that part. Okay. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Are there any other questions before I ask for a motion? Would someone like to make a motion? MR. CUSTER-So, Chris, I need some help here to make sure I understand this. They’re already behind 59 square feet? MR. ROUND-Correct. MR. CUSTER-So do we have to include that in the 1038? MR. THOMAS-No, because that’s pre-existing, nonconforming. MR. CUSTER-So we don’t have to? MR. THOMAS-Just what’s on the application. MR. CUSTER-Just the 1038. MR. THOMAS-Well, they’re just going from 22. MR. CUSTER-No, they’re going from 2658, plus 1038. MR. THOMAS-Well, we’re doing this by percentage, because it’s a Floor Area Ratio. MR. CUSTER-That’s the correct way to do it? MR. THOMAS-Right. MR. CUSTER-That’s the correct way though? MR. THOMAS-Right. That’s the correct way for this one. MR. ROUND-Either way, I think, in order to be clear. MR. CUSTER-Reference both? MR. ROUND-Reference both, so we know what, in case there is confusion down the road. MR. CUSTER-The 1038, then, would be the footage to use. MR. THOMAS-The square footage addition. MR. CARTIER-The 1038 includes the front deck being covered. MR. THOMAS-All right. So just subtract out 240 square feet. MR. CUSTER-Then does that reduce the percentage, too? MR. THOMAS-Yes, it does. MR. CARTIER-To 29. 12 (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 5/27/98) MR. STONE-That’s where the 29 comes. MR. CARTIER-It’s 31 with the front covered, and I just took off the front. MR. THOMAS-Okay. So just use those two numbers. MR. CUSTER-All right. I’ll give it a go. MR. ROUND-We often run into this, that we have a preliminary design, come in, we grant relief, and then the design changes. You’re comfortable with what you’re asking for and that you can continue with the design that you have. I just want to make sure that you know, if you’re coming in with a larger development, or you want to cover a deck, that you have to come before the Zoning Board again so that we make sure that we’re giving you what you need. MR. CARTIER-No. Like I said before, when we first went into this, we tried to conform to all the zones. MR. ROUND-Okay. I just wanted to alleviate confusion down the road. I end up being the bad guy. MR. CARTIER-When we figured out the area ratio, we were never including the garage, because we said the garage, we were told it wasn’t included. Until we had this all finalized, what we wanted to do, someone said, we kept coming down here and trying to do things the right way, and they said, no, you’ve got to include the garage. So now we’ve got to go for what we’re doing here now. MR. THOMAS-Yes. MR. CARTIER-And we shifted the building to get within the setbacks, to conform to everything that we can do. MR. ROUND-Okay. MR. THOMAS-So the variance is going to state that you’re going to get a, what was that? MR. CUSTER-Seven hundred and ninety-eight square feet. MR. THOMAS-Square foot plus. MR. CUSTER-Plus an increase of seven percent. MR. THOMAS-An increase of seven percent, from 22 to 29%. Okay, and if you want to get that front deck covered, like Chris says, then you’re going to have to come back and see us again, okay. All right. Go ahead and make your motion, Brian. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 19-1998 SCOTT CARTIER , Introduced by Brian Custer who moved for its adoption, seconded by Lewis Stone: 26 Reardon Road. The construction of a 598 square foot addition to a single family dwelling, as well as construction of a 200 square feet of covered deck and 240 square feet of uncovered deck. Granting this motion will require relief from the Waterfront Residential One Acre Zone, WR-1A of the Floor Area Ratio. The variance will require 798 square feet of relief, as a square footage measurement, and as a percentage measurement will require a seven percent increase from 22% allowable to 29%. By granting the variance, it will allow the following to occur. The benefit to the applicant would be the permission to construct the desired addition and increase the living space significantly. Reviewing the feasible alternatives reveals that there really are none, and would limit them to tabling the motion or having no construction. The relief could be granted as substantial, when looking at a pure numbers standpoint, but when rounding it out on a percentage basis, I think the relief is within an acceptable means in the community. The effect on the neighborhood appears it is moderate. In fact, there’s been nothing but positive comments from neighbors, as far as it’s been presented tonight to this Board, and the difficulty, although it could be construed as self created, I don’t feel that that has negative merits to the motion, and therefore I move that we accept, with the provisos that the applicants make application to the Planning Board for proper review of the septic facilities and the stormwater runoff. 13 (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 5/27/98) th Duly adopted this 27 day of May, 1998, by the following vote: MR. MC NALLY-Did you say something about construction being in accordance with the proposed plans? MR. THOMAS-Well, that’s understood. We usually don’t do that, because the plans they present us are the ones that they’re going to build, and if they don’t, when they come in with the real building plans, if they differ from what we gave relief for, then the Building Department should turn them down. MR. MC NALLY-You’re happy with Chris’s comment? That’s the only thing I wanted to say. MR. THOMAS-Yes. MR. MC NALLY-Okay. AYES: Mr. Hayes, Mr. Stone, Mr. Custer, Mr. Porter, Mr. McNally, Mr. Thomas NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Lapham MR. THOMAS-There you go. MRS. CARTIER-Thank you very much. MR. CARTIER-So where do we get this other application for the? MR. THOMAS-Right down in the Planning and Zoning Office. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Thank you. MR. THOMAS-Excuse me. Mr. Cartier, our site plan application deadline is today, but if you get it in by the end of the week, or Monday at the latest, we have to make referrals to the County. A referral was already made to the County, so if you can get it in to us by Monday. A lot of the information is the same as what’s on here. It’s just we’ll have to. AREA VARIANCE 15-1998 TYPE II UR-10 RICK LALONDE OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE 20 LYNN AVENUE APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF AN ADDITION TO A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING. APPLICANT REQUESTS RELIEF FROM SETBACK REQUIREMENTS AND EXPANSION OF NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE. TAX MAP NO. 111-2-6 LOT SIZE: 0.34 ACRES SECTION 179-79, 179-17 RICK LA LONDE, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 15-1998, Rick LaLonde, Meeting Date: May 27, 1998 Project Location:Description of Proposed Project: “ 20 Lynn Avenue Applicant proposes construction of a 762 sf addition to a 718 sf single family dwelling. Existing dwelling does not Relief Required: meet the front setback of 30 feet. Applicant requests relief from the setback requirements of the Urban Residential Zone (UR-10). Front setbacks in this zone are 30 feet. This proposal currently has setbacks of 14 feet and 24 feet. The proposed addition does not further encroach on these setbacks. Additionally, relief is requested for expansion of a non-conforming structure (179-79, Continuation), existing structure does not meet the front yard setback Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town requirements. Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be permitted to construct the desired 2. Feasible alternatives: addition. Feasible alternatives include requiring addition to meet 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the ordinance?: current setbacks and no construction. The requested relief may be interpreted as substantial. Note the proposed addition does not further 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: violate the existing conditions. Minimal effects 5. Is this difficulty self created? on the neighborhood are anticipated as a result of this project. Parcel History (construction/site The difficulty may be interpreted as self-created. 14 (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 5/27/98) plan/variance, etc.):Staff comments: None applicable Minimal impacts are anticipated as the proposed addition does not increase the existing setback conditions. Permeability percentages are well within the requirements. Is the septic system sized to handle the increase? What and where is SEQR Status: the septic system? Type II” MR. THOMAS-Okay. All right. Mr. LaLonde, is there anything else you’d like to add, tell us about? MRS. LA LONDE-Just like more living space, so if he chases me, I’ve got some place to run and hide. If you saw the house, you’d know why. MR. LA LONDE-I’ve got floor plans, and I’ve got signatures from all the neighbors all around, all the residents all around my home. MR. THOMAS-Okay. We’ll run that through in the correspondence part. MR. THOMAS-I have two questions. Number One is, where does your water come from, a well or Town water? MR. LA LONDE-Town. MR. THOMAS-And your sewer, is that sewer or septic? MR. LA LONDE-That’s septic. MR. THOMAS-It’s septic? Okay. Are there any other questions for the applicant? MR. STONE-Well, as a follow up, you’re not putting another bathroom in? MR. LA LONDE-No. We’re just moving the existing bathroom farther out. MR. STONE-And just the two of you. MR. LA LONDE-Right. MR. STONE-There are two of you now, one bathroom now. MR. LA LONDE-Right. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. THOMAS-Any other questions for the applicant? If not, I’ll open the public hearing. Anyone wishing to speak in favor of this application? In favor of? Anyone wishing to speak opposed? Opposed? Any correspondence in the folder? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. ROUND-I have none. MR. THOMAS-Okay, and Mr. LaLonde has got a letter, with signatures from neighbors. “I have received a notice from the Town of Queensbury concerning an addition to a single family home at 20 Lynn Avenue. I have no concerns regarding this project.” There are 10 signatures. Lucille Russell, 17 Park; Don DuFour, 13 Park; Rose DuFour, 13 Park; Connie Ellen, 9 Lynn; Rebecca Kenant, 19 Lynn; Ora Hall, 14 Lynn; John Kenant, 19 Lynn; David Mead, 19 Park; Jeff Campp at 15 Park; John F. 11 Lynn. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. THOMAS-Does the Board have any questions for the applicant? MR. STONE-The only question I would ask, and I asked Mr. LaLonde this afternoon, the trees. Obviously, you’re going to lose the little tree right next to the house? MR. LA LONDE-Well, she wants to re-plant the little tree. 15 (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 5/27/98) MRS. LA LONDE-I don’t like killing things. MR. STONE-Well, I appreciate that. That’s why I asked the question, and it’s small enough you can re-plant it. MR. LA LONDE-Yes. MR. STONE-But the two big ones which you can’t do anything about are going to stay there. Good. Okay. MR. THOMAS-All right. Are there anymore questions for the applicant? If not, lets see what the Board members think. Brian, I’ll start with you. MR. CUSTER-They don’t get much easier than this one. MR. THOMAS-No, they don’t. MR. CUSTER-So I’m not going to really say too much except that I support the Use Variance. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Lew? MR. STONE-I agree. No comments from the rest of the Board. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Jamie? MR. HAYES-I agree, I have no problem. MR. THOMAS-Bob? MR. MC NALLY-I agree. MR. THOMAS-Joe? MR. PORTER-I agree. MR. THOMAS-Okay. I have no problem with this. They are on a corner lot and because they are on a corner lot, they have two front and two rear yards, and the existing, or the additions will not encroach any further onto the property lines in either direction. So this is very cut and dried. A very easy one, and I would ask for a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 15-1998 RICK LA LONDE , Introduced by Joseph Porter who moved for its adoption, seconded by Paul Hayes: 20 Lynn Avenue. The applicant’s proposed project, to construct a 762 square foot addition to a 718 single family dwelling. The realization that the dwelling does not meet the required setback of 30 feet. The applicant requests relief for setback requirements of the Urban Residential Zone. The front setbacks in the zone are 30 feet. This proposal currently has setbacks of 14 and 24. The proposed addition does not further encroach these setbacks. Additional relief is requested for the expansion of a nonconforming structure, 179-79. The existing structure does not meet the front setback requirement. In consideration of the Area Variance, the benefit to the applicant, he’d be permitted to construct the desired addition. Feasible alternatives include requiring addition to meet the required setbacks or no construction. Is the relief substantial relative to the Ordinance? It may be interpreted as substantial Effects on the neighborhood are minimal. Is the difficulty self- created? The difficulty may be interpreted as self-created. Minimal impacts are anticipated with the proposed addition, that does not meet increased existing setback conditions. Permeable percentages are within the required requirements, and we also discussed the septic system and what and where it’s located. In addition, the non conforming use structures, 179-79A(2), no enlargement or rebuilding shall exceed an aggregate of 50% of the Gross Floor Area of such single family dwelling or mobile home, immediately prior to commencement of the first enlargement or rebuilding. It’s 16 feet of relief on Lynn and 6 feet of relief on Park. So relief from Section 179- 79A(2) is 108%. The septic we will send to the Planning Board, because it doesn’t show any septic on the drawing, nor does it mention the size of it, and since this is 108% expansion of an existing building, I think that the Planning Board should have this. 16 (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 5/27/98) th Duly adopted this 27 day of May, 1998, by the following vote: MR. THOMAS-I’ve got a couple of questions. The septic system, what did we say about that, that it was adequate? There wasn’t addition of any bedrooms, right? MR. CUSTER-No. MR. CARTIER-No additional bathrooms. MR. THOMAS-No additional bathrooms, but it does count, the number of bedrooms does determine the size of the septic right? Yes, I think that’s what the, and also another thing that I just caught was the construction of 762 square feet addition to an existing 718 single. So this is more than 50% of 179. MR. STONE-It’s listed here, except it says front setback requirements in the Staff Notes, for some reason. MR. THOMAS-Yes. It’s 50% over. So we have to go to 159, 16 and 6. We’ll get to that, but I want to take care of the over 50%. Yes, 179A2. They need relief from that, because it’s about a 105 foot expansion on an existing dwelling. They’re going from. MR. STONE-1602, that’s the building area, that’s not the building itself. MR. THOMAS-The applicant proposes construction of a 762 square foot addition to a 718 square foot single family dwelling. MR. STONE-Yes, that’s more than 50%. It’s nonconforming in terms of setback. Right? MR. THOMAS-Right, but I mean they’re also more than doubling the size of the building. So that comes under 179-79A(2), which says without a variance they need that. So that also has to be added into the motion. I don’t know if that was advertised or not. MR. STONE-It says setback requirements and expansion of nonconforming structure in the notes. MR. THOMAS-Yes, well, it says nonconforming uses and structures under, so it was advertised all right. So, just add that. AYES: Mr. Hayes, Mr. Stone, Mr. Custer, Mr. Porter, Mr. McNally, Mr. Thomas NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Lapham MR. THOMAS-There you go. You just have to see the Planning Board, go down and see Mr. Round, and he will get you on the Planning Board agenda. He will tell you what you need, too. Okay. AREA VARIANCE NO. 21-1998 TYPE II SFR-1A SOPHIE BENDER OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE SOUTH CORNER OF BAY ROAD & TEE HILL ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND SEEKS RELIEF FROM THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 179-28, TRAVEL CORRIDOR OVERLAY ZONE. TAX MAP NO. 47-4-9 LOT SIZE: 0.33 ACRES SECTION 179-28 KEITH BENDER & SOPHIE BENDER, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 21-1998, Sophie Bender, Meeting Date: May 27, 1998 Project Location:Description of Proposed Project: “ S. Corner of Bay and Tee Hill Roads, Applicant proposes construction of an 1120 sf single family dwelling and a 576 sf garage on a pre- existing lot which is almost entirely encompassed within the 75 foot setback required by the Travel Corridor Overlay zone. Additionally, a driveway, drilled well and on site septic system are to be Relief Required: constructed. Applicant requests relief from the setback of the TCO Section (179-28). The TCO setback is 75 feet. The applicant’s lot is an average of 90 feet in depth from 17 (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 5/27/98) Bay Road. The applicant proposes setbacks consistent with the Single Family Residential zone Criteria (SFR-1A). The front setback in the SFR-1A zone is 30 feet, the rear setback is 20 feet. for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be permitted to construct the desired residence, garage and other 2. Feasible alternatives: necessary structures. Due to the size of the site and the requirements of 3. Is this relief substantial the TCO setback, feasible alternatives are limited to no construction. relative to the ordinance?: Since the majority of the proposed construction is within the TCO 4. Effects on the neighborhood or setback the relief may be interpreted as substantial. community:5. Is Minimal effects on the neighborhood are anticipated as a result of this action. this difficulty self-created? The difficulty may be attributed to the pre-existing lot size and the Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): requirements of the TCO setback. None Staff comments: applicable. Minimal impacts are anticipated as a result of this action. Due to the limited size of the lot and the close proximity of the neighboring well and septic systems, the proposed well and septic layout appear to work on paper, however, accurate stakeout might be SEQR Status: considered for construction so as not to violate any septic to well separations. Type II” MR. THOMAS-All right. Hi, Keith, how are you doing? MR. BENDER-Good, how are you? MR. THOMAS-Good. Is there anything else you’d like to tell us about this lot? MR. BENDER-Not really. We just bought it assuming we could build on it. It was sold to us as a building lot, and now we’re here. So, she already sold another house and is living in an apartment. MRS. BENDER-I’m living in Queensbury for about a month and a half now. Hoping that he could start building. MR. BENDER-I was going to start building a couple of months ago, and now I can’t do anything. MR. THOMAS-Ran into a little snag. MR. BENDER-Yes, I did, and all her stuff’s in my house. I really want to get this going. MR. THOMAS-But I know the absolute feeling. MR. STONE-Is this lot one acre? MR. BENDER-I don’t believe so, no. MR. THOMAS-No, it’s a third of an acre. MR. STONE-Well, I didn’t think so, but this is an SFR-1A. MR. THOMAS-No, it’s not. MR. STONE-That’s what it says. MR. THOMAS-It’s in an SFR-1 Acre zone, I’m sorry. MR. ROUND-That’s correct. MR. THOMAS-And they wanted to make it compatible to the uses, or to the setbacks in SFR-1 Acre zone. MR. STONE-I understand, but we need two variance relief. MR. THOMAS-Yes, from the TCO. MR. STONE-Well, if it’s not a one acre lot. MR. THOMAS-It’s a pre-existing nonconforming. MR. STONE-Okay. That’s all I wanted, it’s pre-existing, okay. 18 (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 5/27/98) MR. THOMAS-Yes, so we don’t have to worry about that. How long ago did you buy this lot, Keith? MR. BENDER-Two years ago, three years ago or so. MR. THOMAS-Two or three years ago. MRS. BENDER-And hoping to sell my home, which all of a sudden I did sell it in April, and I was out within a few weeks. So I’m living with my sister in Queensbury now, on Sugarbush Road. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Are there anymore questions for the applicant? I have a question of Staff, concerning the print you just gave us for the house next door on Tee Hill Road, the Fischers. Their setback from that side property line is 25 feet, I believe. No, they’re on the back, right? No, yes, they’re 20 foot, yes, from their property line. Is that within Code, or are they required to be only 10? MR. ROUND-Ten feet’s the minimum separation. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Even though the new one for the Bender’s is going to be 10 feet also? MR. ROUND-Correct. MR. THOMAS-So it’s no problem there? MR. ROUND-That’s correct. MR. THOMAS-Okay. That takes care of that. Are there any other questions for the applicant? If not, I’ll open the public hearing. Anyone wishing to speak in favor of this variance? In favor of? Anyone wishing to speak opposed? Opposed? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED FORREST FISHER MR. FISHER-I’d just like to say that we’ve lived there for 39 years, and that’s a very bad corner to have a house too close to the road. There’s a vegetable stand across the road, where all the traffic during the summer, and then everybody picks up their kids on that lot, and people cut the corner very short. So I hate to see Mrs. Bender’s house get smashed by being too close to that corner, you know, beyond a variance. MR. THOMAS-Well, according to the print, it’s 30 feet back from Bay Road, and I would say probably 30 or 40 feet back from Tee Hill. The zone that you’re in requires 30 feet setback and side setback, I think is 50 with a minimum of 20 on one side. This is a corner lot, so it’s a front and rear. So it has to be 30 either way, and this does conform to it. This is a pre-existing, nonconforming lot. This lot’s been in existence longer than probably the Zoning Code has been, or until Country Colony was. MR. FISHER-1958. MR. THOMAS-Back in ’58, there wasn’t even a Zoning Ordinance. So this is a pre-existing, nonconforming lot, and the applicant does have a right to ask to build on it, even though it’s less than an acre. I don’t think there’s any lots in that subdivision that are more than an acre. So, as far as the safety of this, they do have a two car garage on the print, and the driveway goes onto Tee Hill Road rather than onto Bay Road, which I’m glad to see. If it had been the other way around, I would have asked them to change it. MR. CUSTER-Sir, just for the record, could I get your name, please? MR. FISHER-Fisher. MR. STONE-You’re to the west on Tee Hill? 19 (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 5/27/98) MR. FISHER-Yes, and also, this is just a question. I don’t know where Mr. Bender got his information, our house, where our septic tank and so forth was, because there were a few differences. We had the septic tank re-done in ’90. MR. STONE-We have it here. MR. THOMAS-There’s the drawing, permit right there. MR. FISHER-Okay. Fine. MR. CUSTER-Keith, is there any way you can push the house back a little bit more? MR. BENDER-We can. Can I see the drawings you have of our lot? Is that the one with the breezeway and the little garage? MR. CUSTER-Yes. MR. BENDER-That’s not even what’s, this is going to be a raised ranch with an end load. There’s not even a breezeway and a garage. The footprint of the house will be nothing like that, way smaller, 40 by 28. MR. THOMAS-Yes. This shows a 40 by 28 two bedroom house. MR. BENDER-House, but there’s no breezeway. The garage is going to be end load raised ranch, that’s in the house. So there’s no breezeway. MR. THOMAS-The garage is under the? MR. BENDER-Yes. MR. THOMAS-The garage is under the house. MR. STONE-Well, do you have a better drawing? MR. BENDER-We have stamped approved prints already. MR. CUSTER-This 40 foot by 24 garage is moot at this point. MR. STONE-Because I certainly need to see. MR. CUSTER-Yes, that changes the whole. MR. THOMAS-Yes, that changes the whole thing here, Keith. MR. BENDER-This is all we’re going to have. So we can put it wherever you want. MR. CUSTER-It’s below grade, the garage. MR. THOMAS-So that’s not there. MR. BENDER-That’s not even going to be there, no. This is what we got from the realtor when we first went to buy the lot, and they showed us said, look, you can build a house here. We don’t want a breezeway. We don’t want a detached garage like that. The whole footprint is 28 by 48, with an end load. It’s a raised ranch, so we can put this wherever you want it, and it’s not even that much building on it. MR. CUSTER-So could you push it back another 10 feet? MR. BENDER-Yes. MR. THOMAS-Well, you’ve got to watch the septic. MR. CUSTER-That’s why I’m asking. MR. BENDER-If this is here, I can go this way a little bit. 20 (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 5/27/98) MR. STONE-Well, is the septic system there now? MR. BENDER-No. MR. THOMAS-No, it’s an empty lot. MR. BENDER-I mean, you could take the distribution box and everything and just pipe it around this way. MR. THOMAS-So you could put your 30 feet off here, and 20 feet off the back. MR. STONE-My prime concern is the busyness of this road, and the fact that it’s going to get busier. MR. CUSTER-That’s what I’m asking. If you could move it back a little bit more, to accommodate. MR. BENDER-I’m sure I could get 40. I’ll bet I could get 50. MR. STONE-And actually, if you landscape this lot, it’ll be better, it’ll be more visible if you take out some of the junk. I’m not asking you to take out all the block. MR. THOMAS-I didn’t walk in there. MR. CUSTER-I don’t want to make you put a number here tonight, but we need a number tonight, unfortunately, don’t we? MR. THOMAS-No. I think we can do this one without a number. I’m going to ask Staff about it. MR. CUSTER-You can work this out? MR. THOMAS-I think I can. MR. CUSTER-All right. I’ll go with you. Is there anyone else opposed? JOAN FISHER MRS. FISHER-I’m Joan Fisher. I live next door also, and I want to mention that you’ve got a driveway right off of Bay Road, right? MR. THOMAS-Tee Hill. MRS. FISHER-Traffic is backed up, on Tee Hill, heading toward Bay. It also gets backed up at times on Bay Road, to turn, it gets very busy. I don’t know how you’re going to get in and out of that driveway. We have a tough time, and we’re up a ways. That’s a bad placement of that driveway. Does that get involved in this variance, or is this something else? MR. THOMAS-The location of the driveway? MRS. FISHER-Yes. It’s going to be a real hazard. MR. THOMAS-Well, it’s better to come out on Tee Hill. See, this is a pre-existing, nonconforming lot. MRS. FISHER-Yes. It’s been turned down before, you know. It’s there somewhere in the records. MR. THOMAS-I couldn’t tell you about that. It doesn’t state in my records, my notes or anything from the Town. MRS. FISHER-Somewhere, the Town. MR. BENDER-It was turned down because it was a three bedroom house, and then the septic didn’t conform. This is a two bedroom house. 21 (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 5/27/98) MRS. BENDER-The stipulation is we have to build two bedrooms, and that’s what my house is. MRS. FISHER-That could be. I don’t know. I know the fellow had to sue to get his money back. MR. STONE-Well, is there a question, Chris, Staff, of? It says non-applicable, of the parcel history. MR. THOMAS-I could not find any record on this lot. Prior to ’83, I think things were filed according to applicant’s last name, and I don’t have a tax map number. MRS. FISHER-This was probably in the early, very early 90’s. MR. FISHER-The name was Kruger. MR. ROUND-Kruger. MRS. FISHER-And he had to sue to get his money back from the fellow that sold him the lot. MR. THOMAS-Well, you know, this is a whole different variance, and as far as I can tell, the applicant has, you know, the setbacks, or can even exceed the setbacks for an SFR-1 zone. MRS. FISHER-Right, but what about the 75 feet? MR. THOMAS-Well, we could probably. MRS. FISHER-Because that road is extremely busy. MR. THOMAS-Well, the only reason that 75 feet is there is because of, it’s a Travel Corridor Overlay. That road is a, what do they call it, a connector or a feeder? MR. STONE-Designated arterial. MR. THOMAS-Yes. It’s a road that a lot of other roads dump onto, is what it boils down to. MRS. FISHER-And how, and it’s going to get widened in the next few years, I’m certain. I hope you’re aware that that will be getting widened, and that 15 foot well is going to be swallowed up. MR. THOMAS-Well, I know that. That’s why we’re asking Mr. Bender if he can push it back. Well, he might be able to rearrange. MRS. FISHER-You’re going to work on that. You’re going to lose it. It’s a tough lot, I agree. MR. THOMAS-It is a tough lot, but, you know, he has a right to build on it. MRS. FISHER-Absolutely, but I don’t want him to build on and then have a hazard there, too. MR. THOMAS-Well, that’s Mr. Bender’s problem, not ours, nor yours. MRS. FISHER-Yes, okay. MR. THOMAS-So, if they come through and widen the road, and Mr. Bender has to drill a new well, so be it. I don’t know how far the Town water is from there, either, with all the development going on, just down the road. MRS. FISHER-They’ve been promising us water for I don’t know how many years. MR. THOMAS-There is natural gas back, up to a certain point. It’s not there yet either. Good things come slow. All right. Getting back to business here. The applicant just wants to build a 28 by 40 foot house with a garage under the house. What I was thinking was that we give him, or whoever makes the motion, that the setbacks be at least 30 feet from Bay Road and at least 30 feet from Tee Hill, and on Bay Road, a variance of at least 40 feet, in the Travel Corridor Overlay Zone, but the problem here is that, you know, we really can’t, because we know that this is a Travel Corridor Overlay Zone, we can tell the applicant that he should stay within those, he has to 22 (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 5/27/98) stay within those limits, but we can ask him or tell him that they may come through and widen that road, put a turning lane off that road, or do something. MR. BENDER-I’ll stay back. I’ll put it wherever you want it. MR. THOMAS-It’s our recommendation that you push that thing as far back to the line as he can, knowing that his well being 15 feet from the property line, that that may get run over with a new road, or maybe right next to a new road, and that the septic system. So that’s really the only thing I can tell you right now. MR. STONE-The other thing we’d have to know, this is a designated road, Bay Road, with three rods wide, so we’re not even sure where the right-of-way is. It’s not the edge of the road, it’s the edge of the road right-of-way, and we don’t know where that is, without. MR. BENDER-The lot isn’t marked, because when I found out I had to go for a variance, I canceled the surveyor, but I can get it staked on the corners. MR. STONE-I mean, because if the road is three rods wide, that may come further than you’d like it to come. MR. BENDER-Or it might not even be to my property line. MR. THOMAS-That’s right. It could be shifted toward the cemetery. MR. STONE-It could be toward the cemetery. MR. BENDER-That would give me more room for the well probably. MR. THOMAS-Yes, right. MR. STONE-I mean, it could go either way. MR. HAYES-We could make the variance the minimum variance, and he’s got to, it’s his ball after that, right? MR. THOMAS-Yes, that’s right. Does everybody agree with that, just to make it a minimum variance, a minimum setback of 30 feet from the front property line, or the Bay Road property line? Because this is a corner lot, and that the Tee Hill Road be 30 feet be 30 feet, also? MR. HAYES-Is that a Travel Corridor, Tee Hill? MR. THOMAS-No, Tee Hill is not. Bay Road is, that’s a collector road. MR. HAYES-So do we need a variance for that Tee Hill? MR. THOMAS-Yes, because collector roads have to be 75 feet. MR. STONE-So we need that. Tee Hill we don’t. MR. HAYES-Tee Hill we don’t need a variance. MR. THOMAS-Tee Hill we don’t. Bay Road we do. MR. MC NALLY-I see. You want to grant him relief of 45 feet so that he can build it 30 feet from the edge? MR. THOMAS-Yes, relief of 45 feet from the Travel Corridor Overlay requirement of Section 179-28. MR. MC NALLY-Is the applicant willing to go 50 feet? MR. BENDER-So you’re telling me now, from Bay Road I have to be 45 feet? MR. THOMAS-No, I’m suggesting 30. 23 (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 5/27/98) MR. BENDER-Well, no. If the road’s going to get widened, and there’s traffic problems, I would rather go to 45 feet. MR. STONE-Well, I think you, I would suggest that you find out where the right-of-way is. Because it could be shifted one way or the other. We know that some roads, we had an experience six months ago where the right-of-way was all to one side of the right-of-way, of paved area. MR. THOMAS-Yes, it would be a good idea to get the pins on the Bay Road, on the corner, and over to the next house there, existing Lot Number Two. Get those two pins in, okay, and then we’ll see where they measure, from center line. MR. BENDER-That’s fine. MR. THOMAS-Okay. So we’ll put this on hold until you can get that done. MR. BENDER-Okay. MR. THOMAS-You’re going to have to live with your sister at least another month. MR. STONE-Do you want to table it, or do you want to? MR. THOMAS-Yes, I want to table it. MRS. BENDER-My children have to take motels now to come up to visit me. MR. BENDER-It’s ruined everybody’s summer vacations from our family. So now we’re going to have to wait another month before we can go in? MR. THOMAS-Unless you can get that done. MR. ROUND-If you grant the relief, generally the relief is granted from the right-of-way or the property line, and if you’re proposing a 30 foot setback, that’s going to be from the property line, and we did recommend that a survey prior to issuance of a building permit to confirm that fact, and if there’s discrepancy from there, then they can come back to you. MR. THOMAS-How does that sound? MR. MC NALLY-Do you have a footprint that you can show us, where the building’s going to be, that kind of thing? MR. BENDER-Well, that’s kind of the footprint, but I have the stamped building, our plans ready. So I can bring you the actual house plans, and you can tell me right where you want it and I’ll put it there. MR. THOMAS-Well, we know the footprint is 28 by 40. MR. STONE-It’s 28 by 40? MR. BENDER-Yes, the new house is 28 by 40. MR. ROUND-Well, I don’t know what that footprint measures now, but I know it’s going to be, the site is constrained, not by the setbacks, but by the separation distances to the adjacent wells, and to the adjacent septic system. So I don’t know how much room to move there is on that particular site. MR. HAYES-If we give him the variance, he’s got to get it right anyway before. MR. ROUND-Yes, exactly. MR. STONE-Well, how far does he have to be from the Fisher’s leach field? MR. ROUND-There’s a 10 foot separation for a septic system from a property line, and there’s a 100 foot separation to the well, to their own well, and that’s where you see those, it didn’t come out real clearly, but there’s arches swung from all the existing wells. 24 (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 5/27/98) MR. STONE-I see. All right. MR. MC NALLY-So he’s got to play with those numbers carefully and make sure it’s centered correctly. MR. BENDER-Dave Hatin already offered to go right out with me and we were going to do them and make sure the septic’s. MR. MC NALLY-As far back from Bay Road would be appropriate as possible. MR. THOMAS-All right. So how does the Board feel? I would rather pass it on, because if he meets the, really, the minimum setbacks of an SFR-1 zone, which he is in, but because of this Travel Corridor Overlay, I would be willing to give him a, you know, if we start with, you know, if we give him a 45 foot relief from the Travel Corridor Overlay Zone, okay, that means that he’ll have to be a minimum of 30 feet back from Bay Road, okay. MR. HAYES-And if the pins go further, he’s got to go further back. Right? MR. THOMAS-Well, yes, he’s got to go back further. Well, he’s got to be at least 30 feet from that front, the Bay Road property line. It doesn’t matter where the line comes in. If the pins happen to come out right on the edge of the pavement, then he can go back 30 feet from there, but if they come back where they should, which would be 25 feet from center line, or the travel lane is 11 feet, so his pin should be back probably 14 feet off the edge of the road, and then a minimum of 30 feet, so he’s 44 feet off the edge of the road, and if they widen that road to another, it would probably take a 14 foot, they would probably take 14 foot. So then, there again, they’d be 30 feet from the edge of the pavement, but see, this pre-existing, nonconforming lot being one third of an acre, Mr. Bender also has to conform with the septic and wells in there, too. He’s got to fit those in there with the separations. See, and that’s the problem right there. Where the house is now is probably the best location, because of the well and the septic, and the distances from two neighbors. MR. HAYES-I’ll make a motion. Do you want a motion? MR. THOMAS-Well, we haven’t gone around and done a little talking on this yet, but we’ll do that now. Okay. Lew, what do you think? MR. STONE-Well, we’re obviously addressing the issues that I had identified myself. Obviously, Bay Road is a very busy road, and so designated by the Town of Queensbury, it’s going to get busier. I also empathize with your problem. You’ve got a lot. You bought it. You thought you might be able to fit this thing in, and maybe you can. I’m just concerned, somewhat for you and also somewhat for the Town, that you may find yourself with a house you can’t even live in, eventually, but that’s your problem, not mine, but nevertheless, if we grant you relief, we still have to live with that. I’m inclined to, listening to the discussion we’ve just had, to grant it with some kind of number, but I am concerned that I don’t know where the road is right now, and I don’t know where this thing is really going to come out, but, you know, if we can come up with the right motion, I will certainly vote for it. Because, One, I do think that if you built on that lot, just by the nature of wanting a pretty yard, whatever that means to you, it’s going to improve the corner sight lines and everything else. There’s no question about that. I am not concerned by your getting out of your driveway onto Tee Hill. That’s, again, your problem, and I don’t think it’s a danger problem. It’s just a time consuming situation, unless you go out of there like gangbusters, but I don’t think that’s going to be the case. So I’m inclined to go along with it, but I am concerned that, what number we can come up with. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Jamie? MR. HAYES-Well, I agree with Lew. I guess it’s a pre-existing, nonconforming lot. So the question is, you know, what would we want to see on this lot? What works on this lot? When I look at this plan, I think it’s, you know, it’s a two bedroom ranch. I really think that’s what probably should go there. MR. THOMAS-Two bedroom raised ranch. MR. HAYES-Raised ranch. MR. STONE-With a garage underneath. 25 (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 5/27/98) MR. HAYES-With a garage underneath. I mean, it’s really, in a certain way, it’s actually well designed for the fact that the property is limited, as you’ve pointed out. So I guess, keeping that in mind, the benefit to the applicant would be the concern, and that’s obvious, and if she wants a home, she needs a home, and I really don’t have any problem with it, as long as we provide for as much setback as we can, obviously, respecting the Travel Corridor. Outside of that, I have no problem. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Bob? MR. MC NALLY-I agree. The applicant would certainly benefit by being able to build probably a decent home, and for an appropriate size on an undersized lot that’s pre-existing. I don’t think it would change the essential character of the neighborhood. The homes throughout that area are typical of the proposed house. So it’s in conformity with what’s already there. The amount of relief I don’t see as substantial, but I’m not sure what the amount of relief really is. I mean, Lew mentioned this, and maybe Jamie did, too, if it’s 30 feet, it’s 45 feet, should we push it back as far as we can? MR. HAYES-I guess the problem with that is, if the rods are further (lost word) property, with the Travel Corridor, you could make this, you know, a proper septic system, impossible if you make the setback requirement too great. MR. MC NALLY-I see what you’re saying. I mean, I would like to have seen a survey, so I could say it would be 50 feet back, or something like that, but I don’t know what’s possible. MR. BENDER-I would have had it surveyed, but I just didn’t want to spend any more money on it if I wasn’t going to be able to build on it. MR. MC NALLY-Yes, and we’re constrained, because you sit there and say, gee, the guy’s got to wait three more weeks to come back here, or is he going to come with a survey so that we can be sure where the house is going to be. I mean, the plan you’ve give us, you’ve got a garage and a separate house. Now you’re telling us it’s a separate house, but you don’t know where the property line is, but you think it’s going to be 30 feet back, but it might go 50 feet back, and we’re supposed to have you 75 feet back. So I sit here and I go, there’s a lot of confusion, and I’d like some definite answers, but the point is well taken. If it’s 30 feet, normally, in that setback, I might consider approving it. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Joe? MR. PORTER-I agree with Bob. I think a survey is much needed here, to lay the ground work out, and we can take it from there. I think you’re within the guidelines of the type of building. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Brian? MR. CUSTER-I’m pretty much in agreement with the rest of my colleagues, with the proviso that the survey put some hard numbers on that we can substantiate that setback at 30 feet plus, I can support the motion. I want to hear how the motion’s phrased, I guess, but I pretty much support it. MR. THOMAS-Yes. I agree with the rest of the Board here. The more people talk, the more I think we need a survey on this, and to have the house located on that survey as far back off Bay Road as possible, while still respecting the well and the septic system not only on this property, but also on the adjacent properties. Another point I’d like to make, this is only an 1120 square foot home, which is very minimal in size, as a footprint. The driveway is going onto Tee Hill Road, which is a safety item. The lot is, again, constricted by the septic and well locations of all properties surrounding it, and the coverage of the house on this 15,000 square foot lot, which is a third of an acre, is only 13%. So that leaves 87% green space on this. So it’s not like this is an overly large home on a (lost word) sized lot, but like the other Board members say, I think we’re going to need a survey with that house placed back as far as we can, with respect to the septics and the wells of the other properties. So what I’m looking at, Keith, is tabling this for another month, until you can get us that survey with the house on there as far back as feasible. So we can give you hard numbers, if we can give the Town hard numbers on the relief. MR. BENDER-There’s no way to do it like building permit contingent on survey or something like that? 26 (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 5/27/98) MR. THOMAS-I don’t think the Building Department would let you do that. That’s up to Mr. Round. MR. BENDER-Just to get it going a little faster? MR. STONE-I think you almost have to sit down and play, I’m sure there’s a computer program maybe you can play with that to show where these things go and to make it fit in, but it’s difficult. MR. BENDER-I’ll have Van Dusen stake the lot out and then I’ll have a drawing where the house is going to be, with all the setbacks right on it. MR. THOMAS-Yes, but you still need that variance from that Travel Corridor Overlay Zone, that’s really the only problem here. MR. ROUND-I think, what I’m hearing the Board say. MR. BENDER-You want a measurement from the center line of the road? MR. THOMAS-It’s 37 and a half feet from the center line of the road, right? MR. ROUND-I said what I hear the Board saying is you’re trying to grant the minimum amount of relief necessary. In order to craft a motion to that effect, they need to know what the minimum amount of relief is, and they’re not able to do that, or comfortably do that, by delegating that to me. That’s what I’m hearing, right? MR. THOMAS-Yes, that’s more or less what you’re hearing, exactly what you’re hearing, as a matter of fact. MR. ROUND-All right, and so what I’m also hearing is you want to table it until you have an accurate survey, and that survey demonstrates that you meet all the setbacks and you’ve placed the house as far back from Bay Road as possible. MR. THOMAS-Right. Well, when you mentioned minimum setback, the minimum possible setback, that’s going to be, well, right now it sits at 45 feet. MR. MC NALLY-If you’re going to assume, all right, that we’re going to grant them 30 feet, 45 feet of relief, so that the house is set back from the road 30 feet. MR. THOMAS-Yes, from the property line 30 feet back, yes. MR. MC NALLY-Then, you know, a point Mike O’Connor was saying is that you don’t need to know where, I mean, the road is where the road is. If it’s 30 feet back, it’s 30 feet back. MR. THOMAS-Right. MR. MC NALLY-But Chris, I think, was saying maybe we want to not give him that 30 feet. MR. ROUND-I’m hearing two different things. I know, regardless of where the property line is, the relief that you grant will be measured from the property line. So when you grant relief, I want to know what you’re giving, in regard to where the edge of pavement is, but what I’m also hearing is that you’re not comfortable granting 45 feet of relief, if you only have to grant 40 feet of relief if the house can be placed at 35 feet back from the road instead of 30. MR. THOMAS-Absolutely. MR. ROUND-And that’s what I’m hearing. So I don’t know, it’s at your discretion as to how you want handle that situation. MR. STONE-I would also challenge the statement that we know where the road is. We don’t know where the road is. MR. ROUND-We don’t, but in order for him to come in with a building permit, if you grant 30 feet of relief, or excuse, 45 feet of relief, it’s going to be measured from where the road is according to a survey that he could submit as part of his building permit application. 27 (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 5/27/98) MR. THOMAS-Does everybody understand that? MR. MC NALLY-Yes. MR. THOMAS-Okay. It doesn’t matter where that 30 foot line is. It’s going to be measured from the, or it doesn’t matter where the property line is, along Bay Road. They’re going to be measuring 30 feet back from there. MR. MC NALLY-And I’m more comfortable with the minimal grant of relief as possible. MR. THOMAS-So if they could draw that survey and push the house back farther, and still maintaining all the separations from the septics and the wells, then you would grant minimal relief using that figure, rather than just the 45 feet that would be required in a regular SFR-1 zone. MR. MC NALLY-Yes. MR. THOMAS-So, is that what everybody is, they would like to see the survey with the house placed on it as far back as possible, with respect to the wells and septics of all three properties, which it encumbers. MR. STONE-Correct. MR. THOMAS-Okay. So that’s what the Board would like to see, so I’ll make a tabling motion. We’ll table it, you get the survey done, get that house placed back as far as you can from the front property line on Bay Road and still maintain all the clearances from septics and wells, not only on your property but on the two adjoining properties. Okay. So, are there any other questions before I make a tabling motion? MR. MC NALLY-I have none. MR. THOMAS-All right. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 21-1998 SOPHIE BENDER , Introduced by Chris Thomas who moved for its adoption, seconded by Lewis Stone: We are asking the applicant for a survey showing the house located on the survey as far back as possible from Bay Road. Also, with respect to the well and septic systems of the property in question, and also the adjoining properties. th Duly adopted this 27 day of May, 1998, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Custer, Mr. Porter, Mr. McNally, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Stone, Mr. Thomas NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Lapham MR. THOMAS-So we’ll see you next month with a lot of paper in your hand, right? MR. BENDER-Yes. MR. THOMAS-All right. Thanks, Keith. SIGN VARIANCE NO. 16-1998 TYPE: UNLISTED NC-10 VIDEO BROKER MIKE SULLIVAN OWNER: DON SOKOL 340 AVIATION ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 3 FT. BY 10 FT. ROOF MOUNTED SIGN APPLICANT REQUESTS RELIEF FROM SIGN ORDINANCE RESTRICTING NUMBER OF SIGNS. TAX MAP NO. 91-1-2.3 LOT SIZE: 1.29 ACRES SECTION 140-6 MIKE SULLIVAN, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Sign Variance No. 16-1998, Video Broker - Mike Sullivan, Meeting Date: May Project Location:Description of Proposed Project: 27, 1998 “ 340 Aviation Road Applicant 28 (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 5/27/98) proposes construction of a 3 foot by 10 foot roof or wall mounted sign. Sign is to be mounted in a Relief Required: business complex. Applicant requests relief from the Sign Ordinance Section Criteria for (140), which limits the number of signs to 1 per occupant of the business complex. considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: 2. Applicant would be permitted to construct an additional sign and display same. Feasible alternatives:3. Is this relief Feasible alternatives are limited to no construction. substantial relative to the ordinance?: The requested relief to double the number of allowable 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: signs may be interpreted as substantial. Substantial effects may be anticipated in the form of all occupants of the business complex 5. Is this difficulty self-created? requesting additional signs. The difficulty may be interpreted Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.):Staff as self created. None applicable. comments: The proposal calls for doubling the number of allowable signs. This may have substantial impacts in the form of additional requests by other occupants of the business complex SEQR Status: for supplemental signs. Type Unlisted” MR. ROUND-There is an existing sign permit for the business. MR. THOMAS-All right. Mr. Sullivan, have you got anything you want to add to it? MR. SULLIVAN-Yes. I’ve been retained by Mr. White, who owns the Video Broker store. He also, inside the Video Broker, has a separate business of UPS pick up and packaging and Xerox color copying. The first thing that I did was to tell him that he needs a sign. Looking at the Queensbury Sign Ordinance, I found that we have 40 square feet of sign, and the Ordinance says that we could have 100, but not two separate, and there was a question with the Building Department whether it was, a separate d/b/a makes it a separate business or Federal Tax numbers. We looked at all the different options. We felt that we’d be entitled, with Mr. Sokol, to 100 square foot sign on the road, and we don’t think that would be the best thing for us or the area. We feel that we would be entitled to 100 square foot at the back entrance on Dixon Road, but we don’t feel that that would be the right thing to do. We felt that an additional 30 square foot, bringing us up to 70, still below the minimum size for that area, would be the appropriate thing to do. It’s not roof mounted. It’s wall mounted. The sign was previously approved by the Town of Queensbury and was used at it’s Exit 18 store. The frame of the sign, obviously, we’d be changing the facing on the sign, and as far as the impact, there already are businesses in the shopping center that have multiple signs. I don’t know if they were grandfathered or what the reason for it was. I don’t really care that they do. They all look, certainly are less than the 100 square foot, but there is a duplicate to what we’re asking for here. We even looked at taking down the existing sign, which is just one year old now, and putting up a sign that would be 100 square feet, and that would be a very big financial hardship to us. So the request is, we think, reasonable, that we would still be underneath by 30% the sign square footage that we’d be entitled to. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Are there any questions for Mr. Sullivan? MR. HAYES-You say it wouldn’t be roof mounted? How are you proposing to mount it? MR. SULLIVAN-It’s going to go on the facing of the building. MR. STONE-To the left or right or under? MR. SULLIVAN-To the right. You have a copy of the sign, and it shows where the new sign would go. MR. STONE-“New” means the new sign. MR. SULLIVAN-You’ve got it. MR. STONE-I was confused by that. MR. THOMAS-Would this new sign be butted right up to the Video Broker sign? MR. SULLIVAN-Actually, it could be, but we would have the guy who has designed the sign come in to make it aesthetic the proper way. So there could possibly be the possibility of a foot separation. MR. STONE-This would extend beyond the store front? 29 (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 5/27/98) MR. SULLIVAN-No. MR. THOMAS-Let me ask you this, Chris. If Mr. Sullivan took that sign, that three by ten foot sign that he proposes to put up, and butted it right next to that two by twenty foot sign that’s right there, he has an existing 40 square foot sign, and he wants to add a 30 square foot sign, and that falls under the 100, would he need a variance for that, since it’s one continuous sign? MR. ROUND-I guess I’d defer judgment on that, and I think you have a variance application in front of you to hear. They’re two separate businesses, I guess I don’t know how to best answer that question. MR. THOMAS-Yes, see, that was going through my mind, too. MR. ROUND-This is a problem that we’re facing. We’re facing an increasing number of businesses that are operating within the same confines, and I think maybe Mr. Hayes can attest to this fact, is that we have an application in front of us tonight, Amerada Hess, that we have multiple franchise operations or several identities of businesses that operate within the same footprint, and they may not have a wall dividing the business, and our Sign Ordinance doesn’t address that, and this is that case, where we’ve got multiple operations within the same location, and if we allow signs for each individual operation, whether it’s packaging, Video Broker, etc., etc., it gets difficult to interpret the Ordinance and that’s why we’ve brought them before you to make that decision. I don’t know how you want to handle that. I guess it points to re-crafting our Sign Ordinance, to address the situation. MR. THOMAS-Okay. MR. SULLIVAN-I would just like to say that the fact that we would still be under the 100 square feet, I mean, we could put a sign up there, with the same information that would be, actually, it’ll end up being larger. I’m sure if we have to go for a new sign, we’d probably use the 100 square feet to prevent us from coming back here. So it just seemed like the sensible thing to do would be to come in and try to stay underneath the 100 square feet, which we think is what the intent, what our interpretation of the intent of your sign law was, more concerning the 100 square feet, you know, rather than one continuous thing. It would just be a matter of punishing us to the tune of about $10,000 to put the sign up. MR. THOMAS-Inside the store, is there a separate room for the other business, for the boxes and the packaging and the UPS, or is like a separate counter? MR. SULLIVAN-It’s a separate counter. It’s accessible, there’s a separate room, but it’s accessible from the video store. MR. THOMAS-Would it be like between this room here and the room on the other side of the partition, with a door through it? MR. SULLIVAN-No, the counter the length of the store. MR. THOMAS-Okay. So it’s more or less open. I haven’t been in there, to tell you the truth. I do live in the neighborhood, but I’ve never been in there. MR. SULLIVAN-Yes. There’s a chest level counter, a service counter, three quarters of the width of the building, and then a doorway into the back. MR. THOMAS-Okay. MR. STONE-And that is free of videos, I mean, it stands alone? MR. SULLIVAN-Yes. Yes, there’s doors on each side, and then the service counter for that particular business. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Are there any other questions for the applicant before I open the public hearing? No other questions? I’ll open the public hearing. Does anyone wish to speak in favor of this variance, in favor of? Anyone wishing to speak opposed? Opposed? Is there any correspondence? MR. ROUND-None. 30 (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 5/27/98) PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. THOMAS-Okay. Are there anymore questions for the applicant? If not, lets talk about it. Jamie? MR. HAYES-Well, I guess I’m torn. It seems the two big things to consider here is the obvious benefit to the applicants, and the fact that they are under the 100 square feet total area, but as far as the impact on the neighborhood or the community, it seems that setting a precedent where you could have two signs or one continuous signs, could lead to a lot of additional signage in a mostly residential neighborhood or area. So, it’s a tough one. I guess a lot of it depends on the fact that it isn’t roof mounted works in your favor, because as I read that, I thought it was going to be above the roof line, and I certainly would have opposed that for sure, but, you know, I guess I’m going to have to listen to the rest of the Board members. I’ve only been on the Board for over a year, and I’d like to be consistent with the precedent that’s been set by previous boards as well, and so I guess I would be willing to listen to what the other people’s opinions are. MR. SULLIVAN-Could I just answer one of your comments? That it comes down almost to a design question. MR. HAYES-I agree. MR. SULLIVAN-And both tenants on either side of us, both have two signs. MR. HAYES-That’s, you said it was Amore Pizza? MR. SULLIVAN-Exactly. I don’t know any of the situations, the Pizza place on one side and the hair place on the other has, again, I would consider the hair place one sign, but based on design questions, it’s two things, and over here it’s actually two separate signs on the Pizza place. He’s got a hand painted wooden sign spelling out “Amore”, and then he has a sign very similar to the one that we’re proposing, except his is a little squarer. MR. HAYES-Is there more than one permit for any of those businesses that are there now? MR. ROUND-For Amore’s we couldn’t find a permit that reflected what’s out there. As I know several of you know, our Sign Ordinance is a very difficult thing to enforce and to keep on top of. MR. SULLIVAN-Yes, we’re not complaining. It’s just that I guess what I’m answering is I don’t think there’d be much of an impact, based on the fact of what’s existing there now, and again, I just think it’s the design. MR. HAYES-I think it has to do with the impact of, you know, as Chris pointed out, of businesses that have more than one “business” within a business, and have been requesting signs, individually, for those businesses throughout the community, and I think we do have to consider that, as far as impact on the “neighborhoods”. I’m not saying I’m against it. MR. SULLIVAN-Yes. I would go back to the fact that we’re under the 100 square feet. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Bob? MR. MC NALLY-I’m torn. I can see this Sign Ordinance as being intended to limit the number of signs, and being intended to limit the size of the signs. So the applicant’s point that he’s under the allowable square footage is commendable. The applicant, though, is asking for two signs, where normally they’d only have one, and I’ve got a couple of questions. Chris, we’re talking about Section 140-6 of the Sign Ordinance. Is that what we’re talking about? MR. THOMAS-Yes. MR. MC NALLY-And in Sub Section, what is it, D2, wall/roof signs? MR. THOMAS-I’m looking at. MR. ROUND-140-6B(3)D(2). MR. MC NALLY-And then there’s a Sub Section B beneath that. 31 (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 5/27/98) MR. ROUND-No. I’m sorry. It’s 3D2. It’s one wall sign per business. MR. STONE-That’s freestanding. Okay. MR. ROUND-D2, Signs allowed within a business complex shall comply with the following. MR. STONE-But it’s B, though. MR. MC NALLY-But it’s B that we’re looking at. MR. THOMAS-Lets start with the page number, 14013. Okay. MR. STONE-At the bottom of the page, the bottom paragraph. MR. MC NALLY-Yes, where it says wall/roof signs shall be regulated by the distance. MR. ROUND-Right. MR. MC NALLY-And this is where it allows 100 square feet? MR. THOMAS-Yes, it’s 14. MR. MC NALLY-And it limits it to one sign. MR. THOMAS-Right. MR. MC NALLY-But what about the area of the surface on which it’s being attached? It says it can’t exceed 25%. Is there any possibility that would exceed it in this instance? MR. ROUND-Not, in this case it’s not the restricting factor. Actually, it’s on 14015, Number of business complex signs shall not exceed the following criteria. One wall sign per occupant of the business complex. MR. MC NALLY-Okay. The benefit would be that the applicant could construct a sign that would advertise both of his business, but the effect of the variance on the character of the neighborhood would not necessarily be beneficial. It’s going to increase the signage. Other feasible alternatives, now, again, you’ve got 70 square feet, and as opposed to making a whole new sign, single sign incorporating information concerning the two businesses may be more appropriate. Is the relief substantial, that’s a 50/50 call. Will it have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions? Signage increases always, in my opinion, have that effect. It’s unusual that they don’t. I’m willing to hear what everybody else has to say, though. MR. SULLIVAN-Also, the benefit would be financial to us. Because we would have to, I mean, we know we can comply by putting one sign up with all the information we want. It would just be so, it comes down to what the intent of the Sign Ordinance is, I think. MR. MC NALLY-Sure. I think the benefit to the neighborhood, or the effect on the neighborhood is what we’re talking about. MR. SULLIVAN-The effect on the neighborhood is going to be 30 square foot more, possibly, of signage, but with one sign. MR. MC NALLY-Are you saying if you are denied, you will build a sign (lost words)? MR. SULLIVAN-No, I don’t know what we’re going to do. We’re hoping that, we think the request is reasonable, and we felt fairly good that we would be received with a good thing, because to us, it makes sense. Why have to tear one down and put up the same exact thing of what we were going to end up with. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Joe? MR. PORTER-I agree with Bob on this. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Brian? 32 (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 5/27/98) MR. CUSTER-I, too, agree. It’s not really easy, but I’m more of the opinion that if you were to design this thing, with Video Broker/Boxer’s Business Center, and fit that all in within the two feet by whatever, that would, to me, construe one continuous sign. It’s part of what Chris had mentioned before, butting it up toward the “R” in “Broker”. MR. SULLIVAN-That’s $10,000 more. If you’re talking about, oh, just moving over the sign? MR. CUSTER-Leaving “Video Broker” there, putting like a back slash, to bifurcate the “R” from the new sign, and starting your “Boxer’s Business Center”, etc. That, to me, is one sign, and falls within compliance. I mean, you’d probably have to change your design, maybe, but I don’t know. I’m kind of thinking it’s, I kind of feel it’s all one sign for one building, and I really don’t feel that there’s a need for a variance here, but I’m hearing that we need to interpret that. I guess I’m on your side, is what I’m saying. Although I’ll listen to the rest of the discussions. MR. THOMAS-Lew? MR. STONE-Well, I would like to read into the record, because we’ve been talking about purpose and intent, I would like to read from the Ordinance the purpose and intent as defined by the Town Board. That’s 140-1, “The purpose of the Chapter is to promote and protect the public health, welfare and safety by regulating existing and proposed advertising, outdoor advertising signs and signs of all types. It is intended to provide for maximum visibility, to prevent unreasonable distraction of operators of motor vehicles, to prevent confusion with regard to traffic lights, signs or signals, to promote maximum safety, comfort and well being of the users of the highways, to protect property values, to create a more attractive economic and business climate, to enhance and protect the physical appearance of the community, to preserve the scenic and natural beauty of designated areas, and to provide a more enjoyable and pleasing community.” That is the purpose and intent of the law. As far as I’m concerned, what is to stop one, in a small space, from putting in four independent businesses, if you will, and wanting to put up four different signs? To me it becomes very displeasing to see a very cluttered sign on a building. It becomes a visual, it has a negative visual impact, as far as I’m concerned. Obviously, we’re talking two businesses here, but the next person might say three, might say four, might say five. Everybody wants a sign on the building, on the one store front. I have a great deal of concern about that. I, personally, am very proud to live in Queensbury where we have a reasonable Sign Ordinance. You drive around the Country, and I go many, many places, and we are so much better off than other communities. We don’t have these high flying things, not that this is a high flying sign, but we’ve got a very good Sign Ordinance. I think the intent is to minimize sign pollution, visual pollution, and I’m concerned by the fact that this could be, could lead to your, everybody else in the complex coming before us and saying, well, I’ve got two businesses in here. I’d like two more signs. I don’t want to set that precedent. MR. SULLIVAN-I think that what our ideas on that is that the, and I read the intent of the Sign Ordinance, too, that there would be no difference, or very little difference, between “Video Broker” 30 square foot sign, as to one whole sign. The impact of the neighborhood we feel would be the same. Again, we feel that the 100 square foot is what sets it apart, from asking for, you know, if we were in here asking for another extra 100 square foot, that would be a big impact. In fact, we could have 100 anyway. It’s just a financial consideration, us to put up one sign with the same, you know, if somebody wanted four, four, twenty-five’s is the same as 100, if you put 25, 25, 25, 25, or 100. I guess what we’re saying is that. I guess I don’t see the difference of the impact of 100, or, you know, of two to one. MR. STONE-I hear the, I don’t want to call it a plea, Chris, but I hear the concern of the Zoning Administrator saying he needs some guidance. I’d like to give him guidance by saying, I don’t want visual pollution in the Town of Queensbury, as caused by signs, and I’m willing to interpret this Chapter as saying that one store, one business, one sign. MR. SULLIVAN-So you’re saying that the way that we want to do it would be visual pollution? MR. STONE-That’s what I’m saying, yes, in my judgment. MR. THOMAS-Is that it? MR. STONE-Yes. 33 (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 5/27/98) MR. CUSTER-But the applicant is one and the same. Video Broker and Boxer’s Business Center are the same owner. MR. SULLIVAN-Yes. MR. CUSTER-So it’s not two separate businesses. MR. HAYES-The same Corp. right? MR. SULLIVAN-Yes, both under the Beagle Bailey. MR. CUSTER-So you literally could have four businesses in there, Joe’s Diner, Bob’s Haircut Place, Jim’s whatever, (lost word) and have 25, 25, 25, 25, all one sign. MR. SULLIVAN-That’s how I interpret your Ordinance. MR. CUSTER-I interpret that the same way, according to this law, and I think that’s what I’m saying, when I say “Video Broker/Boxer’s Business Center” all within the 100 square feet. MR. SULLIVAN-Yes. I think that’s what we’re looking at, the total, that, you know, if we were asking for 200 square foot, then I would agree with you. That would be a. MR. CUSTER-I’m with you. MR. MC NALLY-But, Brian, aren’t you looking at it like there’s two signs connected together, as if it’s one sign? MR. CUSTER-That’s how I’m looking at it. MR. MC NALLY-So as long as it’s one sign, you don’t care, as long as it meets the 100 square feet one sign? MR. CUSTER-That’s right. In it’s totality, if that’s what it does, I think it’s, one sign, he doesn’t even need a variance, as far as I’m concerned. MR. MC NALLY-And how do you distinguish, though, between one sign and two signs, in a case like this? I mean, is this sign 20 feet away? Is that sufficient? 10 feet away? Where do you draw the line? MR. HAYES-Brian, you’re saying it’s got to be contiguous though? MR. CUSTER-Yes. MR. HAYES-He’s got to put those two. MR. MC NALLY-Contiguous is different. I don’t have a problem with that. MR. HAYES-Are you prepared to do that? MR. SULLIVAN-We would have to have the design, you know, the guy who’s designed it, but the way that it is set right now, there’s certainly, I mean, it runs right together, yes. It would behoove us to do it, but. MR. MC NALLY-And it’s red, with a white background, and then white lettering with a red background, if I look at your print right? MR. SULLIVAN-Yes. MR. MC NALLY-And your existing, and the height of this new sign is going to be three feet, rather than two feet? MR. SULLIVAN-Right. MR. MC NALLY-But why did you decide to make it a different height? 34 (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 5/27/98) MR. SULLIVAN-We own the sign. MR. MC NALLY-You already do. So it’s an existing sign rather than matching the existing one you have? MR. SULLIVAN-Right. It’s a sign that we had at our Exit 18 location, that was approved by the, you know, but it was one sign. MR. MC NALLY-So you’re not trying to match it to the existing “Video Broker” signage that you have? MR. SULLIVAN-It’s not going to be letters. It’s a normal, it actually matches the sign of the guy to the right of us. MR. STONE-It’s a painted sign, though. MR. HAYES-It’s a back lit sign, it’s back lit. MR. SULLIVAN-Yes. MR. STONE-It’s back lit? Okay. MR. THOMAS-Unfortunately, we don’t have anything in black and white on this. So it is up to we six to make a decision on this. What we say will probably go with the Sign Ordinance, however we make our decision on this one. To me, if these two signs were put together, joined end to end, with no space in between them, it would be a 70 square foot sign, which would be 30 square feet under what the applicant is allowed. There is nothing in the Ordinance that states that you can’t put two signs together. There is nothing in the Ordinance that says you can put two signs together. So this is where we gentlemen have to make a decision as to the future of the Sign Ordinance of the Town of Queensbury, when problems like this come up. It’s my opinion that this being one store, with two businesses in it, as Brian has stated, it doesn’t matter the number of businesses, but if this one store can keep under 100 feet, square feet of signage, for all the businesses that are in there, I don’t think there should be any problem, especially since it meets the other criteria of being more than 100 feet from the road, even though it’ll be a little off-set from the center of the building, but, you know, if the sign owner wants to keep it that way, off-set, that’s fine. If he wants to move the “Video Broker” sign, to center it on the building, that’s fine, but as long as it’s under 100 square feet, and the two signs are connected, physically connected together, with no space in between them, then I have no problem doing that, and we, gentlemen, like I said before, have to make a decision, because this is not written in the laws of the Town of Queensbury. This is what we’re here for. So, that’s my take on it, and, like I said, if Mr. Sullivan and Mr. White can keep that sign together, under 100 square feet, I have no problem whatsoever with it. MR. HAYES-How do you feel about that? MR. SULLIVAN-That’s what our plan is. MR. THOMAS-Absolutely joined. MR. SULLIVAN-We’re not going to connect to the “R”, but the spacing between “E” and “R” in “Broker” would be probably the same space between “R” and where we start the new sign. I mean, we don’t want to have something that isn’t geometrically. MR. THOMAS-Well, you know, if it’s level on the bottom and you’ve got a one foot on the top, like that. MR. SULLIVAN-You’re concerned, more, I think I’m hearing you say, with the distance between the letter “R” in “Broker”, and this sign. MR. CUSTER-We don’t want it to be six feet. We’d like it to be. MR. HAYES-The same spacing as the rest of the sign. MR. THOMAS-The same spacing as the rest of the sign. MR. CUSTER-Or the separation between the “O” in “Video” and the “B” in “Broker”. 35 (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 5/27/98) MR. THOMAS-So that it appears to be one sign. MR. SULLIVAN-Yes. That’s what our plan calls for. MR. STONE-But you’re talking three feet high, in one case, versus two feet high in the other, and that doesn’t look like one sign, to me. MR. THOMAS-Well, you can look at other signs that are scripted. You look at the, for example, the Hannaford sign, with the big “H”, and the small letters after it. MR. STONE-But it spells one word. MR. THOMAS-But it spells one word, correct, but still and all, you know, what MR. CUSTER-Or the separation between the “O” in “Video” and the “B” in “Broker”. MR. THOMAS-So that it appears to be one sign. MR. SULLIVAN-Yes. That’s what our plan calls for. MR. STONE-But you’re talking three feet high, in one case, versus two feet high in the other, and that doesn’t look like one sign, to me. MR. THOMAS-Well, you can look at other signs that are scripted. You look at the, for example, the Hannaford sign, with the big “H”, and the small letters after it. MR. STONE-But it spells one word. MR. THOMAS-But it spells one word, correct, but still and all, you know, what you’re saying is, I think you’re alluding to the fact that one sign is two feet high and the other is three feet high. If the owner of the sign wants to make it that way, he can make it really, according to the Ordinance, the owner can make the shape any size he wants, as long as he meets the criteria for the setbacks, the size. We don’t judge taste. MR. CUSTER-We’re saying the applicant doesn’t need a variance. MR. STONE-Except that to enhance and protect the physical appearance of the community. That’s the intent of the law. I see you shaking your head, but that’s the intent. MIKE O’CONNOR MR. O’CONNOR-Chris, the answer is there’s no requirement. MR. THOMAS-There’s no requirement? MR. ROUND-Well, what’s before you, there’s a variance application in front of you, and I’ve made the determination that it is two signs, and if you decide to act on the variance, you can act on the variance. We’re not asking for an interpretation of the Sign Ordinance. There’s not an appeal before you. So the determination has been made that it is two signs, all right, and if you’re willing to grant relief from the two, the limit of two signs, on the basis that they be located in close proximity to one another, I think that’s what’s in front of you, that’s, to direct you, that’s what you’re doing tonight. You’re not interpreting the Sign Ordinance tonight. I mean, I know Mr. Custer’s of the opinion that it’s not two signs, but I am. MR. CUSTER-We can’t this away, it’s still a variance request. MR. ROUND-It’s still a variance request. It’s not a determination. MR. CUSTER-I was acting as if we were determining. MR. SULLIVAN-Your Office told me to come here. MR. ROUND-That’s correct, and he has not appealed that. He had the option to appeal that this is not. 36 (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 5/27/98) MR. STONE-Chris, it says one sign per occupant. Where do you find that in the Ordinance? MR. ROUND-That is under the Section that we were looking at on, 14015, on that page, Section 140-6, 4B. Okay. The number of business complex signs shall not exceed the following criteria, one wall sign per occupant of the business complex. There’s no definition of the occupant of business complex. I am making it that, and I’m not going to be held to this in the future, but in general, it’s a physical space that Video Broker is occupying, and all the other businesses, that is this one space, whatever it measures. If it’s 200 by 200, it’s not separate entrances from the business. It’s what you would think of an occupant in a traditional sense, not that we’ve got four different businesses operating in the same space. MR. STONE-Okay. How about 140-50, which says the text on each sign will be limited to the following, the principal business or businesses conducted on the property. Well, I don’t know how you can have two principal businesses. MR. THOMAS-Well, there are in this building, and they’re both owned by Don White, right? MR. SULLIVAN-Yes. MR. THOMAS-Both businesses are owned by Don White. So there you have, one owner, and you said it yourself, business or businesses. MR. STONE-I read that, you’re absolutely right. MR. THOMAS-That’s right. So, and this is two businesses. MR. MC NALLY-When I look at the application, it seems that there are two separate signs, separated by a good distance, but they’re contiguous, it’s one sign. MR. THOMAS-What was that fifty cent word that Brian used? MR. CUSTER-Bifurcate. MR. THOMAS-That’s it. MR. ROUND-That’s an attorney’s term, two separate paths are to split, diverge. Again, I’ve made the determination that it is two separate signs, and that you’ve got a variance application for two signs, and that’s what you’re acting on. MR. THOMAS-Okay. MR. CUSTER-The problem is, I work with too many attorneys all day long. MR. MC NALLY-We treat it as two signs, but we grant a variance provided they’re next to each other, then who cares? MR. THOMAS-That’s right. MR. MC NALLY-I mean, it seems that’s appropriate. MR. CUSTER-Lew cares, but. MR. STONE-I’m one vote. MR. MC NALLY-But, Lew, it’s a variance, because if someone comes in with a separate application, two separate signs that are not close, or whatever, we can act on it. MR. THOMAS-All right. I’ve had my say. Everybody’s had their say. I’d like to summarize that there’s nothing in the Sign Ordinance which says that, you know, if you slam two signs together and keep them under 100 square feet, that you can’t do that, even though, because, and it does follow the rest of the Ordinance, as Mr. Stone has read, that said the owner and business or businesses, and since these two businesses are owned by one owner, Don White, that I see no problem with, as long as those signs are next to each other, with the same spacing. 37 (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 5/27/98) MR. STONE-Yes, if we consider them one sign. I mean, that’s the rest of it, which I didn’t read, the text on each sign shall be limited to the following. MR. THOMAS-Right. MR. HAYES-But we’re going to grant a variance based on two signs. MR. ROUND-Correct. MR. THOMAS-Right. MR. STONE-Or we can get the applicant to change and say I will make one sign with the two messages, before we vote. MR. HAYES-We can make the approval contingent on that, couldn’t we? MR. SULLIVAN-I’ll say that we felt it was one sign, but we’re here because we were directed to by, we didn’t feel we needed a variance. MR. THOMAS-According to the drawing we got, it looked like the new sign was separated from the existing sign. MR. SULLIVAN-Yes. MR. THOMAS-So the proposed sign is. MR. STONE-That sounds like two signs, Mr. Chairman, when you say it that way. MR. THOMAS-That’s right. The proposed sign is tight to the pizza, to Amore Pizza, okay, and I’m looking at this other little piece as the existing sign. MR. SULLIVAN-I’m a better marketer than I am drawer. MR. CUSTER-Well, yes, because if they’re separated, then I’m in agreement with Lew, it’s two signs. MR. THOMAS-It’s two signs. MR. HAYES-I don’t think there’s any question about that. MR. CUSTER-Right. If we can bring them tighter together. MR. THOMAS-But we have another variance coming up right after this one. MR. CUSTER-We can reject that one and we’ll let this one walk, and we’re even. MR. THOMAS-All right. We’re dragging this on just a little longer than it should be. So would anyone care to make a motion? MR. HAYES-I can give it a try. MOTION THAT A REVIEW OF THE SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM CONCERNING SIGN VARIANCE NO. 16-1998 SHOWS THAT THERE WILL BE NO NEGATIVE IMPACTS ON THE ENVIRONMENT , Introduced by Chris Thomas who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brian Custer: th Duly adopted this 27 day of May, 1998, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Hayes, Mr. Custer, Mr. Porter, Mr. McNally, Mr. Thomas NOES: Mr. Stone ABSENT: Mrs. Lapham 38 (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 5/27/98) MOTION TO APPROVE SIGN VARIANCE NO. 16-1998 VIDEO BROKER , Introduced by Paul Hayes who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brian Custer: 340 Aviation Road, the Sokol’s Plaza, more specifically, site of the Video Broker and Boxer’s Business Center. The applicant proposes construction of a 3 ft. x 10 ft. facade mounted sign. The applicant requests relief from the Sign Ordinance Section 140, which limits the number of signs to one per occupant of a business complex. Criteria for considering the Sign Variance, the benefit to the applicant would be to allow the applicant to use a sign that he already has, to promote the additional services that the business provides in that complex. The feasible alternatives would be to either re-do a new sign, or not add this second sign at all. The requested relief, is the relief substantial relative to the Ordinance? The requested relief is to double the amount of allowable signs, and therefore could possibly be interpreted as substantial. The effects on the neighborhood and community, I believe that if we make the motion contingent upon the signs being contiguous, that the effects on the neighborhood would be minimized to the point that the benefit to the applicant would be greater than the negative impact on the community. So I guess when we consider the fact that if the applicant constructed the permitted sign of 100 square feet, he could accomplish more signage, more letters, and ultimately have a bigger impact on the aesthetic neighborhood of the community. The request is for 30% less than what is allowable, and therefore, again, I think that the benefit to the applicant, in this circumstance, if the signs are contiguous, exactly contiguous, would outweigh any negative impact on that neighborhood, and therefore, I would move for it’s approval. That this variance becomes null and void if either one of the businesses are vacated. th Duly adopted this 27 day of May, 1998, by the following vote: MR. STONE-I have a question. I could probably support it if we said sign, but we still continue to say signs in the motion. If we put these two together, within the 100 square feet, does it, in fact, become a sign, is that what we’re granting? MR. HAYES-No, we’re granting two signs. MR. STONE-Two signs in at any position. MR. HAYES-Specifically, in this case, contiguous. MR. STONE-But why doesn’t that become one sign for the purposes of discussion? MR. HAYES-I think administration has determined that it is two signs, and we have to proceed from that starting point. MR. THOMAS-Right. So we are giving him relief. MR. STONE-With the stipulation that they be contiguous. MR. THOMAS-Contiguous, and that they stay under 100 square feet, and I would also add to the motion that this variance becomes null and void if either one of the businesses are vacated. Because we see a lot of that coming around, too. MR. HAYES-I’ll add that to the motion. AYES: Mr. Custer, Mr. Porter, Mr. McNally, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Thomas NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Stone ABSENT: Mrs. Lapham MR. SULLIVAN-Thank you very much. MR. THOMAS-Okay. So, you understand what we granted? MR. SULLIVAN-Yes. We won’t do anything until we get your minutes. Thank you very much. MR. THOMAS-All right. 39 (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 5/27/98) SIGN VARIANCE NO. 24-1998 TYPE: UNLISTED HC-1A AMERADA HESS CORP. OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE NORTH SIDE OF AVIATION ROAD, JUST EAST OF I- 87 NORTHWAY APPLICANT PROPOSES TO HAVE ONE 100 SQ. FT. FREESTANDING SIGN, TWO CANOPY SIGNS, AND TWO WALL SIGNS. SECTION 140, SIGN ORDINANCE ALLOWS TWO WALL SIGNS AND ONE FREESTANDING SIGN ON A CORNER LOT. RELIEF IS SOUGHT FROM THE SIZE, NUMBER OF SIGNS, AND SETBACKS ALLOWED IN SECTION 140-6. WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 5/13/98 TAX MAP NO. 72-3-18 LOT SIZE: 0.52 ACRES SECTION 140-6 MICHAEL O’CONNOR, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Sign Variance No. 24-1998, Amerada Hess, Meeting Date: May 27, 1997 Project Location:Description of Proposed Project: “ N. side of Aviation, just E. of I-87 Applicant proposes one 100 sf free standing sign, two canopy signs (wall signs) and two wall signs. The proposed free standing sign will consolidate two existing free standing signs and Relief Required: attempt to maintain current signs’ setback from the right of way. Applicant requests relief from sections of the Sign Ordinance Section (140), as follows: Freestanding Sign, -- 50 sf is allowed at 15 foot setback, applicant seeks relief for a 100 sf sign, Wall Signs, -- two wall signs are allowed on a corner lot, applicant seeks relief for two additional signs. Setback restriction, -- a setback of 15 feet from the front property line is required, applicant seeks 10 feet of Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter relief for a 5 foot setback. 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be permitted to construct 2. Feasible alternatives: desired signs and display same. Feasible alternatives may include restriction of proposed free standing sign size to existing size, limiting the number of wall signs to 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the be the same as the existing number or no construction. ordinance?: The requested relief to double the allowable size of the free standing and double the 4. Effects on the allowable number of wall signs may be interpreted as substantial. neighborhood or community: Minimal effects on the neighborhood are anticipated as a result of 5. Is this difficulty self-created? this action. The difficulty may be interpreted as self created. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): Commercial Alteration permit 98089 Staff 3/31/98 Sign Variance SV 66-1997 res. 10/29/97 Building Permit BP97116 4/17/97 comments: The proposed free standing sign would consolidate the two existing free standing signs and be an increase of 30 sf over the existing 70 sf. Note the large maple tree on the corner of Carlton and Aviation is on the State ROW and is not maintained by Amerada Hess. It may be interpreted that this tree interferes with the visibility of the proposed free standing sign from the west bound lanes of Aviation Road, however it may also be intepreted that this tree does not interfere with the visibility of the proposed wall signs on the building. Free standing signs of similar size and construction are existing in the same area. Additionally, the proposed location of the free standing sign is virtually the same distance from the right of way as the existing free SEQR Status: standing sign. Type Unlisted th MR. ROUND-“At a meeting of the Warren County Planning Board, held on the 13 day of May 1998, the above application for a Sign Variance for the installation of new signs (wall and freestanding for a total of 4 signs). was reviewed, and the following action was taken. Recommendation to: Modify with conditions The WCPB approves moving the freestanding sign back 5’. The WCPB denies the number of signs and the increase in square footage and believes that the Applicant should comply with the Queensbury Sign Ordinance. The proposed number and square footage of signs is beyond what is allowable.” Signed Tracey M. Clothier, Chairperson. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Mr. O’Connor. MR. O’CONNOR-Mr. Chairman, gentlemen, I’m, for the record, Michael O’Connor from the firm of Little & O’Connor. I represent the applicant. With me is Bill Wolfrom, who is an employee of the applicant, involved with their real estate and development process. I have before you an application for, in essence, three different variances, and if you would, I would like to deal with them individually, and begin with the free standing sign, which, basically, I’m asking for two variances, one is a setback variance from Aviation Road. We’re requesting a setback variance of 10 feet from what appears to be the minimum requirement of 15 feet, and I’m asking for a sign size variance. In my application I asked for signage of 100 square feet, but I’ll tell you that your discussion earlier tonight has beat us up to the point that we would try and move that back to 78 square feet, and I’ll show you how we can do that. We had reason for the 100 square feet, and I can explain that to you, too. We would prefer the 100 square feet, but I’m trying to be realistic 40 (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 5/27/98) and get together a package here that you find is reasonable in totality. Let me begin, if you will, by setting the premise, and I’ll just pass it one end to the other end. This is the existing free standing signs that are on the site. The Hess logo sign is 40 square feet. The signage for the pricing is 28 square feet. So we presently have 68 square feet of free standing sign, right on the boundary. If you take a look at the map, the big map that we submitted to you, the existing sign is shown to the west of the proposed location, and I know that this application was before you once before, and we’ve tried to amend it to accommodate the comments that you brought up the last time we had the application before you. In general, what we’re asking for is location, and that was approved by a variance of 10 feet from this setback, and that was approved by the Warren County Planning Board. The reasons for the request there is that there really is no other alternative place to put the sign and get any type of visibility. There’s an existing canopy that is in place, right here, and what we’re trying to do is direct our traffic, if you will, that is coming in to us, the passer by traffic, as they talk in the traffic lingo, the traffic that is on our side of the road. Probably about 90% of our business will come from people going in a westerly direction, who will then decide to stop and get gas or something else at our facility. You don’t, in this business, have people cross lanes for whatever reason. You just don’t. There won’t be a lot of people coming in an easterly direction coming over to us, and part of what we’re talking about is not something that we have self created. You’re all aware of the fact that they’re re-building the Aviation Road bridge. Now as part of that re-building, they have changed the curb cuts on this facility, which was a pre-existing site. We had two curb cuts before. People could come along and come into our site in the very beginning, and come into the pump stations this way, and come back out through this way here. The heavier line, as you see on your map now, is what is, I guess even since the time this was submitted, has actually been constructed on ground. The only entrance off of Aviation Road to our site, to what we think is 90% of our business, is going to be people that are almost past our site, going in a westerly direction. We think it’s critical that we get some advanced notice to them before they get to Carlton Court. Now, if people get used to coming in there, that’s fine, but you’ve got to also have the people that you don’t have as regular customers that stop on a regular basis, and I don’t know the percentage of that, but you have a lot of passer bys that are going to come in here that occasionally will stop and get gas here, perhaps at the last gas station that they’re going to see before they get on the Northway, and the idea was to improve the signage to even go back to what Mr. Stone referred to, benefit the public welfare and safety. I think there’s like a stopping distance even at the speed limit that’s in here, if you’re going to come to a complete stop at like 210 feet. If you’re going to slow so that you can come in and use, as an intersection, Carlton Drive and come through our site and come into the pumps, you’re not going to come to a full stop, but you need a good portion of that 210 feet to make a reasonable turn into that. We would like to encourage that traffic. We would like to be able to have the visibility so that people can come up the road. They can see that there is a Hess location there, and decide, how am I going to get in there, and while they’re seeing that, see Carlton Drive, go into Carlton Drive. A big part of the problem here is this tree. This tree is not on the facility site. It is on the State ownership. If you take a look at the property line, it’s drawn on the inside of that right there. Initially, the engineer showed the tree just as that little tiny circle. I went up and I figured, I walked from one side to the other side. That tree has a diameter probably of 40 feet, and if you go by at night, that tree, until you’re almost in front of the Silo’s entrance, blocks what is there. As big as that canopy is, it blocks the canopy. It blocks the sign on the east side of the canopy. It blocks all of this business in here, until you get out in the driveway, or the driving way where you can see it. I’ll give you a couple of other facts. When the State did this business here, they also took this sliver from the property, which would create even a little bit more nonconformity. The existing sign, if it were left where it is, would be right at zero lot line. It would have no setback at all. We didn’t propose that. We didn’t think you’d approve it. It’s zero lot line legally, because that’s the distance from the property line. Perception wise, it’s actually 28 feet, because the State, again, has a broad area between the property line and where they have the pavement of the road. If you go up there now, you can see that they put in a pretty good sized sidewalk, and inside the sidewalk they also have an area that they’re going to landscape, but there actually is 28 feet from the property, I guess from the sign it’s 28 feet to the outside of the curb at the nearest point of the curb. So I kind of look upon that sign as really being in compliance with a 25 foot setback, and that’s kind of the measurement that I’m talking about. Locating the sign was not an easy thing, as I said before. When I got involved in it, I looked at the prior application, and I said, okay, what we need to do is get this sign a little further to the west and get it 15 feet setback so we’re not talking about a setback violation or a variance. We’re talking only about a size variance. They actually located it there, and they flew a balloon, and they figured out that they can’t see it. It’s too far back. The canopy hides the sign. We talked, and this is the map. We actually did the engineering, had it all laid out and everything else. You don’t have this map, but we tried to work it, and then they went up and did the balloon on the site and decided that it wouldn’t work. We also talked about locating it over on the, this is still again, I guess, the 15 feet, and it was shown here. You can come up and look at it if you want to, it shows a 15 foot setback and it shows the 24 foot setback from the west boundary line. When 41 (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 5/27/98) you put a balloon up in the air on that particular property, or that thing, it doesn’t show. There are two problems with it, and the canopy blocks it, but there is also a good string of utility lines which I don’t think are going to be moved at all. We’ve got some pictures that will show the utility lines. In fact, you’ll see that we’ve changed the height of the sign from what was proposed some time ago to you from 25 feet to 20 feet, to get it under the utility lines. We found that to be a problem whether we located it on the east side or the west side of the utility lines. Again, it just wasn’t a very visible sign. We’ve talked about locating the sign over here, and getting it within compliance, and the problem is, is that where the tanks are vented. If you go up and take a look at the site, you’ll see the stand up pipes for the venting. There’s a separation distance, for fire protection purposes, from an electrically operated sign and that venting. So that corner is kind of out of the picture. So, basically, I don’t think there really is a real alternative to location, unless we maybe move it closer to the road. If we’re going to have any visibility to 90% of our business, which is going to come from the east, coming in a westerly direction for the free standing sign. As to the size of that sign, the existing sign, the Hess logo, is 40 square feet, and what we are trying to do is utilize that, and put a price panel underneath it which would have the same configuration and fit within the same framework, and this would be five feet by forty feet. It would look odd to try and use the existing sign price configuration, and have a two foot gap on one side of the stand. The third part of the sign is for a co-brand, and you started to talk about it. The modern way of doing business is to have more than one operation under the same roof, and in this particular operation, as part of the convenience store, there will be a sandwich operation known as Blimpie. Part of our contractual obligation with them is that we will identify them. If we don’t identify them, we can’t carry our franchise. We can’t have people wearing that type of uniform, and Bill can answer that question, or answer questions about that better than I can, but listening to your concerns about signs, and we’ve got another location that we’re going to be dealing with you in the near future, too, down on the corner of Dix Avenue and Quaker Road. So we’re trying to put together some type of package that fits a site, but also fits within the Ordinance or the intent of the Ordinance. We can, instead of making this part here conform to the head of the sign, we can make the head of the sign conform to that. Basically, the panel that we would propose, this panel would be 30 square feet, below, it would be 30 square feet, and this one here would be 32, 32, and 16, which gets us to 78 square feet. It’s a total of 10 square feet more than what we have, but it’s five feet further back. It’s one free standing sign as opposed to two freestanding signs. You’re not necessarily going to be controlled by competition, but we have got some pictures. This is the Sunoco station across the street that has signage probably in excess of what we are proposing. I’m not sure if some of that’s grandfathered or not. That’s just of the free standing sign, but if you went up and took a look at it, you, I don’t think, would have a problem understanding that they have excess sign than what we have. If you go down on the corner of Quaker and Route 9, that Mobil station has two free standing signs, one on Quaker, one on 9, plus the other signs that they have on their canopys and they’re pricing and what not, and I don’t know that our Sign Ordinance is that much different now than when that station was built. I’m not sure of the interpretations that were applied to it or whatever, but that’s neither controlling. I think what we’re trying to show, and we can show you, go over and take a look at the station on Corinth Road. We’re trying to do our signage in good taste that won’t compromise our business, but at the same time will come as close to compliance as we think that we can do. We’ve got a couple of pictures that we would show you. This is the power pole line that I spoke of, that we kind of have to jockey around. Our power pole line runs right through here. I saw them when they were doing the concrete there. They had to wait to move one of the guide poles. I don’t know if they’ve done that or not. Okay. This is a pretty good indication of the tree itself. Probably the best indication is after we were around last night, we went up and looked. With all the lights on and everything else, you cannot see through that tree. During the day time, I was up there with Laura Nowicki and Staff, and it was, you know, if you step out in the road, you still don’t see, until you get right up in front of the Silo driveway. MR. THOMAS-Mr. O’Connor, on these pictures here, there shows a balloon in there. Does that have anything to do with the balloons you were talking about in the past,. you know, when you put a balloon up in the air, or is that something different? MR. O’CONNOR-The balloon, I’m not sure if that was the balloon or not. Bill? BILL WOLFROM MR. WOLFROM-I can explain. The day we floated the balloon here, we went down and bought the largest helium filled balloon we could down on Quaker Road and floated it, but the wind was blowing pretty badly, when these photos were taken, but before that we were able to get it up when there was no wind, at the measured setback, as Mr. O’Connor said, at 15 feet, and it was blocked out by the canopy. These pictures don’t depict the actual flight of the balloon. The moment we got 42 (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 5/27/98) it vertical, the wind came again, and we were down the street, but we couldn’t get pictures of it quickly enough, but we’ve done a lot of. MR. THOMAS-I was just wondering if you were trying to depict that in there, showing the balloon. MR. WOLFROM-No. MR. O’CONNOR-It looks like a limp balloon, to me. MR. WOLFROM-Yes. We tried to buy a big one that was eight foot in diameter and they didn’t have one. MR. O’CONNOR-Here’s some pictures as you come up Aviation Road, coming toward the site in an easterly direction, and like in a series there, and that’s during good day light hours, and what not. It shows you some of the visibility issues. MR. STONE-Put 95 cents on the sign, though, and people will turn left. MR. O’CONNOR-Well, we actually hope that we have them turning left before they get to, before they get past us. MR. STONE-Right. MR. O’CONNOR-This is a configuration of the site with a traffic pattern that wasn’t necessarily the same as when the site was designed, and it’s dictated more by the State taking and widening of the road than our desires. This part of the road, the travel portion of it, starts to leave the straight west direction and starts to tell people that they’re going to get on the Northway and go north. Here’s a couple of pictures, the one shows just past, to the east of Carlton Drive, and shows you the visibility of the sign that’s at zero setback, and we’re talking about moving the sign back five feet, and in actuality, we’re talking about making that sign 32 feet instead of what’s shown there as 40 feet, and the other one is right up past Carlton Drive, but I don’t think visibility, we really have a problem demonstrating what we’re talking about. I would, as I have in other applications, stipulate that representations that I or Bill make be part and a condition of the approval, so that there’s no problem that, although we have before you a free standing sign, which shows 100 square feet, we would reduce our request so that the Hess panel is, in fact, 32 square feet, that the pricing panel is 32 square feet, and that the code brand panel is 16 square feet, for a total of 78 square feet of signage. MR. STONE-That’s 80. MR. O’CONNOR-I’m sorry, 80 square feet of signage. Our present signage is 68 square feet. Okay. Going beyond that point, you all have, I think, in your package, a front elevation of the proposed building, or of the building. MR. STONE-Chris has one, but I don’t think the rest of us do. MR. THOMAS-Yes. We never got them. I just stopped in the office and got one yesterday. MR. O’CONNOR-You mean if we give them to the office they don’t give them to you? MR. THOMAS-The A2 drawing. MR. O’CONNOR-There is not a great deal of construction to the building itself. The internal portion of the building will remain the same. There will be a false front added to it, as well as a decorative decoration, architectural (lost word) from it. MR. STONE-Okay. So the chimney (lost word) thing is going to come down? MR. WOLFROM-Yes, sir, and the two Hess signs. MR. O’CONNOR-The two signs on it. We’re talking about total signage that we’re asking for here, in the package that we’re presenting, as opposed to what you might see at the site now, except for, which is an exception, I think, for the Sign Ordinance, anything that’s within the windows of this building, that’s displays within the windows of the building are accepted. They’re not part of 43 (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 5/27/98) the signage package, but the two free standing signs on the top of the building we’re eliminating onn the chimney, and also this is my artwork. Okay. This is not on what you have. What you have is right there. It’s the same as this. We show one wall sign of 16 square feet, Blimpie’s, on the right hand side of the building, I guess the left hand side of the building if you were looking at it, the most westerly end of the building. We show 40 square foot of sign at the top, which is the Hess Express, and then on the canopys, we talk about two signs, one on the west end of the canopy. MR. STONE-Those exist now. MR. WOLFROM-They exist, that’s right. MR. O’CONNOR-And one on the east end of the canopy. The total of all those four signs, although they’re greater in number, again, doesn’t exceed the 200 square feet that we’re allowed, and my presentation to you is that I think the intent of the Ordinance is not to have new design and taste or design our signage, to limit our signage by square footage. I did this simply with a photocopy machine, and I took the two Hess signs, reduced them in proportion to here, and the Blimpie sign, and you then have one wall sign, two wall signs, and we wouldn’t be here for a wall sign variance. That really, I don’t think, has any different impact. In fact, you could probably come up with a less attractive configuration by doing something like that. MR. STONE-What you’re saying is you’ve taken the canopy signs and pretended they’re on the building. Is that what you’re saying? MR. O’CONNOR-In one contiguous sign. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. O’CONNOR-This is in a different scale than the one that shows the, this was one that shows the actual depiction of the canopy sign. If you used this template, or whatever you want to call it, you could fit that up there, too. You could put one on each end of the, you know, each of the canopys. We’re not really trying to maximize, we aren’t trying to blow up the signs to get 200 square foot of sign. We’re trying to have the signature of the corporation shown, in the normal manner in which it is shown, you know, throughout it’s stores, and we’re trying to do it in a manner that’s reasonable. We’ve listened, and Bill has listened. We think that this is appropriate, and I’m not sure where you want to go with it or not go with it. We’re not cast in concrete, but we think that what we present to you is reasonable. We’re willing to listen to the Board, if the Board has some other suggestion. MR. HAYES-So the two other Hess signs are going to be up on the? MR. WOLFROM-They’re right there. This is what we’re proposing, the Blimpie here, and the Hess Express. MR. HAYES-Right. MR. WOLFROM-The two (lost word) signs are already there. MR. HAYES-Okay. MR. STONE-So you’re taking two off the chimney, and replacing them, in a sense. MR. WOLFROM-Yes, sir, with those two. MR. STONE-With those two. Okay, and then you’ve got the two on the canopy. MR. WOLFROM-The two that are on the canopy. They were part of the old Shell station. MR. O’CONNOR-Staff made a comment that maybe we didn’t need the canopy signs because of the visibility of the signs that are on the building. You have to really take a look at this road, or be familiar with the road. This road curves as you’re coming in a westerly direction, it curves to the left. This building is not really visible because of the curve of the road and also the slant of the road, or the slope of the road. The road kind of slopes away. This is kind of like up on a hill to the side of it. I don’t really think that those two signs that are going to be on the front of this building, back along here, are going to be that visible to the traffic that’s out here. They’re going to have to 44 (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 5/27/98) see over the mounding. They’re going to have to see past the tree. That’s not a good real substitute for a decent signage. They’re nice when you’re on site, but they’re kind of blocked from the canopy even here. I think this sign, if you lined up the canopy in front of this part of the building, the canopy is 12 feet clearance at the top, 14 feet to the bottom of the canopy. Just as example of where they’re coming from. This is a 16 foot sign, counted as one. It’s not an attempt, here, to maximize the signage, or permitted signs, just trying to show to the public what we’re doing, and do it in a reasonable manner. So we think that we have a justification for those signs. We understand there’s a lot of feeling about precedent, but I think you’ve got to look at every site individually, and I hope that you do that, I think you have in the past. Some of what we’re talking about is due to the re-configuration of our entrances, a little bit because of the widening of the road, but that only took a little sliver off. It’s more an idea to try to capture the traffic that we think’s important to the success of the business, and give them some adequate signage. If we could get the State to move that tree, we would probably be willing to re-think our application, but that’s a big crown maple tree, and I don’t think the State’s going to do anything with it. That’s just our impression. Any questions? MR. THOMAS-Yes, I have several. Since you were talking about the tree, have you approached the State to ask them to cut it down? MR. WOLFROM-I have not, and my experience in the past, in other applications, whenever we ask the State to take any tree down, of any size, the answer has been no, and generally my experience in testifying before Boards, all over the east coast, is taking a tree of that size down would probably agitate the Town, as much as the DOT, simply because of the beauty of it. We recognize, as Michael pointed out, it certainly reduces our visibility, but it’s a real nice tree, and we don’t think it really is bad looking out there, although it does, you know, reduce our visibility somewhat, but in terms of aesthetic value, we weren’t even thinking in terms of trying to take it down. Some scraggly tree, and I was down on our new Ballston station today, and there’s a lot of those in front, and we need to take those down to clear up the visibility, but this is such a nice tree, and we just haven’t done it. MR. STONE-This is the North Country, and it only has leaves on it for four months. MR. WOLFROM-Well, I grew up here, so I’m aware of that. MR. O’CONNOR-My experience with that, Mr. Thomas is I know what the Ramada went through to get permit to do the landscaping on the entranceway, southbound entranceway ramp for all the foliage and what not that blocked them, and that was a three year process, with landscape plans and everything else. It’s not something that’s readily available, and I don’t know if, aesthetically, we’re trying to accommodate what’s there and leave it there. I think you probably would have more outcry if we came in and knocked it down. I don’t know, and I try not to promote that, and it’s probably going to grow. It doesn’t look like they’ve done anything to harm it. They’ve stayed well away from it, and it’s almost out to that new sidewalk, as you measure the crown of it, you stand underneath the thing. MR. THOMAS-Is the facade of the re-built store going to look similar or exactly like the one on Ballston Spa, on Route 50? MR. WOLFROM-It will not look like that. We tried an experiment. We did one over in Selina, and one out in Brockport, and the Chairman of the Board took one look at those and said, no more, and therefore, the different design here with the central door, and a more peaked roof, if you will, and a quite different look. Internally, we’ve dubbed the one you’re referring to “The Alamo”, and it’s something we won’t do again. Aesthetically, it didn’t measure up, on Route 50, just north of 67. MR. THOMAS-Right there at the Joel O’Keefe Jump and Run, remember when that guy jumped out of the cop car and ran? MR. STONE-Yes. I know who you mean. MR. THOMAS-That’s right where it happened right there. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. THOMAS-This Board gave a variance for the canopys. I think probably a year and three months ago. 45 (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 5/27/98) MR. WOLFROM-Two years ago. MR. THOMAS-Was it two years ago? MR. WOLFROM-Yes, sir. MR. THOMAS-Didn’t we, we gave the variances for the signs along with it, didn’t we? MR. WOLFROM-I believe you did. I was here and testified at that hearing with John Lathrop from H and H, and after that time, I moved on to something else in Hess and someone else took over the permitting and construction. MR. THOMAS-Yes. I know who you mean. I can’t think of his name. It’s an Italian name. The Blimpie’s inside, is that owned by Hess? MR. WOLFROM-Yes, sir. MR. THOMAS-Is Blimpie’s owned by Hess? MR. WOLFROM-We are a licensee of Blimpie’s. We will dress our people, that may be the wrong word, but we will put our people in Blimpie uniforms, but they will be Hess employees. That way we have control over the operation. MR. THOMAS-What I’m referring to is the previous variance for the Video Broker, that he owns both businesses. MR. WOLFROM-We own both businesses. We do pay them a fee, and it was our decision to use Blimpie’s or Subway or someone like that, rather than have a Hess sandwich, which isn’t recognizable on a national basis. MR. THOMAS-No. Okay. So that answers my question about that. MR. MC NALLY-Is Hess a franchisee? MR. WOLFROM-We’re a licensee. MR. MC NALLY-Okay. I’m sorry. MR. WOLFROM-We pay Blimpie’s a license fee to use their name, and use products in the proper proportions and so forth as dictated by them, and have their logo inside and outside the store. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Anymore questions? Somebody must have a bunch. MR. STONE-Well, I have a question, having gone by the station today, and being a customer on occasion, there are an awful lot of Hess signs around. Now, I’m sure you don’t recognize them as Hess signs, but over the canopy of each pump, you have individual canopys for the pumps, and there are Hess signs, there are eight Hess signs over the four islands, if you will. Those are signs, as far as I’m concerned. They say Hess. MR. WOLFROM-Well, those are incorporated into the dispenser’s manufacturer specification from Hess to identify the top of each dispenser with a Hess, and that’s just part of the industry. Mobil has that, Shell, Sunoco, everyone has a little. MR. STONE-Well, I was noticing, as I drove around today, a lot of stations don’t have as prominent a display as your station does, over the canopys, whatever you call those islands. MR. O’CONNOR-The pumps have always been exempt and Chris might, they are not permitted under signs when they’re installed, and even when people go and re-do their station with re-doing only the pumps and dispensers and coming up with the more modern pump, it just goes in, as a piece of equipment. MR. ROUND-Mr. Stone and I had a conversation earlier today, and I guess gas stations have been addressed differently in that whether those items are signs or not, I don’t know, but I know it’s something that hasn’t been addressed previously, and I don’t think it’s going to be addressed here 46 (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 5/27/98) tonight. Looking to the definition of signs, you know, it may be interpreted that they are signs. It’s difficult to speak to any one of those without having physical information in front of us, pictures of those. Certainly, there’s logo information on the pumps, and other items, and I don’t think that’s what we’re looking to address tonight. MR. WOLFROM-As you know, we recently installed new dispensers there, which are carburator type, and got away from the old. If you were a customer there, you know how bad the old ones were. MR. O’CONNOR-Let me ask Mr. Thomas a question. Do you recall that the time the canopy came in, those two signs were on the canopy, and that was part of the variance? MR. THOMAS-I recall the drawing showing the two signs on the canopy. I would have to go back to two years ago and look in the file and see exactly what the resolution was, but it seems to me that those two were on the sign, and that was included in the resolution. MR. WOLFROM-I believe you’re right, sir, and the major thrust of that hearing, because I was here to testify for Hess with John Lathrop, was the encroachment of the canopy into the front yard, which was a variance setback request at that time, and that was granted that evening. MR. THOMAS-Right, and I do believe the signs were included on that. MR. O’CONNOR-And at that time we would have had the two wall signs on the chimney, which are going to be removed and substituted by the other two, and I’d just make that as a point, again, as to any significance of potential impact. We’re remodernizing, refurbishing what we have there. I don’t think we’re changing anything in character or impact of any significance. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Anymore questions for the applicant? If there’s no other questions, I’ll open the public hearing. Anyone wishing to speak in favor of this application? In favor of? Anyone wishing to speak opposed? Opposed? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED HARRY TROELSTRA MR. TROELSTRA-My name is Harry Troelstra. I live on 2 Carlton Drive. It’s been a long night here so far. I want to say the Hess Corporation has been a very good neighbor. I have very little complaints about what they have been doing so far. I do think that I have never been involved in politics. I usually let everything just happen. Lately, I have been becoming actually a different person. I think being in business and also being a homeowner, you have to be a little bit more aware of what’s going on. I think there are certain people that like to step on toes, and just keep on doing it more than once sometimes. I do feel that whatever they’re proposing, it sounds very sensible. However, I have been a friend of Mike’s for a long time. I do think what they’re proposing is not fair to other businesses. I have a business. I have the same tree. The tree is blocking my sign just as much as Hess’s sign. I’m living on the same side of the road where the Hess station is. I get people coming from the west going east, going into my business, 90% of my business comes from the west going east. They do cross the road if they want to go and see you. If you have a good product, they come to see you. I do think it’s a little understated, or maybe overstated that 90% of the Hess business comes from the east and travels west. I think it’s very convenient to have it like that, and I do shop at Hess more than once a week. I think it’s not impossible for people, especially the new highway situation, that people coming from the west will visit the Hess. We are basically situated with the shadow, the same way as the Hess. If they think that the people won’t stop because they have only one entrance now into the place instead of the two they had before, I think they will be surprised. I mean, they will still stop. They will find a way in, if they want that type of gasoline. I also think that the signs, and I don’t quite understand the plans. I haven’t seen them, but if they have a wall on the new building or the new front that they propose, I think it will be very well visible traveling from east to west. Speaking at night, I guess when the new canopy was installed, nobody knew how much light or how much extra light we were going to get. Right now, I can read just about the newspaper in my livingroom when the lights go on on the Hess station, living at 2 Carlton Drive. I’m used to it. I’m not opposed to it, but I think the place is very highly visible with these high intensity lights they’re using right now. They are 16 inch letters, I believe they’re 16 inch letters, on the canopy, which are visible from over 500 feet, because my eyes, I can see them 500 feet before I get to the station. I think the Hess station that they have up there which is, I guess, according to Mike O’Connor, he had at 40 square feet right now, with some other additional signs, and I guess they thought they want to go 78 47 (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 5/27/98) square feet. I think if they could live with the 50 square feet that we have to live with, I think it would be better for the Town of Queensbury, because if they start getting 78 square feet, everybody else is going to come here and say, I want my 78 square feet, too. He can have it. Why can’t I have it? I put a sign up on Quaker Road, I’ve got a 50 square foot sign, and I would have loved to have eight inch letters on there, but I had to cut back to six inch letters in order to get some specialties on it, you know, the message on the daily specials. If you go to 64 or 78 square feet, you can blow those letters up to eight inch letter, and of course, I mean, you know, yes, you will benefit from it. So I think, if this all goes through, what Hess proposes, I don’t want to make an enemy, but I think then I will come back, maybe, and say, now, I want a 78 square foot sign, too, and you just have to basically hand it to me, because I’m sitting here with the same situation, the same tree, the same wall sign, the same 50 square foot sign that I have right now. Why should one get it and the other one doesn’t get it? I have no high intensity lights. I have just two little spotlights on my sign right now. There’s no room for high intensity lights, and it wouldn’t look right there on the corner, either. So I’m opposing against larger signs. I think the rules that were made for corner lots should stand, and so also should the 50 or 64 square foot signs, whatever is allowable in the laws that you have right now. Thank you. MR. THOMAS-Sir, you own the Econo Lodge? MR. TROELSTRA-No, I own the Silo. MR. THOMAS-You own the Silo. MR. MC NALLY-And he also lives at 2 Carlton Drive. MR. TROELSTRA-I live at 2 Carlton Drive. MR. HAYES-Is that on the Silo side or the? MR. STONE-You walk to work very quickly. MR. TROELSTRA-I walk to work? No, I drive to work, because this way my wife can’t call me back. I’m gone for the day. MR. THOMAS-Which side of the street of Carlton do you live on? Do you live on the Silo side? MR. TROELSTRA-Right behind the Silo, yes, on the east side of Carlton Drive. MR. THOMAS-That’s right, too, because Hess takes up three corners there. MR. TROELSTRA-Right. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Are there any other questions? No? Is there anyone else who’d like to speak opposed? Is there any correspondence? MR. ROUND-None received. MR. THOMAS-None received. Okay. I’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. THOMAS-You can respond. MR. WOLFROM-I just wanted to respond to the gentleman who objected, that runs the Silo, and indicate that our business is quite different than his, in that there are two competitors that sell the same product that we sell on the south side of Aviation Road. Therefore, people going east would be more likely not to interfere with the, and cross over the traffic, and we do find, as Mr. O’Connor pointed out, that we get a very, very large percentage of our business from the side of the road that we’re situated on. It wouldn’t matter which side you’re on. That’s just historic in the gasoline business, and our customers are what we call three minute customers, where the people that frequent the Silo are longer term, in the amount of time they spend in that operation, and in that place of business. So that we have to get people in and out very conveniently. If they can’t get in and out conveniently, they’ll go to a competitor, and there obviously are competitors on the other side of the street. 48 (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 5/27/98) MR. O’CONNOR-Just for the record, I probably would note, I think it’s public knowledge that one of those two competitors across the street has apparently sold out and probably will be gone, but still on the other side of the Northway you have the Mobil station for traffic that is going in an easterly direction. You’ve got the Sunoco station that apparently is going to stay there, at least we’ve been told by the industry is going to stay there, and you’ve got the Mobil station down at the corner of Quaker and 9. So you’ve got three stations within a half mile on the left hand side of the road, all pricing their product very, very close. I think that’s why we rely upon the fact that we think that probably 90% of our business, and our visibility problem is from the east. It’s not really from the west, to be honest with you. It’s more from the east. A difference and a distinction that we would make from the Silo property, too, is that we already have existing freestanding signs of 68 square feet, and what we’re doing is trying to trade two freestanding signs, for one freestanding sign, with an increase of only 12 square feet. We also are offering to trade a zero setback to a five foot setback. So it’s not a black and white picture, and it’s not an argument that I think that other people could make easily with their property. Also, there are very few other properties that are going to come and tell you that the State of New York has changed their traffic pattern as drastically as it’s changed our traffic pattern, and in fact even changed the property line a little bit. MR. STONE-I have two or three questions, Mike, if I might. With the new facade, is that going to be flush with the front of the building, or is that sign, the Hess Express, going to be out from the building so that it’s going to be lit? MR. WOLFROM-It is attached to the building, but it does, you know, they are separate letters. MR. STONE-They’re separate letters? MR. WOLFROM-It’s a strip mounted sign, so that makes that clear. MR. STONE-Yes, but I mean they will be lit? MR. WOLFROM-Yes, and they will be attached to the building. They’re not going to, you know, they will protrude a little bit, but not much. MR. STONE-The reason I ask, looking at this particular picture, you’ve giving up visibility from this particular spot by taking down that chimney. MR. WOLFROM-Absolutely. I mean, that was Shell’s design, their pylon design, and this is just, it’s their building, and it was built by Shell many, many years ago, as you may remember. MR. STONE-The other question, Chris, for you, the price sign. I know it’s a sign, but it’s unique to the gasoline industry, isn’t it pretty much, actually where you put your prices outside? It’s almost a necessity? MR. WOLFROM-Prices are mandated, and there are many, many ordinances, as a matter of fact, I testified a couple of weeks ago down in Halfmoon in the lower end of Saratoga County, where the price signs are considered informational and are not considered part of the computation of square footage. So that all they counted was our Hess logo, and the Blimpies (lost words) be a 5,000 square foot store. So it was Blimpies and Godfathers. So they counted both of those, but not the price sign, as part of the overall computation. MR. STONE-Okay, and your signs are going to be 48 square feet, your Hess and Blimpie signs, 32 and 16? MR. WOLFROM-We currently have 40 square feet of Hess and 28 square feet of pricing. Our proposal is to shrink the Hess from 40 to 32, and to increase slightly the price sign, which is currently 28, just flush out the area between the upright posts, and make that 32. MR. STONE-I’m saying if you forget the pricing sign, you’re going to have 48 feet of business sign? MR. WOLFROM-That’s correct. MR. STONE-Which is less than the 50 which is allowed. MR. MC NALLY-Did we ever decide that the pricing information (lost words)? 49 (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 5/27/98) MR. STONE-We have not. I’m just thinking about it, that’s all. MR. MC NALLY-It’s there to advertise prices, and it gives competitive information. MR. HAYES-It does go to the neighborhood. MR. STONE-You could argue both ways. I was really addressing the comment here that the signs that say, here’s two products, Hess and Blimpie, is 48 square feet. As I say, it’s an interesting observation. MR. ROUND-Our Ordinance makes no provision for that exception. MR. STONE-I understand. MR. ROUND-I know there is a New York State, and maybe Mr. Wolfrom can help me, it is required that the pricing be posted on the pump. MR. WOLFROM-That’s correct. MR. ROUND-And we don’t consider that part of the sign calculation, but for advertising purposes, it is included. MR. STONE-I understand that. MR. WOLFROM-Chris is correct in that it is required on the pumps. Unfortunately, to get all of the numerals that are required under the State law, which require the base price, the tax, and the final price, the numbers are clearly not readable from the street. So we all, in the industry, are complying with the law, but at the same time, are not providing a service to you or me driving down the street. So I can make a determination that this is a fair and reasonable price to pay for the product, and that’s why we have the prices, and all of us do have them out on the pole. MR. STONE-That’s true. MR. THOMAS-Are there anymore questions for the applicant? MR. MC NALLY-The sign on the building, it’s just back lit? MR. WOLFROM-It’s internally illuminated letters, back lit, I guess. I’m not quite sure what you mean by back lit, but I would say yes. MR. HAYES-It would be like the lettering on. MR. STONE-On Video Broker. MR. MC NALLY-That’s what I was thinking. MR. O’CONNOR-It would be visible only to the Aviation Road site or side. MR. WOLFROM-Right, but the lighting is internal. MR. HAYES-So it’s more like a neon like thing? MR. WOLFROM-Yes, it is not neon, but you’re right. MR. STONE-It’s a translucent plastic with lights inside. MR. WOLFROM-Yes. If this had a shield over the top, it would be (lost words), that’s correct. MR. STONE-That’s what I’m envisioning, yes. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Anymore questions for the applicant? We’re going to talk about it. Bob? MR. MC NALLY-I’ve got a historical dislike of signs too close to roads and too large in size, without real good reason. The existing sign is close to the road, closer than the proposal. The existing size is larger than the Ordinance requires, but it’s an existing structure, so it doesn’t really 50 (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 5/27/98) matter. The proposal increases the sign. So we’re being asked to trade one for the other. On the building, it’s funny, I like one sign. We just had that argument in the application before hand. The total square footage of the building signs is much smaller than they’d otherwise be entitled to, but I have to agree. In looking over this building, you can tell it’s a Hess station, and you can tell it’s a Hess station from the signs on that canopy pretty well. I’m not necessarily convinced as to the need for this variance. It doesn’t seem like such a major thing, though. I’ve got to think about it. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Joe? MR. PORTER-Getting back to the site visibility, and to benefit both parties that spoke tonight on the tree, the maple tree, in my past experience in being with the State, even though it is a substantial tree, their concern, also, is site visibility, whether it be for pedestrian or what not, and along with the signs, in conjunction with that, I think if the State was approached in that manner, they’d be somewhat pliable, doing what they’ve done there already with the construction of the road, widening it and making it more visible to the incoming traffic. MR. WOLFROM-Again, my experience, and I’ve been with Hess 26 years doing this, is that the State has never once allowed us to take trees down. As a matter of fact, most communities require, and this tree may be a result of that requirement at one time or another, what they call street trees being planted along the perimeter between sidewalks and edge of curbs. Unfortunately, this one has grown very large, and I could take you down to our station on Wolf Road in Colony and show you the street trees that we’ve planted down there, at the request and demand of the State of New York and the Town of Colony, and they are all, today, the size of this tree, but I did that project about 20 years ago, and they’re all maples, and they’ve grown just like this one has. MR. THOMAS-Anything else, Joe? MR. PORTER-No. MR. THOMAS-You’re all set. Brian. MR. CUSTER-Are you for or against, Joe? MR. PORTER-I’m just looking down the road. I guess I’m for the sign part of it, but I’m looking down the road, 20 years down the road, that tree’s going to be twice its size, and it’s going to be more of a problem for both parties, and visibility problems. Irregardless, a tree is a tree, and I understand, and I do quite a bit of State work, and there is some tolerances, and everybody wants trees to be decorative, but I look at the safety factor of it. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Go ahead, Brian. MR. CUSTER-My guess, Joe, is that in 20 years that tree might be dead from all the traffic and smog it’s going to go blowing into it. It’s an interesting application, but when I look at it, and listen to the argument being made, and I compare it to what exists there, and the compromises that are being proposed, I see it as really an equal trade off. The two existing pylon signs on the chimney are being taken down and removed, and being asked to be replaced with the Hess Express and Blimpie, albeit they’re all on the same facade. The canopy is already existing, not altering that, just asking that to stay, and there’s the trade off with the new sign, you’re asking for an additional 10 square feet, if I’m not mistaken. MR. STONE-Twelve. MR. O’CONNOR-Twelve square feet, I think. MR. STONE-Twelve, 68 to 80. MR. CUSTER-Sixty-eight to eighty. We’re giving up two signs for one, and then moving them back five feet. I think it’s a pretty fair trade off, I think it keeps the aesthetics. I don’t think there’s anything here that’s visually unappealing. I can go with it. I’m not as crazy about the signs around here as some of the other people on the Board. That’s just my feeling. I think as long as it’s done aesthetically, and done right, it’s something we can live with. MR. THOMAS-All right. Lew? 51 (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 5/27/98) MR. STONE-Well, as you can judge from my previous comments, I can be negative on signs. I came prepared to be negative on this sign. I applaud the understanding that we have about signs, and the willingness to reduce from 100 square feet to 80 square feet, to make it one sign, to push it back from the road, and to take down the two signs on the chimney, or whatever we want to call it, in favor of the other two signs. The signs on the canopy are there. In one sense, they’re your only means of identification for most people coming by, if they’re keeping their eyes at road level. I do object to the number of other little signs, but that’s not what we’re talking about tonight. I’m inclined to think this is a reasonable variance here. You have given up something. We have given up something, in a sense, but I think it’s a good project. I commend Mr. O’Connor on his presentation. He was very thorough. He lead us, I think, to where we wanted to go, not necessarily where he wanted to go, and I think it’s a good project. MR. THOMAS-All right. Jamie? MR. HAYES-Well, I agree. I think that, you know, Harry used the word that the proposal seemed “sensible”, and I know he was opposing it, but as Lew said, as we walk through this, you know, it really seems that a lot of the ideas have a logical basis, and I know this Board has had a history of scrutinizing sign applications very thoroughly, and we’ve all benefited from that, but I have been sold by the fact that I don’t think there’s an attemp here to increase signage to the point where the neighborhood or the community suffers. I think it’s all based on logical, sound business reason, and I think Lew’s point to the fact that the signs on the canopy being removed, being replaced by something that does look modern, that does look tasteful. MR. STONE-You mean on the chimney? MR. HAYES-On the chimney, excuse me, yes. They’re actually giving up some exposure, to become more stylish, and I really can’t have a problem with that. So, again, as a rule, I also follow the tradition of the Board and try and scrutinize these things well, but I think the bases have been touched here, and I think the trade offs that have been proposed are sensible. So I would be in favor of the application. MR. THOMAS-Okay. I have one question. The pylon signs that are on the chimney right now, could you tell me how many square feet they are, each? MR. WOLFROM-I believe they’re 40 each. MR. THOMAS-They’re 40 each? MR. WOLFROM-They look to me like standard Hess logos. They may be something we cannabalized from some other building to fit on the pylon, but they’re probably. If not, they’re something we got off an odd sign. Five by eight is our standard logo box that we have everywhere. This new thing that we talked about tonight is something on paper. Just, by the way, someone mentioned the pylon. I wanted to make everyone real certain. The pylons will come down, as well as the sign. So the pylon will go away as well. MR. STONE-You mean the chimney? MR. HAYES-The pylon itself, the structure itself. MR. STONE-The structure. Yes, no, I assumed that. MR. WOLFROM-I just wanted to make that clear that it’s going to come down. So you won’t be looking at it without signs. It’s just going to be gone. MR. THOMAS-Okay. I agree with the other Board members. I think this is a fair trade off, especially on the building signs, where the two Hess signs on the chimney being 40 square feet each, being 80 square feet, total sign coming down, and they’re only asking to put 56 on the building, between the Hess Express and the Blimpie sign. These two signs separated differ from the last application, last variance, in that the last application was in a plaza, whereas this is a freestanding building on its own lot. As far as the freestanding sign, moving back five feet and increasing only 12 feet in area, I don’t see a problem with that at all. At least they’re moving it back away from the road. Another thing, too, is what are the hours of operation going to be? MR. WOLFROM-We plan on starting at 24, particularly during the summer season, and then cutting back as demand dictates. If there’s no business, we’ll certainly close up earlier. 52 (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 5/27/98) MR. THOMAS-Yes, because I was thinking of the gentleman over on 2 Carlton Drive, that he could read his newspaper off the existing light there. MR. WOLFROM-I was surprised to hear him say that, because now all of our light is directed downward, where before it could go in all directions. It’s designed to come down on the canopy, but he’s correct. It is bright. MR. STONE-If I may, Chris, the gas station and the sandwich shop 24 hours? MR. WOLFROM-The sandwich shop will not operate 24 hours a day. You can come in, after 8 pm, which is our normal shutdown time to be making custom made sandwiches, and order a sandwich out of our pre-made, in other words, before they wind it down, they’ll make a dozen of the most popular, whatever it may be in this market, whether it’s ham and cheese or whatever, pre- wrap them and put them in a cooler, but you will not be able to come in after 8 pm and get a custom made sandwich. MR. THOMAS-Okay, and another thing I like about this idea, all the signage is on the south elevation. There are no signs on the west side, on the east side, or on the north side, according to these prints. There are no signs whatsoever. MR. O’CONNOR-The canopy is on east and west. MR. THOMAS-Well, is on east and west, but on the building itself. MR. WOLFROM-Everything’s on south. MR. THOMAS-Everything’s on the south side. I like that idea, even though they do stand on a corner, they could have two signs, one on each face, that they, you know, elected not to put one, especially on the east elevation. I have no problem whatsoever with this, with granting this variance, with the changes that the applicant has made, namely the sign going from 100 square feet down to 80 square feet, and the, what was the other change you made on that? There was another one. MR. STONE-And the setback. MR. THOMAS-And the setback was in the variance application of five. MR. O’CONNOR-That, and what was not on the application is that the two on the chimney will come off. MR. THOMAS-Yes. Okay. MR. CUSTER-Chris, in the future, do we have to reference that the elevation on that one side is gone? MR. THOMAS-Do we have to reference the elevation, that it’s gone? MR. CUSTER-I mean, they’re entitled to a facade on the east elevation because they’re a corner lot. MR. THOMAS-Because they’re a corner lot. MR. CUSTER-But if we passed the variance, because we’ve given them two on the front, giving up that. MR. THOMAS-Yes. I would say that would be fair. MR. O’CONNOR-We understand that that is our signage. MR. THOMAS-They’re signage is what’s proposed on the print, and anything different, they’d have to come back in for another variance. MR. O’CONNOR-Yes. 53 (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 5/27/98) MR. ROUND-Yes, I think because they’ve already got a variance for the number of signs. So in addition to the number, they would require. MR. THOMAS-Yes, that’s right, too, because the increase in the number of signs would trigger the whole thing. MR. STONE-Do we need a super majority? MR. THOMAS-No, because that was modified conditions. It was not disapproved. We don’t need the five. We need four, on this one here. Right? It was modified with conditions. We don’t need a super majority on that. MR. O’CONNOR-You don’t need a super majority on the setback. I think you need a super majority on the number of signs, and on the size of the freestanding. MR. ROUND-I think that’s correct. MR. THOMAS-Yes. MR. STONE-Yes. MR. O’CONNOR-Yes, you do. MR. THOMAS-All right. Having said that, would someone like to make a motion? MOTION THAT A REVIEW OF THE SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM SHOWS THAT THERE ARE NO NEGATIVE IMPACTS CAUSED BY THIS VARIANCE REQUEST , Introduced by Chris Thomas who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brian Custer: th Duly adopted this 27 day of May, 1998, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. McNally, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Stone, Mr. Custer, Mr. Porter, Mr. Thomas NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Lapham MOTION TO APPROVE SIGN VARIANCE NO. 24-1998 AMERADA HESS CORP. , Introduced by Lewis Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brian Custer: The north side of Aviation Road, just east of Interstate 87. The applicant proposes one 80 square foot freestanding sign, two canopy signs, otherwise known as wall signs, and two wall signs on the building. The proposed freestanding sign will consolidate two existing freestanding signs and attempt to maintain current sign setback from the right-of-way. Actually, the setback will be five feet from the right-of-way. The applicant requests relief from Sections of the Sign Ordinance Section 140 as follows: The freestanding sign, 50 square foot is allowed at a 15 foot setback. Applicant seeks relief for an 80 square foot sign, and five foot setback, and requires 10 foot relief. Wall signs: two wall signs are allowed on a corner lot. Applicant relief for two signs on the building, both on the south side of the building. The setback restriction involved is a setback of 15 feet from the front property line, which is required, and the applicant seeks 10 foot of relief, therefore for a five foot setback. In granting this variance, we recognize the benefit to the applicant will be that the applicant will be permitted to construct the desired signs and display same. While there are many feasible alternatives in granting this variance, we consider the reductions made from the original variance to be admirable on the part of the applicant, and we believe that the feasible alternatives have, in fact, been met. In considering this variance, we have to ask, is the relief substantial to the Ordinance. The requested relief to add 60% to the freestanding sign and double the allowable number of wall signs, while it may be interpreted as substantial, is, in fact, not such, because it’s compensated by taking two signs off of the so called chimney on the existing building. It is anticipated that the effect on the neighorhood or community will be minimal, and while this difficulty is self created, this is a business applicant who must advertise his business in a way to conform both to good business practices and to the dictates of the Sign Ordinance. Noted that this variance also recognizes that there will be two signs on the canopy, in addition to the two signs on the building. 54 (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 5/27/98) th Duly adopted this 27 day of May, 1998, by the following vote: MR. O’CONNOR-Mr. Chairman, in the substance part of it, you talked about the relief being the two signs on the building in place of the two signs on the chimney. I would also like an acknowledgement to co-exist with the two existing signs that are on the canopy. MR. STONE-I thought I did that. If I didn’t, let it be noted that this variance also includes , recognizes that there will be two signs on the canopy, in addition to the two signs on the building. MR. THOMAS-Okay. AYES: Mr. Hayes, Mr. Stone, Mr. Custer, Mr. Porter, Mr. McNally, Mr. Thomas NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Lapham MR. THOMAS-There you go. MR. O’CONNOR-Thank you. MR. WOLFROM-Thank you very much. MR. THOMAS-You’re quite welcome. MR. WOLFROM-During our earlier conversation with the gentleman that runs the Silo, this is probably an inappropriate place to say so, but that gentleman raised a point that our site plan does not call for any green behind the existing building, and I told that gentleman before that, you know, that was an oversight. Someone just goofed on our part. We will put a row of arborvitae behind the building, so that the folks on Schoolhouse and on Carlton won’t be looking at a blank white building. He raised that, and I think it’s appropriate that we address it here or somewhere, but it will appear on our final site plan. MR. THOMAS-Would you also see if you can do something about the lights that shine back there. You say they’re supposed to shine down, but they kind of sort of shine out. MR. WOLFROM-They do shine down. MR. THOMAS-Okay. AREA VARIANCE NO. 23-1998 TYPE II CR-15 JEWELS DONUTS, INC. OWNER: MARK F. LA POINTE 22 WEST MAIN STREET APPLICANT PROPOSES A DUNKIN DONUT SHOP ON A CORNER LOT. RELIEF IS NEEDED FROM THE COMMERCIAL SETBACK REQUIREMENTS OF THE COMMERCIAL RESIDENTIAL ZONE. WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 5/13/98 TAX MAP NO. 131- 5-1, 34, 33 LOT SIZE: 0.51 ACRES SECTION 179-24 MICHAEL O’CONNOR, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 23-1998, Jewels Donuts, Inc., Meeting Date: May 27, 1998 Project Location:Description of Proposed Project: “ 22 West Main Street/Caroline Street Applicant proposes construction of an 1800 sf Dunkin Donuts shop on the corner of Main Street Relief Required: and Caroline Street. Applicant requests relief from the setback requirements of the Commercial Residential zone (CR-15). The front setback in the CR-15 zone is 75 feet, Criteria for considering an applicant requests relief of 25 feet. Proposed setback is 50 feet. Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: 2. Feasible alternatives: Applicant would be permitted to construct and operate desired project. Due to the lot configuration and site constraints feasible alternatives may include downsizing or no 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the ordinance?: construction. The requested relief for 50 4. Effects on the neighborhood or feet rather than 75 feet may be interpreted as substantial. community:5. Is this difficulty self- Minimal effects are anticipated as a result of this action. created?Parcel History (construction/site The difficulty may be interpreted as self-created. plan/variance, etc.): Area Variance AV 76-1997 relief from the minimum lot size requirements 55 (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 5/27/98) Staff of the Commercial Residential zone (CR-15). Site Plan Review SP 12-98 same action. comments: Applicant seeks relief from setback requirements which were inadvertently not SEQR Status: addressed with the previous variance. Type II” th MR. ROUND-“At a meeting of the Warren County Planning Board, held on the 13 day of May 1998, the above application for an Area Variance for a Dunkin Donut shop that can not meet setback requirements of 75’ in a commercial zone was reviewed, and the following action was taken. Recommendation to: No County Impact” Tracey M. Clothier, Chairperson. MR. THOMAS-All right. Mr. O’Connor, again. MR. O’CONNOR-Yes. Mr. Chairman, again, for the purpose of your record, I’m Michael O’Connor from the law firm of Little & O’Connor. I’m representing the applicant, Jewels Donuts, Inc. With me at the table is Richard Jones, who is the engineering/architect consultant, and Rob Lindsell, who is Vice President of Jewels Donuts, Inc. Basically, and I don’t mean to beg the question, this is the same application that you saw within the last few months, same configuration. Apparently, at that time, something was overlooked in that the property is in a commercial travel corridor overlay, or travel corridor overlay, requiring 75 foot setback for structures. When it was presented, it still is, in that instance, the structures that are proposed here are shown as 75 feet from Main Street, and Main Street actually is the street that’s listed in that list of streets to which that’s applicable. Though we fall into a trap, here, because we’re also on a corner street. We’re on the corner of Caroline and Main Street, and our proposed setback then and now is 50 feet. So we’re asking for relief of 25 feet from the Caroline Street side, insofar as one would interpret the Ordinance to say that because this is a corner lot, and the front setback on Main Street is subject to the 75 feet, the front setback on Caroline Street should be subject to 75 feet. If you look at the language in the Ordinance, when you look at the provisions that call for this, they talk about it being provided so as to have lands available, if you will, for widening of the street, if, in the future, it becomes necessary. That seems to be one of the principal purposes, without impacting significantly operations that are approved. The side setback is not, or Caroline Street is not a street that’s going to be widened, and it also is not a street that’s on that list, but simply because we’re on a corner, we fall into that interpretation, that one front is 75, both are 75. So the impact here is very insignificant. The request is not significant or substantial, in the sense that there is no benefit to requiring somebody to actually maintain that 75 feet on Caroline Street, and that basically is what we have. I don’t know if Staff has other comments, or it was something that was looked at. MR. ROUND-No. It’s just to clarify, it’s not the travel corridor overlay setback. There is a travel corridor overlay on Main Street, but the front yard setback in the commercial zone, CR-15, is 75 feet. It wasn’t identified that they needed relief from that from the previous application. It was identified on the plan, the front setback, but it’s basically an oversight, as a part of processing the application, but 75 feet is the front setback on Caroline Street, and they propose 50 feet. MR. HAYES-Because they’re concerned that corner is a front? MR. ROUND-Both, when you have corner lots, they’re both front setbacks, and you saw that the same case with an application this evening. MR. STONE-Tee Hill. MR. THOMAS-I don’t know. Well, lets go along with this, and see where it goes from here. Are there any questions for Mr. O’Connor? MR. STONE-I have none. I mean, we did consider this, and we thought it was a reasonable project. This really says to me that, unless I hear dramatic evidence to the contrary, we grant them the relief. We’ve got to have a public hearing. I agree. MR. CUSTER-I wouldn’t change my original opinion, concerning the original application, unless I hear something different from the public hearing. MR. O’CONNOR-The applicant, I might add, has also progressed through the process, and has a lot more information available. They actually have a traffic study in hand, an analysis that they’ve submitted to Staff and to Greater Glens Falls Transit Association or organization, whatever it is, and as I understand it, they’ve satisfied the concerns that they had. They thought that the layout was reasonable, that the traffic impact was not significant. We’ve done an actual study as to some other sites, as to how our traffic’s generated, where it isn’t generated. A lot of things that are in 56 (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 5/27/98) the site plan review that we will discuss tomorrow night, I guess, if we do get our approval tonight that we hope to get and we go to site plan review. MR. THOMAS-Are there anymore questions for the applicant before I open the public hearing? If not, I’ll open the public hearing. Anyone wishing to be heard in favor of this variance, in favor of? Anyone wishing to be heard opposed? Opposed? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NAT WILLIAMS MR. WILLIAMS-My name is Nat Williams, and I own the property that adjoins the proposed project on Caroline Street. MR. STONE-To the south? MR. WILLIAMS-Yes. Not the trailer, the corner of Garner and Caroline. MR. CUSTER-Were you here before, at the last application? MR. WILLIAMS-I was at the first one. I don’t know how many times this has come up since then, but I was at the first one. I guess tonight the only thing that’s being considered is whether you’re going to grant the setback from 75 feet to 50 feet? MR. THOMAS-On Caroline Street. MR. STONE-On Caroline Street. MR. THOMAS-It’s already been done on Main Street. It’s just on Caroline Street, and I’m very skeptical about this, but I’m going to talk to the Town Attorney about it, but that’s the only thing we’re considering tonight. We’re not considering anything to do with the building, the parking, the lighting, the shrubbery, or anything like that. All that’s been taken care of. MR. STONE-Well, tomorrow night. You’re saying site plan approval is tomorrow night. MR. THOMAS-Yes, site plan approval. MR. WILLIAMS-So any questions, as far as what’s going on can be brought up tomorrow night? MR. THOMAS-Yes. MR. STONE-Right. MR. WILLIAMS-I guess I’ll be back here tomorrow night, too. I definitely have some questions, and I have some reservations about cutting that setback back to 50 feet on Caroline Street. MR. THOMAS-Well, that’s what we’re here to talk about, is cutting that setback from 75 to 50 feet. MR. WILLIAMS-Correct. MR. THOMAS-But only because it’s in a Travel Corridor Overlay Zone, but it’s not on. MR. STONE-No, it’s because it’s in a CR-15. MR. THOMAS-CR-15, yes. MR. STONE-Yes, CR-15. MR. THOMAS-And it’s in that Travel Corridor Overlay Zone. MR. STONE-But I think Chris said that’s not what we’re talking about. MR. ROUND-It meets the Travel Corridor Overlay setback requirement. 57 (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 5/27/98) MR. HAYES-For Main Street. MR. MC NALLY-It’s 179-24. MR. CUSTER-But there’s no Travel Corridor Overlay on Caroline Street. MR. ROUND-Right. There’s no Travel Corridor Overlay on Caroline Street. It’s a 50 foot setback, excuse me, it’s a 75 foot setback. MR. CUSTER-75, because of the CR-15. MR. ROUND-Right. Correct. MR. WILLIAMS-But didn’t you say that because it’s a corner lot, that because it’s a corner lot, that it’s required to have 75 on both faces? MR. ROUND-Correct. It has a 75 foot setback on Caroline Street, and that’s part of the Zoning Ordinance, and that’s because Caroline Street is also considered a front yard or front setback. MR. WILLIAMS-Okay. So where does the 50 feet come in? I know that’s what you’re supposed to be voting on, but you said it meets the criteria on Caroline Street. MR. ROUND-It meets, on Main Street there’s a 75 foot setback on Main Street. MR. WILLIAMS-Correct. I understand that. MR. ROUND-And it meets that criteria. MR. WILLIAMS-I understand. MR. ROUND-And that’s also the Travel Corridor Overlay setback. MR. WILLIAMS-Okay. MR. ROUND-They’re consistent with one another. The front setback, and the Travel Corridor Overlay are both 75 feet on Main Street. The front setback on Caroline is 75 feet, and they’re proposing 50, and that’s what they’re looking for. They don’t meet it on Caroline Street. MR. WILLIAMS-Okay. MR. ROUND-But it’s not the Travel Corridor Overlay, it’s the CR-15 front setback. MR. STONE-And we granted relief from the Travel Corridor Overlay, and the CR-15 on Main Street. MR. ROUND-No, you granted relief, I misspoke in my reading of the notes. They met that requirement. They did not require setback relief. They required relief from the one acre minimum lot size. MR. STONE-Right. So we have never discussed setback from either? MR. ROUND-Correct. MR. STONE-Okay. Seventy-five it is from Main Street. MR. THOMAS-It is 75 from Main Street. MR. STONE-Yes. MR. THOMAS-Okay, and CR-15 in the front is also 75. MR. STONE-Right. MR. THOMAS-It has two. 58 (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 5/27/98) MR. STONE-It’s got two, and that’s why Caroline Street. MR. THOMAS-Yes. Okay. Now that I’m confused. MR. WILLIAMS-I’m confused. I’ll just come back tomorrow. MR. THOMAS-Because what the Ordinance says, because it’s in the CR-15 zone, it has to have a 75 foot setback. It doesn’t matter if it’s in the Travel Corridor Overlay zone or not. MR. ROUND-Correct. MR. THOMAS-So that’s what we’re here tonight to consider, the 50 to 75, and you object to it because? MR. WILLIAMS-Now that I’m totally confused. I’m not sure how it’s going to, I don’t know, I have a problem with it not being set back, and the traffic coming out through there. I just have a problem with it. MR. THOMAS-Well, I think they’ll address the traffic at the site plan review. I think that’s part of it. MR. STONE-And all of the vegetation. MR. THOMAS-Vegetation, and all the other stuff. Have you ever seen a print or a map, a plot plan? MR. WILLIAMS-No. MR. STONE-I’ll show you. MR. THOMAS-That’s what it looks like, or that’s what it’s proposed to look like. MR. CUSTER-Mr. Williams, when you were here last, were you the one saying about the lighting in the back? MR. WILLIAMS-Correct. MR. CUSTER-Okay. MR. WILLIAMS-Yes. I know that you’re not addressing that now. MR. CUSTER-Right, but we did talk about it. I’m just trying to get back to my memory, where I was. MR. WILLIAMS-Yes, I had some concerns about the lighting because the parking lot and the drive through dumps out, and that’s all going to be lighted, and I have some concerns about bedrooms being on that end of the house and what have you. MR. CUSTER-Right. Now I remember you saying all that. MR. WILLIAMS-And the sound in the trees, and I guess they didn’t believe in fences. They believed in shrubs and what have you to cut down, I certainly have some concerns about those. MR. CUSTER-But if I recall, after we discussed all that, you were okay then? MR. WILLIAMS-I was never okay. MR. CUSTER-Never okay. I don’t want to lead the witness either. MR. STONE-Sir, you’re here, right? MR. WILLIAMS-You know, initially, did this not dump back on Main Street, the plan? It always dumped on Caroline Street? 59 (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 5/27/98) MR. STONE-Always dumped on Caroline, the drive through part did. Actually, it was only an entrance off of Main, I think. Just entry only. MR. THOMAS-Yes, an exit off Caroline. MR. STONE-Right. MR. WILLIAMS-Well, I guess, can I have this? MR. STONE-Sure. MR. WILLIAMS-Okay. Thank you. MR. STONE-You can bring it tomorrow night at the Planning Board. MR. THOMAS-Bring it tomorrow night and be one up on them. MR. CUSTER-How far is your house from the line? MR. WILLIAMS-How far is my house from the line? MR. CUSTER-Is that it right there? MR. WILLIAMS-Yes. Well, my lot is like 150 by, I believe, 75 or something like that, very, very close to where the drive through is going to be. In order to clarify, that chain link fence is one foot on my property. MR. THOMAS-About 50 feet south of the chain link fence. Okay. MR. WILLIAMS-Approximately, and then the garage is even closer than that. MR. THOMAS-Okay. MR. STONE-But the garage does block a little bit. MR. WILLIAMS-Yes, the garage is between the house and the chain link fence. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. WILLIAMS-So there’s some green space there. MR. THOMAS-Have you got anything more? MR. WILLIAMS-No. If, before she finishes, I come up with something, I’ll. MR. THOMAS-Would anyone else like to speak opposed? JENNY ARONSON MS. ARONSON-Hi. My name’s Jenny Aronson. I have the adjoining property on the other side, and I’m concerned about, well, a lot of things, but I guess about the setback, with it being a main traffic corridor more so, after you put the drive through in, there’s going to be a lot more traffic there. So it would be more like a high traffic zone, I would guess, and I’m opposed for that reason, because I foresee that we will have a lot more traffic going through Caroline Street and the whole area in general. MR. STONE-Now you’re on Main Street, though? MS. ARONSON-I’m on Main Street. MR. STONE-You’re to the west. MS. ARONSON-Right. 60 (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 5/27/98) MR. STONE-You still could object to what you were saying. I just wanted to be sure where you were, that’s all. Her property is identified on the left side, Aronson. MS. ARONSON-I do have one other question that I’d like to ask. Is the drive thru, is that considered to be, is that like a driveway, the same setback from any existing structures as the driveway would, with the traffic that goes through? MR. STONE-It is asphalt. MR. ROUND-Well, generally parking areas and driveways have not been subject to setbacks. MR. STONE-Right, I understand that. That’s what I’m saying. MR. O’CONNOR-The only place they are, and where I got off into right field, is on Bay Road, Travel Corridor Overlay, there drives only are permitted within the 75 feet, but that’s by a specific Section of the Ordinance. MR. THOMAS-That’s right. It’s specifically spelled out. MS. ARONSON-So there is no ordinance on a drive thru versus a driveway? MR. THOMAS-No, it’s just the building itself, the driveway has no setbacks, but the building does. MS. ARONSON-Okay, but a drive thru is still considered a driveway? MR. THOMAS-Well, the drive thru is part of the building which requires the setback from the property lines. MR. STONE-Yes, the drive thru window is part of the building, but the actual pavement on which you drive, no, you can have abutting driveways on two adjoining properties. MS. ARONSON-Right. No, I’m saying like how close the driveway is to my house, there’s nothing that makes it different than a regular driveway? MR. STONE-No. MS. ARONSON-Even with the heavy traffic going through? MR. THOMAS-No. MS. ARONSON-Okay. Thank you. MR. STONE-If you happen to come tomorrow night, that’s what they talk about. MR. THOMAS-Yes. Then you can get your shots in. BRIAN ABRAMS MR. ABRAMS-I’m Brian Abrams. I live at 28 Main, the property to the west. MR. STONE-Beyond Ms. Aronson? MR. ABRAMS-No, at the same residence. MR. STONE-I’m sorry. MR. ABRAMS-And I was wondering, the 75 foot setback from Main Street that’s already been approved or whatever, is that still going to be 75 foot once the road is widened, or is that already taken into account? MR. THOMAS-That’s why they put that 75 feet in there, that additional 25 feet, so if they do widen the road, then that’s taken care of. They will take that 25 feet, the Jewels Donuts people do know, and they have a strip in there that is 20 feet wide from the property line back that is just open space. It’s just green space. So that if and when they ever come around to do anything about 61 (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 5/27/98) the Main Street, that they can go ahead and take that piece of land, and it won’t bother their operation. MR. ABRAMS-Okay. I just think there’s already been, like, significant reductions for the lot size requirement, going from an acre to a half acre, and now to try and get a setback change from 75 to 50 on Caroline Street, I just think it’s setting standards for any business that wants to come in along Main Street. MR. THOMAS-Well, the specific problem with this one, it sits on a corner. See, any business that was on Main Street, okay, that’s a new or rebuilt, would have to meet the 75 foot setback, but because he’s on a corner, he also has to have the 75 foot setback from Caroline Street, in a CR-15 zone, okay. I know there’s different zones along Main Street, okay, and there’s different requirements for each zone. So it just so happens that in this CR-15 zone, which is 15,000 square feet per dwelling, except if it’s a business, then it has to be an acre. We already gave them a variance to go down to a half an acre, because they’re taking up three lots along Caroline Street, I think they were lined up, okay. So it was, you know, they ended up with 22,500 square feet, which is real close to half an acre, and the last meeting we had, we gave them a variance from that. MR. CUSTER-And if it weren’t a corner lot, if it was a lot in the middle of the street, we wouldn’t be having the discussion. MR. THOMAS-No, we wouldn’t even be talking about this, but, you know, it’s just because of this unique circumstance that it’s on a corner lot. Corner lots have a front yard, two front yards and two rear yards. They have no side yards like you have. You have a front yard, a rear yard and two side yards, because you’re not on a corner lot. When you’re on a corner, you have two front yards and two rear yards, and you have to go by the conditions for front and rear setbacks, as set forth in the Ordinance. Whether that answers your question or not, I don’t know. MR. ABRAMS-I’ve got a lot more, but I’ll save those for tomorrow night. MR. STONE-Yes, most of the ones you probably have are for the Planning Board. MR. THOMAS-Yes, I would say, you know, as far as lighting, vegetation, number of parking spaces, the color of the building. If they want a Sign Variance, we’ll see them again. MR. WILLIAMS-I think a point of order. Because he is sitting on a corner, right, where 75 feet applies in both directions, okay, but just a point of order. If it hadn’t been approved from a full acre to a half acre, he probably could have or would have been able to meet the setback without getting a variance. MR. THOMAS-Well, he would have had to take Ms. Aronson’s property to do that, to probably do that. MR. WILLIAMS-No, I’m just making a point of order. If there was an acre there, if there was a full acre there, he would have met the setback requirements and. MR. THOMAS-If it was a full acre, yes, he could have done it. He could have, because if he could have gone west, another 25 feet, he wouldn’t even have had to come in here, except for the one acre variance. He already could have made the 75, but I don’t see Ms. Aronson selling her house so Dunkin Donuts could buy it. MR. WILLIAMS-Okay. Just a point of order. MR. THOMAS-Okay. MS. ARONSON-Sorry. I just had a thought. I just want to make a comment. I would have maybe thought about something like that if I would have been approached, and it would have solved all these problems, probably, but I wanted to bring up also that the place directly across from where the driveway would be exiting on Caroline Street, right now, is an excavating company, and during around the same hours that the Dunkin Donuts will be operating, his trucks are pulling out of the excavating company, you know, he’s getting ready for the day, and there are quite a few trucks coming out of there. I think without this additional room, this might create a hazard in itself. 62 (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 5/27/98) MR. THOMAS-Well, you can address the Planning Board. That comes under traffic. We don’t mean to dump on the Planning Board, but. MR. STONE-No, it won’t impact, I don’t think, on the trucks. They’re not moving anything closer to the road, except that the parking spaces will be closer to the road, but they’re still going to be well within where the house is now, for example. The house is, what, 15, 20 feet from the? MR. HAYES-You’re in an area that we don’t have the power to review. MR. STONE-Yes, we don’t have the power to review anyway. MR. HAYES-So, we can’t even vote on that, even if you were right. MR. THOMAS-This map here shows the dotted lines. The old house, there’s one there. MS. ARONSON-So this variance will be approved? MR. HAYES-This is just on the setback. That’s all we’re allowed to do. MR. STONE-The lot’s going to be actually more visible as far as trucks coming out of that place, than they are now, because you have houses there. You have a house then a garage and a lot of limos. MS. ARONSON-Right. Yes. Okay. MR. THOMAS-I have to take back an earlier statement. I said all three lots fronted on Caroline Street. All three front on Main. MS. ARONSON-Well, thank you. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Somebody else had a question in opposition? ROBERT LINDSELL MR. LINDSELL-No, not in opposition. MR. THOMAS-I’ve already done the for’s, but if you want to do a for, go ahead. MR. LINDSELL-My name is Robert Lindsell. I’m co-owner of Jewels Donuts, Inc. We just wanted to make an offer to meet with these folks, at their convenience, to further discuss the plans, to offer them a better understanding of what we’re trying to accomplish. I guess that’s it. MR. O’CONNOR-I tried on Monday, but I didn’t find anybody at home. MR. THOMAS-Well, tomorrow night everybody will be together at the Planning Board meeting. MR. O’CONNOR-I apologize to the Board, my beginning comment, in speaking about the Travel Corridor Overlay. I misunderstood that myself. I agree with what Chris has said, is that the 75 foot is required, simply as a front setback because of the zone that we’re in. I do think it is unique, because it’s a corner lot. I don’t think that there’s any impact. I don’t think the requested variance is significant. If you take a look at what you have in your hand, you will see that the existing business, or structure, is 15 feet from the property line. We’re talking about one that’s going to be 50 feet from the property line. We’re going to improve the circumstance by 35 feet. I think, even to the east of the existing structure, they have the habit of parking vehicles perpendicular to the road. So if you’re getting into an issue of visibility or something, we’re greatly improving it. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Is there any correspondence? MR. ROUND-None. MR. THOMAS-None? All right. I’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED 63 (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 5/27/98) MR. THOMAS-Are there anymore questions for Mr. O’Connor? If not, lets talk about it real quick. MR. PORTER-I don’t see what the impact is going to be, in a CR-15 zone on Caroline, because of the restructuring of the property, taking the (lost word) and reducing the site visibility. If anything, I think it will be an improvement. MR. THOMAS-Brian? MR. CUSTER-As I said before, if the completed application had come to us in its entirety, the first time around, I don’t think I would have disapproved the variance request, if this had been the original application, along with the size of the lot variance that we granted originally. I would have been in favor of both, and after hearing all sides, from what I recall, from all sides both pro and con in the prior, it was a couple of months ago. So I don’t think the relief is all that substantial. I think it’s an anomaly to the way the zoning law is here, and I think it’s something we have to correct. So I’m in favor of moving forward. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Lew? MR. STONE-I basically agree, and I recognize what Mr. O’Connor said, that it is going to improve the site line, so to speak, because of the removal of the houses, and the house and the garage, and while there’ll obviously be an active business there, and there’ll be lights and everything that goes with it, I think it’ll be a safer location, in terms of the way it is now, and as Brian said, if we had considered it all at once, we would have had no problem whatsoever. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Jamie? MR. HAYES-I agree. I mean, there’s no point of beating a dead horse here. I think that we’ve approved this on its merits in the past, and the fact that this was discovered after is really a technicality, more than anything else. The relief isn’t substantial. So I’m in favor. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Bob? MR. MC NALLY-I don’t think the relief is substantial at all. It’s relatively minor. I don’t think the variance is going to have any impact on the neighborhood of a negative nature at all, and I’m in favor of it. MR. THOMAS-All right. I agree with the other Board members, that I don’t think this 25 feet will make any difference. If this were situated not on a corner, we wouldn’t even need to have this hearing, just because it’s on a corner in a CR-15 zone. Like two other Board members said, it’s just a technicality, and I think it’s a very minor one. Was this an Unlisted action? MR. ROUND-Type II action. MR. THOMAS-Type II. So we don’t have to worry about the environmental. Would someone like to make a motion? MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 23-1998 JEWELS DONUTS, INC. , Introduced by Brian Custer who moved for its adoption, seconded by Paul Hayes: Mark F. LaPointe, 22 West Main Street, corner of Caroline Street. Construction of an 1800 square foot Dunkin Donuts shop on the aforesaid corner of Main Street and Caroline Street. The applicant, in order to complete the construction, needs relief from the Commercial Residential Zone, CR-15 from the front setbacks, from 75 feet to 50 feet. The requested relief will be in the amount of 25 feet. By granting the variance, we will allow the following criteria to be addressed. It certainly will benefit the applicant by allowing him to construct and operate his desired project. Addressing the feasible alternatives would be to reconfigure the lot and maybe change the outline of the architecture of the building, but those aren’t really very viable, and I feel that we have addressed those to a relative degree. The relief is not substantial, according to the discussion we’ve had here, and it’s effect on the neighborhood seems to be minimal. The difficulty, although it may be interpreted as self created, I do not feel that is an impact on the overall balance of the variance request, and therefore I recommend we approve. 64 (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 5/27/98) th Duly adopted this 27 day of May, 1998, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stone, Mr. Custer, Mr. Porter, Mr. McNally, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Thomas NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Lapham MR. THOMAS-So, tomorrow night’s open season. MR. O’CONNOR-Thank you. Let me ask you a question, if I can. Why did they have to get a variance from the acreage? MR. ROUND-One acre is minimum for a commercial. MR. O’CONNOR-But it’s pre-existing lots. MR. THOMAS-Yes, but it’s in a CR-15. MR. O’CONNOR-I’ve never come for an acreage variance on a pre-existing lot. MR. THOMAS-Yes, but they took three lots and combined them into one. MR. O’CONNOR-So? MR. ROUND-In the CR zone, you need a minimum of one acre for a commercial enterprise. MR. O’CONNOR-You did a variance, tonight, for something on the lake, for a nonconforming lot. MR. ROUND-Correct, for an allowed use in that zone, site plan review use. MR. O’CONNOR-All right, but you did not include, in that variance application, I don’t think, I was outside, but you didn’t include an acreage variance. We never have done acreage variances for pre-existing lots, if I’m going to create a lot. MR. THOMAS-That was one pre-existing, nonconforming lot. MR. O’CONNOR-It doesn’t make any difference. If you take three, and combine them, you’ve gone beyond what the Ordinance requires you to do. I could go in and ask for a business on one 50 foot lot. MR. THOMAS-No, because the Ordinance requires one acre for a business. MR. O’CONNOR-Not for a pre-existing lot. MR. STONE-It’s a residential lot, though. MR. THOMAS-These were all three residential lots. MR. O’CONNOR-I would ask that you’d ask Town Counsel maybe to guide that. I hope that we don’t start asking for Area Variances, if we have existing, pre-existing, or we have pre-existing lots. MR. ROUND-Mike, if they didn’t ask for this, they would have been asking for relief from other aspects of the Ordinance, whether it be permeable area, lot coverage, etc. If you had a 5,000 square foot lot, it wouldn’t allow you to do the development as planned, and the combination of lots, you’ve got a new lot. MR. O’CONNOR-No, we didn’t ask for a variance for permeability. MR. ROUND-No, you didn’t, that’s because you had the acquired three separate properties. MR. O’CONNOR-No, no, I’m of the position, and you take a look at any of those variances or any of those buildings that have come in and have been refurbished along Main Street, this is the 65 (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 5/27/98) first one that I know of that’s come in and said that they need an acreage variance. Who’s the guy that does the shirts, just up the street from this? MR. HAYES-Impressive Imprints. MR. O’CONNOR-Impressive Imprints. He’s on a lot smaller than this. He was through the process for site plan review. MR. THOMAS-He didn’t come before the Zoning Board. MR. O’CONNOR-He didn’t have to. He was on a pre-existing lot. MR. ROUND-Professional Offices are permitted in existing residential buildings. So it does allow. MR. O’CONNOR-That’s not a Professional Office. MR. ROUND-Well, I don’t know, I can’t speak specifically to that. MR. O’CONNOR-He’s selling tee-shirts. MR. ROUND-I can’t speak specifically to that specific proposal. MR. O’CONNOR-Use, I don’t think, Chris, I’ve never. MR. ROUND-This section, though, both the CR-15 and Neighborhood Commercial, there’s two or three zones that need a minimum acreage in order to do, and I know that’s existing, okay. So you do not, there’s permitted uses, and typically minimum allowed acreages are for permitted uses or for pre-existing, okay, if you had a pre-existing lot that only had 10,000 square feet in the CR-15 zone, you could do a residential development on that. You could put a house on a 10,000 square foot lot in the CR-15 zone, but if you want to do a commercial business, you need a minimum of one acre, regardless of the existence of the lot, whether it’s conforming for residential use. MR. O’CONNOR-I’ve gone through a lot of them, and I’ve put a lot of variances through, in all different types of zones, and if I can prove that I did not create the nonconformity as to acreage, I have pre-existing rights for any use within that zone, if I can meet the setback requirements, meet the permeability requirements. MR. ROUND-I don’t think you. MR. O’CONNOR-I differ with you. MR. STONE-I think that’s something for Mark. MR. O’CONNOR-Maybe if you had all the time in the world, you could file an appeal on your interpretation. MR. ROUND-You should know you’ve got a six by twelve sign identified on that site plan. Okay. MR. O’CONNOR-But it surprised me when they asked me to get involved in this, because they told me where they’ve been, and I just said, think any of those businesses that you’ve done along that street. MR. THOMAS-I can’t think of any that we’ve done. MR. STONE-We haven’t had any, much commercial. MR. O’CONNOR-How about the Hess property we just talked about, that’s not one acre. MR. ROUND-That’s not a CR-15 zone. MR. THOMAS-That’s Highway Commercial. MR. ROUND-It’s Highway Commercial, and it’s an allowed use 66 (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 5/27/98) MR. O’CONNOR-Highway Commercial One Acre, it doesn’t have an acre. MR. STONE-Well, are you setting us up for the next Hess thing there? MR. O’CONNOR-No, but I did have to change my signs on the next one, and I thank Staff for allowing me to be able to do something tomorrow morning, because obviously I can’t get bigger signs down there than I’ve got up here. MR. THOMAS-All right. One last thing before we close tonight. CORRECTION OF MINUTES April 22, 1998: NONE MOTION THAT WE APPROVE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING APRIL 22, 1998, AS PRINTED , Introduced by Chris Thomas who moved for its adoption, seconded by Lewis Stone: th Duly adopted this 27 day of May, 1998, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stone, Mr. Hayes, Mr. McNally, Mr. Porter, Mr. Thomas NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Custer ABSENT: Mrs. Lapham On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Chris Thomas, Chairman 67