Loading...
2006-01-25 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/25/06) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SECOND REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 25, 2006 INDEX Area Variance No. 4-2006 Cifone Construction 1. Tax Map No. 308.8-1-21.2, 21.3, 21.4, 21.5, 21.6 Area Variance No. 3-2006 Terry & Joanne Monroe 1. Tax Map No. 303.20-1-21 Sign Variance No. 5-2006 Holly W. Wheeler, KD Wheeler Custom Signs 10. Tax Map No. 296.9-1-12 THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTHS MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES. 0 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/25/06) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SECOND REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 25, 2006 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT CHARLES ABBATE, CHAIRMAN JAMES UNDERWOOD, SECRETARY LEWIS STONE ROY URRICO JOYCE HUNT ALLAN BRYANT CHARLES MC NULTY LAND USE PLANNER-SUSAN BARDEN STENOGRAPHER-SUE HEMINGWAY MR. UNDERWOOD-Do you want to inform people that Cifone has been pulled, in case anybody is here for that. MR. ABBATE-That’s a good point. NEW BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 4-2006 SEQRA TYPE II CIFONE CONSTRUCTION AGENT(S): VAN DUSEN & STEVES OWNER(S): CIFONE CONSTRUCTION ZONING SR-1A LOCATION SMOKE RIDGE ROAD, LOTS 19-23 APPLICANT PROPOSES FURTHER SUBDIVISION OF 5 LOTS. PROPOSAL CALLS FOR THE SUBDIVISION OF EACH OF THE EXISTING LOTS APPROXIMATELY IN HALF. APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A DUPLEX WITH A ZERO LOT LINE SETBACK OF THE COMMON PROPERTY LINE. RELIEF IS REQUESTED FROM MINIMUM LOT SIZE REQUIRMENTS, AS WELL AS MINIMUM SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REF. WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 12.2 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 308.8-1-21.2, 21.3, 21.4, 21.5, 21.6 SECTION 179-4-030 MR. ABBATE-Let me back up for just a moment, please. I have correspondence. On the agenda this evening was scheduled Area Variance No. 4-2006 Cifone Construction, and I have received this evening a letter from the attorney representing Mr. Cifone, Cifone Construction, requesting a motion to adjourn until the meeting on the 25. th MRS. BARDEN-I think it’s February. MR. UNDERWOOD-It’s February. MR. ABBATE-When do they want it, February? It’s not indicated here. MR. UNDERWOOD-It is on the second page, it says February. MR. ABBATE-Okay. So February 22, requesting that we move it to February the 22. ndnd MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 4-2006 CIFONE CONSTRUCTION, Introduced by Charles Abbate who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Hunt: Smoke Ridge Road, Lots 19-23. Until the 22 of February 2006. nd Duly adopted this 25 day of January, 2006, by the following vote: th 1 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/25/06) AYES: Mr. McNulty, Mr. Stone, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Underwood, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Abbate NOES: NONE MR. ABBATE-And the vote is seven to zero to table, at the request of the applicant, Area Variance No. 4-2006 until the 22 of February 2006. nd AREA VARIANCE NO. 3-2006 SEQRA TYPE II TERRY & JOANNE MONROE AGENT(S): SEAN FITZPATRICK OWNER(S): TERRY & JOANNE MONROE ZONING UR-10 LOCATION 32 BOULEVARD APPLICANT PROPOSES DEMOLITION OF EXISTING 480 SQ. FT. 2-CAR GARAGE AND CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW 672 SQ. FT. GARAGE. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM SIDE AND REAR YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REF. WARREN COUNTY PLANNING JANUARY 11, 2006 LOT SIZE 0.19 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 303.20-1-21 SECTION 179-4-030 SEAN FITZPATRICK, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 3-2006, Terry & Joanne Monroe, Meeting Date: January 25, 2006 “Project Location: 32 Boulevard Description of Proposed Project: The applicant proposes demolition of an existing 480 sq. ft. (20’ x 24’) detached 2-car garage, and construction of a new 672 sq. ft. (24’ x 28’) detached 2-car garage. Relief Required: The applicant requests 5-feet of side setback relief from the 10-foot minimum on the West- side, and 4-feet of relief from the sum of 30-feet for both sides. In addition, 9-feet of rear setback relief from the 10-foot minimum is required, All relief per §179-4-030 for the UR-10 zone. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): AV 83-2005: Withdrawn by the applicant, 11/23/05, similar application as this one. Staff comments: The applicant proposes replacement of an existing garage with one that is 192 sq. ft. larger (672 sq. ft.) and 3-feet higher (18-feet). The existing garage is located along the rear property line, the new garage, as proposed, would be 1-foot from same. The applicants indicate on their submitted plot plan that the proposed garage would abut a ROW in the rear of 15-feet. As you will recall, this application was before this Board on November 23, 2005 (see resolution and minutes), with a similar application and similar amount of relief sought. The Board had questions regarding the location of the septic system, which was not identified on the plot plan. Submitted with this application, is an approximate location of the components of this system as well as elevation drawings.” MR. UNDERWOOD-“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form January 11 , 2006 Project Name: Monroe, Terry & Joanne Owner(s): Terry & Joanne Monroe ID Number: QBY-06-AV-3 County Project#: Jan06-22 Current Zoning: UR-10 Community: Queensbury Project Description: Applicant proposes demolition of existing 480 sq. ft. 2-car garage and construction of a new 672 sq. ft. garage. Relief requested from side and rear yard setback requirements. Site Location: 32 Boulevard Tax Map Number(s): 303.20-1-21 Staff Notes: Area Variance: The applicant proposes demolition of an existing 480 sq. ft. 2-car garage and construction of a new 672 sq. ft. garage. Relief requested from side and rear yard setback requirements. The new garage is to be located 5 ft. from the north property line where 10 ft. minimum is required with a sum of 30 ft. The east side of the building is located 21 ft. from the property line. The rear yard setback is to be 1 ft. from the property line where 10 ft. is required. The new construction is more compliant than the existing garage. The information submitted shows the location of the existing and new garage with elevation drawings of the new garage. Staff does not identify an impact on County resources based on the information submitted. Staff recommends no county impact. 2 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/25/06) County Planning Board Recommendation: No County Impact” Signed by Richard C. Merrill, Warren County Planning Board 1/17/06. MR. ABBATE-Mr. and Mrs. Monroe, I’m assuming? MR. FITZPATRICK-I’m Sean Fitzpatrick. JOANNE MONROE MRS. MONROE-Joanne Monroe. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Proceed with your case. Tell us exactly what your objectives are. MR. FITZPATRICK-We’re looking to build a 24 by 28 garage in the garage’s place. I don’t know if you have pictures from before or not what this garage looks like, it’s leaning to the right about three feet. It’s completely unusable. They have no shelter for their automobiles. They’d like to use the structure that’s taking up so much of their space as it is now with the new structure, like I said, in the pamphlet there, improve property value, and it would be a safer environment all the way around. We have a variance issue in the back. The property is owned by Mr. and Mrs. Monroe. We have documentation here to show that. We have found the septic system within a foot or so. Obviously it’s an old system. We know right where the holes are, but we can’t see into the ground 100%. So hopefully we’ve answered all your questions this time around. MR. ABBATE-And for the record, again, what is your relationship with this appeal? MR. FITZPATRICK-I’m the contractor. MR. ABBATE-You’re the contractor. MRS. MONROE-I’m the owner. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Fine. Is there anything you’d like to add at this time, anything additional? MR. FITZPATRICK-Unless you have any other questions at this time. MR. ABBATE-Sure. If there’s anything that you feel that you’d like to add later on in the hearing, that would help your case, don’t hesitate. We’d be more than happy to accept it. Do any of the members of the Board have any questions concerning Area Variance No. 3- 2006? MR. BRYANT-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Fitzpatrick, thank you for marking up the survey, okay, with the septic. It’s a little hard to read. What is the actual distance between the leach field, I’m assuming that the leach field, that’s a notation in front of the garage? MR. FITZPATRICK-Yes. It’s actually a drywell leach system where they have an old tank and it has holes all the way around it. It’s not a conventional leaching path system like you would find a stone and pipe set up or an infiltrator. MR. BRYANT-Now, that’s approximately where the driveway is? MR. FITZPATRICK-No, it’s just to the right of the driveway right now. On the drawing it’s to the right of the house, approximately 15 feet away. MR. BRYANT-What is the distance to that tank? MR. FITZPATRICK-Approximately 23 feet from the house. MR. BRYANT-From the garage? MR. FITZPATRICK-From the house. It would be about 12 feet from the garage. MR. BRYANT-Okay, and the notations to the right of the garage, that’s a well? 3 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/25/06) MR. FITZPATRICK-No. That’s the drywell, the “DW” there. MR. BRYANT-Again, it’s hard to read. MR. FITPATRICK-I’m sorry, little print. MR. BRYANT-I’ve got to get better glasses, and about how far is that from the garage? MR. FITZPATRICK-About 12 feet. It’s going to be about nine, ten feet roughly from the garage after it’s erected. MR. BRYANT-So if you’re 12. MR. FITZPATRICK-It’s about 12, that’s at the closest we’re saying. MR. BRYANT-Okay. If the new garage is approximately in its present proposed position, approximately 12 feet away from the holding tank, or whatever you want to call it, why can’t you move the garage a little bit closer to the house? MR. FITZPATRICK-Well, we can move it a little bit closer, and actually I was going to move it a foot right now, because right now it clears the property by 0.24 inches, and we were going to pull back ahead a foot, but if you look in that picture right now, the vehicles lined up, the turning radius is near impossible, just by staking it out on the ground, even to get a medium size car in there. MR. BRYANT-Yes, but if the driveway is closer to the house at this point, the way it’s shown on this survey, I don’t know that that would affect it. MR. FITZPATRICK-Well, what’s not shown on here, but I have drawn on here the 35 foot increment right now that’s existing. There’s a porch there, that little jog out. There’s a porch that reads about, actually about six feet, and then there’s a three foot concrete pad on there. So it’s down to about nine feet further. MR. BRYANT-Okay. So you’re saying it’s only 24 feet to the garage? MR. FITZPATRICK-Well, no, from the concrete pad, yes, it’s about 35 from the house. MR. BRYANT-Okay. Thank you. MR. ABBATE-Any other questions from Board members? MRS. HUNT-I have a question. What is the structure in front of the garage? I guess I don’t have the same plans. MR. UNDERWOOD-That’s a pad. MRS. HUNT-The pad. MR. FITZPATRICK-It’s a little three by four pad, in front of a little tiny roof four feet long. MR. ABBATE-Any other questions for these folks? MR. URRICO-There are three cars depicted in that picture. You’re planning a two car garage? MR. FITZPATRICK-Yes. MR. URRICO-So there’ll be a third car parked outside the garage? MR. FITZPATRICK-Is that your daughter’s car? MRS. MONROE-Yes. There are three cars now, and we’ll probably park one in the garage, and leave the other two out. 4 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/25/06) MR. URRICO-So how is the turning radius relevant, then? You’re going to have a problem anyway? MR. FITZPATRICK-I’m sorry? MR. URRICO-How is the turning radius relevant? You’re going to have a problem with those cars in the driveway anyway. MR. FITZPATRICK-Well, if they leave one car on the left hand side, someone can sure enough swing in to the right. MR. ABBATE-Any other questions from Board members? Okay. If there are none, I’m going to open up the public hearing for Area Variance No. 3-2006, and those wishing to be heard please approach the table, speak into the microphone, and for the record identify yourself and place of residence. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED PETE LA CROSS MR. LA CROSS-Hi. My name is Pete LaCross, and I’m the resident of 30 Boulevard, Queensbury, New York, and I’m opposed to the variance because it’s going to affect my property value, and it can be achieved in other methods, and this building they propose is a much bigger building, which will be on a foundation walls and actually have a floor, where what’s there now I don’t believe has one. This is a self-created hardship, and issues with the septic. This septic system’s probably two years old. I can’t understand why there isn’t something in the Town showing that it was surveyed or a check before it was buried. Apparently there were no permits issued on it. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Any other questions you’d like to raise? MR. LA CROSS-That’s about all my points I had to bring up. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you very much. MR. BRYANT-I have a question, please, sir. You’re 32, are you the property adjacent? MR. LA CROSS-No, I’m 30 Boulevard. I’m right next door. MR. BRYANT-To the right as you’re looking at it from the Boulevard? MR. LA CROSS-To the left, if you’re looking at it. MR. BRYANT-Okay. MR. LA CROSS-And I’m the who owns what was once going to be Rainville Avenue, and the property to the back in which they want the variance to put their property. MR. BRYANT-So you own that little strip behind? MR. LA CROSS-The alleyway and the road. Well, it isn’t a road. It’s actually a piece of property, and I give the Town an easement over it to plow their driveway, basically. MR. ABBATE-All right. Do you have any other comments you wish to make? MR. LA CROSS-No. MR. ABBATE-Thank you very much. MR. URRICO-I have a question. Why do you feel that a new garage would affect your property value? MR. LA CROSS-Well, I don’t think it’s such a bad thing. Like they said, it’s a pretty bad looking structure and it’s probably going to fall down, but I don’t have a problem with them having a garage. I just want them to put it where it’s supposed to be, without being on me. 5 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/25/06) MR. BRYANT-So let me just take that one step further. So are you saying you don’t have a problem with them building a new garage the same size in the same place? MR. LA CROSS-No, I’d actually like it moved, because what they’ve got there now isn’t even actually on a foundation. It’s more like a pole barn. It’s a dirt floor. It’s probably on stack stone. So something that they put there now is going to be much more permanent than that structure. MR. BRYANT-Thank you. MR. ABBATE-Any other comments, sir? MR. LA CROSS-No. MR. ABBATE-All right. Thank you so very much. Do we have anyone else in the public who’d like to be heard concerning Area Variance No. 3-2006? Yes, ma’am, please. Would you be kind enough to speak into the microphone and tell us your name and where you reside, please. NANCY POWERS MS. POWERS-My name is Nancy Powers. Eleven Highland Avenue, Queensbury. I think that the garage would be an improvement to the neighborhood. I own adjoining property to both Mr. LaCross and Monroes. The 15 foot easement behind that goes all the way across. It’s not really owned by anybody. It’s an easement. Rainville Avenue is what they call a paper street, because I own property on the east side of Rainville Avenue and on the west side. What’s on the east side would be landlocked if it were not for Rainville Avenue, and I think these two neighbors went to court a year or two ago and then we were given a right of way on Rainville Avenue, both Monroes and myself and the neighbor behind. So I can’t see where this new garage could be on Mr. LaCross’s property. Rainville Avenue is between the two houses, and the garage that’s falling down has been there as long as I can remember. I’ve lived on Highland Avenue all my life, and I can’t see why it would have to be in a different spot really. That’s all I’ve got to say. MR. ABBATE-Thank you very much. MS. POWERS-You’re welcome. Do we have any other folks in the audience who would like to speak? MRS. MONROE-Mrs. Powers references a Class Action suit that we had done regarding the use of Rainville Avenue on March 19, 2003, and I have documentation on that, where Peter is the seller on here, and we are listed as the buyer on a Quit Claim deed for right of use of that area. I can submit that if you’d like. I also have a letter from Little & O’Connor that says, to, in reference to the other statement where Peter says he owns the 15 feet right of way behind us. It says please note that Mr. LaCross’ Quit Claim deed grants only the street and the alley that borders Lots Five, Six, and One Oh One, and if you look at the tax map that we have here, his house sits on Number Six, and his separate property is on the other side, on the western side, and 101 is behind them. So it’s only the yellow section of the 15 feet that he actually has claimed in his deed. This is the 15 feet behind us and all of our neighbors that he’s claiming he owns and it’s not referenced in his deeds. MR. BRYANT-Who owns it? MRS. MONROE-I actually went to the County and did quite a bit of research on that, and they said that if we want to ever take a look at that, we would have to go back to the original land grants when it was done as Imperial Heights back in those days, and we searched and we’ve not come up with anything. MR. ABBATE-Do you have documents that you would like to introduce as evidence? If you do, would you please give it to our Secretary. MRS. MONROE-Okay. This is the Quit Claim deed. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Sure. 6 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/25/06) MR. ABBATE-Is there anything else you’d like to say at this particular time? TERRY MONROE MR. MONROE-My name is Terry Monroe. I’m co-owner, with my wife, of the property. The road supposedly between the two dwellings, his house, LaCross’ house and our house, which he says he gives the Town the right to plow, was paved by the Town of Queensbury with Queensbury Town money. So the Town has plowed it for over 100 years, that area, and I was told specifically by one of the early Superintendents of Highway, that the Town claims to the back of our present garage by right of use, plus the Town also had everybody sign off and controls a drainage which runs down Rainville Avenue from Mrs. Powers’ area up towards Lynn Avenue down across the Boulevard to the canal to drain that area. MR. ABBATE-Okay. All that’s interesting, however that falls under the category of civil litigation. Right here we’re only going to address the evidence that’s contained in the record. MR. MONROE-Absolutely. MR. ABBATE-That pertains to what you were requesting. Do we have anyone else in the audience who would like to address Area Variance No. 3-2006? We do not. Okay. Then I will continue on. I’m going ask the members of the Board to please make their comments concerning Area Variance No. 3-2006. MR. STONE-I have a question first. Mr. LaCross made some reference to an updated septic system. Has the septic system been? MRS. MONROE-It has not. We have lived in the house for, let my husband answer. MR. MONROE-I might as well. The tank itself was replaced. There was a metal tank, and the metal tank was removed and a plastic tank was installed. That’s the only thing that has been done to the septic system. Nothing, the leach field, the piping, nothing has been changed. MR. STONE-I noticed the house itself, there seemed to be new construction on the back side, or is it just that you’ve re-sided it or something? It looked new, relatively new. MR. MONROE-There is a porch which has been enclosed. MR. STONE-Is that what it was. MR. MONROE-Over the years, and the construction of the house, there was a tree limb that came down, crushed the porch roof, and the porch was re-built and enclosed. MR. STONE-Okay, and the Town did not ask you to bring the septic system up to Code at that point? MR. MONROE-No. MR. STONE-Okay, but you did get a building permit? MR. MONROE-Yes. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. ABBATE-I’m going to now ask members to please offer their comments on what they’ve heard this evening concerning Area Variance No. 3-2006? MR. BRYANT-I have a question. MR. ABBATE-Yes, by all means, Mr. Bryant. MR. BRYANT-Mrs. Monroe, one of the Board members had asked you about the three cars that are shown in the photograph and what you would actually use the garage for, and my question to you is, taking into consideration the size of the lot and the existing conditions 7 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/25/06) with the septic and the leach field, wouldn’t it be more prudent to build a one car garage, replace the existing structure, it’s a one car garage now, replace it with a one car garage? MRS. MONROE-I’d like to be able to get a couple of cars in, and then not have my company park in the middle of the street, too, so that I have an area for them to pull up in. MR. BRYANT-Yes, but the reason I ask this question is because earlier when queried, you responded that only one car will be parked in the garage. MRS. MONROE-Possibly we might decide to put a workshop in the other half. I’m not sure what we will do. We’ll see. I have a motorcycle. We have lawnmowers, snow blowers. I haven’t thought through what we’re going to do here yet. We’re just trying to get the two car garage. MR. BRYANT-I understand that, but you could also buy a boat and some other things and then your property is only so big. MR. FITZPATRICK-They’re hoping to cover all of their personal items, snow blower, lawnmower, what have you. It’s hard to do that with a one car garage. You can barely fit a full size truck in a twenty foot garage as it is. My truck, I can’t even close the garage door on a twenty foot garage. MR. BRYANT-So I get back to my initial question, okay. I understand what you’re saying, but the fact of the matter is the property is only X by Y, and obviously you could probably move the garage slightly, but you’re not going to gain a lot towards the relief requested. So back to my original question, is it possible to downsize the structure for one car and possibly a six foot work area or something? Is that possible? MR. FITZPATRICK-How much are you talking? Because, I mean, if we’re talking about three feet, that’s not very much to really compromise on either way, I guess. MR. BRYANT-Well, we’re talking about a nine foot relief in one area and both sides are looking at relief. MR. FITZPATRICK-We’re looking at a five foot relief on one side and we’re gaining a foot in the rear. MR. BRYANT-Which is 50%, and 90% in the back side. That’s substantial relief. So my question, and I understand the property is positioned in such a way that you really have very little choice, I understand that. MR. FITZPATRICK-It’s very hard to work with. MR. BRYANT-I understand that. So my question, again, is could we re-think to the point where we could downsize the structure and maybe eliminate some of the animosity from the neighbor that you’re actually? MR. FITZPATRICK-I think in my opinion, if it was my garage, which it’s not, I would want both of my cars in out of a Nor’easter snowstorm. If I was going to put two car garage. MR. BRYANT-You’re still going to have a car out in the. MR. FITZPATRICK-Not always. Maybe she may not always live all of her whole life. MRS. MONROE-My daughter is home from college right now. MR. BRYANT-I’ve got five cars in my driveway. Not one of them goes in the garage. MR. FITZPATRICK-I know what you mean. I don’t have a garage. MR. BRYANT-I have a garage, I just can’t fit anything in it because I’ve got a lot of stuff. That’s the point. MR. FITZPATRICK-Well, there you go. That’s the reason why she needs the second bay. 8 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/25/06) MR. ABBATE-Okay. Now, new information has just been raised, and I see the individual has raised his hand. I’m going to allow you, because of this new information, to have an opportunity to respond. However, I’m going to ask you to come to the table and you will be limited to three minutes to rebut any information, and let me caution you that the purpose of the three minutes is to address the new information, and it’s not a cross examination of the applicant. MR. LA CROSS-Yes. I was going to point out that there really is no reason for this variance to be granted. They own three lots in the back of them where they could put up any size garage they ever wanted to put up back there. That’s basically what I wanted to point out. MR. ABBATE-Okay. All right. Do you have any other comments? MR. LA CROSS-No, that was about it. MR. ABBATE-Thank you very much. I appreciate it. MR. BRYANT-I want to just ask you a question. I want to put the comment in the proper perspective. You own multiple lots, you own more than one lot? MR. LA CROSS-Right. MR. BRYANT-Okay. So somewhere down the road, if you had a house with a garage, would you think that would be more valuable in the market when you’re trying to sell that one specific lot? MR. LA CROSS-Sure. MR. BRYANT-So I think that’s what they’re trying to do. MR. LA CROSS-And they’re trying to just put an oversized garage on a lot that there isn’t room to put on it. MR. BRYANT-That’s another issue. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you very much. I’m moving on now. I’m going to ask members to offer their comments on Area Variance No. 3-2006, and for the record, I’m going to respectfully remind the members that precedence mandates that we concern ourselves with the evidence which appears on the record to support our conclusions, and the evidence relied upon should be specifically stated. This is necessary for an intelligent judicial review, and additionally any position you may take must be based on the regulatory review criteria of our laws and not simply on subjective preferences or not liking a particular project, and due process of government insures a fair and open process and Board members make decisions on reliable evidence contained in the record of the Board’s deliberations. May I please start with Mr. Stone. MR. STONE-I heard a lot of words tonight, oversized garage. It’s not an oversized garage. It’s a perfectly legal garage, 900 square feet in the Town of Queensbury. So let’s just take that off the table. What’s on the table is the position of the garage. I was not here in November. It does appear that there was some discussion about where the septic system is. I think that we have been told where it is. It seems to be relatively correct, in terms of where it’s located. When I consider the fact that the garage has been at five feet, or been at whatever it was, five feet from the side and it’s still going to be five feet from the side, and it’s pulled a little further away from the back line. I think, in this particular case, that the benefit to the applicant, having a garage of legal size, on this property, as far back away from the house as you could almost get it, which is sometimes desirable, even though our zoning calls for it to be a little further off the line, but the fact that there is a paper street or a right of way back there doesn’t seem to have any real impact on where this garage is located. So I would be in favor of the application. MR. ABBATE-Thank you, Mr. Stone. Mr. Urrico, please. MR. URRICO-Yes. I’m in agreement with Mr. Stone. I see this as a legitimate application. I think the applicant is trying to improve a situation there. The side setback will not be any 9 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/25/06) closer. They’re pulling it off the so called paper street a little bit more, and I think this would be an improvement. I would be in favor of it. MR. ABBATE-Thank you. Mr. McNulty, please. MR. MC NULTY-Okay. I’m in general agreement. I think it’s obvious that the building that exists there now is going to have to be removed at some point or it’s going to remove itself, and I think we’ve been through most of the criteria here. It’s not going to create an undesirable change. It’s going to basically fix up what was there now. We certainly have exhausted, I think, the possible alternatives the applicant could pursue to achieve this in some other method, and it appears that the only other method would be to not have a garage. Moving it a foot or two one direction or the other isn’t going to make any big difference. Certainly the requested variance is substantial in terms of what’s required and what’s allowed, but on the other hand, what’s being proposed is basically in character with that neighborhood. Most of the outbuildings in that neighborhood are the old style out buildings that were built on the lot line or very close to it. So in many ways, even if there were room to move it forward, it might be more desirable to stay with the character of the neighborhood. Having said all that, I’d be in favor. MR. ABBATE-Thank you, Mr. McNulty. Mrs. Hunt, please. MRS. HUNT-Thank you. Yes, I’m in agreement with the Board members who’ve spoken. Thinking about whether the request is substantial, actually the new garage would only be four feet wider and four feet longer than the one that’s there now, which does not seem substantial to me. I don’t think it will have any adverse effects on the neighborhood, and I think it will be a good addition to the neighborhood, and I’m in favor. MR. ABBATE-Thank you. Mr. Bryant, please. MR. BRYANT-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I agree primarily with what’s been said regarding the fact that the structure needs to come down. You obviously need to do something with the structure. However, one of the criteria relates to, I think there is an alternate plan here. I think that by downsizing the structure to make it closer to what’s existing, you’d still require a variance, but I think it’s more powerful and, yes, I agree with Mr. McNulty, it is in character with the neighborhood, but I think that you can downsize the structure and so I’d be opposed to it. MR. ABBATE-All right. Thank you, Mr. Bryant. Mr. Underwood, please. MR. UNDERWOOD-I’m in agreement with the majority of the Board. I think that it’s reflective of the fact that this was a very small lot to begin with and everything is a tight fit in there and I would rather see you be able to enjoy your back yard, what little of it there is there, and I think that the proposed garage is in keeping with the neighborhood, as has been suggested. I don’t think it’s any great big difference to add four and four, as far as the dimensional size of the garage, and I think that it’s not going to be any detriment to anyone in the neighborhood. MR. ABBATE-Thank you. I, too, agree with the majority of the Board. I agree with everything that’s been said. I think the request is a reasonable request, and I suspect that, given the set of circumstances, if I were in your shoes, I would probably be requesting the same thing. I’m going to close the public hearing at this time. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. ABBATE-And I’m going to move on to respectfully requesting and reminding the members that we have the task of balancing the benefit of the variance against the impact on the area as well as the fact that State statutes spell out five statutory criteria that must be carefully considered in deciding whether to grant an Area Variance. So I’m going to ask for a motion. Is there a motion for Area Variance No. 3-2006? MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 3-2006 TERRY & JOANNE MONROE, Introduced by Joyce Hunt who moved for its adoption, seconded by Lewis Stone: 32 Boulevard. The applicant proposes demolition of an existing 480 square foot 20 by 24 detached two car garage and construction of a new 672 square foot 24 by 28 detached two car 10 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/25/06) garage. The applicant requests five feet of side setback relief from the 10 foot minimum on the west side, four feet of relief from the sum of 30 feet for both sides, and in addition the nine feet of rear setback relief from the 10 foot minimum is required. All relief is per Section 179-4- 030 for the UR-10 zone. Whether the benefit could be achieved by any other means feasible to the applicant, as was mentioned, it’s a very tight lot and if they want to have a two car garage, there is no feasible alternative. I don’t think there will be an undesirable change in the neighborhood character or to nearby properties. It will fit in with what is there now. Whether the request is substantial, I don’t think so. It’s only four feet wider and four feet longer than the existing garage and it’s a very narrow lot and there’s little that could be done. Whether the request will have adverse physical or environmental effects on the neighborhood. I do not think so, and the alleged difficulty is self-created only in the sense that the Monroes want a two car garage. So I move that we approve Area Variance No. 3-2006. Duly adopted this 25 day of January, 2006, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Underwood, Mr. Urrico, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Stone, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Abbate NOES: Mr. Bryant MR. ABBATE-The vote for Area Variance No. 3-2006 is six in favor, one against. Area Variance No. 3-2006 is approved. SIGN VARIANCE NO. 5-2006 SEQRA TYPE UNLISTED HOLLY W. WHEELER KD WHEELER CUSTOM SIGNS AGENT(S): HOLLY W. WHEELER, KD WHEELER CUSTOM SIGNS OWNER(S): DONNA SUTTON ZONING HC-MOD LOCATION 1048 STATE ROUTE 9 APPLICANT PROPOSES TO REPLACE THE CURRENT 40 SQ. FT. FREESTANDING SIGN (THE VILLAGE COLLECTION) WITH A NEW 45.31 SQ. FT. SIGN (COUNTRY HOME AT SUTTON’S) IN THE SAME LOCATION. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM FRONT YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REF. WARREN CO. PLANNING JANUARY 11, 2006 LOT SIZE 1.78 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 296.9-1-12 SECTION 140-6 B1 HOLLY WHEELER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Sign Variance No. 5-2006, Holly W. Wheeler KD Wheeler Custom Signs, Meeting Date: January 25, 2006 “Project Location: 1048 State Route 9 Description of Proposed Project: The applicant proposes replacement of the existing 40 sq. ft. freestanding sign with a new 45.31 sq. ft. freestanding sign in the same location at The Village Collection. Relief Required: The applicant requests 8.5-feet of front setback relief from the 15-foot minimum, per §140-6 for the HC-Mod Zone. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): BP 2005-813: Issued 12/9/2005, for a 20 sq. ft. wall sign. Staff comments: In lieu of a surveyed map the applicant has supplied a plot plan estimating the required 15- foot sign setback to be 45-feet from the centerline of the road. From the center of the three lanes to the sign is 36.5-feet, thus 8.5-feet of relief. The applicant states that the new sign will be placed in the exact location of the existing sign. Has the applicant considered the increased size of the sign, 45.31 sq. ft. proposed to the existing 40 sq. ft.? This could increase the amount of relief required. Consideration may be given to requiring a more accurate map in order to clearly identify the relief necessary.” MR. UNDERWOOD-“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form January 11, 2006 Project Name: Holly W. Wheeler, KD Wheeler Custom Signs Owner(s): Donna Sutton ID Number: QBY-06-SV-5 County Project#: Jan06-19 Current Zoning: HC-Mod Community: Queensbury Project Description: Applicant proposes to replace the current 40 sq. ft. freestanding sign (The Village Collection) with a new 45.331 sq. ft. sign (Country Home at Sutton’s) in the same location. Relief requested from front yard setback 11 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/25/06) requirements. Site Location: 1048 State Route 9 Tax Map Number(s): 296.9-1-2 Staff Notes: Sign Variance: the applicant proposes to replace an existing sign with a new sign in the same location. The sign is to be 6.5 ft. from the front property line where 15 ft. setback is required. The information submitted shows a plot plan with distance marked off from the center of the road, sidewalk, landscaping area, parking area, building landscaping, and building. The sign is to be located in the landscaping area between the sidewalk and parking area. The new sign is to be 45.31 sq. ft. and 11.25 ft. in height that is within the zoning requirements for a free standing sign. Staff does not identify an impact on county resources based on the information submitted. Staff recommends no county impact. Warren County Planning Board Recommendation: No County Impact” Signed by Richard C. Merrill, Warren County Planning Board, 1/17/06. MR. MC NULTY-Mr. Chairman, before you proceed, I’m going to recuse myself from this application, in keeping with what Mr. Brown suggested at our meeting, I want to explain why and why not. Sutton property borders on the back side of my property, but that is not why I’m recusing myself. I don’t think this proposal will affect me in any way, and I’m not sure how I would vote, but in the past, as a citizen, I have opposed several of the Suttons proposals, and I think, should I find myself in the position of wanting to oppose this one, there could be a question of why I did it. So the best thing is for me to recuse myself. MR. ABBATE-Thank you, Mr. McNulty. Mr. Rigby, would you be kind enough, please, to join us at the table. Okay. I’m going to guess it’s either Mrs. Wheeler or Mrs. Sutton. MRS. WHEELER-Holly Wheeler. MR. ABBATE-All right, Mrs. Wheeler, you’re already at the table. Would you be kind enough to speak into the microphone, identify yourself, your place of address and your relationship with this Sign Variance, please. MRS. WHEELER-I’m Holly Wheeler. I’m co-owner of KD Wheeler Custom Signs. I’m the sign contractor for Donna Sutton and Country Home at Suttons. MR. ABBATE-Okay. MRS. WHEELER-My address is 16 Richardson Street, Queensbury, which is also my business address. MR. ABBATE-All right. Now continue. Explain to us why you feel your application should be approved. MRS. WHEELER-I feel it should be approved because all I’m going to do is take down the existing sign that is 78 inches, left to right, replace it with a brand new sign that is 75 inches inside to inside, and then the post is another seven inches. So it’s 82 and a half. The front post closest to the road will not be any closer than the existing posts. It seems pretty simple to me, to just take out what they have and put a new one in in the exact same location. Originally Village Collection did have a permit on that sign. It’s not referenced here. I don’t have the date. It’s probably in this pile somewhere, but I can’t find it. They, at that time, the permit was issued based on a 15 foot setback and the road at that time was only a two lane road. Of course now it’s been widened and it’s now three feet, which affects the setback. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Anything else you’d like to add at this time? MRS. WHEELER-Moving it back would put the sign into the parking lot, essentially. There’s this berm that’s been landscaped, you know, and it’s only just so wide, and that’s it. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Well, thank you very much. MR. STONE-Susan, we’re allowed 50 feet at 15, Sign Variance? MRS. WHEELER-Yes, freestanding sign 50 feet at 15 foot setback. MR. STONE-Yes, okay. MRS. BARDEN-Yes. 12 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/25/06) MR. ABBATE-Now let me continue. Do any of the Board members have questions? MR. BRYANT-I have a question. Relative to the Staff Notes, I just want clarification, but I think you answered it in your opening remarks. The sign, the new sign is not going to be any closer to, even taking into consideration the fact that it’s a little bit larger, that sign post is not going to be any closer to the road than? MRS. WHEELER-Not the front one. MR. BRYANT-Okay. MRS. WHEELER-The back one may move the additional four inches, but there is enough space to move it, you know, to have that second post closer to the parking lot. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Any other Board members have questions for Mrs. Wheeler? MR. URRICO-Is it possible to maintain the existing size of the sign? MRS. WHEELER-It is, but it’s very close. It could be scaled down, you know, the one inch, whatever I need, top to bottom to affect the square footage. MR. URRICO-The argument is that it’s basically the same sign but it’s not, it’s five feet larger. MRS. WHEELER-Yes. It’s probably a little, I don’t have a total measurement on Village Collection sign from the ground to the very top. They originally were going to utilize that sign. So I went out and I measured it kind of parts of it that I was going to re-use. So I’ll be honest with you, I don’t have exactly top to bottom, but left to right it’s 78 inches. MR. URRICO-Seventy-eight inches? MRS. WHEELER-Yes, and actually, do you have a picture of the old Village Collection sign? MR. UNDERWOOD-We’ve been by it. MRS. WHEELER-I have many. When I measured that sign, I measured the black panel at the bottom as 78 inches. The curtains extend a little beyond. So it’s probably a little bit wider than 78. So I don’t think this new one is going to be that much overall wider. MR. RIGBY-This newer one, it says 75 inches. It’s actually narrower. MR. STONE-That’s the inside measurement. MRS. WHEELER-That’s the inside, inside. The posts are going to be an additional, well, they’re going to be four by four. So they’re three and a half by three and a half. So they’re going to be another seven inches. So that’s 82. MR. BRYANT-I have a question for Staff actually. Can you tell me how they calculated this, and from what point they calculated the relief required? MRS. BARDEN-It was, it’s taken from, you have this plan. From the center line of the three lanes to the closest post of the sign is 36 and a half feet, and in the Code under temporary signs, if you don’t know where your front property line is, you can take 45 feet from the centerline of the road back to your sign, and so 45, that’s the eight and a half feet. MR. STONE-But the sign does include the outside poles, though, correct, the area of the sign does include the poles that support it? MRS. WHEELER-No, they don’t. They measure the sign panel only. They don’t measure the posts generally. MR. STONE-Well, certainly the poles come into play with the distance. MRS. BARDEN-The setback, yes. 13 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/25/06) MRS. WHEELER-Yes, they do come into play with the distance, but to measure the square foot of the sign, no, you just measure the sign panel. You don’t measure the supports. MR. BRYANT-But the outside of the pole. MRS. WHEELER-Is where I measured to, and that’s where I would measure to again. I would take the existing posts out and put the new posts in the same spot. MR. ABBATE-All right. Any other questions for Mrs. Wheeler? MRS. HUNT-The other signs for the Suttons two other businesses, are they the same distance back? MRS. WHEELER-The Suttons sign is probably 25 feet back because I believe it’s 64 square feet. It’s back in their parking lot. Their other things. MRS. HUNT-The toy store. MRS. WHEELER-The Toy Cottage, I didn’t put that in. I couldn’t tell you. I think it’s equally close to the road as this is, and also Smoky Bear down the road. There’s seems to be equally close, but it’s based on the old buildings where the parking lots were, you know, and again, the road was widened. MR. ABBATE-Any other questions for Mrs. Wheeler? MR. BRYANT-Yes, I have a question. How is this sign going to be lit? MRS. WHEELER-Externally from the ground. It’s going to be all raised letters. It’s not a light box. I don’t do light boxes. MR. BRYANT-One final question. when did you measure to the center of Route 9. Because you can’t cross Route 9, it’s so busy. MRS. WHEELER-Middle of the afternoon, about 1:30. It’s not too bad. You stand there with your tape measure and you go, now, and you run. MR. BRYANT-Thank you. MR. ABBATE-Any other questions for Mrs. Wheeler on Sign Variance No. 5-2006? If not I’m going to open up the public hearing on Sign Variance No. 5-2006. I would request those wishing to be heard please approach the table, speak into the microphone, and for the record identify yourself and place of record identify yourself and place of record. Do we have any public comments on this variance? Yes, sir. Would you please come to the table, state your name and place of residence. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED JOHN SALVADOR MR. SALVADOR-My name is John Salvador and I’m a resident of North Queensbury. The statement has been made, or there’s a criteria, apparently, for measuring from the centerline of the road if you don’t know where your property line is. This property borders Route 9, a State highway, and I’ve got to tell you, the State of New York knows where their property line is. They’ve worked this area. They’ve widened the road. They’ve built sidewalks, and they’re not building it on land that they don’t own, and they know where their boundaries are. There’s no reason not to know where your property is. I believe that criteria for the 45 feet deals only with Town roads, because we get into this road by use business. I don’t think it’s applicable to State highway. I just never heard of measuring from the centerline of a road for setback. You’re supposed to use your property boundary. Thank you. MR. ABBATE-Thank you, Mr. Salvador. Do we have any other comments? MR. BRYANT-I just want to comment on that, and maybe Staff can get involved in this comment. I would assume, as far as the sidewalks are concerned, you’re probably right, because a lot of the sidewalks that went in, went in right on the property line, okay, whether 14 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/25/06) it was owned by the Town or owned by the State. So, that being in mind, the sign is eight feet away from the sidewalk, and if we’re going to take your situation and take it one step further, then the applicant only requires seven feet of relief. Okay, but I just wanted to point that out, that actually if you use that analogy, the applicant is requesting less relief. MR. SALVADOR-Fine, but I even question that the sidewalk is on the property line, the edge of the sidewalk’s on the property line. They don’t work that way. They take enough land to do what they have to do. The pole line, I don’t know what the pole is on Route 9. That’s on State land. That’s not on private property, it just can’t be. That’s the first tip off of where the highway property is, is just look at the pole line. Niagara Mohawk doesn’t go around and get easements over private property to put their lines in. They just don’t do that, unless it’s a special case, you know, but along Route 9, you better believe that the public utilities are in the State highway and not private property. MR. ABBATE-Thank you, Mr. Salvador. Do we have any other members of the public who wish to comment on Sign Variance No. 5-2006? Okay. I’m going to respectfully remind the members, before offering their comments, that precedence mandates that we concern ourselves with the evidence which appears on the record to support our conclusions and of course due process guarantees that we make decisions based upon reliable evidence contained in the records of the Board’s deliberations. MR. BRYANT-Can I ask a question, Mr. Chairman? MR. ABBATE-You may. MR. BRYANT-All of the work that Suttons, they perform in that complex, all the stuff that they’ve done in their recent years, there’s no survey of that property to tell where the property line is? MRS. WHEELER-She just bought it. She hasn’t done a survey on Village Collection. The only survey map that anyone could come up with was on Smokey Bear, which is next door, and all it shows is, Village Collection is actually two parcels. MR. BRYANT-Doesn’t the Sutton complex itself have a survey? MRS. WHEELER-Suttons is farther down. So whatever survey they have doesn’t affect this. There didn’t appear to be any survey on Toy Cottage either. I have no idea. The only one I’ve got is for Smokey Bear, and it shows 100 foot little parcel in the corner of The Village Collection parcel which is, I believe, 300 feet. It’s little. It doesn’t affect this because the sign is not on this parcel. It’s on a little map that Bruce printed out for me. MR. ABBATE-While you’re looking for that, Staff, isn’t there a survey required at the pre- application? MRS. BARDEN-You can accept a plot plan in lieu of a surveyed map. MR. ABBATE-In lieu of a surveyed map? MRS. BARDEN-Yes. MR. ABBATE-And a plot plan was submitted? MRS. BARDEN-Well, this. MR. ABBATE-That’s considered a plot plan? MR. URRICO-But it must have been in question, because even the Staff comments say, consideration may be given to requiring a more accurate map. MR. ABBATE-Mr. Urrico, that’s exactly what I was going to get at. MRS. BARDEN-You don’t necessarily have to accept the 45 feet from the centerline of the road. MR. BRYANT-Can you show me, in the Sign Ordinance, where it says that? 15 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/25/06) MRS. BARDEN-It says under Temporary Signs. MR. BRYANT-This is not a Temporary Sign. MRS. BARDEN-I know. MR. BRYANT-So why are we applying it? MRS. BARDEN-Well, I talked to Craig Brown about this, and he said you can accept that as a measurement from the centerline of the three lines. MR. BRYANT-Before I accept that, I have to see it. MRS. BARDEN-Do you want to see it from the Code? MR. BRYANT-I want to see in the Sign Ordinance that it says you can accept that. Not on a Temporary Sign. This is a permanent sign. MRS. BARDEN-It’s in there. MRS. WHEELER-It’s also listed under Business Complex as standard measurement. The same thing, where a front property line cannot be determined, the following setbacks shall apply, 45 feet from the centerline of the road with three or more lanes. It’s referenced in more than one place in this Ordinance. It’s been a standard measurement, I’ve been in business 26 years, and it’s been pretty much standard for the last, as long as this Ordinance has been around. MR. ABBATE-Okay. MRS. WHEELER-And in response to Mr. Salvador, the pole line, the poles on this road, you can see them in one of the photos, it’s between the sidewalk and the street. So it’s out that side. It’s not on private property. Anyway. MR. SALVADOR-The sidewalks are on State land. MRS. WHEELER-Okay. Overall, Village Collection has 300 feet of road frontage, and it’s in this photograph that should be in the application, and you can see where the 100 foot that I was referring to as being part of Smokey Bear’s little plot map is way over to the right. MR. URRICO-But I believe Smokey Bear’s sign is 15 feet. MRS. WHEELER-Is it? Okay. MR. URRICO-I believe it is, because that was part of, it’s much further off the road than you’re depicting this sign. MR. BRYANT-The Sign Ordinance is, what, 150, 140. MR. ABBATE-Yes. MR. BRYANT-It’s not in this book. Can I see your Sign Ordinance. MR. ABBATE-While this discussion is going on, do any members of the Board have any other questions they’d like to raise, ask Mrs. Wheeler? MR. SALVADOR-Can I make a comment. MR. ABBATE-You will be given three minutes. MR. SALVADOR-I only need 30 seconds. MR. ABBATE-All right. Then you will be given 30 seconds. 16 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/25/06) MR. SALVADOR-If there’s any question about the highway boundary, my name is John Salvador. If there’s any question about the highway boundary, there is a regional office in Warrensburg in New York State DOT. They have all the drawings of their property. They are readily accessible. All you have to do is ask them. MR. ABBATE-Thank you very much, Mr. Salvador. Do any of the other Board members have any questions they’d like to raise or ask Mrs. Wheeler? If not, then I’m going to move on, and I’m going to ask for comments from Board members. I’ve already indicated in my previous remarks what they should consider, and I’d like, if I may, to start with Mr. Urrico, please. MR. BRYANT-Before we do any comments, can I ask a question? MR. ABBATE-In the future, please have your questions prepared ahead of time so it doesn’t disrupt our procedures here, Mr. Bryant, but go right ahead. MR. BRYANT-Thank you. You quote the Business Complex section. MRS. WHEELER-Yes. MR. BRYANT-Is this a Business Complex? MRS. WHEELER-They are individual businesses. She refers to them at Suttons, but they’re all individual businesses. They’re not grouped together. MR. BRYANT-So it’s not necessarily a Business Complex. MRS. WHEELER-No. MR. BRYANT-So that’s not a valid assessment. MRS. WHEELER-Okay. Well, I was just pointing out that it was in another place beyond just under Temporary. MR. ABBATE-Okay. I think I’ve been fair enough to ask if Board members have any further questions. So there will be no other questions raised for Mrs. Wheeler. I’m going to commence, I’m sorry, Mr. Urrico, would you be kind enough to comment, please. MR. URRICO-I think this sign could be placed back further. I am bothered by it being so close to the road. You made the comment that the reason it’s so close to the road is because it was at the time when Route 9 was a smaller road. Well, it’s bigger now, and I think the 15 feet is there for a reason. It’s also, in my opinion, would be out of line with the rest of the signs along that stretch, and Smokey Bear is one sign. I believe the Suttons sign is further back than 15. So I would have a problem with the 15 feet, and I would like to know where the 15 feet is. I really don’t know where it is. I think I need a more accurate map, but even with the more accurate map, I’m going to want this further back. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you, Mr. Urrico. Mr. Underwood, please. MR. UNDERWOOD-I think we need to concern ourselves with what’s being proposed here. It’s a replacement for a currently existing sign. That sign has been there for many, many years. It’s never been a problem. I don’t think there’s ever been any written or signed complaints or phoned in complaints to the Town regarding that sign. I think that the sign that’s going to be replacing the current sign there is a much more simpler sign. It’s less cluttered. It’s less of a visual distortion, as far as blocking the view of traffic as you’re going in and out of there, and I think that the sign, as proposed, is reasonable. I think if you go down and look at the Suttons sign, there’s this great big box that’s built kind of like jutting way out into the parking lot which interferes with traffic flow inside the parking lot, and, you know, the whole complex there can be considered, I think in essence as a single complex. You’ve got Smokey Bear. You’ve got the Toy Cottage, and you’ve got Suttons further down the road. I don’t think that there’s going to be any detriment to the community or there would have been some public opposition to this proposal. We haven’t heard that tonight, and for us to go in and nit pick about how things could be moved and changed a few feet here or a few feet there is over the top. It’s not necessary. This new sign is going to be a plus, as far as I’m concerned. 17 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/25/06) MR. ABBATE-Thank you, Mr. Underwood. May I please move to Mrs. Hunt. MRS. HUNT-Thank you. I have to agree with Mr. Underwood. I think it’s a very attractive sign. I think it’ll be less obtrusive than the home decorating center sign that’s there now. I don’t think it will, as you say there were no objections. I don’t think it will be a detriment to the neighborhood, and I would be in favor of it. MR. ABBATE-Thank you, ma’am. Mr. Bryant, please. MR. BRYANT-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do agree that this sign would be an improvement over what’s existing. However, I do have a question, or Mr. Salvador raises a valid question, and I have scanned through the Sign Ordinance, and I don’t see that the center of the three lane highway is relative in this particular case. I disagree with Mr. Underwood, and I think the sign could possibly be moved back, but the question is, how far can it be moved without actually infringing on your parking area? And to be fair, without knowing where the property line is, it’s going to be very difficult to see exactly what type of relief that you’re looking for. I don’t agree with the eight and a half feet. I don’t understand why we came to that conclusion, but I don’t think that’s a proper estimation, and it could be that you’re asking for less relief, but in all fairness, and to take Mr. Underwood’s words, I don’t want to nit pick, but the reality is, I don’t think it would be to your benefit to determine the property line and let’s come up with real relief, and then if the Board, we can agree to that, then we move from there. So, as it stands now, in my mind, there’s too many questions to vote in favor of it. So I’d have to oppose it. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you, Mr. Bryant. Mr. Stone, please. MR. STONE-We have a sign. It is eight, eight and a half, nine, nine and a half, ten. It is somewhere between the parking lot and the road. It’s there. It’s been there. When I first looked at it, and looked at the thing, I was concerned more that maybe the sign was oversized. Having been assured that it’s not oversized, we are granting relief to the existing situation, and I think Mr. Underwood spoke very well on the subject and I think, putting the sign, and to provide assurance to Mr. Bryant, we can say, without putting actual inches and feet in, that the front post, the outside edge of the front post be no closer to the road than it is now. So I would be in favor of it with that kind of comment. MR. ABBATE-All right. Thank you, Mr. Stone. Mr. Rigby, please. MR. RIGBY-Yes. I’m going to agree with what Mr. Underwood said and what Mr. Stone said. This is an improvement to the existing sign. We know where the existing sign’s located. This sign’s not going to be any closer to the road than the existing sign. So I’m in favor of the application. MR. ABBATE-Thank you, Mr. Rigby. I, too, believe, I agree with Mr. Underwood. I think the request is not unreasonable. I think it’s a reasonable request. While there have been valid issues raised by Mr. Urrico and Mr. Bryant, as a matter of fact, I intend to bring these questions up tomorrow at a 10 o’clock meeting, would you remind me to do that, please, why we don’t require more accurate information at the pre-screening. When it gets to us, we know exactly what we’re talking about. I’ll raise that issue tomorrow, but addressing the issue tonight, I would agree with Mr. Underwood, and I would certainly support the application. At this time, I’m going to close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. ABBATE-And I’m going to ask for a motion, and again, I respectfully remind the Board members that we have the task of balancing the benefit of the variance against the impact on the area, as well as the fact that State statutes spell out five statutory criteria that must be carefully considered in deciding whether to grant an area variance. MR. STONE-Mr. Chairman, it’s an Unlisted Action. MR. ABBATE-Okay. MR. UNDERWOOD-Under the Short Environmental Assessment form for Unlisted Actions, we’ll go through this quickly. They intend to replace the existing Village Collection sign with 18 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/25/06) a new sign for the Country Home at Suttons. The new sign will be in the same spot as the old one. Will the proposed action comply with the existing zoning or other existing land use restrictions?” The sign does not meet the setback.” What is the present land use in the vicinity of the project? It’s a home furnishing store. Does the action involve a permit approval or funding, nor or ultimately from any other governmental agency (Federal, State or Local)? No. Does any aspect of the action have a current valid permit of approval? No. I mean I would assume that the sign that’s there presently must have some kind of approval because it’s existing. As a result of the proposed action, will the existing permit/approval require modification? No, it’s going to be built in exactly the same place. MR. ABBATE-Okay. There is a Short Environmental Assessment Form provided by the applicant indicating that there are no significant negative impacts caused by this project. MOTION THAT THE SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT INDICTES THAT THERE ARE NO SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS CAUSED BY THIS PROJECT. UNLESS THERE’S A CHALLENGE FROM MEMBERS OF THE BOARD, I ACCEPT THAT BASIS IN ANTICIPATIOIN OF NO NEGATIVE RESPONSES. AS SUCH I MOVE THAT THE SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM BE APPROVED, Introduced by Charles Abbate who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Hunt: Duly adopted this 25 day of January, 2006, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Rigby, Mr. Stone, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Underwood, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Abbate NOES: NONE MR. ABBATE-In a seven yes to zero no, the Short Environmental Assessment Form is approved, and the public hearing is now closed, and I’m going to respectfully, again, go back and ask members for a motion. I’ve already indicated about balancing the benefit of the variance against the impact on the area, and the five statutory criteria that’s considered. So I’m going to ask for a motion for Sign Variance No. 5-2006. MOTION TO APPROVE SIGN VARIANCE NO. 5-2006 HOLLY W. WHEELER, KD WHEELER CUSTOM SIGNS, Introduced by James Underwood who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Hunt: 1048 State Route 9, Suttons. The applicant is proposing replacement of an existing 40 square foot freestanding sign with a new 45.31 square foot freestanding sign in the same location at the Village Collection. It’s the general feeling of the majority of the Board members that the request is reasonable. It’s replacing a sign that’s been there for many years. There has been no public outcry or any kind of comment from the public regarding the replacement of this slightly larger sign. As agreed, the posts for that sign will be located no closer to the road than the current post that’s closest to Route 9. Other than that, there doesn’t seem to be any problem with it. Duly adopted this 25 day of January, 2006, by the following vote: th MR. URRICO-So we don’t know what the relief is? MR. UNDERWOOD-Eight point five feet is suggested. MR. URRICO-And what if the map shows something different? MR. UNDERWOOD-We’re essentially agreeing that the posts that support the sign will be in the same locality as the presently existing posts. All right. So they can measure off the sidewalk for that, to get that accurate. MR. ABBATE-Thank you. MR. BRYANT-I have a question about the motion. MR. ABBATE-No. Listen, once a motion is in progress, it may not be interrupted. 19 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/25/06) MR. BRYANT-I think it’s improper. MR. ABBATE-Well, I said, once a motion is in progress, it may not be interrupted. AYES: Mr. Rigby, Mr. Stone, Mr. Underwood, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Abbate NOES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Bryant MR. ABBATE-The vote for Sign Variance No. 5-2006 is five in favor, two no. Sign Variance No. 5-2006 is approved. Thank you, madam. MRS. WHEELER-Thank you. MR. ABBATE-You bet. MR. BRYANT-Mr. Chairman, I do want to address that, because you granted a variance and you don’t know what the relief is in the variance. We granted eight and a half feet of relief, and that has not been determined, and I think it’s improper. The whole motion is improper. MR. ABBATE-I agree with you, and I support your position that you disagree with the majority of the Board. However, the majority of the Board has felt, in their best interest, in the Town’s best interest, in the applicant’s best interest, that it should be approved. MR. BRYANT-But how can you grant a variance based on a certain amount of relief that cannot be determined? MR. ABBATE-I have an answer for you. We just did. MR. BRYANT-Well, I understand you just did, but I’m just telling you that I don’t think the whole sign issue is really, I think the process is problematic. There’s something wrong with the process. The relief was not clearly defined, and we’re voting on something that’s not clearly defined. MR. ABBATE-Now, here’s what I would suggest you do, and I certainly encourage you to do it. Why don’t you join me tomorrow morning at a 10 o’clock meeting and you can certainly raise these issues and then report back to the Zoning Board of Appeals at our next meeting. You’re more than welcome. I’m inviting you to accompany me. MR. BRYANT-I don’t know that I could stand it. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. MR. ABBATE-We have no other business before the Board this evening. MRS. WHEELER-Thank you, very much. MR. ABBATE-Mr. Salvador, you wish to be heard. MR. SALVADOR-I ask for a couple of minutes. MR. ABBATE-Yes. MR. SALVADOR-I would like to join Mr. Bryant in his thoughts on this last approval. The whole project has been mischaracterized. You had before you a nonconforming sign. That’s what you were approving was granting relief for a situation that was already nonconforming. In any case, and then we’re talking about it slightly larger, and as Mr. Bryant said, you grant relief from, you don’t know where you’re starting from, and there’s no excuse for it. On Route 9 there’s no excuse for it. I’d like to continue. The other application about the, was it a 15 foot right of way that was a Town road. MR. UNDERWOOD-No, the Town road and there was a 15 foot right of way behind it. It was a Town road, 15 foot right of way. MR. SALVADOR-And the Town road dead ended onto this right of way? MR. STONE-It actually went across. 20 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/25/06) MR. UNDERWOOD-It intersected it. MR. SALVADOR-And where did it go from there, it continued? MR. UNDERWOOD-It continued on. MR. SALVADOR-Okay, good. MR. STONE-Up toward 32. MR. SALVADOR-Okay. At one of your hearings that you had last year, up on Plum Point, there was an issue of a retaining wall and the fact that the applicant had asked for some height relief on a garage, if I recall correctly, and then Bruce Frank went out and measured the height of the garage, and because they had moved this retaining wall back, they had exceeded the variance even that they were granted. Do you recall that one? Okay, and then they painted the garage the wrong color, that sort of thing. Well, the excuse that was given then for this flub up was that we don’t permit retaining walls, okay. We don’t permit retaining walls, and that’s why this fell into the crack. I was at the Planning Board meeting last night, and in passing, there was a comment made by an applicant’s engineer, with regard to a question on a retaining wall on the project, and he made the comment, yes, we have to get a building permit for that. That’s as it should be, but have we changed our approach? Now this is an important subject because we’re dealing with engineered structures here, engineered structures, and we better know what we’re doing. Are we permitting them or are we not? Because permitting something requires inspecting something and issuing a CO for something. So, anyway, that’s something I’ll follow up on. You should know that the Quality Inn that you granted variances for last year is still without a CO. They are still without a CO, the Quality Inn, and because they don’t have that CO, they don’t have a temporary residence permit from the New York State Health Department. They’re not supposed to be open for business. Without a valid temporary residence permit, you don’t sell rooms. That’s the procedure. Now they’re still out there and they have to come before the Planning Board next month, in an effort to try to get that CO. Now, more importantly, why I asked for this time tonight, did you all receive in your packets my letter to Craig Brown dated January 19? Do you have this? th MR. ABBATE-I have a copy of it. I don’t think Mr. Bryant has a copy, though. MR. SALVADOR-At the Planning Board meeting last night, Mr. Vollaro just made the statement, we’re not going to hear that application. This application was on the Planning Board schedule. He said we’re not going to hear it. Obvious question, why not, either the applicant withdraws it, or for some reason, you just don’t let it float out there. The public hearing has been announced. People are arriving, and all of a sudden we hear you’re not going to hear it, and it kind of ended right there. In any case, I had this letter before Mr. Brown. I haven’t received an answer yet, and I believe I’m kind of first in line on this subject. My point is that this project, the next step in the approval process of this project requires Mr. Brown to make a determination and answer my letter, and whatever this Board can do to expedite that, on behalf of the applicant. This kicking these people back and forth, this is defacto moratorium. Isn’t it great? MR. ABBATE-In view of the fact that you’ve raised this issue on the record, I have to reveal, I believe, that I did speak to a Mr. Mike Swan and he gave me permission to reveal what was discussed regarding the same subject that you’re discussing. However, it would be prudent and fair to discuss the findings with the Zoning Administrator, which I intended to raise tomorrow at 10 o’clock anyway, prior to continuing this kind of conversation. As a matter of fact, I had intended to raise a number of questions with Mr. Brown tomorrow morning, concerning answers that I feel that the Zoning Board of Appeals really requires before making a number of decisions. So, I’m going to end it at that. Unless any other Board members have anything to say, we are adjourned. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Charles Abbate, Chairman 21