Loading...
2007-10-17 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/17/07) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 17,2007 INDEX Area Variance No. 49-2007 Mandy L. Manney Tax Map No. 308.6-1-48 2. Area Variance No. 61-2007 Larry Clute Tax Map No. 295.14-1-21.2 10. Area Variance No. 62-2007 Clute Enterprises Tax Map No. 308.8-2-16 19. Sign Variance No. 63-2007 Sean J.T. Garvey/Garvey KIA Tax Map No. 303.06-1-5 26. Sign Variance No. 64-2007 North Country Engineering, PC (NCE) 40. Tax Map No. 288.8-1-6 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. o (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/17/07) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 17,2007 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT CHARLES ABBATE, CHAIRMAN JAMES UNDERWOOD, SECRETARY ALLAN BRYANT CHARLES MC NULTY JOYCE HUNT RICHARD GARRAND ROY URRICO ZONING ADMINISTRATOR-CRAIG BROWN STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. ABBATE-Good evening, ladies and gentlemen and welcome to the Town of Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals hearing dated 17 October 2007. Prior to setting this hearing in motion, I would like to acquaint you with information that will familiarize you with the responsibilities of this Board, the mandated legal requirements we are guided by, and the procedures for a hearing before this Board. The function of the Zoning Board of Appeals is to listen to and consider all evidence that appears on the record, and may bear upon the issue we are deciding. This Zoning Board of Appeals can grant (or deny) two types of relief; interpretive and variance. In either case, this Board will affirm, reverse or modify the enforcement officer's decision. In doing so, this Board will either permit or deny the requested relief. If the appeal is for an interpretation, this Board's decision will be based on the Town of Queensbury zoning regulations. If the appeal is for a variance, this Board's decision will be based on the standards of proof contained in NYS Town Law 267-b. Additionally, the Zoning Board of Appeals may only authorize the minimum variance necessary to relieve the applicant. Other than administrative items, public comments will be invited on each appeal, however, in the interest of time please be crisp, organized and limit your comments to only the facts and information given this evening. On opening the public hearing the public will be allowed a maximum of 5 minutes to comment on a specific appeal. The purpose of this time limitation is to provide each member of the public an opportunity to be heard, and also to limit the length of the hearing to a reasonable time frame. All questions from the appellant or the public will be addressed to this Board. All dialogues during the hearing will be between the appellant and this Board. I'm going to request that the Secretary please monitor the time, and, Mr. Secretary, I do believe we have several pieces of correspondence that should be read into the record. Would you be kind enough to do so, please. MR. UNDERWOOD-We did receive a letter from the APA, and that was essentially saying that Area Variance No. 28-2007, "Based on the information presented in the record, no further Agency review is required since the project does not involve provisions of the Adirondack Park Agency Act." I'm not sure what that was. I think that was a garage out towards the lake. MR. ABBATE-I think you're right, Jim. MR. UNDERWOOD-But it's right on the line. Maybe it wasn't in the Park. The other letter was received, it was dated September 26,2007. This is addressed to Mr. Charles Abbate, Chairman of the Zoning Board of Appeals, Town of Queensbury. This is RE: The Schermerhorn Residential Holdings, LP, and that's the Area Variance application for West Mountain Road and Gurney Lane. "Dear Chairman Abbate: On behalf of the applicant, I hereby request that the parking variance scheduled to be heard at this evening's Zoning Board meeting be tabled until one of your October meetings. Last night we presented this office building project to the Planning Board and the Planning Board requested that the applicant consider making some significant modifications to the proposed Site Plan in order to address issues raised by members of the Planning Board and by the neighbors. The applicant anticipates that we will be able to submit a revised Site Plan on October 15, 2007, which will further reduce the project impacts. However, the result of these Site Plan changes will not change the proposed number of parking places, so that no modification of the pending Area Variance application will be necessary. I further request that your tabling resolution provide that the applicant has until October 15th to submit revised Site Plans to the Zoning Board of Appeals." And 1 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/17/07) essentially what they were looking for is we had to re-set that meeting for some time in November. Right. I don't know what you came up with. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Well, I'm going to be setting the agenda, hopefully, this coming Friday. As a matter of fact, I have to get together with Craig, and I'm going to tentatively set Schermerhorn for the 21st of November. Anymore correspondence, Mr. Secretary? MR. UNDERWOOD-No, that's it. MR. ABBATE-Okay. ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 49-2007 SEQRA TYPE: II MANDY L. MANNEY OWNER(S): MANDY L. MANNEY ZONING: SR-1A LOCATION: 58 BURCH ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO MAINTAIN EXISTING ABOVE GROUND SWIMMING POOL IN THE SIDE YARD. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM REQUIREMENT FOR PLACEMENT OF POOL IN THE REAR YARD. CROSS REF.: BP 07-264 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: N/A LOT SIZE: 0.90 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 308.6-1-48 SECTION: 179- 5-020 MANDY MANNEY, PRESENT MR. UNDERWOOD-We previously heard this on I guess August 22nd of this year. This was tabled until tonight, and in reading it, just to refresh everybody's memory here. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 49-2007, Mandy L. Manney, Meeting Date: October 17, 2007 "Project Location: 58 Burch Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes maintenance of an existing above ground pool. I Relief Required: I Applicant requests 78 feet of relief from the 113 foot minimum front setback requirement for a pool on this corner lot. I Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: I 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be permitted to maintain the pool in the existing location. 2. Feasible alternatives: There appears to be significant areas available for a more compliant pool location. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the ordinance?: The request for 78 feet of setback relief from the 113 foot requirement may be interpreted as substantial (69%). 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: A petition of neighborhood support was submitted with the application materials. 5. Is this difficulty self-created? A review of the 2001 Aerial photo coverage shows that the pool had not yet been installed as of the Spring of 2001. The deed submitted with this application reveals that the applicant was an owner of this property in 1999. As such, the difficulty may be interpreted as self created. I Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): I BP 2007-264 2520 sf residential addition issued: 5/30/07 BP 2007-364 Above Ground Pool pending 2 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/17/07) I Staff comments: I The yard is in enclosed by a pre-existing stockade fence that appears to screen the pool from view from the streets. I SEQR Status: I Type II" MR. UNDERWOOD-I think what happened last time is we were asking just for some proof that the pool had been there for some time, and you were going to provide us with a picture or something like that. MR. ABBATE-Here's what I'd like you to do, please. Would you be kind enough to speak into the microphone, tell us who you are and where you reside, please. MS. MANNEY-Mandy Manney, 58 Burch Road. MR. ABBATE-Thank you, and I believe, if my memory serves me correct, on August the 22nd we requested that you submit either photographic, documentary or testimonial evidence to support your claim no later than the 15th of September of this year in order to meet a hearing date in October. Have you submitted additional documentation? MS. MANNEY-No, I haven't. MR. ABBATE-Well, then we have a problem, Ms. Manney. The burden of responsibility falls directly on the shoulders of the appellant to provide substantial evidence, in order to support his or her claim. Certainly this Board would take into consideration, as I indicated earlier, any type of photographic evidence that you might have, pictures, you know, or any type of testimonial evidence that is perhaps by some of your neighbors that have been there for X number of years saying this has been here, or any other type of documentation, and that would certainly help your case. At this point here, I will leave it up to you. Perhaps you have some information you'd like to tell us verbally. MS. MANNEY-Well, I didn't know about the testimonial thing. I did look for some pictures. However, I am still packed because I'm not living at my house. Every picture that I have is a digital photo, which I could change the date on a digital photo with two seconds on a computer. I didn't think that that would be any type of substantial evidence that the pool was there. I could not find anything with a printed date on the back. I didn't get through all my photos, but I'm pretty sure most of my photos are digital. I didn't realize I could have the neighbor sign something saying that it was there. However, I did also find some information when I left the meeting the last time. Apparently I did lie to you. It is not the same pool. It's not the same pool that was there. When I went out and I spoke with Bill who is my fiance, apparently when we went to change the liner in the Year 2001 the pool that was originally there broke, or something like that, and it was replaced. The reason I didn't know that is because there were some issues were I was on bed rest. I was pregnant, and had some serious complications. Apparently he told me we had a different pool. I didn't realize that until we left here that night. So, I did want to let you know that it's not the same pool. MR. ABBATE-It is not the same pool. MS. MANNEY-No. MR. BRYANT-I actually have a couple of questions, actually a question and a statement. In the minutes of the meeting, I made a point, Mr. Chairman, and my exact words were, one other question. I want to make sure that the Zoning Administrator is clear we're looking for some kind of documentation, something to show that the peculiar file is what you say it is, and that is relative to the GIS photograph that was shown that did not show the pool. Do you have anything in that regard? MR. BROWN-Yes. I think it was the next day I e-mailed everybody the meta data for that photo. MR. BRYANT-I don't have anything. MR. BROWN-Anybody else not get it? MR. UNDERWOOD-I got it. 3 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/17/07) MR. BRYANT-You got it? What did it say? MR. BROWN-I know I mailed it to everybody. I got a response back from a couple of people, maybe Mrs. Jenkin, that said thanks for the information. So, I'll provide it to you again. I'll get a hard copy to you. MR. BRYANT-Well, do you recall what the date was approximately? MR. BROWN-It was April 2001. MR. BRYANT-2001. MR. BROWN-Yes. MR. BRYANT-Okay. The other thing I have, Mr. Chairman, is really a statement. When they put the packages together, the minutes of August 22nd were not included in the package. The only thing I got was the resolution, and I would appreciate when we re- visit something like this, that the minutes be included in the package. MR. BROWN-Right. The reason the minutes weren't there is because no new information was submitted, and I didn't think there was going to be a discussion on it. MR. BRYANT-Okay, but it did give me the opportunity to find that paragraph about the GIS statement. I don't remember everything I say. MR. BROWN-Okay. MR. ABBATE-Okay. The public hearing is still open. Do we have any other questions from the Board members? If not, I'll go back to the public hearing. I did leave it open. All right. I don't believe we have any questions. Is there anyone in the public that wishes to address Area Variance No. 49-2007? If so, if you'd raise your hand, I'd be more than happy to recognize you. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN MR. ABBATE-I don't see any hands raised. Ms. Manney, we have a problem. It appears, unless some of the members of the Board differ with me, it appears that this Board has considered your arguments and finds them without merit. However, to provide you with every opportunity for a fair and impartial hearing, I could suggest a couple of options, and please recognize that the choice is up to you, yours to decide. You have the right to reject any of the suggestions I make, without prejudice. We could table your appeal, if you can assure us that you will be able to present to us sufficient documentation, and I'll go through it one more time, either photographic evidence, testimonial evidence or documentary evidence that will support your appeal, or you can withdraw your application, in which case there's no action on our part, or, the third is that you can request we continue to hear your appeal and as I suggested to you initially, I think this Board will consider your arguments and find them without merit. So I offered you three options, and the options are up to you to select or not select, without prejudice. MR. URRICO-Mr. Chairman, am I missing a point here? Because the applicant proposed to maintain what they had put there. That doesn't seem to be the case any longer. So don't we have to start from scratch here? Give her the opportunity to withdraw this application and maybe re-submit a new one, so that she can present her case differently than she did for this application. MR. ABBATE-Okay. She, yes, okay, yes, legally you have every right to present a new application. Absolutely correct. You're absolutely correct. MR. BRYANT-I just want to question that, Mr. Chairman, because in reality the application wouldn't change. In other words, other than in her testimony prior to this, in the previous hearing, where she said that that pool was pre-existing from the time that she purchased the property, okay, and that was part of her testimony, now that she's made an indication now that that is not correct. The application wouldn't change. The application is still the same. It's only her testimony now that has been corrected by her current statement saying that it was a new pool, okay. So in reality she's going to ask for the same amount of relief. Nothing is going to change. MR. ABBATE-All right. Let me turn to my friend, Mr. Brown. Help us out on this. 4 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/17/07) MR. BROWN-I'd have to agree with Mr. Bryant. I don't think the application is going to materially change. I think the major point that the applicant presented last time is this is pre-existing. We want to maintain this here. I do think, and this is a decision for everybody else to make besides me, but I think it's reasonable to request a tabling, and allow the applicant time to formulate other evidence to submit and say, okay, it's not pre- existing, but here's why it's a good idea if you let me keep it here. I don't know if she's prepared to do that tonight. If she's prepared to do that tonight and you guys are prepared to hear those arguments, you can certainly continue tonight, but I'm not sure if she's prepared. That's up to her. MR. ABBATE-You see what happens when we have a nice dialogue? We agree, Mr. Brown. Okay, now, I agree. I think one of our responsibilities is to provide due process to each applicant that comes before us, and if you suggest and ask me to table this because you feel that if you go home you may be able to find some information that will help support your case, we don't have any problems with that, and what I will do is give you a deadline again. So I would request that you submit the information to the Zoning Administrator no later than the 15th of November for a hearing some time in December. MR. BRYANT-Mr. Chairman, I might want to add something, okay. MR. ABBATE-Sure. MR. BRYANT-In reference to what Mr. Brown said. The applicant has already said she can't find any pictures. She has no documentation. At this time it's a moot point because she's already admitted to the fact that this is a new pool, okay, but in that regard, what you should do is probably table it and come back, as Mr. Brown said, with an argument for a new position or ideas why we should grant that variance, because if, going through the minutes, and all you have to do is go on line and get the minutes, or call the Town Planning Department and get them from the Town Hall. If you read the minutes, your whole argument was based on the fact that it was pre-existing, and it wasn't pre-existing. So now you have to come up with a new argument. MS. MANNEY-Well, it was pre-existing. We went to change the liner and the pool broke. I mean, it was there. I didn't know that the pool actually is a new pool. However, I mean, I have every single one of my neighbors who signed this petition to keep the pool in the same place. I'm not really sure what else you're looking for. MR. BRYANT-I don't know how else to explain it, other than the fact that. MR. ABBATE-Okay. I'll try and explain it to you. MR. UNDERWOOD-Why don't you query each Board member, get our feelings. MR. ABBATE-That's a good idea. Let me poll the Board members and take their positions. Let me start with Chuck. Do you mind? MR. MC NULTY-No, sure. MR. ABBATE-Please. MR. MC NULTY-The thing I would look at at this point is the rules say that that pool should be behind the house, and we're also charged with granting the least relief possible. So, first off, assuming there's room behind the house, I'd be inclined to say, move it to behind the house. Now, two things that might change my mind is one, for some reason I cannot be moved behind the house because there's a bunch of big trees in the way or the septic system's right there, or something of that sort. MS. MANNEY-I do want to let you know that both my septic is there and there are big trees and that is in my first things. MR. MC NULTY-But we would need to have a plot plan or a map or something that lays out. MS. MANNEY-I have all that that I turned in with my first application. MR. MC NULTY-Okay, and perhaps something regarding the cost of moving it, too. Whatever the difficulties would be moving it, and that's kind of what I'd be looking for. At 5 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/17/07) this point, it really wouldn't matter to me whether the pool was pre-existing or not. I'd still be asking the same questions. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Rick would you help us out please. MR. GARRAND-Certainly. Mr. Chairman, I just want to make it clear I wasn't here for the August meeting. So I didn't get a chance to review the minutes. I didn't know if you wanted me to recuse myself for this? MR. ABBATE-No, I don't feel you have to recuse yourself. MR. GARRAND-Okay. MR. ABBATE-Have you read the documentation? MR. GARRAND-The documentation I have, yes, I have read it. As far as that's concerned, I think it is a substantial request. I think there's always a way you can move a pool. If it's a freestanding pool, it can always be moved. So, that's my feeling about it. MR. ABBATE-Okay, and let me move down to Roy, please. MR. URRICO-Yes. I need to hear why it can't be behind the house. I mean, any documented. MS. MANNEY-Well, I do have, when I had to hand in the drawings with the original paperwork, there was a drawing of where my septic is now located, and there's also pictures of where all the pine trees are, and that is the spot that is directly behind my house. I would never be able to keep a pump running with the pine trees. So therefore I would have to have the pine trees cut down, which I don't know if I need a permit for, and that would be very costly. I mean, there's only a small area behind the house where, if you take out where the septic is, it leaves a small area, and the area is surrounded by pine trees. MR. URRICO-The only other thing I would still have a question about is originally I recall there being some evidence submitted by the Town that there were aerial photographs showing no pool, prior to this, and you're saying it was still replaced, that it was a broke and a liner had to be replaced, but there was a period of time where there was no pool there. MS. MANNEY-Apparently, yes, not very long. MR. URRICO-So they just happened to take the aerial photograph when that pool wasn't there? MS. MANNEY-I have no idea. I'm not 100%, it was definitely in the Year 2001. I was, my son was born August 2001, and it was that summer. MR. ABBATE-Joyce, please? MRS. HUNT-Yes. I would feel more comfortable if we just forgot about the pre-existing, that it was there before the photo, but I don't want to just hear what you have to say. I want to see some documentation, as the others were saying, you know, about why it can't be moved or how much it costs to be moved, something in black and white that I could use. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Jim, please. MR. UNDERWOOD-If she's telling me that there was a pool there before, and the pool was missing for, maybe the pool was down at the time that the ortho photos were taken for the GIS system in the Town, which very may well have been. It's a very large lot. I mean, there's overwhelming support from the neighborhood to keep the pool. I don't really see what the big deal is. I mean, we've given grants for pools in side yards on a lot of these corner lots before. This one, I mean, it's got trees down on that other corner. So you can't even barely see it when you're driving in there. So I don't really see what the big deal is. I mean, to make her move the pool, what would be the point. It's not going to make the yard any better. It's not going to change the neighborhood. I think we can just dispense with it tonight and get it over with. I mean, just do it as a new application now. I mean, what's the big deal? 6 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/17/07) MR. ABBATE-Okay, and, Mr. Bryant, please. MR. BRYANT-I tend to agree with Mr. McNulty. In the last hearing in August I was curious, I think I was the one who basically made the motion, the tabling motion relative to, and some of the things I mentioned were documentation, the time, because frankly there is a feasible alternative. The relief that you're requesting is substantial, 70% or almost 70% is substantial. So I would have to say, with a feasible alternative, the fact that it was a new pool at the time, you know, it really should have been put in a compliant location. So, I'm going to side with Mr. McNulty, and I'd be opposed to the application as it stands. MR. ABBATE-Okay. I'm going to ask you a very blunt question. I would hope that you'd give me a blunt reply. If we were to table this, can you assure us that you will provide us with documentation to support, unquestionably, your position? MS. MANNEY-Yes. I will go and get estimates on having the pool removed. MR. ABBATE-And how would you go about doing that? MS. MANNEY-Well, I will go, I will have estimates done on how much it will cost me to move this pool. I will have somebody obviously look at the place and say where, if that were to be moved, directly behind my house, where it's supposed to be, the septic is there and the pine trees are there. I'm not really sure who I would get to do this, but I will try to find somebody. I'm not sure what type of person you want me to look at. MR. BRYANT-Mr. Chairman, if you may, I just want to make one thing clear. We have five criteria that we base our decision on. The fact that it cost X number of dollars to move the pool is not one of those criteria. MR. ABBATE-Yes, she's talking about a Use Variance, yes, I know. MR. BRYANT-Okay. So in reality the estimate is not required. I think what the Chairman is looking for is for some sort of explanation as to why it's necessary to keep the pool there. If you came with a drawing, I mean, you look at the photograph, there's plenty of room in the back yard. If you came with a drawing that said, no, I've got a septic system here, in this location, I've got a leach field here, I've got a pine tree here. This is the size of the pool. The pool can't fit anyplace else, that's what the Chairman is looking for. MR. BROWN-I think, and not to support the applicant, but the reason you don't have that stuff tonight and we didn't supply any new notes on this application is because no new information was submitted. I wasn't prepared to have everybody speak about this. I thought Ms. Manney was going to come tonight and say, I'm still working on it, I can't find anything yet, could I have some more time. So, I'm not prepared to go forward, and the reason you guys didn't get the minutes that we talked about before the meeting is, again, my responsibility. I didn't think this was going to happen tonight. MR. URRICO-And that information was provided to us already. MR. BROWN-And you do have that information. That was the drawing that shows the house and the property lines and the fence and the trees and the septic systems, in the original submission packet, but, like I say, nothing new came in. So I wasn't ready to roll on this one tonight. MR. ABBATE-Well, it should be obvious to you that I'm making every effort to provide you with due process. I'm going beyond what I normally do. MS. MANNEY-I understand that, but what I didn't understand, that I have done this, and I did provide this in the original document because it was due. So that's why I'm not understanding what you're saying, because I've already done it. MR. ABBATE-Okay. The bottom line, then, basically, Ms. Manney, is that you can assure this Board that if were to table your application, you would come back with substantial information that would help support your position. Is that correct? MS. MANNEY-Yes. MR. ABBATE-Okay. 7 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/17/07) MR. UNDERWOOD-I would ask also, why don't you just get your neighbors who have been there for a long time to tell you that there was a pool before, explain the situation. MS. MANNEY-I will. MR. ABBATE-And may I also suggest perhaps if you were close friends with your neighbors, perhaps you may wish to have them come in to provide us with testimonial evidence. That's what I was referring to earlier. If you have friends, neighbors who can, if you will, certify that, yes, she's absolutely correct, it would help tremendously if they came before us and provided us with testimonial evidence. I'm going to, again, due process is extremely important. I'm going to give the applicant the benefit of the doubt, and I'm going to be looking for a motion. Do you wish to have us table this, by the way? MS. MANNEY-Sure. MR. ABBATE-Okay. So that's your request to me, to table it, is that correct? MS. MANNEY-Yes. MR. ABBATE-Okay. The applicant has requested that we table Area Variance No. 49- 2007. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 49-2007 MANDY L. MANNEY, Introduced by Charles Abbate who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roy Urrico: 58 Burch Road. Be tabled to the December 19th ZBA hearing, with the provision that the appellant provide sufficient documentation no later than the 15th of November to Staff of the Community Development Department to support her case. Duly adopted this 17th day of October, 2007, by the following vote: MS. MANNEY-I just want to be very clear on what documentation you want me to provide. Do you want me to provide drawings? MR. UNDERWOOD-We already have those. MS. MANNEY-You already have those. MR. BRYANT-Does the drawing indicate that, I don't have the drawing tonight, but does it indicate that there's absolutely no room? Because Staff Notes indicate. MR. UNDERWOOD-No. It does show the trees that are present on site, and their relationship to the pool. The septic is on there, too, I believe. MR. BRYANT-Is there no place to put a pool there in the back? MR. UNDERWOOD-Well, you can move it anywhere you want if you really want to move it. MR. ABBATE-Do you know what I don't have here, gentlemen, do we have a survey, Craig? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, we do. MR. ABBATE-We do have one? Okay, great. Okay. MR. BRYANT-Could I see it, please, just one second. MR. UNDERWOOD-Here's the other one. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Great. MR. BROWN-And you may want to pick, in that tabling motion, the December 19th meeting. The second meeting is the 26th. We mayor may not have that the day after Christmas. So the first meeting's the 19th. MR. ABBATE-I suspect it's going to be the 19th. MR. BROWN-Okay. So as long as it's in the motion. 8 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/17/07) MR. ABBATE-Yes. Tentatively let's make it for the 19th. MR. URRICO-You still have a question on the floor as to what she needs to provide. MS. MANNEY-I do. MR. ABBATE-That is your question? MS. MANNEY-That is my question. MR. UNDERWOOD-I think what you want to do is explain, in a written explanation, that you can read a statement just saying that the trees are too close anywhere else, the pine needles will be falling in the pool, something to that effect, the septic in the back, it would be improper to put it on top of the septic. MR. URRICO-Would a letter from her neighbors suffice, as far as documented evidence? MR. ABBATE-Anything that she could submit. See, I'm reluctant to answer your question, quite frankly, because the burden of responsibility is not on my shoulders to support your case. MS. MANNEY-I'm not asking you that, but I don't want to come her again and not have the correct stuff. MR. ABBATE-All right. Then let me do this, why not stop down to Staff and ask questions. I think we're going too far on this, quite frankly. MS. MANNEY-Okay. MR. ABBATE-I have a motion on the table. MR. BRYANT-Can I make a statement? That survey doesn't pertain to that property. MR. UNDERWOOD-Pinello Road one, that's what we got in our packet. MR. BRYANT-How come it's different than the Sketch that's provided? The house is different, the roads are different. Everything is different. MR. BROWN-I think the survey for this property was a portion of an older survey. Wasn't it a portion that showed several lots. MS. MANNEY-Yes. MR. BROWN-I think that's the survey that goes with this application. MR. ABBATE-Okay. This was done June 13,2007, the survey. MR. BROWN-Yes, that other survey that you have there isn't even close to this property. I'm not sure where that came from or how it got mixed in with this. MR. BRYANT-Okay. So there is no survey. Is there another survey? MS. MANNEY-There is a survey in, not that one, apparently. MR. BRYANT-That's not the correct survey for that property. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Hang on. Yes, we've got one. So we do have an official one. It's in here. MR. ABBATE-It's in there. We do have a survey. MR. BRYANT-Okay. AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Garrand, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Abbate NOES: NONE 9 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/17/07) MR. ABBATE-And the vote is seven yes, zero no, to table Area Variance No. 49-2007 tentatively to the 19th of December 2007 hearing with the proviso that the information be submitted to Staff no later than November the 15th. Thank you very much. MS. MANNEY-Thank you. MR. ABBATE-You are very welcome. NEW BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 61-2007 SEQRA TYPE: II LARRY CLUTE AGENT(S): VAN DUSEN & STEVES OWNER(S): LARRY CLUTE ZONING: SFR-1A LOCATION: 42 ELDRIDGE ROAD (BENNETT & ELDRIDGE ROAD) APPILCANT HAS CONSTRUCTED A SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM SIDE AND REAR YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REF.: PREVIOUS AV FOR LOT CREATION; BP 2007-053 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: N/A LOT SIZE: 0.31 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 295.14-1-21.2 SECTION: 179-4-030 MATT STEVES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; LARRY CLUTE, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 61-2007, Larry Clute, Meeting Date: October 17, 2007 "Project Location: 42 Eldridge Road (Bennett & Eldridge Road) Description of Proposed Project: Applicant has constructed a Single Family Dwelling too close to the rear property line. I Relief Required: I Applicant requests 7.46 feet of relief from the 20 foot minimum rear setback requirement of the SFR-1A zoning district. I Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: I 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be permitted to maintain the home in the constructed location. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives appear to be limited as the home is already constructed. However, relocation to a more compliant location may be considered. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the ordinance?: The request for 7.46 feet of setback relief from the 20 foot requirement may be interpreted as moderate to substantial (37%). 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: No letters of support were submitted with the application materials. 5. Is this difficulty self-created? The difficulty may be interpreted as self created. I Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): I A V 33-07 4.5 feet of rear setback relief A V 66-05 creation of substandard lot BP 2007-053 Single Family Dwelling & detached garage approved 5/23/07 approved 6/21/06 approved 5/30/07 I Staff comments: I A review of Building Permit file 2007-053 reveals that the home constructed is 26 feet wide, while the plot plan submitted with A V 33-07 offered a 24 foot wide house. Further, the proposed location shown in both the A V and BP files was at a location 33 feet from 10 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/17/07) the southerly property line. The constructed location of the home is nearly 58 feet from the southerly property line, effectively, 25 feet further into the narrower portion of the lot. The plot plans submitted with A V 33-07 and BP 2007-053 do not depict a separate freestanding garage. Refer to minutes of June 21, 2006 ZBA hearing and references of the "exact" house to be built as shown on the plans refers to a 24 foot wide house, while a different, 26 foot wide house was constructed. Further, the May 23, 2007 minutes state that the proposed house was to be 24 feet wide. Minutes from both meetings are attached. I SEQR Status: I Type II" MR. ABBATE-Okay. I see the gentlemen at the table. Would you folks be kind enough to speak into the microphone and identify yourself and your relationship to the appeal, please. MR. STEVES-Good evening. Matt Steves representing Larry Clute. MR. CLUTE-Larry Clute. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Are you prepared to proceed? MR. STEVES-Yes. MR. ABBATE-Please do. MR. STEVES-I just have one question, maybe a clarification. In the notice it says a side and rear yard. I believe it's only the rear yard. Correct? MR. BROWN-Yes. I think the garage doesn't meet the 20 foot side setback. MR. STEVES-I just wanted to confirm, because there is a 20 foot side setback in that zone. I know that. MR. BROWN-You are correct. MR. STEVES-Okay. MR. ABBATE-I just want to make sure this is clear. You're challenging the project description? MR. STEVES-I'm not challenging it. I'm just saying that we're asking for definitely the rear yard setback is in violation, but there's no violation on the side yard. We do not need a side yard setback variance. MR. BROWN-That's correct. We identified actually more relief than they need. They need less. So the advertising is not a problem. MR. ABBATE-Okay. So actually you did challenge that side is not appropriate at this time. MR. STEVES-Right. MR. ABBATE-All right. Thank you. All right. So if you're prepared to proceed, please do. MR. STEVES-Okay. This is the property on Bennett and Eldridge, actually on the north end of Eldridge Road. I believe you're familiar with the property. It was land hooked across to another parcel that Mr. Clute has also built on. When he built the house, he can explain a little bit more, the 24 foot that we had depicted in the plan, it is a footprint of 24 feet to the foundation. I forgot about the two foot cantilever. That wasn't part of the actual footprint of the building. It is a raised ranch with a two foot cantilever to incorporate the 26 feet. Trying to maintain the front setback and then the perspective purchaser came in and actually contracted with them, instead of just a spec, wanted a garage, and Larry can take it from there. 11 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/17/07) MR. CLUTE-Yes. Initially at the last meeting, we did have a, actually, if you remember, the conversation was, was the size of the home, and I knew I was decreasing the size of the home. I was actually already to contract for this home. They didn't want the ranch. They wanted a raised ranch, and as Matt was trying to describe, my footprint still is a 24 foot footprint, but it happens to be a raised ranch, which typically has a two foot cantilever on the face of the home, part of a design. So I still have a 24 foot footprint, but I myself never took into consideration the two foot cantilever, and when I, I personally strung that line, after that meeting. I went out with my site supervisor and strung that 30 foot line, and we were right on it, but we placed our cantilever on that line, not my 24 foot footprint, and so I'm two foot off from the approved setback that I had come in for. MR. ABBATE-And that's a result of that second floor/first floor that extends out over? MR. CLUTE-That two foot cantilever, and so by placing that 30 foot line on that cantilever pushed by 24 foot footprint back two foot, and had that not have happened, I would have met the original variance, which was the 15 foot. MR. ABBATE-So now we know the difference between a ranch and a raised ranch. MR. CLUTE-And a raised ranch, yes, sir, we do. Yes, sir, we do. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Is there anything at this particular time you wish to add? MR. STEVES-No. MR. ABBATE-All right. Ladies and gentlemen of the Board, do we have any questions you'd like to ask? MR. BRYANT-Mr. Chairman. MR. ABBATE-Yes, please, Mr. Bryant. MR. BRYANT-Thank you. MR. ABBATE-You're welcome. MR. BRYANT-You say there's a discrepancy in your building, whatever, but the relief you're looking for is like another three feet, am I right? Didn't you get four foot something the last time? MR. CLUTE-I think we were authorized to go to 15. To be honest with you, I'm not really sure. MR. UNDERWOOD-Last time it was 4.5 feet of rear setback. MR. BRYANT-Okay. So 15.5, and now you're at 12.5. That's three feet. MR. ABBATE-That's three feet. MR. CLUTE-Right. Like I said, all I did was went with the 30 foot guideline, and I'm assuming that the numbers that we had originally calculated, as long as I stayed at that 30 foot guideline, I was going to fall where we needed to be. I mean, I'm looking at the same map you are, no question. MR. BRYANT-There is another remark in the Staff Notes relative to the positioning of the house in the lot, you positioned it at the narrowest part of the lot. Why wasn't it positioned further over? Move the septic over here, move the house over here. MR. CLUTE-The septic needed to be, we had the septic to the, what do you want to call it, that was part of the subdivision was to be to the northerly side, and it was to satisfy these neighbors, so as to maintain as much forest, I guess, as possible and so that's exactly what we accommodated. We left an awful lot of trees on the northerly side of the lot. MR. BRYANT-Yes, but the map that you originally provided, okay, showed the house at this hour glass portion of the lot, okay, which is wider than where you put the house. So then the question arises, why do we have the house in the middle of the lot as opposed to where you originally showed it on the original survey, you know, at the wider area of the lot? 12 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/17/07) MR. CLUTE-Because the people contracted me to do the garage. So I put the garage on there. MR. BRYANT-I'm not asking you about the garage. The garage could go any place. Why is the house not where you showed it on the original sketch? Therein that creates the problem. You could have absorbed a lot of that overhang if it were in the right place. MR. CLUTE-I could have absorbed it, too, had I not had the cantilevers. I'm with your argument. I'm with your argument. I completely relate to what you're saying. Had I not have had the cantilever I'd have been right there, too. MR. BRYANT-Well, I'm just saying that I think that the lot is wider, at one point. At least it appears to be. MR. CLUTE-It is. It's slightly wider on the southerly side, yes. MR. BRYANT-Yes, okay. So I don't know how much wider it is. There's no way to. MR. STEVES-There's about six feet difference from the south end to the north end. MR. CLUTE-The reason, though, for the garage to the southerly side, if I have to do septic to the northerly side, I can't go from house through garage to septic. MR. BRYANT-Well, the garage is only a small little tiny little thing. There's plenty of room to run the septic. You don't have to do it the way you did it. I'm just asking you a question. We've got one map and then we've got another map, and this is the reality. MR. CLUTE-Right. This map was the ranch, and at that last meeting I said I was going to make a smaller ranch. I knew I was doing that. Actually I said I was already to contract. I knew I was to contract and that we were going to change that footprint. MR. BRYANT-That's where it looked like the garage was going to originally be attached to, the house, okay, and it would have been attached to the southerly side, whatever side it is. MR. CLUTE-Correct. MR. BRYANT-And then this would be a moot argument where you put the garage, and they decided to do a detached garage. MR. CLUTE-Right, but I still, to be honest with you, the cantilever still would have put me in this situation. There's no question in my mind. The cantilever still would have put me beyond the pre-approved, or beyond what I was previously approved for. MR. BRYANT-I don't know how wide the property is at the middle, but if there's six feet difference from end to end, you know, even if there was only three feet difference, you would have absorbed the three feet. MR. CLUTE-There's no question it would have been less. There's no doubt in my mind. The request would have been less, but I know that even so, the two foot cantilever that I overlooked, no question would put me back in front of this Board. MR. BRYANT-Thank you. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Anyone else who'd like to go? Would you please, Rick. MR. GARRAND-Mr. Clute, what bothers me here, is the Board was presented with one plan and we end up with something that's radically different. At this point, we weren't aware that a garage would be detached and also we weren't aware that the house was going to be moved farther towards the center of the lot. MR. CLUTE-Right. I don't actually, I guess I might not be completely familiar with the process. I came in for a variance, and it was based on a box, okay, and we're having conversation. I knew that the box wasn't representative of what I went to contract for. I knew I was going smaller. Irrelevant of where I placed these boxes, I was under the impression that I was given 15 foot as an approved setback. So as long as I met that 15 foot setback, it should be totally irrelevant of where these boxes are, as long, this is my 13 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/17/07) impression. Correct me if I'm wrong. As long as I met the 15 foot rear yard setback, it didn't matter whether it's this box or this box. MR. ABBATE-Let me ask you a question. You did have a pre-conference meeting with Staff, did you not? MR. CLUTE-No, I didn't. MR. ABBATE-Who had a pre-conference meeting with Staff? MR. STEVES-I did. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Were these questions raised with Staff, the questions that Mr. Clute raises this evening? MR. STEVES-As far as this actual application right now in front of you or the one previous? MR. ABBATE-Either one. MR. STEVES-No. MR. CLUTE-Can I ask a question? MR. ABBATE-By all means. Sure. MR. CLUTE-Thank you. Had this split level met that 15 foot mark, would I be here? MR. BRYANT-No. MR. ABBATE-Not at all. MR. CLUTE-So by changing the layout, that's not what I'm here for? I'm here for the rear yard setback. MR. UNDERWOOD-Just the relief, that's it. MR. CLUTE-Okay. Well, I guess I come back then, again. MR. STEVES-I'm not trying to put words in Mr. Clute's mouth, but many subdivisions you've seen of mine throughout the years, I'm sure, when you go through a subdivision, you have to show a typical house, a typical clearing, a typical septic, a typical driveway, but that does not mean that the person who's going to be building on that lot must conform to the exact footprint of the house I show on a subdivision plan. MR. BRYANT-No, but he had to get a permit. After he got his variance, he went to the Building Department. He got a permit which showed a 15.5 foot setback, okay. So now, whether that plot or that plan, whatever that is, when he got his building permit, whether it showed the detached garage or a different location of the house, he still had to reflect a 15.5. MR. STEVES-And I wholeheartedly agree. I'm just trying to clarify that if you have a subdivision map that's filed, I've never had to follow the exact footprint location, unless it's for, you know, like a Rite Aid is to be built in the footprint, is given to me prior to the Site Plan coming in to the Board, it's a typical configuration, and they can slide around within that lot as long as it meets the setbacks. MR. URRICO-The only reason it's at issue tonight is because you've come back. MR. CLUTE-No, I understand. MR. URRICO-And now it raises the question, why did things change to create this problem. That's what we're here for. MR. STEVES-And I understand that. MR. CLUTE-What I'm trying to say, though, is it's not the design that created the problem. It's the, I mean, it's the design of the home, but not location of it or anything 14 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/17/07) like that. No matter what I would have done, I made a mess by forgetting the two foot cantilever. That's honestly what created everything. MR. URRICO-The cantilever was part of the original plan or not? MR. CLUTE-No. MR. URRICO-So it's the design that's created the problem. MR. STEVES-Yes. MR. CLUTE-Yes, it's a different, like he was saying, now I know the difference between a raised ranch and a ranch. MR. URRICO-Because you used the cantilever to set your house above. MR. CLUTE-Right, but when I did this plot plan, when I submitted, because I did have to submit, I couldn't submit for a ranch, otherwise I wouldn't have been able to build the raised ranch. So when I submitted, I still showed, as he says, that 15.5. I never took into consideration that two foot cantilever. I only had my footprint. When I say footprint, I'm thinking foundation, and so I had the footprint on there, never taking into consideration that two foot which creates a 26 foot house. Even though it's still a 24 foot foundation, and that's where my error, this is what created this mess, is my two foot cantilever. MR. STEVES-Right, and working back to everybody's comment, and I wholeheartedly agree, if it was in the exact same location as the original plan showed it, with the two foot, it still wouldn't have met the 15.5. It just would have probably been 14 and not 12 and a half or 13, and we agree. MR. CLUTE-That's what I was trying to say. MR. BRYANT-Here is my logic, and it might be wrong, and Mr. Brown can correct me if I'm wrong. You got your variance. You go for a building permit. He's got to submit drawings of the building. I mean, the drawings didn't show the cantilever, the detached garage, the repositioning of the buildings on the lot, I mean, that all has to be shown on the drawing, right, or no? MR. BROWN-Absolutely. The building permit plans that were submitted for the building do depict the cantilever. The plot plan that was submitted does not depict that. It depicts the setbacks that were approved with the variance. MR. BRYANT-Okay, and the reason I ask that is because my point is that they don't even, if you took the cantilever away, we still don't meet the 15.5. We still don't meet it. That being said, okay, wouldn't this be something that would be picked up in the Building Department? The guy who issues the permits, wouldn't he pick that up that now there's a discrepancy in size? MR. BROWN-Hopefully. If there's two permits to review a year, yes, probably you're going to take a fine tooth comb and review them. If you're doing 800 or 1,000 building permits a year, especially one that's got a variance, and you see a plot plan that matches the plot plan that was in the variance, and you see a building footprint that's the same as what was in the variance application, you put some faith in the consistency from the applicant's point of view, being consistent with what they've shown everybody, not making change in the middle, on purpose or not on purpose, I don't, and I'm the one, the guy who issues the permits, I don't do that. I just don't have the time to get into that level of detail on pulling out the variance file, scaling the size of the house, comparing. If I recognize the drawing, it's the one that I saw for the variance application, all the numbers are on there. It's got the date that the Zoning Board meeting was, it's the drawing. I trust that drawing, that's what the applicant has to deal with, but to shed a little bit of light on the, do I have to keep this spot that was shown on my variance, or can I move it any place around that box, versus, hey, if I have a subdivision that shows all the setbacks, I can move it around. Two different things. One, the subdivision is a plot plan that shows proposed, or the required setbacks on the lot, and if you move the house around anyplace inside that setback box, that's a conforming location. The difference with the variance is, that doesn't conform to the setbacks. You don't meet the setbacks. So are you pinned down to the spot that you show on your plot plan for a variance? Yes and no. If it's a couple of feet off within reason, and that discretion is something that's exercised by myself and Bruce Frank, the guy who goes out and does these inspections after the approvals, if it's reasonably close, then we're going to go with it, and to explain that, to 15 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/17/07) take it to an extreme, if this property is 1,000 feet long, and they get a 15 foot side yard setback, but the plot plan they bring in shows the house at the southerly end, they bring in their building permit at the northerly end, where the neighbors didn't realize they were going to have a house 15 feet away from them, we're not going to give them that building permit. Even though it's at 15 feet, which is what they had their variance for, the plot plan, the record drawing that was submitted shows the house on the southerly end, that's where it needs to be. MR. BRYANT-Yes, but, then to further what you just said, okay, the building permit was approve seven days after they got their variance, on the rear setback, and yet there's a major difference between the finished product and the original plot plan. MR. BROWN-Yes. I mean, if the question is, does the finished plot plan match the drawing that was submitted with the building permit? The answer is no. They submitted a drawing that matched the variance, but when they were done building, it doesn't look like either one. That's correct, you're right. MR. BRYANT-Well, that's a completely different issue then. Really, because you issued the permit based on the drawings, which now it doesn't look like the drawings that generated the permit. MR. BROWN-And that's why they're here tonight. Yes. MR. BRYANT-Okay. Now I understand the scenario. MR. ABBATE-All right. If I may continue, let's go to Mr. Underwood, please. MR. UNDERWOOD-Are you going to do the public hearing? MR. ABBATE-I don't think we've finished with the comments by the Board members, yet. MR. BRYANT-We haven't gotten there yet. MR. ABBATE-No. So let's go with Mr. Underwood, please. MR. BRYANT-You haven't had the public hearing yet. MR. UNDERWOOD-We have to have the public hearing first. I want to hear what the public says. MR. BRYANT-We need a public hearing now. MR. BROWN-You were just to the point of Board members asking questions. MR. ABBATE-No, that's right. We haven't reached that point yet. We've had so much conversation, each of the Board members have not had an opportunity to question the appellant. The only people that have questioned the appellant is AI Bryant and Rick Garrand. That's it. We still have Mr. Urrico. We still have Mr. Underwood. We have Mrs. Hunt, and Mr. McNulty. MR. BRYANT-How do you know they have questions? That's what I'm asking. MR. UNDERWOOD-I don't have any questions at this time. I would like to hear from the public. MR. ABBATE-Thank you very much. Mr. Urrico, do you have any questions? MR. URRICO-I'II defer to the public. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Mrs. Hunt, do you have any questions? MRS. HUNT-I don't have any questions at this time. MR. ABBATE-And Mr. McNulty? MR. MC NULTY-Not at this point. MR. ABBATE-Not at this particular time. Now, according to our protocol, I will open the public hearing for Area Variance No. 61-2007, and if we have any folks in the audience 16 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/17/07) who would like to address 61-2007, please raise your hands and I'll be more than happy to recognize you. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. ABBATE-I see no hands raised. Now I'm going to move on. I'm going to ask members to offer their comments. I'd like to inform the public that the comments offered by the members are directed to the Chairman, and are not open to debate. Now, we'll start with a volunteer. Do we have a volunteer who would like to start? Jim, would you like to start, please. MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure. MR. ABBATE-Thank you. MR. UNDERWOOD-In comparing the two drawings, you know, it is substantially different than what was proposed to us, but Mr. Clute's explanation of the cantilever and setting the points off the cantilever as opposed to setting it off the foundation, explains the discrepancy between the relief that we granted previously and the difference that they need tonight in order to keep this house where it is where it is. I think that when we first dealt with this, we were dealing with a very narrow lot that doesn't fit the guidelines, it doesn't fit the neighborhood. It's miniscule, and we were trying to make a fit so he could get an extra house in there and make his business go. The neighbors were concerned with the placement of the house and I don't think the placement of this house, being altered from what it was, is any great big change from what we granted before. Certainly it probably would have been nice if the house had been built without needing more relief. I'm sure Mr. Clute and everybody else would have been happier that way, and the Board would have been happier, too, but I don't really see this as any grand change. I think that the fact that they did save most of the trees on the site there to minimize the impact on the neighborhood because it is such a small lot and the nearness to the other neighbors was something that we had requested and that they dealt with pretty well as far as this goes. I don't think that the extra amount of relief that they're requesting is substantial in my mind. I think that, you know, given the fact, in the explanation, I can accept it and we can move on and grant them the relief they need. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you very much. Mr. Urrico, please. MR. URRICO-We're basically talking about 15 and a half feet, last time, and now we have 12 and a half feet. We're talking about a three foot difference. The overhang you're counting for two feet. There's still another foot and a half that's unaccounted for, and I'm assuming that's because we moved the property up? MR. CLUTE-Yes. As Mr. Bryant said, the lot does taper, not dramatically, but it does taper. MR. URRICO-So there were a few mistakes made in the process. I don't think it's enough to make me change my mind about how I ruled the first time. I'd be in favor of it. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you very much. Mrs. Hunt, please. MRS. HUNT-Thank you. I have to agree with the previous two Board members. I can understand the two feet on the cantilever and I can understand having moved it north, the lot is narrower. I am kind of concerned, though, that it didn't conform to the building permit. I think that's too bad, but I would be in favor. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you very much. Mr. Garrand, please? MR. GARRAND-Mr. Chairman, while this is a small lot and the tolerances have to be all the more tighter here, I believe it's the contractor's responsibility to maintain the setbacks as outlined in their previous Area Variance, but also by the same token, I have to take into account, looking at the lot and what's there now, I think it's actually an improvement. Aesthetically he's maintaining the character of this neighborhood. He didn't clear cut the lot, like he could have done, and at this point, I'd be in favor of this Area Variance. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you very much. Mr. McNulty, please. MR. MC NULTY-Well, I'm going to be the odd man out. Mr. Clute's a builder. He's built a lot of houses. He knows how to use a tape measure. His representative, when he was here for the variance in May, or March, whenever it was, was specifically asked about 17 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/17/07) the setback because there was a difference at that time, whether it was 15 feet or 15.5. He said it will be 15.5, very emphatically. It's not. In effect what's happened is Mr. Clute came in, got a variance for one thing, and built what he pleased later, and I think this kind of thing has got to stop. The proper answer to the purchaser was, no, you can't build that kind of house on this property. That would have solved the problem, but in any event, this is where I'm drawing the line. I'm going to be definitely opposed. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you very much, Mr. McNulty, and Mr. Bryant, please. MR. BRYANT-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm going to agree with Mr. McNulty for a number of reasons. First off, a number of the other Board members mentioned that this is a narrow lot and it's a small lot and the reality is we created that lot by variance. It's a substandard lot because we created that lot, okay, and we knew from Day One, when you came for the first variance, with the subdivision, that this was going to be an issue. It's a narrow lot. When you came back for the second variance, we gave you the four and a half feet. Okay. Now, as Mr. Underwood stated, well, it's not a lot more than it is, but when you look at it in the overall picture of things, okay, we're almost giving you double the relief that you got the second time you came around. So the relief is moderate. It's not substantial, it's 37% or whatever, but as Mr. McNulty said, you know, we've got to draw the line. You have a reputation of quality building. At some point during the construction, you should have realized that we had a problem and not waited until the house was complete, and this speaks to something that Mr. Brown said, okay, that they have so many permits and so much construction in this Town, and there are two people in the field which is insane for the amount of building that they have. They are entirely too overworked to handle the workload, and so something like this, when you look at this original plan, and then you look at the end result, they're like night and day, and I could understand how they couldn't pick it up in the office, okay. So, you know, I understand where the rest of the Board is coming from, and I know that I'm not going to have that much of an impact on the vote, but I want to send a message, because you come in front of us often, and the majority of the time your projects are excellent, okay, but this was just a comedy of errors that should have never occurred. Okay. So I'm also going to be negative. MR. ABBATE-All right. Thank you very much. Well, it's my turn, and I've listened very carefully to what you folks had to say, and I've listened very carefully to what every member of the Board had to say. Every word that they had to say, and I agree with Mr. Bryant and I agree with Mr. McNulty. I think we have to start digging our heels in. Quite frankly, not to be brutal, but quite frankly, gentlemen, the burden of responsibility falls squarely on your shoulders to determine what you mayor may not do in the Town of Queensbury. I don't think that's unreasonable. You're a contractor, you have a good reputation, and how many errors can you make? I suspect that if we moved a motion to the Town Board to fine contractors $10,000, I'll bet you'd never come before us again making this kind of a mistake, but I don't think that that would ever fly. Nonetheless, I agree with Mr. Bryant and I agree Mr. McNulty that this has to stop. Having said that, may I please have a motion for Area Variance No. 61-2007. MRS. HUNT-I'll make a motion. MR. ABBATE-Would you like to do that? Please. Okay. The public hearing is closed on Area Variance No. 61-2007. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 61-2007 LARRY CLUTE, Introduced by Joyce Hunt who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roy Urrico: 42 Eldridge Road (Bennett & Eldridge Road). The applicant has constructed a single family dwelling too close to the rear property line. The applicant requests 7.46 feet of relief from the 20 foot minimum rear setback requirement of the Single Family Residential One acre zoning district. Benefit to the applicant would be to leave the home where it was constructed and that is a feasible alternative, there is no feasible alternative as far as the applicant is concerned. There would be no undesirable change in the neighborhood character or to nearby properties. The request is, I would say, moderate. The request will not have adverse physical or environmental effects, and the alleged difficulty may be considered self-created because Mr. Clute forgot to take into consideration the overhang on the raised ranch. Duly adopted this 17th day of October, 2007, by the following vote: 18 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/17/07) AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Garrand NOES: Mr. Bryant, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Abbate MR. ABBATE-The vote for Area Variance No. 61-2007 is four yes, three no. Area Variance No. 61-2007 is approved. Thank you, gentlemen. MR. STEVES-Thank you. MR. ABBATE-You're welcome. AREA VARIANCE NO. 62-2007 SEQR TYPE: II CLUTE ENTERPRISES AGENT(S): VAN DUSEN AND STEVES OWNER(S): KATRINA BRONZENE ZONING: SR-20 LOCATION: 9 LEO STREET APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF SINGLE- FAMILY DWELLING WITH DETACHED GARAGE. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: N/A LOT SIZE: TAX MAP NO. 308.8-2-16 SECTION: 179-4-030 MATT STEVES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; LARRY CLUTE, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 62-2007, Clute Enterprises, Meeting Date: October 17, 2007 "Project Location: 9 Leo Street Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a single family dwelling and a freestanding garage. I Relief Required: I Applicant requests 4 feet of relief from the 10 foot minimum side setback requirement and 5.2 feet of relief from the 30 minimum side setback total of the SR-20 zoning district. Note: the plot plan submitted refers to a rectangular 26 x 36 home while the plans submitted depict a non rectangular 24 x 32 home. No plans for the garage were submitted. I Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: I 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be permitted to construct a home in the desired location. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives appear to include a 24 x 32 home which could be placed on the lot in compliance with the minimum 10 foot setbacks thus requiring only 3.2 feet of relief from the 30 total requirement. Also, the home could be located to the westerly portion of the property, thus requiring no setback relief. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the ordinance?: The two requests for setback relief may be interpreted as moderate. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: No letters of support were submitted with the application materials. 5. Is this difficulty self-created? The difficulty may be interpreted as self created. I Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): I None applicable I Staff comments: I Clarification of exactly what structure is needed as the plot plan and building plans do not match. Consideration may be given to relocating the home to a compliant location on the property, thus eliminating the need for setback relief for this project and the reducing 19 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/17/07) potential for further requests for relief should the home be constructed in error ever request and addition or porches or decks, etc. While there appears to be an easily accessible area for compliant construction, the "proposed conveyance to Holcomb" would offer even more area for compliant construction if still under the ownership of Bronzene. The deed submitted with this application appears to describe all lands shown, including the proposed conveyance, to be in the ownership of Bronzene. I SEQR Status: I Type II" MR. ABBATE-Gentlemen, would you be kind enough please to speak into the microphone and identify yourself and your relationship with Area Variance No. 62-2007, please. MR. STEVES-Good evening. Matt Steves with Van Dusen and Steves, representing Larry Clute on this application, together with Larry Clute. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Are you prepared to proceed? MR. STEVES-Yes. MR. ABBATE-Please do. MR. STEVES-Okay. Again, this is property located on the west side of Leo Street. There is an existing mobile home that's on that property. The location of the existing mobile home is at basically the same location of the southerly edge of the proposed house, allowing room for the driveway on the north and the septic that is in the back. Without digging up the septic system, that's the best we can tell where the septic system is. So if we moved the house to the back, it would have to go behind the septic system, and it would just be an awful long ways away from the road. We're trying to keep it basically where the existing building is now. As far as the setback, I would agree with the Staff comment, you could move it to the north to comply with the 10 feet, and then only need the relief for the other side. We're just trying to create the 18 foot on the north to allow room for the driveway to get to the back, with snow plowing and removal and not have the driveway right on the property line, for the lands of the people to the north. As far as the comment about the footprint of the building, this is not a cantilevered. This is a true 26 by 36. The only difference is the little stoop, and it would be within the 30 foot setback. It would be outside the 30 foot setback. It would comply with that. That's just that little concrete pad that would be probably two foot wide, three foot wide by half the width of the home. MR. ABBATE-Okay, and before I ask members of the Board to comment, you see, here again, unless Staff doesn't have it right, Staff is basically saying, wait a minute, now, the setback total of the SR-20 district, "Note: The plot plan submitted refers to a rectangular 26 x 36 home while the plans submitted depict a non rectangular 24 x 32 home. No plans for the garage were submitted. Clarification of exactly what structure is needed as the plot plan and building plans do not match. What's going on here? MR. BROWN-It looks like a 24 by 32. MR. CLUTE-No, it's a 26, 36. MR. BRYANT-There are no dimensions on this. How would we know? MR. BROWN-There's no exterior dimensions, but the interior dimensions of the room, if you add them up, it's a 24 by 32. MR. CLUTE-It's a 26 by 36. I can get a more clear plot plan, but that's exactly what we're talking about building is what you have in your possession. MR. BROWN-This is 24 by 32. The plan shows 26 by 36. MR. CLUTE-As you said, it doesn't have the exterior dimensions. MR. ABBATE-Did we have a pre-conference hearing with Staff? MR. CLUTE-No, I did not. 20 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/17/07) MR. STEVES-Yes, I did. MR. UNDERWOOD-I mean, what's the discrepancy, a foot? MR. STEVES-I mean, you look at, there's 18 foot with the living room, and 13.5 with the bedroom in the back, and then your six inch wall, and then the width of your stairwell, three foot stairwell, I mean, it adds up to the 35 and change. MR. CLUTE-I can get a cleaner floor plan to Staff. If Craig needed a more clear floor plan, I could easily supply that. MR. ABBATE-Well, see, here's my problem, here's my problem. My problem, basically, is that the administration of what you are doing doesn't coincide with what you're telling Staff, that's my problem. Staff has made three points here. Why can't your administration be accurate when you meet with Staff in a pre-conference hearing. MR. CLUTE-Not to be argumentative, but exactly. I mean, if there's a problem with Staff and he has an issue, and he sees the issue, why are we waiting until this meeting? MR. ABBATE-Good question. Staff, would you like to respond? MR. BROWN-Sure. The process with the review of these applications is, and I've done, safe to say several hundred pre-application meetings, and probably a few of those hundred with Mr. Steves, and several with Mr. Clute. What we look at at that pre- submission meetings is, is there a survey map. Is the application filled out, are all the blanks filled in, the quantity of the information. The quality of the information we don't look at until we start doing Staff Notes and actually do a review of the project. So was the size of the house shown on the plans, when compared to the plot plan, you know, shown on the plot plan, was that identified early on in the process? No, it wasn't identified until the review of the application was done, which was last week when the Staff Notes were prepared. So as soon as the information was found, Staff Notes were developed, they were published. Everybody gets a copy of them at the same time. So, we don't do a quality review right off the bat. There's just no way to do that. MR. ABBATE-I know. MR. STEVES-Mr. Chairman and Board members, I will take some responsibility, too, in that, in that, going forward and learning, everything is a learning experience. You learn something every day, is that, you know, 24 by 36 was what was told to me, and when the plan comes in, I will review it myself and make sure that there's a 26 by 36 dimension written on the plans from now on, to conform to what I was told to put on the plot plan. I'm not the one, so you know, I'm not an architect or house designer. I don't do the building plans. What the applicant tells me is going to put on there, I will therefore start to confirm that with the plans that I've received. I'm just saying that, you know, I will definitely do that from now on, but coming back to this matter, the house that is shown 26 by 36, even if you take this and you use the dimensions you add up, we're showing a larger home than this is called for. We're taking the worst case scenario, but it is going to be a 26 by 36 home. MR. CLUTE-It's definitely. MR. ABBATE-Well, thank you, gentlemen, for your patience in explaining that to me. MR. STEVES-Thank you. MR. ABBATE-Ladies and gentlemen of the Board, do we a have any questions for the applicant? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, what's the history of the lot, like how do you end up with these odd ball sized disaster zones? MR. CLUTE-To be honest with you, it's just the way the neighborhood essentially has been cut. This particular neighborhood, Leo Street, Howard Street, has been around for a long time, and quite a few nonconforming lots, so to speak, and as you say, how do I run across them. I just happen to have access to quite a few of them, but, yes, this here, the only real use that could be met or meet all setbacks is to continue with what it's being used for, which is the single wide trailer. My sister happens to be Katrina Bronzene. We would prefer to develop it with a house, if at all possible. 21 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/17/07) MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you. MR. UNDERWOOD-Would there be any reason not to use that parcel further back in, or just because of the length of the drive they don't want to go in the back? I'm sure the neighbors don't want to be looking at a house back there either. MR. CLUTE-Well, I guess that's what the issue would be is you'd essentially be, if you placed a home back here, which could easily be done, you're literally in everybody else's backyard is what's happened, and then as far as creating a neighborhood, what I try to do is conform. So, you know, conventionally, all these homes are up on the street, this one would have to be shoved way back, and it would literally be, I don't know, I wouldn't want to be looking at a house out my back window. MR. STEVES-You have the next road over here, which is Dawn Road, and you'd be in their backyard, and then the other ones that front over onto Sherman Avenue, you'd be in their backyards. Good point. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Any other members of the Board? Mr. Bryant, please. MR. BRYANT-You see, Mr. Steves, not to put any words in the Chairman's mouth, but these drawings, this floor plan, okay, was faxed from Have a Nice Day on December 12th, okay. This is the thing that we have in our package. Okay. There are a couple of dimensions in here, but it's really not clear. So how can we even compare what Staff is saying relative to the discrepancy? We can't. We can't make that judgment. So, it would behoove you to have a better floor plan. Okay. MR. STEVES-And that's why I said, I will take it upon myself, from now on, to make sure when I have something like this sent to me, that I confirm the dimensions on both what I've been told and on what is sent to me. MR. BRYANT-Okay. Second question is, and this came in the last hearing, we talked about placement of the septic and the garage and all that, and you've so eloquently stated that you can't put the garage in between the septic and the house, and guess where the garage is in this drawing. Okay. So my question is, why don't we move the garage, build less driveway. I mean, can't we do something with reconstructing this thing? I mean, is that a possibility? MR. CLUTE-I guess I need to know more specifically what you mean. MR. BRYANT-Well, I mean. MR. STEVES-I think I might be able to shed a little bit of light on that. Even if you put it right against the house, you only end up with about 20 feet, and you'd have to have that as a side load garage, obviously, coming in, because if you put it in the back of the house, and the minimum swing for the smallest car I have on any arch that I draw is 24 feet, and I'm only 20 feet. So I'd be backing out onto the neighbor's property to get turned around and come back out onto Leo Street. So therefore, bringing it back, and being able to enter from the front and then you swing out, you don't have to worry about exiting over onto the neighbor's property/ MR. BRYANT-Okay. MR. ABBATE-Anyone else on the Board have any questions for Area Variance No. 62- 2007? Yes, Rick, please. MR. GARRAND-Mr. Steves, what potential changes can we expect from this client? As far as changes she might want in the house? MR. STEVES-That you'd have to talk to Larry who'd be building the house. I don't anticipate any unless he tells me there's going to be a change. MR. GARRAND-Anything she could want? Could she potentially want to move the garage and you'd be back here again, similar to the last application? MR. CLUTE-No. On this particular one, this is, Matt's going to stake this. I've learned. On the larger lots, I'm pretty good. Actually even on the last lot I was pretty good, but I only paid attention to the one measurement which was the 30, but when I get onto these tight lots, I'm going to have them staked out. 22 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/17/07) MR. GARRAND-Okay. I just don't want to run into the same situation. MR. CLUTE-No, nor do I. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Any other members of the Board have any questions for 62-2007? MR. BRYANT-One more question. MR. ABBATE-One more question by Mr. Bryant, please. MR. BRYANT-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. One of the recommendations in the Staff Notes is relative to the width of the house. Can you do anything with the width of the house? MR. CLUTE-The 26? You can cut back to 24. What, actually almost 24 foot houses have been stopped because the Codes have changed with the basement access. You can't meet the head room. You're actually banging right into the side concrete wall. So the narrowest house, I used to build a lot of 24's. I can't anymore. So everyone of my plans have been increased to 26. So I'd have a tough time coming up with a 24 foot design, to be honest with you. MR. BRYANT-I'm not understanding about the headroom in the basement. MR. CLUTE-This is a 24, 36. This is accurate. That stairwell doesn't pass Code anymore. So I have to stretch this footprint to 26 in order to make this design work. In other words, I can't build 24 anymore. MR. STEVES-You rate the rise on your stairs for your emergency access for fire code. MR. CLUTE-That didn't just recently happen, but it has since these designs. I used to build a lot of 24's, and I can't by Code literally fit 24's anymore and make them work. MR. BRYANT-Well, I don't understand why the stairwell has to be there where you have the two closets. One of the closets could be moved to where the stairwell is and the stairwell where the closets are. Then you'd have the length of the house to contend with, and you could have all the head you want. MR. CLUTE-It's really deceiving. I'll be honest with you. If I could do 24's, I'd do 24. I like affordability, and a 24 is much more affordable. What may seem easy on this plan is not an easy thing. Had I been able to do it, I'd already be doing it. It's cheaper to build a 24 than it is a 26. So it's not as easy as you're describing, honestly. I'm not pulling your leg, otherwise I'd already be doing it. MR. BRYANT-I don't understand why it's not simple. MR. CLUTE-It doesn't. Two dimension is great. Reality is a whole other matter. When you come trucking down that hallway it's not, it doesn't layout well at all. It just doesn't layout well. I'd be doing it. MRS. HUNT-Yes. I have a townhouse with a 24 foot width, and there's a stairs to the basement, but they're so steep. MR. CLUTE-Right. See that's not allowed anymore. That can't be done anymore, and that's the issue. If I could do 24 foot homes, I'd be doing a lot of 24's. The smallest I do now is 26, because I can't meet that Code, and then on top of that, when you get into the more compressed footprints or the smaller square footage, it's really important how you place everything, whether it's a closet or a set of stairs. Changing a set of stairs as you described may look okay on this piece of paper, but in reality it really doesn't work well. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Let's move on, ladies and gentlemen. Any other members of the Board have any questions for 62-2007? If not, I'm going to open up the public hearing. The public hearing is now open for Area Variance No. 62-2007. Do we have any members of the public who would like to address any issue? Please raise your hand and I will recognize you. Would you be kind enough to come up to the table, have a seat, speak into the microphone, tell us who you are and where you reside, please. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED ART PERSONS 23 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/17/07) MR. PERSONS-My name is Art Persons, and I live on the north side of the property that Larry Clute is talking about. The only thing that I have to bring up was one part of the application there was some numbers that were mixed and matched, and I don't know if it's going to make a big difference. They're existing setback lines, and they're backwards, basically, for the side yard. MR. ABBATE-The existing setback lines are backwards? MR. PERSONS-The existing setback lines on the drawings, or on the application are backwards. The one is listed as 20 feet and 6 feet for side yard one and two, and it should be the opposite. MR. ABBATE-They've been reversed. MR. PERSONS-Yes. MR. ABBATE-I'm waiting for Staff. He looks puzzled. MR. BROWN-In the application? MR. PERSONS-Yes. There's a handwritten application. MR. BROWN-Right. MR. PERSONS-I looked at in the file. MR. BROWN-It shows one side yard setback existing at 11 and the other side yard setback at 26. MR. PERSONS-Right, and they're reversed. MR. BROWN-Well, it doesn't say which is. It just doesn't differentiate between north and south on the application. MR. ABBATE-Okay. All right. Do you have anything else you'd like to say, sir? MR. PERSONS-That's all. MR. ABBATE-All right. I thank you so very much. Do we have anyone else in the audience? I do not see any other hands raised. If you'd like to respond to that, you certainly may. MR. STEVES-My apologies. I said that the existing was on tighter on the south. The existing is tighter on the north. MR. ABBATE-Okay. All right. Now, I'm going to ask members to offer their comments, and as I said earlier, I'd like to inform the public that the comments that are going to be offered by the members are directed to the Chairman, and the comments by members of the Board are not open to debate. Having said that now, do I have a volunteer who would like to comment on Area Variance No. 62-2007? MRS. HUNT-I'll make a comment. MR. ABBATE-Yes. Mrs. Hunt, please. MRS. HUNT-This is a very difficult lot to build on. Coming from Long Island, I've had experience with 40 and 50 foot lots, and they're difficult, and I think the new building is certainly going to be an improvement over the building that is there now. So I would have no problem. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you very much, Mrs. Hunt. Well, Roy, would you like to go next, please. MR. URRICO-Yes. As everyone knows, our task is always to grant minimum relief necessary. I think the applicant, in this case, has convinced me that that is the case here. I think he's shown himself in the past to take difficult lots and build a nice home on it, and I think there's logic that follows in this case. I don't see there being another position for the house on the lot that would conform to the neighborhood, and that would 24 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/17/07) certainly create an undesirable change if we asked him to do that. The benefit to the applicant, obviously, therefore cannot be achieved by any other feasible means, and in addition, the request is substantial, but substantial because the lot is an odd ball lot, or as Jim said earlier, what did you call it, the screwball lot, and that's one of the reasons for that, and then I don't see any physical changes and the difficulty could be described as self-created in that we're trying to squeeze a house into a difficult lot, but I think I'd be in favor of it. MR. ABBATE-Okay. I thank you very much. Jim, would you go next, please. MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure. I'd also be in agreement. I think it's been explained that, you know, to put the house way in the back would be ridiculous in everybody's back yard, and it really wouldn't be fitting in with the street, and I think it's an upgrade, and when you're going from mobile homes to regular homes, I think everybody appreciates that in the neighborhood, and I think it's the natural direction to go. I think that, you know, even though these lots are all substandard size down there, for the most part, eventually they're all going to get re-done at some point, and, you know, it'll keep somebody busy in the meantime. As far as the relief requested, I mean, to do anything other than what's being requested here wouldn't be worthwhile, and as you said, 26 foot seems like it's the minimum width that you can do now, granted with the safety standards and things like that. So I'd be in favor of it. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you. Mr. McNulty, please. MR. MC NULTY-I'm not convinced that we aren't looking at the last application again here. In spite of the applicant's insistence that that floor plan is a 36 by 26 or whatever, my calculator says it's what Craig says it was. It doesn't add up to 36 by 26, and while I will agree with a lot of the comments that have been made, on the one hand, I don't care where the septic is. The septic can be moved, you're building a new house. However, the argument that moving the house back to where it could be built in a compliant location would put it in the neighbor's backyards is a big thing, and it would change the character of the neighborhood, and I'll buy that argument, but before I voted for this, I would want to see a set of coherent plans that agreed, that convinced me that what we're looking at is what indeed would be built, and I am not convinced at this point. So at this point, I'm going to be opposed. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you very much. Mr. Garrand, please. MR. GARRAND-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. While I was out there, I was standing out there with these drawings, and I was looking over the property, one of the neighbors came over to me and asked what I was doing out there, and I told him there's plans to build a stick built house out here, and the neighbor was all excited about the fact that the neighborhood's improving. I think that's one positive aspect in what's trying to be done here, but also the fact that the neighborhood is in need of a certain amount of revitalization. I think this is a good idea. While the combined request for relief may be significant, I think that this house here is a good idea. So I'd be in favor of this application. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you very much, and Mr. Bryant, please. MR. BRYANT-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me ask you a question, Mr. Clute. Do you only build these houses on these weird lots? I mean, every application is a weird lot. I'm going to agree with Mr. Underwood, and a couple of things that Mr. Garrand said. The lot is very narrow. Putting the house in the back yard, as Mr. McNulty said, and as you explained, is not necessarily a good feasible alternative. There's really a difference between feasible alternative and a good feasible alternative, and it's not a good one, but I am concerned that this kind of situation, with this drawing, because frankly if you come back here six months from now and the house is built that you need two more feet, I'm going to have a problem, but I don't want to prejudge or predispose myself, but currently as I stand I'm in favor of the application. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you very much. Again, I've listened to what everyone had to say, and unlike the other situation, the variance before this, what I'm excited about is the fact this house has not been built. That certainly falls into your favor, and I do agree with, I think it was Mr. Garrand or Mr. Underwood who basically said that this house will certainly provide some revitalization, if you will, and will be an improvement for the neighborhood. So based upon that, I certainly, too, would support the application. Now, having said that, the public hearing is now closed for Area Variance No. 62-2007. 25 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/17/07) PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. ABBATE-And again, I'd respectfully remind the members that we have the task of balancing the benefit of the variance against the impact on the area. Having said that, is there a motion for Area Variance No. 62-2007? MR. GARRAND-Mr. Chairman, I'll make a motion. MR. ABBATE-Would you, please. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 62-2007 CLUTE ENTERPRISES, Introduced by Richard Garrand who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Hunt: 9 Leo Street. The applicant proposes construction of a single family dwelling and freestanding garage. The applicant is requesting four feet of relief from the 10 foot minimum side setback requirement and 5.2 feet relief from the 30 foot minimum side setback total of the Suburban Residential 20 zoning district. Can benefits be achieved by other means feasible to the applicant? Benefits cannot be achieved due to the configuration of this lot. This is the most feasible alternative for the applicant. Will this produce an undesirable change in the neighborhood? No, it will not. Contrary to that, it will produce a desirable change in the neighborhood. Is the request substantial? Cumulatively the two requests may be deemed as substantial. Will the request have adverse physical or environmental effects on the neighborhood? Quite the contrary. It'll have a positive effect on the neighborhood, and this may be deemed as self-created. Duly adopted this 17th day of October, 2007, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Abbate NOES: Mr. McNulty MR. ABBATE-The vote to approve Area Variance No. 62-2007 is six yes, one no. Area Variance No. 62-2007 is approved. Thank you, gentlemen. MR. STEVES-Thank you. MR. ABBATE-You're welcome. SIGN VARIANCE NO. 63-2007 SEQRA TYPE: UNLISTED SEAN J.T. GARVEY/GARVEY KIA OWNER(S): SEAN J.T. GARVEY ZONING: LI LOCATION: 483 QUAKER ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO INSTALL ILLUMINATED LEXAN OVAL WALL SIGN, 14.59 SQ. FT. TO READ "KIA" AND "SERVICE" SIGN 3.75 SQ. FT. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM NUMBER OF ALLOWABLE SIGNS. CROSS REF.: BP 2007-509, BP 2007-510 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: OCTOBER 10, 2007 LOT SIZE: N/A TAX MAP NO. 303.06-1-5 SECTION: 140-6 SEAN GARVEY, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Sign Variance No. 63-2007, Sean J.T. Garvey, Meeting Date: October 17, 2007 "Project Location: 483 Quaker Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of additional wall signs. I Relief Required: I Applicant requests relief for two additional wall signs. Per Chapter 140-6, a business is allowed two signs, a wall sign and a freestanding sign. In this instance, the applicant seeks approval to allow a total of four wall signs. I Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: I 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be permitted to display the desired signs and gain additional advertising for the business. 2. Feasible alternatives: 26 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/17/07) Feasible alternatives may include consolidation of three of the signs into one sign. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the ordinance?: The request for four (4) wall signs where only one would be allowed can be interpreted as substantial (300%) relative to the ordinance. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: No letters of support were submitted with the application materials. The subject property is somewhat of a "stand alone" property as it located on Quaker Road. However, will the granting of extra signs lead to the similar requests from other auto dealerships? 5. Is this difficulty self-created? The difficulty may be interpreted as self created. liParcetHistory(Construction/siteplan/variance, etc.): I SV 40-2005 negative setback relief for additional FS sign SV 79-04 additional FS sign ( further varied by SV 40-2005) SP 24-05 Showroom addition BP 2003-403 Sign copy change to include Garvey & VW sign approved 6/22/05 approved 10/20/04 approved 5/26/05 approved 6/18/03 I Staff comments: I This property has been reviewed on several occasions relative to signage. Most recently during SV 40-2005 which was to address the "over the property line" negative setback relief issue associated with the additional freestanding sign that was granted a sign variance with SV 79-04. The "Service" sign in the current proposal appears to meet the size requirement for an onsite directional sign, however the maximum height for such signs is 6 feet above grade. This nominally sized sign is proposed at 10 feet above grade. The proposed "KIA" oval sign may be consolidated with the "VW" sign and the Garvey sign on the same fa<;ade and thus be considered to be one sign, thereby reducing the relief request to the "service" sign only. However, it appears as though the applicant wishes to maintain the sign separations and thus, each is considered a separate sign. Note: Per Sign Permit 2003-403, the round VW sign and the Garvey sign were to be in close proximity to each other with a total "bounding box" square footage of 63.3 sf. It appears as though the signs have been separated and that the originally approved 38 inch diameter VW sign has increased to a 45 inch diameter sign. As such, an additional SV will be needed and may be added to this application and heard at a later time, as this particular issue was only just identified and has not been advertised. Alternatively, the applicant could relocate the Garvey sign to a location under the VW shield in order to maintain the approved 63.3 sf configuration. I SEQR Status: I Type Unlisted" MR. UNDERWOOD-"Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form October 17, 2007 Project Name: Sean J.T. Garvey/Garvey KIA Owner(s): Sean J.T. Garvey ID Number: QBY-07-SV-63 County Project#: Oct07-21 Current Zoning: LI Community: Queensbury Project Description: Applicant proposes to install illuminated lexan oval wall sign, 14.59 sq. ft. to read "KIA" and "Service" sign 3.75 sq. ft. Relief requested from number of allowable signs. Site Location: 483 Quaker Road Tax Map Number(s): 303.06-1-5 Staff Notes: Sign Variance: The applicant proposes to install illuminated lexan oval wall sign, 14.59 sq. ft. to read "KIA" and "Service" sign 3.75 sq. ft. The maximum amount of wall signs is one where the applicant proposes two. The information submitted shows the location f the signs on the building that would include the KIA sign and the existing Garvey sign. The Service sign is considered a directional sign and not included with the wall signs per a letter in the file. Staff does not identify an impact on county resources based on the information submitted . Staff recommends no county impact. County Planning Board Recommendation: No County Impact" Signed by Richard C. Merrill, Warren County Planning Board 10/12/07. 27 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/17/07) MR. ABBATE-Good evening, sir. Would you be kind enough to speak into the microphone and identify yourself and your relationship with the appeal. MR. GARVEY-Yes. Good evening. My name is Sean Garvey. I'm one of the owners of the Garvey Volkswagen and one of the owners of the property. MR. ABBATE-Okay, and you know our procedures. MR. GARVEY-Yes. MR. ABBATE-Are you prepared to proceed? MR. GARVEY-Yes, I am. MR. ABBATE-Please do. MR. GARVEY-If I could approach the Board here, I have three letters of recommendation, three letters of support. MR. ABBATE-Certainly. Provide it to our Secretary and he'll see that it gets into the record. Thank you very much. MR. GARVEY-Those letters of support are from adjacent landowners, basically the Nemers, the engineering plant and AI Boychuk that owns the large parcel next to us. I've been a businessman for almost 30 years in this Town and I've tried hard to comply with most everything that the Town has asked me to do, but before I proceeded, I was hoping to make some corrections to my application. I'm not sure how the application is compiled in front of you, but the first page of my application starts with the pre- application conference form. It's where there's, we have Staff Notes there, and I'm going to call that my Page One. I was wondering if you could be so kind as to turn to Page Four of my application, where on the very bottom, a third of the way from the bottom it says Sign # 1, existing wall sign. I was hoping you could add the words proposed wall sign to this application now, and down below where it has dimensions of this round Volkswagen sign, if you could increase it to four feet nine inches in length and width. It's a round sign, and the square footage of the sign, if you could increase it from 11 feet to 17.7 feet, square feet. MR. BRYANT-I don't know what we're doing here. MR. GARVEY-I'm sorry. On my application, I'm going to call this Page One. MR. BRYANT-Existing Sign #1, Existing Wall Sign? MR. GARVEY-Yes, sir. If you could possibly modify my application in front of you so that it would be easier for us all. Instead of calling that an existing wall sign, could you just change it to proposed, please. Just jot it in there or whatever, and the dimensions of the sign are three feet nine inches. If you would be so kind as to change it to four feet, nine inches, and the square footage is not 11 feet. It's 17.7 square feet, and the last change on the application, there's two different size papers. There's an eight and a half by eleven, then it increases in size. Well, on the last page of the eight and a half by eleven, there is a larger document that's folded up, that has an arrow there. It's at the plot plan. If you could excuse my third grade printing there, but on the left side of the plot plan it says Number Five there. I actually took the measurements today, and it's not actually 100 feet. It's actually 110 feet, the setback, for dimension number five. I wrote 100 feet. I used just a ruler and measured it, but I actually measured it today, and Number Six, it says, the setback for the "Service" sign, actually isn't 67 and a half feet. It actually is 80 feet, and there's 55 feet between my property line and the road, which I'll refer to later. MR. ABBATE-Just a minute. Staff, did you catch that? Rather than 3.9 it's 4.9, on the. MR. GARVEY-Page Four. MR. ABBATE-And then instead of 11 square feet it's 17.9? MR. GARVEY-17.7. MR. ABBATE-17.7. Would you like to comment? 28 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/17/07) MR. BROWN-I guess I've followed along so far. I'm not sure where he's going with all this. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Then when you feel that you want to comment on it, would you do that for us, please? Okay. Continue, Mr. Garvey, please. MR. GARVEY-Thank you. MR. BRYANT-Before you do, while we're making these corrections, this Sign Number One that you changed to proposed, the 4.9 by 4.9, is that the "Service" sign? MR. GARVEY-No, it says the text, on Page Four, it says the text of the sign is "VW". MR. BRYANT-But you already have a "VW" sign there. MR. GARVEY-Yes. I'm proposing a larger Volkswagen sign. MR. UNDERWOOD-He was allowed to do that. Via the Staff Notes it was suggested to do that, but he's going to have to do that at a later meeting, because it wasn't advertised. MR. BRYANT-Okay. MR. ABBATE-Right. MR. BROWN-Well, actually, what the Staff Notes refer to is the Sign Permit that was issued was for a "VW" sign this big. This application as it was submitted shows a sign this big. What Mr. Garvey's suggesting now is he wants to do a sign this big. MR. ABBATE-Even bigger. MR. BROWN-Even bigger. So this is the third iteration of that "VW" sign. MR. GARVEY-If I could make a correction, because that's wrong. MR. BROWN-Well, I have the sign application right here. MR. URRICO-Why don't we let him talk and find out what this all means. MR. UNDERWOOD-I think it would make more sense for us to approach them all one at a time instead of trying to do it all at once. MR. ABBATE-Yes, I think so, too. MR. UNDERWOOD-Because it's going to get too confusing. MR. ABBATE-Absolutely. MR. UNDERWOOD-Why don't we go through in the order that they were presented to us in the notes, and then it's easier to deal with them that way. Otherwise, we're just going to get into. MR. ABBATE-All right, let's give Mr. Garvey an opportunity to present his case, please. MR. GARVEY-My original application was for two signs, a 14.5 square foot "KIA" sign, which would be above the KIA entrance, and a "Service" sign, which is a non-illuminated directional sign, which is 3.5 square feet. What I'm asking is to add a third sign to this application this evening. Originally I had an 11 square foot Volkswagen sign on the property. Now there's a 17.7 square foot sign, and I would like to add that to the application. That's why we modified Page One. If you could refer to the first large eight and a half by fourteen document that would look like the front of the building here, that's a fairly accurate portrayal of what the finished product would look like, though the KIA sign would actually be slightly smaller. That's not quite to dimensions. Basically construction is almost complete on this site. I've spent quite a lot of money so far, up to this point, but I never would have put a shovel in the ground if I thought that I'd have to be in front of the Board tonight with a Sign Variance. I would have done this way before this point. I know the Sign Ordinance as well. I've read this many times and I've dealt with the Staff over and over again, and I know that I'm allowed to have one wall sign and one pole sign, but there's some history here, and I felt I should explain it to the Board, why I think I'm here tonight. In 1998, I took on a KIA franchise and added the KIA 29 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/17/07) showroom, next to the body shop, which is PSM Auto Body on Quaker Road. At that time, I was allowed to have two wall signs, two separate businesses. In 2003, if you could, I have a copy here, because you have a lot of documents in front of you. I would like to share this with the Staff. MR. ABBATE-Thank you. MR. GARVEY-What you have here is, as part of my application, and under Staff comments, I highlighted under Notes, it says, this sign permit that was granted in 2003, when they took a rectangular Garvey sign, which was referred to earlier, and a round Volkswagen sign and combined the square footage, and they used that term called "bounding box". A little bit more history. Back in 2004, I built a Hyundai dealership on Dix Avenue, and I'd like to show you some of the Sign Permit that was used then. MR. BRYANT-Can I make a comment while he's handing this out? MR. ABBATE-If you'd like. MR. BRYANT-To Mr. Garvey. We had a similar situation, I think it was Nemer, when you talk about "bounding box", where you had three signs, but they were all in close proximity and they were all the same manufacturer, but one was, I don't know, Cadillac, GM, whatever. MR. GARVEY-Different lines, yes. MR. BRYANT-But I know there were three signs. I mean, I think that's what they were kind of talking about, where, in the case now, you've got the Garvey sign in the center of the building, and you've got one entrance with KIA and one entrance with Volkswagen. So now they're not together as one sign, and I think that's what Staff is trying to indicate. MR. GARVEY-I understand that. MR. BRYANT-Okay. MR. GARVEY-Initially, up until a few months ago, the round Volkswagen clip was next to the rectangular Garvey sign. What's in front of you now, this document, is the Hyundai store, where they used the "bounding box" method when I applied for a sign permit. I thought because there was more than one wall sign, I was going to have to come in front of the Board here, though Staff said, well, wait a minute, that's so far back, what I'm going to do there is combine these three signs, and actually if you look carefully at this drawing that I supplied to, this isn't three signs, it's actually five signs. The Hyundai logo on the far left hand side above the word "Hyundai" is distinctly a different sign. The Garvey, the word "Garvey" is actually a lot smaller in reality, that came smaller, and there's a separate "Hyundai" logo next to the "Service" sign. So what they did, what Staff did, was combine these five signs, using this "bounding box" technique, and gave me a sign permit. All three signs that I've talked to you about, back from '98, 2003 and 2004, were granted using a "bounding box" method, and I'd like to point out to you the separation between the two signs, between the Hyundai sign and the Garvey sign, it's 56 feet of separation. So, basically, in the back of my mind, I said, well, they've done this before, I more than likely am going to just get a sign permit and get it approved. So July 30th, and that's what I have here. MR. ABBA TE-Mr. Garvey, before you begin, let me bring something to your attention, please. MR. GARVEY-Yes. MR. ABBATE-By law, we must accept from the applicant all documents, even after the submission date, and I'm sure you would agree with me, at least I hope you would, that each applicant should be able to enjoy the benefit of a deliberate and thoughtful process, on the part of all members of this Board. However, in order to do this, this Board must be able to assimilate this late information that you are presenting to us at this late hour in order for us to come to a fair and unbiased decision, and it's possible, and I'm going to ask the Board members now, that I may have to call for time to examine these late hour documents that you have been submitting to us. So if you could stop just for a moment. MR. GARVEY-Yes, sir. 30 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/17/07) MR. ABBATE-I'd like to poll the Board and ask the Board if they feel that they have sufficient time to assimilate all these late documents that have been submitted, again, make it clear, we must accept that by law, but by law, we do not have to consider that this evening in a vote. Do you understand that? MR. GARVEY-That's fair, sir. MR. ABBATE-So I may have some options for you. So let me start with Mr. McNulty. MR. MC NULTY-Well, it's a little early for me to determine, but I think your suggestion, Mr. Chairman, may be correct, depending on how much more is going to come at us and how many questions we have. I'd like to keep that option open. MR. ABBATE-Absolutely. Okay. Rick? MR. GARRAND-I concur with Mr. McNulty. MR. ABBATE-Allan? MR. BRYANT-The same. MR. ABBATE-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-I don't have a problem with it, because I think that, you know, this is something that we've dealt with on numerous occasions on the Quaker Road corridor, you know, most recently with Della. We've deal with it with Saturn dealership down the road, too, and I think that these pictures, you know, in the sense that a picture's worth a thousand words, I mean, he's trying to show the relationship between what's been acceptable in the past with what he's proposing here tonight, and I think that we're all familiar, he's been in before us before, but since the last time that they were in here and they did their lollipop sign with "VW" on it, I think that since that time, the dealership has been recreated, so to speak, and he's put a lot of money and time in it to change and upgrade it in the sense that Della did the same thing down the road. I mean, that's something that occurs on a regular basis with car dealers, and I think that here, I don't think it's an overwhelming thing. I mean, we got three real signs on the side of the building. The "Service" sign is a little bit out of compliance. It could be built at six feet and not require anything at all, but I think that as long as we're open-minded about this, he can present us tonight. If we're still confused, if people don't want to vote tonight, we can not go through that, but I think, let him present his case. MR. GARVEY-Thank you. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Joyce, please. MRS. HUNT-Yes, I agree. MR. ABBATE-Roy? MR. URRICO-I would like to hear him present his whole case tonight. I think these documents are just illustrations of his case. I don't have a problem with it. MR. ABBATE-Fine, and that's what we're going to do, then. Mr. Garvey, would you be kind enough to proceed, please. MR. GARVEY-Thank you. MR. ABBATE-You're welcome. MR. GARVEY-The documents I've supplied, and there's only one more, are documents that you have probably in your pile of papers, or that you have access to them. Like I'd like to supply you, the last document was a page of the Sign Ordinance. The one I just supplied to you, showing the date that I applied for the sign application, you have that, but I just provided it so you wouldn't have to shuffle through the papers. I also gave you another document that's part of my sign permit, which is part of the Staff Notes. I just was highlighting it because it says a specific comment that they use, they're referring to the "bounding box" square footage, and I was just pointing that out to you, and that was why those two documents, and the third document is really only the first document I produced tonight. I'm just trying to give you a train of thought what I had, why I thought I did not need a Sign Variance, and that was the point I was trying to get up to. So 31 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/17/07) basically I just showed you when I applied for the sign application. The construction was beginning, or about to begin on the site. Weeks went by. I called Staff six times during, as the weeks progressed, and 36 days later, on September 5th, I got a call from Craig, stating that now I need ZBA approval, and my rejection letter is in the application, which is dated September 5th. I said, wait a minute, Craig, both manufacturers want separate showrooms, separate showrooms, separate entrances, separate signs, can't we use the "bounding box" technique here like we did before, referring to the Hyundai application, and he said, no, they're really too far apart, and I don't think we should do that. I said, what about the "Service" sign? Craig said, well, this could be construed as a directional sign because it's under four feet, under four square feet, it's 3.5 square feet. It's not illuminated, but it's too high. I said, okay, and that was it. Then I referred, later, to the Sign Ordinances, and this was the last document I was going to give you. MR. ABBATE-Thank you. MR. GARVEY-It's just to make the point so it's easier for you to find this. I'm sure you're well aware of the Sign Ordinance, but basically it says that a directional sign is limited to four square feet, but it says that the Staff has the ability to allow it to be ten feet high, and this sign is actually, the one I'm proposing is actually under ten feet. That was just the purpose of that. So basically, as an Enforcement Officer, they're allowed to do that, and I said, well, could you approve it like that, so I'm approaching the Board with less relief, and he said, well, no, you're, from my memory from our conversation, we're going to include it in your application. So basically what I'm asking the Board tonight for is three changes to my site. A larger Volkswagen sign. I'd like to increase it from 11 square feet to 17.7 square feet. I'd like to increase it 6.7 square feet. I'd like to add a "KIA" sign which is 14.5 square feet, and I'd like to add a non-illuminated "Service" directional sign which is 3.5 square feet. If you add all those signs together and the current "Garvey" sign, that's displayed on this larger document here, they add up to be 53 square feet, 53.04 square feet, which is way under 100 square feet. These signs are 80 to 110 feet from my property line, due to the building angle. They're 135 feet to 165 feet from Quaker Road. All I'm asking the Board tonight is for you to treat me as you have before, fairly. I really have a true need here. The manufacturers won't allow me to consolidate the signs. The whole idea, why this whole thing started with two separate showrooms was to have two distinctly different showrooms, two different signs, two different entrances. What I'm asking for, I believe, is reasonable. I don't think it's outrageous. The signs are 18 and a half feet apart. They're not 56 feet apart. You could easily apply this "bounding box" technique to justify what I'm asking. I honestly feel I shouldn't even be here tonight, but I am. So I'm respectfully asking the whole Board for your vote of confidence and to grant my variance request. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you very much, Mr. Garvey. MR. GARVEY-Thank you. MR. ABBATE-And feel free, at any time during the hearing, if there's any other information you feel will help support your case, stop us and tell us, please. MR. GARVEY-Thank you. MR. ABBATE-You're very welcome. All right. Do any of the Board members have any questions for Mr. Garvey, Sign Variance No. 63-2007? MR. URRICO-I'd like some clarification from Staff on the "bounding box". I've not heard that term used before. MR. BROWN-You're not going to find it in the Code anyplace. It's not specifically spelled out in the Sign Ordinance. It's an interpretation that I make to offer some flexibility to applicants. Rather than call two signs, two signs, I typically will allow somebody to draw a box around the outer limits of the signs, never shrinking below the smallest dimension of the smallest portion of the sign, and call that the sign. The area, the blank space between the signs, counts against you if you want to count it as one bigger sign. So we've allowed applicants to do that. Although I wasn't copied with any of the new handouts tonight, my guess is the Hyundai sign that was provided to you, that's not a sign that I approved. I had conversations with Mr. Garvey on just exactly this approach. I made it clear to him that it's not an approach that I approved of. Kudos to him. He was more compelling. He made his argument more compelling to somebody that happened to be reviewing sign permits when I was on vacation. The sign permit was issued. I don't do this. I would not do this. The signs are too far apart. The round Volkswagen sign and the rectangular Garvey sign were issued a sign permit in 2003, because of the 32 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/17/07) proximity. You had a round sign and then you had a rectangular sign, and what we did is we drew a box around the rectangular portion, and up and around that, so it's kind of a lollipop kind of a thing. That's what you do when you do the "bounding box" and that's a description that I made up in these Staff Notes last week. So it hasn't been used before. I thought it was the best way to describe the method that we do that. There isn't a way to do that on this site. Again, I do know what they did here. I was clear that I do not approve of that method. I did not issue this sign permit, and that's not the correct way to do it. It's done. We have to live with it. The permit was issued. Mr. Garvey proceeded in good faith. A permit was issued by the Town. I'll live with that one. That's not the way to do it in the future, and that's not the way I've done it here. MR. GARVEY-If I could add to Mr. Brown's comments. I honestly did not make a compelling argument with the other Staff member. I thought I was going to need a variance, and the other Staff member came up with that very nice solution. MR. ABBATE-Okay. MR. GARVEY-If you were going to use the "bounding box" technique with this application, you would add 18.5 square feet of lineage on either side of the Garvey sign, which would add another 37 square feet to my application, which is still basically underneath the 100 square feet. MR. BRYANT-I'd have to actually agree with Mr. Brown on this. I mean, the signs are way too far apart. We've had other dealerships come before us, and again, they had models that were made by the same manufacturer, or at least made in the same section of the world. I mean, your cars are made in two different locations, kind of. MR. GARVEY-Yes. They're two separate cars, that's for sure. MR. BRYANT-Yes, exactly, two different real manufacturers. So I can understand your need. MR. GARVEY-Well, thank you, because obviously I would have, before I even put a shovel in the ground, I would have approached the Board for this Use Variance or this relief. MR. ABBATE-Let me ask Staff a question. If you had reviewed the late documents issued this evening, would your Staff Notes have been different? MR. BROWN-No. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you. MR. BROWN-If I could maybe just focus on the nuts and bolts. Let's get down to what the variance is all about now. With the increased Volkswagen shield, every business is entitled to a freestanding sign and a wall sign, or two wall signs. In this case, a variance has been granted for an additional freestanding sign. Freestanding signs are taken care of. So what's left is you're entitled to a wall sign. The increased size in the Volkswagen shield from three and a half feet to four and a half feet, that could be issued as the sign permit, the conforming sign for the property. So what do we have left? We have three other signs that are separate. There's no way to draw a "bounding box" around them, if you don't want to stick "Garvey" underneath "KIA", or "Garvey" underneath the "Volkswagen", maybe call it one sign that way. We've got the "Garvey" sign, the "KIA" sign, and the "Service" sign. Three signs. You need a variance for three signs. We'll call the "Volkswagen" sign the conforming sign on the site. Easy to do. Modify your sign permit application. We can make that the conforming sign on the site, or pick a sign that you want to have the conforming sign and we'll deal with the other three as the Sign Variance. MR. UNDERWOOD-Why don't we, do we want to go through each one of them separately, then? MR. ABBATE-Whatever the Board members feel comfortable with, that's what we will do. MR. BRYANT-I have a question. MR. ABBATE-By all means. 33 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/17/07) MR. BRYANT-With that in mind, okay, I know you don't want to buy extra signs, but you have the "Volkswagen" sign, and you have the "Garvey" sign and you have the "KIA" sign. Okay. MR. GARVEY-Yes. MR. BRYANT-I'm not even concerned about the "Service" sign because that's a no- brainer. MR. GARVEY-Right. MR. BRYANT-How about if you put "Garvey" underneath the "Volkswagen", and "Garvey" underneath the "KIA", get rid of the "Garvey" sign in the middle, and then you're only asking for one extra sign. MR. GARVEY-Okay. I would love to do that, but imagine yourself driving through Queensbury, and even with your poor eyesight at a distance, you kind of know that's a Stewarts, or you kind of know that's a Sunoco gas station or a McDonalds. You do that because they're branded. You may not realize it, but in your mind, that manufacturer branded themselves and it's stuck in your head, and you can readily identify that. Volkswagen is no different than any other manufacturer. They want to be branded. In my life, I would never paint the front of my building those two yellows. I honestly think it is the ugliest thing in the world, but if I want to sell Volkswagens, I have to do that. That's called a portal, and then above it is this canoe shaped chunk of metal which cost $12,000, and I would never put that for a canopy. It's stupid in the Northeast, and it's not the design, and it's not going to keep a lot of water off your head, but I had to do that, and I have to have this logo there. I have to have a sign that says "Garvey" that identifies me. Those are the only signs that I actually have to have for Volkswagen. "KIA" I need one wall sign. I do not need the "Service" directional sign. I just thought it would be nice because I have a Service canopy there, and I want to encourage customers to pull up into the canopy out of the weather, and we can do what Craig suggested and modify the application, but I think that would really complicate it. I'm asking for basically, I actually have two signs on the building, but one of them has been modified. So I have to ask the Board for relief for three signs, not the relief of the three signs, but it's the dimensions. MR. URRICO-Can I ask a couple of questions? MR. GARVEY-Yes. MR. URRICO-Number One, you have two separate showrooms, two separate entrances. You have two separate sales staffs. MR. GARVEY-Yes. MR. URRICO-You do? MR. GARVEY-I share managers, primarily, between Parts, Service, and Sales, but there are specific and distinct different service advisors. There's different mechanics, and there's different Parts personnel, but the managers are shared. You have to understand why it took me so long. I had a building permit two years ago, and I had to get an extension, because dealing with Volkswagen, I mean, they're beautiful products, but they're very difficult people. They control the tile that's on my roof, the tile that's on the floor, the carpeting, the light fixtures, the furniture, the placement of the paint on the wall, the tile in the bathroom, that I have a baby changing station and a child play area. It's incredible what they make you do, but if you want to sell Volkswagens, you've got to bit your lip and do it, and most manufacturers are like this. It's not just Volkswagen. Fortunately KIA came out with this program right after I put the shovel in the ground. So they couldn't modify anything, but they want you to do it only one way. There's absolutely no compromise. MR. URRICO-Any chance you'll be adding another dealership? MR. GARVEY-No. Every time I want to do something in this Town I've got to ask somebody's permission, and I've been doing it for 30 years, and I wish I could just come up with an idea that I don't have to jump through hoops. So basically they want separate signage, separate entrances. I missed the point, I forgot to mention it. Not to belabor the evening. You can KIA's to get into the Volkswagen showroom, but once you're in the Volkswagen showroom, they don't want you to be able to see a KIA in the other showroom. I have to have doors and walls and building. It's just the way that 34 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/17/07) everything's designed. It's just the way they think. When you go to the bathroom, you walk down the hallway, they don't want you to be able to see a KIA. They want separate waiting areas, and things like that. MR. ABBATE-And I understand exactly what you're saying, because all dealerships are alike. MR. GARVEY-Yes. So, I mean, I could have gotten tile, you know. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Mr. Garrand, please. MR. GARRAND-Currently I see three freestanding signs out in front of the building. MR. GARVEY-The third one is put up by the builder. It will be taken down when construction is done. It identifies him. He took the incentive to put a logo on both sides of it. That can be cut off tomorrow if you want. I actually, it doesn't need to be there, but he's got a, I guess it's allowable for builders to put a sign up, and identifies them. So basically on top of the sign it's a large, there's a logo on either side of it, and below it on both sides is the builders identification, V & H. MR. GARRAND-Okay. I just was wondering if that was coming out after? MR. GARVEY-That's absolutely coming out. MR. GARRAND-AII right. Thank you. MR. GARVEY-And if you want, tomorrow I'll cut the top of it off, but obviously he's got a right to have his name there. MR. ABBATE-All right. Moving on then, do any of the Board members have any questions or comments they wish to ask Mr. Garvey at this time? No? Okay. Let's move on. I'm going to open up the public hearing for Sign Variance No. 63-2007, and do we have anyone in the audience who would like to comment on this particular variance? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. ABBATE-I don't see any hands. So we're going to continue on. MR. UNDERWOOD-I have those three letters. I'll read those in. MR. ABBATE-Yes, would you read that into the record, please. MR. UNDERWOOD-The first one is from Kadant, they're the company across the road, kind of kitty corner from them down the road just a little ways. This is addressed to the Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals, "We have met with Mr. Sean Garvey to review his proposal for a new KIA wall sign, a Volkswagen sign and a service directional sign. As an adjacent land owner, we have no objection to the proposal. Regards, Lynn A. Wadleigh Controller Kadant AES 436 Quaker Road Queensbury, NY 12804" The next one is OMALL Family Limited Partnership, located at 35 Orchard Drive "To the Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals Sean Garvey has reviewed with me his proposal for a new KIA wall sign, Volkswagen sign and the Service Directional sign. As an adjacent land owner, I have no objection to his proposal and would urge the Board to grant approval. Sincerely, Orest A. Boychuk", and the last one, "RE: Sign Variance application of Sean Garvey for Garvey Volkswagen Sean Garvey has reviewed with me his proposal for a new KIA wall sign, Volkswagen sign and the Service Directional sign. As an adjacent land owner, I have no objection to his proposal and would urge the Board to grant approval. Sincerely, Robert Nemer" MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you very much. Now I'm going to ask members to offer their comments on Sign Variance No. 63-2007. Again, the comments that are going to be offered by members of the Board are directed to the Chairman and they are not open to debate by the public. Who would like to begin? Do I have a volunteer? Would you please, Mr. Bryant. MR. BRYANT-Thank you. The relief that you're requesting is substantial. Okay. You need the three extra wall signs. That's 300%. You've already gotten an extra freestanding sign. I mean, you know, it is substantial, but I've got to say, it's not uncommon with a lot of these dealerships. The day of a Chevy dealer being only a Chevy dealer is long gone. I mean, they all have multiple car lines and it's just a fact of 35 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/17/07) life, and we've done it with other dealers, and I think though this will be the end of the road, as far as the signage goes, because you've gotten a lot more signs than we normally allow. MR. GARVEY-Thank you. I would agree. MR. BRYANT-So in my view, you've got two separate entrances, which makes it look like two different businesses, even though it's not, I'm going to go along with it, but I just want to caution that I really, we don't want to see another sign, in my view. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Rick, would you like to start? MR. GARRAND-Sure. MR. ABBATE-Please. MR. GARRAND-As you so eloquently put it, the business requires a certain amount of things be done with the building. Driving by I looked at this and what I'm almost seeing is two distinctly different businesses. I think a business owner is entitled to advertise for these businesses, whether it be individually or collectively, but as Mr. Bryant stated, one thing we don't like to see is, just, you know, a huge amount of signs on a building that looks like one giant billboard or that, you know, used cars here and, you know, logos all over the place. That's not what we're looking for on a travel corridor, but by the same token, it is two distinct different businesses when you think about it, one's a Volkswagen and one's a Keeler business, aside from the shared walls and some of the shared staff. So I'd be in favor of this application. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you very much. MR. GARVEY-Thank you. MR. ABBA TE-Mr. McNulty, please. MR. MC NULTY-Well, I'm going to be the nasty guy again I guess. I suspect most of the Board's going to go yes, and I can understand the arguments and the manufacturer's requirements and so on, but I think the con side needs to be presented, too. A number of years ago, this Town spent 10 years getting rid of extra signs when they re-wrote the Sign Ordinance, and we're going right back to where we were. This property has already got two freestanding signs were one's normally allowed. It's supposed to have one wall sign and it's going to have four. I can understand the need, with different kind of dealerships in the same property, and if you look at some of the dealerships down in Albany and Schenectady, and even Saratoga, you can see some handwriting on the wall. There's going to be some in here with five, six, or seven, and they're going to want signs on all of them. I don't know where we go with it, except it's counter to what all the Comprehensive Plans and our re-writing of sign laws have indicated the Town wants to go. They want fewer signs, neater signs, not gaudy ones, and as we said in one of the other applications that was in that I think's coming back to us at some point for an entirely different type of business, when you start putting one sign on one side of the building and one sign on the other side of the building, one or two in the middle, the whole front of the building is now a sign, in effect, and that bothers me. So, I understand the business need. I guess the message I want to send is it's time to send some other way to meet that business need. Grouping the signs or something, or dividing the property. I don't know, but too many signs. I'm going to be opposed. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Mrs. Hunt, please. MRS. HUNT-Thank you. Well, this is a rather large building, and it seems to me it's almost as if it's two different businesses. So I don't have a problem with the "KIA" or the "Volkswagen" sign, and I certainly think that the dealership needs their name on the building, and the "Service" sign I would have no problem with. So I would be in favor. MR. GARVEY-Thank you very much. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Mr. Underwood, please. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. Assuming that the "Service" sign is not going to be lit up, because it's daytime use anyway for the most part. I don't have a problem with that one at all. The Volkswagen one I think we dispensed with that. So really it's just the "Garvey" and the "KIA". I mean, I think any business in Town is entitled to have the 36 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/17/07) name of their business on the side of the wall. Otherwise, who knows who's running it. I think Garvey's reasonable. I think I could consider it as two separate businesses also. I would assume if you add a third franchise like Mahinder or something like that in the future, you're going to do it somewhere else anyway, because you're kind of tight on space right there. MR. GARVEY-I don't have room, right. MR. UNDERWOOD-In this instance, I think it is over the top. We're granting more relief than we normally do, but it's understandable why it's requested and I don't think it's unreasonable. MR. ABBATE-Okay, and, Mr. Urrico, please. MR. GARVEY-Thank you. MR. URRICO-Normally I'm with Mr. McNulty on these situations, but as I also concede that there's a proliferation of signs in the area, and that the multiple businesses that we see sprouting up, not only with car dealerships, but with fast food franchises combining, make it very difficult for us to come up with solutions that satisfy everybody, and the result usually is multiple signs in locations where we never had multiple signs before. In this case, I'm bothered by it, and I would like to see the signs closer together, but I understand the predicament that you're in, and the fact that the building is so large and sort of set back from the road up on a hill, to me mitigates it to a large extent. In fact, I'm less bothered by the wall signs than I was by the freestanding sign. I'm still bothered by the two freestanding signs, but I understand we can't go back there right now, but I think I would be in favor of it, keeping in mind that the "Service" sign would not be illuminated, and that the dimensions are going to stay the way they are. MR. GARVEY-Thank you. 3.75 square feet, I promise. MR. ABBATE-Are you suggesting that be made a condition as part of an approval? MR. URRICO-What condition, the "Service" sign not being illuminated? The dimensions as listed here, no bigger. MR. ABBATE-Okay. All right. Well, Mr. McNulty is correct. The majority of the Board is apparently going to approve this, but Mr. McNulty has some excellent points, and the other members made excellent points as well. I come down supporting the application, basically because I do believe there's two distinct businesses there, Number One, and Number Two, I also believe that each business should have the ability to advertise, but the turning point for me was the fact that the size of the building is quite large, and I think it can assimilate the number of signs that you're requesting, but going back to Mr. McNulty again, please. He has made an excellent point, and I think it behooves all of us on the Zoning Board of Appeals to start thinking, perhaps, in another dimension concerning signs in the Town of Queensbury. So, having said that, I, too, will support the application. Now, I believe, I'm going to close the public hearing right now. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. ABBATE-And I'm going to request that members remember, we have the task of balancing the benefit of the variance against the impact on the area. Having said that, is there a motion for Sign Variance No. 63-2007? MR. BROWN-Yes, this is an Unlisted Action. MR. ABBATE-This is Unlisted? It is. Thank you. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. We're going to do the Short Environmental Assessment Form here. MR. ABBATE-Okay. MR. UNDERWOOD-We're doing an additional wall sign, and do you want to give me the numbers on that, Mr. Garvey, that you gave us before? MR. GARVEY-The square footage? 37 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/17/07) MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. Just so I get those correct. For the Volkswagen sign first. We'll do that one. MR. GARVEY-The Volkswagen sign is 17.7 square feet. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. The KIA sign? MR. GARVEY-14.59 square feet. MR. UNDERWOOD-And the Garvey sign? MR. GARVEY-17 square feet. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay, and last would be the Service sign, I guess. MR. GARVEY-3.75 square feet, and they add up to 53.04 square feet. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. "Does the action exceed any Type I threshold in 6 NYCRR Part 617.4?" MR. UNDERWOOD-Everybody want to say no? MR. ABBATE-Yes, I think, gentlemen and ladies, let's please respond. MRS. HUNT-No. MR. UNDERWOOD-"Will the action receive coordinated review as provided for Unlisted Actions in 6 NYCRR, Part 617.6?" I would say, no. MR. ABBATE-I would agree with that. MR. UNDERWOOD-"Could the action result in any adverse effects associated with the following: C1. Existing air quality, surface or ground water quality or quantity, noise levels, existing traffic patterns, solid waste production or disposal, potential for erosion, drainage or flooding problems?" No, it's a sign. All right. "C2. Aesthetic, agricultural, historic, or other natural or cultural resources; or community or neighborhood character?" I would say, no. MR. ABBATE-No. MR. UNDERWOOD-"C3. Vegetation, fauna, fish, shellfish or wildlife species, significant habitats, or threatened or endangered species?" No. MR. ABBATE-No. MR. UNDERWOOD-"C4. A community's existing plans or goals as officially adopted, or a change in use or intensity of use of land or other natural resources?" I would say no. MR. ABBATE-No. MR. UNDERWOOD-"C5. Growth, subsequent development or related activities likely to be induced by the proposed action?" I would say no. MRS. HUNT-No. MR. ABBATE-No. MR. UNDERWOOD-"C6. Long term, short term, cumulative or other effects not identified above?" No MR. ABBATE-No. MR. UNDERWOOD-"C7. Other impacts (including changes in use of either quantity or energy)?" I guess he's going to use a little more electricity to light his signs up, but that's about it. MR. ABBATE-Okay. 38 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/17/07) MR. UNDERWOOD-"Will the project have an impact on the environmental characteristics that caused the establishment of a Critical Environmental Area?" No. "Is there or is there likely to be controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts?" I would say no. MRS. HUNT-No. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. So I guess we can go for an approval on that. MR. ABBATE-I'm going to make a motion. MOTION THAT BASED UPON THE INFORMATION SUBMITTED BY MR. GARVEY, THERE APPEARS TO BE NO ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ON THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY, Introduced by Charles Abbate who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Hunt: 483 Quaker Road. Duly adopted this 17th day of October, 2007, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Garrand, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Abbate NOES: NONE MR. ABBATE-The vote is seven yes, zero no, to approve the Environmental Assessment Form as submitted by Mr. Garvey in Sign Variance No. 63-2007. Now, I'm going to close the public hearing, if I haven't done it before, and I'm going to ask for a volunteer for a motion for Sign Variance No. 63-2007. MOTION TO APPROVE SIGN VARIANCE NO. 63-2007 SEAN J.T. GARVEY/GARVEY KIA, Introduced by James Underwood who moved for its adoption, seconded by Allan Bryant: 483 Quaker Road. The additional wall signs being proposed here this evening, the Volkswagen sign and we've already entered the data, as far as the size of those signs, into the record. We're talking about a Volkswagen sign, a KIA sign, as well as a Garvey sign, and a very small directional sign over at the Service entrance. I would make a motion that we approve those as submitted to us here this evening. Although it is a grand request, under the benefit to the applicant, it would identify the two separate franchises that he has on site, and I think it's been reasonably explained that they have to be separate. Under feasible alternatives, we could have less signs on the side of the building, but I think every business owner is entitled to have signs identifying his business, to a reasonable degree. Is the relief substantial relief? Yes, it is. The four signs where only one is allowed on the side of their building means that three of those signs are in excess, but I think we've determined only two of those signs are really in excess at this point, and as far as effects on the neighborhood or community, although we don't usually grant this many signs on the side of a building, I think we all are in agreement for the most part that this is a reasonable request here this evening, and the difficulty is self-created, but it's created by the fact that businesses today want separation between businesses. They can't be combined because they're separate franchises. So, I would move that we approve Sign Variance No. 63-2007. Duly adopted this 17th day of October, 2007, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Bryant, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Abbate NOES: Mr. McNulty MR. ABBATE-The vote for Sign Variance No. 63-2007 is six yes, one no. Sign Variance No. 63-2007 is approved. MR. ABBATE-Thank you, Mr. Garvey. MR. GARVEY-Thank you. MR. ABBATE-You're welcome. 39 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/17/07) MR. GARVEY-Thank you, all. I really appreciate it. I know you don't do this for the money. SIGN VARIANCE NO. 64-2007 SEQRA TYPE: UNLISTED NORTH COUNTRY ENGINEERING, PC (NCE) AGENT(S): DAVID M. KLEIN, PE/NORTH COUNTRY ENGINEERING OWNER(S): NORTH COUNTRY ENGINEERING PC (NCE) ZONING HC-INT. LOCATION: 1557 STATE ROUTE 9 APPLICANT PROPOSES CHANGE OF COPY ON EXISTING FREESTANDING SIGN. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM FRONT YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REF.: BP 2007-536 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: OCTOBER 10, 2007 LOT SIZE: 1.13 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 288.8-1-6 SECTION: 140-6 DAVID KLEIN, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Sign Variance No. 64-2007, North Country Engineering, PC (NCE), Meeting Date: October 17, 2007 "Project Location: 1557 State Route 9 Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to change copy of an existing sign. I Relief Required: I Proposed action requires front setback relief, however, no accurate dimension has been offered by the applicant for consideration. Moreover, the applicant has requested a waiver from the requirement for the submittal of a stamped, signed survey map. I Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: I 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be permitted to display the desired sign. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives may include construction of a sign at a compliant location. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the ordinance?: As no property line setback dimension has been offered, the amount of relief and the substantiality of the same can not be determined. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: No letters of support were submitted with the application materials. Photographs submitted with the application appear to suggest that the proposed sign would be in keeping with the character of the immediate neighborhood. 5. Is this difficulty self-created? The difficulty may be interpreted as self created. However, as the applicant did not own the property until June 30 , 2006, the difficulty would appear to have been inherited with the property. liParcel I-listory (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): I SP 6-07 1,140 sf 5 bay storage building I Staff comments: I A review of the Town historical records for the property has not revealed any sign permit or sign variance for the sign in question. No such permit or variance approval has been supplied by the applicant. Per 140-8, Non Conforming signs, all non conforming signs must be brought into compliance. As the sign in question has no permit and or variance, it is considered to be non conforming. approved 2/27/07 I SEQR Status: I 40 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/17/07) Type Unlisted" MR. UNDERWOOD-"Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form October 17, 2007 Project Name: North Country Engineering, PC (NCE) Owner(s): North Country Engineering, PC (NCE) ID Number: QBY-07-SV-64 County Project#: Oct07-20 Current Zoning: HC-Int. Community: Queensbury Project Description: Applicant proposes a change of copy on existing freestanding sign. Relief requested from front yard setback requirements. Site Location: 1557 State Route 9 Tax Map Number(s): 288.8-1-6 Staff Notes: Sign Variance: The applicant proposes change of copy on an existing freestanding sign. The required sign setback is 15 ft. from property lines. The plans show the sign copy and the sign location. The information submitted does not clearly indicated the dimension relief requested. Staff recommends no county impact with the condition clarification be provided about the dimension of relief requested. County Planning Board Recommendation: No County Impact" Signed by Richard C. Merrill, Warren County Planning Board 10/12/07. MR. BRYANT-Mr. Chairman, a question before we go on with the application. MR. ABBATE-Yes. MR. BRYANT-The procedural motion that we made, relative to procedures as it pertains to surveys. MR. ABBATE-Yes. MR. BRYANT-Was the motion, my recollection is it requires a sealed surveyor a site plan. Is that correct? MR. ABBATE-Let me read it to you. For the record, on Wednesday, February the 15th, 2006, the Zoning Board of Appeals made the following motion. "MOTION TO AMEND THE AREA, USE, AND SIGN VARIANCE APPLICATIONS FOR THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS AS FOLLOWS, Introduced by Charles Abbate who moved for its adoption, seconded by Allan Bryant: 1. Effective 16 March 2006 each Area, Use, or Sign Variance application will include a survey map. A survey map shall be defined as referenced in the Code of the Town of Queensbury; Section 179-2-010; Definitions - SURVEY MAP as "a drawing made to scaled based upon survey measurements showing land boundaries, natural and man- made objects, made by or under the direction of a New York State licensed land surveyor". 2. Staff is directed to make change in the applications for an Area, Use and Sign Variance and to make public this revision as appropriate. 3. PROVISIONS FOR A WAIVER: The applicant, by way of the Zoning Administrator, may claim unique circumstances and request the Chairman of the Zoning Board of Appeals to waive this requirement. In the event a waiver is requested, the Zoning Administrator will arrange a conference with the Chairman of the Zoning Board of Appeals. The conference will include a review of all pertinent data upon which the appellant has based the argument for a waiver. Following a review of that information, the Chairman of the Zoning Board of Appeals will render a decision, and inform the Zoning Administrator. Duly adopted this 15th day of February, 2006, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Underwood, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Rigby, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Abbate NOES: NONE" Does that answer your question? MR. BRYANT-It does, but I think maybe we ought to re-visit that, because frankly, in this particular case, the survey is out of date. However, there is a site plan by an engineering firm, and, you know, a site plan sometimes, when done correctly, can take the place of a survey as far as the dimensional things that we're looking for. MR. ABBATE-We certainly can approach this again. MR. UNDERWOOD-I mean, I think it was sent, it was revised per the Planning Department, this thing that was submitted to us. So I think that we can accept that based upon the fact that they revised it. So I don't see it as being an issue. 41 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/17/07) MR. ABBATE-Okay. MR. BRYANT-My only exception is that, even though it's done by an engineering firm, there is no seal on it. There should be some kind of, normally a site plan or architectural plan would have a seal on it. MR. ABBATE-I know, but there was a problem here, and I think Craig may have been on vacation or something. Paragraph Three wasn't complied with by Staff, and I think therein was the problem, because had that been brought to my attention, I would never have approved it, with the current survey that's been submitted, but as you know, I don't do completion reviews any longer. Okay. All right. Now, having said that, let's turn to North Country Engineering. Would you, sir, be kind enough to speak into the microphone, tell us who you are and your relationship with Sign Variance No. 64-2007. MR. KLEIN-Thank you. I'm David Klein. I'm co-owner of the building which is owned by NCE Building Corp., and I'm co-owner and principle of North Country Engineering, who's the tenant, the major tenant in the building. I supervised the preparation of the site plan. I didn't realize that we needed a licensed land surveyor to do that. I had taken a year's worth of surveying classes in college. When I first got out, I spent time doing surveying work, laying out buildings on major projects. We have our own surveying equipment. However, we don't practice surveying. We use it to collect topography or layout buildings or something like that. So, I was a little bit surprised being here tonight also. We purchased the property in the early summer of 2006. Shortly after we purchased the property, we called the Building Department, inquired about putting signs out on the property. They said if you change the sign, you have to apply for an application, pay a fee and have the sign changed. We also asked about realty signs, for rent signs. They said there's no permit process to put a for rent sign up. So we put a for rent sign up as we trying to rent out a portion of the property. The previous owner was occupying the property at the time. They wanted to extend the timeframe. So we agreed to that, and in January of 2007, I asked for a copy of the sign application permit. I thought it was going to be a simple process. We waited until a month or two before we were going to move so I could order the signs. We applied for our change of sign permit, and after a month or so I called up and they said, well, you need a variance. So that's why I'm here tonight. We moved into the property in late August. I need some identification of our business in front of the property. Last week we had an important delivery come to our office. Evidently I found out in a meeting today that they couldn't find our office. They were approaching from the north and drove right by it, and we did get the delivery, but it's kind of hard to operate a business when you don't have any signage. In any event, we were a little bit surprised that we were in this situation. As part of our application we have some photographs and we have some surveys, maps of record, that we obtained on neighboring properties, and all the neighboring properties have signs that are actually over the property line. Our sign is setback further than any sign in the area. We have several billboards across the street, four billboards across the street. From the aerial photograph, the billboards look like they're on the property lines also. I don't think we have that aerial photograph. MR. BRYANT-Yes, we do. We have an aerial shot. MR. KLEIN-Yes, but you don't have a larger one that shows the billboards. You have an aerial photograph of basically our property line. MR. UNDERWOOD-I've got to ask a question right off the bat to Staff. Because, you know, I've lived here since 1990, and as far back as I remember, Barton was there for that whole length of time before they swapped buildings with you Downtown, and I don't understand, I mean, I understand the Statute as it exists, you know, that when you change a sign you've got to come in and get a permit, and that's understandable, but I don't understand why the guy's been taken to task. I mean, his submittals that he sent in to us are more than adequate. I think that the record suggests that this other sign has been there for so long, and in regards to that, I just don't understand why people have to go through this elaborate process just to put a new sign up on the front of their building. I mean, if everybody in Town had to do that, I don't recall other businesses, when they purchase a building, that they have to jump through all these hoops, you know, even if the sign out front is nonconforming, but it just seems this is kind of over the top. MR. ABBATE-Let me extend a little bit, too. If I'm not mistaken, and I can't find the document now, but it seems to me, when I read through this, that that sign has been up for 10 years, approximately? 42 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/17/07) MR. KLEIN-Barton sign went in in the probably '93, '92, in that timeframe, and there was a sign there before that, too. MR. URRICO-Yes, there was something else there before that. That sign has been there for 20, 30 years. MR. KLEIN-There was. MR. ABBATE-Well, I'd agree with Jim. I'm baffled by the fact that you have to be here this evening. MR. KLEIN-Yes, I'm baffled, too, but it was explained to me by Staff that the Sign Ordinance has a sunset clause in it, that any sign that doesn't conform to the current regulations, either had to be taken down or a variance applied for, and when we bought the property, we didn't think there was anything wrong with the sign. The sign had been there forever. So I did my due diligence. I've tried to do everything by the book. I applied for the change of face plate for the sign. I paid the money. I waited a month. I'm ready to move in, and now I need the variance. MR. BRYANT-Mr. Chairman, I have a question. MR. ABBATE-Please. MR. BRYANT-I want to get away from this discussion of why we're applying for a variance. Obviously, there's a question about the positioning of the sign, and that's why you're here, but I want to ask you a couple of questions that are relative to that. MR. KLEIN-Thank you. MR. BRYANT-The first question. Are you a licensed engineer? MR. KLEIN-Yes, I am. MR. BRYANT-Okay. Are you in the habit of doing site plans and that sort of thing? MR. KLEIN-I'm a graduate Civil Engineer. My background is Civil, Environmental, and Structural. MR. BRYANT-Okay, and the reason I ask that is because you've got a nice site plan here. You show the sign and what it's going to, you know, the triangular do dad. There's no dimension. We don't know where it is from the, how do we know how much relief you need? MR. KLEIN-Well, the properties on either side of us have been surveyed in the past. suspect our property had been surveyed many years ago. MR. BRYANT-You have a survey, it looks like a survey. MR. UNDERWOOD-You've got Stark's. MR. KLEIN-No, I have Stark's survey, and I have a survey for the Leo's Lobster and Fish 307, which is to the north of us, and there's, I think, a daycare center in there. MR. BRYANT-Okay. Well, here's your property, though. MR. KLEIN-It's a composite map that I put together. With our site plan. MR. BRYANT-Okay. So this is not the real survey map of all the property? MR. KLEIN-Correct. It's a composite map that I put together. MR. UNDERWOOD-If you go on this one, it's got everything from the whole stretch down. MR. KLEIN-Right, and I put it together to demonstrate two things. One, there's a piece of landlocked property in front of ours. The property was subdivided in the 30's, seven lots. We're the northernmost lot, and of course the back of the lots were taken by the Northway. 43 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/17/07) MR. BRYANT-You see, this is great, but you're not answering my question. My question is very clear. What relief were you looking for? What is the actual quantitative? MR. KLEIN-I'd like to have my relief as zero feet from the property line. I know I'm on my property. I don't know how far I'm on my property. There's no pins in the front of the property. I have pins in the back of the property that I've been able to establish. There are no physical pins in the front. MR. BRYANT-It shows an iron rod in the front, on this old survey map. MR. KLEIN-Yes. I've looked for both those rods in the front, on both sides of my property. They do not exist. MR. BRYANT-Okay. So let me ask Staff. He's right on his property line, this is a Travel Corridor Overlay zone, right, Route 9? MR. BROWN-That doesn't apply to signs. The Travel Corridor Overlay setback doesn't apply to signs. MR. BRYANT-Okay. So, what are we looking for in relief, if he goes right on the property line? MR. BROWN-Fifteen feet. MR. BRYANT-Fifteen? MR. BROWN-Well, the minimum setback requirement is 15 feet. So he's just requested 15 feet of relief. MR. BRYANT-And what's the purpose of having it right on the property line? MR. KLEIN-Because I don't know exactly where the sign is. I know it's on my property. If you take a look at this aerial photograph here, which has got the property lines put on by the County, the sign is clearly inside the property line. I've blown this up to scale, and I've put a scale on it, and I measured 12 feet. When I go out there and physically look at the relationship between the corners of the buildings and fences and power poles, it looks to me that it's closer than 12 foot. MR. BRYANT-You see, Mr. Klein, that's why this Board has gone through the aggravation of setting these procedures requiring a survey, so that it would answer these questions, okay. MR. KLEIN-But it's a moot point, if I may say so. All the other signs in the neighborhood are over the property line. MR. BRYANT-Well, if you haven't been surveyed, how do we know that? How do we know that? We don't know that. MR. KLEIN-My sign sits back any further, if I wanted to conform with the neighborhood, I'd have to move the sign forward. MR. BRYANT-Look at this map here, okay. It's not a 90 degree angle. The road goes this way. The property is back here. I mean, you know, that's why we require a survey. Mr. Chairman, in my view, without a survey, I can't make a judgment on this case. MR. MC NULTY-I'll second that. MR. UNDERWOOD-I think you do have a survey, because he's submitted the one from Stark's and everybody else all combined together. I mean, it shows it right on there. MR. BRYANT-This is a composite map. He admitted it. He can't find the posts. MR. UNDERWOOD-It's a stamped, signed survey. MR. BRYANT-It's a stamped, signed survey, but it's a composite map. He put this together. This is not the original survey. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. In regards to the applicant, what is your proposal for the sign? Are you going to use the existing? 44 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/17/07) MR. KLEIN-I'm going to use the existing sign that's there. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. So the only thing that's going to say is it's going to say North Country Engineering on that exact same sign that already pre-exists. I don't really see that that's anything that we need to worry about. MR. ABBATE-All right. MR. UNDERWOOD-He's not going to build anything new. He's not going to move it closer. He's not going to move it back. MR. BRYANT-How do you know that the original sign was compliant? MR. UNDERWOOD-Who cares? It's been there for 20 years. MR. BRYANT-Yes, but now we have the opportunity, you know, we talk about this all the time. MR. UNDERWOOD-So you're going to make one person on that strip, in other words, when George Stark did his improvements on his buildings, you know, you can't make people retroactively do it. I mean, you could pull that with everybody in Town. MR. BRYANT-We've always gone through this, and I won't comment after this again, but we've always gone through this discussion. When you have an opportunity, okay, you're starting afresh, we have an opportunity to make these things more compliant, that's the direction we should go in. Okay. So, you know, again, I reiterate the fact that. MR. ABBATE-Let's continue, ladies and gentlemen. Let me go to Mr. Urrico, please. Do you have any comments, Mr. Urrico? MR. URRICO-I really refuse to comment at this point. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Mrs. Hunt, please. MRS. HUNT-Yes. I feel it's an existing sign. It's not obtrusive. It's certainly doesn't detract from the neighborhood. I would be in favor. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Rick, would you like to comment, please? MR. GARRAND-Certainly, Mr. Chairman. I'm troubled by the fact that I didn't see in my packet a waiver from the Chairman for a signed and stamped survey. MR. ABBATE-That's correct. MR. GARRAND-And I also didn't get a survey, either. MR. ABBATE-Well, I'll explain that to you if you wish. MR. GARRAND-I'm being asked to grant relief on something I have no idea how much relief I'm going to grant. I have no. MR. ABBATE-If memory serves me correctly, this is strictly from memory, I think the appellant submitted a letter, September the 11th, requesting a waiver, correct? It was never brought to my attention. I received in the package the same day you folks, on October the 5th. So the procedure that we set up was not followed by Staff, and as a result we find now that the applicant is in a pickle, so to speak. Now whether I would have granted a waiver or not is a moot point at this time. MR. KLEIN-Can I add something? MR. ABBATE-Not really. I just want to continue on, because the hour is going on. Mr. McNulty, please. I'll give you an opportunity later on. Okay. MR. MC NULTY-Well, a plus and a minus. As I've quoted a number of times before, the Sign Ordinance says that the group that grants Sign Variances should not grant one unless the owner would be deprived of the practical use of a sign if it wasn't granted. Offhand, looking at this site, I think this is a classic case of why that's in there, and I would say yes, indeed, if he was required to move that sign back towards his building, 45 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/17/07) then you wouldn't see it coming from the south either. You can hardly see it coming from the north, so I think certainly a Sign Variance is fully justified here, but I would really like to know how much relief we're granting. I don't like the idea of saying, we'll leave it where it is, but we don't know what we're granting, and the whole survey issue bothers me. The whole issue of, here we've got a PE in front of us and he can't tell us how far his sign is from the front lot line. I understand that it's difficult to find the pins, but before I voted yes for this, I would like to know whether we're talking about actually zero footage or whether talking about 10 feet or 5 feet or whatever. MR. ABBATE-Okay. I understand. Let's see. Jim, please. MR. UNDERWOOD-I think I already said what I wanted to say. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Then we're going to be moving on here, and I'm going to open up the public hearing for Sign Variance No. 64-2007. Do we have anybody in the audience who would like to comment? Raise your hands, please. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. ABBATE-I see no hands raised, so we're going to move on. Now, I'm going to ask members to offer their comments. I know they've offered some already, but I'd like to inform the public that these new comments that are going to be offered by members are going to be directed to the Chairman and they're not going to be open to debate. So I'm going to ask members, now, to offer their comments on Sign Variance No. 64-2007. Do we have a volunteer who'd like to start? MR. BRYANT-I'll start. MR. ABBATE-Please. Thank you. MR. BRYANT-I agree with what Mr. McNulty said a few minutes ago, and that is, you know, obviously, this individual needs some sort of variance, but what is the actual quantity, quantitative figure, what are we giving him? Are we giving him two feet? Are we giving him 15 feet? If you ask for 15 feet, I wouldn't be willing to grant that. So, I'd really like to know exactly what we're granting, let's put it, document it, let's put it in writing, and then it's, we'll put it to bed. So as it stands right now, I would be opposed to the application. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Rick, please? MR. GARRAND-Well, right now I would really like to know how much relief we're granting because, let's say we grant 15 feet of relief, and in six months from now that sign is 15 feet closer. I really have no way of knowing at this point. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Mr. McNulty, please? MR. MC NULTY-I'll basically stand on what I said, and I'll ditto Mr. Bryant, and I would be opposed tonight. MR. ABBATE-Okay. No problem, okay, and Mr. Urrico, please. MR. URRICO-I would be in favor of tabling this application at this point, pending documentation showing exactly what we're granting relief for. MR. ABBATE-Okay, and Mr. Underwood, please. MR. UNDERWOOD-I think there's a long record of standing as to the longevity of this sign. Since the sign is going to be replacing what's already there, in exactly the same place, the only thing that's going to change is there's going to be some lettering on what's there presently, I don't really see what the big thing is. I think that we could worry about the dimensional relief that's requested here this evening. I don't think, since there's going to be no change whatsoever, that it's going to have any effect on the community. It's been substantiated that the sign is in a position where it could only be located. If you put it back further, you would not see the sign in driving past it. So there's a public safety thing, as far as I'm concerned, in putting the sign further back. I think that as it exists, as it's proposed to be is reasonable in all respects, and I think that as long as there's not going to be any material change to the position of the sign, we can go ahead and approve it. 46 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/17/07) MR. ABBATE-Okay. My problem right now is a question of the survey. Again, I'm looking at the provisions for a waiver, and I never had an opportunity to review all of the pertinent data upon which the applicant was basing his arguments for a waiver. Had I done that, I might have made a decision. I had not had the opportunity to make a decision. However, this evening, there's no doubt in my mind, listening to the majority of these Board members, that a survey is necessary, and so, quite frankly, I'm going to consider this application to be defective. MR. UNDERWOOD-Can I just add one more comment? MR. ABBATE-Of course you can, Jim. MR. UNDERWOOD-It's been substantiated that every other sign on that whole corridor up that road there is much closer to the road than this sign is. This is the furthest setback sign of everything. MR. ABBATE-This is true. MR. UNDERWOOD-Why would we think that we were going to have any impact on the neighborhood if we make this one guy, who already has his sign back more, in a more compliant position, why would you be giving him a hard time? I don't understand your reasoning behind that. MR. ABBATE-Okay. I think, it's not a question of giving him a hard time. I think it's a question of complying with our rules and regulations. The Board, six members of the Board are uncomfortable because, correct me if I'm wrong, because at the present time there is no survey to indicate specifically where, accurately where the sign is located and the type of relief required. Am I right? Pretty much? MR. MC NULTY-Yes, we don't know what relief to grant. MR. ABBATE-Right, that's it. MR. UNDERWOOD-So give him 15 feet. He says it's 12. MR. ABBATE-Yes, but from what, Jim? Am I correct? Am I right? MR. MC NULTY-Well, and as AI said, if it's 15 feet, I may have a problem with it. If it's five feet or even ten feet, yes, maybe. If it's 15, then now's the time to start cleaning up that corridor and this the first sign we get moved back and we'll do the rest of them as we can. MR. ABBATE-Yes. Let me put you at ease. This is not to suggest that your appeal is being denied. Not at all. What we're suggesting is that we just need additional information. We'd be more than willing to hear this at another time. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. I have another question to add, and that's this. MR. ABBATE-Certainly. MR. UNDERWOOD-He substantiated that he runs a business, that his business needs to be identified. He's already given us, you know, one instance of where he needed something to be delivered that wasn't delivered on time as a result. Would it be unreasonable for us to allow him to put a sign on that other side there, in the interim, for identification purposes, because this is going to drag on month, after month after month, you know. The guy's trying to run a business. I think that's reasonable. MR. ABBATE-That's a question to the Board, ladies and gentlemen of the Board. MR. BRYANT-What's the suggestion, I don't understand it? MR. GARRAND-I think that's reasonable. MR. BRYANT-What does he want to do? MR. UNDERWOOD-Well, the sign is only identified facing south. It's not identified facing north. So, I mean, no one's going to drive down the road and be looking over their shoulder to find out where North Country Engineering is, and I think that's what you're holding him up here on. You already have the signs here? 47 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/17/07) MR. KLEIN-I have the signs purchased. They're in our lobby. We have a banner up that we had from a charity that we sponsored. MR. BROWN-Just for clarification, that request to put a sign on the north side, it's the same request that's on the table right now. It's for setback relief, and if you say go ahead and put a sign up there, it's like granting this relief. What is allowable, a wall sign. I can't remember if you've applied for a wall sign. MR. KLEIN-We don't need a wall sign. The wall's so far back from the road. We need a sign that people can identify with, and it doesn't matter what the setback is from the property line. It matters what the setback is from the road. Our sign is substantially further back than any sign on both sides of the corridor. These photographs demonstrate, you can't see the sign driving from the north or from the south. If you're coming from the south, The Mohican Motel sign, which is across the property line, blocks view of our sign. It's very hard to see. It's substantially back, further back, than any sign on the corridor. We're got four billboards across the street from us, huge billboards. They're right on the property line closer to the road than ours is. MR. BRYANT-But we don't really know where those property lines are. So we can't make a judgment. Visually, you're absolutely correct, and in that regard, I agree with Mr. Underwood, okay, but we really don't know. MR. KLEIN-We have two surveys that are part of the Queensbury record that document that the signs on neighboring properties, both north and south of ours, are over the property line. Ours is on our property. It's much further away from the road. MR. BRYANT-Those signs could have been put in way before the Sign Ordinance was passed. MR. KLEIN-Then they should fall under the same sunset provision that our sign is falling under. Ours has been there for 30 years, too. MR. ABBATE-Well, we could continue on this way, Jim. We can do the Short Assessment Form, if you wish to do it now, or I'm open to a motion by any member of the Board as to what you wish to do. MR. UNDERWOOD-What more would you ask? Do you want an official survey done? Do you need a survey for the whole lot? MR. ABBATE-Yes, I would suggest. Here's what I would say, I would say this. Yes. We want specifics. I would say that he has to comply with our resolution of Wednesday the 15th of February, 2006. MR. KLEIN-Mr. Chairman, we did ask for a waiver from that, and it's not our fault that it wasn't brought to your attention. MR. ABBATE-I can't argue. You're right, and I'm embarrassed over it, okay. Your letter, I think, was dated September 15th. I understand that, but I never received it until the 5th of October, and I never had the opportunity to review all the pertinent data, and I don't know whether I would have waived it or not, quite frankly. I'm being honest with you right now. So, it was a set of circumstances that are unfortunate and embarrassing. MR. KLEIN-Well, even if you did not waiver it, we would have had an opportunity what we needed before this meeting took place. Correct? MR. ABBATE-You had a pre-conference meeting with the Staff. Is that not correct? MR. KLEIN-Yes, we did. MR. ABBATE-Okay, and I'm sure Staff had made it quite clear that there are certain requirements such as a deed, such as a survey, and all of that. Is that correct? MR. KLEIN-We had that conversation that we needed a survey, but we also had the same conversation when we submitted for our garage. We used the site plan that's submitted in front of you, this year, for an application to build a garage in the back of the property. It went through the Queensbury Planning Board. It was adequate for them. I don't know why it's not adequate for the Zoning Board. 48 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/17/07) MR. UNDERWOOD-We're not talking about a building here. We're talking about a sign. MR. KLEIN-Exactly. The garage was a building. MR. BROWN-Yes, the Planning Board doesn't require surveys. MR. ABBATE-I know. The Planning Board's requirements are much different than our requirements. Ladies and gentlemen, I'm open to a motion or a suggestion. MR. UNDERWOOD-The suggestion then I think would be, then, he needs to determine by survey the distance of the sign off the property line. I don't think we need a survey for the whole property. That seems a little over the top to me. I don't know how you're going to determine that, you know, whether you can get a surveyor out there just to do that one item, but I think that's the only think we're looking for. MR. ABBATE-Okay. MR. UNDERWOOD-And I think it's agreed upon by everybody that the sign is going to be in exactly the same situation as it's already presently in. MR. ABBATE-Jim has made a recommendation, and it's up to the Board right now, ladies and gentlemen, to accept it or reject it. MR. MC NULTY-I think that we could consider that a motion. MR. ABBATE-Yes, Jim, why don't you make it a motion. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. I'll make the motion, then. MR. ABBATE-Please, and be specific with it, please. MOTION TO TABLE SIGN VARIANCE NO. 64-2007 NORTH COUNTRY ENGINEERING, PC (NCE), Introduced by James Underwood who moved for its adoption, seconded by Allan Bryant: 1557 State Route 9. Tabled for additional information. The applicant is proposing to change the copy on an existing sign. The proposed action requires front setback relief, and most of the Board does not feel that they are comfortable with not knowing what the exact relief for that setback relief will be. So it will be incumbent upon the applicant to provide a reasonable survey stamped by a licensed surveyor that substantiates, no later than by November 15th that substantiates the actual relief necessary from the front property line along Route 9, and we'll hear you tentatively on the 19th of December 2007. Duly adopted this 17th day of October, 2007, by the following vote: MR. BRYANT-I want to clarify the motion, please, Mr. Chairman. The procedure is it has to be stamped by a licensed surveyor. Okay. I just want to make that clear. It just can't be a drawing. MR. ABBATE-You don't have any problems with that, Jim, do you, in your motion? MR. UNDERWOOD-Well, I don't. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Is it clear to you what is required? MR. KLEIN-It's clear to me, but I have a problem with it. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. MR. ABBATE-You have a copy of this? MR. KLEIN-The 2006? MR. ABBATE-The resolution of Wednesday the 15th? MR. KLEIN-Yes. I don't have a copy of it, no. MR. ABBATE-Well, I would suggest, it's easy to get. All you have to do is call Staff. They're very cooperative. You can ask them for a copy. 49 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/17/07) MR. UNDERWOOD-Is there any way that Staff can go out and determine that, or is that something that's got to be done? I mean, Craig, I think we're being a little bit over the top here on this one. I mean, you can measure from the edge of the road back, you know, you can get a reasonable idea of what the parameters are, where the sign is, but I don't understand why you're making somebody who's just simply going to be changing the letters on a sign, is all it really amounts to, how that's going to have any way, shape or bearing on the future of the community or to the detriment of the community. I think it's extraordinarily over the top. MR. ABBATE-We have a motion in progress, ladies and gentlemen, and Mr. Underwood has made the motion that the individual submit the necessary information no later than November the 15th, and tentatively we can hear his case on the 19th of December. AYES: Mr. Bryant, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Garrand, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Abbate NOES: NONE MR. ABBATE-The vote is seven yes, zero no, that the applicant for Sign Variance No. 64-2007 will submit the necessary information as outlined in the motion to Staff no later than the November 15, 2007, with a tentative hearing date of the 19th of December '07. MR. KLEIN-And what's the necessary information? Can it be a measurement that I make, or does it have to be a licensed surveyor? MR. BRYANT-It has to be a licensed surveyor. MR. ABBATE-Let me explain it to you, so that there's no misinterpretation, for the record. This is what is required for the record. MR. KLEIN-I just asked a question. You said the necessary information. I asked for some clarification and you clarified it for me. MR. ABBATE-Do you understand it now, or do you want me to clarify it? MR. KLEIN-I think I understand it now. MR. ABBATE-Okay. So there's no reason for me to clarify it? MR. KLEIN-No, there's no reason. MR. ABBATE-Okay. All right. Ladies and gentlemen, do we have any other business before the Board this evening? MR. BRYANT-Are we going into Executive Session? MR. ABBATE-We're going into Executive Session to discuss legal ramifications. MOTION TO GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION TO DISCUSS LEGAL RAMIFICATIONS, Introduced by Charles Abbate who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roy Urrico: Duly adopted this 17th day of October, 2007, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Garrand, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Abbate NOES: NONE MOTION TO COME OUT OF EXECUTIVE SESSION, Introduced by Charles Abbate who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roy Urrico: Duly adopted this 17th day of October, 2007, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Garrand, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Abbate NOES: NONE 50 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/17/07) On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Charles Abbate, Chairman 51