Loading...
1997-10-29 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/29/97) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS THIRD REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 29, 1997 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT CHRIS THOMAS, CHAIRMAN BONNIE LAPHAM, SECRETARY ROBERT MC NALLY BRIAN CUSTER PAUL HAYES MEMBERS ABSENT ROBERT KARPELES LEWIS STONE CODE COMPLIANCE OFFICER -CHRIS ROUND STENOGRAPHER -MARIA GAGLIARDI OLD BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 61-1997 TYPE II WR-1A JON & SUSAN DOUGHER LOCATION: 122 SUNNYSIDE NORTH APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A TWO (2) CAR GARAGE. RELIEF IS REQUESTED FROM FRONT YARD SETBACKS OF SECTION 179-16. TAX MAP NO. 50-1-85 LOT SIZE: 0.14 ACRES SECTION 179-16 JON DOUGHER, PRESENT MR. THOMAS-Have you got the tabling motion there? MRS. LAPHAM-Okay. Jon and Susan Dougher, 122 Sunnyside North, Queensbury, NY. “The Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals has reviewed the following request at the below stated meeting and has resolved the following: Meeting Date: October 22, 1997 Variance File No. 61- 1997 for an Area Variance, tabled. Motion to Table Area Variance No. 61-1997, Jon & Susan Dougher, Introduced by Chris Thomas who moved for its adoption, seconded by Lewis Stone: For further information. We would like to see a conceptual drawing of the building, along with its height, and we would also like to have a drawing, either a survey or some kind of plan, showing the nd exact property line and the setback of the garage from that property line. Duly adopted this 22 day of October 1997, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stone, Mr. Karpeles, Mrs. Lapham, Mr. McNally, Mr. Custer, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Thomas NOES: NONE” MR. THOMAS-Okay, and you are? MR. DOUGHER-Jon Dougher, and I am a resident of the Town of Queensbury. MR. THOMAS-Okay, and it’s your application that we’re hearing now. Do you have the additional information we asked for? MR. DOUGHER-Yes. I went down and got a blueprint of the garage itself, and as far as I can figure, it’s 18 feet to the peak. I guess that’s all you wanted. MR. THOMAS-Is that from the lowest grade, the lowest part of the property? Because the floor is flat and the land goes down, so it would be the back side of the garage. MR. DOUGHER-Right. MR. THOMAS-So the highest point there is 18 feet? MR. DOUGHER-Right. MR. HAYES-Or it’s 18 feet on the prints there. 1 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/29/97) MR. DOUGHER-It says 18 feet from the slab to the peak. MR. HAYES-Then it’s going to be more than that, then. MR. THOMAS-Yes. It’s going to be more than that because, you know, well, you can’t dig into the front of it. You’d have to go from the ground and go out. Isn’t the back frost wall going to be out of the ground, how far? MR. DOUGHER-No. I was going to build that back, fill that in and get it back farther off the road there. MR. THOMAS-Okay. So it’s going to be level right where the slab is? MR. DOUGHER-Right. MR. THOMAS-Okay. How far is the property line? MR. DOUGHER-Well, I found the old stake. In the old survey maps I have it says the road’s 20 feet wide. Now they’ve re-paved that once. It used to be a dirt road. It was paved once. It must have been 20 feet then, and it was re-paved once after that. Now it’s 22 feet. So this stake I found is four feet off the edge of the pavement. MR. THOMAS-Okay. MR. HAYES-Which is going to place the garage how far away from that stake? MR. DOUGHER-I can go back 19 feet from that, to the front of the garage. That would be 23 feet off the road itself, and it would be 19 feet off the property line. So I’m asking for 11 feet variance, I guess. MR. THOMAS-Yes, because it’s required 30 feet, and you’re asking for 19. MR. DOUGHER-Right. MR. THOMAS-Okay, and also the height of the garage, detached, accessory, which the garage is the highest allowed by the Ordinance is 16 feet, and you’re asking for 18 feet for a two foot variance in the height. MR. DOUGHER-Right. MR. HAYES-Did you investigate whether there were garage plans that were 16 feet, as far as the high point? I mean, is that the only plan that you can go with? MR. DOUGHER-No. I wanted to go with this since I get the storage. That’s a seven by twelve storage area up there, and that’s more or less why I wanted to go with this plan, just so I had that storage area up there. MR. THOMAS-Are there any more questions for the applicant? MR. MC NALLY-Did you want to submit anything, sir? MR. DOUGHER-I didn’t know if you wanted to look at these plans? MR. HAYES-Sure. MR. CUSTER-Yes. MR. DOUGHER-This is a picture of what the back looks like. There’s one of the old survey maps, you can see how the pipes are off the road there. MR. HAYES-Do you intend to have it look substantially like this? I mean, is that the plan? MR. DOUGHER-It will be just like that except it would have T-111 Siding on it, instead of this cedar clapboard. Because I have T-111 on the house. 2 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/29/97) MRS. LAPHAM-It would look better. MR. DOUGHER-This is the only height thing I can say. This is a quarter inch equals one foot. So this here is from the top of that slab to that plate there is eight feet, six and I measured from the top of that slab right to the top, and it’s four and a half inches, and you can take into consideration, too, that the people across the road are up about four feet on my side of the road. So actually, they’d only have to be, well, there’s no houses there where this would be sitting anyway. MR. THOMAS-Are there anymore questions for the applicant? If not, I left the public hearing open. Anyone wishing to speak in favor of this project? In favor of? Anyone wishing to speak opposed? Opposed? PUBLIC HEARING OPEN NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. THOMAS-Okay. Lets talk about it. I’ll start down at the end there with Mr. McNally. MR. MC NALLY-Mr. Chairman, the benefit to the applicant is obvious. He would be allowed to construct a garage with (lost word) porch for personal storage of his possessions. This area at Lake Sunnyside is tight. A lot of homes are on top of each other. A lot of homes are close to the road. A lot of homes don’t meet the setbacks. I find this lot particularly tight, and I don’t know if it would be suited for a garage. I think the relief he’s asking for can be interpreted as substantial, but the effect on the neighborhood, it’s hard to understand. I don’t see this as actually benefiting the neighborhood. There are certainly other homes adjacent to his property which have minimal setbacks and garages right on the road also. The applicant has finally decided to move the garage back from immediately adjacent to the road, and he has provided us with plans setting forth the building height. I’m of two minds on this one. I’d like to see what the other members have to say. MR. THOMAS-Brian? MR. CUSTER-It’s obvious that the lots are very tight up there, and ideally you don’t want to add anymore clutter to that type of an atmosphere, but I looked at the whole neighborhood, and as Bob said, there are many homes that are right up to the road and other garages very, would even be closer than what the relief that’s being asked here for, and taking into consideration the lots across the street slope upwards, therefore giving some relief over that peak, the two feet of relief from that, I’m not too concerned either. I probably would vote in favor of it. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Jamie? MR. HAYES-Well, I agree with the rest of the Board members. It’s a very close call. Certainly moving it back the additional feet is a positive as far as the Board, but I think we have an accessory ordinance that calls for 16 feet, and I think that there’s 16 foot pitch garages available, and I would be in favor of the application, outside of the fact that he’s asking for additional relief. So as it sits now, I would probably be opposed. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Bonnie? MRS. LAPHAM-I’m in favor of it because I feel it fits in with the neighborhood. It’s not going to cause any detriment to the neighborhood because the entire neighborhood is tight, houses and so forth are built close to the road. The man wants to put a garage on his property. He’s agreed to moved it back. He’s brought in plans. He’s done everything I think that he could that we’ve asked, and I don’t think there’s any alternative. I don’t think this is self created, and there’s no other place where you could put the garage. So I would probably, I’d like to see it 16 feet instead of 18 feet, but I would be inclined to vote for it. MR. THOMAS-Okay. I have no problem with this variance, as far as the setback is concerned. As far as the height, I think the applicant could bring it down to 16 feet and still get the storage that he needs. I don’t think the request is substantial because the applicant is asking for an 11 foot setback variance. Originally he was asking for a 20 foot. I don’t see an undesirable change in the neighborhood, since the neighborhood is mostly residential with garages that are closer to the road than the applicant wants to put. There is really no other place the applicant could put that garage, 3 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/29/97) because of the contour of the land and the septic system that’s there, and the difficulty isn’t self created. It’s because the lots are long and narrow in that part of the WR-1 Acre zone, around Sunnyside. So the only thing I would ask is that the applicant could lower than roof from 18 to 16. Would you be willing to do that as a compromise? MR. DOUGHER-Sure, I guess so. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Having said that, I’ll ask for a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 61-1997 JON & SUSAN DOUGHER , Introduced by Robert McNally who moved for its adoption, seconded by Paul Hayes: 122 Sunnyside North. The applicant proposes the construction of a two car garage, requiring relief from setback requirements of Section 179-16. The required front road setback is 30 feet, and the applicant proposes a setback of 19 feet, thereby requiring a variance of 11 feet. Also, the applicant has sought a variance from the height of the garage structure. It is my motion that we approve the setback from the road, that we require the applicant to build no higher than 16 feet, in accordance with the Ordinance. The benefit to the applicant would be he would be allowed to construct a garage for vehicular storage, and for storage above the garage, and to keep personal possessions. There are no feasible alternatives for the proposed garage, due to the location of the septic tank, leach field, and the particular configuration of this lot. The relief is not substantial. There will be minimal effects on the neighborhood, given the existing character of that neighborhood already. The difficulty is not self-created, and for these reasons, I move that we approve a setback variance of 11 feet, and no living space above the garage, storage only. th Duly adopted this 29 day of October, 1997, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. McNally, Mr. Custer, Mr. Hayes, Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Thomas NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Stone, Mr. Karpeles MR. THOMAS-There you go. MR. DOUGHER-Thank you, sir. MR. THOMAS-You’re welcome. NEW BUSINESS: SIGN VARIANCE NO. 66-1997 TYPE: UNLISTED HC-1A AMERADA HESS CORP. ANTHONY CARTER OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE AVIATION ROAD AT EXIT 19 APPLICANT PROPOSES TO REPLACE EXISTING ID AND PRICE TAG (ON LIGHT POLE) WITH GOAL POST STYLE SIGN. REQUESTED RELIEF FROM SIZE/SETBACK RESTRICTIONS OF CHAPTER 140 (SIGNS). WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 10/8/97 TAX MAP NO. 72-3-18 LOT SIZE: 0.53 ACRES SECTION 140 SIGN ORDINANCE ANTHONY CARTER, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Sign Variance No. 66-1997, Amerada Hess Corp. Anthony Carter, Meeting Project Location: Description of Proposed Date: October 29, 1997 “Aviation Road @ Exit 19 Project: The applicant proposes construction of a 100 square foot freestanding sign at a 2 foot Relief Required: setback. The sign ordinance (§140-6) permits a single free standing sign of 50 square feet in area at a 15 foot setback or a 64 square foot sign at 25 foot setback. Relief is Criteria for considering an Area requested from the setback and area restrictions of this section. Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant 2. Feasible would be allowed to construct an oversized freestanding sign at a select location. alternatives:3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Conformance with the ordinance. ordinance?:4. Effects on the neighborhood or The relief may be interpreted as substantial. community: An increase in the permitted size and the minimal setback does impact the aesthetic 5. Is this difficulty self-created?Parcel History characteristics of the area. Yes. 4 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/29/97) (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): The site is currently being upgraded and interior revonoations are planned. The project was issued an area variance (AV 28-1996) for relief from Staff comments: setback requirements and permeable area requirements of the ordinance. The Atlantic A-Plus and the Price Chopper Citgo gas station facility free standing signs are in SEQR Status: conformance with the size restrictions based on permits on file with our office. Unlisted” th MRS. LAPHAM-“At a meeting of the Warren County Planning Board, held on the 8 day of October 1997, the above application for a Sign Variance to replace existing ID & Price Sign (on light pole) with Goal Post style sign was reviewed, and the following action was taken. Recommendation to: Disapprove Comments: Due to the proximity to the State right-of-way and it exceeds the Town of Queensbury Sign Ordinance.” Signed Tracey M. Clothier, Chairperson. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Before we start on this one, since Warren County has denied this application, this Board here has to, in order to overturn Warren County, has to have a majority plus one. So we would need five positive votes in order to approve this variance. So, having said that, Mr. Carter, would you like to tell us about this, add anything? MR. CARTER-Right now Hess is trying to bring some uniformity to all their signs in the New York area. We’re going out and cleaning up the existing signs. Right now what you have out there is one eight foot by five foot ID, and right next to it on a light pole we have the prices. It doesn’t look very nice. It’s old, and what we’re trying to do is bring it together, make it look neater, and as far as the setback, we want to replace it and put it right back in the same location where it is now. If we move it back any further, it would mean taking away our parking spaces, and we have, I don’t know what the requirements are for parking, but if we move it in 15 feet, we’d be reducing that parking space. MR. THOMAS-Have you thought about re-locating it to somewhere else on the property, rather than being right there? MR. CARTER-I did. We thought about it at the point of Carlton and Aviation Road, but there’s a good size maple tree right in the front. The only place to put it would be there, and we’d have to remove that tree. MR. THOMAS-What about on the west side of the property? MR. CARTER-That’s it. Really we want to put it along Aviation Road, so we can get visibility off that road. MR. THOMAS-Well, the Aviation Road runs east and west. West would be on the Northway side of the property. As you go up Aviation Road toward the Northway, toward the bridge, you know, that’s the other end of the property. From where it is now, it’s 60 feet back from your west property line, okay. Why can’t you move it north like 35 feet, and to move it back a ways? Because that right in there is just grass and trees. MR. CARTER-It’s wooded. It would be pretty hard to see if we moved it back in there. By the time someone sees that sign, you’d drive right by it and you’re on the expressway. MR. MC NALLY-I’m not sure where you wanted to put this sign. If I look at the map that you submitted, sir, there is some magic mark. MR. HAYES-It’s not there. It’s confusing. It’s in that island there. MR. MC NALLY-You’re simply replacing the sign in the existing location? MR. CARTER-Yes, and reduce the amount of signs that are there right now. There’s two signs. MR. HAYES-You’re saying there’s two signs. One’s eight by five, and do you have any idea how big the ones are that are the gas prices? MR. CARTER-I’d say about four by eight, four foot wide by eight foot in length. MR. HAYES-Roughly 72 square feet now. MR. CARTER-Yes. 5 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/29/97) MR. THOMAS-Any more questions for the applicant? If not, I’ll open the public hearing. Anyone wishing to speak in favor of this application, in favor of? Anyone wishing to speak opposed, opposed? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. THOMAS-All right. Lets talk about it. I’ll start with Brian. MR. CUSTER-Well, I think the relief is very substantial, and I’d like to see the applicant move it back. I know that there may be some problems with the parking spaces to take into consideration, but we’re pretty strict in the Town here with that Sign Ordinance and granting relief from that sign law is only done with minimal relief, and I’d like to stick with that. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Jamie? MR. HAYES-I agree with Brian. I think his point is well taken, that we’re pretty strict in Queensbury about Sign Variances. If there’s 72 square feet there now, and that’s what you’re replacing it with, with a better sign, I think that that would be the kind of relief that I think I could go for, but increasing the overall square footage would be a stretch. So I think it’s a tough one. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Bonnie? MRS. LAPHAM-I tend to agree with Jamie. If you were staying within the same size, also I noticed that two places across the street, the Atlantic A and the Price Chopper, are in conformance. I don’t think it would be right to grant somebody else substantial relief, and I think we just went through this with Fazoli’s pizza place, and as I recall, I think we made them conform. Since that’s, you know, that’s the way the trend should be on Aviation Road. That’s what we’ve done in the past, and I think we should be consistent. Although I think the effort made to upgrade the station is really laudible. It’s going to look a lot better and it will be a lot nicer when you get the island. MR. THOMAS-Bob? MR. MC NALLY-With all due respect to the applicant, having a sign two feet from your front property line is a substantial variance from the existing code. I know that their existing sign may be generally in that location now, but when I visited the site, the business was basically torn apart and they were in the process of putting it back together again. There are feasible alternatives. It may be that setting it back would interfere with other uses of the property. When you consider that they’ve torn the whole thing up, then it’s apparent to me that I don’t think too much atttention was given to trying to conform to the existing statute. If it does interfere with the parking, it’s not because of anything that the Town has done so much as the applicant hasn’t necessarily considered the Zoning Ordinance in the design of the property to begin with. The other signs in the area that I took a look at all seemed to be in compliance with the statute, the ordinance, and I don’t see how this would be beneficial to the community and certainly would have a negative impact on the area. The area to the west of the property, when I looked at it, certainly had a couple of trees on it, but it was basically vacant and grass. There seemed to be more than ample space to post a sign, even with the existing plans going in that location and with minimal impact on the applicant. I don’t believe that the request for an oversized sign, or a sign at this location would be appropriate. MR. THOMAS-I’d like to expand a little bit on what Bob said about the sign could be moved to the west a little ways. Sitting here with a scale in my hand, I can measure it. If that sign was moved 13 feet to the west or toward the Northway, that would take it out of that island that’s in there and would put it over, right on the edge of that grass area. That existing telephone booth back there with a slab now sits 25 feet back from the property line. Now if the sign went back there, and as Bob said, some trees taken out of there, and as the applicant has stated, that he wanted his customers to see the sign before they got onto the Northway or went across the bridge to the Northway, I think back in there, and that line of site is not impeded, only for the canopy that’s going up, and if I’m not mistaken, that canopy is 14 feet, 16 feet to the top, if I’m not mistaken. Is that right? MR. CARTER-Yes, sir, 14, 6, I think it is. 6 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/29/97) MR. THOMAS-That’s 16 feet to the top of it? MR. CARTER-Yes. MR. THOMAS-Okay, and the applicant is asking for a sign that’s 25 feet in the air, and the sign itself is 12 and a half. So it might be impeded somewhat, but you can still see the name “Hess” on top. The only thing you wouldn’t see is the prices, and you could probably see the Blimpy sign under it. So I would say, you know, if the applicant could move it back 13 feet to the west, and go back to a 25 foot setback to the front of the sign, and actually straddle the concrete slab for the telephone, because how high is that telephone? Their sign starts 12 and a half feet off the ground. So it could straddle that slab for the telephone. It would be 25 feet back, and that way they could have, you know, they’d need a variance for 36 square feet worth of sign because the Ordinance states that they can have 64 square feet of signage 25 feet back from the property line. So if they could move it back to there, cut some trees down if they need to, to see the sign coming from the west to the east. I wouldn’t have a problem, and as some of the other members of the Board have said, that the signs of the other gas stations in the area are in conformance. They meet the setbacks and the size, and I don’t want to get into a sign war. Because I think that’s what would happen if we granted this variance for a 100 square foot sign. MRS. LAPHAM-You can also clearly see the signs from the stations that are in conformance. It just actually depends on what side of the road you’re on. I mean, if you’re going west on Aviation Road to get on the Northway, the northbound or cross the bridge and get southbound, you’re going to see your station first and you’re not going to cross the road in all that traffic. I would think the people that go, like I always go to the other stations when I’m coming east and I’ve gotten off the Northway because it’s just too difficult to cross traffic. So the business you want to get I think would see you anyway. MR. THOMAS-So would you like to comment on anything that was said up by the Board here tonight, as to ideas? MR. CARTER-We can review this, and I can probably come up with something. You want the overall size to be reduced also? MR. THOMAS-Yes. If you can get that sign down to 64 square feet, it can be 25 feet high, 64 square feet, 25 feet back from the property line, you don’t need to come back. Am I right? MR. ROUND-I guess you’re saying you’d deny the variance, and that’s correct, that’s in conformance with the Ordinance. MR. THOMAS-Yes, a sign 25 feet back from the property line, 64 square feet in area, no more than 25 feet high would be a sign in conformance, and you wouldn’t need a variance. I don’t know about the wording on the sign. No, still the wording doesn’t matter, because that Blimpy’s business is within the station. It’s not a separate business on a separate piece of property. It’s within the station itself, or within the convenience store itself. I don’t think there’d be any problem with that. So, would you like me to table this? MR. CARTER-Please, yes. MR. THOMAS-Okay, and you can come back or you can call the Town and talk to Chris and tell him that you’re going to put it in conformance, okay. MOTION TO TABLE SIGN VARIANCE NO. 66-1997 AMERADA HESS CORP. ANTHONY CARTER , Introduced by Chris Thomas who moved for its adoption, seconded by Bonnie Lapham: The applicant will go back and try to design a sign that will come into conformance with the Town’s Ordinance. th Duly adopted this 29 day of October, 1997, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Lapham, Mr. McNally, Mr. Custer, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Thomas NOES: NONE 7 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/29/97) ABSENT: Mr. Stone, Mr. Karpeles MR. THOMAS-Do you understand what we’re asking for? MR. CARTER-Yes. MR. THOMAS-Okay. All right. So like I say, if you can get that sign in conformance, we won’t need to see you again. MR. ROUND-You may want to address as far as what level of examination we’re going to give Cantanucci tonight. MR. THOMAS-Yes. On the Cantanucci variance, the applicant’s lead lawyer has written us a letter that I received on late Monday, that there was a death in his family, and he asked that it be th postponed until November 19, but I would sense there was not enough time to get out the word that we would not be hearing it tonight. I will read the appeal into the records, and I will open the public hearing to anyone that has anything to say, either for or against it. I will not be reading any th correspondence tonight. I will leave that until the 19 of November when this has been re- scheduled for. So when we get to that part of the meeting, like I say, I’ll have it read in, and then I will open the public hearing for anyone that wants to speak either in favor of or opposed. I’ll leave th the public hearing open, and the applicant will be here on the 19, hopefully, to present his side of the case. Okay. All right. SIGN VARIANCE NO. 67-1997 TYPE: UNLISTED HC-1A MANDEVILLE SIGNS, INC. OWNER: BERKSHIRE-GLENS FALLS, INC. SOUTHWEST CORNER OF QUAKER AND BAY ROADS APPLICANT IS REQUESTING RELIEF FROM CHAPTER 140 SIGN ORDINANCE. APPLICANT PROPOSES A TOTAL OF FOUR (4) FACADE SIGNS. WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: 10/8/97 TAX MAP NO. 105-1-4.1 LOT SIZE: 2.57 ACRES SECTION 140 JON LAPPER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Sign Variance No. 67-1997, Mandeville Signs, Inc., Meeting Date: October 29, Project Location:Description of Proposed Project: 1997 “ CVS-Quaker & Bay The applicant proposes a total of four (4) facade signs for the CVS facility located in the business complex at Relief Reqiured: Quaker and Bay Road. A single facade sign is permitted per the ordinance. Criteria for considering an Area The request requires relief from the number of signs permitted. Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: The applicant 2. Feasible alternatives:3. would be permitted additional signs. Compliance with the ordinance. Is this relief substantial relative to the ordinance?:4. Relief may be interpreted as substantial. Effects on the neighborhood or community: Impacts are associated with the aesthetic 5. Is this difficulty self-created?Parcel History characteristics of the area. Yes. (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): A sign variance was issued to Hollywood Video (SV 27- 1997) allowing the tenant two wall signs in place of a single wall sign and a free standing sign. Staff comments: The site is intepreted as a business complex on the basis of three (3) tenants. Two (2) of the three (3) additional signs requested may be interpreted as directional/for the purpose of convenience to the general public. Directional signs are limited to four (4) square feet in area. SEQR Status: Unlisted” th MRS. LAPHAM-“At a meeting of the Warren County Planning Board, held on the 8 day of October 1997, the above application for a Sign Variance for four (4) signs was reviewed, and the following actiion was taken. Recommendation to: Modify with Conditions Comments: The WCPB is recommending approval of the directional signs for the exit and the entrance to the pharmacy drive thru because of the concern for traffic from a safety standpoint and believes that the Town should look at that in their Sign Ordinance, but the WCPB believes that the facade signs should conform with the standards for the frequency of the number of signs allowed.” Signed by Tracey M. Clothier, Chairperson. MR. THOMAS-All right. Before we start, here again, Warren County has put certain stipulations on this variance, and in order for us to overturn it, we need five positive votes in favor of the resolution to whatever we decide, if it’s not in conformance with the Warren County decision. Mr. Lapper. 8 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/29/97) MR. LAPPER-Good evening everyone. I would like to talk about the signs that I’ve requested separately, because I think that it’s just a different issue with respect to the drive thru. As the secretary has just noted, it is always unique when Warren County approves anything that comes in for a sign application, and I think that that is significant. You’ll recall when I was here for the CVS Pharmacy on Main Street, we were talking about the issue of directional. There the Board recommended that the directional signs could be placed on the ground, and that was done. The difference, and I think that there we were allowed to do the exit sign so that cars wouldn’t drive the wrong way, but not the enter sign, if I’m not mistaken. The difference with this site is that the configuration of the building and the location of the drive thru is near the back corner of the building, so that rather than a straight away on the Main Street site, cars will be coming around the back of the building and turning, and I think that that’s a fairly straight forward issue that you’re not going to see the drive thru exit signs from very far away. You’re not going to see them driving on Quaker Road, the drive thru enter/exit sign. I think that it’s important for vehicles to just see which way is enter and which way is exit, that there is absolutely no detriment to the neighborhood to do that. This is not the case of trying to get an extra sign that’s an advertising sign. It doesn’t say CVS. It’s merely directional, but because of the unique provisions in the Queensbury Ordinance, it’s not technically considered a directional sign because it’s mounted on the building rather than on the ground. I hope you will agree with Warren County that that is a fairly straight forward issue. With respect to what I would call the facade signs, the real facade sign variance, I think that what’s unique about this request is that obviously the Ordinance treats plazas differently than if this was just a freestanding building, and I think that you had to, the Town had to draw the line somewhere. It’s three or more. It’s interesting the way that plays out in practical terms, because if you have a freestanding, this building all by itself, we could have two facade signs, like on Main Street, but if it’s part of a plaza here it can’t have two without a variance, but what the Ordinance also allows in a plaza is that you can add 10 square feet of signage for every 10 feet back you are from the highway. So in this case what the Ordinance allows is a 165 square foot sign, which is quite a lot of sign, and I think that the reason why I view this as the relief being requested as not being substantial is because we can just go in tomorrow, fill out an application in the Planning Department, and get approval, get a permit, a sign permit, for a 165 square foot sign. I think that that is an inappropriately large sign for the design of this building, but that can be done without a variance. What we’re asking for is to take the same square footage and actually slightly reduce what would be done, but just to have two appropriately sized signs, which architecturally work very nicely with the design of the building because you have those two panels for signs. I don’t really think that we’re asking for too much, because we’re just splitting up the square footage into two attractive signs, rather than one sign which is way too large. Just to explain, Mandeville Signs is the sign consultant. They’re in Rhode Island, nearby CVS headquarters. They do all the signage for CVS. So I’m doing this on behalf of the tenant rather than on behalf of the developer, and Mandeville signs does all of the CVS signage. So they faxed me, I had them do a mock up of what the facade would look like with the largest sign possible. This is not 165 square feet because we couldn’t even fit 165 square feet, but it’s as large as you could get, and I wanted to show you what this looks like in comparison to what you have. What the CVS that I’ve requested is 42 inch letters on CVS. These are 60 inches letters, although they didn’t change that. So it still says on the bottom it still says the same as my application, but on the facade drawing that I’ll pass to you, these are 60 inch letters, and it doesn’t look too good, but they could go int tomorrow and get approval to do this as long as we’re not requesting a facade sign on the west facade. Finally, I know how seriously this Board considers any request for a Sign Variance, and that they are rarely granted, but this is the case where I think that we’re offering to give something up, which is to give up the large sign in place of two smaller signs. So we’re not just asking for an extra facade sign. We’re just splitting up the square footage, and I think it looks better. MR. CUSTER-Jon, you’re allowed a freestanding sign there, correct? MR. LAPPER-Well, let me explain that. We would have been allowed two freestanding signs because there are two entrances, and when I came in for Hollywood Video, we gave up the right to the Bay Road sign, in exchange for the two signs on Hollywood Video, and the record will show that even Mr. Karpeles voted for that, which is rare. There’s one pylon sign that’s allowed now for the whole plaza, which would have everybody on it. So in the permitted size of 64 square feet, all of the tenants would have a logo. So they’re all going to be small. So there will be a pylon sign next to the Hannaford sign up at the road, but that’s a small sign becaues they have all the tenants. MR. CUSTER-You are keeping that? MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. CUSTER-Okay, and you’re proposing to reduce the 60 to the 42? 9 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/29/97) MR. LAPPER-Yes. MRS. LAPHAM-I just want to make sure where I’m looking. The first page of the CVS Pharmacy with the doors, that’s on Quaker Road? MR. LAPPER-The door’s on Quaker. MRS. LAPHAM-That is on the north side of the building? MR. LAPPER-Exactly. MRS. LAPHAM-Okay, and the other elevation would be the south side of the building in the back? MR. LAPPER-No, the west. MRS. LAPHAM-Okay, next to Hannaford. MR. LAPPER-So that, it comes around the corner. MRS. LAPHAM-I’ve got you now. Yes. It’s more like this type of thing, rather than front to back. MR. LAPPER-Exactly. MR. THOMAS-Like the one over on Main Street? MRS. LAPHAM-Yes. MR. LAPPER-I want to point out that the one on Main Street has 48 inch letters. So what’s proposed here are 42 inch letters, which are smaller. MR. CUSTER-Jon, if Hannaford would give you that curb cut for the other road, would you consider giving up that side of the sign? MR. LAPPER-Quick answer, yes, but they have nothing to do with each other. That’s because that entrance is a very important issue, and I’m still hoping to ultimately prevail, but we’ll see how that goes. MR. THOMAS-Any more questions for Mr. Lapper? If not, I’ll open the public hearing. Anyone wishing to speak in favor of this Sign Variance? In favor of? Anyone wishing to speak opposed? Opposed? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. THOMAS-Any more questions for Mr. Lapper? Comments to him, for him? Like the CVS up on Main Street in Queensbury, you came in for a variance on that, and what did we give you? We gave you 100 square feet per side? And an overhead. What I really want to know is, are those signs in conformance? MR. LAPPER-Yes. Those signs are under different rules. Those signs are larger because they’re the 48 inch CVS letters, and that’s because that is considered a free standing not in a plaza. MR. THOMAS-Because there’s only two businesses in there. MR. LAPPER-Technically, because there’s only one business, which. MR. THOMAS-All right, because the property line goes through the building. MR. LAPPER-Exactly. That was not done with signs in mind. That was done for ownership. 10 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/29/97) MR. THOMAS-All right. MR. LAPPER-So those are larger. Those are probably around 100. That had to be under 100 square feet. So those are like 99 square feet, and what’s proposed here are 82 square feet on each facade. So these are smaller. MR. HAYES-I think on that one on Main Street, too, didn’t we ask that the letter size be reduced on what would be interpreted as directional signs. I think we originally reduced them from nine inches to seven inches or something. MR. THOMAS-Yes, something like that. MR. LAPPER-I think you’re right. MRS. LAPHAM-That’s a different part of Town, and a different kind of confirmation to begin with. What did we do with Aldi when they came in? Didn’t we say we didn’t want two signs? MR. THOMAS-Well, they didn’t get two signs. They got the free standing sign out front. They took the free standing sign out front and did not put the one on the building. MRS. LAPHAM-There’s a sign on the building. MR. THOMAS-There’s one sign on there. MR. HAYES-Facade sign, right? MR. THOMAS-Yes, one facade sign that’s colored. The other one is there, but it’s not colored, if you look. MR. LAPPER-But they probably, they didn’t offer to split the size of their signs and make it half as small. MR. HAYES-Well, they have a pylon sign and a sign on the store. MR. LAPPER-Right, because they’re a free standing. MR. HAYES-Right. MR. LAPPER-So they get one of each. MR. THOMAS-Right. MR. LAPPER-But they didn’t offer to give anything up to get their second facade sign. MRS. LAPHAM-No, they didn’t. MR. THOMAS-They said that that pylon sign out front was going to be temporary. MR. HAYES-It doesn’t look that way. MR. THOMAS-It doesn’t look that way to me. MR. LAPPER-It’s a nice temporary sign. MR. THOMAS-Yes, expensive temporary sign. It seems every time a drug store goes in here in Town, whether it be CVS, Rite Aide or whatever, they’re in here for a Sign Variance. Doesn’t CVS ever build in the middle of a plaza? So they only have a front? MR. LAPPER-The answer to that is no because they are the anchor, so to speak, and this is their architectural design that they want, because it’s prominent. The reason it has a roof is that it’s prominent. They want to be noticed. So they specifically require the corner piece. MR. THOMAS-Are you actively pursuing a curb cut into the road that goes into Hannaford? 11 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/29/97) MR. LAPPER-Very actively. The Town Planning Board Chairman has recently sent a letter to Hannaford, and the Town, Rod Mosher, the Head of the Cemetery Commission, has recently, within the last two weeks, sent a letter to Hannaford, and we, it hasn’t reached the level at Hannaford, Hannaford’s a very well run company. I mean, to all of us who shop there, they know what they’re doing. I am hopeful that when it gets to the right level of review at Hannaford, that they’ll do the right thing, that they won’t be threatened by it, that they’ll see that it makes the intersection work better for them as well as for the owners of this plaza, and I’m hopeful that we’ll be able to work that out. MR. THOMAS-Okay, but you said, in a word, that you would give up that west facing sign if you got that curb cut. MR. LAPPER-What I meant with that was somewhat tongue in cheek. I mean, those are separate issues because this is CVS the tenant, and that is Berkshire the developer, the owner of the plaza that will, I mean, they don’t sell it. They own the plaza permanently. We feel that eliminating the curb cuts on Quaker and Bay is a really important issue, that it’ll make that whole intersection work better. It’s not because we’re trying to get customers of Hannaford to buy their drugs here. I mean, Berkshire doesn’t care about that. That’s, CVS, you know, CVS is already in Town. It’s not going to change anything already competing. It’s built. They’re going to be next door, and it’s just a question of, everyone should use the signalized intersection. So that’s really a completely separate issue, but a very important issue. I mean, we want that to happen, but we have no legal right. We can only negotiate, and the Town now has a policy that you should have internalization of traffic. The Town is pursuing that in the outlets, and this should have been taken into account in 1986, when the Doyle property was subdivided for Hannaford, but tit wasn’t, and now we’re dealing with it, but I’m hopeful that in six months or a year we may be able to get that approval, but that’s Berkshire. That’s not CVS. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Warren County has approved the directionals, the directional signs for the drive in entrance and exits. They said they don’t want the two signs osn there. They would rather have you put up the one sign of 165 square feet. MR. LAPPER-They didn’t have any discussion about, any significant discussion about that, but their policy is and always has been with respect Queensbury signs to just do what the Ordinance says. So that was, I mean, I did have a small discussion with them, but they didn’t consider the fact that the one big sign versus the two small signs. They just said, go with what the Town requires, and the fact that I got them to consider the other signs as a safety, the directional issue, was somewhat of a coup, but I don’t think that that should necessarily influence you. That’s just always how Warren County views it. MR. THOMAS-And we have to take into consideration what they say. MR. LAPPER-Of course, and especially in the vote. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Are there any other questions for Mr. Lapper? MR. MC NALLY-I was just trying to figure out, what did you say regarding the directional signs at the Main Street store? MR. HAYES-We asked them to reduce them, I think it was from nine inches to seven. It was something, we made those smaller in height. It was something like that. MR. THOMAS-It was to bring them within I think into six square feet rather than nine square feet, or something like that. MR. HAYES-Right. MR. THOMAS-To bring them into conformance, closer to conformance, I believe. MR. HAYES-So I think we just said the words “exit” and “enter”, too. It wasn’t, we took some of the verbiage off. MR. CUSTER-Free standing directionals, wasn’t that what it was? MR. LAPPER-I don’t think that we took any of the verbiage off, but I may be wrong. I just don’t recall that. 12 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/29/97) MR. HAYES-I think you weren’t allowed either the exit or the entrance. There was one sign that got knocked off, wasn’t there? MR. THOMAS-I think it was the entrance, the entrance sign, the exit sign went up, and it had a small sign for the entrance to the drive thru, but the exit we left in place up there because of safety. We didn’t want somebody coming in the wrong way. Because it was narrow back in there anyway. MR. HAYES-Right. MR. LAPPER-The difference here is that you turn around the corner. Here we need both signs, and these are eight inch. The sign consultant just told me that they’re, these are eight inch letters, rather than nine inch, which was requested last time. MR. HAYES-Does he have the total square footage of those signs? MR. THOMAS-Yes. They’re on the application. It’s 33.11 square feet. No, I take that back, 7.57 square feet each. MR. MC NALLY-Chris, where are you reading that? MR. THOMAS-On the application, on a page that looks like this. MR. MC NALLY-Why do I have one that says 7.38 feet? MR. LAPPER-They’re different because they’re not. MR. HAYES-Exit and enter. MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. THOMAS-Yes. One says the exit sign is smaller than the enter sign. MR. MC NALLY-So the two signs are slightly different in area then. MR. HAYES-Well, there’s one less letter. MR. THOMAS-Yes. Any more questions for Mr. Lapper? If not, lets talk about it. I’ll start with Jamie. MR. HAYES-Well, as a younger member of the Board, a new member of the Board, I think it’s important that we give deference to the wisdom of the past actions of the Board and they have always been extremely stringent on signs, and I think it’s an obligation to continue that. Outside of that, I’d like to break my comments into two groups, like the applicant did, Mr. Lapper did. I absolutely agree with the applicant and the County that the directional signs are not an attempt to gain advertising or exposure. I think that they’re a safety derivative, and I agree with them, and for that reason, I don’t have a problem with them, per se. As far as the bigger sign, I guess, embodied in the Ordinance is that we’re trying to promote good taste and neighborhood aesthetics, and if the applicant could indeed come in and build a sign that was 165 square feet without a variance, then I would be more in favor of two signs, of the nature described here. I think that, as a rule, I would stand firm against two facade signs in circumstances where it was closer to the road, but there really is some extensive square footage away from the property lines in this circumstance, and I think that reduces the impact of the signs and the impact of having two signs. So reluctantly, and in deference to the actions of the Board in the past, I would be in favor of the application, and I’d like to additionally comment that we’ve brought up the Aldi’s sign, and based on past experiences with the organizations that Mr. Lapper has represented in the past, I think that their coming here in earnest good faith effort to present things as they intend to do them, and that we’re, that we should consider that. I mean, I think there’s just an honest, straight forward need, and I think that’s part of my decision. So I would be in favor. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Bonnie? MRS. LAPHAM-In this case, while I’m against two signs as a rule, I think I’m inclined to agree with Jamie. First of all, the directional signs, I think, are an absolute necessity for safety purposes, 13 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/29/97) and I would rather see two smaller signs than one huge gaudy thing. The waves on the building are already all the color I think we need, on your Hollywood Video one. MR. LAPPER-But the Plaza looks pretty nice. MRS. LAPHAM-Yes, it is. It’s shaping up nicely. I don’t know about those blue surfing waves, though. MR. THOMAS-I thought those were supposed to be mountains. MR. HAYES-Yes, they are. They’re mountains of California. MRS. LAPHAM-It’s a California company. They’re waves. MR. CUSTER-It’s the Hollywood Hills. MR. HAYES-The Hollywood Hills, yes. MR. THOMAS-Is that it? MRS. LAPHAM-Yes, that’s it. MR. THOMAS-Bob? MR. MC NALLY-The directional signs aren’t a problem. I don’t see them as obtrusive, and you don’t see them from anywhere except when you’re walking along that corridor or driving along the corridor adjacent to the CVS building. I do believe that two smaller signs are a good idea. The alternative is to have a sign that’s 62 inch lettering from one facade, but the Town Ordinance provides that we are to have only one sign, absent unusual circumstances, and I don’t know if CVS or whoever is going to put this sign up, would actually use 62 inch letters. It seems that would be foolish in many respects, because I don’t know if that would add or compliment the existing architecture and design of the building. I think the difficulty is self created. I do believe that CVS likes to have its corner properties. It likes to have two signs on those front properties for the express purpose of (lost words) business prospects, as opposed to any aesthetic concern for the community or for the area at large. The purpose of the statute is to enhance the scenic natural beauty of the area, and to make the area more enjoyable and pleasing. It says that. I don’t see that compliance would be that difficult. I’m not generally in favor of two signs. MR. LAPPER-Bob, I would just respond to your comment about self-created, that I think it’s really the Ordinance, I mean, the fact that we’re allowed to put one sign of 165 square feet, and I know, I can’t sit here and tell you that it’s going to be 62 inches, if they are denied two signs, but I’ll tell you that it’s definitely going to be a lot bigger, because they’re going to want to get the visibility, and I think that it’s going to be, that it really is just an aesthetic issue and therefore not a self-created issue. That it’s just going to, that it will look more tasteful to have two smaller signs rather than one big sign, but we can disagree on aesthetics. MR. MC NALLY-That’s what it’s going to come down to. It’s a balancing that I’m thinking of. You look at the structure from Quaker Road, there’s no way, looking at that north facade, that anyone is ever going to mistake this building for anything but a CVS, whatever the size of that sign. The appearance is there. It’s going to be apparent that that’s what the store is from quite a distance away. MR. LAPPER-But they will put a very big sign on it. It will look better to have two small signs, in my opinion. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Brian? MR. CUSTER-I concur with everybody else on the directional signs. That’s not the issue, and I, too, would normally have some reservations about putting two facade signs on the same building, but I also think that comparing the largest sign that could be put up there, I would like to have that minimized, and I think it also adds some balance to the Plaza. We granted two facade signs on the opposite end of the building for the Hollywood Video. In a sense this kind of balances it out. I don’t think it’s architecturally displeasing. I think, in fact, it’s rather well mapped out. So I will grant it. 14 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/29/97) MR. THOMAS-Well, I have a problem granting Sign Variances in Queensbury, because the Ordinance is written to try and minimize the signs along, not every road but especially the large collectors and feeder roads in the Town. Mr. Lapper also stated that they are still pursuing the alternate access location out of the Hannaford Brothers, and he also loosely stated that if he got that, that he would take the sign off the west end of the building, facing that now. If that comes true, that access, they can come to some agreement, and that sign is taken off that west side of the building. Is CVS going to come back and say, well, you can have 165 square foot sign on the north face, well, lets rip off the 84 square foot one and put up that 165 like we can. MR. LAPPER-Chris, can I just respond to that, because I just want to clarify the record. I can’t sit here and commit for CVS that they would trade that, but I think that if Hannaford were saying, we’re offering an approval and it was conditioned upon taking that sign down, I think that that’s something that CVS might consider, but that hasn’t been offered. So I can’t commit to that, and I don’t want, I mean, I think that would be wonderful if Hannaford said yes and that we would bend over backwards to do whatever we had to do, but I can’t sit here now and tell you how that would work out. MR. THOMAS-Yes. See, I can’t tell you how it’s going to work out either, but I do know that CVS is allowed one 165 square foot sign on either side that they want to put it, with 60 inch letters. MR. LAPPER-But that’s something we’re allowed without making any changes. I mean, that’s Town Ordinance. I think that maybe the Town Ordinance could be a little bit more flexible, but that’s not an issue to discuss with this Board, that rather than one big sign, to have two smaller tasteful signs. Obviously, I have smaller than a full Board tonight, and two members who are less than enthusiastic about the application with respect to the facade sign. Knowing what I’d be up against tonight, I did have a discussion with the sign consultants today, if there was anything else that I could offer, and there are 36 inch letters, and they faxed me today, at my request, a picture that shows 36 inch letters, and if that would do anything to change two people’s votes, it could be done with two 36 inch letter signs. I don’t have a calculation of how that compares to 42, in terms of the 82 square feet, but I’m guessing it’s around 12 to 15% smaller, and I just want to show you what this looks like. MRS. LAPHAM-Chris, I’m confused. When we were talking about the Hannaford curb cut, and you said they would give up a, I thought the freestanding sign, but that doesn’t mean one on the building. MR. THOMAS-No, a facade sign. MRS. LAPHAM-Okay. Then I misheard. MR. THOMAS-That could be one of the things that they talk about, when they discuss back and forth, because I don’t think Hannaford really wants a CVS sign facing right in their parking lot. MRS. LAPHAM-See, I misheard you. I thought it was a freestanding. MR. THOMAS-No. It’s not. MRS. LAPHAM-Actually, this looks even better. MR. MC NALLY-When you said that you’d be willing to trade off that one side for this road cut, I take it you were speaking, as was said (lost words) without real authority? MR. LAPPER-That’s right. That would be a hypothetical. MR. MC NALLY-It’s just supposition, that’s all. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Did everybody have a chance to look at that 36 inch sign? Does that change anybody’s mind, looking at that, that 36 inch sign versus the 42? It would bring it down probably, as the applicant said, somewhere between 12 and 15%. So probably down to like 74, 72 square feet. MR. LAPPER-Probably, and that is substantially less than what the Ordinance allows, in terms of the total square footage. MR. THOMAS-Does anyone want to comment on the 36 inch sign versus the 42 or the 60? 15 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/29/97) MR. CUSTER-It’s certainly better. I’m already in favor of the 42. So reducing to 36 only makes it that much more appealing to me. MRS. LAPHAM-Yes, I agree with Brian. MR. THOMAS-Yes. MR. HAYES-If you’re talking about aesthetics here, you’re getting closer to home on that. MR. THOMAS-Yes. The only thing that still bothers me is, like I said before, if Hannaford and Berkshire limited come to some agreement as to a curb cut right there, and you know as well as I do, that Hannaford is not going to want to see that sign sit there. You know that’s going to be part of that negotiation. MR. LAPPER-Well, when you say that, and I think we’re all kind of guessing at what everyone’s position would be, but I mean, there’s an argument that people that go to shop at Hollywood Video and people that go to shop at CVS still have to buy groceries, and that just having all these businesses there may well be better for Hannaford. I mean, someone just invested an awful lot of money to improve that corner. I just don’t think that you have to feel sorry for Hannaford here, but I’m sure that after negotiation you’d have to feel sorry for Berkshire because it’s going to cost them something to get that approval. MR. THOMAS-Sure it is. I think it’s going to cost them that sign. MR. LAPPER-Well, that certainly may be the case, but I mean that would be CVS as the tenant to give that up, and it’s just nothing that I can commit to. MR. THOMAS-No, you can’t commit, but we’re trying to be fortunetellers here, and having been around for a while, you know, I can almost tell you exactly how that thing’s going to be worded. MR. LAPPER-But I think, Chris, that the 36 inch sign, which is considerably smaller than their prototype and what they usually do and what they like to do, that I would hope that you and Bob would see that that is really making a major effort to negotiate this, but also to give something back, and that when you compare the total square footage of the two 36 inch letter signs compared to the 62 inch, it’s just a huge difference visually, and talking about doing the best for the Town, and this is not establishing precedent when somebody is really, or it is establishing precedent, but a positive precedent to really give up square footage of the sign to get two. MR. HAYES-It’s almost half, you know, 32 inches from 64 is almost. MR. THOMAS-Well, 36. MR. HAYES-So it’s not quite half, but they’re almost going half. MRS. LAPHAM-And if you did have a curb cut and the other side had to come down, that wouldn’t be something that we could control because they could do that without a variance. MR. LAPPER-Well, but I don’t think that the curb cut and the signs, I mean, those are just such completely different issues. There’s going to be a lot of things that Hannaford may be asking for. I have no idea, but I don’t think that just because we’re here to talk about signs tonight that that’s necessarily going to be where they’re coming from. I think they’re going to want money, but just by what you’re saying, Chris, acknowledges the fact that you’re saying that the Ordinance would give us the right to just go put up this big ugly 62 inch sign, and I think that’s the point, that we could leave here tonight and fill out an application tomorrow and put that up, and that’s totally complying. So I don’t think that it’s just that complying with the Ordinance in and of itself is just the only goal, because this will look better, especially if the Board grants us a variance to just do the 36 inch letters. This will look considerably better, and I think you will have done your job, and I wish you would agree with me. MR. THOMAS-You don’t have a drawing in there with 30 inch letters do you? MR. LAPPER-No. That’s as much as I could have done it. 16 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/29/97) MR. MC NALLY-The numbers aside, it seems to me that irrespective of whatever rights CVS or whoever owns the property, Berkshire, has to post signs in such circumstances, they’re not going to do that. It looks, like you say, ugly, huge and obnoxious. It’s going to have to comport with the existing structure. Does it not? MR. LAPPER-They are concerned about architecture and aesthetics. That’s why a lot more money was built on the design of this building, on the construction than had to be. There’s brick all the way in the back. There’s solider courses of brick. It’s a very attractive structure, and they want that, but you’re sitting here, Bob, just reading the Ordinance and saying, one sign, and when you talk about a sign, you’re talking about the square footage of a sign, and if I’m offering something in two signs, just because it’s two it’s considerably less sign material, what you’ve got here the signage, it’s less signage, rather than one huge sign, and even if we wind up, you know, doing 58 inch letters instead of 62 inch letters, I know, as a resident of the Town driving by, it’s going to look better with two very small signs, compared to one overly large sign. I know that if they are only allowed to put one sign, they’re going to put the biggest sign that they can that still looks okay. So it may not be 62, but it’s going to be a lot bigger than what I’m offering. MR. MC NALLY-I look at it as a quantitative difference, 62, 48, 36 inches. There’s a qualitative difference in the number of signs, and the effect that it has on the Town and the requirements in the Town Ordinance. MR. LAPPER-I guess I don’t see that because I see the square footage of signs as the square footage of signs, but we can disagree on that. Since I obviously don’t have five votes in favor of the facade variance, I guess what I would request is that if you could vote on the drive through directional signs, because we need to get those signs up because the tenant takes over next Monday and does their fit out on the interior and then they’ll be opened within probably three weeks. If you would consider voting on that and tabling the facade sign so that I could make my plea before the full Board at the next meeting. MR. THOMAS-Can we do that, seeing that all the signs are on one application? What we could do is approve the directional signs and disapprove the facade signs. MR. HAYES-Would that preclude them from coming back, though? MR. THOMAS-I don’t think it would preclude them coming back for a variance for the two facade signs, but the only thing is, you know, he’s missed for November, because today was the last day for submitting for November, if I’m not mistaken. MR. ROUND-Today is the deadline. MR. HAYES-It would seem like the only thing we’d have to consider is the splitting of the application. It has to do with public health and safety. MR. ROUND-I guess it’s a single application, and you could deny or grant any portion of the application. Like I said, you couldn’t say, well, we deny this, I don’t think we can table a portion of the application and re-hear that portion. I may be incorrect. That’s my instinct. MR. THOMAS-I’ve never done that before. MR. ROUND-Yes. MR. LAPPER-Well, it wouldn’t be any fun if I didn’t ask for something different. What if the Board would let me re-apply with the 36 inch letters, just on that variance, and I guess, I think that the rule is that if it’s substantially different, then. MR. THOMAS-Yes. Well, we would have to rule whether it’s substantially different or not, and 62 down to 36 is substantially different, in my opinion. MR. LAPPER-But you’d really be looking at the difference between the 42 inch that I submitted last time and the 36. MR. THOMAS-Well, because you would be allowed the 62. MR. LAPPER-Correct. 17 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/29/97) MR. THOMAS-And 36. Would you go along with the 36, Robert? MR. MC NALLY-Are you asking me that question? MR. THOMAS-Yes, I’m asking you. MR. MC NALLY-I don’t like two signs, all right, and I’m not familiar enough with the history of this structure, because there are two signs at other locations and free standing signs, but I do get a sense that this Board is willing to accept 36 inch lettering, and I would accept that, but I don’t know if in the future, on other applications. MR. THOMAS-Well, every application is based on its own merit. MR. MC NALLY-Absolutely, but this one I think that you’ve made your point well enough that I think I’d be more than happy to do that. MR. THOMAS-I think I would go along with the 36, also. So if someone would like to make a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE SIGN VARIANCE NO. 67-1997 MANDEVILLE SIGNS, INC. , Introduced by Brian Custer who moved for its adoption, seconded by Paul Hayes: CVS on Quaker and Bay. The applicant proposes a total of four facade signs for the CVS located in the business complex at Quaker and Bay Road. The relief that is required is the single facade sign they’re permitted per the Ordinance, and they’ve requested relief from that number of signs. So we will be granting three additional facade signs as relief. The signs carry the following stipulations. The directionals are adequate as outlined on the application. However, the two facade signs designating the CVS/Pharmacy shall be reduced in size to 36 inch lettering, in comparison to the original application of 42 inches, and the word “Pharmacy” and “Department within” will be reduced commensurately and proportionately. The benefit to the applicant would be permitting the additional signs. Although there are feasible alternatives, granting of a variance will allow them to have a fourth facade sign. Relief is not substantial, in my estimation. Impacts to the neighborhood and community, I don’t hear any opposition to it. I think it’s aesthetically pleasing, and that the tenant and contractor have done their best to make this plaza attractive to the community. I do not see the difficulty as being self created because of the way the Sign Ordinance is constructed for this type of parcel. th Duly adopted this 29 day of October, 1997, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Hayes, Mrs. Lapham, Mr. McNally, Mr. Custer, Mr. Thomas NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Stone MR. THOMAS-With the stipulations and conditions as stated in the motion. MR. LAPPER-Thank you very much. I appreciate it. MR. THOMAS-We would like to see a 36 and a 42 on this, so we could put it in the file. USE VARIANCE NO. 68-1997 TYPE: UNLISTED SR-20 JAMES HITCHCOCK OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE 373 PINELLO ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES PLACEMENT OF A MOBILE HOME OUTSIDE OF A MOBILE HOME PARK. RELIEF IS REQUESTED FROM THIS REQUIREMENT. TAX MAP NO. 147-1-72 LOT SIZE: 0.46 ACRES SECTION 179-19 MARIAN MARCY, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Use Variance No. 68-1997, James Hitchcock, Meeting Date: October 29, 1997 Project Location:Description of Proposed Project: “ 373 Pinello Road Applicant proposes Relief siting a mobile home outside a mobile home park or mobile home overlay district. Required: The proposed project requires relief from the requirements of §179-19; SR-20. Mobile 18 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/29/97) The applicant for a use variance homes are not an allowable use in the SR-20 zoning district. must satisfy all four (4) of the following criteria for the granting of a Use Variance: 1. Can a reasonable return be realized as the property is currently zoned? The property could be 2. Is the alleged hardship unique to the property: utilized in a residential manner. The hardship demonstrated by the applicant may be attributable to the property or zoning restrictions. 3. Will the requested variance alter the essential character of the neighborhood?: The area is residential in character with a significant number of mobile homes nearby. Placement of a mobile home at this location may be interpreted as detrimental to the residential character of the 4. Is the alleged hardship self-created?:Staff comments: neighborhood. No comment. As indicated above the applicant must satisfy all of the criteria established for the granting of a use variance. Additionally, the Board should consider the impact of the proposed variance on the SEQR Status: zoning regulations themselves. Unlisted” MR. THOMAS-Mrs. Marcy? MRS. MARCY-I know that we’re asking for something that’s a little bit out of character or what would normally be asked, that normally we would have a buyer who would be coming before you to ask for a variance, but my client is gravely ill, and is having a financial hardship right now, and so we felt if we came to you, maybe we could get the right to market it so that someone could put a mobile home there, and maybe you could set some criteria that would be allowed, maybe the age of it or the size of it or something along those lines, and that would enable us to sell it. I don’t feel, in that particular neighborhood with all the mobile homes there, that we stand any kind of a chance to sell the property and have somebody build a home there. There are only two homes on the street that are not mobile home or part of it isn’t a mobile home. A lot of them have got little additions on them and that type of thing, or they’ve incorporated the mobile home into them. I’ve taken extensive pictures of the neighborhood, if some of you want to see it. There is a two story home across the street. It doesn’t have a garage, and there is a ranch home up the street, and other than that, every home on the street is a mobile home. I know at the Town Board meeting they were talking about the fact that maybe they needed to do an overlay there, and create a different zoning on that particular street. On the corner of that street, there’s also, as you turn in, there is a small mobile home court, and the mobile homes, a lot of them in that area, are not of the latest vintage either. They’re older homes. So that’s where we stand, and that’s what we ask you to do for us. MR. THOMAS-Can you tell me when that garage was built on that property? MRS. MARCY-’92. JAMES HITCHCOCK MR. HITCHCOCK-It was finished in ’91 or ’92. MRS. MARCY-Yes, ’91 or ’92, before Jim got sick. He built the garage, he’s got a substantial amount of money in that garage, unfortunately, crushed stone in the floor of it, ten foot doors, water, the whole works. It’s very nicely set up. The seals are pressure treated. He just really did a very nice job there, and unfortunately he invested too much money there, and that’s part of our problem also, trying to recoup from the land. MR. THOMAS-Was there ever anything on that lot before? MRS. MARCY-There was a mobile home there. Mrs. Hitchcock’s mother lived there, and it was approximately a 1971 mobile home, and when she passed away, they took the mobile home out of there, one of the family members bought the mobile home and took it, and like he said in his application, he initially thought maybe he would put a modular there, but he has come to realize, Number One, he can’t hire someone to do it now, and now with his illness, he’s not able to do it himself, which is what he did with the garage was to build it himself, and he also has come to the realization that to put a modular home up there would be putting bad money after, or good money after some bad money. MR. CUSTER-Marian, has the lot been tried to be sold as is right now? MRS. MARCY-Yes. I tried everything, Brian. I have marketed it extensively. MR. CUSTER-How long has it been on the market? MRS. MARCY-A year, a little over a year. 19 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/29/97) MRS. LAPHAM-When was the mobile home removed? MRS. MARCY-1992, ’91. MR. HITCHCOCK-Late ’91 or ’92. MRS. MARCY-Like I said, I do have photos if you want to see the houses that are along the street. MR. THOMAS-I’m hoping everyone rode up and down the street. MRS. MARCY-I’m hoping they did, too. MR. MC NALLY-What was the use for the garage, a private use? MRS. MARCY-Well, at one time he was going to do some storage there, right, Jim? MR. HITCHCOCK-Originally the garage was built to put our belongings in, and we sold the house and we have a travel trailer which we live in while the modular is being put in. That’s the reason for the garage being built first. I realize most people go and build a house and then they build the garage later on, but as long as you can put a garage on the property, why go and rent space to store your belongings while you’re putting a modular in. MR. THOMAS-Does the applicant have a mobile home that he’s going to put on the property now, or does he have to go out and purchase one? MRS. MARCY-No, we don’t. We just wanted the right to be able to market it that somebody definitely could put a mobile home there, Mr. Thomas. We do realize that you’d probably want to set some criteria along those lines, but we just feel that’s the only way we’re going to get the property sold, and usually people that might be in that price range, it’s more difficult to get them here to a hearing and so on. So we felt maybe this was a better way to go, to get a variance for it, and then we hopefully would have some takers on it. MRS. LAPHAM-Marian, have you lowered the price to where you feel it’s absolute rock bottom and it should go? MRS. MARCY-Yes, but it doesn’t. Nothing happens. Absolutely nothing. MR. HAYES-What is the listing price on the property? MRS. MARCY-$29,900. MRS. LAPHAM-And how much land is there? MRS. MARCY-About a half an acre. MRS. LAPHAM-And the garage. MRS. MARCY-Yes. He’s got a substantial amount of money. Most of that money is already in the garage. MR. THOMAS-Are there any more questions for the applicant? If not, I’ll open the public hearing. Anyone wishing to speak in favor of this application? In favor of? Anyone wishing to speak opposed? Opposed? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NANCY HEWITT MRS. HEWITT-Hi. I’m Nancy Hewitt and I’m the one with the house across the street, and I don’t want a trailer to go up. I don’t want to look at a trailer. I’ve been there for 18 years, and where we are at the end of the street, it’s finally starting to get picked up. The other end isn’t so good, when you first pull down, but. 20 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/29/97) NEIGHBOR NEIGHBOR-At one time, there was talk about bringing that street around in that newer neighborhood, development also. MR. THOMAS-Have you had that house there for 18 years? MRS. HEWITT-No. The house has been there since ’82. MR. THOMAS-So it’s been there for 15 years. What was there before the house? MRS. HEWITT-There was a trailer. We pulled it out and re-built. MR. THOMAS-You pulled it out and built a house. Are there any more questions for? MR. HAYES-Are you directly across the street from the trailer? MRS. HEWITT-Directly. MRS. LAPHAM-It’s two story, kind of beige. MR. THOMAS-Are there any more questions? Is there anything else you want to comment on? NEIGHBOR-We just hate to see a mobile home go in there. Maybe a modular or something, but I don’t think it’s big enough to put anything on. How wide is it? MR. THOMAS-One hundred feet. NEIGHBOR-Is it 100 feet wide? MR. THOMAS-It’s 20,000 square feet of lot, which is just a touch under. NEIGHBOR-I think it’s deep. It’s not that wide. MR. THOMAS-Yes. It’s 200 feet deep, 100 feet wide. An acre is 43,560. So this is 20,000. So it’s just a touch under half acre. So, okay, is that all you have? MRS. HEWITT-Well, just that we don’t want a trailer going in. Like I said, that half of the end of the street is just starting to get picked up. The people that are two houses down from his lot, they’re thinking about building. They’re putting in a garage and they’re thinking about pulling their trailer out and building. MR. THOMAS-Okay. MRS. HEWITT-Like I said, I’ve been there 18 years, and it’s just starting to get picked up, and I don’t want to see it get to where it was before again. MR. THOMAS-All right. Is there anyone else who’d like to speak in opposition? Is there any correspondence? MRS. LAPHAM-I don’t think so. No. MR. THOMAS-No correspondence. Okay. I’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. THOMAS-Are there any more questions for Mrs. Marcy or the applicant concerning this property, this project? MR. MC NALLY-Why couldn’t the property be sold for use with a modular home? MRS. MARCY-Because by the time someone bought the property and put a modular home up there, Mr. McNally, it would be a foolish investment, very honestly. MR. MC NALLY-Because the price differential is so different? 21 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/29/97) MRS. MARCY-Absolutely. MR. MC NALLY-I know going up and down the street, there are quite a few mobile homes. I thought I saw a few stick built homes and several modular homes that are relatively recent vintage. MRS. MARCY-That’s not so. I think if you went back there and looked at them again, you’d see that it appears that the ranch looks like a modular. I can’t say definitely that it is. It appears to be a modular. Then there’s the two story home that these people that just spoke own, but every other house along that street is a mobile home or has an attached part to the mobile home. MR. MC NALLY-There’s a light blue modular home, I think, on the same side. MRS. MARCY-That’s the one, I’ve got a picture of it. MR. MC NALLY-Is that the ranch that you refer to? MRS. MARCY-Yes. When you build a home or you purchase land to build, it’s an investment. It’s one of the biggest investments anybody makes, and someone to buy that land, and I represent the Hitchcock’s, but I would have to say that anybody would buy that and put a home up there, it would be a foolish investment. I mean, it’s had mobile homes there for probably ever and ever and ever, and it doesn’t appear that the neighborhood’s going to change that much. I mean, like I said, most of the homes are still built around a trailer. You can see part of the trailer out of it and so on, and a lot of them would be a front porch on it and that type of thing. MR. THOMAS-Could you tell me what the initial asking price was when it first went on the market? MRS. MARCY-We had it at the same price. We have tried to market it there. MR. THOMAS-$29,900. MRS. MARCY-I told, when Mr. Hitchcock came in, he wanted to put it higher because of his investment there, and I just explained to him that that would be a waste of time and effort and money as far as I was concerned, that we needed to price it to sell, and to put it any higher than that would get us no place, and still the $29,900 has done nothing. MR. THOMAS-Okay, and you said how long has that been on the market? MRS. MARCY-A year in September, the middle of September. MRS. LAPHAM-Have you had any offers? MRS. MARCY-Nothing. It’s a hard street to sell, Bonnie, you know. MRS. LAPHAM-Especially at $29,900. MRS. MARCY-Yes, but you’ve got the garage there. He’s got a lot of money invested in his garage. MRS. LAPHAM-Unfortunately, the market isn’t going to be kind. MRS. MARCY-I know. MR. THOMAS-Has any thought ever been put into converting the garage into a house, because seeing that it’s 1,008 square feet. MRS. MARCY-Yes. We’ve talked about that and talked about that, and when I’ve had a couple of calls on the property I’ve tried to push that aspect of it, but nobody seems to want to do it, and Mr. Hitchcock, again, cannot, he and Mrs. Hitchcock have absolutely no funds to be able to hire someone to do it, and he is not at this time, nor probably will be in the future, able to do that himself any longer. MR. THOMAS-Okay. 22 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/29/97) MRS. HEWITT-Gail and Roger Moorehouse had offered to buy their place, and they wouldn’t go down on the price, right next door to them. MRS. MARCY-Not while I’ve had the property listed. He has not contacted me in any way, shape or form. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Any more questions for the applicant? MR. MC NALLY-Can I ask Mr. Hitchcock if he did receive an offer from the Moorehouses? MR. HITCHCOCK-Roger Moorehouse, after I built the garage, and after I had the cancer operations and so on, he told me at any time if I ever wanted to sell the property, he wanted first offer on it. I did this before I listed it. I told him what I wanted for it and he said, no problem. All right. He said I’ll get the money. I’ll buy it. He said I want it because I want it to put my boat in. I want his neighboring property. So Elan Cherney, he went over there, made a $2,000 deposit on it, and it went three months. He did not come up with the money. He went through every place he could think of, he and his mother-in-law attempted to help, and they still couldn’t come up with the money after three months. MR. MC NALLY-So it fell through, is what you’re saying? MR. HITCHCOCK-It fell through. I guess there’s no place for them to go to get the money which he hasn’t built anything on his property since then to put his boat in. MRS. MARCY-Mr. McNally, I could say that I could sell houses every day of the week to an awful lot of people who won’t qualify to buy them. MRS. LAPHAM-Offers of that caliber are worth what they’re worth. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Anymore questions? I want to get this thing moving along here. If not, lets talk about it. Bonnie, I’ll start with you. Before we start, keep in mind this is a Use Variance and all four criteria have to be met. MRS. LAPHAM-Okay. Well, the first thing, I’m of two minds. I sympathize with Mr. Hitchcock, but one of the things I learned, as I said the last hearing when something like this came up, that I had learned 25 years ago is you can’t take the personal problems of the applicant to heart as much as you would like to, that we are working on the property and what you can do with the property, and the market and so forth, you know, the applicant’s personal health problems are not a concern here, even though you would like to think of them as such, but I don’t think, I do have to agree with Mrs. Marcy that I don’t think a reasonable return can be realized, expecting the property to be sold to have a stick built house, because I do, having been in real estate and real estate appraisal for 15 years, I do think that that would be a foolish investment. I have to agree with her. So you definitely have the financial, you know, the reasonable return. If we enforce the Zoning Ordinance, then the alleged hardship would be unique to this property because, again, after going up and down the street, every home there is mobile home except the one across the street, and there’s one that has a right-of-way from the road with, in the back and a pool, and you can’t even see that one, and that’s a stick built home. You know which one I mean, where you go back in a long driveway and they have a pool and all that. Okay. So you can’t see that, and then I think there is one ranch that I’m not sure, next to you. MRS. MARCY-That’s a modular. MRS. LAPHAM-That’s either a modular or it might be stick built. MRS. HEWITT-No, it’s stick built. MRS. LAPHAM-Okay. Stick built and modular, in appraisal, are considered one and the same. We don’t make an adjustment for them, but you do make an adjustment for a mobile home. So I do think that gives an alleged hardship that’s unique to the property. I don’t think the variance is going to alter the essential character of the neighborhood because every home except three, I thought it was two, are mobile homes. Is this self-created? Well, that’s hard to say. Maybe it was self-created by building the garage, but when he did this, he had every intention of fulfilling the Ordinance, and I don’t think it’s self-created that the entire street is mobile homes. So I would say no. So I gave my opinion on all four. 23 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/29/97) MR. THOMAS-Yes. Yes, no or maybe? MRS. LAPHAM-Would I be inclined? Is that what you’re getting to the big question? MR. THOMAS-Yes, to the big question. Yes, we’re going through, we’re talking about this. MRS. LAPHAM-I would be inclined in this case. The only reservation I have, I’d probably be inclined to vote yes for the mobile home permit, because of everything I just said, but the only reservation I have is that we have no idea who this buyer is going to be, and I would sympathize with the neighbors, if you got a buyer who erected a mobile home and it was not their primary residence. I would not want to see a rental mobile home there. MRS. MARCY-That’s just fine. MRS. LAPHAM-That’s going to make the property deteriorate, and that is not fair to the neighbors. MRS. MARCY-No. I agree with that. We don’t want to detract from the neighbors. We have absolutely no interest in doing that. We want to support them every way we can. MRS. LAPHAM-And a newer mobile home might be nicer than some of the others that are there. MRS. MARCY-That’s right, and they could have left, they probably created a hardship removing the other mobile home. That could have been there forever. MRS. LAPHAM-But then that’s asking them to look into the future with a crystal ball. We can’t even do that. MRS. MARCY-No. MR. THOMAS-That’s right. We can’t. Robert? MR. MC NALLY-This area is most certainly characterized essentially a mobile home zone, even though this particular property may not be zoned like that. I don’t see that the addition of a mobile home on this lot is going to change the essential nature of that area, the way it’s been, and that’s the way it has been, and one more is not going to hurt it. The hardship with this property, whether it’s unique is something I’m not quite satisfied with. It does seem that with the best of intentions Mr. Hitchcock built a garage. The construction makes it difficult to sell this property, if you assume he’s to get what he’s put into the property out again. If this were just a vacant piece of property then I know you could sell it and put whatever you wanted on it, he would stick built probably more economically than you would if there wasn’t an existing garage there now, which you want some return on your investment from. That goes more to the reasonable return is possible if the land is used as zoned, and I don’t think you’re going to find, as you say, that the land can be sold in its existing condition easily. I’d like to hear what the other Board members have to say on these points, too. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Brian? MR. CUSTER-As I go through the four criteria, I tend to agree with Bonnie that the evidence provided tonight does substantiate that there is a financial hardship here relative to the question, piece of property, and I also agree that the alleged hardship is unique to the property because of the flavor of the neighborhood and the current zoning restrictions that have been put in place on it, and again, is it detrimental to the neighborhood? I don’t think it is, although I can sympathize with the dissenters, that they have a stick built home. The majority of that neighborhood is mobile home placement in nature, and as Bob said, I don’t think a lot of them are going to pull up and move in the very near future. The last one, again, I had the same problem Bonnie did. I can look at this as being self-created in some aspects and also I guess I can argue that maybe it wasn’t self-created, but I guess I think I could approve the variance, but I’d still like to hear Mr. Hayes and Mr. Thomas. MR. THOMAS-Mr. Hayes. MR. HAYES-I think that we have to start with what the Chairman pointed out, that a Use Variance requires satisfaction of all four criteria, and beginning right away with Number One, can a reasonable return be realized as this property is currently zoned? I think that a reasonable return 24 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/29/97) has to be taken into context of the community. I can certainly appreciate that Mr. Hitchcock wants to get out of the property what he put into it, but I think that essentially half of Queensbury at this point would want to get out of their properties what they have into them, and that in itself does not create that unique problem that facilitates a Use Variance. I think that the Town is full of properties in difficult circumstances. So I think the test fails that reasonable return could be realized if it was used as zoned. I think, secondly, that the property is zoned SR-20, and when it comes to the neighborhood, if I lived in the neighborhood and had a stick built home and somebody was, had proposed coming in with a trailer in an area that’s zoned not for mobile home, I would think that that would be changing the nature of the neighborhood, to whatever small degree. I would think that it would be, you know, you would have to consider that. So I think that it fails on the first and third parts of the test, and therefore I would have to be opposed, if I stick with the test as prescribed. MR. THOMAS-Okay. First of all, I sympathize with Mr. Hitchcock and his health plight. I have a brother that has gone through the same thing, and I know what he’s going through, but, as Bonnie stated, we can’t take this personal. We have to follow, by law, the four criteria for considering a Use Variance. As far as the first one, a reasonable return cannot be realized, well, you know, this property has only been on the market for 13 months, a little over 13 months, and even though they haven’t had any calls, I don’t think 13 months is, in the Town of Queensbury, is a long time for a piece of property to be sitting. Is the alleged hardship unique? Here again, it’s a toss up. As you drive down the street, the beginning of the street is mobile homes, but as you get down toward the end, that there are some stick built homes down there. I think there were three that I counted, I thought were stick built. So, you know, that end of the neighborhood is really not, is really changing from mobile homes to stick builts. Will it alter the essential character of the neighborhood? Here again, by adding a mobile home in there, yes, it will change that end of the neighborhood, but as far as the neighborhood overall, I don’t think so, but I think we have to take into consideration the property bordering this lot and what’s around it. Is the alleged hardship self- created? This has been SR-20 for, I don’t think it was changed in the last zoning amendment. I don’t remember if mobile homes were allowed in SR-20 before the change. I don’t think so, but there are mobile homes in there, but most of them are of an older variety, and they have been built around, as far as I can tell, the application hasn’t shown that it can meet all four of the Use Variance criteria. So having said that, I will ask for a motion. MRS. MARCY-Is there no more discussion on it? MR. THOMAS-Well, you’re the applicant. A motion hasn’t been made. If you want to say something, go ahead. MRS. MARCY-Okay. First of all, I’ve been up and down the street, and I don’t know which one you’re talking about, Bonnie, that’s back in, but I know of the two, the modular and the two story, and very honestly I feel these people knew that every house on the street except the one ranch was a modular when they built the stick built house, and I don’t know if all of you have been up and down that street, but if you haven’t, I would really like for you to take a look at these pictures, because it’s true he built the garage there, and he is not looking for a reasonable return on his money. We will take probably just about any offer that we get on the property that might be reasonable in any way, shape or form, but they have not been forthcoming, and a year on the market in Queensbury, the market isn’t all that bad. We’re selling a lot of properties, Mr. Thomas. Is it a depressed market? Absolutely it is, but my company seems to sell quite a few every single month. MR. HAYES-You consider $29,900 and not lowering the asking price? MRS. MARCY-No, what I’m saying, Mr. Hayes, is that any offers that would come in we would certainly consider, and I have encouraged offers from anyone who has called on the sign, to the umpteenth degree. MR. HAYES-I accept that. MRS. MARCY-And I know that he caused the hardship possibly by building that garage there, but he had no idea at that time that he wasn’t going to be physically able to finish putting something on the property himself, and I think it enhanced the neighborhood, and I think if those of you who have not been there, if you take a look at the pictures of this neighborhood and see what it really does look like, I mean, there are mobile homes up and down the street. 25 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/29/97) MR. HAYES-There are, but I mean, if you’ve listened to the other cases that have come before the Board quite often, we try and gain trade offs that benefit the neighborhood in some way, when applicants are asking us for relief, and in this case it seems like we’re trading backwards, to me. I mean, I’m not speaking for the Board. MRS. MARCY-Well, I don’t see how that neighborhood is going to change all that much, considering that people have attached buildings to the mobile homes and the mobile homes are still protruding from them. It would appear to me that neighborhood’s going to stay pretty much that way for a long period of time, and neighbors might say they’re going to build stick homes, but that doesn’t mean that’s going to happen. I mean, it’s like somebody making an offer on Mr. Hitchcock’s property and saying, well, I offered to buy it. Yes, you offered to buy it. You didn’t have the money to buy it. MR. HITCHCOCK-I even offered to hold the mortgage at 50%. He couldn’t come up with anything, a few thousand dollars that he put down. MRS. MARCY-I would tell you for the most part that very possibly in the future if we’re not able to do something like this, the property will be up for taxes because Mr. and Mrs. Hitchcock cannot afford to continue to hold the property. MR. THOMAS-All right. Jamie, do you want to start with a motion. MR. HAYES-Yes. MOTION TO DENY USE VARIANCE NO. 68-1997 JAMES HITCHCOCK , Introduced by Paul Hayes who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert McNally: 373 Pinello Road. The applicant proposes siting a mobile home outside a mobile home park or mobile home overlay district. The proposed project requires relief from Section 179-19, SR-20, which mobile homes are not permissible in that district. I believe that the application does not meet the four criterion for granting a Use Variance, specifically, that a reasonable return can be realized as currently zoned, and therefore I recommend that we deny the variance. Number Two, is the alleged hardship unique to the property? I think that there’s mixed evidence in this regard, and that Mrs. Marcy has pointed out that the neighborhood is in fact the mixed neighborhood, and there are other trailers there. Will the requested variance alter the essential character of the neighborhood? I think that a lot of the decision has to be based on the neighbors of the property, and they’ve spoken here tonight. The only input that we’ve had on the application has been negative from the neighborhood. So I think, in a sense I believe that, yes, it does in some small way act as a detriment to the residential character of the neighborhood, and is the alleged hardship self created? I don’t think it’s self created. I don’t think that it fails for that reason. So, again, I believe it’s the One and Three parts of the test, therefore. th Duly adopted this 29 day of October, 1997, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. McNally, Mr. Custer, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Thomas NOES: Mrs. Lapham ABSENT: Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Stone MR. THOMAS-The variance is denied. MRS. MARCY-Okay. May I ask, is there? MR. THOMAS-Recourse? MRS. MARCY-Yes. MR. THOMAS-You’d have to file suit against the Zoning Board of Appeals, that’s called an Article 78. MRS. MARCY-That’s an impossibility. I do want to say that I see all of that, people who build a stick home in that neighborhood knew what was in the neighborhood and what was going to be there for a long period of time, and I do feel as far as neighbors coming forward, the signs been 26 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/29/97) there. Notices were sent to them, only one neighbor showed up, two if you want to count them that way. MR. THOMAS-We count them as two because there’s two people. MRS. MARCY-But I don’t see any of the other neighbors here opposing it. MR. HITCHCOCK-We talked to our other neighbors, too, and we thought they were going to be here. MRS. HEWITT-If I can say anything, my house probably to this man is looking good. I mean, it’s right across the street from that. You make it sound like, yes, the whole street does not look good, but I mean, if he wants to sell his land my house would probably make it. If you brought the pictures and showed them. MRS. MARCY-I did bring the pictures, and I did offer to show them. Thank you very much. MR. THOMAS-You’re welcome. INTERPRETATION NO. 4-97 WR-1A MICHAEL CANTANUCCI OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE BRAYTON LANE, ASSEMBLY POINT SEEKING INTERPRETATION OF THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR’S DENIAL OF A BUILDING PERMIT. TAX MAP NO. 6-3-15.31, 17, 18, 32 MR. THOMAS-I am going to open up the application, the appeal, or Interpretation No. 4-97. What I want to do is read that into the record, the appeal, the letter, and if anyone is here for any th public comments, one way or the other, and then leave it open for the 19. Okay. I would like this letter read in, stating that the applicant would like the meeting postponed. MRS. LAPHAM-Okay. Town of Queensbury Department of Community Development, attention Mr. John Goralski, Executive Director, RE: Michael Cantanucci “Dear Mr. Goralski: This is to th formally request an adjournment of this application from the scheduled date of October 29 to the th meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals on November 19. A death in the family of the applicant’s primary attorney makes this request necessary. It is my understanding that neighbors th will be allowed to comment if they desire on this application at the October 29 meeting, even th though the formal presentation by the applicant will be heard on November 19. Thank you very much for your courtesy in this matter. Yours truly, Robert Stewart” MR. THOMAS-Okay. I’m going to just take verbal comment. I’m not going to take any written comment because I would like that read in at the time when the applicant and his agent are here, so that they can comment on those at that time, rather than having to read them again or send them copies or anything like that. Okay. MR. CUSTER-Chris, prior to this meeting in November, could we be supplied with the minutes from the original meeting? MR. THOMAS-Yes, we can. MR. HAYES-Because most of us weren’t even here. MR. THOMAS-Yes, that’s right. MRS. LAPHAM-Yes, that would be a good idea, because I think this was a meeting I wasn’t at. MR. CUSTER-What the Board’s thinking was when they originally approved the variance. MR. THOMAS-Okay, and I would like to point out to the Board that to read the attached letter written by the applicant’s lawyer concerning points of law and different things like that. Okay, because there is one pointed out here in the lawsuit, that just because it wasn’t said in the motion, that doesn’t mean that it, well, if it wasn’t said in the motion, it doesn’t carry anything. That’s basically what it says. MR. MC NALLY-In addition to minutes, though, it seems to me that we should know what express promises or assertions were made in the application. Does the Town keep the original application? Do we have that in accommodation with the minutes? 27 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/29/97) MR. THOMAS-Yes, the application is filed. MR. ROUND-The original variance application? MR. MC NALLY-Yes. MR. THOMAS-Yes, and that’s kept for how many years? MR. MC NALLY-I wanted a chance to look at it, so I can see what people said not only at the minutes for the meeting. MR. HAYES-Yes, where they were trying to go with it. MR. THOMAS-Yes, sure. Well, it’s in that box right there. All you have to do is stop down and see, Sue Davidsen probably has it. Just stop down and see here, take it over in the conference room across the hall, and thumb to your heart’s delight. MR. MC NALLY-Could that be part of the record, though, when we have our meeting? MR. THOMAS-It should be because it’s based on that. The interpretation is based on that meeting. MRS. LAPHAM-Who was here for that meeting? Because none of this is sounding familiar to me. MR. THOMAS-It was in September of 1995. I was here. Bob Karpeles was here. Bonnie wasn’t. MRS. LAPHAM-No. I wasn’t here until November. No wonder this doesn’t sound familiar. MR. THOMAS-Yes. No, there were just three of us, two of us here. MR. HAYES-Anything, Chris, you think is important. There’s not going to be any such thing as too much information. MR. ROUND-I’ll ask John was to provide you with. MR. THOMAS-Yes. John should know what to provide. The original minutes, the original application. MR. ROUND-He just asked that I provide you with the letter that, our cause for the denial, and that basically contains his argument why it was denied, and that’s why I didn’t supply you with meeting minutes, overwhelm you with information, but I can supply you with meeting minutes and the original variance application. MR. THOMAS-Yes, meeting minutes and the original application. MRS. LAPHAM-That would be good. MR. MC NALLY-Is the material any more overwhelming than we would normally have anyway? MR. THOMAS-Well, this was a pretty big project. There was a lot talked about. MR. ROUND-The minutes are extensive. I don’t know, they’re like 20 pages of minutes, maybe. MR. THOMAS-Yes, it was quite extensive. MR. MC NALLY-The other thing, was there a Use Variance or an Area Variance applied for? MR. THOMAS-Just an Area Variance. MR. MC NALLY-Just for the same issue that we’re taking the appeal on, or is it a different application? 28 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/29/97) MR. THOMAS-No. It’s for the application that the appeal, what it is, that we gave a variance a year ago last September, or September ’95, okay, and then there were certain stipulations, and Fred Carvin made the motion, and Dave Menter seconded it. Dave Menter made the motion, and Fred Carvin seconded it, and there was a stipulation in there, you know, what they could and couldn’t have. There were conditions in there, okay, and then the applicant came in with a set of plans. John looked them over. He looked at the resolution of the motion in writing, and he felt that it did not meet the criteria of the motion. So, the applicant then filed an application from the Zoning Administrator’s decision, and that’s where we stand right now. So that’s a quick time line on it. MR. MC NALLY-Okay. MR. CUSTER-But don’t we also have a new variance? MR. THOMAS-No, we don’t have a new variance application as of right now. Well, as of today. If they filed one today I don’t know about it because I talked to Chris yesterday or Monday, and as of then, we didn’t have it. MR. ROUND-Did you want to hear them both at the same time, Dennis? DENNIS MAC ELROY MR. MAC ELROY-The appeal first, the application second. MR. ROUND-Yes, that would be appropriate, but I didn’t know if you wanted two separate meetings in order to obtain a different mindset. I mean, I think the Board is willing to entertain whatever your suggestion is. MR. MAC ELROY-I’m Dennis MacElroy. I’m from Environmental Designs. I’m an engineer representing Mr. Cantanucci on this project. TABOR DUNN MR. DUNN-I’m Tabor Dunn. I’m the general contractor who filed for the permit in September. MR. THOMAS-Okay. So what I’ll do is open the public hearing and, is there anyone who would like to speak in favor of this variance? In favor of? Would anyone like to speak opposed? Opposed? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED th MR. THOMAS-Correspondence will be read on the 19, and I will leave the public hearing open, and that’s about as far as we can go right now, until Mr. Stewart comes in and presents his side of the case. MR. MC NALLY-Do we need a motion to table it or anything? MR. THOMAS-No. I don’t think we need a tabling motion. As long as I leave the public hearing open, we don’t need a tabling motion. Okay. So there’s only one other course of business today, and that’s, I screwed up and Mr. Round pointed out to me, about all the applications tonight were Unlisted types, and we have to go through the Short Environmental Assessment Form. MR. CUSTER-I don’t understand what qualifies and what doesn’t. I’ve got to straighten that out. MR. THOMAS-Unlisted Actions are actions that aren’t, there’s no definition of them, like a Type I would be. MR. ROUND-Well, Type I and Unlisted Actions you have to perform an environmental review per the SEQRA Reg’s. Unlisted Actions, you have to do a SEQRA Review, and that’s the review of the Short Environmental Assessment Form and make a determination of significant impact or no impact. MR. MC NALLY-It’s a short form. 29 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/29/97) MR. ROUND-It’s a short form review. It’s confusing, because there’s Unlisted, Type I and Type II actions, that’s a SEQRA classification, and we also have Site Plan Type I and Type II actions, which have nothing to do with one another. MR. CUSTER-And all those are in the book? MR. ROUND-All Area Variances, setbacks are Type II actions, setbacks or permeability issues, things of that nature, things to do with the lot, but Use Variances are Unlisted Actions, and some unusual type Area Variances. There’s a listing of them in the law. MR. MC NALLY-We have a copy of that. MR. ROUND-Yes, you do have it, but I guess my point is, since you denied the two actions, maybe Dennis can help us out with this. You don’t have to perform a SEQRA review because there is no action that we have to do a review for. So there’s just the single Sign Variance application we did the review for that, that you would be in conformance with the. MR. THOMAS-Yes. So the only one we really need to do it for is the first one there, for 61-1997, Jon and Susan Dougher. So, does anyone have any comments on a review of the Short Environmental Assessment Form? MR. CUSTER-No. MR. THOMAS-All right. In that case, concerning Area Variance No. 61-1997 Jon and Susan Dougher. MOTION THAT A REVIEW OF THE SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM INDICATES THAT THERE ARE NO NEGATIVE IMPACTS BROUGHT ABOUT BY THIS PROJECT , Introduced by Chris Thomas who moved for its adoption, seconded by Bonnie Lapham: th Duly adopted this 29 day of October, 1997, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Hayes, Mrs. Lapham, Mr. McNally, Mr. Custer, Mr. Thomas NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Stone, Mr. Karpeles MR. THOMAS-And the Sign Variance, that’s an Unlisted Action, right? MR. ROUND-Right. MR. THOMAS-So you have to do the same thing for that, but that was for CVS. The other one was tabled. So we could do that at that point. Concerning Sign Variance No. 67-1997 Mandeville Signs, Inc. MOTION ON SIGN VARIANCE NO. 67-1997 MANDEVILLE SIGNS, INC. THAT A REVIEW OF THE SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM INDICATES THAT THERE ARE NO NEGATIVE IMPACTS BROUGHT ABOUT BY THIS PROJECT , Introduced by Chris Thomas who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brian Custer: th Duly adopted this 29 day of October, 1997, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. McNally, Mr. Custer, Mr. Hayes, Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Thomas NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Stone, Mr. Karpeles MR. THOMAS-Okay. That takes care of that. Minutes were delivered today for the two meetings, or the one meeting in August and two meetings in September. MR. HAYES-I’d just like to go on record as saying that I think that the Staff Notes are vastly improved. There’s no question. 30 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/29/97) MR. THOMAS-Yes, I do, too. MR. HAYES-They’re vastly superior to what they were. It’s a good format, and makes it easier for the Board. I don’t know how you guys feel about it. MRS. LAPHAM-I like them. MR. HAYES-The actual Ordinance is in there and everything. th MR. THOMAS-Chris, how does the 19 look, is it busy? MR. ROUND-It’s looking like it’s going to stack up. I think there was several, a couple of carry overs, and there’s an increased number of applications. I was out for the later part of the afternoon. I know there were several that came in with applications. thth MR. THOMAS-All right, because the 19 is the third Wednesday. The 26 is the day before Thanksgiving, and traditionally we do not have a meeting that night. Okay. I won’t be in Town anyway. I’m going to Arkansas, and if anybody else is going out of town for Thanksgiving. MR. ROUND-We could do it on a Monday night. MR. THOMAS-Isn’t that Town Board meeting night? MR. HAYES-Why can’t we just stack them right into that one day and just take the heat? MR. THOMAS-No, because this Cantanucci thing I think, that’s going to be a good one. We’ve got one that’s a carry over from the Amerada Hess, unless Mr. Carter there moves that sign back like we talked about. What else do we have carried over? Nothing. Yes, there is, Rapaport. MRS. LAPHAM-And Matthews. MR. THOMAS-Rapaport, Matthews we have to re-hear, and that’s going to be a long one. MR. ROUND-Rapaport? MR. THOMAS-No, Matthews, because we have to re-hear Matthews in its entirety, and, boy I’ll tell you, I wouldn’t want to have been on the other end of the phone when I called him. So I’m looking, rather than doing it. MR. ROUND-Well, Rapaport has removed their septic. They’re going to comply with the septic. MR. THOMAS-Okay. So all we’ve got to do is just really just make a motion on that one. MR. MC NALLY-Why do we have to re-hear that? MR. THOMAS-Because the application came in as a WR-1A, now it’s a WR-3A zone. The required setback from the lake is 75 in a WR-3A. MR. HAYES-What was the vote on that? MR. THOMAS-I think it was unanimous. MR. ROUND-It was close to unanimous. I don’t know if Bob. MRS. LAPHAM-I wasn’t here. So there’s one that wasn’t. MR. CUSTER-Isn’t he basically taking that structure down, too? MR. THOMAS-Well, no, he’s leaving the structure there and just building up on a second story and back away from the lake to where that garage is. He was also going to put, on the existing deck he was going to put an extension on I think it was the living room. MR. ROUND-Yes. The living room, and part of his deck. It was one foot over the portion of it. 31 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/29/97) MR. THOMAS-And there was a, and on the new part, instead of being 20 foot back from the property line, it was 19 foot, on the new part. MR. HAYES-Plus it was a reasonably substantial increase in the overall square footage, too, wasn’t it? MR. THOMAS-Yes, it was, over the 50%. So there was three variances there. MR. CUSTER-That changes the whole complexion. MR. MC NALLY-So you actually had to call him up and tell him that? MR. THOMAS-I didn’t do it. MR. MC NALLY-Someone did. MR. ROUND-I did. That was my. It was in part my error that I didn’t pick it up that it was in a three acre zone, but he was reasonable, but I’m surprised he was so reasonable, because potentially I know that potentially there’s an opportunity there for an alternate outcome. So I guess, where do we want to go with the meeting. rd MR. THOMAS-I would rather go to the Wednesday, it would be November 3. MR. ROUND-If we have public notice, if you want to go the second week. MR. THOMAS-Well, what do you guys think? If you want to go to the second and third week? MR. ROUND-Most everybody else is prepared. It’s just whether we have enough time for public notice. MR. THOMAS-Yes, well, all you have to have is the five days. MR. ROUND-Right, but we haven’t established an agenda. We haven’t reviewed the applications. MR. HAYES-So you can probably move it to the third. MR. THOMAS-From the second and third. thth MR. HAYES-The 12 and 19 then. thth MR. THOMAS-The 12 and 19. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Chris Thomas, Chairman 32