Loading...
1998-12-16 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/16/98) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING DECEMBER 16, 1998 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT CHRIS THOMAS, CHAIRMAN BONNIE LAPHAM, SECRETARY ROBERT MC NALLY DANIEL STEC BRIAN CUSTER LEWIS STONE MEMBERS ABSENT PAUL HAYES CODE COMPLIANCE OFFICER -CRAIG BROWN STENOGRAPHER -MARIA GAGLIARDI OLD BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 87-1998 TYPE II LC-42A RC-15 PREMIER PARKS, INC. d/b/a THE GREAT ESCAPE ROUTE 9 APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF AN ENCLOSED ROLLER COASTER RIDE AND REQUESTS RELIEF FROM THE HEIGHT REQUIREMENTS OF THE RC-15 ZONE. ALSO, SITE PLAN REVIEW IS REQUIRED FOR AMUSEMENT CENTER WITHIN RC-15 ZONING (CROSS REF. SPR 62-98, NOVEMBER 24, 1998 PLANNING BOARD AGENDA). (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) 11/12/98 TAX MAP NO. 36-2-3.1 LOT SIZE: +/- 249 ACRES SECTION 179-21 MR. THOMAS-This one here was carried over to this meeting because of an Environmental Impact Statement that the Town Planning Board had to pass, which they did last night. The public hearing I left open. Is there anyone in the public who’d like to speak either for or against this application, Premier Parks? PUBLIC HEARING OPEN CHUCK MC NULTY MR. MC NULTY-I’m Chuck McNulty. I live at 14 Twicwood Lane. I’m concerned about this specific application. I’m also concerned, in general, about applications of this nature. As I’m sure you’ve heard at previous meetings, we’ve been getting noise from the Park. It strikes me that the Park has become an attractive nuisance. If you look at the traffic in front of that place in the summer time, it’s horrendous. Again, I’m sure you’ve heard it before, but there’s several times this last summer that the traffic has been backed up onto the Northway past, going south, past where The Great Escape is, for people waiting to get into The Great Escape. Now I work in Lake George, go up every morning through there, and it’s real obvious that it’s Great Escape, at that time in the morning at least, that’s causing the problem. The cars are bumper to bumper from the Northway right around Exit 20 and right down Route 9 to The Great Escape. Adding another attraction that is going to bring in even more people seems rather foolish to me until they solve that traffic problem, and it’s not just parking problem. It’s the problem of getting the cars into the parking lot, and it’s compounded by the traffic lights they’ve got there. The get three or four or five cars through into the parking lot, the traffic lights change, people go across, that holds it up. It’s a mess. You end up with three to five traffic accidents every week in front of that place, and some of them may be caused by people turning into Martha’s, but a lot of them are caused by people stopping to gawk at the rides. Both my wife and I have been behind people, and found them stopping, come to a dead stop in the middle of the Route 9 to look at the rides, and this kind of a problem, I think, needs to be addressed. I don’t know whether it’s the Zoning Board or whether it’s the Planning Board, but the Town of Queensbury needs to take care of some of this before they approve things like this. The other concern I have with this type of thing is I think you’re nickel and diming the residential areas to death in that area. Repeatedly get applications in for a variance for one reason or another from commercial places, and the general attitude seems to be, well, 1 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/16/98) they’re bringing money in, and it’s a minor thing, and it’s only one thing, so we’ll approve the variance. A few years ago, Suttons did this. They came in and they wanted to put a warehouse or something pretty close to their lot line, be it over the setback line, and in this case, well, no big deal, we’ll do that. Well, it encroaches on the residential area. I think the same thing happens at The Great Escape. When Premier Parks bought that place, they knew full well what the rules were, what the zoning was, and they knew there was a height limit, and I don’t think there can be any justification, economic or otherwise, of hardship for them, to say that now they’ve got to be allowed to exceed what the zoning has allowed, simply because they’re a commercial operation. They knew what they bought. They could plan their rides to meet what the restrictions are in there. You’re going to constantly have this kind of problem. They’ll tell you themselves. They’ll be back in a year or two for some other kind of a ride, if they need to get a variance to put it in because they’re going to feel that they have to put more and more things in there, and every time you add something, you degrade the residential areas, both Glen Lake area, Courthouse Estates, Twicwood, and it’s time, I think, that the Town paid attention to some of the residential areas and started protecting them, or otherwise you’re going to find you’ve got one massive commercial Town and not a residential community. Thank you. MR. THOMAS-Okay. I’d just like to say that in the hearing last week, that we talked about, I talked to Mr. Collins, I asked him point blank if he had any future plans for the Park, and he did say that in the kiddie ride area, or the older part of the Park, that something was going to have to be done, at some point in time, and I also brought up the fact of noise abatement, especially on the Bobsled, and I asked Mr. Collins if there was something he could do about it, and he said he would try. Because I know that the Bobsled is the thing that causes the noise. That’s the only thing you can really hear out of that Park is that Bobsled ride, and he told the Board last week that he would indeed try and find some way to quiet that down. Now how he does it, I don’t know, or even if he can, but he said he would make an honest effort to do it, and as far as the traffic that you brought up, that’s really the Planning Board’s determination on that, and also the Town Board, in making the laws for the Town, and I imagine the State DOT gets involved in that, too. So, the only thing I could say or the only thing I could see as a quick problem solver to that is to put an exit right off the Northway right into that parking lot or something, you know, right along those lines. That would alleviate a lot of the traffic off the Northway, but I don’t see that happening. So, is there anyone else that would like to speak in favor of, opposed? Okay. We talked about this last week and we got a pretty good consensus of what’s going to happen here. Do any members of the Board have any questions for Premier Parks? MR. STONE-I guess the question I would have, we were given, are we going to read this into the record? MR. THOMAS-No, I’m just going to state it as part of it. MR. STONE-We did get a sound study that was made at a Park owned by Premier Parks in Texas, namely Six Flags over Texas, and I’m an engineer, but this engineer, I don’t know who he was writing to. I mean, basically he’s saying, I guess, that the sound level is acceptable, and the numbers certainly look that way, but, boy, it’s a confusing piece of paper, but the conclusion is that the sound of this ride, fairly near the outside of the building, is not much higher than the background sound of the whole Park. So it should not be adding, I’m satisfied it won’t be adding any noise beyond the perimeter of the Park, and that’s the concern that we all had last week, and I think a number of us were satisfied that, and this certainly, it’s nice to have numbers, although the words could have been clearer. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Does anybody else have any questions or comments they would like to make? MR. CUSTER-I have not been party to a lot of the previous discussion on this issue, Mr. Chairman. Unless my vote is necessary, I will probably abstain. Is that going to be a problem? MR. THOMAS-No. There’s six members here, and we need just four to either approve or deny it. MR. CUSTER-Otherwise, I’m going to open up some questions, just to be fair. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Lets see, Mr. Stone did say we received the sound levels from the engineering firm of Pelten, Marsh & Kinsella concerning this ride. We also have got tonight handed to us an insulation support system that’s going to be installed in this building, and it shows that there’s fiberglass insulation, and blended fiberglass and polyester yarns and some white polypropylene film on there. 2 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/16/98) MR. STONE-I guess the question I would ask, Mr. Chairman, is how does R values, which are heat transmission, how do they relate to sound? Do we have an answer to that? MR. LEMERY-We tried to provide some acoustic insulation here, the building is air conditioned. It’s four inch insulation which is painted black. I think it’s six inches on the roof and four inches on the building. So it would provide some acoustic insulation, but in terms of the R value, it doesn’t have a higher R value. MR. STONE-So it isn’t pure metal walls? MR. LEMERY-Right. MR. STONE-There is some kind of deafening material. MR. LEMERY-Correct, and it’s painted black because they want that, they don’t want the light to shine through because of the ride. MR. THOMAS-Okay. I’d also just like to add for the record that last night the Town of Queensbury’s Planning Board passed a resolution, a resolution when determination of no significance is made, and it states that no significant environmental effects are found on this project. So, unless the Board has anything else to ask or to say, I think it’s time for a resolution here. MR. STONE-I think I would just like to address the man, and I’m sorry, I missed your name, who did talk about it tonight. One of the things we heard last week, and one of the considerations, this is an internal ride. It is buried deep within the Park, and that’s why we were concerned, I was concerned, I can’t speak for all of us, I was concerned that the sound might get outside, but it is deep inside the Park. If, in fact, they wanted to put up a 50 foot building, they would never have come before this Board. We’re only hear, of course, talking about the 12 feet additional that they want. The other thing that we were told last week is that, as you know, this is a Park with one admission, get you to do everything that’s in the Park. The Park recognizes its physical limitations. There are days when you can’t get more people in there. This ride, one of the intents, obviously, to make it more competitive to other areas, but is to move people around the Park so that they’re not all clumped up in one area, and that’s another reason for putting this ride where it is, a sound reason, to me. The traffic situation is a problem. Our friends on the Planning Board can talk about that one. The Department of Transportation can talk about that one. It’s not, and I’m not hiding behind, it’s not our call, but it’s not our call in this particular case, but I certainly was satisfied that the applicant is concerned with their image in the Town of Queensbury, and will do whatever they can, as Mr. Thomas said, do whatever they can to alleviate some of the problems in the future. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Mr. Lemery. MR. LEMERY-I might point again, and John Collins apologizes. He’s got his annual employee party tonight. So he asked to be properly excused. I might point out that the, I don’t know if we provided you, last week, with a parking plan for the Animal Land parcel, which we’ve put up on the Board over there, which provides for another 150 additional spaces for parking during any kind of overflow periods. The Park recognizes that there, from time to time, is a traffic problem on Route 9, and we spoke about it last night, and part of it has to do with the fact that there’s traffic coming from all over for different reasons. Sometimes you can get in front of Martha's at six or seven o’clock at night. There are people all over the parking lot, people all over the highway getting in and out, traffic slows down. It backs up traffic at the Park. A lot of times also coming in on Exit 20 to that “T” intersection creates a bottleneck because people are going to the shopping area, people are going to the Park, people are going to the two go kart tracks, Suttons and all the other places that are up and down Route 9. So it’s difficult to quantify what kind of a problem exists at The Great Escape regarding the parking. They’re going to take some steps to try to move the people in there faster. I think Mr. McNulty made a comment last night about how they ought to move the traffic the way they do at Disney World and get people off the road as quickly as they can. They’re going to try to do better at that this year, and one of the areas that they’re going to try to get people into is the parking area over at Animal Land during the overflow periods. The other thing is, as mentioned last week, they have retained an engineering firm to come in and look very carefully at the Bobsled ride. They recognize that that did create a sound problem beyond the parameter of the Park last year and beyond what, that it could be heard at other places. They’re looking at putting foam around the bottom of the shoot, to reduce the vibration and to stop the 3 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/16/98) vibration. They need to do it in a way that it’s thematically correct, so that it doesn’t look like it doesn’t belong there, but they have engaged engineers. They’re going to try and look at that, and they’re going to try to fix that. So they are sensitive to that. In terms of moving people in and out of the Park, I think last week John Collins mentioned that they now have a season pass. They try to get people in and out of there at different hours of the day so that they alleviate the parking problem. They are in discussions with DOT. They have considered looking at a bridge, a pedestrian bridge, to move people over the road, but that’s something that has to be worked out with DOT. They can’t deal with that unilateral. They just can’t go out and buy one and put one up. That’s a problem. So their position is they’re doing everything they can to try to meet the concerns of the neighbors and the people around the Park, keeping in mind that the Park has been there since 1954. The other thing that has caused an increase in the traffic, of course, is the marketing that the Park has done over the last couple of years since they’ve owned it. They’ve spent several million dollars promoting the Park and that, in and of itself, is going to increase the traffic. With regard to where they put the attractions in the Park, as they said also, we said last week, they’re trying to move attractions around the Park to spread out the people. This building does require a variance because it’s 12 feet higher than that allowed by the Code, but it is in the RC-15 zone and it is in the middle of the Park, and so we hope that it won’t be a problem for you. Thank you. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Are there any questions for Mr. Lemery? All right. I’ll close the public hearing now. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. THOMAS-There’s no last questions. Does anybody have any comments they want to make? If not, I’ll ask for a motion. MR. STEC-If I may make a comment before the motion. Again, as was mentioned last time, at our last discussion on this, I do think that there are two things that are fresh in my mind, that I’m considering, and the one is, as Bob and I both alluded to, the feasible alternative of possibly grading further into the hillside to lower the 12 foot. I think that’s something that should definitely be more closely studied, but, with that said, again, it’s a balancing act between convenience, really, and the needs of the community, and the way that this whole variance request strikes me is that what you have is you have one neighbor that has come to their other neighbors asking for an exception to the rules, and I feel that it’s neighborly, and entirely within our purview, to request that they guarantee some of the other concerns that might result from this, specifically the sound issue. I’m a chemical engineer, just like Lew down there, so I’m not an acoustical engineer, and this thing reads kind of difficult to me, but it seems to me very, very fair, and very reasonable and very inexpensive to, and for me to support the motion, I would need to see something quantifying and addressing the noise problem. It may not be a problem at all, but thermal insulation is not acoustical insulation, so, you know, I think that we’re definitely within our rights, and we owe it to the community, to ensure that, hey, this thing is going to be a 12 foot exception to the visual pollution, then it should contribute no more noise pollution. So I would hope that the motion would include something that would charge Premier Parks with the responsibility of the concern that they’re acoustically insulating so that it contributes no noise. MR. THOMAS-You did see this, right, that has been submitted by their engineering firm? MR. STEC-Yes. MR. STONE-That’s frequencies. MR. THOMAS-At certain frequencies, that’s the decibel level. MR. STONE-Yes. MR. THOMAS-Okay. I do believe like a lawn mower is like 110 decibels. MR. LEMERY-Mr. Chairman, I might point out that it’s 97 decibels, right at the track of the ride, which is within the building and 75 decibels outside at about 10 feet away. The Great Escape had a study done, as part of its OSHA requirements, of all the rides at the Park for people to come in, and the OSHA people came in and did an eight hour test of each ride, just to give you an example. The Ghost Town train, the operator who sits on the train that’s 83 decibels. The cannon ball operates at an average of 82 decibels. The Boomerang, the control operator, that’s at about 78 decibels. The arcade, the noise in the arcade is about 81 decibels. The train by the Boomerang is 4 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/16/98) about 82 decibels. The Bobsled entrance under the bridge is, the decibels are in the 70, 94 at the peak. The outside Alpine Arcade is roughly 87 at the peak, and the Bobsled control booth, which is where the ride is operated, is between 70 and 88, average in the low 70’s, Bobsled open deck, average in the low 80’s. So just to give you an example of the different attractions there. MR. STONE-They’re all acceptable to OSHA? MR. LEMERY-Yes. I can file this with the Board, if you’d like. MR. STEC-My point there is we are getting complaints about the Bobsled, and the Bobsled I believe you said is in the 80’s or low 90’s. So, 80 is significant. Eighty adds to the background noise level. Again, you’ve got a building there. It’s not like we’re talking about the problem of an open air rollercoaster. The ride is designed to have a shell of a building around it. So I don’t see it as a big deal to require that they make every effort, every reasonable effort to acoustically insulate. I mean, it’s a foam. It’s cheap. MR. THOMAS-Yes. MR. STEC-It’s not millions of dollars. It’s a few thousand dollars. MR. THOMAS-You don’t have any problem with that in a resolution? MR. LEMERY-To put acoustical insulation in? MR. THOMAS-Yes. MR. LEMERY-No. MR. THOMAS-Okay. All right. Has anybody else got anything they want to say? MR. BROWN-If we could just request for the file, a copy of those decibels readings. MR. LEMERY-Sure. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Would someone like to make a motion? MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 87-1998 PREMIER PARKS, INC. , Introduced by Lewis Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Bonnie Lapham: The applicant proposes construction of a 17,000 square foot enclosed amusement ride, specifically the Nightmare roller coaster ride. The applicant requests 12 feet of relief from the 50 foot height requirement of the RC-15 zone, thus the proposed structure is to be 62 feet tall from final grade. In considering this variance, we recognize the benefit to the applicant. He would be permitted to construct and utilize the desired structure. We also recognize that there are some feasible alternatives, which might include lowering of the overall height by constructing the finished floor below final grade, or relocation to another area within the Park, and no construction. We regard the relocation to be more detrimental to possible outside sound effects, and we have been told that lowering the overall height, considering the ground in that area, might not be very feasible. The question could be asked, is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance. Twelve feet of relief from a fifty foot height is probably minimal to slightly under substantial. Originally it was 20 feet, and the applicant has corrected the application to make it 12 feet. The effect on the neighborhood or the community is two fold. One would be a moderate to substantial visual effect from one or more few locations on the outside of the Park, but the applicant has agreed and has presented a planting plan that would minimize that, as far as Route 9 is concerned, which would be the most visible to the bulk of the public, and the applicant has agreed to provide as much acoustical screening or acoustical barriers to the ride to minimize the effects on people living outside of the Park, and in this variance, we do recognize that the difficulty may be interpreted as self created, but Premier Parks is in the business of providing amusement to a large segment of the population, and additional rides are deemed necessary, as a reasonable business practice. The applicant has further agreed to paint this building in colors that will blend in to its overall surroundings, and not to use it as a billboard. There will be a sign identifying the ride at the entrance to the ride, but it will not be one that advertises it, ala the big sign. The applicant has further agreed that the building will not be illuminated in such a way that it will be seen from outside the Park. 5 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/16/98) th Duly adopted this 16 day of December, 1998, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stec, Mr. Stone, Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Thomas NOES: Mr. McNally ABSTAINED: Mr. Custer ABSENT: Mr. Hayes MR. LEMERY-Thank you. MR. THOMAS-There you go. OLD BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 82-1998 JAMES DENOOYER OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE STATE ROUTE 9L, DARK BAY, LG APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A REMEDIAL ROOF ADDITION AND SEEKS RELIEF FROM THE HEIGHT REQUIREMENTS OF THE WR-3A ZONE AND FOR EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE. ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 11/12/98 TAX MAP NO. 1-1-35.2 LOT SIZE: 0.80 ACRES SECTION 179-16, 179-79 GERALD FLYNN, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MRS. LAPHAM-“The Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals has reviewed the following request at the below stated meeting and has resolved the following: Meeting Date: November 18, 1998, Variance File No. 82-1998 Area Variance Tabled MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 82-1998 JAMES DE NOOYER, Introduced by Chris Thomas who moved for its adoption, seconded by Lewis Stone: Until no later than the January meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals. This means that any new information requested by the Board must be submitted by the filing deadline for that month. The applicant may appear on the agenda in the previous month if the filing deadline for that month can be met. The reason for the tabling of this application is for the th applicant or his agent to show up to answer questions. Duly adopted this 18 day of November, 1998, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stone, Mrs. Lapham, Mr. McNally, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Thomas NOES: Mr. Stec ABSENT: Mr. Custer Sincerely, Bonnie M. Lapham, Secretary, Zoning Board of Appeals” MR. THOMAS-Okay. We have a representative here tonight. MR. FLYNN-Yes. MR. THOMAS-Okay, and you are? MR. FLYNN-My name is Gerald Flynn. MR. THOMAS-Okay, and you’re representing Mr. DeNooyer. MR. FLYNN-Yes, I am. MR. THOMAS-Are you the builder? MR. FLYNN-Yes, I am. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Are there any questions for Mr. Flynn concerning this project? MR. STONE-Yes. I’ll start. I have one question, just of interest to me, before I get into, what is that white tank on the property? MR. FLYNN-A white tank? A fuel tank, I believe. MR. STONE-That’s a fuel tank? MR. FLYNN-A fuel tank. 6 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/16/98) MR. STONE-It’s a mighty big fuel tank. MR. FLYNN-That’s been there. MR. STONE-Okay. It didn’t look like a fuel tank to me. I was just curious what it might have been. I did notice, this being lake property, and the height variance having been shown to be important to this Board before, I guess I want to know, in fact, did we defeat it? MR. THOMAS-Yes, we denied the variance. MR. STONE-We denied it. What is different about this application compared to the last application? Can you just describe for the Board what is different? MR. FLYNN-Yes. Prior to that, when there was this existing problem with the roof and the drain with the flat roof, which I do have a picture that I can show. You can’t see it from the ground, and at that time, we came up with a design to solve the problem, but then to also take advantage of the extra space, which at that time the Board denied it, and if, they weren’t actually looking for the extra space. I just thought if we had to put a roof on it, why not take advantage of it, but now the main thing is to take care of the problem of the roof, the flat roof, the drainage, snow loads, that type of thing. So that’s why we’ve revised it. So it actually ends up like a cap or a cupola, if you would, to the existing building. MR. STONE-There’s no way to make it waterproof and stay flat? Because it’s not a very big flat area. MR. FLYNN-Well, what we believe, without tearing, there’s a center green in the house that, without seeing detailed drawings of it, that goes down through the center of the house and out below grade, and that has had problems where it has cracked and frozen, so it would be involving opening up all the interior walls to, we don’t know where it runs, from when the house was built, through the house. I mean, to presume it goes straight down. MR. STONE-Could you seal that off and put a drain over the side? MR. FLYNN-The whole roof pitches to this drain in the center. MR. STONE-I understand that, but it seems to me that, and that roof right now is at 30 feet? It’s at 30, it says in our notes. It’s non-conforming at the moment. I mean, the zoning’s been changed around it, I recognize, but it’s 30 feet, and you can’t stay at 30 feet and make this roof do, I mean, protect the house? MR. FLYNN-If you looked at the, all the roof lines come up and the center that’s flat is actually almost two feet lower than what you see at the top of the house now. So to put, as you’re saying, drains in, it would run out through the other roof lines. It’s kind of hard, without drawing you a sketch of it. The roof lines come up, and then it goes down inside, and this actually is like a square bowl on the top of the house. MR. STONE-One of the things that I noticed, that the height right now, if I stand up on 9L, if I’m driving by on 9L, I can see over the house, barely. If this thing goes up another four feet, you have now impacted on the view of people going by the house, which is the reason we’re at 28 feet now, plus the fact you’re obviously much higher from the lake level, which is another reason for having the zoning. I’m just wondering, I hear it leaks. I hear it’s got to center drain. It seems to me that there’s a way to plug that drain, and some way to find a way for the water to go off. MR. FLYNN-Well, we’ve had a draftsman or engineer who would look at this, you know, and there isn’t an easy way to solve the problem. That’s why we came up with this solution that most fits in with the design of the house and everything else, and I don’t believe it really has an impact. MR. STONE-Define “easy” for me. You say an “easy” way. Define “easy”. What does that mean? MR. FLYNN-To say fixing it now, to come up with numbers of $3,000 to $4,000, versus $12,000. MR. STONE-Okay, that’s a definition. Okay. I hear you. 7 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/16/98) MR. FLYNN-Anything is possible if you remove the whole top of the house. MR. STONE-I understand, but you said “easy”, and I just wanted to know how you were, you’re defining easy as $9,000 savings. That’s what you said. MR. FLYNN-Well, I haven’t figured that out that way, but as far as the structural design of the building. MR. STONE-You’re going to do the work for $3,000 to $4,000, and you’re saying it would cost considerably more, $12,000, estimate ballpark, to do it in a way that wouldn’t require the extra height? MR. FLYNN-If I’m thinking the way you’re saying, to change the pitch and have it pitch out through the other roofs, structurally, not knowing what’s in there, to header off or whatever, to get drainage going up, which snow, anything could stop up there. MR. STONE-Understand, I’m asking these questions. I don’t know how, I’m only asking. Okay. MR. FLYNN-Believe me, I spent a lot of time. MR. STONE-I’ll let somebody else ask questions. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Does anyone else have questions for Mr. Flynn? MR. FLYNN-I might add, too, there is a dish up there that’s going to be removed. That’s not. MR. STONE-It is going to be removed? MR. FLYNN-Yes. That’s coming down. MR. STONE-That was one of the questions I had, but it doesn’t seem to count in our height ordinance, which I don’t understand. MR. FLYNN-So it’s lower than that. MR. STONE-Yes, but unfortunately, that hasn’t counted before. It sits up there 10 feet high, I know. MR. FLYNN-It’s not very attractive, in my opinion. MR. STONE-It isn’t. I agree with you. MR. THOMAS-Okay. No one else has any questions? MR. STEC-One quick question. Why four feet? Why not a three foot or two foot design? MR. FLYNN-Did you look at the drawing? It’s carrying the same pitch of the roof up. So, aesthetically, that matches, and for snow loads. MR. STONE-Are you saying that where the roof comes down, at the bottom of the, from the eaves, lets say, you’re saying below that, actually, there’s a fault, there’s a facade around the top of that building there? Obviously, we couldn’t get up there. MR. FLYNN-This is what, this is the height that you see. This is why, this design flabbergasted me when I looked at it, but. MR. STEC-It was designed to meet the variance. MR. STONE-But you’re talking, it’s going to be 34 feet, forgetting this thing, whatever this is. What’s 30 feet now? MR. FLYNN-This. This is the highest point. MR. STONE-Okay. That’s the highest point. What is this pitch, four feet? 8 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/16/98) MR. FLYNN-Forty-eight inches, here, from this distance carries the same pitch up, to follow this line up, this comes up. This is pitching away. So if you look from this. MR. STONE-They’re going to come up this way. MR. FLYNN-Because this actually drops down here. MR. STONE-Here it actually is a wall. Here it’s a facade more than anything. MR. FLYNN-Right. MR. STONE-Okay. This is a big freezer here. MR. FLYNN-This is the drain that we’ve put new caps on and where the, I mean, the (lost words). MR. STONE-Is this just an access door? MR. FLYNN-Yes. It’s a sealed, insulated. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Does anyone else have anymore questions? 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? Is there any correspondence? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED th MRS. LAPHAM-Yes. Lionel O. Barthold, 10 Woods Point Lane, Lake George, November 12, RE: DeNooyer height requirement relief “We live next door to the DeNooyers and would like to ask that you approve this variance request for three reasons: 1. The deNooyer house is built on a steep hillside lot. Consequently the roof is already lower than most houses as viewed from 9L. It blends completely into the hillside when viewed from the lake, and is not visible from either neighbor due to the intervening woods. Thus an extension of height is not a visual problem from any vantage point. 2. The problems they have with their roof is a serious one and cannot be fixed without altering roof height. 3. The deNooyer’s home has an architectural style which is unobtrusive and well suited to its lakeside setting. They have taken pains to maintain that architectural integrity with each modification they’ve made. Lionel O. Barthold” John N. Boomer, 23 Woods Point Lane, Lake George, RE: DeNooyer Variance Hearing No. 82-1998 Dear Ms. Lapham: Thank you for notifying me of the hearing for the DeNooyer variance. I have discussed the proposed roof modification with Mr. DeNooyer. I have no objection to his proposal. Very truly yours, John N. Boomer” This is another letter from Mr. Barthold. It’s basically the th same thing, a little longer, but the same letter. That was written November 25, and it’s a little bit longer. MR. THOMAS-Yes, I think we read that. MR. STONE-I think we read that one. MRS. LAPHAM-Yes, I thought we did, too. MR. THOMAS-Yes, I think you read that one in, but not the other two. All right. I’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. THOMAS-Are there anymore questions for Mr. Flynn? MR. MC NALLY-So the finished peak is 34 feet. That’s what your application is for? MR. FLYNN-Yes. MR. MC NALLY-Okay. So that’s actually asking six feet of relief. Even though two are already there. MR. THOMAS-Yes, because the Ordinance now states that it’s 28 feet. So he needs six feet of relief from the Ordinance. 9 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/16/98) MR. MC NALLY-Right. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Anymore questions? If not, we’ll talk about it. Lew? MR. STONE-Well, basically, I object to houses that are beyond the Ordinance. I recognize the problem of the applicant, obviously. He’s got a house that is not working very well, and obviously the best way to do it, or at least a very good way to do it, is to put a slant roof on there, so that the water runs off the roof, and not settles into the middle of the house. Having said that, I do recognize that the house is sitting down a hill, and furthermore, I recognize that the neighbors don’t have a problem, and that, to me, is quite important, when the neighbors don’t have a problem. So, while I’m not particularly happy granting six feet of relief to a height on lake property, I will probably vote to grant the variance, but I certainly want to hear the rest of my fellow Board member’s comments. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Brian? MR. CUSTER-I echo a lot of things that Lew said. I think whenever we look at the lake, we like to try to keep any changes to a minimal impact. Bearing in mind that there’s already two feet over the 28 foot variance, we’re only talking another four. I kind of look at this, too, as if I were your neighbor, and if I were a neighbor and you had a problem with your roof and you needed to fix it, this is certainly a way to do it, and it’s a minor adjustment to the variance. I certainly would look to support you, and having said all that, and weighing it in balance with what the other people have written in support, I think I can vote in favor of it. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Bob? MR. MC NALLY-This is a small roof. I think it’s the minimal relief that’s necessary to correct an existing water problem. It doesn’t add to the living space. On balance, I don’t see there’s a problem with it at all. MR. THOMAS-All right. Dan? MR. STEC-Yes, I agree with my fellow Board members. To me, other than the neighbors not having a problem with it, the biggest thing that makes it really easy for me to support it is the steep slope of the surrounding terrain, and the fact that it abuts Route 9, and there’s no neighbors directly behind it that would be impacted at all, and it is a small service area to the top part of the roof, and it’s logical to continue the pitch. So I think aesthetically, I think that that’s probably appropriate. I have no problem with the variance. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Bonnie? MRS. LAPHAM-I have no problem with it, plus the closest neighbors to the property have all said that they support it. They don’t have a problem with it, and it does not impact their view in any way, and I do agree with the other Board members that it’s really pretty minimal. MR. THOMAS-Okay. I could support this variance application. The drawings indicate that the new roof will be green in color to match the surrounding areas, and this building does sit in a wooded area over a bank. Lew mentioned the fact that it may impair vision of the lake from the road at that point, where the house sits, but I’ve been driving that road for a long time, and at that point in the road, you don’t take your eyes off the road, because that is, the road drops and it curves. MR. STONE-At 65 miles an hour it drives very well. MR. THOMAS-The speed limit’s 45. MR. STONE-I know that. I didn’t say that. MR. THOMAS-The addition, like the other Board members said, is small. It’s only 196 square feet, and it’s 48 inches high. So, I have no problem supporting this variance application. Having said that, I would ask for a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 82-1998 JAMES DE NOOYER , Introduced by Robert McNally who moved for its adoption, seconded by Daniel Stec: 10 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/16/98) State Route 9L, Dark Bay. The applicant proposes construction of a 196 square foot by 4 foot tall remedial roof addition to an existing single family dwelling. The relief requested is six feet of relief from the normal 28 foot height requirement of the WR-1A zone, as set forth in Section 179-16, and for relief for expansion of a nonconforming structure, pursuant to Section 179-79. The current structure is 30 feet tall in the area of the proposed alteration, and the application calls for, ultimately, a 34 foot tall finished structure after a roof with a peak on it. The benefit to the applicant would be that they’d be allowed to eliminate a water problem, causing damage to their home which is long standing. No home should have to put up with that kind of damage. The alternatives are not feasible. There could be no construction, but the problem to their home would continue, and that’s just not feasible. They could also reconstruct the existing property, but that would eliminate living space, in order to comply with the 28 foot height requirement, and would, in any event, be much more costly. So I don’t think either of the alternatives are feasible. The relief is not substantial relative to the Ordinance, given that there’s 6 feet of relief, resulting in a 34 foot tall structure. The property is on a slope. It’s minimally visible from any other property. The neighbors do not object to it, and overall, I don’t think the change is that large, given the square footage called for. I don’t find any effects on the neighborhood or community of a negative nature whatsoever, and I don’t find that the difficulty is self created. In my opinion, looking at the property, the building was added onto over the years, and this was just someone’s idea of how you should build a roof in the North Country. Flat roofs don’t work. Peaked roofs do. I move that we approve the variance. th Duly adopted this 16 day of December, 1998, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. McNally, Mr. Custer, Mr. Stone, Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Stec, Mr. Thomas NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Hayes MR. THOMAS-There you go. MR. FLYNN-Thank you. NEW BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 88-1998 TYPE II WR-1A CEA PETER THOMAS OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE 179 ASSEMBLY POINT ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND REQUESTS RELIEF FROM THE HEIGHT REQUIREMENTS OF THE WR-1A ZONE. ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 12/9/98 TAX MAP NO. 7-1-30 LOT SIZE: 7-1-30 LOT SIZE: 0.80 ACRES SECTION 179-16 PETER THOMAS, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 88-1998, Peter Thomas, Meeting Date: December 16, 1998 Description of Proposed Project: “Project Location: 179 Assembly Point Road Applicant Relief Required: proposes construction of a 34 foot tall single family dwelling. Applicant requests 6 feet of relief from the 28 foot height requirement of the WR-1A zone, Section 179-16. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be permitted to construct and inhabit the desired 2. Feasible alternatives: structure in the preferred location. Feasible alternatives may include 3. Is downsizing the structure, re-grading to allow for a 28 foot exposure, and no construction. this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?: 6 feet of relief from the 28 foot requirement 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: may be interpreted as moderate to substantial. 5. Is Minimal to moderate effects on the neighborhood are anticipated as a result of this action. this difficulty self-created?Parcel History The difficulty may be interpreted as self created. (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): AV 56-1995 - res. 8/23/95 Second principal dwelling on Staff comments: undersized lot. Minimal to moderate impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action. Six feet of relief may be viewed as substantial given that the requested relief applies to SEQR Status: the plane of the proposed home which faces both the Lake and the road. Type II” 11 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/16/98) MRS. LAPHAM-Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form December 10, 1998 Area Variance Project Name: Peter Thomas Owner: Same Queensbury Area Variance 88-1998 County Project Number: December 98-19 Current Zoning: Waterfront Residential One Acre Community: Queensbury Project Description: Applicant proposes to build a new home. Applicant would like to live in an existing home on the lot while building the new home. A height variance is being requested from 28 feet required to 34 proposed to allow present garage to be converted to a shop and boat storage. Site Location: Route 9L to Assembly Point Road travel on Assembly Point for about 9/10ths of a mile. Present house is on left side of the road and is pea green with white trim, Number 179 Tax No. not provided Staff Notes: Copy of the site drawing is included with summary. Staff will provide additional comments pending a site visit. Staff is therefore recommending discussion. Local Actions to Date, if any: NONE County Planning Board Recommendation: No County Impact” Terry Ross, Warren County Planning Board.” MR. THOMAS-Okay. Mr. Thomas, I’d like to state for the record, we’re not related. MR. P. THOMAS-Okay. MR. THOMAS-Is there anything else you want to tell us about, talk about, show us pictures of? MR. P. THOMAS-I’d like to show you a picture, or you could take a look (lost words) so you can see basically what it is. There’s a picture there, and there’s one here. Part of the problem with the type of house that it is, the height comes to the type of house. It’s a kind of a cape, which to get any head room in the upstairs room, it has to have a fairly steep pitch, which adds height to the house. The house is under 28 feet. So the back, where it would be in the back, would be under the 28 feet requirement. Due to the slope of the lot, though, as it goes toward the road, I drop off, from where the house will be to the road, about 14 feet. That’s going to require back-filling to get it to that point. MR. CUSTER-Just to that point, okay. MR. P. THOMAS-And I don’t want to back-fill too much, because that’s going to cause some runoff that might effect my neighbors and my own driveway, which is fairly steep as it is. MR. CUSTER-I drove up. I got a look at it. I was just trying to visualize what you’re showing here. MR. P. THOMAS-I have probably eight foot there, at present. I intend to fill it up about four foot, but I don’t think I could, dare go much higher than that without c causing some problems. It’s steeper than (lost words). MR. STONE-For the record, you’ve bought plans for this house from this magazine, or, you don’t have to, it’s in the public domain? MR. P. THOMAS-No, if you look at the plan, we wanted to build that house for years, but it says in the magazine that it’s 4600 square feet, which is out of our realm of possibility. Ours is about 2590. I think they made a mistake, because we had it all scaled off, and this that and the other, and it comes out to be about 2500 and some odd square feet. MR. CUSTER-The pitch could be deceptive when you see a house like that. The pitch on that makes it deceptive, makes it look bigger than sometimes it is. MR. P. THOMAS-To get the head room up above, you need a 12/12 pitch, or your rooms really start to shrink in size. MR. STONE-It says 4430 square feet on the specs of this particular picture. MR. P. THOMAS-I know. That’s why we kept throwing it out, because it was way too big, and finally we found it in another home building magazine, and they had it at 25, I think it’s 2582. So we started scaling it all off and there’s a mistake in that magazine. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. THOMAS-All right. Are there any questions for the applicant concerning this? 12 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/16/98) MR. P. THOMAS-It’s a house, I think, that belongs on the lake, and would look good on the lake. MR. STONE-It’s an attractive house, no question about that. Do you want to talk about the garages? MR. P. THOMAS-Yes. I have an existing garage that’s there now. I would like to keep it there and use it to store snowmobiles, boats, lawnmowers, all the things that I have covered up with plastic all around the property, and just use it to store the things, and also use one side of it as a work area. I would close one door completely, so that it would be sealed off. The other one I would like to keep, so that I can get a boat in there, or get snowmobiles and things of that nature in, a lawnmower. MR. STONE-Accessory uses mean you can store a boat uncovered on the property. Is that what uses mean? Okay, and then in addition to that, accessory structures, which is a garage, totaling 900 square feet. MR. THOMAS-Yes. He could also put up a separate building for boat storage. MR. STONE-Yes, he could. MR. CUSTER-So if we reference it as boat storage, he doesn’t need a variance, then. You’re not asking for a garage variance either. MR. STONE-No, he’s not. That’s the question I have. MR. P. THOMAS-The building is there. It’s existing, and I just would like to keep it, so that I can use it for storage. MR. THOMAS-How many square feet is that garage? MR. P. THOMAS-Twenty-four foot square. MR. STONE-The new one would be 672? MR. P. THOMAS-The new one, but the old one’s smaller. MR. STONE-Yes, 576. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Are there any other questions for the applicant? MR. P. THOMAS-I have a letter from one of my neighbors next door who couldn’t be here. I can read that to you. She has no objection. MR. THOMAS-No, well, just give it to the secretary here and she’ll read it in when we come to that phase of the meeting. MR. STONE-In terms of a septic system, Mr. Thomas, you indicated to me when I visited that you were going to put a new, is that the septic, or the new leach field back in that area that you showed me? MR. P. THOMAS-Both. MR. STONE-Both. The septic tank will be there, and. MR. P. THOMAS-The septic tank will be right in that general, that’s what I propose now. I run into a lot of height problems, and I have to be able to get my water pitched across to that and to a septic tank which I think is all going to work, but it’s kind of close on. MR. STONE-Are you going to have water in the basement? I mean, a bathroom or a sink? MR. P. THOMAS-No. MR. STONE-I didn’t mean bad water. MR. P. THOMAS-I hope not. I’ve been living through that for too long. 13 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/16/98) MR. STONE-Because then you would have to pump up from the road. MR. P. THOMAS-Yes, no, no, I’m not. MR. THOMAS-Is the existing septic system right out in front of the existing house now? Because I see where it says, stand pipe for septic system. MR. P. THOMAS-No, that’s a drywell, I think. I bought this. I don’t really know what it is, except that I know that the washing machine that’s in the basement goes to that. It doesn’t go to the septic because the septic’s too high. MR. STONE-The gray water goes. MR. P. THOMAS-Gray water goes to that, and there’s a septic out in the southwest corner, and the septic tank’s 10 feet off the side of the house. I have no idea where or how a leach field is in there. I just don’t have any idea what was done. It’s never given us any problem or anything, and I’ve never seen any surface water, but I have no idea where it is, but there is an awful lot of groundwater there. MR. THOMAS-Is that sitting on rock? MR. P. THOMAS-No. It’s kind of a clay sand, sandy with some clay in it. We did a perc test on it the other day. MR. THOMAS-Okay, and I see on this drawing you submitted that there’s a shed out back, it looks like about a 10 by 12 shed that’s going to be removed. MR. P. THOMAS-I’m going to tear that down and cart it away. MR. THOMAS-Okay. MR. STONE-When you tear down the house that you’re currently living in, that will be sodded, there’ll be grass there? MR. P. THOMAS-Yes. MR. STONE-You’re going to fill the basement in? MR. P. THOMAS-I was thinking of using the basement to catch the runoff from the house, you know, crush it into itself, and then put maybe some other stones in it and cover it with a piece of the, I don’t know what they call it. MR. STONE-I suggest you check with Mr. Hatin on that. MR. P. THOMAS-And then let the water run into that as a runoff, use it as a catch basin. MR. STONE-But on top of that would be grass? MR. P. THOMAS-On top of that would be grass, yes. MR. STONE-And you did indicate to me that you’re going to use about four birches? MR. P. THOMAS-There will be four birches that come down, yes. MR. STONE-Which is always sad. MR. P. THOMAS-One of which is dead, or dying, but the others are healthy, yes, it is. MR. THOMAS-Is there any purpose to those stakes that were in the ground? As you face the house on the left hand side, there were three of them I saw. MR. P. THOMAS-Yes, that was me. I borrowed a level, and I shot some level marks, so I could make that drawing approximately right, so I knew what the pitch was to the road, and those are different, I use those as markers where I took the level readings. 14 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/16/98) MR. THOMAS-Because when I was by there today I thought, gee, he’s not going to put the house down here is he? MR. P. THOMAS-No, those were just stakes to level it, so I knew what the pitch was at different places. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Anymore questions for the applicant? If not, I’ll open the public hearing. Anyone wishing to speak in favor of this variance? In favor of? Anyone wishing to speak opposed? Opposed? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED GARDINER HARRIS MR. HARRIS-My name is Gardiner Harris. I live two doors from him to the south, I have contacted the other people to the south, and there’s four of us to the south who I’ve talked to, and none of them seem to have any objection to what he has proposed. In fact, they think it’s going to improve the overall, by moving his septic tank where it belongs, and it’s better for the land in what he’s doing, I think. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Thanks. DICK GREY MR. GREY-My name is Dick Grey. I’m a resident of the Town of Queensbury. I live on Lake George. I’m familiar with Mr. Thomas’ project and his current home. He’s a full time resident of the time. He’s not a summer person. This is his home. His current dwelling is used, proposed use is to stay in his present dwelling while he constructs his new home. Obviously, he would love to tear down the current structure and build a home basically where it is, but he’s going to save himself considerable amount of money if he can live somewhere while this home is being constructed. That’s an advantage to Mr. Thomas, obviously, but Mr. Thomas is really doing the Town of Queensbury and the residents of the lake a substantial favor in that he is pulling his home back away from the road, where I’m familiar with people who constantly try to get as close to the lake as possible, and then have a 50 gallon drum that they use as a septic system, and it just goes into the lake, and of course nothing’s ever done. Here again, Mr. Thomas is not proposing to use his existing septic system, which everybody loves to use, because nobody wants to touch a septic near Lake George. He’s saying, look, I’m not even going to use my old one. I’m going to pull it back and I’m going to construct a new septic. So that, in itself, is a great benefit to the lake, because the majority of these old septic systems are leaching into the lake, and most people who realize it are either going to holding tanks. They’re taking some action, but there’s some diehards here that really don’t care, but Mr. Thomas, again, is pulling that home back, and he’s constructing a new septic system, and that, in itself, should really have the Board grant his six foot variance. Thank you. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Thank you. Would anyone else like to speak in favor of or opposed? Any correspondence? MRS. LAPHAM-Yes. I have one letter. To the Town of Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals, from Lois Garrand, 175 Assembly Point Road, Lake George RE: Peter Thomas, 179 Assembly Point Road, “I have no objections to Mr. Thomas’ request for relief from the height requirements of the WR-1A zone for his proposed construction of a single family home. Lois Garrand” MR. THOMAS-All right. I’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. STONE-I have a question of Mr. Thomas. What will be the setback of the home from the road? MR. P. THOMAS-From the road? MR. STONE-It may be on this drawing. MR. THOMAS-It’s on the one before it. 15 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/16/98) MR. STONE-Seventy-five, okay. MR. THOMAS-Yes. That’s from the wall that’s out there. Is that the property line, the wall, about that? Does the road go through your property, a road by use? MR. P. THOMAS-I don’t know. MR. STONE-It’s a road by use. I’m sure, looking at my property on the other side, the road doesn’t belong to me anymore. So I know when we built, we were surprised. So I suspect that the road does not. Gardiner, do you know? MR. HARRIS-The road goes through our property. I’ve had problems with that right along. MR. STONE-I know, but the road is not yours anymore. MR. HARRIS-I don’t know who the road belongs to, but my deed says I own all the way to the lake. That’s all I know. MR. STONE-Yes, well, I own back further the same way on the other side. So, as long as Mr. Naylor plows it, that’s all we really care about. I will praise Paul on that, I’m sorry, I may say other things. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Are there anymore questions for Mr. Thomas? MRS. LAPHAM-Is the house going to be shingled, the way this is, and blend in, you know, the earth colors? MR. P. THOMAS-Yes. I don’t know whether it’s going to be the same roof color, but the house will be cedar shakes and cedar siding, and it will be natural. MR. THOMAS-Okay. On your drawing here you show the foundation four to six feet. Is that how high the foundation is going to be, so you won’t have a? MR. P. THOMAS-No. It’s going to have a full basement. That’s how much will stick out of the ground in the front, and the reason I said four to six foot, it depends on how we can grade it up on the foundation. MR. STONE-Yes, but the house is not going to sit at the ground, the wood is not going to start at the ground is it, in the back? MR. P. THOMAS-No. It’s just be one block up or whatever they require. There’s a requirement that you have to be up eight inches. MR. STONE-Okay. So it will be eight inches at least, okay. MR. MC NALLY-And you’re planning a deck in the front which would mask that portion of the foundation anyhow. MR. STONE-Well, the deck is going to be on the foundation? MR. P. THOMAS-No, it’ll be out. MR. THOMAS-It’ll be cantilevered out. MR. STONE-It’ll be cantilevered out. Okay. MR. P. THOMAS-It’ll have piers and posts. MR. THOMAS-Do you propose to put a walk out door in that basement, out to the front? MR. P. THOMAS-No, you wouldn’t be able to. Anyway, as we plan it, there’d be no way to have a door come out. There’ll be a Bilco on the back side of the house, but there’ll be no walkout door. MR. THOMAS-Okay. On the garage, is there any living space over the garage? 16 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/16/98) MR. P. THOMAS-No. MR. THOMAS-It’s just strictly storage? MR. P. THOMAS-Just storage. MR. STONE-Is that deck covered, going to the garage, or would you go outside to go to the garage, the deck that you show on the back of the house going to the garage? MR. P. THOMAS-That’s open. MR. STONE-That’s open. So you have to go outside to go from the house to the garage? MR. P. THOMAS-No, there’s a little section of the house that will attach. MR. STONE-That little thing right there, okay. MR. THOMAS-What’s in there between the deck and that little hallway that goes out to the garage? Is that just open space? MR. P. THOMAS-It’s a hallway with a closet on one side of it. MR. THOMAS-Okay. So that’s the back, the house actually attaches to the garage at that point? MR. P. THOMAS-Yes. MR. THOMAS-Okay, and that’s just a little hallway, well, there’s a passageway that goes between there. MR. STONE-So that deck is going to be on the first floor, just an open little area? MR. P. THOMAS-Yes. MR. STONE-Okay. Therefore, you’ve got a couple of jogs in the house. You’ve got this one jog, right at the, closest to the property line, that goes along the deck, then goes back and forms that closet and the passageway. MR. THOMAS-It looks like on this drawing that from the house to the garage, the second story of the garage, there’s also an entrance, between the, you show two parallel lines that look like they go, you know, like a covered area. No, I take that back, I know what that is, that’s the roof. Because the roof doesn’t go all the way up to the top of the garage. Okay. I see. Are there anymore questions for the applicant? All right. Lets talk about it, then. Brian? MR. CUSTER-I think the project is very well designed and very well thought out. I really appreciate the fact that Mr. Thomas is going to move the structure back from the lake, as his neighbor identified, and the fact that he’s going to develop a brand new septic system, I think that’s terribly important with any of the new construction on the lake area. I know that the height variance requires some consideration, and we like to see that mitigated as much as possible. However, I’m always willing to, in the spirit of fairness, trade off on certain items, and I think the fact that the house is contemplated a brand new septic area, which I see is a greater detriment to the lake and its future, I’m willing to approve the variance, but I certainly would like to hear other comments from my comrades, especially Lew. MR. THOMAS-All right. Bob? MR. MC NALLY-I’m in favor of the project. The house as proposed would blend in well with the neighborhood and would be a betterment, actually, compared to the existing structure. Points taken by the neighbors, they would move the place back to add a new septic system is certainly going to be favorable to the lake. The amount of relief I don’t find is significant, and on balance I think it’s a good project which will be a benefit to the Town of Queensbury. MR. THOMAS-All right. Dan? 17 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/16/98) MR. STEC-Yes. I agree with Bob, and I think that Mr. Grey’s comments were well spoken, that the applicant is moving his house a full house length back away from the lake, which is virtually unprecedented, from my waterfront experience, and I think that the movement of the septic system is a big plus, too. I think that the project is well thought out, as well, and I think, furthermore, that the relief requested is minimal, or moderate, but I don’t have a problem with this project. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Bonnie? MRS. LAPHAM-Well, I hadn’t had an opportunity to see the site, so I had planned to abstain, but I do want to say everything I have heard I’m very happy with, and I probably would not have a problem voting for it, had I seen the site. I like the idea of the house being moved back farther from the lake, the septic system being completely re-done, and the idea that the remaining house, so that there would not be two houses on a substandard lot, the second house would be removed when the new project is completed. So I think it seems to be very well thought out. It’ll blend in with the neighborhood and probably be an improvement over what’s there, after listening to some of his neighbors. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Lew? MR. STONE-Well, as far as the height variance goes, as much as I have spoken earlier, and I speak frequently about the height, I think because of the location of the house on the lot, the fact that it’s going to be further back from the lake, the fact that you’re on a hill anyway, it’s not going to be very obvious that it’s as high as it’s going to be. However, I am disturbed by the Code, and then I’m looking for help. Under Accessory Structures, a(4)a, Private Garage/Private Boat Storage building, and that’s a building, that’s one building. That’s 900 square feet, and I’m only concerned that we have to address that, and I’m looking for guidance, really. As I look at the definitions, a garage is 900 square feet. A public, a private boathouse is a site where you can store three boats, but under 179-16, it says Private Garage/Private Boat Storage Building. MRS. LAPHAM-So is that one building or two buildings? MR. STONE-It says building. MR. THOMAS-What do you think it says? MR. STONE-I think it says you can have one, and not two. I have no problem with the two. I will say that right up front, because I think what you’re doing is a proposal to close one of the doors and to make it exclusively, it’s there, but I think, I’m just wondering if it has to be addressed in the variance. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Lets go through this again here. What do you think that means, Brian? MR. CUSTER-We’re on Section Four, Accessory Structures. MR. THOMAS-Right. MR. CUSTER-Private Garage/Private Boat Storage Building, and, Lew, your argument is? MR. STONE-That it’s one building, that can be used for either or both, but it’s one building, and it’s 900 square feet, which is the definition of a Private Garage. MR. MC NALLY-Well, let me ask you this. He didn’t apply for this. You’re saying he might have to have a new application and new advertisement? MR. STONE-That’s what I’m really saying, yes. I’m asking. MR. MC NALLY-It’s not in front of us, but you just want to resolve it. I see. MR. STONE-Yes. As I say, I don’t think, the property as it stands, I think I don’t have a real problem with, but I just want to be sure that we’re not going to be lax in doing our job. MRS. LAPHAM-There’s a building there already. MR. STONE-There’s a building, and he proposes a new garage of 676 square feet. 18 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/16/98) MR. CUSTER-But you’re not using it as a garage. MR. THOMAS-No. He proposes to change it from a garage to a boat storage with a workshop in it. MR. CUSTER-You’re saying that’s what’s triggering the variance request? MR. STONE-I’m saying a building. It doesn’t say, you can have a private garage to a private boat storage building. You can have a building which can be used for either or both, but it’s one building, and the definition of a private garage is 900 square feet. MRS. LAPHAM-But wouldn’t that building be pre-existing? MR. THOMAS-Well, it is pre-existing, but he can’t have two garages. That’s really what, you know, I think you’re reading into this, but previous variance applications, the one on Assembly Point there, the guy that’s building the big house there. MR. STONE-We gave him a variance for two garages, Morse. MR. THOMAS-No, he got a garage. He got one garage and one boat storage building. The boat storage building he did not need a variance for, because he still met the. MR. STONE-But these weren’t detached, either. They were inside the house, but. MR. THOMAS-No, the boat storage building was a separate building. MR. STONE-With Morse? MR. THOMAS-No, not Morse. The guy that owns New Country. MR. STONE-Cantanucci. MR. THOMAS-Yes, Mike Cantanucci. MR. STONE-I wasn’t here for that one. I take no responsibility for that one. MR. MC NALLY-Why can’t it be considered just a storage? MRS. LAPHAM-Right, a storage shed of some sort. MR. STONE-Too big, 100 square feet for a storage shed. MR. MC NALLY-Does it say that somewhere? MR. STEC-Yes. The one over there. MR. STONE-Yes, private storage is 10 by 10. MR. STEC-10 by 10. MR. THOMAS-Yes. MR. STEC-What about recreational facilities for wood shop? MR. THOMAS-Well, like I say, you know, in my opinion, boat storage is a separate building, and as Mr. Thomas says, he’s going to convert it from a garage, take one garage door off and fill it in, leave one garage door to move a boat in or move in a lawn tractor, something like that, and does not park a vehicle in there, then I don’t think that’s constituted as a garage. MR. CUSTER-I say he’s okay. MR. THOMAS-A garage is for housing vehicles, motor vehicles, whether it be cars, trucks. MR. CUSTER-That one up there, Garvey. 19 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/16/98) MR. THOMAS-Yes, the same thing, Garvey. MR. STONE-Yes, I voted against it. MR. CUSTER-I voted for it. MR. STONE-I’m not against this one. I really am not. I just want to be sure that we. MRS. LAPHAM-Do it properly. MR. THOMAS-Yes. I think what I’ll do is that, you know, we’re all going to agree that that building can stand separately as a boat storage building, then we’ll state that, and I’ll also take this page to Mark Schachner, the Town Attorney, and see if he can, has any other spin on it, and see if we can get it, you know, if this is a misprint of some kind in the book, to get a it re-printed, or have the Town Board straighten it out, but for right now we all agree that if he takes the garage door off, leaves one on there, uses it strictly for boat storage, and not any vehicle storage, that it’s a boat storage building, and then that’s allowed in that zone. MR. CUSTER-Right. MR. THOMAS-And the motion will so speak, whoever makes it. Okay. Anybody else got any questions on that? MR. CUSTER-Fine. MR. THOMAS-Okay. I don’t have any problem with this variance either. I think that Mr. Thomas has done an exceptional job of designing this house, even though the pitch on the roof is 12 on 12, that it is a little tall, but there is no one behind him whose view is going to be obstructed. It’s all wooded back in there, and I don’t think there’s anybody that could build back there, because I think that’s Knox Road that goes around behind there, and I don’t believe anybody could build because it’s an extremely steep slope on the other side of this. MR. STONE-Who owns that land, do you know, on the hill? Paul Knox owns the hill? Okay. And he hasn’t done very well with his development on the front part of the road there. MR. THOMAS-And the fact that Mr. Thomas is moving the house back, and putting in a new septic system, as other members have said, I think, is more than a trade off, as Mr. Custer has stated. So, having said that, I would ask for a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 88-1998 PETER THOMAS , Introduced by Brian Custer who moved for its adoption, seconded by Daniel Stec: 179 Assembly Point Road. The applicant proposes construction of a 34 foot tall single family dwelling. This motion will require relief from Section 179-16 of the WR-1A zone, which has a 28 foot height requirement on each structure, therefore requiring six feet of relief. In considering this variance, the following criteria were considered. The benefit to the applicant. By granting the motion, the applicant will be permitted to construct and inhabit the desired structure in the preferred location. Feasible alternatives are limited to downsizing the structure or re-grading the property, all of which would be a detriment to the aesthetic value of the home, and I think is somewhat, Mr. Thomas has done an adequate job of controlling that. The relief, is it substantial to the Ordinance? I believe the relief is correctly identified in the notes as moderate. I do not see it as a negative statement to the variance. The effects on the neighborhood are minimal. In fact, we’ve heard nothing but positive comments from the neighbors and the neighborhood. The difficulty may be interpreted as being self created, but on the whole, I don’t believe it impairs the moving forward of my variance. Please recognize this variance is dependent upon identifying the second accessory structure as a boat storage facility. One door will be removed from the existing garage, therefore making a boat storage facility, and will not be used for the storage of automobiles. th Duly adopted this 16 day of December, 1998, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. McNally, Mr. Custer, Mr. Stone, Mr. Stec, Mr. Thomas NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mrs. Lapham 20 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/16/98) ABSENT: Mr. Hayes MR. THOMAS-There you go. MR. P. THOMAS-Thank you. SIGN VARIANCE NO. 89-1998 TYPE: UNLISTED THE BON TON DEPARTMENT STORES OWNER: PYRAMID COMPANY OF GLENS FALLS AVIATION MALL, AVIATION ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES THE CONSTRUCTION OF 6 NEW BON TON SIGNS AND REQUESTS RELIEF FROM THE SIGN ORDINANCE. STORE WILL BE LOCATED IN PREVIOUS CALDOR DEPT. STORE LOCATION IN THE AVIATION MALL. WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 12/9/98 TAX MAP NO. 98-1-5.21 LOT SIZE: 40.81 ACRES SECTION 140 SIGN ORDINANCE JON LAPPER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Sign Variance No. 89-1998, The Bon Ton Department Stores, Meeting Date: Description of Proposed December 16, 1998 “Project Location: Aviation Mall, Aviation Road Project: Applicant proposes construction of six signs; one free standing and five wall signs. Relief Required: Applicant requests relief for five signs from the Sign Ordinance, § 140-6, B., (3), (d); Business complex. Each occupant within a business complex shall be limited to one wall sign. This application outlines six signs, one of which is a permitted sign and relief is requested for the balance. However, only the two signs on the West facade and the one small freestanding sign Criteria for considering a Sign Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town require relief. Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be permitted to construct and display the 2. Feasible alternatives: desired signs in the preferred locations. Feasible alternatives may 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the include consolidation of signs and no construction. Ordinance?: The two signs on the West facade are visible from adjoining properties and the one small freestanding sign may be visible. Relief for three additional signs may be interpreted as 4. Effects on the neighborhood or moderate to substantial, relative to the Ordinance. community:5. Is Minimal effects on the neighborhood are anticipated as a result of this action. this difficulty self-created?Parcel History The difficulty may be interpreted as self created. (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): P1-98 - res. 6/23/98 petition for zone change SP 14- 1998 - res. 5/19/98 Sign Variance 63-1996 - Nemer Group - withdrawn Site Plan 38-1996 - res. 7/16/96 Nemer Group Area Variance 25-1996 - res. 4/17/96 Cole Bros. Circus – denied Subdivision 2-1994 res. SV 45-1990 - res. 6/27/90 – denied 53 Building Permits issued since Staff comments: 1992 7 Sign Permits issued since 1992 Minimal negative impacts are anticipated on the neighborhood and community as a result of this action. Of the signs included in this application, one is an allowed sign, two are not visible off site, one may not be visible and the two that are visible can only be seen from a Niagara Mohawk transmission line and a brief glance SEQRA Status: from a northbound lane of NYS I-87. Unlisted” MRS. LAPHAM-And the Planning Board, “Project Name: The Bon Ton Owner: The Pyramid Company of Glens Falls Queensbury Sign Variance 89-1998, County Project December 98-18, Highway Commercial One Acre Community: Queensbury Applicant proposes an addition of six new Bon Ton signs. Site Location: Aviation Mall, Aviation Road Staff Notes: See materials from agenda item number 17. In addition, a copy of the site drawing is included that denotes location of signs. Staff is recommending discussion. Local Actions to date, if any: NONE County Planning Board Recommendation: Approve” Terry Ross, Warren County Planning Board. MR. THOMAS-All right. Mr. Lapper, you’re up. MR. LAPPER-Good evening. For the record, my name is Jon Lapper. With me tonight is Bob Orlando, the Manager of the Mall, who will speak to the need to fill up this vacant store, and some visibility issues during the public hearing, and Bill Marquardt is also with us, who has recently moved to the area to help be involved with the approval of the Mall expansion, which we’re about to get back into very shortly. To begin with, I’d like to mention, to reiterate, that this was one of the rare cases where County Planning did approve, unanimously approve, the Sign Variance when I was there a week or two ago, and you know how rare that is. It sounds like a variance for six signs, which at first blush sounds like a lot of signs, but under the circumstances of the location of this building on this parcel, I would maintain that it is not excessive at all. The Ordinance, the 21 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/16/98) Sign Ordinance requires that, or provides that if a sign is not visible off site, it doesn’t require a permit. I included it, just to be thorough, to show the location of the signs, but I don’t believe the two signs over the existing Mall entrance in front of where the Caldors was can be seen from anywhere because you’ve got those two long alleys. The best way to show that is this color rendering, which shows the one that faces the Sears. MR. STONE-That’s facing east, that’s where County Planning did approve, unanimously approve, the Sign Variance when I was there a week or two ago, and you know how rare that is. It sounds like a variance for six signs, which at first blush sounds like a lot of signs, but under the circumstances of the location of this building on this parcel, I would maintain that it is not excessive at all. The Ordinance, the Sign Ordinance requires that, or provides that if a sign is not visible off site, it doesn’t require a permit. I included it, just to be thorough, to show the location of the signs, but I don’t believe the two signs over the existing Mall entrance in front of where the Caldors was can be seen from anywhere because you’ve got those two long alleys. The best way to show that is this color rendering, which shows the one that faces the Sears. MR. STONE-That’s facing east, that’s from the east. MR. LAPPER-Facing east, looking west. MR. STONE-From Sears, facing west. MR. LAPPER-From Sears, no. You’re facing west, but the sign’s facing east. MRS. LAPHAM-That’s the one on the former Caldor, where they used to have Caldor there. MR. STONE-Right. MR. LAPPER-Right. MR. STONE-That one’s going to stay, but, Jon, how many signs did Caldor have, out of curiosity? MR. STEC-Right. That’s my first question. How many did Caldors have? MR. LAPPER-Caldors had signage on the front of the Mall, which we’re here to talk about, the very front toward Aviation, and I know that they had more than one sign on the building, but I can’t recall, I think that they had one on. MRS. LAPHAM-They had one on both entrances, you know, if you came from Penneys outside they had one, and then the other way they had one, and then they. MR. STONE-Both ways into the theater from the back parking lot. MRS. LAPHAM-Right, the other side, and they had a freestanding. MR. LAPPER-There’s also a fairly ugly, 70’s wooden structure that would be shown here, which is coming down, and replaced by this small, attractive Bon Ton sign. The reason for this here, I didn’t put up the full site plan because you all have copies, but if you’re, the little freestanding is arguably visible from the NiMo power line, all the way to the east and south of the site, but in truth, I think it probably isn’t, because of the distance and the size of the sign. Because you have to go down the long alley to get to the sign, this, rather than putting a sign on the building, on the eastern facade of the building, that said Sears, that says The Bon Ton, this is much more attractive and small, and this just tells people, if they’re in the parking lot, that there’s a Bon Ton there, because there’s no other indication, from that parking lot, that Bon Ton is there, and that’s what this freestanding sign does. So we’ve talked about three signs, two of which I think we can dismiss because you can’t see them from anywhere, and one of which, arguably, you can’t see from anywhere, except right in that parking lot, but not off site. MR. STONE-Sign Number Four, Jon, that’s inside that enclosed area, isn’t it? MR. LAPPER-The one that’s crossed out, is that what you’re referring to? Sign Number Four? MR. STONE-Sign Number Four on the drawing itself. 22 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/16/98) MR. THOMAS-It looks like it’s inside that atrium. MRS. LAPHAM-Where the Caldor sign used to be. MR. LAPPER-That’s correct, and that’s not on my application, because that is an indoor sign. So that doesn’t count at all. That’s not one of the six signs. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. LAPPER-To go through the six signs, we’ve got the two at the old Caldor entrance, down the alleys that you can’t see, and the one freestanding so that you can see it from the Sears parking lot. That’s three, and then on the other three signs, most important. MR. STONE-That’s Sign Number One on this outline? MR. LAPPER-This is Sign Number One, which is the new entrance at the Mall. Right now there’s sort of a triangular shaped, mirrored entrance, which is kind of old fashioned looking, where the Ground Round used to be. MR. CUSTER-So this sign that you’re talking about now is on the building. This is not out, this is on the building? Every sign that we’re talking about is on the premises, Jon, nothing is out on the road? MR. LAPPER-Absolutely, right. MR. CUSTER-Okay. I’m confused. That’s what I thought you were referencing. It’s a facade sign. Okay. Nothing is out by the road. MR. LAPPER-It’s a separate drawing of the, a blow up of the site plan. MR. CUSTER-I never got that one, that’s why I was confused. MR. STONE-I don’t have that one. MR .THOMAS-I got one. MR. LAPPER-This is on the plan here. It just doesn’t look as good. MR. CUSTER-So that would be where the Ground Round used to be. MR. LAPPER-Right. MR. CUSTER-Okay. MR. STONE-That’s Sign Number Five on here. MR. LAPPER-If you’re on Aviation Road, entering the Mall, you’ll know that there’s a Bon Ton. The reason for this is because the Caldor building is in the back. Nobody can see it. There’s no visibility. So if these people are going to spend in excess of a million dollars, well in excess, to outfit to the store, to turn it into, an old Caldor into a brand new Bon Ton fashion department store, people have to know they’re there, which is the whole purpose for this application. MR. STONE-What are Sears and Penneys going to do? MR. LAPPER-Well, Sears and Penneys are visible. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. CUSTER-Plus they have their signs. MR. LAPPER-They have signs, and they’re visible from Aviation Road. MR. STONE-So we’ll have three big signs visible from Aviation Road. 23 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/16/98) MR. LAPPER-Right. This store is visible from the guy that has to work on the power corridor on NiMo property. That’s about it. This is done as sort of a neo-classical design. It’s similar to the Penneys, the new Penneys entrance. MR. STONE-So the Bon Ton is going to do this, or the Mall’s going to do it? MR. LAPPER-The Bon Ton is spending a lot of money to outfit the interior of the store, the tenant fit out. The Mall is doing a bunch of work to accommodate them. MR. STONE-Okay, but is this a Bon Ton sign or a Mall sign? MR. LAPPER-This is a Bon Ton sign on the front of the Mall. As to who’s paying for this. MR. STONE-Not the paying. I’m just wondering who the applicant is. MR. LAPPER-Everything is the Bon Ton, that’s applying for this, because these are all requirements of the Bon Ton lease. They have a signed lease agreement, but if they don’t get the signs that they want, so that they have an invisible store rather than a visible store, they have the right to walk from the lease, which is very important to the Mall, and the Mall manager will tell you his position on that, but at the same time, we certainly don’t think these are excessive requests. This is what it took for them, in the lease negotiations, to agree to take space that’s in the back of the Mall. MR. STEC-You’re talking about the back of the Mall, however, we’re all aware that there’s a lot of talk and there’s plans and intentions for expanding the Mall. So what is that going to entail? The variance travels with the parcel. So when there are new roads or new road or exit from the Northway, I think it’s hard to discuss this and grant this, knowing that you’ve got that on the back burner that’s going to be moving forward and is going to change the whole complexion. MR. LAPPER-A valid question. To begin with, we have a vacant existing building and existing Mall. So whether or not there is an expansion or not, this is a problem for the Mall because it’s an 80,000 square foot space that’s been sitting there for, in excess of two years, as far as I can recall, the Caldor space, okay, in excess of two months, as far as I, but that’s a sizable empty space for the Mall, and regardless of the expansion, this needs to be filled up, and because of the location, it needs to be identified, but, Dan, because you haven’t been here, and actually the application for the expansion is not pending before the Zoning Board because it’s not a variance issue, but everyone is pretty familiar with what’s been going on. I’d just like to explain quickly, if you’re familiar with where the existing Penneys is, the entire expansion would be from the existing Penneys heading out toward Aviation Road, cutting into the hill where the Howard Johnson’s motel is. So that it doesn’t effect, so in terms of the back, there’s a little bit of a re-grade of the parking lot between the Bon Ton building and the Northway, but that’s just for some aesthetic issues, for some traffic movement, just to make it a little bit, the traffic flow a little better and to have a little more green space back there, but nothing else is happening to the back of the Mall. Everything is taking out 400,000 cubic yards, if you can imagine it, of sand, where the motel is, and building it down into that hill, so it would be at the level of the Penneys finished floor right now. So it doesn’t, it doesn’t make the Bon Ton anymore visible, which is what your point is. MR. STEC-Do you foresee any future movement toward a new exit of the interstate? MR. LAPPER-No, because we’ve looked at that, and the exit that everybody thinks of at Crossgates is something that’s an anomaly, legally, because the distance between Route 20 and 90 is actually, although it’s called Fuller Road extension or something, it’s, that is actually a city street that is built to look like the design standards for an interstate highway, but it’s not, because the standards for getting a ramp from an interstate highway onto a private parcel, it has to be in a urban area where the traffic is so congested that there are safety issues that are so immense that that’s the only way it’s an exception to justify that. That’s a whole other story, but rest assured that the expansion is not going to happen without DOT signing off on it, and we’re only in that process right now, and if it can’t, then it’s not going to be a 150,000 square foot addition, because the DOT’s going to say the traffic can’t handle it. So there will be substantial improvements, but unfortunately it can’t be an exit ramp off the Northway. MR. STEC-Right. MR. CUSTER-When do you plan to start taking down that motel there, Jon? 24 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/16/98) MR. LAPPER-The day after the permits are issued by the DOT. Certainly not until then, is my real answer. MR. STONE-But all the property is now owned by Pyramid, both gas stations? MR. LAPPER-Yes. Both gas stations are under contract, but they haven’t been purchased, but the motel, and the restaurant are owned by Pyramid. MR. STONE-Okay. MRS. LAPHAM-Will the Bon Ton here be the same caliber as the one in Wilton, with the decor and signs and merchandise and so forth? MR. LAPPER-Yes. They’re spending a serious amount of money turning it into, what was a discount department store into a fashion department store, completely gutting it and starting all over. Very similar level of trim. MR. STONE-It will always be referred to as Caldor. MR. LAPPER-I’ll stop saying that from now on. MR. STONE-Unfortunately, those are the kind of things that do happen. MR. LAPPER-That’s true. That’s why they need some signs. MR. STONE-Good, Jon. MR. MC NALLY-How is this sign in the entrance facing Aviation Road illuminated? MR. LAPPER-Internally illuminated, like the rest of the Mall signs, but the Bon Ton sign, it’s hard to see here. They’re sort of minimalists, as far as retail signs go. So that’s a complication, as far as retail signs go, because it’s only, from the Wilton Mall, it’s only the letters themselves that are back lit. It’s not the panel. So it’s not a. MR. STEC-Like the old, just the letters internally. MR. LAPPER-Right, except that it’s much smaller, and just, the Caldor was this big, design wise. MR. CUSTER-And they’re going to rip all that garish near? MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. STONE-And there’s going to be a side entrance on the west side, right, a new side entrance? MR. LAPPER-Let me just answer Brian’s question, first. The mirror entrance, there’s a triangle that you see here, and this is going to come out. So it’s all going to be built over the sidewalk, but it’s just going to be a much more attractive, give more place to stand under the snow and rain. Now, I’ve forgotten your question. MR. STONE-There’ll be, as I read here, a new west entrance, a new western entrance? MR. LAPPER-Yes. We talked about four signs so far. Because the Caldor building, because you’ve got those two alleys that you have to walk down to get to the Mall to go into the front, partly just in terms of traffic, so that everyone doesn’t have to be walking in there to get to, only one entrance inside the Mall, they’re requesting, requiring a sign, a new entranceway on the west facade which gets to those parking fields. There’s more area for parking there than there is in the field between Sears and this building. That just makes it better for internal circulation, pedestrian circulation. In order to do that, site plan modification, a very, very minor site plan modification, is required, which is pending a week from now with the Planning Board to beef up the landscaping right there, so it looks like an attractive entrance to the store. There’s a compactor there right now, and a sidewalk out the door to the parking lot. So that’s an improvement to that part of the Mall. MR. CUSTER-That compactor is going to go? MR. LAPPER-The compactor is being re-located, it’s on the map, to the back of the building. 25 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/16/98) MR. CUSTER-In back where the service entrance is? MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. CUSTER-I see it now. Okay. MR. LAPPER-That’s, the sign over the door is a relatively small sign. That’s so people understand that that’s how you get into the Caldor store. The only other sign that’s left is a sign that is, the larger sign on the western facade is the only sign is the only sign that when you’re coming around the Mall, that you’re going to be able to see in your car and to know that there’s a Bon Ton there. So that’s very important to them that it’s still something that you can only see, I think the Staff Notes say for a split second when you’re driving by on the Northbound lane. MR. STONE-In the middle of December when there’s not a thing on the trees. MR. LAPPER-Right, but that’s something so that when you’re coming around the parking lot, and that’s something that is important to them as well. MR. CUSTER-Did we agree that those two signs don’t need to be discussed? MR. THOMAS-The interior ones. MR. LAPHAM-The interior ones, don’t. MR. THOMAS-They aren’t part of the application, though. MR. LAPPER-No. He’s not talking about the interior. He’s talking about. MR. STONE-One interior is gone. I mean, that’s not even on the application. Your talking in the alley. MR. CUSTER-Yes, the alley signs. MR. BROWN-Sign Two and Three. MR. STONE-Well, they have to be discussed. MR. STEC-It won’t be part of the motion, because they don’t require a variance. MR. LAPPER-You can say that in the motion, that they don’t require a variance. MR. STEC-Right. MR. CUSTER-I’m just trying to simplify the application here. Are we in agreement with that? MR. THOMAS-I am. We’re really talking, those two signs are givens. So we’re only talking about four signs here. MR. STONE-And the one in the middle, the one listed as Sign Four, I think is not in the application at all. That’s inside. So we’re talking the freestanding sign close to Sears, right. We’re talking two signs, which we haven’t really described, on the western side. MR. LAPPER-On the western side. MR. STONE-And the one out here. MR. STONE-You’re talking One. MR. CUSTER-Four and Five are the alley signs. MR. LAPPER-Correct. MR. BROWN-Two and Three are the alley signs. 26 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/16/98) MR. LAPPER-It’s different. My list and the maps. MR. STONE-Two and Three on this thing are the alley signs. I don’t know how they go on your. MR. CUSTER-I want to get on the same page here. MRS. LAPHAM-And those are the two that we don’t need to discuss. MR. LAPPER-Right. MR. STONE-Okay. Number One is Number Five. MR. LAPPER-Lew is reading from my letter. MR. STONE-Number One on the letter is Number Five on this sheet. Right? MR. LAPPER-Correct. MR. STONE-Okay. The western facade of the store is what, Six or Seven? That’s seven. MR. THOMAS-This is the new entrance right here. MR. LAPPER-The new entrance is in the middle, and the larger sign up on top of the building. MR. STONE-That’s Six then, Two is Six, 38 by 4 feet. MR. LAPPER-Right. MR. STONE-That’s this one? MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. STONE-So, that’s Number Six. MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. BROWN-I think there’s really only three signs you need to be concerned with, the two on the western facade of the building, and the small freestanding sign. The rest of them are either not visible off site or permitted signs. MR. STONE-In other words Sign Five, the one on Aviation, that’s their one allotted sign? MR. BROWN-That’s correct. MRS. LAPHAM-Okay, and Two and Three are allotted. MR. BROWN-Two and Three you don’t count because they’re not visible off site. MRS. LAPHAM-Okay. So on the drawing it’s freestanding number one and six and seven? MR. BROWN-That’s correct. MRS. LAPHAM-Okay. MR. BROWN-And Sign One you may want to make the determination is not visible off site, and that might not need relief either, but it was included for thoroughness, I’m assuming. So it may be, in fact, only Sign Six and Seven that require relief. MR. STONE-Sign One, the freestanding. MR. THOMAS-No, you can’t see that off site. MR. STONE-You can’t see that one? 27 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/16/98) MR. THOMAS-The only way you can see that is from the Niagara Mohawk right-of-way. MR. STONE-Okay. MRS. LAPHAM-Or when you go around the Mall to the back. MR. THOMAS-That’s still on site, yes. MRS. LAPHAM-Yes. When Caldor was there, they had one there. MR. THOMAS-So really we’re only talking two signs. MR. STONE-These two are out, we don’t care about these. MR. LAPPER-Right. MR. STONE-And Three is Seven. MR. CUSTER-Three is Seven. MR. LAPPER-That’s the facade. MR. CUSTER-Okay. I’ve got that now in my head. MR. LAPPER-I couldn’t use the numbers on the plan or it would have been more than six, and you never want to use a bigger number than six. MR. CUSTER-All right. I’ve got everything now. MR. STONE-All right. This one which is just like the one down in Saratoga? MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. STONE-And then the one over the door, which is understandable, and the freestanding one doesn’t count? MR. BROWN-If you can’t see it off site, it doesn’t count. MR. LAPPER-You could argue that you could see it off site, from the NiMo right-of-way. MR. THOMAS-That’s not a public right-of-way. MR. LAPPER-Right, but it’s adjacent, adjacent property is also one of the other definitions. I saw Bob reading it before we even got here. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Does everybody understand? MRS. LAPHAM-I think I understand. MR. CUSTER-I’m ready to discuss and vote, and listen to the public hearing. MR. THOMAS-We’ve got to have the public hearing first. I’m ready. MR. LAPPER-Because the applicant is Bon Ton, the tenant, I think it’s more appropriate to ask Bob Orlando to speak during the public hearing rather than as part of the application. MR. THOMAS-Okay. I will now open the public hearing. Anyone wishing to speak in favor of this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED BOB ORLANDO 28 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/16/98) MR. ORLANDO-Good evening everyone. I’m Bob Orlando, the General Manager of Aviation Mall, and I work for Pyramid Companies. As you well know, the Caldor store was here for 20 years on the back of Aviation Mall. It was a very successful store for a number of years, and as a part of the overall, I guess downfall, of that particular retailer, they closed their store in June of this year. The impact on the Mall, in particular that area of the Mall, just from the sheer traffic of the people who would head in there to either pick up just a few things, or do some serious shopping, has effected especially the merchants who are right in that general area as you walk down that little corridor way to the back. So, filling that space for our Mall is really key to our future success at the Mall. So having the Bon Ton entertain this lease and to bring that use into our Mall, which is lacking a higher fashion type offering to the folks in this area, including myself, because I’m a shopper as well, to not have to necessarily leave this area to complete more of my shopping is very attractive to the customer. The location, as Jon was mentioning, being on the back side of the Mall, is a tough location. Therefore, these signs that the Bon Ton are proposing I think helps all of that ill, to make sure that someone who enters our property, no matter where they enter or where they are on the property, that they are going to have an indication that the Bon Ton does exist on the back of the Mall, and therefore the variance before you today. Also, as Jon mentioned, the fact that the lease that we have negotiated with the Bon Ton stipulates these signs. They feel it’s an important piece of the puzzle to make this a successful venture for them. They are significantly investing some dollars as well as we are, too. So I would implore you to seriously consider this variance, and I appreciate the chance to speak tonight. Thank you. MR. THOMAS-I have one question for you. Why wouldn’t the other stores in the Mall want the same consideration for signs, especially like a sign over the entrance, or something like that? MR. ORLANDO-Why wouldn’t they want it? It depends upon the type of retailer that you’re speaking about. When you look at the anchor stores and just in general, from, as a developer, the types of requirements that we have as we negotiate these kinds of leases, the department stores are there as a draw to bring the people to the Mall, and then the direct benefit to the merchants who are also there is the foot traffic that is generated by those stores, and that’s reflected from a rent standpoint as well, because on a per square foot basis, you normally don’t receive a similar type rent from a department store as you would from another retailer. So, by having those signs there the other retailers will benefit from that as well. So it really is never an issue with them. MR. THOMAS-Have any of the other retailers in there ever approached the Pyramid Corporation to have a sign, another sign put outside? MR. ORLANDO-Not to my knowledge, no. MR. THOMAS-You’ve only been there, what, two years? MR. ORLANDO-I’ve been here since February of this year. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Are there anymore questions? MR. STONE-Yes. Neither entrance from Aviation Mall entrance is directly in line with the back hallway, is it? MR. THOMAS-No. MR. STONE-No, but they’re not going to ask, they’re not going to come back to us and ask us for one over the food court area? MR. ORLANDO-No. What you see before you is what they’re requesting, and I feel it’s certainly adequate to do what they want to do. MR. STONE-Neither one of them, both of them you have turn inward to get to the, okay. I just want to be sure that they’re not going to come back and they’re going to say, well, gee, we need another one over the other entrance. MR. ORLANDO-Of course I can’t speak for them, but not to my knowledge. What you see is what you get here. So he’ll have to answer that one. MR. LAPPER-They have no other rights to ask Pyramid. Pyramid, in the lease, has to approve signs. They can’t go apply for signs without the Mall owner okaying it, and their lease doesn’t give them the right to any other signs, other than what’s requested. 29 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/16/98) MR. STONE-Okay. MR. THOMAS-All right. Any other questions for Mr. Orlando? MR. ORLANDO-Thank you. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Thank you. Would anyone else like to speak in favor of this application? HARRY TROELSTRA MR. TROELSTRA-I’m Harry Troelstra from Garden Time, Inc., and also I’m a resident of Two Carlton Drive in Queensbury. I have no objection to the couple of extra signs that the Bon Ton is requesting. I feel it’s necessary, basically, to identify themselves more clearly. I have been driving around the Mall several times and as far as entrance to the original Caldor, it was never indicated too strongly, I guess, or identified too strongly. So I feel whatever they’re doing to identify themselves better, I think it will benefit the Mall. I was in Burlington this past Sunday, and just to say, basically, that the Mall needs a little boost of advertising, and also have one of the major anchor stores coming back, I think it’s very important to the Mall and this area. As I was saying, I was in Burlington having something to eat this past Sunday, and I was talking to a manager of one of the eating places there, and he lives in Castleton, VT. He said normally we would be shopping in Glens Falls, but he said there is nothing actually that attracts us anymore and he said we go past Glens Falls now and we’ll be shopping either in Saratoga or Albany. I said, why not in Burlington. He said, somehow that doesn’t draw for me yet, even though I work here, I still like to shop in New York State. So, this indicates to me that evidently the Mall has not enough pull, and I think anything that can create or make more of a pull will benefit this area. Jon was talking about, he was going to remove a certain ugly structure. May I ask what that is? MR. LAPPER-It’s a wooden, if you’re at Sears and you’re looking down that alley to get into where the old Caldor was, it says Caldors on it. It’s existing. It’s a big wooden, sort of a natural wood structure that you walk underneath. MR. TROELSTRA-Okay. You’ve got my approval. I thought he was talking about that bunch of eight by eight timbers that are a so called architectural structure in the center, and I just want to let him know that I put a lot of sweat in putting that together. This was about 15 years or 20 years ago when Caldor. I put it up for Garden Time. We did the landscaping there, and I put all those eight by eight’s in and it was the month of August, and it seemed like every day was 90 degrees. So, I put a lot of sweat into it. So let it be a little longer there. Okay. Thank you. That’s all I have to say. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Thank you. MR. STONE-Was the food as good as the Silo’s, Harry? MR. TROELSTRA-Not quite. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Is there anyone that would like to speak opposed? Opposed. MR. LAPPER-He’s not opposed. BILL MARQUARDT MR. MARQUARDT-My name is Bill Marquardt. I’m also with the Pyramid Companies, as Jon mentioned, recently just came to the community, and maybe I can offer myself to answer questions. I am from the Anchor Leasing Department at Pyramid and do have some experience, not only with negotiating this lease, and I guess the only thing that I would add is that the signage package before you is an essential element considered by Bon Ton when coming to this community and signing this lease. Signage is absolutely critical to them. I can tell you that it was negotiated at length and discussed at length in this lease and given a lot of thought, and Bon Ton is very interested in seeing that this goes through, and so is Pyramid. MR. STONE-Did you at least warn them, or were they warned that we don’t give Sign Variances easy, unless the argument is very persuasive? 30 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/16/98) MR. MARQUARDT-We do, and at the same point, we are very protective of our centers ourselves, and I can ask Mr. Thomas, you asked if people, I shouldn’t say people, but retailers, when they come to us, do they ask for signage from time to time, and I can tell you that the answer is certainly, yes. I’m sure there’s food court tenants that would love to have an enormous sign in the exterior of our Mall, but that doesn’t work for our development of a shopping center. It doesn’t make sense to us. So it’s an immediate no from the outset, from our Leasing Department, and only in instances when it really makes sense, such as, you know, an anchor use, an 80,000 square foot use that’s on the back of the center, so that they can find themselves, because it would make sense that we would approve it and come to you, hopefully, for your approval, and I think what we came up with is an architecturally pleasing solution which works for not only Bon Ton and Pyramid, but also the municipality. MR. STONE-Speaking of signs, because we’re putting a big Bon Ton sign on the west wall. The freestanding on the east wall will be sufficient. We’re not going to come back for a wall sign on the east? MR. MARQUARDT-As Jon mentioned, they have rights under the lease, and those rights are before you. They can come back to Pyramid and they can ask, and we have no obligation to give them that. If they ask for something and we feel that it’s appropriate, we may come back. I can’t imagine that happening. MR. STONE-We can, though. MR. CUSTER-Alternative Nation. MR. STEC-I’ve got a question. Bill, if you don’t mind me asking, the proposed or planned expansion, what are the anchor stores that are? MR. MARQUARDT-I think it would be unwise for me. I can’t really talk about that. We’re in the midst of negotiations, and I think. MR. STEC-How many more anchor stores are we talking about, one more, two more? MR. MARQUARDT-A number, one might be 15,000 square feet, another is something over 100,000 square feet. We’re talking to a number of national retailers that I think would be excited to be in this market and I think this market would like to see them here, and we’ve done it at our other centers and we hope to do it here. MR. THOMAS-Okay. MR. STEC-I tried. My mom told me to try. MR. STONE-I think all of us want the Mall to be as successful as possible, and obviously, we’d love to have, I would, some more upscale stuff. I guess that’s the problem. I’d let Mr. Orlando know that the Mall does not have the greatest cache in the work at the moment. MRS. LAPHAM-It’s nice to see a better class of department store willing to come here. MR. MARQUARDT-I think Bon Ton will be a great step toward solving that perception. MRS. LAPHAM-I mean, there’s a place for discount stores, but I don’t feel it’s in the mall. MR. STONE-Unfortunately, when I think of the Bon Ton, I think of a 1920’s musical, but that’s their problem, not your problem. MR. MC NALLY-Jon, in the southwest corner of the site plan, there’s a shaded parcel. What is that? The other corner, what is that? MR. STONE-It’s employee parking, I think, isn’t it, Jon? At least one of them is, down on the other side. MR. CUSTER-I think that’s where you’re going to re-grade, isn’t it, Jon? MR. LAPPER-Yes, I think that is. 31 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/16/98) MR. STEC-Now you can get rid of that elevated area? MR. LAPPER-Yes, but that’s not going to happen now. That would happen at the expansion, and that’s on the plan for the expansion. MR. STONE-Jon, that depiction you have there. MR. LAPPER-Which depiction? MR. STONE-That one in the lower corner, I mean, the Northway looks awfully close, since you’ve got all those properties in there. I mean, did the architect really do that from scale? MR. LAPPER-No. The difference is, this is the property that was owned by the Mall before the last acquisition. This doesn’t show the Howard Johnson’s parking lot. MR. STONE-So the Northway is that close on that part. MR. CUSTER-Right. MR. STONE-Okay. I’ve got you. Yes, I guess it is. That’s where Craig can see that sign as he whizzes by, at 25 miles an hour. MR. LAPPER-Exactly. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Is there anyone else who would like to speak opposed or in favor of? Is there any correspondence? MRS. LAPHAM-No. MR. THOMAS-No correspondence. I’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. THOMAS-Are there anymore questions for the applicant or the applicant’s agent? Okay. This is an unlisted action. We have to go through the SEQRA in the Short Form. We might as well do that now. Okay. SEQRA, Environmental Assessment Part II. “Does any action exceed the Type I Threshold in 6NYCRR Part 617.47?” MR. STONE-No. MR. THOMAS-Does everybody agree to no? Does anybody know what it means? MR. STONE-No, but we’re not doing anything to the environment. Therefore, it’s got to be no. MR. THOMAS-Yes. Under “B. Will the action receive coordinated review as provided for Unlisted Actions in 6NYCRR Part 617.6?” MR. STONE-Yes. MR. THOMAS-I would say, yes, because the Planning Board has to look at this, if I’m not mistaken. MR. LAPPER-But that’s not a coordinated review issue. None of these are Type I Thresholds. That’s what the Staff had said, that this is an Unlisted Action, rather than a Type I Action. You only have to have coordinated review, Type I parking for over. MR. STONE-Okay. So he’s saying no, a neg dec could be superseded. All right. I was reading it we needed an explanation. MR. LAPPER-A building over 100 feet is one of the Type I thresholds. MR. THOMAS-All right. Under “C. Could action result in any adverse effects associated with the following; C1. Existing air quality, surface or groundwater quality or quantity, noise levels, existing traffic patterns, solid waste production or disposal, potential for erosion, drainage or flooding problems?” 32 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/16/98) MRS. LAPHAM-I would say no. MR. THOMAS-No. MR. STONE-We are increasing the, taking out that shed, so the permeable area will increase. Make it better. MR. THOMAS-“C2. Aesthetic, agricultural, archeological, historic or other natural or cultural resources or community or neighborhood character?” MRS. LAPHAM-No. MR. STONE-No. MR. THOMAS-“C3. Vegetation or fauna, fish, shellfish or wildlife species, significant habitats or threatened or endangered species?” MR. STONE-No. MRS. LAPHAM-No. MR. THOMAS-No. “C4. A community’s existing plans or goals as officially adopted or a change in use or intensity of use of land or other natural resources?” No. “C5. Growth, subsequent development or related activities likely to be induced by the proposed action?” MR. STONE-Well, the Bon Ton hopes so, but no. MR. THOMAS-No, because it’s just the signs. “C6. Long term, short term, cumulative or other effects not identified in C1 through C5?” MR. STONE-No, none. MR. THOMAS-No. “C7. Other impacts including changes in the use of either quantity or type of energy?” Well, the Bon Ton would probably use more electricity, but I have no problem with that. “D. Will the project have an impact on the environmental characteristics that cause the establishment of a CEA?” MR. STONE-No. MRS. LAPHAM-No. MR. THOMAS-Not anywhere near one. “E. Is there or is there likely to be controversy related to the potential adverse environmental impacts?” MR. STONE-No. MRS. LAPHAM-No. MR. THOMAS-No. “Determination of Significance to be completed by the Agency” The second one down, “Check this box if you have determined, based on the information and analysis shown above, and any supporting documentation, that the proposed action will not result in any significant adverse environmental impacts and provide, on attachments as necessary, the reasons supporting this determination.” MR. STONE-Check that box. MR. THOMAS-Check that box. Got it. All right. That takes care of that, and we’ll fill out a nice clean one on that. Somebody will sign it for me. All right. Now we come to the talk about it part. I’ll start with Bob down there. MR. MC NALLY-I don’t have a problem with this. What plans, if any, are there for cutting down vegetation along the Northway, though, to make this Mall more visible? 33 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/16/98) MR. LAPPER-There aren’t, and actually, the plan is to augment what’s there now, with DOT’s permission, which we talked to DOT about, because that’s where the bike path would go. Well, let me back up. Putting the bike path in might include the removal of some trees that, just at the top of that hill, but there’s 90 feet of area between the edge of pavement and the property line. It’s possible that the top 10 feet along the property line, at certain parts of this, might be cleared to put the bike path in, which is something that the community has asked for, but the bike path would also be landscaped. So there would be shrubs and trees added in different areas to make the bike path look good. So, it can’t be cleared, it’s DOT’s property. MR. MC NALLY-I think, all things being considered, it’s a reasonable attempt to try to designate entrances to the Bon Ton, and I can understand how the company might insist upon this, given the out of the way nature of this Caldor store. So, on balance, I’m in favor of it. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Dan? MR. STEC-I agree. The concerns that I had were addressed at the offset, that the majority of the signs that we’re talking about are not visible from the roads, and this is no significant departure from past practice, i.e. the Caldor store. I enjoyed the point that Bob brought up, is that I hadn’t thought about is would there be any intention to clear vegetation to make the Mall more visible, and I liked the answer that I heard from Jon, and I don’t think it’s really necessary to make that a part of the motion, but for the record, I think that adding flora to that portion of the property is probably a good idea, but I’m in favor of this variance. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Bonnie? MRS. LAPHAM-I’m in favor of this variance. The concerns I had with extra signs were addressed when I found out that most of them were only visible to customers who were already in the Mall, and it would be almost a directional kind of thing, and the Mall certainly can use a little upper level of stores, and this is replacing a kind of nondescript discount store, with a really nice department store. I’d like to see more, Lord & Taylor’s, Macys. MR. LAPPER-We’d like to be back here next month, too. MRS. LAPHAM-With Macys? MR. LAPPER-We’d like to be. MR. THOMAS-Lew? MR. STONE-Contrary to most Sign Variances, basically this one is easy. It will certainly be a benefit to the community and a benefit to the applicant to have the store in there. The fact that you want to put up four signs that are in question, so to speak, one is allowed. So we’re talking three. We’re talking one over a new entrance. Obviously, you can’t have an entrance without a sign over it. It’s common sense that you’ve got to have a sign there. The wall sign, I think the store is allowed, should be allowed to have one sign on its building that says who they are. That’s really their one sign, the one over the Mall entrance is, whichever one you want to say is permitted, it doesn’t make any difference, and certainly the freestanding sign is not visible. The other three signs we’re not even talking about, so I have no problem with this variance at all. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Brian? MR. CUSTER-I’m not going to belabor this anymore. I’m in agreement with everything that’s been said. MR. THOMAS-Okay. I have no problem with this application either. The applicant originally asked for a variance for six signs, and upon discussion here, it was determined that only two signs would need a variance consideration. So I think that the two signs, as Lew said, is very minimal, and as testimony has pointed out, that this is an 80,000 square foot anchor store in this Mall, and they do need the advertising and the signage for direction to that store, being in the back of the Mall. MR. STEC-Chris, if I may also add for the record, that these signs in particular I think are less obtrusive than other sign requests that I’ve seen, as far as their overall size, and the design of the sign, in addition to the large size of the Mall, thus mitigating the circumstance, too. I mean, you can’t really compare a Mall to a standalone store. So I think that the size of the Mall and the 34 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/16/98) relatively small size of the signs are things that make this a lot easier to approve. Because as we all know, we are very protective of our Sign Ordinance, and for the record, I thought that we should get that on the record. MR. THOMAS-Yes, I think you’re right. Okay. Having said all that, I would ask for a motion. MR. LAPPER-Did you make a motion on SEQRA, yet? MR. THOMAS-No. Let me make the SEQRA motion here. MR. STONE-Thank you, Jon. MR. THOMAS-I always screw this one up. MOTION THAT A REVIEW OF THE SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM SHOWS THAT THERE ARE NO NEGATIVE IMPACTS CAUSED BY THIS APPLICATION, SIGN VARIANCE NO. 89-1998 THE BON TON DEPARTMENT STORES , Introduced by Chris Thomas who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brian Custer: th Duly adopted this 16 day of December, 1998, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stone, Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Stec, Mr. McNally, Mr. Custer, Mr. Thomas NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Hayes MR. THOMAS-Okay. That takes care of that. Okay. MR. STONE-There are four signs that he wants, three have to be varied. MR. LAPPER-I would prefer, if it’s okay with you, if you make a statement in the motion that two of them can’t be seen from off site, so therefore they. MR. STONE-You want to go back to the six? MR. LAPPER-I think if we start with six, since I applied for six, because someday, 10 years from now, somebody’s going to be looking in the file trying to figure it out. MR. STONE-Okay. Which one do you want to be the allowable one? MR. LAPPER-The one on the front of the Mall. MR. STONE-The Aviation one. MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. STONE-Number Five or Number One, depending upon how you look at it. Okay. MOTION TO APPROVE SIGN VARIANCE NO. 89-1998 THE BON TON DEPARTMENT STORES , Introduced by Lewis Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Bonnie Lapham: Aviation Mall, Aviation Road. The applicant proposes construction of six signs, one freestanding and five wall signs. The applicant requests relief for five signs from the Sign Ordinance, 140- 6B(3)(d) Business Complex. According to that Ordinance, each occupant within a Business Complex shall be permitted one wall sign. The application outlines six signs, one of which is a permitted sign, and relief is requested for the balance. The currently permitted sign, or the sign that will be permitted, is a 33 foot by 5 foot facade sign at the center entrance of the Mall facing Aviation Road. A variance is given for the following five signs, a 38 foot 8 inch by 4 foot facade sign on the western facade of the store, a 14 foot 6 inch by 1 foot 6 inch facade sign over a new entrance to be constructed in the center of the western facade of the store, a 12 foot 1 inch by 1 foot 3 inch facade sign over the existing western Mall entrance located directly north of the store, a 12 foot 1 inch by 1 foot three inch facade sign over the existing eastern Mall entrance located directly north of the store, and an 8 foot by 2 foot freestanding sign at the existing eastern Mall 35 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/16/98) entrance, located between Sears and the Bon Ton Store. It should be noted that the two facade signs over the existing western mall entrance and the existing eastern Mall entrance will not be visible from any public thoroughfare, and while we are going to grant a variance for them, it is probably not required, since they are not visible. In granting this variance, we recognize the benefit to the applicant, would be permitted to construct and display the desired signs in the preferred locations, and while there are feasible alternatives which might include consolidation of signs and no construction, we feel that this is not a benefit to either the applicant or to the community in which the applicant desires to do business. In considering this variance, we note, as stated above, that only three signs will really be visible from public thoroughfares, namely the two on the western facade, and the one on the front which is an allowable sign. We do not regard the additional three signs to be of substantial relief. Again, in granting this variance, we have determined that there are minimal effects on the neighborhood, as a result of this action, and while the difficulty may be interpreted as self created, obviously, a new business coming into this size store needs to have sufficient signage. th Duly adopted this 16 day of December, 1998, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. McNally, Mr. Custer, Mr. Stone, Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Stec, Mr. Thomas NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Hayes MR. THOMAS-There you go. MR. LAPPER-Thank you, and the plan is to be open at the end of April. MR. CUSTER-My son wants to know when that Old Navy Store lease is getting signed. I understand that’s imminent. MR. LAPPER-We can’t comment on leases that are not signed, but we may, if such a store were to come, they may require a sign on the front of the Mall, and so we may be back to talk about a store of that size, but I can’t say. MR. LAPPER-Fair enough. MR. STONE-I just want to know when the Weathervane is going to serve lobster. That’s what I really want to know. MR. THOMAS-All right. That takes care of that. We have to do minutes. CORRECTION OF MINUTES November 18, 1998: NONE MOTION TO ACCEPT THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING OF NOVEMBER 18, 1998 AS PRINTED , Introduced by Chris Thomas who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert McNally: th Duly adopted this 16 day of December, 1998, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stone, Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Stec, Mr. McNally, Mr. Thomas NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Custer ABSENT: Mr. Hayes December 9, 1998: NONE MOTION TO ACCEPT THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SPECIAL MEETING OF DECEMBER 9, 1998 AS PRINTED , Introduced by Chris Thomas who moved for its adoption, seconded by Bonnie Lapham: 36 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/16/98) th Duly adopted this 16 day of December, 1998, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stone, Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Stec, Mr. McNally, Mr. Thomas NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Custer ABSENT: Mr. Hayes MR. THOMAS-I’ll make a motion we adjourn. MR. STONE-I’ll second it. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Chris Thomas, Chairman 37