Loading...
1999-06-23 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/23/99) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SECOND REGULAR MEETING JUNE 23, 1999 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT CHRIS THOMAS, CHAIRMAN LEWIS STONE CHARLES MC NULTY PAUL HAYES DANIEL STEC MEMBERS ABSENT BONNIE LAPHAM ROBERT MC NALLY CODE COMPLIANCE OFFICER-CRAIG BROWN STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. THOMAS-First I want to read a letter into the record for a withdrawal of an application. MR. HAYES-This letter is dated June 21, 1999, Mr. Christian G. Thomas, Chairman, Zoning Board of Appeals, Town of Queensbury “Dear Sir: As a follow-up to my letter of June 16, 1999, this will be to advise that I am hereby withdrawing my variance request under File No. 24-1999. I regret any inconvenience which may have been created. Very truly yours, Francis R. Koenig 51 Fairview Avenue Kingston, NY” MR. THOMAS-All right. NEW BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 41-1999 TYPE II WR-1A CEA DANIEL SPRAGUE OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE 27 ARBERGER DRIVE, OFF BIG BOOM ROAD APPLICANT HAS CONSTRUCTED A 1,640 SQ. FT. SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND SEEKS RELIEF FROM SHORELINE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 6/9/99 TAX MAP NO. 140-1-8 LOT SIZE: 0.43 ACRES SECTION 179-16, 179-60 DANIEL SPRAGUE, PRESENT MR. HAYES-We have a letter dated May 15, 1999, from Betty & Dan Sprague, “To Whom It May Concern: Before building my home, I went to the Town of Queensbury Zoning and Planning Department. I brought a survey of the land and talked to Craig Brown. There was a question as to whether the 50-foot setback should be from the property line or the shoreline. I was told the shoreline. I was told to plot the house on the original survey. I met all the setbacks. I then went to Dave Hatin who had visited the site. The problem he had was with the flood zone elevation. At that time, the Town of Queensbury did not have record of what the flood zone elevation should be. I then went to the Conservation Department, Niagara Mohawk, and the Town of Moreau and accumulated paperwork and maps. Dave and I agreed on an elevation. Everything was approved by him. I then submitted a demolition permit and applied for all building permits and they were approved. When the house was completed, we had an as-built survey done. All setbacks were met except the shoreline, which you can see by comparing the two surveys, the shoreline has changed. The river’s movement is caused by nature and the human control of the dams which change day to day. This is the reason I am apply for a variance for seven and a half feet at the farthest northeast point of my house. Thank you for your time. Daniel T. Sprague” STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 41-1999, Daniel Sprague, Meeting Date: June 23, 1999 “Project Location: 27 Arberger Drive Description of Proposed Project: Applicant has constructed a 1,640 sf single family dwelling and seeks shoreline setback relief. Relief Required: Applicant requests 7 feet of relief from the 50 foot minimum shoreline setback requirements of both the WR-1A zone, § 179-16 as well as the Shoreline and Wetlands Regulations, § 179-60. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be permitted to maintain the existing structure at its current location. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives may include removal of open deck in order to reduce 1 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/23/99) the apparent violation. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?: 7 feet of relief from the 50 foot requirement may be interpreted as minimal to moderate. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: Minimal to moderate effects on the neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of this action. 5. Is this difficulty self-created? The difficulty may be interpreted as self created. The applicant presented a plot plan with a building permit application that depicted the proposed structure in a compliant location. A portion of the difficulty may be attributed to the inaccuracy of this original plot plan. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): BP 98-647 – 10/26/98 construction of a single family dwelling Staff comments: Minimal to moderate impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action. This apparent violation was discovered upon submittal of the final survey required by the Building Department for new construction. The shoreline in this area appears to be well defined and does not appear to fluctuate significantly. SEQR Status: Type II” MR. THOMAS-All right. We didn’t get anything from the County on that, did we? MR. HAYES-“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form Project Name: Daniel Sprague Staff Notes: A copy of the relevant portion of the site drawing is included with the summary. The applicant is required to have a 50-foot setback and is proposing a 43-foot setback. The applicant did not identify any mitigating reasons as to why a 43-foot setback is necessary. Staff is recommending discussion. County Planning Board Recommendation: No County Impact” Signed by Terry Ross. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Mr. Sprague, come up here and we’ve got a few questions for you. Can you tell us what happened? In your letter you said the shoreline changed? MR. SPRAGUE-Daniel Sprague, 27 Arberger Drive. Queensbury resident. I came in with a survey that was given to me when I bought the house. We discussed the shoreline, and then when I had the final survey, the shoreline has moved, which they say can move over a period of years from erosion, and I lacked, well, on an angle, six feet. Straight out, I lacked nine inches. MR. THOMAS-Do you know what the date of the original survey was? MR. SPRAGUE-1985. MR. THOMAS-1985. So, in 14 years that shoreline moved back seven feet, more or less? MR. SPRAGUE-More or less. MR. THOMAS-Are there anymore questions for the applicant? MR. STONE-Are you living in that house? MR. SPRAGUE-Correct. I have a temporary CO. MR. STONE-Okay. A temporary CO, that was the question I was going to ask. MR. SPRAGUE-The water is controlled by Niagara Mohawk, basically, by the dam, in the winter. The people before us never controlled the shoreline. I mean, it was just dirt, and it washes away because of raising up and everything. That’s how it basically erodes, and then they say when they survey it they go by the erosion or where the extra shoreline shows. MR. STONE-Okay. Well, the definition, in the Code, of the shoreline is “The high water mark at which land adjoins the waters of lakes, ponds, rivers and streams with the Town”. Very clear. I mean, you can look at the shoreline and figure out where the high water mark is in most cases. I mean, it’s fairly clear, as far as I’m concerned, looking at the definition, and of course the setback is the shortest distance along the ground between closest point of the house and the shoreline, wherever the shoreline happens to be. I mean, the fact that it may have moved, I mean, you look at a shoreline, you’re supposed to be 50 feet. You’ll get our speech, one of us will make the speech, eventually, about how concerned we are about this. What are the flags for around the property? MR. SPRAGUE-Sprinkler system, but I didn’t put any lawn or anything in, because I don’t know what’s going to happen. MR. STONE-Okay. Is there a floodplain in this area, Craig? MR. BROWN-Yes. MR. STONE-Where does it come to? 2 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/23/99) MR. BROWN-On this map right here, there’s a note on there, A-2, which is how the floodplain maps are zoned on a differently yearly basis, 500 year flood, 100 year flood, and the elevation in this area is 290, and you can see the various notes on there that the building is above the floodplain elevation, which is part of the building code requirements when you’re in a floodplain. You have to make sure all utilities are above the floodplain elevation and your service and water heater and furnace all have to be not in the basement. MR. SPRAGUE-I’m 2.7 feet above the floodplain. MR. STONE-And that’s all right as far as the house that’s constructed? MR. BROWN-Correct. MR. THOMAS-Anymore questions for the applicant before I open up the public hearing? 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 there? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. HAYES-Yes, there is. We have a Record of Telephone Conversation on June 22, 1999, recorded by Pam Whiting, Planning Office “I am unable to attend the meeting but would like it noted that we have no objection to the project. It’s improved the neighborhood”. And it is from Elaine and Joe Fiore. MR. STONE-Do you have an address for that? MR. HAYES-I think they’re on the list here when I looked for the neighborhood. I can find them. 32 Arberger Drive. They’re on the same street. MR. STONE-32, so it’s across the street. MR. HAYES-Yes. Okay. We have some signatures on the letterhead of Betty & Dan Sprague of 27 Arberger Drive, dated June 22, 1999 “To Whom It May Concern: We, the undersigned, have no objections to the variance applied by Daniel T. Sprague at 27 Arberger Drive, Queensbury, NY” There’s James Varney of Arberger Drive; Elaine and Joe Fiore, which is the letter we just read, Luke and Carol Wilson and Mike Huntley, 24 Arberger Drive. Four signatures. MR. THOMAS-Okay. That’ll do it. All right. I’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. STONE-I have a question of Staff. A Temporary CO, is that common? MR. BROWN-Yes. MR. STONE-Okay. All right. We do it periodically. Okay. MR. THOMAS-All right. Are there anymore questions for the applicant? If not, lets talk about it. Lew? MR. STONE-Well, obviously, the standard speech you make when somebody comes in to us with having constructed a home that requires a variance, we’re very concerned about that. We see it, unfortunately, too often. I would recognize, in this particular case, that it was due to a survey in error, in terms of the shoreline. The shoreline has been changed. Nevertheless, if I were going to build a house on the river, and I knew there was a shoreline setback, I’d like to know where the shoreline was the day that I built the house, and obviously there is room in the front to have put the house closer to the road within the 20. You’ve got five or six feet room between where the house is and the setback requirement. MR. SPRAGUE-Well, the setback is 30 feet, and I’m 30 feet on one corner and 31 on the other. MR. STONE-Waterfront? MR. THOMAS-Yes, the front setback is 30. MR. STONE-I’m sorry. I live on the lake and the front of the house is where the shore. I always get confused. You’re right. It’s 30, yes, because we think of the back as the rear of the house. Having said that, I mean, I can see where it can happen. I just wonder, before I, because I really don’t like the idea of granting relief for something that could have been mitigated very easily in the beginning. 3 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/23/99) Have you given any consideration to doing something with the open deck, which is the primary offending thing? Obviously, according to your diagram, the covered porch requires a foot of variance, and we usually want to give, when we give a variance, want to give the minimum amount. I guess I would like to see some give on the part of the applicant, before I go ahead and grant seven feet of relief on a 50-foot setback. I recognize that the benefit to the applicant in this particular case is one that he can occupy the house that he’s built, and it’s a very nice house. It’s a nice piece of property. There’s no question about that, and it’s an asset to the neighborhood. It’s very obvious. I haven’t been down there before, but I can see what other parts along the river have been, and I think it’s a very nice building, but having said that, the balancing test that we must go through, the detriment to the community, we have a lot of shoreline in this Town. Obviously, we get a lot of variance requested on Lake George and on Glen Lake, but we also get a lot on the Hudson, and there are a lot of buildings on the Hudson in the Town of Queensbury, and I think we have to be very careful in terms of saying, well, build it wherever you want and we’ll give you a variance. So, I guess I would like to hear whether or not the Spragues are willing to do something with the offending deck, but failing that, at the moment, I will certainly listen to the rest of the Board members. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Dan? MR. STEC-Well, I understand what Mr. Stone said. Certainly we do have a lot of waterfront property in the Town, and so you’re concerned any time you have to consider granting relief. However, in this case, looking at the five factors that we’ve got to consider, and again, looking at just past cases and whatnot, while we judge each case on its own merit, I’m comfortable with granting this relief, because, in my opinion, the primary violating portion of this structure is just an open deck. I don’t think we’re really talking about, it’s not year round living space. It’s not even a screened in porch. It’s a deck. I believe that the error was made honestly, based on an older survey, and while I think Lew’s right, where it may have been something that could have been caught, I don’t really think it’s practical, at this point, to punish the applicant, especially with this particular violating part really being just a deck and not really a main part of the structure. So I’m comfortable. I think seven feet is minimal, and again, I don’t think it’s any detriment to the immediate neighborhood certainly. I wouldn’t compare this stretch of waterfront property to Glen Lake or Lake George, as far as the density or the size of the lots. I think that in this particular location on the Hudson River, that the relief sought is really minimal. So I’m comfortable with it, but I understand and I certainly echo Mr. Stone’s concerns, but in this particular instance, I’m comfortable. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Chuck? MR. MC NULTY-I guess I’m inclined to go along with Dan. As Lew said, I’m reluctant to approve variances for things that are too close the shoreline, because if nothing else, it sends a signal to the next person that they can get away with the same thing, and I think we’ve got to stop that. At the same time, I can see, if we required the deck to be removed, it would downgrade the house a little bit. It was an honest mistake. It was something that probably should have been caught, if the applicant had been more careful in checking the actual conditions before he started work, but I guess on balance I’m inclined to come down on the approval side. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Jaime? MR. HAYES-I agree with Dan and Chuck. I certainly appreciate Lew’s comments, and he usually saves us a lot of work, as a Board, by pointing out those things right away initially, and it is important that we do point those things out, but I've been on this Board for over two years, and I think in a lot of circumstances, when it appears that the applicant has clean hands, and that a mistake was made, that we’ve tried to see in that balancing test that we don’t necessarily have to live with the literal rule, as it’s presented, and additionally the fact that the biggest part of the violation comes from an angle of that house, I’m not sure that I would have caught that myself, to be honest with you. So I guess on balance I think the benefit to the applicant of being able to maintain his deck as it is now, and it is not a, the house itself or the deck, this is not a gigantic house that’s encroaching hugely on the waterfront. It’s a very tasteful, this doesn’t appear to cause a detriment to the neighborhood to me in any way. So I think, on balance, it falls in favor of the applicant, and I can go with it. MR. THOMAS-All right. I agree with the other Board members. It looks like the river bank had changed in time from the 1985 survey to a note on the bottom of this print that was supplied to us, updated April 22, 1999 to show revised location of riverbank. So the riverbank is going to change in time. So, you know, who knows, maybe it’ll add on to it. Maybe it will increase the setback over time, or maybe decrease the setback in time. No one knows. I would rather have the seven feet on the river than to encroach seven feet on the front setback on Arberger Road, because the setback states 30 feet, and this house is 30.8 in one corner and 31.5. That setback is better, and as far as the septic system, well, the septic system has to be 100 feet from the water. So, hopefully that’s where that is. 4 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/23/99) MR. STONE-That was a question I did have, where is it. MR. THOMAS-Well, I imagine it’s, or they’d be in here for a septic variance, too. So, I really see no reason why we should deny this variance. Having said that, I would ask for a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 41-1999 DANIEL SPRAGUE, Introduced by Daniel Stec who moved for its adoption, seconded by Paul Hayes: 27 Arberger Drive. The applicant has constructed a 1,640 square foot single family dwelling, and seeks shoreline setback relief. Specifically, the applicant requests seven feet of relief from the 50 foot minimum shoreline setback requirement of the Waterfront 1A zone, Section 179-16, as well as the shoreline and wetlands regulations Section 179-60. The criteria for considering an Area Variance, according to Chapter 267 of Town Law is the first to consider the benefit to the applicant. In that the benefit would be the applicant would be permitted to maintain the existing structure in its current location. Feasible alternatives could include removal of the open deck in order to reduce the violation. However, the removal of the deck would not remove the requirement for any relief, in that the covered porch would still require smaller, but approximately one foot of relief. Is the relief substantial relative to the Ordinance? Seven feet is minimal relief to grant, and the effect on the neighborhood or community is, again, in our opinion, minimal. Is the difficulty self-created? It can be interpreted as self-created, in that a more careful inspection prior to construction may have been more likely to discover that, in fact, the front porch corner of the porch is in violation and requires setback. However, it’s noted that it may not have been readily apparent, due to the dated survey that was used in construction of the home. So based on these five points, I move that we grant the seven feet of relief the applicant seeks. Duly adopted this 23 day of June, 1999, by the following vote: rd AYES: Mr. McNulty, Mr. Stec, Mr. Stone, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Thomas NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Lapham, Mr. McNally MR. THOMAS-There you go. MR. STONE-Question, Craig, not with this, but when I went to visit the property, across the street, there’s a basketball court, basketball backboard, set in concrete. How close to the road can that be? Because they’re using the road, your neighbor across the street uses the road. I was just curious, is it legal. MR. BROWN-I don’t think I've had that question before. I’d have to say yes. I mean, we’re not going to require a setback for a swing set. It’s a recreational. MR. STONE-Yes, but this is set in concrete. It’s permanently attached. I noticed it, and I was just curious. That’s all. MR. BROWN-You can call it a fence post. MR. THOMAS-All right. AREA VARIANCE NO. 43-1999 TYPE II SR-1A WAYNE & DAWN VIELE OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE 1 ROBERTS COURT, SOUTHERN EXPOSURE SUBDIVISION APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 774 SQ. FT. ATTACHED GARAGE AND SEEKS RELIEF FROM THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE GARAGE SQUARE FOOTAGE REQUIREMENTS AND SETACK RELIEF. CROSS REF. SUB. 4-83 TAX MAP NO. 150-1-6.69 LOT SIZE: 0.47 ACRES SECTION 179-19, 179-7 WAYNE VIELE, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 43-1999, Wayne & Dawn Viele, Meeting Date: June 23, 1999 “Project Location: 1 Roberts Court Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a 774 sf attached garage addition to a single-family dwelling and seeks relief from the allowable square footage requirements for garages as well as setback relief. Relief Required: Applicant requests 2 feet of relief from the 10-foot minimum side setback requirement of the SR-1A zone, § 179-19. Also, the applicant is requesting 426 square feet of relief from the 900 square foot maximum allowable for a private garage, as per § 179-7. Applicant is proposing two garage areas totaling 1326 sf. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town 5 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/23/99) Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be permitted to construct the desired addition in order to store their recreational vehicle. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives may include relocation of the proposed structure to a compliant location. It does not appear that any other sized structure would satisfy the applicant’s request. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?: 2 feet of relief from the 10-foot minimum requirement may be interpreted as minimal, however, 426 sf of relief from the allowable 900 sf, may be interpreted as substantial. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: Moderate effects on the neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of this action. An additional garage, especially one of this significant size may have considerable visual impacts on the neighborhood. 5. Is this difficult self-created? Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): BP 99-185 – 5/11/99 construction of a single family dwelling. Staff comments: Moderate impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action. This amount of additional garage square footage appears to be a substantial request for relief. The applicant has stated that this area will be utilized for the storage of a recreational vehicle. It appears that the applicant may be able to relocate the proposed structure to meet the setback requirements. Consideration should be given to the attached deck on the main house, as it appears to violate the 20-foot rear setback requirement. (scales 18 feet). SEQR Status: Type II” MR. THOMAS-Okay. Is there anything from the County on that one? Nothing. All right. Mr. and/or Mrs. Viele. Is there anything you want to say, tell us about, add? MR. VIELE-Other than my name’s Wayne Viele. I’m just looking for relief for this garage, basically. The setbacks about the deck, two feet or something like that. I thought we had that clarified, that we were going to downsize the deck. So I don’t think that should be a concern at this point. MR. BROWN-Yes. I just mentioned that because the plan that was submitted still showed the bigger deck. I didn’t know if you had changed in between, but if you’re going to downsize it. MR. VIELE-Yes, we’re going to downsize the deck. MR. BROWN-We’d just need updated plans for the building permit file, that’s all. MR. STONE-This is a corner lot, correct? MR. VIELE-Yes. MR. STONE-By our definitions? MR. BROWN-I don’t think so. There’s no frontage on the boulevard. There’s a homeowners association strip of property in there. So there’s not actual frontage there. MR. STONE-I see. I didn’t recognize that. Okay. MR. THOMAS-How wide is that strip, 10-foot? MR. BROWN-Yes. MR. THOMAS-All right. So this isn’t a corner lot. So we do have front, side. All right. Are there any questions for the applicant? I’ll start. How big is this RV? MR. VIELE-I figure six feet long. MR. THOMAS-How high? MR. VIELE-High? Eleven foot three inches to the top of the air conditioners. MR. THOMAS-Okay. MR. STONE-If this were a commercial vehicle, what would be its capacity? Any idea? Since I don’t know what a commercial vehicle that exceeds one and a half tons means, I’m asking you to dig a hole for yourself. This is a large vehicle, is what I’m getting at. Craig, can you tell me what a one and a half-ton capacity commercial vehicle is? MR. HAYES-It’s just what it says. It can legally hold a ton and a half on its back. MR. BROWN-Yes. MR. STONE-What if it were a panel truck? MR. HAYES-The same thing. 6 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/23/99) MR. STONE-I know that. I’m looking at the Code. MR. BROWN-Freihoffers kind of truck? MR. STONE-Yes. MR. BROWN-Yes. MR. STONE-What if you put dirt in it? How much would it hold? MR. STEC-A lot more than a ton and a half. MR. STONE-That’s what I’m trying to get at. That’s what I’m trying to find out. The reason I ask the question, we have a definition for a garage that we haven’t really discussed here, and I want to read it, just so that we’re all on the same page, “An accessory building or structure attached or detached used primarily to shelter no more than three automobiles, provided that such garage may be used to shelter only one commercial vehicle, but in no event shall such commercial vehicle exceed one and a half tons capacity”, and then a 900 square foot. I mean, that’s why I wanted to read that in. This is obviously not an automobile. MR. STEC-But I wouldn’t call it a commercial vehicle, either. MR. THOMAS-Yes. MR. STONE-I understand that. I’m not saying it’s a commercial vehicle. I’m talking, one and a half tons means the size. MR. HAYES-It’s a true RV. It has living quarters? MR. VIELE-Yes, it has living quarters, and I might add, a dump truck you’d need special licensing to drive, I’m sure. MR. STONE-No. I’m not calling it commercial. I’m just trying to get a size comparison. MR. VIELE-Yes. This here you don’t need any special license to drive. MR. STONE-But this would be bigger than a truck that would hold a ton and a half. MR. VIELE-It depends on what you mean by “big”. Scale wise, yes. MR. HAYES-If it’s 36 feet, it is. MR. VIELE-Weight wise, it’s not even close. MR. THOMAS-Not even, no. MR. STONE-Not even close, right. MR. THOMAS-Can you tell us about how much it weighs? MR. VIELE-Four and a half ton. MR. THOMAS-Is that all? MR. VIELE-That’s all. It’s just a stretched out (lost word) pick up truck, basically. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Staff notes says if you slid this over, I guess to the east a little bit, you could get the side setback. MR. VIELE-I have no problem with that either. MR. THOMAS-Okay. That isn’t going to interfere with, is there sewer in there, or is it septic systems? MR. VIELE-I don’t know. MR. BROWN-On-site septic systems. 7 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/23/99) MR. THOMAS-Okay. MR. STONE-Well, it says 1,000 gallon in here. MR. VIELE-I thought you meant is there any sewage going down. MR. THOMAS-Where your system is going to be, if you moved it to the east. MR. STONE-How big is this house, because that’s the first drawing I've seen of the house. I mean, we did get this tonight, but I, quite frankly, when I went, I expected to see a house that you wanted to put another garage on, and I see an empty lot, and I was not prepared for that because I didn’t have any idea what the house looked like. MR. VIELE-Do you want square footage on the house? 2800. MR. THOMAS-That’s just the house that’s 2800? MR. VIELE-Yes. The house is, living space. MR. STONE-In two stories. MR. VIELE-That’s correct. MR. THOMAS-And it’s 2800. Okay, and the garage is 1,400 and something. MR. VIELE-Eighteen times forty-three. MR. THOMAS-The total’s in here, 1326 square feet. MR. BROWN-The proposed total, yes. MR. THOMAS-So we’re talking 4126 square feet of building, and how big is that lot? Does it say in the notes? MR. STONE-20,805 square feet. MR. THOMAS-That’s half an acre? MR. STONE-About half an acre. MR. HAYES-Can that be brick in that cul-de-sac, or is that, because the house that’s there now is brick. MR. VIELE-Right. MR. HAYES-The garage doesn’t violate any of Hudson Pointe covenants? MR. VIELE-It’s not in the Hudson Pointe covenants no. MR. STONE-It’s not in Hudson Pointe? MR. VIELE-No. MR. STONE-Well, how come the green space is Hudson Pointe’s? MR. THOMAS-This just abuts it. MR. BROWN-Yes. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. THOMAS-SR-1 Acre. They have to have 50% permeability. So that’s way below that. I was worried about that. Any more questions for Mr. Viele? If not, I’ll open the public hearing. Anyone wishing to speak in favor of this application? In favor of? Anyone wishing to speak opposed? Opposed? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED JIM MC CARTHY 8 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/23/99) MR. MC CARTHY-My name is Jim McCarthy. I live on Hyde Court in the Town of Queensbury. I’m the President of the Hudson Pointe Homeowners Association and the members of the Board are in the back row of the building here. We raised some objections to this. Primarily, we own that 10- foot strip of land that we call the green space between his property and the road right-of-way, and we feel that that’s too narrow to give a proper setback. We feel that to allow a variance for the seven foot is really insufficient. We think he should be pushed back 10 more feet in keeping with the rest of the setbacks of the whole development, because this is the main boulevard into the whole development. There’s 80 homes back there, and to have this encroaching, you see the side, and then the over-sized garage door right up against the property lines is really going to be visually distracting to the whole community. We also understand that Mr. Viele is a contractor, and he works out of his home where he lives now, and we’re afraid that this may become a contractor’s parking garage, and very much of a commercial establishment, very much out of keeping with the community. I did fax a copy of my comments to the Board. I’m not sure if they’re part of the record or not. MR. HAYES-We read these in at the end. MR. MC CARTHY-But I’m willing to answer any questions you have. Our major concern is the possible use of this construction equipment. Thank you very much. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Is there anyone else that would like to speak in opposition? Go ahead and read your correspondence. MR. HAYES-Would you like me to read your entire letter in? Okay. We have a letter dated June 22, 1999 from the Hudson Pointe Homeowners Association, Inc., to Bonnie M. Lapham, Secretary, Town of Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals “Dear Mrs. Lapham: Please accept this letter as our response to the notice concerning Wayne and Dawn Viele’s request for relief from the maximum allowable garage square footage and setback relief. The Hudson Pointe Homeowners Association, Inc. is the owner of a ten-foot strip of green space between this lot (Lot I – Southern Exposure Subdivision) and Hudson Pointe Boulevard. The Hudson Pointe Homeowners Association – Board of Directors is very much concerned about the visual impact of the very large garage, with its high garage door, will have on the appearance of Hudson Pointe Boulevard. We feel that this large garage addition will totally change the visual character of the neighborhood. As you presently drive down the boulevard you will notice that all the homes are well back from the edge of the roadway even those fronting on side streets. Allowing this structure to be built within the required ten-foot setback will upset the relative scale of the homes, trees, road shoulders and pavements. It is quite possible that your eye will be starkly drawn to this proposed oversized garage and high garage door, thus making the boulevard vista very unappealing. We request that the Board of Zoning Appeals refuse to grant Viele’s request and if possible, increase the required setback of this structure so that all homes along the boulevard have the same apparent setback. The Board will attend this public hearing and present our objections in person. Thank you very much for your consideration of this matter. Very truly yours, James M. McCarthy, President Hudson Pointe Homeowners Association” We have another letter dated June 23, 1999, to all members of the Zoning Board, Town of Queensbury “We are sorry to say we must join the opposition to the proposed addition in question at one (1) Roberts Court – Southern Exposure Subdivision. This structure has a commercial appearance rather than a residential one. We would like everyone involved in this decision-making hearing to understand that we paid a premium price for our lot and home. We picked this area for its lovely boulevard and view to build our retirement dream house. We also want to say that the proposed home itself is quite attractive. Thank you all. Frederick and Dorothy Livingston” I believe that’s it. MR. THOMAS-That’s it? All right. Okay. Do you want to respond to those, Mr. Viele? MR. VIELE-There was a comment the other gentleman made from the Association. I just wanted to add that I am not a big operation contractor. I’m just a small, pickup truck type arrangement. I don’t build houses. I have very little equipment. What equipment I have is right on my truck. It goes in at night. On top of that, I think if you were to ask anybody around where I used to live, I always kept a clean yard, not a messy contractor’s yard, like I was kind of being accused of for whatever. I guess that’s it. MR. THOMAS-What kind of contract work do you do? MR. VIELE-Kitchen/bath makeovers, that kind of thing. DAWN VIELE MR. VIELE-Can I just make a comment, too? I’m Dawn Viele. When we decided to sell our home, we went to Lehland Estates and we talked to Susan Balfour. The Michaels Group designed a home for us out of the Sagamore. We have a two car garage and an RV garage. They were going to allow 9 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/23/99) this home to be built in Lehland Estates. We decided, after they designed that home, that it was a lot more than we wanted to spend on a home in Lehland Estates. That’s when we went to Bob and Betsy McDonald and bought the property from them, and we decided we did not want to be in the Association. The way the house is going to be sitting on the property, when you come down Roberts Court, or down Hudson Boulevard, you are going to see a very beautiful home from the side. It’s going to be situated on the property so it’s not going to be an eyesore, and Number Two, on Kettle’s Way we have a boat sitting in the driveway, and we also have an above-ground pool which are more of an eyesore than an RV garage that is going to house our RV and not be sitting out in the yard. So it’s not going to look like an eyesore by any means. MR. VIELE-I could show you a picture from the Boulevard, what this place would look like, and it has no view of any kind of a garage. Would you like me to show you? MR. THOMAS-Have you got it? We’ll look at it. MRS. VIELE-Yes. It’s on there. MR. HAYES-I guess one question I have, are we not talking about that two foot of setback relief now? MRS. VIELE-No, because we downsized the size of the deck. MR. STONE-How about the side of the corner of the garage? MRS. VIELE-We can move that over a little bit, so that will, the two feet. MR. THOMAS-They can move it. MRS. VIELE-Yes, we can move it two feet to the left so that the side isn’t even an issue. MR. STONE-Okay. So you’re saying the drawing we have in front of us is not the correct one? It’s not the correct drawing. MR. THOMAS-They’ve agreed to revise the drawing. MRS. VIELE-We agreed to revise. We said that we would downsize our deck. MR. STONE-We have to say that, though, because we have nothing. MRS. VIELE-Yes, we had already spoken to Craig about downsizing the deck. MR. BROWN-Yes. MR. VIELE-This is the view you would see from the Boulevard, if you could see through all the tree shrubs that the Association has planted. MRS. VIELE-Yes. Going down the Boulevard, they have a row of shrubs that is on our Southern Exposure lot. It’s on their green space. MR. THOMAS-It’s on their 10-foot. MRS. VIELE-So you can’t even see, when you come down the Boulevard, you’re not even going to be able to see. MR. VIELE-You can right now, but as the trees reach their maturity. MR. HAYES-You say you’re a kitchen and bath contractor? MRS. VIELE-Yes. MR. HAYES-Are you building this house? MR. VIELE-Yes. MR. HAYES-Okay. MRS. VIELE-Which he’s seen it. 10 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/23/99) MR. THOMAS-I was down there today. I didn’t even notice those shrubs. How tall are those they right now? MR. MC CARTHY-About four feet. MR. THOMAS-What kind of shrubs are they, cedar? MR. MC CARTHY-They’re arborvitaes. MR. THOMAS-So those things will take right off. MRS. VIELE-Yes, they’re going to be tall. MR. VIELE-I’d say they’re closer to six foot right now. MR. MC CARTHY-But they’ll be jammed right up against it when they’re mature trees. MRS. VIELE-They’re not going to be jammed up against it. MR. STONE-Well, they are going to push back to the surface. MR. THOMAS-To the setback. So, and then you’re going to be ten feet from that. MRS. VIELE-Right. MR. THOMAS-On your property. MRS. VIELE-And like I said, we were going to build in Lehland Estates and they were going to accept an RV garage. MR. HAYES-The Michaels Group was. MRS. VIELE-Yes. MR. HAYES-And they are the builders of Hudson Pointe. MRS. VIELE-Right, and we’re not building in Hudson Pointe. We're building on Bob and Betsy MacDonald’s property. MR. HAYES-That was an economic decision? MRS. VIELE-It was an economic decision. MR. THOMAS-So Southern Exposure is not part of Hudson Pointe? MRS. VIELE-Absolutely not. It’s is Bob and Betsy MacDonald’s property. BOB MAC DONALD MR. MAC DONALD-If you want to put it the other way, Hudson Pointe is actually a part of Southern Exposure. MRS. VIELE-Correct. MR. MAC DONALD-The Boulevard goes through Southern Exposure (lost words). If it wasn’t for Southern Exposure. MRS. VIELE-They wouldn’t have accessibility. MR. THOMAS-Okay. MR. HAYES-You’re Mr. MacDonald, then? MRS. VIELE-Yes. MR. MAC DONALD-Yes. MR. THOMAS-Are there any other questions for the applicant? 11 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/23/99) MR. STONE-Well, I guess I would like you to help convince me that by granting this variance for a vehicle, a permanent structure that’s going to be out of keeping with the height of the regular garage door, that this is not setting a precedent for no more than three automobiles. I’m very troubled by, we have a definition. I’m a stickler for definitions. I guess most people realize that. These are the words that I have to live by, three automobiles. This door is, I mean, I could look at this thing and I could say, we have a firehouse here. We have two small vehicles, and a big vehicle coming out of this other door. I’m concerned that this is not an automobile. MR. VIELE-But I didn’t ask for a firehouse garage. MR. STONE-No, you asked for a private garage, and a private garage is three automobiles. MRS. VIELE-And we are having three automobiles. Our RV is an automobile. MR. STONE-I would challenge that definition. MR. THOMAS-What’s it say in the book? MR. STONE-It doesn’t say. It doesn’t define it. MRS. VIELE-We registered at DMV like a regular automobile. There’s no special license. There’s no special anything. You just go up. You pay your registration, and it’s a gas driven vehicle. It’s an automobile. It’s not diesel. It’s gas, and you get in and you drive it like you would drive a car. MR. STEC-I would consider it an automobile. Based on the fact that it’s not defined in our zone otherwise. MR. STONE-That’s a good point. I can’t argue that point. MR. THOMAS-That’s right. So any other garage, the garage, the other garage is a two-car garage. MRS. VIELE-Right, is his truck and my jeep. MR. THOMAS-Okay. So it’s three vehicles, right? MRS. VIELE-Correct. MR. STONE-And how big is this truck of yours? MRS. VIELE-It’s just an F250. MR. STONE-How much is its capacity? MR. THOMAS-It’s a three-quarter ton. MR. STONE-I’m only asking, guys. I’m going by the definition. I’m not against this thing, necessarily, but I want to be sure that, we have been sticklers for garages. I mean, 900 square feet is what a garage is. We have granted variances in some cases, but here is a case where, not only are you saying it’s going to be bigger than a garage is supposed to be, but I mean, I will bow to the fact that there is no definition for an automobile. I should have brought in the dictionary, I guess, but I didn’t think about it. MRS. VIELE-If it was diesel, then I could understand what you were saying, but it’s not diesel. MR. STONE-You can have a diesel automobile. MRS. VIELE-This is true. MR. STONE-A Mercedes is a, diesel is an automobile. MR. VIELE-Diesel doesn’t separate an automotive from a (lost words). MRS. VIELE-But it’s not going to be ugly. It’s not going to be an eyesore. It’s going to be a very beautiful home and it’s going to sit proportioned on the lot so that, you know, it’s not going to be an ugly view. MR. VIELE-I didn’t make it look like a firehouse. MR. STONE-No, I understand that. 12 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/23/99) MR. VIELE-My interest and everybody else’s is the same. I don’t want to degrade anybody’s property value. I've tried to increase it by designing the home with the garage, rather than putting a firehouse out there. The side facing the Boulevard, I've added windows into the side to make it not look like a garage on the side there. It’s not any deeper than the actual house itself, other than I think two feet. The whole house is 40 feet deep, and the garage is only another three feet deeper than the house. So really from the Boulevard perspective, it doesn’t even look like a garage there. MR. STEC-What is the height of the peak of the house and the peak of the garage portion of the house? MR. VIELE-I don’t have a scale with me right now. Are you talking about the ridge of the garage? MR. STEC-Yes. I’m just trying to get an idea in my head how big this. MR. VIELE-Well, it gives you an idea. MR. STONE-It fits inside the peak of the building, Dan. MR. VIELE-This is the ridge of the garage, and this is the peak of the house. Does that answer your question? MR. STEC-Right. Is that 25 feet, 28 feet, 38 feet? MR. BROWN-Thirty-two. MRS. VIELE-Thirty-two. MR. STONE Thirty-two. MR. BROWN-Yes, by scale, of the main house. The garage scales about 18 and a half. MR. STEC-I’m just trying to get a visual image, that’s all. MRS. VIELE-It’s going to be a very handsome looking home. MR. THOMAS-All right. Are there anymore questions for the applicant? RON BLANCHUTE MR. BLANCHUTE-My name is Ron Blanchute. I live at 163 Hudson Pointe Boulevard. I've got the only three-acre lot in the development. We bought our property a little over two years ago, thinking that we were going to be buying into an Association protected area so we wouldn’t have to put up with construction equipment, maybe, popping up in somebody’s back yard. That building is going to be an eyesore. Dave Michaels said that he would not build that house anywhere because it is an eyesore. Now these people are not looking for relief. They’re looking for an opportunity to change something that they brought upon themselves. They could have built this house anywhere else in the world. Queensbury has an awful lot of vacant land. They could have built on a lot some place else, and what’s going to happen is every time one of our members drives down Hudson Pointe Boulevard, they’re going to think about the money that we’re paying taxes, additional taxes because we have all of this common property, and we’re going to drive past this house, and we all believe that it’s going to effect the property value of all of our properties, and I don’t think that the Board should give them any relief for this at all, and I also, I've got a funny feeling that they could put the R V into storage some place else. They could take it to the Lake George RV Park. They could put it over by the American Storage place, pay a couple of dollars a month. It has to be a heck of a lot less than putting up that big building. Now, what happens if they do sell their RV? People get tired of them. After a while, they might sell it. That garage is going to have room in there for six cars, or maybe a couple of extra construction pieces of equipment. Maybe a bulldozer. Who knows, and I hope that the Board sees fit to deny this application. Thank you. MR. THOMAS-Are there any questions for Mr. Blanchute? If not, who was the other gentleman that wanted to speak? HARRY TEGLER MR. TEGLER-Again, I’m a member of the Hudson Pointe Homeowners Association. My name is Harry Tegler. I live at 50 Kettle’s Way, Queensbury. In essence, what the previous gentleman said, there’s $15 million in total assessment, tax pay in Hudson Pointe Boulevard. We have a big stake. We’ve moved up there. We like the area. We moved up here and we want to keep it pristine and 13 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/23/99) nice. What you see here is a direct view from Hudson Pointe, if you’re standing in the middle of the road. Now, if you’re exiting Hudson Pointe, you’re going to see a firehouse door. That’s what you’re going to see. It’s 12 foot high. That’s exactly what you’re going to see. There’s some 80 plus homes in Hudson Pointe Boulevard, and I defy you to find one with a door that’s higher than seven foot. So you’re going to take the total character of the development, and ruin it. Thank you. TIM TYREE MR. TYREE-My name is Tim Tyree. I live at 53 Kettle’s Way, and I’m just here as a resident. Am I to understand that the residence itself is 2800 square feet? Is that correct? MR. THOMAS-The living area is 2800 square feet. MR. TYREE-Okay. So that the downstairs, I would assume, is 1400 square feet. Is that correct? MR. THOMAS-I couldn’t tell you. I don’t know if there’s living area over the garage or not. MR. TYREE-Okay, and the garage request is 1,326 square feet? MR. THOMAS-Yes. MR. TYREE-Does that not strike any of the members of this Board as unusual? That’s a more than 50% increase in the allowable square footage for a garage. This is a self-created difficulty, and I don’t see, I agree with Harry, why this recreational vehicle can’t just be put in the mini-storage or local lot. I sense some friction between the MacDonalds and the Hudson Pointe Homeowners Association, but the fact is Hudson Pointe Homeowners Association owns the entryway. They maintain it. We pay landscapers and sprinklers and electric for the lights, okay. It’s all about green space with Hudson Pointe Homeowners Association, and to allow this structure coming in and out every day, I think it will have a substantial impact on the overall value of the property, and the aesthetic value of the property. I think it’s a very, very, and not a moderate request. I think it’s an unbelievable request. Thank you. MRS. VIELE-It’s a $60,000 motor home. I’m not going to park it somewhere where somebody’s going to vandalize it. MR. THOMAS-Is there anyone else who’d like to speak in opposition? DORIS BLANCHUTE MRS. BLANCHUTE-My name is Doris Blanchute. I live at 163 Hudson Pointe Boulevard, and the only thing that I wanted to state was, food for thought for future ownership, in case potentially they sell this home, what will be the use of that huge structure and the garage door, for future owners, if it does get sold. Besides the impact, I think when you come down toward the Hudson Pointe homes, the view will be very distinctive. You will definitely see that garage door, and I don’t think it’s within keeping and for the betterment of the property values. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Is there anyone else? I’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. THOMAS-You didn’t find anymore correspondence, did you? MR. HAYES-No, there was just those two. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Are there anymore questions for the applicant? If not, lets talk about it. Dan? MR. STEC-I like to enter circumstances like this where, and in the past, we have a clean slate, we have the opportunity to be fully in compliance, and I really, in my opinion, I think that this is self- created. I fully understand the applicant’s concerns, and the benefit to the applicant is clear. I don’t doubt that it’s tasteful as far as the structure of the house itself, but again, I am persuaded that, the two feet of relief doesn’t bother me at all. I’m under the impression that we’re not talking about that anymore. MR. THOMAS-That’s off the table. MR. STEC-We're solely talking about the variance from the size of the garage, and somebody feel free to correct me if I’m wrong, but I can’t, and not that this is the only test, but I can’t picture another house in Town that has a garage arrangement similar to this, and again, the lot location, in 14 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/23/99) my opinion, really contributes to, and what we’ve heard from the concerns of the neighbors, be it the Homeowners Association or just an individual resident, I think that this particular lot on a corner, if you will, in that it’s the closest structure to the corner of the intersection of these two roads, I think that there are feasible alternatives. I think that the relief is certainly substantial. I think that there is a potential negative effect on the community, and the community has been here tonight to express their concern, and it’s self-created. So of the five tests, I only really see one in favor of the applicant. That is the benefit to the applicant, but in my opinion, the other four all weigh against approving this, and again, I can’t, for the life of me, think of another circumstance where there’s a garage and a home similar to this. So I’ll certainly listen to the rest of the Board members, but I’m inclined to disapprove. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Chuck? MR. MC NULTY-With this being a clean slate, as Dan says, it’s a new lot. There’s zoning and rules in for a reason, and absent any really extenuating circumstances, I can’t see any reason to allow a variance to the zoning requirements. I can understand the desire to keep an expensive vehicle under cover, but I agree with Dan. I think all the other factors weigh heavily against this, .and I think the point that was made about future owners and what they might do with this facility is also a definite concern. We're not looking just at the pluses and minuses for the current owner, the current neighbors, but also for the future owners. So I would agree with Dan. I’m inclined to disapprove. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Jaime? MR. HAYES-Well, the criteria for an Area Variance is a balancing test, and I think, no doubt in my mind, that this is right on the bubble. The neighbors have showed up in force to oppose the project, but just as it is on the bubble, as far as a test, I think so is, you know, the square footage allowable for a garage, and I've commented on that publicly before. The applicant is proposing a 2800 square foot house, which is a large house, quite frankly, and with that house, he could have a three car garage, and he’s talking about having three vehicles which means, in my mind, the only thing we’re talking about is the difference of the door itself, because if you could have three bay doors there and three cars, and he’s got three cars, then what are we really talking about? We're talking about this additional height that’s involved with storing this RV, and I know myself, as far as the impact on the neighborhood or community, that I would rather have a neighbor that’s going to spend the money to come up with a plan, a well-thought plan, that would actually store that RV versus leaving it in the front. I wouldn’t want an RV in the house next to me in his front yard. That would be far more objectionable to me, as a homeowner, even in Hudson Pointe, than having this particular storage building, if you will. I’ll grant you that the relief is substantial, but again, the 900 square feet on a garage is a little bit, in my mind, restrictive at this particular point in our society. So on balance, the fact that the applicant has agreed to withdraw the request for the two feet of encroachment into the homeowners property, which I think that would have been too much. That would have shifted the test. I think that fact that they’re willing to accommodate that, and that there is some screening from that road, that I could go with this, just barely. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Lew? MR. STONE-Well, the bottom line is I can’t. Yes. There was some wag, years ago, who said I know when something is something, and I know an RV is not an automobile. I’m not sure what the State says. I recognize we don’t have a definition, and that’s lacking in our Code book, as are a number of things in our Code book, but I don’t think anybody outside of this room, if you surveyed them, and asked to define an automobile, or asked even the direct question, is an RV an automobile, I don’t think anybody, again, we’re talking anecdotally, but I don’t think anybody would say an R V is an automobile. The fact that I said that our Code does not talk to anything defining an automobile, but nevertheless, we have two considerations here. We have the size, you’re asking for a size variance, a major variance, 50%, give or take a few feet. We also have what concerns me is a variance from the definition of a garage, and that’s what I was talking about with the automobile. I just think that the benefit to the applicant is far outweighed by, One, the detriment to the close community. We’ve heard from these people, but also I think that the Queensbury, the greater Queensbury community, in that, to my knowledge, there is no such other garage in Town. There may be, but I don’t know of any. We have certainly never, in my tenure on the Board, which is about three or four years now, we have never granted this kind of relief for a garage, and quite frankly, I don’t intend to tonight, because I think that, again, the benefit to the applicant is far outweighed by the, one, the precedent by an effect on the local and the greater community. MR. THOMAS-I have to agree with Jaime. This does sit right on the teetering point. As everyone knows, there really no limit on what a garage door size could be. If you want to put an 11-foot garage door on your house, you could. There’s no problem doing that. As far as the applicant has already agreed to move the house two feet away from the property line to get that setback in there. I really don’t know which way I want to go with this. I agree with Jaime and I agree with the other Board members. All right. What I’ll do is I’ll ask for a motion and we’ll see how it goes. 15 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/23/99) MR. BROWN-It sounds like it might be a three-two. I don’t know if you want to maybe table for a full Board or see how a motion goes. MR. THOMAS-Lets see how a motion goes, and if it doesn’t go, then we’ll have to table it for a full Board. MR. STONE-Does the applicant know that we have to have four votes yes or no. Even though there are only five of us here, we have a seven member Board, and we have to have a majority of the seven. Not a majority of those that are here. MR. BROWN-He’s got the right to have his application heard by a full Board. MR. STEC-If it goes three-two, you come back. I mean, you need four one way or the other. MR. THOMAS-Or you can table it until we do have a full Board here. MR. STEC-Right. MR. VIELE-Would you table it. MR. THOMAS-Okay. I will re-open the public hearing so we don’t have to re-advertise this. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN MR. STONE-Unless you know where you’re going, Chris? MR. THOMAS-No, I don’t. I’m torn. MR. STONE-If you want to table it for your reasons, that’s fine, too, but we might have four votes against. MR. THOMAS-You might, but then again, you know, he’s entitled to a full Board. You might have four votes for it. MR. STONE-That’s true. MR. STEC-Mr. Chairman, if I may. One thing that we didn’t talk about it, and it’s down the trail of feasible alternatives, but I would be curious if the applicant and the Board would consider this significant a compromise to, again, I think what we’re talking about is relief from the 900 square foot garage. If the non-RV portion of the garage was smaller and we were a lot closer to the 900 square foot, in my opinion, that would make a big difference. It might be something that, I mean, maybe I’m the only one that would think that would make a difference, but if the applicant would be willing to consider that compromise, I recall going to ACC for one of those zoning seminars that the Department of State puts on, and basically the rule of thumb that they said is this is about compromise, and both the Board and the applicant should walk away saying, all right, I’m not 100% satisfied, so, I mean, I think that there might be room for a compromise, if the applicant’s willing to shrink the 900 square foot portion, or the two car portion. That might make the difference between a yes and a no. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Well, go ahead and see if you can mediate something here. MR. STEC-Well, I’m just, I don’t know, if the applicant wants to go that route tonight, we can maybe get him his variance tonight. MR. STONE-Well, you’re talking, as I read this, your regular two car garage portion is 600 and some square feet, if I read these numbers right. MR. BROWN-576. MR. STONE-Yes. So that’s already been done, Dan. MR. STEC-All right. MR. STONE-I, personally, would love to see a tabling, because I, quite frankly, want to research the definition of an automobile. MR. THOMAS-It’s not that. On this one here, we’re sitting on a bubble, like Jaime says. It should be a full Board hearing this. 16 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/23/99) MR. STONE-Yes. That’s good, and Mr. Viele said we should table it. Let’s table it. MR. THOMAS-For a full Board, until we can get the other two Board members up to speed on this, via the notes. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 43-1999 WAYNE & DAWN VIELE, Introduced by Chris Thomas who moved for its adoption, seconded by Daniel Stec: Until no later than the August meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals. This means that any new information requested by this 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 tabling this application is to have a full Board present to hear this applicant’s statements, and in this case, the other two Board members will have to read the notes and be brought up to speed that way. Duly adopted this 23 day of June, 1999, by the following vote: rd AYES: Mr. Stone, Mr. Hayes, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Stec, Mr. Thomas NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Lapham, Mr. McNally MR. THOMAS-So, as soon as we get a full Board in here, hopefully next month, we’ll hear this thing again and we’ll get a full vote on this. It should be July. We just have to make sure we get everybody here. That’s all. MR. STONE-Craig, can you and Chris come up with a definition of automobile? I mean, that’s an interpretation, I know. Can you guys at least talk about it? JEFFREY HILL MR. HILL-May I offer something outside the record? MR. THOMAS-Well, the tapes are going. So whatever you say is going to be on the record. MR. HILL-Well, just to offer to you, Jeffrey Hill, I’m a Queensbury resident. If your decision is predicated on an RV being on the property physically or inside a garage, to my knowledge, there’s no ability to put an RV on the property in any case at all. So, I’d put into question your logic. MR. HAYES-Even on a temporary basis? MR. HILL-To my knowledge. MR. HAYES-It’s a good point. MR. BROWN-To actually occupy an R V on a piece of property? MR. HILL-To park one. MR. HAYES-He said you can’t have an RV on your property, to park one. MR. BROWN-To park one on your property? MR. HILL-Seasonally, for example, for the winter that’s disallowed, to my knowledge. MR. STEC-By the Town or by a homeowners association? MR. BROWN-I don’t think so. MR. HILL-I’m told deed restrictions. MR. HAYES-Well, that’s a private agreement. You’re confusing private agreements with Town Ordinances, and they’re two entirely different things. MR. STONE-Yes, we can’t enforce deed restrictions. MR. BROWN-No, I don’t think there’s an issue with storing an RV on your property. 17 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/23/99) AREA VARIANCE NO. 44-1999 TYPE II SFR-10 JON PELLINO OWNER: JON & LINDA PELLINO 12 JUNE DRIVE APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 15 FT. DIAMETER ABOVE-GROUND SWIMMING POOL AND SEEKS ACCESSORY STRUCTURE SETBACK RELIEF. TAX MAP NO. 72-2-4 LOT SIZE: 0.23 ACRES SECTION 179-20, 179-67 JON PELLINO, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 44-1999, Jon Pellino, Meeting Date: June 23, 1999 “Project Location: 12 June Drive Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes installation of an above ground pool and seeks setback relief. Relief Required: Applicant requests 7 feet of relief from the 20-foot minimum rear yard setback requirement as well as 3 feet of relief from the 10-foot minimum setback requirement of the accessory structures and uses section, § 179-67. 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 utilize an additional recreational use on the property. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives appear to be limited, as any proposed pool location would require some form of relief. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?: 7 feet of relief from the 20-foot requirement and 3 feet of relief from the 10-foot requirement may be interpreted as moderate. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: Minimal to moderate effects on the neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of this action. 5. Is this difficulty self-created? The difficulty may be interpreted as self created, however, the pre- existing configuration of the parcel and structures makes it difficult for any proposed pool to comply with the requirements. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): BP 99-226 pool permit – pending Staff comments: Minimal impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action. This proposal is for a relatively small (15 ft. diameter) pool and the applicant has attempted to preserve the required property line setbacks. The proposed location will be screened from the right of way by, at least in part, the existing garage. SEQR Status: Type II” MR. THOMAS-Okay, and there was nothing from the County on that. Okay. Mr. Pellino, if you want to come up here, we’ve got a few questions for you I do believe. MR. PELLINO-Okay. My name is Jon Pellino. I live at 12 June Drive, Queensbury. MR. THOMAS-Is there anything you want to tell us about or add to it? MR. PELLINO-No. It’s just basically what he said, a 15 foot above-ground pool, around four foot high, and I’m lacking seven foot from the back and three foot from the front, and I’m just trying to get a variance for that there. MR. STONE-Are we going to hear from your back yard neighbor? MR. PELLINO-Do you have to? MR. STONE-No. I’m curious if we are. MR. PELLINO-She hasn’t said anything to me about it. MR. STONE-No, I’m just curious. As far as, I’m concerned, that’s the only one who has really any say about this thing at all. MR. PELLINO-Just my neighbors across the street were glad for me to have it because they figure they can come over and go swimming. MR. THOMAS-I've got a question of Staff. This is an SFR-10 zone, right? MR. BROWN-Yes. MR. THOMAS-Okay. My book says side and rear of 10-feet. MR. BROWN-These are accessory structure setbacks for pools, ten on the sides, twenty in the rear. Specifically for pools. MR. THOMAS-Ten on the side, twenty on the rear, okay. MR. BROWN-179-67. 18 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/23/99) MR. THOMAS-All right. Are there any questions for Mr. Pellino? MR. STEC-I’d just like to point out that, with his application, I was impressed. In my tenure on the Board, he’s the first applicant to ever say yes to Question Number Four, is the amount substantial. The very first one. MR. PELLINO-Did I screw up there? MR. STONE-We appreciate honesty. MR. THOMAS-Well, if there’s no questions for Mr. Pellino, I’ll open the public hearing. Anyone wishing to speak in favor of this variance? In favor of? Anyone wishing to speak opposed? Opposed? Is there any correspondence? MR. HAYES-No, there isn’t. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. THOMAS-Anymore questions for Mr. Pellino? If not, we’ll talk about it. I’ll start with Chuck. MR. MC NULTY-While the relief is more than minor, I really don’t see any other place on the property where he could do a better job of siting this pool. So I think it’s a choice of whether this is a no pool property or whether it’s one that we give a variance to. The layout of the lot strikes me that allowing the variance is not going to have a great deal of effect on the neighbors. The fact that we have not gotten either a letter or an appearance by the neighbors objecting to this I think helps me a lot. I’m inclined to approve. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Jaime? MR. HAYES-I agree with Chuck. I mean, the Staff Notes point to the fact that the applicant has tried to make his efforts to comply with the setbacks the best he can. Based on the configuration of the lot, that’s really impossible. So the only question there is the benefit to the applicant versus the detriment to the neighborhood, and this appears to be a family neighborhood to me, and families have pools. I really don’t have any problem with that. I think that the benefit to the applicant clearly outweighs any negative impact, which I don’t see any anyway. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Lew? MR. STONE-Well, my comment when I looked at the thing said, why not. Absolutely, I think it’s a good project. I think the applicant maintains a very well, nice appearing home. I think nobody from the front, is even going to know it’s there. That’s why I asked about the back neighbor. That’s about the only person who would be impacted at all, and I’m sure you’ll put a style over there so they can come use your pool if you want. MR. PELLINO-More than welcome. MR. STONE-The other thing, of course, is that this neighborhood, as well all know, has been put upon by every conceivable inconvenience known to man, be it the Northway, be it Wal-Mart, be it Cracker Barrel, Hess, everything else, and it’s a good project. I just think that, yes, I would certainly vote in favor of the variance. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Dan? MR. STEC-I agree with the other Board members. I've got absolutely no problem with this pool. Again, you won’t see it from the road. If you weren’t invited to go swimming, you wouldn’t know it was there, and I think that the relief is fairly minimal compared to the requirement. I think it’s a good project. MR. THOMAS-All right. I agree totally with the other Board members, with one exception. When you look up, what do you see up in the air? MR. STONE-The NiMo power lines. 19 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/23/99) MR. THOMAS-The power lines. See, that’s what I worry about is if it’s under the power lines. Those things come down, see, I know where the pole is, and I could see where the line went, but I couldn’t gauge where the pool was as to where the wires were. MR. PELLINO-I think they’re beyond where the pool is going to be. They’re beyond that point. Beyond, like the pool is going to be like this, and the power lines are probably like three, four foot, five foot, maybe, past where the end of the pool is going to be there. MR. THOMAS-Yes, but see, if a tree comes down, because that goes through a lot of trees, it could push those wires back toward the house, and that’s the only thing I’m afraid of, but you could ask Niagara Mohawk to move those wires, but. MR. STONE-I did go in the back yard. I wish I had thought about that. You weren’t home and I sat down at your bench, and I put some notes down. By the way, we really should have an ID when we go on properties, Craig. Every time I do, I think about it. MR. MC NULTY-The time that it’s likely for those power lines to come down is going to be in a storm or something, and no person’s going to be in the pool. MR. THOMAS-Right. Yes, like I said, I have no problem with it, but that’s my only precaution, is to make sure that a branch doesn’t come down and hit the wires and land in the pool at the same time, because they can conduct electricity, also. MR. PELLINO-Right. MR. THOMAS-So, just be very careful what’s up there. So, having said that, I will ask for a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 44-1999 JON PELLINO, Introduced by Lewis Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Daniel Stec: 12 June Drive. The applicant proposes installation of above ground pool and seeks setback relief. In granting this motion, we acknowledge the applicant is requesting seven feet of relief from the twenty foot minimum rear yard setback requirements, as well as three foot of relief from the ten foot minimum setback requirement of the accessory structures and uses Section 179-67. The seven-foot relief is from the provisions of the SFR-10, which is 179-20. In granting this variance, we recognize that benefit to the applicant would be that he would be permitted to construct and utilize an additional recreational use on the property, namely a 15-foot diameter pool. We also recognize that the feasible alternatives are limited, and that any proposed pool location on this back yard area would require some form of relief. The amount of relief being granted, seven feet and three, may be interpreted as moderate, but considering the screening of the back yard from the street, it is relatively minimal. The neighborhood and the community will be only minimally effected by granting this variance. While this difficulty is self-created, owing to the fact that this is all the land that Mr. Pellino has, its configuration and the other structures around make it difficult for any proposed pool to comply with these requirements. Having said that, I move we grant Area Variance No. 44-1999. Duly adopted this 23 day of June, 1999, by the following vote: rd AYES: Mr. Hayes, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Stec, Mr. Stone, Mr. Thomas NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Lapham, Mr. McNally MR. THOMAS-There you go. MR. PELLINO-Thank you very much. MR. THOMAS-You’re welcome. AREA VARIANCE NO. 50-1999 TYPE II WR-1A CEA EARL UNDERHILL OWNER: EARL & IRENE UNDERHILL 148 SUNNYSIDE NORTH APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF AN ATTACHED , ENCLOSED PORCH ADDITION TO AN EXISTING CAMP AND SEEKS SETBACK RELIEF FROM THE FLOOR AREA RATIO REQUIREMENTS. TAX MAP NO. 50-1-75 LOT SIZE: 0.10 ACRES SECTION 179-16 EARL UNDERHILL, PRESENT STAFF INPUT 20 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/23/99) Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 50-1999, Earl Underhill, Meeting Date: June 23, 1999 “Project Location: 148 Sunnyside Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a 432 sf covered porch addition to an existing camp. Relief Required: Applicant requests 7.66 feet of relief and 0.66 feet of relief from the 12 foot minimum side setback requirement of the WR-1A zone, § 179-16. Also, the applicant is requesting 20 feet of relief from the shoreline setback requirements of both the WR-1A zone, § 179-16 and the Shoreline and Wetlands Regulations, § 179-60. Additionally the applicant is requesting relief for the expansion of a non- conforming structure as the existing camp does not meet the current minimum setback requirements. The applicant is also requesting relief from the Floor Area Ratio requirements of the WR-1A zone, § 179-16. The applicant is proposing a 31% total. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: The applicant would be permitted to construct the desired deck and be allowed to utilize an additional outdoor recreational area. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives include a smaller proposal, an open uncovered deck and no construction. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?: The cumulative requests may be interpreted as moderate to substantial. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: Minimal to moderate effects on the neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of this action. 5. Is this difficulty self-created? The difficulty may be interpreted as self-created as it is possible to propose a deck that may only require shoreline setback relief. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): None applicable. Staff comments: Moderate impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action. The dimensional relief requested may be interpreted as moderate, however, the proposed 31% total floor area ratio may be interpreted as a substantial request, given the proposed shoreline setback. Consideration should be given to the visual impact on the adjoining neighbors, as the camps on either side are extremely close. SEQR Status: Type II” MR. THOMAS-Okay. Anything from the County on that one? No. All right. Mr. Underhill. MR. UNDERHILL-Yes, sir. My name is Earl Underhill, and at present, I’m a resident of Florida, but I should be up here pretty soon, and Mr. Seeley here was the gentleman that drew up the plans, and is familiar what I’m asking for, could probably answer your questions better than I, although I’m available, thank you. MR. STONE-You’re not suggesting that you’re going to transfer your residency up here? You’re just going to move up here for the summer. MR. UNDERHILL-Yes. MR. STONE-Yes, but you’re still going to be a resident of Florida. MR. UNDERHILL-I have a lease on a place at Exit 11, and as soon as that lease is up, this will be my residence for six months a year. MR. STONE-Yes, but you’re still a Florida resident, that’s all. MR. UNDERHILL-Right. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Are there any questions for Mr. Underhill or Mr. Seeley? MR. STEC-Well, it seems to me, based on Staff Notes, that we could be more compliant with a smaller proposal. I was just curious, why not a smaller, more modest proposal? MARTIN SEELEY MR. SEELEY-I’m Martin Seeley. I’m not a resident of Queensbury, however, I am a taxpayer. The existing deck, I presume you all visited the property. The existing deck is just way too small. You can’t sit on a lawn chair and have anybody else get by you. You certainly can’t eat there, and when ten or twelve families show up, on a Sunday afternoon, we need something under cover. There is no room inside, and we realized when we bought the property that there just is not room to assemble the family inside. So we propose this deck outside, and one of the reasons why it is larger is because I've included the stairway to exit the deck within the confines of the deck, rather than encroaching farther onto any of the surrounding ground. That’s one reason why the deck has been enlarged, and I don’t know if you have the deck layout. I have that layout if you’d like to see it on the board. The area in the center is the portion of the deck that is actually a stair for egress from the camp and the deck, and rather than put stairway off the front of the deck toward the lake, and encroach on the lake farther, there is, as you notice, there is a terraced effect there at that camp. The terrace does slope some, although we’ve been using it for the short time we’ve been there, it’s difficult. This deck proposes to go out to the first stones, the edge of the first terrace and cantilever out over that and use that space. 21 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/23/99) MR. STONE-Are you using the royal “we”, or do you both have an interest in this property? MR. SEELEY-I have no interest. I am Earl Underhill’s son-in-law, and family handyman. I’m the fix-it guy, and it was left up to me, when the family bought the camp, it was left up to me to go ahead and design somewhere where everybody can assemble, and it is a weekend type use facility where the family comes on Saturday/Sunday, and when it’s nice, there’s no place outside where we can all get together, or even if it rains on a Sunday afternoon and you want to have a picnic, it’s just not possible inside. MR. STONE-Where is your septic system on the property? MR. SEELEY-The septic system is on the north side, at least we believe it to be on the north side of the camp, because that’s where the pipes go out of the wall. MR. STONE-You own the garage across the street? MR. SEELEY-Yes, we do. MR. STONE-But the septic system isn’t over there? MR. SEELEY-No, it’s not. MR. STONE-I was disturbed by something you said. Ten to twelve families on the weekend? MR. SEELEY-No, no, ten to twelve people. MR. STONE-You said families. MR. SEELEY-I’m sorry, ten to twelve people of the family. MR. STONE-That’s better than ten or twelve families. MR. SEELEY-No, no. MR. STONE-I was concerned about overload on the system, that’s what I was concerned about. MR. SEELEY-No, and as I say, it’s just used, now this has been used for the last 34, 35 years by one lady, living there year round, by herself, and the camp was purchased from her, and I don’t believe we put anymore burden on any of the systems, because we’re only there one, possibly two days a week, and then not on a year round basis. All last winter, nobody was there at all. MR. STONE-You’re not there during the week? MR. SEELEY-No. MR. STONE-I thought, as I was there yesterday, two cars seemed to pull in next to the garage. MR. UNDERHILL-I was there yesterday. MR. STONE-Okay. I saw somebody drive in as I was driving away. MR. UNDERHILL-Yes, that was my daughter. MR. STONE-Okay. I just wanted to check that somebody was there yesterday, that’s all. MR. UNDERHILL-This isn’t relevant at all. Our family has been on the lake for 34 years, excuse me, since 1934. I own property there, previously, from 1959 to 1968. I owned Barton’s Cabins up there on the hill, and suffering a heart attack and disability at that time, I had to sell them. They’re owned by my wife’s sister now, and I owned a piece of property down next to Carpenters. I certainly wouldn’t want to do anything that would antagonize anyone around the lake. The minute I bought the place, I joined the Association for the preservation of that lake. I have an interest in that lake. The other thing that I did do is I approached all my neighbors, because I wouldn’t even have proposed this if I though that any of them would object to it whatsoever. I just don’t buy a piece of property for a vacation spot and wind up making enemies. I don’t need that at 73 years old. The reasons that Martin stated that we wanted, this size just seemed to be the most, we also went out and took pictures of the numerous camps that are within 20, 10, 8 feet of that lake front. As you know, there’s some real bad properties on that lake, and thank God they’re being brought up and improved upon, but my neighbors both on the adjacent properties wished me good luck when I told them this is what I wanted to do. I went to neighbors beyond them, and they also thought it would improve it. 22 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/23/99) I have a neighbor who has a porch now, and this porch will not exceed his. I’ll be out to the same level that his is, the same encroachment. I guess that’s it, gentlemen. MR. THOMAS-The only question I've got is on the map here. It says proposed deck on this drawing is 432 square feet? MR. SEELEY-That’s correct. That would be the total square footage, that’s 18 by 24. MR. THOMAS-Okay, so that includes the 120 square foot that’s there now? MR. SEELEY-Yes, that’s including that space. We're increasing from 120 square feet to 432 square feet, less the area, and I did not figure that in, less the area taken up by the stairs. MR. STONE-So it’s not an addition of 432? MR. SEELEY-No. MR. THOMAS-It’s 312. MR. SEELEY-Right. MR. STEC-Less the stairs. MR. SEELEY-Less the stairs. MR. STONE-But the stairs are built in to the. MR. SEELEY-They’re built into the deck. MR. STONE-You multiplied the length by the width, and the stairs are inside that, so it’s still area. MR. SEELEY-It takes that area, but it’s not used. MR. HAYES-They don’t count steps, do they? MR. BROWN-Not usually. As a rule. MR. SEELEY-See, I have, and I could have calculated those and deducted. I didn’t get nitpicking there, but as Earl stated Sunday we did, and I had pictures to show you, except that we took them with the wrong camera and there’s nobody that can develop that film without sending it out. Sunday we took our rowboat completely around the shoreline of the lake, and without trespassing to actually get out and measure, we found 12 residences that have either decks or enclosed additions on their homes that have been built since the inception of zoning, that are closer than 50 feet. Some of which are less than 10-feet from present shoreline. Whether those people got variances, I don’t know. I have no idea. Whether they got building permits, I have no idea. MR. STONE-Is this deck coming all the way across the front of the house? MR. SEELEY-Yes, because to live up to the spirit of the setbacks, on a 44-foot wide lot, would leave us with a very narrow deck across the street. MR. STONE-I’m not (lost word). I’m looking at your drawing. There’s a dotted line. The existing deck seems to go across the whole front. I know it does by looking at it. MR. SEELEY-Right. I show the existing deck in a dotted line. MR. STONE-Right, but then you have a dotted line where the, I see, you’ve got it on both ends, you’ve got, excuse me, okay. MR. SEELEY-Right. MR. STONE-I was looking at the 13-foot dimension line, but I didn’t recognize on the top that you also had a broken line. MR. SEELEY-Right. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Are there anymore questions for the applicant? If not, I’ll open the public hearing. Anyone wishing to speak in favor of this application? In favor of? Anyone wishing to speak opposed? Opposed? Any correspondence? 23 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/23/99) PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. HAYES-Yes. Okay. This is letter from a Mr. Lee A. Barton “The undersigned is a WWII Vet. The Vets fought Germany, Italy, and Japan. Why? Because the elected and appointed individuals were dictating policy to their citizens. Queensbury presently is ruled like the above countries were. The owner of the property should be able to construct on his or her property without interference, so long as no health conditions are presented or involved. Lee A. Barton” No objections. MR. STONE-He didn’t help your case. MR. THOMAS-Is it within the 500 feet? MR. HAYES-He wrote it on the back of a notice. MR. STONE-Then he is. Okay. MR. BROWN-He’s probably on the notification list. MR. HAYES-I’ll make sure. MR. THOMAS-If there’s anymore questions for Mr. Underhill or. MR. HAYES-Yes, Barton, Lee, 113 Sunnyside North, Queensbury, NY. MR. THOMAS-113. MR. UNDERHILL-I know of a Barton, an elderly gentleman, in his 70’s, and he has sons there, too. MR. HAYES-It says he fought in the Big One. MR. STONE-He was in World War II. MR. UNDERHILL-So was I, so. MR. THOMAS-And he’s at 113. You’re at 148. MR. HAYES-He must be within the area, though, because he’s on the list. MR. THOMAS-Are there anymore questions? If not, I’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. THOMAS-Anymore questions for the applicant? One last time. Okay. Lets talk about it. I guess we’re back to Lew, aren’t we. Okay. Jaime. MR. HAYES-Well, obviously, one of the things that strikes me, as far as this particular project, is that you’re asking relief from a number of the, a lot of the Code. Clearly, you’re asking relief on both sides. You’re asking relief to go closer to the lake. You’re asking relief from the Wetland Regulations. You’re asking relief from the floor area ratio requirements, and while it appears to me you’ve come in good faith, and the deck is a moderate proposal, it’s impossible for me to get over the fact that when we changed the shore setback requirement from 75 feet down to 50 feet, that that seems to be to charge the Board with a little more stringent effort to actually maintain that barrier, and requesting 20 feet of relief from a 50 foot shoreline requirement for something that appears to me to be totally self-created, this is not a hardship. It’s just a request for additional usable square footage with this house, I think that’s too far. I think it’s too much relief cumulatively, and I think in that way, the test falls in favor of maintaining a standard in that neighborhood which needs standards, and I would say that I would be against this variance, based on cumulative relief. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Lew? MR. STONE-I basically agree with that. The notes, when I visited the property, I always write notes down. Under the relief required, I said, too much, and I asked myself a question, why should we grant so much relief? Lets look for less or none. I understand your need. I understand your desire, but as Jaime so well put, we do have a Waterfront zoning with a lot of requirements. There’s no question about that, and certainly if you look at Lake Sunnyside, I would agree with you that a very large percentage of the properties there do not meet the Code, as it currently exists, and we recognize that. That’s why it’s a nonconforming use. That’s why we get into some of these variances, but having said that, it just seems to me there’s an awful lot of relief. I would like to see you take a 24 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/23/99) harder look at what you really need, and how you can minimize the amount of variance that we have to give. One of the things that we strive for is minimum relief, to achieve a particular end, and it’s great to have a deck of 432 square feet that’s 30 feet from the lake. I mean, we all want that, but we are charged with maintaining the zoning of the Town of Queensbury, which is to benefit all of as. As I said earlier this evening, we don’t consider just the neighborhood, we consider the whole Town, and we have a number of waterfront properties in this Town, and I’m sorry before when I didn’t mention Sunnyside Lake. I mentioned the river in Lake George and Glen Lake. I forgot Sunnyside, but we have to be concerned with all of these waterfront properties, and I think we have to be aware that what we do for one we may be asked to do for another, and when there’s so much relief involved, I would like to see you come back to us with a better proposal. Because the way it stands now, I just think it’s too much relief the way the project is presented to us. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Dan? MR. STEC-I agree with the other Board members. I think Jaime has well stated, that this is cumulative relief, and in fact when I first saw this plan, it reminded me of a similar application that we had not too long ago, as far as the wide variety. Whereas, maybe individually, I’d be okay with some of them, but certainly the cumulative effect concerns me. The only mitigating circumstance that I see is when I visited the site, I noted that the two camps immediately to the north both had similar decks as the proposed deck, that roughly encroached to about the same distance from the lake. So I believe the applicant fully, I’m sure his neighbors won’t complain because he certainly isn’t proposing anything that encroaches any further than theirs do. However, like I said, and it’s not to say that they did or didn’t have variances or if they were pre-existing, nonconforming, but on its face, this is too much relief to grant, in my opinion. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Chuck? MR. MC NULTY-I can basically say, ditto. I can understand an applicant wanting to put a deck on, and I could certainly understand the point that all the neighbors have done. At the same time, I think the 50 foot shoreline setback was put there for a reason, and I think in a lot of cases on a lot of our lakes, those kinds of setbacks have been put there after the fact. The people that put them there looked at them and said, these camps are too close, and what we should strive for is something that is further back, and I think that’s the case here, and as the other members have said, the cumulative impact especially gangs up on this particular application. So, I’m also inclined to oppose. MR. THOMAS-I agree with the other Board members. I think Lew said it and Jaime said it, too, is the cumulative effect, that really says that we shouldn’t do this. I think Lew said everybody would like to have a 432 square foot deck on a body of water, and it being a covered deck also, it’s included in the floor area ratio, whereas an uncovered deck would not be included, right? MR. BROWN-That’s correct. MR. THOMAS-Okay, but then again, too, the 30 foot setback, but then again, too, this sits up in the air, away from the shoreline, but I think it’s too much relief, and if the applicant could come back with something, you know, a little smaller, that maybe isn’t covered, and that would take up, that would require that the floor area ratio not be considered on that, I’d be inclined to listen to something else, but other than that, this here is 432 square foot, which is 18 by 24, is way too big. MR. UNDERHALL-May I ask a question, please? When you say come back, are we talking about there would be no relief from the 50-foot setback? I mean, not saying no to that? As you said, there are many restrictions around us here, and we’re limited. If we go through the expense of drawing up new plans and all of these things, can you give me some idea of how close I can get to that? I mean, can I have a 12-foot deck? I've got a five and a half-foot deck, now. Just some guidance, that’s all I’m looking for. MR. STEC-If I could propose, Mr. Chairman. For me, I’d feel better if, I could consider taking the size of the existing 120 square foot deck and basically doubling the width of that, uncovered. I’d be comfortable with that. You’d still require side setback, but then we’d only be talking about 10-feet inside of 20 feet from the shoreline, and it’s uncovered. So it wouldn’t go in the floor area ratio. I would say, I mean, I don’t know how big an issue the fact of being covered is to you, but if you could come back with something uncovered that basically doubled the width of the existing deck, I would be comfortable with something along those lines, but that’s just me. I can’t speak for the Board. MR. UNDERHILL-But if we covered it, then it wouldn’t be feasible for me to come back, if I want to cover this thing? MR. STONE-Not necessarily. What we’re really saying, and I know we’re being vague. This is the longest list of variances that I've ever seen, I think, in terms of what our Staff has put together, all of 25 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/23/99) the numbers. We're saying that if you cut down some of those. Obviously, maybe you cover only a portion of the deck, so that the relief is not going to be 31%. Certainly I think all of us recognize that your neighbors, for example, are closer than 50 feet. I think I would be inclined to grant some relief there, but I need to see what you’re looking for. We can’t even begin, at least I can’t, to suggest how to knock a little bit off here, knock a little bit off there. It becomes a very time consuming process. I suggest that you sit down with Staff and try to figure out how to minimize these numbers. I mean, here’s one, .66 feet of relief from the 12-foot minimum side. That would seem to be relatively simple to knock off, maybe. Maybe it’s not, but I think you need to look at getting rid of some of these numbers and making them a little smaller. The 31% is a very large number, and the floor area ratio. We have a 22% ratio in a waterfront. MR. SEELEY-We understand that, but we were saddled with that with a high percentage to begin with. MR. STONE-I understand. You’ve got 17 square feet to work with. MR. SEELEY-Here we have, yes, we have a building that was built 40 some years ago, and took up almost all of the lot to begin with. MR. STONE-I don’t think any of us are saying, at least I’m not, and I agree with Dan, that it’s overpowering, looking at all of these things. I would like to see you take, as they say to the accountant, do a fine line, sharpen the point, and see if we can make this less onerous, if you will. MR. SEELEY-So, if it didn’t have a cover, then it would help us out? MR. THOMAS-And also, on that south side, if you brought the new proposed part, if you brought that in toward the center, because you’re lacking, what, seven feet and three inches. If you brought that back in, instead of being four feet, nine inches from the property line, if it was like ten feet from the property line, two feet of relief, that cuts that down. That’s one way you could cut it down that way, and like Dan says, bring it back 10-feet, to 40 feet. So, I don’t know. We seem to be cutting this deck up here pretty good. So, would you like us to table it and you come back with another plan? MR. SEELEY-Would you do that? MR. THOMAS-Yes, we can. MR. STONE-Absolutely. MR. UNDERHILL-Thank you very much, gentlemen. MR. THOMAS-You’re quite welcome. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 50-1999 EARL UNDERHILL, Introduced by Chris Thomas who moved for its adoption, seconded by Paul Hayes: Until no later than the August meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals. This means that any new information requested by this 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 applicant to submit a new site plan and a smaller deck. Duly adopted this 23 day of June, 1999, by the following vote: rd AYES: Mr. Hayes, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Stec, Mr. Stone, Mr. Thomas NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Lapham, Mr. McNally MR. THOMAS-So you’re still alive. AREA VARIANCE NO. 53-1999 TYPE II WR-1A CEA PAUL & NANCY DWYER OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE 7 BOSS ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES A 570 SQ. FT. GARAGE AND SEEKS SETBACK RELIEF. WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 6/9/99 TAX MAP NO. 142-1-19 LOT SIZE: 0.24 ACRES SECTION 179-16, 179-67 PAUL DWYER, PRESENT 26 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/23/99) STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 53-1999, Paul & Nancy Dwyer, Meeting Date: June 23, 1999 “Project Location: 7 Boss Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a 570 sf freestanding garage and seeks setback relief. Relief Required: Applicant requests 10-feet of relief from the 20-foot minimum side setback requirement of the WR-1A zone, § 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 the proposed garage in the desired location. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives may include relocation of the proposal to a compliant location. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?: 10-feet of relief from the 20-foot requirement may be interpreted as moderate to substantial. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: Moderate effects on the neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of this action. 5. Is this difficulty self-created? The difficulty may be interpreted as self created, there appears to be an area for the garage that would comply with the setback requirements. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): None applicable Staff comments: Moderate impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action. While the applicants’ proposal meets the setback requirements from the right of way, the property line setback is not maintained. There appears to be enough room to place the garage in a compliant location and thereby lessen the impact on the southerly adjoiners, whose house is 3 to 5 feet from the property line. SEQR Status: Type II” MR. THOMAS-Okay. Is there anything from the County on this one? MR. HAYES-“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form 3 June 1999 Project Name: Paul & Nancy Dwyer No County Impact” Terry Ross. MR. THOMAS-Mr. or Mrs. Dwyer. MR. DWYER-My name is Paul Dwyer, 7 Boss Road, Queensbury. This is a proposed two-car garage to put your cars in. It’s very simple. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Is there any reason you can’t move it 10-feet closer to the house? MR. DWYER-Aesthetic reasons, yes. If you look at the space between the house and the garage, if you move it 10-feet closer to meet the setback, it would be aesthetically displeasing. It would be too narrow a space to do anything. You would look at it and say, well, why didn’t they join the two buildings. MR. THOMAS-Okay. I noticed on the river side of your lot there, somebody else owns that piece of land, on the river side? MR. DWYER-No, I own both. MR. THOMAS-You own right down to the river? MR. DWYER-Yes, it’s two different lots. Two different deeds. MR. THOMAS-Okay, because it says Diane C. Olsen on that one, on this print that we have. MR. DWYER-It was her survey, the river survey, and when I bought the property, I surveyed the top lot, and the top deed. So I knew, that was an old survey that I had there. Because I have a ’94 and a ’99 survey now. MR. THOMAS-Okay. So you own right down the river from the road. MR. DWYER-Correct. MR. STONE-How often do you go down to the river, or how often do you come up from the river? MR. DWYER-It’s a steep bank, so you make your trips judicious. MR. STONE-That’s what I thought. MR. DWYER-I have two benches on the way down. MR. STONE-I have a couple of questions of Staff. We’ve got a metal frame shed on one side of the building. Is that in violation of the setback requirements? We also have another shed on the property. Do we have too many accessory buildings already? 27 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/23/99) MR. BROWN-I think Mr. Dwyer was kind of saddled with these pre-existing potentially nonconforming structures, and the shed it appears, without scaling it, to be less than 100 square feet. MR. STONE-I agree. MR. BROWN-That could be as close as five feet to the property line. The one on the north side of the building, from what I remember, it’s more of a carport kind of canopy covering. MR. DWYER-Correct. MR. BROWN-Rather than a shed. So I’m not sure that would even require a building permit. It’s not really a structure. MR. STONE-Well, we had one on Rockhurst, a couple of years ago, where we made someone take one down. Now, it was anchored into the asphalt, but it was a very similar building, wasn’t it, Chris, as you remember? MR. BROWN-Yes, I’m going to assume that these structures were there when Mr. Dwyer purchased the property. MR. DWYER-Correct. MR. BROWN-And as far as he’s concerned, they’re pre-existing, nonconforming, maybe nonconforming. So I think, historically, we haven’t burdened new property owners with previous nonconformities. MR. DWYER-The small shed is six feet from the property line, and that’s probably being removed anyway. MR. STONE-I agree. I wasn’t arguing that was too close. How about the drums back there, out of curiosity. Are those something you want to keep around? MR. DWYER-They are for my dock down below. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. DWYER-And by the way, I’m looking for four or five good hands this Saturday to come help me put the dock in. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Are there anymore questions for Mr. Dwyer? If not, I’ll open the public hearing. Anyone wishing to speak in favor of this application? In favor of? Anyone wishing to speak opposed? Opposed? Any correspondence? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. HAYES-Yes. We have a letter from Sandra Allen, 1 Woodcrest Drive, Queensbury, NY, dated June 23, 1999, Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals, Town of Queensbury, RE: Dwyer Area Variance Request No. 53-1999 “Dear Members of the Zoning Board of Appeals: I apologize that I cannot attend tonight’s meeting. I ask that you consider this letter in your deliberations regarding the above request. I own the house at 5 Boss Road, which is located immediately to the south of the Dwyer’s property. This house was built prior to the Town’s adoption of zoning ordinances and is located as close as three feet to the property line between the Dwyer’s and my properties. I have been advised that the Zoning Ordinance provides for a setback of 20 feet in this zone, and that the Dwyer’s wish a variance to place their garage only 10-feet away from the property line. The Dwyer’s propose to build their garage only 13 feet from my house, while 25 feet from their own. I am concerned about the close proximity of the proposed garage. The bedrooms of my house are located along the side, and the windows look out onto the area where the garage is proposed to be located. I am also concerned that the garage will add unwanted noise, light and fumes into my house. Furthermore, the proposed plans show that the Dwyers can move the proposed garage closer to their house, yet I am sympathetic in that the lots in this neighborhood are small and that a garage in our climate, while not a necessity, is certainly desirable. Assuming care is given to the location of outdoor lights for the garage, I believe a 15-foot setback would be more appropriate, given the circumstances. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Sincerely, Sandra Allen” MR. THOMAS-And that’s the only thing? MR. HAYES-That’s the only one. MR. THOMAS-All right. I’ll close the public hearing. 28 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/23/99) PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. THOMAS-Are there anymore questions for Mr. Dwyer? Anymore comments, suggestions, ideas? MR. STONE-Well, the suggestion that comes rapidly in mind is a kind of suggestion in line with what Mrs. Allen made. I mean, I looked at the property. I’m sure we all did. I think 10-feet of relief from 20 feet is asking for an awful lot, when you do have a fair amount of side yard, and I think it certainly could be closer to your home. Whether or not it should be 15-feet from your home, I’m open to suggestions, but I certainly am not inclined to give 10-feet of relief at this point. I think if we can work out, as Mrs. Allen suggested, maybe 15-feet or five feet of relief, I would be happier to grant this thing because it isn’t as if you couldn’t be in conformity. You could, technically, be in conformity, by putting it 15-feet from the house. I recognize there’s trees there, and there’s a very nice garden, and all of that, but, technically, you could have built this thing without even approaching us, and therefore, in approaching us, I think you have to be cognizant of the fact that we like to give the minimum amount of relief possible, and in my mind, 10-feet is too much. So, I mean, I would like you, Mr. Dwyer, to consider asking for less. MR. DWYER-I have no objection to the 15-foot compromise that she mentioned. Again, as somebody mentioned earlier, this should be a forum for compromise, and that’s what I expected coming in. So I have no objection to that. MR. STONE-I think that’s good. I think that’s exactly the, I think Dan made it earlier, I think it’s a very good idea. MR. DWYER-My only question would be, how far would this set me back, timeline wise? MR. STONE-We could do it right now. MR. DWYER-That’s fine. MR. STONE-We’d just change your application on the fly. We can grant whatever we want. We would grant five feet of relief. MR. DWYER-I have absolutely no problem with that. MR. THOMAS-Before you say that, there’s a utility pole sitting right in the. MR. DWYER-Actually, I did look up. MR. THOMAS-No, I’m talking about the driveway, not looking up. MR. DWYER-It does cut across at an angle. So moving, it would cut across the driveway, but moving it inward, I believe, would, because the way I figured it, it cuts across very close to one corner of the garage. Moving it that five feet is going to eliminate that, but not eliminate it from the driveway. You’re correct. MR. THOMAS-Okay. So the poles aren’t going to be any problem with the driveway going into the garage? MR. DWYER-No. Five feet, it’s going to be a curved driveway anyway. MR. THOMAS-Okay. MR. DWYER-I have two of them there. One of them’s just sitting there. MR. THOMAS-Yes, one of them needs to be transferred and pulled. All right. Lets talk about this. I think Lew’s already started. MR. STONE-I've spoken, yes. MR. THOMAS-So, Dan? MR. STEC-Well, I appreciate the applicant saying, hey, work out a compromise. Because I was going to echo what Lew said, but now I don’t have to. I think the Board’s talking about granting five feet of relief, and I've got absolutely no problem with it at all. Checking the balancing test, the benefit is clear. We struck a feasible alternative. Now the relief is less substantial. In fact, I’d call it minimal. Five feet of relief is minimal. There’s no effect on the community, and I think that now 29 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/23/99) this is a wonderful alternative. It keeps everyone happy, and I guess that’s what it’s about. So now I’m very pleased. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Chuck? MR. MC NULTY-I guess I’m in the ditto category again. I, too, was going to be opposed to placing this where the applicant had requested, but if he’s willing to move it back, so we’re only talking five feet of relief, it almost puts it halfway between his house and the other house, which is good. I can go along with this. MR. THOMAS-All right. Jaime? MR. HAYES-I guess, risking a cliché, I think the balancing test has been balanced. So that’s what we’re looking for and that’s what we needed to get, and we got it. So I don’t have any problem with the proposal. MR. THOMAS-All right. I don’t have any problem with the proposal either, especially moving it five feet further to the north, as suggested by the neighbor on the south. It’s a good compromise. I’ll ask for a motion. MR. STONE-I have one question first. Is the garage going to be parallel to the house? Your drawing shows it slightly skewed. Are you going to try to make it parallel, or is it? MR. DWYER-I’m going to try to make it parallel to the house, but as you may notice, the lots are all slightly skewed. MR. STONE-Yes, I see that. MR. DWYER-So I tried to keep the 10-foot distance. MR. STONE-I've got you. Well, but you could make it 15 at the closest point and still make it. Because you’re the one who’s talking aesthetics. MR. DWYER-Right. MR. STONE-I think it would look nicer parallel. I mean, nature doesn’t have straight lines, but we seem to make them all the time, and they look nicer. Good. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Does someone want to make a motion? MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 53-1999 PAUL & NANCY DWYER, Introduced by Daniel Stec who moved for its adoption, seconded by Lewis Stone: 7 Boss Road. The applicant proposes construction of a 570 square foot freestanding garage and seeks setback relief. Specifically, he has requested five feet of relief from the 20-foot minimum side setback requirement of the Waterfront 1 Acre zone, Section 179-16. The criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law, we are considering the benefit to the applicant is that he would be permitted to construct his proposed garage in a suitable and acceptable location. Feasible alternatives did include the potential of moving the garage closer to the home. However, it was generally felt that this would detract from the benefit to the applicant, in that it would be less aesthetically pleasing. Five feet of relief from the twenty-foot requirement is minimal, and there will be very minimal effect on the neighborhood. Is the difficulty self-created? Again, in a sense it is, but the aesthetic gain from granting the relief and the benefit to the applicant outweighs any negative impact on the community. So, I move that we approve five feet of relief. Duly adopted this 23 day of June, 1999, by the following vote: rd AYES: Mr. Hayes, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Stec, Mr. Stone, Mr. Thomas NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Lapham, Mr. McNally MR. THOMAS-There you go. MR. DWYER-Thanks. MR. STONE-Thank you. 30 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/23/99) MR. THOMAS-You’re welcome. AREA VARIANCE NO. 55-1999 TYPE II CR-15 CONNIE L. FISH OWNER: PETER & CONNIE FISH 6 NEWCOMB STREET APPLICANT PROPOSES PLACEMENT OF A 288 SQ. FT. PREFABRICATED GARAGE BUILDING AND SEEKS SETBACK RELIEF. TAX MAP NO. 130-1-9 LOT SIZE: 0.50 ACRES SECTION 179-24 CONNIE FISH, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 55-1999, Connie L. Fish, Meeting Date: June 23, 1999 “Project Location: 6 Newcomb Street Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes placement of a 288 sf prefabricated garage and seeks setback relief. Relief Required: Applicant requests 10-feet of relief from the 20-foot minimum side setback requirement of the CR-15 zone, § 179-24. 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 utilize a conveniently located garage. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives may include relocation of the structure to a compliant location in the center of the property. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?: 10-feet of relief from the 20-foot requirement may be interpreted as moderate to substantial. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: Minimal to moderate effects on the neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of this action. 5. Is this difficulty self-created? The difficulty may be interpreted as self-created, as there appears to be a compliant area available for the proposed garage. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): AV 91-1996 – res. 10/16/96 construction of two residential additions Staff comments: Minimal to moderate impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action. The proposed garage is of modest proportion and the proposed location appears to be logical for easy access. SEQR Status: Type II” MR. THOMAS-And nothing from the County. You’re on. MRS. FISH-Hi. My name is Connie Fish, and I reside 6 Newcomb Street, but I also own 5 Newcomb Street, and 5 is where the garage is going to be placed. When I received the letter I called the girl and told her she had a misprint in the addresses. MR. HAYES-I saw it on the mailbox, that’s why I. MRS. FISH-Yes. So, I just wanted to make sure that she didn’t have to re-notify any neighbors that this was going to take place, and she said it was fine. The reason, either way I’d be here in front of you, no matter where I chose to put this garage. As it was, we originally were going for a 12 by 26. I've talked her into a 12 by 24. This is my aunt who lives here. It’s an elderly woman in her 70’s, and that’s the reason we bought the home, was for our elderly relatives, who are still somewhat mobile, not in need of care, but just to have someone close by. We’ve tried several different ways on this property, even plunking it dead center, and we would still be here. We would still be in violation a foot or two either way. We’ve tried it several different ways, placing cones out there, seeing how she was able to pull the car in, make the swings behind the house to the center, and this, since we were going for the variance, we decided we would go for what was ever most comfortable for her. I don’t know what else to tell you, other than we’ve done several clean up jobs around this house. I don’t know if you’ve noticed, out in the back yard, along the back stretch, that was used as a neighborhood dump during the year the previous owners had vacated the property. She went to a nursing home, and that became a very convenient dumping ground, which was five foot high and forty feet long. We’ve already cleaned that up. We’ve installed flowerbeds and a stone drive, and that’s just in the two, three months we’ve owned the house. The reason we’re asking for this garage is because my aunt is hoping that will be the last car she will have to buy at her age, and she’s had dogs get in her garbage and raccoons and whatnot, and currently she has her outdoor tools stored at my home and her Christmas decorations. There is no storage in the house, and these are all items she’d like to store. We tried doing a carport with a shed, and that far exceeded the cost of this garage. So that’s why we went this way. I have a brochure on what it would look like, and where it’s made from. I didn’t give you copies of those. I’m sorry. I forgot, and I also have. I did? Okay. Very good. I’m sorry. MR. STONE-You have color. We don’t have color. MRS. FISH-And I do have a letter here from my sister-in-law whose name is also on the tax map. We chipped in together on this house, and it’s just stating her permission. .She’s not really involved too much. She chipped in a few thousand dollars, but basically I’m the caretaker of the property. MR. STONE-Does this thing sit on the ground? Is it dug in or? 31 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/23/99) MRS. FISH-There’s no foundation to them. That’s what, we went around to several different places, and they all seemed to be constructed similarly. What they request is some patio blocks, some gravel. Apparently they set the patio blocks, fill with gravel, and then place the unit on top, is the way I understood it. MR. STONE-Is there a ramp leading up to this? MRS. FISH-Yes, there is a small ramp. MR. STONE-That’s part of what they give you? MRS. FISH-Yes. MR. STONE-Okay. MRS. FISH-And to be perfectly honest, we went several places, and there were quite a few people, surprisingly, that were willing to plunk this on the property the very next day with no paperwork. So, having done a variance before, I knew better than to just say, go ahead. MR. STEC-If more people were like you. MRS. FISH-But the whole reasoning for positioning where it is at this time is for the convenience for our elderly relatives. The one that is there now, she has very bad arthritis in her knees, and she’s just recently, in the last week, been diagnosed with cancer. So we are trying to keep her independent, because she is a very independent woman, and she has not lived up here in the winter in 30 years. So for her to have her car sitting outside in the snow, and my other reason for positioning where it is is perfectly selfish. I’m the one who’s going to shovel, and if I place this back farther on the property, that’s a long way to shovel. I don’t own a snow blower. I don’t own a truck with a plow. MR. STONE-What about Mr. Fish? MRS. FISH-Mr. Fish is busy building boats. I think I told you at my last hearing that he was the one that just provided the funds, and I’m the one that did the work. MR. STONE-You’ve got to get with the modern program. MRS. FISH-I know. I know. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Are there any questions for Mrs. Fish? MR. STONE-Well, the only question I would ask, and we talked about this yesterday with Mrs. Fish. In the spirit of compromise that we seem to be in tonight. This is the preferred. Is there something less that you could live with? And I’m not saying, I don’t know where, obviously, the rest of the Board is coming from, but obviously, we would just, the previous applicant we said, okay, how about less relief. I mean, technically, you could put this, as we talked, in perfect compliance behind the (lost word). It may have to go back a couple of feet further or maybe a tight turn. MRS. FISH-Yes. I would still be here, though, even so, even if I placed it back farther on the property, and we had talked about coming in five foot closer to the home. Because of the shape of the back of the home, and where the door is positioned, it’s not off center on this. It’s a very difficult swing around that first corner on the house. MR. STONE-But you could make it 15-feet, rather than 10. MRS. FISH-It’s going to be difficult. It’s going to be very difficult for her to swing that. It’s hard to see on paper. What we’ve done is, like I said, marked it off with cones, and we tried it again after you left the other day, and it is an extremely difficult swing, not so much going in as coming out and cutting back over, clearing this side and clearing this corner on the home. I feel where it’s located, it’s going to give the girl next door, actually, much more shelter on her patio. You won’t be seeing down four or five yards, and also the people on the other side with the pool have commented that that will also block people from down this way sitting on their back porches looking into their pool. Both sides seem to be fairly happy with it. MR. STONE-That chain link fence that you show on this thing, that is your fence? MRS. FISH-No. It is neighbor’s fence. It’s been encroached on a court ordered agreement. What we are in the process of doing, and also on both sides I have an encroachment, their fence on the back property is also, but what we have an agreement being done now with lawyers, is that if their fences come down, for need of repair, or whatever, that it will go back to the original property line. 32 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/23/99) Actually, both of these were court ordered, both of these, and they still encroached beyond, but being the new owners, we didn’t want to start off on the wrong foot. We wanted to keep everybody happy, let them know, you know, nothing’s really going to change here. MR. STONE-Well, since the people to the north need the fence, it’s required, since they have a pool. MRS. FISH-Right. Sure. MR. THOMAS-Does anyone else have any questions for Mrs. Fish? If not, I’ll open the public hearing. Anyone wishing to speak in favor of this application? Anyone wishing to speak opposed? Opposed? Any correspondence? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. HAYES-Yes, there is. We have a letter here from Ben Aronson, Double A Provisions, “We have no objection to the proposed project.” And we have another letter here from Mrs. Shiela J. Fish, “To Whom It May Concern: I am aware of the changes being proposed for the property at 5 Newcomb Street. I approve of the changes being put forward with no reservations.” That’s it. MRS. FISH-He’s probably trying to be nice to me. I've been calling him every time his drivers speed down my road. MR. THOMAS-You couldn’t do too much speeding today. MRS. FISH-No, that’s the only good thing. MR. STONE-Except I went there yesterday and I got three neighbors that came out looking, who is this stranger with this car going down the street. MRS. FISH-That doesn’t know the other end is blocked. MR. THOMAS-All right. That’s all the correspondence? MR. HAYES-Yes, it is. MR. THOMAS-All right. I’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. THOMAS-Any further questions for Mrs. Fish? If not, we’ll talk about it. Dan? MR. STEC-This is similar to the previous one. However, I think the feasible alternatives are more limited in this case, and frankly I’m comfortable with granting 10-feet of relief. We talked about the spirit of compromise. I think that this applicant has been very compromising with the chain link fences on both sides that encumber her land. So I’m not prepared to ask her to split hairs over a couple of more feet. I think that it’s a logical location, and again, I think it’s a very modest proposal. I think the benefit to the applicant far outweighs any impact on the neighborhood, and I’m in favor. MR. THOMAS-All right. Chuck? MR. MC NULTY-I’ll agree with Dan. Before I heard the explanation, I was inclined to deny, feeling that the structure could be pushed over into compliance, or close to it, but I can understand the need to make it easy for an elderly person to get in and out of a garage, and I think there’s sufficient justification there. I’m inclined to approve. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Jaime? MR. HAYES-I agree with the other Board members. I counted 48 potential neighbors to respond, and there was no negative responses whatsoever, and I think the conclusion to that effect is that there really is no negative impact on the neighborhood or community. So, therefore, focusing on the benefit to the applicant, it seems very reasonable to me, and it actually seems well thought, and the applicant has come here in good faith, in particular, and I think the test falls in her favor. So I’m for it. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Lew? MR. STONE-I agree. Particularly, obviously, compromise is possible in this case, but when you talked about getting out, that was the thing that sold me. Obviously, it’s easy to drive in. Some of us have trouble backing up, from time to time. 33 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/23/99) MRS. FISH-And she’s been driving that same way for 50 years. I've been trying to tell her to back in and pull out. It’s easier, but she just can’t do it. MR. STONE-Okay. Having said that, I certainly would like it over further. I recognize you can’t go back too far, to put it backwards, because the septic system does come into play at some point, even though we’re not exactly sure where it is, but I have no problem with this. MR. THOMAS-All right. I agree with the other Board members. There’s really no other place that this could go, given the conditions that are effecting this, the narrowness of the land, the way the house sits on the existing lot, and the lot lines being established by a court decree. I don’t know where they were before. So, I would have no problem with this variance. Having said that, I’ll ask for a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 55-1999 CONNIE L. FISH, Introduced by Paul Hayes who moved for its adoption, seconded by Lewis Stone: 5 Newcomb Street. The applicant proposes placement of a 288 square foot prefabricated garage and seeks setback relief. Specifically, the applicant is requesting 10-feet of relief from the 20-foot minimum side setback requirement of the CR-15 zone, Section 179-24. The benefit to the applicant would be that she would be permitted to construct the prefabricated garage where she desires, based on some good criteria. The feasible alternatives. Feasible alternatives, you could possibly relocate the garage to a compliant location, but I believe that the applicant has proposed good reasons why those aren’t as feasible as the current proposal. Is the relief substantial to the Ordinance? Ten feet of relief from the twenty-foot requirement is probably moderate. The effects on the neighborhood or community, I don’t believe that there’s any negative impact on the neighborhood or community, as evidenced by the fact that all of the correspondence was positive, and is the difficulty self-created? I think that’s mixed. I don’t really believe that it is totally, based on the applicant’s desire to maintain this garage for an elderly relative, and the steering requirements of that person. So, all things considered, I think the balance of the test falls in favor of the applicant, and I move for its approval. Duly adopted this 23 day of June, 1999, by the following vote: rd AYES: Mr. Stone, Mr. Hayes, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Stec, Mr. Thomas NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Lapham, Mr. McNally MR. THOMAS-There you go. MRS. FISH-Thank you. MR. THOMAS-You’re welcome. MR. STONE-Keep up the good work on the property. MRS. FISH-Thank you. AREA VARIANCE NO. 51-1999 TYPE II WR-1A/CEA MARK W. RYAN OWNER: HAROLD J. KIRKPATRICK ROUTE 9L, CLEVERDALE, ROCKHURST ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES COSNTRUCTION OF A SECOND STORY ADDITION TO AN EXISTING CAMP AND SEEKS SETBACK RELIEF AND RELIEF FOR THE EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE. CROSS REF. SEPTIC VARIANCE FOR REVIEW BY TOWN BOARD 6/7/99 CROSS REF. SPR 30-99 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY WARREN COUNTY PLANNING TAX MAP NO. 16-1- 4 LOT SIZE: 0.54 ACRES SECTION 179-16, 179-60, 179-79 MR. THOMAS-I’m just going to read it into the minutes and open the public hearing, because the applicant hasn’t gotten his sewer variance from the Board of Health. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 51-1999, Mark W. Ryan, Meeting Date: June 23, 1999 “Project Location: Rockhurst Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a 518 sf second story addition to an existing camp and seeks setback relief, relief for the expansion of a nonconforming structure. Relief Required: Applicant requests 40.5 feet of relief from the 50 foot minimum shoreline setback requirements of both the WR-1A zone, § 179-16 and the Shoreline and Wetland Regulations, § 179-60. Also the applicant is requesting 17.97 feet of relief from the 20- 34 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/23/99) foot side setback requirement of the WR-1A zone. Further, the applicant is requesting relief for the expansion of a nonconforming structure, per § 179-79. Relief from § 179-79 A.(1) & (2), as well as B. & E. should be considered. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be permitted to enlarge a currently undersized seasonal camp. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives appear to be limited to no construction, given the many constraints to the property. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?: The cumulative requests may be interpreted as substantial. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: Moderate to substantial effects on the neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of this action. 5. Is this difficulty self-created? The difficulty may be interpreted as self-created, however, any expansion of the existing structure will require some form of relief. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): SPR 9-99 – res. 4/20/99 U- shaped covered dock boathouse SPR 30-99 – res. pending – second story addition Septic Variance pending Town Board Meeting 6/21/99 Staff comments: Moderate to substantial impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action. While the existing structure is less than the required square footage for new single family dwellings, it is apparent that even this undersized camp may be an overburden to this lot. The proposed doubling may only exacerbate the difficulty. SEQR Status: Type II” MR. THOMAS-Okay. Is there anything from the County on that? That should be in there, too. MR. HAYES-Yes. “Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form 3 June 1999 Project Name: Mark Ryan Owner: Harold Kirkpatrick County Planning Board Recommendation: No County Impact” Terry Ross. MR. THOMAS-All right. Since there’s nobody here for the variance, I’ll open the public hearing. Is there anybody who’d like to speak in favor of this application? In favor of? Anyone wishing to speak opposed? Opposed? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED RONALD J. TAYLOR MR. TAYLOR-Ronald J. Taylor, 52 Sherwood Trail, Saratoga Springs, NY. We own a camp, I think it’s three or four camps east of this proposed camp, and I would I guess like to see the plans and that sort of thing, but I don’t think I would have any objections to someone bettering their camp. I just wanted to go on the record saying that. MR THOMAS-Okay. MR. STONE-You are down, you’re not on Rockhurst Road. You’re off of Seeley? MR. TAYLOR-On the Water’s Edge Road. We got a notice. MR. STONE-The Water’s Edge, yes, okay. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Would anyone else like to speak in favor of? Come on up and tell us your name. GEORGE RUSSO MR. RUSSO-Yes. This is George Russo. We have the property next closer to the involved property from Mr. Taylor. My main concern is that I've seen no plans at all of what the total project would look like, what it, I really have very little to go on, in terms of trying to answer coherently. I did phone in, I don’t know whether they have it, a remark in terms of the septic system. Again, I know t that the septic system or the holding tank would be below the, what is referred to as the high water limit, and it would call for a variance there. Again, my concern is that because the drinking water of the five involved homes along that rather tight cove would be sampling whatever degradation or perhaps improvement might result from the way this septic plan is handled, again, I have very little to go on, and I’m not familiar with what the engineering aspects of that handling of the septic system would be. MR. STONE-You should be aware that the Town Board, at its meeting on Monday night, tabled the septic variance, asking a series of questions of the applicant, talking about several alternatives, including one holding tank at all, question was raised, is it a seasonal house, and I think Mr. Ryan assured the Town Board that it was. I was present. That’s why I know this, but they also talked about the possibility of putting it across Rockhurst Road, on the land which abuts the wetland, on the Sandy Bay side. They sent Mr. Ryan back to provide more information, and to do further research, as I understand it, into what system he really wants. They asked him a number of 35 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/23/99) questions, questions that we would ask, also, about the size of the house, seasonal use, and all that sort of stuff. So I think they put it back for a month at least, didn’t they, Craig? MR. BROWN-I think he’s going to try and get on for the next meeting, which would be. MR. STONE-A Thursday night, wasn’t it the 7 or something? th MR. BROWN-Yes. It’s probably not a regular meeting because of the holiday. MR. STONE-Yes, it’s not a regular meeting. So I think they talked about the Thursday night of July 4 week, but that would be the septic variance. We have taken to letting the Town Board decide th septic variances before we act on Area Variances. That’s why the applicant is not here tonight. MR. RUSSO-I have, again, the concern that the net result of whatever the engineers and those involved would say would more or less reassure us that the water quality would not negatively impact, might even be positively impacted. MR. STONE-I suggest you be at the Town Board meeting when that’s on the agenda, which is probably going to be the Thursday of that week. You certainly can call and find out when it is. MR. RUSSO-You would send out notices as to when that would be? MR. BROWN-I don’t think they’d advertise it as a public hearing again, but you could certainly call the Town Clerk and they could give you the schedule of the agenda. MR. RUSSO-Wouldn’t we normally look forward to being notified when? MR. STONE-Were you notified about Monday’s meeting? MR. RUSSO-Yes, and I phoned in a comment. MR. STONE-Okay. I would call the Town Clerk, as Craig said, to confirm that you know when it’s going to be on. MR. RUSSO-And the other question I would ask is, should we, this is the first time I've appeared at a meeting such as this. Should we look forward to receiving, with the notice, or at some near point, some plan, some? MR. STONE-You just come into the Office. The notice tells you that it’s going to be on the agenda. MR. RUSSO-Well, I’m down in White Plains. MR. STONE-I understand, but talk to Staff. MR. THOMAS-We have a set of proposed prints. We have a proposed, you know, what it’s supposed to look like, but we usually want the applicant in here telling us what he proposes to do and what he isn’t going to do. MR. BROWN-Yes. I would suggest maybe not going too far without an applicant or the agent here. MR. THOMAS-Yes. So, this is what they submitted for what it looks like. MR. RUSSO-Are we able to get a copy of these rough diagrams or pictures? MR. HAYES-I think if you stop at the Town, Freedom of Information Act, right? MR. BROWN-Yes. MR. STEC-He could probably fax you a few pages, since you’re down in White Plains. MR. RUSSO-Okay. MR. THOMAS-This is what they submitted for a plot plan. It shows mostly the septic on there. MR. STONE-And that was thoroughly discussed, suggestions made last. MR. HAYES-If you come to this meeting, though, he’ll present the whole thing, because he has to answer our questions. 36 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/23/99) MR. RUSSO-All right. PUBLIC-When will that be? MR. THOMAS-Well, he’s got to get the septic variance, first, from the Town. If he doesn’t get that, he isn’t going anywhere. MR. RUSSO-Thank you. PUBLIC-When will that meeting be? MR. THOMAS-I think it’s the Thursday after the 4, isn’t it? th MR. STONE-Yes, I think it is. The 8, yes. th MR. THOMAS-Like Craig said, call the Town Hall, talk to the Town Clerk and make sure that is the date. MR. STONE-Because they weren’t sure the other night. They were talking about it. Were they or were they not going to have a meeting. MR. STEC-Right, because of the holiday, they weren’t sure of the date. So, give them a call. MR. THOMAS-Because their meetings are usually on Monday, but because of the holiday. Okay. Correspondence. There wasn’t any? MR. HAYES-No. MR. THOMAS-Okay. I’ll leave the public hearing open. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 51-1999 MARK W. RYAN, Introduced by Chris Thomas who moved for its adoption, seconded by Paul Hayes: Until no later than the August meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals. This means that any new information requested by this 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 tabling this application is awaiting approval of the septic system from the Town Board, acting as the Board of Health. Duly adopted this 23 day of June, 1999, by the following vote: rd AYES: Mr. McNulty, Mr. Stec, Mr. Stone, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Thomas NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Lapham, Mr. McNally AREA VARIANCE NO. 30-1999 TYPE II HC-1A DECKER & COMPANY, INC. GETTY PETROLEUM MARKETING, INC. OWNER: LEEMILT’S GETTY PETROLEUM, INC. CORNER OF STATE ROUTE 149 AND 9L APPLICANT PROPOSES DEMOLITION OF THE EXISTING FACILITY AND RECONSTRUCTION OF A NEW SERVICE STATION AND SEEKS SETBACK RELIEF FROM THE TRAVEL CORRIDOR OVERLAY ZONE. CROSS REF. SPR 27-99 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 6/9/99 TAX MAP NO. 27-3-7.22 LOT SIZE: 2.78 ACRES SECTION 179-23, 179-28 RON FORTUNE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 30-1999, Decker & Company, Inc., Meeting Date: June 23, 1999 tabled: June 16, 1999 “Project Location: Routes 149 & 9L Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes demolition of an existing filling station facility and the reconstruction of a new service station with an accessory gasoline island and canopy. Relief Required: Applicant requests approximately 25 feet of relief on the southern (Route 149) side of the site from the 75 foot minimum front yard setback requirement of the Route 149 Travel Corridor Overlay Zone for the proposed gas island canopy structure. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be permitted to develop the site resulting in greater convenience and safety to their customer. 2. Feasible 37 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/23/99) alternatives: The proposed site plan is best designed for use. Any changes will compromise business and/or convenience and safety for customers. Additionally, the proposed development could be relocated elsewhere on this rather large parcel eliminating the need for the area variance. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?: Twenty-five (25) feet of relief may be considered moderate to substantial given the fact that the proposed canopy and convenience store could be located elsewhere on the site. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: Minimal to moderate effects on the neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of this action, due to the fact that the proposed project represents an intensification of use resulting from increased services, site amenities, and an increase in the overall site lighting. 5. Is this difficulty self-created? The difficulty may be interpreted as self created in that the applicant had expressed an unwillingness to modify the proposed site layout due to a preference by the applicant to maintain a close proximity to the existing fuel underground storage tanks (UST’s). Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): SPR 27-99 gas station/convenience store – pending Staff comments: Moderate impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action due to the impacts to the site and the surrounding properties noted above as well as the fact that this area of Town was specifically noted in the 1998 Comprehensive Plan as an area where in which the rural residential character should be maintained and protected. If the Board sees fit to approve this application, it would be appropriate for the Board to issue a condition of approval recommending to the Planning Board that the proposed new convenience store, and gas island canopies be designed in such a way so as to include more appropriate styles of architecture and materials. This would satisfy the intent of the Comprehensive Plan. SEQR Status: Type II” MR. THOMAS-Okay, and anything from the County? MR. HAYES-I believe that there is. “Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form 3 June 1999 Project Name: Decker & Company, Inc. County Planning Board Recommendation: No County Impact” MR. THOMAS-Okay. MR. FORTUNE-For the record, my name is Ron Fortune. I’m from Lee, Mass. We're representing Getty Petroleum for the upgrade of this facility. The facility now is tired. It has the old, dual dispenser type of distributing fuel to the cars. Again, our island, shown in a very light, hidden line on this plan right here. Our curb cut is here, and the limit of paving is right there. The current customer base that we’re dealing with is the larger truck that has, and we have a diesel island where we can service both sides of it, and that gives an individual, the truck driver, the option of the right or left side pick up, just by the arrangement of the site. The customer, the attendant cannot see them fueling. It’s just a bad design, and that’s what lead us to this design, the customer base that we’re dealing with, the truck traffic, also the RV travel, and then also the regulations that we have to contend with. Also, the restriction on one curb cut per road, one curb cut at 9L and one curb cut on 149, and trying to keep for a good design, the curb cut as far from the corner as possible, and then also the consideration of grades. We have a six foot grade drop between the, basically the rear fueling islands and out to Route 149. I believe these factors have lead this design, and some have offered radical changes to this. We have compromised. We were hoping to get a two curb cut entrance on 9L, to separate our customers, the car or vehicle type of customer with potential children in and out of these cars, and then the truck traffic. This design does that, for safety issue and concern, we’re dividing the property up very nicely, very distinctly. The travel pattern around the islands, again, your vehicle, separate vehicle, at the inboard islands, there’s four fueling positions there. It works really, it’s very comfortable, and also allows for a passage of vehicle in between the building and the canopy. This is safe, and for fire and for all the circumstances and situations of this fueling operation. Next, the outboard island, the one closest to the street, is a four-product dispenser. It allows for the diesel product. The landscaping type, one ton truck, where it has the trailer behind it and is occasionally diesel, can pull to either side to take, can fuel either tank on either side. The RV, the individual with a boat, this sort of thing, that’s the position. There’ll be signs that state RV and boat traffic. The design is so that there’s no bottlenecking. You can get around the site. Any fueling does not impair any travel around this. If I move this island back farther, or I change the arrangement of it, I lose that separation feature. It’s very comfortable this way, and we have a very restrictive rear setback of 50. With the truck travel and the lanes, I need, I believe, at least three behind the building, because I have a crossover problem with having one curb cut on 9L. My trucks are entering, but I also have my vehicles exiting over their path, and doing that, I feel that I have to have adequate room for that stacking potential behind the building, which leads me to where I feel that I need to go back to the 50 foot setback of the front. I am a corner lot, and with the need for potential resting of a truck after the fact, that would leave this space off to the east for that potential. If I turn the site or traffic pattern around, I don’t have that. This would be the logical design for this site, and that’s what’s driving this and the setbacks, in my estimation. I don’t feel that this is self-imposed. I believe that a lot of these places end up getting bottlenecked with not enough or not sufficient enough turning radiuses and paving to accommodate a facility like this. Here we have the acreage. We are imposed, in the back, by abutting a residential parcel which is a 50-foot setback from the rear. I believe that my building, at 115-feet back from the front, 97 from 9L, and 38 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/23/99) 90 feet from the building setback to the rear, that I’m meeting the requirement. My canopy, as far as this travel corridor, we are a business that serves that road travel. This canopy is not a walled unit. It’s a free, open structure, and again, it serves that traveling public, and for those reasons, I feel that this is a minimal request, and I believe that it’s not just for moving the, or having the visibility at the site closer to the road, again, the shape of the lot is driving and the needs of the customer are driving this arrangement shown here, which is a very safe design, and I think that any Board that I've been to would say the same. MR. THOMAS-So you’re saying that it’s going to be mostly truck traffic in there? MR. FORTUNE-We have a strong current truck traffic now. MR. THOMAS-Okay. MR. STONE-A couple of questions. 149 is currently being improved, or it’s about to be improved, the plan is in sight. How does that impact upon your numbers right now? MR. FORTUNE-It’s shown. I can point them out to you. Right here is the proposed taking, currently, and all that is for is for drainage. We use the swale that comes down here, and then there’s a discharge point and then an exit here for the drain inlet. This is what’s proposed, and then there’s a (lost words), then it shows, this plan actually reflects the. MR. STONE-I assumed it did, proposed shoulder and. MR. FORTUNE-Yes, and the edge of road from here back to here. MR. STONE-So it’s going to move from here to here. MR. FORTUNE-From there to there. MR. STONE-Okay. The other question I have, if I’m coming down 9L, from where I live, am I going to get in there easily? I mean, it looks like a very narrow spot there, at the top of the green vertical. MR. FORTUNE-This right here? MR. STONE-Yes. MR. FORTUNE-Yes. We're proposing, and we have a little eight and a half by eleven, open that up to another car space, but our preference was always to put another separate, which I’m still hoping, I couldn’t even get before planning with that layout, but I’m still going to ask that the Town. MR. STONE-Well, what does the State say? MR. FORTUNE-The State, when we discussed it with the State, early on, they sent me a rulebook. They didn’t even correspondence with federal regulations, as far as truck traffic. I sat with them and asked them to at least listen to what I had to say about this crossover problem that I would have with something like this with the Town’s desire to have one curb cut only at this. We have no problem with this one curb cut. This curb cut here, I feel that the pole can be moved. It’s really necessary, and it’s not, from a stacking perspective, it’s on the other side (lost word). So, it’s not really critical, I believe, to have two curb cuts along here. I don’t believe it enhances this site, and will eliminate a crossover problem. They were, one individual was receptive to it, and I walked away with an understanding that that was going to be allowed. MR. STONE-You mean a curb cut in the middle of that? MR. FORTUNE-Right, yes, well, this one would have to be skewed. This one we could move back to here, and then another one would be able to be placed right in here. So you’d have that distinction between the two travel patterns, and when we got the results, after our meeting, and we submitted the plan, his superior went with what the Town’s concerns were about the one curb cut on 9L. So that’s what, he wanted to comply with the Town’s wishes, which I understand. We have to have one rule, and so that’s where it went. I’m still planning on, I inserted that plan in the package that shows the two curb cuts, and I’m hoping that planning will at least allow me to consider it. MR. STONE-The way you have it, if I come down 9L from the north, I've got to come in, make a left turn, and then squeeze, make an immediate right turn through that relatively narrow opening. 39 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/23/99) MR. FORTUNE-That’s right, but in all honesty, our tanker can get in, but it’s just a little bit tight. The drivers complained about it when they saw it, and I had already submitted the package, but we have a little eight and a half by eleven overlay. MR. STONE-Your drivers complained? How about that. What is this, I’m looking at the map, and you guys jump in, I just happened to, it says a second story. I've never seen a second story on a convenience building. MR. FORTUNE-Yes. That was a proposal. They wanted a larger building. Getty wanted a larger building, and one of the things was that we could always, at some point, if the tanks were ever repositioned, to move them forward, we could expand this building to the right and the left, if we wanted to go with that. I didn’t feel, from a design standpoint, that we needed for the activity, you know, in the next 10 years, that this store would be sufficient for its needs. However, one of the things was that if it ever went to be something where you wanted to have a motel, the roof structure, should we actually make that roof a substantial roof to support that loading, and that was just a proposal. MR. STONE-Okay. You’re thinking a trucker’s motel or something? MR. FORTUNE-Well, yes, and what happened was, that note stayed on the plan, through that discussion, and so it was a question proposed to the Getty people at the time of development. MR. STONE-Okay. Tell your engineer to spell “trap” correctly. MR. FORTUNE-Okay. MR. STONE-Are your tanks in conformity now? MR. FORTUNE-Yes. MR. STONE-Have they been replaced? MR. FORTUNE-No. They are in compliance. Now what happens now is that with this the tank farm will be opened up to the top of the tank, and everything will be replaced from the tank up. So all your piping, all your pumps, all the man ways, all the monitoring devices will be all upgraded, but the tanks are in compliance. MR. STONE-You anticipated that a few years ago. MR. FORTUNE-Yes. Well, it was mandated. MR. STONE-I thought it was mandated as of right now, this year. MR. FORTUNE-But that’s what it is. They are in compliance. Again, what’s leading this is that dispenser upgrade. We’ve had 30 some of these locations to upgrade. MR. STONE-You certainly need an improved station at that site. There’s no question about that. MR. FORTUNE-Agreed. MR. THOMAS-Any other questions for the applicant? If not, I’ll open the public hearing. Anyone wishing to speak in favor of this application? In favor of? Anyone wishing to speak opposed? Opposed? Is there any correspondence? MR. HAYES-Not on this one. I believe there’s one on the Sign Variance. MR. THOMAS-We’ll get to that one when we get there. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. THOMAS-Anymore questions for the applicant? If not, lets talk about it. Okay. MR. STONE-If you had to move this 25 feet north, the whole layout here, what’s involved? I mean, from a cost standpoint and a technical standpoint. 40 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/23/99) MR. FORTUNE-Well, I have a 50 foot rear setback. So if I moved it 25, I would need a variance from the rear. MR. STONE-That’s a building setback, though. You could. MR. BROWN-That’s a buffer line, a zone line there between the properties. MR. THOMAS-Yes. He’s got to have that buffer zone in there. MR. STONE-They can’t even drive on it. MR. THOMAS-No. MR. STONE-No nothing. Okay. MR. HAYES-Actually, there is one public correspondence. Should I read that in there now? I mean, there’s a letter from Mr. Aronson for both the sign variance and this variance. This letter is from Ben Aronson, 1516 Ridge Road, Queensbury, NY “Although I hate to see more commercialization to the rural area I live in possibly with the scrutiny of the Board this corner can be improved. My main concerns are 1. Garish lighting 2. Noise from outside compressors 3. Most important Hours of Operation. When the original variance for this station was issued hours for this were supposed to be 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. THEY – along with Stewarts commitment to 7 to 11 are NOT being followed. This should be set and enforced. I strongly object to any 24 hour operation. 4. A landscaped and TREED BUFFER SHIELD BETWEEN commercial and residential boundaries. Thank you for your consideration on this matter. Ben L. Aronson” MR. THOMAS-Would you like to respond to that in any way? MR. FORTUNE-No. I think the lighting, we’ll make sure that we meet Code with it. We’ll submit, I don’t know whether I did with this package, an LSI type light study that should conform. As far as the buffer, we have left the buffer. As far as the existing trees, there’s no plan to remove any trees beyond the limits of what I need to, and that’s up to that 50 feet. We’ve got a light that’s going to be shielded by that greenery. The septic system is proposed underneath an existing foundation slab. It’s already been, it’s existing out there. MR. STONE-The field’s going to be under a slab? MR. FORTUNE-Well, we’re tearing the slab out. MR. STONE-It doesn’t work well when it’s concrete over. MR. FORTUNE-No. MR. THOMAS-What about the hours of operation? MR. FORTUNE-I would like no restriction on the hours of operation. MR. THOMAS-So you’re talking possibly 24 hours? MR. FORTUNE-Twenty-four hour operation. Again, it is zoned in a commercial manner, and it is serving the road system, and I believe the activity on the road is 24 hour, and I believe that we’re meeting the criteria, a more restrictive buffer. I believe that, again, we’re no closer with this island than what we currently are. We’ve moved farther off from the 9L setback, and there is a large buffer between the edge of curb that we’re calling out and the right-of-way, or not the right-of-way, but the actual existing pavement, and the proposed pavement, which is in excess of, I think, 15-feet from our property line to the green line, or of the green line, and there’s another 10-feet to the edge of road. I think our setback is 50 feet being back from the property line, and then another 10-feet. We're setting back 60 feet, and again, the fueling area is no closer than what is currently. MR. STONE-There’s a concrete island around each set of pumps, it sets in concrete or something? MR. FORTUNE-Yes. The building is right here. MR. STONE-Yes. No, no, but I mean here. These pumps set on something. Do they extend? MR. FORTUNE-They’re a raised protection for the dispenser, and these dark squares here are actually the posts for the canopy. 41 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/23/99) MR. STONE-Okay, and how far does this canopy go over the pump, from the edge of the pump out? MR. FORTUNE-Ten feet here, and ten feet. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. FORTUNE-Again, I understand that there’s a 50-foot setback, but then there’s an additional 25-foot setback for this Overlay District. (lost words) The other thing is, I believe we’re putting a structure up, not a building. The structure is servicing the travel pattern, and we’re unique to the travel in the intersection that, we’re servicing that, and yes, we’re gaining from it by a margin on our gas sales, but at the same time, again, we’re allowing a very safe, I believe we’ve considered the customer, and I believe that that service is better serving the Town by safety and not creating a bottleneck here. MR. STONE-This has no bearing on this thing at all, except I feel I've got to ask you. Convenience store, going to sell food to go, or will there be a sit down place? MR. FORTUNE-There’s a sit down. We're showing a sit down. MR. STONE-So you will be selling sandwiches? MR. FORTUNE-Yes. Early on what we do is a prepackaged type Stewarts sandwich, that sort of thing, where they’re pre-wrapped, pre-made type sandwiches or grinders. Getty has no brand affiliation with any other, like a Subway or franchise. They have just their own type of, and they usually leave it up to the dealer to supply and he can do the selecting as to what items that he would be having there. MR. STONE-You’re a distributor of Getty? I mean, you’re a licensee of Getty? MR. FORTUNE-I’m an agent for Getty. I’m a consulting agent for Getty. MR. STONE-Who would own this property, Getty? MR. FORTUNE-Getty owns this. Getty owns this under a name, Leemilts Petroleum. They own the real estate. They would be making the improvements, and then their dealer would be the one that would be operating. The current dealer is interested in doing this, as well as Getty. They feel the business is there and that it’s a (lost word) facility. MR. STONE-It’s a leased facility. MR. FORTUNE-Right. It’s a leased contract, and there’s a margin on the gas, and Getty would put up the dollars for the improvement. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Anymore questions? If not, lets talk about it. Chuck, you’re up. MR. MC NULTY-Okay. On this road in particular, I have a problem with cutting into the setback. The Staff Notes indicate the Comprehensive Plan lays out a need to try to preserve some of the character of that corridor. I think it’s important to do that, and they also feel if we allow Getty to move their canopy, and part of their set up into the corridor, then the next step is to allow Stewarts next door to do the same thing. So they’re sticking out just as far as Getty is, but in general, I think the 75 foot setback is there for a reason, and in this road in particular, it’s there for a good reason, and I feel we should adhere to it. So I’m opposed. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Jaime? MR. HAYES-Well, we’re charged here with granting as little relief as possible, and scrutinizing applications along those lines, but I guess, in deference to the idea that someone like yourself is involved with multi-million dollar projects on sites like this, I find it difficult to believe that you would do anything other than what you’re saying, and that’s obviously trying to maximize the fluidity and serviceability of this particular parcel. Because it’s in your own best interest, in that way they’re in complete overlay with the Town. So I guess I’m sold on that. The only implication, to me, then would be the effect on the neighborhood, and in this particular case, that corner, I travel to Rutland regularly, and that is an extremely highly traveled corridor. It’s very busy. I think it’s Highway Commercial in its truest sense, even though I have an appreciation for Ridge Road. I have properties on Ridge Road, maintaining that rural character, but I don’t think that this project violates that. I think the Travel Corridor Overlay Zone is constructed and presented to allow the Town to develop those travel corridors more extensively, if need be, but in this particular case, I think that you’re still 50 feet out of that corridor, and to me, that satisfies what might need to be done in the future, and in 42 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/23/99) that way, I think that it’s a reasonable proposal. The site itself is old. It is tired. It is under performing for sure, and I think it’s going to be improved, by you or by someone else. So I guess, looking at this plan and looking at the time and considerations that you’ve made, I feel satisfied that anything that the Town is being asked to give up is probably for a good reason, and I’m okay with it. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Lew? MR. STONE-I basically agree with Jaime. I think that you have made a tremendous improvement to this corner, which is quite frankly I've gone in there a number of times, and I’m not even sure where I’m supposed to go in and where I’m supposed to come out. I think this is going to be much better. There’s going to be some very nice green space in this area, the setback area, it appears to me, the landscape area and so on. I, too, would like it to be back a few more feet, again, in the interest of minimum variance, but I also understand you have a constraint on the other side. You do intend to do a great deal of business with trucks, and you might even come in there not even to buy fuel, just to get a cup of coffee. It might be easier than going into Stewarts. I've not been there when many trucks go by. Obviously, I don’t want to give up the Travel Corridor Overlay setback, but I think this is a reasonable compromise. I like the fact that we’re going to have some definite entrances and exits. I would like to think we only have the one on Ridge Road. Of course that isn’t our call. We're not, that’s only speaking as individuals. The basic thing that we have to do, do we allow 25 feet of relief from the Travel Corridor Overlay, and I think, when everything is considered, I’m inclined to grant that variance. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Dan? MR. STEC-I agree with Lew and Jaime. I think that this is an improvement. I think the proposed curb cuts being located further away from the intersection are going to improve traffic safety on both 9L and 149. Because of the size of the lot, I’m inclined to agree, somewhat, with Chuck, tonight in the sense that it bothers me more than it normally would to go into the Travel Corridor Overlay, but I do think that this is a marked improvement. So I guess I could be persuaded to grant the variance. However, again, looking at Staff comments, I think that, by the same token, I would be very comfortable in issuing a condition of approval, recommending to the Planning Board that the proposed new convenience store and gas island canopies are designed in such a way to include more appropriate styles of architecture and materials. Specifically, I’d like to avoid a situation like the Hess store on Aviation Road by Exit 19, and that lighting scheme is, frankly offensive, and I think that something that was done a little more considerate to the Comprehensive Land Use Plan, and the residential character of the surrounding neighborhood would make me more comfortable granting the 25 foot setback relief requested. So, on that condition, I could support this. MR. THOMAS-Okay. I see two things here. Number One is the safety issue. The applicant is trying to get the tractor-trailers and large trucks away from the smaller vehicles, passenger vehicles. The layout that he has here seems to be the only way that he can really accomplish that. As far as the second curb cut on 9L, I think that would be even more helpful, but if he can get it, fine. If he can’t, oh well. The second thing is the improvement to the site. You look at the site now, and it looks like a big dirt parking lot with a little building on there and a couple of gas islands, and that’s it, and this is an entrance into the Town of Queensbury, being the Washington County line is only 500 to 1,000 feet away. So I think something like this coming in to the Town of Queensbury would help improve our image. So I have really no problem with the way that canopy sits, even though it encroaches into the 25 foot Travel Corridor Overlay. We have others in this Town that we’ve given variances for that, too. So, having said that, I would ask for a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 30-1999 DECKER & COMPANY, INC., Introduced by Daniel Stec who moved for its adoption, seconded by Lewis Stone: Intersection of Route 149 and 9L. The applicant proposes demolition of an existing filling station facility and the reconstruction of a new service station with an accessory gasoline island and canopy. The relief required is the applicant requests 25 feet of relief on the southern, or Route 149 side of the site from the 75 foot minimum front yard setback requirement of the Route 149 Travel Corridor Overlay Zone for the proposed gas island canopy structure. The criteria for considering an Area Variance, according to Chapter 267 of Town Law, the benefit to the applicant is that the applicant will be permitted to develop the site resulting in greater convenience and safety for their customers. Feasible alternatives exist, and they were considered, in that it would be possible to configure the site differently, and maintain the 25-foot setback. However, we thought that this particular proposal offered the most utilitarian use for the site, and improved safety and traffic flow in general. The relief is substantial to the Ordinance, however, the general improvement to the site, to the appearance in the community, the safety of this particular busy intersection mitigates the substance of the relief that we’re going to grant, and is the difficulty self-created? I would say it is, in the sense that this parcel is fairly large, given its proposed use. I would make approval of this variance conditioned upon recommendation to the Planning Board that the proposed store and gas island canopies are designed in such a way to respect the intent of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan, 43 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/23/99) specifically the architecture and materials used should be considered by the Planning Board to maintain to the maximum extent practical the residential neighborhood that surrounds the parcel to the north, and specific attention should be paid to any lighting schemes, particularly on the canopy, to avoid an offensive lighting scheme. The Planning Board should recognize that this is the first commercial site seen by motorists when entering Queensbury from the east on 149, and therefore should be as pleasant and as well designed as possible. Duly adopted this 23 day of June, 1999, by the following vote: rd AYES: Mr. Hayes, Mr. Stec, Mr. Stone, Mr. Thomas NOES: Mr. McNulty ABSENT: Mrs. Lapham, Mr. McNally MR. THOMAS-You just squeaked in. What did Warren County do. No Impact, right? MR. BROWN-No Impact. MR. THOMAS-All right. That takes care of that one. SIGN VARIANCE NO. 48-1999 TYPE: UNLISTED HC-1A DECKER & COMPANY, INC. GETTY PETROLEUM MARKETING, INC. OWNER: LEEMILT’S PETROLEUM, INC. CORNER OF STATE ROUTE 149 AND 9L APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 106 SQ. FT. FREESTANDING SIGN AND 3 WALL SIGNS AND SEEKS RELIEF FROM THE SIGN ORDINANCE. CROSS REF. SPR 27-99 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 6/9/99 TAX MAP NO. 27-3-7.22 LOT SIZE: 2.78 ACRES SECTION 140 RON FORTUNE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Sign Variance No. 48-1999, Decker & Company, Inc., Meeting Date: June 23, 1999 tabled: June 16, 1999 “Project Location: Route 149 & 9L Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes the construction of a 106 sq. ft. freestanding sign and three (3) wall signs and seeks relief from the sign ordinance. Relief Required: The applicant is requesting relief from Section 140-6 B(3) of the Sign Ordinance allowing for only two (2) wall signs where three (3) are requested, and from Section 140-6 B(2) allowing for the maximum surface area of the proposed freestanding sign to be 106 square feet where a maximum of 50 square feet are allowed at the fifteen foot setback line. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Benefit to the applicant would allow them to maximize the total site signage. 2. Feasible alternatives: A reduction in the size of the proposed pylon sign to a more appropriate monument style sign 4-5’ in height, and the non-illumination of the wall and canopy signs. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?: The relief requested can be considered as substantial given the fact that the applicant proposes to double the amount of signage as compared to the existing, as the fact that the proposed site signage is not in keeping with that of adjacent commercial properties. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: As this proposed plan represents an intensification of use of the site and as such increased visibility, considerable negative impacts to the surrounding neighborhood can be anticipated. 5. Is this difficulty self-created? The difficulty can be considered as being self created given the fact that the site is large enough to accommodate the relocation of the structures and signs to meet and/all setback requirements. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): SPR 27-99 AV 30-1999 Staff comments: Moderate impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action due to the fact that the proposed freestanding sign represents a total of 210 +/- sq. ft. of signage where the existing freestanding sign has a total of only 126 +/- square feet. A freestanding sign of this magnitude could be considered excessive for the site as well as the area given the fact that the adjacent Stewart’s freestanding sign is approximately 6-7’ in height and 50 +/- sq. ft. in area. Additionally, the site currently does not have any tangible building signage, which would increase dramatically with the current proposal to add the three proposed wall signs. A third consideration for the Board should be the fact that given the proposed level of overall site illumination, the colored canopies will act themselves as “signs” designed to attract attention from passing motorists. Clearly, the sign package proposed for this site is much too intense and would be much more appropriate for the town’s more commercially developed corridors such as Quaker Road or Route 9. Any proposed signage for this site should be considered with the recommendations and intent expressed in the 1998 Comprehensive Plan for this area in mind. Signage Comparison Existing Signage: 1 Freestanding Sign = 126+/- sq. ft. 44 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/23/99) Proposed Signage 1 Freestanding Sign = 210+/- sq. ft. 2 Store Wall Signs = 26+/- sq. ft. 1 Canopy Sign = 12+/- sq. ft. 248+/- sq. ft. The Board may wish to consider having the applicants redesign the proposed freestanding sign, twenty (20) foot high, pylon sign to a more appropriate neighborhood scale monument style sign….4-5’ in height. SEQR Status: Unlisted” MR. HAYES-Warren County Project Review and Referral Form 3 June 1999 Project Name: Decker & Company, Inc. Owner: Leemilt’s Petroleum, Inc. Project Description: Applicant proposes to construct a 106 square foot freestanding sign and three wall signs, seeks relief from the Sign Ordinance. County Planning Board Recommendation: Denied, due to the Board’s historically recommending conformation with local Sign Ordinances.” Signed Terry Ross MR. THOMAS-Okay. Since Warren County denied this, you have to have five votes in favor in order to get it through. Otherwise, it’s denied. Because it was denied at Warren County Planning. Okay. Do you want to tell us about the signs now? MR. FORTUNE-The canopy. We're allowed two 100 square foot signs for wall sign. That’s what I’m understanding. MR. THOMAS-“Buildings which are located within or at a distance of 100 lineal feet from a front property line are permitted to have a wall sign or permitted roof sign up to 100 square feet”. MR. BROWN-You’re on a corner lot, though. MR. FORTUNE-So would that be? MR. BROWN-Two. MR. HAYES-Because it’s on a corner lot, you’d get two. MR. FORTUNE-And I’m dividing it up between two canopies and the building. So I have three signs on each street. That’s understood, two on each side of the canopy, on both canopies, and then the Getty Mart on the corners of the building. MR. STONE-You’re going to have it on the outmost corner of the canopy? MR. FORTUNE-No. It would be facing 9L, and then perpendicular to 149, right here. MR. STONE-Okay. That would be on the end? MR. FORTUNE-It would be on the this end. MR. STONE-Is that the 149 side? MR. FORTUNE-Do you have the site plan? Yes. That detail is showing (lost words), but basically what it is that these signs on here and right here, and then do the same thing here. MR. STONE-This is for diesel over here? MR. FORTUNE-Yes. MR. STONE-You’ve got diesel here and diesel here. MR. FORTUNE-This is for the RV, all right, and the boat travel, and this is for the trucks. MR. HAYES-So how many are you talking back here, just this one? MR. FORTUNE-This one would be okay with that right there. MR. STONE-One there facing the traffic light. MR. STEC-The corner, right, and then two, three. MR. FORTUNE-And then the building. The building would have one here and here. MR. STEC-Okay. 45 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/23/99) MR. HAYES-What’s the total square footage of all those signs? MR. FORTUNE-I believe that’s listed here. MR. THOMAS-Yes, 248. MR. HAYES-And you’re permitted 200. MR. STEC-That 248 is the five, or is that when you have the six? I want to make sure. MR. FORTUNE-This right here, this sign is 11 square feet. This is 11 square feet. MR. STONE-Okay. That’s 22. MR. THOMAS-And you’ve got two of those. MR. STONE-You’re going to have three of those. You’re going to have one over here. MR. STEC-This is a third, one, two, three, and then the sign. MR. FORTUNE-And then the Getty Mart building sign. MR. STEC-So that’s 33. MR. FORTUNE-And those are, I think they’re 16, they’re 12.3 square feet, each one. MR. STONE-And they’re on the corners like this? MR. FORTUNE-Yes. MR. STONE-On 9L and 149, here and there. MR. STEC-So that’s 57.6. MR. FORTUNE-And that’s the end of the building signs. MR. STEC-The copy on these is just white? MR. STONE-Red “Getty” on a white background. MR. FORTUNE-Yes, the red background here, and then the “Getty Mart” is white, internally lit, channeled letters, and then the yellow stripe. That’s the only, and it’s on the canopy as well as the building. MR. STEC-Is the yellow stripe down the side of the building illuminated? MR. FORTUNE-They don’t, but we call it out usually as illuminated, and it’s up to you. MR. STEC-They probably won’t. MR. STONE-I had a question. Will there be “Getty” on the pumps, on the end of the pumps? MR. FORTUNE-Yes. The caps on the pumps have the word “Getty” on them, yes. They’re showing “Self” on the ends, and then “Getty” on the face. MR. STONE-That’s something that has concerned us in the past. In terms of the word “Getty” or the word “Competitive Product” appears many times on a gasoline. MR. FORTUNE-But this is what we would typically be doing. MR. STONE-Okay. How big is this freestanding sign? MR. FORTUNE-The freestanding sign is 106. MR. STONE-And that’s going to be where exactly on this? MR. FORTUNE-And that’ll be 15-feet off from 9L and 25 feet from the 149 property line. 46 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/23/99) MR. STEC-Jaime, was it 50 or 100 is the limit? I thought the Staff Notes said 50? MR. STONE-Fifty at 15. MR. STEC-Fifty at 15. MR. THOMAS-And it’s 64 at 25. MR. STONE-So it’s bigger in both cases. MR. FORTUNE-And we have several, the brand, usually, and a price sign, and then if there’s other activities at the site, you like them at the street, and that’s where we come up with that number. MR. STONE-I understand. MR. FORTUNE-In the spirit of compromise, for getting the variance that was needed for the canopy, I needed that. That design works that way, and I’m glad for the wisdom of the Board, in seeing that through. We have a smaller ID sign, an 86 that’s an exact configuration as that. It’s just that it’s all shrunk down, and that’s on the table right now, just. MR. STONE-How high is this going to be, the maximum height? MR. FORTUNE-What we try to do is get a visibility line of five feet, underneath the price sign, and then it’s all driven from that. MR. STONE-I don’t like your prices, by the way, on that sign. MR. FORTUNE-Well, some of them, we used to put zeros on there. That’s what we try to do. We have to have what we feel is a visibility line, or a triangle visibility line at the intersection, for safety. We just don’t want that visibility line over the intersection, the corner, obstructing. MR. STONE-What’s the size of the competitor across the street? He’s in conformance? MR. BROWN-The Stewart’s sign? MR. STONE-Yes. Well, I didn’t say that. I said the competitor. MR. BROWN-Okay. I’m assuming, Chuck prepared these notes. I’m not too familiar with the research. I’m assuming it’s about 50 feet, from what I get out of the notes. I didn’t go measure the sign. I didn’t pull the sign permit. So I don’t have that information. MR. STONE-Because that only says “Mobil” and the prices, right? There’s nothing else. MR. BROWN-I’m not sure if even the prices are on there. MR. STONE-It’s on a sign somewhere. MR. FORTUNE-I have a picture of the competitor’s sign. MR. STONE-There’s his sign. He’s just got “Mobil” and the prices. MR. HAYES-And how high is that sign? MR. STONE-It’s very low. Lower than the canopy. MR. HAYES-Is that what you’re proposing, that same type of height? MR. STONE-By the way, do they have a permit for this sign? MR. FORTUNE-We're cleaning up all signs. MR. HAYES-What’s the height? MR. FORTUNE-I don’t have the number. Right now this design is at 20, and there’s a reduction of, I would say there’s a reduction of, we’re showing three foot separation here, and I would say somewhere around 17 feet (lost words). MR. STONE-What’s the height of your canopy? 47 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/23/99) MR. FORTUNE-Underneath, we keep it 14’ 6” clear. Over the road is 13’ 9”. MR. STONE-So this would be above the canopy? MR. FORTUNE-Well, it would be even with the top of the canopy. MR. STONE-Even with the top, okay. Because I’m looking at your competitor across the street, and he’s actually below the canopy. That’s how I remembered. MR. THOMAS-Yes. In the notes it says six to seven feet in height and 50 plus or minus square feet in area. MR. STONE-Well, it’s more than six or seven. MR. FORTUNE-And that’s that monument type sign where you would lose that visibility line across the corner. MR. STONE-You do because he’s got nice plantings in front of it there, but when you’ve come seven or eight miles in either direction, any gas station, you don’t really care what the cost is. I mean, that’s the good thing about that location for both of you. It is, it’s a long haul from Fort Ann, at night. It’s dark the other way, too. You don’t see anything. Well, I certainly appreciate the fact that you’re willing to come down on the freestanding sign. I’m still not sure I’m ready to think it’s small enough, but I certainly appreciate an initial compromise. I’m sure you’ve been told that we’re very “proud”, of our Sign Ordinance. You go around Queensbury, you can’t see us from the Northway real, we try to keep our signs down, particularly on gas stations, and we fail miserably, quite frankly, on window signs in gas stations. We seem to have an awful lot of them, which we don’t really like. You know the kind, come in and buy a soda for 99 cents. Those come and go, unfortunately, too often. Then when you couple it with the fact that every pump is a sign, whether gasoline dealers want to agree with that or not, they certainly are signs. I just think it’s a lot, and I’m not sure where we go. Most of our gas stations, even the new Hess ones we’ve put in, I guess they say “Blimpie” on it. They give one of the services in there, but they don’t certainly say it’s a gas station, as you do. MR. FORTUNE-We're showing a 50 square foot ID sign that’s currently there, and with these photos, we can just compare the size, and I believe our ID sign is the same sign that’s there, in defense of what I’m proposing, but then I did reduce it. MR. STONE-This is what’s there now? MR. FORTUNE-Yes. The ID sign is 50 square feet. So I’d be reducing that, and then the price sign is 15 square feet that’s shown. MR. STONE-What do we consider, and I know we’ve had this discussion, Craig, the Discover, the Visa, the Mastercard? What do we consider those? We don’t seem to consider those signs, do we? MR. BROWN-Yes, we do. They’re listed in here, specifically, as allowed, up to a certain square footage. It’s here some place. MR. STONE-This other one is on the pump, this other “Getty” sign, to the right? That little one. MR. FORTUNE-Yes. There’s a spandrel type sign. That wouldn’t be. MR. STONE-Well, you’re going to have a canopy. MR. FORTUNE-Right. Here’s this spandrel type sign that I’m referring to. MR. HAYES-The freestanding sign, what size is that now? MR. FORTUNE-It would be 86. MR. STONE-That includes the “Open 24 Hours”, “Truck Stop”, “Food Store”, and the prices? MR. FORTUNE-That’s right. I believe a minimum request. MR. STONE-He’s far enough back on one, one corner, and not on the other. MR. THOMAS-Yes. MR. FORTUNE-And I do have two surface streets. So do you get two freestanding signs? 48 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/23/99) MR. STONE-No. MR. STEC-See, that’s where I’m heading with this, is that the previous applicant, this was marketed as a truck clientele. I mean, it’s going to be land marked anyway, and your clientele is heavy, the road to Vermont. So that’s why I’m not too concerned with worrying about, are you going to get customers. You’re going to have a lot of repeat customers. The truckers are all going to know this Getty station. They know the one that’s there now, and I think that this is going to be a land mark anyway. So I’m not overly concerned with trying to grant a whole lot of relief from our Sign Ordinance. Just because, frankly, I don’t think that you’re going to need it. I don’t think it’s going to impact the business significantly to stick to as minimal relief as possible, and that’s where I think we’re going with that. MR. STONE-If this station were to be closed at 11 o’clock, I’m not putting that condition on, but what would the station look like at 11:30, light wise and so on? MR. FORTUNE-Well, nobody wants to pay the electric bill if it’s not open. MR. STONE-Okay. So if it’s open, it’s self-evident that it’s open. MR. FORTUNE-Yes. MR. STONE-You don’t need a sign that says “Open 24 Hours”, for somebody coming by at three o’clock in the morning. MR. HAYES-If it’s closed at eleven, the sign says “For Sale”. MR. FORTUNE-Right. MR. STONE-That’s what I’m saying. If it’s open, it’s going to be obvious that it’s open. I mean, I could make the argument, well, I’m going to get the guy on the way to Vermont who’s going up skiing and he’s going to come back, and he says, yes, I can leave very late because I know I can get gas because I saw the sign, “Open 24 Hours”. MR. FORTUNE-Yes. It’s a planning thing. MR. STONE-Except that nobody plans that well. I don’t think you need it if, in fact, you get permission, and that’s not up to us to grant, if you get permission to be open 24 hours a day. I don’t think you need that. That’s a few more square feet. MR. THOMAS-I’ll open the public hearing. Anyone wishing to speak in favor of? In favor of? Anyone wishing to speak opposed? Opposed? Any correspondence? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. HAYES-Yes. We have a letter from Benjamin Aronson, 1516 Ridge Road. “The sign laws for the Town were well thought out. I see no need to vary from the present Ordinance. Ben Aronson” MR. THOMAS-And that’s the only one we got? MR. HAYES-That’s it. MR. THOMAS-All right. I’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. THOMAS-Anymore questions for the applicant? MR. STONE-Well, should we read the other one in, too? It just talks about the appearance, the lighting and so on. MR. HAYES-Yes, but he wrote a specific letter for each application. MR. STONE-He did? Okay. MR. THOMAS-So, all right. Anymore questions for the applicant? MR. STONE-I notice, I’m just trying to find a way to get this sign down. I notice that many places don’t put their diesel fuel on their pylon sign, on their freestanding sign. 49 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/23/99) MR. FORTUNE-Right. That’s correct, and the reason is it was never really a product that most places would even want. To join diesel with the gas entity, it’s really a pain. It’s a different product. It’s dirty, and just let them go to the truck stops, but the need for it now, with the interest in the diesel. It’s just, they don’t care where they buy the diesel, they just need the diesel. They don’t care what the name goes along with this product. They just need the word “diesel”. That’s what we’re finding in the marketplace, and so we need that “diesel” word on the street. MR. STONE-Okay. What do you find with people going along and they see the word “truck stop”? Is that a positive to most automobiles? MR. FORTUNE-No. MR. STONE-I’m just trying to knock the sign down somehow. MR. HAYES-Well, I mean, I don’t think that the word “truck stop” would be positive, under the (lost word) idea that you’re talking about, as far as diesel and people’s ideas. Obviously, you’re a branded chain product, and that’s the image you’re trying to retain. MR. FORTUNE-We need the word “diesel” on the street. It’s typical to have the ID on the street and it’s typical to have the price on the street. MR. STONE-The price I would agree. MR. FORTUNE-I guess where I’m coming from is what the Board will be happy with, because I've gotten a large portion of what I needed for this project. The number of signs, I think, I've reduced one on the canopy in the back. Nowhere near the amount of square footage for the building. I could lose some of the identification that I’m asking on the street. The “Truck Stop”, the “24 Hours”. I mean, I could put that on the building, and then I would be down to an ID sign and a price sign. I think my business is unique, as I explained earlier that I service the traveling public rather than possibly the regulations were thinking at the term of that it’s just a regular business. It’s a product that’s sold, the “Getty”, and then the pricing, and that’s pretty much it. It would be nice to have “Food Mart” out there, but again, “Getty Mart” on the signs, if they are on the building, if they can see it, I guess I could give that up. MR. STONE-Let me go back to the previous variance a second. We conditioned it on the basis of the Planning Board, over which we have no control, obviously, making this look nicer, whatever that means, different than maybe a stark white station in the middle of greenery. How amenable are you to, do you have a design in-house that you can put out to make this look like they used to try to do on the Merrit Parkway, when they first built the Merit Parkway, back before most of these guys were born, and I used to live in Connecticut? They looked like nice, almost a residential building, in sense, with shingles and everything else. I’m not asking shingles. I’m just curious if you guys have a design like that among your, or are these cookie cutter buildings? I’m just curious. For example, your competitor across the street is putting a building up right down here. It could be a building that he put anywhere. It’s going to look exactly the same as every other Stewarts. MR. HAYES-Which is their intent. MR. STONE-I understand that. MR. HAYES-For identification, you’re hoping to get certain significant elements. MR. STONE-I understand that, and that location is going to work as well as anything else, obviously. Anyway, I’m just curious if there’s. MR. HAYES-I guess if you’re asking me, the freestanding sign at 50 foot permitted and 86 square foot your proposal, that’s still 60 or 70% over the allowed square footage, and I think that’s a stretch, considering that there is illumination, just like the Staff Notes said, there’s a great deal of additional signage that you’re not really being charged for, and gas stations are unique. We’ve dealt with that with Hess and everything else. I accept that, but I guess I’d like to hear where you can go with that, to get me over the top. I mean, I’d like to see that closer to 50 square feet than 86. MR. FORTUNE-Right now I have 65, is what I’m. MR. STONE-You’re 25 feet from the road. MR. HAYES-But you don’t have all these wall signs. MR. STONE-On one road, 15-feet on the other. 50 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/23/99) MR. FORTUNE-I thought that was an allowable, that 15-feet was allowable on 9L? MR. STONE-It’s allowable, but it brings the sign down to. MR. HAYES-If you’re 10-feet closer, 25 feet, then you go to 64 feet permissible. I mean, if you can bring that in 10-feet, you’re asking for less of a variance, right away. MR. FORTUNE-I didn’t understand that. MR. STEC-Yes. If you move the location of the sign so it’s 25. MR. STONE-You’re on a corner lot. Right, Craig, are we being correct here? MR. FORTUNE-If I move this over another. MR. STEC-Ten feet. MR. STONE-You’re allowed 64. MR. STEC-You’re allowed 64. MR. FORTUNE-I can do that. MR. THOMAS-Then you don’t need a variance. MR. FORTUNE-The number of signs. MR. STONE-Well, the number of signs, but you want to be 84, you said, didn’t you? MR. STEC-Eighty-six. MR. THOMAS-But you said you could bring it down to 65. MR. STONE-No, he said the current sign was 65. MR. THOMAS-The current sign is 65. MR. HAYES-Eighty-six from Sixty-four is easier to take than eighty-six from fifty. MR. STEC-True. MR. THOMAS-Definitely. MR. HAYES-That’s only a 20% variance, or whatever. It’s a big difference. MR. STEC-Is the whole canopy going to be illuminated from behind, or just the sign part? MR. FORTUNE-Just the sign part. There’s an LSI plan with the package that shows. MR. HAYES-I've seen them. It’s just that little corner that’s lit. MR. STEC-Because I’m specifically thinking that the Hess, you know, not to beat on any competitors here, but the green and white border around the whole canopy, that’s going to anger people, you know, residents. MR. STONE-So right now we’re talking, lets get the proposal, we’re talking two wall signs on the building, one on the southwest corner, and one on the north, the southeast corner. Am I right? MR. HAYES-You’re entitled to two, and you’re asking for three. MR. FORTUNE-I’m asking for three canopy signs and two building signs. MR. HAYES-So you’re asking for a variance of three signs. MR. FORTUNE-Okay, but of less square footage. MR. STONE-Well, I Sign Ordinance did not anticipate canopies, did it, really? MR. THOMAS-Right. 51 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/23/99) MR. BROWN-Probably not. MR. STONE-Chris, would you agree with that? MR. THOMAS-Yes, I would. MR. STONE-Yes, because we’ve certainly been granting those variances. MR. THOMAS-Yes. MR. STONE-And you’re only asking for two wall signs, and that, to me, is a plus because, boy, we’ve gotten some buildings in Town that we’re trying to work on, Craig has been spending some time on, trying to get some down. So we’re talking, you’re willing to move the sign 25 and 25? MR. FORTUNE-Yes. MR. STONE-From whatever that line happens to, what it has to be, and you want to go 86, and you’re allowed 64, if he does that. So we’re talking 30%, 33% increase, but in saying that, you said you could cut down to 86, but if we’re taking out two of these, the 24 hours and the truck stop, does that lower that at all? MR. FORTUNE-Well, I’m hoping I don’t have to take out the 24 and the truck stop. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. THOMAS-Well, lets bring this to a conclusion here. We’ve got two wall signs, one freestanding sign, 25 and 25 from the property line, and three canopy signs. MR. STONE-One on the truck, diesel facing the traffic light, facing southwest. MR. STEC-And we’re going to keep the dimensions on those, right, the three canopies are eleven square feet each, and the two building signs are 12.3 each? MR. FORTUNE-That’s correct. MR. STEC-I’m comfortable with those, myself. MR. STONE-I am, too. MR. HAYES-You mean for a total of five? MR. STEC-For a total of five. MR. HAYES-Now we’re down to the freestanding. MR. STEC-Right. I think, in my mind, we’re down to the freestanding sign. I think we’re getting there. MR. THOMAS-At 25 and 25, he’s allowed 64. He’s asking for 86. So he’s asking for 22 feet. MR. STEC-I could live with that. MR. THOMAS-It would bring it to about 25%. MR. STONE-What did we grant on those two new stations? MR. HAYES-We gave them something. MR. STONE-We gave them something. MR. THOMAS-Yes, I think so. MR. STONE-Craig, do you remember? MR. BROWN-Not the square footage, but it was a similar request to break down, increase the number of signs. MR. HAYES-That’s right, the sum equals the parts deal. 52 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/23/99) MR. THOMAS-All right. So we’ve talked about this. We kind of sort of have a consensus of what we would like to give. MR. STEC-I haven’t heard anything from Mr. McNulty. MR. THOMAS-What do you think, Chuck? MR. MC NULTY-Well, I’m a little concerned, yet, on the size of the freestanding sign. Certainly, he’s come down a lot, but he started large to begin with, and I’m thinking of his competitor on the other corner, too. If we give him an 86 square foot sign, then it’s only fair if his competitor comes in next week and asks to expand MR. STONE-Craig, do you remember? MR. BROWN-Not the square footage, but it was a similar request to break down, increase the number of signs. MR. HAYES-That’s right, the sum equals the parts deal. MR. THOMAS-All right. So we’ve talked about this. We kind of sort of have a consensus of what we would like to give. MR. STEC-I haven’t heard anything from Mr. McNulty. MR. THOMAS-What do you think, Chuck? MR. MC NULTY-Well, I’m a little concerned, yet, on the size of the freestanding sign. Certainly, he’s come down a lot, but he started large to begin with, and I’m thinking of his competitor on the other corner, too. If we give him an 86 square foot sign, then it’s only fair if his competitor comes in next week and asks to expand his sign, that we allow him to do that, and then it goes on and on and on, and pretty soon we’ve got a road with a whole bunch of large signs. MR. HAYES-What’s the “truck stop” square footage? On the freestanding. If you take the one off the freestanding, what does that reduce? Does that get you into the 70’s? MR. FORTUNE-Let me just double check. MR. STONE-Now when we talk signs, we’re talking the space between them counts. FORTUNE-This is four by five. MR. HAYES-It’s four by five? The “truck stop”. MR. FORTUNE-Yes. It’s 20, so it’s about 7, and then we’re reducing this up to 30%. MR. HAYES-So what are you saying is the truck stop sign? MR. FORTUNE-Probably four square feet. MR. STONE-The whole thing is. MR. FORTUNE-Right, but I’m reducing the size, 86. MR. STONE-The whole three are about 20 square feet. MR. FORTUNE-So it would be probably 82, without the “truck stop”. MR. STONE-Chris, remember we asked the guy to squeeze them together more on the corner of 149 and 9? MR. THOMAS-Yes, for Radio Shack. MR. STONE-Yes. So w do count the space between. It’s the overall space from the top of the sign to the bottom of the sign. Isn’t it? MR. HAYES-You do the best you can just to box it in basically, right. MR. BROWN-Yes, you do the best you can. 53 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/23/99) MR. THOMAS-So you’re saying that the open 24 hours, the truck stop and the food store is four by five? MR. FORTUNE-Four by five, but then it’s also on the other sign that’s reduced by, I would say about 20% from the 106 to 86. MR. HAYES-So maybe like 16 or 18 feet. MR. THOMAS-If you took that out, you’d have about 70 square feet, right? MR. STEC-Yes, I was going to say. MR. THOMAS-If you took those three things out. MR. STEC-Right. If you threw that out, then you’re right within six square feet. MR. STONE-If you rounded your prices off, took out the nine tenths. Which I never understand. MR. HAYES-I do. MR. THOMAS-So what do you think about that? MR. STEC-Yes. If we threw those out, and that put us to 70. MR. THOMAS-I believe it would put us right around 70. MR. HAYES-Or you could come back next week. There’s two other people. MR. THOMAS-Bonnie won’t be here next week. MR. BROWN-Yes, Bonnie won’t be here. MR. FORTUNE-A question. Could I take that signage that is on the freestanding and just put it on the building as a separate sign? And instead of having five signs, have six, on the building, and then reduce that and just have the price sign and the ID sign, and that would give me somewhere around, what, what was the number, 70? MR. THOMAS-About 70. MR. FORTUNE-Seventy, and hold me to seventy square feet on the ID sign? Is that something that’s okay? MR. THOMAS-And then you want to put the “Open 24 Hours”, “Truck Stop”, “Food Store”. MR. HAYES-With the same shrinkage, like a total of 18 square feet or whatever? MR. FORTUNE-Yes, right. It would be the same. MR. STONE-But would you need “Food Store”, if you got “Getty Mart” on the? MR FORTUNE-No, but I could put something else there. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. THOMAS-It sounds good to me. What do you think, Chuck? MR. MC NULTY-I think that gets us closer. MR. THOMAS-That gets us down to 70, which, and he can have 64. So he’s only asking for six feet of relief. MR. HAYES-Like 10%. If Stewarts wants that, they can come in and ask for it. MR. THOMAS-Yes, right. As far as the signs on the building, it’ll just be the two wall signs, plus the. MR. STONE-Where would you put them? 54 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/23/99) MR. HAYES-The 149 side? MR. FORTUNE-Usually to the right of the. MR. STONE-In there, on the brick itself. MR. STEC-Do you mind if we make that conditioned on the brick? MR. FORTUNE-No. MR. STEC-Okay. MR. STONE-Chuck, are you getting happier? MR. MC NULTY-Yes. I can go with that. MR. THOMAS-Okay. MR. FORTUNE-And we don’t lose any message. MR. STEC-It’s all there somewhere. MR. THOMAS-All right. So we have two wall signs, which he can have. The freestanding sign’s going to be 70 square feet. He’s going to have three canopy signs, plus he’s going to have a 16 square foot sign, an additional 16 square foot sign on the building that says, “Food Mart”, “24 Hours”, and “Truck Stop”. MR. FORTUNE-Or similar. MR. THOMAS-Or similar. MR. STEC-And that’s 18? MR. THOMAS-That’s 16 square feet. That limits that on the brick facade. Is everybody happy with that? MR. HAYES-Yes. MR. STONE-Yes, I can live with that. MR. THOMAS-All right. Somebody rip off a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE SIGN VARIANCE NO. 48-1999 DECKER & COMPANY, INC., Introduced by Lewis Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Daniel Stec: As amended. Route 149 and 9L. The applicant proposes the construction of a 70 square foot freestanding sign 25 feet from both 9L and 149, and three wall signs, two of which will say “Gettymart” on the 149 side, and one on the 9L side, an additional 16 square foot wall sign located on the brick façade on the 149 side, talking to 24 Hour operation, a foodmart and a truck stop or similar wording, and three canopy signs, one on the 149 side, one on the 9L side and a third one on the southeast corner of the truck diesel canopy. In making this request, the applicant is requesting six foot of relief from Section 140-6B(2), which allows for a maximum surface area for a freestanding sign to be 64 feet, and therefore is asking six feet of relief of that, and relief from Section 140-6B(3) of the Sign Ordinance allowing for only two wall signs, where actually six are requested, namely three on the building and three on the canopies. The canopy signs will be per the plan, and the wall sign on the brick will be 16 square feet. In granting this variance, the applicant would benefit, would allow him to maximize the total site signage within the constraints provided. We also recognize that there are feasible alternatives, but we must, in granting this variance, note that the applicant has made considerable compromise, both in numbers and size, and recognizing that the canopy signs will be the only part of the canopy illuminated at night, and that the Gettymart signs will only be illuminated from within, in the immediate area of the wording. In granting this relief, it might be said that the relief is substantial, but considering the site, and the necessity to conduct good business operations, the relief is reasonable, as the new station will certainly represent an intensification of the use, but the signs will not be more than a minimal negative effect on the surrounding neighborhood, and while the difficulty can be considered self-created, in considering the fact that you could do with less signs, it would not be good business practice. In recognizing the granting of this variance, it will be noted that the applicant will be required to produce new plans before any sign permit is authorized. 55 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/23/99) Duly adopted this 23 day of June, 1999, by the following vote: rd MR. STEC-Do we need to address the height of the freestanding sign, or no? MR. STONE-Well, it can be the maximum, which is. MR. STEC-All right. MR. FORTUNE-No higher than the height of the canopy? MR. STONE-No, it’s 25 feet, isn’t it? MR. BROWN-Yes. MR. STONE-It can be 25 feet. I mean, the applicant did say that it would probably be about the height of the canopy. We can hold you to that if you? MR. FORTUNE-No, no. MR. STONE-Okay. So that’s it, I think. AYES: Mr. McNulty, Mr. Stec, Mr. Stone, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Thomas NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Lapham, Mr. McNally MR. THOMAS-There you go. MR. FORTUNE-Thank you for your time, and sorry for holding you so late. MR. THOMAS-I’ll make a motion we adjourn. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Chris Thomas, Chairman 56