Loading...
2000-09-27 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/27/00) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SECOND REGULAR MEETING SEPTEMBER 27, 2000 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT LEWIS STONE, CHAIRMAN CHARLES MC NULTY, SECRETARY NORMAN HIMES CHARLES ABBATE ROBERT MC NALLY JAMES UNDERWOOD, ALTERNATE ROY URRICO, ALTERNATE MEMBERS ABSENT ALLAN BRYANT PAUL HAYES CODE COMPLIANCE OFFICER-CRAIG BROWN STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI NEW BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 82-2000 TYPE II KATHY & RICHARD SALOMON OWNER: WILLIAM H. SCHWAB AGENT: RICHARD SALOMON/PAM DEAN ZONE: WR-1A, CEA LOCATION: 32 BAY PARKWAY APPLICANT PROPOSES DEMOLITION OF CURRENT STRUCTURE AND CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW DWELLING W/ATTACHED GARAGE AND COVERED PORCH AND SEEKS SETBACK RELIEF. WARREN COUNTY PLANNING TAX MAP NO. 9-1-31.1 LOT SIZE: 0.43 ACRES SECTION: 179-16, 179-60 KATHY & RICHARD SALOMON, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 82-2000, Kathy & Richard Salomon, Meeting Date: September 27, 2000 “Project Location: 32 Bay Parkway Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes demolition of current structure and construction of a new 3100 sf dwelling with an attached garage and covered porch. Relief Required: Applicant requests 17 feet of relief from the 50 foot minimum shoreline 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 desired home in the preferred location. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives may include reconfiguration to a compliant location. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the ordinance?: 17 feet of relief from the 50 foot shoreline setback 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, as the removal of the existing camp would allow the applicant to “start from scratch” and meet the requirements. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): BP 91-106 issued 3/26/91 boathouse repair Staff comments: Moderate impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action. With the removal of the existing structure, the applicant has the ability to maintain all required setbacks. It does not appear as though compliant construction would be an unreasonable alternative. Will the existing driveway be continued as a shared drive? Which trees, if any will be removed in favor of the proposed construction? SEQR Status: Type II” MR. MC NULTY-“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form September 13, 2000 Project Name: Salomon, Richard & Kathy Owner: Richard and Kathy Salomon ID Number: QBY-AV-82-2000 County Project#: Sep00-29 Current Zoning: WR-1A Community: Queensbury Project Description: Applicant proposes the demolition of current 1745 sq. ft. structure and construction of a new 3102 sq. ft. dwelling with attached garage and covered porch and seeks shoreline setback relief. Site Location: Route 9L to Assembly Point Road. After water tower, bear right – house is on the right. On the northeastern side of the Assembly Point peninsula. Tax Map Number: 9-1-31.1 Staff Notes: The proposed structure would worsen the shoreline setback deficiency at one corner, but most of the structure would be set further back from the lake than the existing building. The applicants state that they have chosen this proposed configuration in order to leave the existing septic leach field intact. Information on the site plan (attached) appears to indicate 1 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/27/00) that the septic system was constructed in 1982. However, Staff has concerns about new construction that does not meet shoreline setback requirements, particularly in this crowded area. Staff recommends discussion. Local actions to date (if any): A public hearing will be held September 2000. County Planning Board Recommendation: Approve with condition that the septic system meets Department of Health Standards” Signed Terry Ross, Warren County Planning Board 9/14/00. MR. STONE-Mr. and Mrs. Salomon, I assume? MR. SALOMON-Yes, sir. MR. STONE-State your name, just for the record, and address. MRS. SALOMON-Kathy Salomon, 6 Fiddlers Lane, Latham, New York. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. SALOMON-Richard Salomon, 6 Fiddlers Lane, Latham, New York. MR. STONE-What do you want to tell us? MR. SALOMON-Well, first, I want to re-state what I had explained to you before. We were trying to get in touch with Mr. McCormack who was the surveyor of the original map, and what we had turned in when we went before the County I had done on my own, and the maps weren’t quite the way they were supposed to be. So I met with Mr. McCormack yesterday, and, realizing that the maps weren’t quite right, we reduced the size of the house. The actual house now is only going to be like 2700 square feet, versus the 3,000 square feet, but we still found that in the one corner where the lake turns in we’re not going to meet the requirements. I believe it’s, if I may, the closest point to the lake we’re going to get it 34 feet, and as we come around, it increases the distance from the lake, and in most of the part that’s directly facing the lake itself, we will be further back than the structure that’s there now is. MR. STONE-Can you go up and explain, because I mean, looking at the old one, it doesn’t look that way. I don’t know how much change you’ve had on this particular thing. Have you seen this at all, Craig? CRAIG BROWN-I have not seen this. MR. STONE-You have not. Do you have another copy that we can look at up here? CRAIG BROWN-Yes, you could pass it around to the Board. They’re the ones. MR. STONE-Yes, we have to look at it. Why don’t you bring the mic up here and you can tell us what. This is the existing house here? MR. SALOMON-No, sir. MR. STONE-This right here. MR. SALOMON-The dotted one. MR. STONE-Okay. So it’s only this, I see. MR. SALOMON-We extend it further out here, and that’s why we’re close to here, but here, the older house is closer to the water, and the septic is back here. So what we did is we moved the garage to this side from over here, because no one’s going to live in the garage or anything, and that protected the leach field and the septic that’s over here. So we didn’t want to come any further back and disturb that, because that was actually, I know you had said ’82, but it was ’86, according to the map. So what happens is if we go over too far this way we lose the 20 foot setback from the property line. We didn’t want to do that. So what we did is we just went as far back as we could without disturbing this and came off, so this corner, because the lake turns in, see, here we have no problem, but when the lake turns in, this little area here, then it goes right back out. That’s where we’re not meeting. MR. STONE-All right. So you have clocked this house relative to the old one, I mean by clocking, you’ve turned it. 2 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/27/00) MR. SALOMON-Yes, and I went up there yesterday, I met Mr. McCormack at 8:30 yesterday morning, and we did the whole thing together, and we shrank the house and everything. Do you have the one that I originally sent? MR. STONE-Right here. MR. SALOMON-You can see the house is quite a bit larger, and we shrunk it down trying to make it fit as best we could. MR. STONE-Okay, but you’re suggesting that this is going to be 40, 38, 35, 34 is going to be the closest it’s going to be? MR. SALOMON-Yes, sir. MR. STONE-But a great deal of the house is still going to be within the 50 feet? MR. SALOMON-Correct. MR. STONE-Okay, and you’ve reduced this to 2700 feet from 3109? MR. SALOMON-Yes, sir, trying to save as much space as we could. MR. MC NALLY-Have you purchased the home already? I see there’s a For Sale sign out in front? Is this sale contingent upon your getting permission? MR. SALOMON-No, just that we haven’t had the closing yet. MR. MC NALLY-You haven’t had the closing. MR. SALOMON-No, sir. Before we put the money down on it and signed it. MR. MC NALLY-Is there a contingency about getting a variance for the construction of this home? MRS. SALOMON-Yes. MR. STONE-Okay. Staff raised a couple of questions about the existing driveway. Will that be shared? MR. SALOMON-No, sir. It’s on the property that we’re purchasing , and next door isn’t going to have one. They have a garage, I don’t know if it’s on any of your maps, right by the road. MR. STONE-Right. MR. SALOMON-And that’s what they’re going to use. Because there wouldn’t be two driveways there. MR. STONE-So they’re going to open that up as a garage? MR. SALOMON-Or park there. They have room to park before the building off the road. MR. STONE-Okay. I guess they do. Of course there’s a fence in there right now. I know that, and what about the other question that was asked, what about trees, are you going to remove any trees? MR. SALOMON-There’s only one tree that may have to come down during construction. Otherwise, we’re not going to disturb any of them, and as far as the house, I don’t know if this is relevant, we’re trying to find an organization that would like that house because of the type of log house it is that we could take it down and donate it when the time comes to remove it. MR. STONE-Any questions of Mr. Salomon? MR. ABBATE-Yes, please. Just help me out, folks. Good evening, by the way. MR. SALOMON-Good evening. MR. ABBATE-You haven’t closed the property at this point. Did I hear that correct? MR. SALOMON-That’s correct. 3 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/27/00) MR. ABBATE-Okay. Now you indicated, Mrs. Salomon, that there is a contingency in your contract? MRS. SALOMON-Yes. MR. ABBATE-Contingency based upon approval of your submitted plans? What is the contingency based upon? MR. SALOMON-That we could get a variance because of the way the old house is situated on the lot. In other words, from the understanding we have, and I’m not knowledgeable in this at all, I guess we could use the old footprint of the house that’s there, is what they had told us MR. STONE-No, we don’t have a footprint rule. You could leave a wall up, I guess, Craig, but we don’t call footprint as. MR. SALOMON-Well, when you say leave a wall up? MR. MC NULTY-If you left your outside walls up and gutted the existing house, then you would be all right. MR. STONE-It would be fine. MR. MC NALLY-Without expanding. MR. MC NULTY-But once you take the outside walls down, you’re starting from scratch. MR. SALOMON-And your comment, sir, was? MR. MC NALLY-If you expand an existing nonconforming use, you still need a variance. So maybe you can gut the interior of your home, but it would have to remain the same shape and size. If you wanted to modify it in any way, you would still need a variance. MR. STONE-I mean, this is not saying, I mean, obviously we’re considering a variance, but there is a popular misconception among a lot of people that footprint means something. It does not mean anything in Queensbury. MR. SALOMON-This is what we were told, and that’s why I brought it up. MR. STONE-You’re not alone. A lot of people have been told that, but that’s not the facts. MR. ABBATE-I have one other fast question, if you please. The modification that you indicated, you’re going to be reducing the total square footage from your proposed 3,102 square foot to 2,700 square foot. Is that correct? MR. SALOMON-Yes. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Fine. Will the proposal still be 17 feet closer to Lake George? MR. SALOMON-I think 16. MR. STONE-Sixteen. It’s 34 now. MR. MC NULTY-He’s asking 16 feet of relief. MR. STONE-He needs 16 feet of relief. MR. MC NULTY-Okay. So it’s 16 feet. So that was a little modification there. Yes, okay. Thank you very much. MR. STONE-Question. You’re reducing the size of the house. What part are you reducing? Because first of all you had listed as, under the new house, as 2148. Are you reducing the outside dimensions of the first floor? MR. SALOMON-Yes, sir. I think, originally, I think it was 70 foot deep, the house that we had originally proposed, and this one is going to be like 62. MR. STONE-Sixty-two. MR. SALOMON-And the other house that we had proposed was like 53, 54, and this one is 51 wide. 4 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/27/00) MR. STONE-Any other questions before I open the public hearing? All right. Let me open the public hearing. Anybody wishing to speak in favor of this application? In favor? Anyone wishing to speak opposed to this application? Come forward, sir. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED DICK MORSE MR. MORSE-My name is Dick Morse. I live next door to the property in question, on the south side. My property number is 28 Bay Parkway, and it’s Tax Map No. 9-1-32. MR. STONE-Okay. Tell us what you want to tell us. MR. MORSE-Okay. I have three, I guess, basic issues I wanted to discuss. The first one has been somewhat alleviated by what Mr. Salomon has already indicated, and that is the size of the house, but it’s still approximately double what the existing square footage is. That’s, as I understand it, it’s approximately 1500 square feet, the existing property, and he’s going up to 2700. So that’s a little more than double, and I think that’s quite substantial. MR. STONE-Right, but let me just tell you, it does not trigger the expansion rule because it’s new construction. In other words, in the Town of Queensbury, if it’s more than 50% of a nonconforming use, it requires a variance, but taking the house down, all that comes into play is the Floor Area Ratio, in the Waterfront zone. So it conforms to that. I mean, I’m not denying it’s not big. That’s not what I’m saying, but that’s a point important to you. It does not come into our judgement, in terms of the variance that we have to grant. MR. MORSE-I think the variance is subject to question if the house is so large that it, at least in my opinion, it doesn’t fit in with the character of the other homes nearby, in terms of size and setbacks and so forth. I mean, this house is going to be substantially bigger, even at 2700, than the existing properties. MR. STONE-So noted. MR. MORSE-I mean, my house, for example, is 1600 square feet. MR. STONE-Okay. Keep going. MR. MORSE-Secondly, the proposed structure, and this may be affected by the 100 square foot reduction that was referred to before, the non-permeable areas on the ground, 2600, under existing conditions, and they’re proposed to go up to something a little short of 4400. That’s a 67% increase, and with all we know about runoff conditions in the Lake George basin, the effect of runoff and so forth is quite negative, and I think that should be considered, in terms of, you know, a great increase in the non-permeable areas on the ground. MR. STONE-Okay. What’s the third one? MR. MORSE-The last one is one that affects me personally. I have a current, with the current structure there the way it is, I have what I would consider an outstanding or gorgeous view, looking across the rear of the property in question towards the north, stretching out to approximately 125 yards, and this is green in the summer and part of it’s green in the winter. It’s just a beautiful, beautiful view, and it was a factor when I first purchased my house 14 years ago, that attracted me, in particular, to this piece of property, and just incidentally, my house is built at an angle on the property, beside the house, or not parallel with the side lines, like most people have, and it occurred to me, that house was built specifically for this view, and I have discussed this aspect of my concern with the realtor that I worked with 14 years ago, and she informed me that, definitely, if that view was eliminated, that would have a negative, you know, value impact on my property. How much that would be, I don’t know, but if the house is constructed the way the drawings at the Queensbury office reflected, the rear end of that house, what I call the rear, the rear of the house to me is the part facing the road, the front looks on the lake. Other people turn that around. Anyway. MR. STONE-I’ve educated them. That’s okay. Our Board knows that. MR. MORSE-Everybody that lives on the lake, the front is on the, okay. We’re considering my definition then. The rear of the house is proposed to be extended, it’s about 34 or 35 feet further toward the road than where the end of the current structure is. Now what that does is totally block out this view that I’m talking about, 100%. MR. STONE-Anything else? 5 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/27/00) MR. MORSE-No. MR. STONE-Any questions of Mr. Morse? Just for the record, and this, again, is only for information. Waterfront zoning one acre, of which this is zoned, there could be a house up to approximately 7,000 square feet. The footprint could be 7,000 square feet, and it would meet the permeability. It’s 65% permeable on this lot. That has to be 65 or more. So it’s well within that, just, again, for the record. That’s why no variance is required. MR. MORSE-It just seemed to me from a, just the protection of the lake increasing the non- permeable area has a negative effect. How you evaluate that, that’s up to you folks. MR. STONE-No. I totally appreciate that, but again, we are limited to consider those things which are in violation of the zoning, and that would not be in violation of the zoning code with which we are forced, and I don’t mean that in a negative way, but that’s what we’re forced to work with, but I hear your concern, and I certainly understand your concern. Anything else? MR. MORSE-No. MR. STONE-Okay. Anybody else wishing to speak against this application? Against? Any correspondence? MR. MC NULTY-No correspondence. MR. STONE-Okay. Then I shall close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. STONE-And you can come back up, Mr. Salomon. Any comments you want to make about the concern that you heard by your potential neighbor? MR. SALOMON-Yes. A couple, and I am not sure, he’d have to verify, but the part of the lot where the depth of the house that we’re proposing to build is, directly onto the other gentleman’s property, I thought his garage was there, or a shed, when I was looking at the maps yesterday with Mr. McCormack. MR. STONE-No, the garage is out by the road. I mean, I’m familiar with the property. MR. SALOMON-Right, and isn’t that approximately where, you know, going closer to the road is where the garage on my house would be, and that’s only, you know, it’s not two story high there. MR. STONE-I don’t think he talked about the garage. Did you? Or was it the house, Mr. Morse? MR. MORSE-When I looked at the drawing, I wasn’t sure where the garage was in relation to the house. MR. SALOMON-May I show you? Is that all right? MR. STONE-Sure. Absolutely. That’s why I say, he had concern. You certainly can tell him, show him what, if he didn’t see it. Do you see where the garage is, what he’s talking about? MR. ABBATE-I have a question for Mr. Morse. MR. STONE-Well, you have a question for him? Then I’ve got to open the public hearing again. MR. ABBATE-Well, forget it, then. Don’t worry about it. MR. STONE-Well, no, ask the question. Go ahead. MR. ABBATE-Mr. Morse, I have a question for you, sir, if you don’t mind. I understand and I hear all your concerns. There’s no question about that. Permeability and the gentleman is asking for 16 feet now. When I went up there to visit the property, how close is your house to that lake? MR. MORSE-My house? MR. ABBATE-Yes. Didn’t I see a ditch there, that your house is just about on the lake there, or was that the wrong house I was looking at? 6 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/27/00) MR. MORSE-I think the wrong house, but I don’t conform to the 50 foot. Nobody does. No one does. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you. That was my question. MR. MORSE-My house was built 35 years ago. MR. ABBATE-I understand. Thank you very much. MR. MORSE-Okay. MR. STONE-Were you satisfied with what he was explaining, what’s going on? Not satisfied, did you understand what he was explaining to you about the house? MR. MORSE-Pretty much. MR. STONE-Okay. Do you have any further comments you want to make? I can re-open the public hearing and let you talk. MR. MORSE-I’d like to be able to ask some questions. MR. STONE-Okay. Let me open the public hearing, just so that we know. Why don’t you come to the mic and ask a question, and I will direct him to answer it. PUBLIC HEARING RE-OPENED MR. MORSE-I understand that the revised drawings of the outline of the house have been somewhat modified from that which I have seen at the Queensbury Building office. Could you give me an estimate or an exact number, as close as possible, what the distance is from the existing piece of the, from the furthest west part of the existing structure, how much further out toward the road would that be from where it is at this moment? MR. SALOMON-Off the top of my head, 15 to 18 feet. MR. MORSE-Fifteen to eighteen feet. MR. SALOMON-Approximately. I don’t have that. MR. MORSE-The original drawing that you had showed about 34 or 35. So it’s about. MR. SALOMON-The total with the house now is only 62, and that close to the lake, the majority of it is in front of that area. MR. STONE-Looking at the drawing, as I see it, it’s some but it’s certainly not as much as it was before, the way he’s got it. I mean, you can look at the drawing. Actually, we don’t show the western end of the house here. So, it’s, even on the latest survey. MR. MORSE-Well, it’s up there. Is that the latest? MR. SALOMON-Yes. MR. STONE-Yes, that’s the latest. MR. MORSE-Okay. It’s up there. MR. STONE-Well, I find it hard to see, but, okay. It’s further back than the current house. MR. MORSE-I have the one that we had sent you originally. See how far back that comes now? If you want to take this up and compare how far back this comes toward the road. MR. STONE-Do you have a scale there, Craig? I mean, this is a hand drawing. MR. MORSE-That’s the one you had seen. The latest one is up there, and they’d only come back to about here now. MR. STONE-If you can find the wall on there. Did you come up with a number, Mr. Brown? MR. BROWN-I came up with a few numbers. Which one did you want? 7 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/27/00) MR. STONE-Well, the one that Mr. Morse asked about, in terms of how far back this would go, compared to the current house. MR. BROWN-It’s 16 feet further back. MR. STONE-Sixteen feet, okay. MR. MORSE-That’s a big step in the right direction, but I’d like to, I can’t draw conclusions standing here. However, as I said, it’s a big step in the correct direction. I would like to pace that off and see exactly where that comes. MR. STONE-Well, we’re going to discuss it. MR. MORSE-It still could be a negative point, as far as I’m concerned. MR. STONE-We appreciate that. Okay. I’ll re-close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. STONE-Any further questions of the applicant? If not, right now we’re talking a house, just for the record, of you’re asking for relief of 16 feet from the minimum setback for one corner of the house, as you see it, and for the record, there are other places where it’s, according to this survey, 35, 38 and 40 feet from the lake, but the closest point is 34 feet. Okay. MR. MC NALLY-Can I ask Staff a question? MR. STONE-You may ask Staff a question. MR. MC NALLY-About the septic system. This is a 1340 some odd square foot house currently, and they’re proposing a 2600 square foot one, at least as they have spoken tonight. I assume there would have to be some modification of the septic system, or is that something to be investigated still? MR. BROWN-My understanding is that the septic system that’s there now is designed on a bedroom count, and that bedroom count in the existing camp is going to be the same bedroom count in the proposed camp. So the septic system will comply. That’s what the septic system’s sized on, it’s the bedroom count. So for three bedroom, you’re going to maintain a three bedroom? MR. SALOMON-Yes, sir. We discussed that. MR. BROWN-Yes. MR. MC NALLY-So three and three. MR. BROWN-Three and three. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. SALOMON-One other thing. If you check, everybody keeps saying 1300 square feet on the old, you know, the house that’s there now. That’s on the main floor. I think there’s a total of 1700 all together because there’s a loft upstairs. MR. MC NALLY-I was just looking at the application. You described the footprint as 1340. MR. SALOMON-Yes, that’s on the footprint, but there’s an upstairs. MR. MC NALLY-Right, but you described it as 1345 or 42 square feet, something like that. MR. SALOMON-Okay. I’m sorry. Because I thought when I was doing it, and I was speaking with Craig on the phone, that it was just the bottom part, and I didn’t modify it, but there’s two rooms upstairs. So it’s like 1700 square foot of living space. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. MC NALLY-You have 400 square feet on the second floor, is what you said. MR. STONE-Okay. No further questions? If there are none, we’ll talk about it. Bob, what do you think? 8 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/27/00) MR. MC NALLY-Like always, we’re charged with considering the five factors in whether or not to grant a variance, and the first factor is the benefit to the applicant, and that’s always clear on lake fronts. The benefit to you folks would be that you would be permitted to construct your home in the preferred location, and for people on the lake, it’s as close to the lake as possible. It always is. There’s no two ways about it. That position, though, is closer to the lake than we now permit, usually. The second factor you have to look at is feasible alternatives, and I think that we’ve mentioned tonight possible re-configuration to a compliant location. By moving your house back that 16 feet of relief that you’re requesting, or perhaps re-configuring the house in order to make it somewhat less in size. Those are possibilities, however unpalatable they may be. The third factor is whether the relief is substantial to the Ordinance. Here we’re being asked to grant 16 feet of relief from the 50 foot shoreline setback. I did the math at 17 feet, and it came out to 29%. So you’re looking for about a third of what is otherwise permitted. At 16 feet, it’s got to be a little bit less, say 25%, something like that, and that is certainly moderate or substantial, because when it comes to the lake, like Glen Lake or Lake George, I know as a Board we tend to be very strict in large part, wherever it's possible to maintain that setback. What are the effects on the neighborhood or community is the fourth factor. I understand that Mr. Morse is concerned about his view to the rear. I don’t think that’s a factor that we can necessarily consider, unfortunately, because while it’s nice to have a view, there’s no right to that view, and the property owner can use his land as he sees fit, but we always do try to maintain the 50 foot setback wherever required, and the purpose of that is to avoid congestion of the shoreline and too intense a use of the shoreline. Now, to the extent that there is an existing use, that’s all well and fine, but where you’re asking us to increase that use and increase the intensity of the use by increasing the house and maintaining a larger structure, we tend to balance that, and I tend to balance that, against the applicant, because it would negatively effect the community, and lastly, whether the difficulty is self-created is the last factor, and if this were a simple question of, we want to gut it and add 100 square feet, or we’d like a garage which we never had before, it would be a different question, but I know as a Board, historically, whenever someone wants to start from scratch and build a new structure, that’s an idea opportunity to get the house in compliance with the existing Statute. So in large part I feel that it is self-created, and on balance I have to be against the application. MR. STONE-Chuck? MR. MC NULTY-Well, on the one hand, the setback from the lake strikes me that it may be a tradeoff. There’s areas where it’s going to be improved, areas where it’s going to be perhaps a little worse. I, too, am concerned about the size and the general impact on the lake of increasing the size of buildings, and going from seasonal to permanent dwellings. Yet, I think we’re technically being asked, here, to consider the setback. I guess where I come down is I would reluctantly approve. MR. STONE-Okay. Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-In a way, you know, I think sometimes we overlook the fact as to what the make up of the neighborhood is, and, you know, certainly some of these houses along the lake are much closer to the water situated than this one is, but at the same time I think, too, we’re concerned with the size of the proposed project. I think that it’s important for us to consider, you know, what is the net effect if we allow every single lot up there to build the maximum size house or, you know, as large a house as anybody considers on the lot itself, and I think that looking at your plot, you know, your setback from the water is what we’re supposed to be considering, but at the same time I think we have to look at, you know, the width of the house on the lot, and I think that you could, to a degree, shrink it down somewhat. You’ve got a big family room and a separate dining area and things like that, and I think that we have to consider the fact that, you know, the purpose of the lake was for summertime usage, and while we’re going to full time usage, I don’t think we can consider always that we’re going to allow it to become giant houses that we would see in suburbia, so to speak. So I think that I would like to see it modified somewhat from what you’re proposing. MR. STONE-Okay. Norman? MR. HIMES-Thank you. My sentiments fall, are congruent with those expressed by Bob McNally and Jim here. As much as we’d like to enable someone to proceed with their wishes and preferences, for the reasons they gave, I’m completely in agreement with, and I am not able to support the application. MR. STONE-Chuck? MR. ABBATE-On balance, Mr. and Mrs. Salomon are asking for a 16 foot relief from one of the edge, because we’re concerned, and rightfully so, with the condition of the lake. I notice here that if I’m correct, Staff, check me out on this, that the septic system will support and will service the proposed 2700 square foot construction. That certainly is positive, and on balance I say for the second time, you know, what is balance? There are some houses that I saw up there that are basically on the lake. Granted, they may be grandfathered in. I guess my concern is where do we strike a 9 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/27/00) balance? Do we say enough is enough and start right here and say no? In the standard of fairness, I would reluctantly support your application. MR. STONE-Roy? MR. URRICO-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I tend to agree with Bob and some other of my Board members. I see a nonconforming use which was allowed, until now, due to the pre-existing condition, and I see that once that pre-existing condition is removed, that the opportunity to the Town, to this Board, to basically bring the area into compliance exists and I can’t support this. I’m against it. MR. STONE-Well, I think Mr. McNally certainly echoed the kind of comments that I have. We can do nothing, in terms of upholding the grandfather aspect of a house that’s being remodeled inside, but we do have a Zoning Ordinance for Waterfront property for one acre zoning that calls for 50 feet from the lake, and this Board has been, I think, particularly zealous for the past, well, I guess the law’s been on the books now for three years. We’ve been particularly zealous in enforcing that, particularly when you consider that this lot is a very deep lot. It’s 197 feet from the lake, as I look at the drawing here, to the property line. There’s certainly room to move this house back and bring it more into compliance. It’s not just the 16 feet at the corner. For me, it’s the fact that the deck is going to be 40 feet from the lake, which is still granting of 20% of relief if you will. I see no reason, as you go through the steps, that this construction couldn’t be made conforming or at least more conforming. I mean, I would like to see, I mean, I know you’ve got your wishes on putting a new house on this property, but I’m just not comfortable with putting it where you want to put it, visa vie our particular zoning. I happen to be very concerned about the lake. I spent a great deal of my time, personally involved in lake protection, both here and around the State, and I’m particularly concerned by encroachment on the lake. I think we have a good zoning law here. I think, as a couple of Board members have said, yes, we don’t conform all over the place because we didn’t care as much years ago as we should, and certainly as we do now. On that basis, I would vote to deny this application. Now, as I see the count, if we vote straight, it would be denied, which means that you have to build at 50 feet. I hate to table things, but you have the option of saying, can we find something less onerous, if you will, than 16 feet of relief, but that’s up to you. We can’t tell you where to put it. We wouldn’t even attempt to tell you where to put it, except that we’re saying right now it’s got to be at 50 feet, or more, from the lake. So, we can go ahead and draft a motion to deny this application that’s presented to us, or you can say, well, let me see if I can come up with something, in talking with Staff and talking with neighbors, that we might find more palatable. I mean, I can’t speak for the Board, in terms of whether they would be willing to consider less, but that’s an option you have. We can vote it down, and then you would have to be markedly different before we would allow you to come back to us, and that requires a vote of the Board. If you did it after this, if we voted you down, Craig, if I’m saying wrong, please tell me, if you came back and said, I want to put it 45 feet from the lake, we would have to decide if we think that’s a significant change. It would be another vote before you even get your application considered, and we wouldn’t do it on the same night, or the same month, in all probability. Correct, Craig? MR. BROWN-That’s correct. MR. STONE-Yes. MR. SALOMON-A question if I may. If we can go back and, you know, with the footprint of the house, you know, the floor plan, and then go back to Mr. McCormack who did the survey, and we can, you know, maybe set the house so we gain, you know, in that one corner, we gain another five feet, and as far as the total setback, we gain another five or six or seven feet, or something to that effect, could we re-present that? MR. STONE-We can table it, and you can go consider that. I mean, I can’t speak for the Board. I mean, I’m one vote on the Board, and what I heard is that I didn’t hear, nobody commented, well, I could go for 45, and I wouldn’t put them on the spot to say that because it would have to be a new situation, but we could table it, and you could come back to us, after consultation with your architect and Staff and anybody else you want to talk to, and say, well, can we get, whatever that number is. I wouldn’t comment, and I can’t ask the Board to talk about it without seeing what it looks like on paper. So, do you want us to table it? MR. SALOMON-Yes, sir. MR. STONE-Craig, is that acceptable to you? I mean, I think so. Is the Board acceptable to that? MR. ABBATE-Sure, absolutely. MR. STONE-Let him come back with a different solution. Okay. 10 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/27/00) MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 82-2000 KATHY & RICHARD SALOMON, Introduced by Lewis Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Abbate: 32 Bay Parkway. Tabled for up to 62 days, to allow the applicant to reconsider the position of their proposed house on this property, in light of the fact that the Board is unwilling to grant the 16 feet of relief requested. Duly adopted this 27 day of September, 2000, by the following vote: th MR. STONE-Does everybody understand? Is everybody happy with that? MR. ABBATE-Yes. MR. MC NALLY-I’m not happy with that, but I understand it. MR. ABBATE-I understand it. It’s reasonable. MR. STONE-Well, why aren’t you happy? MR. MC NALLY-It’s reasonable if you want to come back, I have no problem if they want to table it at all. I think my point was that you’ve got a compliant location. So, you know, but I’m willing to hear what you have to say, but I wouldn’t table it, myself. I would say that the application should be denied. There’s a place you could build it 50 feet from the lake, and that’s it. Again, this is the applicant’s choice. If they think. MR. STONE-No, it’s not, it’s our choice. He’s asked us if we can do it. MR. MC NALLY-And if he’s willing to do that, I’d be more than happy to accommodate the man. What I’m saying is, what are we going to get back again? We’ll find out. MR. STONE-All right. Let me get a second, and vote, with those thoughts in mind, that if you think it should be denied, then we can do that and vote no to the tabling motion, or if we get positive we’ll table it. Do I hear a second? MR. ABBATE-Second. MR. STONE-All right. AYES: Mr. Abbate, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Stone NOES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. McNally, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Himes ABSENT: Mr. Bryant, Mr. Hayes MR. STONE-That means we’re not going to table it. So may I have a motion to deny this application? MOTION TO DENY AREA VARIANCE NO. 82-2000 KATHY & RICHARD SALOMON, Introduced by Robert McNally who moved for its adoption, seconded by James Underwood: 32 Bay Parkway. The applicant proposes the demolition of the current structure and the construction of a new 2,600 square foot dwelling with an attached garage and a covered porch. Specifically, the applicant requests 16 feet of relief from the usual 50 foot minimum shoreline setback requirement of the WR-1A zone, that is defined in Section 179-16, the Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance. I move that the application be denied for the following reasons: First, while the applicant would be permitted, certainly, to construct the desired home in the preferred location, that location is closer to the lake than otherwise usually permitted. Second, the feasible alternatives in this case do, in fact, include reconfiguration in a compliant location that would not impact upon the rear septic system. In addition, feasible alternatives include downsizing, with the understanding that this is an undersized lot, in the sense that that would be an option available to them. In my opinion, the relief is substantial to the Ordinance. The house, at least on one side, is setback further from the shoreline than this one, and the house of Mr. Morse is certainly closer to the lake than we would otherwise permit today, but it’s a pre-existing, nonconforming use. In my opinion, the effects on the neighborhood are moderate to substantial. A larger house is going to impact upon the lake. It’s going to impose on the lake. That much closer to the lake is going to result in a more intensive use. I take this application to heart, but my motion is based mostly particularly upon the fact that this difficulty is self-created. In this case, we are not confronted with improvements of a minor nature. We are actually being asked to permit the existing structure to be taken down to the ground, a new foundation laid, and a home somewhat almost twice the size being constructed on the existing place. 11 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/27/00) Where that condition exists, on balance, the applicants are, or should, be able to develop a site plan that does meet the Town requirements. For these reasons, I move that the application be denied. Duly adopted this 27 day of September, 2000, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. McNally, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Himes, Mr. Stone NOES: Mr. McNulty, Mr. Abbate ABSENT: Mr. Bryant, Mr. Hayes MR. STONE-So it’s denied. So you have to, I mean, I would suggest that you do whatever you have to do to talk with Staff, talk with your architect. MR. SALOMON-If I may ask, where do we get more information about what is considered leaving one part of the house up and just re-doing? MR. STONE-Well, I would go see Staff. I would discuss it with Staff. I don’t think it’s going to make much difference, unless you leave the house up. Once you take it down, it doesn’t make any difference, but talk to Staff. MR. SALOMON-That’s what I was asking, what about considering leaving it up, you had something about a wall or? MR. STONE-I said that, and I think I was in error. I would go in and see Mr. Brown, and with the Community Development Staff, they can give you all the help, at least all the information they can give you. Sorry. MR. SALOMON-Thank you for your time. SIGN VARIANCE NO. 83-2000 TYPE: UNLISTED BMI SUPPLY, INC. OWNER: IDA OF WARREN & WASHIINGTON COUNTIES AGENT: NACE ENGINEERING ZONE: LI-1A LOCATION: 571 QUEENSBURY AVENUE APPLICANT PROPOSES A 24 SQ. FT. FREESTANDING SIGN AND SEEKS SETBACK RELIEF. CROSS REFERENCE: SPR 53-96 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 9/13/00 TAX MAP NO. 55-2- 19.55 LOT SIZE: 1.60 ACRES SECTION: 140 TOM NACE & ROBERT S. BARBER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Sign Variance No. 83-2000, BMI Supply, Inc., Meeting Date: September 27, 2000 “Project Location: 571 Queensbury Avenue Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a 24 square foot free-standing sign. Relief Required: Applicant requests 14 feet of relief from the 15 foot minimum setback requirement of the Sign Ordinance, §140-6. Criteria for considering a Sign Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be permitted to construct the desired sign at the preferred location. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives may include relocation to a compliant location. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the ordinance?: 14 feet of relief from the 15 foot requirement may be interpreted as substantial. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: Minimal 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 Queensbury Avenue right of way, on the westerly side is approximately 29 feet wider than a typical 50 foot right of way. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): BP 97-167 issued 5/19/97 6000 sf commercial building Site Plan Review 42-98 res.8/18/98 Staff comments: Minimal impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action. The proposed sign, located 44 feet from the edge of the traveled way appears to be consistent with the placement intent of the Sign Ordinance. SEQR Status: Type Unlisted” MR. MC NULTY-“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form September 13, 2000 Project Name: BMI Supply, Inc. Owner: BMI Supply, Inc. ID Number: QBY-SV-83- 2000 County Project#: Sep00-22 Current Zoning: LI-1A Community: Queensbury Project Description: Applicant proposes a 24 sq. ft. freestanding sign and seeks setback relief. Site Location: 571 Queensbury Avenue (County Rd 52). Tax Map Number: 55-2-19.55 Staff Notes: The proposed sign, though only set back 1’ from the property line, would be set back 44’ from the edge of County Road 52. Staff does not identify any significant impacts to County resources. Local actions to date (if any): A public hearing will be held September 2000. County Planning Board Recommendation: No County Impact” Signed Terry Ross Warren County Planning Board 9/14/00. 12 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/27/00) MR. STONE-Gentlemen? MR. NACE-For the record, Tom Nace with Nace Engineering, and with me, Robert Barber, the other Robert Barber, from BMI Supply. MR. BARBER-Robert S. Barber, not Robert R. I’ve got to explain that everywhere I go. MR. STONE-Okay. Anything else you want to tell us? MR. NACE-I do have with me, I’ll pass it around. There’s little small, you can see from a distance, the applicant put together some pictures of the various properties along Queensbury Avenue. This property is BMI Supply. MR. BARBER-This is our property. MR. NACE-Okay. Angio Dynamics here on the corner. They have a sign which is about 17 or 18 feet from the edge of pavement. MR. BARBER-Remember, this is from the edge, not the centerline. MR. NACE-Right. A couple of properties down the way. These signs are, I believe, 30 some odd feet, and about 25 or 28 feet here. So, you know, this is not an uncommon condition along here. The sign at BMI Supply would be right in front of this shrubbery here, but the back of the sign would be about even with the front of the shrubbery. MR. STONE-The divider is on the right of way? MR. NACE-This divider? MR. STONE-Yes. MR. NACE-Yes. Well, the right of way is so wide there. Most of the driveway is in the right of way. MR. MC NALLY-The proposed sign is perpendicular to the road? MR. NACE-Correct, so it can be seen from both directions. MR. BARBER-It’s only six foot high, and plus the grade of the land slopes down there. So it’s not going to be any problem with cars seeing. MR. MC NALLY-It’s a total of 24 square feet? MR. NACE-Correct. MR. BARBER-Yes. MR. STONE-Is your organization part of BMI, the entertainment? You say you’re BMI. MR. BARBER-You mean BMI the music? MR. STONE-The music company. MR. BARBER-No, we are not, but we service the entertainment industry. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. BARBER-Would you like my card? Well, I noticed you’ve got a ground fault in your sound system. MR. STONE-We have a lot of faults in our sound system. MR. MC NULTY-Will this be a lit sign? MR. BARBER-Yes, interior lighting. MR. MC NALLY-What does BMI do? 13 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/27/00) MR. BARBER-We sell to the entertainment industry. As a matter of fact, we re-rigged and also installed the new dimming system at Queensbury High School. We’ve re-rigged Glens Falls High School. We do the stage work, permanent installation of stage rigging and stage lighting. Currently we are re-doing the Bard College, which is over a half million dollar project. We have done Hudson Falls School. We’re getting ready to do some South Glens Falls Schools. We just finished the VIM Theater, which is a 1920’s Vaudeville theater that was totally renovated, down in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, which was over a quarter million dollar project, just relative to our little scope of work. MR. URRICO-You were in Downtown Glens Falls at one time, right? MR. BARBER-We used to be Downtown Glens Falls. MR. STONE-Okay. We’re always interested in learning. MR. BARBER-We also sell the foggers and fog fluid to the fire departments for their practice, pretend smoke. MR. STONE-That’s entertainment? MR. BARBER-Well, yes it is, to watch these guys use them. MR. MC NALLY-Our Crandall Library is going to have a complete theater with stage that’s proposed. MR. BARBER-And also Adirondack Theater Festival, for instance. MR. MC NALLY-That’s something you should think about. MR. BARBER-Yes. We donated, actually, a lot of things to the Theater Festival, and, yes, we were interested. We did the theater out at the Hyde Museum, as a matter of fact. However, what we also do is, since we are not just a local company. We service Alaska, for instance. Every professional theater in Alaska deals with BMI Supply in Queensbury, New York. MR. STONE-How many professional theaters are there? MR. BARBER-Three. Okay. Gentlemen, we will not take that into account here, in our deliberations. Any questions of Mr. Nace or Mr. Barber? MR. URRICO-Do you sell retail out of that premises? MR. BARBER-Yes, sir, we do. MR. STONE-Sound equipment, I assume. MR. BARBER-Lighting, gel. Gel is the plastic material that goes in front of the lights. Mostly to local theater companies. Pick any local theater company, we do business with them, the schools, Maintenance Department of the local schools, as well as the touring DJ’s. MR. STONE-Okay. Are there any questions? I’ll open the public hearing. Anyone wishing to speak in favor of this application? In favor? Anybody opposed to this application? Any correspondence? MR. MC NULTY-No correspondence. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. STONE-Any other questions? MR. MC NALLY-What plans do you have for a building sign? I don’t see any building sign on this drawing here. Do you have any plans for a building sign? MR. NACE-A building mounted sign. MR. BARBER-No, I’m not planning to do any. I think it would detract from the building. If you noticed, our landscaping is very well done. The building has, I forget exactly what style siding it is, but it gives it a very good look, a very classic, clean line look , but not too close together. So, no, I have no plans for putting one on the building. 14 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/27/00) MR. STONE-I do have a question, now that I think about it. Why there, the proposed location? I mean, as distinct from the other side of the driveway for one thing, where it might be more visible to? MR. BARBER-I understand. We deal with the backstage stuff. I’m not necessarily used to being on the front end. Okay. If you can see this drawing, this is our entryway, into our parking lot. If, I believe it’s the IDA and Joe Clark, ever continue to develop the rest of this part of the Industrial Park this will be the entrance to the Industrial Park, and then it circles on around. When this road goes in, we are committed to taking our curb cut out. So, hence, with our sign here, it does readily identify BMI Supply, BMI Supply, with that building. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. BARBER-We were trying to think ahead. MR. STONE-Always like people who have an answer to questions. That’s very good. MR. BARBER-Thank you. MR. STONE-Any other questions? All right. Let’s talk about it. Mr. McNulty. MR. MC NULTY-Okay. If there weren’t other signs there, my personal preference would be to see all the signs conform to the rule and have them set back the full 15 feet from the property line, even though that puts them maybe 50 feet or whatever from the road, because I think it would look nicer for Queensbury Avenue, but given the fact that there are a bunch of other signs that are already closer, it seems to me that this request is basically a request to conform to existing conditions, and on that basis, I would be willing to approve. MR. STONE-Okay. Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-I don’t have any problem with the application as they’ve proposed it, and I think with your explanation, it makes sense where you’re putting the sign, and, you know, would preclude you from having to move it a second time later on. MR. STONE-Okay. Norman? MR. HIMES-Yes. I agree, too. The sign’s going to be about 44 feet, as I understand it, from the edge of the pavement. That’s certainly, I think, in terms of anyone who has any aesthetic concerns about signs is not going to be bothered by this. So I’m in favor of the application. MR. STONE-Chuck? MR. ABBATE-Okay. I think Staff comment, the proposed sign located 44 feet from the edge of the travel way appears to be consistent with the placement intent of the Sign Ordinance is correct, and my second point is this. I believe that the Town of Queensbury should support, as much as possible, growing businesses such as yourself, and I would be in favor of the application. MR. BARBER-Thank you very much. MR. STONE-Roy? MR. URRICO-I’m in favor of the application. I think they’ve done a good job in explaining why they’re putting it there, and for what reasons they are. MR. STONE-Bob? MR. MC NALLY-I’m in favor of it. It’s insignificant, and certainly with the 44 foot setback, the intent’s been met. MR. BARBER-Thank you. MR. STONE-I think I certainly concur with the rest of the Board. When you look at the numbers, it doesn’t look right, compared to our Ordinance, but the skewed nature of the right of way, plus the fact that this is not a very big sign. I mean, if it were in a conforming location, it could be 50 square feet, and you’re talking half that size, and with your explanation of the potential road to the north of that, in time, and let’s hope that that happens, then I think it’s certainly in the right place where you want to put it, and it can’t be any further back. So, having said that, I need a motion to approve this variance. 15 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/27/00) MR. BROWN-Mr. Chairman, this is an Unlisted SEQRA action. MR. STONE-It is. I was going to look at that. Okay. MOTION THAT A REVIEW OF THE SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM SHOWS THERE ARE NO NEGATIVE IMPACTS CAUSED BY THIS PROJECT, Introduced by Lewis Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Abbate: Duly adopted this 27 day of September, 2000, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Abbate, Mr. Urrico, Mr. McNally, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Himes, Mr. Stone NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Bryant, Mr. Hayes MOTION TO APPROVE SIGN VARIANCE NO. 83-2000 BMI SUPPLY, INC., Introduced by Charles Abbate who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert McNally: 571 Queensbury Avenue. BMI Supply, Inc. proposes the construction of a 24 square foot freestanding sign, and the relief required, they are requesting 14 feet of relief from the 15 foot minimum setback requirements of the Sign Ordinance, Section 140-6. Benefit to the applicant, BMI would be permitted to construct the desired sign at the preferred location. Feasible alternatives may include relocation. However, I think at this particular time, Staff notes said it all when they indicated that the proposed sign, located within 44 feet from the edge of the travel way, appears to be consistent with the placement intent of the Sign Ordinance. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance? Fourteen feet of relief from the fifteen foot requirement may be interpreted as substantial, but as I indicated earlier, the intent is to be consistent. Effects on the neighborhood or community? Minimal effects on the neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of this action. Is this difficulty self-created? The difficulty may be interpreted as self-created. However, the Queensbury Avenue right of way on the western side is approximately 29 feet wider than a typical 50 foot right of way, and based on this information, Mr. Chairman, I propose this motion be approved. Duly adopted this 27 day of September, 2000, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. McNally, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Himes, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Stone NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Bryant, Mr. Hayes MR. STONE-Go, gentlemen. MR. NACE-Thank you very much. MR. BARBER-Thank you, gentlemen. AREA VARIANCE NO. 84-2000 TYPE: II GEORGE STARK & MARILYN STARK/MOHICAN MOTEL OWNER: SAME AGENT: NACE ENGINEERING ZONE: HC-1A LOCATION: 1545 ROUTE 9 APPLICANT PROPOSES ADDITION OF SECOND FLOOR TO EXISTING, NON-CONFORMING MOTEL BUILDING AND SEEKS SETBACK RELIEF AS WELL AS RELIEF FOR THE EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE. WARREN CO. PLANNING: 9/13/00 TAX MAP NO. 34-1-3 LOT SIZE: 5.33 ACRES SECTION: 179-23, 179-28C, 179-79 TOM NACE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; GEORGE STARK, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 84-2000, George Stark & Marilyn Stark/Mohican Motel, Meeting Date: September 27, 2000 “Project Location: 1545 Route 9 Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes expansion of the existing motel building to include both first floor and second floor additions. Relief Required: Applicant requests 13 feet of relief from the 20 foot minimum side setback requirement of the HC-1A zone, §179-23. Also, the applicant requests 21 feet of relief from the 75 foot Travel Corridor setback requirements per §179-28. Further, the applicant seeks relief for the expansion of a non-conforming structure per 179-79, A, (1) & (2). Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the 16 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/27/00) applicant: Applicant would be permitted to more than double the square footage of the current units. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives may include the construction of the same size building in a compliant location. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the ordinance?: 13 feet of relief from the 20 foot requirement may be interpreted as substantial, while the 21 feet of relief from the 75 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 portion of the difficulty may be attributed to the location of the existing building. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): BP 99-3312 issued 4/1/99 sign permit BP 89-06 issued 1/30/89 septic alteration BP 91-859 issued 12/19/91 Demolition of motel units BP 91-858 issued 12/27/91 motel units Site Plan Review 6-92 res. 2/18/92 laundry room addition Site Plan Review 53-91 res. 12/17/91 remove two units and add six units Staff comments: Minimal to moderate impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action. Based on the map submitted by the applicant, it appears as though the highway right of way was actually larger at one point in time and has been abandoned by both State and County highway departments. Will the approval of a significantly larger building located 7 feet from the property line impose an undue hardship on future development of the parcel to the North? Will the existing tree line be removed in favor of the proposed construction? SEQR Status: Type II” MR. MC NULTY-“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form September 13, 2000 Project Name: Stark, George & Marilyn Owner: George and Marilyn Stark ID Number: QBY-AV-84-2000 County Project#: Sep00-33 Current Zoning: HC-1A Community: Queensbury Project Description: Applicant proposes the addition of a second floor to existing, non-conforming building and seeks setback relief. Site Location: 1545 Route 9, West side of Route 9, ¼ mi. North of 149. Tax Map Number: 34-1-3 Staff Notes: The proposed action would not exacerbate the existing side yard setback deficiency of the northernmost structure in the Mohican Motel complex (see attached site plan and site development data sheet). Staff does not identify any significant impacts to County resources. Local actions to date (if any): A public hearing will be held September 2000. County Planning Board Recommendation: No County Impact” Signed Terry Ross, Warren County Planning Board 9/14/00. MR. STONE-Gentlemen. It looks like one of you didn’t leave. MR. NACE-That’s right, I’m still here, but I’ll leave after this. For the record, Tom Nace, and with me George Stark. Basically, what this application is all about is the second story addition of existing motel units here. I believe there are existing seven. Is that right, George? Seven units in here. They’re all one story. They’re very small rooms. The intent is not to increase the number of units or the number of beds, but simply to provide a second floor which will allow larger units, more desirable units, and more rentable units. The rear of the building will remain the same setback as the existing. It will be simply an expansion straight up. The front of the building will actually move out three feet from the existing, and also move up to the second floor. The front of the building will remain as is. We’ve also submitted an elevation and end view of the proposed building the way it would look with the addition, just for your reference. MR. STONE-Question. You say expansion. Is this going to be up and down expansion? MR. NACE-Correct. The units will be a second floor to the, the unit will be up down. MR. STONE-So each unit will have a stairway built inside? MR. NACE-Internal stairway in each unit, correct. MR. STONE-Okay. How about the questions that Staff raises? MR. NACE-Okay. The north side of the construction will all be confined to the area of the existing wall that’s going to be raised. There may have to be some limiting of the trees there to raise the roof, but none of the trees are proposed to be cut down. MR. STONE-And what about the question of development to the north? I’m not quite sure I understand the question, but it’s raised. MR. NACE-On the parcel to the north is the Barton Mine parcel. I think George has talked to them. I’m not sure whether they ended up submitting a letter to the Board or not, but, they indicated no concern with this proposal. 17 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/27/00) MR. STONE-Okay. MR. STARK-Mr. Stone, I see the guy every day that owns Barton Mines at the Y. Monday I was talking to him and he said they submitted a letter, sent to Mr. McNulty, in care of the Planning Office, Monday afternoon. He probably didn’t receive it yet. They have no concern, or they could care less. MR. MC NALLY-Just so I understand the application, on the south side of the structure, the first floor is going to be bumped out three feet? MR. NACE-Yes, in order to fit the stairway in, okay, and still have room downstairs to do that, there will be a three foot bump out to the south. MR. STONE-And that’s beyond the setback, though, I mean, that’s beyond 20 feet. MR. NACE-Correct. That’s outside of the setback line. MR. STONE-Any other questions of the applicant? MR. HIMES-This might be for Staff. This probably would be favorable to the applicant. I would just like to have some explanation of these, I think we dealt with it earlier in the year, someone down the road from this motel, the putting course or whatever it is. That part of the road that’s abandoned by the County and the State, in other words, has some impact, perhaps, on the Travel Corridor Overlay, or, you know, in relation to the setback. It’s worded here, it appears as though the highway right of way was actually larger at one point in time. It has been abandoned. Could I get a little clarification of that, either from Craig or from Mr. Nace, because I think it would probably be actually favorable information in connection with any frontage on the road. MR. NACE-I’m not sure what transpired to the south on the property for the miniature golf course, but I think that actually the State at one time had, during construction, had a wider right of way, and abandoned that right of way back to the adjacent property owners. Okay. Craig, are you aware of anything to that property to the south? MR. BROWN-That’s my understanding. Actually, I think they abandoned it back to the County, and then the County back to the underlying property owners. MR. NACE-Correct. Yes. MR. BROWN-And that’s that lighter line you see on the property between the thick line at the bottom of the parcel that’s labeled “County of Warren to Thekla Howe” MR. STONE-Yes, but the Travel Corridor Overlay is from the center of the pavement or the property line? MR. BROWN-It’s from the edge of the right of way. MR. STONE-Edge of right of way, the current right of way. MR. BROWN-Correct. MR. NACE-Correct. MR. BROWN-Which in this case is referenced, I believe, as edge of the pavement, in the deed. MR. NACE-That is correct, it is. MR. STONE-And you’re already in, encroaching on that at the moment, with the eastern wall, eastern extreme of the building. MR. NACE-That’s correct. MR. MC NALLY-So it’s 54 foot at the closest point to the edge of the pavement on that one corner? MR. STONE-Yes. That’s what it says. MR. MC NALLY-That’s what it says. There seems to be a line going outside the property. MR. NACE-Yes, that is correct. That’s 54 feet. 18 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/27/00) MR. ABBATE-I was up there the other day, and I have a question for you, but let me preface my question saying that that’s the first time I visited the Mohican Motel, and I’m quite impressed. It’s a nice operation, but my question is this. There are, I counted approximately 20 trees that may be effected by the proposed construction. How do you intend to handle that, right in back of that single story, there are about 20 trees, or perhaps more, maybe a little bit less. MR. STARK-There’s a lot more trees than that. MR. ABBATE-Okay, well. MR. STARK-We’re going to have to do some pruning of the trees. Okay. MR. ABBATE-Okay. MR. STARK-I talked to the guy that owns Barton Mines, he came over last Saturday, and we were talking, and, of course, he had gotten the notice in the mail. So we were, you know, if you stand in the front of the east wall, and you look down the north wall, you know, he said, gee, if you go up another 10 feet or so, this tree, you know, and I said, we’re either going to have to prune them, or we’re going to have to take some trees down, but there are so many trees. Did you go over on his property? MR. ABBATE-No. I did not. MR. STARK-Okay. Well, go over on his property and you can barely see through the trees. In the winter, you can see more. So he says, and his office is right there on that southeast corner of Barton Mines. That’s his office, and he really didn’t have any concerns. He said, well, do what you’ve got to do and just keep it clean in there, which we do anyway. We pick up the dead branches. MR. ABBATE-It’s a nice operation. MR. STARK-And, you know, you might be getting a letter tomorrow, most likely you will. There was no concern. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you very much. MR. STONE-A question, just to satisfy me again. The buildings to the west, up the hill, in line with these things, are two sets of rooms, right, upstairs and downstairs? Those are not double, they are not duplexes? MR. STARK-They are two, they are doubles. They’re two bedroom units, in the sense that you walk in the front door and you have a bedroom in the front, a little hallway, a bedroom in the back. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. STARK-Okay. These are going to have downstairs, you know, a couch, a table and a couple of chairs, a television, a stairway going up to a landing, a stairway going up to the top floor, and then upstairs there’s going to be a king bed, a television set, a dresser and so on. MR. NACE-I think, to answer your question, Lew, the building to the west are separate units up and separate units down. MR. STONE-Yes. Well, let me ask you a question. If the object is to make larger rooms. I mean, that’s obviously one of your original buildings, I suspect. MR. STARK-Forty-five years old. MR. STONE-Forty-five years. Okay, well, that’s original enough. MR. STARK-We re-did it. In ’92 we re-did the singles, inside, with new windows, doors, bathrooms, sheet rocked the walls, sheet rocked the ceiling, new heating systems, new plumbing, new wiring throughout the building. MR. STONE-My question is, though, if you wanted to make them larger, why couldn’t you just come out to the south? MR. STARK-Okay, we can, in the sense that when you went up there, did you see the wall that was there? 19 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/27/00) MR. STONE-Yes. MR. STARK-Okay. Now, say we came out three or four feet. That’s still not enough to put two queen beds in there. You follow me? MR. STONE-Yes. MR. STARK-Okay. I mean, you know, if you looked at the units right across from them, you’ll see there’s no grass area. There’s just a planter there with five shrubs in front of each section, okay. People like to be separated, a little bit, from the macadam where they park their cars to where they walk into their door. Now I could move that wall over, you know, but I don’t want to move it, okay, if I want to make a larger building move it over 10 feet, then you’re going up the stairs and you’re going right into your door. There’s no shrubs, there’s no nothing there then. MR. STONE-Okay. It’s an answer. I think the concern that certainly Staff had and I’ve heard it from one or two here, is trees. I mean, you can build, build, build. There’s no problem, but trees don’t grow, don’t grow, don’t grow very rapidly, or they grow very slowly, and I think that’s always a concern that we have, and I hear, it sounds as if you’re going to make a good faith effort, because it benefits you, obviously, to have as many trees as you can there, to keep as many. MR. STARK-Did you drive around the property? MR. STONE-Yes, it’s a gorgeous property. MR. STARK-You have no idea how many trees and shrubs we’ve put in in the last 24 years. MR. STONE-Really? MR. STARK-Yes. MR. STONE-Well, it’s one of those things, as a local, you don’t go onto property like that because, one, there’s no need to, and, two, you don’t feel you should, normally. It’s private property, as far as I’m concerned, and plus I was staying there. So I was very, very favorably impressed. I thought the playground area in the back, you’ve done some beautiful original work, it appears, in some of the play areas there. It’s nice. It’s very nice. MR. URRICO-Mr. Stark, are you open seasonally or are you a year round operation? MR. STARK-Not anymore, no. We plan, like this year, say we get the approvals and everything, we would shut down probably the last week in October, start construction, and it better be done by May 1 next year, but, no, to answer your question, no, and we don’t plan on being anymore. We used to st rent to the hockey players. MR. STONE-I was just going to ask that question. MR. STARK-Well, in our efficiencies and the condo units on the south side, by the indoor pool back there, and because there’s not the same quality hockey team here and it’s just too much wear and tear. My kids are running the place now, you know, on the desk. I just do the maintenance work, and, you know, seven days a week, for six and a half months of the year, and they need a break in the winter. So, to answer your question, no, it’s not a year round operation. MR. STONE-Well, that was a question I was going to, I thought when I looked at it that these, being larger units, might lend themselves to nine month rentals, as some people do. I mean, they do in that, your competitors. MR. STARK-Yes, they do. No more. MR. STONE-No more. Okay. Well spoken. Any other questions of Mr. Stark? Hearing none, I shall open the public hearing. Anybody wishing to speak in favor of this application? In favor? Anybody opposed to this application? Opposed? Any correspondence? MR. MC NULTY-There’s no correspondence in the file. MR. STONE-It’s in the mail, right? MR. STARK-Actually, you should be getting two letters, one from Peggy’s Dollhouse. She came up and she was asking, and she said she would, I don’t know if she did, but she said she would write a letter. 20 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/27/00) MR. STONE-Obviously, we did not receive any. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. STONE-Are there any other questions of Mr. Nace or Mr. Stark? Well, having said that, let’s talk about it. Jim, we’ll start with you. MR. UNDERWOOD-I think it’s a reasonable request. I would also say I would be worried about the trees, but I think if you make sure when you trim the trees that you have somebody come in and, you know, if you saw off the big ones and paint them over, so the bugs don’t get in your trees and that’ll save your trees from having a bug problem later on, but other than that, I think it’s a good fit, and it’s a reasonable request. MR. STONE-Okay. Norman? MR. HIMES-Yes, thank you. I agree. I think this is an excellent proposal. Personally, I go by that place, have for years, on weekends as I’ve gone up to the lake, and I’ve always kind of admired it, and it seems to get better as time goes along. It really does, and I think this will be an improvement, by adding, not only from a business standpoint, but aesthetically, it is going to have no adverse impact at all. The idea of going up rather than out to save some of the greenery and all the rest of the stuff there between the blacktop and the buildings and there are one or two trees between the units and the parking areas, they’re going to, at least one of them will stay there, the maple I imagine. So I think this is very good. It’s a good business. It’s improving, and the setbacks, in terms of what’s depicted on the application here, the problems are already there. They’re existing at the present time. So there’s really nothing that is being done to, in some people’s eyes perhaps offend our standards. So I am definitely in favor of the application. MR. STONE-All right. Chuck? MR. ABBATE-Thank you. Mr. Stark, when I went up there, my initial concern was, of course, the trees, what you were going to do with it, and you have indicated that you intend to deal with it in a reasonable manner, and quite frankly, I believe that, because the operation that you run at the present time to me looks like it’s outstanding and it’s done with a lot of integrity. So I have no doubt in my mind that you will do all in your power to maintain whatever is necessary, and I’m for approval. MR. STONE-Roy? MR. URRICO-I pass this property every day, and I’ve always been impressed by how well kept and how well maintained it is, and I have no reason to believe that this improvement won’t be done with the same tasteful manner, and I’m in favor of it. MR. STONE-Bob? MR. MC NALLY-The relief from the Travel Corridor Overlay is minimal. There’s 54 feet there from the pavement, and standing at the corner of the building, that’s going to be expanded closest to the road, there’s no way that they can’t but fit at least one or two lanes in each direction and still not impinge on your property. So I don’t think there would be any effect, and no consequence whatsoever in that regard. Regarding the side setback, if Bard doesn’t care, and I don’t know that the neighborhood or the community is going to be impacted that much, given the fact that it’s a commercial corridor, and given the fact that the existing footprint’s there, and they’re simply building up. So it’s commensurate with what’s already existing. So I’d be in favor of it. MR. STONE-Chuck? MR. MC NULTY-I can basically say ditto. While I don’t normally like things built in the Travel Corridor Overlay, this is an existing building there, and while it’s expanding on the front side of the building, that’s not extending any more into the Travel Corridor Overlay, or into any of the other setbacks. It’s basically going up and given the well kept nature of the property, I don’t have any problem with it. MR. STONE-Well, I certainly agree with the rest of my Board. If you look at the three sets of relief that are required, that are being sought, two already are in place, if you will. I mean, the back of the building is seven feet from the line. So now the higher back is going to be seven feet from the line, and the applicant has stated that he’s going to do his darndest to keep as many trees as possible on the property line. The building already encroaches on the Travel Corridor Overlay, and I think as 21 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/27/00) Mr. McNally said, it’s still a long way from the right of way and the pavement, and there’s certainly plenty of room in there, if, in fact, it was necessary to increase the width of that road. The expansion of a nonconforming structure is really the only thing that comes into play, and when you consider the size of the complex that we’re talking about, it’s really a negligible thing. It’s one building which is being expanded, but actually I don’t know what we consider, but certainly these buildings are connected, a number of them are connected together, at least the porch to the west, and I don’t know if that’s part of the 50% or not, but I am not concerned by it. I think as the Board has said, it’s a good project, on a good piece of property, and I see no adverse impact to the community going by the standards that we use. So, having said that, I need a motion to approve. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 84-2000 GEORGE STARK & MARILYN STARK/MOHICAN MOTEL, Introduced by Norman Himes who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Abbate: 1545 Route 9. The applicant proposes expansion of the existing motel building to include both first floor and second floor additions and renovations. Relief required is 13 feet of relief from the 20 foot minimum side setback requirement of the Highway Commercial One Acre Zone, 179-23. Also, the applicant requests 21 feet of relief from the 75 foot Travel Corridor setback requirement, per Section 179-28C. Further, the applicant seeks relief for the expansion of a nonconforming structure per 179- 79. The benefit to the applicant would be they, the business, would be permitted to more than double the square footage of the current units that are involved. Feasible alternatives, their feasible alternatives would be to expand horizontally out into what now is the parking area, but this would have a very negative impact, a significant impact, on the attractiveness of the existing lawn and shrubs and perhaps a couple of trees that are on the parking lot side of the units. Is the relief substantial relative to the Ordinance? Thirteen feet of relief from the twenty foot requirement may be interpreted as substantial, while the 21 feet of relief from the 75 foot requirement may be interpreted as moderate. However, it must be kept in mind that the building, the construction that’s being undertaken is really not going to add significantly at all to the dimensions of the building, the footprint of the building. So it’s the nonconforming status of the building that brings into play this relief. The effects on the neighborhood or community, the neighborhood seems to be in favor of the changes, and we would think that certainly there’d be a very positive effect on the community at large by the increase in this very fine business. In connection with the matter of the difficulty at hand, the portion of the difficulty could be attributed to the location of the existing building, which, as was said previously, was nonconforming in the first place, and this is not being worsened by the matters involved in this application. I think it should be approved. That a copy of the survey be supplied, prior to the attaining of a CO, that will allow the exact amount of relief to be determined, not to exceed 13 feet. Duly adopted this 27 day of September, 2000, by the following vote: th MR. STONE-Craig, do you consider this an adequate survey that we were given, considering last week’s proposal that we approved? Actually what we did last week, you ought to know this too, Mr. Nace, is that we’re going to put in, if we don’t have a survey for an addition, we’re going to request an as built survey so that we know exactly what relief we’re granting, because we do require it for new construction. We have not required it, prior to last week, for modifications. That’s why I want to make sure that this is, in fact, a survey that we can use to adequate measure. Are you happy with this? MR. BROWN-The title on the map says it’s prepared by a licensed land surveyor. I don’t see any signature or seal from, on the application. MR. STONE-I don’t, either. Do you have a signed copy of this? MR. NACE-It is a base map from Van Dusen and Steves that I just put a separate border around, but I do have, it is signed and sealed? I can give you a copy with their title block on it. It is not a stamped copy. If you needed one I could get you a stamped copy, but that is the original. MR. STONE-Craig, do you want to look at it and see if you’re happy with it? MR. BROWN-If it’s got that seven foot offset to the property line dimension on there, and it’s an accurate copy, I’m satisfied. MR. STONE-It’s not there. MR. NACE-It’s a surveyed location of the building and the property, but it’s not a computed seven foot, it may be 7.112 or whatever. MR. BROWN-I think in this case it’s a number that somebody can generate, based on the information they have. 22 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/27/00) MR. NACE-Absolutely. MR. BROWN-Yes. MR. STONE-Okay. So we’re granting approximately seven foot of relief. MR. BROWN-At most, seven feet of relief. MR. STONE-At most seven feet of relief. MR. BROWN-At most a seven foot setback, 13 feet of relief. MR. STONE-Yes, 13 feet of relief. That’s what you said in the, okay, then we won’t, if you can give us this, so we can put this with the block in the file, then we won’t. MR. BROWN-Or you can require that a copy be supplied prior to a CO that certifies that that dimension is correct, but I think it’s a dimension that’s workable, that can be established from existing information. MR. STONE-Norman, why don’t you just put that in the motion. That a copy of the survey be supplied prior to the attaining the CO, that will allow the exact amount of relief to be determined, not to exceed 13 feet. We’ll put that as part of the motion. Do you accept that, what I just said? MR. HIMES-Yes. AYES: Mr. Abbate, Mr. Urrico, Mr. McNulty, Mr. McNally, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Himes, Mr. Stone NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Bryant, Mr. Hayes MR. STONE-Thank you. MR. NACE-Thank you. MR. STARK-Thank you, gentlemen. MR. MC NALLY-Thank you. SIGN VARIANCE NO. 85-2000 TYPE: UNLISTED MIDAS OWNER: KENT SMITH AGENT: KENT SMITH ZONE: HC-1A LOCATION: 333 QUAKER ROAD, NEXT TO NEMER FORD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF AN ADDITIONAL WALL SIGN AND SEEKS RELIEF FROM THE SIGN ORDINANCE. WARREN COUNTY PLANNING TAX MAP NO. 59-1-8.22 LOT SIZE: 0.53 ACRES SECTION 140 KENT SMITH, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Sign Variance No. 85-2000, Midas, Meeting Date: September 27, 2000 “Project Location: 333 Quaker Road, next to Nemer Ford Description of Proposed Project: Applicant has installed and wishes to display an additional wall sign. Relief Required: Applicant requests relief from the requirements of the Sign Ordinance in order to place a second wall sign, where only one is allowed per §140-6, B, (3), (c). Criteria for considering a Sign Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be permitted to maintain and display the additional wall sign. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives may include combination of the sign content of the two signs into one, thereby eliminating the request for relief. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the ordinance?: A second wall sign where only one is allowed may be interpreted as substantial relief, relative to the ordinance…(100%) 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. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): Sign Permit 2000 3453 issued 2/17/00 wall sign Temporary Sign Permit issued 3/10/97 Sign Variance 95-96 res. 10/23/96 two additional wall signs Denied 23 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/27/00) Staff comments: Moderate impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action. A second sign, where only one is allowed may be interpreted as substantial relief. Sign Variance 95-96 requested relief to display 2 additional wall signs for a total of 5 wall signs. This application is requesting relief to display a total of 2 wall signs. Apparently the applicant has removed the “services” signs from above the bay doors. SEQR Status: Type Unlisted” MR. MC NULTY-“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form September 13, 2000 Project Name: Midas Owner: Kent Smith ID Number: QBY-SV-85-2000 County Project#: Sep00-28 Current Zoning: HC-1A Community: Queensbury Project Description: Applicant proposes construction of an additional wall sign and seeks relief from the Town of Queensbury sign ordinance. Site Location: Quaker Road toward Hudson Falls, #333 on left next to Nemer Ford. Tax Map Number: 59-1-8.22 Staff Notes: It is unclear from the application materials exactly what is proposed. The applicant indicates that the project is “adding 2 building sign to nd business” and “replacing 3 old building signs.” However, the renderings submitted (attached) of the before and after appear to be of different buildings. Based on the renderings, it appears that the applicant intends to replace the existing three signs with the two shown. Due to the lack of clarity regarding the proposed action, Staff recommends that the Board recommend denial without prejudice. County Planning Board Recommendation: Approve with a 6-1 vote.” Signed Terry Ross, Warren County Planning Board 9/14/00. MR. STONE-Sir? MR. SMITH-Yes, sir. MR. STONE-You are? MR. SMITH-My name is Kent Smith. I’m sorry, and I’m the owner of the Midas shop on Quaker Road, and I also live here in the Town, and am also in the business, the Midas, it’s a franchise, and I own that franchise, along with the property there that was purchased in 1997, from Walter Rehm, and what I’m asking for is the construction of a second building sign, but I would like to address the situation that has occurred at that location, and I understand the strict Sign Ordinance in the Town of Queensbury. I’m a resident here in the Town, and I’ve been before the Board in 1997 trying to get a couple of signs replaced that were, I believe, originally installed when the building went up in 1975. There were originally five building signs, I guess, when that building was erected in ’75 by Walter Dombek, and since then two signs were removed, and there were three. So to clarify my point, I had ordered two building signs from Midas. Midas is undergoing a national, we’ll call it a new image campaign across the company. As franchisees of the Midas International Company were required to upgrade our facilities to the new Midas “the new Midas”, and the reason for that, briefly, is that our exhaust business is essentially going away. It’s dying. It has been for the last 10 years. I’ve been with the Midas program for almost 20 and remember the days in the 70’s and the 80’s where exhaust was about 70% of our business and now represents about 30% of our business, and we expect probably over the next five years to have it shrink to about 15 or 20, and then eventually go away, because of the high quality of the materials in the new vehicles today, and some of you folks may already appreciate the fact that you buy a new car and the exhaust system lasts 10 years or more. So our business is going away on the exhaust side of things. So Midas had to reinvent itself by creating this new image, and that is the new Midas, expanding services, and becoming a general auto repair facility. So we’re required to upgrade our facilities and modernize those, and for good reasons, and we’re all looking forward to doing that, significant expense. I’ve got about $65,000 tied up in my building there on Quaker Road, most of that mortgaged, and we had an obligation to place our sign orders with a company called Collin Sign, out of I believe South Carolina, and they’re a national sign manufacturer, and they took on the Midas project, and within one year they were trying to manufacture, well, there’s 1800 Midas stores across the Country, and every Midas store is averaging two to three signs, sometimes four if they can get them. So it’s a lot of signs. So we were encouraged to place our sign orders, because these orders were being back logged and taking several months and so forth. So I ordered the signs thinking that, well, I’ll get one of them up, and then apply for the variance for the second one, and if I ended up, if I was denied on that variance, then, well, I had an extra sign that I suppose I could try to put in my playroom of my house, right. So, I ordered the two signs. I contracted the sign company. I gave them the schematics, the layout, and they had given me an approximate date for the installation of those two signs. I had been called out of Town unexpectedly to attend a funeral back in Boston, Massachusetts, and while I was gone, the sign company came and installed the signs. I checked in with my store manager every day, and he happened to call me and said, Kent, the signs are up, and I said, what do you mean signs? And he said, they’re both up, and I said, what do you mean they’re both up, I instructed them to put the one up, which we had received a permit for, from Mr. Brown, and I was awaiting the hearing for the second sign, and so initially I got nervous about it and had to figure out how to remove the sign. Well, these are individual neon channel letters, and it was a half day to install these things, and they drill big holes in the façade that we had just put up. We, shortly thereafter, went out and got some gray material and bagged the sign. We put plastic over the sign, in anticipation and hope that we would get the variance for the second building sign, but I’m fully prepared to remove the sign if I’m 24 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/27/00) denied that variance. So I just wanted to make the Board aware that we weren’t trying to pull a fast one. Truly, as a resident of this Town, and being before this Board and understanding the sign code, I would not have tried to do that deliberately, considering the expense of the removal and potentially the removal of that sign right now. So I wanted to go on record to at least state my case, regarding any questions that might arise, given the fact that the sign is actually on the building now with a plastic bag over it. So, having said that, my application is for the removal of the bag, and I would just strongly ask the Board to consider the fact that I had three building signs there, for a period of time, and I realize that that was a, I was given a break on that, in other words, the Town Code is one sign, I had three, and when I had asked for the other two signs, back in 1997, I was told by the Board, hey, you’ve got three, you should be happy with the three that you have. So I respectfully accepted the decision of the Board, and now we have a situation where I’m forced to upgrade the facility and I have to buy new signs, and now I’m asking for a second building sign to replace the three building signs that I removed, and staying within the 100 square foot maximum allowable sign square footage. I’m at 95.74 with the two signs, just wanting them at the two ends of the building, and the question was asked to me, could I put them together, and they’re not designed to be put together. So if I can’t get the variance, I’ll just take it down, because it wouldn’t look right. So that’s not the image that we’re trying to portray to our existing customers or potential customers that we’re new and we’re different and we’re trying to increase our business and give back some of the market share that we’ve lost. MR. ABBATE-Mr. Smith, how are you this evening? MR. SMITH-I’m doing fine, thanks. MR. ABBATE-You should practice law, you make an almost compelling argument, but not quite. I understand what you’re saying, truly. I mean, I don’t think there’s any doubt in at least my mind that you’re trying to pull a fast one, no doubt in my mind. It’s not worth all the trouble. I understand all of that, but I was going over the Zoning Board of Appeals Record of Resolution back in, whenever it was here, October 1996, there’s a rather unique statement, if you would give me permission to? MR. SMITH-Sure. MR. ABBATE-“We’ve heard nothing this evening that would justify a variance or a Sign Ordinance”. I’ve heard nothing, this evening, that would justify a sign variance, or variance to our Sign Ordinance. MR. SMITH-Well, the new Midas, if you will, is a message to the consumer that we’re different and we’re new, and it requires more than one building sign to portray that message. There are two statements in the sign. One is Midas, which most people are familiar with, and the other one is auto service experts, and that’s the tag line that Midas is trying to, I guess communicate to the public, which is auto service experts, meaning more than mufflers. We’re just not a Midas Muffler shop. MR. ABBATE-And due to the fact your muffler business is going down. MR. SMITH-That’s going away. It’s just going away. So the request for the variance to help us identify ourselves better is the reason for the variance, and I guess there’s probably not much more I could say about it, other than we’re trying to create a message. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Yes, well, I’m going to be in an unbiased position. I’m going to sit back and not say another word and listen to what my other Board members have to say. MR. SMITH-Thanks, Mr. Abbate. MR. HIMES-I had a question. Did you have any thought about making one sign out of it? You’ve got one thing kind of only at two different buildings, layouts described here. They’re not alike. The one at one end and the other end at the other, and there’s three bays shown when there’s really six, but say at the front, which is where I think you want the new signage to be. Rather than having that separation which is, I think, establishing two signs, you know, there are allowances for wall signs, due to square footage and so forth, and adding on the distance from the road and so forth, where maybe you could get Midas, you know, and the auto experts tag line, to be considered as one sign. I’m wondering if that might be an alternative that could be explored that would suit your purposes, and meet the standards that we have in terms of the number of signs. I’m not saying that we’d want to say, well, we’ll give you 4,000 square feet of wall sign, but something there might be a little different than a 100% variance of having two signs rather than one. Do you follow what I’m? What about that? MR. SMITH-Well, it’s, you know, you can imagine the town hearings that took place over this Midas changeover. So, the people who designed the new look for Midas, the engineers or I guess they had focus groups where they just brought people in rooms and asked them, you know, how do you want 25 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/27/00) us to look, and folks a lot smarter than me, I guess. I fix the car. They’re helping me try to get the customer to my bay and to my waiting room and get my phone to ring. So those folks are, they designed the signs and they gave us a choice of sizes, and so there are three signs to choose from. There is auto service experts, the Midas, which is essentially our company name, and then of course the pylon, the oval pylon. So I believe that the auto service experts tag line, which is inscripted over the bay doors as a prototype, as you’ll see in the drawings, has been essentially designed to fit right over the bay doors, and lots of garages, if you’ll walk around, I guess, you know, they have some kind of message over the bay doors. I know that a few of our competitors have run some scripts over the bay doors and thrown a sign on the end. So it’s really commonplace, I think, in the market, to have auto repair facilities have some information over the bay doors, maybe about what they do, and then of course the sign. So I think that’s what they had in mind. So I understand your question, and I wish they gave me more choices, because if they just gave me a sign that fit right over the building in the front, that I could choose from, that was under 100 square feet, I could have saved a couple of nights of meetings. MR. STONE-What’s the size of the auto service experts, square footage? Do we have that, Craig, or do you have that? MR. MC NALLY-Letters 30 inch high, as the other one. MR. SMITH-I want to say it’s about 53, Craig, does that sound? MR. BROWN-Yes, that sounds about right. MR. SMITH-It’s 94, well, I can tell you this. We can maybe back into it. The total square footage for both signs is 95.74, and the Midas, which is the proposed variance, is 42.07. MR. STONE-Okay. So if the signs were very close together, it would be less than 100, and you’re probably far enough back, there’s probably, 110’s allowed. Are you 100 feet as the? MR. SMITH-Well, we have the NiMo lot in front of us. So we have all kinds of, you know, we’re way off the road. So, you know, and I suppose I should add that to my request for that variance, as I should have. We’ve got all that NiMo property. MR. STONE-Well, what I’m suggesting, if you could move the sign closer. I mean, as I read the Ordinance, if you’re more than 100 feet, you can be 110 square feet from the road. MR. SMITH-That’s right. MR. STONE-Now you’re tell me right now, the two signs together are less than 100. MR. SMITH-That’s right. MR. STONE-If you could move the Midas closer, they may not like it in headquarters, wherever they are, but then it would say Midas auto, I mean, like one reading. I would much rather give, personally, variance for a slightly oversized sign, the way your building sits, because it’s way back off the road, and you are looking away, from that point out, I’m looking at the road. It’s not facing the road. MR. SMITH-Sure. MR. STONE-I would, personally, be more inclined to grant a slight increase in sign area than I would to make this very distinctly two different signs. I mean, that’s 100% relief, as we look at this. MR. SMITH-Sure. MR. MC NALLY-We did something similar with Applebee’s. They wanted to spread their sign across the building. We made them stick it together. MR. STONE-Right. MR. MC NALLY-It effectively did a good job. Because you can still see what it is, but they only have one sign. MR. URRICO-Mr. Smith, the corporate campaign, is it Midas-Auto Service Experts, or is it still maintaining the name Midas as the predominant name? MR. SMITH-That’s why we’re trying to keep it independent, because that’s exactly correct. Midas is the name of the business. Auto Service Experts is the tag line to try to let people know that we’re 26 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/27/00) more than mufflers. I guess, you know, the old way was Midas Muffler and Brake Shop, or Monroe Brake and Service, or Meineke Shocks and Struts, you know. So, yes, we’re Midas, and that’s why we’re trying to keep that independent of our tag line, rather than throw it all together. So, with all due respect to that suggestion, I’d probably just take the sign down. MR. URRICO-Now what about the other sign by the road, that won’t have Auto Service Experts added to it? MR. SMITH-You mean the existing pylon? MR. URRICO-Yes. MR. SMITH-No. Actually, that’s another point I should also make, that we had a, we were over on that one, too. We had too many squares on that pylon, and that was another one that was, you know, kind of let go because it was constructed in 1975. We had a directional arrow that used to go through the Midas sign, if you can imagine the old Midas signs. We took the arrow off, and so we reduced the square footage of that pylon by about 30%, to get that into compliance. I mean, we’re not asking for any, you know, we just basically replaced those faces and took the arrow off. MR. STONE-So you replaced the faces, but it’s the same sized sign. MR. SMITH-Exactly. So essentially we reduced our pylon by about 25%, and overall, we had three building signs, a pylon with an arrow. We’ve gotten rid of the arrow. We’ve gotten rid of one building sign. We’re just trying to go to two, and a smaller pylon. So, I guess. MR. URRICO-And then these would be lit? MR. SMITH-Yes. They are individual channel neon tubes. Different from what I had before which were those cheesy plastic things which were horrible. I mean, I don’t know if you’ve seen the building, of course with the bag on the side it looks terrible. MR. STONE-We’ve seen the building. MR. MC NALLY-We visit each site. Let me ask you a question. On the proposed sign drawing, if I look at it, someone blacked out something immediately to the left of Auto Service Experts on the drawing. MR. SMITH-That’s right. MR. MC NALLY-What was there? MR. SMITH-That was a Midas oval, which was a. MR. MC NALLY-Like a Midas logo? MR. SMITH-Yes, exactly, and that was part of the original campaign that actually that’s an optional sign, if you want to put that on, next to your tag line, as an oval. MR. MC NALLY-So it would say Midas, oval, or whatever, Midas within an oval. MR. SMITH-You’d have a small oval, and then you’d have the Auto Service Experts. MR. STONE-But it said Midas, though. MR. SMITH-That’s right. It did say Midas. MR. STONE-So if we forced you to bring the Midas sign over, they couldn’t be too upset, in Chicago. MR. SMITH-Well, they understand that if you can’t get the permit, you can’t get the, you know, they’re not going to, obviously, what can they do? I mean, you can’t get the permit, you can’t get the, I mean, there’s lots of guys that are trying to, that are reducing their overall square footage, that are, you know, they’re just not getting it. So, they don’t really have any say, I mean, what we’re trying to do is, it’s my business, and I’m trying to attract some attention to the business, and I’ll be quite frank with you. I mean, our business is, you know, our sales are down, and we’re trying to create some activity at the location, to try to get some of our sales back, and let our customers know that we’re different. 27 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/27/00) MR. ABBATE-Yes, putting both signs together, of course, I understand what you’re saying, by putting both signs closer together, I guess I could say it’s an old cliché, a piece of the pie is better than no pie at all. MR. SMITH-No, that’s true. Yes, like I said, if we get it, it’s wonderful. If we don’t, then I have some additional expenses and I have to start moving some stuff. MR. STONE-I think the concern that I have is, we pretty much have regarded our Sign Ordinance as a sacred cow. I mean, we believe, and you said it yourself, you live here, and I think we can be very proud of the signage that we have in our Town. It’s not perfect, good Lord, no. I mean, the best town would be a sign about this big above every business and give everybody a map and know where they have to go. Now that’s obviously not practical, but it seems to me, given the location of your property, off the highway the way it is, that if you could come up with a plan to put these signs close enough that they are in the range, 110 square feet, because I think you’re far enough off the road, or I certainly would have no problem in considering that. I could be happy with it, but when you start granting extra signs, we know that tomorrow somebody will be in to Craig and say they want another sign on their property, and we’ve tried to avoid this. We really have. We’ve given variances, but reluctantly. In this particular case, I just, myself, I just think that, I see a possibly way, as I think Mr. Abbate said, you know, a piece of the pie is better than nothing, and if some way you can find a way to come up with a closer sign within some kind of reasonable dimension, so that we can say, well, that’s one sign, and it’s, how many square feet, Craig, is that reasonable, if we put it closer together, I we can consider it one sign. They are the same height. MR. BROWN-Yes. Do you want to do the public hearing portion first, before we give him some direction on what to do? MR. STONE-We can do that, too. MR. BROWN-I mean, if you get 20 people come up and say they like it, it might, that doesn’t look like it’s going to happen, but, you may want to consider it. MR. STONE-Okay. Thank you for that. Any other questions before I open the public hearing? MR. MC NALLY-Your existing signs, you re-did the entire façade, when did the old signs come down? I didn’t pay enough attention. MR. SMITH-They’re gone. MR. MC NALLY-I’m just curious how long ago that it was you removed your old signs. MR. SMITH-I want to say April. MR. MC NALLY-April of this year? MR. SMITH-Yes. MR. MC NALLY-So you had two Midas signs, one on the side, one on the front? MR. SMITH-We have three total, yes. MR. MC NALLY-And then you had a brake sign. MR. SMITH-Well, yes, the brakes was in the middle and there were two Midas’, one on the front of the building and one over the bay, right. MR. MC NALLY-Around the corner. MR. SMITH-Exactly. MR. STONE-Okay. Any further questions before I open the public hearing? MR. ABBATE-Well, a question of Staff. Is that correct that sign violations are $250 a day, per day? MR. BROWN-They could be. MR. ABBATE-I just want to make that interesting. They could be. I see. Wow. 28 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/27/00) MR. STONE-That’s the judge talking here. Okay. I’ll open the public hearing. Anybody wishing to speak in favor of this application? In favor? Anybody wishing to speak opposed to this application? Opposed? Is there any correspondence? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. MC NULTY-Yes, we do have a piece of correspondence. It’s a letter from Michael Della Bella, President of the Della Group, “Please have this note serve as my comments regarding the proposed wall sign at the building of Mr. Kent Smith. As a business owner, I know the need for signs at ones location. It not only serves as a means of identification for the business, but also as a prominent marker that is easily read from the road. If the sign is professionally installed and is attractive, I believe it adds to the value of the facility. Business owners who put their best foot forward in keeping facilities clean and inviting, should be given the opportunity to have the signs necessary to conduct business. I therefore consider it reasonable and I would recommend the variance to be granted. Thank you for giving me an opportunity to comment in this regard. Sincerely, Michael Della Bella President” MR. STONE-Anything else? MR. MC NULTY-Nothing else. MR. STONE-Okay. I’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. STONE-Obviously, you have no comment on Mr. Della Bella’s letter. MR. SMITH-No. Mr. Della Bella runs a nice facility. So I admire that. I guess the only comment I would have, in reference to Mr. Della Bella, is, you know, he’s two doors down from me, and I believe he has on his new facility three building signs. I have two competitors, major competitors, on Quaker Road, one (lost words) which is our Meineke Muffler shop, which is on the corner of Quaker and Lafayette, and he’s got a great looking building, but I count six building signs. Now, I realize that maybe there’s some way that he’s able to sneak signs past the Board because they call them directional signs, but he has signs over every bay, brake, shocks, mufflers and struts. Along with the two building signs that he currently has, one over his waiting room, one facing Quaker Road. So, I count six there, and then when I go further up the road to another competitor of ours, Warren Tire, next to, I guess the new hot dog stand, I count two on his building. So I have three. I took them down. I want, I’m looking for two. I’m staying under the 100 square feet, and I reduced my pylon by 25 square feet. So I guess that’s my argument. I guess essentially that’s my argument. MR. STONE-Craig, can you comment on Mr. Smith’s comments about Meineke? MR. BROWN-Sure. Well, we’ll go backwards. Warren Tire, they have sign permits for the signs they have on their buildings. They were granted years ago, and they’ve maintained those signs. Meineke, I could not find any record of any variance that had been granted for additional wall signs there. If the signs that are there were permitted, I’m not sure how that happened. Probably they’re up illegally. MR. HIMES-Aren’t they on (lost words) the frontage on the road going up to the shopping center, and then I don’t know how you’d call it Quaker Road. MR. MC NALLY-You’d still need a permit, though. MR. STONE-You’d still need a permit. MR. BROWN-You potentially could be allowed a couple of wall signs and a pylon sign if you’re on a corner and you have frontage on two roads, but that still doesn’t allow them the number of signs that they have. So, I would think that some of the signs that are there are there in violation, and Mr. Della Bella’s property received a Sign Variance earlier this year, or late last year. MR. STONE-Yes, it did. I think part of that was because it was so far back off the road. MR. BROWN-Right. You have a site with permits that are old. You have a site that has signs up in violation, and you have a site with signs up with a variance. So you’ve touched them all there. MR. STONE-Regardless of where we go with Mr. Smith, can we assure him that the matter of Meineke will be looked into, in terms of, are these signs legal? I mean, as you know, I have asked you on a number of occasions. I’ve been concerned for a long time, and I think some of the members of this Board have been concerned, with the proliferation of signs on that building. I 29 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/27/00) recognize, and this is not a, I’m not saying you should do something, you should have done something about it. It’s one of those things, to me, it’s an eyesore, and if they’re legal, then there’s nothing I can do about it. If they’re illegal, certainly as the Chairman of the Zoning Board of Appeals, who is in a position to have a say in variances, I would like something to be done about the number of signs. MR. BROWN-Obviously, if there’s a complaint that’s lodged. In this case on the public record, sure, I might be obligated to look into it. I’m not sure, you know, it sounds like you’re willing to do that. I’m not sure if Mr. Smith is willing to lodge a complaint. MR. STONE-Well, I asked Mr. Smith to do it. I think this Board, I mean, the way I look at it, I’ve heard comments here tonight, we can take formal motion, if we have to. MR. BROWN-Absolutely. In the preparation for this meeting, I couldn’t find any variances that had been granted. So that answers that portion. If they’re there, they may have been granted permits through some other Zoning Administrator’s determination, that they may have gotten permits issued that there could be. MR. STONE-It’s possible, but I’m also concerned with window signs. You certainly have a number of signs up in your window, but you have another competitor who you don’t even mention on Glen, where, as you come down Glenwood, you are hit right in the face with a huge window sign, which is certainly more than the 25% that you say is allowed, and I think something should be done about that, too, because if we’re going to have a Sign Ordinance, and we’re going to grant variances or not grant variances, then we ought to be enforcing what we have, is the way I look at it. Am I off base, Board? MR. ABBATE-No. That was well said, Mr. Chairman. Well said. MR. STONE-Okay. So, so noted. I hope. MR. BROWN-So noted. MR. ABBATE-Craig doesn’t have that much to do anyway, Mr. Chairman. MR. MC NALLY-He could assign his assistants to do that. MR. STONE-We’ve tried to get him one, but we haven’t been successful yet. MR. SMITH-May I make just one more comment, Mr. Stone? MR. STONE-Surely. MR. SMITH-With respect to your comment about the window signs, I could give you my word that I would remove those window signs tomorrow morning, and obviously I’d like to get my variance. I realize this has nothing to do with my application, but as a business owner in the Town, and a resident of the Town, I’ve paid over $10,000 in school taxes today, I don’t even have children that go to school. So, I have other stores, you know. I have a bunch of stores. I live here in Queensbury. It’s my home town. I love the community. I’ve lived here for six years. I grew up in Massachusetts. It’s my home. I have a two year old and I have one on the way, and I plan on living here the rest of my life, and I spent more money in that store than any of the stores because I believe that, I was actually very impressed with your comments that you made to the gentleman that sat before me on the Mohican Motel, and it was very nice of you to recognize the hard work that he has paid toward his facility, and I’m sure it’s a very good feeling on his end to hear some of those nice comments. So, I’m trying to make that place look the best that I can make it, and it’s just my opinion, and some other folks that have helped me design the look of that store, that those two signs would help me achieve that look. So, again, I would just respectfully ask for consideration. MR. URRICO-Mr. Smith, you said that you would rather remove that sign and move it closer together. Would you reconsider that? MR. SMITH-Seriously consider that? Yes. I don’t think it would look right if I stuck it in front of the, it’s actually a little taller, too. So I don’t think, it wouldn’t look right. MR.. URRICO-I don’t think we’re asking it to be right on top of it, but closer together. Would you consider that? MR. SMITH-I guess I’m not sure what you mean by closer. I think they’re only about 30 feet apart now. 30 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/27/00) MR. ABBATE-I think we’re talking about a 96, in other words, if you moved it closer, we talked about a 96 square foot, which would make it well within the 100 square feet. So are you saying that you’d be willing to comply by moving it closer or you’re not willing to comply by moving it closer? MR. SMITH-No. I don’t think I can, because I believe this sign is a little taller than the Auto Service Experts. So that would throw the box off. I understand that they draw a box around these things. MR. STONE-Right. You’re saying it would be considerably bigger than 110. MR. SMITH-I don’t know if it would be considerable, but I’m sure it would go over. MR. MC NULTY-He’d have to have it almost on top of the other sign, to make the 100. MR. STONE-Yes, let’s talk about it. Let me start with Norman and see where we’re coming from. MR. HIMES-Thank you. I think the aspect of some combination, you know, bringing it to one sign, in whatever ways might seem feasible. Despite what the corporate signage policies might be, I imagine they may be running into problems elsewhere, too, possibly, but recognizing that you were sadly inconvenienced by this imposition. However, we do have the standards here, and trying hard to, especially with businesses, to help them rather than hurt them. On the other hand, in this particular case, I would think that bringing the matter of one sign, as opposed to two, is my only, the only thing I would agree to. If, then, there was some, you know, reasonable need for a variance in terms of the size of that sign, that would be another matter, and I think as the Chairman said, in conversations I’ve heard him here while you were talking, that that would be looked at in a much different light. I can’t predict what the decision would be. The window signs that you spoke of, I don’t know whether they’re, you know, violate any of our standards or not. I looked at them, it didn’t strike me as such. So your willingness to remove them, I don’t know if that’s even necessary. I imagine the Staff would help you with that. That’s how I feel about it, Lew. MR. STONE-Okay. Chuck? MR. ABBATE-Okay. Mr. Smith, I guess we’re talking about compromise. We all have to compromise in this world, at one time or another, or perhaps more than one time or another. If I heard you right earlier, did I hear you say you would be willing to compromise your proposal by moving the signs somewhat closer together, and don’t worry about the 96 square feet that I mentioned earlier, because Chuck down at the end made a good point. To stay within 100 feet, you’d have to put one sign almost on top of the other. I’m not suggesting that. Are you willing to compromise by putting both of those signs closer together? MR. SMITH-Well, I believe that I have compromised by reducing the signs from three signs to two signs. So I’d like to go on record to say that. I think that there is some compromise already in place, and also by reducing my pylon by 25 square feet. So in the effort to try to keep the building looking a particular way, I would just simply remove it, and just go with that. MR. ABBATE-Okay. I just want to be sure I understand. So you’re going on the record as saying that you are unwilling to compromise moving these signs, because it’s in your opinion it would not meet the requirements. So, rather than compromise, you’d just as soon take the sign down. Am I hearing you correctly? MR. SMITH-That’s right. I’d just maybe like to reserve the right to take a look at it on, you know, put it back up on a computer. I never looked at it that way, putting the Midas right in front of the Auto Service Experts. They’re two different scripts, fonts, colors. My gut feeling is I wouldn’t do it. I could take a look at it. MR. ABBATE-Listen, it’s your decision. Okay. So we understand that you are unwilling to compromise at this point. MR. SMITH-That’s right. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you. MR. STONE-Okay. Roy? MR. URRICO-I’m torn. I’m torn because we’ve had situations come up, the time that I’ve been on the Board, where variances have been granted. Aldi comes to mind, Della comes to mind, and I know Hannaford has a situation, too. On the other hand, I understand where we need to draw the line, and every corporate headquarters right now is a buzz with somebody in marketing deciding to change some aspect of their business and their title and the way they do business, and we’re going to be faced with this a lot. There’s going to be somebody else down the road that’s going to say our 31 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/27/00) corporate headquarters decided to change their emphasis, and now we have new signs coming. I’d feel a lot better if you said you’d be willing to work with us on this. The fact that you seem to be pretty much, it seems to me, dead set against changing it. MR. SMITH-Well, not dead set against it. I’d probably just want to review it. In my mind, putting those two signs together, I can’t picture it. So I mean, I can’t picture it looking aesthetically pleasing. So I think I’d be better not having the sign than trying to shove them together. However, you know, if I get a chance to table this, if that’s where we’re going, then I’d be happy to take a look at it and come back and see if I could submit something different, if possible. MR. STONE-Let me ask a question. Are these in the same script? MR. SMITH-No, they’re different fonts and they’re different colors. MR. STONE-They’re different fonts. Okay. Go ahead. MR. SMITH-That’s the other reason. MR. URRICO-Well, on the face of it, if it were just presented as is, I don’t think I would be in favor of it. MR. STONE-Bob? MR. MC NALLY-I’m like Roy. I’m a little bit torn. If you were close to the road, there’d be no question in my mind what I would say. I’d say you wouldn’t be permitted to have an extra sign. I think when we talk about Trustco, when we talk about Applebee’s, when we talk about a lot of the different Sign Variances that we’ve approved, the distinction tends to be how far you are from the road. You look at Lowe’s, and you’re half a mile from the road. We didn’t have any problem granting them extra Sign Variances. In your case, you had three signs, and they were lawful, because they pre-existed, and you’re proposing two. I see you being 50 feet, and then some, from your property line to the corner of your building, and then maybe 100 feet or more from the actual paved surface of Quaker Road. So we’re talking 150 feet back from the road. It’s not as if you’re right on the highway. I don’t, aesthetically, have a problem with what you’ve proposed. I’m not quite sure that it would be so bad that you would just have the Auto Service Expert sign, because someone blocked out a portion where there was a Midas sign right next to that. Someone must have thought that that was aesthetically pleasing. So I’m torn. I want to hear the rest of the Board members. I don’t know that the Town of Queensbury should conform to the corporate requirements of Midas, but by the same token, you may have extenuating circumstances that warrant two signs of a modest dimension, each of which total in combination less than 100 square feet. MR. STONE-Okay. Chuck? MR. MC NULTY-Normally I end up being on the side of being against Sign Variances, but I’m going to flip sides on this one. I’ll agree. I think the signs, the way they’re designed on the building now, are aesthetically pleasing. I think, personally, they would not be as pleasing if they were crammed together, and I have a problem with us trying to redesign a building or redesign signage or what not, to conform with what we’d like to see, and personally if I saw one sign eliminated, I’d just as soon see the pylon sign eliminated, but that’s because I usually approach your building from the west, and the pylon sign strikes me that it’s going to be right in the middle of the way of looking at the Midas sign, if you get the permit for that, but I can understand, for people coming the other direction, if you don’t have the pylon sign there, they’re not going to know you’re there, but I guess, like Bob was saying, the building’s far enough from the road. We have granted variances for other multiple building signs on Della being one, and given that the two existing signs together are still within what the square footage requirement would be for one sign, I’d be in favor of granting the variance. MR. STONE-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. Notwithstanding the fact that so many people are against this sign, I would have to agree with Chuck, that I think you’re far enough off the road. I think there are plenty of other instances along Quaker Road where you have more than one building sign, and I think the upgrade of the building, the changing your logos by the spin doctors is going in the right direction and even though we’re going to have an extra sign on the building, it would seem silly to me to not have a Midas sign on the building. I mean, I think a business owner is entitled to display what his product is, to a degree, and I understand where you’re coming from and what you’re saying, and I would be in favor of it. MR. STONE-I’m going to close my ears to what I have to say, because it’s foreign to what I normally say. I’m kind of like Mr. McNulty over here. Part of me says, the Sign Ordinance is very 32 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/27/00) important to me and we shouldn’t grant very many variances, but this is a case where you’re dealing with two signs which are, if you consider the NiMo lands from the property as not yours, but at least at a distance from the road, these are relative, these are small signs, in the sense that, together they are under 100 square feet, which is the allowable thing. Part of me would like to get them close together so we could consider it one sign. I mean, I’m perfectly willing to say the dot doesn’t count, you know, but the point is, they are different fonts, as you say, and therefore, probably difficult to do, but I do think that the building is entitled to have a sign that tells the brand name, if you will. Auto Service Experts is nice, and I’m sure you are, and you do it, and it’s a great slogan, but I think the building deserves a sign that says who you are, and it’s a relatively small sign on a relatively large building, if you go the whole width of the building, and obviously there are feasible alternatives, not to put a sign, put them together, which you apparently are not very willing to do, although you’d like to look at, but nevertheless, I think on balance, in this particular case, I would be inclined to grant this variance. Because I do think the effects on the neighborhood, per se, are very small. I’m more concerned with the effects on the Town, in terms of what I wrote down here, opening a can of worms, but I really don’t think so. I think it’s not as if you’re putting breaks, mufflers, windshield wipers, signs up there. You’re saying Midas, that’s who we are, that’s my name. I happen to be an Auto Service Expert. So I’d be inclined to go with that. As I see the break down, Mr. McNally is on the fence here, in terms of, we have three yes, three no and a question mark. So we need a motion, one way or the other. Are you willing to go one way or the other? MR. MC NALLY-Sure. MR. STONE-Which way? MR. MC NALLY-I’d be in favor of it. I think I mentioned that you’re far back. I don’t like it, but I’m in favor of it. MR. STONE-Okay. Then I need a motion to approve. MR. BROWN-Mr. Chairman, we have another Unlisted Action. MR. STONE-Another Unlisted Action. You’re right. I knew that. Okay. I ask all of you to consider the environmental impact of this particular project, and having done so. MOTION THAT A REVIEW OF THE SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM SHOWS THAT THERE ARE NO NEGATIVE IMPACTS CAUSED BY THIS PROJECT, Introduced by Lewis Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles McNulty: Duly adopted this 27 day of September, 2000, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. McNulty, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Himes, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Urrico, Mr. McNally, Mr. Stone NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Bryant, Mr. Hayes MR. STONE-Okay. I need a motion to approve. MOTION TO APPROVE SIGN VARIANCE NO. 85-2000 MIDAS, Introduced by Charles McNulty who moved for its adoption, seconded by James Underwood: 333 Quaker Road, next to Nemer Ford. The applicant has installed and wishes to display an additional wall sign. Specifically, the applicant is requesting relief from the requirements of the Sign Ordinance, in order to place a second wall sign where only one is allowed per Section 140-6B(3)(c). In considering this request, we’ve considered the benefit to the applicant, which would be that the applicant would be permitted to maintain and display the additional wall sign. Feasible alternatives, feasible alternatives include a combination of the sign contents on the buildings into one sign, thereby eliminating the request for relief, but as has been pointed out, the signs were designed to be separate, and, in my opinion, they would not look anywhere near as attractive if they were combined into one continuous sign. Is the relief substantial relative to the Ordinance? On the one hand, if you consider the relief being requested, a second wall sign, where only one is allowed, then it certainly is substantial. On the other hand, if you consider the square footage involved, the total square footage is less than what is allowed for one wall sign. So in that sense, it is not substantial. Effects on the neighborhood or community? Given that particular neighborhood and the existing signs in the area, it is my belief that there will be minimal effects on the neighborhood. Is the difficulty self-created? In a sense, it can be interpreted as self created, since this is a new sign that’s being proposed. On the other hand, the business necessity and the distance of the building from the Quaker Road I think 33 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/27/00) mitigates this consideration some. In all consideration, I think the weight of the benefit falls to the applicant in this case, and I move that we approve the variance. Duly adopted 27 day of September, 2000, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. McNally, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Stone NOES: Mr. Himes, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Urrico ABSENT: Mr. Bryant, Mr. Hayes MR. STONE-There you go. Take the bag off it. Get the permit. MR. BROWN-I just have one question. The County approved? MR. SMITH-Yes, they did. MR. BROWN-Okay. MR. STONE-Yes, they approved. MR. SMITH-Gentlemen, thank you very much for your time. SIGN VARIANCE NO. 86-2000 TYPE: UNLISTED SANDRI REALTY, INC./SUNOCO STATION, EXIT 20 OWNER: SAME AGENT: HEIDI E. BUSHWAY ZONE: HC-1A LOCATION: I-87, EXIT 10 TO RT. 9, NORTH ONE MILE SUNOCO IS ON LEFT APPLICANT PROPOSES REMOVAL AND REPLACEMENT OF FREESTANDING, BUILDING AND CANOPY SIGNS AND SEEKS RELIEF FOR NUMBER OF SIGNS AND SIZE OF SIGNS. WARREN CO. PLANNING: 9/13/00 TAX MAP NO. 35-1-4.2 LOT SIZE: 0.70 ACRES SECTION: 140 HEIDI BUSHWAY & DICK BARNES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Sign Variance No. 86-2000, Sandri Realty, Inc./Sunoco Station, Exit 20, Meeting Date: September 27, 2000 “Proposed Location: Exit 20 Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes removal and replacement of freestanding, building and canopy signs. Relief Required: Applicant proposes to maintain 2 freestanding signs ( totaling 108.71 sf ), and three wall signs ( totaling 64.69 sf ). §140-6, B, (3), (c) allows for a total of 2 signs per business. The applicant is requesting relief for 1 additional freestanding sign and for 2 additional wall signs. Further, the applicant seeks 13 feet of relief from the 15 foot minimum setback requirement for the smaller “changeable copy” freestanding sign, as it is proposed to be maintained at a 2 foot setback. Criteria for considering a Sign Variance according to Section 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be permitted to construct and display the desired signs in the preferred locations. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives may include a compliant signage configuration. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the ordinance?: An additional free-standing sign and two additional wall signs 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, as the applicant could construct signage in compliance with the Sign Ordinance. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): BP 97-157 issued 5/1/97 Commercial Addition BP 91-315 issued 5/20/91 addition BP 88-777 issued 10/17/88 canopy alteration BP 91-828 issued 11/27/91 commercial alteration Site Plan Review 33-90 res. 5/22/90 walk in cooler addition Variance 1383 res. 7/27/88 canopy construction Sign Variance 12-89 res. 3/15/89 one additional wall sign Denied Staff comments: Moderate to substantial impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action. Despite the fact that the previous owner/tenant may have had more signs than are requested in this application, no relief has been granted to this property for signage in excess of the Town Sign Ordinance. While the canopy signs appear to be a standard industry request, the second freestanding sign, two feet from the right of way appears to be an excessive request. The total square footage of the requested wall signs is significantly less than what could be granted for one compliant wall sign, however, the proposed main freestanding sign; 88 square feet together with the accessory 34 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/27/00) freestanding sign; 20 square feet represent more than double the allowable signage which could be permitted at a compliant location. SEQR Status: Type Unlisted” MR. MC NULTY-“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form September 13, 2000 Project Name: Sandri Realty, Inc. Owner: Sandri Realty, Inc. ID Number: QBY-SV-86- 2000 County Project#: Sep00-30 Current Zoning: HC-1A Community: Queensbury Project Description: Applicant proposes the removal and replacement of freestanding building and canopy signs and seeks relief for number of signs and size of signs. Site Location: I-87, Exit 20 to Route 9, North one mile. Sunoco station is on the left. Tax Map Number: 35-1-4.2 Staff Notes: The applicant states that the existing Jiffy Mart/Shell business at the site actually has more square footage of signs than is being requested for the new Sunoco to locate there. A breakdown of the existing and proposed square footage of signs as provided by the applicant is attached, as are renderings of each of the proposed signs and a signage site plan. It appears that the applicant is also requesting a variance from the setback requirements for the existing free-standing sign to remain. Staff is concerned about the potential impact to State Route 9 from the extent of signage requested, and particularly the impact of the sign that does not meet setback requirements (the application materials do not indicate the extent of the setback deficiency). Staff recommends discussion. County Planning Board Recommendation: Approve” Signed Terry Ross, Warren County Planning Board 9/14/00. MR. STONE-Thank you. It’s your turn. MS. BUSHWAY-My name’s Heidi Bushway. I’m with Sandri Realty. MR. BARNES-My name is Dick Barnes. I’m also an agent for Sandri Realty. As I’m sure you’re aware, it was the former Shell station that we had the opportunity to purchase, several months ago. We took that opportunity, purchased it, and we are here looking to re-sign it, with our logos and our image package, in front of this Board. We recognize that there is some excess over what you felt was apparently, we’ve sat here tonight and listened to, there’s more than that, but we made the application based upon what was there, and what would meet the requirements of our supplier. MR. STONE-A couple of questions before we start, or as we start. Are you aware of the competitor station across the street, down at the Mobil Station? MR. BARNES-Yes. MR. STONE-Have you looked at their signage? MR. BARNES-Yes. MR. STONE-Considerably less than you’re seeking. You’re aware of that. They’re in compliance, Craig, are they not? From what I see there, they’re in compliance. One wall sign, and there’s one freestanding sign. How many pump signs are you anticipating having, not the canopy signs, but signs on the pump. This is something that we’ve always considered. I mean, we usually have granted permission to do it, but we’re aware that there’s a lot of, there’ll probably be a lot of Sunoco signs around. MR. URRICO-There are already four pump signs, one on each pump. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. BARNES-There’s a dispenser door that indicates. MS. BUSHWAY-Right, it says Sunoco on it. MR. BARNES-It says Sunoco on it. MR. STONE-Those are signs. I mean, we’ve usually ignored that, as I recall, but they are signs. I mean, we don’t want to lose sight of the fact that we know they’re signs. You’re talking two signs on the canopy, as I understand, one on either side. You’re talking one sign over the door, and the two freestanding signs? MR. BARNES-Yes. MS. BUSHWAY-Again, I guess in our defense I’d like to say buyer beware. We just assumed that we could replace what was there with our own image, and in fact we have similar panels that go into the changeable sign, which we’ve already put in the changeable sign. It’s the same sign that most of the distributors use, but it’s not essential that we have that. We just assumed that it was allowed, that it would continue to be allowed. 35 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/27/00) MR. STONE-What sign? MS. BUSHWAY-The second freestanding sign that is closest to the road. We would not have a problem with taking that down. MR. STONE-You’re willing to take that down? MS. BUSHWAY-Yes. I mean, like I say, when we made this application, we assumed that we would be replacing what was there, and there wouldn’t be, you know, a big issue. As we’ve sat here tonight, we’ve gotten an education. MR. STONE-Okay. If you’re willing to take down that sign, that throws out most of it. MS. BUSHWAY-That makes one freestanding and no variance for setback. MR. STONE-Correct. MS. BUSHWAY-Right. MR. STONE-That’s right. It would be conforming, right, Craig? MR. BROWN-Except for the size. MR. STONE-The size is still too big because of the, yes, square footage. You’re allowed. MR. BROWN-They’re allowed 50 at this setback. MR. STONE-Fifty at that setback. MR. BROWN-And they’re requesting 88.55. MS. BUSHWAY-Again, that is to fit in the spaces between the two poles and the foundation that already exists there. The nearest that we could come is slightly less than what was there, and so that’s what we propose. MR. STONE-Okay. So, I’m hearing you say, the little sign, the freestanding sign on the front, is gone. MS. BUSHWAY-Is gone. MR. STONE-Okay. That’s progress. I have no problem with the two signs on the canopy. I can’t speak for the rest, but, and the one over the door. To me, the question is, as Craig said, the size of the, it is a fairly large sign. It’s, what, how many feet back, Craig? I’ve got it here some place. MR. BROWN-It’s shown at 15 feet from the property line. MR. MC NALLY-Right to the edge. MR. STONE-Right to the edge, yes. MR. BROWN-That’s to the edge of the sign. MS. BUSHWAY-The other possibility on that, which would still fit the pylon sign, would be to remove the distributor panel, which is, would say Sandri Stop Smart, which is the name of the business itself, and since we have that over the door, we could eliminate that, which would just move those up. That would reduce it to roughly 70 square feet. MR. STONE-Okay. If you can guarantee these prices. It’s advertising. Okay. So you’re saying, if we hear you correctly, so that we’re all, the small freestanding sign is gone. You’re willing to remove the two and a half foot, two foot six inch panel from the sign? MS. BUSHWAY-Right. MR. BARNES-Right. MR. STONE-Do a quick calculation, Craig. You’ve got your calculator. You said it was 70 something? 36 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/27/00) MS. BUSHWAY-That would be, five two and four ten would be 10 feet by 7 foot 1. So it’s a little over. MR. ABBATE-It’s about 74. MR. BARNES-Seventy-four square feet. MS. BUSHWAY-Right. MR. ABBATE-Yes. Okay. Thank you. MR. UNDERWOOD-I’ve got a question. I was down in Albany over the weekend, and I see all the Sunoco signs down there have got some new fancy logo. Are those your stores down there? MR. BARNES-No. MR. UNDERWOOD-Is that going to be a corporate changeover thing, too? MR. BARNES-Yes. MR. STONE-The Sunoco sign you’re going to have is different. MS. BUSHWAY-It looks like this, but this little diamond with the kind of dashes through it, and it’s slightly different font and everything. That’s their new image. MR. STONE-Okay. This station, and you don’t know this, and I’m going to be a little facetious, you’re going to keep this station open? Because we had another request from Sunoco from somebody, not your ownership, who didn’t know the station had sold, that it was closed about a week later after they sought a variance. So you’re staying open, right? MR. BARNES-Unless somebody comes (lost words). MR. BROWN-Mr. Chairman, I have a calculation for you. I come up with 70.84 square feet total. MR. STONE-70.84. MR. BROWN-Yes. I get two and a half times the seven foot one inch to come up to be 17.71 feet. MR. STONE-So that’s 20.84 feet of relief. MR. BROWN-Right, and I had another question. I noticed in my site visit, currently above the door there’s a Sunoco sign. Is that going to stay? MS. BUSHWAY-No. That’s a temporary sign. MR. BARNES-When we purchased this piece of property, it came rather fast and quick, the opportunity to do that, and the ability to get us identified has taken some additional time in this. So we kind of, we got a little complaint from Shell customers and some other customers that it wasn’t identified and that we were not selling the right gasoline and all those kind of things, but what we are proposing is what will be there if we get approved. MR. STONE-Okay. So there’s a new Sunoco logo, but it’s as you depict on the chart? MR. BARNES-Yes. MR. STONE-So we’re talking three signs, Sandri Stop Smart and Sunoco, Sunoco, plus the pump signs, which we always know about when it comes to. MR. MC NALLY-When I went by, now there’s a lot of other signs around, and I didn’t know what you’re intentions were with that. In the south corner of the building, there were two cigarette signs on either side of the ice machine, like three by four apiece. They were external, affixed to the outside of the building. Were they simply there from the old owners? MR. BARNES-Yes. MR. MC NALLY-You have no plans to continue their use? MS. BUSHWAY-I wasn’t aware that they were there. 37 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/27/00) MR. BARNES-No, I didn’t see them there. MR. MC NALLY-There’s a big Green Mountain Coffee banner in the front of the store, too, that was spread across the front. Is that there just temporarily, I take it? MR. BARNES-Yes, because I think we just switched to Green Mountain, but we can take that down. MR. MC NALLY-And is it the Sunoco sign in the peak, or is that Shell? MR. BROWN-It’s Sunoco above the door currently on the building. MR. MC NALLY-It’s in the peak itself, I think. MR. STONE-Yes, but they put it there so, not to mislead people. MR. MC NALLY-Is that where this sign is going to go? MS. BUSHWAY-Well, actually, if you look on the, I think it’s (lost words) it shows where it goes. MR. MC NALLY-They’re right over the door. MS. BUSHWAY-Right. We didn’t consider these Shell things to be actual signs. Usually, when it, under the canopy is not, but you’re talking about, these have already come down. MR. STONE-Yes, we don’t like those either. MS. BUSHWAY-Those are gone already. MR. STONE-Good. MS. BUSHWAY-But see we have, a similar thing on the door. We have a similar sized thing on the door that now says Sunoco, but these things are gone. MR. STONE-But all this stuff is going? MS. BUSHWAY-It’s gone. MR. STONE-It’s gone. I thought it was, and the Green Mountain thing, that’s a temporary sign. MR. ABBATE-And wasn’t there a diesel sign? I parked on the side of the building. MS. BUSHWAY-The prices of the diesel. It says diesel over the island. MR. STONE-What would you consider that one? I did notice that sign come to think about it. It was a diesel price sign over to the north and west. MR. MC NALLY-And kerosene. MR. BARNES-Over these islands? MR. STONE-Yes. MR. MC NALLY-Diesel’s about three by three, and then they’ve got the kerosene one about two by three. MS. BUSHWAY-I assumed that that was an informational, that just said that that was a diesel island, and the price, which we’re required to post over this thing. MR. BROWN-Yes. I don’t know if this size is required. You’re required to post them. I don’t think, I think the size is a minimum of six inches. I think that would be considered another sign. MS. BUSHWAY-This was, again, existing. MR. BROWN-It’s advertising. It’s advertising the price of the. MR. MC NALLY-This was like the stuff that Hess was doing. Every light pole on the property had to have a sign on it. MR. BROWN-Exactly. It’s considered a sign. 38 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/27/00) MR. STONE-It’s considered a sign. So we haven’t advertised that. MR. BROWN-They haven’t asked for relief from it. So my assumption is that they’re going to remove it. MR. STONE-Are you going to remove it? Are you going to just put up the little? MR. BARNES-We weren’t planning on removing that. MR. STONE-Okay. Well, Staff is just telling us that he would consider it a sign, a fourth sign, if you will. MR. MC NALLY-You see, when we talk about informational, we’ve allowed it for other gas stations, is there’s panels above each pump, which shows about the size of the information price for the materials that we’ve allowed before. These signs are pretty substantial. MS. BUSHWAY-What if we had just the diesel and not the prices? MR. MC NALLY-I don’t know. MR. STONE-Well, diesel is an informative sign, in terms of what’s available at that pump. You’re talking about just the word “diesel”, aren’t you? MS. BUSHWAY-Right, just the word “diesel”. MR. STONE-Yes, no price, and a price sign on the front, I assume, a hanging. MR. BARNES-Yes, because you’re required, in New York, to have a certain sized price sign. I’m not sure what that is. MR. BROWN-Right. You’re required to do that, and our Sign Ordinance requires you to not exceed the minimum that’s required by the State. So if they say it has to be at least this size, you can’t be any bigger than that, and that’s typically what you see on the top of the signs. It’s a square panel that lists the prices. MR. HIMES-It says kerosene and diesel. There are two signs. MR. STONE-Well, it wouldn’t bother me if it said diesel, so that you’d know to go there, but go ahead. MR. HIMES-Just to supplement what Bob said. I made some quick notes of the wall signs that are there and the window signs. You’ve got something that says fast food, one sign, cold beer. MS. BUSHWAY-Those are coming down. MR. HIMES-Yes, air, Coca Cola, $3.99 12 pack, Marborl, about the same size with the prices. You’ve got that Green Mountain Coffee flag, four neon beer signs inside the windows, of course the Sunoco at the top, about a dozen or more small inside window stickers or signs. Out back there’s a Suburban Propane tank that doesn’t have any signage on it, except that it says Suburban Propane painted on it. That’s kind of out in back of the place. There are a lot of wall and window signs there, in addition to the canopy signs, and the freestanding sign and the pump signs that I’m wondering what’s going to happen to them. You mentioned that you’d be taking down the fast food and beer and so on, but then there’s a lot of other, you know, stuff in the windows that, to me, in my opinion, don’t look too good. You can have stuff in the windows, but they’re not what the Code says here, but there’s some limitation. MR. STONE-All right. So, Craig, you’re saying to us, as Staff, that you’re now seeing four signs, that that diesel with the big price letters becomes a sign, however it’s construed at the moment. MR. BROWN-Yes. If you look at the Sign Ordinance, 140-3, and you go down to Letter G, it talks about on premise signs, on premise directional signs. They’re allowable. They’re limited by size. They’re intended to be information, enter, exit, do not enter. You’re allowed to have company logos on there. You’re not allowed to have advertising information on there. So, I guess it’s an interpretation. If it says diesel, that’s a product. That’s an advertisement for a product. So that’s advertising information. I mean, that’s my 20 second review on it. Give me a couple of minutes and I might change my mind, but. MR. MC NALLY-Are you saying it’s directional or not directional? 39 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/27/00) MR. BROWN-I don’t think it’s a directional sign. I think it’s advertising. MR. MC NALLY-It’s a legitimate sign. MR. BROWN-I think so. MR. MC NALLY-That we could regulate. MS. BUSHWAY-We’d consider it, particularly in that kind of location, for traffic circulation where you have the camper population, if the camper is a diesel, they want to know before they get under the canopy that the diesel’s not under the canopy. MR. STONE-I have no problem, personally, with a sign that said diesel, this is the diesel pumps, but when you have the price that large, then it becomes an advertising sign. MR. BROWN-Right. If you’re comfortable considering it as an on premises directional sign, then they’re allowed that, with a maximum of four square feet. So if they can get diesel and the price into four square feet, then it’s an on premise directional sign, if you’re comfortable with that. MR. STONE-Yes. MR. MC NULTY-Or if they put their diesel prices on the pump with the standard minimum signs, and make the diesel sign a minimum of four square feet. MR. STONE-Correct. That’s a given. MR. ABBATE-You can do that. MR. BARNES-We did not realize, didn’t think, we need to have identification of the diesel island and diesel pumps, kerosene pumps, because we have people that mis-fuel, and then they always come visit us. MR. STONE-I understand, but this is covered under our 140-3(G), as Craig says, on premises directional and/or instructional signs for the convenience of the general public, identifying public parking areas, loading zones, entrances and exits, self service areas and similar signs, internally illuminated or not illuminated, not to exceed four square feet. In my judgement, the sign “diesel” above these two pumps is an informational sign, but the price should be on the pump just as you have over the pump over the gasoline pumps, with the regulated New York State sized sign. MR. BARNES-Okay. MR. STONE-Okay. So, let’s see where we are. Right now we’re talking a reduction of that sign to say, you’re following? MR. MC NALLY-Yes, a diesel sign with price, without price. MR. STONE-Without price. MR. MC NALLY-To conform to Code as an on premise directional sign of less than four feet square. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. MC NALLY-No second freestanding sign. MR. STONE-No second freestanding sign, and three signs, two Sunoco’s on either side of the canopy, and one Sandri Stop Smart. I hope it works for you. It doesn’t work for me, but that’s okay. That’s what we’re talking about, but there’s also concern. MR. HIMES-I just want to add to your comment about the two canopy signs. You did mention earlier Mobil has one on the north side, and it has a freestanding sign, which is on the south side. Here, they have the freestanding sign on the south side, and why not. MR. STONE-They only have one Mobil? MR. HIMES-Yes. MR. STONE-I didn’t notice. 40 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/27/00) MR. HIMES-Yes. There’s only one. It’s on the north side of the Mobil sign. MR. STONE-Away from the freestanding sign. MR. HIMES-And then the freestanding sign is on the other end of the property, similar to the location, maybe a little further from the road, than their freestanding sign, which looks like it may be a little bit bigger, and then of course most of, probably a lot of their customers would come from the north, because it’s on that side, but they can see the freestanding sign, and they can see the canopy sign, too. It’s just a point that I wanted to add for your information. MR. STONE-Okay. Let me, again, go through, because I’ve got to open the public hearing, although there’s nobody here. Let me just state for the record what we’re going to hold the public hearing on, and then we’ll hold the public hearing, and then we’ll close it, and then we’ll talk some more. What we’re talking, you’re requesting one freestanding sign, approximately 20 square feet above that permitted at 15 feet from the property line. You’re requesting two signs on the canopy, one on the north side, one on the south side, both of which to say Sunoco. You’re requesting one sign over the door, and you acknowledge that, and this is not part of your request, but you acknowledge, as part of this, that you will make the diesel sign over those two pumps conform to four square feet, if it doesn’t now, and you will post the prices in the regulated size on the pumps. Does everybody understand that’s what they’re looking for? All right. Let me just open the public hearing. Anybody wishing to speak in favor? In favor? Anybody wishing to speak opposed? Opposed? Any correspondence? MR. MC NULTY-No correspondence. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. STONE-All right. Any other comments before we talk about it? MR. MC NALLY-Well, I think the point about the canopy sign in each direction is well taken, given the fact that Mobil has the same kind of thing. How about the size of the canopy signs? Do we have any concerns about that? What’s the lettering height? MR. STONE-Three feet high. I don’t know how long they are. MS. BUSHWAY-Nineteen and a half inches. MR. BARNES-They’re 19 and a half inches by 11 feet 3. MR. STONE-Bob, that’s the canopy that’s three feet. MS. BUSHWAY-Right. MR. MC NALLY-What have we done before? MR. STONE-I’ve never heard of it before, that we’ve restricted it to one side. I mean, that wasn’t done by, did we require that, they just didn’t want to get a variance? The Mobil Station, do you know, Craig? MR. BROWN-I do not know. MR. STONE-I don’t, either. MR. MC NULTY-It strikes me that the canopy is going to look incomplete without a sign on each side. MR. STONE-Yes. I have no problem with putting a sign on either side. I think it’s a balance thing. I don’t think it’s a. MR. MC NALLY-Do you have any thoughts, Craig, on the size of the canopy lettering? MR. BROWN-Eighteen square feet on either side. I don’t think that’s unreasonable. MR. MC NALLY-Is that in commensurate with the other canopy signs? 41 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/27/00) MR. BROWN-I think so. MR. MC NALLY-Do you have any size problems on anything else, other than the freestanding? MR. BROWN-Other than the freestanding? No. MR. STONE-All right. Let’s talk about, unless we have anymore questions. I don’t think we do. Let’s start with Chuck Abbate. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you. I visited the place, like other members of the Board visited as well, and I was struck, initially, by the number of signs that were presently there, but as you indicated, you received an education this evening, let the buyer beware, as you’ve stated. You folks, in my opinion, have been more than willing to compromise, which indicates to me you’re more than willing to work with the Town, which indicates to me that you’d be running that kind of a good business. I have no problems with the proposed modifications, and based on the proposed modifications that the Chairman earlier stated, if you complied with the proposed modifications, I would be in favor of the application. MR. STONE-Roy? MR. URRICO-I have to admit, initially I was very concerned about the amount of signage that was there and the amount that is proposed. There is a glut in that particular area. Some of it’s not your doing. There are several interstate highway signs right along the curb there. So there could be a lot of confusion on the part of the driver, but this is an area that I know the Town’s concerned about the way it looks, and they’re making proposed changes, but it does seem like you’re willing to compromise. The perimeter pole is definitely coming out, and as long as the diesel sign is also taken care of, I think I can live with what you’re proposing. MR. STONE-Bob? MR. MC NALLY-I have no problem with the building sign. That’s within the Code. I got 28 square feet or so. I don’t have a problem with the canopy signs, but that is kind of the horse is really out of the barn. It’s kind of hard to justify us saying no to canopy signs when everybody else in the Town has one. The diesel sign has to be changed, certainly, but I’m still troubled by the size of the freestanding sign. It’s substantially larger than the Code would otherwise allow, and it’s only 15 feet from the property line. So it’s certainly going to congest the area. I’m not terribly fond of that. I think that they should make the sign compliant. I said before, when we talked about Midas, 150 feet from the road, I can understand some variance in that case. Here, they’re 15 feet from the road, and I think we should hold them to it. MR. STONE-Okay. Chuck? MR. MC NULTY-I think I can basically echo Bob. I don’t have a problem with building sign or the canopy signs. It strikes me the canopy signs are kind of standard, in any of the stations around. I have no problem with the diesel if it’s reduced to a directional size, and likewise, if they have to have something like that on the kerosene pumps. It would be nice to see the freestanding sign reduced to conform with the 50 square feet, and I would think that might be possible with some variation on the size of maybe the price signs or shrinking them a little bit top to bottom, if not bringing the poles in. MR. STONE-Okay. Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. The only sign that I would echo the same I would say the freestanding sign could be somewhat shrunk to a degree. It would make sense to do that at this point. The other signs seem fine to me. MR. STONE-So you’ve got the same concern. Okay. Norm? MR. HIMES-Thank you. Yes. I feel about the same as everyone else here, in terms of the freestanding sign. I think the area of the face of the building, the window dressing and all that you’ve got, I can’t find it in the book here, there’s something about the window signs and what’s, in the inside of the window or affixed to it on the inside. It’s awfully busy. I don’t know if that’s, you know, in keeping with the kind of signage that we’re expected to enforce. I hope you’d do something about that. I think you already said that most of the wall signs, you know, the beer and all that, are coming down, I guess. That’s the, other than that, I think I’d go along with the thing, as long as there’s the condition that something be done about all the busy signs on the front façade of the building. That’s all I have. Thank you. 42 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/27/00) MR. STONE-What to do, what to do. What I’m hearing, as a Board, that, at this point in time, is divided. I hear three people who are very concerned about the size of the freestanding sign, albeit it has been reduced in size from when you started out this evening. I see three people who say, as long as you clean up the property, and I think you’ve made comment you’ll clean the windows up and take down a lot of the extraneous signs that exist. Let me ask a question, before I go any further. Is there any further reduction that you could make in the sign, in the freestanding sign, to, right now you’re requesting 40% relief from our Sign Ordinance, from where we are, approximately 40%. It’s a number that I think a number of my fellow Board members are unhappy with. I don’t know what they would be happy with, but the ball’s sort of in your court right now. MR. MC NALLY-Fifty square feet sounds good. MR. STONE-Fifty square feet, going once. MR. MC NULTY-If they could make each of the three stripes for the pricing a foot high, that would reduce the pricing section to three feet, and if you could shave somewhere close to a foot off the Sunoco sign, that would bring you in conformance with still leaving the poles where they are. Because then you’d have about seven feet vertical and seven feet across. MS. BUSHWAY-What we’d really like to be able to do is maintain the sign base and the poles, if that’s possible. MR. STONE-That’s certainly possible. MS. BUSHWAY-No, I mean, from our point of view. MR. STONE-It’s physical. You don’t want to do a physical movement. MS. BUSHWAY-We’d like to put the existing panels in that. MR. UNDERWOOD-Is that just a standard size you use for all your stations? MS. BUSHWAY-Yes. MR. UNDERWOOD-If that’s the case, I would change my vote. I mean, I can’t see the sense of making them do something that’s extraordinarily different than, that seems a little bit overboard. MR. ABBATE-Yes. I would agree with him that if these are standard signs. MR. STONE-You said yes already. MR. ABBATE-Yes, I know, but I’m just. MR. BROWN-I think in this case, have they designed these signs to fit between the poles that are there already? MS. BUSHWAY-No. Actually, the sign manufacturer (lost words). MR. STONE-Standard width. All right, but is there any reduction in the size, I mean, can you raise the bottom up so that the sign, the total sign area is less? MS. BUSHWAY-We don’t know. MR. BARNES-We don’t know the answer to the question. See, what we have got here is you have your Sunoco sign and you have your three pricing panels. MS. BUSHWAY-For a seven foot width, and this information actually comes off the Internet. If we put in (lost words) that particular width, then the Sunoco panel that appears and the price panel that appears at those sizes. (Lost words) especially made (lost words) size. This is actually all one piece. I was thinking, well, it’s too bad we couldn’t just show the two signs, but it all comes as one. MR. STONE-I was wondering if you could drop one of the prices because they’re all, if you know one, you’re pretty close on the others. MR. URRICO-But most stations do have all three. MR. STONE-I agree. Jim, I’m not putting anybody on the spot, but, Jim, you said if it were a standard sign, you would change your vote to say yes? 43 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/27/00) MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, I think so. I mean, I think to request them to do something that’s, you know a one in a million or something, is a little. MR. STONE-Well, they don’t know whether it is or not. MR. UNDERWOOD-Right. MR. STONE-That’s the only question here. MR. UNDERWOOD-I’m sure they come in bigger sizes. MR. ABBATE-Good point. Point well made. MR. BARNES-They come in bigger sizes, but if we can use the poles, the existing poles, it makes a lot of sense. MR. STONE-This is the sign that’s been there. You’ve taken out one panel. How much have you added? MR. BARNES-No, we took out some stuff. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. BARNES-I’ve got it here. MR. URRICO-It looks much better now than. MR. STONE-Does that help anybody? MR. ABBATE-Yes, there’s a heck of a reduction. MR. URRICO-Do you have an “ATM Inside” sign, too? MS. BUSHWAY-Right now, that has been replaced with a “Sunoco Coming” sign. MR. STONE-But that wouldn’t be in the new one. MS. BUSHWAY-That’s going to be gone. MR. STONE-The diesel is going, too. I’ll take these prices, too. MR. MC NALLY-There was no permit for this sign. MR. BROWN-There may be. I didn’t come across a permit for it, but I didn’t come across a variance for it. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. BROWN-It may have been permitted in 1985, before there were any limitations on the signs, but there’s certainly been no relief granted for an oversized sign. MR. STONE-Okay, but if it were a permitted sign then, just because you’re changing the panels that are in there doesn’t mean it’s not a permitted sign. MR. BROWN-Well, if you look closely in the Sign Ordinance, there’s an amortization paragraph that says any time after 10 years that this Ordinance has been adopted, all signs, all nonconforming signs, and that expired 15 years ago. MR. STONE-Yes, we did that with signs, you’re right. MS. BUSHWAY-The plans that we got from Champlain Oil were dated in 1997, for the application for the restrooms, and there was also on that plan the request to move the existing sign to its current position, which would assume that there was either a variance at that time, or a permit to move that sign and to erect that sign. MR. BROWN-I didn’t come across it. MR. STONE-Well, let’s continue. Looking at this sign which has been there, I believe that the sign that you’re proposing with the amendments tonight, taking out that one panel, is going to be 44 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/27/00) considerably smaller than the one, whether or not there was a permit for it. I think I can go along with this variance request for a sign that would be 70., whatever it is, I’ve got it now, 70. some square feet. So, having said that, I will call for a motion to approve the variance as amended. MR. MC NULTY-Before you do that, Mr. Chairman. MR. STONE-We’ve got to do that. Right. Thank you. All of you have considered the environmental impact of this particular variance that we’re granting. MR. ABBATE-Yes. MOTION THAT A REVIEW OF THE SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM SHOWS THERE ARE NO NEGATIVE IMPACTS CAUSED BY THIS PROJECT, Introduced by Lewis Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Abbate: Duly adopted this 27 day of September, 2000, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Abbate, Mr. Urrico, Mr. McNally, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Himes, Mr. Stone NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Bryant, Mr. Hayes MR. STONE-All right, Jim. MOTION TO APPROVE SIGN VARIANCE NO. 86-2000 SANDRI REALTY, INC./SUNOCO STATION, EXIT 20, Introduced by James Underwood who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roy Urrico: Route 9, North of Exit 20, I-87. The applicant proposes the removal and replacement of a freestanding building and canopy signs. Relief required, the applicant proposes to maintain one freestanding sign totaling 70.84 square feet, also to include two signs on the canopy, one on each side, north and south, and a third sign over on the building, Sandri Stop Smart. The applicant seeks 20.84 square feet of relief of the freestanding sign. The benefit to the applicant, the applicant would be permitted to construct and display the desired signs in the preferred locations. Feasible alternatives, they have reduced the size of the freestanding sign down, although it’s a little bit over what we would expect, it seems to be reasonable. It will include compliant signage elsewhere, and removal of the signage in the windows, also the changing of the diesel pumps so it just says diesel with no pricing on the top of that sign. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance? While the single freestanding sign and the single wall sign may be interpreted as moderate, but they’re within the realm of what we expect. The effects on the neighborhood or community? We don’t expect that there will be anything other than moderate effects. The signs, from the original one that was there from the last proprietor of the station, was considerably larger. This will be more compliant with what we expect. Is this difficulty self-created? The difficulty may be interpreted as self-created, as the applicant is now changing the signage to be in compliance more so with the Sign Ordinance than what was proposed originally. Also, the motion would include the withdrawal of the second freestanding sign. It should be noted that the freestanding sign has been reduced in size from 88.55 square feet down to 70.84. Duly adopted this 27 day of September, 2000, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Himes, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Stone NOES: Mr. McNally ABSENT: Mr. Bryant, Mr. Hayes MR. STONE-There you go. MR. BARNES-Thank you very much. MR. STONE-Did we have some minutes from last month? CORRECTION OF MINUTES September 13, 2000: Page 25, third line down, “car garage, and I have the financial resources to deal with that”, s/b and you have the financial resources to deal with that 45 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/27/00) MOTION TO ADOPT THE MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF SEPTEMBER 13, 2000 AS REVISED, Introduced by Lewis Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Abbate: Duly adopted this 27 day of September, 2000, by the following vote: th MR. HIMES-I have a question, Mr. Chairman. There’s one comment here that’s not awfully important, that’s in here, that I’d just as soon have corrected, but it doesn’t effect the legality or anything. So I don’t know whether we need to bother with it. MR. STONE-Go ahead, correct it. That’s all right. MR. HIMES-Okay. It’s probably my fault because I seldom talk into the microphone. It’s on Page 25, third line down, it says, starts with “car garage and I have the financial resources to deal with that”. What I said was and you have the financial resources to deal with that. So I’d like to clarify. MR. STONE-All right. Would you make the correction on line three, the word “I”, the only I in the line will be changed to “you”. All right. I move that we accept the minutes as revised. AYES: Mr. Abbate, Mr. McNally, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Himes, Mr. Stone NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood ABSENT: Mr. Bryant, Mr. Hayes MR. STONE-Okay. MR. BROWN-Mr. Chairman, before you move to adjourn, you may want to check if there’s any further business for the Board. MR. STONE-Is there any further business? RICH ATKINSON MR. ATKINSON-We were hoping to speak to you privately after the meeting regarding something that came up at last week’s meeting. MR. STONE-Okay. Privately? We certainly can do that. MR. ATKINSON-I mean, if you wouldn’t mind listening to us all together. MR. STONE-No, no. Go ahead. Please come up. Thank you, Craig. MR. ATKINSON-My name is Rich Atkinson. I live at 6 Dorset Place, and this is in regard to the matter that came up regarding Prospect School, and the possibility of removing the fence and the bushes. Unfortunately, I was not able to attend the meeting. I was out of town on business. As you can see, I do that too often. I’m just back from Boston tonight. We were very unhappy about the decision that the Board made. I realize it’s a matter of slight importance to you, but we really like our back yard. We like our view from our back yard. We especially like our view of the mountains from our back yard. You have effectively removed that for us. The vegetation you are calling for is basically going to grow tall enough that we’re not going to see anything anymore, which was the reason that we initially went to the School and asked if they would bring this back before the Board for reconsideration. When we brought up the whole thing regarding the noise from the playground, it was never our intention to have a wall, bushes, any sound restriction applied. We were hoping for, first of all, an assurance that the new construction was going to consist of not classrooms but the office space that had been discussed, and that did, in fact, come up at the meeting, and we were hoping maybe for a slight restriction on the hours that the playground was used, something like that. As I stated in the letter that was read at the meeting last time, what did come out of it is, as you probably could guess from the fact that the School came back to you last week, was a very good working relationship with Prospect School, to the point now where I feel that if we have a problem I can go to Larry Gouge and directly and we can work something out. We certainly never wanted to have the view out the back of our house blocked, either by a fence or by bushes. The bushes that are being required at this point, my wife spoke to Dick Jones yesterday, and he stated to her that a lot of the bushes are now going to be concentrated back behind our house on the grounds that, you know, there are really only two neighbors effected, us and the Sarti’s who live next door to us. Everybody else, yes, they’re in the neighborhood, but, you know, the properties adjoining the School. 46 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/27/00) MR. STONE-You’re the one right to the north? MR. ATKINSON-I’m terrible with directions. I’m the one who’s right behind the playground. I mean, if you stand in their site plan and if you look through their cyclone fence, you’re looking at my house. We are directly behind them. There are two properties directly behind that playground, ours and our neighbor’s, and our neighbor has a stockade fence that runs the entire length of his property. With that in mind, Mr. Jones has decided that, you know, basically, the majority of the bushes need to be behind our house. We don’t want them at all, and now he’s going to stuff them all back behind our house and even more effectively cut off the view than it was going to be cut off already. We were hoping, basically, for a chance to be heard again. My Number One request would be that the bushes be removed all together. We really don’t want them. I, frankly, don’t see that they’re going to be particularly effective. If you have some outstanding objection to that, at the very least we were hoping we could minimize it, make them shorter bushes, something where we would still have, you know, some semblance of a view from our yard. With the existing restrictions, I don’t see that that’s going to happen. MR. STONE-You have to keep in mind that we’re not to hurt you. We thought we were acting in good faith. MR. ATKINSON-I understand that. MR. STONE-The request that you made, and there’s only certain things that we can talk about with them. I mean, we thought that doing that would be what you wanted. When we heard that you were unhappy with that, I think all of us said, okay, we still think the trees are good, but the fence, we recognize the fence could go. Now, I don’t recall ever hearing, and if I’m wrong, my Board will tell me, I don’t recall anybody talking about views of mountains, and that we were going to do any adverse effect on. MR. ATKINSON-Actually, I believe that was mentioned in one of the two letters that were read into the minutes. MR. STONE-I don’t recall. I just recall that you were saying you’ve been, thank you, but no thanks, you’ve been too restrictive, in terms of your mitigation, or you’ve mitigated too much, and so, our judgement was to reduce that. You’re saying, now, that you would like it reduced even more. The only thing that I can say about that is that I think we said it last week, is we have to think of the future. The future is a long way, in terms of, because what we asked them to do will be forever, and you’re not always going to be in that house, and so that’s where we were coming from. I’m not saying I agree or disagree with what you’re saying, but I think that’s what we were talking about. That’s why we got to where we did. Now, I don’t know the procedure, Craig. If we wanted to, could we consider it again? MR. BROWN-I think a large portion of that would be, does Prospect want to bring it back in front of you again. They’re the applicant that received your decision, and it would be up to them to request that you review it again. MR. ABBATE-We’re talking about standing here. MR. MC NALLY-Let me ask you this. We didn’t tell this Prospect School to dump all the bushes on your particular yard. So I don’t know where you get the idea that they’re going to suddenly take all the bushes that were there and concentrate them. MR. ATKINSON-Well, not all of them, but we got an indication from Dick Jones the Architect that the current plan that he has is to, I believe his word was concentrate them. MR. MC NALLY-That’s his own idea right there. The second thing we did was we agreed, I think as you requested, to get rid of the wall, the fence, because you didn’t want that. The idea was to put some screening further back, and we told them to actually move the bushes back off of your property line. Now, these bushes are, what, four, five feet tall? MR. BROWN-Yes, I think there was a minimum height you asked for. MR. STONE-Yes, there was. MR. MC NALLY-What are we talking about as far as a view? Are we talking about the mountains in the distance, or are we looking right down into the School yard? What is the view you observe? MR. ATKINSON-The view of the mountains. MR. MC NALLY-So, I mean, is a four foot bush going to kill you? 47 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/27/00) MR. ATKINSON-If it was a four foot bush, no, it wouldn’t, but the arborvitae that they’re talking about putting in, first of all, we’ve been informed by Mr. Jones that the height that they’re being purchased at is five feet, and they’re going to grow substantially taller than that, and that is where our view goes away. Now, if there have to be bushes there, I know there’s a secondary variety of arborvitae that’s no more expensive, that grows to a maximum height of around four or five feet. I mean, if we have to have bushes, I would be, you know, willing to say, well, fine, put those. I mean, if you’re blocking the noise from three foot high people, I think four or five foot high bushes ought to do it. MR. MC NALLY-But if you want bushes there, the reason it was there is to buffer the School from the rest of the neighborhood. That’s the only reason. MR. STONE-At the request, we thought, of the neighbors MR. ATKINSON-Well, as I say, our original intention was much slighter than it taken to be, which could very well have been overzealousness on my part in stating my case, and, you know, I was afraid of being ignored and instead ended up with far more than I ever wanted. MR. ABBATE-Mr. Chairman, I’m not so sure this is a matter that should come before this Board, quite frankly. MR. STONE-Well, that’s what we’re trying to find out. MR. ABBATE-Yes, well, in my opinion, it doesn’t. He has no standing. MR. MC NALLY-We made the decision, though. So it’s certainly before this Board. MR. STONE-We made the decision to listen to him. MR. ABBATE-By all means. MR. ATKINSON-I read the minutes from last week’s meeting, and there was a substantial discussion as to whether or not the School had standing, and the discussion seemed to center around the idea that I did and the School didn’t, and then eventually it was decided that, you know, in as much as they were the applicant, they did. I was hoping, based on that decision, that maybe I did have standing, based on the comments that were made at last week’s meeting. MR. MC NALLY-To have standing to grieve or file an Article 78 proceeding. MR. ABBATE-Right, that’s what I was leading to. MR. MC NALLY-As a practical matter, the man’s asking for our opinion on the bushes. MR. STONE-How does one appeal, it’s an Article 78 to appeal our decision. MR. BROWN-That’s correct. MR. STONE-Through the courts. Because we can’t rule our own appeal. MR. BROWN-That’s right. MR. ATKINSON-On the other hand, the advice that I’ve gotten so far is, first of all it would be extraordinarily expensive, because I’m having to get a lawyer and go to court, and second of all, the thing would have to be based, not on the fact that my view is going away, but on some technicality of the law stating that you somehow erred in making your decision or that you were somehow outside of your legal capabilities of doing so. MR. STONE-That we were arbitrary and capricious, is about the only way you could do it. MR. ATKINSON-Right, and I have seen enough of the workings of this Board to realize that that’s not likely to be a real good chance. MR. STONE-We are not arbitrary and capricious. MR. ABBATE-We try not to be. MR. STONE-We try not to be is right. 48 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/27/00) MR. ATKINSON-In fact, when I said I wanted to speak to you privately, what it was basically was to ask, could we bring it back another time. MR. MC NALLY-We could vote, unanimously, for reconsideration. MR. STONE-If the applicant requests it. MR. BROWN-If there is an application presented to the Board requesting a certain modification to a previously approved determination by the Board. MR. STONE-We have to approve unanimously to consider it. Correct. MR. BROWN-You didn’t last time. MR. ABBATE-That’s how it reads, unanimous agreement. MR. STONE-To consider it again, and then we’d have to consider it. It would be two votes. MR. ABBATE-Lew’s right. MR. MC NALLY-We’re off the record? MR. STONE-No. MR. MC NALLY-We’re on the record. MR. ABBATE-Are we on the record? MR. BROWN-We’re on the record. MR. ABBATE-We are? Okay. That’s okay. MR. HIMES-I’d like to ask the applicant, or the visitor. You’re acquainted with the School, the Superintendent or whatever his title is, Jones is it? Have you talked to him about substituting the alternate kind of bushes or trimming the height? MR. STONE-You said you had a good relationship going. MR. ATKINSON-I have a good relationship with Larry. MR. STONE-Why don’t you talk with them, tell them where you’re coming from, and say that, as far as we’re concerned, we can’t act. We told them what to do. They’re the only people who can ask for relief, from what we told them to do. MR. MC NALLY-Can they just ask for reconsideration? They don’t have to show up, just ask for it? One, two, three, be done with it? Get rid of the bushes, or do you want some bushes but not as many as they’re proposing? What are we talking about? MR. ATKINSON-I have basically two proposals. Number One, which would be my number one choice and the thing that I would most like to see, is just leave their property the way it is right now, with the exception of the new addition, no bushes, no fence, just leave everything the way it is. MR. STONE-The four footers. MR. ATKINSON-Right. In fact, technically speaking, it would still fit within the decision you’ve already made, because they are, in fact, arborvitae. They’re just a different variety, which happen to grow to a smaller height. However, when informed of that, Mr. Jones did not feel that that was something he was going to do, that he already had his plans cast in stone and was going for the big ones, and planned on buying them at five feet, so on and so forth, in compliance with the two to three inch circumference that was specified by the Board. MR. STONE-We understand. MR. MC NULTY-If we were to consider it again, this time I really would want to hear from everybody in the neighborhood. MR. ABBATE-Absolutely right. 49 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/27/00) MR. MC NULTY-Because sound is the kind of thing that sometimes will skip over one house and bother the next one, and I’d want to make sure if we remove this that we’re making. MR. ABBATE-We don’t want this coming up the fifth or sixth or twelfth time. MR. MC NULTY-Right, we want to know for sure what the impact is and who’s for and who’s against it. MR. ATKINSON-The only thing about that is it’s, believe it or not, largely a matter of indifference to the rest of the neighborhood. If you go back to the minutes of the original meeting on June 21, st there were basically only three people who spoke, two of them live in my house, my wife and myself, and our next door neighbor spoke, and that was the entire group of people who spoke in favor of some relief from zoning. This is a copy of a letter which I believe you already saw last week, which was signed by four of the other neighbors. MR. MC NALLY-Was that the Cuniff? MR. ATKINSON-That would be the Cuniff’s, that would be the Sarti’s. Mr. Sarti was the other person who spoke, actually not on June 21, but at a meeting before that when you were actually st considering the development on the south side of Aviation Road, but, in fact, my wife and I were the only ones who spoke on June 21. The rest of the neighbors have indicated that it makes no st difference to them whatsoever and that was basically what was just brought up to me was a copy of the letter that you’ve already seen signed by the people on either side of us, and further up the block. MR. STONE-The only thing, we cannot act on the basis of your request. I don’t think, I mean, that’s my interpretation, but if you get them to, the Prospect School, to write a letter to me, to Staff, we can take it up at the next meeting, except that you’re concerned about the rest of the neighbors. MR. MC NULTY-Yes, I think somehow somebody should be making an effort to, once again, contact the other neighbors, because it’s always the silent ones that come back later with a problem. So even though only a few have shown up at any of the meetings to speak, we don’t want somebody showing up later and saying, I didn’t know you were going to do that. MR. STONE-Craig, could we make a mailing to 1,000 people? MR. BROWN-Well, yes, I mean, we’re required to do 500. MR. STONE-We’re required to do 500. Could we do 1,000, so we get a little wider and say, explain what we’re going to do? It doesn’t have to be legalese. MR. BROWN-Yes. I mean, I think we could impress that upon the applicant to do that. I mean, that’s, it’s going to be their request. We should have them do that, logistically, but you want to keep in mind that you’ve addressed a noise mitigation and a visual mitigation effect for a project, that’s probably going to effect 100 people, potentially effect 100 people. You’ve got five people that are complaining about it, granting they’re the adjacent property owners. They’re probably the most aggrieved, if they are so, but keep in mind it’s there not just for them. It’s there for everybody else, and you need to consider that. MR. STONE-Well, that’s what I think Chuck was saying. MR. MC NULTY-Exactly. MR. BROWN-A condition of, put it in along this property line, as long as the adjacent owners agree with it. I don’t think that would even work, because you’ve got the next row of houses over that it might effect. So, granted they’re very serious concerns that Mr. Atkinson has, that he could potentially be losing a view. I’m glad I don’t have to make this decision. MR. STONE-I would propose, as the Chairman, that, one, that you approach Prospect School. You tell them to write us a letter. We will give them the conditions under which we will do it, and one of the conditions, listening to Mr. McNulty here, and I agree, that we survey a wider area of people, within, I’ll write a letter to them explaining what we’ve done, why we’ve done it, and here’s what’s being requested of us to mitigate this thing. Please, you have one chance, and we’ll give them whatever date it’s going to be. You have one chance to come and yes or no, and then we will do whatever we’re going to do, and I don’t know what we’re going to do, but we’ll do whatever we’re going to do. I mean, we listen to you, and I hear that, I appreciate your concern. We still may say, we’ve got to think about the next 50 years. I can’t speak for the Board until we talk about it. MR. HIMES-Maybe not in connection with this particular instance, but I’m just concerned about whether or not there could be some kind of a precedent set here that even if it went no further, that 50 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/27/00) contact people and re-open old wounds or someone may have changed their mind about something, and this could really, I’m wondering if this could possibly, when you get all the people in here, create a forum where something else has got to come up that will make this very complicated, getting away from what we try to do, what seems to be good Samaritans at the last meeting, rather than. MR. STONE-Both times. MR. ABBATE-Both times. MR. HIMES-Rather than a strict zoning, in the spirit of things, you know, we went along with what everybody seemed to want to be done, including yourself, we thought, from the letter that was written in, as I recall it, and too bad that, with your letter, which I think we acted upon, that was read into the record, along with what the School and their representatives presented to us. It’s, again, I’m sorry it has to happen in this instance, but at some point, we have to say, well, it’s over, unless there’s some very substantive problem, or something has been overlooked, by where all the parties feel it’s justified to take the matter up again, and, you know, in this particular instance, I’m always trying to help somebody get what they want. You’ve got trees there. This stuff isn’t going to grow any higher than the trees, I don’t think. The School has certainly, and I’m going to go further than what I wanted to say to you about the precedent matters, but the School may agree to saying, okay, we’ll put in the other things, or we’ll trim the or perhaps I would certainly like to see those explored, but even in the event that there’s not cooperation from the School, which they have promised that they would try to do, to the best of their ability with all the neighbors, and you’re certainly a close one. So in the spirit of that would indicate that they would try to do something to take care of your problem, your concern. So I would feel that we’re stepping into dangerous ground if we proceed with this thing, or encourage, I should say. MR. STONE-I’m not sure I agree with that, either. I think we have to go to, a number of us, on occasion, when we’ve been faced with an issue of somebody built something, but without getting a variance, and one of the questions we all ask ourselves is, what would I have done if the person had come to us with clean hands, and this is kind of like that, because the question is, what would I have done with the request of the Prospect School for the variance they requested, if I had not heard from you and the other neighbors with a concern. Would I have even thought, for example, I’ll be honest, would I have even thought of mitigation? That’s why we have public hearings, is to get input from the public. Because we’re smart, at least we think so, but we don’t necessarily take all factors into consideration. MR. ABBATE-Let me ask a procedure now. Didn’t I read somewhere, and help me out, Staff, that in order to consider either revocation or nullification of the previous vote, it must be a unanimous vote by the Board? MR. STONE-That is correct. MR. ABBATE-Okay. So before we do anything, if this comes up, there’s got to be a vote. MR. STONE-That’s what I said. There’s got to be two votes. One at one meeting to reconsider, and then if we say yes, then we have to advertise, correct, Craig, and notify everybody? I would think. MR. BROWN-I know that you have to come to a unanimous decision to re-hear an appeal. I’m not certain on decisions. I know an appeal you have to have a unanimous decision. MR. STONE-Well, this is an appeal from our. MR. BROWN-No. MR. STONE-It would be. MR. BROWN-A determination made on an appeal of a Zoning Administrator’s decision. MR. STONE-Yes, that’s. MR. BROWN-That’s a definite, you have to do that. I don’t know the answer to the unanimous decision. MR. MC NALLY-When an applicant comes in, and proposes a new plan, we don’t have to consider it unless we believe he’s got a substantial modification requirement. MR. ATKINSON-Can I ask you a question? 51 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/27/00) MR. STONE-Yes. MR. ATKINSON-One of the problems that I’ve got at the moment is we were hoping that we could talk to Mr. Jones and make some kind of arrangement that would mitigate the problem that we feel we’re going to have, and the answer that we’re getting is that basically your decision was so strictly explicit, as far as how far apart, where and how, that he is completely handcuffed as far as what Mr. Himes was talking about, you know, well, you know, we could work something out with the School. At least Mr. Jones’ feeling is, no, we can’t, that we can’t talk about the height of the bushes because they’ve already been specified as a certain circumference, you know, and a certain offset and so on and so forth, that he has no leeway to say, well, we could fudge it a little this way or that way to give you some relief within the Board’s existing decision. MR. STONE-I applaud his feelings, but he is not the, he is only one of the agents who appeared before us. Certainly the Director of the School was here and his attorney, and, to me, Bob, let me ask you a question. Attorney take precedent as agent? Does an attorney take precedent as the agent? MR. MC NALLY-An attorney can bind his client, only to the extent he’s (lost words). MR. STONE-I would talk to the Director of the School, because right now we have nothing on which to act. I mean, we hear you, and we know you’re here, and we know you’re concerned, but we can act on that. We just can’t pick it up, on our own, and say, let’s do it, because we need, what we’ve done affects somebody else, and they’re the people who have to ask us. I mean, that’s my understanding of it anyway. MR. ABBATE-Yes, and I think your statement is a correct statement, and a fair statement. MR. ATKINSON-To be honest with you, it was actually in a discussion that I had with Larry Gouge, he was the one that suggested that I come and talk to you, to you personally, to get your feeling on whether it could be brought back. MR. STONE-Okay. Well, you were looking for direction, and we’re giving you direction. MR. BROWN-Well, at the same time, you know, and it was before Mr. Atkinson made that comment, but Prospect School, just to think on the other side of the page, but Prospect School may want that mitigation in there, so they don’t receive complaints in the future. They may want that. You have to think about both sides. You can’t just pick it up, and, yes, they have to be the ones that initiate. MR. STONE-They have to be the one. So if you’ve got dialogue going with them, see what they want to do. MR. ATKINSON-Okay, and I just want to clarify one point. If I’m understanding you correctly, they wouldn’t necessarily have to appear again with the lawyer, with the architect. It would be sufficient for them to make the request that I could bring it up with you? I know one of the things that Larry is looking at is, you know, the cost of coming back again, having to pay the lawyer and the architect and, you know, as you as you mentioned in the minutes of the last meeting, they’re not free. MR. STONE-Well, we certainly don’t need the architect, but I think we need them to be here, somebody has to be here. MR. BROWN-I think it’s reasonable if Prospect School wants to designate Mr. Atkinson as their agent, they could do that and give him permission to come and speak for them. MR. STONE-Yes. MR. MC NULTY-Except I think we need to hear from Prospect School, the point that maybe Prospect School, for their own reasons, might want these trees there. MR. STONE-Well, I assume that if they want them, they’ll be here. MR. ABBATE-Because we’ve reached a point now where we have to entertain all bodies, otherwise it will be capricious. MR. MC NULTY-Right. MR. STONE-I would, I think Craig is correct. I mean, agents can come from anywhere, so to speak. They could designate you, on their application, for reconsideration, if you would, as their agent to make the presentation, assuming they agree with your position that you’re going to espouse. Because obviously you’re going to espouse your position, and they better be comfortable with it. 52 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/27/00) MR. BROWN-And at the same time, the Board could have questions for the School that maybe the agent couldn’t answer accurately. MR. STONE-I think that the Director, at a minimum, should be here. I don’t think they have to pay anything more than his comp time, if you will. MR. ATKINSON-Okay. I’ll take it up with him tomorrow. MR. ABBATE-Sure. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. ATKINSON-Thank you very much for your time. MR. STONE-You’re welcome. I move we adjourn. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Lewis Stone, Chairman 53