Loading...
2001-07-25 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/25/01) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SECOND REGULAR MEETING JULY 25, 2001 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT PAUL HAYES, ACTING CHAIRMAN CHARLES MC NULTY, SECRETARY ROBERT MC NALLY CHARLES ABBATE NORMAN HIMES JAMES UNDERWOOD, ALTERNATE ROY URRICO, ALTERNATE MEMBERS ABSENT LEWIS STONE ALLAN BRYANT CODE COMPLIANCE OFFICER-CRAIG BROWN CODE COMPLIANCE OFFICER-BRUCE FRANK STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. HAYES-Good evening. At this time I would like to call the July 25, 2001 meeting of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals to order. NEW BUSINESS: NOTICE OF APPEAL NO. 2-2001 JOHN, JR. AND KATHLEEN A. SALVADOR APPELLANT IS APPEALING THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR’S JUNE 1, 2001 DETERMINATION (ACTION, DECISION AND/OR RULING) THAT A NEW SUBDIVISION APPLICATION IS NECESSARY FOR SUBDIVISION APPLICATION NO. 7-2000. LOCATION: ALEXY ROAD TAX MAP NO. 10-1-17.3 JOHN, JR. & KATHLEEN SALVADOR, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Notice of Appeal No. 2-2001, John, Jr. & Kathleen A. Salvador, Meeting Date: July 25, 2001 “Description: The appellants is appealing with regards to the content of a June 1, 2001 letter from the Zoning Administrator. Information requested: Apparently, the appellant believes that the June 1, 2001 letter from the Zoning Administrator states that a new subdivision application would be necessary. Staff comments: The position of the Zoning Administrator has been and is that additional information can be submitted in order to further the current, incomplete subdivision application and that no new application is necessary.” MR. HAYES-Thank you. Mr. Salvador. MR. SALVADOR-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We’re here tonight because, as you’ve said, we received a letter from Chris Round on June 1, stating that it was necessary for us to submit a new st subdivision application. We take issue with that, as you read in the correspondence. More importantly, though, as we review this, our Sketch Plan was approved by the Town, by Staff, I should say, and on September 20 of last year, Chris Round advised us that a Preliminary plan would be th reviewed by the Planning Board on September 28. Subsequent to that he advised us that the th application was incomplete, and that the hearing on the 28 would be tabled. Since that time, we’ve th been trying to, and you know we’ve been before you once before on this issue of our subdivision, we’ve been trying to get our application in the correct channel. Our problem is this. We’ve been trying to conform to a procedure that was given to us by the Planning Department, wherein there is a step by step procedure we must go through, before we can get to the Planning Board. We can’t get to the Planning Board with our application before it’s deemed complete by Staff. It says so here. Applications must be complete to be placed on an agenda. This procedure has been put out by the Planning Staff, and it does not conform, in any way, shape or manner, to the Subdivision ordinance. The Subdivision ordinance allows an applicant to go directly to the Planning Board. The procedure is laid out here. There’s absolutely no provision, in this Subdivision ordinance, for Staff to stand between us and the Planning Board, and that’s what’s been going on for the last year. We can’t get to the Planning Board with our arguments. Every time we’re blocked, we’re stopped and this is the 1 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/25/01) latest instance, saying a new application is now necessary. I don’t think it is. So, I would be very happy if I could submit a new Sketch Plan, as I said, but it should be submitted in accordance with the procedure in the Subdivision ordinance, and that’s to the Planning Board. Now there’s a long list of requirements for Sketch Plan. It’s laid out in great detail in the ordinance, and it’s not difficult. If you need a waiver from that, you can ask the Planning Board for it. That’s the procedure, but because of this procedure written, attention, all applicants, please note that the Town of Queensbury Zoning and Subdivision of Land Codes contain many requirements that potentially affect a project. Effective immediately, all applicants must meet with Staff for a pre-application conference prior to completing your application and submitting it to the Community Development Department for processing. What happens here is Staff is designing these projects. That’s what’s happening. You don’t get past this hurdle, you don’t get to submit an application, until Staff agrees with it, and that’s not in accordance with the Ordinance. So when I say I want to submit a new Sketch Plan, it would be in accordance with this, the purpose of the Sketch Plan review submittal is to provide a cursory review of the proposed subdivision to determine a lot of things. That is before the Planning Board, not Staff. So that’s our position, and we think we should be allowed to proceed in accordance with the Subdivision ordinance. MR. HAYES-Thank you. Does Staff have an explanation as to, can you clarify that issue for us? MR. BROWN-Well, I’m not sure how much of Mr. Salvador’s arguments pertain to the appeal at hand. I think the appeal at hand is requesting relief, if you will, from a statement made by the Zoning Administrator that he needs a new application. I think in the June 1 letter that was st referenced in the appeal, there isn’t a statement that you need a new application. It said, we understand you’re going to prepare a new application. It doesn’t say it’s required. It doesn’t say the old one’s dead. It doesn’t say you can’t submit additional information, and I think that’s been the position, it still is the position. You could add information to the old application, and no new application is necessary, necessary. If you wanted to, that’s fine. It’s not necessary. MR. SALVADOR-I addressed Mr. Round. I answered his letter of June 1. Is that on the record? st MR. BROWN-It was part of the Appeal? MR. SALVADOR-Yes. I attached it to the Appeal. MR. HAYES-Would you read that letter into the record, please. MR. HIMES-June 6? th MR. SALVADOR-June 6, the last paragraph, I think. th MR. MC NULTY-Okay. Let’s read that letter in. It’s addressed to Mr. Chris Round. It’s dated June 6, 2001, and signed by John Salvador, Jr. It says, “Dear Chris: Thank you for your letter dated June 1, post marked June 4 and received by us on June 6, concerning Subdivision No. 7-2000. You are incorrect in your assumption that we will be submitting a new subdivision application. To date the Planning Board has denied a single waiver request – that on May 29 dealing with the density calculation. The Planning Board has yet to approve, deny or approve with conditions, Subdivision Application No. 7-2000 simply because the application remains incomplete. Before establishing a basis to complete said application, it has become necessary for us to obtain the Town’s interpretation of the applicable regulations. This is sometimes a lengthy process. Based on our presentation at the Planning Board hearing on May 29 and in accordance with procedures established in Town Code A- 183 and the Board’s denial of our Waiver Request, we are now preparing a new Sketch Plan that we intend to submit by the end of June. We would appreciate hearing of your concurrence that our Subdivision Application No. 7-2000 is still active and that our advancement of this project will not necessitate a new Subdivision Application. We await your positive response. Yours truly, John Salvador, Jr.” MR. HAYES-Thank you. Does anyone have any questions for Mr. Salvador? MR. ABBATE-May I, please? MR. HAYES-Sure. MR. ABBATE-Thank you. Good evening, folks. Mr. Salvador, I agree with you in that a new application is not required. Not only do I agree with you, but it seems as though our Town Attorney agrees with you as well. If that’s the case, then, and if you couple that with Staff comments, that additional information can be submitted in order to further the current incomplete subdivision application, that no new application is necessary, I’m not sure I understand what the problem is. 2 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/25/01) MR. SALVADOR-What do you call an application? What do you call the Sketch Plan? If a new Sketch Plan has to come in and go through this procedure, it’s essentially a new application. You just don’t call it that. It’s a new application. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Let me try it this way. I think we should be addressing your Appeal No. 2- 2001, and I think that the Town Attorney, as well as the Zoning Administrator, has addressed that, in that it’s fine. A new application is not required. Thank you. MR. HAYES-Is there anyone else that has a question for Mr. Salvador or Mrs. Salvador? I guess the only question I have for Staff is, as far as the Subdivision code, what are the requirements to submit, as far as the code is concerned? What are the requirements to submit? MR. BROWN-The Code does not require the pre-application meeting Mr. Salvador referenced. That’s a, if you’re familiar with the Subdivision process and the way the Planning Board reviews applications, you know that they need a certain amount of information. They want and require a certain amount of information to even act on an application. We have, in the past, up until about a year ago, taken Sketch Plan applications, forwarded them to the Board, and the Board says, what’s this? We don’t want to see these incomplete applications anymore. So we’ve developed a policy that all applicants need to meet with Staff. We determine the completeness. We don’t design the project. We say, hey, there’s enough information here to pass it on to the Planning Board, and at that point, we deem it complete and forward it to the Board. If the Board makes any changes, the applicant makes any changes they want, we don’t make changes. We just make sure that the information is complete enough to be prepared, or is prepared enough to be forwarded to the Board. MR. URRICO-Is that what’s contained in the document that Mr. Salvador refers to? MR. BROWN-Yes. I think what he had in there was the coversheets of all the applications that go before both the Zoning and Planning Board that require, our policy requires, our Department policy requires this pre-application meeting that says, we’d like to make sure they’re complete before you submit them, so we don’t have to reject it, tell you to come back next month. MR. HAYES-It saves steps. MR. ABBATE-Have you done that? MR. HAYES-Absolutely. MR. BROWN-Yes, absolutely. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Fine. I mean, that just kind of puts closure to what I’ve been saying then. MR. SALVADOR-So I passed that hurdle. MR. ABBATE-I’m addressing the Appeal No. 2-2001. You passed that hurdle, as far as I’m concerned. MR. SALVADOR-I’ve jumped that hurdle. Okay. I don’t have to go, it will not be necessary for me to get into a hopper that the only way I can get out of that hopper is a determination from the Zoning Administrator that my application is complete. That’s where we are. MR. MC NULTY-We’re not saying that. MR. HAYES-No. We’re not saying that. MR. MC NULTY-I hear your frustration, and I’ve been trying to think of a way to resolve it, and I haven’t so far. Because part of the problem has already been pointed out. What’s officially before us tonight is the question of whether or not you have to submit a new application, and the answer’s been made very abundantly clear, no, you don’t have to submit a new application, and what you’re really asking us now is to look at the policy or procedures of the Staff, arguing that that’s not fair to you. MR. SALVADOR-What I’m saying is, if you’re going to say I don’t need a new application, then if I go back and enter the process, in accordance with this, that is, defacto, a new application. MR. HAYES-No, you’re saying that. MR. MC NALLY-Every applicant that goes before the Town Planning Board is required to comply with the Town policy regarding what materials are necessary in order for an application to be complete. 3 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/25/01) MR. HAYES-To be heard. MR. MC NALLY-So you’re not having any special hurdle that anyone else doesn’t have, and it’s not a second application. The question is whether you have a complete application. A single complete application. Now you may disagree as to what is needed or what is not needed, but that is a matter for a different appeal in front of us. The application here is whether you have to have a separate application, not whether what you have in the application is complete, or whether you need a Sketch Plan or a Final plan. Those are discrete issues which if we had the materials in front of us, we had the issues in front of us, perhaps we could address, but I don’t think tonight we really have that in front of us, and I know for myself, I’d like to see your entire file. I’d like to see your entire plan. I’d like to see everything , and I don’t want to see just throw is against the wall, and isn’t this complete. I think it would have to be a discrete issue. Is a Sketch Plan adequate under the Town policies? Is the policy accurate? Is the policy lawful? MR. SALVADOR-The Town policy as expressed in the Zoning Ordinance, in the Subdivision ordinance, excuse me. MR. MC NALLY-Absolutely, but the Town is also entitled to have certain policies, separate and apart from ordinances and statutes, as far as how they address those things. There isn’t every rule written down in any State agency, in any municipal agency. The procedures people are expected to follow are promulgated in policies, informally. The question is reasonableness of it and whether it conflicts with the existing ordinance. MR. SALVADOR-The history of this application, with regard to completeness, has been a step by step performance, on our part, to meet the requirements, and to always bump into a determination by the Zoning Administrator the application is incomplete, for one reason or another, and we just keep going on and on and on with that. MRS. SALVADOR-They don’t see the whole picture. They see a corner of the picture, and then they say there’s another corner that has to be done. Let’s see the whole picture, and then we can do something. MR. HAYES-But I think I agree with Bob in that if you really are looking for that determination, you’re going to have to show us why the one corner that they’re identifying as being incomplete is, in fact, arbitrary or capricious, and that’s the only thing I can imagine. MR. MC NALLY-What you’re saying is the decision of the Zoning Administrator to require X is not appropriate, and our plan is complete without it, and you have to define what X is, that you’ve got or don’t have, and then we would look at it and decide. I mean, we’re open to the subject. I think that this application says, do we need a whole new application, though? It doesn’t sound right. Do you know what I mean? MR. SALVADOR-Okay. MR. HAYES-I guess, are you withdrawing your appeal or would you like us to make a motion? MR. SALVADOR-No. MR. HAYES-All right. Would anyone like to make a motion on this matter? MR. MC NALLY-I’ll make a motion. MOTION TO DENY NOTICE OF APPEAL NO. 2-2001 JOHN, JR. AND KATHLEEN A. SALVADOR, Introduced by Robert McNally who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Abbate: Alexy Road. The appellant is appealing a statement in a June 1, 2001 letter from the Zoning Administrator which seems to imply that a new application was required. As way of background, on May 29, 2001, an application by the Salvadors for a waiver was denied, and as a follow up, Mr. Round sent a letter saying that the application had been found incomplete, and then, in my opinion, incorrectly stating that a new application was required, and that was the reason why Mr. and Mrs. Salvador filed this appeal, and understandably so. In follow up letters of July 10, 2001, the Town Counsel advised that the pending application was still in existence. They didn’t have to file a new application, and that letter was confirmed on July 25, 2001, in a letter from Chris Round, assuring the Salvadors that they could supplement their application, and that an entirely new application was not necessary. The issue on this Appeal, then, is whether a new application is necessary. While I sympathize with the Salvadors, the issue is not whether the application is complete in any one particular way. I think that that is certainly something that the Salvadors could bring before this 4 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/25/01) Board, but it’s not here tonight, and in view of the correspondence of the Town to the Salvadors, I think the application that they’ve submitted, the Appeal that they’ve submitted, is moot, and therefore I would deny it, subject to the Salvador’s right, of course, to appeal again, as they see fit, but I would ask, if that ever did happen, that they be very specific in particular issues that they have, or want this Board to address, and I would also ask that they be on a complete record. Duly adopted this 25 day of July, 2001, by the following vote: th MR. BROWN-Excuse me. Just for clarification, and I know these appeals always getting confusing, whether you’re upholding or denying. MR. MC NALLY-We’re saying that the Salvador’s position is incorrect. MR. BROWN-Is incorrect? MR. HAYES-And the Zoning Administrator’s position is correct. MR. BROWN-I think their position is that they don’t need a new application. If you agree with that, you want to uphold their Appeal. MR. MC NALLY-Well, no. I’m going to deny it as moot, in the sense that the Town has explained that a new application is not required, and therefore deny it, not for anybody being right or wrong, but because the parties, at least with respect to the need for a new application, are on the same wavelength. MR. BROWN-Okay. MR. SALVADOR-I would just want the record to show that it became moot at about 11:00 o’clock this morning, when I received Chris Round’s letter of July 25. th MR. MC NALLY-Did you get Cathleen Radner’s letter? MR. SALVADOR-Yes. I sure did, and I don’t mind telling you I thought that was totally inappropriate. MR. MC NALLY-Were there any conversations going back and forth? MR. SALVADOR-Absolutely none. In fact, it took me more than a few days to receive that letter because it was addressed to a place where we no longer reside, but, you know, that, to me, when I received that letter, I couldn’t believe it. I just couldn’t believe that the Town’s Counsel sends me a letter directly. She’s certainly entitled to advise the Staff. That’s her job, but to directly address an applicant, to me, is totally out of order, but anyway, the point is it became moot this morning when I got that letter. MR. ABBATE-Thank you. MR. HAYES-At this time I’d like to open the public hearing on Appeal No. 2-2001. Is there anyone that would like to speak in favor of the Appeal? Is there anyone that would like to speak in opposition to the Appeal? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HAYES-We have a motion that’s been made. Do I have a second? MR. ABBATE-I’ll second it. AYES: Mr. Abbate, Mr. Urrico, Mr. McNally, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Himes, Mr. Hayes NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Stone, Mr. Bryant MR. HAYES-The Appeal is denied. 5 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/25/01) AREA VARIANCE NO. 51-2001 TYPE II PATRICK AND CANDICE SEILER AGENT: N/A OWNER OF PROPERTY: ZENGER, ROSS AND FINCH c/o SHENANDOAH FIBERGLASS ZONE: CR-15 LOCATION: 2 NEWCOMB STREET APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 26 FT. BY 40 FT. SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING WITH 8 FT. BY 10 FT. DECK AND SEEKS SETBACK RELIEF. OLD TAX MAP NO. 130-1-7 NEW TAX MAP NO. 309.10-1-73 LOT SIZE: 0.15 ACRES SECTION 179-24 PATRICK & CANDICE SEILER, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 51-2001, Patrick and Candice Seiler, Meeting Date: July 25, 2001 “Project Location: 2 Newcomb Street Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a 1040 sf single family dwelling. Relief Required: Applicant requests 16 feet of relief from the 50 foot minimum front setback requirement of the CR-15 zone, § 179-24. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be permitted to construct the desired home in the preferred location. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives may include a downsized proposal. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?: 16 feet of relief from the 50 foot requirement may be interpreted as moderate. 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 partially attributed to the existing configuration of the lot. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): None applicable Staff comments: Minimal impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action. The proposed construction appears to be a modest home with the living area above the garage, apparently to limit the size of the home in order to better fit on the lot. SEQR Status: Type II” MR. HAYES-Mr. and Mrs. Seiler, welcome. Is there anything you’d like to add to your application? MRS. SEILER-I think that says it all. MR. HAYES-Okay. I guess, at this point, is there any questions by the Board members for the Seilers? MR. HIMES-I have one for Craig. Should there be anything mentioned, Craig, in connection with the fact that 179-24 says that the lot size should be 15,000 square feet? MR. BROWN-It’s a pre-existing, nonconforming lot. MR. HIMES-Yes, but there’s no mention of that here, being, that is recognized by the ZBA, in the relief required part. MR. HAYES-It doesn’t require that relief. MR. HIMES-No. It’s just usually whenever we have nonconforming structures, and this that and the other, it’s pointed out. MR. BROWN-Yes, well, I don’t think this is a nonconforming structure we’re talking about, yet, until they build it. MR. HIMES-Which is even more substantive, it seems to me. Okay. All right. That’s all I had. MR. HAYES-Does anybody have any further questions? MR. ABBATE-I wonder if you could help me out, please. In the diagram Design GM-2, which is this diagram right here, it appears that there are three garages. Is that correct? MR. SEILER-Yes. That came from a magazine. I was going to change that and put in two garage doors. MR. ABBATE-Well, no, I’m just, are your current plans to utilize, are you going to construct your home according to this GM2-15031? That’s my question. MRS. SEILER-Except that it will be only a two car garage. MR. SEILER-There’ll be minor changes, the dimensions. MR. ABBATE-Okay. All right. Thank you very much. 6 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/25/01) MR. SEILER-You’re welcome. MR. HAYES-I guess I had a question as to, is there a reason why you don’t want to set the house further back into the lot to comply with the 50 foot setback? MR. SEILER-Well, it would eliminate the deck. It would eliminate the rear entrance. It has the living quarters above the second story. MR. HAYES-So that deck isn’t depicted as far as this drawing here. MRS. SEILER-No. Are you speaking of the dwelling above your hand, where your hand was? MR. HAYES-This one right here, right? MR. MC NALLY-The houses are removed from the lot. MRS. SEILER-There is nothing on that lot now. MR. HAYES-Right, it’s vacant. MR. MC NALLY-Craig, is it a 20 foot rear setback in this zone? MR. SEILER-The 20 foot rear setback is from the deck. MR. MC NALLY-They’re having a 30 foot wide driveway up front? What do you drive? MR. SEILER-Yes, well, for two cars. MR. MC NALLY-Okay. MR. HAYES-Are there any other questions for the applicant on this matter? Okay. I’ll open the public hearing. Anyone wishing to speak in favor of this application? Anyone wishing to speak opposed to this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. MC NULTY-We have correspondence. We have two pieces of correspondence or messages. One’s a telephone conversation. It occurred on 7/17, between the Planning Office and Denise Tartier, she lives at 42 Luzerne Road. Her property is in back of the subject property. She can’t make the meeting, but has no problem with the variance request. And the other is a letter dated June 18, addressed to the Board members, signed by Connie L. Fish, and she lists her address as 5, th 6, and 8 Newcomb Street, “I would like to take this opportunity to express my concerns, regarding the Public Hearing Notice, dated July 18, 2001. At this time, I feel that this application should be seriously reconsidered, as this building lot is much too small to accommodate a dwelling, with a septic system and decking. Also the proximity to the adjacent dwellings is quite close, in an already cramped neighborhood. I feel somewhat uncomfortable casting doubt on this project, as I personally have had to apply for several variances, some of which have been approved and some denied. However, I believe the difference being is that I have purchased homes already in “existence”, which did not meet the current building codes. I do not feel that it would be appropriate to “create” another dwelling on Newcomb Street, which will not meet the current codes and will no doubt have an adverse effect on this neighborhood. We will soon be feeling the squeeze from the Main Street corridor renovations, and the newly proposed industrial park on Veteran and Luzerne Roads. The key to my objection is that there are several “existing” vacant homes and lots, already for sale on Newcomb Street, which do meet the current building code requirements, or which variances could be applied for. Adding another inadequate building lot will only create a need for additional variances in the future. The proposed structure is quite small, and I foresee future variance application’s, should Mr. and Mrs. Seiler out grow their home. Also, Mr. and Mrs. Seiler could rent this proposed home and move into another larger home, which would leave this neighborhood with another dreaded rental! I have, in the last 7 years, had to purchase 3 additional parcels, two with rental homes (which remain vacant, but cared for) because of the undesirable tenants and landlords, who fail to keep the properties fit. I also felt the need to purchase the additional properties because these dwellings are very close (less than 30 feet from my front and back doors). Which created some very uncomfortable situations. Also, is this home a modular/trailer? If so my opinion is that there are already several modular/trailer homes located on Newcomb Street, which clearly can effect the value of my properties. Yes, in the past I have cast my approving vote for two of these trailers to be replaced by newer trailers, with a set back variance, but again….these homes were already in “existence” and were in desperate need of repair/replacement. Mr. and Mrs. Seiler, I apologize to you, as well as the property owners. However, I feel the need to protect my investments, as well as the neighborhood’s future. Thank you to the variance Board Members for 7 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/25/01) allowing me to express my concerns. Thank you again. Very truly yours, Connie L. Fish 5, 6, and 8 Newcomb Street Queensbury, NY 12804” MR. HAYES-If there’s no further correspondence, I’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HAYES-Let’s talk about it. Roy, would you like to tell us what you think? MR. URRICO-Well, until that letter there, I was pretty much in favor of the application. I do have some concerns about what she raises, and I guess the question that I have is that the model that you depict shows a three car garage apartment, and I guess I wonder, are your intentions to convert this to an apartment at some point? MR. SEILER-No. Our intention is to live in it. I run a mason business, and I will run that downstairs. MR. URRICO-Okay. Because, I mean, this could easily be converted to a two car garage/apartment. MR. SEILER-Certainly it can. A lot of houses can be. MRS. SEILER-But again, our family has grown. So we don’t feel we’re going to outgrow the house. MR. URRICO-That would be the only concern I have. I think, based on the weight of the evidence that I see here, in terms of the five criteria that we’re deemed to balance this against, I feel that there’s definitely a benefit to the applicant. There may be some feasible alternatives, but not very many. Is the relief substantial relative to the Ordinance? It’s kind of moderate. I really don’t think there’s going to be a whole lot of effect to the neighborhood or community. I think it’s a vacant lot right now that’s overgrown. It does not have a lot of aesthetics to it. I think this would have some aesthetics brought to the neighborhood, and is the difficulty self-created? Yes, it is, but I think partially it’s because of the configuration of the lot as it currently is. It’s kind of hard to anticipate what’s going to be down the road, and I think, based on what’s being brought before us right now, I would be in favor of it. MR. HAYES-One question before I proceed. The applicant’s expressed an interest in running his business out of that, and before we proceed, I’d like to know. MR. BROWN-Yes, that may present some difficulties for him. It’s not something we’ve discussed in the past, but the commercial residential zone allows for professional offices to be in conjunction with residences, but not so much commercial uses. If it’s his own home office, and he has his phone and fax machine there, that’s not a problem, but actual business operations there, you know, the mixers are there and you get delivery materials and customers are there, that’s not something that would be allowed in this zone. MR. SEILER-No, nothing like that. MR. BROWN-Okay. MR. HAYES-I guess, you know, that coupled with seeing a 30 foot driveway, it kind of strikes me as that’s a possibility, and you’re saying that’s not your intention whatsoever? Because that’s. MR. SEILER-A 30 foot driveway, okay. MRS. SEILER-I drew that. MR. SEILER-It’s probably going to turn out to be two nine foot driveways, with two doors. MR. HAYES-Okay. MR. MC NALLY-This would be an enforcement problem, though, Craig, right? MR. BROWN-Unless we could avoid it right now. MR. MC NALLY-Well, they’re on notice, though. MR. BROWN-Yes. MR. HAYES-Well, they’re asking us for relief, too. I think a certain contingency that addresses something, because we are being asked for relief here. 8 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/25/01) MR. MC NALLY-Is this a stick built house? MR. SEILER-Yes. MR. MC NALLY-It’s not a modular placed on a foundation? MR. SEILER-No. MR. HAYES-Okay. I guess we’ll continue. Chuck? MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you. A 1,040 total square foot home is not an unreasonably large home. I think it’s a very modest home, quite frankly. If I were to support, before I say that, let me say this. I think that if we were to approve this application, I think it would, in my opinion, aesthetically improve the area, Number One. However, having said that, if I were to go along with the application, I would certainly request that some type of a contingency be placed in your approval to prohibit any type of commercial enterprises going on, and the reason I say that, I’m not questioning your integrity, but the reason I say that is that several issues have come up that have raised question marks in my mind. So if you would not object to a contingency to prohibit any type of commercial enterprise or businesses, I would probably be able to go along with this. MR. SEILER-I’d need some details on that, by exactly what you mean by that? I mean, I have a lettered truck and I do have a mixer and things like that that would be inside the garage. As far as materials being delivered here, or customers, anything of that nature, customers, no. So I don’t know what you mean, really. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Will you be operating, what type of business did you say? MR. SEILER-Masonry. MR. ABBATE-Will you be operating your masonry business out of this new home? MR. SEILER-Will I be leaving there in the morning with a mixer and scaffolding and things like that? Yes. MR. ABBATE-Will you be parking commercial vehicles on this property? MR. SEILER-My pick up truck. MR. ABBATE-One pick up truck? MR. SEILER-Yes. MR. ABBATE-So then you would not object if there was a contingency saying that, other than the pick up truck and any other vehicle you might. MR. SEILER-Anything else would be inside the garage. MR. ABBATE-Well, that’s what’s meant by contingency, in other words, you would have no problem with that? MR. SEILER-Not at all. MR. ABBATE-Okay. All right. Thank you very much. MR. SEILER-You’re welcome. MR. HAYES-Norm? MR. HIMES-Thank you. I’m sympathetic to the application. It is a very small lot. I acknowledged that at the beginning of this application. On the other hand, I agree with what Chuck has just said, and it’s always a little hard for me personally, at least, when we’re dealing with this mixed uses business, you know, to have various kinds of things happen, and here it’s just a simple dwelling. So I’m in favor of the application. MR. HAYES-Thank you. Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I, too, would be in favor of the application. I think it’s a modest proposal, and I think as long as we have that contingency built in, so that, you know, we don’t have 9 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/25/01) large commercial vehicles parked on the property, I think that’s probably what the concerns would be. I think that the actual size of the house fits on the lot, and to allay the fears of that letter that was sent in, I really don’t think it’s going to be a detriment to the neighborhood down there, and even if they do end up renting it at some point, it’s a brand new house. They’re not going to just rent it to anybody. So I’d be in favor of the application. MR. HAYES-Chuck? MR. MC NULTY-I’m basically in favor, too. I would have more concerns if they were asking for side setback or rear setback, but it’s simply a front setback, and I think as the applicant’s pointed out, a lot of the homes on that street are somewhere near the setback that they’re proposing. I will also agree, I’d like to see a stipulation in there that restricts the commercial use to home office, and cement mixer inside the garage when it’s not in use, and likewise, not a lot of scaffolding laid around on the outside, that kind of thing. As long as it’s, that kind of thing is out of sight or nonexistent, I would have no problem with it. MR. HAYES-Thank you. Bob? MR. MC NALLY-Do you own the property? MR. SEILER-No. MRS. SEILER-Not yet. MR. SEILER-Not yet. MR. MC NALLY-So you’re going to buy it if you get this variance? MR. SEILER-Right. MRS. SEILER-Right. MR. MC NALLY-And does the Finch family own the property? AUDIENCE MEMBER-I’m the daughter to, I’m here for Finch. I am Executrix of their Will, and this is the parcel of land that they’re trying to sell. MR. MC NALLY-So the Finch family is selling it, basically, through the Estate? AUDIENCE MEMBER-Right. MR. MC NALLY-Okay. MR. HAYES-Thank you. MR. MC NALLY-When was the property broken up? AUDIENCE MEMBER-(Lost words) years ago. MR. MC NALLY-I agree with my other Board members generally. It’s a modest lot, and it’s going to have to accommodate a small home, and the applicant’s position that 1,040 square feet, as a footprint, is a relatively modest footprint, and pretty much a two bedroom home is what I would expect a young family, or a small family to be able to live in. I don’t see any real effect on the neighborhood from the setback. The other homes on the street have a comparable setback. Certainly 50 foot would be the exception, I think, rather than the norm on that street. So, it’s in keeping. I don’t see any effect upon the neighborhood or community. Also, this might be a collector road, but I don’t really see it being expanded too much in the future, and even if it is, 34 foot would certainly be enough to accommodate whatever expansion plans there might be. I’m more inclined to think that a commercial use should be confined to the interior of the house as the other Board members suggest, but I do think that’s more of an enforcement problem, I suppose, but if the applicant’s willing to stipulate to keeping commercial property within the building, and not using it, except as a home office or a place to store the car, as you go to and from jobs, that’s not too bad. I could buy into it. MRS. SEILER-Okay. That’s our intention. MR. MC NALLY-Thank you. 10 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/25/01) MR. HAYES-I feel generally the same way the rest of the Board does. This is a pre-existing, nonconforming lot, and therefore the things that can be used or applied here are limited, and this certainly seems to be a reasonable attempt to do that. I think the 16 feet of relief is moderate. I don’t find it overly offensive, or the fact that it’s going to damage the character of the neighborhood, in the future, or any possible expansion of that Luzerne Road. I don’t believe the difficulty is self- created either. I think, like I said, this is a nonconforming, pre-existing lot, and this seems like a fairly modest proposal, to me. It might even be an upgrade to the existing homes in the area. So I would be in favor of the application as it’s depicted, with the contingency to limit commercialism. Having said that, would anyone like to make a motion? MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 51-2001 PATRICK AND CANDICE SEILER, Introduced by Roy Urrico who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Abbate: 2 Newcomb Street. The applicant proposes construction of a 1,040 square foot single-family dwelling. I recommend that we approve this application. The applicant requests 16 feet of relief from the 50-foot minimum front setback requirement of the CR-15 zone, 179-24. The benefit to the applicant, the applicant would be permitted to construct the desired home in this location. There may be feasible alternatives, but not really, given the configuration of this lot. There is 16 feet of relief from the 50-foot requirement that may be interpreted as moderate, but we believe that the setback is sufficient for this street in line with the rest of the houses on the street. The minimal effects on the neighborhood may be anticipated, and whether it’s self-created, the difficulty may be partially attributed to the above-mentioned existing configuration of the lot. I make a motion that we accept this with the contingency that the applicant’s commercial business be restricted to within the confines of the house, meaning any trucks be brought into the garage and any equipment that’s used also be left out of sight, rather than in view of the public. By this motion, we’re not giving permission to the applicant to conduct a business inside the garage, to operate mixing and chemicals and things like this. To the extent the applicant wants to drive his own truck to and from job sites and park it there at night time when he gets home, that’s what we’re saying he can do, that kind of thing. You can’t conduct a business out of that garage or otherwise violate this one Section, with an up to 20-foot driveway. Duly adopted this 25 day of July, 2001, by the following vote: th MR. MC NALLY-Can I add one thing? Craig commented that 179-7, the definition for garage/private parking, says that no business occupation or services for profit shall be conducted therein, in other words within a garage, and such garage, etc. So, in other words, you can’t conduct a business within the garage, and I think, by your motion, we’re not giving permission to you to conduct a business inside the garage, to operate, you know, mixing chemicals and things like this. MR. SEILER-It’s strictly storage. MR. MC NALLY-To the extent, however, you want to drive your own truck to and from job sites and park it there at night time when you get home, I think that’s what we’re saying you can do, that kind of thing. You can’t conduct a business out of that garage or otherwise violate this one Section. Do you understand that? MR. SEILER-Yes. MR. MC NALLY-Okay. MR. SEILER-Like I said, it’s strictly storage. MRS. SEILER-And just one brief question. You said the truck must be parked inside at night, or always parked inside? MR. URRICO-The commercial use of it be restricted, in other words, you can take phone calls. We’re not going to let you have cars coming in and out of there. MRS. SEILER-Okay. I understand. MR. MC NULTY-I don’t think we can properly say they have to park the truck in the garage, because any resident’s allowed, what is it, one commercial vehicle on the property. MR. ABBATE-Yes. MRS. SEILER-Okay. MR. HAYES-Does everyone understand? 11 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/25/01) MR. MC NALLY-I just want to make sure Staff is satisfied with this understanding, that the motion is amended to that effect? MR. BROWN-That’s fine. MR. UNDERWOOD-Did we want to consider the width of the driveway? Because it’s on there as 30 feet wide, as opposed to shrinking that down, because I think that would create less of a chance of excessive vehicles being there. MR. HAYES-I agree with that. I mean, a 30 foot wide strip is. MR. URRICO-You had mentioned two nine foot driveways? MR. SEILER-Right. MR. HAYES-A total of 20 feet or something. MR. URRICO-Would that be with some cement separating those two? One? MR. SEILER-One. MR. MC NALLY-A 30 foot wide driveway was for a three car garage, ten foot each, essentially, that’s what this plan calls for. You’ve indicated you modified it to two car garage, and I would presume a 30 foot wide driveway is not required for a two car garage? MR. SEILER-At this point, I would agree with that, yes. MRS. SEILER-I drew it. I made a mistake. I didn’t know where we were going to place the doors. MR. HAYES-That’s all right. We’re just interested in protecting the residential character of the neighborhood. MR. SEILER-It could turn out to be a 20 foot driveway, or an 18 foot, if the two doors were side by side. MR. HAYES-I’m comfortable with up to 20 feet. MR. SEILER-Okay. MR. HAYES-If everybody else is. MR. SEILER-Or two nine foot driveways. MR. HAYES-Whichever. MR. MC NALLY-It’s up to you. MR. SEILER-Okay. MR. HAYES-Does everyone understand the motion to be amended to that as well? Do I have a second for the motion? MR. ABBATE-Second. AYES: Mr. Abbate, Mr. Urrico, Mr. McNally, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Himes, Mr. Hayes NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Stone, Mr. Bryant MR. HAYES-There you go. MRS. SEILER-Thank you. MR. SEILER-Thank you. MR. HAYES-You have your new home. MRS. SEILER-We’re all done? 12 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/25/01) MR. HAYES-You’re all done. You’ve got to see the building permit people now. MRS. SEILER-Okay. SIGN VARIANCE NO. 53-2001 TYPE: UNLISTED TROY NEON SIGN CO., INC. AGENT: TROY NEON SIGN CO., INC. OWNER OF PROPERTY: K-MART CORPORATION ZONE: LI-1A LOCATION: 49 DIX AVENUE APPLICANT PROPOSES INSTALLATION OF A 59 SQ. FT. NON-ILLUMINATED, PIN MOUNTED, 1 HOUR PHOTO LETTERS ON THE EXTERIOR OF THE BUILDING, BETWEEN “FRESH FOOD” AND “SUPER K CENTER”. RELIEF IS REQUESTED FOR ADDITIONAL WALL SIGNS. WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: 7/11/01 OLD TAX MAP NO. 110-1-2.8 NEW TAX MAP NO. 303.19-1-71 LOT SIZE: 28.98 ACRES SECTION 140 RUSSELL HANLEN, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Sign Variance No. 53-2001, Troy Neon Sign Co., Inc., Meeting Date: July 25, 2001 “Project Location: 49 Dix Avenue Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes placement of a 59 square foot wall sign. Relief Required: Applicant requests relief from the requirements to allow an additional wall sign, per the Sign Ordinance; § 140-6. The applicant was granted a variance for several signs per Sign Variance 53-1994. This application is for a seventh wall sign, where two are allowable per the Ordinance. Sign Variance 53-1994 addressed 6 signs. The two “24 Hour” signs shown on the applicant’s drawing do not currently exist on the site. Criteria for considering a Sign Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be permitted to display the additional signage as desired. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives may include reconfiguration of the existing signage, addition to the freestanding sign and no additional signs. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?: 8 signs, where 2 would normally be allowed, may be interpreted as substantial relief, relative to the Ordinance. 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. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): Sign Variance 7-1994 res. 2/16/94 wall signs denied Sign Variance 8-1994 res. 2/16/94 222 sf freestanding sign denied Sign Variance 53-1994 res. 10/11/94 6 wall signs approved Sign Variance 54-1994 res. 10/11/94 97 sf freestanding sign denied Sign Variance 80-1996 res. 9/18/96 add Penske sign denied Staff comments: Moderate impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action. Additional relief, supplemental to an existing variance, which appears to have granted substantial relief, would not be consistent with the intent of the Sign Ordinance. Staff can find no reference for the approval of the added Penske sign above the Auto Service sign. Sign Variance 80-1996, specifically denied the addition of the Penske lettering. SEQR Status: Type Unlisted” MR. MC NULTY-And we have a “Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form July 11, 2001 Project Name: Troy Neon Sign Co., Inc. Owner: K-Mart Corporation ID Number: QBY-SV-53-2001 County Project#: Jul01-30 Current Zoning: LI-1A Community: Queensbury Project Description: Applicant proposes installation of a 59 sq. ft. non-illuminated, pin mounted, 1 Hour Photo letters on the exterior of the building, between “Fresh Food” and “Super K Center”. Relief is requested for additional wall signs. Site Location: 49 Dix Avenue. Tax Map Number(s): 303.19-1-71 Staff Notes: Copy of sign location drawing attached. Staff is unsure if this is a new or separate business. Discussion County Planning Board Recommendation: Deny based upon precedences established by the Warren County Planning Board in supporting the Town of Queensbury Sign Ordinance.” Signed by Thomas E. Haley, Warren County Planning Board 7/16/01” MR. HAYES-Thank you. Please identify yourself for the record. MR. HANLEN-Russell Hanlen, and I’m acting as a representative for Troy Neon Sign Company. MR. HAYES-Okay. Mr. Hanlen, you have been denied by the Warren County Board, which means you’ll need a super majority to get a positive motion, which is five votes out of seven. Okay. Is there anything you’d like to add to the application? MR. HANLEN-The sign that they’re asking for, you know, is typical of what they have on the building now. I realize that they’ve been granted quite a few signs from what they were supposed to be allowed to begin with. I can’t argue that. It’s strictly up to the Board. The one question I was asked at the last meeting was, does K-Mart Corporation own the One Hour Photo or is it privately owned? And I took that as, if it was privately owned, there may be some leniency on that. I’ve 13 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/25/01) questioned that with Troy Neon and found out the One Hour Photo is owned by K-Mart Corporation. It is not a private identity, and that’s all I have to add to it. MR. HAYES-Okay. Thank you. Is there any questions of the applicant by any Board members? MR. URRICO-The sequence of the signs here, these are not an actual representation of how the signs are located right now? I noticed the Garden Shop sign is in the front of the building. Here it’s sort of depicted on, is this supposed to be the side of the building? MR. HIMES-Also, Roy, the Pharmacy is shown on one end and it’s really on the other. MR. URRICO-Right. I went to the site, and I see only the Penske Auto Service on the side of the building, and the Garden Shop is here, all right, then there’s Fresh Food and then there’s Pharmacy, and then there’s the Restaurant, not including the Super K Center sign. The sequence of the signs here is not correct. MR. ABBATE-That Pharmacy sign is on the opposite end as it’s shown on your diagram. Am I correct? MR. HANLEN-Right. MR. URRICO-So you’re proposing the One Hour Photo place to go here, between the Fresh Food and the Super K sign. Okay. I just wanted to make sure. Now you said the Photo place is owned by K-Mart. MR. HANLEN-I talked to Patty, of Troy Neon, because that was an issue they had. I talked to Patty, the owner at Troy Neon, and I told her that the biggest question that came up was the fact, does K-Mart corporation own this One Hour Photo or is it privately owned, and it was my feeling that if it was privately owned, they may show some leniency on this, and once I said I didn’t, I could not answer the question at the time, that was the last conversation we had. MR. URRICO-Now there are other private franchises within that building. MR. HANLEN-Yes, I believe there are. I think the Restaurant is leased out. MR. URRICO-There’s a wireless place that’s now occupying what used to be the Photo section. Is that a franchise operation as well? MR. HANLEN-That I can’t answer. MR. HAYES-The Restaurant is part of K-Mart. MR. HANLEN-The Restaurant, I think, is leased out, and I’m not sure. MR. HAYES-No, it’s part of K-Mart. MR. URRICO-And the Olan Mills, is that part of, I know you’re an agent. MR. HANLEN-No, I don’t have that information, sir. I’m sorry. MR. HAYES-Are there any other questions for the applicant? MR. MC NALLY-In the Staff notes, they comment about how that Penske sign got there. As I understand it, it was denied at one time? Yet, the Penske sign’s up there. Do you know how that happened? MR. HANLEN-No, I don’t, sir. MR. MC NALLY-Okay. Who are you with, by the way? Are you with Troy Sign, or are you with K- Mart? MR. HANLEN-Actually, no. I own a sign company called Sign Tech, and we’re over in Granville. MR. MC NALLY-Okay, and does Troy Neon, what’s that relation to you, if any? MR. HANLEN-We built UL Approved electric signs, and we build signs for these people, and they asked me to fill in on this because they couldn’t make it. MR. MC NALLY-So Troy asked, you build signs for Troy, and Troy’s the applicant? 14 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/25/01) MR. HANLEN-Yes, sir. MR. ABBATE-Mr. Hanlen, let me preface my remarks by saying that when Board members make certain statements, it’s nothing personal. So can we go from there? MR. HANLEN-Yes. MR. ABBATE-Having said that, this application cries out for disapproval, for a number of reasons. Number One, the information you’re providing us tonight is inaccurate. Number Two, you don’t have all the information that we’re requesting at your disposal to provide to us. Number Three, seven signs where two are allowed, and I could go on and go on and go on. MR. HANLEN-Yes, sir. MR. ABBATE-So you know what my position is on this. MR. HANLEN-Absolutely. MR. ABBATE-Thank you. MR. HANLEN-I feel like a sitting duck, and I do have a limited amount of information that was faxed to me, and I apologize I can’t answer all the questions. MR. ABBATE-It’s nothing personal. MR. HANLEN-No, sir. I understand. MR. HAYES-We may as well stay right on point here. Are there any other comments, or should we go to the public hearing? Okay. At this time, I’d like to open the public hearing. Is there anyone here to speak in favor of this application? Anyone opposed? Any correspondence? MR. MC NULTY-No correspondence. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HAYES-I guess it’s time to talk about it. Chuck, I was going to start with you, but you may have already gone, but I guess we should stay official here. Chuck? You’re first. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Fine. Mr. Hanlen, you are in a very difficult situation, and I understand that, and my remarks were not made to make you, personally, feel uncomfortable, but make this application feel uncomfortable. It is my position, sir, that, based on the information that we have received this evening, including the inaccurate information and lack of information, again, I repeat, this application cries out for disapproval. MR. HANLEN-Yes, sir. Can I add something to that? MR. ABBATE-Anything you wish. MR. HANLEN-Troy Neon Sign Company I would assume did not assume that there was going to be questions asked about how signs got to be on a building that weren’t supposed to be there, who owns what in the store, if they’re separate franchises, you know, they were just basically addressing the issue of the One Hour Photo. So we really did not, you know, dot our “I’s” and cross our “T’s”, and I apologize for that, and I realize they’re way over what they were allowed to begin with, and it’s basically on the mercy of the Board. MR. HAYES-Thank you. MR. ABBATE-Mr. Hanlen, do you have a pencil or a pen available to take a little note here? MR. HANLEN-No, sir, I don’t. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Well, try and commit this to memory. P, Proper Prior Planning Prevents 6 Poor Performance. Thank you. 15 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/25/01) MR. HAYES-Thank you. Norm? MR. HIMES-Yes, thank you. I think enough is enough, as far as the signs. I think there’s enough there. I did notice, too, that there are some temporary signs, you might call them wall signs, that are hung up outside. They’re nearly 50 feet in length, and five or six feet high, and are they supposed to get a permit for those things, or anything? MR. BROWN-I was at the store last week and discussed that with one of the managers, that even if they were allowable temporary, even if they had a temporary sign permit for those banner signs, those particular signs are way over-sized, and we wouldn’t issue permits, and I had requested that they be removed. MR. HIMES-Granted, they’re 1,000 feet from the front road. They’re not far from Dix, and all that taken into consideration, it’s just that it seems that, you know, that it’s overkill here, but anyway, I am not in favor. MR. HAYES-Thank you. Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I think we have to consider the recommendations of the County Board and what our statutes are regarding signs, and we have way too much on the wall already, and where does it all end? If we go to One Hour Photo, is it ladies lingerie next or whatever, you know, you could keep on adding them all the way around the building, but, at some point in time, you have to be realistic and assume that, you know, you’ve reached the maximum limits, and we’re way overboard. MR. HAYES-Thank you. Chuck? MR. MC NULTY-To tell you the truth, my first reaction when I looked at it, I said, it probably won’t make a heck of a lot of difference, when I looked at the building, and my first reaction was, well, assuming that they would put it to the right of its Super K-Mart, instead of to the left, because it would balance, I forget whether it’s Pharmacy or whatever that’s on the other side. However, and I don’t know, six signs, seven signs doesn’t make a big deal of difference to me in that particular location, but then there’s several things that do bother me, and leave me on the negative side. One is that the proposal does not reflect what signs are on the front of the building now. That tells me that whoever is making the application, from Troy Sign or wherever, didn’t care enough about it to drive up here and look to see what was on the front of the building, and that bothers me a lot because that says to me, then, that when they get the approval, they may not pay attention to what would be approved. They might put up whatever they felt like. Also, whoever was responsible, and it may not have been Troy Sign, for the Penske sign, I think that’s another big negative. Here’s a sign that’s up there, apparently, with no approval, and they were specifically told at one point no. So, at this point, I’m left with no confidence that even if we approve something, that what we approve would end up on there, and for that reason I’m going to be opposed. MR. HANLEN-Could I make one comment to that? Basically, how this turns out to be a confusing mess is if you look at one of those plan sheets, it says Blair Sign Company on it. Did you see that? Blair Sign Company is probably K-Mart’s main supplier for electric signs, etc. They probably have a contract, and Blair Signs can be in Ohio, California, God knows where. Blair Sign Company contracts subcontractors to install signs all over the Countryside. So poor Troy Neon gets involved in this only as an installation, red flag goes up, you need a variance, and they provide Troy Neon with very basic information. I’d have no way to explain how things got on the wall that weren’t supposed to be there. I’ve applied for applications for signs in Queensbury and Glens Falls for my company and I’ve had no problem, and I don’t know how to answer that one. I’m embarrassed, you know, to be sitting here like a duck, you know, trying to answer your questions. Basically, there’s so many people involved in these things, before it gets to the store, it gets confusing. MR. MC NULTY-Yes. I think the thing, you know, that was said right up front, you should not take it personally. It’s a message we’re delivering that needs to go back through Corporate. I would fault Troy Sign for not checking it out, and not, when they put their bid in or whatever they did, not allowing enough margin to do that kind of thing, and certainly, I would think, K-Mart themselves and K-Mart management’s at fault, for not having followed through. They stuck you out here in front, like you say, as a sitting duck. MR. HANLEN-It should be a lawyer for K-Mart sitting here. It’s a tough, uphill battle. MR. MC NULTY-But, anyway, that’s where I’m at on it. MR. HAYES-Thank you. Bob? 16 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/25/01) MR. MC NALLY-I’m in general agreement with my other Board members. I wasn’t here when K- Mart put this place up, but I was when Lowe’s put their property in, and they’re similar properties in the sense that they’re large frontages, set back a good distance from Quaker Road, and I do understand the need, in those circumstances, for extra signage, and I think that’s why we did it for Lowe’s, and I’m assuming that this Board, back in ’94, did it for K-Mart at that time. So the benefit to the applicant is certainly that they’d have additional signage, but I think that every business, every commercial business, expects to have as much signage as possible, the more the merrier. That’s just the nature of the beast. The feasible alternatives, I really think that there can be some configurations. Apparently, there are signs that are on the building that weren’t approved and are now there. It looks as if the Pharmacy sign is supposed to be on the building, but it’s not there. There may be room for configuration. I feel that the relief is substantial, relative to the Ordinance. Two signs are permitted. I guess there are approvals for seven? MR. MC NULTY-Six. MR. MC NALLY-Six, I’m counting it correctly. The effects on the neighborhood or community, I think it would be moderate. You sit there and you say, well, what’s the real big difference. It’s a sign. It’s a commercial building. It’s on Quaker Road. The fact of the matter is, we get a lot of these sign applications from a lot of businesses, and the more variances we give, allowing businesses to have more and more signs, everyone else in the world expects that they’re going to have just as many signs, and it does become an aesthetic problem. It becomes a distraction problem, with respect to drivers going up and down the road and what not, and I think the Town’s been generous with the number of signs that it’s given as variances so far, and I think that there would be an effect on the community, and with all due respect, I know you’re just the messenger. You’re not the applicant really, but it is a self-created problem. They sent you out here and they gave you a bum steer when it came to knowing what’s on the building and about having violated the statute in several ways already, then asking for more relief when it doesn’t seem as if they’ve been acting appropriately, as a business in the community, to comply with the existing statute. So overall I’d be against the application. MR. HAYES-Thank you. Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes. I’m in total agreement with everything that’s been said on the Board, and I’d just like to add that I think, you know, again, you should not take this personally, but it has to go on the record, and the message has to be delivered to K-Mart that they didn’t do their homework on this, and in many cases they’ve bent the rules, and not only what’s been mentioned with the banners and all. There’s a sandwich board by Quaker Road, which already has a One Hour Photo on it. It’s been out there for at least two months that I’ve been driving by there. So is that considered an A- Frame sign, the sandwich board? MR. BROWN-Yes. I believe those have been removed, though. MR. URRICO-They have? Okay, but I think K-Mart’s been approved for six signs, and I think that’s what they should have, is six signs, and K-Mart should decide which six stay. MR. HANLEN-I was just going to ask you that, if I may. Is it possible that they could trade one of these out that’s less important to them, like Fresh Foods? It’s a grocery store. You would assume it’s Fresh Food. It’s kind of redundant to say Fresh Foods. MR. URRICO-You would assume that they would have 24 Hour Photo, too. I mean, most big stores do, now. I mean, that’s up to you. MR. HANLEN-No. I’m just saying, if they wanted to approach it from that angle. MR. MC NALLY-As I understand it, can’t they change their signs, as long as they keep the number and the square footage the same? MR. BROWN-Yes. I think we would probably entertain any exchanges except an exchange for the Penske sign. MR. URRICO-I mean, that does mean that one has to come out, because right now they have seven signs. MR. HANLEN-Right. MR. URRICO-So they would have to take one out, and then they can trade off. MR. HANLEN-But that would be another variance. MR. URRICO-It wouldn’t be a variance. 17 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/25/01) MR. HANLEN-It would be a regular sign permit? MR. MC NALLY-You’d have to talk to them and they would decide whether or not your proposed new sign required a variance. I think what Craig was saying is that if it met certain restrictions, such as the existing permitted square footage, if it met the, I don’t know, the configuration, I suppose it might be possibly different, so different that it wouldn’t be allowed, but whether it’s lit or not lit, back lit or what not, I mean, those things whatever was approved before, it’s presumed that you would comply with, because we’re not regulating the substance of what’s in the sign, so much as its appearance and its size, and. MR. BROWN-The number. MR. MC NALLY-The number of the signs. Do you know what I’m saying? MR. HANLEN-Yes, sir. MR. URRICO-I’d vote to deny it, or suggest that we deny it. MR. HAYES-Thank you. I’m in complete agreement with the rest of the Board members on this matter. I agree with Chuck and Bob that certainly K-Mart is a large, big box store, and to grant some relief from a property of that size, for signage, is probably necessary and maybe even proper, all things considered, but I think in this particular case, even considering that, the buck has to stop somewhere, and I think it’s stopping here, on this matter. It’s very difficult for me to find a way to grant relief to an applicant who’s not really you, that has already taken relief that hasn’t been authorized. To me, that’s a stretch, and I certainly think that in this particular case the difficulty is self-created. There’s a lot of signage on the building now, and to ask for more, they’re just asking for more, and I think, on balance, the test falls against them in this particular case. They’ve already been granted a significant amount of relief, and that should be enough. MR. HANLEN-Would you recommend that a third party does not get involved on things like this? MR. HAYES-That’s really not for us to say, about agents, but, I mean, if you’ve learned a lesson tonight, that’s one person’s better off. MR. HANLEN-Well, I’ve done this many times, and it’s a hit and miss, you know, it’s hit and miss. MR. HAYES-But we don’t get into judging applicants or their agents. That’s not our job here. We just apply the tests that are associated with these sections of the Code and try and come up with a fair decision. Before I ask for a motion, this is an Unlisted Action. MOTION THAT, BASED ON A REVIEW OF THE SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM FOR UNLISTED ACTION, A DETERMINATION IS MADE THAT THE PROPOSED ACTION WILL NOT RESULT IN ANY SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS, Introduced by Paul Hayes who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles McNulty: Duly adopted this 25 day of July, 2001, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. McNulty, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Himes, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Urrico, Mr. McNally, Mr. Hayes NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Stone, Mr. Bryant MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Having finished that, do I have a motion to deny? MOTION TO DENY SIGN VARIANCE NO. 53-2001 TROY NEON SIGN CO., INC., Introduced by Charles Abbate who moved for its adoption, seconded by Norman Himes: 49 Dix Avenue. This motion to deny is based on a number of things, including the fact that the applicant has submitted inaccurate, as well as inadequate information to this Board, for One. Number Two, my motion to deny is also based on the fact that they are requesting seven wall signs where two are allowable per Ordinance, and, Number Three, that the applicant failed to address feasible alternatives, and, finally, eight signs where two normally would be allowed is interpreted as substantial relief. As such, I move that this application be denied. Duly adopted this 25 day of July, 2001, by the following vote: th 18 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/25/01) AYES: Mr. Himes, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Urrico, Mr. McNally, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Hayes NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Stone, Mr. Bryant MR. HAYES-Thanks for coming, though. MR. HANLEN-Thank you for your time. MR. MC NALLY-Thank you. MR. HAYES-Do we have any minutes we need to handle, Maria? MS. GAGLIARDI-No. MR. HAYES-Okay. I guess, there being no further items before the Board, I’ll adjourn the meeting. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Paul Hayes, Acting Chairman 19