Loading...
2003-01-15 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/15/03) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 15, 2003 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT LEWIS STONE, CHAIRMAN CHARLES MC NULTY, SECRETARY CHARLES ABBATE ROY URRICO NORMAN HIMES ALLAN BRYANT JAMES UNDERWOOD, ALTERNATE MEMBERS ABSENT PAUL HAYES CODE COMPLIANCE OFFICER-BRUCE FRANK STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. STONE-Before we get to the first application on the agenda, we have to elect officers for the Year 2003. We have to recommend a Chairman for the advice and consent of the Town Board, and we have to elect a Vice Chairman and Secretary. Do I hear any nominations? MR. ABBATE-What’s this for? MR. STONE-Well, all three. MR. ABBATE-I apologize, Mr. Chairman. I was talking about something and I didn’t hear it. I’m sorry. MR. STONE-I’m asking if there are any nominations for, we have to recommend a Chairman. We have to elect a Vice Chairman and a Secretary. We can do it all at once. We can do it individually. If somebody wants to make a motion covering all three, or we can, not hearing any of that, let’s start with the Secretary. Do I hear a nomination for Secretary? MOTION TO NOMINATE CHARLES MCNULTY FOR SECRETARY, Introduced by Roy Urrico who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Abbate: Duly adopted this 15 day of January, 2003 by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Underwood, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Himes, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Stone NOES: NONE MR. STONE-Vice Chairman. MOTION TO NOMINATE PAUL J. HAYES FOR VICE-CHAIRMAN, Introduced by Norman Himes who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roy Urrico: Duly adopted this 15 day of January, 2003 by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Underwood, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Himes, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Stone 1 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/15/03) NOES: NONE MR. STONE-Chairman? Do I have a recommendation for Chairman? MOTION TO NOMINATE LEWIS STONE FOR CHAIRMAN, Introduced by Charles McNulty who moved for its adoption, seconded by Norman Himes: AYES: Mr. Underwood, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Himes, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Stone NOES: NONE MR. STONE-Thank you, gentlemen. Now we’ll go to Area Variance No. 1-2003. The applicant Elio & Lidia Cerrone. AREA VARIANCE NO. 1-2003 TYPE II ELIO & LIDIA CERRONE PROPERTY OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE AGENT: VANDUSEN AND STEVES ZONE: UR-10 LOCATION: PHILLIPS AVENUE APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF THREE 832 SQ. FT. SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLINGS ON THREE ADJACENT LOTS. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM THE SIDE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS OF THE UR-10 ZONE. TAX MAP NO. 303.20-1-45, 46, 47 LOT SIZE: ALL 3 LOTS ARE 0.17 ACRES EACH SECTION 179-4-030 MATT STEVES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 1-2003, Elio & Lidia Cerrone, Meeting Date: January 15, 2003 “Project Location: Phillips Avenue Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of three 832 sq. ft. single-family dwellings on three adjacent lots. Relief Required: The applicant, for all three lots, requests 12 and 2 feet of relief from the 10-foot minimum, sum of 30-foot minimum side setback requirements of the UR-10 Zone, § 179-4-030. 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 structures in the preferred locations. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives may include constructing the dwellings in compliant locations, or creating two compliant lots from the three pre-existing, nonconforming lots, where two of the desired dwellings could be constructed facing the street as proposed without any relief. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?: 14 feet of relief from the sum of 30-foot minimum side setback requirement may be interpreted as moderate relative to the Ordinance (46.7%). 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.): None. Staff comments: Moderate effects on the neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of this action. The applicant could construct all three dwellings in compliant locations by rotating them 90° from that proposed, or creating two compliant lots from the three pre-existing, nonconforming lots, where two of the desired dwellings could be constructed facing the street as proposed without any relief. SEQR Status: Type II” MR. STONE-No County? MR. MC NULTY-No County. MR. STONE-Mr. Steves? MR. STEVES-Good evening. My name is Matt Steves. I represent the Cerrones on this application. They are present with me tonight, as well as Dan Manna from my office. This is property of three lots located on the east side of Phillips Avenue just north of the Boulevard. 2 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/15/03) There are three existing 50 foot lots from an old subdivision, and the Staff notes pretty much sum it up. What we’re looking to do is construct three single family homes, two story homes, 832 square feet. There is a deed restriction in that area of 800 square foot minimum. We’re proposing 832 square feet. We think by facing the houses toward the road, with the long way, keeps more in consistency with the neighborhood, instead of turning them sideways. We don’t see that as being consistent with the homes over there, if anybody has gone into that area to look at the homes up and down Phillips Avenue and adjoining properties in that area. MR. STONE-Would you comment why we should allow the creation of the crowded view from Phillips Avenue of these three houses fairly close together? MR. STEVES-Okay. Being consistent with the neighborhood is one of the weighing factors in this Board, and as you can see, the garage to the north is only 6.37 and 7.83 feet off the line, and that is pretty consistent throughout this whole area that the houses are between eight to ten feet from the property lines. MR. STONE-Any comments, gentlemen? MR. ABBATE-Yes, but that certainly doesn’t mean that we have to continue this trend, particularly if it violates Codes, and in this case, in all three of these homes, it does violate the Codes. In other words, what I’m saying, because it may be consistent with the neighborhood doesn’t mean that we should encourage and continue this type of construction. Thank you. MR. STONE-Any other comments? Hearing none, let me open the public hearing and see if there’s anybody wishing to speak in favor of or against this application. I’ll open the public hearing. Anybody wishing to speak in favor of this application? In favor of? Anybody opposed to this application? Please come forward one at a time to the microphone. Please state your name. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED THERESA HAMMOND MS. HAMMOND-Hello. My name is Theresa Hammond, and I’m a resident at 7 Phillips Avenue. My concern is the drainage. It’s a very high water table, and I feel that with houses built there, there may be a significant runoff, based upon the elevation of the lots. Right now the property is basically a swamp. It’s always wet and my basement is flooded continually. I have a sump pump running about five to six months of the year. I’m not opposed to having homes built there. I’m just concerned about, where’s the water going to be pitched, due to the elevation of the lot. MR. STONE-That is not our call at this thing, and would this need site plan, Bruce? MR. FRANK-I don’t believe so, but they won’t be issued a building permit unless they can provide the stormwater control plan. By Code, the stormwater has got to be retained on their site. MR. STONE-Right. I mean, that’s our Town Code. If you have a lot and you build something on it, the stormwater has to be contained on your property. So that is taken care of by the Building Department, and it’s not part of this. I appreciate your comments, and we understand that. It’s in the record, but it doesn’t bear directly on our decision here tonight. MS. HAMMOND-If I may ask a question. MR. STONE-Sure. 3 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/15/03) MS. HAMMOND-If the decision is, if this is approved, this project is approved, then how do I deal with that water situation then? Because obviously it would go forward being built. So is there another meeting that I can address that concern, or would that be too late? MR. STONE-Well, that’s the question I asked Staff, and he’s saying there would not be a Planning Board meeting on this. It would not need site plan approval, because it is an existing subdivision, if you will. I mean, the lots have been previously designated, but if you had a problem, you can go to the Building Department and bring it to their attention, in other words, because the landowner, the property owner, is responsible for containing any stormwater runoff. MS. HAMMOND-Right. Correct. MR. BRYANT-Mr. Chairman, could I ask a question? MR. STONE-Sure. MR. BRYANT-Where is your property in relationship to the three lots? MS. HAMMOND-Right adjacent, right next door to it. I’m at 7 Phillips Avenue, and the lots would be right to the side of my garage. MR. BRYANT-Okay. MR. STONE-Are you north or south? The Boulevard is here. Where are you? MR. URRICO-Can you show us on this map? MS. HAMMOND-Yes. MR. STONE-Okay. These lots would be south. Okay. That garage that Mr. Steves talked about is yours? MS. HAMMOND-Yes. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. BRYANT-And how far is that garage, now, from? MS. HAMMOND-That’s six, but I bought the house as a pre-existing lot. The garage was already there. In fact, I looked at my survey and I saw that, and I thought, these lots are going to be really close to where I am. MR. STONE-Yes, that’s the issue on the table. MS. HAMMOND-Yes. MR. STONE-Okay. Thank you. Anything else? MS. HAMMOND-No, thank you. MR. STONE-All right. Who else wants to speak? ROBERT STARK MR. STARK-Hello. My name is Robert Stark, and I live at 6 Park Ave., and that’s what I’m concerned about, when the houses get built, I’m going to have all the water really rushing into my yard, and I don’t have any way of getting rid of it. 4 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/15/03) MR. STONE-Okay. Park Avenue is on the east side. Right? MR. STARK-Yes. MR. STONE-So it would back on. Your lot backs on one of these lots? MR. STARK-Yes. Right on Terry’s lot, and one of the lots that are going to be built there. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. STARK-The house that was built next to me, they really push water into me, and since they’ve built t hat house, I’ve gone through two sump pumps. MR. STONE-As I said to the previous speaker, if you’re getting water from property that, because of something that the property owner did, in your judgment, you should go to the Town Building Department and bring it to their attention, because they are not supposed to do that. MR. STARK-Okay. When they were putting the drainage in there, I wanted, well, my wife talked to whoever it was about putting one of the drainages right in my front yard, which I wouldn’t mind, that they would do that, that wouldn’t bother me. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. STARK-But it’s just all that water. MR. STONE-Well, as I say, I’m speaking correctly, Bruce, aren’t I? They should come down and see Dave? MR. FRANK-That’s correct. I mean, the Director of Building and Codes or one of the other Building Inspectors would inform you what they’re going to be required to do, and if it requires putting in some drywells and having all of their stormwater channeled to that off their roof, but this is a permitted use in that zone. It’s not a site plan review use for a single family dwelling. MR. STONE-In other words, these are residential lots, is what he’s saying, and they can build. It’s just that the way they’re requesting to build is in violation of our zoning, and therefore that’s why they’re here tonight, trying to get us to grant a variance to allow them to put the houses where they would like to put them. MR. STARK-Okay. Thank you. MR. STONE-You’re welcome. Next, sir? ROBERT NELSON MR. NELSON-Robert Nelson. My concerns are about the same as everybody else’s. MR. STONE-Where do you live, sir? MR. NELSON-I own the property, on Park Avenue. MR. STONE-Okay. You own the property in the back? MR. NELSON-Yes. He and I both. MR. STONE-Okay. 5 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/15/03) MR. NELSON-He’s under contract with me. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. NELSON-What has happened before there, the two houses that were built alongside of this, if all the water came to, they filled those lots in, which they’ve got to do the same thing with these lots. They fill them with fill, and no regard of where the water’s going to go, and it’s about end septic also. If it was sewer, it would be no problem at all, and I think your idea with the area, with two houses on those lots would be more in consistency with what you’re looking for here today, I mean, and the neighborhood. MR. STONE-Okay. Let me say, sir, that, and I say this to everybody in the room, everyone should be the eyes and ears of the Building Department. I mean, we have to protect our Town. We have to protect our property, and our Staff is very hardworking. They’re very conscientious, but the more help they can get by people coming in in a helpful way, not storming in, but coming in in a helpful way is very welcome by the Building Department. MR. NELSON-Well, I’ve been to the Building Department, and we don’t get much satisfaction. MR. STONE-Then I suggest, if you’re not satisfied there, you come to a Town Board meeting and you speak in open forum, and you speak to the Town Board. I mean, they’re the people who are elected, and if you don’t like what they’re doing, then you unelect them, so to speak. So there are ways. In many cases they’re not rapid. I mean, we can go into philosophical discussion on this thing for a long time. MR. NELSON-Yes, I understand. MR. STONE-But anyway, I thank you for your comments. MR. NELSON-Okay. MR. STONE-Anybody else wishing to speak against? Any letters? MR. MC NULTY-No correspondence. MR. STONE-Okay. Let me close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. STONE-Anything else, Mr. Steves, you want to say? MR. STEVES-Yes. Certainly, and we have the same concerns that the builder does, and we always take stormwater measures into effect whenever we build a house, whenever he does, and whenever we work on the site plans with them. The houses, if they were rotated or facing the way we want them to, does not effect the ability for those lots to be buildable, and to help alleviate some of the concerns of the neighbors, these homes are going to be raised ranches. Mr. Cerrone’s going to bring in fill, re-grade the lots toward the front of the lot, and will be using drywells with downspouts from the roof gutters to direct those into the drywells, so that we won’t have anymore runoff onto the neighbors. Actually probably improve the runoff that is there now. As you know, the erosion control measures and stormwater management plans that are in effect state that you can’t have anymore runoff going off your lot onto neighboring lots than what currently is pre-development, and most likely that runoff would decrease from what is there now, by the grading, the fill, the houses are going to be raised ranches and we’re going to use gutters, downspouts into drywells. MR. STONE-How would you describe these lots now, in terms of wetness? I want to try to be as broad as I can? 6 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/15/03) MR. STEVES-Okay. They are a little low. Some fill is needed. A lot of the stuff in the area to the north drains down to this portion of the property. No question, and by knowing that and building and designs for the homes, such as the fill, not having a full basement, raised ranch, and using gutters, downspouts and drywells will alleviate most of that problem. MR. STONE-Okay. Any other questions? If not, let’s talk about it. Let’s start with Norm. MR. HIMES-Yes. Thank you. I have to say that I agree with what Chuck has said in his preliminary comments, that we have, in the past, I think have been faced with situations like this where there’s maybe one lot that’s kind of in a tight spot, and it seems to be a good way to dispose of the situation, to allow a small minimum, that meets the space requirements of the Town, to go in there, but to say that that to do that two times or three times, would that be twice as good or three times as good of a benefit, and unfortunately in my mind I’m thinking that is not the case, that it’s worse as an area, even though as you said that is true that these would be pretty much in character much of the rest of the neighborhood being very dense, very high density, that I think maybe some relief from that would be good from the Town, I would think, and from the neighborhood, and the, I have to respect, too, the Staff has given the alternatives, and there are two alternatives which may not be, depending on your point of view, the best from the applicant’s standpoint. However, from the way I look at it, from the Town’s standpoint, I think that the two alternatives that were proposed by the Town are not to unreasonable, and I would think in the face of that, having two alternatives there, I find it very hard to come up with a yes on this. So I’m afraid I’m going to have to say I would be voting no on this application. Thank you. MR. STONE-Thank you. Chuck? MR. ABBATE-Thank you. I have to agree with what Norm says, but I would like to add this. One of the reasons that we have public hearings is to listen to folks who they believe, at least in their own minds believe, that any type of construction would impair or have an impact, an adverse impact on our property. Now, granted this may, what they discussed, three individuals during the public hearing, may not necessarily fall into our jurisdiction or may not at all fall into our jurisdiction. Nonetheless, I believe that we have a responsibility to listen and place ourselves in the individual’s position who are residing there. It’s been acknowledged by the builder, as well as by the folks who testified, that it is a wet area, and there are some reasonable alternatives, but I’m concerned with the fact that the setbacks, to me, are not reasonable. Examples, front requirement is 30. They propose 35. Side yard is 10. They propose 8. Side Yard 2 is 20. They propose 8. Rear yard is 10. They propose 90 plus, and I think based upon this, Mr. Chairman, I could not support the application. MR. STONE-Thank you. Allan? MR. BRYANT-Yes. I basically agree. I think if there were some natural phenomenon which restricted the houses from going in the opposite directions, as suggested by Staff, then we could probably allow one, but you’re talking about three lots with three conditions, and when you talk about runoff, you could take the same precautions were turned 90 degrees that you’re going to take. MR. STEVES-But turning the house 90 degrees, I want this Board to also realize that you have to, to abide by the 800 square foot, have a 26 by 32 home. If you turn it sideways, that’s still a 26 foot wide house, with a 50 foot lot that requires 30 foot of setback. That would still only give you a 20 foot building envelope. You’d still need a variance. We’re looking for six additional feet in width, which stays much more in character with the neighborhood than turning them sideways. MR. BRYANT-Well, I’ve heard that a couple of times, but there are a couple of houses on that block that are built longer than they are wider, and the only exception, one of them is built that way and has a garage which detracts from that, but there are a couple of houses on the block that are built longer and wider. 7 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/15/03) MR. STEVES-I didn’t deny that. I agreed. That’s only a couple out of the many. MR. BRYANT-So the point I’m saying is if it were one lot it would be a different scenario. You’ve got three lots and you want to create this new scenario. Now you’re talking about the 32 square feet. I would prefer to give you 32 square feet than this kind of configuration. So, you know, the way it is now, I’d be opposed to it. MR. ABBATE-Mr. Chairman, can I add one other comment, please? MR. STONE-Surely. MR. ABBATE-I agree with, you know, the bottom line, basically, in my opinion, is this. Profitability versus the effects on the neighborhood. Thank you. MR. STONE-Okay. Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes. I think, overall I agree with everybody, and I think the houses themselves would fit into the character of the neighborhood, but I think when you talked about putting three houses in a relatively cramped manner, I think that would be detrimental, and I also think it, in effect, changes the zoning for that area. MR. STEVES-What do you do with the existing homes that are in the same scenario? MR. BRYANT-Are we going to have a rebuttal up here? MR. STONE-No. I was just about to stop that. MR. ABBATE-Thank you. MR. STONE-We’re making our comments and let’s. MR. URRICO-Taking it down the test that we’re asked to look at, the benefit to the applicant, there would be a benefit to the applicant. As far as feasible alternatives, I think some feasible alternatives have been presented, both by the Staff and my fellow Board members, and I think they can be considered. Whether this relief is substantial relative to the Ordinance, I think it’s probably a moderate relief, but it’s a moderate relief times three, rather than a moderate relief times two. That, to me, is one too many, and as far as the effects on the neighborhood or community, I think it would be crowding the neighborhood, and I think that would be detrimental, and is this difficulty self-created? Yes, I think it is self-created. So I would come down on the negative side on this. MR. STONE-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I basically would be in agreement with what everyone else has said here also. I think that you still could consider turning those houses 90 degrees. As far as the runoff that people suggested, I think that can be adequately dealt with with the drywells. I think that you, you know, if we were looking at this as a brand new thing, with no houses on the street, I don’t think there’s any doubt that we would turn it down, but I think that, you know, looking at your sheet here it says Imperial Heights Park dated June 1, 1911. So I don’t know if that’s the original time that this subdivision was designed. It probably was. So, I mean, maybe we should consider that to a degree also, but I think that the houses could be modified. You could make them wider, as opposed to longer, and shrink it down a little bit to give you your setbacks. If you wanted to keep them lined up facing toward the street, as you propose. MR. STONE-Chuck? 8 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/15/03) MR. MC NULTY-Well, I can basically agree with what’s been said. The things that have bothered me about this proposal is, one, I think it is going to make it crowded. Yes, there are some other houses on this street that are fairly close together, but there’s also some that have got some pretty decent space between them, and I think that’s the direction we should be going. It’s been pointed out, these are old lots, apparently, originally designed when the houses used to be narrow across the front and go deep on the lots, and that’s probably the kind of house that should go here. Whether turning these 90 degrees would solve the problem or whether it means looking at a different house design entirely, I don’t know, but I think that’s what should be done. I will also agree with Roy. I think when we’re looking at three in a row like this, in effect we’re changing the zoning if we were to approve this, and that’s not something that I believe we should do. So, all told, I’m going to be opposed. MR. STONE-I certainly concur. I think the Board has very admirably and very concisely and clearly delineated our concerns. I think there’s nothing more that I can add, except to say I, in this particular case I applaud the Board for their thinking, not that I don’t in other situations. I didn’t mean that, but I really think that they’ve done their thinking, and I agree with everything they’ve said, and therefore I need a motion to deny the variance as applied for, unless the applicant wants to withdraw it or whatever. MR. STEVES-I will check with my client. I would like to add one more thing, if I could. MR. STONE-You may. MR. STEVES-And I appreciate the Board’s concerns and the neighbors concerns. A couple of points have been brought up, or one by a couple of particular members, stated that we’re coming in here with all three at once. If we had asked for one that might have been a different scenario. We’re just trying to be upfront with the Board, realizing that they’re checker-boarded by different ownerships, we could have come in here one at a time, and as the Board just stated, they probably would have granted one, but that’s not what we wanted to do. We didn’t want to come back in here and piecemeal it and bring it back to you the next house and the next house, and then you would be asking us how come we didn’t do this all up front. We just wanted to let the Board know that we were conscious of that, and we did bring all three of them in to you at one time for that reason. We do respect this Board and we do understand the dilemma you’re under, and just let you know that we did think of that, and that’s why we brought all three in at once. MR. STONE-We appreciate that, but we also have a corporate memory, and I think if you did it one, two, three, at least by the third one we would know it, and we would. MR. STEVES-That’s why I said by the second one I’d be in the hot seat. Okay. MR. STONE-All right. I need a motion to deny. Is that, go ahead, talk for a second. If they want to withdraw it, then we’ll just take it off the table. Otherwise we’ll, I’ll give you the chance. MR. STEVES-If it’s the wish of the Board, we’d like to withdraw, and we’ll look at different designs and we’ll come back with a different plan, instead of going through a denial and then having to come back with a different plan, we’ll leave it at a cleaner slate. MR. STONE-So done. Thank you for your cooperation. MR. STEVES-Thank you. AREA VARIANCE NO. 2-2003 TYPE II DANA NORTON & RUBEN ELLSWORTH PROPERTY OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE AGENT: VANDUSEN AND STEVES ZONE: RR-3A AND LC-10A LOCATION: ELLSWORTH ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING ON A LOT WITHOUT FRONTAGE ON A TOWN ROAD. APPLICANT REQUESTS 40 FEET OF RELIEF FROM THE 40-FOOT 9 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/15/03) MINIMUM REQUIRED ROAD FRONTAGE. ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY LOT SIZE: 14.45 ACRES SECTION: 179-4-090 A MATT STEVES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 2-2003, Dana Norton & Ruben Ellsworth, Meeting Date: January 15, 2003 “Project Location: Ellsworth Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a single-family dwelling on a lot without frontage on a town road. Relief Required: The applicant requests 40 feet of relief from the 40-foot minimum road frontage requirement per § 179-4-090(A). 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 on a parcel that does not front on a town road. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives seem to be limited. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the ordinance?: 40 feet of relief from the 40-foot minimum required road frontage may be interpreted as substantial relative to the ordinance. 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 attributed to the pre-existing, nonconforming lot. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): None. Staff comments: Minimal impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action. Should this application be approved, the proposed private drive will only cross other parcels of Robert Ellsworth (current owner of the parcel being purchased by Dana Norton). SEQR Status: Type II” MR. MC NULTY-And we have a note. The Director of Building and Codes has stated that should the application be approved, we should impose a couple of conditions. One, that the road must be constructed to a width of 20 feet, and second the road must be named for address purposes, and no County. MR. STONE-No County. Mr. Steves, you look familiar. MR. STEVES-Yes. Good evening. Again, my name is Matt Steves. I represent Dana Norton on this application. The Staff notes, again, pretty much sum it up. This is a parcel of land of 14.19 acres, located on the west side of Ellsworth Road, west of three other parcels actually, one of the smallest ones that fronts on Ellsworth Road. It’s all owned by one individual by different deeds. The lot that they’re purchasing in the back, they’re going to construct their home. It’s all family members. Whether this had 40 foot frontage on the Town road or did not, it doesn’t change the fact that there’s going to be a private driveway up to that building site. We have no problems with restrictions as proposed by Dave Hatin. We realize with the 911 factor that you have to have the road name for address purposes. We have no opposition to that whatsoever. MR. STONE-And you would build it to20 feet wide at least? MR. STEVES-That’s a Town requirement, yes, we would have to. MR. STONE-Okay. Any questions, gentlemen? MR. BRYANT-Yes, I do have a question. One of the applicants tonight is Ruben Ellsworth. It says on the survey that it’s owned by Robert Ellsworth, the same. MR. STEVES-Dana Norton and Ruben Ellsworth are here, and Robert Ellsworth is Ruben’s father. I do believe. MR. BRYANT-Okay. So it’s all in the family. MR. STEVES-Yes. 10 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/15/03) MR. BRYANT-One big happy family. MR. STEVES-You’ve got it. MR. BRYANT-Okay. MR. STONE-Any other questions? MR. UNDERWOOD-My only question would be, Matt, with more property being owned further up the hill there, up toward the Ridge there on sort of the ramparts of the mountain there, is there any idea that they might extend the road further up the hill eventually for more homes? I don’t know, down the road? MR. STEVES-That’s all one lot. It’s just where it crosses the zone line into the LC-10, no. MR. STONE-So it goes all the way to the left hand margin, that one lot? MR. STEVES-All the way back. I just depicted where the home would be built. They don’t propose to bring it back up into the LC-10 zone. MR. STONE-You did depict where the home would be built? MR. STEVES-Yes, proposed house, down near the bottom. MR. STONE-Yes, I’m sorry. I was thinking that was the septic system. I saw the radials going. MR. STEVES-It’s not cast in stone. It’s approximate there. MR. STONE-Sure. MR. STEVES-But what it is, it’s not another lot up there, for your question. It’s all part of the same lot. It’s just I show where the zone line goes through. MR. STONE-You wouldn’t mind if we said that it’s our understanding that this is one lot and there will be one house on it? MR. STEVES-That’s correct. It is one lot, and it could not have another lot without subdivision. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. FRANK-Again, it’s partially in the Land Conservation zone. They couldn’t subdivide that, the remainder of it. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. STEVES-Good, great. But at this time it’s only one lot, and I don’t believe they have any desires at this time to subdivide it. MR. STONE-Well, the minutes will reflect what you said. So that’s important. All right. Any other comments? MR. HIMES-I just have one question. The lands up behind it, or to the side of it, Stevenson. MR. STEVES-Yes. MR. HIMES-They have their own access off somewhere, do they get onto Ellsworth Road or? MR. STEVES-Yes. 11 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/15/03) MR. HIMES-So they’ve got their own? MR. STEVES-They have frontage on Ellsworth Road of a couple of hundred feet. MR. HIMES-Okay. Just one other question, it might be for, you probably have the answer, Staff may. What would be, and maybe this is ridiculous, but what would be saying, all right, why not make that a Town road? MR. STEVES-I could maybe help with that slightly. MR. HIMES-Yes. You probably have the answer. MR. STEVES-Running the road up where the only place that Mr. Ellsworth owns on the north end of the frontage on Ellsworth Road, then you would have to create a 50 foot wide road up through that property to the back property, and then you would be running into setback issues with existing home on parcel 28-1-43, and to make it a Town road, I don’t know if the Town Highway Superintendent wants to maintain a road up in there for one home, and I’m just, you know, as a fact, and plus the fact that also you have a limit of a Town road of 1,000 feet, and you’d be just about at it just to get to the property line. MR. HIMES-So I think what you said, I kind of was thinking, well, wait a minute here, it looks like we could have three possible lots here, but you say that actually from where it shows the house, all the way back, that’s one lot. MR. STEVES-That’s correct. MR. HIMES-And where the present residence is, with the barns and so forth, that’s a second lot behind that? MR. STEVES-That’s correct. MR. HIMES-And so that could be the subject of another building, right? MR. STEVES-That’s correct. MR. STONE-You’re talking the 3.59 acre lot? MR. HIMES-Yes. MR. STEVES-Yes. MR. STONE-Okay. Question. The road as you depicted it, as it currently exists, and of course I saw it with snow, so I’m not even sure what condition, what it’s normally made of, does that go on the adjoining property? MR. STEVES-It goes right through the three parcels owned by Mr. Ellsworth. MR. STONE-Yes, but you’ve got a line drawn here that goes outside the property line. MR. STEVES-Right, that goes onto Stevenson’s property? MR. STONE-Yes. MR. STEVES-Yes. It’s very wide down in that area. MR. HIMES-So there’s no problem with that? I mean, is there a right of way or something? 12 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/15/03) MR. STEVES-I don’t think there’s any problems with the Stevenson’s. MR. ELLSWORTH-There’s really not. I mean, it’s been that way forever. They have no problems. MR. STONE-Okay, but it is. MR. STEVES-Yes, it does extend over onto Stevenson property, but, no, there’s no issue there. MR. STONE-If he gets mad and wants to stop the fire truck from going up there to rescue the house, okay. Any other comments, gentlemen? If not, let me open the public hearing. Anybody wishing to speak in favor of this application? In favor of? Anybody opposed? Opposed? Any County? MR. MC NULTY-No County, no correspondence. MR. STONE-I didn’t mean County. I meant correspondence. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. STONE-Let’s talk about it. Let’s start with Chuck. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you. This proposal appears to be reasonable. I would have had objections, had I not received a modification on the application, that is the road must be constructed to a width of 20 feet and the road must be named for address purposes, but I think that the application is reasonable. I think what the representative of Mr. and Mrs. Ellsworth has stated is not uncommon, and I would not object to this, Mr. Chairman. MR. STONE-Okay. Al? MR. BRYANT-I agree with Mr. Abbate. In this particular case, there really is no alternative. Basically that’s what this Board is for, you know. You have no alternative and you need help, you come to the Zoning Board, and that’s the process. So, with that in mind, I’d be in favor of it. MR. STONE-Okay. Roy? MR. URRICO-This plan makes a lot of sense to me. I think it’s a good plan. Taking it through the test, once again, to be consistent, I think it would be beneficial to the applicant. I don’t think there are feasible alternatives. Whether this relief is substantial relative to the Ordinance, yes, it is, relative to the Ordinance, but in this case, there is no other way, and as far as effects on the neighborhood or community, other than that road would probably be named Ellsworth something. Right? MR. STONE-Ellsworth Road is already there. MR. URRICO-That’s already there, Ellsworth Lane, and this difficulty was a pre-existing, nonconforming lot. So therefore I don’t think, I think it was not self-created. So I would be in favor of it. MR. STONE-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I think all these lots up on the mountainside there probably all pre- date any kind of Code ever being in existence anyway, going back to the Year 1 or whenever, 13 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/15/03) but I think that, you know, it’s a family situation. It’s nice to keep the family living up on the mountainside there where they are, and my only consideration would be when you lay the road out, if there’s any consideration to go further up the hill, you know, in the future, lay the road out so you don’t have to go through your septic field or something like that, do it that way. MR. STEVES-Absolutely. MR. STONE-Chuck? MR. MC NULTY-I can basically agree. I think this is a unique situation. It’s basically a landlocked lot. The chances of having Town road there are minimal. I was also encouraged, looking at the existing road, at least the way it’s plowed, it looks like it’s fairly wide and substantial. So all told, I think it’s a reasonable plan, and I think there’s justification for the variance, and I would be in favor. MR. STONE-All right. Norm? MR. HIMES-Yes. Thank you. I have nothing further to add. I agree with what my fellow Board members have said. I just would like to make a comment for the record that sometimes I wonder what this requirement is doing in the Code, you know. Since I’ve been on the Board there’s been several of these things, and we’ve approved them all, and sometimes, you know, I wonder what’s going on with it, you know. The Building is saying, okay, if you do approve it, put these conditions in there. Well, if they can meet those conditions, put that in the Code and why do we go to this bother? Because we’ve never turned one down, to my recollection, since I’ve been on the Board. So I’d go along with the rest of my Board members, and that’s of no interest to this applicant. So I beg your pardon. Thank you. MR. STONE-But we have the chance, we have the chance to turn it down. I agree with the rest of the Board. This is a situation unlike most that we’ve ever seen, it being a family property. The area up there is unique to the Town of Queensbury in many ways, as far as my knowledge is concerned, and I think it’s with the conditions that we’re going to place on it, with which the applicant agrees, fire people, safety people, the ambulance people will be able to get there without worrying about it, and in looking at the road that’s there now it’s obviously well maintained, even with the snow on it, or whatever’s underneath the snow, and I think it’s a good project. So I need a motion to approve with the two conditions suggested by Mr. Hatin. Chuck, go ahead. MR. ABBATE-Okay. I’ll take it. Sure, why not. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 2-2003, DANA NORTON & RUBEN ELLSWORTH, Introduced by Charles Abbate who moved for its adoption, seconded by Allan Bryant: Approximate location Ellsworth Road. The applicant proposes a construction of a single family dwelling on a lot without frontage on a Town road. Relief required, applicant requests 40 feet relief from the 40 foot minimum road frontage requirement per Section 179-4-090, 8A. Benefit to the applicant: The applicant will be permitted to construct a desired home on a parcel that does not front on a Town road. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives seem to be limited and as we discussed today, they are severely limited. Is this relief substantial relative to the ordinance? It may be substantial relative to the ordinance, but as we discussed I’m not so sure there are any other alternatives, reasonable alternatives, feasible alternatives. 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? Difficulty may be attributed to the pre- existing nonconforming lot. I would like to also stipulate that there be two provisos: 1. The road must be constructed to the width of 20 feet. 2. The road must be named for address purposes. Duly adopted this 15 day of January, 2003 by the following vote: th 14 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/15/03) AYES: Mr. Bryant, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Himes, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Stone NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Hayes MR. STEVES-Thank you. MR. STONE-One out of two. MR. STEVES-I just don’t feel right if I don’t come here and do battle with you once in a while. MR. ABBATE-And 50% is better than nothing. MR. STONE-I have a question, before I read this one. Mr. Frank, before I read this, do we number Sign Variances independently of Area Variances? MR. FRANK-No, we don’t. The same question you had last year, the same answer. MR. STONE-Did I have the question? Hey, I’m consistent anyway. Okay. SIGN VARIANCE NO. 3-2003 TYPE: UNLISTED SAVE-A-LOT PROPERTY OWNER: ILENE FLAUM AGENT: HANLEY SIGN COMPANY ZONE: HC-INT. LOCATION: 756 GLEN ST., QUEENSBURY PLAZA APPLICANT PROPOSES PLACEMENT OF ONE ADDITIONAL WALL SIGN OF 68.61 SQ. FT. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM CHAPTER 140, SIGN ORDINANCE FOR MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE NUMBER OF WALL SIGNS IN A BUSINESS COMPLEX. WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: 1/8/03 TAX MAP NO. 302.6-1-51 LOT SIZE: 12.47 ACRES SECTION: 140-6 (B3d4) PETER MAY, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Sign Variance No. 3-2003, Save-A-Lot, Meeting Date: January 28, 2003 “Project Location: 756 Glen St. Queensbury Plaza Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes placement of one additional wall sign of 68.61 sq. ft. Relief Required: Applicant requests relief from the Sign Ordinance; per § 140-6(B3d4), for the placement of an additional wall sign in a business complex. Criteria for considering a Sign Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be permitted to gain an additional wall sign on the north side of the plaza facing Quaker Road. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives seem to be limited. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?: Relief for an additional wall sign where only one is allowed (one per business in a business complex) may be interpreted as substantial, relative to the ordinance. 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 attributed to the location of Save-A-Lot within Queensbury Plaza and its relative position to Quaker Road and State Route 9 5. Is this difficulty self-created? The difficulty may be attributed to the location of Save-A-Lot within Queensbury Plaza and its relative position to Quaker Road and State Route 9. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): Temporary Sign Permit 2002-951: 12/10/02; 30 sq. ft. “Now Open” wall sign. Sign Permit 2002- 737: 09/09/02; 225.5 sq. ft. wall sign. BP 2002-587: 09/09/02, commercial alterations for Save-A- Lot. SV 14-2001: denied 2/28/01, request for two wall signs for Staples. Note: numerous other BP, SP, and Variances for Queensbury Plaza, but unrelated to section 18b. Staff comments: Moderate impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action. It does not appear as though a strict application of the Sign Ordinance would impose an unnecessary hardship upon the applicant. However, some consideration may be given to the location of Save-A-Lot within 15 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/15/03) Queensbury Plaza and its relative position to Quaker Road and State Route 9, and the modest size of the sign proposed. SEQR Status: Type: Unlisted” MR. MC NULTY-“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form January 8, 2003 Project Name: Save-A-Lot Property Owner: Ilene Flaum ID Number: QBY03-AV-3 County Project #: Jan03-25 Current Zoning: HC-Int. Community: Queensbury Project Description: Applicant proposes placement of one additional wall sign of 68.61 sq. ft. Relief requested from Chapter 140, Sign Ordinance for maximum allowable number of wall signs in a business complex. Site Location: 756 Glen St. Queensbury Plaza Tax Map Number(s): Staff Notes: Sign Variance: The applicant proposes to locate a 68.61 sq. ft. wall sign on the Quaker Road side of the Save-A-Lot Store. The business is located in a business complex where tenants are allowed one wall sign. The applicant has indicated that a sign on Quaker Road would create an additional opportunity for customer stops. Staff recommends discussion amongst board members in regards to setting precedent for future applications for other tenant signs. County Planning Board Recommendation: Deny The Board recommends to Deny as tenant signs should conform to the local sign ordinance.” Signed by Bennett F. Driscoll 1/10/03. MR. STONE-Okay. For informational purposes, both the applicant and the Board, the fact that the County Planning Board denied it means we need a supermajority to approve it. We need five positive votes. Sir, go ahead introduce yourself, and tell us what you want. MR. MAY-My name is Peter May. I’m with Hanley Sign Company in Latham. I represent Save-A-Lot for this application. Basically, what they’re attempting to do is to get some additional exposure on the Quaker Road side of the Plaza. There is an existing pylon sign on that street. It identifies the Plaza. I think it also identifies one of the other major tenants in the Plaza, and it has a changeable copy section on it that the different tenants are allowed to use. Save-A-Lot is looking to have permanent identification on that side of the building by use of this sign. It is 68 square feet, but it is approximately only about three percent of the wall area that they occupy. The angle of their location in relation to Route 9 has restrictive view. It’s a very sharp angle. So unless you’re coming north on Route 9, you don’t get much exposure there. So they’re looking for some additional exposure from the other street. MR. STONE-Thank you. Any comments? MR. ABBATE-Yes. Mr. May, is there a representative of Save-A-Lot here this evening? MR. MAY-There doesn’t appear to be. MR. ABBATE-There doesn’t appear to be, and you are from a sign business out of Albany? MR. MAY-That’s correct. MR. ABBATE-Correct, and of course you understand the Albany ordinances would absolutely prohibit, if you check the last several meetings that they had concerning signs, the answers have been no, no, no, but anyway, thank you. MR. BRYANT-I have a question. Why are you seeking additional exposure on that side of the building when, Number One, you can’t drive into that side. There’s no way to get in to the shopping mall from Quaker Road at that point, and, Two, nobody else in that complex has a sign, a wall sign on that side of the building, and so I’m not understanding the logic behind it. MR. MAY-Well, you can get in, there is an entrance right there behind, on the back side, where the Save-A-Lot, there’s not an entrance not the building. There’s an entrance to the Plaza there. MR. BRYANT-Yes. I think that’s only to the loading dock there. MR. STONE-You can go all the way around, up by. 16 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/15/03) MR. MAY-Yes, you can, up by, you can get up by the other end. MR. BRYANT-I’ve never tried it, but it’s such a minor thing, and I don’t think anybody in their right mind would go in that way. MR. MAY-I’d probably agree with you there. I don’t think it’s, the application is to get people to use that entrance to the Plaza. I think it’s mainly identification, let people that are driving along Quaker Road have that constant reminder that Save-A-Lot is in that Plaza, which you can’t tell from that. MR. BRYANT-Okay, and I know from that side you can’t tell. You’re right, and I think the proper thing to do is to get the owner of the property to allow you to put something on the pylon sign, I mean the freestanding sign, but nobody else has a sign on that side of the building. I mean, why, I’m not following why they deserve to have a, I mean, why should they have a sign and nobody else? MR. STONE-I have a question. Have you reviewed the minutes from Sign Variance 14-2001, which was denied? MR. MAY-No. MR. STONE-It basically was for the same kind of sign on that back side, where no signs currently exist, with the exception of the pylon sign that you mentioned. MR. MAY-Was that the Staples application that you’re talking about? MR. BRYANT-That was for a different building. MR. STONE-For the same reason. MR. BRYANT-That was for the freestanding building that Staples built in the parking lot, and it was for that side there behind the bank. It’s not for the same building. I think I’m correct on that. MR. FRANK-I believe so. MR. BRYANT-Because they wanted a sign on that side, and it really wasn’t even visible from Quaker Road, but the point that I was trying to make was that that whole building had a number of tenants. Nobody has a sign on that back wall. So I’m just curious as to why they want a sign. MR. MAY-Well, their concern is for themselves, not for the other tenants. MR. BRYANT-Well, I understand that, but the ramifications are, now we’re going to have 15 signs. MR. MAY-I understand. MR. BRYANT-Do you know what I mean? That’s my logic. MR. ABBATE-And one other thing. You said their concern. They can’t be too concerned because they’re not here this evening. MR. MAY-Well, they were. They were at the Warren County meeting. MR. ABBATE-It’s a question of priority. 17 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/15/03) MR. MAY-And when they got the negative vote, I think that’s probably sealed their fate, they felt. MR. STONE-So they’ve given up, but they sent you anyway into the fray. MR. MAY-I don’t know if that’s necessarily true. I think probably that’s what’s going on. Yes, but I can’t speak for them in that area. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. ABBATE-You have the same drive back to Albany, Mr. May. MR. STONE-Well, we’ll talk about it individually. There’s no sense asking a question to which I know my answer. So I won’t ask the question. Any other questions? Let me open the public hearing. Anybody wishing to speak in favor? Any opposed to the sign? No correspondence? MR. MC NULTY-No correspondence. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. STONE-Let’s talk about it. Allan? MR. BRYANT-I think everybody kind of understands how I feel about it. I think putting a sign on that back wall, when nobody else has a sign, is a dangerous precedent, and I recall the Staples debate, which was fast and furious, and they had the same basic situation where they built the new building, it’s not really visible from anywhere, and they wanted that extra exposure, and I can understand wanting the extra exposure. I would recommend, again, approaching the owner of the property and put something on the freestanding sign, but obviously from that standpoint, I would be opposed. MR. STONE-Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes. This is a tough one. I understand where Save-A-Lot’s coming from. Competition’s intense. There are a lot of supermarkets in that direct area, but again, if I look at the test, sometimes the test doesn’t always tell the whole story. In this case you would benefit from it. The Save-A-Lot would benefit from it. Feasible alternatives are limited because we have a strict rule when it comes to business complex, and relief is definitely substantial relative to the Ordinance, and the effects on the neighborhood or community would, I’m not sure that the back side of that Plaza is not better, the sign wouldn’t be better looking the way the back side of that Plaza looks, but that certainly would change the zoning for signs, and I would be against that part of it, and I think it’s self-created, because these are the rules, and these are the rules you’re following, and I would be against this application. MR. STONE-Okay. Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I would be in agreement with my fellow Board members. I think we’ve been pretty consistent as far as what we allow for signage in the Town and I think that we’ve, you know, as previously discussed with the Staples store, we denied that one, and I think it’s understandable that you would want more advertising on that side of the building, but I think that you’re just going to have to live with what you have, the same as everybody else in the Plaza. MR. STONE-Chuck? 18 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/15/03) MR. MC NULTY-Again, I can basically agree, and I’ll with Roy. It strikes me that there’s some opportunity for the Plaza to do something to improve the looks of that Quaker Road side of the Plaza, and I would certainly agree their existing freestanding sign is probably not really effective back where it is. I think there’s an opportunity for something creative there, I’m not sure just what, that might help at least let people know there’s a Plaza there, but as has been stated, I think the problem here is a snowball. If we all this for one tenant, then we almost have to allow it for all the other tenants in that Plaza, and if we do that there, then we’ve got Northgate Plaza, the plaza where Home Depot’s going in, and Aviation Mall, all of whom would want a sign for each tenant out on the road, too. So, while understanding the reason for the application, I don’t see any way that we should approve it. So I’m going to be opposed. MR. STONE-Norm? MR. HIMES-Thank you very much. I agree with what has already been said, and I might say that I am sensitive to the needs of a business. I wish that I could say yes to this. The other new grocery store across the street has the whole strip mall named after it on their sign out in front, but I’ve got to say, too, that I think they’ve been trying to plant trees along the roadside, back to that building, for quite a long time, and they aren’t efflorescing at any great rate, but if they did, that would kind of obviate the success of that sign anyway, but for the main reasons being what has already been said, that it’s just unfortunate that that’s the way it is back there. There’s no other signs there. I think we’ll try to keep it that way. So I would not be in favor of the application. Thank you. MR. STONE-Chuck? MR. ABBATE-Thank you. Mr. McNulty made a pretty persuasive case in my opinion, and I’m sure, Mr. May, you’ve done a good job, and it’s nothing personal. You have to understand that, but what Queensbury’s attempting to do is attempting to avoid what’s happening in Albany and what’s happening in Colonie, and we’re trying to be very strict, yet but be very fair, but not only signing signs, but with other ordinances as well. Mr. Chairman, I would not support the application. MR. STONE-Nor would I. So we’ll make it unanimous. I could give my speech that we’re very proud of our Sign Ordinance in Queensbury. If you look around, you see that we have nothing way up in the air. We have not too many signs on buildings, and I think we want to keep it that way. I would be quite concerned that if we allow one sign, we would have two signs, or how many signs did you come up with, Mr. Underwood? MR. UNDERWOOD-Eighteen. MR. STONE-Eighteen signs. Because there are eighteen property owners, and I can see a patchwork of signs on the back of those buildings. So I’m going to need a motion to deny, but first, in the sense of completeness, we do need a Short Environmental Assessment Form. MOTION THAT A REVIEW OF THE SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM SHOWS THERE ARE NO NEGATIVE IMPACTS CAUSED BY THIS PROJECT AS FAR AS THE ENVIRONMENT IS CONCERNED, Introduced by Lewis Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Abbate: Duly adopted this 15 day of January, 2003, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Abbate, Mr. Himes, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Stone NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Hayes 19 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/15/03) MR. STONE-Now we need a motion to deny. MR. ABBATE-All right. I’ll take it. MOTION TO DENY SIGN VARIANCE NO. 3-2003 SAVE-A-LOT, Introduced by Charles Abbate, who moved for its adoption, seconded by James Underwood: 756 Glen Street, Queensbury Plaza. Applicant proposes placement of one additional wall sign of 68.61 sq. ft. Based upon the conversation that we have had and the strict ordinances I move that we disapprove this project, in my opinion, sir, approval of this project would be paramount to complete disregard to our local ordinances and completely unfair to the other 18 or so individuals at the shopping center. Based on that information I move that we disapprove Sign Variance No. 3-2003. Duly adopted this 15 day of January 2003 by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Underwood, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Himes, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Stone NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Hayes MR. STONE-Sorry, sir. MR. MAY-No, thank you. The only thing I would like to know is, can I get a copy of this meeting that I can forward to my? MR. STONE-Absolutely. The minutes will be available in a week or so. MR. MAY-Okay. Thank you. MR. STONE-Okay. I have another order of business, gentlemen. Carey Sykes, Area Variance No. 89-2002, has requested, by telephone conversation, that the Zoning Board of Appeals consider his tabling request to be extended until February 17, 2003. This additional time would allow him to prepare an alternate revised proposal for his project. I am told that he has built the shed, if you remember, over on Sunnyside. It is in a compliant location, but he is still looking for the possibility of moving it slightly further back on the property, and so has asked that this be extended until February 17, 2003. MOTION TO EXTEND TABLING REQUEST TO FEBRUARY 17, 2003 FOR AREA VARIANCE NO. 89-2002 CAREY L. SYKES, Introduced by Lewis Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Abbate: Duly adopted this 15 day of January 2003 by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Abbate, Mr. Himes, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Stone NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Hayes MR. STONE-Anybody have a copy of the minutes that need to be approved? MR. ABBATE-I think I do. MR. HIMES-We had three of them, didn’t we? 20 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/15/03) MR. STONE-We can do that one. CORRECTION OF MINUTES December 18, 2002: NONE MOTION TO APPROVE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING MINUTES OF DECEMBER 18, 2002, Introduced by Lewis Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Abbate: Duly adopted this 15 day of January, 2003, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Abbate, Mr. Himes, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Urrico NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Bryant, Mr. Stone ABSENT: Mr. Hayes MR. STONE-Anybody have any other ones? If not, I think we will hold them off until the next meeting. We are adjourned. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Lewis Stone, Chairman 21