Loading...
2003-07-23 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/23/03) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SECOND REGULAR MEETING JULY 23, 2003 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT LEWIS STONE, CHAIRMAN CHARLES MC NULTY, SECRETARY PAUL HAYES ROY URRICO ALLAN BRYANT JAMES UNDERWOOD, ALTERNATE MEMBERS ABSENT CHARLES ABBATE NORMAN HIMES ZONING ADMINISTRATOR-CRAIG BROWN STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. STONE-Before we get to the first item on the formal agenda, I want to go to the last items on the agenda, namely Wal-Mart. We have an Area Variance before us, and a Sign Variance. At the July 17, 2003 Special Meeting of the Planning Board, no SEQRA findings or determinations were made. Therefore, a review of the above referenced variance applications cannot progress. Staff recommends that the applications be tabled until such time as the Planning Board has made the required SEQRA finding. Until such a determination, the application can be placed on the next available agenda as necessary. The Planning Board will not entertain further discussion of the application until the September agenda cycle. Items discussed at the recent Planning Board meeting may result in significant alterations to the project which would in turn alter the applications currently before the Board. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 38-2003 & SIGN VARIANCE NO. 71-2003 WAL-MART STORES EAST, INC., Introduced by Lewis Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles McNulty: Until such time as the Planning Board, as Lead Agency, has made a SEQRA determination. Duly adopted this 23 day of July, 2003, by the following vote: rd AYES: Mr. McNulty, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Stone NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Himes MR. STONE-So if you’re here to talk about Wal-Mart, we will not be talking about Wal-Mart. NEW BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 66-2003 SEQR TYPE II JEFFREY WASHBURN ZONE: SR-20 LOCATION: 48 PINEWOOD ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 728 SQ. FT. ATTACHED GARAGE AND SEEKS RELIEF FROM SIDE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS OF THE SR-20 ZONE. CROSS REFERENCE: NONE FOUND TAX MAP NO. 308.16-1-42 LOT SIZE: 0.29 ACRES SECTION: 179-4-030 1 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/23/03) JEFFREY WASHBURN, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 66-2003, Jeffrey Washburn, Meeting Date: July 23, 2003 “Project Location: 48 Pinewood Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a 728 sf attached garage and seeks relief from the side setback requirements of the SR-20 zone. Relief Required: Applicant requests 6.07 feet of relief from the 30-foot minimum total sideline setback requirement of the SR-20 Zone, §179-4-030. Both sides meet the minimum 10 foot requirement. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): None applicable. Staff comments: The proposed garage does not appear to be excessive, however, would a narrower (20 foot wide) garage be feasible? Will the garage be used for any “classic car” work, other than the applicants?” MR. STONE-Any County? MR. MC NULTY-No County on this one. MR. STONE-Okay. Mr. Washburn, come forward, state your name, and add anything that you might or throw yourself on our mercy, either way. MR. WASHBURN-My name is Jeffrey Washburn from 48 Pinewood Road. In answer to the one question Mr. McNulty asked, would a 20 foot garage do the job, the answer in my opinion is no. I would not be able to store my wife’s vehicle from the snow and weather, and have workroom for what I want to do with my classic car. Other than that, I don’t see where the garage is an excessive width. It’s only 26 foot. I originally put a building permit in on May 1 for a 24 by 36 st detached garage. When I realized how far my property slanted in the back, realized it was only going to be four and a half feet off the property line, I reduced it to a 28 by 28. When I figured out that it was only going to be, still going to be within the 10 foot range, I reduced it again to 26 feet. other than that, I guess I don’t have too much to say. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. WASHBURN-I mean, I talked to both property owners across from me. They don’t have an issue with it. The property owner on the side that I’m building the garage is here tonight and he doesn’t have an issue with it. MR. STONE-I saw today, when I was there this afternoon, three vehicles, the RV, obviously the classic car, and a truck. MR. WASHBURN-Yes. MR. STONE-Now, if you put the garage in, what will we be seeing outside the garage? MR. WASHBURN-The RV and the truck. MR. STONE-Now is the truck for work? MR. WASHBURN-The truck is for the RV. It’s a fifth wheel. MR. STONE-A fifth wheel. Okay. MR. WASHBURN-And I also use it for most of my transportation. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. WASHBURN-My wife has a car for her personal needs. 2 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/23/03) MR. STONE-Does anybody have any questions? MR. MC NULTY-I’ve got one. MR. STONE-Go ahead. MR. MC NULTY-Looking at all possible alternatives, you say that the purpose is to work on classic car and have a place to store one vehicle. Would an in-line garage, rather than a side by side garage work, with the classic car being in the back most of the time? MR. WASHBURN-Well, if I did that, you would have your 30 foot setback, but I would have to get in to the back yard farther. I’d be a lot closer to my septic system. I would also have to move the car in front every time I wanted to take the classic car out. MR. MC NULTY-Right. MR. WASHBURN-I mean, it’s not just to work on the classic car. It’s also to store it, to keep it out of the rain, and I do drive it. MR. STONE-So when you say you’d be closer to the, where is your septic system on the survey that you provided? MR. WASHBURN-Well, if you look at the, I inserted a second survey, older one that I, or drawing, rather, and I drew in, if you can find this one, you’ll see the, right now it’s 20 foot from the back of the house. MR. STONE-And you had originally talked about how deep? MR. WASHBURN-Thirty-six. MR. STONE-Thirty-six, another eight feet. MR. WASHBURN-Yes, but that was asking for a 24 by 36, which would have basically given me room for, actually to begin with I would have had room for storage of my wife’s car, storage of my truck, and storage of the classic car in sideways in the back. That was my original. That was a detached. MR. STONE-Okay. Any other questions, gentlemen? MR. BRYANT-I’m not understanding. A few minutes ago you just said that your truck was going to be outside as your main source of transportation and the garage is primarily for your wife’s car and your classic car? MR. WASHBURN-Correct. MR. BRYANT-Okay, and getting back to what Mr. McNulty said, if you had a 20 foot wide garage, and you added six feet to the twenty-eight feet, it would still give you the same square footage, and you really would be far enough from your leach fields. MR. WASHBURN-I hadn’t really considered it. MR. STONE-Craig, what’s it, 10 feet from the lateral? MR. BROWN-Minimum is 20 feet if you have a basement or any crawl space. With the garage where the floor actually would be on grade, the setback could go down to a couple of feet, if need be. MR. WASHBURN-The garage, floor would be on grade, but the frost wall wouldn’t. 3 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/23/03) MR. BROWN-Right, but there’s no living space or a crawl space beneath the garage. MR. STONE-So it could go much closer to the? MR. BROWN-That’s correct. MR. STONE-Okay. Anything else? If not, let me open the public hearing and see if anybody. I’ll open the public hearing. Anybody wishing to speak in favor of the application? In favor of? Please come forward. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MILFORD PALMER MR. PALMER-Hi. My name is Milford Palmer, on 40 Pinewood Road. I’m his neighbor, and I just don’t see why there would be a problem. MR. STONE-Now, you’re the neighbor to the immediate south? MR. PALMER-Right. MR. STONE-Who would be most affected. MR. PALMER-Right. MR. STONE-And you have no problem. MR. PALMER-No problem at all. MR. STONE-Okay. Thank you. MR. PALMER-Thank you. MR. STONE-Anybody else wishing to speak in favor of the application? In favor of? Anybody opposed to the application? Opposed? Any correspondence? MR. MC NULTY-One piece of correspondence. There’s an e-mail from a John Wells, at 49 Pinewood Road. He says, “I’m not sure if this is the proper place to state this, hopefully it will be forwarded if not. My name is John Wells I reside at 41 Pinewood Rd., located directly across from Jeff Washburn at 48 Pinewood Rd. I have no objections to this variance request. John Wells 41 Pinewood Rd. 792-2143” MR. STONE-All right. That’s it? MR. MC NULTY-That’s it. MR. STONE-All right. Hearing nobody else, I’ll close the public hearing. Any other questions? Well, that being the case, let’s talk about it. Let’s start with Jim down there. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, I think though you could build a compliant structure, I think you’ve explained what your needs are, and I think that, you know, the amount of relief that you’re asking for, six feet, is, you know, not that consequential to the neighborhood. Also the fact that yours don’t seem to be in opposition to this kind of puts it in your favor also. I’d go along with it. MR. STONE-Allan? 4 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/23/03) MR. BRYANT-One of the criteria is whether or not there is a reasonable alternative. I think here is a reasonable alternative, but the other side of the coin is that your neighbors are in favor of it, the one directly across from you and the one that would be directly affected to that setback. So, with that in mind, I’d be in favor of the application. MR. STONE-Roy? MR. URRICO-I’m in agreement. I don’t think there would be a change in the character of the neighborhood. I think the applicant certainly seems like he would gain a benefit from this. I don’t think the requested Area Variance is really substantial, and I don’t think it’ll have an adverse impact on the neighborhood or the district, and although this can be deemed self- created, I don’t think it’s such that it would warrant not granting the variance. I would be in favor of it. MR. STONE-Jaime? MR. HAYES-I agree with what the other Board members have said. We’re presented with a balancing test on these type of variances, and I really can’t see any negative impact on the neighborhood. So I think the benefit to you, that you’ve put forth, is compelling enough for me to be in favor. MR. STONE-Chuck? MR. MC NULTY-Well, I’ll be what I guess I’d call reluctantly in favor. I’m not quite as enthusiastic as the other members of the Board, because I think it will have some effect on the neighborhood. When I drove down through there it struck me that most of the homes that had garages had single car garages in that area. So this will tend to make the lot look a little more crowded. As has been previously mentioned, I think there are some possible alternatives that maybe haven’t been thoroughly explored, but on the other hand, I can see where this configuration would be more convenient to the applicant, and I think probably the benefit to the applicant is going to slightly outweigh potential detriment to the neighborhood. So, as I said, I’ll be reluctantly in favor. MR. STONE-Just a question before I start. Nobody’s mentioned it. The lot to the north. Is that yours or somebody else’s, the empty lot? MR. WASHBURN-It’s someone else’s. MR. STONE-Do they have plans for it? MR. WASHBURN-I have no idea. It belongs to a Mr. and Mrs. Drum, and he’s a retired police officer from New York City and he keeps very much to himself. MR. STONE-Okay. Nobody’s approached you to buy half of it or anything like that. Okay. Well, I certainly concur with the rest of my fellow Board members. Certainly you need a garage. In fact, everybody has one. Basically you’ve got room for two, even though we’re squeezing. Your neighbor to the south who’s most affected does not have a problem, and therefore when you do the balancing test that we all talk about, I think it comes down in favor of the applicant. So therefore I would ask for a motion to approve the Area Variance. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 66-2003 JEFFREY WASHBURN, Introduced by James Underwood who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roy Urrico: 48 Pinewood Road. The applicant proposes construction of a 728 square foot attached garage and seeks relief from the side setback requirements of the SR-20 zone. Specifically, they’re asking for 6.07 feet of relief from the 30 foot minimum total sideline setback requirement of the SR-20 zone, Section 179-4-030. While a more compliant structure could be built, he’s explained why he needs this one, and we all agree that we should grant this variance. 5 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/23/03) Duly adopted this 23 day of July, 2003, by the following vote: rd AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Stone NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Himes, Mr. Abbate MR. STONE-There you go. MR. WASHBURN-Thank you. MR. STONE-Get a building permit. MR. WASHBURN-I’ve already got a building permit in. AREA VARIANCE NO. 67-2003 SEQR TYPE II KEVIN MASCHEWSKI PROPERTY OWNER: MARK & BARRIE HANDELMAN ZONE: WR-3A LOCATION: 10 CROOKED TREE DRIVE APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 468 SQ. FT. TWO STORY ADDITION AND SEEK RELIEF FROM THE SIDE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS OF THE WR-3A ZONE. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 7-95, AV 3-96, SP 24-96 APA, CEA WARREN CO. PLANNING: 7/9/03 TAX MAP NO. 239.15-1-12 LOT SIZE: 1.10 ACRE SECTION 179-4-030 KEVIN MASCHEWSKI & MARK HANDELMAN, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 67-2003, Kevin Maschewski, Meeting Date: July 23, 2003 “Project Location: 10 Crooked Tree Drive Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes 468 sf two-story addition and seeks relief from the side setback requirement of the WR-1A zone. Relief Required: Applicant requests 9.1 feet of relief from the 25-foot minimum side setback requirement of the WR-3A Zone, §179-4-030. Further, the project requires relief for the expansion of a pre-existing, non-conforming structure, per 179-13-10. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): AV 7-1995 48 sf addition to dock……..application withdrawn AV 3-1996 res. 5/15/96 560 sf additions to Single Family Dwelling SP 24-1996 res. 6/18/96 560 sf additions to Single Family Dwelling Staff comments: The 18 foot by 18 foot portion of the house immediately north of the proposed addition was the basis for AV 3-1996. Side setback and shoreline setback relief were granted for the addition at that time. The addition appears to be in compliance with the approval issued. However, a review of the withdrawn AV 7-1995 versus the survey map submitted seems to indicate that the 48 square foot dock addition has been constructed. The 1995 variance was not granted and no Building Permit for the dock expansion was issued.” MR. MC NULTY-“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form July 9, 2003 Project Name: Maschewski, Kevin Owner: Mark & Barrie Handelman ID Number: QBY-03-AV-67 County Project#: Jul03-31 Current Zoning: WR-3A Community: Queensbury Project Description: Applicant proposes construction of a 468 sq. ft. two story addition and seek relief from the side setback requirements of the WR-3A zone. Site Location: 10 Crooked Tree Drive Tax Map Number(s): 239.15-1-12 Staff Notes: Area Variance: The applicant proposes to construct a 234 sq. ft. (foot print) addition to an existing 2,002 sq. ft. (footprint) home. The new living area total is 468 sq. ft. where the elevations drawings detail the location of the new addition to the existing home. The existing home on the east side is 15 ft. from the side property 6 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/23/03) line where 25 ft. is required. The addition will be 15 +/- ft. from the east property line no closer than the existing structure. The information submitted indicates the septic system will be upgraded to accommodate 4-bedrooms. The plans did not include information on stormwater or erosion control measures. Staff does not identify an impact on county resources. Staff recommends no county impact with the condition the applicant work with Warren County Soil and Water in regards to installing stormwater and erosion control measures to minimize impacts on to Lake George. County Planning Board Recommendation: No County Impact with Stipulation The County Planning Board recommends no county impact with the condition the applicant work with Warren County Soil and Water in regards to installing stormwater and erosion control measures to minimize impacts on to Lake George.” Signed by Bennet F. Driscoll, Warren County Planning Board 07/14/03. MR. STONE-Gentlemen, a point of personal privilege before we start. Mr. Maschewski, congratulations on the birth of your child. MR. MASCHEWSKI-Thank you. MR. STONE-Let me go further now. Reading Staff notes, I’m quite concerned, as Chairman of the Zoning Board, with the comment about the dock, non building permit, and a variance that was never granted. I am tempted to call for, but I will poll the Board before I do, a motion to table this application until such time as the dock matter is cleared up by either a whatever work is worked out between the Zoning Administrator and the applicant, but until such time as that dock is conforming to the Ordinances and the Code of the Town of Queensbury, I am tempted, I will, I intend, unless the Board strongly disagrees, that we table this until that time. And having said that, I’d like comments from the Board. Let me just start down, will, let me start with Chuck. How do you feel on that subject? MR. MC NULTY-I’m inclined to agree with you. There may be a logical explanation. So if that can be provided right away, fine, but otherwise, I would like to see that issue resolved before we move forward with permission to do anything else to this property. MR. STONE-Jaime? MR. HAYES-I think I agree. I mean, everyone, when you read the Staff notes, when certainly wanted that question answered and need to have that question answered. Everyone feels that, or I shouldn’t say everyone. I certainly feel that that question should be answered, and this file should be examined in its entirety. So I’m in favor of tabling it as well. MR. STONE-Roy? MR. URRICO-I’m in agreement with my other Board members. I think, in order for us to render a proper decision, we have to be assured that the applicant would be satisfied with the decision that we made, or that he’d be willing to comply with it. Until that question is answered about the dock, I’m not sure that question has been answered. MR. STONE-Okay. Allan? MR. BRYANT-I’m neutral on this issue. I believe that one is probably not related to the other, but then on the other hand, it is on the same property. So with that in mind, I’m on the fence. MR. STONE-You’re on the fence. MR. BRYANT-I’m on the fence. MR. STONE-Okay. Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I would say I’m on the fence, too, you know, I think that we get hung up on these issues, sometimes, and I think, you know, we could put a contingency, if we dealt 7 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/23/03) with this this evening, that this would have to be dealt with prior to any issuing of any kind of work permit to do the new construction, you know, which might speed up the process. I don’t know whether we would even ask for any explanation tonight, as to when it occurred, that this construction was done, and why it was done without a permit. MR. STONE-Well, I agree with the majority of the Board. I think it’s an issue that has caused us a great deal of trouble in the past on properties where people have built without a variance and it’s usually comes up in the discussion of the variance that they’re now seeking. This is a different situation, but it is on the same property. It is something that happened a number of years ago, but I think we have to have a clean application, if you will. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 67-2003 KEVIN MASCHEWSKI, Introduced by Lewis Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Paul Hayes: 10 Crooked Tree Drive. For a minimum of 62 days, and we will see what happens, whether we have to extend that tabling, so that the variance sought in Area Variance 7-1995, which apparently subsequently built without a building permit and without a variance being thoroughly examined. Duly adopted this 23 day of July, 2003, by the following vote: rd MR. MASCHEWSKI-May I? MR. STONE-You certainly may. MR. HANDELMAN-Try to, you know, to hold this up for 60 days not only holds up the application but it holds up the septic tank design and so on and so forth, which, you know, if that’s what you want to do, that’s fine. I would like to explain the whole dock situation. I’m talking about six feet of dock, which this gentleman saw this afternoon. MR. BROWN-Excuse me. Just for the record, are you Mr. Handelman? MR. HANDELMAN-Yes. MR. BROWN-Okay, just for the minutes. MR. HANDELMAN-I tried to do things right. If I had known that I could have come before Queensbury, I would have done that immediately. I was told I had to go to Warren County. Then I had to go to the Lake George Park Commission, and I was summarily dismissed by both of those bodies without even looking at my project, and basically the reason I sought the project was for safety reasons. My boathouse extends the six feet. The dock on the other side extends the six feet. My boat stuck out the six feet, making it difficult for older people to get in and out of the boat. Also, at one point, later on, the builder who was resurfacing my dock noticed that the boathouse roof was sagging and felt that the only way to fix it was to shore it up and the adding the six feet worked fine. I withdrew my application, several, many months prior. I don’t remember the exact date of the construction quite frankly, but I withdrew my application because, quite frankly, I was discouraged and felt to hell with the whole thing. When, I believe it was, I’m not even sure if it was the same year, but it was in October, September or October, I decided to have my dock resurfaced because the wood was rotting and so forth. So I had the whole dock redone, and at that time, the builder looked at the roof and so forth and didn’t see that the six foot addition had absolutely no impact on the side lots. It was within my property. It required no variance. The only reason that I was told to go to Warren County and the Park Commission was because anything that had to do with the water they had to okay, and, quite frankly, when he resurfaced the docks, he added the six feet, put in a post, which not only enabled my boat to fit perfectly in the boathouse, and also allowed me to put side curtains up to protect the boat from the sun and so forth, and it not only held up the roof, but it also made the boat easier to get in and out of, especially for older people, and since I’m gradually becoming an older people, I felt it was not such a terrible thing to do. I apologize to Queensbury for not 8 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/23/03) going through the process, but quite frankly when I was turned down without even getting a chance to talk, I was turned down by both of those Boards, and I felt, number one, it was totally unfair, and I was quite discouraged, and I just decided, forget the whole thing. MR. BRYANT-Well, let me ask you a question in that regard, and I asked you this question, I’m going to ask you the exact same question. MR. HANDELMAN-Sure. MR. BRYANT-If you had made application to extend the dock, and then you withdrew the application to extend the dock, why would you then go ahead and build the dock that you didn’t have permission to build? MR. HANDELMAN-I guess stupidity. That’s the only explanation I can give, and when it came to resurfacing the dock, it seemed that it was not the kind, it was such a small thing that it didn’t require any setbacks or anything else. MR. BRYANT-Yes, but it did require setbacks. You knew that because you made the application. MR. HANDELMAN-No, I made the application because that was the process that I was told to do, and quite frankly I don’t remember the details of it now because it was about four years ago, five years ago. MR. STONE-You would not have been asked to submit an application if the project didn’t require a variance. MR. HANDELMAN-I assumed the variance was because it affected the lake. MR. STONE-It affected the Code, the Zoning Code of the Town of Queensbury. MR. HANDELMAN-Okay. MR. STONE-And that’s always the first place you go, and I think Mr. Maschewski knows that, as a builder in Town, you come here. Our Staff is very helpful. MR. HANDELMAN-Well, then I was given the wrong information because I was told that I had to go to Warren County first and then the Lake George Park Commission. If I’d known that I could have gone to Queensbury first, that’s the first thing I would have done, and, you know, when I think back on it, that would have been the right thing to do, but everyone that I asked told me that I had to go to Warren County first. MR. STONE-I think I appreciate your problem, but I am handicapped by not knowing about this other project, in terms of what it is you did exactly and what relief you needed, because quite often, and I alluded to the fact that we do find some people come before us having done their project and they’re seeking a variance, but at least we have an application in front of us. We know exactly what it is that they did, even though it’s in the guise of what they want to do. We don’t have this, so I can’t even tell you, well, I might have approved it, now that you’ve done it, but I have nothing to look at, and I just think that, and I know it’s going to hold you up, but there is a process, and we are responsible, as a Board, and as citizens of Queensbury, for helping enforce the Zoning Code of the Town of Queensbury, and this is, frankly, one case where we can help it by saying, get the property clean, if you will, and then we’ll take up the next variance. MR. HANDELMAN-May I ask a question here? And I don’t mean to argue with you, and, you know, it sounds like you’ve made up your mind, it just seems unfair to Kevin and unfair to, you know, this whole process, to hold it up. Is there any way that you can deal with this aspect contingent upon resolving the other issue? It seems ridiculous to have to wait 60 days. 9 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/23/03) MR. MASCHEWSKI-That’s the maximum. MR. STONE-That’s the max. MR. HANDELMAN-That’s the maximum. Is it possible to deal with this issue and have a contingency on resolving the other issue? MR. STONE-Well, I think all of us have thought about that. I’m not sure what the contingency could be that would speed the thing up, because we certainly would say you can’t build until you get this other thing resolved, even if we said, well, we’ll grant this variance, but we’re still going to have to push it out, it seems to me, saying, well, you can’t build. You’ve got your variance, but you can’t build. So it’s going to be the same time. MR. HANDELMAN-Well, let me ask you another question. Off the record, can you give me. MR. STONE-You’re always on the record. I’m sorry. MR. HANDELMAN-Well, you give me an indication it’s possible this variance will be granted? Because then Kevin can work on the septic system and so forth. MR. STONE-The problem, I think each one of us individually, in private if we chose to could say something, but this Board, and this is one of the things that all of us are very proud of, is that we don’t make a decision until we hear all of the information. Your application, consideration of any questions we may have, what the neighbors may or may not feel about this project, and then, and only then, do we make a decision. Anything else would be shortchanging the system, and I think we do a pretty good job of following the system. MR. MASCHEWSKI-It’s very hard for me to sit here without saying one word, but, Craig, do you know what the variance was applied for originally for that dock? MR. BROWN-Originally what was applied for was side setback relief, and a total square footage for a single dock over 700 square feet. MR. MASCHEWSKI-Okay. MR. BROWN-I think the current survey, and stop me if you don’t want to hear anymore, but I think the current survey depicts that the 20 foot side setback is not in violation, but definitely the total square footage, which I think was in the neighborhood of 1200 square feet versus the 700, which is allowable, that increase is obviously still there. MR. MASCHEWSKI-And the carpet was pulled out from under my feet yesterday, and I had no knowledge, so what I think is we’ll just set up an appointment with Craig, and pursue it. I had no involvement with it originally, but, if it’s going to hold up any potential development for me and my business, I think we should go after it. So I’ll talk to Craig about it and get Mark. MR. STONE-Okay. Do I hear a second to my tabling motion? MR. HAYES-Second. AYES: Mr. Hayes, Mr. Urrico, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Stone NOES: Mr. Bryant, Mr. Underwood ABSENT: Mr. Himes, Mr. Abbate MR. STONE-There you go, gentlemen. Sorry about that. 10 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/23/03) MR. HANDELMAN-That’s okay. Thank you. MR. BROWN-Mr. Chairman, just for the record, I think a public hearing was announced and advertised for this application. You may want to at least open it up. I don’t know if anybody’s here. You could just open the public hearing and leave it open. MR. STONE-All right. Before we get through, jumping back, let me just open the public hearing. Anybody wishing to speak in favor of this application? In favor of? Please come forward. I’m sorry. I didn’t mean to cut you off. I didn’t realize that there was. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MARIAN WAIT-WALSH MRS. WAIT-WALSH-My name is Marian Wait-Walsh. My mother, Jane Wait, owns the property that’s just to the south. So we are the most impacted neighbor. When Mr. Handelman first came in for the variance for the side yard setback to do the construction, we wrote a letter in support of that. We did enter into an agreement, because my concern with this one was that there would be no windows on the second floor because this property is higher than ours, and these windows look right down onto us. The Handelmans had no problem with that. We’ve sorted this out, and really we have no problem. They did a beautiful job with the first addition, which you’ve, I guess those of you who’ve inspected the property have had a chance to see that. Also of great concern to us on Dunham’s Bay is the quality of the water, and one of the things I first looked for when I came in to look at the plans was whether a new septic system would be required, and apparently it is, and obviously we’re very much in favor of that. We’ve done that ourselves in the last couple of years. So an improvement of the lake, and the fact that it does not impact us adversely and we have agreements for the issues in place that we were concerned with, I would like to put forth our support of this application. Is it appropriate for me to say anything about the docks, because some of that information’s on the table, and I would rather not come back another evening. MR. STONE-Well, the dock’s really not on the table. MRS. WAIT-WALSH-Okay. MR. STONE-And I appreciate your comments on this, and when we get back to hearing it again, if you can’t be here, we will certainly make sure that the public hearing record will be, and I thank you, Craig, for. MRS. WAIT-WALSH-I would appreciate that. MR. STONE-Anybody else wishing to speak on this application? Yes or no? Is there any correspondence? MR. MC NULTY-I didn’t find any correspondence. MR. STONE-Then I will leave the public hearing open, and we’ll move on to the next application. SIGN VARIANCE NO. 68-2003 SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED NORTH COUNTRY SPORTS MEDICINE, PLCC & GLENS FALLS HOSPITAL – THE REHABILITATION CENTER & THE HEARING CENTER PROPERTY OWNER: SCHERMERHORN COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES CONTRACT VENDEE AGENT: K.D. WHEELER CUSTOM SIGNS ZONE: PO LOCATION: 25 WILLOWBROOK ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES A 64 SQ. FT. FREE STANDING SIGN AND SEEKS RELIEF FROM THE SIGN ORDINANCE FOR A 2 FREE ND STANDING SIGN. CROSS REFERENCE: MANY WARREN CO. PLANNING: 7/9/03 TAX MAP NO. 296.1-1-37.1 LOT SIZE: N/A SECTION: 140-6 B3 11 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/23/03) HOLLY WHEELER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Sign Variance No. 68-2003, North Country Sports Medicine, PLCC & Glens Falls Hospital – The Rehabilitation Center & The Hearing Center, Meeting Date: July 23, 2003 “Project Location: 25 Willowbrook Rd. Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes placement of a 64 sf freestanding sign and seeks relief to allow a second freestanding sign on the same parcel. Relief Required: Applicant relief from the Sign Ordinance for the construction of a second freestanding sign on the property. Specifically, §140-6, B., (3), (c) allows each business to have only one freestanding sign. Since a freestanding sign permit has already been issued for these businesses at this site, BP 2003-419, a variance is required. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): BP 2003-419 64 sf freestanding sign, issued 6/17/03. Staff comments: Since both businesses are advertising on the sign in BP 03-419 and both businesses are seeking to advertise on the sign as proposed in this application, a sign variance is necessary. However, if there are only two tenants in this building, each could seek their own freestanding sign. Three or more tenants would classify as a business complex, which allows only one freestanding sign. Consideration might be given to the number of tenants at this site as well as the pending development and signage for the remainder of this business park. Are the tenants at this site contemplating any wall signage? If so, how big and where? Visibility for the permitted sign does not appear to be an issue. Glens Falls Hospital, North Country Sports Medicine, Hearing Center? 3 tenants?” MR. MC NULTY-“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form July 9, 2003 Project Name: North Country Sports Medicine, PLCC Owner: North Country Sports Medicine, PLCC ID Number: QBY-03-SV-68 County Project#: Jul03-32 Current Zoning: PO Community: Queensbury Project Description: Applicant proposes a 64 sq. ft. free standing sign and seeks relief from the Sign Ordinance for a 2 free standing sign. Site Location: 25 nd Willowbrook Road Tax Map Number(s): 296.1-1-37 Staff Notes: Sign Variance: The application proposes to place a 64 sq. ft. sign at the Baybrook Professional Office Park for a specific building on the property. The sign is to be located on Bay Road 25’ from the property line. The sign is to be parallel with the road. The sign is for the North Country Sports Medicine and the Glens Falls Hospital hearing and rehabilitation Center. There is no lighting proposed. The applicant has indicated that a wall sign which is allowed would not benefit them because the building is setback 75’ from the Bay Road property line and the plantings may interfere with the visibility of a wall sign. Staff does not identify an impact on county resources. Staff recommends no county impact with the condition that the sign contain no lighting and be constructed as submitted. County Planning Board Recommendation: No County Impact with Stipulation The County Planning Board recommends no county impact with the condition that the sign contain no lighting and be constructed as submitted.” Signed by Bennet F. Driscoll, Warren County Planning Board 07/14/03. MR. STONE-And you are? MRS. WHEELER-Holly Wheeler, K.D. Wheeler Custom Signs, 16 Richardson Street, Queensbury. We are the builder of the signs. What we’re proposing to do is substitute the freestanding sign for the wall signs that face Bay Road. Due to the fact that they have planted all these sugar maples. You can see it on the map. I gave you a landscape map purposely. There’s sugar maples all planted along in there. They’re now in place. They’re nice little spindly trees right now, but sugar maples grow to 60 to 70 feet high, and 40 to 50 feet wide, which means it’s going to block the building. MR. STONE-And the Planning Board insisted that they be replaced if they die, I assume. Early. I know. Craig is shaking his head. That’s gotten to be one of our things. MRS. WHEELER-They’re not a great plant for along the road, but anyway. My comment. But what we’d like to do is to put a single faced sign parallel to the road, 25 foot setback. So that it can be seen between the tree trunks, basically. 12 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/23/03) MR. STONE-And how high, I mean, the sign itself looks like it’s four feet. MRS. WHEELER-We try to go about three feet from the ground level to the bottom of the sign, just because of snow. MR. STONE-Sure, okay. MRS. WHEELER-But, fairly low profile. MR. STONE-So roughly seven or eight feet we’re talking, to the top of the sign? MRS. WHEELER-Yes. MR. STONE-Okay. Does anybody have any questions? MR. BRYANT-The sign you have in the driveway now? MRS. WHEELER-That’s going. MR. BRYANT-That’s a temporary sign. MRS. WHEELER-That’s a temporary. MR. BRYANT-But that’s going to be the position of the real freestanding sign? MRS. WHEELER-No. The freestanding sign is back farther. It’s back farther. It meets the 25 foot setback. It’s quite a ways back. That sign that’s out there now, there’s a site sign. I didn’t make it, frankly. We added a “Now Open” to the top. MR. BRYANT-It’s a temporary sign. MRS. WHEELER-It’s a temporary. MR. BRYANT-Your building says Glens Falls Hospital and Sports Medicine, those are the only two tenants in the building? MRS. WHEELER-They are the two tenants. It’s North Country Sports Medicine, and then the Glens Falls Hospital, and under Glens Falls Hospital is the hearing center and the rehabilitation center, but they kind of consider themselves all one business. MR. BRYANT-It’s all a part of the Glens Falls Hospital? MRS. WHEELER-It’s all a part of the Hospital. MR. BRYANT-Is the whole building occupied? MRS. WHEELER-As far as I know, and I’m not positive. I believe so. As far as I know, they are the only tenants in that building. MR. BRYANT-Are there going to be anymore tenants? MRS. WHEELER-Not that I know of. I haven’t been told as such, and I would have been told, because of the signage issue. MR. STONE-So then if there are more tenants, Craig, the sign actually gets reduced, so to speak? 13 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/23/03) MRS. WHEELER-Well, or we make the size of it, keep the same size, just make three panels. MR. STONE-Yes. MRS. WHEELER-But then we go into that business complex thing and. MR. STONE-Right. MRS. WHEELER-We’d start over. MR. STONE-Okay. So this is going to be parallel to Bay Road and parallel to the building facing Bay Road. MRS. WHEELER-Yes. MR. STONE-Okay, which is actually the back of the building. MRS. WHEELER-Yes. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. URRICO-Mr. Chairman, I’m a little confused over the variance. Why we need a variance, why it’s being sought. MR. STONE-Because it represents two, in Craig’s opinion, it represents two freestanding signs, even though it’s on one. MR. BROWN-Right. MRS. WHEELER-Two freestanding signs. MR. BROWN-If we’re going to call this a building with two businesses in it or two tenants in it, I think the two that are listed on the sign, Glens Falls Hospital and North Country Sports Medicine, each business, being it’s only two on the property, each business could seek their own freestanding sign. In this case we have two freestanding signs that are sought. One’s the existing sign permit that’s been issued, and this one. When you combine the business on one sign. They’re not independent signs for each business. So, North Country Sports Medicine could have their own freestanding sign. They’re own freestanding sign, and Glens Falls Rehabilitation, Glens Falls Hospital and the hearing and rehabilitation could have their own freestanding, but both of the signs in question here, both the one that’s permitted and the one that they’re seeking permission for now has both businesses advertised on it. So they’re not independent freestanding signs. MR. STONE-But is there another sign in addition to the one in the middle that we’re looking at? MRS. WHEELER-Yes. MR. BROWN-They’ve been issued a building permit for a freestanding sign. MR. MC NULTY-At the entrance. MR. BRYANT-It’s shown on. MR. URRICO-Double faced. MRS. WHEELER-Double faced. MR. BROWN-Double faced, freestanding sign. 14 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/23/03) MR. STONE-Right. I’ve got it. MR. BRYANT-I want to go one step further and ask you a question. MR. BROWN-Sure. MR. BRYANT-Now, five years down the road, they subdivide this and there’s two or three other doctors that come in there, and all of a sudden you have four tenants instead of two, how does that affect that additional freestanding sign that we’re giving them now? I mean, they get that forever. So we don’t really start all over. Is that correct? This is a forever thing. MR. BROWN-Sure. Once the variance is granted, right. MR. BRYANT-Yes. So basically then, their freestanding sign, lets say in the driveway, the double faced thing now will have four tenants, and be whatever. MR. BROWN-Potentially. MR. BRYANT-And they’ll have two signs. Okay. I just wanted to know. MRS. WHEELER-But it doesn’t change the square footage, does it? Your square footage doesn’t change. MR. STONE-No, the square footage would stay the same. MR. BROWN-No. I think it throws it into as a business complex, which is allowed one freestanding sign. So this would be a second freestanding sign for the business complex. MRS. WHEELER-However, they’re not a business complex. There’s only two tenants, not three. MR. HAYES-So you’re saying that would possibly hold this variance in abeyance, then? MR. BROWN-I don’t know. If you consider this a second freestanding sign for a business complex, and proceed along that avenue, I think you’d take everything into account. MR. BRYANT-Yes, because in reality, that could be the end result. The end result could be that there are two signs with four different businesses on each sign. Okay, because once the variance is granted, that’s it. MR. HAYES-What’s the square footage on the two signs, versus like the two signs that they could pursue independently? MRS. WHEELER-Right now? They’re 64 square feet each. So that would be 128. MR. HAYES-So they could have two 64 square foot signs if they have their own name on them, each one could have one. MR. BROWN-Each one could have one, right. MR. HAYES-Sixty-four square feet. MR. BROWN-But with a business complex you’re limited to one. MR. HAYES-Total. MR. BROWN-Total. 15 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/23/03) MRS. WHEELER-Total. MR. BROWN-Without a variance. MRS. WHEELER-Right. So if they become a business complex, then it seems to me you can make that contingent on this variance, that if it ever becomes multiple tenants beyond two, right? Can’t you write it that way? MR. STONE-Well, we could say that you’re still limited to the two signs that would be authorized by this variance, and the size that they are, and you can put other names on it if it became a business complex, but it would be limited, physically, to these two signs. MR. BRYANT-Yes, but normally it would be limited to one sign, unless each business had it’s own individual sign. MRS. WHEELER-It would be limited to one and wall signs. It would be limited to one freestanding sign and wall signs. Each tenant would get a wall sign in a business complex. MR. BRYANT-Yes, well, that’s another issue all together. MRS. WHEELER-This could get real involved. MR. BRYANT-The only point that I’m trying to make is that since the variance is forever, they have a situation now where really if each business had its own sign, they’re entitled to the two signs. Okay. That’s a big building. That’s not a small building. If things change down the road, and they’re more than one tenant, they still have the variance. Supposing they have three tenants next year. MR. STONE-No, if there are more than two. They have two now. MR. BRYANT-Well, then they can use both signs, and be to that, it would be to their advantage. Do you follow what I’m saying? MR. STONE-Well, we would have two signs of this size, 64 square feet, two 64 square foot signs, with more than two names on each. Is that what you’re? MR. BRYANT-That’s exactly what I’m saying, which is 100% more than 99.9% of the businesses in Queensbury have now. There aren’t very many businesses that have two freestanding signs. Very few. And we’ve been very strict in that area. Even the malls, okay, and that’s the point I’m trying to make. Even if this situation, they’re entitled to two now, if they keep the business separate. Okay, but down the road, as things change, it’s a big building, okay, then the complexion of the signs can change if they have a variance. MR. STONE-Okay, but we can put a contingency on the variance that these two signs can exist as long as there are only two tenants in the building. MR. BRYANT-Fine. MR. STONE-And that goes along just as long as the variance does, right, Mr. Brown? You’re looking puzzled. MR. BROWN-You’re trying to make this confusing, I think. MRS. WHEELER-I thought this was simple, guys. MR. STONE-But right now, if we granted this variance, we have two signs, which as you stated, they could have, one for one business and one for the other. 16 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/23/03) MRS. WHEELER-But I’m conceding in not putting any wall signs up. MR. BRYANT-That’s not an issue. MR. HAYES-You’re empowered to do that? MRS. WHEELER-Well, I’ll give you that one. MR. HAYES-Well, it’s an important. MR. BROWN-Well, I guess, are you or aren’t you? MRS. WHEELER-No, we’re not. MR. BROWN-So there’d be no wall signs on the building? MRS. WHEELER-No wall signs on the side facing Bay Road. MR. BROWN-Well, the sign on the other side counts, too, because that’s a Town road on the other side. So, I mean, wall signs are wall signs, regardless of which side they’re on. MRS. WHEELER-The parking lot. MR. UNDERWOOD-The Willowbrook parking lot? MRS. WHEELER-The parking lot sign. MR. UNDERWOOD-The parking lot sign. MR. BROWN-Yes. This road, Willowbrook Road here, is a Town road, well, soon to be dedicated Town road. Right. So any signs on this side of the building would be considered signs as well. MR. MC NULTY-Now, this eventually is going to be a business complex, or potentially an office park of some sort? MR. BROWN-The entire subdivision? MR. MC NULTY-Well, I mean this general piece of property. If another office building is built say on the east side of Willowbrook Road, somewhere down the line, they will not be entitled to signs on Bay Road, but near their building? MR. BROWN-That’s correct. MR. MC NULTY-Okay. MR. BRYANT-Now you’re throwing me for a loop. Are you saying on the same property? MR. BROWN-No. This is a business complex subdivision with individual lots. MR. STONE-This is one lot that this building sits on with its parking. MR. BROWN-This is one lot within the subdivision. This one big building is on one lot in the subdivision. MR. STONE-Yes. 17 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/23/03) MR. MC NULTY-So each lot would have its own, but they wouldn’t be putting them all, all the signs on Bay Road. MR. BROWN-Yes, that’s correct. MR. MC NULTY-I know it’s been kind of stated in other places, but I’d like to hear something clear about what is the real purpose of this sign, other than you can’t see one on the wall of the building, so you want to put one where you can see it through the trees, but why is the sign there? MRS. WHEELER-They feel that the building is so far from the road entrance that they have to turn into to get to their parking lot, if you look at the map, it’s quite a ways away, that they want people to be able to know that that’s their building and kind of anticipate the turn. MR. MC NULTY-But that works only for southbound traffic. Northbound traffic’s already passed the turn. MRS. WHEELER-True. Well, they’ll see the other sign when they get to that turn, from the north. MR. BRYANT-It’s not that they’re going to miss that building, because you can see it from Saratoga. MRS. WHEELER-True, but they just want people to know who’s in there, and their feeling is you put the little 100 square foot wall sign up on that huge building, first off it’s not going to be seen, because it’s quite a ways away from the road, and they’ve planted all those trees along there, that eventually will screen the building. MR. STONE-Just out of curiosity, and I don’t want to tell you how to do your business, but it would seem to me if I were going to ask for a second sign, like you’re asking, I would ask for one on the north end of the building, a double sided sign so that. MRS. WHEELER-There’s no wall space on that building. MR. STONE-Not on the wall. I mean, I’m talking a freestanding sign further north, the two corners of the building, for example. I mean, if someone is coming from the south, as we talked about, they’re not going to see this sign on Bay Road. We’re going to have an accident, if that’s how they’re going to determine. MRS. WHEELER-Well, the problem with the northbound entrance is, there’s no access to their parking lot from that road. They don’t want people going in that road, a proposed road that’s not there yet. MR. STONE-Okay. Well, I wasn’t even suggesting at the road. MRS. WHEELER-Okay. MR. STONE-I was suggesting, I think Mr. Hayes put it at the corner of the building, at the northern end of the building. It would just seem to me that if I were trying to put a sign up, that I would put it there, if it was supposed to do something. MR. BROWN-Yes. I guess just to be clear, this is an older site plan map. The road that’s shown on the north side of this lot is no longer part of the subdivision. There’s no second access into the subdivision. MR. STONE-I wasn’t even suggesting that there was. MR. BROWN-There’s a road here that I think somebody referenced. 18 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/23/03) MR. STONE-No, I was just thinking right up here, at the corner of the building. MR. HAYES-But that’s grass now or whatever. That’s. MR. STONE-Yes. I see that. I was just saying, where it is would be, to me, but that’s not what the application is, and I’m not going to change that part. Any other questions? I mean, the answer seems to be, Al, that if they get the sign, they will have a 100% variance, as far as freestanding signs, and if, in the future, this becomes a business complex, then other signage might be allowed, but we can certainly restrict the total signage, at this point in time, to, two sixty-four square foot signs, if that’s where we want to go. I’m not suggesting that’s where we’re going, but that’s where we could go. MR. BRYANT-I don’t know that that is even satisfactory. MR. STONE-Fine. MR. BRYANT-Because if there’s multiple tenants, you’re going to have two 64 foot signs, with eight tenants on each sign. MR. STONE-Okay, and if that bothers you, then that’s. MR. BRYANT-That’s 100% sign relief. MR. STONE-Well there is 100% sign relief. MR. HAYES-Only in the sense that there’s two names instead of one. There is 100% sign relief. MR. STONE-No, there’s two freestanding 64 square foot signs. MR. BRYANT-Yes, regardless of how many names are on it. MR. STONE-Regardless of how many names. Right now. That’s what they’re asking for. MR. HAYES-They could have two, though, right? MR. BRYANT-They could have two. With one name on each. MR. HAYES-Right, but I’m saying the 100% relief is for the fact that there’s two names instead of one, not because there’s two signs. MR. STONE-Well, that’s a good point. MRS. WHEELER-Okay. So then I needed to apply differently. I should have applied to put two names on one sign. Right? MR. HAYES-It’s still a Sign Variance. MR. BROWN-Yes. No, I think we’ve still got it covered. Yes. MR. STONE-Okay. Let me, any further questions at this point? Because we certainly can ask more when we get going? MR. UNDERWOOD-Did the applicants consider doing their separate signs then, to begin with, or not? 19 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/23/03) MRS. WHEELER-Right from the get go, they wanted both names on the signs, together, but, you know, I can definitely go back and, the placement gets weird. If there was one name on one and one name on the other, then where do you put them, side by side? MR. UNDERWOOD-I was just thinking from my wife’s business, you know, because she has, she’s an orthopedic surgeon also, but I know down on Quaker they have a sub sign underneath with the doctor’s names on it, and those little ones that you’ve got to hang underneath for Denise Buher’s business there, too, you know, and I’m just thinking with these guys, if they add rehab to their practice, that, you know, they’re going to have to put that some place on the building, and I don’t know how that’s going to work out. So it would make more sense to me if you have a business to have your own sign, because then you’re only dealing with yourself as opposed to everybody else in the building, too. MR. STONE-Well, this seems to me, this is a, in a sense, a building sign. This says who is in here. It’s not an individual sign for each business. It’s saying, here’s a big building, and guess what, folks, in it are the Glens Falls Hospital hearing center, rehabilitation center, and North Country Sports Medicine. I mean, that’s what the signs are saying right now, and we certainly, if we get around to agreeing with this variance, granting this variance, we can put reasonable conditions on it, but let me, just to move along, let me open the public hearing. Anybody wishing to speak in favor of this application? In favor of? Anybody opposed to this application? Opposed? Any correspondence? MR. MC NULTY-No correspondence. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. STONE-Now we’re back where we were. Let’s talk about it. That’s the easiest way. Let’s see what’s hanging us up, if anything is, and let me start with. MR. BRYANT-Can I ask a question? MR. STONE-Yes, go ahead. MR. BRYANT-Is it a reasonable stipulation, if this thing expands into multiple tenants, more than two, to then eliminate the second freestanding sign, or is that too much to ask? Because primarily that’s my concern. My concern is that here we’re coming, this is, the thing is in the embryo stage. We’ve got two tenants in this humungous building. They’re going to put up the two signs, with both names on each sign, and two years down the road, there’s going to be three or four tenants in the building, different doctors, and then all of a sudden you’ve got these two signs, and they, you know, they’ve beat the sign code. MR. BROWN-I think my response would be maybe not direct to your question, but if you were to condition the variance that this was a Sign Variance for two freestanding signs, for two businesses to have both names on both signs, and specifically exclude two freestanding signs for a business complex, that wouldn’t allow them to put more than two tenants on each sign. If they wanted to do more than two tenants on each sign, now they’re back before the Board to revise this variance, or seek another variance for multiple business complex freestanding sign. So, you know, if you were to exclude business complex in your resolution, that might address it. It’s something to consider. MR. STONE-You mean that this variance is granted for this building on the basis that we’re told that there are two tenants in the building and that’s all there are going to be at this point in time, and we restrict the sign to. 20 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/23/03) MR. HAYES-Well, he’s saying doing it in the sense that you can control by the signage and not by this quasi enforcement issue of whether there’s two tenants in there or three. That can become difficult. MR. BROWN-Yes. I think you want to try and capture it by use, and not by content. You don’t want to govern the content of the signage. It’s the use which is the number of tenants, not what the tenants are and who they are and what they do. It’s the use of the property. Is it a two tenant building or is it a business complex? So I think you want to govern it by use, and not by. MR. STONE-Well, and that’s what I’m saying in a sense. This variance, if we grant it, is based on the building being a two tenant building. MR. BROWN-That’s fine. I think that’s enforceable. MR. STONE-And any increase in request for signage requires another variance. MR. BROWN-Okay. MR. STONE-Or something along that line. MR. BROWN-That sounds right. MR. STONE-All right. Let’s talk about it. Al, since I’ve got you down as Number One, why don’t you go ahead. MR. BRYANT-Thank you. Primarily, I was opposed to this. I understand Mr. Hayes made the comment that you’re entitled to two freestanding signs, and so it really doesn’t make any difference. That’s all you’re going to get, but I’m looking towards the future, okay. There are going to be other businesses in that area, other buildings. They’re going to want to duplicate whatever you’ve been able to achieve, and we don’t want a situation where we have 10 buildings with 35,000 signs, and I think that’s my major concern, but putting it in this light, with not necessarily restricting the content of the sign, but the number of tenants, the use of the building, I think I would go along with the proposal, on that basis. MR. STONE-Roy? MR. URRICO-I’m afraid I’m going to come down on the other side of this. I’m looking at the five criteria, and I see, the one thing that sticks out in my mind is the first, which is whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood, and here we have a neighborhood that’s still being defined. We designed the Zoning Code to set up this new look to Bay Road, and we’re barely underway, and this is one of the first businesses along there to come under this new Code, and we’re already starting to bend the Sign Ordinance slightly, but it’s more than slightly, because it’s basically going to set the tone for whatever businesses follow along here. So I’m really concerned about that. Whether the benefit suits the applicant’s, can it be achieved by some other method. Actually probably not. I kind of like the two signs, the two businesses on that one sign it looks great. If that were the only sign, it would be perfect, but having two of them really brings me back to the other problem, and so in that instance, I think the request area variance is a substantial, and as far as it having an adverse impact on the characteristics of the neighborhood, it could and it couldn’t. I’m not sure. Again, that area is still being defined, but I definitely think this difficulty is self-created. I think there are ways around it, and I just would not be in favor of it. MR. STONE-Jaime? MR. HAYES-Well, historically, we’ve done a very good job protecting the Sign Ordinance in Queensbury. We’ve fought a lot of things and kept people pretty close to the vest on what they do with their signage, but in those cases my concern has always been when an applicant was trying to get more signage than they could have had, or signage close to the road than it should 21 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/23/03) have been, or where they were taking some kind of advantage that seemed to give them an unfair advantage over other businesses that were in compliance with the Sign Ordinance, but in this case I think these two businesses could each have a 64 square foot sign, independently, and now they have two signs that are the same size, just with two names on them, and that requires a variance, and I certainly could understand that, but I don’t think there’s really much of a reach in that, in the sense that these signs are low profile. They’re low to the ground. I think part of my vision of the Bay Road corridor would be these type of signs lower to the ground, not as much neon up in the air, less, you know, this seems a little more Adirondacky to me, in the sense, than the wall mounted high neon signs of like southern Jersey. So I think in the end, they’re certainly asking for something here, and Craig has accurately pointed out, there’s some pitfalls to what’s being done here, but I would be satisfied, you know, if a motion controlled what would happen with these signs in the future, along the lines that Allan has kind of put forth, that I could live with simply having the two names on two signs. I don’t think, I think in this case there’s a little bit of an unusual circumstance in that this is a very large building, and these are two large tenants, and the fact that they might need to let people know at two different sites that they’re both here, you know, really has some, there is an argument that I would accept that that has a practical value that needs to be done. I think that I have a business very near Bay Road. People drive fast on Bay Road. MRS. WHEELER-Yes, they do. MR. HAYES-That’s an unfortunate reality, but, and without being prejudicial, these facilities are going to be frequented more by people that are getting hearing and rehab and stuff, and those people need more signage, traditionally, or more time to recognize things than other people. MR. STONE-Careful, Mr. Hayes. MR. HAYES-You know what I’m saying. There’s a safety issue here, I think, a little bit, but that’s really a sidebar, but I guess, in essence, they’ve decided to make these two signs, or try to make these two signs, they’re entitled to two signs. I guess on balance I think there’s a good enough reason associated with why they want to do this, that with the proper motion, as Al has brought forward, I would be in favor. MR. STONE-Okay. Chuck? MR. MC NULTY-Well, several thoughts. I guess the initial one that I have is I think, I don’t know, Planning Board and maybe the developer I think did some lousy planning with this. It strikes me this is basically going to be a single Town road going in here. There eventually is going to be several other buildings, I presume, and developer I presume hopes, on site with businesses in them. All are going to really want a sign out on Bay Road saying Freddie’s whatever is back in here on this road, and that’s probably the kind of sign that should have been reserved for where they’re going to put the first sign for these two businesses, a directional sign for all the businesses on those roads. That leads me to my second thought is, there’s going to be a good sized directional sign for these two businesses at the place that it ought to be, at the road that people have to turn in. A third thought is a sign where it’s being proposed is going to be misleading for at least some people because if they miss the first sign, they’re going to be by the building. They’re going to be used to seeing this sign out in front of the building, and it doesn’t give them any direction as to where to go, as far as finding the entrance road. It also strikes me that the developer in this case is, whether he was coerced or not, is making an effort to break up the size of the building by planting trees there, and then we’re going to kind of defeat his purpose in camouflaging the building if you will by putting a big sign out there. I guess my general conclusion is that it strikes me that it’s just basic blatant advertising putting a sign out there. I don’t think it’s going to accomplish anything. I don’t think it’s going to be directional. I think that these two tenants have already got the ideal location for their sign at the entrance to the road, and if I were them and I was going to put any additional signs in or near the building, I would put them near the entrance on the east side of the building. Either freestanding or a wall sign that would tell people once they pulled in to the parking lot where they should go to find these two facilities. 22 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/23/03) MRS. WHEELER-Well, there is directional signs at the entrance to the parking lot, but those are the small, under six square feet that are allowed without permit. MR. MC NULTY-Okay. In any event, I guess my conclusion’s I don’t think it’s going to serve the purpose that’s being argued. I think it’s going to defeat some of the effort to making the building look attractive. I don’t think it’s necessary, and I’m going to be opposed. MR. STONE-Okay. Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I’m somewhat in agreement with Chuck. I think that your signs are always tastefully done, but I think that we have to look at this from the standpoint of going down, maybe into Glens Falls and looking at Irongate Center, 88 Broad Street, there’s a whole bunch of them along that whole stretch there that are doctor’s offices, and almost, you know, unilaterally, all those buildings have a number on them, and then you have to go in to the complex to find out where you’re at, and I think that, you know, asking for a whole other sign would be pretty excessive here, because I think that what you’re going to in effect do is create more confusion by having the two signs. I would make the suggestion, too, you know, if it were my business, I certainly would want my own sign that wasn’t going to be affected if you ended up with multiple tenants in the building at some future date, and somebody has to come and tell you, well, your sign’s going, you know, after you go to all the trouble to build it. To me it makes more sense to keep the single sign out front, whether you go to two single signs for each of the two businesses or one that combines the two, that’s fine with me, but I think that what you’re going to do is create more confusion when you get more medical complex buildings going on in the background in there, too, you know, you’re going to need more directional signage and a doctor’s going to need to hang his shingle someplace to tell where his business is and putting it out front where there’s no access doesn’t really make it any better. I think you’re probably going to need signage more on the back side there, once that parking lot’s filled with cars and people have a choice of buildings to go to. MR. STONE-A question of Staff. Craig, you’re saying in your notes, that each of the two businesses currently in this building, and the only two that the applicant states are in the building, can each have the 64 square foot freestanding sign? MR. BROWN-That’s correct. MR. STONE-And right now there is one 64 square foot sign which has two names listed on it, it’s double sided, but that doesn’t come into play in this case, correct, the fact that it’s double sided? MR. BROWN-No. MR. STONE-I just want to get it on the table. So either the Hospital or the North Country could have that sign, and the other person could put a sign somewhere on the property like this particular one that is being sought. MR. BROWN-Individual tenants could have individual signs? Is that what your question is? MR. STONE-Well, I’m saying that the sign that’s currently there, both sides of it could read Glens Falls Hospital. That’s one freestanding sign. North Country could put a second freestanding sign somewhere on the property, in a compliant location, and that could happen. Is that correct? MR. BROWN-That’s correct. MR. STONE-So really the thing that is before us is these two businesses both want to be represented on each of two signs. 23 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/23/03) MR. BROWN-Correct. MR. STONE-And without further restriction, this thing could become a business complex, and then it’s another situation, but we could, if we were to grant this application, we could, in fact, say, if anything, any further changes are contemplated in the signage on this property, if it becomes a business complex, additional variance must come before this Board again. Is that correct? MR. BROWN-It sounds like you’re going the right direction. Yes. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. URRICO-But wouldn’t that normally be the case, if something became a business complex? MR. STONE-Yes, but we could say, because we’re granting this variance, that if the condition changes of this property, then they need to come back to us and discuss the whole variance issue. MR. BROWN-Yes, and not to interrupt you here, but I’d probably caution against, you know, application of the Ordinance or interpretation of the Ordinance. Fortunately or unfortunately, that’s what I get to do. If you approve it as two businesses, exclusive of a business complex, I think you’re covered there. If it turns into a business complex, I tell them, no, you can’t have your sign. You need a variance and they apply for a variance at that point. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. BROWN-Without making it too confusing for you. MR. STONE-All right. MR. BROWN-It might be the easiest way. MR. STONE-I’m certainly, many of us have talked over the years, and I’m certainly a prime defender of the Sign Ordinance. This one doesn’t bother me. It doesn’t bother me for a variety of reasons, particularly the one I just talked about, that we could have two, and there’s nothing we can do about that. The second thing that I like, and this is just because I’m a human being with a curiosity. When I drive by a building that doesn’t have a sign on it, I say, who’s in there, and I do it all the time when I go by, and I would like to be able to go by this building and say, oh, that’s what’s in there, and go on and forget it. So, having said that, I don’t think we’re talking about an awful lot of relief here, and I think it’s something that I can go along with. The problem, however, there are only six of us, and three people say yes and three people say no, and if we were to make any motion, we would get, it would automatically become a denial because we would not have a majority. MRS. WHEELER-There isn’t a tie breaker? MR. STONE-There is no tie breaker. We need four votes, even if there are only four people here, we need four votes in one direction. Now, obviously, and I apologize for this and I should have done it sooner, I apologize for the fact there are only six tonight, but it is the summer, and people do go on vacation and don’t always tell us that they’re going. We could table it, and you could come back and make the presentation again, and hopefully pick up another vote, but if I were. MRS. WHEELER-There’s normally seven? MR. HAYES-Yes. MR. STONE-Normally seven. 24 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/23/03) MR. HAYES-Yes. That’s why four is a majority, but. MR. STONE-Yes, we have to have four, even if there’s only four here. You can thank the State of New York for that. It’s Town law, I guess, or is it our Code? Mr. Lapper, is it our Code? It’s Town law, yes, that’s what I thought, but I. I mean, we could, unless, I could go very quickly back and see if anybody’s heard anything that would change their mind, but right now I’ve got three yeses and three no’s. MRS. WHEELER-I do have one comment. It is located on a corner, and from my interpretation of the Sign Code, not the stuff on your job, they’re allowed wall signs on each side that face an additional road. Correct? MR. BROWN-If there’s access from that road, that’s correct. MRS. WHEELER-Okay. MR. BROWN-Right. In this case there’s only access from Willowbrook Road, not from Bay Road. MRS. WHEELER-Okay. I see how you’re doing that. Okay. MR. STONE-So you could have one wall sign. So, I mean, I can try to make a motion, and if everybody’s sticking to their guns, and when I do this, I don’t put pressure on anybody, because we all approach things in different ways, and I certainly always say to people informally four three votes don’t bother me because it is a balancing test that we’re doing, and in this particular case, the teeter totter is sitting there straight even. MRS. WHEELER-And nobody’s changed their mind? MR. BRYANT-In all fairness to the applicant, I think we should probably table this. MR. STONE-Yes. I think so. I just wanted to be, okay. MRS. WHEELER-Okay. I’m sorry, I’m going, but you’re allowing two freestanding signs, so basically I’m asking for what’s allowed. All I’m asking for is to put both names on each sign. So consequently they’re getting half of what they’re allowed per sign. So total, they get total anyway. MR. STONE-We have to go on the interpretation of the Zoning Administrator who tells us you need a variance to get the second double business freestanding sign, and three of us think that’s a good idea, and three of us say, no, that’s not a good idea. We shouldn’t do it. So I’m going to table. MOTION TO TABLE SIGN VARIANCE NO. 68-2003 NORTH COUNTRY SPORTS MEDICINE, PLCC & GLENS FALLS HOSPITAL – THE REHABILITATION CENTER & THE HEARING CENTER, Introduced by Lewis Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Allan Bryant: 25 Willowbrook Road. For up to 62 days, or until next month, in anticipation of having a full Board so that the apparent three, three tie in yes versus no can be looked at further. So we can vote on this subject with a full Board. Duly adopted this 23 day of July, 2003, by the following vote: rd MRS. WHEELER-Okay. Before I would come, would I know if a full Board was going to be here? 25 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/23/03) MR. STONE-No. I mean, we have two alternates, and we usually, since we’ve had the two alternates, we usually have a full Board. Unfortunately, we have a gentleman who was not here last week. I assume he’s on vacation. I haven’t heard from him. Well, I don’t know where they are, quite frankly. MR. UNDERWOOD-Does it make sense to have them consider other alternatives, you know, since that’s been suggested? I don’t know if that’s something you want to consider with speaking with them, too. MRS. WHEELER-I mean, I can go to two signs and their names on one and their names on the other, but it seems to me that’s going to be more confusing. MR. UNDERWOOD-Well, I’m just thinking from the standpoint of, you know, it’s been suggested if they go to multiple tenants that they’re going to lose the sign at some future date, possibly. MR. STONE-Well, certainly, you have heard, and we will make available to you the minutes of this meeting, the transcript, so you can come back to us with the same application, but prepared if you think it’s necessary, have authorization to make some modifications, if there’s any modification that can be made. MRS. WHEELER-If I found out, say if they’re planning on any other tenants in this building, and how long they’re going to stay, I mean, they must have some sort of long term lease, does that answer that other question somewhat? MR. MC NULTY-Probably not because a variance still is forever. MRS. WHEELER-Is it really? Okay. So it’s for the property more so than the tenant? MR. MC NULTY-Yes. MR. STONE-It’s for the property. MR. BRYANT-It’s almost like a diamond. Forever. MRS. WHEELER-Okay. MR. STONE-So we have to vote on this. Do I have a second to the tabling? MR. BRYANT-Second. AYES: Mr. Bryant, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Stone NOES: Mr. McNulty ABSENT: Mr. Himes, Mr. Abbate MR. STONE-So tabled by a vote of five to one. Okay. MR. BROWN-And logistically it’ll be on for the first August meeting. We’ll get it back on as soon as we can. MR. STONE-Sorry. Sometimes the simple things are more complex. MRS. WHEELER-I know. Okay. Thanks. AREA VARIANCE NO. 54-2002 SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED REHEARING NORTHWAY PLAZA ASSOCIATES JONATHAN LAPPER ZONE: HC-INT. LOCATION: 820 STATE 26 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/23/03) ROUTE 9 APPLICANT PROPOSES REMOVAL OF A CONDITION OF APPROVAL OF AV 54-2002 AND SEEKS A REHEARING OF THE VARIANCE TO DO SO. TAX MAP NO. 296.18-1-47 LOT SIZE: 22.87 ACRES SECTION: 179-4-030 JON LAPPER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 54-2002, Rehearing, Northway Plaza Associates, Meeting Date: July 23, 2003 “Project Location: 820 State Route 9 Description of Proposed Project: Applicant requests a rehearing of AV 54-2002 in order to remove an approval condition of the original approval. Relief Required: Applicant requests the condition that states: “The two lots in the Plaza will be combined within approximately six years when the financing is refinanced” be rescinded from Area Variance 54-2002. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): The subject property is related with the Northway Plaza, a business complex. Several building permits, sign permits, variances and site plans are associated with the plaza. Most recently, the above referenced Area Variance was heard by the Board relative to the construction of a Home Depot at the site. Staff comments: Procedurally, in order to revisit an action of the Board, a motion must be entertained and passed unanimously. Why was the condition included originally? Will the removal of the condition present any adverse impacts? Attached please find letter from applicant dated May 29, 2002, in which the consolidation was originally offered.” MR. STONE-Let me ask a question of Staff. I have what appears to me to be conflicting Staff notes, Mr. Brown. One you’re saying we’ve got to listen to the applicant and decide whether we’re going to hear it at a subsequent date. MR. BROWN-No, it’s been advertised for both tonight? MR. STONE-We can hear it now? MR. BROWN-That’s correct. MR. STONE-Okay. That’s what I wasn’t sure about. MR. BROWN-You may want to, I think there’s a cover letter from Mr. Lapper you may want to get as part of the record. I’m sure he’s going to ask you to do that. MR. LAPPER-Thank you. MR. STONE-Okay. Go ahead, Mr. Lapper. MR. LAPPER-Would you like me to read it? MR. STONE-You can state it in your own words, if you’d like. You’re talking the June 16? th MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. STONE-Yes. 27 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/23/03) MR. LAPPER-Good evening. For the record, Jon Lapper with Lowell Seifter who’s one of the principals of Northway Plaza Associates one and two, which are the two LLC’s which own the various parts of the Plaza, the Home Depot parcel and the rest of the Plaza. They were the original owners and developers of the Plaza, and then they were able to put together the Home Depot project. As I’m sure everyone on the Board is aware, this is one of the projects in Queensbury that’s been touted in public lately as an example of good planning, in terms of the architecture of the building, the design of the site. This was an old, tired Plaza with a pretty inefficient entrance way, and we made some pretty significant changes working with the Planning Board to get this approved, and I hear good things about it, and I know that the Planning Staff does as well. What was not anticipated was this horrible winter and expensive construction that Lowell can get into in more detail. So we’re here asking that the variance that we requested last time so that it could be separately owned, which was really for financing purposes at the time, that this can be sold so that they can recoup some of their investment and spend the money on the rest of the Plaza. It’s been announced in the paper that we have a lease for a Friday’s to replace Monroe Muffler, which will be very positive in the entrance to the Town, that major intersection, where you’ve got the garage doors for a muffler place is not the best use and a new Friday’s with lots of landscaping will be a lot better, but they spent so much getting to this point that they really need to sell the Home Depot parcel to an investor, and because they’ve got a lease with a national tenant, it’s an easy thing to do, and most importantly, in terms of your analysis, I submitted the reciprocal easement agreement in this case because the building, it’s about to open next week, the reciprocal easement agreement has been signed and is on file in the County Clerk’s Office. So I’ve submitted that, and basically because of that agreement, it’s seamless. No one would ever be able to tell, when you drive in, that it has two owners, and for that reason I think there’s no impact whatsoever on the community. Everyone’s invitee’s, employees, etc., will be able to drive across both parcels, park where they want, and shop where they want, but in terms of the benefit to the applicant, it’s really so that they can invest the funds back in the center and finish the façade that hasn’t been finished on the renovated part of the old Plaza, and get Friday’s in. MR. BRYANT-Could I ask a question, Mr. Chairman? MR. STONE-Sure, go ahead. MR. BRYANT-Can you speak to the clause that we’re supposed to be talking about? MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. BRYANT-Because it sounds like Mr. Abbate’s kind of motion, and he makes reference to something that you said, relative to the six years. Do you recall? MR. LAPPER-That was really me. I put that in, right in my cover letter, and I have a copy of it last time, because when we applied, what we said was that they have these two mortgage lenders and in order to get the financing for the Home Depot piece, for a new mortgage, we had a problem because we had to have them as separate mortgages. We couldn’t get the first lender to lend for the second one. Just, you know, it’s a multi million dollar project and just the complexity. So I offered that as a condition, because at the time we didn’t anticipate that they would need the variance to last more than six years. So it was in my cover letter last time when we made the presentation for this subdivision, for the Area Variances that permitted the subdivision, that the parcels could ultimately be merged after the mortgage was paid off, the existing mortgage on the Plaza. At this point they would just like to sell the Home Depot piece to an investor which is no different than if Target owns their building or Staples owns their building. It all functions together. So the answer to your question, Allan, is that I offered it last time, and now the situation’s changed, so I’m being asked to come back and to ask that that condition be changed. MR. BRYANT-The situation’s changed. You have cost overruns, that’s what you’re saying? MR. LAPPER-Yes. 28 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/23/03) MR. BRYANT-Okay. So what happens if we don’t hear this? What is the bottom line? What happens? MR. LAPPER-I don’t know. MR. BRYANT-What is the result of us not listening to this and saying, we already heard it once. You offered it as a stipulation. That’s the route we went. Now, we don’t want to talk about it any more. What happens? MR. SEIFTER- The reality is that we would have great difficulty in completing some of the planned improvements that we have, including the Friday’s transaction, the relocating of Monroe Muffler, and completing some of the improvements on the Northway Plaza side. It would be an economic hardship. It would just be, you know, the costs were higher than were anticipated, and it would be difficult to complete the work that we’re trying to complete. MR. BRYANT-Okay. So now you offered six years as a stipulation. What’s the offer now? Are you going to say seven years or eight years? MR. LAPPER-No, we’re saying right up front. MR. BRYANT-This is forever? MR. LAPPER-Yes, that this would be in separate ownership, just like Staples can be in separate ownership from Queensbury Plaza, and the new department store at the Mall can be in separate ownership, and the CVS’s are in separate ownership, you know, or the one on Main Street in that Plaza. It’s not an uncommon situation these days. I can point to the Wilton Mall where the BJ’s is on it’s own parcel. This happens pretty frequently. There’s no impact to the community because of the reciprocal easement agreement. So we’re just asking that you unanimously vote to let it be reheard, and then consider our request. MR. URRICO-But is it unusual for the reciprocal agreement to extend to a third party? There’s a third party entering into this. An investor? MR. LAPPER-And it makes no difference whatsoever, because a reciprocal easement agreement governs use. MR. URRICO-Okay. MR. LAPPER-Not ownership. MR. HAYES-Was that like mezzanine financing or something on? MR. SEIFTER-Well, no, what’s happened with the financing is it’s gotten so complicated and restrictive, and more and more lenders have what they call single purpose entity rules. MR. HAYES-Right. So the problems don’t cascade back and forth. Right. MR. SEIFTER-Right. So our original lender forced us to spin this off to a separate entity, and have what’s called, the formal name is NPA 2 be the owner of the Home Depot parcel. So we created this separate entity that’s got common ownership, but we were forced to create this separate entity, and in fact in order to do the financing for it, our entity borrowed money from Home Depot. That was part of our lease transaction with Home Depot. They loaned us money, but at very, very high interest rates. Now the rates are so low that we either need to sell this parcel or refinance, but the owner of the parcel is completely passive, and Home Depot has all of the responsibilities for operating the site, and the, you know, it’s just an investor is the owner, it’s a completely passive entity, and it’s the REA that controls the operation, and that’s in place and runs with the land. 29 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/23/03) MR. HAYES-Right. So that you want to do like a securitized transaction on this parcel, just like you? MR. SEIFTER-We’re not sure whether we would want to sell this parcel or refinance it, but in any case, we can’t do it if we’ve got to put humpty dumpty back together again in six years. MR. LAPPER-You can’t get a separate mortgage. MR. HAYES-I understand. MR. STONE-Okay. So what you’re saying is that we created two legal lots, with permeability problems, with boundary problems, all of the things that we created. MR. LAPPER-You granted all those variances. MR. STONE-Right, but with the condition that at some point they go back together and become one huge lot? MR. LAPPER-Right. MR. STONE-And what you’re saying is you don’t want to do that anymore. MR. LAPPER-Exactly, but we’re saying that there’s no difference to the Town whatsoever. MR. STONE-One of the questions that came up last week, Mr. Lapper, and has come up before on some of your appearances, a concern expressed by some Board members about the zero setbacks, lot line setbacks. MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. STONE-Is that involved in this in any way? Because we’ve always had some concern. MR. LAPPER-No, because this is a freestanding building. So there’s not a building that buts up to one of the walls of this building. So in this case what’s up on the map, the gray parcel is the parcel that is associated with the Home Depot, which includes much of the parking field but not all of it, the wetlands, which is intact behind it, and the building, and the rest of the parking field and the rest of the buildings are on a separate lot. So this is not a zero lot line situation like some of the other ones. MR. STONE-Okay. So it’s relatively simple, from a legal standpoint. MR. LAPPER-Yes. It was permeability. The whole site worked for permeability as a site. The two pieces were different. MR. STONE-Okay. Any other questions? So, we have to first grant him the right to be heard, technically, unanimously. MR. BROWN-That’s correct. MR. STONE-And then we have to talk about the variance. MOTION TO RECONSIDER AREA VARIANCE NO. 54-2002 PER THE REQUEST OF THE APPLICANT, Introduced by Lewis Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded by James Underwood: 820 State Route 9. 30 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/23/03) Duly adopted this 23 day of July, 2003, by the following vote: rd AYES: Mr. Underwood, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Stone NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Himes, Mr. Abbate MR. LAPPER-Thank you. MR. STONE-Okay. Now, you’ve made your proposal in terms of the application. Any other questions of the applicant before we open the public hearing? Hearing none, I will open the public hearing. Anybody wishing to speak in favor of this application, or this request, if you will, to remove the condition of Area Variance No. 54-2002? Anybody in favor? Anybody opposed to this? Opposed? Any correspondence? MR. MC NULTY-No correspondence. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. STONE-Anybody have any other questions? If not, let’s talk about it. Let’s start with Roy. MR. URRICO-I do like the work that’s been done there. I do agree it’s a model for the area. The problem I have with this is we granted the variance based, in part, with this condition stipulating the six years and the financing, and now after the work is done, we’re asking for that condition to be removed, and I guess I have a problem with that. This almost seems like once we allowed the project to take place, with this condition, the project’s done, and now we’re asking for that condition to be removed. I understand why it’s being asked for, but I just don’t, it doesn’t set well with me. I don’t know if that’s a good precedent. MR. LAPPER-It doesn’t affect anything that’s on the site that’s built. I mean, it’s really, it’s financing it so they can finish the Plaza. MR. URRICO-But it was important enough to put in as a condition. MR. LAPPER-Quite simply, and you know me, I offered the path of least resistance because if they didn’t need it to be more than six years, and those were the facts at the time, it was easier to ask for that variance. Certainly I didn’t offer it for Staples or for Target or for CVS, because that wasn’t the case, and so when I got a call a few months ago, saying, look, you know, we have an opportunity to sell this and we need the money because I’ve been involved in the cost overruns, and I’ve been working the Friday’s project, and that they need this to happen, I looked at the resolution and said, you know, here’s the issue and this can’t be done without coming back to the Town. It wasn’t trying to hoodwink anybody. MR. URRICO-I understand that, and I’m not suggesting that you did, but that’s the way it seems to be evolving. MR. LAPPER-I’d just ask you to look at the benefit versus the burden test, that the benefit to them is great, and to the Town, because they’ll finish the job and make it really nice, and that there’s no burden whatsoever because the Plaza will look and work just the same, either way, and as will look and work just the same, either way, and as you’ve said that this is an example of a project that was done right, but that did involve a lot of money. 31 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/23/03) MR. URRICO-Well, not to pass the buck, but I think this time I’m going to ask my fellow Board members to help me out here, because I’m not ready to make a decision. MR. MC NULTY-Mr. Chairman, before we go on, could I make a suggestion? MR. STONE-Sure. MR. MC NULTY-I’d kind of like to hear what every Board member has to say and then perhaps give the applicant a chance to respond before we have a vote. Rather than have it bounce back and forth. MR. STONE-Sure. That’s fine. All right. Jaime? MR. HAYES-Well, certainly Roy’s comments are well taken in the sense that I, too, you know, there’s always some nervousness about re-visiting a variance, a decision that was based on a certain set of facts or circumstances, which I think Roy is pointing out that that has to be heavily scrutinized, and I think you understand that, or at least completely examined, and I want to do that, but we’re charged with this balancing test. So I think that’s why applicants come before the Board, to give us the reasons why, explain why, you know, that even under such examination, it makes sense, and that’s what I was really focusing on tonight. I don’t like necessarily re-visiting those things, but if there’s a good reason and there’s no damage, or there’s no detriment to the neighborhood or the community, then that’s the consideration that we’re really faced with at that time. I think, you know, from a perspective, anyone who has followed this project, I think I would agree with the applicant’s agent’s basic premise, that this has been a well received project in the Town. They’ve been to the Planning Board a number of times. They’ve been to our Board at least once, maybe twice, that I can think of. There’s been a number of hurdles that have been overcome. The Plaza that was there was dated and needed to be improved, and myself, I would accept, without specific knowledge, that that project went over cost, just by watching how it all happened and how that developed, and knowing how things are in our world today, and if that is a need that the applicant has put forward, while not necessarily compelling in and of itself, it’s something that I have to consider. I think that the applicant is asking us to allow them to finish a plan, without specific financial information, allow us to finish a financial plan that I think, ultimately, will benefit the neighborhood, and that is the removal of Monroe Muffler and those garage doors facing the major intersection in Town, all those things. Not that it was accursed, but it could have, it could be better, and I think that the Home Depot project, cumulatively, even with some struggles, is better. So my thing is, is the relief substantial? I mean, we put that condition in the original motion, but understanding how securitized transactions are happening in our society every day now and the fact that local banks aren’t financing these types of projects, people on Wall Street are, just because Home Depot is not Sokols Market, you know, I mean, that’s how these transactions are being done. I think that the removal of this small contingency of these properties being merged in six years, versus, unfortunate modern financing if you will, I think, I don’t think it’s substantial. I think in the end this is a subtle change, and there’s been a good reason given, several good reasons given why this needs to happen and why there’s a need on behalf of the benefit to do so, and will the proposed variance or the change to the variance have an adverse effect or impact on the environmental conditions of the neighborhood or district? I don’t think it’ll have any change. I don’t, outside of us on this Board, I’m not sure that anyone will know. I mean, that the parking lot’s going to be there. The buildings are going to be there. I mean, I think that that is going to essentially remain unchanged. So, is the difficulty self-created? A little bit, based on how things happen and what the, you know, the cost overruns and the commitment that you made, but considering those things that have to do with the Area Variance, I just don’t see how there’s any real negative impact or change on the community. In fact, I honestly think that finishing what you started might be of benefit. So I would be in favor. MR. STONE-Chuck? MR. MC NULTY-Well, several thoughts again. Originally what we approved was two significantly sized nonconforming lots. I don’t recall all the details, but one, I believe, had 32 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/23/03) insufficient permeability. I think the other may have had insufficient parking, and it was kind of conditioned on the thing, this is a temporary set up. In six or seven years, somewhere in that neighborhood, they’ll be combined back together and it’ll all be one lot, and we’ll no longer have nonconforming lots. Now we’re being asked to permanently create two nonconforming lots, one that’s got a significant lack of permeability, one that’s got a lack of parking, and there aren’t zero building setbacks on this, but it’s still the same kind of thing that bothers me with this is, okay, but we’ve got a private agreement that says we’re going to run them as one lot, but they can’t be considered one lot, because to finance them they’ve got to be considered two lots, and I’m not really clear on just how this works, except it strikes me if an investor says, I don’t want to invest in 50% of Northway Plaza, I want to invest in 100% of Northway Plaza too. Then he wants an independent lot for some reason. He doesn’t want half of the whole complex. It brings me down to, either we’ve got two independent lots or we’ve got one lot. Now if we’ve got two independent lots, then we’re being asked to create a lot that conceivably, some time in the future, could be sold to somebody else that’s got less than what’s required for permeability. We’ve got another business lot that could be sold some time in the future that’s got less than the required parking. That bothers me. I also really would like to have an opinion from the Town attorney on this kind of thing, you know, have the Town attorney look at this agreement and come back and say, yes, it is forever and it’s just like a variance, or, no, it’s not forever, and you do have a potential 10 or 20 years from now having two separate lots owned by two separate people putting to two separate uses. So removing this clause, for me, changes the circumstances on what I would agree to for an approval. I’m torn on it, because, in a sense it’s a business bailout, and we’ve said before we shouldn’t be bailing out businesses. On the other hand, I think there’s definitely lots of benefit to balance some of that, but I’m left with enough questions on it, and I’m disturbed enough about it that if I had to vote tonight on it, I’m going to be voting against it. MR. STONE-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I was not a part and parcel to the first vote, or that original language. So I’m kind of looking at it from the outside, and I think we have to consider what the original intent of the project was which was to update the mall, as you suggested, and also to fulfill your obligations as to, you know, that it was done properly. I think there was a lot of tradeoffs going back and forth with the Planning Board, and I think the end result so far has basically shown that you’ve done a very good job with what you had intended to do there. I think that, you know, the fact that you got in financially over your heads possibly, and it’s not a wonder that that happened, but when you look at how much has been changed from what it originally looked like, I think that needs to be considered in a fair light, also, and the fact that we’re still going to have reciprocal easement agreements, you know, that are going to allow the other tenants in that Mall to use, access that parking, and, you know, it seems to be much better laid out than it was, it’s less of a chaos zone as it originally appeared to be. I would think it would be in our interest to somewhat be condescending here because we have to consider the fact that the rest of the mall was intended to be redone and re-fixed up again, too. So it appeared to be an all brand new outfit in there, in totality, and I think that, you know, if it does involve refinancing, I mean, the rates are low. They’re just starting to go back up again. It’s probably something that’s important to you guys to get that accomplished before too long. I basically would think it would be reasonable of us to consider going along with your request. MR. STONE-Al? MR. BRYANT-I agree, somewhat, with what Mr. Underwood says, and primarily what you said relative to the completion of their project. However, I want to point out that Mr. McNulty raises some interesting points, and since I’m probably not going to be around to see the day, but there is a reality, somewhere in the future, where there may be two separate owners of the property, with two very different uses, and I’d be curious to know how this has affected other towns and other areas with similar problems where they divide up these shopping centers into multiple owners and then, somewhere down the road, and we see it every day, I mean, there are stores going out of business, large chains close down, and how that affects the property in the future. As far as the vote tonight, I really don’t know. I mean, I see the importance of completing the 33 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/23/03) project, and I would fall on that side. However, I’m just curious about the long term affects of this type of break up. So, right now I’m undecided, Mr. Chairman. MR. STONE-Okay. I have been, while my fellow Board members have been speaking and I’ve been listening. I’ve also been looking at the motion that we made a little over 13 months ago, 13 months ago, and forgetting all of the discussion that has gone on, that went on at the time and how we got to this motion. The motion is fairly straightforward, complex but straightforward in the sense that it says, here’s what’s going to happen, and we’re going to allow two lots to be here, and we recognize that one lot has permeability problems. We recognize one lot has some parking problems, but was all done in a guise of a master plan, a site plan, that was approved by, thoroughly discussed even before it got to us, and what we’re going to have, as we look at it right now, is a very nice shopping center, fairly large by our standards with a lot of parking in the whole complex, a lot of different kind of businesses in there, and as I read this down, I see, here’s what we allowed and okay, it doesn’t seem to bother me, and then at the very end, because of what Mr. Lapper offered, because there was probably some reluctance on the part of the Board, we put in this stipulation that things be combined within six years, but that doesn’t really effect the fact that we created a shopping center. Yes two lots, but nevertheless a shopping center that is physically there, and physically going to stay for a long time, particularly since one lot, the most offending lot, I guess, if I’m correct, has Home Depot on it, and that building’s either going to be there or it’s not going to be there, and so I don’t really have a problem with saying, okay, we can take the stipulation out because what we’re going to have is a shopping center, and I think Mr. Hayes put it, or somebody said, if it weren’t for us nobody would know what the heck was going on. We’ve got a shopping center. I think it’s going to be a very nice shopping center, and I would offer my congratulations to the developer, because I think it is going to be a real asset to the community. I just think, but as I say, I look at this motion and I look at all of the things we granted, I don’t believe we granted all of this relief just because the applicant said we would combine the lots in six years. I don’t remember that, I remember the discussion to some extent, but I don’t remember that it was a tremendous concern. It sounded good at the time. We accepted Mr. Lapper’s offer and we put it in, and I think that the best thing I can say is we’re going to have a shopping center. It’s going to have two owners, in terms of the land, but I’m not troubled by that. So I would certainly vote for it. Now, that, however, still gives me a problem, in the sense that there are six of us here. I heard one definite no, I heard three yeses, and I heard two question marks. Now, I would like you, as Mr. McNulty asked at the beginning of this thing, offer whatever you can. Don’t talk to individuals, please. I don’t want to put pressure on anybody at the table. MR. LAPPER-Certainly. I just really have one point, and I’ll ask Lowell if he has anything to add, but Mr. McNulty and Mr. Bryant raised good legal issues, and we could, I know you’re not going to want me to go page by page through the reciprocal easement agreement because it would put us all to sleep, but if I could just summarize what it does, it basically addresses the kind of issues that you’re concerned about, that what happens if one of the tenants goes bankrupt, which could happen regardless of who owns the Plaza, so that you have like Steinbach’s was vacant for a while, and the answer is that the reciprocal easement agreement, through some 50 or 70 pages, contemplates all of the downside that could be contemplated at that time, and right up front each property owner has the obligation to maintain their property, but if the opposite side property owner isn’t maintaining it, it grants the right for the other property owner to maintain the other guy’s property. So all of these possible downsides are covered in here, so that it will continue to work for everybody’s tenants. MR. BRYANT-Let me ask you a question in that regard. Can I? MR. LAPPER-Absolutely. MR. BRYANT-Is that okay, Mr. Chairman? MR. STONE-Yes, go ahead. 34 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/23/03) MR. BRYANT-A hypothetical question. Home Depot decides, corporate decision, Queensbury is not profitable. I mean, K-Mart is closed all over the free world, so Home Depot decides we’re just not going to keep the store open. What happens to that store? MR. LAPPER-The building? MR. BRYANT-Yes, the building. MR. LAPPER-It would be vacant. MR. BRYANT-The building would be vacant and the owner’s got to keep it up, or somebody’s got to keep it up. How does the agreement work? MR. LAPPER-Conceptually, the owner of the Plaza, the other side, would have the right to fix up, to do the maintenance, the plowing, the plantings to do the work on that parcel, even if the owner of the Home Depot parcel also went bankrupt and wasn’t supporting it, if Home Depot was boarded up, the owner of the rest of the Plaza would have the right to come in and do the work under the agreement, but let me hand the microphone to Lowell. He can give you more details. MR. SEIFTER-If somehow Home Depot were to go bankrupt, as you said, the owner of the parcel, and whether it’s Northway Plaza Associates, LLC or NPA 2 LLC, the two current owners at this moment, or a third party, if NPA 2 LLC sells its interest in the land to another party, that, if Home Depot goes bankrupt, the property would, Home Depot built the building on land that’s owned by a landlord. So the property, with the building on it, would revert to the landlord, and the landlord would do its best efforts to rent it to somebody else, and whoever succeeded in becoming the tenant would take on the obligations that Home Depot had, but nevertheless, as Jon said, this Reciprocal Easement Agreement runs forever, and the owners of the two properties have obligations to maintain those properties, and if one side doesn’t, then the other side would go on to the other side and maintain it because they both want to make sure that parking can take place on either side and that it’s plowed on either side and it’s properly lit. MR. BRYANT-Yes, but that’s not the issue, though. The issue is that Home Depot is a draw, I mean for that Plaza obviously, and that’s going to, if Home Depot closed tomorrow, that’s going to effect the balance of the businesses. MR. SEIFTER-Right. MR. BRYANT-In the Plaza. MR. SEIFTER-But Home Depot spent, I don’t know what they spent, ten million dollars, just a tremendous amount of money building that building, and if they close the building, the building would revert to the owner of the property. The owner of the property would have a tremendous windfall because the owner of the property didn’t build that building. They then would be able to go out and re-rent it to somebody else, and it would be a great boon to the owner of the property, and it would be relatively easy to rent, because there’d be a building that they didn’t pay for, that they’d be able to rent and charge the full rents for, as if they built the building. Because now they own the building and the land. MR. HAYES-Or less than the rents because they didn’t have to pay for the building. MR. SEIFTER-Right. They could, and it would be easy, relatively, in terms of the economics, to make a deal. So somebody would take the place of Home Depot. MR. STONE-Okay, but Home Depot could not make a deal with another renter. MR. SEIFTER-Not if they went bankrupt. 35 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/23/03) MR. STONE-Not if they went bankrupt, but they would have no right to the building if they weren’t in business as Home Depot. MR. SEIFTER-Well, Home Depot is the tenant under the lease and if they keep paying rent, you know, and keep maintaining the property, then they’re not in default on the lease. If they don’t maintain the property, and they don’t pay the rent, then they would go into default on the lease. I mean, I think these are very hypothetical questions. MR. STONE-No, I understand that. MR. HAYES-But in essence, the easements run with the land, not with the owner. MR. SEIFTER-Exactly. It doesn’t matter who owns the property. This agreement covers the property regardless of who owns it, and protects the property, and protects the fact, makes it operate like it’s one property, even though there’s two owners. MR. LAPPER-Because I’ve had virtually all of these discussions with you over the past four years on all of these different projects. I think these are the kind of really legal questions that have all been in the backs of your minds, in terms of the what if’s. So it’s good to have this discussion. Especially with Lowell who negotiated the Reciprocal Easement Agreement, because I think these are the kinds of questions you’ve had on a lot of these projects about what happens if, and so if there’s anything else that you want to talk about, it’s all in here. MR. BRYANT-Just one more question, Mr. Chairman, to Staff. Are you aware of any studies relative to the long term effects of these mall subdivision things? MR. BROWN-No. MR. BRYANT-Well, neither negative nor positive. MR. BROWN-I’m not aware of any studies, no. MR. STONE-Is there anything else you want to add to the comments you’ve heard by the Board? MR. LAPPER-No, only to say that my goal now is to, after we get through tonight hopefully successfully, is to get the Friday’s deal done. They want to finish the façade and we want to just make the rest of the Plaza look as good as Home Depot. MR. STONE-Just a quick aside. Are there going to be directions on how to get out of that place when this thing is done? I was in there today, and it ain’t easy. MR. LAPPER-I don’t know if the directional signs are up. MR. STONE-No, there are none. MR. LAPPER-Yes, they’re opening on Wednesday, though. So they better have them. MR. STONE-Yes, I know. Okay. I don’t know, and I don’t want to necessarily ask, we have two people undecided, but since the majority of, at least three members of the Board said to approve, I will ask for a motion to approve, and we’ll see what happens, if you’re willing for us to do that. MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. STONE-Okay. Jaime, do you want to do it? It’s just a simple, we just want to take out the bottom lines on the resolution. 36 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/23/03) MR. BRYANT-Can I just ask one more question, Mr. Chairman? MR. STONE-Sure, go ahead. MR. BRYANT-Relative to this project, we won’t see you again. Right? MR. LAPPER-No, this is it. We’re done. MR. BRYANT-Next month, it’s not going to be you want to change another line. MR. LAPPER-Relative to Home Depot, no, but Friday’s is probably going to require some relief. MR. BRYANT-Okay. I can deal with another. MR. STONE-Go ahead, Jaime. I think this motion should merely address last year’s motion and say that we will take out the bottom four or five lines, whatever it is. MR. LAPPER-It’s the last sentence. MR. STONE-Yes, there’s a lot of verbiage in there. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 54-2002 NORTHWAY PLAZA ASSOCIATES, Introduced by Paul Hayes who moved for its adoption, seconded by James Underwood: 820 State Route 9. There is no additional proposed project. The applicant has come before us and requests that a portion of the approval of the previous variance, and that would be Area Variance 54-2002, a condition of that approval eliminated, the overall motion modified and that condition eliminated. Specifically, that condition was that the two lots in the Plaza will be combined within approximately six years when financing is re-financed. Criteria for considering an Area Variance, which I’ll use in this particular case, I guess we apply that to a change of a previously approved Area Variance, whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties. I don’t think that there, essentially, will be any change in the character of the neighborhood. As we had pointed out, or I had pointed out initially, outside of being made aware of this financial necessity, and the cross easements, that property will look entirely the same, possibly even improve if the other improvements are finished, with the granting of this change in the approval, such that it would allow the tenant to refinance, or set up a financial structure that’s more beneficial to them. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than this Area Variance. The applicant has stated that essentially, without independent ownership of these two parcels, favorable financing or a favorable structure would be relatively impossible or extremely difficult. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. I don’t feel that it is. As the Chairman pointed out, as I read the previous motion, and the minutes involved with it, I think that the things that were important to the Board, the relief that was granted in creating these two parcels was given due consideration, and I don’t think the recombining of these things as that part of the motion really was a substantial part of what we were looking at. So I don’t think the relief, in the overall sense, the new relief, is substantial. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Again, I don’t think that it really will change anything in this particular case. Is the difficulty self- created. Certainly to some extent the difficulty is self-created. This is a desire of the tenant to change this for their benefit, but on balance, as I’ve already stated, I think that the Plaza has been a positive change, the finishing of the Plaza will have a positive impact on the neighborhood or community, and I’m not presented with anything that I think is a negative to the overall community in this particular case. So I would move, Mr. Chairman, that, again, we modify the approval of this variance to eliminate the requirement that the properties be recombined in six years. 37 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/23/03) Duly adopted this 23 day of July, 2003, by the following vote: rd MR. STONE-Does everybody understand that motion? MR. BRYANT-Not really, Mr. Chairman. I think that all the discussion of the actual Area Variance don’t really apply to the motion. MR. STONE-We are really moving just removal of the condition from 54-2002. MR. BRYANT-Okay. MR. STONE-I thought he did at the end. MR. HAYES-Well, I was just alluding to the fact that I don’t think that changing the motion would change the test, the original test in my mind, that’s all. MR. BRYANT-Okay. I understand. MR. STONE-Okay. Yes, I was going to say that it’s just removing that particular thing. Do I have a second? MR. UNDERWOOD-Second. AYES: Mr. Underwood, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Stone NOES: Mr. McNulty, Mr. Urrico ABSENT: Mr. Himes, Mr. Abbate MR. LAPPER-Thank you. MR. STONE-There you go. MR. SEIFTER-Thank you very much. We appreciate it. MR. URRICO-Mr. Chairman, while we’re between hearings here, Mr. McNulty has suggested having the Town attorney present, or at least voicing an opinion on these matters, and I just want to point out that once again the situation has come up where we don’t have any legal staff on duty here to help us with a difficult decision, and I just want to go on record as saying so. MR. STONE-Okay. What I would suggest, for any one of us, if any one wants the lawyer here at our meeting, just tell Craig, independently. I mean, I would certainly support anybody’s request to ask. Is that all right with you, Craig? MR. BROWN-That’s fine. MR. STONE-If anybody wants to, during the week, when you’re looking at your things, just give Craig a call, and ask for Cathi, anybody, one of the others to be here. MR. LAPPER-It would have been helpful for me to have one of them here for a complicated matter like that. AREA VARIANCE NO. 69-2003 SEQR TYPE II DR. KEITH CAVAYERO & DR. ELYSA BARON AGENT: JONATHAN LAPPER, CURT DYBAS ZONE: WR-1A LOCATION: 87 MASON ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES ALTERATION AND ADDITIONS TO THE HOUSE, BOATHOUSE, AND SEPTIC SYSTEM ON THE PROPERTY AND SEEKS RELIEF FROM THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE WR-1A ZONE AS WELL AS RELIEF FROM THE 38 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/23/03) ACCESSORY STRUCTURES REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REFERENCE: NONE FOUND APA, CEA WARREN CO. PLANNING: 7/9/03 TAX MAP NO. 226.12-1-21, 226.12-1-39 LOT SIZE: 0.21 AC., 0.07 AC. SECTION: 179-4-030 JON LAPPER & CURT DYBAS, REPRESENTING APPLICANTS, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 69-2003, Dr. Keith Cavayero & Dr. Elysa Baron, Meeting Date: July 23, 2003 “Project Location: 87 Mason Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes alterations and additions to house, boathouse, septic system and site work. Applicant seeks relief from the requirements of the WR-1A zone as well as the Accessory Structures requirements. Relief Required: Applicant requests reliefs from the requirements of the WR-1A Zone, §179-4-030 as follows: Floor Area Ratio seeking 24.2% total versus 22% allowed ?? Accessory structure height seeking 17.5 feet versus 16 feet allowed ?? Side setback (boathouse) seeking 4.74 feet versus 20 feet allowed ?? Boathouse height seeking 14.71 feet versus 14 feet allowed ?? Exp. of a non conforming seeking 53% increase versus 50% allowed ?? (this relief does not appear to be necessary) Note: the FAR relief is based on the consolidation of the two tax map parcels involved. With no consolidation, the “house lot” would end up with a 28% FAR. It is unclear as to whether or not the Warren County Real Property Office will allow parcel consolidation across the roadway. The additions to the Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): None applicable Staff comments: The Floor Area Ratio sheet submitted with the application offers a 36% total floor area ratio. This information is in conflict with the project plans that show a 24.2 % proposed total. The 24.2% total appears to be more accurate, with the above referenced consolidation note. The application also refers to side setback relief for the house and both front and side setback relief for the existing garage conversion. However, the floor plans submitted appear to show interior alteration only on the garage and interior changes to the house along the southerly side. No relief is would be necessary for interior alterations. Is the plan to rebuild the structure or rebuild the second floor or rebuild the garage? Can the sundeck plan be altered to only expand to the south and require no relief? Site Plan Review will be required for this project.” MR. MC NULTY-“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form July 9, 2003 Project Name: Cavayero, Keith & Baron, Elysa Owner: Keith Cavayero & Elysa Baron ID Number: QBY-03-AV-69 County Project#: Jul03-25 Current Zoning: WR-1A Community: Queensbury Project Description: Applicant proposes alterations and additions to the house, boathouse, and septic system on the property and seeks relief from the requirements of the WR- 1A zone as well as relief from the accessory structures requirements. Site Location: 87 Mason Road Tax Map Number(s): 226.12-1-21 226.12-1-39 Staff Notes: Area Variance: The applicant proposes several modifications to existing structures on two parcels. The first modification is to the boat house to enlarge the sundeck and dock area. The existing boathouse is nonconforming on the north property line where 20’ is required the existing is 1.07’ from the line. The sundeck surface will increase from 369’ to 563’ and the dock surface will decrease from 638 sq. ft. to 617 sq. ft. The boat house is accessed by an existing land bridge that is to be repaired. A variance is also requested for the height of the railing where existing is 14.’ 5.2” and proposed is 14.’ 8.2” – 14 ft. is required. The applicants also propose renovations to an existing non-conforming structure. Where the required setback is 15’ and the home is located 15’ from the north property line by only 5.83’ from the southern property line. The existing home is 1,798 +/- sq. ft. where 39 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/23/03) the proposed home with a guest bedroom building is 2,453. sq. ft. The septic system information provided indicates there is capacity for four bedrooms as proposed for the site. Where the existing floor area ration is 20% and proposed is 35% where maximum is 22%. The third propose project on the site is the construction of a 672 sq. ft. garage for the renovation of the existing garage as guest cottage with one bedroom. The information submitted with the application indicates that there is no parking on the site where the cottage and home is located. The new garage is located on a separate parcel will be designed for two cars and storage space. The information submitted with the application indicates the applicant will be utilizing the existing structures on the site but the buildings are in need of repair and upgrade. Staff would not the Planning Board in the past has discouraged land bridges and would suggest evaluating an alternative to the land bridge. The site plan indicates much of the site is taken up by the location of the septic system. Staff does not find an impact on county resources. Staff recommends no county impact with the condition the plans are implemented as presented to minimize impacts on to Lake George and the implementation of appropriate stormwater and erosion control measures to minimize impacts on to Lake George. County Planning Board Recommendation: No County Impact with Stipulation The County Planning Board recommends no county impact with the condition the plans are implemented as presented and that appropriate stormwater and erosion control measures are taken to minimize impacts on to Lake George.” Signed by Bennet F. Driscoll, Warren County Planning Board 7/14/03. MR. STONE-Mr. Lapper. MR. LAPPER-For the record, Jon Lapper and Curt Dybas. What is most interesting about this application is that usually what would happen after we submit is that Craig and his Staff would realize that I missed something, and in this case they went the other way and said that we asked for too much relief because there’s only interior renovations to turning the existing garage on the site into a guest cottage, and to answer the questions. It’s not a reconstruction. It’s just interior work on the house. There’s no side setback relief needed on the second floor. So therefore we do comply. It is less than 50% of an expansion. So we were wrong to ask for the variance for 53, and we also sought the variance for the side setback for converting the garage to the guest cottage. Because that’s interior, Craig determined that wasn’t required. So when I have to be wrong, it’s nice to err on the side of being too cautious. With that, we said in the application that we are asking for these various reasons for variances on the different houses, or the different buildings, but we think that in each case, or the different buildings, that they’re relatively modest. I’m going to ask Curt to walk you through the request. MR. DYBAS-Again, I’m Curt Dybas for the record. Having been before this Board before, I always hear the comments about coming in piecemeal. So, in this particular plan, it’s like a master plan. We’ve assembled the entire project and made it as one application. The house itself, the main structure on the building is 17, well, 1,798 square feet, and it’s currently a four bedroom, two bathroom house constructed around the turn of the last century. We’re adding 413 square feet to that building, turning it into a three bedroom house. About half of the addition is a new stair circulation to get from floor to floor, because the existing stair just cuts the building in half, and it’s basically interior renovation. As Jon said, the existing garage is a 12’ 10” by 18’ 10” structure that we’re going to turn into a guest suite, which will not be used in the winter. There’s no plans to heat it. The main house, of course, would be heated. The boathouse is an existing structure which is very close to the northerly line. It’s the wish of the client to increase the size of the sundeck because that’s where they are in the summer. We looked at various options. I noticed a Staff question adding to the south, but before I address that, I looked at it, and trying to stay with the character of all the buildings on this site. The character of the house does not change with the addition, nor does the existing garage, and keep the character of the boathouse the way it is. If you look at what’s there existing versus what is proposed, architecturally, it’s quite similar, doing nothing on the first floor, not changing the actual roof construction. We’d be building a new roof structure on top of the existing, there’s a portal frame in this boathouse. It’s very old. It’s all eight by eight framed inside. The existing roof deck above is all rotted out, and it’s leaked for years, obviously, and we’d be putting a new roof structure up there to support this deck. The reason for the height variance on the boathouse is that the existing railing is 32 inches high, and the Code has, with the new Code, we 40 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/23/03) are required to raise the railing height the minimum 34 inches and do the ballisters four inches on center, and that’s the request for the height variance on the boathouse. The side yard is, we’re not encroaching on the side yard with the edge of the roof. We’re leaving the existing roof structure where it is. The sundeck on top gets expanded. MR. LAPPER-But not beyond the roof. MR. DYBAS-And not beyond the roof. MR. LAPPER-The existing roof. MR. DYBAS-And that pretty much covers the boathouse, and the last thing is the parcel across Mason Road. It’s the wish of the owner to build a two car garage over there, and that sits within the setback lines that are established for that parcel. The height variance is such that we match the roofline of the existing house onto this structure, and again, make it architecturally all tied together for the entire parcel. One and a half feet was the whole variance on the height of the garage, and one might ask why the size of the garage, the client wishes to store his personal boat in there in the winter, and the boat doesn’t fit in a garage smaller than 28 feet. In fact, there’s some question whether it will fit in 28 feet. We may have to stick it in there diagonally, and that’s pretty much the sum, one last thing is the septic. The existing septic system is another unknown, typical Cleverdale 55 gallon drum in a pile of rocks, who knows. We have an idea where it is, but we’ve done no exploration in that area. I’m just saying a new septic system design for four bedrooms, and a new Elgin field up in back. MR. LAPPER-Fully compliant. MR. DYBAS-Fully compliantly, and also permitting the expansion of the system by 50%, if need be, in the future. MR. STONE-The question that Staff raised about the tying of the two parcels together. Has that been taken care of? I mean, I understand we can’t have a garage, an auxiliary structure on a lot without a primary structure. MR. BROWN-That’s correct. MR. LAPPER-We are offering that as a stipulation, that it’s just adjacent across the road. I was going to ask you, as Chairman of the Review Board, I’m sure you’ve seen lots of parcels with a hook that goes across the road. I can think of one. MR. STONE-But it’s becoming less frequent, though. MR. LAPPER-Yes, because they’re being sold, and someone’s putting a house on the other piece instead. MR. STONE-Well, not even so. They’re not allowing it, the Property Office in the County. MR. BROWN-Yes. It’s been my experience over the last year or so that the County Real Property Office doesn’t combine parcels and consolidate parcels where there’s a right of way that separates them, and not to do the applicant’s side, but I think if a consolidation deed were filed that put them both under common ownership, I think that would suffice as far as consolidation. Whether the County gives them two separate numbers or not, I don’t know. MR. LAPPER-I didn’t understand what Craig was saying, just in terms of the procedure, and absolutely new could file a deed that consolidated them with just a boundary description as one parcel instead of two, rather than just filing the form with the County, but it’s the same result. MR. DYBAS-Also if you’ll note on the site plan that it’s the wish of the client to not have any parking on the lake parcel. They want to create a landscape court in the rear of their structure. 41 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/23/03) All the parking for this parcel will be on the parcel across Mason Road, and they’ll walk over there. Right now there’s no parking on that site. The hedge, if Mr. Stone is right in the area, the hedge goes right along the front (lost words). MR. STONE-And you said, Mr. Dybas, that the septic will be well sized for, and brought up to Code? MR. DYBAS-Yes. MR. STONE-That was one of my prime concerns when I looked at this thing. MR. DYBAS-Yes. VanDusen and Steves have already done the percs on the site, and that is the number that you see with the five minute, twenty second, and then using six to seven minutes. MR. STONE-By the way, what work is going on on the walkway? Is that material to this whole thing? MR. LAPPER-Keith is here. We could ask him. KEITH CAVAYERO MR. CAVAYERO-That was a broken foundation with a window that they tried to patch up with aluminum. That water’s just flooding into the basement. So we just took out the cracked foundation, put some blocks in the window now and sealed it up, and actually my basement is flooded as we’re speaking, because they can’t pour because of the weather. So water’s just pouring in, and that’s the way it’s been since we took it over. MR. STONE-I’m sorry I reminded you. Any time we see construction on a site for which a variance is sought I think about it anyway. MR. CAVAYERO-No, this is just (lost words) that we had to go over anyway just to stop some leaking. We hope. MR. STONE-Okay. Any other questions, gentlemen? MR. BRYANT-I have a couple of questions, actually. MR. STONE-Well then ask them. MR. BRYANT-I’m not completely sure how the Floor Area Ratio was calculated, especially considering the fact that these are two separate lots. MR. LAPPER-We considered it as one lot with the stipulation that they’re going to be combined as one parcel. So that’s what we, we calculated it as one parcel. We incorrectly added the work that was going to be done to the existing garage. For this purpose, that’s the only issue. It’s 24.2% when you combine both lots. MR. BRYANT-24.2. MR. LAPPER-Instead of 22%. MR. BRYANT-So that’s the correct rate. MR. LAPPER-Yes. So we’re asking for, and the Staff said that, we’re asking for two point. MR. BRYANT-Now the process that they’re going to combine them, it’s really a fuddy duddy combination. It’s not a legal tax map combination. Is that correct? Because it can’t be combined if, they’re on both sides of the right of way. Is that correct? 42 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/23/03) MR. LAPPER-No. I’m familiar with that happening all the time where there’s property with a hook, on Antigua Road. MR. BRYANT-So it will? MR. LAPPER-I have clients that have the same situation. MR. STONE-He’s showing the tax map will show arrow gone across the road and tying the two together. MR. CAVAYERO-There’s several other properties on the property the same with lots that are hooked on to the other homes. MR. LAPPER-See, if this was a separate lot, somebody could come in with a variance to build some sort of a small single family residence, you know, garage, carriage house or something as a separate parcel. By combining it, you’re precluded from doing that. MR. BRYANT-And why does the garage have to be more than 16 feet high? Just out of curiosity. MR. LAPPER-Only visually, to match the roof slope, that that extra foot and a half will match the same slope, the pitch of the roof on the house. It, you know, it’s a question of whether it looks like that or like that, just more like a shed. That, people have come before this Board a lot with that and often it’s more than a foot and a half, just visually. I mean, obviously, if you said it can’t be done, it can’t be done, but it’s not that big a deal, but it would just look nicer. MR. STONE-Keeping in mind that I came on the Board the day after the Mooring Post was resolved, and when the neighborhood was torn apart by activity on the other side of Mason Road, would you care to comment on how you think this extra height is going to come into play in terms of a visual effect on neighbors? I mean, they’re going to speak for themselves I’m sure. I see at least one that I know is a neighbor, and I don’t know what side he’s on. MR. LAPPER-I’m not aware. I know that Keith and Elysa have talked to their neighbors, but I’m not aware of the comments of the neighbors. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. LAPPER-But we’re just pointing out that it’s a foot and a half. It’s really much less than what other people have asked for. MR. STONE-What they’ve asked for, but we haven’t granted much. MR. MC NULTY-Jumping back to the question of consolidation again. What happens, if we were to approve this, and place a condition requiring consolidation before anything move forward. MR. LAPPER-That’s fine. We have to go to the Planning Board for site plan approval for this. So we would agree to combine first before we went for site plan. Because obviously that has to happen for this to work. MR. MC NULTY-Okay. MR. STONE-I have a question of Staff, and it’s a question I should know, but I don’t. Land bridges. Is that our concern or the Park Commission’s concern or, because there are a whole series of them there. This property and two or three others have land bridges, and it was always my impression we couldn’t have them. 43 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/23/03) MR. BROWN-No, that’s not in our Code. Historically, the County Planning Board has taken the position that they would recommend denial unless they take a land bridge off, but it’s not in the Town Code. It’s just been a condition, historically been a condition of a Warren County referral. MR. STONE-Okay, but we don’t know if they even looked at this piece of property and made any comment. MR. BROWN-We do have a comment from Warren County. MR. STONE-They talk about the land bridge? MR. LAPPER-No, they comment about the application. They didn’t comment about the land bridge. MR. STONE-Yes, about the land bridge. That’s what I meant. I know they commented on the application. MR. DYBAS-In this particular area on Cleverdale, since the elevation of that is getting so high. Unless you walk around to the front of this building, you don’t even see the bridge. Because the bridge actually is lower, visually, than the front of the building, and then slopes down to the lake. I mean, you have to be at least 20 feet above the lake, in the front of the existing house, in elevation. MR. STONE-Anything else? Allan, did you ask both your questions, or did I miss? MR. BRYANT-No, I’m all set for right now. MR. STONE-Okay. Any other questions? MR. BRYANT-Just one more question. I’m sorry. The boathouse. You’re just reconstructing what’s there? It’s not going to be any bigger? MR. DYBAS-We’re not changing, think of it as the footprint, the eaves line of the boathouse does not get any bigger. The sundeck on top is getting larger. MR. BRYANT-The sundeck on top. MR. LAPPER-Which has a fence. MR. STONE-You’re saying the fence around it has got to go up further? MR. DYBAS-Well, no, the fence on the top is getting bigger. MR. STONE-It’s getting bigger. MR. LAPPER-More towards the perimeter of the roof, but not beyond the roof. MR. DYBAS-Not beyond the roof. MR. BRYANT-But basically the structure is the same size. MR. DYBAS-Right. The structure is the same. MR. STONE-Now have, does this require the Park Commission approval? MR. DYBAS-I’m not sure. I haven’t looked at that. 44 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/23/03) MR. STONE-Okay. Yes? Mr. Brown says it does require Park Commission approval for this dock. For the height requirement that you’re talking. MR. BROWN-Any time you modify an existing permit with the Park Commission they’re going to require to take a look at it again. Yes. MR. STONE-Okay. Anybody else? All right. Let me open the public hearing. Anybody wishing to speak in favor of this application? In favor of? Anybody opposed? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED SARA WHEELER MRS. WHEELER-My name is Sara Wheeler, and my husband and I reside at 83 Mason Road. We live two properties south of the applicants. Over the past ten years, and Mr. Stone has already alluded to it, those of us that live on Mason Road have tried very hard to maintain the integrity of both Mason Road in Queensbury and the waters of Lake George. Any drastic change in the premises, as proposed in this case, impacts both the neighbors and the lake. We also own a lot across the road from our home, and it is adjacent to the applicant’s lot, and they, of course, as we are, well aware of the zoning rules in Queensbury. Recently, or a few years ago, when we replaced our rotting deck, a permit had to be checked on two or three times to make sure that we were doing it right. That’s appropriate. That’s what is called for. The new owners were certainly aware of the nature of the community, and the open land we all appreciate on Mason Road when they bought the property. I don’t understand how zoning laws that apply to all of us can be overlooked in this case. The additional buildings will affect runoff, and the enlarged dock, which I’m now being told is really not going to be enlarged, it’s just going to be the sundeck, will impact on the congestion caused by the closeness of those docks. If you go there, our docks are all very close to each other right now. Finally, if Queensbury is going to have zoning rules, and we support those efforts, it appears to undermine their environmental impact, if their answers are given for non imperative reasons. Any additional building on the land impacts the erosion to the lake. There is also this question of the guest house. A number of years, we all were involved in a variance procedure where a woman wanted to establish an additional apartment on her property, two lots further down south, and she was told she could not do that. She had to incorporate that with the house. What they’re asking for is two housing premises on the lot that’s on the lakeside, and then an additional garage that’s going to be quite large on the other side of the road, and I’m wondering how that comes even close to fitting in to the zoning design, and the zoning laws of this Town. Thank you very much for letting me speak to you. MR. BRYANT-Can I ask you a question, ma’am? MRS. WHEELER-Yes. MR. BRYANT-Your major objection is the garage? MRS. WHEELER-They’re two fold. One is the garage, which is on a side of the road that currently now we use for parking. It’s a grassland, and we also have the lot that’s adjacent to where the garage would be. MR. BRYANT-Okay. MRS. WHEELER-And that’s where we park our cars, and it’s all grassed and there are some trees on it. And the other issue is the fact that there will be two living premises on the side towards the lake now, and I don’t understand how that can be when a number of people have been told you simply can’t do that, according to the zoning law in Queensbury. MR. BRYANT-Okay. 45 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/23/03) MRS. WHEELER-Thank you. MR. BRYANT-Thank you. MR. STONE-Anybody else wishing to speak? Come forward, sir. BILL WETHERBEE MR. WETHERBEE-My name is Bill Wetherbee. I live at 51 Mason Road, Cleverdale. I’m a year round resident, have been since 1976, and have been a lifelong resident of Cleverdale seasonally, prior to that. To scope our property it would be approximately 10 residential locations south of that on which the proposed variances would occur. So we are reasonably close, and we oppose this multifaceted expansion as being totally inconsistent with the objectives of zoning, and the accepted applications of variances, because it would have a clearly negative impact upon the character of Cleverdale. Cleverdale already is burdened by problems resulting from excessive residential and building density, shoreline overuse and overgrowth, and the extreme overuse of exceedingly undersized lots, and if you’ve looked at this, I think you would have to agree it classifies as an undersized lot. These measures would further exacerbate these problems, and to allow the incorporation of property across the road from this into the overall project would open the floodgates for numberless people on Cleverdale and Assembly Point to make the same appeal. It is not uncommon whatsoever for people with lakefront property to own a small plot of land on the other side of the road, which, as the previous speaker indicated, is predominantly green space now, and to start building garages and the like on these small parcels of land would once again increase the overuse and density of the property significantly. The argument is invariably advanced that the property owner needs such “improvements” to respond to compelling needs, and to improve the architectural outlook of the area. However, measures such as this profoundly transcend the individual objectives of the property owner. The issues have significant applicability to those of us who constitute the community and who live there as residents and have been there well before the project proposed was advanced. Every variance approval of this nature lowers the bar for the next applicant, and I assure you there are plenty of people standing in line, waiting for similar concessions, in order to make “improvements” on their properties. They will endeavor, through variances such as this to argue that it will improve the overall nature of the property, and it may well do so, but I urge you to consider the community impact of this as you weigh the multifaceted nature of the proposal. The impacts of these measures will indelibly and negatively alter the character of Cleverdale. In the interest of those who have willingly accommodated their needs, to fulfill zoning provisions, we urge you to make the same conditions apply to this project, namely to go along with zoning provisions that have been reasonably imposed on others, so that the same thing will apply to these people. Thank you very much. MR. STONE-Anybody else wishing to speak against? Come forward, sir. BILLINGS WHEELER MR. WHEELER-Well, my name is Billings Wheeler. I’m Sara’s husband. As Sara said, we own the back lot which is adjacent to the lot in question that the garage is going to be put on. The terrain of that lot is it’s level at the road level, and then it dips down as you go toward the center of the peninsula, it’s lower there. Maybe four or five feet. I’m concerned of the rain and runoff of a roof. It’s wet there now, I mean, most of the time. I’m concerned about the runoff of the roof impacting my lower area there, and turning it into a total wetland, a swamp, so to speak. The other concern I have is parking. Currently now, I hate to say this now, but people, I get the spillover from the Sands at Sea. They come down and park on my lot. They also park on his lot, and the neighbors sometimes occasionally park on my back lot without my permission. If a garage is there, it’s going to just make it worse for me. I think, you know, more people are going to be parking on my lot, and I try to be nice about it, but, you know, you get, it gets objectionable when we’re having company and we need the parking space. So those are 46 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/23/03) my reasons, and I’m also against the guest house. I just don’t think there should be a guesthouse on such a small lakeside lot. Thank you. MR. STONE-Anybody else wishing to speak? Any correspondence? MR. MC NULTY-Yes. We have one piece of correspondence from Christopher Navitsky, Lake George Waterkeeper. He says he’s reviewed the variance request and would like to offer the following comments: “The proposed project is a renovation and reconstruction of several structures on the referenced property which will require several area variances. Under § 179- 14-020, it states ‘In granting a variance, the Zoning Board of Appeals may impose conditions similar to those provided for site plan review usage to protect the best interest of the surrounding property, the neighborhood and the town as a whole.’ I am requesting the Board to consider the condition of stormwater management for the proposed structures as if they were new structures. Although the amount of impervious surface area would not exceed the requirements for a Stormwater Management Plan as per Chapter 147, the Town should take this opportunity to manage the uncontrolled runoff from the site as per the findings of fact detailed in § 147-2, which states ‘The Town of Queensbury finds that uncontrolled drainage and runoff associated with land development has significant impact upon the health, safety and welfare of the community….’ The applicant will benefit by the requested variances, if granted, and through this condition, the Town, residents and users of Lake George would also benefit by eliminating uncontrolled runoff to the Lake. Thank you for your consideration of these comments. Sincerely, Christopher Navitsky, PE Lake George Waterkeeper” MR. STONE-Is that it? MR. MC NULTY-That’s it. MR. STONE-Let me close the public hearing for the moment at least. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. STONE-Do you wish to comment? I’ve got a few questions off of that, but let me let you respond first. MR. LAPPER-I guess one general comment from me, and then Curt will do the details, but when Keith and Elysa came to us to talk about renovating this property for themselves and their two kids, we talked to them about the history of what happens at the Zoning Board and what happens on Cleverdale, and prevailed upon them to do a relative, what we considered a relatively modest project. Even though, you know, there’s four different structures that we’re talking about, the guest cottage is there right now. It could be used to put a car in it. So the idea of having it as a bedroom without kitchen, we think that’s a softer use than, you know, a place for a car or a lawnmower. As was asked, you know, the boathouse was just fixing the roof, and expanding the deck on top and not beyond the edge of the roof. The house itself is four bedrooms now, making it into three bedrooms, on the second story, and the garage on the other side, I mean, I understand that the neighbors like the situation now, where cars can park on both parcels, but it’s certainly not unreasonable for them to want to put a garage on the non lake side parcel. That’s all for me. MR. DYBAS-Well, as Jon hit upon there, the existing garage building is so small you can’t get a vehicle in it anyway, and, you know, as far as the impact on the site, we have a four bedroom house that we’re turning into a three, and the guest quarters is just that. I mean, it’s a bedroom and a bathroom. There are no cooking or anything else in it. It’s never intended to be rented. It’s basically for in-laws to come and crash and get away from their children and their grandchildren, and for the record, I did this project twice. The original design for this thing included a two bedroom, I mean, a two car garage, and a bedroom facility above it on the lakeside lot, and at the last minute, we took a different spin on this thing and looked at it to preserve the lakefront lot. We feel, and I say this is a modest proposal. We have a three bedroom, two thousand square foot house, after renovation. I do not consider that in any way 47 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/23/03) outlandish, as far as area is concerned. The entire area used for the FAR is like three thousand square feet. That includes all the buildings, garages included, that are on this parcel. Again, the zoning is set up for setbacks and for Floor Area Ratios. I think that we’re well within the zoning intent in this project. We could have come in here and asked for a lot more, probably not have gotten it, but, you know, the house, trying to keep all the additions onto the north side, we’re not asking for any setback variances on the residence at all, and we’re trying to work within the envelopes, and we’ve tried our best to make this, contrary to what’s been said, to blend into the architectural style of this property. I mean, the house, the garage and the new garage, and the boathouse. Everything stays pretty much as the style that’s there. I mean, we did not get the broad brush out and do a big, fancy, splashy arch windows and glass and all that stuff. It’s a very simple structure. MR. STONE-I’ve got several concerns of things that I have heard from the neighbors and my own reading of the application. Under the data submitted, Site Development Data, percent non-permeable, it comes out to be 13.9%. I don’t think that’s a correct number in terms of permeability. The thing even says 72% remain permeable on the site plan sketch, but on the. MR. LAPPER-The correct number is on the plans. MR. STONE-Okay. Well, I mean, that’s a concern. I mean, that’s within the allowed level, but I’m concerned that the numbers on, the handwritten numbers here are not correct. MR. LAPPER-You’re right. It’s wrong and it should conform to what’s on the plans. MR. STONE-One could argue the application is incorrect, but I’m not going to argue that at the moment. The Floor Area Ratio, this is a discussion we had last week, this represents a 10% increase, in terms of Floor Area Ratio, 2.2% over 22% is 10%. It’s 10% larger than it’s supposed to be. MR. LAPPER-Yes. Which we could characterize as modest, 10%. MR. STONE-So I ask Staff, don’t give me descriptions of, just give me the numbers. Ten percent is ten percent. MR. LAPPER-A lot less than many people ask for. MR. STONE-I could give the speech two wrongs do not make a right. MR. BRYANT-A lot more than most people get, too. MR. STONE-Those are a couple of the concerns that I heard. I mean, I can tell you, I am troubled by building a new garage and trying to use the building that’s there. I mean, to me, I would love to see a compromise, if we allowed you to build the garage, take down the other building, and open up the lot a little bit, but that’s where I’m thinking right now. Anybody have any other questions, based upon what they heard? MR. MC NULTY-I’ve got a couple of thoughts that maybe I ought to throw out before it gets to the final comment. I’m, listening to the neighbors on the one hand I think one of their bigger concerns is the new proposed garage, and right now, and I guess another factor is the Floor Area Ratio, which all comes back to the fact that right now we’re looking at two separate lots which the applicant has said they will combine one way or another into one lot, but at the moment, if we were to approve this based on current conditions, we would have to approve an accessory structure on a lot that doesn’t have a principal structure. We’d also have to approve a far higher Floor Area Ratio for the lakeside lot, with these being two separate lots. So we’re being asked to approve something on the basis of what might be or probably will be at some point in the future. If these two lots were combined, then there’s not an awful lot we can do to stop the applicant from building the garage on this extra lot, even though the neighbors might prefer not to see a garage there. We could tell them they can’t make a garage that’s higher than 48 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/23/03) the permitted height, but that’s about the only thing we could do. I guess I’m left wondering, and I’m waiting to be convinced, whether or not this should be tabled and the applicant should be told to go back and combine the lots and then come back with the combined lot and make their request. MR. STONE-Does anybody else have any comment? MR. LAPPER-Maybe for credibility if nothing else, we should just table it, go do that, and come back. Because that’s a legitimate issue, and we have no problem with that. I mean, they’re not building it next month anyway. If that would be the Board’s pleasure, and then we can look at the Floor Area Ratio. MR. STONE-Does anybody want to comment on Mr. Lapper’s suggestion? MR. BRYANT-I agree. I think probably the point that Mr. McNulty makes is a good one, and that is that you probably should do that first. I just want to comment on something you said, Mr. Chairman, relative to the guesthouse, and I’m kind of leaning towards that also. I mean, I understand that you can build a garage, especially if you, if you combine the two lots then, you know, you can go ahead and build your garage, but to have the extra house, and you make a point that while we’re making a four bedroom house into a three bedroom house, but in reality, all you’re doing is moving the bedroom to garage. So we’re really not getting any bargain here. So, I tend to agree with you in that regard. I think that, and some of the neighbors, that probably we should be looking at one of two paths. One being to demolish the existing garage, and build a new garage on the lot across the street, or possibly not building the garage across the street and just expanding slightly the garage to accommodate a vehicle, the existing garage, but you know I just don’t want to see all those structures on the property. MR. STONE-I’m just going to throw this thought out. Obviously, there are four, as I read the application, there are four variances you’re requesting, Floor Area Ratio, accessory structure height, namely the garage, the side setback for the boathouse which is basically a technical thing because you’re not moving it. You’re just putting something on the top. Therefore, it’s a technical variance, and then the boathouse height, which would be slightly increased from where it because of safety requirements. I mean, I can tell you, and I can go down and we can do our thing. I’m inclined to ask, to go along with you and to table it, but in order to give you as much help as possible, without putting them on the spot, I would poll the Board, in terms of how they feel about particular, well, all of the four things that you’re asking for, very quickly, I mean, are they concerned about it, if you guys are willing to do that. MR. URRICO-I do have one concern, before we get to that. Some of the neighbors expressed concern about the parcels being combined, the impact that might have on other existing properties on Cleverdale and Assembly Point, and I guess I’m concerned that it may be perceived that we’re recommending this course of action. This is really a legal course of action that the applicant can pursue on their own. It’s not something that we’re recommending that they do. Right? MR. STONE-No, correct, but the minimum relief, we’re supposed to grant minimum relief. MR. URRICO-Right. MR. STONE-Minimum relief, in terms of Floor Area Ratio, is dependent on knowing the area of the lots in question, and that means that we need to know before we do that what it is we’re thinking of granting. So that has to be done. We’re not saying they have to. We’re saying, we need to know it. That’s the only thing they’re saying. MR. DYBAS-I have a question. MR. STONE-Yes. 49 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/23/03) MR. DYBAS-If you combine these two parcels, they become one. You now have a lot that is larger but still nonconforming. Right now you have two separate parcels, and then to address the people that spoke before, you could sell off this little center lot separately, it is an existing nonconforming lot, and with imagination, you could build something on that. It would take a lot of imagination. MR. STONE-It would require, Craig, to build on that, that is not an approved subdivision, is it, that lot? It’s a pre-existing lot. MR. HAYES-It’s got nothing to do with that. MR. STONE-So they could build. MR. DYBAS-You could, technically, take all these little lots in Cleverdale, the people could sell them off, individually, and somebody could build a principal residence. They’d have to be very smart. MR. STONE-And they already have, if you go up and down Cleverdale Road. MR. DYBAS-I would think the people that addressed the Board before would be happy that people would hook these lots, because now they become one. They can never be subdivided again. MR. STONE-Yes. Mr. Dybas, that’s fine. I agree with you there, and put them together. MR. DYBAS-But I’m hearing. MR. STONE-There are two issues, we’re assuming, for the Floor Area Ratio discussion, that they’re combined. MR. DYBAS-That’s correct. MR. LAPPER-We’ll combine them and come back. No problem. MR. STONE-Okay. Is that enough for you? MR. LAPPER-No, no. We’d like to get whatever direction we can about Floor Area. MR. STONE-Okay. Let me just go down, start with you, Jim. How do you feel about the four, just very quickly? MR. UNDERWOOD-I think on the boathouse I would rather see you keep it as is, because it’s already an oversized boathouse, and I think if you compare that to what else it up there, it’s certainly bigger than a lot of the other ones. So I think that, you know, if you’re going to expand sideways, even though the next door neighbor most affected hasn’t commented on that, I think that you could keep within what you have. You’ve still got plenty more room than most people do on top of your boathouse. As far as the house goes, I think it would be crazy for us to say, well, you can’t, you know, upgrade your property since it’s 100 years old, and I think there’s definite benefit to putting in the new septic system. I looked at whether you could put a garage on that lot, but I think you’d put the FAR out of sight if you did that, you know, and the effect of the runoff going into the lake is going to be increased, too. So I think the idea of putting a garage on the .21 acre lot close to the lake doesn’t make much sense. The guest bedroom, I don’t know, is it really necessary? It’s a gimme, you know, it’s a kid’s playhouse or whatever it ends up being, you know, but it is an extra place, and I think that we have to keep it in the context of the size of the lot. It’s a .21 lot. You’re going to have a lot of living space on that very small lot, and I think you have to consider the cumulative impact of it. One more little room doesn’t make that much difference. I’m on the fence on that, but I would kind of tend to think no, you don’t really need it. The garage on the other side, I would think that, you know, 50 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/23/03) we’ve dealt with people having garages on all these smaller lots out on Cleverdale and Pilot Knob, over the years, and I think that, you know, obviously, everyone’s entitled to shelter for their automobile or whatever. As far as when I hear people telling me that it’s going to be for their boat, I have my doubts as to whether that’s really necessary. There’s other alternatives. Everybody on Pilot Knob could, you know, transport their boat off it. It’s more of a hassle to do that. I think that the garage height itself, we would be best to keep the garage heights as what they are, because I think that, you know, we need to negate the future expansion of those garages maybe 20 years down the road when everybody changes the zoning to, you know, make them all secondary living space above at some point in time. I mean, who knows, down the road, what it’s going to be, but I think it would be difficult to not permit a garage on that lot. As far as the combining of those two lots together, and using that for the small size of those lots, I think that’s very difficult to do. I think we have to consider the size of the lots adjacent to the Critical Environment areas, and, you know, it’s a fact there’s homes there now, and if we’re going to improve those homes and put in septic systems that are actually effective, we’re doing a better thing. So, that’s it for me. MR. STONE-Allan? MR. BRYANT-As far as the boathouse is concerned, that’s primarily going to stay about the same size. There’s no real expansion other than the railing. I would be in favor of that. The two issues that I’m not in favor of are the accessory structure height. Generally I’ve been very consistent in that. I don’t think it’s necessarily a requirement. The lot is really not even across from the house. So I don’t think you’re going to put two and two together. This garage belongs with this house kind of thing. The Floor Area Ratio problem would be negated if you demolish the existing garage, and that’s my tendency. I’d like to see that extra living quarter on that property lakeside completely gone, if we could do that. DR. CAVAYERO-Just for the record, that acts as, there’s a restaurant directly across the street. The reason why Mr. Dybas changed the plan originally is because we realized, spending a little time up there, it actually as a buffer to the San Souci restaurant. The original plan was to maybe add a, take that down and just put a two car garage attached to the house. But we realized that by keeping it separated and almost like a little courtyard and added architecturally, it added a lot more flavor and character to the area, it was much more presentable to the Board. MR. BRYANT-I understand what you’re saying, but your neighbors have concerns about having these additional guest houses, and my recollection is that we’ve turned them down in the past. MR. STONE-And what we’re doing, as a courtesy to you, trying to build up, show you our concerns. Your agent has already indicated we’re going to table it, and we’re happy with that, but we’re trying to be helpful. MR. BRYANT-If you want to create a buffer, you can always plant shrubbery and that sort of thing, but I’m leaning towards that. I would prefer to see that go, if we could do that, and then I might even sway on the height of the garage, as a compromise. That’s where I’m at, Mr. Chairman. MR. STONE-Roy? MR. URRICO-This is a rare moment on the Board. I’m in total agreement with Mr. Bryant. I also agree that the boathouse primarily remaining the same dimensions as it is now. So I don’t have a problem with that. Nor do I have a problem with the house renovations. I do agree that the guesthouse does present concerns regarding the Floor Area Ratio, that if it were not there, it would not, and I, too, have had a problem with the heights of garages, and I really would like to see that stay within the required height limit. So that’s where I stand. MR. STONE-Jaime? 51 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/23/03) MR. HAYES-I think, you know, when we’ve had examination of cases on the lake, Critical Environmental Areas, and the Floor Area Ratio, which was created to certainly govern that to some extent. I’ve always been concerned when expansions were kind of going outward and upward and then usually there was a deck toward the lake that needed a little relief, you know, that’s just such a prototypical improvement that we’ve seen on lake properties, you know, these ones that require several pieces of relief. I almost could describe them in my sleep, at this point, and they usually, as Mr. Dybas said, have a remarkable glass spectacle in the front, and that type of thing. The plans are really almost identical, and we’ve had to examine those really carefully, but what is different about this one, at least in my mind, and to a significant change in my mind is that basically this is a 2,000 square foot house when we’re all said and done. It’s just not a big house, compared to some of these monsters that we’re faced with in other applications. This just isn’t a, we’re not being asked, here, to approve something that’s gigantic. I couple that with the idea that it’s also going to be in the same footprint as the house that’s already there. So we’re not going to the left, to the right or toward the lake or anything like that. So, those are two big steps, in my mind, that soften the impact of what’s being proposed. There’s no dimensional relief for the principal structure. As far as the boathouse, I think I agree with the rest of the Board members that we’re not terribly troubled by that because it’s going to be in the same footprint. It’s not enlarging. It’s not growing. Again, that’s the key word in my mind is when we get the growing and that type of thing. So I’m not troubled by that. Really. I guess, even though there is multiple layers of relief here. They’re all, in my mind, relatively small. Even, as Lew said, the 10%, you know, variance over the Floor Area Ratio. That’s 10%. It’s not 33, it’s not 43. It’s not 29. It’s 10%. To me, that’s when variances should be considered. When they get in lower, more reasonable ranges, that’s when we should be looking at them and finding a reason not to do it or to do it, but that’s not a big number in my mind. So I guess, you know, as I look at this, I understand the neighbor’s concerns. I certainly want to see how this is going to be combined legally, to the satisfaction of not only his counsel, but our counsel or our Staff, because I wouldn’t want to consider anything where that wasn’t concrete for sure, because I think that does, it does impact the nature of what’s happening there. So, on balance, I just think that there has been an effort made here to not have this be, you know, a real hard hitting expansion or a real impacting expansion, and that troubles me less than other ones I’ve seen. MR. STONE-Chuck? MR. MC NULTY-Okay. Well, this obviously is a balancing act, and I guess partly for the benefit of the neighbors that are here, the point that the applicant made I was going to make, that it would be conceivable that they could sell the lot across the street off and somebody could build some kind of a little camp there, and given enough time, somebody surely would. That’s what’s happening on Lake George. The general planning trend is towards larger lots, and we’ve run into that before where we’ll hit an area where there’s a whole bunch of one acre lots, and the people that did the rezoning zoned the area for three acres, and we scratch our heads and say, why, but I think the thing is they’re saying, well, this is what really ought to be there for the environment, even though there’s just one acre lots there. So the tendency now is to try to enlarge the lot. So I’m not sure that combining those two lots is a bad thing. I don’t know. A lot of the variance requests are all minimal, as the applicant’s pointed out. When you look at each one individually, not a one of them is a big deal, but, collectively, they are a consideration. So I guess where I would be is I would be inclined to use the Floor Area Ratio to try to discourage converting that small garage into a guest bedroom. I think as the applicant said, if it’s providing a buffer for him, he may want to leave it there, but maybe it could be a tool shed or something else, but I’d be inclined to disapprove the Floor Area Ratio for that purpose. Assuming that they are successful in combining the lots, then the only thing that we’re being asked or can be asked about for the garage across the street is the height of the garage, because they can build the garage they’re proposing within the required setbacks. The height of the garage is, again, not a big deal. I would like to see some comments from the applicant on why it couldn’t be lowered and made to comply and still have the roof slope match the house. Could a foot be taken off the sidewalls without causing problems, or what can be done with the landscaping to change the overall height to reduce that, and if they can come back and show, no, there’s no other way, then I might be inclined to go for the garage height. Boathouse, I don’t 52 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/23/03) think, well, we’re not being asked about the expansion sideways on the rails to begin with. That maybe is a leverage that we can use and say, you can’t expand it. We’ll give you the height, if you don’t expand the rails, but I don’t see any big problem if you want to push the rails out, as long as you’re not going beyond the edge of the roof where it is now, and I think the explanation for the need to increase the height slightly to make the side rails compliant with current Code is logical. So I’d have no problem with the boathouse. MR. STONE-I agree with everything I heard. No, I want to congratulate my Board. I use that term, and I don’t want to misconstrue, the Board of which I am the Chairman. I think they have given you, and I would agree with most of the things. They have given you a lot of information about where they stand. I certainly agree that the Floor Area Ratio is of concern to me, 10% is a big number, in certain respects, particularly when we’re dealing with small lots on the lake. The accessory structure height, assuming you can build it, would also be a concern of mine. We have looked at a lot of garages that have been tried to be built around the lake recently, and we’ve been pretty tough on them. The boathouse is really a wash. I mean, it’s got to go up a little bit for safety reasons. We have the technical setback. That doesn’t bother me, but I think the Board has covered it very well. I think they’ve given you an awful lot, pretty good road map, and therefore I move to table. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 69-2003 DR. KEITH CAVAYERO & DR. ELYSA BARON, Introduced by Lewis Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Paul Hayes: 87 Mason Road. For a period of up to 62 days. So that, one, the applicant can investigate the combining of the two lots, and to consider the comments of the Board in relationship to the relief requested. Duly adopted this 23 day of July, 2003, by the following vote: rd AYES: Mr. Hayes, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Stone NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Himes, Mr. Abbate MR. LAPPER-We have great direction. I know what it’s like when this Board hates something, and that’s not the case, and we’ll take this to heart and come back with some changes. Is it possible to get back next month? MR. STONE-Technically the time, under our new timetable, it’s gone. MR. BROWN-Correct. MR. LAPPER-Thank you. MR. BROWN-Mr. Chairman, I guess for the benefit of the public that’s here, you may want to re-open the public hearing. MR. STONE-I’m going to leave it. I meant to do that. MR. BROWN-Okay. You closed it at one point. MR. STONE-Yes, I know I did. For purposes of this tabling, I will leave the public hearing open. PUBLIC HEARING RE-OPENED 53 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/23/03) MR. STONE-So that, that means any written comments that the public may wish to add to the file will be received and when it comes back you will also be notified. No, they don’t get notified when we table. MR. BROWN-We typically don’t. I mean, you can instruct us to do that. MR. STONE-I think I would instruct Staff to notify the required neighbors, and anybody else. I think, Mr. Wetherbee, are you within the 500 feet? Mr. WETHERBEE-No. MR. STONE-Okay, and certainly Mr. Wetherbee, notify them when it would be on the agenda again. Okay. SIGN VARIANCE NO. 70-2003 SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED HOME DEPOT USA, INC. PROPERTY OWNER: NORTHWAY PLAZA ASSOCIATES, LLC AGENT: JONATHAN LAPPER, CUMMINGS SIGNAGE ZONE: HC-INT. LOCATION: 820 STATE ROUTE 9 APPLICANT PROPOSES A 30 SQ. FT. WALL SIGN AND SEEKS RELIEF FROM THE SIGN ORDINANCE FOR A FOURTH WALL SIGN. CROSS REFERENCE: SPR 12-2002, AV 54- 2002, PZ 1-2002, SV 59-2002 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 7/9/03 TAX MAP NO. 296.18-1-47, 46 LOT SIZE: 22.87 AC., 10.62 AC. SECTION: 179-4-030 JON LAPPER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Sign Variance No. 70-2003, Home Depot USA, LLC, Meeting Date: July 23, 2003 “Project Location: 820 State Route 9 Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes a 30 sf wall sign and seeks relief for an additional wall sign. Relief Required: Applicant requests relief from the Sign Ordinance for an additional (4) wall sign. Specifically, th §140-6, B., (3), (d) allows each tenant in a Business Complex to have only one wall sign. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): Several building permits, sign permits, variances and site plans are associated with the plaza. Most recently, the Board reviewed a Sign Variance request from Home Depot for two freestanding signs and 3 wall signs. See attached resolution. Staff comments: The proposed sign, located at the southwesterly corner of the building will be visible to cars traveling along Route 9. Will the 30 sf sign present significant benefits to the community? How was this sign not included in the previous sign variance? Is this a “typical” sign for Home Depot? Can patrons be directed to this portion of the store in any other manner? On site directional signs?” MR. MC NULTY-“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form July 9, 2003 Project Name: Home Depot USA, LLC Owner: Northway Plaza Associates, LLC ID Number: QBY-03-SV-70 County Project#: Jul03-28 Current Zoning: HC-Int. Community: Queensbury Project Description: Applicant proposes a 30 sq. ft. wall sign and seeks relief from the Sign Ordinance for a fourth wall sign. Site Location: 820 State Route 9 Tax Map Number(s): 296.18-1-46 296.18-1-47 Staff Notes: Sign Variance: The applicant proposes to install a 30 sq. ft. sign on the proposed Home Depot Store front that indicates there is a “tool rental center” inside. The information with submitted with the application indicates the applicant is allowed 3 wall signs and a free standing sign by variance. The applicant has indicated that not all Home Depots offer a tool rental center. Staff does not identify an impact on county resources. Staff recommends no county impact. County Planning Board Recommendation: No County Impact” Signed by Bennet F. Driscoll, Warren County Planning Board 7/14/03. MR. STONE-Mr. Lapper. MR. LAPPER-Given the hour, I’m going to give you the real short version and answer any questions. This was not contemplated at the time that the store was designed and built. I guess 54 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/23/03) this is a new department for Wal-Mart. I don’t know if it exists in Wilton. Tool Rental, but it’s something that they’ll be advertising. The sole purpose is, when you’re in the parking lot, to know which side of the store to go to, on the really large façade, and although this is probably going to be slightly visible when you’re right at the top of the hill over the office building, it is a really small sign compared to the façade of the building. I think I submitted color copies that shows you in scale 30 square feet on that façade. Obviously they went the distance in terms of the design of the façade to make it look good, and they’re not doing this extra signage to take away from it. It’s just, it’s a really small sign. It’s a new, different department. They want to direct people to park in the right place to go rent tools. I think that it will have no impact because of the size and the location on the building, but it is important to Home Depot. They’re not asking for it on the pylon sign. It’s just once you get into the site, to know where to go. MR. STONE-Okay. Comment, please, on the fact that you, there are two wall banners up currently, one saying “Tool Rental” and one saying “Hourly Truck Rental”. Now, those would be signs to me. MR. LAPPER-Well, I assume that those are temporary banner signs. MR. STONE-Well, temporary sometimes changes. What are they considered, Craig, have you seen them? MR. BROWN-Right now they’d be considered illegal banner signs. No permits were issued for them, and I’m sure that’s news to Mr. Lapper, but. MR. LAPPER-The Town does have a process for a temporary sign, which is different. You don’t have to come before the Board. You go to Craig, for banner signs, 30 days. MR. STONE-Right, but you did hear that magic word, counselor? MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. STONE-Illegal. MR. LAPPER-They are not aware, I’m sure, of the need to get a permit for a banner sign, and I will communicate that to them in the morning. MR. STONE-I assume that the “Contractor” sign will be complete with the word “Pick Up” on the next? MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. LAPPER-It says so here. MR. STONE-It doesn’t say so on the building, though. MR. LAPPER-Yes. The Grand Opening is Wednesday, and I know that they intend to have everything right by then. MR. STONE-Are we invited? MR. LAPPER-I didn’t get an invitation. MR. STONE-So you’re explanation, because my comment I wrote down here, and I’ll let the other guys talk, but was I need more explanation for the fourth sign. The fact that they don’t have it in other stores, they may know that, but I don’t know that. 55 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/23/03) MR. LAPPER-It’s really a contractor, excuse me, the contractor pick up is a certain special area, and if you’re going to go, the rental department for tools is different than where you go in to buy your light bulbs and lumber. So they want to direct you. It’s a really big building. It’s a big parking lot. If you’re going to rent tools and put them in the back of your pick up, you go to, all the way on the left side of the building, and it is a really small sign. So they’re not doing this because they want to tell everyone, like somebody said before, about the Bay Road building, that it’s another marketing thing. If they were trying to make it so that you could see it from off site, they’d obviously want something bigger than three foot by ten foot. This is just so when you’re in the parking lot, you know where to park, and I think it’s not a big deal. MR. STONE-Okay, but before one of the guys says it, and they will, this is another example of piecemeal. MR. LAPPER-No. MR. STONE-Why is it not an example of piecemeal? MR. LAPPER-Because I would have had a better argument to come in here all at once, as I did so many months ago, and say, here’s the package of what they need, and they’re doing this nice job here. This was just something that came up a month ago when they decided that they were going to have that. I don’t shop at Home Depot a lot because we have a Lowe’s here and not a Home Depot, but I think that Tool Rental is probably a brand new thing for them, and it wasn’t. At the time that this was approved 11 months ago, I’m sure that it wasn’t on the table. I mean, there would have been no benefit to saying, okay, we’ll come back for this 30 feet later, because we wouldn’t have gotten it before. It’s just a small sign. MR. STONE-Okay. Anybody have any questions? MR. URRICO-Well, Mr. Stone asked also about the hourly truck rental. Now is that going to be considered a new feature, too, that they’re going to have a sign for? MR. LAPPER-No, no. This is it. MR. STONE-You would stipulate that that sign come down? MR. LAPPER-Yes. It’s just a temporary banner sign that needs to get a permit from Craig, for 30 days, if he grants it. MR. STONE-Anyone else have any questions? Well, I will open the public hearing. Anybody wishing to speak in favor of? Anybody opposed? Any correspondence? MR. MC NULTY-No correspondence. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. STONE-Let’s talk about it. Let’s start with Chuck. MR. MC NULTY-I don’t know. I can understand Mr. Lapper’s arguments. At the same time it strikes me that these guys who are theoretically entitled to one wall sign have got three. They’ve got a big sign on the front of their building to draw people in. I’m going to listen to what everybody else says, and their reasons for what they have to say, but I guess I’m kind of leaning on the negative side at the moment, but I’m not really sure, and incidentally, before we get to a vote on this, it’s an Unlisted. 56 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/23/03) MR. STONE-An Unlisted. Okay. MR. LAPPER-Actually, you could treat it and say that this is within the, this is not a significant impact based upon the SEQRA that was done previously. MR. STONE-Well, what comment did the Planning Board make about signs? MR. HAYES-It was an overall site. MR. STONE-An overall site. Was the Planning Board Lead Agency on this one? MR. BROWN-That’s correct. MR. LAPPER-Yes. I don’t think there was anything specific about signs. MR. STONE-That’s one of the things, quite frankly, that troubles me about SEQRA. It’s very difficult to answer when you come to signs, because aesthetically they do represent a problem. In fact, I just got a note from a gentleman who congratulated me for putting that in the motion, that except for aesthetic reasons. Mr. Eddy gave us all the note, but he mentioned me. Anyway, okay, so let’s go down to Jim. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, you know, I was not involved when you guys granted all these variances, but I know that you did end up giving them a bunch of extra sign, an extra pylon sign out by the road there, and that’s going to be before us I think, too, in the future, but I can’t imagine that you couldn’t put internal signage inside the store, like as you walk in the main gateway to the store, that most people are going to walk in the main doors of the store and if you had a big orange sign saying Tool Center with an arrow going like that, that that wouldn’t work out for you. I think, you know, we were pretty adamant that we wanted to keep this thing plain Jane on the front with as minimal signage as possible, and I think adding this on is not going to make any difference as far as the bottom line for Home Depot. Tool Rental’s probably going to be a minor blip on the financial situation for them, in the long term, and due to the fact that it’s down by Contractor Pick Up, I’m going to guess that, you know, contractors are going to be the one, you know, renting expensive tools. It’s not going to be the average home operator going in there to rent a wrench or something or drill. So I would be against it. MR. STONE-Allan? MR. BRYANT-You know, when you came before us on the other Sign Variances, I actually seconded that thing, and I’m reading it now and I can’t believe it, but I think I agree with Mr. Underwood. I think we’ve gone a little bit too far on this. You’ve got a lot of extra signs, plenty of square footage. Yes, 30 square feet really doesn’t make a hill of beans, but when you get down to, at some point, I think we’ve got to draw the line, and again, I agree with Mr. Underwood. I’m going to be a negative. MR. STONE-Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes. I’m afraid I’m on the negative side also on this. I just think it’s a nice building. It looks great. I think we start adding some extra signage to it, it’s really going to detract from it. I don’t like this idea, when we do it for automotive centers, I know Wal-Mart’s coming on the agenda with something like 25 of these types of signs. MR. LAPPER-Which is totally different. MR. URRICO-Which it totally different. MR. LAPPER-What I’m thinking, Mr. Chairman, if the Board would consider a tabling motion, I think I probably should come back with a representative of Home Depot who may do a better job than me of explaining why it’s important to them, and if the Board still doesn’t like it, that’s, 57 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/23/03) of course, your prerogative, but I just viewed it, because of the size, that it wouldn’t be a big deal, and obviously I was wrong. So I’d request to table it to be able to come back with a representative of the company. MR. URRICO-Just for the record, I thought you did a terrific job presenting it. MR. STONE-Jaime, do you want to comment, or you and I can stay out of this thing? You probably are for it. MR. HAYES-No. Actually, I’m not. I mean, similar to Mr. Bryant, I read the motion that I made, and while I can believe it, I think it was enough. So we’re pretty close in examination. MR. STONE-Actually, we will accede to your wish, but what I’m hearing, we could deny it right now. MR. LAPPER-I understand that, but I think that I probably didn’t serve the tenant well by not asking them to come, because I just viewed it incorrectly. MR. STONE-By a nod of the head, Maria will never get it, but do you guys mind if I table it? Okay. MR. LAPPER-Thank you. MOTION TO TABLE SIGN VARIANCE NO. 70-2003 HOME DEPOT USA, INC., Introduced by Lewis Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Paul Hayes: 820 State Route 9. For a period of up to 62 days, so that the agent can consult with his client to offset the largely negative comments made by the Board. Duly adopted this 23 day of July 2003, by the following vote: rd AYES: Mr. Hayes, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Stone NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Himes, Mr. Abbate MR. STONE-The meeting is adjourned. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Lewis Stone, Chairman 58