Loading...
2004-09-15 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/15/04) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING SEPTEMBER 15, 2004 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT PAUL HAYES, ACTING CHAIRMAN CHARLES MC NULTY, SECRETARY JAMES UNDERWOOD ALLAN BRYANT CHARLES ABBATE LEO RIGBY, ALTERNATE JOYCE HUNT, ALTERNATE MEMBERS ABSENT LEWIS STONE ROY URRICO ZONING ADMINISTRATOR-CRAIG BROWN CODE COMPLIANCE OFFICER-BRUCE FRANK STENOGPAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI DUE TO TECHNICAL PROBLEMS WITH TAPE, MUCH OF MEETING MINUTES WERE UNTRANSCRIBABLE OLD BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 45-2004 SEQRA TYPE II ROBERT & JANICE GRILLO AGENT(S): SHAWN CALLAHAN OWNER(S): SAME ZONING: WR-1A LOCATION: 121 SEELYE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 600 SQ. FT. ADDITION TO EXISTING 720 SQ. FT. GARAGE. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM SIDE YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENTS, CONTINUATION REQUIREMENTS, SIZE, AND HEIGHT RESTRICTIONS. CROSS REF. BP 96-241 DEMO OF 2-CAR DETACHED GARAGE, BP 96-240 REPLACE EXISTING 2-CAR DETACHED GARAGE WARREN COUNTY PLANNING JUNE 9, 2004 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY YES LOT SIZE: 0.84 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 227.17-1-51 SECTION: 179-5-020(D) 179-4-030 179-13-010(E) SHAWN CALLAHAN, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; ROBERT GRILLO, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 45-2004, Robert & Janice Grillo, Meeting Date: September 15, 2004 “Project Location: 121 Seelye Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes a 600 sq. ft. garage addition, at 21 feet high, to the existing 720 sq. ft., detached garage at 21 feet high. Relief Required: 1) 17.64 feet of side setback relief from the 20-foot minimum requirement. 2) 5 feet of height relief from the 16-foot maximum requirement (land 2 per §179-4-030) 3) Relief from the continuation requirements, per § 179-13-010(E). 1 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/15/04) 4) Additionally, even though the applicant has not requested any, 420 sq. ft. of relief is needed from the 900 sq. ft. maximum size requirement for a garage, per §179-5- 020(D) Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): AV 45-2004: tabled 6/16/04, 720 sq. ft. addition to the existing 720 sq. ft. detached garage. BP 96-240: 05/23/96, construction of a 720 sq. ft. detached garage. BP 96-241 05/27/96, demolition of a 720 sq. ft. detached garage. Note: in 1996, the replacement of dangerous structures was permitted without the need for a variance. Staff comments: The applicant has scaled down the proposed garage addition from 720 sq. ft. (June 16, 2004) to 600 sq. ft. The proposed height is the same as the original proposal. The difference in the relief required from June is 120 sq. ft. less size relief and 0.16 feet less side setback relief. Should the application be approved, site plan approval by the Planning Board will be required being the proposed expansion is in a CEA (Critical Environmental Area), per § 179-13-010(F).” PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MARY ELLEN MERRIGAN SPOKE – OPPOSED – concerns over storage facility, not garage, concerned she will see garage GERALDINE MIDDLETON SPOKE – OPPOSED – AND READ HER LETTER, “Last Fall Mr. Grillo asked our thoughts on his desire to build another garage. We told him we didn’t object to another garage, but we did not believe he could get approval for one that would be on top of the property line because side yard setback is 20 feet. When we built ours in 1995, we had to be 20 feet away from the line and we complied. We believe if it is built it should comply with side yard variances. If it were any closer our driveway would be under water every time it rained. As it is now the present garage causes flooding any time we have a downpour. The building at its closest point is already less than 3.15 feet, and of course, the eaves of the roof are even closer. If the side yard variance is allowed, are you setting a precedent for other variances? Respectfully, Robert Middleton & Geraldine Middleton” Charles McNulty read letter from LGA, “I am writing on behalf of the Lake George Association (LGA) with our concerns regarding the abovementioned project. Our primary concern is with the variance request for the size of the accessory structure. The applicants propose to double the size of their 720 sq. ft. garage, totaling 1440 sq. ft. In 179-5-20 (D) “Garages may not exceed 900 square feet in floor area in any residential district.” This is a substantial request, notwithstanding the other three variances needed. Furthermore, an “accessory structure” as defined in the codebook is, “a building or structure subordinate and clearly incidental to the principal building on the same lot and used for a purpose customarily incidental to those of the principal building.” The building footprint of the primary structure on the lot is 1002 sq. ft. The proposed size of the accessory structure (1400 sq. ft.) does not indicate that it is “clearly incidental” to the principal building. The applicant should show the interior layout of the accessory structure. Are there living quarters, bedrooms, or bathrooms? The site plan delineates the septic tank, but not specifics on what the capacity is or the type of wastewater treatment system. Finally, the Board should inquire as to the planned use of the accessory structure; the garage should not be used as a rental unit or other commercial activity. In 179-4- 10, “An accessory structure shall not be used for commercial purposes by residents of the residential structures.” Thank you for your consideration of our comments for the protection of the water quality and aesthetic resources of Lake George. Respectfully Submitted, Susan B. Barden Land Use Coordinator” Also a letter from Linda McCollister, “As a year-round resident on Seelye Road for over 30 years, we have seen many changes to Seelye Road. This proposed Garage is just another 2 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/15/04) example of overdevelopment in a residential area. Under Code 179-5-20, it states that garages may not exceed 900 sq. ft. in floor area in any residential area. It appears that Mr. & Mrs. Grillo are asking for a lot of relief in order to expand their present garage which was just built in 1996. The code book also states that any accessory structure be subordinate and incidental to the principal building. Their main building is 1002 sq. ft. and the proposed garage is 1320 sq. ft. I am also concerned what “the Garage” will be turned into in the future (living quarters, rental space, or business use) and could this affect the septic system and be a problem for Lake George water quality, as well as a detriment to our neighborhood…. Finally, I know about the present problem the adjacent neighbors, The Middletons, are having regarding drainage from the Grillo property to their driveway. Will the 17.64 side set back relief the Grillo’s are requesting cause more drainage problems for the Middletons? The 20 ft. side setback that is allowed by the Town of Queensbury seems reasonable. Thank you for taking into consideration my concerns for this proposed Garage on the Grillo Property. Linda McCollister” MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 45-2004 ROBERT & JANICE GRILLO, Introduced by Paul Hayes who moved for its adoption, seconded by Allan Bryant: Duly adopted this 15 day of September, 2004, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Bryant, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Underwood, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Rigby, Mr. Hayes NOES: Mr. McNulty ABSENT: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Stone AREA VARIANCE NO. 68-2004 SEQRA TYPE: II DAVID AND LYNDA JOHNSON AGENT(S): MC PHILLIPS, FITZGERALD, & CULLUM LLP OWNER(S): DAVID AND LYNDA JOHNSON ZONING: WR-1A LOCATION: 347 CLEVERDALE ROAD APPLICANT HAS CONSTRUCTED A 1,483 SQ. FT. ADDITION WHICH INCLUDES A 483 SQ. FT. COVERED PORCH. APPLICANT REQUESTS RELIEF FROM THE SIDE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS AND THE CONTINUATION CODE. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 9-2002, SPR 43-99, BP 99-709 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: AUGUST 11, 2004 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY YES LOT SIZE: 0.47 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 226.12-1-48 SECTION: 179-4- 030, 179-13-010 (A1, E) JAMES CULLUM, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 68-2004, David and Lynda Johnson, Meeting Date: August 18, 2004 “Project Location: 347 Cleverdale Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant has constructed a 1,035 sq. ft. addition, which includes 257 sq. ft. of covered porches. The applicant proposes to keep the 5’ x 7’ covered porch on the south side of the structure (originally proposed to be removed on August 18, 2004). Relief Required: Applicant requests 13.13 feet of relief from the 20-foot minimum side setback requirement, per § 179-4-030 for the WR-1A Zone. Additionally, relief is needed from the continuation section of the code, per § 179-13-010 (A1, A2, and E). Note: Relief from A2 is approximately 209.5 sq. ft. in addition to the 809.5 sq. ft. expansion allowed for this project. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): AV 68-2004: tabled 08/18/04, same as current application, except the 35 sq. ft. porch was to be removed. AV 9-2002: denied 06/19/02, side setback relief and relief for the expansion of a nonconforming structure for a 1,000 sq. ft. residential addition. 3 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/15/04) AV 9-2002: tabled 03/27/02, side setback relief and relief for the expansion of a nonconforming structure for a 1,000 sq. ft. residential addition. AV 9-2002: tabled 02/27/02, side setback relief and relief for the expansion of a nonconforming structure for a 1,000 sq. ft. residential addition. BP 99-709: 11/22/99, 2,226 sq. ft. residential addition/renovation. SP 43-99: 09/21/99, expansion in a CEA for a 1,000 sq. ft. residential addition. Staff comments: On June 19, 2002 this Board denied the exact same request as is sought in this application. Consideration should be given to consistency with previous findings versus arbitrary reversal of your previous position. Included please find a memo from David Hatin, Director of Building and Codes relative to the applicable New York State Building Code requirements regarding the landing or deck needed for this access point. The applicant proposes to keep the dwelling “as built” (originally proposed to remove the 5’ x 7’ covered porch on the south side of the dwelling resulting in a side setback of 11.92 feet, which would require 8.08 feet of relief from the 20-foot minimum requirement). The applicant is now proposing to keep the porch resulting in a request for 13.13 feet of side setback relief (same request as that proposed and denied on 06/19/02). For the current application, additional relief is required from the continuation section of the code, per §179-13-010(A1, A2 and E). The relief required from §179-13-010(A2) has been determined by staff to be approximately 209.5 sq. ft. (the original dwelling footprint was approximately 1,619 sq. ft. before the expansion; 50% of 1,619 sq. ft. equals 809.5 sq. ft.; 1,019 sq. ft. is the approximate expansion). In determining the amount of relief required for the expansion, staff calculated the floor area utilizing the dimensions specified on the floor plans submitted with the building permit application and scaled dimensions from the “as built” survey. It appears as though the original area, listed on the site development data sheet for the building footprint (1,226 sq. ft.) and the original porch (86 sq. ft.) are incorrect when compared with the site plan submitted for BP 99-709. Additionally, it appears that the 1,000 sq. ft. proposed addition listed on the site development data sheet includes part of the 483 sq. ft. listed for the proposed porches. Staff has determined the proposed area for the addition to be approximately 1,019 sq. ft., which includes the 35 sq. ft. porch currently proposed to remain.” James Underwood discussion occurred regarding stare decisis. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MOTION TO DENY AREA VARIANCE NO. 68-2004 DAVID & LYNDA JOHNSON, Introduced by Charles McNulty who moved for its adoption, seconded by Allan Bryant: Duly adopted this 15 day of September, 2004, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Bryant, Mr. McNulty, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Rigby NOES: Mr. Abbate, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Hayes ABSENT: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Stone NEW BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 69-2004 SEQRA TYPE: II TOM KUBRICKY OWNER(S): SAME ZONING: RR-3A LOCATION: 80 OAK VALLEY WAY APPLICANT PROPOSES TO EXTEND THE EXISTING WALL (26 FEET LONG BY 8 FEET HIGH) BY 20 FEET AT THE 4 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/15/04) SAME HEIGHT. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT REQUIREMENT FOR A RESIDENTIAL FENCE/WALL. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 79-1999 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY N/A LOT SIZE: 3.70 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 266.1-1-14.5 SECTION: 179-5-060C3 TOM KUBRICKY, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 69-2004, Tom Kubricky, Meeting Date: September 15, 2004 “Project Location: 80 Oak Valley Way Description of Proposed Project: The applicant proposes to extend the existing wall (26 feet long by 8 feet high) on the north side of the dwelling by 20 feet at the same height. Relief Required: The applicant requests 2 feet of height relief from the 6-foot maximum height requirement for fences, per §179-5-060(C3). Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): AV 79-1999: 08/25/04, construction of an 8-foot tall privacy wall. BP 98-773: 01/04/09, 4600 sq. ft. single-family dwelling with a 3-car attached garage. Staff comments: The applicant desires to extend the existing 26-foot long wall at the same height by an additional 20 feet in order to gain additional privacy for a proposed pool on the north side of the dwelling. The applicant desires the new wall height to match that of the existing wall, which received a variance from the maximum height requirement in August of 1999.” Question was asked regarding whether there would be a continuation of the wall past variance request. Tom Kubricky indicated there might be. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MOTION TO DENY AREA VARIANCE NO. 69-2004 TOM KUBRICKY, Introduced by Charles Abbate who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Hunt: Duly adopted this 15 day of September, 2004, by the following vote: th AYES: Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Bryant, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Hayes NOES: Mr. Underwood, Mr. Rigby ABSENT: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Stone AREA VARIANCE NO. 67-2004 NASREEN KHURSHID/OUTBACK RESTAURANT, BUDGET INN SEQRA TYPE: II AGENT(S): JARRETT-MARTIN ENGINEERS ZONING: HC-INT LOCATION: 931 STATE ROUTE 9, JUST PAST WAL-MART APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT A NEW 7,725 SQ. FT. RESTAURANT. ALSO, THE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONNECT THE TWO LARGE EXISTING MOTEL BUILDINGS WITH AN OFFICE ADDITION AND A SECOND-FLOOR EXPANSION ABOVE ALL FOR ADDITIONAL MOTEL ROOMS PLUS A MANAGER’S APARTMENT 5 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/15/04) (9,916 SQ. FT. TOTAL EXPANSION). ADDITIONALLY, THE APPLICANT PROPOSES A 1,942 SQ. FT. SECOND-FLOOR EXPANSION FOR THE SMALL EXISTING MOTEL BUILDING. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM THE TRAVEL CORRIDOR OVERLAY DISTRICT MINIMUM SETBACK REQUIREMENT FOR THE MAIN BUILDING AND FROM THE MINIMUM SIDE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS FOR THE SMALL BUILDING. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 58-04, AV 7-93, SP 7-93, SP 70-89, UV 114-89 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING AUG. 11, 2004 NCI LOT SIZE: 3.52 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 296.13-1-17 SECTION: 179-4-030, 060C TOM JARRETT & DON DAVIS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 67-2004, Nasreen Khurshid/Outback Restaurant, Budget Inn, Meeting Date: September 15, 2004 “Project Location: 931 State Route 9, just past Wal-Mart Applicant proposes to construct a new 7,725 sq. ft. Description of Proposed Project: restaurant. Also, the applicant proposes to connect the two large existing motel buildings with an office addition and a second-floor expansion above all for additional motel rooms plus a manager’s apartment (9,916 sq. ft. total expansion). Additionally, the applicant proposes a 1,942 sq. ft. second-floor expansion for the small existing motel building. Relief Required: Applicant requests 10.17 feet of relief from the 75-foot minimum setback requirement of the Travel Corridor Overlay District for State Route 9, per §179-4-060(C). However, staff has determined the actual proposed setback is 66.33 feet, which would require 8.67 feet of relief. Additionally, the applicant requests 3.83 feet of relief from the 20-foot minimum side setback requirement for the HC-Int zone, per §179-4-030. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): BP 93-088: 04/09/93, 4-unit motel building. SP 7-93: 02/23/93, relocation of a 4-unit motel building from adjacent property. AV 7-1993: 02/17/93, density relief for a 4-unit motel building. BP 90-074: 03/22/90, in-ground pool. SP 70-89: 11/21/89, in-ground swimming pool. UV 114-1989: 10/18/89, in-ground swimming pool. Staff comments: In addition to the proposed Outback Restaurant, the applicant proposes to construct a new Budget Inn office and manager’s apartment above the new office. The new construction is proposed to connect the two existing large motel buildings. The proposal also includes the future second-story expansion of the two motel buildings, and the future second-story expansion of the existing small motel building. The applicant requests relief from the minimum setback requirement of the Travel Corridor Overlay District (TCOD) and relief from the minimum side setback requirement for the HC-Int zone. Even though the applicant is requesting 10.17 feet of relief from the TCOD requirement, staff has determined the actual proposed setback is 66.33 feet, which would require 8.67 feet of relief. The applicant’s proposed setback of 64 feet 10 inches is to the small cantilevered canopy at the entrance to the new office. The 18 inches of the canopy closest to the front property line is allowed to encroach on the setback, and does not need any relief from the requirement. Even though all of the new construction must adhere to the current setback requirements, it is proposed to be set back the same distance as the existing buildings with the exception of the cantilevered canopy.” 6 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/15/04) MR. MC NULTY-“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form August 11, 2004 Project Name: Khurshid, Nasreen Owner: Nasreen and Masih Khurshid ID Number: QBY-04-AV-67 County Project#: Aug04-24 Current Zoning: HC-Int Community: Queensbury Project Description: Applicant is proposing to construct a new 7,725 sq. ft. restaurant. Also, the applicant is proposing to connect the two large existing motel buildings with an office addition and a second-floor expansion above all for additional motel rooms plus manager’s apartment (9,916 sq. ft. total expansion). Relief requested from the Travel Corridor Overlay District setback requirements. Site Location: 931 State Route 9 Tax Map Number(s): 296.13-1-17 Staff Notes: Area Variance: The applicant proposes several alterations to an existing motel site. The applicant proposes to construct an 8143 sq. ft. addition that will connect the two motel complexes together facing Route 9, adds an office and an apartment manager space. The existing motel is 71 ft. from the front property line and proposed is 64.83 ft. where 75 ft. is required. The existing motel office and pool area to be removed from the site. In addition, an existing one story motel on the north property line is to remain with future 2 story to be nd evaluated later and the construction of a new restaurant adjacent to the renovated motel. Staff does not identify an impact on county resources based on the information submitted. Staff recommends no county impact. Staff does not anticipate an impact on county resources based on the information submitted. Staff recommends no county impact. County Planning Board Recommendation: No County Impact” Signed by Bennet F. Driscoll, 8/13/04. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED Charles McNulty read in a letter from Rudy Paulsen, a neighbor – “Dear Sir: As a long term property owner of Robert Gardens North Apartments, I have concerns regarding the above proposed variance. Our apartment community, consisting of 200 apartments, borders on the above property proposing an extension of their existing motel and adding a restaurant. We have always prided ourselves in offering quiet, convenient, well maintained housing for the Queensbury area, and wish this to continue for many future years. The majority of our tenants are retired citizens and those that are professionally employed, who enjoy the quiet atmosphere and secure housing we offer. The concerns I have are as follows: 1. The noise that would be escalated by a larger motel and restaurant with constant traffic. This would be disturbing to our tenants who occupy apartment buildings bordering on property. 2. The issue of food trash that would be generated by the restaurant. Not only creating an odor in the summer months, but the concern that it be properly contained to avoid any infestation. I request that a berm be built and a barrier of stockade fencing and appropriate landscaping be erected between the properties, to alleviate the noise factor and infringement onto our property by those occupying/visiting motel and restaurant. Also, that the concern over food trash be properly addressed and noted. Sincerely, Rudy Paulsen, Owner September 14, 2004” PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 67-2004 NASREEN KHURSHID, Introduced by Joyce Hunt who moved for its adoption, seconded by Allan Bryant: Duly adopted this 15 day of September, 2004, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Bryant, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McNulty, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Rigby, Mr. Hayes NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Stone NOTICE OF APPEAL 5-2004 SEQRA TYPE: N/A ROBERT STRASSER AGENT(S): JONATHAN LAPPER, ESQ. ZONING: WR-1A LOCATION: PILOT KNOB ROAD APPELLANT IS APPEALING A ZONING ADMINISTRATOR DETERMINATION REGARDING THE CONSTRUCTION OF A BOATHOUSE IN VIOLATION OF THE MINIMUM SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REFERENCE: SPR WARREN COUNTY 7 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/15/04) PLANNING N/A ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY N/A LOT SIZE: 0.15 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 227.14-1-21.1 SECTION JON LAPPER & STEPHANIE BITTER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Notice of Appeal 5-2004, Robert Strasser, Meeting Date: September 15, 2004 “Project Location: Pilot Knob Road Description of Proposed Project: Appellant proposes to modify the existing nonconforming boathouse by removing the existing shed roof and reconstructing it to a flat roof/sundeck, which will not exceed the width and overall height of the existing dock/boathouse. Relief Required: The Appellant seeks a decision from the Zoning Board of Appeals relative to the determination rendered by the Zoning Administrator, which requires the Appellant to seek an Area Variance for the proposed project. Staff comments: It would appear to Staff that this matter has been reviewed and ruled upon already. Previously, the applicant filed an area variance application; AV 88-2003 and the Zoning Board of Appeals decided the matter on July 21, 2004. Resolution attached for your convenience. §179-13-10, Continuation allows non-conforming structures to be maintained but not enlarged or extended. The Zoning Board of Appeals has historically held that all new construction must meet minimum setbacks. This fact was the basis for the AV88-2003 application and the same exactly holds true for the current proposal, which is the same.” PUBLIC HEARING OPENED STAN PRITZKER SPOKE – OPPOSED PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MOTION TO SUPPORT THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR IN THE NOTICE OF APPEAL 5-2004, ROBERT STRASSER, Introduced by Paul Hayes who moved for its adoption, seconded by Leo Rigby: Duly adopted this 15 day of September, 2004, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Rigby, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Underwood, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Hayes NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Stone NOTICE OF APPEAL 6-2004 SEQRA TYPE: N/A MICHAEL KELLY OWNER(S): SAME ZONING: WR-1A LOCATION: JOSEPH RIITANO PROPERTY AT 16 SUNSET LANE APPELLANT IS APPEALING A ZONING ADMINISTRATOR DETERMINATION REGARDING A FLOOR AREA RATIO CALCULATION. CROSS REFERENCE: BP 02-442 SEPTIC ALT., BP 02-866, RES. ADD.; AV 26-04; AV 52-02; AV 89-03; NOA 4-04 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: N/A LOT SIZE: 0.17 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 226.19-1-9 SECTION MOTION TO TABLE NOTICE OF APPEAL 6-2004, MICHAEL KELLY, Introduced by Paul Hayes who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Abbate: 8 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/15/04) Duly adopted this 15 day of September, 2004, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Abbate, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Rigby, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Hayes NOES: NONE SIGN VARIANCE NO. 70-2004 SEQRA TYPE: UNLISTED CVS PHARMACY AGENT(S): THE SIGN STUDIO OWNER(S): BERKSHIRE-GLENS FALLS, LLC ZONING: HC- INTENSIVE LOCATION: 216 QUAKER ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO MODIFY THE EXISTING 34.43 SQ. FT. FREESTANDING SIGN AT A 16.5-FOOT SETBACK. THE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO REPLACE THE SMALL PANEL (8.2 SQ. FT.) WITH A NEW 33.41 SQ. FT. ELECTRONIC PANEL (TOTAL PROPOSED AREA IS 59.64 SQ. FT. AT A 15.05-FOOT SETBACK). RELIEF REQUESTED FROM THE MINIMUM SETBACK REQUIREMENT. MIKE MATTHEWS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Sign Variance No. 70-2004, CVS Pharmacy, Meeting Date: September 15, 2004 “Project Location: 216 Quaker Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to modify the existing 34.43 sq. ft. freestanding sign at a 16.5-foot setback. The applicant proposes to replace the existing 8.2 sq. ft. sign panel (“Drive-Thru Pharmacy” and “Foodmart”) and replace it with a new 33.41 sq. ft. electronic panel (proposed new area is 59.64 sq. ft. at a 15.05- foot setback). Relief Required: The applicant requests 9.95 feet of relief from the 25-foot minimum setback requirement for a freestanding sign greater than 50 sq. ft. up to a maximum of 64 sq. ft. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): SV 50-2003: denied 06/25/03, two additional wall signs for Hollywood Video. BP 97-3150: 11/10/97, 75.18 sq. ft. wall sign for CVS. BP 97-3149: 11/10/97, 75.18 sq. ft. wall sign for CVS. BP 97-3145: 11/10/97, 63 sq. ft. freestanding sign at a 50-foot front and 25-foot side setback was applied for and approved for CVS and other tenants; CVS signage to be 43.2 sq. ft. (35 sq. ft. for the main panel and 8.2 sq. ft. for the smaller panel) and approximately 20 sq. ft. of signage for future tenants). BP 97-3144: 11/10/97, “Drive Thru Enter” sign for CVS. BP 97-3143: 11/10/97, “Drive Thru Exit” sign for CVS. SV 67-1997: 10/29/97, three additional wall signs for CVS Pharmacy (one additional wall sign and two directional wall signs for the drive-thru). SV 27-1997: 05/21/97, an additional wall sign for Hollywood Video. SP 76-96: 01/28/97, development of the CVS Plaza (Berkshire Acquisition). Various other building permits and sign permits for other tenants. Staff comments: The applicant proposes to replace the small panel of the freestanding sign with a new larger electronic panel. Should this sign variance be approved, the Zoning Administrator will allow the electronic sign copy to change no more than once per day, and the advertising displayed must meet all of the requirements of §140-5 (General Standards and Regulations).” 9 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/15/04) MR. MC NULTY-“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form September 8, 2004 Project Name: CVS Pharmacy Owner: Berkshire-Glens Falls, LLC ID Number: QBY-04-SV-70 County Project#: Sep04-21 Current Zoning: Community: Queensbury Project Description: Applicant proposes to add an electronic message center to existing pylon sign, only allowing copy to change once in a 24-hour period. Current use is an internally illuminated box sign. Internally illuminated box will be removed. (Drive-thru pharmacy and foodmart). Site Location: 216 Quaker Road. Tax Map Number(s): 105-1-4.1 105-1-4.23 Staff Notes: Sign Variance: The applicant proposes to add a LED changeable message sign to existing pylon sign. The LED is to be 37.5” x 128.3” added to an existing CVS sign 7’ x 4’. The information submitted shows the existing sign and the added LED sign. The LED sign would change once in 24 hour period. The information does not indicate this is consistent with the zoning regulations for signage. Chapter 140 indicates the following – “Signs using red, yellow or green lights shall not be placed within 100 feet of traffic control signals.” Staff recommends discussion to address LED message signage along Quaker Road. County Planning Board Recommendation: Approve with condition Warren County Planning Board recommends no county impact with the stipulation that the local ZBA take special interest in Chapter 140 of their zoning codes regarding the colors of the sign in reference to the proximity of traffic lights and the distraction that the proposed sign may have on traffic as well as the sign be limited to the size allowed by code.” Mr. McNulty mentions Section 140-14 of Sign Ordinance MR. ABBATE-And, you know what, Mr. McNulty is absolutely correct, because he applied that same consistency with denying Panera Bread that sign. So one thing I have to say, he’s consistent. That’s a compliment. Don’t misunderstand what I’m saying, and he’s right. He’s absolutely right. We talk about consistency. Now we just denied one organization a sign. Mr. McNulty has raised a very valid question, and stated some, quoted, if you will, the Zoning Ordinance, which I agree with. MR. HAYES-Okay. I want to go back to, is there anymore questions, now, for the applicant? Because we’ve still got to do the public hearing, procedural protection here. No more questions for the applicant? Is there anyone here that would like to speak in favor or against this application? Any correspondence? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. MC NULTY-Yes, we do have some correspondence. One is a letter from Marilyn J. Van Dyke, the Town Historian. She says, “I’m writing in response to the variance requested by CVS Pharmacy for an electronic panel to accompany their signage at 216 Quaker Road. The concept of a changing electronic sign is in appropriate in the area of the Old Quaker Burying Ground. The Burying Ground contains the burials of the pioneer families to Queensbury. It is a most sacred place to be held in the greatest of respect. When the CVS mini mall was first proposed there was extensive discussion regarding to how to develop a compatible environment at the corner of Bay and Quaker while dealing with continued respect for the Old Quaker Burying Ground. Since that time we have had to ask owners of the shops to remove banners from the fence which is town property and to consider signage which blends in with the environment while still enabling customers to find the businesses. There is still more work to be done in this regard. I would hope that this variance is considered carefully in light of the particular location under consideration. Sincerely yours, Marilyn J. Van Dyke Town Historian” And we also have a letter from Robert Eddy. He says, “Please deny this application. This sign would add insult to injury as it would be completely disrespectful to the first settlers of Queensbury who are buried on the adjoining property. In fact, the entire building and especially the tenant facing Bay Road at the end of the building shows no respect to those persons. Six known direct ancestors of mine are among those buried there. Considering the size of families in those days and adding brothers and sisters, uncles, aunts and cousins, a sizable percentage of those buried there were related to me. Please deny this application. Sincerely, Robert L. Eddy” And that’s it. 10 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/15/04) MR. HAYES-Okay. Then I’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HAYES-It’s time to poll the Board members. I believe we are back around to Chuck. MR. MC NULTY-Okay. I’ve got to go back to the Section I quoted. I can understand the desire to have a sign that perhaps would attract more business, and to some degree I guess we’re dealing with technicality. The applicant needs relief from the setback, not from the size of a sign, but the size strikes me as being a bit much for that particular location, and the other part, going back, I can’t see that not having that sign is going to deprive CVS of a reasonable use of their existing sign or of their land, and without some evidence that it would deprive them of that reasonable use, I think the Section 140-14 in the Sign Ordinance very explicitly says we should not grant that variance. So I’m going to be opposed. MR. HAYES-Thank you. Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-I would have to agree with Chuck. I think if you look at the seven foot width of the previously existing CVS sign there, that this thing is going to be way larger than that. If there was some way that it could be sized down, which it doesn’t seem is a possibility, I might consider it, but I think that we’re inundated in the info-mation age here, and I think that this is just one more over the top sign that we don’t need. I think it would set a precedent for other stores in Town to ask for the same thing, and pretty soon it would look like Las Vegas down there. MR. HAYES-Thank you. Chuck? MR. ABBATE-Thank you. I agree with my previous Board members. I think consistency is extremely important for the Zoning Board of Appeals, and if we apply the rules contained, and I hope I’m right, in 140-14 as Mr. McNulty pointed out, we have no choice but to deny the application. MR. HAYES-Thank you. Allan? MR. BRYANT-Yes. I agree with the other Board members. You still have some room to work with. You’ve got up to 50 feet. So I would try to work under those parameters. I’d be opposed to the application. MR. HAYES-Thank you. Leo? MR. RIGBY-I’d be opposed to it, too. I think we’ve done a good job controlling the signage in that area. If you look at Hannaford and Bank of America and CVS’s existing sign, they all fit a pattern. It’s a good pattern. I think this does not fit that pattern at all and I think, you know, what Chuck brought up about the existing Code really makes the decision for me. So I’d be opposed to it. MR. HAYES-Thank you. Joyce? MRS. HUNT-Yes. Well, I would be opposed to it because of the Code, but I also go past there every day, and I don’t think we need anymore distractions, but the two entrances into CVS and into Hannaford, with left turns and right turns where pretty close to accidents happen. I don’t think we need more distractions. So, I would be opposed. MR. HAYES-Okay. Thank you for coming. I mean, you presented yourself as a gentleman, but I think on the balancing test Queensbury has prescribed for signs, I think that in this particular case going close to the road with a bigger sign that’s electronic in an area that’s already had a number of Sign Variances, that you had nothing to do with, of course. 11 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/15/04) MR. MATTHEWS-With respect to that, though, scaling the sign back, okay, could have been an option, but with us putting a manual reader board up there, and this concern of distraction, I don’t need to be in front of this Board if we put a manual reader board up, where somebody physically goes there and puts the message. MR. BRYANT-Well, you know, I don’t want to get into a discussion about it, but I think what the Board is saying, that you’ve got 50 feet to work with. If you can put a 15 square foot reader, whatever kind of board you want to put, electronic or otherwise, that’s what you’ve got to work with. Other than that, it’s not going to happen. MR. MATTHEWS-Okay. Thank you very much. MR. HAYES-Having said that, would someone like to make a motion? Would you like to withdraw your application, or would you like us to act on it? It apparently is going to be denied, but I would certainly give you the opportunity to withdraw it. MR. MATTHEWS-If we withdraw it, can we present it in a scaled down fashion? Would it be something that the Board is willing to entertain? Or is it truly the flashing which has been addressed I thought? Is it the intent of the Board members that they truly do not want to see this application? If so, then I would say go ahead, go forward and deny the application, but if we can work with this similar application and try to scale down to meet your 15 foot requirement, that’s something I can go back on CVS and say here’s your option. MR. ABBATE-You know, Mr. Chairman, that’s a good attitude. I like that attitude. I really do. MR. HAYES-I think that we, this particularly one time, I don’t have a problem with allowing the applicant to withdraw and go back to the parent company, if you will, and explain. MR. MATTHEWS-Here’s your options. MR. HAYES-Here’s your options. I, personally, do not have any problem with that. I don’t know how the rest of the Board feels. MR. ABBATE-No. MR. HAYES-All right. MOTION TO TABLE SIGN VARIANCE NO. 70-2004 CVS PHARMACY, Introduced by Paul Hayes who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Abbate: 216 Quaker Road. For up to 60 days, to allow the applicant to review with their client the representations that have been made by this Board for an alternative plan. Duly adopted this 15 day of September, 2004, by the following vote: th MR. MATTHEWS-Thank you very much. Everyone have a good evening. MR. HAYES-Does everyone understand the motion? MR. BRYANT-I understand the motion, but I just want to caution you, Mr. Chairman, because I don’t want to give the applicant the false hope that if he comes back and he’s only five feet over the limit, 55 feet instead of 59, that he’s going to get an approval. So I think if you’re going to do this, for that reason, then you ought to poll the Board, but frankly, I’d like to see it compliant. I’d like to see the fit the square feet, no more than that. So he wouldn’t even have to, you know what I mean? So, you know, I think you ought to poll the other Board members, that are here, you know, to see if they’d even consider something slightly less. MR. HAYES-I guess, I’m happy to do that. I don’t have any problem with that. 12 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/15/04) MR. BRYANT-I just don’t want to give the applicant false hope. MR. HAYES-I don’t think we did, in the sense that it’s seven to nothing against this application, and hopefully he understands that this is not a close vote. I mean, I thought that was self- evident. I’m saying that now, but I mean guess in certain circumstances before we’ve given applicants a chance to come up with an alternative plan. MR. MATTHEWS-I’ll address that to my client just like I would address that to the Board. You’re telling me we have to fall within a certain requirement. I’m not going to bother wasting the Board’s time or my own and come back with five additional square feet. I know we have 15 square feet to work with and I’ll just let them make that decision, if there is a board that can accommodate that, whether it be one line of text or how that may work. I’ll let them know that they have 15 square feet to work with, and that’s it. MR. FRANK-Mr. Chairman, can I make a comment? I’m hearing a lot of numbers thrown around here. The new proposed total area was 59.64 square feet, and if he reduces the sign by 9.64 square feet, he doesn’t need to come before this Board. MR. BRYANT-That’s exactly right. MR. ABBATE-Yes, that’s exactly right. So that’s a feasible alternative, for him to do that. Then you never have to come before us. MR. FRANK-Just to let you know, there’s no, I mean, the County did make reference to it being a distraction, the color of the sign. The applicant has offered to agree to emitting an amber colored light which would be allowed by Code. MR. HAYES-I guess I agree with you, and even though the County made that recommendation, we can still interpret all those things, because we’re charged with that, which we’re well within our parameter, and I understand what Allan’s saying, but I guess if he goes to the parent company and says, listen, this proposal is not going to work. If he came back with a sign that was like a half a foot over 50 feet, Allan said he wouldn’t approve that, but that doesn’t, if that’s close to the requirement. MR. BRYANT-Well, I don’t want to be that. MR. HAYES-Well, I’m just saying, when I say an alternative plan, he’s been made, by our presentation, what we’ve said, and I guess, I’m not saying that even Allan, also I guess I’m speaking for myself, but I’m not saying that the sign has to be completely compliant for me to hear an application, because then otherwise, he shouldn’t do that, you know what I mean. MR. MATTHEWS-What is the actual square footage we’re allowed, Bruce? It’s not necessarily 15. MR. FRANK-At the current setback where you have it, you would have up to 15 square feet, double-sided. MR. HAYES-Total. MR. FRANK-Total. MR. HAYES-Aggregate. MR. MATTHEWS-And we have presently 33, or 34. MR. FRANK-Well, the existing, currently, I think we’ve discussed these numbers, is 34.43 square feet. That’s the existing. Once you remove that panel you propose to remove and 13 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/15/04) replace it with the electronic panel, I came up with an area of 59.64 square feet. I think we concurred on that, after we crunched numbers. So again, you could come back, or you could go back to the company, and if they said go with a 50 square foot total of signage, you would not have to go back before this Board. You could just apply for the sign permit. MR. HAYES-And if they do that, great. I mean, it won’t be. MR. FRANK-Exactly. That’s why I want to let the applicant know. MR. ABBATE-It’s a fair thing to do. That’s fair. MR. FRANK-That’s an option you have to bring back to the parent company. MR. MATTHEWS-So I believe we have exactly, what, 15.6 square feet that we’re allowed to work with without going in front of the Board? MR. FRANK-Exactly, and again, as long as your total’s not over 50 square feet, as you propose to replace a smaller panel, which is about 8.2 square feet, with something larger, once you remove that, you have more than 50 square feet. MR. MATTHEWS-Once we remove? MR. FRANK-The 8.2 square feet. MR. MATTHEWS-The 8.2 square feet. MR. FRANK-That’s correct. MR. MATTHEWS-Then that’s going to give us 23 allowable. MR. BRYANT-No. Because you’ve got 34.43 on your existing. MR. MATTHEWS-All right, on our marquee. MR. BRYANT-Yes. MR. MATTHEWS-Okay. All right. MR. BRYANT-And then, so that leaves you 15.67. MR. MATTHEWS-Yes. All right. MR. HAYES-I guess, does everybody understand the tabling motion as it was made? MR. BRYANT-Yes. MR. ABBATE-Yes. MR. HAYES-Do I have a second? MR. ABBATE-Second. AYES: Mr. Abbate, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McNulty, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Rigby, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Hayes NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Stone 14 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/15/04) MR. MATTHEWS-Okay. Thank you very much. Have a good evening. MR. HAYES-Okay. Now, one piece of housekeeping business here, but I really don’t think we’re going to be able to manage this tonight. MR. BRYANT-I don’t think we can do it, because you’ve got Mrs. Hunt here, and you don’t have Mr. Urrico here. MR. HAYES-Right. I mean, the reality is the outcome of the vote could change again, without having listened to the case, and I think that’s not the intention of this housekeeping. MR. ABBATE-He’s right. He’s absolutely right. MR. HAYES-So what I’m going to do is I’m going to table, postpone, whatever word we want to use. MR. BRYANT-Well, let me ask a question. Is there such a thing as balloting by mail or something on this? Because I’ve got to tell you. The problem is going to be that, you know, some of us were here and some of us were not, and to be consistent with the thing, I think you ought to, this group is not going to, it’s like rolling the dice. MR. HAYES-And that’s why I brought this up. One possibility is that four of the people that voted against the application are here, then they can do it, in a sense, because it won’t matter what the other three votes are. In other words, if Mr. Bryant, Mr. Urrico, no, no, that was the, if Mr. McNulty, Mr. Rigby, Mr. Underwood and Mr. Stone are here, they can make a motion, it’ll carry, and it won’t matter what the other three votes are, because I agree with you totally, that outside of that scenario, but I think that that’s a very real possibility that we could get those four guys together. As far as getting the full seven, I would agree with you. They’d have to handle that a different way, but I mean it’s very clear to me tonight, and that’s why I brought it up, that I think it would be improper or ineffectual or whatever you want to call it for us to try and handle this Old Business. So I want to make a motion. MOTION TO TABLE USE VARIANCE NO. 44-2004 MIKE LUDWIG, Introduced by Paul Hayes who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Abbate: Until we have a quorum of the original four votes that by action denied that variance, and until that point, I think it is impossible or impractical for this Board, as configured, to act upon this Old Business. Duly adopted this 15 day of September, 2004, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Abbate, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McNulty, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Rigby, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Hayes NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Stone On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Paul Hayes, Acting Chairman 15