Loading...
1974-05-15 0265 May 15, 1974 The meeting of the Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals was called to '- order at 7:35 P.M., May 15, 1974. There were present: Jack Fitzgerald Dick Sanderspree Charles Sicard being members of the board. The minutes of the last meeting were approved as read. Old Business - None New Business - Variance 1347 Mario Migliore - Corner Quaker and Meadowbrook Roads (R-3 and R-4) Postponed until next month. No appearances for or against. Variance 1351 William E. Wright - Sunset Lane, Assembly Point to place an additional 191 setback in lieu of the required 30'. Mr. William Wright was present and said he had just recently purchased the house from Joseph Decamilla. Mr. Wright wants to build an addition 13' x 20' to house a heating system as this will be his year round home. Mr. Fred J. Murray, who lives west of the above property appear- ed. He said he had purchased his home two years ago and if Mr. Wright was allowed this variance it would obstruct his view of the lake. Mr. Fitzgerald explained to Mr. Murray that Mr. Wright was only asked for an 11' variance and questioned the possibility of this 11' really obstructing his view. Mr. Boynton asked Mr. Wright how far from the lake his property was and Mr. Wright replied that it was a "-...-. long way. '- -2- ~ 00 Mr. Murray asked what the purpose of this public meeting was and Mr. Fitzgerald explained that the zoning board was there to hear all the evidence and vote to either accept or reject the variance. Mr. Murray said he thought the meeting was for the people to vote on this. Mr. Fitzgerald informed Mr. Murray that he should read the zoning ordiances. Mr. RaYmond Murray appeared in opposition, and stated that this property is in Shore Colony and noted that the deeds in this develop- ment included protective covenants regarding setbacks. Several ar- gued whether the setback was 20' or 30'. Mr. Fitzgerald pointed out to Mr. Wright that if he were to build closer, even with the zoning permission and violated his deed restruct- ions, interested parties can take legal action, and told him he had better look very closely at his deed. Mr. Paul Artman, of Sunset Lane said the addition should be sub- ject to the required setback, which was established to keep the "aesthetic value of the area, and insure a good view from existing houses." He went on to say that this property is on a dead end and the snow plows would have a hard tiœ turning around if it were to be built closer to the road. Raymond Aubin, who lives in Shore Colony said - "I understand the rules are being broken, I like to keep things as they are." Scott Dubin, who lives at Sunset and Honeysuckle said .. "If this extension is built, how far from the boundary line would it be?" Mr. Fitzgerald - "19' asking variance of 11'." Scott Dubin - "Shore Colony is 20' and if he violates it by 1', other people would do the same in the future. If -3- ,)to7 Mr. Boynton - "The property line stakes are a considerable dis- tance from the roadbed." Mr. Robert Stewart (Attorney) Appeared in reserve support of the application. Mr. Stewart is a neighbor in the Sunset Lane vicinity. Mr. Stewart said he understands in talking with Mr. Wright that his house would be on the exact line of the existing homes. In view of this, Mr. Stewart said - "If he has the same setback, I think he is entitled to have it." Mrs. Betty Murray asked why the extension couldn't be built on the back of the house. Mr. Wright said he didn't have any room on any other portion except in the front without disturbing a stone wall. Mr. Paul Artman came forward again and said he wanted the board to take into consideration that Mr. Murray bought his property two years ago and one of the reasons he bought it was to see the lake. Mr. Artman - "Mr. Wright has room to develop what he wants if he wants to go up one story, and I suggest that the board do now allow him to develop to the front of the property." Mr. Wright - "This new part is going to house cmr heating system. My son is in the hospital right now because there is not enough heat and he has penumonia. There is no other way we can do this. The septic system is in the back and couldn't build on top of it." Mr. Fitzgerald - "Whatever the zoning board does tonight has no affect on whatever appears in the deed, he (Mr. Wright) is bound by it. We are only talking about our zoning ordinance in the Town of Queensbury. Whoever put those restrictions in that deed can sue if they are broken. We appreciate all of you coming and giving your -4- :¿tog points of view." The planning board approved and recommended the 19' setback if . '- it is in line with property on the west. Mr. Fitzgerald - "On behalf of this application 1351 - William Wright, I move for approval provided that the addition be no less than 19' setback in lieu of the 30'. The motion was seconded by Charles Sicard. Unanimous. Mr. Fitzgerald cautioned Mr. Wright to review his deed very care- fully to see if there are certain restructions. Variance #352 - Glens Falls Commercial Properties Development Corporation, Upper Glen Street (A) (B) (C) - Robert Stewart (Agent) (A) Application requesting a variance to erect outside signs which is larger than the usua 1 sign. The major application is to erect the sign with the name BARKER'S, each letter being 5' high. Mr. Fitzgerald - "Mr. Stewart - we have to have a quorum plus one to act on this application, which we do not have tonight." Mr. Stewart acknowledged he knew this and proceeded to explain about the three different applicattions. (B) Application for a sign 69 square feet and the zoning law says it should be no more than 50'. Mr. Stewart stated that Barker's is the largest store in this center and therfore, needs the largest sign. (C) Application for a free standing sign in the front of the shopping center 7' x 25' perpendicular to Glen Street. The ~eens- bury Planning Board recommended that this sign be dropped back to 60' '-- and the County Planning Board recommended as is. Mr. Stewart - "I think a plylon sign at the front of the center Jb9 -5- makes sense. People driving from the south down Glen Street would be almost at the main entrance before they could see the sign and people "'- would slam on their brakes upon seeing it. The light in this sign would be intemally lit. The County Planning board said they would approve all three sigtB if there are no attachments to the building." The Glens Falls Area League of Women voters, represented by Mrs. Edwin Willis voices its opposition to oversized signs in the town. She read a letter objecting to this, saying in effect that the board should deny oversized signs as visual polution to the Town of Queens- bury. There was some discussion by the board, about the lack of specific directions in the town's zoning ordinances for signs in C-l areas. "Mr. Fitzgerald ¡ "We have to borrow from other sections of the law to get an idea of wha t is good for the C-l areas." Mr. stewart went on to say tha t Barker's did not want to have the largest possible sign but this is a large scale development, and as he understands it, it is a commercial zone and once you get to a large scale development, almost all the rules go aut the window and it is up to the board to decide what they want to do, about non-con- forming signs and asked the guidance and advice of the board. Mr. Fitzgerald l "You touched on a very serious thing with this board in the fact that we do not have a sign ordinance law. It would make our job a lot easier if there was a new zoning ordianance and we hope the town is going to cane up with one. We are faced with a large scale operation and we don't really have any rules to go by." "- The board approved all three sign requests but specified dimen- sions less than requested by the group. The plylon sign to be placed -6- ~'7ð ':-:: 50' from the road was limited to 50 square feet on both sides of the sign; the main sign for the Barker's store was limied to 200' and smaller signs for stores in the complex were limited to 50 square feet each. On a motion by Mr. Fitzgerald, seconded by Mr. Sicard, application for Variance 1352, was approved with the above stipulations. Unanimous. Variance #353 Edward N. Lindstrand - Boulevard and Belle Avenue (R-4J Mr. Lindstrand appeared on his behalf and explained he wanted to establish a printing shop on Belle Avenue. Mr. Lindstrand was asked if his presses would be heard bfond the walls of the building and he said they ~ouldn't be heard on the outside. Mr. Fitzgerald - ''What kind of trade would you be servicing?" Mr. Lindstrand - "Commeréial, plus wedding announcements, letter- heads, etc." Most of my work I travel for." Mr. Lindstrand also requested to place a 2 x 4 sign in the win- dow. Mr. Lindstrand has been operating on a part tLme basis for two years in the basement of his home. The Warren County board approved, and the Queensbury Board appro- '--..- ved stating it would enhance the appearance of the building. Mr. Si~card made a motion that Variance #353 be approved in con- junction with the Wa~en County and Town of Queensbury Planning boards. The proposal would be less non-conforming than the present use and would enhance -the area." This was seconded by Mr. Sanderspress. Unam- imous. The public meeting was adjourned at 9:05 P.M. ----~ c2 7/ -7- Tbe board also approved an amendment to a February ~, 1973 judgement, which required a 4' fence to be constructed around an area off Route 9. The original judgement required that the fence stretch on three sides of a development owned by Dana S. Bray. The fence was reduced to covering two sides, but not the east side. /& "--... /' ,..... .'\ ~v "- -----. , . " ~r .......[111 ,,,,c~lIii>' .. 't.'Iäìî~~·rt'-;" :;.~."".......... JJ It &........~"""'" ,... - ~7À Glens Falls Area _ League of Women Voters Glens Falls, New York 12801 To; Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals ; j"4·#·"~" ;0~' ,.¡ '. The League of Women Voters of the Glens Falls Area strongly urges that you deny va.riances on oversized signs in the town of Queensbury. The Leao;ue favors strict enforcement of laws regulating commercial signs and feels that the ordinance presently in effect in Queensbury should be firmly supported. Furtherrnore, it is our understandi.ng that an lJ.pdated sign ordinance, which would mandate conformity of over- sized signs within a period of five years~is under serious consideration by town officials. It therefore seems to us that it is in the best interests of both the citizens of Queensbury and commercial enterprises coming into the tm:vtl for the ,Zoning Board of L·:'ppe[Üs to deny size variances in this interim period. To do otherwise will postpone for at least five years the treatment of what we consider to be the visual pollution of the bown of Queensbury. . I / ----~-~ ---+_..~_._- .