Loading...
1986-10-22 SP ~03 QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS \....../ Special Meeting held: Wednesday, October 22, 1986 @ 7:30 P.M. Present: Theodore Turner, Chairman Charles O. Sicard Jeffrey L. Kelley Gustave Behr Stuart F. Mesinger, Senior Planner Susan Goetz, Secretary Daniel S. Griffin Michael Muller Robert Eddy, Sign Enforcement Officer Susan E. Davidsen, Stenographer Chairman Turner called the meeting to order at 7:30 P.M. OLD BUSINESS SIGN VARIANCE NO. 1144 Tropicana Restaurant Mrs. Goetz explained'that this application had been tabled for the applicant to provide more information on sign size and setback. Mr. Lombard, owner said that the base of his sign is 14 feet from the property line and the edge of the sign is 12 feet from the line. The sign is over 50 square feet. Mrs. Goetz said that the Warren County Planning Board had approved without comment. Mr. Lombard said he had nowhere else to put the sign. He had no wall sign, and would like to keep the sign at its present size in exchange for not putting up a wall sign. Mr. Behr MOVED, Mr. Griffin seconded the approval of Variance No. 1144 with respect to setback. A practical difficulty has been shown due to the location of the property line and the highway right of way. However, the sign must conform to the 50 square foot size requirement. Further, the "gingerbread" on the sign must be removed. Passed Unanimously. Mr. Turner said that Sign Variance No. 1153 had been tabled by the applicant. USE VARIANCE NO. 1073 Hannaford Brothers Mrs. Goetz read the application for a modification of use variance no. 1073, which was granted for the construction of a 60,000 square foot grocery store. The applicant wished the variance to be modified to allow a building of 62,788 square feet. L 1 ~D~ "-/ Bob Stewart, attorney, for the applicant, explained that detailed floor plans required a slightly larger building. Twenty-eight additional parking spaces would be provided on the southwest portion of the site. The project would remain the same in all other respects. Mr. Mesinger said that he had reviewed the revised plans and that they met all ordinance requirements. He recommended approval. Board members pointed out that a buffer of trees in the southwest corner of the site had been removed. The previous variance required that these trees be maintained in accordance with an agreement with the Queensbury Beautification Committee. Bob Leaver, landscape architect for the project said that the trees had been removed for grading. Approximately 4 feet of fill had been required in this area. The Board and Mr. Leaver agreed that a new planting arrangement should be worked out between the applicants and the Beautification Committee, since the terms of the previous agreement had been violated. Mr. Kelley MOVED, Mr. Sicard seconded that use variance no. 1073 be modified to allow construction of a 62,788 square foot building. The increase in size is minor and ample parking is available. The Board is unhappy with the removal of the buffer zone in the southwest corner of the property that had been a stipulation of the original variance. The applicant must meet with the Queensbury Beautification Committee to reach a new agreement on the buffer zone. Passes UJ1~ni-rnous1y. NEW BUSINESS SIGN VARIANCE NO. 1158 Ramsey's Sunoco Mrs. Goetz read the application from Ramsey's Sunoco to keep a tall freestanding sign at its present location on Corinth Road at the intersection with Interstate 87. Joseph Ramsey, owner, said that Sunoco owned the sign but let him use it. The sign is 100 feet tall, 40 feet from the property line and 145 square feet. Mr. Ramsey estimated that it generates 40% of his business. There is also a smaller freestanding sign and a wall sign. He had applied for a variance for the tall sign only because it was the only one for which he had been cited. The Board explained that it needed dimensions and setbacks for all signs. Mr. Ramsey said that he thought that only the tall sign was in violation and that he had already received a variance for an "Avis" sign on his property. Mr. Turner MOVED, Mrs. Goetz second, that sign variance application no. 1158 be tabled so that the applicant can provided size, height and setback information for all of '-- 2 ,...., ~D:> L his signs. Passed UnAnbnously. SIGN VARIANCE NO. 1159 Patti's Homemade Mrs. Goetz read the application from Jeffrey and Patti Schwartz to place a freestanding 35 square foot "ice cream cone" shaped sign 10 feet from the property line, in addition to an existing conforming freestanding sign. Mr. and Mrs. Schwartz represented the application. They stated that they wanted a sign identical to one granted by variance to Martha's. They stated that Martha's is in direct competition and that it is unfair to allow one business a sign without allowing their direct competitor the same sign. They stated that their sign was not easily visible and that numerous customers had said that they were not aware that the business sold ice cream and further suggested the addition of a sign such as this. . Mr. Behr pointed out that the existing sign has an ice cream cone on it and that the sign could be made much larger and moved closer to the property line while still conforming to the ordinance. The problem with visibility essentially lay with the applicants for the design and placement of their existing sign. Mr. Schwartz conceded that the sign could be made more visible, but again argued that in the interest of fairness they should be allowed the same sign as Martha's. Mr. Muller said that variances are granted for individual properties based on individual conditions. Martha's had numerous nonconforming signs and in its case before the Board had presented many arguments for keeping individual signs. The Board had granted the variance for the ice cream cone sign because moving it would create a traffic hazard - complying with the setback requirement would place it in the middle of a traffic lane. He pointed out that other businesses for example, Howard Johnsons, were also competing for the ice cream trade, but they had been denied a variance. Each case was based on the individual merits of the argument and site. Public Hearin~ Opened: no comment Public Hearin~ Closed. The Warren County Planning Board disapproved without comment. Mr. Mesinger recommended denial of the application. Mr. Behr MOVED that the application be denied. The applicant can improve the position and visibility of his sign without a variance. Mr. Mesinger suggested that it be included in the motion that variances are granted for individual sites and that no practical difficulty had been shown for this site. '--' . Mr. Bebr said that the sign could be moved closer aDd be allowed 64 square feet at a 25 foot setback, not that the sign could be made -much larger-. 3 ~o" "-' Mr. Behr WITHDREW THE MOTION. Mrs. Goetz MOVED, second by Mr. Turner that sign variance no. 1159 be denied. The applicant can improve his situation without a variance. The present sign could be moved 17 feet closer to the road at 50 square feet or 64 square feet at a 25 foot setback. No practical difficulty has been shown. A variance is issued for an individual site and no practical difficulty exists. Passed Uuanhnously. USE VARIANCE NO. 1169 Quaker Village Development Corporation Mrs. Goetz read the application to allow Angel Labs, a corporation which researches, designs, and assembles computer power supply testing equipment to conduct operations in the Quaker Village Professional Office Park on Quaker Road in the HC-15 Zone. Larry Zeminick from the Quaker Village Development Corporation and Steve Hawkins from Angel Labs represented the application. Mr. Hawkins explained that this was a start-up operation which would design, test and eventually assemble equipment used to test the power supplies of electronic equipment. They were a very clean operation, essentially just assembling components which were shipped to them. One truck every few weeks was the maximum expected traffic. At first they would employ 11 or 12 engineers and 1 or 2 assembly persons. The 6,000 square foot building could perhaps accommodate 50 people. Eventually they hoped to expand to 260 employees, but would need to find other space, preferably in an industrial park. As a fledging company using grants for start-up money, they could not presently afford to build their own building. Mr. Ziminack said that a hardship existed for the property in question. It has been for rent since May, with no tenants. A building of this size is hard to rent. There are problems with dividing it up into smaller rental units. The operation has been carefully checked out by the landlords and they believe there is no nuisance potential and that it would fit in well with other park tenants. Mr.Behr expressed concerns for future expansion. Mr. Griffin suggested that the company be limited to only the building proposal - no expansion allowed. Mr. Ziminack said that he shared the concern over expansion. The lease would be for two years. The use is very close to being a simple office and is not objectionable. Mrs. Goetz said that it would be desirable to keep assembly operations in the LI Zone. Mr. Hawkins agreed, but said that at the present time the company had few options. Mr. Behr suggested that a 2 year time limit be place on the variance so that the Board could review the operation and, if found objectionable, not renew the variance. "-' 4 ~o7 ~ Mr. Mesinger said that he was uncomfortable with the concept of a time limit on a variance. While he agreed that the Board's desire to make sure the operation was not a nuisance was good, there might be other ways of doing so - the landlord more than anyone had the incentive to keep the office character of the park intact. Mr. Mesinger said that, in his opinion, an applicant either proved or disapproved his case for a variance; time limits were not desirable. Mr. Mesinger also said that he recommended approval. A financial hardship had been shown and the operation appeared to have minimal nuisance potential. Mr. Ziminack said that he planned to monitor the operation; if at the end of two years the tenant proved undesirable, the lease would not be renewed. Mr. Muller said that time limits were undesirable; the Board should rely on the strength of the application. Mr. Zominack said that parking was adequate and that no electrical interference was expected. Public Hearing Opened: no comment Public Hearing Closed. Warren County Planning Board approved without comment. Mr. Griffin MOVED, Mr. Kelley second that use variance no. 1169 be approved. The applicant has demonstrated a hardship due to the lack of a tenant for this size building. There will be no adverse effect on the neighborhood. This business will be restricted to the existing 6,000 square feet in Building number 2 and no expansion to the other areas in that complex Passed 6 yes (Griffin, Goetz, Turner, Sicard, Muller, Kelley); 1 DO (Bebr) AREA VARIANCE NO. 1170 Marvin Lemery Mrs. Goetz read the application from Marvin Lemery for an after-the-fact variance to place a swimming pool in a side yard on the property situated at Stonegate Drive. Mr. Lemery explained that he had received a permit from the Building Department to place a pool in his rear yard on September 10, 1986. Further site investigation revealed that the rear yard had too much hardpan and a well too close by to allow rear yard placement. He therefore put the pool in the side yard, not realizing a variance was required. The pool was completed October 4th; the variance application was filed September 26, 1986. Mr. Lemery went ahead with the pool before the variance was heard because of the difficulty obtaining a contractor. Various Board members spoke in disapproval of this procedure. Mr. Behr said that Mr. Lemery should have known better, given his position of County Code Enforcement Officer. ~, 5 ~og '-' Mr. Lemery explained that he has no enforcement power in Queensbury. He said that the pool would be enclosed with a fence and landscaped. Public Hearing Opened: no comment Public Hearing Closed. Mr. Mesinger delivered a staff report in which he said that it was clear that Mr. Lemery had been in elTor. However, as a practical matter there was nowhere else to put the pool and the application met the tests for an area variance. He recommended approval. Mr. Muller MOVED, Mr. Sicard seconded approval of area variance no. 1170. The applicant has demonstrated practical difficulty because of rock hard soil and a well in the backyard. Screening and shrubbery shall be provided. The Board feels that it is unfortunate that the pool was built before the variance approved, but that the variance would be acceptable even if this had not happened. Passed 6 yes (Griffin, Goetz, 'Turner, Sicard, Muller, Kelley); 1 DO (Behr). USE VARIANCE NO. 1171 - 10- a~-ß~ Bay Meadows Golf Club Mrs. Goetz read the application to expand an existing club house and add a snack bar/restaurant to a golf club on Cronin Road in the UR-5 zone. Garth Allen, president, explained that the course had been there for 30 years. The club house was in need of repair and expansion. The restaurant would not serve alcoholic beverages. The use is preexisting, nonconforming; the expansion requires a variance. The only allowed use in UR-5 is duplexes. Mr. Bebr complemented Mrs. Allen on recent improvements to the course. Public Hearing Opened: no comment Public HearinR Closed. WaITen County Planning Board approved without comment. Mr. Kelley MOVED, Mr. Muller seconded that variance no. 1171 be approved. The use meets all criteria. A reasonable return is not possible if used as zoned. This will not adversely effect the neighborhood but will be an improvement. The present use predated all zoning ordinances. Passed Unanimously. AREA VARIANCE NO. 117Z \.../ 6 G o ~tJ1 Walter Dombek. Mr. Tøm.. MOVED TO TABLa ymaneé ao_ 111210 that it c:aabe referred to W&n'eD Couaty. u it is ...it1ûD 500 feet of a atate _iway, eoaÙ'ary to the infClil"Dlation in the applicatKm. '..... Griffin seconded. P..... v....smr .1_'. MUIDICJr ADlØ8RIIBD .9130 P.1iL ~.....~ T"ecuIJlJL~ TUI.-, ChainIae. Minutes prep8J'edby Stuart F. *.ger, Seai.'ir...... 7