Loading...
1991-02-20 - ----. -- ~EENSBURY ZONING BOA.RD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 20TH, 1991 INDEX Area Variance No. 51-1989 Anthony and Linda Russo 1. Area Variance No. 102-1989 Anthony and Linda Russo 1. Area Variance No. 78-1990 Edwin Leo Norton 5. Area Variance No. 5-1991 Raymond C. Adams 13. Area Variance No. 6-1991 Richard Winchel1 17. Use Variance No. 7-1991 Hugh and Karen Sinclair 21. Area Variance No. 8-1991 C.D.K. Electric. Inc. 28. Area Variance No. 11-1991 Kelly and Lindsay Carte 33. Use Variance No. 10-1991 Kelly and Lindsay Carte 43. Sign Variance No. 9-1991 73 Quaker Road Associates 46. THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTHS MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES. "- -~ ~EENSIIJRY ZONING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 20TH, 1991 7:30 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT THEODORE TURNER. CHAIRMAN SUSAN GOETZ. SECRETARY JEFFREY KELLEY BRUCE CARR CHARLES SICARD MEMBERS ABSENT JOYCE EGGLESTON MICHAEL SHEA TOWN ATTORNEY-PAUL DUSEK ZONING ADMINISTRATOR-PAT COLLARD SENIOR PLANNER-LEE YORK STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI CORRECTION OF MINUTES November 14th. 1990: Page 38. spelling correction. up from the bottom. where it says Correspondence, Letters from Hellman's sib Helmans Marine; Page 7, eleventh from the bottom, Mr. Turner is speaking. where Mr. Bunting says about half and half and Mr. Turner is speaking in the next paragraph. three secti on with the mi ddl e secti on. sib unheeded; Page 10. ri ght at the top of the page, the second paragraph down. Mr. Gillis is speaking. right at the end where it says Mack Dean was. and then it got obliterated there, it sib Mack Dean was Building Inspector; Page 11. sixth and seventh line up from the bottom. Mr. Turner is speaking to Mr. Bunting. where it says you said you had limited machinery in the building. a saw a couple of. sib ~ Machines, next line down should also be ~Machines MOTION TO APPROVE THE NOVEMBER 14TH, 1990 MINUTES AS CORRECTED. Introduced by Charles Sicard who moved for its adoption. seconded by Susan Goetz: Duly adopted this 20th day of February. 1991. by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Carr, Mr. Sicard. Mrs. Goetz. Mr. Kelley. Mr. Turner NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Shea. Mrs. Eggleston December 19th. 1990: NONE KJTION TO APPROVE THE DECEMBER 19TH, 1990 MINUTES. Introduced by Charles Sicard who moved for its adoption. seconded by Bruce Carr: Duly adopted this 20th day of February. 1991. by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sicard. Mrs. Goetz. Mr. Kelley. Mr. Carr. Mr. Turner NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Shea. Mrs. Eggleston OLD BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 51-1989 HC-lA ANTHONY AND LINDA RUSSO APPROX. \ MILE NORTH OF ROUTE 149 ON ROUTE 9 FOR DEMOLITION OF EXISTING CLOSED TAVERN. FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A RESTAURANT AND FAMILY RECREATION CENTER. THE PROPOSED PROJECT REQUESTS A 20 n. INSTEAD OF A 25 FT. REAR SETBACK TO AIl.OII FOR A DECENT FLOOR PLAN. THE REAR OF THE IIJILDIN6 OVERLOOKS A POIfER LINE RIGHT OF WAY AND SEEMINGLY WOULD HAVE NO EFFECT ON THE NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTER. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) TAX MAP NO. 34-2-1.2 LOT SIZE: 1.33 ACRES SECTION 4.020 K, REAR YARD SETBACK REQUESTS AN EXTENSION OF TIME FOR APPROVAL. AREA VARIANCE NO. 102-1989 HC-lA ANTHONY AND LINDA RUSSO ROUTE 9, \ MILE NORTH OF ROUTE 149 TO CONSTRUCT A BILLIARD PARLOR 50 FT. FROM THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE RATHER THAN THE REQUIRED 75 FT. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) TAX MAP NO. 34-2-1.2 LOT SIZE: 1.331 ACRES SECTION 4.022 REQUESTS AN EXTEIISION OF TIME FOR APPROVAL. 1 - HOWARD KRANTZ, REPRESENTING APPLICANTS. PRESENT (7:35 p.m.) MRS. GOETZ-We received a letter from Howard Krantz representing these applicants. "I represent Anthony Russo and Linda Russo. husband and wife. who received the following variances and site plan approvals. One, on May 24th. 1989. Area Variance 51. allowing a 20 foot rear setback for their proposed bUilding. two. on August 15th. 1989. Site Plan approval No. 49, approving the parking plan for the project. Three. on September 20th. 1989, Area Variance 102. allowing a 50 foot front setback for the proposed building and. four, on June 26th. 1990, Site Plan approval 49 approving the project. Due to the recession and other economic ci rcumstances beyond my client's control. the overwhelming probabili ty is that construction will not commence until the Spring of 1992. Therefore. my client's hereby respectfully request that the above area variances and site plan approvals be extended until April 30th. 1992. Assuming my client's request would be agreeable to your respective Boards. please confirm in writing so that I may complete and close my file." MR. TURNER-Okay. Mr. Krantz, would you care to add to that? MR. KRANTZ-No. that's everything. MR. TURNER-That's everything? Okay. STAFF INPUT Notes from John Goralski. Planner. Area Variance No. 51-1989 and 102 1989. Anthony and Linda Russo. dated February 14, 1991. Meeting Date: February 20th, 1991. "Section 10.070 of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance states that a variance will expire one year after approval if action is not taken on the proposal. Both of these vari ances have expi red. If the Boa rd wi shes to approve thi s request you must make new motions in that regard. The circumstances surrounding these applications have not changed and I would reconrnend that the approvals be reinstated. However. the Board should consider whether it is appropriate to extend the approval beyond one year." MR. TURNER-Okay. Any comment? MR. KELLEY-I guess my only question to that would be that they're asking for April 30th. This is February 20th. So, it's. like. two months more than one year. I don't know whether that's excessive or not. MR. TURNER-No. I don't think so. MR. KELLEY-It doesn't really sound like it. MR. TURNER-The normal procedure is a year on a variance anyway. MR. KRANTZ-Can I speak to that? MR. TURNER-You sure can. MR. KRANTZ-First of all. the reason why it went beyond a year is that the process was rather involved with variances and then there was a. I wouldn't call it a variance. but something akin to that. from the site plan on the parking which didn't fit into any niche in the Zoning Ordinance. Then we had to come back for another variance before this Board and then. finally, it wasn't until June of last year. of '90. that the final site plan approval was obtained. By the time Mr. Russo finally got all his approvals in place and started to approach the banks. well things had changed and while I understand that there's a one year. normally an extension. technically that would put us to this time 1992 and realistically. he wouldn't be starting construction in February of '92. So I know it's a couple of months beyond what is normally required. but under the circumstances. that's what we would request. MR. TURNER-Jeff. do you have a problem with it? MR. KELLEY-No. I kind of thought it would be easier to dig in April than in February. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. SICARD-If that's what his intentions are at this point. Does he still intend to go ahead with this? MR. KRANTZ-He does. Mr. Sicard. The timing is such that. technically, if you granted one year. going to February of '92. I'd be coming back before the Board for a two month extension at that time and I thought it would be better for my clients and for the Board to address it now. He does intend. definitely. on going ahead. MR. KELLEY-Do you think that April 30th is enough? MR. KRANTZ-Well. I think so. 2 MR. KELLEY-I mean. rather than miss by two weeks or something. I don't know. MR. SICARD-It's pretty early. too, to build. MR. KELLEY-Well. it's still cutting it. maybe. kind of close. I don't know. MR. KRANTZ-Well. we wouldn't object to May, you know. sometime in May if the Board feels that's more appropriate. My understanding is that construction has to start. that's the key date. I'm not a construction man. I assume that April 30th was sufficient. but if it's safe to play the middle of May, another couple of weeks, that would be fine. MR. TURNER-You might better. you know, it depends on the kind of winter you get. MR. KRANTZ-Right. MR. TURNER-If you get a harsh winter. you might be in a little trouble in April. It's still kind of cold in April. MR. KRANTZ-If we could go to the middle or end of May. that would certainly be appreciated. MR. KELLEY-I mean I think. you know, we're trying to do this so you don't have to come back. MR. KRANTZ-Right. MR. KELLEY-Unless somebody has a problem with it. I don't know that 1 do. MR. CARR-I don't have my book in front of me. I left it at the office. but do we have the power to extend more than a year or does the Ordinance say it's only good for one year? MR. TURNER-The variance is good for a year. but he's asking for an extension. MR. CARR-My question is. can you grant an extension for a longer period than the original variance was valid for? MR. KELLEY-Than the one year? MR. KRANTZ-I don't think the Zoning Ordinance addresses that one way or the other. Bruce. MR. CARR-Okay. MR. KRANTZ-It's a good question. MR. TURNER-I think we can because it's our option whether, you know, obviously. he's not going to start any construction in February. MR. CARR-Right. MR. TURNER-They do it. but I mean. MR. KRANTZ-All conditions remain the same and have to remain the same. MR. TURNER-Yes. Everything will remain the same. MR. KRANTZ-If there's any change. we have to come back. MR. TURNER-No change. you've got to come back. MR. KRANTZ-Either before your Board or the Planning Board. MR. SICARD-He said he's asking to go '92. That's a whole year, isn't it? MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. CARR-A year and two months. MRS. GOETZ-Okay. My question is. in the Staff Report it mentioned that we should make the motions over. Is that what that meant? MRS. YORK-Yes. MRS. GOETZ-And would it be word for word. as we did before? 3 -- MR. TURNER-Yes. MRS. YORK-I would advise that. MRS. GOETZ-Because I was looking and I see the motion we made for Variance 51. but I don't see it for 102. MR. CARR-Lee. what's the purpose of making the new motions? MRS. YORK-Because the time frame has extended. He's over the time frame. MR. TURNER-The time frame has run out. MR. CARR-So. the variances are dead? MRS. YORK-The variances are dead. MR. CARR-Then we'd have to have a public hearing. Has it been notified? MRS. YORK-No. We didn't notify anyone. I don't believe anyone was notified. MR. CARR-I was going to say, if that's what you're looking at. then we have to make a new motion to give him a new variance because the old variances are expired. then we have to comply with the public hearing. MRS. YORK-Yes. I agree with you. MR. CARR-But if we don't do that. we don't have to. MRS. YORK-That's right. I agree with you, that that's what would have to happen. MRS. GOETZ-When we usually grant extensions, has it been expired, usually? MRS. YORK-No. It has never expired when you have given an extension. MR. TURNER-No. Well. I think the case here is that. for all practical purposes and intent. like Bruce said. it's expired. period. It's dead in the water. So now we've got a new ball game. MRS. YORK-Right. MR. SICARD-So then what you're saying is they'd have to come back for a new variance? MR. TURNER-What I'm saying is. they've got to come back. They'd have to come back. You can't automatically extend it. It's gone. MR. SICARD-Possibly next year. MR. CARR-I just think. procedurally. I don't know if we want to do, you know. I mean I know this creates a real hardship and I'm sorry. but I'm just wondering if. procedurally. I mean. even if we do it. it won't be valid. I mean. if anybody wanted to challenge it. they'd win. MR. TURNER-If they wanted to challenge it. right. MRS. YORK-Right. What we could do is you could apply for next month and then we could just get out the old paperwork on those. if the Board would consider rehearing those. MRS. GOETZ-You mean just. more or less. do what we did before? MR. TURNER-That's all. MRS. YORK-Yes. MRS. GOETZ-Because I don't see it on 102. here. tonight. for one thing. It doesn't seem like it's going to be a problem once you come back. but wouldn't you want to do it the right way? MRS. YORK-Then you'll have to ask for less of an extension. MR. KRANTZ-Well, I don't have the Zoning Ordinance in front of me. MR. CARR-Okay. I think what you'd want to do is wait until the April or May meeting and just re-submit the same application. 4 -- MR. SICARD-You'd have it. MR. TURNER-Then you'd have it for the year. MR. KRANTZ-Could I ask if this item could just be passed, take the next item on the agenda. and perhaps I could review the applicable provisions. MRS. YORK-Okay. MR. TURNER-Okay. MRS. GOETZ-I have the Zoning Ordinance right here in this book if you need it. MR. KRANTZ-Could you? Yes. thank you. and you said you don't have 102? MRS. GOETZ-I don't. the wording of the motion for Variance 102. It's here for 51. MR. KELLEY-From our minutes. MR. KRANTZ-You don't have the minutes? MRS. GOETZ-Right. See, here's the motion and it's here for 51. but anyway. There's a whole bunch of stuff. Did he want us to wait until he had a chance to look at that? MR. TURNER-No. We can go on to the next one. MRS. GOETZ-That's what I mean. MR. TURNER-Yes. We'll hold that in abeyance. MRS. GOETZ-I'm sorry. 102 is in a separate folder. if you need it. Mr. Krantz. okay. MR. KRANTZ-Thank you. (7:45 p.m.) AREA VARIANCE NO. 78-1990 TYPE II LI-IA EDWIN LEO NORTON OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE BIG BAY ROAD TO CONSTRUCT A 40 n. BY 60 n. GARAGE WITH A 10 FT. SETBACK FROM THE PROPERTY LINE IN LIEU OF THE REQUIRED 30 n. TAX MAP NO. 136-1-15, 16 LOT SIZE: 14,589 SQ. n. SECTION 4.020 N KEITH NORTON. REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; EDWIN NORTON. APPLICANT, PRESENT (7:45 p.m.) MRS. GOETZ-Is this a whole new application? MR. TURNER-Well. this is the change in the design of the garage and the placement of the garage. MRS. GOETZ-Okay. This was tabled previously at the request of the applicant to allow the applicant to come up with more information as to his application and it was a request for an area variance. MR. TURNER-Okay. and he's got a new proposal as to the location of the proposed garage. It's a two stage deal. The first stage is the 44' by 32' garage and the second stage is the 24' by 44'. Okay. do you want to address your application? MR. KEITH NORTON-I'm Keith Norton, Edwin Norton's son. Basically what I've done since the last meeting was I've taken into consideration Mr. Turner's suggestion of moving it over to the house and as Mr. Carr said at the last meeting. it had to be attached to the house since it could not be 50 feet away from the house. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. KEITH NORTON-And to streamline it even with the house would require it to be 10 feet from the property line on the north side and with the 24 by 44 second stage part 10 feet from the west property line. MR. TURNER-Okay and then he's going with a six foot fence. as he shows it there on the darkened outline. Let me ask you this. the second stage. what would you be looking at. time frame maybe? MR. KEITH NORTON-What you're asking is when we will be starting the second stage? MR. TURNER- Yes. MR. KEITH NORTON-Possibly this fall. is what I'm looking at. prior to the snow fall. MR. EDWIN NORTON-How long do you have, that you have to start? 5 MR. TURNER-One year. MR. EDWIN NORTON-Okay. If not. spring would be the latest. say. May when you can work the ground. It would be within that time and that's the only thing that separates it. I'm not sure how the economy is going to be for the second stage. but by the following spring it would be started. MR. TURNER- Yes. MRS. GOETZ-Is there going to be any outside storage of the large equipment? MR. KEITH NORTON-No. 11m told, once the second stage is completed. no. Once the first stage is completed. there would be outside storage. but not of really large. the large trucks would be inside. MR. TURNER-You could put them behind the building. MR. KEITH NORTON-Yes. MR. TURNER-Yes. It would be the chipper. MR. KEITH NORTON-The chipper. a stump grinder. MR. TURNER-And that smaller truck? MR. KEITH NORTON-Yes. MR. TURNER-Does anyone else have any questions? MRS. GOETZ-Do you have to consider permeability? MR. TURNER-He's got it. yes. 30 percent. MRS. GOETZ-And he's got it? MR. TURNER-Yes. MRS. GOETZ-Is he close to it? MR. TURNER-Yes. He's 41. or 46. MRS. GOETZ-46? MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. KELLEY-The setback is for, what, the rear? MR. TURNER-The side and the rear. He's got to have a 30 foot setback at the rear and 30 on the side. Nineteen feet of relief on the side and 20 on the rear. MR. SICARD-Did we go over the fence height or anything? MR. TURNER-Six feet. He can have six feet. MR. SICARD-Six feet? MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. KEITH NORTON-It would take an additional variance. I take it, to go with a higher fence? MR. TURNER-Yes. Six feet is all that's allowed. MR. KEITH NORTON-Yes, I think that would look right with a six foot. MR. TURNER-Yes. that's adequate. Do you have any questions. Jeff? MR. KELLEY-Yes. I'm looking at the old one and new one. The old one we had variances. well. the original building was 11 feet from the side and then we're going to the other side of the property with the 10 feet, where this way it's got it all on one side. MR. TURNER-Right. MR. KELLEY-So it's probably better that way and we haven't got the space between. So I think that's gotten better. 6 -../ MR. TURNER-Yes. The other thing. too, you know, is there's a residence to the north and there's one to the south and with the proposed garage sitting behind the existing house. you're house is going to take away from that garage. You're not even going to real}y see it much. MR. KELLEY-Right and the first stage of the garage looks like it's ¡:!robably going to be. well. it's going to hide the second stage. MR. TURNER-Right. What would be the height of your first stage? MR. KEITH NORTON-The first stage would have a ceiling height of 16 feet and I believe that trusses were eight feet. so it would be 24 high. 24 feet to the peak. MR. TURNER-Yes. and the other one would be more or less a pole barn? MR. KEITH NORTON-Yes. It would be pretty much open. MR. TURNER-Yes. Do you have any further questions, Jeff? MR. KELLEY-I don't think so. MR. TURNER-Do you have a problem with it? MR. KELLEY-Other than lot size. maybe, but I don't know what you can do. You've got a house on one side and you've got... MR. TURNER-Right. He can't buy anything to the north. He can't buy anything to the south. not as yet anyway. He can't buy behind him. MRS. GOETZ-It's a lot on one piece of property. MR. TURNER-It's a lot of use. MRS. GOETZ-And, you know. you didn't want to take down the house, which is a possibility. MR. TURNER-He wants to live there. MRS. GOETZ-I know. but I mean that h something that could have been done if you were just purely going to have it as a business. Also. we didn't hear any neighborhood opposition. MR. KEITH NORTON-The neighbors that we've talked "'1} on the north and south both seem very friendly to us and we've discussed about the garage with them and they seemed to have no problem at all about it. MRS. GOETZ-And they are notified. So they could come to the public hearing. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. KEITH NORTON-Before we ever even asked for a variance on the first garage. we discussed it with them. We wanted to make sure there wasn't going to be any problem with the neighbors. MR. KELLEY-How is it that the fence comes to be? MR. TURNER-Six feet. MR. KELLEY-And they can do that? MR. TURNER-In commercial. yes. MR. KELLEY-Commercial, all right. I was thinking of residential and I'm saying. six foot fences are no nos. MR. TURNER-Right. MR. EDWIN NORTON-One neighbor already has a fence. So we're just going to match his fence so it would all be the same. He has that gray fence. MR. KEITH NORTON-That's on the other side of his property. though. MR. TURNER-That's Troy, right. Mr. Troy? MR. KEITH NORTON-Yes, Troy. 7 MR. EDWIN NORTON-Yes. Troy's got a gray fence which is the same color as the house. It would all fit in and like you say. if you drive down the street, actually all you see is the house and just a little bit of the end of the garage. MR. KEITH NORTON-You'll see the first stage garage. MR. EDWIN NORTON-That's all you'll see. So. looking at it, it won't change it that much. MR. TURNER-Mrs. Goetz's remarks, just to reflect on them a little bit. When that was changed to Light Industrial One Acre down through there. it was thought that, eventually, that the Light Industrial One Acre Zone would creep in and most of those residences would be gone and her concern about living there and having a business is a genuine concern. It's not allowed. only by variance usually. as a rule. but this is a preexisting building. We had one other case on that road where we let a fellow live there. MRS. GOETZ-The apartment? MR. TURNER-Yes. but he had the acreage. This is a small. he had a lot more property. MR. EDWIN NORTON-Is that just for the owner? Is that what you're talking about? Just for the owner to live there or for anybody to live there? MR. TURNER-Anyone. nobody. MR. EDWIN NORTON-I meant. like, renting out or anything like that. MR. TURNER-If you had a one acre parcel and you came in and there was nothing on it. you couldn't live there. You'd have to put your business there and that would be it. MR. CARR-I don't real have a problem with the use or even the garages. I think the zone is. it's proper for the zone. MR. TURNER-Well. it's going to be a matter of filling in anyway. I mean. that whole thing is going to. eventually, turn to Light Industrial. 1 think. MR. CARR- Yes. MR. KELLEY-Well, I think that if you had to really have a concern it would probably be how detrimental is it to the neighborhood? MR. TURNER-Right. MR. KELLEY-And we're saying, well. we're in a Light Industrial Zone and that's a use that's pennitted there. MR. TURNER-Yes. It's a permitted use. MR. KELLEY-So. he's not hindering it that way. MR. TURNER-No. MR. KELLEY-It's really just the setbacks. MR. EDWIN NORTON-I have also talked to the guy that owns the property in the rear, the west side. also and he's the guy that owns the land on the end of the street and he's got no problem with it. MR. TURNER-And then the other fellow across the road bought up quite a strip there. What was it. Guido Passarelli that bought that? MR. EDWIN NORTON-Yes. It's all cleared. MR. KEITH NORTON-Yes, I believe. The people at the Exit 16. MRS. GOETZ-No. it's the other one. Parillo. MR. TURNER-Parillo? MR. EDWIN NORTON-Yes. They own that whole thing down through there. MR. TURNER-Okay. 8 -" MR. KEITH NORTON-And then the other one that's across the road and ki nd of ki tty corner is owned by the neighbor to the north of this lot. MR. TURNER-Okay. Any further questions of the applicant? If not. I'll open the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED STAFF INPUT Notes from John Goralski. Planner, Area Variance No. 78-1990. Edwin Leo Norton. dated February 14. 1990. Meeting Date: February 20. 1991. "The applicant has revised his plan and is proposing to remove the existing 24' x 16' garage and construct a 2.464 square foot garage in two stages. This proposal will require a rear yard and side yard setback variance. After further review of the site and the allowable uses in this zone. it appears that this site would not be conducive to any of the allowable uses because of its si ze and the exi sting structures. The Board shoul d consi der whether thi s request is the minimum relief necessary." MR. KELLEY-I think that last statement. though, is the reason why a variance is necessary. MR. TURNER- Yes. MR. KELLEY-Because of the size of the lot. MR. TURNER-The size of the lot. yes. He's restricted by the size of the lot. MR. KELLEY-The use is fine. It's just that he's got a small lot and can't make it any bigger. MRS. GOETZ-But he could take the house down. I mean. if this is what we're looking at. I'm not against the proposal. but that h the truth. If you wanted to have more. you know. less building on that property. you could take the house down. MR. KEITH NORTON-Yes. What I was basically looking at. that would be a combination office and a residence for me. Currently, I'm living with my father and I'm sure that he would rather I was down there. MRS. GOETZ-And I do think it is an improved plan from what we saw before. MR. KEITH NORTON-I think it looks a lot better. balance wise. MRS. GOETZ-It does. So. I think we did the right thing by encouraging you to look at it again. MR. TURNER-Okay. Motion's in order. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 78-1990 EDWIN LEO NORTON. Introduced by Jeffrey Kelley who moved for its adoption, seconded by Theodore Turner: They're seeking a variance from the rear yard setback. The requirement is a 30 foot rear yard setback and this particular plan shows the building to be 10 feet from the rear property line. That would be a variance of 30 feet at the rear. They're also seeking a side yard variance. The Ordinance calls /"f<fri--30Hf()òfside yard setback and the proposal is that the new buildings be 11 feet from this side // property line for a variance of 19 feet. The reasons for granting this variance are that the particular c-- lot is 14.589 square feet and it's a preexisting lot in a one acre zone. The applicant is not able to purchase any additional land and the particular use that is proposed h allowed in the Light Industrial One Acre Zone. This seems to be the minimum relief necessary to alleviate the practical , difficulty. There is no neighborhood opposition. It does not appear to be detrimental to the purposes of the Ordinance and public facilities and services will not be adversely effected. Duly adopted this 20th day of February. 1991. by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Carr. Mr. Sicard, Mrs. Goetz. Mr. Kelley. Mr. Turner NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Shea. Mrs. Eggleston (8:05 p.m.) (RESUMED AREA VARIANCES NO. 51-1989 and 102-1989) (8:05 p.m.) MR. TURNER-Are you ready, Mr. Krantz? 9 .....-' MR. KRANTZ-Yes. MR. TURNER-We'll go back to Mr. Krantz's application. or Mr. Krantz representing Anthony and Linda Russo, with respect to their application. MR. KRANTZ-In my opinion. the Board does have the authority to grant the extension. In the law. this is called nunc pro tunk. Now for Then, to go back and to grant the extension. I would also remind the Board that at the time the two variances were heard, there was not only no opposition from anyone. the only people that spoke were the owners of the Mohawk Hotel that spoke strongly in favor of having Mr. Chips razed. I could raise the argument that when they obtained the permit to raze the building. that that constituted commencement of the project. but as a practical matter. there was no opposition. One party spoke in favor. This could really get very technical. At the Planning Board. when we went in June of last year. this was after the first variance expired. they saw no need to get an extension prior to getting the final site plan approval. So. if you follow the same technicality through. site plan approval was granted when the first variance expired. So, I'd just ask you to be practical. I think you have the authority to extend the variances in question and I would also think you have the authority to extend it beyond a year. MRS. YORK-What you could do. in the case of a year. it does say that if you apply for the Building Permit. a Building Permit is good for how long, Pat? MRS. COLLARD-A year. MR. TURNER-One year. MRS. YORK-A year? So. if you make application to the Board prior to a year being over. you would still have your Building Permit being good for a year. MR. KRANTZ-On the second issue, are you talking about the April 30th versus some time in May? MRS. YORK-Yes. right. MRS. COLLARD-I just question. if the variances are dead. how do you extend them? MR. CARR-I agree. I think it takes away the effect of the variance life being one year. MR. TURNER-Right. MR. CARR-I know this is a real pain. MR. KRANTZ-It's that and I think it's a reading of the Ordinance. It's what some people in Queensbury are concerned about. If you extend it, you're extending it after the fact is what you would be doing. MR. TURNER-Yes. MRS. GOETZ-Where does it say. you know. you were consulting this. MR. KRANTZ-Yes. MRS. GOETZ-Is there anything in here that you saw when you were sitting there that would support your argument? MR. KRANTZ-Well. it's just the broad language of. you have the right to extend. of interpretation of the Ordinance. it would come back before you. I mean. it doesn't read that you have to apply for that prior to the expiration of have the authority to extend it. If it came to a question you could also say that one year. It says. you MR. CARR-Right. but I think our question is. what are we extending? Are we extending a valid. you know. everyone else has come back to us within the year and said. we can't do it within the year. would you extend it. and we've never had a problem. I don't think we've ever denied an extension. but now you're asking us to go back and say. would you extend something that doesn't exist according to the Ordinance and I'm just afraid that's something we might not want to get into the habit of doing. I don't think there's any opposition to this, but in the future there may be some opposition to something. I mean. circumstances change. I mean. the variance was granted in 1989. Now we're asking about it actually being built in 1992. Who knows what the situation is going to be in 1992. MR. KELLEY-And if you think about it. other people could have bought property in the neighborhood. seeing nothing there. and maybe not aware that something might be built there along the lines of a billiard parlor. Now. all of a sudden. you know. I mean. if it didn't take place in a year. 10 .-' MR. CARR-To save the integrity of the Ordinance and the Board, it just seems. I mean, for an extra filing fee, you could have it heard. I mean. you probably don't even have to show up. It could just be heard. MR. KRANTZ-Well. that's what John Goralski told me, also, this was not going to be a problem. If it was going to be a problem. I could have gotten the application in for the variance and had it heard tonight. MR. CARR-Sure. People ar~ known to make mistakes. I mean. there are procedural grounds. but in court. too. there are procedural grounds. MR. SICARD-But if it comes up in April, you'll still have adequate time. if they're going to start immediately building in April of this year. if this comes before the Board. if the new application comes before the Board in April. MR. KRANTZ-Well. they're not going to be starting this year. That's not going to happen. MR. SICARD-So you'd have adequate time. if you wanted to get it in immediately. I think. Wouldn't he. Teddy? MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. COLLARD-Mr. Chairman? MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. COLLARD-I don't recall when they obtained the Demolition Permit? MR. TURNER-The Demolition Permit is not a Building Permit. though. MRS. COLLARD-No. It isn't. but it says, there is a sentence in here that states. if the app11cant fails to undertake the proposed action for project. MR. KRANTZ-Undertake, that's the point I made before. MRS. COLLARD-And a Demolition Permit is part of the proposed action. MR. TURNER-Not necessarily. MRS. COLLARD-I'm just throwing it out. MR. TURNER-I know. not necessarily. MRS. GOETZ-What page is that? MRS. YORK-101. MR. TURNER-They could take the building down and leave the lot vacant for two years. MRS. COLLARD-I know. I'm just throwing it out. MRS. TURNER- I ki nd of agree wi th Jeff and Bruce. both. that we've got to preserve the i ntegri ty of the Ordinance. MR. CARR-I just think it would be a simple matter. MR. TURNER-It's just a simple matter. MR. CARR-We aren't asking you to go through a whole new and prepare all new documents and all that. MRS. GOETZ-Well, look who's just arrived. We have a legal problem. MRS. COLLARD-No. We've got it all solved. MR. TURNER-It's all solved. MRS. GOETZ-It sounds like it's more of an irritation, honestly. than a big problem. to come back. Wouldn't you rather have no question about it? MR. KRANTZ-If you're asking me what I would honestly prefer? MRS. GOETZ- Yes. 11 '-" MR. KRANTZ-I would honestly prefer you to grant the extensions. My clients live d~state at this time of the year. Their residence up here is during the summer. They won't be back here during that period of time and are you telling me that an application doesn't have to be filed? Is that what I heard someone say? MR. CARR-Well. I'm just saying you could basically use the application that's in the file, can't you? MRS. GOETZ-No. I think you'd have to file an application. MR. TURNER-No. They've got to make a new one out. It's got to be dated and everything. MRS. YORK-Right. You want to file a new application, but the paperwork would all be in existence. We can supply you with what's in existence. what we have in our files. MR. TURNER-Right. All the information is here but the new application. MRS. GOETZ-They wouldn't even have to come. I don't think. I mean. they're not here tonight. MR. KRANTZ-Well. they're not here tonight because of my conversation with Mr. Goralski where he didn't see any problem whatsoever. MR. TURNER-Granted. there was no opposition to it the last time and. true, Mr. Stark did come. At first he was a little hesitant. but then after that he was satisfied with what was going there. but. again. I think it's clearly stated. one year. MR. KELLEY-I guess if it was such a concern. why did you let it expire? MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. KRANTZ-Pardon? MR. KELLEY-I guess if you feel so strongly about it. why did you let it expire? MR. KRANTZ-Why did 1.? MR. KELLEY-Or the applicant. MR. KRANTZ-I didn't apply for the variances. MR. KELLEY-Okay. MR. KRANTZ-That was done by the architect or engineer for Mr. and Mrs. Russo. I think if you look at the applications you'll see that they were prepared by. I believe. Dennis Franklin. engineer. MR. TURNER-I don't want to beat a dead horse. Let's move the thing along. Okay. Do we have a motion either to deny the extension or? MOTION TO DENY REQUEST FOR AN EXTEIISION OF TIME FOR AREA VARIANCE NO. 51-1989 ANTHONY AND LINDA RUSSO. Introduced by Bruce Carr who moved for its adoption, seconded by Jeffrey Kelley: Based on the expiration of the variances prior to this meeting. Duly adopted this 20th day of February. 1991. by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sicard. Mrs. Goetz. Mr. Kelley. Mr. Carr. Mr. Turner NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Shea. Mrs. Eggleston MR. TURNER-The extension is denied. MR. KELLEY-Do we have to do both of them? MR. TURNER-Yes. we better. MOTION 10 DEn REQUEST FOR AN EXTEIISION OF TIME FOR AREA VARIAJl:E NO. 102-1989 ANTHOn AND LIRDA RUSSO. Introduced by Bruce Carr who moved for its adoption. seconded by Jeffrey Kelley: Based on the expiration of the variances prior to this meeting. Duly adopted this 20th day of February. 1991. by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Goetz. Mr. Kelley. Mr. Carr. Mr. Sicard. Mr. Turner NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Shea, Mrs. Eggleston MR. KRANTZ-Not having applied for those variances. I don't have any of the paperwork. 12 MR. TURNER-You'll havE___ go to the Planning Office and they'll give you the proper app~tions. MR. KRANTZ-No. I mean the background material. MR. TURNER-They'll get that for you. too. MRS. GOETZ-I'm sure they can give you copies of what was submitted. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. KRANTZ-Okay. Thank you. (8:15 p.m.) NEW BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 5-1991 TYPE II IIR-IA RAYJlJND C. ADAMS OWNER: RAOOND AND CHRISTENE ADAMS LOT 20, LAKE SUNNYSIDE EAST TO MAINTAIN EXISTING DECK IfIICH IS SETBACK 70 FT. FROM THE SHORELINE IN LIEU OF THE REQUIRED 75 FT. SETBACK. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) TAX MAP NO. 46-3-20 LOT SIZE: 20,700 SQ. FT. SECTION 7.012-3 RAYMOND C. ADAMS. PRESENT (8:15 p.m.) STAFF INPUT Notes from Lee A. York. Senior Planner. Area Variance No. 5-1991. Raymond Adams. Dated February 19. 1991, Meeting Date: February 20, 1991 "The request is to allow a 5 foot encroachment of the shoreline setbacks by an existing deck. The applicant has recently constructed a new home on Lake Sunnyside. The new deck is 70 feet rather than the required 75 feet from the shoreline. The requirements for an area variance are as follows: 1) Are there any special conditions applying to this property or building and not applying to other properties in the area? The appl1cant's home does adjoin the bank leading to the lake. 2) Would the strict application of the provisions of this Ordinance deprive the applicant of reasonable use of the land or buildings? No. The applicant would still have reasonable use of his home if the deck were reduced by 5 feet. 3) Would the strict application of the di.ensional requirel1ents result in a specified practical difficulty? Yes. The applicant would be required to remove 5 feet of the deck. 4) Would the variance be detrilllental to the purpose of the Ordinance? The shoreline setbacks were designed to afford protection to our water bodies. In a situation where there are steep embankments. siltation and erosion are a concern. Since the deck is already in existence it would probably be more environmentally detrimental to remove the structure than to grant a variance. 5) Is this request the lIini.l relief necessary to alleviate the practical difficulty? Yes." MRS. GOETZ-The Warren County Planning Board didn't have a quorum. so no action was taken. MR. TURNER-Okay. Mr. Adams is here. Does anyone have any questions for Mr. Adams? When his building permit was filed and his plot plan. it wasn't picked up? MR. ADAMS-What happened was. when I bought the property there was a survey already completed on it. That's the second to last page that you have. MR. TURNER- Yes. MR. ADAMS-It shows that it was 175 feet to the waterfront. So that's what we went by. After the house was up. we had sold our other house so we thought we had enough money to build and we waited a couple. three years and with the price of the property. we had to go to the bank for a mortgage. They required another survey. The new survey showed that it wasn't 175 feet. that it was 161 feet. The same surveyor did the survey. So I went back to the surveyor and I said. well. how can this be? He said the original survey was done prior to the subdivision approval and there were no pins set in the property at that time. So the new survey goes 161 feet and then there's an additional 10 feet. but my pin is moved in 10 feet. It shows on the other survey. So the actual porti on, I put a 50 foot setback on the property and also a 75 foot setback. It actually only takes the corner of my deck off and the corner of the cement. the concrete path. MR. TURNER- Yes. MRS. GOETZ-I have one question. On your diagram, it shows covered slabs and when I did the site inspection. I didn't. MR. ADAMS-That's the patio. MR. TURNER-That's the patio at the back of the garage. MR. ADAMS-The surveyor did that. At the time, the windows weren't in and I think he probably assumed that. .. MRS. GOETZ-That you ~ going to cover it. MR. ADAMS-That was just going to be a covered slab. MRS. GOETZ-Okay. MR. KELLEY-On this southerly line where you say it's 161.32 feet? MR. ADAMS-Right. 13 MR. KELLEY-That goes to that pin. right? MR. ADAMS-That goes to that pin. MR. KELLEY-Then you said from the pin to... MR. ADAMS-The waterfront there's another 10 feet. MR. TURNER-Yes. See it right there. Jeff? MR. KELLEY-Okay. So that would be 171. not 175. MR. ADAMS-Correct. What it is is the water, it goes at an angle. On the other side it's only 144 to the pin and then there's two and a half feet. where on the original survey it showed 153. If I had stayed with the house being straight in there, you can see where the corner of the deck and the corner of the slab get cut off because of the Lake cutting back in. The biggest thing was where the s1ab went to. there was a roadway going down through and there's retaining walls we had put in there because there was a big drop off. What I did is I just brought the slab out to the retaining wall. On the deck. when they poured the foundation. they actually poured cement footings down into the ground. So. if I would have had to change that. all that cement would have to be torn back out and moved back in and it would on1y leave me five feet of a deck. MR. TURNER-Okay. Anyone else? Have you got any questions, Bruce? Charlie? None? MR. KELLEY-I don't know that I understand what I'm looking at here. Is this deck over here? MR. ADAMS-Can I come up? MR. TURNER-Sure. Go right ahead. MR. KELLEY-Because I drove by and saw wing walls. I didn't get out and walk around. but. MR. ADAMS-Okay. This is a 50 foot setback. MR. KELLEY-Yes. MR. ADAMS-All this is here is the concrete slab coming out on the flat surface. MR. KELLEY-Okay. MR. ADAMS-It cuts off three feet of this corner. MR. KELLEY-Okay. MR. ADAMS-The deck, actually. is right here. MR. KELLEY-Okay. because this is the 75 foot line. MR. ADAMS-Right. MR. KELLEY-All right. MR. ADAMS-So where it's cutting off is right in this part. MR. KELLEY-Okay. So we've got the deck here and the slab here. MR. ADAMS-Correct. MR. KELLEY-Okay. MR. TURNER-Any further questions of Mr. Adams? If not. I'll open the pub1ic hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. SICARD-Who surveyed the first? MR. ADAMS-I was afraid you were going to ask me that. As I was sitting there trying to think of who it was. the best answer I can give you on that. it's on Ridge Road. almost as you get into the center of Town on the right hand side. MR. KELLEY-Coulter & McCormack? MR. ADAMS-Yes. Coulter & McCormack. that's correct. MR. KELLEY-That's~. 14 --- -- MR. TURNER-That's Bay Road. MR. KELLEY-Bay. MR. ADAMS-That's who surveyed it. MR. TURNER-Yes. that's right. MR. KELLEY-They're on Bay. just before you get into Town. MR. ADAMS-His statement to me was that it was to the pins. He said if you take the pins back out. you'll still have the same amount of footage. To me, that gives me 171. He said 17i. MR. SICARD-He also surveyed it the second time. did he? MR. ADAMS-Yes. He said, also. this was surveyed in August. which they said the water level was... MR. SICARD-Lower. MR. ADAMS-Lower. and the other one was surveyed in the spring, which the water level was higher. MR. SICARD-Higher. They take a mean number. MR. ADAMS-Right. So. the 10 feet was because of the water raising. That was my understanding from him. MR. TURNER-Okay. No further questions? The public hearing is closed. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TURNER-No further Correspondence? Motion's in order. MR. KELLEY-Well, let me. well. I guess my concern is we've got a whole lot of things beyond or insi de this 75 foot line. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. KELLEY-We've got wing walls and hardsurfacing, right. at 50 feet. MR. TURNER- Yes. MR. KELLEY-So we're not just talking about three feet of deck. here. That could be a minor part of the thing. MR. ADAMS-My understanding from Mr. Hatin and the Building Department is that retaining walls have nothing to do with it and there are existing retaining walls down further near the Lake and he said that isn't in the Ordinance and I can put retaining walls. He says. where the problem came in was the hardsurface and he says, hard surface being concrete slab. MRS. GOETZ-By the bay window? MR. ADAMS-By the bay window, yes. MR. TURNER- Yes. MR. ADAMS-He said for a retaining wall you don't even need a permit. MR. KELLEY-That hard surface runs basically from your foundation all the way out to that 50 foot line? MR. ADAMS-Yes. MR. KELLEY-That whole whatever that is. MR. ADAMS-Yes. it does. What that was. that was the level part of the property and then there was a drop off ri ght there and that was the roadway. On the second to the 1 ast page. it shows the di rt road that went down through there and what that had done. when I had bought it, there's also an old staircase that goes down in there. Ma 'am, you said you were out looking at the property? You could see where it had washed away and we had put the retaining walls to stop that from washing away. When I had purchased the property. that had all. the stairs was all covered over. MR. TURNER-That was probably the old beach that was there. Hobbles old beach, do you remember that? 15 - MR. ADAMS-Yes. it was. That also had. one of the old pipes is still there where there was trees laid across it and you can see where the tree had formed into the pipe. MR. TURNER-Yes. MRS. GOETZ-So he needs a variance on the hard surface part. MR. TURNER- Yes. MRS. GOETZ-But. I mean. should we allow that? MR. TURNER-I don't know. That's up to you guys. MR. KELLEY-I think it's a gross violation. It's not like a couple of feet or something. MRS. COLLARD-For hard surfacing. it's site plan review of the Planning Board. MR. TURNER-Pardon? I didn't hear you. MRS. COLLARD-For hard surface it's site plan review of the Planning Board. MRS. GOETZ-Have you been there yet? MR. TURNER-No. MRS. COLLARD-I think you're going to the Planning Board next time. MR. ADAMS-I went last week. MRS. COLLARD-Did you go? No. I'm talking about Queensbury Planning Board. MR. ADAMS-They had a Planning Board Meeting last Wednesday? MR. COLLARD-No. that's Warren County. MR. TURNER-That's Warren County. MR. ADAMS-Okay. I'm confused then. MR. TURNER-You've got another one yet. MR. ADAMS-Also, if I could add. there are other houses in that development that have decks closer to the Lake. MR. TURNER-I know. Yes. the one I told you about. The one that came for a variance. Remember you said you were going to check it? What happened to that? MRS. COLLARD-I checked it. I have a big. long memo written to you and I've never distributed it to you. I've got it for you. MR. CARR-It seems to me that's a pretty honest mistake. MR. TURNER-It's an honest mistake. MR. CARR-And it's not that detrimental. MR. TURNER-No. MR. CARR-I mean it's not built right on the Lake or anything like that. I think five feet is minimal. MR. TURNER-That's minimal. I don't have a problem with it. It's going to be a costly affair for him to take and rip that all apart. MR. CARR-Right. and I think. as Lee pointed out. it might be more environmentally unsound to have him pull it out and redo something else. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. KELLEY-The hard surfacing I'd be more concerned about than the deck. MR. TURNER-Yes. right. That goes before the Planning Board. Okay. 16 - -- MR. ADAMS-On the hard surface. if worse came to worse. we're only talking three feet and my wife says we'll just cut a circle and we'll put a tree there. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 5-1991 MOOD C. ADAMS. Introduced by Bruce Carr who moved for its adoption. seconded by Charles Sicard: To allow Mr. and Mrs. Adams a variance of 5 feet from the required 75 feet shoreline setback. I believe Mr. Adams has explained to the satisfaction of the Board that the building of this deck was an honest error. That the relief requested is minimal. That it is not detrimental to the Ordinance and that to require strict application of the provisions of the Ordinance at this time would be unreasonable and a burden to the applicant. Duly adopted this 20th day of February. 1991. by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Kelley, Mr. Carr. Mr. Sicard, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Shea. Mrs. Eggleston MR. ADAMS-I have a question. You said I have another meeting to go to. What is that? MR. TURNER-The Planning Board. MRS. COLLARD-Ray, come in and talk with Dave and tomorrow. MR. ADAMS-Okay. I will. Thank you. (8:32 p.m.) AREA VARIANCE NO. 6-1991 TYPE II SFR-IA RICHARD WINCHELL OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE 61 MOUNTAIN VIEW LANE FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A SECOND FLOOR DECK. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) TAX MAP fI). 75-1-22 LOT SIZE: 34,800 SQ. FT. SECTION 4.020 H BRAD POLLOCK. REPRESENTING APPLICANT. PRESENT (8:32 p.m.) STAFF INPUT Notes from Lee A. York. Senior Planner. Area Variance No. 6-1991. Richard Winchell. Dated February 19. 1991. Meeting Date: February 20. 1991 "The request is to allow a deck within 13 feet of the side property 1 i ne rather than the requi red 20 feet. The appli cant has already constructed the deck off of the second story of an existing garage. The application explains that there was a deck off of the garage some years prior. which afforded access. The criteria for an area variance are as follows: 1) Are their special conditions which apply to this property and not generally to others in the neighborhood? The building has a second story entrance which is unusual. 2) Would the strict application of the provisions of this Ordinance deprive the applicant of reasonable use of the land or building? No. The applicant has reasonable use of the garage and the house. 3) Would the strict application of the dill!nsional requirements result in a specified practical difficulty? Yes. The applicant would be unable to access the upper story to the garage. 4) Would this variance be ~terially detrimental to the purposes of this Ordinance or to the property in the district? No. However. I would recommend that the applicant put railings around the deck for safety reasons. 5) Is this request the minimal relief necessary to alleviate the specific practical difficulty? Yes. The deck wi" not encroach to any greater extent than the exi sting garage." MR. TURNER-Mr. Winchell. how long have you owned the house? MR. POLLOCK-My name is Brad Pollock. I'm here. Mr. Winchell is working. MR. TURNER-All right. How long has he owned the house? MR. POLLOCK-He's lived there since. I think, the early 60's. MR. TURNER-The early 60's. MR. POLLOCK-The garage. he told me. was originally built before the house. The house is about 40 to 50 feet to the left of the garage. The garage was built originally and the people who first lived there lived in the garage before they built the house and then they moved from the garage into the house. MR. TURNER-So there's a bedroom upstairs still there? MR. POLLOCK-Yes. MR. TURNER-Nothing else? 17 MR. POLLOCK-Well. there's a bathroom and a shower. MR. TURNER-Okay. MR. KELLEY-Is there a kitchen fac l1ity? MR. POLLOCK-No. there isn't. MR. KELLEY-Okay. MR. POLLOCK-I spoke with the Town Planners and. see. there was a problem if it was two residences. MR. TURNER-Right. MR. POLLOCK-And. you know. that's not allowed because of the size of the land. So. for that reason. there won't be. there's not enough room to be. a kitchen in there and I presently just use Mr. Winchell's facilities. MR. TURNER-I guess my only other question is, that's a pretty good sized deck. Do you know the dimensions of it? MR. POLLOCK-Excuse me? MR. TURNER-Do you know the dimensions of the deck? MR. POLLOCK-It was 12 by 14, I think. It should be on the papers there. MRS. GOETZ-Are you the builder of the deck? MR. POLLOCK-I had a friend of mine who's a professional builder build the deck and I helped out with him on the entire project. MRS. GOETZ-When I was there, Mr. Winchell said. I thought he said you were the builder of the deck. MR. POLLOCK-Right. MRS. GOETZ-Because I saw your name on the applications. MR. POLLOCK-Well. I assisted him building. I guess. MRS. GOETZ-Okay. One other thing that he mentioned was that he wanted to use it for storage. MR. POLLOCK-Underneath. MRS. GOETZ-Underneath? MR. POLLOCK-Underneath the deck. yes. We just have some motorcycles that don't fit in the garage under there. MRS. GOETZ-So he wasn't talking about storing things up ~ the deck? MR. POLLOCK-No, just, he has a tractor that he leaves under there and there's two motorcycles under there. covered up. MR. KELLEY-Is there any other access to the upstairs of this building, other than by way of an outside stairway? MR. POLLOCK-There is an inside. like one of those hatch stairways that you pull down on a string. really inadequate. That really isn't the way to access that. It was something he put in a couple of years ago because when the deck. the old deck he had taken down out back because it was too old or something and never bothered to replace it just because of the cost of replacing something 11 ke that and he just had stored old furniture and stuff up there and he had put a trap door in the garage. MR. KELLEY-So, really. it needs at least a stairway or something to get up to it I suppose. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. KELLEY-It's kind of an unusual circumstance. MR. TURNER-Well. the only thing, the lines don't change. you know. it goes right straight back. 18 MR. POLLOCK-When we built the deck, I wasn't really aware that it was that close to the property line. I don't know if you people have maps or anything. but there's another property there that is only. like, 20 feet wide. It's sort of like an L-Shaped from another person's property in the back which could never be used for anything at all and there's, in fact. that guy parks an extremely ugly blue van on it. MR. TURNER-He's the guy that owns that van that's back there? MR. POLLOCK-Yes, and that's on his 20 feet of property. MRS. GOETZ-There's a letter on file concerning that van. We'll be getting to that. Where is he. the owner. I mean? MR. POLLOCK-I don't know. MRS. GOETZ-It's just a 20 foot piece of property that he owns? MR. POLLOCK-No. It's like an acre and a half in back and then there's a little L-Shaped on it that comes right up to the road there and he owns all that and he parks that van there. It has nothing to do with Mr. Winchell except he gets a Christmas gift for the eye sore every year, I guess. MR. TURNER-Where's his access to that lot. from where? MR. CARR-I think Pat just said that is it. MRS. GOETZ-Bonner Drive. MR. TURNER-Bonner? MR. POLLOCK-That may be it. MRS. GOETZ-That piece of property? MRS. YORK-Yes. I believe that's his access way onto his piece of property in the back. isn't it? MR. POLLOCK-I think so. MR. TURNER-From Bonner Drive? MRS. YORK-Yes. MR. POLLOCK-Now they've re-zoned the property behind there. I guess. and there's a road that goes back there. now. that he should be able to access his property on to, off of Bonner Drive. MR. TURNER-Okay. Anyone else have any questions? No more questions? MR. KELLEY-I don't think so, right at the moment. MR. TURNER-Okay. I'll open the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED CORRESPONDENCE Letter from One Bonner Drive. Michael Shoels and Richard DiRoma, "Dear Members of the Board. in regards to the notice of public hearing to be held February 20th. Mr. DiRoma and I are sorry we cannot attend. as we will be out of Town. Concerning the subject of Mr. Winchell's deck, neither of us have any objection to his being granted a variance for it. Being neighbors of Mr. Winchell's for two years. it has become obvious that he is a man who takes pride in his property as do we. Frankly. what surprises us is the fact that the Board has never had a hearing concerning a variance for another structure. that structure being Mr. Lawrence Fredella's rolling storage shed in the guise of a bread truck. That truck has sat on the property between Mr. Winchell's and ours unmoved for over two years and being that Queensbury is home of natural beauty. a good place to live. we believe the beauty of that truck should be put to the question of the Board. We both will be home by March 2nd if the Board cares to reply. " MRS. COLLARD-We'll reply. MRS. GOETZ-You're going to reply to that? Okay. 19 "- MR. POLLOCK-Yes. Let's get that out of there. I've got to look at that every day. I don't know why he keeps it there. I've lived there for a while and I've never seen anybody ever go near it. It's just sitting there. MR. KELLEY-Is it licensed? MR. POLLOCK-Unlicensed. MRS. GOETZ-But you can have an unlicensed vehicle. MR. KELLEY-Can you? MRS. GOETZ-I think you can. one. MR. TURNER-One. MRS. COLLARD-He's al10wed~. That's basically. I'll go look at it. and write a letter. MR. TURNER-Didn't Mr. Fredella use that for storage for his tools, maybe. and stuff when he was building the house on the corner? MR. POLLOCK-He may have. I don't know who Mr. Fredella is. MR. TURNER-I know who he is. MR. KELLEY-He built the house on the corner. MR. TURNER-He built the house right on the corner. MR. POLLOCK-Built it for the people who are complaining about it? MR. TURNER-I don't know who lives there now. but I'm just saying I remember seeing that van on that piece of property where the house is built when he built the house. MRS. GOETZ-Okay. and we have an additional letter from Joe Santolucia who says. "Sirs, Thank you for the noti ce. I vote yes for I cannot be there." MR. TURNER-Okay. Any further comment on the application? None? Okay. Motion's in order. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 6-1991 RICHARD WINCHELL. Introduced by Susan Goetz who moved for its adoption. seconded by Charles Sicard: Approval for the side line setback of. to place this deck on the rear of the existing garage. 13 feet from the side property line and this would be a relief of seven feet. The special conditions which apply to this property and not generally to others in the neighborhood are that the garage has a second story entrance which is unusual. The strict application of the dimensional requirements would result in a specified practical difficulty. This is minimal relief necessary to alleviate the specific practical difficulty and it would not be materially detrimental to the purposes of the Ordinance and it is important for safety reasons to have some access to that second story. Duly adopted this 20th day of February. 1991. by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sicard, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Kelley. Mr. Carr. Mr. Turner NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Shea, Mrs. Eggleston MR. KELLEY-Pat. on the deck that he has, what is the railing requirement? MRS. COLLARD-His Building Permit is in our Department right now and it's been discussed and he has to have. I forget the height, but he has to have a railing around it. MR. TURNER-He has to have a railing, yes. MR. KELLEY-Okay. MRS. COLLARD-He will be told, when the Building Permit is issued. MR. POLLOCK-Okay. 20 -- USE VARIANCE NO. 7-1991 TYPE II LI-lA HUGH AND KAREN SINCLAIR OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF MERRITT AND CORINTH ROAD INTERSECTION TO TRANSFORM RESIDENTIAL 1110 BEDROOM HOME INTO OFFICE SPACE CONTAINING THREE SMALL OFFICES, BATHROOM, AND KITCHEN. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) TAX MAP NO. 146-1-10 LOT SIZE: 22,500 SQ. FT. SECTION 4.020 N HUGH SINCLAIR. PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from John Goralski. Planner. Use Variance No. 7-1991. Hugh and Karen Sinclair, dated February 19. 1991. Meeting Date: February 20. 1991 "Only offices in excess of 10.000 sq. ft. are allowed in the Light Industrial zone. This lot is not large enough to allow a 10.000 sq. ft. building. Also. the existing structures on the site would not accommodate any of the allowable uses. This variance is not detrimental to the Ordinance or to other properties in the neighborhood. In fact. this use will have less impact on the neighborhood than any of the allowable uses." MRS. GOETZ-Warren County Planning Board took no action. due to a lack of quorum. MR. TURNER-All right. Mr. Sinclair. how long have you been there as a cleaning operation? MR. SINCLAIR-A year and a half. MR. TURNER-A year and a half. MR. KELLEY-I'd have a question, Mr. Sinclair. on your west property it says the owner is. is it Halcion Properties? MR. SINCLAIR-Yes. MR. KELLEY-Who is that or what is that? MR. SINCLAIR-I think it must be. I don't really know. It's just a, it's a big vacant lot there. a nice group of pine trees there. I never have met the owners. So. we don't know who it is. MR. KELLEY-I guess my question would be. have you ever tried to purchase more land for any reason. you know. to try to take. basically. your half acre lot and increase it to be an acre size which is what the zone it trying to call for? MR. SINCLAIR-No. We haven't. When we were looking at property. we tried to find a property in the Queensbury area that we felt that we, at Service Master. could improve and improve the community looks and this was the ugliest house we could actually find. MRS. GOETZ-So you sought the ugliest? MR. SINCLAIR-We thought this would be the best need to improve on the property. If we're going to improve this part of West Glens Falls. this was the house that we actually sought and at the time when we asked the professional real estate people. you know. for what we're looking for they said this is the exact thing and we had no idea that Light Industrial meant you needed 10.000 square feet. I don't know what I'd do with the other 9.000 square feet of property. We just don't need it. We operate a small office out of there. MR. TURNER-Yes. Of course. that was for the larger complexes than yours. obviously. MR. SINCLAIR-Yes. MRS. GOETZ-What date did you purchase the property? MR. TURNER-A year and a half ago. MR. SINCLAIR-We bought. actually bought in May. MR. TURNER-May of '88. MR. SINCLAIR-Yes. and we bought it under the advisement of both the real estate company who said this would be a great place to be because we see other industrial properties in the area and we thought we'd. . MR. TURNER-Is it your intention to leave the garage up? MR. SINCLAIR-Yes. MR. TURNER-Use that for storage of some of your cleaning fluids and equipment? 21 MR. SINCLAIR-Well. we have a van parked in there right now. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. SINCLAIR-No. Everything that we have, in the way of cleaning. is in our basement and it's. we're in the process of producing an MSDS Sheet for the fire department to have everything they need and although Bodenweiser's been over to see it and he's been down there. he hasn't asked for anything like that. but we just. when were over in South Glens Falls. Fortsville Road. there was a chemical striping plant that stripped furniture and we could see the damage they caused to the community by not having that information to the fire department and we voluntarily wanted to offer that to the fire department in our area. MRS. GOETZ-I had a question about the parking on the west side. towards Halcion. whatever it is. MR. SINCLAIR-Yes. MRS. GOETZ-This stone wall. okay. first of all. it was a pretty bad plowing job. That's where I pulled in and I was kind of afraid to be backing out onto Corinth Road. It wasn't defined right. MR. SINCLAIR-Yes. I think that's something we need to work on. The stone wall is there because the man who lived there. his son went to Vietnam and he started building the wall and he promised his son he'd have it done by the time his son came back from Vietnam and the sad story is his son never did come back. The wall's still there. We've been a little bit leery about tearing the wall down in afraids of hurting the family's feelings about the wall, but there is actually. we could define that a little better. Our people don't back out on Corinth Road. MRS. GOETZ-Well. who would be parked. I mean. because you're showing it as parking and that's what we need to be concerned with. MR. SINCLAIR-Our two secretaries park there and the one that parks on that cement slab that has always been there. as she backs out. she cuts her wheels in sharp enough that she's able to back out without coming onto Merritt Road. I mean. onto Corinth Road. MRS. GOETZ-But the point is. you shouldn't have to make all that kind of special thing. I have a large car. okay. so who knows what sized cars are going to be going in and out. I think this needs some improvement. here. MR. TURNER-You're not supposed to back out onto a public highway anyway. MRS. GOETZ-Well. how the hell else am I going to get out. MR. TURNER-Well. you're not. you know. that's a poor place for... MRS. GOETZ-It is pretty bad there. I mean. it's such a busy road. MR. SINCLAIR-One of the things that, we don't have customers that come to our office. We're the type of business that every customer that we have. we go to them. We don't sell anything retail there. There's ample parking in the back. where people can park and that's, if somebody was to come to our office. that's where we do direct them. to park in the back. There's plenty of room back there. MRS. GOETZ-How do you direct them, then? MR. SINCLAIR-Well. if somebody calls us and says. we have your order. Say. if Adirondack Janitorial's coming. we have them come to our back door and there's room to pull in our driveway off of the Merritt Road and room to maneuver back there. MRS. GOETZ-Right. I know there is on the other side. but do you think that should even be there. in front. that parking? MR. TURNER-Not really. Not with the traffic that's there. What time do the secretaries come to work. 8:30. 9 o'clock? MR. SINCLAIR-Yes. MR. TURNER-And they leave at, 4:30? MR. SINCLAIR-Yes. the last one leaves at 4:30. If you have any suggestion of what we can do about that. we know one of the things we could do is take down that stone wall. Like I say, we've been a little leery about taking that down and we don't want to cause any hard feelings. Mrs. Seacourt. I think her name is Seacourt, she lives up at one of the trailer parks not too far away and I'm sure as she drives by she thinks of the hard work her husband put into it and the meaning behind it. We 22 have thought about taking. there is a division in that. of just taking down one division of that wall and then there's plenty of room to pull in and for the visitors to back into the yard there and pull straight out. MR. TURNER-I was just wondering how much distance there was from the garage to the back property line. MR. SINCLAIR-There might be on that drawing. MR. TURNER-You've got one inch is 20 feet. so it looks like it's about... MR. KELLEY-Which garage are you? MR. TURNER-This garage. right here. on Merritt Road. MR. KELLEY-Do you want to go from there back? MR. TURNER-From the back of the garage to the back of the property line. There's a total of 150 feet. MR. KELLEY-It says he's got. he's 20 feet back and the garage is 22, so that would be 42 and the lot's 150. MR. TURNER-Yes, but I'm saying from the south side of the garage. MR. KELLEY-Yes. MR. TURNER-Going south, how much room is there from there to there? MR. KELLEY-Okay. MR. TURNER-Put the parking around in the back. Get it right off of Corinth Road. Could you do that? MR. SINCLAIR-Yes. We'd be willing to do that. MR. TURNER-That would be the thing to do, because you've got ample room there to do it. MR. SINCLAIR-We sure do. We've got a lot of room back there. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. KELLEY-Yes. I pulled in on Merritt Road and backed around there and. I mean, you had that plowed too. There was quite a bit of room there. MR. SINCLAIR-Yes. MR. TURNER-Just eliminate the parking in the front. MR. SINCLAIR-The other thing we had considered doing is taking down part of that wall and just having access for people to drive all the way through. If they pulled in from West Mountain Road into the driveway. from there. they could just pull all the way back behind the garage and come out onto Merritt Road and go back onto and go back onto Corinth Road. just drive back through the parking lot. MR. TURNER-Yes. but now you've got two driveways. You've got the roadway entering Corinth Road and then you've got the driveway entering Corinth Road 150 feet or so up. MR. SINCLAIR-Yes. Originally, we thought we were going to do some paving. but if there's a lot of red tape involved. I think we'll just not do any paving. MR. TURNER-Just leave it naturally. yes. MR. SINCLAIR-Just drive across the grass. MRS. GOETZ-The other thought had on the application was should it be limited. if it were to be granted. limited to this use only? MR. SINCLAIR-That's ~ only purpose. MRS. GOETZ-Well. because we have to look at it, usually a variance would go with the property. MR. TURNER-The variance would terminate when you leave the property. MR. SINCLAIR-I guess so. Our thought is. we want to make the property. we want to make it valuable to the Town of Queensbury. We want it to be a nice looking site and especially with the prospect of the growth of West Mountain. Maybe the time will come along that a doctor's office would want to go in the. but I would say let them worry about their variance at that time. 23 '- MR. TURNER-Yes. Well. that's what we're saying. MRS. GOETZ-That's what we're saying. because a different ~ of business in there might require more parking. for one thing, etc. MR. SINCLAIR-Sure. MRS. GOETZ-So. I think that would be my recommendation, if it were granted. MR. TURNER-Yes. Okay. Any other questions? MR. KELLEY-Well. I guess maybe to the Board. We've got a use variance. MR. TURNER-Yes. because it's under 10.000 square feet. MR. KELLEY-Okay. I was trying to figure out if it was, part of it looked like office building. but then I'm saying he's got cleaning supplies and so forth. So. I'm saying. well that could be maybe part of an enclosed storage for goods and materials and things of that nature. So. it kind of falls under. really a site plan review Type II. It's just that his building is under 10,000 feet. right? MR. TURNER-Right. MR. KELLEY-And he's on about half an acre lot instead of an acre lot. MR. TURNER-A half an acre lot. right. MR. KELLEY-Okay. MR. SINCLAIR-I have one question for the Board, although we haven't considered this, in our drawing here. you'll see that we have a place, here. marked "storage". MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. SINCLAIR-That is. actually. part of the building and we really haven't had the funds to do anything with that area. We had considered making that office space also. and I guess our question is, at some point, if we wanted to make that an office space and rent it out to somebody where they could use the back parking lot also. is that allowable? MR. TURNER-That's a multi use. then. MR. SINCLAIR-And what would that mean? MR. TURNER-You'd have to rent it out to somebody in the same business. MR. SINCLAIR-That's probably not likely. MR. TURNER-Let me ask you one question. in the storage of your materials. does all of it have to be stored in a heated area. or is it? MR. SINCLAIR-A lot of it does because of the nature of the chemicals. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. SINCLAIR-But we do have it divided in. you know. this is the flammable stuff here. This is the stuff over here that's not non toxic and we have it pretty well marked and so it's in particular areas. MR. TURNER-I was just wondering if there's any that you would be storing. maybe. in that storage area that wouldn't be heated. an unheated area. MR. SINCLAIR-We have some equipment out there. there aren't many chemicals in that storage area. MR. TURNER-All right. MR. SINCLAIR-Most of it's in the basement. under lock and key. MR. SICARD-What have you thought of about a sign on the building. or in front of the building? MR. SINCLAIR-We never thought a thing about this zoning thing. We thought we had this thing all covered and we were just goi ng to put up a ni ce si gn that woul d enhance the property and we haven't gotten past that point of planning the sign because when we first looked into this. this is when we came up with this, we're in the wrong. we don't have the right plan. here. so we don't have the sign organized. So. once we know that we're past this. then they're going to bring the plan over to Pat. here. and she's going to help us out. I hope. 24 --- MR. SICARD-That's nice. What have you got for flammable materials? MR. SINCLAIR-We have some solvents there. like dry cleaning solvent. There aren't tons of it. though. You're maybe talking five. ten gallons of it. MR. SICARD-That's why I asked. I'm familiar with that. What do you use the dry cleaning solvents for, for tapestries and furniture? Do you do that work too? MR. SINCLAIR-Yes. MR. TURNER-Okay. Any further questions of the applicant? None? MR. DUSEK-I just want to make a comment for the Board's consideration. I may have misunderstood, but you know. of course, that the Board could not confine the variance to this particular owner. If he were to sell this, the variance would run with the land and it would be an impermissible condition to say that when you sell it. you have to give it up. You £!!!. maybe narrow it down to a type of use. but. MR. SINCLAIR-That's what I really hope you do because it would be a tough thing to re-sell this thing and the person have to have the stipulation. well, only if we can get it passed through the zoning and our thought is we would want to protect Queensbury's needs. also. We're not going to sell it to somebody who's going to abuse the nature of this zoning either. MRS. GOETZ-But. I'm interested to hear you say that because we have put conditions on variances and I always thought we weren't supposed to, you know, as to the owner. MR. DUSEK-You can put conditions. but you can't... MR. GOETZ-But the ownership, right? MR. DUSEK-Yes. What I'm looking at. here. is a Court of Appeals case decided in 1988 where they attempted to put a condition on a real estate business saying. if any persons other than the original occupants use the property, it would go out. They would lose the variance and the Courts held that that was impermissible. MRS. GOETZ-Right. and I've always wondered about that because there have been many a time that we've limited it to a particular owner, right? MR. CARR-Yes. MRS. GOETZ-And I didn't think that we should be. MR. DUSEK-You should be focusing in on the land itself. MRS. GOETZ-Right, but we can put the use, suggested use. MR. DUSEK-Right. MRS. GOETZ-Okay. Do you understand that. what we're talking about? MR. SINCLAIR-Yes. I don't we're going to. my wife and I have no interest in selling this to anybody who's going to try to abuse the... MRS. GOETZ-But that isn't the point. It's the use. MR. SINCLAIR-Yes. MRS. GOETZ-You couldn't just sell it to. I don't know. a black smith shop. anything like that. MR. SINCLAIR-Yes. MRS. GOETZ-Any permissible use in Light Industrial. You wouldn't automatically be able to do that if we put a condition on this variance. MR. SINCLAIR-Yes. and I think we could work with that. I feel pretty much the same way you do. I don't want somebody in there that's going to not.. MRS. GOETZ-I'm not sure you understand what 1 mean. I just want you to. but do you think he understands. Bruce? It sounds to me like he thinks he could sell it to any Light Industrial use. MR. CARR-No. I don't think so. 25 --- MR. SICARD-What you're trying to say is that he can't sell it to someone that's going to change the use. MR. CARR-That's right. MR. SINCLAIR-Yes. MR. SICARD-They've either got the same use that you've got, but nothing else. MR. SINCLAIR-Well. it might be somebody with a small office with storage but they might not be in the cleaning business? MR. CARR-Well. he could sell to somebody in a Light Industrial use who is going to comply to the zoning. MR. SINCLAIR-Yes. MR. SICARD-Or Light Industrial use. MR. SINCLAIR-Yes. That's my feeling. MR. CARR-If he sells it to somebody who's going to comply with the Ordinance. he can sell it to whoever he wants. MR. TURNER-That's right. MRS. COLLARD-They would have to come in for a site plan review. MRS. GOETZ-For the parking considerations. etc. MRS. COLLARD-And the site considerations. MR. KELLEY-One of the things of the use variance says that it cannot yield a reasonable financial return if used for any of the permissible uses. I mean. I don't really have a problem with his use in that zone. Our question is the size. So I guess I would have to ask. in your quest to find a place where you could locate your business. how many places were available to you and were any of them of a one acre size, or did you have trouble finding things? MR. SINCLAIR-Actually. my wife and I made up our mind about the same time McDonalds did. to move to West Glens Falls. My position in the community has been. for a long time. that through community activities, through our church and other things. that we really do need to bui1d up the self esteem of children in West Glens Falls and this all seems strange for a cleaning business to think about that until one day I was interviewing some children at church who live in West Glens Falls. that there's nothing over there. no employment for them and when McDonalds went in and I was saying. that's the same thing we could be doing. We employ youth in that area to mow the lawn. to shovel some snow. I wish we could find one to do a decent job of plowing the snow over there. but that's our idea too and we did have a very nice place in South Glens Falls which we functioned nicely and we made the decision to move over to West Glens Falls for those basic reasons and it seems kind of strange that we"d pay $70.000 to do that, but I think in the long run it's going to be that much better for all of West Glens Falls to clean up a lot of those houses that are in pretty tough shape. and this is one of them that was very bad. MR. KELLEY-Were you shown. though. or did you really look at very many properties. or did you have trouble locating properties? MR. SINCLAIR-I looked at Knobby's bui1ding down there, which is. isn't that off of Richardson Street? I looked at that. I looked at a couple of other buildings a little bit south, on that same street. there, we just saw them. Those were way to small and they weren't any use at all. There is a, not a lot of just the ri ght ki nd of property and when the realtor came to us with thi s and say. hey thi s is already zoned just the way you need it. that made it sound like it fit right into what we needed. MR. KELLEY-I guess. Pat, my question to the Board and you people is. here's a man that I think is in the right zone for the business that he has. but he's a small business. and since he's in a small business. you know, to find a one acre lot or some of these other bigger pieces of property probably it would be cost prohibitive for him. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. KELLEY-So where does he go. and I guess I'm trying to say that if you look at it that way and you say he is in the right zone. we're trying to ask can the property yield a reasonable financial return if used for another use. well. yes. it probably could. but where is he going to go? He's got to go some place. 26 '-- MR. SICARD-Unless he rents without buying property. MR. KELLEY-I mean, you try to justify the proofs that you have to prove. here. but if you really look at them strictlY, you say there's no place for him and that isn't right. MR. TURNER-No. MR. COLLARD-Would the permitted uses in Light Industry fit on this parcel? MR. TURNER-No. MR. KELLEY-There's a couple. three. MRS. COLLARD-Well. it's a pretty small parcel for a Light Industrial zone. MR. TURNER-You've got about the same thing here as you just had with Mr. Norton. It's the same thing. MR. KELLEY-No. I'm not having a problem with it. MR. TURNER-No. I'm just saying, it's a preexi sting nonconforming lot. unless whoever came in there bought the corner lot and a piece next to it or behind it to make it an acre. MR. SINCLAIR-I think what Mr. Kelley was asking me is correct because we did try to buy Smitty's garage and there was that one property that had the big. remember that one big. ugly brick building. there. that sat there for a lot of years and they finally dozed that in? MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. SINCLAIR-I mean. $250,000 to move over to West Glens Falls is a little high. MR. TURNER-Where Contractor Sales used to be? MR. KELLEY-Right. MR. SINCLAIR-Yes, and I think the way it's written, it's going to be tough for any small business to move into some of those areas. MR. TURNER-Well. it is. yes. because you don't need that amount of land to deal with, to start with. MR. SINCLAIR-Yes. that's right. MR. TURNER-Okay. No further questions? I'll open the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED CORRESPONDENCE MRS. GOETZ-We've gone through it (Correspondence) all. MR. TURNER-Okay. Motion's in order. MRS. GOETZ-My sense of what the Board is now saying is they don't want to condition this variance. Is that correct, before I make the motion? MR. TURNER-Yes. I think so. MOTION TO APPROVE USE VARIANCE 10. 7-1991 HUGH AND KAREN SINCLAIR. Introduced by Susan Goetz who moved for its adoption. seconded by Theodore Turner: This would be granting a use variance for office and storage for the professional cleaning business Service Master to operate in Light Industrial Zone. This lot is not large enough to allow a 10.000 square foot building. This property could not be used for any other allowable Light Industrial use as it presently exists. The circumstances of the lot are unique and not due to the unreasonableness of the Ordinance. This was a preexisting residential home. There will be no adverse effect on the neighborhood character and we would like to stipulate that there is no parking to take place on the Corinth Road side of the property. There has been no neighborhood opposition and the variance will not be detrimental to the Ordinance or to the other properties in the neighborhood. 27 - Duly adopted this 20th day of February. 1991, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sicard. Mrs. Goetz. Mr. Kelley. Mr. Carr, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Shea. Mrs. Eggleston (9:20 p.m.) AREA VARIANCE NO. 8-1991 TYPE II LI-IA C.D.K. ELECTRIC, INC. OWNER: ESTATE OF GLADYS IRENE SMITH SOUTHERLY SIDE OF THE LOWER BLVD. PROPERTY, THE BRICK IIJILDING LYING WESTERLY OF CHARLIES FURNITURE STORE (FORMERLY BOULEVARD BOWL). THE BUILDING IS PRESENTLY VACANT AND HAS NO NUMBERED STREET ADDRESS. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO OPERATE AN ELECTRICAL CONTRACTING BUSINESS OUT OF THE EXISTING STRUCTURE WHICH WILL BE COMPLETELY REFURBISHED AND LANDSCAPED. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT AN ADDITION IIIICK WILL BE 26 FT. IN WIDTH AND 36 FT. IN LENGTH ON THE REAR OF THE EXISTING BUILDING. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) TAX MAP NO. 112-1-13 LOT SIZE: 50 FT. BY 133 FT. SECTION 4.0201, 9.010, 9.011 BOB STEWART. REPRESENTING APPLICANT. PRESENT (9:20 p.m.) STAFF INPUT Notes from Lee A. York, Senior Planner, Use Variance No. 8-1991. C.D.K. Electric. Inc.. Dated February 20. 1991. Meeting Date: February 20. 1991 "The application is to allow encroachment of 10 feet on the east side yard setback and 14 feet on the rear yard setback to expand a building for an electrical contracting business. The site is zoned Light Industrial and requires 30 foot side and rear yard setbacks. The applicant intends to build a 36 x 26 foot addition at the rear of the building for an enclosed parking garage. The criteria for an area variance are as follows: 1) Are there special conditions applying to this property or building and not applying to others in the area? The building was formerly a home. although it is zoned LI-IA. Modifications would have to be made to it to allow any light industrial use. 2) Would the strict application of the provisions of this Ordinance deprive the applicant of the reasonable use of the land or buildings? It would be very unlikely that a light industrial use could be found to utilize the structure as it is. 3) Would the strict application of the dimensional requirements result in a specified practical difficulty? Yes. The area is light industrial in nature and zoning. This property could not be utilized for what the zoning is without modifications. 4) Would the variance be _teriall1 detrillental to the purposes of this Ordinance, or to property in the district? No. The area is light industrial and the transition of this structure is not detrimental to the Ordinance. The encroachment to the east is no greater than the existing structure. 5) Is this request the lIininm relief necessary to alleviate the specific practical difficulty? This is a discussion for the applicant and the Board. Is it necessary for a light industrial electrical contracting business to have an 800 sq. ft. building and a 936 sq. ft. garage/enclosure? I am unable to answer this without more specific information about the operation of the business." MRS. GOETZ-The Warren County Planning Board took no action due to lack of quorum. MR. TURNER-Mr. Stewart. MR. STEWART-Thank you. Mr. Chairman, members of the Board. My name is Bob Stewart. I'm here tonight with Mr. Harrelman. the Presid,ent of the applicant. The statement's been read. Attached to the application is a map or diagram which I think clearly illustrates the nature of the problem. Knowing this Board. you have probably gone and looked at the property. but if you haven't had a chance, here's a photograph that shows the existing building. front and rear. on this small 50 foot wide lot. The building is basically a solid building and it can be redeemed. but it's been let go and it badly needs work and at the present time it's vacant. MR. TURNER-How long has it been vacant? CLIFF HARRELMAN MR. HARRELMAN-Approximately, actuallY it has heat in the building now, but it's been vacant about six months. MR. STEWART-The nature of the problem. it's a light industrial zone. that's what the planners wanted to see there. That's what Mr. Harrelman proposes to use. We have three trucks that we want to get in out of the weather and safe. The 26 ft. by 36 ft. addition is just about the size for a three car garage. Also. this is an electrical contracting company. It's not an electrical supply company. We don't store massive quantities of any product. but you do stock pile coils of wiring. conduit pipes. certain basic things and of course at the end of a jOb there's certain left over materials that are salvagable. That's worth money. You don't want to throw it away. So. we need a certain amount of stock piling of materials. although not an enormous quantity. As I mentioned in the statement. we could stock pile these things inside a chain link fence or something to make them safe and store the trucks there, but from the overall appearance of the neighborhood. it appears that an enclosed garage keeping this material in out of sight would probably be more beneficial than to just have it out in 28 --" some sort of a storage yard. When the application was first drawn, we were of the impression that Mr. Diminski. the owner of Genesee Refrigeration supplies owned the properties illlTlediately adjacent to us and Mr. Harrelman contacted him and he gave us a letter of approval that I'll also pass around. Subsequently. it came to my attention that Dick McGill actually owns the small strip to the east and around the back which feeds on the property he owns. I spoke to Dick the other day. He's aware of the application. He's received notice and he indicated to me that he has no objections to it whatsoever. Now. bringing this storage area directly back. conforming to the walls of the building does. of course. keep us fairly close. particularly to that easterly boundary. but fortunately there's a 25 foot right-of-way there. Nobody can ever build there. in any event, it has to be kept open. We have the benefit of it so we can come in and sweep into those garages and back out and leave. So. while technically it's an encroachment with that 25 feet of dead space or buffer or whatever you want to call it. it would seem to be an encroachment that really isn't going to hurt anybody and as far as I know. we have received no objections to the proposal and I can go on and on, but I'm sure you don't need that. I'll answer any questions. but I think that's essentially our position. MR. TURNER-Bob, are you going to have adequate storage where you've got the parking for. how much staging? Do you carry any staging at all? MR. HARRELMAN-Staging? MR. TURNER-Or do you rent it? MR. HARRELMAN-No. We don't own staging. MR. TURNER-You rent it. right? MR. HARRELMAN-Yes, we rent it. MR. TURNER-How about wire racks? MR. HARRELMAN-Conduit racks, wire racks? MR. TURNER- Yes. MR. HARRELMAN-The proposal is in a two story nature in that the lay of the building, can I show you a plan of what we've got here? MR. TURNER-Sure. MR. STEWART-This is a sketch of how Mr. Pepper, the architect. proposes to. let's start with this. MR. STEWART-This would be the street level, off to your right. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. HARRELMAN-And this would be the level into the garage. The storage, the material that you're talking about would be on this upper level. here, above the vehicles and this would be open in the middle in order to get up to it. MR. TURNER-To get up to it. MR. HARRELMAN-We don't have any detail of the stairwell at this time. MR. HARRELMAN-Cliff Harrelman. President. C.D.K. Electric. The storage that you were tal king about would be in this area, here. above the truck vehicles. MR. TURNER-Okay. MR. HARRELMAN-There. again. we haven't got detailed drawings of a stairwell up into this. The architect just didn't get to that yet. This is a proposal for renovation of the front of the building. It doesn't come out any farther than what the existing is. That came out about three feet. just to allow light to go back into the reception area. This would be the opposite side of the building, opposite the three bay garage. On the plot plan. you can see that I had parking designated as the three parking spaces being the garage themselves and then parking in the front. MR. SICARD-Was there a business in that building at one time? MR. TURNER-Hudson Transportation. wasn't it? MR. HARRELMAN-At one time there was. It was Hudson Transportation. back many years ago. The old Boulevard Bowling Alley was there. Now. Charlies Furniture is in there. This was. at one time. a part of that property. I believe. 29 MR. SICARD-There was a motorcycle shop or something down in that area some place. MR. HARRELMAN-Yes. The motorcycle shop is down on the corner of Quaker. MR. TURNER-Down the road. MR. SICARD-Along the road. MR. TURNER-No. the old one. The one you're thinking about is down the road. MR. STEWART-If you look at that photograph you can see originally it was a flat roofed industrial type and then someone put a pitch on it. MR. SICARD-Pitch on it. MR. TURNER-Anything else you'd like to add to that? MR. HARRELMAN-Only that the rear of the building certainly looks better than what it does in that photograph. MR. TURNER-There's a culvert right back there. is that going to cause you any problem? MR. HARRELMAN-The culvert is not on this property. MR. TURNER-It's not on that property? MR. HARRELMAN-I don't see that it's any problem to me. MR. TURNER-Okay. I just looked at it there one day and it looked like it cut across the corner of the property. MR. HARRELMAN-No. I don't believe so. I saw a pipe there and it looks like it's off to one side. It doesn't appear to be a problem to me. MR. TURNER-All right. MR. KELLEY-How many people do you employ. presently. and what are your plans? MR. HARRELMAN-At present. I employ eight electricians and one full time secretary. In the summer time that gets up to approximately 15 electricians working. The maximum I could see in the office would be two secretaries at some future time. The office space, the reason I need more expansion for the office in the summer time when the estimating takes place we have myself. a secretary. an estimator. and a superintendent all working in my present office which is around 3 to 400 square feet and that's not very much room because plans take room and calculators and the miscellaneous. So, I need more expansion for the office which would be in this 800 square foot. This basement I would just utilize for tool storage at this time. My vehicles here and then the miscellaneous materials above. I don't really need any outside storage. Right now. I rent approximately the same space as is in this addition and my vehicles are stored outdoors at present. MR. KELLEY-I guess my concern would be your plan basically. it looks like you have two parking spaces and a handicapped parking space and where are all these employees going to park? MR. HARRELMAN-Well, I drive one of the trucks. My estimator drives one of the trucks and my superi ntendent dri ves one of the trucks. So. when we're there worki ng, we woul d have our trucks here and the secretary would park in the front. We do primarily industrial commercial work. So, therefore. we don't have clients coming to the office to buy. so to speak. MRS. GOETZ-Do the electricians go right to the job. MR. HARRELMAN-Yes. they go to the job site. MR. TURNER-All this work is the mills and stuff like that. That's just his operating office. in a sense. They might have to come there in the morning to pick up some stuff or discuss something with him. whatever. but other than that. they're out on the job. They don't even go there. Any other questions? MR. KELLEY-To either one of you. I guess. This 25 foot right-of-way that runs along the east side of the property. that continues on through to, I guess this Hudson Transportation? MR. HARRELMAN-Genessee. MR. KELLEY-Genessee? Okay. Is that how they get to their property? MR. HARRELMAN-Actually, Genessee has their road out here beyond. 30 MR. KELLEY-Yes. that's right because that's all open over here. MR. HARRELMAN-Out beyond is Genessee and then this is all open and so we're not actually going to utilize the same road as Genessee. We would be on this 25 foot right-of-way. MR. STEWART-Actually, I have an old map that might illustrate this. This is the lot in question. This is the right-of-way coming in. but this is the way the road has existed for years. Now this lot has this right-of-way. You can't take it away. but these people could also use it. but they don't. They go that way. Dick McGill tells me that. in fact. another right-of-way has been built right across the rear to feed over to this area. MR. KELLEY-Well, that's. because we had. who is it that's in there? There's a great big building. MR. HARRELMAN-Genessee. MR. TURNER-Genessee. MR. KELLEY-That's the Genessee. MR. STEWART-Genessee. they're in behind and they're the ones who signed the consent form. MR. KELLEY-Yes. but isn't that the roadway that the Grangers were involved in or something? MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. KELLEY-Okay. MR. SICARD-Don't forget the Canal. MRS. GOETZ-Right. Now this Genessee. they're also located on East Sanford Street it says? MR. TURNER-They are now. MR. STEWART-Yes. but they're in the process of building a new building on this property and behind this big warehouse. MR. TURNER-It's all up. MR. HARRELMAN-It's all up. MR. TURNER-They're starting to move in. I think. MR. KELLEY-I'm just trying to get a feeling for either how much current use there is. which it doesn't sound like there is much. MR. STEWART-I don't think there's any current use. now. MR. KELLEY-But could there be future use with all of this other stuff that's going on back there? MR. STEWART-Other people do have the right to drive down the right of way and go around this corner or drive in and go around that corner. but we don't intend to block the right-of-way. None of our plans call for nor are we allowed to interfere with the right-of-way. but we can drive down it and pull our trucks into the garage and of course come back out. There's nothing we propose to do that should interfere with anything. MR. TURNER-Okay. No further questions? I'll open the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. SICARD-Cliff, are you going to have any signage of any kind there. identification signs of any kind. directional signs? MR. HARRELMAN-Just a sign on the front. the main sign. We haven't got that far with it yet. MR. CARR-Where are you located now? MR. HARRELMAN-At present? Main Street. in Hudson Falls. 31 --- MR. CARR-In Hudson Falls? MR. HARRELMAN- The offi ce and I rent space from Pinchook and Buckley. down across from where the trash plant's to be. That's where. I rent storage space there now. MR. SICARD-Yes, there it is. MRS. GOETZ-Jeff, he says that they don't need a parking variance. based on the 800 square feet. MR. TURNER-One space for every 150 square feet of gross floor area. They claim they've got 800 square feet. I'm not counting the garage. MR. KELLEY-Which one are you looking at? MR. TURNER-Office building. Commercial. let's see, clubs. MRS. COLLARD-I couldn't find parking listed for a construction company. MRS. GOETZ-But it's electrical. Do you look it up under Industrial Use? MR. TURNER-No. MRS. COLLARD-I just looked in the parking regulations for construction company and there was no listing for it. So. I assume this was one of those that the Planning Board will decide. When it's not listed. the Planning Board makes the decision. MR. TURNER-Yes. they'll take care of it. MRS. GOETZ-And do they use this schedule or some other one? MRS. COLLARD-I don't know how they. MR. TURNER-They can determine what's adequate. I mean. it's defined in the Ordinance what they've got to have anyway. MRS. GOETZ-It's not a construction company is it? MR. TURNER-No. It's an office. MRS. GOETZ-Okay. I guess it comes under office building. MRS. COLLARD-Well. I thought he was coming in as construction company with office as an accessory use. That was just what we had initially discussed. MRS. GOETZ-Yes. but do you consider yourself a construction company? MR. HARRELMAN-Electrical Contracting. MRS. GOETZ-Which is not exactly the same as construction. MR. TURNER-Well. yes. it's a construction business. MRS. COLLARD-If you look under the definition of Construction Company. it's the same thing. MR. HARRELMAN-Right. We're not a supply house. We're a construction company. MRS. GOETZ-Right. Okay. MR. TURNER-The Planning Board will take care of it anyway. Site Plan Review will take care of it. Okay. do we have any further correspondence? MRS. GOETZ-None. MR. TURNER-None? Any further discussion on it? MR. SICARD-No. MR. TURNER-None? Move it. Motion's in order. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 8-1991 C.D.K. ELECTRIC, INC.. Introduced by Jeffrey Kelley who moved for its adoption. seconded by Theodore Turner: 32 -" The applicant is asking for relief from the rear yard setback. The requirement is for 30 feet and his proposal is that his building will be 16 feet from the rear property line. So, his relief would be 14 feet. He is also seeking relief from a 30 foot side yard setback and the proposed building will be 4 feet from the side property line. So. the relief would be 26 feet. It appears that there are some unique circumstances pertaining to this piece of property. It is a preexisting 50 foot by 133.1 foot lot which had a one story residence on it. It has been re-zoned to a Light Industrial One Acre classification which puts severe limitations on the property. The side yard variance of 26 feet is a very large relief. However. along this easterly property line is a 25 foot deeded right-of-way which makes the relief easier to cope with. It appears there is no neighborhood opposition to this proposal and the proximity of this building to the right-of-way appears to have no harmful effects. These two variances do not appear to be detrimental to the Ordinance. They do not effect public facilities or services and they appear to allow the applicant reasonable use of the land. The rear yard setback does not seem to be detrimental in view of the fact that the property on the other side of this line is open space and also zoned Light Industrial One Acre and we believe that this same 25 foot right-of-way also runs along this rear property line. again, making the variance easier to cope with. Duly adopted this 20th day of February, 1991. by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Carr. Mr. Sicard, Mrs. Goetz. Mr. Kelley. Mr. Turner NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Shea. Mrs. Eggleston MR. KELLEY-This 25 foot right-of-way that goes through there turns and goes across the back. too, doesn't it? MR. STEWART-That's what Dick McGill tells me. I've never seen it on a map, but he and Dale Granger who used to own the property both tell me that the right-of-way goes directly behind the lot. as well as on the easterly side. MR. KELLEY-Well. I think that's what I remember from when Genessee was in here and the Grangers. MR. TURNER-Yes. right. I think Dale mention that that goes right across and that gives them access to the rest of the property that's in there. (9:54 p.m.) (Five minute break) MR. TURNER-All right. We'll take Use Variance No. 10-1991 Kelly and Lindsay Carte and their Area Variance No. 11-1991 ahead of 73 Quaker Road Associates. MARK SCHACHNER-We don't have clients. MR. SICARD-But you are going to hear 73 Quaker Road Associates? MR. TURNER-Yes. We're going to hear it. AREA VARIANCE NO. 11-1991 TYPE II HC-lA KELLY AND LINDSAY CARTE OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE LOT 2, ~AKER RIDGE, EAST QUAKER SERVICE ROAD FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW RETAIL FURNITURE STORE. PROJECT WILL NOT HAVE THE REQUIRED NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES. (WARREN coum PLANNING) TAX MAP 11). 110-1-2.63 LOT SIZE: 2.03 ACRES SECTION 7.027 RUSSELL SCUDDER. REPRESENTING APPLICANT. PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Lee A. York. Senior Planner. Area Variance No. 11-1991. Kelly and Lindsay Carte. dated February 20, 1991, Meeting Date: February 20. 1991 "The request is to vary Section 7.072 of the "off street parking schedule". The applicant proposes a furniture store which by the parking schedule is required to have 110 parking spaces (per square footage). The applicant proposes to have 39 parking spaces. 4 of which will be handicapped. The applicant states that reducing the parking requirements is appropri ate because a furni ture store is a sort of warehouse and requi res fewer parki ng spots. However, the application indicates that this is to be the beginning of a retail plaza and the site plan shows future undesignated retail space. Also. the Board has to consider what the long term ramifications of reduced parking would be. The application states that the proposed use is less than other commercial uses. However. should the proposed facility change uses in the future. there could be insufficient parking. Perhaps the applicant would consider leaving parking in greenspace which would not need to be paved until needed. The situation is that a 28.672 square foot commercial structure is proposed which will be the first in an undeveloped Plaza COlllTlercial zone and the first in a retail plaza. The application maximizes the allowable square footage of the building on site while requesting to reduce the amount of required parking by 65 percent. The requirements for granting an Area Variance are as follows: 1. Are there 33 special conditions applying to this property or building not applying to others in the neighborhood? No. The area is vacant land zoned Plaza Commercial. 2) Would the strict application of the provisions of this Ordinance deprive the applicant of the reasonable use of the land or buildings? Strict application of the Ordinance would require more area devoted to parking and therefore less retail space. It is difficult to determine what "reasonable use" in this case would be. 3) Would the strict application of the dimensional requirements result in a specified practical difficulty? The practical difficulty would be a reduction in the retail space allowed because of the parking requirements. 4) Would this variance be materially detrimental to the purposes of this Ordinance. or to property in the district? The application states "yes" in answer to this question. The long term goal of zoning is to provide a development plan for the Town. If less than the necessary parking is required in an area which is just being developed, long term problems could be created for the entire development. If a facility as large as this is planned then sufficient land should be acquired for its development. 5) Is this request the minimum relief necessary to alleviate the specified practical difficulty? The applicant does not cite any studies or statistics in support of the request to reduce the parking by 65 percent. The application. furthermore. states that 2.000 square feet of additional retail space may be added in the future and that there will be leasable retail space with the furniture store. If there is leasable space other than furniture sales. it should be designated on the plan so the Board could make an informed decision on the amount of parking needed." MRS. GOETZ-The Warren County Planning Board took no action due to lack of quorum. MR. TURNER-All right. Mr. Scudder. do you care to add to your remarks? MR. SCUDDER-Yes. My name is Russell Scudder. I'm appearing tonight with Lindsay Carte. one of the owners of the proposed project and I'll try to make my comments as brief as possible. First off. I guess we'd like to just point out that this is a furniture store and by it's nature. as we say in our narrative. we think that the parking required for this type of business is far less than that which your Ordinance requires. I'd like to point out a couple of things in response. I guess. to the comments from the Staff. One. straight out. is that we are. and certainly have always been. willing to use some of the green areas if necessary for some of the parking areas. We didn't show that. intentionally. It's our thought to keep as much space on this lot green as possible. We have. I think you'll see on the site plan. you'll notice our setbacks are a little bit more than what's required. The minimum requirements. This is intentional. and there's some space in the northeast corner that we could use. if necessary, for additional parking. The space reserved for the proposed expansion area in the southwesterly portion of the property can also be used for parking. now. if necessary. I think we can show. immediately, 49 spaces rather than 39 and if more is required, we could address that. MR. CARR-What about the issues brought up by the Staff as to what the retail space you're going to lease can be used for? I mean. what's the traffic flow? MR. SCUDDER-Okay. Well, we have Mr. Carte here tonight. Perhaps he can address that a little bit further. but right now they have a store over in Rutland. for example. and it's a brand new store. It's just been built. They're doing a similar design over there and they have a retail mattress store. Is that right? LI NDSA Y CARTE MR. CARTE-Right. MR. SCUDDER-A retail mattress store there. Again. it's something that's in keeping with the business. furniture. They may have bedroom furniture. that kind of thing and they'll have a mattress store. They may have a lamp shop or something like that. They may have some sundries, draperies and that kind of thing. We're not going to have any high volume type places there. It wouldn't be in keeping with their principle business. The only reason for having that additional area is to lease a little space to help defray some expense. not to take away from their principle business. MR. CARR-If the Board denied this request. have you figured out what's the maximum number of parking spaces you could get out of this parcel of property under the current Ordinance? MR. SCUDDER-As it's cited now? MR. CARR-Yes. MR. SCUDDER-I don't know that we have. I think if I could just take a look at your maps. CHARLIE SCUDDER MR. CHARLIE SCUDDER-There's a provlslon in the Earltown report that says that you could arrange with Niagara Mohawk to encroach on their right-of-way, if need be. Another thing is that we show a 20 foot wide driveway. I don't know that that's a requirement to show that and we show it with a pretty gracious curvature, here, in order to make it navigable. comfortably navigable. It's way beyond the minimum required for vehicles to get around there. So. you could put parking all along here and this is a distance of 257 feet. 34 -- MRS. GOETZ-Could you put some over here? MR. CHARLIE SCUDDER- Yes. There i sn' t any reason why we can't encroach on the greenspaces all around the perimeter. MRS. GOETZ-Because if this was some kind of store. and I went there. I wouldn't want to be parking way over here. MR. CHARLIE SCUDDER-Right. Of course. Exactly. MRS. GOETZ-So. I think you should think of that. MR. RUSSELL SCUDDER-We're showing five spots. here. right now. This area we could have some spots in here. before anything's done here, if something comes along here. we can show some more spots. What you may not have. you don't have apparently. is our. as part of the Planning Board process. we had to submit our landscaping plan. also our drainage. grading. and stormwater plan and some of these areas are retention areas for stormwater. They're small depressions. grassy areas with a depression that will retain water. but they are only a few inches deep. They're not ponds or anything like that. MR. CARR-I guess just one of the concerns I have is, a few years down the road. if the Wood Carte desires no longer to be at this location. I mean. somebody else could go in there who may need more parking spots and then we're stuck with the situation. you know, as it would be approved if you were granted your variance and also being the first building in this proposed commercial zone. you know, we're setting quite a precedent by reducing ~ percent of the required parking and I know there are special ci rcumstances because of the type of store, but I think that argument could be made for just about every business. They could come in and say. well. we've done the study and for one week. we only had eight people in a day. for the week. I mean. I think we could be getting into some real bad scenario and really make a mess out there and that's why I would like to see what his suggestion was. I know that the land is very expensive out there. So, I know that's probably out of the question is to buy a little more land. MR. RUSSELL SCUDDER-It's already subdivided. too, as you probably know. MR. CARR-Yes. MR. RUSSELL SCUDDER-The field work has been done on this lot. All the soils explorations and all that sort of thing are completed and our site designs for the building itself is already under way. Let me just go on for a minute. here. about, the Wood Carte's been in operation. now. up in the Northway Plaza for several years. Maybe some of you have frequented the store. I don't know, but you've certainly been in furniture stores. They're not high traffic places. I don't think anybody would argue that point. These people are going to the expense to set up a new store. They're business has expanded a little bit and they're hoping to do well in the future. I don't think they would undertake a project like this with the thought of leaving anytime soon. I appreciate that there's some concern about the parking, but we're showing, I think we could comfortably show another 20 to 25 spaces there. just using the area around the roadway. MR. CARR-You see. I might feel more comfortable with that because then even if they do leave in five or ten years. at least we've got, our variance isn't for 39 spaces. It would be for 60 spaces. It may not be the best design for marketing purposes, but at least then we haven't reduced what our requirements are by 65 percent. I mean. it's less of a precedent to set. MR. RUSSELL SCUDDER-I understand. We would be happy to agree to show, pencil in or put in a dotted line for parking in those other areas if you'd like to see that, the areas of the retention basins and so on and also there is. as Charlie mentioned, in the Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions for the planned unit development under Article IV. Miscellaneous Section 403. Use of Adjoining property. there is reference, here, to the Niagara Mohawk property. That's a 50 foot right-of-way. and the owner of an abutting lot may obtain rights to use the lands of Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation which are immediately adjacent to the lot to a maximum depth of the center line of the lands of the Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation. So. that would be an additional 25 foot strip along the northerly corner of the property. MRS. GOETZ-Does that mean you can use it for parking? MR. RUSSELL SCUDDER-We have not approached Niagara Mohawk. but that's my interpretation. MRS. GOETZ-But that doesn't say exactly what you could use it for. MR. TURNER-No. I can tell you. My father owned a lot on Quaker Road and he only had two cuts under their lines. There was no parking. He had a cut on one side of the lot and a cut on the side of the lot under those power lines. They're not going to let you park. I don't believe. under those power lines. 35 ----' MR. SICARD-But they real1y do, Teddy. in some places like Glen Square. they park on the parking lot in Grand Union. MR. TURNER-The Quick Lube, they let them park back there, but there was a pole in the middle of the lot. They moved that. MR. RUSSELL SCUDDER-Right. This is an attempt to show a potential for some additional. but we can. right now, park along that northerly line. MR. TURNER-They only own 50 feet? MR. RUSSELL SCUDDER-Niagara Mohawk? That's our understanding. MR. CARR-It's 50 feet wide. right? MR. TURNER-I thought they owned 100. If that's the same line that goes right on down. MR. RUSSELL SCUDDER-But I don't want you to lose my point. here. We can park to the north of our drive. right now, if necessary, and part way back along the easterly line. the northeasterly line back toward the front of the building until we get to the corner. MR. CHARLIE SCUDDER-We could show, you know, we'd bring this spot up here and then we could show a few spots this way until we get right there. MR. TURNER-Right there, you can't park there either because you've got your roadway. right there. You've got only 30 feet from the inside of the road to the property line. So. that only leaves you with five feet there. MR. RUSSELL SCUDDER-This is just what it is. It's proposed. MR. TURNER-I know. MR. RUSSELL SCUDDER-It may never. it's parking right now. MR. CHARLIE SCUDDER-It would be in the green areas. These are al1 designated green areas, but if need be. in the spaces there. It isn't as though we don't have the space, but. admittedly. this site plan is designed for a furniture store. not for something else. Also. the 65 percent figure is based on 39 spots. We're actually showing 49 spots and they're 10 by 20. MRS. YORK-Charlie. could you just use the microphone. MR. CHARLIE SCUDDER- I was saying that the Staff memo suggests that we're asking for a 65 percent reduction from the Code and I think that's based on 39 spaces that we talk about. In fact. we're showing 49 spaces, if you count the ones that we've shown in the southwesterly portion of the structure and on the northerly portion of the structure. These spaces are all 10 by 20 and I was going to ask if there's some precedent for making them 9 by 18. which is done in some places. If that were the case, we could pick up 10 percent more spaces just by changing the dimensions. I think our code. however. calls for 10 foot wide by 20 foot deep spaces. MRS. GOETZ-We need to do it by .Q!!!:. code. It would seem that it might be good to table this and come back and we'l1 come back with a complete plan of what you've just outlined that you could do. I was thinking that it might be better to table it and come back with the designated parking as you've suggested h possible. MR. TURNER-What does that do to your schedule? MR. CHARLIE SCUDDER-It hurts us. It hurts us a month. Let me. if I may, introduce Lindsay Carte and I'd like you to discuss your schedule. MR. CARTE-Well, the schedule is that. yes, I assume that by tabling it you mean you would look at it next month? MRS. GOETZ-Well. it's not like, we don't know what we would be voting on because we need to have it written down. So, it would be next month. MR. CARTE-You need to have them drawn in there? MRS. GOETZ-Right. MR. TURNER-What she's saying is identify the parking spaces on the layout so that we know where they're going to be. 36 MR. CARTE-Rather than a number? MR. TURNER-Rather than a number. MR. CARTE-Could we agree on a number this evening? MR. CARR-You'd have to make sure, I mean, I've been on your side of the table with a real parking problem once and you'd have to show where the parking spaces are. I mean, you could say. well we could come up with 75 spaces or 60 spaces or 50 spaces. and you probably can. with no problem. but I think you'd have to show us where those spaces are. I think the problem is, if we approve this, I mean, it's approved as you submitted it and I think that's a problem. MR. CARTE-So making changes on these copies doesn't mean anything? I mean, if we were to. we all know where the parking spaces would be. there. MRS. GOETZ-But if it's not written down, who's to say that that is what would happen? As far as I'm concerned. I'm not going to vote on anything if I can't see it right on the plans because I think that's required of me. MR. CARTE-I understand that. MRS. GOETZ-That's why I'm suggesting that the best thing would be to table it and come back with it all designated. MR. RUSSELL SCUDDER-Is it the sense of the Board that the 49 spaces is too few, that's about 50 percent? MRS. GOETZ-Yes. in my opinion. It's because we have to look at long range planning and this is a large building and that's a prime piece of property. MR. CARR-I don't think there's any doubt. I mean, I've bought furniture at the Wood Carte and there's no doubt that it's not a mob scene in there. MR. TURNER-I'm in total agreement with him. in that respect. but we're looking at future. MR. CARTE-Well, I guess my question to everyone here. is it the idea that the original developers must develop the land for whatever use comes later on? MR. CARR-Yes. MR. CARTE-It seems like a hardship, to me. to do it for something that may never even happen. MR. CARR-Well. see. but it's not because properly the land should be developed according to the Ordinance and then no one would ever have to have a variance, okay. So, what we try to do it take individual circumstances and give them the minimal relief necessary. but something that we can live with in the future. too, should they decide not to go through with the project into eternity. I mean. there's no doubt that the Wood Carte will not be there. I would say 20 years from now. I mean. if it's there 20 years from now. I'd be surprised. but the Town of Queensbury will be here in 20 years and that commercial development will probably be developed to the max in 20 years. So, we've got to have enough parking there to make sure it's not a mad house and that's what we're looking for. We're trying to strike a balance between your needs and what the Ordinance requires. MR. CARTE-Well. I guess the fact that there is enough available parking space. even though we don't need it right now. I mean. I think we can adequately show that. We don't need the parking spaces that you would like to see there. personally, our store doesn't need it. Now. I can see what you're tal king about. Later on. somebody may be in there that may need more spaces. The fact that the space is available seems to me to cover a possible problem in the future and still cover us right now. MR. CARR-I think you might. and I'll direct this one to Paul. just to make sure I'm not misinterpreting what he said at the beginning. but if we granted you a variance to have 39 or 49 spots there. that variance runs with the land, so that any other business that was properly within that zone would only have to utilize or maintain 39 or 49 spaces. We couldn't make it a condition of the variance that should it ever turn to something different than a furniture store. that the variance on the parking would cease. Is that a correct interpretation of what you just told us earlier? MR. DUSEK-Well, you can't condition a variance on the basis of ownership of the property. So. if he should sell. that he loses that variance. That you cannot do. MR. CARR-What about use of the property? MR. DUSEK-You can key it in. if you can find that the use of the property is such that it runs with the land. For instance. well. retail versus industrial is a good example. That's a drastic case scenario. 37 but. for instance. you might find. and the Ordinance does. that parking in industrial instances is a different rate than retail and if a particular zone allowed both. you could say. well. only if this property is for retail will this variance be in effect. So. you are limiting it to a particular type of use. What you want to do is maybe go one step further and refine it a little farther as far as the use goes and the only thing I would caution you there is that you don't overly restrict the property so that then they, by necessity. are coming back in because they can't sell it for a furniture store. MR. CARR-And even if we could do that, one of the main problems I have is policing it, if we put it conditional, because who's going to know. 10 years from now. I'd rather take care of the problem now and that's why I think Sue and I agree that I want to ~ the parking spaces. I want to see you max out your parking spaces just so that's the minimal relief necessary. even though 1Q.!!. don't need it. MR. RUSSELL SCUDDER-You'd want to take all the green space? MR. CARR-Well. there's a permeability requirement, right? MRS. COLLARD-Yes. MR. CARR-So. max out as much as you can. MR. KELLEY-Well, you've got to figure that out. You guys are the engineers, not us. MRS. GOETZ-But the burden is on the applicant to do that. For instance. an example. where the Community Workshop is, that used to be a furniture store. I mean. it's not unusual for a large furniture store to turn into something else and that's why I want to make sure that we do the right job. MR. CARTE-I understand. perfectly, what you're saying. The only point I'm trying to make is you can't grant a variance with the condition that there be land available for X number of additional parking spaces that may be needed in the future? MR. CARR-We could do that. We could say. we give you a variance for. but you have to have 75 parking spaces. but then you'd have to prove that there's 75 and that you have the required percentage of permeability and that that can be done. I mean. you're asking us just to pull a number out of the air and we aren't even sure that the number can be done on this. I mean, maybe the building is too large that it can't support more than than 60 parking spaces and maybe the Board will determine that for a building of that size. regardless of what's in there. 60 spaces isn't enough. Do you see what I'm saying? I think. you know, that's why we've got to see what you can do with the property. MRS. COLLARD-And how much permeability will be there after. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. CARTE-Right. Well. that's where the Niagara Mohawk, I would assume that being adjacent to that... MR. CARR-You can't use their property for your permeability. though. MR. CARTE-You couldn't? MR. CARR-No. because that's not your property. MR. TURNER-That's not your property. MR. CARTE-Even with a right-of-way from them. though? MRS. GOETZ-Well. if you go to the definition of Permeability. I did look that up because I wondered about it. MR. CHARLIE SCUDDER-In you memo you said something about that. You meant. we have to give up permeable space for parking. is that correct? MRS. GOETZ-It says non permeable surfaces, so I suppose if it wasn't blacktopped. MRS. YORK-What you could do is ask this Board if you can show the number they're looking for. I mean. if you come to that point. perhaps the Board would see it's way clear to allowing you to keep some of that. at this point in time, in green space until it is needed. but you can't have permeable area act as your parking. MR. SICARD-I know that in other areas that Niagara Mohawk did consent to let people park there. I have charge of one of the shopping centers and we're parking under it and they own the right-of-way. They don't lease it. They own it. and they've given us permission. I think there's some insurance involved. there. that lets them out in case the line drops on a car and electrocutes six people. You 38 - don't think of it. but it could happen. but they lease that out, but I'm sure some of the car agencies down. Della Buick and some of those are doing the same identical thing and they own that. Niagara Mohawk does not lease it. They own it. That's one of the few lines in the area that they do own. MRS. GOETZ-That interpretation. didn't we have an interpretation on parking and permeability areas. to do with the Econo Lodge? MRS. COLLARD-Yes, and gravel parking area is not considered permeable. MRS. GOETZ-Okay. Right. MR. CARTE-So. I just want to make sure I understand. So. really. the way we develop this land. we have to develop this land.... MR. CARR-For the future. MR. CARTE-Not for what we need anymore. MR. TURNER-No. MR. CARTE-We have to develop it for whatever might happen?? MR. CARR-No. See, there are guidelines in the Ordinance that give you the rules. You're asking to change the rules. So, now we're saying. well; we may allow you to change the rules, but we aren't going to allow you. I mean, my feeling is not to allow you to change the rules that much. just for your needs. I mean, that's why we're looking to the future. If you had put 110 spaces because of the 28.000 square foot building. well, the Ordinance already says that's what's needed. You've, I think. made a good case that. for your particular situation. you don't need 110 spaces. but also there's going to be needs in the future that have to be. and especially when you bring up the idea of another retail store. well that just proves as a question. That means. well. what could go in there? You could get Blockbuster Video in there and then you need tons of spaces. MR. CARTE-Right. but we're going to put in the other retail store. the same as we're doing in our place in Rutland. which is the same thing. A mattress store is very few cars, you know. three. four. five maybe. MR. CARR- Yes. but I thi nk what we're tryi ng to do is stri ke a balance between what you need now and what's going to be needed 10 to 15 years down the road. MR. CARTE-Can you give me any indication what I need to have for parking spaces? MR. TURNER-I think you've got to tell us the layout. MR. CARTE-I mean. I've already shown you what I believe I need. MR. TURNER-I know. MR. CARR-I'd like to see what you can get. maximum. here. MR. CARTE-The maximum we can get on that particular? MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. KELLEY-And still meet the permeability. MR. CARR-Right. and still meet the permeability, and I would say if you've shown that that's the maximum you can get there and it's somewhat reasonable. I mean. I think a 50 percent or more decrease in what's required is unreasonable, to me, anyway. MR. CARTE-Well, I'm only trying to eliminate me doing this, coming back and then you're saying. well that's good, but there's not enough parking spaces. I mean, you must have some idea of what. MRS. GOETZ-We're not in the business of creating your application. but I think we've given you quite a lot of guidance. Don't you? MR. CARR-Max it out, and look into the possibility of reducing it. 9 to 18 because I think. and I'm not sure. I thought the Mall did it. MR. CARTE-The Mall just. I understand they reduced those to 9 by 20. MR. CARR-Are 9 by 20? Well. even if you could get 9. I mean. that means every 10 spaces you pick up a parking space. You know. see how they did it and see if the Planning Board can help you with that idea. 39 -- MRS. GOETZ-Wasn't that Mall thing a special arrangement? MR. CARR-I don't know. MRS. GOETZ-And just because it was done doesn't mean it was the right way. MR. TURNER-That's a new zone. MR. CARR-No, but I've always thought 10 feet is a bit big for a parking space. MR. CARTE-It was a new thing, but it doesn't hardly seem fair that they can have nine and everybody el se have 10. MR. DUSEK-The Town Board is currently taking a look at that as a potential zoning change, to. and the Planning Board, I think in fact. has recommended that the Town Board go to 9 by 20 across the board. everywhere. business wise, and I think even retail. or residence. too. MRS. YORK-Everywhere. MR. CARTE-9 by 20 did you say? MR. TURNER-9 by 20. MR. DUSEK-9 by 20. MR. CARR-Now. if they come back with an application with 9 by 20 parking spots. can that be their proposal for the variance? MR. DUSEK-You could entertain that as a variance. right now. MR. TURNER-Sure. MRS. YORK-You could do a size change. MR. CARR-I would be open to that. MRS. YORK-The applicant may want to look at reducing the size of the building. too. That's a very big building. MR. KELLEY-Lindsay. let me ask you. Did you buy the property yet? MR. CARTE-Yes. We have a contract on the property. MR. KELLEY-Is it subject to variance approval? MR. CARTE-Yes. It's subject to getting all the necessary approvals from the Planning and everything and the problem. the time table that we have is where we are. we have to be out. MR. TURNER-When have you got to be out, there? MR. CARTE-We have to be out by the end of August and this is cutting it real close. as it is. MR. TURNER-Well. have you got any commitment on the building. yet? Have you any feelers out to put the building up or whatever? MR. CARTE-Well. yes. We know pretty much who's going to be. who we're going to have do the building. We haven't priced everything out yet. MR. TURNER-No. but I mean. that's what I'm getting at. Have you done all your price and everything? MR. CARTE-I mean. I've already talked to the banks. I mean. we more or less got the go ahead. but all this stuff has to be taken care of first. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. CARTE-And that's going to set us. I'm sure, past our lease. We'll never get the building up by the end of August if we get delayed another month and then possibly another month with the Planning Board. MR. KELLEY-I guess my other question would be one. okay, you've got an offer in to purchase the property pending approvals. All right. I guess there's other things that we should consider. Are there other 40 -- lots there that are bigger. that might accommodate more parking spaces. and how feasible is that. and the other alternative would be. all right. if you insist you want to be on this piece of property. what's the possibility of making the building smaller. because that reduces the number of spaces you've got to have. I mean. I think there's some other things. Maybe. you know. we're saying. you've got some questions that need to be answered. Maybe you've got some things you've got to look at. MR. CARTE-Well. all of that is certainly a possibility. The size of the building is determined by what we have in square footage right now. The only difference being this other retail proposed thing which we want for our mattress store. We have two other stores. so, I mean, the parking aspect. for us. 39 parking spaces is more than necessary. I mean. I can show that. you know. both my other stores are free standing. don't even have that much and they're ~ full. MR. TURNER-Let me ask you. you're new store in Rutland. is that on a brand new lot? MR. CARTE-Brand new lot. MR. TURNER-How big is the lot compared to this lot? MR. CARTE-A brand new store. It's about the same. I think it's about 1.7 acres and this. I think. is 2. is it? MR. CHARLIE SCUDDER-2.0. MR. TURNER-Any conditions on parking over there? MR. CARTE-Just to have enough. All we needed to show was that we had enough parking spaces for our business. is all. I understand that you're planning for down the road and it makes perfect sense. but it also seems to be a hardship on us to provide enough parking for what might or might not happen. MR. TURNER-Well. you know. it might not even be 20 years down the road. It might be five years down the road. you up and you say. well. that's the end. I'm going to sell it. MR. CARTE-Yes. but then wouldn't it be up to the next person? MR. SICARD-It's too late. MRS. GOETZ-It would be up to you trying to sell it to somebody. This might be a big hassle right now. but we might be doing you a favor. MR. KELLEY-We are. MRS. GOETZ-You know. I mean. down the line. MR. CARTE-I understand that. but I'm not sure that... MR. KELLEY-I'll give you a perfect example. The building right next to Dunkin Doughnuts. a great big commercial building. used to be Standard Furniture, whatever. but no parking and it sits there. and it sits there. and it sits there and that's what we're saying we don't want you to have. MR. CARTE-Okay. MR. KELLEY-We're trying to do this to help you. This wasn't be down on Lindsay and Kelly tonight. but that's a perfect example. Probably. nobody planned then. MR. CARTE-Okay. I guess we can go through and show how many parking spaces we can get. keeping the size of the building and the green space that we have and so forth. MRS. GOETZ-I think you better. and I. you know. we seem to be re-hashing. right now. the same things over and over and would you be willing to table the application to come back and show what we've suggested? MR. CARTE-Yes. MR. CARR-Ted. can I just ask a question? Are we having a Special Meeting next Wednesday to discuss other matters? MR. TURNER-A Workshop. MRS. GOETZ-A Workshop. MR. CARR-Okay. That's not a meeting that we could discuss this on a special? MR. CARTE-Yes. I guess that would be good. Is there any way that you could talk about this before a whole other month goes by? 41 - MR. CARR-If we have a quorum. MR. CARTE-I mean. we can show. we can redo this quickly. MR. TURNER-Well. I don't know. What's everybody's schedule? What's your schedule? MR. CARR-I mean, I can be here. I'm going to be here for the Workshop anyway. So. I mean. I'd take a half hour to discuss this. MR. TURNER-Could we get here at 7 o'clock? MRS. GOETZ-Wednesday? MR. TURNER-Next Wednesday. MR. KELLEY-Whatever. yes. MR. TURNER-We could hear it up front. first thing and then do the Workshop after that. How would that be? Would that help you out? MR. CARTE-We would appreciate that. yes. That would help us out a lot because our time table, unfortunately. is very tight. MR. TURNER-Yes, I know. You're right. We're not in the business of holding you up and we'll try to accommodate you. MR. CARTE-Sure. Thanks. MRS. COLLARD-Is this just a discussion. you won't be voting? MR. CARR-No. We will be voting. MRS. COLLARD-You'll be voting. MR. TURNER-Have you got time to advertise? MRS. YORK-We don't have to. It's a tabling. MR. TURNER-It's all tabled. Yes. MR. DUSEK-I think the applicant should understand that I think. at least what I perceive the Board is saying to the applicant that what they've shown you in parking does not seem to be acceptable. at least the general consensus here, that the applicant should be striving to produce the minimal amount of a variance that's possible. So. obviously, if you could show all the parking that would be ideal. You wouldn't have a problem. You are obviously in a position where you feel you've got to show something less. I'm just pointing out I think that what the Board is indicating is they want to see how much you can close the gap so that the interest of the community can be preserved as much as possi ble as opposed to what the applicant needs. MR. CARR-And I would like to see. I don't know if you can do it or not. but maybe two plans. one with the 9 by 20's and one with the 10 by 20's. because the 9 by 20's going to have more and we may be more open to a variance on that one foot. So, just make sure also the permeability. I don't know what it is in that zone. MR. TURNER-Do you want to entertain the Use Variance. because I think... MR. CARR-I think we can get rid of that one. MR. TURNER-I think we can get rid of that one right now. MR. CARR-Lee. made a point. Do we want to open and close the public hearing portion of this. because no one's here. MRS. YORK-Or open it and keep it open. MR. TURNER-No. I'm going to leave it open. MRS. YORK-Okay, have you opened it, Ted? MR. TURNER-No. MRS. YORK-All right. 42 MR. TURNER-Let's take the Use Variance and get that done with and then we only have to deal with the one when we come back. MRS. GOETZ-Okay. (10:57 p.m.) USE VARIANCE NO. 10-1991 TYPE II HC-lA KELLY AND LINDSAY CARTE O~NER: SAME AS ABOVE LOT 2, QUAKER RIDGE, EAST QUAKER SERVICE ROAD. FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW RETAIL FURNITURE STORE WITH LEASED RETAIL SPACE (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) TAX MAP NO. 110-1-2.63 LOT SIZE: 2.03 ACRES SECTION 4.020-K RUSSELL SCUDDER. REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT (10:57 p.m.) STAFF INPUT Notes from Lee A. York, Senior Planner. Use Variance No. 10-1991. Kelly and Lindsay Carte. dated 20. 1991. Meeting Date: February 20, 1991 "The request is to place a furniture store in a HC-IA zone. The HC-IA zone does not list furniture store as a permitted or Type II use. The application appears to be one which inadvertently the Ordinance discriminates against. The proposed site is part of the Quaker Ridge PUD. The PUD map for that area designates the property Plaza Commercial. The application states that the proposed use of the property will be to "construct a new retail furniture store with leased retail space. i.e. a retail plaza". Shopping MalllPlaza is a permitted use. Since the emphasis was on furniture sales which was unlisted, the Zoning Administrator determined that a Use Variance was necessary. The Board may want to consider making an interpretation that "Retail Business". definition 241 of the Zoning Ordinance, stated below. is part of Plaza Commercial. 241. "Retail Business" means the offering. for a fee, of goods and merchandise, excluding restaurants. to the general public and where the providing of services is clearly incidental to the sale of such goods or merchandise. The definition of Plaza Commercial is: Plaza Commercial Zones (PC-IA) are those areas where intense commercial development exists or is anticipated. Access points are defined in an effort to create coherent and safe traffic patterns. efficient loading and unloading aesthetically pleasing shopping environment and safe pedestrian circulation. Definition 58 of the Zoning Ordinance is commercial use. 58. "Commercial Use" means any use involving the sale or rental or distribution of goods, services or commodities. either retail or wholesale. or the provision of recreation facilities or activities for a fee. The term shall include but not be limited to the following: drive-in restaurant. fast food operation; filling station; public garage; restaurant; retail store; retail stand and tavern. The commercial use definition defines "Retail Sales" which is anticipated in the Plaza Commercial zone. It would seem that retail businesses by their very definition should be a part of commercial zone. A furniture store and other specialty stores not listed could then go into that zone without a variance." MRS. GOETZ-The Warren County Planning Board took no action due to lack of quorum. This is just from the Beautification Committee. I guess that you'll be going there later. MR. TURNER-They'll be going there. MR. SCUDDER-We have a date for the Beautification Committee. MR. TURNER-Do you have any further comments with respect to that? MR. SCUDDER-I think it's pretty straight forward. I'll entertain questions. MR. CARR-Well. I think we should. I mean, if the motion may be not to grant the Use Variance, but maybe make a motion to interpret Retail Sales as inclusive of furniture stores. they he wouldn't need the variance. right? MR. TURNER-They wouldn't need the variance. MR. CARR-I mean. it just seems logical to me that Retail Sales. I mean a furniture store is clearly retail sales. MRS. YORK-The problem is. Retail Sales are not listed in Highway Commercial. MR. SCUDDER-Nor Plaza Commercial. 43 MRS. YORK-Or Plaza Commercial. That's the problem here. MR. SCUDDER-It's just one of those things. MRS. GOETZ-Will that be corrected later? MR. TURNER-Yes. MRS. YORK-We would hope so. MR. DUSEK-It's in the zoning revisions that were sent to you. MR. TURNER-Yes, it's in those notes. MRS. GOETZ-Good. MR. CARR-Where are Retail Sales located? MRS. COLLARD-CR-15. MR. TURNER-CR-15. It just never got. you know, bounced in there for some reason. MRS. YORK-So. it was, basically. you should have an all inclusive term like Retail Businesses. which is defined in the Ordinance in Commercial zones, rather than trying to specifically list everything. MRS. COLLARD-We tried everything to try to get Kelly without a variance. I mean, believe me. we tried every which way. MR. CARR-So. what can we interpret to make a furniture store in this Highway Commercial and Plaza Commercial? MRS. YORK-Basically, that Retail Sales are an allowable use in Highway Commercial and Plaza Commercial zones. by virtue of the fact that they're a commercial enterprise because a furniture store then falls under Retail Sales. MR. TURNER-Yes. MRS. YORK-It would be considered Retail Sales. MR. DUSEK-The only thing I would point out to the Board is that I think if you're saying that. I think you're really saying. then. that the list that is shown in Plaza Commercial is meant to be demonstrative only and not specific. MRS. COLLARD-This is Highway Commercial and not Plaza Commercial. MR. DUSEK-Right, Highway Commercial. but that the list is demonstrative only. because clearly it does not say Retail Business there and you could very easily interpret it that way if you wanted to. MR. CARR-But what does it. does it list specific Retail? MR. DUSEK-It lists specific types of Retail Businesses. MRS. YORK-Bruce. do you want to take my Ordinance. MR. CARR-No. MR. TURNER-The other thing, couldn't you just say the other thing. that a furniture business is a retail use and therefore it's our interpretation that it is allowed in a Highway Commercial zone. MR. DUSEK-You could do that, but I'm just pointing out that if you do. I think you're opening the door that in the future. anything that can be deemed a retail use will then be allowed in that zone. MR. CARR-Well. it should be. MR. TURNER-Not if you say furniture store. MRS. YORK-That's my feeling. MR. TURNER-If you say is a retail use and therefore it is allowed in the Highway Commercial zone. MR. DUSEK-Retail uses aren't allowed in the Highway Commercial zone, that's the problem. So. if you say a furniture store!! a retail use. that doesn't help. 44 MR. CARR-We have to say. retail use is allowed within the Highway Commercial and then furniture store just automatically falls under that. MR. DUSEK-Right. MR. TURNER-All right. MR. CARR-I would agree. I mean, that just makes sense. that a retail store is in Highway Commercial and Plaza Commercial. MR. TURNER-Yes. Okay. All right. MR. CARR-Sue. doesn't that make sense? MRS. GOETZ-Yes. It makes a lot of sense. MR. TURNER-Okay. Let's move it, move the motion. MOTION ON USE VARIANCE NO. 10-1991 KELLY AND LINDSAY CARTE THAT IT IS THE INTERPRETATION OF THIS BOARD THAT RETAIL BUSINESS IS ALLOWED IN A HIGHWAY COIlERCIAL AND PLAZA COMMERCIAL ZONE BY VIRTUE OF THE COMMERCIAL USES OF THOSE lONES. Introduced by Bruce Carr who moved for its adopti on, seconded by Charles Sicard: Duly adopted this 20th day of February. 1991. by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sicard. Mrs. Goetz. Mr. Kelley. Mr. Carr. Mr. Turner NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Shea. Mrs. Eggleston MR. TURNER-There's the answer to that. Now. bring us back the parking information and we can get the rest of it. MR. SCUDDER-Okay. I have just a couple of quick questions. Should we submit our plans to you before the meeting or can I bring them with me? MR. TURNER-If you could submit them before. we'd feel more comfortable. If you can't. bring them with you. MR. SCUDDER-Okay. All right. This is really a question for the Planning Department I guess. Will this procedure effect our site plan review, time table? MR. CARR-Well, when is your site plan? MR. TURNER-No. You're on in March. MR. SCUDDER-Okay. It's Wednesday at 7? MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. SCUDDER-Thank you very much. MR. TURNER-Thank you. (10: 58 p.m.) (END OF SECOND DISK) 45 -" SIGN VARIANCE NO. 9-1991 TYPE II HC-IA PC-IA 73 ~AKER ROAD ASSOCIATES OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF QUAKER ROAD AND GLENWOOD AVENUE, QUAKER PLAZA THE APPLICANT'S CORNER TENANT DESIRES TO PLACE 3 WALL SIGNS ON AWNINGS, TWO IN THE FRONT (QUAKER ROAD) AND ONE ON THE GLENWOOD AVENUE SIDE OF THE BUILDING. IN ADDITION, THE TENANT DESIRES TO PLACE ONE FREESTANDING SIGN ON THE GLENWOOD AVENUE SIDE OF THE PLAZA. THE APPLICANT PROPOSES TRADING ONE OF THE 11«1 PERMITTED PLAZA SIGNS TO ITS TENANT FOR THE TENANT'S OWN USE. THE APPLICANT WOULD THEREFORE HAVE ONLY ONE FREESTANDING PLAZA SIGN. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) TAX MAP NO. 104-1-4.4, 4.31 LOT SIZE: 4.40 ACRES SECTION: SIGN ORDINANCE MARK SCHACHNER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MRS. GOETZ-The Warren County Planning Board didn't act on it do to lack of quorum. STAFF INPUT Notes from John Goralski. Planner. Sign Variance No. 9-1991, 73 Quaker Road Associates. dated February 19. 1991. Meeting Date: February 20. 1991 "Under the Queensbury Sign Ordinance the applicant is allowed two freestanding signs denoting the name of the plaza, and one wall sign of 100 sq. ft. per tenant. The applicant wishes to replace one of the freestanding signs with a freestanding sign denoting the name of an individual tenant. It appears that this sign will meet all other requirements of the Sign Ordinance. The applicant also wishes to erect three wall signs of 62.5 sq. ft. for the same tenant. It does not appear that this plaza is different from other plazas in the area. (Queensbury Factory Outlet. Northway Plaza). The application states that there is a limited visibility from Quaker Road. It would seem this problem was addressed with other variances and at site plan review. If the Board finds that there are special circumstances present, you should consider whether it is necessary for one tenant to have four signs. An alternative would be simply replacing one of the plaza signs with the tenant sign. In this way there would be no additional signage allowed." MR. TURNER-Okay. Mr. Schachner. MR. SCHACHNER-Thank you. Mr. Turner. For you record. I'm Mark Schachner from the Glens Falls law firm of Miller, Mannix, and Pratt and Sandy Allen, another attorney from our firm. is with me tonight and we're here representing 73 Quaker Road Associates which is the owner and landlord of the Plaza that we're talking about. I want to emphasize that that's who our client is for a number of reasons. That's who the applicant is, here. before you tonight. It's not Blockbuster Video. Although Blockbuster Video is obviously the tenant with the concern about these particular signs. but we're representing the landlord. the owner of the premises. 73 Quaker Road Associates, and they feel that it's very. very critical that Blockbuster Video obtain some type of sign variance in order to allow the extra recognition that Blockbuster Video feels is necessary, but that. in our opinion. more importantly 73 Quaker Road Associates feels is critical for the viability of this plaza. Obviously, the Plaza was designed and you can look at the design documents. even the ones you have in front of you, it was not really anticipated that a tenant as large as 7.000 square feet would be renting in this Plaza. The arches that appear in the plaza design. and I've got a couple of plans here that I think are exactly what you have, that show the various arches. were structured with the idea that. in all li kelihood. smaller tenants would be in this strip plaza which is what's common for plazas of this size. In Blockbuster's case. along comes this nationally well known anchor type tenant, extremely credit worthy and a very stable economic tenant that our clients wish very much to have in their shopping center and that we assume the Town of Queensbury would like to see, at least to the extent of it being a large. stable tenant which will help assure the financial viability of the Center. and the reason that 73 Quaker Road Associates has asked us to show up here tonight and try to get the sign variance on behalf of Blockbuster is just that. the long term viability of this Plaza. I guess I wanted to emphasize. before we get into the merits of the proposal. that we understand and we've told our clients. quite frankly. that getting sign variances in the Town of Queensbury is not an easy task. We understand full well the reasons for the Sign Ordinance provisions and I've gone back, almost to 1976, when the Sign Ordinance was enacted and a ten year grandfathering period and I stood in front of you a number of times during the deluge of 1986 when however many hundreds of Sign Ordinances or Sign Variance requests came before you. Now we understand that sign variances are difficult matters. They're difficult for a lot of different reasons. not the least of which is. you can't really quantify the negative impact of denying a sign variance. When you're here for an area variance, for example. on square footage of a particular business, you can sometimes show hard dollars and cents proof of. here's our carrying costs, we need this amount of square foot at this dollar rental rate in order to achieve a reasonable return. We can't stand before you and say in specific quantifiable numbers. here's how much business will be lost at Blockbuster Video if they don't have the signs that they need, in their opinion and in our opinion, to get sufficient recognition. Another reason. I want to point out, that we represent 73 Quaker Road Associates is that we know that Blockbuster Video appeared before you fol ks at the end of 1989. in an effort to get a sign variance at a different location and we know that that was unanimously denied. We submit that there are very unique circumstances about this application at this location and we just hope that you will view them. these circumstances, with an open mind and we'll try not to drag this out any longer than it has to be dragged out. but we hope that if you view them with an open mind, you'll agree that the applicant is entitled to at least a portion of what it seeks. Running through the areas. or the factors that we think are unique circumstances. I assume you're all familiar with where in the plaza Blockbuster is proposing to rent. MR. TURNER-Yes. 46 MR. SCHACHNER-Okay. Just in case we're not. MR. TURNER-Right here. the back one. Bruce. MR. CARR-Which one? MR. TURNER-Back here. MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. This wing of the Plaza is approximately 13.000 square feet. actually there is your number. 13.300 square feet. Blockbuster Video is the proposed tenant for the 7,000 square feet of this wing that are in the corner, in other words. starting at this border. MR. CARR-Okay. Right here? MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. SCHACHNER-Correct. Approximately 60 percent of this building. if you will. Okay. that's clear to everybody. now? I mean. the other Board members. I take it. already knew which part. The unique circumstances that we submit exist include several. One of them is the substantial setback from Quaker Road. The proposed tenant, Blockbuster Video. will be approximately 180 feet back from Quaker Road. There are a lot of reasons for that. including the widening of Quaker Road, including sewer easements and all sorts of other easements that we've discussed with you before that we're certainly not here to re-hash or belabor, but the result of all this is that this particular store is approximately 180 feet back from Quaker Road, which we submit is a lot further than many or most businesses along Quaker Road and will lead, in part to a sign recognition. sign visibility problem if they only have the one wall sign that conforms with the Zoning Ordinance. In addition to the fact that they're substantially setback. as I've indicated, there are also. obviously. nearby businesses. not only up and down Quaker Road. but real nearby, including adjacent businesses. that are much closer to Quaker Road. which will obviously cause an impairment of visibility of the Blockbuster Video sign or signs. As we mentioned a moment ago. Blockbuster has proposed to rent 7.000 square feet here in a plaza that. to be honest. didn't anticipate renting to tenants that large. We're thrilled. They're thrilled. Because of that. Blockbuster is taking up the space that would normally be expected to be occupied by perhaps as many as seven tenants. I mean, arguably more. but seven tenants would be a reasonable expectation. at a thousand square feet per store and obviously if you had that type of strip center occupancy. and we're just making up the number seven. Obviously, it could be more. it could be less. but if you had that type of multiple tenant occupancy in this 7.000 square foot portion of the building. arguably, you would presumably have seven. at least seven. wall signs there saying. you know. Joe's Pizza and the other six tenants. What we have here is a situation with one large. stable, financially secure tenant and we're hoping that we will be able to come to a variance result that will enable it to come to this Plaza so that it has the sign recognition it feels it needs. In addition to being a very. very large. and larger than expected tenant. Blockbuster Video is also a corner tenant. Obviously. that portion of the building fronts. if you will. on both Quaker Road. although it's kind of far away, but faces Quaker Road and it also faces onto Glenwood. if as the application mentions. if this were a separate building completely. the corner building, or the tenant of a corner building would be allowed wall signs on both sides of its building. Again, we submit that because of the size of the tenant and the fact that it's located on the corner, fairness would dictate that it be allowed to have signs on both sides of the building. I guess in terms of the specific requests, let me just add one thing. There is an archway. right in the middle of the 7.000 square feet. That's not the only archway in the Plaza. The Plaza has 10 or 12 archways. The site plan that's been approved by the Planning Board. they liked the fact that it had these multiple archways. The way that this shapes out, this 7,000 square feet that hopefully will be occupied by Blockbuster has an archway right in the middle and it's our submission that it's very, very important that the signage. that at least two wall signs be allowed on what I'm going to call the front of the building. this is the facing Quaker Road side. so that there's one sign on each side of the archway. So that it's absolutely clear that Blockbuster Video is occupying the significant large space on both sides of the archway. not just on one side of the archway. I think just from the visual and aesthetic point of view, everyone we've asked has agreed that it would just look very unbalanced to have the signage only on one side of the archway. The best diagram that depicts that is one of the ones you have in your application materials. It's this one that shows the arch and shows the si gnage on both si des of the arch. In terms of di scussing the specifi c vari ances requested. I guess it seems to us we could start with the freestanding sign request. We would hope that that's viewed by the Zoning Board as sort of a wash. in that the Plaza is entitled to the freestanding and having it say Quaker Plaza. It's so important to this Plaza that a tenant like Blockbuster Video sign up that the owners and landlords have proposed just swapping one of the freestanding signs to which they're entitled with the tenant and allowing that to say Blockbuster Video and I guess I'd like to try to get that one out of the way first. We hope that the Zoning Board has no problem with that. in that it's not an increase over what's allowed in square footage or height or location or anything else. It's just a simple wash and we hope the Zoning Board feels that way about it and obviously. please interrupt at anytime with questions or comments. MR. CARR-Okay. If we're talking about only the freestanding sign. MR. SCHACHNER-For the moment, yes. 47 MR. CARR-Okay. My personal feeling on that is that I have no problem with that. provided it's conditioned that should the applicant, in this case. ever come back and say. no. we want that second sign. the Blockbuster Video sign would have to come down. MR. SCHACHNER-Right. and the applicant would concede to that. MR. CARR-Yes. but I don't know how the others feel. MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. understood, but just for the record, the applicant would absolutely agree and consent to that provision that Mr. Carr mentions, so that this is not some back door way to try to get more freestanding signs for the Plaza. The applicant has stated both in the application and as its authorized representative, I will state again. that it is proposing, on the freestanding sign. a simple wash. a simple substitute. The freestanding sign. one of the two to which it's entitled, will not say Quaker Plaza. It will say, Blockbuster Video, conforming in every respect. size. height, whatever else there is. MR. KELLEY-Where is that going to go. Mark? MR. SCHACHNER-That's proposed to go. and that's in your application materials. essentially it's kind of setback off the corner of Quaker and Glenwood. MRS. GOETZ-It's on the diagram. MR. SCHACHNER-Yes, it's on your diagram. MR. CARR-It's right on the corner. Jeff, of the intersection of the roads. MR. SCHACHNER-The proposed Blockbuster sign. the line goes to there. so it's right there. That's the only freestanding sign we're talking about here tonight. MR. KELLEY-The Plaza sign is here. MR. SCHACHNER-Right. correct. MRS. GOETZ-I have a question. As I remember it. when Blockbuster was before us before, they kept on emphasizing that they needed a sign in the window. They liked to go in the corner of a plaza so that there's a window on the side and then windows in front. We're you involved with it at that point? MR. SCHACHNER-We weren't involved at all. What I have done is I have read, very closely. the minutes of the previous two meetings. which were on December 20th and 27th. 1989 and I really think the thing I want to stress here as much or more than anything else is. this is a different application. There are different entities involved. They also kept pounding away on you. frankly. that. we have to have thi s because our franchi se agreement says it and. you know, thi s is the way it's got to be. Well. I wouldn't characterize it that way. Mrs. Goetz. but we're not standing here telling you that that's the sole basis for our variance request. We submit that this application has very unique circumstances as to the location of the building itself, in general. and as to the specific location of the rental space that's proposed for occupancy by Blockbuster. MRS. GOETZ-Okay, but back to that question, because after they, I guess it was Mr. Lapper. MR. CARR-Right. MRS. GOETZ-But after that application came before us. wherever I went in the country I kept looking at Blockbuster Videos and they all seemed to have that side window, that they always had a sign in it. So. I want to make sure, is this going to be something that's going to happen after this application is before us? MR. SCHACHNER-As far as I know, and we're not representing Blockbuster. We're representing the landlord. but what's been represented to us is that these are the the signs and the only signs that Blockbuster see ks . MR. CARR-Sue. what were you saying. they put a sign ~ the window? MRS. GOETZ-Yes. Remember they talked about that? They said they have to have a window on the side of the building and that's why they go for the corner. MR. CARR-Well. is that considered a sign, under our Ordinance? MR. TURNER- Yes. MRS. COLLARD-Well. you don't have to have a permit for it and you're only allowed 25 percent coverage on that sign. 48 "~ -" MR. TURNER-Twenty five percent. yes. MRS. GOETZ-But remember that was talked about a lot at that time? MRS. COLLARD-I honestly don't recall. Sue. MR. SCHACHNER-If I could jump in. I read, just this week, I thought real closely, the minutes of both the December 20th and 27th meetings. Those resulted in a denial and I don't remember !!!l. mention of that at all. Now maybe they've been here some other time. MR. TURNER-No. MR. CARR-Wasn't he here that meeting when we went until three o'clock in the morning. and if that was the case. that was. my son was born on the 13th of January and that was that Wednesday following that Sa tu rday . MR. SCHACHNER-All right. So I'm not aware of what transpired at that meeting. MRS. GOETZ-I just remember that and even if it was three in the morning. MR. CARR-He was sitting here. It was real late. MRS. GOETZ-It was late. but my concern about this is I don't want to hear about them coming in later. and the burden is on you, as the applicant. to know it. MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. As far as we're concerned, if you want to impose that as a condition. you know, these are the only signs they're allowed. okay by us. MR. CARR-Sue. before we get back to the wall signs and that stuff. what do you feel about the freestanding? Do you have any a problem with it? MRS. GOETZ-I don't have a problem with the freestanding. with the conditions that you mentioned. do have a big problem with the wall signs. MR. CARR-Yes. Well, we're going to get to that. MR. TURNER-I guess. well. the other aspect in reference to the freestanding sign. what do we do with the rest of the tenants? MR. SCHACHNER-The landlord and owners position is that this tenant is so important that they're willing to give them one of their freestanding signs. MR. TURNER-You're going to have 18.500 square feet left of rental space, that's not including the bank. MR. SCHACHNER-Right. MR. TURNER-Just in the retail area. MR. SCHACHNER-Right. and just so you know that 63 or 4 percent of it is actually already, you know, leases are signed. O'Toole's is the restaurant. I think we told you that before, but if we didn't. MR. TURNER-No. MR. SCHACHNER-Okay. That's the case now. MR. CARR-Is that the one in this corner? MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. Exactly. The other side. That's the other anchor tenant. if you will. the other large one. and they all understand that they are not getting a freestanding sign. Now. could another tenant come in and request it? I suppose they could. Our advice to them would be. you aren't going to get it and, again. if you want to condition a granting of a variance on these are the only freestanding signs we're going to allow. we don't have any problem with that. MR. CARR-Well. I mean. I think the thing is. another tenant comes in. there's only one other freestanding sign left. so then it's up to the Plaza to come to us and say, we'll give up our last freestanding sign to these guys and we have to decide whether we want to do that. MR. SCHACHNER-Right, or. again. in theory. I mean. or a new application could be made by someone else for more freestanding signs. What I'm standing here saying is if you want to add a condition that you don't get them. that's okay with us. Obviously. we all know you can always come back and apply anyway. because, you know, even for a modification of the condition. but what we're standing here saying is that these are the only signs Blockbuster wants. or more accurately that the landlord wants on behalf of Blockbuster. 49 MR. TURNER-That as the applicant and owner will allow them to have. Is that correct? MR. SCHACHNER-That's correct. and what I was hoping to do was first get the freestanding one out of the way and I kind of expected that we would then get to the wall mounted ones. MRS. GOETZ-Well. we're not voting on it separately. MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. I wasn't suggesting that. It's up to you. MRS. GOETZ-Okay. Have we said everything we're going to say about the freestanding? MR. TURNER-No. not yet. Let me look at something. Freestanding. 50 square feet. 18 feet high. MR. KELLEY-Mark. the Quaker Plaza sign. Sign No.5. MR. SCHACHNER-Are you talking about the main access sign? MR. KELLEY-Yes. Okay. it says that it's 10 feet by 3 feet? So. it would be 30 square feet? MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. KELLEY-Ten by three. right, that's 18 feet up in the air. MR. TURNER-And you're talking 50 on the other one. MR. SCHACHNER-They're 50 square feet. You're tal king about the freestanding one. I'm quite sure it's 50 square feet. MRS. GOETZ-Yes. but is that wrong then? This must be wrong. MR. SCHACHNER-It may be. You also have in your application materials a diagram which I think says right on it, 50 square feet. SANDY ALLEN MS. ALLEN-Well. he was asking about the Plaza sign. not the Blockbuster sign. MRS. GOETZ-Right. MS. ALLEN-And that is 30 square feet. MRS. GOETZ-That is 30 square feet? MS. ALLEN-Correct. MR. KELLEY-O kay. and the other free standi ng si gn, whi ch woul d be the Blockbuster Freestandi ng. that's a 50 square foot? MR. SCHACHNER-Correct. MR. KELLEY-And I guess they're setting the tone. then. that all the rest of the signs in the Plaza will be blue and yellow. since the idea was that in plazas and malls, they all be of conforming color and things. MR. GOETZ-But we had that changed, and it was after Mr. Lapper was here. MR. SCHACHNER-Right. Our understanding of the current state of that situation is that the Sign Ordinance no longer requires common color scheme. MR. TURNER-Yes. MRS. COLLARD-That's correct. It does not. MR. TURNER-That was the problem they had with the other one. MR. KELLEY-Right. MR. TURNER-They insisted on being yellow. and everybody else was a different color. MR. KELLEY-Right. MR. SCHACHNER-Right. and it didn't fit in with red. white. and blue. That I read a lot about. bU MR. KELLEY-They were all red. white, and blue or something like that. MR. TURNER-Right. MR. SCHACHNER-For what it's worth. all the Plaza awnings, all the store awnings are ~ to be blue and there is an intended them. here, and that was even discussed a little bit at the Planning Board. but nobody imposed any condition or requirement. MR. CARR-Yes. I thought O'Toole's was green. MR. TURNER-And maybe the other color that would go with blue would be white. MRS. GOETZ-But I don't think you can say anything about the colors. MR. TURNER-No. MR. CARR-We can't. MR. TURNER-Okay. Go ahead. lead on. Mark. MR. SCHACHNER-Okay. Moving to the wall signs. There are three wall signs we've proposed. The two on the. what I call the front which is the Quaker Road side. are deemed by the applicant to be absolutely critical, critical for Blockbusters occupancy. That's the Quaker Road side. That's the ones that I've described with this diagram that are on either side of the arch. We would submit a few points on those. I guess, just to reiterate briefly that. if this were separate tenants. obviously. there would be separate signs in exactly those locations and. in fact. each of the two signs is only 62 and a half square feet which. and they would be entitled I think if they were separate businesses. to up to 100 square feet. MR. TURNER-A hundred square feet. MR. SCHACHNER-You could also look at this. if you wanted. as one sign that's split by the arch and if you do it that way. again. then it's one sign for the whole business that says Blockbuster Video twice. We don't really care how you look at it and we're not trying to be facetious here. The point we're trying to make is that the applicant deems it absolutely critical to have what I call the front. which are the Quaker Road two wall mounted signs. for Blockbuster Video to come to this location and to viably occupy it and to stay there. There's not a lot to add there. As I said at the outset. it's not like a situation where you can stand here and submit affidavits that state exactly how many dollars less will be earned if they only are allowed one sign, but the applicant and Blockbuster feel very, very strongly that it would be a real architectural imbalance to have only one half of that. if you will, only one side of the arch have a sign and the other side blank. It's the applicant's contention that. from a distance, for example. from Quaker Road. those premises will look vacant without a sign.or at the very least will not be associated with Blockbuster Video. Again, the arch comes right in the middle and we would submit that it would be fair and reasonable to allow signage on both sides of the arch. Those are the two wall signs that are considered absolutely critical by the applicant and by Blockbuster. MR. CARR-Mark, can I ask you. on these arches here. are the store fronts, here. that are covered by these, the only store fronts that are covered. under their lease. or do we go one more arch. and does their store continue on the other side of that arch? Do you know what I'm saying? MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. If I understand your question correctly, the leased premises for Blockbuster are encompassed by the borders here that are approximately where the signs are and they don't extend into a second arch. MR. CARR-Okay. We see another arch, here. and I think there's another one down. or whatever. MR. SCHACHNER-Next premises. MR. CARR-But they stop at that arch. MR. SCHACHNER-That's our understanding. correct. MRS. GOETZ-Okay. I'm against the two wall signs because I really do feel that this is a self imposed hardship. This property's had two variances granted to it already on setbacks and they knew what they were getting. MR. SCHACHNER-I don't dispute that at all. I think it's sort of apples and oranges. The other variances. obviously. have nothing to do with signage. The result, I mean. it seems to us that you would arguably be penalizing the landlord for renting out or trying to rent out to such a large tenant if you deny the sign variance. I assume nobody would contest the fact that if even they rented to two tenants 51 -../ and each occupied one half of this space. obviously, they'd be entitled to two signs. So from the standpoint of the goals and values that. in our opinion, the Sign Ordinance really seeks to protect. it seems that they will not suffer or be damaged at all by having two separate signs. each saying Blockbuster Video. Keep in mind, in square footage, these are very reasonably sized so that, in their aggregate, they're not much over the 100 square foot that either one would be allowed or that anyone would be allowed and, for example. I mean. they're so close that we might consider backing down slightly on the square footage there to make them even more conforming. Perhaps we could even back down to 50 each and then make the total 100 and then you would have no more square footage in two signs then would be allowed in one sign. MRS. GOETZ-How about putting Blockbuster on one side of the arch and Video on the other, 50 each? MR. TURNER-It wouldn't balance out. MR. SCHACHNER-Well. what's the difference what they say? MRS. GOETZ-Because, first of all. I really believe that what they're going to put visible in the windows, you're going to know it's a video store. even though it won't be considered a window sign, the displays. etc.. that go in thèse places. You ~ going to know that that whole thing is the video store, and the visibility argument I just don't buy. MR. SCHACHNER-Well. can we follow up on your suggestion. Mrs. Goetz? MRS. GOETZ- Yes. MR. SCHACHNER-Let's say, I mean. I have the authority to say, here. right now, that we would be willing, we would be pleased. not just willing. We would be pleased to accept a variance that allowed 50 square foot signs on each side of the arch. It's very important to them what they say and I don't really think it seems appropriate to us to suggest that they have to limit the number of words. It seems to us that the goals that are furthered by the Sign Ordinance would be met if you were to allow them that signage. We think that the total square footage would be in conformance with what only one sign would be allowed. but to them it's important that each side say Blockbuster Video and we think that would be a very fair and reasonable compromise. MR. CARR-You see. I don't have a problem with two wall signs because, I mean. it's true. I mean. if they put seven stores in. we could have 700 square feet of signage there and it's a very large structure. I have a real problem with the one on the side. but we haven't even gotten to that. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. We're trying to do them a step at a time. MR. CARR-I mean, you might want to just drop that one, but anyway, I think what you've proposed is a very fair solution to a problem that could save us on total signage. MR. SCHACHNER-Substantially. MR. CARR-And yet still make it aesthetically pleasing. MR. SCHACHNER-And occupiable by this proposed tenant as well. We would be willing to go with that. We'd be pleased, frankly, to go with that. MR. CARR-Yes. I mean. if they can put 700 square feet in the same amount of space. I mean. and they're asking for 100 square feet and I don't care what it says. I mean. if it says, Blockbuster Video, Blockbuster Video, Blockbuster Video. It doesn't really make a difference to me. MRS. YORK-Take out the arch. MR. SCHACHNER-The Planning Board would not want us to take out the arch. MRS. GOETZ-So, if you had two signs. one on each side of the arch. and they were each 50 square feet and they could each say Blockbuster Video? MR. SCHACHNER-That would be acceptable. MRS. GOETZ-Because otherwise. it's like. too much overkill. So you go big in the request. because you know you can go down. MR. SCHACHNER-No. actually. we'd be pleased with this result. MRS. GOETZ-And now we're going to talk about the one on Glenwood? 52 MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. The one on Glenwood. the argument there is that essentially it's a corner store. It's not. technically, a corner store. MR. TURNER-No. That's a poor argument. MR. CARR-Mark. if you look at your own drawing. here, you're saying you can't see anything and yet you've got existing vegetation. then you come in and the whole thing is surrounded by trees and bushes so that. literally. you have to be looking at it at a right angle to see the sign. So giving you a side sign. here. is not going to help their visibility any more. according to your own schematics of where you're going to put your plantings. MR. SCHACHNER-Okay. I guess on behalf of the applicant. I don't want to spend a lot of time belaboring the side one. We would hope that the discussions that we've had on the other ones would result in a favorable ruling on those and vote on the side one as well. MR. TURNER-He's made his presentation. I'll just open the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED CORRESPONDENCE MR. TURNER-None? Discussion. Do you want to talk about that freestanding sign up front? MR. CARR-I'm satisfied with the freestanding sign, as long as it's got a condition that it... MR. KELLEY-They're entitled to two. If they want to give it away. MR. CARR-Yes. MR. TURNER-Yes. I don't have a problem with it. I agree with you, Bruce. that we condition it so that it reverts back. MR. CARR-If the applicant puts up another one. the tenant takes it down. because that also. I was talking to Paul about this because I wanted to make sure that the applicant couldn't come back and say. well, as the owner. we're entitled to two. So that the variance was given to those guys, so that. I know we can't. We can't. I just wanted to clarify that with Paul so that if we condition it that way. we'd be secure. MR. KELLEY-Right. MR. SCHACHNER-Well. and if I could just add to that. You're giving this variance to the owner. MR. CARR- Yes. MR. SCHACHNER-So. as far as we're concerned. you're secure there. MR. CARR-So, I mean. the freestanding, I don't really have a problem with. MR. TURNER-Do you have a problem with the sign on the front of the building going down the 50 square feet versus the 62 and a half? MR. CARR-The two of them, as Mark proposed? No. MR. TURNER-Okay. Anyone else? Jeff? I don't buy the argument that visibility's a big problem, either. because just the minute that people find out that Blockbuster Video is in Town, they're going to be there and they're going to know their way there. They'll be like hound dogs running after rabbits. MR. KELLEY-So, we're going to do away with that one on the side. right? MR. TURNER-The side? We're going to do away with that one. That's overkill. MRS. GOETZ-There's no way this can happen. MR. KELLEY-I don't want to look at that anyway. MR. TURNER-Okay. Any further discussion? If not, I'll move it. Let's move it. Do you want to make your motion, because you've got it half made now. 53 MOTION TO PARTIALLY APPROVE SIGN VARIANCE NO. 9-1991 73 ~AKER ROAD ASSOCIATES, Introduced by Bruce Carr who moved for its adoption. seconded by Susan Goetz: I would approve the applicant's request that one of two freestanding signs be dedicated to one tenant. conditioned that there shall never be more than two freestanding signs on the property. I would further grant the applicant's request for one additional wall sign to be placed on the Quaker Road side of the building. allowing Blockbuster Video two wall signs and this is. again, providing that neither of the wall signs shall exceed 50 square feet in size. The reason for this variance was due to the unique circumstances of this particular tenant and the design of this building as was discussed by the Board members and the applicant. Duly adopted this 20th day of February. 1991. by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Kelley. Mrs. Goetz. Mr. Sicard, Mr. Carr, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Shea. Mrs. Eggleston MR. DUSEK-Can I make a recommendation, maybe you just clarify that (the motion). to say. in any event. there shall never be more than two freestanding signs. MR. CARR-That's true. Add that. MRS. GOETZ-That's it? You're not going to address the wall sign on Glenwood? MR. CARR-Well. I've only allowed them two wall signs on Quaker Road. MR. TURNER-That's gone. That's dead water. MRS. GOETZ-Okay. MR. TURNER-What did you say in reference to the freestanding sign about. at the very beginning? MR. CARR-That they were allowed to dedicate one to Blockbuster Video. MR. TURNER-One to Blockbuster. Then you said. if they should ever put? MR. CARR-Yes. and if they ever try to put a third one on. that Blockbuster Video loses. MR. TURNER-They're not allowed a third one anyway. MR. CARR-Yes. but. well, the meaning was just what Paul said. that the intention was there shall never be more than two freestanding signs on this property. MRS. GOETZ-Should we even have the words, about the third? MR. CARR-Yes. maybe not. MR. TURNER-Just put. there may never be any more than two freestanding signs on the property. period. MR. CARR-Yes. Can you read back that very first sentence? MS. GAGLIARDI-"I would approve the applicant's request that one of two freestanding signs be dedicated to the tenant, Blockbuster Video. conditioned on the fact that. should the applicant ever place a third freestanding sign on this property, the variance..." MR. CARR-Yes, we'll change that. Conditioned that should the applicant. how should we say this? MRS. YORK-Conditioned that there should never be more than. MR. CARR-Conditioned. yes, that's it. MR. TURNER-Mark, Blockbuster Video is going to be in there. how many years? MR. SCHACHNER-What's the length of the lease? MR. TURNER-What's the length of the lease? MR. SCHACHNER-I have no idea. They said it's a long term anchor tenant. I don't know what long term is. MR. SICARD-When would be the opening date. Mark? 54 '-' -- MR. SCHACHNER-I don't know that. either. MR. SICARD-Roughly? MR. SCHACHNER-The ground breaking was today. I think they're trying to do it sometime in... MR. SICARD-Christmas? MR. SCHACHNER-No. Way before then. MR. SICARD-Before that? MR. SCHACHNER-Yes, way before then, like. spring. summer, you know. sometime. real fast track, but I don't know the exact date. MRS. COLLARD-The Building Permit is in our office, right now. MR. SCHACHNER-I don't even know the approximate date, to be honest. I'm under the impression they're trying to open the Plaza some time during the summer. I don't know if anyone knows more about it than I do. MR. TURNER-Do you have any problem with the freestanding sign on the corner that's dedicated to Blockbuster, down the road, let's say. maybe they move out. all right. Do you have any problem not dedicating that sign to anyone else but the Plaza? MRS. GOETZ-Well. wouldn't they have to come back and ask? MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. We would urge just that we leave that to. if that ever happen. that it be subject to an additional request for. okay. now we want to do. unless it was the Plaza itself. MR. CARR-Well. I think if we dedicated it to Blockbuster Video in the motion... MR. TURNER-No. but what I'm saying is. you know, it could get lost in the paperwork down the road. 10 or 15 years. and then somebody comes up there and they change tenants. MR. CARR-Well. I don't have a problem if anyone tenant has. as long as there's not more than two signs on it. MR. TURNER-Well. that could very well happen. MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. MR. CARR-What's that? MR. TURNER-That they could just be lost in the paperwork and then up goes two tenants on one freestanding sign. MR. CARR-Well. I don't think they can do that. though. I mean. it's not dedicated to the use of the tenants. It's dedicated to the use of the land. MRS. GOETZ-They'd need a permit. MR. TURNER-They'd need a permit for a change of copy. MRS. COLLARD-Yes. MRS. GOETZ-Somebody would notice. MR. CARR-I think there's probably enough safe guards that that would be caught. MR. DUSEK-Is the Board saying that you don't ever want to have. well, first of all. we understand from the motion you don't want to have more than two freestanding signs. MR. CARR-Right. MR. TURNER-Two freestanding signs. one for the Plaza and one dedicated to Blockbuster and never dedicated to anybody else but Blockbuster. It could revert back to Plaza. They could revert it back to the Plaza. MR. DUSEK-Well. now you're getting personal to the owner, though, to the applicant. I'm a little afraid of that. 55 "-- MR. TURNER-You're afraid of that? MR. DUSEK-Yes. I think you could say that the variance is extended to just one sign being that of a tenant sign whereas the other sign is that of the Plaza. but I don't know that you could.... MR. CARR-So. instead of saying Blockbuster Video. I should say, dedicated to a tenant, !. tenant. one tenant? MR. DUSEK-Well, you could say. Blockbuster. but I'm just saying. I don't know that you can ever... MR. TURNER-You don't want to condition it? Is that what you're saying? MR. DUSEK-No. I think you can't condition it so that, it's just what we were talking about earlier. MR. TURNER-I know. MR. DUSEK-You can't condition it to a particular tenant. MR. TURNER-Because you're talking about the use of the sign. MR. DUSEK-But use of the sign. you could condition it to the extent that you can say that only one of those signs will ever be used for that of a tenant. Is that what you're trying to do? MR. CARR-How about we do that. How about we say, instead of dedicated to Blockbuster Video. dedicated to one tenant. and then they can't put two tenants on it either. MR. DUSEK-Right. MR. SICARD-Excellent. MRS. GOETZ-Because isn't it conceivable the Plaza owner might want to take back that sign sometime? MR. CARR-Right. MR. DUSEK-Well. he can always do that. MRS. GOETZ-Right. MR. DUSEK-What this results in is he has two options. He can. one. have a conforming two signs to the Ordinance. He can always use them for Quaker Plaza, or he can have one for one tenant. like Blockbuster, and one for Quaker and then I guess the further stipulation on your motion is that that one tenant sign can only be used for one tenant. MR. CARR-One tenant, right. MR. DUSEK-So that way you don't get a bunch of tenants on that one sign. MR. KELLEY-Right. MR. TURNER-Yes. but what I'm saying is. that 7.000 square feet that they're going to use up could. hypothetically. be divided up later on into 1,000. MRS. COLLARD-Yes. MR. CARR-Right. MR. DUSEK-Right. MR. CARR-And then they'd probably go back to Quaker Plaza. MR. TURNER-Then they'd have to go back to the Plaza sign. MR. CARR-Well. unless they pick one tenant that they want to, they might go to O'Toole's. then. MR. KELLEY-They might go to O'Toole's. MR. TURNER-Okay. MR. KELLEY-Yes. Either one tenant or it goes back to the Plaza sign. MR. CARR-Ri ght. 56 -- MR. DUSEK-Just so the record's clear, then. is that a stipulation on the motion? MR. TURNER-Yes, but then you're getting the one tenant. then, O'Toole's on the front side of Quaker Road right out where he's exposed. right, so the guy in the back that took Blockbuster's place. you know, he's left there high and dry. MR. CJ\RR-Maybe. MRS. COLLARD-That's his problem. MR. CJIRR-Yes, his and the landlord's. MR. KELLEY-Well. unless the Plaza says. no. we'll put your name on the sign. MRS. YORK-Ted. would you like to vote on the tabling issue? You forgot to have a vote on that. MRS. COLLARD-Kelly Carte. MR. TURNER-Yes. (11:50 p.m.) MOTIO~I TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE 11). 11-1991 KELLY AND LINDSAY CARTE. Introduced by Bruce Carr who moved for its adoption. seconded by Charles Sicard: DulY adopted this 20th day of February. 1991. by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Carr, Mr. Sicard, Mrs. Goetz. Mr. Kelley. Mr. Turner NOES: NONE ABSENì: Mr. Shea. Mrs. Eggleston On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Theodore Turner. Chairman 57