1991-11-20
".-/"
~EENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
FIRST REGULAR MEETING
NOVEMBER 20TH, 1991
INDEX
Sign Variance No. 82-1991 Polo/Ralph Lauren Factory Store 1.
Area Variance No. 83-1991 The Howard Group 4.
Howa rd Ca rr
Area Variance No. 84-1991 Peter J. Valenti 8.
Notice of Appeal No. 3-91 Brian E. Granger 14.
Asphalt Maintenance Co.
Sign Variance No. 85-1991 John P. Matthews 19.
Area Variance No. 86-1991 Richard A. Weaver 27.
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.
n
í ,/
"/
~
.-'
QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
FIRST REGULAR MEETING
NOVEMBER 20TH, 1991
7:35 P.M
JEMBERS PRESENT
THEODORE TURNER, CHAIRMAN
SUSAN GOETZ, SECRETARY
JOYCE EGGLESTON
BRUCE CARR
CHARLES SICARD
MICHAEL SHEA
SENIOR PLANNER-LEE YORK
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR-PAT CRAYFORD
STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI
NEW BUSINESS:
SIGN VARIANCE NO. 82-1991 TYPE: UNLISTED HC-lA POLO/RALPH LAUREN FACTORY STORE OIER: SHID
AND MALlCA SHALIT EAST SIDE OF ROUTE 9 BETWEEN EXIT 20 OF NORTHWAY AND ROUTE 149 LAKE GEORGE PLAZA
SHOPPING CENTER TO ADD A SECOND SIGN TO THE BUILDING IN THE SHOPPING PLAZA. (WARREN COOIITY PLANNING)
TAX MAP NO. 36-1-27.2 LOT SIZE: 3.33 SECTION 140-6 (3)(0)
CHUCK ROOTS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT (7:35 p.m.)
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Lee A. York, Senior Planner, Sign Variance No. 82-1991, November 19, 1991, Meeting Date:
November 20, 1991 "The applicant requests a second sign in a shopping plaza. The second sign will
be painted over an awning over the front door. The reason this situation is unique is that the store
faces Route 9, which is where the current sign is. The main entrance is toward the north which is
currently unidentified. The signage on Route 9 acts as advertising while the sign facing the parking
area would be locational. The Board may want to consider a smaller locational sign as an alternative,
or request that the applicant develop alternatives which might solve the problem."
MRS. GOETZ-And the Warren County Planning Board said that the "Sign must be constructed with the same
style as the other signs in the plaza."
MR. ROOTS-Good evening. I'm Chuck Roots, the District Manager for the Polo Factory store for New York
State. With me tonight is our Company President, Mr. Larry Gore, and the Store Manager, Miss Anne
Fairiday. We're here to answer any questions you might have.
MRS. GOETZ-The windows that face Route 9, there's no lettering in the windows, right?
MR. ROOTS-Not at this time.
MRS. GOETZ-Because that might be a possibility, to put some kind of lettering on the windows, take
off the wall sign and then use your wall sign over by the door where you want to put it.
MR. ROOTS-Well, we do have some white letter stenciling across the bottom of our windows, which is
done very tastefully. However, that really doesn't improve the visibility of our store or identify
the store from the parking lot or from the road.
MRS. GOETZ-I really have a hard time believing that people don't know where Polo is because I've always
heard that, you know, everybody's rushing to go up there. I go up there and do a lot of shopping,
and I've heard it's one of the better Polo stores.
MR. ROOTS-Yes. It's a very pretty store and we work very hard on it, to make it pretty, and attractive,
and a nice addition to our community. It's very interesting, though, the identification problem.
During the summer months, there's a hot dog vendor in the parking lot, and the most often asked question
after where are the bathrooms, is where is the Polo store, and so we feel that we're at a handicap
and have a hardship because we have the potential of not reaching our full sales potential because
we don't have a sign over our front door.
MRS. GOETZ-So, the sign on the building facing Route 9 isn't doing you any good?
MR. ROOTS-That sign is important, and we feel it's critical that we have both signs, because we are
the anchor store. We're supposed to be drawing people to that center to help our neighboring tenants
within the center. We need a sign on the highway to attract the people off the road. We need our
sign over our door to get those people into our store.
1
--
-.
MR. SHEA-All the other merchants in that factory outlet center have but one sign over their front doer,
correct?
MR. ROOTS-That's correct.
MR. SHEA-And how about, who also faces the west, also on Route 9? Harve' Benard and Dansk.
MR. ROOTS-Dansk.
MRS. GOETZ-And Aigner.
MR. SHEA-And Aigner.
MR. ROOTS-All three of those have an entrance, and so their sign happens to be right over their front
door.
MR. SHEA-And what about Dansk, because they have a similar location, whereby they also face, really,
two sides, both southerly and westerly.
MR. ROOTS-That's correct. Dansk has an entrance facing Route 9. So, they do have a sign over their
front door, and because we only constructed this store with one entrance, we don't have that advantage.
MR. SHEA-But then you do have, in fact, Polo, the words Polo, the name of the store in lettering on
the windows, do you not?
MR. ROOTS-Yes, we do.
MR. SHEA-Do you know the size of that?
MR. ROOTS-It's a two inch 1 etter across the bottom of the, two or three inch. I'm sorry. I don't
know exactly what that is. It's very small and it's across the bottom of the window.
MR. SHEA-Across each of the windows?
MR. ROOTS-That's correct.
MRS. GOETZ-You might be able to make better use of the allowed square footage of lettering in the windows
and make it more visible, you know, change the type of lettering that you have in your window, because
you've also got the window display.
MR. ROOTS-That's true, but our style is to have a very fashionable, tasteful window, with, we show
antiques in our window, and to have large lettering in our windows would take away from that, and so
we try and stay understated in our windows so that we can show off our merchandise tastefully, rather
than use them as location signs or name identification signs.
MR. SHEA-How can you quantify that you are at a distinct advantage by not having the sign over the
front door?
MR. ROOTS-How can I quantify that?
MR. SHEA-Yes.
MR. ROOTS-By the simple fact that people are having difficulty finding our store, finding our entrance,
knowing we're there. If you note that our building is the last building, the most southerly building,
in the miracle half mile, and most of the foot traffic are people coming from the north, and you can't
see our sign at all, walking down that sidewalk from the north. So, we feel it is a hardship that
we don't have a sign over our door, and it would be a distinct advantage and we feel it very important,
and that's why myself and Mr. Gore are here this evening to appear before you, because we feel it's
very critical to our business that we do have that second sign.
MR. TURNER-I guess, in defense of your application, I would say that if I were coming from the north,
and without the sign being on the canopy, I might well get beyond the entrance where I could drive
in and come to the store, and the traffic being what it is there in the summer time and other times.
MR. ROOTS-Exactly.
MR. TURNER-It's a tough job to get across there, and I really think you do need that sign on that side.
MR. ROOTS-Well, we're in agreement, Mr. Turner.
MR. TURNER-Well, I do. I do.
2
--
MRS. GOETZ-Do you think they need both signs, or just have their wall sign over the door?
MR. TURNER-The one facing the road is another one of another character, all right. You could almost,
if you're busy driving up the highway and you're not really, you're kind of looking around to see where
you're going, you might not even see that one on the canopy. You might even look right by it and not
even know it's there.
MRS. GOETZ-Coming from the north?
MR. TURNER-Coming from the south or coming from the north.
MR. ROOTS-Well, again, coming from Exit 20, the only sign you would see would be the sign that faces
Route 9.
MR. TURNER-But, I mean, you could even miss that.
MRS. GOETZ-But you're usually inching along, at a stand still.
MR. TURNER-Okay. Anyone else?
MR. SHEA-I certainly understand the nature, in that all of the other stores in there have a sign over
their front door. Because they don't have one, you know, you certainly could make a case that they
would like to have one, but I find it very difficult to believe that they are losing any kind of
business, because I know the traffic up there and I also believe that happens to be one of their better
performing stores, in all of their stores. I just find it difficult to believe that they are at a
distinct disadvantage because they do not have it.
MR. ROOTS-Excuse me, Mr. Shea, that isn't quite right.
MR. SHEA-Let me finish, but I do understand, too, that it's really not a big deal to allow them to
have a sign over the front door, but, again, I can't see where it's going to make a huge amount of
difference, with respect to the people finding the store, once they park in that place. It's so
congested, as it is now, and my wife has been up there shopping, and I sit in the car and wait, and
I watch people, and they go to every single store along the way, and I think that there are very few,
or at least the minority of people probably go to one particular store, get what they need, and get
the heck out. I don't think that's the nature of shopping up there. Yes? You were saying?
MR. ROOTS-Our store has done well early on, however, this year has been tough for the retail industry,
across the whole industry. We find that this year our business in Lake George is not performing as
well as our Company average. We're several points below our company average, and we're looking for
every reason or excuse why we're not doing business, and we're trying to eliminate every negative that
might be, that we're not doing business. Obviously, we feel it's important that we have that sign
there.
MR. TURNER-Okay. Anyone else?
MR. CARR-Well, I guess if there is truth, and I believe there is truth, to the statement that this
Polo shop is the anchor, I mean, I'm sure the developer of the whole shopping center wanted them to
put on the wall sign, which, because of that location, is limiting their exposure to a certain direction,
whereas the other tenants of that shopping center, you know, it may not be desirable for an attraction
of customer point of view to have them on the wall sign. So you're kind of making them use their one
sign, if you wi 11, you know, for the benefit of everybody, and then they don't get the sign over the
door, like everyone else in the thing. So, I would kind of agree that there's not a lot of harm in
thi s, in that it won't open the floodgates of si gn variances, because of the special ci rcumstances
involved with this particular application. I'm not opposed to this additional sign.
MR. TURNER-Okay. Anyone else? Okay, I guess if we don't have any questions, let me open the public
hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
DAVID KENNY
MR. KENNY-David Kenny. I own the Adirondack Factory Outlet Mall just to the north of the Lake George
Plaza. I can concur fully with the applicant. I'm 100 percent in favor of it. I do believe they
do have a hardship. I can tell you, I'm on the property all the time, and there are customers that
do ask me, that have come from that Plaza, where is the Polo store. I also would like to say, I don't
believe Polo is the anchor tenant for the Lake George Plaza. I think they're one of the anchor tenants
for the whole strip. They bring a lot of people up here. I would concur with Mr. Turner that cars
coming from the north, they're at a disadvantage, in that aspect, too, because those cars cannot see
that sign on the wall until they're by the store. I think it's minimum relief. I think their sign,
3
"---'
they've kept in very good taste, and I will say, people do ask where the Polo store is, and people
walking, a lot of people walking. You walk up and down the strip and you don't look at the sign in
the front. You're walking around, and there is no Polo identification anywhere on the strip. From
a car you can see it, or if you're south of the Polo store you can see it, but that's not where the
people are walking around, milling around. I concur with Mrs. Goetz. You know where Polo store, but
a tourist that comes up hereon a Friday night and is here the first time in the area, I'm sure you've
gone to other outlet locations and stuff, how do you miss a store that's right in front of me, but
you're a tourist and you do miss them, and I think one of the things we have to realize with the
application is, we're also here I think, to serve the tourist or the customers, and making it easier
for them to identify a store and find a store, I feel, is appropriate, and I would also like to mention
that Mr. Beckos has called me and spoken to me and relayed the message, he would like to relay his
message that he bel i eves they have a sl i ght hardshi p, and he concurs fully and he has no problem with
it also, and he happens to be the neighbor just to the west of the Center. So, neither one of us have
any problem, and we both back you up 100 percent. Thank you very much.
MR. TURNER-Any questions of Mr. Kenny, before he sits down? Okay. Thanks, Dave.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
CORRESPONDENCE
MRS. GOETZ-This is from Robert L. Eddy, "I am opposed to this variance. This will only lead to others
making the same request, resulting in a proliferation of signs, and this would be undesirable."
MR. TURNER-Any further questions of the applicant? None? Okay. Motion's in order.
tÐTION TO APPROVE SIGN VARIANCE NO. 82-1991 POLO/RALPH LAUREN FACTORY STORE, Introduced by Bruce Carr
who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Eggleston:
And allow the applicant a second sign to be placed on the awning over the entrance to their building,
in conformance with the other signs in the plaza. The applicant has demonstrated that a hardship does
exist for potential customers finding their store. Their relief requested is minimum in nature. The
applicant's situation is unique do to its special relation as the anchor store to the other stores
in the Plaza. Therefore, I would grant this applicant's request.
Duly adopted this 20th day of November, 1991, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Sicard, Mr. Shea, Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Carr, Mr. Turner
NOES: Mrs. Goetz (7:54 p.m.)
AREA VARIANCE NO. 83-1991 TYPE I PC-lA THE HOWARD GROUP HOWARD CARR OIER: ~EENSBURY FACTORY
OUTLET CENTER SOOTHEAST CORNER OF INTERSECTION OF ROUTE 9 AND ~IŒR ROAD FOR AN ADDITION OF 55,446
SQ. FT. OF BUILOING AREA TO EXISTING USE. (WARREN COONTY PLANNING) TAX MAP NO. 103-1-1 LOT SIZE:
±15 ACRES SECTION 4.020 J
JON LAPPER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT (7:54 p.m.)
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Lee A. York, Senior Planner, Sign Variance No. 83-1991, 11-19-91, Meeting Date: November
20, 1991 "The applicant is requesting setback and parking variances in order to construct 56,150 sq.
ft. of building area to an existing plaza. The plaza is at a major intersection in the community and
both the Zoning Board of Appeals and the Planning Board are involved agencies. The Zoning Board has
usually deferred to the Planning Board for SEQRA review of Type I actions. If the Board wishes to
do this on the Queensbury Factory Outlet, a resolution sending the material to the Planning Board should
be passed."
MRS. GOETZ-We won't get into the parking design requirements and the answers to the questions, at this
point, because it's a Type I use.
MR. TURNER-Mr. Lapper.
MR. LAPPER-Good evening. Briefly, I'm here with Frank Palumbo from C.T. Male, the project engineer,
and Howard Carr, who's the Court Appointed Receiver from the Howard Group. We've met with the Planning
Board, preliminarily, at a Workshop Meeting, last week, and presented it to them a month before, before
we started doing the plans. This is a Type I action and we're really here tonight to ask you to defer
to them for lead agency status, so that they can do the SEQRA Review, and we'll, hopefully, be back
in another month for the review on this, but just briefly, as Mrs. Goetz said, this was a previously
approved variance and a site plan, which lapsed through no fault of the receiver. In the interim,
the Ordinance changed. The other issue, here, that you didn't get to yet is the parking lot
configuration, which is talking about islands at the end of each of the rows of cars. We don't really
ha ve to get
4
"----
--
into the merits of it at this time, but in terms of what we're asking for at this point, last time,
there would have been what was approved as a 6,000 square foot freestanding building, where the Kentucky
Fried Chicken, the old one, and the liquor store are. It's proposed that those are going to be torn
down and the building that's 6,000 square feet will be moved next to Boardmans, the old Boardmans
building, which you can see the side of it coming into the intersection at Glen and Quaker, which is
a major intersection in Town, and not very attractive. So what we're proposing is something that will
be visually more appealing. A 35 foot setback is a lot more setback than 9 foot that was approved
and that's being requested because that's the existing end of that Boardmans building. So, we're just
following that line. I'm sure that we've got some things to deal with the Planning Board with, first,
with regard to SEQRA and hopefully we'll get through with that in another month and we'll come back
and do a full presentation.
MR. TURNER-Okay. Does anyone want to ask any question right now?
MR. CARR-Well, Jon, just in preparation for when you do come back, I think one of the things I'm going
to be interested in is, I mean, there's a lot of retail space, here, for some place that is currently
almost empty, and I would just want to know, what are the plans, or what negotiations are going on
at the time, to make sure there's going to be tenants for this place.
MR. LAPPER-Sure. There's a public perception that this Plaza's in trouble because, obviously, it's
empty. Howard Carr can talk a lot more about this than I, but that really has to do with legal problems
between two sides of a warring family, the Birnbaums. Both sides, or the patriarchs of each side of
the family, have now passed away. The Court appointed Howard as Receiver two years ago. Now everybody's
gone and it's not a question of people fighting to keep tenants out, which was what was going on before,
which was incredible, that Howard presented leases to the court and one side of the family would get
up and argue that they wanted it to be left vacant, which doesn't make a lot of business sense, but
that's why there's an empty plaza sitting in the heart of Queensbury, but that situation has now ended.
He's negotiating with a number of tenants and we need to get the place cleaned up and get it rented.
MR. SHEA-Who's the owner of the Plaza now?
HOWARD CARR
MR. CARR-That's a tough question. My name's Howard Carr. I am the court appointed Receiver. To answer
that question, the legal title is held, now, in the estate of Saul Birnbaum and in the estate of Bernard
Birnbaum and all the respective Trustees, Executrixes, and on down the line. I mean, I'd have to recite
about 14 different names to you, but, basically, that's where it sits today.
MR. SHEA-And you, as Receiver, are doing what for the estate?
MR. CARR-Well, I simply act on behalf of the property, in the best interest of property. The court
appointed me because of the warring factions of the family, because they couldn't even decide when
to turn the lights on and off. The court's position was, we're going to put someone else in here to
operate this thing, and lease it. Last October, or thereabouts, September, October, we presented five
leases to the court, which were executed by the tenants. Most of those tenants are now in Queensbury,
and it's a matter of public record. The Auto Palace was one of the tenants. Blockbuster was one of
the tenants. I'm trying to remember who the others were, but there were five, in total, that were
presented, although, at that time, Saul Birnbaum, the brother who was alive at that point in time,
did raise opposition to the leases. As a result of a very lengthy appeal process that was taken through
the courts and up into the Appellate Division. It was then overturned, but by that time the tenants
had left and had gone other places, and to address Mr. Carr's concern about additional space, I agree
with you that there is not right now what appears to be an abundance of, or there appears to be an
abundance of space, but I can assure you that, based on the direction that we're taking the property
now, the new buildings won't be built until such time as there are tenants to occupy them. That's
Number One, because that's a business issue today, and especially in today's money market. Nobody's
going forward. Secondly, I believe what will happen with the property, as we go through this approval
process what is happening is I believe that there will be a division of assets, which will occur amongst
the members of the family. That seems to be the direction it's headed in today, but I can say to you,
if you look at all the litigation of the Birnbaum family, I can't tell you where it'll be 60 days from
today, but that is, I believe, the direction it is headed today, and, based on that, that's where we
wi 11 be.
MR. SHEA-Okay. In all likelihood, after your time spent with the Planning Board, you'll be back to
us for the same variances that were seeing now. Do you have a feel for that?
MR. LAPPER-Yes. They were very receptive to our plans at the last meeting. There were a couple of
issues, but, really, the were very receptive. So, we feel that we'll get through it with this pretty
much intact. Last time, it was just a setback variance. At this point, the Ordinance has changed,
with respect to parking lot configuration. So we have to address that, too, just since nothing's been
built in the interim, and the approval lapsed, but with respect to the variances, we don't expect that'll
change during the Planning Board's review. It's sort of just, procedurally, a Catch-22, since we really
need the variance decision first so we can know if we're going to go ahead with this configuration,
5
-"
but we have to go through the SEQRA Review and then come back and talk to you and then go back to the
Planning Board for site plan approval after the variance.
MRS. GOETZ-Will it be a better parking situation?
MR. LAPPER-Well, we'll be adding spaces that aren't there now, but in terms of the configuration itself,
that changed, already. The entrance drive was changed when the traffic light was put in, which was
a great expense that helped, in terms of Glen Street. It didn't help, in terms of this Plaza, because
there's so few cars in there now. The concrete median only went in 40 or 50 feet, temporarily. So,
that's all going to be cleaned up and finished out and there's going to be an awful lot more green
space in there than there is now, in the parking lot.
MRS. GOETZ-Will the parking spots be bigger? Do they have to be? I don't know, because I think it's
hard to park there.
MR. LAPPER-Well, the Ordinance changed, so I think they'd be smaller now.
FRANK PALUMBO
MR. PALUMBO-Frank Palumbo with C.1. Male. The Ordinance calls for a nine foot by twenty foot space
and that's what we've got planned, right now. I think that there exists, the lines seem to have been
painted over a couple of times out there, and that may be some of the confusion there, and some of
the spaces may be nine by eighteen, which were painted at one time, and the others, I think there are
some larger spaces that are even ten by twenty, but the spaces that we're planning for right now are
nine feet by twenty feet.
MRS. GOETZ-What was that amendment to the parking?
MRS. CRAYFORD-Nine by twenty.
MRS. GOETZ-Was it nine by twenty? Okay, and then my comment is about, I think we should keep in mind,
there's been a lot of recent talk about beautifying the intersections in the Town, and, yes, this
proposal was less of a setback request than the other, but is it the best we can do?
MR. LAPPER-Well, if you see, what we've proposed is really move the green space so that, instead of
just having small islands of green space throughout the parking lot, it'll be grouped, really, along
the Glen Street intersection, because that's where we'd get the most bank for the buck, in terms of
people driving by, but also it'll make it look as green as possible, because there's going to be wide
strips, fully planted with trees all along Glen Street, and the corner of Glen and Quaker, which is
already grass, that's the County right-of-way and the State right-of-way. We'll be moving the building
off of that so that there'll be more room for shrubbery and trees over there. So, really, from the
thoroughfares it should look a lot more green than it does now.
MRS. GOETZ-Is it shrubs or trees behind the new addition part.
MR. LAPPER-Mostly, it's all trees.
MR. GOETZ-Full grown?
MR. LAPPER-Well, the Ordinance provides that they have to be pretty large.
MR. PALUMBO-Right.
MRS. GOETZ-Because that is one concern that I have, because I drove around it, and what would we be
looking at from Quaker Road. I mean, I'm glad to see those trees, but I hope they're not dinky little
shrubs.
MR. LAPPER-No. We went through that with the Planning Board, because that's more of a site plan issue,
but, I mean, in terms of a mitigation measure, you're right, and we'll provide that for you next time,
but under the Ordinance. they have to be three and a half. four and a half inch diameters, pretty sizable
trees.
MR. PALUMBO-We will, all the trees, this is basically a general landscaping plan, as is called for
with the first submission for the variance. As we get to the site plan, we'll be giving much more
detail. I think by the time that you see the plan next, the detail will be there. We will be going
with a combination of trees and shrubs, all meeting the standards of the Town. I think the street
trees call for a three and a half inch caliber.
MRS. CRAYFORD-I don't recall, offhand.
MR. PALUMBO-All right. So, they will be fairly large trees that are out there, but we'll be trying
to do a full landscaping plan to give every possible aesthetic quality to that entrance. We may also
be, at the very point of the entrance, trying to get some flower beds in there to give some color and,
just overall improve that quality at the street level.
6
"--
-
MRS. EGGLESTON-Was there any thought given to maybe a second floor, so it would conform with First
National Bank's building, over in the back, and, therefore, being able to stay back away from the corner
more?
MR. PALUMBO-I don't know if that was addressed. I don't know if the structure of the existing building
was planned, initially, to have a second floor put on it. Howard, you may.
MR. CARR-We have not addressed the structural capabilities of the building, but I can tell you from
a retail point of view, second floor does not work. We are negotiating, specifically, with some tenants,
now, to take that space to where the variance area's concerned. At this particular point in time,
we don't have specific tenants to go into the other two buildings that are shown, yet, but this is,
in order to bring this all forward, okay, it's best to bring it all at once so that you look at it
on an overall scheme, as opposed to a piece by piece.
MRS. GOETZ-Why isn't it a good decision to put the second story on, from a retail standpoint?
MR. CARR-Because people don't go up to the second floor. It's real simple. It's the reason that the
Outlet malls don't have them. It's the reason that, when you look at retail all over the County, with
the exception of Manhattan is the only place where vertical retailing works.
MR. TURNER-Crossgates.
MR. CARR-No, no. If you say Crossgates, you're talking about a mall. You're talking about enclosed
area with limited access, limited access into the facility. This is not what we're talking about here.
This is a strip facility. To convert this to a mall, we're talking about a substantially different
structure to create, here.
MRS. GOETZ-I'm just interested, because I believe there's another proposed development coming about
in the Town that does have a second story proposed.
MR. CARR-God bless them.
MRS. GOETZ-So that's an interesting comment.
MR. TURNER-Let me ask you one question. The 6,000 square foot addition, that is a definite, right?
MR. CARR- Yes.
MR. TURNER-On the end of Boardmans. The other two are on hold until you get the tenants, as you said
before. Is that correct?
MR. PALUMBO-Just in terms of the construction schedule.
MR. CARR-Right. Yes, but the 6,000 square foot is moving ahead very quickly.
MR. SHEA-I have one question. The marketing of the Outlet, are you trying to keep it factory outlets
in nature?
MR. CARR-Honestly, it's not a factory outlet, all right, and I believe, once we get all the leases
in place, we will be changing the name back to the Queensbury Plaza. It's not a factory outlet. There's
only two factory stores in there.
MR. SHEA-But, I mean, you're not pursuing factory outlets? You're looking for tenants?
MR. CARR-No. The tenants that we are dealing with now are not factory outlets and are not in the market
right now. Probably, I would say, right now, in the neighborhood of about 75 percent of them are
national retailers with substantial capital to go in and make the investment that's required here.
MRS. EGGLESTON-After the estate, as you say, there's a chance it could be split, the assets and what
not, will there still be adequate funds so that this wouldn't get half developed and then?
MR. CARR-Let me make a statement to the Board, now, so that there's no misunderstanding. There's no
debt on this property. I pay all the bills every single month. I have for two years. There is no
mortgage. There is no money out. Taxes are up to date. You can see how the property's been maintained,
even though it's at this level of occupancy. We can't rent it if it looks terrible. It doesn't look
great right now because of the vacancy situation, but that's not something that I created. We found
the cure, but they didn't want to swallow the pill.
MRS. EGGLESTON-Well, there's so much controversy in the Town, now, I think, with the, what's down on
the corner of Glenwood and Quaker, that Trustco Bank, is it Trustco, sits right out on the corner,
that people are just, they want to see things kept back.
7
-
MR. CARR-Mrs. Eggleston, I agree with you 10,000 percent. We dealt with the Blockbuster situation.
The architectural elements that were created in the Quaker Plaza are not something that we have the
ability to deal with.
MRS. EGGLESTON-I understand that.
MR. CARR-The reality is that you've got certain elevations that exist now. The old Boardmans space,
which was an A & P, many, many years ago, there are certain structural design elements that exist there,
now. In general, because that part of the bui 1 di ng is set, the grade is so much lower and the road
is so much higher, there's no reason to get it any higher. There really is not, and I explained to
Frank today, what we have to be concerned about is the line of sight, and where the proper landscaping
goes, because when people are driving along Route 9 or along Quaker Road, all right, when you drive,
your eyes don't rise 15 or 20 feet into the air. Your line of sight is basically somewhere between
10 and 12 feet off of the road surface, and that's where you have to keep the 1 i ne of sight down to,
so that the concept there is not to raise the buildings any higher, and bringing it closer to the road,
the berm that exists now will conceal the building, whatever goes there, and you've still got the ability
to hold it down because we're only showing a one story building, here.
MR. PALUMBO-Just to follow up on that topic, that building is, I believe, approximately, a 35 foot
setback from the road. Not that this means anything in terms of the variance. We know we're 35 feet
back from the property line, but the property line is, approximately, right here. We've got another
35 feet out to the roadway. So, this will, I think, have a much better appearance, even though, if
you were to say 35 feet and 35 feet here. There is close to 70 feet between the road. In the Planning
Board meeting last week, we talked about what's the possibility of that road being widened right there,
and I think everyone's knowledge of that, because it goes down at such an embankment, you're not going
to see that road widened over there. So, that's going to be 75 feet to that building, plus or minus,
and I think, because it does sit down a little bit lower, it's going to have a much different appearance,
than what you see now with the Trustco Bank.
MR. LAPPER-This is also going to be a major issue in the SEQRA Review which we'll go through next month,
and the Planning Board, when it comes back to you, they will have nailed down what they want to see,
in terms of landscaping.
MR. TURNER-Okay. Any further questions? Make a motion.
MOTION ON AREA VARIANCE NO. 83-1991 THE HOWARD GROUP HOIIftRD CARR, Introduced by Susan Goetz who moved
for its adoption, seconded by Theodore Turner:
To refer this application to the Queensbury Planning Board so that they can be the lead agency in the
SEQRA Review Type I action.
Duly adopted this 20th day of November, 1991, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Sicard, Mr. Shea, Mrs. Goetz, Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Carr, Mr. Turner
NOES: NONE (8:15 p.m.)
AREA VARIANCE NO. 84-1991 TYPE II WR-lA PETER J. VALENTI OIlŒR: PETER AND USA VALENTI JAY ROAD.
GLEN LAKE, LAST HOME ON THE POINT TO REBUILD THE SINGLE FAMILY DlELLING. (WARREN COONTY PLANNING)
TAX MAP NO. 43-1-5 LOT SIZE: lZ.035 SQ. FT. SECTION 179-60 B-15-C SECTION 179-79 B & E SECTION
179-79
MARK SCHACHNER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT (8:15 p.m.)
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Lee A. York, Senior Planner, Area Variance No. 84-1991, Peter Valenti, 11-18-91, Meeting
Date: November 20, 1991 "The applicant is seeking a variance from the shoreline setback (179-60 B-15C)
and to continue a nonconforming structure (179-79 B & E). As residential variance situations go this
is fairly unique, even for Glen Lake. The lot is a peninsula which extends about 565 feet in to the
lake. There is no location on this lot where a structure would be conforming. The residence constructed
on this was a seasonal camp originally, and as upgraded as time passed. A large area at the northern
end has been surfaced and become impermeable. This has contributed to the drainage problem on the
lot. The situation is that storm water drainage runs down Jay Road, across the macadam surface and
into the kitchen of the residence, which is slightly lower than the driveway. The applicant wants
to improve this situation and is seeking a variance which will allow construction of the house. There
will be an addition of habitable space in the form of a rectangular space and entranceway to the east
and a porch/accessway to the north. The applicant intends to remove existing paving on the property
in order to stay within the permeability requirements of the ordinance. The Board is aware of the
concerns about expansions along shorelines. Given today's standards this lot could not be developed
as it has been. The applicant appears to be trying to mitigate the 305 sq. ft. expansion of the
footprint
8
.-
by reducing the permeable area. This application was reviewed with regard to the criteria for an area
variance. -Describe the practical difficulty which does not allow placement of a structure which meets
the zoning requirements? The shape and size of the lot prohibit placement of a conforming structure.
-Is this the minimum variance necessary to alleviate the specific practical difficulty or is there
any other option which would require no variance? The option which would require no variance is no
change to the footprint. -Would this variance be detrimental to the other properties in the district
or neighborhood or conflict with the objectives of any plan or policy of the Town? This variance would
not be detrimental to the other properties in the neighborhood. The Comprehensive Land Use Plan and
related ordinances do attempt to limit shoreline expansion. The applicant is attempting to mitigate
the impacts of this expansion. -What are the effects of the variance on public facilities and services?
The applicant has offered to meet with the Highway Superintendent to review opportunities to improve
storm water drainage currently going directly into the lake. It is hoped that facilities in this area
can be developed which could potentially filter and more effectively channel drainage. Other public
facilities would not be effected. -Is this request the minimum relief necessary to alleviate the
specified practical difficulty? The Board will have to discuss this question with the applicant."
MRS. GOETZ-And the Warren County Planning Board returned with approval.
MR. TURNER-Mr. Schachner.
MR. SCHACHNER-Thank you, Mr. Turner. Good evening. For your record, I'm Mark Schachner from Miller,
Mannix, and Pratt, and I'm here as the attorney representing Peter Valenti, who's the applicant. I
think that both the application itself, as well as the Planning Staff's analysis of the application
are very thorough and very complete. I don't really have much to add. I'll give you a brief, thumb
nail sketch of Mr. Valenti's position, and then we'll just make ourselves available for any questions
or comments that any of you may have. Basically, Mr. Valenti resides at the very end of Jay Road,
literally the end of Jay Road and just about .1!!.. Glen Lake, but on Glen Lake, in a preexisting, old
structure that was built originally as a camp, as was mentioned in the application materials. I don't
want to say it's a dilapidated camp, because I don't think that's fair, but it is a structurally troubled
camp, and Mr. Valenti would like to rebuild the structure and build a very fine single family residence
on Glen Lake, all though in keeping with the neighborhood, in that he's not looking to build a mansion.
He's worked very hard with his architect, who is Eugene Choppa, to try to, they initially tried to
find a way to rebuild the home and not need any variance whatsoever, because they heard a rumor about
it sometimes being difficult to get variances from this Zoning Board of Appeals. They tried hard.
They were unable to come up with a way to need no variance at all, but the variance they need is really
minimal. It's a total of 305 square feet, and that's comes in three different areas, which I'll describe
in a moment. Basically, they propose, or we propose, what we believe is a substantial improvement
to the site, in a number of respects. The principle substantial improvements are that on the new home
the entire roof will be guttered so that runoff from the home will go into storm drains. We will remove
substantial amounts of pavement to improve the permeability situation. I think it goes without saying,
and I've not belabored the point that this, I mentioned it's preexisting. You could not, I assume
the Zoning Board members are familiar with the parcel, in all likelihood, I don't believe in any easy
way, build anything probably or any house out on that peninsula into Glen Lake today, but this is the
property that Mr. Valenti, a situation that he's obviously come into that preexisted and, currently,
we do not have 65 percent permeability on the lot. We have about 56 percent. So, we're proposing
to remove significant amounts of pavement so that we will increase the permeability to the 65 percent
standard, even on what, I think Mrs. York very accurately describes as a very unique situation on the
lot, even for Glen Lake. In addition, there's a drainage problem that is no fault of Mr. Valenti's
and no fault of his property's, but Jay Road itself, and I don't know if any of the members are familiar
with thi s, but Jay Road itself drains, 1 i tera lly, down the road, onto hi s property, as I believe is
mentioned in the Planning Staff Comments, Mr. Valenti has met with, I believe, Mrs. York and the Town
Highway Superintendent, and they have come up with a proposal to alleviate, or eliminate that drainage
problem for that Jay Road neighborhood, if you will. I don't know if it's as a result of that, or
simply because they like the plan, but as far as the impact on the neighborhood and the neighbors,
we actually do have a petition signed by 15 neighbors, including the two immediately adjacent neighbors
and a number of other neighbors in the area, in support of the application, which I'd like to submit,
and I guess the only other comment I'd like to make, I see we're doing without a bulletin board, tonight,
we're using the chair method, is we do have a plan that I've done, for my benefit, that is shaded to
show the pink areas are the total 305 square foot area variance areas. The blue areas, which you can
see are far, far larger than the pink areas, are the areas that are currently paved and not permeable,
that we propose to remove to make them permeable areas, to significantly increase the permeability
on the lot, and, as I said, I don't really want to belabor the point. We don't think it's a very
significant variance that we seek. We're perfectly happy to try to answer any questions, to the best
of our ability.
MR. TURNER-Okay. Who wants the first question? Any questions?
MR. CARR-Mark, are you getting closer to the lake anywhere?
MR. SCHACHNER-No. Bruce, 1'm glad you asked that question. You have the same plan. I just don't
think you have the highlighting that I did for my own benefit, but I think it's very, very important,
I guess I will get into a little bit more detail in case there are some questions, we'll head them
off at the pass perhaps. The two areas in which we seek area variances are definitely, not only not
9
--
getting closer to the lake, one of them is this porch, or entranceway if you will, which is on the
only side of the house that is not a lake side. Because of the unique setting of this house, we've
got three waterfront sides, but this is a very small, approximately 32 or 31 square foot
porch/entranceway that's proposed, and is not, is on the non-lake side of the property. The other
area which has the 230 some odd square foot area variance proposal you'll notice is on a side that
is a waterfront side, one of the remaining three sides, but the house that exists is already as close
as under eight feet, at one corner, from the lakeshore, and just under 13 feet at the other corner.
We're proposing to add on a small, rectangular portion that will still be, we just paced it off tonight,
about 27, 28, some place in the neighborhood of 25 to 30 feet from the shore. So, it will be
dramatically further from the shore than the existing houses, already, on that side. The only other
thing I wanted to point out, which may not be clear, is that the proposed entranceway is covered, but
not enclosed. In other words, it doesn't have walls, but it's covered.
MR. TURNER- Yes.
MR. SCHACHNER-Along those same lines, the other thing is, as a portion of the variance on the side,
what's labeled on your diagram as area way is also. not only not enclosed, but it's not even covered.
All that is is a landing with steps down, to enter at the lower level of the house to the, basically,
the maintenance area, where the furnace and things like that are.
MRS. YORK-If I may address the Board. This is one of those unique situations where this will be a
Type I action before the Planning Board, but it's a Type II action before your Board, because it's
a re-construction of an existing facility in the same footprint, okay. However, Mr. Valenti was made
aware of the fact that, being a Type I action for the Planning Board, he will have to go through the
Environmental Review and have to address mitigation measures, and I want the Board to be aware that
that is why he has gone to these lengths to try and mitigate the development and I want to also attest
to the fact that he has met with the Highway Superintendent and they have looked at coming up with
a drainage solution for that entire road, which is a very big problem in that neighborhood now.
MRS. GOETZ-So, we don't have to address the EAF at all?
MRS. YORK-It's a Type II, here. So you don't have to.
MRS. GOETZ-Okay. It's in the folder, but we don't need to address it.
MR. TURNER-No, we don't need to.
MRS. YORK-No. He just got carried away.
MR. TURNER-Any more questions of Mr. Schachner?
MRS. GOETZ-Don't we need the exact setback measurements?
MRS. EGGLESTON-Wait a minute. I have something to say, here. Didn't we say we would not consider
any more without the exact dimensions on the maps, and I don't see them on the maps. We said we would
not entertain one more without all in order.
MRS. YORK-You're very right, Mrs. Eggleston.
MRS. EGGLESTON-We made a motion. We passed it.
MR. TURNER- Yes.
MRS. YORK-That is my error.
MRS. EGGLESTON-Then why don't we have them?
MRS. YORK-Well, let me explain this to you. Since I am the only Planner in my office, there are some
things that are getting overlooked these days, and I do apologize for it, and that's the only explanation
I can give you.
MRS. EGGLESTON-But even Mark says, approximately 20, 25 feet. That's, how do we do a?
MRS. GOETZ-We don't.
MR. SCHACHNER-Well, as far as that goes, I mean, what I said was, we actually measured tonight.
MRS. EGGLESTON-We paced it, but.
MR. SCHACHNER-Well, I mean, what we felt our burden was, was to show, well, we feel our burden is to
show that we're no where near as close to the shore of the lake as the existing building. We do have,
and I'm not sure. We have some maps and plans, in addition to what you all have, that may be able
to answer your question, if you have a specific question, Mrs. Eggleston. I'm not sure.
10
--
MR. CARR-Well, Mark, the problem is we adopted a Checklist that says we have to have the exact
dimensions, because there were a lot of problems on the Board about not coming in.
MR. SCHACHNER-I understand it's a policy.
MRS. YORK-Mr. Turner, you have the scale there. Would you mind measuring it? Thank you.
MR. CARR-Yes, so as long as we've got a ruler, we can figure it out.
MRS. YORK-And I do apologize to the Board, but under the circumstances, there's very little, at this
point in time, I can do about it.
MRS. EGGLESTON-Sue, we're going to accept this, and we're going to figure the dimensions?
MRS. GOETZ-Apparently. Ted has this scale.
MRS. YORK-That's why I'm bringing the scale to the meetings, just in case.
MR. TURNER-What did you say your setback was?
MR. SCHACHNER-Well, I want to make sure we're talking about apples and apples, here, and make sure
we're talking about the same place. Okay. We're talking about a setback from this portion, here,
to the shore, and we were getting, we did it tonight, we were getting between 25 and 30 feet. Is that
right? We were getting between 25 and 30. What do you get?
MR. TURNER-We're talking right there. That's the closest spot, right there. Okay. Right here.
MR. SCHACHNER-Okay, although, that's not covered. Well, see what you get for both.
MR. TURNER-It would be 19 feet.
MR. SCHACHNER-You mean 19 in total?
MR. TURNER-Nineteen to there.
MR. SCHACHNER-Okay. What about, and then you're going to get about 20.
MR. TURNER-And this is four feet.
MR. SCHACHNER-So, you're getting about 23 from where we measured?
MR. TURNER- Yes.
MR. SCHACHNER-Mr. Turner's getting about 23 from where we measured.
MR. TURNER-What have you got, Mr. Valenti?
PETER VALENTI
MR. VALENTI-Are you going from the stairs? That was a contention between.
MR. TURNER-We just want to get a genuine consensus, here.
MR. VALENTI-If you go from the building corner, it's about 25 feet.
MR. CARR-Okay, but we've got to go from the stairs, don't we?
MR. VALENTI-The stairs, I was told, really don't belong in the plans.
MR. CARR-You don't include the stairs?
MRS. CRAYFORD-You don't include the stairs, no.
MR. VALENTI-We did that as an illustration to make sure you were aware they were going to be there
going down.
MR. TURNER-Yes. I got 23 feet.
MRS. GOETZ-I mean, is this exact, though? I do believe that we need exact.
MR. CARR-Yes. Well, I mean, if you've got the scale, and it's set to so many feet per inches.
11
--
MRS. GOETZ-So, it was 23?
MR. CARR-We're doing what the architect would do.
MR. SCHACHNER-Well, the other thing you can do, is you can approve a specific plan, I think, and you
can say, it's limited to this plan.
MR. TURNER-That's what you can do, yes.
MR. SCHACHNER-And these were prepared by an architect and it's going to be up to that architect to
make good on his stamp, because I think you have that authority.
MR. CARR-Although, and this has nothing to do with this application, I agree with Sue and Joyce, I
mean, we've adopted that rule, I think that was also a rule in response to hand drawn plans that came
in.
MR. TURNER-Yes. That was, basically, it.
MR. CARR-That, you know, at least this is a survey plan drawn to scale.
MRS. EGGLESTON-I believe it was to any plans that weren't complete.
MR. CARR-No, right, but the reason we did it was because we were getting hand drawn plans that we had
no way to figure out, and I'm not saying that I want every plan to come in here without it, but I don't
think this is the applicant's fault, tonight, and we do have the means by which we were able to figure
out, exactly, how far it's back. Ted, could we see the scale?
MR. TURNER-The one I got is an inch is 10 feet.
MR. SCHACHNER-Yes, that's right. Mr. Turner, we keep getting 23 feet to the stairs, and you're getting
23 feet to the building, right? We're measuring from that corner, and I'll bet you're not.
MR. TURNER-No, I'm not.
MR. SCHACHNER-Okay.
MR. TURNER-I'm measuring from the closest place.
MR. SCHACHNER-You're going to get right around 23 feet there, and we're measuring, here, and getting
around 25 feet.
MR. CARR-Well, I got 21, exactly.
MR. SCHACHNER-Well, talk to your Chairman. He's getting 23.
MR. TURNER-I got 21, at the closest point, farther down, 23 back.
MR. CARR-Yes, 21 at the closest point.
MR. SCHACHNER-Okay.
MRS. EGGLESTON-Are we going to put the measurements in our motion?
MR. CARR-Yes.
MRS. GOETZ-We should.
MR. TURNER-We can. Sure, why not. The setback is 21 feet, at the closest point.
MR. CARR-This is all the engineer would do. He would take one of these and measure it off, really.
MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes, but then the responsibility is on them, not on us, for having figured it.
MR. CARR-Right, but they've got a scale, that they could tell us, it's 21, if they know where we're
measuring from.
MR. SHEA-Rather than us tell them what the dimensions are, they have to tell us.
MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes, let them tell us.
MR. CARR-What's the dimension?
12
'-
---
MR. VALENTI-At the closest point 21 feet, at the furthest point 25 feet, from the building to the lake
edge.
MR. CARR-Okay.
MR. TURNER-Did you identify yourself, for the recotd?
MR. VALENTI-I'm sorry. I'm Peter Valenti, the applicant.
MR. TURNER-Okay. Thank you.
MRS. CRAYFORD-Twenty five feet from the foundation, Peter?
MR. VALENTI-Yes.
MR. SCHACHNER-Correct.
MR. TURNER-That's not the overhang, now.
MR. VALENTI-No.
MR. TURNER-Okay, because that counts, you know. How much overhang are you going to have? Lets get
the right numbers.
MR. CRAYFORD-Eight inches? Eight inches over here?
MR. VALENTI-Not more than 12 inches.
MR. CARR-I think your guy said eight.
MR. VALENTI-Eight?
MRS. CRAYFORD-Gene said eight inches.
MR. TURNER-Okay.
MRS. EGGLESTON-I mean, really, I just feel that without them having the specific.
MR. TURNER-So, that's 20 feet four inches, right?
MR. CARR-But they do.
MRS. EGGLESTON-But they don't. They can't even agree, and Mark's been here before this Board many,
many times, and he knows about having dimensions and what not.
MR. SCHACHNER-Mrs. Eggleston, and I have to apologize for that. I was not in charge of plan preparation.
I understand your concern, and I was not aware of the specific motion, but, frankly, I think it makes
sense. I appreciate Mr. Carr's comments about what caused it. We're all familiar with the days when
people drew things on napkins and supplied them to the Boards for their applications, but with all
due respect, we'll be glad to take the extra few minutes just, right now, and come to an agreement.
I did not realize that, in fact, Mr. Choppa was here. I'm sure we can come to an agreement, very easily,
on the dimension.
MR. TURNER-Why don't you just huddle with Mr. Choppa and get it straightened out and we'll come right
back. Does anybody want to take a break for a minute, while they're doing that?
MR. CARR-Yes, why don't we take a five minute break.
MR. TURNER-All right. We'll take a five minute break.
(8:39 p.m.) BREAK
(8:45 p.m.)
MR. TURNER-Mark, what's the measurements?
MR. SCHACHNER-We've conferred with the architect, Mr. Choppa, who's also here, if there's a dispute
about this, and we are offering to the Board our position that the distance on the northeastern corner,
the variance we would seek would be, we would not be any closer than 24 feet from the lakeshore, and
on the, it's not the southeast corner of the building, but the next corner moving south along that
line, no closer than 20 feet to the shoreline.
13
--
--,'
MR. TURNER-Have you got it there? Would you bring it up here? Twenty four, here. You're saying 20
feet here, or here?
MR. SCHACHNER-No. The first choice.
MR. TURNER-Okay. Thank you.
MR. SCHACHNER-And we apologize for not providing that in greater detail, earlier.
MR. TURNER-All right. Any further questions of Mr. Schachner? None? Okay. I'll open the public
hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
NO COMMENT
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. TURNER-Any discussion? Does anybody want to talk about it? No?
MR. CARR-I don't see a problem with this.
MR. TURNER-I don't, either.
MR. CARR-It seems to be minimum relief with a lot of mitigation thrown in.
MR. TURNER-Okay. I'll take a motion. Motion's in order.
tlJTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 84-1991 PETER J. VALENTI, Introduced by Susan Goetz who moved
for its adoption, seconded by Theodore Turner:
He is asking to make changes to the building which would require a shoreline setback on the northeast
corner that would be no closer than 24 feet, which would be a 51 foot variance from the shoreline setback
requirement of 75 feet, and a bit more southerly, it would be no closer than 20 feet from the shoreline,
which would be a variance of 55 feet from the shoreline requirement. We would be granting this area
variance because the dimensional requirements would result in a specified practical difficulty. There
is no location on the lot where a structure would be conforming, and for this reason they're seeking
variance from Section 179-79 Band E. This would not be materially detrimental to the purposes of
this Chapter, being 179-80 A, or to the property in the district. Public facilities and services would
not be adversely effected. There is trouble there with drainage from Jay Road, but the applicant has
agreed to meet with the Highway Superintendent to try and improve that situation for the whole
neighborhood. The applicant is trying to mitigate the 305 square foot expansion by reducing the
impermeable area on the lot by removing existing macadam and some concrete walkway so that the
permeability will be 65 percent as required by the Waterfront Residential requirements. This is the
minimum variance necessary. This application will go to the Planning Board for the Type I SEQRA Review.
The addition on the northwest corner will be included in this motion.
Duly adopted this 20th day of November, 1991, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Shea, Mrs. Goetz, Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Carr, Mr. Sicard, Mr. Turner
NOES: NONE
MR. VALENTI-If I may say something. Your Staff helped me get to this point to where the plans are
clear, the ideas about, how can we help improve the areas. So I was able to come here and not negotiate
for six months about what we should be doing. They kind of helped me along. So, thank you both very
much. I appreciate working with you.
MRS. GOETZ-Thanks for mentioning that. (8:57 p.m.)
NOTICE OF APPEAL NO. 3-91 BRIAN E. GRANGER ASPHALT MINTENANCE CO. APPEALING ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S
DECISION THAT SITE PLAN REVIEW IS RE~IREO FOR ESTABLISIOENT OF HIS IIISINESS ON WZERNE ROAD.
BRIAN GRANGER, PRESENT (8:57 p.m.)
MRS. GOETZ-This is a letter dated October 29th, to Mr. Turner, from Mr. Granger, "In early spring of
'91, I, Brian E. Granger, purchased the premises located on 96 Luzerne Road, which is zoned Light
Industrial. Prior use of this property was Arrow Fence Com~any. I believe this use is the same for
the following reasons: Fence contractors and paving contractors, which is permitted in the Light
Industria 1 use, is the same, because Arrow Fence only stored tool sand equi pment on the premi ses, the
same as I. The information I received from the Town in February of '91 stated that if no change in
use had occurred,
14
--
--'
no site plan review was necessary." This is a letter from Patricia Crayford, Zoning Administrator,
to Bob Stewart, of Bartlett, Pontiff, Stewart, Rhodes, and Judge "On July 29th '91, Section 179-26
Paragraph D, Subparagraph 3B was amended by adding the following Type II use of passenger limousines
and/or bus storage and terminal facility. Therefore, the above referenced parcel no longer requires
a variance, but does require site plan review of the Planning Board for a construction business, shuttle
business, and sand extraction. I spoke with Mr. Granger, recently, about this, and he maintains that
a construction company existed on his parcel prior to its purchased. I have determined that the fence
company that formally occupied this parcel was Light Manufacturing, per definition of our Zoning
Ordinances, articles were assembled and used in another location. Therefore, the use of the property
has changed, and will require Planning Board review and approval."
MR. TURNER-That's it? Mr. Granger.
MR. GRANGER-The only part I disagree with Pat on was that Arrow Fence was manufacturing. They stored
trucks and installed fence and came back and put the trucks back.
MR. TURNER-Okay. Arrow Fence has probably been gone three, four years.
MR. GRANGER-Not quite that long.
MR. SHEA-Two or three years.
MR. TURNER-At least, yes, because they moved into the plaza on Broad Street, under a different name,
I think.
MR. GRANGER-Well, let me go over a little bit of what's going on with the property.
MR. TURNER-Yes. Lets hear that first.
MR. GRANGER-When I purchased the property, there was a large amount of metal, tires, etc., left on
the property. All that has been cleaned up. I occupy the house myself. I painted the house. Sealed
the driveway. Graded the property, and the front building. Cleaned up everything on the property
that was left behind, including cars, metal, tires, stumps, trees. We're in the process, right now,
of grading the back banks, and we're going to mulch the banks, hopefully, this fall. Economics today
is not permitting me to build a building this fall, as I had wished for. So, my hopes were to go through
the site plan review at this time and build a new building. Economically, I can't do it right now.
What I plan, for the near future, is to grade the banks, mulch them, and put the water control where
we want it and get set up for a building and go through site plan review. Hopefully, that will happen
this spring. I'm not really prepared to go through site plan review right now, not knowing what size
of a building I want, where I want to put the building, what's going to work best. The equipment is
parked in a manner in which it cannot be seen from the road. It cannot be seen from the house.
Everything is kept behind the garage. There are banks protecting it. So the neighbors don't look
at it. I had Mr. Hinsic and Mr. Mahark to my left, or to my west. They both know what I'm doing there
and have no problem. I mean, they can't see my equipment from their house. To the other side, it's
all Whites. I have no desire to have anything seen from the road, and when I build the building, I
will have everything enclosed, and out of the weather. I don't believe I'm causing a problem to anyone
else.
MR. SICARD-Brian, would you be able to get everything inside, when this building gets up?
MR. GRANGER-Everything. It may seem I have a lot of trucks. I only have two dump truck, three pick
up trucks, and one sierra truck and the building I propose to build would put everything inside,
including the one asphalt paver, two loaders.
MR. SICARD-Do you agree with the site plan review, for later on?
MR. GRANGER-Yes, I agree with that, later on. I'm just not prepared for it right now.
MR. SICARD-I'm familiar with some of the people that owe you money. So, I know that. Are you asking
for, what, five months, six months?
MR. GRANGER-I would say no longer than nine months. I consider myself a window when I can build a
building, seeing how I'm going to build it, partially, myself, the window being in the fall. The spring
I'll be too busy getting going. Fall is a good window.
MR. TURNER-Yes. You're looking at a year away, right?
MR. GRANGER-Before the actually building. So, I would say I would go to site plan review some time
next spring.
MRS. EGGLESTON-But just so, Charlie, you mean, you're not willing, now, to go to site plan review,
for this problem. You're talking about, if and when you put up a building, then you would.
15
.~ "-",,,'
MR. GRANGER-For the whole project. I'm trying to clean things up, now, as we go, and get things, Mr.
Sicard's been there.
MRS. EGGLESTON-What size is the parcel of land?
MR. GRANGER-Two hundred by six hundred, a little over three acres, Light Industrial zone. The area
in which the building would be is in the back portion of the building, or the back portion of the lot,
far behind the house. There's a fence up now, where you can't see behind there.
MRS. EGGLESTON-How many businesses are actually on the property?
MRS. GOETZ-Because I don't think that's what we're talking about, whether it's clean or not.
MRS. EGGLESTON-No. How many businesses are actually operated out of the premises.
MR. GRANGER-My business is operated on, the Super Shuttle stores three vans there, or four vans,
actually.
MRS. EGGLESTON-But that's their only location, isn't it?
MR. GRANGER-No. They have another office at West Notre Dame Street.
MRS. GOETZ-You'd be storing the vehicles that are usually seen all around Town?
MR. GRANGER-Which ones?
MRS. GOETZ-The paving and asphalt ones.
MR. GRANGER-Well, you know, an asphalt paver goes from one job to the next. That's why you seem to
see it in different locations. To be truthful, the machine hasn't seen the shop since April, and it'll
probably be coming in the shop next week when the plant closes. We don't bring it back to the shop
and take it some place else. We just take it to the next job site.
MRS. GOETZ-I just want to understand what is before us. It seems that we don't have a problem with
what you're doing there. I think we've all been there. I've been there, but isn't the question, did
the Zoning Administrator make the right determination, and that's all we're talking about.
MR. TURNER-That's all we're talking about.
MR. GRANGER-The only thing I disagree with Pat's determination is that she determined that Arrow Fence
was Light Manufacturing, and I disagree with that. They did not manufacture fence there. They were
a contractor and installed the fence. I asked Pat, on several pieces of property. She can testify
to that.
MR. TURNER-I can vouch for what you're saying, they did not manufacture fence there, but they did store
it there. Their office was there and their truck was there, and that's all they used the property
for, but like I told you, yours is a different type of business. Yours is a little of everything.
You're a contractor. You've got heavy equipment. You're going to repair your equipment at the site,
and you're going to live there.
MR. GRANGER-Arrow Fence res i ded in the house. We don't do any heavy repa i rs. A 11 we do is change
oil, things like that. No engine work. No transmission work. Nothing of that nature.
MR. TURNER-No, but you're going to have heavy equipment storage.
MR. GRANGER-It's all permitted in the zone.
MR. SICARD-What have you got for heavy equipment?
MR. GRANGER-One back hoe, one bull dozer, one asphalt paver.
MRS. GOETZ-It seems as if, Pat, are you asking him to come in for what he has now, and then, yes, maybe
another site plan review would have to be done at the point that he put other buildings up?
MR. CRAYFORD-He would have to go through site plan again, if he puts another building up, but right
now, he has the construction equipment there, and Super Shuttle there.
MR. GRANGER-I'm trying not to go to site plan review twice.
MRS. GOETZ-The site plan review, at this point, wouldn't be involved, would it?
MRS. CRAYFORD-I wouldn't think so. I feel that Dave and I have tried to tell you that. It wouldn't
be that involved right now.
16
--
MRS. GOETZ-So, we need to just answer the question whether or not the Zoning Administrator made the
right determination.
MR. TURNER-That's it, yes.
MR. GRANGER-Well, she based her determination on whether Light Manufacturing was going on before.
MRS. GOETZ-Well, I think there's a little more to it, in that you have other types of uses, aside from
what you're describing as the construction versus manufacturing.
MR. CRAYFORD-I was pointing out that it's a new use there.
MR. SHEA-It really doesn't make any difference what went on before, as far as Pat's determination is
concerned. She's trying to parlay it into the definition of the permitted use and the type of use
that Brian's now engaged in. So, what went on before is irrelevant, correct?
MRS. CRAYFORD-I think it's irrelevant, but Brian seems to feel that what was going on there before
is what is going on there now.
MR. TURNER-No.
MRS. EGGLESTON-It's certainly not the end of the Super Shuttle business.
MRS. CRAYFORD-But he feels he hasn't changed the use.
MR. SICARD-I think what is relevant, what's permitted in the zone.
MR. TURNER-It's permitted, Charlie. It's just that he has to go through site plan review, and that's
what he's appealing.
MRS. CRAYFORD-He doesn't need a variance, Charlie. Everything's permitted there.
MRS. GOETZ-Wouldn't it be just a one time visit to the Planning Board to just talk about what he's
got there now?
MRS. CRAYFORD-I would think so. I would think it would behoove Brian to meet with Lee and review the
application with her and maybe request waivers from drainage and so forth, because there's no buildings
on the site that, no new buildings.
MRS. GOETZ-It doesn't sound like it would be as extensive as if, at some point, you propose buildings.
MR. GRANGER-Well, we're trying to get the banks graded and mulched, ahead of time, to know exactly,
you know. which direction we were going with that, and get things in order. If I went now, how would
I determine the slope of the banks when I'm not sure, you know. I don't have that quite ready yet.
MRS. GOETZ-It sounds like you're making progress, though, and working on it.
MR. GRANGER-I'm trying.
MR. SHEA-Well, Brian's not here for a variance. He's here only to determine if.
MR. TURNER-He's required site plan review. He's appealing her decision.
MRS. CRAYFORD-He's appealing my decision that he needs to go through site plan review for the use of
construction company, shuttle service, sand extraction.
MR. GRANGER-We're not extracting sand. We're grading the slopes. We're moving some sand around.
MRS. CRAYFORD-You're not taking it away from the site.
MR. GRANGER-No. We've taken a couple of loads, but nothing, we're not extracting sand on the pit.
MRS. CRAYFORD-That's not really what you're doing there. Okay. That's why you need to come in, after
we finish this evening, if you need to go through site plan review, we need to go into a little bit
more of what you're doing there. So, I'm correct in giving you an application stating exactly what
you're doing.
MR. SICARD-Pat, I think he's aware that he has to go into a site plan review. I think what the problem
is, is to get a delay for five or six or seven months.
MRS. CRAYFORD-Well, as a Zoning Administrator, I can't allow him to use the property.
17
---
'-"
MR. SICARD-I understand that, but I didn't know whether that was clear with the Board or not, because
he admits he needs a site plan review, but he can't do it right now. He's not prepared to do it right
now. He is going to do it.
MR. SHEA-No. That's not right, Charlie. What he's saying is he's willing to go for site plan review
for the new plan for the property and construction of a new building on the property. He's not saying
that he has to forego approval with site plan for use of the property, and that's what Pat's saying.
MRS. EGGLESTON-Certainly, as we looked at the site in back, it looks like sand extraction. You're
saying not, but did you create that big sand?
MR. GRANGER-If you saw before I moved in, it was worse than what it looks now. We're getting it there.
Before we had the property.
MRS. EGGLESTON-Was the big hole there, like, dug back into the bank and the sand?
MR. GRANGER-No, some of that was moved because we're goi ng back towards the 1 i ne. We have had the
property surveyed. I had the property surveyed, so I know where the 1 i ne is, because we want to get
mulch on all the banks right away, this fall. There's no erosion that's happening on these banks.
MRS. EGGLESTON- You must admi t, though, there is a change in the way the property is bei ng used. I
don't see your objection to going to site plan and just going over what you are doing on the property
because there is a drastic change with your changing the banks in the back and I'm not, extraction
is allowed, but you're not doing that, right?
MR. GRANGER-Yes.
MRS. EGGLESTON-And maybe you can compare, I'll give you, I'm not admitting, but you could compare,
maybe, your business to the fence, but certainly the Super Shuttle is a new, no matter where it's
headquarters are, you still have all of the vehicles on your property, for storage and what not. So,
in that light, I can't see how you can say it's not changing the use, and I don't see what your objection
is to go to the Planning Board.
MR. GRANGER-Well, I just didn't want to go twice because of the proposed building.
MRS. EGGLESTON-But, that, with the economy, the way that things are now, that, as you said, the way
the economy is, that could be a long time into the future, unfortunately.
MR. GRANGER-I agree with some things. I disagree with some things. I'm just trying to make the property
work as best I can and keep everything on the site. I want to go to bed without looking at my equipment.
MR. SHEA-But, Pat, if Brian's use of the property, and we know what he's doing up there. We know that
we can adequately describe what he does. If all of those fit into the definition of Light Industrial,
and he goes through site review, there really shouldn't be any difficulty in allowing him that use,
correct?
MRS. CRAYFORD-No. He's allowed that use. The Planning Board just wants to review it for site review.
MRS. EGGLESTON-I think you're right in your determination.
MR. SHEA-Yes.
MR. TURNER- Yes.
MRS. GOETZ-I would think that you would want to do that, you know, really, to make yourself go by the
regulations. I honestly don't think it's going to be a big hassle, and that way you're going to be
more secure that you're doing the right thing, and especially when you want to do more down the line.
You will have the security of knowing that you've gone this little bit of step.
MR. TURNER-Okay. Let me open the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
NO COtIENT
CORRESPONDENCE
MRS. GOETZ-There was a telephone conversation between the Zoning Office, Annabell Counter has no
objection, and we did receive a letter expounding upon the subject, but it isn't signed, and our policy
is we don't read such a letter into the record. You can come up and look at it if you'd like to.
MR. TURNER-Okay. A motion's in order.
18
...
'--
-
tÐTION ON NOTICE OF APPEAL NO. 3-91
its adoption, seconded by Susan Goetz:
BRIAN E. GRANGER, Introduced by Joyce Eggleston who moved for
To reaffirm the Zoning Administrator's decision that site plan review is required for establishment
of Mr. Granger's business at 96 Luzerne Road.
Duly adopted this 20th day of November, 1991, by the following vote:
AYES: Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Sicard, Mr. Shea, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Turner
NOES: NONE
ABSTAINED: Mr. Carr (9:17 p.m.)
SIGN VARIANCE NO. 85-1991 TYPE: UNLISTED HC-lA JOHN P. MATTHEWS OIItER: SAtE AS ABOVE 300 BAY
ROAD, CORNER OF BAY ROAD AND GLENII)()I) AVENUE TO KEEP ONE FREESTANDING SIGN ON THE CORIIER, LISTING
EACH BUSINESS (EXISTING). TO HAVE (INDIVIDUAL) FREESTANDING SIGNS FOR FIVE IIISINESSES AND TIIJ IMLL
SIGNS FOR REMAINING TIIJ BUSINESSES. (IMRREN COUNTY PLANNING) TAX IMP NO. 61-1-34 LOT SIZE: 1.76
ACRES SECTION 140-6-B 3D
JOHN MATTHEWS, PRESENT (9:17 p.m.)
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Lee A. York, Senior Planner, Sign Variance No. 85-1991, John Matthews, 11-19-91, Meeting
Date: November 20, 1991 "The applicant requests to have signage beyond what is allowed for shopping
centers. The application is to keep one free standing sign which is existing, in addition to 5
individual free standing signs and 2 wall signs. This seems to be a large number of signs for one
center. However, the signs which are intended are small in nature and will total 117 square feet,
exclusive of the carved free standing sign. The Board may want to look at the amount of sign coverage
rather than the number of signs. This is a multibusiness complex on a single lot. The businesses
do not appear to be using signage as advertising, but more for recognition of their location. The
lot is similar to the professional office complexes further north on Bay Road. The multibusiness lots
do not appear to be conducive to wall signs. The Board may want to consider all free standing signage
rather than a mix."
MRS. GOETZ-And the Warren County Planning Board approved.
MR. TURNER-John, any further comment?
MR. MATTHEWS-No. I think you've covered just about everything. What I'm trying to do is design signage
for the property so that everything is set and conforming to, so when the tenant comes in, here's the
spot for the sign, and everybody's not fighting for a side.
MR. TURNER-Do you have any questions?
MR. SHEA-So, then, we're looking at, essentially, three signs of this size, correct?
MR. MATTHEWS-Right.
MR. SHEA-And on each of these, they would have one tenants name?
MR. MATTHEWS-Correct.
MR. SHEA-Okay.
MR. MATTHEWS-And each one of those is basically located at their entrance.
MR. SHEA-Okay.
MR. CARR-Now, what's the design of those free standing signs?
MR. MATTHEWS-Well, there'll be two stone pillars with a carved wood background sign with the beige,
color beige background so it will match the siding.
MR. CARR-Okay.
MRS. GOETZ-You've done a really nice jOb with that, especially with the landscaping, too, and the color
of the building and all.
MR. TURNER-Bruce, he's allowed, since he's on the corner, one free standing sign, all right.
MR. CARR-So that's number eight, lets say.
19
~
MR. TURNER-Yes, and he's allowed two wall signs, up to 100 square feet.
MR. CARR-But he's got eight tenants, or each tenant's not allowed a wall sign, I guess.
MR. TURNER-They are, but I'm saying, what the Ordinance says, any business on a corner is allowed that,
for starters.
MRS. GOETZ-Isn't it either two wall signs or one free standing sign?
MR. TURNER-Two building signs and one free standing sign, where a building is situated on a corner
lot.
MR. SHEA-For a corner.
MRS. GOETZ-For the corner.
MR. TURNER-Right.
MR. CARR-But that's just, isn't that just a one business building?
MR. TURNER-No. There's two buildings, two separate buildings.
MR. CARR-No, no. I mean, for that rule, isn't that just a one business?
MR. SHEA-I think it's for a building on a corner. There are two buildings.
MR. TURNER-There's two buildings there.
MR. CARR-I'm just trying to figure out, I guess, how many signs is he entitled to, because there's
at least, there's seven businesses.
MR. MATTHEWS-Well, the way it was explained to me, each tenant is allowed a wall sign.
MR. TURNER-A wall sign, right.
MR. SHEA-All right, and if you read the definition with respect to a corner lot, since there are two
buildings on the property, on a corner lot, he's entitled to two free standing and four.
MRS. CRAYFORD-No, no. One free standing, on a corner lot.
MR. SHEA-Even though there are two buildings?
MRS. CRAYFORD-It doesn't matter how many buildings. It's one free standing sign.
MR. MATTHEWS-Well, didn't you explain to me, once, that because we had two, we could have a sign at
each entrance.
MRS. CRAYFORD-I'm sorry, you're two.
MR. MATTHEWS-But I elected to keep the one on the corner, rather than put two free standing signs
designating the tenants.
MRS. GOETZ-It comes under Shopping Center, one free standing per entrance, fronting a different street
or highway. Well, when I first saw this application, John, five free standing signs. He wants five
free standing signs.
MR. MATTHEWS-Well, granted, they are free standing signs, but all I want to do is take what's permitted
on the wall and set it right here between two stone pillars, not out in the middle of the yard. Right
in amongst the landscaping.
MR. TURNER-I think what he's got proposed is going to be very aesthetically pleasing. It's going to
look nice.
MR. MATTHEWS-The way the buildings are, there's so many windows and doors and what not, and I just
think it was kind of hodge podge, the design of the building and the character of the neighborhood,
slapping signs on the side of the building.
MR. TURNER-Yes. It'll take it right away.
MR. MATTHEWS-The only reason I decided to keep the existing signs that were already under permits and
already on the building, was that it really wasn't an advantageous spot to place one of these pillars,
in front of their entranceway, at that particular spot.
20
""'"
-..-/
MRS. EGGLESTON-Will it be effective, though, with the cars pulling in front of them, what if there's
cars parked right in front of them? They're not going to serve a purpose for somebody else trying
to find the, that's my.
MR. MATTHEWS-I think there's enough distance between the cars and where the sign is that.
MR. CARR-Well, look at number five, here. I think she's got a good point. I mean, how high is the
sign off the ground?
MR. MATTHEWS-The pillars will be four feet.
MRS. EGGLESTON-But the sign will be centered.
MR. MATTHEWS-And the sign will be three.
MRS. EGGLESTON-So, it'll be down. Boy, I think you're going to have a hard time seeing them with all
the cars parked there. That's just my own.
MR. MATTHEWS-So, it'll be up off the ground about this high.
MRS. GOETZ-The only thing is, the businesses that are here, their customers are going to say, where
are you, and they will say, on the corner of Glenwood and Bay, and once they get there, they'll know
that they're at the right place, and then they'll be looking around for the smaller signs to see which
part of the building to go to.
MR. MATTHEWS-Well, that's basically what I want to do, is to identify the entrances with their, I'd
put them higher, if you think that's better.
MRS. GOETZ-No. What about Glens Falls Hospital? What kind of an outpatient? What is this anyway?
MR. MATTHEWS-It's what they call, Center For Recovery.
MRS. GOETZ-Meaning?
MR. MATTHEWS-Meaning it's a place for alcohol and substance abuse people to go after they've gone through
their major treatment at the hospital, people who can afford to go on in this type of clinical therapy,
that's what it's for.
MRS. GOETZ-Just coming in and leaving? Not staying there?
MR. MATTHEWS-They'll spend a good portion of the day there.
MRS. GOETZ-But not overnight?
MR. MATTHEWS-No, no. The hours would be, li ke, the way it is was explained to me, maybe two in the
afternoon until eight at night, or maybe longer.
MR. TURNER-Anymore questions?
MR. SICARD-Just sort of a drying out station.
MR. MATTHEWS-It's past that.
MR. TURNER-It's past that. It's after they've dried them out.
MR. MATTHEWS-They have to get past that stage in order to get to this stage. This is the stage where
they try to re-indoctrinate them back into society.
MR. SHEA-Just out of curiosity, John, you didn't think that it was necessary or important or advantageous
to have signs exactly at the two entrances to indicate what was, I mean, you have a sign back here,
two signs back here for this building, but nothing up here?
MR. MATTHEWS-Well, I thought, you know, we discussed that maybe we'd have a sign at this entrance and
at this entrance, but in lieu of the fact that I already have a nice sign on the corner, rather than
build another sign and have so many signs, that corner sign isn't that far from that entrance, and
if they need to, they can go around the block. Maybe, someday, people will say, gee, why don't you
have a sign at this entrance and at that end and you wouldn't have to cross that bridge. I'm just
trying to use what I have right now, to its best advantage.
MR. TURNER-These are pretty much informational, more than anything, you know, when you drive in there,
you go right there. You know where you are.
21
~
~
-_/
MR. MATTHEWS-It's not, the tenants aren't the type of tenants that are, the sign's there for everybody.
I mean, the people that are going there know they're going there for, in general, unless they're looking
for remax for the first time.
MRS. EGGLESTON-That could change, though, if you changed the tenant. Then there might be a tenant
who would say, gee, that sign's so far down on the ground in front of the cars, I've got to have
something up on my building, for attraction.
MR. CARR-Yes, but maybe the tenant, also, would know what they're getting into.
MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. I can't believe it wouldn't look good, since you've done such a terrific job on
the rest of the whole complex. I don't really have a problem with it. I just, don't know how effective
they're going to be down in front of the cars.
MRS. GOETZ-I love the landscaping. It looks so great, and the way you put trees along the street.
MR. TURNER-Yes, it's a nice looking place. Any further questions? Okay. I'll open the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
NO CotlENT
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
CORRESPONDENCE
MRS. GOETZ-From Robert L. Eddy, "I am opposed to this variance. This would only lead to others making
the same request, resulting in a proliferation of signs, which would be undesirable."
MR. TURNER-I guess I'd have a comment on that one, and I think this is a totally different situation
in that this is a complex where their buildings are spread apart. There's probably 70, 80 feet between
one building and the other. When you drive in there, you want to drive in there and go where you want
to go and these are going to direct you to where you want to go, and I don't think this, this is unique,
and this is not going to lead to a similar situation, I don't think. That's my comment. I don't know
about anybody else.
MR. SHEA-I think it's going to lead to other situations, but I think it's a unique situation.
MR. TURNER-It is a unique situation. It's not over blown.
MR. SHEA-Once somebody goes by and sees this property and sees this number of, this many signs on that
property, even though there are a number of tenants in there, they're all going to be coming in and
I want thi s and I want that and it's going to happen, but I do agree that thi s property is uni que and
that, in my opinion, this is far more aesthetically pleasing than a sign slapped up on the side of
the building, and I would also, for the record, say that, I think, in my opinion, it would make more
sense to have the entire property, as nicely as you've done it, to mandate that all of your tenants
comply with the same kind of sign theme that you're trying to put forth, here. So, by having Barry
Scott and these others, their sign slapped up against the building, when you have the others done so
nicely down here, that doesn't really make a lot of sense to me, but, I mean, that's the way you want
to do it, and that's what you're here for, for a variance.
MR. MATTHEWS-Well, I did it that way, basically, because of the location, where their entrance was,
and for simplicity. If you wouldn't mind including in your approval that, down the road, if I wanted
to construct a sign identical to this at those other two locations, that it would be okay, I'd appreciate
that. It may come to that someday.
MRS. GOETZ-I think we better just stick to this one.
MR. MATTHEWS-I mean, these signs were there. Affiliated Business is doing his sign over. It was a
big, four by eight, metal thing, painted black and white. It didn't fit the character of the building
at all, and I told him, get rid of it and make a new sign.
MR. SHEA-You know, this sign is similar in design to those, the professional offices farther up on
Bay Road.
MR. MATTHEWS-Well, up in John Hughes' area.
MR. SHEA-Yes.
MR. MATTHEWS-I mean, you look in there and you see separate buildings and a separate entrance and each
one has its only little sign.
22
'~
---
MR. SHEA-Yes, and it's nicely done.
MR. TURNER- Yes.
MR. MATTHEWS-And that's sort of what I wanted this to look like.
MR. TURNER-Yes.
MRS. GOETZ-In any motion, we should put that the design of this building is a bit unique in that, on
the back of it, you know the way they have the additions coming out. We don't have a lot of buildings
like that, I hope.
MR. CARR-Well, the building needed a variance.
MRS. GOETZ-The second building did.
MR. CARR-Ri ght.
MRS. GOETZ-But especially the one that's closer to the road, the way it's designed. The design of
the building is unique. We've got to make this, in the motion, the best we can, to avoid this situation
that could come up.
MR. TURNER-Yes, to qualify it. Right.
MRS. GOETZ-Like, we granted Travelers those extra signs because they had the back business.
MR. TURNER-Yes. Well, you know, the other side of the coin is, too, that he can go up 25 feet with
the sign, that's the height. That's the thing that's going to destroy the character of this whole
complex, something like that. So, this'll blend in with everything that he's got there.
MR. SHEA-John, I think I asked this question. There's only one tenant on each one of these, correct?
MATTHEWS-Correct.
MRS. GOETZ-What would be the total square footage he could have, otherwise? Did you say 200?
MR. TURNER-If he's within 100 feet of the road, he could have up to 100 square feet on the building.
MRS. GOETZ-On each building?
MR. TURNER- Yes.
MRS. GOETZ-So that's 200, right there.
MR. TURNER-Yes, and then he could have a free standing sign.
MRS. GOETZ-Fifty.
MR. TURNER-If he was at 25 feet back, he could have 64 square feet.
MRS. GOETZ-So, your total square footage proposed, is it 287? In the Staff, it said 117.
MR. TURNER-Where'd you come up with 287?
MRS. GOETZ-I don't know. I just added up all the different measurements, but I don't know if it was
right.
MR. TURNER-There's 5 at 18, right?
MR. SHEA-Right.
MRS. GOETZ-I had 6 at 18.
MR. SHEA-No. He's got two.
MRS. GOETZ-One at nine.
MR. TURNER-All right. Number Two sign is 18 square feet, or, lets start out fresh. Number One is
18 square feet. Number Two is 18 square feet. The existing sign is nine square feet.
MR. SHEA-That's Number Three, correct?
23
MR. TURNER-That's Number Three.
MR. SHEA-That's nine square feet?
MR. TURNER-Right.
MRS. GOETZ-Nine.
MR. TURNER-All right. Number Four is 18 square feet.
MR. SHEA-No. Number Four is.
MR. TURNER-Did I read it wrong.
MRS. GOETZ-Yes. Four is 18, at least it's written here as 18.
MR. TURNER-Six by three.
MRS. CRAYFORD-It looks like Number Three, though. Number Four looks like Number Three. Is that nine
square feet, John? I'm looking at this plan, here.
MR. TURNER-No. I'm reading it off the sheet he's got, here.
MRS. GOETZ-The application says Number Three is.
MR. MATTHEWS-Number Three is the existing Barry Scott, and that's three by three.
MRS. GOETZ-Nine.
MR. SHEA-Right, and Number Four is the existing, what?
MRS. GOETZ-Free standing sign, isn't it?
MR. MATTHEWS-Affiliated Business, but we're redoing that and we're going to make that three by six,
the same as the other.
MRS. GOETZ-Which is 18.
MR. SHEA-Okay.
MR. TURNER-Number Five is 18. Number Six is 18. Number Seven is 18, and what did you say Number Eight
was? That's existing?
MRS. GOETZ-Two ten, it says here.
MRS. CRAYFORD-Number Eight is the free standing.
MR. MATTHEWS-Right.
MRS. GOETZ-The application says 210.
MR. SHEA-No. It can't be.
MR. CARR-It can't be 210.
MR. TURNER-No. That can't be 210.
MR. SHEA-Do you know what the dimensions, those are four feet by six inches.
MR. TURNER-They're six by 45, aren't they?
MR. CARR-So, that's 117 square feet.
MR. SHEA-Yes.
MR. TURNER-Six inches by 45. So, you've got.
MR. SHEA-1897 square inches, right?
MRS. GOETZ-John, do you know the overall dimensions of Eight?
MR. MATTHEWS-Total?
24
-
-'
MRS. GOETZ· Yes.
MR. SHEA-It looks like it's, is that right, 157?
MRS. GOETZ-All is said on here was 210.
MR. TURNER-No. That's not right.
MR. SHEA· That's probably right. I forgot to take in the top, the 300 Bay Road. I came up with 157
square feet, plus the top part.
MR. MATTHEWS·Then you've got another, approximately, four square feet. Are you going both sides?
MR. TURNER·No.
MR. SHEA·No, one side.
MR. CARR·What am I missing? I've got a half an inch by four feet is two square feet, right?
MR. TURNER· Yes.
MR. CARR·There's seven of those, so that's 14 square feet.
MR. TURNER· There's 14 square feet.
MR. CARR·And then the top part is four, even stretching it to six square feet, that's only 20 extra,
right?
MR. MATTHEWS·Yes.
MR. CARR·Onto the 117 from all the free standing. So that's 137 at the most.
MRS. CRAYFORD·I come up with about 240, approximately.
MR. CARR·Do you count the pillars?
MRS. CRAYFORD·No. I'm counting all those signs, plus that, that, that, that, that, that.
MRS. GOETZ·And you got what?
MRS. CRAYFORD-I came up with about 240 square feet.
MR. CARR·Well, how big is that sign, to you?
MRS. CRAYFORD-This right here?
MR. CARR-Yes.
MRS. CRAYFORD·This one's 10 inches, and then 10 inches by four.
MR. SHEA-Four feet.
MR. CARR· Yes, by four feet, about, ri ght?
MRS. CRAYFORD-Right, four feet by 20 inches, if you want to count everything in there. That's why
I said, approximately 240 square feet.
MR. CARR·So, that's no more than eight square feet.
MRS. CRAYFORD·Right.
MR. CARR-And then each of those little signs are two.
MRS. CRAYFORD-Yes, right.
MR. CARR-So, there's 14 and 8 is 22. Now, where do you get the other 200 square feet?
MRS. CRAYFORD-Come up with 108, on your 18 square foot signs, plus the nine.
MR. CARR·That's 117.
MRS. CRAYFORD·That's 117.
25
--'
MR. CARR-Plus the 22, big free standing sign.
MR. SHEA-139.
MR. CARR-About.
MRS. CRAYFORD-I got an extra 18 in there.
MR. CARR-But we're still short by about 100 square feet for you.
MRS. GOETZ-But it looks like, he's allowed 250 square feet, overall.
MR. TURNER- Yes.
MRS. GOETZ-Just by the Ordinance.
MRS. CRAYFORD-That's right.
MRS. GOETZ-And if we add up proposed, it may be, like, 255 square feet.
MRS. CRAYFORD-He's under what he is permitted, if that's what you're getting at.
MRS. GOETZ-Yes, that is what I'm getting at.
MR. CARR-But I guess the poi nt is, I mean, he's way under. I mean, he's a good 110 square feet under
what he's allowed.
MRS. GOETZ-It's just that he wants to do it in a different way.
MRS. CRAYFORD-Yes.
MR. TURNER-That's it.
MRS. CRAYFORD-You know, I would hope you're not going to try to put exact figures in there, in your
motion.
MR. CARR-No, but I think, to make it unique, we should try to say what he's allowed, and say,
approximately, he is doing it in a unique way, and even less signage than he would be allowed.
MRS. GOETZ-What's he allowed, overall, 350?
MR. SHEA-250.
MR. CARR-250.
MRS. GOETZ-That's what I thought, and aren't we coming up with 255 proposed?
MR. TURNER-No.
MR. SHEA-We came up with 139, approximately 139.
MRS. GOETZ-With everything?
MR. CARR-With everything.
MR. SHEA- Yes.
MRS. GOETZ-Okay.
MR. TURNER-Yes, with everything.
MRS. GOETZ-We have to make this motion right, because we're going to have these other people coming
in, if we don't set this apart.
II»TION TO APPROVE SIGN VARIANCE NO. 85-1991 JOHN P. MATTHEWS, Introduced by Susan Goetz who moved
for its adoption, seconded by Michael Shea:
This would allow the applicant to keep one freestanding sign on the corner which is approximately 22
square feet. In addition, he would have five additional freestanding signs which would be 18 square
feet a piece, at 3 foot height each. This would also allow the applicant to have two wall signs.
One is an existing 9 square foot sign and the other is 18 square feet. There are special circumstances
26
'--'
applying to this land and the signs which do not apply generally to the land or signs in the
neighborhood. The design of the building closest to the road is unique, and the second building on
the lot and its placement there is also part of the unique situation. The strict application of the
dimensional requirements would result in a specified practical difficulty. The applicant is actually
going to have a finished product of approximately 139 square feet versus 250 square feet that would
be allowed per the Sign Ordinance. The difference here, and the unique situation, is that he is choosing
to use his allowed square footage in a way other than is usually done. Public facilities and services
would not be adversely effected, and the variance would not be materially detrimental to other property
in the district.
Duly adopted this 20th of November, 1991, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Shea, Mrs. Goetz, Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Carr, Mr. Sicard, Mr. Turner
NOES: NONE (9:51 p.m.)
AREA VARIANCE NO. 86-1991 TYPE: UNLISTED SR-lA RICHARD A. lOVER O"ER: SAtE AS ABOVE SUNNYSIDE
ROAD EAST, LOCATED NORTHERLY OF SUNNYSIDE ROAD, EAST ON DIVISION LINE BETlEEN TO" OF ~EENSBURY AND
TO" OF KINGSBURY FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE FAMILY DlELLING. FOR 25 FT. OF FRONTAGE ON A PUBLIC
HIGHWAY IN LIEU OF THE RE~IRED 40 FT. (WARREN COONTY PLANNING) TAX MAP NO. 52-1-14.31 LOT SIZE:
2.679 ACRES SECTION 179-70 (A)
BRUCE JORDAN, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT (9:51 p.m.)
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Lee A. York, Senior Planner, Area Variance No. 86-1991, Richard Weaver, 11-19-91, Meeting
Date: November 20, 1991 "The applicant is requesting a variance from Section 179-70, 40 feet on a
Town road. The applicant has 25 feet on Sunnyside Road. A review of the Assessor's records revealed
that Richard and Phyllis Weaver of New Smyrna Beach, Florida purchased the lot on Sunnyside Road in
1984. On August 23, 1988 the lot was subdivided into two parcels. The northern parcel was deeded
over to Richard Weaver of New Smyrna, Florida. The lot was created with 25 feet of road frontage,
rather than the required 40 feet. This would appear to be a self created hardship. Richard and Phyllis
Weaver still own the lot with the house on it. It would seem that two conforming lots could be created
with the acreage and road frontage available by utilizing both lots. Subdivision approval would be
required to accomplish this."
MRS. GOETZ-And the Warren County Planning Board returned stating "No County Impact".
MR. TURNER-Mr. Jordan.
MR. JORDAN-For the benefit of the tape recorder that's taking the record, here, my name is Bruce Jordan.
I'll be representing the applicant, Richard A. Weaver, who is not going to be in attendance tonight.
Mr. Weaver runs a construction business in Florida, and he was not able to attend for this meeting.
I think the application that you have before you is pretty straight forward. I don't have a long winded
speech to make to tell you much about it. If you do have any questions about what we intend to do
here, and the legal issues or practi ca 1 issues that you may see, I'll be glad to address them and
approach them in that format.
MR. TURNER-I guess I'd ask you to address the comments that Staff made, in relation to the two lots.
MR. JORDAN-The Staff Comments are partially correct, okay. Mr. Weaver and his wife Phyllis owned the
contiguous parcels, prior to the conveyance in 1988. They, like some other people in this fair Town,
with the impending Subdivision Ordinance that was before the Commission, I was certainly familiar with
that at the time, because I was on the Bar Association Committee that was reviewing it, decided to
divide the parcel into two lots, at a time when it was permissible to do that without formal subdivision
review, because everything had road access, and so on and so forth. Before doing that, they contacted
the Town of Queensbury, unfortunately, over the telephone. I do not know who Mr. Weaver spoke to in
the Planning Office. I spoke with him, again, before coming here this evening, to find out who it
was. We're talking, at least, three years ago, now, three plus years ago. He doesn't know. He talked
to some girl in the Planning Office who advised him that 25 feet would be no problem, as long as you
own 25 feet on a public highway for access to the parcel. So, bingo, we draw a description to a deed
that allows 25 feet to access this parcel, which is, you might say, an off road parcel, which,
essentially, is two and a half times larger than the required acreage that we have in Suburban
Residential One Acre. The piece to, you have a map, to the east.
MR. TURNER-Yes.
MR. JORDAN-It's part of the application. The piece to the east really isn't available to pick up,
if you will, some frontage to add to this 25 foot strip, for the simple reason, and, regrettably, it's
not shown on this particular plan, but there's a house that's on there, that's been there for very
many years. Now, if we shave off another 15 feet to add to this imaginary 40 feet that we're supposed
to have here, we're going to eliminate the setback requirements as against the house that's on that
27
parcel. Now, part of what the Staff's remarks are inaccurate about is that, this piece to the east
was actually purchased from another chain of title from the piece that we're talking about right now,
the 2.679 acre parcel. Part of that piece extended all the way to where you see Halfway Creek in the
back there, and it was added to this piece in the back and established a, basically, 300 foot deep
road front lot that's now 133 some odd feet wide. Mr. Weaver, during the course of these discussions
with me, when he was informed that a variance was now required from the Town's point of view, said,
Bruce, I can't shave anything off that other lot and add it to this 25 foot strip. Realize, and I
don't have chapter, line, and verse in front of me, right now, but the error that occurred in 1988
was less significant than it appears now. Apparently, according to Pat when I spoke with her, in 1988,
the applicable width was 30 feet, not 40 feet, okay. So the variance that we're talking about, if
you want to break it down to its components, is a five foot swing, from the 30 feet that was actually
the law at that time, because this lot is a preexisting lot of record, which now has an access problem,
which I think you have to evaluate, based upon the law that existed at the time, not the law that exists
now.
MR. TURNER-My other question would be, how close is the existing house to that right-of-way, that 25
foot proposed right-of-way?
MR. JORDAN-I know it complies with the applicable setbacks, Mr. Turner, but I don't have it located
on this map.
MR. TURNER-Yes, but is it farther away than it's supposed to be? Is the house more to the east, off
that piece of property than it is to the west, the side of the house?
MR. JORDAN-I'm told that it is at a location where we cannot move the easterly boundary of that
right-of-way any further to the east, or it's going to encroach, and then you're going to need a variance
for that lot. Am I answering your question?
MR. CARR-Well, I think you are, but I think we have to see that house located on the map.
MR. TURNER-Yes, but my other question would be, since you split the lot up and you took a hunk of
property out of the back and put it with the back lot, that belonged to the front lot, which is to
the east, there.
MR. JORDAN-Correct.
MR. TURNER-All right?
MR. JORDAN-That's correct.
MR. TURNER-You did that, right?
MR. JORDAN-That's correct. Yes, it is.
MR. TURNER-Then I guess my argument would be even stronger to say, what is the dimension from that
piece of property line to the side of that house?
MR. JORDAN-I don't have that located on this map. This map that you're looking at is a survey of the
parcels that we're talking about.
MR. TURNER-I know. Yes, right.
MR. JORDAN-But, to answer your question, this is a lot of record already, okay, and it's in diffèrent
ownership, and, let me, I guess I have to pull a Paul Harvey on you and tell you the rest of the story,
too. Mr. Weaver, regrettably, has been going along and dealing with brokers and buyers and so on and
so forth. Before the issue ever came up, of thi s 25 foot stri p, he thought, now to hi s detriment,
that having dealt with the Town, informally, but a lot of people do that, they call up and say, hey,
whoever's on the other end of the phone, what do I have to do, here, went ahead and figured this property
with 25 feet on that roadway. Now, as I stand here before you, he's contractually obligated to close
on this piece to the east. He's under a contract. I talked to the Lender's attorney today. They're
ready to close that transaction, either Tuesday or Wednesday of next week. He's also under contract
to close.
MR. TURNER-Close on the back lot?
MR. JORDAN-On the back lot, okay.
MR. SHEA-The lot in question?
MR. JORDAN-The lot in question, yes, Mr. Shea.
MR. TURNER- Yes.
28
-
MR. JORDAN-But, if I could digress for just one second. I started thinking about, well, where, there
was a 30 foot, now there's a 40 foot. Where does all thi s stuff come from? Where do we say, I know
where it is in the Ordinance, but who says 40 is better than 30 feet. Why not 80 feet, and so on,
and I was interested, so one morning on my way back from church, I stopped, right out here, on Haviland
Road and I too k out my Stan 1 ey 25 foot tape, and I measured the pavement, not from 1 i ne to 1 i ne, but
from paved shoulder to paved shoulder, it's 26 and one half feet. Now, if I understand the regulations
that are in the Subdivision Ordinance, the purpose and the concern, why we're here at all with this
40 foot, 30 foot issue, is for the benefit of emergency access to the parcel in question, so if someone
has a heart attack, you can get an ambulance in and out of there, or if there's a fire, you can get
a fire truck in and out of there, or what have you. Well, right out here, we've got two way traffic,
45 mile an hour posted speed limit, semis going back and forth, fire trucks going back and forth and
so on and so forth. I can't have a reasonable discussion with anybody that 25 feet is in any way
inadequate to get a vehicle in and out of this property. It just isn't.
MR. CARR-Yes, that's not the purpose of the 40 foot. As I understand it, the purpose of the 40 foot
is to cut down on road cuts, so that you don't overflow traffic onto certain highways. If you limit
the amount of road frontage, you limit the amount of driveways that can be placed on that road.
MR. JORDAN-That may be, but that's not what the Ordinance says, if I'm reading it correctly.
MRS. EGGLESTON-Ted, when we went and looked at this, you know as you go out, I'm trying to get an idea
of where this is. Is it near the Brook?
MR. TURNER- Yes.
MRS. EGGLESTON-So, there's going to be, you know the road narrows. It's like anything else, and you
go over a little brook and they've got the steel things, or whatever, it kind of narrows there. Is
this driveway going to come out near, so there's going to be another cut in the highway near where
that bri dge is? Like, where is thi s property, do you know where I mean, ri ght on, and then Nichol sons
is just the other side of it.
MR. TURNER-Right.
MRS. EGGLESTON-So, where is this property, in relation to that? Do you guys know?
MR. JORDAN-I'm afraid I can't answer it with the degree of specificity that you want. I can't nail
it to that area.
MR. TURNER-There's a lot beyond the house to the Brook, Joyce. Beyond this property line, here, there's
another lot, over here, that borders the Brook. It's probably 60, 70 feet road frontage, maybe even
more than that, maybe 100.
MR. SHEA-More than that, I think.
MR. TURNER-About 100 feet, right here, then you've got the bridge. So, you've got 133, 100, you've
got about 233 feet from the bridge to the edge of that property line, right there where that driveway
cut is.
MR. CARR-Can I ask you one question? The back lot is owned by whom, Richard Weaver?
MR. JORDAN-The applicant, yes.
MR. CARR-And the front lot's owned by whom, Richard and Phyllis Weaver?
MR. JORDAN-You're talking about the one to the east?
MR. CARR- Yes.
MR. JORDAN-That's correct, Richard and Phyllis, his wife.
MR. CARR-So, we aren't even talking about the same owner.
MR. JORDAN-No, we're not.
MR. CARR-So, we can't request him to get 15 feet from that property anyway.
MR. JORDAN-I don't think you can.
MR. CARR-No, you can't. I mean, that's the whole idea of checkerboarding.
29
--
-
MR. JORDAN-The Staff's suggestion was, well, if you'll pardon the expression, because they're in bed
together, you could work something out, but I don't see it that way. From a legal point of view, I
think the checkerboard situation occurred back in 1988 and it is what it is, and we've got to focus
on the issue of, well, how about thi s 25 feet, as opposed to the 30 feet, if I'm mi sspeaking on that,
Pat, I think it was 30 feet.
MRS. CRAYFORD-Yes, you're right.
MR. JORDAN-Okay. We're talking 25 visa vi 30. I think that's what we're talking, realistically.
MRS. GOETZ-Were you involved, as their attorney, when it was subdivided?
MR. JORDAN-I drafted the deed.
MRS. GOETZ-Wouldn't you have wondered? I mean, what is your standard procedure?
MR. JORDAN-Well, okay, there's different procedures for different times, okay. I did do the deed.
There's no question about that. As I recall, here's how this deal went down. Dick Weaver came to
Town. He has family up in this area. He's related to the Meads somehow of Meads Nursery, and he comes
up here and visits. Well, he was in Town. He says, I hear they're changing the Ordinance in the Town
of Queensbury. Let me call Bruce Jordan, while I'm here. I want to see if I can transfer this deed
over. So he calls my office, you know, like, 9:30, and I'm sure you can appreciate this, Bruce, on
a Monday morning, and he says, I'm leaving Town at 2 o'clock, can you do a deed for me, okay, and I,
sure, what do you want me to do, and I said, Dick, I don't have time to go to the Town of Queensbury,
get letters drafted, this that and the other thing. You make sure what we're going to do is fine.
He told me he called the Town. I don't know who he talked to. I still don't know who.
MRS. GOETZ-It seems sloppy.
MR. CARR-It is sloppy, but.
MR. JORDAN-It is. There's no question about it, but, Mrs. Goetz, you're asking what my standard
procedure is. Normally, I wouldn't do a deal like that, but when a client tells me, your only window
to do this is between 9:30 and 2 o'clock, and I can't give them the Wall Street lawyer approach, you
know, and start drafting letters and get them signed by Pat and all that. Time did not permit. In
retrospect, I wish I had the opportunity or I wish I had forced everybody to take the opportunity to
do it that way because maybe we could have done it in a different way, but the only PhD I have is in
hindsight and, you know, that's what I'm dealing with now.
MR. CARR-Plus, I mean, you've got a client who says you've got four hours to do something and you tell
the client, are you sure this is legal because I don't have time to check it out, I mean, you're not
trying to protect my brethren, you know.
MRS. GOETZ-It sounds like it.
MR. JORDAN-Well, that's the reality of the business, though.
MRS. EGGLESTON-Would you do that?
MR. CARR-Yes, I would. If the client, I'd put it back on the client and say, listen, I don't know
if this is right or wrong. I can draft you a legal deed, fine, but, I mean, you're telling me that
you know you can do this.
MR. JORDAN-Mrs. Goetz, could I give you a real simple example? You come in to my office and you say,
Bruce, I want you to do a deed transferring my mother-in-law's lot to myself, okay, and I say, fine.
You say, how much? I say, I don't know, $75. Come on in. We'll do all the junk. You bring in the
deed to me, okay, and you say, this is the deed. I draw the deed for you. We take it up to the County
Clerk's Office and we record it, okay. That's all we do. Everybody's happy, smiling. You get the
deed back, blah, blah, blah. Six months, a year, whatever, goes by, it turns out, because the
mother-in-law dies or something and the wills probated, she already conveyed that deed to Bruce Carr,
and that deed was recorded in the Warren County Clerk's Office before you and I got there with our
little deal. Now, everybody's going to say, Bruce Jordan, what kind of a lawyer are you? Why didn't
you do a title search to make sure that your cl ient was protected, and the answer is, I could have
done that. Maybe I should have done that, but the real answer is, my client told me, I don't want
to bother with that. This is the deed. I want you to do this deed, and that's what I did here. It
could have been done better. Wasn't paid to go to that kind of lengths.
MR. CARR-Yes, well, first, that's right, we get the client to sign a Deed Only form saying all they
want us to do is a deed. Don't do any title search, don't do anything with it. Just prepare me the
deed, and we get them to sign off on that.
MR. JORDAN-There was no survey done when I did this either, okay. You're looking at a survey that
was done after the fact, based upon the work I did to create that description. That's how it was done.
30
',--
-
MRS. EGGLESTON-Well, if somebody, granted, they do that, and they don't listen to your advice or take
time for you to do anything, they just say, draw me the deed, then they take a chance, don't they.
MR. JORDAN-Yes, they do. Yes, they do, but my point to this Board is kind of two fold, I guess. One
is, we're talking about a deviation or a variance from the strict letter of the Ordinance, which I
don't think is that significant, if you think about it objectively. Number Two, I think the chance,
if you will, that they took was done in good faith. They made the call, if you'll accept what we're
telling you, to the Town in good faith and I submit to you that whoever gave that answer gave it in
good faith. In the meantime, also in good faith, although perhaps ill advised or not advised at all,
they entered into two separate contracts to sell the property, and Mr. Lou Briere is here. He's the
realtor who's involved in both of those transactions can confirm that for you, that, now I've got
contractual obligations that I'm dealing with in trying to address the interests of my client.
MRS. EGGLESTON-Ted, how wide is a fire truck?
MR. TURNER-How wide? They're not over eight feet, eight or nine feet, maybe.
MR. JORDAN-I'm missing one thing for you, on the fire truck issue.
LOU BRIERE
MR. BRIERE-Gary West went over and looked at the site. My name is Louis Briere and also the owner
of two lots next to this right-of-way. I did get a hold of Gary West at his place of business on Dix
Avenue and he went over and looked at the property. I saw him afterward. I asked him if he had gotten
a hold of Pat or someone at Zoning. He said, no, I haven't. I said, do you have a problem getting
in there with the fire truck. All he said was it looks narrow, but if there's 25 feet, I don't see
a problem. That's what he told me.
MRS. GOETZ-What does Mr. West do?
MR. BRIERE-He's the Fire Chief for that area.
MR. TURNER-The Fire Chief.
MRS. GOETZ-In Queensbury, or South Q?
MR. TURNER-No.
MRS. YORK-Bay Ridge.
MR. BRIERE-The Bay Ridge Fire Chief.
MR. TURNER- Yes.
MR. TURNER-Let me just say something. My road in front of my house is 20 feet wide, just like Mr.
Jordan said. He took the tape out. I took mine out and measured it.
MRS. GOETZ-Your driveway you mean?
MR. TURNER-No. The road in front of my house is 20 feet wide, a two lane road.
MRS. EGGLESTON-But there's room for snow and things to go over on the shoulders, where here you're
putting it on somebody else's property.
MR. JORDAN-No, we're not, ma'am. We're talking about one lane of traffic. What Mr. Turner is addressing
is two lanes of traffic. Like, right out here you have two lanes of traffic. We don't have two lanes
of 50 mile an hour traffic going in and out of this property. You just don't have it.
MR. TURNER-No, it's not 50 miles an hour in front of my house either. I hope not. You've got a driveway
that's 300 feet long.
MR. JORDAN-Yes.
MR. TURNER-What are we going to do with the snow? If Mr. Briere sells the lot, is this lot for sale,
Mr. Briere?
MR. BRIERE- Yes.
MR. JORDAN-Mr. Turner, lets assume the paved portion of the driveway is, I don't know, 12, 15 feet
wide, okay, you've got five feet on either side for snow.
MR. TURNER-It would have to be so one vehicle could get out of there, yes, about 12 feet wide.
31
"'--'
--
MR. JORDAN-So, at 12 feet of pavement width, you've got another six feet on either side to dump snow.
MR. TURNER-Two feet of snow makes a lot of snow.
MR. JORDAN-Or you can push it. That's a problem that the owner's going to have to deal with.
MR. TURNER-I know, but you've got one on this side and you've got one on this side. Mr. Briere owns
this lot and Mr. Weaver owns this lot, and the guy that's stuck with this lot, you know, he can't plow
it out in the road.
MR. JORDAN-Now, wait a minute. I don't know if he's stuck with it. He's buying it voluntarily.
MR. TURNER-He's buying it, okay, but he's buying this lot.
MR. JORDAN- Yes.
MR. TURNER-So, he has a 300 foot 25 foot wi dth for snow relllOva 1. He's ei ther got to go in there wi th
a bucket loader and clean it right out. I know that's his responsibility.
MR. JORDAN-Or he's got to push it to one side. If he skews, for example, if he skews the location
of the paved portion of the road to one side or the other, then he has 12 feet to off load his snow,
angle the plow on one side and 45 degree it all the way up and down. You can put a lot of snow in
12 feet of, I think.
MRS. EGGLESTON-How are you coming up with 12 feet on either side?
MR. JORDAN-Well, if you have 25 feet of available space and you have 12 feet of pavement, if you skew
the road to either the right or the left, that leaves a good 12 feet.
MRS. EGGLESTON-No. You take the road space out of the middle, then you skew the side. So, what does
that leave, after you take?
MR. JORDAN-That leaves six and a half feet on either side of the pavement.
MR. CARR-Can I go back to August of '88? Richard and Phyllis Weaver owned what property?
MR. JORDAN-Do you have any objection to me writing on your plan?
MR. CARR-No. Okay. So, they owned all the way down there. Okay. Who owned this?
MR. JORDAN-Richard Weaver.
MR. CARR-Just Richard?
MR. JORDAN-No, no. Richard and Phyllis.
MR. CARR-And Phyllis?
MR. JORDAN-Yes.
MR. CARR-Okay. So, they owned these two lots. Two separate deals, right?
MR. JORDAN-They owned all of this, yes.
MR. CARR-So then he got up here in August as the zone's changing?
MR. JORDAN-Yes, that's correct.
MR. CARR-We've got to do something or else we're going to not get two lots out of here.
MR. JORDAN-That's right.
MR. CARR-Okay. Where was the house, at this point? Was this house built?
MR. JORDAN-Yes. Mr. Weaver, and this is what was confusing about Mrs. York's comments, because you
didn't have all the Tax Map information available. The lot which I'm calling easterly of the 25 foot
right-of-way was bought by them in 1984, okay. The other lot that I've just indicated for you, Mr.
Carr, they purchased in 1986, and then they made the conveyance in 1988. That's what I meant when
there's difference sources of title.
MR. CARR-So, this was a landlocked lot of record.
32
--.
~
MR. JORDAN-No. It was not.
MR. SHEA-No.
MR. CARR-Where was the access?
MR. JORDAN-Because these parcels were part of that same piece. The Briere lots were part of the back
piece, too.
MR. CARR-So, in '86, he bought this back lot from Briere?
MR. JORDAN-No, no. He bought, I don't have the maps from the other file. He bought, essentially,
five acres, I think, that was located westerly of this parcel, here, this way.
MR. CARR-Okay.
MR. JORDAN-Right from, roughly, I don't know, 200 feet on the road and 600 feet deep, something like
that, yes.
MR. CARR-Okay.
MRS. EGGLESTON-Is this actually a subdivision that never went through the process, by dividing up all
of this?
MR. JORDAN-Absolutely, and I was very up front about that. This was a subdivision that was done under
the old regulations, which did not require.
MR. TURNER-Minor Subdivision.
MR. JORDAN-Ri ght, di d not requi re comi ng before the Board. Under the new reg's, of course, you do.
This same subdivision, under the new regulations that were passed in 1989, would require formal review.
MRS. EGGLESTON-Well, I'd like to know where that house sits on this.
MR. JORDAN-I could show you, but I don't know, suppose we know where the house sits, okay. What am
I going to do? Am I going to Mrs. Weaver and say, I don't really know what to do anymore, because
I've got a contract with somebody else already, and I can't do that. I just can't go and say, I'm
stealing 15 feet of your property.
MR. CARR-We've got two contracts, okay, so we've got two other families who are buying these, as is.
So, you've got one person on the corner who's not going to give up, even if they've got the 15 feet,
won't give it up, or else they're going, you can say it's not our problem, but it is and it isn't,
because you're going to clog up our court system with a lot of litigation, I think, and what has happened
is a minor subdivision, much like we had down, what was the name of the street by Bedford Close?
MRS. YORK-Tina Lane.
MR. TURNER-Tina Lane.
MR. CARR-Yes, you know, where we have a 25 foot entrance to a lot.
MRS. GOETZ-But that was a different situation. I mean, they didn't try to beat the rules and do this.
That was a whole subdivision.
MR. CARR-Well, the Ordinance was changed back in '82, and, I mean, we're talking about an ex-Supervisor
who knew things were coming down. I'm just saying, I think people, however it came about, it came
about, and.
MRS. GOETZ-Right, and we've got to deal with it.
MR. CARR-We've got to deal with it, and our only choices are, give him the variance or, basically,
say that this lot can never be built on and then I think we're throwing the Town into litigation.
MR. TURNER-Right. Then you're denying them reasonable use of the property.
MR. CARR- Yes.
MR. JORDAN-Mrs. Goetz, could I just comment? I'm not trying to be argumentative with you, but we didn't
really try, there's a lot involved for my client, here, because I've got multiple lawsuits with different
parties and Mr. Weaver if this deal doesn't fly, and I realize that isn't your problem, okay.
MRS. GOETZ-Okay. Get to the point. What did you want to say?
33
'-'
~
MR. JORDAN-My point is, we didn't beat the rules. We played by the rules, in August of 1988, until
they were changed, okay. Under those rules, it was perfectly legitimate to do a minor subdivision
of this nature without any formal review, okay.
MRS. GOETZ-Absolutely.
MR. JORDAN-The only thing where Mr. Weaver stubbed his toe is on the 25 foot instead of the 30 foot,
that's all.
MRS. GOETZ-Right.
MR. JORDAN-There's no subterfuge going on here or anything.
MR. CARR-No. I mean, that's the only thing on the Town sign that I think would make it fatal to your
client's position, is that it was 30 foot at the time and, you know, I've done a lot of research on
this, and you can't rely on the word of any town official, because they have no responsibility to tell
you the truth. Honestly, right now, I think, what is it, the horse is out of the barn, at this point.
There's not much we can do about it.
MR. TURNER-It's kind of tough to lock the door now.
MR. SHEA-I agree.
MR. TURNER-Okay. No further comment? I'll open the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
NO CDllENT
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. CARR-Joyce just asked, you know, is this the husband, and this the husband and the wife. I have
no problem, if they did something, they made their own mistake, they can correct it now, and if these
weren't under contract, I would be saying, table this until, you know, lets find out where this house
is exactly, to see if we can pick up 15 feet and say, either the husband and wife pick it up, or we
go to court on it, if that's the way it has to go, but I think the problem that I have here is that
we've got, both these properties are under contract to unsuspecting third parties, right now.
MRS. EGGLESTON-But that's 1 i ke putting a gun to our head and saying, hurry up and act. Anybody can
come in here and say, hey, I've got a chance to sell this. Hurry up and do this.
MR. CARR-No. This is more than a chance to sell it.
MRS. EGGLESTON-We haven't seen any contracts.
MR. CARR-Well, I believe Bruce is under oath at this time, and if he's lied then he would have to answer
to the Bar Ethics Committee, I would imagine.
MR. JORDAN-I mean, if you're concerned about my integrity, that's fine. I don't have any particular
interest in misrepresenting this, because I don't have a financial stake in it. I will tell you two
things about the contracts. The contract for the subject lot that you're looking at is contingent
Upon a determination that the guy can build a house there. So, for all intents and purposes, if this
Board were to say, you can't do this guys, okay, for whatever reason, it's too wet, it's not wide enough
or whatever, that guy could be relieved of his contract, okay. That's not so with the contract with
a Mrs. Conklin who's purchasing the lot to the east. That deal is locked. The appraisal has been
done, based upon so many feet of road frontage. It's on the Tax roles for 133.53 by 300. That deal
is specifically under contract, and I will affirm that.
MRS. CRAYFORD-Can I ask a question? The people buying this lot to the rear, that have to access this
by 25 feet, they're aware that they have 25 feet, 300 feet deep to access their lot, right?
MR. SHEA- Yes.
MR. TURNER-Yes.
MR. JORDAN-There's a map attached to their contract.
MRS. CRAYFORD-So, they're aware of it. I don't know what the problem is. I mean, I know the problem
is they need 40 feet.
34
~
--
MR. CARR-Well, I think the problem, the only problem, I think, that we have is just trying to uphold
the integrity of the Ordinance in saying that you should have had at least 30 feet and we now want
40 feet and if there was any way to get those amounts, I think we would pursue those, but, at this
point, it really appears.
MRS. CRAYFORD-But, I mean, in reality, could you deny a variance and deny him use of his land?
MR. CARR-Yes, because a preexi sting, nonconformi ng lot that was created ill ega lly never obtains legal
status, no matter how many times the Ordinance is changed.
MRS. CRAYFORD-Okay.
MR. CARR-I mean, it's got to be legal at the time the Ordinance was changed and made it nonconforming
to begin with.
MR. JORDAN-Agreed.
MRS. CRAYFORD-Okay. These things come up, now and then, when I meet with people, and that's why I'm
asking this.
MR. CARR-Yes. If this had 30 feet, we wouldn't be here tonight.
MRS. CRAYFORD-I realize that.
MR. CARR-Well, we would be here tonight because of the rule.
MRS. CRAYFORD-Yes, you would be here.
MR. CARR-But we'd have nothing to say, but because it was an illegal lot back in August of '88, that's
the real sticky part, at this point.
MRS. CRAYFORD-I understand.
MR. SHEA-How, then, does this differ from the Tina Lane situation?
MR. CARR-Because the Tina Lane when it had, I think, the 25 foot of frontage was, that was all that
was required at the time that that lot was created.
MRS. CRAYFORD-No, no. That required 30 feet.
MRS. GOETZ-It was an approved subdivision.
MR. CARR-It was an approved subdivision, then, that's right.
MR. TURNER-It was a minor subdivision.
MR. CARR-No. I thought it had the stamps. I thought it had approval.
MRS. EGGLESTON-It was an approved, yes.
MR. TURNER-It did, but it was a minor subdivision, yes. They didn't have to get site plan approval.
They could build a four lot subdivision without any review.
MR. CARR-Okay, then, what is the difference between that and this? Are you saying that that particular
person made an illegal lot of record at that time? If it needed 30 feet.
MR. SHEA-The others were conforming. They all conformed to the road frontage.
MR. TURNER-No.
MRS. YORK-No. There was another one that didn't conform.
MR. SHEA-But it got a variance, though.
MR. TURNER-No.
MRS. YORK-No. It never did. They've got a building permit.
MR. TURNER-Because it was built before any review was required, at the time.
MR. CARR-So, do we have the exact same situation here?
MR. TURNER-Basically.
35
--
MR. SHEA-It seems to me that we do.
MR. TURNER-Basically we do.
MR. CARR-Then what are we arguing about? We've got precedent.
MRS. CRAYFORD-I'm not arguing.
MR. JORDAN-I'm not familiar with that case.
MR. CARR-It was just last week.
MRS. CRAYFORD-Tina Lane, if I recall correctly, I have a subdivision map on that.
MR. TURNER-You do, but it was a minor subdivision.
MRS. CRAYFORD-It was under, what, five lots?
MR. TURNER-Under five lots, it was a four lot subdivision.
MRS. CRAYFORD-Okay.
MR. CARR-So, is this an approved subdivision, would you call it?
MR. TURNER-No.
MRS. EGGLESTON-No.
MR. CARR-Then, I don't understand the difference, and I'm just trying to clear this up. I mean, I
don't want to take your time.
MR. SHEA-It says in the minutes that Mr. Wellington, last week, said that it was subdivided in 1979,
the Tina Lane situation.
MRS. CRAYFORD-Okay.
MRS. GOETZ-When did we get those minutes?
MR. TURNER-Just handed them out.
MRS. GOETZ-Just tonight we got those? I didn't get any.
MRS. YORK-But we don't know what was the standard at that point in time.
MRS. CRAYFORD-In 1979.
MRS. YORK-Right. So, it might have met the standard in 1979.
MRS. CRAYFORD-That's true.
MRS. YORK-We don't know.
MR. CARR-Well, that's what I'm saying. It probably met the standard back then, or, if it doesn't.
I still think we've just got a problem here.
MR. TURNER-I'd agree with you, you know, that you can't do anything about it now because it's under
contract. If it wasn't, then I think that's something else. I think we could ask.
MR. CARR-Yes, and, you know, I'm not opposed to throwing the Town into litigation over something that
is very important to the integrity of the Ordinance, but when we have granted, consistently, with ~
preexisting lots of record that are nonconforming now because of road frontage, and we've granted them
variances, this one, I do feel, was hurriedly done, but not in a malicious manner.
MRS. CRAYFORD-In '79, I don't think there probably was even a requirement, except for Town law which
was, what, 20 feet? Town law, at that time, was 20 feet, I think.
MRS. YORK-Twenty.
MR. CARR-So, I guess I'm just saying that I think this is very similar, not exact, and because of the
contract, I don't know what else we can do.
MR. TURNER-Yes. All right. Motion's in order. Do you want to move it.
36
------------------~
-
-
tÐTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 86-1991
for its adoption, seconded by Michael Shea:
RICHARD A. WEAVER, Introduced by Bruce Carr who moved
Which would allow the applicant a 15 foot variance from the requirement that the lot have a 40 foot
road frontage. Due to the unique circumstances, additional land is not available which would bring
this lot into conformance. The granting of this variance is not materially detrimental to the Ordinance,
and the interest of justice would be served by allowing this variance.
Duly adopted this 20th day of November, 1991, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Shea, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Carr, Mr. Sicard, Mr. Turner
NOES: Mrs. Eggleston
MR. JORDAN-Thank you all for your time. I appreciate it. Have a good evening.
MR. SHEA-Thank you, Bruce. (10:31 p.m.)
CORRECTION OF MINUTES
September 18th, 1991: Page 15, down at the bottom, under Bertolet Variance, next to last sentence,
where it says, and this would not be materially detrimental to the purpose of the Ordinance, sIb this
would be materially detrimental to the purpose of the Ordinance; Page 5, Mr. Senese, up from the bottom,
no, they haven't the temporaries to hold the show in the ground, sIb to hold the shorring in the ground;
Page 44, attorneys but in, sIb attorneys butt in;
MRS. GOETZ-Also, on Page 12. It's just a question. It has all to do with that Bertolet application
at Assembly Point, and remember we talked about the deck shouldn't have been there to begin with?
MR. TURNER- Yes.
MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes.
MRS. GOETZ-Was anything ever done about that?
MRS. CRAYFORD-As far as what?
MRS. GOETZ-Removing the deck.
MRS. CRAYFORD-He's gotten a letter.
MRS. GOETZ-Has he?
MRS. CRAYFORD-Yes.
MRS. GOETZ-Yes.
just wondered if, and how many, 30 days to do something, or how does that work?
MRS. CRAYFORD-I gave him until next Spring.
MRS. GOETZ-My God, do you have a follow up file.
MR. SHEA-He's already taken off for the South, hasn't he?
MRS. CRAYFORD-Well, that's the problem. He took off for Florida shortly after that.
MRS. GOETZ-But then, after that, okay, because I do think it's important to do that.
Page 6, where it says 57, should be 57 ft., measurements should be put in all down through the page;
Page 38, the first Mr. Carr up from the bottom, sentence doesn't end, sIb if you withdraw it, then
it just goes away
MOTION TO APPROVE SEPTEMBER 18TH MINUTES AS CORRECTED, Introduced by Susan Goetz who moved for its
adoption, seconded by Joyce Eggleston:
Duly adopted this 20th day of November, 1991, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Shea, Mrs. Goetz, Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Carr, Mr. Sicard, Mr. Turner
NOES: NONE
October 3rd, 1991: NONE
37
---------
"--
'--'
MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF OCTOBER 310, 1991, Introduced by Susan Goetz who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Theodore Turner:
Duly adopted this 20th day of November, 1991, by the following vote:
AYES: Mrs. Goetz, Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Carr, Mr. Sicard, Mr. Shea, Mr. Turner
NOES: NONE
October 16th, 1991: Page 2, second Mr. Turner up from the bottom, says, it has to be six feet from
Crownwood, sIb 30 feet from Crownwood
tÐTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF OCTOBER 16TH AS CORRECTED, Introduced by Bruce Carr who moved for
its adoption, seconded by Susan Goetz:
Duly adopted this 20th day of November, 1991, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Shea, Mrs. Goetz, Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Carr, Mr. Sicard, Mr. Turner
NOES: NONE
On motion meeting was adjourned.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Theodore Turner, Chairman
38