Loading...
2009.01.29 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/29/09) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SECOND REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 29, 2009 INDEX Area Variance No. 11-2008 Debaron Associates by Debra Schiebel, Partner 1. Tax Map No. 239.18-1-47 Sign Variance No. 87-2008 The Sign Center 2. Tax Map No. 308.5-1-92.11 Sign Variance No. 3-2009 Adirondack Factory Outlet Center, Inc. 3. Tax Map No. 288.12-1-21 Sign Variance No. 1-2009 Wal-Mart Stores, Inc/Craig Steinfeldt 3. Tax Map No. 303.15-1-25 Sign Variance No. 2-2009 Jolley Associates 17. Tax Map No. 302.5-1-98 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. 0 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/29/09) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SECOND REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 29, 2009 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT JAMES UNDERWOOD ROY URRICO, SECRETARY JOAN JENKIN RICHARD GARRAND JOYCE HUNT GEORGE DRELLOS BRIAN CLEMENTS LAND USE PLANNER-KEITH OBORNE STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. I’m going to call to order the, this was supposed to have thth been the January 28, but it’s now January 29 meeting of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals. First off, let me do a quick review of our procedures in general. For each case I’ll call the application by name and number. We do have several this evening, and we have had a couple of cancellations. So I’ll read those in first of all, for anybody that showed up for them. The Secretary will read in the pertinent parts of the application, the Staff Notes as well as the Warren County Planning Board decision, if applicable. The applicant, then, will be invited to the table and be asked to provide any information that they wish to add to their application. The Board then will ask questions of the applicant. Following that we’ll open the public hearing. I’d caution that the public hearing is not a vote. It’s a way to gather information about concerns, real or perceived, and it’s a way to gather information, insight in general, about the issue at hand. It should function to help the Board members make a wise, informed decision, but it does not make the decision for the Board members. As always, we’ll have a five minute limit on each speaker. So that basically tells us everything they want us to know in that five minutes. A speaker may speak again, if, after listening to other speakers, a speaker believes they have new information to present. Following that, we’ll read correspondence into the record, and then the applicant will have an opportunity to react and respond to the public comment, and Board members then will discuss the variance with the applicant. Following that, the Board members will be polled to explain their positions on the application, then we’ll close the public hearing, unless there’s a reason to leave it open, and that would be only if it looks like the application will be continued to another meeting, and finally we’ll have a motion to approve, disapprove or table and then we’ll vote on it. So tonight on the agenda we do have a couple of changes, and I’ll start out with those. ADMINISTRATIVE ITEM: AREA VARIANCE NO. 11-2008 SEQRA TYPE: II DEBARON ASSOCIATES BY DEBRA SCHIEBEL, PARTNER AGENT(S): HUTCHINS ENGINEERING/MC PHILLIPS, FITZGERALD, AND CULLUM OWNER(S): DEBARON ASSOCIATES ZONING: WR-3A LOCATION: DARK BAY LANE, OFF ROUTE 9L APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE AND ASSOCIATED WASTEWATER SYSTEM AND STORMWATER MANAGEMENT CONTROLS. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM SHORELINE AND REAR YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM ROAD FRONTAGE REQUIREMENTS AND STORMWATER DEVICES FOR MAJOR PROJECTS. CROSS REF.: N/A WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: MARCH 12, 2008 (NO COUNTY IMPACT) ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY: YES LOT SIZE: 0.45 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 239.18-1-47 SECTION: 179-4-030; 179-4-090; 147-9B.2(d) TOM HUTCHINS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. UNDERWOOD-You guys are representing them? MR. HUTCHINS-Yes. MR. UNDERWOOD-And in essence I think you’re asking for a tabling action because you still haven’t dealt with the Planning Board? 1 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/29/09) MR. HUTCHINS-Yes. We are in the process of submitting to the Planning Board. We have received approval on the holding tank from both the State Health Department and the Town Board of Health. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. We’ve all been in receipt of all those approvals that you were seeking. So we’re all aware of that. I would assume, do you think you’re going be on in February with the Planning Board? MR. HUTCHINS-We’re going to submit to the Planning Board in February. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. MR. HUTCHINS-Whether we make the March meeting or not, that’s. MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure. Well, why don’t we do this. I mean, we can only give you 60 days, or can we go longer? Why don’t we just go 60 days and we’ll go to the, say the first or second meeting in March, whichever one, if it appears you’re going to be there. MR. OBORNE-Well, you do have the, well, actually you don’t. You have February, excuse me. If you’re going to table it to March, I would highly suggest you do it in the second meeting. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. MR. HUTCHINS-And we’d like that, too. MR. UNDERWOOD-And that way, you know, if you get hung up, we can, you know, re- table you for April or May or whenever. We’re used to it by now. So I guess I’ll make a tabling motion. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 11-2008 DEBARON ASSOCIATES BY DEBRA SCHIEBEL, PARTNER, Introduced by James Underwood who moved for its adoption, seconded by Richard Garrand: Dark Bay Lane, off Route 9L. Tabled to the second meeting in March. th Duly adopted this 29 day of January, 2009, by the following vote: MS. GAGLIARDI-And you left the public hearing open? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, we’ll leave the public hearing open. AYES: Mr. Drellos, Mrs. Jenkin, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Clements, Mr. Underwood NOES: NONE MR. UNDERWOOD-All right. OLD BUSINESS: SIGN VARIANCE NO. 87-2008 SEQRA TYPE: UNLISTED THE SIGN CENTER AGENT(S): THE SIGN CENTER OWNER(S): PYRAMID MALL OF GF NEWCO ZONING: ESC-25A LOCATION: 578 AVIATION ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES AN ADDITIONAL 47.3 SF SIGN ABOVE THE ENTRANCE TO FRIENDLY’S RESTAURANT. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MAXIMUM NUMBER OF ALLOWABLE SIGNS AND MAXIMUM SIZE OF SIGNS. CROSS REF.: BP 08-351, 348, 350, 349 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: 12/10/08 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY: N/A LOT SIZE: 37.49 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 308.5-1-92.11 SECTION: 140-6 MR. UNDERWOOD-And again, that was the Pyramid Mall, Glens Falls, NEWCO, and again, this was the sign that was proposed for the upgrade of the Friendly’s restaurant, which is located out at the front part of the Mall there, and we did receive a letter from them, I guess this was a fax, a tabling request. “Dear Sue: The Sign Center is requesting that the application for the Friendly’s at Aviation Mall be tabled until the th February 18 ZBA meeting. If there are any questions or concerns.” And Keith said, I mean, they’ve got to come all the way up from Haverill, Mass. So I guess they had some kind of a conflict where they couldn’t be here this evening. 2 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/29/09) MR. OBORNE-Yes, that’s my understanding. MR. UNDERWOOD-So I will make a tabling motion. MOTION TO TABLE SIGN VARIANCE NO. 87-2008 THE SIGN CENTER, Introduced by James Underwood who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Hunt: th 578 Aviation Road. Tabled to the February 18 ZBA meeting. th Duly adopted this 29 day of January, 2009, by the following vote: MS. GAGLIARDI-And you’re leaving the public hearing open on that, too? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, we will. Yes. AYES: Mr. Drellos, Mrs. Jenkin, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Clements, Mr. Underwood NOES: NONE NEW BUSINESS: SIGN VARIANCE NO. 3-2009 SEQRA TYPE: UNLISTED ADIRONDACK FACTORY OUTLET CENTER, INC. AGENT(S): DAVID KENNY OWNER(S): ADIRONDACK FACTORY OUTLET CENTER, INC. ZONING: HC-INT. LOCATION: 1454 STATE ROUTE 9 APPLICANT PROPOSES INSTALLATION OF AN ADDITIONAL WALL SIGN AT THE ADIRONDACK OUTLET MALL. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM THE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF ALLOWABLE SIGNS FOR A TENANT. CROSS REF.: SPR 3-2009; BP 2008-202; BP 2008-203 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: JANUARY 14, 2009 LOT SIZE: 6.93 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 288.12-1-21 SECTION: 140-6 MR. UNDERWOOD-And the other one that we had was we received a letter. The last item that we were going to deal with this evening was Adirondack Factory Outlet Center Incorporated, and they have completely pulled their application. So I guess they’re off the books for the foreseeable future. MR. OBORNE-That is correct. MR. UNDERWOOD-Whether they come back at some future date, it’ll be coming in as a new application. So we’ll just strike that off the charts. All right. SIGN VARIANCE NO. 1-2009 SEQRA TYPE: UNLISTED WAL-MART STORES, INC./CRAIG STEINFELDT AGENT(S): BERGMANN ASSOCIATES/MARK PETROSKI OWNER(S): FOREST ENTERPRISES MANAGEMENT ZONING: HC-INT. LOCATION: CORNER OF QUAKER RIDGE BOULEVARD AND QUAKER ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES 4 WALL SIGNS IN EXCESS OF NUMBER OF ALLOWABLE SIGNS PER THE SIGN ORDINANCE. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MAXIMUM NUMBER OF ALLOWABLE SIGNS AND MAXIMUM SIZE OF SIGNS. CROSS REF.: SPR 61-2007; SUB NO. 11-2008 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: JANUARY 14, 2009 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY: N/A LOT SIZE: 39.65 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 303.15- 1-25 SECTION: 140-6 MARK PETROSKI, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. UNDERWOOD-They have appeared before the Planning Board, for Site Plan Review, and I don’t know if that’s been completed. I believe the signage that we’re dealing with here tonight is the only outstanding item, I believe, at this point. MR. OBORNE-At this point, they are on the Planning docket for subdivision, but that really has nothing to do with the ZBA. MR. URRICO-The following questions reflect the criteria for granting this type of variance, and the applicant’s responses to those questions. #1 – Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby property will be created by the granting of this area variance? The proposed sign variances will not create an undesirable change in the neighborhood but will transform the commercial lot to a well landscaped, well maintained community business. The site is bounded by Quaker Road to the south and Quaker Ridge Boulevard to the west. The signs are necessary to provide adequate notice of the location of the retail store to 3 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/29/09) travelers passing and for regular customers. This proposal will not create an undesirable change in the neighborhood in so far as it: Proposes a development with a commercial/retail use that will contribute to the Town’s tax base. Provides buffering and screening around the entire parcel that will be aesthetically pleasing for motorists, transit users and pedestrians; The landscaping plan for the site will include carefully designed screening for the green space between the proposed parking areas and the street to screen parked cars and also avoid headlights form the parking lot shining out in to the street traffic. Encourages safety by locating the building setback from the roadways to provide a safe and adequate line of sight; Buffers an attractive streetscape by the proposed site amenities which include existing and proposed landscaping, green space, lighting and an aesthetically pleasing new retail facility; Retains its function locally as an urban street and regionally as a critical transportation route for parts of Warren County; Promotes pedestrian safety by the addition of a sidewalks within the site for ease of access within the site and on-site lighting. Improves local traffic access and circulation and minimizes impacts of arterial traffic by Maintaining one access point for this and the remaining lands of VMJR Companies Locating the access for the Store as far from the signalized intersection to permit queuing Proposing a parking plan to adequately serve the site. Locating the building, accesses and parking facilities which promote on-site circulation, without significant additional trips to the adjacent roadways; Proposes a use that is consistent with the character and land uses of the surrounding area. #2 – Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance? Locating the building as proposed will provide the drivers approaching the intersection an unobstructed view of the entire intersection, including the traffic control devices, and a sufficient length along the intersection highway to permit the driver to anticipate and avoid collisions. In addition, it will provide efficient two-way internal traffic flow on-site and permit vehicles to access the facility from any direction without traveling back onto the adjacent roadway network. Before developing the Applicant’s current site plan, the applicant considered several alternatives. The Applicant looked at various locations on the property, and various larger sized buildings for the site. These were ultimately rejected in response to comments received from the Planning Board and the community in favor of the smaller facility now proposed, which is set back as far as possible (over 800 feet) from the front property line. In considering alternative layouts it was necessary to try to balance the needs of maintaining an attractive streetscape and preserving the vegetation at the existing corner while at the same time providing an economically viable business configuration that allows for safe access by both pedestrians and vehicular traffic. Each alternative was considered in trying to determine how to minimize the impacts of the new building to the safe movement of traffic thru this intersection, enhance the corridor and blend this new building with surrounding properties and roadways. The proposed new business will provide daily customer services to the residents of the immediate surrounding neighborhood as well as the commuters and traveling public who use Quaker Road as the regional transportation route to other parts of Warren County. The development of this property for a proposed retail use is permitted within the property’s HC-Int. zone. It is consistent and compatible with existing land uses located along Route 254. The following is a brief discussion of some of the alternatives considered and the reasons why they were not selected. Consider placing new Building at the front setback lines with parking in the back This alternative looked at placing the building to the front property lines with parking along the easterly and northerly sides of the building. As this is a corner lot, there are two front setback lines. The building would be located at the southwest corner of the site with the entrance also situated at this corner. This is not a feasible alternative for the following reasons. If the new building were placed at the set back line, this would dramatically change the current openness of the existing corner. Furthermore, it would create a significant increase in the impacts to the wetlands on site in direct conflict with the goals of State and Local Law. It would reduce the buffer distance between the building and the adjacent roadways, thereby increasing the impact from noise and air quality; It would inhibit future roadway improvements such as lane widening, bus turnouts, drainage improvements, etc.; The loading dock would be adjacent to the north side of the building, which results in insufficient room to unload and maneuver; and The combination of all of the above considerations results in a conclusion that a building set at the corner of the site would not provide a practical site layout or an economically viable business location. For the above noted reasons, this alternative was not considered further. Other alternative locations for the facility were also rejected in the effort to minimize wetlands impacts and to preserve, to the greatest extent possible, the existing vegetation buffer along Quaker Road. As noted above, the proposal is believed to provide significant benefits to the community which would not otherwise be available by preserving significant open space. Nonetheless, in providing these benefits the need for the increased signage size is made all the more important to provide the necessary notice of the location of the site, all of which would not be possible without the benefit of the requested variances. As noted above, the signs are standard to the Wal- 4 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/29/09) Mart sites. This uniformity provides a means for identifying the business and its use for all patrons, regardless of the familiarity of the surroundings. The Wall mounted sign allows patrons to identify the business as they are approaching the site without having to be on the specific road for which building mounted sign is on and without having to direct their attention away from the road. Keeping focused on the roadway while easily identifying the business is essential for maintaining the flow of traffic. It also allows patrons to determine in advance the need and desire to access the site and how to best access the site prior to coming upon or passing the driveway. Providing such building mounted signs will enhance the site by further providing identification to the use and services it provides. The size of the letters are typical retail standards proposed to provide visibility and legibility from the surrounding roadways and businesses for both day and night conditions without negatively impacting the area. Providing large letters better suits the older generation where visual ability deteriorates. The benefits sought by the proposed variances include an enhanced site that through its location, type and size of signs, provides uniformity, visibility, legibility, and identification of use and services. Such benefits are sought by keeping with the surrounding character without negatively impacting the site or the surrounding areas. #4 – Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district? The requested variances will not have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. The existing site is located along Quaker Road. The estimated annual average daily traffic for 2006 along Route 254 is 18,500 vehicles per day. By preserving the existing vegetation in the front of the proposed facility, there are neither natural, scenic, architectural nor historic features of significance on or near the site nor any physical feature of significance to be affected. By contrast, development of this site will transform it in to a well landscaped, well maintained community business that will provide approximately 400 new job opportunities in the area. Nonetheless, because the existing vegetation will be preserved, and because the new facility will be placed so far from the traveled road, there is a significant need for additional signage to afford the necessary notice of the Store’s location and directional information for customers as they travel to the site. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Sign Variance No. 1-2009, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc./Craig Steinfeldt, Meeting Date: January 29, 2009 “Project Location: corner of Quaker Ridge Boulevard and Quaker Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes wall signs in excess of number of allowable signs per the Sign Ordinance (§140) Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for the placement of four (4) additional wall signs of on a yet to be built Wal-Mart store in southeast Queensbury. Criteria for considering a Sign Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination, the board shall consider: 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this sign variance. Minor changes to the neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of this request. However, this proposal may initiate additional sign variance requests from other businesses in the future. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than a sign variance. The applicant could erect less signs to be more compliant or 1 sign to be compliant. 3. Whether the requested sign variance is substantial. The request for 4 additional signs or a 400 percent increase from §140-6(B)(3)(c) may be considered severe. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Moderate impacts on the physical and environmental conditions of the neighborhood may be anticipated as the number of the proposed signs may have negative visual impacts. However, these impacts may be muted as the distance to Quaker Road is in excess of 800 feet and is further buffered by approximately 200 feet of brush and trees. 5 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/29/09) 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. The difficulty may be considered self created. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): SP 61-07 150,200 sq. ft. retail building with associated parking and utilities – Approved 9/16/2008 SUB 11-08 39.65 acre parcel into two lots of 33.28 & 6.37 acres - Pending Staff comments: The applicant is proposing to construct a 150,200 square foot Wal-Mart store to include five wall signs. One sign, the 220.79 square foot internally lit Walmart Spark wall sign is proposed to be located on the front facade of the building and has been determined by staff to be the one compliant sign per §140-6. The following 4 signs will need relief from the total amount of allowable signs per the ordinance: 1.a 57.53 square foot ‘Home & Living’ sign located below and to the right of the proposed front Walmart Spark sign; 2.a 82.15 square foot ‘Market & Pharmacy’ sign located below and to the left of the proposed front Walmart Spark sign; 3.a 63.33 square foot ‘Outdoor Living’ sign located on the far right corner of the proposed building; 4.and a 4.94 square foot ‘Recycle” sign located to the left of the proposed Market and Pharmacy sign. The proposed total area of all four signs is 207.95 square feet. Please note updated Bergmann signage table submitted by the applicant. The Zoning Board of Appeals may consider seeking a recommendation from the Planning Board concerning this application. SEQR Status: Unlisted – The Zoning Board of Appeals must make a SEQR determination concerning this application.” “Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form January 14, 2009 Project Name: Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. Owner(s): Forest Enterprises Management ID Number: QBY-09-SV-01 County Project#: Jan09-16 Current Zoning: HC-Int. Community: Queensbury Project Description: Applicant proposes 4 wall signs in excess of number of allowable signs per the Sign Ordinance. Relief requested from maximum number of allowable signs and maximum size of signs. Site Location: corner of Quaker Ridge Boulevard and Quaker Road Tax Map Number(s): 303.15-1-25 Staff Notes: Sign variance: The applicant proposes additional wall signs where the maximum number of wall signs allowed is one. The applicant proposes five wall signs. The information submitted indicates the sign text is for “walmart”, “home & living”, “market and pharmacy”, and “outdoor living”, “recycle”. The applicant has indicated the signs are standard for Walmart operations. Staff recommends no county impact based on the information submitted according to the suggested review criteria of NYS General Municipal Law Section 239 L applied to the proposed project. County Planning Board Recommendation: No County Impact” Signed by Richard C. Merrill, Warren County Planning Board 1/20/09. MR. UNDERWOOD-Good evening. MR. PETROSKI-Good evening. MR. UNDERWOOD-I think what we would like from you, if you would, anything you would like to add to the commentary that Roy read into the record. We have dealt with Wal-Mart before with your store up on Route 9 here, and I think that everybody recognizes the benefits of the second store because it’s going to siphon off some of the excess. I know that store’s over subscribed almost 24/7, which isn’t bad in this climate, business climate, but at the same time, I realize you’ve been through some significant negotiations with the Planning Board regarding this store, because of the site problems existing on site with the wetlands and all that. That’s all been worked out, and I believe this is the last thing that you’ve got to work through here is this extra signage that you’re proposing here. So if you could just fill us in as to your philosophy as to why you need 6 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/29/09) the signage. I mean, you don’t have to be verbose or anything like that, but just so we have an understanding of why you think you need this excess. MR. PETROSKI-Mr. Chairman, it’s a great idea. Sorry. Thank you for the introduction. My name is Mark Petroski. I’m with Bergmann Associates, and I’m here this evening acting as agent for the applicant, Craig Steinfeldt of Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. With me is Marybeth Slevin, and she’s an attorney and partner with Stockley, Green, Slevin and Peters, and in the audience is Vic Macri. He’s the President of Forest Enterprises Management, and also the owner and developer of the property. I just, my opening comment is that we feel it’s a well thought out signage package, and what I’d like to do is I have some graphics and some things that I think would be very useful, help solidify what you just said about the negotiations we went through at the Planning Board, and I’ll try not to spend a whole lot of time talking about it and spend more time showing you things. It’s entertaining, if anything. So if I can indulge you with some of that, it’ll be interesting. I do want to say, procedurally, that we did, at the Staff’s request, put some yellow survey flagging out at the corner of Quaker Road and Quaker Ridge Boulevard, although I’m sure all of you know where the site is. We kind of put it there to help identify. That happens to be about the location where the permitted pylon sign would go, and also Warren County did submit a comment back that this particular application is of no particular significant Countywide impact. I’m not sure if you’ll probably mention that at some point. I’m going to walk over to my, if this is too far away, I can move it up forward, but. MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure, I mean, if we need it closer, we’ll ask you. MR. PETROSKI-This first board here is a rendering of a site plan, and at the bottom here, of course, is Quaker Road. This here, north/south, is Quaker Ridge Boulevard, and the store itself is the brown building here in the back. The green area in the front is the subject of all the negotiation we had at the Planning Board. That’s where all the wetlands are, and that’s what we’ve agreed to substantially leave alone. We have a small impact. We’ve submitted an application for a Corps of Engineers permit, but other than that we’ve basically left it alone. The store itself, as was talked about in the reading from Mr. Urrico, this is where the 800 feet comes into play, in the fact that all this here is, in front, pretty much screening the building. The exhibits that were provided, this is one that shows the actual dimensions of the signs and the calculations that were supported by Staff. We’ve gone back and forth on this to make sure it was correct. The Wal-Mart sign itself is the largest of the five signs. The Recycle sign, the Recycle sign and the word Pharmacy become two words that, it’s our understanding, I’m not the architect of the project, but he’s informed me, he couldn’t be here this tonight. He apologizes but the weather kind of kept him away, that those are legally required. When you have a pharmacy you’re supposed to have the word pharmacy on the building, and the recycle, now, is something also that is mandated by law, but these other three signs here are actually signs, as I’ll show you, that are there to identify the entrance to the building. So when we talk about way finding in the discussion you were reading, that becomes the issue is how to show people where the right place is to get into the store. Very similar to the way the existing Wal-Mart store works on Route 9. This next board, what you have, this figure. If nobody has these figures, I have extra copies if you don’t have these. MR. UNDERWOOD-We’ve got them all. MR. PETROSKI-Okay. This figure here shows where the signs will go. The largest sign, the Wal-Mart sign with the spark, would be right there in the middle. That is an internally lit sign, and that’s the only sign that’s lit, and then the other larger three signs, we’ve got market and pharmacy here, and that shows customers where the general merchandise side of the store is. We’ve got home and living, which is where the, I’m sorry, market and pharmacy is where the grocery side of the store is. Home and living is where the general merchandise side of the store is. So those are the two main entrances, and over to the far end is outdoor living, which is where the garden center would be. So these signs are all designed into the façade of the building, and they’re strategically located above entrances to help people identify where they’re going once they’re on the property. I have, I brought with me, because I think it’s interesting in contrast. This is the K-Mart store that’s kind of around the corner off Dix Avenue, and comparably speaking, I think they have somewhere around seven signs on their building. Of course they’ve got the main store sign which is Super K, 24 Hours, a sign fresh food, because they’re selling grocery also. There’s the pharmacy sign, similar to what Wal-Mart is talking about, and then they get into their automotive side of the business, which I think is a separate entity, but it’s another sign on the building. There’s some signs up here, and actually I think some of these say Kenmore or Craftsman, Diehard, and then around the corner is where the Warren Tire Service is located, and then this sign, this board here, this is something 7 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/29/09) you’ve seen before. This is the Wal-Mart on Route 9, and similar idea, but, you know, Wal-Mart has been going through this new identity process of what they call branding their store, and they’ve used the same concept of main titles, but they’ve changed these subheadings according to their branding image, and so where it says food center here, now it says market and pharmacy, that kind of thing. There’s, I think, somewhere around seven signs here, and the one thing that we’re not proposing, as was done before, is they had these other subtitle signs like Optical, Pharmacy, or Optical, One Hour Photo. We don’t have a tire and lube express, but those subtitle signs are gone in this application. So it’s really been kind of cleaned up in that respect, and this last board that I have is, these are recent photos, about a month ago. It’s worse now. Looking at the site from across the street. So you get a sense of the trees that are out there today that will still be out there once the site is developed. The next, what I have is a simulation. That’s where kind of the entertainment comes in, which shows you an animated view of the store and the trees and what things look like from the road, and it’s already set up and running. So I’m going to pull these boards down and then turn that on and show you that real quick. Where I am in this simulation is at the intersection of Quaker Ridge Boulevard, which is heading into the picture with Quaker Road, and the trees that are there are a simulation. There’s, what we tried to do is place trees in the locations from the aerial photograph, and then project them up to the height that they are approximately, and I’ve got trees with leaves and without leaves. So I can show it both ways. So right now if I’m in a car and I’m traveling along Quaker Road, this is the view you have of the Wal-Mart store. I’m just going to go slow. Then you can get the general idea, and then I’ll go back again and I’ll speed up a little bit. All right, and then if I go back the other way, faster. You can see the Wal-Mart store in the background, and all you really can pick out is the main store sign itself, in terms of perspective. You can’t even see the signs over the entrances, and probably because they’re actually designed into the architecture of the building, so it kind of hides them from the road. If I take and turn the trees off, or the leaves off, and go back through, in the wintertime you have a little more visibility. I’m starting to get into the trees here. I’ll back out a little bit. Hold on. I know it’s kind of. All right. Sorry. Again, you have a little more visibility in the wintertime, but really the main sign that you pick out is the Wal-Mart store sign itself, and not the subtitle signs. If I kind of come over and back down to the store itself, this is what you start to see when you’re up close. You can see the market and pharmacy sign to the left, the Wal-Mart sign, and then the home and living, home and living, and then over on the far side you can see the outdoor living. There’s the outdoor living and the garden center area. The recycle sign unfortunately was not placed in the simulation, but it’s pretty much, it’s right. MR. UNDERWOOD-You’re off on the west side? Is that where that sign is? MR. PETROSKI-Yes. So the recycle sign would be right about, right there. MR. UNDERWOOD-Now is that recycle sign for any specific purpose, or is that for? MR. PETROSKI-Well, it’s where they have the recycle center for the bottles and cans. MR. GARRAND-You stated earlier that there’s some sort of law that says you have to have the recycling sign? I don’t recall ever hearing of a law requiring a recycling sign on a business. I go by Hannaford frequently. I don’t notice a recycling sign anywhere but inside the business. MR. PETROSKI-Well, I can’t defend that as strongly as I would like to because the architect was intending to be here, and is not, but my understanding was is that is a new requirement, and things are always changing, you know, especially with the, you know, everybody’s kind of going in the sustainability direction and trying to be green and that kind of thing, and new rules are coming out all the time. So it’s not surprising to me that it needs to be there. If that’s something that you want more research, I can certainly. MRS. JENKIN-Is there an outside entrance where the recycle center is, recycle area is? Is there an outside entrance there? MR. PETROSKI-There is a door around the side of the building, which allows you to come in from the end. MRS. JENKIN-Which would be specifically for recycling? MR. PETROSKI-From that side. Well, you can walk straight through the recycling area into the store. 8 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/29/09) MRS. JENKIN-Okay. MR. URRICO-Will there be an auto center there? MR. PETROSKI-No, there’s not, not on this site. MR. URRICO-Will there be cart corrals? MR. PETROSKI-Yes, there will be. MR. URRICO-I didn’t notice them in your pictures. Will they have signs on the cart corrals? MR. PETROSKI-Well, if you go to the existing Wal-Mart store, you can see what they do at that location. Unless there’s an objection, they would do the same thing. MR. URRICO-Well, they’re signs. They count. MR. PETROSKI-Okay. MR. URRICO-They do count. MR. PETROSKI-All right. MR. URRICO-So do we know whether there are going to be signs on the cart corrals or what they would look like? MR. PETROSKI-If, I’ve had this question in other communities. If it’s a regulated issue, then we’ve got to comply with the rules. So, we’re not asking for those signs in this application. So if they’re not permitted by the Code, they’re not permitted by the Code. MR. URRICO-Okay. MR. OBORNE-It’s my understanding that cart corrals are allowable, but I do want to vet that. MR. URRICO-Of a certain size, right? MR. OBORNE-Let me look that up and get an answer for you. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Why don’t we do this. Anybody have any questions at this point in time? MR. GARRAND-Staff, are you aware of any law that says you have to have a recycling sign on the outside of a building? If so, there’s several business in the Town that are non-compliant. MR. OBORNE-I am not aware of any laws. MR. GARRAND-Pending? MR. OBORNE-I am not aware of it. MR. GARRAND-Okay. MR. OBORNE-This is something that came up on Tuesday, I believe, is the first we heard about it, and I’ve not had a chance to look that up, to be honest with you. MRS. JENKIN-I have one question, also. Is there an outside entrance where the outdoor living sign is? Is there an outside entrance there? MR. PETROSKI-Yes. MRS. JENKIN-You go in that, you don’t have access to the outdoor living through the home and living area? MR. PETROSKI-You can circulate internally within the store through any of the entrances. There is an entrance for the outdoor living so that you can go straight in from the outside parking lot into the garden center area. 9 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/29/09) MR. UNDERWOOD-I think it’s similar to what you have up on Route 9, you know, and right now that’s closed off in the wintertime because there’s just a big major heat loss, and there’s not that much traffic generated, you know, after Christmas time in that part of the store. So I would assume it’s going to be the same thing here. It’s going to be more of a three-quarter season deal rather than four, you know, mid-winter in the depths of winter is probably not going to be, it’s probably going to get blocked off like the one up there, too. So, except for fire reasons or something like that. I’ll just make a little bit of commentary. Other Board members can jump in any time you want, too. The signage here doesn’t seem real offensive to me, but at the same time, when you’re looking at the size of it, you know, it’s pretty much, you’re not really going to see most of that signage until you get into the Plaza there itself. As you’ve said because you’re 800 feet off the road on Quaker Road there, but at the same time, you know, the Town has standards about how many wall signs we allow, and of course as you’ve pointed out to us, we’ve got K-Mart, we’ve got target, we’ve got the other Wal-Mart store. So we’ve have, in the past, granted more signage on the stores, and I think everybody recognizes that pharmacy is one of those ones that we have to do because we have doubled that before in the past. The other thing is, is that, you know, you’ve got significant glass coverage there, you know, and on the store up in Route 9, I mean, I think they did a really good job on that, as far as like encapsulating the signs, getting the size of the signs down to like a minimum level that you could recognize, you know, so you would go in the entrance you were preferring, you know, for whatever you were shopping for at that point in time, but, you know, these ones, you know, they’re as wide as the, you know, pretty much as big as you can make them to fit on that façade where you’re proposing them there, but I don’t know if it’s something that you could consider shrinking them down somewhat in size. I mean, everybody always wants the maximum exposure, which we understand, but at the same time, I think we need to keep in mind what’s a more subtle way of doing it, if that’s possible. So maybe that’s something just to throw out at this point in time. MR. DRELLOS-They have to go in front of the Planning Board for Site Plan, right? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, I mean, Keith, they are going to have to go back for signage for with Planning Board at some point, or is this strictly our domain at this point? MR. OBORNE-Well, it’s strictly your domain. If you wish for them, if you wish for a recommendation from the Planning Board, you’re obviously well within your rights to ask for that. MR. DRELLOS-I thought they had to go back? MR. OBORNE-It’s not a shall. MR. UNDERWOOD-No. I mean, I think they’ve pretty much worked out their problems, you know, and the sign, because it’s requiring a variance, we’re the ones that are going to be the ultimate ones making the decision. MR. DRELLOS-Yes, well, I didn’t see any minutes on what they said about the sign. Did they make a recommendation? MR. UNDERWOOD-Well, no, I mean, I would think in general if you’ve got rules that say one, one sign, you know, my interpretation of it, if you were asking me what it is, I think when you’re talking about a single business in a plaza situation, like in a mall situation, certainly we’re trying to have one sign for each vendor that’s on site, or something, you know, or lessee. MR. DRELLOS-I’m not disagreeing with this. I didn’t know if it had the Site Plan looked at and they recommended any. MR. UNDERWOOD-Right, but I think, you know, when we get to these large buildings like Wal-Mart, K-Mart, Target and places like that, you have to keep in mind what we’re trying to do. We don’t want to have like a million signs up there, and I think you’ve got to look at what they’ve presented to us, you know, showing the signage on the other buildings in Town, which there’s a lot of them in most cases, and you’ve got to decide in your own minds what’s reasonable. Is this request reasonable? Is this request way over the top? As identified by Staff, it’s excess signage. We all recognize that, I hope you do at this point in time. MRS. JENKIN-Well, my concern is, too, that I don’t think we can look at all the stores that already have existing signs. I don’t think that that’s fair because many stores have 10 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/29/09) much more signage than when the Town Code was put into effect, and it is our responsibility to try to keep as close to the Town Code as we possibly can, and to compare it with earlier signage, which is way over the top, I don’t think that that, we’re, going forward, I don’t think the Town is looking to have that kind of look anymore. The Town is trying to maintain the rural nature of the whole community, and so they are, they have been trying to reduce the size of signage and keep it much, at a quieter level, and so I think we also need to concern ourselves with that, too, keeping things as quiet as possible. It is a long way from the road, and it’s a very large building, but the Chairman’s idea of maybe reducing the size of the signage, my idea, and that’s why I asked if there was an outside entrance for the outdoor living. If you made a sign on Number Two that said home and outdoor living, you could reduce, you could get rid of one sign completely, and if you have access to the outdoor living through that entrance, I think people will understand when there’s flowers and trees and everything outside that that is an outdoor living area, but they know that that is the entrance, the main entrance, that would take them into that area, too, and that might make our decision a little easier because you’re negotiating and giving us a little bit of flexibility, too. MR. UNDERWOOD-Your color theme on the building, was that a suggestion of the Planning Board, or is that your new look? MR. PETROSKI-Well, the color scheme that’s on the variance application is what was submitted to the Board. MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure. MR. PETROSKI-What’s in the simulation is something that we would like to go back and talk to the Board about and soften up that yellow. The yellow’s kind of loud, and I think they’d rather put in some kind of a tan or even replace it with more of a consistent dark brown. So we intend to soften it up, but that is the way that was approved by the Planning Board. MR. URRICO-The recycling sign, somebody asked that, I don’t recall the answer. That recycling center, will that be accessible from the outside as well? MR. PETROSKI-Yes. MR. URRICO-Only accessible from the outside, or both? MR. PETROSKI-Yes, both. MR. URRICO-Will it be contained, will it be enclosed? What is it going to look like? MR. PETROSKI-It’s a rectangular space off the side of the entrance vestibule, and it has a series of those machines where you stick the cans and bottles. MR. URRICO-Outside. So you don’t have to enter the building to cash in your recyclables? MR. PETROSKI-You can enter from the outside or from the inside vestibule. Yes. MR. URRICO-Okay. So that’s different than some of these other locations that we see around the area, as far as the recycling area. MR. PETROSKI-I’m not familiar with. MR. DRELLOS-For the pharmacy sign, that entrance there, do you walk through the pharmacy to get to the market? MR. PETROSKI-No, it’s the general vestibule, just like the Wal-Mart store that’s on Route 9. You can walk in and then you would go off to one direction and go over towards the pharmacy area. MR. DRELLOS-Could you lose market and just have pharmacy there? MR. GARRAND-Is it a Super Center? MR. PETROSKI-It is a Super Center, yes. MRS. JENKIN-So you have food. 11 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/29/09) MR. PETROSKI-Just to take a breath and give you some more information on some of the details, the way the Code is written, actually, I was talking with Keith about this the night of the meeting. There’s a provision for a corner lot which says that you’re actually allowed two signs, two building signs, and we probably actually fall within that requirement because we do have frontage on both Quaker Road and, which is a Town road, and Quaker Ridge Boulevard, and if that was the case, then the amount of square footage of the variance request is about 155 square feet. The total sign package is 429 square feet. The size of the building façade is one of the determinations in determining how much square footage you can have, and it basically says you can go up to 25% of the front façade, a minimum of 30 square feet, and then, depending on setback, you can grow that up to be the maximum of 300 square feet. So you’re talking about a maximum of 300 square feet versus an application of 429 square feet. It’s not that far over, and then the size of the façade is such that the amount of signs we’re asking for is less than three percent of the façade area. So I know we’re talking about, can we shrink the signs down over the doorways, but in the perspective of how large the building is, you’re actually talking about less than three percent of a front façade. MR. OBORNE-If I may. The corner lot provision is something that speaks to a sign that is attached facing that one street and facing the other street. As submitted, you do not have those signs in those attitudes. So that wouldn’t fall into this category. MR. PETROSKI-Okay. If that’s the case, then we’re talking about 207 square feet over the allowance for the one sign. So if the one Wal-Mart sign is the allowed sign, then we’re asking for 207 square feet, which is not that much difference in terms of area. MR. UNDERWOOD-So, just remind us again of what’s lit up? Only the Wal-Mart’s lit up. MR. PETROSKI-Only the Wal-Mart. MR. UNDERWOOD-Everything else is just a wall sign that’s going to be in white as you have it proposed? MR. PETROSKI-Correct. On the recycle sign, I don’t want to necessarily argue the recycle sign on the merits of it being a legally required sign. Wal-Mart, once you get to know the company more, they’re one of the leaders in the world in green applications, sustainability. Their goal is 100% reuse of any waste materials. I mean, that’s the kind of goals that they have, and they’re trying to promote that type of thing by putting this kind of thing on the building that says recycling, but it’s also an important part of, again, an entrance into the building where you can find that recycle center if you’re carrying, you know, three bags of cans. The building is that kind of thing, energy conservation, use of natural light, recycled green materials. It’s all that kind of thing, and at the front of the store, what you can see just to the right of the Wal-Mart sign, is what they, it’s a tree in a planter that they’re trying to help represent the idea of green sustainability, and I’ve got, I mean, you can go to Wal-Mart websites. There’s tons of information about what their programs are, and I think it’s an important part of actually promoting that in the community as a whole. So not to oversell the recycle sign as something legally required, it’s something that makes a statement in the community, too, and I’d rather have a sign that says recycle than a sign that says one hour photo on it or meat deli. MR. URRICO-If the recycle sign is so viable, then why can’t the rest of the signs be the same size? MR. PETROSKI-Again, pointing out that the size of this façade is about 15,000 square feet, and we’re asking for 200 square feet of signage. MR. URRICO-You’re also asking for four more signs than you’re allowed. MR. PETROSKI-Well, that’s understood, and, you know, I would say this. We worked very hard with the Planning Board in trying to come up with a very good project, and I don’t want to lose that faith that we’ve gained with this community for trying to work with the community. One of the things that we did is we were trying to get these, I would call them, what do you want to call them, those cut through’s. We were arguing for selective clearing and/or these clear cutting zones along the frontage of Quaker Road, so that you can actually see clearly into the site, and at the end we said, you know, this is important to the community, you know, we’ll let it go, but, on the other hand, you know, once we did that, we automatically lost, you know, a tremendous amount of visibility to the store. So, now that we’ve left the trees there, we’ve preserved the wetlands. We’re 800 feet from the road. We are trying to focus on what can we do to help the customers when they’re 12 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/29/09) on the property itself. In terms of scale, you know, the way your Code is written, you talk about increasing the size of the sign the farther you get away from the road. So clearly you understand that the farther you get away, the smaller the sign appears. So following your Code, if we were to get 800 feet back, and going at 10 square feet for every 10 foot of setback, you would allow up to 800 feet of signage, okay. So we’re talking about something that’s actually half that. So in terms of what you’d see, okay, we’re 50% of what your Code would allow if you projected all the way to the position of our building on the property. So you obviously have some value, see some value in what happens with setback. MR. URRICO-We also have a goal to try to minimize signage, and that’s one of the things that we are very intent on doing. So we’re asking you to work with us. MRS. JENKIN-One thing that when you’re driving along Quaker Road, you’re not expected to see the signs on the building itself. It’s the freestanding sign that will attract attention and let people know that Wal-Mart is there. When they drive in, then those are more directional signs of what section of the building to go to. So you’re not expecting, no one is expecting to be able to read those signs from Quaker Road. MR. PETROSKI-Correct. MRS. JENKIN-That’s just not practical. You haven’t talked at all about the freestanding sign. What is on the freestanding sign, and where is that placed? MR. PETROSKI-The freestanding sign is a permitted sign. MRS. JENKIN-Yes, no, I understand that. MR. PETROSKI-And that’s at the intersection of Quaker Road and Quaker Ridge Boulevard. It’s set back 25 feet from each property line. It’s 25 feet high, and it’s 64 square feet, two sided sign. MRS. JENKIN-Okay. What will it have on it? MR. PETROSKI-Wal-Mart. MRS. JENKIN-Just Wal-Mart, it doesn’t have anything else underneath it? MR. PETROSKI-I thought it was in the package we gave you. MR. OBORNE-No, and it wasn’t necessary, because it is a compliant sign. MR. UNDERWOOD-No, I mean, it’s nothing we have to worry about. MRS. JENKIN-Well, I just wondered if there was other information on that freestanding sign, other than just the sign itself. Okay. Thank you. MR. DRELLOS-Would this one have a bank in it like the other one? Doesn’t the other one have a bank in it? MR. CLEMENTS-Yes, Citizens. That was one of my questions, too. Do you have any plans for any other vendors in there like Citizens Bank or Tire Warehouse? MR. PETROSKI-Well, typically Wal-Mart provides spaces for different uses in the front of the store. Of course you have customer service and restrooms, but then you have sometimes a vision center. Sometimes there’s a nail care center. Sometimes there’s a hair salon. I have not been advised that there’s any outside vendors right now, outside vendor space. So at this point I’d have to say I’m not aware of any. MR. CLEMENTS-But we could expect, if that happened, that you would be back here asking for more signs for a Citizens Bank, for example, or some other vendor that might be in there? Would that be the case? MR. PETROSKI-Well, as you saw the Citizens Bank, typically those vendors like to see their name on the front of the store, because otherwise people would not identify it as being a place to use their services. If that’s a question that I need to go back and research, then that’s just what I’ll have to do. Right now I’m not aware of any in that particular. I don’t think they want to be excluded from being able to do that, but I’m not aware of any. 13 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/29/09) MR. CLEMENTS-Thank you. MR. DRELLOS-Would they have to come in front of the Board for another sign because it’s on the same building or because they’re a separate business? MR. OBORNE-Absolutely, and I do want to clarify the cart corrals would be considered a self-service, as long as the sign’s not greater than four square feet, which they’re not, typically. MR. URRICO-Okay. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. If there’s no more questions from Board members, I’ll open up the public hearing. Anybody here from the public wishing to speak? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. UNDERWOOD-Any correspondence, Roy? MR. URRICO-I didn’t see any. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Why don’t we do this. Let’s see where everybody’s at here on the Board, and, you know, whether you think this is reasonable, whether you think that there should be some other alternatives considered, and if you’re going to put those forth, try and put forth some succinct guidelines as to what you think might be more applicable, if that’s your choice. So you don’t just leave these guys hunting and pecking to try and figure out what we want from them and what we think is reasonable. So why don’t we start with you, Joan. MRS. JENKIN-I would like to see less signs and smaller signs. I feel that if we’re looking at the criteria, the balancing act, if the benefit can be achieved by any other means feasible to the applicant, and I think that you definitely could have the information above the doors and direct people where to go with a smaller sign. I don’t think you need that sign at those size of signs. I think that if you put the home and outdoor living sign, as I suggested before, together, that would be one less sign. I think it’s quite obvious that that is an outdoor area in the summertime, with all the, and I don’t know whether, because of the Code and the Ordinance, I don’t think that’s absolutely essential. I think the other ones are. I don’t have a huge problem with the recycle sign because it’s so small. I mean, it’s only six square feet, but I don’t think it’s necessary either. The necessary signs I see are the Wal-Mart sign and the ones over the two main doors, and I would be amenable to that. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Brian? MR. CLEMENTS-Thank you. I’m kind of up in the air about this one. First of all I’d like to say that I think that it looks like a very nice design. It’s a well thought out package, and I actually think that it looks cleaner than the store on Route 9. As you know, I had a concern about some other vendors coming in there, and I’m sure that they would be asking for more signs, but the sheer size of the project, if you looked at this compared to a mall with different vendors, you would have signage that would probably be similar to this. I would like, probably like to see the, I think that the recycle sign is fine. I’d look at these other signs more as directional signs, and I would really like to see them a little bit smaller, but as long as they were smaller, I would be in agreement. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Joyce? MRS. HUNT-We do have the Sign Ordinances, but one of the things for the variance, it said that the granting by the Board of Appeals should not be given for Sign Variances unless it finds there are special circumstances or conditions applying to the land or sign and not applying generally to land or signs in the neighborhood, and that such circumstances or conditions, following the strict application would deprive the applicant of a reasonable use of such sign or land, and I think that applies in this case. This is a very large building. I don’t think the signs are objectionable. I think the only sign I might have a problem with is the outdoor living, but the other signs I don’t have a problem with, and I think that, because of the size of the building and its placement from Quaker Road, I would have no problem with it, except for that one sign. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Roy? 14 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/29/09) MR. URRICO-Yes. I think we’re moving in the right direction when it comes to these signs on these major stores. If you recall, K-Mart, a few years ago, came back to us for more signs, and we started counting them up, and we made them roll back the signs that they had. Sorry, borrow a Wal-Mart term, but I think we also have to consider the future of this whole area there, and what’s going to happen in that area, and what we’re hearing. So whatever we do here may be multiplied in other stores in the same general location. Like what if another Sam’s Club comes in or something similar, where we’re going to have to deal with multiple signs there, too. So we have to be very careful in what we’re granting here, because this is going to become the standard for the neighborhood. It won’t be what affects the neighborhood. It will be what creates the de facto standard for that neighborhood. With that being said, I think this is a very nice looking project. I think the layout and design are very nice. I don’t have a problem with the Wal-Mart sign, the lit sign there. I do have a problem with the number of signs. I think that the outdoor living sign could definitely be merged in with one of the others, and I’d like to see those signs come down a bit in size. So I’d like to see at least one sign taken out, and the directional signs over the entrances maybe shrunk somewhat. I don’t have a problem with the recycling sign. I think it’s minimal and actually probably is a good idea. So that’s where I stand. MR. UNDERWOOD-George? MR. DRELLOS-Okay. I think the balancing act, whether the request is substantial, I think it is. You’re asking for four signs, but I think, at the same time, with the size of the building, if we take where it says market and pharmacy and shrink it, get rid of market and just put pharmacy, that one word, and equal the other three signs to equal the size of that pharmacy sign. Do you see what I’m trying to get at? So if you just take the pharmacy sign, get rid of market, and reduce the other two to the size of the pharmacy sign, I think that’ll substantially effect how the bigness of these signs are. When you’re in the parking lot, I think you’ll still be able to see them fine at that size. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Rich? MR. GARRAND-I think Joan and Joyce are right on the money with this one. Home and living, outdoor living, it’s a little redundant. Anybody who goes by a Wal-Mart, Wal-Mart usually is nothing but return business. Anybody who’s been there knows that the gates and plants and everything at the one end of the building is basically outdoor living. I mean, that pretty much goes without saying. I think that Sign Number Four, listed as outdoor living, is really not necessary. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. For myself, I don’t really have a problem with the Wal-Mart, your lit up sign. Nor do I have a problem with the recycle sign. I think the recycle sign is small enough that it’s not going to be offensive to anybody. I think it identifies a useful function that’s available on that end of the building. What I would like to see is I would like to see the outdoor living sign, I don’t think that’s necessary whatsoever. I think that the two signs over the other major entrances there could be, if you shrink those in half, to half the size they’re at right now, I would not have a problem with that, but I think that a maximum size has been proposed here. If you look at the size of those letters across the façade, it’s significant, and I think that if we’re going to grant you relief for three extra signs on the side of the building, then those signs can be brought into more compliance with a smaller size that, you know, has less of an effect on the size of the building. I think because it is going to be for, primarily for internal usage, because you’re trying to direct people to that part of the store, I don’t think shrinking those in half and making them smaller and more subtle, you know, you’re shrinking them in this way. You’re bringing down the size of those letters, you’re still going to be able to read those, by the size of those letters that would be left there, and I think that I would have no problem with it at that point in time. So, that’s going to be my suggestion to you. So I don’t know if that’s something you can do here. I don’t know what size, you know, if those are standard blow up letters, like you said, where they just vacuum make them, or, I’m not sure what you have available as far as designs, or if that’s something you want to come back with. MR. PETROSKI-I think that all the feedback is well received, and I’d like to take it back to present the ideas that the Board has to Wal-Mart directly and see what they feel comfortable with. They’ve come a long way in their signage, you know, and the façade, and the design of the signs in the façade, you don’t see many of these large retailers that are doing that. Some of us have one size fits all building, and the sign is the sign, and they don’t take the time to really design that sign right into the architectural features, and I think that’s what Wal-Mart has done here, and that, in itself, hides it, you know, especially from the longer distance away, and the fact that they’ve done such a good job 15 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/29/09) of preserving so much green space in front of the property, with the distance. I think when we wrote up that piece for the Board, we were thinking about the pylon sign as somewhat of an identifier for the site, not so much the building signs, and that’s kind of why that was in there, but so much of the building signage is so hard to see, and you can see that from the simulation. So I would like to take it back and work with Wal-Mart and see what they would like to come back with. MR. UNDERWOOD-Then I guess what we’ll do is table this. We’ll leave the public hearing open in case there’s some commentary. I think you have to realize, I mean, we have to work, you know, we work separate from the Planning Board, but I think the Planning Board, you know, if we were to just simply accept what you have proposed here, the Planning Board probably wouldn’t be real happy with us that we hadn’t, you know, shrunk you down somewhat, you know, and it’s understandable what you’re doing. I don’t think it’s way over the top what you’re saying, either, but at the same time the community standards are such that they’re trying to accomplish this shrinking down of signage, and when I think of Wal-Mart, in a sense, all the good things you’ve said about the company and what they’re trying to accomplish with recycling and such, there are lots of pluses there, too, and I think that everybody realizes the quality of what you’re proposing to bring to the community here. So we’re listening to what you say, too. We’re not just blowing you off completely on it. So I think what I’ll do is a tabling motion. Do you want to have 60 days? Is that going to be enough? MR. PETROSKI-Thirty’s fine. I mean, I think I can have an answer within the next th submission cycle which would be February 15 I think. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. So you want to put them on for March, then? Would that probably make the most sense to do that? MR. PETROSKI-That would be fabulous. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. MR. DRELLOS-Hey, Jim, is there any way that they could find out if there would be an additional business maybe like a bank? MR. PETROSKI-I do plan to find an answer to that. MR. UNDERWOOD-No, but I think if we get into those in the future, you know, looking at where the signage is on the building, you know, it’s going to be hard to figure out where to put it, maybe up where the smaller yellow is over there on the west side, you know, plus those colors are going to change possibly, is what you’ve suggested also. The yellow may be gone. It may just all be brown. MR. PETROSKI-But for the short term, I will find out what the intention is for an external vendor. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. So I guess I’ll make a tabling motion that we table this th application until, do you want to go the first meeting in March? The 17 of March. th MR. OBORNE-I’m sorry, the 18. thth MR. URRICO-Is that the 18 or the 17? th MR. OBORNE-Yes, that should be fine, the 18 I think we’re looking at. MOTION TO TABLE SIGN VARIANCE NO. 1-2009 WAL-MART STORES, INC./CRAIG STEINFELDT, Introduced by James Underwood who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roy Urrico: th corner of Quaker Ridge Boulevard and Quaker Road. Tabled until the 18 of March. th Duly adopted this 29 day of January, 2009, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Clements, Mrs. Jenkin, Mr. Drellos, Mr. Underwood NOES: NONE MR. UNDERWOOD-Thank you. 16 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/29/09) MR. PETROSKI-Thank you. SIGN VARIANCE NO. 2-2009 SEQRA TYPE: UNLISTED JOLLEY ASSOCIATES AGENT(S): SEAN CRUMB OWNER(S): JOLLEY ASSOCIATES ZONING: HC-INT. LOCATION: 474 AVIATION ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES PLACEMENT OF A 102 SQ. FT. FREESTANDING SIGN. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MINIMUM PROPERTY LINE SETBACKS AND FROM THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE SIGN SIZE REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REF.: SPR 7-2007 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: JANUARY 14, 2009 LOT SIZE: 2.5 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 302.5-1-98 SECTION: 140-6 SEAN CRUMB, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. URRICO-I’m going to read in a letter that was sent in on December 10, 2008, and it says “Dear Board Members: Jolley Associates received Planning Board approval for the demolition of the existing Mobil gas station and snack shop for a proposed 5,250 square foot Jolley Convenience Store and gas station, Dunkin Donuts and a Subway sandwich shop on November 20, 2007. Convenience store, gas station and fast food restaurant establishments are all uses that require Site Plan approval. Jolley Associates presented a complete package of information to the Planning Board for their review and approval. During those proceedings Jolley was required to provide a sign rendering of the proposed signage and in fact a request was made by the Planning Board for a monument sign. The Planning Board felt this would be most appropriate for the site. Jolley Associates complied with the request and presented to the Planning Board on November 20, 2007 a scaled rendering of the proposed freestanding sign and size dimensions. The sign as proposed was approved by the Planning Board with a single condition that the sign was not to utilize LED lighting for the price panel. I refer you to the attached minutes of that meeting and sign rendering. The Zoning Administrator recently informed Jolley Associates that a sign permit could not be issued due to the size of the sign and would thereafter require a variance. Our concern here is that Jolley was required to satisfy the Planning Board with all aspects of the project including signage. Why was the issue of size not brought up at the Planning Board meeting when a Zoning Office staff member was present at the meeting for clarification and guidance? Copies of the proposed signage were presented to both staff and board members. Jolley Associates went ahead with the production of the sign and sign base based on the approval from the Planning Board and that they were satisfied with the dimensions. Jolley Associates paid in excess of $9,500.00 for the requested monument sign and base only to be informed that it cannot be used. Jolley Associates is also requesting relief from the front yard setback of 15’ and requesting a variance for an 11’ front yard setback. Jolley Associates respectfully requests that the variance application for the sign and front yard setback relief be approved. With kind regards, Sean Crumb, Real Estate Development Manager” STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Sign Variance No. 2-2009, Jolley Associates, Meeting Date: January 29, 2009 “Project Location: 474 Aviation Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes placement of a 102 sq. ft. freestanding sign at the northeast corner of the property. Relief Required: Applicant requests four (4) feet of front setback relief and 52 square feet of sign size relief per §140-6. Criteria for considering a Sign Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination, the board shall consider: 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this sign variance. Minor change to the neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of this request. However, this proposal may initiate additional sign variance requests in the future. 17 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/29/09) 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than a sign variance. The applicant could erect a smaller or compliant sign at this location. 3. Whether the requested sign variance is substantial. The request for four (4) feet or 26.7 percent relief from the minimum 15 foot setback requirement for freestanding signs may be considered minor to moderate relative to the ordinance. The request for 52 square feet or 104 percent of relief from the minimum 50 square foot size allowance for a freestanding sign at the 15 foot front setback may be considered severe relative to the ordinance. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Minor to moderate impacts on the physical and environmental conditions of the neighborhood may be anticipated as the size of the proposed sign may have negative visual impacts. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. This request may be considered self created. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): SP 7-07 5,270 square foot convenience store Approved 11/20/07 Staff comments: Although this project was approved by the Planning Board on November 20, 2007, the freestanding sign is non-compliant. The applicant’s argument that this sign was approved by the Planning Board and need not have a variance is not relevant as the Zoning Board of Appeals has sole authority to approve or disapprove non-compliant signs. The applicant had erected this sign. The Zoning Administrator informed the applicant that they would have to apply for a variance. The applicant was directed to remove a portion of the sign in order to make it more compliant and apply for a temporary sign permit for the Subway business associated with the store. This is the current status of this freestanding sign (see photos). SEQR Status: Unlisted – The Zoning Board of Appeals must make a determination concerning this application.” “Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form January 14, 2009 Project Name: Jolley Associates Owner(s): Jolley Associates ID Number: QBY-09- SV-02 County Project#: Jan09-15 Current Zoning: HC-Int. Community: Queensbury Project Description: Applicant proposes placement of a 102 sq ft freestanding sign. relief requested from minimum property line setbacks and from the maximum allowable sign size requirements. Site Location: 474 Aviation Road Tax Map Number(s): 302.5- 1-98 Staff Notes: Sign Variance: The applicant proposes to install a 102 sq. ft. freestanding sign. Relief is requested from the minimum setbacks where 15 ft. is required and 11 ft is proposed. In addition, relief is requested from the maximum size allowed where 50 ft. is the maximum allowed and 96 sq. ft. is proposed. The applicant indicates the local board during site plan reviewed the proposed sign and had requested a monument sign as proposed; it was not mentioned at the local board meeting sign requirements. Staff recommends no county impact based on the information submitted according to the suggested review criteria of NYS General Municipal Law Section 239 L applied to the proposed project. County Planning Board Recommendation: No County Impact” Signed Richard C. Merrill, Warren County Planning Board 1/20/09 MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. MR. CRUMB-Good evening. Well, that sums up quite a bit of it. I was, through the planning process, there was some give and take on both sides. We had come in and proposed a flat roof structure, had made some changes with that to the request of the Planning Board. Due to the area that the property is located in, another request was made that is, to us, as a business operator, a significant one with our brand identity, that we not have. 18 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/29/09) MS. GAGLIARDI-Excuse me. Could you just put your name on the record, please. MR. CRUMB-I’m Sean Crumb with Jolley Associates. The request was made that we not utilize the Mobil legend on our canopy or the illuminated blue band that we have at other sites that are also in the Highway Commercial Intensive zone. So my concern here is that the request on the Planning Board’s part to ask us to tone down some things, which we did, as well as we initially had proposed a single pole, cantilever sign that was 20 feet in height, which met the requirement. However, the request was made for a monument sign not to exceed 10 feet in height. We did come back with a rendering to that effect. The sign base itself is 18 inches high. The sign by itself is eight feet six, which totals 10 feet. It is 12 feet wide, and through that process, signage was discussed thoroughly, and I came away with the understanding that that sign was approved, and I would ask for you folks tonight to approve that. In further research of your regulations, we are on a corner lot that, in normal circumstances, would allow us a secondary freestanding sign of 50 square feet, and we are also, could be considered a business complex. There are three separate businesses within that building. Jolley Associates operates the convenience store and gasoline. Glens Falls Donut Group operates the Dunkin Donuts, and we have a concession agreement with Subway Real Estate Corp. for the Subway. We have not come in and requested any additional building signs. We do our best to have a very clean look. If any of you folks have been by there or used that store, you’ll find we don’t put our window wash out front for sale. We don’t have cases of soda out for sale. We don’t have excessive building signage, but one thing that we do need is some brand recognition and the fact that we are there. That sign is located on the northeast corner, which is tucked right up tight to the on ramp to the Northway. It is not on the far side towards the Church or the residential areas. It can be seen from the northbound exit ramp, which we need some identity from there. As well as I did have a call from the Chairman of the Board of the Church next door, Tuesday, inquiring about this, and we did briefly discuss it and he came away and said he had no problem with it. Mark was his first name, and I’m sorry his last name escapes me at the moment, but we did have a conversation, and I would ask that you, you know, look at this application favorably. MR. UNDERWOOD-Are you right turn only when you come out of there to get onto the on ramp? MR. CRUMB-We are, yes. MR. UNDERWOOD-That’s what I assumed. Everything else comes out the road. MR. CRUMB-It is, and I’m glad you brought up that point, because that is another issue where we gave up. There was quite a bit of discussion about the access to the site. As you may recall, that had a full access off of Aviation Road, and with the compromise with the Planning Board, we made that a right in/right out only, so that all traffic heading west on Aviation had to turn left onto Burke, and then consequently into our facility. MRS. JENKIN-I know, I went to visit, and I turned right into the gas station, and then I said, that says exit only, and I didn’t even realize. Lucky no cars were coming. MR. CRUMB-And there was, they wanted to close that curb cut entirely, and we didn’t see that there was a necessity for that. They allowed us to have the right in, and we did compromise with them, and what I’m here to do is ask for a compromise from you folks, as well. MR. URRICO-Can I ask you a question, Mr. Crumb? MR. CRUMB-Sure. MR. URRICO-You came to us with another application, the Jolley on Route 9 near Exit 20. MR. CRUMB-Yes. MR. URRICO-You went through the same process with them, with us. MR. CRUMB-We had done, it was for an additional wall sign. Yes. MR. URRICO-But you went through the Planning Board process and how come? 19 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/29/09) MR. CRUMB-Well, I’ll say this, that the additional Mobil legend on the canopy was my error, and not the interpretation of the Planning Board. MR. URRICO-But my confusion is that you went through this process with the Town of Queensbury at that point. MR. CRUMB-That’s correct. MR. URRICO-So you understood that the Sign Variances or anything to do with signs have to come through the Zoning Board, yet here you’re saying that you got confused because the Planning Board said this is what they wanted. MR. CRUMB-Well, there’s a number of issues to confuse that comment. I read through Section 140-6, Signs for Which Permits are Required, Numbers and Regulations. You go down under Section 5 C, permits for such signs shall be subject to the approval of the Planning Board. It does fall under the category of Off Premises Directional signs, however it is under the category of signs for which permits are required. Again, my concern here is, is that the Planning Board stepped up and asked us to do away with some clearly allowable signage on the site that we gave up, and coming away from that, I’ll be honest with you, I felt that, if they can take away, why can’t they give? MRS. JENKIN-Well, in the discussion and in the minutes of the Planning Board minutes, they talked about the lighting, but there was no mention of size, and you must be aware of the appropriate size of signs that is allowed in Town, but there was no mention at all of the size. It was only the lighting. MR. CRUMB-I’m clearly aware of that now. I will say, in my own defense, the dimensions are clearly on the rendering that was proposed to the Planning Board. MRS. JENKIN-But when you said you got permission to erect the sign, it was only because you were agreeing to the lighting. There was nothing in here agreeing to the size of the sign. MR. CRUMB-Well, again, they had the opportunity of reviewing the sign. The question was brought up whether the price sign, the price portion of the sign was LED, which it’s not. MR. GARRAND-They didn’t want it red. MR. CRUMB-That’s correct. MRS. JENKIN-But the thing is it is your responsibility to know the Code, and to follow the Code for the size of the signs, and that’s what you’re here, and the setback, and there was no mention in the minutes for that. So you know that. MR. CRUMB-That’s correct. Granted, I will give you that. However, I do fall back to the point that the Planning Board did review that. They did ask us to remove some signage, which we clearly did, and again, they asked for a 10 foot monument sign, which we produced for them, and the dimension, at that point in time, was not of a concern of theirs, and I’m a little confused on how the approval process is here. Now if they can’t grant me the sign that they approved through the planning process, can I now come back in and ask for my illuminated blue band and my Mobil legend on the canopy? At this point, we’ve not erected any other, we have a single Jolley building sign, and at this point, we haven’t chosen to erect a Subway or a Dunkin Donuts sign which, in theory, due to the location, we could have one on the Aviation Road side and one on the Burke Drive side, as well as a 50 square foot freestanding sign along Burke Road. MR. UNDERWOOD-I’m just going to ask you, Keith, because it seemed to be a pretty good outcome up on Exit 20 there with the way the signage came out there. I don’t think anybody had a problem with that. MR. CRUMB-And I had proposed the same exact sign. MR. UNDERWOOD-And I’m questioning in my own mind like, what were they thinking when they wanted to go this route? Because to me, that’s a major improvement what we did up there, you know, and what we allowed. I mean, it’s like, you know, one hand does this. The other hand does this, you know, and you’re thinking, where’s the consistency if you’re trying to achieve something. 20 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/29/09) MR. OBORNE-Well, I think that we’re trying to achieve that. I mean, especially with the meetings that we’ve had recently. Again, I cannot speak to the Planning Board. MR. CRUMB-I will say that the allowable height is 25 feet. They asked us to reduce it to 20 feet at Exit 20, which we complied with, and we reduced this sign by an additional 15 feet that they requested. So, again, my concern is they’ve had oversight with the entire project, and now we come down to a dimensions, size dimension issue. MRS. JENKIN-That’s what they’re doing. They want the appearance, and it’s in their purview to work with you and giving the appearance that they would like to have, and you worked with them very well, but that still doesn’t mean that they can give you the permission to have an out size sign. It’s the Zoning Board that is supposed to look at size and setback. MR. CRUMB-Well, in my own defense, I think that there needs to be a little more clarity within your own regulations. Again, I read from Section Five, permits for such signs shall be subject to the approval of the Town Planning Board. MR. GARRAND-Providing they’re compliant size and position. MR. CRUMB-Well, it does not state that, and again, I think we could go down the road back and forth all night. I’m hoping to compromise with you. We have a significant investment in that property. We have a significant investment in the sign. MR. GARRAND-Is there any proposal for future signage? MR. CRUMB-No, and I’d be happy to sit here and make an agreement with you about that. MR. GARRAND-Really? MR. CRUMB-Certainly. Again, we’ve run a very clean, high end operation. I don’t know if any of you have been in the store, but I think that you’ll notice that it’s significantly. MR. GARRAND-Not since 6:05. MR. CRUMB-Okay. It’s significantly different than most of your convenience stores out there. We put a lot of time and effort into designing those so that they’re very appealing, and again, you note the outside of the buildings, and that’s what I fall back on. MR. DRELLOS-Would the whole sign be torn down? It’s going to be a whole complete new one, or are you just going to add on to the one that’s existing? MR. CRUMB-Well, if you grant me the variance, we have the other half of that sign. MR. DRELLOS-You have the other half already. You just don’t have Subway on it. MR. CRUMB-Subway is on the other sign. MR. DRELLOS-It is already. MR. UNDERWOOD-It’ll look like this, George. MR. DRELLOS-No, I know. I didn’t know if they were moving it. MR. UNDERWOOD-I mean, in essence, if you’re looking at that picture, that’s going to be the width of it. That’s going to be the height of it. MR. DRELLOS-I didn’t know if it was going to be moved a little bit or we’re just? MR. CRUMB-No, there’s a brick masonry sign base. MR. DRELLOS-So it’s all set for it? MR. CRUMB-It is. MR. DRELLOS-Okay. MRS. JENKIN-You can kind of see it in the snow. 21 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/29/09) MR. CRUMB-It’s buried, and again, not to nitpick this issue, but if you take a look at the snow there, it’s piling up and burying my sign, whereby if I had my 20 foot or 25 foot sign, I wouldn’t be running into this issue. That’s this sign. MR. URRICO-That’s the sign? MR. CRUMB-Yes, sir. MR. URRICO-And that’s what you want it to look like? MR. CRUMB-Yes, it is. MR. URRICO-Not the way it looks now? MR. CRUMB-That’s correct. We have removed, that sign came in two pieces. MR. URRICO-Can you reduce the prices on the gas? MR. CRUMB-We have from that. Yes. It’s $1.99 today. We’re happy to comply. Again, so what we had done was we had actually erected that sign. Craig called me and let me know about my error. We promptly removed it, and we requested a temporary sign, had a temporary Subway sign installed, and would ask that you grant us the ability to put the other half back up. MR. OBORNE-If I may, Sean, where you’re referencing the Planning Board, are you in the Sign Code at 140? Where, specifically, are you? MR. CRUMB-This is what I took off of the Internet. Section 5C. MR. OBORNE-That’s Off Premises. MR. CRUMB-I understand that. MR. URRICO-Keith, what page is that? MR. OBORNE-That would be page six of nine. MRS. JENKIN-What section? It’s 140-6 or 5, and what, A, B, C, D? Dash 6, 140-6, 5. MR. OBORNE-Again, that’s Off Premises. MR. CRUMB-Well, again, I think it’s open to interpretation. MRS. JENKIN-It’s not Off Premises. MR. GARRAND-Do you do all the stores in New England? MR. CRUMB-No. We just cover northern New York, Vermont, and a little bit of New Hampshire. MR. GARRAND-Okay, because I’ve seen these things getting re-done all over New England, New Hampshire, Vermont, just everywhere. MR. CRUMB-We’re mainly, where you may have seen Jolley is. MR. GARRAND-Manchester? MR. CRUMB-No. We do have a store in Manchester, but it’s not a Jolley. It’s a Short Stop. Where you’d see Jolley is up in South Burlington. MR. GARRAND-Okay. Manchester, New Hampshire. MR. GARRAND-Route 7. MR. CRUMB-Route 7. We have a strong presence along Route 7. MR. DRELLOS-Do you have signs on the Northway saying Mobil and Subway? 22 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/29/09) MR. CRUMB-There are Mobil signs on the Northway, yes. MR. URRICO-Sean, you talked about a compromise. What would be the compromise? MR. CRUMB-Well, I think that, if you’re willing to grant the variance, we may be willing to forego any future building signs. MR. URRICO-What about size? Can you shrink the signs at all? MR. CRUMB-Well, at this point, I would like to say no, due to the strong investment we have in that sign currently. I don’t think that it’s out of character. I think it’s certainly an improvement, not only the sign, but the entire project, but I think the signage is a significant improvement over what my neighbors have, and how they have chosen to display themselves. Hess is way over the top, and I’m not going to sit here and try and compare because we could go down that road all night as well. Again, I’m willing to compromise if you folks are willing to compromise as well. I don’t think that it’s a significant request. I think we basically stand alone on that corner, and we do need some identity, and I think under the circumstances of the size restrictions that were placed on us by the Planning Board, I feel that they have the authority to grant additional space. MRS. JENKIN-Well, they don’t. MR. CRUMB-Well, unfortunately, as an applicant, it doesn’t come away with that appearance when you’re going before the Planning Board. MR. OBORNE-I do want to say that there’s no ambiguity to this. I understand Sean and his position that he’s in, based on what the Planning Board had approved, but, I mean, what he’s referencing is Off Premises, and this is not Off Premises. This is on premises, and the Zoning Board of Appeals does have jurisdiction over noncompliant signs, if they’re going to approve it. MR. GARRAND-Yes, they talked more about rhododendrons than they did about the signage on this. MR. DRELLOS-And rose bushes. MRS. JENKIN-The thing is because you’ve done these things before, you are aware of the Code, the Town Code, and you know, you are aware of the signs, and you know where to look for what your sign is compliant. That’s what concerns me. You knew what is compliant, and you didn’t follow the Town Code when you built that. MR. DRELLOS-You’re going to be re-doing the one on the corner. Right? MR. CRUMB-We are, yes. MR. DRELLOS-So, we probably won’t see you here for that one. Right? MR. CRUMB-I don’t expect to. We’ve proposed two replacement signs that are monument signs as well. I can assure you they’ll all meet the. MR. DRELLOS-So they’ll all meet the Codes. MR. CRUMB-They will. MRS. JENKIN-Which one is that? MR. DRELLOS-Straight down. Route 9. MR. CRUMB-I will say this. I will be in to ask for a variance because of the one wall sign issue. We would like to have a Mobil legend on the canopy, as well as a Jolley sign on the store. Aside from that, I have no plans to be before you for dimensions. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Why don’t we do this. Why don’t we open the public hearing. Anybody here from the public wishing to speak? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. UNDERWOOD-Any correspondence? 23 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/29/09) MR. URRICO-No. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. I’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. UNDERWOOD-Why don’t we do this. Let’s try and rationalize what he’s proposed here. I don’t, by any way, shape or means, think that you’re off the wall with the way you’ve explained to us here. That’s one of the problems we run into. We’ve got these two separate Boards, but it’s like having a two headed transplant because neither head talks to the other one, and they always do things that we don’t know what they’re doing and we do things that they don’t know what we’re doing, and that intercommunication thing is what’s missing in the mix, I think, here, in this case here. If I were on the Planning Board, I would have said, well, what was wrong with the one you did up on Exit 20, because it came out perfect, as far as I’m concerned. You couldn’t have done a better job than that, and, you know, I think that in trying to constantly try and re-invent the process and re-invent the outcomes, you know, they’re always tweaking it to the point where eventually they go too far overboard, and in this case here, that seems to be the case. These guys got pushed into doing this, when they wanted to do exactly what they did up there, in essence, is what it seems to me, and, you know, they go out and they purchase the sign, you know, it’s implied. I mean, maybe there wasn’t any official approvals by the Board or anything like that, but, nonetheless, it’s happened, you know. MR. URRICO-I just think we have to make it clear, if we grant this, that, Number One, in the future, the Planning Board has to make it clear, when they speak about signs, that they’re not the, that a variance still may be necessary, and they have to make sure of the approval process. That’s Number One. But I also think that this is solely with this project, and it doesn’t. MR. UNDERWOOD-Right, and I would just say to you because, you know, coming from us, you know where we’re at, next time when you come in for the one on Quaker and Route 9 down there, when you go to do that one, I mean, you know what we like. We know what you want, and the Planning Board can throw out as many oddball ideas as they want out there about what they don’t like or what they do like, but at the same time, the Zoning Board’s supposed to be the authority for granting relief from the Sign Code, and, you know, we’re the ones, we’re the go to guys. I mean, they can propose it, but you might want to just say to them, well, I’m still going to go to the, I’m going to ask the Zoning Board what they think, first. MR. CRUMB-Well, and we all learn new things every day. MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure. Yes. It’s a learning experience for us at the same time, too, but, yes, it’s unfortunate in this instance here. So, I guess we’ll close up everything and we’ll poll the Board. So, Brian, do you want to go first? MR. CLEMENTS-Sure. I’d love to. I think that this looks terrible. MRS. JENKIN-Exactly. MR. CLEMENTS-I think that Mr. Crumb has been very agreeable to change in the past when he’s come in here to this Board. I think he did this in good faith, and I know that he’d be agreeable to other concessions for the other properties. I would be in favor of the, this is what you want, this sign right here, right? MR. CRUMB-That’s correct. MR. CLEMENTS-I would be in favor of that sign. I think that it looks much better than this. I think that you’ve made some concessions to get to this point. So I’d be in favor of this application. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes. In the past when we’ve addressed after the fact variances, once we calm down and get ourselves back on track, we try to look at the project as if you came forward with clean hands, so to speak, and I would never say yes to something like this, if you were coming forward to us with this kind of project. At that distance, this size sign is really larger than I would like, but I understand the circumstances. I think it’s a real situation that probably was, lead you to believe that maybe you could build the sign 24 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/29/09) larger than it should be. I wish we could shrink the size of the sign right now. I’d be in favor of it if you can do something to reduce it in some way. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. George? MR. DRELLOS-Under the circumstances, with what you went through with the Planning Board, and that you thought was the right way to go, even though it wasn’t, you know, but you got to this point where you are now, I would be in favor of it, and putting the extra signage on, as long as he would make the concession of no more signs at this site in the future. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Rich? MR. GARRAND-I agree with George. I’d be in favor of it, providing he signed off on no further signage. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Joan? MRS. JENKIN-I, personally, don’t like the sign. I think it’s too large for that site and right where it is. I think the Dunkin Donuts and Subway signs are too large. I think that you are aware of the Town Codes, and because the minutes specifically said they were talking about the lighting and it was approved based on the lighting, there was really no reference to size or setback at all in the approval, and I think that you probably were aware of that, but you went ahead and built the sign anyway, before heard from the Zoning Administrator. So, at this point, I would not be in favor of the size of the sign that you already have built. I’d like to see it smaller, and I wouldn’t be in favor of this. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Joyce? MRS. HUNT-Okay. Thank you. I think because of the unusual circumstances with, you could say the confusion with the Planning Board, and I don’t think there’ll be an undesirable change in the neighborhood, and as far as whether the benefit could be achieved by other means feasible to the applicant, I think you’ve put a considerable amount of money into this sign, and the request might be substantial, but, again, as I say, there was a confusion with the Board. So I would be in favor of it. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. I guess I’ll be in favor of it, too. I don’t think anybody’s going to be happy with the sign. We’re going to catch a heck of a lot of flack for approving this, but I think you understand where we’re coming from in the future ones, and I really like what you did up on Exit 20. I think you guys did a superb job on the whole project. MR. CRUMB-Thank you. MR. UNDERWOOD-It’s a major improvement, and this station here is a major improvement also. I don’t understand the reasoning where, you know, a gas station can’t have a sign up on the canopy. I mean, everyone in the universe does. I don’t understand what they were thinking here, especially on such a busy corner as this. Certainly this isn’t what we want to create going forward, and I think everybody on the Board has mentioned that fact, but in this instance here, I don’t think this was self- created on your part. You weren’t looking to do this to begin with. MR. CRUMB-No. MR. UNDERWOOD-And I don’t think would have even suggested it, but. MR. CRUMB-I can assure you, I wouldn’t have spent $9500 unknowingly, particularly in the climate we’re in now. MR. UNDERWOOD-Well, and all I can say is this, you know, leave the sign where it is. I mean, it’s too close. We’re going to have to grant relief for that purpose. I don’t think moving it back the four and a half feet’s would have made any difference in this instance here. I don’t think there’s any problem with sight lines because you’re only making right hand turns coming out of there anyhow. You’re not going to get hit by somebody coming from the east, because you can’t see them through the sign. It’s an unfortunate occurrence, and all I would say is this. You’ve agreed to no more signage on site on the building or anything else. You can always do the signs in the window deal, you know, because that’s permitted, but, you know, if somebody takes out that sign with an 18 wheeler sometime, you know, I’d like to see a smaller sign come back and replace it than what’s there now, but due to the fact that you’ve gone to the substantial cost of 25 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/29/09) purchasing the sign and building the sign already with all the infrastructure for it, I’m not going to make you do it at this point. I think you’re just going to have to live with it, as a reminder. So, does somebody want to make a resolution? MR. GARRAND-SEQRA. MR. UNDERWOOD-We’ve got to do SEQRA first. All right. It is an Unlisted action, and I think we’re going to do the Short Environmental Form. The applicant is Jolley Associates. The project location is Exit 19, the Jolley gas station. Project location is Queensbury and again the County is Warren. It’s 474 Aviation Road, located on the west side of I-87, right next to the southbound on ramp, corner of Aviation Road and Burke Drive. Describing the project briefly, it’s the replacement of a freestanding sign. Will the proposed action comply with the existing zoning? The answer is no. The sign is larger than the zoning regulations allow, as well as being closer to the road than is allowed by the Code. What’s the present land use in the vicinity of the project? It’s Highway Commercial Intensive. The Interstate exit location. There’s also schools across the street and a church kitty corner across Burke Drive there. Does the action involve a permit approval or funding, now or ultimately from any other governmental agency, federal, state or local? The answer is no. Does any aspect of the action have a currently valid permit or approval? The Planning Board indicated to the applicant, in this instance here, quite clearly, that this is what they preferred for signage, and in doing that, whether that was done subtly or incorrectly interpreted by the applicant, nonetheless, this is what they ended up with here on site. So we’re being asked to grant the relief for that. As a result of the proposed action, would the existing permit or approval require modification? The answer is no. Part II. “Does the action exceed any Type I threshold in 6 NYCRR Part 617.4?” The answer is no. “Will the action receive coordinated review as provided for Unlisted Actions in 6 NYCRR, Part 617.6?” The answer again would be no. MR. DRELLOS-No. MR. UNDERWOOD-“Could the action result in any adverse effects associated with the following: C1. Existing air quality, surface or ground water quality or quantity, noise levels, existing traffic patterns, solid waste production or disposal, potential for erosion, drainage or flooding problems?” MRS. HUNT-No. MR. DRELLOS-No. MR. UNDERWOOD-“C2. Aesthetic, agricultural, historic, or other natural or cultural resources; or community or neighborhood character?” Explaining briefly. I would say yes, it’s going to have an effect because this sign is larger than what we had hoped to make the model for those monument signs, but other than that, that’s it. “C3. Vegetation, fauna, fish, shellfish or wildlife species, significant habitats, or threatened or endangered species?” MR. DRELLOS-No MR. UNDERWOOD-No. “C4. A community’s existing plans or goals as officially adopted, or a change in use or intensity of use of land or other natural resources?” I guess it is somewhat at loggerheads with what we’ve been trying to accomplish with signage, but as we have recognized here tonight, this is a single occurrence. We don’t want to ever see this again. “C6. Long term, short term, cumulative or other effects not identified above?” I would say no. “C7. Other impacts (including changes in use of either quantity or energy)?” No. “Will the project have an impact on the environmental characteristics that caused the establishment of a Critical Environmental Area?” “Is there or is there likely to be controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts?” MR. DRELLOS-No. MR. UNDERWOOD-No. MOTION THAT THE ZONING BOARD ACCEPTS THE SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM AND WILL OFFER A NEGATIVE DECLARATION, Introduced by James Underwood who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Hunt: 26 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/29/09) th Duly adopted this 29 day of January, 2009, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Clements, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Jenkin, Mr. Drellos, Mr. Underwood NOES: NONE MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Does somebody want to do the resolution? MR. GARRAND-I’ll do it. MOTION TO APPROVE SIGN VARIANCE NO. 2-2009 JOLLEY ASSOCIATES, Introduced by Richard Garrand who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Hunt: 474 Aviation Road. The applicant proposes placement of a 102 square foot freestanding monument sign at the northeast corner of the property. The applicant requests four feet of front setback relief and 52 square feet of sign relief as per Section 140-6. Under the balancing test, can benefits be achieved by other means feasible to the applicant? This could come down to cost. The applicant was lead to believe that the sign would be acceptable. The applicant has already spent considerable time and expense in erecting the current sign that is there. So I do not believe that benefits can be achieved reasonably by any other means feasible to the applicant. Will this produce an undesirable change in the neighborhood character or to nearby properties? I don’t see how a sign this size could. Would we deem this request substantial? I would deem it moderate at best. Will this request have adverse physical or environmental impacts on the neighborhood? It will not have any adverse physical or environmental impacts on the neighborhood. Is this difficulty self-created? I do not believe it is self-created. I believe the applicant believed he was doing what he was asked to do, as far as the sign goes. I’d also like to add that the applicant agrees, as a condition of approval, that no further signage be erected on site. So I move that we approve Sign Variance No. 2-2009. th Duly adopted this 29 day of January, 2009, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Drellos, Mr. Clements, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Underwood NOES: Mrs. Jenkin, Mr. Urrico MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. We’ve got some ZBA minutes to approve. ZBA minutes for th December 17. Okay. Sean, Rich forgot to put in the caveat about no more signage. So do you mind if we amend that? MR. CRUMB-Certainly, go ahead. MR. GARRAND-I’d also like to add to Sign Variance No. 2-2009 that the applicant agrees, as a condition of approval, that no further signage be erected on site. MR. CRUMB-Not a problem. Thank you. MR. GARRAND-Thank you. MS. GAGLIARDI-Did you want to vote on that again? MR. UNDERWOOD-No, we’re all set. You can just add it into the original approval. You can stick it in as an extra paragraph at the bottom or something, do it that way. Thanks. APPROVAL OF MINUTES December 17, 2008 MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING MINUTES OF DECEMBER 17, 2008, Introduced by James Underwood who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joan Jenkin: th Duly adopted this 29day of January, 2009, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Jenkin, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Clements, Mr. Drellos, Mr. Underwood NOES: NONE 27 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/29/09) ABSTAINED: Mr. Garrand December 30, 2008 MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING MINUTES OF DECEMBER 30, 2008, Introduced by James Underwood who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Drellos: th Duly adopted this 29 day of January, 2009, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Drellos, Mrs. Jenkin, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Clements, Mr. Underwood NOES: NONE MR. UNDERWOOD-Why don’t we do this. Let’s send a note to the Planning Board and advise them that, in the future, any sign proposals that are put forth by applicants, all right, if they’re noncompliant, will be coming to us. I mean, they’re welcome to suggest what they might like, but, nonetheless, I think that, in this instance here, it’s clearly shown that they kind of overstepped their bounds by some great leap forward. I wouldn’t say it’s overleaping the bounds, but I’m just saying, you know, there has to be a meeting of the minds at some point as to what’s reasonable. What’s unreasonable. Everybody is opinionated about what signage they want, what signage they don’t want, but I don’t think anybody got satisfied by this job. MR. URRICO-Well, I don’t think we got complete notes. I think there was another meeting prior to this one. Because Chris Hunsinger referred to, I haven’t seen that monument sign yet. That lead me to believe that they had discussed it at a previous meeting. MR. GARRAND-Yes, because they didn’t say too much about it in the Staff Notes we had. MR. URRICO-Yes. There might have been more discussion about it, but regardless, you know, I could see where he might have taken liberty with this. What’s to stop somebody from coming to us in the future and saying the Planning Board discussed this, and that’s what lead me to believe this. MRS. JENKIN-Right. MR. URRICO-Whether they did or not, now we’ve opened a can of worms here. MR. UNDERWOOD-But, I mean, you know, here I think we all agree that what was done on Exit 20 was a clear example that was done properly and reasonably. They didn’t have any problem when we made them take the Mobil off that thing. MR. DRELLOS-So why did they do a 360? MR. UNDERWOOD-I have no idea. He said he wanted to do exactly the same thing, and I would have assumed, if you were re-doing all three stations in Town, you’re going to do them all the same. Why would you do them all different? MR. DRELLOS-Right. MR. UNDERWOOD-Or deviate this greatly, you know, why? It’s almost to the point of silliness, what was done here on this one. MR. OBORNE-I would have to say, I don’t think the Planning Board had any malfeasance. I don’t think that they meant for this to get that far. I think that there was obviously some confusion, and as stated by a member previously, that there may be other notes. I’m sure there are. Again, I am coming up to speed on this. You’re going to have to trust me in this, and if you want to send a note, that’s fine. I have no problem with that, obviously it wouldn’t matter if I did, but I am trying to get a handle on this, and to make sure that this does not happen again. MR. URRICO-Well, I that think we have no choice now. Because we just acted on it tonight, and passed it, if the signs are brought up at any Planning Board meeting, there has to be some sort of clarification made that this does not replace your need to get a variance. 28 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/29/09) MR. OBORNE-I can’t agree with you more. MR. URRICO-Because otherwise we’re going to get other people coming saying, well, they discussed it at the Planning Board. That’s why we went ahead and built the sign anyway. MR. DRELLOS-Well, that’s the way it should be anyway. MR. UNDERWOOD-I don’t think, in looking at that sign, that you would look at that sign and say that anybody reasonable would have proposed it that way. I mean, it’s so out of character. It doesn’t match anything we’ve ever done. MRS. JENKIN-But listen to what the notes say here. The applicant must meet with Staff, after approval, and prior to issuance of building permit and the beginning of any site work. Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits, is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of resolution. MR. OBORNE-That is correct. You are correct. MRS. JENKIN-So it says here that he cannot start any site work before all the permits are given, and he came in for permits and then he wasn’t given a permit. Correct? MR. OBORNE-That is correct. MRS. JENKIN-He went ahead and started building the sign anyway. MR. GARRAND-He had to take it down after he built it. MR. UNDERWOOD-But, was he trying to build that sign in the manner that it was described? MR. OBORNE-I think he was mistaken by the direction the Planning Board gave him. He went ahead and built it. He spent $9,500, so he says, and I don’t doubt that, but it’s a noncompliant sign. MRS. JENKIN-And he was well aware of that, too. MR. URRICO-Here’s the Staff Notes. Mr. Hilton: Maybe I’m jumping the gun here, but I just want to make sure that the Planning Board’s comfortable with the signage proposal and that you may want to address what type of signage, and then Mr. Hunsinger says we haven’t seen the monument sign yet. MRS. JENKIN-Yes, I read that, too. That was in earlier. MR. URRICO-That had to come up at some point, because that’s just an odd comment to make, unless it’s been in discussion somewhere. MRS. JENKIN-And then Gretchen said we’ve already got it in the motion, after that. I already have got it in the motion she said. He said we haven’t seen the monument sign yet, and she said I’ve already got it in the motion. MR. URRICO-And they talked about the brick and the monument sign. MRS. JENKIN-The brick. MR. DRELLOS-I’m just wondering why they wanted the monument sign and not the other one. MR. UNDERWOOD-Isn’t the intent of the new sign code to go to monument signs? MR. OBORNE-Absolutely. Yes. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. That’s what they want. They don’t want the lollipop signs anymore up in the air. MR. OBORNE-Would it be safe to say if this store was not well kept, and was, let’s say like other stores that put the soda and all that out, would that have changed your mind, do you think? 29 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/29/09) MR. URRICO-No. MR. OBORNE-Really? Okay. MRS. JENKIN-I would have rather seen the signs on the building. MR. UNDERWOOD-I would rather see the process go like we did with up on Exit 20, you know, I mean, I think that’s an example of how the process worked. Everybody compromised and you ended up with something that worked. MR. URRICO-Cumberland Farms came to us on Quaker Road and Ridge Road. They had a corner lot as well, and we made them put up one sign. They came to us. They didn’t go to the Planning Board first. MR. OBORNE-Well, those corner lots. MR. URRICO-They’re allowed two wall signs. MR. OBORNE-But they have to be facing those roads. They can’t put two wall signs up on the front. MR. URRICO-But he seemed to think he could. MR. OBORNE-He was wrong. MR. GARRAND-When you’re facing Aviation Road, okay, the Middle School, you can’t take a left. MR. DRELLOS-That makes sense, though. MR. GARRAND-I didn’t know you couldn’t take a left there. MRS. JENKIN-Left into the Mobil station you mean? MR. GARRAND-No, left out of the Mobil station. MRS. JENKIN-Towards Sokols. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. One more thing we’ve got to do here, all right, and that’s this. Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals has reviewed the following request at the below stated meeting and has resolved the following: Area Variance No. 77-2008, that was NPA II, LLC, the Northway Plaza, the meeting date was January 29, 2009, the request by the Zoning Board for a recommendation to the Planning Board regarding the permeability requirements and the proposed site improvements for the proposed construction of a Walgreens and a Chili’s restaurant at Northway Plaza. Are we, we have not received that? th MR. OBORNE-You will be seeing that on the 18 of February. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. th MR. OBORNE-And on the 17 of February, the Planning Board meeting prior to yours, they will issue a recommendation concerning that. th MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. So then we will be seeing this on the 18 meeting? MR. OBORNE-If all goes well, yes. MR. UNDERWOOD-All right, and that was the only thing we had outstanding on Northway Plaza, I believe, was that issue. MR. OBORNE-For now, yes. MR. UNDERWOOD-For now. Are you suggesting that there’s going to be some changes from what we previously had gone through? MR. OBORNE-The inner workings of developers, very hard to grasp. 30 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/29/09) MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure. All right. So this is just a head’s up for us, then. MR. OBORNE-Well, it is a resolution. You’ll need to say it as a resolution. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Then as a resolution. MOTION THAT THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS REQUESTS THAT THE TH PLANNING BOARD ADVISE THE ZONING BOARD BY FEBRUARY 18 IF THEY’RE TH GOING TO REVIEW THIS ON THE 17, AND THEY WILL BE ADVISING US AS TO THE PERMEABILITY REQUIREMENT’S APPLICABILITY TO WHAT WAS PRESENTED TO THE ZBA PREVIOUSLY REGARDING AREA VARIANCE NO. 77- 2008 NPA II, LLC, Introduced by James Underwood who moved for its adoption, seconded by Richard Garrand: th Duly adopted this 29 day of January, 2009, by the following vote: MR. OBORNE-Right, and what we’re doing is we’re trying to streamline it, so we don’t have that two month gap. MR. UNDERWOOD-Right. That makes sense. AYES: Mr. Garrand, Mr. Clements, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Jenkin, Mr. Drellos, Mr. Underwood NOES: NONE MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. We’re all done for tonight I guess, folks. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, James Underwood, Chairman 31