The URL can be used to link to this page

1993-07-21 J ORIGINAL QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING JULY 21ST, 1993 INDEX Area Variance No. 52-1993 Ann C. & Erwin H. Johnson 1. Sign Variance No. 53-1993 Chase Manhattan Bank, N. A. 2. Area Variance No. 54-1993 Peter and Geraldine Groff 9. Area Variance No. 55-1993 Leemilt's/Getty Petroleum 11. Area Variance No. 55-1993 William H. & Elaine A. Foltz 20. Sign Variance No. 57-1993 National Realty & Development 21. Corp. Sign Variance No. 58-1993 National Realty & Development 34. Corp. Area Variance No. 59-1993 Brian and Kim Schaff 51. Area Variance No. 50-1993 Guido Passët'r"elli 5f=1. 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. \.- \'- QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING JULY 21ST. 1993 7:30 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT THEODORE TURNER. CHAIRMAN JOYCE EGGLESTON. SECRETARY BOB KARPELES LINDA HAUSER FRED CARVIN MEMBERS ABSENT CHRIS THOMAS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR-JAMES MARTIN PLANNER-ARLYNE RUTHSCHILD STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI NEW BUSINESS: J AREA VARIANCE NO. 52-1993 TYPE I WR-1A ANN C. & ERWIN H. JOHNSON OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE HANNEFORD ROAD APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO CONSTRUCT A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND AN ATTACHED GARAGE ON A VACANT LOT. APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TWENTY-TWO HUNDREDTHS (.22) ACRE FOR THE LOT AREA AND ONE HUNDRED (100) FEET AS THE LOT WIDTH AND IS SEEKING RELIEF OF SEVENTY-EIGHT HUNDREDTHS (.78) ACRE AND FIFTY (50) FEET RESPECTIVELY FROM SECTION 179-1GC. WHICH REQUIRES ONE (1) ACRE AS THE MINIMUM LOT AREA AND ONE HUNDRED AND FIFTY (150) FEET AS THE MINIMUM LOT WIDTH IN THE WATERFRONT RESIDENTIAL 1 ACRE ZONE. SEQRA TO BE ADDRESSED BY ZBA ONLY 7/21/93 (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) DATE: 7/14/93 TAX MAP NUMBER: 19-1-57.4 LOT SIZE: 0.22 ACRES SECTION 179-16C MRS. EGGLESTON-And the Warren County Planning Board approved. "With the condition that the septic svstem definitely be a holding tank due to the size of the property and the limitations and distances from the proposed well." STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff. Area Variance No. 52-1993, Ann C. & Erwin H. Johnson. Meeting Date: Jul v 21. 1993 "ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: Hanneford Road SUMMARY OF PROJECT: Applicant is proposing to construct a single family dwelling and an attached garage beneath the dwelling on a vacant lot. CONFORMANCE WITH USE/AREA REGULATIONS: 1. Applicant is proposing twenty-two hundredths (.22) acre for the lot area and seeking relief of seventv-eight hundredths (.78) acre from Section 179-16C which requires one (1) acre as the minimum lot area in the Waterfront Residential 1 Acre zone. 2. Applicant is proposing one hundred (100) feet as the lot width and is seeking relief of fifty (50) feet from Section 179-16C which requires one hundred and fifty (150) feet as the minimum lot width in the Waterfront Residential 1 Acre zone. REVIEW CRITERIA: 1. DESCRIBE THE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY WHICH DOES NOT ALLOW PLACEMENT OF A STRUCTURE WHICH MEETS ZONING REQUIREMENTS. Applicant's parcel is preexisting and nonconforming, and in a designated Critical Environmental Area which does not allow the parcel to be "grandfathered" regarding the parcel's lot area and lot width. 2. IS THIS THE MINIMUM VARIANCE NECESSARY TO ALLEVIATE THE SPECIFIC PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY OR IS THERE ANY OTHER OPTION AVAILABLE WHICH WOULD REQUIRE NO VARIANCE? It would appear that the minimum variance is necessary, for reasons stated above, and no other option is available which would require no variance. 3. WOULD THIS VARIANCE BE DETRIMENTAL TO OTHER PROPERTIES IN THE DISTRICT OR NEIGHBORHOOD? It would appear that the variance would - 1 - ~, not be detrimental to other properties in the district or neiqhborhood as the proposed project is consistent with the character of the neiqhborhood and district. 4. WHAT ARE THE EFFECTS OF THE VARIANCE ON PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES? It would appear that the proiect would not effect public facilities or services. STAFF COMMENTS AND CONCERNS: Staff has no other comments reqardinq this proiect." MR. TURNER-Okav. This could triqqer a SEQRA. This is a Type I action which triqgers SEQRA if the Board so moves to entertain that action, and I feel that the lot beinq what it is, and the situation being what it is, it should go to the Planning Board for SEQRA Review for input from the Planning Board in that respect. MR. CARVIN-I would agree with that. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. I do, also. MR. TURNER-Okav. MOTION TO MOVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 52-1993 ANN C. & ERWIN H. JOHNSON A TYPE I ACTION MAKING THE PLANNING BOARD THE LEAD AGENCY IN THE SEORA REVIEW FOR THIS APPLICATION. Introduced bv Theodore Turner who moved for its adoPtion, seconded by Fred Carvin: Duly adopted this 21st dav of July, 1993. by the following vote: MR. TURNER-Is the applicant in the room? What this means is this will gO to them next month, and thev'll review the application under SEQRA requirements. They'll issue a negative or positive dec, whichever the case mav be, and if it's neqative. it comes back here. If it's positive, then there's some other action that has to be taken. So. at that point in time. you'll know what it is. Like I said, if it's negative. it comes back here. the next month after. and then we'll hear the application. AYES: Mr. Philo, Mr. Karpeles. Mr. Carvin, Mrs. Eggleston. Miss Hauser. Mr. Turner NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Thomas SIGN VARIANCE NO. 53-1993 TYPE: UNLISTED PC-IA CHASE MANHATTAN BANK, N.A. OWNER: JOHN NIGRO UPPER GLEN STREET APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO PLACE AN AWNING WITH SIGNAGE ON AN EXISTING BUILDING AND IS SEEKING RELIEF FROM SECTION 140-6B ( 3) (c). WHICH STATES THAT A BUSINESS SHALL BE GRANTED A PERMIT FOR TWO (2) SIGNS: ONE (1) FREESTANDING. DOUBLE-FACED SIGN AND ONE (1) SIGN ATTACHED TO A BUILDING. OR TWO (2) SIGNS ATTACHED TO A BUILDING. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) DATE: 7/14/93 TAX MAP NUMBER: 102-1-2 LOT SIZE: NIA SECTION 140-6B(3)(c) BRENDON O'REARDON. REPRESENTING APPLICANT. PRESENT MRS. EGGLESTON-And the Warren County Planning Board approved. "With the condition that the name of the Bank is removed from the awning because they are exceeding their siqn allowance." STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff. Sign Variance No. 53-1993, Chase Manhattan Bank. N.A., Meeting Date: Julv 21. 1993 "ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: Upper Glen Street SUMMARY OF PROJECT: Applicant is proposing to construct an awning with siqnaqe over the entrance of an existing commercial structure. CONFORMANCE WITH USE/AREA REGULATIONS: Applicant is proposing a second (2nd) wall sign to be placed on an awning over the entrance (north side of building) of existing commercial building. and is seeking relief of one (1) wall sign from Section 140-6B(3)(d). which permits one (1) freestanding sign - 2 - and one (1) wall siqn for each occupant of a shoppinq center. REVIEW CRITERIA: 1. ARE THERE ANY SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES OR CONDITIONS APPLYING TO THE LAND OR SIGNS WHICH DO NOT APPLY GENERALLY TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD? One (1) existinq wall siqn located on the east side of the bank facinq Route 9. denotes the name of the bank. The additional sign is requested for the front door of the buildinq (north side). which faces a parkinq lot and cannot be seen from the side of the building facing the road. 2. IS REASONABLE USE OF THE LAND OR SIGN POSSIBLE IF THE ORDINANCE IS COMPLIED WITH? Applicant is requesting an additional sign for the entrance to the building which is not located at the front of the building facing the road. and is part of a change in corporate signage that applicant is instituting in all of its branch offices in upstate New York (see attached letter). 3. IS THERE AN ADVERSE EFFECT ON THE NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTER OR PUBLIC FACILITIES? It would appear that the variance would not adversely effect the neighborhood character or public facilities as the proposed pro;ect is consistent with the commercial district within which it is located. 4. ARE THERE ANY FEASIBLE ALTERNATIVES? The pro;ect is proposing a canopy with signage denoting the name of the bank to be placed above the entrance to the building and other than not indicating the entrance, no other option is available. 5. IS THE DEGREE OF CHANGE SUBSTANTIAL RELATIVE TO THE ORDINANCE? Applicant believes that the degree of change is not substantial relative to the Ordinance. STAFF COMMENTS AND CONCERNS:" MR. O'REARDON-Mv name is Brendon O'Reardon. I'm a Vice President. in the Corporate Real Estate Department of Chase Manhattan Bank's upstate division in Rochester. and I'm here to answer any questions you mav have. I think the presentation of that application basicallv says it all. MR. CARVIN-Before we begin, Mr. Chairman, I don't have a COpy of. I ;ust have a blank Agent Authorization. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. There's one here. at any rate. MR. TURNER-The agent's name is on the front. MR. CARVIN-Okav. MR. O'REARDON-The bank is a tenant at this location that's owned by Mr. Nigro. and I did indicate. That document I ;ust presented was faxed to this office. I iust this afternoon picked up an original COpy of it. so that it has the original signatures on it, and I was told in advance that if I brought it this evening, that would be sufficient. MR. TURNER-That's fine. MR. O'REARDON-I don't know that I can add anything to the application. I would like the Board. if they would. I brought along some photographs showing what the decorative awning looks like. Now this, all these photographs are not exactly the size as we propose to install at the Queensbury branch. but it gives you an idea of the type of decorative awning that it is. MR. TURNER-Yes. Okav. Fine. MR. 0' REARDON-The photographs are ; ust a sample of the type of installations with the awnings. Those are before and after pictures. indicating how it does in fact add an enhancement to that location. As the application noted. the Bank has already gotten approval for signage at the Queensbury branch. which is in place right now. We feel that this. which had been originally proposed. will compliment the entire package, and if you have anv questions, I would be happy to entertain them. MR. TURNER-I guess my concern is that you have your package already. - 3 - MR. O'REARDON-That may be in your iudgement. We presented a total package. which included. very tastefully. included an awning over the front doors. We were denied that, and that's obviousl V the reason I'm here this evening. to reguest that YOU allow that. I think vou have to look in the photographs. You'll agree that what we're asking for is a bare minimum of additional signage. MR. CARVIN-I iust have a guestion. Mr. Chairman. The awning, is this going to be a permanent awning. or is this going to be a permanent awning. or is it going to be retractable? MR. O'REARDON-It's permanent. MRS. EGGLESTON-Will it be the same color and everything as what is in those pictures YOU gave us for? MR. O'REARDON-Exactlv the same as the photo I gave you. match the corporate blue that the pylon sign is. It will MR. TURNER-The problem is, they have a freestanding sign. and they have a wall sign. Thev've got their package. MRS. EGGLESTON-Well, Warren Countv wants them to take their name off the. MR. TURNER-Warren County says they can have the awning without the name, that's fine. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes, with the condition that the name of the Bank is removed from the awning. because thev' re exceeding their sign limits. MR. TURNER-Yes. That's a condition of their approval. MR. 0' REARDON-If I may make reference to that comment of. the Planning Board. was it? MRS. EGGLESTON-Warren Countv. MR. O'REARDON-Warren County Planning Board. The awning. as you can see in the photographs, does appear with the graphic on it. That's the way we bought it. I mean. we only have this one left that we need to do. and it appears that way. with the corporate logo on it. MR. CARVIN-Well. that kind of brings up an interesting question. Is a logo considered a sign. or is it considered artwork? In other words. if they took the name Chase off, and i ust had the logo there. is that actually considered a sign, or could thev have roses and all sorts of other things out there in the form of artwork? As I said. it's not a sign if it's a logo. because YOU could almost have anv design. you know, stripes could be, and I'm not arguing your case, I'm iust asking for clarification. but if the name Chase is off, and iust the logo is there. is that considered a sign. or is that iust considered art? MR. TURNER-I think it is. The logo's part of the sign. MR. MARTIN-I would consider that a sign. MR. TURNER-Just like the Golden Arches of McDonalds. MR. MARTIN-I call your attention to the definition of a sign, a name. identification. displav, announcement, declaration, device. demonstration or illustration which is affixed to. or painted or represented directly or indirectly upon a building, structure. or parcel. The awning attached. the awning is a fixed part of the building. it's part of the structure. It's a structure affixed to the building. So therefore this got treatment as a wall sign under our existing Ordinance, and even the svmbol, I would term. and yOU certainly have the power to override that or change that. I would - 4 - """'\ '" interpret that as being a sign. MR. TURNER-It's like the Golden Arches at McDonalds. It's the same thinq. That's a logo. MR. MARTIN-And Ted's aware. too, as a member of the Revision Committee on the Sign Ordinance. one of the points of the current revision is to deal with awning signs specifically. That'll be a topic of discussion of that Committee. but as the Ordinance is structured right now, I'm lookinq upon this as a wall sign. MR. TURNER-Yes. but the awning signs will probably be in lieu of a wall sign. MR. MARTIN-Right. MR. TURNER-You've got to trade off. Maybe in the future, the awning signs, when we get to the Sign Ordinance, the awning signs will be a trade off, versus the wall sign. MR. O'REARDON-Yes. I understand it is a third sign. but really I'm not appearing before the Board for a trade off. I'm asking for a variance that will allow us to install this very, very minimal additional graphic. That logo is only 36 inches sguare, and the letters are some 10 inches high. and it doesn't face Route 9. It faces the side. MR. TURNER-Yes. but it's a personal decision of the Bank, the corporate office of the Bank. to do this throughout the Country. Now this might not fit in every town. even though that's your. MR. O'REARDON-I understand that. but that's what we're asking for in the way of a variance. MR. TURNER-I know, but I'm saving, it might not fit in every town. MR. O'REARDON-I've been before several Boards and asked for variances. and I understand that. that it is not part of the Code. and that's why we're here. MR. TURNER-I know. The Town has gone to qreat lengths to clean UP the signage along the Lake Georqe Road, and not to perpetuate it. MR. O'REARDON-And I think if yOU look at those photographs, I would suggest that this is verv tastefullv done. It would be a welcome enhancement to that area. as well as to the building. MR. TURNER-Does anvbodv else have a comment? MRS. EGGLESTON-We were iust saving. the front of the building is rather plain. MR. TURNER-Yes. MRS. EGGLESTON-Truthfullv. I mean. that's neither here nor there. but as you look at it. there really is no other obstructions or things off from it, but. the logo maybe. MR. CARVIN-Well, before coming to the meeting, I drove around the area, and I mean, the Ordinance was written for a specific purpose. in other words. that vou've got a freestanding sign, and you've got a very nice sign on the front of the building. I didn't have any problem finding the Chase Bank. I agree that your entrance sign is plain. I think an awninq would make that stand out a little bit more. but that's mv question is, on the signage. I mean. this. as far as I'm concerned. is a self-created hardship. MR. TURNER-It is. MR. CARVIN-In other words, it's a corporate decision. Now. let me - 5 - "~ -' ask you this, and I'm not puttinq. MR. O'REARDON-I'm sorry. Mav I? You sav a corporate decision to? MR. CARVIN-In other words, accordinq to the letter, riqht. in other words that thev're changinq all of their signs on all 100 and however many branches yoU have. MR. O'REARDON-Yes. MR. CARVIN-Okav. but in the Town of Queensburv, there Ordinance that allows one freestafldinq siqn and one wall which vou are in compliance with. is an siqn. MR. O'REARDON-I understand that. MR. CARVIN-I know why vou're here for the variance. but I don't know if vou're here for the variance because the corporate decision came down and said we're goinq to put awnings on all of our banks. or if vou are claiminq a hardship that people can't find your bank. therefore, you need additional signaqe. MR. O'REARDON-What I'm statinq is that it's an additional enhancement to the buildinq. and I'm askinq for a very minimal. MR. CARVIN-Okay. I'm not arquinq that the awninq probably would enhance that siqn. in other words. the side. MR. O'REARDON-Excuse me. I would think that if we were here askinq for a new four bv sixteen siqn to be placed on all three sides, that I probably would have a biq problem. MR. CARVIN-Okay. but now I'm qoing to flip it over into our corner. Suppose the quV next door says. qee whiz, it's ;ust a little siqn, and then the qUV, we could have them lined up out the door savinq. well, it's ;ust a little siqn. MR. O'REARDON-I understand. MR. CARVIN-And as I said. part of the weiqhing process here is that we have to weiqh the detriment to vou, in other words, for not having the sign. in other words. if YOU didn't have a siqn, and people were dri vinq down the road to other banks and so forth. fine. to the benefit of the community, and mv interpretation of the Siqn Ordinance is that we want to try and limit the siqnaqe, in other words. and they've come out with a specific set of instructions, and in mv own personal opinion. I didn't have a problem finding the Chase Bank. in other words. with the siqn on the front and the siqn on the buildinq. I have a hard time pushinq the additional siqn. MR. O'REARDON-I did not point that out in the original application. that it's difficult to find the branch. I think we are well siqned. quite frankly. Again, it's an enhancement to that buildinq, and it completes the packaqe. as we envision this, at the outset of the sign program. and if it takes a minimal variance, that's what we'll be lookinq for. MR. KARPELES-Yes, but you're not giving us any reason to qrant the variance. You're savinq it's an enhancement, and it's an enhancement without the siqn on it, ;ust the awning. MR. CARVIN-Just the awninq would be an enhancement. MR. KARPELES-But siqn isn't anv enhancement. MRS. EGGLESTON-See. we have a dutv to preserve and protect the character of the neiqhborhood. So we could be chanqing, bv allowinq vou that one. then the next person. and the first thinq you know. YOU have all of these UP and down the street. that sets - 6 - - a precedent that we've really struggled with for a long time. MR. 0' REARDON-I can appreciate that. All I can offer is the photographs which I've done. Unfortunately, I don't have an awning to bring in here with me. but I think that you'd agree that it's extremelv well done and attractive. MR. TURNER-Well. lets go back. When you went there. you had a sign. Then we granted you a second sign. if I remember right. because of identification. MR. O'REARDON-The wall siqn? MR. TURNER-Yes. I think so. MR. O'REARDON-We have a wall siqn. and we have a pvlon sign. MR. TURNER-Riqht. We qranted vou a second sign there. which you're only allowed one, because you're in the Plaza. You got the second siqn by variance. MR. O'REARDON-Not to my knowledge. I've never appeared before this Board before. MR. TURNER-Yes. I think so. I think if they look up the old file. MRS. RUTHSCHILD-Their old file. their file is there. denied in that. They were MRS. EGGLESTON-Well, it says in this letter. one was denied. MR. TURNER-One was denied. and I thought we qranted them one on the. my memory savs. something about the back of the property. MR. O'REARDON-Well. if a variance was qiven, it's news to me. because. aqain. I haven't appeared before this Board before. MR. TURNER-No. You haven't. MR. PHILO-In other words, if they could prove to me there was somethinq besides aesthetics. the way it sounds now. it's ;ust for aesthetics of the building. MR. CARVIN-Well. aqain. as I said, and I'm probably playing mv own devil's advocate here. is the logo considered a sign. or is it considered art. and the opinion that I'm gettinq is that the loqo is a sign, and the other question I have. Ted. is that. because Warren County passed this with a condition. do we need the maiority plus one? MR. TURNER-I think we do on this, because they denied it. They said he could have the canopy, but he couldn't have a sign. MR. CARVIN-Yes. Okay. MRS. EGGLESTON-Well. I don't think, really, we've shown a hardship here. This is iust a matter of want, really. MR. TURNER-This is a personal touch bv the corporation. MR. O'REARDON-If I may. to address vour question. sir. it's aesthetics, yes. Anythinq we can do to make the building more attractive. and we think we've tastefully done that. That's a goal. We want more people to know that that building is there. We want them to come and do business with us. MRS. EGGLESTON-I think, sir. you'd admit that with or without the sign, your business will continue in the same grain as it has in the past. and will in the future. The sign, the awninq will really - 7 - make no difference, as far as that's concerned. I can't see where it's going to change your business one way or the other. MR. O'REARDON-I'm not going to fool you into thinking. or myself into thinking. that millions of people are going to flock in there because I have an awning. That's not the case, but I'm making the building more attractive. I'm making the area more attractive. MRS. EGGLESTON-It would look more attractive. it's not really a reason for a variance. I admit that. but MR. PHILO-As far as looking at it. it's very decorative. but we have people on the French Mountain mall up here are asking for signs for their breakfast. iust to say they had a $2.99 breakfast, and they can't put it uP. because thev've got a sign out front. So, what they're saying is. if we went and granted vou a sign, these people would be in after us. MR. O'REARDON-In summation I guess I would say, since there is some frustration on my part. quite frankly, the Bank will probably save a few thousand dollars by not doing this. We thought that it would be. again. an enhancement to the building, and we would be willing to make that expenditure, to make a building in your community look a little bit nicer, but if you don't want to grant the variance, we'll iust have to go on from there. MR. KARPELES-Do you think the sign is going to make it pretty. whether the sign is on there or not? I agree with you. The awning is going to be pretty. It's an enhancement, but the sign isn't an enhancement. MR. O'REARDON-What I'm saying is that, in similar locations. the graphic and the name has appeared on there. If the Board sees fit to go along with the Planning Board at Warren County. we will make an effort to see if we can get that, although, this hasn't happened before. where we've put up the awnings. we've had the name on it. If. in fact. that is the Board's decision. we will attempt to do iust that. MR. PHILO-To do what? MR. O'REARDON-To not have the name on it. MR. PHILO-I don't have any obiection to put the awning uP. but. MR. O'REARDON-If we do not have the name, we may opt to not do it, but I would be happy to have yOU at least give us that option. MR. MARTIN-Well. it would be my interpretation that the awning's not the subiect of this proceeding. MR. TURNER-No. it's not. MR. MARTIN-You can have the awning with and without the approval of this Board. MR. TURNER-Right. MR. MARTIN-This Board is only looking at the sign on your awning. MR. TURNER-No sign. or no logo. All right. No further guestions of the applicant? I'll open the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TURNER-Any further discussion? - 8 - MRS. EGGLESTON-I think we've made it prettv clear. MR. TURNER-I think so. All right. A motion's in order. then. MOTION TO DENY SIGN VARIANCE NO. 53-1993 CHASE MANHATTAN BANK. ~, Introduced by Fred Carvin who moved for its adoption. seconded by Joyce Eggleston: The applicant has proposed constructing an awning with signage. which would be in excess of the allowable signage in Section 140- 6B(3)(d). which permits one freestanding sign and one wall sign for each occupant of a shopping center. Although I believe the Board feels that the awning would be an enhancement. and certainly would be well wi thin the applicant's realm to put the awning on the building, the signage associated with the awning. I feel. should not be allowed. The applicant has not demonstrated a hardship. loss of business, or that the signage would enhance the overall business being conducted by the bank. I therefore move that this application be denied. Duly adopted this 21st day of July, 1993, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Karpeles. Mrs. Eggleston. Mr. Carvin. Miss Hauser. Mr. Philo. Mr. Turner NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Thomas MR. O'REARDON-May I ask a question, iust to clarifv it. There is no problem with installing the awning if the graphic is not on the awning? MR. CARVIN-That's correct. MR. TURNER-If the logo and the signage is gone, you can have the awning. MR. O'REARDON-And I would have had that without a variance? MR. TURNER-You don't need anvthing. Right. MR. O'REARDON-Thank you. AREA VARIANCE NO. 54-1993 TYPE: UNLISTED RR-5A PETER AND GERALDINE GROFF OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE BOULDERWOOD DRIVE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO DEVELOP A THREE AND FORTY-SIX HUNDREDTHS (3.46) ACRE PARCEL AND IS SEEKING ONE AND FIFTY-FOUR HUNDREDTHS (1.54) ACRE RELIEF FROM SECTION 179-15C. WHICH REQUIRES FIVE (5) ACRES AS THE MINIMUM LOT AREA IN THE RURAL RESIDENTIAL 5 ACRE ZONE. SEQRA TO BE ADDRESSED BY ZBA ONLY 7/21/93 TAX MAP NUMBER: 27-4-41 LOT SIZE: 3.46 ACRES SECTION 179-15C PETER GROFF, PRESENT MR. TURNER-This is a lot that's in a preexisting subdivision. which reguires now five acres. which at the time the subdivision was formed. I believe it was only three acres. This is much like the subdivision in Ridge Knolls. where the lots are already cut out. and the zoning got increased. and also the other aspect is this is in a Critical Environmental Area, and that's why they're here. otherwise they'd be a conforming lot of record now. It's the same as the one we had the last time around. So, there's no environmental impact at all. and there's no SEQRA required on this application. MR. CARVIN-And I think, in view of that, that we should move on this application. MR. TURNER-We'll move on the application. - 9 - STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff. Area Variance No. 54-1993, Peter and Geraldine Groff. Meeting Date: July 21. 1993 "ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: Boulderwood Drive. Grant Acres Subdivision. SUMMARY OF PROJECT: Applicant is proposing to develop a vacant lot with a single family dwelling. CONFORMANCE WITH USE/AREA REGULATIONS: 1. Applicant is proposinq three and forty-six hundredths (3.46) acre for the lot area and is seeking relief of one and fifty-four hundredths (1.54) acre from Section 179-15C. which reguires five (5) acres as the minimum lot area in the Rural Residential 5 Acre zone. REVIEW CRITERIA: 1. DESCRIBE THE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY WHICH DOES NOT ALLOW THE PLACEMENT OF A STRUCTURE WHICH MEETS THE ZONING REQUIREMENTS. Applicant's parcel is located in Grant Acres. a Planning Board approved subdivision. and except for the fact that it is located in a designated Critical Environmental Area. would qualify to be "qrandfathered" under Section 179-76. General exception to minimum lot requirements. 2. IS THIS THE MINIMUM VARIANCE NECESSARY TO ALLEVIATE THE SPECIFIC PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY OR IS THERE ANY OTHER OPTION AVAILABLE WHICH WOULD REQUIRE NO VARIANCE? It would appear that the relief requested is the minimum variance necessary and no other option is available which would require no variance. 3. WOULD THIS VARIANCE BE DETRIMENTAL TO OTHER PROPERTIES IN THE DISTRICT OR NEIGHBORHOOD? As the proposed proiect is located in a Planning Board approved subdivision. the variance would not be detrimental to other properties in the district or neiqhborhood. 4. WHAT ARE THE EFFECTS OF THE VARIANCE ON PUBLIC FACILITIES OR SERVICES? It would appear that the variance would not effect public facilities or services. STAFF COMMENTS AND CONCERNS: Staff has no further comments regardinq this proiect." MR. TURNER-Okay. Mr. Groff, I think vou indicated to me that you have this lot for sale. and it's vour desire to sell the lot. Is that correct? Okav. MR. GROFF-We purchased the lot in 1987 as an approved building lot by the Town. Buildinq was no lonqer a possibility for us, we tried to put it on the market, and then found out about the change of the zoning. from 11/92. So we're here to apply for a variance. MR. TURNER-Yes. It got changed in '88 on you. MR. MARTIN-No. He's referring to the grandfathering. MR. TURNER-The grandfathering, yes. but I mean. the zone designation chanqed. This is similar to Murphy's. and the other fellow up there. Does anyone have any questions? I think this is prettv much a straight forward application. The only reason he's here is because he's in a Critical Environmental Area, otherwise, it would be a lot of record. MR. MARTIN-And the APA. MR. TURNER-And the APA. Do you have any questions? Okav. Since there's no questions. I'll open the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TURNER-Okay. Motion's in order. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 54-1993 PETER AND GERALDINE GROFF. Introduced bv Jovce Eggleston who moved for its adoption, seconded by Theodore Turner: - 10 - ~ Grant the applicant relief of 1.54 acres from Section 179-15C. which requires 5 acres as the minimum lot area in the Rural Residential 5 Acre Zone. The parcel is located in a previously approved subdivision. and if not for the fact that it was in a desiqnated Critical Environmental Area, the property would be qual ified to be qrandfathered. There's additional hardship. in that the zoninq rules chanqed after the applicant purchased the propertv in 1987. This variance would not be detrimental to other properties in the district or neiqhborhood. and there would be no adverse effects of the variance on public facilities or services. Dulv adopted this 21st dav of Julv. 1993. bv the followinq vote: AYES: Miss Hauser. Mr. Philo, Mr. Carvin, Mr. Karpeles. Mrs. Eqqleston. Mr. Turner NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Thomas AREA VARIANCE NO. 55-1993 TYPE: UNLISTED NC-10 LEEMILT'S/GETTY PETROLEUM OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE INTERSECTION OF DIXON AND AVIATION ROADS APPLICANT HAS AN EXISTING COMMERCIAL STRUCTURE WHICH HOUSES THREE (3) EXISTING BUSINESSES AND ONE SECOND FLOOR APARTMENT. APPLICANT IS PROPOSING SIXTEEN (IG) PARKING SPACES AND IS SEEKING RELIEF OF FOUR (4) PARKING SPACES FROM SECTION 179-66C. WHICH REQUIRES ONE (1) PARKING SPACE FOR EVERY ONE HUNDRED (100) SQUARE FEET OF GROSS LEASABLE FLOOR SPACE (20 PARKING SPACES REQUIRED). APPLICANT IS SEEKING TWO (2) FEET RELIEF FROM SECTION 179-66B. WHICH REQUIRES THAT EACH PARKING SPACE BE REACHED BY AN ACCESS DRIVEWAY OF AT LEAST TWENTY (20) FEET CLEAR IN WIDTH. APPLICANT IS PROPOSING A NINE BY FIFTEEN (9 x 15) FOOT (135 SQUARE FOOT) PARKING SPACE FOR THE APARTMENT. AND IS SEEKING RELIEF OF FIVE (5) FEET IN LENGTH AND FORTY-FIVE (45) SQUARE FEET IN AREA; AND IS PROPOSING A NINE BY SIXTEEN (9 x 16) FOOT AVERAGE (144 SQUARE FOOT) PARKING SPACE FACING AVIATION ROAD. AND IS SEEKING RELIEF OF AN AVERAGE OF FOUR (4) FEET IN LENGTH AND THIRTY-SIX (3G) SQUARE FEET IN AREA; AND IS PROPOSING A NINE BY EIGHTEEN (9 x 18) FOOT AVERAGE (162 SQUARE FOOT) PARKING SPACE FACING AVIATION ROAD. AND IS SEEKING RELIEF OF AN AVERAGE OF TWO (2) FEET IN LENGTH AND EIGHTEEN (18) SQUARE FEET IN AREA; AND IS PROPOSING A NINE BY NINETEEN AND FIVE TENTHS (9 x 19.5) FOOT AVERAGE PARKING SPACE FACING AVIATION ROAD, AND IS SEEKING FIVE TENTHS (.5) FOOT IN LENGTH AND FOUR AND FIVE TENTHS (4.5) SQUARE FEET IN AREA; ALL FROM SECTION 179-66B. WHICH REQUIRES THAT EACH OFF STREET PARKING SPACE SHALL CONSIST OF AT LEAST ONE HUNDRED AND EIGHTY (180) SQUARE FEET AND SHALL BE AT LEAST NINE BY TWENTY (9 x 20) FEET LONG. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) DATE: 7/14/93 TAX MAP NUMBER: 91-1-1 LOT SIZE: 0.21 ACRES SECTION 179-66(B) RON FORTUNE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MRS. EGGLESTON-The Warren County Planning Board approved. "With the condition that if the buildinq use chanqes. the applicant must come back before the Board for the approval of the reduced number of parkinq spaces. Also, the WCPB suqqests to the Town that they waive the requirement for the apartment parking as identified bv #1. II STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 55-1993, LeeMilt's/Getty Petroleum Corp.. Meetinq Date: Jul v 21. 1993 II ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: intersection of Dixon and Aviation Roads SUMMARY OF PROJECT: Applicant has an existinq commercial structure which houses three (3) existing businesses and a second floor apartment. CONFORMANCE WITH USE/AREA REGULATIONS: 1. Applicant is proposinq sixteen (16) parking spaces and is seeking relief of four (4) parkinq space from Section 179-66C, which requires one (1) parkinq - 11 - space for everv one hundred (100) square feet of qross leasable floor space (20 parking spaces required). 2. Applicant is proposinq eiqhteen (18) feet for the parkinq space access aisle. and is seeking two (2) feet relief from Section 179-66B. which states that each parkinq space be reached by an access driveway of at least twenty (20) feet clear in width. (Section 179-66B requires that each off-street parkinq space shall consist of at least one hundred and eighty (180) square feet, and shall be at least nine by twenty (9 x 20) feet lonq.) 3. Appl icant is proposing a nine by fifteen (9 x 15) foot. (135 square foot) parkinq space for the apartment and is seekinq five (5) feet relief in length and forty-five (45) sguare feet in area. from Section 179-66B. 4. Applicant is proposinq a nine by sixteen (9 x 16) foot average (144 square foot) parking space facing Aviation Road, and is seekinq relief of four (4) feet averaqe in lenqth and thirty- six (36) square feet in area from Section 17 9-66B. 5. Applicant is proposinq a nine by eiqhteen (9 x 18 foot averaqe (162 square foot) parking space facing Aviation Road. and is seeking relief of two (2) feet averaqe in lenqth and eiqhteen (18) square feet in area from Section 179-66B. 6. Applicant is proposing a nine by nineteen and five tenths (9 x 19.5) foot averaqe (175.5 square foot) parking space facing Aviation Road, and is seeking relief of five tenths (.5) foot in lenqth and four and five tenths (4.5) square feet in area from Section 179-66B. REVIEW CRITERIA: 1. DESCRIBE THE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY WHICH DOES NOT ALLOW PLACEMENT OF A STRUCTURE WHICH MEETS THE ZONING REQUIREMENTS. The practical difficulty arises from the fact that the site and number of existing uses limits compliance with the required number and size of the parkinq spaces and parkinq space access aisle. 2. IS THIS THE MINIMUM VARIANCE NECESSARY TO ALLEVIATE THE SPECIFIC PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY OR IS THERE ANY OTHER OPTION AVAILABLE WHICH WOULD REQUIRE NO VARIANCE? The relief requested is the minimum variance necessary to alleviate the specific practical difficulty and no other option is available which would require no variance. as the fundamental problem arises from the physical constraints and the number of uses of the site. 3. WOULD THIS VARIANCE BE DETRIMENTAL TO OTHER PROPERTIES IN THE DISTRICT OR NEIGHBORHOOD? It would appear that the variance would not be a detriment to other properties in the district or neighborhood. 4. WHAT ARE THE EFFECTS OF THE VARIANCE ON PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES? It would appear that the variance would not effect public facilities or services. STAFF COMMENTS AND CONCERNS: Applicant's proposed parking space and access aisle plan is limited by the physical constraints of the site and a number of uses thereon. The Board needs to weigh the benefit to the applicant of granting the variance against the detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the community of less and undersized parking spaces and a narrower access aisle on a commercial site." MR. FORTUNE-Members of the Board, for the record. my name is Ron Fortune of Lee. Mass. I am an authorized agent for LeeMilt's/Getty Petroleum. MR. TURNER-Do you have vou slip, because it's not on here. This is a different aqent. unless I've qot the wronq slip. MR. FORTUNE-I am an employee of R.J. Schneider. who had signed the application. MR. TURNER-Yes. Have you got one from him. for yourself? MR. FORTUNE-No. MR. TURNER-Have you got one he can fill out? MR. CARVIN-I iust happen to have a blank one. MR. TURNER-We know you're legit. You came the last time. MR. PHILO-Ted, on that map there. are we considerinq these four - 12 - parking spots? MR. TURNER-All of them. There's an aisle way between the building and the parkinq spots. and the parkinq spots are diminished in size and square footaqe. Thev've got a whole bunch of problems. MR. CARVIN-There's a lot of things here. MR. KARPELES-What's existinq? Is there anythinq existinq now? MR. TURNER-No. There's kind of like a dirt road between there. and then the dumpster for the market is riqht next to his property line. MR. PHILO-I'm looking at this over here now. If he turned the parkinq spots on an anqle, he'd meet the criteria. MR. TURNER-No. he'd miss it. It's only 17 feet from the. MR. PHILO-Yes. but you turn it. MR. TURNER-They've tried it. don't worry. I'll bet they have. MR. PHILO-I iust tried it with a scale. MR. TURNER-Did you? These right here, right? MR. PHILO-Yes. See how that is riqht there? MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. PHILO-And here's the distance, right here. of that 20 feet. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. PHILO-There's his 20 feet right there. and everyone of them would fit in. if qrant this. he's only 17 feet this way. MR. TURNER-I know. MR. PHILO-And we're takinq a liability on. MR. TURNER-You bet we are. You've got to reduce the parking there. MR. PHILO-So if vou turn that on an anqle like that. vou can qet everyone of them in. Do you see it right there. You'd have room to spare. MR. TURNER-Yes. Is the scale 20. 20 to the inch? Twenty feet to the inch. MR. CARVIN-What you're saying is angle it? MR. PHILO-This way. This is 20 feet. okay. so if we turned it this way, we'd have room to spare all the way down through. You see. if we qive them that 20, if we run that riqht out onto Town property, over here. we're in for a law suit. MR. CARVIN-I think I'd like to hear his explanation first. MR. TURNER-Yes. MRS. EGGLESTON-Can I ask Mr. Chairman. not long ago. they were here to put another business in there. Why did not all of this come out at the time of? MR. TURNER-They got the cart ahead of the horse, a little bit. They shouldn't have come to us for a variance if this was outstanding. - 13 - MRS. EGGLESTON-Are vou savinq the Planninq Board checked the parking. and they found it? MRS. RUTHSCHILD-Yes. MRS. EGGLESTON-But would that not be a matter of course when the carpet business went in. to have checked the parkinq to see if there was enough for? I mean, I'm not saying that. just for mv own information? MRS. RUTHSCHILD-Yes. They should have. MRS. EGGLESTON-Should we have? MR. TURNER-Yes. We should have. MR. MARTIN-It should have been dealt with all at once. MRS. EGGLESTON-Then maybe we wouldn't have. Okay. MR. CARVIN-But was it done for the previous business? Does the carpet business. then there was. what. the video business. and there's been about 15 businesses throuqh there. There was a barber shop there at one point, and there was a video store. Mr. Video, or somethinq like that, the print shop. and God only knows what else. MR. TURNER-The print shop's still there. MR. CARVIN-Yes. MR. FORTUNE-So. basicallv. should another. at some point this tenant were to leave. we would automaticallv have to come in. We understand that, but then we would also be coming in for. possibly a use variance, but also for an area variance at the same time. is the way I'm understanding it, providing that we were a different use. MR. CARVIN-Let me ask you this. Mr. Fortune. What are your plans for. I mean. this whole area is a shambles. I mean. there's pot holes. There's broken pavement. There is. I mean, I don't even know where the propertv line is between vour place and Sokol's. because there's a fence for Sokol's. and then there's the Salvation Armv box. Are vou planninq to repave all that area, and then properly mark it. Are you going to put barriers up? I mean, can vou qive us an idea of what vour plan is here? MR. FORTUNE-Okay. What it has been. over the past, is iust a travel lane for a cuttinq across the. vou know. in between the two roads. basically. and it has been left as iust that. The parkinq reallv is more on one side, the Aviation Road side. which is all that seemed to be necessary. We've tried. in the sequence of trvinq to qet the bavs open and utilizinq those. Basicallv. we have not known what to do there, as a maintenance thing. because we didn't know what was qoinq to stav there. ever. but what I can do is, again. now. we'll get the. as far as the delineation on the site. we don't want to put UP a fence. We've tried to avoid that because our neighbor does. in fact, utilize. with his. I believe there is a compactor there. There is some use of the propertv there now. So if we put the fence UP. it would restrict there, iust prohibit access there. Aqain, what it would be. it would be limited to the striping. It would not be the fence. MR. CARVIN-I'm assuminq when vou sav stripinq. I mean. vou couldn't stripe it right now. because it looks like a war zone through there? MR. FORTUNE-No. Right. Yes. MR. CARVIN-So vour plans are to repave that? - 14 - MR. FORTUNE-But aqain. we would be doinq a maintenance tvpe of thinq there. MR. CARVIN-When vou say maintenance, what do YOU mean by maintenance? MR. FORTUNE-It would not be repaved. It would be patched. MR. CARVIN-In other words. iust puttinq dirt in. and then vou're going to paint the dirt, or patch? MR. FORTUNE-I was savinq. not repavinq the whole area. iust repaving where, in fact, it needs to be leveled out. and then patch the qiven area. MR. CARVIN-Okay, but then you're going to paint the patch. in other words. delineate these parkinq spaces? MR. FORTUNE-The patch would be asphalt. MR. CARVIN-It would be asphalt. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. PHILO-We understand that. but what you're saying is. that looks like a familv iust moved out of Harlem riqht now, and the aesthetics for the neighbors. I wouldn't want that site in my back vard. I would like to see vou people qo back, I wouldn't even like to vote on this tonight. go back and give us a print, or a plan. of what vou plan on doinq with this. In other words. before we vote on something here. I agree with Fred. We're not going to see vou mark patches, dirt. If it's qoinq to be a parkinq area. it's qoinq to be done as a parking area. MR. FORTUNE-I believe on the plan I am designating that there are bumpers there. and I didn't mean how I answered Fred to indicate that I was doing anything short, I just didn't want to misrepresent that I was pavinq the entire area there. What we will do is qet rid of the pot holes. We will level it, make it look presentable, as a workinq parkinq area, and we will take and put in those concrete pieces that are represented on the plan. there in play. MR. TURNER-Okav. What's the lenqth of the leases on the propertv. in relation to the business that's there? How far in the distance are vou lookinq. so vou can do somethinq, and receive a reasonable return? MR. FORTUNE-I'm not sure. as far as the lease arranqement. MR. TURNER-Yes. but I mean. that would have to tie into what vou want to do to the site that's alreadv there. I mean, you're not qoinq to spend monev on a dead horse. What I'm savinq is. how far up front are you? Have vou got good, viable tenants now. as far as vou know? MR. FORTUNE-Yes, as far as I know. MR. TURNER-So then it's vour position that vou're qoinq to move ahead, and update this propertv? MR. FORTUNE-Per what I'm savinq. MR. TURNER-What you're saying. MR. CARVIN-I have a couple of other questions. When I was out there, in the front, and I approximated it, I noticed that there appears to be, is there a qas tank under there? MR. FORTUNE-That is the fuel. there is a fuel tank there, for the heatinq of the buildinq. That's where the fill is located. - 15 - MR. CARVIN-Okay. That is a functioninq qas tank. fuel tank? MR. FORTUNE-Yes. Fuel oil. MR. CARVIN-Fuel oil. Okay, and who or what is the Philadelphia Manninqton Contractors? MR. FORTUNE-I do not know. MR. CARVIN-Well, they've qot their siqn on vour door. MR. MARTIN-What was that name again. Fred? MR. CARVIN-The Phi ladelphia Manninqton Contractor Sales, painted on the glass on the building. MR. PHILO-It looks like another office there. I've seen it myself. It looks like there's another business in there, other than. MR. CARVIN-I'm ;ust asking the question. I'm looking. MR. FORTUNE-Yes. It's new to me. Where abouts is it located? Is it part of the attendants area? MR. CARVIN-Riqht here. It's riqht on this door riqht here. painted on the glass. MRS. EGGLESTON-Where it says, furnace room, Fred? MR. CARVIN-Well. what I'm sayinq is that there is a siqn indicatinq the Philadelphia Mannington Contractors Sales. So I don't know if that's the print shop. I don't think it's the ruq company. I iust didn't know if there was another business in there. MR. FORTUNE-No. MR. CARVIN-Or if there was the Philadelphia Manning Contractors. I mean, that's not one of the litany of folks that I remember qoinq through there. but they certainly are advertising. MR. FORTUNE-Yes. Is there a phone number? MR. CARVIN-I didn't see a phone number. MR. FORTUNE-I can check on it. MR. CARVIN-And also, while we're on the sub;ect. the dumpster area, I've driven by there a couple of times, and I've noticed, and again, I guess this may be more of a technical thing, but there were a number of carpets piled out in front of the storaqe, or the bay area. all right. Is that. to the be st of your knowledge, a problem? Because as I said. it looks like it's impedinq a lot of the traffic flow through the gas station. because when I drove by there. I would quess this was about a month or so aqo. I would venture a guess there was probably a half a dozen or more rolls. the lonq rolls of carpetinq. and thev were piled quite literally right in front of the bay area. so much that as I was driving by. it was very noticeable. Also I noticed, when I was out there Saturday. in your trash area. that. apparently when they unroll the carpetinq, all those cardboard rolls were iust stacked UP alonq the side of the building. and it really looked poor, and I know part of the reason that we qranted the variance was that because the neighbors there felt that you were a good neighbor. and wanted to keep that. and I would make a couple of suqqestions that if that's becoming a problem, to nip it in the bud pretty quick, because as I said. that's qoinq to be a fire hazard. I can iust see that right now. Also. while I was there. there was at least three cars that use that as a pass throuqh. They seem to come riqht out of Sokol's and duck right over onto, I guess. what is it, Helen Drive. riqht across the way there. - 1G - '\ \ '\ MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. CARVIN-And before we open it UP. we probably ought to open it uP. I've qot some real serious problems with the size s 0 f thi s thing. MR. TURNER-I do. too. MR. CARVIN-I'd like to see how many parking spaces that you could qraft into this that were or are complyinq to our current Regulations, in other words, the 180 square feet or whatever the nuts and bolts are. This is an unusual piece of property. There's no way you're going to be able to get 20. out of 20 spaces. even if you used, I think, all of this area. I think 16 spaces are too many. I mean, unfortunately. I think with what you're dealing with, you'll probably end UP with eiqht or ten. MR. TURNER-I was there this afternoon. and the only cars that were parked at the buildinq were on the Aviation Road side. There was nobody else parked any place. So I don't really think you need everythinq that you're supposed to have. and I think what Fred is alluding to is to get rid of the parking there along Aviation Road. MR. CARVIN-I think it's a real danqer. MR. TURNER-It's a real blind spot. MR. CARVIN-Yes. MR. TURNER-Now. I think. you've got five here for retail. on this side, and vou've qot five more over here. So you've qot 10 alonq Sokol's line. and I think you've got more than enough right there. because there wasn't that many cars there. There was five cars there when I was there. MR. FORTUNE-I guess we were worried more for number size, rather, in compromisinq the square footaqe. in tryinq to qet as close as we could to the 20. So hopefully, in looking at it from that side. rather than. MR. TURNER-That's fine, but I think you're compromising somebody's safetv in tryinq to accommodate these parkinq spaces alonq the road. MR. FORTUNE-How about putting, on the Aviation Road side. maybe a couple of parallel parkinq spaces there? How would the Board feel about that? MR. TURNER-I don't feel bad. as lonq as they're back towards the rear. MR. PHILO-You could turn them on an angle even. MR. CARVIN-And I also think you're qoinq to have a problem with that, if that's a functioning oil tank there. that you're going to have to deal with that. I'm not quite sure what the safety. It's right here, approximatelv. on the map. MR. FORTUNE-Typically, what there's usuall v a square. somethinq that's. it's able to be driven over, and the timinq of it. MR. CARVIN-Okay. As it sits riqht now. I aqree that you're qoinq to have to make that come into compliance. because that whole parkinq area. that whole drive throuqh. as far as I'm concerned. is far from in compliance. As I said, I think it's in desperate need of repair or maintenance. and if vou're willinq to work with us on this, I think. you know, in other words. fine, if you only end up with eiqht or nine parkinq spaces that are in compliance. MR. FORTUNE-Yes. I have no problem with doing that. It's 'just - 17 - ~ ~ that, to meet. again, the guideline. you're more on the guantity rather than the size of the project. but we can look at it again from the other factors. MR. PHILO-This goes back to what I said. to start with. Let them draw UP a plan, showing something that's solid, and what they're going to do. they're not going to paint over patches. MR. TURNER-You know what I'd like to see them do? Take it back. work it all up again, come back with something with common sense. MR. PHILO-Because there's going to be a liability. MR. MARTIN-What do you do with the snow in the winter time? Do you pile it on site? I know last winter it was on the corner. I would suggest a stipulation that the snow has to be removed from the site. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. CARVIN-See, there's just no way you're going to cram more than eight or ten cars comfortably into this area. especially if you've got snow. MR. MARTIN-It's especially dangerous at the sharp angle corners. MR. PHILO-Dixon Road and Aviation Road, right there on that corner. I agree with you. My wife and I come out there several times. and that snow bank. the way it was piled up. MR. TURNER-Yes. You can't see over it. You can't see around it. What I'd like to do is to move to table the application. let them bring back a common sense. workable deal. and keep in mind that the area in the back is where we want them to park. MR. PHILO-No parking spot is under 20 feet. MR. TURNER-Right. and maybe they can utilize two parking spaces on the Aviation Road side, towards Sokol's Market. pick up two more there. but as far as the rest of the parking, I think you've got to eliminate that. just because. for safety factor. MR. CARVIN-And if you've got cement, concrete blocks here. or some kind of delineation between, on the property line. it's going to have to be put there. because I think you're going to have a real problem because of the way Sokol's is. MR. TURNER-You're gOing to have to barricade that off. MR. CARVIN-In other words, if you have no intentions of barricading it off. don't put parking spaces there, just leave it as open drive through. MR. PHILO-They won't meet compliance at all. then. MR. CARVIN-Well, this'll never meet compliance. MR. TURNER-I don't think you can meet compliance on this. MRS. EGGLESTON-No. No matter what yOU do. it's. MR. FORTUNE-No. There again. what we're trying to do with this, again. for numbers. and. MR. TURNER-I think, vou know. right up front, how many people go there. I mean. vou can get a count. all right. I mean. you know how many parking spaces you're going to need. You know the traffic coming in there every day. what's coming, what's going. You can come back with a workable deal. and then we can look at it again, and we can probablv do something with it, but not this time. - 18 - MR. MARTIN-And can they work in a handicap space there. too. MRS. RUTHSCHILD-Yes. They need to work in a handicap space. MR. TURNER-Well. they could. I think. on the Aviation Road. MR. MARTIN-That's what I'm saving. MR. TURNER-Like, there's two spots right there they could pick UP right there, and then the others could park abutting Sokol's. I think what you've got to do is you've got to put a barricade right across the back end of that property out to your property line, to eliminate that traffic cutting around and coming into those parking spaces, creating another hazard. Right here. I think you've got to close this off. right across here, eliminate these people from coming around. coming through here. and coming around in here. I think if you do that, vou' re going to pick UP the additional parking, and the parking's going to be safe then. It's going to be safe in there. MRS. EGGLESTON-And also you're going to look into the other business that Fred says is advertised on your window? MR. FORTUNE-Yes. MRS. EGGLESTON-And do something about the debris from the carpet store and the carpet rolls lying in front of the. MR. CARVIN-Yes. I think you may need to expand your dumpster area, because part of that's fenced off, but when I was there. there iust wasn't room enough in the fenced area, in other words. where you've got your fenced in dumpster, so they put all the tubes and iunk and garbage on the outside. and I think that if that is a continued situation. you're going to have a health problem there. or a safetv problem. MR. TURNER-Okay. Are you satisfied with what we said. Lets table the application. MR. PHILO-I would like the question answered that Fred stated, who is this new ghost man. MR. TURNER-Well, he's going to find out. that. He's already indicated MR. PHILO-And what thev're going to do with the area of print, and then we can talk on it. Right now. it's almost like an open hand. MR. TURNER-Yes. All right. Do you want to make a motion to table? MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 55-1993 LEEHILT'S/GETTY PETROLEUK, Introduced bv Fred Carvin who moved for its adoption, seconded by Theodore Turner: Have the applicant bring back a revised plan indicating parking spaces that are in compliance with the current Town Ordinances. even though he will not meet the criteria at this point. Duly adopted this 21st day of July, 1993, by the following vote: MR. CARVIN-I hope we've made it clear what we're looking for this time. and, again. this is a 60 day table. So this would come back in September, somewhere in there. MRS. RUTHSCHILD-Yes. MR. PHILO-Ted. I'd like to see what they're going to do about that barrier. too. like yOU said. MR. FORTUNE-A typical guardrail. would that be sufficient? - 19 - MR. TURNER-Well. you know what I'm saying. If you've been there. it comes out by the dumpster. and then it then it hangs a right. It's wide open. All right. So the people from Sokol's Market cut right through your parking area. Now what you've got to do is stop that. You've got to barricade it off and stop it. a guard rail. That would be adequate. but you've got to stop them from migrating through there. They ;ust peel off and go. MR. CARVIN-Yes. I mean. I sat there. and I was kind of sitting kitty corner. and they ;ust are oblivious to it. I mean, there was three of them, and I was only there for five minutes or ten minutes. and there was three of them that came through there. It was amazing. MR. TURNER-Yes. That's the problem you've got there. you're going to park, you've got to close it off. Where MR. CARVIN-You know. if you're not going to close it. just don't put any spaces there. I mean, I don't care if you only come up with six spaces. I mean. as long as they're in compliance, and that makes sense. and you only have six spaces. MR. TURNER-You get from the people the number of cars that park there during the day, yOU know peak times, and reference your proposal against that. back to us. AYES: Mr. Karpeles. Mr. Carvin. Mrs. Eggleston, Miss Hauser. Mr. Philo, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Thomas AREA VARIANCE NO. 56-1993 TYPE I RR-5A WILLIAM H. & ELAINE A. FOLTZ OWNE~: SAME AS ABOVE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO DEVELOP A TWO AND FIFTY-SIX (2.56) ACRE PARCEL AND IS SEEKING RELIEF OF TWO AND FORTY-FOUR (2.44) ACRES. FROM SECTION 179-15C, WHICH REQUIRES FIVE (5) ACRES AS THE MINIMUM LOT AREA IN THE RURAL RESIDENTIAL 5 ACRE ZONE. SEQRA TO BE ADDRESSED BY ZBA ONLY 7/21/93 T AX MAP NUMBER: 27-4-7 LOT SIZE: 2.56 ACRES SECTION 179-15C FRANK DESANTIS. REPRESENTING APPLICANT. PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff. Area Variance No. 56-1993. William H. & Elaine A. Foltz. Meeting Date: July 21. 1993 "ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: Lot 7. Grant Acres, Boulderwood Drive in a RR-5A zone. SUMMARY OF PROJECT: Applicant is proposing to develop a two and fifty-six (2.56) acre vacant parcel. CONFORMANCE WITH USE/AREA REGULATIONS: 1. Applicant is proposing two and fifty-six (2.56) acres as the lot area for proposed project and is seeking relief of two and forty-four (2.44) acres from Section 179-15C. which requires five (5) acres as the minimum lot area in the Rural Residential 5 Acre zone. REVIEW CRITERIA: 1. DESCRIBE THE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY WHICH DOES NOT ALLOW THE PLACEMENT OF A STRUCTURE WHICH MEETS THE ZONING REQUIREMENTS. Applicant's parcel is located in Grant Acres which is in a Planning Board approved subdivision, and except for the fact that the site is in a designated Critical Environmental Area, it would qualifv to be "grandfathered" under Section 179-76, General exception to the minimum lot requirements. 2. IS THIS THE MINIMUM VARIANCE NECESSARY TO ALLEVIATE THE SPECIFIC PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY OR IS THERE ANY OTHER OPTION AVAILABLE WHICH WOULD REQUIRE NO VARIANCE? It would appear that the relief requested is the minimum variance necessary and no other option is available which would require no variance. 3. WOULD THIS VARIANCE BE DETRIMENTAL TO OTHER PROPERTIES IN THE DISTRICT OR NEIGHBORHOOD? As the proposed pro;ect is located in a Planning Board approved subdivision. the variance would not be detrimental to other properties in the district or neighborhood. 4. WHAT ARE THE - 20 - EFFECTS OF THE VARIANCE ON PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES? It would appear that the variance would not effect public facilities or services. STAFF COMMENTS AND CONCERNS: Staff has no further comments regarding this project." MR. DESANTIS-Good evening. Mr. Chairman. members of the Board. My name is Frank DeSantis. I'm here as the agent for Mr. and Mrs. Foltz this evening. Essentially. this is a mirror image of, and I didn't realize the Groff application was on until I obtained the agenda, but of the variance which yOU granted. Number 54-1993. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. DESANTIS-But for this happens to be Lot 7. versus Lot 41 of the Grant Acres subdivision. MR. TURNER-Yes. Again. I'd move not to hear the SEQRA. There's no environmental impact. This is a preexisting subdivision. MR. PHILO-There's nobody against it. Just move on it. MR. TURNER-Okay. hearing. If there's no guestions, I'll open the public PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TURNER-Motion's in order. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIAIfCE NO. 5§-1~~_3 _. W¡J,.¡'IAHH .lìEEJ,..A:I:NE A. FOLTZ. Introduced by Joyce Eggleston who moved for its adoPtion, seconded bv Thomas Philo: Lot 7. Grant Acres. Boulderwood Drive. This would grant relief of 2.44 acre s from Section 17 9-15C. which requires 5 acre s as the minimum lot area in the Rural Residential 5 Acre Zone. The parcel is located in a preapproved subdivision, and if not for the fact that the site is in a designated Critical Environmental Area. it would gualify to be grandfathered under Section 179-76. Also. the applicant is subject to a change in zoning since he purchased the property in 1981. This is the minimum variance necessary. and there's no other option available which would require no variance. It would not be detrimental to other properties in the district or neighborhood. and it appears there would be no effects of the variance on public facilities and services. Duly adopted this 21st day of July. 1993. by the following vote: AYES: Miss Hauser. Mr. Philo. Mr. Karpeles. Mr. Carvin. Mrs. Eggleston. Mr. Turner NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Thomas SIGN VARIANCE NO. 57-1993 TYPE: UNLISTED HC-IA NATIONAL REALTY & DEVELOPMENT CORP. OWNER: GROSSMAN. BAKER & RUBIN AMES PLAZA. ROUTE 9 APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO DEMOLISH AN EXISTING PYLON SIGN AND CONSTRUCT A NEW PYLON SIGN. APPLICANT IS PROPOSING NINETY-NINE (99) SQUARE FEET FOR THE PROPOSED SIGN AND IS SEEKING RELIEF OF FORTY-FIVE (45) FEET FROM SECTION 140-GB(2)(a) WHICH STATES THAT A SIGN SETBACK TWENTY-FIVE (25) FEET FROM THE PROPERTY LINE SHALL NOT EXCEED SIXTY-FOUR ( 64 ) SQUARE FEET IN AREA. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) DATE: 7/14/93 TAX MAP NUMBER: 71-1-3. 5 LOT SIZE: N/A SECTION 140-6B(2)(a) MICHAEL O'CONNOR. REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT - 21 - -- MRS. EGGLESTON-And the Warren County Planning Board disapproved saying. "64 sq. ft. is adequate." STAFF INPUT Note from Staff. Sign Variance No. 57-1993, National Realty & Dev. Corp.. Meeting Date: July 21. 1993 Ames Plaza, Route 9 "ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: Ames Plaza, Route 9 - Ames Dept. Store SUMMARY OF PROJECT: Applicant is proposing to remove an existing pylon sign and replace with a new pylon sign. CONFORMANCE WITH USE/AREA REGULATIONS: 1. Applicant is proposing ninety-nine (99) square feet for the proposed PYlon sign and is seeking relief of thirty- five (35) square feet from Section 140-6B(2)(a). which states that a sign set back twenty-five (25) feet from the property line shall not exceed sixty-four (64) square feet in area. REVIEW CRITERIA: 1. ARE THERE SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES OR CONDITIONS APPLYING TO THE LAND OR SIGNS WHICH DO NOT APPLY GENERALLY TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD? Applicant believes that the configuration of the terrain and the fact that the commercial building is set back from the road over five hundred (500) feet, partially obscures the visibility of the buildinq to motorists and potential customers. leading to the need for a larger sign than is permitted. 2. IS REASONABLE USE OF THE LAND OR SIGN POSSIBLE IF THE ORDINANCE IS COMPLIED WITH? Applicant believes that reasonable use of the sign is not possible if the Ordinance is complied with, as the existing sign is larger than the proposed sign and for the reasons stated in Question 1, applicant believes that the size of the proposed sign is necessary. 3. IS THERE AN ADVERSE EFFECT ON THE NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTER OR PUBLIC FACILITIES? It would appear that the variance would not have an adverse effect on the neighborhood character or public facilities. 4. ARE THERE ANY FEASIBLE ALTERNATIVES? It would appear that other than placing the sign closer to the road and reducing its size, there are no other feasible alternatives. 5. IS THE DEGREE OF CHANGE SUBSTANTIAL RELATIVE TO THE ORDINANCE? The proposed sign is thirty-five (35) sguare feet and approximately fifty-five (55) percent larger than the maximum permitted size of sixty-four (64) square feet for a sign set back twenty-five (25) feet from the road right-of-way. STAFF COMMENTS AND CONCERNS: Staff has no other comments regarding this project." MR. O'CONNOR-Mr. Chairman and Ladies and Gentlemen, for the purpose of your record. I'm Michael O'Connor from the law firm of Little & O'Connor. I'm here representing the applicants. in connection with the sign application. Also with me is William White. who is the consul ting engineer for the applicants. Our position. argument before the Board. is that what we're doing is revitalizing the existing Ames property. if you will. The property has gone through a subdivision application. and now is a stand alone lot. being a single lot that has two uses on it. The Ames lot is along this line right here. everything to the north of it. The proposed sign that we're talking about is right here. near the highway. This is a freestanding building. and will be a separate building. and this is a building here. We're not talking about changing the wall signs on the existing building. What we're talking about is replacing the existing freestanding sign with probably. if measured. and we didn't actually measure it. I'll pass that along to the Board. is if you square it off in a typical way that you measure your signs. not smaller than what we actually are requesting. We think that. due to special circumstances that apply to this lot and the use of this lot. we should be entitled to the requested variance. First we'd ask you to look at the size of the building that we're talking about. The Ames building is some 70,000 square feet. There are a few freestanding buildings of a retail nature. of that size throughout the town. Most buildings of that size are devoted to more than one tenant, where you have different signs for the different tenants. Here we're talking about one sign. one tenant. one sign. If you actually looked at the lot, and if you said it was a shopping center. because it has more than one use. you'd be entitled to two freestanding signs, because it fronts on two roads. It fronts on Weeks Road and fronts - 22 - on Route 9. What we are asking for. in this one sign. is less than what we would be entitled to if we were trying to put in the two permitted freestanding signs. MR. PHILO-Where is the Wal-Mart sign going to be? MR. O'CONNOR-The Wal-Mart sign is going to be near this entrance way over here. and I'll show you that with the next application. Also unique is the length of our driveway, if you will. The building itself is some 547 feet, 182 yards. back from the edge of the pavement, and I presume that you've all been to the site. because I know that that's your custom. Also unique to the site is the difference in elevation. If you take a look at some of the pictures that we've submitted. those pictures are taken in a very generous status. if you will. They are taken up on the parking lot level. MR. TURNER-Not all of the. Michael. MR. O'CONNOR-No. Some are from the road. from the road level. The ones from the road level probably are more germane to the Wal-Mart application. The elevation at the road varies. On the south side of the site, I believe it's 453 feet. On the north side of the site. it's 465 feet. at the road. We've got that shown on another map. here, that shows you the actual elevations of the site. The point that I make is that as you drive by Route 9. because of the change of the site, much of the building is not visible from Route 9. The only visibility that this property is going to have. which is some 567 back from the highway. is going to be the sign that we're speaking of. that's out near the highway. Also. as part of our application before the various Boards. and I think we've been before this Board for variances. We've been before the Planning Board. We've been before the Beautification Committee. We have agreed to. if you will. intensify some of the plantings. We are going to have raised plantings as the marking, or break up of the planting of the parking islands. They. again. are going to block the visibility from Route 9 of the building. when they're actually planted and placed. and if you also place the cars that are in there on that parking lot, with the difference in elevation, due to the depth of the lot. our visibility is going to be out at the highway. If you take a look at even the existing sign and what we propose, we are cleaning up the sign if you will. We have four different messages on that one particular sign. We have a sign for Ames, for Allen's Craft. for the dentist's operation, and for Sysco, all on one freestanding sign. What we propose is a very simple freestanding sign. which is not outlined. if you will, by the posts as much as what is there. If you take a look at it. the sign itself is pretty much separated from the post type construction. as opposed to the existing construction. I believe the Staff comments were very positive, at least in my experience, in looking over Staff has made comments on signs. It says, in particular to this. "it would not appear that the variance would have an adverse effect on the neighborhood character or public facilities. It would appear that other than placing the sign closer to the road, or reducing the size, there are no other feasible alternatives." We ask you to look at the signs that are on adjacent properties, and we have some pictures there. and again, maybe this is more germane when we get into the next application. I think we've submitted to you signs that would show the sign across the street. what used to be the former Volkswagen property. that's now occupied by Pro Tune, the Glass Shop, Subway, and Northway Car Care, and I think it also has another business. motorcycle, Go Slow engineering, on the north end of that property. We think that the sign that we have proposed is. in fact, an upgrading of the signage that's in existence right now. We don't look upon the request as being something that would have an adverse impact, upon the street. or upon the neighborhood. Those are the comments I would give you, as to the Ames sign. MR. TURNER-All right. Questions on the Ames sign? Do you have - 23 - -.-' any? MR. KARPELES-How similar is it to the Wal-Mart sign? Are they going to be pretty much in harmony? I mean, they're going to be right next to one another. MR. O'CONNOR-The Wal-Mart sign itself is 80 square feet. with a separate sign on the same pole of 12 square feet for the pharmacy. This one is a simple rectangular sign of 99. MR. KARPELES-I can't get a good picture of the Wal-Mart one. MR. O'CONNOR-I've got a picture of the Wal-Mart. MR. PHILO-Will you show that to us, Mike? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. I will. MRS. EGGLESTON-Mike, you said, you didn't know the dimensions of the present Ames sign. Did you say you did not know? MR. O'CONNOR-We did not know for sure. MRS. EGGLESTON-It's not the 64? MR. O'CONNOR-The existing Ames sign appears to be the 64 feet, but if you look at it. it's got four, or three ribbon signs underneath it. and if you look at the configuration. the way that, normally, you'd square it off. I think you're in excess of 100 square feet, easily. It was up in the air. We didn't measure it. MR. TURNER-That's fine. but you've got the dentist. You've got Sysco. You've got Allen's Craft. They weren't identified, and I think that's why we did what we did. when we did it. because they had no exposure to the highway. You have two entities going in this piece of property. One is Ames. One is Wal-Mart. Okay. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. I agree with everything that you said. except on this piece of property. which is to the north of here, we have only the Ames, Wal-Mart. MR. TURNER-I know. but I'm saying, let me rephrase it. On this particular piece of property, you've got one entity, Ames. MR. O'CONNOR-Ames and the Queen Diner. MR. TURNER-The Queen Diner. MR. O'CONNOR-Is not mentioned on that sign. MR. TURNER-Okay. MR. CARVIN-And they don't have a freestanding sign, do they? MR. O'CONNOR-No. They have a wall sign. highway. That's the point. They're closer to the MR. TURNER-But I'm saying to you, if they can find Ames now, with a 64 square foot sign. what makes them not be able to find Ames when you get done with the Plaza? You're not changing anything but the parking arrangement. and you're changing an island down to divide the property between Ames and the Wal-Mart. That's all you're doing. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. and it would change, significantly. the plantings along this road and along this road. There are none in existence now. MR. TURNER-Yes. but they could still find Ames. - 24 - /-" -\ MR. 0' CONNOR-Okay. My argument is that due to the elevation change, you have some problems. You do not have the same visibility. say, Ray Supply. who's building is right down here, who has a sign that may be in compliance, as far as size goes, but it's closer to the highway. It's right on the highway boundary. I remember the variance they came in for. Their bUilding is as visible as their sign. Their building is probably 50 feet back. MR. TURNER-Are you telling me that if you don't get the 99 square foot sign, that Ames is not going to realize a reasonable return on the property? MR. 0' CONNOR-I'm saying it would be more difficult for them, it would be unnecessarily difficult. MR. TURNER-They've come out of the box. and they've revitalized the store. and they're doing great up there. Now what makes that any different now. in the future, than it does now? MR. CARVIN-When you ask us to subdivide it, you said all we're doing is just putting a line down there. Now all of a sudden you're saying because there's a line down there. you've got a problem. MR. O'CONNOR-I'm not saying that created the problem. I'm just saying. it is a 70,000 square foot retail property in the Town of Queensbury. There are two provisions that you look at, even if there's signage. We're not talking about changing the wall signage. One of those provisions. which I think we could take maybe some advantage of. is that your wall signage, typically. for one business is 100 square feet. except when it's in excess of 100 feet from the highway. You're allowed another 10 feet of signage for every 100 feet, every 10 feet. MR. TURNER-Ten feet, up to a maximum of 300 square feet. MR. O'CONNOR-Up to 300. They aren't using that signage in total. MR. TURNER-That's fine. but they can. MR. 0' CONNOR-The idea here is to try and make it maybe more uniform, make it more practical. Why would they have to change the wall sign, and what would be the difference to the community, to the Town as opposed to having a 64 square foot sign out here, or a 99 square foot sign, and is there a real distinction? I think that's where we get back into the argument about area variances. What is the detriment to the community by the request before you by the applicant? MR. TURNER-Well, I think you're self-imposing this hardship on yourself. because you've already got. the store is there. The store is doing business. How do you defend your argument that 100 square foot. or 99 square foot sign versus the 64 square foot sign is going to make any difference? MR. O'CONNOR-Because of the difference of the elevation after we. MR. TURNER-It hasn't made any difference so far, and the elevation is still there. MR. O'CONNOR-It will when we put the plantings in. We do not have any plantings there now. MR. CARVIN-How big are the planters going to be, how high? MR. O'CONNOR-The first row of planters, with trees, is probably about four feet. The second row, and the landscaping plan is here. These trees could be 10 to 15 feet. MR. CARVIN-Okay, but if a person driving up, I mean. if they see - 25 - the sign "Ames". they've got to believe that it's got to be back there some place. You're going to have a couple of entrances there, Mike. I mean, I agree that your plantings, I agree with Ted. I just don't see where the difference, I think a 64 square foot sign out on the street is more than adequate to identify that this is the location of Ames. MR. PHILO-If you're going by Route 9. and you stand out at Route 9, I agree with Mike. There's about a 25 foot elevation. change there. you can't see the building. MR. CARVIN-Okay. but the idea, you're looking at the driveway. In other words, this is where you turn for Ames. In other words. this is where Ames is. and so you turn into the driveway on that. MR. PHILO-It's a thriving business for the community, okay. How many people, for example, how much business is done. MR. TURNER-How much more business is that sign going to generate, a 35? MR. PHILO-A lot. MR. TURNER-No. MR. PHILO-A lot. You MR. TURNER-Do you know take the Grand Union right over there. what's going to generate the business there? MR. PHILO-How much percentage of their business in the summer is Canadian people, big percentage. MR. TURNER-I know, but do you know what's going to make Ames maybe a little better than it was? Wal-Mart. MRS. EGGLESTON-I was wondering, though, about these signs. You're going to have two of them, of considerable size, there. If you're coming up Glen Street, Route 9, are those signs going to greatly overshadow the Queen Diner and the Flower Drum Song, and would that be fair to them, in that you're not going to be able to see up the road maybe because of these. because they do seem to be in line. MR. 0' CONNOR-The signs were put back by the 25 feet setback purposely to minimize that. The signs also were put higher than what the other local signs might be. It's to the maximum of 25 feet. If you look at some of the other signs. MR. PHILO-You look right under the sign, and you'll see the Queen Diner. MR. O'CONNOR-It doesn't look like the other signs are as high. If you take. we did some of the Days Inn, Route 9 Mall. the Aviation Mall. I don't think that they come that high in the height. as to what our proposed signs are. Keep that in mind. MR. TURNER-Let me just ask you one question. Is this a prototype sign of every sign that you put in the other malls, Wal-Mart stores? MR. O'CONNOR-This is a prototype Ames sign, it's not a Wal-Mart sign. MR. TURNER-Okay. MRS. EGGLESTON-Is the one there? What is the one that's existing? Is that a prototype Ames sign? BILL WHITE MR. WHITE-It was at the time that Ames store was constructed. - 26 - MRS. EGGLESTON-But since that time, you've redone all your? MR. WHITE-Ames has changed their prototype. Yes, both in the appearance on their facade. which you recently saw, refurbished the facade of the structure, and in their sign that's along the highway. MR. TURNER-Any further questions? MISS HAUSER-I'm just wondering if all of the signs that you have in all of your other stores are what you're proposing for the size of the sign? Are all of the signs at the other Ames stores of the same size you're proposing for this one? MR. WHITE-No. MR. TURNER-Can I ask you a question? prototype sign. You just stated that's a MR. WHITE-It's a prototype sign, but. MR. TURNER-So is that a prototype sign for just this, or is it a prototype sign for all of them? MR. WHITE-It is their prototype sign that they would construct on a typical building where the Zoning Ordinance is not more restrictive. MR. TURNER-Okay. MR. WHITE-Now, to answer that lady's question, it's not uncommon for that sign to exceed the zoning requirements of several communities. This isn't the only community where an Ames is, where their sign is much larger than what the community would prefer to have, and as a result, Ames has had to modify the dimensional requirements of their signs in other areas. but also in those areas. what you have to consider is the other special circumstances for each individual site. Our argument is this individual site justifies that larger size because of the setback from the road. In another community, where they may be closer to the road, or positioned differently, where the aesthetics of the building may affect the public, they may be less or more stringent. MISS HAUSER-Okay. Thank you. MR. O'CONNOR-If you take a look at the Northway Plaza sign, again. it's not something we measured, but it's much in excess of what we're talking about for a freestanding sign for this particular property. That's within a quarter of a mile on the opposite side of the highway. and I think that's the summary of Staff's comments. that what we're proposing is not out of keeping with the character of that particular neighborhood, which I think is a consideration of this Board, a very heavy consideration of this Board and what we're proposing is not something that will have an adverse impact. It varies from the Ordinance. There's no doubt. We wouldn't be here looking for a variance if it didn't vary from the Ordinance, but I think your discretion is whether or not what we have asked will have a negative impact. MR. CARVIN-Ted. do you know when this one was established? MR. O'CONNOR-That was refurbished within the last five years. MR. TURNER-1980 something. It was refurbished, right. MR. PHILO-A couple of years ago. MR. TURNER-No. It was longer ago than that. MR. PHILO-When they put the siding on the building, when they put - 27 - that veneer on. MR. TURNER-It was when Montgomery Wards went out of the Plaza. and then it went into receivership or something, and the bank was running it at the time, the bank that held the paper on it. They came for a bunch of sign variances inside. They just refurbished that sign. That was there. That was already there. MR. O'CONNOR-Have you looked at the sign that we're talking about, so you have an idea of how the 99 feet? MR. TURNER-Yes. I know how big it is. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay, but I mean. it's not something that's going to be boxed in or framed. like that particular sign. MR. TURNER-I know. MR. O'CONNOR-It comes from the ground up. MR. WHITE-I'd just like to emphasize one point Mr. O'Connor made. If you look at the picture of, I'm not sure what the place is called, but it's got the Bugle Boy and the several other signs. MR. TURNER-Adirondack Plaza. MR. WHITE-I spent a couple of hours this afternoon driving around, trying to look for some. on these pylon signs, and what the Board mayor may not have approved in the past, and as I drove down Route 9 I noticed, several of the pylon signs. or the main signs out along the front are small, and there's a size probably in compliance with the Town Ordinance, but the thing that struck me as I drove along was how close all these buildings are to the road, and that Bugle Boy sign. for example, is on the building. but it's probably, I'd guess maybe 50 feet off the road, and that acts, essentially. as the pylon sign for this particular development. That's not where those stores are located. If you look at that Bugle Boy sign and the several other store signs that are out front, the stores are actually several hundred feet from those signs. So they're essentially using building signage to advertise their store along the State highway, in place of a pylon sign out front. MR. O'CONNOR-I think what Mr. White's referring to is along the gable ends of the buildings of the Kinney Plaza, there are a lot of wall signs for stores that are back in the Plaza. and back in the Plaza. they also have additional wall signs, and I know that that was based upon what has been recognized, maybe. as coming in with a common signage plan, a uniform signage plan. so that everything is in coordinated color, and taste, in presenting one package to you, which is what we've tried to do with even our signage. although it's a different configuration. MR. TURNER-Yes. I know what he's referring to. MRS. EGGLESTON-Will this still be known as the Ames Plaza, after Wal-Mart becomes the predominant retailer? It will still be known as the Ames Plaza? MR. O'CONNOR-This property here will be, yes. MR. TURNER-Yes. MRS. EGGLESTON-Why then. why not a sign Ames Plaza. and then list what's in there, one pylon. and Ames Plaza, and just stores? MR. O'CONNOR-They're going to be separate. MR. TURNER-They're separate businesses. - 28 - MR. 0' CONNOR-Wal-Mart, National Realty owns both parce 1 s, both sides of the lot, if you will. MRS. EGGLESTON-But it's leased to Ames. Okay. MR. O'CONNOR-They will continue to own the northerly parcel. Wal- Mart. or whatever holding company they put their property in. will own the southerly parcel. MR. PHILO-So if another company comes in there, it's another plaza, if Ames goes out. MR. O'CONNOR-Right. MR. WHITE-There's not going to be any signage wi thin the whole development that identifies it as Ames Plaza. MR. O'CONNOR-It think, commonly we refer to it as Ames Plaza. I think is what you're saying. MR. TURNER-It was Zayre's Plaza originally, remember? MRS. EGGLESTON-Your application says Ames Plaza. MR. O'CONNOR-That's a common reference to it. for identification purposes. MR. TURNER-The first major store in there was Zayres. That was Zayres Plaza years ago. and then along came P & C, which was a supermarket, and there was a couple of businesses in those two buildings that are in between there, and that's what it was, and then there was a gas station right out front, by the sign. I think it was Oasis Gas. MR. PHILO-But it was Getty before that. MRS. EGGLESTON-I think what you haven't shown is that there's any detriment, really, to having anything bigger than a 64 square foot sign. The facts are Ames is operating, has been. I mean, lets face it, if they weren't profitable. they could have gotten out of their lease with these people, that they wanted to hang on to it. So, I mean, really, they have a, I forget how many year lease, so that the Wal-Mart didn't take the whole building. I think that came out in the other hearings that we had. MR. WHITE-Wal-Mart wasn't actually offered the entire property. A deal couldn't be struck on the entire property. MRS. EGGLESTON-I think because Ames is a profitable business there. MR. O'CONNOR-I think if you take a look at the property, you can make a lot of presumptions, and one of the presumptions that you'd have to make, if you're going to make presumptions, is they totally refurbished the Plaza a couple of years ago. or their store facilities, trying to make it a profitable facility that attracted people. That would deter them from turning that over and walking away from it, simply because Wal-Mart's coming next to them. Whether they like it or don't like it, I don't know. I can't guess They have an investment there that they're going to protect. I think what we're just trying to do is propose to you something. We're talking about a 35 foot variance. We're talking about a sign that signifies, or signage for a building that's some 600 feet away from it. different that 557 feet. That's some distance away when you get into sight. and if you look at the other signs in the neighborhood, you look at even Staff Comments, we're not offering anything that's detrimental to the neighborhood. Those are the standards that you go by. The practical difficulty is the size of our lot. MRS. EGGLESTON-Is there a competitiveness that the Wal-Mart might - 29 - '- --./ overshadow Ames? Would that be your reasoning behind this much bigger sign, or am I off base here? MR. O'CONNOR-I'm not 100 percent sure. They are also provisions and leases that we're trying to protect, and were told to come here and protect, and I don't have all those provisions before you, and I guess I shouldn't mention that. There should be some equality of signage. If you'll notice, the Ames sign is even larger than the Wal-Mart, but there's a combination factor. The Wal-Mart sign is 80 feet plus 12 feet. This is 99 feet. MR. KARPELES-How do you determine that 99 feet is what you need? I mean. I have trouble visualizing why 99 square feet will do the job any better than 64 square feet. Is there some formula or something that you use, or how do you arrive at that? MR. O'CONNOR-I don't think it's that scientific. I have never heard anybody try to argue that it's that scientific. It's based upon the square footage that, they demand certain signage, or based upon certain scales, they demand certain signage. MR. KARPELES-I'm just wondering, how do you arrive upon 99 square feet? MR. O'CONNOR-That is the prototype signs that they have for this type of freestanding sign. MR. TURNER-It's an educated guess. It's a guess. MR. WHITE-I think it's a corporate decision that was made by someone at Ames at some point. MR. PHILO-In other words. they have this sign in other communities. this size sign. MR. WHITE-Similar. MR. KARPELES-Yes, but they also have other signs, right, that are smaller? Is that right? MR. WHITE-I would imagine they've gone through this process in other in other communities. MR. TURNER-Yes. They're no stranger to this process. MR. WHITE-Right. I do feel, though, that this site does have some specific circumstances, of being so far set off the road MR. 0' CONNOR-Take a look at Kinneys Plaza or any of the other plazas that we've given you. MR. TURNER-I've looked at them. I don't agree with you a bit. MR. O'CONNOR-But these signs are, these pictures are taken from the highway. MR. TURNER-I think you're way off base, Michael, and I'll tell you why. You're doing a legitimate business there with the sign you've got, 64 square feet. It's within the Ordinance, and I think that's what you should stick by. You haven't proved to me anything different. MR. O'CONNOR-If I look at the standards. and we differ on the standards, it's not a dollars and cents model case where you talk about hardship. When we talk about an area variance, you're fine. We talk practical difficulty, you either accept our argument. or you don't. MR. TURNER-Okay. Lets see if the audience has anything to say. - 30 - " ~ MR. PHILO-Can I say one thing to Michael? You know, I'd like to see the Town of Queensbury go with a few things on signs. There's a few things up on the Mall that I think are really wrong, as far as this sign. We have people in business, if we have Canadians coming up here to shop, 500 feet back. or whatever it is, 100 yards, aesthetically, they can't see that building. and if we can do anything to help people do a little better in business here. MR. TURNER-Tommy. I'm going to say this. Their market is not in Montreal, Canada. Their market is right here. MR. PHILO-Well, I'll say, 65 percent of the business in that Grand Union in the summer is done with Canadian people. MR. TURNER-Which Grand Union? MR. PHILO-Right there on Glen Street. MR. TURNER-Down by Albany Savings? MR. PHILO-Yes. and they're going to pullout because they can't function. business wise. MR. TURNER-Who says they're pulling out? MR. PHILO-I'll make a bet they go out of there within a year. MR. TURNER-I don't know. They've been doing all right so far there. They've been there quite a while. MR. PHILO-People can't pull in and can't pullout, and there hasn't been anything, as far as signs or anything done. MR. TURNER-They put a traffic light down there to service that Plaza. So they can get in and they can get out. MR. PHILO-Yes. and they really screwed it up. So if we've got a business here that is trying to make a living. or employ help, this Town has an obligation of helping each business. I say, and if we can, if there's a small variance there. fine. MRS. EGGLESTON-Maximum relief. MR. TURNER-Fifty-five percent is not a small variance. MRS. EGGLESTON-That's not a small variance. It would be different if it was smaller. That's maximum relief. MR. PHILO-That sign, was Zayres was up there, it was twice as big as that. You know that, too, Ted. MR. TURNER-I'm not sure how big it was. Tom. It might have been higher, but it wasn't much bigger. Okay. I'm going to open the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED CORRESPONDENCE MRS. EGGLESTON-There is a letter from Sarah Lewis Belcher. and through their attorney. Green and Siphter, from Syracuse. New York. "We are writing concerning the above captioned applications for Sign Variances as contained in the Notice of Public Hearing. We will be unable to attend the public hearing on July 21, 1993. and request that these comments be read into the record at the hearing. These comments are submitted on behalf of Northway Plaza - 31 - Associates. whom we represent. We note that the proposed variances are significant, and would greatly increase the amount of signage otherwise allowed under the Sign Ordinance. We also note that the two applications, if granted, would appear to allow two pylon signs for the Mall, whereas the Sign Ordinance allows only one. Because, One. the reque sted variances are so substantial, and, Two, we believe the Town Sign Ordinance should be applied fairly and consistently on all applications, we express our opposition to granting of the variances unless the hardship required under the Sign Ordinance can be specifically demonstrated on the record. Please provide us with a copy of the Board's determinations on each of these matters. II And from Margaret Seney, Secretary of the Queensbury Beautification, "We understand on Wednesday, July 21, 1993 the Zoning Board of Appeals will consider the above variance applications. The Queensbury Committee for Community Beautification recommends disapproval of the Sign Variance application to construct a 99 square foot pylon sign on a proposed retail development site in the Ames Plaza, Route 9. It is our firm belief that freestanding signs for shopping centers carry only the name of the shopping center, and be in accordance with Queensbury Sign Ordinance. The members believe strongly that the applicant should also adhere to the Sign Ordinance and not be granted approval for 10 wall signs. If these two variances are approved, other shopping centers will be making similar requests. At this time. we have two other proposed shopping centers. A few years ago, our Committee was instrumental in getting McDonalds to reduce the size of their sign, pointing out a smaller "M" would be more attractive and be just as effective. The Company reduced the size of their sign nationwide. Our Town has been complimented for not having a honky tonk look. and if variance requests such as these are approved, we will no longer be proud of its appearance." And she does bring a point out. There will be that other plaza we're looking at. Is that tonight? MR. TURNER-That's tonight. too. MRS. EGGLESTON-Just above there. MR. MARTIN-You just want to bear in mind that these are not plazas. These are individual lots with individual buildings. MR. TURNER-Individual lots and businesses. MR. MARTIN-So, it's not a shopping center. MRS. EGGLESTON-I guess because they call themselves Ames Plaza. MR. MARTIN-No. That's just, these are stand alone buildings. with single, well. there's two businesses on the Ames site, but that still does not qualify as a plaza, or a shopping center. MRS. EGGLESTON-But the land is all one owner. is that right? MR. MARTIN-No. MRS. RUTHSCHILD-No. It's been subdivided. MRS. EGGLESTON-No? Okay. All right. MR. MARTIN-Has the paperwork transferred yet, on ownership? MR. O'CONNOR-No. We just got, today, the signed subdivision map. We got to make copies of it, and get it back here and file it in the County Clerk's Office. MR. MARTIN-It will be two owners. It will be National Realty. and Wal-Mart. MRS. EGGLESTON-All right. - 32 - MR. TURNER-Any discussion? MR. O'CONNOR-Mr. Chairman, let me ask this question. Obviously, there's some people that have feelings against the 99 square foot. We were asked the question whether or not we felt that was scientifically arrived at. and obviously it wasn't. Is there any feeling at all. if there was some offer by the applicant to make that a smaller sign. not the 99 square foot sign. that some variance approval might be possible? Back to the 80 foot that we're going to talk about next, when we talk about the size sign for the Wal-Mart parcel. It diminishes. if you will, the amount of the request for the variance. I really don't know that Staff has said even the 99 would not have a negative impact. but we, from the very beginning. have tried to cooperate with every Board we've appeared before. We've tried to be reasonable, and meet whatever your considerations or the concerns were, and tried to make this not honky tonk. but make this a very appealing, good project. MRS. EGGLESTON-I think the Boards have cooperated. in return, and given a lot back on Grossman's. for which we've heard a little bit of a criticism. So I think it works both ways, and sometimes you just can't have it all. MR. O'CONNOR-I thought that's the purpose of my question, 99 feet or something you're not satisfied with. MR. TURNER-In my personal opinion, I'm satisfied with 64 square feet. I don't see where you've demonstrated to me that there's any difficulty here at all. MR. CARVIN-I'd have to agree with you. Ted. hold as a measure to other businesses. I mean, that's what MR. TURNER-It was a corporate. personal wish that these signs be this large. It has nothing to do with the difficulty of the Plaza. MR. O'CONNOR-In order to get a larger sign, you're saying somebody's going to have to come in and prove that they're going out of business? MR. TURNER-No. I'm not saying that, but I'm just saying that, to me, you haven't met the criteria for a variance. MR. KARPELES-You adequate. I mean, feet is adequate. adequate. have to prove that the 64 square feet isn't the Warren County Planning Board says 64 square I have nothing to make me believe that it 1~~_~ MR. O'CONNOR-The only thing we can tell you is it's Ames position. from a marketing point of view, that it won't be adequate. MRS. EGGLESTON-Are you basing that on future, not present conditions? Are you looking at this from a standpoint of when Wal- Mart gets in there? MR. O'CONNOR-I think that that's why they're trying to upgrade the signing. yes. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. Okay. MR. TURNER-I guess my comment would be, if they had a concern, why weren't they here when you came for a variance for Wal-Mart? Why didn't they? MR. O'CONNOR-They are not opposing Wal-Mart going into that site. I don't mean to make that inference. MR. TURNER-Okay. A motion's in order. HO'l'ION _TO DENY __SIGN V~_RI~NCE NO. 57-1993 - 33 - RATIOlf~L REALTY & '--~ J ºEYE:I..º~Hl!:"..TÇºRI;>~, Introduced by Fred Carvin who moved for its adoption. seconded by Joyce Eggleston: The applicant is proposing a 99 square foot pylon sign, and is seeking what I feel is maximum relief from Section 140-6B(2)(a), which states that a sign setback 25 feet from the property line shall not exceed 64 square feet in area. I do not feel that the applicant has demonstrated an overwhelming hardship, or that a 64 square foot sign would be detrimental to their business. Duly adopted this 21st day of July, 1993. by the following vote: AYES: Miss Hauser, Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Carvin, Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Turner NOES: Mr. Philo ABSENT: Mr. Thomas SIGN VARIANCE NO. 58-1993 TYPE: UNLISTED HC-IA NATIONAL REALTY & DEVELOPMENT CORP. OWNER: GROSSMAN. BAKER & RUBIN AMES PLAZA. ROUTE 9 APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO CONSTRUCT AN EIGHTY (80) SQUARE FOOT PYLON SIGN ON A PROPOSED RETAIL DEVELOPMENT SITE AND IS SEEKING SIXTEEN (16) SQUARE FEET RELIEF FROM SECTION 140-6B(2). WHICH ALLOWS A MAXIMUM SIZE OF A FREESTANDING SIGN TO BE SIXTY-FOUR SQUARE FEET AT A TWENTY-FIVE (25) FOOT SETBACK. APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO PLACE TEN (10) WALL SIGNS ON PROPOSED RETAIL BUILDING AND IS SEEKING RELIEF FROM SECTION 140-6B (3) (c) WHICH GRANTS A BUSINESS LOCATED ON A PARCEL OF PROPERTY A PERMIT FOR TWO ( 2) SIGNS: ONE (1) FREESTANDING. DOUBLE-FACED SIGN AND ONE (1) SIGN ATTACHED TO A BUILDING OR TWO ( 2 ) WALL SIGNS. APPLICANT IS PROPOSING THE SUM OF SEVEN HUNDRED AND NINETY-SEVEN AND EIGHT HUNDREDTHS (797.08) SQUARE FEET FOR THE TOTAL WALL SIGNAGE PROPOSED AND IS SEEKING FOUR HUNDRED AND NINETY-SEVEN AND EIGHT HUNDREDTHS (497.08) SQUARE FEET. FROM SECTION 140-GB(2)(b)(I). WHICH STATES THAT THE MAXIMUM SIZE OF A WALL SIGN IS THREE HUNDRED (300) SQUARE FEET. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) DATE: 7/14/93 TAX MAP NUMBER: 71-1-3. 5 LOT SIZE: N/A SECTION 140-GB(2), 140-6B(3)(c) SECTION 140-G8(2) (b) (1) MICHAEL O'CONNOR, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MRS. EGGLESTON-And the Warren County Planning Board approved. "The WCPB wishes to approve 64 sq. ft. pylon sign solely for Wal-Mart and if the applicant so desires, a separate pharmacy sign underneath not to exceed 12 sq. ft." So they don't approve, right? MR. TURNER-They don't, no. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Sign Variance No. 58-1993. National Realty & Dev. Corp., Meeting Date: July 21, 1993 "ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: Ames Plaza, Route 9, - Wal Mart Store SUMMARY OF PROJECT: Applicant is proposing to construct: an eighty (80) square foot pylon sign on a proposed retail development site. and place ten (10) wall signs on proposed commercial structure. CONFORMANCE WITH USE/AREA REGULATIONS: 1. Applicant is proposing to construct an eighty (80) square foot pylon sign and is seeking relief of sixteen (16) square feet from Section 140-6B(2), which allows the maximum size of a freestanding sign to be sixty-four (64) square feet at a twenty-five (25) foot setback. 2. Applicant is proposing to place ten (10) wall signs on proposed retail building and is seeking relief from Section 140-6B(3)(c) which grants a business located on a parcel of property a permit for two (2) signs: one ( 1) freestanding, double-faced sign and one (1) sign attached to a building or two (2) wall signs. 3. Applicant is proposing the sum of seven hundred and ninety-seven and eight hundredths (797.08) square feet for the total wall signage and is seeking relief of four hundred and ninety seven and eight hundredths (497.08) square - 34 - f') ) feet, from Section 140-6B(2)(b)(1), which states that the maximum size of a wall sign is three hundred (300) square feet. REVIEW CRITERIA: 1. ARE THERE SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES OR CONDITIONS APPLYING TO THE LAND OR SIGNS WHICH DO NOT APPLY GENERALLY TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD? Applicant believes that the unique circumstances that apply to their proposed project is that the proposed setback of the building and existing terrain which partially obscures the visibility of the proposed retail site, requires enhanced signage to be competitive with other commercial businesses existing in the same commercial district (see attached description). 2. IS REASONABLE USE OF THE LAND OR SIGN POSSIBLE IF THE ORDINANCE IS COMPLIED WITH? Applicant believes that reasonable use of the land or sign is not possible if the Ordinance is complied with as the lack of visibility of the proposed bUilding from the road will effect the total business they receive from existing business in the area and potential business from customers not familiar with their retail store. 3. IS THERE AN ADVERSE EFFECT ON THE NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTER OR PUBLIC FACILITIES? Applicant believes that the variance will not have an adverse effect on the neighborhood character or public facilities as the wall signs will be setback a distance from the road right-of-way and will not be visible from the adjacent residential neighborhood. Applicant also believes that the proposed pylon sign is in keeping with many other commercial signs presently existing in the Route 9 business district and therefore will not adversely effect the neighborhood character or facilities. 4. ARE THERE ANY FEASIBLE ALTERNATIVES? Applicant believes that as the project is proposed. the requested signage is necessary to adequately identify the development to the public and that other than redesigning the project, no other feasible alternative is available. 5. IS THE DEGREE OF CHANGE SUBSTANTIAL RELATIVE TO THE ORDINANCE? The degree of change regarding the requested variance for ten (10) wall signs for the retail building is substantial as the Ordinance provides for one freestanding sign and one wall sign for a business located on a property. The proposed pylon sign is twenty-five (25) percent larger than the maximum size sign allowed for a freestanding sign set back twenty-five (25) feet from the road right-of-way. STAFF COMMENTS AND CONCERNS: Applicant is proposing to place a retail development on an existing commercial site where there is an existing retail establishment. Design of the proposed retail structure will be set back more than five hundred (500) feet from the road right of way, similar to the setback of the existing retail structure. Applicant is proposing a larger than permitted pylon sign and ten additional wall signs denoting the various services located in the retail store. Applicant's argument is that the building setback and the unique terrain at the front and roadside boundary of the property limits visibility of the building by motorists and therefore requires larger and additional signage for their business to adequately advertise themselves." MR. TURNER-You read Warren County. MRS. EGGLESTON-I read Warren County. contradictory in what they're saying. They're a little MR. CARVIN-Yes. I was going to say, I wanted a clarification. In other words, they only approve the 64 feet, and a 12 foot pharmacy sign. is that correct? MRS. EGGLESTON-But yet they say they approve. MR. TURNER-They only approved the permitted size sign. They denied everything else. MR. CARVIN-All the rest of it. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. O'CONNOR-Mr. Turner, they also approved the wall signs, except for the slogan type signs, and they had some distinction with one - 35 - of the "Tire, Battery. and Oil" signs. as opposed to, "Tire, Battery and Oil" signs. They did two resolutions. They did one resolution as to the freestanding sign and one resolution as to the balance of the signs. MR. TURNER-We don't have the minutes, either, from the Warren County Planning Board? MR. MARTIN-No. MRS. RUTHSCHILD-No, not the minutes. They don't send that to us. MR. TURNER-It doesn't saying anything in here about those at all, Mike. It doesn't address anything but the "Pharmacy" sign. MR. O'CONNOR-If you look in your packets, I'm sure that they sent, they did two resolutions. MRS. RUTHSCHILD-Yes. MR. O'CONNOR-There's two separate resolutions by the County. MRS. RUTHSCHILD-The County has both of them on one resolution. They address the pylon signs, plus, under the Comments. MR. TURNER-Under Comments. That's all we've got. MRS. RUTHSCHILD-That's all they sent us. MR. TURNER-It might be two resolutions up there, but it's only under Comments here. I think what you ought to do, for the record, indicate that the response from the Warren County Planning Board, the first response is not the correct response, and this is the correct response. This is the correct motion. The first one is not. MRS. EGGLESTON-Okay. The first Warren County Planning Board paper that we read. that said approved, was incorrect. There is a later letter from the Warren County Planning Board. which says they approve, and their comments are, "The Warren County Planning Board wishes to approve 64 square foot pylon sign solely for Wal Mart, and if the applicant so desires, a separate "Pharmacy" sign underneath, not to exceed 12 square foot. Approval of wall signs taken separately. The Warren County Planning Board approves the main Wal Mart sign. and two "TBO" signs. as cited, and will allow signs over garage doors to designate TBO services." MR. TURNER-Is that what you heard? Okay. Are you all set? MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. MR. TURNER-Okay. Mr. O'Connor. MR. 0' CONNOR-I'll try not to be repetitious as to what I said before, but there are some other facts that I would bring out, though. The Wal Mart building, if you will, if you consider the tire. battery. and oil building, and the area for the garden center, is a 125,000 square foot complex that is being built on this site, and I ask you to consider that, when you consider what we're talking about for signage. The topographical features are much more distinct on the south end of the site than they are at the north end of the site from the Ames building. Here you have a great difference in grade. if you take a look at the pictures we submitted to you. Only the very top of the existing building is, in fact, visible from the highway. The only signage that we will have from the highway, for the most part, until we get people up into the parking lot. to some degree. will be what is on the road. If you look at the freestanding sign, I'll try and locate it for you, it's being located down in this corner of the site, here. The figures that we have in the application are a little bit - 3G - misleading. What we propose is a total, on the freestanding pylons, 92 square foot of signage. The Wal Mart portion of it is 80 feet, which is 16 feet over a permitted sign, if you will, for a freestanding sign at this site. The additional sign for the pharmacy, and Wal Mart has very strong feelings, that this is not an operation that is normally associated with pharmacy, that it should have additional signage on a highway, to denote that it is, in fact, a pharmacy. Very few people relate, apparently, a pharmacy to Wal Mart operation. and it should have something out on the highway. or it Wg_~~ be a viable operation. or portion of their operation. That sign is 12 square feet. The County, as I understand their application, recommended that if we want to, we can put the 12 square feet on the pylon. The County did not agree with us for the 80 square foot for the Wal Mart sign on the pylon, and recommended that we have only the 64 foot. Not that you are bound by the County, but we were arguing with the County, when we got done, for the 16 square foot variance that we requested. It is a minimum type request. I ask you to waive, mainly, the fact that this is a 125,000 square foot operation that is set back some 557 feet, or 67 feet, 187 yards from the highway. This is a package that Wal Mart put together for this particular operation. I don't know if you want to address the freestanding signs separate from the wall signs like the County did. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. O'CONNOR-You do look upon it as an attachment. MR. TURNER-I know you do, but I think just to clear the mud out of the water here, lets take the freestanding sign first, and then we'll take the other sign second. MR. O'CONNOR-This is a substantial investment made by this individual or this corporation in this community. It's going to add significantly to the tax base of the community. It's going to add significantly to the sales tax revenues. It's going to add to the employment base. It's also going to employ either people to go in an operation, and also during construction. Again, I think you've got to look at Staff, from the planning point, from a planning concept. is this something that is going to be negative to the area, or negative to the community, and I think they've expressed an opinion that what is proposed is not going to be negative. What we are simply asking for is a 16 square foot variance on the Wal Mart proper sign, if you will, and a separate sign on the same pylon of 12 square feet for the operation of the pharmacy. So that we have some indication, on the highway. that we have a pharmacy on premises as well as the main operation of Wal Mart. If you look at the signs that we have there, you will, I have some pictures of them, you will also see that maybe you'll want to consider the fact that these are all very color coordinated. They may not be as distinctive or as much in view as if you had different businesses operating with different colored signs that we're coordinated. I don't think you're going to find it to be objectionable to the eye or the sight. MR. TURNER-Any questions of Mr. O'Connor on this, relative to the freestanding sign? MRS. EGGLESTON-No, I don't have any. MR. CARVIN-I have just a question on the color. Is this a standard color for Wal Mart stores? BILL WHITE MR. WHITE-It's a prototypical store. MR. CARVIN-Okay. MR. WHITE-That store. by the way, that you have pictures of, is a - 37 - Wal Mart Super Center, which is a little bit different than the Wal Mart being proposed, in that that's a much larger building being proposed here. That offers food service and you might see the word "Super Center" underneath the Wal Mart sign. You might see "Food Court", and all that, but that's not actually part of the application. MR. CARVIN-Well. maybe this is just an engineering thing. I just was wondering if this is representative of how the color scheme will look on the building, in other words, the diagonal business? MR. WHITE-Yes. MR. CARVIN-It is? MR. WHITE-As you see it in the picture. MR. CARVIN-In other words, it's going to be a diagonal type of thing? In other words, this is going to be one color, and this will be another color, with the stripe, because this looks more squarish. In othe r words. thi s almost looks like a camouf lage pattern. MR. WHITE-This area here is the split face concrete block. MR. CARVIN-Okay. What I'm saying is, this doesn't designate that this is going to be red and this is going to be green, or something like that? MR. WHITE-No. MR. CARVIN-In other words, it's a solid, solid color with a stripe? MR. WHITE-There is a stripe. You're right. MR. CARVIN-Okay. MR. WHITE-They just didn't color in here. MR. CARVIN-Okay. MR. TURNER-Does anyone have a problem with the Pharmacy sign under the main sign? MR. CARVIN-I don't have a whole bunch of problem with the way Warren County structured it. I think that, I do have a problem, as Warren County did, with the, Satisfaction Guaranteed. and some of the peripheral things, but as far as the Tire, Brake, and Oil, I guess, as I said, just on a preliminary reading of what Warren County did, I think that that would be wi thin keeping with the community standards. MR. TURNER-Again, those are, more or less, what you could call them advertising, but they're directional in a sense. MR. CARVIN-Yes, they're directional, in a sense, but "We Sell For Less", and all that sort of thing. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. CARVIN-The next thing we're going to have Sears in here saying they want to hang their stuff on it. and everybody else. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. O'CONNOR-Do you have a problem with the size of the freestanding sign? MR. CARVIN-Yes. I do. The same argument. Mike. - 38 - MR. TURNER-The same argument. MR. CARVIN-Sixty-four feet out on the road. MR. O'CONNOR-I think when you find that you're going to have these large retailers coming in. that they're package is, and it's been proven, with their success, they have a little bit different sizes. They are, in fact, building a shopping center within one building, and they're limited in what they can put out there. So, there's a good change in grade as you come along there. I don't know, if you're coming south, what your visibility is. MR. TURNER-Coming south? MR. O'CONNOR-South is fairly good. MR. TURNER-Very good, very visible. Again. not to beat a dead horse, but when you come to Town. you know what you're coming with. You know what the rules are. and God knows you're going to try and break them if you can. You're going to try to create some situation where you think you've got yourself a practical difficulty, and you've been here long enough, and you know we've dealt with this Sign Ordinance since 1986, and we've cleaned up Lake George Road, with the humongous signs that they had up through there, and nobody has gone away. MR. O'CONNOR-I ask you to take a look at the signs right across the street from this property, where it's visible within 80 feet of the highway. I ask you whether or not those signs are more obtrusive than what we propose of putting a 16 foot variance of a sign that's 25 feet in the air. when you talk about treating everybody fairly. That particularly property has four different signs, immediately visible. Plus, you've got one over here, one there, there, there, and I don't know what all these other little ones are. That's immediately across the street, just to the south of us. MR. TURNER-Yes, I know. MR. 0' CONNOR-Okay. Take a look at this property here. If you count the wall signs and the freestanding sign that's out front, for any of the other businesses that we've got sign pictures up here. MR. TURNER-Yes, but again. all these were individual businesses. They're not just saying Wal Mart, here we are. MR. O'CONNOR-But they're advertising people to the property, the same as what we are trying to do. We don't have 15 independently owned, they're all owned and operated by one person. MR. TURNER-Once you drive in that driveway, you drive up there and it says, Wal Mart. you're there. There's nobody else there. MR. CARVIN-Yes. sandwich shop. You're not going to expect to find some Subway MR. TURNER-If you can't find Wal Mart when you get in Glens Falls, then you can't find Glens Falls. MR. PHILO-I disagree with you. MR. O'CONNOR-I don't know where 16 feet of difference, if that's their prototype, and they're trying to come in and make this type of investment in this community. MR. TURNER-I say, once you're there, and once you start sending out flyers in the mail, and you start advertising in the paper, you don't advertise only in Glens Falls. You advertise in the adjacent area. - 39 - \~ '\-.--' MR. WHITE-You advertise to the local people, not the tourists, who are a very predominant part of the market. up here. for Wal Mart. MR. TURNER-They're a l2ª-rt of the market, but they're not the predominant part of the market. MR. O'CONNOR-You also have to understand and recognize the fact that their advertising program is different than other advertising programs. They do not use local media. They do not use the local newspapers, like your other local businesses. They have chosen not to do that. They have chosen to advertise themselves by having a distinctive image at their site. with proper signage at their site, and this is what they've done on a nationwide basis. In fact, there's some cri tici sm of them, because they don't use local newspapers, to the extent that other retailers do. but that's there, I'm only a messenger here telling you what they have found to be successful, one of the most successful retailers. MR. TURNER-But if they hadn't done their market survey and found out that Queensbury and Glens Falls was a very marketable area, they wouldn't come here. MR. O'CONNOR-They have a market, and they want to be treated in this market the same as they're treated in other markets where they have been successful. It's up to you whether you're going to allow them the 16 square foot variance or not. MR. WHITE-If I could I'd just like to add a couple of things. Mike mentioned the grade difference, and I want to let you understand what the impact of that is. There's a 10 foot elevation difference between the Ames and this entrance here. There's a 20 foot elevation difference at this intersection from the store, so I know we've sort of gone through the whole. MR. TURNER-That's at grade, right? That elevation difference is at grade? MR. WHITE-The finished floor elevation, right. MR. TURNER-Okay. but the store's going to be 29 feet in the air. MR. PHILO-All you see is the roof. You can stand there and see it. MR. TURNER-Tommy, look right there. There's the driveway, you're looking up, look at it. It's right there. You can see the building. That isn't even 29 feet high. MR. CARVIN-And this building is going to be probably 30, 40 feet closer. MR. TURNER-And it's going to be closer to the road. because it's a bigger building. MR. WHITE-But what I want to point out. also, is the way this lot is sloped. there's five feet of that twenty feet is right here, from the road to the edge of the pavement. MR. TURNER-Right. It's flat. MR. WHITE-So. actually, if you're driving in a car, there's a berm right next to the car. MR. PHILO-Right. You can't see it. MR. CARVIN-Now. are you. my understanding is, are you going to strip up all that parking lot there. and put in. MR. WHITE-Yes. The entire parking lot will be reconstructed. MR. CARVIN-And you can't make it a little bit, I don't know how - 40 - o ~" much you can grade it down. and this is. MR. PHILO-They've got to hold a berm there. They've got the water, right now, coming down Route 9, and it's dumping right into Hovey's Pond. all that ice, that's why they're hOlding that berm. MR. TURNER-They're going to have storm sewers there. Tom, do you remember when they came for their variance. they were going to put in storm sewers, allover that parking lot. MR. PHILO-That's right, and they've got to hold that berm. You'd have water going 60 miles an hour down there. MRS. EGGLESTON-You started to say you will have some slight change in the berm? MR. TURNER-Are you going to cut the elevation? MR. WHITE-It's probably more pronounced today than it will be when Wal Mart's constructed. MRS. EGGLESTON-Okay. MR. TURNER-Are you going to make a cut in the elevation? MR. WHITE-It's still going to be a five foot elevation. MR. TURNER-You're not going to make a cut in the elevation from the road elevation to the top of the parking lot, when you build the new building? MR. WHITE-Well. we are. MR. TURNER-How much? MR. WHITE-As I was just explaining. there's a more pronounced hump in here right now, probably ten feet or so. It's going to be five. probably. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. WHITE-Because this is level. and then it drops off pretty fast We're making a more uniform slope. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. O'CONNOR-After he takes his berm out. then he is going to put a the plantings back in. which are going to be the amount of plantings, per the direction of the Beautification Committee, some of which are going to have trees that are going to be five to ten to fifteen feet. The second row of plantings are going to have larger trees on them. There will be significant foliage that will camouflage, if you will, which was the desire of the Beautification Committee, these buildings from the highway. MR. WHITE-Another point I'd like to make. for what it's worth. and I understand 64 feet's your Code. When you talked about the building size. The last time we talked about the variance I mentioned that this is one of the larger stores that Wal Mart builds. Well. Wal Mart also has different sign sizes. This the smallest sign that Wal Mart typically builds. without having to go back and build a custom made sign. They have an entire sign shop, down in Bentonville, Arkansas, where they construct their signs, and they have prototypical sign sizes. When I sent this information down to Arkansas and talked with the people at the sign shop. they submitted back to me their smallest standard sign they provide the sites. It's still granted in excess of your Code, but I want you to know. relatively. this is a small Wal Mart sign. Also, too, what they typically would propose to do on their pylon sign is in addition to adding the "Pharmacy" label. they'd also - 41 - advertise some of the other services they provide in the store, Vision Center, One Hour Photo. They would also go on that pylon sign. Again. I mentioned to them your Code requirement. They felt that the Vision Center and the One Hour Photo was not as critical to have out in front on the pylon sign. but the Pharmacy really was. because that's a vital and very important part of the business, that a lot of times, in people's mind yet. they don't associate a Wal Mart store with having a pharmacy within it. They might associate a pharmacy with a grocery type use, but not with a retail type use. I don't believe Ames provides a pharmacy. I'm not sure that other retailers Wal Mart competes with typically do. A lot of groceries stores do. and it is a different use, selling pharmaceutical type products versus retail products like clothes. It's not something that a lot of people associate, with. and that's why it's important to have that pharmacy sign out here with the Wal Mart pylon sign. The other point I want to make is if you look at the elevation of the building, you don't see a lot of window space in this building. You might see, like on that Sysco building and on the grocery stores, I know there's different types of retail stores. there's a lot of window space. and they put their advertising in that window space. The Wal Mart does not provide a lot of window space. They advertise what's on sale today. and as a result. that's why they look for a little bit more bui lding signage, and more identification signage out on the front. So, I'd just like the Board to consider that. MR. TURNER-Okay. Any further questions of the applicant? No? Okay. I'll open the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED CORRESPONDENCE MRS. EGGLESTON-A letter from Sarah Lewis Belcher. "We are writing concerning the above captioned applications for Sign Variances as contained in the Notice of Public Hearing. We will be unable to attend the public hearing on July 21, 1993, and request that these comments be read into the record at the hearing. These comments are submitted on behalf of Northway Plaza Associates, whom we represent. We note that the proposed variances are significant, and would greatly increase the amount of signage otherwise allowed under the Sign Ordinance. We also note that the two applications, if granted, would appear to allow two pylon signs for the Mall, whereas the Sign Ordinance allows only one. Because. One, the requested variances are so substantial, and, Two. we believe the Town Sign Ordinance should be applied fairly and consistently on all applications, we express our opposition to granting of the variances unless the hardship required under the Sign Ordinance can be specifically demonstrated on the record." And from Margaret Seney. Secretary, the Queensbury Committee for Communi ty Beautification, "The Queensbury Committee for Communi ty Beautification recommends disapproval of the Sign Variance application to construct a 99 square foot pylon sign on a proposed retail development site in the Ames Plaza. Route 9. It is our firm belief that freestanding signs for shopping centers carry only the name of the shopping center, and be in accordance with Queensbury Sign Ordinance. The members believe strongly that the applicant should also adhere to the Sign Ordinance and not be granted approval for 10 wall signs. If these two variances are approved, other shopping centers will be making similar requests. At this time, we have two other proposed shopping centers. A few years ago, our Committee was instrumental in getting McDonalds to reduce the size of their sign. pointing out a smaller "M" would be more attractive and be just as effective. The Company reduced the size of their sign nationwide. Our Town has been complimented for not having a honky tonk look, and if variance requests such as these - 42 - are approved, we will no longer be proud of its appearance." MR. O'CONNOR-Mr. Chairman, on this application. I would like to respond to both those letters, if I might, for the record. The letter of Sarah Lewis Belcher, obviously, is from a competitor, and we would note that they do not offer to reduce their sign to what 64 square feet is or would be permitted on their property. They're the same people that opposed greatly the change in density when Aviation Mall tried to have their density changed for the proposed tenant. They obviously are using or trying to use the Zoning Ordinance to whatever degree they can just simply to spite the competition, and the other letter I'm confused with, because you're talking, now, about an 80 foot pylon sign for Wal Mart, and a 12 foot Pharmacy sign. You're not talking about the 99 foot sign, I don't believe. MRS. EGGLESTON-Well, they refer to the 10 wall signs. MR. O'CONNOR-I didn't think that was part of what you were looking for a resolution for. at this point. We would like to address those. MRS. EGGLESTON-Okay. It was all in one letter. So, I read it all. MR. O'CONNOR-I'd just make that statement for the record. MRS. EGGLESTON-Okay. MR. TURNER-All right. Any further discussion? MR. PHILO-I say, if you're going to treat one with 64 square feet, whatever the Sign Ordinance is. you don't give one neighbor one thing, and then turn around and do something different with the other. MR. TURNER-You're absolutely right. MR. PHILO-And I think there should be an investigation about this Northway Plaza, just like he said, and cut their sign down. It should be everybody equal. MR. TURNER-Okay. Motion's in order. MR. CARVIN-Well, I think, before we make a motion, are we going to break this into component parts, or how do you think we ought to handle this? Which wall signs? MR. O'CONNOR-We haven't addressed the wall signs yet. I'd like to have an opportunity to address them. MR. CARVIN-Do you want to just do this in segment? MR. TURNER-Lets have a motion on the freestanding sign. and we'll get that out of the way. Then we'll take the other signs. MR. KARPELES-Before we get to that, on this Pharmacy sign, what really is the justification for us giving them that Pharmacy sign? I mean, if they reduce the Wal Mart sign, so that the total square footage was 64 square foot, maybe I could see some justification, but there are a lot of stores in this area that have pharmacies that don't have a pharmacy sign, Super Shop N' Save. MR. PHILO-Grand Union, Price Chopper. MR. WHITE-Grocery stores, all of them. MR. KARPELES-Well, what's the difference? MR. WHITE-People associate pharmacies with grocery stores. - 43 - "- MR. KARPELES-Don't people associate pharmacies with Wal Mart? MR. WHITE-No. They don't. MR. KARPELES-Don't you have pharmacies in all of your Wal Marts? MR. TURNER-You don't have pharmacies in all of them? MR. WHITE-No. MR. TURNER-Grand Union's got a pharmacy. pharmacy, the big stores. Price Chopper's got a MR. PHILO-So Wal Mart's going to be a grocery store, too. MR. TURNER-All right. Lets make this a two part motion. Lets take the freestanding sign and get that out of the way, and then we'll address the wall signs. MR. CARVIN-Well, did we get an answer to your question, Bob? MR. KARPELES-I'm just stating my opinion. I wouldn't go along with the pharmacy sign. MR. PHILO-I would say, I would vote on the thing, like the pharmacy sign's out, they're all out, to meet the criteria right there, the same as the other ones. MR. CARVIN-Well, I think you could probably do it at 64 square feet. I don't know. MR. KARPELES-If we made you stick to 64 square feet. would you reduce the Wal Mart sign and continue to have the pharmacy sign? You would. MR. WHITE-The problem is. and it's not a tremendous problem, they have standard sign sizes. This is a smaller one. Sixty-four square feet would be much smaller than their smallest sign, which is 80 square feet. So what they need to do is they need to order that sign and have that sign custom made, at a traditional cost. MR. TURNER-Run that by me again? You've got a sign shop down there, and you're telling me that you can't make a custom sign? MR. WHITE-No. type sign. Their sign shop is set up to make a prototypical MR. TURNER-Yes, but you can make a custom sign. custom signs for themselves. They must make MR. WHITE-When they make a custom sign, they have a custom sign manufacturer make it, and it costs them more money. and I know that's not a great argument, that. gee, this will cost them more money. but their whole philosophy is to keep their cost down, their developing cost, so that they can pass that cost on to the consumer. that's why they don't pay a lot in advertising. and they don't want to pay a lot to advertise in the paper, because they can advertise with their store. MR. PHILO-What's more expensive, the paper or the t.v.? MR. WHITE-I don't know. MR. PHILO-I've seen it on the t.V. MR. WHITE-It's on t.v., but probably not to the degree of their competitors. MR. O'CONNOR-You don't attribute anything to the fact that this is some 600 feet back from the site, their building, and the building - 44 - C\ ~ itself is kind obscure? MR. TURNER-I don't think it's going to be obscure. You're going to cut five feet out of that berm at the top of the hill. That's going to open it right up. MR. O'CONNOR-The plantings that you're going to put in. the berms and the plantings that you're going to put back in these five feet. MR. TURNER-Mike. I've got to make the same argument. Once Wal Mart is there, there's going to be no trouble finding Wal Mart, if there's a 300 square foot sign there, by the road. They know where it is. You don't have any practical difficulty. MR. CARVIN-I guess I'd rather see the pharmacy sign on the side of the building than out on the front. MR. TURNER-They already know it's coming to Town. MR. CARVIN-I think he's right. I don't know if the pharmacy sign should be out on the street. MR. TURNER-No. MR. CARVIN-I mean, I think as far as the street is concerned, the 64 square feet, Wal Mart. is adequate. MR. TURNER-That's right. MR. PHILO-You went with one store. the same thing. You set a practice. Go with MR. TURNER-I'd deny the variance, and let them go with the 64 square foot sign. It's more than adequate. You've got two signs that are the same size, that are a couple of hundred feet apart. I don't see any difficulty whatsoever. MR. CARVIN-We're going to do this piecemeal, right? MR. TURNER-Yes. We'll make one resolution on the freestanding sign. and get that out of the way. MR. CARVIN-Okay. }J9_T_IO~_ ~º-__PENX__~_¡§JL V'ð,ßJABÇjL_Iiº_._~_8":"J.~~ª-__ NATIONAL REALTY & 'pEVELOPM~lf'L..cOßJ>-", Introduced by Fred Carvin who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Eggleston: Paragraph One, with reference to the freestanding sign. The applicant is requesting relief from Section 140-6B(2). which allows the maximum size of a freestanding sign to be 64 square feet at a 25 foot setback. I feel that the 64 square foot sign as proposed is adequate to meet the criteria of the Town. and that the applicant has not demonstrated that the 64 square foot sign would be detrimental to their purposes. Duly adopted this 21st day of July, 1993, by the following vote: MR. PHILO-I wasn't really happy with the first one. I'm going along with the standards. If they're going to turn one down, they're going to turn them both down. I feel as though they should have gotten both. AYES: Mr. Philo, Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Carvin, Mrs. Eggleston, Miss Hauser, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Thomas - 45 - ~ (~ I, MR. TURNER-Okay, Mr. O'Connor, have you addressed the wall sign? MR. 0' CONNOR-Well. if you've taken away our visibili ty at the highway, I think we'd ask you to give special consideration to what we asked for for wall signs. Again, we have a unique type of operation. In this part of the building, where most of the wall signs are, it's some 560 some feet away from the highway. I don't know how would find the size that we propose to be offensive. People coming into the parking lot are going to see it, as part of our color scheme, and part of our bUilding design. I think it's done in good taste. If we had 10 different departments in there, or with this amount of square footage, 125 square feet, if we had leased out spaces of 10,000 to 10 different tenants, we could certainly have the 10 wall signs that we're proposing. I won't try to belabor each one, except to locate, if you will, on the base of the building. well, let me just start right here, because this is the first page of your application. There's a Tire, this is the Tire. Battery. and Oil. This bUilding is some 547 from the highway. This was 636 square feet, linear feet, from the highway. This is also obstructed. in part, by the property of George Goetz, Ray Supply. It's not really going to be that visible from the highway. We're going to try and get some visibility. The signs on this building are, for the most part, I think, clearly directional. The Tire Lube is an express type operation. It's not a full repair. People either come in and get tires, batteries, or their oi 1 changed. There are like six bays, or six open doors here. Bill, maybe you're better at this than I am. We want the people to go to that part of the building to get that service. We don't want them to come into here, and then get over there. MR. CARVIN-Excuse me, Mike. In relation to this picture here, is this on this wall? Is that where that big sign will be? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. MR. CARVIN-Okay. In other words, it's on here? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Will the Garden Center block that? MR. O'CONNOR-Partially. MR. CARVIN-Partially. Express is out here. Okay. then I guess this other Tire and Lube Is that the way I would interpret that? MR. O'CONNOR-On this piece here. you have the Tire Lube Express, and you have, over the top of the doors. three small words, one for each door. MR. CARVIN-Okay, and that's the Oil Brake and so forth? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Do you MR. O'CONNOR-We do not. MR. CARVIN-Okay. have anything for the Garden Center? MR. O'CONNOR-The next sign that I would speak of is on the face. if you will, I guess the next sign, on this one here, over the main entrance is the Wal Mart sign itself, it's shown here. That is a wall sign. It qualifies as a wall sign. and we are going to get cross traffic. So. I want to distinguish which building is Wal Mart's and which building is Ames. The signalized traffic signal is going to be at this entrance. which is actually the entrance that comes into the Ames building, and this is where the State of New York, DOT has told us. - 4G - MR. TURNER-Yes, where you could put the light. MR. O'CONNOR-But we do want to have a distinction. and a clearly marked, distinctive identity, if you will, as to our building. as opposed to the Ames building. The next page. on the top left you see clearer, probably, Oi 1 Change, which wi II go back over the doorway here, tires. not a very big sign. There on the rear of that building, on the front of the building, there's alignment, tires. and oil change, just a direction as to directional over the doorway. MR. CARVIN-There's only going to be three bays? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. MR. CARVIN-Okay. MR. WHITE-Well, there's six bays. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Three on each side. MR. 0' CONNOR-Three on each side. The next page I think clearly shows again the Wal Mart sign. Any question on that sign, which is over our main entranceway? MR. TURNER-No. MR. O'CONNOR-The next one that I have is the Tire Lube and Express. which is on the corner of the front of the building. and that would get people to come to this direction, and then get them around the corner to the actual operation, but it'll give them an idea of where to go in there, if that's the particular service that they're looking for. The next one is for another service that we provide. and again, I go back to our argument that we're talking about 125.000 square feet of retail space. We're talking about a wall sign. One Hour Photo. That's one of the functions wi thin the building. It's 1.6 feet by 12.11. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. O'CONNOR-It's not even a 100 square foot sign. I believe, it's 19.38 square feet. as a separate sign. The other Pharmacy, that is proposed is 18 inches. a foot and a half. by 11.2. which is 16.75 square feet. The distinction is on the building to tell people that we've got a pharmacy wi thin the building. You're talking numbers, 10 wall signs, but you aren't talking 10, 100 foot wall signs, if you take a look at what we've got. The next one is Vision Center, which is a separate operation. That's a one and a half foot sign. by sixteen foot. which is twenty-four square feet. Those are signs that we would ask you to perhaps address directly, or independently. There are two other signs. and maybe you have a different feeling. I've heard you express, already. a difference of opinion. as to the signs that say. Satisfaction Guaranteed, and We Sell For Less, which are slogans, advertising slogans. Again. you're going to get into the site distance from the road. It's extensive. It's great. We think that what we've proposed is in good taste. It may not be exactly in compliance. We think it will tell people what we are offering. It may attract some business even from the Ames side of the lot, over to us, for particular services. I don't think, in this particular operation of Ames. they have a photo service or they have a pharmacy. So some of the people that may be coming in for that traffic, may come in to our side of the site for that particular service. The Tire, Oil and Lube things are directional, trying to not confuse people that come on the site and give them some direction. There will be some special parking that's set up for them, so that they don't have to get involved with the general site. There is a correction, if you will, on one of the maps on that, too. where on the pylon sign, apparently we were supposedly asking for more of a variance than we were. On the Tire, Lube. Express sign. instead of being six foot - 47 - --- by twenty-two foot, that would actually be seven foot by twenty- five. it looks like five eighths foot. I can give you that. We did send a letter in, and I don't know if that's part of your application or not. MR. TURNER-What have you got for the Tire and Lube Express? MR. CARVIN-That's seven by twenty? MR. O'CONNOR-Seven by twenty-five and seven eighths. That did come by letter. MR. TURNER-Okay. Lets hear your gut feeling. MR. CARVIN-Well, I don't have a problem with these signs. As I said, the only one I <tº have a problem with is the We Sell For Less, the slogan things. MR. TURNER-Satisfaction Guaranteed. MR. CARVIN-I mean, I think you've got justification on these wall signs. because of the distance and so forth, and again. as I said, the slogans are, I'm not convinced with. MR. PHILO-You take the Sears building up there. you go out, and they've got signs the same as that. MR. CARVIN-Yes. Again. I just don't know. why do we want to belabor it and just. MR. TURNER-No. There's no sense in belaboring it. just like you, I agree with you. I would say, MR. CARVIN-It's not an unusual request. MR. TURNER-Sears Automotive. I think they only have one door on each end of the building. that's it. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes, they do. MR. TURNER-They've got three doors here. MRS. EGGLESTON-So, we're only talking about Guaranteed. and the We Sell For Less, right? agreement that we really need. the Satisfaction The rest we're in MR. TURNER-Yes. As far as the tires. and the alignment and the two Tire and Lube Express. that's directional. MR. CARVIN-So. what are we talking here? signs, if we don't. We're talking. eight MR. O'CONNOR-It sounds like you're talking about recommending of eight signs, denial of the two slogans. MR. CARVIN-Right. MR. TURNER-I've got a question on the Tire and Lube Express, six foot by twenty-two feet. That stall's going to be a multi operation. MR. WHITE-There's three doors in the front, and then you drive through, and there's three doors out back. MR. TURNER-I know that, but. MR. WHITE-So there's actually six lots. MR. TURNER-Okay. - 48 - -- MR. CARVIN-Six, seven, eight, nine. MR. WHITE-Nine. MR. 0' CONNOR-I don't know if those little tiny signs over the doorways are separate signs, or not. MRS. EGGLESTON-Well. was there 11 to begin with. instead of 10? MR. WHITE-Yes. MR. CARVIN-Apparently there was 11, but they're only requesting here, according to the map, 10. MRS. EGGLESTON-There's 11 dimensions on here. MR. WHITE-Yes. There's 11. I think the confusion might be under proposed here. and I'm on Page, it says. Wal Mart Signs, that's the big Wal Mart sign. That's the first sign. MR. TURNER-Yes. MRS. EGGLESTON-So is that a given? You mean, you don't have to ask for a variance on that one? MR. WHITE-No. That is the main sign. MR. TURNER-That's the main sign. MRS. RUTHSCHILD-That's the permitted sign, the permitted one, one pylon and one wall. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes, that's what I'm saying. Okay. So, then there ten that aren't permitted. Okay. MRS. RUTHSCHILD-It' s 10 extra signs, 10 extra wall signs that they're seeking the variance for. MRS. EGGLESTON-Okay. MR. O'CONNOR-The total square footage of wall signs gets us. okay, if you go back from the highway, you get 567 square feet, except for the cap of 300 square feet. Now. I haven't taken the two slogan signs out. to tell you exactly how close we are. MR. TURNER-Two hundred and eight square feet, 208.54 square feet. You've got 87.08, and 121.46. I added the two of them up. I got 208.54. MR. CARVIN-I come up with 588.66, the total of the nine signs. MRS. EGGLESTON-Counting the bottom ones as well? MR. CARVIN-Yes. MRS. EGGLESTON-Just one minute. I'll tell you. 588.67. MR. CARVIN-Okay. MR. TURNER-You added the two of them together? MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. He added this 201. This has been revised to 201.54. MR. CARVIN-I added the two of them together. Can we do it as a bulk thing, in other words, he's entitled to three hundred, and so we'll grant him 588, and then do it on an individual basis. the dimensions? MR. TURNER-Yes. - 49 - ~ '--' .~ MR. CARVIN-These are the dimensions you guys want to go with? MR. WHITE-Yes. What may not be clear. though. is that, where you see Tires, Oil Change, and Alignment, those go over those front three doors on the TBO. They also go on the back three doors of the TBO. MR. CARVIN-So those should be times two? MR. TURNER-Yes, times two. MR. O'CONNOR-Do you want to just through the kinds as shown and depicted? MR. MARTIN-Yes. I would say, as a good record, that we put the diagram in Page 17 into the resolution, and not attempt to, because a narrative resolution would be more confusing and less effective than just referring to the diagrams. and make them part of the official record. MR. PHILO-Very good point, Jim. MR. CARVIN-Okay. MR. O'CONNOR-You're approving all wall signs, except for the requested wall signs. We Sell For Less and Satisfaction Guaranteed? MR. TURNER-We Sell For Less. and Satisfaction Guaranteed. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes, so why not just say that, in accordance with. MR. CARVIN-Okay. MRS. EGGLESTON-Are they not added in here? MR. O'CONNOR-They're shown on the pictures. MRS. EGGLESTON-But they're not added in on these dimensions. MR. O'CONNOR-There's a rear elevation for the six bay, and a front elevation for the six bay. MR. PHILO-That Sign 30, Mike. that sheet, that includes all the signs, all but the two that we're coming out with, right? MR. O'CONNOR-It doesn't show on there the Pharmacy, well, it doesn't show on there the ones over the garage doors, and it doesn't show on there the One Hour Photo, Pharmacy, and Vision Center. I don't see it on there. MR. PHILO-They're all listed though. right? MR. WHITE-There's a total of twelve, when you exclude the Satisfaction Guaranteed, and the We Sell For Less. You're talking about the number of signs? MR. PHILO-Yes. MR. WHITE-There's a total of twelve when you exclude the two that the Board's apparently going to not approve. There's three above the doors here. three above the doors here, that are real small. There's a large sign that says. TBO. That's seven. There's a TBO sign here, which is eight. There's Pharmacy, which is nine, One Hour Photo, which is ten, Vision Center, which is eleven. the main Wal Mart sign, which is twelve. MR. PHILO-So, if you excluded those two, you'd have twelve. Would that be all right with you. Jimmy. if you said twelve signs? MR. MARTIN-Yes. - 50 - ('"'.., (' MR. PHILO-Excluding those two. MR. MARTIN-Right. MR. PHILO-Fine. Then you could make your motion and get it out of the way. MR. MARTIN-With dimensions as listed in the application. You can refer to the page number. MOTION TO APPROVE SIGN VARIANCE NO. 58-1993 NATIONAL REALTY & DEVELOPMENT CORP.-L- PART II. Introduced by Fred Carvin who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Eggleston: In reference to Paragraphs Two and Three of the Staff Notes. That we grant the applicant relief from Section 140-6B (3) (c) which allows the location of one attached sign to a building. by allowing the placement of a total of 12 signs to the building. By allowing the placement of the following signs. I would also grant relief from Section 140-6B(2)(b)(1) which states that the maximum total size of the wall sign be 300 square feet. The fOllowing are the allowable signs and square footage: Wal-Mart sign,S' x 39' for a total of 195 square feet; Tire and Lube Express, 6' x 22' for a total of 132 square feet; Pharmacy. 18" x 11' 2" for a total of 16.75 square feet; One Hour Photo. 18" x 12' 11" for a total of 19.38 square feet; Vision Center, 18" x 16' for a total of 24 square feet; the placement of two Tires. 12" x 3' 10" for a total of 7.66 square feet; the placement of two Oil Change. 12" x 8' 7" for a total of 17.16 square feet; two Alignment, 12" x 8' for a total of 16 square feet; one Tire and Lube Express. 7' 6" x 25' 10" for a total of 193.75. So that makes the relief 322 square feet from Section 140-6(B)(2)(b)(1). The applicant has demonstrated a unique circumstance because of the location and terrain of the building which makes the granting of this variance necessary. There does not appear to be any adverse effect on the neighborhood character or public facilities, and there does not appear to be any other feasible alternative. Duly adopted this 21st day of July, 1993, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Philo. Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Carvin. Mrs. Eggleston. Miss Hauser, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Thomas AREA VARIANCE NO. 59-1993 TYPE II SFR-IA BRIAN AND KIM SCHAFF OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO PLACE AN IN-GROUND POOL IN THE REAR OF HIS PROPERTY. APPLICANT IS PROPOSING FIVE (5) FEET AS THE SETBACK OF THE POOL FROM THE REAR AND WEST PROPERTY LINE AND FIVE (5) FEET AS THE SETBACK FROM THE DECK. AND IS SEEKING RELIEF OF FIFTEEN (15) FEET AND FIVE (5) FEET RESPECTIVELY. FROM SECTION 179-67B. WHICH REQUIRES A TWENTY (20) FOOT SETBACK FROM THE REAR PROPERTY LINE AND TEN ( 10) FEET FROM ANY PRINCIPAL OR ACCESSORY STRUCTURE. TAX MAP NUMBER: 93-5-89 LOT SIZE: SECTION 179-G7B BRIAN SCHAFF, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 59-1993, Brian and Kim Schaff, Meeting Date: July 21, 1993 "ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: 4 5 Hidden Hills Drive SUMMARY OF PROJECT: Applicant is proposing to place an in-ground pool in the rear yard of his property. CONFORMANCE WITH USE/AREA REGULATIONS: 1. Applicant is proposing five (5) feet as the setback of the pool from the rear and west property line and is seeking relief of fifteen (15) feet from Section 179- 67B, which requires that a pool be not less than twenty (20) feet - 51 - ----- - - ._--.~'-- -"--- -"'-.- ----.- -'.----.-.-.-.- from the rear lot line. 2. Applicant is proposing five (5) feet as the setback of the pool from the principal structure and is seeking five (5) feet relief from Section 179-67B. which requires that a pool be no less of a distance than ten (10) feet from the principal structure. REVIEW CRITERIA: 1. DESCRIBE THE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY WHICH DOES NOT ALLOW PLACEMENT OF A STRUCTURE WHICH MEETS THE ZONING REQUIREMENTS. Placement of a pool in the rear yard of applicant's property and within the required setbacks is limited by the placement of the eXisting principal structure and the septic tank and leach fields. 2. IS THIS THE MINIMUM VARIANCE NECESSARY TO ALLEVIATE THE SPECIFIC PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY OR IS THERE ANY OTHER OPTION AVAILABLE WHICH WOULD REQUIRE NO VARIANCE? It would appear that the relief requested is the minimum variance necessary to alleviate the specific practical difficulty and because of the lack of useable space in the rear yard for placement of the pool, no other option is available which would require no variance. 3. WOULD THIS VARIANCE BE DETRIMENTAL TO THE OTHER PROPERTIES IN THE DISTRICT OR NEIGHBORHOOD? It would appear that the variance would not be detrimental to other properties in the district or neighborhood as the proposed project is consistent with the character of the neighborhood. The property that is contiguous to the project's western property line and directly effected by the requested variance is a vacant parcel owned by Niagara Mohawk Corporation. 4. WHAT ARE THE EFFECTS OF THE VARIANCE ON PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES? It would appear that the variance would not effect public facilities and services. STAFF COMMENTS AND CONCERNS: Staff has no further comments regarding this project." MR. PHILO-How far is that, where it says the 10 foot offset. on that there? MR. TURNER-Here. on the side? MR. PHILO-On the left side. How far is that from another piece of property, another house? MR. TURNER-The house itself? The fence is the line. fence on that border line. There's a MR. SCHAFF-There's a fence there. The neighbor's property is approximately 20 feet off the line, which is the setback from the side line. MR. PHILO-How far is the neighbor's house from the edge of that pool. MR. SCHAFF-He should be 30 feet. He's 20 feet from the property line, the fence being the property line, the pool being another 10 feet onto my property line. He should be 20 feet. I'm Brian Schaff. MR. PHILO-I'm just asking. So the pool couldn't cause any water problem. MR. CARVIN-He just MR. TURNER-No. MR. CARVIN-Doesn't has to be 10 feet off the property line, right? he have to be 10 feet off the property line? MR. TURNER-No. MRS. EGGLESTON-On the side or on the back? MR. CARVIN-On that side. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. MR. CARVIN-So it would be in conformance there. Brian. the only thing, I noticed when I was over there, there was a power line. Is - 52 - his power line going to run interference for that pool at all? MR. SCHAFF-No. I can't see how it would. MR. CARVIN-In other words, the pool is not going to? MR. TURNER-No. MR. CARVIN-I couldn't visualize where the pool was going to be, but I did notice there was, over. MR. SCHAFF-The overhead power lines are well behind the property. and they have most are all underground power lines, and they run parallel with the main two lane streets in Hidden Hills Drive. MR. CARVIN-So that those overheads weren't on your property? MR. SCHAFF-The overheads are not on our property. MRS. EGGLESTON-But they're not far off your property. The one string of power lines does go right down the back of your property. It's pretty close to the fence that was between your line and the guy next door. MR. SCHAFF-That's right. The fence that's there, that fence is actually between five and ten feet beyond the property line. There's a pine tree which is actually the property line, I guess it would be west, heading north toward Maple Drive. is where the line actually, that fence that he has up there is actually beyond the property. MRS. EGGLESTON-That's very misleading. MR. SCHAFF-Yes, it is. That's where I started from. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. I was thinking your pool would be back pretty close to these lines. If one broke, it might. MR. SCHAFF-From where that fence is. it's approximately stockade panel. maybe one and a half, back to the property line. Then there would be another five feet inside of that. MR. CARVIN-Where are you going to place your fence around, is it going to be this side, or is it going to come out towards the road? MR. SCHAFF-Well, what I intend to do is go from the corner of my house to the existing fence there. along the. MR. CARVIN-On the east side. MR. SCHAFF-Right. MR. CARVIN-Right, but I'm talking about on the west side. MR. SCHAFF-On the west side, it would be from where the existing deck is. We'll basically have that existing deck inside the pool fence area. fenced in from the deck, back behind the pool, back over to the existing. MR. CARVIN-Okay. So it's not going to be out towards the road or anything? MR. SCHAFF-Right. We'd like to have, we have two young children. We'd like to have some play area for them, so we don't have to worry about them being in the pool area. If I fenced in the whole yard. then I'd have to have a separate fence around the pool, because I have a five year old. and a one year old. So, we're trying to alleviate that and have at least some sort of play area for the children. - 53 - "- MR. PHILO-What kind of deck are you going to put around that pool? MR. SCHAFF-I already have an existing deck there. There will be no other deck, just an apron. MR. PHILO-Cement? MR. SCHAFF-Yes. MR. PHILO-Then your pipes are going to be out, your skimmer lines are going to be outside that concrete apron. MR. SCHAFF-They'll be underneath it. You're going to have an A Frame structure around the sides of the pool. MR. PHILO-You've got a 16 by 32 pool. MR. SCHAFF-Correct. MR. PHILO-How much of a patio, how much concrete are you going to put around the edge of it? MR. SCHAFF-No more than three or four feet total. MR. PHILO-What are you going to sit in. a stool? MR. CARVIN-Three foot is normal on a pool. MR. TURNER-It's all flat back there, Tom. MR. PHILO-What I'm saying, the problem is. if he puts a concrete apron around there, like I did, he puts those pipes on the outside. he's going to be infringing on his neighbor's property to get the pipes, otherwise, because I've got 12 foot of concrete around there, and the pipes are outside the concrete. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. PHILO-To dig that up. any time you've got to repair that, if you put them under the concrete, you're going to have some problems. MR. SCHAFF-Do we consider putting. where the existing deck is. to the left, as you're looking at it, we considered putting a patio there, but the concrete patio there. like you said. where are you going to sit, other than a stool. MR. PHILO-That's right. If you're going to sit a chair around that pool, you're going to need at least six foot. MR. SCHAFF-I understand what you're saying. MR. PHILO-Then your pipes will be on the outside. MR. SCHAFF-Our intention is not to be, have a large apron around the pool, but probably have some sort of patio deck back here, towards the house, off the existing deck. There'll be a patio slab here. If you look at the drawing, you can see. MR. PHILO-I can see it. That's why I. MR. SCHAFF-But I don't see a need to go eight feet around the pool. MR. TURNER-No. There's a fence on the neighbor's side. and he's going to fence the rest of it in. So he's just going to put a patio in front of the pool and back to the house. MR. PHILO-That's what I'm saying. If you put a lounge out there, that's six foot. So the only thing you're going to do is swim in it and run out to the deck. - 54 - .....~;: , r MR. SCHAFF-I hope I don't swim in it. I'll let the kids swim. MR. TURNER-Brian, did you bring that cut out? MR. SCHAFF-Actually, I brought more than one. MR. TURNER-Okay. I talked with Brian Sunday, and he had a cut out. MR. PHILO-What is the distance that they've got to have a fence on that, Jimmy? MR. MARTIN-A four foot fence has to be around the pool. MR. PHILO-A four foot fence. but how much area have you got to have around the pool? MR. SCHAFF-What Mr. Turner is talking to me about Sunday is adjusting the pool this way. We would alleviate the distance here and from the house. When we first went in to the Planning Board and talked to them about it, what we were trying to do was stay away from this neighbor here. without having to have a variance there at all. If we were to turn the pool this way. we'll need a variance from the septic. a variance here, a variance here. and a variance here. I've got to be 10 feet from my septic tank. I think that's my biggest problem is I want to stay as far away from my septic tank as possible. MR. TURNER-Each block is two feet. MR. SCHAFF-Each block on here is two feet. MR. PHILO-Where's your drain field? MR. SCHAFF-The leachfields all come this way. MR. PHILO-So you could come this way. It's not going to hurt you anything. with that septic. MR. SCHAFF-Other than what it says in the stipulations, I have to be 10 feet from the septic tank. MR. PHILO-So how much are you from here to here? MR. SCHAFF-Right now? I just want it to go as close to the, stay the 10 feet here. MR. PHILO-So, if you moved that a little more over this way, it would be helping you. MRS. EGGLESTON-That would be too close to the septic here. MR. SCHAFF-I don't have a problem with moving the pool at all. It's just that I'm going to be effecting more of the deck. MR. PHILO-Then you wouldn't have a problem over here. MR. SCHAFF-I don't have a problem here, because I only need 10 feet. MR. TURNER-The deck is actually 12 feet away from the house. MR. SCHAFF-Right. MR. TURNER-Plus he added five feet. That's 17 feet. and the deck is attached to the house. MR. SCHAFF-If you want the pool moved this way, just 10 feet from the septic tank, I don't have a problem with that either, but I didn't want to have too much of a variance along the length of the deck. - 55 - -> MR. TURNER-Okay. Any other questions? Okay. I'll open the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TURNER-Okay. Motion's in order. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 59-1993 BRIAN AND KI" SCHAFF, Introduced-by-Theo-dore---ïji-urner->who mo>v>eci.-tor its adoption, seconded by Fred Carvin: Applicant is proposing to place an inground pool in the rear yard of his property. The applicant needs 15 feet of relief from the rear property line. which requires that a pool be not less than 20 feet from the rear property line. This will also grant relief to the applicant of five feet, a five foot setback of the pool from the principal structure, that requires that a pool be no less of a distance than 10 feet from the principal structure. The practical difficul ty with the property is the placement which limits the setbacks. is the placement of the existing principal structure and the septic tanks and leachfields. This would not be detrimental to other properties in the district or neighborhood. There are no effects on public facilities or services, and it's the minimum variance necessary to alleviate the specific practical difficulty. Duly adopted this 21st day of July. 1993, by the following vote: AYES: Miss Hauser, Mr. Philo. Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Carvin. Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Thomas AREA VARIANCE NO. G0-1993 TYPE II HC-IA GUIDO PASSARELLI OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE ROUTE 9. OPPOSITE KENDRICK ROAD, WEST SIDE OF ROUTE 9 APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO CONSTRUCT A SHOPPING CENTER ON A VACANT PARCEL. APPLICANT IS PROPOSING FROM THIRTY-ONE AND TWENTY- FIVE HUNDREDTHS (31.25) FEET TO THIRTY-FIVE FEET FOR THE BUFFER ALONG APPROXIMATELY TWO HUNDRED AND NINETY-THREE (293) FEET OF THE REAR AND WEST SIDE OF THE PARCEL AND IS SEEKING FROM EIGHTEEN AND SEVENTY-FIVE HUNDREDTHS (18.75) FEET TO FIFTEEN (15) FEET RELIEF FOR SAID SECTION OF PARCEL FROM SECTION 179-72A. WHICH REQUIRES A FIFTY (50) FOOT BUFFER WHERE ANY COMMERCIAL USE ABUTS ANY RESIDENTIAL ZONE AT THE LOT LINE OR AT A STREET. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) DATE: 7/14/93 TAX MAP NUMBER: 70-1-9 LOT SIZE: 5.3 ACRES SECTION 179-72A JAMES MILLER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT. PRESENT MRS. EGGLESTON-The Warren County Planning Board approved, "With the condition that a good, green buffer be provided to protect the view of the potential homes coming in and that the buffer be selected by the Town of Queensbury Beautification Committee." STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff. Area Variance No. 60-1993, Guido Passare II i. Meeting Date: July 21. 1993 "ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: Route 9. opposite Kendrick Road, west side of Route 9 SUMMARY OF PROJECT: Applicant is proposing to construct a shopping center on a vacant parcel. CONFORMANCE WITH USE/AREA REGULATIONS: 1. Applicant is proposing from thirty-one and twenty-five hundredths (31.25) feet to thirty-five (35) feet for the buffer along approximately two hundred and ninety-three (293) feet of the rear and west side of the parcel. and is seeking from eighteen and seventy-five - 56 - hundredths (18.75) feet to fifteen (15) feet relief for said section of the parcel from Section 179-72A. which requires a fifty (50) foot buffer where any commercial use abuts any residential zone at the lot line or street. REVIEW CRITERIA: 1. DESCRIBE THE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY WHICH DOES NOT PERMIT THE PLACEMENT OF A STRUCTURE WHICH MEETS THE ZONING REQUIREMENTS. The proposed project is required by the Fire Department to have an access road in the rear of the property. The proposed access road intrudes into a required fifty (50) foot buffer at the rear and western boundary of the property which abuts a residential zone (MR-5). 2. IS THIS THE MINIMUM VARIANCE NECESSARY TO ALLEVIATE THE SPECIFIC PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY OR IS THERE ANY OTHER OPTION WHICH WOULD REQUIRE NO VARIANCE? It would appear that the relief requested is the minimum variance necessary to alleviate the specific practical difficulty and as the access road in the rear of the property is a Fire Department requirement, no other option is available which would require no variance. 3. WOULD THIS VARIANCE BE DETRIMENTAL TO OTHER PROPERTIES IN THE DISTRICT OR NEIGHBORHOOD? As the applicant is proposing to screen his property at the rear and western portion of his parcel which abuts a residential zone. it would appear that the variance would have a minimum effect on the immediate residential neighborhood and not be a detriment to other properties in the district or neighborhood. 4. WHAT ARE THE EFFECTS OF THE VARIANCE ON PUBLIC FACILITIES OR SERVICES? The request for the variance is the result of the applicant's need to provide an access road for emergency vehicles and therefore would not effect public facilities or services. STAFF COMMENTS AND CONCERNS: Staff has no further comments regarding this project." MR. MILLER-For the record. my name is James Miller, from Northfield Design Architects. representing the Mt. Royal project. It might be best just to fill you in a little bit on the history of this. We had come in with an earlier project three years ago. At that time, we had an access road around the whole building. It was approved in that configuration. When we came back with a revised plan this spring, we were informed that we weren't allowed to put an access road within the buffer. So our next scheme did not have an access road. Based on conversations with the Fire Department and Staff Review on the Site Plan. we got back to the idea of having an access road. Now bear in mind that we're trying to comply with the request. There's nothing in the Ordinance that requires an access road, excepting State Code. In order to do that, and keep our permeable at 30 percent, we made our bUilding smaller by a about 2500 square feet. So we shrunk the building to comply with the additional pavement of the access road. Another point to be made is that this is just for a portion of the rear of the bUilding. 281 and a half feet. That distance abuts on a paper street. which is called Pine Drive." Pine Drive is not a parcel that can be built on. So, in essence, it's acting as an additional buffer between us and Robert Gardens. At a later date, if the ownership of that can be determined, it would be a natural for an internal link from the Ames/Wal Mart properties through to our shopping center to tie into our access road, and then continue on in the current drive in the property, to be developed. So there would be a natural access. So. basically, we're looking for relief along that 281 feet, and in that area we're just building a road. MR. TURNER-Okay. Does anyone have any questions? MR. PHILO-No. I think that's a damn good idea, French Mountain Mall. MR. TURNER-It is. too. but there's nothing back there. just like he said. There's nothing back there whatsoever. MR. PHILO-Yes. but this is. I mean. he's doing something for the future, too. MR. TURNER-Absolutely. - 57 - MR. PHILO-Like French Mountain Mall. You take Sears. looking at ways, with the committee for the Town, we're ways to move that traffic around. and this guy's already it. N ow we're looking at thought of MR. MARTIN-The other thing I'd like to put on the record is the applicant's been very accommodating on the Town's request and the request of the Fire Marshall in this regard, and at a great delay to him, but I think that should be noted. MRS. EGGLESTON-I guess my only thoughts were, that development in back is really not well protected. I mean, there's no buffer between them and Ames. There's just a road there. The Drive-In, there wasn't, you could see the Drive-In screens right from. on that side of them. so it would have been nice to have kept that buffer there. So I say, if he can put that access road in there, not take down any trees. that would be fine with me. MR. MILLER-Yes. Currently, it's fairly heavily wooded back there. The Pine Drive section is also heavily wooded, and then there's a setback from the western boundary of Pine Drive of 50 feet, from Robert Gardens. So, in essence. there's 40 feet there of buffer. MR. KARPELES-The dotted line. that's your property line is it, the dotted line? MR. MILLER-The heavy one. yes. MR. KARPELES-It doesn't look like you've got, how much are you supposed to have here, 50 feet? MR. TURNER-Fifty feet, from the property line buffer. MR. KARPELES-On this end here. it doesn't look like, is that 50 feet there? MR. TURNER-Twenty-five feet. MRS. RUTHSCHILD-That's only along the MR zone. MR. MILLER-This is the area in question, from here to here. That's the only area we abut the MR-5 zone. MR. KARPELES-Okay. MR. MILLER-That's this section here. MR. KARPELES-I see. MR. TURNER-No further questions? I'll open the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED CORRESPONDENCE MRS. EGGLESTON-Okay. A letter from Brian LaFlure, Chief. Queensbury Central, dated June 21st. 1993 "At a recent workshop held with the principles of this project. a number of concerns relative to fire protection were discussed. At the last submittal of this plan. 1991, an access road was provided around the building. The new plan does not, and is unacceptable due to the length of the building, and it's only access to one side. It seemed to be the general consensus at the meeting that the most efficient alternative would be the use of the existing Town paper road off Weeks Road. This would provide year round access to the rear of the building. and also give a hydrant location for our use. - 58 - The second item of concern was the parking lot curb dividers shown. The Planning Department has been provided with the turning radius parameters for our aerial truck, and we feel some of the dividers could be shortened or painted to make our access during crowded periods easier. This would also facilitate snow removal, which affects our ability to move on site." MR. TURNER-Any fur~her discussion? MR. PHILO-I don't think it's relevant. MR. TURNER-What, that letter? MR. MILLER-For the record. that letter was what dictated us going to. generated this. and also the parking lot. MR. TURNER-Generated that response. Yes. Okay. Motion's in order then. "Q_'l':rQJf_ TO__MPRO'£JL_l'.Rj:A VI\RI~NCE~0_!___6~-199L_ GUIDO_I?~SSARE~~¡. Introduced by Fred Carvin who moved for its adoption. seconded by Theodore Turner: Grant relief of 18.75 feet to 15 feet from Section 179-72A, which requires a 50 foot buffer where any commercial use abuts any residential zone. At the request of the Fire Department, an access road has been required for this property. which intrudes on the required 50 foot buffer. In order for the applicant to comply to the Fire Department's request, the granting of this area variance is necessary. It would appear that this is the minimum relief necessary to alleviate the practical difficulty, and it does not look like this variance would be detrimental to other properties in the district or neighborhood, and there's no neighborhood opposition. and there would be no effects on public facilities or services. Duly adopted this 21st day of July. 1993, by the following vote: AYES: Miss Hauser. Mr. Philo, Mr. Karpeles. Mr. Carvin, Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Thomas On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Theodore Turner. Chairman - 59 -