Loading...
1994-01-26 ORIGINAL QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 26TH. 1994 INDEX Sign Variance No. 5-1994 Willey Creek. Inc. 1. Use Variance No. 111-1993 Harris Bay Yacht Club. Inc. 32. Area Variance No. 108-1993 Harris Bay Yacht Club. Inc. 33. Sign Variance No. 112-1993 Harris Bay Yacht Club. Inc. 34. 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 SECOND REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 26TH. 1994 7:30 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT THEODORE TURNER, CHAIRMAN LINDA HAUSER, SECRETARY FRED CARVIN ROBERT KARPELES DAVID MENTER MEMBERS ABSENT JOYCE EGGLESTON CHRIS THOMAS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR-JAMES MARTIN PLANNER-SUSAN CIPPERLY TOWN ATTORNEY-PAUL DUSEK STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. TURNER-The first item under "New Business" Sign Variance No. 3- 1994 Sonny Spahn is off the agenda. NEW BUSINESS: SIGN VARIANCE NO. 5-1994 TYPE II HC-1A WILLEY CREEK. INC. OWNER: FACTORY STORES OF AMERICAN. INC. ROUTE 9. MILLION DOLLAR HALF-MILE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO INSTALL A FREESTANDING. DOUBLE- FACED EIGHT FOOT THREE INCH BY SEVEN FOOT FOUR INCH (8 FT. 3 IN. X 7 FT. 4 IN.) SIGN THIRTY ( 30 ) FEET FROM THE PROPERTY LINE AND SIXTY-TWO AND FIVE TENTHS (62.5) FEET FROM THE CENTER OF ROUTE 9. APPLICANT PROPOSES THAT THE NAME OF ONE OF THE SHOPPING CENTER TENANTS BE INCLUDED ON THE FREESTANDING SIGN. APPLICANT SEEKS RELIEF FROM SECTION 140-6B(3)(d) WHICH ALLOWS ONE (1) FREESTANDING SIGN DENOTING THE NAME OF THE SHOPPING CENTER ONLY. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) 1/19/94 TAX MAP NO. 36-1-34.3 LOT SIZE: NIA SECTION 140-6B(3)(d) ROSEMARY NICHOLS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Sign Variance No. 5-1994, Willey Creek Company, Inc., Meeting Date: January 26, 1994 "APPLICANT: Willey Creek Company, Inc. PROJECT LOCATION: Log Jam Factory Stores Route 9, Million Dollar Half-Mile PROPOSED ACTION: Applicant proposes to install a freestanding, double-faced, eight foot three inch by seven foot four inch sign thirty feet from the property line and sixty-two and five tenths feet from the center of Route 9. Applicant proposes that the name of one of the shopping center tenants be included on the freestanding sign. CONFORMANCE WITH USEIAREA REGULATIONS: Applicant seeks relief from Section 140- 6B(3)(d), which allows one freestanding sign denoting the name of the shopping center only. PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY: Applicant claims that the distance from the road and position of the store proposed for occupancy by Levi's would justify the placement of the Levi's name on the freestanding sign. Applicant claims that if the Levi's name is not allowed to be placed on the freestanding sign, the store will not occupy the available space. Applicant indicated that this is a matter of Levi's corporate policy, which appears to mean that it is not necessarily related to site conditions. (see attached minutes). ALTERNATIVES: Log Jam Outlet stores received Sign Variance Number 84-1989 for a directory sign on the west end of the building, consisting of three panels listing all the stores - 1 - in the building. It would appear that the Levi's name could be added to this existing sign. As an alternative, applicant has suggested removing one of the directory sign panels, with 3 business names. in exchange for allowing the Levi's name on the freestanding sign. EFFECTS ON NEIGHBORHOOD/COMMUNITY: The addition of the Levi's name to the freestanding sign may create the expectation that other shopping centers would be in a position to request and receive the same relief. Certainly, there are other shopping centers where similar difficulties with visibility from the road are present. The cumulative effect of such signs would be likely to create an unattractive visual impact, as well as concern for an increase in distractions for those travelling this road. PARCEL INFORMATION: This parcel was originally part of the Log Jam Restaurant property, according to the Assessor's Office, in 1986. The shopping ce:nter is a preexisting, nonconforming structure, as it is situated fifty feet from the front property line in a Travel Overlay Zone where, a setback of seventy-five feet is required as of March 5, 1990. As stated above, a variance was received in 1989 to allow the placement of a three-panel directory sign on the west end of the building. STAFF COMMENTS AND CONCERNS: This application is related to a previous application submitted under the name Holly Wheeler, K.D. Wheeler Custom Signs, which was denied. The difference between the two proposals appears to be that: 1) the proposed freestanding sign is now one panel with the name of both the shopping center and one tenant, where the previous submission showed two separate panels and, 2) in discussions with the Board since the denial, the applicant has offered to remove one pane 1 of the directory sign, Ii sting three busine sses, if the freestanding sj.gn is approved. The changes to the freestanding sign do not appear to be significant. If it is Levi's corporate policy to insist on placement of their name on a freestanding sign (as stated by the applicant in previous discussions), there is no shopping center in Queensbury that could accommodate them, without a variance, re~Jardless of site conditions. It appears that the difficulty here may be with Levi's requirements rather than the Ordinance." MISS HAUSER-On January 19th, 1994, at a meeting of the Warren County Planning Board, they recommended to approve the sign variance to install the freestanding double-faced eight foot three inch by seven foot four inch sign thirty feet from the property line and sixty-two point five feet from the center of Route 9. MR. TURNER-Okay. MRS. NICHOLS-Good evening. May it please the Board, my name is Rosemary Nichols. I'm an attorney, and I represent the sign applicant. With me here this evening is Steven Leonard, who is an employee of Wi,lley Creek Company, and Sue Galvin, who is an attorney with t:he Corporation. Mr. Leonard is going to make an initial presentation. MR. TURNER-Okay. STEVEN LEONARD MR. LEONARD-Hello. I'm Steve Leonard. In light of our last get together, wherE~ I think there might have been a little bit of confusion, a little question on exactly what we were doing or wanted to do or would like to do. I put together a little bit of a presentation here for everybody. The Log Jam Factory Stores, you're probably all familiar with it, is on the, I guess it's called the Million Dollar Half Mile, and it's just south of where Route 149 intersects with Route 9, south of the Dunham Factory Outlets and north of where the Route 9 Mall is. As you can see from the layout, we're just south of where the Log Jam Restaurant is. A larger site plan, which gives you a little bit better idea of how the site lays out, is this. It's actually two parcels, at this point in time, and sometime in '87, it was subdivided into two parcels, so that the parking is cross eased back and forth between - 2 - the Restaurant the Factory Stores. That gives you the layout of the parcel itself, and the sign location that we're proposing is in the front area there. MR. TURNER-Before you go any further, can I ask you a question? What's going to be the separation between the two businesses there? How are you going to separate the parking? MR. LEONARD-The parking is cross eased between the two businesses. MR. TURNER-I know it is. Are you going to separate it? MR. LEONARD-No. MR. TURNER-Okay. MR. LEONARD-No. It's cross eased within the subdivision of the two parcels. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Do you know the approximate location of the property lines, in other words, as far as? MR. LEONARD-Thl! yellow line, I think it, I really don't. I'm sorry. MS. CIPPERLY-I've looked that up. MR. CARVIN-That. was separated in 1987 you said? approximately? Do you know MR. LEONARD-It would have been before the Center was built. MS. CIPPERLY-Right about down here. and then it comes back here. MR. LEONARD-I show. here, the property line, which comes in towards the Log Jam. I don't have exactly how it goes around it, but you can see the location of it there, as it comes in off of Route 9. So it would be very similar to what the (lost words) just off of this entrance in the back. Now when we original built Phase I of the Center, and proposed the other two, Phase II and Phase III were also proposed at the initial on set of the project. Apparently, the Log Jam Restaurant did not have this atrium that has been built to the south of the Restaurant, but our variance, getting back to the variance request, we are requesting a two sided principal business identification to be installed on an otherwise conforming free standing sign. A 1 it tIe bi t of hi story to that is we've already been approved for this sign in that configuration without this lower panel on it. We have a permit for that, and that sign will be replacing the existing sign for the Center. I don't know if I need to show you the eXisting sign or not, but we will be taking off the: Factory Stores off of the Log Jam Restaurant freestanding si.gn. With the application, we have submitted two different types of signs. and this being the Option A, which was initially submitted, and at the request or with the feeling that the Town may be looking at having a single sign, we also included Option B, which effectively takes out the structural member, to incorporate both of the information pieces onto one panel. Structurally. it doesn't have the integrity. and I don't think the symmetry is as good. but it would work for having one panel. MR. DUSEK-Mr. Chairman. may I interrupt for just a second? There was something that I didn't know. and maybe the Board already knew it, but on the other sign, just to make sure I understood what you said. previously. there was a sign that had the Log Jam Restaurant logo? MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. DUSEK-And then also had another sign indicating Factory Outlets? - 3 - MR. LEONARD-That's correct. MR. DUSEK-And are you proposing to take that away. the Factory Outlet? MR. LEONARD-Portion of the sign. MR. DUSEK-And I~ffectively. basically. put it on this other sign. Okay. So there were two signs already there. on one thing? MR. LEONARD-That's correct. MR. DUSEK-Okay. MR. LEONARD-There were two signs on one freestanding sign. MR. DUSEK-It says "Log Jam Restaurant" on the toP. and then it says "Factory Stores" on the bottom. on a separate sign. MS. CIPPERLY-Now Log Jam Restaurant and the Factory Stores are two separate pieces of property. MR. DUSEK-Right. and they're removing the. MS. CIPPERLY-They want to take the "Factory Stores" off of there and put it on a freestanding sign. MR. DUSEK-Right. Mr. Chairman. what I found interesting. here. is the fact that you had a sign that had Log Jam Restaurant on top. and a separate sign that says Factory Stores on the bottom. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. DUSEK-And I'd just bring that to the Board's attention. and it's my understanding. from what they just said. they're actually taking that whole sign out. that bottom part of it. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. CARVIN-Except that I think that there's a problem with the two parcels there. Paul. because that sign. if these parcels were separated. then. MR. MARTIN-When this is all said and done. there's going to be two freestanding signs. There's going to be that one. less the "Factory Stores". advertising the Restaurant. and then a new sign will be built. 'what we have shown before us here. to advertise the plaza on its own separate parcel. MR. DUSEK-Right. but my with two separate signs it. over there. and I consideration. point being. here. is that you had a sign on it. and two separate names already on think the Board should take that into MR. LEONARD-So we do have disadvantages and advantages to both signs. Primarily. the structural integrity of the sign. symmetry of the sign. we try to keep all the signs nice looking. appropriate. very pleasing to passer-bys. so that it doesn't stand out, and degrade the looks of the area or our Center. and I might make a note. at this point. that this sign is what the County Planning Board. and I'm not sure that they have any jurisdiction over that, this is the one that they had the preference to. at last week's meeting. Carrying on. then. I guess the next step is really, what we're looking for here is a variance to put on the principal identification of a business which is this panel. this lower panel. here. with the Levi's. or this lower section of this single panel sign. We. in designing this. we've tried to keep with the rustic theme of the Log Jam Factory Stores. We've keep it aesthetically pleasing. It's a sandblasted. or proposed to be a sandblasted Redwood sign. with no back lighting. There would - 4 - probably be surface lighting on it, and, again, I can say that it would look very nice, at least in !!!.y. eyes, and I think would fit in well with the surrounding area. The size of the entire sign, both panels, in this case, or the single panel, in this case, are within the 64 square foot of freestanding sign, which Code allows. It actually figures out to 61 and a half feet or so~ething of that size, and the height restrictions are incorporated into this design as well. So it will not be very tall. It will be not very obtrusive, and as far as location, we have a 30 foot setback from the property line, and I think (lost words) 62 and a half feet from center line of Route 9, which satisfies all the County regulations. Special circumstances for our sign. The configuration of our Center, and I think it's best shown by our other poster here, is that the parcel is very long and narrow, and this portion of the Center, because the Center was long and narrow, we had to bring this end of the building, kick it out, to try to get at least ~ visibility from that end. Now the parcel, and I'm not sure on the exact depth, but it is much longer than what we show here. It goes back a long distance. So we're not utilizing even the length of the parcel. We kicked this around, and apparently, and I'm not that familiar ~1ith this part of it, but apparently that was what was approved back in 1986. I believe that is a correct statement, and we built Phase I, and then the Log Jam Restaurant came along and built the atrium on to the southern part of their restaurant, which didn't assist us very much. It closed this view corridor down even more. So we have this long, narrow site with a center that doesn't have much of a view corridor, and we've had, as a result, a very difficult time in trying to lease this area out. We've had multiple tenants, large tenants, that you would think would be able to make a go of it in that location, because of the name and so forth. We've never been able to give them satisfactory signage in their views, and for the most part, Willey Creek leaves that up to them to make it a determination. Over the last four years, we've had three tenants in there, four tenants in there, and at anyone time, there is at least one of the, we have three small stores in here, and at any point in time, there is at least one of them that's been empty. Three have come in and gone. It's just a very difficult area to try to lease. We had Gi tano in there, a maj or brand. ''Ie' ve had Table DeFrance, and another firm called Sports Warehouse, most recently, and because of the lack of visibility, and the lack of signage, they've felt that they just couldn't make a go of it and afford to stay. MR. CARVIN-Do you know if any of these relocated elsewhere in Queensbury? MR. LEONARD-I don't know, but maybe. MR. CARVIN-Are they still in business? Was this a corporate decision, that some of these companies went bankrupt, that forced the closing? MR. LEONARD-Sports Warehouse, Dave, are you familiar? DAVE KENNY MR. KENNY-I believe they closed most of their stores. really sure. I'm not MR. LEONARD-Gitano's still in business. Sports Warehouse? MR. KENNY-I'm not really sure. I know they closed quite a few. MR. LEONARD-So the stores that we ~ able to lure into this location, for Cine reason or another, did leave the Center, felt that it was not. a good location, after they made an attempt at trying to operate a store there. As you can see around Town, all of the other malls are basically, well, from what I've seen, and I'm not being an expert of this, but from what I've seen I think all of the stores, all the factory outlet malls, are full, and - 5 - probably have been full. In fact. this other section of our Center. we have had very little turnover. We have a real good track record there. It just seems to be in these three stores. MR. TURNER-What: was the lease agreements with those three stores? What were the terms of the lease? What was the length of the lease? MR. LEONARD-All of our Centers. all of our leases. are consistent. and they would be consistent with the other. MR. TURNER-All right. What's the length of the leases? MR. LEONARD-I think they're three to five years. So all of them have violated their lease. and usually you don't find that. Usually they'll stay in for the three to five year period. MR. TURNER-But it was a corporate decision to take them out of there. because of one of them going out of business. or reducing the number of stores. MR. LEONARD-It could be a combination of all. and I don't know the specifics of each one of them. MR. TURNER-So it wasn't necessarily because they couldn't do business there. MR. LEONARD-Well. what we find is even when a store or a chain would go into a bankruptcy situation. a going out of business situation. and try to close down their stores. they close out the ones that they find the most difficult. because they have a loophole. here. to get out of the lease situation. and they say. we're in bankruptcy. We have to resolve this. The court is behind us. You can't corne after us. So they take that opportunity to get out of their less desirable sites. and typically those are the ones that they have reduced sales in. sales loss. MR. TURNER-So the profit margin wasn't there. MR. LEONARD-Right. MR. TURNER-Okay. MR. MENTER-What were the dates. the second phase construction date. when was that built? MR. LEONARD-I know the third Phase was finished in the spring of '89. The first Phase was built in '86. '87. So there was like a three year period when Phase I. II. and III were built. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Phase I is the long bUilding? MR. LEONARD-Phase I is this section here. this portion. Phase II would be out here. Phase III would be here. MR. CARVIN-And Phase III was in '89. you think. it was completed? MR. LEONARD-Phase III was completed in the spring of '89. MR. MENTER-And then it was in September of '89 the existing Sign Variance was granted. right? MR. LEONARD-I don't have that date. MS. CIPPERLY-July 19th. 1989. MR. LEONARD-September of '89. Variance No. 1989-84. MS. CIPPERLY-This was built after. - 6 - MR. TURNER-This came after this. MR. CARVIN-I have a question, here, on the property line, I mean, if this is a subdivision, Phase III, wouldn't they have had to come in? MR. TURNER-It wasn't subdivided then. It was all one piece. MR. CARVIN-Well, when was it subdivided? MR. TURNER-They're in the process of selling it now. MR. CARVIN-No, what I'm saying is, is there a property line up through there? I'm under the impression that there's a property line, that they said they never subdivided in 1987. MS. CIPPERLY-As of 1989, it was, and I didn't find any record of subdivision. MR. CARVIN-No, that's what I'm saying. MR. TURNER-No, they didn't go. You're right. They just did it. MR. CARVIN-Again, I'm not totally familiar. Did they just do it, or is there? MR. TURNER-Evidentally, they did it. boundary line, and let it go at that. They just consummated the MR. CARVIN-Well, would this have been a preexisting, would they still have had to come in, right? MR. TURNER-They would have had to come in. MR. CARVIN-Because it was an expansion, right? MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. CARVIN-Of a preexisting nonconforming. MS. CIPPERLY-It~ wasn't nonconforming in 1989. change until 1990. The Code didn't MR. CARVIN-As far as the setbacks? MS. CIPPERLY-The setback. MR. CARVIN-Yes, but I'm talking here. Where's the property line? If the property line comes in here, what's the measurements here? MR. MARTIN-I think the situation was that those two lots always existed. They just were under the same ownership, and then it was sold off. That's what ~ recall. MR. LEONARD-Jim, you think they subdivided before, maybe Willey Creek, maybe that was? MR. MARTIN-I d,:>n't know what the history of the lot is. The information I'v~ seen is that the lots were in existence when the Log Jam Restaurant was built and when the plaza was built, that they were under the same ownership, and then there was just simply, one parcel was conveyed. MR. KENNY-I believe there was a lot line adjustment made, that there was always two lots there. It was totally different owners. I think the Log Jam bought that property about '86, '85. MR. TURNER-Yes, but I think, you know, Dave, the last time around, when we discussed it that night there, that this was one piece of property. Then it was cut. - 7 - MR. KENNY-That property was owned by the woman that owns the Christmas Tree shop, originally. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. KENNY-They did have that old log building right up front there. They moved it. I believe there was a lot line adjustment made. MR. TURNER-Yes. but it seems to me that, if my memory serves me right, when they started to put that building up in front, they had to come and get relief from the side yard setback for that building. SUSAN GALVIN MS. GALVIN-You mean the Log Jam Restaurant? MR. TURNER-Yes. When it was up front. MR. KENNY-When they originally put that first building up? MR. TURNER-Yes, when they put it up in the front. I know they had to come, because they had the footings over too far. I remember it distinctly. MR. KENNY-That's possible. MR. TURNER-Yes. So that's why I'm saying, it wasn't two lots. It had to be one. MR. KENNY-If it was one lot, they wouldn't need a variance. They would have plenty of width. MR. TURNER-I'm not saying it's one. I'm saying it's two lots. MR. KENNY-It's always been two lots. always been two lots. That I know. I know it's MR. TURNER-That's why they had to get the relief. MR. KENNY-Right. It was always two lots, but I do believe when Willey Creek came for a site plan, back in 1987, they made a lot line adjustment. I believe the lot line was a straight line. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. KENNY-The whole Route 9 was about 100 foot wide by 600 foot depth lots, and what they did was make a lot line adjustment, take care of the buildings, take care of the setbacks, and the parking. The issue of the 50 foot setback from the road was after the fact, the building was built. So the building was built, and then that Ordinance changed to a 35 foot setback. That was after the fact. MR. TURNER-Okay. MR. CARVIN-Looking through the minutes here, if this was two lots, then, they, technically, could have been entitled to two freestanding signs. MR. TURNER-That's right. That's what they're doing. MR. CARVIN-Well, I can appreciate that, but I think what Paul was saying is that we have a situation where they could consider that there was a principal lease here. I'm just saying that they combined it, be(~ause they put it all on one freestanding sign, when they could have had two, so that the Restaurant was one sign and that the other one was the second sign. MR. TURNER-Yes. Exactly. MR. CARVIN-Because looking through the minutes here, and looking at - 8 - the sign on the front of the building. there's no reference. In other words. Sue Goetz was asking about utilizing the freestanding sign. and that's why I was kind of coming up with why that really wasn't explored back then. MR. TURNER-Continue on. MR. LEONARD-Okay. So the special circumstances are that the lot is very narrow. The view corridor is very limited. to completely obscured. due t:o the Log Jam Restaurant. and the configuration of the lot. and that we have had. since 1989. three tenants in that section of the building. All of them have been less than a year. and at any onE~ point in time. there's been at least one space that's been vacant. It's been very difficult for businesses to make a go of it back in there because of the lack of visibility from the road. which seemed a little bit strange. when the rest of the Center has been completely full since it's construction. The strict application of the Ordinance would deprive reasonable use of this section of the building. When the Ordinance is strictly interpreted. it. restricts the princ ipal busine ss identification from the freestanding sign. and because the new Levi's store would incorporate this entire area. it would become a principal business of the Center. and that strict interpretation the Town has done on the Sign Ordinance would restrict having their name out there. That's the primary reason why we would be asking for this variance. In granting the variance. the general harmony of the area would not really be impacted. There are other centers. both to the north and south of us. that have freestanding signs with principal business names on them. a variance granted in 1988 and 1990. Actually we feel that our sign would fit in well with those. if you will. We feel that it would actually look much better than those. being that it would be a natural wood sign. nice coloring. and no back lighting. So it should not interfere with what the general harmony of the area looks like at this point. We feel that this is a relief. a minimum relief that we're asking for. and the minimum that would accomplish the objective here. to try to make that back section of the building more leasable. more usable. and more visible for the customers. The variance that we're asking for we feel. also. is within the general harmony of the intent of the Sign Ordinance. where it provides maximum visibility for the principal businesses. It provides for a maximum amount of safety. where are willing to eliminate one of the previously approved directory sign panels. We feel that it will eliminate the small signage that's on the end of the building. and may be creating a hazard. or some safety concerns. from the vehicles passing by. where we're eliminating. potentially. five signs. twenty-four square feet of signage. and putting one tenant to replace those five individual panels. which ,.¡auld be larger than what those panels are. The people driving by would automatically. or instantaneously identify with the logo of Levi. and they would probably not be inclined to look any further at trying to figure out what other stores are in the Center. and hopefully they would drive right in. We feel that it will also preserve the scenic beauty of the area. because of the Redwood. natural wood. and we feel that it'll create a more attractive. economic environment for the business. These are all items that the Sign Ordinance intends or tries to accomplish. and we feel that it would accomplish all of those. Most importantly. we feel that it will not be injurious to the neighborhood. or detrimental to the public welfare. because. in fact. it might even improve what WE~ have out there right now. We have an existing variance that you made reference to earlier. and I think the consensus is that once the signs went up on the wall. we felt that it was going to solve the problem. and after we've seen what's gone on in the last four years. with our tenants moving in. moving out. not being able to lease the space. people saying. it's not visible. there's no signage. and so forth. we've realized that that tenant panel really doesn't work. It works to a certain extent. for the pedestrians passing by. but not necessarily for the visibility from the north. and maybe not even visibility from the south. The tenant panels are down on this end of the facility. and although we - 9 - ~ are not able to remove all three of the signs because we can't remove the tenant's names from those. we do have the ability to remove one of the signs. and in doing that. we're hoping to correct a potentially erred philosophy when we came in for the last variance. and I'd just mention that to clarify that. I think that that's about it:. MR. TURNER-You said your leases run three to five years on all of stores? MR. LEONARD-As a general rule. MR. TURNER-Rule of thumb. MR. LEONARD-It could be seven years. but. MS. GALVIN-Generally. three to five years. MR. TURNER-Okay. So where are these people with their leases? MS. GALVIN-And they usually have options to renew. but I do not know the specifics of the leases in this outlet. MR. TURNER-My feeling is. we tried to solve the problem for you the last time around. and that was your mistake. That wasn't ours. MR. LEONARD-We're trying to move. MR. TURNER-Yes. I know. but I'm saying. if the Board decides that this is a good thing. put it up front. That's what I asked you the last time. Why can't the rest of them go? He said. no. they can't. MR. LEONARD-Thl~Y' re tied in with the. the tenants have them. They're tied in. and that's why I think that in trading off. and it's equitable. when you look at the space in question. the Levi's space being approximately 20 percent of the mall. We're removing about 30 percent of the directory sign out front. MR. TURNER-Yes. I know. but you just made a statement that the directory sign on the building does not work. MR. LEONARD-It does not work as well as we expected it to. Primarily. it really does not work for this section down here. These stores in here have some visibility. as you know. MR. TURNER-Yes. from the north. Right. MR. LEONARD-EvEm as you come up. you could turn your shoulder around and see this direction here. but this is almost completely blocked. and that's the difficult part. and so what we were hoping to do was if \o1e could eliminate 30 percent. 33 percent of the directory signs out there. knowing that. maybe we didn't do enough. we were trying to do. even as our application here states. we're trying to do the minimum amount to be able to accomplish what we need to do. I think maybe at that time we were still trying to do that. and so we propose to put up the directories there. Now we're finding that that does not work. These stores are stable. We don't feel that that's a problem in through here at all. They have been stable since the mall opened. all the way along that side. and by changing just that one directory sign. and have Levi's filling this entire area. we'll have one tenant. taking down 33 percent of that existing directory. putting a nice sign on and within the size regulations for a freestanding sign. and a very nice way. either sign. either way. and we're hoping to correct an error. if we made it. in the past. by trying to minimize the amount of signs. and putting them back under the canopy. and solve the issue once and for all. MR. TURNER-Yes. but the solution for this sign is to get this one - 10 - ~ tenant in there. That's the whole thing. MR. LEONARD-Well, it does accomplish that. There's no doubt about that. MR. TURNER-That's all it's for, no consideration for the other people that are in there, only on the directory sign. MR. LEONARD-That's correct. You're absolutely correct. MR. KARPELES-The directory signs, which businesses are covered by the directory signs, all the businesses in that long area? MR. LEONARD-Yes. MR. KARPELES-We~ll, aren't you afraid that that's going to disrupt their business, when you take those directory signs down, and you say what has belen stable might all of a sudden become unstable? MR. LEONARD-Well, one of the things about that, and fortunately we're in the situation, is that the Leather Loft is owned by Jonathan, who you met the other night. He is really the only store, because the other places are vacant. All three of these end places are vacant right now. MR. KARPELES-Okay, and they're the ones that? MR. LEONARD-And they were the ones that were on this end directory sign, along with Jonathan's store, and I think he said it the other night. He said, I'll take the heat from my Leather Loft stores for them not having that directory out there, but what it will do is it will fill up the mall. These people are already happy. Their directory signs will stay intact. With this sign going on the freestanding, this will be full, and stable, and visible. MS. GALVIN-My name is Susan Galvin. I'm an attorney in New Hampshire. The request is because of the shape of the lot, and the location of that jogged area and the restaurant, and, yes, putting a sign up will help Levi's come in, but it could be Levi's or it could be anybody. I think the point Steve was trying to make was, since 1989, which is about some years ago, the rest of the Center's been thriving, and this spot has been impossible to lease or to keep leased, bE~cause it hasn't had the visibility. So. yes. it happened to be Levi's. but. I mean. it could have been somebody else. Yes, you can say it's being done for Levi's. but that's just because that's who it is. It's really done because that space is just invisible. It's very, very difficult to see, and so whoever went in there would need the visibility. MRS. NICHOLS-Because the Zoning Board of Appeals, as an administrative agency, and as a decision maker and appellate agency has to make a set of findings in order to facilitate their next phase of the discussion, we've prepared a memorandum that sets forth a set of specific findings that we are proposing to the Board. to address the various elements that your Ordinance requires, and that Steve has described. from a factual perspective. So what! propose to do is take those. that factual discussion, and put it in a somewhat more legal context. That is, in order to make the decision. you have to determine that there are exceptional physical conditions where the strict application of the Sign Codes would result in substantial difficulty and unnecessary hardship, such that it \.¡ould deprive the owner of the property of the reasonable use of either the sign or the premises, and as we've set forth. the physical configuration of the Log Jam Outlet Center renders it impossible for the traveling public to view the normal display featurels of a store. Your Ordinance assumes that the primary advertisement, or the primary identification for an individual store within a shopping center will be the name over the store. The configuration of this particular portion of the mall renders that normal assumption in effective with reference to this - 11 - particular part of the mall. The special circumstances, as you've indicated, this is going to be a very major portion of the mall. This is a tenant that will constitute our principal business, occupying 20 percent of the Gross Leasable Square Footage of the mall. The largest other tenant, as you can see from the display in the site plan, occupies only 10 percent. Therefore, Levi's will, in fact, be the principal business of this mall because it occupies 20 percent of that Gross Leasable Square Footage, which is approximately twice as much as any other tenant in the premises. Both Susan and Steve have indicated for you the dismal rental history of this particular part of the mall, and of the practical consequences that, even with the variance that had been received previously, the application of the provisions of the Code mean that this part of the mall is consistently unrented, and we believe that consti tutes sufficient practical difficulty to meet the legal standard for your decision. We believe the variance application is in general harmony with the restrictions which your Ordinance has established for this area. With the sole exception of the language on the sign, this sign complies completely with the requirements of your Ordinance, in terms of size, in terms of materials, in terms of setback. It is fully compliant, and your Planning Department has said that. The only variance that is being sought is as to the language on the site, i.e. the right to display a single tenant, and given the reality of the occupancy of the mall, there is no reason to expect, and we do not intend to come forth, in fact our sign clearly indicates we do not intend to come forth, with an application for any additional tenants on that sign. It is the replacement of the wall sign, the directory sign, at the end of building with a single tenant sign. MR. KARPELES-That looks like it's divided into two parts. really all one big store, in the end? Is it MR. LEONARD-Actually, right now, it is three leasing diagram. It's actually three spaces. All three of them have been periodically. entire section. spaces. This is the All three are empty. Levi will take that MR. KARPELES-Well, what if they don't take it? I mean, are you then going to Gome back and want to put two more names on that sign? MR. LEONARD-The agreement right now is that Levi will take that whole space. MR. TURNER-What's the lease for? How many years? MR. CARVIN-They would take the whole space, depending on what? MR. LEONARD-The sign. MR. TURNER-The sign, and for how many years? MR. LEONARD-Again, three to five renewable. I don't know. Maybe Levi, sometimes the bigger tenants go with a longer lease. MR. CARVIN-Okay. My question, also, as a follow up to that, is why did you wait until this, if you've lost three tenants prior to that, why is all of a sudden this fourth one the one that has to be out on the sign? Why wasn't Number Two special, or Number Three special? Why i:s it all of a sudden that Levi has to be out on the sign? What about Gi tano? Wasn't Gi tano big enough to be considered out on the sign prior to that, if you were having a problem identifying the sign? MR. LEONARD-As things progress, I think Table DeFrance was first, and that company pulled out. MR. CARVIN-Okay, but Table DeFrance, from your conversation here, indicated that they were having problems with the sign, right? In - 12 - other words. that was one of the reasons that they left? MS. GALVIN-Tha1:'s a very difficult question. especially for Steve to answer. because he's not involved with the day to day leasing. He's not a leasing agent of the Company. and I do not know. either. My guess. and it is a guess. is that Gitano and the others probably thought they could do it without the sign. It's less likely for a developer to volunteer to spend money. if he doesn't have to. So. if they didn't ask for the sign. I'm sure that. MR. CARVIN-Okay. but what if Gitano or any of the others had made it a prerequisite before leasing. as. apparently. Levi's is. MS. GALVIN-My guess is that had the terms of the lease been economically favorably. as I presume these are. enough to warrant the developer spending the time to try to get the approvals and build the sign. and had they insisted on it. then we might have been here before now. That's just my guess. MR. LEONARD-I think one of the other things is that it's fairly common knowledge. from what I understand. over the last few weeks of hearing information come forward on this. is that it is difficul t to glet a Sign Variance. It's more difficult in some towns than in other towns. and I think the Town of Queensbury is felt to be somewhat difficult. and so. and I don't know if this is. in fact. true. I'm speculating to a degree here. but I think that we've felt that the tenant should be able to make it back there. We went forward. back in ' 89. to get the variance for the wall sign. hoping that that would take care of the situation. and the new tenants moved in. and we said. look. we've got a directory sign up there. You'll get the traffic and so forth. The visibility will be there. and as the course of time happened. it didn't pan out that way. It didn't seem to work. and now we have Levi. and they want to come to Queensbury. They're a good corporate citizen. They're a good name. They'll increase the tax base. They want to come in. and one of their corporate policies is. yes. they want to be on the freE~standing sign. and most tenants have a list of corporate policies to say we'll go in. but we need these types of things. In certain towns. they can't have certain things. So they will waive some of those corporate policies. In this particular si te. this is not where they really want to go in Queensbury. They'd like to go out front. There's no space available. They've said. okay. we will go back there. but we have to enforce our corporate policy of signage. because you have a hardship where your visibility is I;; 'reatly reduced. They feel they can still pull people in. if they have that sign out in front. MR. CARVIN-Okay. So how would you address staff's comments and concerns that :Lf it's Levi's corporate policy to insist on the placement of their name on the freestanding sign. as stated by the applicant in previous discussions. that there is no shopping center in Queensbury that could accommodate them without a variance. regardle ss of t;he site conditions? In other words. what you're saying is. in thi s particular spot. they are enforcing the ir corporate policies on the Town of Queensbury. as far as the Sign Ordinance is concerned. but if they go across the street. they wouldn't. So why is that a hardship on our Ordinance? MR. LEONARD-Well. I think what we're really saying here is there. it's a two fold situation. You have a very good point. First of all. we're saying we have a hardship here. We have a lot that's very narrow. has very restrictive visibility. We have a hardship here. MR. CARVIN-Okay. MR. LEONARD-And secondly. we have a tenant. a principal business who is coming in who is very knowledgeable about their business. They know what the traffic flows are. what creates the traffic flows. and what they'd need to pull people in. - 13 - MR. CARVIN-Okay. I will grant you that there is a problem with that particular site. However. this building was built. when. in , 89. prior to September or after September? In other words. I think that you had addressed that particular situation in 1989. feeling that the sign variance would have been taken care of out on the road there. So is this not a self-created hardship. in other words. that was eliminated or at least alleviated back in 1989? MS. GALVIN-One of the important things for a variance is to try to be as minimal êlS possible. When they came in in '89. wanting use of a wall sign. that was minimal. That was as minimal as possible. They obviously hoped it would work. They are now saying it didn't. That space hasn't rented out. MR. CARVIN-But you haven't proved the sign. is what I'm saying. In other words. you had three tenants back there. from 1989 through 1994. and it's only now because a corporate policy is being enforced. that you feel that you have to come and get a Sign Variance. MS. GALVIN-No. You're incorrect on that. There have been three tenants. not continuously. most of the time most of the space has been vacant. Levi's has a corporate policy. so they tell us. that says that they must have their name on the signs. It's my understanding that they will waive that corporate policy. as many corporations do. if they don't think it's necessary. Here. they think it's necessary. Here. we agree that it's necessary. because history. history. the past three or four years has shown that this space is very. very difficult to lease. because of the narrow configuration and the lack of visibility. MR. DUSEK-Fred. as I see what their comments are. here. from what I'm picking up. I don't think the argument is the corporate policy (lost word) warrants the variance. and I don't think that the Board could every grant a variance on the basis of a corporate policy. nor would that be wise. I think what they're saying to you is that. forget about the corporate policy for a minute. and just take a look at the criteria for granting a variance. When you've granted variances in the past. one of the criteria you've considered was whether or not the building was visible from the main thoroughfare. in terms of its visibility. on some of those other plazas. at least from what ~ saw from your decisions. That was one criteria. Another criteria you considered was how many signs would possibly go up there on your sign board. In this particular case. I think what they're argument is. the way they're bringing in the~ corporate policy argument is they're saying. if your criteria is that you can't see the building. we have support for that. because you have a corporation which. if there was visibility. they wouldn't require. or might not require. normally. a freestanding sign. but in this particular case. because there isn't visibility. this goes to prove. to show you that there isn't vi sibi I i ty. because the corporation's even saying. you've got a problem here. We have to be on the front sign. So I think they're trying to use the corporate argument as a supportive argument. but not as the argument. Do you know what I'm saying. and I understand your concern. that you could not address the variance based on the corporate argument. I think you're absolutely right. and I think what you have to do is look at the other criteria. MR. CARVIN-Okay. but alternative where we the back. without thoroughfare? in continuing that argument. is there not an could put a larger signage on the building in having to have it right on the front MS. GALVIN-I don't think so. If you've seen it. it's so far back. MR. CARVIN-Yes. Well. we've had a similar situation. not too long ago. within the last year or two. with Steinbach. which is in a very similar situation. They are in a larger mall. and they sit back off the road further. and they have a visibility problem. and - 14 - they wanted to put a sign out on the front there, and that variance was turned down. If it had been Steinbach's corporate policy to move out of town, where would we have been. MS. GALVIN-No. I don't know the particulars of that. MR. CARVIN-That's very similar to this, because they have a visibility situation. MS. GALVIN-Okay. I just know that in this case, I really, I believe the ViE;ibi1ity situation is extremely difficulty. because it's very long and narrow. If you combine that with kind of the way it juts out and where the Log Jam Restaurant is. We drove by it today, and I couldn't read a sign in there. MR. CARVIN-I visited it just before coming to the meeting this evening. just to make sure that, I visited it twice or three times now, just to make sure that I hadn't missed something on this particular situation, and I agree with you. It does sit back in the back there. but I'm going to tell you, I have a real hard problem knowing that if we don't put Levi's name out on that front sign, that Levi's is not going to come to Town, because I did speak to a Mark Rubin this afternoon, and he re-emphasized the fact that that is Levi's corporate policy. Number Two, I think that if we put that sign out there. whether it's Levi's or X. Y, Z Corporation, that we're going to have a tough time for the other tenants. Now, you say they may be happy, but what if one of them is not happy, and now all of a sudden says, gee whiz, I want to be on the front sign, too. MR. LEONARD-I think that's evident by the track record. the track record of all of these stores in this section. MR. CARVIN-Okay. What do we tell the guy across the street, that sits more than 3ØØ feet off the road, with his little sign? MR. LEONARD-Does he have a hardship? Would he have a hardship? MR. CARVIN-Well. under this definition, I mean, they could conceivably say that anything that far back is a hardship. I mean. what I'm saying is. it makes it much easier to argue. MS. GALVIN-It's also an obstructed view. It's not just far back. MR. CARVIN-Okay. What I'm suggesting is you've categorically denied that a larger sign on the building. as is the case with Steinbach, is not acceptable, and I'm looking for an alternative, so I can say to the next guy that comes in, that points to this sign, that says. gee whiz, Levi got a variance, that we have looked for other alternatives to that. MR. LEONARD-How about if we, I'm not sure if I have a clear picture of both sides of the building. but we do have the gable on this end of the building. MR. CARVIN-Well, the way I looked at it, that I went out to the front. MR. LEONARD-The gable here? MR. CARVIN-No. I'm looking right in the corner. do you see, right in that area there. If you were to put a fairly large size, what size, I don't know. I mean, to be negotiable. MR. LEONARD-They would almost have to be billboard signs. MR. CARVIN-No. I don't think that's correct, but I think that a fairl y reasonably sized sign, in that corner, would add tremendously to the visibility. and I went up and down that road, and it is visible right in that corner. - 15 - MR. LEONARD-Looking down this corridor? MR. CARVIN-And coming in. in other words. that is a very narrow entrance. You've got signs on the front which I will have to admit are practically useless. I'm not arguing that. I mean. those signs are. first of all. I never realized that they were there. okay. because there is an overhang. They are printed on dark board. with white letters. and the letters are very small. Now. I mean. I will agree with you. Those signs are. I mean. I agree. you made a mistake back in 1988 or ' 89. but I have a problem with putting the Levi logo out on that front sign. I really do. I'll work with you on almost any other fashion. but I have a feeling that if you go back to Levi's and say. the best we can do is put a sign there. that their corporate policy will prevent them from leasing. Now. I can't say that with any certainty. and I've got to say to you that that's just the way it goes. because I still don't see where our Ordinance. in this particular situation. needs to be altered. just to put Levi's logo out there. without opening up a real can of worms. MRS. NICHOLS-One of the problems that you have to address. in this context. is what you've done in the past. and because the Court of Appeals has determined that a Zoning Board of Appeals. because it performs the quasi-judicial function that we're presently engaged in discussing. has to comply with the general rule that you must follow your prE~cedents. When I first started practicing before Zoning Boards of Appeals. that wasn't the rule. The rule was that each application. each site. was individual. and. therefore. was judged solely on its individual character. We went through the records in this community. and in the past six years. there have been five variances granted for freestanding signs for shopping centers. which freestanding signs don't comply with Board's interpretation of your Codes that only the name of the shopping center can be displayed. You have specifically the Ames shopping center. which was formally Zayres. In July of 1987. that variance was granted. It contains three tenant signs. MR. CARVIN-Okay. That sign. we had K-Mart. right. come in. and they wanted to change that. and they wanted to hang a whole bunch of signs out there. I think that that situation will be resolved very shortly. or the Wal-Mart. if they go there. because at this point. I think there's only one tenant in there. and that's Ames and a doctor. MR. TURNER-We granted that one because that mall was 600 feet from Route 9. and it had a grade that you couldn't see the bUildings in the back. WhEm the driveways were cut. they were cut on an incline. and you had to come up into it. and you could not see anything. MR. CARVIN-And as I said. continuing the story. when Wal-Mart came in and wanted t,o put signs in there. I think they caught. they applied for. how many signs. Ted. I don't remember. MR. TURNER-Fourteen. I think. MR. CARVIN-Yes. it was a huge number. and. again. using the same criteria that it was back. and I don't think they walked out of here with. what. four or five with that. MS. GALVIN-We're only asking for one. MRS. NICHOLS-In September of that same year. this Board approved a sign that was 120 square feet. to advertise four stores and the Mark Plaza shopping center. That sign contains the words "Mark Plaza" as well as tenant signs for "Floor Master". "Dream House Furniture". "The Outlet Barn Off Price Apparel". "Cedar Crest Pet Shop". and "Sagamore Style II Hair Designs". In October of 1988. the Zoning Board approved a Sign Variance for Dunhams. for a freestanding sign next to our parcel. which contains announcements - 16 - - for three tenants. The sign contains the words "Dunhams Footware". "Soxs Market. Inc.". and "Big and Tall Men's Clothing". In January 1990. this Board approved a Sign Variance for the Route 9 Mall. again. a neighbor mall. for a 64 square foot sign. listing the mall itself. and six individual stores. That sign is located only 15 feet from the property line. and exceeds the permitted square footage for signs. at that setback distance. by 14 square feet. That sign contains the words "Route 9 Mall". and the following tenant stores: "Las Vegas Golf". "Philly Steak". "Pat's Diner". "Gl i tz Bou tiqu€!". "The Tackle Box" and "Edie' sCorner" . On Jul y 6th of last year. the Zoning Board granted a Sign Variance for the Miller Hill Mall. which sign displays three tenant signs. "Subway". "The Glass Shop". and "Pro-Tune Computer Diagnostic Tune Up Centers". In addition. in January of 1993. the Building Inspector. the Building Department. issued a Sign Permit for a freestanding shopping center sign for Meadowbrook Plaza. which sign displays not only the name of the Plaza. but also five individual tenant signs. The names pres,ently displayed on that sign are. in addition to Meadowbrook Plaza. "The Bike Shop". "Cypress Pools". "Calabria Pizzeria". "Internal Revenue Service". and "Parts Plus Auto Store". We submit that the history of this Board is to approve tenant signs on shopping center signs. and that to deny our single application for a single tenant is inconsistent with that established precedent of this Board. MISS HAUSER-Has Levi's insisted that they be the only tenant listed on that freestanding sign? MS. GALVIN-No. MR. DUSEK-My understanding. from conversations in this matter. I've been involved because of your last decision on it. I guess it's no secret there's an Article 78 pending on that. So I've gotten invol ved. My understanding of the situation of the proposal is this was an attempt to come up with a different sign that would. in essence, be one sign to help address the concerns that you have. Fred. as to a precedent. So. first of all. that was why they reintroduced the different package here, just one sign. The second thing is that the likelihood of other tenants asking to come on to that sign can be stopped by this Board. because you're granting that variance, to run with the land, and the owner of the land. obviously. is the one that's going to come in for the variances, whoever that may be. whether it's this gentleman now. or if he sells in the future. So. they're going to have to come back in to this Board. and the problem they're going to have is that. if you treat this as one sign. then it's not multiple signs being added on. So it's different than your K-Mart. or Wal-Mart. whoever it was. They had 14 different individual businesses. Do you know what I'm saying? They tried to incorporate this into one. So I just bring that to your attention, because I see some distinguishing features here, and I think when you consider those distinguishing features. plus I think you've got to consider the variances that you've given in the past, and take a look at those. in terms of the, those were actually names that were added to a sign. MR. CARVIN-Okay. I'm not familiar. That's a new one? When was the Meadowbrook? MR. TURNER-Yes. We didn't get that one. MR. MARTIN-No. I explained that the last meeting. That came in as a change of copy sign, with just the plaza name. and as a practical matter. the owner of the plaza has gone out and put the names of the tenants on there. That was not in his application when that permit was given. MR. CARVIN-The only other one that I can address is the Miller Hill. because I was on the Board for that one. and I know that we went round and round on that. and they were basically seeking the - 17 - - right variance that you folks. in 1989. were not seeking the right variance for. Where you folks went with the three plaques on the wall. they went for the three freestanding sign. because they have no visibility on south bound traffic. and that was the reasoning behind that one. In other words. when you came in. you came in in 1989. using essentially the same argument. that there was a visibili ty problem from south bound traffic heading north. In other words. that because the way the stores are lined in there. and you felt. at that point. that the sign on the outside of the front building would eliminate that. Well. the Miller Hill folks came in and said that that probably wouldn't be a viable solution. and wanted to go with the sign. and the Board agreed. in that particular situation. So. as I said. I can defend that variance. By your own admission. that error on the last variance. and you're saying yourself. it's minimum. I mean. how many minimums do you get? Now. as far as the other's I'm going to have to refer to Ted. here. because I was not on the Board. and I know most of them. MR. TURNER-Route 9 was granted the variance. because at the time. if I remember right. before Dave did the Days Inn over. there was a building right out by the road. and there was some cabins there. and you could not see that mall at all. You were by it before you knew you were t.here. MR. KARPELES-I think all those signs looked pretty horrible. MR. CARVIN-I agree. MR. KARPELES-Because we made a mistake in the past. I don't think we should keep making that mistake. MR. TURNER-The bUilding that was out by the road. MR. KENNY-I wasn't here when they came for the variance at the time. The variances were granted. I believe. back in '88. '89. I think the Sign Ordinance went into effect in 1978. and people weren't comply. and you forced them to comply with size and everything else. MR. TURNER-That's where the variances come from. It was passed in 1976. not 1978. They had 10 years to comply. MR. LEONARD-My personal opinion is that if these signs were put together in panels that were non back lit. that they would look substantially different. and much more aesthetically pleasing. I think the configuration with the round pipe. plexy glass back lighting with the yellow colors. it definitely takes away from the character of the sign. In terms of impacting the character of the neighborhood. I think if these were the nicer signs. that they would fit in really well with the character of the entire Town. being the rustic. so forth. MR. TURNER-That sign right there. Subway and the rest of them. that was specifically for safety reasons. That was a great concern right there. because accidents. it's real tough. They're right on the bend. They come down from the north. you look. you couldn't see it. and all of a sudden they're there. and the driveway's right there. and they cut right over. I almost hit a guy right there myself one day. MR. LEONARD-And I think that's probably a similar situation that ~ have. is people are southbound. or actually northbound. where if you tell the people what's there. and you keep it in large enough letters. so that they can decipher it ahead of time. especially with Levi. although it could be X. Y. Z Corporation. With Levi's logo. people will identify it. bingo. there it is, and it will give them enough advanced notice. Without having. you try to look at the directory sign. I'm not saying it's good or bad, but, if they even see those. people that have lived here in the Town for years. - 18 - MR. TURNER-It really panned out. it wasn't any good. because you said it yourself. That directory sign is worthless. MR. LEONARD-I agree. MR. TURNER-And I told them right up front it was worthless. They got their variance. MR. LEONARD-But they were trying to go with the minimum requirement. They were trying to get a minimum out there. MR. TURNER-Yes. but at that time. the property was still one. MS. GALVIN-No. MR. TURNER-It ~iasn't? All right. but anyway. I never thought it was a good idea. MR. LEONARD-Based on its own merit. regardless of some of the other things that are done. I think we still have the hardship here. The sign's presentable. I think it will take away from. potentially. some confusion. people trying to read those directory signs. If they see them. they will identify the rear stores. They'll take care of this hardship. There's not much more that we can do. then to put a sign in this location (lost words) in terms of the overall impact of the neighborhood. and alleviate that hardship back there. If you wanted to identify this sign panel to have a single tenant on it. that would be satisfactory as well. We understand where you're coming from. We want to keep the beauty of the area. the rustic nature of the Town of Queensbury and all of that. We've tried to all along. That's obvious by the type Center we've built. The signs that we've got on. and so forth. and so if you wanted to limit it to one tenant or one principal business. that would be adequate with us. MR. TURNER-All right. Anyone else. any questions? Okay. Let me open the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED ED MOORE MR. MOORE-My name is Ed Moore. I'm the owner of French Mountain Commons Outlet Center. and a resident of the Town of Queensbury. All other things aside. there's a lot of things that I know about the internal affairs of Willey Creek. that. I'm not going to talk. a lot of the questions that have been addressed. I'm going to say this, that they have a real hardship problem there. I'm aware of it. as a land owner. and a person that's in the same business they are. It's a real problem. As a resident of the Town of Queensbury. do we want this piece of property not on the tax rolls? What do you do to help them? They've been in here several times. when they first built the building. and the Planning Board gave them approvals. not variances. but looked the other way for parking lots. It's on and on and on and on. It keeps going on. The attorney brought up a point. as far as. you've allowed variances in the past. You've also turned them down for similar. the Lake George Plaza. I used to have a sign out there that had a directory. They came along. when I got four stores out there. they came to me and they said. a shopping center. freestanding sign denoting the name of the shopping center shall be permitted for each entrance. Take the directory off. Aesthetically. I don't think we should have a bunch of names on the whole place. They have a problem. Will Levi's not take the space? Probably so. Is it a corporate decision? Probably not. Will it make it work if it's on there? De f ini te ly so. I think there's a real parking problem back there. too. That's one of the reasons why it doesn't work. MR. TURNER-Yes. - 19 - ~ MR. MOORE-Levi's needs a lot of people in there. They can't fill up the whole parking lot, enough people there to make business, but that doesn't mean to say that you shouldn't try to have Levi's there, in an off the record comment with Jim Martin, talking one day, he proposed something. He said, you know what might be a good idea? He said, and I know Holly has been in on the Sign Ordinance Commi ttee, looking to restructure the zoning guidelines for the sign, said something to the effect, why don't we make, Jim said, why don't we do something like have the 50 or 65 square foot sign, depending the 25 to 50 foot setback, and let you say anything you want in there, with a minimum letter size, 10 inches, 12 inches, whatever it might be. Well maybe that's the answer. As I said when I addressled this Board before, I have a real problem with variances, and this is a prime thing here. Here they come and point the finger at you and say, look, you did this before. You better watch out. We're going to have you in court. You've got to watch what you're doing here. You can't just keep putting variances out for everyone and everything. I have a problem with that with the Planning Board and everything. That's another issue, but you've got to watch what you're doing here. Maybe the answer, here, is that I'll come in here next week, or MaIka Shalit, from Lake George Plaza, and say, hey, they can get it on, why not me, too, or I'm going to take you to court. Where does it end? Maybe you have to, é~nd this is something for the Town Attorney to address, maybe we have to change it so we make it flexible, and if you put one tenant out there, we'll choose who you want. Choose, if you want to put Log Jam Factory Outlet Center, and you have enough room to put Levi's and Shevi's in there, put them in there. That's it. Don't let them get another variance again. I mean, that's the rules. That's why you have Zoning Boards. That's why you have laws, to set the guidelines and stop giving out these exceptions to the rules. MR. TURNER-Yes, well, we're looking at it. MR. MOORE- I'm not trying to reprimand. I'm just trying to say, maybe the answer is for Holly to come forward, and with the zoning thing, and to change the whole thing, before we give them a variance, so that we don't have another thing to do about a variance again. Change the thing. Make it so that we can do something, and then we can all, if I want to put somebody else out there, or Dave, or MaIka, they can do that. So I think they have a problem. I'm against variances. I understand, the rest is up to the Board, to be honest with you. MR. TURNER-Okay. Thank you. DAVE KENNY MR. KENNY-David Kenny, resident of the Town of Queensbury. I guess, whether you grant the variance or not, I have no problem with that, but I will say this, in terms of the applicant, if they put Levi's in 1t.here, if Levi's comes, they won't have to worry about any other stores being there, because Levi's will be a big draw. MR. TURNER-Yes. They're going to help everybody. MR. KENNY-It's a definite plus for the area. So, I'm not against them. I'd like to see Levi's here. I mean, it's going to help me. It's going to help the whole road, and as far as the building itself goes. I'm sure once Levi's comes in it's going to make all the space more valuable, because it's a name drawing tenant. It's a positive for the road. MR. TURNER-We won't need the directory signs. MR. KENNY-I agree with that. I would like to see the Sign Ordinance changed to allow this, but I do think Levi's would be a major draw for them. Thank you. - 20 - ~ MR. TURNER-Okay. Thanks. Dave. MR. DUSEK-Mr. Chairman. before it escapes me. if I could make one comment. I think Mr. Moore made a good comment about variances and changes in the law and things. and I think he's absolutely right when he says that variances shouldn't be granted any more than you have to. basically. and you should be very. very careful about granting them. but one comment I will make. of course. is that once you start to set a trend for variances then. of course. you're bound by your trend. but also I think my real point I wanted to make is that even if you did grant another variance. once you start the law. then you're starting from. basically. a clean slate. Nothing that you do. up until that dated variance. will matter. as long as the law is not the same. and that's what. if I understand. is being proposed. That if you change that law. then you're really not going to have to worry about these older variances. MR. TURNER-No. MR. MOORE-And also. like with this. I'd hate to see them getting a variance. now, and then change the law next week. and it would be different. If we're going to change so you can put something on there now. and then they can do it. If Dave wants to put Champion. and what's his name wants to put Anne Klein. like she wanted to last year. they can put it. They can always figure out the amount of stores or whatever. I think that's fair. and Jim mentioned that to me. and not to wave any flags at anybody. but I thought it was a real sensible solution to the problem. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. DUSEK-The only problem with changing the law. though. that's going to take. probably. two to three months. MR. MOORE-Well. I don't think they're going to run in there next week, in that shopping center. Maybe the week after. but not next week. MR. LEONARD-Tomorrow, their architects will be here tomorrow. MR. TURNER-Okay. comment? Any further questions of the applicant? Any PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. LEONARD-Ed had made a reference which I just wanted to clarify. He kind of alluded to us threatening. and I just wanted to clarify that we're not trying to threaten anybody. We want to put forward a very straight forward. as some of these issues are a little bit more complicated than we can walk through in a real orderly manner. but we wanted to put in front of you an application and try to make a straightforward for a variance. and there are no threats intended. and that's it. MR. TURNER-Okay. MR. CARVIN-What's the rest of the Board's feeling? much said my peace. I've pretty MR. TURNER-We 11. I think you do have a hardship. as far as visibility goes, but the corporate muscle. that doesn't cut any ice with me. I think. just like Paul says. you've got to go with what is there. forget the corporate muscle. you know. their decision. we want it there or else. That's kind of like Blockbuster Video, what I emphasized before. when they came. We want blue and yellow and that's it. We won't change for anybody. We said. fine. So they didn't get it. but that was a different situation. and they had good visibility. This one doesn't. MR. MENTER-I think that it does. I honestly think it does open up - 21 - ~ the possibility for changes that Mr. Kenny and Mr. Moore will be compelled to come in here for a variance and try to make. which would be detrimental to the strip. MR. TURNER-Well. I think you're going to see that. MR. MENTER-If it's done in that fashion. by variance fashion. MR. TURNER-Yes. I don't think you're going to see that any more. I think you're going to see things get changed around a little bit. That's just my own opinion. I don't know. because I'm on the Sign Committee. too. and that's what we're working for. is something similar to that.. So, if that does come to fruition and we say to them. yes. you can have a 50 square foot sign. at 15 foot setback. or 64 at 25. .and you can have your tenants on there. and the letters are only four inches. That's it. Then they'd have a tough case for a variance. after that. I think, the problem with a lot of these is these are just strip malls, and they've got them so configured on the lots that they just don't have any visibility. They've maximized the lots. MR. MENTER-All right. So you're saying there's a general hardship. in a lot of cases. MR. TURNER-I think there is. MR. MENTER-There's things under consideration to remedy that. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. MENTER-So what do you do with this applicant? MR. TURNER-You've got to rule on it. because this change. if it does come. won't be for two or three months. and I don't know what their time frame is. MR. LEONARD-February 28th. I understand. MR. TURNER-February 28th? You won't meet that one. I don't care who goes back there, who it is. Sears and Roebucks, penneys whatever, but they're going to have visibility problems. MR. DUSEK-Mr. Chairman. I give Sue credit for this. We're kind of having our own little side line conference over here. This is something that may help the Board. an idea that was just come up with. It is possible. in your deliberations, to grant a variance. if you were so inclined. Obviously. it's your decision whether you grant it or don't grant it. If you did, you could condition that variance upon complying with the new Ordinance. in terms of size of lettering and 'whatnot. at a later date. So, in two or three months. in other words. when the new Ordinance came out. they would then have to. they could still have what they have on the sign, but then they'd have to comply with whatever the lettering requirements are. which means they may have to make that bigger or whatever. or you could structure it even differently. You could say that no other tenants would be added unless they did comply. I think you have some flexibility. here. that if you wanted to come up with something fairly inventive. you might be able to. MR. CARVIN-Well, the question that comes up in mY mind is that I know that. I'm not on the Sign Committee. so I have no idea what's going on there. but lets just say that nothing happens. Then that leaves us in a similar spot. because they have a corporate decision that mandates that before Levi's signs the lease, that they have to be out on that sign. Now lets just say that we condi tion the variance. and now we've got a conditional variance with no end. MR. DUSEK-No. I'm not suggesting that. I was suggesting that you could grant them the variance. but then tell them they've got. and then they've got the sign. but then later when the regulations - 22 - change, they'll have to update the sign to meet the regulations. MR. TURNER-That's right. MR. CARVIN-Well, my point is suppose the regulations don't change. MR. DUSEK-Well, if they don't, then they've got a permitted variance. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Then the next guy that comes in, now we have seven photographs of variances, as opposed to six. MR. DUSEK-Well, that's true. That could happen. The thing is, though, I guess when you grant variances, though, you've got to look at even the next time, somebody else came in. First of all, you'd be comparing it to a situation where one sign with two names on it. The second thing, you'd be comparing it to is that there was a demonstrated hardship, in terms of visibility. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. CARVIN-See, I don't, I still am not unconvinced that a sign on the building back in the corner would not eliminate a lot of the visibility problem, and that the only reason that it's being mandated that it be on the front side is because of Levi's corporate policy. Now, I agree, there's a hardship there. We have acknowledged that there's a hardship there, especially back in 1989, with the first variance, is my point. Now, I wonder, if Levi's didn't have the corporate policy, whether they would be here. In other words, because they have three other tenants that went in and out. of there, and, according to the testimony, that part of the signage, although none of them, as far as we can tell, have located elsewhere in the Town. None of them were in there very long, and there is a high possibility that they were corporate decisions to m,~ve out of there and not necessarily due to the location, is my point. MR. TURNER-But by the same token, if three more businesses come in there, they'd be on the directory boards. I mean, they would put them on a directory board. Then they'd have to address the issue that the directory boards aren't any good. Then they'd be in here for a variance anyway. I would think. MR. CARVIN-Well, at least we'd have some hard numbers, that these weren't corporate decisions. That they just closed these stores down. MR. TURNER-I hear what you're saying. MR. CARVIN-And I'm not trying to be argumentative here. that there's a problem there, but I just think we're create a bigger problem if you put it on the sign there. I know go ing to MR. TURNER-No, I agree with you. Like type of muscle is necessary for that. hardship, and let it go at that. They saying, this is a corporate decision. I said, I don't think that Let them demonstrate their don't need to come in here MR. KARPELES-I wonder just how much difference this sign actually makes. I mean, people know that the store is there, all the local people, and th.~y' re going to go there or not go there anyway, whether the sign is there, and the people that go to the shopping center from out of town just go through, and they walk through the whole shopping center, and they see what's there. MR. TURNER-That was my argument the last time. MR. CARVIN-And I don't see that there's anything substantially different between this and the Steinbach. I mean, Steinbach, I think, had a far better case for visibility than what these folks - 23 - do. or lack of visibility. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. CARVIN-I mean. people find the Post Office. MR. TURNER-Yes. they don't have any problem with that. MR. CARVIN-And that's even next to Steinbachs. So. I think. Bob. you're right. I mean. I think people will seek out these places. but. and again. I'm not unconvinced allowing them to get a variance. I guess they get a. what. one by four or something like that? MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. CARVIN-I'm not an expert on the signage. MISS HAUSER-As a person who really does not like to shop. and if I want to go get a pair of jeans. I want to know where that store is. where they're selling the jeans. I don't want to walk up and down the street to go into every store. MR. CARVIN-Do you think you could not know where Levi's is. at this point? MISS HAUSER-Not being here. but those side stores. I can't read those wall signs. and they don't help. so you have to pull in there to see. which is kind of inconvenient. Before the public hearing was opened. I was thinking. it would make more sense to me to have a directory. freestanding sign. with all those stores there. So you know what stores are in that shopping center. as opposed to just having Levi's name. MS. GALVIN-Can I respond to that? The reason why. this. apparently. is the sign that you all disapproved. I don't think that there's much resemblance to the application that we're making. and again. the emphasis. in this corporation's policy. has been really to have the minimum extension of the Ordinance that's feasible. You made the judgement before. Mr. Turner. and I wasn't at the hearing. and certainly it appears from the record that this. the directory signs are going to be ineffective. but certainly the directory signs are not excessive. They were not anything of this level. MR. TURNER-My comment was you couldn't see them from the road. MS. GALVIN-And we believe that this will. at the minimum variance possible. address the persistent problem with the rental of that space. That's why we're seeking it. MR. CARVIN-There's how many stores in there. twelve. right now? MR. TURNER-Twelve. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Are they all rented. with the exception of the two in the back there? There is no vacancy at this point? MR. LEONARD-There's one vacancy. It's a small store. and then there's a new lease starting in a short period of time. MR. TURNER-Okay. Motion's in order. Do you want to discuss it? I don't want to jump the gun here. but. MR. MENTER-Ted., being aware of what's going on with the Sign Committee. can you think of any ways. other than the ones that were mentioned. to tie it in. that might be a little less open? MR. TURNER-No. I didn't go to the last meeting. because I missed it. Jim. did you do anything? - 24 - MR. MARTIN-It's been drafted once. and the thing that hasn't been inserted into the new draft is this concept of limiting the size of letter. and I wanted an opportunity to talk with some sign contractors. to see what's a reasonable size. because I don't know. six inches. four inches. eight inches? I don't know. what could be a reasonable sized minimum letter. HOLLY WHEELER MS. WHEELER-There is a chart that spells what's allowed. I'd have to look at the chart. MR. MARTIN-Because we have Holly on the Committee. and Mike Baird. who's another contractor in the Town. I was going to consult with the two of them. and find out what is a reasonable sized letter to hold to a minimum. given our overall square footage limitations of 50 square feet and 64 square feet. and with that in mind. then. insert that one other limitation. that being the minimum sized letter. As a matter of fact. Holly. while I've got you here. if you could look that up and give me a call. MR. MENTER-One of my biggest concerns is that I think it would. in changing all the main center signs. even though there are some that are sort of scrambled. it would change the appearance of the strip in general. and it seems like that's on the way anyhow. to an extent. with what the Sign Committee's talking about doing. MR. TURNER-Well. I think it is. and I've expressed the opinion that with these type of strip malls. the identification is very poor. I mean. they're built on little small lots. and they're maximized out. and they're turned every which way. and to try and drive by there and look and see what's there. you're just asking for. it's an accident waiting to happen. and that's why I always figured that they ought to be identified out on the road. so that you don't have to do that. MR. KARPELES-Are they going to try and get some kind of uniformity? I think that's part of the problem. is these things are. this looks like North Myrtle Beach. MR. TURNER-Yes. You're right. but again. going back to the Route 9 Plaza. like I told Dave. he had a couple of buildings there. and there was a big tree. right up by the main building. that was right up next to the road. and you could not see Route 9 Mall at all. I mean. you were by it before you even knew it was there. and these people aren't aware of it. because they don't know that those buildings were there. but that was what was there before. MR. MENTER-Well. at this point. all you can do is deal with what's coming down the pike. MR. TURNER-Yes. I know. but I'm saying. that was the reasoning for some of the variation there. MISS HAUSER-Since the Sign Ordinance seems like it's going to be changed. I would be in favor of granting them this variance. as long as they 1i'lere asked to comply with the new regulations. whatever they may be. and whenever they may be. From all the talk here. it sounds like they're headed that way anyway. They're going to be allowed to put their tenant's names on the freestanding sign. MR. TURNER-I think you're going to see it. I really do. of course it's the new Town Board. It's not the old Town Board. MR. CARVIN-I was going to say. there's nothing certain but death and taxes. MR. TURNER-Yes. That's right. but I think there is some members on the Town Board. or on the previous Town Board. and they recognized the problem. I t~hink. that ~ recognized. and that's why we're kind - 25 - - of. like. head.~d in that direction. I'm not for giving them the Taj Mahal. but let them go with the permitted sign size. and let them put in the names of the tenants that can get in there. That's up to them. at a certain size. If they can't get them in there. well. but I think this one right here. that's a particular hardship. and it kind of relates to almost like. well. Mark Plaza. you look at their bUilding. and the pet store and the rest of them are way the heck in the back. Ames Plaza. the same thing. 6ØØ feet back from the road. up a hill. MR. CARVIN-Well. I think that can be said of the Olive Garden. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. CARVIN-I mean. we turned that one down. MR. TURNER-I know we turned that one down. We turned that one down on three signs. We gave them two. MR. CARVIN-I mean. we're looking at five that we approved. and we turned down twelve that had similar situations. MR. TURNER-Yes. but the Olive Garden's different. You can see it. You're right on a corner. and you can. you drive down. You're looking right at it. MR. TURNER-Well. lets do or die a motion. MR. CARVIN-Just as an aside. would this motion have any bearing upon the Article 78? Should we condition it upon that? MR. TURNER-You're talking about if it's a favored motion? MR. CARVIN-Yes. before we jump into this. because we have a limited Board tonight. We will need to have at least four positive votes. and I believe it was six or seven negative votes the last time. MR. DUSEK-Well. I guess maybe I can answer your question perhaps by asking the applicant a question. and that is. if you got a variance. would! you feel there's a need to continue your other action? MRS. NICHOLS-No. That's what the purpose of our meeting with the Board two weeks ago. and the redesign of the proposal was intended to do. was to allow us to withdraw the Article 78 and still deal with our problem. MR. CARVIN-Okay. So your opinion is that we could move forward on this without any? MR. DUSEK-As far as the Article 78. maybe I misunderstood your question. Fred. Yes. I've seen this as a separate application. not tied into the other one. because of the changes that they made. and the new submissions that they've made. So. in my opinion. whatever you do here. that's fine. You can move ahead. do whatever you want to do. and then. obviously. if it makes the other action moot. then we'll move to discontinue that action. MR. CARVIN-Suppose it's defeated? MR. DUSEK-If it's defeated. then we'll go on and fight that action. MR. TURNER-You'd have to fight it. MISS HAUSER-I think when we voted on that last variance. we were unaware of proposed changes in the Sign Ordinance. that this would most probably conform with. MR. KARPELES-Well. if we denied it. and those changes were made. then they could do it anyway. - 26 - - MR. TURNER-Yes. So. I don't see where that comes into play. MISS HAUSER-Except that they won't get their tenant in there. if it takes three to six. or twelve months. MR. TURNER-That;'s the difference. That's the knot in the rope. MR. CARVIN-Well. I had a conversation with Mark Rubin. and his indication was that that was their corporate policy. MR. MARTIN-Just~ for the sake of. what is the smallest size letter going to be on this. Holly. the height? I think. "By Design". looks like it's going to. MS. WHEELER-"By Design" is the smallest in this. MR. LEONARD-The Levi's and the Outlet lettering is five inches. five or six inches. and the Levi logo is about between twelve and thirteen. MR. MARTIN-Holly. working off the best you can do, what is the site distance. the visibility of a three inch letter? When does it become? MS. WHEELER-The chart gives what they call a maximum impact. and then they give a different distance for readability. and I think three inch has a maximum impact of about 20 feet. MR. MARTIN-And does that vary much with readability? MS. WHEELER-Yes. Readability is quite a bit more. but. I mean. readability is standing there going. reading it. MR. MARTIN-Yes. You're actually concentrating on. MS. WHEELER-Right. MR. MARTIN-Okay. MS. WHEELER-Which. then you get into the whole traffic problem. Then you've got to stop and look at it. MR. CARVIN-Okay. this says "Levi By Design". is that correct? MR. LEONARD-Levi's Outlet By Design. MR. CARVIN-Okay. The Outlet just means the Outlet· Store. By Design is a separate unit of Levi's. is that correct? MR. LEONARD-Correct. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Were you aware. what happens if between Levi Only and Levi By Design goes through? happens? the merger Then what MR. LEONARD-Levi distributors are all different. have slightly different names. MR. MARTIN-Well. it seems to me, by the design of Option B here. it looks like you've got some. like. wasted space there. between the word "Stores" and then where "Levi's Outlet By Design" comes into play. MR. LEONARD-We can enlarge that. MR. MARTIN-That's what I'm driving at. here. if traffic and safety is a concern. what happens to that impact scale that you're talking about. if this lettering is increased to. like. a four or five inch? - 27 - MS. WHEELER-It goes up proportionately. MR. MARTIN-So ~Ihat is, like, the impact of a five inch letter? MS. WHEELER-Probably forty to fifty (lost word) maximum impact, and then, of course, the readability goes up. MR. MARTIN-The reason why I raise all this, Ted, is if the concern over these from the beginning, over tenant signs, was traffic safety, and the lettering becoming so small that it becomes hard for people to view from their car, that's what's going to be mY consideration, as I go to draft that proposal for a new Ordinance. I'm going to be looking at probably forty or fifty feet as a minimum threshold for the size of letter. So if that's the case, maybe a five inch minimum letter size here would be preferred, because I think that's the whole basis for the Sign Code having an impact here, is the traffic and public safety concerns. MISS HAUSER-You said you were considering a ten inch limit, is that right? MR. MARTIN-No. I wasn't considering any. That's why I was asking. These are the types of questions I was going to ask, as I go to draft that change. This is just speeding it up a little bit. I see, here, that three inch, I don't think, is acceptable, but if we can get into a five inch, or something like that, then you're. MS. WHEELER-The rest of the logo would have to go up proportionately, which there is space there to do that, but, as it goes up this way, it also goes that way. (lost word) as to how wide we're going to go. MR. MARTIN-Right. I understand. MR. TURNER-Okay. You have to forget Levi's By Design, and just look at that map, that layout right there, do they have a difficulty, seeing that building from the road, or do they not? Forget who's going in there. MISS HAUSER-I think they have. MR. TURNER-That's the real issue. That's the problem I have with it. That's the real issue. Is there an alternative. MISS HAUSER-I think you have a difficulty seeing the tenants that are perpendicular to the road. MR. TURNER-But. again, you know, I made the comment before, I think the people that go there are going to go there anyway, and they're going to get out of their car, and they're going to get out of their car, and they're going to go from one store to the next store, to the next store, just like Bob said, and that's what they do. That's human curiosity. They just do it. MOTION TO APPROVE SIGN VARIANCE NO. 5-1994 WILLEY CREEK COMPANY. INC., IntroducE~d by Linda Hauser who moved for its adoption, seconded by Theodore Turner: Wi th respect to the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code, I find the following, that the applicant is seeking relief from Section 140- 6B(3)(d), which allows one freestanding sign denoting the name of the shopping center only. I move to approve the proposed relief on the basis that the applicant has proven hardship due to the site configuration, in that the Mall is perpendicular to Route 9, with virtually no visibility from the south, and limited visibility from the north. Furthermore, the applicant has proven this by their inabili ty to maintain tenants in this third portion, the rear portion, of the shopping center. Furthermore, I believe the relief sought would be of a benefit to the applicant, and would not only preserve and protect the character of neighborhood, but also would - 28 - -- improve the safety by improving traffic conditions in the area. There does not. appear to be another method feasible for the applicant to pursue other than this variance. The requested variance is minimal to alleviate this specified practical difficulty. and this alleged difficulty is not self-created. I condition this approval on two things. The first being that the present wall sign. third panel. be removed from the building. and. two that the sign is limited to the present copy and setback as proposed in Option A. If and when the Sign Ordinance changes. the sign will have to conform to with the new Ordinance. as it relates to freestanding signs for shopping centers. Duly adopted this 26th day of January. 1994. by the following vote: AYES: Miss Hauser. Mr. Turner NOES: Mr. Menter. Mr. Karpeles. Mr. Carvin ABSENT: Mrs. Eggleston. Mr. Thomas MR. TURNER-We've got to have a positive majority. motion? Do you have a MR. CARVIN-I'm working on one. MR. DUSEK-Maybe the as an answer. maybe you should just table it. Maybe I could think of something. in the meantime. MR. CARVIN-Well. the only additional bit of information ~ would like. to make me feel more comfortable. is that I don't know what the criteria would be for having a sign on that building. but I don't think that's going to be acceptable to them. as an alternative. I don't know if that's acceptable to Levi. because my biggest concern is I don't want to open up a can of worms with these other shopping centers. where we just have one name on the Board. I just think that that is an extraordinary situation. I mean. where we've granted variances. it's been for all of them. and they've had. e¡:tch of them were judged on their own merits. and here. I know what they're telling me. but what is to prevent all twelve of those folks coming back in and saying. look. Levi is out there. and our corporate policy. now. is that we have to be on the board. or we're out of here. the other tenants. MR. TURNER-Well. I think what you've got to do is forget corporate policy and just address what's there. MR. CARVIN-I think that the practical difficulty. that's why I'm saying. I don't know if the sign. in other words. I still don't think that. the gist of my motion is that I don't think that they've proved a sufficient enough hardship. based upon three tenants that w,ere in and out of there. over a three year time frame. four year time frame. and I don't believe that that was because there wasn't adequate signage on the front. I agree that there's a hardship there. but I don't know if the signage in the front is sufficient. You've granted the minimum variance. MR. DUSEK-How did you trade off on those other variances granted by the Board? MR. CARVIN-Well. I can only speak for the ones that I moved on. and the Subway was a situation that was a unique situation. but. okay. I'm going to say. what makes this different than Steinbachs? MR. KARPELES-It was a different Board. wasn't it? MR. CARVIN-No. as far as Miller Hill. I think you're saying. MR. DUSEK-Well. I'm looking at. actually. you're bound by all of those. no matter who was on the Board. - 29 - MR. KARPELES-How about the previous decisions that have been turned down? MR. CARVIN-I mean. we saw five that were passed. but. MR. KARPELES-I think there've been more of those. since I've been on the Board. than there were approved. Steinbachs was one of them. and the one we were just talking about. the restaurant. the Olive Garden. MR. DUSEK-You may want to table it. just to consider that. to give yourselves some~ time. give ~ some time to do my research. What happens is. when he makes a ruling. basically. he's said that you can't do it under the Ordinance. Now. they've come up to you and said. all right. whether he's right or wrong. (lost word). and you refuse to grant a variance. you're stuck by the way he's interpreting the law. That's where you're at. MR. TURNER-It's his determination. MR. DUSEK-My thought is. if you want to come up with something that might work for everybody. table it. and see if you can study it a little further. unless you don't think it'll every be a solution that's acceptable. MR. TURNER-Let me ask you this. Fred. Would you guys be acceptable to them going back and approaching the applicant on a wall sign? MR. CARVIN-Again. I'm not an expert on this. but I'd like to see somebody take a look to the feasibility of putting a wall sign out there. My personal opinion. looking at it this evening and looking at it in the past. is that it may be a viable. that would be a minimum relief. as far as I'm concerned. and it would get us off that freestanding sign business. MR. TURNER-All right. Let me say this. Now the next thing. suppose the say. yes. okay. we agree to that. we'll put a wall sign there. Then they come back. and the Ordinance says they can have. MR. CARVIN-Then. fine. I can't project what the Ordinance. MR. TURNER-Are you going to trade them off. and make them take down the wall sign for the freestanding sign. with the names of the tenants on them? MR. CARVIN-If the Ordinance changes. at some later point. that allows them to have the tenants out there. as Paul indicates. I mean. we've wiped the slate clean. as far as the Town. MR. TURNER-Yes. but I mean. you've granted the variance for the wall sign. You can't make them take it down. MR. CARVIN-No. I don't have a problem with that. MR. KARPELES-If you went to a wall sign. would you have to have another public hearing? MR. DUSEK-If they wanted to go for a wall sign larger than what your Ordinance allows. MR. TURNER-You'd have to have a variance. MR. DUSEK-And I think that's what somebody mentioned. was a larger wall sign down on the. and if I understand it right now. the Ordinance allows a very. very small sign over the business. right? MR. MARTIN-Right. MR. DUSEK-In the plaza. and what Fred's thinking of is a much larger wall sign. - 30 - MR. CARVIN-It's a one by four. So if they have a two by, what I'm saying is that. okay, fine, you make it, but I have a feeling if you take that back to Levi's, that Levi's will not find it an acceptable solution to sign the lease, but I don't know that. MS. GALVIN-Well, may we point that out, because we don't know the answer to that question, and may we recommend, in light of the division of the Board, that the matter be tabled, and that we be given an opportunity to develop that portion of the record to find out, One, whether it is physically feasible, from a visibility perspective, to install a larger sign, and if so, what the size of that sign would be, would have to be in order to have a comparable visibility, and then determine whether or not that's acceptable. MR. CARVIN-Again, I don't know, that may sway, you've got three negative votes on this side, here. MS. GALVIN-I understand that. MR. MENTER-Well, what does the failed positive resolution do? That's a negative? MR. DUSEK-When they come for a variance, 'what has, in essence, happened is he's made a ruling. He's said they can't do it because it's not in compliance with the zoning laws. When they come here, if they can't get a positive result, then it's basically, they are where they are. It's left to his interpretation of the law, and then it's up to them, at this point, make a decision as to whether they want to appeal your decision to a court, to say to the court whether they feel you have acted properly, in terms of making your determination. MR. MENTER-The que stion is, after the vote, which we just had, tabling is still an option? MR. DUSEK-Well, if you were to table it, my recommendation would be that you rescind the previous motion, and then move to table. MR. KARPELES-How about this court action? That's still pending, isn't it? MR. DUSEK-Yes. MR. KARPELES-If they got a favorable court ruling, we may call this unnecessary. MR. DUSEK-That's true. MR. MARTIN-When is the date for that to come around? MR. DUSEK-I guess it's kind of in limbo, right? MRS. NICHOLS-Well, as far as QJ!!:. case is concerned, it's fully submi t ted. I have delayed contacting Judge Dyer to ask for a decision, pending the discussion tonight, in hopes that we'd be able to resolve it here. So, it is, at this point. MR. DUSEK-It's really a matter of litigation we probably should discuss in Executive Session. MR. TURNER-Mr. Shaftmaster might well say to you, look it, forget it. Lets move on the Article 78. MRS. NICHOLS-My sense of him as a business person is that he would prefer to have a business related solution. MR. TURNER-Yes, I understand that, but at this point, he might say, look it, I don't think we're going to get a decision that's favorable, so lets move on the Article 78. - 31 - MR. LEONARD-He would want us to work it at in any means we could. MR. TURNER-Okay. MR. CARVIN-If they could come back. I'm not arguing the fact that there's not a hardship there. but I'm just saying. I think it's the lesser of two evils. at this point. and if they can come back. and if there's a viable solution back there. with a larger sign. then I think that's. MR. DUSEK-I think it wouldn't hurt everybody to think about it. I don't know what harm you do by postponing it. MR. TURNER-No. Would you prefer to table your application for further review? Do you want to withdraw your motion. let them review it further with the owner and the applicant. see if they can come up with an alternative? All right. You withdraw your motion. I'll withdraw my second. and then we'll get. MISS HAUSER-Okay. Mr. Chairman. I'd like to withdraw my motion. and allow the attorneys time to go back to the applicant to see if they can come up with some alternative solution. MR. DUSEK-If I could make a suggestion. I think the proper thing to do would be to make a motion. at this point. to rescind the previous resolution. and table the matter. MR. TURNER-Okay. MOTION TO RESCIND THE PREVIOUS MOTION AND TABLE SIGN VARIANCE NO. 5-1994 WILLEY CREEK COMPANY. INC.. Introduced by Linda Hauser who moved for its adoption. seconded by Theodore Turner: To allow the attorneys to speak with the Willey Creek Company to review the si t,uation and try to come up with an al ternati ve solution to the problem. Duly adopted this 26th day of January. 1994. by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Menter. Mr. Karpeles. Mr. Carvin. Miss Hauser. Mr. Turner NOES: NONE ABSENT: Joyce Eggleston. Mr. Thomas MR. TURNER-Now. just make a statement for the record that you wish to have it tabled. MRS. NICHOLS-Yes. On behalf of the applicant. it is our request to have the application tabled. for consultation concerning other configurations of the sign which would address the hardship situation. Thank you. MR. TURNER-Okay. Fine. Thank you. Request by the applicant to table the application. for further review. USE VARIANCE NO. 111-1993 TYPE I LC-42A WR-1A CEA HARRIS BAY YACHT CLUB. INC. OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE ROUTE 9L. LAKE GEORGE IN ORDER TO UNDERTAKE A SITE IMPROVEMENT PLAN AND COMPLY WITH FEDERAL REGULATIONS. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO EXPAND EXISTING NONCONFORMING USE BY CONSTRUCTING DECK INCORPORATING A HANDICAPPED ACCESS RAMP ON THE NORTH SIDE OF ITS CLUBHOUSE. THIS WILL ENTAIL EXPANSION OR REPLACEMENT OF TWO EXISTING DECK AREAS AND A STONE SURFACE PICNIC AREA. ADDITIONAL STRUCTURAL AREA ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE CLUBHOUSE WILL BE APPROXIMATELY ONE THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED SIXTEEN (1.516) SQUARE FEET. AN ADDITION OF TWO HUNDRED SIXTEEN (216) SQUARE FEET IS ALSO PROPOSED FOR A PREEXISTING. NONCONFORMING SHED. A NEW SIX THOUSAND (6.000) GALLON. CONCRETE ABOVE-GROUND FUEL TANK IS PROPOSED TO REPLACE TWO (2) EXISTING IN-GROUND METAL TANKS - 32 - TOTALLING SEVEN THOUSAND (7.000) GALLONS. A NEW DOUBLE CONTAINMENT FUEL LINE IS PROPOSED TO CONNECT THE NEW FUEL TANK WITH THE FUELING DOCK. PROPOSED FUEL TANK LOCATION IS PARTIALLY OUTSIDE THE CURRENT USE AREA. AND SETBACK SIX ( 6 ) FEET FROM THE WETLAND BOUNDARY REQUIRING AN AREA VARIANCE. A NEW SIX-FOOT HIGH WOODEN ENCLOSURE MEASURING TWENTY-TWO (22) BY EIGHT (8) FEET IS PROPOSED TO SCREEN A RECYCLING STATION FROM VIEW. APPLICANT PROPOSES EXPANSION OF EXISTING GRAVEL, AREA TO CREATE SIX (6) ADDITIONAL PARKING SPACES. EXPANSION INTRUDES INTO WETLAND BUFFER. AND REQUIRES AN AREA VARIANCE. THE EXISTING SITE DEVELOPMENT IS A NONCONFORMING USE. AS SECTION 179-13D DOES NOT ALLOW MARINAS. SECTION 179-79D REQUIRES THAT ANY NONCONFORMING USE MAY BE INCREASED ONLY BY VARIANCE. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) 1/19/93 (DEPT. OF ENV. CONSERVATION) TAX MAP NO. 10-1-1.1 LOT SIZE: 18.16 SECTION: 179-79D. 179-13 SEQRA TO PLANNING BOARD: DECEMBER 21. 1993 BRIAN O'DONNELL,. REPRESENTING APPLICANT. PRESENT MR. O'DONNELL-Miss Hauser. Gentlemen. I'm Brian O'Donnell. I'm the attorney for Harris Bay Yacht Club. This is Jim Miller. MR. TURNER-We're going to just go through the procedures. and we're going to keep the public hearing open. until we get through the SEQRAs. MR. 0' DONNELL-Okay. Mr. Turner. in view of the hour. it's my understanding that this is going to have to be postponed anyway. because there is a SEQRA pending. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. O'DONNELL-In view of the hour. I would suggest that we simply adjourn it now. I don't think there is anyone here who cares to make a comment on it. as we see that we're going to be back at some point anyway. MR. TURNER-Fine. I'll just leave the public hearing open, then. MR. MARTIN-It's just a procedural thing for us. so we don't have to readvertise. MR. TURNER-So we don't have to readvertise. that's all. MR. 0' DONNELL-Hight. and I have a disagreement with Mr. Martin about whether a Use Variance is required. and perhaps I could discuss that with the Town Attorney before we meet again. not tonight. MR. TURNER-All right, and we'll leave the public hearing open. MR. MARTIN-And I'd just make the Board aware that the Planning Board has scheduled a workshop on the SEQRA Review for Wednesday. February 2nd. at 7 o'clock. down in the Planning Office Conference Room. It's not mandatory you come. but I would certainly encourage you to come. so you develop a background for whatever decision is arrived at. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED AREA VARIANCE NO. 108-1993 TYPE I LC-42A WR-1A CEA HARRIS BAY YACHT CLUB OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE ROUTE 9L. ON LAKE GEORGE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO INSTALL A NEW. CONCRETE. ABOVE GRADE FUEL STORAGE TANK TO REPLACE EXISTING BELOW-GRADE METAL FUEL TANKS. PROPOSED LOCATION IS SIX (6) FEET FROM THE WETLAND BOUNDARY. SECTION 179-60B(1)(a) REQUIRES A THIRTY-FIVE (35) FOOT UNDISTURBED NATURAL BUFFER STRIP. EXISTING ENCROACHMENT IS TWENTY-SIX (26) FEET INTO THE WETLAND BUFFER. APPLICANT IS SEEKING RELIEF OF AN ADDITIONAL THREE (3) FEET. OR A TOTAL ENCROACHMENT OF TWENTY-NINE (29) FEET. SECTION 179-60B(1)[15](c) REQUIRES A ONE HUNDRED (100) FOOT SHORELINE SETBACK. PROPOSED FUEL TANK LOCATION WOULD BE - 33 - / SIXTY-FOUR (64) FEET FROM THE SHORELINE. REQUIRING RELIEF OF OF THIRTY-SIX (36) FEET. SECTION 179-13C REQUIRES A REAR SETBACK OF ONE HUNDRED (100) FEET. PROPOSED FUEL TANK LOCATION IS THIRTY (30) FEET FROM THE REAR PROPERTY LINE SO RELIEF OF SEVENTY (70) FEET IS SOUGHT. APPLICANT IS PROPOSING EXPANSION OF THE EXISTING PARKING AREA INTO THE THIRTY-FIVE (35) FOOT WETLAND BUFFER TO PROVIDE SIX (6) ADDITIONAL PARKING SPACES. RELIEF OF UP TO THIRTY-FIVE (35) FEET IS SOUGHT FROM SECTION 179-60B(1)(a). (DEPT. OF ENV. CONSERVATION) (ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY) (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) 12/8/93 TAX MAl> NUMBER: 10-1-1.1 LOT SIZE: 18.16 ACRES SECTION 179-60B(1)(c) SEQRA TO PLANNING BOARD: DECEMBER 21. 1993 PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NEW BUSINESS: SIGN VARIANCE NO. 112-1993 TYPE II LC-42A WR-1A CEA HARRIS BAY YACHT CLUB. INC' . OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE ROUTE 9L. ON LAKE GEORGE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO REMOVE EXISTING FREESTANDING TWO-SIDED SIGN AND AN EXISTING WALL SIGN. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO INSTALL A NEW. WOOD. THIRTY-FIVE (35) SQUARE FOOT SIGN. FORTY (40) FEET FROM THE PROPERTY LINE. RELIEF IS SOUGHT FROM SECTION 140-6B(3)(b) WHICH ALLOWS SIGNS ONLY IN C AND M ZONES. PROPOSED SIGN MEETS DIMENSIONAL CRITERIA OF THE SECTION. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) 12/8/93 (DEPT. OF ENV. CONSERVATION) TAX MAP NO. 10-1-1.1 LOT SIZE: 18.16 ACRES SECTION 140-6B(3)(b) SEQRA TO PLANNING BOARD: DECEMBER 21. 1993 PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. TURNER-Okay. gentlemen. we're all done. Thank you. MR. MARTIN-Paul wants to talk to you. All I've got. you'll see a short note at the end of the agenda about Stormwater Regulations. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. MARTIN-The Lake George Park Commission is considering mOdifying the Stormwater Regulations. and I don't know if you've had a chance to read that model Ordinance I sent you. but I think you'll see a lot of references to the Zoning Board in there. You're the ones who would be having to hand out variances on that model Ordinance. I think there's a lot of problems with that model Ordinance. and I hope that they'll make some pretty significant changes in it. I think it's a pretty arduous document. It makes life very difficult for people on the lake. I think there's other things that need to be done about stormwater. and that's what I'm going to be taking to the Commission. in the meeting next Wednesday with them. I think it's one o'clock in the afternoon. if anybody wants to come. it's up at the Lake George Town Hall. So. if you have any formal comments. you're certainly welcome to come by and see me. or put them in a note in the mail to me. and I'll bring them up at that meeting as well. MR. TURNER-Paul. do you wish to make a comment? MR. DUSEK-I don't know. now. how many people were on the Board when this all first began. just you two. Is that where we're at now? MR. TURNER-And Joyce. MR. DUSEK-Actually. even Fred wasn't there when it really began. MR. TURNER-When it really began. no. MR. DUSEK-I'm talking about a case entitled the Matter of the Lake George Association versus the Town of Queensbury. and Mr. Parillo intervened in that case. That case has a long. long history. and rather than bore you with all the details. I'll just give you the latest results. I think for the benefit of the whole Board. this - 34 - Board made a decision in that case, most recently, as of December of '92, and in the decision, the Board decided that the boat launch up on Lake George had been opened at various points to members of the public and, therefore, basically the activities that are being conducted up there by Mr. Parillo should be allowed to continue, that he had a nonconforming use. The case was plagued with a lot of technical legal questions, as Fred and Ted will remember, and we had numerous m1eetings, numerous attorneys arguing all kinds of various points, and the Board, as a I mentioned, finally made the decision that they should be allowed to continue, and actually you had a procedural issue there, too, as to whether or not you could even decide the case, because the law changed, the State Law changed, in th,e middle of everything that was going on in the Board's proceedings. We went to Supreme Court, and I reported back to the Board, at that point, that Judge Dyer had decided in your favor, and his decision found that everything was proper. Thereafter, the decision was appealed to the Appellate Division of New York State, which is your intermediate court, highest being the Court of Appeals, and we just got the decision back on that on Friday. Thursday I heard, and then Friday I got the decision. I meant to bring a copy of it with me tonight. MR. TURNER-I've got it right here. MR. DUSEK-Great.. The upshot of the Appellate Division was that they upheld your decision again. So they affirmed Judge Dyer's decision, and I wanted to take a moment, with this case, because I think it makes a couple of important points, in terms of the case. The first thing is that, basically, if you read the decision they have, and I'll give each one of you copies of this. I think it's important, because a lot of the procedural stuff you may come across again in future cases, but the court said, first of all, your unanimous votes are (lost word). They also said that, on the issue of the change in State law, if you'll remember, I had advised that I felt the General Construction Law of '94 kept that Statute alive. They agreed. They said that it kept it alive. So, therefore, you have that. The other thing, though, which I found interesting in the case, is on the issue of, if you remember, the res judicata issue was raised on a re-hearing, and if I understand the court decision correctly, the way their saying is that that, res judicata doesn't apply in these cases because the re-hearing is really an extension of the original hearing. So you're really continuing a process, as they see it, because you have this strange provision in, I call it strange, not them, in the Town Law, because the other, village and city don't have that same provision, which, in essence, give s you an extra privilege, as a Board, to review your decisions that a lot of other places don't have. So, those were the two biggest aspects of the case that I just wanted to run by with you, in case you ever have another re-hearing. Now you may say to me, well, I thought the law was repealed. We II, it was repealed, but guess what, they put it back in again. That's your State Legislature at work. Actually, what happened is, just before I went in to argue the case, we found out that the Legislature had stuck it back in as part of the new Legislation to allow you to re- hear. So that law, and I think the wording's almost the same, if you have a situation where you need to re-hear it. We should double check it, but I think it's almost identical to the way it was before, so you've got that power again, and now you know for sure, from the Appellate Division, how it gets exercised. Obviously, I'm quite pleased with the result, because this is, it backs up your Board. and it's consistent with what we thought should happen, and I trust that you are, too. and I just wanted to fill you in on what's happening, and like I say, I will get each one of you copies of this thing to read, because I think there's some, you know. even if you weren't involved in this case, there's some things that may very well effect you in the future, and I think it's a very well written decision you might want to consider. So, I wanted to update you on that legal matter. The other thing is. I would like to go into Executive Session with you to discuss another matter of litigation involving this Board. So, if your - 35 - ~~~--- --~~-- - / Board has a minute. I'd like to do that. For those people that are new. it means somebody has to make a motion to go into Executive Session. MOTION TO GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION TO LITIGATION. Introduced by Theodore Turner adoption. seconded by Fred Carvin: DISCUSS MATTERS who moved for OF its Duly adopted this 26th day of January. 1994. by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Menter. Mr. Karpeles. Mr. Carvin. Miss Hauser. Mr. Turner NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Eggleston. Mr. Thomas MOTION TO COME OUT OF EXECUTIVE SESSION. Introduced by Theodore Turner who moved for its adoption. seconded by Fred Carvin: Duly adopted this 26th day of January. 1994. by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Menter. Mr. Karpeles. Mr. Carvin. Miss Hauser. Mr. Turner NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Eggleston. Mr. Thomas On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED. Theodore Turner. Chairman - 36 -