Loading...
1994-02-16 FIJ E (oPY QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 16TH, 1994 INDEX Area Variance No. 4-1994 Area Variance No. 6-1994 Area Variance No. 7-1994 Sign Variance No. 8-1994 Brian Granger 1. Joan & Mike Donnelly 5. Queensbury Retail Limited 13. Partnership Queensbury Retail Limited 30. Partnership THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTHS MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES. QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 16TH. 1994 7:30 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT THEODORE TURNER. CHAIRMAN LINDA HAUSER. SECRETARY FRED CARVIN ROBERT KARPELES DAVID MENTER CHRIS THOMAS MEMBERS ABSENT JOYCE EGGLESTON PLANNER-SUSAN CIPPERLY STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI AREA VARIANCE NO. 4-1994 TYPE II LI-1A BRIAN GRANGER OWNER: EAST END ENTERPRISES 96 LUZERNE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO LEAVE IN PLACE AN EXISTING. NONCONFORMING. ONE HUNDRED FIFTY (150) SQUARE FOOT. PREBUILT STORAGE SHED THREE (3) FEET FROM THE PROPERTY LINE. SECTION 179-26C REQUIRES A SIDE SETBACK OF THIRTY (30) FEET. APPLICANT IS SEEKING RELIEF OF TWENTY-SEVEN (27) FEET. TAX MAP NO. 93-2-13.2 LOT SIZE: 2.75 ACRES SECTION 179-26C BRIAN GRANGER, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 4-1994, Brian Granger. Meeting Date: January 19, 1994 "PROPOSED ACTION: Applicant proposes to locate a storage shed greater than one hundred (100) square feet in size at a distance of three (3) feet from the property line. This shed currently exists. The applicant is seeking to maintain it at its current location. CONFORMANCE WITH USE/AREA REGULATIONS: Section 179-26 requires a side setback of thirty (30) feet. The applicant is seeking relief of twenty-seven (27) feet. PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY: The applicant claims that the existing macadam driveway creates a practical difficulty in locating the shed. It is not clear on a 2.67 acre site, this location would be the only option. ALTERNATIVES: Any number of alternative locations exist for which a variance would not be required. EFFECTS ON THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND COMMUNITY: This shed would not appear to have an adverse effect on the community. No comments have been received regarding the project as of this writing. PARCEL HISTORY: The parcel was the subject of Site Plan Review No. 5-92 in 1992. Approval was given for a multi use facility, including a residence, general office for an asphalt maintenance company, storage garage, and shuttle business. In March 1993, a modification allowing the use of a trailer as an office was approved. Parcel was the subject of a Notice of Appeal No. 3-91, as the applicant questioned the need for the Site Plan Review described above. STAFF COMMENTS AND CONCERNS: There does not appear to be any compelling reason for the Board to grant the relief requested. Based on a review of the materials submitted with the 1992 Site Plan application, the applicant had knowledge of the setback requirement before building the shed. Al ternati ves exist which would conform to the Zoning Code." MR. TURNER-Okay. Mr. Granger? MR. GRANGER-On the last comment, I had knowledge of the setback requirements, but we had the survey done after the after the shed was in place, and discovered that the existing driveway was on the neighbor's land. It's been that way since 1978. I realize there's - 1 - not really much of a hardship, and I'm only asking to leave it there for now, until we try to buy a little bit more property, since it's been that way. Yes, I do have other locations to put the shed on the property. I kind of tucked it in that location, surrounded by as many mature trees as possible, and it works as a tool shed for my wife's tools. If I combine that with the Company tools and she goes and gets a shovel with asphalt on it, she gets a little upset. That's about all there is to say. MR. TURNER-Well, we have a letter from your neighbor, Mr. D'Ambrosio, and he's against it. You might just as well read it right now, because I think he's the only one. MR. GRANGER-Where's Mr. D'Ambrosio's property? MISS HAUSER-There's two of them here. MR. TURNER-There's two of them. All right. We'll read them. Any questions? MR. MENTER-When did you build that shed? MR. GRANGER-I didn't build it. I placed it there. there. It came off the property where the new building is. I moved it rescue squad MR. MENTER-Okay. MR. THOMAS-That east property line, when was that put in? something that's always been there? Because down here Luzerne Road it says, railroad spike set 8/16/93. Is that by the MR. GRANGER-Yes, 8/16/93. MR. THOMAS-This property line was put in? MR. GRANGER-No. It wasn't put in. I finally had it surveyed. MR. TURNER-He had a survey done on it. MR. GRANGER-I found the stakes, but the way the road curves, and the way the parcel is square to the road, lead us to believe otherwise. MR. THOMAS-Okay, but that's always been the property line then? MR. GRANGER-Yes. MR. THOMAS-Okay. MR. GRANGER-The road, that macadam drive, it wasn't macadam, but that driveway existed when I purchased the property. MR. THOMAS-Both of them? MR. GRANGER-Yes. I did pave the second driveway this summer, before it was surveyed. MR. THOMAS-And it was on somebody else's property? MR. GRANGER-And after checking with the prior owner, Mr. Maille, it's been that way since ' 76, when he bought the property, he mistakenly put it at that way, and it's always been that way. MR. TURNER-Mr. Maille built the house, right? MR. GRANGER-Yes, Joe Maille. MR. TURNER-Right, Joe, and then he built this other building up front, which is marked garage, right? - 2 - MR. GRANGER-Yes. MR. TURNER-And then another fellow that had a fence business, he went in there after Joe. Didn't he? MR. GRANGER-Right. MR. TURNER-Then you came third. MR. GRANGER-So far so good. MR. TURNER-Okay. MR. CARVIN-Okay. The garage can be 21 feet, then? MR. TURNER-That's a preexisting, nonconforming garage. MR. GRANGER-Yes, the garage out front is 21 feet. MR. CARVIN-Okay, and when was that garage built? MR. TURNER-When did Joe build that garage? property? When did he own the MR. GRANGER-Mr. Maille owned it 1976 until about '86. MR. TURNER-Okay. MR. GRANGER-John Cifone Enterprises, bought it in and , 86 , Jim Girard, who are East and I purchased it from them. End MR. TURNER-Yes. That garage was there. It was preexisting. MR. CARVIN-Okay. MR. TURNER-Yes, it's been there a long time. MR. CARVIN-I know it's been there a long time, but I've lost track of time. It just doesn't seem like it's been eight or ten years. MR. KARPELES-Will you move the shed from another location, here? So it's readily movable, is it? MR. GRANGER-Yes. MR. KARPELES-Where would you locate it? You say you could locate it other places? MR. GRANGER-I think farther to the left, or to the west. I'd just have to clear another spot for it, that's all. I have to do something with the problem with the driveway. I do have another option. I don't have to use that driveway. I can use the center driveway, but I don't really care to have trucks going right next to the house. MR. MENTER-Because you've got that fence going across, don't you? MR. GRANGER-Yes. It's temporary. I think our option may be is to put a driveway, to the extreme property line to the west, and run down that way. MR. TURNER-There's a lot of places. MR. CARVIN-If you're willing to move it, why don't you just move it? MR. GRANGER-Can I hear the letters? MR. TURNER-First, let's see if anybody has any comments, then we'll get the letters. I'll open the public hearing. Does anybody wish - 3 - to be heard on this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TURNER-Okay. CORRESPONDENCE MISS HAUSER-Okay. This is dated February 16. 1994. "Dear Mr. Turner: Enclosed is a copy of a letter dated January 12. 1994 stating that applicant is requesting a variance to construct a storage shed. At the time the letter was received. I submitted an answer to state that I was totally against this variance. I have just received another letter dated February 8. 1994 stating that applicant wishes to leave in place an existing storage shed. Applicant should have obtained proper approval before constructing the shed in an area requiring a variance. I expect that this matter will be resolved and this shed will be moved to a proper location. I am totally against thi s variance. and I oppose it. Respectfully yours. Matthew D'Ambrosio" MR. GRANGER-Excuse me. Where is Mr. D'Ambrosio's property? MR. CARVIN-Across the road. maybe? It's got to be within 500. MR. GRANGER-Across the road is Mr. Lebowitz. To my west is Mr. Mahar and to my east is Mrs. VanDusen. Mrs. VanDusen surrounds my property to the rear. MR. TURNER-He's close enough so he got a notice. He's within 500 feet. Who's the other one? MS. CIPPERLY-What was the date of the first letter? MISS HAUSER-Okay. The first letter was sent Wednesday. January 12. 1994. it's from Mr. D'Ambrosio. It says. "To Whom It May Concern: In regards to the above letter received. I'm totally against this variance and I oppose it. Thank you for your attention in this matter. Respectfully yours" This was on January 12th. The first one I read was February 16th. A third letter was received on January 19th. from Roland Dube. "Regarding Variance No. 4-1994. Brian Granger. East End Enterprises. due to previous commitment. I will not be able to attend the public hearing on the above mentioned variance. We do not agree to the three foot variance due to the fact that the property next door is being sold. and it would not be fair to the new property owner." MR. GRANGER-Who is that from? MISS HAUSER-Roland Dube. MR. GRANGER-Is he within? MR. TURNER-He's within it. it must be. He got the notice. MR. GRANGER-Okay. I'll withdraw the application. at this time. and move the shed. when weather is permitting. MR. TURNER-I don't know. What's your pleasure. move it now? MR. MENTER-Yes. I would say so. MR. TURNER-Okay. Move it now. It's not that big. Pick it up with one of your loaders and move it. MR. GRANGER-Okay. or buy the property next door? - 4 - MR. TURNER-Or buy the property next door. Okay. For the record. Maria. the applicant has withdrawn the application. and will move the shed. immediately. AREA VARIANCE NO. 6-1994 TYPE II WR-1A CEA JOAN & MIKE DONNELLY OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE SEELEY ROAD. CLEVERDALE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT A THIRTY-FOUR (34) BY TWENTY-FOUR (24) FOOT GARAGE ATTACHED TO AN EXISTING HOUSE. SECTION 179-60B(1)(c) REQUIRES A SETBACK OF SEVENTY-FIVE (75) FEET FROM THE MEAN HIGH WATER MARK. APPLICANT PROPOSES A SHORELINE SETBACK OF TWENTY ( 20) FEET AND SEEKS RELIEF OF FIFTY-FIVE (55) FEET. (ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY) (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) 2/9/94 TAX MAP NO. 16-1-13 LOT SIZE: 0.53 ACRES SECTION 179-60B(1)(c) JOAN AND MIKE DONNELLY. PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff. Area Variance No. 6-1994. Joan & Mike Donnelly. Meeting Date: February 16. 1994 "APPLICANT: Joan & Mike Donnelly PROJECT LOCATION: See ley Road. C leverdale PROPOSED ACTION: Applicant proposes to construct a thirty-four (34) by twenty-four (24) foot garage attached to an existing house. CONFORMANCE WITH USE/AREA REGULATIONS: Section 179-60B(1)(c) requires a setback of seventy-five (75) feet from the mean high water mark. Applicant is proposing a shoreline setback of twenty (20) feet and seeking relief of fifty-five (55) feet. PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY: Due to location of existing residence and septic system it is not possible to build an attached garage without a variance. ALTERNATIVES: Applicant has evaluated alternatives. such as a detached garage. The location which would provide space for a garage would involve the destruction of mature pine trees and obstruct the view of the lake. both from the house and from Seelye Road. There is no alternative that would not require some type of variance. EFFECTS ON NEIGHBORHOOD/COMMUNITY: The applicant's property is one of the few places in the Seelye Road area where Lake George can been seen from the road. rather than being obstructed by fences. hedges. or buildings. It appears that an attached garage would have little or no visual impact. while a detached one would constitute more visual blockage of the lake. In discussing this project. and shoreline projects generally. with APA staff. the point was made that the impact of shoreline structures when viewed from the lake should also be considered. In this case. an attached garage would be barely visible from the lake while a detached garage would detract from overall appearance of the shoreline. One inquiry was received on behalf of the neighbor to the south. who would have been concerned if the garage was close to that property line. STAFF COMMENTS AND CONCERNS: After considering the options available. it appears that the proposal to construct an attached garage would be of benefit to the applicant. and also presents the least disruptive location. in terms of Lake George. which is a community resource. It is suggested that the garage. if approved. be required to have gutters and the water to be directed inland rather than toward the lake." MR. TURNER-Warren County met tonight. Impact". So you can put that right in. right? No County Impact? and there was "No County Warren County met tonight. MS. CIPPERLY-Warren County. the application was reviewed at the Warren County Planning Board and a decision of "No County Impact" was handed down. MR. TURNER-Yes. was handed down. Okay. Mr. Donnelly. anything to add. at this point? The same application as you had before. MR. DONNELLY-Yes. MS. CIPPERLY-You've added some things on your map. - 5 - MR. TURNER-You showed us where the septic was. MR. DONNELLY-Yes. MS. CIPPERLY-And there's some photographs in the file. MRS. DONNELLY-And it's not closer to the property line. MR. TURNER-Yes, it's 26 feet. MS. CIPPERLY-There's some photos in the file, also, that are new with this. MR. CARVIN-This is the house here, and this is the north side. MR. TURNER-Yes. MS. CIPPERLY-The neighbor to the south would have been at the top of your map, and the setback is being met there. They just called to inquire. MR. TURNER-He has to have a minimum of 20 and a sum of 50. He's got 26, 6 on that side. Any questions, anyone? The garage is going to be right in there. MS. CIPPERLY-This is the map from last month. It just didn't show what was over here. MR. TURNER-It just showed the area where this was, but your staff notes before indicated they could make that garage shorter, by ten feet. MR. CARVIN-Shorten by ten feet to decrease the amount of relief needed and the garage as proposed could be shifted five feet to the west. MS. CIPPERLY-That would be that way. MR. TURNER-Yes. MS. CIPPERLY-Yes, you miss the door, but, you know, I was mainly considering the detached versus attached. I guess this is an existing door. MR. TURNER-That's an existing door. Yes, but I think that was our comment the last time. He could bring this up away from the lake farther. Even though they want to get into that doorway there, and they could put a door out the back, and come right out and go in there. MR. CARVIN-Even if they don't move it the five feet, I think they should probably reduce it down, 34, because the standard, what, it's 24 by 24, is that a standard two car garage? MR. TURNER-Yes. He could go 900. He could go that way with it. By moving it that way, and making the garage smaller, we could pick up another five or ten feet, make that thirty instead of twenty. MR. CARVIN-Well, we pick up just five this way. MR. TURNER-Yes, but he's got 10 feet right there. All right. MR. CARVIN-In other words, bring it all the way out here? MR. TURNER-Bring it here. MR. CARVIN-Just lop this ten feet off? MR. TURNER-Yes, ten, that would make it twenty-four by twenty-four. - 6 - MS. CIPPERLY-Or we can move the whole thing forward. MR. TURNER-Or you could move it forward. MR. CARVIN-Well, if he moves this forward, he's going to impact this road, right? I mean, I don't know how much this is for like snow and what not, but I think that's going to be kind of a dangerous situation on the road. MR. TURNER-This is all flat. road over. All you'd have to do is move that MR. CARVIN-This is a driveway, right? MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. KARPELES-Why not just lop ten feet off. MR. TURNER-That's what I'm saying, take ten feet off. MR. KARPELES-And come in here. MR. TURNER-That makes it thirty feet, you know. MR. CARVIN-Well, I guess I'd be more comfortable with a 24 by 24. I can see his concern about the door. MR. TURNER-A lot of garages don't have doors. convenience. It's just a MR. CARVIN-Have you opened up the public hearing? MR. TURNER-No, I haven't. MR. CARVIN-I'd be curious to hear what the letter from the person on the south had to say. MS. CIPPERLY-There wasn't a letter. It was just a phone call. MR. TURNER-No letter, just a telephone call. MS. CIPPERLY-That was just a phone call from a realtor in December who represented that southern neighbor, just wondering what the proposal was, and when they found out that it was within, it was more than meeting the setbacks, they weren't concerned. They just didn't want something right on the property line, because I think at that point they were in the process of selling the house. MR. CARVIN-What kind of roof are you going to have? to have it slanting the same way on the house? conceptual? Are you going Do you have a MR. MENTER-Is it a peaked roof? MRS. DONNELLY-We would like to put a peaked roof in. have one with a flat roof. I didn't like it. They also MR. TURNER-But you haven't decided. MR. DONNELLY-An executive decision. MRS. DONNELLY-Do you have a picture? MR. CARVIN-No, we have just a floor plan. MR. DONNELLY-Well, we've addressed (lost word) and we had the other one in the front. MR. TURNER-I think the APA's going to through it right back in our lap if we don't make them. - 7 - MR. CARVIN-You think they're going to kick it back if we leave it this way? MR. TURNER-Yes. MS. CIPPERLY-The APA didn't really have jurisdiction on this. I just called to ask them what their shoreline, I was talking about shorelines in general, and what their limitations were. Then we talked about this application also. MR. CARVIN-See, I was thinking that they were going to have the roof. MR. MENTER-With a gable. MR. CARVIN-Yes. MR. TURNER-A gable facing the road. Yes. MR. CARVIN-You don't like the flat roof? MRS. DONNELLY-I don't like the flat roof. MR. TURNER-Okay. public hearing. If there's no further comments, I'll open the public hearing. I'll open the PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TURNER-All right. Discussion? Again, we have to grant minimum relief, and you're asking for maximum relief. Why can't you come this way with that garage? Even though the driveway is there, can't you move the driveway over a little bit to pick up room enough to put that garage back away from the lake? MR. MENTER-See, we're looking at the garage being 34 feet, in overall length, which is an exceptional size, for a two car garage, lengthwise. MR. DONNELLY-I think that the door is what I'm trying to incorporate there. MR. TURNER-Yes, I know, but that's not practical difficulty, just because you want that door there. MR. DONNELLY-If you make the garage 24 feet, and just keep it in that spot? MR. TURNER-Then we've got to still grant you forty-five feet. That's pretty good relief. That was our comment the last time. MRS. DONNELLY-If we moved it forward, could we still have the same size garage that we have here, I mean, but move it forward ten. MR. CARVIN-Yes, see, I don't know how it's going to impact on your driveway. That was my question, because I don't think you've got 10 feet to move it forward. If this is drawn to scale, you're going to put, if you move it forward ten feet, you're going to be about in the center of that driveway. MR. KARPELES-Well, it looks like there miqht be some room between the septic system. MR. MENTER-That may be their option. MR. KARPELES-Yes. - 8 - MR. TURNER-They could take the blacktop out, move the driveway forward, and move the driveway over. MR. MENTER-It looks like they have room to do that. MR. TURNER-They do. MR. MENTER-If you're going to lose the door, see, the problem might be that door. It's a question of convenience versus minimum relief. MRS. DONNELLY-As we get older, it definitely is. MR. CARVIN-The thing is, could they come in this way, and they only need 20 feet here. They could pick up six feet this way, right? MR. TURNER-Yes, if they wanted to make that turn in there, but I don't think they can. MR. CARVIN-Well, again, I don't know. If you come this way, you could pick up six feet, and then you could come over like this. That way you come in like this. The one on this side might have a little problem, but all you're doing is losing this area here to green, as opposed to all of this. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. CARVIN-I mean, and then we've moved it back ten feet, and we have not imposed, as long as they don't come, they could pick up six feet this way. MR. TURNER-Mr. Donnelly, would you care to come up here and take a look at what we're talking about? Mr. Carvin has this thought here. If you move that over to there. MR. CARVIN-In other words, you can pick up six feet coming this way, as long as you maintain twenty feet there. MR. TURNER-Twenty feet there. That's all you've got to have. MR. CARVIN-Okay. We'll pick up the 10 feet here. I can't do anything about the door. Then that way you might be able to pick up five to ten feet here. Now this is 24. So you could almost have a 34 foot here, and then if you ran this one 24, what have we got here? We've got 24. So you basically would still have, you'd have a 30 foot by 24, if you wanted. By going this way, you're only losing four feet. See, we're trying to get you away from the lake. That's the problem we're going to bump into. Originally, I thought over here, but looking at the pictures, I could see the view. I can see that that's not a real good alternative. MR. TURNER-Yes. It's less restriction here, because there's another building right there anyway. MR. CARVIN-Right, as long as you don't build a real high peak on that, and if you keep the roof, I don't know, maybe peak it this way. It's not going to be a two story thing, right? MR. DONNELLY-No. It's just one. MR. CARVIN-That way you can have a peaked roof, as opposed to having all of those angles. MR. DONNELLY-Right. MR. CARVIN-The only complication, as I see it, is that it may be a little bit awkward coming in, because you've got a turn space here. So, I mean, technically that may not be much of a problem. MR. DONNELLY-I'd be willing to go back, as long as we keep the same - 9 - dimensions. Can we keep the same dimensions? MR. CARVIN-Twenty-four, thirty, see, because you can only, you're only going to pick up six feet here. So your dimensions, coming off this way, is going to be twenty-four plus six, so it's going to be thirty this way, and I don't care. You've got twenty-four here. So, I mean, you could either keep it, or if you wanted to pick up five or six feet this way, so now you've got a twenty-nine by thirty. You could actually have a little bit more to play with. MR. THOMAS-Thirty by thirty is as big as he could go anyway. MR. CARVIN-Yes. So, I mean, by going it this way, we've got you ten feet off the lake and APA, we're being told the APA won't look at this? MS. CIPPERLY-It's a Class B project. MR. TURNER-They might. MR. CARVIN-But I mean at least this way you've moved it as far as you can. MR. TURNER-They'll look at it. If they want to review it, they'll review it. MR. THOMAS-What if you put a door here, and covered this over? MR. CARVIN-Well, that would still give them, I don't know. MR. THOMAS-Does that encroach? MR. TURNER-Yes. The roof is part of the structure. The overhang is part of the structure. MR. DONNELLY-So, I could not have a door in here? In other words, if I want to get into this garage from the lake, I'd have to go all the way around? MR. THOMAS-Yes, you could put a door here. What I was thinking is cover it. MR. CARVIN-You could have a door here if you wanted, and a little sidewalk, if there's going to be a door here. You're just going to be outside. You could have doors up and down here. That's not a real problem. MS. CIPPERLY-I don't know how it would be, architecturally, if you put a door here, and went into the house. MR. CARVIN-If you put a roof, see, this is what Chris' question was, if you put a roof over it, then you're going to fall right back to where you are now. MR. KARPELES-Yes, but he might be able to put a roof over here, and come out this way. MR. CARVIN-In looking at the front of the house, I don't think that that would be desirable, because the front of the house is a very pretty house. MRS. DONNELLY-Yes. MR. CARVIN-I don't know what your internal structure is going to be, whether this is a kitchen, or if this is going to be a wash room or something, a living room. I don't know. MR. DONNELLY-Yes. That's just a hallway out to the. MR. CARVIN-Well, if you're going to have this the entrance off the - 10 - garage. you're probably going to have a wet area anyway. That's an alternative that ~ can throw at you. MR. TURNER-Yes. Were you proposing to put a mud room there? There is one there now? MR. DONNELLY-Yes. MR. TURNER-Okay. MR. CARVIN-This way. if you're going to push this way. you can push it right to the line. MR. TURNER-Yes. you can go that way. You can hit the 20 feet. Now that includes the overhang on the garage. So. when you build. you have to consider that. The overhang counts as the setback. MR. DONNELLY-What's the minimum you can have? MR. TURNER-Twenty feet. through the overhang. MR. DONNELLY-Okay. So I would need a garage. lets say that you have a foot overhang. MR. CARVIN-You're probably talking a twenty-nine foot interior. Well. no. it's a two foot overhang. isn't it. or a foot and a half? MR. THOMAS-Well. you can have anything on it. It depends on which end is the gable. MR. CARVIN-I was thinking. if he was going to gable it this way. he would only have an overhang of probably less than a foot. MR. THOMAS-You could have llQ overhang. if it was gabled that way. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. CARVIN-If you put your roof this way. because that contours with the house. No. it isn't either. MR. THOMAS-It's perpendicular. No. it would go the same way as the ridge on the house. MR. TURNER-Yes. you're right. MR. THOMAS-It would go the same way as the ridge on the house. You wouldn't need any overhang on the back. MR. DONNELLY-Right. on this side. MR. THOMAS-Yes. MR. TURNER-But if you put an overhang here. then you violate whatever you put here. if you put a foot here. or fifteen inches. that's where the setback is. right to there. MR. DONNELLY-Okay. MR. THOMAS-If you put in the roof that way. you've got to have some overhang on the ends. MR. DONNELLY-There would be no heat in the garage. MR. THOMAS-But still you've got to have some overhang. or that water's going to run right down the side of the building. unless you have gutters. MS. CIPPERLY-That was one of the recommendations. MR. TURNER-Yes. that it be guttered. - 11 - MR. CARVIN-Yes. It's going to have to be guttered away from the lake. MR. TURNER-Yes. Okay. MR. THOMAS-You could actually end up with a bigger garage than he wanted. MR. CARVIN-I was going to say. we're giving you a bigger garage. MR. TURNER-You can have up to 900 square feet, but the problem here is the setback. and that's what we're trying to get you. MR. DONNELLY-Okay. All right. So we can come out here how far? MR. TURNER-You can go as far as you want. MR. CARVIN-Your heart's content. as far as I'm concerned. You can have a maximum of 900 square feet. MR. TURNER-As long as you stay 20 feet off of that line there. you can have it back here where you want it. You're going to have to move the driveway over. MR. CARVIN-But as I said, your only constraint is your driveway. but I think if you move it over here. you're going to be actually giving up less green area. because I don't know what this. percentage wise, is. MR. THOMAS-It's an eighth of an inch equals a foot. How many eighths are there in thirty feet? A lot. Three and three quarter inches. MR. TURNER-You've got six feet right there. from there to there. So. if you go ten. that's eight. right there. an inch and a quarter over. MR. CARVIN-That's. what. ten feet. Ted? MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. CARVIN-That's what I said. about right in the middle of their. MR. TURNER-It's our duty to give them minimum relief. move them back away from the lake. This is maximum relief. MR. CARVIN-I mean. if this is the only spot he's got, I mean. on this side of the house. on the south side. MR. TURNER-Yes. It's less obtrusive there anyway. and there's a building right here anyway. MR. CARVIN-There it is. That's what they want. MR. TURNER-Okay. Motion's in order. MR. CARVIN-Well. what dimensions are we looking are at here? MR. DONNELLY-Well. I'll go back, but I could use up to the 900 square feet. MR. TURNER-Well. that's up to you. We're only going to grant you relief from the lake. and that's it. MR. MENTER-Our only concern is how far you are from the lake. HR. TURNER-That's our only concern. square foot garage. after that. You can have up to a 900 MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 6-1994 JOAN & MIKE DONNELLY. - 12 - Introduced by Fred Carvin who moved for its adoption, seconded by Theodore Turner: That we grant 45 feet of relief from Section 179-60B(1)(c), which requires a setback of 75 feet from the mean high water mark. The practical difficulty in locating this garage is a combination of a number of issues. Almost anywhere on the lot that the applicant could put a garage would require a variance, but taking into consideration septic systems and aesthetic aspects of the lot with regards to views to the lake and the view from the lake. it would be most practical for this garage to be built on the south side of this present structure. By doing this. this would alleviate any effects on the neighborhood and community. There would not appear to be any impact on public facilities or services. Duly adopted this 16th day of February. 1994. by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Menter, Mr. Karpeles. Mr. Carvin. Miss Hauser. Mr. Thomas. Mr. Turner NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Eggleston MR. CARVIN-Now. I guess you have to bring in the new plan. MR. TURNER-The new plan. yes. before they get the permit. MR. CARVIN-So then that'll give you some time to figure out what you want to do. as far as sizes. AREA VARIANCE NO. 7-1994 TYPE: UNLISTED PC-1A QUEENS BURY RETAIL LIMITED PARTNERSHIP SUPER K-MART OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF DIX AVENUE AND QUAKER ROAD SECTION 179-66B(3), REQUIRES PLANTED DIVIDER STRIPS IN PARKING LOTS TO CREATE PARKING AREAS OF NO GREATER THAN ONE HUNDRED FIFTY (150) SPACES TO ENSURE SAFETY AND CONTROL SPEED. APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO ELIMINATE THESE DIVIDERS COMPLETELY, SO IS SEEKING ONE HUNDRED (100) PERCENT RELIEF. PROJECT WAS THE SUBJECT OF SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 33-93, APPROVED WITH THE DIVIDERS IN PLACE. (BEAUTIFICATION COMMITTEE) (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) 2/9/94 TAX MAP NO. 110-1-2.1 LOT SIZE: 35.46 SECTION 179-66, ITEM B TIM MORGAN. REPRESENTING APPLICANT. PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff. Area Variance No. 7-1994. Queensbury Retail Limited Partnership Super K-Mart, Meeting Date: February 16, 1994 "APPLICANT: Queensbury Retail Limi ted Partnership K-Mart PROJECT LOCATION: southwest corner of Dix Avenue and Quaker Road PROPOSED ACTION: Applicant proposes eliminating concrete dividers which run lengthwi se (east-west) in the ir 1.189 space parking lot. CONFORMANCE WITH USE/AREA REGULATIONS: Section 179-66B(3) requires planted divider strips in parking lots to create parking areas of no greater than one hundred fifty (150) spaces to ensure safety and control speed. Applicant is seeking one hundred (100) percent relief from this requirement. PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY: The applicant claims that the requirement of parking lot dividers makes snow removal almost impossible. ALTERNATIVES: There are no apparent alternatives that would satisfy both the applicant and the intent of the Ordinance. EFFECTS ON NEIGHBORHOOD/COMMUNITY: Since the Ordinance states that the purpose of the dividers is to control speed and ensure safety. the effects of removing them appears obvious. The result would be traffic moving virtually uncontrolled through a huge parking lot. Another aspect of the dividers is the provision of landscaping for both visual relief and shade, which would appear important in an asphalt expanse of this size. Letters from the Beautification Committee . private ci ti zens. and other - 13 - businesses in the area express similar concerns. Concern was also expressed over the setting of a precedent if this variance is granted. PARCEL HISTORY: The parcel was the subject of: - A change of zone from Light Industrial to Plaza Commercial by Town Board resolution 444. dated 8/9/93. - Site Plan Review by the Planning Board. for which final approval was given in October. 1993. The parking lot and the inclusion of concrete dividers were part of this review and approval. STAFF COMMENTS AND CONCERNS: There does not appear to be a difficulty expressed by the applicant which would outweigh the detriment to the health. safety. and welfare of the community engendered if the Variance were granted. Other businesses in Queensbury. Shop N' Save. for example. have been held to this requirement and seem to be able to adequately remove snow. In the course of reviewing the parking lot plans. staff noticed that the requirement in Section 179-66B(3)(b) for a planted traffic island at both ends of each aisle of the parking had not been followed in the case of two aisles with handicapped spaces at the end. This would need to be addressed by a Variance application if the applicant intends to construct the parking lot in this manner. While it could be argued that deleting the island could make access to the store easier, the presence of the traffic island could provide protection for those spaces from passing traffic. ATTACHMENTS: Letter from Queensbury Commi ttee for Community Beautification dated February 12. 1994. Letter from Communi ty Workshop dated February 10. 1994. Letter from Robert Eddy dated February 11, 1994." MR. TURNER-Okay. Mr. Morgan. do you want to address the application any further? MR. MORGAN-Not to any more extent than what has previously been stated in the reading. It's a very straightforward request. and it's obviously reiterated correctly. and other than requesting from the Board a brief explanation as to the specific circumstances as to if and why a similar request was granted to Wal-Mart. if and why, I would simply ask for a motion for a vote. MR. TURNER-I don't think we're going to vote on it right now. We're going to talk about it first. MR. MORGAN-Okay. MR. TURNER-I think what I would ask you is why would you agree to something in Site Plan Review and then turn around and reverse yourself? MR. MORGAN-Well. it's not as simple a situation as that. Mr. Chairman. MR. TURNER-But I think it is. MR. MORGAN-Well. it's not. sir. We were simply advised. MR. TURNER-You know the snow is here. hardship here. The snow removal's no MR. MORGAN-I said almost impossible. I did not say it was an undue hardship. We were specifically advised. in the planning stages of this project, that due to issues such as subdivision, site plan approval. rezoning. curb cuts. etc., that any variances that we might consider necessary would be best pursued post site plan approval. MR. THOMAS-I'd like to know who told you that. MR. MORGAN-I had a meeting with the former Town Supervisor. MR. TURNER-That's his opinion. MR. MORGAN-Noted, and again. that's why. if you're looking to me to - 14 - defend the application, other than to the extent that it was prepared and requested, as I said, that opinion held by the former Town Supervisor doesn't carry any weight here this evening. MR. TURNER-That's right. Okay. Does anyone else have anything? MS. CIPPERLY-Could I ask a question, just to clarify something? Are you talking about removing the long concrete dividers? MR. MORGAN-Just in between the end, middle, and end. MR. KARPELES-Maybe if you put your plan up there, and you pointed out to us what you want to do. MR. CARVIN-Which ones are we talking here? MR. TURNER-The end, the middle, and end. Put your plan right up on the board so we can see it. MS. CIPPERLY-He's talking about leaving the islands, here, here, and here. He does have a planting plan that's back in my office. MR. TURNER-You're talking these? MR. MORGAN-No. successively. We're talking this, this, and this, these three MR. MENTER-Okay. These would stay, then? MR. MORGAN-This would stay, just these two inside ones, that's correct. MR. CARVIN-Okay. What about these? MR. MORGAN-Those would stay. Those are part of the landscaping and Beautification Committee approval. This would stay here. To alter those, I believe, would require going back to the Beautification Committee, as part of the landscaping review. MR. CARVIN-So all of these stay also? MR. MORGAN-That is correct. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Are these in or out? This is your handicapped? MR. MORGAN-These would be in. MR. CARVIN-What is staff commenting on, handicapped? MR. MORGAN-They're commenting in regard to these end aisles not being planted. MS. CIPPERLY-No. Is this a raised thing? That's supposed to be an access aisle for handicapped. MR. MORGAN-Correct. MS. CIPPERLY-You should have a raised concrete island there. MR. MORGAN-I think you'd want to double check that against the current handicapped requirements for 1994. MS. CIPPERLY-It says you can't have islands next to handicapped spaces? MR. MORGAN-No. It says that the raised chatter has to be extended all the way out, even on the end, and should ADA of '94 be contrary to what I just stated, it's very easy to redraw this as a planted island. In my notes, I simply said, noted, and we would be happy to change it if. - 15 - MS. CIPPERLY-Okay. because I looked it up in the ANSI Standards. and I didn't see anything about it. MR. MORGAN-ADA changed it for '94. So. if it isn't correct. it's very easy to redraw that. MR. CARVIN-Okay. What you're saying is that. at this point. this is flat? MR. MORGAN-That's our understanding. MR. CARVIN-Okay. So this is just lines on the pavement? MR. TURNER-That's all. MR. CARVIN-Okay. MR. MORGAN-Maybe the only specific requirement is in regards to the color of the lines. as far as ADA. MR. CARVIN-This is all sidewalk in here. This is all raised. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. CARVIN-Are you light poles in here? MR. MORGAN-Yes. they are. MR. CARVIN-Okay. MS. CIPPERLY-And where are the plantings? MR. MORGAN-The plantings are inside the island. We'd have to pull out a site lighting plan to get a better idea. exactly where. MR. CARVIN-In other words. you have a light fixture and then planting in here? MR. MORGAN-I don't recall. I'd want to specifically check the site lighting plan. So. again. for discussions sake. for the Board. it would be one. two. three. four. five. six. MR. TURNER-You want to take them all out. and leave the planted islands with the lights. right? MR. MORGAN-The planted islands. MR. CARVIN-Okay. That's all this motion's about? MR. TURNER-That's what this one's about. This goes. this goes. the six of them go. MS. CIPPERLY-Then you'd have about 1.ØØØ cars. The whole parking lot is 1189. and some over here. MR. CARVIN-Yes. There's some parking up on the side. but all that does is really make these longer. right? I mean. they're not going to reconfigure the parking spaces. are they? MS. CIPPERLY-Not to my knowledge. MR. TURNER-No. but then what it does is this guy gets over here. and he goes shooting right across. There's no way to stop him. There's a defini te reason in the Ordinance for these to be in there. This is a much bigger area than Wal-Mart's. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Shop N' Save is in comparison to this. right? MS. CIPPERLY-Shop N' Save is a much smaller parking lot. - 16 - MR. CARVIN-Well, no. way? I know they've got the, they run them that MR. TURNER-They run them this way, and they've got the. MR. CARVIN-But as far as I know, that's the only one, isn't it? What other shopping center of that magnitude has this kind of a set up? MS. CIPPERLY-They are making Queensbury Plaza, I guess, change theirs, as they come in. MR. TURNER-Yes, update their parking. MR. CARVIN-That's the Olive Garden thing, is it? MR. TURNER-Yes. to it already. There's no practical difficulty here. They already agreed to it. They agreed MR. CARVIN-Well, this is new construction, I mean, which is certainly different than some of the other ones, Ted. MR. TURNER-I know. MR. CARVIN-Do you intend on increasing your parking if these were removed? MR. MORGAN-None whatsoever. There would be no parking ramifications should a variance be considered by the Board. MR. CARVIN-What you're saying, Ted, is that the theory behind this is that these are basically speed bumps or speed deterrents? MR. TURNER-Yes. It's a safety factor. It prevents them cutting across the lot, and going into another area where don't belong. They've got to come out of there, come down, their turn and go out. from they make MR. KARPELES-How high are those things? Is there any particular height? MR. MENTER-There's curb height. MR. TURNER-Curb height. MR. KARPELES-Is curb height six inches, something like that? MR. MORGAN-Six inches. MR. TURNER-Yes, six to eight inches high. Yes. MR. MORGAN-There would be no additional parking associated with the variance whatsoever. MR. TURNER-No. Then it's your opinion that there's no problem with safety here, by removing them? Is that your opinion? MR. MORGAN-No. I think there is some truth to the fact that parking island dividers control speed through a parking lot, but I also think that if you go into a mall or shopping center, at any hour, you'll see a very erratic pattern of parking. It would be very similar to Daytona Søø to navigate at a high speed through there. Not, always, but most of the time. MR. TURNER-Okay. Has anyone else got any questions, because I want to ask Mr. Brewer a question. MR. CARVIN-I just wanted to make sure that I understood what the direction, yes, you're just looking at those six areas. - 17 - MR. MORGAN-It's clear then. it's the six sections? MR. TURNER-I know what it is. I want to ask Mr. Brewer a question. This is the plan you looked at. correct? TIH BREWER MR. BREWER-Correct. HR. TURNER-This is the Site Plan you approved. correct? MR. BREWER-Correct. with the dividers. MR. TURNER-With the dividers. MR. BREWER-And I just would like to make one comment. in reference to Wal-Mart. After Wal-Mart got their variances. we insisted they add two more dividers in their plans. not that it has any bearing on this. but we didn't like the idea that they got the variance. and we wouldn't agree to it. and we insisted they put two more in. We would not give them approval. and if you want to look at the minutes. you can affirm that. they plant more trees. MR. CARVIN-What you're saying. Tim. is that Wal-Mart will have similar. HR. BREWER-Not exactly. no. We made them. if you remember what their site plan looked like. down towards Glen Street. there was a big open space. and we said. why don't you put something in there 25. 30 foot. I can't remember exactly the numbers. but they said we'd lose seven or eight spaces. So that's got to be eight spaces are going to be ten feet wide. eighty feet. We made them put in trees and a divider in there just to break up the parking lot. I think. in my opinion. and I'm not speaking for the whole Board. I'm speaking for myself. I think the variance should not be granted. because you have to have some kind of control in the parking lot. It will set a precedent. in my opinion. MR. CARVIN-Okay. but Wal-Mart has no internal. MR. BREWER-They have ~. HR. CARVIN-Other than the islands. the light islands I call them. for lack of a better term. HR. BREWER-Right. MR. TURNER-They have one down this side. MR. CARVIN-Yes. MR. BREWER-We did make them insert two more islands. Fred. MR. MORGAN-The long concrete form. or the actual planter island? MR. BREWER-Planter islands. MR. HORGAN-Very similar to what's going to stay in the site plan. MR. BREWER-Yes. They are going to stay. but I also. I was talking to Dave Kenny. and he said. your islands are 1 ike this. your planted islands in your parking lot. You could turn them this way and still run them the whole length. and plant every 50 or 75 feet. Then you've still got a straight shot to plow. You wouldn't need a variance. Then you wouldn't have the length coming out. and it would still be divided. You could still put your plantings in there. You wouldn't need a variance. You could go home right now. and come back to the Planning Board. HR. TURNER-Turn them this way. - 18 - MR. BREWER-Made this island, how wide is this, 10, 12 feet? MR. MORGAN-No, a parking space? MR. BREWER-This. spaces. Well, then, you'd lose spaces. You'd lose MR. MORGAN-Unfortunately, although that sounds solution, Tim, I couldn't consider losing spaces. trouble with it. like a great That's the only MR. BREWER-You can consider losing some spaces or consider maybe not getting a variance. It's an alternative. That's what I'm saying. MR. MORGAN-Right. I would consider asking the Board. MR. BREWER-And then making your plantings here, here, here, not even necessarily there, wherever they have to be, here, here, here, here, I mean, how wide would they have to be to get the permeability? I mean, it's something you could sit down and think about and figure out how much space you would lose. MR. MORGAN-We can't do that. We're willing to let the Board consider the variance and take a vote. MR. BREWER-Just a suggestion. DAVE KENNY MR. KENNY-One other suggestion. Suppose he has another row of plantings in there? Instead of having two rows in the middle, have three rows in the middle, one row here, one row here, and one row here. It would give you more green space, so you're giving something back to the variance. MR. MORGAN-Well, I'll tell you what. If it's only a question of green space and the variance, why don't we have the Board take a look at where else we could put plantings? MR. KENNY-It would break this parking lot up, make it look a lot prettier. MR. BREWER-To me, it's not a matter of green space. MR. TURNER-No. It's not a matter of green space. It's a matter of safety. MR. KENNY-You'd probably lose a few parking, I don't really but you're talking about one extra row. So you're talking actually two, not even two, one, two, three, four, five, six, parking spaces possibly. By putting a third row in here, don't even take up four parking space s, one, two, three, five, six, seven. So you'd have seven here, seven here, and here. The maximum you'd be losing is seven. It would give more trees, a lot more green space to the whole project. Planning Board would have to approve that. know, about seven they four, seven a lot The HR. BREWER-I don't think it's an issue of green space, David, because he's got enough. MR. TURNER-He's got enough green space. HR. BREWER-And the thing about the green space, we looked at a plan one time. MR. KENNY-But that will also cut down, if you turn around and put a space here, right, to me, if you put a space here, if you shrink up these bays, right, that is your parking area, then, and that's within 150. In other words, if I make this, these are so wide now, - 19 - you eliminate these because you don't need them anyway. You don't need them by Code. You eliminate these and make 150 parking spaces down this way. MR. BREWER-That's what he's done right there. it. He's already done MR. MORGAN-That's what we're doing. MR. KENNY-This is 150 right here. There's 50, this is 25 in each bay, 25, 50, 100. Right now, you've got 50, 100, 150. MR. BREWER-It's broken up. MR. KENNY-It's broken up, right, but what I'm saying is, if you narrow these down, like this. MR. BREWER-All right. You're adding another row, so you're losing some spaces. You're making this 80 spaces, 80 spaces, 80 spaces, 80 spaces. MR. KENNY-Right. He could just do what he's doing here. I mean, actually, he'd have no problem. He'd be well within code, if he added two more, which would be 14 spaces, because this here is a separation, to me. This is a driveway through. These planters here separate the parking lot, which would eliminate these. MR. BREWER-No they don't. MR. KENNY-It doesn't have to be a total separation. MR. BREWER-Yes, it does. MR. KENNY-I don't think so. parking lot to parking lot. You can have a driveway and go from MR. MORGAN-The Code states they have to have (lost word) separation for every 150 feet. MR. TURNER-Yes, 150. MR. KENNY-Well, how do you get access one to the other? I mean, this is a drive through. MR. BREWER-You don't. Go to Shop N' Save some time. You can't cut through those aisles. MR. TURNER-No. You can't cut through them. You've got to go end to end. MR. BREWER-You've got to go through the whole length of it and come around. MR. TURNER-That's right. MR. BREWER-That's exactly how it is. I see what you're saying. David, but you can't do that. Otherwise, everybody in town would do that. MR. KENNY-It might look a lot better. too. MR. BREWER-It may. changing. Maybe that's something to consider about MR. KENNY-It's a matter of interpretation, what a separation is. The reason for the, Ted. you were on the Committee, was to try and get more green space, more trees, more plantings in parking lots. MR. TURNER-And safety. - 20 - MR. KENNY-And safety, right. MR. BREWER-I don't think it's a matter of green space, David, he's got plenty of green space. MR. TURNER-Safety. MR. BREWER-He's got two and a half acres of wetland. MR. KENNY-Yes, but that was the purpose. Everybody was saying 30 percent green space, I'll put it in the back woods some place. That's no good. We want green space in the parking lot. We want the parking lots to look good in the town, aesthetically pleasing parking lots that, we don't want everybody saying, okay, the green space is going to be two acres of water, or behind the building where I don't need it, and have blacktop right to the road, and going by the road, it looks like hell. We want to be aesthetically pleasing to the Town. I don't know, but to me, a relief would be, he's doing both directions. MR. MENTER-To do that, Dave, I think you would need to go two to four roads. Two more roads would get you under 150. I think you're right about that, but I think safety's the issue, more than. MR. TURNER-Safety is the issue. That's right in the Ordinance. Look at Page 18038, all right, Number Three at the bottom of the page, it'll tell you. MR. KENNY-How wide are these areas here? MR. MORGAN-This parking space is ten feet. MR. KENNY-The cars come in here. Why couldn't you just connect these, then, and have the traffic go this way? MR. MORGAN-It's not practical. MR. BREWER-From anybody's standpoint. MR. KENNY-Now the cars have to go this way. MR. MENTER-The idea is, you come straight in and go straight out. MR. KENNY-But you've still got to go a big loop. There's not a road where you've got to go in and out, here. Why not have them go this way around the road? (Two different conversations going on at once) MS. CIPPERLY-Divide each parking area from another. MR. CARVIN-All right. If these weren't in here, this is a planted divider strip, and it separates this from that, if I'm looking at that. I'm just looking at a definition here. I mean, is this what they refer to as a planted divider strip, or is it just these things? In other words, where there is a strip of land. MS. CIPPERLY-Those are called something different. MR. CARVIN-What, these? What are these called? MS. CIPPERLY-I mean these little things. I guess those are called islands and the other ones are called divider strips. MR. TURNER-Yes. These are divider strips here. MS. CIPPERLY-Tim, are you aware, is there a definition of a planted divider strip, that you know of? I don't think there is. MR. TURNER-No. - 21 - MR. BREWER-I don't think there is. MR. CARVIN-It just says effectively divided. MR. KENNY-Right. effectively divided the parking area. It doesn't mean you can't have drive throughs. That's the way. MR. BREWER-I don't know. Dave. that's ever come before us. thoroughly. completely divided. don't know. Every parking lot I've ever seen. or I've ever seen in Town. is Maybe that's not the intent. I MR. TURNER-Well. Shop N' Save is the same way. and that is the planted dividers strips. There's trees and shrubs and mulch and everything in there. That's a divider strip. MR. BREWER-Yes. Divided means divided. MR. TURNER-It means a division. MR. BREWER-Right. making one into two. MR. TURNER-To separate. MS. CIPPERLY-Otherwise. how would you control traffic if it wasn't divided? MR. TURNER-You couldn't. We couldn't control traffic. Okay. MR. CARVIN-I know where you're coming from. and I see what the Ordinance says. and if the Ordinance is pretty specific. MR. TURNER-It's a safety feature. You look at Northway Plaza. Northway Plaza has lines on the pavement. and those people go up to Steinbach's. There's nobody parked in the area. they cut down through around the cars. any way they want to go. That's what those are for. MR. CARVIN-Well. the only thing that I'm just saying. and the way this starts out. except for an enclosed shopping center. MR. TURNER-Yes. this is not an enclosed. yes. MR. CARVIN-Except for an enclosed shopping center. any parking lot or parking area which contains more than 150 cars. I'm just trying to think. what have we put in that isn't preexisting? When was this passed. I guess. or amended. or has this always been on the record? MR. TURNER-No. This has always been there. MR. CARVIN-Amended 1990. MR. TURNER-Yes. but what they did is they amended the parking spaces. They didn't do anything with that. MR. CARVIN-I guess that's been on the books quite a while? MR. TURNER-Yes. that. That's always been there. They didn't change MR. KARPELES-Well. when was Shop N' Save built? MR. CARVIN-Shop N' Save was about the only one that I know of in the area that. and the Shop N' Save was put up. probably. what. five years ago? MR. MENTER-Yes. MR. TURNER-It controls traffic great. It's just what it's for. - 22 - MR. KARPELES-I think it works great. MR. TURNER-It's cut and dried. MR. CARVIN-Okay. but. I mean. is Wal-Mart having these? Because they're going to have more than 150. and I guess that's my question. or did they get relief from this. MR. TURNER-We made them put a divider strip over here. because their acreage is much smaller than this. This is 30 something. MR. CARVIN-This says nothing about acreage. It says 150 cars. MR. TURNER-I know. but what we did is we made them put a divider strip here. and they wouldn't accept our variance. so they made them do some different things. MR. CARVIN-Well. that's what I'm just saying. I mean. if Wal-Mart is being brought up to speed. because the only one that would really be exempt from this would be the Aviation Mall. Is that correct? MR. TURNER-Right. MR. CARVIN-Except for enclosed shopping centers. MR. TURNER-That would be an enclosed shopping center. So they're exempt. They are considered an enclosed shopping center. My problem is that they went to Site Plan Review. They agreed to everything. Now they turn around and they want a variance. MR. KARPELES-I agree with you. MR. TURNER-No. There's no practical difficulty. because the Ordinance. it's all spelled out in the Ordinance. MS. CIPPERLY-I think another thing with Wal-Mart was that they had a lot less parking spaces. This is Wal-Mart's resolution. MR. CARVIN-It was right down the center. I remember that now. MR. TURNER-Right. because it reduced the required parking spaces. MR. CARVIN-Six hundred and sixty. they still should have it on their side. though. MR. TURNER-But the Planning Board did something totally different than what we granted them. in the Site Plan. Okay. gentlemen. I don't want to cut you off. but we've got a lot of business. Does anyone have any questions of Timmy. other than myself? All set? All right. Tim. I guess we're all set with you. Okay. No further questions for the applicant. at this point. I'll open the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED DAVID KENNY MR. KENNY-David Kenny. Town of Queensbury resident. Looking at the application. it's quite confusing. I think at this point in time. before any motion is made. there should be a workshop session between the Planning Board and the Zoning Board and the applicant to go over. MR. TURNER-What's the confusing the part? MR. KENNY-Well. I think if a variance is granted. the Planning Board should be aware of it. to work it into the site plan. I'm assuming. if this gets granted. it has to go back before the Planning board anyway? - 23 - MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. KENNY-If it has to go back before the Planning Board. and they have to get it approved by the Planning Board. why not bring the Planning Board on board now. and sit down at a workshop. so that Zoning Board and the Planning Board both have their focus. and how they're going to deal with it. MR. TURNER-All right. What's your position. Wait a minute. now. Lets ask Mr. Morgan. in reference to his remarks? MR. MORGAN-I think it's anticipatory. in the sense that he's assuming that the variance will be granted. MR. KENNY-I'm not saying the variance will be granted. It may have a better chance of being granted if it can be worked out where there's minimum relief. Right now. the Planning Board. their impression. this is not minimum relief. and I'm looking at the site plan and I was on the Committee. four years ago. five years ago. To me. I'm not crazy about these concrete dividers. but on the other side. I'm not crazy about having so little green space in the parking lot. I don't care where he has green space. There's this huge parking lot of 1.000 cars. and there's very little green space. I would gladly be willing to. as a resident of the Town. I think the neighbors would be glad. you know. the concrete dividers may work. but they're not really what the Town wants. aesthetically. when you picture driving into a parking lot. You go down south. to Florida. and some of these places where they have trees in the parking lot. They really look beautiful. Technically. you have to have no green space in the parking lot. We don't require that by the Code. This has very little of it by the road and very little of it in the parking lot. MR. BREWER-You're wrong. David. They have a lot by the road. MR. KENNY-Out here. I'm talking about the whole parking lot. It looks to me. a 1.000 car parking lot with roughly eight feet wide by twenty feet long. one. two. three. four . five. six. seven. eight. nine. ten. eleven. twelve. that's the square footage of the plants in the parking lot. for that amount of cars. MR. BREWER-In the parking lot. but you're saying there's none out by the road. MR. KENNY-No. no. I'm saying. when you come in and look at the parking lot. it's going to look like one sheet. MR. BREWER-This is going to be all green space here. MR. KENNY-But the parking lot itself. The parking lot itself is. MR. BREWER-This is going to be all green space here. How much more can you get by the road? MR. KENNY-What we did not want was. if you take an acre of land and blacktop the whole thing. two acres. or how many acres this parking lot is. the more green space you have in here. the more ground (lost word). the more trees. You're talking about between the building and here of very little green space. and. Ted. you were on the Committee. I think. to me. that's the way ~ interpreted it. We wanted to see more. we didn't want to see blacktopped parking lots. MR. TURNER-We didn't. but we also put those dividers in there for very specific reasons. and that's why they should be there. safety. MR. KENNY-Right. but if you had the green space in there. that would serve close to the same purpose. I believe. MR. TURNER-I don't think so. How are you going to keep those cars - 24 - from running across there? MR. KENNY-Well. that's a Planning Board and site plan issue. If these here were turned one way or the other. this went in one direction. to me. this divides the parking lot. MR. TURNER-It does. That's the reason for it. MR. KENNY-Right. these planters. but he doesn't have to divide it this way and this way. MR. TURNER-It's not. MR. KENNY-Yes. it is now. The concrete dividers in one direction. the planters divide it in the other direction. MR. TURNER-No. he's not. He has aisle of traffic lanes right down through there. MR. KENNY-Traffic lanes. but the parking is divided up in both directions. The parking is stopped in both directions. He's creating (lost word). and. to me. I would agree with the applicant in that respect. that does create a snow plow problem, because there's so many jogs in there. You're creating grids. Now. if he could divide this off. 150 feet in one direction. then you could plow the whole lane. I'm assuming these concrete are sidewalks. MR. MORGAN-They're concrete dividers. MR. KENNY-Concrete dividers. MR. MORGAN-There's curbs. That's why there was a comment in here about the provision of landscaping both visual relief and shade. I'm not sure what Planning Staff was looking at. MR. KENNY-I mean. to me. that really doesn't. because these concrete dividers really serve. MR. BREWER-Other than safety, it serves no purpose. MR. TURNER-Yes. that's all it's for, safety. MR. KENNY-Well. I mean. to me, this is a little bit ~ dangerous because pedestrians are going to walk out into the traffic aisles to go around these planters. MR. BREWER-He can turn them. Dave. MR. KENNY-Right. out into the. I mean. right now. you're going to force people MR. BREWER-That's his design. Nobody made him make that design. MR. KENNY-Well. that's what I'm saying. I'm saying. at this point in time. MR. MENTER-Well. does the applicant have a desire to readdress it. to look at it again? I mean. we're being asked to approve the removal of those. That's the question to us. MR. KENNY-Right. and that's why I'm saying. he'd have to go back to the Planning Board at this point. MR. TURNER-Yes. We're not going to design it. what you're. how do you want to do this? Do you want to readdress. or do you want us to rule on it? MR. MORGAN-I think what we're doing is formulating an additional question than the one that already sits before the Board. and I would prefer. at this point. that the Board consider action. as - 25 - opposed to a redesign of the curb sites. MR. MENTER-Yes. that's the impression that ~ have. MR. TURNER-All right. MR. KENNY-If that's the case. I. as a resident of the Town of Queensbury. strongly object to the variance. unless the town laws change. MR. TURNER-Okay. WALLY HIRSCH MR. HIRSCH-I have no comment. I was concerned mainly that the trees are going to stay. what we're talking about is curbs. not trees. Am I correct in that? MR. TURNER-Yes. Anyone else. for or against? PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED CORRESPONDENCE MR. TURNER-Now we'll read the correspondence. MISS HAUSER-The first letter was from the Town of Queensbury Committee for Community Beautification. regarding Area Variance 7- 1994. This Committee has reviewed the request for the variance and they recommend that it be disapproved. "In addition to the above Landscaping. Screening and Planting Provisions. the Committee wi she s to go on record that it doe s not approve: 1. Non- conforming signs. and 2. Plastic or artificial trees. shrubs or flowers." This is dated February 14th. 1994. from the Queensbury Committee for Community Beautification. "Request is for relief from Section 179-66 B (3) regarding required divider strips. Applicant is proposing to eliminate these dividers completely. This applicant was on the agenda for our February 7. 1994 meeting but no representative was present. Therefore. this is an automatic disapproval. Under Site Plan Review No. 33-93. applicant submitted plans to the Queensbury Committee for Community Beautification on June 7.1993 for 1.190 parking spaces with planted dividers parking islands with shaded trees (Greenspire Littleleaf Linden). all islands sodded and irrigated. This is one of the largest parking areas in Queensbury and for the safety of the customer. our Committee feels that the zoning regulations for planted divider strips every 150 cars should be enforced to control speed. Also. if this is approved. it could set an example for other applicants. We hope the Zoning Board of Appeals shares our concern. for the welfare of the customer." The next letter is from the Community Workshop. Inc. It's dated February 10. 1994 "Dear Mr. Turner. Re: Area Variance No. 7-1994 The Super K-Mart should not receive relief from zoning regulations at this time. The Super K-Mart was knowledgeable of the requirements of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinances when they made application. The original application included divider strips in the parking lot. There is no acceptable reason at this time to grant relief from the requirements. If they needed relief. it should have been stated as part of the original application. The rules should not be changed after the fact. The Town of Queensbury put a great deal of time and effort into these plans and they should be followed by everyone who chooses to live or do business in the Town. Sincerely. A. Jane McEwen Executive Vice President" Another letter dated February 11. 1994. "Re: Area Variance No. 7-1994 Super K-Mart This variance should be denied. The reasons for placing this requirement in the ordinance was for safety. breaking up the ' asphal t jungle' effect. improvement in appearance and to provide some green space. In an open area of a large parking lot. cars may be driven around. like a boat on an open lake without regard to the safety of others. Queensbury is rapidly becoming an asphalt jungle without regard for the heat of - 26 - the summer sun nor the run-off of salt or other contaminates either to adjoining property or to ground water. There are some excellent examples of directing the flow of traffic. planted islands and other beautification of premises in shopping areas of Queensbury. and. likewise. some examples of open areas. without breaks in traffic patterns. This provision in the Ordinance was intentionally provided to alleviate these conditions. Please deny this variance request. Sincerely. Robert L. Eddy" MR. TURNER-Okay. Any further discussion? MR. MORGAN-Mr. Chairman. could I make a quick point before the roll is called? For the purpose of the record. could we even. briefly. again. for purpose of the record. explain what the Board's perception of the differences between this variance request and the one granted to Wal-Mart. please. MR. TURNER-What's the Board's perception between the difference? MR. MORGAN-As to exactly why the Wal-Mart variance was granted. prior to the vote. MR. TURNER-What's that got to do with your case? MR. MORGAN-It will have bearing in the future. MR. TURNER-No. I don't think so. MR. MORGAN-That's your choice to explain it or not. but I wanted to make the request for the record. MR. TURNER-I don't think it has any bearing. It's a separate application. a different set of circumstances. maybe. MR. MORGAN-I think it will in the future. but that's your choice. MS. CIPPERLY-Excuse me. Ted. from Warren County. We need to know what the input is MR. MORGAN-The Warren County vote was to disapprove. MR. TURNER-Okay. That's a majority plus one to hear it. Do you want to consider why we did what we did in Wal-Mart. versus why we should do this? MR. THOMAS-No. it's own. It's a separate application. Each one stands on MR. TURNER-That's right. exactly. Okay. Motion's in order. MR. MORGAN-Mr. Turner. could we please read the motion out loud before it's formally transcribed for the record. please. MR. CARVIN-You want to reintroduce the motion. Bob? MR. MORGAN-The motion. I think. can still stand. I'd just like to hear the motion once more. MR. KARPELES-Well. she's going to read it back when we get through with it. MR. CARVIN-I don't think this motion has been seconded. could reintroduce the whole thing right from the top. So. you MR. TURNER-Yes. Just scratch the other one. and reintroduce it. MR. KARPELES-Okay. MOTION TO DENY AREA VARIANCE NO. 7-1994 QUEENSBURY RETAIL LIMITED PARTNERSHIP. Introduced by Robert Karpeles who moved for its - 27 - adoption, seconded by Linda Hauser: Super K-Mart. The applicant claims that the practical difficulty is the requirement of parking lot dividers, making snow removal almost impossible. Other people are coping with this problem, such as Shop N' Save. This plan was submitted to the Planning Board and is in compliance wi th current Town standards with regards to parking lots having more than 150 spaces for a non-enclosed shopping center. The purpose of the dividers is to control speed and ensure safety. The trade off to simplify snow removal would not seem an adequate exchange. All correspondence that we have received and community feeling heard is opposed to granting this variance. There was a discussion on alternatives for snow removal, but the applicant insisted upon the Board acting on the variance as submitted. The applicant has not shown that there would be any difficulty to removing snow such as by providing expert witnesses, etc. Duly adopted this 16th day of February, 1994, by the following vote: MR. KARPELES-There was a discussion on al ternati ves for snow removal, but the applicant insisted upon the Board acting on the variance as submitted. MR. MORGAN-That was the section that I would ask Mr. Chairman to re-read. The discussion that was proposed from the Board involved the applicant's desire or willingness to redesign their current parking layout. Is that correct? MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. MORGAN-Okay. Our response, for the record, would be, I do not see the correspondence between that request and the variance being heard. I would like the record to reflect that it's not the unwillingness of the applicant, at this time, to do that. It's simply stated that the variance that is before the Board, specific issue, and that the issue of the redesign of the parking lot, it is the opinion of the applicant, is not the issue before the Board. It is not evidence of their unwillingness to do so. MR. TURNER-You didn't indicate that the first time around. MR. MORGAN-That's why I asked that it be re-read, because I had heard that there was some comment. MR. TURNER-You said you wanted us to rule on the variance, period. MR. MORGAN-That's correct, and I want it heard for the record that that's the issue in front of the Board. MR. TURNER-We said there were alternatives, and you said, no, we don't, we won't address those. We will address the variance. MR. MORGAN-That is correct. I stand by my statement that the issue before the Board is the variance, not the redesign of the parking. MR. TURNER-That's fine, some alternatives, too. but when you come here, You don't have any. you should have MR. MORGAN-I'm not asking for a variance on the redesign of the parking lot. I'm asking the specific concrete dividers be taken out. I was not requested an alternative, and that's why, again, I say, the issue before you is the variance solely. MR. CARVIN-Okay, but part of our responsibility is to grant minimum relief. MR. MORGAN-Understood. - 28 - MR. CARVIN-And what you / re asking is maximum relief from the section regarding the dividers. MR. MORGAN-I agree. Mr. Carvin. but I think it/s (lost word) the Board to initiate discussion as to what they do deem minimum. MR. CARVIN-Right. and we tried to institute that conversation. and you had indicated that you would like us to move forward on this proposal as presented. MR. MORGAN -Then your minimum. as far as you deem it. is a very fleeting allusion to offsetting. I think I heard. or staggering? MR. CARVIN-Well. no. I think Mr. Kenny had brought up a couple of points about turning some of these things. and. again. you could check the minutes. but I think that there was a discussion about maybe losing some parking spaces. and you said. no. we really can/t do that. and then it just kind of fell back into. no. you want us to move on this. In other words. I think Mr. Kenny had indicated that we should form a workshop and maybe try to thrash this out to try to come to some kind of a minimum relief situation. and my interpretation of that conversation was that you said. no. you wanted us to move on this particular application. in this particular format. all or none. essentially. MR. MORGAN-Okay. My suggestion back to the Board is. would they consider a workshop to try and. as you said. thrash this issue out. but wherein would the solution lie. as far as what the Board / s willing to accept? No matter what is stated at that meeting. this Board has an opinion. MR. CARVIN-Well. it / S not the Board / s responsibility to present alternatives. I can present an alternative. but it/s your decision whether you feel that that is adequate to your case. or. we/ve had numerous occasions where these things have gone over several meetings. the last be ing some signs. I be lieve. j ust recently. where the applicant came back three or four times with three or four alternatives. So. it/s not ~ responsibility to sit here and say. well. is this feasible. MR. MORGAN-Understood. With that being made very clear. then I would. again. like to move forward with the vote on this issue. I/m very clear as to the ramifications of the discussion. MR. TURNER-Okay. You read your motion. MR. THOMAS-I/d just like to add one thing. Since this thing was all brought up about snow removal. the applicant didn/t show that there was any difficulty in removing snow. MR. TURNER-No. MR. THOMAS-He didn/t bring any expert witness in. a snow removal company or anything like that that would say that it would be difficult to remove snow with those barriers in there. MR. MORGAN-Mr. Thomas. you/re right. Possibly. an expert witness at this point would have been helpful to the case. There will be. let/s say. an additional continuation of this matter. where expert witnesses. at that point. will be brought in. MR. THOMAS-But I would like to see that statement put in the motion. MR. MORGAN-Understood. As a further clarification that I would like to put in the statement. is that community correspondence as received was against the variance. I believe the language ~ had put in was all community sentiment? I would just like it clear that the community sentiment as evidenced in two letter. received by the Town. - 29 - '- MR. KARPELES-I said all correspondence and community feeling. that we have received. I didn't say that. that we have received. MR. MORGAN-In the form of two letters. two items of correspondence. MR. CARVIN-I think it's fair to say there was some public conversation. MR. KARPELES-Some public conversation here. MR. CARVIN-There was no one speaking for the application. I think it's covered by all correspondence received. MR. KARPELES-Right. MR. MENTER-I think we have a motion and a second. at this point. anyway. MR. CARVIN-Well. I don't know if he wants to amend the motion to Mr. Thomas' suggestion. MR. TURNER-I think you should. MR. KARPELES-Yes. How did you word that? MR. THOMAS-The applicant did not show that there would be difficulty in removing snow by providing expert testimony. MR. MORGAN-Mr. Chairman. wi tnesses provided in recollection? to your recollection. were there expert the Wal-Mart application. to your MR. THOMAS-They had some engineers here. I think they had an engineer from the company that did the design. MR. MORGAN-Did he comment on the snow removal? MR. THOMAS-That I couldn't remember. I don't remember snow being mentioned. MR. CARVIN-No. They had another practical difficulty. which was addressed in the motion. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. CARVIN-And I think that. if Mr. Brewer is correct. our motion was further adapted or amended later. MR. BREWER-Yes. it was. MR. CARVIN-So. they overrode part of our variance. AYES: Mr. Karpeles. Mr. Carvin. Miss Hauser. Mr. Thomas. Mr. Menter. Mr. Turner NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Eggleston SIGN VARIANCE NO. 8-1994 TYPE: UNLISTED PC-1A QUEENSBURY RETAIL LIMITED PARTNERSHIP SUPER K-MART OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF DIX AVENUE AND QUAKER ROAD SECTION 140-6B(2)(a) ALLOWS UP TO SIXTY-FOUR SQUARE FEET OF SURFACE AREA PER SIDE FOR A FREESTANDING SIGN AT LEAST TWENTY FIVE FEET FROM THE PROPERTY. APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TWO HUNDRED EIGHTY-SIX (286) SQUARE FEET IN SURFACE AREA AT A DISTANCE OF THIRTY (30) FEET FROM THE PROPERTY LINE. SO IS SEEKING RELIEF OF TWO HUNDRED TWENTY (220) SQUARE FEET. SECTION 140-6B(4)(a) ALLOWS A HEIGHT OF TWENTY-FIVE (25) FEET FOR FREESTANDING SIGNS IN A COMMERCIAL ZONE. APPLICANT PROPOSES A TOTAL HEIGHT OF FORTY-FIVE (45) FEET. SO IS SEEKING RELIEF OF TWENTY (20) - 30 - -- FEET IN HEIGHT. SECTION 140-6B (3) (c) ALLOWS ONE FREESTANDING. DOUBLE-FACED SIGN. AND TWO (2) BUILDING SIGNS FOR A CORNER LOT. APPLICANT IS SEEKING ONE FREESTANDING. DOUBLE-FACED SIGN AND TEN (10) BUILDING SIGNS. SO IS SEEKING RELIEF OF EIGHT (8) BUILDING SIGNS. UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 140-6B(2)[1]. APPLICANT WOULD BE ALLOWED A SIGN OF MAXIMUM SIZE OF THREE HUNDRED (300) FEET ON THE FRONT OF THE BUILDING. PLUS THE CONFORMING WALL SIGN ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE BUILDING. APPLICANT IS PROPOSING A TOTAL OF NINE (9) WALL SIGNS ON THE FRONT OF THE BUILDING. RANGING IN SIZE FROM THIRTY-FOUR (34) SQUARE FEET TO FOUR HUNDRED FIFTY-SIX (456) SQUARE FEET. AND A TOTAL OF NINE HUNDRED FORTY-FIVE AND TWENTY-TWO HUNDREDTHS (945.22) SQUARE FEET. AND SEEKING RELIEF OF SIX HUNDRED FORTY-FIVE AND TWENTY-TWO HUNDREDTHS (645.22) SQUARE FEET. (BEAUTIFICATION COMMITTEE) (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) 2/9/94 TAX MAP NO. 110-1-2.1 LOT SIZE: 35.46 SECTION: 140-6B(2)(b)[1] TIM MORGAN. REPRESENTING APPLICANT. PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff. Sign Variance No. 8-1994. Queensbury Retail Limited Partnership. Meeting Date: February 16. 1994 "APPLICANT: Queensbury Retail Limited Partnership Super K-Mart PROJECT LOCATION: southwest corner of Dix Avenue and Quaker Road PROPOSED SIGNAGE: Proposed signage is comprised of two types of signs. freestanding and building signs. summarized as follows: Illuminated freestanding sign is proposed to be twenty-six (26) feet long by nine (9) feet tall. for a square footage of two hundred eighty-six (286) on each side. Proposed height is forty- five (45) feet. Distance from the property line is proposed to be thirty (30) feet. - Ten building signs are proposed. ranging in size from thirty-four (34) square feet to four hundred eighty-six (486) square feet. for a total of nine hundred forty- fi ve and twenty-two hundredths (945.22) square feet. CONFORMANCE WITH USE/AREA REGULATIONS: Section 140-6B(2) (a) allows up to sixty-four (64) square feet of surface area per side for a freestanding sign at least twenty-five feet from the property line. Applicant is asking for relief of two hundred twenty-two (222) square feet in size of sign. Section 140-6B(4) (a) allows a height of twenty-five (25) feet for freestanding signs. applicant is asking for relief of twenty (20) feet. Section 140-6B(3)(c) allows one freestanding. double- faced sign and two (2) building signs for a corner lot. Applicant is asking relief of eight building signs. Section 140- 6B(2)[1] would allow the applicant three hundred (300) square feet of sign on the front of the building. plus the conforming sixty-two and thirty-two hundredths (62.32) square foot wall sign on the north side of the building. PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY: Applicant claims that the number of departments in the store and the need for visibili ty present a practical difficulty. ALTERNATIVES: The applicant states that there are no feasible alternatives. In reviewing the application. staff found that three of the proposed signs indicate that the store is open 24 hours. Perhaps these could be reduced in number. One of the two signs advertising the automobile facility could be eliminated. It is not clear why every department within the store needs to be advertised on the exterior in order to assure success of the store. EFFECTS ON NEIGHBORHOOD/COMMUNITY: The visual impact of a huge sign rising forty-five (45) feet into the air at a major intersection. where visibility is completely unobstructed would not have a desirable effect on the surrounding area. A commercial building with ten (10) illuminated s~gns would not necessarily be attractive. Consideration should be given to the fact that this location is the eastern entry into the Town of Queensbury. Letters from the Queensbury Committee for Community Beautification. Community Workshop. and Robert Eddy all expressed great concern with the impact of the proposed signage on the immediate area and the Town in general. PARCEL HISTORY: A zoning change from Light Industrial to Plaza Commercial was granted by the Town Board in August 1993. The project underwent Site Plan Review and was approved in October. 1993. The signage was not a part of the Site Plan Review. STAFF - 31 - COMMENTS AND CONCERNS: It does not appear to staff that there is a need for either increased size or height in regard to the freestanding sign. The proposed sign location is clearly visible, being on the intersection of two major roads. and not blocked from view in any way. The number of wall signs seems excessive. and could not be reduced in the manner suggested above. ATTACHMENTS: Letter from Beautification Committee. Letter from Community Workshop. Letter from Robert Eddy." MR. TURNER-Warren County disapproved that one also, didn't they? MR. MORGAN-Yes, sir. MR. TURNER-Okay. What's your position on this application? MR. MORGAN-In regard to staff comments. conformance with use/area regulations, I think it's important, for the record. that we clearly realize that the Super K-Mart criteria in regard to pylon signs, there's three types that they have, a ninety foot. a sixty- five foot and a forty-five. which is what we're requesting here. So, in this instance. I think it's important that the Board realize that what is being requested is minimum relief according to K-Mart criteria. MR. TURNER-That's their position. That's not ours. They can build a smaller sign. The same thing happened with Wal-Mart. They came in with huge signs. That's our position. MR. MORGAN-I understand that. You asked what the applicant's position was. On Page Two. with regard to alternatives. the staff states it is not clear why every department within the store needs to be advertised. It is very important. it's crucial to K-Mart. wi thin the Super K-Mart there are different di vi sions. optical. pharmacy. bakery. what have you. that in their opinion need exterior signage and visibility to guarantee success of that particular department. So I would hope that that would clear the fog, as to the importance. Further. in regard to the effects on the neighborhood and community. the first paragraph, consideration should be given to the fact that this location is the eastern entry into the Town of Queensbury. When you make that assertion. do you refer to the junkyard, to the Cieba Geigy plant. to the cement tower, or the car dealership in general when you refer to that area? This eastern entry. the nicest thing that that eastern entry would have is the development of the Super K-Mart. So I think of all the staff comments. that is far and away the biggest mistruth of all. MS. CIPPERLY-You're entitled to your opinion. So am I. MR. MORGAN-Well. I think it bears truth. something out there that this development aesthetic or architectural standards? Can would you not think meet of the MS. CIPPERLY-My comments are also a reflection of those we received from the public. MR. MORGAN-Both of them. or just one or the other? comment. I'm just drawing. It's staff MS. CIPPERLY-Perhaps K-Mart thinks that their sign would be an asset to the community. I'm not sure that the community would think so. and as a staff person, I don't think so either. MR. MORGAN-Okay. I'm just trying to ascertain exactly what the eastern entry. what is out there. MS. CIPPERLY-That's the eastern side of Queensbury. MR. MORGAN-The industrial/commercial end. - 32 - MS. CIPPERLY-It's where you enter from Kingsbury into Queensbury. I can't make that any clearer. MR. MORGAN-I'm familiar with the geography. MR. TURNER-It's also a residential area. in that area. MR. MORGAN-Okay. That's the point I wanted to make there. On the bottom of Page Two. staff comments and concerns. generally speaking, when the Board does consider this variance. and should it be turned down. I want it clear for the record that in further matters that pertain to these variances. the staff is going to be required to be a little more clear on their assertions that it does not appear to the staff. What I would say. again. I'll keep this very brief for the Board. signage is extremely crucial to K-Mart. to any retailer. as you just briefly mentioned. Whether or not they end up attaining what they asked for. that's a different issue. but I think that with your dealings with Wal-Mart and subsequently with this project that you can see how vitally important signage is. Signage takes two forms. one being the pylon. The height of the pylon. to them. is important. due to the road patterns that this project has. despite the fact that intersection may be unobstructed. To them. and to us. it's important. That additional height gives them visibility. Number Two. in regard to building signage. I will agree with the reading both of staff. and from the square footage standpoint. that the required building signage is excessive. but if you look at the size and the proportion of the building. and all of the various and miscellaneous departments that are in it. I think that you will begin to see or begin to perceive. from a retailers standpoint. that to deny them the ability to advertise what they sell or what they do is an undue hardship. and I don't think that I could add any more. other than what's been put in the application. and a sincere explanation that signage is extremely important to them. and they will continue to pursue it until they're able to get something that's satisfactory to them. and if the Board should have any other questions in regard to signage. I'd be more than happy to try and answer them. MR. TURNER-I guess you've said there's no alternatives. is that right? MR. MORGAN-Again. Mr. Chairman. without seeming belligerent. this. in our opinion. as the applicant for K-Mart. is the minimum relief. MR. far. TURNER-Okay. Well. there's no I'll open the public hearing. sense in us pursuing it very PUBLIC HEARING OPENED DAVID KENNY MR. KENNY-For the record. David Kenny. resident of the Town of Queensbury. I really have no comment other than I think it's excessi ve. and I'm against approval of this application. Thank you. MR. TURNER-Thanks. JIM MATHIS MR. MATHIS-Hello. My name is Jim Mathis. I operate a business in Queensbury. I've been in business in Queensbury for 15 years. and I've been proud of Queensbury. in the way that they've handled signs. because I remember we went through that 10 year period where we gave people a chance to get rid of their loud. ugly large signs. and get signs that were respectable. I wasn't totally in agreeance wi th some of the variances that the Zoning Board allowed after that. but that's neither here nor there. To me. the Sign Ordinance has a lot of purposes. and one of the main things is maintaining - 33 - .--- the aesthetics of the Town. I've lived in the towns that have lousy Sign Ordinances. and they look like small Las Vegases. I think signs create a level playing field for the businessman. Signs are important to all businesses. whether it's a small business, like mine, or whether it's a large business like K-Mart, or somebody else's, but just because you have a large business. should not mean that you're allowed sign. The Sign Ordinance should be the same for a small business and a large business. I think all businesses have small departments or have several departments, and they're able to survive without these departments being signed on the outside building. I see no reason why a K-Mart has to have a sign for the pharmacy, a sign for the auto department, a sign for every other department. K-Mart's a well known enough company that these signs are unnecessary to clutter up the building and clutter up the landscape. Once K-Mart would get relief from these signs, if they were granted, I think, the answer to every other business in Queensbury would be, I've got to have the same type of relief in order to compete with K-Mart and different retail trades. The quality of life is affected by too many and too large a sign. and. again, I go back to the point that I think Queensbury has a good Sign law and they've done a good job in enforcing it, and I think to allow a variance like this would be not right. I see no real need or practical difficulty that can be shown by them not having the signs that they want. Everyone's going to know they're there, with a 45 foot sign that could probably be seen from the Northway. and I don't think that's really necessary. It's been said that the signs are necessary for K- Mart's success. but I don't think the signs make a successful business. What happens in the business and how they treat the people is what's going to make the business a success, and so I would recommend and hope that the Board would deny the complete sign request that K-Mart has. Thank you. MR. TURNER-Okay. Thank you. WALLY HIRSCH MR. HIRSCH-Wally Hirsch, Quaker Farms. We're kitty corner from the store. I do have to make one comment. I have to disagree with you. We're going to be, we're the best looking one on the corner. Stop by and see us. Besides that, I have to agree with everything that was said. I don't think there's any need for the excessive signs. Like was said, everybody knows who they are and what they are. and they can do an awful good job and make an awful big advertisement in the print and the media. If you want to go down and see the K-Mart in Saratoga, while it's not a Super K-Mart, they do get by with a lot less signage than has been mentioned here, and that store is a lot harder to find than this one. This one will really jump out at you, and that's basically all I have to say. I am opposed to it, and hope you folks are, too. MR. TURNER-Okay. Thank you. Anyone else? Okay. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TURNER-Do we have any correspondence on the Sign? CORRESPONDENCE MISS HAUSER-There's a letter dated February 12, 1994. from Queensbury Committee for Community Beautification, "RE: Sign Variance No. 8-1994 - Queensbury Limited Retail Partnership, Super K-Mart, Owner-Same, Location-Southwest corner of Dix Avenue & Quaker Road. Lot Size-28.21 acres. Applicant proposes to add additional building signage beyond that allowed under the Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance. Request is for an additional 20 ft. of allowable pylon sign height. The Queensbury Committee for Community Beautification feels the applicant should adhere to the Sign Ordinance which allows up to 64 square feet of surface area per side for a freestanding sign at least 25 ft. from the property. - 34 - The allowance for the height of 25 ft. for a free standing sign in a Commercial area should be followed. Also. ten (10) building signs. 9 of them on the front of the building ranging in size from 34 sq. ft. to 456 sq. ft. seems excessive. We need to protect the appearance of our Town and present a good image so we can attract new families and businesses. Sincerely. Margaret N. Seney. Secretary QCCB" February 10, 1994. there's a letter from the Community Workshop. Inc. "The Super K-Mart should not receive relief from zoning regulations at this time. The Super K-Mart was knowledgeable of the requirements of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinances when they made application. The original application included divider strips in the parking lot. There is no acceptable reason at this time to grant relief from the requirements. If they needed relief. it should be stated as part of the original application. The rules should not be changed after the fact. The Town of Queensbury put a great deal of time and effort into these plans and they should be followed by everyone who chooses to live or do business in the Town. Sincerely. A. Jane McEwen Executive Vice President" This one. dated February 11. 1994. from Robert Eddy. "This request for a sign variance request of such a large sign is ridiculous. There is no need for a sign larger than permitted by the ordinance. Customers are going to know when they arrive at the store without blatantly saying so. To approve any variance above that permitted by the sign ordinance. is opening up requests from other businesses. using this as an example. Please deny this variance. Sincerely. Robert L. Eddy" MR. TURNER-Okay. So then. that's your statement. that there's no common ground here. then. right? MR. MORGAN-That's correct. MR. TURNER-Okay. All right. Motion's in order, then. There's no sense in going on any further with it. MOTION TO DENY SIGN VARIANCE NO. 8-1994 QUEENSBURY RETAIL LIMITED PARTNERSHIP. Introduced by Theodore Turner who moved for its adoption. seconded by Fred Carvin: The applicant is asking for exce ssi ve re I ie f from. Number One. freestanding sign. He's asking for 20 feet of relief in height. and he's asking for 222 square feet in size of the sign. which the Ordinance states that at the setback of 25 feet. a 64 square foot sign is allowed. The applicant is also seeking relief from Section 140-6B(3) (c) which relates to two building signs for a corner lot. The applicant is asking relief of eight building signs. Section 140-6B(2)1 would allow the applicant 300 square feet of sign on the front of the building. plus a conforming 62.22 square foot wall sign on the north side of the building. The applicant states there are no feasible alternatives. The applicant has not demonstrated. by example. what compliance with the current Town standards would look like and has stated. for the record. that this is a corporate decision by Queensbury Retail Limited Partnership that this request would be their minimum relief. The granting of this variance would be detrimental to the community standards as set forth in the Ordinance. Also for the record. there is verbal opposition. public opposition. and testimony at this meeting and letters from concerned citizens. Duly adopted this 16th day of February. 1994. by the following vote: MR. MORGAN-No. I did not request or state that the plan submitted is minimum relief. I said that that is the variance that I ask be heard. I'd like any reference to K-Mart Corporation deleted from the record. The applicant before you is Queensbury Retail Limited Partnership. MR. TURNER-I think. for the record. you made that statement. - 35 - MR. MORGAN-Okay. Then I would like that reference to K-Mart Corporation taken out of the resolution. please. MR. CARVIN-Well. you are the agent for K-Mart. Is that correct? MR. MORGAN-I'm the agent for Queensbury Retail Limited Partnership. MR. TURNER-Okay. We'll take K-Mart out of there. and insert Queensbury Retail Limited Partnership. AYES: Miss Hauser. Mr. Thomas. Mr. Menter. Mr. Carvin. Mr. Karpeles. Mr. Turner NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Eggleston MR. MORGAN-A couple of points. please. Mr. Chairman. One is. I'd like the record to reflect that the applicant has requested a tape of this meeting's proceedings. all reproduction costs and mailing to be borne by the applicant. and. secondly. I thank the Board for your time this evening. MR. TURNER-Okay. CORRECTION OF MINUTES December 15. 1993: Page 4. Mr. Donnelly. second sentence. will I have a. sib problem with the APA. Page 7. Mr. Carvin. a third of the way down. do you think that that's going to be a real sib problem. Page 9. Mr. Turner. fourth from the bottom. you bought yourself a hardship by buying a 20.000. sib square foot. not acre. Page 11. Mr. Lockhart. down from the toP. second one. I'm under a six month extension on my sib permit. building permit. Page 38. third Mr. Turner up from the bottom. the bigger paragraph. last line. says. and that's it. one garage on the lot. not one lot on the one lot. middle of the page. Mr. Turner. just below the heavy paragraph with Mr. Muller speaking. that's what you sib said. not say. Page 40. just a repeat. third Mr. Turner down from the toP. there's a repeat there. that's fine. but what the Town has got to do is they've got to do something. take first one out. Page 18. Mr. Karpeles. on the bottom. this map doesn't show you a darn thing. as far as being to scale. Page 26. Mr. Karpeles. first Mr. Karpeles. are you going to just extend it. rather than that. Page 47. Mr. Karpeles. three up from the bottom. yes. and because you don't give any of the reasons. you don't answer the questions. cross out. that are; Page 48. that's the wrong week. that's the week that we. cross out. that's the week that we; Page 40. but I'm inclined to decide with Bob. I agree a little bit more. sib with him MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF DECEMBER 15. 1993 AS CORRECTED. Introduced by Theodore Turner who moved for its adoption. seconded by Robert Karpeles: Duly adopted this 16th day of February. 1994. by the following vote: AYES: Miss Hauser. Mr. Thomas. Mr. Menter. Mr. Karpeles. Mr. Carvin. Mr. Turner NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Eggleston December 22. 1993: Page 16. second Mr. Batease from the bottom. well. you gave a neighbor a variance. Page 20. the section at the bottom. Mr. Turner. how many cars. Mrs. Whiteman. two. Mr. Carvin. is there a garage there currently. or no. and there is Mr. Turner answering no. sib Mrs. Whiteman. not Mr. Turner; Page 21. Mr. Carvin. third one up from the bottom. okay. the cottage is - 36 - seasonal. the house is full time; Page 40. two Mr. Carvins. up from the bottom. it says. we can limit it. but who's going to police it. is the question. I mean. like this lady indicated. sure we could say that it has to closed at midnight. but are you going to be out there at one o'clock and tell them to close up the place is the question. So. I think that short of making is a Bavarian Palace. in other words. where' sit's only for weddings or banquets or specific functions. and not an ongoing restaurant. I think we'd have a real policing problem.. and then I think that's a question that's going to have to be answered by the gentleman that's going to buy the restaurant; Page 30. second Mr. Karpeles up from the bottom. I just want to be clear on your position. You don't have any objection to a restaurant being there. It's just the type of restaurant. and then the next sentence. you want to make sure that it's a. just cross out. you want to make sure that it's a; MR. TURNER-Maria. maybe you ought to go back to the tape on that one. Page 40. that second from the bottom. Mr. Carvin. and see what that says. before we move these minutes. Lets get the rest of the corrections. and we just won't approve it. MR. CARVIN-We can approve it with correction later. or something. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. CARVIN-I also have. maybe this is not relevant at this point. but I have a question on this particular application. We granted that. according to the motion. I believe. a 60 day table. MR. KARPELES-He requested the 60 day. MR. CARVIN-And I believe that we're real close to the 60 days. The thing that I was thinking about. and again. maybe this is not the place to bring this up. but we were going to grant them a one year table. and the question that came up in my mind was the 18 month non occupancy. in other words. that the operation. has that been discontinued for 18 months out there? MR. TURNER-Yes. that's why they're here. MR. CARVIN-All right. Then that's what I wanted to make sure. Okay. Then it's not a problem. Their time is going to be up pretty quick. Okay. MR. MENTER-I assume they're going to make the 60 days. though. MR. CARVIN-They would have had to be on this month. I think. to come back. Otherwise. after the 60 days. if they don't file for an extension. MR. MENTER-I think there's activity. right? What's going on there? Didn't they just come before the Planning Board? MR. CARVIN-I don't know. MR. TURNER-Sue. Bergeron. Any activity on that application? He's got 60 days. MS. CIPPERLY-Bergeron. he did. I believe. send something in. He's coming in in March. MR. CARVIN-We only gave him 60 days. which is December the 22nd. January. February 22nd. or thereabouts. MS. CIPPERLY-I'm trying to remember when he dated the letter. I seem to recall they wanted to be on the March. He came into the office. it must have been verbally. that they want to be on in March. and we would have to have a letter from him. MR. TURNER-Yes. I think we ought to have something in writing from - 37 - them. just indicating he wants. ask for an extension. that's all. We'll give him an extension. until the end of March. MS. CIPPERLY-Because he came in to get some more information. and was planning to come in in March. MR. TURNER-I indicated to him they ought to take it for a year. MR. CARVIN-Yes. we tried to give him more time. and the question that comes up in my mind is. I think. the reason they only the 60 days. they wanted to use this as a lever on a possible buyer. and my thinking earlier this afternoon. or whenever I was reading this. is because we haven't heard from them. maybe the buyer has taken a powder. MR. MENTER-Well. he has been advertising it residential. that. I know MR. TURNER-Sixty days is not enough. not in today's market. MS. CIPPERLY-He came in and researched the history. looking at the zoning maps. He said they'd be coming in in March. I guess you'd want a letter from them. MR. TURNER-If we're going to hit the deadline this month. then we've got to give them an extension until the end of March or something. MR. CARVIN-Well. I think he's got to request it. I think it's got to be in writing. So. I mean. we're meeting next week. so if they come in next week. we can always deal with it next Wednesday. right? MR. TURNER-Yes. December 22. 1993: Page 6. Miss Hauser. middle of page. change you live in. sib you live at; Page 26. how large. sib the instead of that. parcel MR. CARVIN-We should make the note that December the 22nd has not been approved. so that we don't lose it in the shuffle. January 11. 1994: MS. CIPPERLY-I think that some people assumed that when the applicant left the room. that the meeting was adjourned. MR. CARVIN-I think you're right. I think that all should be out of the record. MR. MENTER-That would be. probably. on Page 20. MR. CARVIN-Yes. I think it should end. Mr. Shaftmaster. thank you very much. I appreciate it. I think. after that. that's when the meeting should terminate. Anything beyond that should be out. because I think anything after that was off the record. So. I don't know if you want to correct that to ending it after Mr. Shaftmaster. I would delete everything after Mr. Shaftmaster. thank you very much. I appreciate it. and the meeting adjourned at that point. and everything after that is off the record. MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF JANUARY 11. 1994 AS AMENDED. Introduced by Fred Carvin who moved for its adoption. seconded by Theodore Turner: Duly adopted this 16th day of February. 1994. by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Menter. Mr. Carvin. Miss Hauser. Mr. Thomas. Mr. Turner - 38 - '- NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Karpeles ABSENT: Mrs. Eggleston MR. CARVIN-I just have one other item. I just want to know what the status of Mr. DiPalma is. if we got a decision on that. MR. TURNER-We didn't get a decision. but he got site plan approval. MR. CARVIN-Yes. I know. I read the minutes. It went before the Planning Board. but they made it contingent upon clarification of our variance. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. CARVIN-So. I don't know if there's a 30 day limitation on any of that. I know Paul said he was going to. MS. CIPPERLY-Dusek hasn't come back with a response. MR. CARVIN-Well. going through the minutes. I think question was raised back within the 30 day time frame. there is grounds to. if there is a question there. document it back to at least November. that this So I think that we can MR. THOMAS-I have just one thing. Wal-Mart was brought up tonight. That's coming up to about a year now. isn't it? MR. CARVIN-Some time in the summer. late fall. MR. THOMAS-Well. some time. say. in August. or September. maybe. but when that time comes. that variance is gone. and they have to start allover again. because I don't see them starting up there. MR. TURNER-I think the dentist has got him in a corner. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED. Theodore Turner. Chairman - 39 -