Loading...
1994-05-25 ORIGINAL QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SECOND REGULAR MEETING MAY 25TH, 1994 INDEX Sign Variance No. 16-1994 Area Variance No. 24--1994 Area Variance No. 26-1994 Rex TV 1. Anthony & Lisa Scarselletta 7. Albany Savings Bank FSB 8. and Christopher P. Lynch Sign Variance No. 25-1994 Formula 1 Auto Body 17. Use Variance No. 49-1993 REQUEST FOR EXTENSION Taco Bell Corp. 20. THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTHS MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES. QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SECOND REGULAR MEETING MAY 25TH, 1994 7:30 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT THEODORE TURNER, CHAIRMAN LINDA HAUSER, SECRETARY ANTHONY MARESCO FRED CARVIN ROBERT KARPELES CHRIS THOMAS DAVID MENTER EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR-JAMES MARTIN PLANNER-SUSAN CIPPERLY STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI NEW BUSINESS: SIGN VARIANCE NO. 16-1994 TYPE: UNLISTED PC-IA REX TV OWNER: ILENE FLAUM C/O FLAUM PROPERTIES 711 GLEN STREET SECTION 140-6 OF THE SIGN ORDINANCE ALLOWS ONE (1) WALL SIGN PER BUSINESS WITHIN A BUSINESS COMPLEX. APPLICANT WISHES TO UTILIZE THREE (3) SIGNS, SO IS SEEKING RELIEF FROM THIS SECTION. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) 5/11/94 TAX MAP NO. 103-1-1.2 LOT SIZE: N/A SECTION 140-6 PAUL LEE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Sign Variance No. 16-1994, Rex TV, Meeting Date: May 25, 1994 "APPLICANT: Rex TV PROJECT LOCATION: 711, Glen Street, Queensbury Plaza PROPOSED ACTION: Appl icant seeks to utilize three (3) signs at their location within a business complex. CONFORMANCE WITH USE/AREA REGULATIONS: Section 140-6 allows one wall sign per occupant of a business complex. The store is located 144 feet from the property line, so would be allowed a 140 square foot sign. The three signs proposed measure 33 feet, 30 feet, and 27 feet, for a total of 90 feet. The sign was installed without benefit of a sign permit, so the fact that it has been ins tall e d s h 0 u 1 d h a v e no be a r i n gin t his ma t t e r . REASON FOR VARIANCE REQUEST, AND BENEFIT TO APPLICANT: The applicant claims the necessity to match nationwide company identification and advertising. FEASIBLE ALTERNATIVES: In terms of visibility, the single REX sign would be adequate to denote the store location. IS THIS RELIEF SUBSTANTIAL?: Considering that there are no apparent visibility problems, two additional signs could be considered substantial relief. EFFECTS ON THE NEIGHBORHOOD OR COMMUNITY: Since its installation, the REX sign has been noted by members of the community as particularly gaudy and not in keeping with the relatively tasteful signage of the other tenants. The yellow strip on the bottom of the facade has been mentioned as being bothersome, although it is not technically a part of the sign. According to the plaza owner, it is not consistent with their overall facade plan, either. IS THIS DIFFICULTY SELF-CREATED?: It appears that this variance request is based on a self-created need to project the same image nationwide. PARCEL HISTORY: The plaza has been experiencing a resurgence in the past year, after becoming mostly vacant. Site Plan Review No. 35-92 is the plan for future development of the plaza. The Olive Garden Restaurant was granted a Sign Variance, but it was due to the location of the restaurant at the end of the building, and visibility problems, rather than corporate policy. In that case, 5 signs were sought, 2 were granted. STAFF COMMENTS AND CONCERNS: All necessary agent forms, etc. have been received. Working long distance can lead to a confusing set of papers, but everything needed has been received." -1- MISS HAUSER-On May 11th, the Warren County Planning Board recormnended to disapprove this variance, and their comment is, "Historically the WCPB has not permitted signs that are in excess of the number of that permitted by the Queensbury Code." MR. LEE-I'm Paul Lee. I'm the agent for Rex TV and Appliances. I represent Rex TV and Alpha Sign Corporation. A couple of things that we had looked at, here. We are within a square foot of compliance of the signage, and in fact we're below it, considerably below it, the square footage allowance per signage, and we can, two things, I talked to the Zoning Administrator before the meeting, and there are two ways to fix this problem. One way is to move all the signage to the center of the building on the blue area, and the other way is to move both signs together, so that they are within one 1 ine, which would then allow us to draw the proverbial box around everything to bring it within the 100, we would actually only be 135 square feet at that time, which would be within the law. The problem being that the sign was put up without a permit was basically my fault. I had called, and this was our national company who we do a lot of work for, and this store was not slated to open for the Chr i s tmas season, and then e i gh t days befor e Thanksgiving they decided to open the store, and I had been in the process of making applications for this, and within that process I called and I had said, how many square feet. How do you figure your square footage for the front of the building, and what would we be allowed, and I was told, 100 square feet, or 140 square feet, if we were within so many square feet of the property line, and so, at that time, we went ahead with the signage, and we did have our application in, but it had not been approved when the signs were put up, because of the holiday, which I understand is no excuse. What I am saying is, it doesn't make sense to me that, there is not going to be any less signage on the front of that building if we move it, cram it all in the center, or move it all together, than it is right now, except it would look worse, because both signs on the sid ear e now c en t ere d, ma kin g i t 1 00 k be t t e r . The yell ow strip, I don't like. We don't have anything to do with that. That's part of the architecture, but, again, it's been brought up as making it pretty gaudy. So, other than that, we can move the signs around on the front of the building and bring them into compliance, as they did with the Olive Garden signs, putting them close enough together that they can draw the box around them and make them one sign, but I feel that the moving of the signs would still not make the building look any better or any different, but we would prefer, if we need to move the signs, to move the Audio, Visual, and Appliance closer to the Rex, rather than stack it all in the center, and that's all I have. MR. TURNER-All right. Lets see if anybody has any questions. MR. MENTER-So, in essence, if you needed to do something, what would probably happen is that you would move both of those toward the center on the same line that they're on. MR. LEE-Over toward the Rex, so we could then, see, we can draw a box around this sign now and still be within, you know, just like they did the Olive Garden sign. They drew a box around the two signs, but, again, then I would make it look off center, the building would look not as appealing as it does now, and so, as I said, it doesn't make a lot of sense to me to move the signs on the front of the building around. It's not going to be any less signage. If they turn the application down, we've just got to put them in a different place. MR. TURNER-Okay. Tony, anything? Chris? MR. THOMAS-Yes, I have just one, Mr. Lee. Does every Rex TV and Appliance Store have a sign that looks exactly like this? MR. LEE-Exactly like this. -2- MR. THOMAS-The same color scheme, and everything, throughout the United States, for everyone that you've done? MR. LEE-The same color scheme, throughout the United States, and I think it's the ugliest thing I've ever seen in my life, but I'm not the customer. MR. THOMAS-Well, I'm no beauty judge, but everyone in the United States, you've never run into a problem before, with color? MR. LEE-Well, they have run into a problem with the coloration on the front of the building, in shopping centers that have an ordinance saying that they have to be browns or whatever, but 95 percent of Rex TV and Appliances uses this same color scheme. MR. MARTIN-Is there any way you'd be interested in shedding the yellow? Get rid of the yellow and continue that bluish gray stripe that's already picked up in what we are seeing now in a facade plan for the entire center, is to carry that grayish blue stripe down the entire distance? MR. LEE-I would say they would probably, I can't speak for them, because I only do the sign work, okay. I would say most likely they would probably, if they were allowed to keep their sign, would probably tone the yellow down or go to the blue, but I could not, as I said, I don't speak for them on that issue. MR. TURNER-Okay. Bob, do you have any? MR. KARPELES-Well, I think what really sets off the gaudiness is that red neon light right in the middle of the yellow. Could they do anything about that, to get rid of it? MR. LEE-Again, I did the sign work. I'm sure that there could be some trade offs there, to get rid of the. MR. CARVIN-I guess I don't have a color, think we're treading on dangerous water when we start mandating colors and things, if we don't have an ordinance for it. I think that that's beyond the scope of this Board. I think our bigger concern should be the setting of a precedent. If he can bring the sign into compliance with the Town Ordinance without effecting business, without effecting anything else, and that's my indication, if I'm reading you correct, is that you could put the signs in compliance without any major effect. MR. LEE-What I'm saying is, we could put the signs in compliance, but it's going to make an ugly thing even uglier, if you understand what I'm saying. MR. CARVIN-Unfortunately, colors and things aren't our prerogative. So, I mean, if you think it's ugly, maybe you can convince them to clean it up, but my feeling is, what do we do when the next guy comes in and says he needs to have 53 different signs, and he says, look at Rex. I mean, they've got them spread allover. MS. CIPPERLY-We're already hearing that. MR. CARVIN-Yes. We're already hearing that. MR. MARTIN-It doesn't take long. MR. CARVIN-So I guess my feeling is, I can't do anything about the color, but I mean, if you can bring the signs into compliance, I guess my feeling would be, bring them into compliance. MR. MARTIN-Well, I think there is something that can be done about the color, because the Planning Board is going to be taking up a facade plan for this entire center later on in June, and I would like to know if Rex would consider coming into compliance with that --3- plan, and that would mean elimination of the red neon stripe and the yellow stripe, and continuing that bluish gray along the bottom. l would like to know that. MR. LEE-I can talk to them in the morning and give you an answer on that, but, again, we can't bring the signs into compliance by just simply moving them all into the center, which would be better than putting them all on the blue/gray in the center. It would look better, and it would cost us less damage to the building. That building is drivant material, and with moving them over, we would only have to just patch just about three feet on the either end of the building to do that. MR. MARESCO-So you would have, like, Audio/Video on top of Rex, and Appliances? MR. LEE-No. The Audio, Video, and Appliances would just simply move into the center, okay, off center, next to the Rex, so that it would be construed as one sign, instead of three different signs. MR. MARESCO-It would be right in that square, you mean? MR. LEE-No. MR. MARESCO-It wouldn't be in the square. MR. CARVIN-It would be within the parameters of this conforming sIgn. MR. MARESCO-So we re going to have one Qlg sign then. MR. LEE-See, what I'm saying is, it essentially would just move everything into the center. MR. MARESCO-It would move everything in closer. MR. LEE-Right, which would then off center everything, but, which I think would look worse than the way it is now, but that's just me. MR. KARPELES-But would it be in line with the Rex, or would it still be below the Rex? MR. LEE-No. To meet the square footage requirement, we'd have to lower the Rex down to be on the one line. MR. KARPELES-Can't you raise the Audio, Video, and Appliances QQ to be in line with the Rex, rather than lowering the Rex? MR. LEE-Rather than moving them over, raising them up? MR. KARPELES-Well, raise them up and move them over. talking about lowering the Rex. You were MR. LEE-What I'm trying to do is to keep this in this different colored stripe. It would then even look worse than it is, because we have a tan stripe and then the white, and it's centered in the white. MISS HAUSER-So you're saying you want to, like, raise that Rex and the put the other below? MR. LEE-No, no. We're going to bring the Rex down on one same plane and move them together to make one sign. MISS HAUSER-Okay. MR. MENTER-At this point I would agree, essentially, with what Fred said, that even though the coloration would be nice to effect, we're not really in a position to do that, and if we tie it in to -4- ".......,- that, we're going to have, down the road, people throwing all kinds of decorative concessions at us for bigger signage. I'm not sure that that's the answer. MR . CAR V I N - I jus t h a v e a co u pIe 0 f 0 the r poi n t s . I nth eSt a f f Notes, "It has been noted by members of the conID1unity". Has this been expressed in writing, or are these just verbal comments? MS. CIPPERLY-No. just get, almost before they even had a variance application in, I had people coming in to say, what is that Rex sign, and they particularly mentioned the yellow. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Are there any names associated, because I think it's kind of dangerous precedent just to put unsubstantiated comments like that in a Staff Note, I mean, because it's a public forum, and if you had approach by the public, I think it should be noted as such. MS. CIPPERLY-Yes. I didn't start taking names down. I did have a landscape architect, Jim Miller, mentioned it, you know, did they have a plan, but I can't speak on behal f of him, ei ther. Other professionals have asked about it, and other sign companies have asked about it, but I just really haven't kept a list. MR. CARVIN-Yes, well, again, I'm just bringing it up as a point of information, that if there is something in writing it should be, guess, reserved for the public meeting. MS. CIPPERLY-No. There isn't anything in writing. It's just been, probably, the only sign that I've really had continuous number of comments on. MR. LEE-It is a very unusual color scheme. MS. CIPPERLY-And I did have another sign company come in today. MR. MARTIN-But, therefore, it's doing exactly what it's supposed to do. It's being noted. MR. MARESCO-Sure, to catch the eye of the public, and that's what it does. It catches the public's eye. That's what it's supposed to do, and that's what it does. MS. CIPPERLY-From the Center's point of view, I guess I would consider it somewhat like our case last week, where it might be a negative attention situation. MR. CARVIN-Are there any representatives of the Plaza here this evening? MR. TURNER-Yes, they're here. minute. I'm going to let them speak in a MR. CARVIN-Okay, because I was going to say, there is some comment, apparently. MR. TURNER-As far as I'm concerned, I think they have to conform. I don't care how they do it, but they've got to conform. MR. MARTIN-I think as a general guideline, to consider what would be a conforming separation distance is if there is a gap between lettering, to distinguish words like the gap between Audio and Video, that exists, that, to me, would be a good guideline as a separation distance between wording, to have it considered as one sign. MR. TURNER-As long as they come in under the square footage, don't have a problem with it. MR. MARTIN-Well, they're in under that already, but it's a matter -5- of. MR. TURNER-I know they are, but I mean, when they put their border around it, however they're going to incorporate it. MR. LEE-See, as it sits right now, if we bring the Rex down, okay, we can still draw the line around it and not have to move it okay , ' , but I m trying very hard to work here so that everybody's happy, and I'm willing to say, okay, we'll move them in, just to help the situation out. MR. TURNER-It'll probably look a lot better. Maybe, you know, it's like beauty, it's in the eye of the beholder, but everybody looks at a sign differently. Some people might agree that once you move it in and you get it where it belongs, it might look great, and other people won't think it looks so great. Fine. Okay. Are you done? MR. LEE-Yes, sir. MR. TURNER-Okay. I'll now open the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TURNER-Okay. Motion's in order. MOTION TO DENY SIGN VARIANCE NO. Fred Carvin who moved for its Turner: 16-1994 adop ti on, REX TV, I n t rod u c e d by seconded by Theodor e The applicant is seeking to utilize three signs at their location, which is inconsistent with Section 140-6 which allows one wall sign for occupant of a business complex. The applicant has indicated that requested sign configuration matches a nationwide company identification and advertising program and the applicant has also indicated that with a slight reconfiguration, they could bring all their signs into compliance with the Town Ordinance. So based upon that fact, this relief would be substantial, and it would appear that the need for this variance is self-created. Therefore, I would move that we deny this variance. Duly adopted this 25th day of May, 1994, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Menter, Mr. Maresco, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Carvin, Miss Hauser, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE MR. MARTIN-Could I have an answer on that question by tomorrow morning, if they will come into compliance with the facade plan for the? MR. LEE-I will do my best to get that answer for you as quickly as possible. The fellow that would have to answer that is Mr. Santia, and he is in Atlanta. I will have to call him in the morning, and I will also resubmit the application for the sign permit, redrawing the signs as we propose to do them, as soon as I get back to my office. MR. MARTIN-All right, and if you want a description of what is the proposed facade treatment for the entire Center, it is that small facade that exists between the Rex Store and the Olive Garden, in that picture. I think you'll see, it's the steel blue stripe with the white panels above it. MR. LEE-Okay. -6- MR. MARTIN-And if they could come into compliance with that, I think, because this is going to be a subject next addressed by the Planning Board next month. MR. LEE-Okay. will get back to you, sir. MR. MARTIN-Okay. Thank you. MR. TURNER-Thank you. AREA VARIANCE NO. 24-1994 TYPE II SR-IA ANTHONY &. LISA SCARSELLETTA OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE BOX 272A LUZERNE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT AN ABOVE-GROUND SWIMMING POOL SET BACK EIGHT (8) FEET FROM THE REAR PROPERTY LINE. SECTION 179-67B REQU I RES A REAR SETBACK OF TWENTY ( 20 ) FEET, SO APPL I CANT IS SEEKING RELIEF OF TWELVE (12) FEET. TAX MAP NO. 125-1-21 LOT SIZE: 0.55 ACRES SECTION 179-67B(2) ANTHONY SCARSELLETTA, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 24-1994, Anthony & Lisa Scarselletta, Meeting Date: May 25, 1994 "APPLICANT: Anthony & Lisa Scarselletta PROJECT LOCATION: Box 272A Luzerne Road PROPOSED ACTION: Applicants wish to install an above-ground swirruning pool at their residence. CONFORMANCE WITH USE/AREA REGULATIONS: Section 179-67B(2) requires a rear setback of twenty (20) feet, applicant wants to place the pool eight (8) feet from the property line, so is seeking relief of twelve (12) feet. REASON FOR VARIANCE REQUEST, AND BENEFIT TO APPLICANT: The applicant would like a swirruning pool, and this appears to be the only place to put one. FEASIBLE ALTERNATIVES: There do not appear to be alternatives given the required separation distance from the house to the pool, plus the septic location. IS THIS RELIEF SUBSTANTIAL? Although the 12 foot relief is greater than fifty percent of the 20 foot setback, it is not necessarily substantial. EFFECTS ON THE NEIGHBORHOOD OR COMMUNITY: There has been no public corrunent in opposition to this project, and there are no apparent detrimental effects. IS THIS DIFFICULTY SELF-CREATED? Only in the sense that the applicant desires a pool. Lot size is the major factor. STAFF COMMENTS AND CONCERNS: No further comment." MR. TURNER-Mr. Scarselletta, would you care to add anything? MR. SCARSELLETTA-No. MR. TURNER-Okay. Scarselletta? Does anyone have any questions of Mr. MR. MARESCO-I have one. Where exactly is the septic, in respect to where you want to put the pool? MR. SCARSELLETTA-The septic is on the side of the house, and the pool is in the back. MR. MARESCO-The pool is in the back, okay. MR. TURNER-Tony, this is kind of a recurring problem in many areas around Town, because the requirement is 20 feet from the rear line, and most of them have facilities and stuff in the way, so they have to violate, if they want to put a pool in the back yard, and this i sap art i cuI a r ins tan ceo fit. I f you 1 00 kat the ma p the r e you'll see the septic system, and the way the house sits on the lot. He's got to be 10 feet from the back of the house with the pool, anyway. MR. MARESCO-Okay. MR. TURNER-Does anyone else have a question? No? Okay. I'll open -7- the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TURNER-Any further comment? Okay. Motion's in order. MOT I ON TO APPROVE AREA V AR I ANCE NO. SCARSELLETTA, Introduced by Theodore adoption, seconded by Chris Thomas: 24-1994 ANTHONY Turner who moved &: L I SA for its Relief is sought from Section 179-67B(2), which requlfes a rear setback of 20 feet. The applicant wishes to place the pool eight feet from the rear property line, and is seeking relief of 12 feet, which I would grant. If you look at the map, the location on the map of the structure and the proposed site of the pool, you can see that the applicant has a practical difficulty in the sense of locating the pool. Let the record show that the vacant lot to the rear of the applicant is owned by the applicant's parents. There are no alternatives, given the required separation distance from the house to the pool. There is no effect on the neighborhood or the community. Yes, the difficulty might be self-created, but this is the only location for the pool on the property. Duly adopted this 25th day of May, 1994, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Maresco, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Carvin, Miss Hauser, Mr. Menter, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE MR. TURNER-The next order of business is Sign Variance No. 25-1994 Formula 1 Auto Body. Sue, who represented the applicants? Was there an agent? MS. CIPPERLY-No. I don't think so. MR. TURNER-The owners are the agent, Richard Eggleston and Thomas Stimpson. Were they aware they had to be here tonight? MS. CIPPERLY-Everybody gets notified. MR. MARTIN-Do you want to put them off until the end, and see if they might show up? MR. TURNER-Yes. application. I would like to do that. I ' 11 move t 0 the n e x t AREA VARIANCE NO. 26--1994 TYPE II SR-IA ALBANY SAVINGS BANK FSB AND CHR I STOPHER P. LYNCH OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE RIDGE ROAD APPLICANTS SEEK TO SUBDIVIDE INTO TWO (2) LOTS, ONE (1) OF WHICH DOES NOT HAVE FRONTAGE ON A TOWN ROAD AS REQUIRED IN SECTION 179- 70, BUT DOES HAVE A RIGHT-OF-WAY. BOTH LOTS ARE OTHERWI SE IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE ZONING ORDINANCE. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) TAX MAP NO. 55-1-7.1, 7.21, 7.22 LOT SIZE: 7.21 ACRES/l.41 ACRES AND 4.38 ACRES SECTION 179-70 MARTIN AUFFREDOU, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 26-1994, Albany Savings Bank FSB & C. Lynch, Meeting Date: May 25, 1994 "APPLICANT: Albany Savings Bank FSB and Christopher P. Lynch PROJECT LOCATION: Ridge Road PROPOSED ACTION: Applicants propose to subdivide a parcel into two lots -- one with an existing house, and one vacant. CONFORMANCE WITH USE/AREA REGULATIONS: The proposed lots meet all -- 8- Zoning Ordinance criteria except that of road frontage for the rear parcel. Section 179-70 requires forty (40) feet of frontage on a public road. REASON FOR VARIANCE REQUEST, AND BENEFIT TO APPLICANT: This variance would allow each applicant to retain an equitable share of the property. Due to the shape of the parcel, it would be difficult to achieve two conforming lots. FEASIBLE ALTERNATIVES: There does not appear to be an alternative that would accomplish the applicants' objectives. IS THIS RELIEF SUBSTANTIAL?: This appears to be the minimum relief possible for this situation. EFFECTS ON THE NEIGHBORHOOD OR COMMUNITY: There would not appear to be any adverse effects on the neighborhood. The fact that this configuration dictates a common driveway, with the rear parcel utilizing an easement over the front one, would limit the access onto the two parcels, rather than having two access points. IS THIS DIFFICULTY SELF-CREATED? This appears to be a d iff i cui t y stemm i n g from a for e c 1 0 sur e act ion, a p par en t 1 y unavoidable. PARCEL HISTORY: The parcel is on record as being subdivided in early 1994. No subdivision approval was granted for this action. This is an attempt to rectify that situation. STAFF COMMENTS AND CONCERNS: No further comment." MISS HAUSER-May 11th the Warren County Planning Board recommended to approve this var iance request wi th the comment, "Concur wi th local conditions." MR. TURNER-Mr. Auffredou. MR. AUFFREDOU-Mr. Chairman, Members, good evening. My name is Martin Auffredou. I'm from the law firm of Bartlett, Pontiff, Stewart & Rhodes in Glens Falls, primarily on behalf of Albany Savings Bank, and somewhat on behalf of Mr. Lynch, although the record does reflect that we are here on behalf of both applicants. Really all that I can add is that we do, today we filed a subdivision application, two lot subdivision application, with the Planning Department. We'll move forward with that subject, of course, to tonight's hearing and how this goes, but we do intend to go forward with the subdivision application, if all goes well. Simply stated, the property that Mr. Lynch is going to retain, which he's going to have the benefit of the right-of-way, residential property. It meets the zoning and subdivision requirements, from what I can tell, and I'm not aware of any plans that he has to do anything with that property, other than to hold onto it. I think it's obvious from the application that Mr. Lynch is having some financial difficulties, and that was the primary reason why Albany Savings Bank foreclosed its mortgage, which extended to only a portion of the property. The bank wants very much to be able to sell this property, as most banks do when they foreclose, and it's even my understanding that they have someone who's expressed an interest in purchasing the property. It's a 65 foot right-of-way. I think that's an attempt to give Mr. Lynch as much of an access to the property as he can, keeping in mind the Ordinance which requires 60 feet of frontage. I think that was where the 65 feet came from, and in the event that that property, the rear, is ever developed, I think the right-of-way would obviously be reviewed as part of any site plan development, and what the owner at that time intends to do at that time, as far as access to that property. I think we've really done, at present, all that we can do. I've certainly been here before on a number of applications and variance requests from 179-60, and with that I'd just simply say, we do have almost 80 feet of road frontage there. The driveway is currently there, and access to the house is attained currently. The house on the Albany Savings Bank parcel was obtained through that property. MR. TURNER-Any questions, anyone? MR. CARVIN-Yes. Do you have 80 feet, or 1S it almost 80 feet? MR. AUFFREDOU-It's almost. I think it's 79.33 feet. -9- MR. CARVIN-Okay. MR. AUFFREDOU-That's what shows on the map that have, Mr. Carvin. MR. CARVIN-I'll just get a clarification, if can, Ted. Obviously, we've got a similar situation going on now before the Planning Board with the right-of-way on a landlocked piece of property, and that's the Wilson, and I believe ownership has always been construed as the road frontage. Is that correct? MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. CARVIN-All right. I'm just trying to short circuit a possible problem with this back lot, because we're creating an identical situation, here, as we are with the Wilson, as 1 see it, with the right-of-way. Lets just, for argument's sake, say somebody wants to develop that back lot. I mean, if it's zoned properly, they could put 16 houses back there, assuming that that was the zoning, and we have a right-of-way situation and not ownership. Now, I think 1 would feel more comfortable, if you've got 80 feet on the front, to have ownership of 40 feet. You might give him a right- of-way for 65 feet, but I don't know if it's possible to give 40 feet there somehow. MR. AUFFREDOU-I don't know, either. I think, thinking this through, and obviously it is zoned residential. The possibilities always exist for that back lot. MR. CARVIN-Well, zoning has a habit of changing over time. MR. AUFFREDOU-No question about it, but I think, at that point in time, if an application were to come to you to develop that, I think, at that point in time, you can say, we've got a right-of- way, and the Board is concerned about access to that back property through the right-of-way. It can be addressed at that time. MR . CAR V I N- I t h ink we correct, with Wilson, seen the next step. have a 11 ve that's almos t ongoing situation. identical to this? Is So this I've MR. AUFFREDOU-I'm not familiar with that application, but it's a legitimate concern. MR. CARVIN-And, you know, I mean, we've got one land mine exploding now, and I just don't want to plant another one, is my essential feeling on this. Now I understand where the Bank is coming from, and I understand all the ramifications here, but, and the lot is an unusual lot, and I'm just getting a clarification, here, and I just want to make that a point to the Board, that we moved on an application, due to a belief of ownership with right-of way, and I don't know what the future brings, any more than anybody else, but I do know that it's hanging up the Planning Board right now. So, what do you think? MR. TURNER-It's the same thing. MR. CARVIN-It's the same thing. MR. TURNER-I don't have a problem with it other than, like you say, ownership. MR. AUFFREDOU-If the Bank were to somehow give him 40 feet, I think i t ma k est h e Ban k 's par c ell e s s ma r k eta b 1 e, 0 b vi 0 u sly. I a 1 so think that it makes, it doesn't erase all the headaches because what you've got is a problem where you still need a variance, because we're only granting 40 feet. You're lessening the variance, I guess, but the variance is still necessary, and then when the rear property is developed. It's 40 feet (lost word). Is that fair to the Bank for them to say, well, 40 feet's not enough, how about 50 feet, and all of a sudden you're marketing some --10- property with only 30 or. MR. CARVIN-Okay, but on the other hand, would you want, now just carry the argument, and this is the argument that's being presented. Lets just assume that it gets a zoning change, that now this becomes Multifamily Residence, the back lot is now able to have 50 houses, all right, I'm just giving you a hypothetical here, an extreme example. Now all they have is a right-of-way, but, obviously, 50 houses, 50 automobiles, traffic pattern and everything else. He could say that I'm going to put a road right along here, because on my right-of-way. Now, if you were the owner of that house, would you want a highway going, technically, right across your land, even though they've got a right-of-way, and this is the argument that's being presented right now, because we have a situation that is identical to this. The applicant in this particular case, and this is where the bone of contention is, is the ownership. All right, now we can't resolve the ownership. The applicant presented documentation to us with ownership, all right. There is another set of folks that'll say that they don't have the ownership, but we granted the variance based upon the ownership aspect. Now, I can, this situation may never come about, but it's a land mine that we're planning today that could explode down the line at some point. Now you say that Mr. Lynch has no desire to develop this at this point, but suppose he sells it to somebody who does have a des ire, and they say, we need to pu t a 50 foot road down through there. It's not fair to the person that buys the house, because it's only a right-oi-way. MR. AUFFREDOU-I couldn't agree with you more, but I also think that where it could come into play is it's possibly grounds for denial of the future owner's application. I mean, you've got the future owner who comes into ownership of that property knowing the limitations. MR. CARVIN-Okay, but suppose they bought it with the understanding of right-of-way, but not fully understanding that right-of-way doesn't mean that they can put a super highway down through there, that they still have a landlocked piece of property, for future development. MR. AUFFREDOU-But, again, I see that as an owner coming forward, should be on full notice of limitation of the property, and if he's not, he or she (lost word) comes forward and says, gee, I didn't know, or I guess I didn't look hard enough, or my attorney didn't advise me, that's not the Board's fault. MR. CARVIN-It li our fault, because we're planting the land mine today. We don't have that situation now. That's what I'm saying, is that if we move along the line that we are right now, we are creating a future problem, or the potential of a future problem. MR. MARTIN-The other thing to bear in mind parcel in the rear. This is SR-l Acre zoning, a possible for multiple dwellings on there. is that seven acre I believe. There's MR. CARVIN-Well, that's what I'm saying. I mean, technically, we could, theoretically, have seven houses go up there. MR. MARTIN-And, I mean, who can say what the chances are, but you could be looking at a situation where someone might be proposing a Town road to service that. MR. CARVIN-That's correct. MS. CIPPERLY-In which case you'd need 55 feet, not just 40. MR. CARVIN-But he's getting a 65 foot variance, and it's just an argument waiting to happen. MR. TURNER-Yes. --11 - MR. CARVIN-I mean, does the Board understand what's going on here? I mean, some of the newer members may not have been on the Wilson case. MR. MARESCO-No, I wasn't. MR. MENTER-My question would be, what are the alternatives, I mean, in terms of access? MR. CARVIN-Well, the alternative, that was my question, was that if they had the 80 feet there, to have ownership of at least 40 feet. MR. MENTER-So 40 feet, you're simply more effectively limiting the back lot. MR. CARVIN-What I'm saying is, I don't have a pure answer, but I do know that I've got a pure problem with this application. MR. MENTER-I don't know as you're going to get much help with it, either. MR . CAR V I N - I don' t t h ink the 40 f 00 tow n e r s hip doe s , don't. really MR. MENTER-No, it certainly doesn't. MS. CIPPERLY-Could you perhaps clarify how the Bank came up with this amount of land and the house? It's not clear to me how this shape came about, and how much acreage had to go. Was that just based on the? MR. AUFFREDOU-I think, in all likelihood, it represents a compromise, between Mr. Lynch and the Bank. The Bank took a look at the debt that Mr. Lynch had, took a look at the value of the property, through an appraisal, I would imagine, and this configuration was drawn up. That's my best guess. I can't say for sure. If there's a way that we could put some type of a reasonable condition, to address your concern, I'm all ears. MR. CARVIN-I'm throwing out mY. problem on the table. If you can come up with a viable alternative, believe me, as Ross Perot said, I 'm all ears. MR. AUFFREDOU-I guess the problem, if we grant 40 feet, you still have an odd configuration, and if someone wants to develop the back, you still have the problem of the buyer of the Albany Savings Bank property being upset about what's going on behind him. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. CARVIN-Well, I'm just saying that that potential is there, and I just know, with a right-of-way, it's going to cause more headaches than it would with ownership. MISS HAUSER-I don't see where a potential buyer could distinguish between the 40 foot and the 65. I don't know that that would make a lot of difference. MR. CARVIN-Well, no. They would have the 40 feet frontage, or even 39 and a half, if you've only got 79, split it in half. MISS HAUSER-Well, he was saying it would deter a buyer from purchasing the property if there was only ~ feet of frontage. MR. MENTER-Well, the right-of-way is definitive. MR. CARVIN-Yes. mean, they could still have the 65 foot of right-of-way. See, the right-of-way doesn't, but they need the 40 feet. See, it's the road frontage, is the problem. -12- MR. MENTER-Are there any restrictions on the right-of-way? How IS that? MR. AUFFREDOU-Not to my knowledge. It's a right-of--way for egress and ingress to the property. The idea would be, of course, that at such time that an application came forward to develop that property, that that right-of-way would be developed, in accordance with the Town code, and as part of any site plan review. MR. CARVIN-Okay, but suppose the owner there says no? I mean, they have ownership of the property. He just has a right-of-way. mean, it's like me putting a road on top of your lot. MR. AUFFREDOU-But I think the owner of the property is clearly going to understand this right-of-way has the possibility of being developed. MR. CARVIN-Well, again, I think it would have to be specified that they could have a potential traffic flow through there on, essentially, a driveway. MR. AUFFREDOU-I don't think there's any question about that, and the Bank recognizes that. MR. CARVIN--Again, if you want to work up some definition of the right-of-way, as opposed to the ownership, I mean, I just know that I ' ve got a pro b 1 em wit h t his par tic u 1 a rap p 1 i cat ion, as it' s presented right now. MR. MENTER-Can't a right-of-way be narrowed down and limited to a certain type of use? MR. AUFFREDOU-It's a suggestion that the right-of-way will be used, that this parcel would only be developed into one lot, or developed as one lot? MR. MENTER-It's a question, not a suggestion. I'm wondering if that is something that, you know, that would be a question. MR. AUFFREDOU-Obviously, that's crossed my mind. I don't have the authority to bind either one of these applicants to that. MR. MENTER-No. I guess this is just a personal information for me. That is something that could be written into the right-of-way, and that could be the way the right-of-way is executed. MR. AUFFREDOU-Actually, I think it would be written into the deed. MR . MART I N- Yes, bee a use, see, I' d call the Boar d's a t t en t i on t 0 179--62, Requi rements for Mul tipl e Pami ly Dwell i ng Pro j ects, and most specifically Letter B, under that Section, Road Design, all nonpublic roads used for vehicular circulation in all Multifamily projects shall be designed in width, curvature, etc. to acconmodate service and emergency vehicles and shall meet all Town standards for public roads. So you're talking about the need for a 50 foot right-of-way that could meet certain standards of radius of curve and so on, site distances and all that. If someone were to build ant hat s eve n a ere par eel i nth e b a c k , s eve nun i t m u 1 t i f am i 1 y dwelling, it would have to meet the, even if it was to be a private road, it would have to meet the standards of a Town road. MR. CARVIN-And they could if they had a 65 foot right-of-way and 40 foot frontage. MR. MARTIN-Well, you need a 50 foot right-of-way for a public road. So you'd need 50 feet of frontage, then, to accommodate that. If you remember that's what, I think, Wilson was give the relief from, was the 50 foot. MR. CARVIN-Yes, down to 35. -13-- ~ MR. MAR TIN - T h i l' t Y - s eve n , I t h ink i t was. MR. CARVIN-Thirty-seven, or whatever it was. MR. THOMAS-The only thing is, I want to go back to Sue Cipperly's question. How did this whole thing become like this? How did the Bank get one piece and Mr. Lynch retain a piece, if it wasn't subdivided? MR . MART IN - I t was, i 11 e gall y . they're in. That's why they're in the bind MS. CIPPERLY-This came to our attention, believe, when an appraiser came in and asked the question, or an attorney, or somebody came in and that's what made .1L§. look it up, and, low and behold, here's a subdivision that wasn't run through the subdivision process. It's recorded by the County. They have to record any deed tha t comes through. They don't check to see whether it had subdivision approval. So, this is a situation that occurred without going through the process. MR. THOMAS-Yes, the old cart before the horse, more or less. MR. MARTIN-Quite a distance before the horse. MR. THOMAS-Yes. MR. AUFFREDOU-From the Bank's perspective, though, think they were just kind of protecting, security. There's probably significant debt load on this property, and they see Mr. Lynch, who I believe has filed a personal bankruptcy, in trouble, and the Bank says, what can we do to get our money, or at least some of our money, out of this property, and that's what happened. MS. CIPPERLY-I guess my next question was, why would the bank not retain ownership of the entire property, and try to market it that way? MR. MARTIN-Who filed the deeds? MR. AUFFREDOU-I believe the Bank filed this deed. other deed, I don t t know. As far as any MR. MARTIN-Yes, but I mean, who carved out these parcels? Who filed those deeds that established these parcels in the County's mind? MR. AUFFREDOU-I believe that was Mr. Lynch. MR. CARVIN-This also has kind of the Carte thing there, up on Fuller Road, a similar situation there. MR. AUFFREDOU-I want to stress, we do application on file. We are trying to work admi ts here that this was done improper ly, coming forward and saying, look, what can we have a subdivision this out. Everybody and now the Bank is do to correct this. MS. CIPPERLY-I guess my initial question about why the Bank chose this was, did the figure the value of the house, plus a certain amount of building acreage around it, and then the rest, he didn't owe them that money, or how they ar rived, do you see wha tIt m saying? MR. AUFFREDOU-Yes. I don't know the answer to that. MS. CIPPERLY-Or did he do this? MR. AUFFREDOU-No. I think it's closer to the former. MR. TURNER-Okay. Anyone else? -14- MR. THOMAS-I'd just like to go on record to say, I agree with Fred, in that, what he said about the right-of-way and the problems we've had before with Kelly Carte and the Wilson property. MS. CIPPERLY-One difference in that situation was that the right- of-way in that one was contested, but it's still a very similar. MR. THOMAS-Yes. It's got the same ear markings. MR. AUFFREDOU-Just so know, I mean, I know where the Board's going here, but it seems to me that what you're suggesting is what would be acceptable and what would be at least looked at, would be to carve this up a little more, give Mr. Lynch an additional 50 feet of frontage, and Albany Savings Bank would then be left with the 29 feet of frontage to market what property they have. So we'd, essentially, be having to come back to you for two variances, one on each lot, neither one would have the required road frontage, at that point. MR. CARVIN-Or an alternative along that line, I guess. I mean, as I said, I don't have a perfect answer. Whether you just divided that right up the center, in other words, and both sides had 38 feet, 38 feet. MR. AUFFREDOU-But then it's not correcting the problem, because what Mr. Martin is saying is that at the time this property is developed, it's got to meet the road frontage, the road requirement, which is 50 feet. MR. CARVIN-But it eliminates one problem, in that it gives us some latitude, as far as a variance is concerned, and it gives everybody definite sides of the fence to stand on. It's'not a case that, well, wait a minute, it's my property, but, wait a minute, I have a right-of-way. I mean, that's the only thing that it eliminates. It doesn't, you know, it's not a perfect answer, but what it does is it delineates, I think, what can and can't happen there. MR. MARTIN-To be a little radical here, what would be the possibility of the installation of a Town road? That alleviates all the problems. MR. AUFFREDOU-Who pays for that? MR. MARTIN-I just pose the question. That gives everybody proper frontage on a Town road. MR. AUFFREDOU-It's quite radical, because I don't think Mr. Lynch is in a position to do it, and the Bank is not going to incur those kinds of costs to get rid of a piece of property that's foreclosed on. MISS HAUSER-I just wanted to say something that might help Sue and Chris' question, as to why this property was divided this way. I happen to have been the appraiser that appraised the property, and I had to appraise it on that three acre parcel, and also upon the total acreage, which goes along with what Mr. Auffredou is saying, is how did they determine if he was going to retain this parcel or not. So I came up with two different values. So, based upon that, they probably then went through the subdivision. MS. CIPPERLY-It seems maybe an alternative for the Bank would be to take Jim's idea, here, and, like, retain possession of the entire parcel, market it as a developable piece, because there is possibility for more lots back there. MR. MARTIN-It would increase the value of the parcel. MS. CIPPERLY-Or, apparently, according to our Town Attorney, the Bank and Mr. Lynch own the entire parcel jointly right now. -15- MR. AUFFREDOU-That's not my understanding. MS. CIPPERLY-But, when there's been an illegal subdivision, but that would be one way to give everybody frontage on a Town road. MR. MARTIN-I mean, from my perspective as a Planner and working for a municipality, I think that's far less ludicrous than that type of a subdivision, in all honesty. MR. AUFFREDOU-My understanding is that Mr. Lynch would have to deed his property to Albany Savings Bank in order for that to occur. MR. TURNER-Okay. Let me open the public hearing. the public hearing. I'll now open PUBLIC HEARING OPENED PETE CARTIER MR. CARTIER-I don't know if I'm in support or opposed. I have some questions. Pete Cartier. I'm the owner of the property directly across from the driveway involved here. Mr. Carvin, I don't even know you and I agree with you. I hope what will not happen on here is that we're going to torture the Ordinance just to satisfy vague (lost word) I hope this will go through the proper planning process. There are other alternatives possible, and I don't mean to speak for other owners in the area, but possibly owners to the direct north could be approached, if they had some land, the Schultz property on the corner. There might be a way to approach that to give access to that back parcel. There are other options here, and I hope they will be explored by somebody. I realize some day I'm going to be looking at, possibly, a Town road across the street from me. I have no problem with that, but I hope you don't, as I said, twist the Ordinance, here, by variance, to a point where you set a precedent. Thank you. MR. TURNER-Okay. Anyone else wish to be heard? PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TURNER-Okay. Anybody have any thoughts? I'd like to see them take it back and approach the people and see what they can come up with. MR. CARVIN-I mean, I think there's quite a number of items, here, that have to be addressed. The "illegal" subdivision, possibly other alternatives, possibly a reconfiguration. MR. AUFFREDOU-I think the illegal subdivision is going to be there no matter what we do. The fact of the matter is, ultimately, the property is going to have to be subdivided, in some way or another, and that's going to correct that situation, and it seems to me that what has to be addressed is the access to the rear property. MR. TURNER-So would you care to table it, and bring it back? MR. AUFFREDOU-I would like to table it, at this point. I don't want to withdraw the application. I'd rather not have it denied. MR. TURNER-Sixty days you have. Okay. I'll make a motion. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 26-1994 ALBANY SAVINGS BANK FSB CHRISTOPHER P. LYNCH, Introduced by Theodore Turner who moved for its adoption, seconded by Fred Carvin: At the request of the applicant, to provide the Board with further information with respect to the property. Duly adopted this 25th day of May, 1994, by the following vote: ---16-- AYES: Mr. Menter, Mr. Maresco, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Carvin, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Miss Hauser MR. AUFFREDOU--Jim, obviously, we'd have to put the subdivision application on hold. MR. MARTIN-Yes, that would happen as a matter of course. MR. AUFFREDOU-Okay. Thank you. MR. TURNER-Thank you. MR. MARTIN-Could you just submit a short letter to me, requesting that? MR. AUFFREDOU-Sure. SIGN VARIANCE NO. 25-1994 TYPE: UNLISTED HC-IA FORMULA 1 AUTO BODY OWNER: RICHARD H. EGGLESTON THOMAS STIMPSON 299 BAY ROAD, NEXT TO HARVEST REST. APPL I CANT PROPOSES TO HAVE THE BUS INESS NAME ON EACH OF TWO (2) AWNINGS INSTALLED ON THE BUILDING. SECTION 140- 6B(3) ALLOWS A BUSINESS TO HAVE ONE (I) FREESTANDING SIGN, SO APPLICANT IS SEEKING RELIEF FROM THIS SECTION. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) 5/11/94 TAX MAP NO. 59-1-1.6 LOT SIZE: 0.79 ACRES SECTION 140-6B(3) RICHARD EGCLESTON, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Sign Variance No. 25-1994, Forn1ula 1 Auto Body, Meeting Date: May 25, 1994 "APPLICANT: Formula 1 Auto Body PROJECT LOCATION: 299 Bay Road, next to Harvest Restaurant PROPOSED SIGNAGE: Applicant wishes to retain two (2) awning signs on the front windows of his business, each having the name of the business on it. CONFORMANCE WITH USE/AREA REGULATIONS: Section 140-6(c) allows a business two (2) signs, either one (1) freestanding and one (1) wall sign, or two (2) wall signs. Applicant has one freestanding sign, would need relief for one of the awnings, which constitute wall signs. REASON FOR VARIANCE REQUEST, AND BENEFIT TO APPLICANT: Applicant ordered both awnings with wording, thinking that having it on both would achieve a more balanced visual effect. The visual effect would be one benefit. Being allowed to keep the signs rather than incur the expense of replacing them would be another. FEASIBLE ALTERNATIVES: Removing the wording from one awning would be possible, but not necessarily desirable. Redoing the awnings so that part of the wording was on each would be possible, but would still require a variance, as it would constitute two signs. IS THIS RELIEF SUBSTANTIAL?: At a total of twelve (12) square feet, these two awnings are considerably less than the one hundred square feet the applicant would be allowed for one wall sign. EFFECTS ON THE NEIGHBORHOOD OR COMMUNITY: It does not appear there would be any adverse effect on the con~unity. The signs are not distracting to passing traffic. The awnings themselves are an asset to the area. IS THIS DIFFICULTY SELF-CREATED?: To some extent, this difficulty could be considered self-created, as the applicant purchased the awnings pr ior to seeking a var iance. However, there does not appear to have been any intent to violate the Sign Ordinance. PARCEL HISTORY: This parcel has been utilized for an auto body shop since late 1993. Prior to that it was a snowmobile sales and service business, under different ownership. STAFF COMMENTS AND CONCERNS: It appears that the applicant was trying to improve the property, as well as modify the amount of sunlight coming into the building. The signage seems a minor matter compared to the positive effect of the awnings." - 17- MISS HAUSER-May 11 th, 1994 the Warren County Planning Board recommended there be "No County Impact", with this variance. MR. TURNER-Mr. Eggleston, do you have anything further to say? Didn't this kind of, the guy that made up the awnings, how did that transpire? MR. EGGLESTON-I guess the way it was done was through ignorance. We knew we needed the awnings because of the sun that came in, and I didn't have any idea at the time, either, the guy made us some special deal that if we bought the awnings, he would do another special deal on the lettering. So my partner said, yes, it sounds good, go ahead and do it. Needless to say, here I am now. MR. TURNER-Does anyone have any questions? MR. MENTER-It wasn't a local guy, I take it? MR. EGGLESTON-Yes. MR. MENTER-It was. MR. MARTIN-It doesn't matter. MS. CIPPERLY-It wasn't a sign person, necessarily. awning person. I t was an MR. EGGLESTON-Right. MS. CIPPERLY-Most of the local sign people. MR. TURNER-They know, but the other side of the coin is, you could have a 100 square foot sign in front of the building. I think these look a hell of a lot better than 100 square foot sign on the front of that building, close to that road. The color of the lettering and the awnings, sometimes if you're not really looking at it, you don't pick them up. MISS HAUSER-My question is how do we, then, justify turning down the bank that came before us, that wanted their name on the awning? MR. CARVIN-Just the logo on the awning. MR. TURNER-I know, but that's just illY opinion. MR. THOMAS-What one's that? MR. TURNER-Chase Bank. MR. THOMAS-I must have not been here that one. MS. CIPPERLY-There's also a history of giving Blockbuster Video variances on their awnings. MR. TURNER-You have to treat each application as a separate application. MR. CARVIN-There's no other signage on the front of the building? MR. EGGLESTON-No. MR. CARVIN-There's no signs on the front of the building, just the awnings? MR. EGGLESTON-Yes, sir. MR. MENTER-You did have a road sign, right? MR. EGGLESTON-Yes. --18- MR. MENTER-You had a pylon sign. MR. EGGLESTON-There's an existing sign. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Is that existing sign, is that in compliance? Did anybody check that, the existing freestanding sign? MR. MARTIN-Yes. MR. CARVIN-That's all in compliance. MR. MARESCO-The only question I have with that, there's actually three signs on that one freestanding sign, though, isn't there? MR. MARTIN-I think, but it's all advertising the same business. There's no separate businesses. MR. MARESCO-It doesn't make any difference that they're three individual and one? MR. CARVIN-You go on total square footage, right? MR. MARTIN-Right. MR. MARESCO--Yes. just wasn't sure of that. MR. MARTIN They're all within the square footage. business. It's only one MR. MARESCO-Okay. MR. CARVIN-So, in essence, all we're doing is just granting relief for one sign, because he, technically, would be entitled. MR. MARTIN-Yes. He would be entitled to one. I had discussed with him about possibly removing one. I think they even looked into it, for a cost factor and all that, and it would throw off the balance. I can understand where they're coming from. I mean, right now it's a balanced look. MR. EGGLESTON-The manufacturer of the awnings, he didn't want anything to (lost word). MR. TURNER--Fred, going back to Chase Bank, I think they had a freestanding sign. They had a wall sign besides, and then they wanted to put the awnings up in addition. MR. CARVIN-I think they had an additional sign on the side. think they had actually two wall signs. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. CARVIN-No. I guess I can't say that I'm terribly opposed to it. I mean, it's probably as minimum relief as you're going to get. MR. TURNER--The only thing that 1 would say, variance, that we grant them the relief, but increase in the signage. if we grant the they can have no MR. CARVIN-Yes. That's correct. That was my thinking, that there be no additional signage whatsoever. MR. TURNER-No additional signage. MR. EGGLESTON-I have no problem with that. MS. CIPPERLY-You should probably note signage on the door that is, think things like that. that it's right now there operating hours is and -19-- MR . MAR TIN - Yes, but t hat's a s 1 g nth at doe s n 't eve n r e qui I' e a permit. MR. CARVIN-No, I mean, as long as you don't put Formula 1 Auto on the building. MR. TURNER-Okay. Anyone else? I'll open the public hearing, then. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TURNER---Okay. Motion's in order. I think it's a lot less offensive than a 100 square foot sign sitting in the front of that 1 i t tIe b u' i 1 din g . MR . CAR V I N - Act u ally the tot a I, i f I' m rea din g t his rig h t , i s a total of 12 square feet on the two awnings? MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. CARVIN-So, actually, we re just granting relief of six square feet. I think we can argue minimum relief. MR. TURNER-All right. MOTION TO APPROVE SIGN VARIANCE NO. 25-1994 FORMULA 1 AUTO BODY, Introduced by Theodore Turner who moved for its adoption, seconded by Anthony Maresco: The applicant wishes to retain two awning signs on the front windows of his business, each having the name of the business on it. Section 140-6C allows a business two signs, one freestanding and one wall sign, or two wall signs. The applicant now has one freestanding sign, and this would grant the applicant relief for one awning sign of six square feet, and which the Ordinance also dictates that the applicant could have a 100 square foot sign on the fro n t 0 f the b u il din g . T his ism i n i mum r e Ii e f. A Iso, t his would constitute the total signage allowed on the front of the building, and by the Ordinance. The feasible alternative, yes, he could remove the wording on one awning, and incorporate the wording on the two awnings, split it up, but this would not be feasible. There does not appear to be any adverse effect on the community. The signs are not distractive. The awnings are an asset to the area. This parcel has been utilized for an auto body shop since late 1993. It appears that the applicant was trying to improve the property, and signage seems to be a minor matter, compared to the positive effect of the awnings. Duly adopted this 25th day of May, 1994, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Maresco, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Carvin, Miss Hauser, Mr. Menter, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE MR. EGGLESTON-I thank the Board. MR. TURNER-We have one other item, and that's the Taco Bell. USE VARIANCE NO. 49-1993, HOWARD CARR TACO BELL, CORP. HAS REQUESTED AN EXTENSION OF THE APPROVAL THAT WAS GRANTED ON JUNE 23, 1993 WHICI-I WOULD EXPIRE ON JUNE 23, 1994 JON LAPPER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MISS HAUSER-"Dear Mr. Turner: Pursuant to the resolution of the Z BA , d ate d J u n e 2 3 I' d , 1 993, a cop y 0 f w h i chI h a v e en c I 0 sed for --20-- your review, a Use Variance was granted to permit fast food restaurants within the Queensbury Plaza. In accordance with Section 179-92 of the Town Zoning Ordinance, the variance will expire one year from the date of issuance, unless it is extended by the ZBA. Please consider this letter as a formal request to extend the variance, and please place this matter on the agenda for one of your May meetings." Dated May 2nd, 1994, and signed by Jonathan C. Lapper. MR. TURNER-Mr. Lapper. MR. LAPPER-Mr. Chairman, Members of the Board. When we were here last June, after lengthy discussions, unanimously granted by the Board. We feel that the same factors that existed a year ago still exist, that justifies the Use Variance, in terms of emptiness of the Plaza, although substantial changes have been made, and (lost words) leases pending, tenants in there, there's still a lot of vacancies, and in terms of the neighborhood, there's still plenty of fast food around. MR. TURNER-I have the resolution. Do you want the resolution read? MR. CARVIN-Did it refer to Taco Bell, or did it just refer to fast food? MR. TURNER-I think it refers to fast food, in a Plaza Conm1ercial One Acre zone. MR . CAR V I N -- I t h ink you we rea p ply i n g, e sse n t i a 11 y , be c a use you thought Taco Bell was going there, but now they have since gone across the street. Is that correct? MR. LAPPER-At the time that we applied Taco Bell was one of the applicants because they were looking at the Plaza, but we specifically discussed with the Board and the resolution references that it is for all fast food uses, because we were talking (lost word). MR . CAR V I N - I g u e s s my 0 n 1 y pro b 1 em wit h t his extending this, are we, in essence, re-zoning, going to be re-zoned to fast food. is, I mean, mean, by if it's MR. TURNER-Do you want her to read the resolution? MR. MENTER-I think that would help. MR. CARVIN-Yes. Why don't you read the resolution. MISS HAUSER--Okay. This is a "Motion To Approve Use Variance No. 49-1993 Howard Carr Taco Bell Corp., Introduced by Joyce Eggleston who moved for its adoption, seconded by Theodore Turner: This will grant relief from Section 179-220, Permitted Uses, in a Plaza Commercial One Acre Zone, and this will allow the applicant to lease to fast food restaurants within the Plaza. The applicant has demonstrated, through financial records presented, that a reasonable return on the Plaza is not, at this point in time, anticipated because of the lack of tenants, and it is felt with the fast food restaurants being allowed, it would be a draw to other tenants. I don't believe it would be detrimental to the neighborhood, as there are several other fast food operations within the inunediate vicinity. There would be no adverse effect on services or facilities, and there's no neighborhood opposition to the project. We have reviewed the Short Environmental Assessment Form attached and there appears to be no negative impact. Duly adopted this 23rd day of June, 1993, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Carvin, Mrs. Eggleston, Miss Hauser, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Turner -21- NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Philo" MR. TURNER-This was for Taco Bell Corporation. MR. LAPPER-Taco Bell was one of the applicants. was for fast food. The application MR. CARVIN-Yes. I vaguely remember you saying that you weren't sure whether they were coming in, but you wanted it kind of open ended. MR. LAPPER-Right. MR. CARVIN-I guess it's just for that Plaza. MR. TURNER-Plaza Commercial doesn't permit fast food restaurants. That was the whole essence of the application. MR. LAPPER-Well, we weren't trying to say that it was appropriate in all fast food, to be in all Plaza Commercial Zones. MR. CARVIN-I don't know. Is Olive Garden considered a fast food, or a chain? I guess that's more of a chain type thing, isn't it? MR. LAPPER-No. The definition in the Queensbury Ordinance is pre- prepared or briefly prepared foods. MR. TURNER-Yes. Does anyone else have a problem with it? MR. MARESCO-I'm just a little confused on exactly where, Taco Bell is going where Carvel? MR. LAPPER-Yes. Last week the Planning Board approved the Plaza across the street, but we were here to this Board a few months ago. Taco Bell is going where the Carvel is located right now. MR. CARVIN-What this was, was originally they thought it was going to go in where the Olive Garden is now. Now it's across the street. If Red Lobster does go there, will you still have room for, I would assume you still would have room for a freestanding fast food restaurant? MR. MARTIN-I think, I understand you have a Bagel Shop coming in. You take the technical reading of the Ordinance, that may be fast food, and they would be in compliance with the variance, then, because they've taken action to fulfill it. I mean, a bagel is a pre-prepared food sold over the counter. MR. CARVIN-Well, I'm assuming that even if they came In, they would still have to, need septic and sewer. MR. MARTIN-They've already done that, because there were a bunch of conditions attached to the site plan for this Plaza, too, and they've met all those and will be meeting the balance of those by Tuesday, I 'm told, or have been assured. So, yes, they're in compliance with the rest of that. MR. CARVIN-It just gives them a little bit of leverage for renting to perspective lessees. MR. LAPPER-Yes. We're trying to get the center filled up. MR. CARVIN-But I would only give it another year, I guess. Lets take a look at it in another year. I think you're moving along in the right direction. MR. TURNER-Yes, but the only thing I'm thinking about, if that was for Taco Bell, and fast food restaurant, and the reason they came, -22- like I said, it was not a permitted use in the Plaza. Are we going to open up a can of worms by saying that it ~ a permitted use? We've made an interpretation that now fast food restaurants are allowed in Plaza Comnercial? MR. CARVIN-Well, I think we've interpreted it already that it is allowed in that Plaza. MR. TURNER-No, we haven't. MR. THOMAS-I don't think this IS an interpretation. I think it was a variance. MR. CARVIN-It was a variance. MR. MARTIN-In illY mind, it would be a variance. MR. TURNER-You're right, but I just don't want this to come back to haunt us. MR. MARTIN-It's a variance for this particular application, and this particular parcel viewed on its own merits. MR. TURNER-Taco Bell is not the applicant. MR. LAPPER-Well, we had two applicants, Howard Carr, who is the Receiver, and now the Manager of the Plaza, and I just sent this in on behalf of Howard Carr. MR. TURNER-Yes, but the principal applicant was Taco Bell. principal motivation for this application was to get fast restaurants in that Plaza. The food MR. LAPPER-Right, and Taco Bell was one fast food restaurant. MR. TURNER-Right, but what I'm saying is, we've already done that for Taco Bell. Now, who's the next applicant, and you're saying Red Lobster. MR. LAPPER-No. this Plaza. We're saying that any fast food could come into MR. TURNER-I'm not saying that. MR. CARVIN-That's what our variance is saying, Ted. That was my original point. In other words, I almost think that this should go back to the Town and have that whole thing re-zoned if we're going to have fast food out there. MISS HAUSER--Maybe this relates, though, to the variance, then, that was granted on March 23rd, where we're referring to their particular financial difficulties, in granting that variance. MR. CARVIN-Right. As I remember this variance, it was, Taco Bell was referred as a prospective lessor, but I don't believe it was ever guaranteed that Taco Bell was coming in, and that's why I believe that this is worded as fast food. So I mean if a fish place, and I guess, lets say Long John Silver wanted to move down there, that they could have. MR. TURNER-Well, that's what we're going to say, then. MR . CAR V IN - Yes , we 11, t hat's why, a s I sa i d, I g u e s s I, I do h a v e a problem with it and I don't have a problem with it. MR. TURNER-Well, I do and I don't, and I'm just like you. I don't want to shoot ourselves in the foot. MR. LAPPER-We're not looking for anything more than what we got last time. --23- MR. TURNER-I know you re not, but it's just a technicality here. Where do you draw the line? MR. MENTER-Well, before it was presented, and I wasn't on the Board at the time when it was presented, where Taco Bell was, clearly had an interest in it, and even though it wasn't, technically, granted specifically for Taco Bell, that was the direction. Fast food is very general. The other thing is that, and maybe the Board has a better handle on this, are the financial necessities of doing this, or, is there as much financial need for this type of variance as there was then? Has that picture changed? I don't know what was presented at the time. MR. CARVIN--Well, I think that's a good point, because back a year ago, there wasn't the Olive Garden. There wasn't Rex. There wasn't a lot of the new business going in, and I think we made a mistake, because that's why, when you came for the variance across the stréet, I was very specific in saying that it was for Taco Bell. So if anybody else went in there, other than Taco Bell, they'd have to come back, because I remember asking if you were just going to build Taco Bells allover Town. MR. LAPPER-That's absolutely the case, but we did ask for all fast food to be permitted in the vacant Plaza. MR. CARVIN-On this one, you are correct. In other words, you had left it open ended, because you were looking for any tenant at that point. MR. LAPPER-For instance, as Jim mentioned, we're now dealing with Brueggers, which is arguably fast food and arguably not fast food, but they're hoping to come in immediately, and that would be one fast food use, and there've been other fast food restaurants, and they would go right in the Plaza next to the Olive Garden. That's a freestanding, but there are other fast food companies that are out there now in the market looking around, and our interpretation of the variance you granted last year was that (lost word) to allow other fast food restaurants to open up in the Plaza, and we' ré looking for that for another year, in hopes that we can fill up the Plaza. Howard Carr's here tonight, and if you'd like some testimony on the record, regarding the financial problems, and still operating at a loss because it's still primarily vacant, he can answer questions regarding that, if you like. Just to sort of assuage your fears a little bit, it's a real issue, the precedent. We're not asking you to say that in all Plaza Commercial Zones in the Town that fast food is permitted. We made a case last year, with detailed financial records, that for a lot of reasons retailers weren't opening in this Plaza, and we need to fill it up. It's an eyesore to the Town, and also to the applicant. They're operating it at a loss, and that that is still a factor, and that should justify it for at least another year, letting us put fast food in. MR. TURNER-I don't like the way you're stating it. MR. MENTER-Well, I think that it is a good idea for Mr. Carr to go over some of those numbers, because the circumstances have changed, and it's a different ball game than it was. MR. MARESCO-A year ago. MR. MENTER-A year ago. MR. MARESCO-It's changed. MR. MENTER-It seems to me, anyway. The criteria need to still be met, and the information will be different. MR. TURNER-I don't have the minutes right in front of me of what transpired in that meeting, so I can't, do you have them? --24- MR. LAPPER-I may. MR. CARVIN I'm almost positive it was open ended. just gave it a blanket fast food. thought we MR. THOMAS-But on the resolution it states, Howard Carr and Taco Bell Corp. MR. TURNER-That's the problem 1 have with it. MR. THOMAS-Right there. MR. LAPPER-They were the applicants. Taco Bell was paying for it. They wanted to change. MR. TURNER-That's the problem I have with it. You said, we want to put them in there because of financial trouble with the Plaza. MR. CARVIN-But I know in his testimony, I'm positive that that was brought out, because I remember. MR. MENTER-Well, it must have been, because the resolution is written that way. MR. LAPPER-I have Staff Notes. I have our letter to the Board last time, an affidavit from Mr. Carr that we submitted last time d e a I i n g wit h fin a n cia 1 mat t e r s . I co u 1 d rea d a 11 t his i n tot h e record, and Howard's here to answer any questions. Whatever you'd like. MR. CARVIN-Could we have access to the minutes fairly quickly of that meeting? I didn't know if they'd be in the records. MR. TURNER-They have them, downstairs. See, the resolution says, would allow the applicant to lease to fast food restaurants within the Plaza, period. The applicant has demonstrated, through financial records presented, that a reasonable return on the Plaza was not, at this point in time anticipated because of the lack of tenants, and it is felt with the fast food restaurants being allowed, it would be a draw to the other tenants. HOWARD CARR MR. CARR-Mr. Turner, let me address that issue. Shopping Center is a very unusual animal, because they're made up of a di verse amalgamation of different tenants, and each tenant brings to the party a different asset. They draw different customers. They are unique unto themselves, and yet they still form a cohesive part of the entire center. As we sit here right now, and if my addition's correct, real quickly, the center consists of 117,890 square feet t hat s tan d s the r e now , an d a p pro x i ma tel y 64, 000 0 fit i s 1 e a sed , and/or occupied. So what we're looking at is a center that's approximately 50 percent still vacant. It is not operating at a profit. The owner still supports it on a monthly basis, substantially on a monthly basis. The operating expenses of the property that are not supported by the tenants, and that are needed in order to bring in other tenancies, still have to be supported by the ownership, and that's what's creating the financial hardship here. Part of what the shopping center needs, beyond the sit down restaurant, it needs the fast food side of it, because there is an element of this whole, of this amalgamation of pieces of the puzzle that goes to, it's a quick in and out. A bagel store's a perfect example. You stop in in the morning and get a cup of coffee and bagel, you're on your way. You've only got 15 minutes for lunch. It's kind of tough to eat a bowl of spaghetti in the car, is the easiest way to explain it. If you got a bowl of spaghetti at the Olive Carden, it would be a little tough to drive and eat that, but you could take a tunafish sandwich on a bagel and hit the road. So that concept of fast food is really what we're talking about, okay, that people can come in, hit and run, and that also brings to the ~25- table the benefit that the other pieces of the shopping center pull together, because when someone comes in, when we're hopefully successful in getting a women's fashion store, or a shoe store, and tenancy such as that, that particular individual may come in and buy a pair of shoes, and go in and grab a bagel, and be gone, and by definition, that's fast food, and that's a thing that we want to do. I mea n, it' s all par t 0 f t his ama 1 g ama t ion. I f I we r e tot a k e you into CrossGates Mall or Aviation Mall, you'd find that there are different tenancies and they all try to appeal to a different range of the population, and that's what we're trying to do here. That's what a shopping center's all about, and so the financial hardship still exists. Hopefully not much longer. We're on the road to recovery, and I think that your granting of this is really not setting a precedent, because the financials have been brougllt to you. I can tell you now that the rents that are being contracted for with the existing tenants are not the rents that we would have gotten out of a center that was 80 or 90 percent full. To some extent, you've got to give the front end away so that you can make it up on the back side, and that's the problem that we're faced _with. So that that hardship still does exist, and I think it's reasonable of the Board to grant this extension, and if you've got any other questions, I'm more than happy to answer them. MR. CARVIN-Well, again, my feeling is that this is the Board's decision. Either they resolve, the Town looks at it and re-zones that whole area for fast food, because they're coming in. I mean, lets face it. It's not a novel idea out there. Which brings us to Point Number Two, I mean, as a Board, do we want to look at each, I mean, is it fair for them to go out and find a Boston Chicken and then Boston Chicken says, yes, we want to go to their Plaza, but we have to come here and get a variance each time, or do we give them just a blanket variance, as far as fast food is concerned, allowing them to go out and solicit the various fast foods? I guess my, I know what, Ted, I had the same concerns that you had, originally, Ted, is, did we just throw a blanket out there, and what precedents are we setting, and I think we still are on pretty solid ground, that almost anybody in that general area, if they come in with a fast food, I suspect, has probably got a pretty good argument for letting a fast food go in there, but on the other hand, if they com e i n 0 f f For t Amh e r s t R 0 a d and wan t top uta f as t f 00 d, I t h ink that we've got a pretty good argument that we can keep them out of there. So I don't think that this is a precedent setting situation at all. As I said, I think it just boils down to, either the Town looks at it and the total and says, fine, we're going to change that whole zone out there to allow fast foods, or we, as a Board, want to look at each of the individual applicants as they should flush them up. MR. TURNER-Well, you know, every plaza has a different character to it. MR. CARVIN-Absolutely. MR. TURNER-Maybe that's a point that this Board ought to look at, and not the Town Board just give them a blank check and say, here it is, boys, run with it. MR. CARVIN-Yes, but I guess, I'm just trying to think, in my mind, what plazas don't have some kind of fast food restaurant within a very short space. I mean, they all have got some kind of fast food or restaurant type of business. MR. TURNER-I don't have a problem with it. way it's presented. just don't like the MR. CARVIN-Well, I didn't like the way it was, the second time. I mean, I figured we had gone with the Taco Bell. I figured they were going across the street, and all of a sudden, boom, they're over in Carvel, and I've got to be honest with you, I kind of thought maybe Taco Bell was the Blockbuster, you know. You just -26- kind of push Taco Bell out there and you get the variances, but I don't think that was the intent. MR. LAPPER-That wasn't meant disrespectfully at all. What that came down to was a matter of lease negotiations, ill terms of Taco Bell wanting a site in this Plaza. That would preclude the Red Lobster, obviously. They wanted the prime site right up front, and Red Lobster seemed to be a better use for that parcel. So they weren't able to negotiate a lease, and they looked for another site. The Carvel site, I think, stands on its own, for all the reasons that this Board approved it months ago, and that was an existing fast food site, a real eye sore, and by replacing that with a smaller fast food use, that that was positive for that site, and I'm not trying to come in here, and I hope you don't see it that way, and blow away the Ordinance in every case and say that Taco Bell should go where First National Bank is on Quaker Road. I think these are unique situations. MR. MARTIN-And I would say, from a standpoint of planning, I don't see where it's going to be a real open and shut case to simply amend the Ordinance to have fast food put in to Plaza Commercial. They are traffic generators, and that type of thing. Those are the type of considerations that are going to have to go in to having those put in as an allowed use in a use schedule. So, I know that's not what you're really concerned with from your standpoint when you consider it, but for a re-zoning, that's not an incidental task. MR. CARVIN-Well, almost anything, as long as they, a fast food, guess can't think of a fast food organization that causes controversy. Now, I mean, if a porno shop or something like that was going in there, I mean, that creates somewhat of a controversy. MR. MARTIN-Well, I think fast food creates more of a planning concern than it used to, wi th the advent of the dr i ve through window, being such a, now, I think like at McDonald's, I've heard it constitutes 50 percent of their business. That's why they're more of a land use concern than they were. MR. CARVIN-The other thing, I think in this particular location, I don't know, I think that that has been addressed. I think that there is a certain amount of traffic flow that is being looked at. MR. MARTIN-Well, from that standpoint, this Plaza's got, it's got everything this Town can offer, in terms of infrastructure. It's surrounded by four lane roads, and it's got three major points of ingress and egress. I mean, and virtually everyone of those, if not an intersection directly in front of the Plaza, it's served by a signal serving that intersection, it's served by a signal very close by. MR. CARVIN-Okay, and not to change gears, here, but while I have you gentlemen in front of us, speaking of the Olive Garden, if memory serves correct, my understanding was that the access out onto Quaker Road was going to be restricted, in other words, that there was not going to be an access there. MR. LAPPER-This has been the subject of discussion with Jim, even today. When we first did the Olive Garden, in order to get the CO, there were, the kind of barricade that was proposed was the metal. MR. CARR-No, they were plastic. MR. MARTIN-Plastic rods. MR. CARR-Plastic breakaway barricade that was proposed. MR. LAPPER-And they were installed. MR. MARTIN-Yes, they were, and they were quickly busted within the -27- first two days. The cars were going right through them. MR. CARVIN-Because I remember having a discussion that that was not going to be used as an exit, and now it is. MR. TURNER-That's right. MR. MARTIN-So what happened, then, in the interin1, they pushed an old telephone pole up there, and piles of snow over the winter, and that effectively blocked off the barricade, and Dave Hatin has been to the site with Howard. They discussed an acceptable form of a barrier, and that's going to be installed, beginning Tuesday. MR. CARR-Or sooner. MR. CARVIN-It has no bearing on this, but. MR. LAPPER-Yes. That's an important issue. That has to be blocked off. Dave Hatin had told us that, Mother's Day, people actually parked out on Quaker Road and walked in, which is just horrible. So that's something that has to get done. MR. CARVIN-Well, I guess we're back to Square One, as far as the fast foods are concerned. I still don't have a problem extending it for a year. MR. TURNER-I don't have a problem with it. I just, if we're going to grant the extension, that's fine, but I'm going to change the wording on it. I think we ought to strike Taco Bell, when we grant them the extension of the Use Variance, to Howard Carr, Receiver, Queensbury Plaza. MR. LAPPER-That's totally appropriate. applicant at this point. Taco Bell isn't an MR. TURNER- I That's gone. jus t wan t to ma k e sur e t hat it' s 0 f f the r e cor d . That's history. MR. LAPPER-We appreciate that. MR. TURNER-I just don't want to leave an opening for somebody else. MR. MENTER-Yes. I've just got to say, I'm uneasy, for a couple of reasons. I'm not comfortable with just giving a blanket variance type of thing, and would it have been approved last year, if Taco Bell was not involved, if it was just because you determined that you needed the fast food in there? MR. LAPPER -Taco Be 11 jus t happened to be someone that was interested at the time. MR. MENTER-Right, no. I understand that from your standpoint, but I'm thinking about it from the Board's standpoint, without Taco Bell standing there, would they have approved it? MR. TURNER-I think that was the arm that helped twist the other arm. MR. CARVIN-Yes. There's no doubt that Taco Bell had an influence, but I think we would also have had to look at the financial records and that Plaza being pretty desolate at the same point. MR. MENTER-I know that's an issue, absolutely. important that is. know how MR. LAPPER--Yes. If I could just address the traffic Issue, we believe the big issue is fast food and why the Town (lost word) put fast food in a specific zone, and I think why this Town eliminated fast food in the Plaza Corrunercial zone, the provision it was pernlÍtted, you're talking about curb cuts and access, which is the -28- issue and restricting that (lost words). On this particular site, it's not an issue, because we have all the curb cuts that there are ever going to be, and on the entrance drive, which is designed and won't be fully installed on both sides until the Red Lobster comes up. Any fast food, anyone going through a drive through, if there is a drive through, and Brueggers is not going to have a drive through, obviously, but if there is a drive through, that's something that would be controlled within the site, and wouldn't impact any highways along the site. That's another specific fact that weighs in favor of this site, the fast food, while it may not be the same within the Plaza Corrnnercial zone, another parcel, and that should alleviate some concerns. MR. KARPELES-Are we talking one fast food restaurant, or are we talking more than one? MR. CARVIN-You could have multiple. They could rent 20. MR. KARPELES-That's what would bother me, I I think I'd rather see it restricted to restaurant. think, a little bit. maybe one f as t food MR. CARR-I guess I need to address the Board on that. The problem really becomes, what's fast food? Is a bagel store fast food, or is it a bakery? Is a Boston Chicken fast food, or is it a restaurant? I mean, part of the problem is that, I mean, you try to define what fast food is, I guess when I look back at things, and I say, if you look at everybody's Zoning Ordinance, 15 years ago nobody had a video store, because we didn't have them, and these uses, they are constantly changing their shape, what they are. I just came back from a shopping center convention. We saw a presentation from the same company that owns Taco Bell, which is a drive through hamburger stand, that's all it is. Strictly drive through. It's a presentation that's not going to be done in New York State yet, but we're going to see it soon. It's throughout the State of Florida, the State of Georgia, and up on the eastern seaboard, and out west. So, where you and I would think of a fast food hamburger place as like a McDonald's today, or Burger King or Wendy's. Well, here's one that's 600 square feet, with three drive through lanes, and that's what they're doing. So the problem to say that that center should be entitled to one, that's really extremely restrictive, because, again, this amalgamation of different parts. If we bring in a bagel store, and we bring in a Chinese food, and we bring in a hamburger place, just to pick some of them out. Is a pizza store fast food? Why shouldn't we have pizza? MR. MARTIN-See, from illY standpoint, it's less of a concern as to how rapidly the food is prepared, as to whether or not you have a drive through or not. That's the real distinguishing factor in the use. If I were to do it over, I'd say, restaurant, and then drive through restaurant, not restaurant and fast food restaurant. MR. TURNER-Yes, but now we've got the definition we've got to live by. MR. MARTIN-I know. You have to live with it, but if druthers. That's the true difference. had my MR. CARR-There's no question about it, and the big problem is in the stacking lanes, with the drive through, and how it effects traffic, but certainly, you know, the ownership of this Plaza, even through its most difficult times, has certainly put its best foot forward, I think. We've put out a mitigation expense of $185,000 to build a traffic light system, which was done long before there was any rental going on there. We're certainly making every effort that we can to comply with all of the wishes of the Zoning Board, the Planning Board, and every other Board, the Beautification, etc. The landscaping will start. We've just been a little bit delayed with a lot of other things that have been going on, but certainly -29- it's our intent to put together, and I think we're doing a pretty good job of it so far, in a really short period of time, since we've had the handcuffs taken off on the leasing, to bring forth to the community a real good cross section of tenancies that are going to benefit everybody in the area, and by restricting it to one fast food, that's going to, again, put a set of handcuffs back on us, because once we get the bagel store, then that's going to eliminate the others, if that's the interpretation. So I would dwell upon the Board not to put that limitation on us, but understand the limitation of the business side of it, because we're not going to go in there and put 30 fast food stores in. First of all, it doe s n 't ma k e s ens e . I t doe s n 't ma k e s ens e wit h how the, the building exists today, the cost to put them in is astronomical, and then what's going to happen is that you cut the pie into too many pieces, and then nobody makes money. The goal of the ownership, here, is that the tenants make money so they can pay the rent. Replacing tenants is expensive. So that the ownership's position is, what are we going to put in there? We're going to end up with a bagel store, most likely. That's, I mean, that transaction is in the works. Will we end up with a Boston Chicken? Maybe, maybe not. At this point in time, I would bet probably two to one against it, but I don't know what comes down the line next. Maybe it's something else. I just don't know, but that's why I say, to limit it to just one is not the right thing to do. MR. KARPELES-Yes, but on the other hand, you've had this motion approved for a year, and you haven't got any in there yet, and think the advantage of getting this blanket thing is that you can negotiate with somebody. If you negotiated and you got one in there, then you could come back to us and we could give it another blanket, possibly. MR. LAPPER-That cuts both ways, because even though we've had this for a year, and Howard's been aggressively marketing it, and we've been talking to Brueggers, and now we've got it where they're about ready to sign a lease. We've been talking to Boston Cllicken, and they've been looking at another site, as well as this site. It just takes time, even with a site in the center of town like that, a year just isn't that much time, unfortunately. We're only asking for one more year. We still have a Plaza that's half empty in the center of town, and we need to lease it up. MR. CARR-To give you a little bit of history, you know where Olive Garden is now? We had a signed lease with Red Lobster. We at one time had a signed lease there with Red Lobster, and then they went somewhere else, and then Olive Garden came in and everything else. The reason I point it out to you is that these things take a lot longer than 1 hoped they would, but they just do, and that's why, unfortunately, in the real estate business, I've been involved with this property as a Receiver since April of 1990. I can't believe four years have gone by, but they have, and, as I said, I think we're on the right road. I think what we've done there IS tasteful. It's beneficial to the community, and, believe me, we're not going to end up putting in 30 different fast food guys. That won't work. MR. CARVIN-At this point, is it safe to say that you're looking at national chains, or would you, if we restricted it to just national franchise chains, in other words, or are you contemplating, I don't know, if somebody had a sub shop, you know, Joe's Sub Shop, would that fall under the criteria? MR. CARR-As far as we're concerned? MR. CARVIN-Yes. MR. CARR-The ownership would probably look for all the national chains we can, because of creditworthiness, but I don't want to sit here and say to you that if someone came here locally, and wanted to put in a locally owned pizza store, chinese restaurant, -- 30-- whatever, okay, that , going to tell them, he can't, we re no, because I certainly don't want to restrict someone , business s opportunity. I don't think anybody here does, you know, to restrict it to a national chain. MISS HAUSER-Why would you even want to do that? MR. CARVIN-Just, normally, a national chain has a better credit reputation, a better reputation than mom and pop coming in and setting up a pizza parlor. I mean, that's my only thinking there. MR. TURNER-I kind of agree with Bob, in a way, because, you know, the last time you came around, you came, Howard Carr, Taco Bell Corp., period, all right. You established the fact that you couldn't realize a reasonable return as zoned. We granted you the variance for the fast food restaurant. Now, what you're saying to us is, it would apply to whoever comes, one, two, three. That's the part I don't like, because you've got limited room. You've got limited development, and you can't put a whole lot of one thing in there. You're diversifying right now. MR. CARR-Well, to respond to your conUl1ents, Mr. Turner, understand your concern, but I guess, if I step back from it and say, you know, Taco Bell had to walk away at the eleventh hour and the fifty-ninth minute, because believe me, I've had other deals with them, and they've done it, all right, and A, B, C Taco came in, with basically the same prototype, we've brought them forth, if the financial transaction was agreeable. MR. TURNER-Okay, but this extension is related to what corporation is coming in, who's coming in there, that you want this for? MR. LAPPER-We don't know yet. MR. CARR-We don't know that yet. MR. TURNER-But you're dealing with somebody. MR. LAPPER-Well, we're dealing with Brueggers right now, but we're hoping to deal with others. We'd like it to be available so we could find other uses, other fast food restaurants, and we could fill up the empty space. MR. TURNER-I don't have a problem with the bagel shop. I have a problem with a drive through situation, where you get two or three of them in there. That could very well happen. MR. MARTIN-I don't know that you've got much room for more than one Red Lobster in there. MR. TURNER--No, blank check. know, bu t that cou 1 d happen if we give them a MS. CIPPERLY-So maybe you could limit it to one fast food restaurant with a drive through. Would that be? As you said before, there's a question, really, as to whether the bagel place is fast food or not. That's sort of debatable, and you were saying the drive through really is the, the drive through is what has the impact. MR. TURNER-That's right. MR. CARR-I'm just trying to, visually, picture this in my mind, bee a use w hat t his i s e f fee t i vel y do i n gat the s am e t i 01 e , iff 0 l' some reason, which I can't understand why, but I '01 trying to think this out into the future. If Olive Garden were to put in some sort of a drive by system, don't say no, Jim. Fifteen years ago, Jim, there were no drive throughs, and here we are fifteen years later. I mean, think about, I mean, we've done a layout on the center, with a drive through restaurant, to do a freestanding, three - 31- thousand foot restaurant, with a drive through on it, and the financial situation, the bank, and now the banks come back and tell us, we don't want to do a branch now. We want to do a drive up ATM ma chi n e, a 11 rig h t . So we s en t the arc hit e c t 0 v e r t 0 B 0 s ton to look at what they had done, other banks have done. I mean, three years ago, we never even thought about these things, five years ago, but ATM machines are part of our life. That's why putting this restriction on is real tough to us, because, if we've got a fast food with a drive in now, I mean, what's to say that somebody doesn't create something that we all want to see. MR. TURNER--Yes, but you don't want to create you're going to have a problem, and we don't scenario where we're going to have a problem. a scenario where want to create a MR. CARR-Well, the difference is, we won't have the problem, because we have the right to make the decision and say yes. MR. TURNER-You have the right to make the decision, but you could make a wrong decision, and still end up with a problem. MR. LAP PER-Well, the Planning Board would also have to approve a site plan approval. MR. TURNER-I time there, building, or live issue? know, but I'm just saying, when you came the first in March, when you came for the 56,000 square foot something like that, all right, now, is that still a MR. LAP PER-That's being reduced by 20,000 square feet, in order to allow the Red Lobster. MR. TURNER-Okay, but that's still an ongoing thing, then. You're just reducing the size of the building. MR. LAPPER-But substantially, (lost word) behind the Red Lobster, there'll still be a little bit of the building. MR. MARTIN-See, I don't think you've got a lot left, in terms of what your parking demand is, with what you have existing. MR. LAPPER-That's a legitimate constraint. can do. There's not a lot we MR. MARTIN-As a practical matter, I don't know how much more you can get on there. MR. MENTER-That's a constraint, though, that works in the Board's favor, if the Board's concerned about limiting the number of fast food restaurants going in there. MR. CARVIN-It's going to self limit. MR. MENTER-Exactly. MR. CARVIN-I was reading in the paper here about drive through funeral homes in California, for crying out loud. I mean, in California, you can do that, drive up, and they'll wheel, and there you go. MR. MARTIN-They have drive through grocery, too. MR. CARVIN-Yes. In fact, that was an idea that was presented by someone very recently. So, I mean, by just restricting it to fast foods, I mean, it doesn't restrict them to any of these other options, is the thing. MR. LAPPER-We're only asking you to do what you did last year. MISS HAUSER-By having Taco Bell being the applicant, that, it kind -32- of implied that there was only going to be one restaurant there. MR. TURNER-That's the thought I think you left with everybody, at that time. You truly left it with me, I can tell you that. MR. LAPPER-I guess that's the issue, and I didn't recognize that at first. That wasn't our intention to do. MR. CARR-I mean, I would say to you, as the person in charge of the rental of the Plaza and the management of it, it was not our intention, at any time, okay, to be restricted to just Taco Bell, because when we worked with Taco Bell, we also did the layout to do three fast foods along the (lost word). MR. TURNER-Yes, but along that same thought, I think it was our thought that no matter who, whether it be Taco Bell or who, one. MISS HAUSER-It says, project for Taco Bell Corp. MR. TURNER-One, whether you Burger King, or whoever, onc. deal t wi th Taco Bell, McDonald's, That's where I'm coming from, one. MR. LAPPER-The resolution says, to lease to fast food restaurants, plural. MISS HAUSER-Yes, it says plural. MR. LAPPER-And I have to apologize, Mr. Chairman, if there was any kind of confusion last year. We left thinking that the Board was comfortable with the type of use, and that if we were lucky enough to find a few that we could fit in, that that would be okay. MISS HAUSER-I think the reason that was plural there was because there was a chance that maybe Taco Bell would not go into that particular location, but still there would be substituted by one other restaurant. MR. LAPPER-Okay. MR . MART IN - I naIl h 0 n est y , I w 0 u I d h a vet 0 say, i fin the pas t year, he came in with two or three different restaurants, and in reading that resolution, I would have said it was okay, as the Zoning Administrator. MISS HAUSER-I don't think the variance was worded correctly. MR. MARTIN-I don't know what else I would have been left to. MISS HAUSER-The way it's written, that's the way it interpreted, but I don't think that was the intention. was just improperly worded. would be I think it MR. CARVIN-I remember it was open ended, but I think, I also would go that I thought that the Taco Bell was going to go there, but I know that he did, in testimony, say that they wanted it open, that if somebody else came in other than Taco Bell, that they wanted the ability to go and at least talk to other prospective tenants. MR. THOMAS-Yes, but that's just in case the Taco Bell fell through. MR. TURNER-And it did. MR. CARVIN-Well, again, it's the Board's decision, I guess, whether you want to hear them individually, but I think we're tying their hands, financially, and their ability to negotiate. I mean, I think we're, you know, I'm searching my heart and soul, here, to find out what, how to receive fast foods. MR. TURNER-I don't think we're tying their hands. Let them go negotiate with the guy that they want to bring in there now, and if -33- they have to come back, and they still can't make a reasonable return on the property, and they get another client that wants to ope n a f as t f 00 d res tau ran t, ma y b e 0 fad iff ere n t t Y P e 0 r 0 f a different sort, then we can address that when it comes. Give them one at a time. MR. MENTER-Yes, think that's reasonable, primarily because of what Jim cited, the space and the property, which you, you're a lot more familiar with what you have than I am, but it seems like, with two full service restaurants, and a fast food restaurant, and a bagel shop, that by the time you get your new space put in. MR. CARVIN-I guess if you want to hear them one at a time, you just let it run its course, and in another month, it's done. MR. MARESCO-I would be comfortable hearing one at a time. This way we have more control over what is going to go in there. MR. LAPPER-Are you saying one in addition to the bagel? MR. CARVIN-No. We're saying that this motion does not get renewed, and if you go out and you find something that fits the definition of fast food, that you've come before and presented, just like across the street at Taco Bell, that the Board would consider them on an individual basis. So if you have three fast food restaurants lined up, we hear three applications. MISS HAUSER-I don't know that that's fair either. negotiate with a prospective tenant unless he has the that he can have one of those. He can't knowledge MS. CIPPERLY-We're trying to differentiate, here, discussing between food made on the premises entirely, which the bagel fellow that was in today, that's what he. MR. MARTIN-See, he makes those bagels from scratch, on site. He makes the dough and everything there on site. Whereas, McDonalds, a lot of stuff is frozen and just comes right in. MR. MENTER-I don't think that's the defining characteristic. I think a big characteristic, in the traffic, which is what you're concerned about, is whether it's freestanding or whether it's part of the center. MR. LAPPER-That should be a criteria of the Ordinance. MR. MENTER-Yes. MR. MARTIN-Yes. I'm trying to do it with the definition that I've got to work with, and I don't know that I can, it's not like somebody walks into that bagel shop and says, looks at a chart of available bagels and says, yes, make me one of them, and he waits there until it's made, and then leaves with it. I mean, they may have a basket full of them there, available, but, I don't know. MR. MENTER-Well, we may, in this situation, we may have a little latitude to work with the wording that you have. MR. MARTIN-Well, I think my leaning would be that that's not fast food. I think it's more of a bakery, and I don't think that's. MISS HAUSER-Brueggers, I've been in there. spot for you, and they make them to order. The bagels are, but your sandwiches, yes. They make them on the They're not prepared. MR. MARTIN-So they have sandwiches, too? MS. CIPPERLY-Yes, on a bagel. MR. MENTER-Jim, when that issue comes up, that's going to be your -34- determination. MR. MARTIN-If they're making sandwiches there, that's different. That would be fast food. MR. TURNER-Well, what's the Board's feel? My thought is, only one, and if they want to come with another one, lets see it the next time around. MR. LAPPER-What about Brueggers? MR. TURNER-He hasn't made the determination yet. MR. MARTIN-Well, I would think if they're making sandwiches there, I mean, somebody goes in and orders a sandwich off the board, and the y ma k e i t the r e rig h t w h il e you' r e wa i ti n g , t hat's rap i d I y prepared food on site. MISS HAUSER-What about that bagel shop down on Exit 18 In Queensbury. What do you consider that to be? Fast food? MR. THOMAS-Lox of Bagels and Moor. MR. MARTIN-They make sandwiches, too, right? MR. CARVIN-But they also have a sit down place. MISS HAUSER-Brueggers, the ones several, they have tables there. that ~ been in, I've been Is that fast food? In MR. MARTIN-Yes, and then we've got the deli in the Northway Plaza. You've got the del i in the French Mountain ConmlOns. MISS HAUSER-Is a deli a fast food? MR. MARTIN-No. That's the question. is it a? I mean, is a deli a deli, or MISS HAUSER-I would say a bagel shop is a very similar to a deli. MR. LAPPER-Is the issue with the Board the drive through, that you're most concerned about? MR. MARTIN-As a practical matter, that's what l am, but I've got this definition to work with. MR. LAP PER-I mean, what if we restricted it to only one drive through? MR. THOMAS-One drive through restaurant? What about, as Mr. Carr mentioned, the ATM's? MR. LAPPER-That wouldn't be a restaurant. MR. THOMAS-But it's still a "drive through". MR. CARVIN-I'm on your side. I think that a fast food restaurant, or a food provider is very appropriate in that area. MR. MENTER-I agree, and I think there's a real uniqueness there, because of that property in that zone. MR. CARVIN-If they were trying to put a restaurant or a fast food in a definite residential area, I'd be on the other side of the fence in a hurry, but, I mean, lets face it, this whole area, you could go across the street, and there's a fast food restaurant. So, to give them a blanket authorization here, I don't think, is out of the norm. I think it is something that, you give them a year, it gives them some latitude to negotiate leases, because they just don't come in and sign them, and I just don't think you're -35- going to, you're not setting any precedents. feeling. I mean, that's !I!Y MR. MARTIN-How much seating are you proposing to have for Brueggers, 50 to 60 people, Howard? MR. CARR-I thought it was 60. MR. CARVIN-If they start bumping into drive throughs, they're going to have to start meeting parking conditions. They're going to have to start making traffic flows, and it bumps into site plan review. So, I mean, it gets picked up in the next level. MR. MENTER-Well, effecting traffic that they have to four freestanding its e ems 1 i k e the qua n tit Y 0 f f 00 d , and the is going to be mitigated by the size property work with. I mean, they're not going to put in units with drive throughs. MR. TURNER-There's no doubt about it, but the thing that you have to look at is down the road. What are we doing here? What are we directly effecting down the road? What are we going to do, down the road, when somebody else comes with the same? MR. CARVIN-Well, again, if it's in a definite corrunercial area, Ted, I mean, it's not like they're breaking virgin ground here. MR. MENTER-Well, you've already established uniqueness. You've already established all those criteria in granting it the first time. So, if it hasn't changed. MR. MARTIN-Chris, to answer your question, banks aren't allowed in Plaza Commercial either. MR. THOMAS-Banks aren't? MR. MARTIN-No. MS. CIPPERLY-So they'd have to come back for a Use Variance, In order to do a bank. MR. MENTER-So, do they still meet their criteria? That's what originally thought. MR. CARVIN-I think your original question is, do they still have a financial need to negotiate, and I think that he's addressed that, to the fact that they still have over 50 percent of the space still available for rent. If they were coming in and they only had 10 percent, then I think you'd have a tougher argument saying that the thing wasn't making money, and a year from now, if they come back and they want to extend it, now they're 90 percent occupied, I think the Board is justified in saying, now, wait a minute, we can let it go. MR. TURNER-Yes, but that's what I'm saying, lets not do that. MR. CARVIN-Lets not do that. MR. TURNER-Lets give them one shot at a fast food restaurant. Let them deal with that. Let them deal with each one individually, because that scenario might crop up. MR. CARR-I've got to address that issue. The problem that you run into is if we were to do a deal with A, B, C Taco, right now, and put them on the site freestanding, that's allowed, all right, part of this amalgamation that I talked to you about is bringing a group of goods and services that a great array of the population wants, so that it would not be, then, unreasonable to come in and ask you to put in a Chinese food take out. MR. TURNER-That's fine, but you're in the business of renting that -36- site, to whoever. MR. CARR-No, absolutely not. MR. TURNER-In a sense. You're going to get tenants in there that you're going to get income from. All right, and if they're viable tenants, you're going to reach out and grab them. Is that correct? MR. CARR- I'm going to say to you, yes, as long as can define viable, because each one of those leases has certain restrictive covenants in it that we have to deal with, okay. We're not going to put in six Rex TV's. We've not going to put in six Olive Gardens, or anything like that, that's not amalgamation, all right, and that's why we still need, that's why it's important to the financial viability of the center that you have the ability to be able to rent it, because you're not going to eat Chinese, I mean, the general public is not going to eat Chinese food every night. They're not going to eat mexican food every night. They're not going to eat Italian food every night. They're not going to eat seafood every night. That's the reason to have all these different pieces there. MR. TURNER-Okay. Let me ask you this question then. When you left the last time, did you feel that when this was granted to you, you had the right to put in two or three fast food restaurants in that Plaza? MR. CARR-Absolutely, yes. MR. TURNER-That's where I disagree. MR. CARR-Maybe what I should do is bring it out to you. We made proposals to Taco Bell, who we were dealing with at that time, Boston Chicken, Pizza Hut, although that was eliminated with the final signing of the Olive Garden lease, because the pizza side was eliminated on that side. However the Pizza Hut Express operation, which is a take out only, all right, would be allowed, based on the covenants in the Olive Garden lease. We did make a proposal to them. There was another food operator that we spoke with, but I personally made the presentation to all the national chains, and without question, we were under the impression that three or four oft h em co u 1 d 1 i vet her e , wit h 0 uta n y pro b 1 em, bas e don the variance that was granted. MR. TURNER-See, don't agree with that. MR. CARR-And I can tell you, Pizza Hut Express, okay, was not going to do a drive through, all right. Boston Chicken, we've been on and off with a drive through four times with them, and right now, I sit here and I say to you, it's off, but tomorrow it could be on. Brueggers is not a drive through, and Taco Bell was. MR. TURNER-But I've got to tell you, when I left there that night, it was my impression that you came to us saying that you had a client, Taco Bell Corp., that wanted to go in that Plaza, and they couldn't go in there because it was not a permitted use in a Plaza Commercial Zone, and that variance was granted on that relief and that relief only for the Taco Bell, period. It was not a blank check. MR. MARTIN-I thought I remember Jon standing there saying that he purposely did not want it that way, in the event that Taco Bell didn't happen, for whatever reason. I thought I remember that, but I'm not sure. I think that resolution, I think, was written purposely, generically, that way. I'm just strictly dealing off recollection. MR. CARR-With all due respect, Mr. Chairman, I've been to the alter too many times with too many tenants that don't happen, and believe me, I can tell you that I would have been sitting there prodding -37- ') ('\ J him or saying something that would not have restricted us to one individual tenant. I mean, when I look at the Olive Garden site that's sitting there occupied now and say, my gosh, we had a signed Red Lobster lease on that site and it never happened, that's what this business is all about, unfortunately. MR. TURNER-Okay. What's the Board's pleasure? What do you want to do with it? MR. CARVIN-I guess I'm in favor of extending it for one year, on a blanket basis. MR. TURNER-All right. One year. MR. THOMAS-I wouldn't go any more than a year. MR. KARPELES-I would go along with that. MR. MARESCO-Yes, I feel comfortable with that. MR. TURNER-Give them one year, and let them come back. MISS HAUSER-As it's written there. MR. TURNER-If they've been this long trying to get a tenant, they might be that long trying to get another one. MR. MARESCO-It's tough to negotiate with. MR. TURNER-Okay. the extension. I'll open the public hearing on the request for PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TURNER-Okay. I would move to extend Use Variance No. 49-1993. MOTION TO EXTEND USE VARIANCE NO. 49-1993 HOWARD CARR RECEIVER FOR QUEENSBURY PLAZA, Introduced by Theodore Turner who moved for its adoption, seconded by Fred Carvin: Based on the resolution of June 23rd, 1993. Strike out, as was indicated, Taco Bell, and this will be granted for a period of one year to run from the 23rd of June, 1994 to the 30th of June 1995. Duly adopted this 25th day of May, 1994, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Menter, Mr. Maresco, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Carvin, Miss Hauser, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Theodore Turner, Chairman --38-