Loading...
1995-07-19 J (] ¡ {: ~ f~1 jo. ~ ~'.:..JàI¡·~i;l QUEENS BURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING JUL Y 19, 1995 INDEX Area. \,/ar ia nce No. 33-1995 Elizabeth Galloway 1 . Area Va)- lance No. 28-1995 Elizabeth Galloway 6. Area Variance 1''-10. 36-1995 Leonardo Lombardo 8. Area Variance No. 43--1995 Leon i"lcCot. t.e)- 17. Area Variance 1\10. 46--1995 Alan M. Perkins 26. c' Variance No. 44-1995 Gi"IRI/Darden Restaurants, Inc. 27. ..;;>.l.gn Area Variance No. 45--1995 Community Workshop Resources 39. Corporation 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 I'll NUTES . --- QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING JUL Y 19, 1995 7=00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT FRED CAF<VIN, CHAIRMAN DAVID MENTER [" IL.LIAM GREEN ROBERT KARPELES THOMAS FORD MEMBERS ABSENT CI,"¡RIS THOMAS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR-JAMES MARTIN PLANNER-SUSAN CIPPERLY STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. CARVIN-I'm going to start a little bit different. We have kind of an Old Business and a New Business. I think what I'd like to do is Area Variance No. 33-1995, Elizabeth Galloway, do this portion first, and then go to Area Variance No. 28-1995, which is the side yard setbacks. NEW BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 33-1995 TYPE: UNLISTED WR-IA CEA ELIZABETH GALLOWAY OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE 17 FITZGERALD ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CREATE ACCESS TO A TOWN ROAD, AS REQUIRED BY SECTION 179-70, BY TRANSFERRING APPROXIMATELY ELEVEN HUNDREDTHS (0.11) ACRE FROM ONE NONCONFORMING LOT TO ANOTHER. RELIEF IS NEEDED FROM SECTION 179-16C, WATERFRONT RESIDENTIAL LOT REQUIREMENTS. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) 7/12/95 TAX MAP NO. 41-1-2 LOT SIZE: 0.24 ACRES SECTION 179-16C, 179-70 KEN GALLOWAY, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 33-1995, Elizabeth Galloway, Meeting Date: July 19, 1995 "Applicant: Elizabeth Galloway Project Location: Fitzgerald Road Proposed Location: Applicant proposes to create an access to a town road for a lakefront parcel be transferring approximately eleven hundredths acre from one nonconforming lot to another, in the form of a 40-foot strip along the road and a 12-foot driveway. Conformance with the Ordinance: Section 179-16C requires lot size of one acre, and lot width of 150 feet. Neither the lakefront or roadside parcel currently conform with the ordinance. The property transfer would increase the area of the lakefront parcel, and decrease the area and width of the roadside parcel. Criteria for considering an Area Variance, according to Chapter 267, Town Law 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would have proper access to her lakefront lot, including access for emergency vehicles. 2. Feasible alternatives: The applicant sought a variance for lack of frontage on a town road, and was advised by the Board that this alternative would be preferable to granting the variance sought. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the ordinance? This does not appear to be substantial. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community? I~o adverse comment has been received'. It does not appear that there would be any negative impact on the neighborhood. 5. Is this difficulty self-created? This difficulty is due to the division of the lots, historically, father than an action of the applicant. Staff Comments and Concerns: Since this exchange is taking place within two pre- - 1 - existing, nonconforming parcels and the roadside parcel has been shown able to support a conforming structure, it does not seem there should be any problems associated with granting this variance. SEQR: Type II, no further action needed." MR. CARVIN-Okay. I~r. Galloway, is there anything that you'd care to add to the application? MR. GALLOWAY-Yes. Since the last meeting, since I had submitted the drawing, we have actually put a septic system in the ground, for the front lot, the lakeside lot, and I've reworked the drawings to show, to better show, what we would like to do, and it's not a whole lot different. It's just that we were able to put a seepage pit in rather than the (lost word) and keep this lot the same, and not have to shift the line up to here. MR. CARVIN-In other words, they're going back here I guess? MS. CIPPERLY-Yes. They had moved the line to here. So the only thing that's different is they're transferring this property. i'1R. CARVIN-Okay. MS. CIPPERLY-So this one's .31, and this one's, what was the original.? MR. GALLOWAY-Well, the only thing that has changed here, this, from here to here, is the back property line for this lot, and we've added just the road, and here's the driveway and the frontage here. I had initially done it the other way, because I felt that it made it, it equaled it out. Mc ::). CIPPERLY-Do you remember what this was in the first place? MR. CARVIN-This one says .35 to .36. MR. GALLOWAY-Well, yes. MS. CIPPERLY-Because I said that you were adding .11 acres to this one. You're adding a little less than that. MR. GALLOWAY-Right. It's going from .24 to point .31. MS. CIPPERLY-So that's .07. MR. GALLOWAY-Yes. MR. CARVIN-This is .36 going to .4, and this one says .35 to .31. MR. MENTER-Are the numbers screwed up? MS. CIPPERLY-I may have, I was looking at the original compared to whatever is on this final map. MR. FOF<D-The front one is four hundredths smaller. The rear is four hundredths larger. MS. CIPPERLY-This one becomes four hundredths larger, right? MR. CARVIN-No, smaller. MR. FORD-Smaller. MS. CIPPERLY-Compared to this. Okay. We're talking two different things. I'm talking about the original parcel that he had came over to here, okay. That was .24. MR. CARVIN-Okay. I see what you're saying. So this should be a larger lot. Yes. - 2 - r MR. GALLOWAY-See, it went to .31 versus .35, the difference being this little section here. MR. CARVIN-So .31, so that's .07 larger. MS. CIPPERLY-So that's this. So you're taking this one. how I arrived at, really, the area of it away from this one, but adding it to MR. CARVIN-So, this one is a negative .07, and this new one is going to be a positive .07. MR. GALLOWAY-The only difference is this wooded area in the future, if this wanted to expand, the septic based on the bedrooms in the new house. here that, is in now, MS. CIPPERLY-If you wanted to expand that, you'd have to come back for another variance, that's all. MR. GALLOWAY-Right, but we have no plans of expanding it. MR. CARVIN-Okay. '" ight here? So this will be your plan, your plot plan, MR. GALLOWAY-Right, and this, in parenthesis, is reference. I'll cross that out if you want. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Does everybody see what we're doing here? All right. Well, the existing lot is a rectangle, okay, and the other lot, obviously, abuts it. So what we're doing is we're adding roughly .07 of an acre from the, I guess this was the larger lot originally. MR. GALLOWAY-Yes, slightly. MR. CARVIN-All right, and adding it to the smaller lot, so that this lot now becomes .07 acres larger. This one becomes .07 acres smaller. MR. KARPELES-So that road is part of the front lot? MR. CARVIN-This road, this lot now becomes this thing, and that gives him the 40 feet on the front, it gives him access by ownership, and not right-of-way, and it still gives this lot frontage and access. MR. KARPELES-What's the difference between these two drawings? MR. CARVIN-The only difference is that they had originally drawn the addition lot line up here, and at this point it's going to remain where it was. MR. GALLOWAY-Basically this, as it's shown here, this is what was discussed at the last meeting, and I thought that I would have to, I was in a hurry to get the drawings in and stuff, and I thought that I would have to provide more septic. When I talked to Mr. Hatin, this is what we came up with here, and this is actually as built, here. So I put this in as reference, for future expansion, should it ever have to occur, but we have no plans of doing that at this time. MR. CARVIN-The applicant does realize that if he did want to add this little chunk, he would have to come back for a variance. MR. GALLOWAY-Right. MR. CARVIN-Yes, okay. That's not in the plans at this point. I'm not going to open up that can of worms. Okay. Does anyone have any questions of the applicant? Is there anything else that you'd care to add? - 3 - MR. GALLOWAY-No. MR. CARVIN-At this point I'd like to open up the public hearing on this particular application. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. MENTER-Okay. This project was before the Warren County Planning Board on 7/12/95 and they met to approve application for an Area Variance to construct a two bedroom one and a half bath with a full basement residence and a one car garage. It was reviewed and the recommendation was that they found there was No County Impact. I also have a petition, which was received on 7/18. It reads as follows: "We the undersigned, neighbors of Elizabeth Galloway, 17 Fitzgerald Road, Queensbury, NY, have no objection to the construction of a new home on her property. As expressed in our letters, copies attached. Further, we have no objection to the variance whereby she asked to deed a 40 foot frontage on Fitzgerald Road with a 12 foot driveway to the lake property. Signed by the following Raymond E. Erb, Joan Erb, Barbara Milne, Joyce Ward, Dorothea Charlebois, Gerald Charlebois, Catherine Doughrety, Eleanora Kim, Hyung Kim, Herb Kane, Margaret Eileen Kane, Florence Jarvis and James Underwood." The following letters were received, also. Dated June 16th, Attention: Christian Thomas, Secretary, Zoning Board of Appeals, "Dear Mr. Thomas: We have no objections to the proposals by Elizabeth Galloway to remove an existing camp and construct a residence at 17 Fitzgerald Road. A year round residence would certainly be an asset to the area. We urge your approval on this matter. Sincerely, Hyung F<. Kim and Eleanora Kim" Another letter to Christian Thomas, Secretary, Zoning Board of Appeals, "In reference to the application submitted to the Board of Appeals by Mrs. Elizabeth Galloway to construct a building at 17 Fit~zgerald Road, Queensbury, Tax Map No. 41-12-WR-1A, we are more than happy to give our approval. The existing building is in very poor condition and not an asset to our neighborhood. A new structure would be most pleasing. Sincerely, Dorothea M. Charlebois and Gerald Charlebois" A letter dated 6/20, to James Martin, Queensbury, NY "Dear Sir: It was brought to our attention that Elizabeth Galloway would like to build a home at her present site on Glen Lake. Elizabeth Galloway has an impeccable character and is an asset to any community. We are proud to have her as a neighbor. Sincerely, Joyce Ward and Richard Ward, residents on Glen Lake, dated June 14, 1995" Another letter dated 6/15: "Mr. Martin: Being a neighbor of Elizabeth Galloway who owns the lake property at 17 Fitzgerald Road, Queensbury, NY, we understand that she has applied for a land variance so that she could remove the existing camp on said land and build a new house. We have no objections to her plans. We feel it would enhance the look of the property as well as raise the property value of the immediate neighbors. We feel this would be good for all concerned. Sincerely, Florence and Dale Jarvis, 35 Fitzgerald Road, Queensbury." A letter dated the 19th of June, 1995 "Dear Mr. Martin: We would like to let you know that we have no objections to the plans of Betty Galloway to build a new house on her property at Glen Lake. In fact, we are very pleased and feel this will be a fine addition to our neighborhood. Sincerely yours, Herb and Eileen Kane" A letter dated June 12, 1995 "Mr. James Martin, Planning Board, Town of Queensbury Dear Mr. Martin: We are the owners of the property immediately to the east of the land owned by Mrs. Elizabeth Galloway. Mrs. Galloway plans to raze the existing camp on this property and to replace it with a year round dwelling. We have seen her plans for this new structure and have no objection to this improvement. Mrs. Galloway has been a good neighbor and friend for more than 25 years and we hope that you can act favorably on her request, so we may enjoy her company for many more years. Sincerely, Raymond E. Erb and Joan M. Erb" Another letter dated June 13, 1995 "Mr. Martin, The Warren County Planning Board Municipal Building, Glens Falls, NY, 12801, - 4 - --- Regarding Elizabeth Galloway Dear Sir: It is my understanding that Elizabeth Galloway has made application to the Planning Board regarding construction on her property at Glen Lake. As the owner of property at 21 Fitzgefald Road, as well as property facing the lake, I have no objection to such construction. Very truly yours, Catherine Doughrety Mrs. B.T. Doughrety June 27, 1995 As previous stated, I have no objection to the construction of a year round home by Elizabeth Galloway, including the variance for a deeded driveway from Fitzgerald Road directly to the lakefront lot as described on the map. Signed Catherine E. Doughrety" That's it. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Again, I will ask for any public comment, if there's one wishing to be heard? PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. CARVIN-Okay. Gentlemen, any questions of the applicant? MR. FORD-Has any further consideration been given to that upper lot and its possible use, or are you focusing your attention just on your building right now? MR. GALLOWAY-We're just focusing on the building. MR. CARVIN-Okay. MR. GREEN-I don't have any problems with it. MR. MENTER-I just want to get it straight, that is seven hundredths of an acre that is being transferred? MR. CARVIN-.07, yes. MR. MENTER-Okay. MR. CARVIN-That appears to be the math, yes. MR. MENTER-My understanding, that's not going to change, other than as a matter of degrees, slight degree, the nonconformity of either lot. MR. CARVIN-As far as I'm concerned, it nonconformity of either lot. It just takes parcel, and gives us two parcels with access by ownership. doesn't change the away a landlocked to the public road MR. FORD-I think it's a good solution and I appreciate their following through on the recommendation. MR. CARVIN-Okay. I would ask for a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 33-1995 ELIZABETH GALLOWAY, Introduced by Fred Carvin who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: The applicant is proposing to create access to a Town road for a lake front parcel by transferring approximately seven hundredths of an acre from one nonconforming lot to another, in the form of a 40 strip along the road and a 12 foot driveway. Section 179- 16C requires lot sizes of one acre and lot width of 150 feet. Neither the lake front or the roadside parcel currently conform with the Ordinance. The benefit to the applicant would be that the applicant would have access to her lakefront lot, including access for emergency vehicles, without resorting to right-of- ways. This access to the public highway would be by right of ownership. There really are no other feasible alternatives that wouldn't require a variance, and this seems to be the best feasible alternative that has been presented. This relief does not appear to be substantial. There is no adverse affects on the - 5 - neighborhood or the community. This difficulty is not self- created, but is rather due to the unusual configurations of the nonconforming lots which were historically drawn. There has been no public opposition and there has been a substantial public support for this project. Since this exchange is taking place within two preexisting nonconforming parcels, and the roadside parcel has been shown to support a conforming structure, I feel that we should move forward and grant this variance. Duly adopted this 19th day of July, 1995, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Green, Mr. Menter, Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Ford, Mr. Carvin NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Thomas MS. CIPPERLY-Fred, did you do the first? MR. CARVIN-No, we did this one first. Now we'll go to the side setbacks. AREA VARIANCE NO. 28-1995 TYPE II WR-IA CEA ELIZABETH GALLOWAY OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE 17 FITZGERALD ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO REMOVE AN EXISTING CAMP AND CONSTRUCT A RESIDENCE, AND SEEKS RELIEF FROM THE SIDE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 179-16, WATERFRONT RESIDENTIAL. RELIEF IS ALSO NEEDED FROM SECTION 179-70, WHICH REQUIRES FORTY (40) FEET OF FRONTAGE ON A TOWN ROAD. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) 6/14/95 TAX MAP NO. 41-1-2 LOT SIZE: 0.24 ACRES SECTION 179-16, 179-70 KEN GALLOWAY, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PF<ESENT MR. CARVIN-Okay. Dave, do you have an updated copy for the record, there, of the blueprint? MR. MENTER-In the file, the one that we just got? MR. CARVIN-Yes. MR. MENTER-Yes. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Just read the tabling, because this has all been entered into the record. MR. MENTER-Okay. "At the Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting, June 21, 1995 There was a motion to table Area Variance No. 28-1995 Elizabeth Galloway, which was Introduced by Fred Carvin who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: In order for the applicant to prepare and present a new plot plan indicating the deeding of a driveway with a 40 foot road front, at road frontage, and also allow the applicant all opportunity to submit any other appropriate variances that are required, as a result of this situation. Duly adopted this 21st day of June, 1995, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Green, Mr. Ford, Mr. Menter, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Carvin NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Maresco" MR. CARVIN-Okay. This we had gone over at the last meeting. Were you at the last meeting, Bob? MR. KARPELES-No. MR. CARVIN-No. applicant? Okay. Did you have any questions of the - 6 - "- - MR. KARPELES-No, I don't. MR. GREEN-Do they still need that second set of relief? MR. CARVIN-No. They've got the 40 feet road frontage now. So all they're asking for now is the relief from the side yard setbacks. Okay. Any questions of the applicant by anyone? Okay. I think I may have closed the public hearing, but I'm going to open it. I'm going to open up the public hearing on this, unless the applicant has anything you want to add to this. MR. GALLOWAY-Just that the new drawing, the site development data applies to both variances. MR. CARVIN-Okay. The proposed house is going to be in the same spot. There's been no change there? MR. GALLOWAY-Yes. MS. CIPPERLY-Right. MR. CARVIN-Still 75 feet back from the lake. MR. GALLOWAY-Seventy-five feet back frbm the lake and the side setbacks are the same as the original planned camp. MR. CARVIN-Okay. I will open up the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. CARVIN-Any questions, gentlemen? MR. KARPELES-How much side setback are we looking for? MR. CARVIN-Lets see, about 14 feet on the south side, and 4 feet on the north side. MR. KARPELES-That's the same as the existing camp. MS. CIPPERLY-Right. MR. CARVIN-The existing camp. Yes. He's just moving it back 75 feet. He's going to need relief of, what, 13.9 on the south side and 4 on the north. So they're going to need 20 from the total of 50, right? MR. KARPELES-32.19 relief, right, from 50 feet. MR. CARVIN-It covers a lot of ground. Okay. So 15.68 on the north side, right? 20 minus 13.9 on the south side, so 6.1 on the south, and how much from the total? MR. KARPELES-32.19, the overall. MS. CIPPERLY-Well, you can either figure 20 on one side and 30 on the other, is what it's supposed to be. MR. CARVIN-All right. So we'll take the 30 minus the 13.9. It's going to be 16.1. MR. KARPELES-16.1 on both sides, right? MR. CAF<VIN-Yes. Well, 15.68 on the north and 16.1 on the south. MS. CIPPERLY-And a total of. - 7 - ') "=c/ MR. KARPELES-32.19. MR. CARVIN-32.19. So you take that away from the 50, right? MR. KARPELES-I got 16.09. MR. GALLOWAY-16.09 on the north and 16.1 on the south, and a total of 32.19. MR. KARPELES-Right. MR. MENTER-I don't have a problem with it. MR. GREEN-I think it's a fine idea. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Then I would ask for a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 28-1995 ELIZABETH GALLOWAY, Introduced by Fred Carvin who moved for its adoption, seconded by David Menter: The applicant is proposing to remove an ~xisting camp and construct a year round residence. The applicant will meet the 75 foot shoreline setback requirement, however seeks relief from Section 179-16, which requires a total of 50 feet in side setbacks with a minimum of 20 feet on one side. The applicant is seeking relief of 16.09 feet on the north side and 16.10 on the south side. The benefit to the applicant by granting this variance would be that the applicant would be able to construct the house that she wants, and the benefit to the community is that she would move it back 75 feet from the lake. Again, there does not appear to be any feasible alternatives that would not require a variance, since the lot is only 50.66 feet wide. Though this relief appears to be substantial, especially on the north side, it matches the current side setbacks of the existing house which will be removed, with the advantage of meeting the 75 foot setback from the shore. By the granting of this variance, there would be no adverse impact on the neighborhood or community and, again, there has been substantial public support for this particular application. Again, this difficulty does not appear to be self-created, as it relates more to the lot size than to the unreasonableness of the project. Duly adopted this 19th day of July, 1995, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Menter, Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Ford, Mr. Green, Mr. Carvin NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Thomas AREA VARIANCE NO. 36-1995 TYPE II HC-IA LEONARDO LOMBARDO OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE NORTH ON ROUTE 9, WEST SIDE OF ROUTE 9 AT LAKE GEORGE TOWN LINE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT AN ADDITION TO AN EXISTING NONCONFORMING RETAIL BUILDING. THE FRONT SETBACK WOULD BE 41.73 FEET. SECTION 179-28, TRAVEL CORRIDOR OVERLAY ZONE, REQUIRES A BUILDING SETBACK OF SEVENTY-FIVE (75) FEET FROM THE EDGE OF THE ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY. SECTION 179-23, HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL REQUIRES A FRONT SETBACK OF FIFTY (50) FEET FROM THE PROPERTY LINE, SO APPLICANT IS SEEKING RELIEF FROM THESE SECTIONS. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) 7/12/95 TAX MAP NO. 33-1- 10, 11, 13 LOT SIZE: 3.851 ACRES SECTION 179-28 RON RUCINSKI, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. CARVIN-I just have one question on that. On that Short Environmental, does any aspect of the action have a current valid permit or approval, and you've indicated Queensbury Planning and Warren County Planning. Do you have current approval from Planning? What is that in reference to? - 8 - '- ..- MR. RUCINSKI-The Planning approval exists for the layout that's shown on Drawing 1, which shows the site plan with 75 foot setback. MR. CARVIN-Okay. So this is an approved plan? MR. RUCINSKI-That is an approved plan. MR. CARVIN-Okay, and this is the plan that you're proposing. MR. RUCINSKI-Correct. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Thank you. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 36-1995, Leonardo Lombardo, Meeting Date: July 19, 1995 "Applicant: Leonardo Lombardo Project Location: Route 9 Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to construct an addition to an existing nonconforming retail building. Conformance with the Ordinance: Section 179-28, Travel Corridor Overlay Zone, requires a building setback of 75 feet from the edge of the road right-of-way. Section 179-23, Highway Commercial zone, requires a front setback of 50 feet from the property line. Applicant proposes a setback of 41.73 feet, so seeks relief from these sections. Criteria for considering an Area Variance, according to Chapter 267, Town Law 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be able to construct the addition in line with the front of the existing building, rather than recessed, and add ten feet in length. 2. Feasible alternatives: Drawings supplied by the applicant show that it is possible to construct a conforming addition. An alternative to the full variance would be to require compliance with the 50-foot Highway Commercial setback, at a minimum. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance? The relief sought is 46 percent of the requirement. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community? Access to the site appears to be better with the addition set back from the existing building. The proposed building is right in line with the access from Route 9, and it seems traffic ingress and egress could be adversely affected. 5. Is this difficulty self-created? While the applicant has had some difficulties in general with this site, stemming from a land-taking for the Northway, this particular instance does not appear due to that situation. This request seems to be the applicant's preference, rather than a site difficulty. Staff Comments and Concerns: It has been shown that it is possible to construction an addition without a variance, and it seems that a non-aligned building would be better in terms of traffic circulation. From an aesthetic standpoint, the setback building would be preferable, as well, rather than one long wall. It should be noted that, since there are now three or more businesses on this site, it qualifies as a business complex and should comply with the sign ordinance, which allows one freestanding sign and one sign for each business. SEOR: Type II, no further action required." MR. CARVIN-Okay. Is there anything that you would, care to add? MR. RUCINSKI-Yes. Some of those issues that were raised by Staff were addressed in the review process by the Planning Board last year. Among those was the question of this access in front of this proposed addition, and as part of this approval, it was agreed that that access would be closed. The problem that my client has with the addition in this location of the 75 foot setback is that it is not visible from the north, until you're opposite the building and well past any possible curb cut, and approaching from the south, it's completely screened by very heavy existing hedge row at the south end of the property, which we agreed to replace, to satisfy the points raised by the Beautification Committee. So we're kind of between a rock and a - 9 - hard place. Yes, we could make it attractive setting it back 75 feet, but nobody could see it. MR. CARVIN-Okay. proposed now? Is this, the red area, is that what is being MR. RUCINSKI-The area outlined in brown is the existing building. This, ignoring this, the dark brown is what was approved by the Planning Board. The dark is what we're now proposing. It just slides the building forward. MR. CARVIN-Okay. So all of that brown area is now out of the picture, so to speak? MR. RUCINSKI-This brown area here is future construction. only been shown on the drawing so that the Planning Board, is the exact same drawing used for the Planning Board. It's been shown to the Planning Board so they knew it was coming. It's this only MR. KARPELES-Yes, but what's the difference between the two? MR. RUCINSKI-Just this corner of the building, approximately what's covered by my thumb, I've moved forward from this scheme to this scheme. The square footage of the addition is the same size. MR. FORD-Has it not also been expanded on the back? MR. RUCINSKI-Well, the rear expansion has been there right along. MR. FORD-I'm concerned with the impact on that well that shows in the. MR. RUCINSKI-Well, in this revised scheme, when we pulled it forward, we made a decision to bring the well indoors, and have it be inside the building, and make provisions for pulling the well if we have to. It actually, by doing that, we actually tightened up the linear footage of frontage exposed from Route 9. It makes the building shorter. MR. GREEN-Which were you going to do, move the well inside or redrill a new one? MR. RUCINSKI-Move the well inside. (lost word) feet, six inch well. That well is, I don't know, MR. CARVIN-So the brown proposed building is still something that may be constructed in the future? MR. RUCINSKI-Yes, but that does not have Planning Board approval. MR. CARVIN-That doesn't. MR. RUCINSKI-That's been shown as a future proposal, shown, it meets the 75 foot setback. I might point out three of the existing buildings violate that setback, as of the right-of-way change, and that even with the variance, there still is a 65 foot setback from the line. and as that all a result p,-oposed pavement, MR. CARVIN-Okay. The restaurant building has been there for quite a while though. Is that correct? MR. RUCINSKI-All three buildings have been there quite a while. MR. CARVIN-Any other questions, gentlemen? MR. MENTER-No, not at this point. MR. CARVIN-Okay. I will open up the public hearing. - 10 - PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. CARVIN-Okay. Gentlemen, any questions. MR. GREEN-You mentioned you were going to close that lower ent.T a nce? MR. RUCINSKI-That's correct. MR. GREEN-So you're basically going to have the one entrance to the north of the T-shirt shop, essentially, and then another one up in front of the restaurant? MR. RUCINSKI-Well, there are two in front of the restaurant now. The agreement with the Planning Board is we would close the southerly entrance now, and when or if the future stores are added, we would reduce the number of entrances to two, from four. So we'll go four now, then three~ in the future, two. MR. CARVIN-Jim, what kind of havoc does this play with the Planning Board, when they approve a plan like this, and then a year or two later, it comes back? I mean, is there ever any correspondence back and forth? I mean, you know what I'm trying to avoid. MR. MAF<TIN-Well, on this specific plan, the basic proposal, as I understand it, is to move the retail space up to a consistent building wall with the other building, and that was done, the plan was developed strictly in compliance with the zoning, and the Planning Board's bound by that. I don't know, in this particular case, that it causes a lot of havoc with the Planning Board, so to speak, or problems for them. They're just simply bound by, they have to require that the 75 foot setback be met. They have no authority over that. Only you would have the authority to provide that relief. It is a little bit in reverse here unusual that the site plan was approved prior to the variance being sought, but it's not wrong, necessarily, to do it this way, I don't think. So I guess in answer to your question, I don't think it really causes any havoc for the Board. MR. CARVIN-What is the timeframe on something like this, once a site plan is approved or a plan is approved? Is there any time, like, we have a year, two years? MR. MARTIN-Yes. It's the same thing, one year, and we usually require, like in your case, the submission of a building permit. That demonstrates action on the approval, within one year. 'o1R. RUCINSKI-"ln the "for what it's worth" department, when we started this project, a year and a half or more ago, the only route on the 75 foot, at least that we were aware of, was hardship. Obviously, we couldn't demonstrate a hardship. We can build it the 75 foot back. Now we're looking at it from, is it a detriment to the community and is it a benefit to the site, that we think it is. Some of the work has been done. A portion of the remodeling work on the existing building has been undertaken and completed, and the sewage disposal system for the expanded building has already been constructed. MR. FORD-Is that what the excavation out back was for? MR. RUCINSKI-That's part of the filling that's associated with the expansion. The approval from the Planning Board last fall was too late for my client to start the rest of the building construction last fall, and because of the nature of his restaurant business, he can't consider doing any construction - 11 - work now until after Labor Day. on. So the schedule is to continue MR. CAF<VIN-Okay. I guess ffiZ problem with something like this is that I'm not comfortable moving buildings around that have been, well, first of all, if they can be built into compliance, but I'm not a traffic expert. I'm not a Planning Board member, and I'm not qui te sure what they look at ~,,¡hen they look at, i f ~,,¡e move that ahead, I mean, Staff indicates that it could cause some difficulties for traffic. Now you've indicated that you're going to close that off, but where does that leave us, I guess. At least I haven't heard a timeframe that if the building comes forward, that gets closed off. MR. RUCINSKI-I'm at a disadvantage, here. You've got a Staff report that I haven't seen until it was read tonight. The Planning Board still has their shot at that. They still have to approve this revision. If they feel it's creating a traffic problem, they can still deny the site plan. MR. CARVIN-Okay. So this does have to go back to Planning. MR. MARTIN-It does need a modification from the it's an overriding consideration, then the site denied, the modification would be denied. Board, but plan would if be MR. CARVIN-This would probably be subject to site plan, would it, Jim'? MR. MAF<TIN-Yes. Modification. It is an approved site plan. Only the Planning Board can authorize a change to that approved sit,e plan. MR. CARVIN-All we're addressing is just the setback. words, he's asking relief of about nine feet, if my somewhat correct. In other math is MR. MARTIN-You would be permitting him to go out to that distance, and the Planning Board would have the authority to deny that or maybe have it somewhere in between the 75 and whatever relief you grant. MR. MENTER-My concern would be that it seems like there's a certain symmetry to this building with both the new sections, both the proposed new sections set back, and it seems like what we're going to end up with is a 270 foot long building up that close to the road, because I'm sure that it's going to start to look, the thing to do is going to be to move the larger proposed new section which hasn't been approved yet, up to meet the existing front that we're creating by bringing up this other new ::;:ect,ion. MR. RUCINSKI-No, we're not requesting that. MR. MENTER-I know you're not requesting that. MR. RUCINSKI-And we don't plan on requesting that, because we want the parking that we have in front of that building, there's a large existing green space with very nice pine trees on it in front of what is now the miniature golf area, and we want to retain that green space. So we want this middle portion, let's call it the middle portion of the future complex, set back so we've got some space fo)- parking in front of it, and we get our symmetry by having a chunk of building setting out that is visible, a chunk in the middle that is set back that is less visible, and then another chunk of building set forward, as opposed to having this one little piece sitting well back, that's not very visible at all. MR. MENTER-And I see reference to signs here. IrJhat is the - 12 - "-...- current plan, as far as signage goes? MR. RUCINSKI-The Planning Board left it that those signs could remain as nonconforming signs, but that at some time in the future the)i' d have to come into conformance with the Ordi na nce . MR. FORD-Sir, would you address the issue of possibly coming into compliance with the 50 foot highway setback, rather than the 75 foot. How would that impact? MR. RUCINSKI-The 50's a lot better than the 75, in terms of visibility. Obviously, we would prefer to have it in line, but if the 50 foot was deemed appropriate by this Board. MR. MARTIN-The other thing to bear in mind is the intent behind the 75 foot highway corridor setback was primarily the provision of adequate space, should the highway need to be widened, and I think that's already been accomplished in this instance. That's why DOT went through and purchased the amount of right-of-way they did, how many years ago was it, Ron? MR. RUCINSKI-In the 70's, I believe. MR. MARTIN-I think they were trying to provide for the future right-of-way, should they need it, for widening of Route 9 in that area. So adequate right-of-way already exists for widening of that route without any additional taking. I'd just point that out. It's unusual that we see that, but in this particular section of the road, it appears that that's already been accomplished. MR. KARPELES-Well, it keeps farther south we go, right, It's not parallel. getting closer to because it's at a the road, the ~Jreater angle. MR. RUCINSKI-Yes. It gets further from the property line and closer to the pavement. MR. KARPELES-What's the intended use for this building? MR. RUCINSKI-Retail. MR. KARPELES-Not anything that's been determined so far? MR. RUCINSKI-No, the tenant hasn't been identified. MR. CARVIN-But this would be a separate retail operation? Would it.? MR. RUCINSKI-Yes. The idea of this whole expansion, including the addition to the rear, where there lS now one shop. Well, there used to be two shops, but at the moment it's one shop. We would now have three shops that (lost words). I should say three maps. That would depend on how much space the tenant might want. MR. CARVIN-This is a 75 foot setback, is it? MR. MARTIN-Yes, 75. here. The highway corridor setback is in place MR. CARVIN-So we're looking at, I thought it was only going to be six or eight feet, but it's actually going to be about t.hirty some odd feet relief. Okay. Any other questions, gentlemen? MR. MENTER-I haven't really reached a trying to weigh it out here. As I with an attempt to bring the whole benefit in bringing this piece up. commercial setback of 50 foot, would feet, 8? decision yet. I'm kind of said, I would be concerned building up. I can see a The 50 foot, using the put you back in, what, 10 - 13 - '--- MR. RUCINSKI-Yes, 8.27 feet. I did my arithematic. We can live with that. MR. GREEN-I think I'm right along here with Dave, that I wouldn't want to see the other end come up. If we were to allow this, we would want to make sure that that would not be an option in the future, and I would want to make sure that front access was going to be closed also. I went in and out of there a couple of times, and with it right up there, I don't think it would work too well, but if that was closed, that would be all right. I wouldn't have a problem with it, setting it back 50 feet. MR. KARPELES-I guess I could go along with the 50 feet MR. FORD-I think the surest way of ensuring that any future expansion not be 42 feet back would be to not grant the variance, but I could see going with that 50 foot setback of the Highway Commercial setback. I think that accomplishes what we want to do, and at the same time, it gives improved visibility over what there would be if it were back with the original plan. We, obviously, are going to need that site plan review, however. Right? MR. CARVIN-Well, it would have to go back to Planning. MR. RUCINSKI-If it would make the Board more comfortable, I don't see a problem with the Board indicating, as part of that approval of the 50 foot setback, that any expansion beyond this must conform with the 75 feet. MR. CARVIN-I don't know if we can do that. MR. GREEN-He would have to come back for a variance anyway. MR. CARVIN-Yes. I don't think there's any way we could ever make that part of a motion. I'm on the horns of a dilemma here, like the rest of you gentlemen, but I kind of go right back to the five criteria here, benefit to the applicant. All right. The only benefit that I can see is that he moves the building forward and he adds roughly 10 feet in length. MR. RUCINSKI-The building doesn't get longer. MR. CARVIN-Okay, but it moves forward, right? MR. RUCINSKI-It moves forward and, actually, it gets shorter, because we're setting it on top of a well. MR. CARVIN-Okay. There are feasible alternatives, however, that could be conforming. Is the relief substantial? Well, you're looking at 46 percent, I guess, if the number is correct. I think that is fairly substantial. The impact on the neighborhood or community. Not being a Planning Board member, they indicate that there could be an affect on traffic, although the applicant indicates that he would be willing to address that, and I think that would be addressed by the Planning Board, and is this difficulty self-created. Yes. I think this is definitely a self-created situation. This is not something that is a fault of the variance or the lot or anything else. This is just a preference to move the building forward, because the applicant does have a plan that has been approved that is in compliance. MR. RUCINSKI-Again, the whole problem of setback violations occurs because of a State taking, which my client, he didn't own the property when it occurred, and in fact, the 75 foot overlay, I believe, came into effect after these buildings were built. The 46 percent sounds horrendous if you apply it to the 75 feet, in terms of depth. If you applied it to the amount of frontage involved, where this building is 36 feet wide, or something like that, and the entire frontage along Route 9 is in the - 14 - ~ ~ neighborhood of 1,000. It's not very significant. MR. CARVIN-Okay. MR. FORD-I have a question for you. On the plan it calls for removing existing pavement. Would you address that? MR. RUCINSKI-Again, the drawing that you're looking at is the drawing that was approved by the Planning Board last fall, with all of the conditions that were incorporated at that time, including removing some pavement in certain locations to increase green space, to close that curb cut, and certain other things that we agreed to improve the appearance of the property from Route 9. MR. CARVIN-Okay. The Highway Commercial zone requires a front setback of 50 feet, and what, again, I want to make sure that I'm understanding this. Why would we grant it from a 50 feet and not the 75 feet? Is this a Highway Commercial or is this a, what zone is this? MR. MARTIN-The Ordinance calls for zone that pushes the requirement up that particular Section. a highway 75 feet. corridor overlay I'll try and find MR. CARVIN-179-28? MR. MARTIN-Yes, Travel Corridor Overlay. MR. GREEN-Didn't you say, though, the 75 feet was essentially to give the State or whoever owns the road room to pick up land if needed? MR. MARTIN-Correct. MR. GREEN-But that land has already been picked up, in this case, in theory? MR. RUCINSKI-Yes. MR. MARTIN-Well, it's stated in your purpose. If you read the "Purpose" Section of 179-28, "The Town of Queensbury realizes that as the town and the region continues to grow, the need for improved local arterial roads will become important to the movement of traffic within the Town of Queensbury. In order to maintain the rural character along these roadways and/or to allow widening of these roadways in the future, increased setbacks for new construction has been established along the major regional arterials in the town." MR. CARVIN-Well, let me ask you this, Jim. You just underwent a big survey out there on 149. I mean, we really don't know what the State is going to do with 149 if they make that a. MRK MARTIN-Yes, it's still in a, yesK MR. CARVIN-A state of flux. I mean, it's not an unreasonable assumption that at some point because of that location, it isn't that far off, and if they were to put a major road in there, that we could see the state putting in a four lane highway up through there, right, conceivably. MR. MARTIN-Yes. Certainly, that, with the Great Escape shopping center there. I use, and there may be even installation of right hand know, where they call for a area. at some point, you're going to see and things on Route 9, and the other think you continue to see increased things of a short term nature, like turn lanes at the intersections, you widening of the pavement through that - 15 - MR. CARVIN-See, the visibility argument, I find that there was no problem and there is no problem. Everybody thinks they want to be more visible, and as a result, they want signs and flags and flares and anything else. So that area is a highly visible area. I don't have a real challenge with the visibility. I guess I still have a hard time, where we have an approved situation that is in compliance, and We'1"e actually making it out of compliance, on a major highway. MR. KARPELES-I think you're right. MR. CARVIN-And I just think we might be opening up more of a can of worms in the future, because we do have something that's definitely in compliance now. That's m.:t.. feeling. I would like to point out that we only have five members. So in order for us to move ahead, we will need at least four guys on one side or the other. Otherwise, I would move to table these applications, if you think that there is going to be a situation where we won't be able to get a consensus. So, having said that, if there are no other questions or comments, I would ask for a motion. MR. RUCINSKI-Addressing your concerns, as far as the expansion of the roadway, at the 50 foot setback drawing, there would be about 75 feet between the addition and the pavement, and the pavement at that point is already three lane. MR. CARVIN-Yes, I know that's three lanes up there now, and they move right along. Again, I would ask for a motion either to approve or deny, or to table if you don't think we can get an approval or denial. Does anybody want to make one for approval? MR. GREEN-I, personally, still don't have as much concern about it as you do. I understand your line of logic, but it doesn't bother me as much. I would still tend to go along with the 50 feet, and you can see how the rest of them feel. I'm certain that I think you've convinced enough, at least one other person, that to approve it would not probably pass at this point. So I'm not going to do that. MR. MENTER-At this point, I really do have concerns about that whole piece of property, and I think that. MR. RUCINSKI-May I suggest you table it. We're on the agenda, conditionally on the agenda, for the Planning Board next week. We could appear at the Planning Board and come back to you at your next meeting with an opinion from the Planning Board. Is that feasible to you? MR. MARTIN-Yes. MR. CARVIN-Do you want to do that? Would you gentlemen feel better, if we put this back to the Planning Board? MR. MAF<TIN-I think the Planning Board, as a practical matter, would probably appreciate that, also. MR. CARVIN-Okay. I don't have a problem Planning Board, because as I said, I'm not if they look at the revised plan. The docket is loaded full here, isn't it? sending this to the a Planning Board, and only problem is, our MR. MARTIN-When were you shooting for for a date for the Planning Board? MR. CAF<VIN-Well, he says they're on the docket for next week. MR. MARTIN-And haven't we had a couple of cancellations? MS. CIPPERLY-They can't grant a modification until the variance is granted. - 16 - ~y , MR. MARTIN-Right. That's true. MR. CARVIN-I think this would have to be put off until August, I mean, if we're going to send it off to Planning. So we really can't put it into July. MR. MARTIN-We can get the Planning Board discussion, I think, out of the way next week, but I think it really might be into August before it comes back before this Board. It's not too bad. The way it works out, August 16th is the first Zoning Board meeting in August, the way the dates fall. MS. CIPPERLY-And they wouldn't have to go back to Warren County. MR. MARTIN-They wouldn't have to go back to Warren County. MR. FORD-We're not holding up construction by waiting until Augl..H:st . MR. RUCINSKI-Well, that's really our outer limit for construction, because we want to break ground right after Labor Day, and I can't complete construction drawings or apply for a building permit until I know where the building is going. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Then I would move to table. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 36-1995 LEONARDO LOMBARDO, Introduced by Fred Carvin who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas FOì"d: Referring this application, and the proposed reV1Slons to the approved Planning Board plan, back to the Planning Board for their opinion, as to any impact that traffic flow, parking, or lot layout, the proposed changes might have, and I would table this matter for no longer than 60 days, which is our normal tabling time frame. Duly adopted this 19th day of July, 1995, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Green, Mr. Menter, Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Ford, Mr. Carvin NOES: 1'\ or~E ABSENT: Mr. Thomas AREA VARIANCE NO. 43-1995 TYPE: UNLISTED SR-1A LEON MC COTTER OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE 16 RYAN AVENUE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO SUBDIVIDE A 5.22 ACRE PARCEL IN A SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL l-ACRE ZONE. AND PROPOSES PUBLIC ROAD FRONTAGE OF 21.18 FEET FOR EACH LOT. SO SEEKS RELIEF FROM SECTION 179-70. WHICH REQUIRES FORTY (40) FEET OF FRONTAGE ON A PUBLIC STREET. TAX MAP NO. 134-1-1 LOT SIZE: 5.22 ACRES SECTION 179-70 LEON MCCOTTER, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 43-1995, Leon Mc Cotter, Meeting Date: July 19, 1995 "Applicant: Leon McCotter Project Location: 16 Ryan Avenue Proposed Project: 16 Ryan Avenue Proposed Project: Applicant proposed to subdivide a 5.22 acre parcel into two lots with conforming acreage and width. Conformance with the Ordinance: Section 179-70 requires 40 feet of frontage on a Town road for a conforming lot. Applicant is proposing 21.18 feet frontage per lot. Staff Comments and Concerns: There does not appear to be a detriment to the community involved, and the applicant would benefit by being able to subdivide this property, which could be considered unique in its configuration. SEQR: Type II, no further action required." - 17 - A } ,\ 'ç./ MR. CARVIN-Okay. Would you care to add anything, Mr. McCotter? Okay. I have a question. Can you show me exactly what you're looking to do here? I've got your map and I think I understand what you're looking to do, but if you could come up here and maybe show the Board. I think there is, I know I have some confusion, and Mr. Ford has indicated he's also confused. MR. MCCOTTER-I have a buyer for the house. He doesn't want the whole thing. So what I want to do is (lost word) this lot. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Well, my question is, I see a line here that you're coming down, I guess, the center, all right, that you want roughly 22 feet here and 22 feet here. All right. What happens to this section? Is this part of this lot? MR. MCCOTTER-Yes. This'll be part of that lot. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Well, my question is, if you were to draw a line here, from here to here, you both would have your frontage. Do you see what I'm saying? Because if this road extends, that's more than 40 feet. MS. CIPPERLY-That's just a driveway. MR. MCCOTTER-The end of the street is right here. MR. KARPELES-Yes, you'd have to extend the road. MR. MCCOTTER-You'd have to extend the road down there, if you were going to do that. MR. KARPELES-Can we do that? MS. CIPPERLY-The Town would have to. MR. CARVIN-What's the problem? I mean, if he just drops a line here, he's in conformance, and this becomes the Town road, or this becomes, because this is a right of way. MR. KARPELES-Can he build the road and have the Town take it over? MR. CARVIN-I don't know what distance we're talking here, but it seems to me that if you just make your lot adjustment here, we're out of here. MS. CIPPERLY-And where would his lot frontage be? MR. CARVIN-His lot frontage would be here. MS. CIPPERLY-How about for this one? MR. CARVIN-It would be right in here, or right here, because this is the other side of the lot, or this, yes, I'm assuming that this is 40 feet. MR. KARPELES-This isn't a right-of-way. This is actually owned by Niagara Mohawk. MR. MCCOTTER-Right. MR. CARVIN-This is a right-of-way across. That's what I'm saying. I'm looking at this, and I'm seeing a separate parcel, but then I'm seeing this bigger parcel. So, I guess what I'm saying is, will we end up with three parcels if we do it this way, or is this parcel actually part of this parcel? MR. MCCOTTER-No. What I'm proposing is, this 21 foot and the rest of this will all go with that. Then we'll be just one lot. - 18 - ',-, MR. CARVIN-Yes, but I mean, is this ownership, or is this just Niagara Mohawk Power right-of-way? MR. MCCOTTER-That's ownership. MR. FORD-If that's ownership, then that's already an island. MR. CARVIN-What I'm saying is that this is part, here, bu.t if he puts it there, he's creating a third lot. MS. CIPPERLY-What he's saying is he already owns two lots, is what it looks like you're saying. MR. CARVIN-Yes. He does. I mean, this is the lot line to the existing, and what he's doing is he's lopping this off, and, I mean, I'm looking at it, well, fine, we've got one lot that consists of this little triangle here. We have this lot, if this is ownership, that consists here, and then we have the third lot, and I'm not quite sure we can create the little lot. Me :::::>. CIPPERLY-I thought this was owned. MR. CARVIN-Well, that's why, I see a 40 foot crossing easement. MR. MCCOTTER-This is just a right-of-way. MR. CARVIN-Well, this is a landlocked parcel with just a right- of-way, and, in essence, we would be creating a third nonconforming lot, and that's why I was going to say, I mean, if we're going to create a nonconforming lot. I mean, I'm not sure, if this is going to be considered, well, fine, drop your line there and they've both got their frontage. MS. CIPPERLY-Yes. I was under the impression, I guess, that that was an owner owned strip. MR. CARVIN-I mean, we're not talking a metropolitan area here. I mean, I don't have a problem with the application. I'm just trying to find the best way out of here. MS. CIPPERLY-Is there any way to get in from? MR. MCCOTTER-No. That's a wooded lot. MR. MENTER-I don't create anything up frontages. t.hink, changing here. You.'re that, you're not going to not going create t.o two MR. CARVIN-This one still won't have any frontage. MR. FORD-And you've got that little triangle. MR. CARVIN-So, I mean, what are we here for? Do you know what I'm saying? Because you might as well keep this lot., because if you're selling this back lot. there's no way to get to it. MR. MCCOTTER-Well, no. I'm not selling this at the present time. I've got a buyer that wants a house, and he only wants the two and a half acres on this side. MR. CARVIN-A nd I guess that' ~s what L:.m. say i ng is that. MR. GREEN-If you can get. the Town to build the road, or whatever. MR. MENTER-Even so, there's still no access here. There's only access here. (lost word) put the road all the way to here. MR. KARPELES-Unless they came all the way through Niagara Mohawk's property. - 19 - MR. CARVIN-Well, I mean, this one might never have frontage, but this is just going to have a right-of-way. MR. MCCOTTER-Right. MR. KARPELES-Well, unless they built a road through here. MR. CARVIN-I know what anywhere. I don't think still don't understand. you're doing, but it's it's getting where you not getting wa nt to go. I MS. CIPPERLY-So it's not all one lot on one deed. MR. MCCOTTER-Yes. This is all one deed, at the present time. MS. CIPPERLY-But they're probably two lot descriptions on it, right? MR. MENTER-When did Niagara Mohawk? MR. MCCOTTER-Niagara Mohawk used to own this, and this little piece here, and, I don't know, five years ago or something I bought this, and put my house down there. I built this house. Now my wife passed away. Circumstances changed. I want to sell the house. A guy wants to buy this, but he can't afford to buy all of it. So this is what I'm trying to do is have access to this lot. MS. CIPPERLY-Even if a Town road came to be, they still wouldn't have frontage on a Town road. 1'1R. CAF<VIN-No. MR. GREEN-No. There's no way to give that lot. MR. FORD-You've got to come all the way to this side of the t",Hagara Mohawk. MR. CARVIN-But the only thing would be is that he would have access to the right-of-way across. 1'1F<. GREEN-Right. MR. CARVIN-Again, I guess my question is, can we actually create this little triangle, because, theoretically, I mean, this doesn't really belong to this. MR. MENTER-Sir, right now, is it described as two properties? MR. MCCOTTER-No, it's all in one piece. MR. MENTER-Is it one number? MR. MCCOTTER-Yes. The surveyor split these numbers up here for this purpose, but it is all one number right now. It's all one deed. MR. FORD-When was that right-of-way, the easement, conveyed to you? MR. MCCOTTER-I don't know, maybe five years ago. MR. KARPELES-Well, this is really all one lot, then. This could be one lot and this could be one lot. MR. CARVIN-Yes, but this is a landlocked lot. MR. KARPELES-Yes, but it still could be one lot. MR. GREEN-Does the Niagara Mohawk line through it, call it, if - 20 - ---- ../ you call this and this one lot, irregardless of this, then he's got the frontage. MR. MENTER-If you call those one lot, the triangle plus number two, as well, but he's still, the road comes down. MR. GREEN-Well, then we'd move the line over to where Fred wanted, over here. MR. MENTER-Right. Okay. MR. GREEN-Then bring the road down to here. MR. CARVIN-This is what I think we need to get the Town. I mean, if this becomes a dedicated. MR. GREEN-If you can get the Town to take and call this their road, then that solves the problem. MR. CARVIN-How far is this? here? What distance are we talking to, MR. MCCOTTER-Sixty feet. MR. MENTER-59.8. MR. CARVIN-I mean, he's got the 40 feet on a Town road here, if you can call Ryan Ave. a Town road, but I guess my suggestion is, fine. If we can bring the road in the 60 feet here, and he drops his lot line there, that way both sides have got 40 feet on a TOIrJ1l road. MR. MENTER-Both sides meaning where? MR. CARVIN-Well, this lot, because this is a right-of-way of 40 feet across here. All right. So there's your 40 feet on, with this lot, somehow. I mean, if you want to use the right-of-way. MR. MARTIN-Who extends that road? MR. CARVIN-Well, either the applicant can put a road in, and then, I don't know. You tell me. MR. FORD-Does a right-of-way, 40 foot, constitute frontage? It doesn't, does it? MR. MARTIN-It's e:< ists inhere. typically been ownership. Right? Right now, this gap MR. CARVIN-No. This is part of the lot. MR. MARTIN-That's what I mean, the lot is there. MR. CARVIN-Yes, and this whole thing is considered one lot, with this running down the middle. This is not considered two lots, and what he wants to do is he wants to sell this, keep this, but if he does that, then he has no frontage. MR. MARTIN-It's the responsibility of the subdivider to provide the road. MR. KARPELES-Yes. He'd have to build the road, I guess. MR. MARTIN-Right. The Town won't build the road. MR. GREEN-Build the road and then give it to the Town. MR. MARTIN-Right. You'd dedicate it to the Town after you build it, and that's how long, that distance right here? - 21 - MR. MCCOTTER-Sixty feet. MR. CARVIN-Sixty feet. MR. MARTIN-To build a road to Town standard, sixty feet in length. Any new road, any new dedication of road. MR. GREEN-So you're going to have a really nice piece of sixty foot road on the end of this little. MR. MARTIN-Yes, about $6,000. MR. KARPELES-For the 60 feet? MR. MENTER-Yes. You're probably right. MR. MARTIN-It's about $100 a foot, as a general rule. MR. CARVIN-But on the other hand, if we go this direction, do we create a third lot? MR. MARTIN-By, what direction is that? MR. CARVIN-Well, in other words, if we split the difference, right up the center, then this lot now has 21 feet. This little lot has 21 feet, but I guess they would have 21 feet to the 40 foot right-of-way. He would have the access, right? MR. MARTIN-Yes. MR. GREEN-Well, that little lot is considered part of Lot Two. MR. CARVIN-But do you know what I'm saying? In other words, does this create a third lot? I don't know. MR. MARTIN-No, not if it's all deeded together. MR. GREEN-The little triangle is always going to be part of the other half. MR. MARTIN-It will always be part of Lot stipulated to be structured that way. That is can tell you, though, it's the subdivider's provlde the road. Two. It could be a peculiar one. I responsibility to MR. MENTER-Yes. MR. CARVIN-The trouble is or whatever it is there. to put a driveway into a build down in here? here, this reminds me of Wilson Road, Is 21 feet going to be enough for him right-of-way? Are you intending to MR. MCCOTTER-Not at the time, not at the present time. No. I don't plan on doing anything with it, but I would like access to it. MR. CARVIN-Okay, because this is two acres. MR. MCCOTTER-Yes. There's about two and a half acres there. MR. CARVIN-What's the criteria for residence here? Is it one acre? So you could, technically, put two houses back in there. MR. MCCOTTER-Yes, but really you can't because it's part of (lost word) and you could only put one house on it, really. To be realistic about it, all you could put was one house on it. MR. GREEN-Since we're already lowering the access to it to 21 feet, you don't want to create a lot of traffic. - 22 - '- ---- MR. MCCOTTER-Right. I can live with that, because, realistically, one house on there would be enough. Really. MR. CARVIN-We don't have frontage on a right-of-way, do we? MR. MCCOTTER-No. It's always been ownership, and I think it's wise to maintain that standard, and if you want to give relief from that, fine, but. MR. FORD-Ryan Ave. actually ends right there. MR. MARTIN-The Town maintains and plows up to that point? MR. MCCOTTER-Just up to that. Yes. MS. CIPPERLY-These currently have two separate tax map numbers. This little map down here. MR. MARTIN-You have one deed on this, on the whole property? MR. MCCOTTER-One deed, yes. MR. MARTIN-It's one lot, for our purposes. MS. CIPPERLY-Well, you can have two lots on one deed, also. MR. MARTIN-Do you have same deed? I mean, is two descriptions of these parcels there like Parcel One, Parcel Two? in the MR. MCCOTTER-No. MR. MARTIN-It's all referred to as one parcel? MR. MCCOTTER-Yes. Way back, they were taxed separately. Way back. Then they combined them all into one. MR. MARTIN-Is this all flat in here, I assume? MR. MCCOTTER-No, probably from here back here it's fill. MR. FORD-Yes, it drops off. MR. MCCOTTER-It drops off there. MR. MARTIN-I mean, there's no problem with access for vehicles in this area, emergency vehicles or anything like that? MR. MCCOTTER-No. MR. CARVIN-I don't see any alternative but doing it this way. MR. MARTIN-That's a fairly unique situation there, and I don't think it's unreasonable, with a two lot subdivision, to make the subdivider put a road in there. MR. CARVIN-As long as we're not going to be creating a third lot here. Lets do it that way. Lets open up the public hearing, and see what they say. Okay. Anybody else have any questions on this, gentlemen of the applicant? All right. I'm going to open up the public hearing on this particular application. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED LOUISE BALTAZAR MRS. BALTAZAR-I was just wondering, we're neighbors. We want to know why he wants 21.18, would that affect our street? MR. CARVIN-It should have no effect on the street. - 23 - MRS. BALTAZAR-My name is Louise Baltazar, and I live at 7 Ryan Avenue, and Mrs. Hermance, she's 14, and Mary Sue, 4 Ryan Avenue. MR. CARVIN-Okay. can show you, or Well, if you want to come up here, I think we kind of show you, what our dilemma is. MS. CIPPERLY-I spoke, today, think some of the concern is be built back there, that something that would really (~venue . with another neighbor, too, and I that more than one more house would there would be a subdivision or create a lot of traffic on Ryan MR. CAF<VIN-Yes. Okay. The lot as it exists right now is halved by Niagara Mohawk, in other words, that there's two parts here. This one lot does have a 40 foot front on a Town road, which is what the Ordinance calls for, okay. So it's in compliance. Well, what Mr. McCotter is proposing to do is to sell this section, okay. Well, if he does that, then this section will not have a 40 foot frontage on the highway here, or the Town road. So what he is suggesting is that he would split the 42 feet that he has into two 21 pieces, so that this one would have 21 feet access to this road, and this one would have 21 feet access to this road. So that, unfortunately, the only way to get to this parcel is across a 40 foot right-of-way. See, so that if he doesn't get the relief, this section here becomes a landlocked parcel. One of the suggestions that ¡ made was to draw the line here and extend the road, but that is a pretty expensive proposition. That's going to cost, probably, $5, $6, $7,000, just as a rough estimate. If they were to extend the road, and draw the line here, then both these folks would have the 40 feet, which is in compliance, but the cost is kind of prohibitive, you know, to put a 60, 70 foot, in other words, the applicant would have to do that. It has no effect. I mean, the only affect, and we can address that, if that is a concern, is that this is a two acre parcel down here, and by Ordinance, theoretically, two houses could be constructed back here, but again, Mr. McCotter has indicated that this remaining portion is pretty difficult to build on. So it's probably an unlikely situation, and I think the opinion of the Board is that we can probably condition this variance that only one additional house be built back on that two acres. So that you won't end up with a 13 house subdivision. First of all, it wouldn't be in compliance. The most that you could have back there is basically two houses, and that, according to the applicant, is unlikely, and I don't know the lay of the land, because I didn't go back in there, but that doesn't appear to be a very feasible situation anyway. MR. MCCOTTER-I would agree to, put it in there. There would only be one house there. MR. CARVIN-Just one house. That's no problem? Okay. MR. MCCOTTER-I would agree to that. MR. CARVIN-We can appreciate your concern. That's a very viable concern. We appreciate the input. Unfortunately, this is probably the best solution to give everybody what we need here. MRS. BALTAZAR-Okay. Thank you. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Sure. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. CARVIN-Okay. Gentlemen? MR. FORD-I think we need an Superintendent to determine how far sure, from this map, that it even existing property. opinion from the Highway Ryan Avenue extends. I'm not extends to a frontage on the - 24 - '- -- MR. MARTIN-It might be well served to do that, to make sure that any development on those lots would, in fact, be served by a Town road. So that we at least have that 40 foot of frontage in place on F-<yan Avenue. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Who does that? The applicant, the Town? Do we go out and measure this? MR. MARTIN-It's just really basically inquiring of Paul Naylor and making sure that, in fact, there is frontage here to service this property or these parcels. We've done it in the past, the Staff has, in similar situations. MR. CARVIN-Okay. pleasu)"e? As Mr. Turner used to say, what's your MR. GREEN-Probably we'd have to table it, until they get a review out of it? See, if there's a frontage on it or not? Or can we approve it subject to their confirmation that there is 40 foot of 'hontage? MR. CARVIN-I don't know. MR. MARTIN-You could do it subject to confirmation. certain that you have adequate frontage there, but I to. I'm fa,irl)/ would like MR. CARVIN-I guess I'm of the opinion that we could, if this is the solution that we're going to come to, if there is no other viable solution, and if this is something that the Board feels comfortable with, assuming that we do have, you know, the frontage, I think we could probably pass that. We could move on this. If we table this, we won't see this until August again. MR. GREEN-I think we can just put a condition that there is. MR. KARPELES-It looks like it goes to the property. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Is everybody comfortable with that? MR. MENTER-I don't see an alternative. MR. KARPELES-I don't either. MR. CARVIN-All right, then I'd ask for a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 43-1995 LEON MC COTTER, Introduced by William Green who moved for its adoption, seconded by David l"'tenter: Applicant proposes to subdivide a 5.22 acre parcel into two lots with conforming acreage within each lot. Section 179-70 requires 40 feet of frontage on a Town road for each conforming lot. Due to lot configurations and a Niagara Mohawk Power parcel through the middle of the existing lot, the applicant is proposing 21.18 feet of frontage per lot. The applicant would need relief from Section 179-70, which requires the 40 feet of frontage. The relief would be approximately 50 percent for each lot. The benefit to the applicant would be he would be able to subdivide his one lot and keep a minimum of 21.18 feet of frontage for each lot. There does not seem to be any feasible alternatives, other than extending Ryan Ave., which would be quite costly to the subdivider. Fifty percent does seem to be substantial, but there are no other alternatives. After a public hearing, there does not seem to be any public resistance to the applicant, and upon review there does not seem to be any detriment to the neighborhood. There would be two conditions to this motion. One, that there would only be one residence built on the remaining back lot, and that the Town verify that there is, at this point, 40 feet of frontage on Ryan Ave. - 25 - Duly adopted this 19th day of July, 1995, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Menter, Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Ford, Mr. Green, Mr. Carvin r"WES: I\jONE ABSENT: Mr. Thomas MR. CAF<VIN-Okay. I'm going to change the agenda. The next application will be Area Variance No. 46-1995, Alan Perkins. AREA VARIANCE NO. 46-1995 TYPE: UNLISTED SR-1A ALAN M. PERKINS OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE SHERMAN AVENUE TO HOWARD STREET ON RIGHT NEAR NORTHERLY END OF HOWARD STREET APPLICANT PROPOSES TO SUBDIVIDE A 1.81 ACRE PARCEL WITH TWO (2) EXISTING RESIDENCES, MAKING A ONE (1) ACRE AND A 0.81 ACRE PARCEL, AND SEEKS RELIEF FROM THE LOT SIZE REQUIREMENTS OF THE SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL l-ACRE ZONE. TAX MAP NO. 120-1-4 LOT SIZE: 2.28 ACRES SECTION 179-79 LEON STEVES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 46-1995, Alan M. Perkins, Meeting Date: July 19, 1995 "Applicant: Alan M. Perkins Project Location: Howard Street Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to subdivide a 1.81 acre parcel with two existing residences, making a one acre and a 0.81 acre parcel. Conformance with the Ordinance: Section 179-19, Suburban Residential-1A zone, requires one acre for a conforming lot. One of the proposed lots would have .81 acre, so relief of .19 acre is needed. Parcel History: This lot was depicted incorrectly on the tax map, as having 2.28 acres. Based on that information, a second residence, the mobile home, was allowed to be installed. Now that a survey has been done, the correct acreage has proven to be 1.81 acres. Staff comments and concerns: Staff has no problem with this proposal. The existing situation was due to a map error, the amount of relief is relatively small, and there does not appear to be an adverse impact on the neighborhood. SEOR: Unlisted. Short form EAF must be reviewed." MR. STEVES-You've said it all. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Any questions of the applicant? Okay. I will open up the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. CARVIN-Okay. Gentlemen, what are your thoughts? MR. FORD-I, at this point, don't have a problem with this. I've been up there and observed what occurred, and I think that he wanted to subdivide, and was going with an erroneous tax map to work from, and that was unfortunate, but I don't see where it has, in any way, an adverse effect on the neighborhood, with that size lot, and he has maintained the one acre lot, on which he ì·esides. MR. MENTER-I agree. The two sides of it are the fact that there was, that the map was incorrect, but more importantly than that, I don't really see a negative impact from this in any way. MR. KARPELES-I have no problem. MR. GREEN-No problem whatsoever. - 26 - '-" MR. CARVIN-No other questions? I'd ask for a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 46-1995 ALAN M. PERKINS, Introduced by Thomas Ford who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Karpeles: In the matter of the application of Alan M. Perkins of Howard Street, Area Variance No. 46-1995, the applicant proposes to subdivide a 1.81 acre parcel, with two existing residences, making a 1 acre and a 0.81 acre parcel, and seeks relief from Section 179-19, Suburban Residential l-A, which requires one acre for a conforming lot. One of the proposed lots would be eighty- one hundredths of an acre, therefore relief of nineteen hundredths of an acre is sought. This total parcel was depicted incorrectly on the tax map as having 2.28 acres. Based on this information, the second residence, the mobile home, was allowed to be installed. Now that a survey has been completed, the correct acreage has now been proven to be 1.81 acres. I move the approval of the proposed relief on the basis that the relief sought would be a benefit to the applicant and would not interfere with the character of the neighborhood nor would it negatively impact the health, safety or welfare of the community. No adverse comments have been received. There does not appear to be another method feasible to the applicant to pursue, other than the Area Variance. The requested relief of .19 acres is not substantial. The proposed variance will not have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions of the neighborhood or the district. This action is an Unlisted Action, for which the Short Form EAF has been reviewed by the Zoning Board of Appeals, and it showed no environmental impact. It appears the alleged difficulty was self-created, only in that the owner wished to divide the parcel into two building lots. He was working with a tax map which incorrectly listed the total acreage at 2.28 acres. Had that condition actually existed, a variance would not even have been required. No adverse comments have been received. Duly adopted this 19th day of July, 1995, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Green, Mr. Menter, Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Ford, Mr. Carvin NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Thomas SIGN VARIANCE NO. 44-1995 TYPE: UNLISTED PC-IA GMRI/DARDEN RESTAURANTS RED LOBSTER OWNER: ILENE FLAUM GLEN STREET, ROUTE 9, QUEENSBURY PLAZA SECTION 140-6 OF THE SIGN ORDINANCE ALLOWS ONE (1) SIGN, ONE HUNDRED (100) SQUARE FEET IN SIZE FOR EACH BUSINESS IN A BUSINESS COMPLEX. APPLICANT PROPOSES THREE (3) SIGNS, SO SEEKS RELIEF FROM THIS SECTION. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) 7/12/95 TAX MAP NO. 103-1-1.2 LOT SIZE: 12.63 ACRES SECTION 140-6 JON LAPPER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Sign Variance No. 44-1995, GMF<I/Darden Restaurants, Meeting Date: Jul)" 19, 1995 "Applicant: GMRI/Darden Restaurants, Inc. Project Location: Queensbury Plaza Proposed Project: Applicant proposes three wall signs for the Red Lobster restaurant building. Sign A measures 5 x 13 - 65 s.f. Sign B measures 6 x 13 = 78 s.f. Sign C measures 5 x 9 = 45 s.f. Total 188 s.f. Conformance with the Sign Ordinance: Section 140-6 allows one wall sign for each business in a business complex. Section 140-3 lists signs allowed without a permit, as long as they comply with the general regulations of the chapter -- Item J describes 'on-premises signs which are not visible from any public street or adjoining and abutting properties.' This - 27 - ('--- ..-- " ~ appears to apply to Sign B, which is visible only from the Queensbury Plaza stores. Criteria for considering an Area Variance, according to Chapter 267, Town Law 1. Benefit to the applicant: Restaurant signage would be visible from Glen street and Bank Street, as well as Queensbury Plaza. 2. Feasible alternatives: A freestanding sign would provide visibility from Glen Street, but this is not the applicant's preference, nor would it be preferable from a visual standpoint. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the ordinance? The total square footage of signs A and C is 110 square feet, which is ten feet over the allowed signage. Considering the aforementioned situation regarding sign B, the applicant is asking for one additional sign. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community? It does not appear that the additional sign facing Bank Street would have any adverse impact on the neighborhood or the community generally. 5. Is this difficulty self-created? This difficulty appears to be related to the restaurant's location, with its back to the Bank Street access, rather than something self-created. Staff Comments and Concerns: There appears to be a valid reason for the Bank Street signage, although it could be argued that the restaurant itself is quite visible. One other business in the plaza proposed signage on the rear of its building, and was denied. The Red Lobster situation is somewhat different since it is a restaurant rather than a retail store, and the proposed sign is directly adjacent to an access road, not on the rear of the plaza. SEQR: Unlisted Action. Short Form EAF must be reviewed." MR. LAPPER-Good evening. With me tonight is Bill Macrum from Chandler Signs. He's here from San Antonio, Texas to answer any questions that you have. I certainly understand this Board's sensitivity to sign issues, and we feel that this is an extremely unique situation, and we're absolutely asking for minimum relief. The unique thing about these signs that are proposed is that from anyone perspective, you can't see more than one sign. So that at any point on the travel corridor, or even inside the Plaza, you're going to be looking at just one sign, which is far smaller than any 100 square feet, if there was just one large sign on the Glen Street facade, which would be much brighter at night and much more noticeable. The building was designed, which is the new Red Lobster prototype, was designed with the rural, barn like character, which, I know the Planning Board and this Board liked when we were here for site plan review last year, but the result of that with all of the little jigs and jags in the footprint, lS that there's not a flat facade that's an even place to put a sign. It also doesn't necessarily look like a restaurant. It looks like a barn, and this isn't something where you're going to drive by and say, that's what it is. It could be a retail store or warehouse or a barn. We feel that people will not know what it lS without seeing Red Lobster signs from where they're coming from, certainly, people coming off the Northway, people that aren't from the area. The sign that's marked "C", facing Bank StTeet, is for people that enter the Plaza from the back. "B", as Sue mentioned in her Staff Notes, faces the Plaza, and "A" is the only sign that faces Glen StTeet, and that's a pretty small sign for the front of a restaurant this size. BILL MACRUI'1 MR. MACRUM-My name's Bill Macrum, with Chandler Signs in San Antonio. I represent General Mills, that's now Darden Restaurants, as of June 1st, on their signage issues. This particular building is a new prototype. I believe this is Number 10 that they've built, and it's unique in the fact that it's very difficult for us to sign. Typically, we'd rely on pylon signs, or freestanding signs, for Red Lobster Restaurants. With this situation, we understand that we can't do that. What we tried to do is create signage at key points on the building. Again, it's hard to find those on this type of architecture, but in order to address the Route 9 and Queensbury Plaza traffic, as - 28 - '- J well as Bank Street, the 18 inch (lost word) that is represented on the back elevation and on the rear elevation is very small, for building signs. It's in lower case letters. It's about 13 inches. Again, we're not asking for long visibility. We know that traffic is going by that area. All we're trying to do is minimal identification for people to be aware of the fact this is a new Red Lobster Restaurant, and it has a little bit of an identity problem. We spent a long time in development. We were involved in the initial development of the building. We went to Cap Code and looked for some kind of, and how to design this. That was the intent. A lot of the sign areas in different parts of the Country, as a matter of fact, they've put fish, that's why we could have freestanding pylon signs. Typically, they always would like to have a sign at their entrance, as you go into the restaurant and that, in itself, will address the Route 9. The back side is an area for sign that is strictly designed from the Queensbury Plaza factor, and then on "C", which is a rear elevation, just designed for Bank Street. I think, as John said, as you're driving on that road, I drove it again today, it's not an overkill. You cannot see the sign, except that, as a matter of fact, if you're heading, I guess northbound, you're parallel to the building before you see the front side, and then when you're at Queensbury Plaza, you can't see the other two ele\/ations. On Bank Street, ¡-'au just see "c" here, ~'Jhich is (lost words) elevation. All the signs, they're individual letters. They're exposed neon. All the transformers and everything are concealed behind the (lost word). The area behind it is the building. There are no pins, no anything else. The only thing that changes is that there is a color change. The building itself is red, but the national color for Red Lobster on the building has always been red copy. They kept that. So what we've done is we've changed the background to a light gray, but it's not part of the sign issue, and when I was writing this up, I was dealing with square footage based on drawing a rectangle around all the letters, the furthestmost on the length and the furthestmost on the height, to establish our square footage, and what they did, and they've done it on two elevations on there, they've got a light gray color, and that's just to create contrast. MR. GREEN-I'm just a little confused about the size. Apparently, in the Staff Notes, you went by the gray area, not just the let,ter outline? MS. CIPPERLY-Yes. I inquired of the Zoning Administrator as to what his opinion would be on this, and especially the one that's on the Bank Street side of the building. It looks like it's been placed on the building on a gray board. It's become our practice to take that whole rectangle, especially since it's a contrast. MR. MARTIN-The infamous Staples. MS. CIPPERLY-So I don't see that it makes a huge difference in the square footage. MR. FORD-It makes a difference between less than 100 and 188. MR. CARVIN-Because I'm assuming that these are the measurements that you're referring to, is 7.8 inches by 3.4 and a half. MS. CIPPERLY-I think I even added those up and they came out, like a little. like 108 or something. MR. CARVIN-Yes. I just did a rough calculation. It came out to a little over 100 feet. MS. CIPPERLY-Yes. MR. GREEN-It's 104.1, by the figures that are in the application. - 29 - MR. CARVIN-Yes. I'm assuming that there's two, 7's and one 10. MR. MACRUM-That's my calculation. The square what I did. I took the overall measurements of height and the length. footages, that's the letters, the MR. CARVIN-Okay, and what Jim is saying, or what you're saying is that there's going to be a border larger than that. t-1R. MARTIN--See, in my past interpretation at D:J.:i. level has been that the sign is the difference in the contrast. MR. CARVIN-Is the border. Yes. MR. MARTIN-Because that's as much a part of the advertising facility there as the letters themselves. MF:. C;6¡RVIN-Yes. MR. MAF<TIN-If it were a case where they had just the red background of the building and had raised white letters, then you could draw the box around the letters only, but in the way L view it, and you're certainly entitled to override that, it would be that the background is, in this case, part of the signage. It's integral to the sign. MR. LAPPER-We would like you to focus on the letters which are pretty small, and we understand the way the Planning Department characterizes it, and if you want to consider it 188, with the understanding that that's including the gray background, which is just the same wood as the building, but that's painted for contrast, so you don't have red letters on a red building, but that the letters are very small, and I guess we would then be asking for 188 square feet for the three signs, to the extent that that's how it's counted, but with that understanding that we don't really have 188 square feet of sign. MR. CARVIN-Is there going to be a border around, in other words, I'm looking at this one. MR. LAPPER-It's really cleaner without a border, because it's Just the same wood in the background, and these letters are just the letters themselves that are mounted from the rear. MR. MARTIN-Section 140-3 of the Sign Code, as pointed out in Sue's notes about on premise signs which are not visible from any public street or adjoining or abutting properties. I'm not so sure that Sign B would not be regulated, because it's not seen from the road and it's not seen from any adjoining or abutting properties in that position. MR. CARVIN-Yes. I'm kind of wondering, that's going to be one of I!lL questions. Is Sign B just a redundant sign? MR. LAPPER-The issue with Sign B is that, if somebody's coming south on Glen Street, and they come into the main entrance, once they get into the Plaza itself, they still haven't seen "A", because of the angle of "A", which really faces south, and we want them to be able to see, when they get into the Plaza, that that's where the Red Lobster is. t-1R. MARTIN--IrJhat I'm saying is Sign 8 is not really even subject to regulation. So really you're just requesting variance on the two remaining signs. It's not even a matter of being regulated. MR. MENTER-Yes. He was saying redundant in the sense, in terms of applying for a variance for it. t-m. LAPPER--In that case, IrJe IrJould IrJithdrm..¡ "B" from the application and then we're only asking for two. - 30 - '- MR. MARTIN-Because it's not from abutting properties. seen from the road. It's not So it's not a public concern. seen MS. CIPPERLY-Yes. requirements for illumination. I t doe:::;; ha\,le signs I;Ji t.hi n to the comply ~..J.i th Town, but the general that's like MR. MARTIN-Yes. It does that already. MR. LAPPER-We won't change that. MS. CIPPERLY-If you do, I'll know. MR. KARPELES-Well, how about "C"? Can you see "C" from? MS. CIPPERLY-From Bank Street. MR. MENTER-Sure. Yes. MR. MARTIN-From Bank Street. MS. CIPPERLY-Which comes in off of Lafayette, behind the Bank. MR. CARVIN--So if we take "B" off this, then we're down to 65, and 110 squ81-e 'feetK Is that correct? So you're looking for, what, just basically relief from one sign. MR. LAPPER-Sixty-five and forty-five. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Any other questions, gentlemen? MR. FORD-Just an observation. I've been on site several times, and I've driven down Glen Street and up Glen Street and in Bank street and back and forth, and I can't figure, except for overkill, why you're recommending Sign c. I could see Sign B further down Bank Street than I could see the location where you'd be putting "C". MR. LAPPER-If you come from that direction, you from Bank Street, and it would just be the back unidentified. People who enter the Plaza from that's (lost word) major intersection. won't see "B", of a building, that direction, MR. CARVIN-I was going to say. Is Bank Street really a street, 01" is it? MR. LAPPER-It is a public street. MR. MARTIN-It is a public road. MR. CARVIN-That's the one that comes off the Bank and comes out by the side of the China Buffet. 1'1f~. Mr"iRTIN-Yes. MR. KARPELES-Isn't Moores in there, in between there? MR. MARTIN-No. There is a street, you know the street that runs behind the Bank, Bob, and behind the Audio Genesis, and comes in next to the muffler shop? It's an infamous short cut. MR. CARVIN-It's a dangerous short cut if you blow that stop sign. MR. FORD-I could see "B", I could see the location, and I could see that before I could see the place where you'd be placing "C", coming up Bank Street, from the Bank. MR. LAPPEF<-I,.Je actually feel that "A" and "C" are the most important, because "C" really gets people coming f1"om that direction. I think that Jim will confirm that plenty of people - 31 - do enter the Plaza from that direction, people that are coming from the east, and you do enter from that direction, and you can also enter, don't forget, by the Bank coming down Glen Street, coming down Cuaker Road and then come in and make that sharp right turn behind the part's store, but YOU can find your way from Cuaker Road into that entrance to the Plaza, and when you look at the back of this barn building, there's nothing to identify it, whether it's a store, a restaurant or anything else. It just looks like a barn. That would be the only sign you'd see from that direction, too. You won't see anything else there. It's not a huge sign by any means, 45 square feet the way Sue countf:3 it. MS. CIPPERLY-Which is correct. MR. MACRUM-May I make a comment. If that was (lost word) that way, the square footage. What would happen if we changed the color of that particular elevation, and not have the gray board in the background? What if that were a suitable situation? MR. MARTIN-Like I said, if you wanted raised white lettering on the red siding of the building, then it would be just the letter. MS. CIPPERLY-Yes. I don't really see the square footage as the F,roblem here. MR. MARTIN-No. I mean, 110 square feet is not excessive for this size of a building. MR. CARVIN-I just have a question, Jim. maybe just for my own edification here. words, because it's not fronting a street? You say, and again, Sign B does, in other MS. CIPPERLY-It's not visible from a Town road. MR. MAF<TIN-It's not visible from a public right-of-way or an adjoining or abutting property. MR. KARPELES-I think it is. Street. I think it's visible from Bank ~1R. C¡6¡F<VH~-Yes. \..Je're tall'dng about "B". MR. KARPELES-I'm talking about "B". MR. U~R\,IIN-I'm just trying to get it clear in!!J.Z mind why people couldn't hang three or four signs on some of their buildings. MR. LAPPER-Bank Street doesn't continue through the Plaza. It ends at the property line. MR. FORD-I could see the location of soon as I broke around the poplar vegetation on Bank Street. where that sign will be as trees and the rest of the MR. LAPPER-Of "B" you're talking about? i'1R. FORD--"B". MR. KARPELES-"B". MR. FORD-In fact, I could see that because of the vegetation before I would have been able to see Ilell M MR. KARPELES-Right. 1'1R. CAR\,IIN-Okay. I don't have a problem IrJi th "A" or "C", but I do have a problem with "B". MR. MARTIN-Well, I just say, you know, if you look in your site - 32 - - -- plan, if this is what you'd call ends down here. ~;tíeet . the position of "B", behind these, I don't know them, extensions on the building, Bank Street I don't see how you can see that from Bank MR. FORD-Have you been there, Jim? MR. MI~RTIN-Yes. MR. FORD-You've been up Bank Street and looked at that specific location where that sign will be? MR. MARTIN-I just think with this sign inside of these two juts to the building here, I don't see how you're going to be able to see around the corner of that and see that sign. MR. KARPELES-I think we ought to have a map of where Bank Street 1 ::~ . MR. MENTER-It's a 90 degree angle to that. MR. FORD-Maybe I can see around corners, but I can see that surface. MR. KARPELES-I saw it, too, and I couldn't see this one, "C". So I wonder wlw they put "C" there. MR. he,-e. MARTIN-"See "B" is on this side, the building is "C" is clea,-ly visible from Bank Street. positioned MR. CARVIN-All right. criteria that it's not put a sign there. Is it this visible? Because fronting, then, technically, using your they could MR. MARTIN-No, it's visible. Visible is in the Code. MR. CARVIN-\'es, but I sti 11 t.hi nk t.hat this is \lisible. MR. MARTIN-If you think regulation. I didn't see know, your opinion is what it is, then it's subject where it was, but like I said, counts. to if, the you MR. CARVIN-Well, I just think that this is a very probably from two or three angles. Certainly, believe that it's visible from this angle. visible sign, I've got to MS. CIPPERLY-Another alternative that I did think of was the fact that even without a permit at all, direct.ional signs can be utilized within the Queensbury Plaza property. So maybe a directional sign on the Bank Street side would be better than three signs. MR. CARVIN-My own personal opinion is that unless you've been on the Planet Mars, everybody in Town is going to know where the Red Lobster is. I mean, this has not been the best kept secret since Wor.ld Wa,- I I . MR. MARTIN-You're going to have signage on the Northway, aren't you? I think this is going to be a sign on the Northway, isn't it qualifies for signage on the Northway as an eating location. I believe it does. MR. LAPPER-I'm not sure if it's within the distance. discussed that with us. No one's MR. CARVIN-Because I know a lot of these arguments were made by Olive Garden. MR. KARPELES-Right. - 33 - MR. LAPPER-But would the Board agree that the "A" sign, in and of itself, is not enough? MR. CARVIN-Again, I'm going to open up the public hearing before we get down to the nitty gritty. I mean, if there are no specific questions of the applicant right now, lets move on to the public hearing, if you don't mind. MR. LAPPER-Not at all. MR. CARVIN-Okay. I'd like to open up the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. CARVIN-Any letters, Dave? MR. MENTER-Yes. "At a meeting of the Warren County Planning Board, held on the 12th day of July, 1995, the above application for Sign Variance for three small signs, which together total less than 100 feet, no action could be taken since a majority vote could not be achieved. So it was returned." Signed by C. Powel South, Vice Chairman. I also have a letter dated July 19, 1995, from M & W Foods., Inc., to the Zoning Board of Appeals, Town of Queensbury, "Gentlemen: I'm writing in opposition of the Board granting any relief from the sign ordinance to Red Lobster for their new restaurant. The current sign ordinance was created with much good thought into preserving the visual attractiveness of the area and at the same time providing businesses with the opportunity to advertise their identities. Granting variances and making exceptions only dilutes the sign ordinance's effectiveness. Many in business think that more and bigger signs are the key to success. Left unregulated, a creeping jungle of signs would be the result as each business would seek to have more and bigger signs than its competitor. Instead, we have a law which lets each business have only similar signage as its competitors, thereby creating a level playing field for business. Granting variances makes the signage edge unfair to those who are not granted such advantages. Red Lobster should have known the sign ordinance restrictions prior to leasing and building ln their present location. If additional signage is such an important issue to them, they should have selected another site where their optimum signage would have been approvable. The location of their business, close to the road and not visually blocked in any direction by others, does not appear to need additional signs to draw attention to it. The size of the building also lends to its attention drawing capability and identification. Finally, granting a variance to Red Lobster will be an invitation to others in similar situations to seek relief from the law, since the Board will have demonstrated that it is willing to grant such relief. I hope that the Board will seriously review this request and only allow Red Lobster to have the signs allowable in the current ordinance without compromise or exception. Sincerely, James P. Mathis" And then the other item is a cover letter, dated July 11th, from Lemery & Reid, Ms. Sue Cipperly, Planning Assistant, Department of Planning and Community Development, regarding Red Lobster Sign "Dear Sue: Enclosed please find front elevation drawings showing 100 square foot facade sign for comparison. The owner's authorization has been forwarded by fax. Very truly yours, Jonathan C. Lapper" MR. LAPPER-That's for comparison's sake, the picture of the 100 square foot along Glen Street, which is another alternative. MR. FORD-Approximately how many feet would the red be from the incline of the roof? The red. I'm assuming that that's going to be the furthest out from the roof line? MR. MACRUM-Yes, sir. MR. FORD-About how far out would that be? - 34 - '- -../ MR. MACRUM-From the roof itself, the pitch? MR. MENTER-You mean horizontally out? asking? Is that what you're MR. MACRUM-What we have is a pitched roof like that, and the letters are actually, and here's the facia. The letters are up here like this, and then attached to (lost word) stringers, and then we have to (lost word) back to the system. I can tell you, that isn't what we want to do. I think that statement is just showing a 100 square foot sign on the building. The building isn't designed for 100 square foot signs. MR. CARVIN-Okay. r'¡GaT d? Anyone else from the public wishing to be PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. CARVIN-Okay. Any questions or comments, gentlemen? MR. GREEN-Before I could really make a decision, I'd have to decide how we're going to treat Sign that a sign or not? Is it in the plan or not? in my own mind, B. I mean, is MR. CARVIN-Well, again, I don't want to cause a conflict with the Zoning Administrator, but my feeling is that it would be in the in the plan. MR. GREEN-See, personally, when I drove up Bank Street, I wasn't specifically looking at Site B, but I didn't see it, either, not that, as I said, I wasn't looking around there. I was looking for Site C as I drove up Bank Street. My initial impression was that if !,.oJe had to come up wi th, ,/ou kno~>J, losi ng one sign, "c" would be the one to go, but if "B" doesn't count, I don't have a problem with just the two, as far as what is being needed a variance for, but if "B" counts, then I would take "C" out, recommend that it not be there. MR. KARPElES-I drove up Glen Street both ways, and I could see Sign A, and that's the only one I think we need. MR. FORD-"B" is a question mark. We need clarification on that. If I am wrong, then I've got to go back to the drawing board on this thing, but I drove through that enough times so I was convinced, and the other person in the car with me was convinced, that we were looking at that portion of the facade on which "B" would be placed as we were coming down Bank Street, and we saw that before we saw the location where Sign "C" was. Now if I'm off base, if I'm not correct in that, if I'm looking at a different side of this structure, then I'm really in a quandary as to how to vote appropriately, because I came in here absolutely convinced that that's what I had seen today, and if I'm twisted around on, you know, I know when I'm on Bank Street, and I know when I'm looking at the facade for "C". MR. MARTIN-If I could suggest something, then, maybe as a solution. You do have a meeting next week. If, in the interim, maybe a temporary, like, piece of cloth or something could be placed in the location on the building of each of these signs, and then you'd have an opportunit,/ to go visit the site and see, in fact, where these locations. MR. FORD-I would gladly go stipulated on there, because penalize somebody because. back to if I'm the site to wrong, I don't have that want t.o MR. MARTIN-Well, I mean, you want to arrive at a decision with a clear understanding of what you're. MR. FORD-Exactly, and nobody's come right out and said, Tom, - 35 - you're wrong, but the implication is there that I didn't see what I thought I was seeing. MR. MARTIN-Because I'm not so sure that you're right, that you couldn't actually see Sign "B" from Bank Street. I mean, it looks like you couldn't or it looks like you could. I'm honestly not sure. MR. U:¡R\,IIN-I,.Jell, I have no problem IrJith "A" or "C", and I think "A" and "C" are probably very justifiable signs, and probably meet a legitimate need, and the 110 square feet, I mean, if you drop "B", you're talking 110 square feet, in two locations, which is essentially what we did with the Olive Garden, because Olive Garden came in wanting three signs. MS. CIPPERLY-They wanted a total of five, even. MR. CARVIN-They wanted a whole bunch, and they came ln with, what, five, and went out with two or three. MS. CIPPERLY-They ended up combining "Olive Garden" and Restaurant" into one. I think you ended up giving signs. "Italian them two MR. GREEN-I think what's ~¡,JhetrJer 11811 is ¿) ~3ign Ordinance or not. more important, 0)" not, whether though, is to decide "B" falls under the MR. LAPPER-We might be able to settle that, because Bill's here from Texas, and we'd rather not have to fly him back next week, and I guess if l'1r. Ford IrJas comfortable wi th it, IrJe see that "B" is more for the traffic patterns within the Plaza, and we feel that "A" and "C" are for getting people into the Plaza, which is more important, and if, I think Mr. Ford, because he's most on the fence about this, IrJere comfortable with "A" and "C", w·e would withdraw "B", and then we'd be talking about, as the Chairman said, just 110 feet for two signs, which would make it easily justifiable because they really are on opposite sides of the building that faces two entrances in the Plaza, if we thought we could get a majority consensus on "A" and "C". MR. CARVIN-Does anybody sound reasonable? I know, have a problem with that? Bob, you want just the one. Does that MR. KARPELES-Yes. I think "A" 's fine. MR. GREEN-I haven't got any problem with really don't have a problem with "B", sign. " A" and " C " , if you don't and I still call it a MS. CIPPEF<LY-Another thing to consider, though, is if you've gone by Sign C, which is one entrance to the Plaza, and Sign A on the other entrance to the Plaza, you know that that's the Red Lobster. So if you're in the Plaza, you don't really need Sign B. So you'd probably smell the shrimp. MR. MACRUM-I would agree with what Jon says. My biggest concern is identifying the building to my customer. We've discussed this quite a bit in Orlando, and the primary signage for them, this property, is to be able to (lost words) IrJould be Items "A" and lieu. MR. MARTIN-Well, if you want to respond back to your client, I don't think their sales have suffered quantifiably. That can be documented at the Olive Garden, with their two signs. I mean, I've heard their sales reports are very favorable, and they're very pleased with their. MR. MACRUM-They've done quite well there. I know that, and they also have a very key location at that center. - 36 - -- -.../ MF<. M¡6¡RTIN-Well, this is a I,/eì-y key location at this. this is like book ends. I mean, MR. MACRUM-They look at it as a little bit of a gamble, somewhat, the amount of time they spent on new architecture on this type of building. It's not the old (lost words) it's a new style for them, and of course they're trying to get the best location. The front location there, you have to be beside the building, basically, and then look, because of that recessed area there in front, if you're heading south, you have good exposure. MR. MARTIN-I'd venture to say that a clear majority, 78 percent of your transient traffic, is going to come off of Route 9 or 254, and a lot of your local traffic that approaches from Bank street is already aware that that's there, and that may be even, in fact, their destination to that center. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Well, again, because of the limited number of Board members, I really don't want to move this unless we can get a consensus. Otherwise, it would be tabled. Does anybody have a motion? I would ask for a motion either to approve or deny. I mean, I will make a motion to approve. MS. CIPPERlY-This was a no action, right, on the part of the Cou nt1'? MR. GREEN-Theirs was an approval. Ours would be a denial. MR. lAPPER-The County voted five to three to approve, but they needed six for a majority. MS. CIPPERLY-So that's a no action for them, which, in their case, is an approval. MR. GREEN-But in our case would be a denial. MS. CIPPERlY-Right. So you don't have to have that super majorit1' here. You don't have a County vote to override. MOTION TO APPROVE SIGN VARIANCE NO. 44-1995 GMRI/DARDEN RESTAURANTS. INC. RED LOBSTER, Introduced by Fred Carvin who moved for its adoption, seconded by William Green: The applicant proposes three wall signs for the Red Lobster Restaurant, consisting of Sign A, Sign 8, and Sign C as indicated on their plot plan. Section 140-6 allows one wall sign for each business in the business complex. I would grant relief from this Section in allowing the Red Lobster two signs, known as Sign A and Sign C, the dimensions of which, Sign A will be a 5 by 13, equaling 65 square feet, and Sign C would be 35 square feet. The total for the two signs will not exceed 100 square feet. The benefit to the applicant by granting this second sign is that it would give them visibility from not only Glen Street, but also Bank Street. The onl1' feasible alternative to this particular situation might be a freestanding sign, but that would also require a variance. This relief is not substantial, if taken in the context that the total square footage allowed for a single sign is 100 square feet, and we are actually allowing the Signs A and C a total of 100 square feet. By allowing these two signs to be hung in the indicated spots, there would not be any adverse effect on the neighborhood or the community. This difficulty could be considered self-created. However, it probably has more to do with the actual location and design of the restaurant, with its facing both Glen and Bank Streets. I think b1' granting this variance we, in essence, would be allowing the minimum relief with regards to the sign issue. Duly adopted this 19th day of July, 1995, by the following vote: MR. CARVIN-Okay. Any questions on the motion? - 37 - MR. FORD-I'd like some discussion on it. MR. U~R\,IIN'-O kay . MR. FORD-Could I dimensions are if merely if they're because I believe get clarification on Sign C, and what the there, in fact, is no rectangle around it, but placed there and protruding from the building, those are different than. MR. MARTIN-Yes. It's dimensions they listed, lettering for Sign C. on your site plan. Those are if it was just the outline around the the MR. FORD-Okay, and was that a consideration that I heard discussed earlier on, that that would be a possibility, as opposed to putting them in rectangle? MR. MACRUM-I think the interpretation, I think what you're saYlng is (lost word) we put that frame around on the blueprint, it depicts like we're drawing a rectangle around it. It's like still part of the sign, but that particular elevation doesn't have the natural offsets like where Sign A and B are proposed. MR. FORD-It's just the side of the building. MR. MACRUM-It's just the side of the building. All we've done lS a change of color. MR. FORD-I'm interested in what our Zoning Administrator would see as the actual dimensions of that sign, because I think that varies from what is listed here. MR. MARTIN-If the siding of the building remains the same, then I would buy into their interpretation of Sign C. MS. CIPPERLY-It's not. It's going to be gray. MR. MARTIN-If they leave it as gray, then the total dimension is, as Sue listed in her notes, for the total rectangle. MS. CIPPERLY-Whereas this really looks like a sign that's being fixed to the building, and I guess the reason you don't want a red sign on a red background is what you're. MR. MACRUM-Exactly. At night time we're okay. We're exposed. We've got red neon. Daytime, it's a wash. You've got a red back ground and with red concrete. All it is is the building contractor goes back in and he puts up a different color background, actually the same signage, just a different color. MR. FORD-So there will be a rectangular backing for that? MR. MARTIN-Yes. It's a color change as indicated here. MR. KARPELES-These dimensions are right, then. MR. FORD-Yes, they are right. ~1R. i'1ARTIN-Yes. MR. FORD-My concern is that I can see on building, but I cannot see a reason to fe,sd:~ . opposite ends of the exceed the 100 square MS. CIPPERLY-They could reduce that gray rectangle so that it's. MR. CARVIN-It could be reduced, I suppose, like we did at. MR. LAPPER-We'll see what we can do to keep the gray down by 10 square feet. - 38 - -- - MR. MACRUM-That second line there that looks like a frame, we'll delete that. I don't know that t.hat is, say that that's a three inch trim, something like that. MR. MARTIN-Why can't you simply put a raised white letter, you know, illuminated, on the red background? MR. MACRUM-That's very inconsistent with their look. MR. MENTER-That's not something that he's going to decide to do right now. I'll tell you that. MR. MACRUM-If you're trying to get it to 100 square feet, I can do that, by having the background in gray, I can reduce that down and not have that frame showing on there, and that's really my designer doing that. That's not the end result, when you draw the building, the contractor's going to go out there and he's going to block that, he's going to paint it out. MR. CARVIN-Then, if you can lose the 10 feet, then I'll just bring it down to the 100 square feet on the two signs. MR. FORD-Opposite ends of the building. MR. MARTIN-Well, then I think you should cite in your motion Sign C as being at 35 square feet. MR. LAPPER-Why don't you give us the 100 between the two, and w?:'ll see how. MR. CARVIN-We can do that. So we'll take it down to 35. MR. MARTIN-It's easier for us to track on an enforcement side if you specify. MR. CARVIN-All right. So, Sign C will now be 35 square feet, and the total for the two signs will not exceed 100 square feet. AYES: Mr. Menter, Mr. Ford, Mr. Green, Mr. Carvin NOES: Mr. Karpeles ABSENT: Mr. Thomas AREA VARIANCE NO. 45-1995 TYPE II CR-15 COMMUNITY WORKSHOP RESOURCES CORPORATION OWNER: D. SCOTT MCLAUGHLIN SOUTH SIDE OF DIX AVENUE, CORNER OF DIX AND QUARRY CROSSING APPLICANT WAS GRANTED A USE VARIANCE TO UTILIZE SUBJECT PARCEL FOR A BUS STORAGE AND REPAIR FACILITY, AND NOW SEEKS RELIEF FROM SECTION 179-72, AND SECTION 179-24C, WHICH REQUIRES A FIFTY (50) FOOT BUFFER AREA WHERE A COMMERCIAL ZONE ABUTS A RESIDENTIAL ZONE. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) 7/12/95 TAX MAP NO. 111-7-5 LOT SIZE: 1.41 ACRES SECTION 179-72, 179-24C PAULA BERUBE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT 'MR. CARVIN-Before one, apparently, correct? \",e :;let into this; has been turned particular application, this down by the County, is that I'1RS. BERUBE-Yes. MR. CARVIN-Okay. So that, just for everyone's information, we would need five votes to approve this particular application, to overturn the County. We only have five people here tonight. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. Resources Corporation, Meeting Date: 45-1995, Community Workshop July 19, 1995 "Applicant: - 39 - Community Workshop Resources Corporation Project Location: Dix Avenue Proposed Project: Applicant was granted a Use Variance to utilize subject parcel for a bus storage and repair facility. Conformance with the Ordinance: Section 179-72 requires a fifty- foot buffer area on either side of a zone boundary. The south property line separates residential from commercial/residential, so a fifty-foot buffer would be required. Applicant needs this area for parking of buses so seeks relief from this Section. Criteria for considering an Area Variance, according to Chapter 267, Town Law 1. Benefit to the applicant: Without this variance, the'applicant would be unable to utilize this site for its intended purpose. 2. Feasible alternatives: There are no alternatives on this site. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance? This is substantial relative to the Ordinance, but would actually be the same as the current owner's use of the land. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community? This project would probably be an improvement visually over the heavy equipment currently parked in the buffer area. The neighboring landowner has commented that he would prefer not to have the fence that the Beautification Committee recommended. 5. Is this difficulty self-created? Only in the sense that the applicant has chosen to work with this particular site. Staff Comments and Concerns: No further comment. SEQR: Type II, no further action required." MR. CARVIN-Okay. Is there anything you'd care to add? MRS. BERUBE-Yes. The Board is generally familiar with this location, what our project entails, so I won't reiterate what wa discussed at the Use Variance. However, I'd just like to indicate that this is a preexisting nonconforming use, and that's something that we didn't create. However, we are proposing to the site as best we can, and the Area Variance, in this particular case, is necessary because of the configuration of the lot and because of its past history and use. I should also like to note that presently the heavy equipment is parked in all areas of the buffer zone, as it now exists, and actually the use that we are proposing, even though we are utilizing the buffer zone, would be less intense than the use that is presently there. Specifically, we're requesting relief from 45 feet on the very back line. We're requesting relief for 35 feet on the 50 foot jog line, so to speak, on the back line. We're requesting 40 feet from the back line above that. Then we're requesting, if it's applicable. I'm not sure if this is applicable because the east side abuts a different County, so I'm not sure if it's applicable, but if it applicable, then we would be seeking relief for 40 feet on that east boundary line. It was determined that relief is not necessary for the Dix Avenue line because the property across the road is Highway Commercial One Acre. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Can you give me those figures again? The west side, you're seeking relief of how many feet? MRS. BERUBE-Actually, the west side, no relief. That's the NiMo slde. MR. CARVIN-No relief. Okay. guess it was, what, five feet? All right. So the south side, I So you're seeking 45 feet? MRS. BERUBE-Right. MR. FORD-Then the jog in? MRS. BERUBE-I believe the distance there is 15 feet. seeking 35 feet of relief. So we'd be MR. CARVIN-All right. That's also on the south side, because you've got two south sides. MRS. BERUBE-It's on the east. - 40 - '--- MR. FORD-I think it's this portion here, the one that heads north, the line? MRS. BERUBE-Right. MR. FORD-In the middle of the property. MRS. BERUBE-This 50 foot line. MR. CARVIN-Okay. That's going to be a 15 foot? MRS. BERUBE-Seeking relief of 35 feet. MR. CARVIN-And then the south line heading east? MRS. BERUBE-We'd be seeking relief for 40 feet. MR. CARVIN-Okay. So that's going to be a 10 foot. Okay. MR. FORD-And then the one abutting Quarry Crossing? MRS. BERUBE-That would also be 40 feet., if t.hat's applicable. MR. MARTIN-Yes, it would be applicable in that case. MR. KARPELES-So this yellow line on your thing, that faces Dix Avenue should be removed, right? MRS. BERUBE-That's correct. MR. CARVIN-Any other questions, gentlemen? MR. KARPELES-I've got a question on the environmental, Short Environmental Assessment Form. It says, will proposed action comply with existing zoning or other existing land use restrictions, and you've got yes on there, and then you say, 50 foot buffer zone requirement would be encroached upon. Shouldn't you have no there? MRS. BERUBE-That seems to make sense. MR. CARVIN-I guess you're right, Bob. would be a no. I would think that answer MRS. BERUBE-I'm sorry. MR. KARPELES-And t.hen is this true, on Number 11, Use Variance granted by Town of Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals and use approved by Warren County Planning Board, was the use approved? MRS. BERUBE-Yes, it was. MR. KARPELES-I'm talking about Warren County. MR. CARVIN-Warren County, yes. MR. KARPELES-They approved the Use but not the area. right? Is that MRS. BERUBE-That's correct. MR. KARPELES-Okay. MR. CARVIN-Was there much discussion as to why? MRS. BERUBE-There motion was made, standing up, and because it was a on buffer zones. was very little I would say, the reasoning buffer zone, and It was that sort discussion, quite frankly. The within about 30 seconds of me for the motion was basically they don't like infringements of reaction, quite frankly. - 41 - MR. CARVIN-Situation normal. Lets move ahead. MRS. BERUBE-There really wasn't any discussion at use that's presently on there, and the fact that less intensive and probably better than what's didn't seem to be an issue. They simply said it zone and they didn't want to have an infringement zone. MR. MENTER-That's the only wording that's on the motion that I have, a copy of the Planning Board motion. It says, no need to grant relief from the Ordinance. A buffer zone is a critical part of the Ordinance, and it should remain intact. all about the this will be a there. That was a buffer on the buffer MR. CARVIN-Okay. Any other questions? Okay. I will open up the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED BOB BEEBE MR. BEEBE-They can't give up the buffer on the back side? Bob Beebe, and this is my wife, Mozell and we live on Quarry Crossing. They can't give up the buffer on the back side? MR. CARVIN-Who can't? MR. BEEBE-These people. MS. CIPPERLY-The discussions we've had with Mr. Beebe, he really, correct me if I'm characterizing this wrong, but where these parking spaces are, here, where the trees are, right next to his property, he would prefer to not have that given relief, or at least, you know, it came out to the edge of the parking spaces. That would be a 30 foot buffer. MR. MARTIN-See, I think there's some things that come to rise here that could help support some things here, and I've expressed this to the applicant's when they've been in mz office, as site plan issues that could affect this. First of all, generally, as a Planner in the Town, I support this shift of the use from the so called heavy equipment storage, what we have here. Oftentimes, you see this evolution of use as the properties do come into compliance, and I think this is in keeping with that trend, but what I would suggest, and I was going to put this on the record during the Planning Board meeting, because it really lS a site plan issue, first and foremost, is that the direct access on Dix Avenue be shut off and that the access on Quarry Crossing Road be shifted further to the south a little bit. Now if you do take those actions, it does open up the opportunity for parking across that area, where the Dix Avenue access is, and maybe you can move that parking off of that, you know, in the areas where it's in the trees there, and you can pick that back up, you know, along that front area there where the access would be shut off. MR. FORD-Along Dix Avenue? MR. MARTIN-Right, and I think the reasons for that are obvious. We've been asked by the State to try and undertake some access management in Town through our Planning process, through, primarily, the reduction of access points. I think there's a safety issue when you have direct access out onto the main line like that, and it obviously makes sense to pull that access point on Quarry Crossing Road further back from the intersection to make a more safe situation there. I think if those changes were made, it would facilitate some potentially extra parking on the site, and maybe shift it out of that area where it's shown there by Mr. Beebe's house. MR. KARPELES-I still don't know where we're talking about, Mr. - 42 - '-- -- Beebe is. Where the concrete block garage and the? MR. MARTIN-Where the frame house, one and a half story frame house. MR. KARPELES-Is he just talking about that area right adjacent to those? He's not talking about the rest of these? MR. FORD-It's not down here by the garden, in that area there? MR. Mt~f:;:T IN,-No . MR. BEEBE-No. It would be right off of Quarry Crossing. MR. FORD-Because this said Beebe, down here. MS. CIPPERLY-Yes. That's his property, too, but he doesn't have a problem with this back here. MR. KARPELES-So you would like to see the 50 foot retained there, in that area. Is that right? MR. BEEBE--Yes. MR. CARVIN-Mr. Beebe, could you come up here and maybe show us, p 1 ea~'3e? MR. BEEBE-Here, a fence going up all the way around here. This is all empty, down in here, too. So this, they put a fence uP. to start with, it's eight feet from here, from the corner of my house, back here it's nine feet. MRS. BERUBE-The only reason we really suggested a fence is because we thought he might like that. Actually, the Beautification Committee asked us, well, does Mr. Beebe want a fence. and we didn't really know at that point. I guess we kind of assumed that he might like one, just to shield himself, but if he doesn't want one, then certainly. MR. FORD-What I'm hearing you say, you prefer not a fence, but you would like that 50 foot buffer zone thefe? MR. BEEBE-No. I don't need a, see this tree line, which I don't kne,w e:<act. MR. KARPELES-Well, it looks like it's about half the distance. It's about 25. MR. BEEBE-Yes, that would be safe. That's plenty of buffer out there. MR. GREEN-So you're not worried about the 50 feet then? You dC)T"\'t mind them? MR. BEEBE-Back here they don't either, if they're going to put a fence up back here. MR. CARVIN-Towards the house. Yes. Okay. What you're saying is, a 25 foot buffer up in tlìÜ; ¿,nea ~.,¡ould be p'referred? MR. BEEBE-Yes. fight, around the house. MR. KARPELES-And in this area, too, in here? MR. FORD-What about in this, where it jOgs up here? MR. BEEBE-Well, this property is nine feet from the back of my garage here, too. MRS. BERUBE-But, just to let you know, we're about 15 feet in - 43 - ~ before our first parking space, and there's about 25 feet there. MR. CARVIN-So you could go 25 comfortably? JANE MACEWAN MRS. MACEWAN-Yes. We would go to the trees, and we could do that side jog, too. MR. BEEBE-Do you have to have a fence all the way back here, too? MF:.. BERUBE -No. MRS. MACEWAN-No. We didn't actually just trying to do and if you don't want one, one up. The Beautification propose a fence there. We were it for your benefit, quite frankly, then we certainly don't have to put Committee didn't care. NICK NORTON MR. NORTON-One thing I think you have to be conscious of is Jim's comments that, as a result of cutting off the access on Dix Avenue, the access to get in off of Quarry Crossing, they're going to have to have lngress and egress. When we were here before, we were thinking that we'd have an entranceway for ingress and an exit for egress and wouldn't need as wide an area. If you move this down, as you can see on the map now, it's a fairly narrow area toward the northerly portion, almost up on Dix Avenue. If you're going to use it for ingress and egress, that is going to have to be moved down. So you're not going to be able to get in right off of Dix Avenue. Then, if you lose this area down by the trees, if this is moved, instead of being right here, if this is moved down into here, you're not going to be able to do anything unless you come in along the trees. None of this would be able to be used. MR. CARVIN-Okay. I don't know, but if you would have this area up in here. MRS. MACEWAN-Yes. We have a problem because we have 20 spaces here. Obviously, if we have our egress here, ingress and egress, we're going to have to t.ry to relocate these somewhere, too. That's the only thing. MR. NORTON-So it's not just moving these. these. It's going to impact MR. MARTIN-Shift the 20 up a little bit. MR. CARVIN-See, I think it'll open up quite a bit of space up in here. MRS. MACEWAN-Well, except what you've got here is every bus has to come back here. So you're going to come in, unless you can go around, you know, I can't do that. Those buses don't. MR. MARTIN-Well, to the extent that it can be facilitated, lS what, I think it should be explored. MRS. MACEWAN-I mean, we may be able to put a single line up here, but the buses have to come around. MR. CARVIN-All right. Let me kind of back up here for a second. A lot of this is Planning Board things. I guess what I want to do is limit this to, I think the Beebe's have a legitimate concern, I mean, on the buffer. Would you be comfortable with a 25 foot buffer along this area and down the side, in other words, just this area here? Is that a reasonable request? MRS. BERUBE-He means right at the tree line, right here, if we - 44 - ~- gave this much room. MRS. MACEWAN-But I can't go to 25 there, or I'll be into those parking spaces. MRS. BERUBE--I''-!o. 'ham his house. When I said 25, we're 15 right here, but he's 10 So, I was saying there's really 25 feet there. MR. FOF<D-So we're really looking at 15 foot of buffer? MRS. BERUBE-Right, just as it is. MR. CARVIN-Okay. So this one would be the 15? MRS. BERUBE-That's right. MR. CARVIN-But this one would be 25, if Mr. Beebe? MRS. BERUBE-See, we're not parking right up against this line. We're back a little ways from that. MR. FORD-So that 10 could become 25 there? MRS. MACEWAN-I don't think that's 25 to those trees. MRS. CIPPERLY-This is 30. MRS. MACEWAN-To those trees? MRS. CIPPERLY-If you've got 10 here and these are 20 foot spaces. MR. MARTIN-The stalls are 20 and the distance is 10. ~1RS . ~:;taì' t thing. BERUBE-If you come right to the back of the trees, and you your right. you know, a little bit. but see, that's the I don't know if you can park down there. MRS. MACEWAN-Well, especially because if this is going to be my ing-ress and egress, the I can't pa'(k these ca'(s he-re. MS. CIPPERLY-Right. MRS. MACEWAN-And that means that I can't move those out there if that's where my entrance and exit is. It just won't work. MR. MARTIN-And the other thing to remember, this is not like it's a striped asphalt parking lot. It's a graveled parking lot that you, essentially, have to leave adequate drive aisles, and then the parking is, you know. it's not like it's designated striped areas for parking. I mean, essentially what you show on a site plan with gravel parking is that you have adequate capacity to park cars. MRS. MACEWAN-Well, I, currently, with this existing staff, I am living on a half an acre. So I can't see how, but I think it's more important that this restriction that I can't come in one way and out another. MR. CARVIN-Well, that's nothing that's going to be add-ressed here. That's a Planning Board issue. I'm more concerned in keeping a buffer zone between a residential and a commercial, and I'm more concerned with what the Beebe's will be comfortable with, because they're the one's that live next door. MRS. MACEWAN-That's correct. MR. CARVIN-And if they have no problem down in here, and, I mean, certainly, I mean, they're not honoring the 50 foot buffer now. So it's not a case. - 45 - MR. FORD-There are neighbors who llve in that area, though, right? MRS. MACEWAN-Yes. Actually, we have the neighbors that live in this area a petition signed by all of who are involved. MR. MARTIN-That was submitted today. That will be read into the record, I would assume, and your correspondence point. MRS. BERUBE-This is map of all of the something signed by all of these neighbors approve. Here's our property right here. Highway Commercial. neighbors. We have indicating that they Across the road is MR. CARVIN-Okay. I guess, Mr. Beebe, you still have the floor. The microphone is still yours. MR. BEEBE-Is there any possibility of bringing the (lost word) of the land back? MR. CARVIN-Well, I think we went into that on the Use Variance, and I think that the decision that came down was that that would open up more cans of worms than we'd care to address, because what we would end up doing is swapping, I think, residential property for commercial, or something like that, if memory serves correct, and it really opened up a multitude of problems. I know we did address that in that other. MR. BEEBE-Even if you, it was considered residential again. MR. MARTIN-Well, see, to do that, though, would require an act of the Town Board to change that zone line. Right now the zone line exists on the existing property line, and if you change that, it requires an act of the Town Board to do that, to shift that zoning line. MR. BEEBE-Then forget it, then. MR. MARTIN-Well, it's not that it's impossible. MR. CARVIN-Well, we addressed it under the Use, and felt that the Use Variance, the way it was on the property, was the most logical and sensible. This is a buffer issue. I don't know if there's any swapping of property that, unless you wanted to sell your house and give him another 50 feet, but that still really doesn't do anything. 1'1R. BEEBE-Okay. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Anyone else wishing to be heard in support? l'1Ar.:K LEV(,~CK MR. LEVACK-Good evening. My name's Mark Levack, the real estate broker on this deal. I'm, obviously, in support of this Area Variance. I'd like to just make myself available right now to speak to the petition. Being involved with these type of situations in the past, I've often found that the neighborhood is really the key to the success of failure of an Area Variance like this, and so we really wanted to embark on finding out what the neighborhood thought of this project, and we basically shaded a tax map here, which I can put back up on the tripod there, if you think it's necessary. The reason why we concentrated, by soliciting the opinions of the people in the shaded area was because this is the Town of Kingsbury. This is commercial. There 'really wasn't anyone over on this side that was affected. So we felt that the Town of Queensbury residents that would be affected by this Area Variance were located in this area, so we thought it wa~3 important to know ~..¡hat they thought about it, and, basically, we put together a short form petition that Just - 46 - basically said that they've had an opportunity to review the site plan, that they are in favor of the Use Variance, the Area Variance and the Site Plan, and we have successfully secured the support of everyone in the rear of the property that would be affected by this Area Variance. I can speak to that, if you think it's necessary, at this point. MR. CARVIN-Well, I think the will be read into the minutes. petition, I assume, we have, and So, I appreciate it. Thank you. MR. LEVACK-Thank you. MR. CAF<VIN-Anyone else wishing to be heard in support? Anyone wishing to be heard in opposition to the application? Okay. Any correspondence? MR. MENTER-Firstly, from the Warren County Planning Board, dated July 12, 1995, "At a meeting of the Warren County Planning Board held on the 12th day of July, 1995, the above application for an Area Variance to utilize premises to park applicant's buses was reviewed and the following action was taken. Recommendation to disapprove. Comments: No need to grant relief from the Ordinance. A buffer zone is a critical part of the Ordinance and it should remain intact." Signed C. Powel South, Vice Chairman In addition, I have, I believe, it's a series of signed statements. I'll read it once, and then the list of signers, and accompanying that is the map with the same highlighted areas that he just showed. "Please be advised that I, Don Beebe, Mrs. Rosella Beebe, residing at 27 Quarry Crossing, have had the opportunity to review the new site plan proposed by Community Workshop Resources Corporation, at the existing McLaughlin equipment sales facility. Be it also known that I am in agreement with the plan and give my support to the proposed Use Variance, the proposed Area Variance, and the proposed Site Plan. In summary, as a Queensbury tax payer and a neighborhood resident, I respectfully request that you pass these requested variances for the betterment of our neighborhood. Thank you. Signed Donald Beebe and Rosella Beebe, residents." The same statement was signed by the following people: Robert Sawyer and Mrs. Shirley Sawyer, 17 Quarry Crossing. Gertrude Bennett of 10 Catherine Street. Joe Michelucci of 9 Bell Avenue. Daniel and Donna Bombard of 25 Quarry Crossing. Eugene and Nancy Pratt of 3 catherine Street. Jon and Caroline Salone, of 19 Quarry Crossing. And that is it, I believe. I also have here, pictures. MR. MARTIN-I think they were submitted by the applicant. MR. LEVACK-I thought it would be helpful to have some pictures of the area. MR. MENTER-I see. Okay. I'll pass them among the Board, here. MR. CARVIN-Okay. No other correspondence, though, Dave? MR. MENTER-No. That's all for correspondence. MR. CARVIN-Anyone else, again, wishing to be heard on this particular application? PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. CARVIN-Okay. Gentlemen, any comments, thoughts? MR. FORD-I have a question. Mr. Beebe, did you have a change of heart after signing this statement? MR. BEEBE-No, I don't think so. MR. FORD-You appeared to have signed a statement indicating that - 47 - you fully supported what the applicant has come in here for, and want us to approve that, and yet tonight you came before us and had several suggestions of concerns that you had, you have tonight, about that, about the buffer zone, and so forth. MR. BEEBE-Well, the buffer zone, I can't, I'm just favoring these people. I don't see what we need the 50 foot buffer. MR. FOF<D-Well, your statement indicated that you want us to approve 10 feet, or whatever they're proposing here, and not have 25 feet, or 30 feet, or whatever there was, that yoU were looking fOì- tonight. MR. BEEBE-I wasn't sure that they were asking for 10 feet. MR. FORD-You weren't sure of what you were signing? MR. BEEBE-I didn't know anything about a 10 feet. MR. FORD-Thank you. 1'1R. CAR\,IIN-O kay . MR. LEVACK-Could I address that? Mr. Beebe signed that petition this evening, and I can say that he did not see that petition this evening. All the other people saw the petition. So I think as he's hearing this, he's coming up with an idea, right here, that he'd like to see a little relief on that southeastern boundary line. So he was the one neighbor that did not actually see that site plan. I went over the petition with him, you know, I thought very clearly and deliberately, and I don't think there was any, certainly no intent to mislead there. It was just, you know, not having seen the site plan, my assumption was he knew that it was 10 feet, but that's not correct. He didn't see the site plan. MR. FORD-Do the others know the 10 feet? MR. LEVACK-Yes, absolutely, Tom. The others saw the site plan. T went over it in detail with them. There's no question on that, but Mr. Beebe, I didn't even think we needed his signature this evening because on the last meeting we had his support, and I thought we had his total support tonight. I probably should have shown him this site plan again to reaffirm everything and the dimensions, because it is important. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Any other questions, gentlemen? MR. MENTER-I'd like to review, where do we stand with the changing of the curb cuts and how is that going to affect the parking and Mr. Beebe's request in the southeast corner there? MR_ CARVIN-Well, I'm not quite sure I Dave. In other words, first of all, cut,s. understand your question, we're not addressing curb MR. MENTER-No, but how request to give him a southeast corner? IrJas it left, little bre'ak here, IrJith on the 10 Mr. foot Beebe's in t.hat i'1R. C(1F<VU'~-Well, I guess I'm under the impression that he IrJants 25 feet on that southeastern corner, and he's not opposed to the five feet of the 45 feet of relief on the southern boundary_ As far as the curb cuts and traffic flow, I think that's a site plan lssue, and if I'm hearing it correctly from the applicant, I'm hearing that it may be a problem, but it may be not an insurmountable problem. MR. KARPELES-Okay. I'm clear on the 25 feet on the southeast, but I'm not clear on how much we're talking about on this other - 48 - - - line. MR. CARVIN-We're looking at 15 foot there. MR. FORD-Fifteen there and five here. I guess we're UP to 25 on t.his one here? I'm. CARVH~-'That's what I've got is 2b, and again, I want to lTIake sure we're all on the same page, here, because we're going to all have to be on the same page. MR. MENTER-So, on the western side, we're talking about the 4b feet relief. MR. CARVIN-The western side doesn't need anything. MS. CIPPERLY-That's all in the same zone. MR. FORD-Has there been any discussion with Niagara relative to the possibility of utilizing some of that way for parking purposes? 1'10 halrJ k , r ight-of-- MRS. BERUBE-No, there hasn't been, at this point. We're hoping to be able to proceed as we have (lost words) rely on the goodwill of Niagara Mohawk in letting us have the use of that additional property. MS. CIPPERLY-Just as a point of information. I did a little more research on this, into the previous site approval, which you had asked me to do last time. Mr. McLaughlin had agreed to a 50 foot buffer zone all the way around, really, on the road and on the back, and he said he could live with that, and I think what you've seen in this case is a real failure to comply with the site plan. So it appears that Community Workshop is really trying to work out a more definite plan here, as far as dimensions, and being more realistic. It's one thing to say, sure, you know, we can do it. So I think if you can get something worked out here, it will be carried out. Currently, there's heavy equipment under the power lines and apparently t.here was, at some time, things parked on Mr. Beebe's property. So, I think, in general, this is going to be carried out, whatever you come up with. MR. FORD-I'm sure it would bp I have a concern that I raised at our last meeting, and I really would like to have it addressed again tonight, if we could, please. If we are starting a number of diesel buses, early on a cold morning, do they not have to be allowed to warm up and run for a period of time prior to leaving the site? MR. NORTON-Yes, they do. They run for anywhere from five to ten minutes to actually warm up the engine and also to build up air pressure for the air brakes. MR. FORD-Okay, and would you anticipate that those buses, along this southerly line, would be backed into those locations, backed into those parking spots? 1'1~:. NORTON-·"y'e~3. MR. FORD-Please help me see why and how the people will not have their freedom infringed upon by the diesel fumes from several diesel engines, the exhaust of which is five feet away frolTl the property line, a few feet away from the backs of their houses. MRS. BERUBE-Well, on this particular property line, there are no houses. That's also the lands of Mr. Beebe, and his house is toward the easterly part, near Quarry Crossing. MR. FORD-So that mobile home that I saw there today, and another - 49 - house next to it, what are they? They don't come up? MR. LEVACK-If you look at the tax map, you will see that there's a natural buffer zone already there, by that property, almost a landlocked parcel that creates a buffer zone. MR. BEEBE-That's on Catherine Street. MR. FORD-Yes. I went down Catherine Street looking at the houses that would abut your property, along here. MRS. MACEWAN-But Mr. Beebe owns that entire property behind us. MR. FORD-I see, and so the only houses abutting your property? MRS. MACEWAN-Are Mr. Beebe's. MR. FORD-Over here on Quarry Crossing? MRS. MACEWAN-Right, and then Mr. Beebe owns all this property, under here, and then the people on Catherine Street start. MRS. BERUBE-It's 83.69 feet, at the shortest, along that back pì"Operty line. MR. FORD-Okay. So that mobile home and the other along there that I saw on that street have nothing butting up against this property? st'ru.ctures to do vJi th MRS. BERUBE-They must be at least 85 feet away. MR. LEVACK-Here's a house. Here's a house. House. Mobile home. No property. This is all all tree. There is a buffer zone here, created pare,::l. Here's a tree. by 1'1r. house. This is Beebe's MR. FORD-Okay. Where's the mobile home I saw? MR. LEVACK-Right there. MR. FORD-Okay. Thanks. MR. NORTON-When those buses start up in the morning, it's not like 20 of them starting up simultaneously. They're, say, five, and then another five a half hour from then. So they are staggered. MR. FORD-So the fumes would be there for quite some time. MR. NORTON-Smaller amounts. MRS. MACEWAN-As far as the big buses, go, we only have six of the large buses. I don't know if that impacts on this or not. MR. FORD-You see, this is against a back drop of another appeal we heard, maybe three or four months ago, where a neighbor wanted to construct a garage and the neighbors came in saying that, because someone started up a diesel engine for his truck there, that her clothes on her line were constantly infested with diesel fumes, and it went into their house. MRS. BERUBE-Well, minimally, you've got 83 feet between the hou~3e . MR. FORD-Yes. I see that, now. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Are we coming toward a consensus? Does everybody understand that we're looking, maybe, for a 25 foot buffer on the southeast line, a 15 foot buffer on the southwest or the, commonly and affectionately known as the jag, 5 foot - 50 - -... along the southern line, and 10 feet on Quarry. I'm just saying 10 feet, or 40 feet of relief. MR. MARTIN-Would the fence help along that five foot, just the southern line only? MR. CARVIN-Well, I think I would just as soon leave a fence to the discretion of the Beebe's, and let them work it out. I mean, if it does become a problem, I'm sure that a fence could be eì-ectod. MR. FORD-There's a far greater distance there then I saw today, when I went on site. MR. MARTIN-It's more of a site plan issue really anyhow. MR. CARVIN-Yes. I was going to say, I'm under the impression that Mr. Beebe, at this point, does not want a fence. So, if that should change, I'm sure that, at least you've shown a real indication to work with t.hem. 1'1R. neecl BEEBE-If the an)-' fence. buses or t r'le cars are back far enough, I don't MR. CARVIN-Yes. That's what I'm saying. I don't think we need to mandate a fence. Okay. If thore are no other questions, and if we are fairly confident of being in agreement, then I would ask for a motion. MS. CIPPERLY-Could I ask why the buses are backed in? Could they be put in front end first, and have the, during that warm up period? That would put them another 40 feet? MRS. MACEWAN-Well, perhaps in the summer time. time, they've got to be backed in, so that if starting the motor, you can get at it. In the winter you have trouble MR. GREEN-In the winter is when you have the warm up. MR. M,6¡RTIN--Okay. MS. CIPPERLY-You learn something every day. MR. MENTER-Okay. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 45-1995 COMMUNITY WORKSHOP RESOURCES CORPORATION. Introduced by David Menter who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: The applicant was granted a Use Variance to utilize subject parcel for a bus storage and repair facility and now seeks relief from Section 179-72 and Section 179-24C, which requires a 50 foot buffer area where a commercial zone abuts a residential zone. Areas within the required 50 foot buffer zone are needed for parking, in order for the applicant to purchase and utilize this property. I would move to grant the following relief: On the south boundary line, the far south boundary line, a relief of 45 feet from the 50 foot setback required. On the property line to the west of the two Beebe buildings, I would grant 35 feet of relief. To the north of the two Beebe buildings, 25 foot relief, and on the easterly property line, adjoining Quarry Crossing Road, 40 foot relief. The benefit to the applicant would be that the property would be large enough to utilize for parking which would facilitate the sale of the property. This would also seem to serve to benefit the community as a whole, lessening the impact of the use on the property from its current use as industrial sales, sales of heavy equipment. There don't appear to be any feasible alternatives for this applicant, and also it would seem for this property, as the proposed bus storage seems a natural progression towards a use of less impact. The relief is - 51 - substantial relative to the Ordinance. However, it would still have considerably less impact than the current use, which in many cases was on and over the property line. This project would appear to have no negative effects on the neighborhood or community. The hardship, while in a sense is self-created because of interest in this property, is actually just a case of trying to better utilize the property relative to what it's being used for now, and to meet the needs of the applicant. Duly adopted this 19th day of July, 1995, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Ford, Mr. Green, Mr. Menter, Mr. Carvin NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Thomas MR. CARVIN-We've still got a couple of items, if I may. I'm going to, Number One, I'm going to ask that everybody read the minutes of the Planning Board for Guido Passarelli. I don't know if anybody's read it yet, or if you haven't read it, but I think ;'-'OU s -" ould. MR. MENTER-I haven't read it, but I saw some reference to it. MR. CARVIN-Because he's going to come back for a discussion, but I think it's highly informative that we read that. MR. FORD-Did I read what I think I read, that he's applying for, in terms of reduction of the planters in the front portion? MR. CARVIN-I'm going to be very cautious as to how far we get into a discussion on this. I'm going to leave it to, I would ask you to read the minutes, because, according to the new. He will be coming in. We will be having a discussion, July 27th, and that may have a bearing on that discussion. So I just am asking you to read those minutes and be up to speed on that. I also have some correspondence from Paul Dusek regarding Taco Bell, and, again, I'm going to be addressing this in a public forum. I have discussed this with Jonathan Lapper, and he did not raise any objection from me reading this and entertaining a light discussion. This is regarding, let me kind of clarify a little bit further here. Tom and I met, a week or ten days ago, with Paul Dusek, and we discussed the Taco Bell log jam, in other words, the three, three vote, and we asked Paul to give us some kind of direction or opinion. Following up on our discussion, as I had to revise my opinion, I verbally discussed with you and Tom the other day, I am providing a revised written opinion concerning questions raised in connection with the two motions that were made by the ZBA, or Zoning Board of Appeals, in connection with the Sign Variance application of the Taco Bell Corporation. According to information presented to me, it is my understanding that a resolution approving a Sign Variance was entertained by the Zoning Board of Appeals. The vote on the resolution was three to three with one member absent. Thereafter, the Board adopted a motion tabling the matter for a maximum of 60 days to allow the Board and the applicant to look at the issue further. After this, a question arose as to whether a tabling of the application was proper under the circumstances. It is my understanding that this question arose as a result of a concern as to whether the first motion resulted in a No Action or was to be considered a denial of the variance. Although I feel this matter has not been completely settled by the courts, it is my opinion that, based on General Construction Law 41, and relevant court cases, the Board's first motion should appropriately be considered a no action. In other words, in order for the Board to adopt an effective resolution, it must be adopted by a majority vote. Therefore, it is my opinion that the Board may continue to entertain motions until such time as a motion to approve or a motion to disapprove is adopted by a - 52 - ..~ -~¡/ majority vote of the Board, without a majority vote of approval. However, a variance is not granted." I'm not quite sure I understand that. MR. KARPELES-Okay. So what's he saying, it's okay to table it? MR. CAR'v'IN-,'Yes. MR. KARPELES-It's okay to table it until you get a, can come to a consensus? Is that what he's saying? 1'1R. CARVIt\j--Right. "Therefore, it is my opinion that the Board may continue to entertain motions until such time as a motion to approve or a motion to disapprove is adopted by majority vote of the Board, without a majority vote of approval. However, a variance is not granted. I note that under the rules of parliamentary procedure, it is possible to reconsider the exact same resolution, provided a motion is first successfully adopted to reconsider the matter. If the first motion is considered a no action, it would then, of course, logically follow that the Board could properly adopt a resolution to table it as it did. At this time, it would appear that the Board has a number of options in connection with this matter. I would, however, encourage the Board to attempt to reach a majority decision concerning this matter, as the inability to do so makes it difficult to represent the Board, should the matter be challenged in court, and could also result in a decision of the court which remands the matter back to the Board for further consideration and with particular instructions. In addition, I would recommend that whenever the matter is discussed, that it is discussed at a regular Board meeting, on notice to all parties concerned, with further public notice if necessary. I trust that you will find the foregoing opinion helpful and apologize for any inconvenience the required revision may have caused. Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Paul Dusek" As I said, I did discuss this with Jonathan Lapper, and we are doing this in a public forum, and so Jon has indicated to me that the applicant is in the process of reworking some sort of compromise, if I can use that term, or other options, I guess, and he has indicated that he will attempt to be on the August agenda. So, are there any questions? MR. MENTER-I have a question, since we have all these great minds here together, what is the, I'm just trying to get a clear handle on when not passing a motion is a non-action and when that becomes a denial, versus when does it simply become a non-action? MR. CARVIN-Well, if you carried this logical course of events out, if we do not approve or deny, then it continues. I guess the only option we have is to table. So, therefore, we will have no action, ever. We will have to reach a consensus or continue until we do come to a consensus. MR. MENTER-I know that cases have been closed on a vote not, on a motion not being passed, and I'm not sure I understand why that happened and why it doesn't, in some cases. MR. GREEN-If it was, possibly, never came back, that would be not get their variance? tabled for the 60 days and they a closed decision that they did MR. MARTIN-I understand what Dave's saying. I recall instances where we come to a tie vote and the applicant's been informed, at that point, it's denied. MR. MENTER-Effectively, it was a rejection, yes a denial. Right. MR. KARPELES-But where do we stand on, are we going to have a se\/enth member? - 53 - MR. CARVIN-Well, that was my next item. I have had a conversation with Tony Maresco. He has verbally communicated to me, or at least an indication that he is going to resign. I had asked him, if that was his decision, to put that in writing and address it either to myself or to the Town. MS. CIPPERLY-I discussed this with Paul Dusek today, too, and he said to try to contact Tony and just, even a handwritten note to that effect would be, so I left a message, today, on his machine. I'll follow it up. I'll try and catch up with him tomorrow clur i ng the day'. MR. CARVIN-I am under the impression, right now, that we will lose Tony, certainly between now and August. MR. MENTER-Yes, it sounds like it. MR. CARVIN-Because in our conversation, his workload, he likes the job, but he just didn't feel it was fair. He wouldn't be able to put the time in over the next few months, and didn't really know if that was ever going to resolve itself, but I know what you're saying, and I have sat on this Board, and I have seen Mr. Turner and others come to a tie vote. MR. MENTER-Yes. I just don't know what that's all about, because I know I've done it, and I remember sitting over there, before we switched. It was probably close to a year ago, and I remember Paul answered the question saying that, yes, in effect, that becomes a no action which, in this case, becomes a denial. MR. MARTIN-My only explanation is, by the nature of the whole process here, what is being attempted is, you have a law, and someone is seeking to vary from that law. Until you permit them to do so, the law stays in effect. So you have to have a positive vote, approving resolution approving the variance. Until you have that. MR. CARVIN-Nothing goes forward. MR. MENTER-Right. It was a function of the number of people we had and the fact that it wasn't going to change perhaps. MR. KARPELES-What I remember is, we had a vote where we voted to deny something, and it was turned down. That meant that it should be approved, and that we couldn't automatically approve it. We had to make another motion in order to approve it. MR. MENTER-Yes, of course. MR. KARPELES-We didn't know that, or we didn't do that. MR. MARTIN-There was one trip with that. Yes. MR. MENTER-Really, you would need to approve something for it to be approved, not just reject a denial. MR. FORD-I talked with Paul about it today, and the best explanation that I can get is that I believe as a result of this being brought to his attention he did a lot more research on it than he had prior to this time, and as a result of that, he indicated to me that he really could argue either way, that the tie vote, in essence, did not give permission. Therefore, it's a denial. However, he did cite a number of cases where the court has come down in favor of the other position, rather than taking a tie vote as a denial. There seemed to be ways of saying, come to consensus, and to keep pushing it back to trying to come up with a decision rather than a no decision meaning a denial, and he said if he had his choice, he would rather go in and fight t.hat battle on that basis than the other, because )/ou could cite cas:es .. - 54 - MS. CIPPERLY-So it may be a good idea, if you have that situation, to offer the tabling option. MR. MARTIN-Yes, to offer a tabling option. MR. CARVIN-Well that's, essentially, what my thinking has been, is that if we can't reach a consensus, and that's why I prefer to try to do a polling before we actually have a motion, especially when we have a Board with only five members. If it does not appear that it's going to reach a consensus, I would like to offer the applicant the ability or the opportunity to table, because if we can't reach a consensus, it doesn't go forward, until we either get another Board member, in which case it really does become open ended until somebody actually does take us to court and say, look, you guys have got to make a decision here. MR. FORD-There's a question I'd like to raise, though. Who can call for that tabling motion? Does it not have to be one of us? You said the applicant could. MR. CARVIN-Yes. it. The applicant can request it. We can request MR. MENTER-He can ask you to make the motion, but we have to make the motion. MR. FORD-We have to make the motion. MR. know. CARVIN-Yes. We can table it for a specific reason. I don't I'd have to check the parliamentary rules on tabling. MR. FORD-We've seen it happen, here, where the requested a tabling when it became obvious that the going to go against him. applicant vote was MS. CIPPERLY-I did ask Paul, specifically, about that, and I remember it was on a sign variance, whether, if the applicant requested a tabling, whether the Board had to do it, and Paul said, no, you don't have to. It may be in your best interest. MR. MENTER-In fact, I remember cases where we've said, well, we're going to vote on it. MR. CARVIN-Yes. You've got to also remember that just because we hear a case tonight, does not necessarily mean, we have, I believe, 30 days to actually make a decision. MR. MENTER-Yes. MR. MARTIN-Yes. That's happened a lot, where you get all the information. I mean, even the Mooring Post was like that. You took all the information, closed the public hearing, made the decision. MS. CIPPERLY-One thing I'd mention, too, is that the Zoning Board is different from the Planning Board on that sort of thing. MR. MARTIN-I think you should constantly bear in mind that you are, like more of a judicial body than a review board. MR. CARVIN-Except that, I noticed in that little article that you've been sending out on the laws there, I think it's a very nice thing, that unlike a quasiJudicial or Judicial, we have to hold our discussions in the public, whereas, a true judge or judges can argue back and forth in private, but we have to argue in public, or in a public forum. MR. MENTER-Not an advantage. MR. CARVIN-Not necessarlly. - 55 - i'1R. i'1Þ¡F<TIN-But not. a political do remember, though, you're board. You're appointed. not elected. You're MR. CARVIN-But they also did point out a number of loopholes that if you did want t.o go to a private conversation that you probably would be on pretty strong ground, but my feeling is that I'd just as soon keep everything on the record, as much as possibly, certainly. Okay. I will copy this letter. I also have a letter, if some of you who weren't on the Board, Paul had addressed this issue back in March of 1994. So, I will copy that and get that out to you. MR. MARTIN-The other thing I wanted to point out, too, with you, while we're talking about these types of things, is I think t.hat Mooring Post decision was very important. There's some guidance ln there on a couple of particular sticky issues that, for example, an increase in building height constitutes an increase ln use. So there's some guidance in that decision. MR. CARVIN-And I would ask you, if visitations, and I'm sure you all do, number of them that may raise a number make your visitat.ions. Anything else, I would move for adjournment. yoU haven't made your that we've got. again. a of interesting issues. So or is that pretty much it? On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Fred Carvin, Chairman - 56 -