Loading...
2007-02-28 (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 02/28/07) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SECOND REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 28, 2007 INDEX Area Variance No. 1-2007 Frank Jelley 1. Tax Map No. 279.19-1-4 Notice of Appeal No. 1-2007 DLS Enterprises 6. Tax Map No. 301.8-1-17 & 18 Sign Variance No. 9-2007 Richard Sabayrac 15. d/b/a Estate Consignments (cont’d Pg. 33) Tax Map No. 288.12-1-14 Sign Variance No. 8-2007 Michael D’ella Bella 16. Tax Map No. 296.20-1-15 Area Variance No. 12-2007 Legacy Land Holdings, Inc. 23. Tax Map No. 296.15-1-18 THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTHS MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES. 0 (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 02/28/07) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SECOND REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 28, 2007 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT CHARLES ABBATE, CHAIRMAN JAMES UNDERWOOD, SECRETARY JOYCE HUNT CHARLES MC NULTY ROY URRICO ALLAN BRYANT RICHARD GARRAND EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR-BLANCHE ALTER ZONING ADMINISTRATOR-CRAIG BROWN LAND USE PLANNER-SUSAN BARDEN STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. ABBATE-Good evening, ladies and gentlemen and welcome to the Town of Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals hearing dated February 28, 2007. Prior to setting this hearing in motion, I would like to acquaint you with information that will familiarize you with the responsibilities of the Board, the mandated legal requirements we are guided by, and the procedures for a hearing before this Board. The function of the Zoning Board of Appeals is to listen to and consider all evidence that appears on the record, and may bear upon the issue we are deciding. The Zoning Board of Appeals can grant (or deny) two types of relief; interpretive and variance. In either case, this Board will affirm, reverse or modify the enforcement officer’s decision. In doing so, this Board will either permit or deny the requested relief. If the appeal is for an interpretation, this Board’s decision will be based on the Town of Queensbury zoning regulations. If the appeal is for a variance, this Board’s decision will be based on the standards of proof contained in NYS Town Law 267-b. Additionally, the Zoning Board of Appeals may only authorize the minimum variance necessary to relieve the applicant. Other than administrative items, public comments will be invited on each appeal, however, in the interest of time please be crisp, organized and limit your comments to only the facts and information given this evening. On opening the public hearing the public will be allowed a maximum of 5 minutes to comment on a specific appeal. The purpose of this time limitation is to provide each member of the public an opportunity to be heard, and also to limit the length of the hearing to a reasonable time frame. All questions from the appellant or the public will be addressed to this Board. All dialogue during the hearing will be between the appellant and this Board. Before we begin, I do have on administrative item, ladies and gentlemen of the Board, and that is the approval of minutes. APPROVAL OF MINUTES January 17, 2007 MOTION TO APPROVE THE JANUARY 17, 2007 ZBA MINUTES, Introduced by Charles Abbate who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Hunt: th Duly adopted this 28 day of February, 2007, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Bryant, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Abbate NOES: NONE MR. ABBATE-The motion to approve the January 17, 2007 ZBA minutes is approved. We have one other set, ladies and gentlemen, and that is the January 24, 2007 minutes. January 24, 2007 MOTION TO APPROVE THE JANUARY 24, 2007 ZBA MINUTES, Introduced by Charles Abbate who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Hunt: 1 (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 02/28/07) th Duly adopted this 28 day of January, 2007, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Hunt, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Abbate NOES: NONE MR. ABBATE-We have a majority of five, zero. I then move that the January 24, 2007 ZBA meeting minutes are approved. Thank you very much. Mr. Secretary, would you be kind enough to monitor the time, and if we have any correspondence that should be read into the record, would you be kind enough to do so, please. MR. UNDERWOOD-None. MR. ABBATE-We have none. OLD BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 1-2007 SEQRA TYPE II FRANK JELLEY OWNER(S): ROBERT AND COURTNEY SMITH ZONING: RR-3A LOCATION: 129 SUNNYSIDE ROAD EAST APPLICANT PROPOSES A 2-LOT RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION. RELIEF IS REQUESTED FROM THE DOUBLE THE MINIMUM LOT WIDTH REQUIREMENT FOR RESIDENTIAL LOT ABUTTING COLLECTOR ROADS. CROSS REF.: BP 2005-298 SEPTIC ALT.; SUB. NO. 2-2007 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: JANUARY 10, 2007 LOT SIZE: 12.73 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 279.19-1-4 SECTION 179-19-020 BOB SMITH, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT th MR. UNDERWOOD-We previously heard this on January 17. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 1-2007, Frank Jelley, Meeting Date: January 17, 2007 “Project Location: 129 Sunnyside Road East Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes a 2-lot residential subdivision. The plan indicates direct access off of Sunnyside Road East, a collector road, to each of the lots. Relief Required: The applicant requests 100-feet of relief from the double the minimum lot width requirement (for lot 2) for residential lots fronting on arterial roads, per §179-19-020 for the RR-3A zone (minimum lot width is 200-feet). **Previous request was for 150-feet. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be permitted to construct an individual driveway for lot 2 and maintain the existing driveway on lot 1. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives were discussed at the previous meeting. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the ordinance?: The request for approximately 100-feet of relief from the minimum 400-feet (two times the minimum lot width of 200-feet) for lot 2 could be considered moderate relative to the ordinance 25%. *Prior relief request for 150-feet was 37.5%. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: Minimal effects on the community may be anticipated as a result of this action. 2 (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 02/28/07) 5. Is this difficulty self-created? The difficulty may be interpreted as self-created. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): SB 2-2007 Sketch Plan: Pending 1/16/07 Planning Board meeting, consideration may be given to reviewing the outcome of the Planning Board’s advisory recommendation to the applicant prior to rendering a decision. Staff comments: As you will recall, this application was tabled at the January 17, 2007 meeting (see resolution and meeting minutes). The applicant’s have revised their plan taking into consideration the concerns of the Board as identified in their cover letter. While an area variance is still requested, the amount of relief required has been reduced by 50-feet. The applicant’s have made additional concessions, including straightening the existing forked driveway at lot 1, thereby eliminating one curb cut. And, propose adding a plat notation prohibiting no further subdivision of lot 1. SEQR Status: Type II” MR. ABBATE-Would the petitioner of Area Variance No. 1-2007 please approach the table. Would you be kind enough to speak into the microphone and tell us who you are. MR. SMITH-Hi. I’m Bob Smith, Robert Smith, the owner of the property. I live at 129 Sunnyside Road East. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Now we know who you are, Mr. Smith. I’m going to apologize because we don’t have signs identifying ourselves, but we have Mr. Urrico on the end, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Underwood, myself, Allan Bryant. MR. BRYANT-I have a sign. MR. ABBATE-You have a sign? MR. SMITH-We met a month ago anyway. MR. ABBATE-Okay. All right. Would you please tell us, in your own words, your case, please. MR. SMITH-Sure. We currently have nearly 13 acres of land at 129 Sunnyside East, and all of that, there’s 1200 feet of road frontage in that property, and there’s currently one driveway in that. We are selling what was three acres. We’ve expanded it to a little bit more than three acres now, and the purchaser requests their own driveway. As stated in the introduction there, because it’s a collector road, the standard’s 400 feet. We’re requesting a variance to allow 300 feet. Since the meeting, we’ve made a number of alterations to our plan and most significantly is being the rest of our property, we own about 10 acres of woods that are right along the road. It’s all road frontage. I’m nearly 1,000 feet of road frontage, that is untouched, and it’s actually the most significant, on the Queensbury side of this road, it’s about the most significant piece of untouched land on Sunnyside East and Sunnyside, and we’ve agreed to write into the map that we’re not going to further subdivide or develop that land. So in effect we’re going to end up with a guarantee of only these two driveways on 1200 feet of road frontage, and I’ve spoken with, I don’t know if you remember at the last meeting, one of our neighbors, Paul Alagna, who lives across the street from the 10 acres of woods that we’re guaranteeing not to develop, I spoke with him last night. He wanted to be here. He’s working in the ER this evening. So he couldn’t, but he was very happy about that. That was the sole concern of his was that we were going to overdevelop the area. We’ve covered that. We’re not going to. We have no intention of doing so. So the only part of the land that we’re ever going to develop is this three acre lot that is already clear cut field. It’s got a very clear view of the road, and there’s, and we’ve made concessions with our own existing property where we’re going to straighten our driveway out and other things, and 3 (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 02/28/07) we’ve moved the line another 50 feet, which is about what we can do. Because if you move it further, you’d start cutting into our garages. We’d have to knock buildings down. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you very much, and anytime during the hearing you feel you wish to add anything else to your case, feel free to do so. MR. SMITH-Sure, thank you. MR. ABBATE-Members of the Board, do we have any members of the Board who would like to ask any questions concerning Area Variance No. 1-2007? Ladies and gentlemen of the Board, do we have any questions? MR. URRICO-So what would be the total distance between the two driveways? MR. SMITH-I believe the total distance between the two driveways is about 250 feet. I think the map even notes that, and that’s not set in stone, obviously, because the first driveway is not there yet, I mean, the new driveway is not there yet. MR. URRICO-When you say it’s not set in stone, what do you mean by that? MR. SMITH-Well, maybe it is. I don’t know. I’m not a surveyor. It’s written on the map. So that’s where it’s going to be. MR. URRICO-Well, I’m asking a very specific question. What’s the distance going to be between Driveway A and Driveway B? MR. SMITH-I believe, according to the map, it’s 250 feet, and if I’m mistaken about that, I’m sorry, but I believe that’s what it is, which is a pretty significant distance anyway, and I believe the rule is that it’s not the distance between driveways but just the size of the lot with the driveway. MR. URRICO-I’m asking you for a reason, though. MR. SMITH-Right. I understand. It’s a pretty good distance, about 250 feet. MRS. BARDEN-Mr. Urrico, it’s 290 feet. MR. SMITH-There you go. I undercut myself. MR. ABBATE-Any other questions from members of the Board? Hearing none, then I’m going to open up the public hearing for Area Variance No. 1-2007, and would those wishing to be heard in the public raise your hands and I’ll be more than happy to recognize you and ask you to come forward. Do we have any members of the public who would like to comment on Area Variance No. 1-2007? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. ABBATE-I see no hands raised, so I’m going to continue, and I’m going to ask Board members for their comments, and I’d like to inform the public that the comments that are offered by members of the Board are directed to the Chairman and comments expressed by Board members to the Chairman will not be open to debate. Ladies and gentlemen of the Board, do we have anyone who would like to start by addressing Area Variance No. 1-2007? I see no members of the Board have any questions concerning that. I’m going to then close the public hearing for Area Variance No 1-2007. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. ABBATE-And I’m going to respectfully, again, remind the members that we have the task of balancing the benefit of the variance against the impact on the area, and we know now that State law sets forth five factors to take into consideration, but unlike a Use Variance test, this Board need not find in favor of the applicant on every one of the five factors. Is there a motion for Area Variance No. 1-2007? MRS. HUNT-We need to have our input yet. MR. UNDERWOOD-Did you want to poll the Board. MR. ABBATE-Yes, gentlemen, I thought I did it earlier. Ladies, do we have any comments. Could we start. Do we have a volunteer to start? 4 (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 02/28/07) MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, I’ll go first. MR. ABBATE-Would you please, Jim. MR. UNDERWOOD-I believe that the statute was put in here, you know, on these arterial roads, to prevent mass confusion with tons of driveways spaced very short distances between each other, but in this instance I think that the applicant has explained to us that there’s over 1200 feet of frontage. He’s only going to be adding one more driveway. He’s going to be altering the current driveway on the property there where he lives. So it’s a single entry. It’s not out of character with the neighborhood on Sunnyside East. I mean, if you look on the other side of the road, the last time we described that there are plenty of driveways much closer together. So I think that they have altered the plan. They’ve added the extra 50 feet in there, and at, you know, 290 feet, that’s plenty of distance, I think. So I think it’s reasonable. MR. ABBATE-All right. Thank you very much. Do we have anyone else who would like to comment? Rick, please? Thank you. MR. GARRAND-Certainly, Mr. Chairman. I think the further concessions by the applicant further mitigate the environmental impacts on the neighborhood. I don’t think the request is at all substantial. I think it would be low to moderate, if anything at all. So I’d be in favor of this application. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you very much. Mr. Bryant, would you comment, please. MR. BRYANT-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I agree with Mr. Underwood, and I also believe that the applicant has made an honest effort to address the issues that were brought at the last meeting, and we certainly do appreciate that, and I would be in favor of the application. MR. ABBATE-Thank you very much. Can I go to Mrs. Hunt, please? MRS. HUNT-Yes, thank you. I have to agree with the other Board members. I think the fact that they are making a single entry from Lot Two and adding 50 feet of frontage for Lot Two and Lot One has one entry now, and the fact that they will not develop the rest of the property, I think they went out of their way to try to satisfy what we wanted. So I would be in favor. MR. ABBATE-Thank you very much. Mr. McNulty, please. MR. MC NULTY-I basically agree. I think what is proposed now is reasonable. It provides a number of driveways on that total stretch that would match what would be probably there if they could make the new lot compliant, and I’m a little nervous about the concessions about we’ll never develop again because it’s a little bit hard to enforce, but I think if the resolution included a proviso incorporating that as well as the note that the applicant says he’s made on the map that that’s probably the best we can hope for. MR. ABBATE-Okay, and Mr. Urrico, please. MR. URRICO-Yes. I essentially agree with the rest of the Board. My only concern on the arterial road was the proximity of the curbs, and this is, 290 feet is way more than we normally see on roads of even smaller lots, and so I’d be in favor of it. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you very much. Well, I’ll go through it again. It’s a Type II, so we don’t have to worry about that, and at this particular point I’m going to close the public hearing for Area Variance No. 1-2007. Ladies and gentlemen of the Board, we know what the balancing test is. I don’t feel I have to repeat that again. Having said that, do I have a volunteer for a motion, please, and I might add that one of the Board members, at this time, was concerned that perhaps, Mr. McNulty, if I’m correct, that perhaps we should include a condition. Do we have a volunteer, please. MR. MC NULTY-I’ll go. MR. ABBATE-Would you please, Mr. McNulty. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 1-2007 FRANK JELLEY, Introduced by Charles McNulty who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Hunt: 5 (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 02/28/07) 129 Sunnyside Road East. The applicant is proposing a two lot residential subdivision, and he’s requesting, at this point, 100 feet of relief from the double the minimum lot width requirement for Lot Two for residential lots fronting on arterial roads. The benefit to the applicant is that the applicant would be permitted to construct an individual driveway for Lot Two and maintain the existing driveway for Lot One. The feasible alternatives are somewhat limited. I think the applicant, in his latest move of moving the lot line over as much as he reasonably could is probably the best he can do, other than the other alternative is not to make the subdivision. The question of whether the relief is substantial relative to the Ordinance, 100 feet of relief from the 400 feet minimum in this instance is probably moderate. Effect on the community or the neighborhood, I believe the effect will be minimal to none, because as we discussed earlier, I think the net result is that the two driveways in this stretch of road will be no more than what would have been there if these two lots could have been divided in a way to make them compliant in both cases, and is the difficulty self-created? I guess in a sense we have to say it is because it’s a case of the owner wanting to subdivide and have individual driveways. However, I think in making this balancing test, we also are considering concessions offered by the applicant that they will convert the split wide driveway on the existing main lot into a single entrance driveway, and his offer that he’ll guarantee that the lot will not be further subdivided. So we can be assured that there’s only going to be two driveways in this stretch. So I think basing this variance on those concessions, I move that we approve the request. th Duly adopted this 28 day of February, 2007, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Garrand, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Abbate NOES: NONE MR. ABBATE-Area Variance No. 1-2007 is approved with conditions that the appellant has agreed to. Thank you very much. MR. SMITH-Thank you. NOTICE OF APPEAL NO. 1-2007 SEQRA TYPE: N/A DLS ENTERPRISES AGENT(S): RICHARD E. JONES ASSOCIATES OWNER(S): DLS ENTERPRISES ZONING: NC-10 LOCATION: 340 AVIATION ROAD APPELLANT IS APPEALING ZONING ADMINISTRATOR’S DETERMINATION THAT SITE PLAN REVIEW IS REQUIRED BY THE PLANNING BOARD. APPLICANT PROPOSES NEW SIDEWALKS, NEW LIGHTING, NEW WALKWAY CANOPIES AND NEW ENTRY “TOWERS” TO BUSINESS PLAZA. WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: N/A LOT SIZE: 1.30 AND 0.87 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 301.8-1-17 & 18 SECTION: 179-9-020 RICHARD JONES & MATT SOKOL, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Notice of Appeal No. 1-2007, DLS Enterprises, Meeting Date: February 28, 2007 “Project Location: 340 Aviation Road Description of Proposed Project: Appellant is appealing to the Zoning Board of Appeals relative to a November 3, 2006 decision made by the Zoning Administrator regarding the necessity of Site Plan Review for the proposed improvements and expansion of the facility. Staff comments: The issue at debate here is whether or not the proposed improvements and expansion requires Site Plan Review. While both the appellant and the Zoning Administrator agree that a building permit is necessary for such expansion apparently, the appellants’ argument offers that the proposed fascia, canopy, lighting and sidewalk improvements as well as the proposed building additions should be exempt from Site Plan Review despite the requirement for such review as stated in Town Code section 179-9-020. Additionally, the applicant has supplied a listing of references to Building Permit applications that they feel should have triggered the need for Site Plan Review but did not. It is the position of the Zoning Administrator that the proposed fascia, canopy, lighting and sidewalk improvements as well as the proposed building additions do require Site Plan Review per Town Code section 179-9-020. This applicable sections states: Any 6 (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 02/28/07) project requiring a building permit and that is listed as a site plan review use in Article 4 requires site plan review. As noted above, both parties agree that a building permit is necessary, therefore, Site Plan Review is necessary. The appellant’s assertions that: “This is totally inconsistent with the way that applications are handled and reviewed by the Town” is not accurate. Of the 19 building permit references offered by the appellant, 4 are inaccurate references that are actually for residential projects, (garage, pool, etc), 3 are associated with a project that did receive Site Plan Review (Provident Dev. SPR 6-2003), the remaining 12 are all for commercial interior alterations. While building permits are required for commercial interior alterations it is the determination of the Zoning Administrator that such interior alterations, (for which there were approximately 50 permits issued in 2006) that do not include physically altering the exterior appearance of the building and do not materially increase the interior square footage of the space, do not require Site Plan Review. Changes in use are allowable per the applicable zoning district use listings. Projects such as the replacement of a restaurant atrium seating area of the same square footage, the reconfiguration of walkway canopies and the construction of clock towers do require and have required Site Plan Review. Attached please find Planning Board resolutions for 3 very similar situations. In each case a building permit was required and each project included physical alterations to the exterior of the building. Additionally, for the record, the plans submitted with this appeal appear to show an expansion to all canopy areas. Of concern are those areas along Aviation Road that are shown to increase from the existing 3’-8” canopy depth to what appears to be a canopy depth of more than 5 feet. From the plot plan (not a survey) submitted, it would appear as though a significant portion of the proposed canopy enlargement will not meet the minimum 40 foot front setback requirement of the NC-10 zone. Further, as the proposal is currently located on two separate but adjacent parcels, it would appear as though a 100% request for side setback relief will be necessary for a portion of the “main” canopy expansions, unless the parcels are combined. Finally, while unclear from the plans submitted, there may be the need for a front setback variance request if there is a new canopy proposed for the east side of the grocery store behind the liquor store.” MR. ABBATE-Would the appellant of Appeal No. 1-2007 please approach the table, speak into the microphone and be kind enough to state your name and place of residence, please. MR. SOKOL-Matt Sokol, 340 Aviation Road, Queensbury. MR. JONES-Good evening. Richard Jones, 339 Aviation Road, Queensbury. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you very much. Board members, the jurisdiction of the Zoning Board of Appeals to construe the Ordinance includes the power to determine the application of the Ordinance to a specific property, and the Zoning Board of Appeals has jurisdiction to interpret zoning regulations upon an appeal from the issuance of a permit by an enforcement official, and such interpretation by the ZBA will not be disturbed, absent of showing that it is irrational or unreasonable. The Zoning Board of Appeals jurisdiction to review the zoning decisions of enforcement officers is exclusive. It cannot be exercised by any other administrative officials or by the legislative authority of the municipality. The Zoning Board of Appeals may, after appropriate notice of the hearing, reverse or affirm, wholly or partly, or may modify the order, requirement, decision or determination, appeal from, as in the Zoning Board of Appeals member’s opinion ought to have been made. Now, gentlemen, would you like to make an opening statement? MR. JONES-Yes. MR. ABBATE-Please do. MR. JONES-What I’d like to do is briefly describe the project that we’re proposing. What we’re looking at is a replacement of finished materials on some of the existing fascias on the building. Currently there’s a fascia that runs along the Aviation Road side of the building, slams into the side of the supermarket, runs across the front of the supermarket where the main entrance is, and then runs along the front of the supermarket, parallel to Aviation Road. It would be our intent to basically remove the existing columns that are there now. There’s a mix of wood columns and masonry columns that have been constructed. We would be taking the fascia, putting a new fascia material on, taking the entry canopies that currently exist at the supermarket entrance, the bank entrance, and the entrance into the daycare center, remove those canopies in that area, with their 7 (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 02/28/07) entrance canopy system, and basically construct new canopies in those areas which are consistent with what is there. We are not expanding any canopies. We are not building new sidewalks. We are replacing what is there. The existing canopy has a series of surface mounted fluorescent light fixtures which run the entire length of the canopy. As part of the project, we would be looking to basically remove those fixtures and install new, recessed metal halide fixtures so that we don’t get the side glare from those fixtures. Basically, we are not looking at anything that requires variances. The project site does consist of two parcels, and it would be the intent of the owner to combine those parcels. This was never done when they purchased the second parcel. Subsequent to that, they have done numerous additions and renovations and site plan reviews for tenant changes within the Plaza and it was never brought up. If it had, they would have combined the lots at that time, but they are amenable to combining those two parcels. When you look at what we’re proposing, basically it’s replacement of the sidewalks, the fascia system, the lighting, and the entrance canopies. We are not expanding the building. We are not expanding the building. We are not increasing the leasable or rentable space within the Plaza. Basically the current Zoning Ordinance does not require architectural review. There’s no requirement in there. They have architectural guideline requirements for certain areas within the Town. We do not have to comply with any of those. We are not in one of those areas. Other projects that have proceeded with building permits and no site plan reviews, we did submit a list of those projects, and I think one of the major projects is the plaza that was constructed and re-constructed down on Quaker Road for Legacy Holdings. There were a number of building permits that were issued for that plaza, one of the first being the reconstruction of the fascias, reconstruction of an entry tower, and those were not done with any site plan review. Subsequent to that, there were issued building permits for all of the tenant occupancy changes within the plaza. The entire make up of the plaza changed. There were new tenants that went in, restaurants. As part of that project, they basically altered the site plan. There were major modifications that were made to the parking areas in the front of the building. Basically all of the handicap parking was moved to the front row against the building itself. The curb lines, all of the sidewalks were replaced. The lighting was replaced. The fascias were reconstructed. Similar to what we are proposing. When you look at the information that is provided by the Town, there’s an Informational Brochure Number 12 which talks about site plan review. It does not discuss anything relative to exterior renovations to the building requiring a site plan review. Yes, the Zoning Ordinance does indicate that anything requiring a building permit that is listed in the table as a site plan review requires site plan review, but what has been done by the Town Planning and Zoning Office has not been consistent with the requirements that are indicated in the Zoning Ordinance. MR. ABBATE-Excuse me. Is that entered into the record, that document you have in your hand? MR. JONES-You can if you. MR. ABBATE-Yes, I definitely want it, if you could give it to our secretary, and he will read that into the record, and we would like to hold that, if we may, for our permanent records. MR. JONES-Sure. That’s a copy. You can have that. There’s a part that’s highlighted on there. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. It says, “Why would my project require a Site Plan Review? Generally; For projects involving construction on a previously undeveloped site, review would be necessary. For projects that increase or expand a previously existing use or propose to add 10 or more new parking spaces, review would be necessary. For projects replacing a previously existing use with a compatible or similar use, Site Plan Review may not be necessary. The Zoning Administrator will identify the need for Site Plan Review, if necessary, after a review of your proposed project.” Which I think would be Craig’s letter. MR. ABBATE-Yes, that would be Craig’s letter. That’s exactly right. Okay. Thank you. At this time, do you have anything else you’d like to add? MR. JONES-Well, I’d like to respond, at this time, to the Staff comments. MR. ABBATE-You certainly may. MR. JONES-In reference to the project that we’re proposing, we are not expanding our building. We are not altering the size of the tenant spaces in reference to any piers or 8 (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 02/28/07) pilasters that we’re constructing to support the canopy that are replacing columns and pilasters that are there. Part of the problem that they have is when the original construction was done, the walkway sidewalks did not have foundations put under them. The slabs have heaved. Some have gone up. Some have gone down, and it’s our intent, as part of the project, basically to replace those, put a new foundation in, basically a frost wall to keep the sidewalks from heaving. The columns that are there, basically, are setting on pylon type foundations. It would be our intent to basically put a foundation under there and construct a column that basically would not be knocked down by vehicles and that type of thing. One of the problems that they’ve been experiencing is vehicles driving up to the building, clipping the columns. A lot of the wood columns have been knocked off their foundations. Originally the fabric canopy that exists at the entrance to the grocery store had metal columns. They weren’t there I don’t think three or four weeks when a vehicle took them out. So they did not put them back in. So that canopy has now been hit again. So it’s our intent to try and make the Plaza safe, address and basically dress up the facades of the building, and basically bring the sidewalks and the lighting into conformance, but we are not expanding our building. In reference to the Zoning Board of Appeals, there’s a document that you actually have on your website, and it talks about the basis of an interpretation, and I guess one of my questions for the Board would be, has any interpretation been requested in reference to exterior façade improvements in the Town of Queensbury as to whether it requires a Site Plan Review and if it has, what was the determination that was made by the Zoning Board? If it has not, then I would ask the Zoning Board to basically make a determination of what the original intent was of the Zoning Ordinance that was put together back in I think ’03 and revised in ’05. When you look at what they’re proposing right now for changes to the revisions to the Zoning Ordinance, they’re talking about the requirement for a Site Plan Review, and they’ve basically taken that Article, 179-9-020, and basically revised the entire thing, and I don’t think it was ever clear in the original Zoning Ordinance, the current Zoning Ordinance, that exterior façade renovations require a Site Plan Review. Because they made it very explicit in what they’re proposing for the changes to the Zoning Ordinance. They’re basically saying that if you have exterior façade renovations, then you require a Site Plan Review, but I don’t think that was ever clear. MR. ABBATE-Who’s making it quite clear? MR. JONES-The proposed amendments or changes. MR. ABBATE-Well, this is a proposal you’re speaking of. MR. JONES-Right. MR. ABBATE-Let’s make it clear for the record. There is a proposal. MR. JONES-That’s correct. MR. ABBATE-But it’s not in effect law. MR. JONES-No, it is not, and I’m not saying it is. MR. ABBATE-Okay. All right. I just want to be clear for the record. MR. JONES-But what I’m saying is that they’re making it extremely clear with what they’re proposing, and again, I have that which I would enter in and this I would enter in as well. MR. ABBATE-Let me ask you a question. Quite frankly, I don’t like the way you’re entering evidence into the record. Was this included in your application to Staff? MR. JONES-No, it was not? MR. ABBATE-Why not? And the reason I say that, we reserve the right to be able to digest this information ahead of time. What you’re doing this evening, not that I object, you have every right to submit whatever evidence you wish, but I think it’s quite unfair to ask this Board to go through two, three, four, five documents for interpretation when we’ve never had an opportunity to interpret it yet, or read it. MR. JONES-Well, this is the one Article that I was referring to. 9 (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 02/28/07) MR. ABBATE-Well, that’s one Article. Then you’ve already submitted another Article, and I’m not objecting to what you’re doing. What I’m saying, it would seem to me that the documents you are presenting this evening should have been submitted with the application in order to give every member of this Board and alternates an opportunity to read it. Right now, I really don’t know what that document says, the first one. I’m not evens sure I know what you’re talking about with the second one. I haven’t even seen it. Now there’s no way I can say you can’t submit it. You certainly may submit it. No question about it. MR. JONES-Well, I’ve read the information into the record, and at this point, I will not submit these as part of the record. MR. ABBATE-But you may, but I want the Board members to feel comfortable when they’re making the decision that how are they going to base a decision that they’re going to make, positive or negative, on documents they have never even reviewed yet. MR. JONES-In reference to setback requirements, as I said, the owner is willing to combine the two parcels. There is not a requirement for a variance for setback to the canopies from Aviation Road, and we are not constructing a new canopy on the back side of the building, which would be the back of the liquor store. There’s an existing canopy back there now which would remain. We are not proposing to alter that or change that in any fashion. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Now any time during the hearing if there’s any additional information you feel is important to your case, stop us and feel free to enter it into the record. We have no problems with that at all. MR. BRYANT-I have a question. MR. ABBATE-Well, I think what I’d like to do first, before we ask questions, there apparently is a difference of opinion on what’s going to be done. I’d like to give the Zoning Administrator an opportunity to respond, please. I think he deserves that right. MR. BROWN-Sure. I think I’ve cleared up my stance pretty well in the Staff Notes. If there’s any questions on any of that stuff, feel free to ask me. I just want to make a couple of responses to Mr. Jones’ presentation. The information brochure that was provided to you from Mr. Jones, it’s clear, and I’m sure there’s a disclaimer in there some place that says if you have a project, come in to the Town office and the Zoning Administrator will issue a determination. This is for information only. Don’t rely on it. If you have an actual project, we’ll give you an actual answer. So state there’s information in there, there’s also a disclaimer that says you better double check once you have a project. The expansion that I referred to in my Staff Notes deals with the clock towers, the fascia alterations and expansions over the entrances, that’s different than what’s there now. It’s difficult to tell from the plans, they’re not dimensioned well, but it appears from scaling and field measurements, that at least the canopy along Aviation Road, along the Sokol’s Market, as it’s referenced on the map, that’s going to expand over a foot. Again, that’s not really dimensioned well on the plan. The main canopy, which is what I call the canopy that runs in front of all the stores, the liquor store, the bank, the pizza place and the daycare place, the field measurements show that’s going to increase maybe half a foot or so. So that’s what I refer to when I say expansion. I agree that there’s no expansion to the floor area of the buildings. Expansion isn’t limited to the floor areas of the buildings. If the building, the structure is expanding, the footprint of the structure is expanding, that’s expansion. It requires a building permit. It’s clear that anything that triggers a building permit requires Site Plan Review. Other site plans, as you can see by the attached Planning Board resolutions, one of them was for Quaker Plaza. If you remember the blue tarp, the canopy along there. They came in and replaced in kind, in size anyway, the blue canopy for a fabricated metal roof. No physical change in size, required Site Plan Review. Mountain View Outlets, if you recall that project up on the Million Dollar Half Mile, significant structure alteration to the canopies all along the front of all the stores, similar to the different articulations in the building line that’s proposed in this plan, requires Site Plan Review. The other reference in there is for a restaurant which is Wendy’s. They had kind of an arched sunroom kind of atrium. They replaced the glassed roof with a metal structure, you know, a standing seam metal roof. Same footprint, requires Site Plan Review. It’s a physical alteration to the building. That, again, is the basis. Physical alteration requires a building permit, a building permit requires Site Plan Review. It’s a physical change to the site. Mr. Jones requested that the Board possibly issue an interpretation. That hasn’t been requested. That hasn’t been advertised. That’s not on the table at this point. You can certainly do it at some point, if we want to, you know, open that window, if Mr. Jones wants to actually make a 10 (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 02/28/07) formal request of that, you can certainly do that, but I don’t think that’s on the table tonight, and I think you touched on the new information that’s been presented. I don’t have anything to say about that. So unless there’s any questions, that’s all I have for now. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Now, Mr. Bryant, would you like to ask questions, please. I believe you had some questions you wanted to ask. MR. BRYANT-Well, Mr. Brown touched on the question that I had, and that was relative to the expansion. I mean, you say you’re renovating the fascia. You’re not expanding it, and now the Staff Notes and Mr. Brown have articulated that you are, in fact, expanding the fascia by whatever, a foot or whatever, and then you’re adding the clock tower, whatever. So those are, that is kind of an expansion. Do you agree or disagree? MR. JONES-Well, we’re not expanding the fascias. We’re basically removing the material that’s on the fascia now and we’re replacing it with new material. MR. BRYANT-Same size, exactly the same size? MR. JONES-Same size, yes. The fascias are not getting any deeper. The fascia along Aviation Road that he’s referring to is not increasing by a foot or a foot and a half. Basically that does not have any columns under it. We are not putting any columns under it. The sidewalk along that area of the building does have a foundation under it, and it has stayed in place. They have not experienced vehicles running into that nor columns on that side. In reference to the towers, we’re not building clock towers. We’re building entrance canopies at the major entrances into the Plaza. As I currently said, there’s one for the grocery store. There’s one right now for the bank that was constructed, and there was one that was constructed for the daycare when they went in there. Basically we are providing an entrance canopy with something that we can put signage on for each one of the tenants in the Plaza. MR. BRYANT-And that is not considered an expansion you’re saying? MR. JONES-We don’t consider it an expansion. We’re not moving the building out. We’re maybe building it taller, but we’re not expanding the building. MR. ABBATE-All right. Before we ask any other questions, I want to make something quite clear. You’ve requested an interpretive decision by the Zoning Board of Appeals. That is not on the agenda and I’m not going to entertain that this evening. MR. JONES-That’s fine. MR. ABBATE-Ladies and gentlemen of the Board, do you have any other questions or comments you’d like to make at this time? MR. URRICO-I need some help here. MR. ABBATE-Yes. MR. URRICO-Raising the roof or making it higher does not warrant an expansion? MR. BROWN-Yes, I guess maybe I’d give you a quick answer to that. If you refer to the Definitions of the Zoning Code and look under, look up the definition of Expansion, it says expansion of any facilities, including buildings, buildings, parking, you know, paved areas, any facilities that get expanded or changed, any growth of any activity which requires the enlargement of facilities, etc., etc. So I think it clearly qualifies as an expansion. MR. BRYANT-One more question, Mr. Chairman. MR. ABBATE-Yes, by all means, please. MR. BRYANT-Just out of curiosity, Mr. Jones, what is your objection for Site Plan Review? MR. JONES-I guess our primary concern is that we’re not modifying the site. We are not changing tenants. We are not expanding the building. We are not changing uses. We’re not adding parking. Nothing. We’re modifying the facades of the building, and the Town of Queensbury, I really think they should start to consider architectural review for 11 (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 02/28/07) projects, because this project fits that criteria. Architectural review would look at the facades, the lighting, those types of things. There are no site issues in reference to parking, drainage or anything else on that site that we would address as part of a Site Plan Review, and I’m not sure what a Site Plan Review would actually accomplish for us in that regard. MR. BRYANT-Mr. Chairman, with your permission, would you have the secretary read the last bullet on that Information Brochure again slowly, the last bullet? MR. ABBATE-Yes. Mr. Secretary, would you be kind enough to do that. MR. UNDERWOOD-The last one says, “The Zoning Administrator will identify the need for Site Plan Review, if necessary, after a review of your proposed project.” So, I mean, it does leave it up to the Zoning Administrator to make that call. MR. ABBATE-Would any other Board members like the secretary to read that again for clarity? We’re all set on it? Would the Board members like to take a couple of minutes to go over that? Do you think it’s necessary? No? Okay. MR. MC NULTY-I’d just make a comment on that. Again, he’s reading from a brochure. MR. ABBATE-That’s correct. MR. MC NULTY-That’s not Code. MR. ABBATE-That’s correct. MR. MC NULTY-So even though the brochure says it’s up to the Zoning Administrator, the question we need to determine is, is that power granted in the Code, and if not, then whatever the brochure says is a moot point. MR. ABBATE-Agreed. Okay. Any other questions from the Board members? Okay. I’m going to open the public hearing for Appeal No. 1-2007, and to meet the obligations of Public Officers Law Sec: 3 for a fair and open process, the public hearing is open for Appeal No. 1-2007. MR. UNDERWOOD-There’s no public on this, is there? This is strictly our decision. MR. ABBATE-Well, but we have to have the public hearing. You’re right. It’s strictly our decision, but I’m going to open up the public hearing for safety’s sake, and do we have any members in the audience who would like to comment on Appeal No. 1-2007? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. ABBATE-I see no hands raised, so I’m going to close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. ABBATE-I’m going to ask the Board members to offer their comments, and I’d respectfully remind members that precedence mandates that we concern ourselves with the evidence which appears on the record to support our conclusions, and the evidenced relied upon should be specifically stated. This is necessary for a judicial review. Do we have some comments from? MR. BRYANT-I have a question. The canopy over Sokol’s and the other canopies that you have, the one with the clock, they don’t exist now. MR. JONES-Not the tall structure. The entrances, if you look at the picture, we have the fabric canopy on the face of the fascia, on the building. MR. BRYANT-Yes, I know that. MR. JONES-So that entrance does exist. There’s one right now for the bank that’s a peaked roof. MR. BRYANT-Yes, but the drawings, the elevations on the drawings, appear to me to be much higher than what exists there now. MR. JONES-They are taller than what is there now. That’s correct. 12 (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 02/28/07) MR. BRYANT-Okay. MR. ABBATE-All right. Ladies and gentlemen, any other questions from Board members? MR. MC NULTY-Yes, I’ve been puzzling a little bit over the wording in 179-9-020, which is quoted in the Staff Notes, and it says any project requiring a building permit and that is listed as a Site Plan Review use. Now, I think the Zoning Administrator was saying if it requires a building permit, obviously it requires a Site Plan Review, and that’s not the way I read this. If it said any project requiring a building permit or that is a Site Plan, then I would say he’s correct, but it says and. I’m not sure, it just leaves me wondering. MR. ABBATE-I agree with you, Mr. McNulty, because it is my opinion, as Chairman, that that provision is ambiguous, and remember what the rules are. If we have to make a decision on an Ordinance, and the Ordinance is ambiguous, we rule for the appellant. MR. BROWN-Mr. Chairman, if I could just make a comment. MR. ABBATE-By all means, please. MR. BROWN-I guess I’d just like to make an argument that I don’t think the Code is ambiguous at all. I think if you just use, you know, the plain language rule and read the words that are in the Code, it’s clear that the uses that are on this property, the retail uses, I guess they’re virtually all retail uses, with the exception of the bank, retail uses are allowed uses in the Code. They’re allowable Site Plan Review uses. The facilities that are proposed to be, in my opinion expanded, are related to those allowable uses. So I don’t think there’s any ambiguity at all in the Code. MR. ABBATE-Well, of course you wouldn’t, okay. Neither would I if I were the Zoning Administrator, but Mr. McNulty makes an excellent point. I’d like Mr. McNulty to state that one more time, please, your position. MR. MC NULTY-Okay. What I was saying, I’m not necessarily arguing that this is the only position, because I think the Zoning Administrator has made a point, but the wording says any project requiring a building permit, and that is listed as a Site Plan Review use. That, on it’s face, I would say, it would have to be listed as a Site Plan Review use and be significant enough that it requires a building permit. It would have to meet both criteria to qualify. MR. ABBATE-Right. Exactly. MR. MC NULTY-And it obviously is requiring a building permit. So it’s met Part A. So then the question for me at least is whether or not it meets Part B, and that’s part of what the Zoning Administrator just spoke to. He’s saying that it’s retail uses, and at least new retail uses would require clearly a Site Plan Review, and if this work is associated with it, is associated directly with the retail use, then maybe it is required, and the applicant’s probably going to argue that it’s not really associated with retail use because it’s not affecting the interior of the store. MR. BROWN-Well, if I could just expand just a little bit. If we, hypothetically say this is not a Site Plan allowable use, a canopy is not an allowable use, now they need a Use Variance to build a canopy because it’s not listed as an allowable Site Plan Review use. That’s not a reasonable position to take. The canopy certainly is part of the functionality of the building and the site. It’s associated with the uses and it’s there for the uses. So it’s not an independent structure. It’s associated with the functionality of the site. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Would you like to poll the Board, Mr. McNulty? It’s up to you. I’ll leave it up to you. You raised the question, and I happen to agree with you, but, we’re only two. MR. MC NULTY-Well, when each individual makes their decision, they’ll include that. MR. ABBATE-Fair enough. That’s fair enough. Okay. Do we have any other members that would like to comment on Appeal No. 1-2007? On any portion of this? Okay. I see no other comments there, okay. Well, if that’s the case, then, ladies and gentlemen of the Board, then I’m going to have to ask for, at this particular time, for a motion for Appeal No. 1-2007, if there are no other questions. Is there a motion? 13 (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 02/28/07) MR. UNDERWOOD-You’ve got to poll us. MR. ABBATE-Didn’t we do that already? Okay. I thought we did. All right. Let’s poll the Board members at this particular time, and ask their particular positions. Do we have a volunteer? MR. GARRAND-Mr. Chairman, I’ll go. MR. ABBATE-Would you, please. MR. GARRAND-Certainly. Mr. Chairman, consistent with other decisions by the Zoning Administrator, external alterations of this nature, i.e. sidewalk, canopy, expansion of canopy, have been subject to review. The requirement has not been arbitrarily enforced, and at this point I’d be in favor of the Zoning Administrator’s decision. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Do we have someone else who’d like to make a comment on this thing? Mr. Bryant, would you be kind enough to do so. MR. BRYANT-I think Mr. McNulty has made a good point relative to the criteria where the two points that you made, relative to the criteria for requirement of a site plan review, and I, too, am going to side with the Zoning Administrator on this particular Appeal. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Well, since we’re down at that end of the table, Mr. McNulty? MR. MC NULTY-Okay. I’ve been on the fence, but I guess I have to side with the Zoning Administrator as well. Addressing just the statement that I brought up earlier, I would be inclined to go the other way until the Zoning Administrator argued that these modifications are related to the retail use, and I’ve kind of got to agree to that, that, yes, indeed, they are, even though they’re not significant. They’re not putting 10 feet on the front of the building or something, but they are related. Absent that, reading the Code strictly, I was inclined to go the other way, even though my gut feeling was this is the kind of modification that really I would like to see, if not a site plan review, then, yes, an architectural review. It’s the kind of thing I think that the Planning Board probably ought to look at. The question would be, what do they call it, site plan, architectural or something else, but given our existing Code, which is what we have to rely on, not what’s perhaps being proposed that we don’t know will ever be passed by the Town Board or not, and even ignoring decisions in the past, while they may establish a little bit of precedent, making several errors in the past does not justify making another error now. MR. ABBATE-I agree. MR. MC NULTY-So I think that, for me, is moot, but when all the dust settles, I guess I’ve got to agree with the Zoning Administrator. MR. ABBATE-All right. Mr. Underwood, please. MR. UNDERWOOD-I guess I’ll agree with the rest of the guys here. I think that, you know, in the past, we’ve reviewed numerous proposals on some of the other malls and things like that, and I think it’s important, you know, I agree with what you said, too, Mr. Jones, that, you know, architectural review is an important part of the Town that’s been missing in the past, and I think that the creation of some of the Main Street project, you know, the miracle mile and things like that of trying to spruce things up and make it look, I think your project is a good project. I think it’ll breeze right through, and I understand your frustration in trying to overcome, you know, the missing links, so to speak, in the Codebook that are there and aren’t very clear at the present time, but I would have to back up what the Zoning Administrator has said here, too. I think that, you know, we’re all looking towards making things better and I think your project is a good project, but at the same time I think that review of the project is important. I think you’ve also made some recommendations about, you know, maybe the Planning Board will come back with some recommendations about traffic flow within your site there, you know, you’ve had problems with people knocking down columns in the past and things like that. They may offer some insights into that to make that better for you so you don’t have to deal with that in the future, also, and maybe they can modify your plan in that respect, too, but I would agree with the Zoning Administrator. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Mrs. Hunt, please. MRS. HUNT-Thank you. Yes, I have to agree with my fellow Board members. I would agree with the Zoning Administrator in this instance. 14 (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 02/28/07) MR. ABBATE-Okay. Mr. Urrico, please. MR. URRICO-I’m going to go with the rest of the Board, but I will say this, that I think there’s enough room for interpretation here that I think the applicant has made a good point, and what is the definition of an expansion of a use? The use being the businesses there, and I don’t see that what they’re doing really expands that use. It does allow for that same Code, that same 179-9-020, does allow for 10 extra parking spaces without Site Plan Review. That would be more egregious, to me, than what they’re proposing there, but I’m going to stick with the Zoning Administrator and say that I agree with his call on this one. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you very much. I, too, am going to go along with the Zoning Administrator. However, for the record, I think you’ve made some excellent points, and here is another example, Madam Executive Director, of why certain sections of the Code must be re-written so that it does not lead to something that might be claimed to be ambiguous. I’m going to side with the Zoning Administrator as well, but for the record, I think you have some excellent points, and I certainly think that your request, what you want to do, is going to benefit the public. No question about that at all. Having said that, is there a motion for Appeal No. 1-2007? Now, the motion for Appeal No. 1-2007, will be, A, to support the appellant’s challenge to the Zoning Administrator’s decision, or, B, to uphold the Zoning Administrator’s decision. Do we have a motion? MRS. HUNT-I’ll make a motion. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Please. MOTION REGARDING NOTICE OF APPEAL NO. 1-2007 DLS ENTERPRISES TO UPHOLD THE ZONING ADMINISTRATION’S DECISION OF NOVEMBER 3, 2006 REGARDING THE NECESSITY FOR SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR THE PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS AND EXPANSION OF THE FACILITY AT 340 AVIATION ROAD SOKOL’S, Introduced by Joyce Hunt who moved for its adoption, seconded by Richard Garrand: 340 Aviation Road. th Duly adopted this 28 day of February, 2007, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. McNulty, Mr. Garrand, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Abbate NOES: NONE MR. ABBATE-The vote is seven yes, to zero no to uphold the Zoning Administrator’s decision. Thank you very much. SIGN VARIANCE NO. 9-2007 SEQRA TYPE: UNLISTED RICHARD SABAYRAC d/b/a ESTATE CONSIGNMENTS OWNER(S): FIVEASIDE, LLC c/o SILVER BUILDERS, INC. ZONING: HC-INT. LOCATION: 6 STATE ROUTE 149 APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF AN 18 SQ. FT. WALL SIGN. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM NUMBER OF ALLOWABLE SIGNS. CROSS REF.: BP 2006-843 WALL SIGN WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: FEBRUARY 14, 2007 LOT SIZE: 0.70 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 288.12-1-14 SECTION: 140-6 STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Sign Variance No. 9-2007, Richard Sabayrac d/b/a Estate Consignments, Meeting Date: February 28, 2007 “Project Location: 6 State Route 9 Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes an 18 sq. ft. wall sign to be located on the side of the building for Estate Consignments. Relief Required: Applicant requests relief for a second wall sign, two signs per business is permitted, per §140-6. The business currently has one wall sign on the front of the building and one freestanding sign. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 15 (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 02/28/07) 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicants would be permitted to erect an additional wall sign on the building. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives appear to be limited to replacement of one of the existing signs for the proposed. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the ordinance?: The relief requested for a total of 3 signs, where the maximum allowable is two per business, could be deemed considerable. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: Effects on the neighborhood or community appear to be minimal. 5. Is this difficulty self-created? The difficulty can be interpreted as self-created. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): BP 2006-844: Issued 11/30/06, sign for Estate Consignments. BP 2006-842: Issued 11/29/06, sign for Estate Consignments. Staff comments: The applicants currently have a 64 sq. ft. wall sign on the front of the building and a 12.5 sq. ft. freestanding sign, both advertising the business. The request for an additional sign totaling 3, where the maximum allowable per business is 2 is considerable; however it does not appear that the proposed would be detrimental to the neighborhood or community at only 18 sq. ft., and setback a considerable distance from property lines (180-feet from front and 55-feet from side). SEQR Status: Unlisted” MR. ABBATE-All right. Would the petitioner of Sign Variance No. 9-2007 please approach the table, speak into the microphone, and for the record identify yourself. Is the petitioner for Sign Variance No. 9-2007 present this evening? Apparently the petitioner is not present this evening. Consequently, we will not hear Sign Variance No. 9-2007. MR. BROWN-Mr. Chairman, do you want to, since there’s a public hearing noticed, just open the public hearing and maybe move them to the end of the agenda, in case they show up? MR. ABBATE-Yes. Let’s go right to that. I’m going to open up the public hearing for Sign Variance No. 9-2007. If we have any members of the public who’d like to be heard, please raise your hand. I will ask you to come to the table and speak into the microphone. Do we have any members of the public who would like to address Sign Variance No. 9-2007? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. ABBATE-I see no hands raised. I’m continuing on. Members of the Board, do you have any questions concerning this? Do you wish to wait and see whether the applicant is outside? All right, then Sign Variance No. 9-2007 is held in abeyance until the end of this evening. SIGN VARIANCE NO. 8-2007 SEQRA TYPE: UNLISTED MICHAEL D’ELLA BELLA OWNER(S): FAMIGLIA BELLA, LLC ZONING: HC-INT. LOCATION: 293 QUAKER ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 15.4 SQ. FT. WALL SIGN. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM THE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF ALLOWABLE SIGNS. CROSS REF.: BP 2005-709; BP 92-025; BP 89-035 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: 16 (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 02/28/07) FEBRUARY 14, 2007 LOT SIZE: 4.97 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 296.20-1-5 SECTION: 140 MICHAEL D”ELLA BELLA, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Sign Variance No. 8-2007, Michael D’ella Bella, Meeting Date: February 28, 2007 “Project Location: 293 Quaker Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a 15.4 sq. ft. wall sign identifying the name of the car dealership. Relief Required: Applicant requests relief for an additional wall sign, two signs per business is permitted, per §140-6. The business currently has 4 wall signs (totaling 87 sq. ft.) on the front of the building and one freestanding sign. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicants would be permitted to erect an additional sign on the building (Della), and maintain the existing signage on-site. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives appear to be limited to replacement of one of the existing signs for the proposed. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the ordinance?: The relief requested for a total of 6 signs, where the maximum allowable is two per business, is considerable. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: Effects on the neighborhood or community appear to be moderate. 5. Is this difficulty self-created? The difficulty can be interpreted as self-created. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): AV 31-2006: Approved 5/24/06, applicant proposes construction of a 1,610 sq. ft. showroom addition and new canopy front entrance. Relief requested from front yard setback requirements of the HC-zone. SP 38-2005: Approved 7/19/05, showroom addition w/additional parking/display/car storage area & site improvements. FWW 3-2005: Showroom addition w/additional parking/display/car storage area & site improvements. BP 2005-709: Issued 11/02/05, commercial addition. SPR 57-2004: AV 89-2004 : Approved, 11/24/04, applicant proposes construction of a 1,610 sq. ft. addition to the existing showroom. Relief requested from the front setback requirement. AV 62-2004: Approved, 8/25/04, applicant proposes to construct a 1,775 sq. ft. building addition, and has expanded the on-site parking area by placing 21,750 sq. ft. of crushed stone on the property. Applicant seeks relief from the front setback and permeability requirements. Staff comments: The applicants currently have a total of 4 wall signs clustered together on the front of the building totaling 87 sq. ft., the signs on this façade are located 5-feet from the front property line. A 45 sq. ft. free-standing sign also advertises the business. The request 17 (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 02/28/07) for an additional sign, totaling 6 for the site, where 2 is allowed is considerable, however the total square footage of all of the wall signs (existing and proposed) would be only 102.4 sq. ft., the maximum allowable square footage for one wall sign is 100 sq. ft. (at a distance of up to 100 feet from the front property line). Feasible alternatives should be discussed as well as any potential detrimental effects to the neighborhood or community. SEQR Status: Unlisted” MR. ABBATE-Would the petitioner of Sign Variance No. 8-2007 please approach the table, speak into the microphone, and identify yourself, please. MR. D"ELLA BELLA-Good evening, everyone. I’m Michael D’ella Bella, I’m the owner of the property. MR. ABBATE-Okay, Mr. D’ella Bella. You’ve been with us here before. MR. D"ELLA BELLA-Yes, sir. MR. ABBATE-Just present your case to us, and then we’ll go from there. MR. D"ELLA BELLA-I’d like to put the name D’ella on the left hand side. There’s still one sign missing there from the approved signage. It’s a Cadillac sign. It’s not in yet. The word “D’ella” is going to be on the other side, the left side of the building. I think everybody has a picture of it, of on the plan what it looks like. It’s not that big. I would have liked it a lot bigger, but we’re going to try and keep it, I think, two square foot over what’s allowed. I have an existing sign. I have a freestanding sign that’s on the road, that was given to me in 1992, after eight years trying to get a sign on the street, when I took the first one down, because the road was widened. So that sign’s going to stay, except I’m going to clean it up and put on a, which doesn’t need a variance or requirement or anything else, it’s got to be re-painted, and the word Cadillac’s got to be put on that sign, but tonight all I’m looking for is the word “D’ella” which is 15 something feet. MR. UNDERWOOD-15.4. MR. D"ELLA BELLA-15.4 square feet more, and the reason why it’s here, it’s two foot over, and it’s another sign, and I’m only allowed three signs on the property. MR. ABBATE-Okay, and any time during the hearing, if you wish to introduce anything else, please feel free to do so. Do we have any comments from the Board members? MR. BRYANT-I have a question for the Staff. When you look at these signs, including the Cadillac sign, are you counting all these logos as separate signs? MR. BROWN-No. What we did is we made a concession. We worked with Mr. D’ella Bella and we basically drew a box around all those individual logos and considered that one wall sign, because they’re close enough together to be able to do that. MR. BRYANT-Okay. So that’s 87 square feet total? MR. BROWN-Yes. MR. UNDERWOOD-With the one added. MR. BRYANT-And then the D’ella sign now will be 15, whatever. So that makes it two feet over the limit? MR. BROWN-Well, no, it’s a second wall sign. If you put the other Cadillac emblem, is this where it goes up here someplace? MR. D"ELLA BELLA-Yes. MR. BROWN-If you were to draw a box around all these signs, that gets them under the 100 square feet for one sign. The proposed D’ella sign, which is over here someplace, is a second wall sign. Regardless of the square footage, you don’t divide up into 100 square footage of wall signage and put as many as you want. You get one, 100 square 18 (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 02/28/07) foot wall sign. That’s this sign. This is the second, second wall sign, regardless of the size. MR. BRYANT-The reason I ask is because I spent a lot of time looking for six signs. MR. BROWN-That Cadillac emblem is shown on the plans. It just hasn’t been installed yet. MR. BRYANT-Okay. I understand now. Okay. So basically, instead of, the Staff Notes talks about having six signs. We’re really looking at two signs. So what you’re doing is increasing the signage by 50%. MR. BROWN-Well, I think that what you’re going to have on the building are three signs, the proposed D’ella identification sign, the emblem sign with the four emblems inside, and what’s not shown in this picture is the freestanding sign up by the road, which is considered the third sign on the site. You’re allowed two, one on the wall, one on the street. MR. BRYANT-So you’re only increasing the signage by one. MR. BROWN-Correct. MR. BRYANT-Rather than looking at six signs on the property. Okay. I understand now. Thank you. MR. ABBATE-All right. Folks on the Board, do we have any other questions? Mr. McNulty? MR. MC NULTY-Yes. I’ve got one. In the sketches provided, there looks like a band of different color or something that would go across behind the D’ella sign over to the first pylon sign, and then continue on the right side of the pylon on over, which is not shown on the front of the building here. MR. URRICO-I think it’s that arch. Isn’t that what you’re talking about? MR. D"ELLA BELLA-Are you talking about the black band? MR. MC NULTY-Yes, the black band. MR. D"ELLA BELLA-That black band is on there. You can’t see it. It’s on the building. That’s where “D’ella’s” going to go. It’s not going to go on the white. It’s going to go on the black. MR. MC NULTY-Okay. I see what you’re saying. MR. D"ELLA BELLA-It’s only like, that band’s only, that’s the “D’ella”. So that band’s about two feet, two and a half feet band, black band. It’s on the bottom of the building, on the bottom of the façade. MR. UNDERWOOD-One feet, ten it says. MR. MC NULTY-Okay. MR. BRYANT-Question for the applicant, please. MR. ABBATE-Please. MR. BRYANT-The D’ella sign, is it going to be illuminated or what? MR. D"ELLA BELLA-They call it Electra chromatic. So it’ll look like they’re lit, but it’s not like a bright light. MR. BRYANT-It’s back lit, like the other sign? MR. D"ELLA BELLA-Like the one we have now, like the one that’s on there, really like the soffit’s. MR. ABBATE-Mr. Underwood indicated it would be something similar to the Target sign. 19 (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 02/28/07) MR. D"ELLA BELLA-That’s correct, except these are subtle. MR. ABBATE-Mono chromatic. Anybody else on the Board have any questions for Mr. D’ella Bella? MR. GARRAND-Mr. Chairman, I have a question for Staff. MR. ABBATE-Yes, by all means. MR. GARRAND-How does this compare to say other dealerships within the area as far as signage goes? MR. BROWN-I’m not sure I’m prepared to answer that question. I mean, we didn’t a survey of other dealerships and what signage they have. I’m sure it probably is comparable to what everybody wants. I’m not sure if everybody has this number of signs. I know, I think the Garvey Volkswagen site, further down on Quaker Road, they came in for a couple of different emblems, wall signs. I know there’s another dealership, a Ford dealership next to it, and I can’t picture what their signage is on the building. I think it may be just Ford. So my guess is, in answer to your question, there’s probably more emblems on here, but again, we’ve consolidated them into one wall sign, by getting them close together. MR. GARRAND-Thank you. MR. UNDERWOOD-If you go to like a lit up neon sign inside the window, I know a lot of the places around Town have got them saying open, you know, they’ve got Midas I think has got them, some of the oil change places have got those, too. I mean, those aren’t counted as wall signs because they’re inside the window. MR. BROWN-Yes. Our Sign Ordinance allows for up to 25% of the window space to be used inside for advertisement. What doesn’t count even against that are, open, closed, you know, those type of things. We don’t count those. MR. ABBATE-Do we have any other questions for Sign Variance No. 8-2007? Okay. All right. I’m going to open up the public hearing for Sign Variance No. 8-2007. Do we have anyone in the public who would like to address this variance request? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. ABBATE-I see no hands raised. Okay. I’m going to, again, ask the members to make comments. I’m going to take a poll of the Board, and I’ve already read, basically, what our responsibilities are, and I’m going to ask members, now, to offer their comments on Sign Variance No. 8-2007. Do we have a volunteer? MR. BRYANT-I’ll go. MR. ABBATE-Thank you, Mr. Bryant. MR. BRYANT-The request is relatively substantial. You’re looking for 50% more signs than you’re actually allowed. So instead of two, you’ve got three now. However, I really don’t think there’s a feasible alternative. I mean, it would be nice to identify that that is D’ella and not just the front sign, and because of the way the property is laid out, it doesn’t really look excessive. The sign is small. I would reluctantly be in favor of the application. MR. ABBATE-Thank you. Do we have anyone else who would like to comment? MRS. HUNT-I have to agree. While is it, there will be two wall signs and one freestanding sign, still, the amount of additional square footage is so minimal, that I would be in favor. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you. Mr. Underwood, please. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I think, you know, the excessive signage issue with the different, you know, logos of the different dealerships, the franchisees, they don’t have any choice in that matter, and I think that combining them together does make sense. I think that the addition of this sign, it’s only one and a half feet high. I mean, he is set back quite a ways from the edge of the highway there at the same time. This signage out front, the setbacks from the property line, I mean, we’ve dealt with those issues on 20 (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 02/28/07) previous issues before, because of the NiMo power line being out there, too. I don’t really see this as offensive. I mean, I guess we could ask him to put a neon sign in the window, but I think he’s trying to achieve a real upgrade of the whole facility here, and I think in general it’s not going to be a detriment to the community. It’s a grand effort what’s been accomplished. So I would go along with it. MR. ABBATE-Thank you. Mr. Urrico, please. MR. URRICO-Yes. I basically agree with Mr. Underwood. I think we’ve had similar situations come up and we understand the situation where the dealerships are under the gun to advertise the brands, the cars that they carry, and I think Mr. D’ella Bella has done a great job of trying to work with the Board here and get the signs in, but do it in a tasteful way. So I’d be in favor of it. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you very much. Mr. McNulty, please. MR. MC NULTY-I guess I’m going to take the other side, for the sake of taking the other side. I’ll agree that what’s proposed strikes me as it may turn out very attractive, and on the one hand I certainly would prefer to see what’s being proposed than a neon sign inside the window, and part of my position’s based on the fact that so many others are going the other way, but I think there has to be a voice for the other side. I think there’s a possibility that this may tend to make the entire front of that building a sign, because your eye’s going to travel from the D’ella to the GMC to the others. So, while we can draw boxes around these, I think we’re going to look at least two-thirds of that building as being a sign, as far as the final effect goes. That, combined with the fact that there is a road sign out front identifying the dealership and the fact that there’s not a Cadillac or GMC dealership down the road a little ways, I don’t see the compelling need to necessarily identify this particular one as a particular ownership. So, given all of that, I’m going to be opposed. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you. Mr. Garrand, please. MR. GARRAND-Mr. Chairman, while I agree with Mr. Bryant that this request is substantial, I do have to admit that, realistically, I don’t think the applicant can get his name on the building in any other way. Therefore I’d be in favor of this proposal. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you very much. I am going to side with the majority of the Board, because I believe that granting this Sign Variance will, I don’t believe, be incompatible, if you will, with the neighbors, additionally, I feel strongly that it will not have any kind of undesirable change in the neighborhood, quite frankly, or to the character of the neighborhood. So, having said that, I’m going to close the public hearing, at this time, for Sign Variance No. 8-2007. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. ABBATE-And again, I’ve already respectfully reminded the members of our task of balancing the benefit. Now I’m going to ask for a motion. MR. BRYANT-I’ll make a motion. MR. ABBATE-Would you, please, Mr. Bryant. MR. BROWN-It’s an Unlisted Action. Sign Variance, Unlisted Action. MR. ABBATE-Do we have it Unlisted? You are absolutely correct. So let me back up just a second here, if I may, please, and, Mr. Secretary, we have an Environmental Assessment Form, and would you be kind enough to read the questions contained in the Assessment Form for us. Thank you, Staff, for reminding me. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. This is a Sign Variance Short Environmental Assessment Form. The project applicant is Michael D’ella Bella. The project name is D’ella Auto Group. The project location is 293 Quaker Road, Queensbury. The precise location is 293 Quaker Road. It’s one half mile east of Bay Road and the Quaker Road intersection. Is the proposed action new? It’s checked off as new. Describe project briefly: Would like permission to add the name of the company D’ella to the new addition. Amount of land Affected: 6.16 acres Ultimately 4.06 acres. I guess that’s between what’s built on and what’s not built on. Will the proposed action comply with the existing zones or other existing land use restrictions? Yes. What is the present land use in vicinity of project? Commercial. Does action involve a permit approval, or funding, now or ultimately from 21 (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 02/28/07) any other governmental agency (Federal, State, or Local)? No. Does any aspect of the action have a currently valid permit or approval? Sign permit for sign at 87 square feet of 100 allowed. “Does the action exceed any Type I Threshold in 6 NYCRR Part 617.4?” And that would be yes or no. I would say no. MRS. HUNT-No. MR. ABBATE-No. MR. UNDERWOOD-“Will the action receive coordinated review as provided for Unlisted Actions in 6 NYCRR Part 617.6?” I would say no. MR. ABBATE-No. MR. UNDERWOOD-“Could action result in any adverse effects associated with the following: Existing air quality, surface or groundwater quality or quantity, noise levels, existing traffic patterns, solid waste production or disposal, potential for erosion, drainage or flooding problems?” No. MR. ABBATE-No. MR. UNDERWOOD-“Aesthetic, agricultural, archeological, historic, or other natural or cultural resources; or community or neighborhood character?” I would say no. MR. ABBATE-No. MRS. HUNT-No. MR. UNDERWOOD-“Vegetation or fauna, fish, shellfish or wildlife species, significant habitats, or threatened or endangered species?” No. MR. ABBATE-No. MR. UNDERWOOD-“A community’s existing plans or goals as officially adopted, or a change in use or intensity of use of land or other natural resources?” I would say no. MR. ABBATE-No. MR. UNDERWOOD-“Growth, subsequent development, or related activities likely to be induced by the proposed action?” I would say no. MR. ABBATE-No. MR. UNDERWOOD-“Long term, short term, cumulative or other effects not identified?” I would say no. MR. ABBATE-No. MR. UNDERWOOD-“Other impacts (including changes in use of either quantity or type of energy)?” I would say no. MR. ABBATE-No. MR. UNDERWOOD-“Will the project have an impact on the environmental characteristics that caused the establishment of a CEA?” No. MR. ABBATE-No. MR. UNDERWOOD-“Is there or is there likely to be controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts?” No. MR. ABBATE-No. MR. UNDERWOOD-I guess that’s it. MR. ABBATE-Okay. The Secretary has narrated each of the questions on the Environmental Assessment Form for responses by members of this Board. 22 (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 02/28/07) MOTION THAT THE BOARD AGREES THAT THERE WILL BE NO NEGATIVE IMPACT AND WOULD APPROVE THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM, Introduced Charles Abbate who moved for its adoption, seconded by Allan Bryant: th Duly adopted this 28 day of February, 2007, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Bryant, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Garrand, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Abbate NOES: NONE MR. ABBATE-The vote call is seven yes, zero no. In an seven yes, zero no vote, the Environmental Assessment Form is approved. Now I’ll move back to the motion. I indicated earlier, requested an individual to volunteer and I think it was Mr. Bryant. Mr. Bryant, would you present your motion please. MOTION TO APPROVE SIGN VARIANCE NO. 8-2007 MICHAEL D’ELLA BELLA, Introduced by Allan Bryant who moved for its adoption, seconded by James Underwood: 293 Quaker Road. The applicant proposes construction of a 15.4 square foot wall sign identifying the name of the car dealership. Relief requested. Applicant requests relief for an additional wall sign where two signs per business are permitted per Section 140-6. The business currently has one wall sign totaling 87 square feet on the front of the building, and one freestanding sign. The benefit to the applicant, the applicant would be permitted to erect an additional sign on the building identifying the name of the dealership, D’ella, and maintaining the existing signage on the site. Feasible alternatives, feasible alternatives appear to be limited. Is the relief substantial relative to the Ordinance? The relief requested for a total of three signs where the maximum allowable is two signs per business is moderate. The effects on the community or neighborhood. Effects on the neighborhood or community appear to be minimal since the building sits so far back from the road. Is the difficulty self-created? The difficulty can be interpreted as self-created. With this in mind, I move that we approve this Sign Variance. th Duly adopted this 28 day of February, 2007, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Underwood, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Abbate NOES: Mr. McNulty MR. ABBATE-The vote for Sign Variance No. 8-2007 is six yes, one no. Sign Variance No. 8-2007 is approved. MR. D"ELLA BELLA-Thank you. MR. ABBATE-You’re welcome. AREA VARIANCE NO. 12-2007 SEQRA TYPE: II LEGACY LAND HOLDINGS, INC. AGENT(S): JARRETT-MARTIN ENGINEERS, PLLC OWNER(S): LEGACY LAND HOLDINGS, INC. ZONING: PO LOCATION: BAY ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES A 15-LOT COMMERCIAL SUBDIVISION. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MINIMUM FRONT SETBACK REQUIREMENTS OF THE PO ZONE FOR 3 OF THE LOTS. WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: FEBRUARY 14, 2007 LOT SIZE: 26.16 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 296.15-1-28 SECTION: 179-4-030 TOM JARRETT & MICHAEL BORGOS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MRS. HUNT-Mr. Chairman, I would like to be recused from this. I reside at Baybridge, which abuts the property in question. MR. ABBATE-Yes, and you may be recused. Thank you very much, Mrs. Hunt. Mr. Clements, would you be kind enough to sit in? Are you prepared to vote on this issue this evening? Would you come up here kindly and take a seat, please, join us. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 12-2007, Legacy Land Holdings, Inc., Meeting Date: February 28, 2007 “Project Location: Bay Road Description of Proposed Project: 23 (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 02/28/07) Applicant proposes a 15-lot commercial subdivision of a total 26-acre lot, for development of professional office buildings. Relief Required: The applicant requests 30-feet of front setback relief for 3 of the proposed lots (from Walker Lane), from the minimum 50-foot requirement for the PO zone, per §179-4-030. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: The applicant would be permitted to site any proposed building a minimum of 20-feet from the property line along Walker Lane (second front). 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives appear to be limited; however a recommendation by the Planning Board relative to this could be requested. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the ordinance?: The request for 30-feet of relief from the minimum 50-feet of setback required could be deemed considerable relative to the ordinance (60%). The cumulative nature of 60% of relief for 3 separate lots is substantial. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: Moderate effects on the neighborhood or community could be anticipated as a result of this action. The Board could request a recommendation from the Planning Board during subdivision review relative to potential neighborhood or community impacts. 5. Is this difficulty self-created? The difficulty may be interpreted as self-created. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): SB 15-2006: Pending, 16-lot commercial subdivision. SB 10-02: Denied preliminary plat 6/24/03, 15-lot professional office subdivision. Staff comments: Lots 5, 6, and 7 of the proposed subdivision technically have two fronts, one off of Baybridge Drive and a second off of Walker Lane. Access for these lots will be off of Baybridge only and a vegetative buffer will be maintained along Walker Lane. The orientation of any proposed buildings on these lots should front the subdivision road with the rear on Walker; therefore, the second front (Walker) would act as the rear of the property (20-foot setback for the PO zone). Sketch plan of the subdivision has been reviewed by the Planning Board (see meeting minutes). SEQR Status: Type II” MR. UNDERWOOD-“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form February 14, 2007 Project Name: Legacy Land Holdings, Inc. Owner(s): Legacy Land Holdings, Inc. ID Number: QBY-07-AV-12 County Project#: Feb07-17 Current Zoning: PO Community: Queensbury Project Description: Applicant proposes a 15-lot commercial subdivision. Relief requested from minimum front setback requirements of the PO zone for 3 of the lots. Site Location: Bay Road Tax Map Number(s): 296.15-1-28 Staff Notes: Area Variance: The applicant proposes a 15-lot commercial subdivision. Three of the lots require front setback relief from the professional office zone. The three lots will have a 20 ft. setback where a 50 ft. setback is required. The information submitted indicates an existing vegetative buffer on the 24 (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 02/28/07) Walker Lane side of the project will be maintained. The plans show the lot arrangement with access to the three lots from a cul-de-sac proposed for the subdivision and the 50 ft. setback is met. Staff was informed by County DPW there is a draft access management plan for Bay Road that recommends the alignment of roads from the development of this project and the development across the street of Willow Brook Road. The plan also calls for a traffic analysis to determine if this 4-way intersection as suggested by the draft access management plan for Bay Road. Staff recommends no county impact with the condition to evaluate the intersection as suggested by the draft access management plan for Bay Road. County Planning Board Recommendation: No Action. Default Approval. Due to lack of a quorum of the Board, No Action was taken. Noting suggestions clarify information about the intersection as suggested by the draft access management plan for Bay Road.” Signed by Richard C. Merrill, Warren County Planning Board 2/16/07. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you very much. I see that the petitioners are at the table, and I’m going to ask the each of you gentleman please identify yourselves. MR. BORGOS-Michael Borgos, attorney for the applicant. MR. JARRETT-Tom Jarrett, Jarrett-Martin Engineers. DANIEL VALENTE MR. VALENTE-And I’m Daniel Valente, owner of Legacy Land Holdings. MR. ABBATE-Okay, and I see that you’re represented by Counsel. MR. BORGOS-That’s right. MR. ABBATE-As such then, before we proceed, I want to advise Counsel that the burden of proof, that rests squarely on the shoulders of the appellant. MR. BORGOS-I understand that. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. MR. ABBATE-You’re welcome. MR. BORGOS-I won’t belabor this application. I think you’ve all read it and are familiar with it. It’s rather straightforward. It’s a 15 lot subdivision as stated. We’re here because the Planning Board thought that this application would be best served with access to all the lots off of Walker, or off of Baybridge Drive and not off of Walker Lane, and that’s what we’ve tried to do with this design, but in order to utilize five, six, and seven, you really need to have a larger area. Now one of the goals on Bay Road, of course, is to cultivate and encourage more Professional Office space. One of the issues that’s been identified within the Town is that there’s not a whole lot of available lots for small businesses, for small Professional Offices. So a dentist, there’s several around that I’m aware of that are looking for a park precisely like this so they can go in and put in a small Professional Office, but it’s also flexible enough with this design to accommodate somebody who might want to buy multiple lots, but we don’t know who that is yet. Nobody’s stepped forward. There’s nothing pending on any of these lots. So with this design, we need to keep five, six and seven available, as these smaller lots, but if we have a 50 foot front setback on the front and the back, essentially, it makes it very difficult to site any building there. So we’re here tonight looking for the variance, so we have a 20 foot front yard setback which would match a traditional rear yard setback along Walker Lane. I think it’s important to note that the vegetative buffer that’s existing along Walker Lane will remain. It’s not going to be disturbed. There’s no reason to go through there with any heavy equipment and dig any of that up. In fact, it’ll be allowed to grow up to the 20 foot buffer setback line, and it doesn’t quite meet that yet. It’s still a little bit smaller than that. So residents or anybody traveling on Walker Lane are really not going to notice any difference if this is developed in this way. I’ll have Tom Jarrett here to answer any questions about the logistics of the engineering, if you have any. MR. UNDERWOOD-Mr. Jarrett, I just had a couple of questions. When you guys do these spoke designs, do you have any minimum frontage you have to meet, requirements for the PO zone or anything? Because I’m looking at how narrow some of them are, you know, how they taper down, and I’m just wondering, you know, as far as parking and things like that, I mean, those get individually done as each site is developed, but at the same time, it looks on this one here, having driven to other PO one’s on that same side of the road, further up, to go to the dentist, those lots appear 25 (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 02/28/07) much larger than these ones that you’ve got proposed here. I’m just wondering if you’re kind of painting yourself in a corner with such small? MR. JARRETT-Well, I can answer it several ways. Number One, this lot is, we’ve looked at a lot of different layouts for this particular property. In fact, the Planning Board, earlier on, several years ago, asked Dan to come back with different layouts, but they weren’t very thrilled with the earlier layouts that were presented, and we tried to apply some different thinking to this, and feel that this is probably the most viable and flexible for Dan to develop. Now we’ve tried to keep the lots small at the zoning size right now to give flexibility for lot line adjustments or multiple lot purchase by one owner, and I think that’s happened in a lot of situations, industrially and commercially, within this Town and a lot of towns. They can buy more than one lot, and put in a larger building, but we want to keep that flexibility right now because there is a demand for smaller buildings. The requirement is 40 foot of road frontage for each lot, and that’s what we’ve maintained. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Ladies and gentlemen of the Board, do we have any other questions? MR. BRYANT-I have a question. MR. ABBATE-Yes, please, Mr. Bryant. MR. BRYANT-This circular drive that you’re putting here, is that what you’re considering the road? I mean, because you do have some lots that really are not on any public road. MR. JARRETT-That will be a Town road. MR. BRYANT-That’ll be a Town road. MR. JARRETT-Yes, that’s correct. MR. BRYANT-Okay. MR. URRICO-Are you making any accommodations, if some of these lots are combined, then what happens to the setback? Because say seven and eight are combined. Eight already has a setback from Bay Road, but seven, what happens with the setback for seven? MR. JARRETT-It would affect only the side setbacks. The setbacks to Bay Road and to Walker Lane would not change, or to Baybridge Circle, or whatever we call that cul de sac. MR. URRICO-But then you wouldn’t really need the setback that you’re requesting now. MR. JARRETT-If the buyer wants to buy seven and eight, depending on what they want to do with it, they may or may not need that relief. One of the reasons we feel this relief is warranted, and you don’t have this plan in front of you, but I can share this informally with you, is we want to try and pursue shared parking with some of these lots, even if they’re separate owners, common driveways with separate parking, and it’s most facilitated with the 20 foot setback on Walker that we’re proposing, because it would allow the building to go full depth to that 20 foot setback line, and the parking would be on the side lines to be shared between lots. MR. URRICO-Shared parking among several lots? MR. JARRETT-Yes. MR. URRICO-The entire complex? MR. JARRETT-That’s what we’re striving for. MR. UNDERWOOD-Is there any discussion with the Planning Board, was there any discussion, I know like you kind of have a mix. You either have the mega structures with a whole bunch of things inside, you know, and massive parking, or you have these miniaturized versions, like you’re trying to create here. Is there any consensus as to what’s got a better traffic flow to it or, I mean, you guys probably have already thought about that. MR. JARRETT-You mean from a marketing perspective? 26 (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 02/28/07) MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I mean, like, what if somebody bought the whole thing to develop it as a medical, you know, I mean, was there any consideration given to that, as one big facility? MR. VALENTE-At one point actually Queensbury Rec Department was looking at it. MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure, I remember that, yes. MR. VALENTE-But I mean, if somebody else, if somebody wanted to build a huge facility here, they’d probably be starting over with the Board. As much as this may be approved, if they have to re-vamp the whole scenario, they’re going to be starting over, in essence, I believe. MR. JARRETT-And that opportunity’s been there right along. MR. VALENTE-Yes. I mean, and obviously Craig could answer that even better than I could, but, you know, I do believe that the whole road configuration, everything could potentially change, then. Major changes, they’d have to come visit you again. MR. UNDERWOOD-So your distance up on Walker there, you meet the 50 foot, that’s what you’re showing in your diagrams there, but what are you left with, then? Because you can’t put any parking in that 50 foot setback when you did it or you can? MR. JARRETT-The building size would be quite a bit smaller. Everything would be quite a bit smaller on especially Lot Six right in the middle. Lot Five and Lot Seven are also constrained, but Lot Six we feel probably would have to go away. It really constrains that lot significantly. MR. ABBATE-Rick, I think you had a question. MR. GARRAND-Yes. That area is subject to quite a bit of flooding. As you probably know, the water table’s pretty high there. MR. JARRETT-We do. MR. GARRAND-Where do you propose that this stormwater is going to go in this area? MR. JARRETT-Virtually all of it is going to go to the south, towards the existing, next to the existing DEC wetland. We’re proposing large wet ponds near that wetland, within the buffer to that wetland. We’re proposing wet swales around the perimeter of the property to get down to those basins. MR. GARRAND-Okay. My concern is some of the properties along Baybridge in the Dorlon area have a high water table in that area, that hard surfacing in these areas might do nothing but exacerbate the water problems down in those areas. MR. JARRETT-I don’t believe so, because we’re planning and extensive stormwater system that meets Town and DEC requirements, and I don’t believe we’ll be exacerbating it at all. MR. UNDERWOOD-Did Planning Board give you any indications as to how much density they wanted down there, as far as development, on what your buildable property is? I mean, that’s what you’ve got before us here, but. MR. JARRETT-They did not give us guidance to that effect. We’re following zoning requirements. MR. VALENTE-I’d like to just mention one thing. If you actually look at the lot sizes, they are fairly decent sized lots. They are not that small. I think it’s the configuration of the lot that’s really inhibiting us here, and part of that is due to the Planning Board’s request of the design of what they’re trying to look for, because I had a design that they didn’t like, originally, but was much more effective and much more efficient. This is trying, we’re trying to appease them, and in doing so we have these oddly configured lots which really limit us to our space as far as what a building can do, a building size can be put on it, but the lots are actually good size. 27 (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 02/28/07) MR. URRICO-I have another question. Assuming you get permission to do all of this, are you going to then put up buildings and look for tenants, or are you going to look for tenants and then put up buildings to suit the tenant? MR. VALENTE-I build as per contract. I don’t build on spec. Generally, if somebody wanted to potentially lease a building, I would design a building for them for a lease, but most cases it’s going to be a client coming to me, asking for a specific building, us building it to their requirements. MR. URRICO-Isn’t it unusual to come before the building is proposed for a variance or something? We don’t even know what the building would look like, or what it might be. MR. VALENTE-The scenario we have here is if we have that 50 foot. If we don’t get that 50 foot, then we’re probably going to lose at least one lot. So it becomes. MR. JARRETT-And from a marketability standpoint, you can’t. MR. VALENTE-Yes, a dollars and cents standpoint, you know, at some point here I can’t just continue to go. I’m not going to be able to sell anything. So I’m trying to keep it, obviously, if I can get that lot, I may be able to go, you know, I can keep the lot costs down a little bit more and be able to market it a little easier. So I understand what you’re saying, but there’s a lot of questions here. We don’t know if somebody’s going to come in and say, hey, I want four lots. Somebody may have that, and then we may have to combine them. MR. UNDERWOOD-Well, if that’s the case, are you going to have to reconfigure, or you want to keep that circle in the middle, essentially, that’s driving the whole thing? MR. JARRETT-I would think, my feeling is if somebody comes in and wants to buy one or two or three lots, we’ll certainly keep the configuration the way it is. If they want to buy eight or nine lots, then we probably would go back to the Planning Board and say. MR. UNDERWOOD-Because I’m thinking like in this case you’d be better off with a central parking lot and you just walk to the hubs, you know, from that central parking area. MR. JARRETT-Right. It’s really a matter of what the market is out there, and right now it’s for smaller buildings. MR. VALENTE-I wish I had a crystal ball. MR. BORGOS-I would just point out that this property has been on the market for a while. Those big boxes are not coming in, and that’s why, it really meets the design guidelines and criteria for Bay Road. It’s what everybody really wants to see, the small Professional Offices going in where there’s no massive building and no massive structure. It’s more of that Hometown Queensbury feeling. That’s why it’s designed like this, and as Dan was pointing out, the other designs, I think, gave you a feeling like what you see just north of there, but they wanted to see something different here, so this is the best that we can do with what we have. BRIAN CLEMENTS, ZBA ALTERNATE MR. CLEMENTS-I’m assuming, then, that what you’re going to do is you’re going to wait and see if you sell, for example, three or four lots, and then you’re going to put a, then you would put the road in there. Is it my understanding that you’re not going to put the road in there until you sell three or four lots, or you’re going to put the road in there and then try to sell the lots? MR. VALENTE-Well, we are currently trying to market it, obviously, ahead of time, but if I don’t sell any lots ahead of time, I will probably still put the road in, so that I can try to initiate the sales, one way or the other. MR. CLEMENTS-Because then you’re kind of stuck with the plan the way it is. MR. VALENTE-I’m in for the long haul. MR. ABBATE-Any other questions? All right. If there are no other questions, then I’m going to open up the public hearing for Area Variance No. 12-2007. Do we have any members of the public who would like to address Area Variance No. 12-2007? 28 (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 02/28/07) PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. ABBATE-I see no hands raised, so I’m going to continue on. Again, I’m going to ask the members for their comments, and I’d like to inform the public that the comments are directed to the Chairman and they are not subject to debate. Now, ladies and gentlemen of the Board, at this time, I’d like you to offer your comments on Area Variance No. 12- 2007. Do we have a volunteer? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, I’ll go first. MR. ABBATE-Please, would you? Thank you. MR. UNDERWOOD-I haven’t made up my mind yet as to what to do here, but, you know, if you look at the diagram and you look at what you’ve got down on the wetland side, you’ve got pretty good sized lots down there. They’re much larger, and I realize that’s because you’ve got to deal with the water runoff issues and conduits and everything else going in for the infiltrators, but the upper area just seems to me to be very crowded, you know, and for us to say, yes, you’ve got 15 lots here you can sell off, but it seems premature. I don’t have a problem with granting some relief for Walker Lane, and I understand that you’re going to probably need that no matter what you build up there, if you want to put enough structures on to make it pay for itself, and I understand that’s the issue, but I don’t, I’m not clear on this plot as to whether this is a doable thing. It seems like chaos to me to run on to that circle and peel off to all the individual units up in that upper end there. It just doesn’t really, it seems like a central parking area would make more sense to me, from a logical viewpoint of it. MR. ABBATE-Would you like me to get back to you? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Mr. Underwood is going to hold off until he hears what other members have to say. Any other members? Mr. Bryant, please. MR. BRYANT-I have a question though before I comment. I understand the basis for the design, and I read the notes from the Planning Board, but my question is, why can’t we simplify it and just do another road perpendicular to Bay Road and split those eight lots or whatever it is, eight or, yes, 10 lots right in half and do lots on both sides, but why are we doing that? MR. JARRETT-Are you suggesting we exit onto Walker Lane? MR. BRYANT-No, exit onto Bay Road. MR. UNDERWOOD-Like the way you have your circle now, it’s stuffed up towards the top of the lot. Why can’t it be more centrally located so you spoke off more from the center of the whole area there? MR. BORGOS-One of the reasons was to line up the Baybridge Drive with Willowbrook, across Bay Road. That was one of the goals, and also to restrict any traffic onto Walker Lane, and prevent any additional burden there. There’s been a lot of focus on that at the Planning Board level, and without going into all the minutia of that, are essentially those two reasons. There was an earlier design, and I wish I had brought it with me today, that was more what you suggested, a very straightforward layout, very logical layout. MR. BRYANT-But it makes it so much more simple. I mean, you know, you do a perpendicular road from Bay Road, and you divide the lots. You may not get 10. You may only get eight, but you divide the lots kind of equally, and we all live happily ever after. I mean, I don’t understand why it’s so complicated, and frankly, you know, when you’re done, you’re probably going to do some landscaping in that circle. It’s probably going to look nice, but for all intents and purposes, I don’t see why it’s not simplified. MR. BORGOS-We wish you were on the Planning Board, then. MR. VALENTE-I was just going to say that, because that’s exactly what they shot me down on originally. MR. UNDERWOOD-I don’t understand why they would do that. 29 (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 02/28/07) MR. VALENTE-Well, that makes two of us, or three or four of us, but the County has made it clear that they don’t want any additional curb cuts on Bay Road other than the one that I have pre-existing. We just have to relocate it. The Town made it clear, they don’t want any curb cuts on Walker Lane. They made that crystal clear, because I originally had one or two with my original proposal on Walker, and that was a no no. So that went out the window. So, I’ve been at this three or four years back and forth, I think. MR. ABBATE-All right, gentlemen, do we have any other questions? MR. BRYANT-Would you like me to finish my comment? MR. ABBATE-Yes, please. MR. BRYANT-I understand what you’re trying to do, and I can appreciate that. I don’t understand the logic behind not doing one more curb cut on Bay Road, severing that lot, perpendicular road, making, you know, eight or ten, whatever, lots on the side and get rid of that circle which makes everything very complicated. I don’t understand that process, and I don’t understand why they don’t allow it, and I really didn’t see that in the minutes, but this is all speculative anyway, because you don’t know if you’re going to sell two lots, eight lots to one client, or you’re going to sell all 10 lots to one client. So with that in mind, I would be in favor of this thing, but again, I think, and I hope that the Planning Board gets these minutes and I hope they re-visit the real design, you know, perpendicular road, divide the lots up. Everything is neat, no circles for the plows to have to deal with. That’s got to be a plowing nightmare, but anyway. So I would vote in favor. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Fine. Let’s go to Rick, please. MR. GARRAND-Sure. Mr. Chairman, I think the proposal is consistent with the design of other professional areas. In that respect, you know, it’s a good looking project, but I’m not here to redesign the project or give them suggestions as to what we’d like to see. I’m here to consider a 60% variance involved here. At this point, given the drainage issues in there, you know, looking at the balancing test, I think other means can be achieved by the applicant with this project. I think the request for relief is substantial, and I do believe it is self-created. There is a potential, I think, for adverse environmental effects, given the layout and the required relief asked for here. So at this point, I wouldn’t be in favor of the project. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you very much. Mr. McNulty, please. MR. MC NULTY-Well, I, too, don’t want to try to redesign this. I’m not an architect or a landscape architect or whatever, but Walker Lane is an entrance to several residential areas, actually, because there’s apartment buildings on one side further down and a variety of other housing on the other side, and it strikes me that the front yard setback is there not just for the buildings, but also for the road, and I think it would have an effect on the character of the neighborhood if buildings were allowed closer to Walker Lane. It strikes me, too, especially with this being in the development stage, that there alternatives available for the applicant, and I don’t believe that we’re necessarily in are a position where we have to help the applicant maximize every lot that he could possibly cram in to this piece of property. Given all that, I see the benefit to the applicant for what he’s request, but I think the detriment to the neighborhood, the community in that area off balances that. So I’m going to be opposed. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you very much. Mr. Urrico, please. MR. URRICO-Yes. I’m torn, basically because as I look at the balancing test, one of the questions, one of the criteria is, can the benefit be achieved by other means, and I don’t know the answer to that because we don’t, we’re dealing with speculation as to what might happen, as opposed to a concrete structure that you want to put there, and then I would be able to say, okay, that makes sense, or it doesn’t make sense. So that one really bothers me. I don’t see an undesirable change in the neighborhood. I do think the request is substantial when it’s all brought together, but when it’s part of a wider project, maybe it’s no so bad, but we don’t know. Two lots might be combined. Three lots might be combined, and maybe the building wouldn’t be on all three lots. So we would only be talking about setback to one of the lots rather than all three, and then as far as environmental, again, we don’t know what the impact might be, and I don’t think it’s self- created, in total, but it is your project, and you did create the subdivision. So in a sense it is self-created, but I’m torn. I really don’t have a vote at this point. I’m not going to come down yes or no. I’m going to probably abstain at this point. 30 (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 02/28/07) MR. ABBATE-Okay. Mr. Clements, please. MR. CLEMENTS-I’m kind of torn also. I think I agree with Mr. Bryant, though, that you really don’t know what’s going to happen here. I wouldn’t try to redesign it, also, as two of the other members said. I’m looking at basically the residential area that’s across Walker Lane. As I drove down through there and looked at the bushes and trees and things that you had along that hedgerow and said probably whatever went in there would be, a lot of it would be hidden by that. So I guess I would, knowing that the Planning Board, you know, made you jump through all these hoops, and this probably isn’t going to be a final application. You’ll probably come back again if you have some changes, and knowing that there may be a building on two lots or more, I think that I would vote for this. MR. ABBATE-Okay. MR. URRICO-Mr. Chairman, could I amend my comments? I think I said I would abstain. I would probably say no at this point, but I would encourage the applicant to table the application to a future date. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you, Mr. Urrico. MR. UNDERWOOD-Do you want to come back to me? MR. ABBATE-Yes. Yes, Jim, you might just be a lifesaver. Yes, Mr. Underwood. MR. UNDERWOOD-I fully sympathize with what, you’re trying to accomplish some goal here and get something going down here, because I realize it’s been empty since as long as I’ve lived here in Town anyway, but at the same time, you know, there’s just too many questions on it, I think, at this point in time. I don’t have a problem with that granting the relief if you needed it for a building back on those three sites there. I would not have a problem with that. I don’t think it’s going to be a detriment to the neighborhood, but I’m uncomfortable with what you’ve got here, because it just seems like it’s pie in the sky. If anybody was going to do a subdivision from hell, I would think this would be it. I mean, I just don’t like that plan, and I can’t think of any other medical place in Town that has a plan like that, and it just seems like it’s built in for some kind of crash or something. It just doesn’t seem right to me somehow. I’m going to hold off. I’m just going to abstain. I don’t want to vote on it. MR. ABBATE-You were not a lifesaver, Jim. Thank you, but you were not. I think that Mr. Bryant and Mr. Clements’ comments were important enough for me. It’s unfortunate that you had to go through these loops, and I think Mr. Bryant has made it quite clear, from what I understand, I’m not an engineer, that probably what you had submitted initially would have been ideal. Unfortunately, things have changed, and unfortunately, too, I suspect at this particular time, you folks may not have support for your current application. We could vote on it. If we have one member who abstains and it goes to a three and three, then that, of course, is a denial by default, and I really, before we do that, I’d like to give you folks an opportunity perhaps, if you wish, to table this thing and get back to us again. Either that, or we go for a vote. Like you, we don’t have any options, as well, as this time. MR. BORGOS-I think we’d like to avail ourselves of the opportunity to table this so we can discuss it and perhaps come back with something else. MR. ABBATE-Sure. MR. BORGOS-Thank you for your input and the opportunity to discuss this with you. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Well, since you’re willing to negotiate with us, we can negotiate with you. How much of a tabling would you like in terms of a timeframe? I’m flexible. April? I don’t think we can do it for March. We set the agenda tomorrow. Correct? MR. UNDERWOOD-Do you want to go back to the Planning Board and talk to them? MR. ABBATE-Would you prefer to do that? MR. BORGOS-I’m thinking that, but. 31 (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 02/28/07) MR. UNDERWOOD-I mean, I’m thinking go back with what you had before and say, do you want this, this or something else. MR. JARRETT-I don’t know if it muddies the water, but I might want that in the motion. MR. VALENTE-I’ve been fumbling around with this thing for years. It’s just, they want one thing, everybody. MR. ABBATE-Well, you can see that we’re not unreasonable on our Board. So I’m trying to give you folks every opportunity. How about in April? MR. BORGOS-I think that would be fine. Two months, sure. MR. ABBATE-Okay. So then would you please, Counselor, formally request the Chairman to honor your request for a tabling? MR. BORGOS-Yes. Would you please table this, or at least honor a request for this Board to table this for a two month period? MR. ABBATE-Yes. MR. BORGOS-To the April agenda. MR. ABBATE-Counselor, I will honor your request. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 12-2007 LEGACY LAND HOLDINGS, INC., Introduced by Charles Abbate who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roy Urrico: Bay Road. Re-scheduled for the April 2007 agenda. th Duly adopted this 28 day of February, 2007, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Clements, Mr. Garrand, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Abbate NOES: NONE MR. ABBATE-The vote to table Area Variance No. 12-2007 is seven yes, zero no. The motion is carried. Area Variance No. 12-2007 is tabled for the April 2007 hearing. Thank you very much, ladies and gentlemen. MR. BORGOS-Thank you. MR. JARRETT-Thank you. MR. VALENTE-Thank you. MR. ABBATE-Yes, you’re most welcome. We have to go back. We have one more. MR. UNDERWOOD-Did they show up? MR. ABBATE-Well, I’m going to get to that right now. MR. UNDERWOOD-They’re not here. MR. ABBATE-They’re not here. MR. UNDERWOOD-The other thing is, don’t throw out these things. Save all these things, and save that one that didn’t show for next time. MR. URRICO-Do we need to table the no show? MR. UNDERWOOD-I think we table the no show. MR. ABBATE-The no show was Sabayrac. MR. BORGOS-He was called away to Houston, Texas. 32 (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 02/28/07) MR. ABBATE-Are you Counsel for them? MR. BORGOS-I am on another matter. MR. UNDERWOOD-We’ll just table him, put him on for whenever he gets back to us. MR. ABBATE-We could table it, not for March, for April. Folks, I’m going to have to do a tabling motion here. MR. BROWN-Mr. Chairman, Maria brought to my attention that you closed the public hearing on this application. MR. ABBATE-Then I’m going to re-open it. MR. BROWN-Typically with a tabled application, you leave it open. Okay. I’m going to re-open the public hearing for Sign Variance No. 9-2007. PUBLIC HEARING RE-OPENED MR. ABBATE-And I’m going to make a motion. MOTION TO TABLE SIGN VARIANCE NO. 9-2007 RICHARD SABAYRAC d/b/a ESTATE CONSIGNMENTS, Introduced by Charles Abbate who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roy Urrico: 6 State Route 149. Re-scheduled for a hearing on the April 2007 agenda. th Duly adopted this 28 day of February, 2007, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Clements, Mr. Garrand, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Abbate NOES: Mr. Bryant MR. ABBATE-The vote to table Sign Variance No. 9-2007 is six yes, one no. The motion is carried. Sign Variance No. 9-2007 is tabled for the month of April 2007. That’s it. We’re done this evening. Ladies and gentlemen of the Board, thank you so much. Thank you very much, folks. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Charles Abbate, Chairman 33