Loading...
2001-08-22 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/22/01) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SECOND REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 22, 2001 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT LEWIS STONE, CHAIRMAN CHARLES MC NULTY, SECRETARY NORMAN HIMES ROBERT MC NALLY CHARLES ABBATE ROY URRICO, ALTERNATE JAMES UNDERWOOD, ALTERNATE MEMBERS ABSENT ALLAN BRYANT PAUL HAYES ZONING ADMINISTRATOR-CRAIG BROWN CODE COMPLIANCE OFFICER-BRUCE FRANK STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI NEW BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 57-2001 TYPE II ANDREW GARNER PROPERTY OWNER: GIOVANNA GARNER ZONE: SR-1A LOCATION: 697 RIDGE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A DETACHED BARN FOR USE AS A 2 CAR GARAGE AS WELL AS STORAGE AREA. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM ZONING ORDINANCE FOR NUMBER OF GARAGES ALLOWED ON A PARCEL. OLD TAX MAP NO. 55-1-7.2 NEW TAX MAP NO. 297.06-1-23 LOT SIZE: 4.58 ACRES SECTION: 179-7, 179-19 ANDREW GARNER, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 57-2001, Andrew Garner, Meeting Date: August 22, 2001 “Project Location: 697 Ridge Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a 2 car detached garage. Relief Required: Applicant requests relief for a second garage as well as 424 sf of relief from the 900 sf maximum allowable square footage for private garages per § 179-7. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be permitted to gain an additional storage building on the property. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives may include an addition to the existing garage or a smaller proposal limited to use as a storage shed…without vehicle storage. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?: Relief for a second garage, where one is allowed, may be interpreted as substantial, relative to the Ordinance, while a total garage square footage of 1324 sf where 900 sf is allowed may be interpreted as moderate to substantial, relative to the Ordinance. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: Minimal to moderate effects on the neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of this action. 5. Is this difficulty self- created? The difficulty may be interpreted as self created as there appear to be feasible alternatives available to the applicant. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): BP 97-185 c/c issued 6/24/97 464 sf deck BP 97-350 c/c issued 8/23/99 above ground pool Staff comments: Minimal to moderate impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action. The proposed detached garage appears to be significantly removed from adjoining property lines. The proposed location does not appear to present any adverse visual impacts on surrounding properties. A storage shed, with no vehicle storage, appears to be a feasible alternative, since there already exists an area suitable for the storage of automobiles. SEQR Status: Type II” MR. STONE-Dr. Garner, would you state your name and anything you want to add to your application? DR. GARNER-Andrew Garner, 697 Ridge Road. I would just like to say that we have three vehicles. So there’s technically not adequate storage at this point, and we have just obtained a conversion van which requires a high door to be able to put it inside. We are planning on, which I didn’t list in there, of taking one of the bays of the garage and expanding our mud room/pantry into 1 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/22/01) that. So we would actually lose one part of the two car garage. I guess those are the additions that I would put in. MR. STONE-You say you want to take one of the bays. Are you going to change the garage door? Are you going to change that whole wall? DR. GARNER-Probably are, yes. MR. STONE-So you would have a one car attached garage? DR. GARNER-Right. MR. STONE-And you’re willing to agree that you’re going to do that, and therefore the garage would be smaller than half the size of the current garage? Because one of the variances is also the size, in addition to the second garage. DR. GARNER-Yes, I’d be willing to do that. MR. STONE-Do you have any idea how much space that? Do you, Craig, have an idea? DR. GARNER-It would be 24 by 12, 300 square feet. MR. STONE-360. So that would bring it down much less over the 900, forgetting the fact that it’s a second garage. MR. BROWN-Right. MR. STONE-Okay. You’ve got 4.3, whatever acres it is. Do you intend to keep that as the residential land? Is it subdividable? DR. GARNER-Not in my mind. There’s no plan for that. MR. STONE-Okay. Questions, gentlemen? MR. ABBATE-Observations, if I may. When I visited your property, it’s a beautiful piece of property, by the way, it was brought up in the conversation that, in spite of the fact that it’s a rather large home, you have no basement. Obviously, there’s a problem with storage, and I notice also that where your van is parked, there’s a space basically already carved out, so to speak. That’s where you plan to put, you know where your van was parked, there’s an area, trees were kind of taken down? DR. GARNER-Yes. MR. ABBATE-Yes, and if that’s the spot that you plan on building this reduced 360 square feet, is that what you’re going to do now? You’re going to reduce that size? DR. GARNER-No, no, no. We’re talking about taking half of the existing current garage. MR. ABBATE-Okay. All right. MR. STONE-And making it part of the house, in a sense. MR. ABBATE-Yes. Okay. Thank you very much. MR. URRICO-Would the second garage still remain at 1324? DR. GARNER-That’s the original plan, yes. That’s 24 by 28. It’s not that big. MR. STONE-No, it’s 400 and something. MR. BROWN-24 by 28, 672. MR. STONE-Yes, 672, well under the 900. Any other questions, gentlemen? Not hearing anymore questions, let me open the public hearing. Anybody wishing to speak in favor of the application? In favor of? Anybody opposed to the application? Opposed? Any correspondence? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. MC NULTY-We do have some correspondence. Just one piece. Okay. We have a letter from Maureen Mullen Lynch and Christopher P. Lynch, “Gentlemen, I’m writing this letter in opposition 2 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/22/01) to breaching our Town zoning laws with the development proposed at 697 Ridge Road, Area Variance No. 57-2001, Type II and to ask the Board to refuse this variance. I will try to briefly address the concerns of the Town as stated in their Variance Information Handout. 1. It is our belief, as most directly affected by this new project, that further expansion of this property would be unsightly and further congest an overbuilt property. This building would indeed be seen from Ridge Road, especially during the winter when the leaves drop, as is the house, which is brightly lit at all hours of the day on a regular basis, calling attention to this private area like blinking neon lights. This distraction not only draws attention to their property but to ours, thus compromising our privacy and thus security – a very real concern to us. This new usage will only exacerbate an already bad situation. A simple walk of this property will show the nature of our concern. While eyesores are relative to the eyes of the beholder, projects already congesting this parcel include shacks, sheds, a motorcycle track along property lines, obvious trespasses and damage across property lines, swimming pools, log heaps, mulch heaps, above ground propane tanks, a plethora of dead or dying trees and new plantings, dog kennels, complete with two of the loudest 24 hour a day barking dogs you ever wouldn’t want to wake your babies in the middle of the night, even a massive pile of dirt covering the site of a hazardous waste pit, in alarming proximity to our water supply. All these projects are close to our property, and clearly visible, some exceptionally annoying. We are even more concerned, however, with how this proposed expansion would be handled; the last renovation project to the existing house resulted in all the waste (including hazardous materials) being dumped into a hole in the back yard which to the best of our knowledge was then covered with a dirt pile rather than properly disposed of. We see no evidence this was ever remedied, and it is well possible it is leaching into our well water supply. While some of these items might be legal and conforming we would beg the Board not to further this sprawl in contravention of existing laws. 2. The applicant has already proposed other feasible means of gaining this benefit, to wit, simply expanding the current garage to accommodate the proliferation of toys and equipment. This would have the benefit of keeping the project legal and in the same footprint as the current dwelling. Having lived in the Garner’s house, I point out the garage is massive and able to handle virtually all the vehicles mentioned. As the prior residents of the house, we can attest that we were able to store 2 vehicles, 4 motorcycles, bikes, lawn and garden equipment, one snowmobile plus a hot air balloon in this same garage. While it is true this house has no full basement, Dr. Garner has omitted the fact that this house has a 1,500 square foot third story, more than double the amount any loft in this proposed garage would provide, and legal under the zoning ordinances only for passive storage. Other feasible means of obtaining this relief include selling one of the vehicles, parking one outdoors, putting up a carport or finding another house. The Garners were aware of the storage capacity of the property and the laws of Queensbury when they acquired this house. 3. As the Zoning laws have been drafted to protect neighbors and neighborhoods from this type of over utilization and sprawl, I might suggest this project is the type the laws were drafted to protect us against, it is a clear breach of the Ordinance. 4. While we have outlined many of the adverse impacts of this project above, I can add that we have substantive concerns over the environmental impact of this project, both in its destruction of habitat, and its adverse impact on drainage in this area, already a matter of concern to the Garners and us. Especially with hand drawn setbacks which may or may not be accurate, we point out this area is virtually a seasonal wetland, and loss of this drainage area could easily exacerbate the problems we have in maintaining our driveway, and place us in danger should we have need of emergency vehicles. This is not a theoretical problem as one year a big propane delivery truck actually sunk up to its frame in our driveway, requiring heavy equipment to winch it free. While we have spent quite a bit to build up this driveway, the nature of this wetland is that spring water migrates in different ways each year through the clay soil. Given that our driveway is abnormally narrow (25 feet), and bordered by a stone fence on one side and a utility trench and trees on the other, there is nowhere for us to clear out snow and ice. Thus during the spring thaws at times the driveway is barely passable. The ground compression which would result from construction of such an oversized garage would mean ground water has nowhere to go but towards our driveway jeopardizing egress onto and off the property, and this is our only route in or out, and the only route for emergency vehicle. We are also concerned, in the utter absence of any real demonstrated need, that this new building might have the potential for misuse, and overtrafficking, now or in the future. It could well be used for a public meeting place, a site for business to be conducted, etc. Lastly, the proximity of the proposed site may jeopardize a massive 200-year-old maple on the corner of our property, which we wish to protect (the division lines of our present parcel from the Garner’s were drawn partially to allow us to keep these trees, so that we could preserve them). Construction vehicles coming and going at the proposed site would cause compression trauma to an old root structure, from which this large specimen is not likely to recover. 5. As the Board questions if this relief requested is the result of a self-created difficulty, we would suggest this is obviously the case, and on the strength of this alone, this variance should be rejected with prejudice. We are very sorry that we will not be able to be at this meeting, as notification was not received until this Thursday, and we already had specific obligations for the evening of the meeting. We have other concerns that may or may not be germane to these proceedings. Before you make your decision, we would urge you to walk the property line and judge for yourselves on what we say. Regardless, the Zoning laws are rather clear on the above points, and we would submit that by statute alone, this application must be rejected. Sincerely, Maureen Mullen Lynch Christopher P. Lynch” 3 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/22/01) MR. STONE-Is that it? MR. MC NULTY-That’s it. MR. STONE-I’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. STONE-Do you wish to respond to anything you heard in that letter? DR. GARNER-I would like to start out by saying that Mr. Lynch did, indeed, own our home previously and it was taken away from him by the bank, and us buying the property has not been a good relationship between either one of us. So it’s under that context that this letter was written. The comments in that letter, to me, are frivolous. You’ve walked the property. There’s, you know, the issues of setback and that I don’t think is an issue. I would just like to comment that, you know, I drove up from where our house to Quaker Road, 1.5 miles, and there are five other properties with garages and barns on them. So it’s not like we’re setting a precedent in the area. MR. STONE-Where is their residence? I mean, obviously there is a very long driveway. They’re way in the back in the woods? DR. GARNER-They’re further back than we are. MR. MC NALLY-There’s an 80 foot setback, Mr. Stone, if you look on the corner, where the Lynches come in. DR. GARNER-Right. MR. MC NALLY-That is behind the house. MR. STONE-Well, yes, they’re way back. This driveway goes in and winds all the way around, goes back. I mean, one of the comments they made, seeing it from Ridge Road, I suppose, in the dead of winter with not one leaf. MR. ABBATE-Well, you know, Mr. Chairman, the individuals who wrote the letter are very passionate about that, but I am concerned that they are not here this evening because based on a couple of statements that they’ve made, I’d like to question them. They indicated something might be unsightly. Well, I walked the property line, and I would question that. I would question, in fact, that they could get all these vehicles, because I looked, I checked your garage, by the way. Your wife was kind enough to open up the garage for me, okay, and based upon all the amount of vehicles that they claim they could store in there, I have unlimited questions I would like to ask the individual who was objecting to this application, and they’re not here this evening. MR. STONE-And that’s a risk that they run. MR. ABBATE-Yes, sir. MR. STONE-That you may be prejudice, because you can’t talk to them. MR. ABBATE-Yes. MR. STONE-That’s a risk obviously they have to understand, and they did understand. MR. ABBATE-Yes, because I’d like to, you know, in my own mind, I don’t see any adverse, visual adverse, or impact on the neighbors, unless I missed something, and if I did, I would certainly want the individuals who are objecting to this to explain to me where I’ve gone wrong, but they’re not here this evening. MR. STONE-This driveway, this long driveway is their property. I mean, it’s not an easement over yours? DR. GARNER-No. MR. STONE-It’s just a very long driveway. Okay. MR. URRICO-Dr. Garner, on this map that we have, there’s a little arrow pointing to a piece of property. It says to be conveyed by Garner to Lynch. Was that ever, is that happening? 4 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/22/01) DR. GARNER-Yes, that was done. MR. URRICO-That was done. DR. GARNER- I’m sorry, that’s a previous drawing. MR. URRICO-Okay. MR. ABBATE-Something else just struck me, if I may, please. The individual objecting indicated that there might be a possibility of abuse for commercial use, would you tell the Board, please, what your occupation is? DR. GARNER-I’m a physician. MR. ABBATE-Thank you. MR. STONE-This hazardous waste. To what were they referring? DR. GARNER-We put a new roof on and I was rearranging some dirt to make a hill for my kids to sled on, and I put the shingles in that hole. He objected to it. We took them all out. So it’s a non issue as far as I’m concerned. So there is, in your judgement there is no hazardous waste on the property? DR. GARNER-Absolutely not. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. MC NALLY-I just want to understand what it is that the applicant conceding, in terms of numbers of garages and square footage. He reduced it by how much? MR. STONE-He’s conceding, not conceding the second garage, but he is going to reduce the attached garage in approximately in half, and it will not be a garage because the door will not be there. MR. MC NALLY-It’ll be a single bay garage? MR. STONE-A single bay garage, which, approximately, Craig, do you have how big that single bay? DR. GARNER-It’s 24 by 24 now. MR. STONE-So it’ll be 24 by 12. MR. MC NALLY-So the amount of relief, in terms of square footage, is what, with this concession? MR. STONE-The total square footage is going to be 970, as I add it up. Craig, do you get the same numbers? 960. MR. BROWN-I get 1036. MR. STONE-672 and what? I get 288 and 672. DR. GARNER-The new one, 24 by 28. MR. STONE-I get 960. DR. GARNER-I’d like to make it 24 by 30 if I could, after I map things out. MR. STONE-Is there any, have you given any consideration to doing away with both attached garages? Using it for storage, but use a non garage type door. DR. GARNER-Well, I need three garages if I’m going to put them all away. MR. STONE-Okay. So the answer is no? DR. GARNER-Correct. MR. STONE-That’s fine. Any other questions? Well, let’s start with Bob. What do you think? 5 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/22/01) MR. MC NALLY-Overall, I don’t have a problem with it. Driving through your property, I can tell you have children (lost words) and you need a place to put all that stuff, and I was impressed, also, by the number of trees between his home and the adjacent property. In large part, you can’t see anything from the road. There’s a long driveway set back in the woods. (Lost word) putting up a garage is certainly not going to (lost words) in my opinion, and actually putting everything back into the garage is going to improve the property, in some sense, today. The feasible alternatives, adding an addition to the house, I don’t think that’s too realistic, given the fact that it’s going to destroy the lines of the house. It’s not going to be feasible with a garage to make it a three car garage there, in my opinion, and having them do that, making another garage (lost words). I don’t think the relief is substantial relative to the Ordinance. You’ve got three bays, slightly over what a single garage would be allowed. Having a second garage on a more than four acre lot is not going to kill anyone. I don’t see any effect on the neighborhood or community. The problem with the dogs, and they did bark, they are barkers, the construction debris, the ATV usage, construction noise, these aren’t relevant to zoning. If there’s a problem like this, then there’s other methods of dealing with them than denying an application like this, and I don’t necessarily know that it’s self-created. Certainly the need is self- created, but he doesn’t have a basement, in a sense. Most houses would otherwise. You’ve got to have storage somewhere. It’s fortunate that he has a lot that accommodates a second garage. So I’d be in favor of it. MR. STONE-Norm? MR. HIMES-Yes, thank you. I agree, for the most part, with what Bob has said. I was wondering also about what visibility would be like during the winter and so on. People look and they see houses in other directions and so forth. So it’s not like because there’s a structure here that the world’s going to come to an end, especially when given how far, according to the plans that we’ve got here, how far it’s going to be from the property lines, but in the respect that there’d be two garages, and the square footage being (lost words) in my mind as far as the amount of square footage, the aspect of a plan change in the present residence, that is sum part of the existing garage is going to be changed over. I’m kind of thinking in my mind, well, let’s see if that happens (lost words) how much is taken of that garage (lost words) then go from there. So, at this time, I’m a little on the fence, but thinking that, well, it’s kind of important what your future plan is, and maybe we should wait and see what you do with the house, and then consider the matter of the garage. Thank you. MR. STONE-Chuck? MR. ABBATE-Thank you. Like Bob, he basically stated everything I was going to state. I approach this thing on balance. You have no basement. I believe you have four children. You’ve got four and a half acres. I saw no adverse visual impact on any of the neighbors. You certainly need storage. There’s no question about that at all. In terms of feasible alternatives, adding on would destroy. It’s a beautiful home. It would destroy the lines of that home. I, personally, feel that your application is reasonable, and I would support it. MR. STONE-Roy? MR. URRICO-I’m basically in agreement with Chuck and Bob, but I also agree with Norm. I think I’d like to see some sort of contingency that something would be done to the first garage to offset the amount of the square footage on the variance that would be needed. So I would support it under those conditions. MR. STONE-Okay. Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-I would agree with Roy, also. I think that as long as there’s a contingency built in that, you know, about that first garage, that we can be accommodating in regards to the size of what’s being proposed here, and I think you could use the space that’s needed, and the visual impacts are going to be minimal, if any at all. MR. STONE-Chuck? MR. MC NULTY-I guess I can basically echo what’s been said. It bothers me that it’s a second garage. That’s the negative side, and I don’t like the idea of approving a second garage, but, reducing the existing attached garage in half is a big plus for me, because then we’re not increasing a huge amount of square footage. I agree that trying to add on to the house would probably detract from its appearance. I think the second building where it’s proposed is going to be attractive. It is conceivable that it may be seen from Ridge Road during the winter, but I think as the applicant’s pointed out, it’s basically going to be in character with a lot of the other homes in the area, provided that it’s used as a garage and a storage building and not commercially, and that is a legitimate concern, because while the current owner has said he’s got no intention of doing it, we’ve got to remember that these variances travel with the land, and what the next owner does, it does leave an opportunity there, but I think we trust our zoning laws that prohibit the use of commercial activity in 6 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/22/01) non commercial areas to protect us on that. So, as with the other Board members, on balance, I think I’d be in favor. MR. STONE-Before I say where I’m coming from, just one question. Would you describe this new building as a modern barn, my words, but would you echo that, in looking at the picture? You talk about fitting in. Would it look like a modern barn? DR. GARNER-I’m not sure I understand what you’re saying. MR. STONE-Well, I’m looking at this picture. I would say the picture you provided would be a barn, except it looks like. DR. GARNER-It’s not an old-fashioned barn, no, it would be a modern barn. MR. STONE-No, not an old-fashion, but I mean, you’re going to have slats, in the front, like you show here. DR. GARNER-Probably, yes, the T-111. MR. STONE-Yes, okay. Well, I basically agree with my fellow Board members. Obviously, Dr. Garner has agreed that one garage will go, so that the total square footage of I get of these two garages is 960, which is just slightly over the 900 that’s allowed. Obviously, it’s a 100% deviation when you consider the second garage, but it is 4.38 acres. It is SR-1 Acre zoning, which does say you could put a hospital there. You’re not planning to put a hospital there, are you, Doctor? DR. GARNER-No. MR. STONE-Okay, or a funeral home, and I don’t think you want to go either way, but I do think that while I’ve been reluctant in the past to allow a second garage, I think this property is large enough, and we certainly heard from the applicant that there is no intent to do anything but live there, hopefully a long time, I can support this thing because I think, on balance, it’s a good application. Having said that, I need a motion that talks about closing, granting the relief and closing the one part of the attached garage, so that it can not be used for vehicle storage. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 57-2001 ANDREW GARNER, Introduced by Robert McNally who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Abbate: 697 Ridge Road. The applicant proposes to construct a second garage, a two car detached garage, and asks for two variances. First, he wants relief from the square footage requirements, and second he wants relief allowing him to build a second garage. I ask that the application be approved for the following reasons. First, the benefit to the applicant weighs in favor. Here, the applicant has no basement and he would have an additional storage building on the property. He would also be able to put away some of the things on the property that would otherwise be open and left out. Feasible alternatives are few and far between. It’s not realistic to add an addition to the existing structure, and by doing so you’ve oversized it in comparison to the rest of the structure. Also, it’s not realistic due to the size of the existing parcel, and, since this is a parcel, people are using their property for ATV, more vehicles and that kind of thing. So they would need more storage. Since that’s true, having simply a storage shed without vehicle storage is not reasonable. I don’t believe the relief is substantial relative to the Ordinance in this case. Several time this Board has had real demands for a barn or a second garage on larger lots. I think in the circumstances where lots have been shown to accommodate without any real effect on the neighbors, it can be accommodating to the applicant. I don’t see that there’d be over utilization. I don’t see the property to be over built. Effects on the neighborhood or community are minimal, and the opposition they received indicated that there were dogs, construction debris, and other things which are not relevant to this variance tonight. Certainly the neighbor has certain remedies, but it’s not with this Board. Otherwise this individual is building a garage at least 80 feet from the nearest property line. Is the difficulty self created? The difficulty may be interpreted as self created. In my opinion it’s not. This is a pre-existing house without a basement. There’s a need for storage, with four children. For all these reasons, I move the approval. This is contingent on Dr. Garner’s representation and promise that he would close off one bay of the garage, remove the door for that garage, and making internal storage space or internal residential space, such as the mud room they’ve referred to, and also contingent on the fact that on the plans he’s shown at least 80 feet from the Lynch property to the corner there. His building will be constructed at least that far from their line. Duly adopted this 22 day of August, 2001, by the following: nd AYES: Mr. Abbate, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McNulty, Mr. McNally, Mr. Stone NOES: Mr. Himes 7 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/22/01) ABSENT: Mr. Bryant, Mr. Hayes MR. STONE-There you go. DR. GARNER-Thank you. OLD BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 55-2001 TYPE II MARTIN S. AND SUSAN M. FARBER AGENT: LITTLE AND O’CONNOR PROPERTY: OWNER: MARTIN S. AND SUSAN M. FARBER ZONE: WR-3A, CEA LOCATION: 33 ANTIGUA ROAD, EAST OF ANTIQUA MOTEL APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OFA BOAT COVER WITH A SUNDECK AND STAIRS. PURSUANT TO SECTION 179-16 PRIVATE BOATHOUSE AND COVERED DOCK REQUIRE PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. APPLICANT SEEKS RELIEF FROM SIDE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REFERENCE: SPR 31-2001 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 8/8/2001 OLD TAX MAP NO. 1-1-10 NEW TAX MAP NO. 239.17-1-10 LOT SIZE: 0.90 ACRES SECTION 179-60, 179-16 MICHAEL O’CONNOR, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. STONE-Read the tabling motion. MR. MC NULTY-“MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 55-2001 MARTIN S. & SUSAN M. FARBER, Introduced by Lewis Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Abbate: 33 Antigua Road. Until the meeting of August 22, so that the applicant can furnish a nd revised drawing of the cover, with a reduced sundeck. Duly adopted this 15 day of August, 2001, th by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Bryant, Mr. Hayes, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Himes, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Stone NOES: NONE” MR. STONE-Mr. O’Connor. MR. O'CONNOR-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We’re sorry for the confusion. Some of us thought it was 7:30, which was the time we began last week, and thought we were 15 minutes early and we weren’t. I apologize for that. MR. STONE-That was a special, to bring us up to date, last week. MR. O'CONNOR-Basically, you’ve got a couple of new members. I presume they’ve seen some of the minutes, but we had two boat covers on this dock complex that one of them was 400 square feet and one was 1300 square feet, and what we’re proposing is one boat cover which is approximately, not approximately, it’s 1,089 square feet. Last week, the Board expressed some concerns, and the neighbors expressed some concerns, and we attempted to meet those concerns in the interim. There were concerns about the swimming ladders that were on the neighbor’s side of the dock. They have been removed and will not be replaced. There was concern, not, as I understood the comments that were made last week, about the boat cover, but bringing the sundeck within the extension of the 20 feet setback, if you will, into the lake, and what we have done is put together a plan which keeps the sundeck totally out of that 20 foot setback area. The sundeck now, instead of being 28 by 28, will be 28 by 14 feet. We also took Staff’s comment to heart, and had somebody actually do a survey, and do a projection of the side line into the lake. We had it last week pretty much by scale, and not by survey. VanDusen and Steves have done that, and they have provided a map today, this is kind of a moving target. We had a map yesterday that I did some, after I got the map from VanDusen & Steves, Craig said, well, why don’t you show the actual setback from the corners of the boat cover as well as just the fact that you’re inside your 20 feet, and I did it by scale again, and when I faxed it to him, Matt said I should be sticking to lawyering and not surveying, and I don’t disagree with him. The actual boat cover on the inside, land side, is 6.8%, which requires 13 feet 2 inches relief, and on the outside corner it will require seven feet eleven inches. What we would propose is to build the boat cover as we’ve shown in the sketches that we’ve submitted, the boat cover will be entirely on the Farber side of the 20 foot setback. So we’re not encroaching upon the requirement setback for the sundeck activity. It will be square or rectangular, I guess. We’re not going to try and make it at an angle, so that on the lakeside it can come out wider. If there’s any questions on the sketch, Mr. Sutliff, who is the builder, is here. Basically, it will be a mansard roof, and the mansard roof will face the Mackenzie’s property. The height will not change from what the original height was. The railing, as it goes along the mansard roof, will taper, so that it is, at the corner, at the full height of the railing, the very top of the mansard, there probably will be no railing and no spindle. It’ll be a straight board across. That’s shown in one of the drawings. So we’ve tried to answer the concerns that we heard. We hope that we have. If you have questions of what we’ve submitted, Dr. Farber did take that to the neighbors last evening, or I’m not sure when, but within, I guess last evening because we were 8 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/22/01) pressed to get this together and get everything that we would have to submit to you today. Any questions of us? MR. STONE-I don’t know why it just occurred to me, Craig. Just a quick question. Quite often when we talk about relief, we talk about even the existing, like a building, and if they want to build on the building, it’s still the closest point of the existing building for which we’re providing relief, or am I confusing issues here? MR. BROWN-Yes, I think you’re confusing issues. MR. STONE-So we’re just talking the new construction. The dock we’re assuming is there. Okay. I don’t have a problem with it. It just dawned on me, and I thought I’d ask the question. Okay. Any questions of the applicant? We’ll open the public hearing. Anybody wishing to speak in favor of this application? Anybody opposed, or would you like to make a comment, neighbors, Mackenzie’s? PUBLIC HEARING OPEN SARA LYNN MACKENZIE MRS. MACKENZIE-No comment. MR. STONE-No comment. Therefore I assume, since you were objecting last week, you do not have concerns. May I interpret it that way? MRS. MACKENZIE-Yes. Dr. Farber brought it over, and we would like not to have a sundeck, but this is a compromise, and that’s what we agreed. MR. STONE-Okay. I appreciate that. Any correspondence? MR. MC NULTY-I see no new. MR. STONE-Okay. Let me close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. STONE-Are there any further questions? Norm, do you want to start out? What do you think now, of the new application? MR. HIMES-Thank you. I’m very sympathetic to the application, and would vote yes on it. MR. STONE-Okay. Chuck? MR. ABBATE-Yes. The applicant has certainly made concessions, and as I heard it, and I hope I heard it correctly, the survey ladders were removed. It’s now 1,000. MR. STONE-Well, I can attest to that. I drove by by boat this afternoon, with my grandson, and they are not there. MR. ABBATE-All right, that’s wonderful. Now it’s 1,089 square feet versus the 1700, the 28 by 14 versus the 28 by 28. They’ve made concessions on the boat cover and the neighbors agree to this compromise. I’ll support it. MR. STONE-Okay. Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes. Even though I didn’t sit in on the Board last week, I was present for the one hour and forty-three minute presentation, and I certainly see compromises that were made last week and this week and I would certainly be in favor of it. MR. STONE-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, any concerns I had last week have been alleviated. I think that it’s, you know, you guys have compromised pretty dramatically from what was originally proposed, and I think it’s a good fit. MR. STONE-Chuck? MR. ABBATE-I’ll have to agree. It strikes me that the proposal as it currently stands probably is the best of any choices. One choice being nothing at all on top of the deck, but I think perhaps this 9 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/22/01) structure, in some ways, may focus the activity a little further away from the neighbor’s lines than just an open dock would. So I think, on balance, I’d be in favor of this, too. MR. STONE-Bob? MR. MC NALLY-I’m in favor of it. MR. STONE-Okay. So am I. I think this shows the process works. I mean, obviously, the Board had some individual concerns, some collective concerns. Obviously, the Mackenzie’s had a big concern, and I think, in the spirit of compromise that has existed in the past week, that I think we have a project that obviously everybody on the Board can agree with, and I think will agree with when we make the motion. I think it’s certainly going to benefit the applicant, but I don’t think it’s going to hurt the community, or it’s going to hurt it to a minimal degree, and I think that it’s, therefore, a good project. Having said that, I would like a motion to approve this application. MR. HIMES-Lew, before, what are we talking about in connection with the relief required now? MR. STONE-6.8, that’s the relief, from the 20. MR. O'CONNOR-No, it’s 13.2. MR. STONE-13.2 feet of relief, yes. MR. O'CONNOR-Which is relief for the boat cover on the shore side, lessening it to seven feet eleven inches on the lake side. MR. STONE-Well, we don’t care about that number. We’ll specify this particular drawing. MR. O'CONNOR-The boat cover can be built not closer than 13.2 feet of the extended property line. MR. STONE-Correct. That’s the number we need, and then of course we should also reflect the drawing as provided by the applicant. We’re granting this approval on the basis of the drawing that was submitted with the application. MR. O'CONNOR-No objection. MR. STONE-Okay. I need a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 55-2001 MARTIN S. & SUSAN M. FARBER, Introduced by Norman Himes who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roy Urrico: 33 Antigua Road. The applicant proposes the construction of a sundeck/boathouse over an existing dock. The applicant requests 13.2 feet of relief from the minimum side setback requirement of the Shoreline and Wetland regulations Section 179-60. The benefit to the applicant, the applicant would be permitted to construct the desired structure in the preferred location, with the sundeck. Feasible alternatives would be relocating the whole thing in front of the applicant’s property, but has been found by most everybody to be impractical, considering the expense that would be involved, and the fact that the dock has been set in its existing position for many, many years, and the fact that it’s the sundeck primarily that is the new part of the structure. Is the relief substantial relative to the Ordinance? I would think the relief is minimal. Effects on the neighborhood or community would be moderate. The neighbors to the east who were very concerned with the original proposal have now agreed to the proposal that they are asking for approval for tonight. So I propose we accept the application as submitted, in its revised form, in its compromised form. One of the things that was agreed to was removal of the ladder on the side of the structure facing the neighbors. That has been removed. Duly adopted this 22 day of August, 2001, by the following vote: nd MR. STONE-One question, the actual sundeck is going to be at the 20 foot mark? MR. O'CONNOR-It probably is a couple of inches off. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. O'CONNOR-That’s 14.2 feet, .2 equates to four inches. Fourteen feet of it will be used. So there’s a couple of inches of play there. 10 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/22/01) MR. STONE-Yes, but I mean, the 20 foot setback, it’s going to be at or further than the 20 foot setback? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. It would be a couple of inches further than the 20 feet. MR. STONE-Yes. I just want that to be reflected in the motion that the actual deck will be beyond the 20 foot setback. Did you note, just for curiosity’s sake, since we did get submitted by the Mackenzie’s these ladders, that these ladders have been removed? MR. HIMES- One of the things that was agreed to was removal of the ladder on the side of the structure facing the neighbors. That has been removed, and furthermore, it was agreed at our last meeting that recreational swimming, other than an occasional dive in, by the owners, recreational swimming, they’ll make every attempt to keep that, the applicant’s friends and family, on the side of the dock, in front of their property. MR. O'CONNOR-I think that we’ve said we’ll take the ladders off there. I don’t think you want to get into control of where people swim in the lake. MR. HIMES-Okay. That was talked about. MR. O'CONNOR-I think it won’t be a natural thing. The ladders will be on the other side. MR. HIMES-I agree with that. MR. STONE-I mean, they might dive in and swim, as we heard there was swimming going across the property, which is perfectly, it’s a lake. MR. HIMES-Fine. I agree. MR. MC NALLY-So, just so I understand it, you’ve got 13 feet 2 inches on the corner of the boat cover closest to the shore? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. MR. STONE-Closest to the property line, yes. MR. MC NALLY-And at the corner, at the other end of the dock, along the property line, there’s how many feet? MR. O'CONNOR-It’s not along the property line. It’s further out into the lake. At that point, the boat cover will be seven feet eleven inches, or, I’m sorry, the relief will be seven feet eleven inches. It’s at an angle. So here, where it’s 6.8, out there it’s 12.1. MR. STONE-The boat cover is going to be at this angle. The property line is at that angle. So it diverges away from the property line. In other words, it’s going to be parallel to the ends of the dock, as I see it, and that’ll take it away from the property. So the relief we’re granting is still the 13.2. I mean, that’s all we have to state. Okay. Any other questions about the motion? Do I hear a second? MR. URRICO-Second. AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McNulty, Mr. McNally, Mr. Himes, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Stone NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Bryant, Mr. Hayes MR. O'CONNOR-Thank you very much. MR. STONE-Thank you, gentlemen, for your cooperation. MR. O'CONNOR-My question to you, Craig, is what do I need for the Planning Board next week? MR. BROWN-The same plans. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay, but I mean, what do you have, as opposed to simply reproducing paper? MR. BROWN-Yes. They’re going to want to see what they approved tonight. 11 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/22/01) MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. MR. BROWN-I don’t think they’ve seen those drawings yet. MR. O'CONNOR-No, but I gave you 10 sets, or 14 sets. MR. BROWN-Okay. I’ll see if I can get them before the janitor does. MR. O'CONNOR-Thank you. SIGN VARIANCE NO. 58-2001 TYPE: UNLISTED DUNHAM’S BAY CORPORATION D/B/A DUNHAM’S BAY LODGE, GRIFFITH PARRY PROPERTY OWNER: DUNHAM’S BAY CORPORATION GRIFFITH PARRY ZONE: LC-42A AND RR-3A, CEA LOCATION: 2999 STATE ROUTE 9L, LAKE GEORGE APPLICANT PROPOSES INSTALLATION OF 2 ADDITIONAL FREESTANDING SIGNS AT THE LODGE/RESORT. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM NUMBER OF ALLOWABLE SIGNS ON THE PARCEL. ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 8/8/2001 OLD TAX MAP NO. 10-1-17.1 NEW TAX MAP NO. 252.00-1-75.4 LOT SIZE: 118.40 ACRES SECTION 140 GRIFFITH PARRY, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Sign Variance No. 58-2001, Dunham’s Bay Corporation d/b/a Dunham’s Bay Lodge, Griffith Parry, Meeting Date: August 22, 2001 “Project Location: 2999 State Route 9L, Lake George Description of Proposed Project: Applicant has constructed 2 additional freestanding signs: Chase House Restaurant & Lounge and (No) Vacancy. Relief Required: Applicant requests relief from the Sign Ordinance per § 140-6 for the additional signs. A business is allowed a maximum of one freestanding sign. If relocated, the Vacancy/No Vacancy sign might be incorporated with the exiting Dunham’s Bay Lodge sign. Criteria for considering a Sign Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be permitted to gain additional advertisement for the existing restaurant. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives may include consolidation of the signage. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?: A second freestanding sign, where one is allowed may be interpreted as moderate to substantial, relative to the Ordinance. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: Moderate effects on the neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of this action. 5. Is this difficulty self-created? The difficulty may be interpreted as self created. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): Sign Permit 85-24 issued 2/25/85 Sign Permit 90-1307 issued 6/19/90 Temp. Sign Permit 2000-692 issued 9/12/00 Auction Staff comments: Moderate impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action. Apparently, the Chase House Restaurant and Lounge is a part of Dunham’s Bay Lodge and the applicant is seeking relief for an additional sign in order to give the restaurant its own identity. The applicant was informed that the signs were in violation of the ordinance and that the signs should be removed prior to the application for or approval of a variance. SEQR Status: Type: Unlisted” MR. MC NULTY-“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form August 8, 2001 Project Name: Dunham’s Bay Corporation Owner: Dunham’s Bay Corporation ID Number: QBY-AV-58-2001 County Project#: Aug01-31 Project Description: Applicant proposes installation of 2 additional freestanding signs at the lodge/resort. Relief is being sought from the number of allowable signs on the parcel. Site Location: 2999 State Route 9L, Lake George. Tax Map Number(s): 10-1-17.4 Staff Notes: The sign ordinance permits one freestanding sign of up to 50 square feet. The applicant wishes to add two additional freestanding signs to the existing 49 sq. ft. freestanding sign for a total of three freestanding signs. The existing 49 sq. ft. freestanding sign says “Dunham’s Bay Lodge”. The two proposed additional signs would read “The Chase House Restaurant and Lounge” (12 x 1.66’ - 19.92 sq. ft.) and “No Vacancy” (70” x 12” - 5.83 sq. ft.). A site plan is attached. The applicant did not provide drawings of the existing and proposed signs. Staff is concerned about the impact of several signs rather than the one large freestanding sign permitted under the ordinance. Staff recommends discussion. Local actions to date (if any): A public hearing has been scheduled for August 22, 2001. County Planning Board Recommendation: Deny due to impact to County resources from sign proliferation inconsistent with Town of Queensbury sign ordinance.” MR. STONE-Okay. Sir, you’re on. MR. PARRY-Hi. My name is Griffith Parry, and I’m the Secretary and General Counsel of the Dunham’s Bay Corporation. While I was listening to that, I did think of a couple of alternatives to having the three freestanding signs. One thing I want to point out is that I think the Ordinance makes sense, because it basically gives you an opportunity for two 50 square foot signs, one a 12 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/22/01) freestanding sign, and one a wall sign. So one thing I could do is build a little stone house, right over the sign that says Dunham’s Bay Lodge, and then that would thus convert that into a wall sign, and then I could consolidate the other two freestanding signs, which total about 25 square feet, and have them right about where I’d place them. Another alternative was I could put a 50 square foot sign on the Lodge. The problem is the Lodge sits so far back from the road and it’s so high up from the road that I don’t know whether it would do any good, and I think it would hurt the aesthetics of the Lodge. I don’t know. Do you people have pictures? Because I’ve got pictures that show what I’m preparing to do. As far as the neighborhood goes, the two closest motels, one has a flashing vacancy sign, and one has two freestanding signs at the road. Of course they’re both located in the Town of Lake George. MR. STONE-It’s a small matter. MR. PARRY-But that is my competition. MR. STONE-Let me ask a question. Craig, I heard something about another little house you’re talking about there. Would that be a canard? I mean, the house would still be, that wouldn’t be wall sign, it wouldn’t seem to me. MR. BROWN-Yes. I’m not convinced that we’d consider it a wall sign, either. MR. STONE-All right. That would be my thought originally. I mean, it might be a cute freestanding sign, but it’s still not going to be a wall sign, if it’s not the building in which the business is conducted. MR. HIMES-In any event, the structure would have to be big enough so that the wall sign would not exceed 25% of the surface. MR. STONE-Right. MR. MC NALLY-If we had that place in the middle of the lake, that hunting camp, I suppose that would be a structure. MR. SALVADOR-It’s on the way. MR. MC NALLY-I was curious, Craig. The parcel history is kind short and abbreviated, but there are two sign permits listed. Do you know what they’re for? MR. BROWN-I couldn’t find a record of what they’re for, but I’m going to assume that they’re original sign permits for the Dunham’s Bay Lodge sign, and I’m sure at the public hearing portion we’re going to get some information. MR. MC NALLY-Yes, we’ve got one in ’85 and one in ’90, and then a temporary. MR. BROWN-Right. The temporary was a recent one last fall. MR. STONE-That’s when Mr. Salvador was trying to sell the property. I believe that’s what it was. MR. MC NULTY-Yes, it was labeled for the Auction. MR. STONE-Yes. Okay. MR. ABBATE-Mr. Chairman, I wonder if I might ask the applicant a question, please. Mr. Parry, did I hear you correctly, you indicated you’re also Counsel? Are you an attorney? MR. PARRY-Yes. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Good. Because I have a question for you, as an attorney. I have here in my hands, Staff comments that indicates, and tell me where it’s wrong, the applicant was informed that the signs were in violation of the ordinance and that the signs should be removed prior to the application for approval of a variance. Were the signs removed? MR. PARRY-Yes. MR. ABBATE-They were? MR. PARRY-Yes. MR. STONE-Which signs were removed? 13 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/22/01) MR. PARRY-The one that says the Chase House Restaurant and Lounge. MR. STONE-That was removed? MR. ABBATE-Yes, thank you. When was that removed? MR. PARRY-I believe it was about two weeks ago, I told my maintenance man to remove that sign. It’s not attached to anything. It was just sitting there. All he had to do was flip it down. MR. ABBATE-Because I was there, I believe it was there Monday. I’m not sure of the exact, Monday or Sunday. I don’t know. At my age I get confused, but the sign was still there. Unless I’m mistaken. MR. PARRY-You may not be mistaken. I may be mistaken. MR. STONE-I drove by on the way to this meeting, and both signs are still, and they may have been moved slightly, but they’re both where they were. MR. ABBATE-And the reason I raise this issue because we’re talking about credibility. If the initial application isn’t credible, then I question everything else that’s included, and I’m not happy about it. Thank you. MR. HIMES-There’s also the matter of Paragraph 140-9, Permit Procedures, Penalties for Offenses, 140-11, that would be (lost words). MR. STONE-Why don’t you read that, since you brought it up. We have a couple of sign variances. We’ll get it into the record. MR. HIMES-It’s on Page 14 of our paperwork. It’s 140-11, titled “Penalties for Offenses” “Penalty for failure to apply for a sign permit. Any person who proceeds to erect, re-erect, construct or structurally alter any sign without first applying for and obtaining the necessary permit shall be considered in violation of this chapter and shall be liable for a fine of not more than $250 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding 15 days, or both, for each offense. Each day that the violation is permitted to exist shall constitute a separate offense.” And it goes on with different sub sets. MR. STONE-So I think what Mr. Himes is saying is that we don’t take lightly any sign that’s up without a permit, because we do have the variance process, and if somebody wants to put a sign up, then they should get a permit or seek a variance prior to putting up the sign, and this is something that we have been pretty zealous about over at least the time that I’ve been on the Board. It’s just a statement of fact. It’s not a warning, but it’s a statement of fact. Any other questions that you have, gentlemen? MR. ABBATE-I’d like to add to that. The Chairman is absolutely correct, but I would like to emphasize another statement of fact. It’s one thing to put up a sign without any previous knowledge that a sign permit is required. It’s another thing to be told by the authorities that the signs were in violation of the Ordinance and the signs should be removed, and not remove the sign. Thank you. MR. STONE-Okay. Bob? MR. MC NALLY-I’m just trying to understand this a little bit more. As I look at it, the Dunham’s Bay sign is the one on that rock wall kind of thing, that’s about 50 square feet or so? MR. PARRY-That’s correct. MR. MC NALLY-Then you’ve got that wood brown one that talks about the restaurant that’s about 20 square feet. MR. PARRY-That’s correct. MR. MC NALLY-And there’s a white one, where you cover up the “No” for the Vacancy, and that’s another five square feet. So the total sign square footage is like 75 square feet? MR. PARRY-That’s correct. MR. MC NALLY-Now, I just want to understand the Ordinance. It’s 50 square feet, how far back from the line. 14 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/22/01) MR. STONE-Fifteen foot. Sixty-four feet at twenty-five. MR. MC NALLY-Sixty-four feet at twenty-five, and these signs are how far back? MR. STONE-They’re certainly 25. Wouldn’t you say? MR. MC NALLY-Your application says about 60 to 68. MR. PARRY-I believe so. MR. MC NALLY-And I didn’t see it when the signs were initially up. I went this morning, okay. Where were the signs originally? Because now you’ve got the Dunham’s Bay Lodge, sitting there on the rock, and then sitting in the back, right before the parking area, they’re just lying on the ground facing the road. Is that where they were originally? I didn’t know you had pictures here. MR. STONE-That’s where they’ve been since they appeared. I go by it daily. MR. MC NALLY-So are we talking a difference of 11 square feet under the Ordinance? MR. BROWN-If you want to consider it as one sign, but they’re separated, so we’re talking about two signs or more. MR. MC NALLY-I can understand how they were connected, but if it were one sign, like if he put it on top of Dunham’s Bay Lodge, effectively, it’s going to be one sign. I don’t know if that would be aesthetically pleasing, but it looks like, is that where it was, the Chase House? Was it two pillars and a loop crossing it? MR. PARRY-Yes. MR. STONE-I have a question, Craig. I mean, you’ve already discussed the parcel history, but the Dunham’s Bay sign itself, the one built into the rocks, I assume there was a permit for that. MR. BROWN-I’m sure that’s one of those two permits that are referenced in there. I couldn’t find them when I searched for them. MR. STONE-Well, it had to be after 1990, because it wasn’t there when I first moved up here. I don’t believe, but then we can ask the former owner of the property, if he chooses to appear in public hearing. MR. MC NALLY-The big sign, Dunham’s Bay Lodge, you don’t remember it being there? I had my wedding reception there. I don’t honestly remember that day at all. MR. STONE-Okay. Any other questions? If not, I will open the public hearing. Anybody wishing to speak in favor of this application? In favor of? Mr. Salvador? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED JOHN SALVADOR MR. SALVADOR-My name is John Salvador. I’m here tonight with my wife Kathleen and as you know, we’re the former owners of Dunham’s Bay Lodge. Upon inquiry of the zoning and planning bunker of this neighboring building here, I learned the other day that Mr. Parry was cited for a violation, but it was on motion of the Planning Department. There was no registered complaint in this regard, and I want that on record that the Zoning Enforcement Officer on his own volition cited Mr. Parry for the violation. Normally, on an issue concerning Dunham’s Bay Lodge, this room would be filled. You know that, and I just don’t see anyone from the neighborhood here. I find it strange that the applicant was informed that the signs were in violation of the Ordinance and that the signs should be removed prior to the application for approval of a variance. Now, I can recall the Aldi sign situation where they were cited as being in violation and they were allowed to leave their sign up until it was settled. I recall the Dunham’s Bay Boat Company was in violation for 20 years of a Special Use Permit granted by this Town, and was allowed to go to site plan without mitigating one single problem. Not one single thing was mitigated. They were allowed to go to site plan and got a site, it took them a year to get a site plan approval from the Planning Board, and all those violations exit to this day, okay. MR. STONE-Mr. Salvador, are you in support of this application? MR. SALVADOR-Very much so in support. 15 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/22/01) MR. STONE-Well, then please stick to the topic of support. MR. SALVADOR-All right. The existing Dunham’s Bay Lodge is not a freestanding sign. It wasn’t built as a freestanding sign. It wasn’t permitted as a freestanding sign. It is a wall sign. It hangs on a retaining wall. There’s no permit in the file for the retaining wall because the Town didn’t require permits for retaining walls when we built it. The Dunham’s Bay Lodge letters, together with the sail logo, add up to less than 50 square feet. The wall does not enter into the area of the sign. Not one bit. It’s a wall sign. We started construction on that sign in the fall of 1989, and we didn’t get the permit until 6/19/90, after the letters were put on the sign, on the wall. That’s the history of that sign. That is a wall sign. There is no freestanding sign at the present time on this property. There are other things here. I don’t know if you have any questions at all, but I do have a record of the signage on the property if you’ve got questions. MR. STONE-Okay. I didn’t know that was ’90. MR. SALVADOR-I don’t know if the issue of the restaurant being a new use comes into play here. Advertising the restaurant, is there any concern that this is a new nonconforming use? MR. ABBATE-I’m not sure that’s even an issue. It hasn’t been brought up. MR. MC NALLY-It’s not here tonight. Whether or not it is, I’m sure that’s something that could be solved otherwise. MR. STONE-I believe there was a restaurant on the property. I have been told by a reliable source that there was a restaurant on the property for the use of its guests. MR. SALVADOR-Well it says here “apparently”, the Chase House and Lounge is part of the Dunham’s Bay Lodge. Now is it or isn’t it? Because I can address that issue. MR. MC NALLY-But the issue is not here, Mr. Salvador. I think we are just dealing with a Sign Variance. MR. STONE-A Sign Variance. MR. MC NALLY-If there’s not a problem with the restaurant, fine. If there is. MR. SALVADOR-The point I would like to make is that that sign was built as a, it was built as a wall, a retaining wall, and the sign was put onto the wall after. MR. HIMES-Excuse me. I don’t mean to interrupt. There was something I wanted to ask. MR. SALVADOR-Go ahead. MR. HIMES-I think that the wall sign, looking at the Ordinance here, kind of goes hand in hand with being attached to the building. MR. SALVADOR-That was written after this was built. MR. HIMES-What definition might have been applied then, I don’t know. MR. SALVADOR-There was no requirement in the Town, see, there’s no permit for the structure. MR. HIMES-Right, but it couldn’t qualify as a wall sign. MR. SALVADOR-Today. MR. HIMES-It’s a small matter, really. MR. SALVADOR-Well, it was built and permitted as a wall sign, not a freestanding sign. MR. MC NALLY-May I ask, Mr. Salvador, I asked Staff earlier about these two sign permits. You told us about the one in 1990. What about the one in 1985? Do you have any recollection what that earlier ’85 sign permit was for? MR. SALVADOR-Yes. MR. MC NALLY-I’m assuming there was a sign that said Dunham’s Bay Lodge. MR. SALVADOR-Yes. 16 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/22/01) MR. MC NALLY-Which was replaced by this sign in 1990. MR. SALVADOR-I had it some place. I have it in my vehicle outside. I didn’t bring that in with me, but it was a sign, mounted on that foundation, down near the road. It had an oval shape to it. Excuse me. We were ordered, that sign we took out with that massive stone foundation down near the road. We were ordered by New York State Department of Transportation to either get an easement for that sign, because it’s on the right of way, or remove it. We were fortunate. We were in the process of this project we’re talking about now, and so I asked them, it’ll be gone in October. Is that sufficient? And that was okay. We didn’t have to get an easement, but you should know that you require an easement to occupy the New York State right of way, but they only require certain people to get them. That goes on all the, the Harris Bay Yacht Club pays $250 a month to store boats on the right of way. Every single month they pay. I had a neighbor that sells boats, maintains boats, does everything with boats, on the New York State right of way. He doesn’t have to get an easement. We got a letter from the DOT to either vacate the right of way, or get a. MR. STONE-Mr. Salvador, you’re getting off the subject. MR. SALVADOR-Okay. MR. UNDERWOOD-Can I just ask a quick question? I just wonder what you guys used to use for your own vacancy or no vacancy sign. MR. SALVADOR-We did not use a vacancy/no vacancy sign. MR. STONE-Thank you. Anybody else wishing to speak in favor? Anybody opposed? Opposed? Any correspondence? MR. MC NULTY-No correspondence. MR. STONE-Then I will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. STONE-Let me just read into the record the current definition. Unfortunately, I do not have the old Sign Ordinance, but the current Sign Ordinance says a freestanding sign is a sign not attached to any building, but permanently affixed by means in or upon the ground. That is a freestanding sign. There’s nothing in the Ordinance about retaining wall. A wall is also defined in the Ordinance, granted it’s just the current Ordinance which is dated 9/10/00, a wall sign is a sign which is attached to the wall of a building, wall of a building, with the face and the plane parallel to such wall and not extending more than 15 inches from the face of such wall. I could quote somebody who says I know one when I see one. This is a freestanding sign in my judgement, but that’s, I’m only one person. Any comments that you’d like to make, Mr. Parry on what you heard, anything you want to add? MR. PARRY-Yes. I’d like to add that I’ve spoken to my other neighbors, a man named Fred Alexy, and the Howards, and they have no objection to the signs. Mr. Salvador owns the land across the street from me, and these other people are on either side. MR. STONE-I think the best way to do it is let’s see where we stand. Let’s just start with Chuck. Where do you stand on this whole issue? MR. ABBATE-No. MR. STONE-Can you give me some reasons why, just for the record? MR. ABBATE-Well, the primary reason is I’m really concerned with the fact that if the Staff comments are accurate, that we have an individual ignoring direction and ordinances, an official from the Town of Queensbury, and that upsets me. MR. PARRY-It’s been alleged that I was cited for these signs, but I never remember being cited. I remember talking to Craig and asking him what I should do, and I was told to apply for a variance, which I did. I don’t think you should characterize me as some kind of terrible scofflaw. I’ve only recently acquired this place and I promise you I am doing my best to comply with the law, and if this is found, the solution I have come up with is found unacceptable, I’ve told you I have thought of alternatives and I’ll probably put in a permit to ask to put a 50 square foot sign on the building of the Lodge itself. MR. STONE-Okay. So you have an alternative, as far as you’re concerned, that you would apply for? 17 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/22/01) MR. PARRY-That’s correct because I only found out that this was, the wall, what I would consider a wall sign, was a freestanding sign when I was informed that, I came down here, I was given a copy of the regulations, and so I, you know, it’s not intuitively obvious that the sign that is there is not a wall sign. MR. ABBATE-But you are an attorney? MR. PARRY-That’s correct. MR. ABBATE-Thank you. MR. STONE-Okay. Roy? MR. URRICO-Mr. Parry, you have a willingness to compromise, to work on bringing this into compliance? MR. PARRY-Absolutely. I’ll do anything that, you know, you recommend that I do. MR. URRICO-Because I have to say that, other than the citation mentioned in the. MR. STONE-It wasn’t a citation. Staff notes say that Mr. Parry was informed that they were in violation. That’s all. MR. URRICO-Okay. Other than that mention there, my reaction to seeing the property wasn’t that it was grotesquely out of place, that it was necessarily way over the Ordinance. It seemed like they could be combined. The sign seemed only a little out of place, only because the other sign is so aesthetically pleasing. Other than that, I think if there’s some movement to combine the signs, maybe make the no vacancy/vacancy sign part of the main sign as well, that there would be no problem, and I don’t see it as being out of place. I think if I was looking for this particular restaurant, and I was driving along there, which is tough enough as it is, and the sign wasn’t there, I’d be driving up and down 9L all day trying to find out where this place is. So from that standpoint, I think it makes sense to have a sign, even if it’s a temporary one, there. So I guess I’m sort of on the fence now, but I’m leaning in favor of the applicant, if he’s willing to make some adjustments. MR. PARRY-I’d be willing to make any adjustments, including your suggestion that the vacancy sign be incorporated in the Dunham’s Bay Lodge sign, and I’ll also be happy to comply with any suggestions for placement of the sign. My problem is the Lodge is too far back from the road and even if I make a 50 square foot sign and put it on that Lodge, I believe it will deter from the aesthetics of the Lodge and people still aren’t going to see it, because when you’re driving down that road, as you know, you’re very far underneath the Lodge. MR. URRICO-Well, I’d still like to see what that might look like, have an idea of what you’re depicting. MR. STONE-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I would have to somewhat agree with Roy. I’m not so much concerned about the fact that you’re going to add a sign for the restaurant, because I think if it’s going to be run as a successful business, people are going to have to know where it is, but I think at the present time, where the signs were located, we may want to reconsider relocation, and again, I think that your own willingness to think about putting it on the side of the building makes sense. At the same time, I would agree with Roy, that maybe the best place for it is over by the Dunham’s Bay sign, as opposed, I think the Sign Ordinance, I think, is set up to ensure that we don’t have signs scattered, you know, hither and yon across the whole property, because I think that does take away from the aesthetics of what you have there now, and I think that, you know, we need to consider the alternatives. MR. STONE-Let me ask, as I start, and I want you all to think about this. I’d like a statement on the status quo. In other words, I think Chuck made it very clear. He doesn’t like it. He would not approve this application, which is for these two signs where they are now. MR. ABBATE-Right. MR. STONE-If we need to table this application to see what Mr. Parry can come up with, I just want that to be available to people. MR. ABBATE-Fine. I have no problems with that at all. MR. STONE-Okay. Chuck? 18 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/22/01) MR. MC NULTY-Okay. I basically agree with what’s been said. As the application currently stands, I would be opposed. I would not like to see two additional freestanding signs. However, I’ll agree that if you’re going to have an operating restaurant, you need a sign, and I’ll agree that probably on the building itself is not the best place for it, both for what it would do to the attractiveness of the building, but also effectiveness in doing its job. It’s too far back, too high. Won’t work. So I think the sign does need to be down, perhaps somewhere near where the existing sign is now. I would be more than happy to consider an alternative proposal that would maybe combine the no vacancy sign with the existing sign, and add another sign at the appropriate location in that general area for the restaurant. MR. STONE-Okay. Bob? MR. MC NALLY-I’ve got to be honest. It’s 11 square feet we’re talking about, back from the road. I can see that if you’re on Glen Street, and you’re 10 feet from the road, and you’ve got flashing neon signs and you’ve got some strobe lights going around, and you’ve got a 50 foot sign pole, for 2,000 square feet, you’ve got a problem. Go back to 140-1 in Code. It says the purpose of the limitations in the sign number and the purpose of the limitation in size is basically to protect the community. To create a more attractive economic and business climate, to enhance the physical appearance of the community, to preserve the scenic and natural beauty of designated areas and to provide a more enjoyable and pleasing community. Whenever we’ve had true need from an applicant for a (lost words) or a larger sign, I don’t think we’ve varied, we’ve allowed it, Lowe’s, K-Mart and a lot of other businesses, Trustco Bank, right by Bay and Quaker, too, we’ve allowed a larger sign. We’ve allowed variances, and in this case, I don’t think there’s any question with as far from the road as the Lodge is, and I think as a businessman, he’s not asking for very much by asking for 11 square feet. Now it’s incorporated in one sign, you know, 64 versus 75 square feet, but this could be incorporated into one sign, or, and to be honest with you, I was just (lost words) when I went this morning (lost words) lying on the ground on the hill somewhere, these other signs, but the photograph that you show, where they’ve got those two stone pedestals, was certainly attractive and it added to the community and it met the requirements of the Code. It was attractive. It provided an economic and business requirement suitable for this businessman. It enhanced the physical appearance of the structure, and I don’t know what we’re asking him to do, by putting another sign on the building, is it going to be ineffective, 50 square feet versus 11 here? I think, you know, he should have known better, granted, but we’ve got a lot of people that do things first and then come to us. I’d be inclined to approve it. MR. STONE-Norman? MR. HIMES-Yes. Thank you. I think that the sign business, given where this place is, is a little different than something on Quaker Road or in those areas. So I would look at it in the same way. I think that that area there is one of the nicest (lost words) the Dunham’s Bay Lodge or the marina or boat business there. The whole thing is just one of the nicest (lost words) just something that is exceptional. I would like it to stay that way. I think certainly I agree with Bob, the square footage isn’t so much of a problem to me, as the separateness of the signs, which, when I saw them, it was my opinion looked a little off. So I would, I tend to be in favor of this. I would like to see, as others have mentioned, some kind of effort to perhaps, if it might be consolidated in some way with what is already there. I mean, the Dunham’s Bay Lodge part of it, in some way that might indicate some singularity, and be effective. It’s got to be effective, and somehow we’ve got to recognize that, and continue the wonderful appearance that the place has always had. If that was something that could be arranged, then I’d vote yes in a minute, but I don’t know that we have that to vote on at this point. So, that’s where I stand. MR. STONE-I would like to see, well, I’m going on the basis of what I see and what Staff has said. Staff says there are three signs. I see no reason to disagree that there are three freestanding signs. We clearly have a Zoning Ordinance that calls for one freestanding sign. I’m prepared to believe that the Dunham’s Bay Lodge sign is a freestanding sign, albeit it is on probably the prettiest pedestal in Town, but it is a freestanding sign, nevertheless. In the spirit of compromise, which I think this Board always welcomes, I would like to see the applicant ask us to table this for a month, while some alternative designs are worked out. I think, in my own judgement, that there is too much signage for the property, particularly the way that it is. I know that the vacancy sign stares out at me every time I go by. I think it’s, and this is taste. I recognize that, but it is a freestanding sign. Therefore, I’m free to say I don’t like a white freestanding sign of that nature. I would like to see, and I think a sufficient number of Board members would like to see, an offering by you, Mr. Parry, of something different. This is not to say that we wouldn’t grant relief for an oversized sign at all, but I think we need to see something that shows a better way of doing it as far as we’re concerned. You have to keep in mind that since the County denied this, you have to have five votes to approve this variance. I don’t, particularly, see five, off the top of my head, or the top of my count, and I think the feeling is generally we’d like to see something. 19 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/22/01) MR. PARRY-I’d be happy to comply with your request that I ask you to table the motion, and I would be happy to come back to you in a month with alternative proposals. I would just ask if we could spend a few minutes here. I’m not clear whether people are really against where I have the Chase House sign or perhaps they’d like it moved closer to the Dunham’s Bay Lodge sign. I think I could take the vacancy sign and put it within that Dunham’s Bay Lodge sign, unless you feel that would be so aesthetically disgusting that that would cause, in other words, I don’t want to cost myself votes by coming up with alternatives. So I’m sort of thinking like you tell me what to do and I’ll try to accomplish it. MR. STONE-Well, I certainly heard that one alternative, and anybody wants to jump in, please do, because I don’t want to speak for, again, but, I mean, I heard an alternative for a real wall sign, back on the building. Yes, there are limitations, and a number of people have said it is far back, and so have you, but that’s certainly an alternative that I think some members of the Board would find acceptable. I think the idea that you talked about of incorporating the vacancy/no vacancy sign within the big wall sign certainly seems to be one that I’ve heard some favorable comment about. Having said that, Bob? MR. MC NALLY-I agree with you that the Dunham’s Bay Lodge sign is a freestanding sign. I think under the Code it is like that, and on my Code, I’ve got this going back from 1976, and the Section of defining wall signs and freestanding signs does not have any amendment dates. So I’m satisfied that what you said is correct. Are the photographs that you showed me, Mr. Parry, part of the record? Have you shown that to the other Board members, the original placement? MR. ABBATE-I haven’t seen it. MR. STONE-Yes, we saw those. MR. ABBATE-I don’t think I’ve seen those. MR. MC NALLY-Lew, what you’re suggesting is that there might be some room to move if some of the signs were (lost words). MR. STONE-I mean, I, personally, as one, as I said, who goes by every day, sometimes two or three times, unfortunately, the Chase House is a nice sign, the way it’s positioned on top of the wall. There’s no question. It’s the underneath sign that hits me every time I go by it. MR. MC NALLY-What strikes me, though, is you’re saying two signs might be okay if you could combine them better. MR. STONE-Yes. MR. MC NALLY-He doesn’t have a wall sign on the building. If he would concede that, in lieu of that, and take two signs that far back, one Dunham’s Bay Lodge in combination with a vacancy or no vacancy, I don’t know if you need to table it. Those photographs are attractive, to me. All right. Do you really want no vacancy on the Dunham’s Bay sign? MR. STONE-Well, since we are in a sense giving approval, a sign permit if we approve some modification, and strike me if I’m wrong, guys, I would like to see it as they would ask to see it to issue a sign permit. I think we need to see it before I say, I’m willing to say, here’s the sign permit to do as we described. I don’t think it’s enough. MR. ABBATE-I think your position is very reasonable MR. URRICO-Could I ask a question? The Chase Lounge sign that you have there, was that intended to a permanent sign, or did you put that up just to sort of get through the summer? MR. PARRY-No, it’s just balanced there. I just wanted to put it up to see if I could see it from the road, and if people driving by might be able to see it from the road. It’s not affixed in any way. It’s just a board that’s sitting there. MR. URRICO-But I mean the design of it. That’s exactly what you want. That’s what you would use? MR. PARRY-Yes. One thing I was just thinking, what if I just moved the no vacancy sign to the building? Yes, it would be way up and out of the way, but. MR. URRICO-I wouldn’t want to be the one changing it, but. 20 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/22/01) MR. STONE-Gentlemen, do you have any, Bob, you were a little reluctant to table, but as I say, I would like to see it as something that we could say yes or no to without having, because I think there’s a real possibility that the Chase House sign, it’s not a bad location. I’d just like to see, if you want all three signs, I’d like to see them combined so we’re talking two and as attractive as possible. I’d like to see it. MR. PARRY-All right, then. Could I come back in a month and show you different pictures and then you say which you’d like? I’ll put one with the no vacancy sign on the building, and I’ll put one with the no vacancy sign as part of the Dunham’s Bay Lodge sign, and then whichever you feel would be attractive. MR. STONE-Okay, and I don’t know whether we have the right to do this, but as part of the tabling motion, I would ask Staff not to do anything for the next month. Is that something we should do or not? MR. BROWN-I’m sorry. I was having a little sidebar there when you guys were talking. MR. STONE-Okay. No, as part of the tabling motion, if we ask Mr. Parry to come back in a month with some alternatives, and we can look at those on the basis of the Zoning Ordinance and our position and grant a variance for one or more, that Staff refrain from any enforcement action in the next month. Is that something I should put in there? MR. BROWN-Why don’t we have Mr. Parry come into compliance for the month that he’s tabled, and then if he gets the variance, he can put the signs back up the way you tell him he can. MR. STONE-If that’s what you think we should do, I mean, I have no problem. MR. BROWN-I certainly don’t think, I don’t think you’re asking us to ignore what the Ordinance requires us to do. MR. HIMES-Could he have the Chase sign get a permit for a temporary sign? MR. BROWN-For a temporary? Yes. Sure. MR. HIMES-So he could just get that and leave the Chase sign where it is. MR. STONE-So for $10 he could keep that. MR. BROWN-He could get a temporary sign permit, sure. They’re valid for shorter periods of time, obviously, but that’s an option that’s available to him. MR. STONE-Well, we’re talking about a month. Okay. MR. PARRY-I’ll apply for a temporary sign tomorrow on that, and with the vacancy sign, I’ll simply move it to a couple of locations, take the pictures, and then come back in a month and show you the pictures, okay. MR. BROWN-Just for the record, if the no vacancy sign is relocated to the building, and it’s not visible from the right of way, we’re not going to, I’m not going to consider it a sign. So it wouldn’t even come into the equation if it’s not visible from the right of way. If you’ve got to drive up on the property before you can even see it, I’m not going to consider it a sign, and it shouldn’t be considered a sign. MR. STONE-Okay. So you’re saying if it’s back so that somebody doesn’t have to. MR. BROWN-Well, he suggested that he was going to put it on the building. MR. ABBATE-Right. MR. BROWN-And if that’s the case, we wouldn’t consider it a sign. MR. STONE-Okay. Well, let me table Sign Variance No. 58-2001. MOTION TO TABLE SIGN VARIANCE NO. 58-2001 DUNHAM’S BAY CORPORATION, Introduced by Lewis Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Abbate: 2999 State Route 9L, Lake George. For up to 62 days, with the understanding that the applicant will probably appear within the month, next month, to provide alternative designs for the two signs now 21 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/22/01) in violation, namely the Chase House and the Vacancy sign, and that, in the meantime, Mr. Parry agrees to come in and get temporary sign permits for the Chase House, and with the understanding also that the Vacancy sign will be moved back closer to the actual Lodge. Duly adopted this 22 day of August, 2001, by the following vote: nd AYES: Mr. Abbate, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McNulty, Mr. McNally, Mr. Himes, Mr. Stone NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Bryant, Mr. Hayes MR. STONE-So, if you go in tomorrow and see one of these two gentlemen, or other Staff, and get a temporary permit, they will grant you for a cost of $10, I’m afraid, but you have to do it. Is that correct, $10? MR. BROWN-Or remove the violation. MR. STONE-He has that option, yes. You always have the option of removing it, but if you want to keep it, you’ve got to go. Okay. That’s it. See you next month. MR. PARRY-Thank you. SIGN VARIANCE NO. 59-2001 TYPE: UNLISTED TIRE WAREHOUSE AGENT: JOHN MC CALL PROPERTY OWNER: LOUISE SILVERTHORNE ZONE: HC-1A LOCATION: 274 QUAKER ROAD APPLICANT HAS INSTALLED A 36 SQ. FT. FREESTANDING SIGN AND SEEKS SETBACK RELIEF. WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 8/8/2001 OLD TAX MAP NO. 107-1-57 NEW TAX MAP NO. 302.08-1-39 LOT SIZE: 0.58 ACRES SECTION 140 JOHN MC CALL, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Sign Variance No. 59-2001, Tire Warehouse, Meeting Date: August 22, 2001 “Project Location: 274 Quaker Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant has constructed a 35 square foot freestanding sign. Relief Required: Applicant requests 15 plus feet of relief from the 15-foot minimum front setback requirement of the Sign Ordinance per § 140-6. It appears, from a site inspection, that the sign has been constructed entirely within the right of way for Quaker Road. Criteria for considering a Sign Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be permitted to maintain the existing sign in the preferred location. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives may include relocation of the sign to a more compliant location, at a minimum…on the subject property. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?: Neither the plot plan nor application reference a specific amount of relief requested. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: Moderate to substantial effects on the neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of this action. 5. Is this difficulty self-created? The difficulty is self created. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): Sign Permit 98-3266 issued 10/8/98 100 sf wall sign; Sign Permit 98-3251 issued 10/15/98 32 sf freestanding sign; Sign Permit 99-3328 issued 5/30/99 30 sf temporary wall sign; Sign Permit 00-3483 issued 5/10/00 32 sf freestanding sign; Sign Permit 00-741 issued 10/3/00 67.5 sf wall sign ****************** No permit application filed for current freestanding sign Staff comments: Moderate to substantial impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action. While the sign is an attractive sign, effectively meeting the separation from Quaker Road, an approval for the placement of this sign, apparently in the County right of way, would not be consistent with the purpose and intent of either the Sign Ordinance or the Comprehensive Land Use Plan. Does the applicant have any approval, easement, release or contract from the County for placement of this sign? Staff has had several conversations with and site visits to the Tire Warehouse regarding the Sign Ordinance. The applicant was informed that the sign, as it currently exists, is in violation of the ordinance and should be removed prior to the application for or the approval of a variance. SEQR Status: Type: Unlisted” MR. MC NULTY-“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form August 8, 2001 Project Name: Tire Warehouse Owner: Louise Silverthorne ID Number: QBY-SV-59-2001 County Project#: Aug01-38 Current Zoning: HC-1A Community: Queensbury Project Description: Applicant has installed a 36 sq. ft. freestanding sign and seeks setback relief. (after-the- fact) Site Location: 274 Quaker Road Tax Map Number(s): 107-1-57 Staff Notes: It appears that the applicant has removed an internally illuminated sign and installed a 36’ wooden sign and seeks sign setback relief. The wooden sign appears to be directly on the property line, but set in quite a distance from Quaker Road. Note: The Town Zoning Enforcement Officer believes that the sign 22 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/22/01) may encroach upon the Quaker Road right-of-way. Local actions to date (if any): A public hearing has been scheduled for August 22, 2001. County Planning Board Recommendation: Deny without Prejudice due to inadequacy of map showing right-of-way.” Signed Thomas E. Haley, Warren County Planning Board 8/10/01. MR. STONE-Staff, Craig, Bruce, deny without prejudice, can we get clarification on that? MR. BROWN-That means they’ll hear it again, with more information. MR. STONE-But it still means a five vote? MR. BROWN-Yes. It’s still a denial. MR. STONE-Okay. Mr. McCall, anything you wish to add, subtract, multiply or divide? MR. MC CALL-The sign itself, as far as the, it’s a 34 square foot sign. It’s a red wood sign with gold leaf on it. One of the biggest problems we have with the property itself is it’s approximately 25,000 square foot. It’s the footprint of the property itself. We have an 8,000 square foot building on the property. All you have left on the property itself is approximately 1500 square feet for snow removal because all the snow itself on the Murray’s side and also on the Minogue’s side, that’s all access driving through. If the sign itself is located back towards the asphalt, there’s no room whatsoever to put snow on the property. The neighbors to the right and left of us have access behind their properties to push their snow to the rear of the property, which we don’t. We only have right in front of the property. So approximately the site itself is about 15 feet, from where the asphalt is to where the sign first starts, going out towards Quaker Road. So it really isn’t feasible, any other area, for this sign to go. We also at the time, there was approximately 25 foot tall, 32 square foot sign that’s been on the property there probably for 10 or 12 years. The sign has been taken down, the illuminated sign. Also the pole structure will be taken down completely, also, primarily because of traffic congestion that we have. We have Cool Beans as a neighbor, nice neighbor and everything, but since they opened up, the traffic in front of the property has probably increased a good 35, 40%. Basically, if anybody is at Cool Beans and they want to go to Minogue’s Beverage Center, they’re not going to go out and cross the street, head down, come across the street again. They’ll go right from Cool Beans straight down to the Beverage Center itself. The same thing, vice versa. If you’re at Minogue’s now. You’re not going to go out across the street, take a right, head north and come back in. You’ll go right in front of our property and everything, and that’s what’s caused the heavy traffic with it, and we had two fender benders in the past month, as far as people attempting to work out of the area. Our building is set. If you look at the Minogue’s building, how far it’s set back from the road, if you look at the Murray’s building, how far it’s set back from the road, and cigar shop, they’re back a good 30 feet, especially the Murray’s, where they have say 60, 70 foot of driveway in front of them, we have may 25, 30 feet of road way in front of us. I think the biggest thing of it is I feel a variance is needed because of our snow problem that we have. We just have no room to put snow on the property, where everybody else in the area has. MR. STONE-Do you want to address why the sign is up without a permit? MR. MC CALL-Well, we hired a local, reputable sign company that I felt to come in and take the old sign down, and install the new sign. We were advised that he would take care of the permits at that time. When I found out, when Craig called me, that there was no permit applied for, then I asked what do I do next, and that’s to come here for a variance on it. MR. STONE-The other sign that is down, the pole is still there. That did have a permit? MR. MC CALL-Yes. MR. STONE-Is that one of the one’s that’s on this History? Do you have any idea when that was done? ’98 or? MR. MC CALL-That was probably ’99. MR. BROWN-I believe it was a 2000 sign, 3483. MR. STONE-3483. Okay. So May of last year. Okay. MR. MC CALL-I mean, that sign’s 32 square feet, which could go to 50 square feet. I mean, you take the building itself, I believe you’re allowed 100 square feet on your building. We only have 67 square feet on the building, illuminated sign. Out by the road, we have 32 square feet that was there. We could go to 50 square feet, approximately 50% bigger, an illuminated sign. We decided to take that sign down and just put up a red wood type sign with gold leaf on it. So aesthetically for the neighborhood, and also the fact it was in a County right of way. We have that culvert that runs 23 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/22/01) entirely in front of the property, the stream that comes over from Meadowbrook, I believe, on the side. There’s no way you can cross that property to get to the road. MR. STONE-And that was constructed by the County, to the best of your knowledge? MR. MC CALL-Years ago. MR. STONE-Okay. Well, I assume so. Okay. Any questions of Mr. McCall? MR. ABBATE-Mr. McCall, how are you? MR. MC CALL-Good. MR. ABBATE-I believe in consistency, in one standard for everyone, and here is another application where Staff, unless they’re incorrect, in error, the applicant was informed that the sign, as it currently exists, is in violation of the Ordinance and should be removed prior to the application for or approval of a variance. MR. MC CALL-No, that’s incorrect. MR. ABBATE-That’s incorrect? MR. MC CALL-Yes. MR. ABBATE-Staff, would you please comment? MR. BROWN-My recollection is we had a telephone conversation the day we discussed the need for a permit, and my recommendation was that the sign needed to be removed because it was in violation of the Ordinance. The violation needed to be either remedied, and then applied for properly, or the sign removed, and then the variance process begun. MR. MC CALL-No, that wasn’t the conversation. The conversation was, I believe it was a Tuesday, and if I applied for a variance by Thursday, the sign could stay up until I came here. I wasn’t given an option, as far as even like a temporary sign or something being left to be resolved. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Let me clear it up, then. Help me out. You had a sign that was constructed and exhibited currently. That’s currently there, correct? MR. MC CALL-Yes. MR. ABBATE-You have a sign. Prior to that sign going up, did you make application for a sign permit? MR. MC CALL-No. MR. ABBATE-Would you tell me please, help me out, why not? MR. MC CALL-Because the sign company that we hired to install the sign and take the other one down, we were told. MR. ABBATE-You can’t shift the burden of responsibility to the sign company. It’s your property, and you’re acting as an agent for you. MR. MC CALL-No, I’m not shifting the burden. I’m just stating the facts of what we thought was happening. MR. ABBATE-All right. Let me ask you this. Do you realize now that a permit is required? MR. MC CALL-Yes. MR. ABBATE-So you will acknowledge that you have a sign without a permit, then? MR. MC CALL-Exactly. MR. ABBATE-Thank you. MR. STONE-Bob? MR. MC NALLY-Mr. McCall, this is the only map, the one that was submitted with the application? 24 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/22/01) MR. MC CALL-Yes. MR. MC NALLY-And I can’t really tell where the new wood sign is. Is it on the County right of way, 15 feet into the right of way? MR. MC CALL-The sign, I wouldn’t say 15 feet. In other words, we built, a couple of years ago. We put the trees out front, the shrubbery. We put all the architectural block that’s been there for a couple of years. All we’ve done is take the sign and just place it in the same area, where all the architectural block in the center, the landscaping was all done to the property and everything. So how far is it into it? I’ve got to say it’s probably about maybe 12 feet, but as you can see, if you went down and saw the property, that’s all the area we have to put the snow, and if the sign comes in towards the building, we have nowhere to dispose of snow period, because of the layout of the building and the land in the back. MR. STONE-Bob, just so that you understand the Staff notes, we can’t give permission, a variance for the County, in a sense. Right? Is that why, we’re saying it’s definitely 15 feet from where it should be, but we don’t have any idea where it is. MR. MC NALLY-We don’t have an exact measurement. I was trying to get an idea if you knew exactly. MR. MC CALL-I’d say approximately 12 feet from the property line, like I say, if the County comes from the asphalt, I’m not quite sure how many feet they come in towards your property. MR. MC NALLY-That’s my next question. From the sign to the asphalt, do you know how many feet that is? Because it seems like there’s a fair amount of green space on the other side of the sign away from your building. You don’t know how wide that is? MR. MC CALL-You say green space from the asphalt? MR. MC NALLY-To the sign, no, from the road asphalt back to the sign. How long a distance is that, do you know? MR. MC CALL-Like 50 feet. MR. MC NALLY-And did you make any effort to talk to the County about maybe getting permission to put a sign there, even after the fact? Have you had any contact with them? MR. MC CALL-Not as of yet. I called the County, when I had the meeting set for the County, and I also had another Board meeting in a different town the same night. So I called the County up and talked to them, and I said when I get there, I was curious where I’d be on the agenda, and then they advised me at that time, even if I show up, I can’t talk. Any County meeting you’re not allowed to talk. It’s just between the Board itself. So I couldn’t even go and express, interpret what the paperwork was. So I didn’t bother going. I went to the other meeting. MR. MC NALLY-What was the name of the company that put this thing there without a permit? Who did it? MR. MC CALL-His name’s Carl, on Route 9. I forget his. MR. BROWN-Champion Sign Craft. MR. MC CALL-Champion Signs. MR. MC NALLY-Is that by the Wal-Mart, across the street? MR. BROWN-It’s Champion Sign Craft is the name of the company. MR. STONE-Craig, let me just ask you a question, for clarification. I mean, this County right of way, can we even, I mean, I guess we’ve given permission to put it in the County right of way, but can we, without the County’s acquiescence? MR. BROWN-I would be hesitant to advise you to do that. You can’t, you couldn’t give him a permit to put the sign on my property. MR. STONE-That’s what I’m saying. 25 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/22/01) MR. BROWN-So what’s the difference with the County? I think without the County’s blessing, I’d be hesitant to tell you to go ahead and do that. MR. STONE-So why are we here? MR. BROWN-Until the County denial, we didn’t know how the County was going to act, and if Mr. McCall had come with more information at the meeting, maybe we could have resolved it, but apparently there’s no other information or no contract with the County. MR. STONE-And is there a County group that could approve a variance? MR. BROWN-Sure, the Department of Public Works. MR. MC NALLY-They did that for the bike path, didn’t they? MR. STONE-Right, yes. MR. BROWN-If you remember the Kaidas Kitchens sign, the same situation. MR. MC NALLY-If it’s possible to get it done, I’d be leery, too, of just establishing a precedent, giving a variance to allow someone to construct a sign on someone else’s property. MR. STONE-I think it’s a very attractive sign. I mean, I’ll be blunt and say it. I think it’s a, and I think it’s not a bad place to put a sign, when you consider the swale there and the ditch and Mr. McCall has done a very nice job on this sign, but it isn’t our property. MR. ABBATE-And, you know, the Chairman and Bob make an excellent presentation on this. We approve this, we set precedence, and I don’t believe we have the authority to do it. MR. MC CALL-Has it been approved in the past? If you go up and you see Della Pontiac sign, about 15 feet from the road. MR. ABBATE-Not as far as I can determine, in the last two years. MR. STONE-No. We gave relief from the Queensbury Ordinance to the County right of way, as I remember. Did we not? MR. BROWN-Well, the previous one, the recent one, the Kaidas Kitchen one, is actually in the right of way. MR. STONE-That one. MR. BROWN-And this Board acted on that after the County had made an agreement with the property owner and approved the placement. I think if you take an action before the County gives an approval. MR. STONE-I don’t think we can. So the question is, do we use that terrible word “table”, or do we deny? Or do we just say we have no, should we move that we cannot take action at this time? MR. BROWN-I think what you want to consider when you do that is, do you want to approve variances for signs actually off the property, not a zero setback, off the property? MR. STONE-I understand. MR. BROWN-And other all individually consider and site specific, but off the property is off the property, whether it’s in a right of way or on somebody else’s property. MR. STONE-Okay. That’s why I say, should we just table it? Because if we deny, then it has to be markedly different, but if the County says okay, it’s not going to be markedly different. Therefore, we’re, last week’s conversation notwithstanding, we are, our hands are tied, because we can’t rehear it. MR. MC NALLY-There are provisions for off premises signs, under our Sign Ordinance, and those provisions provide square footage and things like that, and if there are provisions, we can provide a variance for it. So we can make an approval, provided that property ownership is cleared up. I mean, I think if this individual can go and get the permission of the County for the right of way, it’s an attractive sign. It’s pretty far from the road. So it complies with the spirit of the Ordinance, in that there’s a lot of distance, and if the County conditions it, I don’t know what they’re going to do. 26 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/22/01) They’ll have to remove it if they widen the road, but that’s 50 years. I think we should give him the opportunity to. MR. STONE-Well, that’s what I’m saying, give him the opportunity. We should table it until such time as the County agrees or disagrees. MR. ABBATE-But I think what Bob is saying, we could give tentative approval with contingency. MR. STONE-No, that’s not what he’s saying. MR. MC NALLY-No. I think I’d like him to go to the County first. MR. ABBATE-Okay. MR. MC NALLY-I’d just as soon not take that chance. MR. ABBATE-Fine. Not a problem. We don’t want to interfere with you, but you understand that. We’re supportive of your business and everything else, but we’ve got to be careful as well. MR. STONE-Well, let’s just talk about, before we go, assuming, if the County gave permission, let’s just talk about what we might do if the County gave permission. Hypothetical. Bob? MR. MC NALLY-I’d be in favor of it. It is attractive. It’s otherwise within the intent of the Ordinance. It’s 15 feet down the line, but in these circumstances, given the frontage and given the existing building, I don’t think it really is a bad project. MR. STONE-Okay. Norm? MR. HIMES-I kind of like the looks of the thing and all. I’m trying to think, in my mind, you know, the sign is nicely done, as I said. It’s not very high, and it’s just kind of perpendicular to your building. In connection with snow removal, you know, where are you going to put snow to cover that green area, and perhaps you may have snow piled right up around that sign, which is going to impact its effectiveness, so what would be the difference if it was moved back a little bit into that green area. You have a couple of trees planted on either side of sign which are small now. They’re pine trees and they will grow, and it’s possible they could be trimmed. MR. MC CALL-That type of tree, that’s the size that stays. MR. HIMES-Okay. You’re right along the side, but I’m just thinking if the sign, as far as snow removal is concerned, possibly the sign could be brought back closer to the building. So I’m kind of on the fence with that. MR. STONE-Okay, but that would still be in the County right of way. MR. ABBATE-Right. So the scenario is basically that the County has already approved this. Right? MR. STONE-Yes, that’s the scenario we’re talking about. MR. ABBATE-We’re talking about, right. MR. HIMES-If you looked at the coffee shop, they have parking spaces, paved parking spaces which go right up to that gulch there, that, as much as his sign does. I think Minogue’s sign, on the other side, at least eyeballing it, appears to be about the same proximity, in relation to the road, at least. These would be factors I would wonder whether there were variances given for them, or what, in connection with his application. I, myself, would like to try to be equitable here. MR. STONE-There is the question of sign, and I will ask Mr. Brown when we get to that point about that sign, because I just wonder about it myself, but I think the building, the asphalt probably did not require a variance of Cool Beans. It was just, they used County property and may or may not have had permission, but I think they could do that, I think without a variance being, the parking area at Cool Beans, that may seem to encroach in the County right of way. MR. BROWN-They received an easement from the County to use that. MR. STONE-They did receive an easement. Okay. MR. HIMES-Yes, okay. Well, that takes care of that one. MR. STONE-Chuck? 27 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/22/01) MR. ABBATE-Yes, well, under the current scenario that the Chairman proposes, I would have no problems supporting your application, Mr. McCall, with one proviso, that tomorrow you seek a temporary permit for your sign. MR. BROWN-Mr. Abbate, we wouldn’t be able to issue a temporary permit for a sign off the property. MR. ABBATE-That’s a good point. You know what, you’re absolutely right. We’ll try and be consistent with the previous application. You’re absolutely right, and I withdraw that comment, Mr. McCall. MR. STONE-Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes. I think it’s a very attractive sign. He’s done a heck of a job dressing up the front of that property, and if the question with the County were removed, I would be in favor of it. MR. STONE-Yes, Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I think the trade off for the old sign versus the new one is a step in the right direction, and I think, too, the County, once it really looks into it, is going to see that with that big ditch there, that the right of way is a moot point, probably, and I’d be in favor of it. MR. STONE-Chuck? MR. MC NULTY-I’ll agree that it’s an attractive sign and it’s certainly an improvement versus the previous sign. However, I have to go back to my comments I made previously. I don’t like what we’ve done with Quaker Road and the signs, and just because there’s some other signs that are out that far, doesn’t mean that it’s right or they should be there, and I don’t think that justifies putting more signs there. So even if the County were to agree to have the sign in their right of way, I think I would be opposed. I would like to see it moved back closer to the blacktop of the parking area, recognizing that it can create a problem with snow removal, but there’s other solutions available. You can always move the snow somewhere else. It may cost more, but I just don’t like the idea of plastering signs up and down Quaker Road in the middle of the County right of way. I think it should be back behind the property line. So, I’m probably going to be opposed anyway. MR. MC CALL-I mean, I’d like the opportunity, if you could stop down and actually walk the property. I look at every situation as very unique. You have different businesses on Quaker Road. You have different sizes of lots. You have different buildings there, and if you see the area that the neighbors have to put their snow, it isn’t just the fact that we put our snow, all we’d end up putting snow on somebody else’s property, going left, going north or south, it’s more involved. I think you have to look at the unique characteristic of each property. MR. STONE-Be careful because you’re putting snow on County property. I just want that on the record, that’s all. So I wouldn’t go too far with that at the moment. MR. MC CALL-Well, when they plow, they put it on me first, and I just give it back to them. MR. STONE-But nevertheless, I feel that I could positively consider a sign in the County right of way, if you have County permission. Now I’ll reserve judgement in terms of that sign, or a slightly different area, but certainly in that vicinity. I would have no problem, but I’m going to table this until such time as you come back with a County opinion or a County decision that such a sign in their right of way is permitted. MR. MC CALL-I’ll call the County first thing tomorrow morning. MR. BROWN-Just a couple of things. One on the application itself. You may consider a better map, you know, exactly what type of relief you’re looking for. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. BROWN-And the other one is more of a compliance administrative point of view. I’m just leery of somebody putting up a sign on Quaker Road and saying, the Zoning Board will let you keep it up until we talk to the County. From my side, I’d like to see compliance until they get the approvals. MR. STONE-Okay. 28 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/22/01) MR. BROWN-If that means, if you want to grant a zero foot setback and let them put it right on the property line until he gets approval from the County, I mean, that’s your decision to grant him relief for his property, but to allow him to keep it up until he gets a County approval could be six months, and that’s effectively getting a sign without approvals. He’s in the process, but it’s not an approved location until it’s a done deal. It’s something to consider. MR. HIMES-Would covering it be okay? MR. BROWN-Sure, you could cover it. MR. MC CALL-Then I’d have no sign. The other sign came down. MR. ABBATE-Be careful you don’t ask for everything and end up with nothing. MR. MC CALL-Well, nothing is having the sign covered. I mean, there’s nothing, I mean, what I’m looking at, are you talking about experience, somebody calling the County on a Thursday morning, it takes six months to get some yes or no answer? That seems like an awful long time. MR. BROWN-Well, yes, I’m not convinced it’s a yes or no answer. MR. MC NALLY-We have 62 days to make a decision, unless he consents, right? MR. BROWN-You can table it for that period of time. MR. STONE-We can table it for up to 62 days. MR. BROWN-You could actually table it longer, but that 62 days is the public hearing notification. You’d have to go through that process again. MR. MC NALLY-If the Staff thinks of it as a matter of good practice, it’s important that there be an enforcement (lost words) I would tend to agree with Staff. It may be somewhat of a hardship, but certainly it’s one of those things I would agree with Staff on. You’ve got a big Tire Warehouse sign on the building. MR. MC CALL-It’s flush on the building. Cars are going by, 60 miles an hour. The sign doesn’t stand out. I mean, that’s like the same thing as saying, okay, put a cover over the 32 square foot sign. In the mean time, I took down the 32 square foot 25 foot illuminated sign, but I’ll put back a 50 square foot, in the meantime, to see what happens here. So you’ve got 50% more neon on the road and everything. MR. ABBATE-Yes, but Mr. McCormack, you have to understand, you are in violation. We’re trying to be very equitable about this. Staff is absolutely correct. MR. MC NALLY-If he wants a temporary sign on his property, all right, he can get a permit for that. So it may be, if you have a problem putting something together for to last, however long it takes you to get County permission, but I think I’m going to side with Staff on that. MR. BROWN-Again, you may consider less relief and have him relocate the sign. I mean, that’s kind of more of a hardship than waiting to see if the County says no. Pull it out of the ground, move it, get the County approval, pull it out and move it back. I don’t know if that’s feasible, but to continue display of the sign without any approvals. MR. ABBATE-Just sets a bad precedent. MR. BROWN-To me, you’ve got a whole commercial corridor there that, you know, may or may not take advantage of it. I don’t know. MR. MC NALLY-People are jumping on that corridor all the time, putting signs there, putting gazebos out, paving it, treating it as if it’s their property, and it’s someone’s right of way. MR. MC CALL-No, I understand that, but as far as the spirit of cooperation. We went, we had a reputable sign company, we went by the assumption that nobody in Town who has a business here, would put a sign up without a permit. So we just figured that’s the way it was. MR. STONE-The point is, you would not have gotten the permit, even if they had come before they put it up, because they could not, the Town could not give you a permit, since it’s not on their property. 29 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/22/01) MR. MC CALL-But we’d also not have allowed them to take the sign off the pole. That’s the way it was. I mean, we shot ourselves in the foot. MR. STONE-In a sense, that’s right. MR. MC CALL-We took the sign off. We have no sign out front now. MR. STONE-Well, it’s very similar to a situation where if someone takes down a house, and wants to rebuild, there is no such thing in the Town of Queensbury as a footprint rule. So once you tear down a house, you are subject to all the current zoning regulations for that particular area. MR. MC CALL-I understand that. MR. STONE-Well, this is the same kind of thing. You, for whatever reason, you took down the sign. That is not for us to really consider. I mean, we can feel sympathetic, but that was your decision to do it because you put up an illegal sign, I think as some of our people have made it very clear. I’m going to do this. Obviously, I’m favorably inclined toward the sign, but I also hear Staff telling me and telling the rest of the Board, that we don’t need a defacto sign permit just because we’re going to let you leave it up. We just can’t do that. I mean, all we can say that we will, and I will move that table Sign Variance No. 59-2001 for up to 62 days, so that the applicant, John McCall, can ascertain from the County whether he has permission to put a sign in their right of way. In the meantime, since the sign is, we have no control over the placement of this sign on the County area, we will ask that the sign either be removed to the edge of the property, thus granting you 15 feet of relief, or that the sign come down until such time as you get a ruling from the County. Is that reasonable what I said? MR. BROWN-I don’t think you can grant relief in a tabling motion. MR. STONE-That’s why I was wondering if I could do that. MR. BROWN-Yes. I don’t think so. One thing, was the public hearing conducted? MR. STONE-That’s true. We haven’t. MR. BROWN-Before you vote on the motion. MR. STONE-That’s good. Thank you. So you’re suggesting, let me take the motion off the table for the moment. What you’re suggesting is that we make a motion to grant zero relief, if we’re so inclined, using as a basis that we can’t grant any further relief into the County, and we’re going to table the application until such time as we hear from the County, but then we’re saying that we have the right to say it can be in the County right of way. MR. BROWN-No, you’re saying it can be on the property line, if you give him zero relief. MR. STONE-I realize that. MR. BROWN-Right. MR. STONE-Okay, and that’s all we can do. That’s all we should do, then. We shouldn’t table it. MR. MC NALLY-We’re getting this complicated. MR. STONE-We are. MR. MC NALLY-We’ll table it, he gets County permission, he comes back to us and shows us what he wants to do. If we grant zero feet of relief, we don’t have any sign application or any numbers, we don’t have any height. We don’t have any square footage. We have nothing in front of us. MR. URRICO-I would recommend that we table it, just table it. MR. STONE-Okay. If we table it, then are we asking Staff to issue a violation and ask the sign to come down? Is that what we’re doing? MR. ABBATE-Pretty close, Lew. I think you’re right. We’re getting there. If we table this application, with the proviso that Staff take whatever administrative action is appropriate, and leave it at that. MR. URRICO-Do we have to say that? 30 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/22/01) MR. ABBATE-Yes, I think we should. It’s been brought to our attention. MR. MC NALLY-All we’ve got in front of us is this application. MR. URRICO-That’s all we should act on. MR. MC NALLY-So that’s all we act on. If Staff exercises its discretion, wants to give them five days to do whatever, that’s their business, all right, but we should either table it or deny it. MR. STONE-Okay. Are you comfortable? You’re the one who brought up. MR. BROWN-Yes. If you’re going to table it for further consideration, to me, that’s still an open issue. I’m not going to pursue an enforcement action. If you deny it, and it’s not removed in a certain period of time, then there’s an enforcement action. I’m not going to pursue an enforcement action if you’re tabling it waiting for other information. That just doesn’t make sense. MR. STONE-But you’re not comfortable with that. MR. ABBATE-Yes, that’s a reasonable approach. MR. BROWN-I’d be concerned with the length of time you table it, and if it’s still on display for six months or, you know, if you’re going to table it, table it for next month’s meeting and get an update. If he still hasn’t heard from the County, you can table it again and maybe put another condition that he cover it next month or. MR. STONE-Okay. I have no problem with it, Craig. I see you’re troubled by an extension of the illegal sign being up, and if you’re comfortable with tabling it for one month, until we hear from the County, I’m comfortable with that, too. MR. BROWN-Okay. MR. MC NULTY-But is there a chance that we’re going to actually hear from the County on it, enough to know, or are we just looking at re-tabling it every month for six months? MR. STONE-No, I don’t think we would. MR. MC CALL-It depends on how busy Mr. McCall will be in the next few weeks. MR. BROWN-If you decide to table it for a month and allow it to stay up for a month, and if next month you don’t hear from the County, if you want to table it with, continue another table. MR. STONE-Or deny it. MR. BROWN-If you want to continue to table it with the provision that he covers it up until he hears from the County. So he’s effectively not. MR. STONE-Okay, but you’re not uncomfortable, since you’re the one that brought it up, and it’s a good point. I’m not denying, with the one month extension. MR. BROWN-Well, I’m never comfortable with telling people they can do something that’s not, they’re not supposed to do in the Ordinance. That’s what you guys are supposed to do. MR. STONE-Well, that’s what I was trying to get to. MR. MC NALLY-We decide the application. You decide the enforcement. It’s at your discretion by allowing it up. We don’t have anything to do with that. MR. HIMES-It says penalty for failure to apply for a permit, boom. Now, maybe there’s a legal situation for you to pursue with this person who was supposed to have done that on your behalf. I don’t know if you had a contact or what. If there’s information here that we should know that we don’t, as to what went on and what he did or didn’t do and all this kind of stuff, which there may be some recourse that you have against that other party in connection with this. MR. MC CALL-He put the sign up, took the other sign down and left a pole. That’s where I’m at. MR. HIMES-I’m very sympathetic with your situation, as far as the (lost words) if what is said is something I can believe, in its entirety. So I’m saying that that’s what the Ordinance says. You get the permit. 31 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/22/01) MR. STONE-It seems to me we have two alternatives. We can either deny the permit with the application. Just deny it and say you cannot put that sign there, and let Mr. McCall go to the County and get whatever they’ll say and in the meantime, since we have denied the permit, Staff will do what they feel they should do. MR. ABBATE-Exactly. MR. MC NALLY-Let’s just table it for a month, and see what he can come up with. That’s what I want to do. MR. STONE-Okay. Let’s just try that approach. MR. ABBATE-I don’t have any problem with that. If that’s what you want to do, fine. MR. STONE-All right. Let me open the public hearing. Anybody wishing to speak on this application? Anybody opposed? Any correspondence? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. STONE-All right, on the basis of all the conversation, I move that we table. MOTION TO TABLE SIGN VARIANCE NO. 59-2001 TIRE WAREHOUSE, Introduced by Lewis Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Abbate: 274 Quaker Road. For up to one month, so that this can be reconsidered at one of the September meetings, and in the interim, the applicant, John McCall, will seek a ruling from the County about the possibility of having a sign in the County right of way, and when this is reheard, we need to see a specific map, to scale, of the property, so that we know exactly what we’re granting, if we do, in fact, grant relief. Duly adopted this 22 day of August, 2001, by the following vote: nd AYES: Mr. Abbate, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McNulty, Mr. McNally, Mr. Himes, Mr. Stone NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Bryant, Mr. Hayes MR. STONE-As they say, the ball is in your court. MR. MC CALL-Thank you. SIGN VARIANCE NO. 60-2001 TYPE: UNLISTED THEODORE A. CHITTENDEN FOR VICTORY LANE PROPERTY OWNER: TOM HOFFMAN ZONE: PC-1A LOCATION: 730 STATE ROUTE 9 (UPPER GLEN STREET) APPLICANT PROPOSES TO INSTALL SIGN FACE TO EXISTING 2 FT. BY 16 FT. ILLUMINATED SIGN BOX ON FRONT OF BUILDING/VICTORY LANE. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM SIGN ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE NUMBER OF SIGNS ALLOWED. WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 8/8/2001 OLD TAX MAP NO. 103-1-23 NEW TAX MAP NO. 302.06-1-54 LOT SIZE: 1.16 ACRES SECTION 140 TED CHITTENDEN, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Sign Variance No. 60-2001, Theodore A. Chittenden for Victory Lane, Meeting Date: August 22, 2001 “Project Location: 730 State Route 9 (Upper Glen Street) Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes placement of an additional wall sign. Relief Required: Applicant requests relief from the Sign Ordinance; per § 140-6, for the placement of an additional wall sign. Criteria for considering a Sign Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be permitted to gain an additional wall sign. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives appear to be limited. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?: Relief for a second wall sign where only one is allowed may be interpreted as substantial, relative to the ordinance. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: Moderate effects on the neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of this action. 5. 32 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/22/01) Is this difficulty self-created? The difficulty may be interpreted as self created. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): Sign Permit 2001-283 issued 5/21/01 21 sf freestanding sign issued conditioned upon removal of a wall sign Sign Permit 99-3433 issued 11/5/99 2 wall signs Staff comments: Moderate impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action. It does not appear as though a strict application of the Sign Ordinance would impose an unnecessary hardship upon the applicant. SEQR Status: Type: Unlisted” MR. MC NULTY-“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form August 8, 2001 Project Name: Chittenden, Theodore A. Owner: Theodore A. Chittenden ID Number: QBY-SV-60-2001 County Project#: Aug01-30 Community: Queensbury Project Description: The applicant proposes to install a sign face to an existing 2’ x 16’ internally illuminated sign box attached to the roof of the building. Relief is requested from Sign Ordinance requirements for number of signs allowed. Site Location: 730 Upper Glen Street. Tax Map Number(s): 103-1-23 Staff Notes: The sign ordinance allows one 100 sq. ft. wall sign and one 50 sq. ft. freestanding sign. The applicant has a 3’ x 7’ freestanding sign and wall signs noting the various uses within the building. The building has a sign box attached to the roof and the face was removed to comply with the sign ordinance when the other wall sign was erected in June 2001. Staff is concerned about the impact to Route 9/Glen Street from a proliferation of signs beyond what is permitted under the ordinance. Staff recommends discussion. Local actions to date (if any): A public hearing has been scheduled for August 22, 2001. County Planning Board Recommendation: Deny due to impact to County resources from sign proliferation inconsistent with Town of Queensbury sign ordinance.” Signed, Thomas E. Haley, Warren County Planning Board 8/10/2001. MR. STONE-Sir. MR. CHITTENDEN-Yes. My name is Ted Chittenden. MR. STONE-Anything else you want to add to the application? MR. CHITTENDEN-Well, I’ve got some color photos that more clearly show what I’m attempting to do here, if you’d like me to distribute them. MR. STONE-We’d be glad to look at them. MR. CHITTENDEN-What I have now is the sign on the roof that says Victory Lane. The front has been removed from that. In fact, we just turned it over and I keep it a dark light do it can’t be read. This was per Mr. Brown’s instructions. After that, we installed the freestanding sign at the corner of the building that the photograph doesn’t show it but the drawing does show that. What I’d like to do now is seek a variance to get the words “Victory Lane” placed back on this sign that is existing. It just looks kind of silly to have the sign there that doesn’t say anything. The lettering on the building was more for directional lettering, annotating which sections of the building are for which uses. We have three uses in that building. We have an arcade. We have a café and lounge, and we have a retail, and they’re all separated from each other. MR. STONE-I am trying to find the reference I found before. Tell me if I’m wrong. Flags are not permitted, as they are currently on that sign now? They’re not American flags right now. MR. BROWN-Flags with advertising aren’t permitted, but country flags, open flags. MR. STONE-The whole series of flags along the top of the sign are permitted? MR. BROWN-It depends on what they are. If they spell out Victory Lane, then they wouldn’t be allowed. MR. STONE-Well, I understand that, but I was just reading in here, yes, there was something about flags in here, and I don’t know, I saw earlier, and unfortunately, I did not mark it. MR. CHITTENDEN-It’s in Section 140-3. MR. STONE-See, I know that, but that was flags or emblems flown from supports being occupied or, but there was something that they did not. If anybody’s looking and can find it, I’d appreciate it, because there was something in the book. MR. MC NALLY-140-3E, is that what you’re talking about? That talks about flags. MR. STONE-No, I know that one. I saw something else where they were not allowed. I may be wrong. I have been on occasion. MR. BROWN-It’s 140-5J. 33 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/22/01) MR. STONE-Right, yes. “All signs and parts thereof shall be stationary and shall not be allowed to simulate movement. Flags, banners, pinwheels, posters, balloons, streamers, searchlights or other similar fluttering, moving or revolving devices for the purpose of advertising or attracting attention shall be prohibited, except as may be permitted under § 140-4, Temporary signs.” MR. BROWN-I’ll have to take a look at them. I wasn’t aware of that. If they’re American flags. MR. STONE-It doesn’t say that. MR. CHITTENDEN-The American flags are no longer there. MR. STONE-There’s a lot of series of colored flags. MR. CHITTENDEN-There’s a series of colored flags, but they don’t advertise anything. MR. STONE-And as I read that, they are not. MR. BROWN-If that in fact is what’s there, you’d be correct, yes. MR. CHITTENDEN-But the flags don’t advertise anything. MR. STONE-I’m only going by our Sign Ordinance which says you can’t have them. Whether they advertise or don’t advertise, because I gather from this thing that they are a distraction. MR. BROWN-Well, it says for the purpose of advertising or attracting attention shall be prohibited. So, if they’re there to attract attention, per the Ordinance. MR. STONE-I would think they’re there to attract attention. MR. BROWN-Okay. MR. STONE-I would think. That would be my judgement. All of these properties are in one ownership? MR. CHITTENDEN-The businesses? Yes, I own them. MR. STONE-All one. Okay. I noticed, for example, and I know window signs, signs in the window do not necessarily come under the Sign Ordinance, except if they exceed 25% of the window, and you have lots of posters on the collectible side. I noticed three or four of the windows had very big posters in them. MR. CHITTENDEN-That is merchandise that’s available for sale, sir. Yes, the four posters of the different drivers, we stock those and we sell them quite regularly, yes, sir. MR. STONE-Okay. You’re saying the posters themselves. MR. CHITTENDEN-They’re not posters. They’re vinyl banners, actually, the ones that are inside the windows, and they are available for sale, and each one does have a price tag, and I have more than one. I have a stock of them. We do stock those, yes, sir. MR. MC NALLY-This is Champion Signs, too. MR. CHITTENDEN-Yes. MR. MC NALLY-Did they put up another sign without a permit? MR. CHITTENDEN-No. We’ve had permits for every sign that was erected. MR. BROWN-No, this sign isn’t up. Actually the box that’s on the building now, I think the sign facia is just turned around? MR. CHITTENDEN-Yes. There’s no sign face on this sign. MR. BROWN-It’s blank now. MR. MC NALLY-You came in for your permit for the freestanding sign, he told you to do that? MR. CHITTENDEN-Yes. 34 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/22/01) MR. MC NALLY-I see. MR. BROWN-And he complied with that and put the freestanding up. Now he’s back here. MR. MC NULTY-Craig, you’re counting the four signs that are on the front of the building as one sign? MR. BROWN-Yes. That’s the way the permit was issued. I think it worked out to 70 square feet. MR. STONE-But the square footage is all okay? If you did, I’m not going to be concerned about that. MR. URRICO-But there’s a sign on the side of the building as well. There’s those on the front, there’s one on the side you can see coming north. MR. BROWN-Technically that would probably be considered another sign. Let me see if it’s in the sign permit here. This is the sign permit for the wall sign. On the south side of the building? MR. MC NULTY-Yes, south side. MR. BROWN-Yes, it’s not part of this sign permit application. Technically that would be considered another sign. It’s on another façade of the building. MR. MC NULTY-It just says Victory Lane. MR. CHITTENDEN-I believe it’s a continuation of the lettering that’s on the front. MR. BROWN-It wasn’t included in this sign permit. It just shows the Route 9 sign, and the other end of the building is blank. MR. URRICO-Craig, I guess I’m a little confused about the signage underneath. We’ve had other stores come forward, like K-Mart, a couple of months ago. We considered each one of those as a separate sign. They had seven signs when six were permitted, and in this case, we’re considering all of those as one sign? MR. BROWN-Yes. That’s a discussion that Mr. Chittenden and I had back when he applied for the sign, and what he did was we included all the area between the signs as part of the sign. So those three words, or however many words there are in the three locations, we drew a rectangle around the whole area, included the area in between as area of the sign, to allowed to be one sign. MR. ABBATE-But that doesn’t include the signing on the side of the building, though? MR. CHITTENDEN-No. The signing on the side of the building was erected, unfortunately, after we had gotten a permit for this. I had talked to Champion Signs, and we had originally intended to put these signs that you see, plus the sign on the side. When I spoke with Mr. Brown, he told me that, if we did that, we would exceed our area of the signs that were allowed. MR. STONE-Right. MR. CHITTENDEN-Unfortunately, I never went back to Carl at Champion Sign and told him not to put it on. I came home one day and it was up there. In fact, if those signs on the side need to be removed, that’s certainly not a problem. MR. ABBATE-Okay. MR. STONE-So what we’re talking about here is the wall signs that you say are all one, with the words, plus the one up on top. He wants the second one up on top. MR. BROWN-That would be, the one on the roof would be a second sign. MR. STONE-Yes. So there’d be two wall signs. MR. BROWN-And one freestanding. MR. STONE-And one freestanding. MR. BROWN-That’s correct. 35 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/22/01) MR. STONE-Okay, with the understanding that the one on the side would be a third one, third wall sign. MR. BROWN-Would be removed. MR. STONE-Well, but for the moment it’s there. MR. BROWN-Right. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. URRICO-There was also a vinyl banner hanging outside, in front of the building. MR. CHITTENDEN-There is, from time to time, when we have a race party, we throw up a Welcome Race Fans banner, but that can be removed. There is right now, yes. We had a party this weekend, and we’ve got another one this Saturday. MR. URRICO-How often do you have parties? MR. CHITTENDEN-Thirty-four times a year. There’s 34 Winston Cup races. MR. URRICO-So it’s pretty much up almost. MR. CHITTENDEN-No, we take it down. We take it down. The sign that’s up there right now I believe was put up for a race party that we had two weeks ago. MR. MC NALLY-Is that a Coors sign or a beer sign? MR. CHITTENDEN-Yes. It’s a Coors Welcome Race Fans. It says Welcome Race Fans. MR. BROWN-There’s a temporary sign permit process for that that we’ve discussed before. MR. STONE-Okay. So you have been, will be MR. BROWN-Earnestly trying to keep the site in compliance, yes. MR. STONE-Any other questions, gentlemen? While you’re considering any questions, I’ll open the public hearing. Anybody wishing to speak in favor of this application? In favor? Anybody opposed? Opposed? Any correspondence? MR. MC NULTY-No correspondence. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. STONE-Any questions? If not, let’s talk about it. Let’s start with Roy. MR. URRICO-Well, as I stated earlier, I’m a little confused about the way the signs are set up. In other cases, we’ve considered the signage as separate. I mean, Victory Lane Collectibles, to me, is one sign. Victory Lane Café, to me, is a second sign, and the one on the top of the building is a third sign, and then the one on the side is a fourth, and then the arcade is five. So, I’m a little bothered by the number of signs that are on this property. I think there’s more there than what the applicant is asking for, and as constructed currently, I would be against the application. MR. BROWN-Just for clarification, the signs that are on the building right now are permitted signs. They have valid permits. A determination has been made that they meet the sign requirements, and they are allowable. So, perception is one thing. The actual permit has been issued for, and the site is in compliance with the permit, except for the sign on the end that you noticed. MR. URRICO-So we still have three signs, or at least one sign that’s not in compliance? MR. BROWN-The one on the end. MR. URRICO-Right, yes. MR. STONE-The one on the end, and that’s been offered to be removed. 36 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/22/01) MR. URRICO-If that’s removed, then I would be in favor of it. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. URRICO-But I still think it’s a little cluttered. MR. STONE-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I think we have to look at this in light of other multiple sign situations like K-Mart and things like that that we’ve just had recently, but I think at the same time if we’re going to consider the signs on the frontage as they existing presently, that that’s one wall sign. I don’t think I would have a problem with putting the Victory Lane sign back up on the roof if they remove that other one on the other side. I think that would be a reasonable compromise, and it would give it more exposure. MR. STONE-Chuck? MR. MC NULTY-I’m going to flip the other way. I don’t have any real problem considering the three that we’re talking about on the front as one sign. I think that’s, you know, as long as it meets the square footage, that’s reasonable, and I think those signs are attractive. I like the looks of them. Likewise, I like the looks of the Victory Lane sign that’s around the corner that’s not included in that sign permit right now. Looking at what else is near by, it strikes me that those signs are in character and have an upscale effect on the area. The one on the roof, I think, goes the other way. So, I would be inclined to be against the one on the roof. At the same time, I would be inclined to favorably consider application for another wall sign, if it counted the one that’s on the end. I’d like to see the Victory Lane sign on the south side of the building stay, as opposed to the one on the roof. Now I understand that doesn’t do what the applicant probably needs for advertising. The one on the roof is probably more effective, but I’m going to be against it. MR. STONE-Okay. Bob? MR. MC NALLY-I did a strict review of the five criteria. Certainly, the applicant’s benefit would be he’d have an additional sign that would increase the visibility of the business. That’s what every businessman wants, as many signs as possible. The other four factors, though, I have trouble with. Feasible alternatives, although Staff seems to think they’re limited, I don’t think so. You can leave the signs that are there and not have the sign above the roof. You can modify the signs below the eaves. You can have some sort of new combination of signage that results in compliant signs. So I think that there are feasible alternatives. Is the relief substantial to the Ordinance? We’re not talking about Lowe’s or K-Mart, which is like 1,000 feet off the road. This property is right on Glen Street. It’s pavement between Glen Street and this building. I don’t ever have a problem recognizing this building as being Victory Lane and being the kind of business that you operate. There’s no question, I’d recognize it as a viable, actually a (lost words) business. The effects on the neighborhood or community are, I think, moderate, if not significant, and I say that only because of the Glen Street corridor. Everyone wants signage. Everyone wants as many signs as they can, and I can see people clamoring for the same kind of benefits another business might have. Is the difficulty self-created? The last factor also weighs against the applicant. I think, you know, the law sets forth a number of different rules. We’ve gotten some leeway with the ones below the eaves, separate from (lost words) and what not. They’ve put up signs in the windows. You’ve got signs on the freestanding sign. You’ve got to choose how many signs you want. It’s your choice whatever they are. So in the sense that, you know, you put up a new one. You have to take down one. That’s your choice. So I see it’s self created. Four of the five factors, in my mind, weigh against the applicant. MR. CHITTENDEN-Well, I just think it’s going to look kind of silly to have that 16 by 2 white box sitting on top of the roof, not really saying anything. MR. MC NALLY-Those signs underneath can be taken down, or maybe you can have that one on top. I mean, you have to make a choice which signs you want. MR. CHITTENDEN-See, I was considering the signs under the eaves, under Section 140-3G, because it does direct the public to the different aspects of the building, the directional signs, yes, sir. That was the reason for putting those up. MR. MC NALLY-The times that we’ve looked at directional signs, it’s like, you know, you to go CVS, and it says there’s a small sign that says Drive In Here, or Enter or Exit. I don’t know if that’s quite the same thing. MR. STONE-Okay. Norm? 37 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/22/01) MR. HIMES-Yes. Thank you. I’m looking at the situation here, and what I would look for in some expression of impact is doing damage to your process of business, something that can only be remedied by some kind of a variance, granted from us. I haven’t heard anything from you in that regard, and I don’t perceive that you haven’t got enough signs. MR. CHITTENDEN-I agree that I probably do have enough signs, with that perpendicular sign to Route 9. MR. HIMES-Yes. It’s pretty recognizable, and the place does look nice. MR. CHITTENDEN-What I’m trying to alleviate is the fact that it looks very silly. MR. HIMES-It doesn’t look like Coney Island, but I just don’t see that there’s a unique business need for another sign. What’s there on the roof, it would be nice to use it, but maybe it should come down. MR. CHITTENDEN-Well, it can’t come down without repair to the roof, and that’s something that I, financially, can’t afford. So the sign would more than likely stay there blank, which looks silly. MR. HIMES-Well, it’s too bad, because it does look kind of silly there, but that doesn’t mean that, in my opinion anyway, that a variance should be approved for use of the other sign. So I would not be in favor of the application. MR. STONE-Okay. Chuck? MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you. People have to make choices. I think Bob stated that, and I would agree. To leave the freestanding sign may very well, indeed, look rather silly. MR. CHITTENDEN-No, the freestanding sign wouldn’t be left blank, sir. The sign on the roof is the one that’s blank right now and it would be left blank. MR. ABBATE-Okay. MR. CHITTENDEN-And we’ve fielded phone calls from other local businesses, how come you’ve got a blank sign on your roof? That’s a concession we had to make to get the sign perpendicular to Route 9, which is much more effective. Unfortunately, when I opened the building, I put every dime I had into it. By the time it came time to put signs up, the signs that are shown in this picture are the only signs that I could afford. Are they effective? Not at all. They’re not effective as far as slowing down traffic on Route 9. By the time you see my sign, you’re at Wendy’s already. So the answer to that was to install a freestanding sign that was perpendicular to Route 9. At that time that we did install it, by then we had come up with some money, and we could afford it at that time. As soon as we could afford it, I went to apply for a sign permit. I was given a sign permit based on the concession of removing the face to this. We did remove the face to this. We did erect a new sign. Everything was done by permit. The only thing that wasn’t done by permit was the lettering that was put on the side of the building, after the fact, and that was my fault because I had ordered it, along with the front, but it didn’t come in in time, and then he just showed up and put it up, and by then I left it there, but the sign that, you know, do we need that sign? Not really. It’s not, it doesn’t do anything for us. You can’t see it from Route 9. You can see the end of it. The only place that’s effective is when the mile of traffic is backed up at New Way Lunch. As they’re sitting there at the window, they can see my sign. They’re really the only people that can see it. MR. ABBATE-So you’re talking about the freestanding sign? MR. CHITTENDEN-No, sir. I’m talking about this sign on the building. This one right here. The freestanding sign is up, and it’s staying up, and it’s permitted. This sign right here was also permitted, but now it is blank. It does not say Victory Lane on it any longer. What I’m trying to do is get the Victory Lane back on there, so it doesn’t look so silly, a blank white sign sitting up there. MR. ABBATE-Well, you know, you make an interesting argument. I don’t have any problems with that. However, the point remains that there are signs, another sign on the other side of your building, which makes. MR. CHITTENDEN-What side would that be, sir? MR. ABBATE-What is that, the east going down? MR. STONE-The south side. Let’s say south. MR. CHITTENDEN-Yes, and I made a concession that that would be removed. 38 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/22/01) MR. ABBATE-Yes, and you made a concession that you’d be happy to take care of that. I don’t know. MR. CHITTENDEN-There’s also three separate businesses within this building. Whether I own them or not, there’s three businesses. MR. ABBATE-I understand that. MR. CHITTENDEN-The building to the left of me, to the north or me, has, I believe, five different businesses, and they have five unsightly signs plastered across the front of that building, but because those businesses aren’t owned by the same person, that’s allowable. MR. ABBATE-I normally don’t hesitate. I’m hesitating because I’m trying, as much as I possibly can, to be fair, and that’s why I’m on the fence on this thing, and my decision will probably be made based upon what I hear from the other Board members. MR. STONE-There’s only me. Well, I think we have to consider, in this particular case, that Staff made a decision, in this particular situation. They said, Mr. Chittenden, if you want the wall signs, the three things, you’ve got to take down the other one. MR. CHITTENDEN-And I did. MR. STONE-That’s the decision that they made, and I respect that decision, to be very honest with you, I respect it. I don’t think we should have the other thing. I also think, and we have mentioned it earlier this evening. I know you’ve sat here through a couple of sign variances, that you, knowingly, have an illegal sign up, the one on the south wall. You know it’s wrong. MR. CHITTENDEN-I was not informed of that, no sir. MR. STONE-But you told me you knew you did not have a permit for it. Therefore, it’s wrong. MR. CHITTENDEN-I knew that it was installed after I received the permit, is what I believe I said, and I was not informed by anybody. Mr. Brown has made numerous stops at that location, and he has never once informed me that that sign was illegal. I acknowledge the fact that it was installed after the permit was up. I did not acknowledge the fact that it was illegal. Because I’ve considered this a directional sign. This is pointing the public to which part of the building that they want to go to. MR. STONE-Well, Staff did not agree with you that these were directional signs. These three across the front were one sign. MR. CHITTENDEN-Yes, sir. MR. STONE-And you were given permission to use that as one sign. MR. CHITTENDEN-Yes, sir. MR. STONE-With the proviso you take down the roof sign. I see no reason to change that decision. MR. CHITTENDEN-I took down the roof sign, sir. MR. STONE-I see no reason to change their decision that you couldn’t have the roof sign. MR. CHITTENDEN-Well, Mr. Brown explained to me that if I took down the roof sign, I could seek a variance to get it re-installed. MR. STONE-Well, I understand that, and I’m saying I’m not willing to grant you a variance, that Staff was right in the first place. MR. CHITTENDEN-Okay. Now, there’s a business directly across the street from mine, and they have two wall signs and a freestanding sign. Now what type of precedence was set by establishing that? Auto Zone has got two signs, much larger than mine, plus a freestanding sign. MR. STONE-Every case is an individual application. We’re judging the application on the basis of the information that we have. MR. CHITTENDEN-Okay. 39 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/22/01) MR. STONE-We have a Staff decision, which I see no reason to countermand, by granting a variance. I see, at least I heard you say, that you knew that the sign that was up on the south did not require, did not have a permit. MR. CHITTENDEN-I did say that. I did say the sign on the south was installed after the permit was obtained, yes, sir. MR. STONE-Okay. Therefore, it was illegal. MR. CHITTENDEN-I did not know that. MR. STONE-Well, if you don’t have a permit for a sign in the Town of Queensbury, it’s an illegal sign. It’s fairly straightforward, but having said that, since this was denied by the County, we need five positive votes. I don’t see five positive votes. I would much rather call for a vote to deny. MR. MC NULTY-It’s an Unlisted Action. You need to do a. MR. STONE-That’s true. It is an Unlisted Action. Well, if we’re going to deny, do we still have to? MR. BROWN-Yes, before you make an action, if Mr. Chittenden wants you to go ahead and make a vote, he can withdraw if he wants to. If you want to make a motion and close out the application, that’s a decision you guys get to make. MR. STONE-Thank you. Well, let’s just do that. Let’s just do the SEQRA on the thing before we ask for a motion. That may do it itself. MR. CHITTENDEN-Gentlemen, if I’m wasting your time, we can just deny it and go home, because it doesn’t look very good right now. MR. BROWN-If the applicant wants to withdraw. MR. STONE-Just withdraw the application. MR. CHITTENDEN-No, no. I’m not interested in withdrawing the application. I wouldn’t have been sitting here for three hours if I wanted to withdraw it. Now, I went to the Warren County Planning Board and they don’t even look at it. They just say, you know the way we are, folks, we don’t go against Queensbury’s Sign Ordinance. I sat through three of them the other day. If I was informed of that, I wouldn’t even have wasted my time going there. Now you just told me that there’s not enough votes to get it approved. So I wasted kind of enough time, I guess, and your time. MR. STONE-Well, we have to take an action, and unless you withdraw the application. MR. CHITTENDEN-No, I don’t withdraw the application. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. BROWN-You can either go through it, or you can make a motion that a review of the. MR. STONE-Well, I’m just going to do that. MR. BROWN-Okay. MOTION THAT A REVIEW OF THE SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM SHOWS THAT THERE ARE NO NEGATIVE IMPACTS CAUSED BY THIS PROJECT, IN TERMS OF THE ENVIRONMENT, Introduced by Lewis Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles McNulty: Duly adopted this 22 day of August, 2001, by the following vote: nd AYES: Mr. McNulty, Mr. McNally, Mr. Himes, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Stone NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Bryant, Mr. Hayes MOTION TO DENY SIGN VARIANCE NO. 60-2001 THEODORE A. CHITTENDEN FOR VICTORY LANE, Introduced by Norman Himes who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Abbate: 40 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/22/01) 730 State Route 9 (Upper Glen Street). The applicant proposes the placement of an additional wall sign. The applicant requests relief from the Sign Ordinance Section 140-6 for the placement of an additional wall sign. Benefit to the applicant, the applicant would be permitted to obtain an additional wall sign, it’s actually on the roof. Feasible alternatives appear to be limited, in connection with this particular application. Is the relief substantial relative to the Ordinance? Relief for a second wall sign when only one is allowed may be interpreted as substantial relative to the Ordinance. Effects on the neighborhood or community, a moderate effect on the neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of this action. Is the difficulty self-created? It may be interpreted to be self created, given the Board that the economic benefits or loss in the absence of this sign were not presented to us to show that additional signage is necessary for success of the business. It should be noted, when making this decision, that Staff already denied this sign when they granted the permit for the wall signs that are across the top of the actual stores. Duly adopted this 22 day of August, 2001, by the following vote: nd MR. STONE-I’m adding that It should be noted, when making this decision, that Staff already denied this sign when they granted the permit for the wall signs that are across the top of the actual stores. MR. CHITTENDEN-Could you explain that again? What did Staff do? MR. STONE-They told you you couldn’t use the roof sign. MR. CHITTENDEN-Yes. MR. STONE-To get the other permit. MR. CHITTENDEN-Yes. MR. STONE-So in other words, they denied you. MR. CHITTENDEN-Well, they had to. You’re only allowed one. MR. STONE-I understand that. MR. CHITTENDEN-Without a variance, which is why I’m here. MR. STONE-Yes, I understand that. MR. CHITTENDEN-And variances have been granted in the Town of Queensbury, and that’s exactly what I did. MR. STONE-That was what they said you had to do. You couldn’t have two, and we’re just reaffirming that you can’t have two. MR. CHITTENDEN-Right, well, that’s in the Code that you can only have one. MR. STONE-I understand. That’s why we’re denying it, though. MR. CHITTENDEN-Okay, without a variance, of course. MR. HIMES-I agree. MR. STONE-Okay. Second? Do I hear a second? MR. ABBATE-Second. AYES: Mr. Abbate, Mr. McNulty, Mr. McNally, Mr. Himes, Mr. Stone NOES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood ABSENT: Mr. Bryant, Mr. Hayes MR. CHITTENDEN-Thank you. CORRECTION OF MINUTES August 15, 2001: NONE 41 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/22/01) MOTION TO ACCEPT THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING MINUTES OF AUGUST 15, 2001, Introduced by Lewis Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Abbate: Duly adopted this 22 day of August, 2001, by the following vote: nd AYES: Mr. Abbate, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Himes, Mr. Stone NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Urrico ABSENT: Mr. Bryant, Mr. Hayes, Mr. McNally MR. STONE-I move we adjourn, gentlemen. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Lewis Stone, Chairman 42