Loading...
2003-08-20 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/20/03) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 20, 2003 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT PAUL HAYES, ACTING CHAIRMAN CHARLES MC NULTY, SECRETARY ALLAN BRYANT ROY URRICO CHARLES ABBATE JOYCE HUNT, ALTERNATE MEMBERS ABSENT NORMAN HIMES LEWIS STONE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR-CRAIG BROWN STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. HAYES-I guess I should announce first that anyone here for the USA Gas application, we will not be hearing that application tonight. The Planning Board is still considering the matter at this time. So we will not be hearing that application. OLD BUSINESS: SIGN VARIANCE NO. 68-2003 SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED NORTH COUNTRY SPORTS MEDICINE, PLCC & GLENS FALLS HOSPITAL – THE REHABILITATION CENTER & THE HEARING CENTER PROPERTY OWNER: SCHERMERHORN COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES CONTRACT VENDEE AGENT: K.D. WHEELER CUSTOM SIGNS ZONE: PO LOCATION: 25 WILLOWBROOK ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES A 64 SQ. FT. FREE STANDING SIGN AND SEEKS RELIEF FROM THE SIGN ORDINANCE FOR A 2 FREE ND STANDING SIGN. CROSS REFERENCE: MANY WARREN CO. PLANNING: 7/9/03 TAX MAP NO. 296.12-1-37.1 LOT SIZE: 4.81 ACRES SECTION: 140-6 B3 HOLLY WHEELER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. MC NULTY-Do you want me to read the motion? MR. HAYES-Yes, that would be fine. MR. MC NULTY-Okay. At the Wednesday, July 23 meeting of this Board, we had a motion to rd table Sign Variance 68-2003 North Country Sports Medicine, PLLC & Glens Falls Hospital – The Rehabilitation Center & The Hearing Center. “MOTION TO TABLE SIGN VARIANCE NO. 68-2003 NORTH COUNTRY SPORTS MEDICINE, PLCC & GLENS FALLS HOSPITAL – THE REHABILITATION CENTER & THE HEARING CENTER, Introduced by Lewis Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Allan Bryant: 25 Willowbrook Road. For up to 62 days, or until next month, in anticipation of having a full Board so that the apparent three, three tie in yes versus no can be looked at further. So we can vote on this subject with a full Board. 1 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/20/03) Duly adopted this 23 day of July, 2003, by the following vote: rd AYES: Mr. Bryant, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Stone NOES: Mr. McNulty ABSENT: Mr. Himes” MR. HAYES-Thank you. Mrs. Wheeler. MRS. WHEELER-Yes. Holly Wheeler, owner of KD Wheeler Custom Signs. I’m representing North Country Sports and the Hospital property on 25 Willowbrook Road. In answer to a question that was raised at the last hearing, I spoke with the Practice Administrator at North Country Sports, and she told me that they have a 20 year lease on this building. The only two tenants in this building are North Country Sports and Glens Falls Hospital. As long as they are tenants, there will not be a third business. So that does not constitute a business complex. My second point, when I came to the last variance, I came in under the impression that they were only allowed one freestanding sign. I actually found out at the hearing they were allowed two freestanding signs because they are two businesses. So what I’m asking for is not any more than what they’re allowed. I’m not asking for more square footage. All I’m basically asking for is to allow both names on both signs. My third point is, they’re also allowed four wall signs, two facing Bay Road and two facing either Willowbrook, yes, Willowbrook curves around, doesn’t it? MR. BROWN-It does curve around, but that’s not correct. Each business would be allowed one wall sign, if they’re going to have a freestanding sign. MRS. WHEELER-But they’re on a corner. MR. BROWN-But they don’t have access from two different streets. That’s what would allow you additional wall signs. MRS. WHEELER-Okay. Never mind. Because I did file, at that meeting I found out that because the road curves all the way in back, the two wall signs that were proposed for the back of the building, the side of the building not facing Bay Road, was required a permit, and I did file for them. So, anyway. Okay. MR. HAYES-Is there anything else you’d like to add? MRS. WHEELER-No, that was it. MR. HAYES-Okay. Does anyone have any questions for the applicant? MR. ABBATE-It was tabled July 23 of this year. rd MRS. WHEELER-Yes. MR. ABBATE-For a full Board review. MRS. WHEELER-Yes. MR. ABBATE-I hope you understand this is not a full Board. MRS. WHEELER-I understand that. MR. ABBATE-Okay, and you’re willing to? MRS. WHEELER-I’m hoping this goes favorably. 2 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/20/03) MR. ABBATE-Well, I mean, it’s up to you, because it was tabled for a full Board, and we are not a full Board this evening. MRS. WHEELER-Right. Seven is a full Board, correct? MR. ABBATE-Seven is a full Board. MRS. WHEELER-Yes. I’m not sure what to do, frankly. MR. ABBATE-Well, that’s up to you. MRS. WHEELER-Well, see how it goes. MR. ABBATE-Well, I want to bring it to your attention, just to be fair. That’s all. MRS. WHEELER-Okay. Yes, I understand that. They won’t table it twice, will they? Just in case. MR. ABBATE-You’d have to ask the Chairman. MR. HAYES-It’s not impossible, but probably not probable. MRS. WHEELER-Probably not probable. Okay. Well, I’m going to hope for the best. MR. HAYES-Are there any other questions for the applicant? MRS. HUNT-Where is the second sign going to be located? MRS. WHEELER-The second sign will be, it’s hard to explain. It’s actually, it would be parallel to. MRS. HUNT-To Bay? MRS. WHEELER-To Bay. MRS. HUNT-I live right across the street. So I’m familiar with the building. MRS. WHEELER-Technically it’s the back of the building. That’s why it’s weird. MRS. HUNT-Yes, the back of the building, on Bay. Because there’s one here. MRS. WHEELER-It would just be down there. MRS. HUNT-A similar type sign? MRS. WHEELER-Yes, but single faced. MR. HAYES-That’s gold leafed, hand carved or? MRS. WHEELER-No, it’s just going to be painted. MR. HAYES-Okay. MRS. WHEELER-They didn’t want to spend the money on gold leaf for out there. So it’s just identification. MR. HAYES-Okay. But they’re not back lit signs? 3 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/20/03) MRS. WHEELER-No, they’re not back lit. They’re not even, as a matter of fact, Warren County asked that they not light that sign at all. So they agreed to not light it. That’s, well, they couldn’t anyway. No. They’re not going to light that sign. MR. BRYANT-I have a question for Staff. This application was tabled because we didn’t have a full Board. We still don’t have a full Board. MR. BROWN-Right. Well, if you remember, I don’t remember if you were present or not the last time. MR. BRYANT-I was, and I just finished reading the minutes. MR. BROWN-Yes. It came down to a straw poll, three, three. MR. ABBATE-Three, three, right. MR. BROWN-So it was suggested by the applicant that we table in favor of a full Board, or somebody suggested that. Could that happen again tonight? It could, and I don’t think it’s unreasonable, you know, if everybody’s willing to table it, if it comes out three, three again, it’s not impossible. MR. BRYANT-Yes, but then the fact remains that that was the purpose of the tabling. MR. BROWN-Right. MR. BRYANT-And that purpose has not been satisfied, and therefore. MR. BROWN-If the Board’s comfortable proceeding and the applicant’s comfortable proceeding, that’s totally acceptable. MR. ABBATE-And of course the three, three, if we vote for it, is a no vote. A tie vote is a no vote. MR. BROWN-If a motion’s entertained and it doesn’t pass, that’s correct. MR. ABBATE-Right, it’s a no vote. MR. HAYES-Does anyone else have any questions for the applicant at this time? MR. URRICO-Yes. How many wall signs do they intend to have? MRS. WHEELER-Two. MR. URRICO-Two wall signs. MRS. WHEELER-Two wall signs. They’re on the back of the building. The one facing Willowbrook. So it’s not visible from Bay Road. They have this entrance on the back. If you’ve been around to the back of the building, there’s this huge entrance, and there’s spaces built into the building for sign panels. There’s one on each side. MR. URRICO-So you’re looking at two freestanding signs with both names on each sign. MRS. WHEELER-Yes. MR. URRICO-And then two wall signs with the same thing, or they would each have their own? 4 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/20/03) MRS. WHEELER-No, they would each have their own, on either side of this door. MR. HAYES-And the two freestanding signs are permissible. The issue is whether you can have two names on two freestanding signs, essentially. MRS. WHEELER-Yes, and I’m not, it’s exactly the square footage that’s allowed by Code. So I’m not asking for any more. MR. ABBATE-Jaime, could I ask the Staff a question here? There appears to be some apprehension in the Staff comments, and they suggest, they suggest now, that if this were to be approved, then each of the other businesses may also request the same thing. Am I interpreting this correctly? MR. BROWN-Yes. I think that’s a possibility, sure. This is a business park, an undeveloped business park, and it’s the first project in, or the second project in. I guess the day care center’s there, the second multi tenant building, or the first multi tenant building there is granted a Sign Variance. MR. ABBATE-Right. What would be the ramifications of this, if we were to approve this application? What would be the ramifications of the other individuals seeking the same type of courtesy? MR. BROWN-I guess if you approve this, the ramifications are they have two signs. MR. ABBATE-Right. MR. BROWN-Is that going to encourage other people to come in? I think it, I don’t want to say sets a precedent, but. MR. ABBATE-It sets a precedent, I’ll say it. MR. BROWN-It may. Are they all individual requests that you can consider independently? Sure, but it’s just, it was more for information that this is a business park. There are more parcels in here yet to be developed. That’s all. MR. ABBATE-All right. Thank you very much. MR. HAYES-Are there any other questions at this time? If not, I’ll open the public hearing. Is there anyone here to speak in favor of this application? Anyone opposed? Any correspondence? MR. MC NULTY-No correspondence. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HAYES-Discuss it with the Board. I’ll start with Roy. MR. URRICO-Well, I’m afraid that my position hasn’t changed from the last time we discussed this. I really think the one factor out of the entire test that concerns me the most is the precedent that it might set in this neighborhood. Again, we just redesigned the concept for Bay Road, and I’m just afraid, this is one of the first businesses setting up along that road, and I just think an exception at this point is not a good idea. MR. HAYES-Thank you. Allan? 5 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/20/03) MR. BRYANT-I, too, was on the negative side, and frankly my opinion hasn’t changed. MR. HAYES-Chuck? MR. ABBATE-Thank you. I failed to follow through with Staff. Let me ask you this. What is the capacity of that building, in terms of occupancy? How many clients could actually move into that building, and the reason I’m asking, I’m trying to determine X number of signs. MR. BROWN-Well, I think that the applicant has offered that there’s only going to be two tenants in the building, and she made some mention to twenty year leases. MRS. WHEELER-They have a twenty year lease, at this point. MR. BROWN-So to answer your question, the potential number of tenants right now, two. MR. ABBATE-What is the potential? What is the capacity? How many tenants? MRS. WHEELER-There could be unlimited down in the future, but, you know, that’s kind of a moot point right now. I mean, I suppose this could be written in such a way that it only pertained to these two tenants. MR. ABBATE-See, the reason I’m asking, I’m trying to justify, in my own mind, if we grant Mr. or Mrs. So and So yes, then it would be very difficult for other individuals in the same situation to come before us and to say no, and that’s why I asked about capacity. If it were three or four or five or six clients in there, by jiminy, we’d have to approve X number of signs because we’ve done it already. MRS. WHEELER-However, then they become a business complex, and the whole rules, everything changes. MR. ABBATE-Mr. Chairman, I don’t know. Could I hold off on my vote, please. MR. HAYES-You certainly can. MR. ABBATE-Thank you. MR. HAYES-Chuck? MR. MC NULTY-Well, this is a, it’s a hard one. I’m going to end up, though, I think, staying where I was, which was opposed. The point that the applicant makes is valid, that if the two applicants had elected to keep one sign each, they could have two signs. So, it’s kind of a technical thing, but the thing that still bothers me is I don’t think the sign that is being proposed facing Bay Road is necessary. I think it’s going to detract from the nice appearance of the building and the landscaping. I think it’s going to detract from the dignity of the applicants. I think if they had, they’ve got a good position for their signs. They’ve got far better position for the sign that’s there now than any of the other tenants in that complex is going to have. They’ve got a sign right out there on the main road. The other tenants are not going to have that, and I think it’s going to be more of a professional park, professional appearance, if we stick with the one sign by the road junction, which serves a very valid purpose of directing people in on Willowbrook and then the wall signs on the building certainly will direct people to the proper doorway. So for that reason, I’m going to be opposed. MR. HAYES-Thank you. Joyce? MRS. HUNT-Well, I first want to say that I think it’s a very attractive sign. It certainly adds to Bay Road, and at first I was not against a second sign, but listening to the arguments, I know, I mean, we talk about precedent, but each individual who comes before us is, you know, is 6 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/20/03) approved or disapproved individually, not on what happened before, but I do think that, I don’t think that sign is going to add that much facing Bay. I mean, I live right across the street and I go past there all the time, and by the time you’d see that, you’d be at the, where you would see the sign facing east and west. So I would be against it. MR. HAYES-Thank you. Well, I guess I’m the odd ball on that one. MR. ABBATE-Well, I didn’t vote yet. I may be the odd ball. MR. HAYES-Okay. Well, maybe there’ll be two of us, then. Anyway, I was in favor of the application previously. As I stated then, historically, my concern has always been when applicants were trying to get more signage than they were entitled to. That was always my highest criteria. Certainly that doesn’t mean you automatically get a variance if you have the same amount of signage that you’re allowed to, but in this case, it seemed that they would be allowed two signs, and if they had two signs with one name, or. MRS. WHEELER-Two signs with two names. MR. HAYES-Right. I guess it doesn’t seem that unreasonable to me, or that there’s some advantage that’s being sought here by the applicant. It certainly is a very large building, and they’re two large tenants in this particular case, and the idea that they might need a little additional signage to let people know, particularly on Bay Road, in my opinion, is, I could understand the applicant’s desire, but I was part of the last meeting, and it was a three, three tie, but, based on my poll, I would honestly have to make the determination that the new people would not have voted yes. I have to say that. So, I’m going to have to ask for a motion to disapprove, or deny this variance. MRS. WHEELER-Okay. MR. HAYES-Because I don’t think that tabling it would be furthering. MRS. WHEELER-That and there’s only so many times I’m going to come back. MR. HAYES-Okay. So, Chuck, do you want to say which way you’re going to vote, or you’re just going to vote? MR. ABBATE-No, I don’t mind, because I feel I owe you an explanation. MRS. WHEELER-Thank you. MR. ABBATE-I would reluctantly vote in favor of this. I would enthusiastically vote for it, if there had been a representative of the North Country Sports Medicine, Glens Falls Hospital here to support their own application. That kind of bugs me a little bit. Thank you. MRS. WHEELER-Okay. MR. HAYES-So would someone like to make a motion to disapprove? MR. ABBATE-Well, those who voted no. MR. MC NULTY-All right. I’ll take it. MR. HAYES-Thanks, Chuck. MOTION TO DENY SIGN VARIANCE NO. 68-2003 NORTH COUNTRY SPORTS MEDICINE, PLLC, Introduced by Charles McNulty who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Hunt: 7 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/20/03) 25 Willowbrook Road. The applicant is proposing the placement of a 64 square foot freestanding sign and seeks relief to allow a second freestanding sign on the same parcel. Specifically, the applicant needs relief from the Sign Ordinance for the construction of a sign second freestanding sign, referencing Section 140-6B(3)(c) which allows each business to have only one freestanding sign. Since a freestanding sign permit has already been issued for these businesses at this site, Building Permit 2003-419, a variance is required to allow the second sign. Considering the criteria for granting a Sign Variance, I think we can see the benefit to the applicant in having a second sign to advertise and identify their business. However, I believe that the detriment to the neighborhood is going to outweigh the benefit to the applicant, in that the second sign proposed does not appear to serve any directional purpose, as far as directing people that see it to the proper entrance, and also considering the overall aesthetics of this developing business park, I believe that allowing this exception would establish a precedent that we would be hard pressed to deny another applicant the same courtesy, and therefore the cumulative impact, I think, is going to be a detriment to the neighborhood. For that reason, I move that we deny this application. Duly adopted this 20 day of August, 2003, by the following vote: th AYES: Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Bryant, Mr. McNulty NOES: Mr. Abbate, Mr. Hayes ABSENT: Mr. Himes, Mr. Stone MR. HAYES-The variance is denied. MRS. WHEELER-Okay. MR. HAYES-Thank you. MRS. WHEELER-Thanks. SIGN VARIANCE NO. 70-2003 SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED HOME DEPOT USA, INC. PROPERTY OWNER: NORTHWAY PLAZA ASSOCIATES, LLC AGENT: JONATHAN LAPPER, CUMMINGS SIGNAGE ZONE: HC-INT. LOCATION: 820 STATE ROUTE 9 APPLICANT PROPOSES A 30 SQ. FT. WALL SIGN AND SEEKS RELIEF FROM THE SIGN ORDINANCE FOR A FOURTH WALL SIGN. CROSS REFERENCE: SPR 12-2002, AV 54- 2002, PZ 1-2002, SV 59-2002 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 7/9/03 TAX MAP NO. 296.18-1-47, 46 LOT SIZE: 22.87 AC., 10.62 AC. SECTION: 179-4-030 JON LAPPER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. MC NULTY-This also was tabled at a previous meeting, actually the same meeting, Wednesday, July 23, 2003, “MOTION TO TABLE SIGN VARIANCE NO. 70-2003 HOME DEPOT USA, INC., Introduced by Lewis Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Paul Hayes: 820 State Route 9. For a period of up to 62 days, so that the agent can consult with his client to offset the largely negative comments made by the Board. Duly adopted this 23 day of July 2003, by the following vote: rd AYES: Mr. Hayes, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Stone NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Himes” 8 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/20/03) MR. HAYES-Thank you. Mr. Lapper? MR. LAPPER-Good evening. First of all I’d like to thank the Board for giving me the opportunity to come back with a representative of Home Depot, which is Mark Ravenall to my left and your right, who is the Store Manager of the new store. On my right is Dave Carr, Landscape Architect from the LA Group. Dave and I represented the Home Depot together in pursuing all of the approvals that we needed for this project, and really from the Planning Board. I guess I’d just like to start out in terms of just quickly going through the test, in terms of the benefit to the applicant. I felt that it was important to bring a representative of Home Depot to personally explain why this sign is needed. It is Home Depot’s position that this sign acts as a directional sign, even though it doesn’t technically qualify as a directional sign, under the Queensbury Sign Code, which would require that it would be on the ground, no more than two and a half square feet, no more than four feet high, but the purpose of this sign, when you look at the façade which I put up, and I submitted color copies for the Board, the façade is approximately 400 feet long, which is obviously a large store. The Planning Board required, and the new design guidelines under the new Code require as well that a store of this size have a façade that is broken up to look like many stores. If you compare this to, let’s say Wal-Mart, which is just a very plain vanilla box that doesn’t have any indentations. This was designed, and we went through four design phases on the façade so that it would be a change from what you’d call their prototype to look more like a series of store even though it is, of course, one store. The location on the map, excuse me, on the façade, where the tool rental center is is all the way on the left side, and that has it’s own separate entrance, and it has some ironwork in front, to distinguish that and to make it look visually different from the rest of the store. The purpose of this is to get people who want to rent, and when we say tools, Mark will get into the details, but it is, includes a lot of large, heavy items that you’d want to bring your pickup or SUV to that side of the site so you know where to go if you’re going to be renting. I’d just like to ask Mark a couple of questions, just to get them on the record. First of all, for the record, your name and title. MARK RAVENAL MR. RAVENAL-Mark Ravenal, Store Manager of Home Depot, Queensbury. MR. LAPPER-And how long have you worked for Home Depot? MR. RAVENAL-Fourteen years. MR. LAPPER-And you just moved to Town to manage this store? MR. RAVENAL-Yes. MR. LAPPER-Okay. My understanding is that tool rental is a relatively new aspect of the Home Depot business. It wasn’t part of what was proposed when we first came in, a year and a half ago, proposing to build this store. MR. RAVENAL-That’s correct. Yes. MR. LAPPER-Okay. Can you explain, for the Board’s sake, some of the items that would be rented? MR. RAVENAL-There’s approximately 150 different tools that are rented out of the tool rental center. Some of them are quite large, like one and two man augers, tile saws, concrete cutters, ditch witch trenchers, jumping jack, I can’t think of the name, but there are very, very large tools that the customer really has to drive up for them to be able to be loaded in to their vehicle, and if they’re parked on that end of the building, it makes that more convenient for the customer. 9 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/20/03) MR. LAPPER-Okay. Thank you. In terms of the next prime of the test, any detriment to the neighborhood, I want to ask Dave Carr to testify. Dave designed the entire site, including the landscaping. As the Board is aware, and we mentioned last time, we received a lot of kind remarks from people, on the Town Staff and in the community, that this site was designed at a cost of millions more than it could have been if it were just, for example, what was done in Wilton, which is your basic orange box, partly because this was a tired plaza that needed serious renovation. You’ll remember the grade when you came in was pretty dangerous. Dave is responsible for fixing that. We addressed stormwater issues, and we addressed a lot of landscaping issues. It used to be that, in front of the Travelers section of the Plaza, you would just be looking right at asphalt, a sea of asphalt. The common derogatory phase. Now we’ve re-done all the islands with trees that are pretty good size to start with, and obviously will be a lot bigger as it develops, and Dave picked barberry plants, which are small to start with, but there’s a lot of them all along Glen Street. They’re going to develop and serve to shield the Plaza and the parking lot. He chose those because they’re salt resistant, so that they should survive, even though, obviously DOT comes by with those big nasty plow trucks. I’d like Dave to take the mic and get up and just explain to you in terms of why we feel this isn’t a detriment to the neighborhood. The size of the sign, the distances, from the offsite receptor areas, where you can view this. It’s the goal of Home Depot that this sign, the purpose of this is not to tell people offsite that they have a tool rental center, but once people are on the site, to know where they’re supposed to park, which is really, you know, why I’m characterizing it as a directional sign, even though it doesn’t qualify as such. MR. CARR-Thanks, John. For the record, my name is Dave Carr. I’m with the LA Group in Saratoga Springs. I’m a landscape architect. What you see here is a site plan of the site. This tannish building is the Home Depot. This is the façade. This little red circle encircles the 30 square foot sign that we’re talking about. I visited the site recently, just to drive the perimeter and see where you could see the sign from, and basically, you can see, you would be able to see the sign from two locations from outside the site. The first location, traveling north, would be along Route 9, and it would start approximately 200 feet from the entry, and continue to the entry. Once you get to the entry, the corner of the existing office building cuts off your view. So you could see across the site, at this point, over the canopy, into that little area. Now that ranges from 1100 feet to 950 feet. So when you first pick up the sign you’re a little over 1100 feet away, and then at 200 feet you’re about 950 feet away. Now, because of the landscaping we did throughout here, I believe that probably in about a 10 year period, when, these are ash trees and red maples in the parking lot, and they’re about 15 feet high now, probably in 10 years they may get to 25 feet. I mean, in normal conditions, those type trees would probably get 50 or 60 feet, but normally in a parking lot they won’t get that large, just because they’re under stress with the heat and salts and all sorts of nasty things. So, you know, they’ll probably get 35 feet to 40 feet high. So I’m figuring probably in about a 10 year period this view would be completely gone across the parking lot. You’d probably begin to see that sign as you move in to the site. The second spot where you can pick up the sign is as you continue to travel north, and you’re passing by the roof of the existing office building. You start to pick it up again probably about a couple of hundred feet before you get to the end of the office, and you can see it right over the roof, if you happen to be looking in that direction. Normally if you’re driving, I don’t think you would be, but there’s about 320 feet, a 320 foot window where, again, you can look down into the site, and I’m sure you all know Route 9, and you’re fairly high at this point. So no matter how large these trees get, that view is always going to be there because you’re sitting way high looking down into the site, and again, when you first pick up the sign, you’re at about 540 feet, and then as you head toward the Subway, there’s a tree area, and then the Subway building itself again blocks the view, and at that point, you’re at 350 feet. So again, when you first pick it up it’s 540. About 300 feet later it’s about 350. I continued to drive, I drove all of Montray Road, and that’s pretty much the back of the site. So those are the only two spots from outside of the site that you could view that sign. MR. LAPPER-Dave, I’d like you to just comment, in terms of characterizing when you’re looking at a view of either 1100 to 950 feet, or 550 to 300 feet, how big is a 30 square foot sign when you’re traveling in a car, and also whether you feel that an undesirable change will be 10 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/20/03) produced in the neighborhood, you know, based upon, obviously my argument is that because of that distance and the small size of the sign that it won’t be an undesirable impact. MR. CARR-Well, at the first view at 1,000 feet you obviously won’t be able to read the sign. It would probably look like a small square on the building. The second area where you’re about 540 feet away I believe you could read the sign, but again, you’re almost past the building at that point and you’d have to look directly to the side to see that traveling at about 40 miles an hour. So it’s a pretty quick view at that location. MR. LAPPER-Thank you. Finally, because the 30 square feet, and obviously I made this point last time, but we view this as insubstantial. Yes, other variances were granted, and they do have the Home Depot sign on the front for the name of the store, and then two other very small signs similar to this, contractor pickup, and nursery, which are for the same purpose of just directing people to the different locations for those very specific uses on the site, and I would argue that the tool rental serves the same purpose, but when you take into account that you’ve got a 400 foot long linear building that has a façade that comes out and in, this is not a substantial variance. It’s a small sign on big façade that is designed to make it look like a series of stores, and in a sense having a sign there just furthers that and makes it look like the end of this is just another store area. Dave is pointing out that the 400 feet is just the building itself and doesn’t include the nursery which, what, probably another 100 feet. MR. CARR-Yes, maybe. MR. LAPPER-Okay. So close to 500 or 480, in total. Mark is correcting me, but in general, I just want the Board to understand the applicant’s position, that this is not a case of trying to jam a whole lot of signage. It’s a very small sign. They feel they have a real purpose for this. I understand, or have been told but have not personally read, that there is an application pending for the new Wal-Mart for something on the order of 20 or more signs, you know, which I would characterize as abusive. I know certainly, over all these years, this Board’s history of being very careful with Sign Variances, and I want to distinguish this request from that type of a request where, even though this would be a fourth façade sign, it is a minimal sign, and it is only there for a very specific purpose, but alternatively, it just wouldn’t be practical or effective on a site this size to have an actual directional sign on the ground to get somebody, or a series of signs, to get somebody over to the tool rental, especially when the signs are already on the building for nursery, and contractor. This just fits in with the character. So I hope that, with the representative of Home Depot here and with Dave to better explain the site plan than I could have, that this Board will see that this is a minimum request and not an attempt to jam this site with signage. MR. HAYES-Thank you. MR. LAPPER-Thank you. MR. HAYES-Does anyone have any questions for the applicant at this time? MR. BRYANT-I do, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Ravenal, how would you characterize the customer who comes in and rents a tool? Who is that? MR. RAVENAL-It’s anybody. The same group that normally shops the Home Depot. I mean, it could be a do-it-yourselfer sanding their hardwood floors, for example, or it could be a contractor. MR. BRYANT-So you’re saying that it’s not only contractors that rent those? MR. RAVENAL-Definitely not only contractors. MR. BRYANT-That’s my question. 11 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/20/03) MR. URRICO-I have a question, too. Why wasn’t this request made when the store originally made the request for extra signage? MR. RAVENAL-The tool rental wasn’t planned as a part of the initial construction of the store. MR. URRICO-So is it reasonable to assume that the next time Home Depot has a new department, that they’re going to come forward for another sign? MR. RAVENAL-I, personally, don’t know of any new initiatives that would require another sign, but I understand the point, obviously. Yes. MR. URRICO-Explain to me also the rationale by having a sign there. There is no parking there. So, is there room for a lot of cars there? I didn’t notice a lot of room. MR. LAPPER-Dave can best explain that. MR. CARR-Well, you’re probably at the farthest point of the parking lot. There’s a row here that can probably handle eight to ten cars, and then there’s a double row here that probably handles 30 cars, right out in front, and I think the point is that when you drive in, to get to that point, you have to go through this whole parking lot. So I know, myself, I would probably pull in and find the nearest spot, and I think the point that this gentleman is trying to make is with the sign, that you would move over to that point, initially. It’s the farthest point on the site. MR. URRICO-Well, wherever you park, you’re still going to have to pull up in front here. It’s not, you’re not going to be able to park right there. MR. CARR-Right. That’s correct. MR. URRICO-Thanks. MR. LAPPER-I guess also, you know, just to distinguish from the typical Wal-Mart application, there are many, many departments here, lighting, plumbing, hardware, and it’s not the case that we’re coming in, asking for a sign for every one. It’s because you’re talking about these large items that have to be wheeled out or carried out, and so we’re not trying to get every department, and even if they added a new department, that doesn’t mean that they would be asking for a sign. Nursery and contractor sales are very specific large item stuff, just like this. MR. URRICO-There is window sign there now. MR. LAPPER-And that’s because they were allowed to do that as a temporary sign. That that’s only temporary until we could come back before the Board. MR. HAYES-Are there any other questions? MR. ABBATE-Mr. Urrico’s comments were appropriate, you know, prior planning prevents, etc., etc., but, anyway, let me say something nice about Home Depot. MR. LAPPER-Thank you. MR. ABBATE-I think that Depot will contribute favorably to this community. Obviously, they have already generated jobs. I don’t work for Home Depot. I’m not on commission for them, nor do I advertise, but I was there today, as a matter of fact, and I’m impressed with the architecture. You did a great job, and by the way, you were very well organized in your presentation. You’re to be complimented, and this has nothing to do with the way I’m going to vote, but I just wanted you to know that it’s not all kind of sour grapes. We’re really pleased to have you in the community, and you moved, where did you move from, out of curiosity? MR. RAVENAL-I’m coming from Buffalo. 12 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/20/03) MR. ABBATE-Well, you’ll learn the language. It won’t take long. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. MR. HAYES-Okay. Are there any other questions for the applicant? If not, I’ll open the public hearing. Is there anyone here that wishes to speak in favor of this application? Anyone opposed? Any correspondence? MR. MC NULTY-No correspondence. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HAYES-I’ll poll the Board members. We’ll start with Allan. MR. BRYANT-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. There’s no question that the Home Depot store has been a tremendous improvement, not only in that Plaza, but in that part of the Town in general, but let me tell you where I stand on this thing. I think the danger isn’t the size of the sign or where it’s visible from, and that was a very interesting presentation. I think the danger is that we have already granted 100% relief on the freestanding sign, 200% on the wall signs, now you’re asking for 300%. To add on top of that, one of the biggest dangers is the fact that you have made a couple of references to Wal-Mart, and somebody along the line is going to make a couple of references to all the relief that we’ve granted Home Depot. Okay. So I think therein lies the danger. The fact that we’ve already granted substantial relief. Yes, you’re right, 30 square feet is not a big sign, but it’s additional relief on top of the relief that’s already granted, and then the fact that, yes, we don’t like to use the term, and we set precedent, but in reality, it could be Lowe’s tomorrow at this table saying, well, you know, Home Depot’s got four wall signs and two freestanding signs, and we only have one of each, and we’d like to have the same amount, and therein lies the problem. So, as I was at the last meeting, I’m going to be opposed to this application. MR. HAYES-Thank you. Chuck? MR. ABBATE-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Bryant has made a pretty persuasive argument. I don’t, personally, object to your sign, to your request, but what concerns me and what bothers me greatly is what I always call a standard of fairness. What could happen in the event that we approve this request, taking into consideration the approval of your previous requests for signs, etc., what’s to stop other individuals from coming in and saying, now, look, you know, you did this for Home Depot. Why can’t you do it for us? To me, this would be setting a precedent. If we, quite frankly, did not grant you, or you did not request any type of other signs, I would probably say, you know, you deserve this. After all, people are coming in. They want to home improve, contractors, etc., and they want to do stuff themselves, and I would say that’s a pretty good idea, but I listened carefully to what Mr. Bryant had to say, and he’s right. It’s no so much that I’m not in favor of the sign. It’s that we’ve granted too much of a variance already, and I think that sets a precedence, and if we’re going to have a standard of fairness, in the Town of Queensbury, what we do for one, we really should do for another, and so based upon that, I’m afraid I could not support the application. MR. HAYES-Thank you. Chuck? MR. MC NULTY-I’m afraid I’ve got to echo what’s already been said. Granted, you’re not asking for 52 wall signs, and I hope that application really never gets in here, but I think, given that we’ve already granted relief for Home Depot, and frankly I think the decal signs that you’ve got on your windows right now near the entrance going in are very effective, as far as letting people know you rent tools. I think that’s probably an ideal spot for them, because somebody that got in there, not even thinking about renting tools, is going to look at that as 13 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/20/03) they go in the door. So that, combined with the relief that we’ve already given, and a fear of adding too many extra signs beyond what the Ordinance allows, to any building, I’m going to be opposed. MR. HAYES-Thank you. Joyce? MRS. HUNT-I have to agree with my fellow Board members. I think that we have granted a lot so far, and I don’t see adding any more signs. I would be against it. MR. HAYES-Thank you, Joyce. Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes. I haven’t changed my opinions last month. It’s a great building. I mean, he’s done a fantastic job inside and outside, and I think that’s part of the reason that I’m against it. I just think that, when you look at the test, the benefit, can it be achieved by any other means? Yes. The wall signs do work. You have a certain limitation, but you can use them. So there are feasible alternatives. As far as undesirable change in the neighborhood, my fellow Board members talked about what it could mean to other businesses in the area, and I think when we talk about neighborhood character or the community character, I think we’re talking about more than just that Plaza or Montray Road, or, you know, across the street, we’re talking up and down Glen Street or even across Quaker and Aviation Road. So I think by allowing this to be allowed, I think we’re opening the door, and in that case I think the request is substantial. I think, as far as physical or environmental effects, there wouldn’t be any, but I do think this is self-created, and it’s partly due to the company going in a different direction, and I think I’ve been pretty consistent on this point anyway, in other cases. I’m going to be against it. MR. BRYANT-While the Chairman is occupied, can I ask you a question? In view of the comments that are made, couldn’t we just add tool rental to the contractor area sign? I mean, would that make it over size? I mean, wouldn’t that be a logical solution? MR. LAPPER-I think that might be a logical solution to just say contractor and tool rental. I think that would be a fine alternative. MR. BRYANT-Because the contractor sign is on that side of the building, right? MR. LAPPER-I’m sorry? MR. BRYANT-The contractor sign area. MR. LAPPER-It’s very close. If it said contractor pickup and tool rental, as one sign, I mean, I think that would accomplish the purpose of getting people to that part of the building, if the Board would be comfortable with that. It’s close enough. Sure. We’re just trying to direct people. So if that, if four people would be in agreement with that, we would certainly accept that. It would then be lower on the façade. MR. BRYANT-I don’t know that you would need, you wouldn’t need anything from us because you’ve already got three signs. The reality is, is that correct? No, it’s not correct? MR. LAPPER-Because the size would have to be a little bigger. MR. BROWN-Well, the signs that they have on the building now are there by variance. They had a variance for specific signs. So if you want to add to any of those signs, it’s still going to require a Sign Variance, though. MR. LAPPER-Well, by just looking at the contractor pick up sign on the drawing that I submitted, that’s two feet high letters, or the sign is two feet high rather than three feet high, for the one that we propose. So this would be on the front of the canopy, and, you know, so it would say contractor pick up/tool rental, and if that’s something that we could convince the Board would be less relief, it would certainly accomplish the purpose of the Home Depot. It 14 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/20/03) would be three signs. One of them would just be a little longer than it is now, but as you can see, it doesn’t take up the whole canopy anyway. So there’s plenty of room on the front of that canopy, if that’s something that the Board would consider. MR. ABBATE-Counselor, can I look at that, please. MR. URRICO-So, Craig, what you’re saying, that we would have to grant a whole new variance? MR. LAPPER-You could modify the relief requested. MR. BROWN-Let me just ask this question, and I’m not sure where Mr. Bryant was going with this. Were you suggesting that they have contractor pick up and tool rental in the same area as the existing, in the same area as the existing sign, same size? Or add the new area to the existing sign? MR. BRYANT-Not necessarily add the area, the entire area, but, you know, add a line. They’re looking just for direction. They’re not concerned about anybody on the road. They’re concerned about people in the parking lot who want to be directed to that door. So I’m saying add something to that sign. MR. LAPPER-Contractor pick up/tool rental. Either way is fine. MR. BRYANT-Tool rental underneath, or something. MR. LAPPER-Next to it would be the least impact, because it’s right on the front of the canopy. Allan, if you want to take a look at that picture. MR. BRYANT-I have this. MR. LAPPER-Okay. I’m just wondering. It’s hard to tell how much room you have between the existing sign and the bottom of the canopy. MR. LAPPER-I think if it was next to it it would be, because if it was right on the canopy, that would probably be the best location. MR. ABBATE-And that might be a feasible alternative, Mr. Chairman, and I would probably change my vote on that. MR. HAYES-I guess we would, myself, would need to understand better exactly what’s being proposed. I understand there’s a contractor pick up sign of 20, it’s two feet tall and essentially twenty-five and a half feet long. Right? MR. LAPPER-Yes. Dave, can you explain. MR. HAYES-Two feet tall, twenty-five and a half feet long. I guess what I’m saying is, what are they proposing? MR. ABBATE-They’re going to incorporate it. MR. HAYES-So it’s not going to change the size of this sign? MR. ABBATE-It’s not going to change the size of the sign. Right, Counselor? MR. URRICO-Will that still fit in the same 24 by? MR. LAPPER-No, it would have to be longer, otherwise the letters would be so small that you couldn’t read them. It’s better to see them here. 15 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/20/03) MR. URRICO-But if it’s only directional, what does it matter if the sign’s a little small? MR. BRYANT-Yes, but you’ve got to see it from the other side of the parking lot. MR. HAYES-So you’re talking about putting it above it? MR. ABBATE-The size remains the same, correct? MR. BRYANT-It’s no different than what they’re proposing now. MR. ABBATE-Counselor, could you spell out to me in the simplest terms possible what the difference between this and your original proposal is? MR. LAPPER-I understand what Mr. Bryant is talking about. It would be attached to the contractor pick up sign. So instead of having three signs on the building there would be two signs on the building, and the size of the tool rental sign would be smaller because it would be two feet high rather than three feet high. It would be the same height of the contractor pick up sign. It would be on the canopy where contractor pick up is. MR. ABBATE-So instead of three it will be two. MR. LAPPER-Yes. Instead of four, there would be three. MR. ABBATE-Instead of four it would be three. MR. LAPPER-Nursery, Home Depot, contractor pickup/tool rental. MR. BRYANT-I think the intention of my suggestion. MR. HAYES-Was the same size sign. MR. BRYANT-Is not to necessarily move the sign next to the other sign, but to make a sign that’s comparable in size to what you already have, to incorporate the new tool rental thing, and then you only have three signs, about the same size that you already have, and, you know, everybody is happy. That was only the suggestion. I’m sorry. MR. LAPPER-No, and I guess what I’m saying is that I can certainly concede that three signs rather than four might be a minimal variance. I’m afraid that, just in terms of, because contractor pick up is a lot of letters, that if you tried to squeeze both onto that sign, probably the size of the letters would be pretty small. It would be pretty hard to read. MR. BRYANT-Well, you know, from a marketing standpoint, pick up is a dumb word. I would put contractor/tool rental center, and use the same amount of space. MR. ABBATE-He’s right. Pick up has a nasty connotation. MR. BRYANT-No, pick up is not a good marketing term. So I would say contractor, tool rental center. That’s what it is, it’s a contractor center. MR. LAPPER-At the risk of delaying this, if you want, we could go back to the sign consultant and come back with a drawing of what we’re talking about, if that would be the Board’s prerogative, and to put it together as one sign. MR. ABBATE-But you’re not going to come back to request four signs. MR. LAPPER-Correct. 16 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/20/03) MR. ABBATE-Okay. You’ll stay with three. MR. LAPPER-Yes, and we could show it to you if that’s what you wanted. MR. BROWN-And I guess, so you know where I’ll be coming from when we see that new sign, if it’s within this 25 and a half feet long by 2 feet tall area that’s already been approved, you’re not going to see it back. If the sign comes back two feet tall thirty-five and a half feet long, you have to continue with this variance, but if they stay within the same area, then it’s not going to come back. MR. LAPPER-I think Craig’s exactly right, but I think we would have to come back because I think the letters would just be too small if it was within the same contractor pick up. MR. BRYANT-Not if you thought about the wording. Think about it. MR. LAPPER-I’ll ask the sign consultant and see if there’s a compromise. I mean, it’s certainly going to be less square footage of new sign than what we’re proposing. It wouldn’t be 30 square feet more. So we’ll see what we can come back with and resubmit it. MR. HAYES-Okay. MOTION TO TABLE SIGN VARIANCE NO. 70-2003 HOME DEPOT USA, INC., Introduced by Paul Hayes who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Abbate: 820 State Route 9. The applicant has proposed to return to the Board with a changed application which would include possibly some additional square footage on the sign and some additional wording, on the Contractor sign, and we would entertain that proposal as we see it. Duly adopted this 20 day of August, 2003, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Abbate, Mr. McNulty, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Hayes NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Himes, Mr. Stone MR. LAPPER-Thank you. MR. BRYANT-You didn’t get the opportunity to talk, Mr. Chairman. MR. HAYES-Well, when he volunteered to table it, if it’s going to be a different application, that would be kind of a moot point. MR. LAPPER-I don’t think it will be a different application. I think we’ll just submit what would be the minimum variance, you know, more minimum. MR. ABBATE-You’re not going to go from 35 to 65 feet? MR. LAPPER-It’ll be less than 30 square feet. MR. ABBATE-Okay, because when you say you don’t think it’ll be a different application, it’s got to be a different application. MR. LAPPER-Well, I’m viewing this as what the Board is looking at is perhaps granting relief for less than what we requested, because you always have the prerogative to reduce the relief, and that’s where I think we’re going. It’s the same application, but we’re submitting an alternative, because you have to grant the minimum alternative. 17 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/20/03) MR. HAYES-Right. Thank you. MR. BRYANT-It sounds good. Thank you. NEW BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 72-2003 SEQRA TYPE: TYPE II KEVIN MASCHEWSKI AGENT: ADIRONDACK DESIGNERS & BUILDERS OWNER: TIM & ELAINE LEPPERT LOCATION: PRIVATE RD. 1, OFF CLEVERDALE RD. ZONING: WR-1A APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING AND SEEKS RELIEF FROM THE MINIMUM ROAD FRONTAGE REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REF. RECORDS: BP 2003-526 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 8/13/03 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY LOT SIZE: 0.66 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 240.09-1-3 SECTION: 179-4-90 KEVIN MASCHEWSKI, PRESENT; ELAINE LEPPERT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 72-2003, Kevin Maschewski, Meeting Date: August 20, 2003 “Project Location: Private Rd. 1, off Cleverdale Rd. Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a Single Family Dwelling and seeks relief from the minimum road frontage requirements. Relief Required: Applicant seeks 40 feet of relief from the 40 foot minimum road frontage requirement per §179-4-090. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): Septic System Variance (1999) separation to wetland 91’ vs. 100’. Staff comments: The parcel immediately to the south of the applicant’s property received an identical variance in 1999; AV 7-1999. An examination of the adequacy of accessibility of the private drive might be appropriate. The Building Department will require that the private road be named, (911 identifier) prior to Certificate of Occupancy.” MR. MC NULTY-“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form August 13, 2003 Project Name: Maschewski, Kevin Owner: Tim & Elaine Leppert ID Number: QBY- 03-AV-72 County Project#: Aug03-27 Current Zoning: WR-1A Community: Queensbury Project Description: Applicant proposes construction of a single-family dwelling with well and new septic system, and seeks relief from the minimum road frontage requirements. Site Location: Private Rd. 1, off Cleverdale Rd. Tax Map Number(s): 240.09-1-3 Staff Notes: Area Variance: The applicant proposes to construct a 3-bedroom home on existing vacant lot. The parcel does not have road frontage on a public road but has access to the road via a 20’ right of way. The information submitted indicates a neighboring property obtained the same relief requested. The new home meets all other zoning requirements of the parcel. Staff does not identify an impact on county resources. Staff recommends no county impact.” County Planning Board Recommendation: No County Impact” Signed Bennet F. Driscoll, Warren County Planning Board 8/16/03. MR. HAYES-Please identify yourselves for the record. MR. MASCHEWSKI-Okay. Kevin Maschewski, and to my left is Elaine Leppert, the property owner. I guess a little history on the property. It’s a second parcel of a two parcel subdivision, and originally to the, I’m going to say it’s to the south of the property, actually to the, I think it’s south, is another, the second of the lots, which has already been developed, developed in the late 90’s, early 2000, also has been in front of this Board for the same variance. I believe the owners are behind me, the Julians. The Lepperts had been in contract with the building lot and understanding it was nonconforming based on the acre parcel requirement by the Town. The one thing that was unknown to them was the 40 foot road frontage variance requirement. The 18 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/20/03) property had a variance for a septic system back in 1999 from the original owners whom the Lepperts had purchased it from, and I kind of wish at that point it would have been presented to the Board for a road frontage to make this building lot totally buildable. So I guess we’re here, unbeknownst to myself who was hired on as the architect and the builder, to develop a house, and design and build a house for the Lepperts. In negotiations back in the early part of this year, they didn’t know anything about a variance requirement and they had known that a variance had been granted for a septic system. That variance was minimum requirement distance between, they meet the lake distance but they didn’t meet the designated wetlands to the rear of the property. The process has been started for a private road name. I met with the Warren County Sheriff’s Department on Monday. A name has been submitted, based on the Lepperts and the Julians, the neighbor. So the process has been started for a private road name, for a 911 street address. So, basically, you know, the house design meets all the setbacks. There was no issues with trying to get setback. The property’s .66 acres. So it’s adequate for setback. So the whole design really met Code, I submitted, and embarrassingly enough, I submitted the drawings for a building permit, and it was picked up by Craig that it doesn’t have the minimum road frontage. I just assumed Private Road 1 coming in was adequate, but it wasn’t. So that’s kind of where we’re at, sitting in front of the Board for granting a variance. MR. HAYES-I guess my question to you would be, you know, somehow addressing Staff’s question about the viability of the emergency access, these type of things that are associated with this type of relief. Emergency vehicles can get to the lot. MR. MASCHEWSKI-Yes. There’s no impediment for entrance. I mean, the house the Julians had built obviously big rigs, concrete trucks, all that has gotten in for that house which was built the late 90’s. The new house, the same thing, concrete trucks, 18-wheelers with delivery. Access is fine. The Julians do live there next door full time. There is, I guess, maintenance that they do for plowing to get themselves in, and with the Lepperts being there, I guess, and Elaine could probably talk about that, but joint help for maintenance and plowing, but access is fine, as far as trees, accessibility, turning and so on. MR. URRICO-When I was there today I noticed a truck having to back into it, the property. MR. MASCHEWSKI-Yes, well, that’s for loading the rock, and in setting up my schedule for construction, I submitted for the building permit the first week of July, expecting somewhere around mid-July to be pulling the building permit, and kind of got caught off guard and had contracts set for clearing and blasting, and as we know, there’s not too many blasters around. So I had to fit in his schedule, and I had delayed the blasting for quite a while, to get in front of this Board, but the reason for backing in was loading. Instead of pulling in to the site, he had to back in and get the back end of the dump truck by the excavator. So there was a reason for it. MR. URRICO-But would an emergency vehicle have the same problem getting in there? I guess that’s what I’m asking. MR. MASCHEWSKI-I’m going to say no. Just from my experience with turning radiuses on highways and roads. I’ve spoken pretty in-depth to the Sheriff’s Department, and, you know, he kind of sounded like it was routine for private roads and so on, but, you know, I’m going to say no. I’ve built quite a few houses in tight areas on the lake, and had prove with North Queensbury with their EMT truck, that it can get in pretty tight locations. MR. ABBATE-Let me get to the bottom line of this and clear it all up. Is there a feasible alternative? MR. MASCHEWSKI-I don’t think so. MR. ABBATE-Why do you say that? 19 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/20/03) MR. MASCHEWSKI-Because the property is somewhat cornered in without Town road access. I mean, the only feasible alternative is purchase of additional lands adjoining Cleverdale Road. Just financially I don’t think that’s a. MR. ABBATE-Yes, well, see, I’m asking you because I don’t believe there is either, but I just want to be convinced. MR. MASCHEWSKI-Yes. I’d say, based on availability of land around the lake, and cost of land, that there really is no other alternative. MR. ABBATE-Thank you. MR. MASCHEWSKI-Okay. MR. BRYANT-These two lots at one time were one lot. Is that what happened? MR. MASCHEWSKI-I don’t know that much of the history of it, but I do know that there was multiple lands down there, and I’m going to say possibly, it was owned by the same owner, and it was subdivided back in the 70’s. MR. BRYANT-That long ago? MR. MASCHEWSKI-Yes. MR. BRYANT-So the subdivision is not your brainchild. MR. MASCHEWSKI-No. MR. BRYANT-Okay. Good. Thank you. MR. HAYES-So these are just pre-existing, nonconforming in the truest sense, I guess. MR. MASCHEWSKI-Yes. MR. HAYES-Okay. Are there any other questions for the applicant at this time? If not, I’ll open the public hearing. Is there anyone here that wishes to speak in favor of this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MICHEL JULIAN MR. JULIAN-My name is Michel Julian and I live on the lot south of the Lepperts, and like you said, I was granted the same variance in 1999. So I don’t see any reason not to do the same today. MR. HAYES-You’re in favor, then? MR. JULIAN-I’m in favor. MR. HAYES-Okay. Thank you very much. MR. JULIAN-Thank you. MR. HAYES-Is there anyone else that would like to speak in favor of the application? MONIQUE JULIAN 20 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/20/03) MRS. JULIAN-Yes. I’m in favor also. I’m Monique Julian. I live next door. I’m in favor also, and these two lots were determined 25 years ago to be building lots by APA. MR. HAYES-It would have been the Town at that time. Okay. All right. Thank you. Is there anyone else that would like to speak in favor of the application? JOHN SALVADOR, JR. MR. SALVADOR-I have some questions, not necessarily in favor or against. MR. HAYES-All right. Well, would you please come forward, Mr. Salvador. MR. SALVADOR-If I understand, Craig, the problem is that the private drive does not have sufficient width where it intersects Cleverdale Road? MR. BROWN-No, the issue is that this lot that they’re seeking to develop does not have frontage on a Town road. MR. SALVADOR-But it can front on a private road. MR. BROWN-The requirement says in order to develop a lot with a principal dwelling, it has to have frontage on a public highway. So that’s the variance. They don’t have frontage on a public highway. MR. SALVADOR-There is provision in Town law for development, residential development, on private roads, and that’s covered in, I believe it’s Section 286 of Town Law. The private road has to meet certain standards, but it doesn’t have to be a Town road, a public, not at all. MR. BROWN-Okay. MR. BRYANT-A night without Salvador is a night without sunshine. MR. SALVADOR-By the way, do I have standing to? MR. HAYES-I don’t think we have to deal with that at this time. MR. SALVADOR-Well, I think you should check that. There is, you can develop on a private road. MR. HAYES-Well, we’ll proceed with the application as it was made. MR. URRICO-Just as sort of a follow up to that question, in the Staff notes, the comment is made that no certificate of occupancy will be granted until the road is named. Now, if the road is named, is it then a Town road? MR. BROWN-No. MR. HAYES-No. To be a private road. MR. URRICO-It’s still a private road, but it’s named private road. MR. BROWN-It’s identifiable for 911 purposes. That’s correct. MR. MASCHEWSKI-And that’s actually what the Sheriff’s Department, and I think it was, speaking with Dave, the directions were a little boggled up, but now the Sheriff’s Department knows to go Cleverdale Road, Private Road 1, which would be a left on Private Road 1, left onto the new name, which has been in the process of, I think it’s Antler Way, Antler Road, or 21 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/20/03) something like that. So, you know, there is, like I said, the process underway for 911 to get to it. MR. HAYES-Are there any other questions for the applicant? Or actually I should, is there anyone that is opposed to the application? Any correspondence? MR. MC NULTY-No correspondence. MR. HAYES-Then I’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HAYES-Are there any other questions for the applicant at this time? If not, we’ll talk about it. I’ll start with Chuck. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you. I went over all the documentation that was submitted, and it looks like very good planning, and I kind of concur with those folks, and these folks here. This goes back to 25 years, 1977, whatever the case might be, and I really and truly don’t find any feasible alternative, and that’s not a negative statement. It’s really a positive statement. I think the building, the home is going to contribute significantly to the area. Your neighbors, the folks have no objections, and if they have no objections, I certainly have no objections, and I will support the application. MR. HAYES-Thank you. Chuck? MR. MC NULTY-I wished I knew more about the real reason for the requirement for the 40 foot frontage on a public road. I can think of some, we’ve mentioned some, one’s the emergency access to make sure there’s adequate emergency access to the property. I think possibly another reason for that requirement might be to control the number of driveways that were entering on a public road, and another one that occurs to me might be to just ensure that any developed property is positioned so that if there are Town services provided on the Town/public road later on, that they can get to the property, things like sewers or Town water or whatever. So I think there are some good reasons for requiring 40 foot frontage on a public road. Thinking in terms of alternative, obviously one is, yes, buy more property until you get frontage on a public road, but then unless you put your driveway onto the public road, you’ve still got to come in for a variance because even though you’ve got frontage on a public road, if you’re not using it, you need a variance. Another possibility would be to bring Private Road #1 and the new road up to Town standards and dedicate it to the Town. Feasible maybe not because of cost. That all being said, making allowance for the situation in that general area of Town, which is lakefront, semi- lakefront, there are a million pieces of property like this there, and I think access on Private Road #1 probably is better than at least a third of the other small roads in the lake area. I don’t believe there, economically, probably is a feasible alternative, and in this case, for that reason, I’d be in favor. MR. HAYES-Thank you. Joyce? MRS. HUNT-Yes. I agree with the previous statements. Since a variance was given for an identical piece of property, and there doesn’t seem to be any other way of solving the problem, I would be for it. MR. HAYES-Thank you. Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes. I’m in agreement. I think we touched on the feasible alternatives, so I won’t talk about that, but just cover the others. I don’t think it’ll change the character of the neighborhood. I think the neighborhood’s been defined, two houses, two lots there. The request is substantial, but that’s, as Chuck alluded to, is sort of due to a technicality, which we’ve dealt with before without any problem, and it’s not going to have a physical or 22 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/20/03) environmental detriment to the neighborhood either, and although it appears to be self-created, I think people have to get to their homes. So I think this is a good plan. I’d be in favor of it. MR. HAYES-Thank you. Allan? MR. BRYANT-Well, I want to say up front, based on something that Mr. McNulty said, that I don’t like the application, you know, from the standpoint that there are hundreds of properties with the same problem, but that being said, we can’t, in conscience, deny you the opportunity to use your property. You have a piece of property which has been a building lot from the 1970’s, it’s been a legal building lot, and we can’t, in conscience, deny you that opportunity to use it, you know, as such, so, in that regard, I agree with what the other Board members say. It’s really not going to change the character of the neighborhood. It’s unfortunate that that’s the way the lot was developed, but we can’t do anything about it now, so we have to go with it. So I’d vote yes for the application. MR. HAYES-Thank you, Allan. Well, I essentially agree. I mean, this is a pre-existing lot, and we’ve dealt with this circumstance before. In visiting this site, I did not see any overriding reason, as a detriment to the neighborhood, to not allow the owners of the property to develop it in way that is entirely consistent with the rest of the neighborhood. I certainly agree with Staff notes that the adequacy of accessibility has to be maintained and examined, but I’m not an engineer, but it appeared to me that those requirements could have been met, at least the intention or part of the intention for the 40 foot minimum, that part of it could have been met. So I’m in favor of the application. Having said that, would someone like to make a motion? MR. ABBATE-All right. I’ll take it, Mr. Chairman. MR. HAYES-Thank you, Chuck. MR. ABBATE-Sure. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 72-2003 KEVIN MASCHEWSKI, Introduced by Charles Abbate who moved for its adoption, seconded by Allan Bryant: Private Rd. 1, off Cleverdale Rd. The applicant proposes construction of a single family dwelling and seeks relief from the minimum road frontage requirements. He seeks 40 feet of relief from the 40 foot minimum road frontage requirement per Section 179-4-090. Now, the question is this, whether this change is going to be undesirable. In my opinion, Mr. Chairman, I don’t believe it will. I think it will add to the character of the neighborhood. Board members made several comments about the situation, but unfortunately this goes back to the Year 1977, and I don’t think it would be fair to deny the applicant use of his property. Two, the benefit sought by the applicant, can this be achieved by some method feasible for the applicant to pursue other than an Area Variance? And quite frankly, I said this initially, I don’t see how, and I have been convinced, Mr. Chairman, that there is no feasible alternative, and, three, whether the requested Area Variance is substantial. Yes, it is. No one can take that away, it is substantial. However, because of the 1977, 1999 variances that go back almost 25 years, this is a buildable lot, so to speak. Four, whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district, I don’t believe it will, and, five, whether the difficulty is self-created, it wasn’t created by the applicant. It probably was created back in 1977, and I don’t believe we can hold the applicant responsible for that. So based upon this, Mr. Chairman and fellow Board members, I move that we approve Area Variance No. 72-2003. Duly adopted this 20 day of August, 2003, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Bryant, Mr. Abbate, Mr. McNulty, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Hayes NOES: NONE 23 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/20/03) ABSENT: Mr. Himes, Mr. Stone MR. HAYES-The motion is carried. MR. MASCHEWSKI-Thank you very much. (ADDRESSING PREVIOUS APPLICATION FILE FROM YEAR 1997) AREA VARIANCE NO. 77-1997 SEQRA TYPE: UNLISTED PAUL SCHUERLEIN AGENT: JONATHAN C. LAPPER, ESQ. OWNER: PAUL SCHUERLEIN ZONING: UR-10 LOCATION: 188 DIXON ROAD APPLICANT REQUESTS A REHEARING TO CHANGE THE RELIEF AND PROVIDE FOR THE USE OF THE BUILDING BY TWO BUSINESSES; SCHUERLEIN PLUMBING & HEATING AND KELLWOOD CABINETRY. CROSS REFERENCE: NOTICE OF APPEAL NO. 2-2003; UV 77-1997 APPROVED NOV. 24, 1997 LOT SIZE: 0.32 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 302.09-1-2 SECTION: 179-4-020 JON LAPPER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HAYES-For members of the public, and the Board, the applicant has requested a re- hearing, which has the unique circumstance of requiring a vote to do so, to entertain the variance in and of itself. That vote, in order to carry, needs to be unanimous. MR. BRYANT-But before you say anything, I just want to ask, I notice the, now they came before us with a Use Variance recently, right? MR. MC NULTY-It was an appeal. MR. LAPPER-It was an appeal of a determination by Craig. MR. HAYES-Right. MR. BRYANT-It was an appeal. MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. BRYANT-So we’re going back to the 1997? MR. LAPPER-We’re asking you to, and I’ll explain why, to re-open that. MR. BRYANT-Is there some kind of statute of limitations on these things? MR. LAPPER-No. MR. BRYANT-They’re open forever? MR. LAPPER-If the Board unanimously agrees, I think you can do it at any time. MR. BRYANT-Okay. That’s my question. Thank you. I’m sorry. MR. HAYES-Mr. Lapper? MR. LAPPER-Okay. For the record, Jon Lapper. I’m with the property owner, Paul Schuerlein to my right, and Rich Kellwood to my left. Paul has a plumbing and heating business, and Rich has a countertop business. We’re not asking for, we’re hoping that at the end of this discussion the Board will unanimously grant us the re-hearing but we’re not asking for the re-hearing to be tonight. Staff notes indicated that if the Board deemed it appropriate to have a re-hearing, that it probably would be appropriate to schedule that for next month, that and is our request. So we’re asking that after we make our presentation that you grant us the re-hearing, but we’d like to come back and have a re-hearing next month so we can be fully prepared, but very simply, 24 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/20/03) I’d just like to explain that, in 1997, Paul Schuerlein came in and sought and received a Use Variance for this property. The property is obviously a business building in a residential zone, on Dixon Road. It was a carpet business before it became the plumbing and heating business. When Paul came in and sought that relief, the relief was granted because of the nature of the property, that it wasn’t a residential property, obviously, and the Board felt that the relief that he requested at that plumbing and heating business wouldn’t have an adverse impact on the neighborhood, and they granted it, with minimum relief. At that time, Paul envisioned that his business would be, you know, somewhat akin to Jack Hall Plumbing and Heating, that the Board’s probably familiar with on Bay Road, which has probably a dozen pretty red trucks outside in a building that is substantially smaller than Paul’s building. This building is approximately 3,000 square feet. My point in saying that is that under the present variance, without any relief from this or any other Board, Paul could have a dozen plumbers working for him with, you know, a dozen or more trucks on that site, and that’s what that Use Variance allows. It wouldn’t require any change to the building. It’s a big building that’s there. When he moved into the building in ’97, he determined, you know, like other businesses, you can make money being big or being by yourself, and sometimes not in the middle. Law firms are much like that, but he determined that he was just going to be on his own, and he didn’t need the 3,000 square foot size building for his business, and it was too much building for him and he needed some help carrying it. So, Rich Kellwood’s business is making countertops. Rich is also like Paul, employee’s no one. Has just his one or two vehicles that he uses for making and delivering the countertops. The point is that these two businesses together are, even though they are, yes, two businesses, so we’re asking to change the relief that was requested, they are far less intensive than what you could do, not even close to maxing out that building, in terms of the number of people, the number of vehicles, the amount of noise, the amount of activity. The Board at that time said that it can’t be used as a retail showroom, and neither of them have any customers that come to the site. So it complies with the most important condition that it wouldn’t be impacting the neighborhood because you’d have a lot of traffic and a lot of customers, and they don’t have any, but what Rich does, he primarily makes kitchen countertops for dentists offices, for C.R. Bard, which is, you know, one of the largest Queensbury employers, and as it’s been explained to me, they, because of their process of making these catheters, that they cut through their countertops at some point, and he is constantly replacing their countertops in that large facility. So he is, and not that this is the reason to give him any special consideration, but a lifelong Queensbury resident, Queensbury business. He’s the second chief of the, Fire Chief of the Queensbury Central and being in that location is a good central location for answering fire calls. Just two guys who are hardworking and utilizing that building a lot less than what a large plumbing and heating business could do. So, for those reasons, I’m asking that the Board deem it appropriate to let us open it up, and request a change in the relief that was granted. The Board acknowledged the need for a variance because it wasn’t a residential building, and it wasn’t feasible to make it into a residential building, but that we now are asking for a change in the relief so that these two businesses can operate there with less intensity than one big one. The other crucial point is that Rich’s business, and really both of them, under the Town Code, could act as, could qualify as home occupations because they each don’t employ anybody else. They don’t have any signs. They don’t have anyone coming to the property. So Rich could be working out of his garage in a residential neighborhood, which arguably would be more of an impact on his residential neighborhood because that would be a change in character from, you know, what his neighbors are doing in their house, even though that would also not require an approval, because as long as he doesn’t employ anybody else, and he does countertops in his garage, that is permitted as a home occupation. So it is ironic that what he could do with a home occupation he can’t do in this building without some relief from this Board, but for those reasons, I’m asking you to allow us to come back and to make our case, which is essentially the case that I’ve just made, as to why it will not be any detriment to the neighborhood and still a minimum variance. MR. HAYES-Craig, is that accurate about the home occupied business? MR. BROWN-I don’t know. That’s what I’m looking up right now. MR. HAYES-Okay. 25 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/20/03) MR. BRYANT-I don’t think you can have the commercial trucks with your names on them. PAU SCHEURLEIN MR. SCHUERLEIN-Rich does not have a commercial truck. MR. LAPPER-I know that he’s talked to Dave Hatin about that aspect of it, and Dave indicated that he could. MR. BRYANT-Actually, you’re allowed one employee in a home business. MR. LAPPER-Yes, and he doesn’t even have that. MR. SCHUERLEIN-Rich doesn’t have a lettered truck or anything like that. So, yes, he could work home, and I would have a little bit more of a problem, because I have a big lettered truck, but it’s certainly a lot less impact, even with Rich being there. It’s really, no one even knows that. MR. BRYANT-Does he make the countertops there, is that what it is? MR. SCHUERLEIN-Yes, manufacturing, yes. MR. HAYES-Does anyone else have any questions for the applicant or his agent at this time? Chuck? It’s not like you not to. MR. ABBATE-Well, I wasn’t going to raise these issues, but I was under the impression that we were going to do a motion or not do a motion, but counsel has decided to reinforce the argument. One of the members of the Board has decided to ask questions. I would like to ask the Chairman and my fellow Board members for permission to explain, if they really want to hear it, why the case that was cited by Counsel was inappropriate, and doesn’t fit what he’s really asking for. If you don’t feel it’s appropriate, I’ll let it go. MR. LAPPER-I’d rather hear it, so we could possibly respond. MR. ABBATE-It’s up to you. MR. HAYES-Well, I think we have the time tonight. MR. ABBATE-Okay. All right. All right, I’ll do it. The last time that we met, I presented seven areas rejecting your arguments. Since then, I checked out the Lexus Nexus area of the cited cases that you presented to this Board. However, a close review reveals that one of the cases you cited but failed to highlight was that a condition that the top part of the premises be occupied by the applicant as a home. That is totally inapplicable to this case, and the other case you cited, you also failed to mention that there was a condition, and that that condition stated that no access from the property to a particular street. Now the applicant in that case hunted to remove that condition and requested a second driveway, which is totally inappropriate to your claims of why this should be justified, and in my opinion neither of those cases applied, Mr. Chairman. MR. LAPPER-Let me explain, as a matter of law, where I was going with that. I was looking for procedural cases. So I was talking about the procedural aspect of where a condition was being modified. I couldn’t find a case that talked about these, you know, anything specific to a plumbing and heating and a cabinet, countertop. MR. ABBATE-I understand that. 26 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/20/03) MR. LAPPER-So in terms of legal reasoning, I was just talking about the, what we were doing last time was completely different. That was trying to make the argument that these businesses are so similar that it would fall within the ambit of what was granted, and obviously Craig was careful to narrowly interpreted it and the Board granted, you know, we didn’t argue with that. We didn’t fight with that. We’re here asking for reconsideration, but I want you to understand that I wasn’t trying to pull the wool over your eyes. I mean, I was arguing about it procedurally to say what the standards are when you’re trying to get a condition modified, but those conditions, I agree, are completely different conditions than the kind of thing we’re talking about here, but it was just for that procedural aspect. MR. ABBATE-Then we do agree. MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. ABBATE-See, it was my impression that you were attempting to use an all inclusive elongated paint roller to present your case. MR. LAPPER-I can see where you could view it that way, but that wasn’t my intention. I was just trying to find case law that could be analogous. MR. ABBATE-I’m glad that we agree. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. MR. LAPPER-I apologize. MR. HAYES-No problem. Are there any other questions for the applicant at this time? If not, I guess, there’s no public hearing on this one because essentially it has to do with a motion whether we’re going to re-hear it or not. So I don’t think that’s a necessity. MR. LAPPER-Right. That’s up to you guys. MR. HAYES-Do you have an answer to that question about the home occupied business? MR. BROWN-I do. In reading the home occupation section, it does appear that the Kellwood use could fall into the home occupation use with a bunch of limiting criteria, size, noise, you know, all the other things that I’m sure could comply. MR. SCHUERLEIN-We’re just two guys doing work. MR. LAPPER-He agrees with us, so be quiet. MR. ABBATE-Yes, be careful, because then I’ll raise the issue of formaldehyde, which is toxic fumes. MR. SCHUERLEIN-You can raise that. MR. BROWN-I guess the short answer looks like yes. MR. HAYES-We should stay on the point. Okay. All right. Does anyone else have a question for the applicant at this time? Okay. I think the easiest way to handle this is to make a motion to re-hear the case, and if it passes it passes, and it if doesn’t, it doesn’t. Does everyone agree? MR. BRYANT-Yes. MR. ABBATE-Yes. MR. HAYES-Okay. 27 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/20/03) MOTION TO ENTERTAIN THE RE-HEARING OF USE VARIANCE NO. 77-1997 MR. PAUL SCHEURLEIN, Introduced by Paul Hayes who moved for its adoption, seconded by Allan Bryant: 188 Dixon Rd. Duly adopted this 20 day of August, 2003, by the following vote: th MR. ABBATE-Mr. Chairman, may I explain my quagmire here, or do you just want me to vote? MR. HAYES-Well, I think it’s time to vote, in the sense that we’re not really entertaining the merits of the re-hearing at this time. We’re just deciding whether we’re going to re-hear it or not. MR. MC NULTY-And there are still options available to the applicant if we vote not to re-hear it. He can still come in for a Use Variance. We’re talking about a re-hearing of an old one right now. There’s nothing that prevents him from coming in and requesting an additional Use Variance. MR. HAYES-Is that true? MR. LAPPER-Well, I want to explain why, because that would have been procedurally simpler to do that, but the issues that were the case then, in terms of the building, he’s already there, and it just gets complicated because Paul’s been operating it there, in terms of the Use Variance. The issue now is that he’s got a vacant building and. MR. HAYES-Try to continue the logic, essentially. MR. LAPPER-Yes. It’s just a more complicated case to start over again. So it’s just, to just, we’re just asking for a day in court t try and present this, and, you know, obviously, you’ll have to go through the standards and see if you’re comfortable, but it just, it makes more sense, since the Board already agreed that the building was not suitable for residential, that to not have to get into that again. MR. ABBATE-Yes, but see, now you’re opening the door which is going to allow me to explain my situation here. Because one vote will deny you. MR. LAPPER-Yes, that’s right. MR. ABBATE-And my problem is, I feel I’m in a quagmire here. I feel that every individual has a right to present an argument, you know, and should one vote prevent any individual from presenting their argument, and as a former member of the judiciary, I say, well, if I were a judge, would I deny an attorney to come before the court and not hear the argument, I wouldn’t do that. Even though the records will indicate that I’m not in favor of your application, but my quagmire, do I have the right to one vote to deny you this, and I don’t think I do. I think that the position, in the standard of fairness, even though I don’t agree with you, that I have no choice by saying that you have an inherent right to present your case, and so, while I strenuously disagree with him, Mr. Chairman, I’m going to have to say yes, vote yes. MR. LAPPER-Thank you. MS. GAGLIARDI-Mr. McNulty? MR. MC NULTY-Sorry, no. MR. ABBATE-Thank you, Chuck. AYES: Mr. Bryant, Mr. Abbate, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Hayes 28 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/20/03) NOES: Mr. McNulty ABSENT: Mr. Himes, Mr. Stone MR. BRYANT-Could I ask a question, Mr. Chairman, before you wrap this up? MR. HAYES-Before I give them the bad news? MR. BRYANT-Yes. Were you saying just now, I’m trying to understand this. Are you saying that this process, now, re-hearing 77-1997, is more complicated than just applying for a new variance? MR. LAPPER-No, less complicated. MR. MC NULTY-He’s claiming the other way around. MR. LAPPER-Yes, because at the time, 77 was the time to make the argument that it wasn’t suitable to be converted to a residence, that it’s already been used by plumbing and heating, so it’s more complicated to make the Use Variance argument now, because, I mean, it could be used, it could be filled up with plumbing and heating. The problem is that his business doesn’t require him to hire a dozen people and to fill it up, you know, to utilize the space and then earn more of an income from the building. MR. BRYANT-Yes, but one of the things you’re going to have to show, if you come back with a new variance, is that he needs this business to be economically viable. MR. HAYES-That might be precisely the question. He doesn’t want to have to prove, essentially. That would be more difficult. MR. LAPPER-Yes. I mean, we have to get into all the financial stuff, which was already done once, and I’d just rather be talking about the impact of the burden on the neighborhood versus the benefit to the applicant type. MR. HAYES-Maybe being exposed to part of the tests versus all of it, essentially. MR. LAPPER-Right, exactly. MR. BRYANT-Before we took our vote, you didn’t give us the opportunity to express the reasoning behind the vote. I’m curious why Mr. McNulty wouldn’t. MR. HAYES-We don’t traditionally do that on these procedural. MR. BRYANT-I understand that, but, I mean, I’m not understanding. MR. MC NULTY-I’m willing to explain it, if you want, if you want to take the time, as long as we don’t have someone else we’re holding up. Two or three points I think. One, the request was for a re-hearing, but what I was hearing was we don’t want a re-hearing. We don’t want you to look, again, at whether or not there should be a plumbing business there. We only want you to talk about adding a cabinet business. To me, that’s not a re-hearing, and that request can be made through a regular Use Variance request. Just a Use Variance request to add a cabinet business. Also, the justification six years ago on finances and real estate dollar amounts and what not probably are not totally applicable today. Things have changed in the real estate market. Now the answer still may come out the same, but I based it partly on that, that to me, if we were going to re-hear it, I wanted to re-hear the whole thing, and, frankly, I would have voted no on that even if they’d agreed, because I don’t think that would have been fair to the applicant, because he’d be risking the whole works, and I don’t think that’s what they intended to do. I also know there is at least one person that is very upset about the business being over 29 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/20/03) there, elderly lady who had come in to the Town offices a couple of days ago, and I think she needs an opportunity to be heard on the justification based on today, not based on six years ago. MR. BRYANT-Yes, but my understanding of this whole thing, and I might be wrong, Mr. Chairman, if you re-hear something, if you re-visit this, you do have the opportunity of saying there shouldn’t be any business there. If you leave it the way it is, and correct me if I’m wrong, if you leave it the way it is, and you add, for a Use Variance, to add a business on to it, that condition does not exist. So what you’re saying is completely opposite of how you voted. MR. MC NULTY-No, what I’m saying, if we re-heard it, in my opinion. MR. BRYANT-You have the opportunity to negate the whole thing. MR. MC NULTY-Right. We’d have the opportunity to say, no, we don’t think there should be a plumbing business there. We don’t think there should be a cabinet business there. MR. BRYANT-But you don’t want that opportunity. Is that what you’re saying? MR. MC NULTY-It would be nice to have that opportunity, but at the same time, I don’t think it’s fair to the applicant, and I don’t think that’s what the applicant wanted. I think what the applicant was hoping for is that we would “re-hear” but only pay attention to the cabinet business which, at the moment, is not a legal operation at that location, and I feel, if that’s what they want to do, then they should do it by coming in for a new Use Variance for just the cabinet. MR. BRYANT-I understand how you voted now. Thank you for the explanation. MR. HAYES-I have one question for Craig, and possibly Jon, now. Does applying for a new variance place the previously approved variance in jeopardy or somehow nullify, like in this particular case, would that be? MR. LAPPER-No. I think I agree with Chuck on that, that if we apply for a new variance, which, I mean, I’ll have to talk to the guys, but I guess probably we will do that because there’s no other choice but to do that at this point, but we would be saying that we already have an existing approved Use Variance use, and we would be applying to change that, but it wouldn’t put in jeopardy, that was already granted. I don’t believe that it does, as far as I’m concerned. MR. HAYES-I would think it would. I mean, it would be like some kind of retroactive change of the Board at that time, which doesn’t seem appropriate. MR. BROWN-Well, no, I think if you consider not just the Use Variance, consider Area Variances, you can have a property with five Area Variances. You could certainly have a property with multiple Use Variances on it. MR. LAPPER-That’s a good point. Sure. MR. BROWN-I don’t see any problem with that. MR. HAYES-Okay. MR. LAPPER-I guess if nothing else, I hope that we leave the Board with at least the knowledge that we’ve got two guys that have no employees that are, you know, pretty minor use, even though some of the neighbors may have issues, and the best way to get that on the table is to have a hearing, and hopefully we’ll be back in two months, I guess, to do that, because we would have just missed the deadline for September, but in any case, I’m sorry we didn’t get a unanimous vote. Thank you for the discussion, and perhaps we’ll be back to talk about it in October. MR. HAYES-Certainly. 30 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/20/03) RICH SIMMS MR. SIMMS-Could I take a minute. Just to clear up, my last name is Simms, not Kellwood. Kellwood is just a name that I named it, just for purposes of when these businesses that I do business with call me, you know, they just wanted a name to put on the check and stuff like that, but I understand, Mr. Abbate, you have some concerns. My question to the entire Board is, what would you like from me, the next time I come in, to answer any questions that you have? I understand your formaldehyde issue. I did get some information on that. I don’t have it here with me tonight. MR. ABBATE-My response would be, that’s up to your attorney to research it out, not me. MR. SIMMS-Okay. MR. LAPPER-The reason that I haven’t been dealing with Rich is that Paul owns the property, and I’ve been dealing with Paul, but we’ll have those answers and come back. Thank you. MR. HAYES-Okay. All right. Well, the motion to re-hear Area Variance 77-1997 does not carry. I guess we need to put that on the record. MR. BRYANT-I have a couple of things to say, not relative to this. First of all. It’s amazing Mr. McNulty’s logic. He actually did the applicant a favor by rejecting it, but anyway, I never even though of it from that angle, and I appreciate that. The thing that I want to do is I want to make a formal request, and put it on the record, that I’d like to receive a copy of the Planning Board’s minutes for the August 19 meeting, that’s yesterday’s meeting. If I could do that. I think all th the members should get a copy of those minutes. That’s what I had to ask. MR. HAYES-Okay. Have you got that, Craig? MR. BROWN-That’s easy. It probably won’t be until September’s meetings, it takes a couple, three weeks to get them typed up. MR. BRYANT-That’s fine. MR. BROWN-They’re rather lengthy, but as soon as we have them available, we’ll get them to you. MR. BRYANT-Thank you very much. MR. BROWN-If it’s not at the regular meeting, they’ll be in the mail special to you. MR. HAYES-Okay. All right. Well, we’ll take care of that. Okay. If there’s no further business before the Board, I’ll call the meeting adjourned. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Paul Hayes, Acting Chairman 31