The URL can be used to link to this page

2003-11-19 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/19/03) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 19, 2003 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT LEWIS STONE, CHAIRMAN JAMES UNDERWOOD ALLAN BRYANT CHARLES ABBATE ROY URRICO PAUL HAYES JOYCE HUNT, ALTERNATE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR-CRAIG BROWN STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI NEW BUSINESS: SIGN VARIANCE NO. 83-2003 SEQRA TYPE: UNLISTED NORTHWAY PLAZA ASSOC./EMPIRE VISION AGENT: JONATHAN C. LAPPER, ESQ. OWNER: NORTHWAY PLAZA ASSOC., LLC ZONING: HC-INT. LOCATION: NORTHWAY PLAZA, ROUTE 9 APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO PLACE A 36 SQ. FT. SIGN ON THE EXISTING MAIN PYLON SIGN. RELIEF SOUGHT FROM SIGN ORDINANCE. CROSS REFERENCE: SPR 12-2002, AV 54-2002, PZ 1-2002, SV 59-2002 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: 10/8/03 TAX MAP NO. 296.18-1-47, 46 LOT SIZE: 22.87 AC., 10.62 AC. SECTION: 140-6B3d2a JON LAPPER & BILL DUTCH, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Sign Variance No. 83-2003, Northway Plaza Assoc./Empire Vision, Meeting Date: November 19, 2003 “Project Location: Northway Plaza, Route 9 Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of 36 sf sign addition to the existing freestanding sign. Relief Required: Applicant requests relief for the construction of the 36 sf Empire Vision sign. Previously, a sign variance (SV 59-2002) which included relief for a 30 foot tall, 264 sf freestanding sign and 10 feet of setback relief for a 2 freestanding plaza sign. nd Therefore, the relief sought in this case would be to allow a 300 sf freestanding sign versus the allowable 64 sq. ft allowed pursuant to §140-6,3,(d). Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): Numerous building permits and sign permits have been issued for this plaza and the changes in tenancy. Most notable and applicable is SV 59-2002 referenced above. Staff comments: Does the request for a 300 sf sign versus the 64 sf requirement appear to be an excessive request? Would removal of the 2 freestanding sign in favor of this proposed signage be a nd feasible alternative? Reduction of the oversized Home Depot sign? Will each tenant in the plaza seek to be named on this sign? Recently, Home Depot sought to increase the wall signage at their location. In the end, they chose to reconfigure the exiting signage, included in AV 59- 2002, in order to accommodate the new signage with no net increase. Is a similar reconfiguration possible with the proposed Empire Vision Sign and the existing freestanding plaza sign(s)?” 1 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/19/03) MR. STONE-Just for the record, looking back, County, Warren County Planning Board considered this and said there was no County impact. Mr. Lapper. MR. LAPPER-Good evening. For the record, Jon Lapper with Bill Dutch. Bill is the managing member of the ownership company, and I asked him to come out tonight from Syracuse so that he could address you personally. We all know how serious this Board takes Sign Variance applications and how they’re scrutinized, and of course that’s a good thing because Queensbury is better for that, not having an excess of number signs or too large signs. That said this is an extremely important application for this applicant for this Plaza, and I’d like to start out just going through a little bit of the history of what we’ve done so far, because the developer is not done with the Plaza and I want to just put everything on the table so that the Board understands where we are, where we’ve come from and where we’re going. It’s not the case of coming back later, of asking a little at a time and trying to get some more after you already got a variance. What’s gone on here is that, as you know, this was a really tired old Plaza before Bill was able to put the Home Depot deal together, and that enabled him to complete reconfigure the Plaza to move the post office to a better location, more centrally located, for something that’s really a public service, more visible. It allowed him to consolidate the other smaller retail uses, re-do the façade there, and as you probably, I think we’ve discussed this briefly in the past but also it’s been in the newspapers that we have a lease for a Friday’s restaurant to replace Monroe in the front, and we’re working on relocating Monroe now. That’s a real big visual issue on that part of the Plaza because Monroe’s not a very good looking site for the main intersection coming in to the Town at Exit 19 with the garage bays facing the intersection, and we’re looking forward to coming back with that, certainly within the next three or four months. Part of the problem with this Plaza is that the office building section where Empire Vision is located is oriented away from Route 9 and towards the Home Depot building. That’s fine for an accounting office, which is a destination tenant, because you’re not going to drive by and say, gee, maybe I’ll go an accountant today. So a lot of the business offices that are in there didn’t need signage and that hasn’t been a problem. In order to change the mix in the Plaza, what Bill has negotiated is Panera Bread, which you may or may not be familiar with. There’s one in Saratoga. It’s an up and coming national chain, high end restaurant, and they have agreed to take the Empire Vision space, which is about 4,000 square feet, and in fact increase that, expand that, to 5,000 square feet, and in order to do that, Bill has negotiated so that Empire Vision will relocate. They would take the next space. They’re going to be approximately 4,000 square feet, and they would be the next space in that office building, beyond Panera Bread. In order to do that, he’s had to agree with them that he would pursue this application. Empire Vision won’t move to this inferior space, which doesn’t have visibility, unless they have the pylon sign, unless they’re visible from the street with a sign, because their space certainly won’t be visible, and having Panera Bread in the Plaza is really important because, with all of the office workers at Travelers, with the workers within the Plaza, and even just in that area, there aren’t, right there, there isn’t a sit down restaurant so everyone has to get on to the roadway and drive and go to Olive Garden or go somewhere else. So to make the Plaza function better as a unit, to have a restaurant, a full service restaurant there, is important for lunches, and Fridays will probably accomplish that as well. It’s a little bit more of a formal sit down waitress service, but those two together should really be a nice mix to, both visually and in terms of making the upgrade of the buildings, but also in terms of the use of the Plaza. It also is a good tenant for vacant space because a good portion of the office plaza is, the office building in the plaza is vacant now. So, in terms of the benefit to the applicant, they’ve spent considerable money on the Home Depot deal because the site work was just incredibly involved. The benefits to the Town from that project included redoing the entrance driveway, which used to be pretty dangerous, because of the slope of the drive, but also just the whole way the plaza is set up now, with the vegetation, with the drive aisles, it used to be kind of a free for all, and it’s been widely acknowledged that that’s a multi-million dollar very expensive, but a well thought out improvement. We added a lot of landscaping which will mature over the next few years and help to buffer the buildings from the road, and all in all, this has been viewed as a very positive project, which also included a lot of important stormwater controls that weren’t there because the plaza was built before people thought too much about that. So the water that was flowing 2 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/19/03) untreated into Halfway Brook is now being treated. In terms of the impact on the neighborhood, and again, I’m as aware as anybody how careful this Board is with Sign Variances. When you look at the pylon sign for the Home Depot, the main sign that we’re talking about here, yes, that’s a large sign. Home Depot got a 12 by 12 sign. The reason for that is because the Home Depot building, which replaced the old Steinbach’s, is located so far back that that was unique, and the Board granted that because of the lack of visibility of that building, because of where it was located. To add a 36 square foot sign underneath the two tenant signs that are there is really going to be minor in terms of the impact on the neighborhood. You can say, yes, at some point 36, plus 36, plus 36, it gets to be a big deal, but if you look at this pylon sign, it fits between the two poles that are there now, what it basically blocks, when you’re driving up Route 9, is the view of the front of the Empire Vision building, when you’re looking underneath it looking through it. So I don’t think that having this 36 square foot of sign takes away from anything, and it’s really important to Bill and to the Plaza to accomplish this, to get Panera Bread in, to re-tenant this. Let me, at this point, turn it over to Bill, and just ask him to give you his perspective as the majority owner. MR. DUTCH-Thank you. As Jon said, my name is Bill Dutch, and my partnership, I’ve been involved with this property since 1989, August of 1989. We’ve made a commitment to this project and to Queensbury for that entire duration, I’m sure many of you are aware that we like others in our business suffered tremendously. Through the 90’s we had a number of unfortunate bankruptcies that plagued the property. We never gave up our faith in it and it was kind of a miracle that we were able to induce Home Depot to come in here. For us, it was a catalyst for a rejuvenation of this Center, and that together with our ability to be able to convince Travelers to stay in Queensbury, and a lot of that was our efforts, despite the fact that all the other assets that this community has to offer Travelers, we have bent over backwards for Travelers over the years, investing money in both expansion and contraction of their spaces, as time has ensued. Most recently, we have renewed our commitment with Travelers. It’s always a volatile one because insurance companies typically do not sign long-term agreements and it makes for a lot of sleepless nights on the parts of developers like myself, because these are usually typically five year arrangements, and the five years goes by before you know it, but I’m sure most of you are aware of the news that’s been published that Travelers is merging with the St. Paul. I think that’s great news for our stability here with this tenant, and not only in Queensbury, but there is a chance that they may enhance and decide to grow again. In the meantime our thrust has been to re-tenant this property with people who will be meaningful, with tenants who will be meaningful with the community, not just to throw tenants in to this center, which we very well could have done with the empty space that we had. Instead, we held out for what we thought, long term was both most beneficial for us and the community. Panera Bread is one of those types of tenants. They were hand picked by us. We pursued them. They did not have any interest in this market when we began to speak with them. They’re represented by the same broker that represented TJI Friday’s, in bringing us that deal, and we begged, pleaded, cajoled, whatever we could to say Panera would be a great tenant. TJI Friday’s had a restriction in their lease with us that did not allow competition of any sort, from any other casual dining theme or food use. We were able to, at an economic cost, to negotiation that clause out of the lease to enable a Panera Bread there. Home Depot also had a clause which restricted a food use, which we’ve been able to negotiate the release and waiver of, too. A lot of these more important tenants, more creditworthy ones, are more finicky. They worry about restaurant parking and issues like that which none of these restaurants present a problem for, but given that whole history, we were saddled with one thing. There was only one place to put Panera in this center. There are no other options for us. Number One is that Friday’s did not want them next door to them, or adjacent because it was somewhat competitive, and secondly, the Empire Vision space was an end cap. Empire Vision’s headquarters are in Syracuse. The principles of that company are, I’m personally acquainted with, and I can say are friends of mine, but that didn’t mean that they would move automatically. I’ve had to make them rent concessions, and other things, but the most important thing was they’ve established the business over a 14 year period and have continued to grow it and they like their position and their visibility, and moving them did not come without expense to me, but the most important thing is the identity on that sign panel, which they’ve agreed, reluctantly, to give up, if we can get them the panel, they’ll move. That will trigger a number of other moves that will facilitate 3 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/19/03) us being able to make this deal with Panera a reality in 2004. We already have a construction schedule. I have to move other tenants where Empire’s going, more or less governmental and service tenants down to the end of our center where the Department of Labor is, which makes a lot of sense for us to have the retail service and food uses up at the corners, and the more prominent end. Obviously with that office center that we inherited when we bought this property, that the original developer finished off to complete the project. It’s an important source of revenue for us. We could never afford to demolish it. We certainly can’t provide any visibility by coming to you and asking you to paint the backs of those buildings. This makes the most sense, this relief. We also intend to, once we get Panera in, to reface that tired, yodelish looking Swiss chalet image into something that will match the façade we’ve already design, that will match the façade which you’ve already seen us do, at great expense, on the balance of the Plaza that’s there. I anticipate all these things will be done in the spring, but I do know unequivocally that Empire will not move unless I get this relief for them, and that would be a shame, because I think Panera is the kind of tenant that Queensbury will welcome with open arms and will provide many, you know, alternatives for people. I will add this, and I’m not one to let the cat out of the bag, because I feel I’m very superstitious, as I was with Home Depot, but we have been actively pursuing, for the last two years, Barnes and Noble, to finish off the center on that end of the center, and it’s no secret. I’m building a Barnes and Noble freestanding facility in Syracuse, and I have a relationship with them, and they are open, they’re just about to open in Niskayuna and they have other units in smaller communities, and we’re trying to convince them that that is the perfect match for Glens Falls. I’m not giving anything away because it’s no secret that we’re pursuing them, and we’re pursuing them. It’s not them pursuing us. We think that that would be the perfect end to this rather long and arduous what I would like to term will be a success story, for all of us, not only for my partners and I, but for the community, so, with that being said, I don’t think I could do anything but be more redundant. Thank you for your time. MR. LAPPER-Just so that the Board understands, the location of where Bill is trying to put Barnes and Noble is at the end, behind where Monroe Muffler is, that 23,000 square feet, parallel to Quaker Road is what Travelers gave up. So that’s available to be converted back to retail, and it’s a good mix to have the restaurant use of Friday’s with the bookstore. They’re just compatible uses or they’re deemed to have similar markets. So they’d each like to have each other there. The Staff raised questions of, hey, every time you make a change is everybody going to require a sign on the pylon, and we tried to anticipate that at the time that we came in for the variances for Home Depot, and in fact the second pylon, the smaller Home Depot pylon, has two vacant spaces on it. One of those would be for, it’s reserved for whoever would go in to that end cap as Bill describes it, hopefully a bookstore, and underneath that would be the Panera Bread. So those are already accounted for, and we don’t expect to be back to talk about that. MR. DUTCH-I was going to say. Panera chose the smaller, what we call the junior pylon because it gives the customer an opportunity to identify where they are before they reach the Plaza, the majority of the traffic, similarly, but Empire Vision’s customers would notably miss them being there on the corner and assume that they’re not in the center anymore, and that was their concern. They wanted that panel on the driveway, closest to where their store was located. There are two other points, for what they’re worth, and I’d just add this in passing, is that a large monstrosity sign that we had for years and years, that was grandfathered there, is no longer there. That was an eyesore, and I believe it was much larger than what we have here. In addition, the panel we’re asking for Empire is the smaller of the two panels that are no the pylon now that you have approved. It’s not four by twelve. It’s three by twelve. So we weren’t going for the enchilada here. We’re just trying to create an identity for them. MR. LAPPER-And what Bill’s talking about is on the big pylon, the top sign that’s there now, which is the Peter Harris clothes, is larger, what we’re talking about is the same as the smaller one underneath it. MR. DUTCH-Yes, but there’s a color rendition of what exists now. MR. LAPPER-Yes. 4 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/19/03) MR. DUTCH-This is a photo of what is there now. Okay. MR. LAPPER-And I guess I want to leave you with the impression, before we take your questions, that just to understand that this is not the case of somebody coming back and asking for a little more, a little more. This is part of a sort of a metamorphosis of the plaza, and it wasn’t something that was anticipated or predicted two years ago that Bill would be able to accomplish this with Panera Bread, and he’s trying to improve the property, yes, one business at a time, but we thought we had all the signs that we needed with the vacant signs on the other pylon, and now there’s an opportunity to really help the Plaza, but it does require a 36 square foot sign. MR. STONE-Let me say, without prejudice, that the presentation made by the two gentlemen is probably the best presentation that we’ve ever had given to us, and I applaud you for it, but I did say without prejudice. Have you ever considered, and I don’t know whether I’ve ever seen one, except at the Civic Center, a rotating sign that shows different businesses? Is that legal in our Town? MR. LAPPER-It sounds like under that neon flashing. MR. BROWN-Probably not. MR. STONE-Probably not. Okay. It was just a thought I had, having gone to the Civic Center the other day, and we’ve got these signs that click. They don’t rotate. I mean, don’t mean going, I mean a flip that shows now and then it shows another one then it shows another one. MR. LAPPER-I think it’s a traffic issue that people are staring at that. MR. STONE-Probably. Chuck? MR. ABBATE-Yes. May I, please. Well, the Chairman applauded you, and I do, too, but maybe your presentation was a metamorphosis in itself, but anyway, not to throw any damp water on this thing, it’s obvious to me that both you gentlemen did your homework and everything else, and Mr., all I got was the first name, Bill. MR. DUTCH-Dutch, D-u-t-c-h. MR. ABBATE-Dutch. Okay. You certainly provided us with newly acquired knowledge, but let me ask a couple of questions that, if I were sitting in the audience, perhaps it might be a perception. I’m going to assume that, this evening, particularly since you placed all the emphasis on Panera Bread, I’m going to assume that there is this evening, in house, a representative from Panera Bread to support your thesis? MR. DUTCH-No, there isn’t, and I had hoped, and was promised a letter to discuss the support. MR. LAPPER-I can cover that. Panera Bread contacted the Zoning Administrator personally, Craig Brown, to inquire to make sure that the parking was sufficient and that we wouldn’t need a parking variance, and Craig sent me a letter, which I have in the file, that addressed Panera Bread. So there have been communications between Panera Bread and the Town. MR. ABBATE-Okay. The next thing, basically is this. A matter of perception. By the way, is that correct? MR. DUTCH-That’s correct. MR. ABBATE-Okay. We don’t have a copy of that, I’m assuming? MR. DUTCH-I’m sure Mr. Lapper has a copy of the letter. MR. LAPPER-I have one copy. 5 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/19/03) MR. ABBATE-That’s all right. Let me get to the next thing. It’s conceivable. I’m not saying that it’s obvious, it’s conceivable that someone sitting in the, the public sitting in the audience this evening might perceive something like this, gee, is the ZBA decision now going to impact a business decision bearing on profitability, since they brought up, well, if we do this Panera Bread will come in and then we can do this and we can do that. I don’t know. That’s rather an interesting question. MR. LAPPER-Well, I think without even getting to profitability, vacant space is not a good thing, and it’s common knowledge that Steinbach’s, as Bill mentioned, there were bankruptcies, Ben Franklin, Steinbach’s Hoeningsbaum’s. So he’s been dealing with a lot of tenant vacancies and still has tenant vacancies. So we look at it, it’s not so much maximizing as filling vacant space, which makes it, it’s harder to pay the mortgage with vacant space. MR. DUTCH-Plus, I just want to add, this isn’t an issue of profitability. This is an issue of tenant mix and what the best tenants are here. If all we were concerned with was profitability, we wouldn’t have torn down 90,000 feet, and I mean no slight to tenants of the ilk of the dollar stores or Big Lots, those types of tenants that are on the market. We had an offer from Big Lots. We could have thrown them in the Steinbach’s store. They were very interested. We didn’t think the future of the property, you know, would serve the best interests of the community, which is the consumers of Queensbury. We want to give the consumers of Queensbury options here that make sense, which is why, again, I could slam a tenant into the space next to Travelers, which is probably the highest visible, the space of highest visibility in the community in that corner. I don’t want to. I think the community is starving for a bookstore, and we’d all like to see that, and that’s what I’m holding out for. That’s at great expense to me. That vacant space is space that I have to pick up, pay, and cover the mortgage on, but we’re looking at the long term here. If we were looking at the short term I wouldn’t be sitting here. I’ve been here for 14 and a half years. So we’ve basically put our money where our mouths are, as far as the community is concerned, and yes, we are looking for a payback. We’re investors, but we’re looking for, you know, a mutual arrangement. MR. ABBATE-Okay. My final question, so I can give it to the other Board members, is this. This sounds great. Would you have a problem if, in our approval, we had a stipulation on remodeling? You indicated that you had plans to remodel the. MR. LAPPER-The façade, the front façade of the building. MR. ABBATE-Yes, correct, and in our approval, if we had a stipulation that, in order for you to receive this approval, that there be a stipulation that you must? MR. DUTCH-Well, telling me what I must and what I can financially do are two different things. The cost of erecting one sign plaque and making this Panera deal do not justify, necessarily, the expenditure which we’ve indicated of at least $400,000, without payback, to do that office center over, if you impose that on me, I’m not sure I can perform. It’s my desire to do it, as was my desire when we appeared before you a year and a half ago and we talked about Home Depot. You didn’t impose on me the requirement to put a new façade on that, the remainder of that center. We did it. We did it voluntarily. It’s because we take pride in what we do. I don’t care for the way this thing looks now, and I would like to do it, providing I had the dollars to do it. MR. ABBATE-Well, please don’t perceive this as an imposition. I only mentioned it because you indicated in your presentation, by golly if we get this, this is what I’m going to do, and I said, this is great. So maybe we should have in our approval a stipulation, but if you’re uncomfortable with that, Mr. Chairman, leave it to the other Board members to ask questions. MR. STONE-Thank you. Anybody else? 6 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/19/03) MR. URRICO-I have a few questions. Number One, the first thought that crossed my mind is the vision place. Shouldn’t they have a real small sign? So people will think they need glasses. What happens when TGI Friday’s comes in? MR LAPPER-Let me answer that. I quietly mentioned this at the time that we were here for Home Depot, just to put it on the record, because the question then was, hey, is everybody that comes in going to need a sign, and Monroe Muffler has a pylon sign, and in the lease agreement, Home Depot, because of where it sits and the trees and the whole thing, it was a requirement in the lease agreement that they get that pylon sign. So we’re going to come back to re-vamp that pylon sign so there’s a TGI Friday’s pylon sign replacing the Monroe pylon sign. Which is, the sign is ugly, the building is ugly. So there’s already a sign there. We’re going to use, we’re going to change it, but we’re going to use that existing right to have that pylon sign, and that was one of the deals with Friday’s, but they have, I don’t know if I have a picture here, but they have this really interesting architectural new design of their building, and it’s probably in here, and probably has a pylon. So let me see if I can find it over the next few minutes. MR. URRICO-Well, while you’re looking for that, I have another question. Regarding the Empire Vision sign, the current sign is not visible if you’re traveling south. If you’re traveling south, you cannot see that. MR. DUTCH-Yes. MR. URRICO-The building sign as it is. So they’re not losing anything by moving to the center of the plaza if you’re traveling south. Coming north, it’s a little different story. I understand that. MR. DUTCH-Do you want me to respond to that? MR. ABBATE-Actually, we could have gone through this documentation, which were those pictures, right, Counselor? MR. LAPPER-No. That’s Friday’s that I’m showing, to answer Roy’s question. MR. ABBATE-All right. MR. DUTCH-Excuse me. My answer is I would have loved to have you sit down in the renegotiation of this lease with me, and convince them of that, but they felt that they have a very prominent spot on the building. MR. URRICO-And the third question is, how hard would it be to take the existing space you have now and convert it to three panels? MR. LAPPER-The problem is this, and this may be self-imposed, but it’s just a reality, that once you sign a release and you say, Home Depot, I mean, Bill would like nothing more than to cut the Home Depot space down to 12 by 8 or something, but they’ve got that right. That’s their sign, and as long as they’ve got that lease he can’t do anything about it, and the other two signs as well, with Peter Harris and Priceless Kids, when they, he had to negotiate to get them to move around the plaza when he did it, and we came in and got those variances for those signs and those are their signs. So he doesn’t have control of them anymore. MR. URRICO-And I guess the last question I have is what happens when other tenants do come and you run out of sign space? MR. DUTCH-You won’t see us back here. MR. STONE-Can we get a, to that effect, that you won’t be back, as a stipulation? 7 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/19/03) MR. DUTCH-I’m willing to stipulate that. Well, let me qualify that. MR. LAPPER-There shouldn’t be any need for pylon signs, but I don’t know, I can’t tell you, in terms of façade, of whether the Friday’s sign that I’m showing you there requires a variance. I don’t think it does. It looks pretty small. Barnes & Noble, I don’t know what their building signage is, but we’ve got a space for them on the pylon sign already. Panera is on an awning. MR. STONE-Well, are they going to put an awning like Empire Vision has? MR. DUTCH-Much more attractive. Well, we think it makes sense. MR. STONE-But on the south side of the building? MR. DUTCH-Yes, and you’ll see those renderings. They’ll be in for building permit and you’ll see those, and hopefully, I mean, I was asked, do I want to see a new façade on, yes. Do I have the $400 to $450,000 today, no, but these moves will help me, enable me to do those things. MR. ABBATE-Yes. By the way, Barnes & Noble’s sign down in Clifton Park is 32 square feet. MR. DUTCH-Yes, well it won’t be here. MR. ABBATE-You’re right. MR. DUTCH-And also, they will have prominent position on the end of that building, so their visibility won’t be impacted, and, you know, the panel is, I mean, we reserved it and we tried to plan for that. MR. BRYANT-I just want to touch on what Mr. Urrico just said. Assuming that Panera comes in and Empire Vision moves and Barnes & Noble comes in, and you get this sign tonight and everybody’s happy, you’ve got the A and B on this pylon. You’ve got the A, you’ve got an A and B on the other pylon, is that what you’ve got? MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. BRYANT-Do you have any other space in that property that could be rented to another tenant who might come in, a Hallmark card store or some other quality type vendor who might require additional signage? MR. DUTCH-No. If it were, then the case would be that there’s nothing available for them, and that that would preclude their tenancy. MR. BRYANT-But do you have a space in your facility? MR. DUTCH-No, we don’t have another, other than the end space next to Travelers which, and I don’t want this to be misconstrued. Barnes & Noble, as I mentioned, and I used them as a reference, is not pursuing us, we’re pursuing them. MR. BRYANT-Tentatively. MR. DUTCH-Yes, we’re talking to them. We’d love to have all of you write letters to say how much you’d like to see them in the community, but, no, we do not have another space that we contemplate we would need signage for. MR. BRYANT-That’s my point specifically, because, you know, this could be a problem down the road. We could have a space, I don’t know how long the commitment for Travelers is, but assume five years, and five years from now Travelers could be gone and Walden wants to build a bookstore right next to Barnes & Noble, and then we have this issue of. 8 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/19/03) MR. DUTCH-It makes perfect sense, and I think the only option that I would have at that time would probably be to go approach Home Depot and see if I could get them off of one of those pylons, in lieu of somebody else, but no, and we didn’t anticipate this. This was nothing that we contemplated when we originally came to you. MRS. HUNT-I have a question. Kind of like Home Depot, which has two signs, was allowed to have such a large second sign for this twelve by twelve, that’s already over twice as big as allowed. MR. LAPPER-I could tell you what the justification was. The southern sign, the smaller sign, was intended, and I was here with the sign consultant, or national consultant that they use. That was intended to be visible from Quaker Road, which is just a, you know, different corridor, whereas this one, for the Route 9. MRS. HUNT-I mean, looking in hindsight, a twelve by eight would have been large enough for the second, for the northern pylon, and would have left you more space. MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. DUTCH-I would have loved to have not had to have been able to, had to give them that second sign. We could have used it ourselves, but they insisted on it, and that was part of the. MRS. HUNT-Because I have some reservations. It’s already four times the limit, and with the addition, it’ll be five times the limit of what is allowed. I mean, it’s a large variance. MR. LAPPER-Yes, you’re right, but the issue here was just in terms of the specifics of this Plaza where Home Depot is set so far back in the Plaza from the travel corridor and that was really the justification, and that’s unique. MR. HAYES-Well, unique in the sense of a national consultant taking that perspective, but we, typically, haven’t followed those type of guidelines here in Queensbury in the past. MR. LAPPER-But the fact that you did speaks highly for the justification here, because it’s not like you guys give away Sign Variances. MR. HAYES-Not from my perspective. I thought it was a balancing test that we were on the extreme end of cooperation, you know, balancing the applicant’s interests with the tenants, you know, with the Town’s interests of having, you know, a fair amount of signage in the Town, but this, I mean, I’m not sure how many variances were involved at that time, but it was quite a few. Even the motion was hard to make. MR. LAPPER-They got façade variances, too. MR. HAYES-Right. I mean, it was pretty extensive. So, I’m not sure myself, having been presented with additional signage at that time, that I would have approved, as Joyce is saying, you know, what we did approve then. MR. LAPPER-Part of that is when a national tenant like Home Depot comes, they really arm wrestle the developer. They demand a lot, and it was a very difficult deal to negotiate because they want all the marbles, and that’s what happened. As Bill said, he would have much rather reserved the second pylon for the rest of his Plaza, but he had to give that up in order to get the deal done with Home Depot, and that’s why we’re talking about 36 square foot signs and not 144 square foot signs. MR. STONE-Let me just make a statement, just, only because it’s in my head. I’ve been in Home Depot a couple of times, and I think you ought to talk to your tenant, because I was disappointed. I was disappointed in the level of service in the store. There was no real help, and I don’t want to compare Lowe’s and Home Depot, you go into Lowe’s there are associates 9 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/19/03) all over the place. Home Depot, I couldn’t find anybody, and I would be concerned that we’ve done this thing. We’ve made this very attractive property, and they’re not holding up their end of the bargain, my judgment as a consumer. MR. LAPPER-I think that the two stores, and I represented the developer of both, but I think that their philosophy, in terms of how they operate their stores, is obviously different. I’ve shopped in both and I understand what you’re saying, but we look at it from a perspective of land use here, and in terms of the metamorphosis of the Plaza, it’s good land use, and hopefully they’ll do a good job of running their store. MR. STONE-I agree, but as Mr. Dutch says, empty space doesn’t do anybody any good. MR. LAPPER-Right. MR. STONE-And they’ve got a deal. MR. LAPPER-No question. MR. STONE-And can always walk away from it. MR. URRICO-I have another question. MR. STONE-Go ahead. MR. URRICO-Why can’t, I’m just speculating, why can’t the Empire Vision sign go where the Panera Bread sign is supposed to go and Panera Bread live with a wall sign, which can be visible from just about three different directions, and there’s like 25,000 cars going through that intersection on a given day. MR. DUTCH-Well, I posed that, but Empire Vision feels, and was adamant about wanting to be on, you know, closest to the driveway where their store was and not that far down. They just, that was my original presentation to them. MR. LAPPER-Because you can’t see them at all. MR. DUTCH-Yes, that’s exactly right. MR. STONE-Well, you could have directional signs on the driveway, though. MR. URRICO-It’s actually the harder end to get into there. MR. LAPPER-Well, it’s the main driveway, though, the traffic light. MR. STONE-I’m concerned that, you talk about the future, you’re going to have Friday’s in there, and yet you can’t turn left on the eastern side of the property onto Quaker Road at the moment. I think there’s a lot of requests going to be made in the future, it seems. MR. LAPPER-Well, we haven’t designed the, and we haven’t come to the Planning Board for site plan approval. MR. STONE-I know you haven’t. MR. LAPPER-For Friday’s yet, but there’s some interesting issues there, because you may have read in the paper that we’ve reached an agreement with Warren County to buy a little sliver to allow us to have enough room to do the Friday’s right in that green area. We also have, are negotiating with the State, and we’re almost done. That whole driveway that you’re referring to, which looks like part of a private driveway owned by the developer, that’s actually owned by New York State, because that’s where Aviation Road used to go. So right now Bill has no 10 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/19/03) control over that, because that’s all within the State right of way. Left turns, because of the geometry, it’s not safe to make left turns. MR. STONE-Correct. MR. LAPPER-If we were doing an ordinary project on behalf of a developer, the Planning Board would come in and say you’ve got to design it so that, just like Applebee’s, for example, where you can’t make a left turn, and that can be done right. Taco Bell was done that way. MR. URRICO-Theoretically you can’t make a left. MR. LAPPER-Yes, but, you know, that discourages 90% of the people, you know, someone that’s just going to go over the pavement or do something crazy, and the reason why that hasn’t been done here is because that’s all owned by the State, within the State right of way, but when we get done with this thing, perhaps that’ll be owned by the developer. MR. ABBATE-And, Mr. Chairman, can I make, Mr. Chairman raised an interesting point about service, and I’m not going to get into that, but when initially Home Depot came before us, there were wonderful things that were going to be happening. As of last week, Lowe’s sales were increased by 32%. Home Depot was down 13%, just as a matter of information. MR. STONE-You mean nationally. Okay. Anybody else have any pressing comments? I think we ought to see if there’s anybody here from the public who’d want to speak. MR. ABBATE-That’s true. You’re right. MR. STONE-Let me open the public hearing. Anybody wishing to speak in favor of this application? In favor of? Anybody opposed? Any correspondence? MR. UNDERWOOD-I don’t see any. MR. STONE-Okay. Then I will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. STONE-At least that’s behind us. I don’t have a real question. I only have this feeling in my mind, which we’ll talk about as we start talking about it, that when do we stop? And I understand, as I say, you’ve made a very good presentation, but, and as Mr. Lapper pointed out, we have been very zealous with sign applications, and here’s one where we, as Mr. Hayes said, we kind of bent over backwards to give Home Depot, in a sense, what they wanted, and now you’re back, well, geez, you gave us a lot but it’s not really enough. MR. LAPPER-Well, but Home Depot isn’t the whole story here, and the Plaza’s got to get finished, and we’re trying to show you that we’re asking for the smallest sign we can to just make the deal happen and get the Plaza re-tenanted. MR. STONE-I understand. MR. DUTCH-Plus, if I may just add, on a quid pro quo basis, we did some things to justify the confidence you had in us in bending over backwards for us. We, likewise, in turn, did some things. We improved dramatically the traffic flow in the property. We did a lot of things over and above what we were asked to do, or what was required of us as part of the site plan approval. So we’re here talking to you as Northway Plaza Associates the developer. We’re not here representing Home Depot. 11 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/19/03) MR. STONE-I understand, and you were here before us a couple of years ago trying to get more parking spaces, and smaller parking spaces, and we had long discussions on that, and guess what, Travelers is now down to 200 people, compared to 600 people, and we don’t need those extra parking spaces, and we don’t have those extra parking spaces. MR. DUTCH-Right, and I might add, we also acquired, which we were not able to do at the time we were before you, some additional properties. So that helped. MR. STONE-Well, let’s talk about it. Chuck, let’s start with you. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Look, it was a great presentation, quite frankly, and I agree with the Chairman, one of the best so far I’ve heard in quite a while on both your parts. No question about it, and obviously, I would be, in your position, as enthusiastic as you are for a number of reasons, which we don’t have to go into. We made concessions, with Home Depot, and at the same time you folks made concessions, and I will grant you that. You improved the looks of the Plaza, the flow of traffic, etc., etc., and you really did, there’s no question about it, but my problem goes back to what I said initially, and it’s this. If I were sitting in the room, a member of the public, and listening to all of this, it is a perception, it’s possible to perceive, and I’m not saying it is, it’s possible to perceive that your presentation to this Board is based upon the fact that we really have to have an approval because your decision will help us in a business decision which will bear on profitability, no matter how you cut the line, whether it’s true, whether the perception is false, the possibility is that there may be a perception of that. How far do we go? Several of the Board members raised questions about, if we do it for you, what about anybody else coming in, parking lots, etc., etc. I don’t know where I’m at on this, and I’m being very, very honest with you gentlemen. MR. LAPPER-You’re balancing the benefit to the applicant, which we’re trying to explain with that line of reasoning, as very significant here, versus the detriment to the community. MR. ABBATE-Yes, I know, and we grant, and remember, we’re bound to grant the minimum, the minimum, we’re bound to grant the minimum variance. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. MR. STONE-Okay. Al? MR. BRYANT-I agree with Mr. Abbate somewhat. I think the request is excessive. We’ve already given you probably one of the biggest signs in the Town, but I look at it, and the way you’ve described in your presentation, the fact that when you came before us initially for the two pylon signs, once we made the decision to go ahead, now you’re locked in to an agreement with Home Depot, and I understand that. They’re not going to make their sign any smaller, you know, if the world were perfect, we could go back to Home Depot and say, look, this is what we’d like to do. Make your sign two feet smaller. We’ll put the Empire Vision sign, end of story, but that’s not reality, and I understand that. I, with that in mind, looking at the economics of the situation, the fact that you have totally renovated that Plaza, which was an eyesore before, and it’s a pleasant Plaza, and unlike our Chairman, I like Home Depot, and I don’t care that they don’t bother me, but being serious, you have brought quality national tenants into the Plaza. The fact that you’re pursuing Friday’s and Barnes & Noble, and I think it’s going to be a very attractive asset to the Town. So I don’t like the request, but I think from an economic standpoint and from looking at planning for the future, I think that it’s an acceptable request. So I would be in favor of it. MR. STONE-Roy? MR. URRICO-I’m really torn because I really want to approve this Sign Variance, but I don’t really think I can, and for all the reasons that have been given tonight, Mr. Lapper earlier said that he doesn’t want to make it seem like we’re, the sign is an improvement over what was there originally, all the signs are an improvement over what the original Northway Plaza monstrosity was. Even though it’s bigger than what we allowed, it was definitely smaller than 12 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/19/03) what was there, but I can’t help feel a little cheated because we seem to be heading back in the other direction, that what we gave you was something that was better than before, and now we’re sort of heading back in the other direction, and even though you’ve given assurances that it won’t go further than that, I’m not sure. In looking at the test, I see five things that we have to look at, and whether this is going to change the character of the neighborhood, I don’t know that it is because we have a lot of shopping in that neighborhood, and I don’t know that giving approval to one little panel there is going to make a whole lot of difference, but when it comes to the benefit sought by the applicant, being achieved by other feasible methods, I think there are some feasible methods. I don’t know if there are any studies, I know studies have been done about traffic flow in that area, and it’s something like 25,000 cars go through that corridor per day. That’s what we’ve heard, and that’s the busiest intersection between Albany and Montreal, but the cars that travel south on Route 9 also travel north on Route 9. I guarantee if a study was done on that it would probably be the same cars. So I don’t know what Empire Vision would be losing by not having, I mean, Panera Bread not having a wall sign there, and Empire Vision being put on the smaller panel. I think the request is substantial, when compared to what we’ve granted already. As far as the adverse impact on the neighborhood, I think Queensbury has a problem in this area. I think there’s an environmental problem in terms of sight. When you look at that intersection coming north from say Toys R Us coming north, the signs are horrible. I mean, not yours, but the whole vision, the whole city scape, streetscape is horrible. We’re just inundated with signs and billboards and this is just going to be another step adding to it. MR. LAPPER-Remember, though, that there are a lot of. MR. STONE-Let us talk. We’ll give you some more time. MR. URRICO-And the fifth thing is I do think this is self-created. So on the basis of, if I look at the test, I would be against this project. MR. STONE-Jaime? MR. HAYES-Unfortunately, I think I essentially agree. Traditionally I’ve been pro business on this Board, and looking to accommodate business because I think it’s an important part of the overall community, but I was a part of the original application, and I know that we had discussed a great deal. There was a lot of talk about the amount of signs that were allowed, the size of the signs that were allowed, replacing the gigantic sign, which Mr. Dutch pointed out, which I believe is accurate. That was not attractive and that was certainly part of our analysis was replacing this oversized sign was a benefit, but it was a very broad stroke night, and that sometimes can be dangerous, in my mind, in the sense that the rights that Mr. Lapper is referring to, we have the rights to this sign and the rights to that sign already, some of those rights we granted, and by granting the relief for the signs, where they were, and now they’re rights, and I just, that, to me, is classic segmentation. That’s classic, you know, would I have approved this type of signage if it was presented to me in its entirety, with this sign, and the possibility, which has not been entirely eliminated by testimony, of more signs, and I don’t think that I would have. We certainly are sensitive to applicant’s needs and desires. Part of the momentum for the first variance was that Home Depot was a great tenant and it was going to solve this problem in the Plaza, and I think everybody was in favor of that, but it was still, there was some leverage that was being applied, but, you know, leverage that was accepted. The tenant came back, a few months ago, or six months ago and said we’ve got to have variances for setback relief because we’ve got financing and we need to get this financing and this is important to finish the Plaza. The Board said okay, we’re not totally comfortable with this, but let’s do it, you need it, and I voted for that one, too, because, you know, it’s understandable, but, there eventually becomes a point where it’s hard for me, as a Board member, to have the applicant come and say, we’ve got to have it, when they’re asking for a variance, because eventually there has to be some limit to when the Board, or the Code is being asked to continue to make a good deal better for an applicant, and I think, you know, we have done that already. It’s just the question is when are we, as a Board, are we choosing to say, well, it’s not our job to make it, you know, better every time, and I think, for me, we’ve arrived there. As I look at that 13 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/19/03) sign driving up the road, it already is a pretty large sign. The idea of adding another panel below it, and starting to get like that ladder effect, that I might, personally, associate with like a movie sign, you know what I mean, where there’s this ladder effect. I just don’t think that that’s what we intended when we gave the relief originally. I just, the reason that are being given are good, but I think there’s an alternative out there that doesn’t require the Code to be the one to perfect this deal for the Northway Associates. The causal chain, if you will, the economic causal chain that Mr. Dutch has put together, it does sound good. It sounds attractive, but I think it’s a little bit dangerous, as a Board, to go from one possible conclusion to another possible conclusion to another possible conclusion to another possible conclusion and then make our conclusions based on that. As good as they sound, I think that we’re speculating, and we’re speculating with an approval today, to a causal chain that may or may not take effect tomorrow. So to me, I would, you know, at some extent I think you have to stop that, or you have to, you know, at some point it has to be stopped, as far as the amount of relief. So, as much as, reluctantly, I think, to me, we’re past the point, on a balancing test, because I’m not sure where it’s going to stop, and I’m not sure this is even good enough, and it could get worse. I just think in the end if we look at, if we pencil this out, from beginning to end, the amount of relief that is involved, it would be like half a page in Staff notes or whatever, because it was almost that the first time, and now we’re going for more, and we’re going to have, I mean, the depictions that Mr. Lapper gave of TGIF and I’ve seen their signs, and they’re even hard to quantify how they fit into the Code because they have structural steel, and, you know, they’re very modern and stuff, but it’s still signage. It’s still out there. So I’m against. MR. STONE-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-I don’t know. I’m still kind of torn as to what to do here, but I think at the same time we have to look at the big picture as to what the original intent was, as I’ve alluded to before. I think that the original intent to redo this mall and to bring it up to, you know, a modern standard of existence, you know, with quality tenants in there as you have also alluded to, in your discussions this evening, you know, driving up the road, seeing the double Home Depot signs, I kind of wondered to myself why we allowed that double whammy there to begin with, but at the same time, you know, if we’re going to call this the so called, you know, plaza of dreams, you know, if you build it, they will come, you know, if that little voice that’s whispering in your ear at the same time, I would be in agreement, it would be nice if all those tenants came in and I think we have to put it into the perspective of focusing on what was asked for here, and that was that the store requesting this signage, you know, has been a longtime tenant in the mall. I think that your explanation as to the fact that they won’t be visible, you know, in their new location is logical, and I think that, you know, the addition of that 36 square foot sign, I’m not totally opposed to that. I drove down to Wilton and looked at the signage down there, and it’s very similar out in front of their, you know, where they’ve listed the smaller tenants inside their different plazas, you know, in much that same way, and I think that’s the only way to really do it in a multiple situation such as this. It would be very difficult for me, I think, at this time, to kind of throw the monkey wrench in the works, because I think, you know, we have, as you said, you know, it does amount to a lot of variances that have been granted, in order for you to accomplish what you’ve done so far, but at the same time, I think it would be nice to see the thing, the project continue to fruition. It’s a unique structure built in to the side of the hill there. I mean, it’s unlike any other mall anywhere else in the universe as far as I’m concerned. I don’t think that you have that situation. If it was a flat plaza like everywhere else, I think we would be very reluctant to grant the signage, but I think that your unique situation should sway us in some manner, you know, in regards to that. So I would be in favor of it. MR. STONE-Joyce? MRS. HUNT-Well, even before I knew we were going to be talking about this, I had noticed the Home Depot signs, and I felt that it was almost like overkill, and it seems to me there must be another alternative that could be reached working with Home Depot, but I don’t, I think we’ve already granted more relief than could be expected, and it’s certainly substantial and now we’re asking for more and I don’t really know that that is what we should be doing at this point. I 14 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/19/03) understand that Home Depot, from your conversation, has an agreement, but you’re asking the Board to make adjustments, how about going to Home Depot and seeing if they won’t renegotiate. Because I, personally, cannot vote for this variance. MR. STONE-What I’ll do when I get done I’ll be glad to give you three or four minutes. MR. LAPPER-Thank you. MR. STONE-I think what you’ve seen here tonight, and I’ve written a whole bunch of notes, you’ve encountered a Board that cares, and you know that we care, and we have been, we take this very seriously. We certainly take the Sign Variance and everything we do very seriously. A nice job has been done on this Plaza. There is no question that it is much better than what we had before. It’s an asset to the community, and if Mr. Dutch is right in his future plans, it’s going to be even a bigger asset to the community, but the question comes down to what expense. You started to talk about, Mr. Lapper, the balancing test, and the balancing test is obviously the benefit to the applicant and his tenants, versus our sign code, which is a very good sign code. We’re in an area of that intersection as was described as being a very busy intersection, is a jungle of signs. You can only imagine what that would be if we didn’t have a Sign Ordinance. I mean, I don’t even want to think about it, how bad it would have been if we didn’t have zoning in that area and didn’t have a very tough Sign Ordinance. This is a case where it’s truly, every application stands on its own, and as a number of us have referred to previous experience with requests, in terms of the signs, and other things in this thing, and I’m just thinking to myself, I don’t even know how I voted on the previous Sign Variance, and I don’t care. It’s what do I want to do now. You’ve come before us. I think somebody talked about the cumulative effects, or a couple of us did. I kind of, and I don’t have any great suggestion, but I would like to see some more discussion on this thing, and I’m not sure how quite to accomplish that. I mean, certainly if I, looking at my numbers, if I say no, we’re going to defeat it. Is that going to be a benefit to the community, is that going to be a detriment to the community? I don’t know. We’ve talked about the business effect, and one of the things that this Board has said, over the years, it is not our job to bail somebody out of a bad business decision. That’s not why we exist. We’re here to do the balancing test that Jaime talked about, the benefit to the applicant versus the detriment to the community, and we’ve gone through these things, and it never bothers me when we come down to four three. I don’t always like being the four, if that’s the way it works, but four three says we’ve done our homework. We’ve thought about it, and we’re saying, no, or we’re saying, on balance it’s yes. I’m troubled, as Mr. Abbate is, who has said he doesn’t know. Ms. Hunt said she doesn’t know, but she’s still going to say no at this point in time, and I think what I would like to do, I’d like to give you about three minutes, if you can comment on it, and then we’ll decide, we’ll make a motion. MR. LAPPER-Okay. Thank you. I guess just very simply a couple of things quickly. When you look at the area, there are a lot of businesses that are there that are pre-zoning, and certainly pre our Code. Mr. B’s Best, I mean, the size of some of these signs, the stuff, when you go down south on the other side of the intersection, there are some older properties that haven’t been renovated. I mean, fortunately I’ve been involved in the Glen Square Plaza with Taco Bell and across the street with Red Lobster, and I mean, so we’ve really cleaned up a lot of the properties, but there are a lot of them that haven’t been, and there are a lot of, it’s a jumble of signs, and as should happen with zoning, the renovated, they come under the Code and they get better. When you look at the picture of what we have here, I mean, and yes, the Home Depot signs are big, but when you look at what Bill has done with this, and we’re not talking about the hardship case. We’re talking about allowing him to finish this Plaza, it wasn’t something that was anticipated because he anticipated that there would be office space in this whole section, but because you wouldn’t think you could get retail here, you wouldn’t think that an Empire Vision would take the space because it’s completely invisible because it’s into the hill, because it’s a unique site, and because of that, it’s the opportunity, Panera Bread, a national chain, a really hot restaurant right now, it would do a lot for this Plaza. It’s good for the community because it makes for a nice mix. I mean, a lot of the businesses that have come in lately provide more opportunities, Lowe’s, Home Depot, we didn’t have this stuff previously, and there’s a lot of other examples that we’re becoming more of a retail center, and Panera 15 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/19/03) Bread is one of the good ones. So in terms of the benefit to the community to have a high end, really nice restaurant, it’s going to be nice fixtured. It’s going to be nice awnings, that’s, what he’s offering, what he’s trying to do here is to bring in a really good tenant, because of the unique nature of this building, where it’s backing on to Route 9 and you can’t see it, that’s what’s unique here, and that’s why we’re asking for something special, and it’s not, you know, in terms of coming back again, I think we’ve tried to explain, and I think that even some of you who were opposed to this understand that this is not the case of, you know, gee, we figured we’d through this one out later and we’d get it. This came along as an opportunity, and Bill’s just trying to make the center as good as he can, and if he can finish this thing and get the bookstore in at the end of Travelers, it’s a homerun, and we have provided for that, and we’ve got the pylon there sitting there vacant, but that’s because he’s got 23,000 feet that he knows that he’s not going to get a bookstore without that. So, you know, we’re laying our cards on the table. It’s really important to the Plaza and we think the benefit to the community is this center is something that when I go to other meetings, the Planning Board, when Wal-Mart comes in and says, they want to do 40 foot poles because darn it they think it has to be bright in their parking lot, everyone turns to this Plaza and this was the Planning Board and the Zoning Board working on this, obviously, and says, hey, that pretty much matches the whole new Code in terms of site design, in terms of drainage, in terms of landscaping, in terms of lighting, and the give back for that is that we needed some Sign Variances just because it’s a weird layout where it’s built into the back, built into the hill. So I think that this is something that everybody can be pretty proud of, and I get kudos for this all over the place that, hey, that was one that was done right. You took an old tired center and you made something special out of it. Putting Panera Bread makes it even better, and the 35, 36 square foot sign, I think on balance, even though, yes, you’ve given a lot of Sign Variances, I think that that’s not a big deal when it’s going on existing pylons. It’s really going to make this, going to finish this place off. MR. BRYANT-Mr. Chairman, can I ask Mr. Lapper a question? MR. STONE-Sure. MR. BRYANT-I just want to verify something. When you add the 36 square feet, that pylon sign is still smaller than the original sign? MR. LAPPER-Bill said that. MR. BRYANT-Yes. It’s still considerably smaller, and the other one is smaller. MR. DUTCH-I don’t have the data to document that, at this point, but I can swear to it. MR. BRYANT-I know when you got the approval I seem to remember there was a big difference in signs, and that’s why we went for the two signs, because you were reducing the signage there quite a bit. MR. DUTCH-Before I add my comments, I just want to point out that there was a second sign that had been abandoned, that was a total eyesore. It was an empty revolving sign, Mr. Chairman. I believe before our tenure as owner that that sign was a Montgomery Ward, one of those revolving signs, that was abandoned. There was also another OTB sign on the hill, right near the back, right near the entrance to the office center that was abandoned, that is no longer there, and so I think what you see today is a dramatic improvement over what was there, which is what, I don’t want to interrupt you. I’ll continue my comments if you’re through, but if not. MR. BRYANT-No, I just wanted to make a point. I think that my recollection is we approved the signs, specifically because they were considerably smaller than what was there, and I don’t think that that’s going to change, and to comment on what Mr. Hayes said, and I respect Mr. Hayes, you know, had you come with this initially, with the additional 36 square feet, I probably would have approved it at that time, like I did, because of the reduction in the signage. So, I’m still in the yes column, Mr. Chairman. 16 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/19/03) MR. ABBATE-Mr. Chairman, please. I’m starting to come to a position here, and I wrote some notes down, sincerely, and this is what I asked myself, if I can read my writing. To what degree would approval of the requested sign be offensive to the Town of Queensbury, as opposed to approval that would possibly offset the offensiveness, such as new businesses, new jobs, new construction, new taxes. That was the question to myself, and I’ve come to a conclusion. MR. STONE-Do you want to share it? MR. ABBATE-I’m going to support the application. MR. STONE-Okay. Now we really come down to four three, three four. MRS. HUNT-I’d like to say something. MR. STONE-Go ahead. MRS. HUNT-Looking at it, it’s this, whether the alleged difficulty is self-created, I think in hindsight, if you had thought about the other businesses that might come in, you might have not given all that area away to Home Depot. I personally think the two businesses you’re talking about, I like both of them, and I think they would be a good addition. I just, and I know we don’t set precedence’s, but I just wish we didn’t have to vote on this, that it had been, you know, taken care of the first time, but I will support it at this point. MR. STONE-Okay. Having heard that, I’ll reserve my comment until we vote. I need a motion to approve, on the basis of my poll, to approve this Sign Variance. MR. BROWN-This is an Unlisted SEQRA action. MR. STONE-Yes, it’s Unlisted. I was going to avoid that. Okay. This is an Unlisted action, and this is, quite frankly, Mr. Brown, where I get troubled. If we vote it down, if we, all the comments we’ve made had to do with effect on the community, and yet we’re going to say in the SEQRA that, well, it may have an adverse effect on the environment, and quite frankly I hate this. I really do, but I hear you. MR. BROWN-Okay. Is there a question there? MR. STONE-Well, the question is, how do we, this says there are no negative impacts caused. That’s the motion we make. MR. LAPPER-Well, the question is, is there a substantial environmental impact such that there should be an environmental impact statement to study the substantial environmental impacts. MR. HAYES-They are different. MR. LAPPER-So it’s a substantiality. MR. STONE-And then that word is ill-defined. MR. LAPPER-True. MR. STONE-In the eyes of the beholder. MOTION THAT A REVIEW OF THE SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM SHOWS THAT THERE ARE NO SUBSTANTIAL NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS CAUSED BY THIS PROJECT, Introduced by Lewis Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Hunt: 17 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/19/03) Duly adopted this 19 day of November, 2003, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Abbate, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Underwood, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Stone NOES: NONE MR. STONE-Okay. I now need a motion to approve the variance as requested. MR. ABBATE-All right. I’ll try it. I’ll give it a go. MOTION TO APPROVE SIGN VARIANCE NO. 83-2003 NORTHWAY PLAZA ASSOCIATES, EMPIRE VISION NORTHWAY PLAZA, Introduced by Charles Abbate who moved for its adoption, seconded by Allan Bryant: The applicant is requesting 36 sq. ft. sign “Empire Vision”. The question becomes that in terms of relief required; does the applicant’s request produce an undesirable change to the neighborhood and also would it be a detriment to nearby properties and I submit sir, that it would not. The second point, the benefit to the applicant; the question becomes, is the request achievable and is it feasible. Obviously if we approve it, it will be achievable. Is it feasible, it is a question that is still up in the air. Are there feasible alternatives? Perhaps there are in terms of my perception. However, the perception of the applicant and the presentation this evening indicates that there would be really no feasible alternatives that would resolve the problem. The third area to address, is this relief that the applicant is requesting, substantial. Is it substantial to the Ordinance. I maintain, Mr. Chairman, that it is not substantial to the Ordinance. I believe that it is a nominal request perhaps below the substantial classification or category. In another area, the effects on the neighborhood. In my opinion and based upon the discussion this evening and the presentation by both gentlemen before the Board, in my opinion, there would not be any adverse effects or impact on the physical or environmental conditions of this neighborhood. And I do not believe that there would be any detriment to either the health, or the safety, or even the general welfare of the neighborhood. Is this difficulty self-created? That is a thin line; one could go either way saying, based upon the information that was submitted to us this evening, the documentation submitted and the verbal testimony, it appears that perhaps there may have been some difficulty. However, Mr. Chairman, I submit that we should take into consideration the tremendous revolution, if you will, that has transpired since Home Depot has moved into the area and I’m talking about the physical looks, the traffic flow, another service and the potential new businesses as defined by the applicants that may very well come into the area. On balance, Mr. Chairman and Board members, on balance, I move that we approve Sign Variance No. 83-2003. The relief required. The applicants request relief for the construction of the 36 sq. ft. Empire Vision sign. Previously a Sign Variance No. 59-2002 which included relief for a 30 foot tall, 264 sq. ft. freestanding sign, and 10 ft. of setback relief for a second freestanding plaza sign. Therefore the relief sought in this case would be to allow a 300 sq. ft. freestanding sign versus the allowable 64 sq. ft. pursuant to Section 140-6, 3 D. Duly adopted this 19 day of November, 2003, by the following vote: th MR. BRYANT-Why doesn’t your calculation add up to 300 square feet? MR. LAPPER-Because it doesn’t, that calculation doesn’t include the new sign. The 228. MR. BRYANT-Two twenty-eight and, what, 36? MR. LAPPER-No. You know why, because the Northway Plaza was counted at the top. Craig educated me about this today. That’s why. There’s another 36 feet for Northway Plaza at the top, and you add that. MR. BRYANT-Okay. That becomes 300. 18 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/19/03) MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. BRYANT-Okay. MR. STONE-Okay. Before I call for a vote, I want to exercise personal privilege, since I didn’t really finish what I was saying before. We talked about the balancing test, and I’ve done my own balancing test in terms of the fact that I want to do it, because I think it is a good project, in terms of the total thing that Mr. Dutch has been doing for the community, obviously for his own enrichment, too, but that’s why people are in business. That’s perfectly fine. My problem, in my balancing, is I tend to think it’s too much, but having thought about it and listened to my fellow Board members, I’m going to vote yes on it when we vote. It’s a reluctant yes, but I do think, on balance, is what we’re supposed to talk about. AYES: Mr. Underwood, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Stone NOES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Hayes MR. LAPPER-Thank you all very much. MR. STONE-Thank you, gentlemen, and please don’t come back. MR. DUTCH-I want to thank the Board for being rational and for the give and take, which has been a positive for the community. I think. You wouldn’t see what is there if it wasn’t for your input before. So I think you should credit yourselves. It’s our investment, but if you hadn’t invested in us, this wouldn’t be there right now. So we appreciate that and we understand, and we understand your dilemmas with these things, but we are grateful, and you will continue to see this project be what you want it to be, or what you expect it to be. SIGN VARIANCE NO. 85-2003 SEQRA TYPE: UNLISTED TOM WESSLING: R & T COLLECTIBLES OWNER: MARILYN POTENZA, FRANK BORK ZONING: HC-INT. LOCATION: 878 ROUTE 9 (MILLER HILL PLAZA) APPLICANT PROPOSES INSTALLATION OF A SECOND FREESTANDING SIGN AND SEEKS RELIEF FROM THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE SIGN ORDINANCE. CROSS REFERENCE: SPR 29-2003; SV 35- 1999 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 11/12/03 TAX MAP NO. 296.17-1-51 LOT SIZE: 1.56 ACRES SECTION: 140-6(B3d) ROGER BROWN & TOM WESSLING, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Sign Variance No. 85-2003, Tom Wessling: R & T Collectibles, Meeting Date: November 19, 2003 “Project Description: 878 Route 9 (Miller Hill Plaza) Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes installation of a second freestanding sign in the business complex. Relief Required: Applicant requests 13 feet of relief from the 15-foot minimum setback requirement, as well as relief for a second freestanding sign in a business complex per the Sign Ordinance, §140-6. B,3. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): SV 35-1999 res. 9/15/99 12 sf addition to existing 50 sf sign SP 29-2003 res. 5/22/03 plaza renovations and site work. Sign Permit 2003-059 issued 6/3/03 48 sf wall sign – R&T Collectibles Staff comments: The business associated with the 1999 sign variance no longer operates on the site. While the collectibles store is on the same parcel with the larger plaza building it appears to be separate 19 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/19/03) from the rest of the plaza. Is the applicant at in an “unfair” position with only a wall sign? Could the plaza reconfigure the existing freestanding sign to include R & T?” MR. UNDERWOOD-“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form November 12, 2003 Project Name: R & T Collectibles Owner: Marilyn Potenza, Frank Bork ID Number: QBY-03-SV-85 County Project#: Nov03-30 Current Zoning: HC-Int. Community: Queensbury Project Description: Applicant proposes installation of a second freestanding sign and seeks relief from the requirements of the Sign Ordinance. Site Location: 878 Route 9 (Miller Hill Plaza) Tax Map Number(s): 296.17-1-51 Staff Notes: Sign Variance: The applicant proposes to utilize an existing sign pole to advertise the Antique business. The sign will be 24 sq. ft. and both sides will be used for advertisement of the business. Staff does not identify an impact on county resources. Staff recommends no county impact. County Planning Board Recommendation: No County Impact” Signed by Bennet F. Driscoll 11/15/03” MR. STONE-Gentlemen. MR. WESSLING-Tom Wessling with R & T Collectibles, and my partner, Roger Brown. I guess we have a tough presentation to follow, but we’ll do our best here. We’re a local family business, plan on staying in the community for the long-term. We moved into the building there in April. We’ve been involved in the antiques collectible business since 1997. Our main business has been and still is selling on the Internet. We’re e-bay power sellers. One of the services we offer out of our store is consigning for people on e-bay. We buy and re-sell on e- bay. We also maintain a store. We also buy and stock the store and sell inventory through the store, have other people that leave goods in our store, and we’re a large antique center here in Queensbury, and people who’ve come in and enjoy antiques and collectibles tell us that we’ve been a service to the community that they’ve really appreciated. We have people that come in several times a week on their lunch break and they just love the business. You have to be in to the business. You’re either into the business or you’re not, but what we’re proposing doing is putting a six foot by four foot sign, so a total of 24 square feet, on a pole that’s existing in front of our store. We haven’t really found out much about the history of the sign that was there, but something was there, some day, possibly before zoning. We’re not certain. When we went to Staff, they said that, because there’s no records of this sign or what was there, that we would need to come to a Zoning Board of Appeals for relief, because of the distance from the road there. So basically what we have now is a sign on the front of building, facing directly to Route 9, or basically parallel to Route 9. So to notice that sign, you’d need to turn and face the building, and we have been getting comments from a lot of people that maybe they said, you know, we didn’t know this was here until we drove by a dozen times, a couple dozen, you know, we’ve, how long have you been here, since April? I haven’t noticed you until today, or, you know, we get comments like that quite frequently. A big part of our clientele, particularly in the summer, has been tourists. Tourists get once chance, they drive by, see your sign and pull in. If not, the odds of turning around and coming back, like I said, like I showed in the pictures, I took a picture from the south, about where you’d be on the road looking up towards our store, and you don’t see a sign. I see a picture from the north going down, and you don’t see our sign. I took a picture facing the building, to also show you where this existing old sign pole is, but also to show the sign on the front of the building that you can only see as you face the building. So like I said, a good part of our clientele has been vacationers to the area. We like to have opportunity for them to notice the location of our store before they are right in front of it. While we are part of this Miller Hill Plaza, which I’m sure you’re familiar with, we’re separated from that Plaza by a concrete wall and a fence, and then there’s some stairs going down and we could eventually get over there, but we’re very separate from it. If you’ve driven by, you may think they’re two separate parcels. They are one parcel with two very separate identities. We’re a building separate from the rest of Miller Plaza which includes the Subway and a photography store and a couple of stores that are looking to be filled up, but we’re kind of also up on a hill from there, in our own place. There is a sign, down in front of Miller Hill Plaza, very far away from us. That sign is filled up, other than, and Staff could confirm this, but other than a small strip at the very bottom there, which barely looks like it couldn’t fit a sign that would be readable or legible from anybody, but also important to us is this kind of is a separate identity. Our parking lot is separate from their parking lot, and it goes on. Our sign 20 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/19/03) really needs to be where we are. People see our sign and pull in to our store and not pull in to another part of the Plaza that’s so very separated from us, and that’s why we’re asking for this sign. While the sign will be, technically, two feet from the right of way, as you know this building, I’m sure, was there before Route 9 was expanded and wider over the years, you know, things seem to, the buildings didn’t creep closer to Route 9, but Route 9 crept closer to the buildings, is the problem, but the right of way goes far beyond the actual road bed, was one of the points I made there. I went out and physically measured this also, but looking at the maps and things provided, if you look at it technically, the distance from the right of way is two feet, requiring 13 feet of relief, which of course is what we were requesting, but on a site visit and a measurement, the closest the edge of the sign will get to the bed of the road is 18 feet. So the expansion beyond that is their sidewalk, and then there’s just land that happens to be owned by the State, and that was done by an architectural plan that was presented and the whole conforming of, which included some of Home Depot and the parking and some of the changes there, but our relief requested is 13 feet. Our actual distance from the bed of the road is 18 feet, which makes us feel that this isn’t a large amount of relief requested, and like I said, our individual identity as a separate store with a separate parking lot in that Plaza is important to us, and people being able to see us as they drive by without having to crane their necks and face us is important to us, and we think will have a positive impact on our business. We hope and believe that the impact of this sign in the neighborhood and the community that, as we just previously discussed, has been being renovated very frequently, and things are looking better and better every day. We really hope and believe that this relatively small sign request is just to make us physically noticeable is a minimal impact on the landscape and the improvements that have been done in the area. Thank you. MR. STONE-Quick question. When did you move in to the property? MR. WESSLING-We moved there in April of this year. We’ve been in antiques and collectibles, like I said, since ’96. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. WESSLING-And we started off, really we started off in our basements, mainly doing e-bay, and this was a step of faith for us of moving in to the building in April and the expenses with doing that and the inventory and so forth. Things are really stabilized for us. MR. STONE-Did the owner of the property tell you that you would need a variance if you wanted to put a freestanding sign, or how did you find out? MR. WESSLING-I guess there was discussions with Staff. When we moved in, and even before we firmed things up, we had discussions with Staff, and we talked first about the wall sign. We talked about the pole, and then we decided to take it kind of a step at a time. The wall sign didn’t require a variance, and then, so let’s get moved in, and we weren’t ready to spend money on a second sign at that point, you know, so we said, down the road we’ll come in and apply and come before this Board, and that’s what we’re doing today. MR. STONE-That was a very good presentation. MR. WESSLING-It was a tough act to follow. MR. STONE-For a non-lawyer, you did good. MR. ABBATE-However, that’s no indication of how the vote’s going to go. MR. WESSLING-Yes, I know. MR. STONE-I said that before. MR. ABBATE-Just to cover ourselves. 21 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/19/03) MR. STONE-Yes, right. All right. Any questions of Mr. Wessling or Mr. Brown? MR. BRYANT-Question. Any thought into the possibility of moving that pole? It doesn’t seem like a complicated thing. I mean, it’s not an electric, you don’t have electric or anything? MR. WESSLING-There is wiring and lighting to it. MR. BRYANT-There is? MR. WESSLING-Yes. MR. BRYANT-So is this sign going to be illuminated? MR. WESSLING-There’s two existing spotlight holders. I guess we never thought of discussing that previous, or if we should. I’m not sure. MR. BRYANT-Do you have any thought about moving the pole back? MR. WESSLING-Well, I’m not sure if you visited there, but if you pull into the parking lot, I mean, there’s actually a limit of space from road to sign to building, and as you look at the pictures, you know, there’s kind of a flurry of wires and, you know, new trees and vegetation and where it is now, it would have some visibility. It would still need to catch somebody’s eye, but as it moved back, it would become less visible to the passerby. MR. STONE-So this is the sign you’re talking, just antiques, buying and selling? MR. WESSLING-Very simple we wanted it. Yes. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. ABBATE-I have a question. The eighteen feet here on your diagram, you actually measured the eighteen feet, I see it’s from the edge of the road bed to the building, to the fence line there. MR. WESSLING-We went out to the pole, to where the pole is, and the sign would extend six feet from that pole toward the road, because it’s six by four feet, drops straight down and measures to the road bed and that’s how we got our eighteen feet. MR. ABBATE-Eighteen feet from it. MR. WESSLING-Yes. MR. BRYANT-The relief that you’re actually seeking, when you measured the sign, I mean, the pole is a 90 degree angle, and it’s facing toward the road. It’s from the front of that pole, right, it’s not from the center of that pole. MR. WESSLING-From the closest extreme of the sign to the road. MR. STONE-Where the sign itself would be. MR. BRYANT-The sign itself. MR. WESSLING-From what would be the closest, yes, to the road. MR. STONE-Question about a Sign Variance, Mr. Brown. When we give a Sign Variance, the sign itself is important to us, correct? 22 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/19/03) MR. BROWN-That’s correct. MR. STONE-So that’s why I’m saying, this is what you want, and this is the application. This is what we’ll grant you if we grant, right? MR. HAYES-That’s just a representation, essentially, right? MR. BROWN-Yes. MR. WESSLING-In order to give the relief, I thought the sign application would have to match what’s given here. MR. BROWN-Yes. I guess my question is, or your question, is that what the sign is going to look like. My guess is the font and the letter size and the description of the sign is not going to be exactly what’s there. MR. STONE-That I understand, but that’s what it’s going to say. MR. WESSLING-Correct. MR. ABBATE-And you’re going to have a sign maker do it, I suspect. MR. R. BROWN-Yes. The same one that did the sign that used to be there. MR. ABBATE-Right. Okay. All right. MR. HAYES-Is it internally illuminated, or externally illuminated? MR. WESSLING-Externally with spotlights. MR. HAYES-Okay. Great. MR. STONE-Who judges, I don’t want to say taste, but I’ll use the word? Is that under your purview when they come in for a sign permit? If they wanted to put up? MR. BROWN-If they wanted to put up what? MR. HAYES-That would be a first amendment issue. MR. BROWN-If they wanted to have a purple sign with orange letters? MR. STONE-Not colors, no. If there were something on it that the community would find offensive. MR. BROWN-Sure. If there’s offensive language up there, there’s sections in our Zoning Ordinance or the Sign code that doesn’t allow for that. MR. URRICO-I have a question. Did you approach the owner of the Plaza there? MR. WESSLING-Yes, we had the signature and the paperwork. MR. URRICO-What did they say about putting a common sign in there for the entire Plaza? Adding your sign to the one where Subway and? MR. WESSLING-Well, basically we know that that’s already full, other than a thin strip at the bottom. MR. URRICO-How about Northway Plaza? They have some. 23 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/19/03) MR. WESSLING-And like I said, while we are part of that Plaza, we understand that, we understand this is a request for a second freestanding sign. We are a very separate identity on the visual. MR. URRICO-But you did approach her, or did you? Did you ask her and they said they wouldn’t do it or? MR. WESSLING-Just that we know that’s full. There is no more space there. MR. HAYES-We had an application a few years ago, too, where the applicant did request to go on that sign, and he was denied. That’s why he had the, the guy that had like the car dealership down below there. He was denied, the guy said no. MR. ABBATE-And that’s a good question that Roy brought up, but the object of the sign is to encourage new customers to come to your new business. MR. WESSLING-And come to our parking lot. MR. ABBATE-You’re a new enterprise, and you’d like to do everything that, within, that’s legal, to advertise the fact that, hey guys, we’re here, and there is a pole already there. MR. WESSLING-Correct. MR. ABBATE-All right. Okay. MR. WESSLING-Thank you. MR. URRICO-Is there any reason to believe that the 18 feet is not accurate? We don’t really have a survey map. MR. WESSLING-All you can tell on the architectural sketch is from the right of way. MR. URRICO-Sometimes the edge of the road is not where the line starts. MR. STONE-Most definitely, it’s only two feet. That’s what the relief they’re asking for. They’re asking for 13 feet of relief. The applicant is saying, yes, that’s true, but there’s an additional eighteen feet in there that is not being used by cars. MR. ABBATE-Right. MR. WESSLING-Yes. MR. ABBATE-And if you go drive by it and you look at the pictures, it’s quite obvious that you’re probably accurate. MR. WESSLING-If you’ve visited it. You probably would have noticed. MR. STONE-The average person looking at it would say, you’re very far away from the road. MR. ABBATE-Right. Correct. Exactly. MR. STONE-Any other questions before I open the public hearing? Okay. Let me open the public hearing. Anybody wishing to speak in favor of this application? In favor of? Anybody opposed? Opposed? Any correspondence? MR. UNDERWOOD-None. 24 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/19/03) PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. STONE-Any other questions? If not, let’s talk about it. Let’s start with Allan. MR. BRYANT-Before I talk about it, I do have a question. I just want to make sure that the sign itself is going to basically come to the end of the pole. It’s not going to protrude even further than the pole, is it? MR. WESSLING-You’ve got the pole that’s existing there, and then the sign would be at six foot length. MR. BRYANT-Yes, but how long is the horizontal pole? How long is that? MR. WESSLING-That’s going to be the six feet, yes, and it’s currently. MR. BRYANT-So it’s not going to go beyond that end? MR. WESSLING-No. That’s currently six feet. All right. I measured that also, yes. MR. STONE-So you’re talking about just putting it on this cross piece here. MR. ABBATE-The arm of the pole. MR. STONE-Parallel to Route 9, as I see it, or is it at right angles? MR. WESSLING-It’s a little off. We’d want it perpendicular to Route 9. MR. STONE-Right. Okay. MR. WESSLING-But the measurement of 18 feet is based on it being perpendicular to Route 9 and then taking into account the six feet of the signage dropping straight down, yes. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. BRYANT-Okay. I’m ready to talk about it. MR. STONE-Go ahead. Discuss it. MR. BRYANT-I can see from looking at your building that you obviously do need a sign. It’s very difficult, I’ve driven by there 100 times, and until looking for the sign, I never saw it. So from that aspect I think you’ve demonstrated your need for the sign. I do question, however, I think that your assessment of moving the pole is, I think you could conceivably move the pole. Not that I’m opposed to the application. I am in favor of it. I think your building needs the sign, but I think that you do have room to move the pole back. You’re not going to achieve the 12 feet that you need, or 13 feet. MR. STONE-Fifteen. MR. BRYANT-But could possibly move the pole back, but I’ll vote for the application as it stands. MR. STONE-Roy? 25 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/19/03) MR. URRICO-Yes. This application makes sense to me. Coming up that hill, I mean, even if you were at the Subway sign, I don’t even think you can see it from your building. So they need to ask the question. I would be in favor of it. I think you do need some identification, and that would be a good location for it. I think it’s the best location, taking advantage of a pole that already exists, and hopefully it will give you the visibility that you’re asking for. So I’d be in favor of it. MR. STONE-Okay. Jaime? MR. HAYES-I agree. I think you guys did a great job with your presentation. Maybe you had some little framework there to build on, after listening to that last one, but I agree with what Al and Roy have said. I think if you drive by there you’re down in. It’s hard to see. Traffic’s moving pretty good, especially down the hill there. I mean, it seems that your property, to me, is distinctive from that other multi-tenanted property there to the right, in the sense that you need separate identification to get by. Twenty-four square foot sign is really just not that big of a sign either. I mean, we’re not, you know, you’re not asking for something big. The 24 square feet, I don’t know if you can do that much more than identification, and that’s all you’ve claimed you’ve wanted to do, and I think that that’s a, you know, what you’re presenting doesn’t differ to me from what you’re saying you want, and to me that’s comforting. So I don’t think the relief is substantial, and I don’t know how I could make the case that there was an adverse effect on the neighborhood by granting you this when we just gave them their eighteenth million sign the last application, bigger than this one, too. So I don’t know, I obviously don’t believe that it does, and I don’t believe that it’s self-created, either. I think that this property pre-dates the current Sign Variance. Probably pre-dates me altogether. So I think you’re doing, it seems to me like a good job of making that a respectable piece of property, and this is a legitimate business request. So I’m in favor. MR. STONE-Mr. Underwood? MR. UNDERWOOD-I, too, would be in favor of it. I think it’s logical what you’ve proposed. I think that you’re definitely separate from the rest of the Plaza, and, you know, the traffic coming up there when they get the green light down by Nobles, it’s a tear to get to the next light and slam on the breaks, and I think that people not knowing where you are are liable to hitting on the brakes real hard to try and make it in there, and it’s hard to do that, as is, so I’d be in favor of it. MR. STONE-Joyce? MRS. HUNT-Yes. I met Mr. Wessling when I made my site visit. Good evening. I go past there every day, and I had never noticed, even after I was going to do my site visit I went past the entrance to the parking lot. So I definitely see a need, and I don’t have any objection. I think it looks like the minimum that you would need. So I’m in favor of it. MR. STONE-Yes. It’s a good application, for a good purpose, and it certainly is the minimum that you could ask for, in terms of a freestanding sign. I defy anybody but us and our Staff to know that these are not two separate parcels. Once you go around the back you can see that it’s actually I think wonderful work has been done on this property. The parking lot in the back, I drove in this afternoon and it is very, very attractive. The railings and the steps. MR. ABBATE-May I get in on the conversation, Mr. Chairman? You forgot to ask me. MR. STONE-I’m sorry. Excuse me. MR. ABBATE-That’s quite all right. I don’t mind. May I? MR. STONE-You certainly may. 26 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/19/03) MR. ABBATE-You folks are starting a new business, and I’m all for it, and I think one of the things that we should be careful of is not to deny or put obstacles in legitimate businesses, if you will. I think your application is reasonable, and I certainly would be in favor of it. Thank you. MR. STONE-As I started to say, I think it’s a very good application. I think when you consider the technical aspects of the right of way and the thing, I think it’s a perfectly valid application. I do, I certainly would encourage you, as Mr. Bryant has, if there’s any way you can minimize that, the amount as close as you are, but in this particular case, the 13 feet of relief doesn’t bother me because of the sidewalk and everything else that’s in there. MOTION THAT A REVIEW OF THE SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM SHOWS THERE ARE NO SIGNIFICANT NEGATIVE IMPACTS CAUSED BY THIS PROJECT, Introduced by Lewis Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Paul Hayes: Duly adopted this 19 day of November, 2003, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Underwood, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Stone NOES: NONE MR. STONE-Okay. We need a motion to approve. MOTION TO APPROVE SIGN VARIANCE NO. 85-2003 TOM WESSLING: R & T COLLECTIBLES, Introduced by Joyce Hunt who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Abbate: 878 Route 9, Miller Hill Plaza. The date is November 19, 2003. Application proposes installation of a second freestanding sign in the business complex. Applicant requests 13 ft. of relief from the 15 ft. minimum setback requirement, as well as relief for a second freestanding sign in a business complex as per the Sign Ordinance, Section 140-6 B3. I stipulate that the sign would be no more than 24 sq. ft. I would move that we approve the Sign Variance No. 85-2003. Duly adopted this 19 day of November, 2003, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Underwood, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Stone NOES: NONE MR. WESSLING-Thank you very much. MR. STONE-You’re welcome. AREA VARIANCE NO. 86-2003 SEQRA TYPE: II LAWRENCE & KRISTINE SIPOWICZ AGENT: JARRETT-MARTIN ENGINEERS, PLLC OWNER: LAWRENCE & KRISTINE SIPOWICZ ZONING: WR-1A, CEA LOCATION: 5 GLEN HALL DRIVE APPLICANT PROPOSES DEMOLITION OF EXISTING 1,474 SQ. FT. DWELLING AND CONSTRUCTION OF A 1,882 SQ. FT. SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM SIDE LINE, SHORELINE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS AS WELL AS HEIGHT REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REFERENCE: BP 2002-1041 TAX MAP NO. 289.11-1-28 LOT SIZE: 0.23 ACRES SECTION: 179-4-030 TOM JARRETT & TRENT MARTIN, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT 27 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/19/03) Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 86-2003, Lawrence & Kristine Sipowicz, Meeting Date: November 19, 2003 “Project Location: 5 Glen Hall Drive Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes demolition of a 1474 sf Single Family Dwelling and the construction of a 1882 sf Single Family Dwelling. Relief Required: Applicant requests 22.5 feet of relief from the 50-foot minimum shoreline setback requirement, 10.7 feet and 5.3 feet of relief from the 12- foot minimum side setback requirement and 2 feet of relief from the 28 foot maximum height requirement of the WR-1A Zone, §179-4-030. Additionally, relief is required from §179-4-90, as the property has no road frontage on a public street. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): BP 2002-1041 1777 sf residential addition. Not issued Staff comments: The relief requested from the road frontage requirement does not appear to have a feasible alternative. However, each of the dimensional requests for setback relief and height appear to have options available. It appears as though a narrower, shorter home, parallel to the property lines, as are the neighboring homes, would be a feasible alternative. The slope of the site appears to be relatively consistent and with the removal of the “garage” it appears as though there is ample room for the proposed building to meet the minimum shoreline setback requirement.” MR. STONE-Any County? I didn’t even look. MR. UNDERWOOD-I don’t think there is. I don’t recall one. MR. STONE-Okay. Gentlemen. MR. JARRETT-Good evening. We’re not here for a Sign Variance. My name is Tom Jarrett of Jarrett-Martin Engineers. With me tonight is a member of my Staff, Trent Martin, and Larry Sipowicz is to my left, the owner of the property, one of the owners of the property. The Sipowiczs would like to remove an existing small, tired camp, I’ll phrase it, on the north end of Glen Lake, and replace it with a structure that you see depicted in your package and in our, the easel here. They would like to rebuild or build the new house on essentially the same footprint, especially at the north line. The north line is on a foundation that was built by Larry’s grandfather, by hand, and they would like to keep that, as part of the history of the property, and that’s our main reason for locating the house with no further setback from the lake. We’re maintaining a consistent setback from the lake, as currently exists. The setback from the north side line is currently nonconforming, and we wish to keep it nonconforming. In fact, we’re aggravating that slightly to square off the structure, and to make this residence a year round, a functional year round residence, we’d like to add a second story to it, which adds the height and it would be nonconforming with a Waterfront Residential height restriction of 28 feet. We would go to a total height of 30 feet. However, we would mitigate that by providing a berm in the front of the structure at least two feet high, which would reduce the visibility to the 28 foot that’s intended by the Ordinance. A couple of things I think we ought to mention as part of our presentation, we feel that building a structure of this type, which is, we feel, relatively modest, it’s a three bedroom structure. It is smaller in stature, compared with the structure immediately to the north, and we feel moving it back on the property would increase its profile visibility from the lake, and not be in keeping with the character of the community, the character of the neighborhood. Further, if we move the structure back away from the lake, we start to encroach on an area below the driveway where we want to provide stormwater management for the existing driveway, and in keeping with the Town’s stormwater ordinance, you know, we need to be 100 feet from the lake with that stormwater management if it’s stormwater from a traffic area, a driveway. Again, we’d like to keep the existing foundation on the north wall. That was the foundation built by Larry’s grandfather. The height variance that we’re requesting, the two feet, would make the structure, give it conformity with the neighborhood in our opinion. We’ve got a couple of pictures. In fact, maybe, Trent, you could hand these to the Board, a 28 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/19/03) couple of pictures showing the lake frontage in this area. The Sipowicz residence is the center structure, the white structure, and you’ll notice the structure immediately to the north, or the left in those pictures is quite a bit higher, and with our new structure, even with the variance, we’ll be quite a bit lower than that structure. The structure to the right is lower, as you can see, and I think the structure we propose will be a gradual step down or profile down to the south. MR. STONE-Do you know when that one to the north was built, Mr. Jarrett? MR. JARRETT-Do we know when the one to the north? I believe that neighbor is here. You can ask them. AUDIENCE MEMBER-About seven years ago. MR. STONE-Seven years ago? AUDIENCE MEMBER-I believe so, give or take. MR. STONE-How tall is it, Craig? It looks very tall when I was out there. I was just curious, but go ahead. I didn’t mean to, since you mentioned it. MR. JARRETT-The garage behind the existing Sipowicz structure is going to be removed and not replaced. So we’ll remove some of the existing profile, structure profile that’s there now and the new structure we don’t feel will be any more obtrusive than what currently exists. With regard to the side line setback, the proposed house is 26 feet wide with a 6 foot covered porch. The lot is 49 foot 5 inches wide. We really can’t meet sideline setbacks with this proposed structure, and in maintaining the existing foundation, the house would be cocked a little bit to the southwest, and interestingly enough in my perspective that adds a little bit of privacy for each structure on either side. We feel it’s actually a benefit to be on the angle. So, with that having been said, do you have anything that you’d like to add? I guess we’ll open it up to the Board for questions. MR. STONE-Again, the question I’ll ask, this house was built seven years ago, the 28 foot was in place next door. MR. BROWN-It’s possible. 1996 was when the Ordinance changed and included the changes to the Waterfront Residential zone, which put the floor area ratio and dropped the height down to 28, from, I believe, either 30 or 35. MR. UNDERWOOD-I moved on the lake in ’90, and it was there when I was first on the lake. So it’s been there longer than that. MR. STONE-The house, you mean the big one? MR. UNDERWOOD-The big tall one, yes. MR. STONE-But the owner said he just built it seven years ago. LARRY SIPOWICZ MR. SIPOWICZ-He just purchased it, a year or two ago. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. JARRETT-So apparently it pre-dates the. MR. STONE-It probably does, because it’s very tall. MR. JARRETT-Yes. It’s quite tall. Yes. 29 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/19/03) MR. STONE-Any questions, gentlemen? MR. UNDERWOOD-In regards to their comments regarding the angle of the house and the way it’s placed on the property, you know, I live on Glen Lake and when I came in for my variance, my house is kicked off angle from the property lines also, and I think that, previously I have discussed this, you know, we granted one over on the other side of the lake, you know, further up the lake, a long ways away from here, but I think there’s some merit to what they say about, as far as having your own privacy. When everybody is cookie cutter cut in, right next to each other, and their setbacks are all exactly the same, you’re always, in your peripheral vision, looking at your neighbor’s house, but if you actually visit a house that’s kicked that way, and you stand on the porch of the house, and you look that way, it creates the illusion, as they said, of having your own back forty without having neighbors in such close proximity to you. So there is some merit to what they’re talking about there. MR. STONE-Comment, if you will, I mean, I hear the argument that his grandfather, or father, I’m sorry, built the foundation. First of all, you know that in Queensbury we don’t have a footprint regulation. You take it down and you start from scratch. Comment, if you will, on why you can’t make it more conforming, in the one area that I’m particularly concerned with, and that’s distance from the lake. I mean, the side setback, I mean, when you have narrow lots like these you’re always going to need some kind of relief in all probability, but the lake, to me, is, any lake should be more in conformity, or any house on the lake, more in conformity with our zoning, which is designed to protect the lake for everybody, view wise and health wise, if you will. MR. JARRETT-Well, I think I’d probably have to reiterate some of my comments, but I can relay this to you, that when the Sipowiczs first sat down with us to discuss this, I relayed to them this Board, with all due respect, doesn’t like to grant a lot of variances. If we can minimize the amount of variances, we optimism our chances to gain any variances, and they said to me that they need the height because they need that second story for family purposes or year round residential property. They also said they really want to keep that foundation wall on the north side. They really want to keep the structure, currently, what is it, 27 and a half feet from the lake, and close to that north side line, because they really want to reuse that foundation. It’s a historical presence for the family. That having been said, from my perspective, from an objective perspective, I do feel setting the structure back further on the lot is relatively, I’m not going to call it steep, but it’s moderately steep. We’re going to gain profile view from the lake, and I don’t think maintaining that consistent lakefront setback, which is relatively consistent along that whole shorefront, I don’t think it creates any detriment to the neighborhood. That’s my personal opinion. MR. BRYANT-I don’t understand that statement. Why would it gain profile from the lake? MR. JARRETT-It’ll be moved back from the lake. MR. BRYANT-It’s not that much higher, though, than the, what are we talking about, 15 feet? 10 feet? How much elevation are we talking about? MR. JARRETT-If we go back 20, 25 feet roughly. We’ve got 50 foot required setback. MR. BRYANT-According to this here, from the front of the house, it’s 185 feet, and if you move it back to where the rear of the house is, it’s 195 feet. So we’re talking about 10 feet. So I don’t understand that. MR. JARRETT-Right now. We propose the corner of the house is 27 foot 5 inches from the lake. If we go back to 50 feet, which is roughly 22 feet 7 inches. MR. BRYANT-I don’t think that anybody is suggesting that you have to go back what the full Code is that we’re, everything is carved in stone and we’re not going to give you any variance. 30 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/19/03) All we’re suggesting is, if you look at the elevation, the front of the house, you’re at 185 feet now, at their marker, and you go to, if you move the house back, so that the front were basically close to where the back is, the difference in elevation is only 10 feet. So I don’t understand that whole argument about the profile. The second thing, and I know you’ve mentioned it a couple of times in your comments, you know, I understand, my grandfather planted a tree and I want to preserve that tree, has a ’49 Chevy, but I don’t understand the affinity with a foundation. I don’t understand that part of the argument, but this whole profile issue about moving the house back, I don’t see it. It doesn’t show in the elevation. You’re not going to have a difference of 20 feet, according to this site plan. MR. JARRETT-All I’m saying is in relative terms, if we move the house back, the house goes up in elevation. MR. BRYANT-Yes, but the elevation that it goes back, we’re only talking about a 10 feet differential. I don’t understand why, unless I’m reading this wrong, I mean, I’m looking at it, the 185 line is right at the front of the building, 195 line is right at the back of the building. So, the difference is 10 feet, to move the building back. So I don’t understand the argument that, if you move the building back it’s going to be more, you know, pronounced on the lake, you know, or the profile is going to be higher. It’ll be higher, yes, but it’s not going to be more visible from the lake. I don’t understand that argument. MR. STONE-It’s going to be further away from the lake. MR. BRYANT-Yes, and the elevation is not that much of a difference. Especially when you compare it to the monstrosity that’s next to it, you know, that’s a pretty big house. MR. STONE-Yes, but you’ve got a man who lives in it. MR. BRYANT-Sorry. MR. STONE-Or owns it, at least. MR. BRYANT-You know, if you go back, and even if you’re 10 feet higher, you’re still not going to be higher than that building. MR. SIPOWICZ-But, and the point is as you start to move back, you get them, you’re looking at them because they’re in front of you now, being that tight. If you stay in line with everybody else, then you’re not looking on them. MR. BRYANT-Well, the way you’ve got the building slanted, you’re not looking at them anyway. MR. SIPOWICZ-Yes, but I mean, just by looking at. MR. BRYANT-I mean, even if you moved the building back and you kept it slanted, and I’m not saying anything about the side setback. I’m only talking about the lakeshore, the shore setback, the shore setback and the height are the only two things that really bother me, okay, about the whole proposal, and if you left this building at this cocked positioned, your neighbor is to the north anyway, right, the gray house to the north, so if you left it in a cocked position and you looked out, you wouldn’t be looking at him anyway. You’d be still looking out at the lake. So I don’t know. I don’t understand that total thing. MR. ABBATE-Help me understand this, please. I understand what Allan is saying. Taking a close look at the picture here, what was it that tree that your grandfather planted, is that somebody telling me that? MR. JARRETT-The foundation. 31 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/19/03) MR. ABBATE-The foundation. So the tree there, is that tree coming down? MR. SIPOWICZ-Yes. MR. ABBATE-The tree is coming down? MR. SIPOWICZ-Are you referring to the one that’s right there in the front? MR. ABBATE-Right. MR. SIPOWICZ-Yes, right at the house. MR. ABBATE-So that’s coming down, right? MR. SIPOWICZ-Yes, sir. MR. ABBATE-And the foundation is of historical significance? MR. SIPOWICZ-I wanted to stay on it, as that’s property I inherited that my grandfather built. MR. ABBATE-I understand that. You wanted to stay on it at what cost, though? Doing away with the foundation that your granddad put in there, that would give you somewhat alternatives, would it not, feasible alternatives? MR. SIPOWICZ-Yes, it would. MR. ABBATE-So you’d have to make a decision at what cost do you want to maintain that foundation. MR. SIPOWICZ-Exactly. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. MR. STONE-Do you want to talk about the thing we just talked about? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. One of the things that, you know, we feel has not been followed through on is your, in filling out your form here where it says the following questions reflect the criteria for granting this type of variance, you know, and your terse answers of no, no, yes, no, you know, really aren’t to the mark, you know, I think what we’re looking here some information from you is to, you know, to substantiate why you feel we should grant these variances, and to a degree that’s the homeowners domain to make sure that that’s clear to us. I think, you know, being a lake resident also that, in reviewing your points here, your setback from the lake is essentially the equal of your neighbors on either side of you, you know, and as you go further up the lake, you know, it’s for us to decide whether we think that that should be increased to the full 50 foot width, but, you know, your argument that, you know, your neighbors aren’t set 50 foot back would put you way back behind everybody else makes some sense to me. As far as the foundation on your house being of some, you know, historic benefit for you to keep it that way, I would think at the same time, you know, the house could be moved back maybe five feet back, you know, it wouldn’t make that much difference, but I don’t know what your jury, the distances setback on either side are. MR. JARRETT-If this Board, just without talking with Larry Sipowicz, if this Board felt that five foot would make a difference, in the way they viewed the application, I could confer with my client, and that may be acceptable. MR. UNDERWOOD-The other thing that I would make a suggestion for you to do, as far as mitigating the distance from the lake, is that some substantial trees be planted out in front of there, and I think that, you know, we’ve tried to accommodate people on the lake, but we have 32 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/19/03) tried to minimize your presence on the lake, as far as the view, as it presently stands, the camp sticks out like a sore thumb, and, you know, with some real trees that would grow up like your neighbors have, it does, to a degree, give you a little more camouflage there. MR. JARRETT-We’ve shown some landscaping in the site plan. We’ve shown some landscaping shrubs here, that are proposed. They’re not full trees, but they are juniper shrubs. MR. UNDERWOOD-Well, I really think trees make it different. Shrubs don’t make it for me. MR. STONE-Let me just build on something Jim said. One of the things we have learned over the years, is that, or we have learned to not like, is Number Three, are there feasible alternatives to this variance, no. There is no such thing as “no” when it comes to feasible alternatives, and I think Staff has correctly pointed out a number of them, and these are the kind of things that catch our eye, quite frankly. I agree with Mr. Underwood that, we need, certainly some relief from the lake, five, I’m not ready to say that yet, but obviously we don’t want to put you so far back that you can only see tunnel vision out, but on the same token, if we don’t start with a new house, a year round home, and try to conform to the 50 foot, then we’re never going to get conformity at some period in time. The other question I have of Staff, has the fire department made any commitment, any comment about, since it’s not a Town road and they make comment, don’t they? MR. BROWN-Not as a matter of purpose, not all the time. MR. STONE-Not all the time. MR. BROWN-If we submit it to them, and we can certainly do that, if this keeps going, and it’s an additional information, well, we can certainly send it to them. MR. STONE-But the fact it’s going to be a year round home, in an area where there are no year round homes now. MR. BROWN-I would guess that this is probably a year round home. MR. STONE-That’s what they said, yes. MR. BROWN-So, I mean, there are, is this a year round home now? MR. SIPOWICZ-No. MR. BROWN-Okay. MR. SIPOWICZ-But they’re, I mean, my neighbor to my right and then right on down are year round homes. MR. STONE-They were built, and the fire department may never have been asked to comment on it, either. If it doesn’t get plowed, the fire department can only get so far, if a fire starts. You’re on a private road, are you not? MR. SIPOWICZ-Where the paved road hooks around. MR. STONE-Right, yes, I understand that. MR. SIPOWICZ-Into that slot, yes, they plow that. MR. STONE-Yes, the plow the paved road, but they don’t go up your little private way. MR. SIPOWICZ-Yes, they do. Somebody does. It’s plowed when I go there. I just have to snow blow my driveway. 33 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/19/03) MR. STONE-Okay. MR. ABBATE-Mr. Chairman, if I hear a contradiction, you folks, the applicants will have to bear with me, because sometimes my hearing isn’t as well. I thought I heard you indicate that this is a year round home. MR. JARRETT-They want to make it a year round home. This is not currently a year round home. You want to make it a year round home, and if we don’t grant the variances, then it will not be a year round home? I see. MR. STONE-Well, if we don’t, if we grant some relief and they build, they still want to build a year round home, and we’ve still got a number of things on the table here. MR. ABBATE-Well, the thing that’s bothering me, and I don’t live on the waterfront, trust me, is that you’re requesting five specific reliefs and a tree is going down, and then there is sentimental attachment to his what you believe to be historical of the basement that your granddad put in there, and I don’t have a quarrel with that, with that kind of a thing. It seems to me that you can make, there are some feasible alternatives, particularly if you decided to perhaps maybe do what I did, and I’m saying this in all seriousness. When my beloved father died, I had him cremated and put in a little vase. Maybe you can take a couple of bricks and, you know, put it on the shelf and say granddad did this, make a fireplace out of it or something like that. Seriously. A brick is a brick. MR. SIPOWICZ-I was taking part of the hardwood floor that’s in there now and a couple of shelves that he built in the wall and they’re going in the new house. MR. ABBATE-Sure. Absolutely. I guess the point is this. Compromising, as I said, at what cost do you want to maintain the foundation that’s currently there? It seems to me that there are feasible alternatives and sentimentality as well, that might very well achieve what you’re attempting to do. Just for what it’s worth. MR. STONE-Any other comments? MR. URRICO-I have a question. I’m not sure if I’m reading this right. The current dwelling is 1,474 square feet, or is it 1,297? MR. STONE-It’s 1474. MR. URRICO-That’s what it says on the notes, but the application says existing square foot is 1297. MR. JARRETT-The existing dwelling has got a footprint of 737 square feet, with a detached garage of 560 square foot. The total footprint right now is 1297 square feet. MR. UNDERWOOD-Includes the garage? MR. JARRETT-Includes the garage. MR. ABBATE-And you know, Roy, you’re absolutely correct, because I challenged the Zoning Administrator on that and he straightened me out fast. Do you recall a telephone call the other day when I asked that same question? I said why does it say 1297? When it proposed 1254? MR. BROWN-Yes. MR. ABBATE-And you got me, put me back in place, and that’s the question that Roy has. MR. BROWN-Do you have the answer you were looking for? 34 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/19/03) MR. URRICO-But you’re welcome to put him in his place again if you’d like. MR. BROWN-I think Mr. Jarrett’s explained the answer. If you look at the site development data page, probably that 1297 number should read 700 something, and under detached garage that’s where that number should go in, but they combined it. So I think that it effectively describes what’s there. The total square footage of the house is the 1474, the two story number. MR. URRICO-Okay. Then the proposed addition is 1882? MR. STONE-Actually it says 1378. MR. JARRETT-1354 is the footprint that we understand. I’m not sure where the 1800 came from. If I can resurrect that I will. We have 1454. MR. STONE-You can say, if the garage comes down, then this house is going to actually be smaller, or the same size as what’s there, approximately? MR. JARRETT-The 1882 is the total living space in the house. 1354 is the total footprint. MR. ABBATE-Right. That was the difference. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. URRICO-That says something different on the Floor Area Ratio worksheet. MR. JARRETT-It’s got 941 for first floor and second floor, and 126 for the enclosed porch. MR. URRICO-That’s 1882, and the enclosed porch. MR. JARRETT-The Floor Area Ratio then turns out to be .20. MR. URRICO-And we include the covered porch area? MR. BROWN-No. Typically you don’t include that when you consider the square footage of the house. You do it for the Floor Area Ratio calculation, but it’s not included in that 1882 number. I’m not sure where the 1354 total footprint number comes from. MR. URRICO-So I guess my whole point in all this is that the current footprint actually covers a smaller area than the new house, the new proposed house would cover. I mean, the footprint holds a smaller house than what you’re proposing. MR. STONE-No, it’s going to be 941 versus 737, according to their numbers. MR. JARRETT-The new house is a larger footprint than the old one. Moving the garage, which helps the floor area ratio. MR. STONE-Right. Yes. MR. URRICO-But the house itself. MR. JARRETT-The house itself is a larger footprint. MR. STONE-Any other questions of the applicant? Because we’ve got some people here, I think, who want to talk, I think. If not, we’ll open the public hearing. Anybody wishing to speak in favor? 35 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/19/03) PUBLIC HEARING OPENED ERIK RUTNIK MR. RUTNIK-Good evening. My name’s Erik Rutnik. I’m the neighbor to the north of Larry and Kristine Sipowicz in the monstrosity. Sorry. I had to take that liberty. I would, you know, like to see this go forward for Larry and Kristine. They have a growing family, two young girls. Their house is rather small for four people and a cat, at last check. I’d also think that to keep the existing setback from the lake, and I know you guys have your things you need to do, but it wouldn’t bother me any, let’s put it that way, if it kept the current line that’s there, and he’s actually growing away from my property line. So again, that doesn’t necessarily affect me, though I am giving him relief of some six inches or something towards me, but as the project stands, as it is, you know, it makes my approval and my wife, for what it’s worth, and I think it’s well planned. It’ll be an improvement on the structure that’s there. What’s there, I’m not going to call and eyesore. It’s cute, but again, I think the bigger purpose is to make it a larger living space for his family that desperately needs it. MR. STONE-Thank you. MR. RUTNIK-Can I ask, is there another set of plans like you guys are looking at there that I can take a peek at while this is going on? MR. ABBATE-Sure. MR. STONE-You can take a look at this one, and if you have anything you see you don’t like, you may come back. Are there any other questions? Okay. Anybody else wishing to speak in favor of? Anybody opposed? Any correspondence? MR. UNDERWOOD-None. MR. STONE-Okay. I’ll close the public hearing, pending any review of the questions that get generated. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. STONE-Let’s talk about it, because I think there’s some possibilities here, and let’s see where we stand. Let me start with Roy. MR. URRICO-Well, as it stands right now, I’m still not sure where I stand. Well, I know I’m definitely bothered by the height. The height definitely, in my estimation, would have to meet the 28 foot standard. As far as the shoreline setback, I’m probably not as bothered by that as I should be, because it’s in-line with what’s currently there, and I know we want to start pushing things back where we can, but I just don’t see this as being one of those cases. I am somewhat bothered by the side variance. The small side variance is small as it is, and we’re going to make it even smaller, and houses do turnover, and I’m not sure we’re serving the owner of that property, even though they’re not here, or any future owner’s properly by not at least asking you to maybe slim that down a little bit. I’m not bothered by the side variance on the other side as much as I am by that one, and that’s pretty much where I stand right now. I’m not bothered by the back variance. The back variance is fine, but that’s where I stand right now. I’m not really sure how I would vote. MR. STONE-Okay. Jaime? MR. HAYES-Well, I don’t want to speak for the rest of the Board, so I’ll just speak for myself, but I think that I agree with Jim Underwood in the sense that shoving this house back to the 50 foot line I think would be unfair to you. I’m not sure it would present an equitable situation for your view and your, you know, your lake view and that type of thing. I would be comfortable at the 35 foot mark, and that’s moving the house back seven and a half feet. The rest of the 36 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/19/03) variances, your dimensional relief on the sides, I’m not troubled by them, in the sense that you’re really not making that condition any worse or better than it is now, or your neighbors don’t object. I haven’t heard any objection to that fact. It is an undersized lot, which means no matter what you build there, you’re probably going to need some dimensional relief. So I think that that was decided when this lot was subdivided, a long time ago, you know, that there was going to be some dimensional relief ultimately. Eighteen hundred square foot is not a proposed build that troubles me, in the sense that you’re just overbuilding on this lot, you know, I mean, we’ve had applications for 24 and 2800 square foot things, and these would, I’d have to consider the impact on the neighborhood more if this house was going to be bigger, not that 1800 square foot isn’t a good sized house, it is, but it’s just not the size where I think that, from my perspective, the balancing test would begin to shift, being the fact that you were reaching for too much. I don’t think you’re doing that in your application, in this particular case. I would like to see the house at 28 foot maximum height, but I think I’ll agree with Jim again in the sense that with vegetation, with the two foot berm that you’ve proposed, it really does not represent a major change in impact, to me, from other houses on the lake of that size, in that area. I know your neighbor’s house is apparently taller than that. We’ll leave it at that, and this would be lower than that, and that’s not a good reason, but it’s not a bad one either. Because obviously the consistency in the neighborhood is of some issue in this particular case. I think, you know, you’re really building a new house here. I mean, I understand your desire to maintain some of your family tradition there, but you’re really asking us, you’re building a new house, and if you want to build a new house, and get this much larger house than you have now, and have it be year round and still have it be closer to the lake than is really allowed by Code, I think you need to give on something, and to me, that’s, you’ve got to move it back a few feet. I think that’s reasonable for the Board to expect, again, I’m speaking for myself, but I certainly do, if you’re looking for some of the other relief. So, and again, part of the reason that I think 35 feet is okay is that the other houses next to you are closer than that now. So we’re not really changing the character of the neighborhood by allowing you that dimensional relief, and you’re closer to the lake than that now. So on balance, you know, at that particular area, or whatever the Board’s pleasure, I would be in favor of the project, moving it back, you know, giving up the foundation, moving it back a certain number of feet. I would be in favor of your, you know, I guess of the overall proposal. MR. STONE-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. As I previously discussed with you, I would like to see it moved back slightly, you know, whether it’s five to seven and a half feet back, I think I would be in agreement with Jaime that 35 feet back from the lake would be far enough, close enough to the 50 foot setback. At the same time, I think that, you know, as we redo these old camps on the lake, it’s nice to see from the front of your property, but not be seen from across the lake, and I think that, you know, putting up some substantial vegetation in front of your property will make a difference. It also mitigates the runoff coming, because you are close to the lake, and prevents anything like that, you know, with the dredging project going on down there, I don’t know if eventually it’ll reach your house and give you some benefit at some point in time, hopefully in the future. As far as the height relief required, I was up against much the same thing when I did my house further up the lake, and in order to do that, I accomplished it by changing the roof pitch from 12/12 to 8/12 pitch, and us being the short guys with the knee wall, if you put that on there, it takes care of that. So it’ll get you down closer to what you need to be, you know, Tom could probably work that out. I don’t know, the full two feet, but it might get you down a foot, a foot and a half lower than what you’ve got right now. MR. JARRETT-Okay. I’ll come back to that one. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. UNDERWOOD-You can comment on that when you get your last bit there. As far as the side setbacks, I think that we have to take into account the very small nature of the parcel. It’s only .23 acres, and it’s one acre zoning, and I think that, you know, as I explained, having the house kicked the way it is makes it seem like you’re asking for an awful lot, as far as the side 37 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/19/03) setbacks, but the neighbor that would be most affected by the increasing of those side setbacks to the south there didn’t comment in a negative manner. So I think that we can live with that. So, I guess, other than that, I would vote for it. MR. STONE-Joyce? MRS. HUNT-Well, I’m concerned about the, when I look at the footprint of the existing house and the new house just fills up that whole, almost the whole width of the lot. So even though your garage is being taken down, still, that’s a lot of house, and I would, giving a lot of relief, and I certainly would like to see it further away from the shoreline, and I would like to see the height requirement met, since so much relief is being given for the two side setbacks, and in that case, I would be in favor of it, if those two conditions were met. MR. STONE-Chuck? MR. ABBATE-All right. Thank you. Well, I have three conditions. One that it be maintained no higher than 26 feet, and I’d go along with Jaime’s recommendation that it be kept at the 35 foot mark, and of course I hope there’s going to be a stipulation that the garage is going to be removed. If that’s the case, I’ll be in favor of the application. MR. STONE-Okay. Allan? MR. JARRETT-Can I clarify one second? Twenty-eight, or twenty-six did you mean? MR. STONE-Twenty-eight. MR. JARRETT-Okay. MR. ABBATE-What did I say? MR. JARRETT-Twenty-eight is the standard. MR. STONE-The standard, right. MR. ABBATE-Yes, you’re absolutely right. Thank you. Yes, thank you. MR. BRYANT-Is it my turn, Mr. Chairman? MR. STONE-Yes. MR. BRYANT-I don’t know, but I may have missed the whole point here. I can understand your desire to make this a year round dwelling. A lot of applicants come before the Board, and they want to add a porch or they want to add a room, and they have really no alternative but to put it in this particular location where they need a specific amount of relief for one reason or another. In this case, you have an opportunity, you’re tearing down the house. You have an opportunity, now that we’ve established that you’re not necessarily going to use the existing foundation, you have an opportunity to build a more conforming unit, dwelling unit, and I don’t understand why we’re bargaining here about height and setback and so forth and so on. Your alternative is to build, I’m not saying build 100% conforming unit, but your alternative is to design a building that may be a little bit narrower, a little bit longer, something that is more conforming, something a little bit back from the lake, again, I’m not asking you for the 50 feet, but maybe we could grant 10 or 12 feet of setback allowance, but I don’t understand, you do have a reasonable alternative, and that is to design a building that’ll fit in this small lot. Now the other issue relative to the fact that you have no road frontage, that’s a situation that is occurring, and there’s nothing really we can do about that. So, really, as it stands, the only thing, the only issue that I can really live with is the no frontage road frontage issue. I think you have an opportunity to design a building that’ll fit in this lot. So I’m opposed to the, I can’t see making, let’s make a deal for two feet here and five feet there. I just can’t buy it. 38 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/19/03) MR. STONE-Well, as, I agree with the majority of the Board. I am certainly not as adamant as Mr. Bryant, and I think his is a very viable position. I do, however, have heard everybody talk about the need for compromise, and that’s, I mean, you knew that when you walked in, and what we’re really saying to you, as a group, we need compromise. We need you to say to us, either now or next time, what you can live with. I mean, you heard 35 feet setback from the lake. You heard a big concern with the 30 feet. I heard someone, I think Jim said, well, maybe we can reduce that slightly, but I certainly heard a great deal of objection, and the things that I’m saying now are things that I believe. I think we’ve, the side setback doesn’t bother me. It is one of these ridiculously narrow lots. There is a house here now. Putting another house on there with those kind of side setbacks doesn’t bother me, but certainly I would agree with the majority of the Board that it’s got to be further from the lake. Thirty-five sounds like a reasonable number to me. It’s got to be, the height has to be looked at. If there’s any way, I recognize that it’s nice to build a house that has the exact same square footage on the second floor as on the first, and that seems to be the design you’ve come up with, but maybe there’s a way of reducing that area by bringing the roof down, putting a knee wall in, or the pitch, as Mr. Underwood talks about. I just think, if I were to call for a vote, as I hear it, on the request that you’ve made, we would deny it. I think I’m speaking for the majority of the Board. MR. JARRETT-I think I hear the same answer, yes. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. JARRETT-I’ll add a couple of things, and then I want 30 seconds to confer, to decide whether we should wait until later in the meeting and come back to you or come back next month, but I have not conceded the existing foundation yet, and what I would try to do if, I’m not sure how I would do it at this point, but I would try to move the structure back and still use that existing foundation wall in some way, if I could. It might mean too much of a design change to work. I’ve got to look at that. With regard to vegetation, Larry has already stipulated that he’d be glad to plant trees and we could propose trees there in lieu of the shrubs. MR. UNDERWOOD-They don’t have to be right on the house either. MR. JARRETT-To help mitigate. MR. STONE-If you moved it back, that big one, it’s a healthy tree, is it, the one that the house goes around almost, in the southwest corner? MR. SIPOWICZ-I think it’s, there’s two on the lot, and I think that’s one of them that is, seems to be dying. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. SIPOWICZ-And there’s one that’s directly behind the house that you can see that has dropped major limbs on the camp itself. MR. STONE-Okay. I just thought maybe that if the house got moved back, that tree might do better. MR. ABBATE-Before we start, help me out, I need some clarification here. If the house is moved back, but the foundation remains the same, doesn’t that increase the footage, Craig? MR. STONE-Well, that doesn’t provide the relief that we seem to be looking for. MR. ABBATE-Yes. In other words we’d have a problem there. Would we not, if the foundation remains the same and they move the house back? 39 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/19/03) MR. BROWN-No. I think what they’re trying to do is maintain that closest, at least the corner of the foundation, is that the goal, and design? MR. STONE-Some of the foundation. MR. ABBATE-Okay. MR. BROWN-That’s what I heard. MR. HAYES-So a wall would become a corner at some point, then. MR. STONE-Yes. MR. JARRETT-I can’t stand here and answer that question exactly. I’d have to go back and look and see if we could use some of it. I don’t want to concede that we’d abandon the foundation right now. I can’t make that decision for my client. I’m hearing what the Board says. MR. STONE-Okay. Do you want to take some time now? We can go on with the next application and table it until later in the meeting, or adjourn it until later in the meeting. MR. JARRETT-Let’s take some time, while you deal with the other applications, and we’ll talk with you later tonight and see if we can resolve this. MR. STONE-Okay. So we’ll adjourn this hearing for a half hour, and you can come back to us. MR. JARRETT-Thank you. We’ll come back. MR. STONE-Okay. Let me call the next one, while clients are conferring. AREA VARIANCE NO. 87-2003 SEQRA TYPE: II ROARING BROOK, LLC AGENT: RONALD P. WILLIS, DISTRICT MANAGER OWNER: ROARING BROOK LLC ZONING: HC-INT. LOCATION: 717 UPPER GLEN STREET APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 125 SQ. FT. ADDITION TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE EXISTING VALVOLINE INSTANT OIL CHANGE BUILDING’S CAR WASH BAY. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM SIDE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REFERENCE: SPR 60- 1990 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 11/12/03 TAX MAP NO. 302.06-1-52 LOT SIZE: 0.30 ACRES SECTION: 179-4-030 RONALD WILLIS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 87-2003 Roaring Brook, LLC, Meeting Date: November 19, 2003 “Project Location: 717 Upper Glen Street Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a 125 sf addition to the southeast corner of the existing Valvoline building for the expansion of the car wash bay. Relief Required: Applicant requests 10 feet of relief from the 20-foot minimum side setback requirement, of the Highway Commercial, HC- Int. zone, §179-4-030. Additionally, relief for the expansion of a non-conforming structure is requested per §179-13-10. Also, although the construction is “behind” the existing building, the proposed addition does not meet the minimum 75 foot setback per the Travel Corridor Overlay requirement. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): AV 43-1990 res. 5/23/90 Quick Lube facility, parking space variance* SP 60-1990 res. 7/24/90 Quick Lube facility BP 2003-689 125 sf commercial addition not yet issued 40 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/19/03) Staff comments: The proposed 125 sf addition is to be constructed in an area of existing pavement; therefore no additional impervious areas are to be created. The proposed construction does not further encroach on the southerly property line than the existing building. The above referenced parking space variance was contingent upon the continuation of the lease with Niagara Mohawk. No confirmation of the current status of this agreement has been supplied for review.” MR. UNDERWOOD-“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form November 12, 2003 Project Name: Galena Associates, LLC Owner: Roaring Brook LLC ID Number: QBY-AV-03-87 County Project#: Nov03-28 Current Zoning: HC-Int. Community: Queensbury Project Description: Applicant proposes construction of a 125 sq. ft. addition to the southwest corner of the existing Valvoline Instant Oil Change Building’s Car Wash Bay. Relief requested from side setback requirements. Site Location: 302.06-1-52 Staff Notes: Area Variance: The applicant proposes a 126 +/- sq. ft. addition to an existing Valvoline Instant Oil Change/Carwash facility. The building is to be located 10 ft. from the Southside property line where a minimum of 20 ft. is required sum of 50 ft. The building is pre-existing non- conforming. The applicant proposes no other changes to site in reference to lighting landscaping or parking arrangements. Staff does not identify an impact on county resources. Staff recommends no county impact. County Planning Board Recommendation: No County Impact” MR. STONE-Before we start, are you the owner of the building? MR. WILLIS-I’m the District Manager. MR. STONE-You’re the Manager for the business. MR. WILLIS-No. I’m the District. MR. STONE-District Manager. MR. WILLIS-District Manager. I oversee that store. MR. STONE-Okay, but for that business, that store. MR. WILLIS-Yes, correct. MR. STONE-But do you own the building? MR. WILLIS-No. MR. STONE-Do we have the right applicant, Craig, when the building is owned, this is a tenant? MR. BROWN-The application has been signed by the property owner. MR. STONE-It has? Okay. That’s what I can’t tell from. Okay. MR. ABBATE-But, before we start, I have a question, Mr. Chairman. Do we have jurisdiction over the Travel Corridor Overlay? MR. STONE-Yes. MR. ABBATE-We do? Okay. I just wanted to make sure. MR. STONE-We grant it all the time. Go ahead. Do you want to add anything? 41 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/19/03) MR. WILLIS-Yes. As I had just stated, I’m the District Manager. Our intent is to expand the existing carwash bay by 125 square feet, to update our equipment, so we can better service our customers with a 24 hour touch free carwash system. MR. STONE-So you’re adding this little thing on the back of the building, unseen from anybody, except potential customers. MR. WILLIS-Correct. MR. BRYANT-Just a question of Staff. This whole building is in the Travel Corridor Overlay District. Isn’t it? MR. HAYES-Yes. MR. STONE-Yes. MR. HAYES-I thought about it, and I think the addition is, too. MR. STONE-The addition is, too. MR. ABBATE-Yes, right, exactly. MR. BRYANT-No matter what you build on that building, it’s in the Travel Corridor Overlay. MR. ABBATE-Well, that’s why I raised that issue. I was concerned about it. MR. STONE-This is, in terms of the Travel Corridor Overlay, the least offensive thing that can be done and come up with anything sizeable. MR. ABBATE-Except it’s nonconforming. MR. STONE-The building is nonconforming. Yes. MR. STONE-Do you have anything else you wanted to add? MR. WILLIS-No. MR. STONE-Any questions? MR. ABBATE-No, not really. MR. STONE-Any questions at all? Let me open the public hearing for the record. Anybody here wishing to speak in favor of? Anybody opposed? Any correspondence? MR. UNDERWOOD-None. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. STONE-Okay. Let’s talk about it. Let’s start with Jaime. MR. HAYES-Well, obviously the fact that the entire addition or the project is in the existing Travel Corridor Overlay zone would normally be problematic to me, but in this particular case, this would, if we enforced the Travel Corridor Overlay zone or expanded this road any further, 42 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/19/03) we’d essentially be wiping out that whole side of the road. I just don’t think that that’s a possibility that we have to deal with at this time. When we have open spaces and increased traffic like we have on 149 and some of these other areas, we’ve done some important things to keep the Travel Corridor expansions that are possible possible, and that’s part of the idea with the Travel Corridor Overlay zone, but in this particular case, by allowing you to put this 125 foot addition, which is relatively modest, quite frankly, we’re not preventing anything that was possible in my mind. I mean, at this point, if they expand that road again, then your whole thing’s gone, and that’s a different discussion, at this particular point. So, I really don’t see the impact, any negative impact by allowing you to do this. It’s behind the building. It’s not going to add to the visual congestion of the area, which there is some in my opinion, probably not preventable at this particular time, but this is not going to add to that, and I guess this is a, you know, I won’t get in to the business reasons, but we’ve certainly had enough of that tonight, but you have to assume that this was for a good reason. I just don’t see any negative impact on the neighborhood or community whatsoever. It certainly is self-created, but, you know, on the balancing test, I think I’m okay with it. MR. STONE-Before we go any further, there was a question by Staff, on this NiMo thing. Has that been resolved? MR. BROWN-I haven’t seen anything. MR. STONE-Do you know anything about that? MR. WILLIS-There was a copy of the agreement between Niagara Mohawk, dated January 1989. Term of the lease is for 25 years, until the 31 day of December 2014. st MR. STONE-Does that satisfy you, Mr. Brown? Good. Okay. Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I would be in agreement with Jaime. I think this is a no-brainer one. You’re not going to increase the side setback to the other commercial establishment to the south of you there, and I think that if it allows you to re-open your car wash, it’s probably going to be a boon for your business. So, I’d be supportive of it. MR. STONE-Joyce? MRS. HUNT-Yes. I don’t see any problems with it. I was back there, and you won’t be able to see it from 9, and it doesn’t seem to have any impact, except maybe positive for the business. So I would be in favor of it. MR. STONE-Chuck? MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you. I’m going to be in favor of the application, too, but the most profound statement this evening is probably the least offensive request that has come before this Board in a long time, and I think that’s pretty accurate. I would be in favor of your application. MR. STONE-Allan? MR. BRYANT-I’m going to agree with the other Board members. It is, as Mr. Underwood puts it, it’s a no-brainer, so I’m in favor of it. MR. STONE-Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes, I’ll make it unanimous, so far. MR. STONE-It, in fact, as projects go, this is one that is very easy. This is why we do grant variances when the cause is justified. The question I have, Mr. Brown, is you make the 43 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/19/03) comment the proposed addition does not meet the minimum 75 foot. How much relief are we granting? MR. UNDERWOOD-The front of the building would be the trigger for that anyway. MR. STONE-Well, but we have to, we’re adding to it. We’ve got to have a number. MR. HAYES-It’s still got to be some distance from the TCO. MR. BROWN-22.88 feet. MR. STONE-So we’re granting 22.88 feet relief? MR. BROWN-That’s the distance from the front property line to the back of the building. That’s where the new construction starts. MR. STONE-Okay. So that’s what we’re, we’re granting 22.88 feet of relief. Okay. MR. HAYES-That would be the nearest point to the TCO. MR. BROWN-That’s correct. MR. STONE-And the side setback is to that alleyway, right? Because it comes out right to the southerly wall of the building. You say we have to have 10 feet of relief from the 20 foot minimum side, which is. MR. BROWN-To the property line. MR. STONE-Yes. MR. BROWN-I don’t know if the adjoining building is at the property line. I can’t tell from this drawing. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. BROWN-But it’s measured to the property line. It says chain link fence. MR. STONE-Right. Okay. All right. I need a motion to approve, with those numbers. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 87-2003 ROARING BROOK, LLC, Introduced by Roy Urrico who moved for its adoption, seconded by Paul Hayes: Galena Associates, 717 Upper Glen Street. The meeting date is November 19, 2003. The description of the project: The applicant proposes construction of a 125 sq. ft. addition to the southeast corner of the existing Valvoline building for the expansion of the car wash bay. In doing so, the applicant requests 10 ft. of relief from the 20 ft. minimum side setback of the HC- Int. zone, Section 179-4-030. Additionally, relief for the expansion of a nonconforming structure is requested per Section 179-13-10. We are also granting 22.88 ft. of relief from the Travel Corridor Overlay requirement. This will not have an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood as this building is already in the Travel Corridor Overlay and will be out of sight from traffic in front of it. The benefit sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by any other feasible manner. Although the requested Area Variance is substantial, the total variance will not have an adverse effect either physically or environmentally to the district or to the neighborhood. I do not think this difficulty is self-created. I move that we accept this variance. AYES: Mr. Underwood, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Hayes, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Stone 44 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/19/03) NOES: NONE MR. STONE-There you go, sir. MR. WILLIS-Thank you very much. MR. STONE-Gentlemen. (Back to Area Variance No. 86-2003 Lawrence & Kristine Sipowicz) MR. JARRETT-We have conferred. I will explain one thing first that I meant to explain earlier. The 11 hour part of our submission, we learned that the house designer had drawn the house th at his desire at 32 plus feet. Jim has discovered that on the drawings. I meant to explain it earlier. We told him we weren’t going to be able to support that all. We wanted to go with the 30 foot. He didn’t redraw it in time. So you have a drawing that’s erroneous here. It’s actually two foot MR. STONE-So the application is not complete. MR. JARRETT-Your words, not mine. MR. STONE-We seldom use that word. MR. JARRETT-We’re representing the house as 30 foot, or were, and he would obviously have to reduce the roof pitch slightly to get to that 30 feet, but anyway, having said that, we conferred, and I think the Sipowiczs feel that the project is more valuable to them than the foundation is. They’ll try to keep some of the foundation remnants in some fashion. What they’re willing to do is move the house back to 35 feet. We don’t see a way, right now, to incorporate the existing foundation directly in the house, but we’ll try to keep some remnants of it somehow. They like the angle of the house. We feel it offers some benefits to the neighbor. I think the neighbor would be willing to support that he likes the angle of the house, but we will push that, the angle back to the original two foot six inch setback on the side, on the north side, instead of asking for further relief, beyond what it is right now. We will reduce the structure height to at least 29 feet instead of 30. We may be able to go a little more, but 29 feet we feel we can do, and still shed snow and give them Code height inside. We’ll also set the structure recessed into the earth at least one foot more, with a three foot berm in font. So we’ll end up mitigating the height down to 27 feet, 26 feet. MR. STONE-And you so stipulate. MR. JARRETT-Twenty-six foot of exposure we will get, with a 29 foot structure and three foot of berm. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. JARRETT-And we will add the trees in the front and keep the existing tree if we possibly can. MR. STONE-Okay, and I say you stipulate that’s what you will do if we grant the relief that you’re now requesting? MR. JARRETT-Correct. MR. STONE-Okay. Let’s go down the line. I do have a question, Craig, for you. Mr. Jarrett said something like two, six on the north, which is nine, six of relief. Which number does that replace, the ten, seven? MR. UNDERWOOD-It’s shorter on the north side. You need more relief on the north side. 45 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/19/03) MR. STONE-Yes. MR. JARRETT-We were asking for a setback of one foot three inches. MR. STONE-Okay. That’s the 10, 7. All right. So that’s going down to nine, six. MR. JARRETT-Correct. MR. STONE-And the five, three is staying? MR. JARRETT-Correct. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. BROWN-I would, after you poll the Board, actually before you poll the Board, I would suggest with the number of changes that are proposed and modifications to the plan, that you get those plans back before you decide on this, with, we’re going to keep a portion of the foundation and work and move the house back. MR. STONE-He says they may not be able to keep the foundation. MR. BROWN-Well, they may not be able to keep the foundation. All the more reason to see the plans before you approve, rather than a conditional approval that they do certain things. It seems more reasonable to see the actual plans before you make your resolution. MR. STONE-Okay. So you’re suggesting that we table it, and. MR. BROWN-Well, not only for, for administrative purposes, absolutely. We’d like to see a complete set of the plans that you actually approve, and my suggestion is that you see those plans before you move. MR. STONE-Okay. If we table it, with those changes, should we re-advertise? MR. BROWN-No, I don’t think you have to do that. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. ABBATE-I think that’s a good idea, Mr. Chairman. Have them resubmit it. Table it and have them resubmit. MR. STONE-Okay. So let me table it. I mean, I’m sorry it’s going to be another month, but if Staff is concerned that we do get, and I think a number of us would like to see it in favor, particularly when the drawing that we’ve been using is not correct to begin with, and that’s not your fault, I understand that. We’ll table the motion until, hopefully, the December meeting, in order for the applicant to provide updated plans along the lines stipulated to at this meeting, namely 35 feet from the lake, approximately 29 feet high, a relief of 9 foot six inches on the north side, 5.3 feet on the south side, and, well, that’s basically it. MR. BRYANT-Can I make a suggestion, Mr. Chairman? MR. STONE-Surely. MR. BRYANT-I can understand the wisdom in tabling it. However, I think you still ought to poll the Board. MR. STONE-That’s a good point. Excellent point. You’re right. Let’s approve the tabling motion. Before we vote on it, we can discuss the tabling motion. 46 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/19/03) MR. BROWN-If I could just make one suggestion to the tabling motion, if we pick a date for the submission of the information, I’d suggest no more than a week from today. MR. STONE-Okay. I will amend that motion that the information be delivered prior to Thanksgiving, November 2003. Do I have a second? MR. ABBATE-Second. MR. STONE-All right. Joyce, let me start with you. As you understand what they’re ready to stipulate, can you live with that? MRS. HUNT-Yes. Well, the 35 foot setback, 29 foot height, 9.1 on the north side and the 5.3 on the south side relief. MR. STONE-Right. MRS. HUNT-I’d go along with that, yes. MR. STONE-Okay. Chuck? MR. ABBATE-Didn’t he indicate that, well, 35 foot line, didn’t he indicate that the foundation would compensate and the height would only end up being 27 something? MR. JARRETT-The height of the structure would be 29. Visibility of it would be 26 feet with the berm. MR. STONE-Okay. Well, the height is normally from the ground. MR. ABBATE-Right. MR. STONE-So it would be, in fact, it might even come in conforming. MR. BROWN-I think the height is going to be 29 feet. They’re offering a berm. MR. STONE-Well, the berm in the front. MR. JARRETT-The berm mitigates the view. MR. STONE-I’m sorry. I was thinking along the building. MR. JARRETT-The berm in the front mitigates the view. It doesn’t affect the actual official structure height. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. ABBATE-I don’t know. MR. STONE-You don’t know. MR. ABBATE-I’m not decided. MR. STONE-Okay. Allan? MR. BRYANT-No. I still feel, as I stated, that the logical alternative is to build a more conforming house. It’s 15 feet. You’re looking for 15 feet relief. You’re still looking for height relief. You still have the questions on the side setback. I mean, it’s just not logical to approach this application without looking at the possibility of a conforming structure. 47 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/19/03) MR. STONE-Okay. That’s perfectly fine, and that can be discussed when, they’ve agreed to something and we’re saying whether it’s a possibility of being accepted. I also should mention you say that the angle will be as depicted on this drawing. MR. JARRETT-Roughly. We’re going to reduce the angle slightly to get back to the original setback. MR. STONE-Okay. Roy? MR. URRICO-I think we’re moving in the right direction. MR. STONE-Jaime? MR. HAYES-I mean, I think the balancing test, I think, you know, a compromise was asked for and was given, in this particular case. So, based on what you’ve set forth, I would be in favor of. MR. STONE-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-I’m all in favor of it. MR. STONE-Yes. So am I. I think that you have shown good faith. We may tweak a little bit when we actually see everything, but I think you’re much more close to what the zoning requirements are, and I think that’s a plus for you and a plus for us. MR. JARRETT-Thank you for working with us. We’ll see you. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 86-2003 LAWRENCE & KRISTINE SIPOWICZ, Introduced by Lewis Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Abbate: To allow the applicant time to provide revised plans relocating the proposed home to a more compliant location as well as reduce the overall height of the home. The revised plans are to be submitted by Wednesday, November 26, 2003 (one week from tonight, the day before Thanksgiving.) If this date cannot be met then the applicant will have to wait until the following month for review. Duly adopted this 19 day of November, 2003, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Underwood, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Hayes, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Stone NOES: NONE MR. STONE-There you go. MR. JARRETT-We’ll see you soon. Hopefully next month. CORRECTION OF MINUTES October 15, 2003: NONE MOTION TO ACCEPT THE MINUTES OF OCTOBER 15, 2003, Introduced by Lewis Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Allan Bryant: 48 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/19/03) Duly adopted this 19 day of November, 2003, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Bryant, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Abbate, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Stone NOES: NONE October 22, 2003: MR. STONE-I have a correction. I was referred to as Mr. MacEwan on Page Six. He wasn’t at the meeting. It says Mr. MacEwan on Page Six. Just make that Mr. Stone. MR. BROWN-So noted. MOTION TO ACCEPT THE MINUTES, AS CORRECTED, OF OCTOBER 22, 2003, Introduced by Lewis Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roy Urrico: Duly adopted this 19 day of November, 2003, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Underwood, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Stone NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Bryant, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Hayes On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Lewis Stone, Chairman 49