Loading...
2004-01-21 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/21/04) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 21, 2004 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT LEWIS STONE, CHAIRMAN CHARLES MC NULTY, SECRETARY ALLAN BRYANT ROY URRICO CHARLES ABBATE PAUL HAYES JAMES UNDERWOOD ZONING ADMINISTRATOR-CRAIG BROWN CODE COMPLIANCE OFFICER-BRUCE FRANK STENOGRAPHER-SUSAN HEMINGWAY MR. STONE-We have some housekeeping business that we have to get out of the way. The first thing is that we have to nominate a Chairman for approval by the Town Board. Do I hear any nominations? Nomination & Election of Chairman Lewis N. Stone Approved _X__ Denied ___ Nomination & Election of Chairman Paul Hayes Approved ___ Denied _X__ Nomination & Election of Vice Chairman Allan Bryant Approved ___ Denied _X__ Nomination & Election of Vice Chairman Paul Hayes Approved _X__ Denied ___ Nomination & Election of Secretary Charles McNulty Approved _X__ Denied ___ MOTION TO NOMINATE PAUL (JAIME) HAYES AS CHAIRMAN OF THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS, Introduced by Charles Abbate who moved for its adoption, seconded by Alan Bryant: WHEREAS A MOTION WAS MADE TO NOMINATE LEWIS STONE AS CHAIRMAN OF THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS, Introduced by Roy Urrico, seconded by Charles McNulty: Duly adopted this 21 day of January, 2004 by the following vote: st Vote for Mr. Hayes: Mr. Underwood, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Bryant (3 in favor of Mr. Hayes) Vote for Mr. Stone: Mr. Urrico, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Stone (4 in favor of Mr. Stone) Mr. Lewis N. Stone is elected as Chairman of the Zoning Board of Appeals for the Year 2004. MR. STONE-We need a nomination for Vice Chairman. 1 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/21/04) MOTION TO NOMINATE ALLAN BRYANT AS VICE CHAIRMAN OF THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS, Introduced by Charles Abbate who moved for its adoption, seconded by James Underwood: WHEREAS A MOTION WAS MADE TO NOMINATE PAUL (JAIME) HAYES AS VICE CHAIRMAN OF THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS, Introduced by Roy Urrico who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles McNulty: Duly adopted this 21 day of January, 2004 by the following vote: st Vote for Mr. Bryant: Mr. Underwood, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Bryant (3 in favor of Mr. Bryant) Vote for Mr. Hayes: Mr. McNulty, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Stone, Mr. Hayes (4 in favor of Mr. Hayes) Mr. Paul (Jaime) Hayes is elected as Vice Chairman of the Zoning Board of Appeals for the Year 2004. MR. STONE-We now have a situation where the Town Board, in its infinite wisdom, jumped the gun on appointing a Secretary for the organization. Mr. McNulty thought he was merely asking the Town Board to be re-installed, re-appointed, if you will, for a new term, and they took it upon themselves to vote do that and appoint him Secretary, but it’s still our call. So I need a nomination for Secretary. MOTION TO NOMINATE CHARLES MCNULTY AS SECRETARY OF THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS, Introduced by Charles Abbate who moved for its adoption, seconded by Paul Hayes: Duly adopted this 21 day of January, 2004 by the following vote: st Vote for Mr. McNulty: Mr. Underwood, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Stone, Mr. McNulty. Mr. McNulty is elected as Secretary of the Zoning Board of Appeals for the Year 2004. MR. STONE-All right. Let’s go on. SIGN VARIANCE NO. 1-2004 SEQRA TYPE: UNLISTED NORTHEAST AMERICAN REALTY, LLC AGENT: JONATHAN C. LAPPER, ESQ. OWNER: NORTHEAST AMERICAN REALTY, LLC ZONING: HC-INT. LOCATION: 92 QUAKER ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF TWO-FREESTANDING SIGNS: 1) 100 SQ. FT. SIGN ON QUAKER ROAD, 2) 61 SQ. FT. SIGN ON LA FAYETTE STREET. BOTH SIGNS ARE PROPOSED TO BE SET BACK FIFTEEN FEET FROM EACH RESPECTIVE ROAD. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM THE SIZE AND SETBACK REQUIREMENTS OF THE SIGN ORDINANCE. [SATURN CAR DEALERSHIP] CROSS REFERENCE: SV 43-2003, SPR 55-2002, BP 2003-225 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 1/14/2004 LOT SIZE: 5.76 ACRES TAX MAP NO.: 302.07-1-14 SECTION: 140-6 (B3, 4) JON LAPPER & RICH PARILLA, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Sign Variance No. 1-2004, Northeast American Realty, LLC, Meeting Date: January 21, 2004 “Project Location: 92 Quaker Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of two freestanding signs on Quaker Road: 1) 100 sq. ft. at a 15- foot setback, and 2) 61 sq. ft. at a 15-foot setback. Note: an additional 33 sq. ft. freestanding sign was approved in SV 43-2003. 2 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/21/04) Relief Required: The applicant requests relief from the size and setback requirements for two freestanding signs; however, the actual relief required is: 1) For an additional freestanding sign where only one is allowed, per §140-6(B3c). 2) For 50 sq. ft. of relief from the 50 sq. ft. maximum size requirement for the “Saturn” sign, per §140-6(B2a). 3) For 11 sq. ft. of relief from the 50 sq. ft. maximum size requirement for the “Used Cars from Saturn” sign, per §140-6(B2a). Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): SV 43-2003: 05/28/03, relief granted for two additional wall signs and one additional freestanding sign (compliant to the size and setback requirements). BP 2003-225: Conversion of warehouse to Auto dealership (Saturn). SP 55-2002: resolved 2/18/03, 44,000 sq. ft. conversion to auto dealership (Saturn) Several other history items applicable to previous uses. Staff comments: The applicant in SV 43-2003 was granted relief for two additional wall signs and one additional freestanding sign. The allowed freestanding sign was proposed to be a compliant 50 sq. ft., and the additional freestanding sign was proposed to be 33 sq. ft. The current sign variance request is not a modification of SV 43-2003 where relief for an additional freestanding sign was granted. Therefore, relief for one additional freestanding sign is required should SV 1-2004 be approved. Additionally, the Zoning Administrator had determined the request for setback relief is not needed.” MR. MC NULTY-“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form January 14, 2004 Project Name: Northeast American Realty, LLC Owner: Northeast American Realty, LLC ID Number: QBY-AV-04-1 County Project#: Jan04-17 Current Zoning: HC-Int. Community: Queensbury Project Description: Applicant proposes construction of two- freestanding signs: 1) 100 sq. ft. sign on Quaker Road, and 2) 61 sq. ft. sign on Lafayette Street. Both signs are proposed to be set back 15 feet from each respective road. Relief requested from the size and setback requirements of the Sign Ordinance. Site Location: 92 Quaker Road Tax Map Number(s): 302.17-1-14 Staff Notes: Sign Variance: The applicant proposes construction of two free standing signs. Sign 1 “Saturn” is proposed to be 100 sq. ft. where a portion of the sign is the support – hiding the pylon, located on Quaker Road. Sign 2 “Used Car from Saturn” is proposed to be 61 sq. ft. and again a portion of the sign is the support – hiding the pylon, located on Lafayette Street. The ordinance allows for 1 free standing sign at 50 sq. ft. the applicant had originally applied for a similar variance for the size but was informed that the size included the entire sign even the portion that was acting as support. The County Planning Board in May 2003 recommended no county impact for the sign variance where sign 1 was 50 sq. ft. and sign 2 was proposed to be 33 sq. ft. Staff does not identify an impact on county resources based on the information submitted. Staff recommends no county impact. County Planning Board Recommendation: No County Impact” Signed by Bennet F. Driscoll, Warren County Planning Board 1/21/04. MR. STONE-Before I turn you loose, Mr. Lapper, I want to tell everybody that I have been informed that the furnace has gone down in the building. So if it feels cooler as the evening progresses, put your coats on. We’re here for the duration. Go ahead, sir. MR. LAPPER-We’ll try and fill up the room with a lot of hot air. MR. STONE-You said it. We didn’t. MR. LAPPER-For the record, Jon Lapper with Rich Parilla, the Albany Saturn dealer and soon to be the Queensbury Saturn dealer. I apologize for having to take time on your agenda to be back tonight. What we’re asking for tonight is the identical or the identical signs that we’d 3 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/21/04) asked for last time. We’re here, perhaps, because of a misunderstanding, and perhaps because I didn’t present it correctly last time, but basically what happened is that we counted the square feet of the signs, the way you’d count a façade sign, where we drew boxes around the message, rather than counting the support structure. The sign in question, I have copies for all of you of a photo, which is better than the drawing, is a pretty unique, very expensive, and pretty fancy sign, because as I said in the application, it incorporates the steel eye beam pylons into the sign itself, whereas with a more typical sign, and I have a Home Depot sign, by comparison, the eye beams are just covered up with some aluminum or vinyl siding, and it’s just a question of how you count the square feet of the sign for the sign message. By comparison with Home Depot, it’s clear that there’s a box around the sign. So there’s no issue that the support structure gets counted. In the Saturn case, the Zoning Administrator is asking that the whole top of it be counted, and it was just simpler, rather than to come and appeal the determination, just to ask for the relief, and our best argument that if you will recall from last time, without a Sign Variance, we could have had up to 450 square feet of signage on the site. What were granted last time, with the smaller measurements, was 177 square feet, and what this would come out to, if you count this as 161 square feet, which I would argue is not the case because that’s not the message, but if you want to count it that way, it would equal 288, which is still 162 square feet less than what you could have without a variance, in terms of total square footage. So this is, again, not your typical Sign Variance application in Queensbury, where somebody wants to maximize. These are very tasteful signs. You can see from what they’ve done with the building, I’m sure so far, that it’s a very good quality, high quality development. It doesn’t have the landscaping, the sprinkler system, the sod lawn that’ll be there, but it’s going to be a very attractive dealership when this is done. Rich is going to hand you his photographs that really clearly depicts what’s going on here. MR. ABBATE-Thank you. MR. STONE-Thank you. MR. LAPPER-What happened was that after we were granted the variances last time, the sign contractor went in to the Planning Department with a sign permit applications, and the sign permits for the façade signs were granted, but the sign permits for the two pylon signs were not granted because of this disagreement on how you measure the sign. So they’re set to open in February, and ready to erect the signs, but we need this additional relief, but we need this additional relief, but again for the identical signs that we asked for last time. MR. STONE-I’m not sure there was disagreement in how the Sign Variance is enforced. A freestanding sign goes from side to side, and top to bottom. A wall sign we do put a box around. I mean, because obviously we can’t count the whole wall as the sign, so we do count from the first letter to the last letter. So I’m not sure there was ever, certainly in my mind, and the Board can speak for itself, but when somebody proposes a freestanding sign, we’re looking at the whole kit and caboodle. Everything that’s constructed is the sign. That was certainly my understanding. MR. LAPPER-Well, I’ll ask Rich to hand out, next, in response to the Chairman’s question is the Staff comments from May 28, 2003. What I highlighted, it says, application materials depict conflicting information. The application shows two freestanding signs of 35 and 50 square feet, respectively. The supporting documentation, Saturn Corp., identifies signs of 70 square feet and 100 square feet respectively. MR. STONE-You would agree that we granted the former rather than the latter? MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. LAPPER-And I guess, you know, just jumping to the big picture, I think that credit should be given for a sign that doesn’t go to the full extent of the panel, because, I mean, this is a 4 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/21/04) stainless steel, you know, pretty fancy stuff, but even it’s clear, in terms of precedent, when you look at Home Depot, how you measure that, but this is just a much more subtle sign, if you will, and so I’m here, not disputing how it gets measured, asking for it, you know, at the full 100, but I’m still telling you that it’s the same sign that you saw last time. MR. ABBATE-Is this, this picture that you presented to us this evening, it appears to me that there is a Saturn in Colonie that seems to be the same, are these signs standard? They are. They appear to be identical. Okay. Thank you. MR. HAYES-Interesting counter-example, Counselor, the Home Depot. MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. STONE-I do believe you represent Home Depot also, Mr. Lapper? MR. LAPPER-Yes. I just think Saturn does a nicer sign. MR. BRYANT-When you talk about you being entitled to 400 plus square feet of signage, are you talking about wall signage? MR. LAPPER-That was for the entire site, wall plus freestanding. What they have as wall signs are much smaller. Just their, the way they like to do it, the way Saturn does it, is a much smaller wall sign than other retailers. Their wall signs direct you to where you should be. Let me ask Rich to explain it. I think he’ll do a better job that I will in terms of what the signage is supposed to do. MR. PARILLA-Well, basically there’s going to be just one sign on the face of the building that says Saturn of the Adirondacks, with a small two foot logo, and then we’ll have directional signs over top of the two service drive doors that basically say service/reception, and we’re going to have nothing on Lafayette Street at all on that side. MR. BRYANT-But based on the notes, you’ve already gotten relief because you have two additional wall signs. Is that correct? MR. LAPPER-Because we split them up into what Rich was just saying that in terms of the service, that we split them up into, instead of having one big sign on the building, there’s the one pretty small sign that says Saturn of the Adirondacks and then the service/reception sign. So, yes, so in terms of the number of signs, there are more signs, there are more signs, and it’s exactly the same as what was asked for last time, but the message is much smaller in terms of the square footage, in terms of what would be visible from the road, and that was somewhat of a tradeoff to say we need some more signs, but we’ll take smaller signs, and it still comes out to, it wasn’t a case of being even close to what you could have on this site in terms of the square footage. MR. ABBATE-I have another area, if you don’t mind. I’m looking at it for total impact. This is a new business, correct? MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Do you know the number of jobs, new jobs, that are going to be created? MR. PARILLA-We’re going to start out with about 25. MR. ABBATE-Twenty-five new jobs. Thank you. MR. URRICO-The second sign, what is that going to contain again? Is that the used car? 5 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/21/04) MR. LAPPER-Yes. I have a black and white depiction, but it’s not a, it’s the same structure. It’ll look identical, in terms of the metallic background. It’s just they don’t have one, they didn’t have a photo at their site in Albany. MR. URRICO-Do they have a second sign at the, at this site, is there a second sign there? MR. PARILLA-No. MR. URRICO-Did you ask for a sign there and didn’t get approval for it? MR. PARILLA-It wasn’t available 14 years ago. MR. STONE-Saturn’s been around 14 years now? Okay. MR. LAPPER-I just want to make one point, in response to Mr. Urrico. When we came in last time for the used car sign, the dimensions were the 35 feet that was granted and the 70 feet that if you measured the whole thing out, but actually now it’s 61 feet because the sign was built smaller than what was anticipated last time. So it’s not even the full size of what you were looking at last time, in terms of the photo. This is certainly the case where they’re going out of their way to make this an attractive site in terms of landscaping, in terms of site design, and in terms of signage, and I can’t think of any other signs in the Town that are this really subtle but this expensive. This is a pretty significant sign package in terms of design, and this is Saturn’s design, but, you know, compared to some of the other signs in Town or on Quaker Road, I think that this is much more attractive. 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 to the application? Opposed? Any correspondence? MR. MC NULTY-No correspondence. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. STONE-Okay. Let’s talk about it. Let’s start with our recently appointed Secretary. MR. MC NULTY-Okay. When this was proposed last time, I opposed the proposal because I didn’t like the idea of the second freestanding sign. I still don’t particularly like the second freestanding sign, but I’ll have to agree with Counsel, I think the sign is attractive, and it’s somewhat a technical question of whether there’s two pylons under that sign or whether there’s sign holding the sign up which is really what we’re measuring. Also comparing it to the Honda sign down the road a ways, the Honda sign is kind of the same idea, except the Honda sign fills in the whole area between the two pylons. So it is indeed a big rectangle. MR. LAPPER-Right. MR. MC NULTY-I think, given that, given that the Board last time granted the two signs and really what we’re after at this point is just permission to attractively encase the pylons, I’m going to be in favor. MR. STONE-Okay. Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-I think I’ll go along with what Chuck has said, too. I think that last year we approved a slightly larger sign for the Ford dealership down the road, and I think in looking at your signage, you described it. It’s a crisp, reasonable design. It’s not a gaudy sign like the 6 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/21/04) Home Depot sign. As far as the second sign goes I was opposed to that second sign, as Chuck was last time also, but because you are making it slightly smaller than you originally have proposed, I, too, would be in favor of it. MR. STONE-Let me just remind the rest of you that, I think Mr. Underwood said it. There are two issues on the table here. One is the size. First of all, one is a second sign, and then two is the size of the two signs, one that we would approve, and one that’s been approved, in a sense. MR. FRANK-Mr. Chairman, it’s actually three bits of relief now. For one additional sign, and size relief for each sign. MR. STONE-Of the two, yes, right. MR. BRYANT-I just, before anyone else goes on, I just want to ask Staff a question. I think that Ford sign was rejected, if I remember correctly. MR. FRANK-No, it was approved. MR. BRYANT-It was approved? MR. FRANK-Yes. MR. BRYANT-Was that the second application, because I know it was rejected because of height. Talking about Nemer Ford on Quaker Road? MR. FRANK-Yes. They comprised at the meeting. They wanted a greater than 25 foot sign, and you compromised along with them and said, we’ll grant you the relief for the oversized sign if you don’t have it at the height you’re requesting. MR. BRYANT-It was approved? MR. FRANK-That’s correct. MR. STONE-The compromise was approved, yes. Mr. Abbate? MR. ABBATE-Thank you. I, quite frankly, think that what the applicant is requesting is normal. It’s a standard sign. Apparently Saturn has standardized all of its signs throughout the country. How offensive if we approved this request, would it be? Well, versus 25 new jobs, I think we can overlook any kind of offensiveness there might be. Not only do the new 25 jobs generate new jobs, but also generate new revenue for the Town as well, and, Mr. Chairman, I would be in favor of the application. MR. STONE-Mr. Bryant? MR. BRYANT-I think I’m going to disagree with my other Board members. Regardless of the size of your signs that have already been approved, as far as the wall signs go, the fact remains that you have two additional wall signs. The Board has already granted you an additional freestanding sign. Quaker Road is kind of virgin yet. I mean, there aren’t a lot of, it’s not like Route 9, north of 254 there, where you have 18,000 freestanding signs. Quaker Road is not quite that bad, and I think the Board has already been magnanimous in giving you extra signs and freestanding signs, and I think that’s the extent of it. So, in my view, I’ve got to be opposed to it. MR. STONE-Mr. Urrico? MR. URRICO-Yes. I don’t have a problem with the larger of the two signs, but I do have a problem with the second sign. I was against it the first time it was presented, and I’m still against it. I counted 11 auto dealer signs in the Town of Queensbury, auto dealerships, and 7 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/21/04) three are on Route 9, eight are on Aviation Road, and none of them have more than one freestanding sign. So I think by granting the second sign, we’re establishing a dangerous precedent, and one in which we could end up with a glut of signs on Aviation Road, which, as Mr. Bryant pointed out, is still pretty much unencumbered by too many signs. So, if I can break it down into two parts. I’d be okay with the larger of the two signs, but against the second sign altogether. MR. LAPPER-Mr. Urrico, were the signs that you were looking at, the dealer signs, were they much bigger, though, on the building. MR. URRICO-I’m just talking about the signs themselves. MR. STONE-Mr. Lapper, I must protect my Board. He made the statement. You can comment after we get through with this. MR. LAPPER-Excuse me. MR. STONE-So you’re saying yes and no? MR. URRICO-Yes. MR. STONE-Okay. Mr. Hayes? MR. HAYES-Well, originally I was in favor of both signs, and I still am. As I look at the site as it’s been developed, I think, in a true sense, it’s a very soft corporate image that’s being put out there, image wise, and your signs are part of your image. I think that there’s been an attempt to do that, and I think it’s been accomplished from what I’ve seen so far. I’m always less concerned when an applicant comes before the Board and it ultimately is proposing less signage than would be allowed, and I say that in the sense that I don’t think we, or myself, want, I try not to get caught up in the Code to the extent that good design, or, you know, a favorable plan is not allowed to happen because sometimes that’s what we’re here for. So I’m certainly in favor of, I understand why the applicant has proposed two signs on the building originally, and they’re small, by comparison, in my opinion, from the view from Quaker and from Lafayette, being that the building is set back a great deal, and I agree with Chuck in the sense that I think it’s a little bit of a technical question, whether, you know, covering those pylons is really signage in the sense that we’re trying to prevent, you know, over signage in the Town, or too much signage in the Town. I think that, in this particular case, I’ll agree with Mr. Lapper, that covering those pylons in a way that has some art value or image value actually may be positive, and I’ve seen the Colonie Saturn dealership, and this sign, as I drive down, would not strike me as being overbearing or too much. So I would say on balance I would be in favor of the application as it stands. MR. STONE-I’m just, I’m certainly not against this thing. I think you presented a good case the first time, for the two signs, the two wall signs, as has been mentioned, you could have one on either, on each street, and we settled for one, two on the front. You’re not going to have any on the side. You are not going to have any on the side. I’m only concerned that Counsel claims not to understand. I mean, the man has been before us many, many times on Sign Variances, and to re-interpret the Code, it seems, strikes me as strange. MR. ABBATE-Well, that’s a matter of opinion, Mr. Chairman. I don’t believe Counsel is attempting to re-interpret the Code. That’s not the way I see it. MR. STONE-Okay, but this is my statement. MR. ABBATE-Well, that’s okay, and that’s mine. MR. LAPPER-You know that I’m here every month, and will be back every month, and if nothing else I’d say that there’s a, if I made a mistake, and I said that up front, you know, I 8 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/21/04) should have presented it this way, but I think that some credit can be given for the fact that the pylons are covered up, and that this is, you know, in terms of how you count it, but maybe the best way, and that’s why I didn’t challenge the Zoning Administrator’s interpretation. It was more just asking for the variance, just saying that we’re not using the full face of the sign, of the panel for a sign. MR. STONE-I don’t really have a problem with the sign. I mean, I’m just, it just surprised me that we had to be here, and you did apologize when you came, as taking up our time for something that we did grant, at least we thought we granted what you wanted, in a sense, having said that, though, I agree with the majority of the Board who thinks this sign is well done, and certainly the benefit to the applicant, in this case, I think outweighs any detriment to the community, which is what we’re supposed to be doing here. I think it’s a tasteful sign. I think we insisted, the last time, that the used car sign would be at a position that would not require anything else except the sign itself, and the fact that you are reducing the size is certainly to your benefit. So, having said that, the first thing we need to do, being an Unlisted action. MOTION THAT A REVIEW OF THE SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM SHOWS THERE ARE NO NEGATIVE IMPACTS CAUSED BY THIS PROJECT, Introduced by Lewis Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Paul Hayes: Duly adopted this 21 day of January, 2004, by the following vote: st AYES: Mr. Underwood, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Urrico, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Stone NOES: NONE MR. STONE-Okay. I need a motion, now, to approve, Sign Variance granting relief for a second freestanding sign and the dimensions as requested. MOTION TO APPROVE SIGN VARIANCE NO. 1-2004 NORTHEAST AMERICAN REALTY, LLC AKA SATURN CAR DEALERSHIP, Introduced by Paul Hayes who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Abbate: 92 Quaker Road. The applicant proposes construction of two freestanding signs on Quaker Road, one 100 square feet at a 15 foot setback and two a 61 square foot at 15 foot setback. An additional 33 square foot freestanding sign was approved with Sign Variance No. 43-2003 last year. Specifically, the applicant requests relief from the size and setback requirements for two freestanding signs. The actual relief required is, one, for an additional freestanding sign where one is allowed. So they’re asking for two, essentially, per Section 140-6B3(c) and the second piece of relief is for a 50 square foot of relief from the 50 square foot maximum size requirement for the Saturn sign per Section 140-6B2(a). The third piece of relief is for 11 square feet of sign relief from the 50-foot maximum size requirement for the used cars from Saturn sign per Section 140-6B2(a). Looking at the criteria for considering an Area Variance, essentially the benefit to the applicant versus the detriment to the neighborhood, I believe that in his previous application the applicant has demonstrated good reasons, one, for the additional sign, and, two, for allowing this relief based on the design of the sign that has been proposed. I believe as far as impact, that the signs in total are less than what would be allowed by Code. The applicant has specifically asked us to view the coverage of the pylons as a benefit to the neighborhood, I guess in considering whether the relief is substantial or not, and in my opinion I think that there is a benefit to the greater neighborhood in this particular way with design of the signs as they’re proposed. That includes their distance from the travel corridors. As far as any impacts on the neighborhood, I think that we’ve addressed the fact that the current site and the signage that’s been proposed are probably a favorable development with the recycling of this building and that the signs themselves are not going to present sign pollution or something that would have a negative impact on the Quaker Road corridor. I guess, based on that fact, I think the test falls in favor of the applicant, and I would move for its approval. None of covering of any of the 9 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/21/04) pylons is needed to be included in the square footage calculations. It’s just the box at the top of the pole. The covering of the supports doesn’t count in the square footage at all. It’s the rectangle above the opening. None of the square footage below the sign, that doesn’t count in the calculation at all. So the 100 feet is all of that rectangular portion. It’s the point outside of the red area that the applicant is talking about, on the side, where the pylons extend to the top. Duly adopted this 21 day of January, 2004, by the following vote: st MR. STONE-Any questions about the motion? Everybody understand it? The applicant understands it? MR. LAPPER-Yes, thank you. MR. BROWN-If I could just make one point of clarification. I’ve heard a couple of times about the size of the sign including the covering of the pylons. My decision does not require the applicant to include any of the covering of the pylons in the square footage calculation. It’s just the box at the top of the pole. The covering of the supports doesn’t count in the square footage is all. It’s just the square footage at the top. MR. STONE-It’s above the whole, it’s that box, the rectangular above the opening? MR. BROWN-Correct. Yes. MR. LAPPER-I was just, because the pylons go all the way up to the top, but. MR. BROWN-Right. None of the square footage below the sign, that doesn’t count in the square calculation at all. All that size is at the top. MR. STONE-So the 100 feet is. MR. BROWN-All that rectangular portion. Just so you know. MR. LAPPER-It’s the point outside of the red area that I’m talking about, on the side, where the pylons extend to the top. MR. HAYES-I’ll amend my motion to include that, so that we’re correct. MR. ABBATE-Good point. MR. STONE-Okay. Everybody happy with the revised motion? Let’s vote. AYES: Mr. Abbate, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Stone NOES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Bryant MR. LAPPER-Thank you. MR. STONE-There you go. Okay. AREA VARIANCE NO. 2-2004 SEQRA TYPE: II GLENN KELSEY AGENT: PAUL E. CUSHING, ARCHITECT, PC OWNER: GARY CARDINALE ZONING: HC-INT. LOCATION: 38 EAST QUAKER SERVICE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 2,592 SQ. FT. FREESTANDING ACCESSORY (STORAGE) BUILDING ADJACENT TO THE EXISTING SPORTLINE HONDA/KAWASAKI BUILDING. RELIEF REQUESTED FRO THE REQUIREMENTS FOR MINIMUM SEPARATION DISTANCE BETWEEN BUILDINGS. CROSS REFERENCE: SPR 3-2004 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 1/14/2004 LOT SIZE: 2.04 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 303.15- 1-19 SECTION: 179-5-020 B3 10 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/21/04) PAUL CUSHING, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; GLENN KELSEY, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 2-2004, Glenn Kelsey, Meeting Date: January 21, 2004 “Project Location: 38 East Quaker Service Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a 2,592 sq. ft. freestanding accessory storage building behind the existing Sportline Honda/Kawasaki building. Relief Required: Applicant requests 36 feet of relief from the 50-foot minimum separation distance between buildings requirement for accessory structures, per §179-5-020(B3). Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): SP 3-2004: 01/27/04, pending the outcome of this application. BP 96-517: 08/29/96, 12,600 sq. ft. commercial building. SP 14-94: 05/26/94, construction of a commercial building (for the Earltown Corporation). Staff comments: The applicant claims the proposed location of the new accessory storage structure will provide for a more efficient operation regarding the movement of stored goods to the service area of the main building. The Town of Queensbury Fire Marshal claims locating the new structure as proposed will provide for adequate fire fighting apparatus access.” MR. MC NULTY-“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form January 14, 2004 Project Name: Kelsey, Glenn Owner: Gary Cardinale ID Number: QBY-AV-04-2 County Project#: Jan04-15 Current Zoning: HC-Int. Community: Queensbury Project Description: Applicant proposes construction of a 2,592 sq. ft. freestanding accessory (storage) building adjacent to the existing Sportline Honda/Kawasaki building. Relief requested from the requirements for minimum separation distance between buildings. Site Location: 38 East Quaker Service Road Tax Map Number(s): 303.15-1-19 Staff Notes: Area Variance: The applicant proposes to construct a 2,592 sq. ft. accessory building 14’ from the main Sportline building. The required separation distance is 50’ between the accessory and the main building. The information submitted indicates the location of the accessory building is for efficiency of moving goods to the service area in the main building. Staff does not identify an impact on county resources based on the information submitted. Staff recommends no county impact. County Planning Board Recommendation: No County Impact” Signed by Bennet F. Driscoll, Warren County Planning Board 1/21/04. MR. STONE-Okay. Go ahead, gentlemen. MR. CUSHING-Good evening, Mr. Chairman. Paul Cushing, architect for Mr. Kelsey and Sportline. We are involved with a situation that we explored with Staff when we had our preliminary meeting asking about the 50 foot separation. We were notified that we could attach this building to the present building, but that really didn’t solve the problem for the operation of Sportline’s activities. We really wanted to build this accessory structure separated from the two in order to have the containers that house the various pieces of equipment that Mr. Kelsey sells be able to be transferred around, put under dry storage, building is open on the sides. There’s no heat in the building. It’s primarily to get it under storage and more access to their work area. If you have visited the site or passed by the site, you would see a very, very large pile of containers that contain all the snowmobiles, RV’s, you know, whatever else is involved. All of the ones that you saw today would be housed in this structure. That would clean up that entire area on that side of the property. It would make it much more efficient to move the material off the trucks into the storage area, back and forth into the building, to set these pieces of equipment up for sale or to take care of all the trash that is involved in this situation. The 50 11 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/21/04) foot setback, I asked if there had ever been question before and the Staff told me no, and the Staff told me why did I write it that way, and I said I don’t recall, and I truly do not recall. I was involved in writing that particular part of the Ordinance, way back in the first one that the Town of Queensbury had. Probably had to do with more residential situations than commercial. MR. STONE-So you want it that close, but you don’t want it touching, because of, it’s an open building. It’s not part of, it’s not the same kind of building, I gather you’re saying? MR. CUSHING-Correct. The type of structures are different. One is a, this is a metal building that’s proposed. The existing building is a wood frame structure, and we felt it would, again, be more efficient having them separated. MR. STONE-Okay. All right. I can grant the separation. Why not the 50 foot? MR. KELSEY-I think there’s a couple of reasons. My name’s Glenn Kelsey. I’m the owner of the business. The reason that we want proximity to the current building is so we can more easily move the crates back and forth. We do want separation because we’re going to access both sides of the building, or both sides of the new building, in order to pull crates. One of the reasons that we didn’t want 50 feet is obviously there’s distance involved here. You have to carry these things with forklifts and it causes more concern for the vehicles themselves, but I think the bigger reason is we were trying to protect as much green space as possible within the property, and if you separate it by 50 feet you’re going to consume more green space on the property. You’ll also be able to see it more, the storage building from the highway, I think, and again, I think the more that we can protect the sight lines within the property, the better off we’re going to be. So I would say that there are some neighborhood reasons to put it closer to the building. MR. STONE-But it could go 50 feet without setback problems from the property line? MR. KELSEY-That’s correct. MR. STONE-I just want to get that on the record. MR. KELSEY-That’s correct, again, but it would consume significantly more green space than what we propose. MR. STONE-Sure. MR. BRYANT-When you say it’s an open building, what does that mean? MR. CUSHING-It means that it’s a roofed over structure. The short sides of the building, the 36 foot sides, have a sheeting. The long sides, the 72 foot sides, have no, it’s completely open to the weather. MR. STONE-Is that open all the way through? MR. CUSHING-All the way through. MR. STONE-So it’s like a pole barn without sides. MR. CUSHING-Correct. MR. STONE-Well, I, personally, was pleased to hear you say that it would clean up the property. Because I did drive onto the property. I drove around the building, and I was not happy with what I saw. I understand now that you talk about it, but, what are those, by the way, those things? 12 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/21/04) MR. KELSEY-Which are those things? MR. HAYES-You mean those crates? MR. STONE-Well, the crates I understood. MR. KELSEY-Are you talking about these things? MR. STONE-Yes. MR. KELSEY-The product comes in what’s now recyclable crates, and we have to tear down this crate (lost word) accumulate a certain number of them, and then send them back to the manufacturer. MR. STONE-Okay. Thank you. Any questions, gentlemen? Hearing none, I’ll open the public hearing. Anybody wishing to speak in favor of this application? In favor of? Anybody opposed to the application? Opposed? Any correspondence? MR. MC NULTY-No correspondence. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. STONE-All right. Let’s talk about it, since there are no questions. Let’s start with Mr. Underwood. Did you have something, Al? MR. BRYANT-I just want to ask Staff a question. It says that the Fire Marshal claims that there’s not going to be any effect there. Fourteen feet is enough room to get between those two buildings with a fire truck? MR. FRANK-The Fire Marshal did review the plans. There’s enough room to access all sides of that building to fight any fire. Obviously they could approach it from the west side. They could get their truck close enough for any hoses they would have to drag, whatever, would be well within the reach of their equipment. Again, I don’t know all the technical parts of firefighting because I’m not a firefighter, but the Fire Marshal, that’s his area of expertise. He reviewed the plans. He said there would be no problem. So I have to go by what he has to say. MR. BRYANT-I’m just assuming that the snow is going to, the pitch of the roof is going to be such that the snow is not going to fall between the two buildings. MR. CUSHING-That is correct, sir. MR. BRYANT-It’s going to be to the front and the back. MR. CUSHING-It’s going to be to the west and to the east. MR. MC NULTY-As long as we’re bringing that up, maybe before I get to my comments and so I’ll be towards the end, I wondered about that, too, and I, it’s a little hard knowing why the 50 foot separation was written in, not having been part of it, but it strikes me that there may be a couple of other reasons. One would be to help prevent the spread of fire, if one building caught fire, if they’re 50 feet apart, it’s a little less likely that the fire’s going to jump to the other building, as opposed to a 14 foot separation. It also strikes me that it would be a lot safer for a firefighter if he had to get a hose between the buildings, if he had 50 feet between the buildings instead of 14. 13 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/21/04) MR. FRANK-Those are good points, but again, I think firefighting has changed over the years since this Code was written. I really have nothing more, other than. MR. ABBATE-The Fire Marshal went over these plans? I’m assuming he also went out to the site. Well, let me just ask the basic question. The Fire Marshal had no problems with this plan? MR. FRANK-I set these plans before him myself and he reviewed them in front of me. MR. ABBATE-Okay. So we depend on his expertise. MR. FRANK-I have to. MR. ABBATE-Yes, well, so do I. Okay. Thank you. MR. STONE-Okay. Anybody else? Let’s start with Jim. MR. UNDERWOOD-I would assume that your business has grown by leaps and bounds over the years, and my only concern about having the building that close in the back would be, you know, if you, in the future decided to expand the main structure, you know, if things really started rolling in for you, that, you know, having the building that close to your back would be a hardship on you, as far as adding on. You really don’t have any place else to add on to that building, as far as coming out the other side or anything like that. So, you know, from that standpoint of view, I think a practical one, in a sense, I understand your need for this building, but I still think it would make more sense to set it back further, you know, to allow you to expand in the future, if need be. MR. KELSEY-Again, we did consider that, for sure, and we would not be inclined to expand in that direction in any event, and I talked to the former owner before we considered this, and again, the operational, there’s just considerably more operational effort every time you have to send a forklift, especially this time of year, a distance with a machine, and some of these things are weighing a thousand pounds now. MR. UNDERWOOD-Right. MR. STONE-Well, Jim, where do you stand? MR. UNDERWOOD-I guess I’m sitting on the fence on it. MR. STONE-Sitting on the fence. Okay. Mr. Abbate? MR. ABBATE-Well, Jim’s point is well made, but the business has addressed the issue, and they appear to be satisfied that what they are requesting would add greater efficiency, and correct me if I’m wrong, would add greater efficiency to your operation? MR. KELSEY-Correct. MR. ABBATE-And if it adds greater efficiency to your operation, who am I to say it won’t. So I will be in favor of the applicant. MR. STONE-Mr. Bryant? MR. BRYANT-One of the criteria by which we judge these Area Variances is whether or not there’s a feasible alternative, and in my mind, the fact that you have, you have the area, the space on the property, to build this building 50 feet away, without any major concerns. In my mind that’s a feasible alternative. The fact that you’ve got to take a forklift an additional 30 feet, I can see that that would be a concern, but I don’t think that it is sufficient to change the Ordinance. So I’d be opposed to the application. 14 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/21/04) MR. STONE-Okay. Mr. Urrico? MR. URRICO-Yes. The only question I would have is the fire situation, and the Fire Marshal has said, has approved these plans, said that there would not be a problem. I don’t know what the magic, I would like to see it back further, but I don’t know what the magic number is. I don’t know if it’s 20 feet, 25 feet, but as long as the Fire Marshal says this is going to work, then I would agree with him. So I would be in favor of it. MR. STONE-Mr. Hayes? MR. HAYES-Well, I think on balance, as I looked at the site, and I’ve driven by this site often, certainly there’s a benefit to the immediate area for a consolidation of his logistical storage, you know, the units that he’s selling. I think that that’s a legitimate concern in this particular case. I guess that kind of gives me a flipside that if we permitted this building and then there was a buildup of the storage on wheels type scenario, again, that would be a little troubling to me, but I think that in this particular case, if they’re leaving, I think it’s a positive change in the immediate environment, as I look at it. Also, we do try and keep relief to a minimum in this particular case, but, having the Fire Marshal say that he’s not concerned about the separation of the buildings, per se, I mean, I have to put great weight in that. I mean, as some people have already said on the Board, I’m not a fireman, and I guess I’d have to rely on his judgment on what is adequate separation distance, and if he says it is, then I feel satisfied with that. Cumulatively, I think that the applicant has given us a reason why this, he wants to locate this building where he does. It makes sense to me about the forklifting and these type of other items, and outside of some kind of major negative impact on the neighborhood or community, I guess I would say that, looking at the test, that all I can see really is positive at this time. So, I would be in favor of the application as it stands. MR. STONE-Mr. McNulty. MR. MC NULTY-I’m going to agree with Al. Looking at this, I think there is a feasible alternative. As we’ve said a lot of times, or I’ve said a lot of times, there’s portions of this Zoning Ordinance I wished I knew, had more background on why it was written the way it is, but nevertheless it was written the way it is, and while this general area where this property is located has not been booming as far as development, it nevertheless, at least originally, was slated to have more activity like this particular piece on it, and may some day. I guess the bottom line for me is I don’t see a compelling reason to put the storage building closer than is allowed to the main building. I can imagine some difficulties with firefighting. I know the Fire Marshal’s looked at it, but I’m not sure whether he looked at the whole picture or not, but anyway, I don’t think the benefit to the applicant outweighs the detriment to overruling the Zoning Ordinance. So I’m going to be opposed. MR. STONE-The basic concern that I had when I looked at this property was the condition of the materials scattered around the site. The applicant has stated, and hopefully might even be willing to make some kind of condition on this thing, that much of the stuff we see now will be neater, will be inside, as the applicant has stated. That was my prime concern. I don’t know the reason for the building separation, as none of us seem to know. Fifty feet is fifty feet, and the fact that you don’t need any relief on the back side kind of says why shouldn’t it be 50 feet, but on the other hand, I think the applicant has said to us that it’s certainly to his benefit, without an awful lot of detriment to the community, it would seem to me, to put this building where he would like to put it. I mean, I would like to say, well, maybe we could go 27.37 feet, and I have no reason for that whatsoever. So 14 feet is what he’s asking for, and as long as the site becomes neater, and certainly if we can get some assurance to that, I certainly can support this application. Can you make any comment? MR. KELSEY-Yes, I mean, I would respond that I’m not happy at all with the site either, and one of the reasons that we are putting up the building, and I think the building’s been there about seven or eight years of operation, is to do exactly what you maintain. You also notice that there’s two truck boxes there that have stuff in them, and all of that’s going to be removed. We 15 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/21/04) will clean up, as it frees up the areas that the crates now occupy, we will be stacking the, not only the returnable crates, but also the used crates, if you will. In a neat way we’ve arranged resources in the Town to get rid of them on a prompt basis and, yes, the site’s going to be much cleaner and neater. MR. STONE-Okay. I just want to warn you that there was a property down the road from you that had a storage container on site for which they wanted relief and now they’re out of business. I think we gave them relief, but, so be careful when you, it may be a bad omen, that’s all I know, but I appreciate your comments, and having said that, it appears to me that the majority of the Board’s in favor of approving this application. MR. ABBATE-Mr. Chairman, you’re not angry at me that I didn’t nominate you as Chairman, are you? MR. STONE-Did I miss you? MR. ABBATE-Is it still a democratic process? MR. STONE-Wait a minute, you’re here. MR. ABBATE-May I have an opportunity? MR. STONE-You did. MR. ABBATE-No, I didn’t. MR. BRYANT-He wants additional opportunity, Mr. Chairman. MR. STONE-You can have an additional opportunity. MR. ABBATE-No, I didn’t say additional opportunity. No, that’s all right. That’s all right. MR. STONE-Didn’t he say yes? MR. ABBATE-That’s all right. MR. STONE-I thought he said yes. MR. ABBATE-No, I didn’t say a word. MR. STONE-I’ve got it down. MR. ABBATE-No, that’s all right. MR. STONE-Go ahead. MR. ABBATE-No, that’s fine. I was just going to say, I think Jaime said it best. When we review these things, we talk about on balance, and I basically believe that, on balance, that the request is really not unreasonable, and any concerns that I would have had about firefighting apparatus, I have to yield to the Fire Marshal. If the Fire Marshal looks at the plans and he says there’s no problem, who am I to say it’s not a problem. The applicant has also indicated that this will increase their, correct me if I’m wrong, your efficiency of operations as well. Is this correct? MR. KELSEY-Right. MR. ABBATE-Right, and to move closer would affect some of your green space as well. Is this correct? 16 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/21/04) MR. KELSEY-If we move further away, it affects green space. MR. ABBATE-Yes. Okay. So, anyway, not a big deal, but on balance, Mr. Chairman, I don’t have a problem with the application. Thanks. MR. STONE-Okay. I’m sorry if I missed you, but I had a yes down for you. Didn’t he say yes? Thank you. MR. ABBATE-Did I say yes? All right. MR. STONE-Okay. Having said that, I need a motion to approve. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 2-2004 GLENN KELSEY SPORTLINE HONDA/KAWASAKI, Introduced by Charles Abbate who moved for its adoption, seconded by Paul Hayes: 38 East Quaker Service Road. The applicant proposes construction of a 2,592 square foot freestanding accessory storage building behind the existing Sportline Honda/Kawasaki. The relief required. The applicant is requesting 36 feet of relief from the 50 foot minimum separation distance between buildings required for accessory structures per Section 179-5- 020(b)(3). One of the conditions that we look at when we consider a variance is whether or not there will be an undesirable change if this application is produced. The undesirable change would be in some instances perhaps the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties, etc., etc. In this particular case, Mr. Chairman, I don’t believe that there will be any type of undesirable changes. Quite to the contrary. I think that this building, and based on the stipulation that the applicant has agreed that he will take all of the parts of the shipping cartons, they will be then stored in the new structure, I think it will increase the neighborhood. Now does the benefit sought by the applicant, can it be achieved by some other method feasible for the applicant to pursue other than the Area Variance? Well, in most instances there is always some sort of feasible alternative, but there are considerations. In this particular case, while there may be a feasible alternative, it may adversely effect the efficiency of operations. In this case, I think that it would be in the best benefit of the applicant. Whether the requested Area Variance is substantial. In my opinion, I don’t believe it is substantial. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district, and again as I stated, I think the construction of this building will improve dramatically the current site as it is right now. Whether this difficulty is self-created. That’s always debatable. I guess all requests for Area Variances in most instances are self- created, but in this instance, I think, Mr. Chairman, on balance, I do believe that Area Variance No. 2-2004 should be approved. Duly adopted this 21 day of January, 2004, by the following vote: st AYES: Mr. Hayes, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Stone NOES: Mr. McNulty, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Bryant MR. STONE-Before you people leave, the young people, I want to congratulate you for coming to meetings. I know it’s an assignment, I gather, but I applaud you for coming. I wanted to say that earlier but I didn’t get it in. Again, four to three, it is approved. MR. KELSEY-Thank you. MR. STONE-Four three is never trouble to me, because that says we’re all thinking. MR. ABBATE-You’ve got it. MR. KELSEY-Thank you, a pleasure to meet you. I’m new to the area. 17 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/21/04) MR. STONE-Well, you’re seeing young people watch government in action, and even though Mr. Strough told them to come, I assume. SIGN VARIANCE NO. 3-2004 SEQRA TYPE: UNLISTED WARREN TIRE SERVICE CENTER OWNER: SUNNYSIDE PROPERTIES, LLC ZONING: HC-INT. LOCATION: 14 LA FAYETTE STREET APPLICANT PROPOSES PLACEMENT OF A WALL SIGN AND SEEKS RELIEF FROM THE SIGN ORDINANCE FOR ADDITIONAL WALL SIGNS. CROSS REFERENCE: SPR 27-2003; BP 2003-250; BP 2003-887 (WALL SIGN) WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 1/14/2004 LOT SIZE: 1.25 ACRES SECTION: 140-6, 3-C JOHN PAYNE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Sign Variance No. 3-2004, Warren Tire Service Center, Meeting Date: January 21, 2004 “Project Location: 14 Lafayette Street Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes placement of an additional 79.5 sq. ft. wall sign on the new building currently without signage (the older building currently has the one allowed wall sign). Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for an additional wall sign where only one is allowed, per §140-6(B3c). Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): BP 2003-250: 06/10/03, 6,360 sq. ft. commercial building. SP 27-2003: 06/03/03, construction of a 6,360 sq. ft. additional commercial building with 6 new bays and storage. SV 9-2003: 02/26/03, size relief granted for a 126 sq. ft. wall sign. BP 2002-898: 01/24/03, 96 sq. ft. wall sign. BP 2002-897: 10/31/02, 36 sq. ft. freestanding sign. BP 2002-483: 07/10/02, 7,320 sq. ft. commercial building. SP 20-2002: 05/23/02, 7,320 sq. ft. commercial building for automotive service. SB 7-2002: 05/23/02, subdivision of a 2.28 acre parcel into two lots of 1.24 and 1.04 acres. SB 4-2002: 02/26/02, subdivision of a 3.35 acre parcel into two lots of 2.28 and 1.07 acres. Staff comments: The applicant claims the proposed signage on the new building would identify it as being part of the Warren Tire Service Center. The site plan submitted for this application shows the new building (from SP 27-2003) as being on Lot 2B, which would allow for additional signage without a sign variance (the older building, from SP 20-2002, is on Lot 2a). However, the applicant consolidated the two lots on June 17, 2003 (now 302.06-1-58.21). Consolidation of the lots was a condition in the approval of SP 37-2003 because access to the lot was not provided for by the LaFayette Street frontage (required per §179-4-090A). The applicant could have applied for an area variance for relief from §179-4-090A. Approval of said relief would then have eliminated the need for relief from the sign ordinance.” MR. MC NULTY-“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form January 21, 2004 Project Name: Warren Tire Service Center Owner: Sunnyside Properties, LLC ID Number: QBY-SV-04-3 County Project#: Jan04-18 Current Zoning: HC-Int. Community: Queensbury Project Description: Applicant proposes placement of a wall sign and seeks relief from the Sign Ordinance for additional wall signs. Site Location: 14 Lafayette Street Tax Map Number(s): 302.6-1-58.0 Staff Notes: Sign Variance: The applicant proposes 3 wall signs on second Warren Tire building at 18 Lafayette St. the information submitted indicates the need for the signage is to direct customers to no-wait service and to indicate the building is part of the business. There is a second building (known as 14 Lafayette St.) with signage for Warren 18 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/21/04) Tire – where the County Planning Board recommended approval in Feb2003 and the local board granted the variance with conditions in March 2003. Staff does not identify an impact on county resources based on the information submitted. Staff recommends no county impact. County Planning Board Recommendation: No County Impact”. Signed by Bennet F. Driscoll, Warren County Planning Board 1/21/04. MR. STONE-Sir? MR. PAYNE-My name is John Payne, Vice President of Warren Tire. We agreed, back when we proposed to open up the second building on that site, that we would consolidate them on the request of the Town, consolidate those two lots on the tax map as one, in the interest of both green space and offering one curb cut instead of two. We did that and as we proceeded on through the building process and now through the sign process, we were, it was brought to our attention that because it’s the same building, or same business on one, now one site, only one wall sign would be allowed. Unfortunately, our customers, there seems to be some confusion since we opened up in the second week of November that that’s part of our business as well. People are coming in now and driving and not realizing that the newer building is part of Warren Tire, and part of the attraction to our business is that we have available bays open at any given time. Customers seem to be, it seems to be a positive to potential customers that they recognize that there are bays available for them to pull right in and have some, as I put in the application, no wait service. So we feel as though that’s a bit of a detriment in not being able to identify that building the way we would like. I also want to point out that the identification on this building, if it were a standalone building, is under the allowable square footage that we could possibly apply or identify that building with. So I don’t think it’s identification that’s grotesque in any way. I think it’s a more, has better curb appeal than painting the windows, which is allowable and was offered as an option, but I think some of that hand painting on windows tends to look a little cheesy. In this case it’s a sign that’s similar to the original building that was approved previously, and I think it looks clean and neat and crisp. Therefore, we’re requesting that relief. MR. STONE-Go ahead, Chuck. MR. ABBATE-I have a question, sir, if you don’t mind. Do you recall that condition of the lots was a, consolidation of the lots, was a conditioning approval of that last special permit that you requested? Do you remember that? MR. PAYNE-Yes. MR. ABBATE-The consolidation. MR. PAYNE-Yes. MR. ABBATE-And do you realize that consolidation of these lots resulted in not two businesses, but rather a new classification of one business? And as a result one business is restricted? In other words, you can’t, two separate buildings, in terms of allocation of signs, would not equal one new business. MR. PAYNE-I understand that. I think the route that we could have possibly explored at the time was to pursue that then as two separate lots and requested a relief from whatever Ordinances there were in effect that would not allow us to open up as one, and we thought that that was an agreeable, it was put forth to us by the Town. We agreed that that would be no problem, answer to the situation for both green space and also curb cuts. MR. ABBATE-But you agree, now, that there is, it is considered one business? Once there was a consolidation. It’s now considered one business, and there are restrictions for one business. MR. PAYNE-Yes, I do. 19 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/21/04) MR. ABBATE-Okay. MR. FRANK-Mr. Abbate, could I clear something up for you? MR. ABBATE-Sure. MR. FRANK-The Code is each separate parcel is entitled to that signage, not business. So if they had remained separate parcels, even though it’s owned by the same business, they could have had one freestanding and one wall sign. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Then let me ask Staff this question, then. The zoning laws currently state that each business is allowed one freestanding and one attached to the building. This location consists of two buildings, and as a result of consolidation, and, Craig, help me out here. Once there’s a consolidation, doesn’t that reclassify it as one business? MR. BROWN-Yes, that’s correct. It’s not parcel based. It’s business based. MR. ABBATE-Right. Okay. MR. STONE-And I think the applicant recognizes that, Chuck, that they want a second sign. MR. ABBATE-Yes, right. Okay. No problem. MR. STONE-I do have a couple of questions. I know were asked, I don’t want to say forced, but asked to consolidate these lots. Was there a financial advantage for tax purposes? MR. PAYNE-None whatsoever. MR. STONE-None whatsoever. Okay. Sometimes there is. That’s the only reason. MR. PAYNE-No. MR. STONE-Okay. What about that freestanding sign? I mean, your business is Warren Tire. You’ve got a sign on the building and you’ve got a big “Goodyear” sign sitting up there, which could, anybody could have. It doesn’t identify anything except that I guess you sell tires. Is it possible that sign could be moved to the other side of the driveway, therefore putting, kind of saying these two buildings are the same business. MR. PAYNE-I imagine that would be a possibility. It would require the, another footing to be poured for that sign, and also the electricity to be moved and cut underneath the asphalt and the curbing that’s in place, but I imagine that, you know, that is a possibility. One of my concerns, as you can see, it looks like a nice building, but it looks pretty bland and there’s people that are looking at it and saying, you know, what is that, what’s that place next door, and try and explain that it’s another facility, it’s our same facility, we’re trying to eliminate some confusion and identify it. MR. STONE-But you’re saying that people drive up and don’t go in the main business door. They look around and say, well, maybe they can take me now? Are you saying that’s what would happen? MR. PAYNE-That’s what’s happening. There’s a lot of confusion that people pull in and they don’t know whether they should just stay to the left, and we seem to be overwhelmed with cars to the left, as the original building, the one that’s identified, because people are afraid to park over there. They think that that’s not part of our business. So we’re congested with parking, on the existing building where I have available spaces on the one that’s now recently. MR. STONE-So you could put a directional sign that says parking for Warren Tire. 20 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/21/04) MR. PAYNE-Yes, we’ve done that. MR. STONE-Okay. Any other comments, questions? MR. URRICO-Yes, I have a question. Will, the main entrance to the business is going to be located at the larger of the two buildings, the older of the two buildings? MR. PAYNE-It’s kind of a 60/40 split. Sixty percent of the curb cut would be on the existing building and 40% is on the new site. I’m just guessing, but that’s about what it is. MR. URRICO-I mean, as people come to do business with you, where do they go? MR. PAYNE-Right now they’re going into the older building. MR. URRICO-And that’s where they’ll go, even if, with the signage, with the signs? MR. PAYNE-Yes. MR. URRICO-Okay. Thanks. MR. BRYANT-I can understand why you’d want to identify the building, okay, because there could be confusion, but why do we have to have a sign that goes the full length of the roof, with Good Year and Warren Tire and whatever else is going to be on that sign? Why can’t we just put a small sign that says Warren Tire? I mean, you just want it for identification purposes. It’s not for, you know, additional exposure or advertising or anything. It’s just for identification purposes. So why can’t we just say Warren Tire on the top of the building with a small sign, and not put that whole display thing that you have on the other building duplicated on this building? MR. PAYNE-Well, again, we’re within the allowable square footage. MR. BRYANT-But you’re not within the allowable number of signs. MR. PAYNE-No. MR. BRYANT-So the question is, again, why don’t we just say Warren Tire on there. We’ll give you a variance for a sign that says Warren Tire and eliminate all this other good stuff, and you get your extra sign, but we don’t get carried away? MR. PAYNE-I don’t think that it’s over identified with what I’m proposing, but in order to identify it as a Warren Tire, I think that’s important. The only other thing that would be redundant would be the Goodyear, the Gemini, if you’ll recall of last year, we forewent the Gemini identification on the existing building. So I would like to see that up in this building, being that I’m under the square footage, should this, had this been a separate parcel. MR. BRYANT-So let me understand. What you’re saying is you want a sign that goes from one end of the roof to the other, with Warren Tire Service Center, Goodyear, Gemini, a little eagle or whatever it is and all that other. This is what you want? MR. PAYNE-That’s what I’m asking for. Correct. MR. ABBATE-That’s not an eagle. That’s a Roman foot. MR. STONE-It’s a winged foot. That sign, as proposed on the drawing, I’m asking Staff, if this were a separate business, separate lot, separate business, it could have a sign that big? MR. FRANK-To make it clear what I said before, if it was a separate property, even if it was the same ownership, same business, it could have a separate freestanding and a separate wall sign. 21 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/21/04) If they had a separate access to the lot. They chose to forego that. They chose to have one access to two lots. MR. STONE-Right, but this proposed sign would fit in the Ordinance as far as square footage? MR. FRANK-Yes, that’s correct. It’s less than 100 square feet. It’s 79.5. MR. STONE-Okay. I just want to make sure. Any other questions? Well, let me open the public hearing. Anybody wishing to speak in favor of? In favor? Anyone opposed? Opposed? Any correspondence? MR. MC NULTY-No correspondence. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. STONE-Chuck, let’s start with you. Chuck, Mr. Abbate, I am starting with you. You are speaking now. MR. ABBATE-Thank you very much. I’ll be honest with you. I don’t know where I’m going on this thing. I want to do the thing that’s right, and, Mr. Chairman, I really would like to listen to what some of the other Board members have to say first, before I come to any kind of. MR. STONE-Let the record show Mr. Abbate had nothing to say early in the game. Okay. We’ll go to Mr. Bryant. MR. BRYANT-I understand that, as far as the square footage is concerned, that, you know, you still fall under the allowable square footage, but the point that I was trying to make is you’ve already got the one wall sign, and why can’t we just put Warren Tire on there and make it very simple. That’ll be your other wall sign, end of story. Frankly, I’m not willing to see two buildings with the same signs on it, we’re talking about 100% relief is what we’re talking about. So, as the application stands, I’m opposed to it, but I would be in favor of a reduced sign, something just for identification purposes, understanding that you have two separate businesses and it could be confusing, but that’s about as far as I would go on the issue. MR. STONE-Okay. Mr. Urrico. MR. URRICO-Yes, I realize some concessions were made when this building and this project was put together. I think elimination of the curb cut was a benefit for everybody, but I also agree that putting the same, basically the same signage on the second building is going over a little bit, at least in my opinion. I think I’d like to see some signage reduced, but not to the extent that you have. Something that would identify the building, satisfy you and your customers but not necessarily grant, basically, 100% relief on that. MR. STONE-Jaime? MR. HAYES-Well, I think it’s important, as Roy just did, to point out the fact that certain concessions were made, and that that, as far as joining these pieces, consolidating these pieces, and by action that eliminated Warren Tire’s ability to have full signage on both buildings legally, certainly without getting a variance, but I think in our considerations we’re certainly allowed to keep that in mind. I mean, I think I agree with Roy in the sense that I think that some, it is a confusing situation there right now, and I’ve had people mention it to me, and even looking at the picture it’s a little bit confusing. So I think that some additional signage on that building, considering the fact that the parcels were joined, and they are two separate buildings is warranted. Certainly some kind of reduction in the impact of those might be a compromise 22 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/21/04) that Warren Tire’s willing to put forward to make that happen, and I think that that’s out there, but I am in favor, certainly, of some signage to straighten out, you know, what I think is a warranted concern about the identification of your business or businesses there at that site. MR. STONE-Chuck? MR. MC NULTY-Frankly, I’m a little surprised that people can’t figure out that that second building is just part of the same business, but I guess maybe it’s because I’ve, over the last few years, been trying to look for two buildings on a tire business. I don’t know why the tire businesses are coming up with two buildings, but you had that situation on Aviation Road with two buildings. Queensbury Tire has got the same situation, but it struck me when I drove past that it was blatantly obvious to me that that second building was part of your business. At the same time, you’re there ever day. So I certainly can’t counter what you’re saying, that you are finding that some customers are confused. I’m going to come down, I think, the way some of the other Board members have, that I don’t want to see as much signage as what is proposed in this application. I would be willing to go for some kind of a smaller, modest Warren Tire sign or Warren Tire Building Two, or something of that sort to identify the building as being part of Warren Tire, but not what is proposed at the present time. MR. STONE-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, I basically would be in agreement with what Chuck has said. I think that you need some kind of identification on that building, but it could be done on a smaller scale to, you know, redundantly put the exact same signage on that building being that close to the other one, and the mere fact that those buildings are very similar in construction materials to each other, I don’t think I could approve it as requested. MR. STONE-Mr. Abbate? MR. ABBATE-Thank you. I think my fellow Board members have made it easy for me. A compromise, I suspect, would be in the best interest of this application, and if there was some sort of a compromise based upon what you heard this evening of the other Board members, I would go along with the application, but unless there is a compromise, I don’t think I could. MR. STONE-I think we’re unanimous there. I mean, the way the Board is sounding, if I did an Unlisted SEQRA, I think we would have to say there would be a negative impact on the area as we see it. The sign is too much. We can’t tell you what we’d like, except that you’ve heard a number of people would say, Warren Tire would be very nice and not the rest of the stuff, but it’s up to you. I certainly agree with the rest of the Board. I mean, in my mind, and I know it would be expensive, moving the sign would solve that, the freestanding sign, but secondly, I think I could go, as the rest of the Board members have said, with a smaller sign that merely says Warren Tire and let’s people know that the building is part of the whole complex here. So, it’s really, I mean, we can go ahead, but the Board does not seem willing to say yes to your request. MR. PAYNE-Let me offer a compromise, then, on our behalf, that we forego the only redundancy, other than the Warren Tire, which is a necessity to identify our business, but the Goodyear, I could eliminate that, and then I would ask for the Warren Tire Service Center as we see it on the application, eliminate the Goodyear, and I would like to have the small, two foot by seven and a half foot Gemini logo to be included on that and I would bring them tighter, because I do realize that the square footage is in total, so that it would be considerably less square footage than what you’re currently looking at, which is, again, already below the acceptable amount. MR. STONE-Now you’re talking the same size Warren Tire that appears in this drawing? MR. PAYNE-Yes. 23 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/21/04) MR. STONE-And the Gemini the same, squeezed together. MR. PAYNE-Yes, exactly. I think anything smaller than that would look, probably disproportionate, and, you know, it would probably look more foolish than it does, but by bringing those two together, it would be considerably less square footage, and whatever measurement the Board feels is acceptable, then that’s what would be fine for me. MR. STONE-All right. Let me ask the Board. Start with Chuck, does that satisfy what you’re looking for, Abbate, I’m sorry. MR. ABBATE-Let me ask a quick question here. You eliminated that Gemini sign on the other building. Correct? MR. PAYNE-Yes. MR. ABBATE-Well, would you be willing to eliminate the Gemini sign here as well? MR. PAYNE-I would like to have it on there. MR. ABBATE-In addition to what your recommendation, your new proposal? MR. PAYNE-Yes. I mean, if it was contingent on approval, then I would eliminate that as well, but I don’t think those two, I think it almost would be a better look just to fill up some of that big fascia that I have on that building. MR. ABBATE-I’d give favorable consideration to your new proposal. I think that’s reasonable. MR. PAYNE-Okay. Thank you. MR. STONE-All right. Al? MR. BRYANT-Are you going to center this whole new thing? MR. PAYNE-I would, yes. MR. BRYANT-And is it going to say Warren Tire Service Center, or just Warren Tire? MR. PAYNE-The Service Center is part of, it’s our Corporate name. So, yes, I would ask for that. MR. BRYANT-So it would approximately be about, it would take up about half the fascia, as opposed to the whole fascia. MR. PAYNE-I would say, if anything, maybe a little less. MR. STONE-Yes, can you help, Bruce? MR. URRICO-Yes, it’s about 20 feet, as opposed to. MR. FRANK-I think the building is. MR. PAYNE-It’s 50 feet. The soffit is about 50 feet, give or take a couple of feet. MR. FRANK-Yes. So if they keep a three foot spacing in between the Warren Tire Service Center, as they have right now, displayed in between the “Goodyear”, which they’re deleting, and they keep the Gemini three feet away from the Warren Tire Service Center, you’re going to have a sign approximately 52.5 square feet, and approximately 25 feet. So I would say half the fascia, or less, I would go along with it. 24 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/21/04) MR. STONE-Okay. Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes, to me that’s a good compromise. I would be in favor of it. MR. PAYNE-Thank you. MR. STONE-Okay. Jaime? MR. HAYES-I agree. MR. STONE-Chuck? MR. MC NULTY-I think I’m still going to be opposed with the Gemini in there. MR. STONE-Okay. Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-I’d go along with it. MR. STONE-I think I can go along with it. I think what you’re showing is the willingness to compromise, and we all recognize, if you’ve listened to everybody, we all recognize the, your concerns, in terms of this building standing out there. I mean, as I think as somebody said, you’re there everyday, and if that’s what you’re seeing, we have to believe you. That’s what you’re telling us. So, can you come up with some numbers there? Is that 50, you’re happy with the 52.5? MR. FRANK-If he keeps the three foot spacing in between the Warren Tire Service Center and the Gemini sign, then it’ll be 52.5 square feet. MR. STONE-Okay. Well, the first thing we need, since it’s an Unlisted Action, I gather we seem to have agreement in this particular area. MOTION THAT A REVIEW OF THE SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM SHOWS THERE ARE NO NEGATIVE IMPACTS CAUSED BY THIS PROJECT, Introduced by Lewis Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Paul Hayes: Duly adopted this 21 day of January, 2004, by the following vote: st AYES: Mr. McNulty, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Stone NOES: NONE MR. STONE-Okay. Now I need a motion to approve a second wall sign on the second building at approximately 52.5 square feet and describe it, please. MR. URRICO-I’ll take it, Mr. Chairman. MOTION TO APPROVE SIGN VARIANCE NO. 3-2004 WARREN TIRE SERVICE CENTER, Introduced by Roy Urrico who moved for its adoption, seconded by Paul Hayes: 14 Lafayette Street. The applicant proposes placement of an additional 52.5 square foot wall sign on the new building currently without signage. The relief requested, the applicant requests relief for this additional wall sign where only one is allowed per 140-6B(3)(c ). This sign would not have an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or any detriment to the nearby properties. The benefit sought by the applicant could possibly be achieved by other means, but that’s not a detriment in this case. The Area Variance is substantial in that it’s for a full sign, a second sign on a business property that is only allowed one wall sign, and the 25 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/21/04) proposed variance will not have an adverse impact on the neighborhood, and the Sign Variance is sort of self-created, but also was created because of some concessions that were made due to consolidation of the properties and elimination of a curb cut on Lafayette Street. I move for its adoption of this application. Duly adopted this 21 day of January, 2004, by the following vote: st AYES: Mr. Underwood, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Stone NOES: Mr. McNulty MR. STONE-There you go. We thank you for the compromise, and it shows the process works. MR. PAYNE-Thanks for your time. AREA VARIANCE NO. 4-2004 SEQRA TYPE: II RICHARD G. & KELLY A. IRVINE AGENT: MICHAEL J. O’CONNOR, ESQ. OWNER: RICHARD G. & KELLY A. IRVINE ZONING: RR-3A LOCATION: 9 VERANDA LANE, THE VISTAS APPLICANT PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF A 3.07 ACRE LOT INTO TWO LOTS OF 1.64 ACRES AND 1.43 ACRES. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE REQUIREMENTS FOR BOTH LOTS. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM THE MINIMUM ROAD FRONTAGE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE SMALLER LOT. CROSS REFERENCE: SUBDIVISION NO. 10-2001 LOT SIZE: 3.07 ACRES TAX MAP NO.: 295.00-1-1.2 SECTION: 179-4-030; 179-4- 090 MICHAEL O’CONNOR, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 4-2004, Richard G. & Kelly A. Irvine, Meeting Date: January 21, 2004 “Project Location: 9 Veranda Lane, The Vistas Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes the subdivision of a 3.07-acre lot into two lots of 1.64 acres and 1.43 acres in the RR-3A Zone. Relief Required: 1) 1.36 acres of relief from the 3-acre minimum lot size requirement for the 1.64-acre lot, per §179-4-030 for the RR-3A Zone. 2) 1.57 acres of relief from the 3-acre minimum lot size requirement for the 1.43-acre lot, per §179-4-030 for the RR-3A Zone. 3) 40 feet of relief from the 40-foot minimum lot frontage on a town road requirement for the 1.43-acre lot, per §179-4-090(A). 4) Additionally, even though relief was not requested for the 1.64-acre lot, relief is needed to allow for the physical access to the lot from other than the lot’s frontage on the town road, §179-4-090(A). Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): BP 2002-379: 05/20/02, 3108 sq. ft. single- family dwelling with a 3-car attached garage. SB 10-2001: 12/18/01, subdivision of a 31.35-acre lot into 3.07 acres (Lot 9) and 28.28 acres (Lot 10). SB 10-2001: tabled 09/25/01, 3-lot subdivision (1.64, 1.84, and 27.87 acres with 12 lots for future subdivision and 8 lots existing for a total of 23 lots). SB 19-1993: 10/28/93, 3-lot subdivision (2.93, 2.12, and 1.25 acres). SB 4-78 Modification: 11/24/92, 7-lot subdivision (2.19, 3.53, 2.77, 2.40, 2.29, 1.62, and 0.76 acres). SB 4-78: 02/06/80, 7-lot subdivision with 13 lots for future development (2.23, 3.599, 2.735, 1.923, 2.283, 1.30, and 0.726 acres). Staff comments: 26 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/21/04) While the proposed lots would not be out of character with other lots in the Vistas Subdivision (all eight of the existing lots are substandard relative to today’s code, three of which are 1.62, 1.25, and 0.76 acres), it appears the difficulty is self-created, stemming from the conditions of a civil contract.” MR. MC NULTY-And it’s a Type II, and there was no County. MR. STONE-Gentlemen. MR. O'CONNOR-Mr. Chairman, I’m Michael O’Connor from the law firm of Little & O’Connor. I represent the applicants, and with me is one of the applicants, Richard Irvine. This is not what it necessarily appears as, which is often the case, and I don’t say that to make it light. Mr. Irvine began this project some time in 2001 to build a single family house on this lot. At that time, he entered into an agreement, which is creating the problems that are here. The developer, who was the builder, sold him the entire Lot 9, and began construction on the house on the northerly end of it, as shown on the survey. He took back an option to purchase the southerly half of the lot when he completed an application with the Planning Board, which would allow him to utilize that southerly portion with his other remaining lands. As I understand it, he was going to call the house under construction for Mr. Irvine as Lot Number One of this new subdivision, and then combine the balance of Lot, what was the approved subdivision lot, Lot Number Nine, with his other lands and get whatever density he could get, and do it under basis of a cluster type subdivision, which would allow this to be an existing lot in that new subdivision. The problem came to a head in that he’s never made the application to the Planning Board, and he never, we take the position that he breached the construction contract. The house is there. It is partially completed. We can’t complete it right now because we cannot do financing with the bank. A bank requires you to have an approved lot on which to put a mortgage. They would require a mortgage on the entire lot, both the south and the north end of it, so that if they ever got in to a foreclosure problem, they wouldn’t have an illegal lot that they were foreclosing against. We had gone to a closing. I’ve gone to two different closings. I recently have started to represent Mr. Irvine. I went to two different closings, and at both of those closings there was a Subordination Agreement on the table that the builder would subordinate this option that he has which creates a cloud on a portion of this lot, and it would allow the mortgage to go forward, or the mortgage closing to go forward. Then the bank would have a mortgage on the whole thing, and they’d have first priority, which is what every bank wants, and he would subordinate his option on the remainder portion. The relationship just totally fell apart and is just not going to happen. We believe that we have greatly overpaid the builder for the work that’s there. The builder hasn’t completed it on a timely basis, and I acknowledge that I’m making these statements on a public record, and that I’m responsible for making those statements as to this builder. What we are asking is simply for creating a line on a piece of paper, so that we can go forward and complete the project, rather than have a house that’s maybe 30, 40% done, sit there and not be able to be completed. When we first spoke with Chris and Craig, we talked about doing, and I still talk about, we will put, and are willing to accept an approval, that requires us to put a restrictive covenant that says that the southerly portion of the lot, which some people would look at on paper and say is a separate building lot, will not be built on until the developer makes this application, combining it with other lands, and it’s part of that approval, and we say that through the period of this option. That was why we said through March 1, 2007. His option ends in 2007, and we don’t have a problem with saying that the separateness will stop in 2007, unless he’s gotten his Town approval for that portion to be a freestanding lot. So we’re kind of asking for a temporary variance, if you will. We’re not trying to get, we’re not going to build another house on it. We’re not going to use it for septic. We’re not going to remove trees on it. We’re not going to do anything with this portion, but what we want to do is complete the construction on the other lot. It has no impact on anyone. MR. HAYES-So when his option burns off, then they’ll be re-combined? MR. O'CONNOR-They’ll be re-combined. 27 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/21/04) MR. STONE-And he’ll own the whole three acres. MR. O'CONNOR-He owns it now, but he owns half of it subject to. MR. STONE-“He” being? MR. O'CONNOR-Mr. Irvine owns it, Mr. Irvine owns the entire Lot Nine on an approved subdivision map, but half of it is subject to this option that he has the right to purchase it back for a dollar, or without consideration, I forget the exact, it’s nominal consideration, a dollar or less, when he gets approval from a Planning Board that says that that reconfiguration is appropriate. MR. URRICO-“He” being? MR. O'CONNOR-The builder. MR. URRICO-The builder. MR. STONE-In other words, you’re saying that if somebody, if the Planning Board builds the subdivision, but it still would require a variance on our part to have substandard lots. It would be clustered, right. MR. O'CONNOR-If he puts it into a cluster subdivision, then this would be a conforming lot, but we’ve got a house that, we’ve got pictures of it that’s up. The roof is on. The external siding is not on. It’s subject to the weather. MR. HAYES-So it’s being damaged by. MR. O'CONNOR-Right now it’s not doing well. We’ve done a couple of things. We went in and covered some electric lines that were left open, a ditch for that, and we’ve covered part of a porch that the water was going down into the basement and boarded up some of the doors that weren’t on the house. So we’re not asking, it looks like we’re asking for permission for two lots. We’re only going to utilize the portion that already has been built on. MR. URRICO-So under any circumstances there won’t be two houses on two lots? MR. O'CONNOR-Not by us. MR. HAYES-At the end of the day, he’s going to have a new lot, but that’s part of a legal subdivision, though. MR. STONE-Yes. That’s a legal subdivision. MR. HAYES-Potentially legal subdivision. MR. FRANK-A legal cluster. MR. HAYES-Well, we don’t even really have to deal too much with that, in the sense that we’re saying on the record that. MR. STONE-Well, I would like to get Mr. Brown, because I know he’s been involved with this, when you’re done. MR. O'CONNOR-Let me read to you just the termination, or the language I said. We will create two parcels by deed from Irvine to themselves. The 1.64 acre parcel will not have an unusual restriction. That’s where the existing house is. The 1.43 acre parcel will be subject to a restrictive covenant that expires on 3/1/07 at 10 a.m., which is the time of the option, when the two parcels will be merged and Lot Nine will then be reconfigured as it was originally 28 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/21/04) approved for subdivision approvals, unless in the interim Raven, at his cost, Raven being the developer, or whoever his successor is, obtains necessary approvals from governmental authorities for further subdivision in development of all or a portion of buyer’s remaining 39 acres of land adjacent to the 1.43 acre parcel. That approval shall include authorization from government authorities to subdivide Lot Nine. Until Planning Board is obtained, the 133,000 square foot portion of Lot Nine will not be treated as a standalone lot for additional building purposes, and I said we’ll work out whatever language the Town Attorney and Staff wants that is of that substance. MR. BRYANT-So there’s two questions I have relative to this. Based on this, if Raven, the builder, then decides to incorporate this half of this lot, this new lot that’s going to be created, with the rest of his property, then we’re still left with a 1.64 substandard lot, where right now we have a 3.07 lot. MR. O'CONNOR-No. My understanding is that he will have to designate this as Lot One in the next section, and it would then be a conforming lot, because he will cluster. MR. STONE-No, but Mr. Irvine’s house will be on a substandard lot. MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. He has to create this, he has to account for this density. He has to say that this is one building right, if you will, with this other land. MR. HAYES-Mr. Raven. MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. MR. BRYANT-Now let me ask another question relative to the southern portion thing. Maybe Chris might be able to, or Craig might be able to answer it. Supposing we give a variance for splitting these two lots. Now is it possible, then, for Raven to come back and say, well I have this lot and I’d like to build something on it? Because we’re not really subject to all their covenants and restrictions. MR. BROWN-Yes, I would say the answer to that is no. because He doesn’t own the lot. Mr. Irvine owns the lot. Mr. Raven has an option to pick it up if he wants to further the subdivision, but he doesn’t own it at this point. MR. O'CONNOR-And you can require us to file a restrictive covenant, in the two deeds I spoke of, which will make that permanent on that property. It’s not something that just goes into our file and then goes away or somebody forgets about. MR. STONE-Okay. The bottom line is that Mr. Irvine would like to finish his house on a substandard lot, potentially substandard lot. MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. MR. UNDERWOOD-I have a question for Craig. MR. O'CONNOR-Substantial in the sense of the current zoning. If you look at that overall neighborhood, the character of that neighborhood, it’s not substantial. MR. HAYES-Substandard. MR. STONE-So those lots down the hill, that are on that map that Bruce has got up, they’re all less than the three acre zoning. MR. FRANK-That’s correct. MR. STONE-And when did the three acre zoning go in there? Under the new Zoning Code? 29 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/21/04) MR. BROWN-No. I think that’s been three acre for a while. The lower portion of the subdivision was approved in the 1980, when the zoning was different there. It was probably a one acre zoning at that time. MR. STONE-Okay. So they were all legal at the time? MR. BROWN-Well, they’re all approved lots. MR. STONE-Yes, that’s what I meant, approved lots. MR. BROWN-Maybe variances were issued. I don’t see any variances issued. So yes, I’d say they were all legal lots at the time. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. URRICO-So the worst case, or best case scenario, for Mr. Irvine, is he would be permitted to complete the house on what would now be designated as substandard lot, but the potential is that that lot would be either incorporated into a larger lot, or the additional lot which would no longer make it substandard, or there would be no house next door to him if that all became part of another subdivision. MR. O'CONNOR-I don’t see Mr. Irvine’s lot ever getting bigger, but I do see that the developer will have to say that this is Lot Number One of my new development, and treat that against my density. MR. HAYES-It could get bigger, though, if Mr. Raven’s option burns off. MR. O'CONNOR-Then it goes back to what it was. MR. HAYES-Then it would get bigger. MR. O'CONNOR-Then it goes back to what it was, right. MR. STONE-Is there any access, potential access, to the big portion there? MR. O'CONNOR-The lower portion? MR. STONE-The upper portion. MR. O'CONNOR-The upper portion, we have a written easement over that, whatever is shown on there. This is a Town road. There is 107 feet of frontage, of Town road where the house is being constructed. The topographical feature of the lot and what not actually put the driveway higher up. He, Mr. Raven, has, of record, an easement, and with the deed that was given to Mr. Raven of record in the County Clerk’s Office there is a recorded easement over this strip, here. This cuts off right at that 30 foot piece, okay. MR. HAYES-So essentially gets him past Lot Four and up into the bigger parcel. MR. O'CONNOR-Yes, it gets him toward his driveway. Okay. In my file, I actually have an executed easement for the full piece, all the way there. When this thing broke down, Mr. Raven went and signed an additional document that is needed to record that. So we have a deed, but these are temporary easements that will terminate when the rest of it becomes a Town road, as part of the rest of the development. So I’m satisfied that we have access to the property. The Staff is correct in saying the actual physical driveway isn’t on a Town road frontage, so we do need that variance as well. As we don’t intend to use the second portion of it, I don’t know if you need to give me that easement for access there. I guess in order to create it technically you’ve got to give me the easement. 30 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/21/04) MR. FRANK-Technically. MR. HAYES-We give you a variance. MR. O'CONNOR-We don’t intend to use it, or variance. Okay. You give me the variance. MR. STONE-Craig, do you want to comment on this whole thing? MR. BROWN-Not unless you have a question. I guess my comment would be is if you boil this down, what you have is a request for a two lot subdivision, without all the extraneous reasons behind it ,but you have a request for a two lot subdivision, and I’m sure Mr. O’Connor doesn’t agree with that rationale, but that’s what it is, one lot now, you want to have two, and the reasons behind it. MR. BRYANT-That’s my question exactly. MR. O'CONNOR-I would agree with it only to this extent. It is technically a two lot subdivision, but one of the lots we are saying, by restriction, cannot be built on. MR. BRYANT-Yes, but this is my point. I mean, these covenants and all that, you know, if you have two lots, is it possible, then, for somebody to come back here and build on this? MR. FRANK-You could condition it not to. MR. BROWN-Well, I think what he’s offered is, if you will grant him the variance to do, create these two substandard lots, they’re going to offer a condition that nobody’s going to build on it. They’re not going to come and ask. They’re not going to come back for a variance. They’re not going to submit a building permit, until such time. MR. BRYANT-And how can he guarantee it if he doesn’t own it later on? MR. BROWN-Well, he does own it right now. MR. BRYANT-But he won’t own it after 2007. MR. BROWN-Well, he’s going to own it unless Raven picks up the option. MR. STONE-But there’s a condition, Al, that has to be met. MR. BROWN-To take that land and include it in the cluster subdivision, and if that happens then he won’t own it anymore, but it’ll be part of a cluster subdivision. MR. URRICO-But I think what Al’s asking is what if we grant the variance, with the condition that nothing be built on the second lot, and then Raven comes back and says, it’s my lot. MR. BROWN-It’s not. MR. URRICO-It’s not. MR. O'CONNOR-It’s not his lot. MR. URRICO-He can’t do that. MR. BROWN-Unless he exercises the option that he’s got available. MR. HAYES-He picks up the option, (lost words) under the same rules as if. 31 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/21/04) MR. URRICO-The rule just applies to that. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. We will not convey that back to him unless he has a Planning Board approval. Part of the terms of his options says that he will get approvals. MR. HAYES-So they’re going to be under full scrutiny. MR. STONE-Yes, very close scrutiny. MR. O'CONNOR-I’ve got the full option here, and I’m not reading part of it, just for the purpose of keeping the rest in my file, but it says government approvals. The exercise of this option is contingent upon buyer, who’s Raven, obtaining at his sole cost and expense all necessary approvals from governmental authorities for further subdivision development of all or a portion of buyer’s remaining 39 plus or minus acres of land adjacent to the property. This approval will include authorization from a governmental authorities to subdivide Lot Nine. Seller agrees to cooperate in the approval process and agrees to execute all necessary documents to include his property in the approval process. Buyer agrees that under no circumstances will he obtain subdivision approval that will result in seller’s remaining 1.64 acre lot to be in violation of any governmental regulation. Seller and buyer agree that before this option can be exercised, buyer will be provided with proof that his remaining 1.64 acre lot is a legal lot. They tied this thing up in about six ways to create 17 different problems, and it’s unfortunate. MR. HAYES-So really the mistake was made when they bought the property with this option on it. MR. O'CONNOR-Well, I think the developer tried to have his cake and eat it at the same time. MR. ABBATE-See, that was going to be my question. If Mr. Irvine is new to the community, and he says, okay, Mr. O’Connor, you’ve been recommended. I’d like your counsel. What would you have said to him, prior to him purchasing this? MR. O'CONNOR-That’s not fair to Mr. Irvine. MR. ABBATE-That’s good, but I had to ask it. I couldn’t let it go by. MR. O'CONNOR-Let me also say this, and we’ve had that discussion. We’ve had that discussion. He was represented by an attorney who is a decent attorney. He’s a good attorney, but Mr. Irvine wanted to be on that part of West Mountain, and that was a lot that was available. He looked upon the thing as being all, you know, everything’s going to go fine. You’re going to build me my house. You’re going to get your subdivision approval. I get the lot that I want. I’m happy. You’re happy. We made a deal that works. Sometimes they don’t, and this is one that didn’t. MR. BRYANT-Could we cut to the chase? Let me ask you. What is the worst case scenario? The worst case scenario, we reject this application, what happens with Mr. Irvine? What happens to his house? What happens with the agreements that they have about the southern portion of the lot? What happens? MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. The house falls into, probably puts Mr. Irvine in a very financial stressful position where he cannot finish the house. He paid approximately $50,000 for the lot. He has paid the builder $133,000, and he only has the house 30% done. We’ve gotten estimates that he has overpaid the builder by $30,000 to $50,000. He wants to get himself, he has had a commitment from a bank to give him a mortgage that will allow him to finish this house, and pay the new builder whatever is required to finish it. He’s got $180,000 invested in this property right now, and it’s not habitable. 32 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/21/04) MR. STONE-Okay. If he won the lottery, and got three million dollars, he could go ahead and finish this with, he owns this lot, right now. Are there conditions that would say he couldn’t do that? If he could self-finance the house, let’s put it that way. MR. O'CONNOR-If he could self-finance it, he could finish the house. MR. HAYES-You still wouldn’t have marketable title, though. MR. STONE-Right. MR. O'CONNOR-He would have a problem down the road, as opposed to now. We’re going to go to court with the owner, or with the developer. There’s no doubt about it. MR. ABBATE-Make I ask a delicate question. It’s never been brought up. What’s the name of the builder, out of curiosity? MR. HAYES-Mr. Raven. MR. STONE-Raven. MR. O'CONNOR-Raven, Hal Raven, Raven Industries, I think, is the. MR. ABBATE-Okay. It is Raven Industries. Okay. MR. O'CONNOR-Raven Industries, I think, is the name on the contract. MR. ABBATE-Because I saw Raven, but I thought it was Raven Industries. MR. O'CONNOR-Yes, but you talk about balancing impacts. What impact does this have on the community. It really has none. You’re drawing a line on a piece of paper. You’re creating two parcels, but it has no significant impact of a detrimental nature. MR. STONE-Well, except that this lot, if everything happened the way, with the options and the subdivision, and, this lot would continue to be 1.64 acres, in perpetuity. MR. O'CONNOR-Right. MR. STONE-It would be a substandard lot, if we don’t bless it. MR. O'CONNOR-It’s not substandard if it becomes part of our cluster. MR. HAYES-No, he’s talking about Mr. Irvine’s lot. MR. STONE-Mr. Irvine’s. MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. Okay. MR. STONE-I mean, if we don’t bless it. MR. O'CONNOR-But you’ve tied up the balance of three acres. So you haven’t affected the overall density, if that was something that was designed by a higher authority that says that that is the perfect density for that particular parcel of land. MR. ABBATE-Yes, and to balance that off, all eight of the existing lots are substandard relative to today’s Code anyway. MR. STONE-Yes. 33 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/21/04) MR. HAYES-You’re not changing the character of the neighborhood. MR. BRYANT-We’re just furthering it. We’re just making another substandard lot. MR. ABBATE-Yes, that’s what I’m saying, it’s not a disaster because there’s substandard lots there at the present time, correct? MR. BROWN-Probably only four or five of the existing lots are substandard. MR. ABBATE-Okay. All right. I’ll say there is currently four or possibly five existing substandard lots at the present time. So, the worst case scenario would be there would be an additional substandard lot. So what’s the change in the character of the neighborhood? None? MR. MC NULTY-In this proposal, though, as it’s put forth, you wouldn’t have a substandard lot. MR. ABBATE-Right. MR. MC NULTY-Because at the moment you don’t because he’s got the three acres. MR. ABBATE-Correct. Yes, I agree. MR. MC NULTY-If the builder gets his act together and comes in for a cluster development, I think what the applicant is saying is the existing lot that the house is on now will be a part of that cluster development. It’ll be counted as part of it, and as such, then would not be a substandard lot, and one of the small lots included with a huge amount of green space around it. MR. HAYES-Right. MR. ABBATE-Right. There would be a stipulation that there be no further building. So consequently, it would meet the requirements. MR. BROWN-If a cluster application ever occurs. MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. MR. ABBATE-I understand, but that’s out of our purview. That then goes into civil litigation. We don’t get involved in that. MR. STONE-Let me go back to Staff again, because Craig has had much discussion with Mr. O’Connor and Mr. Irvine. Are you comfortable with the explanations that we have heard here, if we were to, with whatever language, and I’m not sure what order we should do, we should get the language first, maybe, but I don’t want to go there yet. MR. BROWN-Yes. I think I’ve been comfortable with the theory all along. I haven’t had the authority to give them the approval. I mean, that was the original intent was to come and get an approval administratively. I can’t do that. That’s why they’re here before you tonight. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. BROWN-I think it’s a reasonable request. With all the if’s that are out there, if it becomes a cluster subdivision, this lot may be a conforming lot, the 1.43 acre lot, once that gets melted back into the remaining lands, may turn in to a one acre lot, may turn into a six acre lot, you don’t know what that portion’s going to be. So that’s down the road. I think in fairness to the Planning Board, when Mr. Raven appeared before the Planning Board in 2001 with a very similar proposal that’s before you tonight, they told him no. They said we don’t want to do this for you. We want to see a three acre lot here, a conforming lot, and I realize other things have 34 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/21/04) happened that have brought the applicant before you here tonight, but I just need to tell you that, that originally they came in with a 1.64 and a 1.84, and they said, no, we don’t want to do this. If you come back with a cluster, these two will be okay now. They didn’t want to do that speculation. They weren’t comfortable with that, and they may be faced with that decision again, because it’s my position that after they’re done here with you guys tonight, they need to go to the Planning Board and get a Planning Board subdivision approval. MR. STONE-Okay, but should we see the language of what Mr. O’Connor is proposing? MR. BROWN-Yes. I think he’s offered that. Wasn’t that part of the submission? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. MR. STONE-Well, I mean before we approve it. We’ve got a lawyer. I mean, we’ve got a Town Attorney. Should that at least be passed by them? MR. O'CONNOR-It was attached to the application. MR. STONE-Was it, the finished? MR. BROWN-Yes. I think it’s part of the application. MR. O'CONNOR-It says subject to modification if necessary by your Town Attorney. It’s a substance type. If that substance is agreeable, if he wants to re-word it, I don’t have a problem with it. MR. STONE-Okay. I’m sorry. MR. O'CONNOR-I’ve got a copy right here if you want to, if somebody wants to, if you don’t have your copy available. MR. BROWN-There should be one in the file, and I’m pretty sure it was with all the applications. MR. O'CONNOR-I though it was part of the, I thought I included it as part of application. MR. ABBATE-I think I got a copy of that somewhere here. MR. O'CONNOR-It’s at the back of the application, the very back of the application. One of my letters, it’s the second page of the letter. MR. ABBATE-I read that earlier here somewhere. MR. STONE-I’m sorry, yes. MR. ABBATE-Yes, we do have it. I circled it. MR. STONE-Yes. MR. HAYES-It’s there. MR. STONE-Well, has at least Town Counsel looked at this at all? MR. BROWN-Not as of today, no. MR. HAYES-We can make the condition, though, anything that we want, really. 35 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/21/04) MR. STONE-Yes, sure. Well, I just want everybody to make sure we’re all in agreement. That’s all. Well, first of all, we’ve got to open a public hearing, if we’re all satisfied at this point in time. I think somebody must be here. We don’t, lawyers don’t sit around waiting just to hear us talk. Anyway, let me open the public hearing. Anybody wishing to speak in favor of? In favor of? Anybody opposed? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED STEPHANIE BITTER MRS. BITTER-I guess I’m kind of in the middle. I’m Stephanie Bitter, representing Hal Raven, the builder. As he described, there is an option contract with regard to the southern portion of the property, and this option won’t expire until March 21, 2007. Although we don’t oppose the area variances that are being requested, we really wouldn’t be in favor of conditioning a variance due to the fact that when Mr. Raven ultimately exercises this option which he plans to do, he is going to be the one affected by the condition, and not Mr. Irvine, and that’s ultimately all that I wanted to identify. MR. BRYANT-So basically what you’re saying is that it could be Mr. Raven’s intention, down the road, to maybe view this as a separate, nonconforming lot? MRS. BITTER-That’s correct. MR. BRYANT-Yes. MR. STONE-Well, does he understand the conditions. MRS. BITTER-That he has to apply for that. MR. STONE-That he has to apply for all government approvals. MRS. BITTER-Right. Exactly. That’s what the option contract identified, which all parties signed when the lots were purchased. MR. BRYANT-But Mr. Chairman, it’s our policy, and it basically in State guidelines that if somebody has a lot, regardless of its nonconformity, you can deny an individual the right to build on that lot. You have to allow them to build on a nonconforming lot, regardless of the condition, because. MR. HAYES-It’s not going to be his lot, though. MR. STONE-It’s not his lot until he meets all the other conditions. MR. HAYES-It’s going to be Mr. Irvine’s lot, the way they’re proposing to do it, two lots to Irvine, and the only way that Mr. Raven, if he exercises his option, basically that property’s going to merge back into the overall density requirements of the rest of the properties. So that lot is not going to be a lot, as I understand it, only temporarily for Mr. Irvine. MR. STONE-And I’m not sure Mr. Raven can get out of that. I mean, he has said, as I understand Mr. O’Connor, that in order to exercise his option, he must have in place approved government permission for a cluster or whatever. MR. HAYES-Which would be Planning Board review, essentially. MR. STONE-Yes. MR. ABBATE-But was there a deadline for that? 36 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/21/04) MR. STONE-Yes, 2007. MR. BRYANT-Yes, but. MRS. BITTER-Yes, 2007. MR. BRYANT-I understand all that, and maybe I’m totally all wet here, but if part of his plan is that this is going to be Lot Number Two, okay, regardless of what the other acreage, and part of his plan is going to be Lot Number Two, what we’re doing is creating two nonconforming lots. MR. HAYES-They can’t be part of his plan, though, because he can’t make a lot. Mr. Raven can’t make a lot. MR. BRYANT-But the lot already exists. MR. BROWN-But the offer is to condition that so nobody can touch it. Nobody can build it, unless Mr. Raven picks it up, mixes it back in with the rest, and then he can configure it however the Planning Board allows him to. Mr. Irvine’s lot stays as a 1.64 acre lot, part of this overall cluster that Mr. Raven would have to do if he wants that land back, before 2007. MR. HAYES-I’m not clear. What’s Mr. Raven’s objection? MR. STONE-Yes. MRS. BITTER-Well, my concern is the fact that you’re going to condition this Area Variance based on the fact that this will not be a buildable lot, and when Mr. Raven comes forward to request his approvals for the subdivision, that that’s going to be brought up again, because usually, you know, conditions from prior approvals are brought up, and that could prohibit him from pursuing his variances or subdivision approval. MR. BROWN-I think it could be conditioned that it’s a non buildable lot, unless it’s part of the cluster. MRS. BITTER-I’d appreciate that. MR. STONE-Well, that’s what Mr. O’Connor is saying. I don’t want to put words in your mouth. MRS. BITTER-Okay, and I thought I understood him to say it was going to be a restrictive covenant and I was taking that to mean it might be pursuant to the deeded description and continue that way. MR. HAYES-It burns off, though, essentially, right? MRS. BITTER-Well, that’s what I had hoped. MR. STONE-But it’s in the deed. It’s not a covenant that the Town, we always talk of covenants. The Town doesn’t enforce covenants in subdivisions, but this would be enforceable, as I understand it. Because Mr. Irvine and his attorney would make sure it’s enforced. MR. BROWN-And also if you make it a condition of this approval, then it’s enforceable by the Town. Whether it’s in the deed or not, if you make it a condition of our approval, we can enforce it. MR. ABBATE-And just as a throw out, Counselor, would you not agree that there currently is a financial hardship here? MRS. BITTER-I said that we would be agreeable to the Area Variances. 37 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/21/04) MR. ABBATE-You would agree that there is a financial hardship. MR. STONE-She doesn’t want the condition on there, but, we thank you for that thought. I don’t think you’d get much support. MRS. BITTER-Next time. MR. STONE-Anybody else wishing to speak? Any correspondence? MR. MC NULTY-No correspondence. MR. STONE-Okay. Let me close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. STONE-Mr. O’Connor, do you want to comment? MR. O'CONNOR-What I tried to say is I don’t think I disagree with what Stephanie said. MR. STONE-I understand. MR. O'CONNOR-I offered the restrictive covenant just to give you a belt and suspenders. I think you just went through the last thing with Warren Tire, now with your computer system, every time a tax map comes up, you reel out all the old approvals, history, and conditions. I mean, you dealt with the fact that when you merged you required the merger of those two lots and went through that whole thing. I don’t really care, or I mean, the restrictive covenant is fine. If you take it a condition on your approval, I think it’s just as valid, and we live by it. I’m not trying to change the substance of your approval. The mechanics or the vehicle that you use to do it maybe you don’t need the condition. Maybe you don’t need the restrictive covenant. MR. STONE-Okay. Let me go through the procedure. Do we have anymore questions? If not, we ought to talk about it, just to see if we all understand what we’re trying to do, if we trying to do anything. Al, let’s start with you. MR. BRYANT-Well, I really don’t know if this is even an issue for the Zoning Board. I think this is really, the lot has already been made at 3.07 acres. Maybe I just don’t completely understand. In my mind, the bottom line is that however we slice it, we’re going to end up with a nonconforming lot of 1.64 acres. Whatever happens to the southern part of the lot, there are a lot of if’s, and maybe there’s going to be a cluster, and maybe it’s going to revert, and maybe it’s not, but I don’t know what the future’s going to hold. So, right now, I’m kind of on the fence, but I think it’s beyond our jurisdiction here. I think it’s a civil matter between Irvine and Raven and end of story. MR. BROWN-Do you want me try and answer that for you? I know Mr. O’Connor would like to answer for you, but I can say the same thing. If you approve the application before you tonight, you’re going to end up with, correct, two substandard lots, and they’re going to remain that way until such time as either the option expires, that Mr. Raven has, and at that time it goes back to a three acre lot, or, if he exercises the option, then both the house lot, where the house is now, and that 1.4 acre lot, are lumped into a bigger cluster subdivision approval, at which time the Planning Board could approve that lot, and you wouldn’t have any nonconforming lot. MR. BRYANT-Assuming that’s going to take place. MR. BROWN-And if it doesn’t, it goes back to a three acre lot and it’s a conforming lot. MR. STONE-Yes, but let me ask you a question. Why does Mr. Irvine have to agree to have his lot, which is in another subdivision, now lumped into another subdivision? 38 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/21/04) MR. HAYES-He’s already contractually semi-agreed to it, by what happened, by their agreement for the option. MR. STONE-Yes, but he is in a subdivision. Is he not? MR. O'CONNOR-It doesn’t, his lot will not get changed. Somebody had made the statement, well, his lot might end up to be a one acre. His lot will always be 1.64, and we have said that we would cooperate, in that subdivision application, because our house is going to be counted against the density. MR. STONE-I’m not sure I understand why it would be, but I understand the counting. MR. O'CONNOR-Because otherwise even under the initial thing, when they started in 2001, they weren’t thinking about going for a variance. Now this variance allows us to go forward. They were saying that the only way they were going to be able to go forward is for him to have a cluster subdivision for that 25 or 35 acres plus this piece. MR. STONE-This is not part of the property down below? MR. O'CONNOR-It was part of that subdivision, which apparently Raven owns 25 or 35 acres adjacent to it that are upland of it, and he can include this with that land, and he can go for a cluster subdivision and it will be one of the units. MR. STONE-He can pull it back out of the approved subdivision that it’s in and put it in another one. Is that what you’re saying? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. O'CONNOR-See, this is where I said before, he was trying to have his cake and eat it, too. He’s pulling out, he’s not pulling out the full three acres. He’s pulling 1.46, which he’ll add to that other land. MR. URRICO-As long as we’re talking about what if’s, what if we approve this variance, with the condition. He doesn’t get approval, or does not act on the option. So now we’re not including that as a possible second subdivision. Now that lot has, now we’ve allowed a substandard lot here with. MR. HAYES-No, then they’re going to recombine by action. MR. BROWN-Only temporarily, until 2007. When that expires, it goes back to. MR. URRICO-What if he acts before 2007? MR. BROWN-Then it’s part of a cluster development that it could be approved in virtually any size and shape lot. MR. URRICO-So it cannot be considered part of the Vista if he acts on it before 2007? It can only be acted upon if it’s part of that cluster development? MR. FRANK-That’s correct. MR. BROWN-Right. MR. O'CONNOR-It can’t be built on, not acted on, but I mean, that’s the key to this thing is that you can approve any, you can put a condition on any approval, and I’m suggesting a condition 39 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/21/04) to you that says, okay, we’re going to allow you to have a legitimate, 1.64 acre lot for financing purposes with your house, and we know that you own the adjoining 1.4 acres, but you can’t build on that 1.4 until you go through the entire approval process with the Planning Board. MR. STONE-Mr. Irvine can’t. MR. O'CONNOR-Anybody can’t. MR. BROWN-Nobody can. MR. STONE-But can he, Mr. Raven, get this lot, possession of this lot, without a government approved? MR. FRANK-No. MR. O'CONNOR-No, not by terms of our option. MR. STONE-Okay. So he cannot get that at all. MR. BRYANT-Mr. Chairman, could I state my opinion now? MR. STONE-Sure. MR. BRYANT-My opinion, basically, is I would like to hear what the Town Attorney has to say, what the specific wording should be, relative to this motion for this application, however we’re going to go down the road, before we act on it, because, you know, I’m not an attorney. We have an attorney explaining one thing, and we have Staff explaining something else, and we all have different understandings of the whole process. I’d like to know what the real ramifications are, down the road, if this scenario occurs, if the next scenario occurs, and so forth and so on. There seem to be a lot of if’s that are not clear to me. So, my view is, if we’re forced to vote tonight, I’m going to vote no. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. BRYANT-I would like, however, to hear, you know, the Town Attorney address this application and what the suggested wording should be. If we’re going to approve a motion, what the suggested wording would be to them. MR. O'CONNOR-Can I ask Mr. Bryant a question? MR. STONE-As long as it’s a question. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. Is your position based upon the fact that you want to be sure, from a Town point of view, that the language is sufficient to guarantee you that the 1.4 acre parcel will not be built on, as a standalone lot, except after it goes through the full review process, whether it’s owned by us, as it presently is, or by Raven in the future. MR. BRYANT-Well, yes, that’s one of my concerns, and the other concern is, I mean, we painted a picture that, even in the future, because we’re going to have this cluster thing, that the 1.64, because of density, is not going to be a nonconforming situation. What we’re going to do is we’re going to live happily ever after in this cluster scenario. MR. O'CONNOR-Well, I don’t know if the cluster is going to take place, either, and my point is I need to be able to get in a position where I’ve got to go to the Planning Board, even with this thing here, as a modification of an existing approved subdivision. I’m willing to say that I would accept approval based upon the condition that the 1.4 acre is not a buildable lot, and won’t be built on until there’s further Town approval. I’m also willing to stipulate that your approval is subject to approval by. 40 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/21/04) MR. BRYANT-I thought this was going to be a question, Mr. O’Connor. MR. O'CONNOR-Well, okay. Okay. I’m willing to say, make it subject to a Town Attorney approval. MR. BRYANT-I don’t know. Is that even a legitimate approval? MR. ABBATE-Sure it is. MR. BRYANT-I mean, what if the wording that we vote on is not appropriate? I mean, you know, I would like to hear what the Town Attorney has to say. MR. URRICO-We do that all the time. MR. STONE-They’ll come back. MR. BROWN-Yes. I think if it’s a substantial, substantive difference, it’s going to come back to you. If it’s the same idea, with two different words, I think everybody’s going to agree. MR. STONE-Let’s, Al. I respect your position. Let’s hear what the other guys have to say, because whether we all understand it, however way. Roy? MR. URRICO-Well, I do agree with Al in that I wish there were a Town Attorney here tonight to help us with this, but I think I understand enough of it to say that I would be in favor of it, with the condition that the second lot, the 1.44 acre, be conditioned as to not to allow any building on it. Otherwise, I think I would definitely be in favor of granting some relief here. MR. STONE-Okay. Jaime? MR. HAYES-Well, I think, you know, although intricate, to some extent, I think the application in a different way is relatively straightforward, and my concern, as a lot of the Board members have pointed out, is that by our actions in some manner, would we be potentially creating another lot for Mr. Irvine by granting a substandard subdivision or a modification of an existing subdivision, depending on how you look at it, I guess, but in this particular case, the applicant has set forth that by any course of action that it’s possible in my mind that that’s not going to be the case. I think the applicant has set forth, not even set forth. I think it’s self-evident that, in this particular circumstance, if there’s a problem, the house is not going to get finished. I am in the building business, and I can agree with Counselor in the sense that no lending institution is going to get involved, or no qualified lending institution is going to get involved with lending money on a property that might not have marketable title. It would be like malpractice I guess, or something, to do so. So I think there’s a compelling reason here to find a solution, if there’s no damage done to the surrounding neighborhood or granting relief that’s too substantial, in my mind, and I don’t think that’s what’s happening here . I think there’s no way of telling, but it appears that Mr. Raven would have to go through a complete subdivision application to take advantage of his option, and if he has to go through the complete subdivision process, through the Planning Board, that I think that all the necessary considerations are going to be made to the greater neighborhood, to whether that subdivision is proper. So I don’t think that, no matter whether he can exercise his option or he doesn’t, Mr. Irvine would have those lots recombined by action of our contingencies, in our motion. I don’t think that either way there’s a detriment to the community. There certainly is a benefit to the applicant in the sense that he can finish this house, which does need to be finished, and I don’t see how there’s a detriment to the greater community or neighborhood by allowing this. I agree with the rest of the Board members that we have to end up language that does have this be the effect or the result of what we are approving and it guarantees it as such, but I think that can be done in this particular case, particularly if the Town Attorney is allowed to make sure that our message or our intention is properly put into legalese in the sense that it’s protected. So, I think this makes sense, and I’m in favor. 41 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/21/04) MR. STONE-Chuck? MR. MC NULTY-Well, let me start with the bottom line first. I’m going to come down in favor. This is a can of worms. I think that Mr. Bryant is correct that, you know, we need to realize that there is a worst case scenario, and the worst case scenario is we approve this and the lot with the house on it becomes a nonconforming, or becomes a 1.64 acre lot, and stays that way. Whatever conditions we, or the Planning Board, put on this transaction, it’s going to have to be such that the 1.64 acre lot with the house on it ends up, at least in the near future, as an independent lot, because otherwise the bank’s not going to approve the mortgage. So we are approving a substandard lot for that area. That’s the worst case scenario, something happens after we approve it and they get all the approvals and Mr. Irvine decides to sell it or for some reason he can’t make a payment and the bank forecloses on it, the bank’s going to have a 1.64 acre lot with a house on it that they’re going to sell as a separate lot. That’s a conceivable outcome. The question is, do we take that risk. Looking at it, there are other lots in that subdivision that are that size and smaller. So it still probably is not out of character. I would simply approve a lot, if I thought that was going to be the outcome, or I hope it’s not. I don’t expect it to be, but that is the bottom line possibility, but given all the other safeguards, and hopefully this will allow the applicant to finish the house and move in and live in it, and if I were him, I’d be crossing my fingers that the option would run out and I could keep the whole three acres. Because I think that would make a nice piece, but anyway, recognizing the risk that we could be approving one substandard lot, in effect, for some time in the future, I’d still be in favor. MR. STONE-Before I get to you, Jim, a couple of questions that I’ve noticed. In your memo, you say, gave to Raven an option to purchase the southerly 1.33.933 square feet. MR. O'CONNOR-That’s wrong. MR. STONE-You didn’t mean, period. That’s three acres, isn’t it? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. I’ve struck out. George showed me. MR. STONE-Okay. You did notice. MR. BROWN-Bruce. MR. O'CONNOR-I struck it out, so it reads the portion of Lot Nine, 1.43, will not be treated as a standalone. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. O'CONNOR-That would be the correct number. MR. STONE-But I’m talking about in the second paragraph, up here. I don’t know. MR. FRANK-The same mistake is made twice. It just needs to be replaced with. MR. STONE-Yes, it’s 1.33.933. No, you don’t have that copy, the first page. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. I didn’t have the first page. MR. STONE-Okay. The other question I had before, what if Mr. Irvine buys the rest of the property? MR. BROWN-The large portion in the back? MR. STONE-Yes. 42 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/21/04) MR. HAYES-By these conditions, the option wouldn’t be exercised, so it would be the lots would merge. MR. BROWN-Right, and maybe to answer Mr. McNulty’s question, the approval that you issue, if any, it goes with the property, whether Mr. Irvine owns it or not. It goes with the parcel. If he defaults on something, it’s still subject to that property. That’s not to him. MR. O'CONNOR-And I’d have to respectfully say to you that it’s not the worst case scenario that he has a 1.64 acre parcel with a single family house. That’s actually the goal. That’s actually the goal. He wants to have the 1.64 acre as a standalone house. We’d give back the other parcel. We don’t, you know, we want to be able to finance the 1.64 and finish it. We’d give him back the other parcel. MR. STONE-Let’s continue. Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I basically would be in favor of your application. I think that, you know, youo’re acting in good faith, and I think that your language that you’ve put into it adequately addresses the future of the 1.43 acre lot to the south of you. I think that, you know, it’s probably inevitable that you will see a subdivision occurring at some point up there, and at that point in time, that piece of the pie would go back into the pie and it would be up to the Planning Board to decide what size the rest of those remaining lots would be up there, and I think the 1.64 acre lot that you would end up with, you know, would be an adequate size lot, given the other ones up on the side of the mountain up there. I think it’s a substantial piece of property. It’s not, you know, a tiny lot or anything like that that you’re trying to fit something big on. So I would be in favor of it. MR. STONE-Chuck? MR. ABBATE-Thank you. Yes, I think Jim hit on a good point. If the worst case scenario of 1.6 or 1.04 lot, I don’t think that’s the most drastic thing that could ever happen, but I also would like to interject this. I think that we have a responsibility not only to do what’s in the best interest of the Town, but to do what’s in the best interest, if we can, of an applicant as well, and there’s no doubt that there is a financial hardship here, not that that is our criteria for granting approval or disapproval, but nonetheless, tonight, I think Counsel has far exceeded the spirit of cooperation with the many stipulations that he’s more than willing to put forth. To me, that is a token of good faith, and as a worst case scenario, I really don’t see any undesirable change, even if the home remained currently as it is on a 1. something acre. I have a home on a 1.04 acre, and I’m completely happy with it as well, and then finally, gentlemen, I know there’s a lot of if’s involved, and there’s an old saying, you know, that you never make a mistake, if you never make a decision, and I think this is a decision time, and as far as I’m concerned, I would be in favor of the application. MR. STONE-I have a home on .18 acres, and I’m very happy, too. I thank Counsel and Mr. Irvine. I think you started it off by saying it’s simple but it’s not simple, and, you know, obviously it’s not just making a substandard lot. Substandard lot by neighborhood considerations, as I look on this, is not substandard. It merely doesn’t conform to Code, and that’s certainly a technical difference, but I think with the proper language, and I certainly share everybody’s concerns, and certainly Al Bryant’s concerns, we want to be sure that the 1.64 acres become free and clear as far as Mr. Irvine is concerned. So that he can continue building this home, as we all talked earlier, home’s open to the weather don’t do well, even homes sometimes closed to the weather when pipes freeze don’t do well, either, but I think the condition, as I understand it, is more than adequate enough to ensure that this lot will never be built on by itself in terms of, and if I’m wrong, would never be built on by itself, and must be, even to be acquired by Mr. Raven, must be part of a government “approved” subdivision, cluster, whatever we want to call it. So I feel comfortable. I don’t think anybody is trying to pull anything over our eyes. I think it’s been very clear. I think that I always enjoy the kind of discussions we’ve had, because I think the Board members, in their wisdom and judgment, 43 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/21/04) have asked a series of good questions, and I think with the conditions that we’ve talked about, that hopefully somebody all wrote down about a Town Attorney giving approval to the language and the condition that this lot can never be built on unless it becomes part of a larger approved subdivision, I think we’re all right. So I would vote for it, and what I need is. MR. BRYANT-Before you take a motion, I just want to make one other point. I want to caution the other Board members, you know, they’re relying on the good judgment of the Planning Board to correct this issue, and now that the true conscience of the Planning Board has gone on to bigger and better things, we may not have that flexibility. MR. STONE-Well, I need a motion to approve this Area Variance, with such conditions as we have talked about. Jim, you want to try it? MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 4-2004 RICHARD G. & KELLY A. IRVINE, Introduced by James Underwood who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roy Urrico: 9 Veranda Lane, The Vistas. The applicant proposes the subdivision of a 3.07 acre lot into two lots of 1.64 and 1.43 acres, in the RR-3A zone. The relief required. 1.36 acres of relief from the 3 acre minimum lot size requirement for the 1.64 acre lot where the present home is constructed, and that’s per Section 179-4-030 for the RR-3A zone. Two, 1.57 acres of relief from the 3 acre minimum lot size requirement for the 1.43 acre lot per Section 179-4-030 for the RR-3 Acre zone. Three, 40 feet of relief from the 40 foot minimum lot frontage on a Town road requirement of the 1.43 acre lot, Section 179-4-090, Section A, and fourth, additionally, even though relief was not requested for the 1.64 acre lot, relief is needed to allow for the physical access of the lot from other than the lot’s frontage on a Town road, and that’s, again, Section 179-4-090, Section A. In regards to the project, Mr. O’Connor’s language that he described, and of course a copy of that will be reviewed by our Town Attorney at the same time, would ensure that that lot to the south of where the present house is being constructed, the 1.43 acre lot, would basically remain an unbuilt upon lot for a period of up to the Year 2007, March 21. If at that time, as described in st the language, the option was not acted upon by Ravine for a further subdivision of the properties above on the hillside above there, that lot would, I think, revert back to Mr. Irvine at that point in time, but until such time as that occurs and the Planning Board has completely reviewed that permit pending in the future, the lot would remain an unbuildable lot. The applicant would be allowed to then finance his home and finish the home to the degree that he could move into it, thereby living on the 1.64 acre lot. With the condition that Mr. O’Connor and Town Counsel will work out a satisfactory agreement. Duly adopted this 21, day of January, 2004, by the following vote: st MR. STONE-Comments about, anybody hear, not hear something they wanted in there? Or is there something in there that they would like to be in there? MR. O'CONNOR-Do you want me to work that out with Town Counsel? MR. STONE-Yes, why don’t we put that condition in, that Mr. O’Connor and Town Counsel will work out a satisfactory agreement. MR. ABBATE-That’s good. MR. BROWN-I think that was provided with the application, and if that’s not sufficient. MR. STONE-Yes, it was, but. MR. ABBATE-Counsel’s already agreed to that stipulation anyway. 44 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/21/04) MR. STONE-Yes. MR. ABBATE-No problem. MR. STONE-Okay. Second? MR. URRICO-I second. AYES: Mr. McNulty, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Stone NOES: Mr. Bryant MR. O'CONNOR-Thank you for your consideration. MR. URRICO-Good luck. MR. STONE-Thank you. We’ve got a few minutes to approve, which I don’t, I thought I had them. We have four sets of minutes to approve. Does anybody have copies of them? MR. URRICO-I have the 17. th MR. STONE-The 17 of what? th MR. URRICO-December. MR. STONE-No, we don’t want that. July and August. MR. HAYES-That’s a long time ago. Do we have the minutes from July and August that we’re supposed to approve so we can make sure? MR. URRICO-I thought we approved all those? MR. STONE-According to our agenda person, we did not. MR. URRICO-Well, let’s just approve them. MR. HAYES-Well, we need to know who can even vote. MR. BROWN-You can do them next week. MR. URRICO-We don’t have anything next week. MR. STONE-All right. Next month. There are two meetings next month, Mr. Brown, correct? MR. BROWN-Correct. MR. STONE-Good. Meeting is adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Lewis Stone, Chairman 45