Loading...
2004-03-24 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/24/04) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SECOND REGULAR MEETING MARCH 24, 2004 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT LEWIS STONE, CHAIRMAN CHARLES MC NULTY, SECRETARY ROY URRICO JAMES UNDERWOOD CHARLES ABBATE PAUL HAYES JOYCE HUNT, ALTERNATE MEMBERS ABSENT ALLAN BRYANT ZONING ADMINISTRATOR-CRAIG BROWN STENOGRAPHER-SUSAN HEMINGWAY MR. STONE-Before we get started, I just want to announce that the last item on the agenda, Area Variance No. 22-2004 James W. Newbury, will not be on the agenda tonight. So if anybody is here for that, and that was the only reason they came, you don’t have to stay. OLD BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 38-2003 SEQRA TYPE: TYPE I COORDINATED REVIEW WAL- MART STORES, INC. OWNER: NATIONAL REALTY ZONING: HC-INT. LOCATION: 891 ROUTE 9 APPLICANT PROPOSES DEMOLITION OF THE FORMER AMES STORE AND A 95,217 SQ. FT. EXPANSION OF THE EXISTING WAL-MART. SEEKS RELIEF FROM THE PERMEABILITY AND MINIMUM PARKING REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REFERENCE: SPR 25-2003, SV 71-2003 WARREN CO. PLANNING 7/9/03 AND 2/11/04 LOT SIZE: 11.29 ACRES; 6.46 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 296.17-1-36; 296.17-1-37 SECTION: 179-4-030, 179-4-040C PETER HENTSCHKE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. STONE-And before the Secretary reads the application into the record, I would ask the applicant to tell us which arguments we should read in, because I’m in receipt, certainly, of the Sign Variance of three different sets, all different, and the Area Variance maybe at least two. So which one would you like us to read for the Area Variance? MR. HENTSCHKE-How about the one that we give tonight? But just to seriously address your question, first of all, my name is Peter Hentschke, for Wal-Mart, with the firm of Harter, Secrest and Emery. MR. STONE-Which one would you like us to read, or the one that we’ll read is your current argument? MR. HENTSCHKE-Correct. What we say tonight is the most compelling reason. MR. STONE-Well, we have to read the application in, and I have something dated in January from the engineer, and also from you people, and also in March. So I just want to know which ones we should read in. 1 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/24/04) MR. HENTSCHKE-For the Area Variance, how about the January, the January 27 one. th MR. STONE-Okay, and think about the Sign one when we get there. MR. HENTSCHKE-Exactly. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. MC NULTY-Okay. So we’re going to read the letter from Harter, Secrest and Emery dated January 27, 2004. It says, “We are the attorneys for Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. in connection with its proposed expansion of the Wal-Mart Store on Route 9 in the Town of Queensbury. We wish to submit additional information to the Zoning Board of Appeals (the “Board”) to support the variance applications for the project submitted to the Board by Perry Butcher & Associates (January 21, 2004) and by Langan Engineering & Environmental Services (January 23, 2004). Our client has requested “area” variances from the Town Zoning Code (the “Town Code”) regulations concerning: the minimum number of parking spaces, minimum percent permeable area, and parking lot light fixture mounting height* *We understand that it is the practice in Queensbury for the Planning Board to have jurisdiction and discretion to vary the parking lot light fixture mounting heights set forth in the Town Code pursuant to its authority under Town Code § 179-6-020. We will ask the Board to confirm that this is the case when we next appear before the Board. In case a variance is required for this relief, the variance application has been submitted and we are prepared to discuss the grounds supporting the requested relief at the next meeting. Two sign variance applications have also been submitted, one for the freestanding pylon sign for the store’s main entrance on Route 9, and the other for the building mounted signs. “Area” variances are governed by Town Law § 267-b-3(b) (the “Statute”). The Statute was amended in 1993 to provide entities such as the Board with a balancing test to use in determining whether to grant an area variance. The Board must weigh “the benefit to the applicant if the variance is granted…against the detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community by such grant”. In conducting its balancing test, the Board must consider five factors set forth in the Statute. The five factors, which are also set forth in the Town Code, are: impacts to the neighborhood character, feasible alternatives, whether the variance is substantial, impacts to physical or environmental conditions, and whether the difficulty is self-created. We offer the following comments for the Board’s consideration as a demonstration of how the requested variances meet the five relevant factors referenced in the Statute and Town Code: Number of Parking Spaces. The applicant seeks a variance from the Town Code requirement that 4.5 parking spaces be provided for every 1000 s.f. of gross leasable floor area. The applicant proposes a parking ratio of 3.3 spaces per 1000 s.f. which correlates to 763 spaces instead of the 1036 spaces which would be required by Town Code. 1. Neighborhood Character. The Wal-Mart property is part of the Highway Commercial Intensive District (as defined in the Town Code), yet is adjacent to properties zoned MR-5 and SFR-10. The character of the neighborhood will not be adversely impacted by fewer parking spaces, nor will adjacent lands be adversely affected by such a change. Reducing the number of parking spaces for the project will allow more landscaping and green space on the property. 2. Feasible Alternatives. There are no feasible and practical alternatives to the requested variance. Granting of the variance will allow more of the site to be devoted to “green area”. 3. Whether Variance is Substantial. The relief sought (3.3 spaces/1000 s.f. instead of 4.5 spaces/1000 s.f.) may appear substantial looking at the numbers alone, however, under the circumstances there will be minimal impact. The 763 parking spaces will be less than required by Town Code, but will still be ample to safely accommodate both cars and shopping carts. 4. Effect on Physical or Environmental Conditions. There will be no adverse impacts or effect on the physical or environmental conditions. The variance will allow the expansion to be built and incorporate additional landscaping and green space, resulting in fewer impervious surfaces, while providing adequate parking facilities for the proposed Wal-Mart Supercenter. 5. Self-Created Difficulty. The applicant has removed proposed parking from the site plan in response to the Planning Board concerns about too much parking and to incorporate additional landscaping and green space per Planning Board comments. Minimum Permeable Area. The applicant requests a variance for relief from the Town Code provision requiring 30% minimum permeable area (Town Code § 179-4-030). Currently, the existing mall on the property has 14% permeable 2 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/24/04) area. The applicant seeks a variance to allow 16.2% permeable area. 1. Neighborhood Character. The character of the neighborhood will not be adversely impacted by the granting of this variance, nor will adjacent lands be adversely affected. This Board has granted an existing variance for this site, which allows 14% permeable area for the existing fully developed site. In granting the existing variance, this Board recognized that the stormwater collection system was designed to control surface water runoff from the entire site, and that it discharged into the municipal storm sewer system. The system has performed as designed for the site, properly directing runoff, and draining excess water to the storm sewer system. The fact that there has not been flooding from the current fully developed site on to other neighboring properties helps demonstrate that the granting of this variance will not flood neighboring properties. The variance will allow the demolition of the vacant Ames building and Queen Diner on the site and expansion of the existing building into a Wal-Mart Supercenter. The relief sought would provide 16.2% permeable area and therefore increase the permeable area currently existing at the site by 2.2%. 2. Feasible Alternatives. There are no feasible and practical alternatives to the requested variance. Any alternatives to the variance would negatively impact the internal floor plan and operational efficiency of the store, or further reduce parking. 3. Whether Variance is Substantial. The variance may appear to be substantial, however, under the circumstances the magnitude of the variance in this case does not correlate to a deleterious impact on the neighborhood or communities. It is widely held that in considering the magnitude of the requested variance, “the percentage deviation from the legislated bulk requirements should not be considered in the void….the actual circumstances and its effect should be considered rather than reliance on bald statistics.” McKinney’s, Town Law 267-b, Commentaries by Terry Rice. Here, the overall effect of granting the area variance will be minimal. 4. Effect on the Physical or Environmental Conditions. Granting the requested variance will add a 2.2% net increase to the permeable area on the existing, fully developed site. This variance will not adversely affect the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or community because the stormwater collection and drainage system will convey surface water runoff from impervious areas to the storm sewer system. The increased permeable area will provide more capacity in the existing collection system to handle runoff from impermeable areas. The current storm water drainage system is functioning properly and efficiently and complies with all applicable drainage regulations. 5. Self-Created Difficulty. The constraints on the property as to minimum permeable area are pre-existing, as reflected in the fact that the site is currently fully developed and there has been a prior variance issued for this property.” STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 38-2004, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Meeting Date: March 24, 2004 “Project Location: 891 Route 9 Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes demolition of the former Ames store to be replaced with the construction of a 95,217 sq. ft. addition to the existing Wal-Mart facility. Relief Required: Applicant requests relief from the parking space requirements, 274 spaces less than the 1,037 required (this use would be required to provide 4.5 spaces per 1000 sq. ft. GLA) per the Parking and Loading regulations; §179-4-040(C). The existing site conditions offer 971 spaces, while the proposed reconfiguration presents 763 spaces. Additionally, the applicant seeks relief from the 30% minimum permeability requirement of the HC-Int Zone, §179-4-030, in order to develop the site to a 16.2% permeable condition (13.8% relief needed). Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): AV 38-2003: tabled 02/18/04. SP 25-2003: to be reviewed on 02/17/04, 95,217 sq. ft. addition to existing Wal-Mart and associated site modifications. BP 95-1848: 08/31/95, 19.32 sq. ft. sign (McDonald’s logo - golden arches). SV 58-1993 (part 1): denied 07/21/93, for an 80 sq. ft. freestanding sign for Wal-Mart. SV 58-1993 (part 2): approved 07/21/93, to allow for 12 wall signs with a combined area of 622 sq. ft. SV 57-1993: denied 07/21/93, for a 99 sq. ft. freestanding sign for Ames. 3 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/24/04) SP 31 93: resolved 07/20/93, 121,226 sq. ft. Wal-Mart. AV 11-93: resolved 02/24/93, side setback and permeability relief for a 121,226 sq. ft. Wal-Mart. Numerous other sign permits and building permits for both parcels. Staff comments: Even though the applicant proposes a 16.2% permeability for the site, the current permeability is 14% (a proposed net increase of 2.2%). Additionally, the applicant has reduced their initially proposed parking to create additional landscaping and greenspace in response to the Planning Board’s concerns about too much parking. On March 16, 2004 the Planning Board may issue a SEQR determination. Should the Zoning Board move to approve the application, their resolution should include a reference to the Planning Board’s SEQR determination.” MR. STONE-Mr. Brown, was that issued last night? MR. BROWN-Yes, it was. MR. STONE-Thank you. Go ahead, sir. MR. HENTSCHKE-I think that pretty much, those comments, I think, hit everything that we want to say about that. I mean, maybe I’d just highlight that the drop in the parking numbers was, a lot of that was at the request of the Planning Board, at least some of it. They were asking for more green space, more landscaping, and we can do that by reducing some of the parking. We’ve made those changes, and again, on the minimum permeable area, we’re increasing 2.2% over existing conditions. So that’s all I have to say about those two. MR. STONE-Okay. Any questions, gentlemen? MR. URRICO-I’ll start off. During the warm weather periods, part of Wal-Mart’s parking lot is used for plants and other outdoor items. About how many of those parking spaces do you anticipate still being occupied by items other than cars? MR. HENTSCHKE-At this point, I’d like to introduce Girard Fitamant, who is here with us. He’s from Langan Engineering and Environmental Services. He might have an idea about that. GIRARD FITAMANT MR. FITAMANT-Yes. Girard Fitamant, Langan Engineering. I’m responsible, in part, for the design that you see on the boards. I could point out the area that’s being used. Actually, in this picture it’s screened by the new landscaping overlay. So I’ll have to pull out another plan. The parking that you refer to is a seasonal parking, in which springtime sales take up four of these bays, and if I were to estimate a total of approximately 40 spaces are used for that purpose, and that would be in this area here. MR. URRICO-How many rows, those are four rows, and that takes up 40 spaces? MR. FITAMANT-Of the two spines, I would call out these two spines and roughly 40 spaces in that area. MR. URRICO-Now that’s more than springtime sales. That goes through to the Fall. MR. FITAMANT-I’m not aware of the actual duration, but I was under the impression it was springtime. I don’t know if there’s a lapse in the summer and then Fall sales are also in that area as well, but the peak parking periods would be around Christmas time, and that’s when the full parking lot is utilized, and at that point there are no sales in that part of the lot. 4 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/24/04) MR. URRICO-Well, during those months we usually have snow, and we lose a certain number of parking spaces to that as well. So it’s realistic to say that 40 spaces are lost throughout the year, either through the spring outdoors sales or to snow occupying part of a parking lot. MR. FITAMANT-Correct, and if Operations decides certain snow events take up more parking than is needed at that time of the year, the snow will be trucked off site, and disposed of. MR. STONE-If the Planning Board had not raised the issue of too many parking spaces, if they had followed the Code, would you have needed that many parking spaces? MR. FITAMANT-No. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. MC NULTY-Are you comfortable with the number that you will have? Do you really, have you looked at it, and do you really feel it will be adequate? MR. FITAMANT-Yes. MR. MC NULTY-Okay, because it strikes me that that lots been pretty full around Christmas time, and if you overflow, then you definitely will be affecting the surrounding neighborhoods. MR. FITAMANT-That’s true. There is an agreement with the Planning Board that we had with the land banking, and recognizing the Town’s concern and desire for landscaping, we have a land banked portion of the Diner, and should parking get to that point, if ever it does, we would come back before the Board and discuss the modifications to that land banked area. MR. STONE-Okay. Anybody else have any questions? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, would you just detail some of your stormwater things that you’ve added, you know, compared to what’s there at the present time, and also the vegetation that the Planning Board went over? MR. FITAMANT-Okay. This is the Landscaping Plan, Drawing 24.01, and this shows the, in answer to the landscaping, this shows the landscaping along the front, the land banked, the trees in the field, the additional landscaping along the side, for added buffer, additional landscaping along the entire back of the site for additional buffer, as well as trees along Weeks Road, in conformance with the Town’s tree ordinance requirements. I’m getting a different view of that. I don’t know if you can see that, or how clearly you can see that from here, but this is the store, in the background. This would be say looking from Pizzeria Uno across the street, looking towards the site. These are fully mature trees. So we wanted to show how this site would look with the plantings that we show on the landscape plan, and these pictures here are the minimal landscaping that we have out in the front of the site right now. MR. STONE-And what year are we talking, is it going to look like the top? MR. FITAMANT-Fully mature trees, 15 years. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. UNDERWOOD-Are those evergreens, the green ones you have depicted there? MR. FITAMANT-No, there are no evergreens. I’d have to defer back to the landscaping plan to give you the species. There are no call outs there. MR. UNDERWOOD-Part of my concern is that fact that if you don’t have any evergreen trees there for a vast majority of the year, you’re not going to have any vegetation in front at all, you know, that’s effectively screening what’s there. 5 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/24/04) MR. FITAMANT-That’s true, but the re-development of the Route 9 corridor dictated a certain amount of types of trees and we conform to that, and back and forth with the Planning Board, several iterations, we finally arrived at that. MR. UNDERWOOD-It seems a little bit odd to me that you don’t include species of trees that are native in the area, though. MR. STONE-Well, except, Jim, while I appreciate what we’re doing, it is a Planning Board issue, and I don’t apologize for us, because we are all citizens of Queensbury and we all care what our Town looks like, we recognize that our charge is fairly narrow, but we’re concerned people. So that’s why we ask these questions. Sometimes we go even further a field, sometimes. MR. FITAMANT-I understand. I’m trying to be as responsive as I can. MR. STONE-I understand. I appreciate it. Anything else before I open the public hearing? All right. Let me open the public hearing. Anybody wishing to speak in favor of the application? In favor of the application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MARK HOFFMAN DR. HOFFMAN-Mark Hoffman, 32 Fox Hollow Lane. I believe the Comprehensive Land Use Plan makes reference to an excess of asphalt along the Route 9 corridor, and I think, in recognition of that, the Planning Board would like to see less parking and the applicant has agreed to do that, and I think that we should support that. I would also suggest that it would be an opportunity for both the Town and for Wal-Mart to make sure that they have adequate facilities for non motor vehicle transportation to and from Wal-Mart. There’s no God determined situation that says that the only way to get from one place to another in Queensbury has to be by automobile. So I would suggest that the request be agreed to. MR. STONE-Thank you. Anybody else wishing to speak in favor of? PHIL PREHODA MR. PREHODA-My name is Phil Prehoda. I’m the Store Manager up at the Queensbury Wal- Mart, and I’d like to just bring up the fact that as far as the parking during the garden season months that we talked about, the garden season usually runs from April to roughly beginning of July, then it starts reducing considerably at that point, and I would say by the middle of July we try to be out of the garden center business. I’m not sure what the store’s done in the past. I’ve just taken the store in September, but we look to be out of that, and as we start coming out of that, that will decrease considerably to, as we trim down our selling season, but it doesn’t last through the whole summer. I just want to state that. MR. STONE-Fine. Thank you. MR. MC NULTY-Chuck, did you want to say something earlier? MR. ABBATE-Yes. I just want it on the record that I did visit the Wal-Mart Store, and I did speak to an Assistant Store Manager that evening, and I’m placing this on the record, because I don’t want any misinterpretation of exparte communications. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. MR. STONE-Thank you. Anybody else wishing to speak in favor? I should have asked him, he told me he wanted to do that. So, Anybody else wishing to speak in favor? Anybody opposed or slightly opposed? JON LAPPER 6 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/24/04) MR. LAPPER-Good evening. For the record, I’m Attorney Jon Lapper, and I represent both Ray Supply and Whispering Pines Apartment complex, two adjacent neighbors. We’ve been working with the Planning Board and with Wal-Mart, and I want to state for the record that Wal-Mart has been pretty responsive to a number of the concerns of these two neighbors. This started out as a proto typical Wal-Mart, and certainly they made architectural changes, and they made changes that each of my clients requested, most significantly was a berm and a sound wall to the rear, between the apartment complex and the expanded supercenter, and a pedestrian access to, or, excuse me, vehicular access to Ray Supply which would alleviate some of their traffic concerns, because of the additional traffic of the supercenter. That said, they have concerns about the parking variance, most fundamentally, that this seems that they’ve really got too much building on the site for the size of the property. When Dr. Hoffman just spoke about the Town not wanting to have too much asphalt, the way to make up for that is to replace the, what’s non parking with green space, but here it’s building, and the real issue will be, if this is as popular as we all anticipate that it will be, Wal-Mart by itself is virtually filling the parking lot, in the winter, between snow storage and parking now, and when it has a supermarket, there’s just going to be that many more cars, which could be a problem in the neighborhood. What I have to enter into the record is a letter from a local engineering firm, Nace Engineering. I have copies for the Board. “Dear Chairman Stone and Zoning Board members: I have been retained by the owners of Whispering Pines Apartments to review the plans for the proposed Wal-Mart expansion, specifically with regard to their concerns about the impact the expansion may have on their existing apartment complex which abuts the west side of the Wal-Mart property. After reviewing the various materials submitted for this application I have several concerns which I believe should be addressed. All of the concerns have a common thread in that I believe they are all the result of a site that is too small for the proposed project. The applicant is requesting that they be allowed to have only 16.2% permeability. The Zoning Code requires 30% which is in fact fairly minimal (many communities require more). The net result is that the building, parking, circulation roads, etc. are crammed onto the site in a manner that prevents good design of traffic circulation, landscaping and buffering. There just is not enough room to properly lay things out. The 16.2% permeable area on this site is inadequate to provide effective visual buffers, whether it is from my client’s apartment complex or from Route 9. From any vantage point, this site will look just like what it really is; a commercial site maxed out to the nth degree. Furthermore, I understand that the applicant is requesting a variance to provide only 3.3 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet instead of the 4.5 required by the Zoning Code. As a point of reference the Wilton Wal-Mart site has a parking ratio of 4.9 spaces per 1,000 square feet. I seriously doubt that the proposed number of parking spaces will be sufficient and suggest that, at a minimum, the applicant be asked to provide examples of existing store locations where they have successfully used this parking ratio for a Super Wal- Mart. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on these proposed variances. I believe that the requested relief from the Town Zoning Code is simply too great and will result in a project that can not function properly. Sincerely, Thomas W. Nace, P.E.” Personally, I’ve been very involved in the parking code, parking variances in the Town, and for a little quick background, when we asked the Town Board to change the Zoning Code for the Enclosed Shopping Center zone, that recognized that there is a mixed use where different people will come for both the theater and for shopping, food, etc., so that you’re not going to have, necessarily, separate car trips, and the same for each use, and the same theory holds true for the Wal-Mart, that you have the retail hard goods, dry goods, plus the supermarket, but the question is what’s the right number, and that 3.3 number is just an extremely low percentage of spaces per square feet. What the Town did for the Mall was to say that it could go down to 4.0, which is pretty tight, and that might be the right number, but 3.3 seems really excessive. The problem was the Super K-Mart which was done at 7.0. So that is more than double the 3.3. We all know that K-Mart, you know, which doesn’t have the same retail draw for other reasons, that Wal-Mart does, but the K-Mart site is way too much asphalt. It wasn’t done right, and as a result of that, for all the projects in the last few years, the Town has recognized that you certainly don’t want to grant variances to allow people to have excess parking to 7.0. The Code was changed, and especially at Pyramid’s Mall, it was changed to, that it can go down to 4.0, but when Tom Nace points out that Wilton has 4.9, and probably everyone here has gone to Wilton, and it doesn’t seem like there’s excessive spaces there, I think, and if they’re right, if 3.3 is no problem, and I’m wrong 7 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/24/04) and it won’t be a problem, then that’s great, but I think that, at a minimum, this Board should make them verify it. They probably have dozens of Super Wal-Mart’s, you know, certainly many in the Northeast, and we should at least find out if 3.3 is what’s allowed, or if that’s just because that’s all that this site could accommodate in order to get their maximum building, and that at Christmas time it’s going to be a mess. One alternative would be to make the building slightly smaller, and to use the difference for some additional parking and some additional green space, just to compromise, but I’ll leave it to you to determine if that’s going to be a significant impact, but if there’s not enough spaces for cars, there’s going to be a real problem. I’m going to give you Tom’s letter, and I guess just one other point. The issue is whether or not there are feasible alternatives, besides the alternative that I mentioned, that the building could be a little smaller. According from also the practice commentaries that they quoted from in the Town Law, McKinney’s, if appropriate under the circumstances, efforts to obtain property from adjoining neighbors in order to eliminate the need for a variance may be an important consideration. There is a pretty large grass area behind the Flower Drum Song restaurant, and I’m aware that there were prior discussions with the owners of the restaurant to acquire some of their property, and then that never went anywhere, but it may be possible to take some of that big green area behind the restaurant and, if that were acquired by Wal-Mart, that could be split up so that that area could be park, but the additional square feet could create some parking spaces and it could also allow for some additional green space elsewhere on this property, which would just soften the look of this site. So I think that there may be two feasible alternatives, one to acquire available property next door and, two, to make the building somewhat smaller to provide more parking. MR. ABBATE-As you are aware, part of our charge is the impact on the community. Now, you indicated initially that you represent two clients, and I didn’t quite catch that. Would you mind going over that again? MR. LAPPER-Yes. Ray Supply is a retailer of high end electronics equipment, which is just south of the Wal-Mart property on Route 9, and the Whispering Pines Apartment complex is immediately to the west, behind the Wal-Mart building. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Now, Whispering Pines Apartment, immediately to the west. What were the specific concerns? Not generalities, but what were their specific concerns when they decided that they required counsel? MR. LAPPER-Noise, traffic, lights. MR. HAYES-Quality of life issues, essentially. MR. LAPPER-Yes. Just because it’s not a compatible use to have the trucks pulling up behind, you know, the truck dock is right there, their storage units behind the Wal-Mart. So they’re concerned about their existing and future residents that have to look out their back window and hear and see, you know, a 24 hour operation that would impact a multi-family residential project. MR. ABBATE-Okay. MR. LAPPER-They’re also concerned about traffic on Weeks Road. MR. ABBATE-Without revealing any confidentiality, would you be willing to just indicate the number of individuals in that apartment complex that expressed these views? MR. LAPPER-It’s the owners of the complex that I represent that, you know, their tenants are somewhat, by nature, short terms. So they don’t, it hasn’t been the tenants that have been looking out for it. It’s the landlords that are concerned with whether they can rent the property and whether they can justify the quality of life that they’re trying to keep there, continue that. MR. ABBATE-All right. Thank you very much. 8 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/24/04) MR. STONE-And they’re satisfied with most of the questions that they raised? MR. LAPPER-Putting in the sound wall, and the berm and some landscaping in the back was a big issue, but they are still concerned that if there’s traffic problems, if there’s too much, if there’s not enough parking and too much cars, that people are going to park on Weeks Road, that it’s going to really be an issue because there’s not enough parking. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. HAYES-So they and Ray Supply think the store’s too big, then, essentially? MR. LAPPER-Right. They appreciate that there have been compromises made, but they’re still concerned that the variance, that 3.3 per thousand isn’t going to work, that’s just not enough parking spaces for a Super Wal-Mart. MR. ABBATE-One thing. Did you indicate earlier that 3.3, that there was another Wal-Mart Supercenter that had 4. something? MR. LAPPER-4.9, that’s the nearest one in Wilton, at Exit 15. MR. ABBATE-That’s 4.9 versus the 3.3, as they propose up here? MR. LAPPER-Right. That’s a substantial difference, and I’d like to know if there are other ones that are in 3.3, and if they work. MR. ABBATE-Okay. MR. STONE-And that’s a question that we will ask them to answer. MR. ABBATE-Sure. Thank you very much. MR. LAPPER-Thank you. MR. STONE-Anybody else wishing to speak on the subject, from the public? Do we have any correspondence? MR. MC NULTY-Yes. There’s two or three pieces of correspondence. We have one from Robert Eddy. He says, “Please deny this variance which seeks from the permeability and minimum parking requirements. These requirements were placed in the ordinance for obvious reasons and should not be varied, especially the need for permeability, in this case. Your Board will be inundated with requests for variance by other applicants, using this case as an example. Sincerely, Robert L. Eddy” And we have a, there’s a letter from Steven G. Davis, I’m not sure but what it deals more with lighting, but let me read it to be sure. He says, “Wal-Mart did not take it far enough to comply with the code and could have. They failed to submit all the detailed plans for various height alternatives requested by the Planning Board, including a 20/30 plan which Wal-Mart themselves had suggested on July 17 and to which the Planning Board agreed to consider as a means to further reduce light trespass. In my Feb. 11 letter to the Planning Board, I suggested a 25 foot height with lower wattage and no change in pole count and location from the 30 foot plan as a reasonable compromise giving consideration to the size of the parking lot and the height of the building. Reduced pole height means reduced light trespass and glare, because the exposed opening area of the fixture is less when viewed from the side. Wal-Mart boxed themselves in with their own 1.0 FC minimum which prevents the use of lower wattage lamps. It also means poles can’t be spacing further apart using the 4:1 ratio as allowed by the Code. The luminaire is designed for up to 6 x 6 mounting height spacing, and Wal-Mart is using only 4 x 5 mounting heights. RP-20 recommends 0.2 FC as the minimum for “Basic” lighting needs and one-half of that for security after hours. Wal-Mart and other big box stores are well above nationally recognized standards. There is no security 9 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/24/04) issue when the average lighting is 2.5 times above what is truly needed. However, there is an issue regarding light adaptation after leaving overly bright areas and heading down the highway. A variance should not be granted when better can be achieved at no additional cost, which saves energy, and which better serves the needs of the community. Wal-Mart’s condition is self imposed and correctable. Yours truly, Stephen G. Davis” And then we’ve got a faxed letter, well, this is an old one, from Mr. Lapper regarding Whispering Pines. This was dated May 21, 2003. MR. STONE-Do you want that in? No? Okay. MR. MC NULTY-I think that is it, from what I can see. MR. STONE-Okay. Good. DR. HOFFMAN-I just wanted to clarify that my remarks earlier related only to the parking requirement. I’m not familiar with the permeability issue. So that has no relation to that. MR. STONE-Okay. Anybody else wish to speak? Let me close the public hearing, for the moment. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. STONE-And ask the applicant to come forward. There were two or three questions that I heard, two or three concerns expressed. I also, I’d like you to comment on, in the letter that we read into the record, it says the 763 parking spaces will be less than required by Town Code, quote, but will still be ample to safely accommodate both cars and shopping carts, unquote. MR. HENTSCHKE-That’s right. MR. STONE-Now, you stand behind that statement? MR. HENTSCHKE-Absolutely. There’s, we’ve got an engineering firm that designed the site, and there’s Wal-Mart engineers that look at those plans after the engineers propose something. They wouldn’t propose to build it if they couldn’t do it safely. They’ve got liability issues. Yes, they would prefer to have more parking. They would prefer to have five or more, even more than the Code allows, but this is going to work for this site, and it’s going to work. It’s going to be safe. For the numbers they’re expecting, it’s going to work. MR. STONE-Okay. Mr. Lapper raised the question about what your experience in other locations, with a building approximately this size. Obviously no building is exactly the same size. Would you comment on that, please. MR. HENTSCHKE-I don’t know, off hand, if there are any others with the same parking specs as this. I’m not really familiar with that information. Just one thing to point to, just to give the Board an idea about that green, that land bank space that we talked about before where the Queen Diner is. If that was converted back to parking, I understand that the ratio would be 3.8 or 3.9, in that ballpark, just for what it’s worth. MR. STONE-Okay. Has any consideration been given to reducing the size of the building? MR. HENTSCHKE-That would, it’s not what would serve the needs of Wal-Mart for the Supercenter portion, the groceries. That just wouldn’t work for them. They have sort of a prototypical thing that they start with. They can only modify it so much without exorbitantly increasing the costs. So it would just be impractical. MR. STONE-Okay. 10 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/24/04) MR. ABBATE-Would you please compare, for me, the Wilton Wal-Mart site, as compared to the proposed site up here in Queensbury, in reference to why Wal-Mart site has 4.9 spaces per 1,000 square feet and you are requesting 3.3 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet. Would you be kind enough to justify that? MR. HENTSCHKE-It’s a site constraint. I mean, this is a smaller site. That’s what we’re starting with. If the site was a little bit bigger, we would ask, we would be seeking more parking. MR. ABBATE-So it’s a smaller site. MR. HENTSCHKE-It is a smaller site. MR. ABBATE-Well, wouldn’t it make more sense, if it’s a smaller site, to have a smaller building? I mean, I don’t want to put anybody on the spot, but, you know, I hate to throw logic into this thing. MR. FITAMANT-Well, you could put me on the spot, and I’ll try and react with logic. The logic that I would suggest here would be that if, as Peter had mentioned, if Wal-Mart did not think that this site was viable with the 3.3 ratio, and with counting the fact that there’s an ability to increase that ratio up to 3.8, which is, we’re getting close to four, they would not be here. They would not have spent the hundreds of thousands of dollars, plus the sound wall and all additional landscaping that they’ve put in to this project. MR. ABBATE-Yes, but on the other side of the coin, if we were to grant 3.3 parking spots, that would benefit Wal-Mart in the final analysis, would it not? MR. FITAMANT-I don’t see where you’re going. MR. ABBATE-Well, you’re indicating that Wal-Mart feels that it’s viable to have 3.3 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet, and then if they didn’t feel it was viable, they wouldn’t be putting all this money into the pot, so to speak. Correct? MR. FITAMANT-They feel that this site is viable, with the given ratios. Correct. MR. ABBATE-And so without 3.3 parking spaces, I just want to clear this up, without 3.3 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet, Wal-Mart takes a stand that it would not be viable? Is that the position? MR. STONE-No, they take the position, I’m sorry, it’s viable at 3.3. They would like more. MR. FITAMANT-Yes, that’s correct. MR. STONE-You’re saying you can live with 3.3. MR. FITAMANT-Yes. MR. STONE-On every day except December 24 maybe. th MR. FITAMANT-Correct. Right. What happens here is that, as you’ve mentioned, snow removal. I’m sure, and I’m not familiar with this Wilton store, but I’m sure they pile up the snow and they could forget about it, because they are well in excess of what their actual parking is required. Here, they’re going to have to, if they don’t maintain the shopping center and the customers can’t park, they lose business. They lose money. It’s not in their best interest to even attempt to do this at the site, if that were the case. MR. STONE-Okay. Did the Planning Board, in talking about the 3.3, hear your offer to remove snow from the site? Was there any restriction on their approval? 11 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/24/04) MR. FITAMANT-Well, not yet because the planning process is not complete. We have yet to see the Board after the ZBA. MR. STONE-Okay. So you have offered that under some circumstances, and it’s not our job to define those, that you would be willing to truck snow off site. MR. FITAMANT-Absolutely. MR. STONE-I like that. MR. BROWN-Yes. I think they’ve offered it tonight, and if you thought it was a condition that you felt you could live with, giving them relief on the number of parking spaces, it could be a condition of your approval. MR. STONE-Yes. All right. We can put it in our approval. That’s what I wanted to be sure about. Okay. MR. BROWN-Sure. MR. STONE-Okay. Chuck, you had something. MR. ABBATE-Yes. I was going to ask, the striping that’s planned for that parking lot, is that going to be conforming to what the Town Code minimum is now, or are you going to have a little bit wider spaces or, have you considered that? MR. FITAMANT-I believe it’s what the Town requires. MR. BROWN-Nine by eighteen. MR. STONE-Yes, I mean, I assumed we were talking the nine by eighteen when we talked about the number. MR. FITAMANT-Yes, nine by eighteen. MR. STONE-Okay. Any other questions? MR. URRICO-Yes, I just want to feel comfortable with the numbers. The current parking lot, how many spaces are located there as it is, the area that’s used by Wal-Mart, not the area used by Ames. MR. FITAMANT-I don’t have that separated out, because it’s looked at as a composite project. So I don’t have those numbers broken out, offhand. MR. URRICO-In the typical store conversion from a Wal-Mart to a Wal-Mart Supercenter, do you know the percentage increase in cars that park there and is the stay longer by the people that do park there? MR. FITAMANT-Yes. There’s actually, the stay is longer because you’re doing two things. You’re doing the dry goods as well as the grocery. MR. URRICO-So you have to account for that in your specing out the number of spaces, because you’re going to need more parking spaces because of that. MR. FITAMANT-It’s all part of the plan. MR. URRICO-Okay. In an ideal set up, if you were starting from scratch, what is the ideal supercenter size? Is there one? 12 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/24/04) MR. FITAMANT-This is the minimum. MR. URRICO-This is the minimum. MR. FITAMANT-215,000 square feet, approximately. MR. URRICO-And how many spaces do they normally seek? MR. FITAMANT-They typically, if, and there again, it’s dependent on the Town, but they typically go between four and five. MR. URRICO-And that’s what Wal-Mart would like? In your engineering and your studies, this is what you find to be ideal? MR. FITAMANT-That’s what I’m seeing. Yes. MR. URRICO-Okay. MR. FITAMANT-They’ve done below four as well. MR. URRICO-Okay. MR. HAYES-The supercenter in Wilton, what size store is that, square footage wise? MR. FITAMANT-I don’t know. MR. HAYES-So you’re saying this store is that size or smaller? MR. FITAMANT-Yes. If it’s a supercenter, and this being one of the smaller ones, yes. MR. STONE-Just define for me, because we’ll get to it with the Sign Variance, but define for me Wal-Mart’s definition of a supercenter. What is sold there? MR. FITAMANT-The supercenter combines the dry goods as well as grocery. There’s a grocery element to it . That becomes the supercenter. MR. STONE-And how much of a grocery element? Because a grocery store is not a grocery store, or it is a grocery store and it’s not a grocery store. I mean, we’re talking full service meat, full service deli? MR. FITAMANT-Yes. MR. STONE-A vegetable department, a produce department? MR. FITAMANT-Yes. MR. STONE-Okay. So similar to the two local chain supermarkets. I know there are others, but the two. MR. FITAMANT-Correct. Yes. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. UNDERWOOD-When you redid the original Wal-Mart store there and replaced the Sysco building that was there previously, was the size of that building increased? MR. FITAMANT-I’m not familiar with the prior application. 13 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/24/04) MR. UNDERWOOD-Because I know at that point in time that they were granted permeability relief for the increased size of the building. I was just curious as to how much that building was increased. MR. FITAMANT-I believe that was read into testimony as to the prior variances that were approved for this site. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. It doesn’t say how much it was. MR. STONE-Let me just put on the table, because we’re going to have to discuss it when we talk about the variance, any concern at all on the permeability, that the Planning Board apparently was satisfied with your 16, versus the 14 it was before? MR. FITAMANT-Yes. MR. STONE-Were they overly pleased? Were they pleased? MR. FITAMANT-I don’t think anyone on the Board was overly pleased with anything. MR. STONE-Okay. Let’s talk about it, gentlemen and lady. Let’s start down with Jim. MR. UNDERWOOD-I think, Number One, we have to reflect upon the unique nature of this plaza, when compared to other ones in Town. If you’re going to compare this to K-Mart, which is out in the middle of nowhere, you could build it ten times the size they already over built it, the parking area and things like that, but I think that here where we’re on Route 9, I think some of my comments that I earlier made about the vegetation and things can somewhat remedy that situation. I’m a little bit disappointed that the Planning Board did not include any of the native species of trees, like the evergreens which you see around the whole margin of that property to the east, and to the north. I think that Roberts Gardens and the Whispering Pines complex there did a pretty good job when they built their complex to keep the margins of those evergreens and the native trees intact, you know, to break it up, so it wasn’t such a large structure just sticking out like a sore thumb, and I think that even though that the Planning Board has gone through this thing, I think that, you know, when you’re going to tear down a building, and it’s an overbuilt site, I mean, Number One, when you’re asking for this much relief from the Codes, in regards to runoff and stormwater prevention is an important concern in the community. I don’t think the parking issue is so great for me. I think that if you can live with inadequate parking or lesser parking, that’s probably a good thing. We overdid it on the K-Mart store, but I still think that there’s a concern that this building project, I would venture a guess, in thinking about the old Sysco store there, that the original Sysco façade was in-line with the Ames store as it exists right now, and that they were granted a variance, at that time, to increase the size of the original Wal-Mart building, and I think that at this point in time, you know, whether it works out for you with the food center or not, I think that there could be some give back on that north end of the building issue. It could be cut back somewhat to increase and, you know, allow for more green space to be planted along that side there. In the wintertime, if you drive over there and look around that site, there’s always excess storage containers that are placed on site around the margins of the property, which further cuts back on the parking, and would further cut back on trucking issues and thing s like that, and I think that’s a concern for neighbors. A food store brings in refer’s a trucks come in with their refrigeration units turned on at two o’clock in the morning, and certainly in the summertime when people have their doors and windows open, with screens and things like that, that’s going to be a concern for those neighbors, as was mentioned before. So, I think that we should be thinking about a smaller building here on this site. MR. STONE-So where do you stand on the variances before us? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes on the less parking. I think they can go back and come up with an alternative on the permeability. They can increase the amount of permeability by building a smaller building. 14 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/24/04) MR. STONE-Okay. Chuck? MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you. I would echo Jim’s remarks, only add the fact that it is, they are requesting a great deal of relief, and it’s certainly a large project that they are proposing, particularly for the size of the property. I’d give away, if they can live with 3.3 parking spots, I’m not going to argue with that. I have a little concern with the permeability, but I have greater concern with the impact on the neighbors. We received a letter this evening from counsel that represents several clients who either do business or reside in the area. That’s, right now, of greater concern to me, than 3.3 parking spots, and, quite frankly, even permeability. Where I stand on this, Mr. Chairman, I don’t know. I’d like to listen to the rest of my fellow Board members. MR. STONE-Okay. Joyce? MRS. HUNT-Well, I sort of agree with both the members who spoke before. I don’t have a problem with the 3.3, but I do have a problem with the permeability and with the impact that it would have on the area. I was curious to know how large the Ames store is. Do you know that? MR. FITAMANT-70,727 square feet. MRS. HUNT-So this is going to be, the addition is going to be a third, large. MR. FITAMANT-Well, there’s a 3,000 square foot diner as well, on the site. MRS. HUNT-Yes, but not part of that building. MR. FITAMANT-Correct, but it’s part of the site. MRS. HUNT-Yes. MR. FITAMANT-It’s being removed. MRS. HUNT-I’m not sure how I’m going to vote. MR. STONE-Okay. Roy? MR. HAYES-Can I just ask one question? Is that being reserved for potential future development, or what’s the status of that? MR. FITAMANT-No. That’s being knocked down and converted to green space. MR. STONE-It’s going to be green space. Just before we go to Roy, obviously what we’re talking about, we’re approaching your two requests for variances, both of which would be affected positively by a smaller size store. I mean, it’s not in our purview to talk about the story per se, but we are talking about these two variances. If you made the store smaller, then parking spaces go up. If you make the store smaller, permeability goes up, and so, I mean, that’s what I’m hearing from Board members. I just want you to be aware that we’re talking about the variances, but we are getting there indirectly, we’re getting to size indirectly. Go ahead. Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes. I’m going to think this out loud. I hope everybody can bear with me a second. I sort of feel where they aren’t connected. While the permeability and the parking are connected, they’re responding to requests by the Planning Board for more green space, and in doing so reducing the number of parking spaces. The question we ask is why do we need more green space. Well, because it’s pretty much blacktop there. There’s not much there that exists. So, while we’re improving what’s there, what’s there is not very attractive to begin with. So we 15 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/24/04) come down to the test, and the test is whether the benefit can be achieved by other means feasible to the applicant, and the answer is yes. You can have a smaller building. It’s a feasible alternative, and that’s something we have to consider. Whether there’s an undesirable change in the neighborhood character or to nearby properties, well, if we’re guessing wrong about the parking spaces, it definitely is going to carry over into the neighborhoods. Somehow, cars parking on Weeks Road or, you know, just spilling out onto that, and I’m not convinced yet that 3.3 is enough. We’re sort of taking some averages and trying to figure it in here, but I was not really, I’m not really sure that I’m comfortable with that number. I’m trying to picture the supermarkets that are here now, at their peak times, and taking the same number of cars and putting it into the Wal-Mart parking lot during a peak period, and I have a hard time picturing them together without there being some problems. The other thing is whether the request is substantial. Yes, it’s substantial. Whether the request may have adverse physical or environmental effects. That’s in question as well, and the difficulty is self-created. So, in my estimation, I think right now I would be against the application, but I really think there needs to be a little bit of work done. MR. STONE-Jaime? MR. HAYES-In conservation of time, I could say a great deal here, but I would like to echo the comments that have already been put forth by the Board, what Roy just said, to me, seems to be a pretty good brief summary of my position. I hate to get into adages here, but they may be just trying to put five pounds into a four pound bag, as far as the size of the building, in this particular case, and then when you roll the complications of that out into, you know, the detriment to the neighborhood, whether there are feasible alternatives to the whole idea, the amount of relief that’s requested, I think somehow the test has not quite been met to the extent that I would feel comfortable going forward. I do want to comment, though, that I think it is a difficult situation, in a sense that you’re also operating with the Planning Board, and they’re asking you to do things, and that’s good that you’re trying to do those things. I certainly applaud you for that. It’s, I certainly believe, part of my considerations, but I think we’re just at that stage where we just haven’t quite met the test. We’ve had some neighborhood opposition, and nobody feels for Wal-Mart, whether that’s right or wrong, you know, I mean, that’s a truism, I’m sure, but they still seem to think that this project’s just a little too big for, you know, for their ongoing situations, and I think that there is some truth in that. So, as it stands right now, I would be opposed. MR. STONE-Point of personal comment, as someone who gets criticized by fellow Board members for talking too much, when somebody gets up and says I’m going to talk shortly, a small time, and then. MR. HAYES-Well, I have a lot of notes here but. MR. STONE-I know. That was just personal. MR. HAYES-Sure. MR. STONE-Thanks. Chuck? MR. MC NULTY-Well, several thoughts, I guess. The permeability on this particular site, given the current circumstances, I don’t think really concerns me a great deal, if the parking that’s proposed would work. Yes, it’s a lot less than the 30% that the Town Code calls for, but the changes proposed actually increase the permeability and as the applicant’s pointed out, there is a built in stormwater drainage system there that obviously has worked because we haven’t had any blatant problems over the past several years at this site because of drainage. So that doesn’t concern me too much. I am worried about the parking. I know the Planning Board has pushed the applicant to reduce the amount of parking. I would really like to see something more of the sort that’s been suggested tonight of comparisons with other supercenters, matching size of the supercenter for the parking or whatever. I’m not convinced that what’s proposed is going to work, and if it doesn’t work, I think we’re going to be in trouble. Certainly the first year that it 16 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/24/04) doesn’t work, we’re going to have cars on Weeks Road, and that’s not going to be good, because Weeks Road is not that wide, and it’s going to be a real nightmare. If that happens, and Wal- Mart’s a good citizen and comes back immediately and says, okay, we’ve got to tear up some of our green space, then maybe we are getting in to a permeability problem because you’ve only got 2.2% that you can increase before you’re then decreasing what previously existed. So that kind of bothers me. It also bothers me that I know the applicant has been bouncing around between Planning Board and this Board for quite a while and I’m sure they’re anxious to get ahead with the project, and I hate to see the whole thing prolonged. The other thing that I’ve looked at, I really would like to approve this, because the other alternative that can be looked at is Wal-Mart saying, okay, this site isn’t going to work. We’re going to go somewhere else, and I know one area that was considered. I don’t know if it’s still active, is where the cinema is up, just north on Route 9 a little bit. That and the campground, both of which were for sale back a while ago, and I believe, at one point, at least, Wal-Mart was said to have had an option on those properties. Should they do that, then we’re disrupting another whole neighborhood, and we’re leaving a big empty cavity where they are now, which is also a detriment to the community. So that bothers me and I think the best solution, if it’s at all possible, is to make this thing work at the current site, but I think I kind of stand where I believe most of the other members are. I’m not ready to approve this tonight. I would like to see something more to convince me that the number of parking spaces that’s proposed will, indeed, work, and perhaps a little more detail about what if it doesn’t work. Then exactly what can be done to alleviate the problem, a year or two down the line. So I guess, bottom line for tonight, I’d be opposed, but I sure would like an opportunity to hear more and be able to vote in favor of this. MR. STONE-I think Mr. McNulty has summed it up very well. Going down the, listening to the Board. I feel very strongly that we have raised some very legitimate concerns. I’m always proud of this Board because we do raise these concerns. We care, and I really would like to offer to table this to a future meeting, so that you can respond to the specific comments that were made by the Board, because I think as it stands now, if you were to sit here right now and say, I want this, you’re not going to get it. I think there’s too many concerns. It’s a complex issue, and I think, not that we haven’t looked at it very heavily, and very hard, but I do think it’s complex. I think it’s complex. I think I would like to hear your comments. I would like, for example, first of all, I’m not sure Wal-Mart is totally conscious of their own success. I mean, we know that Wal-Mart is the largest corporation in the country right now. They’ve gotten that way by providing the public what it wants, and there’s no reason to suggest that our public is going to be any different than if Wal-Mart comes in with a supercenter. Business is going to boom and cars are going to flock there from the North Country, and the south country, and anywhere else you can think of, and I think that that’s a concern. I also know, and I know the policy got changed, but the parking of RV’s. Remember, there are a lot of people in this country who still think, if I find a Wal-Mart I can park overnight, and I know we stopped that here, but that doesn’t mean there aren’t people out there who might do it. Just another consideration, in terms of parking spaces. So, I would like you to consider, because I know we’ve hit you with a number of things that, I mean, if you feel capable of commenting on them now and making changes, go ahead, but I would offer you the possibility of doing it more formally. MR. HENTSCHKE-I just want to make a couple of comments. In terms of, I’ve heard a lot of comments from the Board, concerns about various impacts this will have, being that there are constraints, the site size, a lot of concerns were raised about noise, neighbor impacts, things of that nature. Lighting, so on. Just for, so you can understand where we’re coming from, we just spent the last 11 months with the Planning Board, listening to neighbors. We had a good neighbor meeting, which I’m not sure how many people have done that. We voluntarily offered to put in a good neighbor plan. We took the time to meet with the neighbors. We flew in people from Wal-Mart. We met with them. We talked to them, and we found out what their concerns were. Largely they were noise, lighting, some operational issues, and we took a lot of time and money to listen to their concerns, to go back and re-engineer things. We re-routed traffic. We moved traffic that was coming around the back side of the building, moved it around to the north side, to address noise. We propose to fill, the project, right now, proposes to build a retaining wall roughly six feet, a four foot berm on top of that, a ten foot sound wall on top of that, to make sure that there’s no perceptible increase in noise to Whispering Pines, 17 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/24/04) and that’s considering that right now there’s a vacant Ames there, a dead building, not making any noise. They’re going to build a supercenter, and the people in Whispering Pines are hardly going to be able to tell that there’s a difference, if at all, for sound. So, I mean, there’s been a lot of design changes at a great expense. This sound barrier is a really expensive thing. To just address that, I know you’re not focusing on that, but I heard some of those types of concerns come up. They’re legitimate, but we’ve spent a lot of time and money trying to address those concerns, and we think that we’ve done it for this site. We’ve taken off the floodlights. All the other stores that I’ve seen around, a lot of the stores have got floodlights at night showing the, you know, we’re getting into other site plan issues. MR. STONE-No, no, I understand. MR. HENTSCHKE-SEQRA things, but the other thing was mentioned vaguely some environmental and physical impacts, adverse environmental and, you know, physical impacts, and, you know, we’ve got parking, it’s going to work. From Wal-Mart’s standpoint, the parking ratio is going to work. It can go up to four, if necessary, if, you know, we go back and get approval from the Planning Board and so on. We think the site can work. We don’t want those vacant buildings to be there forever. I’m sure a lot of people here don’t want them to be here forever, either. The other thing is what’s feasible theoretically is not necessarily practical for Wal-Mart, based on some of the comments, you know, based on what we understand about how they work, and the types of buildings that they build and sell groceries at a supercenter. So, just for your, just so we are all playing from the same deck of cards, so to speak, you know, we’ve spent a lot of time redoing things. MR. FITAMANT-If I can add, the Planning Board, when they were looking at the parking ratios, and looking at reducing them, their comments were, I’ve never seen that parking lot full, never seen that parking lot, we have too much parking in town, and having heard that, in response to the Planning Board’s comments, we recognize that we reduced the parking, we provided green space, and although the site is in excess of the impervious, if you were looking at this site in an undeveloped state, I submit to you that the two percent reduction is not just two percent reduction, but also is an enhancement in the water quality because you have more building, more roof drainage entering the storm drainage system, which is not hydro carbon in a parking lot. It’s a higher water quality. So, there’s an improvement in the environmental aspects, and I think the Planning Board may have recognized that, in reducing the parking ratio, you’re reducing this sea of parking fields that maybe, I understand that K-Mart has an incredible ratio, that they’re looking to scale back on, and I think that was very important, and another consideration is that this site has infiltration. Infiltration really only got kicked in to high gear this year, with the Phase II stormwater regs. Most sites would just detain and then discharge, but we’ve, this site has infiltration. So that’s important, and if there were an increase in impervious, in the land bank portion, we would recommend that infiltration, additional infiltration and piping be installed to accommodate that as well, and this site is a good site for infiltration. So, I’m not seeing the pervious issues, environmental impacts, that I’m hearing before the Board. I don’t see that as a future concern, negative concern. MR. STONE-I’m not sure I heard that much concern. I heard concern, size of building as it affects impermeable surface. This is our bible. I mean, I’m sure the Planning Board has said the same thing to you. This is the Zoning Code. We are charged with granting the minimum relief that can be granted, which can be nothing, the minimal relief from the Zoning Code for a particular application, and that’s what we’re wrestling with. We have not had the benefit of listening to the Planning Board because we are not the Planning Board. We are the Zoning Board of Appeals, and I make it very clear, and we know our charge, and we want to be sure that everybody understands our charge, and we hear a marked reduction in the number of parking spaces compared to our Code, okay, the concern that I’ve heard raised by members, or what happens at certain times of the year, are cars going to be forced out onto Weeks Road. Are they going to be forced out across the street into Sweet Road? I mean, one could argue, contrary to what the Planning Board has said, I was going by the other day, and I said, wow, there were a lot of cars there the other day. Now, that may be the way they park, and there was snow and all that sort of thing, but I really, in listening to the Board, and I think I understand the Board, I 18 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/24/04) think they’re saying, can you at least go and think about some of the concerns that we have, which have to do only with the two areas that we have to grant a variance. The permeability, I’m not concerned about it. I think it is an improvement, but the size of the building does come into play. Certainly the number of parking spaces I think I need you to show me, as opposing counsel said, I need you to show me that it can work for a Wal-Mart store. I mean, you’re blithely saying, well, we can live with 3.3, but we never really have gone below four. Well, then tell me about it. MR. FITAMANT-I’ll expand a little bit more about that. You raised the issue of parking on Weeks Road. If it pleases the Board and you want to impose restrictions on parking on Weeks Road, Wal-Mart would be more than happy to show that on their site plan. If parking, and I don’t know if you’re familiar enough with the site plan, but there is a bus stop as well on the site, and that provides transportation by mass transit, which, in and of itself, is an improvement to everyone just hopping in their cars and going shopping. So I think, when you look at this, and the imperviousness is more roof area, which is a cleaner water source. So when you look at everything as a whole, and the fact that this is a redevelopment, it’s pretty much blacktop wall to wall. It’s an improvement of what you have out there today. MR. STONE-Okay. Let me just ask the Board, has anybody heard anything that’s changed their thoughts? MR. ABBATE-May I make a comment please? MR. STONE-Chuck? MR. ABBATE-I would, and I think Chuck McNulty said, I would love to have this approved, quite frankly, but for my part, I have three specifics. If you could answer these things, it would make me a heck of a lot more comfortable, and if you’ll allow me to enumerate them, I’d appreciate it. I would like to see, before I would vote yes on this project, I would like for you to come up with statistics to compare the Wilton Wal-Mart with your proposal up here, and that should include the size of that Wal-Mart, and also the size of the parking spots, etc. Number Two, I would like, and I didn’t hear it, unless I simply didn’t hear it, I would like to know whether or not you touched base, and you’re to be commended for this open meeting with neighbors, if you touched base with the folks at Whispering Pines and Ray electronics. If you have, I mean, that’s commendable. If you haven’t, I would suggest that it’s probably a good idea, and finally, it’s merely a suggestion, just to bring to your attention, as the Chairman said, I guess the bottom line is going to be, is there a feasible alternative, and when we opened the discussion this evening, I said logic, if you’ll recall my statement, I said logic would dictate, and we were talking about parking spots, that you could have more parking spots if you reduced the size of the building. So those would be my specific concerns, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. MR. STONE-Has anybody heard anything from their rebuttal, so to speak, that would say that we should carry on at this point in time, or should we really ask you to come back with answers to our specific questions? MR. FITAMANT-I think the comparison of statistics at other stores is something that you might be able to provide a number on paper, their size, this size, how many cars in their parking lot, but you’d have to look at the demographics, and the comparison of demographics. There’s differences, subtle differences that don’t, in my opinion, don’t rationalize, take into consideration those differences. MR. STONE-Okay, but one of the beauties or the wonders of Wal-Mart is that it is in every State in the Union. It is in every town, small and large, and don’t tell me that Benton, AK can’t teach us a little bit about rural areas, and other rural communities. There’s just got to be a ton of data out there, to help us. That’s all we’re saying. 19 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/24/04) MR. ABBATE-You’re talking about subtle differences. You’re talking in terms of tangibles. I would suggest that, certainly none of the subtle differences would be the fact that we all speak the English language. We can eliminate that. Thank you. MR. STONE-I don’t know what you meant by that, but that’s all right, but the point is that you’ve got to have tons of data. Wal-Mart is a very smart organization. We’re seven people who are sitting up here in Queensbury, NY, who have raised what we believe are legitimate questions, and while I understand your frustration, it’s our ballgame, and we have the right to get answers to our questions, and I would really like you to come back next month with answers. MR. FITAMANT-I understand that, and I’d like to whittle these questions, to where we have the minimal amount of questions, but in response to commissioner Abbate’s comment on the Good Neighbor, we have had meetings, many meetings with both Ray Supply and with Whispering Pines. MR. STONE-I’m sure you have, but again, we’re charged with this, with our Zoning Code. As you will find in the next session, we’re very proud of our Zoning Code. If you think you’ve had trouble now, just wait until we got to the next session. MR. MC NULTY-One thought. If they are going to come back, going back to my question about the striping that you’re planning, I would be interested to know what the existing striping has, my personal opinion is the guys that wrote the Town Code own Volkswagens, because if they took any normal size or SUV and tried to park it in some of the parking lots that we’ve got now, striped for Town Code, it is very difficult. It’s very difficult to make turns in some of the newer parking lots that we’ve approved. For instance, the plaza that’s got Home Depot. There’s a lot of turns where there’s supposed to be cars coming in and out at the same time in that lot, that you can’t do it. Because people cannot cope with making the turn, so you have to stop and wait for somebody to come out of an area before you can go in, and I think that’s one consideration. Here it should be for Wal-Mart as well, because you’ve got a lot of elderly people trying to park cars, and if in accommodating 700 and some odd parking spaces we’re doing it by shrinking what we’ve got there now, that’s a little different than if it’s going to be the same situation. MR. FITAMANT-We’re providing what the Ordinance requires, nine by eighteen. MRS. HUNT-I would like to know, you said that the minimum parking that you had anywhere else in this country was 4.0? MR. FITAMANT-No, that’s the suggested, preferred. MRS. HUNT-Well, I was wondering if you could let us know what super stores that. MR. FITAMANT-If the Board finds that we have another store, a supercenter, at 3.3 or 3., with the land banking, 3.8, that would satisfy the Board? MR. STONE-Well, it would our concern, and I know it’s a, Planning Board is worrying about site plan, but we know that if you had that store, and you had 200 places, I’m being absurd, you have 200 people, the cars are going to be backed up on Route 9. They’re going to be backed up on Weeks Road, looking for a parking space. That’s a given. All right. Is 763 on certain days of the year going to not have that happen? I don’t know. We’re looking for some thoughts to help us. I mean, do you really need, in the middle of December, with a little snow on the ground, are we going to have traffic backed up on our major artery, Route 9? I mean, that’s my concern. Now, is that a planning issue? Yes, but we have control over the number of parking spaces, and that’s what we’re concerned about. So I think we need to know, one, that you’re happy with the 763, and you’ve said that, but that we’re going to be happy with that when you consider in your protection business, what you think a store of this size is going to do, and I just think we need to know that. Am I speaking for the Board when I say all this? 20 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/24/04) MRS. HUNT-Agreed. MR. STONE-So I would like, I think you’ve got enough of our questions, and certainly the minutes will be available, post haste. MR. BROWN-I think in the interest of time for the applicant, probably what you want to do now, if you can, is come up with a list of four or five items, two or three items, or one item. MR. STONE-Well, the one item is, prove to us that the 763 parking spaces will not create off site problems with backed up parking, under the worst conditions, that is with piles of snow, or, failing that. MR. FITAMANT-We’ve agreed to remove the snow. So I think we can take that out of the equation. MR. STONE-All right. Then the 763, well, even snow takes a little while to get off the ground, and that’s fine, and we’ll certainly put that into any approval that we eventually give, but I think we’re talking, we need to know, that the parking spaces, and I’m trying to couch this, size of the building is not our concern. It is a legal size building, but it does impact the things we’re concerned about, will there be cars all over the place trying to get into this place on certain days. Permeability issue, I have no problem with. I mean, if we had 14 before, I think 16 or 16.2 is certainly a step in the right direction, and as far as I know, we’ve had no water problems. Is that correct, Craig, there have been no surface water problems there at all? MR. BROWN-None that I know of. MR. STONE-So, I mean, I would grant that part of the variance, myself, and I think most of the people would. It’s the parking, and the implications. So I would just say, please be as imaginative as possible in connection with the number of parking spaces, and potential problems that you would have on site, and off site. I think that’s the one question. Isn’t it? MR. ABBATE-Would it be appropriate if I asked these gentlemen to explain to us why they could not perform their functions with a smaller building? Just out of curiosity. I don’t know. MR. STONE-Well, that’s up to them. They have a right to ask for that size building. The only control we have over that, and let’s be factual, is granting a variance for the number of spaces that works out. MR. HAYES-It’s a feasible alternative, though. It’s definitely a feasible, absolutely. It’s one of our tests. MR. ABBATE-That’s my point. That’s a feasible alternative, a reduction in the size of the building. MR. STONE-So, address why we shouldn’t consider that as a feasible alternative. Is that a reasonable question? MR. ABBATE-That’s fine. As long as it’s fair. That’s fine. MR. STONE-Do you agree, Jaime? MR. HAYES-It’s a feasible alternative. MR. URRICO-I have one other question that may be related. That parcel that’s sort of being held out as possible, land bank, as possible space down the road, do we know how many spaces that would provide, and, if it’s used, how would that affect the permeability, because that would obviously reduce the permeability. 21 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/24/04) MR. FITAMANT-Yes. That would be 39 cars. MR. URRICO-Okay. MR. HAYES-Which would make for what ratio? MR. STONE-Three point what? MR. FITAMANT-Would bring that up to a 3.8. I don’t have a calculator. MR. HAYES-38.1. MR. FITAMANT-3.81. MR. STONE-3.81? MR. HAYES-Yes. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. URRICO-And the only reason you’re not using that right now is to provide the extra permeability, extra green space? MR. FITAMANT-Correct. MR. URRICO-And how would that change the permeability, if you got to a point where you had to use that? MR. FITAMANT-Well, 39 spaces times 9 times 18, just rough numbers, is equal to an area of. MR. HAYES-6,318 square feet. MR. FITAMANT-So say 10,000 square feet. MR. HAYES-What’s the overall square footage? MR. FITAMANT-It’s 17.74 acres. MR. HAYES-It’s not going to change it that much. MR. BROWN-Yes. I think, rather than trying to speculate, they can certainly crunch all those numbers and come up with some real things for you. MR. FITAMANT-Yes. MR. STONE-I mean, I really would, I’m asking you to volunteer to allow us to table it, so that you can answer these questions. I think you’ve got, I know Mr. Brown has suggested specific, but I think you’ve got specific questions that, basically, can you show us that the, how 763 parking spaces will impact the community in terms of traffic, not a traffic study. I’m not trying to get into a site plan study, but how do you think, qualitatively, how do you think it’s going to, I mean, that’s the concern we have. So if you can address our comments, our questions qualitatively, would be helpful. MR. BROWN-And just for my clarity, so I understand what you want when they submit it to me, you want that to include Mr. Abbate’s concerns about the comparison of the Wilton store? MR. STONE-Yes. 22 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/24/04) MR. ABBATE-Would you, please? MR. FITAMANT-Or any store? MR. STONE-Or any store. MR. ABBATE-Or any store. Because I just said that out of the concern of the letter from Nace Engineering, when they refer to Wilton Wal-Mart site having 4.9 spaces. That’s the only reason I mentioned Wilton, but certainly feel free to use any store you feel is appropriate. MR. STONE-I mean, certainly you have a better handle on demographics than we do. Is the clientele at Wilton the same kind of clientele that’s here? MR. UNDERWOOD-The Wilton store is not a superstore. MR. STONE-No, it’s not a superstore. You’re right. MR. UNDERWOOD-What I would think would make more sense to do would be to take your. MR. BROWN-It’s a superstore. MR. UNDERWOOD-Not the Wilton one. It’s just a regular one. MR. URRICO-No, it is a supercenter. MR. STONE-Is it a supercenter? MR. URRICO-It is a supercenter. MR. BROWN-It’s a supercenter. MR. STONE-It’s a supercenter. Okay. Identical in size to this one? The only difference, therefore, is the site on which it sits, is that what you’re saying? Then that’s good. That’s a nice comparison. MR. ABBATE-Sure, that would be fine. MR. FITAMANT-So the comparison is already, you’ve got the numbers, then. You’ve got two buildings that are the same, 4.9 versus 3.3. MR. MC NULTY-What percentage of their parking lot is usually filled? MR. FITAMANT-What is the word “usually”? MR. STONE-Yes, okay. MR. MC NULTY-Or worst case. MR. FITAMANT-I don’t see an end to this discussion, is the problem that I’m faced with. I need more direction as to what is it that would be acceptable. MR. STONE-Okay. Since I don’t know how the traffic patterns are around the Wilton Supercenter, I mean, I’m looking at your site over here. There’s Route 9, and there’s Weeks Road, and a couple of traffic lights. I don’t know if that’s easier or harder access down in Saratoga. I would like to hear comments about that. MR. FITAMANT-With the bus stop here, I don’t know what percentage of their shoppers are. 23 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/24/04) MR. STONE-Have you ever seen the bus service in this town? There may be two people going from Fort Edward to your store, in any run, and I’m being kind. Am I not? Folks who have seen the bus. We don’t get an awful lot of bus traffic. Believe me. It’s a great service, but it doesn’t impact a lot of people. MR. ABBATE-You know what I think is important, and since you gentlemen raised the issue, apparently it’s critical to you, and I would love to share it with this Board, your, some explanation, it doesn’t have to be this evening, as to what’s meant by that there are subtle differences from store to store, and that would help us, help certainly me, appreciate what you’re trying to say. MR. URRICO-The whole commuting, the demographics, the senior population, maybe 30% of their business is seniors that get bussed in. Those are the subtle differences I’m alluding to. MR. ABBATE-Yes, well, that’s critical. I think you should include that. MR. STONE-I’d like to know that. MR. ABBATE-Yes, I’d like to know that. MR. FITAMANT-That’s an incredible study. I don’t know how to disseminate that information to you in one week. MR. STONE-Well, I think we’re asking you to try. I understand your frustration. I mean, if I were sitting there, I would be just as frustrated. I know you came up, I guess, from New Jersey. It’s a long way, but we’re concerned, and that’s our charge, and I don’t want to get in to defend what we’ve done, what we’re doing. We feel this is what we need, and I think it’s unanimous. I haven’t heard anybody say, Lew, you’re going overboard. MR. FITAMANT-Chairman Stone, if I would, though, before we started this conversation, we had polled everyone, and the parking, everyone was yes, and on the permeability, everyone would be a no vote, and I’ve seen a total switch on that. So what I’m getting at, is I’m not. MR. STONE-That’s a good point. You’re right in your observation. I think what I’ve heard is the size of the building, which, to me, and I’m interpreting, I agree, impacts parking more than it does the permeability at this point. So, yes, we’ve probably said the opposite, but I think we meant the other. MR. FITAMANT-Well, then this prolonged discussion was fruitful. MR. STONE-Yes. MR. FITAMANT-Because now we have a focus. MR. STONE-Yes. MR. ABBATE-Yes, any time you come before this Board it’s fruitful. MR. UNDERWOOD-I would also make a recommendation. I think that you can use specific other retail stores that are, you know, such as Price Chopper or Hannaford in Town, you can get a pretty good handle if you went down to Price Chopper for a day and sat there and counted cars, just to see how many cars were in that lot, what happened at peak times of the day when people are shopping, and I think that, you know, if you compared the size of that lot down there to the lot that you have in front of the present Ames store there, comparatively, whether or not that same amount of cars would fit on that lot would give us a pretty good indication as to whether or not this was going to work. 24 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/24/04) MR. FITAMANT-If, and I’m just thinking out loud, and I might get in trouble for this, from Wal-Mart, just I just, I heard the testimony or the comment from the objector regarding the parking, and he suggested perhaps the purchase of the adjacent property, the Flower Drum Song. If, and I see that the only way to increase parking on this particular site, would be to acquire more property, and, having said that, if parking, and I’m looking for a solution to all this. If parking were to become an issue, and if it were put, you know, just as the land banking is an agreement, if it were put that additional property would be required, by the applicant, Wal-Mart in this case, to be purchased at a fair share, reasonable cost, if that were an agreement, that would be amenable to the Board, would that? MR. STONE-I would think so. I mean, we’re talking, I mean, it all stems from size of building. Size of building, dependent on the lot on which it sits. MR. FITAMANT-And I know that the size of the building cannot be reduced. That is not, it’s just not Wal-Mart’s prototypical, and they would look to another site, before they go and. MR. STONE-Okay. Now, be careful. Don’t, when you start to say that, then we kind of arch our backs. MR. FITAMANT-Okay. I’m sorry. I retract that statement. MR. STONE-I prepared that speech coming over here. MR. MC NULTY-In their defense, I did raise that, and I think that is a reality that we do need to consider. That that is an option for Wal-Mart. MR. STONE-Yes. MR. FITAMANT-The only option I see with increased parking on this site would be to acquire more land, for this project to work. MR. STONE-Well, let me ask Staff. Can we say we’ll give you the thing if you get, or if you buy more land? MR. BROWN-No, I’d caution you to not do that. MR. STONE-Yes, I wouldn’t do that. I didn’t think we would do that. MR. BROWN-If they offer, we have this land and we’ll put it aside if we need parking in the future, sure, but I don’t think you can speculate on, if we get more land. MR. STONE-Right, and I wouldn’t go there. MR. FITAMANT-I may not see you at the next meeting since I may not be employed anymore. Making that recommendation. MR. STONE-Nobody heard you. I would offer to table this, so that you have adequate time to prepare the answers to the questions raised in this Board, concerning the effect on 763 parking spaces on this site, and some of the attendant questions that you heard, but that’s the basic question that we’re raising. Does everybody agree with that? MR. FITAMANT-It may just be a physical limitation of how many people can fit in the building at any given time, and a line of 30 people at the registers, if that type of analysis or some comparison to parking can be done. MR. STONE-That’s the gentleman’s problem back there, in terms of how he handles his Staff, but those are valid concerns for you, and for us, too. 25 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/24/04) MR. FITAMANT-Would the Board be amenable to off street parking of the employees as a? MR. STONE-We can’t control that. MR. FITAMANT-Okay. MR. MC NULTY-Well, I would think that would be an argument for them. If you’ve got, I don’t know how many employees there at a given time, but say 40 employees and 40 cars, providing a 40 car parking lot somewhere else and bussing the employees in. MR. STONE-That’s an alternative. MR. MC NULTY-As a worst case alternative, if you had to, off site, would be a legitimate argument. MR. FITAMANT-And would that satisfy the Board, in terms of? MR. STONE-I’d like to see it, I, personally, would like to see it spelled out. I mean, when we start wheeling and dealing with the public sitting here, I mean, not that we don’t do anything, we always do it in the public eye, but I would like to be able to read it. MR. FITAMANT-Okay. MR. MC NULTY-Yes. If you could come back and say that normal cases, 760 will meet our needs because we’re only going to have X number of people in the grocery section and X number in the merchandise section, but come Christmas time, it’s conceivable that it would go over, and if it does, then having employees park someplace else is a failsafe for that particular time. MR. FITAMANT-I’ll put that before the Board right now as a question. MR. STONE-Okay, but I think we all, that’s noted, and we thank you, but I would like to table it for a month, to answer those particular questions, and I can guarantee you we’ll have a short discussion. MR. FITAMANT-I tried to move forward. MR. STONE-I know you did. I mean, I don’t hear me being pushed by my Board to do anything but table it. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 38-2003 WAL-MART STORES, INC., Introduced by Lewis Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Paul Hayes: Until the second meeting in April, April 28, at which time the applicant will have prepared th written answers to the questions raised about the effect of the 763 parking spaces on the overall neighborhood. Duly adopted this 24 day of March, 2004, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Underwood, Mr. Abbate, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Urrico, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Stone NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Bryant MR. STONE-We would like that information, so that we can, when do we have to advertise for that meeting? 26 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/24/04) MR. BROWN-Well, I think you’ve held the public hearing. There’s no. MR. STONE-Well, I’m going to open it back up again, too. MR. BROWN-Okay. I mean, there’s not a need to notify. We wouldn’t have to re-advertise. That’s why I’m trying to hammer it out right now, so whoever’s here, they can know when the next meeting is. It’ll be published. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. BROWN-But, typically our notes go out to you guys the Friday before the meeting. MR. STONE-Right. MR. BROWN-I don’t have a calendar in front of me, but, it would probably be realistic to think that if we had two or three days to review that information and prepare those notes. MR. STONE-So that’ll go out with Staff notes on Friday the 23. rd MR. BROWN-So probably if we had it by the Monday, which would be the 19, we could th probably have time to get you the notes by that Friday. MR. STONE-Okay. Is that acceptable? MR. FITAMANT-Yes. MR. STONE-The 19 of April. th MR. STONE-Okay, and for the purposes of continuing your discussion, I will re-open the public hearing, and I will leave it open until we meet again. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN MR. FITAMANT-Okay. MR. BROWN-I would probably guess it may be prudent to not go with the Sign, you can decide, but not go with the Sign Variance. If the result of this is that the building size changes, well, maybe the sign package might change, too. You can think about that. MR. STONE-Okay. Would you be willing to adjourn that? MR. ABBATE-Yes, that’s a good point. MR. HENTSCHKE-We’d like to get your feedback, at least. MR. BROWN-Okay, that’s fine. It’s just a thought. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. ABBATE-Okay. SIGN VARIANCE NO. 71-2003 SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED WAL-MART STORES, INC. AGENT: PERRY L. BUTCHER & ASSOC., ARCH OWNER: NATIONAL REALTY ZONING: HC-INT. LOCATION: 891 ROUTE 9 APPLICANT PROPOSES AN OVERSIZED FREESTANDING SIGN AND NUMEROUS ADDITIONAL WALL SIGNS AND SEEKS RELIEF FROM THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE SIGN ORDINANCE. CROSS 27 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/24/04) REFERENCE: SPR 25-2003, AV 38-2003 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 7/9/03 AND 2/11/04 LOT SIZE: 11.29 ACRES AND 6.46 ACRES SECTION: 140-6 B(3) PETER HENTSCHKE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. STONE-Now, which argument do we read now? MR. HENTSCHKE-The March. The March one, the latest one. Please. MR. STONE-Here, this is the March one, here. Just read the comments for the Sign Variance, and the freestanding sign. MR. MC NULTY-And we’re excerpting from the March 9 letter to pertinent parts on the Sign Variance. Regarding the building Sign Variance. “Building Signage. The applicant seeks relief from the Town Code requirements for the number and size of allowable building signs (Town Code § 140-6B(3)(c)). This variance proposes that 23 smaller signs, totaling approximately 669 s.f. be allowed for the Wal-Mart Supercenter instead of the two 300 s.f. signs that would otherwise be allowed for this property. 1. Neighborhood Character. The character of the neighborhood will not be adversely impacted by granting this variance to allow smaller, but more signs on the proposed Wal-Mart Supercenter. The proposed variance would benefit the community by promoting safety and general welfare to customers by effectively directing vehicular and pedestrian traffic to the most convenient and efficient routes to the desired services. Additionally, the Sign Variance would allow more signage on the front of the store which faces Route 9 commercial corridor, but reduce the signage on the northern side of the store which faces the apartment complexes located on the north side of Weeks Road. Under Town Code § 140-6B(2)(b)(1), the applicant would be permitted a sign of up to 210 square feet on this northern wall. However, Wal-Mart would place no signage on this wall. Additionally, the signs on this storefront will be very difficult to see from other properties, including Route 9, due to the approximately 480 foot setback from the Route 9 property line and the extensive landscaping proposed along Route 9. The granting of the variance would not impact the neighborhood in an adverse way. 2. Feasible Alternatives. Due to the variety of services to be offered at the Supercenter, (including grocery, tire and lube services, general retail, optical, pharmacy, etc.), it is much safer and more practical to direct customers to the most efficient and convenient routes for accessing the various areas of the store. The best way to do this is to provide building mounted signs identifying where the various service areas can be located within the store. 3. Whether Variance is Substantial. The variance seeks relief to allow 6 additional signs, for an additional 281.62 square feet on the front of the building (when allowed 1 sign of up to 300 square feet). Although the variance may seem large, it should be kept in mind that the applicant would forgo 210 square feet of signage which it could otherwise place on the north side of the building, and the total signage proposed for the store front (601.62 square feet) is very small when compared with the total surface area of the store front (16,000 square feet), and would amount to only about 3.7% coverage, not very substantial when compared against the 25% sign area to wall area allowed in the code. 4. Effect on Physical or Environmental Conditions. The granting of the requested relief will not adversely impact the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. 5. Self-Created Difficulty. The Statute provides that, even if a difficulty is self-created, it “shall not necessarily preclude the granting of the area variance”. In this case, the “difficulty” is really more related to the variety of different products and services provided at a Wal-Mart Supercenter and the practical need to identify for the customers where these services are located within the Supercenter. To the extent the need for the variance is a self-created difficulty, it should not preclude the granting of this variance. Freestanding Pylon Sign Variance 1. Neighborhood Character. The applicant requests a variance for a 116 square feet pylon sign at the main entrance of the proposed Supercenter. The larger sign will allow the location and main entrance of the store to be safely seen above the increased vegetation and landscaping proposed along this stretch of Route 9. The site plan has incorporated significant landscaping along Route 9 in response to the suggestions made during site plan review and to comply with suggested design guidelines for the Upper Route 9 Corridor pursuant to Town Code § 179-7-050. The proposed relief is sought to allow customers and delivery trucks to identify the main entrance to the 28 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/24/04) Supercenter on Route 9. The property currently has two pylon signs, one at each entrance along Route 9. The applicant is proposing to remove both existing pylon signs (with a combined total of about 106 square feet) and to place the proposed sign at the northern (signalized) Route 9 access driveway. We understand that similar variance requests have been granted for other applicants for commercial business along the Route 9 corridor, such as Home Depot, which we understand received 200 square feet of relief for one of its pylon signs. 2. Feasible Alternatives. A smaller sign would require less dense landscaping and vegetation along Route 9 to allow customers and delivery trucks to identify the main entrance to the store. A smaller sign would be more difficult to see along this stretch of Route 9 and a smaller sign would therefore be less safe for automobiles seeking to enter the Wal-Mart Supercenter. 3. Whether Variance is Substantial. The size of the main entrance sign will be in keeping with the size of the landscaped buffer, and allow vehicles traveling along Route 9 to safely locate the main entrance to the proposed Supercenter. 4. Effect on Physical or Environmental Conditions. The granting of the requested relief should not adversely impact the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. 5. Self-Created Difficulty. The Statute provides that, even if a difficulty is self-created, it “shall not necessarily preclude the granting of the area variance”. ” STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Sign Variance No. 71-2003, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Meeting Date: March 24, 2004 “Project Location: 891 Route 9 Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes a 116 sq. ft. freestanding sign at a 25-foot setback, and 23 wall signs totaling 669.07 sq. ft. Relief Requested: The applicant requests 52 sq. ft. of relief from the 64 sq. ft. maximum size requirement for freestanding signs at a 25-foot setback, per §140-6(B2a). Additionally, the applicant requests relief to allow for 23 wall signs totaling 669.07 sq. ft., where two wall signs are allowed. Being the applicant proposes to consolidate parcels 296.17-1-36 and 296.17-1-37 resulting in a corner lot, one wall sign is allowed for the façade facing State Route 9 (up to 300 sq. ft. due to a 478.5-foot setback from State Route 9), and one is allowed for the façade facing Weeks Road (up to 210 sq. ft. due to the proposed 218-foot setback from Weeks Road), per §140-6(B2b1) and (B3c). However, the applicant proposes no wall signs for the Weeks Road façade. Relief Required: For the freestanding sign, the relief required is the same as the applicant has requested: 52 sq. ft. of relief from the 64 sq. ft. maximum size requirement at a 25-foot setback, per §140-6(B2a). For the wall signage, the relief required has been determined to be different from that requested. It has been determined (see the attached table with determination) the applicant requires relief for 18 additional wall signs, with a total area of 476.99 sq. ft. (19 total signs with a combined area of 725.49 sq. ft., with the 248.5 sq. ft. “Wal-Mart Supercenter” sign being the only one allowed by code as submitted). Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): SV 71-2003: tabled on 02/18/04. SP 25-2003: to be reviewed on 02/17/04, 95,217 sq. ft. addition to existing Wal-Mart and associated site modifications. BP 95-1864: 10/04/95, 43.21 sq. ft. freestanding sign for Ames. BP 95-1848: 08/31/95, 19.32 sq. ft. sign (McDonald’s logo - golden arches). BP 95-1809: 07/18/95, 63 sq. ft. freestanding sign for Wal-Mart. SV 58-1993 (part 1): denied 07/21/93, for an 80 sq. ft. freestanding sign for Wal-Mart. SV 58-1993 (part 2): approved 07/21/93, to allow for 12 wall signs with a combined area of 622 sq. ft. SV 57-1993: denied 07/21/93, for a 99 sq. ft. freestanding sign for Ames. 29 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/24/04) SP 31 93: resolved 07/20/93, 121,226 sq. ft. Wal-Mart. AV11-93: resolved 02/24/93, side setback and permeability relief for a 121,226 sq. ft. Wal-Mart. Numerous other sign permits and building permits for both parcels. Staff comments: Wall signage: Even though the applicant has requested relief to allow for 23 wall signs with a total area of 669.07 sq. ft. (relief needed for 22 wall signs with a total area of 420.57 sq. ft.), it has been determined the application as submitted requires relief for 18 wall signs, with a total area of 476.99 sq. ft., not including the “Wal-Mart Supercenter” sign at 248.5 sq. ft., which is the one wall sign allowed by code (being the applicant is not proposing any wall signage for the façade facing Weeks Road). The required relief for 18 wall signs with a total area of 476.99 sq. ft. when only one at 300 sq. ft. is allowed (as proposed) might be considered substantial. Even if the 210 sq. ft. of wall signage the applicant is entitled to on the Weeks Road façade is considered, which the applicant has chosen to forgo, the amount of relief required might still be considered substantial, when considering relief is still required for 17 wall signs even though the total square footage requiring relief would be 52.4% (266.99/ 510). For the freestanding sign, 52 sq. ft. of relief from the 64 sq. ft. maximum requirement at a 25-foot setback is 81.25% more than that allowed by code.” MR. STONE-Let me just confirm, because there was a question raised by one of my members, and I’ll raise it now. The February 5, three color drawings are the latest ones? B.J. PHILLIPS MR. PHILLIPS-Yes. MR. STONE-Okay. There was an earlier set that somebody raised a question about. Okay. MR. PHILLIPS-We’ve gone through many, many iterations. MR. STONE-I’m sure you have. Just before, if anybody is here for the Newbury application, who was not here before, we will not be hearing that tonight. Okay. MR. HENTSCHKE-Do we want to talk about the pylon or the building sign first? Is there an order that you’d prefer? Pylon. MR. STONE-Let’s talk about the pylon first. MR. HENTSCHKE-The freestanding pylon sign, I think, first of all, do we have a picture of it to put up? I want to show you two pictures, one of the pylon sign itself, and one of the vegetation that we’re proposing. Again, this is to comply with the Upper Route 9 Design Guidelines for vegetation and it’s kind of difficult to see the sign, but the reason we need this sign to be 116 square feet in size is so that people can safely see the main entrance to the building, with these trees. When they get to be this size, I guess we estimated it would be 10 or 15 years, or whatever that was, we need to have people be able to get to that intersection, and this is the signalized intersection, by the way. There’s also a southern access over here, but this is going to draw people to this safer signalized intersection. So given this enhanced vegetation, we need a style that can be seen, so people can safely get in. Also, more importantly, in terms of neighborhood character, driving up and down Route 9 you’ll see a lot of signs, pylon signs that are bigger than what we’re requesting. I believe the Home Depot, which I think we might have a little picture of, we mentioned that, they’ve got a couple of pylon signs there, and one of them, I think, is 264 square feet. So they’ve got 200 square feet of relief for their larger pylon sign is what I was told. They look about the same size, but this one is the bigger pylon sign. So this is a humongous sign. Ours is, you know, we’re asking for one sixteen. Just one sign. So I think, 30 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/24/04) proportionally, you know, and their vegetation, look at the vegetation they have there. I don’t see any vegetation. Maybe they just planted it, too, but I don’t see any area. I mean, I think it’s not a lot to ask. I think it’s in keeping with the neighborhood character. In fact, we’re going to be improving the neighborhood character with the vegetation. So I would say to the Board that it’s not really feasible to reduce that. Given the vegetation that we’re proposing along there, and given the neighborhood character, you know, Home Depot signs, this size Wal-Mart sign is going to be what we need so that people can safely get in to the main entrance. MR. STONE-And this is going to be at 25 feet? MR. HENTSCHKE-Correct. Not higher. MR. STONE-So you don’t need a variance for the height. MR. HENTSCHKE-Correct, and I think that’s pretty much the main point I wanted to make. Everything else was pretty much spelled out. MR. STONE-So this is going to go up, pardon me, I want to call it Lums, but that’s a reincarnation, but up near the restaurant which is coming down, it’ll be. MR. HENTSCHKE-The Diner, right. There’s an Ames sign there now, which is, incidentally the combined total, I think this came up in the notes, too, the combined total of those two pylon signs is 106 square feet. So we’re looking for 10 extra square feet above the combined total of pylon signs now existing on the site. MR. HAYES-Between the two. MR. HENTSCHKE-Exactly. The two. We’re switching to one, but we’re asking for. MR. STONE-Okay. Any questions on the pylon sign? MRS. HUNT-The pylon sign is going to run east and west then? Is that it? MR. HAYES-Just like they do now. MR. HENTSCHKE-That’s correct. MR. STONE-In other words, perpendicular to the storefront, and two sides, and the traffic. MR. HENTSCHKE-Exactly. MR. URRICO-What will be the size of the vegetation that you spoke of on there, when it’s initially put in? MR. HENTSCHKE-Initially put in. GIRARD FITAMANT MR. FITAMANT-Girard Fitamant, Langan Engineering. The tree selection goes by caliper, not necessarily by height, and I believe the caliper for the initial plantings is two and a half inches, and I will verify that, on the landscape plan. MR. STONE-I thought we talked three inches. Didn’t we? Not here, I thought that was the minimum we were looking for these days. MR. HAYES-That’s what the Planning Board. MR. STONE-Did they say two and half? 31 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/24/04) MR. BROWN-Yes. I’m sure that the Planning Board is all over that one. MR. STONE-I’m sure they are. I just thought it had been three, that’s all. MR. BROWN-Yes. It’s going to vary between street trees, parking lot trees. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. FITAMANT-Three to three and a half inch caliper. MR. STONE-Three to three and a half. Okay. That’s what I kind of thought we were coming toward. MR. FITAMANT-If I were to estimate a height, though, at probably eight feet, ten feet. MR. STONE-Okay. Any other questions about the pylon sign? MR. HAYES-It would be at least that, I think, at three inches. MR. BROWN-Yes, I think probably conservatively you’re probably looking at 12 or 13 feet for a three inch diameter tree. I would guess, for starters. MR. STONE-Okay. Do you want to make your argument for the wall signs? MR. HENTSCHKE-Love to. First I want to introduce B.J. Phillips from Perry Butcher and Associates. He’s with the architecture firm that designed the building and the wall signs. He’s going to just kind of what signs are there. There’s a number of signs, and there’s been some confusion about what signs are proposed for the building and how much relief is required, but we’re just going to describe what signs are proposed for the building. MR. STONE-All right. Have you guys worked out the discrepancy, Craig? MR. HENTSCHKE-Yes. MR. BROWN-Yes. I think Mr. Hentschke and Bruce spent countless hours in mulling over and coming to an agreement. I think the numbers that are in the Staff notes are reflective of exactly the signs that are proposed. MR. STONE-Your numbers. MR. BROWN-Yes. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. HENTSCHKE-Actually, we both had it off, essentially, I understand, but there’s a difference in interpretation of the requested relief, but for purposes tonight, we just want to talk about what we’re proposing, and, you know. MR. STONE-Okay. Go. MR. PHILLIPS-I know you all have these. Again, my name is B.J. Phillips from Perry Butcher Architects. I know you all have these packets that have our two sheets of elevations. On the rear, we’ve got an existing versus proposed signage sheet. It should be the very last page. MR. STONE-Right. 32 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/24/04) MR. PHILLIPS-And what I would like to point out is that, in all reality, what we are requesting to put on the store, in addition to what’s existing, is eight signs. We want the Supercenter, the Low Prices, the Food Center, the We Sell For Less, and then there’s the Bakery, Deli Meat and Produce. And in those eight signs there’s roughly 235 square feet. That’s above what’s existing today, and the reason we request those signs to go on the Supercenter is two fold. One, because they advertise or they let the customer know our services within the Bakery, Deli Meat and Produce. It tells you, you know, what this grocery side of the store has. You asked that question earlier, is it a full service grocery. Well, yes, it does. It’s got the bakery, deli meat and produce, and the Food Center and the Low Prices signs designate which door of the store you want to align yourself with. If you’re coming in for groceries, you know that you want to be on the Food Center side of the building. If you’ve just come in to buy some tapes or a DVD, you want to be on the Low Prices side of the building. So you’re not dealing with all the traffic and customers on the other side of the building. MR. STONE-Are you saying the food prices won’t be low? MR. PHILLIPS-They will be low. MR. STONE-I just want to be sure. MR. PHILLIPS-Yes. The low prices is the sign we use to determine their retail side. Rather than the grocery side. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. PHILLIPS-So, basically, those are the primary additional signs that we would like to request. MR. HENTSCHKE-And going down the factors about considering why we think this should be a reasonable variance and is justified. I think a big, big factor is when you just take a step back and look at these elevations, and you look at neighborhood character. You’re not going to be able to see very much of these wall signs. With that setback and these trees, when they get to be this, it’s going to be very, people are going to be hard pressed to see the building signs. So that’s a key factor. Another really important thing is when you look at the elevations over here, take a look at how much square footage there is on this building, compared to the amount of signs. We’re talking about 16,000, roughly, square foot of frontage, building frontage, on the front side, and we’re proposing about 3.7% of that building frontage of signs. When you look at this elevation, I’ll submit that, I’m not sure that you’re going to find as low a ratio around. I mean, when you look, you’ve got to be honest about looking at that, just taking a look at the picture, the elevation. We drove around up and down Route 9 looking at buildings, and, for example, can you pop up that Staples? I mean, this is, you can’t, when you get to these smaller sized buildings, and they’ve got signage that gets, approaches that 25%, I mean, that’s an overwhelming sign. That’s too much sign for the building. We don’t believe that, if you compare this to other stores, that you could realistically have a problem with the amount of signage, proportionally, to the store. MR. STONE-I would only offer the obvious, there’s only one sign there. MR. HENTSCHKE-That’s true. MR. STONE-It’s a large one, but it’s one sign. MR. HENTSCHKE-Yes, it’s also, the big constraint that we have is that we’re offering a lot of different services at different parts of the building, too, going back to our rationale for these. The TLE is the key factor. On the front, we’ve got a TLE sign, and we want to put an arrow that shows that you go around to the south side of the building to get to the TLE, and on that south side, also, it’s largely obscured. We went back there to check how much screening there is. 33 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/24/04) There’s an eight and a half foot stockade fence along the property line right there at the TLE. There’s also some evergreens, some buffers. MR. STONE-May the record reflect you mean Tire and Lube Express. MR. HENTSCHKE-Yes, please, thank you. The Tire and Lube Express area, the automotive section, which we need signs to direct somebody coming in how to get to that portion of the store. Also, within the TLE itself, there’s different, little signs above the different bays because they offer different services there. There’s tires. You can change tires, put on snow tires, or there’s also a Lube Express for your oil changes, and those little signs mounted above those doors, they’re small signs. They’re less than four square feet each. Those little signs are directional. They tell people which bay to pull in to. It’s for public safety and public convenience. I think those are the main arguments that we think, you know, basically it comes down to, when you look at that building, you look at the signage we’re proposing, and the elevations, compare that to others. This is not a lot of signage for that building. We think it looks good. It’s going to be obscured by the vegetation in the front, the sides. People aren’t going to be able to see it very much. We’re proposing to take the stuff that’s on Weeks Road. We could put stuff on Weeks Road, then the guys in the apartment complex across Weeks are going to be looking at advertising or whatever, directional signs on that side. We’d just as soon put that on the front, which is going to be obscured from, again, obscured from Route 9 and we think it makes more sense to do it that way. MR. STONE-Okay. You brought up a word that I was about to bring up, advertising, and you called these signs advertising, and that’s one of the problems that I have. You advertise, your client, advertises extensively on television all the time. Low prices, smiling yellow faces. As somebody who used to be in advertising, truth and accuracy, I have a lot of problems with some of the things I think I see, but that’s another issue. The point is, these are not advertising. Advertising is Wal-Mart Supercenter. I mean, that’s what you are, and I think you’re going to tell the people, in my judgment, right now, you’re telling the people, here’s a Supercenter, and all of these things that you’re going to talk about in advertising, they’re going to know because it’s Wal-Mart. I mean, you’ve got to have faith in your own advertising, I think, and not do it all over the walls. I mean, that’s where I’m coming from. I’m not saying I’m solidified on that, but that’s where I’m starting to come from. So, that’s my comment at the moment. MR. ABBATE-Without presupposing your intent, is it possible that you were attempting to state that the signs are more for pedestrian control, so to speak? MR. PHILLIPS-Yes, absolutely. I would say that the signs are there to provide safety and for the public, when they come in to the parking lot, they know which side, so they’re not driving back and forth across the parking lot. They know which side of the building they want to align with. They’ll know, you know, where they’re going, what they need to do. It saves time and effort and safety as well. MR. HENTSCHKE-Yes. Like B.J. was saying, we’re saying that these are directional because they show you where in the store those services are located. It’s not just like we’re putting, you know, if we put signs on Weeks Road that says, you know, Tire and Lube Express there, cars would be confused, people would be confused about where to go, and that wouldn’t be safe or convenient for anybody. I mean, these are, somebody who wants to go to the Optical Center is going to look at the store, when they get inside, because again, you’re not going to be able to see it very well from Route 9. You get inside to the parking lot, and you can see up against the wall there’s a small sign that says Optics, and then you can know which door you should go into of those two doors, and it’s not around the side. It’s not where the TLE is. So it’s directional. MR. STONE-That sign you threw up, Craig, where did that come from? MR. BROWN-Which one, the Staples? MR. STONE-The Tire and Lube Express, with the Quaker State over it. 34 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/24/04) MR. BROWN-Where did it come from? It’s existing right now. MR. STONE-That’s what’s there now, that big, huge sign? MR. BROWN-Let me put it up and see if it’s the one you’re talking about. MR. HENTSCHKE-The Quaker State sign, we’re not proposing to replace that sign, for your. MR. STONE-That’s what’s there on the south side? MR. HENTSCHKE-Right. MR. STONE-Okay. Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes. I have to understand this. Now, I pull into one of the 763 spots. Now I have to also be concerned as to where in the store I’m going to. So now I have to figure out which side of the store I’m going to. MR. HENTSCHKE-First you’ll figure out what side of the store you’re going to, and then you’ll decide which parking space to pull in to. MR. URRICO-But I have to know where I’m going first. If I can’t see the sign from the road. MR. HENTSCHKE-Are you playing with me? MR. URRICO-Will both entrances be main entrances? I mean, you’re going to have shopping carts and a greeter at both places? MR. HENTSCHKE-Right. That’s my understanding. MR. STONE-And you can walk from one to the other. Once you’re inside the store, you really won’t know where you are. I mean, except for the merchandise, unless you look at the outside signs. MR. HENTSCHKE-That’s an honest answer, though. People are going to come in, somebody comes in to Queensbury, visitor. They see, okay, a Supercenter, I know that there’s groceries there. I know there’s general merchandise there. I just want to get some food. So you see the Food Center sign. They’re going to know where to go for the groceries portion. If that’s what they’re really interested in. MR. STONE-That’s two signs. MR. URRICO-That brings me to my next question. If I know I’m going for meat, I think the Food Center sign would be sufficient for me to know what side of the store to go to. I only have two entrances to choose from. MR. HENTSCHKE-That’s a, it’s a point. I would say that some of the, there’s things like bakeries there. This is, goes back to the prior comments. B.J. had a good response to that. I mean, not at every grocery store you’re not going to have the deli and produce. MR. URRICO-But it’s a Supercenter. It’s a Wal-Mart. MR. HENTSCHKE-I know, but you could just put one Supercenter on the front, and that’s not going to be enough. People are going to be. MR. URRICO-But in some locations, that’s all you have, right? 35 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/24/04) PHIL PREHODA MR. PREHODA-Phil Prehoda, Store Manager. Just a quick thing on this comment. I come from a different Supercenter, from Ticonderoga. There’s different prototypes for Supercenters. Even though (lost words) Supercenter up there, we did not offer the amenities that this store would offer in Queensbury. In other words, it didn’t have a deli when we first opened up. It did not have a seafood department. It did not have a bakery in this particular store. So as customers come into each individual area, or each individual store, I mean, not every Wal-Mart Supercenter is identical. So with this size store, obviously they offer the full amenities at this particular Supercenter, and I know from past working in that particular store for the last five years, that I had a lot of visiting people that come up that were used to shopping other supercenters say, hey, where’s your deli, hey, where’s this, where’s that, and like I said, we did have what we had on the outside of the building, but unfortunately people see the Supercenter, it doesn’t necessarily mean you had the full variety of items involved in the store. So, I’m not sure if that helped clarify that or not, but. MR. STONE-It’s your position, valid position. MR. PREHODA-I just wanted to bring that up, help you clarify that statement. MR. ABBATE-Would that also, you talk about pedestrian traffic. Does that also address senior moments? MR. HENTSCHKE-No comment. MR. STONE-Anybody else have any comments? Okay. Let me open the public hearing. Anybody wishing to speak in favor of the Sign Variance request, two issues, one, the freestanding pylon sign, and the other the number and area of the wall signs. Anybody wishing to speak in favor of? In favor? Anybody opposed? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MARK HOFFMAN DR. HOFFMAN-Mark Hoffman, Fox Hollow Lane. With regard to the pylon sign, they used the comparison with the Home Depot. It’s unfortunate that that happened. I have no idea why that variance was granted. It’s a hideous appearing sign. It’s a serious detriment to the appearance of the area, but I see no reason to compound the problem by adding additional ugliness to the road. As far as being able to see it from the roadway, this is not a super highway. The maximum speed that should be, I forget what the limit it, but. MR. URRICO-Forty. DR. HOFFMAN-Forty miles per hour is not a super highway speed. People should be able to see, if they’re traveling carefully at a reasonable speed, they should be able to see a reasonably sized sign. I think the Queensbury Sign Variance is more than reasonable, in terms of allowing adequate signage. In terms of the store signs, it appears to me that basically the difference between what they have now and what will be built is that there will now be a Food Store in addition to all the other services that they have, and I don’t see that there’s a huge amount of additional signage that’s needed to provide that additional information. You could subdivide things as much as you want. You could have a sign that says, you know, deodorant section. You could have a sign for toothpaste and so forth, but I don’t see that we need to have excessive subdivision, in terms of signs. So I would encourage you to stick to the current Sign Ordinance and avoid setting additional adverse precedents. MR. ABBATE-Question, sir, before you leave. Would you agree that ugliness is subjective? 36 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/24/04) DR. HOFFMAN-Yes, but I think that one could take a poll and I think you might get close to a consensus. There are many communities that attract tourists, attract visitors, purely because they’re beautiful to go to, and they’re certain characteristics of those communities, and they don’t happen by accident. They happen because the Planning and Zoning Boards and Zoning Codes desire a certain pattern to make the town what it is. MR. ABBATE-Thank you. MR. STONE-Anybody else wishing to speak? Any correspondence? MR. MC NULTY-We have two pieces of correspondence. One is from Robert Eddy. He says, “Please deny this variance for an oversized freestanding sign and numerous additional wall signs. There is no need for this additional signage. This will be such a large building, it will speak for itself, and everyone will know what they have to offer when they get there. Other applicants for variances will use approval of this variance as an example.” MR. STONE-What was the address? Did you say it? MR. MC NULTY-Address for Mr. Eddy? MR. STONE-Yes. MR. MC NULTY-17 Owen Avenue. MR. STONE-Thank you. And then we have an e-mail from Thomas McMorris, addressed to Craig Brown, Zoning Administrator, and the Zoning Board of Appeals. He says, “I was just reading in Sunday’s Post Star about Wal-Mart’s proposed expansion. The article prompted me to write you expressing my concerns about the current and future traffic flow problems on Route 9 by Wal-Mart. I feel strongly that George Goetz’s suggestion of one entrance/exit with a traffic light and an access road to Ray Supply is much safer than the current traffic pattern. With the traffic flow from Wal-Mart interrupted periodically by a light it would help people who want to turn into the businesses in that stretch of road. Hopefully some of your members were driving and trying to shop on Route 9 on Saturday (Dec. 20). I have lived in this area all of my life and have never seen so much traffic and congestion by Wal-Mart as I did on Saturday. There was a steady stream of cars coming out of Wal-Mart parking lot southbound on Route 9. That steady stream of cars southbound is just the reason I am writing to you. Even on a slow traffic day it is very difficult to turn out of or into any of the businesses north of the McDonald’s/Home Depot traffic light. My wife and I usually shop in Queensbury at least once a week and we like to go to Pizza Hut to eat and Ray Supply to shop, but it is becoming increasingly difficult to get into and out of their parking lots. With the proposed expansion of Wal-Mart, I can only see traffic becoming more and more of a problem. As for the New York State Department of Transportation’s approval of the traffic flow plan, I can only say they could not have studied the traffic patterns as well as they should have or they would have seen the current traffic problems and not have approved keeping the southbound turning lane. I would urge you to take this opportunity to solve not only a current problem, but also a potentially huge future problem. I also e-mailed this letter to the Queensbury Planning Board expressing my concerns. Sincerely, Thomas McMorris” And that’s it. MR. STONE-Okay. Let me close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. STONE-Come forward, gentlemen. Comments from what you’ve heard? MR. HENTSCHKE-Yes. Please. Just a quick response from the public comments about the Home Depot sign. We agree that the Home Depot sign is hideous and it’s too big and there’s no vegetation. I don’t think there’s any question, but it’s also much bigger than the sign we’re proposing, and also it’s much more obtrusive. It’s right there. I understand their smaller Home 37 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/24/04) Depot sign also got a variance to make it closer to the street, to Route 9. So, again, I want to direct your attention to the vegetation plan that shows, you know, with the dense vegetation, that’s a very unobtrusive sign, that little, I mean, that’s drawn to scale. So, just to keep in mind the big picture, and keep looking at what the scale, the broader context. Also, just to, I don’t know if we need to address some of the other comments. Most of those sounded like they’re related to site plan issues. Traffic’s been studied, and there is an interconnect that’s been proposed. We’re going to build the interconnect. So, those comments, I think, have been addressed. MR. STONE-Okay. Would you comment, when I was there the other day, a couple of weeks ago, before the last meeting, I thought there were an awful lot of temporary signs on the walls. I mean, the three soda machines are, in fact, huge signs, sitting on the wall, and there were some other paper signs advertising this or that. It just seemed like an awful lot of signs on the wall, which would not, it doesn’t require permits. I’m not saying they did. Now I’m not saying they were in violation. They were just violating my vision. That was all. MR. HENTSCHKE-Sensibilities and. MR. STONE-Yes. MR. HENTSCHKE-Did you have any sense how many signs we’ve got out there, temporary signs? MR. STONE-Did any of you guys notice that when you were there? I mean, just the number of, and the soda signs, rather than, I mean, they’re huge. MR. URRICO-On the cart carousels, too. MR. STONE-The cart, yes. MR. HENTSCHKE-You know, I was just amazed, looking at the other stores, the signage on other stores up and down Route 9, I mean, they’ve got amazing amounts of coverage. If you include the banners that the hang on the inside of things, and the sort of temporary, I mean, I’m not sure if those are, I don’t know if they’re squeaking under some kind of exemption. MR. STONE-Now you can put signs in windows up to 25%, Craig, of the window area. Now those are temporary, you can hand letter signs, things like that. You also can, and you will hear us if you hang around, tonight there are, we do have a couple of shopping centers, one in particular, that has a fair amount of signs, because it has a fair amount of businesses. We allow that, to a point, and I’m not totally happy with it, but that’s what we allow, quite frankly. This is one business, and that’s where we’re concerned, at least I’m concerned. MR. HENTSCHKE-One business, right, but different services. I mean, you’ve got a place to get your hair cut, right, there’s going to be, a portrait studio, optical center, a bank, tire and lube center, on the side. I know we’ve gone over that stuff before. MR. STONE-Okay. What is, when this store opens, are you going to explain, is Wal-Mart going to explain to me, the average citizen, what a supercenter is? MR. HENTSCHKE-A supercenter is, depends on where you are. MR. STONE-Well, I’m here, here in Queensbury. MR. HENTSCHKE-That’s what we’re doing with the signs. MR. STONE-But you’re going to tell me what a supercenter is. I mean, so I’m going to know, I’m going to go to the Wal-Mart Supercenter. 38 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/24/04) MR. HENTSCHKE-I mean, it depends on the individual site, and what they can fit in there. MR. STONE-All right. Any other questions, comments? Well, let’s talk about it. The best we can do. Let’s start with Chuck Abbate. MR. ABBATE-Thank you. MR. STONE-Address both of them individually again. MR. ABBATE-All right. Wal-Mart stores, in my opinion, finds themselves in somewhat of a quagmire. Counsel for the applicant has pointed out various other stores in the area that have significant signs and what have you. Due to the fact, in my opinion, this will be a Wal-Mart Supercenter, with X number of parking spots and so on, I see the justification for the applicant requesting the number of signs that they are requesting. Thank you. MR. STONE-How about the freestanding sign? MR. ABBATE-I have no problems with the freestanding sign, particularly if you compared it with some of the other signs in the Town of Queensbury. MR. STONE-Okay. Joyce? MRS. HUNT-Yes. I have a question. The sign in this picture is blue and red, and on this drawing it’s green. MR. PHILLIPS-Which one are you referring to? MR. HAYES-The existing. MRS. HUNT-The existing sign. MR. PHILLIPS-On the store, as far as the, in the Wal-Mart, the badge area, that was changed at the request of the Planning Board. They wanted to see some more earth tones and greens. MRS. HUNT-Okay. Then the pylon will also have the green? That’s what it looks like to me, from here. MR. PHILLIPS-Yes, that is correct. We’ll match. MRS. HUNT-Yes. I have no problem with either one. I do think you need those signs to tell people what part of the parking lot they want to park in for the different services. So I have no problem. MR. STONE-Okay. Roy? MR. URRICO-I’ve been pretty consistent about this, and you pointed out one of the problems we’ve had in Queensbury, with the excessive signs, and the adverse effect it’s had by not keeping it under control. The sign pollution has certainly been a problem that we need to get under control and I don’t see how this is going to mitigate that problem. I see how it’s going to add to it. As far as the freestanding sign, I really think 64 feet of additional relief is far in excess of what we should be allowing. That’s just my opinion. As far as the wall signage, I think we’re way over the limit. The only thing we have to compare it to is the K-Mart Supercenter. I believe they have about eight signs. I may be wrong about that number, between six and eight, or something like that, and I just wonder what happens if, you know, Price Chopper comes forward and Hannaford comes forward, and all the other supermarkets saying, we want to list all our products in the front of our stores. It’s kind of hard, you know, we’re getting to a point here, where I think it’s really getting kind of ridiculous, and as far as I’m concerned, I’m going to have to use one of Wal-Mart’s terms and start rolling back here, because there’s no way I’m 39 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/24/04) approving going along with this. There’s two allowed. You’re asking for 19 total, and I think we’re going to have to come to a compromise as far as I’m concerned. MR. STONE-Jaime? MR. HAYES-Well, I certainly agree with Chuck, that, you know, in the overall analysis, Wal- Mart has to overcome certain obstacles that other applicants might not have to, and I think we have to keep that in mind, but we have to examine every application for its merits. In this particular case, I’m largely, and I’ll say largely, I’m going to agree with counselor’s arguments that I think if you step back and look at this building and look at the signage that’s been proposed, it’s actually a very small percentage. As I look at this diagram, it just doesn’t overwhelm me visually that I’m being overly stimulated with signage. It just doesn’t. I think the fact that it’s, you know, this building is gigantic, which it is. It’s a supercenter, and eventually Lew will figure out what that is, but it is a supercenter. It’s a large store. There is a wide range of services that are being offered here, and I think that that does mitigate, to some extent, the request that’s being made. I think counselor’s argument also that in this particular case, a large parking lot, a large store, that if I wasn’t from Queensbury, if I was here to see Lake George this summer, some signage is going to be beneficial, at least initially, to determining what part of this place I should be parking in, what services am I there for. If I was there for all of them, it wouldn’t matter, but a lot of times people aren’t. So, I think that, if I’m just there for the grocery store, I wouldn’t want to walk from the tire center to get groceries. So I think that that is an important thing. So I accept his argument that some of the things that are listed, the bakery, the deli, those type of things are going to tell me that that stuff is in the food center, even though I’ve heard, and partially agree with the argument that that’s in a food center. So as I look at your list of signages, the things over the bays, to me, are very inconsequential. They’re, you know, three feet, eight feet. I don’t think that that’s really meaningful from the distance that you’re talking about. I guess if any sign that seems a little bit, you know, inconsistent with your argument is the “We Sell For Less”. I think that that, to me, if you’re saying we need these signs to direct people, I think you do. I would accept that argument, but as Lew started to point out there, I think the “We Sell For Less”, that’s really just a sign that’s really, you know, self- promoting, and I’m not sure that that flows with the argument that you made, being that I accept really largely a large part of what you’re saying, I would not be in favor of that particular sign. I think the Tire and Lube Center, I think it’s on the other side of the building. I think that I would want to know where that is. So, on balance, I think there’s two signs there now. I think that Chuck has already pointed out, at least from a where we are and where we’re going standpoint, that there’s an Ames sign there now, which would probably stay for a long time. There’s two signs. We’re going to go to one. I mean, this property is being recycled, and the signage has got earth tones. The Planning Board has asked you for some changes, and I think, to me, they are consistent with the area that we live in, the greens and the browns. I think that those are Adirondack, as much as Wal-Mart can be. They are Adirondack oriented colors. So I think there’s, a great deal has gone into this plan. I’m really not troubled, you know, initially you look at the relief and say, wow, that’s a ton, you know, 19 where there’s supposed to be 2. That would seem like it might be DOA, but I think if you step back and look at it, I think that, outside of the “We Sell For Less” sign, I think that the overall signage is pretty consistent with the building and a building offering this many services. So I’ll be in favor of everything except Sign Number Four. MR. STONE-Chuck? MR. MC NULTY-I’m going to tend to side I think a little more with Roy. The pylon sign, yes, I’ll agree there’s a bunch of large signs on Route 9 now. I don’t think that necessarily means we want more. Frankly, I think the Home Depot set up was a mistake. I also get the reaction of, okay, maybe in 15 years from now, the larger sign’s going to be needed because of those trees, although we aren’t asking for additional height, to exceed the height of the trees. We’re just asking for a bigger sign so we see that, instead of the trees, and I’m not convinced that we need that size sign for visibility for Wal-Mart. At the same time, there is an element of fairness. Other places have been allowed large signs. So I’m kind of wavering on that one. I would like to see that pylon sign a bit smaller, but I might be convinced on that one. Regarding the wall 40 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/24/04) signs, there’s going to be two entrances on the front, and a tire and lube and whatever entrance on the side. I don’t see why we need something in the neighborhood of 19 signs to direct people to three entrances. I think a lot of them are just plain advertising that can be done elsewhere or inside the building. Certainly I can see the need for a general sign for the overall building that says something to the effect of Wal-Mart Supercenter. I could see something over the grocery store end that said grocery store or food center or something like that to say, okay, this is where you go for food, guys, and I could see something over the other entrance that indicates, this is where you go for dry goods or merchandise, but “Low Prices”, “We Sell For Less”, “Bakery”, “Deli”, “Meat”, “Produce”, “One Hour Photo”, I think a lot of those could be consolidated and not added to the front of the building. I can sooner see, perhaps, the need for the signs that are requested for the south side for the tire lube express section, because there is argument that one door for tires and another door for lube express, that sort of thing. So I don’t have as much of a problem with those. Also, they’re not immediately visible as soon as you drive in the parking lot. So I don’t have as much of an objection there, but I would like to see the number of signs that are proposed for the front of the building reduced and condensed, into a more reasonable number. So I guess, bottom line right now, is I’m wavering on the pylon sign, and I’d be opposed to what’s being requested at the moment for the wall signs. MR. STONE-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I basically would agree with Chuck. I think what we’re looking at here is more of a homogenization of signage, like we see in every other part of America, and as was related to you, you know, we are kind of at the fringe of the Adirondacks. I think the green signage is a good idea. The sign out front, I think that even if it were at 64 square feet, would be adequate for people to visualize and see as they’re driving along on Route 9. As far as the façade signs on the side of the building, the tire and lube one could stay. I think the other ones down on that end could go. The Wal-Mart Supercenter one in the center of the building is fine with me, and the “Low Prices” one and the “Food Center”, the ones over those two entries into the store, would also be all right. The other ones, “We Sell For Less”, the deli and those ones, I think could all be accomplished with interior signage inside the store, directing you as you walk into the entryway, and I think that that’s been done, you know, elsewhere in Town, at Hannaford and Price Chopper. They don’t have any signage on the outside of their buildings, other than the name of the store. So, as far as I’m concerned right now, I would have to go only with those signs. So I guess I would be against both of your requests at the present time. MR. STONE-Jim, how about the pylon sign? MR. UNDERWOOD-Sixty-four square feet. I wouldn’t go for anything more than that. MR. STONE-You wouldn’t go anymore than that. Okay. I basically agree with Mr. McNulty. I think, I mean, I can consider more small signs, but I can’t consider 18. I would like you to come back with, answer the hard question, how many do you really need, considering that, as I look at it, four of us are saying we would not grant you the total relief that you’re seeking, which means you would be denied. I did hear some willingness, I think Mr. Underwood put it very clearly, some willingness to consider a number of signs, if you were to be judicious and cut it down to some extent. I mean, I recognize, obviously, that your going in position is that we need all of these to convince our people that this is where the stuff is, and I humbly don’t agree. I think that Wal-Mart has certainly established itself, and I’m a firm believer in advertising, has established itself as a successful marketer of both goods and, I mean, hard goods and groceries, and I don’t think we have to shout it to the world on the front of a building, because we’re going to have to see that, even those of us who aren’t going in, we’re going to drive by and say, look at that. The freestanding sign, I think some of the Board members, and I’m one, don’t like to be reminded of that particular sign. I think we may have been convinced wrongly, I’ll put it that way, that we should have allowed that large a sign. Having said that, I do hear some of the arguments that a larger sign might be helpful. Again, the question is, how large. We think that our Sign Ordinance, at that distance back, is adequate for most of the businesses in Town, and I guess I need a very good argument to say why it shouldn’t be that size. So, right now, I mean, as I took a poll, and I’m sure you did, too, I mean, there are three people, three members 41 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/24/04) of the Board who are perfectly willing to say yes on basically both, but there were a couple of caveats, in terms of the number of signs and which ones, and I, quite frankly, didn’t keep track of each and every thing, except that I know that on the number of signs, it would be clearly no, and that’s about the only thing that I really came away with there. Go ahead, sir. MR. PHILLIPS-Well, I do have one kind of perspective, and then one question to the Board. My perspective would be that this building, in reality, is roughly 28 feet high, and it varies in places, and it’s over 600 feet long. Now if we had ten individual buildings on this site, that were 20 feet high by 60 feet long, each one of those buildings would be allotted 300 square feet of signage. Correct, 25% of their building façade. MR. STONE-Okay. Keep going. I’ll go with that for the moment. MR. PHILLIPS-So you’ve got 10 buildings in the space of our 600 square feet that all have 300 square feet. So you’ve got a 25% coverage. We’re only asking for 3.7. I understand that it is, you know, you’re seeing a number that’s much greater than your one or two signs that you’re allowed, but in reality, because of the vast surface of this building, it’s really not obtrusive, and it’s not really a major, it’s not offensive when you look at it, I don’t believe. MR. STONE-Okay. Let me do this, just so that we, since there were a couple of issues mentioned, I want to just poll the Board, and I don’t want to put anybody on the spot. You all said what you said. How many people have no problem with the pylon sign as they request? Three. How many would like the pylon sign reduced some degree? How many don’t want it to be increased above Code at all? All right. Thank you. Okay. The number of signs. How many people are perfectly content with the number of signs requested? Two. How many would like to see fewer signs? The other question would be, how many would like to see just two signs per Code? Anybody? All right. So the consensus seems to be fewer. Now we can’t tell you what those fewer are, because you’re the marketers, and you’re the advertisers, and you’re the store people, but the consensus is that 18 is not going to fly on the Board. MR. PHILLIPS-I would ask the Board, is the 18, is that, what I’m looking for is, if we remove the “We Sell For Less”, just, we’ll get rid of that, okay, and then we reduced the size of the other signs to make them smaller and less obvious on the exterior, what would that do for the Board? Keeping the same number. We still want the “Bakery”, “Deli Meat”, “Produce”. We want the “Optical”, the “Vision Center”, and the “Pharmacy”, but if we reduce their scale. Would that appease the Board? Or are we strictly looking at numbers right now? MR. UNDERWOOD-Why don’t you just go to signage in the window? I mean, you could do with a neon sign that said “Deli”. You know, three signs in a row, right by the entryway, I mean, it accomplishes the same thing. You’re going to see it as you walk in. MR. STONE-That’s a valid thought, I mean, it’s an interesting thought. I mean, again, I would ask you to come back, listening to the Board, and with a. MR. HAYES-We didn’t give them a direction. MR. STONE-Well, we gave them a direction for less. MR. BROWN-I was going to say, yes, in the interest of the other six or seven applicants that are here, maybe we want to give them a half an hour to go, come back with something, do a couple of applicants. MR. STONE-Yes, would you do that? MR. BROWN-Rather than send them away for a month. MR. STONE-Let me adjourn the meeting for your thing, and you go discuss it and come back. Hearing what you heard. If you have the authority to do that. 42 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/24/04) MR. HENTSCHKE-Since we’re going to be coming back, we might as well give you a real plan and show you some drawings. MR. STONE-Okay. All right. MR. HENTSCHKE-If that’s okay. MR. STONE-Fine. MR. URRICO-He asked whether reducing a couple of signs is going to do it. That’s not going to do it for me. MR. STONE-No. A couple is not. I think we heard more than that. MR. HENTSCHKE-We’ll make a submission, and take into consideration all the comments. MOTION TO TABLE SIGN VARIANCE NO. 71-2003 WAL-MART STORES, INC., Introduced by Lewis Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Hunt: Until the second meeting in April, at which time Wal-Mart Stores will present a revised proposal for size and number of requested signs, having heard the Board’s concern that the number of small wall signs should be reduced significantly, and that there is some interest, by half the Board, in reducing the freestanding sign. Duly adopted this 24 day of March, 2004, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. McNulty, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Underwood, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Stone NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Bryant MR. STONE-We’ll see you next month, gentlemen. MR. HENTSCHKE-Thank you. NEW BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 21-2004 SEQRA TYPE: II PETER & MICHELLE OSGOOD AGENT: VAN DUSEN & STEVES OWNER: ESTATE OF DAMION J. DEL SIGNORE ZONING: SFR-1A LOCATION: WEST MT. ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING. SEEKS RELIEF FROM THE FRONT, SIDE, AND REAR SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: 3/10/2004 LOT SIZE: 0.37 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 295.10-1-25 SECTION: 179- 4-030 MATT STEVES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; PETER OSGOOD, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 21-2004, Peter & Michelle Osgood, Meeting Date: March 24, 2004 “Project Location: West Mountain Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a 2,263 sq. ft. single-family dwelling on a pre-existing nonconforming parcel. Relief Required: Applicant requests 7.7 feet of relief from the 30-foot minimum front setback requirement, 11 feet of relief from the 20-foot minimum side setback requirement, and 13 feet of relief from the 20-foot minimum side setback requirement, and 13 feet of relief from 43 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/24/04) the 20-foot minimum rear setback requirement, per § 179-4-030 for the SFR-1A Zone. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): BP 92-628: 10/07/92, demolition of residence. Staff comments: The applicant proposes to construct a 2,263 sq. ft. single-family dwelling on a pre-existing nonconforming parcel. Due to the size and shape of the parcel, setback relief is required on all three sides for the dwelling proposed. It doesn’t appear the size house desired could be located on the parcel compliantly.” MR. MC NULTY-“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form March 10, 2004 Project Name: Osgood, Peter & Michelle Owner: Estate of Damion J. DelSignore ID Number: QBY-04-AV-21 County Project#: Mar04-27 Current Zoning: SFR-1A Community: Queensbury Project Description: Applicant proposes construction of a single-family dwelling. Seeks relief from the front, side, and rear setback requirements. Site Location: West Mountain Road Tax Map Number(s): 295.10-1-25 Staff Notes: Area Variance: The applicant proposes to construct a 2,133 sq. ft. home on an existing non-conforming parcel, 0.21 acres. The home will be located 22 ft. from the front property line where 30 ft. is required; 9 ft. from the north property line and 7 ft. from the west property line where 20 ft is required. The plans do not indicate septic location. Staff does not identify an impact on county resources based on the information submitted. Staff recommends no county impact with the condition that a compliant septic system be installed. County Planning Board Recommendation: No County Impact with Stipulation The County Planning Board recommends No County Impact with the condition that a compliant septic system be installed.” Signed Bennet F. Driscoll, Warren County Planning Board 3/12/04. MR. STONE-Gentlemen. MR. STEVES-Matt Steves representing Osgoods in this application. He pretty much said it all. This is a piece of property, parcel on West Mountain Road just north of the intersection with Mountain View Lane, just north of Bonner Drive on the west side. It’s a pre-existing, nonconforming lot. There was a structure on there that was destroyed by a fire, I believe about 12 or 13 years ago, and as Staff has noted, there was a demolition permit back in ’92, I believe. The house that my client has chosen to put into the northerly end of the lot on the widest portion of the setback because of the triangular configuration of the lot. As you can see what happens to the setback. We gave you, I think, in the packet the house design, what we’re proposing to build on here, which is back as far as we possibly can and still allow for an attached garage. (Lost words) structure, in looking at it (lost words) conformance with existing parcels, we thought that would be the best location. There are some alternative to slide it a little bit to the south, but as you come farther to the south, you’d narrow it down and you’re asking for more relief. That’s where he is in a nutshell. The house itself is 2133 square feet, and I believe the porch is 130. The actual living portion of the house is 2133, as you will see in the handout on the design of the house, and I’d leave it open to any questions from the Board. MR. STONE-Can you tell me where the point of that lot is? Because I had difficulty. MR. STEVES-(Lost words) gone to the neighbor. I’m not exactly sure how far (lost words). MR. STONE-I thought you were going to say you didn’t know where this line was. MR. STEVES-No. MR. STONE-I didn’t think you’d ever say that. No, where is the point, approximately, Mr. Steves, of the triangle? MR. STEVES-Okay. Where he’s moving his cursor a little faster than I can follow. If you were to line yourself up with the center line of Mountain View Lane as you come up, you’d be looking basically right at that point of the property. MR. STONE-Okay. 44 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/24/04) MR. STEVES-I know it’s kind of hard there with the (lost words). MR. STONE-Yes, well, you don’t go around the corner. When I viewed it, I had a little trouble trying to figure out where it was. That’s all. Okay. MR. HAYES-Are the Ogoods contract vendees, or do they own it? MR. OSGOOD-We’re going to buy this lot based on getting the variance. MR. HAYES-Okay. So you’re under contract, then, or whatever. MR. STONE-Just state your name again. MR. OSGOOD-I’m Peter Osgood. MR. STONE-Thank you, sir. So you have a conditional contract. MR. OSGOOD-Conditional contract based on getting the variance. MR. STONE-Any questions, gentlemen, lady? Obviously, it is a difficult lot on which to build. MR. STEVES-If there’s no questions, looking at the size of the house, to put it in perspective, to meet all the required setbacks, I think the house would have to be around nine feet deep by twenty-four feet. MR. STONE-That’s what I was just going to ask you. Okay. So 480 square feet, approximately. MR. STEVES-I mean, without coming up with an extremely “modern” design home that would kind of conform to the triangular shape. (Lost words) character with the neighborhood. The house plan that was presented is a nice looking home, and it kind of fits in a square package. MR. STONE-Okay. Craig, this is a pre-existing, nonconforming, but buildable lot, I mean, with variances. MR. BROWN-Buildable is what you’re going to determine tonight? MR. STONE-Right. MR. BROWN-Pre-existing lot absolutely. MR. STONE-Just, the only question I had, and the reason why I ask where the lot stands, is safety issue. Is there any safety issue with this house on this particular shape lot, in terms of visibilities? MR. STEVES-As far as the sight distances on West Mountain Road, with the stop sign there and the visibility, pushing the driveway farther to the north, as far as we could, without encroaching, way, way up on the north, would give you great sight distance all the way down Mountain View, and anybody coming in to Mountain View intersection, heading generally northeast on West Mountain Road has that stop sign there, and as far as sight distance up West Mountain Road to the north (lost words). Down near the intersection, if you were to put a driveway entrance down near the point of the triangle, that, I would say, would be extremely difficult. MR. STONE-Okay. The County said something about a compliance. Is that possible? MR. STEVES-Yes. MR. STONE-Okay. 45 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/24/04) MR. STEVES-You have 10 foot setbacks, with the size of the house, and the soils there, it would be down in the lower end of the lot. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. STEVES-Running parallel with the westerly, and it would meet all the required setbacks. MR. STONE-And you concur, Mr. Brown, with that statement? MR. BROWN-I’m sorry. MR. STONE-Compliance at septic can be put in? MR. HAYES-They’d have to prove before they. MR. BROWN-Yes, that’s part of the building permit process. MR. STONE-Right. MR. BROWN-No septic, no permit. MR. STONE-Okay. So it isn’t a condition we have to put on it. MR. BROWN-No. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. STEVES-Ten foot setback from any property line is a requirement of the (lost words). MR. STONE-Right. Okay. Let me open the public hearing, if there’s no further questions. Anybody wishing to speak in favor of this application? In favor of? Anybody opposed? Opposed? Any correspondence? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. MC NULTY-Two pieces of correspondence. First is from a Julia Beres at 1078 West Mountain Road. She says, “In response to your notice of public hearing, I will not be in town at the time of the meeting and I am giving notice that I am not in favor of a relief of a variance for area number 21-2004 of the Estate of Damion J. DelSignore tax map number 295.10-1-25 regarding regulation SFR-1A of Section Ordinance 179-4-030. The property is only 0.37 acres in an area that requires 1 acre per dwelling as per Queensbury regulation and this area is very short of the necessary land requirement. Therefore, I am not in favor of the relief for the above applicants and submitting my comments to your office in lieu of attendance. If you need to reach me, you may do so via cell phone. Thank you for your time. Sincerely, Julia E. Beres” And the other one is from a Mandy J. Hobbs, at 3 Hillside Drive. He says I am strongly against any zoning changes/relief to the said property on West Mountain Road. Any questions, please contact me.” And that’s it. MR. STONE-I’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. ABBATE-Mr. Chairman, where is, the two letters that we received, where are they in physical location to this proposed lot? Could somebody show me that, please. I just want to see if there’s really an immediate impact. MR. BROWN-There’s Hillside. This is Hobbs, right here. 46 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/24/04) MR. ABBATE-Okay. MR. BROWN-That’s the Hobbs’ house, and what was the other name? MR. MC NULTY-That was Mandy Hobbs on Hillside. The other one was Julia Beres, 1078 West Mountain Road. MR. BROWN-It’s up further on West Mountain Road. MR. ABBATE-Okay. So one was up further, and where was that other one, Craig, please? MR. UNDERWOOD-Kitty corner, it’s one lot over. MR. ABBATE-Kitty corner. One lot over. MR. STONE-It’s right underneath that inset. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you very much. MR. STONE-Craig, let me, well, do you guys have any reason to understand why, the public, these two people, at least? MR. STEVES-No, I do not. MR. STONE-Okay. Craig, SFR-1A is still what we consider to be our most restrictive area. Correct? MR. BROWN-It’s the zoning district, the only allowable use is single family dwelling. MR. STONE-Right. MR. BROWN-So it’s the most restrictive residential district. MR. STONE-That’s what I meant. MR. BROWN-That’s correct. MR. STEVES-As far as the first letter of comment, we understand it’s an undersized lot. We’re not creating it. It already exists. That would be the only comment I would have for that letter. I understand the concern saying that we want one acre lots in this zone, but this has been this way for as long as I can remember, this is the size of this lot. We’re not asking to create an undersized lot. It exists at this time. MR. STONE-I understand that, but as Mr. Brown said in response to my question, we will determine whether it’s buildable or not. MR. STEVES-Right. MR. STONE-It is nonconforming. It is less than one acre, and buildable is in our jurisdiction. MR. STEVES-Correct. MR. STONE-Okay. Any other questions? MR. UNDERWOOD-Was there any consideration given to the Brooks’ lot, towards the corner? 47 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/24/04) MR. STEVES-Yes, as far as the placement of the, I don’t know if Craig has the approximate location of the Brooks’, which is the first one on the southwesterly side on West Mountain Road, the location of their house is in comparison to the proposed. Right there. MR. BROWN-Brooks, yes, this is a new development. The house isn’t on there, but it’s roughly right about where that hand is right there. MR. UNDERWOOD-Is there a house going in there now? MR. BROWN-Yes. MR. STONE-And that’s a one acre lot, do you know? MR. STEVES-I believe it’s just over an acre. MR. BROWN-Well, according to this, it’s just under, .912, but the actual survey is going to be the accurate one. This is just the GIS. It’s pretty close to an acre. MR. STONE-Yes. Okay. All right. Joyce, what do you think? MRS. HUNT-Well, I think it’s very creative to be able to place a house on this lot. I’m looking at the relief requested, 7.7, the 30 foot minimum, 11 feet from the 20, that’s the biggest one, and then 13 from 20. I’m kind of torn, but I do think a house there would be a positive change for the neighborhood. I guess I’m leaning towards granting the request. MR. STONE-Okay. Roy? MR. URRICO-I don’t see much of a choice in the type of house you’re putting here. I really think the relief is warranted, in this case, and I’d be in favor of it. MR. STONE-Jaime? MR. HAYES-Well, I certainly understand the pre-existing, nonconforming lot, in that there obviously has to be something, or doesn’t have to be, but I think there ultimately will be something built here, but I have to say, in this particular case, that I think that a 2200 plus square foot house is too much for this lot. I think I would be in favor of a house on this lot, ultimately, but I think 2263, as I look at that picture up there, the house is just absolutely huge on that lot, and I think, you know, while I think the owner of this property ultimately, because it is pre-existing, does have a right to build some home. I don’t necessarily think a 2200 plus square foot house, I think that’s over the line, in the sense of what this lot can really hold and balance. As I look at the site map here, the corner of the house is actually going to be seven feet from the Brooks’ property line, and I don’t think that’s enough. The Brooks didn’t oppose this application, but I can’t imagine that that would be something that, I think it’s too far, it’s too much. So, on balance, I think that, cumulatively, the relief that’s requested is substantial, and I think there’s alternatives to a 2200 square foot house, you know, a 1500 square foot house, or a 1200 square foot house. Maybe that’s what this lot is meant for, you know, in the long term. So I would be opposed. MR. STONE-Chuck? MR. MC NULTY-Well, I see three alternatives here. One is allowing the house that’s proposed. One is following the general trend that Mr. Hayes is suggesting and allowing a smaller house. The third is to say it’s not a buildable lot. Ideally, I’d like to say it’s not a buildable lot, but I don’t think that’s really fair to the lot owner. Now that lot has been sitting there empty for a while. If it’s not a buildable lot, then the only use for it is to sell it to some one of the neighbors, and it’s been sitting there, so I presume it’s been available and they’ve opted not to acquire it. I’m torn between the other two choices of allowing what’s proposed or saying, no, it should be something smaller, because I think if it’s measurably smaller, then it’s probably going to be a 48 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/24/04) house not in character with the neighborhood, at least on that side of West Mountain Road. So, I guess where I come down is I’m going to be reluctantly in favor. I’d prefer it be a smaller house that’s proposed there, but I think if you build a house that would be conforming, it would be out of character with the houses on that side, and also be a detriment to the neighborhood. So, I guess, count me as being in favor. MR. STONE-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, I, too, would have to agree that there are alternatives here to consider. The house as you have designed it kind of maximally fits on the lot, and it, you know, creates a lot of controversy. Certainly the lot to the north there also is stuffed with housing at the same time, but I don’t think that we need to continue to do this on these smaller sized lots in Town. I think there are some alternatives. I know, I drive up Country Club Road every day, on the way back to my house, and I know Hayes brothers just built one on a very narrow lot there. It’s a tall house. It fits on a very narrow lot. It’s probably the prettiest house I’ve seen go up in Town, just because of its unique design, but I think that you could consider doing something in the vein of a different design that would fit better on the lot. I think that you’re trying to put too much in there, especially with that really big garage in the front there, too, it just doesn’t really make it, but I think that you could go back to the drawing board and, you know, think about that. Obviously, a house could fit on that lot. MR. STONE-Chuck? MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you. I looked at a couple of things. Number One it’s a vacant lot. Number Two the house certainly is very creative. There’s no question about that. However, I think I’m going to have to side with Jaime. I think there is a feasible alternative. I’m certainly not suggesting that the house, proposed house, be reduced to a point where it would not fit in comfortably with the other homes that are currently constructed, but I do think that there is room for some negotiation, in terms of reducing the house, and quite frankly, Mr. Chairman, unless there is a reasonable reduction in square feet, I think I’m going to have a problem approving this application. Thank you. MR. STONE-Okay. I agree with Mr. Abbate, Mr. Hayes, and Mr. Underwood. I think there is a house that can be built on this lot, but I don’t think this is the one. Particularly when you consider, to the north, and if you put up the north, there are two small rental, I guess they’re rental properties, in fact two on one lot, it appears to me, from your thing there. I don’t know how that happened, but they are certainly smaller homes. I know when I pulled around in the driveway, I wasn’t sure what I was facing up there, but I think that the lot is buildable with a smaller house, and I, therefore, would reluctantly say no to this particular application. MR. STEVES-Okay. Can we respond quickly? MR. STONE-Absolutely. MR. STEVES-Thank you. In discussions with my client, he did have an alternate house plan that would be their only other option for this lot. It still stays somewhat in character with the configuration, the look of the other house, but is significantly reduced in size without a garage, is a complete square, 26 by 26, the same height of structure, a two story, hip roof, a lot smaller, as far as square footage of 1354, and they would be willing to go to that, as low as they can possibly go. They are going to be living in this home, this spec house (lost words), and that’s 1352 square feet (lost words), and what that would relate to, before I pass it out, would be a request for a 28 foot front setback, you’d be looking at two foot, an 18 foot side setback, (lost words) north side, and a 14 foot rear setback to double the rear setback from the previous. MR. STONE-My multiplication, did I do something wrong? I got 676 square feet. MR. HAYES-It’s two stories. 49 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/24/04) MR. STONE-Thank you. MR. STEVES-We looked at the houses in the area and initially thought that first house was more in character, but we didn’t realize, with the small lot, and the setback requirements (lost words), and that’s why we have an alternate plan. We definitely couldn’t do any less than the secondary plan. MR. URRICO-Could you give us the new setbacks again? MR. STEVES-The new setback that would be required for this particular home would be a 28 foot front setback. MR. STONE-So that’s two feet of relief? MR. STEVES-That’s correct. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. STEVES-Eighteen foot side setback. MR. STONE-So that’s another two feet. MR. STEVES-And a 14 foot rear setback. MR. STONE-And that would be six feet of relief. Two, two, and six. MR. STEVES-Correct. MR. STONE-All right. Let’s talk about that, very quickly. I’ll start with Joyce again. MRS. HUNT-Well, I didn’t have any problem with the other one, so I’m not going to have any problem with this one. MR. STONE-Okay. Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes, I admit, this is a better plan, I think. MR. STONE-Jaime? MR. HAYES-Yes. MR. STONE-Chuck? MR. MC NULTY-Yes. MR. STONE-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. MR. STONE-Chuck? MR. ABBATE-Does this include the garage in the 1354 square foot? MR. STONE-There is none. MR. STEVES-There’s no garage. 50 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/24/04) MR. ABBATE-No garage. I don’t have a problem with it. I didn’t have a problem with the bigger one. MR. UNDERWOOD-My only concern would be that you go look at a couple of narrower ones that have been built, that you may be able to include a garage in your design, instead of just saying I have to do it tonight. I mean, you could always. MR. STEVES-Within that parameter, that house plan that they want to construct, that they want to get started, and there is the potential to add a one car garage on the side of that, and not need a setback. Any greater than what we’re asking for in the rear now, by keeping it in line with the back of the house. MR. STONE-Well, I certainly have no problem with it. I can live with this. I think, in the spirit of compromise, I think this is great compromise for that lot. It gets a reasonable size home, and it uses a lot that has been lying fallow. So I need a motion to approve. MR. BROWN-Just for completeness of the record, this is a pretty significant change from the initial proposal. I guess probably part of an approval that you issue, I would suggest you ask for an updated survey map and plans to complete our file, because when we pull the file, we’re not going to see what you’re granting them tonight. So, we don’t have any of the stuff submitted yet. MR. STONE-Do you think he can get a survey? MR. BROWN-Probably, yes. MR. STEVES-I will apply the footprint of the new house to the setback. MR. STONE-Okay, and you will get that to the office post haste. MR. BROWN-Just prior to a building permit, that’s all. MR. OSGOOD-I have a question for Mr. Abbate. Did you, in fact, vote against the original? MR. ABBATE-I basically agreed with Jaime. I said it was a very creative home, and I indicated plus it was a vacant lot. However, I agreed with Jaime by stating that it would be reasonable, there are feasible alternatives in that the house could be reduced in terms of square footage. However, I was not suggesting that it be any smaller. That would not be conforming with the other homes, or words to that effect, in the area. MR. STONE-I wrote down that he said no, because he agreed with Jaime, and that’s what you said. MR. ABBATE-Yes, you’re right. MR. OSGOOD-Okay. MR. STONE-Thank you. MR. OSGOOD-I just wanted to clarify. MR. STONE-You’re absolutely right. I mean, I’m sitting here saying, did I hear what he said? But I think in the spirit of compromise, we’ve got a very good thing. So, I need a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 21-2004 PETER AND MICHELLE OSGOOD, Introduced by Charles Abbate who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roy Urrico: 51 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/24/04) West Mountain Road. The applicant proposes construction of a 1,352 square foot residence, single family dwelling on a pre-existing, nonconforming parcel. Relief required. The applicant requests two feet of relief from the thirty foot front, two feet of relief from the side, and six foot of relief from the rear setbacks. I mentioned what the relief required was going to be, I believe that if we grant this relief required, it will not produce, in my opinion, any undesirable change in the neighborhood or detriment to any of the nearby properties. The benefit to the applicant is obvious. It’s a vacant lot. He proposes to have a new home constructed, which he’s going to reside in. He has accepted the alternative, which is the feasible alternatives, to his credit, and is this substantial to the Ordinance? Not in my opinion. I don’t believe it’s substantial. Effects on the neighborhood. In my opinion, it would be a positive effect on the neighborhood, in view of the fact that it’s currently a vacant lot. Is this difficulty self-created? Okay. I’ll say somewhat, yes, but the applicant has reduced, significantly, his request, and on balance, Mr. Chairman, I move that we approve Area Variance No. 21-2004. The original application called for 2263 square foot. Due to comments by the Board, this was reduced to 1352, and a plan will be submitted for the record, prior to an issuance of a building permit. Duly adopted this 24 day of March, 2004, by the following vote: th MR. STONE-The only thing I would is that the original application called for 2263 square foot. Due to comments by the Board, this was reduced to 1352, and a plan will be submitted, for the record, prior to an issuance of a building permit. MR. ABBATE-Please make the comments by the Chairman as part of my motion to approve. AYES: Mr. McNulty, Mr. Underwood, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Stone NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Bryant MR. STONE-Thank you, gentlemen. MR. STEVES-Thank you. MR. OSGOOD-Thank you very much. AREA VARIANCE NO. 18-2004 SEQRA TYPE: II KENNETH KAMBAR AGENT: APD ENGINEERING, CHRISTOPHER V. KAMBAR OWNER: KENNETH & DIANA KAMBAR ZONING: WR-1A LOCATION: 27 HANNAFORD ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO RENOVATE/EXPAND A 1,570 SQ. FT. DWELLING TO 2,268.6 SQ. FT. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM THE SIDE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS AND FROM THE CONTINUATION CODE. CROSS REFERENCE: BP 2002-143, BP 2002-466, BP 2001-659 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 3/10/2004 LOT SIZE: 0.44 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 240.06-1-16 SECTION: 179-4-030, 179-13-010(E) JON LAPPER, S. DI LALLO BITTER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 18-2004, Kenneth Kambar, Meeting Date: March 24, 2004 “Project Location: 27 Hannaford Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to expand the existing 1,570 sq. ft. dwelling to 3,838.6 sq. ft., which includes an 880.6 sq. ft. attached garage (the existing 257 sq. ft. detached garage is proposed to be demolished). Relief Required: Applicant requests 14.6 feet of relief from the 20-foot minimum side setback requirement, per § 179-4-030 for the WR-1A Zone. Additionally, relief is required from the Continuation code, per § 179-13-010(A2 and E). Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): AV 57-2003: denied 06/18/03, request to rehear AV 27-2003. AV 27-2003: 52 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/24/04) denied 4/16/03, 14.6 feet of side setback relief and the relief from the continuation code for the expansion of the existing dwelling to 3,977 sq. ft. BP 2002-460: 06/24/02, three decks totaling 1049 sq. ft. BP 2002-143: 03/14/02, 235 sq. ft. dock. AV 8-2002: 02/27/02, side setback relief for 235 sq. ft. dock. BP 2001-659: 08/30/01, septic alteration. Staff comments: The applicant proposes to expand the existing 1,570 sq. ft. dwelling that currently has a side setback of 5.4 feet. The proposed expansion includes a second story above the side with the existing 5.4-foot setback resulting in side setback relief required for that portion of the second story (south east corner of the dwelling). The proposed 880.6 sq. ft. second story of the garage is to be for storage only (no basement exists or is proposed) and is not considered “floor area” resulting in no relief required from the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) requirement. MR. MC NULTY-“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form March 10, 2004 Project Name: Kambar, Kenneth Owner: Kenneth & Diana Kambar ID Number: QBY- 04-AV-18 County Project#: Mar04-23 Current Zoning: WR-1A Community: Queensbury Project Description: Applicant proposes to renovate/expand a 1,570 sq. ft. dwelling to 2,268 sq. ft. Relief requested from the side setback requirements and from the continuation code. Site Location: 27 Hannaford Road Tax Map Number(s): 240.06-1-16 Staff Notes: Area Variance: The applicant proposes to construct a 1,795 sq. ft. (foot print) addition to an existing 1,174 sq. ft. home. The addition will include a second story attached to the existing second story. The additions are broken down to a garage addition with a second story at 880.6 sq. ft. (footprint) and home addition of 1,388 sq. ft. (footprint) addition with a second story. A portion of the home addition will be located 5.4 ft. from the south property line where 20 ft. is required. The County Planning Board reviewed a similar application in April of 2003 where the Board recommended no county impact with the stipulation the septic system be in compliance. The information submitted indicates the existing detached garage will be removed and some asphalt will be removed and replaced with grass. The plans did not include any reference to septic. Staff does not identify an impact on county resources based on the information submitted. Staff recommends No County Impact with the Stipulation that the applicant provide confirmation that the septic is upgraded. Warren County Planning Board Recommendation: No County Impact with Stipulation The County Planning Board recommends No County Impact with the stipulation that the applicant provide confirmation that the septic is upgraded.” Signed Bennet F. Driscoll, Warren County Planning Board 03/12/04. MR. STONE-Gentlemen and lady. MR. LAPPER-Good evening. For the record, Jon Lapper, Stephanie DiLallo Bitter, and Chris Kambar, engineer, on behalf of Ken Kambar. I guess to start with, the septic system has been completely upgraded to conform to Code. It’s been replaced, and we have the documentation of that. We have a CO from the Town. Very simply, the houses on Hannaford were all built on an angle, so that they could have a lake view, and the property lines were not respected when they were constructed, but it’s something that all of the neighbors are aware of. We have letters that have been sent to the Board from both the neighbor to the north and the neighbor to the south, supporting this upgrade of the house. The 5.4 existing setback, which is the real issue here on the south side, is mitigated by the fact that the house to the south extends back at the same angle as the addition, and all that Mr. Kambar is looking for there is to go to the second story. Not to change it, just to use the same foundation. So he doesn’t have to basically knock the house down and change the direction to fit it within the building envelope. That is an alternative, but not a feasible alternative. There’s a good sized building envelope. It’s just a question of that would be a waste of money to do that, because he wouldn’t be able to take advantage of the house that’s there now, and at the same time, that would be less advantageous to his two neighbors, and to the neighbor on the other side of the street, because it would all effect their views, and the value of their property. So this is something that, although there is only a 5.4 existing setback just at the corner, and that’s the worst case. It’s not all along the side, it’s just at the corner, and then it gets better from there. It’s something that was designed with the neighbors in mind, and the neighbors are supportive of it, and it’s not self-imposed. It has to do with the fact that that’s how the houses were constructed there, regardless of the property line. That’s the general issue. We also have some similar Area Variances on Hannaford Road that over really the last 10 years the Board has granted, which indicates that both because of the 53 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/24/04) lot size and because of the unique configuration of the houses, that the Board has sought fit to grant five other people on Hannaford Road Area Variances of similar or smaller magnitude, and Stephanie has those and can just run down the list, but I guess first I’d just like Chris to walk you through the plan, just so that the Board can see exactly what’s proposed. CHRIS KAMBAR MR. KAMBAR-Hi. My name is Chris Kambar. I’m with APD Engineering, and I’m representing my parents. Paying back some of my college education. MR. STONE-This is a real tough thing you’re doing here. MR. KAMBAR-I’m under a lot of scrutiny. As you can see, the general layout is consistent with what you’ve seen before, but obviously it’s on a smaller magnitude at this point. Originally when they came in front of the Board the last time the garage was over the required zoning, which was, at that point, 980 square feet. We’ve reduced that 100 square feet and since brought that back into Code, presenting a significant change in this application, and above and beyond that, they’ve also taken two foot of their proposed Great Room and they’ve reduced that also. As Jonathan said, we’re here because of the 5.4 setback on the side of the property. We’re looking for relief because they are, basically they want to change the roof and use their second floor to their advantage. Right now it’s a smaller, more attic space, and what they’re doing is looking to revise the roof design, and make it a little more presentable from the lake. Right now, if you’re looking at it from the lake, and we do have pictures, if you’d like to see them, if you’re looking at it from the lake, you’re looking at a shingled roof, and what they’d like to do is actually turn the roof, so you’re looking at a more presentable window, A-Frame type structure. Generally they want to use earth tones in their color scheme, and help it blend in to the area a little bit better. I’m going to show you the architectural layouts that we have proposed. This is the Hannaford Road side of the house, which shows the three bay garage and a small door on the side, a man door for access. This would be their main entry to the access from Hannaford Road, a little bit of a porch and a door. This is the front of the house that would, essentially you’d be looking at from the lake. Currently, what’s there now is up here. It’s kind of hard to see. That’s the side of the house. This is the side, right now, that we’re looking at there. This is the existing. This is proposed. Before they came in front of the Board, the Board had some questions on the door that he wanted for access for his lawnmower and larger equipment, moving in and out of the garage. He was looking for more of a roll up door, something of that nature. What we’ve done is we’ve actually taken that door and put it on the side of the house, so you won’t be able to see it as much from the lake view, and we’ve made it a double swinging door so it looks a little more natural, and that way he can get his lawnmower, he can drive that in and out, to mow the lawn as he needs to. The dashed line that runs in this architectural plan, this elevation, shows the existing layout of the house, overlaid with the new elevation. As you can see, the roof is only going to move up four feet, which is pretty minimal, and it’s going to be, he’s going to gain a whole lot out of just that four feet. The garage that is out in front of the house right now is we’re proposing to demolish that. That is well within the setbacks, and it’s only a few feet off the road, which poses some nuisances to people pulling in and out, you know, sight distances looking up the road when you’re pulling in and out. So when you’re driving down the road, it’ll end up being a little bit clearer for you, for obstructions on the side. The Floor Area Ratio we’re well within, and the permeability we’re well within. I have had a phone conversation with Chris Navitsky. I know he had a concern the last time around, as far as quality and quantity control on this site, with the new impermeable areas, and we talked that when we would get to the, basically when we would get to the site plan, hopefully get to the site plan issues for this site, we would address those concerns at that time, and we talked about a few things we could do. This site is, in fact, on ledge rock. It’s basically bedrock, only a few feet down in most areas. So that’s one of the reasons he doesn’t have a basement, and one of the reasons he wants to build a larger garage, so he can have storage up above it, since he doesn’t have a basement, and I do believe that covers everything. I don’t know if Jon wants to add anything else. 54 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/24/04) MR. LAPPER-I guess I just wanted to point out one thing that Chris mentioned, but just so that everyone understands, the existing roofline is here, and the roof moves up away from the property line. So the area that we’re asking for, the main variance at the 5.4, everything that’s here is existing, and it’s really this little corner. So, just in terms of the significance, it’s really just the corner of the building, to make it a full two story and change the roof from the roof pitching front to back, to side to side. So, just in terms of the significance, it’s not even 5.4 over much of an expanse of the second floor, just a little piece of it, and again, this is really created by the existing angle of the house, to face the bay, just like all the other houses. MR. STONE-Are you prepared to discuss our previous denial and why this is not different, from the reason that we denied it, and didn’t hear it again? MR. LAPPER-You mean the reason that this is different. MR. STONE-Well, yes. As I recall, and I don’t have the minutes in front of me, I admit, but I recall the basic concern we had was the 5.4, and I would point out to you that while you say it’s 5.4 at the corner, it’s still nonconforming a little way down the house. It’s not quite the point. I just want to make sure that we don’t lose sight of the fact that, because this is nonconforming, that down to about here is nonconforming. MR. LAPPER-I didn’t mean to indicate that it was just the corner. It’s just that it gets. MR. STONE-Well, that’s what you said. MR. LAPPER-It gets less, the setback increases as you move from the corner. That’s the worst case. MR. STONE-Yes, that is correct, but it’s still nonconforming to a point. MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. STONE-But again, and maybe the Board, what they remember, I would like comment, because I remember our basic objection, while there was a lot of, a couple of points, one was the oversize, the 50% larger, and this is still 50%, more than 50% larger, and the garage is now reduced, and the Floor Area Ratio is more in conformity, but my memory, and I don’t know about the rest of you people, my memory was that we were concerned by the side setback, primarily. MR. UNDERWOOD-I think we had that door, that garage, extra garage door on the lake side, too, was a concern. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. UNDERWOOD-But that’s not there anymore. MR. LAPPER-We understand that some of the Board members, in reviewing the minutes, the garage was an issue, because it was in excess of the 900 square feet. MR. STONE-Nine hundred, yes. MR. LAPPER-And they did make the Great Room smaller, to just reduce the living space. So those would be our arguments for why this is a different application. MR. STONE-All right. There’s no doubt that the Kambars have made a significant change in what they asked for, again, significant gets into, anyway. Any other questions on the part of the Board? Before I open the public hearing. Anybody wishing to speak in favor of the application? In favor of? Anybody opposed? 55 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/24/04) PUBLIC HEARING OPENED JOHN ALDEN BEALS MR. BEALS-My name is John Alden Beals. I live on the south side of the Kambar property, and I have no objection to anything they’ve presented to me. I think the plan they have is very satisfactory. They’ve certainly tried to conform with everything you people have asked them to do, and I just have no objection to anything they plan. I wanted to be sure you understood that. MR. URRICO-The south side being? MR. STONE-The offended side. MR. URRICO-The 5.4 feet side. MR. STONE-Yes. MR. URRICO-The side closest to the house? MR. HAYES-The most impacted side. MR. STONE-You’re the one most impacted by their new building. MR. BEALS-No, I won’t be bothered at all. MR. STONE-Fine. Okay. We appreciate those thoughts. MR. BEALS-Thank you. MR. STONE-Thank you. Anybody else wishing to speak, yes or no? Any correspondence? MR. MC NULTY-Yes. We have two or three pieces of correspondence. One is a copy of an effective petition. It says, “With regard to the expansion plans of the property of Diana and Ken Kambar at 27 Hannaford Road, Queensbury, New York, I do not have any objections to this.” And it’s signed by six neighbors with addresses from 39 Hannaford, 21, 31, 25, 36, and 48. MR. STONE-All of whom have been granted relief, according to Mr. Lapper. MR. LAPPER-At least they’re not hypocrites. MR. MC NULTY-And we also have a couple of letters, one of which was from Mr. Beals, and I think to summarize his letter, he basically did that for us just a minute ago. The other one’s from Bruce and Kim Hanson. They say, “Please inform whomever it may concern that as your immediate (north) neighbors, we have no objection to your latest revised house plan as submitted 2/17/04. Yours truly, Bruce & Kim Hanson” MR. STONE-Definitely somebody who’s been before this Board. MR. MC NULTY-That’s it. MR. STONE-Okay. Let me close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. STONE-I don’t think you need to make any comments on what you’ve heard. Let’s talk about it, unless anybody has any questions. Roy? 56 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/24/04) MR. URRICO-Yes. My major concern would have been the 5.4 feet of relief. When you consider the second story, the sort of wall effect it might have, but the neighbor to the south assuaged my fears, and I think I’m willing to go along with it the way it is. MR. STONE-Okay. Jaime? MR. HAYES-I agree with Roy. I think, you know, the 5.4 feet, that’s where the rubber meets the road on this application, for sure, but I think it’s been explained that their design of the roofline, to my satisfaction, I think you’re still in the will. So there’s actually, it’s only going to be four feet higher, in this particular case. I don’t think that’s going to have a dramatic impact, from a sight line, that’s going to allow the Kambars to utilize that second floor. I certainly was going to pay a lot of attention to the most impacted neighbor, who has been gracious enough to come tonight and say that he doesn’t have a problem with the plan, and while he won’t be there forever, that certainly is evidence that, as with the petition, that the neighbors are not overly troubled with this particular project. In conclusion, we asked the Kambars to reduce what they were going to do there, in their last application. I think they got that message, and the garage is now conforming. The house has been changed. The door facing the lake is gone. I mean, there’s things that have happened with this application that I think, on balance, I think put me in favor. MR. STONE-Chuck? MR. MC NULTY-Okay. I was absent the last time this came for consideration, but I guess my initial reaction, if it were new construction, and it was a new situation, the closeness on the side setback would worry me, but I think the applicant’s attorney has made a good point, that a lot of houses in this particular stretch are situated something like this, and angled, and for a reason. The immediate neighbors to the south not having a problem certainly is a help, although as was pointed out, he’s not always going to be there. So I think we have to consider other neighbors, in the future, as well, but, nevertheless, I think, all told, considering everything, it’s a reasonable request, given that that setback really already exists, and all we’re doing is granting relief for the second story, and recognizing that the applicant has made some changes to bring the garage into conformance, and moving a door to change the appearance some, I think he’s made reasonable attempts, and I’m still bothered by the amount of conversion we’re getting from seasonal to year round, around the lake, but this certainly fits with the immediate neighborhood. So, all told, I’ll be in favor. MR. STONE-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I’m basically in favor of it. I think it’s an improvement. Lowering down the size of the garage a little bit, and removing that offensive door that was going to face the lakeside there was my hang up the last time. The side setback relief I didn’t really have a problem with. I think that’s, you know, a pre-existing structure and nothing much you can do with it. Everything that’s been proposed, the Great Room, lowering that size down a little bit to make it a little bit more compliant, too. So, go ahead with it. MR. STONE-Chuck? MR. ABBATE-You folks been receiving some wonderful news, so, I would support the application. To add to that good news. MRS. HUNT-I agree with my fellow Board members. I would go along with this new application. MR. STONE-Yes. As much as I don’t like houses this close to the line, this is a existing neighborhood. It has its own character. There’s no question about it, and while some of the houses have been updated and enlarged, the character of the road is still pretty much the same way, and it’s certainly going to be improved by taking out that garage which sits on the road, actually. So, on balance, I think it’s a reasonable application, and didn’t mean to, want you 57 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/24/04) people to feel badly when I brought up the other one, but I think it has to be on the record, and I think you’ve addressed it very well. Having said that, I need a motion to approve. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 18-2004 KENNETH KAMBAR, Introduced by James Underwood who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roy Urrico: 27 Hannaford Road. The applicant proposes to expand the existing 1,570 square foot dwelling to 3,838.6 square feet, which includes an 880.6 square foot attached garage. The existing 257 square foot detached garage is proposed to be demolished. They’re specifically requesting relief for 14.6 feet of relief from the 20-foot minimum side setback requirement, and that relief, again, is the result of a 5.4 foot setback on the side, and that would be for the new second story addition above. Additionally, relief is required from the Continuation Code per Section 179-13- 010(A2 & E). The proposed second story of the garage is to be for storage only. No basement existing on the lot, due to the bedrock underneath. Duly adopted this 24 day of March, 2004, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Abbate, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Hayes, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Stone NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Bryant MR. LAPPER-Thank you. MR. STONE-There you go. MR. KAMBAR-Thank you very much. AREA VARIANCE NO. 14-2004 SEQRA TYPE: II PATIO ENCLOSURES FOR ROBERT WILSON AGENT: PATIO ENCLOSURES OWNER: ROBERT WILSON ZONING: WR- 1A LOCATION: 75 FITZGERALD ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 168 SQ. FT. SUNROOM ON THE EXISTING DECK AND SEEKS RELIEF FROM THE SHORELINE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REFERENCE: BP 2003-1017 LOT SIZE: 0.37 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 289.14-1-10 SECTION: 179-4-030 TONY SATALINO, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; BOB WILSON, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 14-2004, Patio Enclosures for Robert Wilson, Meeting Date: March 24, 2004 “Project Location: 75 Fitzgerald Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a 168 sq. ft. sunroom on the existing deck. Relief Required: Applicant requests 12 feet of relief from the 50-foot minimum shoreline setback requirement, per § 179-4-030 for the WR-1A Zone. Additionally, relief is required from the Continuation code, per § 179-13-010 (A1, B and E). Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): BP 2003-1017: not yet issued, 168 sq. ft. enclosed sunroom. Staff comments: The applicant proposes to construct a 12’ x 14’ three-season sunroom on an existing deck. The existing deck is currently 14 feet wide. The section of the deck proposed for the sunroom is to have 2 feet of the width closest to the shore removed resulting in a 38-foot setback to the new construction. Access to the sunroom is proposed from the existing deck and not from the interior of the dwelling (no site plan review is required for this project as proposed).” MR. MC NULTY-And there’s no County. MR. STONE-Gentlemen. 58 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/24/04) MR. SATALINO-I’m Tony Satalino. I’m representing Bob Wilson. MR. STONE-Okay. Let me just say, before we start, that Mr. Wilson’s property is the first one in about seven years that has defeated me. I could not get to it. Either walking down those stairs or trying to drive down the snow covered driveway, I could not get to it. Mr. Underwood, I understand will say he walked to it from his house, but I don’t know about the rest of the guys, but go ahead. Tell us what you want to do. MR. SATALINO-Well, we have an existing deck, and we just want to enclose 12 by 14 feet with glass and screen, to be able to enjoy the outdoors, in a bug free environment, and if it’s raining you can still enjoy the back yard and be able to see the lake, too. MR. STONE-That sounded like an advertising line. MR. SATALINO-That’s exactly what they do. MR. STONE-I thought you did. Go ahead. Okay, and you’re requiring some relief from the setback of the lake. MR. SATALINO-We are actually building the sunroom two feet closer to the house than it is, than the existing deck is. So we’re not going closer to the lake than what’s already existing. MR. STONE-So you’re improving on the nonconforming setback. MR. SATALINO-Exactly. MR. STONE-Okay. Any questions of anybody? Okay. The applicants have stated for the record, guys, that what they want to do is actually going to be two feet further away from the lake than the existing structure. MR. SATALINO-In the end. MR. STONE-In the end. When they get done. So are there any questions before I open the public hearing? Having said that, let me open the public hearing. Anybody wishing to speak in favor of this application? In favor of? Anybody opposed? Any correspondence? MR. MC NULTY-No correspondence. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. STONE-Okay. Hearing no questions from the Board, let me start with Jaime. MR. HAYES-Well, I’m a little bit torn on this one, in the sense that the impact on the lake is still greater. You’re building a structure that’s still going to be, you know, to whatever extent, have more utilization than the existing deck. Is that accurate? Would you agree with that? MR. WILSON-Probably not a whole lot more than the existing deck is. MR. SATALINO-It’s still a three-season room. MR. HAYES-Right, and normally we haven’t, in the past, encouraged additional encroachment into the setback, the lake setback. We’ve been very guarded to the extent that we’ve allowed that, but this is somewhat mitigated, I guess, in the sense that there is a deck there already, and how much greater impact is that going to be versus the benefit to you, as the owner, or 59 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/24/04) applicant, in this particular case, and it’s a very close decision. The fact that you’re going to actually be two feet further away from the lake, certainly, two feet is not a lot. Further way from the lake is further away from the lake, and I’m glad that you made me aware of that, because that certainly is detail that’s worth mentioning. So, is there a compelling reason that you want to put this up, or do you just want to have three seasons there? I guess I’m thinking of the benefit to the applicant. That’s part of what we’re supposed to decide. MR. WILSON-We spend a lot of time, obviously, on the deck. Probably more time on the deck in the summer than we do in the house, and it would be just nice to get out of the way of the bugs when you, we eat a lot of dinners and stuff out there. Particularly the sunsets and mosquitoes can become pretty vicious on the water. So it’s nice to have a screen room where you could avoid that. MR. HAYES-Well, to me, this is a very close application. I’d like to hear what the rest of the Board members have to say. I’m not avoiding making a decision, because ultimately I will, but I’d like to hear what everybody else has to say. MR. STONE-Chuck? MR. MC NULTY-Well, like Jaime, I think there’s a plus, in that we’re gaining two feet on the setback. The deck’s already there. So, for me, I think the only question is, does enclosing it and putting up a structure that’s got some glass in it create any kind of an impact on the neighborhood or to people on the lake, and it strikes me that probably it’s not going to change the view that much. You’re going to have the house behind it. So it’s not going to be sticking up like a sore thumb, like a brand new structure. Given that, it strikes me that it’s a relatively modest proposal, and I could certainly understand the reason for the applicant desiring it. So I think, all things considered, I think the benefit falls to the applicant, and I’ll be in favor. MR. STONE-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, I, too, am in favor of it. Living on the lake, I know that down on that corner there, that’s kind of like a dead spot where the wind doesn’t blow through, especially when the wind quits at the end of the day and it tends to be buggier, and it’s nice to be able to go out and enjoy your deck and not be pestered by bugs while you’re eating your meal. At the same time, I think the other consideration is that, on Glen Lake, we don’t have a proliferation of boathouses and things like that, and I think that, in that respect, this one being set back 38 feet from the water is going to have a minimal, if any, effect at all, by allowing this structure to be built. MR. STONE-You’re next, Chuck. MR. ABBATE-Okay. One of the Board members mentioned earlier that the deck already exists, and we’re gaining, I hope I’m correct, two feet of setback. Is that correct? And I have seen other structures constructed by Patio Enclosures, and they’re quite attractive, quite frankly, and I always ask myself, in order to be fair to the applicant, if I were the applicant, what would I do. Well, quite frankly, I would do the same thing that you’re doing. So, Mr. Chairman, based on this, I would support the application. MR. STONE-Thank you, sir. Let me just check. Craig, you agree that it’s going to be two feet further away, correct? MR. BROWN-That’s what the plan shows, yes. MR. STONE-Okay. I just wanted to get your confirmation. MR. ABBATE-Okay. So my statement is accurate, then? Okay. Thank you. MR. STONE-Joyce? 60 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/24/04) MRS. HUNT-I agree. I don’t see any problem with putting the sunroom on the deck, and I like the idea of its two feet further away from the lake. I would vote for it. MR. STONE-Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes. I’d be in favor of it for the same reasons that everybody else has given. MR. STONE-I’m in the same boat that Jaime is, but, since we’ve gotten to this point, and I’ve heard everybody, I certainly think that it’s an improvement, quote unquote, compared to what there is now. We’re going in the right direction, and I’m sure it’s going to be attractive, and therefore, I can, reluctantly, because I, as Jaime says, we really don’t like encroaching too close to the lake, but we’re actually improving that. So I need a motion to approve this. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 14-2004 PATIO ENCLOSURES FOR ROBERT WILSON, Introduced by Roy Urrico who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Hunt: 75 Fitzgerald Road. The applicant proposes construction of a 168 square foot sunroom on the existing deck. The applicant, in doing so, requests 12 feet of relief from the 50 foot minimum shoreline setback requirement per 179-4-030 for the WR-1A zone. Additionally, relief is required from the Continuation Code per 179-13-010(A1 & E). The applicant, against the test, has shown that he would be benefiting by this variance, in that the only other means that he could use to achieve this would be extra bug spray. I don’t think that would be the alternative he’s seeking. This would not have an undesirable change in the neighborhood or character. It sort of blends in. The request, while substantial, would be noted that, actually it’s moderate, but there’s also a reduction to what it was before. This won’t have any adverse physical or environmental affects, and the difficulty probably could be described as being self-created, but I move that we pass this motion. Duly adopted this 24 day of March, 2004, by the following vote: th MR. STONE-Craig, the only thing I didn’t understand, just looking in the Code, is the provision of B, the Continuation thing, since this is going to make it less noncompliant, and I didn’t see where, B, I think it was, applied. If we agree that it’s going to be two feet less noncompliant. MR. BROWN-I think the proposal makes the setback better. So I’m not sure that would apply. I don’t have the plan in front of me. The side setback, was that an issue? MR. STONE-No, not at all. MR. BROWN-Okay. Then I would agree that B does not apply. MR. STONE-Okay. Thank you. AYES: Mr. Abbate, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Hayes, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Stone NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Bryant MR. SATALINO-Okay. Thank you. MR. WILSON-Thank you very much. SIGN VARIANCE NO. 16-2004 SEQRA TYPE: UNLISTED TRACTOR SUPPLY CO. AGENT: JONATHAN C. LAPPER, ESQ. OWNER: NIGRO COMPANIES ZONING: HC- 61 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/24/04) MOD LOCATION: 751 GLEN STREET APPLICANT PROPOSES A 49 SQ. FT. ADDITION TO THE EXISTING 62.5 SQ. FT. FREESTANDING SIGN AND REQUESTS RELIEF FROM THE MAXIMUM SIZE REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 84-2003, SPR 47-2003, BP 2004-035 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING BOARD 3/10/2004 LOT SIZE: 6.33 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 302.06-1-25 SECTION: 140-6B2a JON LAPPER & S. DIL ALLO BITTER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Sign Variance No. 16-2004, Tractor Supply Co., Meeting Date: March 10, 2004 “Project Location: 751 Glen Street Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes a 49 sq. ft. addition to the existing 62.5 sq. ft. freestanding sign. Relief Required: The applicant requests 61.5 sq. ft. of relief from the 50 sq. ft. maximum size requirement for a freestanding sign, per § 140-6(B3d2a). Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): BP 97-3033: 04/17/97, change existing 51.8 sq. ft. freestanding sign. BP 97-3054: 05/22/97, change existing 49.5 sq. ft. freestanding sign. Various other BP’s, AV’s, SV’s, and SP’s. Note: no record could be found for the change of copy allowing for the existing freestanding signage change to “Price Rite Plaza” (change occurred sometimes in late 2002 or early 2003). Staff comments: The applicant proposes to install a 49 sq. ft. addition to the existing 62.5 sq. ft. freestanding sign. It appears the freestanding sign when originally installed was at a compliant size (approximately 50 sq. ft. at a 15.72-foot setback). The two small panels mounted below the large panel on the pylon (“Dollar Tree” and one blank panel) appear to have been added without any approval or permits. The new proposal to increase the total area of the freestanding sign to 111.5 sq. ft. includes the proposed addition of 49 sq. ft. “Tractor Supply Co.” signage, plus the existing “Price Rite Plaza” panel, plus the additional square footage for the two small panels, and the blank area between all three panels. Additionally, a review of the history of the site revealed no change of copy for the new “Price Rite Plaza” panel was ever submitted, even though two previous change of copy records were found from 1997.” MR. MC NULTY-“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form March 10, 2004 Project Name: Tractor Supply Co. Owner: Nigro Companies ID Number: QBY-04-SV-16 County Project#: Mar04-30 Current Zoning: HC-Mod Community: Queensbury Project Description: Applicant proposes a 49 sq. ft. addition to the existing 62.5 sq. ft. freestanding sign and requests relief from the maximum size requirement. Site Location: 751 Glen Street Tax Map Number(s): 302.06-1-25 Staff Notes: Sign Variance: The applicant proposes to add an additional sign to an existing pylon sign for the new Tractor Supply Company. The information submitted indicates the name on the pylon sign will contain, Price Rite Plaza Grocery Depot- Produce Depot, Tractor Supply Company, smaller sign for Dollar tree, and a vacant space for another tenant. The overall size of the sign will be 111.5 sq. ft. where only 50 sq. ft. is allowed. The sign is currently non conforming at 59 sq. ft. in size. The overall height of the new sign would be 13.5’ ft. The information submitted explains that the buildings are located at such a distance from Route 9, the sign will allow customers to know the store is in the plaza. 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 Bennet F. Driscoll, Warren County Planning Board 3/12/04. MR. LAPPER-I’m sure that all of you have driven by the Plaza, because I know that you always do, and what’s wrong with the location of the Plaza is that it is angled from Route 9. So it’s difficult to see when you’re driving north, it’s invisible, when you’re driving south, it’s visible, but you’ve got to look over to the side, because this is the last store. They’re thrilled to have Tractor Supply coming to Queensbury and to have that vacant space filled in the Plaza. After they started construction, Tractor Supply came back and said, they’d really like to have a sign on the pylon. When we got the Staff notes, yesterday or the day before, that was the first that we had heard about the fact that there wasn’t a permit applied for. What happened, it used to be called the Glen Square Plaza, before Price Rite came in and took that vacant space. Price Rite sign company replaced the panel. That doesn’t require a variance. That’s just a sign permit, and I think a $25 fee, which, you know, obviously they’re responsible to do. It sounds like they 62 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/24/04) just replaced the panel without applying for a permit. So that needs to be taken care off. Apparently, what they also did was that they added the two little signs that we assumed had previous approval, Dollar Tree and the blank space for the other tenant. So that would be, for a future tenant. That’s one and a half by four feet, each of those signs. We measured it, as if they were connected, and considered it one and a half by nine. So each of those are roughly six square feet. It’s unfortunate that we just learned about it tonight, but it’s already in the relief that we requested. The intent is that the two main stores would have decent sized signs. The Tractor Supply Company sign was sized so that it would look appropriate with the Price Rite Plaza sign. So it’s the same size, and then the two smaller ones for the two smaller tenants, and I’ll let Steve talk about the importance of the visibility for the Tractor Supply Company. STEVE NIGRO MR. NIGRO-Good evening, or almost good morning, at this point, but as Jon mentioned, we have Dave Dean, from Tractor Supply’s sign company here as well. After we began construction, the Operations people came in were very concerned about the configuration of the building. They obviously weren’t consulted before we began construction and said, can we get on the pylon sign. We had said that this was a multi-tenant sign originally before Price Rite came in. We have an availability of a panel there, and they said, well, we’d like to get a sign that’s more conducive to the size of the store. The Price Rite store is approximately 30,000 square feet, and the Tractor Supply is about 20,000 square feet. So they felt that they were a junior anchor, if you will, and wanted to be more prominently represented on the pylon sign, and that’s why we’re here. MR. STONE-Mr. Lapper, (lost words) talk about your (lost words). MR. LAPPER-Admittedly, the Home Depot sign could look better, but there is going to be vegetation eventually, although not that’s going to block that sign, but I am proud of what we’ve done with the Plaza, because that, the Plaza looks great. Craig and I still have to negotiate some building permit issues, but it’s real close. MR. STONE-It’s real close. Okay. You want to double, almost double the size of the conforming sign. Sixty-two is still nonconforming. MR. LAPPER-What happened is that it used to be 25 feet back. The sign didn’t move, but the right of way has. You can see on the, where the new right of way line is on the map. MR. STONE-The right of way moved? MR. LAPPER-Because it’s a New York State, DOT. MR. STONE-Yes, I understand. MR. LAPPER-So that, physically, it’s 25 feet from the edge of pavement. MR. STONE-So would you say, Craig, what’s there now, besides the permits, is conforming? MR. BROWN-No. MR. STONE-No, not technically. Okay. MR. HAYES-It’s not 25 feet, even though it was 25 feet. MR. LAPPER-My understanding is that the approval was granted in 1985 when Nigro Companies bought the Plaza. MR. STONE-(Lost words – microphone problems). 63 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/24/04) MR. LAPPER-Needless to say, we were surprised to learn that about the Price Rite sign. MR. STONE-All right. Craig, where do you stand on this thing? Obviously we’re confronted with a nonconforming sign that they want to make more nonconforming, even without all of the proper paperwork in place. MR. HAYES-How nonconforming is it? Technically. MR. BROWN-Well, where do you stand? If you’re happy with the sign that they’re proposing, and the existing signage that’s there, nonconforming or not, if you’re happy with it all, you can grant them relief for all that signage. MR. STONE-For 111 feet. MR. BROWN-That’s why they’re here tonight asking for those numbers. MR. STONE-Okay. So they’re asking for the whole thing? MR. BROWN-Yes. MR. LAPPER-Steve is certain that he got a Sign Variance for that pylon in our monument in 1985, although we’d have to check the records. MR. BROWN-Yes, that’s very possible. It didn’t show up in the history, but if you’ve got something, certainly. MR. HAYES-Well, we might as well consider it where it’s at anyway. MR. STONE-Yes. Where is it exactly? I mean, I can’t tell from here. MR. LAPPER-Under the power lines. MR. NIGRO-You can’t move the sign back because you’ve got power lines. MR. STONE-No, that’s okay. I just wanted to know where it is. MR. LAPPER-It’s between the traffic light at Toys R Us and Taco Bell parking lot. MR. STONE-And that is? MR. LAPPER-And it looks a lot like this. Well, actually, that’s not true. It could look like that. MR. STONE-I know that. That’s what you want it to look like, and this distance from the road is? MR. LAPPER-From the property line it’s 15.75, but from the road it would be, just scaling it out, it would be more than 25. MR. STONE-Okay. Just talk to me, and I don’t know about the rest of the guys, but talk to me about why, in the light of everything you have heard tonight, we should grant 50% relief, I mean, 100% relief. MR. LAPPER-Tractor Supply needs some identification at the road, and the size that we picked was so that it would look like a decent sized sign. You can see that the copy doesn’t go all the way to the edge of the sign, but it just matches up with the size of the existing sign that Price Rite, that the supermarket has. MR. STONE-And it’s ten feet less height than you could be allowed? 64 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/24/04) MR. LAPPER-Right. It’s a monument sign rather than a pylon sign. Let me give you the sign company representative. DAVID DEAN MR. DEAN-David Dean, United Signs out of Indianapolis. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. DEAN-Why we went like this, it looks, all we would have to do to the existing sign is put a new cabinet right on top of the existing cabinet. If we put a smaller one on or something, it wouldn’t look right, and you would want Price Rite up on top. The only thing we could do, other than that, is tear down the whole thing, and put a new pylon up. If Tractor Supply went on this, you wouldn’t hardly see it because this is the size it would be. MR. STONE-If it went on the bottom panel, you mean. MR. DEAN-Yes, and going down the street, they’re so far behind, off the road, nobody would see that little sign, and if you look at it real close, looking for that little sign, you get a traffic hazard, because you’re very congested right in that area. I talked to the manager before I came, and most people don’t know what Tractor Supply is. They’re a farm implement, like animals, feeds, farm equipment, ranch equipment, not a hardware store. They do have some hardware stuff like Home Depot and stuff like that, but most people that went to apply for the job, there was like 300, and only six of them knew what in the hell Tractor Supply was. MR. STONE-But this is a destination store, is it not? MR. DEAN-Right. MR. STONE-Somebody is, they’re not going to go down the street and say, Tractor Supply, I think I’ll go in. MR. DEAN-They’ve got to be able to see the sign and say, there it is, and pull in. MR. STONE-So it’s the difference between aha, and there it is. MR. ABBATE-And that will be the actual size of the sign that you (lost words)? MR. DEAN-Yes. MR. ABBATE-And will the document that you submitted from Indianapolis, it will be identical to this? There’ll be landscaping, etc., etc.? MR. DEAN-Yes, landscaping is already there. MR. ABBATE-Okay. MR. DEAN-And all we’re going to basically do is add another sign cabinet right on top. MR. URRICO-The small sign is the one that would fit in that location. MR. STONE-It would fit in the bottom part. MR. ABBATE-Right. This left hand spot in the bottom. MR. DEAN-Right. 65 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/24/04) MR. STONE-Now what’s the height of the current sign? MR. DEAN-What’s there now? MR. STONE-Yes. MR. DEAN-I would have to say, well, originally it’s going to 13 feet 5 inches, with the new cabinet on top. If you took 42 inches off. MR. STONE-Okay. I’m sorry. It’s there. MR. DEAN-It’s probably around. MR. STONE-Ten feet. MR. DEAN-Ten feet, nine feet. So, I mean, it’s not a very big sign anyway. Ten feet. MR. STONE-All right. Any other questions anybody has? MR. URRICO-Could somebody please (lost words) the possibility of (lost words). (Microphone problems). MR. LAPPER-The issue is that, it’s not that we can’t do that, but we’d have to leave, the Price Rite Plaza part of it has to stay because they have the right to that sign in the lease, and that is probably self-imposed, but what happened was that this was an extremely vacant Plaza, and Price Rite wanted to open a supermarket and they said, gee, we’re not too crazy about your Plaza because it’s facing that angle. So we’re not going to go in there unless we have the monument. So they had the right to that. That was the deal that was struck to get them to tenant this, and that’s what started to bring the Plaza back. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. LAPPER-So we have to keep the Price Rite Plaza because Nigro Companies has agreed to that. So, in terms of Tractor Supply Company, could that be altered, yes, it’s a question of whether it would look good if it was different size, but, you know, theoretically it could be. MR. URRICO-For right now, what we’re doing is adding, piling on an existing sign whereas if you can keep the Price Rite Plaza the way it is, but design it as part of a new sign, with Tractor Supply, and everybody gets, you know, gets equal presentation, but it looks better than something that’s being put together piecemeal. MR. LAPPER-Well, one possibility, and this would have to be approved, but it could probably get dropped down a little bit, but there’s not a lot of distance above the shrubbery. It would be nice to keep it there, because you have all those shrubs, too. Steve, do you have any thoughts? MR. NIGRO-Just the area that Price Rite originally occupies on the pylon, I can’t change that now, but I can only add, in order to get Tractor Supply or anybody else on there, we’d have to add square footage to the signage. MR. URRICO-I see what you’re saying. MR. DEAN-And Tractor Supply you wouldn’t want to put up on top, because Price Rite is the Plaza. You want the Plaza up on top anyway. MR. URRICO-Toys R Us is one of your tenants as well? MR. NIGRO-We have a joint agreement with them. That’s actually separately owned by someone else. 66 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/24/04) MR. URRICO-It’s going to be blocking their sign if you put something on top of it, from that angle. MR. STONE-I know we allow those signs in the right side, but sometimes they’re up for a long time. For sale signs, that is. MR. NIGRO-It’s been a long time. We’ve had a lot of change in tenancy of the property, and we’re trying to get it back so that it’s fully occupied. We only have about 1600 square feet left, just to the left of Price Rite. MR. STONE-I thought a doctor went in there or something? MR. NIGRO-There was about 8100 square feet, the medical office, and we had 65. MR. STONE-Okay. Well, let me, any other questions? MR. URRICO-I just want to make sure I understand. So we’re going to have Price Rite Plaza underneath the Tractor Supply. MR. LAPPER-We’d switch the panels. Price Rite would still be on top. MR. URRICO-Okay. MR. DEAN-I’d put a brand new cabinet on top, and blend it all in, and switch the panels. MR. URRICO-And then underneath it. What’s going to be there, I mean, underneath the Tractor Supply? MR. DEAN-Those two little. MR. STONE-Those two little panels. MR. URRICO-The same two little panels, and where does he go. MR. DEAN-Well, what we could do, I’d just throw this out, is eliminate the blank panel and center the Dollar Tree, and have no one else on the sign. MR. STONE-That certainly would be better than what we have. Is that, the Price Rite Plaza, the one you’re talking about, is that going to be the same sign? MR. DEAN-Yes. MR. STONE-Because that one looks so much bigger sitting there, than the other, or is it just the way you pasted in the Tractor Supply? MR. DEAN-Tractor Supply. MR. STONE-It just could be the illusion that. MR. DEAN-Yes, it’s just the illusion, I think. MR. STONE-Are you saying, if we were to grant you the relief you need, you would merge those two panels underneath, as possible compromise? MR. NIGRO-Eliminate the blank one, yes. 67 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/24/04) MR. STONE-Yes, and center the other one. All right. Let me just open the public hearing, these very patient people who aren’t waiting for this one, I don’t think, but nevertheless we’ll open the public hearing. Anybody wishing to speak in favor? Anybody opposed? Any correspondence? MR. MC NULTY-No correspondence. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. STONE-Let’s talk about it, considering the fact, and this is not prejudicial, considering that we have been talking about signs all night, and we’re not done yet. Let’s start with Jaime. No, we did start with Jaime. Let’s start with Chuck. MR. MC NULTY-Okay. I can understand and agree the need for Tractor Supply to want a sign out on that pylon. (Microphone problems – lost words). Maybe that’s not possible. If, in the lease, Price Rite’s got a right to what is there now, but I think I still would like to see some kind of a compromise proposal that would take 50% of the size of that Price Rite sign and add that to the top, somehow. As far as merging the two panels underneath, I’m not sure that does anything for me. I can understand the need for the Plaza to have those smaller signs for the smaller tenants, and to some degree, I like it better, aesthetically, with the two signs there underneath the big one, rather than just centering it one in the middle. I think it looks better the way it is, and hold that blank sign for whoever moves in to your empty space. So I guess, as proposed, I would be opposed. If I could see a compromise that would be maybe a 50% increase rather than a 100% increase, I’d be in favor. MR. STONE-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-Are those standard size boxes there? MR. DEAN-No, they’re not. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay, because my only suggestion would be that you could make a box that was half width. You could still put Tractor Supply Company on there, in much bigger letters than you’d have down below, and that might be a compromise situation for you to get into, if you get into a position where you’re not going to get your vote here tonight. I don’t know how everybody’s going to go. MR. DEAN-You’re talking 42 inches. You’re talking less than four feet. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. MR. DEAN-So if you go down. MR. LAPPER-He didn’t say half the height. He said half the width. MR. UNDERWOOD-I’m talking half the width, so, you know, about the width of what your tractor is on that sign, you know so that would be pretty reasonable. It would get you down somewhat more within the realm of what people are looking for, I think. MR. DEAN-The problem is there, you’re going to have a smaller sign, underneath a bigger sign. MR. UNDERWOOD-But I still think you, it’d be better than having just a tiny sign on the very bottom, you know, as an alternative to that. 68 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/24/04) MR. DEAN-Then you’ll have to change the whole underneath part. This is all wood down here. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. I would make that suggestion, that you would just change the width of the box, you know, and go with it that way. Otherwise, I would not be in favor of it. MR. STONE-Jim, you’re talking the width of the total sign? MR. UNDERWOOD-No, of the Tractor Supply part. MR. STONE-Just the Tractor Supply. So it would be centered underneath the other one? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, but half the width. MR. STONE-Okay. Chuck? MR. ABBATE-Thank you. I think I’d go along with Chuck McNulty’s recommendation. I would be very happy if you folks would compromise to a 95 square foot sign, because that, in itself, is quite a large sign, and that 90 square foot sign would equate to a 50% increase in what you currently have at the present time. If you folks could do something like that, I certainly would support the application. MR. STONE-Are you talking 62 and a half plus 31? MR. ABBATE-Yes, sir. MR. STONE-That’s 93 and a half. Okay. MR. ABBATE-Yes. MR. STONE-Okay. Thank you. Roy? I’m sorry, Joyce. My sheet’s different. MRS. HUNT-Yes. I think it’s too big. Too much relief, and I kind of agree with Chuck that maybe half the, you’d still get your sign, just reduced. MR. STONE-Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes. Normally I’m pretty, I don’t move very much on these signs. I feel very strongly about keeping the signs within reason, but I can be moved on this one. I can feel some sort of a compromise. I’m not going to say how much, but you guys are the experts, as far as what would look good, but I think we do need to keep it in moderation. Rather than looking for 100% relief. MR. STONE-Jaime? MR. HAYES-I essentially agree. I think that there’s a definite need for a bigger sign than that piece of vinyl, as has been introduced in this particular case, but as I look at this depiction here, it actually struck me that it was a little too much, and it was stacking and I just don’t like it. I think, I understand that there’s some engineering that has to be done, and maybe some reworking of the sign altogether, but that, you know, we’re granting some relief here, too. So I think that I would not be in favor of doubling that sign. I just wouldn’t. So I think Chuck’s threshold is one I would support. MR. STONE-Well, I would go along with that. I mean, I’m, when it comes to signs, I’d just as soon not do much at all, but, there is a need. I recognize the need for this new tenant to have something, but I want the applicant to consider what the Board is saying. The Board is saying, 50% is about as far as they’re going to go. 69 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/24/04) MR. LAPPER-That sounds reasonable to us, but we’d probably like to just redesign it, go back to Tractor Supply and resubmit it, and we’re wondering if we could get on for next month if we got something to you in a week? It wouldn’t have to go back to the County because it’s less relief. MR. STONE-I move we table. MOTION TO TABLE SIGN VARIANCE NO. 16-2004 TRACTOR SUPPLY CO., Introduced by Lewis Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Abbate: Until the second meeting in April, at which time the applicant will bring a reduced size sign in the area of 50% more than allowed by Code. Duly adopted this 24 day of March, 2004, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Underwood, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Hayes, Mr. McNulty, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Stone NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Bryant MR. STONE-We will save everything that you give us. We have everything. MR. NIGRO-Thank you. SIGN VARIANCE NO. 17-2004 SEQRA TYPE: UNLISTED DICK’S SPORTING GOODS AGENT: JONATHAN C. LAPPER, ESQ. OWNER: PYRAMID COMPANIES ZONING: ESC-25A LOCATION: 558 AVIATION RD., AVIATION MALL APPLICANT PROPOSES 2-WALL SIGNS OF 128 SQ. FT. AND 482 SQ. FT. RELIEF IS REQUIRED FROM THE NUMBER OF SIGNS ALLOWED FOR A BUSINESS IN A BUSINESS COMPLEX, MAXIMUM SIZE, AND MAXIMUM HEIGHT REQUIREMENT. CROSS REFERENCE: MANY WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 3/10/2004 LOT SIZE: 37.49 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 302.05-1-92.11 SECTION: 140-6(B3d) JON LAPPER & BOB ORLANDO, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Sign Variance No. 17-2004, Dick’s Sporting Goods, Meeting Date: March 24, 2004 “Project Location: 558 Aviation Rd., Aviation Mall Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes 2 wall signs of 128 sq. ft. and 702.7 sq. ft. Relief Required: 1) Relief for one additional wall sign when only one is allowed for each business in a business complex, per § 140-6(B3d4b). 2) 14 feet of height relief, as the sign is proposed to extend 14 feet above the roof ridgeline, per § 140-6(B3d3b). 3) 259.4 sq. ft of relief from the 443.3 sq. ft. maximum allowed for the size wall proposed (25% of the 1773.33 sq. ft. facade), per § 140-6(B3d2b). Note: this relief required was not requested. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): BP 2004- 083: yet to be issued: 4,475 sq. ft. addition and 29,135 sq. ft. alteration for Dick’s Sporting Goods retail store. Numerous other building permits, site plan reviews, and variances for the mall. Staff comments: The applicant proposes to install two wall signs. The 128 sq. ft. sign proposed is allowed by code. The 702.7 sq. ft. sign proposed not only needs relief from the number of signs allowed for a business complex and relief from the maximum height allowed for a roof sign relative to the height of the roof line, but also needs additional relief from the maximum size requirement for a wall sign in a business complex. The code allows for a 100 sq. ft. wall sign for a sign setback 100 feet from the front property line plus 10 additional sq. ft. of sign area for every additional 10 feet of setback distance not to exceed 25% of the wall or roof to which it is attached. The proposed façade to be built is calculated to be approximately 35’ by 70 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/24/04) 50’8” or 1773.33 sq. ft. The maximum allowed sign for this façade would be 25% of the 1733.33 sq. ft. or 443.3 sq. ft.” MR. MC NULTY-“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form March 10, 2004 Project Name: Dick’s Sporting Goods Owner: Pyramid Companies ID Number: QBY- 04-SV-17 County Project#: Mar04-16 Current Zoning: ESC-25A Community: Queensbury Project Description: Applicant proposes 2-wall signs of 128 sq. ft. and 482 sq. ft. Relief is required from the number of signs allowed for a business in a business complex, maximum height requirement. Site Location: 558 Aviation Rd., Aviation Mall Tax Map Number(s): 302.05-1-92.11 Staff Notes: Sign Variance: The applicant proposes to install two wall signs at Aviation Mall for Dick’s Sporting Goods. One Wall sign south side of the mall building at 482 +/- sq. ft. and does not require a variance. The second wall sign is to be located on the north side of the mall at 128 +/- sq. ft. The applicant is allowed only one wall sign. The information submitted explains that the main entrance to the new store is at the rear of the mall and a wall sign at the front of the mall would assist customers. The information also includes a detail of the sign dimensions and location at the mall, with a photo simulation. 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 Bennet F. Driscoll, Warren County Planning Board 3/12/04. MR. STONE-Go, gentlemen. Just a quick note, I guess Target went through, the building that’s going on is Target? MR. LAPPER-The building which is targeted for the front of the Mall is under construction, but the tenant still hasn’t been formally announced. MR. STONE-It hasn’t? I thought maybe I missed it while I was away. MR. LAPPER-No. Okay. Sorry. We’re all still waiting, but it is under construction. Which is a good sign. I’m going to make this simple and easy and hopefully quick. We’ve been having ongoing discussions with Craig, after we submitted this, and as a result of that, Bob was able to prevail on the tenant to significantly reduce the size of the sign. We think that you basically can’t see it anyway, because it faces the woods, and you get a glimpse of it from the Northway for a second, and the whole design is because it’s a goalpost, which is their trademark, and it’s just, if you’re going to take the spot in the back of the Mall, which is the worst visibility, you have to have a decent sign, and this Board granted variances to BonTon’s on that basis, but as a result of our discussions with Craig, as I said, we’ve got the sign reduced to 210 square feet. That just happened. So Craig hasn’t seen this. So I’ll have to go through the math with you, but I’m going to ask Steph to give you a copy of this. The whole thing comes down, both in terms of the height of the structure and the size of the sign, most importantly. MR. STONE-This is on the back side. MR. LAPPER-This is on the back side. The theory here is that, just like BonTon, if you’re going to have a store that faces the woods, and the back parking lot, you have to have a sign on the front of the Mall. So, just like BonTon, we’re seeking a small sign at the entrance for Dick’s, which is what Craig described as the conforming sign of 128, approximately, square feet. A modest sized sign for the size of the Mall that faces Aviation Road, which still doesn’t have incredible visibility because of the trees and the Friendly’s and everything that’s out there, but it does tell you, if you’re in the front parking lot, there is a Dick’s, somewhere in a bad location in the back. In terms of the tenant, the tenant itself, this is nearly as important and the larger store in the front parking lot that’s under construction. Dick’s is a big draw. It’s just a very popular retailer, and in terms of reinvigorating the Mall, this was space that was, the rear part of the old Penney’s, after Penney’s relocated, it’s been vacant for all that time, and we’re just doing a very small, few thousand square foot addition for the façade that you’re looking at here in the back, which is between Penney’s and CVS. So it’s mostly existing space that’s been vacant. In terms of the variance on the back, if, the way the Town’s interpreted it in the past, if you couldn’t see this from that little glimpse on the Northway when you’re heading north, where there’s a break 71 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/24/04) in the vegetation, it wouldn’t even require a variance, and in fact some of the, it wouldn’t even require a permit because it wouldn’t be seen off site, and some of the BonTon signs were treated that way, the one between BonTon and Sears, on the other side of BonTon, there’s no visibility off site. I’m just saying that by analogy. This is visible, but it’s barely visible when you’re driving north, if you’re not looking at the road or the person in your passenger’s seat or something looks at the Mall, you’ll be able to see it briefly. With that said, we went from the larger numbers that we had been discussing, down to 210. The dimensions are 21 by 10, of the sign. We boxed it, including the basketball, and the way Craig is looking at this, he’s applying the 25% to the size of that panel, which is the bump out, rather than the whole wall. In general, I think that the Code is intended to talk about the mass of the sign versus the mass of the wall, and that it should apply to the whole wall, but it’s not worth making that argument now, because the size of the panel, Craig actually had generously, when he did it, included the glass, but the glass that you’re looking at is not on the same plane as the bump out. It’s flush with the building. The sign is on the overhang. MR. STONE-This is being constructed now, too, isn’t it? MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. STONE-Wasn’t there work going on in the back? MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. ORLANDO-Yes. We’re actually in to the Town for a building permit. MR. STONE-Because I know you’ve got fencing up. MR. ORLANDO-Yes, and some demolition has begun. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. LAPPER-If you take the measurements of the whole wall that’s behind Dick’s, it’s 15 feet by 40 feet. At this hour, it’s good to have round numbers. So that’s 600 square feet. So 25% of 600 square feet, and we’re just talking about that panel above the door, would be 150, and we’re asking for 210, and the 210, you could put it right on the side of the building and it would certainly be less than 25%, and even if it were much larger, I’d argue that you can’t see it from anywhere other than the parking lot anyway, but the way that Craig is reading it, the dimensions would be, 25% of 600 would be 150, and we’re asking for 210, and then the other issue is the height over the roof. Previously, the sign was proposed to be 42 feet. The roof is 26 feet, at 16 feet over. Now that whole panel, and again, the sign isn’t at the top of the panel, but that whole panel is not 36. So it’s only 10 feet above the parapet wall. MR. STONE-So it’s 10 feet of relief. MR. LAPPER-Yes. No, it’s less, because the sign isn’t really at that height, but because I don’t have that measurement, that’s good enough. MR. STONE-So right now you’re asking for a second sign. MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. STONE-That will be 60 feet greater than what Mr. Brown is suggesting you can have. MR. LAPPER-Correct. MR. STONE-Do you agree, Mr. Brown? MR. BROWN-(Lost words) a couple of questions. 72 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/24/04) MR. LAPPER-It’s only from that to that. Craig’s making it easier. MR. HAYES-He’s going to count the brick so it’s less. MR. LAPPER-He’s going to count the brick so we don’t need the size. It’s just the above the roof. MR. BROWN-And for the second sign. MR. LAPPER-And the second sign. MR. HAYES-So he’s saying you need less relief? MR. LAPPER-Less relief. MR. STONE-Okay. So what are we asking for? You’re asking for how much height? No height relief now? STEPHANIE DI LALLO BITTER MRS. DI LALLO BITTER-The second sign and 10 feet of height relief. MR. STONE-That’s it? The second sign and 10 feet of relief, and the 60 feet. MRS. DI LALLO BITTER-No 60 feet. MR. STONE-We’ve agreed, then. All right. That’s gone. Okay. Second sign. Now, I only have a silly question, as somebody who looks at other stores. Is there room for two sporting stores almost side by side? But that’s their problem, not yours. There is? Good. MR. ORLANDO-Dick’s merchandise certainly is more extensive than Kleins. MR. STONE-It is? MR. ORLANDO-Yes. They’re outdoor sporting, fishing, hunting, big in that regard. There’s some overlap, but certainly room. MR. STONE-Great. Wish them well. Okay. Chuck, you had a question about it. MR. ABBATE-Yes, please. Counselors, I can’t tell you how emotionally moved I was by your willingness to compromise. You initially requested 702 square foot, correct? MR. LAPPER-That was actually, that was an error. MR. ABBATE-I understand, that was an error. Then you went to 210 square feet? MR. LAPPER-Yes. That’s just wonderful that you were willing to compromise. However, you’re still getting in excess of 100% increase. If the Code allows for 100 square feet, and we grant you 210 square feet. MR. STONE-No, it’s 150. MR. HAYES-The square footage is off the table. MR. ABBATE-It’s off the table. MR. LAPPER-That just happened in the last minute, though. 73 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/24/04) MR. ABBATE-That is what’s known as a senior moment, and I withdraw my question. MR. STONE-All right. So, just to summarize. We’re talking 10 feet of height relief and one additional sign. Okay. I’ll open the public hearing. Anybody wishing to speak in favor of the application? Anybody opposed to the application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED ANDY KLEIN MR. KLEIN-This will only take five minutes. I know I only have five minutes. My name is Andy Klein. I’m the Vice President of Klein’s All Sports, a family owned business headquartered in Upstate New York, Utica. We’ve been in business since 1948. I’m not sure if many of you on the Board remember the Aviation Mall around 1994. From my limited personal memory, it was a pretty vacant place, including the spot which Klein’s presented occupies. At that time, Pyramid welcomed us with open arms, when we said we wanted to be in Queensbury. When we opened our doors to the public, we were also welcomed. Since that time, for nine years, we’ve gotten a little older, and I’d like to think a little better, in serving the community’s sporting good needs, as well as donating to various sports organizations over the years. Whether intentional or not, the variances requested tonight create a real unfairness at the expense of an existing tenant to the sole benefit of a newer, bigger tenant, in addition, and more serious an issue, is that the variances requested tonight are also for the sole benefit of that new big retailer, and create a very serious and real safety issue to the public at large. At this time, I’d like to discuss some of the applicant’s variance responses by addressing the issues which are before the Board tonight. In response to the question of how would the applicant benefit, applicant claims it will not, and I quote, “It will not be easy to locate the store for potential customers”. Applicant has failed to mention that it always puts Dick’s name on all directional traffic flow signs throughout its business complex. Applicant does not necessitate a sign on front of mall next to an existing Competitor (Klein’s) to benefit the public. Of which I obtained all my information about two weeks ago. So unfortunately, it’s not up to date. So I’ll try to delete the parts, but this picture, I didn’t get to see it, is the one I have. Okay. There are a lot more spaces, excuse me, this is purely a disguise to the fact that its sign will detrimentally hurt an existing adjacent tenant (Klein’s). There are a lot more spaces on the mall than next to Klein’s. The Dicks sign only leads to the mall entrance not directly into the Dick’s store. That seems like more confusion for an approaching consumer in his/her vehicle. Applicant’s sole objective to obtain sign on front of mall is purely for its economic benefit to detriment of existing tenant. Applicant’s request for what it calls a modest sign of 128 square feet is outlandish, when taken in comparison to my existing, or the Klein’s existing exterior sign of approximately 140 square feet. Effect on Variance on the Character of the Neighborhood, they’re requesting that they be allowed to increase the effective height of the mall so that they can affix this sign. This sign will be clearly visible from I-87 as evidenced by my own crude pictures. Trying not to get a ticket, and the only logical reason they’re requesting to be able to extend above the mall roof line by 10 feet is so they are that much more visible on I-87. Clearly based on Dick’s huge brick façade and entrance in the back of the Mall, they do not require a sign that extends 10 feet into the air. There are only two other merchants in the entire parking field where Dick’s is located. Clearly you can’t say the potential customer won’t be able to find Dick’s without the sign reaching up 35, 36 feet in the air. This sign will clearly be visible from I- 87. Therefore, poses a definite safety risk for the approaching drivers, especially given its proximity to Exit 19, which by my rough estimate, I think, is 150 yards, between the distance where you can see the sign and getting on the off ramp. The applicant’s response, and I quote again, that its presence will help reinvigorate the Mall by filling vacant space with a popular tenant, end quote, is a purely private, economic transaction between Pyramid and Dick’s that has already been concluded, and should have no bearing on this Board’s determination. Are there feasible alternatives? Once again, the sign on the front of the mall is not necessary as indicated that Landlord always puts major tenants on directional traffic flow signs. Landlord and Dick’s are clearly putting the sign on the front of the mall to damage existing tenant and use the proposed location as a camouflage for their real objective. Furthermore, based on the 74 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/24/04) lack of the number of tenants in the entire back of the mall, the additional height requested is excessive and applicant’s concern of being located can easily be accomplished with a sign that does not extend above the mall parapet mall and does not, therefore, pose a safety risk for all 40,800 daily northbound I-87 traffic goers. Jumping down to, will the variance have an adverse effect on the physical conditions in the district, the sign on the front of the mall, based on its location next to Klein’s All Sports will probably create more confusion since it may very well be the only mall in America with two competing sporting goods signs next to each other. The sign on the back of the mall, based on its height requirement, it’s clearly visible that I-87, again, poses a clear safety issue, especially given its proximity to the off ramp Exit 19. Applicant has also failed to even raise the issue of the Target construction or we’ll just leave it construction, which will project out from the mall, by my estimates, of the paperwork that I’ve been given, approximately 165 feet by 400 feet wide, which will clearly be obstructing Klein’s visibility and access. Klein’s has been successful, this past week, in obtaining a temporary restraining order, issued by a Supreme Court Judge, against the applicant, Pyramid, against violating Klein’s contractual covenants against unreasonably impacting the visibility and access of our premises. If the current variance is granted, I will be the first in line for another variance seeking to raise the current Klein’s sign 10 feet above the mall roofline, just in order to be seen by the people entering the eastern end of the mall. By granting the variance, you will be creating a variance that I don’t really think benefits the community, unless the community is benefited by a series of signs around the mall, one reaching higher and bigger into the sky than the other. In summation, granting Dick’s one sign, according to the size criteria written in the Code is legal and fair. Granting Dick’s one sign next to a local competitor who’s been in the area for 9 years is very questionable business by the landlord, but legal and fair under the Code. Granting Dick’s two signs which they propose serves only to benefit Dick’s bottom line to the detriment of the public interest, and this is not mandated by the town code and should not be allowed. Granting Dick’s the ability to both increase the effective height of the mall and then erect their size sign which is clearly visible from I-87 poses a serious safety issue that is definitely not in the public’s best interest and therefore should not be allowed under town code. Thank you for putting up with my longwinded-ness, and I hope you take my points into strong consideration in your final determination. MR. STONE-Thank you. Anybody else from the public? Any correspondence? MR. MC NULTY-No correspondence. MR. STONE-Let me close the public hearing for the moment. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. STONE-Are we saying, Mr. Lapper, that there is court action involved with this thing? MR. LAPPER-No. What Mr. Klein is referring to is his surprising last minute challenge to the store in the front of the Mall, based upon some visibility argument that they have that we just learned of it two days ago, but has nothing to do with Dick’s whatsoever. It might be motivated by Dick’s, but it has nothing to do with Dick’s. We’re surprised to hear Mr. Klein tonight, but what he’s talking about is competition, which has nothing to do with the variance. Penney’s and Sears are competitors. They’re both in the Mall. They both have signs. It’s unfortunate that he feels injured, but the only tenants that have signs in the front of the Mall, other than the anchor tenants, are CVS, which is in the back of the Mall, BonTon, which is in the back of the Mall, and T.J. Maxx’s, which is in the back of the Mall. So, Pyramid, under the Code, they’re allowed, every tenant is allowed one outdoor sign, under the Town Zoning Code, but that’s not what Pyramid has allowed. Under their leases, you can’t have a sign unless they allow it. So, when Mr. Klein comes in if Dick’s gets this, he will apply for a Variance, he can’t apply for a variance to the Town unless the landlord granted him the right, because that right is reserved in a lease that Pyramid has to approve any variances, any signs, before a variance can be requested. So that’s not credible. Our reasons for asking this variance are strictly because this is in the back of the Mall, and it’s not designed to be seen from the Northway. It’s designed to be seen from the parking lot. It’s a large parking lot back there for the movie theatre, for 75 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/24/04) Penney’s, and now for Dick’s, and it’s just to identify where it is when you’re in the back of the Mall, and besides that it’s woods and the new filtration plant for the City, and there are no receptors, other than, when you’re in the parking lot, except for that split second when you’re traveling at 55 or 65 or 70 miles an hour on the Northway, and that’s not what it’s designed for, and in terms of the design of the building, the Town, the new design guidelines call for buildings to be articulated, so that it’s not just a flat façade. This architectural treatment accomplishes that, and the sign is just the way to make it look like they’re goal posts. That’s why it’s slightly above the roof, and, you know, we certainly didn’t reduce the size in response, we didn’t anticipate that Mr. Klein would be here, or have a complaint. No other Mall tenant has ever had a complaint when we’ve been before this Board before. It’s unfortunate that he feels that way about the competition, but the only way that you keep a competitor out of a Mall is if you have a restrictive covenant in your lease that bars competition, and that’s not what he negotiated. So Pyramid has the right to lease to additional, an additional sports store, just like they can have Sears and J.C. Penney’s in the same Mall. MR. STONE-Just a question. This new building that’s going up. MR. LAPPER-In front. MR. STONE-In front. What’s it going to do to the visibility of Klein’s one sign? MR. ORLANDO-Yes. The Klein’s sign is on the front façade of the building, and as you enter in our main entrance, which is next to Friendly’s, there will be no impact on the Klein’s sign whatsoever. If you’re coming from the western side, I’m sorry, the eastern side, which is the Sears side, once again, it’s against the building and as you’re traveling the ring road, you can’t see it anyway, until you get over into that area of the parking lot, but that’s not really what’s at issue. MR. STONE-Well, I’m looking at a picture, here, which is very well done. I just don’t know where that building is going to be, because this is obviously taken from the Friendly entrance. MR. ORLANDO-Correct, and the new building, to answer your question, Mr. Chairman, is that it will be right next to the Klein’s building, heading east. MR. STONE-Heading east. Okay. MR. ORLANDO-Towards Sears. MR. LAPPER-And for what it’s worth, I think you heard Mr. Klein say that his sign is still going to be larger than the Dick’s sign. I think he said his number was 140, and Dick’s is 128, just to use round numbers. So he still has the bigger sign, for what that’s worth. MR. ORLANDO-And I guess from a practical standpoint, too, that sign is there because it’s right above the entrance that customers would use to utilize the Dick’s store, which is going to be in the back of the Mall. So if you parked on the front, this is the front entrance that you would use if you were walking in, as opposed to parking in the back, and that’s the reason why the sign is there. It certainly wasn’t done for any, you know, malice or detriment to his business. MR. STONE-Any other comments? MR. URRICO-Will Dick’s be on the pylon sign outside, out front? MR. LAPPER-If we could answer that question, Dick’s will not be on the pylon sign. MR. KLEIN-I just want the record reflected that I was told by my attorney that we were issued a TRO which was served on Pyramid on Monday morning, issued by a Judge, saying that it did not prevent construction from excavating which is occurring right now in the front, but it did, 76 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/24/04) once again, state that Pyramid was prevented from violating the restrictive covenants, which prevent unreasonably obstructing the visibility and access. I don’t know if Mr. Lapper has been apprised of that, because he’s not the Counsel who’s defending it. It’s another attorney who was brought in on a motion practice that occurred by phone yesterday. It was not his law firm. MR. STONE-Okay, but you’re talking about the visibility of your sign by this new building. MR. KLEIN-On the front, right. It is a different issue than I’m here tonight. MR. STONE-Okay. I just want to be sure. Okay. Thank you. MR. LAPPER-The building that he’s referring to is the building that’s under construction in the front. MR. STONE-Correct. MR. LAPPER-It is not the Dick’s. MR. STONE-No, we understand that. MR. LAPPER-They’ve raised the visibility issue. That’s what a court will decide, and a Temporary Restraining Order is something that one party gets, ex parte, meaning without the other party being present, you go to the judge, you say, I think I’m going to be injured, and the judge will then schedule a hearing in a few days, so everyone can present their arguments. MR. STONE-And the point is, as far as we’re concerned, we don’t like to get involved when there is situation like that. This has nothing to do with this particular. Okay. Let’s talk about it. Let’s start with Jim. MR. UNDERWOOD-There’s two issues that we need to discuss here, and that is, I would think Number One would be the sign on the back of the Mall there, the one that will be visible from the Northway. Having viewed your other Dick’s sign down in Wilton Mall, you know, the one down there. It’s very similar to what you’re proposing here, but I would have to fall on the side of, you know, I think setting a precedent with putting a sign higher up than everybody else’s sign, you know, it’s like mine’s bigger than yours, and it’s a matter of, it just sets a precedent within the Mall. As Mr. Klein also spoke, you know, everybody else is going to request one to go higher up on the side of the building, so they’re more visible when this new construction is finished. I would think that it would be reasonable to have a sign, you know, on that side of the building, but I would rather see the sign be kept within the realm of reality. It can be somewhat bigger than what you had proposed on the other side of the building, towards Aviation Road, but I wouldn’t want to see it as large as what you’re proposing there now. As far as the sign on the other side of the building, obviously it’s to your benefit to propose some kind of signage that would be visible from the main entrances to the Mall, but I think the point was also made that there’s directional signage when you enter the Mall, and most people, if they’re going up to the Mall, are going to know which store they’re going to, it’s not a matter of, well, you happen to be driving by on the Northway and noticed that there might be some stores there, and it’s a matter of, is it reasonable to assume that you would have some signage out front that would be visible, and, you know, sometimes you have to drive in. Sometimes you have to get out of your car to figure out where places are, but I think having an excess sign on there, you know, is an excessive request. So I would not be in favor of that, either. MR. STONE-You’re saying no. Chuck? MR. ABBATE-Okay, thank you. Well, obviously businesses of all types require some sort of advertising, and Dick’s can’t be faulted for this. However, I am a little uncomfortable with the fact that Dick’s is attempting to raise the sign to 14 feet of height relief. MR. STONE-It’s 10 now. 77 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/24/04) MR. ABBATE-Ten, all right, I’ll change it to ten. Ten. Granted Dick’s should advertise their goods. There’s not a question about that, but I would like to see the applicant compromise, in terms of height, and if they compromise in terms of height, which the compromise would be considered reasonable, I would then support the application, but I think I have a hard time supporting it at the ten foot level, Mr. Chairman. MR. STONE-Joyce? MRS. HUNT-I agree with Chuck. Looking at the picture, it does seem, I mean, the one in the front’s okay, but it just seems to me that it’s a lot, a little much for the back, because there’s not much competition back there. MR. LAPPER-Are you looking at the newest one that we submitted, the one that’s only 10 feet? Yes, see, what you’re looking at is the, that was the original one that was proposed at 16 feet of relief. MR. ABBATE-Did we get the new one? Was that distributed? MR. LAPPER-The one that Stephanie just handed out. MR. ABBATE-I’m sorry, the one Stephanie. MR. LAPPER-Yes, and that, we came in and took six feet off, right at, right when we sat down. So that’s only 10 feet above the roof, just to make it look a little more interesting. MR. STONE-You’re saying the goal posts are being reduced in height? MR. LAPPER-Yes, from 42 to 36 feet. MR. ORLANDO-The actual sign itself is 33 feet. MR. STONE-That I understand, but this brick goal post is 36. MR. LAPPER-In terms of the back of the building, there’s this large expanse of what would be just a flat building, and this is, because it’s a big store, there’s no other stores near it, and this is the only thing that’s visually interesting because it’s raised a little bit above. It’s merely an architectural treatment, and there’s virtually nobody that sees it off site. So it’s really, by reducing it from the 16 to the 10 feet, we’ve really, I think we’ve addressed your concern before we sat down. MRS. HUNT-I’m just wondering if the other stores, Penney’s or BonTon, do they have raised? MR. LAPPER-We’re looking for signs, yes. Penney’s has a sign on the back, but I don’t know if we have a photo of it. MR. STONE-The BonTon’s got 28. MR. LAPPER-The only stores that have signs on the back are the big ones. MR. STONE-Yes, right. Joyce, so where are you? MRS. HUNT-I’m wavering. MR. STONE-Okay. Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes. I have to admit I’m a little uncomfortable about being in the middle of an intra-tenant dispute at the Mall, and it’s making it more difficult to make a decision. The way I 78 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/24/04) stand right now is I think I can live with the sign on the back. Maybe slightly less than 10 feet, but I can live with it being a little bit bigger than the roof, but I would be against the second sign out front, and the reason is because we’ve had this discussion before with other tenants in other plazas where they’ve wanted a sign on the back side, some of them which are visible from the road, and we’ve denied them, and I have to admit that I’ve been one of the ones that feel that way as well. It’s still a second sign, and I think it sets a bad precedent again. Not only for Aviation Mall, but in the Town in general. So I would be against it. MR. LAPPER-Roy, this is the picture of what BonTon has in the front, which this Board granted, acknowledging that it’s in the back, just the front sign. MR. URRICO-I had nothing to do with that one. MR. STONE-Okay. Jaime? MR. HAYES-Well, originally on this application, I was certainly troubled by the large numbers that were involved, but based on the new application, I’m going to agree with, first of all, that breaking up the roofline of the Mall in some architecturally pleasing way, actually will have a positive benefit. I always thought that some of the malls that I’ve seen in the past with the, like southern Jersey flatness to them, you know, wasn’t necessarily ultimately that appealing from an architectural standpoint, and I think that the sign that I see here now, to me, breaking up that roofline, etc., would be a positive result, and if, you know, a few of the other tenants in the Mall that wanted to improve, you know, their entrance areas or facades in a similar way, I actually think I’d be in favor of it, just because it would, I see it as an improvement, per se. I also don’t think that 10 feet, when you look at the overall height of the Mall, and you look at this thing from say somewhere in the parking lot, I just don’t think that 10 feet is going to really appear to be that much, in this particular case. As far as the additional wall sign at the front of the plaza, I understand Mr. Klein’s objections, and certainly anyone who’s in business, myself included, knows competition is something to be concerned about for sure, but I’m not sure how, from a pure business perspective, taking in the realities of malls and some of the deterioration of malls, that negotiating a new tenant, a quality tenant, in this particular case, in my view, may be somewhat impractical to attract a good recycling of a property without providing some signage on the front that this store exists in the back. I mean, we all know it exists in the back because we’re from Queensbury, but if, again, this Mall, I can’t speak for Mr. Orlando, but I’m sure they have a fairly significant heightened seasonal business from people that aren’t from this area, whether it’s the Track or Lake George or whatever, and I just don’t think it’s fair to assume that those people are going to know that this Dick’s store exists in the back of the Mall because you really can’t see the back of the Mall from anywhere in a meaningful way. So I think some signage in the front there, for a semi-anchor tenant, is a practical business reality in this particular case, and as I look at the conceptual drawings, it just doesn’t strike me as something that knocks me out. So I would be in favor. MR. STONE-Chuck? MR. MC NULTY-I can basically agree with Jaime. My first reaction, when I looked at the original proposal, was that the sign in the back was way too large, but I can see the reasoning for wanting the sign on the front of the Mall. I think it’s also reasonable for any tenant that’s got a store in the rear and has got a rear entrance to want a sign over that, and if we reduce the height on the sign in the rear any more, then it no longer becomes an architectural change to the roofline. It’s just a sign over a back door. So I think what’s proposed at this point, for the rear, is reasonable, and it strikes me that having a sign on the front is also reasonable. Beyond that, I think the competition issue is something for the individual stores in the Mall to settle, not for this Board to worry about. So I’d be in favor. MR. STONE-It’s funny. I listen to everybody, and everybody’s got some variation of the whole thing. First of all, I think the sign on the back, your compromise is excellent. I mean, I think it’s a reasonable sign. It’s a good looking sign. I am troubled, however, by the front. From a first impression standpoint, I picked this up, I went out looking at properties, and I picked this up 79 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/24/04) and I said, I can’t believe that maybe that the Mall would allow two signs so prominently displayed for what I, very unsophisticated person in this area, think are similar businesses. You’ve got this, maybe when they, the sign is going to be green, and it’s going to be, basically, this is a true representation of what it’s going to look like, right? MR. ORLANDO-That’s correct. MR. STONE-Okay. I was just troubled. I mean, and then I probably would not have had a problem, until I heard Mr. Klein, and while competition is healthy and all that sort of stuff, I guess I’m just troubled by the fact that my first impression, as I drive in from what Mr. Orlando says is the main entrance, funny I never thought about it as the main entrance, but that’s okay. Because I come from the other way, but if that’s the main entrance, I’m just going to drive down this road from Friendly’s, and I’m going to see, wow, I’m going to see Klein’s All Sports, and Dick’s, whatever it says on the bottom, sporting goods or whatever it says. Now, I recognize that this is a, I think this is a competition thing, but I can enter into it because you’re looking for something from me and from this Board, and I don’t want to deny Dick’s an opportunity to be seen from the front, and maybe I’m saying maybe we ought to have a better directional sign which isn’t quite as glaring. MR. LAPPER-Well, if it wasn’t Dick’s, if you just think about that sign that says rear store, because that’s really what it’s about, the same as BonTon. It’s about the location of that store in the back, and if you just look at that sign that says rear store, just so you know that it’s there, that’s the purpose of it. The fact that they happen to both be sporting goods, they’re not, I mean, you know, I can’t define their businesses, but I know that when I go to buy skis, and ski equipment, I go to Klein’s because Dick’s doesn’t sell that. So they don’t, they’re both sporting goods retailers, but they are differences, and when you look at the Mall, in terms of the soft goods, Old Navy, T.J. Maxx, J.C. Penney’s, Sears, there are a lot of soft good retailers, and the whole thing about a mall is that it is a jumble of different stores, so, you know, I think it’s rare to have an emotional presentation from the Vice President of a company. It’s not something we usually see here. It’s unfortunate. Obviously this is something that Mr. Klein feels strongly about, but just in terms of land use, what we’re here to talk about tonight, it’s exactly the same as BonTon that we’ve got a store in an unfortunate location, and that’s why they need the sign on the front. MR. ORLANDO-Also, too, I just want to add that, as Jon mentioned earlier, the space in question that we’re leasing to Dick’s Sporting Goods has been vacant for 10 years since we expanded the center and built a new J.C. Penney’s, and, you know, that’s a hardship for us to carry that space without income on it for that period of time, and part of the reason why is because it’s on the back of the Mall and it is harder to lease, and so, you know, for us to attract tenants to want to go back there, to be successful in their business, this front sign is a key part, and Jaime was correct in saying that a lot of our business that we do is people who do not live here, who are Lake George or Saratoga or other leisure travelers and business travelers who are out there that pull up, and they do not know what stores are in the back, and the treatment for the BonTon was key, to let people know that, and if you notice, the location of that sign is right where a customer would enter. If they’re not going to park in the back of the facility, they would enter in the front through there and there’s a little jog to get back to the store, and you’re always going to want to have that sign identifying the tenant at the closes entrance. It just happens that it is next to the Klein’s store, but, logistically, that’s the right place for it to be, and it’s an important component of this deal, as it relates to putting that tenant on the back of that sign. MR. STONE-Who, just as a, who is the applicant? MR. LAPPER-The Mall, Pyramid. MR. STONE-Pyramid, okay. I just want to be sure, because I heard benefit to Pyramid, and if that’s benefit to the applicant, that’s part of our test, because our thing says Dick’s Sporting Goods. 80 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/24/04) MR. LAPPER-Yes. We’re here on behalf of the Mall owner, and Bob is the General Manager. MR. STONE-I understand. I understand. I just want a confirmation here. I mean, part of the applicant I mean, part of our decision is the benefit to the applicant, and if they are, in fact, the applicant, then that makes me, makes it easier for me to say okay. Because we’re not dealing with Dick’s as the applicant, because the fact that the store has been empty for ten years is no bother to Dick’s, unless they got a very good lease from Pyramid. So you’re definitely the applicant. You agree, Craig, that Pyramid’s the applicant? MR. BROWN-Well, they’re definitely the owner. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. URRICO-If a tenant that was located in the front wanted to put a sign in the back, say the back entrance, would you allow that? MR. ORLANDO-I’ve never had a request of that nature, hard for me to think hypothetically in that situation, because I have no cases to give you an educated answer. I certainly think we would consider any situation that would be beneficial to the tenants and beneficial to the property, but I really have no basis to give you an answer on that one. MR. STONE-Is there any possibility, it’s not a requirement, that you could consider reversing Mall entrance and Dick’s signs, so that there is something between the two signs? MR. ORLANDO-If that’s what makes this Board comfortable. MR. STONE-It makes me comfortable. MR. ORLANDO-If that makes you more comfortable with this application, then absolutely. MR. STONE-Okay. Chuck? MR. ABBATE-After listening to my fellow Board members, could I modify my position somewhat, please. MR. STONE-Yes. MR. ABBATE-I think Jaime may have hit it right on the head, and I wrote it down. He used the term “business necessity”. I would like to add to that, perhaps there are also mitigating circumstances. The mitigating circumstances are the fact that the Mall has, indeed, has been, that space has indeed been vacant for approximately 10 years, and one of our criteria is that we do what we feel is in the best interest of the Town, and that’s what I consider to be mitigating circumstances, and if we can draw in new businesses, Dick’s Sporting Goods or whatever else it might be, I think my position has changed, and I would now support the application, Mr. Chairman. MR. STONE-Okay. Does their willingness to transpose those two signs help? MR. ABBATE-Sure. MR. STONE-Okay. Then you’re willing to do that? MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. STONE-Then I need a motion to approve with that condition. We’ve got an Unlisted Action. 81 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/24/04) 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 24 day of March, 2004, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Abbate, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Urrico, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Stone NOES: Mr. Underwood MR. STONE-Okay. Now I need a motion to approve with condition. MOTION TO APPROVE SIGN VARIANCE NO. 17-2004 DICK’S SPORTING GOODS, Introduced by Paul Hayes who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Abbate: 558 Aviation Rd., Aviation Mall. The project applicant is the Pyramid Company of Glens Falls, Inc. The applicant proposes two wall signs of 128 square feet, and 210. The relief that’s being requested, the first piece of relief is for one additional wall sign when only one is allowed for each business in a business complex, per Section 140-6(B3d4b), and the second piece of relief is for 10 feet of height relief as the sign is proposed to extend 10 feet above the roof ridgeline per Section 140-6(B3d3b). In considering such a Sign Variance, one, whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood. I don’t think so. This is an extensive business complex, and has been so for an extended period of time, and is so designated by the Town Code. So I think that the signs for businesses are going to be, not going to change the neighborhood in any way in this particular case. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method feasible for the applicant to pursue. I believe that the applicant has indicated to the Board that, to attract a quality tenant in the rear of the Mall, there has to be some signage on the front of the Mall, and this appears to be the only practical way to do so in this particular case. Is the relief substantial? I don’t believe that it is, in this particular case at all. The second sign in the back of the Mall will only be seen from the back of the Mall, and the 10 feet of relief, I think, is minimal, when contrasted to the overall height of the Mall, and again, the fact that it’s in the back of the Mall. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect on the physical or environmental conditions of the neighborhood or district. Again, I don’t think so. It’s a Mall. This is a new tenant. There’s actually some architectural value to improving the entrance to this store in the back of the Mall that’s been identified by some members of the Board, breaking up the roofline. I just don’t see any real impact on the neighborhood, because the neighborhood is the Mall. Is the difficulty self-created? I guess the difficulty is self-created in the sense that they’re trying to attract a new tenant in this particular case, and there’s certain business requirements to do so, so that compels the request for the variance, but on balance, I think the test falls in favor of the applicant, and I move for its approval. The one condition to approval is that the applicant has agreed, on the record, to reverse the placement on the front of the Mall of the Dick’s sign to be to the right of the Mall entrance sign, which is the reverse of what has been proposed in the application, and the intention, as directed by the Board, is to soften, to whatever extent practical in this case, the contrast between Dick’s Sporting Goods and Klein’s Sporting Goods signs being two continuous signs versus being interrupted in some fashion visually. Duly adopted 24 day of March, 2004, by the following vote: th AYES: Mrs. Hunt, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Stone NOES: Mr. Underwood, Mr. Urrico ABSENT: Mr. Bryant MR. LAPPER-Thank you. MR. ORLANDO-Thank you. 82 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/24/04) SIGN VARIANCE NO. 10-2004 SEQRA TYPE: UNLISTED SAXTON SIGN CORP. FOR CARTER’S AGENT: SAXTON SIGN CORP. FOR CARTER’S OWNER: CPG FINANCE II, LLC ZONING: HC-INT. LOCATION: 1476 STATE ROUTE 9 APPLICANT PROPOSES INSTALLATION OF A 42 SQ. FT. WALL SIGN FOR THE CARTER’S OUTLET STORE, AND REQUESTS RELIEF FROM THE NUMBER OF SIGNS ALLOWED PER TENANT IN A BUSINESS COMPLEX. WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 3/10/2004 LOT SIZE: 4.51 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 288.12-1-17 SECTION: 140-6(B3d4b) PAT BONDI, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Sign Variance No. 10-2004, Saxton Sign Corp. for Carter’s, Meeting Date: March 24, 2004 “Project Location: 1476 State Route 9 Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes placement of an additional 42 sq. ft. wall sign. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for an additional wall sign where only one is allowed, per § 140- 6(B3d4b). Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): BP 2003-241: applied for on 05/06/03 (not yet issued), 42 sq. ft. wall sign for Carter’s. BP 2001-527: 07/24/01, 18.33 sq. ft. wall for Carter’s. Numerous other building permits, sign permits, 3 sign variances, 1 area variance, and 2 site plan reviews for the business complex. Staff comments: The applicant proposes to install an additional wall sign on the west end of the building facing State Route 9. The applicant’s existing sign is presently installed on the fascia above the entrance to the store. The applicant claims the Levi’s sign currently on the west end of the building is to be removed. The applicant’s new proposal would be to occupy the wall space once the sign is removed should this application be approved.” MR. MC NULTY-“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form March 10, 2004 Project Name: Saxton Sign Corp. for Carter’s Owner: CPG Finance II, LLC ID Number: QBY-04-SV-10 County Project#: Mar04-29 Current Zoning: HC-Int Community: Queensbury Project Description: Applicant proposes installation of a 42 sq. ft. wall sign for the Carter’s outlet store, and requests relief from the number of signs allowed per tenant in a Business Plaza. Site Location: 1476 State Route 9 Tax Map Number(s): 288.12-1-17 Staff Notes: Sign Variance: The applicant proposes to construct a second wall sign on an outlet building that faces Route 9. the building currently contains the Levis wall sign where the proposal is to move the Levis sign over a bit and to install a Carters wall sign. The information submitted indicates that the signage over the storefront is difficult for customers to see and Route 9 sign would assist in letting customers know where the sign is in the outlet. 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 3/12/04. MR. STONE-Sir. MR. BONDI-Hi. I’m Pat Bondi with Saxton Signs, and first I want to say that Levi’s sign, I was told, doesn’t have a permit for it, but had nothing to do with Saxton Signs or Carter’s. That was put up by Levi, and we would remove if we can get a permit to install this Carter’s sign. The main issue here is that when you’re heading north, you cannot see the Carter’s sign at all, because of the single faced wall sign, and all the other businesses in the area, including Levi’s, they have pylon signs on the road, like on the Log Jam and Levi’s and other businesses there. So if you’re heading north or south, you can see their business either way, but with Carter’s you can only see it going south. So if we install this sign on the wall, you can see it going both directions. MR. STONE-Which sign did you say was the one you didn’t do? MR. BONDI-The one we didn’t do? Levi’s. 83 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/24/04) MR. HAYES-Levi’s. MR. STONE-Levi’s. MR. BONDI-Levi’s is right where this sign is now. MR. STONE-On that side, right. Okay. I just had an interesting thought. I know you’re the sign company. You’re not the Factory Stores of America. That sign seems more like an ego trip to me. It’s not very helpful to anybody because you could all be on that sign and make it a legal sign and not say Factory Stores. You know what I mean, the pylon sign that you said you’d love to be on. MR. BONDI-Right. MR. STONE-I would think the owner would be more than willing to do that, but obviously, has that been discussed at all? MR. BONDI-Not through us, no. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. BONDI-But there’s no room on right now, you know, it’s filled up. MR. STONE-Well, because it says Factory Stores of America, which, I don’t know, means something to somebody, I guess. There’s a sign under the walkway roof in front of the store. Is that yours? MR. BONDI-Underneath? I didn’t see that when I was there. MR. MC NULTY-The one that says Dockers? MR. STONE-Yes, if you walk into the store. MR. MC NULTY-That’s got to belong to the Levi’s store. Dockers is Levi. MR. HAYES-That’s a branded product. Yes. MR. MC NULTY-So they’ve actually got three signs, one on the end of the building, one at the front near the Carter’s sign, and one in front of their door. MR. BONDI-Yes, the one that says Levi’s, yes. I’ve seen that, yes. MR. STONE-Yes, it’s underneath, as you walk into the Carter’s store, there it sits. Hanging from the roof, hanging from the, if you took this thing and turned it over, this part here, it’s hanging from right there. MR. BONDI-Yes, I’ve seen that. Yes. That’s the Levi’s sign. With an arrow pointing down. MR. STONE-Yes. MR. MC NULTY-Yes. MR. BONDI-I’m not sure what the issue is with that. MR. STONE-I asked Mr. Brown. He hasn’t had a chance to look yet. MR. BONDI-You can probably read that from the road. 84 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/24/04) MR. MC NULTY-Yes, I think the one that says Dockers you could read from the road. MR. STONE-You mean up on top there. MR. MC NULTY-Not the one on the end in the peak. That one says Levi’s. MR. STONE-Right. MR. MC NULTY-But that one right there says Dockers, which is a Levi brand. MR. HAYES-That’s a temporary sign. It looks like paper or whatever. MR. STONE-That’s 25% of the window space. All right. Anybody have any questions about this one? I know the hour is late. MR. URRICO-Is this one store that has Levi and Carter in it, or are these? MR. BONDI-No. Levi’s is way down at the other end. MR. URRICO-Okay. MR. STONE-And who put, the directional sign in there I asked about, too. You didn’t put that in. MR. BONDI-No. MR. STONE-It’s right on the fascia of that Carter’s store. Weird. MR. BONDI-I’m not sure what the story is with that sign. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. HAYES-So far you’ve done remarkably well to keep clean hands. MR. BONDI-No, I’m just telling the truth. I mean, I know Carter’s is okay. So if you want me to rely a message I can, if that sign doesn’t have a permit or something. MR. STONE-So we’re talking about a sign facing Route 9, and the other sign is, now that we’ve talked about so many signs. MR. HAYES-They have a sign, obviously, facing the parking lot that’s the current sign. MR. BONDI-You can only see it going south. MR. HAYES-So he’s going for a second sign, basically. That’s the whole thing. MR. STONE-No, I understand, but there’s nothing. MR. BONDI-I know you don’t allow second wall signs, mostly, but most people that have a wall sign also have a pylon sign. In this case, they can’t have a sign. MR. STONE-Well, we were talking, Craig, a long time ago tonight, we were talking about the fact that Wal-Mart didn’t want to put a sign on Weeks Road, which would have been a second wall sign. Why can’t they have two wall signs? MR. MC NULTY-They’re not on a corner. MR. STONE-It’s the complex. They are on the corner. 85 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/24/04) MR. MC NULTY-No, they’re not. MR. HAYES-There’s no Town road through there. MR. STONE-Okay. Yes, right. Okay. All right. Hey, guys, it’s late, you know, you ask questions. Get dumb answers, or smart answers. All right, any questions? We’re all getting tired, obviously. Let me open the public hearing, just because we have to. Anybody wishing to speak in favor? Anybody against? Any correspondence? MR. MC NULTY-No correspondence. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. STONE-Let’s talk about it. I don’t mean to, we’re not being flip. We’re really not. We’ve obviously exhausted ourselves on signs this evening. So, Chuck, why don’t you tell us what you’d like. MR. ABBATE-All right. Thank you. Quite frankly, I think the request is reasonable. I went up there, looked around, and I think that the applicant’s request to place an additional sign is not anything that will be detrimental to the area, and as Jaime said earlier, business necessity. I believe this is a business necessity, and based on that, Mr. Chairman, I would support the application. MR. STONE-Thank you. It’s interesting here. The applicant is you guys. Do you own, you’re doing it for Carter’s. MR. BONDI-For Carter’s. MR. STONE-You’re not doing it for the owner of the building. Which is kind of interesting. MR. BONDI-Well, actually, we’re doing it for West Coast Sign Company that’s making the sign and shipping it to us, and we’re doing the permit work and we’re installing it, and they’re doing it for Carter’s. MR. STONE-So you’re not doing anything except. MR. BONDI-Permit work and installation. MR. STONE-Joyce? MRS. HUNT-Yes. I didn’t even know there was a Carter’s in that row of stores, and I’ve been to the Log Jam several times recently. So I would think that it’s really needed. I would support it. MR. STONE-Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes. I know I’ve spoken out against second wall signs, but there are times when they make sense, and this is one of them, I think. Certainly the benefit to the applicant, in this case, far outweighs any detriment to the community. I think it’s, even though it’s not a corner building, it’s an odd-shaped building, and I really think the business would stand to benefit from it. They probably can lose the sign in front, on the front of the building and not miss it, if you had this one there. So I’d be in favor of it. MR. STONE-Jaime? 86 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/24/04) MR. HAYES-Well, in this particular case, I think that all the stores in the plaza have signs, essentially, over their doors and I understand your argument about the pylon sign not being on the pylon sign, but I think that’s an issue for Carter’s to take up with Factory Stores of America, as Lew has pointed out. If they really want to take care of their tenants, they should put them on that pylon sign, because I think, in a sense, putting a sign of this size up there almost is giving undue preferential treatment to Carter’s in this particular case, and it’s a second wall sign that, while not harmful, I just haven’t been presented with a compelling reason to grant this particular variance. So I’m against it. MR. STONE-Chuck? MR. MC NULTY-Well, frankly I flip both ways on this. I can see the reason for Carter’s wanting that there. I can argue that there’s good reason for the Mall wanting it there because, to my count, I think there’s three viable businesses in that mall right now and there’s a lot of vacant stores. So certainly the Mall can use some help, but at the same time, I think if we grant the permission for this sign, and then the Mall picks up some business, there’s several stores in there that are vacant now that as they add tenants I think are also going to say, hey, we want a sign on the front, too, so that people know we’re in that mall as well, and I think eventually we’re going to have a problem that way. So I’m going to agree with Jaime that I understand the problem. I don’t think this is the solution. I think the solution is to address the pylon sign, and for the mall owners to do something about that, and adding store names to that instead. So I’m going to be opposed. MR. STONE-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I’d be in agreement with Chuck. The only place I think that a second sign should go is on that pylon sign, and setting a precedent, putting another sign up there, you know, would not be in the best interest. MR. STONE-Well, we came down to three, three, for the first time tonight. That’s good. I agree with my gentlemen on either side. It is not your problem, but my comment, looking at that pylon sign, it is an ego trip for the mall. I don’t know who Factory Stores of America are. I don’t think anybody knows who Factory Stores are, and it’s a perfect waste of a very valuable sign that Carter’s should say, I want on that sign. I mean, by putting a sign up on top, it wouldn’t bother me, honestly, that if Factory Stores of America wanted to go up where Carter’s is, and tell me that that’s who’s there, I would have less of a problem than putting a second business sign up there. So I’m going to have to be opposed. Because there’s just no reason, it’s a very unfair, and we just went through fairness. I think it’s unfair to have that sign up there, when nobody else, the only good thing about your application is that one sign is going to come down, but it didn’t belong there in the first place. So, I would ask Carter’s, suggest to Carter’s, that, and I think they’ve got a lot of leverage at this point in time, as a number of people have pointed out, there aren’t many tenants in there, say, guys, I want to be on that pylon sign, and that’s where I need to be. So I need a motion, you can do two things. You can pull the application, because we’re in a situation right now where, if we deny it, there is no, we’re denying a second sign, and there is no compromise. MR. BONDI-Well, I’d like to add one thing to the Board members that were against it, because of the other tenants would all want a sign like that. Carter’s is the only one, they’re in that space right there. That is the corner of their space. MR. STONE-I understand. MR. BONDI-So, by rights, Levi’s shouldn’t be there, because they’re way down the other end. They’re on the corner. So nobody else could really argue the point of having one on the front. MR. STONE-Well, I think we all want to see the signage cleaned up on that wall, and this is an opportunity for us, and I think Carter’s ought to take the lead in getting it done. So, as I say, we 87 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/24/04) can make a motion to deny, which means you’d have to come back with, I’m not sure you could come back with an application for a second, not another wall sign. MR. BONDI-Well, if it’s denied, they won’t be getting a new sign. MR. STONE-Okay. Well, I need a motion to deny. Chuck, you haven’t done one. MR. MC NULTY-Okay. MOTION TO DENY SIGN VARIANCE NO. 10-2004 SAXTON SIGN CORP. FOR CARTER’S, Introduced by Charles McNulty who moved for its adoption, seconded by Paul Hayes: 1476 State Route 9. The applicant’s requested an additional wall sign, where only one is allowed. In considering this, I think we’ve considered whether an undesirable change would be produced in the character of the neighborhood, which in this case I think is the mall in question, and we’ve determined that there will be an undesirable change, in that it adds a second sign for one store, and possibly creates the expectation for future tenants in the outer stores to also expect signs in this same general area. We’ve also discussed whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some other method feasible for the applicant to pursue, and I think we’ve suggested that one possible alternative action would be for the applicant to pursue the mall’s owner, modifying the pylon sign that’s out front, so that it can include the names of the tenants in the mall, rather than putting second signs on the building. In considering whether the requested Sign Variance is substantial, it’s a 100% increase, doubling the number of signs that are permitted in this situation. So I think it is substantial. I think, beyond that, it certainly is self-created, in that it’s the company that wants to place the sign there, and they already have the one permitted sign in place. For those reasons, I move denial. Duly adopted this 24 day of March, 2004, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Underwood, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Stone NOES: Mr. Abbate, Mr. Urrico ABSENT: Mr. Bryant MR. BONDI-Okay, and just for the record, unless someone contacts us, and wants to pay us to remove that Levi’s sign, that wasn’t part of our job. MR. STONE-No, we understand that. MR. BONDI-Okay. MR. ABBATE-Are you finished with this applicant? MR. STONE-Yes. MR. ABBATE-I have a question for Staff. What is the date today? MR. BROWN-Today is March 25. th MR. ABBATE-Fine. Shouldn’t we have two vouchers, for two days work. AREA VARIANCE NO. 20-2004 SEQRA TYPE: II PATRICK A. & SALLY H. RUSSO AGENT: DENNIS J. TARANTINO, ESQ. OWNER: PATRICK A. & SALLY H. RUSSO ZONING: WR-1A LOCATION: 6 NEVER REST LANE APPLICANT HAS CONSTRUCTED A 27 SQ. FT. TWO-TIERED STAIR-LANDING, AND REQUESTS RELIEF FROM THE SHORELINE SETBACK REQUIREMENT. CROSS REFERENCE: BP 2001-288 88 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/24/04) SFD, BP 2001-289 DEMOLITION LOT SIZE: 0.46 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 289.13-1-59 SECTION: 179-4-030 DENNIS TARANTINO, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; PATRICK RUSSO, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 20-2004, Patrick A. & Sally H. Russo, Meeting Date: March 24, 2004 “Project Location: 6 Never Rest Lane Description of Proposed Project: Applicant has constructed a 27 sq. ft. two-tiered stair landing. Relief Required: Applicant requests 6.4 feet of relief from the 50-foot minimum shoreline setback requirement, per § 179-4-030 for the WR-1A Zone. Additionally, relief is required from the Continuation Code, per § 179-13-010(A1, B, and E). However, staff has determined the relief required to be closer to 8 feet based on the copy of the survey submitted. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): BP 2001-288: 05/29/01, construction of a 2,274 sq. ft. single-family dwelling. BP 2001-289: 05/17/01, demolition of a single-family dwelling. AV 26-2001: 04/26/01, side setback relief and relief from the town road frontage requirements for the construction of a 2,274 sq. ft. single-family dwelling. Staff comments: The area variance the applicant received in 2001 permitted the construction of a 2,274 sq. ft. single-family dwelling. The zoning code allows open steps that provide access to the ground floor to encroach on the setback requirements. The applicant claims he thought the steps built were allowed by code. The Zoning Administrator maintains the two-tiered stair landing is a structure, which must meet the setback requirements. Being the stair landing is located within 50 feet of the shoreline, relief is required for the structure. The applicant has requested 6.4 feet of relief from the 50-foot shoreline setback requirement, being the structure extends out from the dwelling by 6 feet (the northeast corner of the dwelling is 49.6 feet from the shoreline). However, the stair landing is not located at the northeast corner of the dwelling. Staff believes the shortest distance from the stair landing to the shoreline to be approximately 42 feet, which would result in 8 feet of relief needed from the 50-foot requirement. Note: the copy of the survey submitted does not scale correctly. The 42-foot setback was calculated by applying a conversion factor to the 30 scale (1 scaled foot equals 0.79365 feet).” MR. MC NULTY-No County. MR. STONE-Okay. Before we start, I must say that I did have a brief, non-specific conversation with Mr. Russo, when I visited the property. Go ahead, sir. MR. TARANTINO-Thank you. Let me say that the Staff comments are accurate, and on behalf of Mr. and Mrs. Russo, I want to apologize to this Board, because we shouldn’t have to be here tonight. MR. STONE-Would you identify yourself. MR. TARANTINO-Dennis Tarantino for the applicant. MR. STONE-Thank you. MR. TARANTINO-In reality what occurred, after you folks granted an Area Variance, was the property was constructed and as Mr. Russo would tell you tonight, when 95% of it was completed, he said to his builder, you know, how do we get from the front porch down to the slab, and at that point there was some discussion about building steps out, which would have put them much closer to the lake, and ultimately the design of this source of ingress and egress, and, truthfully, Mr. and Mrs. Russo had no clue that they needed to come back here, or it was Craig that caught this on the final as built survey. So while it appears to be, and in fact could be construed to be a self-created hardship, we certainly did not do it intentionally. The Russo’s have built a very, very nice structure, and I’m sure you all have seen it, and to do something different than what’s there, to me, would be somewhat, certainly not feasible, in terms of the 89 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/24/04) appearance. Apparently the neighbors are happy with it. They’re not here tonight to oppose it. I think the neighborhood would not be affected by your granting this variance. I won’t go into anymore detail. We would appreciate your considering this eight foot setback. Thank you. MR. STONE-First of all, let me just apologize for the lateness of the hour, but we’re here, too. MR. TARANTINO-No problem, you don’t have to apologize to us. MR. STONE-I certainly can understand how it would happen, but, nevertheless, one of us, if we will remember to give the speech, there is no excuse for an as built variance. We don’t really care for them, but having said that, I will bow to the rest of the Board and see what we have to say. Chuck? MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you. Good morning, gentlemen. The Chairman said it right initially. This has been constructed. However, I think that Counsel has made a pretty good defense of the fact that it has been constructed. True, individuals certainly have to make themselves aware of the law and Ordinances, etc., etc., but in this particular situation, I don’t think we can expect, we had a case similar to this the other day. I don’t think it’s fair to expect an individual who’s occupation is not in the area of law, to understand every law and every ordinance and everything else that goes with it. You are in error, sir. You have admitted that. I mean, that’s honorable, and it’s been an honest mistake. I think you acted in good faith, and I’m certainly not going to use the fact that you have constructed this 27 square foot, two-tiered stairs/landing against your request for approval, based on the fact that Counsel has, in my opinion, pretty well stated what happened, and that’s where I stand, Mr. Chairman. MR. STONE-Any other comments? Well, let me open the public hearing. Anybody wishing to speak in favor? Anybody opposed? Any letters? MR. MC NULTY-No correspondence. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. STONE-Either you’ve out waited all of the opposition, or your neighbors don’t really care. Let’s talk about it. Joyce? MRS. HUNT-Well, when I first saw the application, my first reaction was to be against it, because it’s something that’s been done, but listening to the argument and looking at the lovely building, I’m in favor of giving the variance. MR. STONE-Mr. Abbate. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you. I, too, I agree with Joyce, and based upon my earlier statement, I will vote in favor of the application, Mr. Chairman. MR. STONE-Mr. Urrico? MR. URRICO-The other part of the speech that we usually give is that, had this come to us with clean hands, what would we do, and I don’t think I would have a problem with eight feet of relief. So I would be in favor of the application. MR. STONE-Okay. Jim, let’s go with you. We’ll get this done. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I live right across the lake, so I look at it all the time. I can’t tell you how offended I am. I think the only thing that we could possibly do with it is to put it in that 90 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/24/04) wood furnace over there, and maybe that would solve the problem in the neighborhood, if we got it really going good, but, no, it’s unique, and when you first constructed it, I thought, well, it’s nice to see somebody who has a different viewpoint instead of just the traditional straight stairs coming straight down, and, you know, I’ve never had a problem with it. I can’t imagine that it would have any effect on the lake whatsoever, and, you know, the whole project has been a positive for the neighborhood and the whole lake. MR. STONE-Jaime? MR. HAYES-I will just say that I don’t have any problem. I don’t think there’s any impact at all on the neighborhood. MR. STONE-Okay. Chuck? MR. MC NULTY-I agree. I don’t think there’s an impact on the neighbors, and an open stairway, intruding slightly into the 50 foot setback to the lake, doesn’t bother me. If it were an enclosed structure, it might be different, but, given what the structure is, I have no problem with it. I’d be in favor. MR. STONE-So am I. The only question I would have is, who got the variance, you needed a variance the first time? MR. TARANTINO-Yes. MR. STONE-Who got it, on the basis of the plans, because I’m saying, why don’t you sue the guy who built it? Because I think we gave you relief for something, I remember, but I think it’s very tastefully done. I think it’s a neighborhood of homes that are close to the lake anyway, and I don’t think it’s a problem whatsoever. So, having said that, I need a motion to approve. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 20-2004 PATRICK A. & SALLY H. RUSSO, Introduced by James Underwood who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Abbate: 6 Never Rest Lane. The applicant has constructed a 27 foot two-tiered stair landing. The applicant is requesting 6.4 feet of relief from the 50 foot minimum shoreline setback requirement per Section 179-4-030 for the WR-1A zone. Additionally relief is required from the Continuation Code per Section 179-13-010(A1, B & E). However Staff has determined the relief required to be closer to eight feet, based on the copy of the survey submitted. The two tiered porch was constructed, and it’s deemed that it’s not any threat to the lake or the neighborhood and so we’re going to grant relief for it. Duly adopted this 25 day of March, 2004, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. McNulty, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Stone NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Bryant MR. STONE-Go and sin no more. MR. TARANTINO-Thank you very much. MR. RUSSO-Thank you very much. MR. STONE-The meeting is adjourned. 91 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/24/04) On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Lewis Stone, Chairman 92