Loading...
2008.12.17 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/17/08) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING DECEMBER 17, 2008 INDEX Sign Variance No.74-2008 NPA II, LLC 1. Tax Map No. 296.18-1-47 Sign Variance No. 75-2008 NPA II, LLC 3. Tax Map No. 296.18-1-47 Sign Variance No. 76-2008 NPA II, LLC 5. Tax Map no. 296.18-1-47 Area Variance No. 77-2008 NPA II, LLC 6. Tax Map No. 296.18-1-47 Area Variance No. 80-2008 Great Escape – Sasquatch Ride 41. Tax Map No. 288.20-1-20 Sign Variance No. 81-2008 Great Escape – Sasquatch Ride 45. Tax Map No. 288.20-1-20 THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTHS MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES. 0 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/17/08) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING DECEMBER 17, 2008 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT JAMES UNDERWOOD, CHAIRMAN ROY URRICO, SECRETARY JOAN JENKIN BRIAN CLEMENTS JOYCE HUNT GEORGE DRELLOS JOHN ZANGHI, ALTERNATE LAND USE PLANNER-KEITH OBORNE STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. UNDERWOOD-I’ll call the December 17, 2008 Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals to order, and starting out I want to quickly go through our procedures, once again, for anybody that perhaps is new here. As we handle each application, I’ll call the application by name and number. The secretary will read the pertinent parts of the application, the Staff Notes and the Warren County Planning Board decision, if applicable, into the record. Then we’ll ask the applicant to present any information they wish to present to the Board. The Board will ask questions of the applicant. Then we’ll open the public hearing. The public hearing’s intended to help us gather information and understand it about the issue at hand. It functions to help the Board members make a wise decision. It does not make the decision for the Board members. There will be a five minute limit on all speakers and then we will allow speakers to speak again after everybody’s had a chance to speak, but not for more than three minutes, and only if, after listening to other speakers, a speaker believes that they have new information to present, and Board members I’d suggest that because we have the five minute limit, that we not interrupt the speaker with questions while they’re speaking, rather we should wait until the speaker has finished his five minute period and then ask the questions. Following all the speakers, we’ll read in any correspondence into the record, and then the applicant will have an opportunity to react and respond to the public comment. Board members will then discuss the variance request with the applicant. Following that, the Board members will have a chance to explain their positions on the application, and then the public hearing will be closed or left open, depending upon the situation, and finally, if appropriate, a motion to approve or disapprove will follow. Tonight we’ve got a couple of things we’re going to do here, and we have basically two projects that we’re dealing with here tonight, and the first one is the Chili’s Restaurant, Walgreens, which is up at the Northway Plaza. The project applicants are NPA II, LLC, which is the Northway Plaza. That’s the Chili’s Restaurant. The owner of the Plaza is NPA II, LLC. Every single one of these ones tonight here is a SEQRA Type Unlisted. So we’re going to have to go through the Short Form which has been submitted with those applications. Secondly, along with that, would be the same thing, again, and I’ll read this in. Again, it’s Northway Plaza Associates, I believe, LLC, in Northway Plaza, and that’s the Walgreens project. These are simultaneous projects that are proposed up on the corner of Route 9, Quaker and Aviation Road there. What I’m going to do is because we have four separate parts to this application this evening, what I’d like to do is have Mr. Lapper and everybody come up and present a general overview of the projects, because everything is sort of associated with each other, and at the same time, Staff Notes, I’m going to have Roy read the Staff Notes in, and the Staff Notes, I think, reflect some questions, especially about the permeability issue, and in discussing with Mr. Lapper prior to the meeting, I think the general aspects of that project can be presented to us, and what the impacts might be, we can kind of look into those this evening, but as requested by the applicant, I think you’re going to go to the Planning Board with those for some kind of formal review. MR. LAPPER-Well, we have to come here first. I think we’ll talk about it generally, and then we’re going to ask you to table the permeability so we can address the Staff Notes, hopefully come back at a first meeting in January, and then after discussing that with you, and hopefully getting that relief, we’ll go to the Planning Board for the, they would need the parking waiver, that’s for the office use in the back, but we’ll talk about that in a half hour after we get through where we started from and where we’re going. 1 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/17/08) MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. So I don’t know what you want to read in, Roy. I mean, as far as the initial first page of what we’ve got here, you know, we’ve got Sign Variances that have been requested, and those are wall signs for both those buildings, as well as a freestanding sign near the southerly entrance. That would be on Quaker Road. MR. URRICO-I think I’m going to read in all the notes that are pertinent, and then if Mr. Lapper wants to ask for a tabling on any one of them, he can. MR. LAPPER-Thank you. MR. URRICO-Okay. OLD BUSINESS: SIGN VARIANCE NO. 74-2008 SEQRA TYPE: UNLISTED NPA II, LLC (NORTHWAY PLAZA) CHILI’S RESTAURANT AGENT(S): J. LAPPER, ESQ. BPSR OWNER(S): NPA II, LLC ZONING: HC-INT. LOCATION: 820 STATE ROUTE 9 APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO CONSTRUCT A CHILI’S RESTAURANT. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM SIGN ORDINANCE FOR 3 ADDITIONAL WALL SIGN; SIGN SIZES ARE 23.1 SQ. FT.; 30 SQ. FT., 5.3 SQ. FT., AND 38.1 SQ. FT. RESPECTIVELY. CROSS REF.: SITE PLAN REVIEW 48-08; AV 77-2008; SV 75-2008; SV 76-2008 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: NOVEMBER 12, 2008 LOT SIZE: 31.25 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 296.18- 1-47 SECTION: CHAPTER 140 JON LAPPER & BILL DUTCH, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Sign Variance No. 74-2008, NPA II, LLC (Northway Plaza), Chili’s Restaurant, Meeting Date: November 19, 2008 “Project Location: 820 State Route 9 Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of four (4) wall signs for a proposed 4,642 square foot Chili’s Restaurant in Northway Plaza. Relief Required: The applicants request relief from the maximum amount of wall signs permitted for a Business Complex per §140-6. The sizes of the three (3) wall signs in need of relief are 30.0, 38.1 and 5.3 square feet respectively. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination, the board shall consider: 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. This proposal may initiate additional sign requests for the Plaza, resulting in increased Sign Variances requests. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than a sign variance. The applicant could erect less signs to be more compliant, erect signs with a smaller square footage or 1 sign to be compliant. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The request for 3 additional signs or a 300 percent increase from §140-6B(3)may be considered severe. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Moderate impacts on the physical and environmental conditions of the neighborhood may be anticipated as the number and size of the proposed signs may have negative visual impacts. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. The difficulty may be considered self created. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): A.V. 54-2002 Home Depot Permeability 6/26/2002 S.V.59-2002 Home Depot signs 7/24/2002 2 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/17/08) S.V. 83-2003 Empire Vision sign 10/22/03 S.V. 61-2004 Panera sign 8/25/04 S.P. Mod, Home Depot 2004 S.V. 95-2004 sign 12/15/04 Staff comments: The applicant is proposing to construct a 4,642 square foot Chili’s Restaurant to include four wall signs. One sign, a 18.0 square foot internally lit Chili’s wall sign is proposed to be located on the front facade of the building and has been determined by staff to be the one compliant sign per §140-6. The following 3 signs will need relief from the total amount of allowable signs per the ordinance: 1.a 30 square foot chili pepper located below and to the right of the proposed Chili’s front facade sign; 2.a 38.1 square foot internally lit ‘pepper and S’ sign located on the north wall of the building; 3.and a 5.3 square foot internally and externally lit ‘pepper S to go sign’ located on the northwest corner of the building. The proposed total area of all four signs is 96.5 square feet. Please note signage table, top right of page one of the Federal Health sign plans provided by the applicant. The applicant, in conjunction with the proposed Walgreens Pharmacy, has applied for an additional free standing sign located at the Quaker Road entrance to Northway Plaza. SEQR Status: Unlisted-The Zoning Board of Appeals must make a SEQR declaration concerning this application.” “Warren County Planning Board Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form November 12, 2008 Project Name: NPA II, LLC: Chili’s Restaurant Owner(s): NPA II, LLC ID Number: QBY-SV-08-74 County Project#: Nov08-30 Current Zoning: HC- Int. Community: Queensbury Project Description: Applicant is proposing to construct a Chili’s Restaurant. Relief requested from Sign Ordinance for 3 additional wall signs; sign sizes are 23.1 sq. ft.; 30 sq. ft.; 5.3 sq. ft.; and 38.1 sq. ft. respectively. Site Location: 820 State Route 9 Tax Map Number(s): 296.18-1-47 Staff Notes: Sign Variance: The applicant proposes the placement of 4 signs on a proposed Chili’s Restaurant. Relief is requested from the sign ordinance for the placement of 3 additional walls signs where only one wall sign is allowed. The sign sizes are 23.1 sq. ft. – chili’s; 30 sq. ft. – symbol of a chili pepper; 5.3 sq. ft. – to go and 38.1 sq. ft. – pepper symbol respectively. The information submitted shows the location of the signage for the south and west elevation areas. The applicant has explained the signage is similar to neighboring commercial operations as this has frontage on both Quaker Road and Route 9. Staff recommends no county impact based on the information submitted according to the suggested review criteria of NYS General Municipal Law Section 239 L applied to the proposed project. County Planning Board Recommendation: No County Impact” Signed by Richard C. Merrill, Warren County Planning Board 11/14/08. SIGN VARIANCE NO. 75-2008 SEQRA TYPE: UNLISTED NPA II, LLC (NORTHWAY PLAZA) WALGREENS AGENT(S): J. LAPPER, ESQ. BPSR OWNER(S): NPA II, LLC ZONING: HC-INT. LOCATION: 820 STATE ROUTE 9 APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO CONSTRUCT A WALGREENS PHARMACY. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM SIGN ORDINANCE FOR 1 ADDITIONAL WALL SIGN; SIGN SIZES FOR THE TWO SIGNS ARE 129.85 SQ. FT. CROSS REF.: SITE PLAN REVIEW 48-08; AV 77- 2008; SV 74-2008; SV 76-2008 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: NOVEMBER 12, 2008 LOT SIZE: 31.25 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 296.18-1-47 SECTION: CHAPTER 140 STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Sign Variance No. 75-2008, NPA II, LLC (Northway Plaza) Walgreens, Meeting Date: November 19, 2008 “Project Location: 820 State Route 9 Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes the construction of two (2) wall signs for a proposed Walgreens Pharmacy located at Northway Plaza. Relief Required: 3 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/17/08) Relief required for an additional wall sign per §140-6 of the Sign Ordinance. The size of both proposed wall signs are 129.85 square feet each. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination, the board shall consider: 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. This proposal may initiate additional sign requests for the Plaza, resulting in increased Sign Variance requests. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than a sign variance. The applicant could erect signs with a smaller square footage or erect 1 sign to be compliant. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The request for one additional wall sign or 100 percent relief may be considered severe relative to the ordinance. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Minor to moderate impacts on the physical and environmental conditions of the neighborhood may be anticipated as the number and size of the proposed signs may have negative visual impacts. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. The difficulty may be considered self created. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): A.V. 54-2002 Home Depot Permeability 6/26/2002 S.V.59-2002 Home Depot signs 7/24/2002 S.V. 83-2003 Empire Vision sign 10/22/03 S.V. 61-2004 Panera sign 8/25/04 S.P. Mod, Home Depot 2004 S.V. 95-2004 sign 12/15/04 Staff comments: The applicant is proposing a 14,820 square foot Walgreens Pharmacy that will include two 129.85 square foot internally lit wall signs. The applicant, in conjunction with the proposed Chili’s Restaurant, has applied for an additional free standing sign located at the Quaker Road (Route 254) entrance to Northway Plaza. SEQR Status: Unlisted-The Zoning Board of Appeals must make a SEQR Determination concerning this application.” “Warren County Planning Board Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form November 12, 2008 Project Name: NPA II, LLC: Walgreens Owner(s): NPA II, LLC ID Number: QBY-SV-08-75 County Project#: Nov08-32 Current Zoning: HC-Int. Community: Queensbury Project Description: Applicant is proposing to construct a Walgreens Pharmacy. Relief requested from Sign Ordinance for 1 additional wall sign; sign sizes for the two signs are 129.85 sq. ft. respectively. Site Location: 820 State Route 9 Tax Map Number(s): 296.18-1-47 Staff Notes: Sign Variance: The applicant proposes the placement of 2 signs on a proposed Walgreens Pharmacy. Relief is requested from the sign ordinance for the placement of 1 additional wall sign where only one wall sign is allowed. The sign sizes for each of the signs is 129.85 sq. ft. The information submitted shows the location of the signage to be on the southwest and southeast of the building. The front tower is also to have the W of Walgreens is an additional sign on the building – no size noted. The applicant has explained the signage is similar to neighboring commercial operations as this has frontage on both Quaker Road and Route 9. Staff recommends no county impact based on the information submitted according to the suggested review criteria of NYS General Municipal Law Section 239 L applied to the proposed project. County Planning Board Recommendation: No County Impact” Signed by Richard C. Merrill, Warren County Planning Board 11/14/08. 4 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/17/08) SIGN VARIANCE NO. 76-2008 SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED NPA II, LLC (NORTHWAY PLAZA) CHILI’S AND WALGREENS AGENT(S): J. LAPPER, ESQ. BPSR OWNER(S): NPA II, LLC ZONING: HC-INT. LOCATION: 820 STATE ROUTE 9 APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 49.95 SQ. FT. FREESTANDING SIGN NEAR THE SOUTHERLY ENTRANCE TO THE PLAZA ON QUAKER ROAD. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM NUMBER OF ALLOWABLE FREESTANDING SIGNS. CROSS REF.: SPR 48-08; AV 77-2008; SV 74-2008; SV 75-2008 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: NOVEMBER 12, 2008 LOT SIZE: 31.25 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 296.18- 1-47 SECTION: CHAPTER 140 STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Sign Variance No. 76-2008, NPA II, LLC (Northway Plaza) Chili’s and Walgreens, Meeting Date: November 19, 2008 “Project Location: 820 State Route 9 Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes the construction of a 49.95 square foot freestanding monument sign at the Quaker Road (Route 254) entrance to Northway Plaza. Relief Required: Relief required for an additional freestanding sign per §140-6 of the Sign Ordinance. Specifically, relief required from the amount of allowable freestanding signs per §140-6. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination, the board shall consider: 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. This proposal may initiate additional sign requests for the Plaza, resulting in increased Sign Variance applications. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than a sign variance. The applicant may wish to consider not erecting a freestanding sign at the Route 254 entrance or remove one of the two freestanding signs existing at the Route 9 entrance in order to become compliant. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The request for 1 additional freestanding sign or 100 percent relief may be considered severe relative to the ordinance. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Moderate impacts on the physical and environmental conditions of the neighborhood may be anticipated as a third freestanding sign may have a negative visual impact on the district. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. The difficulty may be considered self created. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): A.V. 54-2002 Home Depot Permeability 6/26/2002 S.V.59-2002 Home Depot signs 7/24/2002 S.V. 83-2003 Empire Vision sign 10/22/03 S.V. 61-2004 Panera sign 8/25/04 S.P. Mod, Home Depot 2004 S.V. 95-2004 Home Depot sign 12/15/04 Staff comments: According to §140-B(3)[4][a] only one freestanding sign per entrance accessing a different public right-of-way is allowed under the criteria. The business complex at Northway Plaza currently has two freestanding signs facing State Route 9. Has the applicant considered removal of one of the freestanding signs facing Route 9 in favor of the sign proposed in this application? 5 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/17/08) The proposed sign is located 15 feet from the property line and is within the 50 foot maximum square footage per §140-6. SEQR Status: Unlisted-The Zoning Board of Appeals must make a SEQR Determination concerning this application.” “Warren County Planning Board Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form November 12, 2008 Project Name: NPA II, LLC: Chili’s and Walgreens Owner(s): NPA II, LLC ID Number: QBY-SV-08-76 County Project#: Nov08-31 Current Zoning: HC-Int. Community: Queensbury Project Description: Applicant is proposing to construct a Walgreens and Chili’s Restaurant One additional freestanding (monument sign) is proposed. The Chili’s sign is 22.05 sq. ft. and the Walgreen’s sign is 22.90 sq. ft. Relief requested from number of allowable freestanding signs and sign size restrictions. Site Location: 820 State Route 9 Tax Map Number(s): 296.18-1-47 Staff Notes: Sign Variance: The applicant proposes the placement of an additional freestanding sign for the proposed tenants of Walgreens and Chili’s in the Northway Plaza Facility. Relief is requested from the number of allowable freestanding signs and sizes where the site has two existing monument sign where the proposal is to have three. The information submitted indicates the existing monument signs are located on Route 9 where the third monument sign will be located primarily on Quaker Road. The new sign is to be 49.95 sq. ft. where the maximum allowed is 50 sq. ft. Staff recommends no county impact based on the information submitted according to the suggested review criteria of NYS General Municipal Law Section 239 L applied to the proposed project. County Planning Board Recommendation: No County Impact” Signed by Richard C. Merrill, Warren County Planning Board 11/14/08. AREA VARIANCE NO. 77-2008 SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED NPA II, LLC (NORTHWAY PLAZA) AGENT(S): J. LAPPER, ESQ. BPSR OWNER(S): NPA II, LLC (NORTHWAY PLAZA) ZONING: HC-INT. LOCATION: 820 STATE ROUTE 9 APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A WALGREENS AND CHILI’S RESTAURANT AND ASSOCIATED SITE IMPROVEMENTS. RELIEF REQUSTED FROM MINIMUM PERMEABILITY REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REF.: SPR 48-08; SV 74-2008; SV 75- 2008; SV 76-2008 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: NOVEMBER 12, 2008 LOT SIZE: 31.25 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 296.18-1-47 SECTION: 179-4-030; 179-8-070 STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 77-2008, NPA II, LLC (Northway Plaza) Meeting Date: November 19, 2008 “Project Location: 820 State Route 9 Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes the construction of an approximately 14,820 square foot Walgreens Pharmacy, 4,642 square foot Chili’s Restaurant, reconfiguration of the former Travelers space to include increased parking, and associated site work. Relief Required: Relief required from the minimum permeability requirements per 179-4-030. The project, according to the plan submitted, proposes the reduction of permeability from 22.40 percent down to 20.0 percent. The minimum permeability for the Highway Commercial intensive zone is 30.0 percent. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination, the board shall consider: 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. Minor to moderate changes to nearby properties may be anticipated as a result of this proposal. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. The applicant could build in a more compliant location or reduce the size of the project. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. According to the updated plans submitted, the request for 102,430 square feet or 7.5 percent of additional impermeable area may be considered minor to moderate relative to the ordinance. 6 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/17/08) However, there appears to be a discrepancy concerning the actual amount of impermeable area existing on the site (see below). 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Minor to moderate impacts on the physical and environmental conditions of the neighborhood may be anticipated. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. The difficulty may be considered self created. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): A.V. 54-2002 Home Depot Permeability 6/26/2002 S.V.59-2002 Home Depot signs 7/24/2002 S.V. 83-2003 Empire Vision sign 10/22/03 S.V. 61-2004 Panera sign 8/25/04 S.P. Mod, Home Depot 2004 S.V. 95-2004 sign 12/15/04 Staff comments: According to the updated plans, the proposal calls for 102,430 square feet of additional impermeable surfaces (See page 3 of the updated application). Staff has calculated 1.58 acres or 68,825 square feet less parcel area than what is shown on the submitted Site Survey Plans. Further, the Site Development Data page has a total parcel area of 1,361,273 square feet which equates to 31.25 acres. Staff calculations have included the Home Depot parcel even though the Home Depot parcel is not owned by Northway Plaza Association, LLC. This was accomplished for consistency purposes because the applicant appears to have used said parcel in their permeability calculations. Staff recommends, for clarity purposes, that the applicant resubmit permeability calculations that do not include the Home Depot parcel and ensure the correct acreage is used for the parcel area. Conflicting calculations table Town GIS/ Site Acres Site Development Data Sheet Site Survey Plan (page C1.1A) 22.89 acres for site parcel 31.25 acres total 35.04 acres total 10.58 acres Home Depot parcel 33.47 acres total The parcel associated with this project has received an area variance concerning permeability on June 26, 2002 (A.V.54-2002 Attached). The Home Depot parcel was also involved in the permeability calculations. According to the resolution for A.V. 54- 2002, an 11 percent request from the 30 percent minimum permeability requirement was granted. SEQR Status: Unlisted-The Zoning Board of Appeals must make a SEQR Determination concerning this application” “Warren County Planning Board Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form November 12, 2008 Project Name: NPA II, LLC Owner(s): NPA II, LLC ID Number: QBY-AV-08-77 County Project#: Nov08-29 Current Zoning: HC-Int. Community: Queensbury Project Description: Applicant proposes construction of a Walgreens and Chili’s Restaurant. Relief requested from minimum permeability requirements. Site Location: 820 State Route 9 Tax Map Number(s): 296.18-1-47 Staff Notes: Area Variance: The applicant proposes to remove the existing monro muffler building to construct a Walgreens and a chili’s restaurant. Relief is requested for the minimum permeability requirement of 30% where 20% is proposed. The applicant has indicated the two new operations will be landscaped. The area adjacent to the cemetery will include new parking where additional parking is necessary for the uses proposed – a retaining wall is being constructed and a fence to minimize impacts to the cemetery. The applicant also explains the redevelopment of the property will assist with implementation of stormwater control management project for halfway brook watershed. Staff recommends approval as the project will enhance the area with landscaping and improve stormwater management for halfway brook. This is based on the information submitted according to the suggested review criteria of NYS General Municipal Law section 239 L 7 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/17/08) applied to the proposed project. County Planning Board Recommendation: Approve The Warren County Planning Board recommends Approval as the project will enhance the area with landscaping and improve stormwater management for Halfway Brook.” Signed by Richard C. Merrill, Warren County Planning Board 11/14/08. MR. UNDERWOOD-Mr. Lapper. MR. LAPPER-Okay. Good evening. That was complicated enough. I’ve got a cast of engineers tonight. First of all, for the record, Jon Lapper, project attorney. Bill Dutch, who’s the managing principal of NPA, Northway Plaza Associates II, is with me. Jim Hagan is his architect from Syracuse who has done all of the architectural work on the changes of the Plaza over the years, and then Nicole David Heiser is with Clough Harbor in Syracuse who does the work for Walgreens, and Chris Boyea from Bohler in Albany is here. Their firm does the work for Chili’s, and they were also hired separately by Northway Plaza to design the stormwater basin work that we’re working with the County and DOT on, and I guess I’d like to start there, in terms of explaining where we were, where we are, and where we hope to be going with this. As you’ll recall, before we came in and did the changes, the upgrades to the Plaza for Home Depot, there were a lot of vacancies, and the whole way the site work, as it interfaced with the road, was very dangerous. It was a steep slope. There were all sorts of problems with an old, stale site. So we came in and did the first phase of it, when we got Home Depot approved and re- did that whole surface parking, and complied with the stormwater regulations. So as it stands now, the stormwater facilities are behind Home Depot in that larger area of green space. Most of the parking is on the Northway Plaza site. There’s a reciprocal easement agreement. So we needed a variance last time, not because, when you take the whole site into account, it wasn’t a problem that it complied with the 30% green space. It’s just that when you split it up into two, because Home Depot wanted to own their own pad, so it was viewed somewhat as a technicality, and we got the subdivision approved after this Board granted that variance. So we’d always anticipated and stated at the time that the Monroe Muffler lease was ending, that there was an opportunity to have a more appropriate use at a very visually important intersection in Town. We probably started this five years ago when there were negotiations for an early termination of the Monroe Muffler lease, and at that point, we had another restaurant chain, TGI Friday’s, under lease to re-develop the front. Ultimately, negotiations fell apart with Monroe Muffler and we weren’t able to terminate their lease early, and, as a result of that, the lease with Friday’s didn’t work out because there were time limits. So the positive thing that happened at that point is that, in order to re-develop this, in order to square off the front of the site so that there would be more room to re-develop it, we began talking to Warren County and to DOT about acquiring two triangles right at the intersection, and, in exchange for that, as consideration for that, we’ve been working on a somewhat complex but very beneficial stormwater plan to produce, basically to change the situation, and Chris Boyea will go into the technical details, but right now all of the stormwater comes down the Route 9 hill, salts and stuff that comes off the cars, and it doesn’t get treated at all. It goes right into Halfway Brook. So this is one of the most important projects for Warren County Soil and Water Conservation that’s been on their agenda for the five years, certainly, we’ve been talking to them, and I did submit, the first time around, in October, a letter from Dave Wick, the head of Warren County Soil and Water, that talked about how important this project is for him. So that’s not taking place on the Northway Plaza property. There’s consideration to get these two triangles which equal a half acre and actually have to do with some of the discrepancy in the total acreage because some places that additional half acre wasn’t taken into account, and we’ll talk about that when we get to permeability. We agreed, or the Plaza owner agreed, to both design and construct this stormwater management project on State lands, subject to Soil and Water approval of the design, and that’s happened, and DOT approval of the design, which is pending. That’s going to be very beneficial, although it doesn’t specifically impact the Plaza because the stormwater problem isn’t being caused by the Plaza. The Plaza stormwater gets treated separately. When we came in for Home Depot, there was a line in the middle of the project where everything to the north drained north into the green area behind Home Depot, and everything in the south, which was the old Plaza, wasn’t treated. So at that point, even though we weren’t changing anything on what was then Travelers, the Planning Board asked the applicant to put in underground stormwater management facilities, which the applicant ultimately agreed to do. There are sophisticated swirl chamber facilities that treat the water. So the Northway Plaza stormwater is being treated separate from the DOT, but if the applicant hadn’t come along to get into this negotiation, I don’t know when or ever this would have been on the agenda for DOT to do a stormwater project, because they’re not subject to these regulations. So it’s been recognized by the County and by the State that this is something very positive, and it worked out, even though it’s expensive for the applicant to acquire these two triangles that are on your Site Plan that will accommodate 8 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/17/08) the two new businesses that we’re proposing, and in terms of the site, having that empty Monroe Muffler with no landscaping whatsoever, and then there’s the Convenient Medical Care building that’s sitting there vacant with no landscaping. I mean, just a real eyesore, much like what’s at Exit 18, or Exit 19. That’ll hopefully be changed soon. It’s not positive for the Town. That’s, you know, obviously got a very viable, commercial sector, but at main intersections to see vacant and really stale development, because that was originally the Montgomery Wards tire battery center from, what, 30 years ago. It’s not good for the Plaza. It’s not something that’s positive for the Town. So Bill Dutch has been working to put this deal together, with, you know, through various permutations, with the former tenant, and now with these two tenants, and what we’ve got to come in, it’s the two uses that would be very nicely landscaped, very attractive architecture, just contemporary, interesting, and a big change from what’s there now, but, that said, because of the, even though there’s great visibility if you’re sitting right in the intersection, you’ve got these two roads, Quaker and Route 9, so both of these tenants said, you know, it’s not like this is their standard package. Walgreens only has two signs. You’ve seen a lot of drugstores that have a lot more, but they’ve said this is the minimum that they can live with, and so we’re here to try and get the deal done so that we can re-develop the Plaza. The first one on the agenda was Chili’s, and even though the Staff Notes talked about how this might be significant, my main argument there is that all four of their signs together are less than 100 square feet that you’re allowed, and two of them are peppers. So, you know, in terms of a sign, rather than having a message, you have a vegetable, and it’s just better, just as a symbol, it’s a little softer than having a lighted sign with words. So of their four signs, I mean, I think that, and the façade signs, I could argue that’s a very soft signage, compared to some of the things that we’ve all seen here. It only says Chili’s in one place, and then you’ve got two peppers, one on the side and one the 3-D pepper, and then just the Chili’s To Go, and it all adds up to less than 100 square feet, and I would argue that if they got rid of all of those and had one big Chili’s sign that was 100 square feet that was compliant, that would be more of a visual impact than what’s being proposed here. So that’s essentially, in terms of the benefit and the burden, we think that that is pretty minor in terms of the relief, and obviously we like when the tenant comes in with something that, you know, is easier to sell than something that asks, I mean, think about what Wal-Mart wanted, where they had to have every, you know, every different department. Now, in terms of Walgreens, some of the pharmacies are the same way where they want signs all over the place, for everything that they do. Walgreens is asking for two signs, and they do exceed the 100 square feet, approximately 123 each, but essentially that’s because it should be looked at as a corner, even though because it’s in a plaza the same rules don’t apply, but you’ve got two roads, and, you know, for that reason, they want to be recognized for, if you’re traveling on each road. I’d still argue that with two signs it’s a relatively minor request. This is not going to, you know, no one’s going to drive by here and say, oh my God there’s so many signs with two signs, and the third sign, the pylon sign, which actually it’s a monument sign, not a pylon sign, it’s only 15 feet tall. So it meets the design. There’s not a size issue. That’s the Chili’s and Walgreens just on the Quaker Road entrance so that if you’re heading east on Quaker, or, excuse me, west on Quaker Road, you can turn in there, you know what’s going on both Chili’s and the Walgreens. So those are the right size, at 50 square feet, the right height, and that would not require a variance, because you’re allowed to have one pylon or monument sign on each road when you have two roads. The reason it does is because, when we did Home Depot, Home Depot, of course, insisted on having two signs on Route 9. So there’s two pylons on Route 9. The Staff asked, gee, can you get rid of one of those, and of course the applicant doesn’t have any right to do that because that was a big part of the Home Depot deal for them to chose the site because they were so far back into the site. So that ship has sailed, for better or for worse, and we’re just, you know, not trying to create too many signs for the Town, but just trying to hopefully get minimum signage, but get the deal done so that this site can be re-developed. That’s my big picture on the signs, but I want to ask Chris Boyea from Bohler to go through some more of the details on the stormwater plan, to just understand the benefits of what this whole project has for the Town. CHRIS BOYEA MR. BOYEA-Good evening. I’m Chris Boyea with Bohler Engineering out of Albany, and we were asked to review stormwater and make some improvements, as part of this land that Jon talked about. The land that Jon’s talking about is this corner right here. This is where they’re proposing to square off the property lines, and then to do that, there’s some other variances that you talked about, permeability, these types of things for this project. This applicant has worked with New York State DOT and the County to develop quite a substantial stormwater plan. It will also offset any impacts that this project may propose. I think it’s probably one of the more significant plans that I’ve seen proposed 9 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/17/08) for a retail project with two users. This stormwater plan that we’re proposing goes all the way up to Flower, Drum, Song, up, way up by Wal-Mart, and all the way down here, and it catches all of the stormwater that’s currently being produced by the highway and several businesses. I do have an aerial photograph here I’m going to show, but the one on the screen obviously is a little bit easier to see, but what this aerial shows is how significant the area is that we’re talking about. It’s hard to see in red, but right here is Flower, Drum, Song. Here’s our site down here. We’re taking all of this area here, over 12 acres here, we’ve got McDonalds, a hardware store, A & W, KFC, and a small plaza here, all drain into this Route 9 area. So 12 acres of basically impervious area is coming to that area. Right now what that stormwater does is come down to this intersection. It continues on over and eventually gets to Halfway Brook or Halfway creek. As part of this proposal, what we’re proposing is there’s a 36 inch pipe that collects this water in here. We were originally proposing to dig an open basin, similar to what you’d see at many shopping centers, and that basin would sit right here. That basin would perform some water quality treatment, as well as some infiltration, and then it would allow the water to continue on down to Halfway Brook. The County soil conservation in the Town basically said do we really want an open basin right at the corner of main and main? It’s probably not the best looking thing. So, we’ve gone ahead and redesigned it from that original open basin proposed, which would have cost maybe $80 to $100,000 to well in excess of $150,000 now, for stormwater that isn’t part of our site, but just off site, and that cost jumps significantly because with all this water comes down this road, 36 inch pipe here, we’re going to put a CDS unit in there, and CDS stands for Continuous Deflection Separation unit. That unit alone’s going to take out 80% of the total suspended solids. So that could be cups, cigarette butts, dirt, anything that accumulates that big stormwater area. After that, and the water’s a little cleaner from that, it’s going to then go into an underground stormwater system, so that you’re going to have a nice grass area at the intersection. It won’t be a big hole. There won’t be cattails. There won’t be trash, things of that in there. This is going to have 16,000 cubic feet of underground storage. It’s a lot. There’s a lot of storage here. Now, in that 16,000 cubic feet of storm tech chambers that we’re going to put in the State property here, it’s also going to infiltrate. We’ve got great soils here. At the end of this, we’re going to then put a control structure, and then it’s going to go down to Halfway Brook. So in a sense what we’re doing here is we’re taking all this untreated water right now that flows freely at a fairly fast rate down to the Brook, we’re collecting it here, we’re treating it, we’re infiltrating it, and then we’re retaining it and reducing it at a slower rate. Now this has nothing to do with the proposed project that the developers have at this point. This is just all existing flows. This is all off site flows, things that we’re doing to make a significant change to the quality and the environmental impacts of up drainage, uphill drainage and downstream drainage. We’re going to reduce the volume of flow by 50% from what’s there now. So that means we’re going to increase the capacity downstream because we’re going to get that water into the ground. We’re going to retain it and hold it back at a better rate. We’ve also worked with the County on this proposal. Again, it started with an open basin. We went to an underground basin. We added a CDS unit, and the last thing that I believe that they’re satisfied with now, and I think that we’re all on the same page and like this project, is we’ve isolated a couple of rows of the infiltration system so that maintenance of this system is minimal and easily done. Again, it’s a great way to improve the stormwater quality and really help downstream and environmental impacts minimal for off site improvements, and if you have any questions on the system I’d be happy to explain it, but it’s a significant part of what’s being proposed here as part of this development, and a great investment and asset to stormwater and the State system. MR. UNDERWOOD-Is it perpetual maintenance on it? I mean, is it something you have to like go and clean out on a regular basis to stay ahead of it? MR. BOYEA-That’s what the County was concerned with, and that’s why they asked us to put a CDS unit in, which is accessible by a manhole cover, and it has a trash container in it, so that it’s all brought into one spot, and then that trash container can be maintained. You won’t have to go searching throughout the whole system. It’s isolated. MR. UNDERWOOD-Do they just suck out whatever’s in there on a regular basis? MR. BOYEA-Yes. You might have seen those vac trucks, those big vacuums on a, yes, and that’s what this is designed with. So it’s an open up the manhole cover, stick the hose directly down, vac it out, and you’re good for, you know, another six, seven, eight months. MR. UNDERWOOD-Because I would imagine you’d have to have big capacity just to handle the sand and sediment load alone. 10 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/17/08) MR. BOYEA-The unit is huge. This unit is huge. MR. UNDERWOOD-I’ve seen the ones on the Northway, like way up north by Lake Placid, those original 60’s vintage ones that are 80 feet deep some of them. MR. BOYEA-This unit is in excess of tens of thousands of dollars. Just the CDS unit, it will come in on a tractor trailer and be set with a crane. It’s big. MRS. JENKIN-What is it made of? What is the storage unit made of? MR. BOYEA-Well, the CDS, the unit that takes a lot of the trash out, is a precast concrete structure, and then the inside of it has aluminum baffles, and metal trash racks and things of that nature, all contained inside of it. The infiltration chambers are a plastic poly type material. MR. URRICO-What size would be typical for a plaza like that, in a normal situation? MR. BOYEA-Well, to comply with current rules and regulations, I’m trying to put it in perspective. I would say we’ve got 14 acres. I mean, that’s, or 12 acres of impervious area. So what you’re seeing would be maybe 80% of what would be required for this Plaza if it was built brand new out of the ground today. So it’s fairly close to what would be there, yes. MR. URRICO-And how do you determine where the flow actually starts from? MR. BOYEA-Well, we get some guys to put some boots on, and we go out and walk the site. MR. URRICO-Is it during a rain storm? Is it during a dry spell? MR. BOYEA-Well, we have topography maps that show where the split is, and that’s how we know that Flower, Drum, Song up here, you’ll see the red line which is very faint from where you’re sitting, but that’s basically a peak or a ridge, and that’s the drainage pattern that comes to that area. Outside that line goes to another system or flows away from Route 9. MR. URRICO-I mean, we’ve all seen the flow across Route 9. I’m just curious how you determine how much of it actually gets to that point. MR. BOYEA-Topography maps. Yes. MRS. JENKIN-One other. The collection pipe, which is a 36 inch pipe, will that start from Flower, Drum, Song, and do you have to dig it down and bring it all the way down through? MR. BOYEA-Thank God, no. MRS. JENKIN-Okay. MR. BOYEA-That would be very expensive. The 36 inch collection pipe is in place today. MRS. JENKIN-Okay. That’s down below. MR. BOYEA-Yes. The drainage system for everything that comes down Route 9 is all in place today. Currently the 36 inch pipe comes right into here and just keeps on going. What we’re doing is we’re going to dig that 36 inch pipe here, cut it, put all of our improvements in, and then let it go on. So we’re going to stop, treat it, and then let it go. MRS. JENKIN-Okay. So you don’t have to construct all the way down. MR. BOYEA-That’s correct. MRS. JENKIN-That’s in place right now. MR. BOYEA-That’s correct. MR. UNDERWOOD-So none of the Plaza’s going to go into this thing? This is strictly off site coming in here? 11 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/17/08) MR. BOYEA-Well, that’s a very good point, and I’ll let Clough Harbor talk about that with the Plaza design, but everything that we’re doing, that I just spoke to you about, is off site, nothing to do with the Plaza. This is just above and beyond. Now, the Plaza obviously is going to have its own stormwater system, and eventually that’ll drain into this. I mean, ultimately everything goes to the Brook. So this is above and beyond. Treated as well. MR. UNDERWOOD-So currently yours is all going north into that swale, way up behind Home Depot as it now stands? MR. BOYEA-Well, if you’re satisfied with the drainage and I’m not (lost words), but I’m not as familiar with the site drainage as Nicole is. MR. UNDERWOOD-Maybe we ought to have her come up next, then. MR. BOYEA-Sure. MR. UNDERWOOD-Go over that, just so we understand the relationship. MR. LAPPER-And part of that answer, Jim, is that there’s a line in the middle of that site, the same thing with topography or it was designed for positive drainage, where the Home Depot water goes north and everything else that was too low couldn’t go north. MR. UNDERWOOD-You can see where it is in the back there when you drive in. Yes, sure. MR. LAPPER-Do you want to say a few words about NICOLE DAVID HEISER MRS. HEISER-Sure. The stormwater for the Plaza is going to be, there’s going to be two units for the stormwater. The only, to answer your question about anything from the Plaza going into that. The only thing, what we’re doing is we’re out letting for the 100 year storm to that system. So, you know, every 100 years. MR. UNDERWOOD-So anytime you have a super rain event or something like that, it’ll handle it. Yes. MRS. HEISER-Hundred year storm. Yes. So the percentage of it happening is, you know, once in 100 years. Everything else, so everything else is going to be contained in within the site. We’re proposing to the same kind of structure that they’re proposing on the corner there. We’re proposing one here to collect all of this here, and then a second one right here to collect all the water here, and at this point, we didn’t do, this stormwater goes in a different direction, and it’s collected, with what they did with the Plaza for before. MR. UNDERWOOD-I know there’s two branches at Halfway Brook that kind of go up in there. MRS. HEISER-Yes. So we’re going to put, there’s going to be two new underground storage units, the same thing, CDS unit, clean it out before it even outlets anywhere. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. The big permeability issue thing, you know, when we got into that with, I think everybody understands the Home Depot thing because the parking was off their piece that they purchased there when they put their building up. The relationship with these buildings is, is that these are going to be leasing the land, putting up their own buildings. Is that how it works? MR. LAPPER-A ground lease, yes, and if you look at where the blue line is, Home Depot is the white building on the north. So you can see that none of the parking for Home Depot was on Home Depot’s site, but all the green space is. MR. UNDERWOOD-Now I know I discussed with you at the beginning of the meeting the excessive amount of parking that’s going to be necessary to accommodate the two new buildings is a requirement by the Town, but one of the things that I think that we ought to address, and I’m sure the Planning Board’s going to look at this, too, is the necessity, is there really a need for that much more parking to be added, and I think, you know, to go there, you know, I think there are options available as you go forward with the Planning 12 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/17/08) Board. I mean, we’re not going to look at it ourselves, I think, but I think that my concern would be, you know, at the present time when you drive by, even at like ten o’clock in the morning, you know, when people are out shopping, with the departure of Travelers, you have a lot of vacant parking. MR. LAPPER-That’s a very legitimate question. MR. UNDERWOOD-And also, I think, you know, going forward, I know for the Plaza owners, you know, it’s a tenuous situation with Home Depot, not knowing what the long term with them is going to be, with an under performing store as it exists at the present time, but I think one of the things we might consider is, is that, you know, if we were granting a waiver from parking, you know, you could add the parking now, in anticipation of needing all that parking, but if it’s really not necessary, why would we do that? So maybe you could just address that. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Let me address all of that. First what I want to point out is that this photo was taken when Travelers was still a tenant, because you have all the parking in front, and Bill Dutch wishes that that was the situation now and hopes that it will be soon. In order to re-tenant the Travelers building with retail facing the front, this parking has to be devoted to that. So even though today you drive by and it’s vacant, he needs to get a retail tenant in there. He needs to be able to provide them with parking. What’s going on in the back is that he’s got an existing office tenant that’s in the, what would be the basement space if you were looking at it from Route 9, but it’s ground space looking at the back because of the grade change, and when he lost Travelers, that was a big deal. I mean, that was the major tenant in this center, and not a good thing in the present economy. There were a number of retailers that were seriously interested a year ago, and, you know, obviously things are quiet right now. It’s not Bill’s issue anymore about Home Depot because the reciprocal easement agreement gives them the right to the parking spaces. We presume that people will start buying houses, and therefore washing machines and lumber again, but, you know, obviously right now things are quiet, but he’s got this existing tenant in the back that he’s trying to keep, and they need to add employees. They need to add spaces, and it’s just not practical, even in the summer, let alone in the winter, that you’re going to have people at the ground level walk around and park in the front, and there’s no direct access through the building, and especially if it’s a retail tenant versus an office use in the back. So the real problem is proximity, and for the time being we’re saying, yes, he needs to add spaces here to accommodate this tenant, also to fit the Walgreens, because that’s a 14,000 square foot store, and that needs some more parking, and so we’re asking to do all this, knowing that there’s still going to be spaces in the front, but the goal is to rent this, either to a few large tenants or to a number of medium sized tenants, and that’s what that parking is going to be necessary for. So, we’re not asking you, obviously, for the waiver. That’s something for the Planning Board in terms of the spaces, but we have to address the permeability, which is basically moving the line closer to the cemetery, in terms of where the parking is going to be, but to offset that, what the plans show is that there’s going to be a retaining wall and a fence, along the cemetery, so there’s not going to be a visual issue. In fact, it’ll be screened, the commercial buildings will be screened better from the cemetery than they are now with the retaining wall and the fence, and we also want to point out that this is an area that is where the maintenance building is for the cemetery. So it’s not where there are gravesites. There are plenty of trees here to buffer that on the cemetery property, but without the ability to put more spaces in there, Bill’s really in trouble. The Plaza’s in trouble in terms of that tenant. So it’s really important, but to address the Staff’s issues, Staff was correct. I mean, part of it was because there were just a number of different engineering firms working on this, but really it’s because the numbers didn’t include the two triangles, which is a half acre more space. So the permeability numbers need to be, we can’t come in and ask for a variance without knowing exactly what the number is, and Keith was right about that. So what we would propose, we’re hoping that after the public hearing you’ll be able to decide on the three Sign Variances, and then we would ask you to put us on the agenda for the first meeting in January, to come back, and we can get you the revised numbers in a week. So we can be ready for that, just to check the math and make sure that we’re asking for, we’ll do it both in terms of both sites together, and also just the Northway Plaza site, so you can see it and hopefully grant the relief with all the proper numbers in front of you. MR. UNDERWOOD-The current aspect to the buildings and the way that they’re lined up, I mean, Chili’s is kind of lined up with Monroe, the way the building used, in that same attitude. The Walgreens building has shifted around since the first set of plans you gave us. Is the Planning Board going to have any input as to how those are now? Are they going to be happy? Are they going to make you swing Walgreens around in line with Chili’s or something like that? 13 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/17/08) MR. LAPPER-I don’t see that that’s going to be an issue, but, I mean, basically, if you look at the Chili’s site, there’s a lot more green space around it, it’s just how the, essentially they’re both concerned about visibility from both roads because you’ve got, you know, different traffic patterns, and that’s really what it’s about, and the Chili’s building is less then 5,000 square feet, and Walgreens is more than 14,000. So it’s, you know, sort of a Big Brother situation. So that’s what that’s about, and Chili’s also reduced their size also probably because of the economy. MR. UNDERWOOD-So is this Walgreens about the same size as the one down in Wilton? MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. UNDERWOOD-It looked like it. MR. LAPPER-Yes, I did that project also, for another developer, and Walgreens are very popular because it’s a high end retailer, but it’s just important for the Plaza to get both of these buildings in and re-develop it. MR. UNDERWOOD-I mean, your parking down there looks approximately like what you have here. I mean, it’s not that different. MR. LAPPER-Yes, it’s not, and, yes, because they’re not huge traffic generators, but it’s important that there’s parking in proximity to the Walgreens and to the Chili’s, and then also it’s a separate office use in the back, and then a separate retail use for the future in the front. So there’s different things going on. MR. UNDERWOOD-What’s the current use of the back parking for the, is it Per Se? MR. LAPPER-Yes. BILL DUTCH MR. DUTCH-Excuse me. I’m Bill Dutch. We’ve owned this property since 1989. So we’ve been here for the long haul. Travelers, in order to retain Travelers over the years we had to accommodate both expansion and contraction for them. We built a pedestrian bridge in the back of the center, if some of you haven’t ever been behind the center, in order to connect the main building with additional space that we renovated for them, which had been warehouse space for the first 10 years of our ownership tenure. Gradually then Travelers gave up some space, they contracted. They gave up the end cap on the center, which was formerly occupied by TV Data. We renovated that for Travelers and then they left. They abandoned it. So they downsized by about 25,000 feet, but back in, I believe, ’97, we renovated another 15,000 feet, which Jon didn’t address, and that’s the only reason I wanted to also point this out, how crucial the extra parking is for us in the back. There is 15,000, it’s a two story office project. Presently McKesson, or Per Se, Per Se Technologies as the subsidiary, McKesson acquired them about two years ago. Presently, the upper floor is 15,000 feet above it, and there is no way to access parking from the front of the center. It has to be accessed from the back, and we’ve had some prospects looking at the space. It’s finished office space. It can’t be converted back to retail very easily because of the depth of that building, and there’s a major investment in it. So it’s very crucial for us, in order to induce another 90 to 100 jobs upstairs, which Travelers used to, the number of people Travelers used to employ in those spaces, to have convenient parking for the people. Now we know that McKesson has given us new layouts and is intending on expanding jobs. So it’s very, very crucial for us, as owners, to be able to provide convenient parking for them, and if we make it inconvenient then, you know, we’ve lost, it’s very beneficial for McKesson to be on a one floor operation. That’s what they want, and so I say we still have to market the space upstairs, and those extra spaces have become very crucial for us. Thank you. MRS. JENKIN-I have a question. The retaining wall, you’re putting in a retaining wall and a fence. Will you be building the land up so that you will provide more parking along there? MR. DUTCH-I’d defer that question to our engineers, the additional spaces. MRS. HEISER-Yes. It doesn’t really have to be built up that much. It’s already, everything slopes down to the cemetery right now. So, the additional land, you know, there will be some fill there, but it already all slopes down to the cemetery very much so. 14 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/17/08) MR. LAPPER-I think it was just to balance it out. MRS. HEISER-Yes. MRS. JENKIN-So, will you be, I guess the question I have is you’ll be providing parking all the way to the retaining wall, you’ll have parking places all the way to the retaining wall? MR. LAPPER-Right here. If you look at the Site Plan that we submitted, it goes up not that far up the cemetery, but just to this point, and the spaces on the south side are really spaces for Walgreens, because they’re right around the Walgreens, certainly, for employees in the back, and then starting here, they would be for the office tenant, but then again, and then it just stays as green space, when you get closer to where the gravesites are. This is all of the administrative maintenance buildings that are shown on the map. MRS. JENKIN-But the parking area now is not that wide. MR. LAPPER-That’s correct. MRS. JENKIN-Okay. So it will be built up. MR. LAPPER-It was the only area on the site that they own where there was room to put parking back there. MRS. HEISER-This gray area right here is the existing edge of parking right now, and what I did is I graded out, so you could see, this is what the existing Plaza looks like right now, edge of pavement, and this is the new edge of pavement here. So you can see what was there and, you know, what the difference is going to be. MRS. JENKIN-Thank you. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Does everybody pretty much understand it? Any other questions from the Board members at this time? Okay. So, you would like us to give you an extension on dealing with the permeability issue? MR. LAPPER-Yes. They’re all separate applications. So after the public hearing. MR. UNDERWOOD-Right. Just to expedite matters, you want us to go through the sign ones? MR. LAPPER-We’d like you to go through the signs, and give us a week to get back with the, just to check the math on the permeability and we can come back in January to hear that. MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure. All right. Why don’t we do this, then, why don’t we look at the first one, then, and that’s going to be the Chili’s one. MR. LAPPER-We do have to have a public hearing, and I know there’s at least one neighbor here who wants to talk. MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure. All right. Why don’t we do this. I’m going to, for the moment, open up the public hearing. Anybody from the public wishing to speak in general terms about the project? We would like to hear from you. Why don’t you come up, please. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED HOWARD CARR MR. CARR-Members of the Board, my name’s Howard Carr. I’m President of the Howard Group. I appear before you on behalf of the owners of the Queensbury Plaza, the property directly to the south that fronts along both Quaker Road and Route 9. I’m here to speak to, specifically, three of the applications for a variance, 74-2008, 75-2008, and 76-2008. The issues that we want to bring to the Board’s attention relate to the fact that the ownership of the Queensbury Plaza is very much in favor of development on this important retail corridor. However, we cannot accept a situation that gives another property owner that’s in a direct competitive position, an unfair competitive advantage over the tenants and our own property. Many of our tenants have made application to 15 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/17/08) this Board and this Township in the past, and have been denied on a consistent and ongoing basis since April of 1988 when I became involved with that property, all right, and we have never had a variance granted of anywhere near the magnitude or size that is requested, and I would specifically ask the Board to consider the issues as follows. This property fronts only on one road. It does not front on two. There is relief or opportunity in the Ordinance, if there were frontage on two roads, but there is not. The requested variances are substantial. In 75-2008, we’re talking about a 30% variation, all right, and in 74-2008, we’re talking about four different signs here, and I just want to address a comment that Mr. Lapper made. Chili’s spends millions of dollars a year promoting that pepper. No different than McDonalds does promoting its golden arches. It’s a corporate trademark and that what it’s about, so that the pepper alone can help suffice and reduce some of the requested relief being asked for here. Secondly, all of these applications for a variance are self-created. Their, certainly the Ordinances were in existence, and if Mr. Dutch has been dealing with this property for five years trying to rent it or re-develop it, all of those Ordinances have been in place a long time. All of the development on our center took place under those Ordinances, and we have complied, and ended up with a very successful property. So I would say to you that issues relative to two things, okay, that the Chili’s building is a smaller building than the Walgreens building, but one of the reasons that the Walgreens building looks like that is because that’s part of the corporate logo. Just like when you look at a McDonalds, if you look at one that was built 20 years ago, you don’t need the golden arches, you know it was. That’s what Walgreens tries to develop on its own, because we deal with them on some of the properties that we have also, and so this Board needs to understand that some of the advantages that they are, or the relief, rather, that they are requesting just doesn’t make any sense, because the position of the building itself, and the presence of the building, which I believe was roughly about 25 or 28 feet high, all right, creates its own sign. They are, the issue in SEQRA is whether or not the relief requested is detrimental to any adjacent properties, and I would say to this Board specifically it is. Our property and any other properties that are in that immediate area ended up with a competitive advantage. Now I don’t know if this Board is ready to modify the Ordinance at this meeting, because I believe it’s a function of the Town Board, but I don’t think that this Board has the ability to grant the relief here, okay, without considering the competitive disadvantages of the existing tenants in the marketplace, and this goes on forever, because, you know, I’ve been involved with the Queensbury Plaza property for over 20 years now, all right. We took an eyesore and turned it into, I think, somewhat of a silk purse, and this Board has never once granted us a request for a sign on Quaker Road, and applications have been made 11 times in 20 years that I know of. So that we have never been granted that relief. Number One. Number Two, the issue relative to the two Home Depot signs, the two pylon signs, again, it fronts on one property, one road. Whatever relief this Board granted at a previous time is whatever was done, but I would say to you that there are alternatives to this methodology. All you have to do is look at our sign. We’ve got Staples sitting in the back, on a freestanding parcel, and we were unable to obtain any variances for additional signs, and we applied for them, but they went on the pylon with everyone else. So there is a methodology by which they can accommodate what their needs are for this, and we don’t want to have a situation where they go forward and this kills the deal, and I would say to you all, one of the considerations should be is to examine the documents, before you make a decision, and see, is this a requirement in the transaction, because if it’s not, these tenants all know that they are at risk when they go in front of any municipal authority, all right. The granting of a variance is arbitrary. It belongs to you as a Board, all right. It’s not a right granted under the Ordinance, and it is in your judgment whether or not this would create a disadvantage or a substantial deviation from what your Ordinance is. The single sign is the area standard, and I would say to you that, you know, this will result in somewhat of a change in the neighborhood if it is granted, but at the same time, I want you to know that we do support Mr. Dutch’s effort to re-develop the property, because the more retail that’s here, the better tax base there is for the Town, the better the conditions are, and we support all of the tenants in the site, and within the area. So we want to make sure that everybody has an opportunity to succeed. Thank you very much. MR. UNDERWOOD-Thank you. Anybody else from the public wishing to speak on the matter? Any correspondence? MR. URRICO-I don’t see any. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Let’s do this, then, and I think we’ll start out with 74-2008, which is the Chili’s, and everybody can pull out their Staff Notes, and I’ll go through it. I would remind everybody that, you know, the comments that we hear here are pertinent, and I think that, you know, in addressing the signage that we’ve allowed in the corridor here, I think it’s imperative that we consider what we’ve allowed and what we haven’t 16 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/17/08) allowed in the past, and at the same time, look at it with eyes wide open. In other words, has what we have allowed been adequate for people to maintain their businesses, to maintain a presence? I think that if we go down the corridor, and I think it might be important just to kind of go back and do a brief review of what we’ve done in the past. I mean, I’m just doing this as an ad lib into what we’re going to do here, but just to finish my comments up, I recall when we did Staples, Staples requested a sign that would face Quaker Road and we denied that one. In the case of, across the street where we’ve got A & W and Kentucky Fried Chicken, I know they wanted multiple signage on that Plaza over there also for their restaurants, and at the same time, we sort of towed the line and didn’t allow the excess of signage on it. Down the road further, I mean, the other plazas across the way, down at Tractor Supply and places like that. Within the Plaza here, I think Panera Bread is the only one that we’ve allowed two signs on because we did feel that they needed a presence looking inside towards the mall because of the aspect of the parking that’s there within Northway Plaza. So, I mean, there’ve been two sides to the coin, but in general I think we’ve been very conservative in what we’ve done so far, and I think that that’s something that the Board members should keep in mind as we go through the requests here this evening with the different signage. So why don’t we start out and let’s talk about the Chili’s one, and that would be 74. Do you want to add anything? MR. LAPPER-Yes. I should probably just respond to Howard’s comments, and of course I agree with him that that, his Plaza was in trouble, too, 20 years ago, and I worked with him to get that re-done. This is a different story in a different economy right now, but in terms of the SEQRA, economic competitive issues are not what you look at for SEQRA. I mean, there’s plenty of case law on that in terms of, because if you’d be doing that, you’d be getting economic studies on, you know, every time somebody adds another restaurant in Queensbury, but just as, you know, a side, everybody walks out of Olive Garden with those boxes because they serve you so much, and that’s not going to change. I mean, this is, having a 4,000 something square foot Chili’s is not going to hurt people that are on line for Olive Garden. This is, I think what we’re offering you, because of the stormwater project, because of this Plaza being substantially vacant with the two buildings that we’re talking about replacing now, plus the Travelers space, this is certainly a center in trouble, but nevertheless, if we came to you and said, hey, you know, we need to have a billboard, you’d be right to say no, but my argument has less than 100 square foot, altogether, these four signs, this is less signage than what you could have, and having the chili pepper, you know, Howard’s right, that’s what they advertise, but it’s a little more sophisticated to have a chili pepper rather than to have another sign, and with the Walgreens, he was saying over here that it’s not on two roads. Well, if you’re coming down Quaker, right here, you’ve got one sign here. If this is the only sign you see, then you come down from Route 9 you don’t see anything. You come down from the Mall, you don’t see anything. If the only sign was here, facing the intersection, you’d have to look over your shoulder backwards when you’re coming through the intersection. So we’re not coming here trying to load this up. It’s just, being on that corner, that’s what they need. MR. UNDERWOOD-In regards to the, you know, if you want to hop around from Chili’s to Walgreens, back and forth, you know, the Walgreens, you know, you’ve got Rite Aid, the brand new building, just down the street, and we dealt with the signs on that at the same point. I think we ended up with them right on the point, because of the aspect of that building, it does kind of face the road, with the single signage, although they do have the access entryway over on Lafayette Street there. So we do have the little sign out in back of there, too. Let’s just go with Chili’s for a moment, and what I’d like to have the Board members do is I’m just going to go through the different signs that have been requested here, and I want you people to think about it. Roy, you brought up the subject, should we be doing these signs tonight based upon the whole project. MR. URRICO-No, what I meant was that when we’re going to get to them. That’s what I meant. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I mean, I see no reason not to dispense with them and go through the process tonight. MR. URRICO-And I never meant that. MR. UNDERWOOD-No, but I mean I think that, you know, this is something that we can look at. Okay. So if everybody would just go to your Staff comment page and let’s go to the last one, all right. So we’ve got a 4,642 square foot Chili’s restaurant, and everybody should have their map in front of them. So you’re looking at the aspect of the building. Here’s the request. We’ve got a 30 square foot chili pepper located below and to the 17 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/17/08) right of the proposed Chili’s front façade sign, and that’s the one that Staff Notes agree is a legitimate requested sign that would be allowed by the current Code as it exists. MR. LAPPER-I can point that out right on the map. MR. UNDERWOOD-I mean, I think everybody’s got it in front. MR. LAPPER-Okay. Good. MR. UNDERWOOD-So everybody should be looking at those. Okay. I’m not going to make the decision for you regarding that, but I think you should key in on what Staff Notes say, because Staff Notes are trying to like point you in a direction that seems, you know, possible. Okay. The 38.1 square foot internally lit pepper and “S” sign, which is just the giant mutant pepper on the side over there, right? MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. UNDERWOOD-Which is the corporate logo, as has been explained. MR. LAPPER-That’s right here. MR. UNDERWOOD-That would be more facing towards Route 9, on that side of the building. MR. LAPPER-That’s the only thing you’re going to see on Route 9. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, and what I would consider to be the minor side, over at the take out side of the building, right, that would be the 5.3 square foot internally, externally lit pepper “S” sign To Go sign. MR. LAPPER-Yes. That’s tiny. MR. UNDERWOOD-That’s over on, which side of the building is that on? MR. LAPPER-That’s on the Route 9 side. MR. UNDERWOOD-That’s on the Route 9 side, too. Okay. MR. LAPPER-You can see it right there. Applebee’s has one of those, also. MR. UNDERWOOD-I’m trying to remember what you’ve got on the Chili’s building down on Wolfe Road, because I have been to that one before. I think there’s only one single sign on that building, as I recall. I don’t think there’s anything other than that. There’s no signage on the sides. There’s no, they don’t have a take out on that building, I don’t believe, either. MR. LAPPER-Chris did that. So he can address that, if you’d like. MR. BOYEA-Again, Chris Boyea with Bohler. We did the Chili’s project on Wolfe Road. It does have a monument sign out front, double faced. It’s got a Chili’s To Go sign on the side, and it’s got the typical signage, similar to what you’re seeing here, on the front, pepper. Now that was a few years ago, and at that time they also incorporated a neon band around the building as well as small peppers along the cornice of the building. A lot of times what we look at, when we’re looking at the Chili’s, is not only just the square footage of signs and correct placement of them, but if you look at the elevations that are in front of you, they’re also part of the aesthetics. If you were to take off any signs, it would leave a blank, ugly kind of blah wall. The front of the entrance where the roof kind of sheds the water, that welcomes people into the restaurant, you’ll notice that’s lopsided. It’s lopsided on purpose. It’s part of the design, and it allows a spot for that pepper to sit. It’s a nice aesthetic function as well. MR. URRICO-May I ask a question? You were answering questions about Chili’s signs. I’m sure Chili’s, the size of the organization, deals with a lot of communities of different Sign Variances, and they adapt to that local sign regulations. So, there has to be several different plans where they put forward signs that apply to that specific area. Because they’re not going to get the same sign in every area because every sign law is different. So what’s the bottom line here? How can we get this down to a minimum amount of signs? Because right now it’s way above the regulations, and we do have some strict definitions here. 18 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/17/08) MR. BOYEA-Yes. It’s a good question, and we know that any time we come before a Zoning Board, that we’re asking for more than what the Code allows. So we would be foolish to come in here with larger signs. We have larger signs than this that we could have proposed, but we’ve already pared this down, and as you said, each site and sign or town is a little bit unique and has their own codes. Each site’s unique, and this one, too. You’ll notice that we really need to have a very attractive building on all four sides. This building sits out in the middle of, you know, full visibility, and with that, we need to be represented on each side of the building. MR. URRICO-Well, because you have full visibility, maybe you don’t need as many signs either. MR. BOYEA-Well, you could look at it that way, but our building design here, on that side of the wall where the pepper “S” is, we feel that we need representation on that side, and that if that pepper “S” was not there, you can’t see the To Go sign because it’s at a different angle, and we need representation on that side of the building. The front door, we need a Chili’s sign over the front door. MR. URRICO-But why do you need a chili pepper in addition to the Chili’s sign? MR. BOYEA-Again, because of aesthetics. We feel that that adds a lot to this project. It certainly doesn’t say Chili’s. It is an architectural element that’s in there, but if you look at that building, how it’s designed, it’s designed around having that space occupied by a pepper. MRS. JENKIN-Do you have any signs that are designed so that the chili and the pepper are all one sign? MR. BOYEA-We don’t. MR. LAPPER-That looks a lot like one sign. If you look at the front of the building, you see the chili and the pepper. MRS. JENKIN-Yes, it does. MR. LAPPER-It’s being counted, for the purpose of the variance, as two signs, but if you look right at the façade, it really looks like one sign. MRS. JENKIN-Well, if it is two signs, or one sign, but maybe you do have a design that is. MR. BOYEA-We don’t have one where they’re connected. In both aspects, every one that I’ve seen is separate. It gets, it would be even a bigger sign if we were to connect it, square footage wise. JIM HAGAN MR. HAGAN-I’m going to take a little bit of a philosophical tact. You raised a good point. I’m Jim Hagan, I’m the architect for Northway Plaza. What you have here is individual letters on the Chili’s. It’s not like a box sign. They’re individual structures, and then the chili is part of that overall configuration. For whatever reason, when the application was made, that was treated as two separate signs, but in reality, that’s one entity, and the Chili’s logo or the sign, the pepper, I should say, is connected to the Chili’s. You could take an argument that the “C” is a separate sign, and the “HL” is a separate sign. I don’t think that’s an interpretation that’s ever been used in the past, and I would argue that really what you’re seeing on the front of the building is one sign. You have a second sign on the side of the building, and then for convenience, for people wanting to come in for To Go, we have the third sign. So it’s three instead of four. MRS. JENKIN-That brings another point that I mentioned, too. Because I looked carefully at the Code, and the Code does not specify how the square footage is determined in the sign, and you have taken, I think, just the red letters and determined what the square footage of the red letters are, rather than the space that the actual sign is taking up on the building. MR. LAPPER-There is precedent with the Town, because we’ve been doing this for 20 years, in terms of whether it’s a boxed sign. These are called channel letter signs, which are the fancier, more expensive, because you just see the façade of the building where 19 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/17/08) there’s not a sign. So this is the way that we’ve historically always measured it with Queensbury. MRS. JENKIN-You have just the letters. Okay, because that was a question I wanted to know, because it doesn’t specify it in the Code. MR. LAPPER-Either way we’d still be under 100 square feet, even if you drew a box around it. MRS. JENKIN-Well, it’s more than that, because by taking the dimensions of the sign, the width and the length of the sign, and you add all those up, that is more than 100 square feet, 167 or something like that, 117. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Why don’t we do this. Let’s do, I want each one of you guys to summarize in your own mind what their asking for here, what you think is reasonable, and keep in mind, you know, when you have a large store like Target up the road there, how many signs do you see when you go past there. MR. DRELLOS-My problem is you’re focusing on just Chili’s, but then there’s a freestanding sign with the Chili’s sign on it. So I might be more lenient on one and maybe not the other if it was more lumped together. Do you see what I’m saying? Because we focus on this, and we’re going to go to a freestanding sign. MR. UNDERWOOD-But I think what you’ve got to think about, George, is that we have a Sign Variance for wall signs. What is the wall sign requirement that we allow? One wall sign, okay. So keep that in mind. That’s the rule as it exists, you know, and that’s the one that we’re supposed to consider. So look at it, what the request is for here in totality. You can think about everything together and what’s reasonable. Think of a large aspect building like Staples. Think of a large aspect building like Target up the road, and think about how much signage you see on them, how many logos you see on the side of the building, in addition to the words and the name of whatever the vendor is or structure use. All right. I’m going to start with you, Brian, and let’s do this, all right. So you’ve got three things to worry about here. You’ve got actually four, okay, because you’ve got Chili’s the name, which is the main façade sign, which has that little mini chili pepper on it, plus the giant chili pepper, the 270 pound one on the side. Then you’ve got, over on the north side, or over on the west side of the building facing Route 9, you’ve got the other giant pepper, with the apostrophe “S”, and then the other aspect sign that we have is the smaller one over at the take out window, okay, which also could be seen from Route 9, all right. So keep those in mind as to what you think is reasonable. So why don’t you go through them, Brian, and tell us what you feel is reasonable. MR. CLEMENTS-Well, I don’t know whether I’m going to agree with the rest of the Board on this or not, but I’m going to go with it anyway. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, sure. MR. CLEMENTS-I guess first of all, you know, when I look at it, really, aesthetically it looks very nice. I understand the Sign Ordinances for the Town of Queensbury. I understand what Mr. Lapper has said about square footages, and I guess the way I look at it is square footages of signs, and if you had them at different sides of the building, to be able to see it from different angles, I don’t have a problem with that, because we’re talking about, I look at it as more square footages. I look at the Della signs that we did down on Quaker Road, and we allowed them to have several logos on there because they had a number of different car companies there that they were representing, so I guess, I feel a little bit like George, though, because I think that having this, and then having a freestanding sign would be a lot. So I’m going to go this way, because I’m going to change my mind, probably, on the freestanding sign, but I’ll say I would agree to everything that they have here, but I just want to preface that by saying that the freestanding sign, I wouldn’t agree to if they had all of this signage, because I think it would be able to be seen from all directions, whether they had a freestanding sign there or not. Now, for Walgreens, you know, I mean, if you put this in with Walgreens, but I don’t want to do that, so as we’re looking at it right now, I would agree with what you have. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Joan, do you want to go? MRS. JENKIN-As it stands now, and because we are charged with upholding what the Code says and trying to fulfill it as much as possible, just so that other people coming in front of us, we don’t set a precedent here, I actually would not be in favor of this right 20 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/17/08) now, because I feel that, at least one of the signs needs to go, and I feel that the sign on the north side is not going to be visible from the road at all. It would add to the character of that wall, but that’s about the only thing. It’s not going to be really very visible except for the people in the parking lots. The Chili’s sign with the red pepper, I think that’s a nice sign, and if it was considered as one sign, then I think I would go with that one because of the square footage and it’s reasonable, and the Chili’s To Go is a very small sign, and probably is necessary for people to know where to go if they’re going to get take out. So if we’re dealing with the whole, all four signs as part of the variance, I would have to say no to the variance. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Roy, why don’t we go with you. MR. URRICO-Okay. A few things. I do agree that the totality of this project sort of outweighs just one parcel aspect of it, even though this one has a lot of signs in it, but I will say that there is a section in the Sign Code, 140-14, on variances specifically, and it says no variances in the specific application of the provisions of this chapter shall be granted by the Board of Appeals unless it finds that there are special circumstances or conditions applying to the land or sign and not applying generally to the land or signs in the neighborhood, and that said circumstances or conditions are such that the strict application of the provisions of this chapter, I’m not going to read the whole thing, would deprive the applicant of the reasonable use of such land, sign or land where the variance would otherwise be in general harmony with restrictions established for the area, and I think that’s where I’m going to come down. I’ve been pretty consistent with this over the years. I think there are too many signs on this specific project, and it needs to be minimized to a certain degree. I think we have an intersection, last calculation that I read is something like 23,000 cars go through that intersection on a daily basis. I think signs are seen. Signs are seen from both directions. That cars don’t travel in one direction. They travel in two directions usually, both on Quaker Road and Route 9. So I think having one sign on Route 9 and one sign on Quaker Road would be satisfactory for me, and the To Go sign, to me, is something we’ve given to Applebee’s, and I believe we may have done it for Uno as well, and several other restaurants, but I really think they need to be made smaller, not so much the sign on the front, but definitely, I can’t go with the pepper and the “S” on the side. Maybe just the pepper without the “S” and a smaller pepper. MR. LAPPER-So if it was a smaller size. MR. URRICO-Yes, minimize, and we’re not even getting to the monument sign yet. MR. LAPPER-I understand. MR. URRICO-Okay. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Joyce? MRS. HUNT-Yes. Thank you. I’m kind of confused that the one sign that you’re allowed is 18 square feet, which is nothing compared to 100 square feet, and I have to agree that, philosophically, I would consider Chili’s and that pepper as one sign, and as far as the pepper “S” To Go sign, I mean, five square feet is hardly, it’s only for people who are driving around back there to take out. I have no problem with the pepper sign. Maybe it could be smaller, but that says west elevation. MR. LAPPER-That means it faces Route 9. I can show you on the map. MRS. HUNT-But really it’s looking out at the parking lots. Well, you’d see it if you were coming south. MR. LAPPER-If you were coming down from Wal-Mart, down south, it’s the only thing you’d see because you won’t see the signs on the front. MRS. HUNT-Right. I see that now. I get your point. MR. LAPPER-So that’s why it’s on that side. MRS. HUNT-I think the fact that the signs in total add up to less than 100 square feet, I would be in favor. MR. LAPPER-Okay. George? 21 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/17/08) MR. DRELLOS-Well, like I said before, I would have liked to lumped it up a little bit together with the freestanding sign, but the front sign I don’t have a problem with, the Chili’s with the pepper. I think that looks nice. The To Go sign, you need that. The pepper sign on the side, I don’t even know why you even need it. I mean, does it really? MR. LAPPER-If you were coming down Route 9, you just don’t see any, there would be no sign. You won’t know what the building is. MR. DRELLOS- I guess the whole thing is, I mean, if I live here, I know where Chili’s is going to be. I’m not going to need the pepper to show me the way in. MR. LAPPER-You’re right. MR. DRELLOS-You know what I’m saying? Are you thinking you’re getting people from out of town to look at it? MR. LAPPER-It’s an exit on the Northway, and Queensbury is certainly a tourist destination. MR. DRELLOS-Well, you know, and I don’t know what records you have of what, you know, if I was local and most of the people probably are that are going to frequent the Chili’s, they probably don’t even need, you know, to see the sign to go in, but I would have a problem with that sign would be the pepper sign. If you wanted to make it really smaller, you know, half the size or something, would be a big help, but altogether, if you took it out, I don’t think it would hurt the business at all. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. John? MR. ZANGHI-I think, without going over everything that’s been said, I think the front sign is definitely fine. The To Go sign, again, I think that you require that because of the business you’re trying to do there. Again we get back to the pepper on the side. Clearly that’s what’s pushing everybody over, and I wonder, and maybe it’s beyond the authority of this Board, but one of the reasons why I think you feel you have to have it is, without getting into the Walgreens discussion, that building’s rotated. This one’s square on. So, is that required that the way the Chili’s building is is straight on like that? Of if you made it more parallel to Route 9, then that might alleviate the need for the Chili, the four signs. MR. DUTCH-If I could answer that question. We’ve been negotiating with Chili’s a long time on this, and they’ve downsized their model for, the economy is lousy. We all know that, and they’ve found that there are operating efficiencies by having a smaller building, and in order to make this prototype work, they decided two things, one to downsize. So instead of a bigger building which would be more density on the site, they’ve downsized the building. It will be economies of scale for them because it’ll save them money in operating, which is a key today, I mean, no question about it for everybody, but also tipping the building to co-habitat a site with Walgreens. Walgreens building is more massive, and they needed to have exposure on Quaker Road. This has been a balancing act for us with two separate corporate mentalities, both with large egos, to say who’s more important. Well they both are to this project. They’re both super important to us, especially since we’ve lost Travelers. You know the impact of our contribution to the community as taxpayers and whatever else. We need to turn around. We need good news here, you know, we need to turn this thing around. So we’ve worked a long time to do this, and when they came back with this plan, it precipitated a change in Walgreens’ plan, and so we’re like mediators, as owner. The corporate mentality, unfortunately, is not determined and policy is not determined by my group nor Mr. Lapper, nor the engineers. It’s determined by what somebody in corporate says, this is what we want, this is our sign package, and I agree with a lot of the things that you’ve said, in the ideal world, in the perfect world, but I do think that as you do come down Route 9, unless that pepper is there, and that’s their icon, that’s their symbol, you’re not going to know, you’re going to pass that thing before you know it’s a Chili’s. You may say, and I can’t take exception to this, that people in the market know where things are. Well, I’ve dealt with these kinds of issues for the last 30 years, and all I can tell you is that the corporate mentality is if we can’t be seen, and you know, this is what we want. If we can’t have it, we’re out, and I’m afraid that I don’t think this whole package is excessive. To go on the soapbox here and argue for it, we need this desperately to trigger and catalyze a turnaround for this property at a very key intersection. I think our group, our partnership, in 20 years of ownership, has invested a lot of money in this property to dress it up. It’s certainly a lot better looking than it was five, ten years ago, and we intend to keep investing money in here. We have a lot of our own responsibility, in terms of investment and site work and other things that we have to do for these tenants. So I just can’t afford 22 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/17/08) to lose one and keep the other or, you know, somehow we’ve got to try and balance this because I think it’s good for the community. I think a Walgreens is good for the community and I think a Chili’s is good for the community. MR. ZANGHI-But what you’re saying is they wouldn’t even discuss rotating that, tipping that building? MR. LAPPER-Let me just show you. If you’re coming on Quaker, John, if you were coming on Quaker, and this building was facing here, you wouldn’t see the front, because you’d be coming this way, and the front would be facing here, and that’s the problem. So now at least you can see, if you’re coming on Quaker, you can see the front door with the Chili’s sign and the pepper. MR. ZANGHI-I’ve got it. I was looking at it more at it coming from this way, but I understand what you’re saying. That’s fine. So, again, I guess to summarize, it’s that last sign on the side that I’m struggling with, but. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Just to go through here, to finish up, then, to summarize, it looks like nobody has a problem with the main sign, that the Staff Notes identified as being reasonable, with the exception of the addition of the giant pepper, or do you not want the giant pepper? MRS. JENKIN-I have one more suggestion. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, well, I was going to make a suggestion also. MRS. JENKIN-Okay. MR. UNDERWOOD-We’re looking at exterior signage that’s on the outside of the building, and we’ve had many requests for excess signage in the past. One of the ways that we’ve alleviated it in some manner of speaking is to, you know, put some kind of neon signage in the window. I mean, that’s been done up at the new Mobil station up on Route 9, you know, up by the miracle mile up there. They’ve got Dunkin Donuts, bingo, right in the window. So I don’t see why you couldn’t do that with Chili’s over on that, facing on the Route 9 side there. You’ve got windows and, yes, you can say there’s a problem, but it could be done. You’ve got upper windows, those clear story windows up there. You’ve got secondary windows above where the patrons sit there also. MR. LAPPER-I guess in order to compromise, and, you know, we came here saying this is less than 100 square feet, hoping we wouldn’t have to, because Bill needs this lease, but I guess of everything I’ve heard, if the chili on the west side was reduced in half, I think that I heard there’s a majority of the Board that would go for that, and we’d still have to sell that to Chili’s, but I guess I would ask you to consider that. MRS. JENKIN-Well, my suggestion was, could you take the chili off the front because you already have Chili’s, and that’s a lot of. MR. UNDERWOOD-Exactly. MR. LAPPER-But that’s kind of nice. I mean, it’s kind of cool having that chili pepper there. MRS. JENKIN-I agree, but it would cut down one sign. MR. LAPPER-I guess of everything I’ve heard, since that front gives you visibility into the intersection and to Quaker, I would ask you to consider making the Chili’s sign on the west side half the size, if that would be enough of a compromise. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Just as a minute of clarity here, you’ve got Olive Garden right across the street which faces two different directions. They’ve got one sign that’s perfectly adequate. They get a heavy business all the time. I don’t think there’s anybody in town who hasn’t gone to eat there probably, at some point in time. So I don’t understand, and I’m saying, in a sense, too, they’re sunken down into the ground. MR. LAPPER-It’s a lot bigger sign. If you take all these together, they’re going to equal what they have, and that’s the difference. MR. UNDERWOOD-Right, but I’m saying, we’re supposed to be allowing you one sign, you know, and you’re requesting multiple signs, and we’re trying to keep some 23 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/17/08) semblance of reality built into whatever we end up with as a result here, and that is, we’re supposed to be giving you the bear minimum that you need, all right. We don’t have to give you more than everybody else. We don’t have to give you less than anybody else, but we’re supposed to, in our own minds, consider what’s reasonable. MR. LAPPER-The difference here is that we do have these two different directions, and so I would ask you to consider, just cut the west sign in half, which is still going to make it look a little small on the façade, but at least we can go back to Chili’s and say we got you most of what you asked for and hopefully get the deal done. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Well, here’s my opinion, then, on what I think. I think the only thing that you should have on there is Chili’s over the door with a small chili pepper. It’s there. You still have the chili pepper. You don’t have the giant, 270 pound chili pepper below it. I don’t think there’s going to be any question that people will be able to identify what it is. It’s a more subtle Chili’s sign that what you’ve proposed here. I don’t have a problem with the To Go sign. We’ve allowed that over on, you know, down the road at, down by Lowe’s at that other, Applebee’s down there. I’m totally against the other one over on the north side. I think that could be accomplished with the a smaller sign, either in a window or something like that, that would allow you to do that, too, you know, and I think that in a sense our charge is to give you the minimum. I don’t think we need to give you more than that. There’s no hardship here. If Chili’s is a well founded chain restaurant that a lot of people identify with and go out to meals at, I don’t think it’s going to make or break whether Chili’s comes here. Okay. So let’s, Board members, do you want to vote on these right now? Okay. Because I’m going to go through, then, and I’m just going to ask you to go to your last page in the Staff Notes and we’re going to look at them as three different things. We’re looking at the main sign in front, and I want you to tell me whether you. MR. URRICO-Can I ask one more question? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. Sure. MR. URRICO-Just from a, try to explain to me, on the front you have the Chili’s, and then there’s the separate pepper. MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. URRICO-Okay. On the side you have a chili pepper with an “S” after it. Why? MR. LAPPER-Chili’s”. MR. URRICO-I understand that, but it’s not used with the logo underneath the Chili’s. MR. LAPPER-So you’re saying could you lose the “S”. Is that what you’re saying? MR. URRICO-Well, I’m kind of asking that a little bit, yes. MR. BOYEA-I’ve never seen them lose the “S”, but I could certainly ask the question, and if that was something that you wanted to do, we could certainly consider it. The importance, it sounds like is that sign is really the sticking point on the side there, and one of the things I would just like to bring to the Board’s attention, as being the engineer for Chili’s, is that this is not a well established brand in the Capital District. We’ve got, this would be the third store. We don’t have, you know, 15, 25 McDonalds. They have advertising on TV, but certainly, you know, this is a substantial investment, and I know that they certainly want to be successful here at this location, and we’ve tried to comply with the signage at the 100 square foot, and we just definitely appreciate all the points that you guys have raised. MRS. HUNT-I have a question for Staff. If the channel letters and the chili pepper were on a back board, would it be one sign, then? MR. OBORNE-I’d say yes, but as they are totally separate entities attached by two different mechanisms, they are separate. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. What I’m going to do, then, I’m going to ask each one of you, in regards to the main sign, do you want it with just Chili’s, or with the giant pepper? All right? So you’re going to tell me one way or the other. All right, and then I’m going to ask you do you want the separate giant pepper with the “S” sign on the facing Route 9, and third I will ask you whether you want the To Go sign. All right. So, Brian. 24 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/17/08) MR. CLEMENTS-We’re not voting on these separately. This is just a question, right? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, just so I know how to word the resolution when it goes through. Okay. So as far as Chili’s, the main sign, do you want it with the giant pepper or without the giant pepper? MR. CLEMENTS-Yes, I’d leave it as it is. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. How about you, Joan? MRS. JENKIN-I would be in favor of it being Chili’s with the giant pepper if the sign wasn’t on the other side. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. So you don’t want the Route 9 giant pepper sign. MRS. JENKIN-Well, we’re supposed to have one sign, and we’re bending it a lot now. Four signs, I feel, are too many. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. How about you, Brian, on that Route 9 one. What do you want with that? MR. CLEMENTS-Well, I was in favor of that, but I think that they have conceded to try to make that smaller. So I would certainly go along with that. MR. UNDERWOOD-And the take out sign, both you guys are okay with that? All right. Okay. George, how about, do you want the main entrance sign with the? MR. DRELLOS-Yes. That’s okay. The big pepper, that’s the one I had a problem with before, and the To Go sign is okay. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. All right, and the Route 9 one, you do want that one? MR. DRELLOS-Well, I’d like to see it a lot smaller. That was my original saying that I said was that they could reduce that down and not make it so noticeable. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Roy? MR. URRICO-I would be okay with the front signage as is and the To Go sign as is, and I’m going to stick with that. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Joyce? MRS. HUNT-I would be in favor of the Chili’s with the giant pepper and the To Go sign, and I have no problem with the other one, although if it was smaller I might be even happier. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. John? MR. ZANGHI-The front sign as is with the big pepper, the To Go sign is fine, and the one on the side, if it was smaller, that would be great. Otherwise, I would be in favor of removing that, or not approving that one. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. So it looks like you’re going to get approval for the main sign, with the giant pepper, all right, and you’re also going to get approval for the take out sign. Can you do a smaller one on that other side or not? I don’t know what you’ve got available, or do you want to just table that one until you? MR. DUTCH-Well, what I’d like to do is go with a smaller sign, and at least go back to Chili’s at that point and say, can you live with this, and if for some reason they can’t live with that, we’re going to be back here. I would bring that back in front of this Board at that time to ask at that point. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Why don’t we just, then tonight we’re just going to act on the main sign and the take out sign only. MR. DUTCH-We would like to go forward tonight with half the size, and I’ll just let them know that that’s what this Board is willing to offer. 25 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/17/08) MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. All right. Then I’m going to have to do this. I’ll do the resolution here. MR. CARR-Mr. Chairman, may I propose a solution to this? MR. UNDERWOOD-No, I’m sorry. MR. CARR-I’m sorry, sir, but with all due respect, I didn’t hear you close the public hearing. The methodology has been established to allow me to have a rebuttal. MR. UNDERWOOD-Why don’t you come back up and I’ll give you three minutes, please. MR. CARR-Okay. I think I’ve got a solution here for everyone’s problem here. The To Go sign is not an issue to us, all right, but the Route 9 sign is, and the way to solve the problem is pretty simple. Get them on the pylon sign. That gives them the exposure on Route 9. Because when you look at the line of sight and the access points into the center, when they see the small Route 9 sign, they will be beyond the Route 9 access point to the center, if what we’re talking about is people who are strangers to the area. So they will end up going beyond the property and coming back through Quaker Road. So the solution is, to create the least amount of variance, is to get a panel on the pylon sign, similar to Panera Bread, and let them have, the To Go sign is not a big issue because that’s just for directional issues, and give them the sign on the front of the building. MR. UNDERWOOD-Staff, so they can co-locate on that smaller sign out there? MR. OBORNE-No, that’s a second freestanding sign, but it’s a nonconforming sign. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. So it would have to go on the main frame sign out there? MR. OBORNE-That’s a nonconforming sign also. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. MR. OBORNE-So, I mean, you’re talking about having to come back and. MR. URRICO-We don’t have any control over the panels on the sign, do we? I thought that was something that the property owners have control over. MR. LAPPER-That’s right. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, I think that the square footage on the sign is a set number, and then you can alter that to any degree, as long as you conform to what you have the variance for. MR. LAPPER-We’ll talk about it after he’s done. MR. CARR-Well, I think that that’s reasonable. It’s realistic, and the other thing that I would say here is while I understand that, you know, the potential hardship that Mr. Dutch proposes to the Board, all right, no documentation and no evidence has been presented to the Board relating to the hardship, so the application of that, okay, and the hardship has not been proven. So I think that the Board, based on the application as submitted, really does need to deny it. Thank you. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Thank you. Okay. I guess I’ll close the public hearing, and do you want to add anything? PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. LAPPER-I just need 10 seconds. The Board knows that hardship’s not a standard for an Area Variance, but the other pylon, there’s a panel left, and that has to be for whoever’s going to go into the Travelers space. So, the Plaza owners can’t negotiate that away. They’ve got to save that for future tenant or tenants, but at half size, which we’ve offered, it sounds like the majority of the Board is in favor of that. That’s a compromise that we were hoping to not have to do, but we need to get the deal done, and if that’s what the Board wants to see, we’re willing to do that. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. All right. Does somebody want to do the resolution, or do you want me to do it? 26 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/17/08) MR. URRICO-Do you want specific size on the sign, instead of half size. MR. LAPPER-We would just say half of what was submitted. That’s okay. MR. UNDERWOOD-We can just say half of what’s submitted. Why don’t we do that. MR. DRELLOS-Jim, also, can conditions be put on these? MR. UNDERWOOD-Conditions for what? MR. DRELLOS-Well, just say Chili’s is gone in five years. Does the variance stay with the building? Say another tenant moves in, are they allowed four signs? MR. LAPPER-They’d have to sell peppers. MR. DRELLOS-Well, I’m saying, can they change the signs? MR. UNDERWOOD-No, I think once the sign comes down, that’s it. Any alteration would have to come back. MR. DRELLOS-I don’t know. I’ll ask Staff. Does the sign stay with the building? I mean, what if someone else comes in the building? I’m not saying the pepper sign. MR. OBORNE-I think if the tenant leaves, that’s it. MR. DRELLOS-So the sign doesn’t stay. MR. OBORNE-For the wall sign. For a, correct me if I’m wrong, Jon, you know this better than I do, is if it’s a pylon sign, you know, that’s a different story. Those are set square footages on there. MR. DRELLOS-Okay, but the wall signs don’t, as a variance, it doesn’t stay with the building, though, if they move out? MR. OBORNE-Correct, and I do want to remind the Board that you do need to do SEQRA. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. All right. Why don’t we do the SEQRA thing. Okay. We’re going to use the Short Form. All right. We’ll go through the Short Form. The applicant’s sponsor is NPA II, LLC, that’s Northway Plaza Associates, and again, this is for the Chili’s Restaurant located at 820 State Route 9. Their agent is Jon Lapper. Is the proposed action new, an expansion or a modification. I would say it’s new construction. Describing the project briefly, they’re proposing to erect a Chili’s Restaurant, and that Chili’s Restaurant is in the same attitude as the currently existing Monroe Muffler building there, so that it faces both Route 9 and Quaker Road. The applicant’s proposing to construct a 4,642 square foot Chili’s Restaurant to include four wall signs. One of the signs is an 18 square foot internally lit Chili’s wall sign and is proposed to be located on the front façade of the building. It has been determined by Staff to be the one compliant sign. The following three signs will need relief from the total amount of allowable signs per the Ordinance, and that is, Number One, after discussing it in depth, the Board does not consider the large chili pepper, that it goes along with that sign as previously has been mentioned as a separate sign, so we’re considering that to be one single sign, the Chili’s just simply a logo that goes along with the Chili’s. The 38.1 square foot internally lit pepper and “S” sign located on the north wall of the building, as proposed, will have to be shrunk down to half of its currently proposed size. That would be Part II, and Part III, the 5.3 square foot internally and externally lit pepper “S” To Go sign, which is located on the northwest corner of the building, which is the take out window, is the third one. So the proposed total area of all four of the signs is 96.5 square feet. So it would be less than that now. It would probably be down around 60 I would imagine, if it’s shrunk in half. Right? MR. DRELLOS-19.5 square feet off. MR. LAPPER-Okay. So it’ll be 77, approximately. MR. UNDERWOOD-Seventy-seven square feet total, again. All right. The amount of land affected, the actual building size we already gave that as 4,642 square foot building. 27 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/17/08) Will the proposed action comply with the existing zoning or other existing land use restrictions? Yes or no? MR. LAPPER-No because it needs a variance. MR. UNDERWOOD-No, because it needs a variance for those three extra signs as identified by Staff. What is the present land use? It’s all commercial in the area. Does the action involve a permit approval or funding now or ultimately from any other governmental agency (Federal, State or Local)? I would say. MR. LAPPER-Planning Board Site Plan. MR. UNDERWOOD-Planning Board Site Plan Review. Does any aspect of the action have a currently valid permit or approval? I would say just what’s currently done for the Plaza. That’s it. None on this one. As a result of the proposed action, will existing permit/approval require modification? Yes or no? MR. LAPPER-It’s a new project. MR. UNDERWOOD-It’s a new project. All right. “Does the action exceed any Type I threshold in 6 NYCRR Part 617.4?” I would say no. MR. DRELLOS-No. MR. UNDERWOOD-“Will the action receive coordinated review as provided for Unlisted Actions in 6 NYCRR, Part 617.6?” Yes, the Planning Board. MR. LAPPER-No, it’s separate review. MR. UNDERWOOD-Separate. Okay. “Could the action result in any adverse effects associated with the following: C1. Existing air quality, surface or ground water quality or quantity, noise levels, existing traffic patterns, solid waste production or disposal, potential for erosion, drainage or flooding problems?” I guess we would have to hold off on the flooding problems. MR. OBORNE-Yes, we’re just dealing with the signs themselves. MR. UNDERWOOD-We’re just dealing with the signs, so I would say no. Okay. “C2. Aesthetic, agricultural, historic, or other natural or cultural resources; or community or neighborhood character?” It is excess signage when compared to normal, what’s permitted. Right. So I guess you could say yes on that one. “C3. Vegetation, fauna, fish, shellfish or wildlife species, significant habitats, or threatened or endangered species?” No. MRS. HUNT-No. MR. UNDERWOOD-“C4. A community’s existing plans or goals as officially adopted, or a change in use or intensity of use of land or other natural resources?” No. MR. DRELLOS-No. MR. UNDERWOOD-“C5. Growth, subsequent development or related activities likely to be induced by the proposed action?” I would say no. MR. DRELLOS-No. MR. UNDERWOOD-“C6. Long term, short term, cumulative or other effects not identified above?” No. MR. DRELLOS-No. MR. UNDERWOOD-“C7. Other impacts (including changes in use of either quantity or energy)?” No. “Will the project have an impact on the environmental characteristics that caused the establishment of a Critical Environmental Area?” MR. DRELLOS-No. MR. UNDERWOOD-“Is there or is there likely to be controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts?” No. 28 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/17/08) MR. DRELLOS-No. MOTION THAT BASED UPON WHAT THE ZONING BOARD HAS SAID HERE, I WOULD CONSIDER THIS FORM TO BE COMPLETE, SO I WOULD OFFER A NEGATIVE DECLARATION IN REGARDS TO THIS SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM, Introduced by James Underwood who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brian Clements: th Duly adopted this 17 day of December, 2008, by the following vote: MR. OBORNE-You need to specifically say it’s a Negative Declaration. AYES: Mr. Clements, Mr. Zanghi, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Jenkin, Mr. Drellos, Mr. Underwood NOES: NONE MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. All right. So, all right. MOTION TO APPROVE SIGN VARIANCE NO. 74-2008 NPA II, LLC (NORTHWAY PLAZA) CHILI’S RESTAURANT, Introduced by James Underwood who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brian Clements: 820 State Route 9. The applicant is proposing construction of four additional wall signs for a proposed 4,642 square foot Chili’s Restaurant in the Northway Plaza. The applicant is requesting relief from the maximum amount of wall signs permitted for a business complex per Section 140-6, and the sizes of the three wall signs in need of relief are, 30, 38, well, the 38.1 will be shrunk down now. The 38.1 is the large one over the entrance. Okay. So the 30 one would be corrected to be 15 square feet. Thirty- eight is the big one. Okay. So the second sign, which would be the wall sign facing Route 9, that would be decreased to half of the size of what’s proposed, okay. So that would be 15 square feet. Okay. So that’s the 38, and lastly the 5.3 square foot sign, and that would be for the take out window facing the northwest corner. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood. The proposal may initiate additional sign requests for the Plaza and from other restaurants in the area, resulting in increased sign variance requests. Two, whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method feasible. The applicant will be downsizing the sign on the west side of the building to half of what was proposed. The other signs will be erected as proposed. Whether the requested sign variance is substantial. The request for three additional signs, or a three hundred percent increase, may be considered severe, that would still be the same. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. Moderate effects because of the extra signage in the area. Whether the alleged difficulty is self-created. It can be considered to be self-created. As mentioned by the Board members in their discussions, the primary sign with the chili pepper has been considered to be one single sign by our Board. The internally lit pepper and “S” sign which will be located on the north wall of the building will be shrunk down to half its size and the 5.3 square foot internally externally lit pepper “S” sign To Go sign located on the northwest corner of the building will be allowed as requested. The total area of all four signs is 77.5 square feet. th Duly adopted this 17 day of December, 2008, by the following vote: MR. UNDERWOOD-The 38.1 is the large one, is it not, over the entrance? MRS. HUNT-That’s right. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. So the 30 one would be corrected to be 15 square feet. MR. LAPPER-Thirty-eight. MR. UNDERWOOD-Thirty-eight’s the big one? MR. LAPPER-That’s right. Okay. MRS. HUNT-Thirty-eight is the pepper. MR. DRELLOS-The pepper, with the “S”. 29 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/17/08) MR. UNDERWOOD-All right. I’ve got you. So the second sign, which would be the wall sign facing Route 9, that would be decreased to half of the proposed size of 30. Okay. So that would be 15 square feet. MR. LAPPER-Half of what was proposed. MR. DRELLOS-No, 19.5. MRS. HUNT-Nineteen. MR. UNDERWOOD-So that’s the 38. MRS. HUNT-That’s the 38. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. AYES: Mr. Clements, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Zanghi, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Drellos NOES: Mrs. Jenkin, Mr. Underwood MR. UNDERWOOD-All right. We’ll go on to the next one. MR. LAPPER-Thank you. MR. UNDERWOOD-All right. Next up on the agenda is the Walgreens sign, and that’s Sign Variance No. 75-2008, NPA II, LLC, Northway Plaza, is also the applicant on that project. The applicant is proposing to construct a Walgreens Pharmacy. Relief is requested from the Sign Ordinance for 1 additional wall sign and the sign sizes for the two signs are, in total, 129.85 square feet. Do you want to read in anything on that? MR. URRICO-I read the Staff Notes on that. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, you already read them once. We don’t need to do that. MR. LAPPER-Jim, they’re 129.85 square foot each. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. All right. Why don’t you just briefly run us through those. MR. LAPPER-I guess, I think I went through most of this when we did the summary, and we should probably just reference those minutes as well, here, but the justification is because the building faces the two roads. So there’s one sign facing Quaker and one sign facing the front, facing Route 9, and many other pharmacies have more than two signs. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Any questions from Staff? Or any questions, I mean, from the Board members? MRS. JENKIN-So there’s not going to be any other signs on the building except for the two Walgreens signs? MR. LAPPER-The Walgreen signs, if you look at the drawing, do have some other messages, but it’s all one sign together. MRS. JENKIN-But there’s not drive thru here and all this other? MR. LAPPER-Nicole? NICOLE DAVID HEISER MRS HEISER-There is on the corporate standard, but, in consideration for comments from Mr. Lapper on, you know, really what the Town would, you know, what would be okay with the Town, we didn’t go with a lot of the extra signs that the corporate standard has. We just went with the simple two signs that you see on the plans. MRS. JENKIN-What is this? MRS. HEISER-That is a drive thru, and when we met at the pre-submission meeting, it was not considered in the sign square footage. 30 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/17/08) MRS. JENKIN-Is that true, it’s not considered? MRS. HEISER-That’s what we were told. MR. LAPPER-That was a directional sign. MRS. HEISER-Yes, it’s considered a directional sign. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, in the past it’s been considered a directional sign. MRS. JENKIN-Okay, and then there’s one in the window. MRS. HEISER-That is a behind the glass, a window sign, and it’s 25%, it’s less than 25% of that area. So that’s also not considered. MR. URRICO-Will there be a pharmacy sign somewhere on the building? I thought there needed to be one? MR. LAPPER-Under Walgreen it says Pharmacy. MRS. HEISER-Yes. MR. URRICO-I couldn’t remember. I don’t have it in front of me. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. So I would assume your argument is basically the same thing because you’re looking at two different roadways. You’re looking at exposure, from that same aspect. MRS. JENKIN-That’s the thing that I’m concerned about, too, because it is almost as if you’re on a corner, but it’s not considered a corner lot? MR. LAPPER-Because there’s different rules for a Plaza, than, if it was a freestanding, it would be, but there’s different sign rules for plaza signage than there are for a freestanding building, even though this is a freestanding building in a plaza. MRS. JENKIN-Okay. Business complex. MR. LAPPER-I said plaza, business complex is the term. MRS. JENKIN-But it says here that, where did I see it, go ahead and I’ll look. MR. LAPPER-I mean, we think that that argument should apply here because it really is fronting on two streets and you wouldn’t have any visibility from the other street. So the concept should apply. MRS. HEISER-Can I address comments made before, also, about? MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure. MRS. HEISER-I don’t think Walgreens has the same kind of precedence as a McDonalds has when you see the building. I mean, McDonalds is international. I mean, you don’t go, I don’t think, you know, people from other countries really know what a Walgreens looks like. So I think that was kind of an unfair comparison, really, in that, you know, they wouldn’t need a sign on that side of the, on that roadway. MR. LAPPER-It’s a pretty low-key building. Someone mentioned the one at Exit 15. There’s nothing too spectacular about the architecture. It’s pretty plain. MR. UNDERWOOD-I’ve seen the one up in Potsdam. There’s one up there. It’s basically the same building. MRS. HEISER-Now what we propose is not the corporate standard. The corporate standard actually has signs on all four sides of the building. There’s other small pharmacy separate signs on the building. We took all those little signs off and just with the simple two signs, just to give them, you know, the basic, you know, visual that they needed for their customers. We also, the standard sign is a 33 foot long sign. That’s their standard sign, and we went with, their standard sign is a 33 foot by about 66 inches high, and we went with a 23 foot and about 47 inches high. 31 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/17/08) MRS. JENKIN-Is that the smallest you have? MRS. HEISER-Is that the smallest? No, but that’s about half, you know, considerably smaller. MRS. JENKIN-Because you’re only over by about, what. MR. LAPPER-That’s not right, Joan. They’re each 129. MRS. HEISER-Yes. MR. DRELLOS-They’re each 129. MRS. HEISER-But the other thing is that in the calculation you can see there’s a box around the Walgreens, and Mr. Lapper mentioned that the precedence was that just the letters themselves were considered, but if it was, just comparably, if it was just the Walgreens, just that Walgreens that we’re proposing right now, if you just considered the lettering outline, that’s only 38 square feet for each of those. MRS. JENKIN-That’s a big difference. MRS. HEISER-Yes. MRS. JENKIN-When you only consider the lettering. MRS. HEISER-Yes. MRS. HUNT-Do you have something that we could look at? Do you have a copy of it? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, it’s right over there. MRS. HUNT-It’s far away. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, we can just pass it down along where you can take a peek. Okay. If there’s no questions from Board members, I’ll open up the public hearing. Anybody from the public wishing to speak on this matter? Come on up. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED HOWARD CARR MR. CARR-Ladies and gentlemen of the Board, I reiterate the elements that were brought forth to you in the statements made on the Chili’s issue. This, once again, is a substantial amount of relief from the standard of this Township, Number One. Number Two, you open the door to an application from every tenant that we have, because I can personally tell you that Red Lobster made an application to this Board, was denied. Staples made an application to this Board, which the Chairman mentions, it was denied, all right. Applying the Zoning Ordinance on an arbitrary and capricious basis is not what this Board is intentioned, because without it we wouldn’t need the Ordinance, all right, and considering this Sign Ordinance on its own without the consideration of the pylon sign is very much an imbalance, because the pylon sign, the issue of signage is for identification, and just to set the record straight, Walgreens has over 14,000 stores, so trust me they’ve got a corporate logo building. McDonalds, by the way, has about 13,000 worldwide, but just so that the Board understands, if you’re going to give them an extra sign on the building, and an extra pylon sign, now we’re talking about an excessive amount of differentiation and deviation from the Ordinance, and once again, this Board is creating an environment where it says that everyone now should come forth to this Board and ask for additional signage, and, you know, assuming that the map that’s shown on that thing is correct, all right, there is no frontage on Quaker Road. There is a right of access, but there is no frontage. So the issue of two signs, and while I understand the issue of the traffic and everything else, all right, the issues that we have to deal with are competitive issues, and I can’t tell you who my tenants are going to be tomorrow, because unfortunately in the retail business it’s always changing. It’s a moving target, so that this Board must consider the fact that, if one of my tenants goes dark tomorrow, I may be in front of you also for a variance, and, you know, to then go and say, okay, it’s going to be not 30%, I guess my numbers were wrong. It’s more like about 168%. So this is a substantial variation, and Walgreens does have a prototype where their name is placed over the front door of the building, and there are other locations throughout New 32 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/17/08) York State where they have accepted only that signage. So, they make a decision to come to this market, not based on how much signage they can get on a building. They did an in-depth analysis that said if they come here and make an investment in the store, they will make a profit, and that’s what they expect to do, and that signage is not going to change how much profit they make, and it’s not going to change whether or not they make that investment, because that investment is based on factual information, and what you’re dealing with here is subjective issues. The subjective issues are, well, if we have two signs, we’ll have that much more business and we’ll do that much better. That’s not the issue here. The issue is that Walgreens has already committed to the site. They’ve looked at other sites in the market. I can tell you that. We worked with, we talked to them on our property, but we couldn’t accommodate them, but maybe what we should do is come forth because it appears that, you know, the general consensus is to give a competitive edge to the new guy in Town, and I would say to this Board, that’s an unfairness, and that’s not something that we can easily just sit back and accept. So our position will have to be that, if you grant, I mean, I can tell you now we’ve already notified the tenants that we will advise them of the outcome of the hearing, and we will then, you know, cooperate on their behalf to make their applications to this Board. So please give it very serious consideration when you look at this. Thank you. MR. UNDERWOOD-Thank you. Anybody else? Any correspondence? MR. URRICO-No. MR. LAPPER-I just want to quickly address Howard’s comments. We all know that every variance application stands on its own. So nobody can say I’m exactly the same as him and you gave him one, because you wouldn’t listen to that. The law doesn’t require you to. The point here is that it really is on a corner and, you know, there may be something slightly smaller that can be done, but it’s really important that the message is on both corners here, and when Howard says this deal is done, you know, it’s subject to them getting signage, and if they say they’re not going to make the investment because they don’t have the two signs, the deal can go away, especially in this environment. So we’re not trying to get more than we need. Bill’s just trying to get the deal done. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Board members, I guess I’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. UNDERWOOD-Let’s discuss it. Brian? MR. CLEMENTS-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think that this is a unique situation and I think that that corner, with both Chili’s and Walgreens, is a unique situation, and I would, again, agree with the signage as they propose it here, but I’ll again reiterate that I wouldn’t be, I won’t be in favor of a monument sign. So, at this point, I’d be in favor of those two wall signs and, just so you’ll know, I’d be opposed to the monument sign. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Just to peak people’s interests, would you guys consider like a smaller sign in the window or any of those, as a consideration? I mean, you’ve all been by the new Mobil station up on Route 9. Dunkin Donuts has got their sign just as a little neon sign in the window. So when people pull in they can see it. I don’t know how big you’re talking here. MR. DRELLOS-That’s it. How big is the sign in the window, two feet long? I don’t know, you’re talking Dunkin Donuts compared to Walgreens. MR. UNDERWOOD-And I think, you know, this building is located closer to the corner of Quaker Road, you know, with the aspect of, think about where most traffic comes from. It either comes down Route 9 or it comes down Quaker Road from the Northway. MR. URRICO-Well, I think it goes in both directions. It doesn’t go in one direction. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, it comes and goes, but in other words, you know, you can use the same argument as George said last time, you know, the people come one way and then they go back another way and after a while everybody kind of understands, yes, there’s a new store in Town. I don’t want to get into a situation here where we’re going to prompt like a million people coming in, wanting a sign on every side of a building that faces a different road in Town. I mean, we’ll be doing Sign Variances until kingdom come if that’s the case, you know, so you guys have got to remember that. Decide what you want. Okay. Joan? 33 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/17/08) MRS. JENKIN-Okay. The one sign is oversized as it is. It’s 129 square feet. It should be 100 feet. The problem with putting signs in the windows is there’s awnings over these windows. So I don’t know how that could be, but the thing is, visibility from Quaker Road, you do have a very large “W” in the window at the entrance, and that can be seen from Quaker Road, and especially if there’s a pylon sign at that entrance which we have to go through next, then that would certainly be ample advertisement that this is a Walgreens store. So I would be in favor of one sign on the Route 9 side, and I’d like to even see that smaller, but 129 square feet would be adequate, I guess. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. George? MR. DRELLOS-The one sign I do like in the front of the building, the side on Quaker Road, that’s the side I’m having trouble with, especially with the pylon. This is why I said before about we’re not discussing it more together, because that next sign’s going to come up. So you give in one and take from the other type of situation, and that’s, I don’t know. MR. LAPPER-We’ll have to talk about it. MR. DRELLOS-Well, I understand, but see now you’ve a determination on this variance right here, which could lead to a negative on your other sign. Anyway, if we do the one sign, I’ll have to agree with Joan. I like the one sign. I think the other side, if you left it with a “W”, I think it would be fine. MR. UNDERWOOD-John? MR. ZANGHI-I think I’m in the same lines. I think you’re far enough off there that it’s not going to really have that big an impact. I’m in favor of the one sign on Route 9 and then the one on the doorway, the entrance. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes. I’m going to make the same argument I made when Staples came forward. Except it’s going in a different direction, but that Staples sign was visible from way, way up Miller Hill, and I think this Walgreens sign, because of where it’s located, is going to be very visible along Route 9. I think it’s going to be visible from Quaker Road. The one sign on Route 9 I think with the “W” that’s in the window will be sufficient. The only one I would be in favor of. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Joyce? MRS. HUNT-I have to agree. I would be in favor of the 129.85 square foot sign in the front of the building facing Route 9. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Then I guess I’ll come down on the same line of thought. I think with the “W” facing Quaker, that’s going to have to be enough to swing it, and Walgreens sign on Route 9, I think that, you know, once a business is established in Town and people start to frequent it, they realize where it is. I would imagine with most drugstores anyways that it’s repeat business, when people keep coming back, you pick a pharmacy and you return to that over and over again, although pharmacies to provide lots of other services, but I think within the area here, we probably have eight pharmacies within a two mile square area that I counted, between Price Chopper, you know, Wal-Mart, everybody else has one. They all have one sign on their buildings. The latest one that we granted was the Rite Aid one just down the street and they have a single sign on their building, too, although we did give them a monument sign out on Lafayette Street in the back there. I mean, that’s the only other one that I can think of, but CVS, everybody else is pretty much all on single signs. So I see no reason to grant this request. So, I guess we’ll deny that one. Does somebody want to do the resolution? MRS. HUNT-Are we going to deny it or are we going to? MR. UNDERWOOD-Well, I think what we’ve got to do is, they were asking for relief for one additional wall sign per Section 140-6 of the Sign Ordinance, the size of both proposed wall signs is 129.85 square feet each. MRS. HUNT-But you’re going to need relief for the 129.85. MR. LAPPER-Yes, we’d still need relief for the 129. 34 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/17/08) MR. UNDERWOOD-How much are you over? 29? MRS. HUNT-29.85. MR. LAPPER-Nicole would like to make some comments, just from the Walgreens perspective. MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure, you can do that. Go ahead. MRS. HEISER-Just a couple of comments. Now the Walgreens small “W” is a sign that’s behind the glass in the window. MR. URRICO-Yes, we’re not considering that. MRS. HEISER-Okay, but I guess the concern is, is that having a sign on Quaker Road, now they have the right in, right out there, to deter traffic to be able to use that entrance in and out that way, to not congest the intersection. MR. UNDERWOOD-Is there any size limit to the size of the “W” they can hang in the window inside there? MR. OBORNE-I’m not sure. MR. UNDERWOOD-I don’t believe, inside a building, there’s any limit to the size. MRS. HEISER-No, but I’m saying having the two wall signs right now as is, I think it’s very important to have that second sign on Quaker Road, to have traffic to be able to use that right in, right out there. They won’t be able to see that “W” from Quaker Road, at the angle at which Walgreens is facing. MR. UNDERWOOD-My read on that entranceway to the mall is that, of all the entranceways to the mall, I mean, the only reason I ever take that entranceway is to go in if I’m skipping in to go to the Post Office, you know, because it’s convenient because I live on the east side, but as far as identifying the mall down there with another, you know, as you’re proposing on the next application here with some kind of a signage down there, I don’t know where that’s going to go with the Board at this point in time, but all I can say is that, as far as I’m concerned, if you want to put a giant “W” inside there, up in the front of the main entranceway there, in the glass, I mean, I think that’s the alternative that you have at this point in time. It doesn’t look like the Board members support the second sign on Quaker Road. MRS. HEISER-I thought, maybe I’m mistaken, the Code had said that that sign behind the glass cannot be more than 25% of that square footage of that glass. So it can’t be a big sign there. The sign, right now, is as big as it can get. MR. UNDERWOOD-I would think that the “W” would be considered like the chili pepper, you know, it’s not an offensive, you know, over the top type situation with that. MRS. HEISER-Would the Board consider the two signs as something a little bit smaller, say 100 square feet each instead of 130 each? MR. URRICO-I’m against a second sign, period. MRS. JENKIN-The thing is, it’s our responsibility. This is Town Code. It’s our responsibility to uphold the Town Code. MRS. HEISER-Sure. I think, just Walgreens’ concern is, you know, the traffic from Quaker Road, really. I don’t think they’re going to have the visibility without that second sign. MR. UNDERWOOD-I think the Board members have spoken. I don’t know if anybody wants to change their mind at this point, or you’re happy with what you said before. MR. DRELLOS-Like I said, if the monument sign goes through, they don’t need that sign. Okay. Do you know what I’m saying? MRS. JENKIN-We’re still talking about a pylon sign. 35 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/17/08) MR. CLEMENTS-I think it would be more advantage to have a sign on each side of the building and not have the monument sign, and that’s why I’m voting the way I am, and, I mean, they have another monument sign at the road. If they want to reconfigure that sign, they can. I mean, I know that they’re saying they only have so much space for the other tenant, but that sign could be reconfigured. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Then I guess, anybody else? That’s it, I guess. So, does somebody want to do the resolution on this one? MR. OBORNE-Can I make a clarification? It’s my understanding that this building is greater than 130 linear feet from the property line. This sign can go up to 100 square feet, 100 feet from the property line. For every 10 feet in addition to your distance from the property line, you can add 10 square feet to your sign. So just to make it perfectly clear that we are not here to give a variance for size, only for amount. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. MR. LAPPER-I don’t think that’s right. Because it’s 18 foot parking spaces, there’s four of those, and two drive aisles. MR. OBORNE-So are you saying it’s not 130 feet? MR. LAPPER-I don’t think so. JIM HAGAN MR. HAGAN-Actually, about 140 from the street line to the face of the building. MR. LAPPER-It’s the property line. MR. HAGAN-The property line to the face of the building. MR. URRICO-Mr. Lapper, those triangles out front weren’t part of Northway Plaza. When did you acquire that property? That was New York State property at one point. MR. LAPPER-Right. We have not closed on that yet because it’s pending approval of the design of the stormwater system. MR. URRICO-So was that considered as part of the? MR. LAPPER-Yes. The application, we have a resolution from the Warren County Board of Supervisors and a contract from DOT, and so that’s part of the application. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. This is an Unlisted action. MRS. JENKIN-We can’t just bend the rules. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay, guys. I don’t think we need to do the Short Environmental Form if we’re going to turn it down. MR. LAPPER-Just one second. I guess, rather than have that denied, we’d probably withdraw that second Sign Variance, but I guess from what Brian and George were saying, if you gave us the two signs, that might affect, you know, the argument for the pylon, but with only the ability to do the one sign, it makes it more important to have the pylon, which is only 50 square feet, but just to have something that says, on Quaker Road, that you can take that entrance in, and it is somewhat of a choice, but we would argue now that we’d be willing to withdraw the second façade sign and go with the 130 square foot on Quaker, but the tradeoff for that is to have the pylon sign so that if you’re on Quaker Road you know that there’s a Walgreen, because if you look, well, it’s gone. You won’t see anything at all, just the side of a building. All right, and Nicole who does all the work for Walgreens, and this is, of course, subject to what you say, but in terms of the balance, Walgreens would rather have the two signs on the side of the building and not the monument sign. So if that was possible, but given a choice. So we should at least talk about it, in terms of minimum relief. MR. UNDERWOOD-All right. Let’s just hold up for a second here, guys. Why don’t we do this. Why don’t we just hold off on finishing this one. Let’s go to the next one, all right, which is the monument sign, and let’s discuss that and see where we end up, all right, because that’s going to give you an idea of where you can go. 36 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/17/08) MR. LAPPER-That’s fine. MR. UNDERWOOD-All right. Everybody, let’s take a break for five minutes before we do the last one. All right. We’re back into uncharted territory here. All right. Let’s go on to Sign Variance No. 76-2008. MR. LAPPER-Jim, before we get started, we’ve talked about it, and I know there’ve been various opinions on the Board, but given the choices, we feel that the tenant would much more prefer to have the two signs on the building, and we would withdraw the sign for the pylon, if we could get the majority in favor of that. There is no visibility whatsoever from Quaker Road. If you just look at the map, this is Quaker. The sign would be facing here if we just get one sign. So, given the choice, Nicole. MR. UNDERWOOD-Well, here’s my question for you, though. What are you going to do when you get new people coming into the rest of the empty building there? Because, I mean, some of them, you know, you’ve got the two smaller entities on the end there. MR. LAPPER-There’s sign, there’s a panel reserved on the existing sign. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay, for whoever comes in, if it’s one on that. Okay. All right. Well, do you guys want to discuss this? I mean, they’re still asking for the two wall signs on Walgreens and take away the monument sign out on Route 9, I mean, excuse me, on Quaker Road. MR. CLEMENTS-That’s my feeling anyway. MR. DRELLOS-I would go for that if they reduce, make the sign smaller, 100 square feet each, that’s what I would want. I would do that and get rid of the pylon sign. MR. UNDERWOOD-Keith says you’re going to need 19.85 feet of relief for the single Walgreens sign. So if you reduced them down, what have you got to reduce them to? MR. LAPPER-What he measured is that it’s actually 115. It wasn’t quite 130 to the property line. So that under the Ordinance, that can be 115. One sign can. MR. DRELLOS-One sign can, yes. So if you make them 100, so now you’re actually under the one, but you get two signs, and you get rid of the pylon sign. MR. UNDERWOOD-Keith, what do we have down like, say, I’m just trying to think going down to Quaker Road, when we get to corners, what we’ve got. We’ve got Glens Falls Electric. They’ve only got one sign, right? MR. OBORNE-Yes, you’ve got the electric. You’ve got a little business complex in there also. MRS. JENKIN-That’s not a major road, though. MR. UNDERWOOD-Sports Page they’ve got signage only on Quaker. They don’t have it on the cut across there. Do they? MR. LAPPER-It’s also the orientation on this corner. It’s really tough to see. MR. CLEMENTS-You’re not on main roads either. MR. LAPPER-And we’re trying to get this tenant here, and get the stormwater project done. So if you could live with that compromise, and we’d drop the monument. We’re out of here. MRS. JENKIN-And make smaller signs. MR. LAPPER-If that’s what it takes. MR. DRELLOS-That’s my suggestion, but you guys decide what you want, so you know my feeling. MR. UNDERWOOD-Well, what do you guys think? MRS. HUNT-I’d go along with that. 37 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/17/08) MR. UNDERWOOD-Roy, what do you think? MR. URRICO-I’m sorry. I’m going to stay on the one side sign. MRS. JENKIN-What did you say? MR. URRICO-I’m still only in favor of one sign. Monroe Muffler was there for a long time with one sign. MR. LAPPER-The difference is we’ve got to get these guys here. MR. URRICO-When you say a smaller sign, what are we talking about? MR. LAPPER-Going down to 100. MR. URRICO-Each side? MR. LAPPER-On each side, drop down 30 on each sign. MR. URRICO-You still would need relief for the second sign. MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. URRICO-Would they need relief for the area as well, the sign area? MR. OBORNE-No, that would be taken care of in the extra sign. MR. UNDERWOOD-John, what do you think? MR. ZANGHI-I would support that proposal, two signs at 100 square feet each. MR. UNDERWOOD-Joan? MRS. JENKIN-Yes, I guess. I don’t know, I think that the pylon would be an advantage for you, but. MR. LAPPER-Nicole says Walgreens would rather have. MRS. JENKIN-So I would go with, if you made them smaller, because I do agree that it’s, you need some visibility on Quaker Road because they are two major. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Do one of you guys want to do the resolution, then, approving it? MR. LAPPER-SEQRA first. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. I’ll do SEQRA. All right. Okay. Again, the project applicant is Northway Plaza Associates LLC, Project Location is 820 State Route 9. The applicant is proposing two signs, that is the Walgreens, and they are proposing to construct a Walgreens Pharmacy. The relief requested is from the Sign Ordinance for one additional wall signs. Both of those wall signs will be constructed at 100 square feet. Okay, 99.98 square feet. One of those signs will be facing State Route 9 and the other one would be facing Quaker Road. As part of the agreement, it’s been agreed that they’re going to withdraw the application for the monument sign, which would have been at the entranceway coming off of Quaker Road. Okay. Is the proposed action new? It’s new construction. Describing the project briefly, that’s already been done. It’s Walgreens drug pharmacy which will be created on the corner of Quaker Road and Route 9 in the Northway Plaza. The amount of land affected by the project, again, this is a Sign Variance. So we’re talking 100 square feet on two sides of the building. Will the proposed action comply with the existing zoning or other existing land use restrictions? No, the difference is that it’s a 100% request for an extra wall sign. What is the present land use in the vicinity of the project? It’s commercial, and does the action involve a permit approval, or funding, now or ultimately from any other governmental agency (Federal, State or Local)? That would be no. Just Planning Board review. Does any aspect of the action have a currently valid permit or approval? No. As a result of the proposed action, will the existing permit/approval require modification? The request has been modified to reflect 100 square feet on both of those two signs. “Does the action exceed any Type I threshold in 6 NYCRR Part 617.4?” I would say no. “Will the action 38 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/17/08) receive coordinated review as provided for Unlisted Actions in 6 NYCRR, Part 617.6?” No. “Could the action result in any adverse effects associated with the following: C1. Existing air quality, surface or ground water quality or quantity, noise levels, existing traffic patterns, solid waste production or disposal, potential for erosion, drainage or flooding problems?” I would say no. MR. DRELLOS-No. MR. UNDERWOOD-“C2. Aesthetic, agricultural, historic, or other natural or cultural resources; or community or neighborhood character?” MR. DRELLOS-No. MR. UNDERWOOD-“C3. Vegetation, fauna, fish, shellfish or wildlife species, significant habitats, or threatened or endangered species?” No. “C4. A community’s existing plans or goals as officially adopted, or a change in use or intensity of use of land or other natural resources?” No. MR. DRELLOS-No. MR. UNDERWOOD-“C5. Growth, subsequent development or related activities likely to be induced by the proposed action?” It may have more applications coming in for similar requests. I would say yes on that one. There is a potential for that. “C6. Long term, short term, cumulative or other effects not identified above?” I would say no. “C7. Other impacts (including changes in use of either quantity or energy)?” I would say no. “Will the project have an impact on the environmental characteristics that caused the establishment of a Critical Environmental Area?” No. MR. DRELLOS-No. MR. UNDERWOOD-“Is there or is there likely to be controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts?” I would say no. MR. DRELLOS-No. MOTION THAT BASED UPON THE READING OF THE SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM, WE WOULD ACCEPT THE SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM AND GIVE A NEGATIVE DECLARATION ON THAT, Introduced by James Underwood who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Hunt: th Duly adopted this 17 day of December, 2008, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Jenkin, Mr. Drellos, Mr. Clements, Mr. Zanghi, Mr. Underwood NOES: NONE MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Does somebody want to do the resolution? MRS. HUNT-I’ll do it. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. MOTION TO APPROVE SIGN VARIANCE NO. 75-2008 NPA II, LLC (NORTHWAY PLAZA) WALGREENS, Introduced by Joyce Hunt who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Drellos: 820 State Route 9. The applicant proposes the construction of two wall signs for a proposed Walgreens Pharmacy located at Northway Plaza. Relief required for an additional wall sign per Section 140-6 of the Sign Ordinance. The size of both proposed wall signs are 100 square feet each. Whether the benefits can be achieved by any other means feasible to the applicant. For all intents and purposes, this property is on a corner, and therefore it seems imperative that they have a sign on each side of the building facing the two streets. Will there be an undesirable change in the neighborhood character or to nearby properties? I don’t think so, as I say, because they are on a corner. Whether the request is substantial. The request for an additional wall sign or 100% relief may be considered severe relative to the Ordinance. Whether the request will have adverse physical or environmental effects. Minor to moderate impacts on the physical or environmental conditions of the neighborhood may be anticipated as the 39 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/17/08) number of the proposed signs might have some negative visual impacts. Whether the difficulty was self created. The difficulty may be considered self-created. I would like to comment that the applicant has already downsized the size of each sign from their original proposal. th Duly adopted this 17 day of December, 2008, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Drellos, Mrs. Jenkin, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Zanghi, Mr. Clements, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Underwood NOES: NONE MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. I guess next up will be the withdrawal of Sign Variance No. 76-2008. MR. LAPPER-For the record, on behalf of the applicant, NPA II, LLC, I hereby withdraw Sign Variance No. 76-2008. MR. LAPPER-Okay, and I’m going to make a tabling motion. Do you have a date in mind? MR. LAPPER-Yes. We would need to be in in January. So if we get in by Tuesday. MR. UNDERWOOD-My understanding from Craig is that we’re looking at only five applications for January now. So we’re only going to have a single meeting. MR. LAPPER-Okay. What date would that be? th MR. UNDERWOOD-I would assume it would be like the 20, around there. th MR. LAPPER-We’re on the 27 at the Planning Board. MR. UNDERWOOD-We could go to the second meeting. We don’t have to go to the first one. MR. LAPPER-Well, I think the second one might be the day after the Planning Board meeting. So we better take the first, but we can have the revised calculations in to the Planning Staff by next Tuesday. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I would assume, at this point, we’ll just have one meeting. So th that would be the week before, right? The 20. rd MR. LAPPER-So if we could table with next Tuesday the 23 for submission, just to clarify the relief requested for the permeability. st MR. UNDERWOOD-The 21, okay. That’s a Wednesday. MR. LAPPER-That’s great. Thank you. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. So everybody hold on to their stuff. Don’t throw it out. MS. GAGLIARDI-Mr. Chairman, are you going to make a motion to table that? MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 77-2008 NPA II, LLC (NORTHWAY PLAZA),, Introduced by James Underwood who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Drellos: 820 State Route 9. The applicant is proposing the construction of a Walgreens and a Chili’s Restaurant and associated site improvements. Relief is requested from the rd minimum permeability requirements and they’re going to submit by the 23 to just clarify the permeability request. th Duly adopted this 17 day of December, 2008, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Drellos, Mrs. Jenkin, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Zanghi, Mr. Clements, Mr. Underwood 40 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/17/08) NOES: NONE MR. LAPPER-Thanks, everybody. Thank you. Always trying to work it out. We appreciate it. MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure. NEW BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 80-2008 SEQRA TYPE: 2001 FGEIS GREAT ESCAPE – SASQUATCH RIDE AGENT(S): LEMERY GREISLER, LLC OWNER(S): SAME ZONING: RC-15 LOCATION: 1172 STATE ROUTE 9 APPLICANT PROPOSES PLACEMENT OF A 648 SF CONTROL STRUCTURE FOR THE SASQUATCH RIDE. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM THE TRAVEL CORRIDOR OVERLAY MINIMUM SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REF.: SP 41-2008 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: DECEMBER 10, 2008 LOT SIZE: 237.64 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 288.20- 1-20 SECTION: 179-4-060 JOHN LEMERY, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. UNDERWOOD-Do you want to just read that letter in? MR. URRICO-Yes, I might as well. MR. UNDERWOOD-Do you want me to do it? MR. URRICO-No, I’ll do it. MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure, go ahead. MR. LEMERY-You have a letter from someone? MR. URRICO-Your letter. MR. UNDERWOOD-We have one from you, Mr. Lemery. MR. URRICO-The letter that you submitted. MR. UNDERWOOD-Do you want to read that whole letter in? I think in general I think what, you can read the parts of it that are applicable. MR. URRICO-Okay. All right. This is taken from a letter to Chairman Underwood and the members of the Zoning Board of Appeals. “This letter is intended to explain Great Escape Theme Park LLC’s (the “Great Escape”) area variance application in connection with the control structure (the “Control Structure”) associated with the new tower ride to be known as the Sasquatch (hereinafter referred to as “Sasquatch” or the “Ride”) which received site plan approval from the Town of Queensbury Planning Board on October 21, 2008. At a 30 foot setback from Route 9, the Control Structure does not comply with the 75 foot setback requirement for the Travel Corridor Overlay District as set forth in Section 179-4-060 of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance (“The Code”). Background Sasquatch is a tower thrill ride composed of two steel towers 192 feet in height with a capacity of approximately thirty-two (32) passengers who are simultaneously raised up the towers and then “yanked” downward 155 feet in a “beyond free-fall” experience. The Ride will be placed in Park Area A, in the site occupied until only recently by the Rainbow, and will, in fact, replace the Rainbow; the Applicant has dismantled and removed the Rainbow and has no plans to relocate it within the Park. Significantly, the Applicant has also removed the 117 square foot power utility structure associated with the Rainbow which, at 54.1 from the on-site stream, was in complete violation of the 75 foot stream/shoreline setback regulation contained in the Code, and as therefore a pre-existing, nonconforming structure. By siting the Control Structure in this Planning Board approved locale, the applicant has successfully eliminated a stream shoreline setback violation, an unsound environmental condition. The Control Structure is a two story, glass ceilinged structure in which machinery will be located. It will also be where the ride operator sits, not only to control the ride, but to observe the ride and riders at all times for safety purposes. The Control Structure’s glass ceiling affords the operator a completely unobstructed view of Sasquatch, a Control Structure setback 30 feet from Route 9, because it’s located within a Travel Corridor Overlay, as set forth in 179-4-060 of the Code, all buildings erected therein shall be setback at least 75 feet from the edge of the roadway. Functionally speaking, the Control Structure is an accessory 41 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/17/08) structure as opposed to the true building as defined under 179-2-010C of the Code. The applicant prepared its Site Plan based on the supposition, and received the requisite Planning Board approval. Receipt of that approval is noteworthy in that the applicant has detrimentally relied on it by proceeding to work towards construction, e.g. contracting with consultants, making related expenditures, etc. It would be highly prejudicial, not to mention costly to the applicant, to deny it the relief that it is now advised by the Town that it needs. Furthermore, the ZBA should keep in mind that the applicant has removed a pre-existing, nonconforming structure in order to site the Ride and Control Structure and thereby removed an adverse environmental impact. I’ll give the specific setback request. As noted above, Great Escape hereby requests a 45 foot Area Variance in relation to the Control Structure. The relief sought is from the 75 foot Travel Corridor Overlay setback requirement of 75 feet pursuant to 179-4-060 of the Code.” I’m going to go to the Staff Notes, now, okay. MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 80-2008, Great Escape – Sasquatch Ride, Meeting Date: December 17, 2008 “Project Location: 1172 State Route 9 Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes placement of a 648 square foot Control Structure for the impending Sasquatch Ride 45 feet within the Route 9 Travel Corridor setback. Relief Required: Applicant requests 45 feet of relief from the 75 foot Route 9 Travel Corridor setback. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination, the board shall consider: 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. This proposal, if approved, may initiate additional area variance requests elsewhere in the park and for the Upper Route 9 Travel Corridor. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. The applicant could build in a more compliant location or reduce the size of the project. However, the location for the proposed control building appears to be the most logical given the restraints of the site. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The request for 45 feet or 60 percent relief from the Upper Route 9 Travel Corridor setback of 75 feet may be considered moderate to severe. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Minor impacts on the physical and environmental conditions of the neighborhood may be anticipated. The site’s stormwater management was reviewed and approved during site plan review for the Sasquatch attraction on October 21, 2008. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. The difficulty may be considered self created. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): S.P. 41-2008 SPR for Sasquatch attraction 10/21/08 Staff comments: The control structure has been previously approved during site plan review for the Sasquatch Thrill Ride. An oversight by staff in relation to the position of the Route 9 Travel Corridor setback and the proposed control structure has resulted in the applicant applying for this area variance at this time rather than concurrent with site plan review. 42 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/17/08) The building footprint as drawn (450 sq. ft.) on page A-2 appears to be smaller than the building footprint as drawn (530 sq. ft.) on page BS-1, the proposed site plan. Further, the Site Development Data page correlates with what is proposed on page BS-1 but not with the elevation drawings on A-2. Please clarify the footprint of the building and correct on the appropriate page. SEQR Status: Previous EIS dated June 21, 2001” “Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form December 10, 2008 Project Name: The Great Escape – Sasquatch Ride Owner(s): The Great Escape ID Number: QBY-08-AV-80 County Project#: Dec08-23 Current Zoning: RC-15 Community: Queensbury Project Description: Applicant is proposing placement of a 450 sq. ft. Control Structure for the Sasquatch Ride. Relief requested from the travel corridor overlay minimum setback requirements. Site Location: 1172 State Route 9 Tax Map Number(s): 288.20-1-20 Staff Notes: Area Variance: The applicant proposes the construction of a 450 sq. ft. control structure for the sasquatch ride. The structure is to be located 30 ft. from Route 9 where a 75 ft. setback is required along this area of Route 9 noted as the travel corridor overlay. The applicant had received approval for the construction of the Sasquatch ride in October of 2008. The location of the structure was done so to meet the shoreline setback requirements. Staff recommends no county impact based on the information submitted according to the suggested review criteria of NYS General Municipal Law Section 239 L applied to the proposed project. County Planning Board Recommendation: No County Impact” Signed by Richard C. Merrill, Warren County Planning Board 12/12/08. MR. UNDERWOOD-Mr. Lemery? MR. LEMERY-I guess that pretty much explains our position, Mr. Chairman. I’m John Lemery, Lemery Greisler, counsel to the theme park, Don McCoy, President of the theme park properties, and Mark Noordsy, a member of our firm who is with me tonight. This is kind of an interesting situation. When we made the application to the Planning Board, originally, under the Impact Statement that you cited, there were three zones which were approved for heights of rides. One was 200 feet, one was 115 feet, another one was 185 feet. The 115 foot height was up where Ghost Town was located. The 185 was over on the other side where the tall ride, the sky coaster is located, and the 200 foot zone was down at the base of the theme park where this new ride was approved. We viewed the Control Structure as an accessory, as an accessory use to that part of the ride, and it was not subject to the corridor restriction. That’s how we presented it. It was approved, and then Staff took a look at it, I guess took another look at it after we had had more than one pre-approval meeting with Staff, and it got missed somehow that the 75 foot overlay, and the position of Craig Brown required us to come the Zoning Board to get a variance. So that’s why we’re here. This structure is nothing more than the equipment is stored on the first floor level, the hydraulics and the other equipment that operate the ride, and on the second story area the ride operator sits with, it’s got a glass ceiling in it so he can watch at both towers, and watch and control the safety on the towers. We moved it where we could, when we initially did this, because we wanted to keep it out of the stream corridor, and we moved it out of the stream corridor. We tore down the building that was in the stream corridor. I want to tell you that we also increased the permeability of the site by taking out all the concrete that was there in connection with the Rainbow Ride and that other structure. That’s all gone. So we’ve substantially increased the permeability of this site. So that’s how we got here tonight. It wasn’t intentional. I don’t think anybody, including the Staff, intended us to have to be in a situation where we would be looking for a variance. The ride was designed as approved. Engineering has been started. The site is being prepared now. So we’re asking for your indulgence with this particular structure in connection with the setback. MR. UNDERWOOD-Any questions? MR. DRELLOS-When you were in front of the Planning Board, that control room was right in that place? MR. LEMERY-Yes. MR. DRELLOS-So they approved it with it being on that site? MR. LEMERY-Yes. 43 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/17/08) MR. DRELLOS-Okay. MR. URRICO-And where the fence is located right now, your gate there, that’s within the Travel Corridor already, right? MR. LEMERY-Yes. That was there before the Travel Corridor got implemented. MR. URRICO-So all of that was there before? MR. LEMERY-Right. MR. URRICO-And the Rainbow Ride when it originally went in there, was there a Travel Corridor Overlay at that point? MR. LEMERY-That was there for many years. We took that out, took it all out. MR. URRICO-Yes. So you have things that are in that Travel Corridor Overlay already? MR. LEMERY-Yes, sir. MR. URRICO-That go up to the gate? MR. LEMERY-Right. MR. UNDERWOOD-Any other questions? I’ll open the public hearing. Anybody from the public wishing to speak? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. UNDERWOOD-Any correspondence? MR. URRICO-I don’t think so, but there are two folders here, and there are things mixed in both. I don’t see any in either one. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. I’ll close the public hearing, then. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. UNDERWOOD-Do you guys have any problem with this one? MRS. JENKIN-Just one quick question. It has nothing to do with it, but have you changed the design of the control room? This picture. MR. LEMERY-Yes, that was changed, but that design that we put in front of you was approved by the Planning Board. MRS. JENKIN-This one? MR. LEMERY-Yes. MRS. JENKIN-It’s very nice. MR. LEMERY-We changed it. It looks a whole lot nicer than what was there. MRS. JENKIN-Yes. MR. UNDERWOOD-Any comments from anybody? I’ll just make the comment, you know, I mean, this was the pre-approved area for those tall rides because it’s a low point, topographically, in the Park, and it makes sense where you have it, and I think we all recognize the Travel Corridor Overlay as being sort of a, you know, it’s there for a purpose if the road were ever expanded, but Route 9 having just been re-done recently, they just completed that whole section from Glens Falls up to The Great Escape, and I don’t anticipate, and I would think DOT would probably have no interest in adding a third lane in there or a fourth lane, even in the future, especially with the construction of the bridge where it is, and I don’t see that this is any big deal. MR. LEMERY-The abutments for the bridge, if you folks all remember, are way outside the corridor. So that was all DOT approved, and this is not in the right of way. 44 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/17/08) MR. UNDERWOOD-Right. MR. LEMERY-This is in a Town of Queensbury setback, not a DOT setback. MR. UNDERWOOD-I don’t really see that this would generate any kind of concern from anybody. I mean, you’re well back behind your fence. The previous ride that was pre- existing on site, and this is a definite improvement over that. So hopefully it’ll draw you more customers. MR. LEMERY-Hopefully. We’ll see. MR. OBORNE-Mr. Chairman, just for the record, I did approach Mr. McCoy about it, and he said it does not have to be there (lost words). MR. UNDERWOOD-The big foot on the side of the building? Yes. We can cross that bridge if we get there. Okay. Do we need to do the Short Form on this? We don’t really need to because we’ve got a pre-approved EIS on the whole project. I think we’re done. So I’ll just do the resolution. MR. CLEMENTS-I’ll make a motion. MR. UNDERWOOD-Brian, go ahead. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 80-2008 GREAT ESCAPE – SASQUATCH RIDE, Introduced by Brian Clements who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Drellos: 1172 State Route 9. This applicant proposes placement of a 648 square foot control structure for the impending Sasquatch Ride, 45 feet within the Route 9 Travel Corridor setback. The relief required is the applicant requests 45 feet of relief from the 75 foot Route 9 Travel Corridor setback. In making the determination the Board shall consider, Number One, whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties. This proposal, if approved, may initiate initial Area Variance requests elsewhere in the park and Upper Route 9 Travel Corridor. Number Two, whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method feasible other than the Area Variance. They could build in a more compliant location. However, the location is where another ride was there previously, and it should increase the permeability there. Whether the requested Area Variance is substantial. The request for 45 feet or 60% may be considered moderate to severe. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Minor impacts are anticipated. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self- created, and I move to approve Area Variance No. 80-2008. th Duly adopted this 17 day of December, 2008, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Drellos, Mrs. Jenkin, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Zanghi, Mr. Clements, Mr. Underwood NOES: NONE MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. MR. LEMERY-Thank you very much. SIGN VARIANCE NO. 81-2008 SEQRA: 2001 FGEIS GREAT ESCAPE – SASQUATCH RIDE AGENT(S): LEMERY GREISLER, LLC OWNER(S): SAME ZONING: RC-15 LOCATION: 1172 STATE ROUTE 9 APPLICANT PROPOSES A 100 SF TWO SIDED LOGO SIGN AT THE TOP OF THE SASQUATCH RIDE STRUCTURE. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE NUMBER, SIZE AND HEIGHT REQUIREMENTS OF THE SIGN ORDINANCE. CROSS REF.: SP 41-2008 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: DECEMBER 10, 2008 LOT SIZE: 237.64 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 288.20-1-20 SECTION: CHAPTER 140 JOHN LEMERY, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. URRICO-Okay. “Dear Chairman Underwood and members of the Zoning Board of Appeals: This letter is intended to explain Great Escape Theme Park LLC’s (the “Great Escape”) area variance request in connection with freestanding signage for the new 45 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/17/08) tower ride to be known as the Sasquatch (hereinafter referred to as “Sasquatch” or the “Ride”) which received site plan approval from the Town of Queensbury Planning Board on October 21, 2008. As indicated in the enclosed proposed design, Great Escape wishes to erect two (2) logo signs (each a “Sign”, and collectively, the “Signs”) at the top of the Ride structure, one of which will face Route 9 (the other will face into the Park). These will remain lit only during park operating hours. Great Escape respectfully requests three (3) variances as follows. The Signs will be white and blue. Illumination will be back lit with High Intensity LED Type CL5-MB Lamps. Marshall Sign Corp. will be providing wattage and lumination levels, and their proposal is attached. I. Variance Requests A. Potential Variance for Number of Signs Pursuant to Section 140-6(B)(3) (e) of the Town of Queensbury sign ordinance (the “Ordinance”), amusement centers are permitted two signs. Great Escape currently has a one wall sign and one freestanding sign, but is willing (further to ZBA consideration) to remove one existing freestanding sign if helpful to the approval process. Without the existing freestanding sign, the new logo Sign fronting on Route 9 would constitute the Applicant’s second sign, and therefore would not require a variance. The Applicant maintains that the new logo Sign facing into the park is not visible from outside of the Park and therefore does not fall within the regulations of the Ordinance. To the extent this belief is incorrect, Great Escape requests an additional variance for this sign as well. B. Size of Signs Pursuant to the same section of the Ordinance referenced above, each sign may be a maximum of 50 square feet. As designed, each sign is approximately 87.5 square feet, thereby necessitating 23.5 square feet of relief. C. Height of Signs Pursuant to Section 140- 6B(4)(a)[2], freestanding signs may not exceed 25 feet in height. As designed, the logo signs are each 185 feet high, thereby necessitating 160 feet of relief each. II. Rationale for Variance Requests Section 140-1 of the Ordinance details that the Ordinance’s purpose and intent is, in part, “to provide for maximum visibility, to prevent reasonable distraction of operators of motor vehicles,…..to promote maximum safety, comfort and well-being of the users of the highways….” In this case, where the Ride is 192 feet tall, the size of the signs is critical to their visibility. Smaller signs would be lost on the Ride structure, and would not be visible to passersby. Fewer signs would show a lack of uniformity due to the design of the Ride towers. The purpose of the signs will be to identify the Ride as a Great Escape attraction; they will be a landmark of sorts. As the Board may recall, in 2001 the Town Planning Board adopted a Final General Environmental Impact Statement (“FGEIS”) and Findings Statement, which were then further supplemented and amended by a Supplemental Generic Environmental Impact Statement and Supplemental Findings Statement, that considered the general direction of future development at the Park. The Sasquatch Ride is in Park Area A as identified in the FGEIS, in which rides of up to 200 feet are allowed without further environmental review. Thus, both the Ride and the Sign are within the height contemplated by the Planning Board, as are any associated visual impacts. The Board may also recall that in the past that there was concern with the wall signs erected subsequent to construction of the Six Flags Great Escape Hotel and Indoor Waterpark (“HWP”), in that they might be a distraction to motorists along Interstate 87. To date, this has not been the case, and Great Escape believes the same would hold true in this instance. Much as with the HWP signs, smaller sized signs simply would not be visible to passersby. Notwithstanding that Great Escape has existing signage in place, it is not visible off-site; nor is it intended to be. The additional logo signs will serve to identify the Ride with Great Escape, as opposed to advertising Great Escape itself. Sasquatch will be the only ride of its kind in New York. As with size, the height of the signs is critical to their visibility, and association with Great Escape. Because the Ride structure itself is 192 feet tall, to adequately identity it means placing a sign near its top. To place a sign at 25 feet (as permitted under the Ordinance) would mean the sign (at least the one facing Route 9) would not be visible to passersby. In order to do its job, and attract patrons to the park, the Ride must be readily identifiable with Great Escape. In sum, the height of the Ride is the reason that the signs are designed as they are. There is no alternative if the signs are to serve the purpose for which they are intended.” Is that okay, or do you want me to continue? MR. UNDERWOOD-No, I think that’s adequate. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Sign Variance No. 81-2008, Great Escape – Sasquatch Ride, Meeting Date: December 17, 2008 “Project Location: 1172 State Route 9 Description of Proposed Project: The applicant proposed the placement of one (1) 89 square foot freestanding sign near the top of the185 foot tall Sasquatch Thrill Ride. Relief Required: 46 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/17/08) The applicant requests relief from number (2), size (89 sq. ft.) and height (185 ft) of the proposed freestanding signs. The Zoning Administrator has determined that the relief required is for one (1) freestanding sign and not two (2) as the signs are parallel to each other and less than 24 inches in total thickness per §140-2. Criteria for considering a Sign Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination, the board shall consider: 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. Minor changes to nearby properties are anticipated as a result of this proposal. However, an increase in sign variances for size and height may be a result of granting this variance. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. The applicant could place the sign in a more compliant location or reduce the size and height of the signs. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The request for an 89 square foot freestanding sign or 39 percent of relief from the allowable 64 square foot freestanding sign per §140-6 may be considered moderate relative to the ordinance. Finally, the request for 160 feet or 640 percent relief (185-25=160÷25=6.4x100=640%) from the 25 foot height maximum per §140-6 may be considered extreme to acute relative to the ordinance. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Moderate to severe impacts on the physical and environmental conditions of the neighborhood may be anticipated due to the proposed height, potential visual impact from the internally lit sign, and potential for similar excessive height requests. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. The difficulty may be considered self created. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): S.P. 41-2008 SPR for Sasquatch attraction 10/21/08 Staff comments: With the Sasquatch Thrill ride having up lighting approved by the Planning Board; it appears the need for internally lit signs may be reduced if not eliminated. Further, the proposed horizontal illuminance of the internally lit sign has not been established and may need to be forth coming. SEQR Status: Unlisted-The Zoning Board of Appeals will need to make a SEQR Determination concerning this application.” “Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form December 10, 2008 Project Name: The Great Escape – Sasquatch Ride Owner(s): The Great Escape ID Number: QBY-08-SV-81 County Project#: Dec08-24 Current Zoning: RC-15 Community: Queensbury Project Description: Applicant proposes a 100 sq. ft. two sided logo sign at the top of the Sasquatch Ride structure. Relief requested from the maximum allowable number, size and height requirements of the sign ordinance. Site Location: 1172 State Route 9 Tax Map Number(s): 288.20-1-20 Staff Notes: Sign Variance: The applicant proposes to place two 87.5 ft. signs on an approved ride at 185 ft. The site is permitted for one wall sign and one freestanding sign that are already in place where any additional signs trigger a variance. The signs exceed the maximum size of 50 sq. ft. and maximum height of 25 ft . The applicant has indicated the signs will be internally lit and will only be lit during business hours. Staff recommends discussion to address visual impacts from Route 9 and the Northway. This is based on the information submitted according to the suggested review criteria of NYS General Municipal Law Section 239 L applied to the proposed project. County Planning Board Recommendation: No County Impact with Comment The Warren County Planning Board recommends No County Impact with the comment the Board reviewed the 47 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/17/08) potential visual impact and precedent of the project where the board discussed the scope of this project was specific to the park under the GEIS and would not impact county resources. It was also identified the GEIS did provide analysis of visual impact of rides at a height higher than the proposed sign.” Signed by Richard C. Merrill, Warren County Planning Board 12/12/08. MR. UNDERWOOD-I guess you’re all set. MR. LEMERY-Let me, many of you have been on this Zoning Board for many years while we’ve been back and forth here with regard to the theme park. This is the only Six Flags Theme Park in New York. It’s been here since 1954. It has grown, and in 2000 an Impact Statement was required by the Town. At the cost of some $2 million, the Six Flags company went through the Impact Statement, and as a result, this Park is approved to go to 1.5 million people. Unfortunately, that hasn’t occurred, from an economic point of view. There were certain thresholds which had to be met, certain traffic thresholds, and certain noise thresholds, certain visual impact thresholds. Every year, The Great Escape is required to file with the Town Planning Staff a noise report, and every year it’s required to file a traffic report. There were certain mitigation steps that had to be taken when the traffic reached a certain point. That didn’t occur, but we came back to both the Planning Board and to this Board when we requested that we be given permission to build the Hotel and Waterpark on the west side of Route 9, and when all that was resolved, the pedestrian bridge was built, at a cost of $2 million. The Route 9 corridor was then substantially changed. A turning lane was provided, with some input and financial help by the County of Warren, the turning lane was put in at the top of the hill. The intermediate road was, the internal road was prepared to get the traffic off 9. The traffic light was installed up at the top of the hill, and all that was as a result of the Impact Statement and as a result of the improvements that were made to the theme park. It was always contemplated that a big ride would go in here. We didn’t know when the company would allocate the capital to do this. It’s no secret Six Flags has been struggling as a company, in the same boat as many others are in. However, it has seen fit to give this particular Park substantial capital over the last several years, and continues to do so. The company is not at any risk of closing or anything of that nature, but we’re trying to keep the levels of guest attendance at a point where, hopefully over time, when we get through this recessionary period, these will improve. This ride is costing in excess of $3 million to build and put up here. The Planning Board was very kind about it and we got through it in one session. I think it’s important to tell you about the economic impact of The Great Escape and the Hotel Waterpark. By the end of this year, by the end of 2008, the two properties will have contributed to bed tax and sales tax $2 million to the coffers of Warren County, the State of New York, and the Town of Queensbury, which gets a share of both the sales tax and the bed tax. It employs over 900 people in the summer, actually over 1,000 over here in the summer. There are 300 people employed on a year round basis over here at the Hotel. We talk about the neighborhood of where The Great Escape is located, you know, the neighborhood. Where this particular sign is located, or this particular ride is located, and I mentioned the visual issues. Before we went to the Planning Board, we went out and we re-did the visual impacts, which were approved back in 2000-2001. As part of that process, the Town Planning Board required the theme park to go out and look at the receptor neighborhoods, to see whether there was any visual impact, principally the Glen Lake area, the area over at Twicwood, the area at Courthouse Estates, and the other side of the pond, which is all owned by Great Escape anyway. That’s all Great Escape property, all the way over to the other side. It’s the wetland, but it’s owned by the theme park. This ride cannot be seen, nor will this sign be seen, by any residents of Glen Lake. In fact, it’s lower than the 192 feet. This sign would be located lower than the 92 feet height of the ride. So it cannot be seen at any time by any of the receptor neighborhoods. Where the ride can be seen, as you come over the hill from Suttons, as you come south, or come north over the hill, you will see this ride and you would see this sign as you come down toward the theme park. Interestingly enough, as you come down south from the north, this really isn’t visible until you get almost to Johnny Rockets, the old Coach House Restaurant where you start to see this attraction. You don’t see it from the top of the hill. You don’t see it until you come down, because of the foliage. It can be seen from the Northway, which is what we’re trying to achieve here. As far as internally, you know, it’s really not going to be seen by the patrons of the theme park, except perhaps in certain visual areas. One important difference between this sign here and most of the signs in the Town, this is not going to be on when the theme park is not operating. So, we have 150, what do we have, how many days, 150 days operating season. So this sign will not be on for over half the year. It won’t be turned on. It is advertising The Great Escape. We want it to be able to be seen from 87. It really isn’t going to be seen from Route 9 because when you’re driving, you’re driving under it, and, you know, you’ve got to really look up to see it. We’ve been very careful in siting it. We’ve been very 48 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/17/08) sensitive to the neighbors and to the visual impacts of it. We realize it’s larger than what you would normally deal with. I want to point out one other thing. The Hotel next to the theme park, Dave Menter’s property, is well, very well lit, and that sign on the building is a very visual, has a very visual presence. This sign probably wouldn’t have any more than that, and might not even be as visual because it’s so high. Again, this theme park is very unique. It’s not like you’re looking at what, the kind of applications you had here before, where you’re looking at signs on a building, or variances on a building sign, or freestanding sign for a shopping center. This is a theme park ride. It’s a new one. There isn’t anything like it in New York. We’re hoping it’ll get people here. We hope you’ll see it that way and you’ll recognize that this is very different. We don’t see, because of this uniqueness, we don’t see that this somehow establishes a precedent for other people coming in and wanting to put up a sign something like this. It just doesn’t work anywhere. There is no other 200 foot structure that I know of, other than a building, in the Town, that would be approved in the nature that this was approved. So that’s our story. Did I miss anything, Mr. McCoy? DON MC COY MR. MC COY-I don’t think so, John. MR. DRELLOS-Would the sign be lit after operating hours? MR. LEMERY-No. MR. DRELLOS-No. So it’s shut down when the Park shuts down? MR. LEMERY-Right. MR. MC COY-Yes. MR. DRELLOS-Okay. MR. LEMERY-I meant that, only operating hours. MRS. JENKIN-Would you explain the up lighting? MR. MC COY-It’s just a white up light. MR. LEMERY-Yes. The white up light is directed right up on the tower. So that the tower operator can see the patrons after dark going up. MR. DRELLOS-So it’s for the tower not for the sign? MR. LEMERY-Correct. It’s for the tower, not for the sign. MR. DRELLOS-Now when they say programmable, the LED lights, does it change color? MR. LEMERY-We have Mr. Marshall with us who’s our sign, actually building the sign and you can answer. RICK MARSHALL MR. MARSHALL-Rick Marshall with the Marshall Sign Company, and we do the signage for The Great Escape. That is not going to be multi-color programmable lights. That’s going to be a steady, just a white, low voltage LED. Those were options that were looked at initially, and it was decided that, you know, we’re going to go with just one uniform color. MR. DRELLOS-So the letters itself will be just white, all white. MR. MARSHALL-Correct, and like I say, they’re low voltage. They’re considered green, if you consider they’re not drawing a lot of power. MR. DRELLOS-And there’s another sign on the back side of this. MR. MARSHALL-There’s one set at each side of the ride, correct. MR. DRELLOS-Why would you need one on the other side, if it’s inside the Park, right? 49 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/17/08) MR. MARSHALL-That one wasn’t my call. That was the designers and Six Flags. MR. DRELLOS-Okay. I was just wondering. I mean, I could see the one in the front. Why would you need the one in the back? MR. LEMERY-I think the question was, it looks better aesthetically than just a tall tower with nothing there. MR. DRELLOS-From the inside, you mean? MR. MC COY-Uniformity, I think that was the big thing. MR. URRICO-Is the intention for this ride to be sort of the meeting place or the central focus of the Park from outside and the inside? MR. MC COY-Well, I think the ride would be, in my opinion, categorized as our new signature ride, yes, sir, and certainly our intentions are to theme it well, to its name Sasquatch, and as you can see by the building that we discussed earlier. It will be a signature ride, and I think this particular sign, obviously, we’d like to put our Park name on it, but I think it’ll look much, much better than just an open space frame. MR. URRICO-How does the height of this compare to the Condor? Because the Condor has a sign on it as well, and that’s lit at times. MR. MC COY-The Condor is almost 100 feet tall, but I’m not familiar with how high up on the hill it is because that’s in the Ghost Town area. MR. LEMERY-It’s about 440 up there. It’s about at elevation 440, 445. MR. UNDERWOOD-Probably 60 feet higher than down where the base is down below. MR. LEMERY-Yes. My recollection it’s about 445 over there, plus another 90 to 100 feet for the sign. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. MR. URRICO-So this wouldn’t be the highest point in the Park, then? MR. LEMERY-No. MR. URRICO-The Condor is the highest point in the Park? MR. LEMERY-Correct. MR. URRICO-Or is it the Raging River? I know you have a Raging River back in the back there. I’m digressing. So the height, this is less than where the Condor is, then, from an elevation standpoint? MR. LEMERY-I think from an elevation sketch, yes, this is much lower. We had to keep it below the tree line. The key was to keep it below the tree line toward Glen Lake. MR. URRICO-Okay. MR. LEMERY-You can’t see this from Twicwood or. MR. URRICO-The internal sign, the one that’s facing inside the Park, can that be seen from Glen Lake? MR. LEMERY-No, because it’s below the height level of the sign. It’s how many feet below, 185, and this is up at 192. So we’re 15 feet below where we could go under the Impact Statement. MR. UNDERWOOD-Have you got to go back to Planning Board to do this, though? MR. LEMERY-No. MR. UNDERWOOD-They didn’t have a problem with the lumens on it or any of that stuff? 50 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/17/08) MR. LEMERY-No. MRS. JENKIN-Now Staff talked about, because of the up lighting, that it may not be necessary to have a lit. How far up does this up lighting go? Does it go all the way to the sign? MR. LEMERY-Well, it’s two different things, really. The up lighting is a safety feature. So the ride operator can see what’s going on on the ride. The sign is the sign. So I think we respectfully disagree with Staff’s comment that you don’t, you have one you don’t need the other. They’re two different. MRS. JENKIN-But the light will illuminate the whole structure? MR. LEMERY-No. MRS. JENKIN-It doesn’t. MR. LEMERY-No, the up lighting? No. It goes up to maybe 150 feet, maybe a little less. The ride unit only goes to 150 feet. MRS. JENKIN-And then what is horizontal illuminants? MR. MARSHALL-I think (lost words) horizontal lumens, illuminants is the output of light from the LED’s. It can be measured in (lost words) measured in foot candles, the lumens. I had Sloane Manufacturing in California actually build a 10 inch deep box, put in the, I can’t remember the model number right now, it’s not in front of me, of the LED, and they lit it up, and they tested it, and they ended up with an average of somewhere around 91.2 foot candles. So basically it’s a standard internally lit sign, is what it comes down to. MR. LEMERY-These lights are on 10 to 7 on weekdays, 10 to 9 on Saturdays during the operating season, and then they’re all off. They’re not on after that. MR. OBORNE-Can I ask for a clarification? Did you say 91 foot candles? MR. MARSHALL-91.2 foot candles. MR. OBORNE-91.2 foot candles. MR. MARSHALL-They had four different readings, but they averaged out to 91.2, I believe. MR. URRICO-So the intention is to keep, what size do you currently have, the freestanding sign out front. Is there still one up on the billboard? The intention is to keep that one there, too? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, a billboard’s not considered a sign. MR. LEMERY-Yes, the billboard’s different. I think you’ve said your, well, they’re looking at this as one sign, so, as opposed to two signs. So I don’t know what your. MR. MC COY-We were going to, there’s a small marquee right at the entrance as you come down the pedestrian bridge, and if necessary we would be willing to concede that sign, if that was important. Obviously we wouldn’t like to. It’s a good looking sign, but if necessary we would. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. I guess I’ll open the public hearing. Anybody from the public wishing to speak on this matter? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MANDY DIEFFENBACH MRS. DIEFFENBACH-My name is Mandy Dieffenbach and I live on Ash Drive. I understand the impact that Six Flags has on the economy, especially right now, but I also wanted to have considered the impact that the residents here have on the economy in here. Six Flags, he brought up there’s only one Six Flags in New York. There’s only one Glen Lake in New York, and Glen Lake was here before The Great Escape, and I would like to remind everybody on your, I don’t know if it’s your mission statement, quote, 51 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/17/08) Home of Natural Beauty….A Good Place to Live. As I’m looking at that, I’m reading that, I want to keep that. I want to keep the mission statement. If it’s not going to be something that the Town is going to follow, a mission statement of this, you either need to revise this or, I don’t know. That’s not my point. My point is the height of the sign concerns me. I know they have mentioned that it’s not going to be seen from Glen Lake. If I can reflect back on the sound issue, we were assured it wasn’t going to be heard. It is being heard. We are working with The Great Escape to try and get that resolved, but what actually has been done to say that the sign cannot be seen from Glen Lake? Where, from Glen Lake, can it not be seen? How was this study done? From what areas? If the sign were to go up and it was seen from Glen Lake, would there be a stipulation that it would have to come down? As far as the lighting goes, I have a big concern in regards to the lighting. Anybody who’s actually been on Glen Lake, it’s dark behind there where the tree line is. Any kind of lighting that’s going to go up there, if it’s pointing up 150 feet, even more just to the tree line, I’m not, you know, I’m not an expert on this, but I’m going to see lights. It may not be a direct light, but I’m going to see lighting. The up lighting is what I’m concerned about, the wattage, you know, their numbers, but to a layperson it doesn’t really mean much. I would have to look into it. Lighting, it a major, major, major concern, and the signs, I don’t understand why the signs are so important to attract people to the Park. The Park right there is right off the highway. People know about it. If you want to attract people, put a sign up on the Northway, as you’re going north and south. Great Escape is right there, do that. Then a sign would not be an issue. As far as some of the other rides that have just recently gone up there in the past several years, I’m not sure of the name of the one that’s right there behind it, the one that comes all the way down. There’s no sign up there, no need for a sign, obviously, people will still come to The Great Escape and still come. I don’t understand why the rationale was that they needed to attract people, based on that. I know it’s a signature ride, but I’m concerned about the lighting and how it’s going to affect the residents, especially Glen Lake. I am very concerned, because we have been impacted, significantly over the years by The Great Escape, and I don’t want to see it get further and further down the line where it’s not becoming a great place to live anymore. Glen Lake does have a lot of residents that bring in a lot of income. We do pay a lot of taxes on there because it’s a nice place. If you’re going to change the appearance of Glen Lake, based on the Park, the noise level, the lighting, property values are going to go down, and what was a gem, Glen Lake, will change, and I’m concerned about that, environmentally, considering it is part of the mission statement, Home of Natural Beauty…..A Good Place to Live. Thank you. MR. UNDERWOOD-Anybody else? PAUL DERBY MR. DERBY-Good evening. I’m Paul Derby and I also live on Ash Drive. I’m also President of the Glen Lake Protective Association. I just want to remind the Board that Glen Lake community has about 300 households and exceeds $90 million in assessed property value. I want to clear up two points that Mr. Lemery made first, and that is that Six Flags, I believe, bought Story Town in 1996. So it hasn’t been there since the 50’s, and it’s significantly different than what Story Town was and it is growing, getting bigger, and also I want to correct him on something about, you asked a question about him bringing this to the Planning Board, in fact, he did not do that. When the question of signs came up at the Planning Board, he said if that comes up, we’ll deal with it at the Zoning Board. So that never, the sign never went to the Planning Board. I’m concerned with the potential visual impact of these signs, particularly the one that pointed toward Glen Lake, and I have a question for Staff. You now consider this one sign and not two? MR. OBORNE-One sign, that is correct. MR. DERBY-Okay. So that sort of changes my points a little. I was particularly concerned with the one pointing toward us. On Page One of the applicant’s narrative, they say they have two logo signs that are intended, as they say, to be landmarks of a sort, yet throughout the document the applicant claims that the new logo sign facing into the Park will not be visible from outside of the Park, that it’s light will cause, will not cause light and glare from spilling across the property lines. So why have a landmark sign that won’t be seen from outside the Park? People in the Park, I assume they know where they are for that. So I’m not sure why they have the sign pointing back. The second point has to do with the EIS and the Findings Statement. The lighted sign doesn’t conform to the GEIS or the Supplemental EIS in the Findings Statement which sets thresholds and limits for the build out. The applicant states that lights will be high intensity, even if they’re low voltage, LED and/or neon. Obviously they want to be seen from long distances. According to the Findings Statement, all lighting at the Park should point down and be of low intensity. Further, according to the Findings Statement EIS, it’s 52 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/17/08) up to The Great Escape to demonstrate with evidence that their operations, their development, will not negatively impact the community. The Great Escape needs to prove with evidence, not argument, that the lights won’t be seen. They can’t just say it. When they did the balloon studies, there were no lights on those balloons, particularly no high intensity lights. So we don’t know if lights up that high will be seen from Glen Lake or surrounding communities. Now if the applicant comes back and argues that the light has up lighting, that’s true, and the Board, Planning Board allowed that for safety reasons because the EIS does not allow for up lighting, but for safety reasons they allowed it. I ask the Board to not approve the variance of the sign. I was going to say the one that points into the Park, but if you consider it one sign, then I guess I would ask you to turn down the whole variance, because it may be seen, and if you do grant the variance, similar to what Mrs. Dieffenbach said, that if you stipulate that if we do see the sign of the lighting from Glen Lake, that the sign be taken down or turned off. Thank you. BRIAN GRANGER MR. GRANGER-Good evening. My name is Brian Granger. I live at 63 Wincoma Lane in Queensbury, New York. I worked at the Park 1980, ’81 and ’82, and I had a lot of close contact with Mr. Wood. He always told me that if he didn’t do something new every year, it wouldn’t keep the people coming back. I hadn’t visited the Park for 15 years until I have a young son. Now I go every year. I think it’s important for the Park to reinvest, and I see why, and I also think it’s important to have a sign there. They do want to attract people from the Northway. Everybody here knows where the Park is, but when you’re not from the area, obviously they want it to be seen and noticed, but a little over 100 square foot sign, 185 foot tall, by the time it’s up there, it’s going to be small. Knowing the elevation of the Park and where the Condor ride is that faces back to Glen Lake, I can’t see where you’re going to see this from Glen Lake at all, and that’s all I wanted to say. I think it should be approved. Thank you. MR. UNDERWOOD-I guess that’s it. MR. LEMERY-A couple of things. We told the Planning Board that we would come to the Zoning Board for the signs because at the time we went to the Planning Board the designers had not determined what the sign would look like, where the sign would go, or how it would fit on the ride and where. So we made it very clear. We have, for years, been involved with The Glen Lake Association. The Glen Lake Association, by its President, speaks at every single hearing we have. We’ve asked, many times, for them to talk to The Great Escape about any issues they’ve had. They had an issue here, recently, with the Wiggles project, and I know, at the end of the season here, The Great Escape is going to take steps, as best they can, to deal with the noise issues that seem to have raised the ire of the people on Ash Drive, and that will be dealt with by the theme park. I don’t think it’s fair to say that Glen Lake, over the years, has been severely impacted by noise and all the other issues that are raised every single time with the theme park. The theme park has done everything it can, including contributing to the Glen Lake Association for many things. We’ve watched the clarity of the water very, very clearly. We are very careful about the Fen and what goes into it. We’ve worked with The Glen Lake Association. We do not want an adversarial relationship. If there are any issues, they should be brought to the theme park, and the theme park will deal with them. As far as the issue of the visual impact and how this was done, we did it the way that the scientific people told us it had to be done, and the way the Planning Board said it had to be done. Weather balloons were flown. They were flown at all these different locations. We went out. We went out again, here recently, to make sure that when we put this ride in, that the impacts which were looked at back in 2000-2001 were not changed, and there was no change in the foliage. This is under the hill and can’t be seen. This sign will not be seen from Glen Lake. It’s even lower, it’s 15 feet lower than what it would be approved. So I recognize, we all recognize, we’re always balancing competing interests here, particularly when you’ve got a theme park that’s grown and where it is, you know, in the middle of the Town of Queensbury. A lot of theme parks are located out in fields. When Roy McDonald was the Supervisor in Wilton and when we were going through the Planning Board process in Wilton, I got a call from Roy McDonald saying pick the whole thing up and put it in Wilton. There’s 200 acres here. We’ll put you out in the field. So it’s all about balancing competing interests. We think, as a company, that we’ve done that, that we’ve balanced the interest of the neighborhoods with the needs of a private company to operate, have an operating season, realize their investment. So, we think this will not impact people. If it turns out that there’s some huge glow or something coming and it’s a problem, I’m sure Don McCoy and his staff will address it and will do everything they can to satisfy the interests of the folks who live on the lake. Is that a fair statement? 53 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/17/08) MR. MC COY-I’d say. MR. URRICO-You said the sign would only be lit during the operating hours? MR. LEMERY-Correct, operating hours. MR. URRICO-How many of those dates are you open beyond dark? MR. MC COY-Most of the summertime we’re going to close at seven p.m. The sun’s still out. We will close at nine o’clock on Saturdays, during the summer. MR. URRICO-Every Saturday? MR. MC COY-Yes, sir. We will be open for Holiday in the Park this upcoming season. Those operating hours are intended to end by nine o’clock at night. So, at the very end of the season, there may be some darkness in play, but for the vast majority of our season, particularly the summertime, it’ll still be light out. MR. URRICO-So when you have your October events, that’ll be lit those nights? MR. MC COY-Yes, sir. It will be lit on operating hours we’re open. During that event during October I believe we’re open until 10 on Saturday nights. MR. URRICO-And what’s the holiday events you talked about? MR. MC COY-We have a holiday in the Park program, which is new for this year. It’s event that will be starting mid-November, just before the Thanksgiving holiday. It’s scheduled to run on weekends only until the school break, and end on New Year’s Eve. It’s intended to be a family oriented show, cookie decorating, reindeer, sled, ice skating, kind of a Saturday Evening Post concept or extravaganza. MR. DRELLOS-Would this ride be operating at that time? MR. MC COY-Our plans are not to operate the ride at that time. Not currently, because of its geographical location, I’m concerned about being able to get to it, because it’s down in a lower part of the Park, I’m concerned about patrons being able to traverse into that area. MRS. JENKIN-The one concern was brought up about the illumination, that you can’t see the sign itself, but the glow from it. Do you have any indication from the 91 candle power or whatever it is how far that light extends up, out, down? MR. MARSHALL-No. I mean, if you look at any set of channel letters, typically you get tons and tons of (lost words) signs that were brought up early are channel letters, I believe Walgreens and what not, that’s the amount of light that’s coming out of that sign. It’s not extending that far. MR. DRELLOS-You said the sign in the back, or the same sign actually, is for balance. Could that part of the sign not be lit and the front light up? MR. MC COY-I’d have to defer. Can it be separated so that the, you’re talking about the sign facing internally? MR. DRELLOS-In towards the Park, yes. I mean, what if you just have the sign there but not lit it up? MR. MC COY-Well, I think that’s probably just a visual, aesthetic issue, too. I mean, we would like to light it. It’s facing into the Park. MR. DRELLOS-But if it does glow a lot, say, could you shut that half of the sign off? MR. MARSHALL-I can design, yes, to where you could have one side lit and one side not lit, if that. MR. LEMERY-That wouldn’t be the plan, though. We’re not asking for that. MR. DRELLOS-No. I understand that, but it’s just another option that. 54 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/17/08) MR. LEMERY-This sign, you know, if you look at the sign that is over at, what’s Menter’s property there. MR. UNDERWOOD-The hotel on the corner. MR. LEMERY-Yes, the hotel on the corner that sits up there, it looks like a spaceship coming to earth with all the lights there. That has a much more visual impact and a much more light spill impact than this sign would ever have on anybody in the area, including any of the folks at Glen Lake. It just wouldn’t. That’s got a much bigger impact, and actually, it’s almost as high, if not higher, than what this sign because he’s sitting up there on the hill, and that big thing is on the building. MR. UNDERWOOD-So is the attitude of the sign going to be east/west? Is that it, essentially? I mean, I’m just thinking in relation. MR. LEMERY-Yes, it’s east/west. MR. MC COY-Partially. It’s angled. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, and looking where it is, it doesn’t seem to me like, if it were lit up, that you would see it from anywhere except right in front of it, you know, or inside the Park. MR. LEMERY-87. That’s where we’d like to have it seen from is 87. MR. UNDERWOOD-Because you’re kind of around the bend from the attitude of Glen Lake. You’re sort of way over in the. MR. LEMERY-It’s tucked down. It’s tucked over to the left of where, if you. MR. UNDERWOOD-I mean, you would have to see the Ferris wheel and the rides way in the back. I mean, those are going to be way higher than that. MR. LEMERY-This is under the hill. MR. MC COY-Right. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, this is way under the hill. MRS. JENKIN-Will it actually face the Northway, though, the configuration that you have? MR. LEMERY-For the most part, yes. The sign, you mean? MRS. JENKIN-Right. MR. LEMERY-Yes, and we have to do a Short Form SEQRA for the ride. We understand that, for the sign, not the ride, the sign. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Do Board members have any other questions? All right. Then I guess I’ll poll the Board at this point and close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. UNDERWOOD-Why don’t we start with you, Joyce. MRS. HUNT-Basically I have no problem with this. I think they’ve convinced me that it will not be a visual, have a visual impact on the neighbors, and it won’t be lit, except during operating hours. So I would be in favor. MR. UNDERWOOD-Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes. I think the ride itself is already going to be in place. I mean, that’s going to be more visual, to me, than a sign would be, and that’s going to be there. I think the sign seems a natural draw. I know a little bit about theme parks, and almost every theme park I’ve been to has some sort of a signature ride that’s identified on the ride that you can see from outside the park, and there is a lot to be said for that. I’m also in a surrounding neighborhood, and I’m not concerned about the light. I have other buildings in the area that are much more lit that I can see from my house. So I’m not concerned 55 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/17/08) about the sign shedding light on other neighborhoods in places where it doesn’t belong. So I’d be in favor of it. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. George? MR. DRELLOS-I’d be in favor of it. I don’t see a problem with this sign. I was kind of, thought maybe the one in the back we could work something out, that if it was too bright, maybe you could shut that half off, maybe during operating hours, you know, I don’t know. It’s just a thought, but as far as the sign, I don’t have a problem with it. I just thought, down the road, if you planned for that, just in case, you know, it’s there. How he designs it, it might not take that much to do something like that. MR. UNDERWOOD-John? MR. ZANGHI-I see no issue with this. MR. UNDERWOOD-Joan? MRS. JENKIN-I agree with the rest of the Board members. I think that it will do a nice job of showing, if it shows from the Northway, if you can see it from the Northway, then I think that that’s the result you’re trying to make, and I don’t think it’ll have a big impact on the neighborhood. I would go along with it. MR. UNDERWOOD-Brian? MR. CLEMENTS-I believe this is to the south of the, is it called the blue line that goes across? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, we’re south of the Adirondack Park. MR. CLEMENTS-I’d agree with the rest of the Board. I’d approve it, too. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. Like Roy, I mean, I live in the neighborhood. I’m over on Glen Lake, and, you know, I have to say that things have improved over the years, as far as the noise levels and stuff, and you guys always go out of your way to accommodate and not be a negative influence, if at all possible, and, you know, this is a major request to have a sign up that high, but, as has been said, you’re only going to see it for a flash on the Northway, because you’re coming down the hill there. You’re going to look out the side window and maybe see it, and, I mean, if it gives you guys a little bit more exposure, that’s fine. It’s only going to be lit up during the time of operation and, as far as the evening hours of operation, I mean, even if it did cast up into the sky, I would think that the light would not travel that far, and there’s no way you would see this from Glen Lake. I mean, if it becomes a problem, as you mentioned you would deal with it in the future with that. So I don’t have a problem with it either. So does somebody want to do the resolution? I’ve got to do the Short Form. Sorry. Okay. Again, the applicant sponsor is The Great Escape, Six Flags, 1172 State Route 9, and the project location is the front of The Great Escape, parallel with Route 9 is the site of the new Sasquatch thrill ride which is a 185 foot tall ride. The applicant is proposing the placement of one 89 square foot freestanding sign near the top of the 185 foot tall Sasquatch thrill ride. The applicant is requesting relief from the number, that is, two, the size, 89 square feet, and the height, 185 feet, of the proposed freestanding signs. The Zoning Administrator has determined that the relief required is for one freestanding sign and not two, as the signs are parallel to each other and less than 24 inches in total thickness per Section 140-2. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or detriment to nearby properties. It’s not anticipated that this is going to create any great controversy. We had a little bit of public commentary, but for the most part, the fact that the balloons were re-flown, as they were for the original EIS, that was accepted by the Town, it does not appear that this sign is going to be seen from anywhere except internally in the Park and maybe briefly from the Northway. Whether the benefit can be achieved by some other method. I guess you could put the sign in a more compliant location and reduce the size and height of the signs, but it doesn’t appear that this triggers, in our mind, that it’s going to cause a problem. Whether the requested Area Variance is substantial. The request for an 89 square foot freestanding sign or 39% of relief from the allowable 64 square foot freestanding sign per Section 140-6 may be considered moderate relative to the Ordinance, and finally the request for 160 feet or 640% relief from the 25 foot high height maximum for a sign may be considered extreme to acute relative to the Ordinance. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact. It does not appear that there will be any impacts, as far as negative, on the immediate neighborhood that would be affected by this, and that would be Twicwood, Courthouse 56 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/17/08) Estates, and Glen Lake. It does not appear that that’s going to be a problem. The sign will be internally and the potential for other excessive height requests for other signage doesn’t appear like it’s probably going to appear anytime soon. Whether the alleged difficulty is self created. It may be considered as self created, but at the same time, I think that we recognize the fact that this sign does establish, you know, there is some merit to the sign because it is the signature new attraction at the Park, and that’s the main reason that it’s needed. I guess I’ll go through the form, then. The amount of land affected is, I mean, it’s minimal because of the size of the sign at 89 square feet. Will the proposed action comply with the existing zoning or other existing land use restrictions? Yes, or no? MR. DRELLOS-No. MR. CLEMENTS-No. MR. UNDERWOOD-No, because it’s over height. What’s the present land use in the vicinity of the project? MR. URRICO-It’s an amusement park. MR. UNDERWOOD-It’s an amusement park. Does the action involve a permit approval or funding now or ultimately from any other governmental agency (Federal, State, or Local)? I guess you’re probably going to have to get approval from the Planning Board for this. No? No. Okay. Does any aspect of the action have a currently valid permit or approval? MRS. JENKIN-Yes. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, it does. It’s got a formal EIS, and as a result, will the existing permit or approval require modification? MRS. JENKIN-No. MR. DRELLOS-No. MR. UNDERWOOD-No. “Does the action exceed any Type I threshold in 6 NYCRR Part 617.4?” I would say no. MR. DRELLOS-No. MR. UNDERWOOD-“Will the action receive coordinated review as provided for Unlisted Actions in 6 NYCRR, Part 617.6?” I would say no. “Could the action result in any adverse effects associated with the following: C1. Existing air quality, surface or ground water quality or quantity, noise levels, existing traffic patterns, solid waste production or disposal, potential for erosion, drainage or flooding problems?” I would say no. MRS. JENKIN-No. MR. DRELLOS-No. MR. UNDERWOOD-“C2. Aesthetic, agricultural, historic, or other natural or cultural resources; or community or neighborhood character?” I would say no. MR. DRELLOS-No. MR. UNDERWOOD-“C3. Vegetation, fauna, fish, shellfish or wildlife species, significant habitats, or threatened or endangered species?” MR. DRELLOS-No. MR. UNDERWOOD-“C4. A community’s existing plans or goals as officially adopted, or a change in use or intensity of use of land or other natural resources?” No. MR. DRELLOS-No. MR. UNDERWOOD-“C5. Growth, subsequent development or related activities likely to be induced by the proposed action?” No. MR. DRELLOS-No. 57 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/17/08) MR. UNDERWOOD-“C6. Long term, short term, cumulative or other effects not identified above?” MR. DRELLOS-No. MR. UNDERWOOD-No. “C7. Other impacts (including changes in use of either quantity or energy)?” No. MR. DRELLOS-No. MR. UNDERWOOD-“Will the project have an impact on the environmental characteristics that caused the establishment of a Critical Environmental Area?” No. MR. DRELLOS-No. MR. UNDERWOOD-“Is there or is there likely to be controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts?” No. MR. DRELLOS-No. MOTION THAT THERE IS A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM, Introduced by James Underwood who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Drellos: th Duly adopted this 17 day of December, 2008, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Drellos, Mrs. Jenkin, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Zanghi, Mr. Clements, Mr. Underwood NOES: NONE MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Does somebody want to do the resolution? Or do you want me to go ahead and do it? Okay. MOTION TO APPROVE SIGN VARIANCE NO. 81-2008 GREAT ESCAPE – SASQUATCH RIDE, Introduced by James Underwood who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Drellos: 1172 State Route 9. It’s placement of an 89 square foot freestanding sign, and as identified by Staff, one freestanding sign and not two, as the signs are parallel to each other, and less than 24 inches in total thickness, and that’s at a size of 89 square feet and a height of 185 square feet for those proposed freestanding signs, and again, that’s at the top of the Sasquatch Ride. We do not consider that any undesirable change will be produced because the sign will be only internally lit during hours of operation of the park, and that’s a minimal number of days each year, plus a minimal number of evenings that it would be lit up. Whether the benefit can be achieved by the applicant by some other method feasible, it is the signature ride of the park that’s going to be built this next year, and it’s seen that the park needs to have a major new draw, and this sign will add to that. Whether the requested Sign Variance is substantial. We would consider it to be substantial because it requires 160 feet or 640% of relief, but because the signage is not going to be lit up 24/7, it’s thought by us that it just identifies the park and gives them a little more exposure. Recognizing the cost of the infrastructure and such that’s involved with putting up this new ride, this is sort of a bonus for them. Whether the proposed Variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. It does not appear that, after having done the balloon tests, that there will be any impact on the immediate neighborhood. There was a little bit of concern that was recognized and it’s recognized by The Great Escape that should the park, or should the sign light up the sky too much and there are complaints about it, that then they’ll have to figure out an escape route for that, either turning off the lights or doing something drastic, and whether the alleged difficulty is self-created. It is considered self-created. th Duly adopted this 17 day of December, 2008, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Drellos, Mrs. Jenkin, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Zanghi, Mr. Clements, Mr. Underwood NOES: NONE 58 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/17/08) MR. LEMERY-Thanks very much. MR. MC COY-Thank you. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, James Underwood, Chairman 59