Loading...
2004-12-15 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/15/04) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING DECEMBER 15, 2004 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT LEWIS STONE, CHAIRMAN CHARLES MC NULTY, SECRETARY PAUL HAYES ALLAN BRYANT CHARLES MC NULTY ROY URRICO JOYCE HUNT, ALTERNATE MEMBERS ABSENT JAMES UNDERWOOD EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR-MARILYN RYBA CODE COMPLIANCE OFFICER-BRUCE FRANK SENIOR PLANNER-STUART BAKER STENOGRAPHER-SUE HEMINGWAY NEW BUSINESS: SIGN VARIANCE NO. 91-2004 SEQRA TYPE UNLISTED T.L. CANNON FOR APPLEBEE’S RESTAURANT AGENT(S): WILCOX SIGN, NEAL WILCOX ZONING: HC- INT. LOCATION: 255 QUAKER ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES INSTALLATION OF TWO ADDITIONAL WALL SIGNS (9.9 SQ. FT. AND 12 SQ. FT.) FOR THEIR TAKE OUT SERVICE. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM THE NUMBER OF ALLOWABLE SIGNS. CROSS REF. BP 98-568, BP 98-3292, BP 98-3291, SV 57-1998 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING DECEMBER 8, 2004 LOT SIZE: 1.60 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 296.20-1-50.2 SECTION 140- 6(B3c) NEAL WILCOX, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Sign Variance No. 91-2004, T.L. Cannon for Applebee’s Restaurant, Meeting Date: December 15, 2004 “Project Location: 255 Quaker Road Description of Proposed Project: The applicant proposes to install two additional wall signs to the east façade of the building, a 9.9 sq. ft. sign attached to the wall and a 12 sq. ft. sign on a proposed door awning identifying the entrance for their take out service. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for two additional wall signs where only one is allowed, per § 140-6(B3c). Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): BP 2004-897: pending the outcome of this application, 9.9 sq. ft. sign attached to the wall and a 12 sq. ft. sign on a proposed door awning. BP 2004-751: 10/04/04, commercial alteration (add egress door). BP 98-568: 09/23/00, 6,100 sq. ft. restaurant. BP 98-3290: 12/16/98, 70 sq. ft. wall sign (west side). BP 98-3291: 12/16/98, 70 sq. ft. wall sign (south side). BP 3292: 12/09/98, 47 sq. ft. freestanding sign. SV 57-1998: 08/26/98, five additional wall signs on the south and west facades. Staff comments: The applicant claims the proposed signage will only be observable from the parking area east of the building. However, the east façade of the building is observable from the Hoffman Car Wash property when the deciduous trees along Halfway Brook are free of their foliage. A narrow angle of exposure also 1 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/15/04) exists from Quaker Road. Staff wonders if both of the proposed signs are necessary in order to direct their customers to the take out service entrance.” MR. MC NULTY-This was referred to Warren County. They came back with No County Impact. MR. STONE-Before I turn it over to the applicant, Bruce, in the answers to the questions raised by the applicant, they use the term “directional signs”. Your determination, our determination that what they want are more than directional signs. Correctly, therefore the need for the variance. MR. FRANK-I’m not sure if they actually requested an interpretation from the Zoning Administrator. I think he has made a determination, without them requesting one, that they’re not directional signs. MR. STONE-Okay. I assumed that since it’s on the agenda, I just wanted it clear. Go ahead, gentlemen. MR. WILCOX-Good evening. My name is Neal Wilcox with Wilcox Brothers Sign Company. JOHN TRUSHAW MR. TRUSHAW-I’m Jon Trushaw. I’m the General Manager of the property, and as the application states, we are requesting permission to install two wall signs. It is on the dark side of the building, the east side of the building. There is a wooded area there and not a lot of light. I called them directional signs because I didn’t want anybody to necessarily call them promotional signs. They’re wall signs. They’re not promotional signs. They’re intended for permanent use, and the use is Applebee’s car side to go service. What this service entails is a customer would call in a food order. They’ll be parking in specific spots, and a video camera will see the car there, and an employee of Applebee’s will bring the food out to the car. Okay. The anticipation that at every given location in Applebee’s, and I’m taking care of 46 locations between New York and Connecticut, is they will employee three to four people specifically for this service. Anticipation, and it’s proven that in Rochester, that it will soon be anywhere from 10 to 15% of their business. Some of that is new. Some of it would be existing business that will take advantage of the car side to go service. The application, the variance or the building permit back in 1998 talks of six wall signs or five wall signs. Again, I don’t think, I don’t want that to necessarily be unfair to Applebee’s, because they certainly could have made one bigger sign with the copy on there. As far as, I know I’m arguing maybe a moot point, but it’s one message on the front of the building. It’s one message on the side of the building. It’s just that Applebee’s design has three separate cans that say the same message. “Applebee’s Neighborhood Bar and Grill” is really what the sign says. That’s pretty much the application as it is. MR. STONE-Is the intent for people to eat in their cars or to drive it away? MR. TRUSHAW-To drive away. MR. STONE-And how are we going to ensure that? It’s not a Sign Variance question, but it’s. MR. WILCOX-Well, I don’t believe they’re given any utensils. Now that doesn’t necessarily mean that will take care of the problem. MR. TRUSHAW-We hope they drive out of the Lowe’s lot to eat. MR. WILCOX-I mean, it’s a dark area. Could they turn on the lights of their car? I suppose they could, but I don’t think the limited space, and on a parking, it will say 10 minute parking only. So whether that will be enforced with the customer or not, I don’t know. 2 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/15/04) MR. STONE-The customer is always right. Isn’t that? MR. WILCOX-That’s not the intent. MR. ABBATE-Mr. Trushaw, one of your problems is that your major competitor’s sign, APP, is probably taking away a lot of your customers. You understand what I’m saying. If you had your sign Applebee’s, all the lights working, it may help you out. Unfortunately, only “APP” is showing. MR. WILCOX-That “L” is out for repair. MR. ABBATE-It’s out for repair. MR. MC NULTY-You’re calling these directional signs. MR. TRUSHAW-They’re identifying the area. MR. MC NULTY-The thing that strikes me is that there’s nothing that you’re proposing on the other side of the building to tell people where the take out door is. MR. WILCOX-Well, you know, I mean, people will be told on the phone where it is, on what side of the building. So we’re trying to eliminate too much traffic driving around, but we do want traffic in that area to be able to see it, to know where to park. MR. MC NULTY-I can see the justification, then, for the sign on the awning. I’m struggling to justify the neon sign on the side of the building. MR. WILCOX-Well, again, it’s designed to blend in with the architectural features of the building, the signs on all sides. The sign, the illuminated, the neon sign, certainly is going to be probably more visible than the awning, but like, just like a fifth grade teacher. MR. STONE-Visible from where? MR. WILCOX-Parking lot. It’s too small to be seen from anywhere else. MR. STONE-I’m just trying to be sure that you hear your words. MR. WILCOX-No, I mean, it’s a two foot by three foot sign. I understand there’s some visibility at the car wash, and on an angle you can see it from the road, but nobody’s going to be able to read it. It’s just too small. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. URRICO-Are both signs a neon sign? MR. WILCOX-No. This is graphics on an awning, and an awning will have light underneath it to down light the sidewalk area for the employee walking out to their cars. MR. URRICO-Now other restaurants seem to mark off their car side service by using regular poles right out by the parking spaces. Can’t that be done here? MR. WILCOX-Well, that’s done now on their to go service, which those signs will be coming down, but there will be signs, and those are smaller signs, just like a handicap parking sign, so they know. MR. URRICO-That’s not enough to. MR. WILCOX-No, it’s a reserve. 3 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/15/04) MR. TRUSHAW-I think the sign is really to reserve the parking space for those customers. MR. WILCOX-And it’s parking spaces that the camera angle will be able to see. I mean, the idea is not to have anybody else park there but car side to go, otherwise it will mess up the service inside the restaurant. MR. ABBATE-Now, you currently have six wall signs at the present time, correct? Totaling 138.88, right or wrong? MR. WILCOX-It’s right. There’s three. MR. ABBATE-And you’re requesting two additional signs. MR. WILCOX-Yes. MR. ABBATE-Let me ask you this question, hypothetical question. How would just one sign for your business effect your business, if you were only allowed to have one? MR. WILCOX-You mean if there was only one sign on the front? MR. ABBATE-Yes. MR. TRUSHAW-Well, I mean, are we talking the set of signs on the front of the building? MR. ABBATE-One sign. Would it have an effect on your business? MR. TRUSHAW-Absolutely. MR. ABBATE-In what way? MR. TRUSHAW-A negative effect. The signs are essential to any business. MR. ABBATE-All right. Thank you very much. MR. BRYANT-I just want to go back to what you said about the six original signs, that they basically could translate into two signs. Is that what you’re saying? And I understand the configuration. I’ve seen the signs a million times. So now you have, let’s go back. You have two signs, two big signs, and now you want two additional signs. That’s still three above the Town’s limit. Okay, even in the original configuration, with two big signs, you still have one sign above the limit in the Code. MR. TRUSHAW-I know what you’re saying, and unfortunately it’s hindsight. When the building was built in ’98 and all locations prior to that, there was no thought that they’d have to go or would go to this car side to go service. It’s only been, marketing has shown that’s the direction they have to go. So unfortunately, new locations, it’s in the drawings it’s part of all the signs and included. Unfortunately, in 46 locations in New York State and Connecticut, it’s hindsight. Those signs, and many of those locations, they’ve gotten a variance prior to this application. So it’s a difficult thing. MR. STONE-Well, it seems to me that you want to be everything to everybody. I mean, we started in this business with fast food restaurants, the McDonald’s, the Burger King, and they had everything ready, and I know McDonald’s had a time limit for hamburgers, but you drove up and they were ready, and you got it and you drove off. Applebee’s came in, along with kind of a modified, I don’t want to get involved with who does what, but Bennigan’s, and the TGIF, I mean, where there is a real menu and there are items that have to be prepared to order, and that’s another class of restaurants. Now you’re kind of blurring the image by saying, well, 4 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/15/04) we’re going to be a restaurant that isn’t a fast food restaurant, but you can still get our food and take it away. MR. TRUSHAW-I think that to comment on, I think that we’ve always had take out available. We’ve always made take out available, call us, come on in and we’ll have it ready for you. The pick up is at the bar, today, it’s at the bar. So you park your car. You come inside, and that’s true of a lot of full service restaurants in this area, and I could name probably a couple of dozen that do it that way. So it’s a common business practice. MR. STONE-Did you ever consider, there’s a fence on the east side, near the property line obviously, where the brook is. Have you ever considered a sign on that fence, a small directional sign that people driving up in either direction could see, go here for whatever the trademark you’ve made, car side to go? MR. TRUSHAW-It’s too far away, I think, it would be too confusing, to the general public, which I think is pretty confused as it is. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. TRUSHAW-Especially behind a vehicle, in a crowded parking lot. MR. STONE-So you’ve considered it and said it wasn’t the way to go? MR. TRUSHAW-Yes. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. TRUSHAW-Considered using the front entrance, too, but I mean, it’s just not feasible. I mean, the door’s, it’s a crowded area. You’ve got handicap spaces there so you can’t dedicate parking spaces for car side to go there. So a lot of expense was put in to put an additional door in and a video camera, the signs, and inside most locations are a work station now, dedicated, again, just to that service. MR. STONE-How are people going to know what’s available to get food to go? MR. TRUSHAW-With a takeout menu that’s put in the bag. They’re pretty common. MR. STONE-But for the first guy who goes there? He calls up and you say, well, we have Bourbon Street Steak and we have this and we have that. MR. WILCOX-It is on line, and right now, that’s a good question. However, February 1, I st believe the date is, there’s a major promotion talking about and trying to sell that service. MR. TRUSHAW-National television advertising begins February 14, 2005. MR. STONE-Okay, but still, if I don’t have a menu, I’m a little bit. MR. TRUSHAW-We’ll fax it to you. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. ABBATE-At the present time, is that picture accurate? MR. WILCOX-Yes. MR. ABBATE-It is. So what you folks have, then, and I think it’s reasonable, two signs, one on one side of your building and one on the other side of the building. To me that pretty much 5 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/15/04) identifies what your business is. Now if you only had one sign, that would make it quite difficult. Now, you’re asking for a total of three signs. Is that correct? MR. WILCOX-This application is asking for two more signs. MR. ABBATE-Two more signs. MR. WILCOX-Right. I’ll call it four. You can call it eight, four to eight, depending upon what you’re determining as a sign. MR. ABBATE-This evening you’re requesting how many signs? MR. WILCOX-Two. MR. ABBATE-What happens if we said, would you compromise for one? Could you operate with that? That’s a feasible alternative. I might add this, that an applicant refusing to accept a feasible alternative, it’s room for a denial. MR. WILCOX-Well, are you saying that the possibility is to have one additional sign, and if we would have one additional sign, we could choose either one, the neon sign. MR. ABBATE-And that’s after you repaired the big sign? MR. WILCOX-After we repaired the big sign. If that’s the case, I’d like to ask a question. Could we put the awning up without the graphics? That’s not a sign then, and I think that would be acceptable. MR. STONE-And it would be an awning similar to the ones on the windows and it would? MR. WILCOX-That’s already there. Yes, it would match that sign. MR. ABBATE-So that would be a feasible alternative that would be acceptable to you? MR. WILCOX-Yes, sir. MR. ABBATE-Very good. Thank you. MR. WILCOX-Thank you. MR. STONE-Well, he only speaks for himself at the moment. MR. ABBATE-Correct. Remember, we only speak for ourselves. I don’t speak for the Board. MR. STONE-Okay. Anybody else have any comments? MRS. HUNT-Yes. I have a question. If you, if people call up and put an order in, you said you would tell them where to pick it up, and then when they get there, there are signs, like handicap parking. Why do they need anymore signs? MR. TRUSHAW-Well, the signs that you’re talking about in handicap are small. You don’t see them. The idea of the sign on the wall is to direct people over to that location, and then once they get in that location, they can see where to park, but there’s no way they’re going to see the parking signs from anywhere. MRS. HUNT-But if they’re told what side to go on, they will see them. 6 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/15/04) MR. TRUSHAW-But people don’t understand east side, west side, north side, south side, you know, and even if you told them it’s facing the woods, it’s facing the car wash, they’ll still drive around looking for it. MRS. HUNT-I just know in Albany the Olive Garden has signs that say pick up only, and then, you know, they don’t have any signs outside the building, this is where you pick up. MR. TRUSHAW-Well, we do, too. If you look on this slide here, you can see that we have, on the west side currently we have these two signs, and they’re dedicated spots for pick up. MRS. HUNT-Right. MR. TRUSHAW-Those people would park their cars. They actually walk inside. Those two signs would be removed and six spots on the east side of the building will be dedicated to parking reserved for our car side to go. MR. STONE-And how are we going to know that? MR. TRUSHAW-It’s really visibility, so that people don’t have any question as to what side of the building it’s on. So you don’t get them driving around the building. MR. STONE-Yes. I understand, but how are people going to know these are reserved spots? MR. TRUSHAW-That’s what the sign will say, reserved for car side to go. MR. MC NULTY-You’re going to put similar signs up on those spots? MR. TRUSHAW-On the east side there’ll be like a. MR. WILCOX-Small, like a handicap sign. MR. STONE-So now we’ve just increased to six more signs. MR. WILCOX-I think those are directional signs, and I don’t think those are necessary for building permit, like a handicap sign, a stop sign. MR. FRANK-I wouldn’t put them into the same category as a handicap sign, but they would be permissible as on site directional signs, without a permit you could utilize. MR. URRICO-How are you prepared to handle the traffic on there? Because right now, there are times there where people circle that lot looking for a spot. MR. TRUSHAW-I guess that’s what we’re trying to do here. We’re trying to get our customers to be able to focus in on a particular side of the building, so that they’re not circling, trust me, the building, and there is a camera, there’s a video camera. So the intent is that they’ll get a license plate number, so they’ll know that the vehicle is there for curb side to go or not, and those dedicated employees to that service will get the car to move. MR. HAYES-So the purpose of the sign isn’t to increase your business through the to go thing? MR. TRUSHAW-No, it’s to reserve them. They’re certainly going to identify the vehicles so that they’d know whether that vehicle is there. They’ll come out, while the people are in the vehicle, find out what their order was, and it will be governed, because like I say, it’s essential to the business that people park there and take their food out there. MR. STONE-Yes. You would agree that everybody who gets food there will have had personal contact with a telephone voice? 7 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/15/04) MR. TRUSHAW-Yes. MR. STONE-That is going to tell them where to go, which is an advantage that most take out places don’t have. So, that kind of reduces the need for too many signs. I haven’t said what too many is, but reduces that need because you’re going to tell them, and whether or not they hear, and whether or they listen, well, that’s your problem and not ours. MR. TRUSHAW-Well, it becomes a problem in the parking lot, too. MR. STONE-Yes, I understand. Okay. MR. TRUSHAW-I mean, how many people in the Town know what the east side of that building would be? I would hope a lot, but certainly, and the idea of the business is not necessarily just people in Town. People visiting and people that don’t know north, south, east from west. MR. STONE-Okay. Any other questions before I open the public hearing? All right. Let me open the public hearing. Anybody wishing to speak on this application? Any correspondence? MR. MC NULTY-No correspondence. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. STONE-Chuck, let’s start talking about it. MR. MC NULTY-Okay. I can go with one sign on that side. I don’t think there’s a real need for two signs. Originally I was leaning towards saying that I’d go for the awning sign and not the lit sign, but that side is kind of dark. So I can see some justification for a small lit sign, right near the doorway. I guess I can go with what the applicant’s suggesting, that it probably is not going to be really visible from Quaker Road and it probably is not going to be a sign that will attract a lot of business off the road, the way they’re proposing it. So I can go with a plain awning, whether it matches these awnings or whether it’s a slightly different color to distinguish it for the doorway, as long as there’s no wording on the awning, and as long as the small sign is small as proposed, on the wall, I could go with that. MR. STONE-Okay. Joyce? MRS. HUNT-Well, I’m reluctant to give variances for extra signs, and driving around, if you go there on a Friday or a Saturday night, even if you want a regular parking place, you’re driving around looking for parking. So it’s not, I don’t think you’re going to eliminate that, but it is dark over there, and I would agree with Chuck that I would go with one other sign, the lit sign, but not with two. MR. STONE-Okay. Yes for one. Okay. Chuck? MR. ABBATE-Thank you. The gentleman made some rather important statements. Signs are important to a business, and I certainly would agree, and I don’t believe it’s our job here to put businesses out of business. I think we should do whatever we can within reason to promote businesses. You currently have two additional wall signs, and I asked you earlier if you would be open for a little feasible alternative, with the addition of one sign, and you indicated you would. I would support an additional sign giving you a total of three. MR. STONE-Al? 8 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/15/04) MR. BRYANT-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Even if you made the assumption that what you have existing now are two walls signs, although the signs in the front it’s a little bit difficult to do that, you already have one more than the Town allows by Code. I agree that that side is dark, but by the same token, you could put a light pole there, to differentiate the area. As far as what the Chairman said earlier about talking to a customer and directing them to a part of the building, the fact that that awning is going to be totally green, from the sketch that you provided, is sufficient identification, compared to the other awnings that are all striped. So you could say come to the solid colored awning. So, in my view, you’ve already got five additional signs. Now you want two, making seven more than are allowed by the Town, in my view, I couldn’t go along with even one more sign. MR. STONE-Thank you. Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes. I understand how marketing campaigns change and lifestyles change. So you have to adapt to those lifestyles. When I first saw this application, I was hard-pressed to grant even one sign, because I think there are ways to distinguish this area from the others. At first I was willing to bend a little bit and go with the awning sign, because I think that would be less conspicuous, still noticeable by people looking for it, but not as conspicuous to people necessarily driving by, which I think is a problem in the Town. I think we’re bending way too much to allow sign growth where it’s not in the Code, where we’ve allowed too many variances, but that’s not your problem. That’s ours, and I think I would go with one more sign, and even though I would prefer the one on the awning, I would go with the one neon sign above that location. MR. STONE-Jaime? MR. HAYES-Well, I was here back in ’98 when we already have bent once. I guess you could interpret your signage a number of different ways, depending on how you view it, but certainly you were given some leeway to construct a signage pattern that worked for your business. I understand that was at that time and this is at a little bit different time, but that night there was only four of us there, and you got all four votes, which was lucky, probably, but you did get the variance, but I think now to add variances on top of variances, and particularly on the Sign Ordinance, I think is a mistake, and I’ve said that before. I think in this particular case that the franchises, and this may allude to another application tonight, but the franchises that are coming in to our area are attempting to maximize exposure at every turn. It’s understandable. They do at a national level, and I mean, the business logic behind it is self-evident, but this is really a different type of area. The character of Queensbury is different than New York and Connecticut, which were the examples that you brought up, and that’s not demeaning them. It’s just a different type of area. I think that we’ve worked hard, in this particular area, to preserve a certain character, a certain visual pattern, and I think that, in this particular case, that if we allow two more signs, to you, okay, if other people in that corridor also requested two more signs, which, yours is to go, but theirs could be for this reason or that reason all legitimate business reasons, the potential impact, in the broadest scope, could be quite large, and maybe even devastating to the visual impact. In my opinion, even your awnings, which are a corporate part of your image, are attention grabbing, and I think that’s intentionally so. I understand that, but I think adding to that overall picture, and granting seven signs when you already have five, I think it’s past the line. I think that we have a balancing test that we measure here, and I think in this particular case, the benefit that you’re asking, to be able to identify a place for to go customers to magnate to or whatever is easily exceeded by the potential negative impact, if this was common practice, on Quaker Road. So I certainly sympathize with your business, but I think in this particular case you’ve already got relief, which means that the relief that you want, in my opinion, has to be significant by definition, and I think it outweighs the business benefit that you’ve set forth here tonight. So I’m opposed to either sign. MR. STONE-I’ve been sitting here conflicted, as I was when I looked at the thing. We look at our Sign Ordinance in the Town of Queensbury and I would like to think that someone driving around Town realizes that we care about signs. We don’t have anything up 100 feet in the air. We don’t try to attract everybody on the Northway with a sign that says gas that you can see 9 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/15/04) from three miles down the road. We’re very limited in our signs. Your neighbor to the east, the car wash we’ve been talking about, we gave them a difficult time last month on the number of signs and made them change location of one or two of them, so that nobody could see them except the beavers in the stream and the people driving up to it from the back. That’s the most important thing. I listened, with your willingness to compromise, to one sign, and I was considering going that way. Then Mr. Hayes and Mr. Bryant made very cogent arguments. We have granted a great deal of relief. There are some visual ways you can identify this particular access to the building with a different colored awning. It just doesn’t have to have words on it. You can, and the fact that you’re going to have communication with each and every customer is a very telling thing to me. Now that, of course, makes you have to do a very good education process with the people who answer the phone, but that’s a business problem, and that’s your problem to make sure they do that, and if I were you I would call up a few times when you get started and make sure, in fact, they’re doing that, telling where to go. Having said that, when I put it all together, as I say, Mr. Hayes is the one who sold me, I would have to vote no in either case. However, to your good work, I have four people who say they are willing to go with one sign. So, having said that, I’m going to ask for a motion to approve the Sign Variance from one of the people who said yes. MR. FRANK-Mr. Chairman, I need to interrupt. You need to do a SEQRA. It’s an Unlisted Action. MR. STONE-I’m sorry. Excuse me. Okay. Before we get to a motion, I need to make a motion myself. MR. TRUSHAW-Can I just make a quick few comments? MR. STONE-Sure. MR. WILCOX-Two quick comments. The areas that I was talking about was not New York City. The areas are western New York and suburbs, Rochester, Syracuse, Hudson Valley, which is like Kingston and Newburgh. They’re all small towns like the Town of Queensbury, and, you know, I’m in the sign business. I always have to deal with square footage and number of signs, and it’s not anything that you can write into an Ordinance, but it’s a shame that you can’t look at aesthetics, because I think nobody objects to the look of Applebee’s. The comment is the number of signs that Applebee’s has. They could have put up a bigger, forgive me, I’m in the sign business, obnoxious sign, but what they designed was something very ornate. Something that is architecturally pleasing, and unfortunately it brought them in to the category of. MR. STONE-Sir, when you’ve won, you should be quiet. MR. WILCOX-Okay. MR. STONE-I mean, to be very candid, you got four votes. Let it go at that. First of all, I’ve got to say one thing, we see a lot of Sign Variances, of all kinds in this community, and we have developed a certain feeling on how we apply our Sign Ordinance, and some people might say we’re too liberal. Some people might say we’re too strict, and I guess we’re doing about the right thing. Anyway. MOTION THAT A REVIEW OF THE SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM SHOWS THAT THERE ARE NO SIGNIFICANT NEGATIVE IMPACTS CAUSED BY THIS PROJECT, AS AMENDED, NAMELY ONE WALL SIGN, Introduced by Lewis Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Paul Hayes: Duly adopted this 15 day of December, 2004, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Abbate, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Hayes, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Stone NOES: NONE 10 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/15/04) ABSENT: Mr. Underwood MR. STONE-Now I need a motion to approve. MR. ABBATE-Okay. I’ll take it, Mr. Chairman. MOTION TO APPROVE SIGN VARIANCE NO. 91-2004 T.L. CANNON FOR APPLEBEE’S RESTAURANT, Introduced by Charles Abbate who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Hunt: 255 Quaker Road. The applicant proposes to install two additional signs. However, has agreed to a feasible alternative of one additional sign to be placed on the east façade of the building side of the business, and the relief requested, of course, is for now one additional wall sign. Now the Zoning Board of Appeals has the task of balancing the benefit of the variance against the impact on the Town and the environment. Additionally, when statutory balancing comes out in favor of the applicant, which in this case it did, then this Board may authorize the minimum variance, in this case which you have agreed to, as a feasible alternative of one. However, we also have to address the impact in terms of the neighborhood, health, safety and welfare of the community, and as such, there are a number of questions that we have to go through to ensure that we have, in fact, made an attempt to preserve and protect this community. One is as to whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or perhaps a detriment to the community or neighboring properties. At this point, I don’t believe one additional sign will have any kind of an undesirable change in the neighborhood or be a detriment. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by another feasible alternative. In this case it was. You’ve requested two. You have agreed to accept one. As such then I don’t see any problem in a motion to approve this application. The third question we also ask ourselves is whether the requested Sign Variance is substantial. In my opinion, in this particular case, it is not. Also a final question is whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions of the neighborhood or the community, and the request for one additional sign, in my opinion, will not alter the environment or the physical conditions of the neighborhood, and, finally, is this difficulty self-created? Perhaps so, as the applicant has a duty, basically to discover the use restrictions outlined in any Town Ordinance in which you have a business. However, I believe that the fact that this hardship is determined to be self-created, I don’t believe it’s fatal to the application, and as such, Mr. Chairman, and fellow Board members, I move that we approve an additional sign, Variance No. 91-2004, for Applebee’s Restaurant. The sign that I am moving to be approved is on the north end of the east side, for a total of 9.9 square feet. Duly adopted this 15 day of December, 2004, by the following vote: th MR. STONE-Did you describe, and I apologize, did you describe the particular sign we’re approving? MR. FRANK-And the size. MR. STONE-And the size, please. MR. MC NULTY-And the location. MR. STONE-And the location. MR. ABBATE-Give me the size and the location, and I’ll include that, please. MR. MC NULTY-What I’m thinking is the north end of the east side of the building, and it’s a 9.9 square foot sign that we’re approving, not the 12 square foot. MR. ABBATE-Right. 11 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/15/04) MR. STONE-On the northerly portion of the east side. AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. McNulty, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Abbate NOES: Mr. Bryant, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Stone ABSENT: Mr. Underwood MR. STONE-There you go, gentlemen, you’ve made your case. MR. WILCOX-Okay. Thank you very much. AREA VARIANCE NO. 92-2004 SEQRA TYPE II WILLIAM CRIST D/B/A A-2000 SELF- STORAGE AGENT(S): NACE ENGINEERING, P.C. OWNER(S): WILLIAM CRIST ZONING: HC-INT. LOCATION: 1025 STATE ROUTE 9 APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF AN ADDITIONAL 5,100 SQ. FT. SELF-STORAGE BUILDING. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM THE PERMEABILITY REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REF. SPR 50-2002 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: DECEMBER 8, 2004 LOT SIZE: 2.82 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 296.13-1-24 SECTION 179-4-030 TOM NACE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; KEITH CRIST, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 92-2004, William Crist, d/b/a A-2000 Self-Storage, Meeting Date: December 15, 2004 “Project Location: 1025 State Route 9 Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to construct a 5,100 sq. ft. self-storage building. In addition to the four existing self-storage buildings. Relief Required: Applicant requests 2.8% relief from the 30% minimum permeability requirement of the HC-Int zone, per § 179-4-030. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): BP 2002-1020: 12/23/02, 4,200 sq. ft. self-storage building. BP 2002-1021: 12/23/02, 4,200 sq. ft. self-storage building. BP 2002-1022: 12/23/02, 4,500 sq. ft. self-storage building. BP 2002-1023: 12/23/02, 5,400 sq. ft. self-storage building (4,500 sq. ft. structure built). SP 50-2002: 10/22/02, construction of 4 self-storage buildings. SP 4-2000 Modification: 10/22/02, additional gravel display area for used car sales. BP 2002-064: 01/30/02, 8 sq. ft. addition to freestanding sign (Don Eletto Auto Sales). BP 2000-3465: 03/01/00, 18 sq. ft. wall sign (Don Eletto Auto Sales). SP 4-2000: 02/08/00, used car sales addition to the existing auto repair and quick lube facility. SV 3-2000: 01/19/00, relief for an additional wall sign (18 sq. ft. sign for used auto sales). Staff comments: The applicant proposes to construct one additional self-storage building. The proposed location for the building is at the rear of the property (west end). The majority of the site’s permeable area is located between the front of the building and State Route 9. The sites existing stormwater infrastructure was developed per the 2002 site plan approval. Additional stormwater infrastructure is proposed for the new building.” MR. MC NULTY-And this was referred to Warren County and came back with No County Impact. MR. STONE-All right. Gentlemen? MR. NACE-Good evening. For the record, Tom Nace and Keith Crist. What we have in front of us is a request for a permeability Area Variance to construct one additional last self-storage building on this site. The previous, as noted in the Staff notes, the previous buildings that were constructed, the last one of them, which is, the original four buildings, as noted, the last of the previous buildings that was permitted was reduced in size. The original site plan permitted the building to extend out this direction, which allowed two bays on the end of the building to have direct access where somebody could back a trailer, like a car trailer for an antique car or something like that, directly into the units. That was when Keith got constructing these and 12 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/15/04) working with the site, he noted that taking that building as far as we had planned it, and putting the road around it, while still on his site, and still, you know, all the work was as permitted, would have caused some problems to a yard area in here that his neighbor was using, and, you know, being a good neighbor, he decided to shorten that building up, okay, really to benefit the property to the north. So, what we’re back for now, the reason we’re requesting the Area Variance for the permeability is that, in order to make this building long enough to have these two bays at the end, that can be direct access for backing a trailer in to, it’s put us, in keeping the building in the configuration and the size of the units that he’s standardized upon, puts us an extra 2.7%, I think, over the required permeability. MR. BRYANT-Can I ask you a question, Mr. Nace? MR. NACE-Yes. MR. BRYANT-I’m not quite understanding why this last, this proposed building is longer than the adjacent building which is only 4500 square feet, because you would save almost seven tenths of a percent there, and drop it down to two percent. MR. NACE-It’s longer because the bays on the end here, he needs some bays where he can pull up a fairly long truck, a trailer rig, and back directly into the storage units, okay, and this is the only place where he has that room to pull a fairly long rig up and back in. None of the other buildings have it, and the original approved site plan, we had it with this building, but then when he shortened this building up, he lost that ability, and that’s simply, he’d like to recover that ability to be able to get into those end units. MR. CRIST-Keith Crist. As Tom was mentioning before, it makes it easier to back, on the third building right now, we actually have that with the runway, the drive corridors. The drive corridors are 25 feet wide, but these other drive corridors around are much larger and are much more, if you look on the picture, a much larger area to work with, maneuvering a vehicle, or a trailer, to back up into the bays. So by the third bay is the only one I really have that ability to do right now, and that one end building, that one ten by thirty, and as we come back to the fifth building would have that ability as well, by being 20 more feet longer, and the reason that we had shortened up this fourth building, when building the project, is that Skateland, in the summertime, if you’re going to look at the green space there, that’s a picnic area. A lot of the kids from camps and things like that use that, and we started pacing it out and measuring it out, when we were going to run the bulldozers, and Keith Farraro, he said whatever we’ve got to do, that’s your property, because they had bought a parcel of our property to do the go kart track. So we kind of had a previous, worked with his project, and they did a very nice job landscaping everything. It’s a beautiful facility, and I just said I couldn’t see carving up his back yard, even though it was our property and it was ours to do that with, I just felt that it wasn’t the right thing to do, being a neighborly gesture. So I agreed just to shorten that other building by 30 feet, which was 900 square feet, and said, well, we’ll just shorten that at this point and then leave well enough alone and build it the way we had built it. So that’s kind of why, I was just trying to gain back those two bays, if I could, with this last building, without shifting the whole building down another 20 feet this way, and then you’d have all these buildings kind of in a line and then all of a sudden this building would be 20 feet the other direction. It wouldn’t look right. Symmetrically, it wouldn’t, I was just trying to kind of keep the continuity of the project the same. MR. BRYANT-Yes, but from a realistic standpoint, from Route 9, you wouldn’t really tell that that building was back or not. It wouldn’t make any difference. MR. CRIST-Well, it wouldn’t line up, though. It would be 20 feet. MR. BRYANT-Yes, but you wouldn’t be able to tell that from Route 9. That was my next question is, is it possible to shift the building up and cut part of it off? With that possibility, could you get around the building with a truck and maybe get into the adjacent building also? Wouldn’t that give you an extra bay? In other words, you’d have a proposed building and the 13 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/15/04) adjacent building. If you move that building down, can a truck get around to get into that building adjacent to the proposed building, so that now you would have two bays on top, and you would have one bay in the adjacent building on the bottom? MR. CRIST-It would be still tight quarters, because you’d have a tight, you’re talking about this building here? MR. BRYANT-Yes, if that building were moved up 20 feet, or you cut 20 feet off that building. Say you cut 20 feet off the bottom of the building, okay. Then couldn’t you just drive around and then get into the adjacent building also, and give yourself an extra bay? MR. CRIST-On this side? But these are five by ten. MR. NACE-We’d still need the permeability variance because if we did that, we’re over. MR. BRYANT-You’d still have to pave that. MR. NACE-We’d still have to have gravel, okay. We wouldn’t actually gain any green space, per say, by doing that, because this would still be gravel, and, you know, even if we shorten this up to line up with the other buildings here, we would still be over about a percent and a quarter, I think it is, on our permeability requirement. MR. STONE-Mr. Nace, your calculations are based on the Queensbury definitions of permeability, crushed stone gravel is non-permeable. MR. NACE-Any driving surface is non-permeable. MR. STONE-Correct. MR. NACE-That is correct. MR. STONE-Even though, and I may regret saying this, that some of this will not be disturbed very much at all, and will stay fairly permeable, not by definition. MR. NACE-As far as rainwater goes, even though it’s a gravel surface, it doesn’t get much traffic. Therefore, it won’t pack in and become impermeable. MR. HAYES-You’ve made some accommodations for stormwater anyways. MR. NACE-Yes, absolutely. With a situation like this, you have to, in the case of winter freeze up, we have drywells in the center of each drive aisle, so that, even in freezing conditions, you still have stormwater. MR. ABBATE-And the requirement is 30% minimum permeability. MR. NACE-That’s correct. MR. ABBATE-And you’re asking for 2.8% relief. MR. NACE-That is correct. MR. ABBATE-That’s less than 10%. MR. STONE-Yes. MR. URRICO-The need for this extra building is driven by the capacity that you have there? 14 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/15/04) MR. CRIST-Yes. At the present moment, the way things are, we built two buildings, the year before last, and they filled up, and then we built the next two this past year, and they’ve been filling. So it’s been a successful venture for us, and we’ve been pleased with it. I’m just figuring on, next year hopefully, you know, needing the additional space. It’s looking that way. MR. STONE-I mean, I have to, anecdotally, you almost don’t know it’s there. If there were cars on the old Honda lot, you probably wouldn’t even see it as you drove up on that. MR. CRIST-Well, you still don’t. People drive by. I mean, customers come in to my business and they go and they see the signage inside for self-storage, and I have a little placard, or a board, and they’re like, do you have self-storage? You’re self-storage, and I say it’s right behind the building. It’s actually the way I built it. It was out of sight, out of mind. I’ve used green doors. I’ve used beige. I truly wanted this project to blend in to the scenery. I live in this community as well. I don’t want U-Haul orange doors. I mean, I could have used, I didn’t want any of that. I wanted a nice looking project. That was my goal. MR. STONE-You have achieved such. MR. ABBATE-I would stop at that point. I think things are going well for you. MR. STONE-Any other questions, comments? Well, for the record, let me open the public hearing. Anybody wishing to speak on this application? I know we have one letter that was included in our packet, but we’ll read it in anyway. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. MC NULTY-Okay. This is a letter from Keith Farraro. It says, “On behalf of the Fun Spot, the Ferraro family would like to show support for the expansion of the A-2000 Self-storage. While planning their first phase, they realized that one of their buildings would disrupt an area of their back yard that our guests were using for picnicking. They then decided to decrease one of their buildings by 30 feet to accommodate our guests. This action shows that the Crist family has kept their neighbors and community best interest in mind. We are fortunate to have families like the Crists in our community. We would like to see their application approved.” MR. STONE-The only comment I would make, the fact that you’re a nice guy has no bearing on this determination, at least as far as he is concerned. Anyway. Anything else? I will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. STONE-Any other questions? If not, let’s talk about it. Joyce? MRS. HUNT-Well, as you said, it’s very unobtrusive, not immediately visible, and I don’t think the 2.8% relief requested is significant, really. I can understand your need for the access into the building, and I was positively affected by your neighbor’s letter, and I would be in favor of it. MR. STONE-Chuck? MR. ABBATE-Yes, thank you. Well, I agree with Joyce. Number One, I’m delighted that the business is going well. I think that’s important for the Town of Queensbury, and I, too, I think, you know, when a neighbor, this is a big business you have there, in terms of area. When a neighbor writes a letter such as he has written, or they have written to us, reflecting upon your business, it’s always a nice feeling to know that, gee, you know, this business is really a nice business because they’re really taking a close look at what we’re requiring for neighbors, and I think that’s fantastic. I’m going to support the application. MR. STONE-Allan? 15 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/15/04) MR. BRYANT-Yes, I, too, was moved by the neighbor’s comments. This is the end of the development of this property. Is that correct? MR. CRIST-Right. MR. BRYANT-I would vote in favor of it. MR. STONE-Let the record show that Mr. Crist said, yes. So we get it in there. MR. ABBATE-We could do it officially and say, Mr. Crist, do you plan on expanding your business? MR. CRIST-No. MR. STONE-Okay. Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes. I’m also in favor of it. I think the way Mr. Crist runs his business is obvious by the way it looks. I mean, the way it looks is an indication of what the future development would be like. I think that’s an indication of a project that’s not only is good for the Town, in terms of the way it presents itself, but it gives us an opportunity to stray a little bit from the variance, because I’m confident that you’ll do the best job possible with that building. So I’d be in favor of it. MR. STONE-Jaime? MR. HAYES-I agree. I think this is an easy one. It’s minimal relief. The 2.8% is relatively minor, if not inconsequential, I think, in this particular case. There’s no visual impact from the road, as most of the Board members alluded to. You won’t be able to see it. I don’t think you can see it now, and you certainly couldn’t see it unless you were really looking for it. The overall project itself fits the property, in my opinion, the way it’s laid out. It is a heavy traffic corridor there, Route 9 certainly, and finally, even with the variance, there’s been stormwater accommodations made to make sure we’re handling this stormwater on site, I guess, and to me that’s important. We’ve applied some science here where we can, and that’s going to alleviate certainly whatever that 2.8% might accommodate or produce. So, in this particular case, I think it passes the test. MR. STONE-Chuck? MR. MC NULTY-Well, it looks like you clearly have got enough votes, and I’ll agree with everything that’s been said, as far as the site looking nice and all of that, but on general principal, I’m going to be opposed. It strikes me that this site is almost fully utilized and I don’t really see a lot of justification to allow it to be over utilized. I mean, 2.8%, no, it’s not much, but if it’s not much, take 2.8% off the building. It just depends on which side you put the little tad, whether we grant a little tad of a variance or whether the applicant takes a little bit off his building to make it comply. I think that point has to be made. So, for that reason, I’m going to be in the negative. MR. STONE-Okay. I will side with the majority of the Board. Mr. McNulty makes a good point, but I think it’s far overweighed by the fact that it is small relief, but I am more persuaded because my first concern was the composition of the driving area, because we have pointed out many times over the years that I’ve been on the Board, that in Queensbury, gravel is not permeable. A driving surface is not permeable because eventually it packs down. I suspect that the majority of these spaces don’t see a car from one year to the next. People put stuff, and if they’re like me, they probably forget it. So I think that while we technically have a permeability situation, I just don’t think it’s a terrible thing, and I am persuaded by the accommodation of Mr. Crist to at least make a couple of spaces available for larger storage. You never mentioned toys like boats, but I assume that’s what we’re talking about, and that’s one of the problems we 16 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/15/04) have. We have a lot of toys in this Town, and if we can get them out of sight, I think we’re well ahead of the game. So, having said that, I need a motion to approve. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 92-2004 WILLIAM CRIST D/B/A A-2000 SELF-STORAGE, Introduced by Roy Urrico who moved for its adoption, seconded by Paul Hayes: 1025 State Route 9. The applicant is proposing to construct a 5100 square foot self-storage building, in addition to the four existing self-storage buildings. In doing so, the applicant requests 2.8% relief from the 30% minimum permeability requirement of the HC-INT. zone, per 179-4-039. In putting this to the test that we’re required to pass it through before approving this, the benefit to the applicant, whether the benefit to the applicant can be achieved by other feasible means, that is true, it could be a shorter building, but I think the applicant has demonstrated to us that in order to accommodate some customers that I’m presuming have requested or need this extra space to back trailers into it, that the longer building is there to satisfy that demand. As far as whether there’ll be an undesirable change to the neighborhood character or to nearby properties, based on what we’ve seen so far, there’s no undesirable change. In fact it’s very desirable property that’s well maintained, well kept, and we assume that that will be the case for this newer building as well. The request is not substantial, 2.8% relief from the 30% minimum permeability requirement is not substantial, and given the fact that this will be gravel, even though in our definition it’s considered a non-permeable surface, given the lack of ongoing traffic, continuous traffic on this, we don’t think that’ll get packed down to the degree that a more traveled road might. It doesn’t have an adverse physical or environmental effect, and I would say the difficulty is self-created, but it’s self-created because of apparently a well run business that is requiring some expansion. So I move that we approve this Area Variance. Duly adopted this 15 day of December, 2004, by the following vote: th AYES: Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Stone NOES: Mr. McNulty ABSENT: Mr. Underwood MR. STONE-There you go, gentlemen. AREA VARIANCE NO. 93-2004 SEQRA TYPE II DAVID AND LYNDA JOHNSON AGENT(S): JAMES E. CULLUM OWNER(S): DAVID AND LYNDA JOHNSON ZONING: WR-1A LOCATION: 347 CLEVERDALE ROAD APPLICANT HAS CONSTRUCTED AN 889 SQ. FT. ADDITION, WHICH INCLUDES 257 SQ. FT. OF COVERED PORCHES. THE SIDE SETBACK AND CONTINUATION REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REF. AV 9-2002, AV 68-2004 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING DECEMBER 8, 2004 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY YES LOT SIZE: 0.47 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 226.12-1-48 SECTION 179-13-010(A1, 2): 179-4-030 JAMES CULLUM, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 93-2004, David and Lynda Johnson, Meeting Date: December 15, 2004 “Project Location: 347 Cleverdale Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant has constructed a 924 sq. ft. addition, which includes 257 sq. ft. of covered porches. The applicant proposes to remove the 5’ x 7’ covered porch on the south side of the structure. Relief Required: Applicant requests 8.08 feet of relief from the 20-foot minimum side setback requirement per § 179-4-030 for the WR-1A zone. Additionally, relief is needed from the continuation section of the code, per § 179-13-010(A1, A2 and E). Note: Relief from A2 is approximately 79.5 sq. ft. in addition to the 809.5 sq. ft. expansion allowed for this project. 17 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/15/04) Parcel History (construction/site plan, variance, etc.): AV 9-2002: denied 06/19/02, side setback relief and relief for the expansion of a nonconforming structure for a 924 square foot residential addition. AV 9-2002: tabled 03/27/02, side setback relief and relief for the expansion of a nonconforming structure for a 889 sq. ft. residential addition. AV 9-2002: tabled 02/27/02, side setback relief and relief for expansion of a nonconforming structure for a 889 sq. ft. residential addition. BP 99-709: 11/22/99, 2,226 sq. ft. residential addition/renovation. SP 43-99: 09/21/99, expansion in a CEA for a 924 sq. ft. residential addition. Staff comments: The applicant proposes to remove the 5’ x 7’ covered porch on the south side of the dwelling resulting in a side setback of 11.92 feet, which requires 8.08 feet of relief from the 20-foot minimum side setback requirement. Additional relief is required from the continuation section of the code, § 179-13-010(A1, A2 and E). The relief required from § 179-13-010(A2) has been determined by staff to be approximately 79.5 sq. ft. (the original dwelling footprint was approximately 1,619 sq. ft. before the expansion; 50% of 1,619 sq. ft. equals 809.5 sq. ft.; 889 sq. ft. is the approximately expansion minus the 5’ x 7’ covered porch proposed to be removed).” MR. MC NULTY-And this was referred to Warren County, and they came back with a No County Impact. MR. STONE-Let me ask Staff a question. Bruce, is there any reason that the denial of Area Variance on September 15, 2004 is not included in the history? MR. FRANK-I have the denial on 6/19. I’ll have to look at the history that was provided to me. MR. STONE-That’s ’02. This is ’04 we’re talking about. MR. STONE-We’ve got a green sheet that was provided by Staff, talking about a tabling on August 18, of Area Variance 68-2004. It’s a different number, but it’s the same parcel, and th should we not have that in this history? That’s my only comment. MR. FRANK-Well, you’re all are familiar with it. So you know, I think it’s an oversight that it was not put in there. I mean, that’s why they’re here again. MR. STONE-I understand, but the parcel history should reflect that Area Variance 68-2004, September 15, 2004, was denied. Okay. Mr. Cullum, you’re on. One other comment. In the statement by the applicant, it says, under Number Two, be improved by the quality of the building which has been constructed in accordance with all Codes. No, it has not been constructed in accordance with the Zoning Code. Yes, the building codes you’re right, but not all Codes. MR. CULLUM-Thank you. That’s what we meant. MR. STONE-Well, words have a way of turning up sometimes. MR. CULLUM-I wouldn’t be here if they were in accordance with the zoning. MR. STONE-I realize that. Go ahead, sir. MR. CULLUM-As you know, this has been on your docket for a couple of years, and this year twice, and in the interest of time, unless you have an objection, I’ll treat the records of those proceedings as part of this proceeding. MR. STONE-Sure. MR. CULLUM-And also along the same lines, Mr. and Mrs. Johnson aren’t here. When we were here in August, we specifically asked if it was all right for them not to be here, and I think the entire Board agreed that they didn’t have to be here, and that’s the only reason they’re not here. Briefly, and just in case anyone’s forgotten the details of how this all came about, the Johnsons hired a contractor. They hired an engineer. The engineer made a mistake in his map, 18 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/15/04) and had them within the setback provisions, in compliance with the setback provisions, when in fact they were not. The building was constructed. It was inspected all the way along. Of course there was a building permit. A CO was granted. There was final inspections, and at some point, one of the Town representatives said, you know, this looks close to the line. Why don’t you get a survey, and they did, and at that point, it was discovered how close to the line they were. No one had said anything about that before. The Johnsons didn’t know it was close to the line, as the inspectors didn’t know. During the course of construction, the contractor asked them if they wanted a porch over this, outside their side door in the new section, and they said, yes, that would be fine. That was never on the approval plans that were approved in the beginning. Mistake Number One. I will point out to you that, besides just that occasion with the builder suggesting that to them, I want you to understand that it was easy for them to do that because they took down a side porch when they did this building, and I think that may have been lost in the whole thing here, is that there was a much bigger side porch there. Of course it was within the setback, but that was taken down . So they’re thinking, well, sure, let’s have another one there. They thought they were also within the setbacks, and so it didn’t seem like a big thing to them at the time. That was a mistake. That’s the way it went. There was no compromise, as I mentioned to you a few months ago, at the time, because of another mistake by us. We thought we were going to be successful here and we weren’t, and no compromise of taking off this side porch was ever made. In the meantime, during the course of the litigation, the time to do anything to the engineer who made the mistake ran, the Statute of Limitations. So there was nothing to do there, during, while we were still in the successful position at the Article 78 thing, and besides that, there wouldn’t have been any lawsuit against him. It’s just not the way to do things, and the Johnsons wouldn’t have done that, and I agree with that. So we’re here to see if we can correct that now, and we have this application for this variance. Maybe I should mention that, also as a way of refreshing everyone’s recollection, and those who weren’t here in August and September. In August we made this precise application that’s before you tonight, and we got through the whole evening, and the whole hearing, and the point was raised, do we really have to take this porch off, why not just leave it there. The consequences are insignificant, and so my personal feeling was that this Board may have gone along with that right then and there, except Staff raised the question, well, we didn’t have a notice to the public that we were going to leave the porch there. So let’s bring this back next month and look at it again. In the meantime, it was suggested that the plans be changed with the porch that is still there, but put some trees around it to shield it a little bit, and that was done, and then we came back in August, thinking and hoping, praying, that we would get that relief of leaving the porch on, and it was denied. So that’s how it all came about. In a nutshell, again, I don’t want to be too repetitious here, but our position with respect to the criteria that you are bound by in the Town Law and the Zoning Ordinance have all been met, in our view. There is no undesirable change to the surrounding area or the neighborhood, and there is no detriment to the nearby properties. The neighbors have all stated that, if you, you may recall that there was a pre-existing garage and carport and shed there, that are still closer to the line than this porch is. So there really is no detriment to the neighborhood, and no undesirable change here. Secondly, is there a feasible alternative? We’re here not only for the porch, actually. Technically we’re here for the whole addition to the property. There is no feasible alternative because you’d have to rip this house down. There isn’t any way you could take off part of this. Most of it would be gone. So, since it’s already built, under the circumstances that I described to you, there is no feasible alternative. Is it a substantial variance? Percentage wise I guess it would be. I don’t know where that line is drawn, but I submit to you that what we’re looking for is eight feet, under these circumstances, and the way that is situated on the ground up there, it’s not really much. It doesn’t affect anyone. The argument can be made, well, these neighbors on the south side, they aren’t bothered by it. They like the addition. They like the changes, but who knows, they may not be there years from now. Well, I think it’s unreasonable to conclude that any neighbor would object to what is there right now, because it’s just an unobjectionable piece of work. MR. STONE-Mr. Cullum, are you arguing for leaving the porch or for the application that we have before us? 19 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/15/04) MR. CULLUM-You may notice that my application, because of my experience here this year, my application is for removing the porch, in the alternative of leaving the porch. That’s written on our application. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. CULLUM-So, substantial that we don’t feel that it is. Whether it has a significant impact on the environment, or the physical conditions of the property. Again, we say there’s no evidence of that. Every neighbor has said it’s an improvement. I think most of the Board members, those here and others who have heard this over the last few years, have all said on the record what an improvement this is. So there really is no adverse impact on the neighborhood. Finally, is it self-created? Yes, it is. I would have argued, and I did argue at some point, that it wasn’t, but I’m ready to admit that when you have an agent who makes a mistake, that’s your problem, but as I stated earlier, I don’t think any Board is bound by that factor alone as being controlling. It is simply a factor, and under the circumstances here where self-created was unintentionally self-created, it shouldn’t be the deciding factor. So, with all that having been said, I would ask you to grant this variance by allowing the removal of the porch, but I would also ask you to consider leaving the porch for the same reasons I’ve stated over and over again. MR. STONE-If you’re done, I just want to remind you of something. We denied the original application because we thought it encroached too much on the thing. The Johnsons, in their wisdom, went to court, filed an Article 78. The local judge agreed with them, and we appealed it, and it was dramatically overturned, if that’s a correct word. I mean, it was decisive. MR. CULLUM-It is not a correct term. MR. STONE-No, I realize that, decisively overturned. MR. CULLUM-It was erroneously overturned. MR. STONE-We’re not going there, but the point is, so the proposal that you would like to have on the table, leave it alone, would take us back two years when we originally denied this particular application. I mean, that’s very simple, but that would be the fact. MR. CULLUM-To leave it alone, yes, you’re correct. MR. STONE-I have one other technical question, and, Bruce, you’ll have to answer this. I know we’re seeking 8.08 feet of relief. Does that, would the steps on the front porch fall within that, it’s always been a concern of mine. MR. FRANK-The steps on the front porch? MR. STONE-Yes, they’re constructed. MR. MC NULTY-The left side porch. MR. CULLUM-They’re further away from the line than. MR. STONE-That’s what I don’t know, because it doesn’t even show on the drawing. That’s one of the reasons. MR. CULLUM-The last, in September when we were here, we had something to show that. They were further away than. MR. STONE-Okay. Here it is. That’s all I care about, because that wouldn’t be the controlling factor. 20 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/15/04) MR. CULLUM-You had asked that, and we looked into that. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. FRANK-Mr. Chairman, just for the record, what Mr. Cullum stated was accurate. The Staff notes also, how they got deleted, I don’t know, but the tabling motion on the 18 of August of th this year was for an 889 square foot addition, because that’s what he was proposing at the time. The same as tonight, when there was some, however it came to be, I wasn’t there, but when there was some kind of discussion about leaving the 5 by 7 foot porch, that’s when it was then proposed at a 924 square foot addition, which you pointed out on September 15 of this year, th which was denied. So, again, I’m glad you’re asking the applicant what he’s proposing now, because if he was to all of a sudden decide, if he would consider again to keep it, we’d be right back where we were in September, in August. MR. STONE-Right. MR. CULLUM-We wouldn’t be right back where we were because in August, we were worried about no notice having been given to the public, but there was a notice given to the public about leaving it there that was returnable in September and there was no one here to object to it. Nobody objected to it. MR. FRANK-Well, the way that this has been advertised for this meeting, and I’ll be glad to read it to you, it’s for an 889 square foot addition. So if you do choose, now, or if anybody wants to propose it or suggests that why don’t we keep it, I don’t see that happening, but if it does, it would not be what was advertised. This was advertised for an 889 square foot addition. That does not include the 5 by 7 foot porch. MR. CULLUM-I know it doesn’t say that, but we’ve already had it advertised it for September. MR. STONE-And when we denied it. MR. FRANK-And that was a different application under a different number. MR. CULLUM-It’s the same property. We could go on forever here. That’s why I put it in the alternative here. MR. ABBATE-Counselor, I’m assuming you read the minutes of our last meeting, and you realize I paid you a high compliment. Do you recall that? MR. CULLUM-Yes, thank you. MR. ABBATE-You do. So your request then, in the description of the proposed project, the 924 square foot, which includes the 257 square foot covered porches, and then you proposed to remove the 5 by 7 covered porch on the south side of the structure, would be following that advice I just gave you. MR. STONE-What is, when this porch is removed, what will be there? MR. CULLUM-Two steps, just to get out the door. I think there’s two. MR. STONE-I mean, the problem we got into back in August was the building code. Now, isn’t that right, Bruce? MR. FRANK-I don’t know what problem you got into back in August. Steps can encroach on the setback, I can tell you that. If they’re not covered, steps can encroach on the setback. MR. STONE-Okay, but you have to have them, but you can have two steps without anything. Okay, because that was a question that came up, as I remember. 21 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/15/04) MR. CULLUM-It did come up, but I don’t think that’s the same advice we got at the time. I think it can encroach on the setback. MR. STONE-That’s not what I’m referring to. The fact that, is it enough to have just two steps? MR. BRYANT-Mr. Chairman, the discussion the last time was, and Craig was here, Mr. Brown was here, and he indicated that they may need a stoop, a landing, plus the steps, but if you go into building code, I think you’re required to have, it has to be so much off the ground before you need a landing. MR. ABBATE-A little platform, right. That’s correct, Allan. MR. BRYANT-Okay, and the fact that he’s got two steps would indicate that he’s got less than 12 inches to the ground. So I don’t think that’s even part of the discussion at this point. MR. STONE-Okay. Good. Okay. Any other questions. MR. URRICO-I just don’t know which application we’re discussing. MR. STONE-We’re dealing with 93-2004, removal of a 35 square foot porch, and obviously replacing it with a stoop which does not encroach, by definition. MR. URRICO-Okay. MR. STONE-Is that a reasonable statement for everybody? MR. ABBATE-That’s quite accurate, Mr. Chairman. MR. BRYANT-Mr. Chairman, I just want to add something, just a clarification of how we got to this application at this stage of the game. I think you made the point that the porch was originally not included in the building plans, in the original permit, and it came as an afterthought, and we, as a Board, if I recall correctly, recognized that you can’t tear the house down. It would be an unreasonable request. So, in August, I believe what we said was, remove the porch because it wasn’t included in the original drawings, and, even though we still have setback requirements and continuation requirements to deal with, there’s really nothing we can do at this point. The house is built, and I think that was, at least I know that was my attitude. MR. CULLUM-You’re close, but my view of it accurately was this. In August we were here with the take the porch off approach, but after a thorough discussion at the Board, the idea was advance to leave the porch there. That isn’t even what we applied for. MR. BRYANT-I’m conveying my own, after reading, re-reading the minutes, my own interpretation of it as far as I’m concerned. I was not in favor of ever leaving the porch there, from Day One, when we started this whole discussion, simply because I recognize it was an honest mistake by the Johnsons that they really had no control over it, but ultimately they’re responsible for it, and that porch was not on the original drawings, and that’s the best we can do at this point, and I still maintain that understanding of the whole problem. MR. STONE-Fine. That’s good. Any other questions of Mr. Cullum, before I open the public hearing? Okay. Let me open the public hearing. Anybody wishing to speak on this application, which, for clarification, is the removal of a 5 by 7 foot covered porch and therefore a need for relief of 8.08 feet from the existing side setback requirement. Does everybody agree with that? MR. ABBATE-Absolutely. MR. STONE-Okay. Is there any correspondence? 22 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/15/04) MR. MC NULTY-No correspondence. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. STONE-Let’s talk about it. Let’s start with Mr. Abbate. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you. The Chairman is right. The description of the proposed project is quite clear, very specific, and that Mr. and Mrs. Johnson have constructed a 924 square foot addition, which includes a 257 square foot of covered porches, and they also, Mr. and Mrs. Johnson that is, propose to remove the 5 by 7 foot covered porch on the south side of the structure, and they’re asking for 8.08 feet of relief from the 20 foot minimum side setback. Therein is the, if you will, what we have to take a look at, and, Mr. Chairman, I remember everything that went on, and it’s unfortunate. However, the applicant has agreed to remove the 5 by 7 covered porch. The house is already built. I mean, we don’t want an overkill, for shoplifting, we certainly don’t want to recommend the death penalty, here. I would probably go for a motion to approve the description of the proposed project, Mr. Chairman. MR. STONE-Thank you. Allan? MR. BRYANT-I’ll stand by what I said in August, in that if the porch was removed, that I would approve the project. MR. STONE-Roy? MR. URRICO-I would be in favor of the project as stated in the application. MR. STONE-Jaime? MR. HAYES-I voted for the project before, and I would vote for it again now. MR. STONE-Chuck? MR. MC NULTY-I can basically say ditto. This is one of those projects, if it had been presented to us before it was built, I would probably have said no, but given that it’s built, and it was an honest mistake, and it would be a significant hardship on the applicant if he would have to modify the entire addition to meet the setback, I think the balance, for that part of it, falls to the applicant. Removal of the small porch, which is the real violation, or the greatest violation of the setback, I think is reasonable. That’s a doable thing. So, as long as the porch is removed, I’ll be in favor. MR. STONE-Joyce? MRS. HUNT-Thank you. Yes. I think we need some closure on this. It’s been going on for a couple of years, and I would be in favor of the application of removing the five by seven porch. MR. STONE-Well, bottom line is I would go along with that, too, but I just want to make just a couple of statements about, we have a responsibility to the Town and our Zoning Code, and that’s why when we were presented with this thing originally, a house, for whatever reason, built in violation, strong violation, if you will, of our Zoning Code, we, as a Board, said we would not grant the variance that was requested of the after built structure. We have gotten to the point, after a long time, as Mrs. Hunt just said, it’s been a long time, but we’re at a point where change has been made in this offending property, and one could argue it’s too much. 23 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/15/04) One could argue it’s not enough, but I think that’s what we, as a Board, have felt, and, having said that, I need a motion to approve the variance, as requested. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 93-2004 DAVID AND LYNDA JOHNSON, Introduced by Paul Hayes who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Abbate: 347 Cleverdale Road. The applicant has constructed a 924 square foot addition, which includes a 257 square foot of covered porches. At this time, the applicant is proposing to remove the five by seven covered porch on the south side of the structure. The relief that is required at this point would be that the applicant requests 8.08 feet of relief from the 20 foot minimum side setback requirement per Section 179-4-030 for the WR-1A zone. Additionally, relief is needed for the Continuation Section of the Code per Section 179-13-010(A1, A2, E). The relief for A2 is approximately 79.5 square feet, in addition to the 809 square foot expansion allowed for this project. Considering the test for an Area Variance, it is the Board’s opinion, in this particular case, that the approval of this variance would not have an adverse impact on the character of the neighborhood or the safety or welfare of the community in this particular case. Several, if not many, of the houses, are camps on the lake in this particular case, do need dimensional relief, are close to their property lines. Traveling through this area by vehicle, one would note that many of the buildings, including accessory buildings, are at or near property lines in this particular case, which means that the project as completed would be in line or similar in character to other buildings in the neighborhood specifically. Are there feasible alternatives to this Variance? I believe that the feasible alternatives are very limited in this particular case, because, one, the camp has been constructed to remove the portion of the property that is in the setback in this particular case, would be catastrophic for the applicant. I think that’s the only way to describe it. They would be required to tear down most, if not all, of the addition or usable portion of the addition in a way that I think would exceed practicality, or, in this case, exceed the detriment that it’s actually providing to the neighborhood, if there is any detriment in this particular case. Is the amount of relief substantial to the Ordinance? I would say in this case it’s moderate. 8.8 feet of relief is less than 50% of their setback requirement. Certainly, in this particular case, eight feet out of twenty is not minimal, but I do believe, in this particular case, it’s moderate, particularly when viewed as in correspondence to the other properties in the neighborhood in this particular case. The applicant has proposed to remove the porch, as requested by this Board, which is reducing the amount of relief that is sought by the applicant, and in this particular case I think the Board views that very favorably, that some compromise has been made to reduce the violation to the extent possible without actually getting into the structure of the camp. Will it have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood? For reasons I’ve already stated, I think in this particular case no. Having been to most of the hearings on this matter, I would say it’s safe to group or to characterize the opinion of the public and the neighbors that the addition was an improvement to the house, to the home, to the character of the neighborhood, in this particular case, and in my opinion it is an attractive addition. The camp needed to be improved. I guess when I balance all these factors, in this particular case, I should say, as Mr. Cullum has stipulated, that of course the difficulty was self-created, but I think that’s partially mitigated by the fact that an honest mistake was made. The Johnsons were not attempting to just construct this camp willfully into the setback area. I believe that an honest mistake was made by their professionals that they employed. Are they responsible for that? The fact that it was a mistake I think has to be factored into the balancing test in this particular case. So I think it somewhat mitigates that as a negative in this balancing test we’re required to examine. If I examine all those factors cumulatively, I think in this particular case the benefit to the applicant does, with the removal of the porch, does outweigh any detriment to the character of the surrounding community or neighborhood in this particular case, which I find to be minimal. So, for those reasons, I would move for its approval. Duly adopted this 15 day of December, 2004, by the following vote: th MR. STONE-Does everybody understand? 24 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/15/04) MR. BRYANT-Mr. Chairman, I understand, but I disagree with the statement that the, the fact that it was an honest mistake should be factored into the balancing test. I don’t think that has anything to do with the balancing test, but anyway, that’s my comment relative to the motion. MR. STONE-Okay. AYES: Mr. Bryant, Mr. Urrico, Mr. McNulty, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Stone NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Underwood MR. STONE-And before you leave, this is for the record. This is for the minutes, because the minutes do get posted. I want it known that, as a queen once said, the Board is not amused by after the fact variances, and in this particular case, I think we did a good thing as far as the community is concerned, not as far as the Johnsons are concerned, but I want to put people on note, that we really, really, really don’t like after the fact variances, and this is no effect on the one that’s coming up, guys, I don’t mean it that way, I know we’ve got one next, but I don’t want people to go build and then expect to come and get a variance, and I just want it in the record, for the purposes of the public who might read the minutes. Thank you. MR. CULLUM-Thank you. MR. ABBATE-Mr. Cullum, consider this a Christmas present. I think that’s what the Chairman was trying to say. MR. CULLUM-Thank you. MR. ABBATE-Good tactics, too. AREA VARIANCE NO. 94-2004 SEQRA TYPE II NICKOLE STEVENSON WEATHERWAX OWNER(S): NICKOLE STEVENSON WEATHERWAX ZONING RR-3A LOCATION 62 ELLSWORTH LANE APPLICANT HAS PLACED A 1,067 SQ. FT. DOUBLE-WIDE MOBILE HOME WITH A 320 SQ. FT. ATTACHED GARAGE ON THE PROPERTY. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM THE FRONT AND SIDE YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REF. TOWN BOARD REVIEW, MH BUILDING PERMIT PENDING WARREN COUNTY PLANNING DECEMBER 8, 2004 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY YES LOT SIZE: 2.33 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 265.00-1-17 SECTION 179-4-030 NICKOLE WEATHERWAX, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 94-2004, Nickole Stevenson Weatherwax, Meeting Date: December 15, 2004 “Project Location: 62 Ellsworth Lane Description of Proposed Project: The applicant desires to obtain a building permit and certificate of occupancy for a 1,067 sq. ft. doublewide mobile home and a 273 sq. ft. attached storage addition placed prior to the applicant’s purchase. Relief Required: The applicant is requesting 5 inches of relief from the 50-foot minimum front setback requirement and 3 feet of relief from the 30-foot minimum side setback requirement of the RR-3A zone, per § 179-4-030. However, staff has determined the relief required for the front setback to be approximately 24 feet. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): None. Staff comments: The applicant claims a mobile home was replaced with the existing doublewide mobile home in 1996 on a foundation constructed in 1971. The applicant purchased the property in October of 1999. A 2004 assessment of the property by the Town of Queensbury Assessment Department informed the Department of Building and Codes of the dwelling change. A review of Town records by Building and Codes revealed no building permit exists for the newer dwelling. Before a building permit can be issued for the dwelling, front and side setback relief must be granted. 25 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/15/04) The applicant has requested 5 inches of relief from the front setback requirement. However, staff has determined approximately 24 feet of relief is required from the front setback requirement. The deed submitted by the applicant describes the west property line as being in the center of Ellsworth Road, which is approximately 50 feet from the dwelling. However, the deed describes the parcel prior to the Town acquiring a 50-foot wide strip of land for the existing road right-of-way. Staff located the northwest and southwest corner markers for the property. A 2003 survey of a neighboring parcel (for David and Janet Jenkins by Donald Pidgeon) located the southwest corner of the Weatherwax parcel. Based on field measurements and the Jenkins survey, staff has determined the front setback to be approximately 26 feet, which would require 24 feet of front setback relief. The applicant’s request for 3 feet of side setback relief appears to be required.” MR. MC NULTY-Referred to Warren County. No County Impact. MR. STONE-Okay. You’re on. MS. WEATHERWAX-My name is Nickole Stevenson Weatherwax. I think it’s pretty obvious what I’m here for. I purchased this house in 1999. It was up for foreclosure. I bought it in Warren County, through an auction, and I was completely unaware that there was no building permit. This year recently, in August, I was notified by Dave Hatin that there was no such thing. So I’m just here trying to comply with the local laws. MR. STONE-You’re starting the process. MS. WEATHERWAX-Yes. This is the first step. MR. STONE-Yes. Bruce, do you have any comments about the location, besides what you’ve written? MR. FRANK-No. I just want to make a note that I did speak with the applicant on her property, when I located the corners, and I discussed with her what she thought the front property line was. The deed does accurately describe the west property line as the center of Ellsworth Road, which is about 50 feet from the closest portion of that dwelling. So I can see why she thought she only needed a few inches of relief. Obviously, a lot of people aren’t aware of where their property lines lie. If they don’t have a survey, I do have a survey here, if the Board wants to look at it, it’s for a neighboring parcel, it’s from a couple of years ago, very accurately shows all the property corners along Ellsworth Road. So, I feel confident that the relief that I need is accurate and I think she concurred with what I said. MS. WEATHERWAX-Yes. Dave Hatin had gotten me an old, I think it was the 60’s, you know, from, it’s, I think, from Van Dusen and Steves, and that described, or that shows in there, it’s 591.6 or something feet from the, so we measured up the back line to the front, and that’s how we got our measurement, but now the Town paved the road, took it over. So it’s been changed since then, which we weren’t aware of. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. BRYANT-I just want to understand something here. The original foundation that the house is on now was built in 1971? MS. WEATHERWAX-Yes, from what you have on record. MR. BRYANT-Okay. MS. WEATHERWAX-That’s where I’m getting that from. MR. BRYANT-And you put this new trailer on there in 1999? 26 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/15/04) MS. WEATHERWAX-No. I bought this house from a foreclosure in 1999. MR. BRYANT-So it was already there. You bought it already. MS. WEATHERWAX-The previous owners had done all this. MR. BRYANT-Okay. MS. WEATHERWAX-I just bought it as is. The only thing that my husband and I had done, when we bought it, and that was just so that we could buy it, was put the front porch on and the stairs in the back, and that’s it. Everything else was as it sits. MR. BRYANT-Is there any, Mr. Frank, is there any permit on record for, you say none, there’s no Parcel History, but there was no permit on record for the ’99 construction? MR. FRANK-Because it’s smaller than what’s necessary for a building permit. You’re allowed, like any accessory structure, even a deck, if it’s less than 120 square feet, you don’t need a building permit for it. It’s well under 120 square feet. MR. BRYANT-You’re talking about the porch? MR. FRANK-The little landing, that’s correct. MR. BRYANT-Okay, but what about the actual trailer? The trailer was put there in 1996? I’m not understanding this whole thing, the way it’s described. The original trailer was replaced in 1996? MR. FRANK-That’s correct, in 1996. MR. MC NULTY-Without a building permit or any permissions. MR. BRYANT-Without a permit. MR. FRANK-Not by the applicant, by the previous owners. She purchased it in 1999. MR. BRYANT-Okay. MR. FRANK-How it went unnoticed, I don’t know. MR. BRYANT-Okay. Now I understand. MR. STONE-So, as I understand from Dave Hatin’s letter of October 29, this is the beginning th step in the process to get the variance, to have it there, then to get it inspected, get a building permit and everything else that goes on downstairs. MR. FRANK-That’s correct. The applicant will still have to appear before the Town Board to get a permit for a mobile home outside a Mobile Home Overlay Zone. So, that’s another additional step. MR. STONE-Okay. So this is the first step, and what we’re saying, if we’re saying that we think the house where it’s located, on balance, which is what our job, I mean, the applicant is asking us to say, let me leave it where it is, and grant me the relief necessary to leave it where it is, in light of the new, the information. It hasn’t changed, but the numbers have changed, so to speak. MR. HAYES-Did you have an attorney for your closing, when you bought this? MS. WEATHERWAX-A bank attorney. 27 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/15/04) MR. HAYES-It was your attorney, too, then, the sellers. MS. WEATHERWAX-Yes, and I called the Title Insurance Company and they said they did not deal with any Town Codes. I was here representing myself, in respect to this. I don’t think that, it’s a big relief, because it’s been there, and actually I sent a petition around my neighborhood, all my neighbors have signed it. They have no objections to leaving it where it is. MR. HAYES-I think you’re doing very well, but if you had an attorney at the closing, you would have made a mistake, I think, at this point. MS. WEATHERWAX-He should have noticed. MR. STONE-Might have noticed it, yes. Might have. MS. WEATHERWAX-That’s what I say, I was unaware that there was no building permit, or Certificate of Occupancy. MR. STONE-In other words, you bought a home on good faith, and moved in. MS. WEATHERWAX-Yes. MR. ABBATE-Well, I’ve got a comment here. I like to treat everybody the same, and I growl. So I’m going to growl at you, too. You have a duty and responsibility to determine what the restrictions are when you purchase property. Now, perhaps an honest mistake was made and it was brought up by one of the Board members that there was an attorney who apparently was the bank attorney who should have checked out all of this. MR. HAYES-Well, he was the seller’s attorney. MR. ABBATE-And he was the seller’s attorney, of course, and he represents the seller, but as I said earlier, I think in the Applebee case, they have a duty and a responsibility to determine what the restrictions are. So maybe this is a lesson that when you purchase something, that you should also perhaps either go to an attorney or check out yourself, what the restrictions are in a particular community. So you’re not completely blameless on this. MS. WEATHERWAX-Well, as my first time buying a home, I was unaware. MR. ABBATE-But do you agree you’re not completely blameless on this, and if you do, I won’t growl. MS. WEATHERWAX-My point is I bought it as is. I didn’t do anything. MR. STONE-Right. MS. WEATHERWAX-It was not me that put the house there. I just bought it. MR. MC NULTY-To be fair, this happens from time to time. If you’re buying a house that’s been there for a few years, the assumption is that everything’s okay with it. MR. STONE-From a guy who sells real estate. MR. MC NULTY-Yes, but this is an exceptional situation. I mean, it’s not so close to the road that you can stand there and say any idiot would know it’s too close. MR. HAYES-Right, I agree. 28 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/15/04) MR. MC NULTY-It’s within reason. Seems to basically fit with the other homes in the area. So I don’t think it’s really fair to say that the applicant should have checked it in this case. Obviously a mistake was made. MR. ABBATE-Do we say this, do we take that stance that all mistakes that are made before people come before us? MR. MC NULTY-You’ve got to be reasonable. MR. ABBATE-I see. It’s selective enforcement. Well, I’m all for that reasonableness. MR. STONE-We have a young woman before us who’s quaking in her boots, as we do all of this talking. Okay. Any other questions, comments anybody wants to make before I open a public hearing? Then I’ll open the public hearing. Anybody wishing to speak on this subject? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED BILL O’REILLY MR. O’REILLY-My name’s Bill O’Reilly. If you look at the map. I have a piece of property at the end of Ellsworth, down across from Bay. I just wanted to say for the record tonight that I’m not against this particular piece right now, but she’s asking for a very large variance. I’m on the receiving end of anything that comes down Ellsworth Road. Any development that’ll happen up there, and whatever you would grant this particular applicant, if it is allowed for other people further on, they’ll be a detriment to my property. MR. STONE-You’re talking new construction? MR. O’REILLY-Yes. Anything that goes on, any precedent that’s set here tonight or by this Board for the other people on that road, I’m on the receiving end of drainage and those kind of things. MR. STONE-Yes. Well, drainage is something that is handled by the Planning Board and by the Building Department, and you’ve got to contain your own stormwater. That’s a given. Any other situation with new construction would not be governed by anything we do here tonight. We are looking at an existing situation, with mitigating circumstances, and any judgment we make, and I don’t know where we’re going yet, but any judgment we make would be based on this case, and this case only, but we appreciate your comments, and it’s in the record. MR. O’REILLY-Thank you very much. MR. STONE-You’re welcome. Anybody else wishing to speak? Any correspondence? MR. MC NULTY-No correspondence. MR. FRANK-Mr. Chairman, I think the applicant has a correspondence. MR. STONE-Yes, let’s enter that thing. MS. WEATHERWAX-Actually, I think Mr. Mueller has sent you guys something, too. MR. STONE-Did we get a copy? MS. HEMINGWAY-Yes, it’s in the file. MR. MC NULTY-It hasn’t shown up yet. MR. STONE-What was the date? 29 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/15/04) MR. MC NULTY-December 10. th MR. STONE-Why don’t you read it in. MR. MC NULTY-I’ll read it in anyway. It’s addressed to Mr. McNulty. I acknowledge receipt of the public hearing notice in this matter and write to advise that I have no objection to the relief requested. Kindest regards, Robert J. Muller Muller & Muller” And, let’s see, we’ve got the petition. MR. STONE-Is Mr. Muller a neighbor? MS. WEATHERWAX-Yes. MR. STONE-Okay. Well, he’s got his law office. MR. MC NULTY-He’s got his law office. MR. FRANK-He’s one property away to the south. MR. STONE-Okay. Thank you. MR. MC NULTY-And then we have the petition that says, “We are the neighbors of Nickole M. Stevenson-Weatherwax and the home in question at 62 Ellsworth Lane, Tax Map #265.00-1-17. We have received a Public Hearing Notice and understand that Nickole has applied for an Area Variance to comply with the Local Town laws. Relief requested from the front and side yard setback requirements. We have no objections to the relief requested as this home as been in the same spot for many years and there has been no discrepancies as to where the home has been placed on the property. Let it be known that Nickole purchased this home from an auction as is, in October of Nineteen Ninety-Nine.” And it’s signed by it looks like at least eight of her neighbors. MR. STONE-Okay. Next time you do this, and I hope there’s not a next time, get their addresses. It just makes it easier so we know exactly where they are. They say they’re your neighbors, and that’s fine, but it would be nice to have things. Okay. Anything else? MR. MC NULTY-That’s it. MR. STONE-Let me close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. BRYANT-I have one question. MR. STONE-Go ahead, Al. MR. BRYANT-Are you living in the house now? MS. WEATHERWAX-Yes. MR. STONE-That’s it? MR. BRYANT-That’s it. MR. STONE-Okay. Well, let’s talk about it. We’ll start with you, Al. MR. BRYANT-When I looked at the original, the application, the five inches doesn’t appear to be much, and the three feet, 10 percent of the 30 feet, doesn’t appear to be much. However, if 30 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/15/04) this 24 foot request is almost 50% of the allowable setback. I don’t know what the solution is, but it’s not something that I would vote in favor of. MR. STONE-Okay. Roy? MR. URRICO-I think this is an unfortunate situation created by mitigating circumstances, as you stated earlier. I think she went into this situation expecting that to be a legitimate home. I think almost anybody would have been in the same situation, would assume that a house that’s existing would already have a building permit, and I think it’s a tragedy that she has to go through this at this point. I’d be in favor of it. I think we want to get this through the system and let her get on with her life. MR. STONE-Jaime? MR. HAYES-I essentially agree. I think one of the important things to state for the members of the public that have spoken tonight is that we here entertain all applications as individual applications with different fact patterns and different mitigating circumstances. In this particular case I think the mitigating circumstances are enough to carry the test for the applicant, even though certainly the relief is moderate to, you know, important in this particular case, but I think the damage that was done to the setback or dimensional relief in this particular case was done back in like ’77 or ’71 when that foundation was constructed, and I think that some of the things that have happened since then really have to do with that, and some honest mistakes here. So, in terms of construction in the future, if it was just somebody who had raw land and wanted to do this type of setback thing, I know, myself, would not be in favor of it, and I doubt anybody else on the Board would either, to alleviate your concerns. They have had a chance to meet the requirements they should, and I think that’s how it would be viewed. So, in this particular case, I don’t see any detriment to the neighborhood by allowing this house to stay where it is now in this particular case. I don’t think it’s as inconsistent with the neighborhood as to make it a problem for everyone in the neighborhood, and then when I consider that with the set of circumstances, that this difficulty was not entirely self-created, it was created after a number of circumstances, I think that, in my opinion, as Roy pointed out, I think the test falls in favor of the applicant. This is a problem that needs to be resolved one way or the other. MR. STONE-Chuck? MR. MC NULTY-Okay. I think, bottom line, too, that the test falls in favor of the applicant. If this stuck out like a sore thumb as being out of place, I might feel differently, but it may stick out a little bit more than some of the neighboring homes, but not a great deal. So it looks like it’s a reasonable placement where it is. There’s other questions that can be considered here. Obviously the applicant did not know the situation when she purchased the home. It’s been stated that the foundation was built in 1971. I’m not sure when the Town took over ownership of part of the Ellsworth Road. It could be that the foundation originally was compliant. It could be that the Town did not (lost word) Ellsworth Lane at the time the foundation went in. Nevertheless, they probably did when this last modular home was put on the foundation, but anyway, the bottom line is now either the applicant has to endure moving the home or we grant a variance, and in this case I think it’s far more reasonable to grant the variance. I don’t think there’s any detriment to the neighborhood. So, I’d be in favor. MR. STONE-Joyce? MRS. HUNT-I have to agree with Chuck. If ever there was a case where the difficulty was not self-created, this certainly is one, and it does not seem to, it will not change the character of the neighborhood or the other properties, and the neighbors do not seem to be adverse to it, and I would be in favor of the application. MR. STONE-Chuck? 31 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/15/04) MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you. I would be in favor of the application as well. Even though I may growl, but it was obvious from the beginning that there was no intent on your part to any type of dissemination of information. I think, if nothing else, you’ll learn this evening that the ZBA is not a bloodless organization, that we have compassion, and so based on that, Mr. Chairman, I would support the application. MR. STONE-Good. As someone who built a house not that long ago on a road that, at one time, was my property, in a sense, if I had looked at my deed and built according to the property lines, I’d have been in violation, too, probably, because certain roads were not Town roads at one time, and things were built, and all of a sudden they became Town roads and if you weren’t cognizant of that, you could run into a problem. Having said that, I still think even looking at the project, as you come up there, looking at the home, it doesn’t stand out. I think it was Chuck who said it doesn’t stand out. It looks perfectly compliant. We get into these technical things, where’s the road, where’s the property line, but I think, on balance, this is certainly a case where I think we should grant the variance, just keeping in mind the one person who talked, that this is a solitary event, and we’re doing it because it’s, in a sense, the right thing to do. So, having said that, I need a motion to approve. MRS. HUNT-Okay. I’ll make a motion. MR. STONE-Good. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 94-2004 NICKOLE STEVENSON WEATHERWAX, Introduced by Joyce Hunt who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Abbate: 62 Ellsworth Lane. The applicant desires to obtain a building permit and Certificate of Occupancy for a 1,067 square foot double-wide mobile home and a 273 square foot attached storage addition placed prior to the applicant’s purchase. The applicant is requesting 24 feet of relief from the 50 foot minimum front setback requirement and 3 feet of relief from the 30 foot minimum side setback requirement, for the RR-3A zone, per Section 179-4-030. The benefit could not be achieved by any other feasible means. I do not think there would be an undesirable change in the neighborhood character or to nearby properties, and while it’s substantial, it is in conformity with the rest of the neighborhood. It will not have adverse physical or environmental effects and it certainly was not self-created. So I propose we pass Area Variance No. 94-2004. Duly adopted this 15 day of December, 2004, by the following vote: th MS. WEATHERWAX-Can I just make a comment? MR. STONE-Why? MS. WEATHERWAX-I just wanted to say that you are saying that there is a garage, attached garage put on there. That’s actually not, it may not look that way, but that’s actually not what has been done. There was the trailer that was on there previously was longer, and so that part on the cellar before, we just put a roof over the top of it. MR. STONE-Okay, but that’s, all we’re granting is dimensional relief. MS. WEATHERWAX-Okay. MR. FRANK-I don’t think it’s any closer than any part of the structure. I think it’s all about the same. MR. STONE-Yes, that’s what I’m saying. We’re just granting dimensional relief. MS. WEATHERWAX-Okay. Sorry. 32 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/15/04) AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Hayes, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Abbate, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Stone NOES: Mr. Bryant ABSENT: Mr. Underwood MR. STONE-There you go. On with the process. MS. WEATHERWAX-Thank you. SIGN VARIANCE NO. 95-2004 SEQRA TYPE UNLISTED PANERA BREAD AGENT(S): LAVER MANGUSO & ASSOC. ARCHITECTS OWNER(S): NORTHWAY PLAZA ASSOC., LLC ZONING HC-INT. LOCATION 820 STATE ROUTE 9 APPLICANT PROPOSES PLACEMENT OF A 58.25 SQ. FT. WALL SIGN ON THE EAST FAÇADE. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM THE NUMBER OF ALLOWABLE WALL SIGNS FOR A TENANT IN A BUSINESS COMPLEX. CROSS REF. BP 2004-431, BP 2004-479, BP 2004-234, BP 2004-016, SV 61-2004 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING DECEMBER 8, 2004 LOT SIZE 22.87 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 296.18-1-47 SECTION 140-6(B3d4b) JON LAPPER & STEFANIE BITTER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Sign Variance No. 95-2004, Panera Bread, Meeting Date: December 15, 2004 “Project Location: 820 State Route 9 Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to place a 58.25 sq. ft. wall sign on the east façade in addition to the existing 84 sq. ft. wall sign on the south façade. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for an additional wall sign where only one is allowed per tenant, per § 140-6(B3d4b). Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): Several approvals and building permits have been issued to this property. The most recent being a Site Plan Review for the Home Depot and associated site work within the plaza as well as a Sign Variance to the plaza for the oversized freestanding sign at the Route 9 entrance adjacent to the Panera location. History specific to Panera: SV 61-2004: denied 8/25/04, for an additional 84 sq. ft. wall sign. BP 2004-431: 06/10/04, 84 sq. ft. wall sign. Staff comments: The applicant claims the additional wall sign on the east façade would provide its potential customers parked in the Home Depot parking area the ability to locate the store without confusion or difficulty. However, it appears a clear line of sight to the existing wall sign on the south façade exists once access to the plaza is gained from both of the State Route 9 entrances and from the internal drive aisle along the west side of the Traveler’s Insurance building. Even though the existing sign is not visible from the Home Depot parking area, staff wonders what percentage of plaza customers gain access to this parking area from the State Route 9 entrances compared with the east internal drive aisle via the Quaker Road entrance? Would utilizing on-site directional signs or window signs (up to 25% of the window space) on the east façade eliminate confusion or difficulty finding Panera’s location within the plaza? For SV 61-2004, the applicant requested an additional wall sign on the south façade. At that time the applicant had their one allowed wall sign on the east façade facing the interior of the plaza. Staff suggested the applicant place a sign panel on one of the freestanding signs in order to inform south and northbound traffic of their location within the plaza. After having their request for relief denied, the applicant chose to move their one allowed wall sign to its present location. On December 7, 2004, a site visit revealed a “Panera” sign panel has been added to the southernmost freestanding sign. A permit has not been issued for the sign, nor has Panera applied for a freestanding sign permit.” MR. STONE-County? MR. MC NULTY-County, No County Impact. 33 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/15/04) MR. LAPPER-Good evening. For the record, Jon Lapper, Stefanie Bitter, and Frank Snyder, who is the Manager of the Queensbury Panera Bread. As this Board knows from years of practice with us, it’s always our intention to try and strike a compromise, to get the applicant the minimum that they need and to address the issues raised by the Board, and that’s what this application is tonight. We went back to Panera and made the suggestion that if the sign was dramatically reduced in size that that might be something that this Board would reconsider, and in the Staff comments, they were sort of disputing whether we were right about the need for the sign, and I think that if you look at that, at the picture that Bruce has up on the board, looking from the corner, you can clearly see the Panera sign, but when you get out of Home Depot, and I’ll pass these along. When you get out of Home Depot in the parking lot, which holds about 600 cars if I recall, and you look at the building, this is the only door, this is the front door to the restaurant, and you see Empire Vision, and for all you can tell the whole thing is an Empire Vision, and that is, that’s the confusion, that people that are parking in that lot, yes, if they go in and look at the, if they come in from that entrance, sure, you can see the awning and the sign for Panera, but if you’re heading for Home Depot, you get to Home Depot and you get out of Home Depot and you look at this building, you can’t tell what it is, and that addresses the justification, the benefit to the applicant prong of the test, but I think what this whole thing is about is the impact on the neighborhood, and it’s our position that because this building faces away from the road, it is almost invisible, this sign is almost invisible from anywhere off site, and if was completely invisible from off site, we wouldn’t even be here because it would be exempt, a sign which is not visible from off site, under the Queensbury Code, is exempt, and I’ve circled the site from all angles, and I will tell you honestly that when you’re on Quaker Road, when you’re at the Quaker and Route 9 intersection, the Quaker/Glen intersection, you can see the very edge of those signs from the side. You can’t read them, but you can tell that there is some lighted sign panel there. You can’t read the sign, but you can tell that there’s a sign panel. So on that basis, we’re not saying that it’s absolutely invisible, but it is almost invisible, and when you look at the façade of the building, and that picture is really better than ours, everybody, the major tenants all have a sign. They’re not large compared to the size of the façade. They’re appropriately sized. What we’re proposing now at 58 square feet is smaller than those signs, and it’s just the need, on that building, it’ll both balance the building architecturally to have a sign, and it’ll just give customers and indication of where the front door is. Staff’s comment, which was also something the Board discussed last time, that you could have a sign in the window is true. There could be a sign in the window, but because of the distance, the size of this parking lot, 25% of those wall signs, certainly from the perspective of Bruce’s picture, you’re not going to be able to see it. We’re not asking for something very large, at 58 square feet, and again, the principal sign on the south side of the building is 84 square feet, rather than the full 100. So the two together equal 142. Last time we were in here at two times 84, and now it’s substantially less than that. So we’re attempting to compromise, but the main point I was to reiterate is just that we don’t see, because of the direction that this building faces, that there’s any negative impact because it is virtually invisible to anyone off site. So it doesn’t hurt the Town. I recognize, reviewing the minutes from last time, that the Board feels that the two Home Depot signs that you granted were something that, in hindsight, maybe wasn’t as necessary as the sign consultant said, and I just think that that’s a separate issue, and here we’re just talking about this façade sign for Panera, and I think we’ve established that because of the location of, direction of this building, there is a need for a sign for this parking lot. I want to just ask Frank to verify, as the Manager of the store, why he thinks that we need a sign over the door. FRANK SNYDER MR. SNYDER-I think the biggest thing is the visibility. If you look at that sign, like Jon was pointing out, it just blends together like Empire Vision, and Empire Vision used to be in that exact spot. So a lot of people that go there think it’s Empire Vision still. I get, all the time, that, when did you open, you know, Panera does not advertise. It’s word of mouth, and it’s signage, and I only have one sign on my building, and for the people using this Plaza, coming in the other entrances, you cannot see that, and I don’t know too many people that, if they go out that exit, where my sign is, they’re going to turn back around and come back in for food. I have a captive audience there, and I want to get what I can out of that, and another sign, like they said, 34 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/15/04) would be the same size as those, maybe a little smaller, is not, definitely not going to be not appealing. Aesthetically, it’s going to just blend in and make that whole corner work and it really is, you might not think so, but it does impact your business being able to see it from both sides, and I’m just looking for a fair decision here, and all I’m asking for is one more sign to have it on both sides, and I think a fair and consistent decision would be to grant me that sign, so our guests that come into the restaurant know where it is and can identify it and it’s certainly just going to blend in and be appealing like that. It’s just a sign that we need, and a window sign certainly will not suffice. If you look at the window signs, the windows are small, and a sign just really would not work. So we’re definitely asking for the sign on the façade, and it would be definitely an appealing sign and blend with the general location and the signage there. MR. BRYANT-Can I ask you a question, just out of curiosity? MR. SNYDER-Sure. MR. BRYANT-I wasn’t here in the August meeting, okay, when your Sign Variance was denied. From a marketing and traffic standpoint, wouldn’t that sign serve the purpose better to be on the north side of the building? MR. SNYDER-On the north side, you mean on the side facing, going up Route 9? MR. BRYANT-Coming down Route 9. MR. SNYDER-Coming down Route 9. I can’t place where the. MR. LAPPER-You mean along Route 9? MR. BRYANT-Yes. MR. LAPPER-The problem is that the building, it’s like on the ground, because the building is built into the back of the hill. So there is a small area where you could place a sign, but I think that would probably be more, less appealing visually. MR. ABBATE-Intrusive. MR. LAPPER-Because it’s right in your face. Just because it’s at their car level. MR. BRYANT-The sign that was denied in August, where was that? MR. LAPPER-We were asking for the two signs, but at that point we were asking for the other way, because the put the sign up on the doorway first. So essentially we were asking for on the south side, but if it came, the one that’s there now, but if they only had one sign, it has to be on the south side, because you’ve got to get people into the Plaza first, to know your there. MR. HAYES-So Panera Bread made a choice at that side. MR. LAPPER-Right. That if you have one sign, it had to be the other one. MR. HAYES-They changed it. MR. LAPPER-But for that reason, I mean, I think that sort of justifies the. MR. STONE-How big is the Empire Vision sign, Bruce, do we know, does anybody know? MR. ABBATE-It looks pretty large to me. 35 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/15/04) MR. LAPPER-I think that’s about 100 square feet, which is the size that you’re allowed. I think that all of those are about 100 square feet. MR. STONE-Okay. So this would be smaller than that. MR. LAPPER-I may be wrong, but we have drawings that show what size these are. MR. ABBATE-Mr. Chairman, Counselor, let me dispel something here, initially. You mentioned the Home Depot. I think by now you know that this Board is a very credible Board, in that we take each application on its own merit. MR. LAPPER-Certainly. MR. ABBATE-And I hope you would agree that we do try to fair and balance in our decision here. MR. LAPPER-Of course I would agree. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you. MR. LAPPER-Being here every month. MR. ABBATE-I’m not too successful at times. MR. URRICO-I have a couple of questions. The sign diagram that we have shows additional logos here, at either end. Are these included in this discussion? MR. SNYDER-They’re there now on the south side. MR. STONE-Yes, but these little wheat berry things they’re called, or something, right? MR. LAPPER-Wheat berry, yes. MR. STONE-And you would propose to put those there, too? MR. LAPPER-I didn’t even focus on that. I would say that if the Board wanted to approve the sign and drop the wheat berry, that would not be a problem. MR. STONE-Well, is that part of the 58.4? MR. LAPPER-No. MR. STONE-I know that because it says 58.4 on this design, with mother bread in the middle. MR. URRICO-The second part of my question is, have you had a lot of people not being able to locate the front of that, your establishment? MR. LAPPER-We don’t know because they never found it. MR. URRICO-Are they going in to Empire Vision and asking for a sandwich? MR. LAPPER-I guess, before I ask Frank to respond, I would just say that when you look at the perspective that we have, you can just tell from that photo that there’s a problem that you don’t know what’s there, if you’re looking from this perspective. MR. URRICO-You could also say that if you come in to that Plaza from any direction, isn’t it possible not to see the Panera Bread sign? 36 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/15/04) MR. LAPPER-True, but if you get to Home Depot, because you’re looking at Home Depot and you want to know where it is, and you look up there and you don’t see it, I mean, what Frank mentioned was that, you know, a car could drive back out onto Glen Street, see the sign, and have to come back again, just in terms of traffic safety, that wouldn’t be a good result to have to come back around, and then it gets down to, whether you accept that this is a major problem or a minor problem, there’s still no impact on the neighborhood because you can only see it from on site, and I think that’s our best argument here. MR. STONE-While we’re talking, would you comment on that last statement in the Staff notes? MR. LAPPER-Yes. What happen was that the pylons were approved for the Plaza, and after we went through the whole thing in August, they went and put up what I think is a three by three sign, in a place that’s already approved for a sign, that may ultimately stay there or may be there for the future use of the end of the Traveler’s building, which will be one more retailer, some day, and that does require a sign permit, and we told Panera that their sign consultant has to go in and apply for a permit and pay the fee. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Let me ask you this, then, Counselor. Compromise is the name of the game, and you came before the Board this evening, and I applaud you. You’re only looking for 58.2 square feet. So let’s talk about a compromise. Would you be willing to take down that tiny, bitty sign for the request this evening? MR. LAPPER-I don’t know. MR. SNYDER-Are you talking about the one up on the? MR. ABBATE-The tiny one that you can barely, that I can’t see as I drive up Route 9, on the left. MR. STONE-You mean on the freestanding? MR. ABBATE-Yes, on the freestanding one. MR. SNYDER-Absolutely. MR. STONE-That’s the one I just asked about. MR. ABBATE-Yes, that’s the one I’m talking about. Yes. Would you be willing to compromise and take that down for your request this evening? MR. SNYDER-Yes. MR. URRICO-Just for the record, not to complicate matters, but I seem to remember that when the Plaza owners came to us, with the suggestion that they add on to the large sign for Empire Vision, that they proposed at that time that the other freestanding sign, the one further south, half of that would be used for a Panera Bread sign. I recall at the time, I remember seeing it. MR. STONE-I’m not commenting, Chuck is, but right now there’s no permit for it. That’s the Staff notes. MR. MC NULTY-While we’re talking about permits, how about the (lost word) sign that’s on the south side of the building now? MR. SNYDER-The banner? MR. MC NULTY-The banner. MR. SNYDER-I can take that down tonight. 37 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/15/04) MR. LAPPER-That requires a temporary sign permit. MR. SNYDER-Yes. I just put it up the other day myself. It’s a roped up sign. I didn’t know I needed a permit. It’ll come down tonight. It’s not an issue. I just wanted to let the guests know that we’re providing a service to them for free. A lot of our guests are business people that use their laptops. I just wanted to let them know that they can use free Y FI at my café. It can come down tonight. If you didn’t know that, come in and have some bagels and use my Y FI. MR. STONE-Wireless technology? Okay. MR. SNYDER-So I take responsibility for that. I put that up. I was trying to let my guests know that I do have that service for them. MR. ABBATE-So you’re willing to take that sign down. You’re willing to take that smaller sign down. MR. BRYANT-I want to just refresh my memory here, because I think you’re right, Mr. Urrico. When the Plaza owners came with a sketch, I mean, when we agreed to these two signs and the square footage, weren’t all these signs included? MR. URRICO-Well, I remember, the Panera Bread, I think originally Panera Bread was going to go on the north side, or at least they said whoever the tenants would be at the time. I don’t know if we knew that you were going to be there, and then when the suggestion was made that when you did make the agreement, that Empire Vision would only agree to it if they could get the position on the north sign and then you would take this position on the south sign. MR. LAPPER-My recollection was that this wasn’t envisioned for Panera here, that this is for the future tenant behind Monroe Muffler. There’s 25,000 feet that Traveler’s isn’t using, right at the end, which used to be the tire and battery for Wards, and they’re hoping to get a (lost word), but whoever that is. MR. ABBATE-Well, you know what, I remember. Now that Roy has said that, Roy, you’re right. I think there were two signs. I think Roy’s absolutely correct, initially, for you folks. MR. URRICO-There was a wire sign where they have that other thing there now, never mind, it doesn’t matter. MR. BRYANT-I don’t know that that’s even a necessary bargaining chip. MR. ABBATE-Okay. I’m flexible. MR. LAPPER-Well, we’ve put everything on the table that we can, in terms of an offer. MR. URRICO-How small can that sign be? MR. LAPPER-You mean smaller than 58? MR. URRICO-Yes. MR. LAPPER-I guess, we asked them to make it as small as possible. I thought it was going to be in the 60’s, and I was pleased when they came back at 30% smaller, but what I’d say is that if it’s too, too small it wouldn’t probably look balanced with the signs that are up there now, just in terms of the façade. MR. ABBATE-It’s interesting, too, because I was struck by the first applicant, when I asked him about why he needed all those signs, and I asked him about one sign, and he said, you know, it would be absolutely destructive for his business. So I thought, in my mind, that was quite 38 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/15/04) important, but, anyway, you’re willing to compromise, and you have come down from your original request. Is that correct? MR. SNYDER-Yes. MR. ABBATE-And you’re willing to do, this evening, if we so ordered, to pull that thing down, that rope? MR. SNYDER-It’ll be down tonight. I’ll go cut the ropes myself. MRS. HUNT-I voted against the two signs, but just today I was driving out from the Post Office and I realized that Empire Vision, and I’ve been to your place many times, that you don’t know that it’s there, but you don’t know. MR. ABBATE-That’s a true story, even coming from the Post Office. I get there early in the morning, and I like to stop and maybe get some coffee, and there’s Empire Vision staring me in the face. MR. STONE-This is a conflicting thing. You weren’t here, Mr. Lapper, to hear us earlier. MR. LAPPER-No, but I read all about it. MR. STONE-Tonight, it hasn’t been published yet. I’m conflicted. You make a very good argument. I mean, there’s no question that, as you look at this particular picture, it cries for something. I mean, having said that, I don’t know what it cries for, whether it cries because I have a tough decision to make, in terms of granting a second sign, when we have done a lot of thinking about this, and a lot of talking, and said, no, we’re not going to grant a second sign. Having said that, I’m just still listening, is what I boil down to. MR. ABBATE-You know, but the conflict here is we just granted a total of eight signs for Applebee’s, this evening. I don’t understand why there’s inconsistency here. MR. STONE-No, we didn’t grant eight, don’t say that. No, we granted one more sign. MR. ABBATE-They had a total of eight signs. MR. BRYANT-They have a total of seven signs. MR. ABBATE-Seven signs, excuse me. MR. BRYANT-So what we’re saying is we granted them an extra six signs and you’re conflicted about another sign? I mean, let’s talk about consistency. That’s not consistent. MR. ABBATE-In fairness, in the standard of fairness. MR. STONE-Is anybody else conflicted? MR. BRYANT-No, I’m just saying, to me, this is a no-brainer. You’re right. It cries out for a sign, but you can’t, in the same day, allow seven additional signs and then come up for a business that cries for additional signage, they’ve got one sign now for their whole business, and you can’t deny that. MR. MC NULTY-I don’t know. MR. STONE-Thank you. MR. MC NULTY-Let me take the other side. This was a business that was told they could have one sign, which is what’s allowed in a Plaza. It’s not a corner store. It’s not out on a private 39 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/15/04) street corner by itself and the logic that two signs are allowed if you’re out on your own street corner doesn’t apply here. This store has the benefit of all the other stores in the Plaza attracting business in the into the Plaza. Granted the business is in the Plaza, or the potential customers are in the Plaza. The business made a conscious decision not to put a sign on the Plaza side of their building. They had it there. They were told they could have one sign. They removed the sign that they’re now asking for on the front of the building, that faces the Plaza, and put it on the south side. I might add that they’ve also made the entire sight of that building a sign, between their awnings and the lighting. You could really describe the entire end of that building as one giant sign. MR. BRYANT-The same applies for Applebee’s, though. MR. MC NULTY-Absolutely. MR. ABBATE-Absolutely right, and they moved that sign because we made them move that sign. MR. MC NULTY-No, we didn’t make them move the sign. MR. HAYES-We did not. MR. BRYANT-The same applies for Applebee’s. No matter where you travel, you see that awning, you know it’s Applebee’s, and, you know, to say, Applebee’s is in a plaza. It’s not defined as a plaza. It’s a separate building, but technically it’s in a plaza. MR. FRANK-Technically it’s not. MR. BRYANT-No different than Panera, to speak of, and yet, you know, here we are, the same night, talking about the same situation, allowing, you know, there’s a disparity here, in our, you know. MR. MC NULTY-I can understand where you’re coming from on that. MR. ABBATE-When you consider that Home Depot has eleven signs. MR. MC NULTY-At the same time, we’ve also said tonight, several times, that we take each application by itself. MR. ABBATE-It should be done on a fair basis, however, on an equitable basis, and it’s not being done. MR. STONE-None of us have declared, and we’re still discussing our feeling. I said I was conflicted. Chuck has some very valid reasons why, he’s leaning, I think, at least, or saying no. You’re feeling that they deserve a sign, and that’s fine. That’s what we have a balancing test for. I mean, I’ve said many times, I’ll say it publicly, four, three votes do not bother me, because they say we all looked at the facts and made our own conclusion. MR. LAPPER-I agree. I just don’t like three, four votes. MR. FRANK-Mr. Chairman, I’d like to add something here. It’s not fair that you’re even talking about Applebee’s, because it’s not, you have the sign code to guide you. It’s not in a plaza. It’s its own separate parcel, and the Code is very specific to that sign that was granted tonight and back in 1999, for the additional signs, and what’s being requested tonight. So I don’t think it’s a fair comparison, because it’s not the same relief that’s being requested. That was not in a plaza. This is. MR. BRYANT-To get to Applebee’s, you have to go to the plaza. 40 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/15/04) MR. FRANK-They have a lot that does not front on a Town road, on a State road. MR. BRYANT-To get to Applebee’s, you have to go into the plaza driveway. MR. FRANK-Actually, maybe it does front. You’re crossing State Route 9, or, I mean, I’m sorry, Quaker Road. You’re crossing Quaker Road. You’re not going on to the Home Depot property. I’ll show it to you if you’d like. MR. URRICO-But there are other examples of stores that are located in a strip mall. MR. ABBATE-Absolutely. MR. URRICO-Or not necessarily on a corner, Hannaford, CVS. CVS has a sign on Quaker Road, has a sign facing the driveway to Hanneford. MR. BRYANT-Hollywood Video. MR. FRANK-Applebee’s is separated by the NiMo right of way. MR. ABBATE-Yes, but, Mr. Frank, it seems to me you’re making the determination for us. MR. FRANK-I’m not making a determination. I’m telling you what the Code is. MR. ABBATE-That’s how I’m interpreting it. MR. FRANK-That you need to be guided by it to make your decision, and I’ve got it up on the map for you, Applebee’s parcel. So, please, use the Code to guide you in making your decision. Don’t compare another site, another application when the Code is not comparable. MR. BRYANT-I just want to say that I understand it’s a separate parcel. However, to get to that building. MR. FRANK-I’m showing you, Mr. Bryant, you’re wrong. You’re crossing NiMo’s right of way to get to Applebee’s. You’re not going on to the Lowe’s property. I’ve got it on the screen. Just take a look at the screen. MR. ABBATE-Are you against the sign for Panera? MR. FRANK-I could care less one way or the other, because I don’t. MR. ABBATE-Say it that way, then, because that’s not what you’re stating. MR. FRANK-I’m telling you to use the Code to guide you to make your decisions. You’re comparing Applebee’s, which is not the same scenario. You’re not looking at the specifics of this application, if you use Applebee’s as something to compare it to. MR. URRICO-But I think what Mr. Abbate is saying and what Mr. Bryant’s saying is that when we assess a sign and its impact on the Town, we have to look at the whole sometimes. I think, you know, what the conflict is, and this isn’t to your comment earlier, is that we have allowed a lot of variances for that corner, the plaza, the Home Depot plaza, and as a Board member, I would say I probably hear more complaints about sign decisions that we’ve made on that Plaza than anything else that we’ve done in the Town, personally, as far as Sign Ordinances. So I think there’s a concern about what we allow there and what we don’t allow, and whether it’s going to have a visual impact, whether it’s going to have, because the community at large is what’s affected when it comes to a sign. It’s not the immediate community, and so I think we have to consider all those factors, and when we suggest that we want a second sign in the place, even though we say each decision stands on its own, the next person that comes in is saying, well, you have to be fair about it, and you already established a precedent, which we don’t 41 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/15/04) consider, but we do sometimes, because, even though officially we don’t establish a precedent, sometimes we do in our minds because we’re trying to be fair, and maybe that’s not relevant, but the fact of the matter is the Sign Ordinance is important to the Town, if we want it to be a serious Sign Ordinance. MR. ABBATE-Well said, Roy. MR. STONE-We also, about a month ago, two months ago, denied a second sign on a similar property, if you guys remember, Mr. Subb. MR. URRICO-Right. MR. STONE-We denied a second sign with the same arguments. MR. LAPPER-That’s not true, because their other side isn’t invisible from the drive, both their sides are visible from the road. MR. STONE-Well, we did deny the sign. MR. LAPPER-They don’t have the same hardship that this has. MR. STONE-Okay. Well, that’s why each case is of its own. I agree. MR. LAPPER-Absolutely. MRS. HUNT-When I first looked at this, I had voted against the two signs, and I was against it, but as I say, this morning I came in from Quaker Road, by that Monroe Muffler, and went around the back way to get to the Post Office, and then when I was leaving, and as I say, I’ve been there many times, and I said, well, you don’t even know that it’s there. So I have changed my mind. MR. STONE-Okay. We are getting, we haven’t done public hearing or anything, and we’re already into where we stand, which is fine. We’ve got to get it out on the table at some point, but particularly because of the big crowd here, unless we have specific questions of the applicant, I would like to open the public hearing so that I can close the public hearing, and, do I have any more questions of the applicant that bear on this thing? MR. URRICO-Do you plan on any “to go” signs over there? MR. SNYDER-No, sir. MR. STONE-Okay. Let me open the public hearing. Anybody wishing to speak on this variance? Any correspondence? MR. MC NULTY-No correspondence. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. STONE-Now, having said that, why don’t we talk about it, rationally, quietly, like we normally do, and I’m going to start with Roy. MR. URRICO-I sort of spoke what I was going to say earlier, and the conflict that exists there. However, during the first round, when you guys came to us, I actually supported the second sign, a smaller version of the first sign that was already up at the time, and my argument, I 42 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/15/04) looked at my argument, and I still maintain that there needs to be a second sign there because of the location. I don’t think it would be obtrusive. I don’t think it would be viewed by anybody but people in the Plaza and would serve to help people in the Plaza locate that business. So I would be in favor of it. MR. LAPPER-Thank you. MR. STONE-Okay. Jaime? MR. HAYES-Well, I guess I’m going to stick with my original opinion as well. I’ve said, historically, that of all the Sign Variances that we’ve granted, I would say the most universally held mistake that I would put on myself was that area right there, and I think Roy already brought that out, that that wasn’t the basis of his decision, but I think that, if I’m quoting you wrong you can correct me, but that we approved a dramatic amount of signage in that area, including now one of the pylon signs that Panera Bread is on again, which means in this particular case, unlike Applebee’s, they have a sign on a pylon, and they have a sign on the side of their building, and I think there’s some important definitional differences. MR. LAPPER-Applebee’s has a pylon. MR. HAYES-Do they have a pylon sign, too? MR. LAPPER-Right at the corner. MR. STONE-Yes, on Lowe’s. MR. HAYES-In this particular case, because that area is so over-signed, I think we’ve got to be careful that we’re not actually increasing the problem, and I think that it is a unique circumstance in that there are already too many signs there, whereas in other parts of Town that might not necessarily be so true. As far as the relief, the relief is 100% from the Ordinance, and I think that’s a dramatic number. They’re allowed one sign and they’re asking for two, so they’re asking for 100% of relief. I certainly appreciate the applicant dropping the size of the sign down from 80 something square feet to the 58, which does make a difference per se, but as I look at these plans, it’s not a minimal sign. I would not describe that as a minimally identifying sign. It’s actually a pretty decent sized sign, and I think that Chuck’s point that the south side of this façade is also decorated with a number of logos and swatches and everything else, the cumulative effect is that this is the best, or most identified building, per square foot, in the Plaza, if we were to allow this sign as we are now, and I don’t think that that’s, and we already have an area that’s densely signed. I don’t know if we want to go to a highly identified thing as well. Is the difficulty self-created? I think, as brought out in the application, the applicant had a clear stark choice here whether to put this sign on the south side or put it on the side inside the Plaza. I think, correctly so, that they put the sign on the south side of the Plaza. I think that’s where the people that are coming in to the Plaza are going to see the sign. People that are outside the Plaza are going to see the sign from that particular circumstance, which means, in my opinion, it was a good business decision, but it was a business choice. It was a decision. You have a sign. Where do you want to put it. So they switched the sign and now they’re back asking us to give them a sign on the front, which to me, in this particular case, I think is a stretch. So I think it was self-created in a sense that they had a choice. They could have the sign there. They really felt that you can’t see it from the Plaza. They could put it there if they wanted to, legally so. So as far as feasible alternatives, they had one. They had a choice for what they wanted to do, and they made it. So, I think it also raises the question that, for all the plazas that are in Queensbury now, does this mean that all the buildings that are on the corners of Plazas in Queensbury are now, should be entitled to have a second sign on what would be the outside of their building as well. It raises the question of where are we drawing the line in the future, as far as signage going forward. I don’t know how many plazas there are in Queensbury, but, seven, ten, I’m not sure, but if we use this same rationale that the building can’t be seen, or shouldn’t be known from inside the Plaza, that means that, I mean, I don’t know how many more signs that we would be identifying as needed in this Town. I mean, I 43 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/15/04) own a plaza myself with stores on the end, and they could probably make the argument that they need signs on the side of their plaza as well. I don’t know, that would be for them to make, but in this particular case, I think that we’ve got enough signage in that area. Panera Bread has got a recognizable sign, a good size recognizable sign, from the entrance to the Plaza, and I think it would be a detriment to the neighborhood and to the community if we started allowing signs on both sides of businesses in all the plazas in Queensbury. I think it could just be too much, over the top. MR. STONE-Chuck? MR. MC NULTY-Well, I won’t go on at length. As has been said before, I said most of my piece earlier, and I certainly echo what Jaime has said about this. I think it was a business decision that was made to put the sign where it is. I personally would have liked to have seen it stay where it was originally, and I think the company could have relied on their unique awnings that are illuminated to let people know they were there, but that was a business decision. Just as a decision not to advertise is a business decision, and one sign’s what’s allowed, and I think that’s what we should stick with. So I’m going to be opposed. MR. STONE-Joyce? MRS. HUNT-Well, I think I stated before what I felt. I had been against the second sign, but when I realized today that you really wouldn’t know, if you had come in the other way, that Panera was there. So I would be in favor of the second sign, especially since it was smaller than the second one. MR. STONE-Chuck? MR. ABBATE-I, too, would support the application. I believe that a second sign is essential. I don’t believe that the request will have any detriment to the community at all. I believe that, based upon the first applicant, when I asked how would one sign work for a business, and he said it would be impossible, I think that theory should roll over as well, and we take each application on an individual basis, and it is my opinion that Panera Bread deserves a second sign to be recognized as a legitimate business, and I would support the application. MR. STONE-Al? MR. BRYANT-I agree with Mr. Abbate. I think it’s hard to identify Panera from the mall plaza, and I think the two signs in that corner is consistent with the majority of the plazas that are on Quaker Road and Route 9. I mean, if you go all the way down Quaker Road, all of those plazas all have two signs, and I think it’s a unique location and it’s required, just by looking at the picture, without a doubt. So I’d be in favor of it. MR. STONE-Well, I hear two very cogent arguments for denying, and those are the things that swayed me. Panera’s made a decision. They were allowed one sign. They were granted one sign. They chose where to put it. I mean, there’s no question that a second sign, or let’s go back to a sign, in hindsight, a sign on the canopy on the east side would be a benefit to Panera’s, but that was a decision they made not to go there with the one sign, and this is a, we’ve heard a lot, at least in the discussion prior to this, about a previous application on the agenda tonight. That was for a very different sign. These are two similar signs, both saying Panera Bread. No other comments, both saying Panera Bread. So it is 100% relief. I can’t grant 100% relief, regardless of the size of the sign, and I would vote no. However, four of us have chosen to vote yes, so I need a motion to approve. MR. MC NULTY-Before we do that. MR. STONE-SEQRA. I’ve got it identified. 44 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/15/04) MOTION THAT A REVIEW OF THE SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM SHOWS THERE ARE NO SIGNIFICANT NEGATIVE IMPACTS CAUSED BY THIS PROJECT, Introduced by Lewis Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Paul Hayes: Duly adopted this 15 day of December, 2004, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. McNulty, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Abbate, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Stone NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Underwood MR. STONE-Go ahead, Mr. Abbate MR. ABBATE-Thank you. MOTION TO APPROVE SIGN VARIANCE NO. 95-2004 PANERA BREAD, Introduced by Charles Abbate who moved for its adoption, seconded by Allan Bryant: 820 State Route 9. Panera Bread proposes to place a 58.25 square foot wall sign on the east façade, in addition to the existing 84 square foot wall sign on the south façade. The relief required. They request relief for an additional wall sign where only one is allowed per tenant per Section 140-6(B3d4b). In making the motion for approval, we not only have to answer certain questions, but there are several other considerations as well, and one is what we call a balancing act, and the other, in my opinion, is the standard of fairness. So to get to the four questions, one, as to whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties, is an absolute no. As to this point, I believe it will not have an undesirable change in the neighborhood or even be a detriment. The second question, whether the benefit sought by Panera Bread can be achieved by some other method feasible for the applicant to pursue. They already have reduced their second request. They have shown a sense of compromise. In my opinion, their request is legitimate. Three, whether the requested Area Variance is substantial. In my opinion, based upon the history, no. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district, I doubt seriously it would, and finally, whether the difficulty is self-created. In this instance, I will concede that it may very well be self-created. However, being self-created is not fatal to the granting of this variance. So, it is my opinion, that based on the balancing test and the standard of fairness, that we approve Sign Variance No. 95-2004. Duly adopted this 15 day of December, 2004, by the following vote: th AYES: Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Abbate NOES: Mr. Hayes, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Stone ABSENT: Mr. Underwood MR. STONE-There you go. MR. LAPPER-Thank you. MR. STONE-We have one set of minutes to go through. CORRECTION OF MINUTES October 20, 2004: NONE MR. STONE-Members present, Stone, McNulty, Underwood, Abbate, Bryant, Urrico, and Hunt. 45 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/15/04) MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF OCTOBER 20, 2004 MEETING, Introduced by Lewis Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Allan Bryant: Duly adopted this 15 day of December, 2004, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Abbate, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Stone NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Hayes MR. STONE-Meeting is adjourned. MR. URRICO-Are we going to have an attorney present next week? MR. STONE-Yes, we are. MR. ABBATE-Good. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Lewis Stone, Chairman 46