Loading...
1986-08-27 SP .. .. SPECIAL MEETING ,,~ ~ Queen8b~ry Zoning Board of Appeals meeting held August 27, 1986 7:30 p.m. Present: Mr. Behr, Mr. Griffin, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Turner, Mr. Sicard, Mr. Muller and Mr. Kelley. Also sitting in on the meeting was R. Case Prime, Town Attorney and Mr. Eddy, the Chairman of the Beautification Committee. VARIANCE NO: 1115 - M~ T. Minogue, Inc., Quaker Road. Represented by Attorney Bruce G~ Carr and John Minogue, President of Minogue's. Attorney Carr stated that they are asking only that the sign stay where it is until such time that Quaker Road is widened by the County an(lthen the sign will have to be moved anyway. The size of the sign conforms. The sign at the present time L separates the entrance and exit. Mr~ Behr asked if the sign also conforms in height. Attorney Carr stated it does. Public Hearing Opened and Closed with no public comment. Warren County Planning Board approved. "The applicant must comply when Quaker Road is improved." Motion by Mr. Griffin to approve, seconded by Mr. Turner, all voting affirmatively, it was RESOLVED THAT Variance No~ 1115 be approved. There is practical difficulty, the size and height conforms. This should be allowed until Warren County needs the land for expansion~ The variation from the Ordinance is minimal. Approved~ VARIANCE NO. 1117 - Montcalm Restaurant, west side Route 9 ,~ north Exit 20. ~ Represented by Attorney Robert Stewart and the owner, Mr. /,g 1 Beckos. ,_....-.. ~ Attorney Stewart stated that the existing wall signs are now being adjusted to conform. The sign they are concerned about at this time is the free standing sign in front of the building~ This is a very expensive sign to replace. The sign as it stands is propor tional to the building which is enormous~ Attorney stewart went on to say that if the Board cannot grant a Variance for the size or the sign perhaps they could consider granting a Variance for the location. The Ordinance stipulates 15 ft. from the property line. This sign is 5 or 6 ft~ from the property line. The reason for this distance is that the sign was placed many years agp before the widening of Route 9. The sign cannot be moved back towards the restaurant itself because this area is very narrow to begin with. This is also the area where the cars are picked up and delivered by the valet parking service. There is barely room now for one car coming and one gOing. The sign has also been improved with a massive stone foundation planter~ Mrs~ Goetz asked how big the sign was now. Attorney Stewart said it was approximately 150 sq. ft~ Mrs. Goetz said that she has a big problem wi th the size but the location is OK. '-' Long discussion followed on the ingress and egress from the restaurant. Mr. Behr asked about the sign on top of the building. Attorney Stewart said that sign would come down to comply. Public Hearing Opened~ Mr~ Ray Bodenwiser~ He feels that if this sign were to be moved it would be detrimental to the business at this location. Public Hearing Closed. Warren County Planning Board approved but modified wi th conditions~ "Continue at present setback but must meet area requirements~" Motion by Mr~ Muller to allow setback variance, seconded by Mr. Kelley, all voting affirmatively, it was RBSOTJìTED ~liA~ Variance !'fo. 1117 be approved. Will allow the Variance from the setback requirement. The applicant has \......-. 2 /5? demonstrated practical dLfficulty: The size must conform to the Ordinance. ~ Approved~ VARIANCE NO. 1118 - Roger LaFountaine dba Martha's, west side Route 9 across from Great Escape. Represented by Attorney Robert stewart and the owner, Roger LaFount at ne ~ Attorney stewart stated that there are three distinct businesses on this property, a restaurant, a motel and a soft ice cream stand. These businesses have separate employees and they operate entirely different periods of the year~ Attorney stewart stated that as he understands the Ordinance this entitles Mr~ LaFountaine to have two 50 sq. ft~ signs per business~ Attorney Stewart stated that the sign they would wish to keep is the one with the chicken on top. Mr~ LaFountaine would be willing to give up his right to have other free standing signs if he were allowed to keep the chicken. ~ Mr ~ Behr stated he questions the JOact that Attorney stewart keeps referring to this as three distinct businesses because on the application the dba states Martha's which is one business. Mr. LaFountaine stated that one business has its' own trademark (The Ice Cream Business). None of the employees are the same, the hours are d i:fferent, the seasons 8.re different and there are three separate sets of books. Long cliscussion ensued on one business ITS. three: Long discussion on the significance of the chic1.{en. Mr~ Griffin asked if the proposal could be addressed again. Mr. LaFountaine stated that the two si gns 0 n e i the r end o~r the property with Coke on the top are to be taken down. The chicken sign to be kept but the arrow on the sign to be removed~ The ice cream cone sign goes up in the morning when they open and down at ntght when they close. It's not a permanent sign~ (The chicken has been there for thirty year s~ ) Mrs. Goetz asked if the chicken could be placed somewhere else on the property~ Mr~ LaFountaine said he has been o 1100 3 .\.......- thinking about that for weeks and he cannot think of a place~ The house, which he lives in, hides most of the property coming north. Mr: Turner asked what would be done with the cone on top of the ice cream building. Attorney Stewart stated that they would make this sign comply with the Ordinance. They will either take it down completely or lower it below the roof line depending on what a sign man would tell them they could physically do. Mr~ Behr asked the chairman, Mr~ Turner, if the Board was going to consider this one business or three. Mr. Turner sfiated ibwou.ld be treated as one business. Another long discussion on which signs would stay and which would go ~ ( t fì \...." Public Hearing ftpened. fY'<tD-'y O\,l.t,lP Attorney Thom.as ,J. Mø»I1.l1tHi: has law offic es 0 n Route 9 south or" the area~ He stated that the sign was used as a <1esignatingrnarker -f'or a lot of people who are asked for references to go somewhere~ The rooster shoulcl he left there because it causes no problemß to anyon8~ He also believes that this application should be treated as thre(3 separate businesses~ Attorney William Nealon. He stated that he also believes that this should be considered as three separate bQsinGsses. Mr. Bodenwiser operates a motel directly across the street from the chicken sign~ He stated that it does not bother him and that people actually come to his motel because they remember the rooster not the name of the motel. The sign has brought business to his motel for the last 18 years. He stated that the property is always neat and clean and so is the chicken. He also believes that it would be a very big expense to Mr: LaFountaine to replace this sign~ Mr~ Harry Troelstra, owner of the Silo~ He believes that the rooster should stay where it is. He said that he also operates several businesses in one location and that he is allowed only one sign for them. He thinks thats the way it should b e ~ Public Hearing Closed. "-' Jb/ 4 Ib;;Þ 5 '- ~ttorney Stewart stated at this time that if what he needed to establish 3 different businesses at this location was 3 different dba's he would apply for them tomorrow morning. Warren County Planni ng Bo ar d (1 isapproved with no addi tio nal comment~ Motion by Mr ~ Sicard to approve with stipulations, seconded by Mr. Griffin, one negative vote (Mr. Behr), it was RESOLVED THAT Variance NO. 1118 be approved with the ~following stipulations. The Hletal free standing signs at the north and south of the property will be removed. The rooster free standing sign will remain but the arrow will be remove(l so that the size eK:cluàing rooster will be 51 sq. ft~ The sign will remain at the present setback. The neon cone on the building will be adjusted so that it cloesn't protrude over the roof line~ The removable wooden ice cream cone by the road will remain at the present setback. Since Warren County disapproved this vote must be a majority plus one~ Vote 6 yes - 1 no Approved with conditions~ '- VARIANCE NO~ 1124 - Ferraro Entertainment, Inc. dba Skateland, Route 9: Represented by Attorney William Nealon and the owner, Mr. Anthony Ferraro~ Attorney Nealon stated that the skating rink and the go kart track are under separate corporations. They would like to maintain the one sign that now exists for both businesses. Mr~ Behr asked if the property line and the right-of-way line are one and the same. Attorney Nealon stated he did not I Long discussion followed on the property line and the right-of-way line~ Attorney Nealon asked the Board to keep in mind that these small family oriente<1 businesses do not have the fund s to invest in large billboard signs that some companies 1.H3e on the highW'ay; Another long iiscussion ensued on where the exact property lines ar e located: ~, ~ Mr~ Muller stated that Mr. Eddy did not see fit to site Mr. Ferraro with a setback violation. Mr~ Muller's opinion is that this variance application is dealing only with the area. He also stated that if, at a later date, they come to find out that they did not have all the facts in terms of setback, it would have to be dealt with at that time. Public Hearing Opened and Closed with no public comment. Warren County Planning Board disapproved~ Motion by Mrs~ Goetz to disapprove, seconded by Mr. Behr, all voting affirmatively, it was RESOLVED THAT Variance No. 1124 be disapproved. No practical difficulty demonstrated. The free standing sign will conform to the Ordinance as to size~ Denied~ VARIANCE NO~ 1127 - Mohican Motel, west side Route 9 north Route 149 has been tabled. ~ Tabled. VARIANCE NO. 1128 - James and Rosemary Walker, Jr. db~ Samoset Motel and Cabins, west side Route 9 has been taà¡~d. Tabled. VARIANCE NO~ 1129 - D'Ella Pontiac-Buick, Inc~, Quaker Road. Represented by Michael Della Bella, President of D'Ella Pontiac-Buick. Mr~ Behr~ asked how big the sign was. Mr~ Della Bella stated he was not sure~ Mr ~ Della Bella stated that he was told when he came here in 1983 that he could not do anything with the sign except change the facia because it was in the right-of-way. He was also informed at that time that when the County widens Quaker Roacl the sign would. have to eOril8 (10''Ýn. He aske(i 0 '1.ly for permission to leave the sign until such time when Quaker RQad is widenecl ~ Public Hearing Opened and Closecl 'with no public èor11ril8nt. '-.....-/ /03 6 ¡/of 7 Warren County Planning Board approved with concl i tions. "Applicant must comply when Quaker Road is impro ved." ~ Motion by Mr~ Sicard to approve, seconded by Mr. Muller, all voting affirmatively, it was RESOLVED THAT Variance No. 1129 be approved. The sign has to be removed from the right-of-way when Quaker Road is wirlened ~ Approved~ VARIANCE NO. 1130 - French Mountain Motel, west side Route 9 north Exit 20 has been tabled. Tabled ~ VARIANC~ NO. 1131 - Hi-Way Most Motel (David Kenny), east side Route 9 south Route 149 has been tabled~ Tabled ~ VARIANCE NO. 1132 - Noble True Value Home & Hardware Center, Upper Glen Street - Route 9. ~ Represented by Attorney Robert Stewart and Mr. Noble. Attorney Stewart stated that they were not aware of the Ordinance~ They were told there would come a time when the sign would have to be reduced in size but they were not aware that it would be a year. This has not been a good corner for a business~ Although there have been several businesses at this location none of ,them have been successful until the Noble Hardware was put in here. There business is doing fairly well now and they think some of it is because of the present sign. Attorney Stewart said they realize that the sign must come down at some time but they are asking if the sign could be left as is for one more year; "v1r'~ TIJ.rn(·H· aslcerl how large the sign is~ Attorney Stewart stated that the sign is 160 sq~ ft~ The question of right-o,!:'-way vs. property line came up anc} a lO'1.g discussion ensued: Public Hearing Opened. ',----,/ J05" 8 ~ Nancy Warner - Asked why if a very large sign (Northw8\)T Plaza sign) were approved because it matched the decor, why not this one? Mr: Behr suggested that perhaps it was bec~use it was for a plaza with several businesses and this is for just one business. ',--, Mr~ Noble stated he was not made aware of exactly when this Ordinance would go into effect: Mr~ Harry Troelstra, owner of the Silo. He stated that he is opposed to letting this sign up~ He believes that if you are going to give one person more than everyone should have more~ He believes all signs should be 50 sq~ ft. Warren County Planning Board disapproved. Motion by Mr. Kelley to deny, seconded by Mr. Behr, all voting affirmatively, it was RESOLVED THAT Variance No. 1132 be denied. No practical difficul ty. Denied~ ~ Because of a possible conflict of interest the next three hearings will be chaired by Mr. Behr and Mr. Turner will abstain~ VARIANCE NO~ 1133 - Howard Johnson, 117 Aviation Road. Represented by At-!;orney Robert Stewart~ Attorney Stewart stated that this sign was 232 sq. ft: and that it was 40 ft~ in height~ This sign attracts an enormous amounb or: business f:'roft} the Nor!;hway. A.ttorney stewart stated that because it is a corner lot the restaurant itself is entitled to one free stan¿ling and two wall signs or 264 sq~ ft. Although there aret;wo bU.sinesses on the property, owned by two different peopl e, there is an. agreement between the tÍ/<Toror aclvertising both businesses on one sign~ Long discussion followed on how many signs are allovTe(l on th1s property. ~ r~I': Behr asked when this sign was put up~ Attorney stewart stated around 15-18 years ago when the property was developed: ~ f' Public Hearing Opened. \.- Mr~ Harry Troelstra, owner of the Silo. Opposes~ He believes that the large sign should come down and that each individual business should have 1 50 sq~ ft~ sign. If these peopl e can have alar ger sign why can't he? Mr: Behr stated that this would be treated as one applicant. (Howard Johnson)~ Public Hearing Closed. Warren County Planning Board approved but modified with condi tions. "Recommend that the owner s 0 f the Blacksmith Shop, Howard Johnson Motor Lodge and Gatsby's Lounge agree in writing not to be allowed any additional signs, even those permitted." Motion by Mr~ Kelley to deny, seconded by Mr. Muller, all voting affirmatively (Mr. Turner abstained), it was RSOLVED THAT Variance No~ 1133 be denied~ This is a restaurant only and not on a corner lot~ It's on Aviation Road. It's the Zoning Board's duty to uphold the Ordinance. ~ No practical difficulty demonstrated~ Denied ~ VARIAWCE NO. 1134 - ~ed Coach, Route 9. Represented by Attorney Robert Steïrrart~ Attorney stewart stated that this sign was 140 sq. êt. J'~r. DeS~atis, the owner, is at the present time leasing the r~aachise for the Red Coach. This lease will expire in approximately 2 1 /2 years. The ehance s are very go od that he will lease the building after this period but are very s11m that he will continue with the Red Coach franchise. Theret'oretW'o years from now this sign would have to be replaced again. Mr ~ Behr asked how long the sign has been there ~ Attorney Stewart stated that he did not know. Mr. Eddy said that his information indicated that the sign has been there for 20 years. .-- i\.- Mr ~ Kelley inquired about other signs in the area /0b 9 J(¡;7 10 \....- advertising the Red Coach. Attorney Stewart indicated that there was a sign to the north of the Red Coach indicating that it was 400 ft. ahead. Mr. Eddy also indicated that there was a billboard sign on Route 149 and another one on the Northway~ Public Hearing Opened and Closed with no public comment. Warren County Planning Board disapproved~ Motion by Mr ~ Muller to deny, seconded by Mr. Kelley, all voting affirmatively (Mr. Turner abstained), it was RESOLVED THAT Variance No. 1134 be denied. No practical difficul ty demonstrated for allowing an over'sized sign a't that location~ Denied. VARIANCE NO; 1135 - Great Escape, Route 9~ '-' Represen·ted by Attorney Robert stewart. S +-e-Wd!"/' + Attorney ßtc·....arà stated that the size of thi s sign is in proportion to the size of what is on the property. This sign was granted by Varianee in 1979. Exisl;irlg sign is 1 ,480 sq. ft~ I Mr ~ Behr stated that one oJ' the stipulations o.î: th~t Vartancewas the removal of the billboard, \'1hich \rr~s <lone, anrI thr~ polesth8ot supported it, which was not done ~ Any r1(HT V~J·t~rW<-, ~T()I.tl(l not 1H~ granted unless the stipulation is pu.'; Ln that t1'lOS9 sI1pporbs be removed. Mrs: Goetz stated that she does not have a problem with 1 ttO tho to b . 1 '1 0 11'" "" 0 0 e lng·. lS one con -lnl1e eCal.1Se sne ()(-' ,.J.e\TOf3 Gn;'1.IJ l,rlU3 U3 a special situation considering the expanse of the bl..t.sine;3~3 and the property~ But she would like to see the stipulation from. 1 979 c~rJ·-ï.erl Ol1t ~ Mrs~ Goetz believes that it is probably just an oversight by the Great Escape but she would like these poles taken down. Mr; Behr asked how far from the road the building was. Attorney Stewart said he did not know; \....-.- Mr~ Eddy stated that there are several points that have not been brought up~ According to his records there is one /{¡fj 11 small free standing sign, on medium free standing sign, one large free standing sign and two billboards. They are only ~, allowed two 50 sq~ ft: signs. He recognizes the size of the '~ operation but stated the rules say two 50 sq: ft~ signs. Mr ~ Griffin asked Attorney Stewart what kinrl or signs these were~ Attorney Stewart said he w.as aware of the Great Escape free standing sign and the billboard sign. There was a lon~ discussion on exactly what kind of signs are on the property. No one was exactly sure what is there. Mr~ Eddy stated that he believes SOll1eone should. check on the exact number of si gns 0 n the proper ty b e~or'e a V aI' L;ltlc:e L <3 p'3.S serlo Motion by Mr~ Sicard to table, seconded by Mr~ Muller, all voting affirmatively (Mr~ Turner abstained), it was RESOLVED THAT Variance No. 1135 be tabled so that the Zoning Board of App(3als narl t!;(7nli.'¡J(-) é:JLsrlt1 on Ij}l(~ property. Tabled~ VARIÞN CE NO~ 1136 - Saxe Brothers dba 1\11' ~ B's Best, Upper ~ Glen Street - R.ou.te 9: Represented by Attorney Robert Stewart. r'1rs. Goetz stated she vrould like to adùress JGhe~act in the applioatiot1. that states other non-conforming signs for fast food restaurants~ She asked At'torney Stewart if they were thinking of McDonald's when they stated that fact. Mrs. Goetz stated according to her records when McDonald's received a Variance in 1978 for there free standing sign one of the stipulations to that Variance was that the free standing sign would have to conform in August of 1986. Mr. Eddy also added that Mr. Greg Stevens of McDonald's has assured him that he has a contract to replace that sign with a 49 sq~ ft~ sign which includes a drive thru panel. Public Hearing Opened and Closed with no public comment. Warren County Planning Board approved but modified~ "Recommend approval for setback but recommended deniel for -the area Variance on size:" \.....>' T1otion by rtr ~ Griffin, seconded by Mr ~ Sicard, all voting J~ 1 2 affirmatiively, it was '-' RESOLVED THAT Variance No. 1136 be denied. No practical difficulty demonstrated for the Area VarianGf3 ~ The setba.ck Variance requested is allowed. J)eni etl ~ VARIANCE NO~ 1137 - Chalet Susse J\1:otor Lodge, Big Boom Road. Repre sented by Attorney Will iam Montgomery ~ All.. "'1 I I I 1 ' . ,... f t' AGG ür ney' on Ii gOJrWl'Y :3 G~,:¡' G 81 8. 1!131~;I Q L g~l ...013 ('<) enlJ age 0 ne business for this location comes from its sign being seen from the Northway and. Coeiniih Rowl.: The Si.grl \ý~:¡,s La compliance wheYl it\rra.s putup~ The sel.footage or. thia alg'l conforms the height does not. The Mo·tor Loclge is completely hidden from view from all angles. Th.E3 only t rl(U(}~l.ti.o n lihat; it is there is this sign. Mr ~ Eddy inquired about the size of the sign on the building which does not conform~ Attorney Tv1ontgomery stated. that they would be willing to conform with this sign. G Mrs~ Goetz asked if they had considered a lower and bigger sign~ Attorney Montgpmery stated it was not the size of the sign but the visabilty from the roads~ Public Hearing Opened~ Mr~ David Kenny~ (He owns another hotel in the area.) He stated that the motel was built before the sign ordinance went into effect and that it was built on good faith. He doesn't believe that the business can exist without the sign~ Public Hearing Closed~ Warren County Planning Board approved~ " Motion by Mrs. Goetz to approve, seconded by Mr. Turner, all voting affirmatively, it was RESOLVED THAT Variance No. 1137 be approved. The practical difficulty is the dip in topography~ "-', Approved ~ 170 13 VARIANCE NO. 1138 - Trading Post Restaurant, corner Route 9 and Glen Lake Road. L Represented by the owner, Dorothy Latham. This sign is only 12 1/2 sq~ ft; but is on therl(lge line which is nol~ allowed in the Ordinance~ Sign has been there for approximately 40 years~ HI's~ Latharn si;ated !jhat; i;her'e Is llO plaee roC' th(3 slg'1. anywhere around the huilrling where it\rrould be visable. Mr; Behr asked if the property line was the CIIJ'b line i;o \vhtc:h f}[¡>ø: L~1.i~h;..t.lll H,r18"T8r'ell yes. f1,~ ~ B3hr as1ced about the small sign that was hanging on a piece of' pipe; Mrs; Latham stated that sign had not been 'lS(~rl for y(~a('8 H,n¡l ijh;"1.ti. t v¡Otlld he taken down. Mr~ BehI' asked. LF.' all other signs would be taken down. Mrs. IJa J~hara aaswered yes. 1\~rs: Goetz aslced it· the old sign cou..ld beij>tken ¡lo\J\Trl ~30011. ],!J:rs~ Latham said it probably could be taken down withia 24 hour s ~ ~ Puhl:Lo T-I(3ar Lng Opened and Closed with no publ ic comment. Warren County Planning Boarcl approved: Motion by Mr~ Behr to approve, secondecl by l'lr: Gri:fî:i..rl, H.ll voting affi rina ti vely, i..tlAras RESOLVED THAT Variance No~ 1138 be approved~ The practical difficulty is that there is no place in the front of the property to put a free standing sign that would be visable from the south and north. This approval is for a ridge sign; Approval conditioned upon the removal of all other exterior signs; Approved; Motion by Mr; Sicard to adjourn, seconded by Mr~ Turner, all voting affirmatively, it was RESOLVED THAT the meeting adjourn. 12:30 p.m. v 171 14 The meeting was reopened to give the attached Interpretation for Variance No. 1105. ~' ~ç~ ~ \....." \......- L ',-" {7r ., .. August 27, 1986 CLARIFICATION of V~RIANCE NO. 1105 Variance No. 1105 - Gretchen Sunderland & Keith Wrigley, Country Club Road - to construct a physical therapy facility in a Urban Residential-5 Zone. With reference to Variance No. 1105 it would be my (Mr. Muller speaking) intent to clarify a motion previously made on the hearing date after the public hearing was closed on that application. I would like to, in fact, clarify that motion by 'making findings in fact on which this board can rely in making it's decision whether to vote in favor or against. The finding of fact that I would make is that the applicant represented that the facility would be a one story building of approximately 3,500 sq. ft., 30 parking spaces, used to conduct the following activities: fitness classes, bad back classes, arthritis classes, pregnant women classes, nutrition counseling, workshops on stress management, weight control programs and other activities to improve human health and well being. Within that building the applicant also made a presentation, and I would make this a fiI)..~ing of / fact, that therø would be a therapy pool, there woul~/~ within the building for physical therapy equipment and an exercise floor. I also would make a finding of fact that the applicant represented that the staff in that facility would include a physical therapist, exercise physiologist, which in fact the applicant represented herself to be, and others trained in physical fitness. There also was a representation by the applicants Attorney. I'd make a finding of fact that we relied upon that Attorney Kafin indicated that on the staff there would also be people who ~o hold licenses to practice there professions, such as registered nurses and physical therapists. Those were his examples. Eased upon those representations and those findings of fact, I feel that it is consistent with an Interpretation that what is proposed by the applicants in this application would be a health related facility and if, in fact, it is a health related facility, then it would be appropriate in a UR-5 Zone to have a Type II Site Plan Review for the health related facility. e This motion was presented by Mr. Muller and 2nd by Mr. Sicard. The vote on the clarification was: One no vote - Mrs. Goetz '.........." Mr. Behr, Mr. Griffin, Mr. Kelley. Mr. Muller, Mr. Sicard & Mr. Turner all voting yes. /73 \......t ~p~ ~ G