Loading...
1987-04-15 cl6'f QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS -- Regular Meeting Held: Wednesday, April 15, 1987 at 7:30 p.m. Present: Theodore Turner, Chairman Michael Muller Daniel S. Griffin Charles O. Sicard Susan Goetz, Secretary Gustave Behr Jeffrey L. Kelley Stuart F. Mesinger, Senior Town Planner R. Case Prime, Counsel Robert Eddy, Sign Enforcement Officer The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. Corrections to the February 5 minutes were made as follows: page 5, 2nd paragraph: Mrs. Hall had lived there since 1950. Mr. Behr MOVED acceptance of the minutes as corrected. Mrs. Goetz seconded. Passed. Unanimously. Corrections to the March 18 minutes were made as follows: Page 7, The variance is for an existing side setback of ..6'~feet in lieu of the required 20 feet and 6 feet of relief in the front to allow a 44 foot setback in lieu of the required 50 feet. Also, Mr. Behr noted the adjacent car wash has a driveway on the side facing the restaurant. Page 9, 4th paragraph "slide" should be "site". Mr. Turner MOVED acceptance of the minutes as corrected. Mrs. Goetz seconded. Passed Unanimously. Mr. Prime asked to address the Board concerning Area Variance No. 1245 for John DeMarco, scheduled for this evening. Mr. Prime said DeMarco's site plan is pending before the Planning Board. He advised the Zoning Board to table the application until the Planning Board had completed its review. Mr. Muller said he wanted to avoid having the Planning Board refuse to consider the case until the Zoning Board acted. Mr. Prime said the Planning Board recognized the setback problem but didn't anticipate Zoning Board action. Planning Board review should be completed before the Zoning Board acts. '- 1 ~%'5 Attorney Bruce Carr for John DeMarco said the Planning Board tabled the application .......... pending Zoning Board action when builders error was discovered in constructing the building. The basis of the' Planning Boards action is Section 5.070(a) of the ordinance which states that in order to approve a site plan review the Planning Board must find that a use complies with all ordinance requirements. Therefore, a variance is required before the Planning Board can act. Mr. Prime said that under ordinary circumstances the site plan would be based on a proposed building. The intent of site plan review is to review a proposal prior to building. If the Planning Board approves, than the applicant may seek variances; if the Planning Board doesn't approve of the site plan, there is no point in seeking a variance. The Planning Board currently has sole jurisdiction of this matter. Mr. Carr said the ordinance requires that all other requirements be met before site plan approval can be granted. The house is there. Obtaining a variance is the first step to allow Planning Board review. It would be a waste of time to make the applicant reappear for a variance. Mrs. Goetz said the variance originally addressed by the Board was different than that here. Mr. Carr agreed, but reiterated his position that the variance must come before the site plan. Mr. Muller said it was common practice for an applicant to go before the Planning Board for site plan review and then the Zoning Board for a variance the following evening. He didn't see a procedural problem, but was concerned that Mr. DeMarco not be passed from one Board to the other. Mr. Prime said the Planning Board tabled the application for a variety of information, not just the variance. Mr. Carr said the Planning Board did instruct DeMarco to seek a variance. The Zoning Board should hear this issue now. Mr. Prime asked where the applicant would be if the variance was denied. Mr. Carr said they would appeal, tabling the site plan. Mr. Behr asked whether granting the variance was akin to approving the entire project. Mr. Carr said, no, only the setback could be approved by the Zoning Board. Mr. Mesinger explained the need for a variance had come to light when the Planning Board required a survey of the property. Mr. Kelley noted the Boards previous decision which said that the house should be built within setbacks. Mr. Turner MOVED to TABLE the application until site plan review is completed by the Planning Board. '-- Mr. Behr seconded. Passed Unanimously. 2 ;<~0 Mr. Carr asked to go on record as objecting to this procedure as being in violation __ of the Zoning Ordinance. Mrs. Goetz read a letter from Building Inspector Mack Dean regarding a variance (No. 1081) granted to the Dickinsons to move an open sided structure to a place near their property line. Mr. Dean's letter asked the Board whether there was any stipulation that the structure remain open sided or could it be enclosed? The minutes and findings of the Board did not address this issue. After some discussion, it was the consensus of the Board that the structure was allowed to be enclosed, but was not to be habitable. Mrs. Goetz read a letter from Paul Davidson and others appealing the issuance of a building permit for a barn to Keith Harris on the Pickle Hill Road. The Board set a hearing for this appeal for its regular May meeting. OLD BUSINESS SIGN VARIANCE NO. 1204 Turnpike Enterprises Mr. Turner said the application was previously tabled to allow the applicant to provide more information on the size of the sign needed for visibility. The public hearing was previously held. Attorney Rick Meath introduced Jim Hanley of Hanley Sign Company, Clifton Park. Mr. Hanley distributed a chart showing the distance from which various size letters are visible. Ten to twelve inch letters can be seen from 500 feet, which, according to the DOT, gives a driver going 40 mph, 7 to 8 seconds to make a decision. The drive-in movie sign in question has 10 inch letters; they should be 12 inches to allow adequate time for the driver to make a decision. Seven seconds is ideal, 5 is ok, 3 will cause accidents. Letters need to be large enough to read; there will be minor accidents if they are not. Mr. Hanley said that 80% of all purchases are made on impulse; thus the need for large advertising letters. Mr. Behr questioned this statistic as it applied to movies. Mr. Hanley said that a movie marque couldn't do business with 3 or 4 inch letters. The drive-in depends on summer tourist, many of whom make impulse decisions. Mr. Prime asked Mr. Hanley to substantiate this. Mr. Hanley said this was based on industry standards. Mr. Prime asked for documentation. '- Mr. Hanley said he could not provide any, but even in towns with very restrictive sign ordinances 3 ~~7 such as Guilderland, Colonie and Clifton Park, movie theaters were given variances. ',- Mr. Turner asked what percentage of theater customers came directly off the road? Mr. Hanley said he didn't know, but driving by the sign creates the impulse. Mr. Behr noted the theater has a narrow entrance. Mr. Hanley said a large letter size would help avoid accidents. Mr. Behr asked what the minimum letter size should be? Mr. Hanley said the existing sign was adequate. Mr. Meath said the total sign was 180 square feet; 63 square feet contained the name of the theater. The sign is 6 feet 3 inches from the property line; moving it further back would create visibility problems. The' chart submitted by Mr. Hanley showed that 6 inch letters are needed for maximum impact at 40 to 60 feet. Mr. Hanley clarified this, stating that with 6 inch letters the sign would be visible at 200 feet and would have maximum impact at 60 feet. Mr. Hanley asserted that the Town of Colonie had found that the addition of a sign with changeable copy reduced accidents as people were more careful driving by. Mr. Meath noted the sign could be moved to a conforming setback if left at its present size. Mr. Kelley MOVED DENIAL of Area Variance No. 1204 based on the chart given to the Board. No practical difficulty demonstrated. At 60 fe~t, 6 inch letters on the sign are readable. Enough space would be available to put 5 (.¡:d. 10 foot long rows with 6 inch or larger letters which would be visible at a reasonable distance. A conforming sign would be in harmony with the ordinance and other signs in the area. Mr. Sicard seconded. Passed Unanimously. SIGN VARIANCE NO. 1205 Cinema Centers Corporation Mr. Turner said the application was previously tabled for more information on visibili ty. Mrs. Goetz read the application to keep an oversized freestanding sign on Route 9. Attorney Rick Meath said this was similar to the previous case. '- Mr. Behr noted the applicant could have a 100 square foot wall sign and be within the ordinance, as well as a 64 square foot freestanding sign. 4 ;) 8^1 Mr. Meath said the theaters main way of advertising is by signs on the road. He __ didn't know the percentage of businesses coming directly from the road. Mr. Hanley of Hanley Signs, Clifton Park, said Guilderland allowed a 200 square foot sign for its Cinema 12. The ordinance allowed 50 square feet. Maximum impact distance isn't the same as distance visibilities. Just because a sign is visible doesn't mean it will have maximum impact. Mr. Kelley said this argument meant that everybody should be entitled to oversize signs to maximize impacts. Mr. Hanley disagreed, stating that theaters are unique as their copy always changes. Mr. Kelley noted the Board had disapproved other changeable copy signs if they were oversized. Mr. Turner noted other advertising possibilities existed, especially the newspaper. Mr. Meath said a large sign would attract the summer tourist trade. Mr. Hanley said a sign is cheaper than newspaper advertising. Mr. Meath said the sign was 23.2 from the property line and is 200 square feet in size. Mr. Hanley said the Crossgates movie sign is 40 feet from the highway access road; the other sign is 200 feet away. Public Hearing Opened: no comment Public Hearing Closed. Mrs. Goetz read a letter from Bob Eddy questioning whether Cinemas could be construed as amusement centers and therefore entitled to more signage. Mr. Mesinger disagreed with this interpretation. The Warren County Planning Board approved assuming setbacks are met. Mr. Behr said that alternatives existed, specifically conforming wall signage. Mr. Meath said the Cinema wall was 250 feet away; turning heads would be a safety problem. Mr. Hanley said a driver doesn't read all 5 movies, only the one he is interested in. Mr. Meath said other multiple enterprise businesses shouldn't be entitled to bigger signs as they didn't have changeable copy. Mr. Kelley MOVED DENIAL of Area Variance No. 1205. No practical difficulty has been demonstrated. A setback deviation is granted to allow a 23.2 foot front setback so that a 64 square foot sign could be placed. Lack of practical difficulty is the point that the visibility chart shows that a 64 square foot sign would give five 1 foot tall lines with proper letters so that the maximum impact for an 8 inch letter would be at 80 feet - this would be visible for maximum impact. This would be in general harmony with the sign ordinance and other restrictions in the area. There is the alternative of wall signage on the building. '~ 5 ~~~ Second by Mr. Sicard. "-- Passed Unanimously. SIGN VARIANCE NO. 1223, Queensbury Motors was tabled until the April 27th meeting. SIGN VARIANCE NO. 1215 Copper Kettle Restaurant Mr. Turner abstained due to a conflict of interest. Mr. Behr, acting as chairman, said that orange markers had been placed on the sign at heights of 25 and 35 feet to illustrate different sign heights. Attorney Malcolm O'Hara said this was a rehearing. The Board previously denied an application for an oversized 55 foot tall sign. Markers were put on the sign to show that a conforming 25 foot tall sign could not be seen when approaching from the south on the Northway. The present location meets all setbacks. Moving the sign to the Big Boom side would interfere with traffic flow and would be expensive. Neighbors previously objected to building setback encroachments on the Big Boom side. Placing the sign on the Corinth Road side would make it invisible to travelers east bound on Corinth and would also require a variance. Jim Dyer of Signs of Progress submitted sketches showing the signs position relative to the restaurant. A minimum relief of 10 feet would clear the building enough to allow visibility. Mr. Dyer submitted sketches showing visibility problems from other locations. Mr. Dyer submitted photos illustrating the visibility problem. Owner Carl DeSantis said he had one reader board message on either side of the Northway. Jim Dyer said the boards didn't tell if a business was open at night. Mr. O'Hara reiterated the unique circumstances created by a location well below the Northway. The sign had to be taller than 25 feet to be visible to northbound travelers. The variance is similar to that granted the Swisse Chalet, although the height is less. The Copper Kettle roof line is presently being lowered, so a wall sign is not an option. Mr. Behr questioned whether a 30 foot sign would not be minimal relief. Mr. Dyer said high snow piles on the restaurant roof could obscure visibility. Several Board members asked why this was different than the Sunoco sign across the street, which was denied. Mr. O'Hara said the difference was in visibility of the property. The Sunoco location is more visible. Putting a sign on the Corinth Road side would perhaps be more visible from the Northway, but would be obscured to eastbound travelers on Corinth and would still require a setback variance. Mr. Mesinger said a practical difficulty was created when a sign couldn't be seen. The Sunoco station had submitted no evidence as to the difficulty in seeing a conforming 6 ó< C¡o sign. This station also had an excess number of signs. In this case, placing a visible sign "-' would require a variance no matter where it was located. Public Hearing Opened: no comment Public Hearing Closed. The Warren County Planning Board approved based on the previous application for a 55 foot tall sign. Mr. Muller MOVED APPROVAL of Area Variance No. 1215 for mInlmUm relief at 35 feet in height. The applicant has demonstrated special conditions unique to this property, that being the property is situated below the level of the Northway; similar to problems experienced by Swisse Chalet. The sign at a 25 foot height would run into difficulty due to the roof on the building and its inability to be seen from many directions, especially the west. The sign would be in harmony with the Sign Ordinance restrictions. The request is not detrimental to the neighborhood. Second by Mr. Griffin. Passed Unanimously. SIGN VARIANCE NO. 1217 Northern Distributing Mr. Mesinger said the Building Department measured the freestanding sign at this property and found it to be 47 square feet; therefore, no variance was required. Mr. Sicard MOVED to RESCIND the Boards previous variance denial as the sign conforms in size. Mrs. Goetz seconded. Passed Unanimously. NEW BUSINESS SIGN VARIANCE NO. 1233 Quaker Road Restaurant Mrs. Goetz read the application to keep a 87 square foot freestanding sign with a nonconforming setback and two 6 foot by 20 inch wall signs. Attorney Malcolm O'Hara said the sign was erected in 1973. Prior precedent exists for granting the setback variance. Moving the sign back would interfere with traffic circulation. The applicant has two wall signs, one of which is legal and one of which is slightly oversized to be considered a directional sign. The applicant wishes to keep both ',- 7 ;)CJI signs as their total area is well under what a single conforming wall sign would be allowed. '- The building won't allow a large wall sign. A roof sign has been painted over. The window signs have not been cited and are believed to be conforming. Mr. Kelley said practical difficulty was demonstrated as to the signs location, but no difficulty had been demonstrated for its size. The sign could easily be reduced to 47 square feet by removing excess signage. Public Hearing Opened: no comment Public Hearing Closed. The Warren County Planning Board approved the freestanding sign setback but said it must conform as to size. Mr. Behr MOVED APPROVAL with modifications. The setback on the freestanding sign will be allowed but the size will be limited to a 50 foot maximum. Practical difficulty is that moving the sign back would put it in the parking lot. All wall signs shall comply with the Sign Ordinance. The painted out sign on the roof shall be removed. Second by Mrs. Goetz. Passed. Unanimously. SIGN VARIANCE NO. 1237 Edward and Norma Baertschi Mrs. Goetz read the application to construct a freestanding sign with a five foot setback on Route 9. Mr. Baertschi said he planned to open a sporting goods store adjacent to the Great Escape. A conforming sign would be in the middle of the parking lot. Trees blocked the view from the north property line; he couldn't remove them as he didn't own them. Mr. Baertschi submitted photos showing the property from various angles. Warren County suggested putting the sign on the south property line but he was concerned this too would be blocked by the trees to the north. Various Board members disagreed, saying that because of the curve in the road, southbound travelers could easily see a conforming sign on the south property line. Public Hearing Opened: no comment Public Hearing Closed. The Warren County Planning Board disapproved. Mr. Griffin MOVED DENIAL of Sign Variance No. 1237. The request is more than minimal relief. There are other visible alternative to the rear of the lot or on the south property line which would conform. ',,~- Mrs. Goetz seconded. 8 ;}q;L ',- Passed. Unanimously. AREA VARIANCE NO. 1242 John and Martha Schmulbach Mrs. Goetz read the application to construct a deck with less than required setbacks on the Seeley Road. John Schmulbach explained plans to reconstruct the house. The deck would be no closer than the existing house, however there would be a greater total area in noncompliance with setbacks. Mr. Schmulbach pointed out the unusual shape of the parcel which would require a setback variance of some sort for just about any type of house. Public Hearing Opened: no comment Public Hearing Closed. The Warren County Planning Board approved. Mr. Griffin MOVED APPROVAL of Area Variance No. 1242. Practical difficulty is due to the shape of the property which is small and triangular. There is no room to place a house further back. This is minimum relief. Mr. Kelley seconded. Passed. Unanimously. SIGN VARIANCE NO. 1243 D'Ella Pontiac Mrs. Goetz read the application to keep an oversized wall sign, an oversized freestanding sign at less than required setback, a second freestanding sign and an over sized directional sign at property on Quaker Road. Michael D'Ella B'Ella said his wall sign was 123 square feet; because of the buildings distance from Quaker he was entitled to 122.5 square feet; thus it was barely oversized. The service sign was needed to show where the service department is. A 4 foot sign couldn't be seen. The used car sign met size requirements but was an excess sign. He felt it was required to direct people to his used cars. The large freestanding sign is in the road right of way and is oversized. Moving the sign to an allowed location would put it behind the showroom. The sign is 18 years old. It can't be seen coming from the west until you are right on it. 9 ;}LJ3 Mr. Turner said a variance was originally granted for the large sign in the right of .,- way based on the assumption that its size was conforming. It had since been found to be 94 square feet. Mr. D'Ella B'Ella said the sign could be brought to 54 square feet, but a new sign would be needed if some relief weren't granted. Public Hearing Opened: no comment Public Hearing Closed. The Warren County Planning Board approved with conditions. The freestanding sign must meet size requirements. The wall sign and the used car sign are allowed. The directional sign must be brought to 4 square feet. Mr. Kelley MOVED APPROVAL with stipulations: 1. Freestanding sign in Right of Way will be allowed a setback variance until Quaker Road in widened but it must now conform to 54 square feet in size. Fifty-four square feet is minimum relief and in harmony with the Sign Ordinance. 2. Wall sign of 123.5 square feet is allowed because of the distance from the road. 3. Service entrance sign must conform to 4 square feet. 4. The 29 square foot "used car" freestanding sign must be removed; no practical difficulty demonstrated as a reason for retaining this sign. Second by Mr. Behr. Passed Unanimously. SIGN VARIANCE NO. 1244 Adirondack Factory Outlet Mrs. Goetz read the application for two 150 square foot wall signs in lieu of other allowed wall signage. Attorney Bob Stewart eXplained the t-shape layout of the building. The back wing extends 300 feet and is blocked by the front wing. Motorists wouldn't be able to see allowed wall signs over each store. The solution is to allow each store a 25 foot wall sign over its entrance and an additional 30 square foot wall sign to be placed on the end of the front building. The result would be less signage than allowed and a more coordinated appearance. This was similar to the variance granted the mall which allowed 65% of total signage, with placement at the malls discretion. Owner David Kenney said he intended to ask the owners of the front stores to remove their signs at his expense. The intent was that all signs would be carved wood, painted signs. "~ 10 ~C¡4 "-' Mr. Eddy, speaking on behalf of the Beautification Committee, said the Committee favored this proposal as it would be help create the Adirondack corridor image they were striving for. Public Hearing Opened: Barbara DelSignore said she managed the Lake George Plaza. She had similar concerns as some of her stores were located in back. Could she do the same thing as Mr. Kenney? The Board explained a variance would be required. Public Hearing Closed. The Warren County Planning Board approved. Mr. Muller MOVED APPROVAL to place 5 signs on the south side of the building and 5 signs on the north side of the building. There will be a maximum of 150 square feet in signage on each side. Each side would have 5 maximum 30 square foot signs uniform in color and size and would be in pyramidal shape. The applicant will select tenants to be advertised as such. Each tenant will have conforming 25 square foot signs on the wall over each tenant's door. The unique problem is that the 6 stores cannot be seen from the road. It is possible for up to 12 tenants to request 100 square foot signs each if the Zoning Board of Appeals had strict application of the Sign Ordinance. The request is in general harmony with the neighborhood and the intent of the ordinance. This applicant is taking 60% of the allowable signage allowed. Second by Mr. Behr. Passed Unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 12:10 a.m. ~~a~~ Theodore Turner, Chairman Minutes prepared by Stuart F. Mesinger, Senior Town Planner ',--" 11