Loading...
1997-05-21 '--- " QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS F' l E FIRST REGULAR MEETING MAY 21, 1997 INDEX Use Variance No. 18-1997 Tax Map No. 134-6-1 Area Variance No. 19-1997 Tax Map No. 134-6-1 Area Variance No. 15-1997 Tax Map No. 8-5-19 Use Variance No. 16-1997 Tax Map No. 36-1-1.3 Area Variance No. 23-1997 Tax Map No. 60-1-7.6 Sign Variance No. 27-1997 Tax Map No. 105-1-4.1 Sign Variance No. 24-1997 Tax Map No. 130-3-18 Area Variance No. 28-1997 Tax Map No. 127-4-9 Ben Aronson 1. Ben Aronson 5. Chris Carte 12. Mike Barber 16. Louis LaRock 18. Hollywood Video Berkshire-Glens Falls, Inc. 27. Queensbury CVS, Inc. 39. Michael Bailey 50. THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTHS MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES. '-- '-'" : ,,', ·,i (Quee~sÞdrytBA meeting QUEENS BURY ZONING BOARD FIRST REGULAR MEETING MAY 21, 1997 7:00 P.M. 5/21/97) OF APPEALS MEMBERS PRESENT CHRIS THOMAS, CHAIRMAN BONNIE LAPHAM, SECRETARY LEWIS STONE ROBERT KARPELES PAUL HAYES BRIAN CUSTER PLANNER-GEORGE HILTON STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI OLD BUSINESS: USE VARIANCE NO. 18-1997 TYPE: UNLISTED CR-15 BEN ARONSON OWNER: SAME 64 MAIN STREET, ONE QUARTER MILE EAST OF EXIT 18 OF I - 87 APPLICANT PROPOSES A WAREHOUSE ADDITION TO AN EXISTING WHOLESALE MEAT DISTRIBUTION BUSINESS LOCATED AT 64 MAIN STREET. WAREHOUSES AND DISTRIBUTION FACILITIES ARE NOT LISTED USES IN THE CR-15 ZONE. RELIEF IS BEING REQUESTED FROM THE USES LISTED IN SECTION 179-24, COMMERCIAL RESIDENTIAL 15 ZONE. WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 4/9/97 TAX MAP NO. 134-6-1 LOT SIZE: 0.70 ACRES SECTION 179-24 LARRY HART & ORMONDO LEOMBRUNO, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. THOMAS-I do believe there was some public comment, no, there wasn't anybody here from the public, but I do think we've had some letters that were read in, and we did get additional information as requested. Do you want to read the tabling motion. MRS. LAPHAM-All right, and I didn't have this before, record of a phone conversation. MR. THOMAS-Yes, well, we'll read that in when. MRS. LAPHAM-"Motion to table Use Variance No. 18-1997, Ben Aronson, introduced by Chris Thomas who moved for its adoption, seconded by Lewis Stone: Until Warren County Planning Board has had a chance to review this and the applicant can bring in competent financial information. As far as the Area Variance, that will be heard if the Use Variance has been approved, and it will have to be re- advertised at the Town's expense. Duly adopted this 16th day of April, 1997 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Custer, Mr. Stone, Mr. Karpeles, Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Thomas NOES: None ABSENT: Mr. O'Leary, Mr. Hayes" MR. THOMAS-Okay, and I didn't see anything from Warren County. MRS. LAPHAM-May 14, 1997, re: Queensbury Use Variance No. 18-1997, Ben Aronson, 64 Main Street. "At a meeting of the Warren County Planning Board, held on the 14th day of May 1997, the above application for a Use Variance for a warehouse addition to an existinq wholesale meat distribution business. was reviewed and the following action was taken. Recommendation to: No County Impact" Signed by Tracey M. Clothier, Chairperson. MR. THOMAS-Do the applicants want to come forward up here, in case we've got to throw some questions at you. Does anyone have any questions for the applicant? You've all had a chance to look at the financial paper that they provided for us. - 1 - (Queensbury ZBA meeting 5/21/97) MR. STONE-I was just curious if there was someone to attest to these figures. ORMONDO LEOMBRUNO MR. LEOMBRUNO-That would be me. I prepared them. So I guess I can attest to them. My name is Ormondo Leombruno. I'm the CPA for the firm. It would be much easier if we just follow my handwritten. MR. THOMAS-Well, the cover letter says these figures are extremely confidential, and I really don't want to put the figures out, but if you go across the bottom line is what we're looking for. MR. LEOMBRUNO-Right. MR. THOMAS-So, having said that, does anyone have any questions? MR. STONE-Just looking at them over five years, it seems that the salaries have gone up considerably. Is that new help? Is that increased Staff? LARRY HART MR. HART-Yes. We're employing a lot more people now than we did three, four years ago. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. CUSTER-Do those salaries include any relations to Mr. Aronson? MR. HART-No, it does not. MR. CUSTER-That can be substantiated, I assume? MR. HART-Yes. MR. CUSTER-I look at the numbers and your sales have increased pretty dramatically in five years, and then I worked on through the numbers, and I realized the net income is showing a hardship, but what's hidden in that make up is not so much a loss of money. Your bad debts have escalated, and that's a collection problem. MR. LEOMBRUNO-Yes. That may well be. There may be reasoning for that, but in addition to that, you can see that the expenses have been increasing substantially each year, too, and that's what is difficult to get a control on, any type of operation that they're running, and this is why they're looking to expand in these dry goods, so they can be more profitable and more importantly more competitive, to keep the customer base going and keep their bottom line up and be able to, that happens to be quite a slim bottom line, actually, for an operation like this, and it's very marginal. You don't need very much of a move here, you can see these percentages you can work with, and you can get totally wiped right out. MR. CUSTER-I guess my reasoning is, I look at that bad debt, if you compare it to the averages from '91 to '94, and then you have the same amount of increase the next two years. If you were to back that out, your net income has relatively been the same for five straight, six straight years. MR. LEOMBRUNO-Yes. There's validity to that. If you look above at the operating income itself or more importantly the operating cost out there, you see how they have been increasing, and that' s probably the biggest factor that we're concerned with here. MR. HAYES-Is it national and regional competition that you're? MR. HART-There's a lot of that. What we're trying to do, we used - 2 - '---- -"'~. (Queensbury ZBA meeting 5/21/97) to be, basically, a meat company. What we need to do is expand our dry good area, you could make a little bit of extra profit in it. The meat business, now, has become a very competitive business, with all the bigger companies carrying the same products. You can't make as much money as you used to be able to do. In dry goods, there's more of a margin, you can make some extra profit. What we're trying to do is get a dry goods/storage area, so we can buy in a bigger lot, save some money, and be able to make a little extra money to increase our profit line. If you've ever been in our building, if you walk in the front door. That's our dry storage area, and what I'm trying to do is really to clean up that a little bit, and to increase it so we can buy more and save some money. MR. STONE-What would it cost you for your trucks to make a second pick up stop, if you will, by having another building somewhere? MR. HART-It averages out that it costs us $16 every time the truck stops, no matter if it's to pick up, to deliver or whatever. We do everything the same day. If you call in the morning, you have your delivery the same day. A lot of the bigger companies, you have to get it in the night before. They put it up that night, then the trucks leave that morning. What we do is we take your call at eight o'clock in the morning, put the stuff on the truck at eight thirty, and you have it at nine. We're very service oriented, and we need to be centralized so we can load the truck and have them go and deliver at that time. You could have a guy sitting at your counter waiting for a hamburger. We're walking in the back door bringing it to you. That's how quick we ~ to be. MR. THOMAS-Anyone else have any questions? If not, the public hearing is still open, if anyone would like to speak in favor of this variance, in favor of? Anyone like to speak opposed? Opposed to? PUBLIC HEARING OPEN MR. THOMAS-Any additional correspondence? MRS. LAPHAM-Yes. A telephone call at 5/15/97 2:20 p.m., between Savino DeAngelo, 80 Main Street, and Pam Whiting, Planning Office, subject was the Use and Area Variances 18 and 19-199, Ben Aronson "No objection to the proposal. He feels Mr. Aronson's business is an asset to the community." MR. THOMAS-Okay, and that's it? That's all the new correspondence? MRS. LAPHAM-That's all the new, that I know of. MR. THOMAS-All right. We'll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. THOMAS-Anymore questions for the applicant? If not, I'll ask for a motion. Before we do that, lets go down through and see what everybody thinks. I'll start with you, Brian. What do you think, yes, no or maybe? MR. CUSTER-I'm going to just take it on Mr. Leombruno's advice that the, based on industry averages, the wholesaler type of this nature, these margins and stuff are equal to or lower, are starting to drop, and (lost words) offset that, and if that's the case, then I'm in favor of this variance. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Micky? MR. HAYES-Well, basically I agree with the applicant, that local - 3 - (Queensbury ZBA meeting 5/21/97) businesses are facing increased competition from local, from national/regional companies, and that I think as long as there's no damage to the character of the neighborhood, that I think we should be helping those businesses do what they can, so based on that fact, I would be in favor. MR. THOMAS-Are you happy with the figures they provided? MR. HAYES-Well, I think so, yes. I mean, like Brian said, we're having to accept, that's their industry. They know the numbers. I guess we have to accept that. MR. THOMAS-Because you also being in the retail and wholesale industry. MR. HAYES-Yes. I mean, I can attest to the fact that some of what they're saying is true, as far as particularly dry good companies, locally owned businesses are becoming increasingly a thing of the past, and they are, in mY mind, have a great reputation in our community. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Lou? MR. STONE-Well, listening to my two colleagues, particularly Paul who's in business for himself, and being very appreciative of the details that you have provided us, because in mY experience, although it's short on this thing, getting numbers for Use Variances are almost like pulling teeth from a toothless person, and this is, you are to be complimented in the completeness of your numbers. I hope we have been as confidential as you've asked us to be in our discussion. I think we have. I certainly would go along with the Use Variance. I mean, we still have another matter to discuss. I do have some questions about that, but that's the next issue. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Bob? MR. KARPELES-Yes. I agree with everybody else. We asked these people to prove that they had a hardship, and they came back with these figures, and the trend certainly is in the wrong direction. I'd like to see the trend in the other direction. To me it proves they have a hardship, and I think they would be, they are an asset to the neighborhood, and I would like to see, I am in favor of this variance. MR. THOMAS - Bonnie? MRS. LAPHAM-Well, I agree with the rest of the Board. I'm definitely in favor of this because I think local businesses should be supported, plus the fact that none of his neighbors are here objecting, and he also has a letter that I'd read before, but I'll just remind everyone, "Mr. Aronson has always shown himself to be a considerate neighbor and concerned about the impact of his business on the neighborhood", and then he also has a first option to purchase the property right behind him. So when and if that comes about, then he's not going to be taking up so much room from the neighborhood itself. MR. THOMAS-Okay. I'll agree with the rest of the Board members, that the financial evidence the applicant gave us is what we expected, and it does prove that they have a hardship financially. It is a unique piece of property and the same situation doesn't really apply to the rest of the property, but the business is pre- existing, nonconforming. The Use Variance won't change the character of the neighborhood at all, and the alleged hardship, like I said before, was self-created, but it was pre-existing zoning laws at the time. So, I have no problem with it. Having said that would anyone like to make a motion? - 4 - "-- ,-,,'" (Queensbury ZBA meeting 5/21/97) MR. STONE-Okay. MOTION THAT A REVIEW OF THE SHORT EAF FORM SHOWS THAT THERE ARE NO ADVERSE EFFECTS ON THE ENVIRONMENT, Introduced by Chris Thomas who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Karpeles: Duly adopted this 21st day of May, 1997, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Custer, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Stone, Mr. Karpeles, Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Thomas NOES: NONE MOTION TO APPROVE USE VARIANCE NO. 18-1997 BEN ARONSON, Introduced by Lewis Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Bonnie Lapham: To conduct a wholesale meat distribution business, with basically what we're saying, he can conduct a business that he's been conducting. It's a pre-existing, nonconforming use, and we are allowing that to be expanded in terms of business. The applicant has shown that the business cannot realize a reasonable return, and this evidence was substantial as shown by competent financial evidence and attested to by Mr. Leombruno, their accountant. The alleged hardship is unique in that this is the only kind of business of its kind in that particular area, and therefore it will not apply to a substantial portion of the district or neighborhood. Since the business is already there, this requested variance would not alter the essential character of the neighborhood, and really the alleged hardship has not been self created. They have been trying to do a business, manage a business, and because of outside problems, they find they have to change a little bit how they operate. Duly adopted this 21st day of May, 1997, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Hayes, Mr. Stone, Mr. Karpeles, Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Custer, Mr. Thomas NOES: NONE MR. THOMAS-So that takes care of the Use Variance. Now, on to the Area Variance. AREA VARIANCE NO. 19-1997 TYPE II CR-15 BEN ARONSON OWNER: SAME 64 MAIN STREET, ONE QUARTER MILE EAST OF EXIT 18 OF I-87 APPLICANT PROPOSES THE CONSTRUCTION OF A WAREHOUSE ADDITION TO AN EXISTING MEAT DISTRIBUTION BUSINESS. THE CONSTRUCTION WILL NOT MEET THE REAR YARD AND SIDE YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENTS, AS WELL AS THE PERMEABILITY REQUIREMENTS OF THE CR-15 ZONE. RELIEF IS BEING REQUESTED FROM THE SETBACK AND PERMEABILITY REQUIREMENTS CONTAINED IN SECTION 179-24, COMMERCIAL RESIDENTIAL 15 ZONE. WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 4/9/97 TAX MAP NO. 134-6-1 LOT SIZE: .70 ACRE SECTION 179-24 BEN ARONSON, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MRS. LAPHAM-IIAt a meeting of the Warren County Planning Board, held on the 14th day of May 1997, the above application for an Area Variance for the construction of a warehouse addition to an existinq meat distribution business was reviewed, and the following action was taken. Recommendation to: No County Impact" Signed by Tracey M. Clothier, Chairperson. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 19-1997, Ben Aronson, Meeting Date: April 16, 1997 "PROJECT LOCATION: 64 Main Street Proposed - 5 - (Queensbury ZBA meeting 5/21/97) Project and Conformance with Ordinance: The applicant proposes to construct an addition to an existing meat distribution business. The addition will not meet the side yard, rear yard, and permeability requirements of the CR-15 zone. Criteria for considering an Area Variance, according to Chapter 267, Town Law. 1. Benefit to the applicant: Relief will allow the applicant to build an addition to an existing business which will result in more storage space. 2. Feasible alternatives: Alternatives are limi ted which would address the applicant's desire to increase warehouse space and at the same time require a lesser amount of relief. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance? The applicant is seeking 0 ft. side and rear yard setbacks. The applicant has also indicated that site permeability would be reduced from 6% to 0%. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community? Increased noise and traffic in this area are possible effects this addition may have. One other effect may be increased stormwater runoff on properties to the south and east of this addition. 5. Is this difficulty self created? The applicant has stated that the present difficulty is one of needing to expand this business in order to compete with other business of the same nature. Staff Comments & Concerns: If the ZBA chooses to grant the requested relief, consideration should be given to requiring the applicant to provide screening and stormwater management methods which would protect surrounding properties. SEQR: Type Unlisted, short form EAF attached" MR. THOMAS-All right. We'll do the SEQRA short form, before we forget to do that. Has everyone looked at the Short Environmental Assessment Form? It's on the back of the application. MRS. LAPHAM-Do I need to read it? MR. THOMAS-No. MRS. LAPHAM-Okay. MR. THOMAS-Does anyone have any questions or comments on it? Does anyone see any environmental factors that would effect this variance? MR. STONE-I have a concern. MR. THOMAS-Which number? MR. STONE-Well, we're obviously going to talk about setbacks. MR. THOMAS-Yes. MR. STONE-Mine has to do with noise. I don't see it on here. MR. THOMAS-That's in the Long Form. The Short Form doesn't address noise. MR. STONE-I mean, the question I want to ask, Mr. Chairman, is there are compressors on the back of the building, right, for refrigeration equipment? MR. ARONSON-Yes. MR. STONE-And that's right where the expansion is going to go, and I would like to know where those compressors are going to go. MR. THOMAS-All right. We'll hold off on the Short Environmental, and we'll do it just before we, the other thing. Okay. Any questions for the applicant? MR. STONE-Well, obviously, my question is, where are the compressors going to go? - 6 - '-- '- (Queensbury ZBA meeting 5/21/97) MR. ARONSON-The compressors that are on the side of the building now are going to go on the top of the freezer, which is under the roof that is there now. So that compressor will be inside the building. MR. STONE-How about the current stairs that are there, where, right over your septic system? MR. ARONSON-They're going to have to be turned to face the other way. Before we go any further, could I say something? MR. THOMAS-Sure. It's your application. MR. ARONSON-We have purchased the property on Second Street from Mr. Fish. So that might relieve some of our setback and permeability problems. MR. THOMAS-That would take care of your rear yard setback. MRS. LAPHAM-That was Jim's Glass? MR. ARONSON-On Second Street. That happened yesterday. MRS. LAPHAM-Yes, because the last meeting you said you had the option. MR. ARONSON-We had the option. We worked on it a little bit and purchased it yesterday. MR. THOMAS-Okay. MR. STONE-I kind of wish this letter were dated. MR. THOMAS-Yes. MR. ARONSON-There's no date on it? MR. THOMAS-No. MR. ARONSON-We only made it this morning. MRS. LAPHAM-So it's hot off the press. MR. THOMAS-My question on that is, are you going to keep that as a separate property or combine it with this? MR. ARONSON-I would like to combine it with that. There's a house that's on there now that we want to take down. We don't want the house there. We don't need anymore parking lot, so we'll leave that as a green area. MR. THOMAS-Okay, but it is your intention to combine these two lots into one? MR. ARONSON-I assume that's what I would want to do. MR. THOMAS-Well, if you own it, you could keep it as a separate lot, but then you would still have a, see, you're having a rear setback problem now, but if you own that lot, you combine it into one, that takes care of the rear setback, but you will still have a side setback. MR. ARONSON-Right, on the other side. MR. THOMAS-And I don't, depending on the size of that lot, if it's combined into one, I do believe they'll have their green space. MR. ARONSON-That's a good sized lot. The lot's 98 by 140. - 7 - J (Queensbury ZBA meeting 5/21/97) MR. HILTON-That's tricky, though, because if they combine the lots for the construction, and increase the green area, and then built the building, they'd still be decreasing the green area beyond the limits of the CR-15 zone. So they would need some sort of relief for that also. MR. THOMAS-Yes, but they need 30% in the CR-15. MR. CUSTER-The CR-15 line cuts through that property. It's hard to tell on the map. MR. HILTON-Right, but I'm saying, I mean, I don't know the size of that lot to the south there, but if that were to bring that property up and over 30%, and then they weren't going below that figure, they wouldn't need any type of relief. MR. CUSTER-Would they have to come back for another Use Variance for that lot, though? MR. HILTON-My answer to that would be yes, because there's never been any plans for that lot or that area, if it were combined into one lot. There's never been any plans for that area, to use it as part of this distribution business. So, if you just left it green, my answer would be no, and just combined it, because there's no expansion into that area. He's just expanding. In this area he's applying for the Use and Area Variances. If he leaves it alone, I don't think there would be any Use Variance required. MR. STONE-So if we were to grant the Area Variance on the basis of the lot as it now stands, uncombined, if he combined it, nothing further would have to be done? MR. HILTON-Well, one thing you could do is if you felt that you wanted to grant the Area Variance, you could condition it upon merging the two lots, and if that merging happens after the fact, then it's obviously a plus and benefits the situation, the existing conditions out there. That's one thing that you might want to consider. MR. THOMAS-Yes, because the combination of the two lots would come up to 51,688 square feet, and 30% of that is 15,506, and the new lot is only 13,720. So they still wouldn't have the green space. We'd have to grant them relief for actually 1,300 and change square feet. I would have to go through and do the math. MR. KARPELES-When you say green space, you're talking about permeability? MR. THOMAS-Yes, permeability. MR. KARPELES-Okay. Now the Staff has commented that if the ZBA chooses to grant the requested relief, consideration should be given to requiring the applicant to provide screening and stormwater management methods which would protect surrounding properties. Who do they submit that to? MR. THOMAS-The Planning Board. MR. HILTON-Well, right now this plan isn't required to go for any site plan review, but you can make it. MR. THOMAS-Yes, but we can make it. MR. KARPELES-So you're saying we ought to? MR. THOMAS-Yes. That should be a condition. MR. HILTON-That's something you could consider as a condition. - 8 - '''-" ~ (Queensbury ZBA meeting 5/21/97) MR. THOMAS-Does anyone else have any questions for the applicant? MR. CUSTER-Currently, you bought the land across that road for parking? MR. ARONSON-Yes. MR. CUSTER-And how many spots can you put in there, approximately? MR. ARONSON-If we really had to, we could probably put 150 parking spaces in there. LARRY HART MR. HART-Yes. It goes way back. Right now it's not clear all the way back. We have enough room to fit. MR. ARONSON-Probably 50 cars anyway. MR. HART-During the course of the day, it probably is. MR. CUSTER-Because one of the things we're being asked to consider is the parking, and you said in that parcel we're talking about here really doesn't comply, but I'm giving you credit for across the street. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Anyone else? MR. STONE-Gravel does not count as green area? MR. HILTON-No. MR. STONE-It's permeable. MR. THOMAS-It's not considered. MR. HILTON-It's always been considered hardsurface. MR. STONE-Okay. I learn every day I come. MR. THOMAS-Anyone else have any questions? If not, I'll open the public hearing. I'll open the public hearing. Anyone wishing to speak in favor of? In favor of? Anyone wishing to speak opposed? Opposed? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. THOMAS-Do we have any additional correspondence in the Area Variance? MRS. LAPHAM-I don't think so. MR. THOMAS-If you would read that letter that was just handed to us. MRS. LAPHAM-Yes. Okay. Jim's Glass Service, 6 Second Street, Queensbury, NY 12804, James C. Fish, 5 Second Street, Queensbury, NY 12804, Town of Queensbury, 742 Bay Road, Queensbury, NY 12804, "To Whom It May Concern: This letter is to inform you that we, James C. and Judith A. Fish, have sold the property at 3 Second Street, Queensbury, NY to Benjamin Aronson, proprietor of AA Provisions, 64 Main Street, Queensbury, NY. Respectfully, James C. Fish" MR. THOMAS-And that was handed to us at the meeting tonight. That's the only correspondence. I'll close the public hearing PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED - 9 - ~) (Queens bury ZBA meeting 5/21/97) MR. THOMAS-Anymore questions for the applicant? If not, lets talk about it. I'll start with Bonnie this time. MRS. LAPHAM-Actually, my feelings are the same as the issue we discussed before. I support the local business, and I think site plan review should be implemented, to make sure there's proper screening and permeability, but I really don't have a problem with granting this variance. I think there is a hardship here that's unique, and I like to support new business. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Robert? MR. KARPELES-I agree. No neighbors are here complaining, and again, just like I said before, I think it's an asset to the neighborhood. The only thing that kind of grabs me is this lack of permeability, and I think they should cope with that. We should specify that it has to be coped with. MR. THOMAS-Lou? MR. STONE- I'm pretty much the same way. I did have the one question about the compressors because I was concerned that if we move the building back, we move the compressors back, and we change the noise pattern and so on. Speaking of green, I did notice, in driving in there the other day, that the extreme southwest corner appears not to be used by anybody. In fact you have a cone up there. I wondered if you could increase green space by marking that off and putting something there. I mean, just a suggestion. Trucks don't seem to go there. Or do they? MR. ARONSON-Well, we could give you more permeability on the side of the building facing Second Street, the big side. We can come out that way. Because that's where we used to park the employee's cars, but we no longer need that space, and we don't need it to unload trucks or anything there. We can come out that way a little bit. MR. STONE-So you could take the green area which is on the front of the building on Main? MR. ARONSON-We could leave the one in the front. MR. STONE-The one in front's there, I know that, and just bring it back, okay, along the building. MR. ARONSON-Yes. MR. STONE-Yes. I have, I think I agree with everybody else. Nobody has come forward, particularly the person on the east side where the setback is going to be, the relief is going to be the greatest. It certainly seems to be an asset to the neighborhood and to the community. MR. THOMAS-Micky? MR. HAYES-I drive Broad Street every day, and it's very clear to me that the very nature of that neighborhood is changing and probably should, and that they clearly are doing things with their business and with their properties to improve them and try and solve the problems. I think we should support that when we can, and I also agree that they should, you know, as part of the permeability there should be proper steps responsibly taken to control that, but I'm in favor of it. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Brian? MR. CUSTER-With the recommendation of the Site Plan Review, I'm in favor of it. - 10 - ',-- ,-,,' (Queensbury ZBA meeting 5/21/97) MR. THOMAS-Okay. MR. STONE-I think we also ought to be on record that we appreciate the fact that you have purchased the lot behind you because some of the things that have been said earlier, I'm looking at past notes that I have here, well, they shouldn't have put the business in there in the first place. You've certainly made it possible to build up the area around you so that you are better, more considerate of the neighbors. MR. THOMAS-I agree with the other Board members. Since the business has purchased the property behind there, this does greatly increase the green space, if they combine the two lots. It also eliminates the rear yard setback problem, if they combine the lots. The only thing that we have to work on is the permeability, and I don't know how we're going to figure that. MR. HILTON-Rather than doing the math, you may, and this is just a suggestion, you may want to just approve based on the figures that are in the application and that are in the Staff notes, and you can direct the applicant to apply for site plan approval, and maybe during the site plan approval we can work on ways to improve or increase the green space on the site. MR. THOMAS-Any problems with that? Do have any problem with that? All right. questions? All right. Lets go back to Short Environmental Form there. any of the Board members Does anybody have anymore the environmental impact, MOTION THAT THERE ARE NO NEGATIVE ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS, Introduced by Chris Thomas who moved for its adoption, seconded by Lewis Stone: Duly adopted this 21st day of May, 1997, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Hayes, Mr. Stone, Mr. Karpeles, Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Custer, Mr. Thomas NOES: NONE MR. THOMAS-That takes care of that one. Would someone like to make a motion on the Area Variance? MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 19-1997 BEN ARONSON, Introduced by Robert Karpeles who moved for its adoption, seconded by Paul Hayes: The applicant proposes to construct an addition to an existing meat distribution business. The addition will not meet the side yard, rear yard and permeability requirements of CR-15 zone. Benefit to the applicant, the relief will allow the applicant to build an addition to an existing business which will result in more storage space. There do not appear to be any feasible alternatives. The applicant is seeking, or we would approve 0 feet side and rear yard setbacks, and as far as the permeability is concerned, the applicant should submit a stormwater management plan to the Planning Board that is satisfactory, and this variance hinges upon that. There appear to be no adverse effects on the neighborhood or community, in fact, it appears to enhance the community. Whether the alleged difficulty is self created, it is self created, but it's the only portion of the property that the building can be put on. Combination of the two lots, if that's feasible, and if that's not, an expansion of the Use Variance. Duly adopted this 21st day of May, 1997, by the following vote: MR. STONE-Mr. Chairman, do we want to, since one of the effects listed in Staff Notes is increased noise and traffic, do we want to - 11 - (Queensbury ZBA meeting 5/21/97) indicate that by taking the compressors inside, that they would probably help to lower the current sound levels? MR. THOMAS-I think that would also be addressed at the Planning Board Site Plan Review, traffic, noise, dust, anything like that. AYES: Mr. Custer, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Stone, Mr. Karpeles, Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Thomas NOES: NONE MR. THOMAS-That takes care of that one. AREA VARIANCE NO. 15-1997 WR-1A/CEA CHRIS CARTE OWNER: ERMA & CLYDE CARTE 213 ASSEMBLY POINT ROAD, THIRD HOUSE ON THE LEFT PAST SUNSET LANE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT A PRIVATE GARAGE/STORAGE BUILDING AND REMOVE AN EXISTING STORAGE BUILDING. THE NEW CONSTRUCTION WILL NOT MEET THE REAR AND SIDE YARD SETBACKS OF THE WR-1A ZONE. RELIEF IS BEING REQUESTED FROM THE SETBACKS LISTED IN SECTION 179-16, WATERFRONT RESIDENTIAL 1 ACRE ZONE. TAX MAP NO. 8-5-19 LOT SIZE: 0.66 ACRES SECTION 179-16 CHRIS CARTE, PRESENT MR. THOMAS-Do you want to read the tabling motion? MRS. LAPHAM-Yes. All right. To Chris Carte, 13 Martindale Avenue, Hudson Falls, NY 12839, "The Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals has reviewed the following request at the below stated meeting and has resolved the following, meeting date April 16, 1997, variance file no. 15-1997, Area Variance, was tabled. Motion to table Area Variance No. 15-1997 Chris Carte, Introduced by Chris Thomas who moved for its adoption, seconded by Bonnie Lapham: For further information. Duly adopted this 16th day of April, 1997, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Lapham, Mr. CUster, Mr. Stone, Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Thomas NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. 0' Leary, Mr. Hayes Sincerely Bonnie M. Lapham, Secretary, Zoning Board of Appeals" MR. THOMAS -Okay. Does anyone have any questions since we asked Mr. Carte for more information? MR. STONE-I congratulate you on the plans that you have given us. It makes it much clearer in terms of what you're planning to do. MR. CARTE-Good. I tried to be thorough. MR. THOMAS-Does anyone have any questions for Mr. Carte? MR. STONE-The only thing, the septic system does, in fact, the leach field does, in fact, end before the driveway? MR. CARTE-Yes. We were aware of the fact that you weren't supposed to drive over leach fields when we designed it's location. MR. THOMAS-Anyone else? I do believe I left the public hearing open. Would anyone like to speak in favor of this application? In favor of? Anyone wishing to speak opposed? Opposed? Is there anything new? MRS. LAPHAM-I think this one is new. MR. CARTE-Yes. I have a couple of letters. ones got sent to you and which ones didn't. I don't know which MRS. LAPHAM-Okay. This one's April 14th, so I probably read it last time, from Frank Adamo. MR. CARTE-From Frank Adamo, yes. I have one from Frank Dillon. - 12 - ',- '--' (Queensbury ZBA meeting 5/21/97) MRS. LAPHAM-I think that's probably it, just that one. I have the one from Joseph Potvin. MR. CARTE-All right. Yes. I have one from Mr. Dillon, Frank Dillon, and also one from Rita and Joe Laraia who are our next door neighbors. Unfortunately, I don't have more than just this one copy. MR. THOMAS-Well, read them in, that way they'll be in the minutes, and then you can give them back to Mr. Carte. MRS. LAPHAM-All right, and these are all in support of. MR. CARTE-The one from Mr. Dillon is, you might want to read that because it's not necessarily in support of. Well, it's in support of the location that I have drawn on the diagram. MRS. LAPHAM-Okay. MR. THOMAS-Just read them all in. MRS. LAPHAM-All right. Okay. Rita and Joseph Laraia, 219 Assembly Point Rd., Lake George, NY, May 8, 1997, "Members of the Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals, and Chris Carte, RE: Chris Carte's variance application, Area Variance No. 15-1997, We received your notice for this variance dated April 9, 1997. Our property adjoins the Carte's property on the full north side. We understand the reasoning for this variance and have absolutely no objection to this application. Yours truly Joseph Laraia, Rita M. Laraia" 16 Circular Drive, Hudson Falls, NY 12839, April 30, 1997 Planning Board Attention: Bonnie Lapham, Queensbury Town Hall, Bay Road, Queensbury, NY 12804 "Dear Mrs. Lapham: It was my pleasure to accompany my mother-in-law, Rosemary Fraiser, to the Planning Board meeting which was held on April 16th. I purpose was to ascertain the specifications of the proposed storage building on the property adjoining her property and owned by the Carte family. We quickly discovered that we had very little cause for concerns, as it was evident that the members of your Board have been very thorough in your investigation and are making your decisions based on your expertise as well as the sensitivity for the welfare of the lake and all concerned. As you may know, Mrs. Fraiser is a nonagenarian whose greatest pleasure is to sit on her porch and watch the boats on the lake. She lives alone and only occasionally leaves the property. Your concern for her was very touching and my wife and family sincerely appreciate this. Your group is to be commended for your efforts on behalf of the lake and its residents. With sincere appreciation, Joseph W. Potvin" "Members of the Planning Board, Town of Queensbury, Queensbury, NY Dear Members of the Planning Board: My name is Francis J. Dillon, Jr., a resident of Assembly Point, Lake George since 1957. I have been advised that the application for a garage to be built by the Cartes on the property that abuts my property on the corner of Sunset Lane and Honeysuckle Lane has been set for another hearing before the Board as the Board has suggested an alternate location on the Carte property for the garage. I support the location of the garage on the rear right hand corner, or northwest corner of the property. That location will provide a direct route from the Assembly Point Road for the owners to move a trailer or other vehicle into the garage. I understand that there are no objections by the other abutting neighbors as to that location. Locating the garage in the rear of the Carte home would eliminate any view that now exists from my property. It is my intention at some future date to build on that lot which is now empty, as my seven children and their families are looking to expand the corner home. Therefore, I object to the construction of the garage at the location proposed by the Board as there is a better alternative location on the property. With no objections to the proposed location of the garage, it seems to me to be a simple administrative approval for - 13 - (Queensbury ZBA meeting 5/21/97) the proposed location and that the Board issue a variance. Francis J. Dillon, Jr." MR. STONE-Can you read that again, please? MR. THOMAS-Yes, read that last one again. MRS. LAPHAM-I'm not sure I understand what he's doing. I mean, on one hand he objects. On another he thinks it's all right. MR. KARPELES-I think he objects to it behind the house, but not where it is. MR. CARTE-That's right. Exactly. MRS. LAPHAM-All right, I'll start "Locating the garage in the rear of the Carte home would eliminate any view that now exists from my property. It is my intention at some future date to build on that lot which is now empty, as my seven children and their families are looking to expand the corner home. Therefore, I object to the construction of the garage at the location proposed by the Board as there is a better alternative location on the property." MR. STONE-We may have mentioned, we probably mentioned the possibility of putting it behind the house, and he's talking about that. That's fine. MRS. LAPHAM-Yes. Okay. "With no objections to the proposed location of the garage, it seems to be a simple administrative approval for the proposed location and that the Board issue a variance." I think what he's saying is, he likes Chris's location. He doesn't like ours. MR. STONE-Well, at least the one that we tossed around. MR. CARTE-Exactly. MR. KARPELES-The letter I don't understand is the second one. I'm not sure whether they approve of where it's going or they don't. MR. STONE-She likes it. MR. THOMAS-Yes, she likes it. MR. STONE-She can sit here and still see the lake. MRS. LAPHAM-And her family thought we were very considerate and thorough. MR. KARPELES-Considerate and thorough when? MRS. LAPHAM-In our investigation. When we tabled it. MR. STONE-The fact that we raised those questions. MRS. LAPHAM-Right, and wanted to see plans and so forth. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Has everybody reviewed the new drawings? MRS. LAPHAM-There doesn't seem to be one in this file. MR. THOMAS-What, the drawings? MRS. LAPHAM-Yes. MR. THOMAS-Have you got your copy? Throw it in there. MRS. LAPHAM-I will. - 14 - '--" (Queensbury ZBA meeting 5/21/97) MR. THOMAS-So everybody's seen the elevations? Nobody has any questions on what the garage is going to look like? MR. STONE-As long as it's not garish red. MR. CARTE-It would be appropriate to the neighborhood, and a big improvement over what's there now. MR. STONE-Yes. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Any more questions for the applicant? said that, I am looking for a motion. Having MR. STONE-Before we get to a motion, Mr. Chairman, may I just ask the applicant something? I know what's there now is an old dilapidated A Frame. Can you assure us that the north side of the new building will stay fairly unencumbered from? MR. CARTE-Certainly. MR. STONE-From materials piled up. MR. CARTE-Extra curricular materials, yes. Definitely. MRS. LAPHAM-And the A Frame is going to be torn down? MR. CARTE-Yes. MR. KARPELES-How high is the A Frame in relationship to the garage, the new structure? MR. CARTE-Well, I didn't measure it's height, but I would guess that it's probably about 12 feet to the peak. MR. STONE-It's less than 14. Fourteen is acceptable. MR. CARTE-Sure, and there are trees, there are two pretty good sized trees directly behind it that are much taller than that, obviously. MR. THOMAS-But the new structure is only going to be 14 feet at the peak? MR. CARTE-That's right. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 15-1997 CHRIS CARTE, Introduced by Jaime Hayes who moved for its adoption, seconded by Lewis Stone: The applicant proposes to replace an existing storage building with a new one, based on the plans provided. The new construction of that building will not meet the rear or side yard setbacks for a WR-1A zone, and the applicant is seeking relief along those lines. I think it will be a favorable change in the neighborhood. The subject property is very well maintained in my opinion and this is a continuation of that. I don't think the variance is substantial that they're asking for far as it's just a few feet, and I think as far as the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood, I think they're improved as well. So I make a motion that we approve it. The side yard setback, the existing setback is 15 feet. The proposed setback is reduced to 10, which he's requesting 15 feet of relief, as far as side yard setbacks, and as far as the rear setbacks, the proposed setback is 14 feet, and the required is 25. So the applicant is requesting 11 feet of rear setback. Duly adopted this 21st day of May, 1997, by the following vote: - 15 - (Queensbury ZBA meeting 5/21/97) AYES: Mr. Karpeles, Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Custer, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Stone, Mr. Thomas NOES: NONE MR. THOMAS-That takes care of that one. USE VARIANCE NO. 16-1997 TYPE: UNLISTED RR-3A MIKE BARBER OWNER: CANDACE BARBER 254 ROUTE 149, SOUTH SIDE OF ROUTE 149 APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT AN ADDITION TO A SINGLE FAMILY HOME WHICH WILL RESULT IN A TWO FAMILY HOME, ON PROPERTY ZONED RR-3A. THE USE OF A TWO FAMILY HOME IS NOT AN ALLOWED USE IN THE RR-3A ZONE. RELIEF IS BEING REQUESTED FROM THE USES LISTED IN SECTION 179-15, RURAL RESIDENTIAL 3 ACRE ZONE. ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 5/14/97 TAX MAP NO. 36-1-1.3 LOT SIZE 10.68 ACRES SECTION 179-15 MIKE BARBER, PRESENT MR. THOMAS-Lets see, we have a motion to table that. MRS. LAPHAM-All right. "Mike Barber, 254 Rt. 149, Lake George, NY 12845. The Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals has reviewed the following request at the below stated meeting and has resolved the following. Meeting Date: April 16, 1997 Variance File No. 16- 1997, for a Use Variance, tabled. Motion to table Use Variance No. 16-1997 Mike Barber, Introduced by Chris Thomas who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brian Custer: Until somebody shows up. Duly adopted this 16th day of April, 1997, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stone, Mr. Karpeles, Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Custer, Mr. Thomas NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. O'Leary, Mr. Hayes Sincerely, Bonnie M. Lapham, Secretary, Zoning Board of Appeals" MR. THOMAS-Okay. Mr. Barber, we have read the application at last month's meeting into the minutes. I did open the public hearing for anyone to speak in favor of or opposed to, and for any correspondence, and there wasn't anything from anyone outside. So, having read it into the record, we'll start asking you questions. Okay? MR. BARBER-Sure. MR. THOMAS-Questions for the applicant? MR. STONE-Well, this is a Use Variance, Mr. Chairman. MR. THOMAS-Yes. MR. STONE-We have been given no information about a reasonable rate of return. MR. THOMAS-Do you have any documentation? MR. BARBER-On what, now? MR. THOMAS-The first question is, is a reasonable return possible if the land is used as zoned, and you answered no. MR. BARBER-We originally bought the property to have a farm there, and since the zoning has changed, with the wetland problems that now are on the property, there's no way we can continue on, raise horses and such there. MR. THOMAS-What we're looking for is dollars and cents, like we just did for the Aronson variance. They submitted, you know, dollars and cents. MR. BARBER-Okay. - 16 - "-- - (Queensbury ZBA meeting 5/21/97) MR. THOMAS-And that's what the applicant asked for. MR. BARBER-The gentleman that filled out the paperwork couldn't be here tonight with me on this. MR. THOMAS-Gary Hughes? MR. BARBER-Right. MR. THOMAS-Would he have those figures? MR. BARBER-We've talked about it. We can develop that for you. MR. THOMAS-Seeing that this is the biggie on these Use applications, what's the pleasure of the Board? MR. KARPELES-We better table it. MR. THOMAS-Table it again until, because we've got to have those figures. MR. BARBER-Okay. MR. THOMAS-Okay, just like we did for the Aronson variance. MR. BARBER-Okay. Fine. MR. HILTON-If I could suggest, we have a meeting next week. If you've already read the application and you're that far into it, if the applicant can produce those figures by, lets say Monday, and we can get those out to you early, we may be able to hear this next week. MR. THOMAS-Yes. week. The only thing, we added one application next MR. HILTON-Right, that's true. It's your decision. MR. THOMAS-Yes, if you can get that to us by Monday, we'll put you on the end, next Wednesday, okay. It may be running late, but at least we'll have it settled one way or the other. Okay. MR. KARPELES-I'd like to make a suggestion. I suggest you get together with Staff and make sure that the figures you're going to supply us are the kind of figures we're looking for. MR. BARBER-I will. We'll make sure this gets done correctly. You bet. MR. THOMAS-Okay. MOTION TO TABLE USE VARIANCE NO. 16-1997 MIKE BARBER, Introduced by Chris Thomas who moved for its adoption, seconded by Bonnie Lapham: Until the applicant can produce competent financial evidence supporting his claim. If the applicant can have the information to Staff and to the Staff's approval by noon on Tuesday May 27th, it will be heard at the end of the May 28, 1997 Zoning Board of Appeals meeting. Duly adopted this 21st day of May, 1997, by the following vote: MR. HILTON-Monday is Memorial Day. Tuesday, the 27th. We can probably work with AYES: Mr. Custer, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Stone, Mr. Karpeles, Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Thomas - 17 - (Queensbury ZBA meeting 5/21/97) NOES: NONE MR. THOMAS-All right. So we will see you here next week, hoping you have the competent financial information we're looking for. MR. BARBER-We will. Thank you. MR. THOMAS-You're welcome. NEW BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 23-1997 TYPE II SR-1A LOUIS LAROCK OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE CRONIN ROAD, SECOND HOUSE WEST OF INTERSECTION WITH MEADOWBROOK ROAD APPLICANT HAS CONSTRUCTED A SINGLE FAMILY HOME WHICH DOES NOT CONFORM TO THE REQUIRED FRONT YARD SETBACK IN THE SR-1A ZONE. RELIEF IS BEING REQUESTED FROM THE FRONT YARD SETBACK LISTED IN SECTION 179-19, SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL ONE ACRE. TAX MAP NO. 60-1-7.6 LOT SIZE: 0.57 ACRES SECTION 179-19 JOHN POHL, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; LOUIS LAROCK, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 23-1997, Louis LaRock, Meeting Date: May 21, 1997 "APPLICANT: Louis LaRock PROJECT LOCATION: Cronin Road Proposed Project and Conformance with the Ordinance: The applicant has constructed a single family home which does not meet the required front yard setback. The existing front yard setback at this location is 15.75 feet. The required front yard setback is 30 feet. Criteria for considering an Area Variance, according to Chapter 267, Town Law. 1. Benefit to the applicant: Relief would allow the applicant to obtain a certificate of occupancy for this dwelling. 2. Feasible alternatives: Alternatives appear to be limited since the building is already constructed. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the ordinance? The applicant is seeking 14.25 feet of front yard relief. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community? It appears that this construction would not have a negative impact on the surrounding neighborhood if the house were occupied. 5. Is this difficulty self created? The need for relief is due to the fact that the home was constructed by the owner with a non conforming setback. Staff Comments & Concerns: The building that· is presently built has a front yard setback of 15.75 feet from the front property line. The building is setback over 30 feet from the edge of pavement of Cronin Road. It appears that the building which decreases the front yard setback does not obstruct any lines of site for vehicles traveling east or west along Cronin Road. SEQR: Type II, no further action required." MR. THOMAS-And there's nothing from Warren County, right? Warren County didn't look at this one. MR. HILTON-I don't think they did. MR. THOMAS-Is Mr. LaRock here, or his representative? anything you'd like to add to the application? Is there MR. POHL-Nothing except my client, as I think we've tried to present in the application, made a mistake. It was a mistake made in good faith. I think he was in touch with the Building Department all through various stages of construction. This is just something that slipped by, and they were even out there, I think, when the foundation was in. He was required to take elevations, I believe, of the property because it's a high water table area over there, and frankly just made a mistake. The setback, he was measuring from the road instead of the lot line. As I tried to indicate on the application, it's an unusual lot, in that there's a no build area in the back, and with the additional - 18 - '- ---' (Queensbury ZBA meeting 5/21/97) drawing I submitted, I tried to show that really where the building, even though it violates the front setback, the additional map shows that, in mY judgement, I don't know where else you could put it on that lot, and it is a lot in an approved subdivision. That's not an excuse for what happened, but as a practical matter, I don't know, as I look at it, that it could have been located any place else. MR. THOMAS-My first question is, who did the measuring for the foundation? Was it the builder? Was it the masonry contractor? Who was supposed to be doing the measuring? LOUIS LAROCK MR. LAROCK-It was I. MR. THOMAS-It was you. I have another question to Staff. Where was the Zoning Compliance Officer on this? MR. HILTON-My understanding of this is we were issued plans for building permit which indicated that the building had a front yard setback of greater than 30 feet. I can only tell you, or state that, not approving or reviewing the building permit plans, I can only state that the Building Inspectors felt the plan was in compliance and showed an adequate setback, and may have gone through, or did go through the proper zoning review. It wasn't until a later time that I believe the survey for the property was done and then it came to light that there was actually a nonconforming front yard setback. MR. THOMAS-Does anyone else have questions for the applicant? MR. CUSTER-John, who owns that strip of land in front there? It is a strange piece of property. I mean, there must be an easement through it to put the driveway there. MR. LAROCK-That's just showing my driveway off the road. MR. THOMAS-Mr. Pohl, could you state your name for the record. MR. POHL-John B. pohl. MR. CUSTER-So that's not somebody's piece of land there? MR. POHL-No. MR. CUSTER-That's just Town property, okay. MR. STONE-I have a question, a number of questions, but, one, this survey, map of a survey made for you, on the deed reference, it says, Schermerhorn Construction Corporation to Louis LaRock, dated September 4, 1997. Since that hasn't happened yet, can you explain that to me? MR. POHL-That is obviously an error. MR. STONE-Another error. Schermerhorn did not build this house? You yourself built this? MR. POHL-Yes, Mr. LaRock. We obtained title I think it was '96. MR. LAROCK-September 4th '96. MR. POHL-September 4th '96, if I'm not mistaken. I think he owns the remaining lots in that subdivision over there, Mr. Schermerhorn does, I believe so. MRS. LAPHAM-The subdivision was made in 1995. - 19 - (Queensbury ZBA meeting 5/21/97) MR. THOMAS-Does anyone else have questions for the applicant? MR. KARPELES-Yes, what is this location of clearing limits mean? It says location of clearing limits as per referenced map? MR. LAROCK-The rest of that land is all wetlands, and that's a do not (lost word) line. They could only fill to that point, and you cannot build or enter beyond that point. You're not permitted to use that land beyond that point. MR. STONE-Okay. Is that a straight line or is that a scalloped line as it's shown? I mean, that doesn't look like a line to me. MR. LAROCK-That's the way it shows it right on the County map. MR. POHL-On the County map, right. I think it's generally the 100 foot buffer from a wetland. MRS. LAPHAM-Couldn' t that be just the scallops would just represent trees and green. MR. KARPELES-It makes a difference as to whether it's located in that or not. MR. STONE-You're very close to it, it looks like, you could be very close on the proposed, lets put it that way. MR. THOMAS-Yes. MR. STONE-Well, I can only say, and I hope I'm not alone, I am not amused by this. I really am not. I've been on the Board now for about six months, and I have to admit, I've been very vocal on the idea of people coming before us with something built in violation of our zoning law. Our zoning law is very clear. I believe we have a competent department, although obviously there's some concern expressed after this thing, but I know this area is intended to be a very active one, if subdivision on the other side of Halfway Brook are going to go in, as I believe there was some, six, eight months ago I know there was some great activity there. I'm concerned that we might set a precedent, and I really, as I say, I am not amused. I have very little sympathy for this. MR. THOMAS-Does anyone else have any questions for the applicant before I open up the public hearing? I'll open up the public hearing. Anyone wishing to speak in favor of? In favor of? Anyone wishing to speak opposed? Opposed? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. THOMAS-Any correspondence? MRS. LAPHAM-No letters from the public. This letter is from Mr. Pohl. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Is it just the cover letter to the application? MRS. LAPHAM-Yes. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Then you don't need to read that. I'll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. THOMAS-Anyone else have any questions for the applicant? MRS. LAPHAM-You took this all the way through from the beginning, the very, before you even put a shovel in the ground, you went before the Building Department and you went from Step One to Step - 20 - ~ --../ (Queensbury ZBA meeting 5/21/97) Two to Step Three? MR. LAROCK-yes, ma'am. MRS. LAPHAM-And they concurred with everything you said you were going to do? MR. LAROCK-Yes. MR. THOMAS-I'd like to change something in the application, under zone classification it says, Residential. I would like to state that that's an SR-1 Acre zone. All right. If no one else has any questions for the applicant, lets talk about it. Robert, I'll start with you. MR. KARPELES-Well, I think there are a couple of questions that are unanswered, and I don't know if there's anybody here tonight that could answer them, but I think you ought to qet the answers. We ought to hear the Town's, Staff's side of this story, as to what actually transpired, because it just seems very strange, and the other thing, as I've said before, whenever these things occur, I like to treat them as though they had not been built and say whether I would have approved it or not approved it, if had come before the fact instead of after the fact, and I'd like to find out for sure whether that house could fit in there or not. This line looks very, very vague here, and I'd like to see something on a map that was certified by a surveyor saying that this interfered with the wetlands. MR. POHL-We did submit, there's an additional map. There are two maps that were submitted with the application. MR. KARPELES-I've got them. MR. POHL-One shows, there's one showing the existing location. There's another map which shows where the house would have had to have been positioned to comply with all the existing setbacks. That would have put it in the no build area. MR. KARPELES-I'd like to know how that no build area was arrived upon, whether that is scaled off from a map or whether that has been derived by a surveyor. I mean, it just looks, it could fit into one of those corners and it would be okay, according to this, and it's just too indefinite a line. MR. POHL-Are you sure? Are you looking at the? MR. KARPELES-Yes, I'm looking at the map with the scalloped edges on it. MR. POHL-Are you looking at the other map? MRS. LAPHAM-Where it says possible location? MR. STONE-You mean the proposed one, the one that might have been? MR. POHL-That shows where, the surveyor attempted to show there where the properties would have had to have been positioned to comply with the setback, and had it been placed in that area, it would have violated, it would have interfered with that no build area in the back. MR. THOMAS-If you'd have moved it five feet forward and got a variance for five feet instead of 15 feet, you probably would have been out of that no build area. MR. POHL-I can't deny that that would not have been a possibility. - 21 - ,r (Queensbury ZBA meeting 5/21/97) MRS. LAPHAM-Now this is an approved subdivision that was originally done by Rich Schermerhorn? MR. POHL-Yes, it is. MRS. LAPHAM-Doesn't a subdivision have to be filed with somebody? MR. POHL-It's a filed subdivision. MRS. LAPHAM-That's what I'm getting at, is that this should have come to somebody's attention, because it's filed. MR. HILTON-Well, the subdivision was filed, but when each home within a subdivision comes in, they have to apply and receive a building permit. So this wouldn't have come to anyone's attention until. MRS. LAPHAM-Okay, until the building permit, but he got the building permit. MR. HILTON-Right, and as I said before, and I think I can, well, I hope I can clarify Staff's position, not being the one who reviewed the building permit, we were presented with plans that indicated a front setback of 30 feet. It wasn't until such time that they were looking at the property to issue a CO, which you have a copy of an inspection slip in your packets, at that time when they were applying for a Certificate of Occupancy, I believe there was a survey presented to Staff which indicated the nonconforming setback as it exists today. So, and maybe the applicant can speak to this. Was the survey something that was done after the building permit was initially filed for? MR. LAROCK-When I had gotten my foundation, the Building Inspector came to me and said I needed a survey of flood elevation. The day I applied for my variance, my CO, he told me, I can't give it to you. We've got to have another survey for plot plan, and that's when I got the survey. MR. HILTON-At the time of the CO, but after the building permit. MR. LAROCK-Yes, after the house was built. MR. HILTON-Okay. So were the plans different that you submitted for the building permit? MR. LAROCK-No. The bottom line, it was a misunderstanding from road line. When he said road line, he was talking about a setback line which is 15 and a half feet off the side of the road, and when I built the house I measured off the road line, the edge of the road. MR. STONE-This is a dedicated road, three rods wide, in other words? MR. HILTON-It's a dedicated road. Cronin Road is a Town road. MR. STONE-Three rods from the center, one and a half on either side of the center. MR. HILTON-Yes. MR. THOMAS-Lou, what do you think? MR. STONE-I think Bob's got a very good thought. I think we have to hear from the other side. As I said earlier, and maybe I spoke too early, but I really don't like to see these kind of things come before us. I think it defeats the whole nature of our Comprehensive Plan. I have made it very clear to, I think - 22 - '-- '--' (Queensbury ZBA meeting 5/21/97) publically and certainly in private conversations, that a variance is not a God given right, and I would at least have to hear from the Town, the people who gave the building permit, as to what they thought Mr. LaRock had in mind when he was going to build this house. MR. THOMAS-Micky? MR. HAYES-I guess I'm in agreement with Mr. Karpeles, being that he wanted a better understanding of what that scalloped line is, and the definition there of to make a decision. The only thing that comes to mind, I'm in complete agreement with that. The only thing that comes to mind is he's trying to move into this house, apparently. I mean, if we get a definition of that by a certain time, can we entertain it on Wednesday? MR. THOMAS-I'll tell you, Wednesday's packed. MR. HAYES-Yes, you're right. I mean, obviously we've got (lost words), but until that point, I would agree with my colleagues that it's hard to get over the fact that this wasn't a self created difficulty, and that's part of our test. MR. HILTON-If I could just say, just before the Board entertains any motions or any further discussion is that certainly you have the right to seek clarification of that line, and showing the exact limits of clearing. However, this is a unique situation. If that line is then shown to be perfectly straight and bisects the property, it still doesn't change any of the alternatives in this situation. I think alternatives are, obviously, limited. Certainly I understand your concern for having to grant variances for structures that are already built, but any information that you're seeking may not really change his alternatives. That's all I have to say. MR. HAYES-But when you're trying to determine whether it's self created, that's obviously the test that we're trying to do here, and that's evidence of one thing or the other. MR. HILTON-Sure, and you absolutely have the right to ask for that information, and I don't dispute that. It's just, this is a tricky situation. MR. STONE-Also our job as civilians, so to speak, is to ask for accountability on the part of the Building Department. How did the building permit get issued for something which is obviously in violation of our zoning? MR. THOMAS-Well, we'll address that after everybody has spoken. Because I want to ask George, after everybody has spoken, a question. Brian? MR. CUSTER-I'm pretty much in agreement, too, with Bob and Lou. If it was clear cut that this was a mis-measurement from the get go, I don't think I could approve the variance. I'm with Lou that these things do not make me happy. It's very difficult. It sets a precedent (lost words), but there seems to be some mitigating circumstances here, the map and the Building Department, and I'd like to hear that before I make a final determination. MR. THOMAS-Bonnie? MRS. LAPHAM-Well, I'd like to definitely see some accountability from the Building Department, because we're seeing more and more of these, and more and more people keep saying that, well, they didn't know, and it's no excuse. I do think when someone goes before the Building Department and gets a permit, and everybody is in agreement, from Step One, before the first shovel full of dirt, and - 23 - (Queensbury ZBA meeting 5/21/97) then the house turns out to be too close to the road, I think there are definitely mitigating circumstances, and there aren' t many alternatives, and this did happen once before, before I was on the Zoning Board, where a contractor had mis-measured a porch, in the Pines, and there was no CO until the Zoning Board decided whether the porch would stay or go, and the Zoning Board, at that time, decided in favor of the porch because they felt it was an honest mistake. I mean, maybe history doesn't have any bearing, and maybe those are the precedents that you all are afraid of setting, but on the other hand, I think we at least owe this gentleman some consideration as to how this happened. MR. THOMAS-Well, as Bonnie has mentioned, we've given variances before for honest mistakes, but they weren't of this magnitude where it was a 50%. We were only talking three and four feet. As far as everybody else is concerned as to what the Building Department was doing or thinking at the time, I'm going to ask George to whoever was the responsible person to either come before the Board or write us a letter explaining their position in chronological step by step. It should be in their notes or in the building permit file, before we go on with this, because everybody seems to want to know what was going through his or her mind. Whoever it was, I don't care who it was, they can send a letter anonYmously, but, you know, we can all guess who it is. It's no big deal, but we just want to know what's going on, what they were thinking at that time, because I'm under the impression that before they issue a building permit, they're supposed to go out and inspect the site, if I'm not mistaken, and to make sure that the building permit drawing is what's in the field, because the foundation is supposed to be staked, before it's excavated anyway it has to be staked. So I would like that individual, whoever it is, to either appear before the Board next month, or write us a letter. MRS. LAPHAM-Can I just add something? MR. THOMAS-Yes, go ahead. MRS. LAPHAM-And the other thing that I would like to see is that I would like to see a program of some sort of education from the Building Department. I mean, I don't know how this would happen, or I'm not even recommending in any specific form, but I'd like to see, it's like a conversational glitch, you know, the Building Department says one thing, and the applicant hears it one way, when really it was meant another way, because the Building Department is assuming that everyone is as experienced in these matters as they are, is what I suspect is happening, and then the applicant goes away and says, well, I guess this is what they meant, and somehow there's got to be a little more clarification there to the applicants, and then they would understand what they were supposed to so. So on one hand we wouldn't have this kind of thing happening, but on the other hand, people that claim ignorance of the law because it suits their convenience would not be able to do so any longer. MR. THOMAS-That's right. Well, since the new Executive Director is coming in at some point in time, maybe things, that person will make some changes. So, I would like to table this variance until we get that information from the responsible person in the Building Department, with their explanation of what happened and a time line. So I'm going to ask to have this variance tabled until the first meeting in June. MR. HILTON-I believe it's June 18th. MR. THOMAS-Yes, June 18th. MR. HILTON-It's a 62 day tabling from this Board, if we can get it - 24 - - (Queensbury ZBA meeting 5/21/97) on that first meeting. MR. THOMAS-Are there any applications in for June yet? MR. HILTON-Not yet. MR. THOMAS-You've got one now. We'd like to have this one first on the list, on June 18th. MR. KARPELES-We're also going to get a more definite line. MR. THOMAS-Yes. We're going to ask for something more definite. MR. POHL-I think that is what the actual line looks like on the map, if I'm not mistaken. I don't know whether we can further explain it. MR. THOMAS-If you can further explain it, meet with the Building Department down there, whoever, and get a clearer explanation of that line, because that scalloped line, you know, if they say the existing tree line, it should say the existing tree line is the clearing limits, rather than just say, location of clearing limits as per referenced map. I would assume, looking at this, that that's what it is, the tree line, but it doesn't say that, but if you can get, if there's something in the deed or anything like that. MR. STONE-The DEC ought to be able to. MR. THOMAS-The tree line or since it's in a wet area. Where is, did you ribbon it off for DEC? MR. LAROCK-There's blue stakes along the back property that I assumed the surveyors had put in. MR. THOMAS-For DEC? Could you confirm that? MR. LAROCK-I'm not positive that it was DEC, no. MR. THOMAS-Yes. If you could confirm where the 100 foot setback is for the wetlands, and also the location of the clearing limits. Is it the tree line, or explain what the scalloped line is, is really what we're asking. MRS. LAPHAM-I have one other question. Did you build this house for a re-sale, or are you moving your family into it? MR. LAROCK-We have a purchase contract. awaiting purchase of the property now. We have a buyer that's MRS. LAPHAM-So you built it for re-sale? MR. LAROCK-Yes. MR. POHL-I would point out to you that throughout this whole process my client, it's not as if he ignored the Building Department. He really did, he worked hand in glove with them, and he just made a mistake. If I make a mistake in mY practice, sometimes I can cure with a letter. When a small contractor makes a mistake, as here, the consequences can be devastating. This would be a severe hardship, not only to Mr. LaRock. It would be a severe hardship to the proposed purchaser who is a single mother. She's a nurse at the hospital, and the fact that this has been delayed is costing additional money which we've agreed to reimburse her because she's lost commitment fees and things like that on the mortgage, but I'd ask you to consider those factors, too. It wasn't any attempt, here, to side step the Building Department in any way, and we'll do our best to provide you with any additional - 25 - (Queensbury ZBA meeting 5/21/97) information we can. I don't think we're going to be able to change the fact that an error was made. Whether we contributed to it or whether we will, there was an error in the Building Department or not, the fact is, as we've acknowledged in our application, a mistake has been made here, and as I said, some mistakes are more easily curable than others. I would ask that you take that into consideration, but we'll provide whatever information that you've asked for by the time of the next meeting. MR. THOMAS-By June 18th, the first meeting in June. All right. You know what we're looking for now, right? There's three things we're looking for. MR. POHL-You're looking for a clearer definition of what the scalloped line is. MR. THOMAS-Yes. MR. POHL-Okay. MR. THOMAS-And We're looking for the DEC setback line. indicate it on a this map here, this 11 by 17 map. MR. POHL-Okay. MR. THOMAS-One other thing I was looking for. The third thing is we're going to check with the Building Department and find out what went on in that end. MR. HILTON-I'd just like to say that setback. It might be something that subdivision, as a limit of clearing. long as he clarifies the line. this might not be a DEC was put in place for the I mean, the applicant, as MR. THOMAS-Work with the Planning Department on that. It's got to be in the deed somewhere. MR. POHL-Okay. MR. THOMAS-Where that line came from somewhere. appear out of nowhere. So I'll make a motion. It just didn't MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 23-1997 LOUIS LAROCK, Introduced by Chris Thomas who moved for its adoption, seconded by Lewis Stone: Until the first meeting in June, June 18th, for further information and clarification from the applicant and from the Building Department, Town of Queensbury. . Duly adopted this 21st day of May, 1997, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Karpeles, Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Custer, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Stone, Mr. Thomas NOES: NONE MR. THOMAS-So this is kind of a touchy situation. So this is why we were asking for the delay. MR. LAROCK-One more question. As you have stated, in my building permit application, my plot plan I handed in, I show 30 feet off the road. MR. THOMAS-Right, off of the edge of the hard pavement. MR. LAROCK-Right, and that's the way I drew it on my plot plan, and as it was staked when they came and looked at it, it's right where it sits today. - 26 - - ~ (Queensbury ZBA meeting 5/21/97) MR. THOMAS-The building? MR. LAROCK-Yes. MR. THOMAS-Well, like I said, I want to hear what the person, whoever it was, I don't care who it was, from the Building Department, I want to see what they said, because we've been running in to too many of these, the building is put up and then they come in. MR. LAROCK-That's basically what I was saying, too, is the bottom line is there was a mistake made and truthfully it's probably on both parts. MR. THOMAS-Well, we'll have a decision on the 18th, as long as we have at least four members here. MR. LAROCK-Okay. Thank you. MR. THOMAS-Thank you. Next on the agenda is Sign Variance No. I'm going to change the order, here, at Mr. Lapper's request. We're going to hear Sign Variance No. 27-1997, Hollywood Video, Berkshire-Glens Falls, Inc. SIGN VARIANCE NO. 27-1997 TYPE: UNLISTED HC-1A HOLLYWOOD VIDEO BERKSHIRE-GLENS FALLS, INC. OWNER: ELIZABETH DOYLE FORMER SITE OF DOYLE'S GARDEN CENTER, QUAKER & BAY ROADS APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT A SECOND WALL SIGN ON A NEW BUILDING. THE BUILDING WHICH IS LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF BAY AND QUAKER ROAD IS LIMITED TO ONE WALL SIGN. RELIEF IS BEING REQUESTED FROM THE NUMBER OF WALL SIGNS ALLOWED BY SECTION 140-6B. WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 5/14/97 TAX MAP NO. 105-1-4.1 LOT SIZE: 2.57 ACRES SECTION 140-6B JON LAPPER & TIM TRAINER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Sign Variance No. 27-1997, Hollywood Video Berkshire-Glens Falls, Inc., Meeting Date: May 21, 1997 "APPLICANT: Hollywood Video, Berkshire-Glens Falls, Inc. PROJECT LOCATION: Southwest corner of Bay & Quaker Roads PROPOSED PROJECT AND CONFORMANCE WITH THE ORDINANCE: The applicant proposes to construct an additional wall sign at a proposed business on the former site of Doyle's Garden Center. The applicant states that the additional wall sign will replace a freestanding sign that is allowed by the Sign Ordinance. The addition of a second wall sign exceeds the number of wall signs allowed by the Sign Ordinance. 1. How would you benefit from the granting of this Sign Variance? Relief would allow the addition of a wall sign at a proposed video store. 2. What effect would this sign have on the character of the neighborhood and the health, safety and welfare of the community? The substitution of a wall sign in place of an allowed freestanding sign would not have an adverse effect on the character of the surrounding neighborhood. 3. Are there feasible alternatives to this variance? One alternative may be constructing a freestanding sign along Bay Road. However, the construction of a second wall sign in lieu of such a freestanding sign may be a preferred alternative. 4. Is the amount of relief substantial relative to the Ordinance? The applicant is seeking to allow an additional wall sign for a business which is limited to one wall sign. It appears that relief is not substantial since the sign will replace an allowed freestanding sign. 5. Will the variance have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood? Allowing this variance would not have an adverse impact on environmental conditions in the surrounding neighborhood. Staff Comments and Concerns: The applicants proposal to replace an allowed freestanding sign with a - 27 - (Queensbury ZBA meeting 5/21/97) second wall sign would be a substitution of a wall sign in place of a freestanding sign. This one for one replacement is something that staff is not opposed to. As this sign will replace an allowed freestanding sign, the ZBA may wish to include a stipulation stating that no second freestanding sign will be allowed at this location. SEQR: Unlisted, short form EAF review needed." MRS. LAPHAM- "At a meeting of the Warren County Planning Board, held on the 14th day of May 1997, the above application for a Siqn Variance for the plaza to be constructed on this site was reviewed and the following action was taken. Recommendation to: Approve Comments: The WCPB approves this application with the condition that there is no pylon sign on Bay Road." Signed Tracey M. Clothier, Chairperson. MR. THOMAS-Mr. Lapper. MR. LAPPER-For the record, my name is Jon Lapper, and with me is Tim Trainer from Berkshire Development from Springfield, Massachusetts. To begin with, I'd like to state that I, for one, understand this Board's past record, in terms of Sign Variances, and how seriously you treat applications for Sign Variances, and for that reason I've tried, in the application, to distinguish this from other applications which I've been asked to bring on behalf of retail businesses in Town and other applications that have come before this Board. Usually an applicant is seeking additional signs, and here, when we sat down with Hollywood Video, to put this in context, this is a company out of California that's expanding into New England, and we had to change their usual protocol and make them understand that neither in Queensbury or elsewhere in New England were they going to get their California look if you will, which has lots of painted metal and colors and they would love to see the whole facade look like a sign. At the same time, this Plaza itself, because people like the way Doyle's looks, there was an emotional issue, and we went through significant architectural discussions, even though there's no architectural review, per se, in Queensbury, but when we were at the Planning Board for site plan review, this was reviewed over the course of a number of months, and what we came up with were a number of design features that the Planning Board was ultimately very in favor of. You probably are all familiar with the CVS that was built over on Main Street, that was just completed. That's the subject of another application, and in terms of some of the features from there, this is a much, what's proposed or what's been approved, and what will be in the ground shortly at the Doyle's site is very similar in a lot of respects, but also quite a bit nicer, fancier architecture than what was built, and we're very proud of what was built on Main Street, but in terms of the brick treatment with soldier courses of brick on the side, which is also at the other Plaza, the columns, the dental molding, which we incorporated into the sign, and the french window inserts, which was something that the Planning Board very much wanted to see here to soften this and make it look a little more colonial, a little more residential in character. We went to Hollywood Video because this lease which was just proposed is something that's important for the Plaza, because it's 7500 square feet, and we're preparing to have a closing in a few weeks and be in the ground a few weeks after that. We had to sit down with their architects and explain to them that we aren't going to go to Queensbury and ask for their standard sign, and in doing that, we explained that we would have to give something up, that we weren't going to get an extra sign, and that's why we have offered, and we hope you view it as significant, to take down the pylon sign. The pylon sign that is allowed, we have 75 feet of green space off of Bay Road because this is in the Travel Corridor Overlay District. So we can put a pylon sign on the Bay Road side near the old Stan's Seafood, which would be 25 feet off the property line and that would be 64 square feet on each side, which is very similar to the old Blockbuster sign that you might remember which was at the - 28 - '-" (Queensbury ZBA meeting 5/21/97) Quaker Plaza, and which was there even after Blockbuster had moved, right at the corner, a big blue sign. That's something that I hope this Board will not view as something positive. Pylon signs are not something that you necessarily want to encourage. Because this is a corner parcel, we're allowed to have two pylon signs, and that's something that, as you read, the Planning Department viewed as significant and the County Planning Board, which never, as a policy, approves Sign Variances, made a special exception in this case, after a half hour discussion last week, because they also are not in favor of pylon signs, and they varied their general rule by putting on record that we offered and agreed to take down, not to build a pylon sign and to switch it. That said, it's a corner store as well, and most of the facade is what's on the left in the drawing, which is along the Bay Road side, and that is allowed as of right, that square feet on that sign. What we're asking for is the Hollywood Video sign on the front so that you can see it when you're driving along Quaker Road. The way we got to the 165 square feet is that in the business complex, which is what this is called, which is a shopping center with three or more stores, the business complex section of the Sign Ordinance, you're allowed 100 square feet plus 10 feet for every 10 feet that you are off the property line. So this is 105 square feet setback from Quaker Road. So that's not, so we're not asking for anything in addition to that, just the 165 square feet. In addition, if you look at the sign itself, you see on the color prints that you have, the dental molding, all of the architectural features that were included in the Plaza itself were included in the sign. At the top of the sign, that real nice dental treatment and the columns, the sign itself, what you see in blue, that is just painted. So that would not be visible at night. The word "Hollywood" is backlit white and the word "Video" is backlit red, and there is a one inch band of neon along the top of the mountains, so to speak, and that's all that you would see at night, which is very simple based upon what Hollywood Video usually does. We think that this is very tasteful for the Plaza, and the developers obviously, I mean, this is a very visible Plaza, and something that they are very proud of, and they want to get this built and they want it to look good, and we think that this is something that will fit in with Queensbury, and we hope that you will agree. Tim, is there anything that you'd like to add? MR. TRAINER-No, other than just, I guess anytime you give an Irishman a mic, he's got to say something, I guess. What I, of course we've enjoyed some, I think I've been coming here, this is my second or third year, I think the anniversary of my third year, and I really do appreciate many times that we've been in front of the Board, not only this Board, but certainly the Planning Board as well, and we've had a very good positive relationship with the Staff. We do appreciate all of the thought that's gone into our projects. I know that the recent one that we've just completed on Main Street, I would encourage you to go over and take a look at that. We have a grand opening, I think, on Tuesday next week, and we'd like you to certainly come over and take a look at what our final product is. The same kind of care and the same kind of commitment that we made at the onset, when we started this project maybe a year and a half, two years ago, is the same type of commitment that we're making here. It's very expensive level of construction, roughly $75 a square foot. In retail today that's actually $25, $30 more than what you normally see. We'd like to bring that quality product here. I think it's well received in the community. We anticipate doing exactly the same thing here with this new project. We have some very nice opportunities, actually, to even expand upon some of the landscaping that took place on Main Street, a couple of unique opportunities because of it's location to a historical marker, and the adjacent parcel. All I can say is that we would appreciate this Board looking favorably upon our application. It is important to my company that we are granted this variance, and we'll continue our commitment to bring good - 29 - (Queensbury ZBA meeting 5/21/97) quality product here to Queensbury. So thank you. MR. THOMAS-Any questions for the applicant? MR. KARPELES-Could you elaborate, again, upon what is illuminated and what isn't? MR. LAPPER-The word "Hollywood" is illuminated. MR. KARPELES-Right. MR. LAPPER-The word "Video" is illuminated, and then there is a neon band. MR. KARPELES-The red band. MR. LAPPER-Yes, is illuminated, but that's very reminiscent of the Olive Garden, where there's a green, at the very top of the building, there's a one inch thick green line that runs around the top of the building, and that's all that this red line is. MR. TRAINER-Then also I just might want to mention, when we met with Staff, you have some, within your Ordinance, a certain illuminescense that's allowed. You have certain candle power, well, it's hard to get candle power out of it, but there's a certain wattage that is allowed there, which I think is part of your Sign Ordinance, which of course this will conform with. MR. STONE-Can you explain the layout of your property? Everything there is coming down? MR. LAPPER-Everything there is coming down. MR. STONE-It's going to be leveled? MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. STONE-What I looked at the other day is meaningless? MR. LAPPER-Yes. The buildings that were there were analyzed for their historic significance, in terms of the barns, because there was some issue that maybe those barns could be used in the Town park, Hovey Pond park, as historical buildings to put a display for the Town, and the Town actually brought in some barn experts, to take a look, and they determined that those barns had been so changed over the years that there was no historical significance, and the Town didn't want them, but we offered them. The building in front, which everybody likes, because of the French windows, is mostly built on a slab. It's 1961 construction. It's not well insulated. It's not well constructed. So even though it's pleasing to look at, it's just nothing that could have been used at this point, and it's wood frame, and we're looking at masonry construction. One other thing that's unique about Berkshire, and the new CVS that was already built and this one, is that this will have brick soldier courses as well, not just flat brick, but completely around the building. I mean, so this is going to be very nice from all sides, which is something that is generally not done, because of the expense. Usually you see concrete block in the back. To answer Lou's question, the other thing about the site, because we have the parcel with the historical marker, what isn't shown on this, which isn't the absolute final site plan, because I realize this, it was on a separate sheet, there's what we call a contemplation area, which is built on the green space. There's a 75 foot setback from the corner piece, which the Town owns, on Quaker Road. There's 75 foot green space from, perhaps it's 50 feet. Yes, 50 feet, and in that area, that's going to be a contemplation area that'll have a trellised area and some benches in that green space, which was deemed appropriate next to the - 30 - ~< ~" (Queensbury ZBA meeting 5/21/97) historical marker for the former Quaker parcel, and that's the setting that we're in here. MR. STONE-Okay. That pond is a? MR. LAPPER-That's not really a pond. indentation. It's just a grass MR. STONE-Swale. MR. TRAINER-Yes. It's a detention. What it does is it allows the flow of water under whatever the extreme conditions are to be metered and come out at an acceptable flow rate. MR. LAPPER-That'll be fully grassed and mowed. MR. STONE-How many curb cuts are there here? I know there's been a lot of controversy and I've read a lot, but I'm not current. MR. LAPPER-What we show are the two curb cuts that exist right now, one onto Quaker and one onto Bay. The curb cut that is shown here on the back, which is near Stan's, Shop N' Save entrance road, both of the ones on the Shop N' Save entrance roads are the preferred alternative. The Town has been pushing Shop N' Save/Hannaford to allow that onto that road, and the Town has offered to take over that road as a Town road, so that the Town would maintain it, plow it, etc. The developer is fully in favor of that, is supportive of that, and we have agreed at the Planning Board, and we'd prefer that if Hannaford agrees, we will make whatever site improvements we need to properly connect curbs, paving, landscaping, etc., and we will close off both of those entrances, one to Quaker and one to Bay, but that is out of our hands, unless the Town were going to condemn that road, if you will. However, because of the publicity in the Post Star, which we appreciated just mentioning the issue, Hannaford contacted the Planning Department, and they have subsequently been exchanging calls, missing Tim now for about a month now. MR. TRAINER-Actually, we've contacted, there is discussions going forth. MR. LAPPER-We are very hopeful that Hannaford is calling because they want to do the deal, rather than to tell us to stop asking, but we don't know because it's not something that we can control. MR. THOMAS-Does anyone else have any questions? I've got a few. You stated that this was a plaza and that consisted of three or more stores? MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. THOMAS-I only see two stores here. MR. LAPPER-The large piece, the larger store, the smaller piece here is CVS, and the larger piece is 15,000 square feet. MR. TRAINER-14,000. MR. LAPPER-To be exact. So that, no demising walls are shown here because at the time that this was approved, we didn't have any tenants. Now we have one tenant in Hollywood Video, and there's a proposal for a medical office in most of the other space, if not all. So this would be three or four tenants, most likely. MR. THOMAS-Okay, but the walls aren't shown on here. MR. LAPPER-Because they haven't been determined yet. - 31 - (Queensbury ZBA meeting 5/21/97) MR. THOMAS-How many square feet is the video store going to take? MR. TRAINER-7500. MR. THOMAS-7500. So it's half of that 15,000 or 14,000, whatever. MR. TRAINER-Right, and the proposed medical office right now I think is 4,000 feet. We have two other tenants that are interested on the balance. So right now as it sets, it would be at least five. MR. THOMAS-That leads to my next question. What about the pylon sign on Quaker Road? Will the other businesses want a pylon sign on Quaker Road? MR. LAPPER-What we're allowed is because we're offering, and we hope you will accept the offer, to give up the pylon sign on Bav Road. What we're allowed is one pylon sign on Quaker Road, and under the Town sign code, that can be no more than 50 square feet at 15 feet from the setback, and no more than 64 feet on each facade at 25 feet from the setback. Since we have plenty of room, it would most likely be 64 feet, 25 feet back. Whether or not that would advertise just CVS or all of the stores, the Town sign code requires that the signs be, that the letters be no smaller than six inches because they don't, as a safety issue for drivers passing by, don't want to encourage small signs that has everybody's name on it, so that people will have to squint to find it and then have an accident. So that, when you have 64 square feet with six inch letters, that limits what you can put on a sign. Right now we have one lease with CVS and we have this potential lease with Hollywood Video. The other ones are being negotiated, discussed. So it hasn't been determined whether everybody would get a spot on that, whether some of the prime tenants would, but the Town code allows you that flexibility. MR. TRAINER-I can say Hollywood Video would not be on the pylon. MR. STONE-How many CVS wall signs are there going to be, just one? It's not a corner lot. MR. LAPPER-It's not a corner lot, so under the Code, they're only allowed one. Berkshire is not responsible for CVS's signs, and we haven't had discussions with them. MR. STONE-But you are responsible for Hollywood Video's? MR. LAPPER- Yes, because the lease with CVS says that, because Berkshire doesn't want to deal with CVS's signs. So CVS is responsible for CVS's signs. MR. TRAINER-Frankly, to be honest with you, as a developer, and one who does a lot of work with retailers, we'd prefer not to be put in this situation. We'd prefer the tenants make their own applications. However, there are certain tenants that you come across that have favorable credit and long term leases so that we can have a nice stable center, and we have it fully occupied from the get go, and one of the conditions of this particular tenant, if we want them, is for us to handle it. So it's kind of a Catch-22. I'd just as soon be home tonight and have you all going home, too, as well, but if we're going to do this transaction, I have to be here representing and requesting on their behalf. MR. STONE-The Hollywood store, is it going to be in the northeast corner of that building, or is it going all the way through from north to south? MR. TRAINER-It goes, let me get the directions here, it goes from front to back, and it's on the end of the retail. - 32 - ,--- -' (Queensbury ZBA meeting 5/21/97) MR. STONE-But it goes all the way. MR. TRAINER-All the way back. MR. LAPPER-That's the drawing on the left, that shows that whole, the side. MR. STONE-I see it's east, but I don't know where the CVS building is. MR. TRAINER-The CVS is the one that's more rectangular. MR. STONE-It's not how I see it. here. Someone help me. Here's CVS MR. LAPPER-Yes, and here is the Hollywood. MR. STONE-Okay. So the other stores will be from that point to the left. MR. TRAINER-In between. MR. LAPPER-We had shown the rest of the plaza, that they will be here, and CVS will be here. MR. STONE-That's the north elevation you're showing. MR. LAPPER-That's where the other stores are going to go, on Quaker Road, on the north elevation. MR. STONE-Okay. All right. MR. LAPPER-This is the entire east elevation, and a portion of the north elevation. MR. STONE-That's the entire east elevation? projection? Where is this MR. TRAINER-That's going to be Bay. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. LAPPER-So Stan's Seafood is over here, and CVS is here. MR. STONE-Okay. I'm looking from the south. You'll have to excuse me. MR. THOMAS-So getting back to this pylon sign on Quaker Road that you want to give up. MR. STONE-On Bay Road they want to give up. MR. THOMAS-I thought you said you wanted to give up the one on Quaker. MR. LAPPER-No. We want to give up the one on Bay. MR. THOMAS-The one on Bay. MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. THOMAS-All right. So the other tenants in there aren't going to be clamoring for a pylon sign on Bay, if we grant this variance? MR. LAPPER-There cannot be, if the variance is granted, we are precluded from the pylon sign on Bay. That would be a condition. MR. THOMAS-Okay, and the tenants as they come in will realize that, - 33 - ~-- (Queensbury ZBA meeting 5/21/97) they will be told? MR. TRAINER-We've already had those discussions. Actually, if we put Hollywood Video in this facility. We believe we have it fully leased, and the other tenants have already been made aware of that. These are basically, we would refer to them in our business as anchors. The one on the left, or the Hollywood Video, is an anchor basically for the Retail B space, and CVS is an anchor on the right for their premier anchor space. So the infill is, generally they're smaller tenants, although their services are just as important as the rest of them, but they understand, they don't have quite the driving force or interest as we do when we have those two major tenants. MR. THOMAS-But they will want, probably, some kind of sign on the building. MR. TRAINER-They'd want signage in front of their space, obviously. MR. LAPPER-They are allowed, under the Code, each of the stores in a business complex is allowed one facade sign and they are allowed a space on the pylon, or in this case the two pylons which are permitted under the Code. MR. THOMAS-Yes, but you're asking that one of those pylons be omitted. MR. LAPPER-Yes, right. I was answering just in terms of what the Code permits. MR. STONE-Yes, but the pylon still has a total square footage. MR. LAPPER-Right. MR. STONE-So you have six inches and then you could only have so many square feet. MR. LAPPER-Sixty-four maximum on each facade, right. MR. THOMAS-Yes. Anymore questions for the applicant? If not, I'll open the public hearing. Anyone wishing to speak in favor of? In favor of? Anyone wishing to speak opposed? Opposed? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. THOMAS-Any correspondence? MRS. LAPHAM-Not according to this one page, but I will look to be sure. No, none that I can see. MR. THOMAS-All right. I'll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. THOMAS-Anymore questions for the applicant? MR. KARPELES-I'd like to get clarified exactly what we're giving up and what we're looking for. Now I understand on Bay Road there's a pylon sign that we're going to eliminate. That's forever gone. Nobody else that moves in there is going to have it. MR. LAPPER-No matter what. MR. KARPELES-Okay. Then on Quaker Road there is going to be a pylon sign. Where is that going to be located? MR. LAPPER-Do you know where the Hannaford sign is, which is on the west side of their entrance drive? - 34 - '--' - (Queensbury ZBA meeting 5/21/97) MR. KARPELES-Yes. MR. LAPPER-This would be. MR. KARPELES-Why don't you show us on the map. MR. LAPPER-Okay. Hannaford has a sign which is over here, which is a pretty attractive pylon that they just added. This sign would be in here. MR. KARPELES-Okay. Now what is that sign going to have on it? It's not going to have the video store, right? MR. LAPPER-It's not going to have the video store. MR. KARPELES-And it's going to have how many other stores? MR. LAPPER-The maximum would be all the rest of the stores. MR. KARPELES-Which is how many? MR. TRAINER-Currently you have CVS and we have three other tenants who we're talking to, currently. MR. STONE-So there's five tenants altogether? MR. TRAINER-Altogether. The video store would not be on the pylon sign. MR. STONE-I understand. MR. KARPELES-So that will have five stores in it? MR. LAPPER-Four. MR. THOMAS-CVS and three other stores. MR. KARPELES-In addition to that, is CVS going to have a sign up here? MR. TRAINER-They would have their sign in the front here. MR. KARPELES-Are they going to want a sign back here, too? MR. TRAINER-Again, I cannot speak, I'm not trying to be evasive, but I can't really speak for what they'll want to do. They may want to come back and ask for some additional signage, and propose that to you. MR. KARPELES-I think we'd like to get the signage also clear right now. MR. THOMAS-We really can't, CVS is responsible for their own signage, you know, like we had the difference of opinion up there on the Main Street one that finally got settled. MR. STONE-They recognize that you're here? concern, not mine. I mean, it's your MR. TRAINER-Right. No, they know that I'm here, and again, the way it works on these types of transactions, I have to be concerned, specifically, now, you have the Ordinance in place. We know what that Ordinance is. We've come here to give something up and trade to take care of this tenant that's on the end. We have a long term lease with them. We're comfortable with those people as we go forward, obviously, because this sticks with the building forever. What CVS does, they recognize, we build 35 to 40 of those stores a year. So we've come to an accommodation. They have the right to - 35 - - (Queensbury ZBA meeting 5/21/97) come and appear in front of you and ask for whatever they want to ask, and you'll judge whether that's meritorious or not. We're out of that function, and we've done that purposefully so that we can work on the balance of our retail, build their store. They have a group that specially handles that for them, and that's just an accommodation that we've come to over time, and it works well. You still have all the flexibility. MR. STONE-And you still have their business. MR. TRAINER-We have a lot of their business. MR. HILTON-Any additional wall signs from CVS would need to be reviewed by this Board for a Sign Variance. MR. THOMAS-Okay. MR. STONE-They're allowed one on the north side, well, they'll probably put it on the north side. MR. TRAINER-And we'd be allowed one on this pylon sign. MR. KARPELES-I just have trouble, if you can't agree to eliminate those signs, say we have to deal with them later, how can we deal with eliminating this pylon sign forever? Haven' t they got a right to appeal for that? Whoever rents these other buildings? MR. TRAINER-In the future? MR. LAPPER-They will not have a right to the pylon on Bay Road, because the property is owned by Berkshire. The landlord is giving that up. MR. TRAINER-We're agreeing to that, make that a condition. MR. THOMAS-Yes, that would have to be a condition of the variance. MR. TRAINER-It flows with the property, and as part of our deed, I assume, that you'd have that attached to our deed. MR. LAPPER-It wouldn't be on the deed. MR. TRAINER-Or however you'd get it, but we recognize that, and that's something that we have to live with, as we go forward for probably the next 25 or 30 years that we own the center. So we're comfortable with that. MR. STONE-Helping me understand this thing, what is this little thing on the south side, tucked in between CVS and the other building, the round circle? I mean, I just can't read it. MR. LAPPER-You're talking about here. Is that the edge of pavement? There's a dumpster there that's covered. MR. STONE-That's a dumpster? Okay. MR. TRAINER-That's just, I think, a curb edge there. I'm sorry that this isn't more legible to you. Well, actually what that is is the dumpster for the balance of the center. There's a trash compactor directly behind CVS which is a little bit larger, okay, then the to back edge of that is a trash compactor. MR. LAPPER-Yes. That makes sense. I think that that's trash for the rest of the center. MR. TRAINER - I'm sure it is. I t would make sense. Tha t would be in the appropriate location for it. - 36 - '- '-.' (Queensbury ZBA meeting 5/21/97) MR. LAPPER-I should have thought to bring the full sized site plan. MR. STONE-Yes, this leaves a little bit to be desired. MR. TRAINER-We wanted to use this as an exhibit to show you where the signs were. MR. THOMAS-Any other questions for the applicant? I don't know if I closed the public hearing, but I'll close it now. Any other questions for the applicant? If not, lets talk about it. Micky? MR. HAYES-Basically, I'd like to compliment Mr. Lapper on the quality of this proposal. Since I've been on the Board, this is the nicest one that I've seen, and I think it demonstrates pretty accurately what they're trying to do. I also think that this is a classic case of a trade that benefits all involved. A quality developer is coming forward and offering to give up something in exchange for something, and it also appears that from the drawings that there has been an attempt made to reduce the California surfing image and comply it with our area, and I think that's to be appreciated. So, in a nutshell, I would be in favor of it. MR. THOMAS-All right. Brian? MR. CUSTER-I'm in favor of it. MR. THOMAS-Bonnie? MRS. LAPHAM-I'm pretty much in favor because of the removal of the pylon sign. The only thing I question is the safety, if you can't work out your problems with Hannaford and have one curb cut and one driveway, because you have, I mean like now, you almost miss it half the time, and all the times I used to go to Doyle's I used to end up in Super Shop N' Save's lot and be really annoyed, then have to come back out. So you'd need something there I would think. MR. LAPPER-There's one thing that I should have mentioned, Bonnie. There's no left turn out onto Quaker Road. We agreed to give that up. Right now with Doyle's, both of the existing entrances are right turn in, right turn out, and we gave up the left turn out because it's too close to the intersection. It's an existing site, and we're using the same entrances that are there, and we expect that we're going to be successful with Hannaford, but I can't tell you that as a matter of fact. MR. STONE-If you didn't have CVS, they'd grant it immediately. MR. LAPPER-Right. project. If we didn't have CVS, we wouldn't have a MRS. LAPHAM-But that would be the ideal, if you could connect the two roads, both on Quaker and on Bay, so that you'd have one road, and giving up the pylon sign is certainly a plus. I'm not against the project. I just want to say that maybe that's Hollywood Video's idea of toning things down, but it's not what I consider toning down, especially after driving by every day and seeing Doyle's for all these years on that corner, but as I said, I can see where they've made an effort. So I'm not totally against it. MR. THOMAS-Bob? MR. KARPELES-I agree with Bonnie's statements all the way. Believe it or not, I have no objection to it. MR. LAPPER-I do really appreciate that. I know who I'm talking to. MR. THOMAS-That's one out of two. Lou? - 37 - (Queensbury ZBA meeting 5/21/97) MR. STONE-I appreciate Mr. Lapper's, Jon's appreciation of our zealous guarding of the Sign Ordinance for the Town of Queensbury, but I do think, in this case, that this will be a nice project, and the signs look like they'll be attractive and attention getting at the same time, without being garrish, although on my next trip to California, I'm going to have to seek one of these places out. MRS. LAPHAM-Take a picture of it, for those of us who don't travel. MR. TRAINER-Actually I should have brought those pictures. MR. STONE-But I think, as Paul said, it is a classic case of give and take, and these are the kinds of things that I think make us appreciative of our part of a situation like this, where we cãñ listen and we can modify for good reason. I'm in favor of it. MR. THOMAS-I agree with the rest of the Board. I would be willing to give up the, well, the customer or applicant is willing to give up a 128 square foot sign, 25 foot from the road for a 165 square foot sign 165 feet from the road, you know, he's only asking for a 37 square foot increase in the size of the sign, but it's also going back 130 feet. So I have no problem whatsoever with it. So, having said that, I'll ask for a motion. MRS. LAPHAM-Could I just ask one question? If the Hannaford deal doesn't go through, would they be allowed to have just directional arrows? MR. THOMAS-They can have directional signs up to four square feet, no more than six feet, or ten feet off the ground. MR. HILTON-I believe it's six. MR. THOMAS-Six feet off the ground, directional signs no bigger than four square feet, six feet off the ground. MR. HILTON-Yes, four square feet, six feet off the ground. MRS. LAPHAM-But at least they could have, I've lived in that area for 20 years, and I've watched other people beside myself miss the Doyle's turn. MR. STONE- I almost did the other day trying to look at the property. MR. HILTON-This is also an Unlisted Action which requires a SEQRA. So, before you make a motion. MR. THOMAS-Well, we'll do the SEQRA first, if everybody would turn to the SEQRA page in the application. Does anyone see any negative, does everyone agree that there is no negative impacts on the environment for this project? MR. STONE-Yes. MRS. LAPHAM-Yes. MOTION THAT A REVIEW OF THE SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM SHOWS THAT THERE IS NO NEGATIVE IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT DUE TO THIS PROJECT, Introduced by Chris Thomas who moved for its adoption, seconded by Bonnie Lapham: Duly adopted this 21st day of May, 1997, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. CUster, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Stone, Mr. Karpeles, Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Thomas NOES: NONE - 38 - ,-.- -" (Queensbury ZBA meeting 5/21/97) MR. THOMAS-All right. Now we need a motion for the Sign. MOTION TO APPROVE SIGN VARIANCE NO. 27-1997 HOLLYWOOD VIDEO BERKSHIRE-GLENS FALLS, INC., Introduced by Brian Custer who moved for its adoption, seconded by Lewis Stone: Project location, southwest corner of Bay and Quaker Roads. The applicant proposes to construct an additional wall sign in addition to the one that's already allowed and is willing to trade a freestanding pylon sign in exchange for that variance. Granting this variance would allow them to put two signs on the building. The effect to the neighborhood is negligible, and I think it enhances the structure. There are alternatives that are feasible. However, I think the way it's been presented tonight covers that. Is the amount of substantial? It's really not too significant. Will the variance have any adverse impact on the neighborhood? I don't think it will. The pylon sign being exchanged in the granting of the variance for the additional wall sign will be the Bay Road pylon. The relief being granted is the one additional wall sign than the current zoning allows. Duly adopted this 21st day of May, 1997, by the following vote: MR. STONE-Should we say that the second sign exceeds the Ordinance? MR. HILTON-Well, the second sign exceeds the Ordinance, it's one more wall sign than is allowed, yes. So you may want to indicate that you're granting relief from that Section, yes. MR. STONE-How about the Staff's thoughts that we include a stipulation that no second freestanding will ever be allowed? MR. THOMAS-We did that. That's when I mentioned the pylon sign on Bay Road, that the pylon sign on Bay Road would be. MR. STONE-I'm sorry, yes. MR. THOMAS-Yes, that the pylon sign on Bay Road would not be installed at any point in time. MR. STONE-Okay. I missed the "any point in time". MR. THOMAS-Anything else? It sounds good to me. AYES: Mr. Karpeles, Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Custer, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Stone, Mr. Thomas NOES: NONE MR. THOMAS-So, Hollywood Video is all set. Now all we have to do is wait for CVS to come in for theirs. MR. LAPPER-This was really important to the project, and we really needed it, and we really appreciate it. MR. TRAINER-Thank you very much. SIGN VARIANCE NO. 24-1997 TYPE: UNLISTED CR-15 QUEENS BURY CVS, INC. OWNER: BERKSHIRE -QUEENSBURY, LLC 5 MAIN STREET, WEST OF THE INTERSECTION WITH WESTERN AVENUE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT TWO ADDITIONAL WALL SIGNS AT THE CVS DRUGSTORE AT MAIN STREET AND WESTERN AVENUE. THE ADDITION OF TWO WALL SIGNS WOULD NOT CONFORM TO THE NUMBER ALLOWED AT THIS SITE BY THE CURRENT SIGN REGULATIONS. RELIEF IS BEING REQUESTED FROM SECTION 140-6,B,3 WHICH REGULATES THE NUMBER OF WALL SIGNS ALLOWED AT A BUSINESS LOCATION. WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 5/14/97 TAX MAP NO. 130-3-18 LOT SIZE: 2.01 ACRES SECTION 140-6B,3 - 39 - (Queensbury ZBA meeting 5/21/97) JON LAPPER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Sign Variance No. 24-1997, Queensbury CVS, Inc., Meeting Date: May 21, 1997 "APPLICANT: Queensbury CVS, Inc. PROJECT LOCATION: 5 Main Street PROPOSED PROJECT AND CONFORMANCE WITH THE ORDINANCE: The applicant proposes to construct two additional wall signs to be used at the new CVS pharmacy on Main Street, west of Western Avenue. The two new wall signs would bring the amount of signage at this location above what is allowed by the Sign Ordinance. The two new wall signs will serve as directional signs for the drive thru at CVS. 1. How would you benefit from the granting of this Sign Variance? Relief would allow the addition of two new wall signs which would help direct traffic at this location. 2. What effect would this sign have on the character of the neighborhood and the health, safety and welfare of the community? It appears that this request would not have an adverse effect impact on the surrounding neighborhood. 3. Are there feasible alternatives to this variance? If the applicant is seeking to identify the entrance/exit of the CVS drive thru, signs could be placed on the property which would conform to the size and height requirements for directional signs. 4. Is the amount of relief substantial relative to the Ordinance? The applicant is seeking to allow two additional wall signs at this location. The two signs, which conform to the size requirements for wall signs, exceed the number of wall signs allowed at this location. 5. Will the variance have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood? Allowing this variance would not have an adverse impact on the environmental conditions in the surrounding neighborhood. Staff Comments and Concerns: If these signs are intended to serve as directional signs and the ZBA chooses to approve this variance, consideration should be given to conditioning the variance on eliminating any future directional signs on the Main Street entrance to this center. This would keep the signage at this location in character with other commercial centers in Queensbury. The only difference is that the directional signs would be located on the proposed drive thru and not at the property line. SEQR: Unlisted, short form EAF review needed." MRS. LAPHAM- "At a meeting of the Warren County Planning Board, held on the 14th day of May 1997, the above application for a Siqn Variance for two directional siqns related to the drive thru prescription window was reviewed, and the following action was taken. Recommendation to: Approve Comments: Concur with local conditions." Signed by Tracey M. Clothier, Chairperson. MR. THOMAS-Mr. Lapper. MR. LAPPER-I think that this is a very simple application, for a change, and it just, rather than put the directional signs, which are permitted on the ground, where they'll be hard to see, there's a real safety issue that you don't want people driving through the wronq way. So the drive through exit sign is very important, and the drive through enter sign is really almost not visible from anywhere, because there's a big hill on the side of the project that you probably all saw when you went to the site. Putting it on top there means that it's not going to be blocked by snow in the winter or snow piling. It's not backlit. It's only illuminated because there's a light on the back facade of the building, which will give it some light, but there's nothing shining at it and it's not lit from behind. It doesn't have a logo. It's not an attempt to get another CVS, although on a directional sign, you are allowed to have the four foot sign on the ground, you can have the logo and say enter/exit, arrows, or whatever you want. So this is not an attempt to have another logo sign. It's just for people to see that it's an enter and an exit for the drive through. - 40 - '-- -' (Queensbury ZBA meeting 5/21/97) MR. THOMAS-On the drive through exit, if you cut that nine inches down to a minimum of six inches, in the Town Ordinance, that would bring that down to four square feet, which would be in compliance with the size, but the height would be still something to consider. MR. LAPPER-Anticipating that, I spoke with their sign consultants, and they said that they could reduce it to seven inches instead of nine. They think that six is going to be harder to read from the distance that people are entering the Plaza, but I could accept seven inches, if that's something that you could live with, which would be minimal, minimal relief, in terms of the size. MR. THOMAS-Okay, and then the same thing on the enter sign. If you brought that down to seven inches, that would bring that down to, it says 5.37 now, and if you went down, if you took off two. MR. LAPPER-That would probably be pretty close to be conforming. MR. THOMAS-Yes, that would be real close. calculator here. I haven't got a MR. HILTON-This is a tricky application because even though these two signs are intended to serve as directional signs, they are wall signs, because they're going to be affixed to a wall, and that's th determination that's been made. The relief they're seeking is they're seeking two additional wall signs, which aren't allowed under the current sign code. The sign size, as they're presently presented, do conform to the wall sign requirements. So there's no area, there's no variance for the sign area that's really needed, because they are being considered wall signs. It gets kind of confusing. MR. THOMAS-Yes, it does. MRS. LAPHAM-So, in other words what you're saying is the signs are legal in the size and square footage they are, right? MR. HILTON-Size, square footage, yes. MRS. LAPHAM-Then what we're debating is whether or not we should allow these two extra wall signs? MR. HILTON-Correct. MR. THOMAS-And the height, well, no, we don't have to worry about that, either. MRS. LAPHAM-So we don't have to worry about anything other than whether or not we should allow these two extra wall signs? MR. HILTON-Right, and the comment I made is that it appears that these are supposed to serve as directional signs. They're not the traditional directional signs. They're wall signs. So the Board may want to consider stipulations, you know, removing any future four foot directional signs from that entrance on Main Street. MR. STONE-Well, I have a concern, if I may ask, Jon, as I look at this thing, the entrance is from the back road, whatever the name of that street is. MR. LAPPER-Luzerne. MR. STONE-That's Luzerne. How is anybody going to know to get to CVS drive in pharmacy without a sign saying CVS at all there, since the CVS store is on the other end of the shopping center? And I'm concerned that somebody is going to come back and say, well, nobody knows where this is because it doesn't say CVS. I mean, obviously after the first couple of times that I experience this new service - 41 - (Queensbury ZBA meeting 5/21/97) of drive in pharmacy, which sounds like California and not here, I have to admit, I don't know how people are going to find this. There's this other store that's going to be in the back, right? MR. LAPPER-Right. That's going to be the chiropractor's office, the whole back, Dr. Cavayero's, who's right, a few blocks away. MR. STONE-It's a big chiropractor's office. MR. LAPPER-It is. Maybe what you're saying is that the drive through enter sign on the Luzerne Road side would be more appropriate on the ground at the corner of the building, not at the entrance to the store but somewhere near that entrance. MR. HAYES-A question, George. Being that this is kind of rotating around whether we're approving two additional wall signs, and theoretically they could come back with the appropriate on street signs, if they meet with the, that would be okay. MR. HILTON-That would be okay, unless you stipulate otherwise, but yes, certainly they could come in with directional signs. MR. LAPPER-It was not the intent to come here and also ask for, or every ask for directional signs, but Lou is making a point, and if you want me to go back to them and say that you approved the exit sign, because you don't want people to drive the wrong way, but that you'd rather see the entrance sign on the ground near the building, I mean, it's your decision. MR. STONE-Well, I'm throwing it out as a concern. I don't know how the rest of the Board feels. MR. LAPPER-That does not seem unreasonable. MR. THOMAS-Yes, because the enter, you'd only see it after you've driven behind the building. MR. LAPPER-I agree. MR. THOMAS-See it unless you looked real quick on the right, on Luzerne Road. My other question is, or a question is, if you put that sign on the end of Dr. Cavayero's office space, on the Luzerne side of that building, that's a separate piece of property, because we did give you zero setback variance for those two buildings, so they could be connected, because that is two pieces of property there. Am I right? MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. THOMAS-So that sign on the end of Dr. Cavayero's building would be, not be on the CVS property, or the property that CVS sits on. MR. LAPPER-So we would need a variance for that because that would be on the other property. MR. THOMAS-That's right. MR. LAPPER-I wonder if it would be appropriate, based upon the application that I've submitted, that as, if you deem that to be what you want to do, as relief, in terms of giving the minimum variance, that you could grant that approval without re-advertising it, to put a directional sign on the ground by Dr. Cavayero's building, before you start heading down that driveway, rather than when you already get there, because I see what you're saying. MR. STONE-Some of you have been through this, I guess three of you, granting your variance. Can you bring the three of us up, at least me, up to date as to what was granted before. Obviously there are - 42 - --- ---" (Queensbury ZBA meeting 5/21/97) two wall signs there. MR. THOMAS-The first thing we granted was zero setbacks, because there's two pieces of property. One faces on Main Street. One faces on Luzerne Road, and they asked for a 0 side line setback, so the two buildings could come together, because the CVS sits on one piece of property, and Dr. Cavayero's building and whoever else is going to go in there sits on the other piece. MR. STONE-So Berkshire doesn't own the total Plaza. MR. ~PPER-The whole Plaza. Dr. Cavayero bought the piece that used to be this logging parcel, with a barn and a house, and it was kind of a mess. So anticipating commercial development in that corridor, and wanting a new office, he's now across from the Broad Street School renting space in that little green plaza that's hard to get in and out of. He bought the property two years ago, two and a half years ago, and then he approached Berkshire when he found out that they were looking to build CVS's in the area, and they liked the site, and the deal that we worked out was that Keith wanted to own his own building, rather than to just lease it or condo-ize it or something. So we proposed it as a zero setback subdivision, so that they could each own their own building, and the buildings would touch, and that required an Area Variance, which this Board granted over a year ago, probably, before Lou was on the Board. MR. STONE-Yes. MR. LAPPER-So that's how we got to, it doesn't look any different than any other plaza, just ownership wise, it came to about an acre each, and each entity owns their own space. I think you also asked about signs. MR. STONE-I notice there are two wall signs. MR. LAPPER-Yes. So we came in, and this was one where Tim and I did come in on behalf of CVS, right up front, when CVS said, wait a second, we don't like this, and they wanted one pylon sign on Main Street, and two facade signs, and Bob wasn't going to let that happen. So that was denied, and we went back to CVS and explained to them how things work in Queensbury, NY, and as a result, they are not putting up a CVS pylon sign on their property. There is just a facade sign, the two facade signs, which is per Code. The Planning Board, however, which they're allowed to do, said that, Dr. Cavayero can have one wall sign and one pylon sign on his property, and he, and the pylon sign on his property, the Planning Board let us do an off premises sign to say that, so CVS could be on the Luzerne side, because if you're driving on Luzerne, you may not know that CVS is on the Main Street side. So the CVS gets part of the pylon sign on Dr. Cavayero's property, two facade signs on its property, and that's it. MR. STONE-Okay. So there will be a CVS sign on Luzerne Road. MR. LAPPER-It's already there. They may have just put it up this week because they're opening up on Tuesday. MR. STONE-I was there Monday, I didn't see it. MR. THOMAS-It was there today at five o'clock. MR. STONE-Okay. So that's a very interesting. MR. LAPPER-Complicated. MR. STONE-Yes. - 43 - (Queensbury ZBA meeting 5/21/97) MR. THOMAS-But as far as the drive through exit, that sign should be right up over it. MR. STONE-I agree, absolutely. MR. THOMAS-As far as the enter, I can't see it being on the overhead of the drive through, because you really can't see it. I think it should be out toward the road or on the corner of the building or something with an arrow under it. MR. LAPPER-Maybe not on the building side, but on the grass side. MR. STONE-CVS is going to come back to us and say, people can't find us. I'll bet you. MR. LAPPER-They're in Rhode Island, and they, I mean, they're sign people see the drawing, and it's not, and I mean, they hired somebody from Albany, a quality sign consultant, and they use sign people in Providence. So they're not as focused as you are about what works, and sitting here listening to you, this makes sense to me, and I can go back to them and say, this is what the Board wants and this is what you're going to do, and a four foot directional sign no higher than whatever it is that conforms at the back, that corner of the building by Luzerne Road, makes a lot more sense to me than when you've already driven around the back of the building, a sign that you can't even see. MR. STONE-Yes, but we can't give you permission to put a sign on somebody else's property. MR. LAPPER-I wonder if you can, as lesser relief than what was requested here. I mean, Dr. Cavayero would have to consent to that, but if he consents. MR. KARPELES-You've got to advertise it though, right? MR. HILTON-The only concern I would have is that it's two separate pieces of property, and the legal advertising went out for one piece, not referencing the other tax map. MR. LAPPER-What if you granted the exit sign so that you see that from the Luzerne Road, from Main Street, and you put in your resolution that you would think that minimum relief would be to have this sign on Dr. Cavayero's property, and you think that that would be appropriate, but that that would have to be applied for, and everybody would have to be notified. MR. THOMAS-A separate variance. MR. STONE-Is that driveway two way, with the exception of the underhang, or the drive-in window? MR. LAPPER-I guess that it is, because it's not marked that it's only one way, but there are two lanes. MR. STONE-Yes, one underneath, and one right next to it. MRS. LAPHAM-I was concerned about cars, because I almost wiped out three skateboards, as I came around that corner, I had no idea they were there. MR. LAPPER-I was there and saw skateboarders, also. The parking spaces that are in the back there are only for Dr. Cavayero' s staff, and there would also be a CVS delivery truck which is maybe once a day, and actually I think that's wrong. I don't think that they have their door there, but the dumpster is there. MR. STONE-There's a door. - 44 - '-" '--' (Queensbury ZBA meeting 5/21/97) MR. LAPPER-Is there on that side? MR. STONE-Just right where the drive in window is. MR. LAPPER-Okay. So that, perhaps that's where their tractor trailer pulls up, but they don't. MR. STONE-If he pulls up, he's blocking the drive. MR. LAPPER-They don't have that many drive in prescriptions. I mean, they went through all this with us, and it's a few an hour, over the course of the day. MR. THOMAS-What if instead of the drive through/exit, that on the corner of the building you put up one of those one way/do not enter signs? MR. LAPPER-I think that, when you're coming in, the bank is very steep there, up to the next property, and I think that that's where you're going to have to stockpile snow. Even if you don't, it's going to be blocked. I mean, I just think that having it right up in front of you is important for visibility, that that's where people are going to see it all year long. MR. THOMAS-I'm talking right on the building itself, right on the brick. MR. LAPPER-I don't know how good that would look. MR. THOMAS-It's just an idea. MR. STONE-You mean a Stop/One Way, one way sign? MR. THOMAS-Yes, you know, like you see on one way streets. MR. STONE-Yes. MR. THOMAS-One Way/Do Not Enter. MR. LAPPER-I think that the truck, the garbage truck has to enter that way, in order to dump the dumpster, because of the direction of the dumpster coming back toward Main Street. I think they have to go like that. MR. THOMAS-Yes, it's angled. Well, lets see, is there anything else you want to ask the applicant's agent? If not, I'll open the public hearing. Anyone wishing to speak in favor of? In favor of? Anyone wishing to speak opposed? Opposed? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. THOMAS-Any correspondence? MRS. LAPHAM-No. MR. THOMAS-Okay. I'll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. THOMAS-Anymore questions for the applicant? All right. Lets talk about it. I'll start with Bob. MR. KARPELES-Well, before all this discussion, I was ready to approve this thing the way it was. I don't have any objection to it the way it is. I also don't have any objection with a sign down on the ground. Can't you drive around? I've forgotten what that parking lot looks like now, but if you saw that that was the exit rather than the entrance, isn't there a way you can drive around - 45 - (Queensbury ZBA meeting 5/21/97) without leaving the property, and get to the entrance? MR. LAP PER-Yes, you can drive all the way around the building. MR. KARPELES-Yes. I think that's why it didn't bother me, the way it was set up. MR. LAPPER-That makes sense. MR. THOMAS-Lou? MR. STONE-Well, I'm certainly not, have no problem with the exit sign. I think granting that variance is not a problem at all. I just think that if we grant the entrance sign that sooner or later somebody's going to say, somebody's going to the Store Manager and say, I don't know where I'm supposed to go, because there's no directional signs, and I would prefer, if it's possible, to put a directional sign, according to the Code, at the beginning of the driveway there on Luzerne, and leave the entrance wall sign off. MR. HILTON-The entrance sign that you're speaking of, you're not talking about any type of wall mounted sign. You're just speaking of a freestanding. MR. STONE-Freestanding directional. MR. HILTON-Okay. That's something that could be put up anyway. MR. THOMAS-No, because that's on Cavayero's property. MR. HILTON-Well, he could put up a directional sign that says "Entrance", with an arrow. MR. THOMAS-Yes, but what CVS would probably be looking for is their logo on there. CVS drive in entrance. MR. HILTON-That's true, but just to make the Board aware, there's no limit to the number of really directional signs. MR. STONE-You're saying that if we granted the two sign variance, they could still put another sign up? MR. HILTON-They could put another directional sign. MR. STONE-Directional sign. MR. HILTON-That said they could have the logo of the business that's on the property, or they could have it generic, saying "entrance" with an arrow. MR. STONE-And I say if we're going to have that, we don't need a second wall sign. MR. HILTON-Well, that's the Board's decision. MR. THOMAS-That's right. Micky? MR. HAYES-My brother's been on record all night and he doesn't even know it. I agree with Mr. Karpeles. I think that signs two signs, in particular with that intersection and stuff, there's enough confusion down there as it is, that I think they could improve this as it is now, and then deal with the traffic indicators if need be. So I would be in favor of the variance as is. MR. THOMAS-Brian? MR. CUSTER-I second that. - 46 - '-" ,--,,' (Queensbury ZBA meeting 5/21/97) MR. THOMAS-Bonnie? MRS. LAPHAM-I tend to agree with the other Board members, except for Lou, because I think there's a real safety issue here, that people have to be directed in that shopping center where to access the different areas that they want, or there's just going to be future pile ups. At least that's how I envision it, because it really frightened me today when I looked around the corner, in my usual fashion, a little too fast, and most people do that, and almost wiped out those three kids, and I can see that happening with cars, and everybody's whipping in and out and trying to do this and that in a hurry. MR. LAPPER-Hopefully there won't be skateboarders once there are cars. MRS. LAPHAM-Yes, hopefully. MR. HAYES-The only thing I would add to my comment is the line that Mr. Thomas was originally entering into, being that those be small but effective as they can be, you know, possibly with the concessions that you had talked about. I would include that in my idea. MRS. LAPHAM-Yes, because I wouldn't even really care if there was another arrow on Luzerne Road. Usually I'm against signs in general, but I really think that there's signage needed here. MR. THOMAS-I agree with the rest of the Board, but I don't think that drive through enter sign is a good idea on that overhead. Nobody'll see it. I think it's better that we eliminate that from this variance. Grant the variance for the drive through exit sign, run it down from nine to seven inches, and then have the CVS come back, if they want, and go for a drive through enter sign out on a, well, they can go out and put a four foot sign out there anyway, on Dr. Cavayero's property, with his permission. They'd have to work that out somehow, but as far as I can see, that drive through enter sign is next to useless. So, having said that. MR. KARPELES-Well, that helps you if you're coming from that side, if you're coming from Luzerne Road. MR. THOMAS-Well, because of that hill there. You won't see it until you're almost right on it, because that hill slopes down, right into, you know, there's not that much area between the back of the building, what I would call the back of the building, and where that drive in is. It's almost kind of hidden. You wouldn't see it until you're actually almost right parallel with it. By that time, you're past the driveway going in. MR. CUSTER-You miss is once, and then the next time you know it's there. MR. THOMAS-Yes, but what Jon was saying, way back when, they're looking for tourist business, if I'm not mistaken. had mentioned that, out of towners. that They MR. LAPPER-Sick tourists. MR. THOMAS-Yes, people from out of town coming in. MR. LAPPER-That might have been something I said about the Red Lobster. I don't know. MR. THOMAS-I wasn't here for that one. So, that's where I stand on that one. MR. STONE-We have a difference of opinion. - 47 - (Queensbury ZBA meeting 5/21/97) MR. THOMAS-Yes. Would someone like to make a motion. MR. HILTON-It's an Unlisted action with a SEQRA required before any motions. MR. THOMAS-Well, lets go look at the Short Environmental Assessment Form. Does anyone see anything on this form that would be an impact on the environment, negative impact? Well, if no one does not see a negative impact, I'll make a motion. MOTION THAT A REVIEW OF THE SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM SHOWS THAT THERE ARE NO NEGATIVE IMPACTS BY THIS SIGN VARIANCE ON THIS PROJECT, Introduced by Chris Thomas who moved for its adoption, seconded by Lewis Stone: Duly adopted this 21st day of May, 1997, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Karpeles, Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Custer, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Stone, Mr. Thomas NOES: NONE MR. THOMAS-Now, lets go to the other. Does anyone want to make a motion? MOTION TO APPROVE SIGN VARIANCE NO. 24-1997 QUEENS BURY CVS, INC., Introduced by Brian Custer who moved for its adoption, seconded by Lewis Stone: Project Location, 5 Main Street, Glens Falls, NY. The applicant proposes to construct two additional wall signs which would be an increase in current Ordinance, acceptance of these two wall signs as outlined in the application, with the exception of lowering the lettering to seven inches. We're granting relief from the total of the wall signs to allow two new additional wall signs. How would they benefit from granting of this Sign Variance? Relief would allow the addition of two new wall signs. What effect would this sign have on the character of the neighborhood and the health, safety and welfare of the community? It appears that this request would have no adverse impact on the surrounding neighborhood. Are there feasible alternatives to this? Because it is to add directional signs in lieu of the two additional wall signs that we discussed and felt it was adequate to accept the wall signs. Is the amount of relief substantial relative to the Ordinance? The two signs which would conform to wall sign size allowed under the Ordinance, are fine with exception of the number allowed in the Ordinance. Will the variance have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood? No, there will not be any adverse impact on the environmental conditions. I'll amend this motion to delete the drive through enter wall sign with the addition that a directional sign application be made with Dr. Cavayero, with his acceptance of that condition. Duly adopted this 21st day of May, 1997, by the following vote: MR. CUSTER-I'll leave the motion to be amended, if the rest of the Board would like to see directional signs. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Lets talk about it. What's anybody got to say about the motion. MR. STONE-Well, I'm concerned that it's more than the minimum relief. I mean, I'm certainly not opposed to the basic concept of the motion, but I think we're granting more relief than we have to do, considering the fact that the applicant has indicated that it wouldn't be a terrible hardship not to have the entrance sign. So I would probably have to vote no on the motion as offered. - 48 - '-- (Queensbury ZBA meeting 5/21/97) MR. THOMAS-Okay, but if it's amended to eliminate the drive through/enter. He didn't say that. MR. STONE-If the Board is willing to accept that amendment, then I would not have a problem. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Anyone else? MR. KARPELES-I have no problem with it as it is. MR. THOMAS-As it is with both signs? MR. KARPELES-Right. MRS. LAPHAM-Yes, I don't, either. MR. THOMAS-Lou, as it is, or do you want it amended? MR. STONE-Well, I mean, if we have a vote, I don't know where YOU stand, Mr. Chairman. I don't know if you've said. MR. THOMAS-No, I haven't yet. MR. STONE-Well, it'll either be four, two or five, one. It'll still pass. I just feel that we need to grant minimum relief. That is one of our charges, and I think we've discussed it's not minimum relief. That's all. MR. THOMAS-No. I would be happier if we did eliminate the drive through/enter sign and let them do something else with that. Having said that, Brian, do you want to amend your? MR. CUSTER- I'm not opposed to amending my motion to delete the drive through/enter wall sign with the addition that a directional sign application be made with Dr. Cavayero, with his acceptance of that condition. MR. THOMAS-Bonnie, with the change, yes or no? MRS. LAPHAM-The change doesn't bother me particularly. I was agreeable the other way. I just want to make sure that there is some sort of complete and clear directional signs. MR. LAPPER-I wonder if, after listening to Bonnie, if maybe it wouldn't be better to have the entrance sign also, even though you can hardly see it from anywhere, but once you're in the aisle, just because of people, once they get there, maybe they do need to know what it is. MR. KARPELES-Yes. At least they know they're going in the right direction. MRS. LAPHAM-I was going to say, I found it useful. MR. LAPPER-I mean, after listening to the Board, maybe it would be better to have it that way, and I'll also try to get a directional sign, with Dr. Cavayero's permission, over by his building. MR. STONE-I mean a drive in window, normally you assume, in this country, that you're going up and getting out of the driver's side. Therefore obviously going up to a McDonald's like window, most people recognize that that's the direction they're to go to get the service. I mean, I hear the concern about having it there, but I just don't think it's minimum relief. MR. LAPPER-I'll leave it up to the Board. MR. CUSTER-I'll leave my motion as amended. - 49 - (Queensbury ZBA meeting 5/21/97) MR. THOMAS-As amended. So to eliminate the drive through/enter sign. MRS. LAPHAM-That doesn't give people who think there ought to be the drive through/enter sign there any say. If you are doing the motion with Brian's amendment, that doesn't give people who think the drive in window enter sign should remain a vote. MR. THOMAS-Yes, it does. They can vote no. MRS. LAPHAM-Well, what if they don't want to vote no for the whole thing. They just want to vote no on that one part? MR. THOMAS-Then they can abstain. MRS. LAPHAM-Then that's saying nothing at all. I don't think any of those choices. MR. THOMAS-Would you like Brian to withdraw his motion, and you can make it? MRS. LAPHAM-No. I'd like him to withdraw his amendment. I'm not up to making a whole motion. MR. CUSTER-Well, I'm making the motion as it is and letting it stand. MR. THOMAS-As amended. MR. CUSTER-As amended. MR. THOMAS - As through/enter. amended with the elimination Do I have a second on that? of the drive MR. STONE-Yes. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Then lets try a vote. AYES: Mr. Hayes, Mr. Stone, Mr. Karpeles, Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Custer, Mr. Thomas NOES: NONE MR. THOMAS-So you can have the drive through exit sign, seven inches high, eliminate the drive through enter sign, and you'd have to come back for another enter sign somewhere else. Okay. MR. LAPPER-Got it. MR. THOMAS-That's it in a nutshell. MR. LAPPER-Thank you very much, and I will probably be back for the sign on the ground. MR. THOMAS-Well, if you're going to be coming back all the time like this, I hope your secretary gets a real nice wedding present, if not, a raise. MR. STONE-One other comment, Jon. I saw no pink sign. MR. LAPPER-I called Pam in the Planning Department and asked her, and we discussed that because everyone was so familiar with these sites that they wouldn't need a direction, so we didn't go put it up, but I'm sorry that that was an inconvenience. MR. STONE-I hate Queensbury water. AREA VARIANCE NO. 28-1997 TYPE II MR-5 MIl OVERLAY MICHAEL BAILEY - 50 - '-- ~ (Queensbury ZBA meeting 5/21/97) OWNER: EDWARD HOUDE AND HARRY RIVERS, JR. SECOND LOT FROM CENTRAL AVENUE ON INDIANA AVENUE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO PLACE A MOBILE HOME ON A LOT WITHIN A MOBILE HOME OVERLAY ZONE. THE LOCATION OF THE HOME WILL NOT MEET THE REQUIRED FRONT YARD SETBACK FOR THE UNDERLYING MR- 5 ZONE. RELIEF IS BEING REQUESTED FROM THE FRONT YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENTS OF THE MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL 5 ZONE CONTAINED IN SECTION 179-18. TAX MAP NO. 127-4-9 LOT SIZE: 0.14 ACRES SECTION 179-18 MICHAEL & KAREN BAILEY, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 28-1997, Michael Bailey, Meeting Date: May 21, 1997 "APPLICANT: Michael Bailey PROJECT LOCATION: Indiana Avenue Proposed Project and Conformance with the Ordinance: The applicant is seeking relief to place a mobile home on a lot that will not conform to the required front yard setback. The applicant is seeking a front yard setback of 14 feet where a 30 foot front yard setback is required. Cri teria for considering an Area Variance, according to Chapter 267, Town Law. 1. Benefit to the applicant: Relief would allow the applicant place a mobile home on a lot with a nonconforming front yard setback. 2. Feasible alternatives: Alternatives are limited due to the size of the lot and the length of the home to be used. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the ordinance? The applicant is seeking 16 feet of front yard relief. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community? It appears that the placement of a home 14 feet from the front property line would not negatively effect the surrounding neighborhood. 5. Is this difficulty self created? A difficulty exists due to the length of the mobile home and the length of the lot it is proposed to be placed on. Staff Comments «Concerns: The applicant plans to locate a mobile home on a lot which will meet all other setback requirements. A septic system will also be built on site which will conform to Queensbury septic regulations. SEQR: Type II, no further action required." MR. THOMAS-And that's it. County? We didn't get anything from Warren MRS. LAPHAM-No. MR. THOMAS-They didn't look at it. Mr. Bailey, front and center here. We'll make this real quick. We know you've been sitting here enduring listening to all these lawyers. Is there anything you'd like to add to the application? MR. BAILEY-We have signed a contract with a realtor acting as agent for the seller. MRS. BAILEY-Karen Bailey. Now, when we bought the property, we signed everything to buy it, okay, it was told to us, and right there on paper, that it's mobile home approved. Happy we were, until I called around and found out the distance in the front was going to be a problem. So that's what he's trying to say is that we had already, you know, signed away everything more or less to the realtor before we found this out. MRS. LAPHAM-So you already have a contract to purchase on the land through Fitzgerald Realty, and you also have, you already have a contract to purchase the mobile home? MRS. BAILEY-We already own our mobile home. It's in a mobile home lot right now. MRS. LAPHAM-I see, and so, yes, you want to move it. MRS. BAILEY-Yes, we wanted to have it on our own land - 51 - '- (Queensbury ZBA meeting 5/21/97) MR. STONE-You say it's new, though? MRS. BAILEY-Yes. We just got it last year. MR. STONE-Okay. MRS. LAPHAM-You want to move it to your own lot. So that you don't have to be in a park. MRS. BAILEY-So that's why when we saw that in the paperwork from the realtor that it was a mobile home approved lot, we thought, you know, of course, that would be us. MR. THOMAS-How long is the mobile home? Is it 76 feet? MR. BAILEY-Seventy-six feet. MRS. BAILEY-Right. MR. THOMAS-I've never heard of a 76 footer, but I have now. MRS. BAILEY-They're long, the ones that come now. MR. STONE-Is this really mobile? highway? I know what you mean. MRS. LAPHAM-Is it a double wide or a single? Does this ever move on the MRS. BAILEY-A single. MR. THOMAS-Okay, and you couldn't turn it the other way, either, because then you wouldn't get the side line setbacks. MRS. BAILEY-Well, it would overlap, actually, because it's only 60 wide. MR. THOMAS-Sixty wide, and seventy-six, that would be eight over on each side. MR. BAILEY-We could, but I don't know how the neighbors would like that. MR. THOMAS-Yes. The septic system, that'll fit in there, right, no problem? MR. BAILEY-Yes. MR. THOMAS-It's Town water back in there. So there's no well. The other utilities are right there anyway. Does anyone have any questions for the applicant? If not, I'll open the public hearing. I've got to do this. Anyone wishing to speak in favor of this application? In favor? Anyone wishing to speak opposed to this application? Opposed? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. THOMAS-Any correspondence? MRS. LAPHAM-No. MR. THOMAS-No correspondence, I'll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. THOMAS-Anymore questions for the applicant? If not, lets talk about it. Brian? MR. CUSTER-My original thought was, if you hadn't purchased a - 52 - ---/ ~ (Queensbury ZBA meeting 5/21/97) mobile home, maybe you'd want to buy something smaller, but since you already own it, there's not a lot you can discuss here. The relief is substantial, whether we like it or not. I don't think it's a problem. A new mobile home is going to be a plus to the neighborhood. I would encourage the rest of the Board to support it. MR. THOMAS-Jaime? MR. HAYES-Yes. I agree with Brian entirely. It certainly seems like trying to improve the neighborhood, and I have no problems with that. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Lou? MR. STONE-Nor do I. I would only encourage you to keep the property as I know it will be when you start. I mean, I have problems when I go to certain areas and I see what people have done, and it's a nice piece of property, and I just hope that you will use it well. MR. THOMAS-Bob? MR. KARPELES-I have no problem with this. MR. THOMAS-Bonnie? MRS. LAPHAM-I don't, either. MR. THOMAS-I don't have a problem with it either. It's really the only thing they can do to get on there, since it is in a mobile home overlay zone, and they already own a home that's 76 feet long, and I think it will improve that lot there, because it looks like it's a little overgrown, and it's in rough shape. MR. STONE-Yes. Those trees are going to have to come down, though. MR. BAILEY-We've got lawn mowers growing there. MR. THOMAS-Yes, so I have absolutely no problem with it. So if anyone would like to make a motion for an Area Variance. I'll make it. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 28-1997 MICHAEL BAILEY, Introduced by Chris Thomas who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Karpeles: The applicant is seeking relief for a mobile home on a pre- existing, nònconforming lot. The applicant is asking for a front yard setback of 14 feet where 30 feet of front yard is required. The benefit to the applicant would be it would allow them to place their mobile home the lot. The feasible alternatives, there really are no alternatives due to the lot size and size of the home to be used. The relief substantial to the Ordinance? It is substantial, but in this area the 16 feet of front yard setback relief is not uncommon. There do not seem to be any negative impacts on the surrounding neighborhood. Is the difficulty self-created? No, because the lot was pre-existing and nonconforming at the time that it was subdivided and also this is the only place a mobile home could be placed on the lot and still meet the requirements of the septic system for the Town of Queensbury. Duly adopted this 21st day of May, 1997, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Karpeles, Mrs. Lapham, Mr. CUster, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Stone, Mr. Thomas NOES: NONE - 53 - '"-' - (Queensbury ZBA meeting 5/21/97) MR. THOMAS-Go ahead and move 'er in. Get your permits first. MR. HILTON-Before we adjourn, I have just a brief announcement. It's a good one. This Friday, 6 pm, at Gurney Lane, we are having a little fairwell salute to Mr. Martin which you are invited to. Bring your own everything, but 6 pm, Gurney Lane pool. If you'd like to attend, you know, our Department will be there, other people within the Town, just a little informal goodbye. MR. CUSTER-Did they find a replacement? MR. HILTON-I don't know, to tell you the truth. MR. THOMAS-The last time I heard, the Town Board was supposed to make a decision on Monday and they didn't because I know John went for an interview and Sue. MR. HILTON-Yes, that's what I know. MR. THOMAS-nd I don't know if anyone else. I know those two were the only ones. Sue Cipperly and John Goralski are the only two that have applied for it. MR. HILTON-Okay. You may want to adjourn the meeting and continue the discussion. MR. STONE-We've got minutes. MR. THOMAS-Yes. I'd like to get these minutes, because I'm awful skeptical about those. I don't want to let those go. We might as well keep them up. For the April 16th meeting. CORRECTION OF MINUTESSS April 16, 1997: NONE MOTION TO ACCEPT THE MINUTES OF THE APRIL 16, 1997 QUEENS BURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS AS WRITTEN, Introduced by Chris Thomas who moved for its adoption, seconded by Bonnie Lapham: Duly adopted this 21st day of May, 1997, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Custer, Mr. Stone, Mr. Karpeles, Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Thomas NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Hayes MR. STONE-I transcript situation. would only go on record as saying these are a and they are not minutes, but that's a technical This is a word for word thing that we talk about. MR. CUSTER-Do you want a motion on that? MR. STONE-No. MR. THOMAS-It says right down on the bottom, "These are not officially adopted minutes". On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Chris Thomas, Chairman - 54 -