Loading...
1994-02-15 SP ~ , ORJGINAl QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SPECIAL MEETING FEBRUARY 15TH, 1994 INDEX Use Variance No. 2-1994 Charles E. & Barbara D. Seeley 1. Sign Variance No. 5-1994 Willey Creek Company. Inc. 20. THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTHS MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES. QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SPECIAL MEETING FEBRUARY 15TH. 1994 7:30 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT THEODORE TURNER. CHAIRMAN CHRIS THOMAS ROBERT KARPELES FRED CARVIN DAVID MENTER MEMBERS ABSENT LINDA HAUSER JOYCE EGGLESTON EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR-JAMES MARTIN PLANNER-SUSAN CIPPERLY STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI OLD BUSINESS: USE VARIANCE NO. 2-1994 TYPE: UNLISTED SFR-1A CHARLES E. & BARBARA D. SEELEY OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE 49 GLENWOOD AVENUE APPLICANT RESIDES AND OPERATES A PREEXISTING. NONCONFORMING MACHINE SHOP ON A PARCEL CURRENTLY ZONED SFR-1A. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO EXPAND THE MACHINE SHOP BY ADDING ON TO THE EXISTING BUILDING. AND TO INCREASE THE NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES WORKING AT THE SITE. SECTION 179-79D REQUIRES A VARIANCE IN ORDER TO INCREASE A NONCONFORMING USE. (BEAUTIFICATION COMMITTEE) (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) 2/9/94 TAX MAP NO. 105-1-37 LOT SIZE: 0.6 ACRES SECTION 179-79D ELON CHERNEY. REPRESENTING APPLICANT. PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff. Use Variance No. 2-1994. Charles E. & Barbara D. Seeley. Meeting Date: February 15th. 1994 "APPLICANT: Charles E. & Barbara D. Seeley PROJECT LOCATION: 49 Glenwood Avenue Notes have been provided for this project. and no additional materials have been submitted since the previous staff notes were written. Some additional comments follow: COMMUNITY IMPACTS: One person has visited the office to review the application. and no correspondence has been received. In reviewing the minutes from the Town Board meeting at which a rezoning for this property was addressed. possible traffic. noise. etc. were brought up as concerns. Perhaps the applicant could provide some specific information as to what the increase in their use of the site would have on these aspects. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: The Seeley property was the subject of a court case in 1990. in which the Town was attempting to prevent the use of the parcel for Light Industrial purposes. The suit was dropped. apparently due to lack of a clear cut case. A map showing the area surrounding the Seeley parcel. with zoning and current uses indicated. is attached for reference. The approximate line of the earlier zoning established 7/11/68 by the Town Board. is also indicated. based on the Tax Map from the files at that time. Minutes of the Town Board meeting of November 29. 1993. regarding a change of zone. are attached. per request of Betty Monahan. Councilman-Town Board. Minutes of the Zoning Board of Appeals of June 15. 1988. regarding Charles E. and Barbara Seeley's application for a Use Variance (File No. 1370) are attached. per request of Ted Turner. Chairman-Zoning Board of Appeals." MR. TURNER-Just. before we tonight. as you know. Okay. start. there will be no decision We're waiting for the Warren County. - 1 - MR. MARTIN-Ted, tonight, too. today, after we and Paul Dusek, you might want to read in what we just handed out That was just new information that was learned had a meeting with Leon Steves, the Town Surveyor, the Town Attorney. MR. TURNER-Just let me add this to the application, "Information regarding the zoning of the Seelye parcel - 2/15/94 On February 15, 1994, Paul Dusek, Town Attorney, Leon Steves, Licensed Surveyor, Jim Martin, Zoning Admini strator, and Susan C ipperl y, Planning Assistant, examined the zoning maps and supporting materials regarding Tax Map Parcel 105-1-37, currently owned by Charles and Barbara Seelye. The findings were: - The 1967 zoning map showed a zoning boundary that cut across the parcel, making a C-3 zone on the northeast corner, and an R-4 zone on the remainder of the parcel. - In July, 1968, the Town Board changed the zoning north of this dividing line to M-2, which allowed light manufacturing, assembly, or other industrial research operations. - The 1988 zoning line follows the northern property boundary and puts the parcel into a Single Family Residential-One Acre zone. There is one bUilding on the property which lies in the portion designated M-2 in 1968. It is a machine shop on the northern side of the property. Based on the map, the house and additional accessory structure were, and are, in a residential zone. If the accessory structure is to be utilized as a machine shop, a variance would be necessary. - By the Seelye's account, they were informed by Mr. Laipes, of the Building and Codes Department at the time of their purchase of the parcel, that a greater portion of the parcel was in a light industrial zone. This was based on inaccurate interpretation of the Zoning map. A map of 1967 zoning boundaries for this parcel, prepared by Leon Steves, is attached." And you have a copy of that, Mr. Cherney? MR. CHERNEY-Yes, I do. MR. TURNER-Okay. MR. CHERNEY-Just a couple of comments. As you've just stated, Mr. Turner, we've just received this surprising news, as you just did. The Seeleys merely intend to, there's two existing machine shops on the property. I believe everybody has copies of those approvals. The northern most one they intend to keep in place, and then expand it by putting a proposed addition on which would take the place of the southern most existing machine shop, slightly past that line. I believe everybody's got that map, also. They have been operating the business there, they've lived in the house and operated the business there since 1972. The northern most existing machine shop was there since '72, and it's my understanding the southern machine shop, which states existing machine shop. which they intend to take down as part of this replacement. was built in 1979. I'm sorry. I'm reversed. The one to be knocked down is the one that's been there since '72. That's the southern. MR. TURNER-That's the one that's behind the house? MR. CHERNEY-Right. right behind the house. That's correct, and the existing machine shop denominated such that the northern part is the one that's the newer one. the one that was built in 1979. They have been operating a machine business there. In answer to the questions about traffic. Mrs. Seeley is right here. She can tell you just briefly. BARBARA SEELEY MRS. SEELEY-Traffic shouldn't be effected any more than what it is already. We have to live with trucks that come and go, and we don't have off the street traffic because we deal with some pretty big companies. There would be basically our employees and our delivery trucks. MR. CHERNEY-Also. the fact is that they would hope that in the - 2 - future, some time in the future, to be able to employ at least six more people there. So there would be a little bit more employment in Queensbury, without putting to much of a dramatic increase in an exterior type of operation. The traffic flow really doesn't exist, as she stated. They manufacture items for large businesses, not the local public, so you don't have tons of traffic flow, people coming in and out there. Just the employees coming in and parking, and then delivery trucks. MR. CARVIN-How many employees do you currently have? MRS. SEELEY-Nine. MR. CARVIN-Okay. So somewheres in there? you're Okay. planning on going to about 15, MR. TURNER-Delivery trucks now, do they come down Quaker Road and enter Glenwood and deliver in that way, or do they come down Glenwood Avenue and come that way? Both ways, don't they? MRS. SEELEY-About the only one that goes both ways would be UPS. The others, basically, come off of Quaker. MR. TURNER-Okay. MR. THOMAS-The only question I have is it doesn't show the expansion on this map that you provided. MR. CHERNEY-It matches up with the other maps. His expansion is right there, and it takes out this building here. \ MR. TURNER-What is it, about double the size? MR. THOMAS-A quad, four times. MR. TURNER-Four times. MR. KARPELES-What kind of machinery is in the existing shop, and what's going in the proposed addition? MRS. SEELEY-It would be basically the same as what we have in the current machine shop. If you visited our machine shop, we have walking between here. MR. KARPELES-I didn't go inside. what is inside there, actually? I drove up on the outside, but MRS. SEELEY-There are sand and sea lathes, printers, then in the smaller shop is lathes and welding machines. MR. KARPELES-And the proposed addition, you're going to have the same type of machinery in there? MRS. SEELEY-We would be moving some of it into and giving ourselves more space, plus we also have outside, covered up right now, machines that we can't use that would go into the shop. MR. CHERNEY-Aesthetically, it would probably look a lot better also. The existing machine shop, the northern part, is in much better condition than the machine shop that they (lost words). MR. TURNER-All right. You do general machining, right, and you do machining for different industries. MRS. SEELEY-Specialized, yes. MR. KARPELES-What kind of product do you manufacture? MRS. SEELEY-Specialized machine parts, replacement parts. - 3 - MR. KARPELES-Is it production type of thing, or is it specialized? MRS. SEELEY-Specialized. Some production, very little production, mostly specialized. MR. KARPELES-It's made to order. MR. TURNER-The height of the building is going to be what? MRS. SEELEY-That could be determined, but we haven't really gotten that far yet. MR. TURNER-Are you going to tie it into the roof of the eXisting building? CHARLES SEELEY MR. SEELEY-My name is Charles Seeley. The height of the bUilding I would probably keep in respect to the other two bUildings. which are two story. MR. TURNER-Okay. The new building would have. what. office. drafting room maybe. upstairs? MR. SEELEY-Probably would have machines upstairs. MR. TURNER-So. it's going to be a two story bUilding? It's not going to be open in one part. and two storys in the other? MR. SEELEY-It will probably be open in half of it. MR. TURNER-How many delivery trucks do you get there during the week? MR. SEELEY-Two a week. from one steel company. and that's our basic supplier. The rest of it comes from UPS. They come once a week. MR. TURNER-All the activity that occurs outdoors now is going to be indoors? MR. SEELEY-Ninety-nine percent of whatever's outside would be inside. MR. TURNER-No. I mean the working outside is going to be inside? MR. SEELEY-We do very little work outside. because we can't help it. We do some outside. MR. TURNER-I know. Yes. How about the hours of operation? MR. SEELEY-Maybe trying to stay the same as they are right now. or more. We don't know. You get a big contract. you've got to keep working. MR. TURNER-Yes. I know. but it could be a two shift operation or a three shift operation? Is that correct? MR. SEELEY-It is a two shift operation. MR. TURNER-Okay. but then it could be a three shift. MR. SEELEY-It could be. MR. TURNER-Okay. MR. CARVIN-What would you say the average noise level of some of the equipment out there. is it on par with an air gun or? MR. SEELEY-(lost words) was with me. and it was late at night. and I turned every machine on in the shop. and I asked the next door - 4 - neighbor what he could hear. and he said. I hear the ducks. and that's all you could hear. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Will this new addition or this new building have special insulation for sound deadening? MR. CHERNEY-I will assure you that sound will be either at a level now. or probably less. because the new bUilding will have better insulation. MR. TURNER-Yes. as long as the activity is inside. MR. CHERNEY-Right. MR. TURNER-If you go outside with it. that's what changes the noise level. MR. CHERNEY-No. I think. Mr. Turner. what he's saying is there's some machines stored outside. MR. TURNER-I know. MR. CHERNEY-They're stored there. and they need the room. MR. TURNER-I know. My concern is. MR. SEELEY-In the past. I've done work outside because you took the contracts you had to take. and I've taken them. MRS. SEELEY-Now we can be choosy. MR. TURNER-Yes. I hear you. Okay. Anybody else any questions? Do you want to hear what the public has to say? MR. THOMAS-Yes. MR. TURNER-Okay. public hearing. All right. Thank you. I wi 11 now open the PUBLIC HEARING OPENED BOB STEWART MR. STEWART-Mr. Chairman. Gentlemen of the Board. my name is Bob Stewart. I'm a lawyer in Glens Falls. I'm here tonight speaking on behalf of Mr. and Mrs. Harwood Beaty. who own the property immediately to the south and immediately to the east of the Seeley property. which is the subject of this application. I have reviewed the Seeley application. The problem is what I reviewed contained no information whatsoever. I wasn't told what they were going to tear down. The application did not say what they were going to build. Apparently. they have handed up to this Board toniqht some drawing or rendering of what it is they're all about. I have not had the privilege of seeing it. MR. TURNER-It's just a floor plan. that's all it is. just the outline of the building. There's nothing else. MR. STEWART-There's no point in my seeing it tonight because I couldn't comprehend it. MR. MARTIN-It should be noted that such information is not required in a use variance. It's not an area variance. I don't want to have the implication that staff is deficient. here. in looking at a complete application. MR. STEWART-Well. I'm not clear on that point. because if you have a use variance. isn't there a requirement you show what you're going to do. whether you meet setback requirements. whether you meet the buffer requirements. all of these things? - 5 - MR. MARTIN-No, there is not. variance. That is not cri teria for a use MR. STEWART-Well, all right. Fair enough. Let me go to this point. Obviously, what the Seeleys are requesting this Board give them requires about a half a dozen use variances and about a half a dozen area variances, none of which they have requested as part of this application. If they are building buildings within the 50 foot required buffer zone where there can be no construction, not even parking, under your Ordinance, then they can't do that without getting a variance from the buffer zone requirement. MR. MARTIN-That's correct, and I want to, again, go on record. If a building permit, the use variance were permitted and a building permit came in, showing such violations, it would be directed to this Board for an area variance. As soon as anything like that is reported to this Planning Office or Zoning Office, then that would be the case. MR. STEWART-Well, we started out with this fact from Mike (lost word) . The Seeleys bought this property in the 70' s. It had formerly been owned by Harold LaRose. Zoning went in in 1967 for the first time. It was zoned residential at that time. I understand that something had been submitted tonight where there's a question, maybe a zoning line nipped the northeasterly corner. ~ have submitted information which ~ believe is accurate coming from two surveyors. I have submitted it to everyone, and I have asked for months if anybody had any information contrary, and I heard nothing until a half hour ago. I believe what has been submi tted is in error. I do not believe any portion of this property was ever zoned any type of manufacturing use. You have three di fferent stage s of zoning here, in ' 67, in ' 80, and then again in ' 88, and in each one of them, this property has been residential. When it was zoned first in 1967, I've submitted an affidavit from the then owner, Harold LaRose, indicating he spoke to the building inspector, and was assured at that time this property was zoned residential. He used it only as residential. Once the Seeleys took over, they began more and more and more to use it commercial in spite of the complaints of the neighborhood. I submitted a letter, and I'm not going to read it word for word and bore you with it, but they built the building on the northeast portion apparently saying that it had to do with Mr. Seeley's interest in collecting and restoring antique automobiles. That became a manufacturing plant. They were issued an order, by the Enforcement Officer of this Town, to Cease and Desist the industrial use that they were using the property to. They ignored that. However, they did, at that time, come before this Board and ask for a variance to ask this Board to make legal what, up until then, was illegal. This Board unanimously denied them that application. They went to the New York State Supreme Court to ask this Board be overruled in your decision. The Supreme Court agreed with the Board, and denied the request of the Seeleys that this Board's decision be reversed. That is the fact and the circumstances as I know it. They have been illegal in their operation from Day One. They're operating in building. They're operating out of building. They are welding at 10, 11 o'clock at night, and it is a nightmare, if you own a home next door, in the summertime, and are trying to live a conventional life, next to this type of a commercial operation. It just is not right. It's not fair, and it's not legal. Now, they come before you tonight to ask if they can enlarge what they're already doing. What they want to do, I don't know, because I have been shown nothing, but in order to get a use variance, the State Law was amended a few years ago. It was made very precise as to what the requirements were, and they're very difficult, and your Ordinance was amended a few years ago to "word for word" the new State Law. So your Ordinance has the same requirements for use variance approval that the State Law has, and that is, Number One. you'll have to show that the property cannot be used or produce any reasonable return for any of the uses that are allowed in the zone that it's in. This property - 6 - is in a residential zone. It contains a large and a very, very lovely residence. It's fine. There's absolutely nothing wrong with it. It is a half acre lot. Now, the law requires that it be one acre, so it's smaller than it should be, but nevertheless, it preexists to that point. It's a half acre lot. It has a large house on it, like all of the houses in the neighborhood, maybe even larger. It has a full adequate use in the zone that it's allowed in. There is not one single item that has been suggested in this application here that would indicate the Seeleys have one piece of evidence, or one ground under your Ordinance that would justify you granting the use variance, very, very difficult variances to get, much harder than area variances. There is not one single argument, one single ground presented that I can even argue about, because they don't even claim that there are any grounds. The only thing they say is, we can make more money from the property if we're allowed to use it illegally, than if we're limited to using it legally. I don't question but what that's probably true, and you can say that up and down the street, and in any neighborhood in Town, but that's no justification for granting people a use variance and moving a, not a light industrial. What seems to me to be a rather heavy industrial use right next to residential neighbors. Where do you stop? If you move next to the neighbor's residence, and you make his life hell, then he says, well then, good. give me a variance. Let ~ go industrial. because you certainly ruined the residential character of mY house. You grant him such a variance, what do you do to the neighbor next to him? How far down that street do you go destroying as you go? You have the Hovey Park that the Town had just completed at enormous expense. You're trying to upgrade the character of that neighborhood. This certainly is not going to do it. The suggestion is that there has been some sort of a change in the character of the neighborhood over the years. Well, under the law, if there has been some change in the character of the neighborhood. that's the ground you use to go to the Town Board and ask them to change the zone, but in fact that operation along Quaker Road has been commercial for years. There is really no difference in what you see there now. than what you saw there five or ten or fifteen years ago. The owners may change. One business may come in. Another one may go out, but the commercial character along Quaker Road has always been there. It was there when the Seeleys bought the property. back in the 70' s. So there is just no grounds whatsoever. in my judgement, that have been proven or even claimed in this application which justifies this Board taking such a serious step as to change the zoning and change the character of this neighborhood. I think the use that the property has been put to is illegal now. It has always been illegal, and to enlarge it and go whatever it is, two storys, three shifts a day. is just beyond all endurance. It's not right. It's not fair. It flies in the face of any kind of planning. SEQRA, has there been any review, somebody said. is there going to be an increase in traffic. The answer is, no, we don't think so. That's it? That's the SEQRA review, when you're going to have three shifts a day of materials coming in and out of this place? There is just no planning to it. They can make more money on the property if they're allowed to use it illegally. They're very straightforward in their positions. and that's why they want it, and they have no other reason. and if that justifies changing a zone in this Town. then you have just really abandoned your Zoning Ordinance. If that's all it takes, there's no zoning left in this Town. I will answer any questions. Do you have my letter in front of you with all the maps and documents? You may not have had a chance to read it yet, but if you have no questions, I won't make a longer and more impassioned speech. MR. THOMAS-What did you submit, Mr. Stewart, for affidavits? MR. STEWART-Okay. I submitted a three page letter. MR. THOMAS-I've got a stack of letters here, and paper. know what's what. I don't - 7 - MR. STEWART-Okay. I submitted a three page letter. four page. on my law firm letterhead. with a dissertation on what. particularly. the property's been. how the zoning has developed over the years. the re-zoning by u.S. Catheter of this property. which had nothing to do with property that U.S. Catheter did not own. and I recite all of the variances that these applicants would have to apply for in order to be legal. most of which they haven't even applied for. To have an operation like this. you have to show parking. you have to show double entrances. you have to show buffers. There is just absolutely nothing here. Absolutely nothing in this application except. it's almost like they want the property re-zoned. It's not that they're coming in with a specific use saying show. let us do this specific thing. I believe there's a rule of this Board that any support. the documentation as to what an applicant proposes is supposed to be submitted some 21. 22 days before the hearing date. I've seen nothing. MR. TURNER-Okay. Any questions? Okay. Bob. MR. STEWART-Thank you very much. MR. TURNER-Who wishes to be heard next. in opposition to the application? JOAN TRAMPOSCH MRS. TRAMPOSCH-My name is Joan Tramposch. We live about four houses down from the Seeleys. I'd like to know. what is the size of the extension that they want to put on there? I have no idea what the size is. MR. CARVIN-They said it's going to be approximately 65 by 75. MR. TURNER-Yes. MRS. TRAMPOSCH-This is the new? MR. CARVIN-This will be the new. MR. TURNER-This is an attachment to the existing building. going to be attached to the existing machine shop. It's MRS. TRAMPOSCH-Yes. I know where it is. I don't think it's appropriate they put something like that in the area that we have now. It is a lovely residential area. and we'd like to keep it that way. Hovey Pond has been a blessing to us. It's really improved the area there. and I think the sound. the noise that's going to come from there. it is going to be a noisier operation. so we do get some noise from the shopping center down there a lot. but not a great deal. I don't think it belongs in the area. MR. TURNER-Okay. Thank you. Anyone else wish to be heard in opposition to the application? Okay. There'll be no action taken on it this even because we have to wait the results of the Warren County Planning Board. So. we'll leave the public hearing open. and we'll address it. MR. MARTIN-Now. I think the fine point that comes out of this information we found out today. and it was just by virtue of the fact that's when we could assemble those people. Leon Steves and Paul Dusek. is that the real crux of the matter is where does this '67 or '68 Zoning Ordinance line fall? George Liapes. who was the then. I guess. Building Inspector/Code Enforcement Officer. prepared this map here. okay. I think probably everybody who was involved in this has seen this map before. This was a zoning map that was prepared. tax map section basis. This is the subject parcel. and how this line sits is key. Now. this is what Sue refers to. here in her notes. as by the 5eeleys account. they were informed by Mr. Liapes of the Building and Codes Department at the time of their purchase of the parcel that a greater portion of the - 8 - parcel was in the light industrial zone. This was based on inaccurate interpretation of the zoning map. There is the line that was on the maps of the Town. and this is the map that Paul Dusek saw, back in '89. When he saw this, he decided to drop the lawsuit. He had been reporting to the courts that this was totally outside of it. When he saw this, he said, well, what further information done by Leon Steves, this is the George Liapes line that's reflected on this map, but Leon's interpretation of the line would be that it falls there. My understanding is their machine shop operation occurs essentially in two structures, the one in the northeasterly most corner of the lot, which is the newer barn. and then in what I think was the garage. MR. TURNER-It was. MR. MARTIN-And this is what they're proposing to expand. Now, the ramifications of this are that if this is, in fact, true, what you have is a situation where this does not have any grandfathered rights. So it's not the expansion of a nonconforming use. It's the establishment of one. MR. TURNER-All right. Let me ask Mr. Seeley. Did you expand this garage after you bought the house, the one that's behind the house? MR. SEELEY-Yes. MR. TURNER-You expanded that, right? MR. SEELEY-Yes. MR. TURNER-This one right here, because wasn't this just a single car garage, or something, at the time? MRS. SEELEY-Actually, it was part of the house that was taken off, and the roof was lowered. It's a little storage. MR. TURNER-So how much did you actually put on this, at the time? MR. SEELEY-I have no idea. That was a long time ago. MR. MARTIN-See, and I think what happened was, with this map, is if you get the 104, the C-2 boundary comes down, and I think Mr. Liapes. and nobody knows what his thoughts were. but I think he tried to match the two up, so they intersected. basically, at the same point on Glenwood Avenue. but there is no basis. that I can find anywhere. or Sue, or Leon or Paul can find anywhere that establishes this line at this point, and the only thing that Leon did to establish it at this point was, he superimposed the official zoning map of the Town, which you have here, which is this one, and you can see, this has a bend in it, and I, you know, Bob will say, well, that's a free hand drawn line. I can't help that. This is the official map, and that's the only way it's ever referred to in any of the legislation. MR. TURNER-This is on the existing '67 map, this line? MR. MARTIN-Yes. MR. CARVIN-This is this one here? MR. MARTIN-Right. We went into Darleen' s archives today and we pulled out the '67 tattered old map, and it's there. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Let me ask you this, Jim. This line here. are you indicating that this is a hand drawn line, or is this an actual survey line? MR. MARTIN-All these lines are. yes, I mean, these are the official lines, but as to how much. - 9 - - MR. TURNER-Where they were drawn is the question. MR. MARTIN-What process was used to establish these lines, there's no, I don't think, any scientific. MR. CARVIN-The question I ask is, this is a line a little bit more blown up, and I'm assuming that this is the, that's the Sawhorse. right? MR. MARTIN-Right. MR. CARVIN-And this is the Seeley property here. MR. MARTIN-Now, what Leon claims that does not reflect is this bend in the line here. He says that has to be accounted for because it is on the official map. MR. CARVIN-Well, I think that, barring any bend, if this is an accurate representation, I don't think the bend is going to be of. MR. MARTIN-Well, representation. he says it would not be an accurate MR. STEWART-Well, I think one point should be made clear so we're not confused. You have the '67 zoning, that set the zoning lines for the first time ever in Queensbury. Then in '68 U.S. Catheter asked the Town Board to re-zone, and I've given you copies of that resolution, and the resolution says, we are re-zoning the land of U.S. Catheter, not the land of Mr. and Mrs. Seeley or anybody else, and in fact in my position as a lawyer, the only one who can ask for land to be re-zoned is the owner of that land. I can't go and ask for your land to be re-zoned. MR. TURNER-No. MR. STEWART-They said, we are re-zoning the land of U.S. Catheter, and we are re-zoning it on a line which lies parallel to the D & H Railroad track and that's what this line represents. Now, whether that free hand drawing in the map the year before did or did not have a curve in it, and you can see somebody just quickly sketched it in. the map was supposed to show a line 500 feet distance from and parallel to the railroad track. MR. CARVIN-Okay, and I'm assuming this is the railroad track here. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. MARTIN-But there's nothing we can find that cites that 500 foot distance as the intention of the Town Board at the time they enacted the zoning map. If you scale it off. you corne to that, but the question was asked of Leon, is that a 500 foot dimension. MR. TURNER-You're getting ahead of yourself. What he said was that the 500 foot was established when they re-zoned C.R. Bard. Is that right? MR. STEWART-No. I want to be careful, because I don't want to misstate myself. Leon Steves told me that he checked the old maps and the R-4 zone lay 500 feet distance from the railroad. MR. TURNER-Okay. MR. MARTIN-And I talked to him today, and that question is not giving the complete answer, though. Yes, it is 500 foot for most of the distance. However, when it reaches this point. it clearly curves towards Glenwood Avenue, and it's that curve that results in it coming in like this, as he's indicated on his map that he drew. This is Leon's map. Leon drew this map, to scale. MR. STEWART-Now the problem there. if I may say so, is the - 10 - resolution of the Town Board in 1968 said, we re-zone the property, and it's bounded by a line parallel to the railroad tracks, and no curve. They didn't say anything about a curve. Parallel to the railroad track. MR. MARTIN-Yes, but they also said, a line that reflects the R-4 zoning line, and that's what is indicated here with the bend in it. MR. STEWART-And they also said the land of U. S. Catheter (lost word) Corporation. MR. MARTIN-Right, and they cite the boundaries in that resolution. We have a copy of it. The main thing is that, I'm saying that this structure is outside of what, at any point, was ever light industrial zoning, and that I found out just today. MR. CARVIN-The original, the first structure? MR. MARTIN-Yes. MR. CARVIN-Because the second structure does appear to in that particular zoning, according to this one. MR. MARTIN-What Bob is pointing out to you is they reference U.S. Catheter, lands of U.S. Catheter, but if you read on further, they get into the boundaries, and it says, bounded on the north by Quaker Road, on the east by Bay Road, on the west by Glenwood Avenue, and on the south by a line parallel to the railroad right- of-way, which line marks an R-4 district, and that's that line right there. MR. STEWART-It is if it's parallel to that right-of-way. MR. CARVIN-Okay, parallel to the right-of-way, not the railroad track. What is the right-of-way? It has to be parallel. So you can't have a bend if it's parallel. MS. CIPPERLY-There's also a train track coming through this property. MR. STEWART-Well, if this the spurs. Now, if the argument was the zone line was 500 feet from the spurs, that, of course, would be way down here. MR. MARTIN-All Leon is saying, Leon is taking the technical view. This is the official zoning map of the Town. When you superimpose this map, you blow up to scale, that bend results in the line coming through as he has shown it. That's all he is saying. MR. CARVIN-Okay, but is this the motion of the re-zoning? MR. MARTIN-Of the re-zoning, yes. MR. CARVIN-Okay, but they're saying, parallel. So even though it's a hand drawn situation, I've got to believe a parallel line is a straight line. MS. CIPPERLY-Can I ask a question? Was this property part of C.R. Bard at the time? MR. TURNER-No. MR. CARVIN-Otherwise it would say, parallel, except for when the railroad, the right-of-way. It's going where the right-of-way. IF the right-of-way bends, then the line would have to bend. It says parallel to the right-of-way. MR. TURNER-And on the south by a line parallel to the railroad right-of-way. Parallel. Which line marks an R-4 district. - 11 - MR. CARVIN-Yes. So, it has to be parallel. MR. TURNER-It has to be parallel. MR. CARVIN-You can't have it veering off. MR. TURNER-You can't have it veering off. MR. CARVIN-On one side. MR. CHAIRNEY-A parallel line could be in a radius. MR. CARVIN-As long as it's equal. If the right-of-way bends, fine, then the parallel line will bend, but the distance, you can't have the railroad track going this way the line going that way. MS. CIPPERLY-But there's also a railroad. See the railroad? MR. CARVIN-But there's no søø feet. MR. STEWART-If you would look at this map that's presented tonight, and we're seeing it, I'm seeing it, for the first time, here's the railroad line, here is the reconstituted R-4 zone, and it isn't parallel to anything. I mean. there's just no way that that line is parallel to this one. MR. CARVIN-What is this? Is this the railroad track? MR. STEWART-That's the spur that went off to feed the old. MR. CARVIN-All right. So that the railroad line, the right-of-way, I don't really, this is the right-of-way. They also have a right- of-way here? MR. STEWART-They had a spur that went over and serviced the old Warner Pruyn. MR. TURNER-Warner Pruyn building. MR. CARVIN-Okay, but which right-of-way are they talking about? MR. TURNER-This one, because that's the C.R. Bard property that's on that side. MR. MARTIN-All I'm saying is that in my position I have to rely on the official maps of the Town, and Leon Steves has been the Surveyor of the Town, has been keeping these records for years. MR. CARVIN-Yes, but I have to go by this. This is what they're saying, that it says parallel. So, just for argument's sake, if this was the right-of-way, then I would agree that it has to be parallel on a bend, but if this is the right-of-way, and that is straight, then it has to be straight. I don't care what this is. This is just an approximation, because that's the legal description, as far as I'm concerned, if that is indeed the zoning intent. that they said parallel. MR. CHAIRNEY-How far is it supposed to be from the railroad tracks? MR. CARVIN-Well, I don't know if that says. It just says parallel. MR. MARTIN-It's never specified as søø feet. That søø feet is only pulled off of, again, somebody scaling off as best they could this map from this rail line that's shown here, and this line that's shown here, and it's an approximation. It's the best you can do. MR. CARVIN-Well, again, I think the line is the approximation, but the legal description, basically, is that it has to be paralle I, but I don't know the distance. Unless they specified it has to be søø feet. then, fine, you've got your distance. It has to be søø - 12 - feet, then, fine. you've got your distance. It has to be S00 feet from the right-of-way. parallel. MR. MARTIN-They never specify a distance. MR. CARVIN-I mean. if that was the accepted norm. that it was S00 feet. MR. MARTIN-Well. I'm just saying. in any event. I'm saying that this building is not in what was ever light industrial zoning. MR. CARVIN-I have to agree. Under any description. this building is out. MR. CHERNEY-What's Mr. Liapes' map here show? confused. That's where I'm MR. TURNER-That's the one you're talking about? MR. MARTIN-Right. and this would not be nonconforming use, it would be establishment. property here. and here's how. and this was what and they said. well. expansion of a Here's the Seeley was shown to them. MR. CARVIN-Is this the right-of-way? Okay. but what's the distance? I mean. visually. it appears to be parallel. I don't know. unless it angles. MR. MENTER-Yes. it does. MR. MARTIN-See. everybody. at the time. was trying to reflect the curve in the official zoning map. because you have to do that. MR. STEWART-But how do we know that? Isn't that an assumption? Isn't the curve just the wiggle of a guy's hand when he sketched it one day? MR. MARTIN-In my position or Leon's position. you can't make. you have to put the line where it lies. MR. STEWART-Okay. MRS. SEELEY-The new zoning comes like this up and around and back. MS. CIPPERLY-Another thing. though. about the zoning map in '67 is where they had a specific number of feet back. they'd say it. MR. STEWART-Sometimes they did. Sometimes they didn't. MS. CIPPERLY-And this line runs parallel to Quaker Road. S00 feet back. This line. it looks. and this says 400. MR. CHERNEY-Where does the S00 come from? coming up? Why does that keep MR. CARVIN-I don't know. MS. CIPPERLY-Because if you take a ruler, and this is a scale of one inch is two thousand feet. and you take a scale. the width of this line could be S0 feet. I mean. that's how. MR. MARTIN-I'm not saying it's the most scientific of approaches to drawing district boundaries. but that nonetheless. MR. CHERNEY-How do we know that that form's not as accurate is that? MR. STEWART-I would like to make this comment. I have seen this sketch tonight. for the first time. after repeated requests to the Town office if they had anything. I don't know who made it. I - 13 - -- don't know who drew in this line. It does not appear to be parallel to the railroad track. but the point is that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury had the authority to set zoning lines back in '67. when they passed the Ordinance. When they re- zoned that little piece. in '68. they had the authority to do that. but nobody doodling in his office a week later or a year later. who happens to sketch a line on a map. had any authority to change the law of the Town of Queensbury. I don't know who drew this line. No certification was done by any surveyor or engineer. but whoever did it may have represented his idea of what he thought was to be (lost word). MR. MARTIN-The information I have is this is not an accurate representation. MR. STEWART-Well. I think clearly it isn't. but I don't even know what it is. but it shouldn't represent an official zoning map. MR. MARTIN-These were copies of the maps that were present in the Building Department at the time. and this is what they would use to make specific parcel determinations. MS. CIPPERLY-This map. he took S00 feet from the center of the right-of-way. In the resolution it says. parallel to the right-of- way. It doesn't say. S00 feet from the center of the right-of-way. This is no more accurate than. MR. CARVIN-Well. I've got. as I said. I guess it goes along here. I mean. it comes into the railroad track where. this is not parallel either. MR. TURNER-No. MR. CARVIN-But that the. we're looking at the three. different zone here. right? This is an M-1. right? This is a MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. CARVIN-So this is. where's the C-3? MS. CIPPERLY-It was C-3. it went across the road there. MR. CARVIN-Yes. but it comes down here. down this line? MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. CARVIN-It must have come down. that must be the Bay Road. MR. MARTIN-The key. and I can't explain why it's there. but there is a bend in that line. MR. CARVIN-Okay. but what property is right here? Why would they have jagged this out? I don't understand. MRS. SEELEY-At one time. our house was the offices of Warner Pruyn. MR. MARTIN-I think this jag will reflect a property boundary. If you were to go back. and we can look at these maps. and it would show on the rest of these maps. We could get the other Sections out. and I would venture to say it would follow a property line. MR. CARVIN-See. if that's a property. then the intent. I think. would have been to bring it into that property line. that distance. and then run parallel. MR. MARTIN-You'd have to get out Section 106. or something like that. or 10S to find it. MS. CIPPERLY-You said when you bought your house there were lines. - 14 - MRS. SEELEY-There were lines all the way through from our house. MR. CARVIN-I know what you're saying. but I'd like to know why they, what the distance is here, and then run it parallel. I mean. to the right-of-way. MR. TURNER-The part that bothers me. why would they do that. and then say parallel there? Why would they do that? Just like I said. you can draw that line any place you want. MR. MARTIN-Because I think for most of the way it is parallel. but at the point it approaches Glenwood. MR. TURNER-Yes. I know. but you could. you know. so minuscule is that map. you just turn that line a little bit. and you're picking up a lot of footage. MR. MARTIN-I know. That's what I'm saying. MR. CARVIN-Or it could have come over here. and that's certainly no. in other words. MR. MARTIN-My only guess is that they were trying to match up with the C-2 boundary that came in on the other side of Glenwood. so they intersect at the same point. MR. CARVIN-In other words. right here. MR. MARTIN-Right. MR. CARVIN-What you're saying is that they wanted to come in. the C-2 boundary is right on the corner here. right? This is Quaker and this is. right here. MR. MARTIN-C-2 boundary came in. MS. CIPPERLY-Is following Hovey Pond around. MR. MARTIN-It came in right about here. because again. if we pull out the sister map to this. it'll show. or the Section 104. you'll find that the Section C-2 boundary came in right at this point. on Glenwood. C-2 will come in right here. MR. TURNER-Yes. it probably would. MR. MARTIN-So. the bottom line is. we all came to the conclusion today that this is not an expansion of a nonconforming use. It's an establishment of one. because it's never had any grandfathered rights in this structure. the bottom line. MR. MENTER-Regardless of where that line falls. because it's not going to cover the building. MR. CARVIN-Yes. or both of them. technically. MR. MARTIN-Now. Paul did say he has some concern as to what bearing. if any. Laipes' representation to them was back in the 70's. and he doesn't know if that has any bearing in this or not. MR. STEWART-I would suggest that there is a Court of Appeals case that every lawyer in the State has memorized in the past five years. where a building inspector in the City of New York represented to a developer that he could build a 60 some story building and the zoning map published showed that a building that high was legal. They got the building up 60 stories. and (lost word) that map is wrong. the building inspector is wrong. Thirty- three stories of that building were torn down. and the Court of Appeals said, that's it. we don't care if the building inspector made a mistake. the people of the City don't have to live with an illegal use. and. incidentally they pointed out. and don't come - 15 - back and sue the City, because if you made a mistake, it was an honest mistake. We don't want to hear about it. It's a legend among lawyers. MR. TURNER-Yes. right. MR. STEWART-So. first of all Mr. Liapes. and of course he's not here to defend himself. you do have the sworn affidavit from Harold LaRose who owned the Seeley property. that George Liapes told him that he was zoned strictly residential. MR. MARTIN-I just want to be direct and give you the most up to date information ~ have. and that would be that this is not an expansion of a nonconforming use. It's an establishment of one, because there are no. with that structure at that particular point in that site. there never appeared to be any light industrial zoning over that part of the site. MR. CARVIN-I have one more question which I'd like to try to get. I'm a little bit unclear as to what happened. I want to say, back in either 1988 or 1989. or 1990. regarding a Court. now you indicate in your letter. here. that. inspite of the rulings of the Zoning Board of Appeals. the directives of the Code Enforcement Officer. the ruling of the State Supreme Court and the complaints of the neighbors. the Seeleys have continued to conduct and enlarge their illegal industrial operation on this residential lot. Could you expand what that is referring to? MR. STEWART-After this Board denied the Seeley's application for a variance in 1988. the Seeleys. through their then attorney. filed a lawsuit in an Article called an Article 78 proceeding in the New York State Supreme Court. asking the New York State Supreme Court to overrule this Board's decision. and to rule that this Board should have granted them the variance that they requested. and I have in my file a copy of that pleading which started that lawsuit. I was never directly involved in the litigation itself because it was. the Seeleys were represented by their attorney. The Town was represented by Mr. Dusek. and I had no role to play. I asked. however. Mr. Dusek. a few weeks ago. and he told me that the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Town and against the Seeleys and ruled that this Board had acted properly in denying that variance in 1988. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Let me ask you. this variance in 1988. does that refer back to our original situation of "the illegal establishment of the business"? MR. STEWART-The sequence of events. and I think I've attached copies to substantiate all this. it was triggered off by the letter from Bert Martin. who's the Code Enforcement Officer around '87, saying. stop. this is a residential zone. You're proceeding illegally. Stop running this commercial business there. They did not stop. but instead they put together an application within a month or so and carne before this Board to say. give us a variance to say we can do it legally. and that's what you denied. MR. CARVIN-All right. Now. according to the establishment of this business. one building was converted. in 1972? MR. TURNER-They got a permit for a garage in 1979. MR. CARVIN-And then the second one was 1979. MR. TURNER-That was my question to him. When he first started. he was working out of that garage. Is that correct? Then he carne and got a permit for a garage. That's what's on the permit. In 1979. Now. what happened then. he moved machinery into that garage. instead of the garage being a garage. it became a business. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Well. that's what I'm trying to establish. In - 16 - '- other words. the 1986 action is directly related to the 1979 business. because of the zoning change? MR. MARTIN-What unraveled all of this was, I believe what Bob is saying is true, and then the Town, according to Paul today, and I'm remembering the best I can, Sue, jump in, began a criminal action, and were pursuing that, and that's when this zoning map was discovered showing the line going through in such a way that nearly two-thirds of the lot was light industrially zoned, and when they superimposed the buildings over this boundary, not only was the new '79 structure in the light industrial zone, but also a portion of the existing, the '72 garage was in this light industrial zone. So when Paul saw that, he went to the judge and said, hold on judge. I've got new information. I was in the wrong. We withdraw. MR. TURNER-Yes. That's right. MR. STEWART-Now let me clarify that briefly. In 1988. I believe it was, there was a Supreme Court case where the Supreme Court said that this Board was right in not granting them a variance to have an industrial use there. Armed with that, Mr. Dusek some time later started a lawsuit in Justice of the Peace Court to have a Justice of the Peace issue an order to actually shut them down. That dragged on for over two years, and I was representing Mr. and Mrs. Beaty and I would call occasionally, and the response was, well, we're sort of stalling on it because they're looking for new property, the Seeleys. They're going to move somewhere else, and if there's any graceful way out, we'd like to do it that way, and that was fine with Mr. Beaty. He wanted a graceful way out also. So it dragged on for a couple of years. Finally, clearly they were not going to move somewhere else, and the case went to trial. They tried it one day. The Court Stenographer became ill. They adjourned it for a few weeks. They came back for the second day, and that's when somebody came up with a map and said, gee, maybe we don't know where the line was, at which point the Town never pursued it any further. Does that answer your question? MR. CARVIN-Well, I still want to know if there was an action, and if that action was resolved in favor of the Seeleys, by our wi thdrawing, because what you're telling me is, they filed an Article 78. Right? We turned down a variance, all right. They filed an Article 78, which according to what you're telling me is, we withdrew? MR. MARTIN-No, no. That was successful with the Town. MR. STEWART-That one the Town won. MR. TURNER-The Town won that one. MR. STEWART-Subsequent to that, the Town went to JP Court, Justice of the Peace Court, and started a separate proceeding. MR. CARVIN-Okay. In other words, a Cease and Desist. Okay. MR. TURNER-An enforcement action. MR. CARVIN-An enforcement action. MR. STEWART-An enforcement action. MR. MARTIN-And that's when it came to light that, you know, now we do have this specific information of individual section maps of the Town tax maps that show this line going through in such a way that both structures were in the M-1 or M-2 zoning, so Paul withdrew, and that's why we're at where we're at today. It was thought that they did have grandfathered rights to these uses, because of this line, where it was, but now what we're hearing, after looking at it again, a third time, today, is that, yes, the line does go through their property, but not in such a fashion that that existing '72 - 17 - garage is in the M-2 zone. MR. CARVIN-Well. again. I hate to back track. but it sounds to me. and correct me if I'm wrong. it sounds like we had an illegal operation determined by court. in other words. they came in for the variance. The variance was denied. It went to the Court. The Court decided in the Town's favor. that this was. indeed. an illegal activity. Is that correct? MR. STEWART-In fairness to the Seeleys. that may not be quite correct. I don't think the decision came before the Supreme Court. is it or is it not an illegal activity. What had happened was. the Seeleys went and said we want to run this commercial activity on this property. and we want a variance to make it legal to do so. which was sort of. perhaps. a concession on their part. that it wasn't legal up until then. or whatever was in their mind. but they asked this Board to grant them a variance to allow them to legally conduct the business on the property. You said no. The Supreme Court said no. MR. CARVIN-Okay. but it fell back that we decided. essentially. not to enforce that. Is that a correct interpretation? MR. CHERNEY-They tried to enforce is in the Justice Court. and the case. MR. CARVIN-Well. that second case never came to Court. MR. MARTIN-Well. it was in court. MR. CARVIN-But we withdrew it. MR. STEWART-It started and was withdrawn. ruling one way or the other. There was no court MR. MARTIN-Because I talked to Paul specifically about this today and he thought. based on this map. he didn't have a leg to stand on. MR. CARVIN-But it still falls back. in spite of that case. it was just never enforced. We still have. technically. a denied variance for that use. from 1986 or '88. MR. STEWART-As I understand. you're right. MR. TURNER-'88. MR. MARTIN-Well. I don't think it was ever enforced. because given this. what was thought to be accurate information. MR. TURNER-Yes. but how could you come up with a map with that boundary on it. and the zoning map with this boundary on it? How did you ever arrive at that? MR. CARVIN-I think that's an enforcement issue that was never pursued. I think we have a variance that was denied. and I don't know how we could even possibly vote on this one. because that previous variance. I would feel. supersedes all of this stuff. MS. CIPPERLY-But if you went by this map. as I did when I first started looking at this. I said. why were you told to come in and get a use variance in 1988. If your property was divided this way. you wouldn't need a use variance. That was confusing to me. MR. CARVIN-Again. I still think. and this is what I need some help here. is that I'm. MRS. SEELEY-Everything that we did. we did at the advice of either a Town official or a previous attorney. because we weren't going to go for anything. and everybody said. well. keep them happy and do - 18 - this. and keep them happy and do that. So that's why we did it. and that's why we're here today. MR. CARVIN-Now you truly do want to expand. MR. SEELEY-The map that George showed us went through the far side of our living room. which did include the '72 shop. That was the map we saw. and he pointed it right out to us. MR. TURNER-He could have made a mistake. MR. STEWART-There's nothing in this record of any such map. MR. TURNER-And it's evident that he did. MR. STEWART-That isn't the official map of the Town of Queensbury. That's a sketch. MR. MARTIN-This is the official map of the Town of Queensbury. That's the official map. as inaccurate. and as large scale as it is. that is the official map. and that's all we have to go on from that Ordinance. MR. TURNER-Okay. Any further comments? MR. MARTIN-I don't know. would you like to have Paul here at the next meeting. I don't know if he can speak to these things any better than I have. MR. TURNER-What's he going to do? What's he going to tell us any different than what you told us? Evidentally. his decision was based on the map. the line on the big map that you've got there. on that line. Now you're the decision is wrong. It's based on this map. What's he going to tell us? He isn't going to tell us anything different than you told us. MR. CARVIN-Here's Halfway Brook. This is Quaker. What's the distance here? I mean. if this is. obviously. this is a straight line here. Okay. and then they came straight across. and I'll bet you that comes right across the property lines in the back there. Do you see what I'm saying? My guess is that if they went by the same property lines. that this is very definitely a straight line. It appears to be a straight line. It looks like this. because right here's the area. Here is. this apparently is the rail road right-of-way right here. and my guess is that if we took a look at this. that this is the old Sawhorse property. MR. TURNER-This would have to be the Sawhorse. Kaidas. and this is Mrs. Grossman. This might be MR. MARTIN-See. and the other reason why. I don't think it's strictly a 500 foot dimension paralleling. MR. CARVIN-I don't think it's a 500. I think it's the right-of-way. MR. MARTIN-Because there is clearly a dimension from Quaker Road up Glenwood Avenue. to the point where this line crosses the. MR. MENTER-Who did the 500 foot take off. Jim? MR. MARTIN-Coulter and McCormack did this. MR. CARVIN-All they did was adjust it for here. They realized that they had some kind of gobbledy go ok down in here. and I think they put it right on the rail road right-of-way. MR. TURNER-Yes. they did. MR. CARVIN-And then they came right up and butted against the property. - 19 - MR. TURNER-That's exactly what we did. MR. CARVIN-So I don't think there was ever any arch in there. You still have a case that I think is predicated on history. I think we have an illegal variance out there. and I don't think we can, my personal opinion is I don't think we can move on this until we get a clarification of the enforcement issue. MR. TURNER-Yes, but we need the information from the County. and we're going to leave the public hearing open. Okay. gentlemen, the hearing's closed for tonight, and the public hearing will stay open until we get the comment from the County. MR. MARTIN-Next Wednesday you'll take it up again? MR. TURNER-I don't think so. We've got a pretty stiff agenda. No. If Harris Bay doesn't make the SEQRA, we could maybe schedule it then. MS. CIPPERLY-But how will everybody know? MR. TURNER-I don't know. You're going to have to tell them. MR. MARTIN-Do you want to just schedule it tonight, then, for your regular meeting in March? MR. TURNER-I would rather do it in March than try to play games with it this month. MR. MARTIN-Tell everybody while they're here tonight. that we'll just. MR. TURNER-Yes. we'll take it up in March. the third Wednesday of the month, the regular meeting. the first regular meeting. MS. CIPPERLY-It will be the 16th. MR. MARTIN-We'll make an effort to contact everybody who's present tQnight. MR. CARVIN-Are we going to table this for 60 days. or is this just put off, because we have 60 days there for a decision? MR. TURNER-No. no. It's just put off. hearing is still open. we're still legal. as long as the public Okay. SIGN VARIANCE NO. 5-1994 TYPE II HC-1A WILLEY CREEK COMPANY. INC. OWNER: FACTORY STORES OF AMERICAN. INC. ROUTE 9. MILLION DOLLAR HALF-MILE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO INSTALL A FREE-STANDING. DOUBLE-FACED EIGHT FOOT THREE INCH BY SEVEN FOOT FOUR INCH (8 FT. 3 IN. X 7 FT. 4 IN.) SIGN THIRTY (30) FEET FROM THE PROPERTY LINE AND SIXTY-TWO AND FIVE TENTHS (62.5) FEET FROM THE CENTER OF ROUTE 9. APPLICANT PROPOSES THAT THE NAME OF ONE OF THE SHOPPING CENTER TENANTS BE INCLUDED ON THE FREESTANDING SIGN. APPLICANT SEEKS RELIEF FROM SECTION 140-6B(3)(d) WHICH ALLOWS ONE (1) FREESTANDING SIGN DENOTING THE NAME OF THE SHOPPING CENTER ONLY. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) 1/19/94 TAX MAP NO. 36-1-34.3 LOT SIZE: NIA SECTION 140-6B(3)(d) ROSEMARY NICHOLS. REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff. Sign Variance No. 5-1994, Willey Creek Company. Inc., Meeting Date: February 15. 1994 "APPLICANT: Willey Creek Company. Inc. PROJECT LOCATION: Route 9, Million Dollar Half-Mile No new application material has been submitted. so no additional staff comments have been prepared in that reqard. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: Information concerning lot configuration, subdivision of lots. etc.. which was a subject of the previous meeting on this - 20 - application, is provided below, based on information from the Town of Queensbury and Warren County Tax Map offices. A survey map is attached for reference. Parcel 34 was divided in 1971, to create lots 34.1 and 34.2. Parcel 34.2 became the site of the Log Jam Restaurant in 1983. In 1986, Parcel 34.3 was created by subdividing Parcel 34.1. Parcel 34.3 is the site of the Log Jam Outlet Center. Parcel 34.1 appears to be landlocked and has a stream going through it, apparently limiting its development potential. For the Site Plan and Building Permit approved in 1986, the Log Jam Restaurant and the Log Jam Outlet Center appear to have planned their parking areas jointly. Mr. Carvin raised the question of whether requirements for number of parking spaces were met when the parcels and/or businesses were separated. If the parking plan was implemented per the 1986 site plan, it may be that the restaurant has insufficient parking, taken as a separate entity. When it is possible to view the delineated parking spaces, this matter will be looked into. It does not appear it would have bearing on the Sign Variance before the Board, as the Log Jam Outlet Center seems to be in compliance." MRS. NICHOLS-Good evening. May it please the Board, just to refresh your recollection, I'm Rosemary Nichols. I'm an attorney. I represent the applicant for this sign. With me is Sue Galvin, who is the counsel to the Corporation, and Steve Leonard, who is an official site expert with Willey Creek. As we left this matter the last time that we met, following an extended discussion, we sought permission and received permission from the Board to table our application. The purpose of tabling the application was to, the Board had determined that there was a hardship which effected the premises at the end of the shopping center, in terms of their visibili ty from Route 9. The Board was concerned about the visibility of the sign proposal which we had planned, and asked us to go back and consider if there were various other configurations which might conceivably solve the problem which we had identified, and which the Board acknowledged. We have done that, and we have here today a variety of different ideas, testing whether it's possible to provide visibility for that area of the mall, in a way that's different than our proposal, and Mr. Leonard is going to make that presentation. MR. CARVIN-Before you begin, have you discussed any of these with Levi, and does Levi have a problem with any of these? STEVE LEONARD MR. LEONARD-We feel they'll be acceptable to Levi. SUSAN GALVIN MS. GALVIN-One. MR. TURNER-One only? Which one is that, then? Lets not kick the rest of them around, if we're only going to do the one. MS. GALVIN-Please, let him make his presentation. Then we can talk about it. MR. TURNER-Are you ready to do it? Okay. Go ahead, Steve. MR. LEONARD-We have done a little bit more homework, and just for the Board's information, here, I put together the entire site plan as a survey, outlining the lot in purple, the building in blue. It gives you a little bit clearer idea of where that lot line lays in relation to the Log Jam Restaurant, which is here, and their parcel, which would be up here. In the staff notes, you had a question about the parking. The two parcels are cross eased, so that all parking and all entrances can be used for both facilities. This is just a larger plan of the same thing. The Board had suggested, or had thought that potentially putting a larger sign on the Levi, what we're calling the Levi section of the building, - 21 - which is this area down here. would be satisfactory to assisting adequate visibility for signage. and this survey. I'm attempting to give you a feel. I'm sure you know where it's at and all that. but I'm attempting to give you a feel of what the view corridor is. I've identified some vehicles here. southbound and northbound. The southbound vehicles would be coming in this direction. and I've identified here. in pink. what a 90° view would show you. as you look as far back to the corner as possible. which would be directly off of your left hand side. As you move southbound. that angle of viewing would be greater. and it's approximately a 105° angle that you would be turning to look down into this area. and from that point. to a point somewhere in here. is where your view corridor would be to look down to an area which we could put a roof sign. but it doesn't really help the visibility. It seems in my mind that it creates a difficult situation from the passer-by's point of view. from a traffic point of view. or a potential accident point of view. Likewise. in the northbound direction. the view corridor starts at approximately a 60° angle. which would be here. and you would. actually. it would be here. and you'd actually be looking kind of around the corner of this building to look down in this direction. It's approximately 670 feet. something like that. down to the front of this angled section of the building. We put Holly to task. and although we blew them uP. they're still fairly small and I think you have to look at them up close. We have a banner that's six feet tall and thirty feet long with fifteen inch letters. and we've taken three photographs from the entry drives. basically one that's at this section here. right at that entry drive. one that's right on the south side of the existing sign. and another one which is basically as far south as we could get it. looking along the front of the building. and you can see. MS. GALVIN-We do not believe that that alternative solves the visibility problem. MR. LEONARD-There are a couple of factors in that. We have trees blocking it from the Log Jam Restaurant. The banner was six feet tall. and you can see the gentleman holding it up. HOLLY WHEELER MS. WHEELER-The guy on the right is Ken. He's about six foot. The guy on the left is our employee who's like five foot eight. on the roof. It was very cold that day. too. but it's six foot by thirty feet long. that's 180 square feet. Now. when I was in the parking lot. I was looking at it from the viewpoint of. what are people doing in the summer time. granted there's not all that snow. but these are tourists that don't know where they're going to start wi th. and usually they're there in the rain. That's when they shop. MR. TURNER-Again. you know. Holly. not to beat a dead horse. but when those people go in there. they go in every store. To say that they're coming there just to go in one store. no. MR. LEONARD-One of the reasons why this area is attractive to the Factory Outlet stores is due to the tourism. people coming through the area going skiing. going to resorts. and all sorts of tourism. in both directions. and to attract those people into a center is sometimes difficult to do. They really need to know what's in there. and they need to have an attraction. and every tenant we have thinks they're the attraction. The fact of the matter is. there are certain tenants that are really the attraction. which are the Reeboks. the Nikes. the Ralph Laurens. the Levi's. the bigger. well known. MS. GALVIN-And I guess I stated this before. my name is Susan Gal vin from Champagne (lost word) Green. New Hampshire. I'm a lawyer. I'm not in the factory outlet business. but certainly these tenants believe they need some visibility. because that space has been vacant almost all of the time. - 22 - - MR. TURNER-Okay, but who built the building? MS. GALVIN-We built the building. MR. TURNER-Okay. So you built yourself a hardship, in a sense. MS. GALVIN-No, we did not. MR. TURNER-Yes, you did. By the placement of that building on the piece of property where you put it, you isolated that building. MS. GALVIN-I think that was because that was the only place to put it because of the long, narrow shape of the lot. MR. LEONARD-The way that lot is subdivided, it's extremely long. It's 950 deep, and 294 feet wide. MS. GALVIN-But we have another proposal. MR. LEONARD-In light of that, we looked at some of the other centers in the area. We wanted to come up with something that we felt was acceptable, and something that we felt the Board would entertain as options, and something that Levi's will entertain. Again, and I'm sorry I couldn't blow these up any bigger. You can get a feel for what it is. We have a gable on this end of the building right here, which is here, okay. On this side of the building, we have a roof area, which is visible, is really nicely visible from the road in both directions, and not intrusive into the area. You can see, as you're headed northbound here, you've got the Adirondack Mall and the other malls, and this is the gable. So it blends in. It doesn't stand out. It doesn't pose a traffic problem, and it doesn't allow the motorist to take his eyes so far off of the road that it would cause traffic problems. Okay. That's the northbound view. As you get up closer, you're looking like that, and I've marked it with these little yellow tags, and that's approximately the dimension. Now what you see from the southbound side, before the stop light, would be a sign something like this. Obviously, it's not going to stand out like that, where you have almost a florescent yellow tag on the blue background. It will blend in. You can see how the signs here blend in with the buildings. It will be similar to that, and as you're approaching, it would be right in here, in this area. MR. THOMAS-Right behind the tree. MR. LEONARD-It would be behind the tree and we would have to adjust that in some fashion. It depends on the angle, of course. Here it's not behind the tree, okay. So if the Board wants to keep the tree, that would be fine with us, because you do get the view, both further up the road and further down the road. So you would be looking at two equal sized signs, one on this front gable and one on the roof, which are both legal signs. In conjunction with this, we would be removing that directory wall sign, one directory wall sign, and effectively moving it up here. These labels are approximately scaled to be 33 square feet a piece. Now each store in the Center, within 100 feet of the roadway is allowed 100 square feet of sign. MR. TURNER-You're right. MR. LEONARD-Okay, and what we're proposing is that we would have three signs for Levi's, one in the front here, 33, one here of 33 feet, and then one back on the Levi roof here, to really identify where that store is, of 33, all falling in within that 100 square feet of acceptable signage, or allowed signage. MR. CARVIN-What's the dimension of the sign that you're willing to remove? MR. LEONARD-It's four by six, twenty-four square feet. - 23 - MR. TURNER-Yes, twenty-four. MS. CIPPERLY-What makes you believe that people won't think that the Levi's store is right there, on then? MR. MENTER-What would the copy on those signs be, I guess is the question. MR. LEONARD-Actually, this might not be exactly what it is, but this is what we're proposing, in all of the signage, the same Levi's, Outlet, and By Design, and this pink sign here would be the one to come down, increasing it in size slightly, nine feet. MR. CARVIN-Okay. MR. LEONARD-This is approximately three by eleven, three feet tall by eleven feet long, thirty-three square feet, the same size sign on the roof out front. MR. MENTER-Now, you're proposing this in lieu of any change on the roadside? MR. LEONARD-Correct. If this were acceptable to the Board, we would either do one of two things. We would just put this portion of the freestanding sign up, or keep our existing factory store sign intact, and I suspect it would probably be to keep the existing one intact. MR. CARVIN-Okay. I like the idea on the front. I think that makes a lot of sense. I'm not real crazy about this second sign, because that's going to open up a can of worms, and then the other one way in the back. MR. LEONARD-Even where we're within the same allowable footage? MR. CARVIN-I just, that's so out of character. This one, I like your idea here. I really do. I don't have a real problem with that, right on the front like that. MR. LEONARD-On both sides are you saying? MR. CARVIN-No. I'm just saying right here, just like you've got it illustrated right there, and this one, I'm not, to be honest with you, that looks chintzy. That's mY feeling. MR. LEONARD-It looks chintzy? MR. CARVIN-Yes. MR. LEONARD-It would be a sandblasted redwood sign. MR. CARVIN-I'm just saying that, then all of a sudden this guy wants his sign up there. MR. LEONARD-Roof signs are, that's a legal sign. MS. GALVIN-They could move all those signs right up on the roof, and that's all legal. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. CARVIN-I think you're going to have a problem. I don't know, what about snow and all that stuff, you put that there? MS. GALVIN-It seems like we could probably manage something with the Levi's store, somehow get a sign there, right above the store, which would be permitted within the Ordinance. MR. CARVIN-Down on their building, yes. - 24 - MS. GALVIN-Okay. All right. MR. LEONARD-You can see here. and I'm not using this as another case for any other reason but to show you a roof mounted sign. in that it doesn't. it looks attractive. It looks as though. it doesn't look much different than something that would be on the end wall. MS. GALVIN-That's on the front of the Adirondack Factory Outlet Mall. and the sign bears. one is Corning. and the other end is Manhattan. and those are both roof signs. MR. TURNER-Yes. MS. CIPPERLY-The Log Jam Restaurant has a roof sign. too. MS. GALVIN-The Log Jam Restaurant has a roof sign. also. MR. KARPELES-These signs are all placed so you can only see them progressing north. is that right? MR. TURNER-North and south. MS. GALVIN-North and south. MR. LEONARD-One is north and one is south. but this one is on the north side. so you would see it heading south. MR. KARPELES-But which way is it? Is that parallel with the road? MR. LEONARD-Perpendicular. MR. TURNER-Perpendicular. MR. KARPELES-So you only see that from one side? MR. LEONARD-Right. What they've done. which is really an interesting idea. is on the north side of the building. they'd advertise the shops on the south side. and vice versa. When you're dri ving northbound. they're advertising the shops on the north side. So it really. it's a nice way to sign it. you know. and not be obtrusive. or not be really imposing on a lot of clutter in front of the Centers. but this freestanding sign. that was just an idea that would show you what that looked like. that roof sign. This sign does work well. and I understand what you're saying. The only problem that we have to address with this situation that is addressed with the freestanding sign but not with this situation. is the view from the north. MS. GALVIN-Because that building is angled toward the road. MR. TURNER-Yes. What is Levi's saying to you? What do they want? Lets hear what they want. You said they want a (lost word). MR. LEONARD-They need visibility from both directions. both north and south. MR. TURNER-Okay. So then you're saying to me that they want that sign that's on the roof. this one right here? MR. LEONARD-They want a freestanding sign. MR. TURNER-Or they want a freestanding sign and the one on the gable end? MR. LEONARD-That's what they really want. is the freestanding sign. MR. TURNER-The one on the gable end and the freestanding sign? MS. LEONARD-That would be acceptable to them. - 25 - - MS. GALVIN-No. They first said they want a freestanding sign. Hearing all the testimony from the last meeting, we basically went back and said, well, we've got to come up with something that else. We've got to see if there is anything else. We have shown them this configuration, and they have said that's okay. MR. TURNER-Did they address is it any further than that? MS. GALVIN-I don't know. MR. TURNER-Did you ask them, what if the Board says, no, you can't have the sign on the roof? MS. GALVIN-No, we did not. MR. CARVIN-See, my feeling is that this visibility there is going to be fairly adequate, both north and south, a lot better than what those two other signs are, already. MR. LEONARD-And this is visible from the south. MS. GALVIN-But not from the north. MR. CARVIN-You mean coming down from the north? MS. GALVIN-I have pictures. MR. KARPELES-It's sure a lot more visible than that sign there. MS. WHEELER-Plus it shows the direction of the road, but it also shows the end of that building. MR. TURNER-You can see it right there. MS. WHEELER-See, the end of the building is not parallel to the road. It's almost at a 900 angle with it. You can't see it, if you're going north, until you're beyond the mall. MR. LEONARD-This is the one you're looking at. You can see it nicely from the south, but you can't see it at all coming from the north, until you're actually out here, and then you're into the 900 angle view again. It wouldn't be bad if we were attracting local people that knew where the Center was and knew when to start looking and that type of thing, but it's the out of towners, the tourists, the people who may never have been up this road before. It's a troubling situation. MR. TURNER-Again, you're saying, they're coming there, and maybe they don't know where anything is, all right. They can't park their car in the road. They've got to go in the shopping centers and park their car, then they walk around. So they're going to find the stores. If they're there to shop, and they're going to shop there all day, they're there. They're going to find Levi's. MS. GALVIN-But the stores don't believe that. MR. TURNER-I know. MR. LEONARD-Every tenant thinks they are a major draw. Everyone thinks they draw. The fact of the matter is, the ones that draw are the one that are the big guys, the ones that are advertising, the Nikes, the Reeboks, the Levi's, the 9 Wests, the bigger stores. MR. TURNER-That's fine, because you can buy the stuff up there cheaper than you can buy it in the retail store, and that's the only reason they're there. MS. CIPPERLY-So you already have a draw like Nike and Reebok there. So you're likely to see the Levi's store. - 26 - MS. WHEELER-Not in that plaza. Nike and Reebok are not in the plaza. Colonial Sports Shoe Warehouse is in that, but. MR. LEONARD-Well, Sports Warehouse is the one that went out of business. MR. TURNER-It's out of taste with the rest of them. MS. GALVIN-What, this roof sign? MR. TURNER-This one right here. MS. GALVIN-The last one? MR. TURNER-Fred was saying, take that off of there and put it here. MS. CIPPERLY-That would work from the north. MR. TURNER-Put it right there. What's the matter with it there? MS. WHEELER-It's a very narrow space. Personally, I don't think you can read the other ones that are there, but that's mY opinion. MR. TURNER-Yes, you can, Westport. MS. WHEELER-Westport's about the only one. MR. TURNER-That's the only one you'd look at. MR. CARVIN-If they're looking for visibility, that's about the best we're going to get. MR. LEONARD-How about if we keep it right down here on the edge where it's lower? I just think that when you get down to this, well what do we see when you're southbound? See, you're really picking up, this is our existing freestanding, or the Log Jam sign. This is the existing freestanding Log Jam sign right there, and what I tried to do was to put it just directly above that, which put it in this location. I think this one, see, this is a very up close view. Holly was basically fairly close at that point. This one gives you a little bit better perspective of size. I think it's eighteen inches tall by fifteen, twelve. See, this would be much shorter. MS. WHEELER-It's not any bigger than eighteen, if it's that tall. It's really narrow. MR. LEONARD-This one gives you a nice perspective of how that would fit in. MR. TURNER-Yes, but that thing, that sign right there in the front just looks uglier than heck. MR. CARVIN-I mean, that's my feeling on the roof. MR. TURNER-It's out of character with the rest of the signs that are there. MR. LEONARD-Well, remember, this is like a completely wrong color. The reason it's yellow is so that you can see approximately where it would go. MR. TURNER-I know, but it's still out of character with what's there. MR. LEONARD-It would look like the, well, it would look like this. MR. TURNER-Yes, but let me say this to you. The (lost word) that are going by there from the north, the people that are going by there on the north are going very slow. They have plenty of time - 27 - to read that sign if it was right there. MR. CARVIN-Part of our duty is to grant minimum. MS. GALVIN-Well. that's why we came with these alternative proposals. MR. LEONARD-Exactly. and one of the issues that we have here is that the other freestanding sign is going to block that location. and I think we need to get it just above there. We'll drop it down. MR. CARVIN-Your freestanding sign is going to be over here where the bulldozer is. isn't it? MR. LEONARD-The new one would be. but this one would stay because of the Log Jam Restaurant. MR. CARVIN-Yes. but I mean. if somebody's driving down the road. I mean. the line of sight changes so quickly. MR. MENTER-From that distance. your legibility is going to be a lot closer to the sign than that. I'm not sure what the angle's going to look like. but you're well past the sign here. and as you see the eave. that's probably about where you're going to start to read it. You're well past where that sign is. MR. CARVIN-I mean. all we're trying to do is give you. because of the angle of the building. you need some exposure. if that's the right direction. I agree. southerly MR. THOMAS-How about right here? MR. CARVIN-Well. I was thinking of that. too. to put it up into here. but. MS. WHEELER-What about if we moved all the signs up on the roof? Then you wouldn't have one that sticks out. and then it would look better. MR. CARVIN-To be honest with you. I think they look terrible. I don't know if it would look any better. I think you'd look honky tonk. MR. MARTIN-I think it would look better than the mix and match. because it does speak. in the Ordinance. to a shopping center shall coordinate their signage to the extent possible. and that's uncoordinated. right there. MR. LEONARD-So. if we would move all the signs up to the roof. then this situation may work? MR. MARTIN-I think it's better with the mix. myself. MS. WHEELER-I think it would look better. improve the visibility for all of them. I think it's going to MR. MARTIN-If you ask my personally. I have no standing on this Board. I know that. but if you ask me personally. I'd rather see the freestanding sign than that roof sign. MS. GALVIN-Well. that's the thing. that's the reason why I brought this over. because. MR. KARPELES-The freestanding sign than this one? MR. MARTIN-Yes. MR. KARPELES-This one doesn't bother you any. does it? - 28 - MR. MARTIN-No, the gable, I think, is fine. MR. KARPELES-And it wouldn't bother you to have anything in here, would it? MS. WHEELER-No. MR. MARTIN-That roof sign, I think would be terrible. MR. KARPELES-Yes. I think the roof sign is bad. MS. GALVIN-We did take the opportunity to design a sign that would compliance with the Ordinance which is being, the local law which is being considered by the Board, and that meets the six inch lettering requirement, and obviously they're subject to being adjusted, but this is what that sign would look like, and we would still like to bring to the Board's attention that this really is what we came in asking for in the beginning, and that to have you, as you're assessing these alternatives that we've done, remember that this is the one that we came in seeking. MR. TURNER-I don't like that sign on the roof. terrible. That looks MR. LEONARD-I mean, maybe we could work it such a way that, and I can't speak for changing all the signs up there and putting them all up on the roof. Is that the crux is having one down and one up? MR. TURNER-No. I think it makes it real chintzy. I really do. I don't like them up there, because you've got such an expanse there. The mall is 600 feet long. MR. MARTIN-I think they're nice the way they're in there now. MR. TURNER-They look nice. Like I say, when you drive in there, you're driving in there, you're going to go in every store, and if Levi's is in the back, you're going in Levi's. If you've got a good product, you can sell it if you're in the north pole. If they're coming there, and they want to be there, they're going to sell. MR. LEONARD-One of the things that the shopping center, the factory outlet industry, had done, about four years ago, was to ask all of the retailers what types of centers they want and what type of traffic they get, and the result of the survey was that they like the open center concept because people can drive in and drive directly to the store that they want to go to and leave again, without having to go into an enclosed mall, and walk all the way through it to get to the center, and then leave, and walk out again. So there is a lot of destination shopping, and part of that business is identified from the passer-by identifying the store from some clear advertising that's visible. Understanding that the Ordinances are written. MR. TURNER-That's fine, but you know, they're so closely related up there, as you walk from one to the other, because you don't dare move your car, because if you do, you lost your parking spot. That's what happens. You go up there. You park your car. You get out of your car and walk the whole length of that road, because if you move your car, you're not going to find another place to park, when it's busy. MR. CARVIN-So we're going to have a Levi's sign on the front, somewhere to be determined in this area, and then one on the store in the back, is that correct? MR. LEONARD-Yes. MS. GALVIN-Yes. - 29 - MR. LEONARD-And I would assume that it's probably going to fall. I mean. this is a good mock up. but the view corridor that that would. probably the likely placement is right in there. far enough that people down here could be looking out away from the stores. MR. CARVIN-Will that be a roof sign. or would that be in? MR. LEONARD-I would venture to say it would be a roof sign. MR. CARVIN-So you'd have two Levi roof signs if you did it this way. and assuming that the Ordinance is changed to allow that type of signage. then you could technically have three. right? MR. TURNER-Yes. MS. GALVIN-We would be able to dp that. but I don't think there would be any reason to spend more money to do it. MR. TURNER-You'd have five rows in there. if you changed this panel. if the new one changes and goes to six. you've got thirty- six. MR. MARTIN-If I were in your position. I'd be waiting until I see the outcome of the meeting of the 28th. no matter what happens here. because that. to me. would be a more desirable situation. MS. GALVIN-I understand what you're saying. yes. but at the same time. as we came before you before. we had a constraint. in terms of the time. and that's why we don't have the luxury to say. put this on hold. See how it goes before the Town Board. and then if we're not satisfied with that. come back. MR. MARTIN-That's coming up in less than two weeks. the 28th. the new Sign Ordinance. MR. TURNER-Are they going to six inch letters? MR. MARTIN-Yes. MS. GALVIN-We would be willing to. if this Ordinance passed. MR. CARVIN-Well. we can condition it. MS. GALVIN-Right. and that would be acceptable. MRS. NICHOLS-So that we only get one or the other. it's not all. MS. GALVIN-Right. That's acceptable. MR. CARVIN-So our only bone of contention. I guess. is the one sign. MS. CIPPERLY-If you're solving your visibility problem out in the front with a gable sign. and one. say. below the roof edge. then you. it doesn't seem you would need a sign mounted on the roof in the rear for Levi's anymore. because you've solved your visibility from the road problem. MR. LEONARD-Typically. what happens is this kind of thing. Dave. I believe his name is. MR. TURNER-Yes. Dave Kenny. MR. LEONARD-Dave has identified who the tenants are on the opposite side of the building. and then they have the individual store names. You see the sign here. you say. yes. they're in the center. then you drive in and you look for them. and here they are. I mean. it's kind of like leading. MR. MARTIN-I think what Sue is saying is. fine. have your - 30 - identification in front of your store. where everybody else does. under the roof edge. She's not saying. have two above the roof edge signs. Once you have your identification out front. then the sign in front of the store should be conforming to everybody else's. MS. GALVIN-I would think that's okay. so long as we did have good visibility from the north and south. see. because our base here isn't perpendicular to the road. It's not a situation where you drive by. you see it. and you drive in. MR. TURNER-I know. MS. CARVIN-See. my problem with this. obviously. is because we're opening up a can of worms. MS. GALVIN-I know. alternatives. That's why we tried to come up with MS. CIPPERLY-Why would you still need a roof sign? MR. LEONARD-You mean. we could go with a facia sign similar to this back in front of Levi's? MS. CIPPERLY-Yes. MR. TURNER-Facia sign. that's what I'm saying. because I'm going to tell you. that's the sign you're going to see before you see any of them. because that one comes from the north. MR. CARVIN-This one right here. coming down from the north. MR. TURNER-If you put this in the facia end of it right here. you're going to see this sign before you see. even this one. MR. CARVIN-No doubt about it. MR. TURNER-It's very visible. The traffic doesn't go by there lØØ miles an hour. It's a forty mile an hour speed zone. and sometimes you can't even get down through there. MR. CARVIN-So. are we going to raise the river or lower the bridge? MRS. NICHOLS-Well. we are certainly amenable to having the alternative. as we indicated. that is that if on the 28th the Town Board in its wisdom decides that it's going to remove the limitation on the text of the sign. then we are prepared to accept that. So that would basically be a sign that looks something like this. because this does conform to the proposal that's before the Board. MR. CARVIN-Yes. I mean. I think you're going to have to move ahead with Levi's. I mean. the signage. you can sign a contract and then change the sign later. That's not a problem. but as I said. I think we're on agreement. The only thing is that. as I said. are we going to lower the bridge or raise the water? I mean. are you amenable to putting it down here? MR. LEONARD-If we can get the approval of the tenant. MS. GALVIN-How visible is it going to be? I just don't know. MS. CIPPERLY-It is. MR. TURNER-It's very visible. MR. MARTIN-I would say it's going to be very visible. MR. TURNER-You're right on the corner. right out where you can see. - 31 - MR. MARTIN-What does it for that Westport sign is the fact that it's dark lettering on a white background, inside of a dark facia. MR. TURNER-And that tree blocks that anyway. See, Westport was smart in background. sign that in the they summer time had a white MS. WHEELER-Because it is under the overhang. There is a certain amount of shadow created by the overhang along that area. MR. LEONARD-Are light boxes allowed? MR. MARTIN-They can be lit, sure. MRS. NICHOLS-They're allowed, but the Ordinance does say that the signage should be coordinated with the rest of the center. MR. TURNER-Okay. So where are we going? What's your desire? MS. GALVIN-All right. Here's where we stand. We would like to put a sign here, and we'll put one here, we'll agree to that now. MR. TURNER-On the facia. MS. GALVIN-Yes, and a facia, not a group sign, back there. MR. TURNER-And one on the facia in the back? MS. GALVIN-Right, and that if you pass this, we won't have four Levi's signs. MRS. NICHOLS-We'll pick one or the other. MR. MENTER-You'll have this plus the rear facia. MS. GALVIN-Right. Correct. MR. MENTER-And no change in the wall signs. MS. GALVIN-That's correct. MR. MENTER-I'd go along with that. MS. GALVIN-I don't like being bullied by Levi's any more than you guys do. So, the whole concept, to me, is ridiculous. If this can be visible, it can work. If we have to chop down the tree, we have to chop down the tree. MR. TURNER-You don't have to chop the tree down. MR. MENTER-You'll see it. Ted is right. We're not marketing people, we're not Levi's, and we're not renting the space, but you go by there, you're not traveling fast. MR. TURNER-Ask Dave when Story town gets out, the road's terrible. It blocks everything, or the Great Escape. I mean, you don't fly down through there. You just about crawl. MS. GALVIN-No, I can be 1 ieve it, because I live in Portsmouth, which is right over the bridge from Kittery, which is another outlet center, so I know that. I know exactly when I go shopping, unlike what you say, I actually do go to specific stores. I don't wander around. MR. CARVIN-So we're granting a variance on a wall sign, basically. MS. GALVIN-Yes, an oversized wall sign. variance, we need your assistance. We're changing the MR. CARVIN-We're allowing them an extra wall sign, aren't we, - 32 - because they're going to have two wall signs. MS. GALVIN-Right. MR. TURNER-No. no. one. They can have that one. They're allowed up to 100 square feet. MR. CARVIN-So where's the variance? MR. MARTIN-Well. they're putting one in front of their store. still. at any rate. right? MS. CIPPERLY-The variance is in the number of signs. MR. MARTIN-Yes. You're only allowed one wall sign. MR. TURNER-Wall sign denoting the name of the plaza. MR. CARVIN-But (lost word) variance for the three. so they're going to pull one off. They'll still have three. They're having a second wall sign. here. for Levi's. in the back. They're going to have two wall signs for Levi's. because this sign. no. three. MR. MARTIN-They're allowed one by right. They're allowed one by a previous variance. MR. MENTER-So we need a variance for one. because this one. there's already a variance for this. which is going to cover this. MR. TURNER-You don't erase one and give them the other one. No way. No. That one they agreed to take down. They've got to have a variance. MS. GALVIN-That's fine. That can be a condition of the variance. MR. TURNER-Yes. that's a condition of the variance. They agreed to take that one down. That's got to go. MR. CARVIN-Well. yes. MR. TURNER-We're not going to subtract one from the other. MR. MARTIN-All right. MR. TURNER-Okay. So you want one sign on the front. right. on the wall. one wall sign. What's the copy? The same as on the freestanding sign? MS. GALVIN-Yes. MR. LEONARD-Do we need to have the copy on there? MS. CIPPERLY-Yes. well. when you go to get your building permit. MR. TURNER-When you get your permit. but I just want to know what you're going to put on there. MR. LEONARD-Because like she pointed out for the sign permit. like you pointed out last week. it would be good to have a variance for a sign of X amount of square feet. in the event. MRS. NICHOLS-It ends up being. at some point in time. another tenant. MR. TURNER-All right. and then you're going to put one facia sign. right? MS. GALVIN-No. don't complicate it. She was just concerned about the text. but it's one facia sign. and it will say Levi's Outlet By Design. - 33 - MR. TURNER-Front corner, north side, right? MS. GALVIN-Yes. MS. CIPPERLY-I think, in theory, if Levi's moved out and another tenant moved into that rear one, and you wanted to change, and put that tenant specifically on, you could just rotate your. MS. GALVIN-Right, one week it's Levi's. One week it's Westport. MR. TURNER-Okay. So here's what you're asking for. One wall sign, copy same as freestanding sign, one facia sign, front corner north side, same copy as freestanding sign, one facia sign at store front in the rear of the mall, designated as Levi's By Design, right? MRS. NICHOLS-Yes, conditioned upon removal of one of the three directory signs, and in the event that the zoning is modified, the zoning for Section, the one with. MR. TURNER-Yes, the freestanding sign. MRS. NICHOLS-Is modified, we will select one or the other alternative. MS. GALVIN-In the event the proposed changes to the Sign Ordinance, scheduled for publ ic hearing on February 28th, are approved, applicant to select one alternative or the other, but not both. MR. TURNER-We left the public hearing open. There's nobody here who wants to be heard, so the public hearing's closed. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TURNER-And I'll offer a resolution. MOTION TO APPROVE SIGN VARIANCE NO. 5-1994 WILLEY CREEK COMPANY. INC., Introduced by Theodore Turner who moved for its adoption, seconded by Fred Carvin: Highway Commercial One Acre zone. Relief is granted because of the configuration of the lot and the building placement on the lot and the fact that the Log Jam Restaurant obstructs the view of the proposed Levi's By Design store. The store is neither visible from the north or the south because of the distance and the angle which it sets on the lot. The relief granted is as follows and pertains to Section 140-6B(3)(d). there will be one wall sign with the same copy as the freestanding sign which is proposed. one facia sign, front corner, north side, with the same copy as the freestanding sign i one facia sign, at the store in the rear of the mall designated as Levi's By Design, and this will be conditioned on the removal of one directory sign, as designated by the owner. In the event the proposed changes in the Sign Ordinance regarding freestanding signs are approved, the applicant will select one alternative or the other, but not both. This is the minimum relief granted to alleviate the specific practical difficulty. That the sign that identifies the Log Jam Factory Outlet stores that exists on the Log Jam Restaurant sign will be removed. Duly adopted this 15th day of February, 1994, by the following vote: MR. THOMAS-I have a question, also. What about on the existing restaurant sign, the one that says, Factory Stores, in that top right photo. Shouldn't that come out, since it's not on the property owned by the Factory Stores? - 34 - MR. CARVIN-I don't think it's their sign. though. is it? MR. TURNER-Yes. it is. MR. LEONARD-The parking and the signage is cross eased between the two. MR. TURNER-No. no. no. the Log Jam sign. underneath the Log Jam Restaurant sign. Factory Stores. MR. LEONARD-The sign is cross eased. so that we can use theirs and they can use ours. MR. TURNER-Yes. but I think. when you came here the last time. I think you agreed to take down that. take Log Jam Factory Stores off of that sign. MR. LEONARD-Yes. and if we go with a sign. the wall signs on the building. then we wouldn't necessarily have to take this down. MR. TURNER-That might be a condition of the Ordinance. then. because you agreed to it the last time. MS. GALVIN-No. what I think we're saying is. the last time what we wanted was the freestanding sign. MR. TURNER-Yes. but you're going to get it this time. You're going to get the freestanding sign. MS. GALVIN-We do agree we only want one freestanding sign. MR. TURNER-Okay. then that's got to go. MR. LEONARD-And as part of the building permit. I think we're required. if we put up a freestanding sign. which is currently allowed. we have to remove the existing Factory Stores sign. that's part of the building permit. MR. MARTIN-Yes. because then you have two. that. You'd have to remove MR. LEONARD-Correct. So that's covered in that permit. MR. MENTER-Well. they had said they would comply with the new Ordinance. which would entail taking that down and putting up a freestanding sign. MR. MARTIN-Even the existing one. MR. MENTER-The existing one. right. that wouldn't change. MR. LEONARD-If we put up a freestanding sign. this one is coming down. There's no question about that. MR. TURNER-Yes. but if you don't put up the freestanding sign. that'll stay. Is that what you're saying? MR. LEONARD-Right. if that's okay with the Board. that's the way the Ordinance is written. MR. CARVIN-Well. it's two separate parcels of property. right? I mean. it's a separate business. so that the only sign that should be there should be the Log Jam Restaurant. MR. LEONARD-See. we have cross easements which allow us to be on their sign. as well as them be on what may be considered our sign. We actually put this up for them. MR. CARVIN-Okay. but that's a lease agreement. is that correct? That's not a variance. - 35 - '- MRS. NICHOLS-It's part of the title. It's part of the deed. MR. CARVIN-But it's not by variance. is it? MR. TURNER-No. MR. THOMAS-Can you have off premise advertising like that? MR. MARTIN-Only by Planning Board approval. MR. TURNER-That would be called a directory sign. MR. LEONARD-We'll take that down. AYES: Mr. Menter. Mr. Karpeles. Mr. Carvin. Mr. Thomas. Mr. Turner NOES: NONE ABSENT: Miss Hauser. Mrs. Eggleston On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED. Theodore Turner. Chairman - 36 -