Loading...
1995-09-27 \ o~ c ,..,) ~ ~. QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SECOND REGULAR MEETING SEPTEMBER 27, 1995 INDEX Sign Variance No. 64-1995 Tax Map No. 70-1-9 Golf Da)i 5. Sign Variance No. 65-1995 Tax Map No. 70-1-9 Woodworkers Warehouse 15. Area Variance No. 66-1995 Tax Map No. 43-1-15 Richard & Susan Rourke 19. Use Variance No. 67-1995 Tax Map No. 121-2-7.1 Steven & Dody Thetford 24. Use Variance No. 68-1995 Bruce & JO)ice Burke 30. 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. '"........c --"*'" (QueensbuTY ZBA Meeting 9/27/95) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SECOND REGULAR MEETING SEPTEMBER 27, 1995 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT FRED CARVIN, CHAIRMAN CHRIS THOMAS, SECRETARY ROBERT KARPELES ["JILLIAM GREEN DAVID MENTER MEMBERS ABSENT THOMAS FORD PLANNER-SUSAN CIPPERLY STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. CARVIN-The first order of business is an item. I have a letter here from Richard requesting an extension on a tabling. Do you into the record? Old Business, an and Janet Harding want to read that MR. THOMAS-Yes. A letter dated 9/19/95, "Dear Board Members: On July 26, 1995, Variance File No. 40-1995 was tabled. We were given a 60 day condition to re-do the deck. We are asking the Board for an extension beyond the 60 days. We have contacted the construction company and will need more time for them to take action. Thank you. Richard and Janet Harding, 1 Newcomb Street, Queensbury, NY." MR. CARVIN-Sue, is there any other reason besides this? I know we have correspondence from the construction company regarding this, but is there any other reason why we should grant additional time? Specifically, the tabling motion was pretty emphatic about the 60 days. MS. CIPPERLY-Well, it's either going to be an enforcement action, or them coming back to the Board for setback relief, and it seems like 60 days should have been enough time to come up with a different plan. The neighbor came last week and said they hadn't made much of an effort. If you want to put them on for October. MR. CARVIN-What's the Board's pleasure? thoughts or comments? Does anybody have any MR. THOMAS-I would say give them 30 days, in light of the letter that was sent by the construction company to the Town, and give them the benefit of the doubt because you know this is going to wind up a fight. MR. MENTER-Yes. I have no problem with that. MR. CARVIN-Thirty days? MR. GREEN-I only have one problem with this letter. "We have contacted the construction company and will need more time for them to take action." According to their letter, it doesn't seem like they're going to do much of anything. So I'm just not sure we're going to get anywhere unless somebody really pushes the fact, and I think 30 days from now we're going to be in the same spot. I would much rather have it go right to enforcement right now, because I really, judging from the personalities that have been here, I don't see where they're going to work anything out unless they're forced to, and that's my opinion, but the thing - 1 - (Queensbury Z8A Meeting 9/27/95) that struck me is that, more time fQ)' them to take action, referring to the construction company. In the construction company's letter, they're pretty much standing by what they have done. I don't, personally, see where they need much more time. MR. ~(ARPELES-Well, the thi ng that gr abs me is they say we wer e given a 60 day condition to re-do the deck, and, :r don't think that they realize what we asked them to do. We didn't ask them to re-do the deck. We asked them to get together with the neighbors and work something out, and it seems as though we're going around in circles here. MR. THOMAS-If they're under the impression that they had 60 days to re-do the deck, and that's not what we said, I think we should send them a highlighted copy of the resolution stating that they have 60 days to talk to the neighbors and come up with a plan, not 60 days to re-do the deck. I think they misunderstood the motion. I think another letter should be sent, with the motion, highlighting that they have 60 days to talk to the neighbors and come up with some solution, not 60 days to re-do the deck. MR. KARPELES-I think we made that pretty clear when they were here. MR. THOMAS-Well, apparently, the applicant didn't understand it, and I think we should give them the benefit of the doubt. MR. KARPELES-He had the opportunity to read the minutes, just like we did. If he had a question, he should have gotten together with somebody and asked them. MR. THOMAS-Apparently, they didn't. So, I say give them the benefit of the doubt, 30 days, send them a letter, highlight it. If not then, then send enforcement out. MR. CARVIN-I guess 30 days. MS. CIPPERLY-Are you saying that they would be then on the November? MR. THOMAS-No. MR. CARVIN-No. MR. THOMAS-The last meeting in October. MR. CARVIN-If we don't have some kind of constructive situation here. MS. CIPPERLY-Okay. meetings. So you want them back in the October MR. CARVIN-Yes. MR. THOMAS-Yes. MS. CIPPERLY-Well, if you do a resolution, we can get that out. MR. GREEN-I have one more comment to add, just to maybe sway Chris, here. I was just reading through the letter from the construction company. "My review of the Zoning Board directive dated July 26, 1995 seems to set forth the groundwork for settlement of this issue, that being the suggestion that your family meet with the Woods to resolve any differences that may exist now." This is the same letter that the Hardings received from the construction company back on the 12th of September, saying that, merely to get together with the Woods and come up with a solution. That's all b!..ê. asked, initially, also. - 2 - -- -- (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/27/95 ) MR. THOMAS-That's in the letter that the construction company sent? MR. GREEN-That's a paragraph in the construction company letter sent to the Hardings on September 12th. MR. THOMAS-See, I haven't got that letter with me. It's home. MR. CARVIN-Maybe we ought to read that into the record, then. MR. THOMAS-Yes. MR. CARVIN-Here's the letter, in here, dated 12 September. MR. THOMAS-A letter dated 12 September 1995, addressed to Janet and Richard Harding, "Dear Mr. and Mrs Harding: On behalf of the Siding and Window Warehouse, I would like to take this opportunity to set forth the history and events concerning the now disputed deck which this company built for your home. Briefly, on 5 April 1995 we undertook an agreement with you to make certain improvements to your home at 1 New Comb Street. Included amongst these improvements was the removal of an existing deck on the left hand side (facing) of the home, and replacement with a like style deck constructed of pressure treated lumber. Following a delay during which financial issues were resolved this company commenced work upon your home. Concurrently, a review of the proposed deck indicated that there were small changes from the previous deck, and that the plans demonstrated a possible encroachment upon your neighbors property. In response to this possible problem, an Officer from this company met with and spoke to your neighbors, specifically Mr. & Mrs. Ray Wood and Ms. Bertha Finch. On 21 June 1995 both the Woods' and Ms. Finch allowed they would have no objection to the planning, building or locatiern of the deck, and recorded their position in writing. (See Attached Exhibit #1 and Exhibit #2) With the permission from your neighbors, and given the fact that the Deck is not directly visible from the road way, this Company applied for and obtained the requisite building permits, etc. Construction was undertaken and completed in a timely, workmanlike manner. Subsequent to all of these events it appears that Mr. and Mrs. Wood have moved to rescind their written concurrence and permission in the location and type of deck, indeed moving before the Zoning Board to have same removed. My review of the Zoning Board directive dated 26 July 1995 seems to set forth a groundwork for settlement of this issue, that being the suggestion that your family meet with the Woods to resolve any differences that may now exist. As a member of this Company, I am obviously without the authority to direct the Wood family to meet with you. However, I may state, unequivocally, that this Company is of the position that proper permission and permits were obtained from all parties concerned. If the Woods, or another party now wishes, ex post facto, to rescind or withdraw their concurrence of 21 June 1995, that party shall then incur any additional cost and liability associated with removal or rebuilding of the deck. Furthermore, this Company would vigorously pursue remuneration from any party seeking to foist additional cost or expense upon your family, or this company. Should you need any further assistance, or require additional information, please feel free to contact me directly, I am and do remain, Sincerely yours, Louis Early, Finance Director" And a copy was sent to the Wood family and the Zoning Board. Attachment #1, dated 6-21-95 "Please be advised that we have no objection to the adjoining property owner - Richard Harding, Newcomb Street, Qsby. - having a revised deck that does not meet the zoning regulations. Ray & Sandra Wood 36 Luzerne Rd. Queensbury, NY" Another letter elated 6-21-95 "To Whom It May Concern: Please be advised that I have no objection to the adjoining property owner Richard Harding, Newcomb St., - 3 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/27/95) Queensbury, regulations. having a deck that is not meeting the zoning Bertha Finch 40 Luzerne Rd., Queensbury, NY" MR. CARVIN-All right. Well, again, I guess I'm going to have a straw poll here before we make a motion. Am I going to get a consensus either way? I need four. I guess Bob and Bill are. MR. GREEN-Well, I'm not, like, steadfast, but I just, I think 60 days is plenty enough, and if we had three that wanted to go to 60, there's another 30 days, that would be fine. I would go along with it, but I just, I don't think it's necessary. MR. MENTER-I think, at this point, I mean, it is conceivable that there's an honest communication problem. That's not out of the question. I would say that Chris had a good point. If we take an effort to clarify it, give them 30 days, and in that sense we're covered that way. MR. KARPELES-I just think this could drag on forever, and I'm not for it. I think we made it very, very clear as to what we expected them to do. The letter from the contractor made it very, very ~lear. They understood it. So, I just can't go along with any additional time. MR. THOMAS-No. I feel the contractor understood what the resolut'ion said, but I dón "t thi nk the Hardi ngs understood what the resolution said. So I'm still sticking by my 30 days. MR. CARVIN-I still am up in the air. I really don't think, you know, 30 days is not going to make a hell of a lot of difference. It really won't, because I just don't think the Hardings are in tune with what's going on, and I'm not quite sure 30 days is going to bring them into tune. MR. GREEN-I, personally, feel that 30 days from now we're going to be just saying no. MR. CARVIN-I think there's an awful lot of discrepancy in the letter. I'm not quite sure that the neighbors agreeing out there is not if so fact so. MS. CIPPERLY-There were no building permits issued, either. MR. CARVIN-There were no building permits. I mean, that's the whole problem here. This construction company, I think, went ahead and built something, whether at the Hardings' insistence, or whether the Hardings were under a misunderstanding with the contractor here. I guess, the more I think about it, I think Bill's right. I think maybe we should just put this over to enforcement. I think we've given them 60 days, and it doesn't seem to be moving ahead. I'd make a motion. MOTION TO DENY ANY ADDITIONAL TABLING FOR AREA VARIANCE NO. 40- 1995 RICHARD & JANET HARDING, Introduced by Fred Carvin who moved for its adoption, seconded by William Green: And in compliance with the tabling motion emphatic, that the table was for a maximum of 60 the end of the 60 days, we have no action, variance will be considered void, and I would ask 'Administrator to proceed with any enforcement necessary. that was pretty days, and if at this particular the Town Zoning actions deemed Duly adopted this 27th day of September, 1995, by the following vot.e: AYES: Mr. Green, Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Carvin - 4 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/27/95) NOES: Mr. Menter, Mr. Thomas MR. CARVIN-We've got a three to two. I guess, I don't know, do we need a simple majority to do that, or has it got to be four? MS. CIPPERLY-Usually, you have to have four to do something. So it's a no action. MR. CARVIN-Which essentially is a denial, because they don't get an extension. MR. GREEN-In this case, it would run out. MR. CARVIN-It would run out. So it's a no action on the Board. All right, unless somebody else wants to make the motion to deny. I don't think it's going to go anywhere, other than three, two. So I guess it's a no action. So, therefore, the appeal variance extension is effectively denied. Okay. NEW BUSINESS: SIGN VARIANCE NO. 64-1995 TYPE: UNLISTED HC-1A GOLF DAY OWNER: GUIDO PASSARELLI MOUNT ROYAL PLAZA ROUTE 9 APPLICANT PROPOSES TO INSTALL A SECOND WALL SIGN TO ACHIEVE VISIBILITY FOR THEIR STORE. SECTION 160-6B ALLOWS ONE WALL SIGN PER STORE IN A BUSINESS COMPLEX, SO RELIEF IS SOUGHT FROM THIS SECTION. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) 9/13/95 TAX MAP NO. 70.-1-9 LOT SIZE: 5.28 ACRES SECTION 160-6B MARK LEVACK, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Sign Variance No. 64-1995, Golf Day, Meeting Date: September 27, 1995 "Applicant: Golf Day Project Location: Mt. Royal Plaza Proposed Project and Conformance with the Ordinance: Applicant proposes to install two wall signs, and Section 160-6B allows each store in a business complex one wall sign, whose size is dependent on the distance from the property line. In this case, the store would be allowed one 154 square foot sign, above the proposed Golf Day facade. Applicant proposes a 43.75 square foot sign for the east side of the building, and a second sign above its entrance, whose size would be determined by the results of this application. Staff Comment: As with other sign variance applications for business complexes, there is the alternative of placing a sign on the freestanding plaza sign. It does not appear that the store location could be considered to be at a disadvantage in terms of visibility from Route 9. It should be added that only the two stores on this portion of the shopping center have this difficulty. SEQR: Unlisted. Short form EAF must be reviewed." MR. THOMAS-"At a meeting of the Warren County Planning Board, held on the 13th day of September 1995, the above application for a Sign Variance to install an additional sign on building because store cannot be identified from the south. was reviewed and the following action was taken. Recommendation to: Disapprove Comments: The Warren County Planning Board feels that the Queensbury Sign Ordinance should be followed." Signed C. Powel South, Chairperson. That's it. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Before we begin, because Warren County has denied this, you would need what they call a super majority. That's four plus one, or five. Well, obviously, we have five members. If I feel that there is not a consensus, where you either are going to get the five votes, then I might suggest that you table it until some time in the future when we can get a Board that is more favorable to your position. So, having said - 5 - (Queensbury Z8A Meeting 9/27/95) that, is there anything that you. MR. LEVACK-Would this go on next month's meeting, in that case? MR. CARVIN-It would be a scheduling situation. I'm just throwing that out as a possibility. I'm not saying that you should table it now, but I'm just saying that if it looks like. MR. LEVACK-We can make our argument tonight, and get your thoughts, and see what comments you have on it, so that's done. MR. CARVIN-Okay. application? Is there anything that you care to add to the MR. LEVACK-Yes. My name is Mark Levack from Levack Real Estate. I'm a leasing agent for the center representing Guido Passarelli, and we have Richard Westagrin here this evening, who is with Poyant Signs. Poyant Sign is the exclusive sign company for Golf Day and Woodworkers Warehouse. So Richard could certainly answer any questions that you have regarding the actual sign make up. I'd like to give you some photographs, here, that Richard took today, and you're all familiar with the location of the center. You can see that, coming south, from the south, the Center's visible but there is no signage on the south end, or the east facing end of the Center, coming from the south. We feel this is presenting a bit of a traffic dilemma for potential shoppers looking for the future Golf Day, or looking for the Woodworkers Warehouse, because they're slowing down at this point, and we feel that putting a couple of signs on the end of that building might prevent that slow down in front of the Center. This is the existing front of the Center. We have two schematics up here that would represent what the Center would look like after it's totally completed, and you can see in real life that one other sign on the front of the east wing would go right there, and we also brought a picture of a pylon sign, which we thought of as a location to put the second sign out on. However, the way the Zoning Ordinance is written, our total permitted signage is being used up by the Mount Royal Plaza sign, and we also feel that, to seek a variance to put an additional sign in this location, for Woodworkers Warehouse, on the east facing facia, and to put an additional sign on the east facing facia for Golf Day would be more visually attractive to the character of the Center, rather than cluttering up the pylon with seeking a variance, asking for a placard rung on the pylon sign. This, again, here is another view of the east facing facia, and this is the existing Woodworkers Warehouse sign. So, I can, basically, point out to you what the finished product will look like, which I think should be the key reason, or the key criteria in making your decision this evening is, yes, we are asking for an additional sign, but we feel that it would be visibly attractive. We don't feel that it's cluttering the east facing wing in any means. Most important to the tenant is the visibility that it would receive from this sign on Route 9 facing east from southbound traffic which there currently is no visibility. The nature of the L-Shape of the Center does not allow for a perpendicular, or parallel signage on Route 9 in that area. A recent situation, Golf Day's competitor, Las Vegas Tennis and Discount Golf, I believe, has recently closed down. I'm not implying that they closed down because they're on a perpendicular location to Quaker Road, but just from a business standpoint, these people make big investments in these stores, and they're really concerned about the signage, only having visibility from one direction. Most particularly, or most importantly, is that we do get the second sign. If we're exceeding any area variance, on the Woodworkers Sign, Sue and I re-calculated this, and the dimensions that were given with this are not correct, to the Town of Queensbury, because we didn't draw a rectangle around the sign. We simply took the area on the letteTing. So we would want to readjust the - 6 - '-, (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/27/95) size of this sign. We would downscale the size of this sign to meet a conforming, or close to conforming, area, but the most important thing is that we can get another sign on this facia, and we can get another sign here. It's not important to you, because I don't think it relates to hardship, but this lease is predicated on getting a variance for the additional sign. They are currently having customers of the Woodworkers Warehouse complaining that they can't find the store, and people complain sometimes for the wrong reasons, or not exactly convenient reasons, but we do feel it is a visibility problem. That's why we're asking for the additional sign. Richard can tell you a little bit about what the signs are going to be like. RICHARD WESTAGRIN MR. WESTAGRIN-This is a photograph of a similar installation for Golf Day, if you want to pass it around. Basically, the signage that we're proposing for both Golf Day and Woodworkers Warehouse are lighted channel letters. They're not individually neonized letters. Just the surface of the letter illuminates, not the entire background. All the wiring is self-contained. It's a very upscale sign. It's not your typical box sign. Again, we feel that it's in keeping with the architecture of the building, and it's a very good looking package. If you have any questions about construction, I'd be happy to answer them. MR. KARPELES-Well, isn't it going to be a little bit confusing, because Golf Day isn't actually located there. Right? MR. WESTAGRIN--It's the same, parent company, Trendlines is Golf Day and Woodworkers. MR. KARPELES-Yes, but the Golf Day store is around the front. MR. WESTAGRIN-The Golf Day stores. Both stores are building. is over the same lease in that area, in that space as both part of the MR. LEVACK-It isn't particularly right underneath the store. So would someone drive into Mount Royal Plaza and be lead to pull up in front of this sign to shop there, I think the answer to that question is, no, because if they're heading north and they spot the Golf Day sign, they don't have to slow down looking for it. They've pulled into Mount Royal Plaza, and once they turn the corner into the Center, the primary sign over the store will be looking at that right there. So you have to drive in and go toward that wing of the Center, and I think that once traffic were heading toward that wing in the Center, they could simply see that the sign were there. We're also leasing agent for Northway Plaza, and some of the placards that they have there, they don't line up directly with the stores, the Shoe Savvy, the North Country Eatery, formerly the Plaza Deli, and Fantastic Sams. None of those three placards line up directly over the store. It's just the way the facia fell and the way the stores fell, but they are in sequential order. I don't know. Does that help you? MR. KARPELES-Yes. MR. CARVIN-Okay. applicant? Does anybody have any questions of the MR. LEVACK-The other thing I'd just like to point out real quickly is that if this variance gets denied, and Golf Day, for whatever reason, doesn't want to make the entrance into the Center because they like being next to each other. Trendline puts both of these stores next to each other. If we thought that a solution was, well, hey, lets put you in another area in a - 7 - (Queensbury Z8A Meeting 9/27/95) Center where we can get a sign directly under your store and we don't have to ask for a variance, then their thought was well, yes, we like the store, and our thought was, we'd like to have you there, because it's a 4500 square foot store. It would completely fill this one wing, and that's an area that, if we aren't here trying to get this resolved tonight, the next tenant that comes up is going to say, yes, we'll go into the dead space in the Center, but we want to make sure we can get a sign out on the side, so if we don't, hopefully, resolve it tonight, I just see it being a problem in the future, of us not being able to lease this space as easily without having any parallel signage to Route 9, and the other thing is that each, the Queensbury Sign Ordinance allows for one sign per store, and the nice thing about this package deal here is that there'll be a total of four signs on 10,000 square feet, and if we were to break this up into other stores, it would be seven signs for a 1300 square foot store, for the smaller stores, and I don't see the need for Mount Royal Plaza ever to be here again, regarding signage, because the pylon is maxed at 50 square feet, and we're asking for four signs here, where the Town of Queensbury says we could have seven if we had seven tenants. So I thought that might have been a little bit of a trade off. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Any questions, gentlemen? MR. THOMAS-I've got one. If you had seven tenants in there, would you be looking to put seven signs on that east face? MR. LEVACK-If they were seven independent tenants, there would be seven signs out in front of that store. MR. THOMAS-What about on the face that comes out toward Route 9? I,.Jould you be loof<ing for seven signs on that face, too? MR. LEVACK-I don't think so, because a 1300 square foot tenant is, they have financial commitments to bringing these stores into Centers like this. I'm not saying it's not important, but with the bigger tenants, a 4500 square foot store is a pretty sizeable store. That's probably more a concern of a national Golf Day tenant to have proper signage than maybe a hair vision salon to go into the Center and be happy to be there. I don't see that the smaller tenants would probably want east facing signage, but my only point was, it's the whole wing, and the signage the way it lays out, that's the only signage you'll see, and I think that's probably more visually attractive than seeing seven tenants and seven signs there now. As it works out, I think it's an attractive end result for the Center, and I think it's visually attractive. MR. THOMAS-My only comment to that is, if L had a 1300 square foot store, I'd want that sign on the side, too, if Golf Day had theirs. It doesn't matter what size business goes in there, signage is what makes it fly. MR. LEVACK-What gets people there. MR. THOMAS-That's right. MR. LEVACK-The only thing we can say is that we have a tenant for the base leg of the "L", currently, and it works out great because they're a part of the same parent company, and they're ready to take the whole remaining area, that 4500 square feet, and like I said, I don't feel comfortable sitting here making this argument tonight, because it's not, you know, to make this argument I don't think is a hardship,to say that the tenant has a proposal on the table, that basically it's contingent upon having some signage. I don't even want to bring this out, because it doesn't. - 8 - (Queensbury Z8A Meeting 9/27/95) MR. THOMAS-No, it doesn't pertain to this. MR. LEVACK-It doesn't, but this particular tenant being a very high profile retailer and having a lot of experience, they are concerned about it, especially because Las Vegas just went out of busi ness. MR. KARPELES-I've got a question. What are their options now? If pylon, is that they only sign they other sign there? Sue, maybe you can answer it. they just put a sign on the can have? They can't have any MS. CIPPERLY-Right. They're allowed one sign per business, and they could have a sign out on the pylon sign. MR. KARPELES-But that would mean they'd have to take down the sign they have their now, right? MR. LEVACK-Remove the Mt. Royal Sign, because that's 50 square feet. MS. CIPPERLY-Right. freestanding sign? They'd have to revise, you mean the MR. KARPELES-No, no, remove the sign, the Woodworkers Warehouse sign. MR. MENTER-They could get two. They could have one of each. MR. KARPELES-They could have one of each? They could have one on the pylon and one over the building? MS. CIPPERLY-Yes. MR. LEVACK-We'd need a variance for that, as well, though. MR. MENTER-Well, because of the size of the pylon, you're saying? MR. LEVACK-Yes, because it's understanding is it's two signs. size of the sign? two signs, as Right, Sue, or well. My because of the MS. CIPPERLY-What would happen with the freestanding sign, you can have the stores listed on it, but you're still limited to 50 square feet, and I think what Mark was saying was that that sign that says Mount Royal Plaza is currently 50 square feet. MR. KARPELES-So they'd have to change that sign, right, make that smaller? MS. CIPPERLY-Right. MR. KAF<PELES-But they could leave the sign up over the Woodworkers Warehouse that they have now? So they're allowed one sign on the pedestal sign, and also a sign over the door. Right? MS. CIPPERLY-Yes. MR. MENTER-As long as the gross pylon is under 50 square feet. MR. LEVACK-Practically speaking, the landlord won't allow us to change the Mount Royal sign. He paid for it. It's up, and I know it might be, you might say, well, would you rather take your sign down or would you rather have a 4500 square foot tenant. I mean, going into this meeting tonight, he said, you know, the sign is already up, and you'd have to get a variance to put a placard on that pylon, that's okay. If you'd rather see us on the pylon, we'll come back, we'll see a variance for the pylon. - 9 - (Queensbury Z8A Meeting 9/27/95) It will be a double sided sign, whether it be two boxes under the pylon, or one double faced box. MR. THOMAS-Why would you need a double face? it coming from the north going south. you sign. You can already see can already see the MR. LEVACK-I guess aesthetics. Would you have a blank square up there. with nothing on it, from the other side, and I think the way pylons work it's not count it twice, is it, Sue? M<' ::J . CIPPERLY-It's not counted as two signs. MR. LEVACK-Yes. I think, aesthetically, just so you didn't have a blank plate on the sign. MR. CARVIN-Anything else, gentlemen? I'll open up the public høaring. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. CARVIN-All right, any thoughts or questions, gentlemen? MR. MENTER-The sign center, the Golf Day signs are idøntical, except for size. MR. LEVACK-The image of them are exactly the same, and like I said, if you want smaller signs on the east facing side of the Center, we'll listen to whatever you want to do on that. We just, tenants requested, they want the exposure they don't have right now. MR. CARVIN-All right. Is it my understanding, Mark, that you're asking, on the two signs, the combination will not be in excess of 100 square feet, which is, I believe, allowed now? MR. LEVACK-We are allowed 100 square feet, and the way calculated it, we under calculated the area. So these would be scaled down to size, somewhat, to be conforming your signage area allowance. we've signs IrJi th MR. CARVIN-That's what I'm saying. In other words, the two signs, if there weTe two signs there, the total combination would not be? MR. LEVACK-Yes. They would total 100 square feet. I mean, I'd like to sit here and ask for something larger than that, because that's going to leave us with a 40 square foot sign, with the Woodworkers Warehouse, which I'm told is going to look smaller than it looks right here, but primary to us this evening, and to the tenant, is getting the extra sign. We only want to seek one variance, and that's the one additional sign. I mean, we can live with whatever area you can live with. One sign per tenant is the, seeking two for these two tenants. MR. CARVIN-Any other questions? MR. THOMAS-I've just got one comment. I have no problem with a Golf Day sign and a Woodworkérs sign on that end. The only thing I have a problem, I can see, is that logo that goes between "Golf" and "Day". Coming from the south going north, as you look at Golf Day, it would be very difficult to read that, and it also adds to the clutter of the building. So, if that was eliminated, I don't think I'd have a problem putting either one up, just Golf - 10 - -- (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/27/95) Day, without the logo golf ball in the middle. MR. LEVACK-Yes. That's their logo. That's their sign. the golf ball and the golf tee. That.'s MR. THOMAS-Yes, but see that's going to be on the front of the building. As soon as you see Golf Day, you know what you're looking for. You're not going to have time to read that logo or anything like that, because that's all it is is just a golf ball and a golf tee. Everybody knows what that is, but the lettering inside adds to the clutter. MR. LEVACK-You're saying, keep the golf ball, but don't put anything inside it? MR. THOMAS-No, take the golf ball and the tee right out of there. Just put the words "Golf Day". I would have no problem doing that. You go around the front of the building, you're going to have the Golf Day with the golf ball and the logo inside of it. That's going to be on the front of the building. All you're looking for, more or less, is a directional sign. MR. WESTAGRIN-Well, I'd like it to be uniquely recognizable. That's part of their image. MR. THOMAS-Part of their image. All their images are green, aren't they, the green lettering illuminated? MR. WESTAGRIN-The golf ball is tied into that. MR. THOMAS-That's ~ opinion on it. MR. WESTAGRIN-We'll do it without copy. They're going to look for the golf ball. That tells you what it is. MR. GREEN-My initial reaction is that the end of that building looked a little funny without a sign on it, to be perfectly honest with you. It's just maybe a little too plain, compared to everything else around. My next thought is, we go up the road to the Million Dollar Mile, and all those perpendicular buildings all have signs on the end of it up there. I don't. have a problem with any of it. It's as simple as that. MR. MENTER-Yes. I don't really have a problem with it. I think with this type of a, you know, you can get into discussing whether it's self-created or not, just how far back to go. I mean, planning was not that long ago, for the entire project, but we have had similar situations where we've given some relief because of building configuration. I think, as far as Chris' observation there, I hadn't thought of it, but makes sense. I don't see any sense in removing the golf ball, though, because the ball itself would not be confusing to anyone. It's not something that would warrant a very long look, I don't think, a blank golf ball. I don't think I have a big problem with it, as long as (lost word). I'd like to know what the Woodworkers Warehouse, what the actual size of that would look like, because that is. MR. THOMAS-That comes up in the next variance. MR. MENTER-Yes, that's true. We're talking about this one. MR. WESTAGRIN-I believe it would be 40 square feet. MR. MENTER-You have 60 on the other one, then, essentially. MR. WESTAGRIN-Are we talking about Golf Day? - 11 - (Cueensbury Z8A Meeting ()/27 /95 ) MR. MENTER-No, but lets. these two? The square building would be what? What's the breakdown of the size of footage on the sign on the east of the MR. LEVACK-For Golf Day? MR. WESTAGRIN-Golf Day is 40 square feet. Woodworkers Warehouse, as shown, is 46.5, but that's counting the words only. MR. LEVACK-Yes. calculation on that, the. I think because we have to disregard the area it doesn't draw a rectangle around MS. CIPPERLY-The way we figured it, the sign on the east would be 43.75 square feet, if you take the dimensions on the drawing, and just square them out, instead of just going in around t.he letters. It's 43.75. What they would be allowed would be allowed would be, if they had a sign above their store, they'd be allowed 154 square feet, for Golf Day, Judging by the distance it is from the property line. MR. CARVIN-Okay. That's 154 less the 43. MS. CIPPERLY-You can call it 44. MR. CARVIN-Or 44. MR. LEVACK-Again, if you want to see that sign 40 square feet. MR. MENTER-Yes. Certainly not in Golf Day's case would I use the total allowable, if the original location is a measure, because looking at the building,' 1 wouldn"t want that to be a real large sign. It's way too close to the road to be big. Forty square feet is, you look at it, you're right there. MR. LEVACK-Do you want to make them both the same size? that scale better, visually, for the front of the Center? Does MR. MENTER-Well, at this point, that, size of the Golf Day, well, for me, okay, but for purposes continue. I would say that the both signs would be of where we're at size of a concern here, lets MR. CAF<VIN-Okay. So, I guess I can ascertain that you're not dramatically opposed to hanging a sign on that east wall. MR. MENTER-That's right. I do have some concerns about the size of the sign~3. MR. CARVIN-The size. Okay. How about you, Bob? MR. KARPELES-Wòll, I'm kind of on the fence. I recognize they've got a problem. I mean, you can't see those stores when you're going north, but when this Center was designed, they realized there was going to be a problem there, and the pylon sign is supposed to take care of that, and the fact he built a sign so big that he used all the available space I would say kind of makes it a self-created problem. I don't know. I'm kind of on the fence. I want to think about it. MR. CARVIN-Sue, is sign part of the site plan or the planning review? Does that come under? MS. CIPPERLY-No. MR. CARVIN-Okay. MR. GREEN-I've got just one comment to address that. I, - 12 - '- (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/27/95) personally, would rather see just one kind of plain pylon sign, and more of the individuals, rather than a big cluttered up pylon sign. I just think that's a rather attractive looking sign, father than seeing, you know, like a whole bunch of little ones underneath it, and just to me that would be more aesthetically pleasing to me, just leave the one and add the signs on the end, rather than, I understand Bob's point of planning, and it should have been taken into effect before, but I think to try and clutter up that somewhat. MR. CARVIN-Well, we've gone down this road several times. Obviously, up on the Million Dollar Half Mile, that seems to be a similar situation, but I guess I'm under the impression that the move in the Town was to try to, the relief that they wanted was to have the signs added to the pylon. Is that an incorrect interpretation? MS. CIPPERLY-It didn't specifically, it eliminated the restrictions, as far as what you could sayan your pylon sign. In fact, I looked for that specifically. It doesn't really say. Mr~. CARVIN-Yes. I think the way the Ordinance used to read, it was just the name of the Plaza. MS. CIPPERLY-Yes, and that part was taken out. up to the sign owner, or shopping center owner, put out there, and it could be stores or just of them do have just the plaza. Now it's really what they want to the plaza. A lot MR. CARVIN-Yes. It is a problem, and it's been addressed before up on the Million Dollar Half Mile. Poor example, but I'm thinking of Swank and some of those up there, Levis. MS. CIPPERLY-Levis is about the closest parallel you have to this, I think, where they're out in a back corner. I think they had something on the front of the building, like a logo up on the. MR. CARVIN-I'm trying to think, there was one of the blue buildings up there that's got five or six of them hanging on the side there. All I can think of is Swank is one of them, Champion. MR. GREEN-Polly Flanders. They're all that perpendicular sign. Yes. MR. CARVIN-So it's very similar. I with this. I guess what I'd like to Dave, is the size, and limit it just think Chris has got a valid point owner, and just because the big guys mean that I, you know, don't have any don't have a Teal pToblem see, I think I agree with to the two, because I also that if I'm a small store have got mOTe clout doesn't rights. MR. LEVACK-There would be no more need is the only other perpendicular area. matter with this sign. So we won't again for Golf Day or Trendline. to be here, because this I mean, we'll end the be here with Mount Royal MR. GREEN-Well, that's the point, as long as these two companies are tenants. MR. CARVIN-I'm just saying, lets say Spanky's Playland. MR. LEVACK-If these tenants moved down, wouldn't those signs be eliminated, and then there would be. MR. CARVIN-On the other hand, they may say, well, gee whiz, my sign is, you know, I'm still obscure from people heading north. - 13 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/27/95) I mean, they don't realize that I'm there until I'm up further. So I want to have the sign with the other guys. MR. LEVACK-As long as I'm leasing agent, as long as Mr. Passarelli is the owner, I think that this addresses any concerns that we would have with tenants, and if the tenant had a problem with that, quite frankly, I wouldn't, if they didn't want to come because of that, then we wouldn't be here. I wouldn't come back. Really. I mean, I'm, this is the only thing that we're concerned about right now. MR. CARVIN-Because I think that, the way we've got those six or seven signs hanging on the side of the building up there, I think it's atrocious, a lot of cluttered. MR. LEVACK-Can I make a compromise with Mr. Thomas, here, if I could throw something out? If we can take the golf, golf ball, day, and leave the golf ball, make it exactly the same size as the lettering that's there, and eliminate the copy on it, is that a happy medium to make a compromise here? MR. THOMAS-The only thing 1 was thinking about was somebody driving by, looking at the sign, trying to read inside that golf ball. I think that's a fair compromise. MR. LEVACK-Good point. They couldn't read it anyway. point is 100 percent well received, the tee and the higher and lower than the sign, and if they're both on side, get a little golf ball ~.Jith a tee in there, that half way. That would work for us. So ,>'our ball no the same meets it MR. THOMAS-Yes. I would compromise that. MR. LEVACK-Right. Appreciate it. MR. THOMAS-I have one other thing I'd like to talk about, while we're talking about the Mount Royal Plaza. Didn't we, on July 25th, give a variance for something there? MR. CARVIN-Yes, but that was for permeability. MS. CIPPERLY-That was for the permeability on the site. MR. THOMAS-Did anything ever happen to that? MR. LEVACK-Let me just say that trying to keep certain people that are involved as much in line up there as possible, and I have my work cut out for me, but I am trying. We got the lawn finished. I pushed him hard for that. He's putting some crushed brick around the back, because there's weeds coming all up through the back of the Center, and I've been hammering on him to put crushed brick in. He's done it. We've pushed hard for the flowers. He got them there. I've got to push, I've got to push, and I know exactly what you're saying, but I'm getting there with it. It's going to be a real, real sharp center. MS. CIPPERLY-They did take up the asphalt in the back. MR. LEVACK-Where they needed to, yes. So we're there. We're really trying to create an attractive situation for the Town of Queensbury, and anything that you could do to help us out with the Sign Variance will ensure that this other tenant will be there! ahd we wbn't have any vacant space in the Center, and create some more jobs, and more sales t.ax revenue. So I appreciate you listening to our comments and concerns, and just as a summary, we just want the extra signs. We'll go with whatever size you feel comfortable, and I appreciate your time. - 14 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/27/95) MR. CARVIN-Okay. Do we feel that we have a consensus here? Otherwise, I would ask to table it. MR. KARPELES-Yes. I can go along with it. MR. MENTER-Just the size, we should probably. MR. THOI'1AS-F i ne . MR. CARVIN-Then I'd ask for a motion. Do we have an agreement on the size, no larger than 40 square feet? MR. MENTER-Yes. MR. CARVIN-Can you live with 40 square feet on the east wall? MR. LEVACK-If that's what we have as a conforming use, we'll be glad to do it. We'll send you a revised drawing on the 40 square feet. MR. CARVIN-Just to move it along, and that way we'll have a number. MR. LEVACK-Yes. MR. CARVIN-Okay. MOTION TO APPROVE SIGN VARIANCE NO. 64-1995 GOLF DAY, Introduced by Fred Carvin who moved for its adoption, seconded by Chris Thomas: The applicant proposes to install two walls signs. Section 160- 6B allows each store in a business complex one wall sign. I would grant relief from this Section by allowing the applicant one additional wall sign, which will be hung on the east side, whose dimensions will not exceed 40 square feet, and that this square footage would reduce the allowable signage for the allowable sign from 154 square feet down to 114 square feet. This variance is contingent upon an agreement that a logo that is inserted between "Golf" and "Day" be made to conform with the regular sign. The height not to be any higher than the "G" or the "D", and that there will be no printing or additional verbiage on the golf ball. This variance is also contingent and granted only to Golf Day and the Golf Day sign, and that any change of tenancy or name change would null and void this var iance. Duly adopted this 27th day of September, 1995, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Green, Mr. Menter, Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Carvin NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Ford SIGN VARIANCE NO. 65-1995 TYPE: UNLISTED HC-IA WOODWORKERS WAREHOUSE OWNER: GUIDO PASSARELLI MOUNT ROYAL PLAZA ROUTE 9 APPLICANT PROPOSES TO INSTALL A SECOND WALL SIGN TO ACHIEVE VISIBILITY FOR THEIR STORE. SECTION 160-6B ALLOWS ONE WALL SIGN PER STORE IN A BUSINESS COMPLEX, SO RELIEF IS SOUGHT FROM THIS SECTION. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) 9/13/95 TAX MAP NO. 70.-1-9 LOT SIZE: 5.28 ACRES SECTION 160-6B MARK LEVACK, REPRESENTING APPLICANT PRESENT STAFF INPUT - 15 - (Cueensbury Z8A Meeting 9/27/95) Notes from Staff, Sign Variance No. 65-1995, Woodworkers Warehouse, Meeting Date: September 27, 1995 "Applicant: Woodworkers Warehouse Project Location: Mt. Royal Plaza Proposed Project and Conformance with the Ordinance: Applicant proposes to install two wall signs, and Section 160-68 allows each store in a business complex one wall sign, whose size is dependent on the distance from the property line. In this case, the store would be allowed one 100 square foot sign. The existing sign, above the Woodworkers Warehouse entrance, measures 60 square feet. Applicant proposes a 92.5 square foot sign for the east side of the building, in addition to the existing sign. Staff Comment: As with other sign variance applications for business complexes, there is the alternative of placing a sign on the freestanding plaza sign. It does appear that the store location could be considered to be at a disadvantage in terms of visibility from Route 9. It should be added that only the two stores on this portion of the shopping center have this difficulty. However, the size of the Woodworker's sign could probably be reduced. SEOR: Unlisted. Short form EAF must be r e\/ i ewed . " MR. THOMAS-"At a meeting of the Warren County Planning Board, held on the 13th day of September 1995, the above application for a Sign Variance to install an additional sign on building because store cannot be identified from the south. was reviewed and the following action was taken. Recommendation to: Disapprove Comments: The Warren County Planning Board feels that the QUBensbury Sign Ordinance should be followed." Signed by C. Powel South, Chairperson. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Anything you'd care to add? MR. LEVACK-I recall sitting here when Red Lobster was up for its Sign Variance, and because it had a grey box behind the lettering, that looked like the sign. In this instance, I'd like to say that our concern is, with just sitting here, is if we reduced this sign to 40 square feet, we have to no problem, but L>Jill that make that sign too small, and can L>Je get aL>¡ay with not counting the space underneath the "ERS" and the "w" in Woodworkers, because it isn't, they're channel letters. Can we factor the area of the sign, just based on the "Woodworkers" and just based on the "Warehouse", and not based on drawing a rectangle around the sign? Is that acceptable? Because if you put up a couple of extra square feet (lost word) in a dead area that has yellow facia background of the Center. MR. MENTER-I, personally, wouldn't do that. I don't think that changing our method of calculating the size of a sign is the way to app1"oach it. MR. LEVACK-Okay. Then that, I guess the only things we're concerned with, we'd certainly be happy to live with 40 square feet, but if we can visualize Woodworker's Warehouse in an area the same size as Golf Day, would that be something that would be shrunk, so that it would be legible? It would be about 10 inch letters. We think that having the colors and having the brass trim around the colors is going to be store identity and company recognition, and we'd be very happy to get it, and we're going to leave it up to you to tell us whether you think that the sign should be bigger than 40 square feet, or should the existing Woodworker's Warehouse sign that we're proposing, that you see here scaled out, should be reduced by 10 percent or 20 percent or 30 percent or 40 percent, whatever you feel comfortable with on that. I leave that up to your good judgment. As shown, the words equate to 46 square feet, and I guess if we added this area and this area, it would probably be about another, it would be a total of 60 square feet, and if you look at the other sign, it's 100 square feet, up to the "A" in Woodworker's Warehouse, and - 16 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/27/95) this is something that I didn't quite understand, and Sue and I were trying to determine, if we had more than 100 square feet of allowable, usable area, on the front, including both sides, because we exceed 100 feet from the road. The "A" in Woodworker's Warehouse is 100 feet back. Everything from the "A" in adds additional allowable square footage to the 100 square feet. So we're questioning if we have more square footage? No? MR. CARVIN-But it's a nice try. MR. LEVACK-The question is answered. I didn't understand that. Thank you. MR. CARVIN-We have to assume that the general public that can read "Woodworker's" kind of understand what comes after that, but I understand what you're saying. MS. CIPPERLY-I asked Jim Martin how to measure that, and he said start from the beginning of the sign. MR. CARVIN-At one side of the page and work your way across. Otherwise, we'd have guys in here with signs 900 feet long. In fact, that brings up my question. I assume that you're going to have a sign that runs, what is that, vertical like that. Have you thought of stacking it, in other words, putting "Woodworker's", and then "Warehouse" underneath it? MR. LEVACK-You're saying for the front sign? MR. CARVIN-Yes. MR. LEVACK-The sign's already up. MR. CARVIN-No, no, no. I'm saying on the east side. MR. LEVACK-On the east side, we'd like like this, only because "Woodworker's long for that facia area. We gave schematics, and the proposed schematic. to stack t.Jarehouse" you all it under over would be too the existing MR. CARVIN-Okay. MR. LEVACK-If we can move this could this along, and help you out. MR. CARVIN-Personally, I think the 40 square feet, I'd rather see, because you've got 60 square feet now, on the front sign? MR. LEVACK-If you add it the way the Town adds it, yes, it's 60 squa,"e feet. MR. CARVIN-I think that's a pretty good sized sign, and I think that's a little bit overpowering to hang it on that small wall. MR. LEVACK-Agreed. MR. CARVIN-So I think, I mean, if you can get it down to 40 square feet, I, personally, would be more comfortable with that. MR. LEVACK-If that's going to get it passed, then that's what, that's what you really want, then yes, but if it were 50 square feet, it would be more legible, and that might be a better situation, but that's our perspective, or 46.5 square feet, is by word, but that's not the way, so we'll go with whatever you feel comfortable with. If you feel generous in adding a few extra square feet, that's fine, if not. I mean, the way the center facia is broken up right here, are you saying you would rather see us put it allan one line and run the whole thing across the - 17 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/27/95) Warehouse one additional sign, not to exceed 40 square feet, which will be hung on the east side. It should be pointed out that only Woodworkers Warehouse and Golf Day are the only allowable signage on this particular facia and wall. This variance is also contingent upon and granted to the sign for Woodworkers Warehouse only, and that any change of tenant or name change will make this variance null and void. This limits the allowable sign to 60 square feet. A review of the Short Form indicates a negative declaration both on Sign Variance No. 64- 1995 and Sign Variance No. 65-1995. The applicant has demonstrated that because of the unusual configuration of the building, that northbound traffic on Route 9 would have and do have a difficult time identifying these two stores, and that this would be the minimum relief necessary to alleviate this particular problem. Duly adopted this 27th day of September, 1995, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Green, Mr. Menter, Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Carvin NOES: I\jOt'-lE ABSENT: Mr. Ford AREA VARIANCE NO. 66-1995 TYPE II WR-IA CEA RICHARD & SUSAN ROURKE OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE JAY ROAD, 2ND RIGHT - STRAIGHT AHEAD, 1ST HOUSE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT A DECK AND SEEKS RELIEF FROM THE SHORELINE SETBACK OF 75 FEET REQUIRED BY SECTION 179-60. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) 9/13/95 TAX MAP NO. 43-1-15 LOT SIZE: 0.35 ACRES SECTION 179-60 RICHARD & SUSAN ROURKE, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 66-1995, Richard & Susan Rourke, Meeting Date: September 27, 1995 "Applicant: Richard & Susan Rourke Project Location: Jay Road, Glen Lake Proposed Project and Conformance with the Ordinance: Applicant proposes to construct a deck and seeks relief from the 75-foot shoreline setback required by Section 179-60. The distance from the corner of the proposed deck to the surveyed tie line is 26 feet. (The drawing shows 38'6", but that is to the outer dock edge, which is beyond the shoreline.) Section 179-16C requires a minimum side setback of 20' on one side, and a total of 50' in side setbacks. According to the surveyed plot plan, the applicant proposes a 12.15' setback on one side, and 19.2' on the other, for a total of 31.35'. This is a difference of 18.65 from the total, and relief of 17.85 on one side. Staff Comments: The proposed deck appears to be a modest attempt at creating outdoor living space accessible directly from the house. Letters in support of the project have been received from several neighbors, and there does not appear to be any adverse impact due to this project. If the applicant had chosen to build a 'covered dock' with a sundeck over it from which to view the lake, instead of creating an attached, less obtrusive structure, current Town policy would allow it to be built without a variance, although site plan review would be required. Staff believe the land-based alternative to be preferable in te'"ms of visual impact on the lake. SEQR: Type II, no further action required." MR. THOMAS-"At a meeting of the I,.Jarren County Planning Board, held on the 13th day of September 1995 the above application for an Area Variance to construct an unattached patio. was reviewed and the following action was taken. Recommendation to: Disapprove Comments: The WCPB denies this application without - 19 - (Cueensbury Z8A Meeting 9/27/95) front of the Center, and then we can get away with 40 square feet, and we'd get, roughly, the same lettering, it wouldn't be using up any dead area there, or do you like it stacked better and make it taller? MR. CARVIN-I guess the stacked area, the stacked looks better and smaller. MR. LEVACK-I think the stacked looks better and smaller, and we aren't going over any aYea, but I guess the compromise on that would be maybe, you know, if we could have a few extra square feet, we'd appreciate it. If not, we just think 40 square feet is going to shrink it down quite, quite small. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Any other questions, gentlemen? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. CARVIN-All right, gentlemen, what's your pleasure, here? MR. MENTER-I don't really have a problem. only issue. I think 40 square feet Certainly big enough for that location. The size would be the would be reasonable. MR. THOMAS-I agree with Dave. I think the 40 square feet is an adequate sign, especially that closè to the road. MR. GREEN-When you're saying 40 square feet, you're going to make it a rectangle out of this? MR. LEVACK-Yes. We're going to go by the Town's. MR. GREEN-That's our consideration. That's the way we've always been going along. I can't visualize it smaller, I guess that's my problem. MR. LEVACK--I think shifting the "Woodworker's" down to the same as the "Warehouse", and that would probably be what you'd be looking at. If the "lrJoodworker's" IfJere shrunk in size to the "Warehouse", you're going to lose the "ERS" and the "W" off the end, and it's going to look proportionate to the facia area that we have to work with, and it would still be comfortable to us, and we could live with that. MR. GREEN-Well, if you're not putting up any argument, I'll go along with the 40 feet, then. MR. KARPELES-I think we ought to be consistent with the other on13. MR. CARVIN-Forty square feet? que~'3tions? Okay. Any other comments or MS. CIPPERLY-Short Form EAF, and we didn't do it on the last one. MR. CARVIN-All right. We'll do it all together. MOTION TO APPROVE SIGN VARIANCE NO. 65-1995 WOODWORKERS WAREHOUSE, Introduced by Fred Carvin who moved for its adoption, seconded by Chris Thomas: The applicant proposes to install two wall signs. Section 160-68 allows each store in a business complex on13 wall sign. I would grant relief from this Section by allowing the Woodworkers - 18 - (Cueensbury ZBA Meeting 9/27/95) prejudice and will agree to re-hear this application when the following information is addressed: the specific distances back from the property line, excessive relief under the Ordinance, permeability issues and the encroachment on the lake." Signed by C. Powel South, Chairperson. MR. CARVIN-Do you have any comment on the Warren County? MR. ROURKE-I was down in New York. during the week. I work down in New York MRS. ROURKE-I couldn't answer any of their questions. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Again, Warren County has disapproved this. So in order for us to grant a variance, we would need what is called a super majority, which would be, we have a Board of seven, so we would need five positive votes to approve. Obviously, we have five people here tonight, and again, I'm going to give you the same option. If it appears that you're going to have a problem here, then I would ask you to table it, or suggest that you table it, until we have a couple of more Board members, but I guess I'm kind of confused, was there any particular reason why Warren County, or why they brought these issues up? MS. CIPPERLY-It appears to me that, see, on the map there's some measurements that were surveyed, and others that were written in, and the ones that were written in, I believe, went to the edge of the dock, rather than to the shoreline, and our Ordinance bases setbacks on the property lines or measured to the tie line, it can be confusing up there when they start asking you questions, and I think Mrs. Rourke just wasn't able to answer their questions. So they disapproved it, but I think we can straighten out the dimensional part of it. I think you've already. MR. CARVIN-Well, then I guess my next question would be, are our numbers fairly accurate here? MS. CIPPERLY-I was going by the surveyor put on, and then corner of the deck to the. the numbers on the survey map that I scaled off the distance from the MR. ROURKE-Yes, but there's land under the deck, you can look right down and see it. MR. CARVIN-Underneath the dock, you mean? MR. ROURKE-This wood deck here, it's been there, and when I went for the building actually, when I built it, that's where they t.ook t.he point. MR. CARVIN-Okay. What you're saying is that there is land under the wood dock? MR. ROURKE-You can see it, all you've got to do is look. MS. CIPPERLY-Well, I went by t.he tie line on the survey map, because you can't see where the shoreline is on the. MR. THOMAS-Is that what the Ordinance says, you have to go by the tie line, not the actual line, dirt? MR. GREEN-Now, just the other day, when we had a gentleman that had to move his dock, they went by the low wat.er mark, as the front. It didn't have anything to do with the dock, or the land or the tie line. It was the low wat.er mark. So that was my confusing, I don't know how much Glen Lake goes up and down, but the gentleman just across the lake last week had, you know, I don't know if, really, it's that important. - 20 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/27/95) MS. CIPPERLY-I don't know if there's that much of a difference. There's not a 10 foot difference. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Mr. Rourke, you've measured it, and what number do yoU come up with? MR. ROURKE-38 foot six. MR. CARVIN-Okay, and that's from the closest point to the closest point on the deck. MR. MENTER-Is that from the outer edge of the wood dock to the new deck? MR. ROURKE-Right. MR. ROURKE-When I built the house, they wanted me to take it from this point here. See, there's land in here. I measured from this point, to this point out. MR. CARVIN-The 58 feet is to the deck here, right? MR. ROURKE-Yes. MR. CARVIN-Now, this is the deck that you're proposing here, ,Night? MR. ROURKE-Right. MS. CIPPERLY-From here, to this corner. MR. CARVIN-To the tie line. MS. CIPPERLY-To here, yes, is 38' 6". MR. CARVIN-That's from the house. You've got to take it from the dock. What's this distance? MR. ROURKE-What I'm doing is a walkway through here. MR. CARVIN-Okay. It looks like this is walled here. Okay. MS. CIPPERLY-It's 46 from the corner of the house to the corner of the dock. MR. GREEN-What is this distance here, from there to there? MR. ROURKE-Thirty-eight foot, six. MR. GREEN-That's the 38? It looks like your line goes all the way through to your house. MS. CIPPERLY-From the corner of the house to the corner of the dock is 46 feet. MR. ROURKE-Right, 46 feet. MS. CIPPERLY-That's what's marked on the survey map there. MR. CARVIN-So, from here to here it's 46 feet, is what you're saying? MR. ROURKE-Right. MR. CARVIN-Okay, because when I was out there, I thought it looked like a good 50 feet. MR. ROURKE-Yes, it is. - 21 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/27/95) MS. CIPPERLY-But from the corner of the deck. MR. ROURKE-But, what I measured here was from the outside corner of the deck to there. MR. CARVIN-All right. MS. CIPPERLY-If you look at the shoreline that's shown here, and the shoreline that's shown here. MR. CARVIN-Yes, but he's got a picture here that's interesting. I mean, here's what it looks like, and it looks like this is all building covered in. MR. GREEN-Did you fill that in when you built you, that wood retaining wall that's there, behind it, put the wall in, and then fill in? that front? When did you fill in MR. ROURKE-No. MR. GREEN-Or the previous owner did. MR. ROURKE-I can show you pictures where that's been washed away'. MR. CARVIN-Does anybody else have any questions of the applicant? MR. THOMAS-No, I'm set for now. MR. CARVIN-Okay. I'll open up the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. CARVIN-You said there's some correspondence? MR. THOMAS-Yes, we do. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Lets hear it. MR. THOMAS-A letter dated September 27, 1995 "Dear Sirs: In regard to Richard and Susan Rourke's Variance appeal concerning the construction of a deck, I wish to state they have constructed a lovely home adjacent to my property which certainly has added to the value of my property and other's in the vicinity. They are presently in the process of beautifully landscaping, and I believe the deck will enhance the overall appearance without being detrimental to the environment. It would also allow the Rourke's to exit their home through the sliders, which otherwise seem to create a hardship. Respectfully yours, Monica K. Haight, Jay Road, Glen Lake. A letter with no date, to Queensbury Officials, "As a life long resident of Glen Lake and a member of the Glen Lake Protective Association, I appreciate the opportunity to comment on a variance request of Susan & Richard Rourke of Jay Road on Glen Lake. I am fully in favor of granting their variance request for a deck. The new house is a welcome sight compared to the old summer camp, and the proposed deck Would seem to further enhance it. Thank' you for your consideration. Sincerely, George Sicard" A letter dated 8/25/95, "To Whom It May Concern: We have no objection to having Richard Rourke building his deck on the front of his home. In fact, it will only enhance and make his property complete. Sincerely, Donald & Marilyn Higley" A letter dated August 26, 1995 "To Whom It May Concern: We are the next door neighbors of Dick and Sue Rourke. We have no objections whatsoever to their plan for a deck on the front and side of their new home. We feel the deck will only enhance and beautify the house and property. Furthermore, it will be aesthetically pleasing, and will in no way obstruct our view. Sincerely, Jean and Bill Lauroesch" That's it. - 22 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/27/95) MR. CARVIN-Okay. Any other public comment? Seeing none, hearing none, I'll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. CARVIN-Any thoughts, gentlemen? MR. KARPELES-I don't have any problem with it. MR. MENTER-I agree. MR. GREEN-I've got a couple of questions here. One, why wasn't the deck on the original plans? MR. ROURKE-I forgot it, really. MR. GREEN-Okay, but you did place three sliding glass windows across the front of your house. MR. ROURKE-I never even thought of putting it, you have to have a walkway or something in there, because it steps down. I never even gave it a thought. Plus it took me a couple of years to (lost word) I downscaled that. MR. GREEN-It just, to be perfectly honest, it really bothers me that you put in three sliding glass windows, four feet off the ground, and not think about how you're going to access those windows, in the original plan. I don't have a real problem with the deck, but it just, I'm really upset why it wasn't done initially. I mean, if they were just bow windows or something like that, and it was an afterthought, sure, but you put in three big doors, you've got to have a way to get out of them. MR. THOMAS-The only thing ¡ have to say is I have no problem with it, and I don't see where the deck will interfere with the dwellings on either side of the Rourke residence. The new deck would sit well back of the residence on the north, and it would be just about even with the one on the south, and since there's no public opposition to it. MR. CARVIN-Okay. correct? Okay. You have no plans to cover the Any plans to enclose the deck? dec k, is that MR. ROURKE-No. MR. CARVIN-Okay, because I'd like to make that a contingency. So, in other words, that you would not, in the future be able to enclose that deck. Is that a problem, or cover it? MR. ROURKE-No problem. MR. CARVIN-All right. Has anybody else got any thoughts or questions on that, if not, I'd ask for a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 66-1995 RICHARD & SUSAN ROURKE, Introduced by David Menter who moved for its adoption, seconded by Fred Carvin: Applicant proposes to construct a deck and seeks relief from the 75 foot shoreline setback required by Section 179-60. The distance from the proposed deck to the surveyed tie line is 26 feet. Therefore, relief of 49 feet from this Section is sought. Section 179-16C also requires a minimum side setback of 20 feet for each side and 50 feet total. According to a surveyed plot plan, the applicant proposes 12.15 feet on one side and 19.2 on the other, totalling 31.35 feet. This would require relief of 18.65 feet from the total, and from one side, 17.85 feet. This deck would appear to fit in with the neighborhood. Neighbors on - 23 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/27/95) both sides are in favor of this project and, therefore, it would seem to have no negative effects whatsoever on the community or the immediate area. There do not appear to be any feasible alternatives to a deck in front of the house, for the purposes desired by the applicant. The applicant has shown an interest and concern in the appearance of his property, spent much effort landscaping the property, and I would expect it to continue to be attractive and a big improvement over what was previously there. One condition to this variance would be that the deck not be enclosed or covered in any fashion, above putting handrails on the sides of it. Duly adopted this 27th day of September, 1995, by the following vote:: AYES: Mr. Green, Mr. Menter, Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Thomas, M)". Carvin NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Ford USE VARIANCE NO. 67-1995 TYPE: UNLISTED SR-1A STEVEN & DODY THETFORD OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE 165 PASCO AVENUE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO INSTALL A NEW DOUBLE-WIDE MOBILE HOME AT 165 PASCO, AND SEEKS A USE VARIANCE FROM SECTION 179-19 SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL, WHICH DOES NOT PERMIT MOBILE HOMES. TAX MAP NO. 121.-2-7.1 LOT SIZE: 0.30 ACRES SECTION 179-19 STEVEN THETFORD, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Use Variance No. 67-1995, Steven & Dody Thetford, Meeting Date: September 27, 1995 uAPPLICANT: Steven & Dody Thetford PROJECT LOCATION: 165 Pasco Avenue PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND CONFORMANCE WITH THE ORDINANCE: Applicant proposes to install a new double-sided mobile home at 165 Pasco Avenue, and seeks a Use Variance from Section 179-19 Suburban Residential zone, which does not permit mobile homes. STAFF COMMENT: It does appear, based on a site visit, that investment in construction of a conventional single family home on this parcel may be financially unfeasible. The installation of a new mobile home would likely have a positive impact on the neighborhood. SEQR: Unlisted. Short form EAF must be reviewed." MR. THOMAS-"At a meeting of the Warren County Planning Board, held on the 13th day of September 1995, the above application for a Use Variance to tear down existing single family dwelling and replace with a double wide mobile home. was reviewed, and the following action was taken. Recommendation to: No County Impact" Signed by C. Powel South, Chairperson. MR. CARVIN-Okay. your application? Is there anything that you'd care to add to MR. THETFORD-No, not really. That about covers it. I want to put a double-wide up, and it's going to be on a foundation. So it's not really going to be a mobile home. It's going to be affixed to a foundation. That's going to be a 26' 4" by 60. MR. CARVIN-Okay, and that will be on a basement foundation? MR. THETFORD-Yes. It'll be an eight foot cellar. MR. CARVIN-And that's going to be new, is it? - 24 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/27/95) MR. THETFORD-Yes. MR. CARVIN-Okay. MR. GREEN-Can you do that, put a full cellar under a mobile home? MR. THETFORD-Yes. MR. CARVIN-It's a double-wide. MR. GREEN-It's not a modular. MR. THOMAS-Is it a modular, or is it a mobile home? MR. THETFORD-It's a double-wide. What's required is a, instead of having piers under it, I'll have the eight foot cellar. I'll have six eye beams which span the cellar over all the pier locations. MR. THOMAS-How does this thing arrive at the property? It arrives on a steel frame on wheels. MR. THETFORD-It's going to be on a steel frame. MR. THOMAS-All right. D6 they lift it off that steel frame and set it on the foundation? MR. THETFORD-It's classified as a double-wide. The steel frames still stay attached. MR. GREEN-That's where I think you're going to have a problem. I'm not the enforcement person here, or the Code person, but I don't think you can put a full eight foot cellar under those steel frame mobiles. You can put a full foundation crawl space, but I don't think you can put a full basement under them. MS. CIPPERLY-Is that something you could solve with the Building and Codes? I don't know. MR. GREEN-I just know, I've got a little bit of personal experience with this, with my father-in-law. This is what he does, is mobiles, modulars, and stick builts, and he's never been able to put a full basement under a mobile. He has to go to a modular, where it's lifted off the frame and put onto a foundation, because it all has to do with the floor joist and the substructure of the floor. When they stay on the frame, you can have, you know, two foot center rafters and all this other stuff. MR. THETFORD-Precisely. With the modular, you have the straight runner, which goes down in the middle of the house, and they have lally columns which support that. MR. GREEN-Exactly. I'm not saying that it's not physically possible. I'm just not sure if it's permanent. MR. THETFORD-Yes, it is, because it'll be sitting, I'll still have the six lally columns, but I'll still have eight inch eye beams going across, which support the whole home throughout, and the eye beams are within the pockets in the walls, and the walls are framed right up, and they're attached to the trailer. All your outside walls are attached to the trailer. MR. MENTER-Is that engineered by whoever you're purchasing the trailer from? MR. THETFORD-Yes, it is. MR. MENTER-It is? Okay. Well, then it's a Code thing. - 25 - (Queensbury Z8A Meeting 9/27/95) MR. THETFORD-They've given me drawings on it, and stuff. MR. GREEN-Yes, it's a Code thing. As I said, I may be wrong, but I was always under the impression that you couldn't do it with a mobile home. It had to be a modular in order to put a full basement under it, but the Codes may be different, or I may not know what I'm talking about. MR. THETFORD-Well, the eye beams have to be rated. MR. CARVIN-Well, Sue, something like this does get looked at, does it? MS. CIPPERLY-It does require a building permit. So if it didn't meet the Code, it wouldn't get a building permit. MR. GREEN-All right, just as long as somebody else reviews that, because as I said, I am going to stand by that I don't think you can do it with a classic mobile home, whether it's a double-wide or single wide. I was always under the impression you couldn't put a full basement under it. MR. KARPELES-You're saying, it's physically possible? MR. GREEN-It might be physically possible, sure. It might not be, it's a building code violation. If it's going to go through the Building Department, then that's fine. I don't have a problem with the house going the1'e and all. t1x.. biggest concern is the basement. MS. CIPPERLY-Yes. This has to go through the Town Board and then the Building Department, also. MR. CARVIN-This has to go to the Town Board, too? MS. CIPPERLY-For locating a mobile home outside of a Mobile Home Overlay Zone. MR. THOMAS--Yes. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Any other questions? MR. GREEN-I don't have a problem with the house. I think it would be an improvement and all that sort of stuff. I guess the, my other question is, why not go to a modular, versus the double wide mobile? The cost? MR. THETFORD-Getting this thing cheaper, yes. enough time getting an appraisal. I had a hard MR. MENTER-Yes, sure. MR. GREEN-I don't have a problem with it. I'm just concerned about the basement, but somebody else has to worry about that. MR. THETFORD-I some\'-Jhere el~;e, mean, I'd rather go to a house, preferably but this is what I've got to work with. MR. THOMAS-What's the siding material? MR. THETFORD-It's going to be vinyl siding. MR. THOMAS-It'll have a pitched roof on it? MR. THETFORD-Yes. MR. THOMAS-Do you know what the pitch on the roof is? - 26 - -"' (Queensbury Z8A Meeting 9/27/95) MR. THETFORD-Three or four twelve. MR. THOMAS-I see on this drawing on the back it has stairs that go down to the cellar. MR. THETFORD-Yes. MR. CARVIN-This really doesn't look like a modular home, I mean, othe)- tha n name. MR. THOMAS-Boy, I'll tell you, it looked close to the Town's definition of a modular home. It's real close. MR. GREEN-The Code definition of a modular all has to do with substructures and walls and plumbing and electrical and venting and things of that store. They look identical, but it's all in structure. MR. THOMAS-Because, did you read the modular home definition in the Ordinance? MR. GREEN-Yes, in Q..IdL Ordinance, ¡'es, but the Codes are different for them, the building codes are extremely different. MR. THOMAS-Yes. "With or without their own chaisse, integral unit indistinguishable in appearance from a conventionally built home." It'll look like a conventionally built home, and if it has pitched roof and vinyl siding, and windows, doors, front steps, including but not limited to a sloped roof and permanent foundation. I'll tell you, that's real close to a modular, in our definition. It's not a mobile, it's a modular. MR. CARVIN-I guess the only thing would be, could he haul this thing off and put wheels back under it and haul it away. MR. THOMAS-You could do that with a modular, Just the reverse process. It would take something, but it's indistinguishable from a conventionally built home, once it's set up. MR. CARVIN-Yes, that's true. MR. THETFORD-Outside the home, it has wooden boards that outline the home itself which will be attached to the foundation. So, I mean, it is going to be attached. MR. THOMAS-Yes, it sits right on the foundation, and it has a sill plate. MR. GREEN-Like I said, I don't have a problem with the house. My only concern is this basement, and that's not our problem. MR. THOMAS-Yes, that's not our problem. MR. CARVIN-Okay. I'm going to open up the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. CARVIN-Any correspondence? MR. THOMAS-Yes. We have one Record of Telephone Conversation dated September 27, 1995, between Michael Beckwith, adjoining land owner to Thetford, Subject: Thetford Use Variance "Asked that the variance not be granted because Pasco Avenue should not be turned into a mobile home park. There are already other mobile homes on the street. Expressed concern over the small size of the lot and separation distance of septic to his well. Existing septic system is old. Will it be replaced?" A letter dated 9/25/95, regarding Steven & Doty Thetford "Dear Town of - 27 - (Cueensbury ZBA Meeting 9/27/95) Queensbury: I wanted to write in reference to the above owner's request for a variance to permit a new double-wide mobile home at 165 Pasco Avenue. I believe a new double-wide mobile home would add to the neighborhood, not take away. I wish them congratulations and good luck on purchasing their new home. I would support the variance and their decision. Sincerely, Sandra C. Wild, 25 Ferris Drive, Queensbury, NY" That's it. MR. CARVIN-Okay. sewer issue? Would you care to address the well and the MR. THETFORD-I didn't quite understand. Is he talking about my sewer system or his? MR. THOMAS-"Expressed concern over the small size of the lot and separation distance of septic to his well. Existing septic system is old. Will it be replaced?" MR. THETFORD-My septic system will be replaced. I believe for a three bedroom home you're required 187 feet. I'm going to put in 240, which is going to be a new leachfield. MS. CIPPERLY-The other point here is that Town water is available on Pasco Avenue, and we had this situation once before where somebody was concerned about their well, but Town water was really supposed to be the water source. So I'm not sure that his well should be an issue. I think the new septic is a great. MR. THETFORD-Sei ng close to his well, his ~.Jell is on the other side of the house, and he's got a thing against me so I can't go over there and actually measure it, but I believe it's at least 100 feet from my leach, and I think that's what the Code requires. MS. CIPPERLY-Yes. leach field. It's 100 feet to the distribution box and MR. THETFORD-Right. I think it's 150 to the seepage pits. MR. MENTER-So, Sue, what you're saying, as far as the water supply goes, there is water up Pasco Ave.? MS. CIPPERL Y-There's Town ~.Jater have to have 100 foot separation his own septic, but Town water is you're going to hook up to that? available. NOTmally, he would distance from his own well to available there, so I assume MR. THETFORD-Yes. I have a well on my property. Where I've located the leach, it's going to be 100 feet from that well, and if I can get over there to measure his, I'm pretty sure it would be 100 feet from his, too. MR. CARVIN-Okay. So, essentially what you're saying is you're going to be in compliance. MR. THETFORD-Yes, exactly. MR. CARVIN-Okay. All right. If there's no other public comment, I'll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. CARVIN-All right. What's your pleasure? MR. MENTER-I think it's great. whatsoever. I think, as you say, can't see any perspective that neighborhood at all. I have no problem with it it'll be a vast improvement. I would see that harming the - 28 - ~--" (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/27/95) MR. CARVIN-Okay. Bob? MR. KARPELES-I agree. Normally, I don't go along with mobile homes anywhere but in mobile home parks, but I think in this case it's going to be a big improvement in the neighborhood. MR. CARVIN-I agree. MR. THOMAS-I agree with the other Board members, and I would say this thing is so close to a modular home. in definition, that a variance wouldn't even really be required. MR. CARVIN-It's awful close. MR. THOMAS-It's too close. MR. GREEN-I'd go along the same lines as Chris, that since it's a double-wide, you know, on a foundation, and it's going to be finished off, and appearance is a regular stick built, I don't have a problem with it at all. MR. CARVIN-Okay. I'd ask for a motion. I agree. MS. CIPPERLY-You need to do the Short Form EAF, also. MR. CARVIN-Lets do the Short Form EAF. MOTION THAT A REVIEW OF THE SHORT FORM EAF INDICATES A NEGATIVE DECLARATION, Introduced by Fred Carvin who moved for its adoption, seconded by David Menter: Duly adopted this 27th day of September, 1995, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Green, Mr. Menter, Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Carvin NOES: ¡'lONE ABSENT: Mr. Ford MOTION TO APPROVE USE VARIANCE NO. 67-1995 STEVEN & DODY THETFORD, Introduced by Fred Carvin who moved for its adoption, seconded by Chris Thomas: The applicant is proposing to install a new double wide mobile home and seeks relief from Section 179-19, which does not allow or permit mobile homes in a Suburban Residential zone. The applicant has demonstrated that a reasonable return cannot be achieved from the land as it's currently zoned. The applicant has also indicated that even though the proposed project indicates a mobile home, upon review by this Board, it would indicate and seem that we are awful close, and the end result would be the same as a modular home, which under normal circumstances wouldn't require any Use Variance at all, as the applicant is proposing to have a basement, foundation, and permanent walls and a sloped roof. This project as described certainly will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood and more than likely will be a vast improvement, and certainly the granting of this variance is the minimum rélief necessary to achieve the goal of the applicant, while at the same time preserving and protecting the character of the neighborhood and the health, safety and welfare of the community. Duly adopted this 27th day of September, 1995, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Green, Mr. Menter, Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Thomas, - 29 - (Queensbury Z8A Meeting 9/27/95) l"Ir. Carvin NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Ford USE VARIANCE NO. 68-1995 TYPE: UNLISTED CR-15 BRUCE & JOYCE BURKE OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE 2 ALLEN LANE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO PLACE A MOBILE HOME TEMPORARILY ON PROPERTY AT 2 ALLEN LANE, AND SEEKS A USE VARIANCE FROM SECTION 179-24, COMMERCIAL RESIDENTIAL, WHICH DOES NOT ALLOW MOBILE HOMES. RELIEF IS ALSO REQUIRED FROM SECTION 179-29, MOBILE HOME OVERLAY DISTRICT, WHICH DESIGNATES WHERE MOBILE HOMES ARE ALLOWED. TAX MAP NO. 130.-3-29 LOT SIZE: 0.38 ACRES SECTION 179-29 BRUCE & JOYCE BURKE, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Use Variance No. 68-1995, Bruce & Joyce Burke, Meeting Date: September 27, 1995 "APPLICANT: Bruce and Joyce Burke USE VARIANCE NO. 68-1995 PROJECT LOCATION: 2 Allen Lane PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND CONFORMANCE WITH THE ORDINANCE: Applicant proposes to install a mobile home temporarily on a vacant parcel outside of a mobile home overlay zone, for the purpose of providing a home for an elderly mother. Relief is needed from Section 179-29, Mobile Home Overlay District, and from Section 179-24, Commercial Residential, which does not allow mobile homes as a use. USE VARIANCE REVIEW CRITERIA, BASED ON SECTION 267-b of TOWN LAW: 1. IS A REASONABLE RETURN POSSIBLE IF THE LAND IS USED AS ZONED? The parcel in question is landlocked, and not on a Town road, which seems to present more of a problem in using it than the zoning does. The only access appears to be through the applicant's residence area. It appears use of the parcel would have to be related to the parcel containing the residence. 2. IS THE ALLEGED HARDSHIP RELATING TO THIS PROPERTY UNIQUE, OR DOES IT ALSO APPLY TO A SUBSTANTIAL PORTION OF THE DISTRICT OR NEIGHBORHOOD? As mentioned above, the lot is unique. However, whether that justifies granting its use for a mobile home is another matter. 3. IS THERE AN ADVERSE EFFECT ON THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD? Based on observation of the surrounding neighborhood, there appears to be only one other mobile home in the area, that being located on Luzerne Road, some distance away. There was on objection from a neighbor, recorded on the Record of Telephone Conversation in the file. 4. IS THIS THE MINIMUM VARIANCE NECESSARY TO ADDRESS THE UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP PROVEN BY THE APPLICANT AND AT THE SAME TIME PROTECT THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND THE HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE OF THE COMMUNITY? This would be the minimum amount of relief required to achieve the applicant's goal of providing housing for an elderly relative. STAFF COMMENTS AND CONCERNS: If the variance were to be granted, this project would also require approval from the Town Board, for siting a Mobile Home outside of a Mobile Home zone. SEQR: Unlisted Action. Short form EAF must be reviewed." MR. THOI'1AS-"At a meeting of the ~·Jarren County Planning Board, held on the 13th day of September, 1995, the above application for a Use Variance to place a trailer or travel trailer on property for mother who is elderly and ill. was reviewed and the following action was taken. Recommendation to: Disapprove Inappropriate use of the property and an inappropriate use of living space without septic or water for an elderly or ill person." Signed by C. Powel South, Chairperson. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Again, this is another case where Warren County has denied the application. So you would need a positive vote by all the members here present, and again, I would suggest that if - 30 - -......... ~ (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/27/95) it doesn't look like it's going to be approved, you may want to table it, but we'll cross that bridge when we get to it. Is there anything that you'd care to add to your application? MRS. BURKE-We planned on getting water and septic. that. We certainly would do that. We will do MS. CIPPERLY-Did you go to the Warren County m~eting? MRS. BURKE-No, we didn't. MS. CIPPERLY-Okay. MR. BURKE-We didn't even get a notice. MS. CIPPERLY-You should have. from our Department telling meeting. You should have you aboutt.hat got.ten a letter meeting and this MRS. BURKE-We got t.he one about this meeting, but not the other one. MR. THOMAS-Yes. Warren County. The usual letter doesn't say anything about MS. CIPPERLY-Usually they're listed. MR. THOMAS-Yes. one only lists September 27th. You'd normally list both of them on there. This Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals, Wednesday, That's it. MS. CIPPERL Y-So Warren County's decision l--Jas based on this information. MRS. BURKE-We didn't know about this Warren County. MR. CARVIN-Have you owned the property long? MR. BURKE-Yes, since '65. MR. CARVIN-Okay, and was it a landlocked piece of property when you bought it? MR. BURKE-I purchased the property later on, that lot. MR. CARVIN-Oka')". I'm assuming that., on the tax map, it looks like a right-of-way out to Glen Street? MR. BURKE-Broad Street. MR. CARVIN-Or Broad Street. MRS. BURKE-The property that our house is on goes out to the road. The propert')" that we're talking about putting the trailer on goes out back. MR. CARVIN-I know that, but I'm showing here, it looks dotted line. I'm assuming that's a right-of-wa')", is it, Broad Street? In other words, here's your lot. Here's t.hat.'s landlocked, but there appears to be a right-of-way like a out to the lot here. MR. BURKE-No, there isn't. MR. GREEN-There's no right-of-way on ')"our deed for that? MR. BURKE-No. MR. CARVIN-I just am questioning why this line is here. In other - 31 - (Queensbury Z8A Meeting 9/27/95) words, this would appear to me that this may be a right-of-way, and I was just wondering if that was the case. MR. BURKE-Not that I ever knew of. MS. CIPPERLY~That may have been a transfer of property, that, you know, that's showing an old lot line. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Howald is the mother? MR. BURKE-83. MR. CARVIN-8:3. MR. GREEN-My whole concern rests on what type of structure it's going to be. MR. BURKE-A trailer. MR. GREEN-What kind of trailer, single wide, mobile, double wide, travel trailer, modular trailer? MR. BURKE-Whatever is required, just enough for her, if it has to be a double wide, we can do that, too. It would be small. MR. GREEN-Because you can put a modular in there with no problem other than the access. You need a variance for the access. MR. CARVIN-Well, I we're just going to frontage. think putting anything permanent open up a can of worms, because out back, it's not MR. GREEN-I very much agree with you. MR. CARVIN-I'm not even sure that I semi-permanent structure out there, and all the other related. If there are you going to get a fire truck out like the idea of putting a because of the fire access was a fire out there, how there, or an ambulance? MR. BURKE-On the back side of my house, going to remove, and t.hen there's access. gas going up there. there's one IrJe already b-ee I'm have City MR. CARVIN-To that lot? MRS. BURKE-To our house. MR. BUF<KE-To my house, but a little beyond, so it's accessible. MR. CARVIN-And where is mom staying now? MRS. BURKE-She owns a house in Hudson Falls, and she wants to sell it. In fact, she's made a move to sell it. It's too much for her to take care of the land that she owns. MR. BURKE-She's constantly burning things, leaving the fires on. MR. CARVIN-I'm not sure that that added to your case. I'll open up the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. CARVIN-Any correspondence? MR. THOMAS-Yes. dated 9/19/95, Cipperly of the Var iance "They We have one record of Telephone Conversation, between Richard and Marie Albert, and Susan Planning Staff, Subject: Burke Use and Area cannot attend meeting personally, due to medical - 32 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/27/95) appointment in Albany. They strongly object to this variance. Do not want a trailer there, even on a temporary basis, based on another temporary situation in the area that has been there for 25 years. They do not want a precedent set by allowing this." Another letter, "To Whom It May Concern: I, Albert Hunt, give Mr. and Mrs. Burke my permission to put a trailer on their property." Signed, Albert L. Hunt, 4 Allen Lane, Queensbury, NY, and it was received 8/30/95 by the Town. That's it. MR. GREEN-Do we have an address for that first person? MR. THOMAS-14 Luzerne Road, for Richard and Marie Albert. MR. CARVIN-Okay. It would be No. 33 in the Tax Map, I wonder? MR. THOMAS-The Tax Map No. is 130-3-10, the parcel they own. Their address is 14 Luzerne Road. MR. CARVIN-It's got to be on this side, then. MS. CIPPERLY-He said he was about 10 feet off of Allen Lane, which, that's the. MR. GREEN-It's got to be one of those back side ones. MR. THOMAS-They front on Luzerne Road. MR. CARVIN-Okay. For those of you following along, it's Number 10, that's the assumption. Okay. Any other public comment? Seeing none, hearing none, I'll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. CARVIN-All right, gentlemen, thoughts, comments, feelings? MR. KARPELES-It did appear to me that you could see that lot from Broad Street. That house that is right on Broad Street, right opposite 32.1, or whatever it is, he would be overlooking that, looking back at that lot, right? MR. BURKE-It's hard to see. MR. KARPELES-I think we'd be setting a dangerous precedent by granting this. I would feel like we had a safety hazard here. I'd like to see how other people feel about it. MR. THOMAS-I think it would be setting a dangerous precedent, too. I agree with Bob, by allowing a trailer back there, even on a temporary basis. It's just the fire and ambulance access, and this is an elderly person. If it's only going to be a temporary basis, I can't see the applicant going through the expense of putting in a well and a septic system, or connecting to Town water and putting in a septic system, if it's just going to be on a temporary basis, and my biggest problem is the access. MR. GREEN-I don't have much to add, I agree. MR. MENTER-Yes. I empathize, but the access as well as, I think it would be unfair to any neighbors who, in the immediate vicinit,,', had a concern about it. It's :just such a long term thing. It's difficult to really limit it and to ensure that it's temporary, and put it in that type of a workable framework. It's just really tough to do, and you run into the problem, it gets away from you. MRS. BURKE-When the property was sold, it would go back to the way it was. - 33 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/27/95) MR. MENTER-Well, I think it could if that was the only issue, but there is a big concern, as a lot of the other members have said, about safety. MR. CARVIN-I think you're going way out of your way. You've indicated there's going to have to be trees removed. I mean, if there is a fire out there, if an ambulance is required, I mean, you're going to have to put some kind of access out there. You're going to have to put in some kind of sewer. You're going to have to put in some kind of water. There is the issue of the mobile home. Once you go through that expense, the chances are it's no longer a temporary structure. I mean, this stuff is in the ground permanently. You probably would be better served to build a house, do you know what I'm saying, in other words, and address this right up front, and I don't think that that's what you're proposing here, and I just, I agree with the rest of the Board members. I have a hard time justifying, and I do sympathize with your situation, and, unfortunately, it's a situation that this Board is being confronted with more and more, but I think we'd be setting a real safety hazard, or possible safety hazard, if we granted this. MR. THOMAS-Yes, an alternative would be to put an addition onto the house, rather than go through the expense of a mobile home. After mom passes on, you try and sell that thing, there's 7,000 houses for sale in the Warren-Washington-Saratoga County area, for sale, and trying to sell something around here is tough, but I think an addition to the house would be any cheaper. It would be better suited to your purposes, if you don't have the room inside already. MR. BURKE-Actually we're just trying to find a way, she likes to be isolated. MR. THOMAS-They like their independence. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Then motion's in order. MOTION TO DENY USE VARIANCE NO. 68-1995 BRUCE & JOYCE BURKE, Introduced by Robert Karpeles who moved faT its adoption, seconded by Fred Carvin: Two Allen Lane. Applicant proposes to install a mobile home temporarily on a vacant parcel outside of a mobile home overlay zone, for the purpose of providing a home for an elderly mother. Relief is needed from Section 179-29, Mobile Home Overlay District, and from Section 179-24, Commercial Residential, which does not allow mobile homes as a use. Is a reasonable return possible if the land is used as zoned? The parcel in question is landlocked, and not on a Town Road, which does present a problem in using it. The only access appears to be through the applicant's residence area. This would present a safety hazard as far as fire protection and so forth. Is the alleged hardship relating to this property unique, or does it also apply to substantial portions of the district or neighborhood? This lot is unique. It is entirely landlocked. Is there an adverse effect on the essential character of the neighborhood? There is one other mobile home in the area, and the neighbors, one neighbor has expressed objection to locating another mobile home in the area, saying that this was temporarily granted and has been there for years. Is this the minimum variance necessary to address the unnecessary hardship? It would appear that there is other relief possible, that the applicant could build an addition onto his house in order to cope with the situation. Duly adopted this 27th day of September, 1995, by the following vote: - 34 - ~ ~' (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/27/95) MR. BURKE-If we add on to that, would we still have to come back for another variance? MR. CARVIN-For an addition? MR. BURKE-If I want to put a room on? MR. CARVIN-Not if it complies with your, you might have an area problem, but I don't think you're going to have a problem, if you meet the setbacks and so forth. MR. MENTER-You may end up getting too close to a property line, or something like that. MS. CIPPERLY-You could also combine the two properties. MR. CARVIN-I was going to say, and you could always, in fact, I would almost suggest that in any event, you know, just combining those properties. I mean, if you had a setback problem. I think your addition is going to be a more viable alternative than the mobile home, to be very honest with you. AYES: Mr. Menter, Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Green, Mr. Carvin NOES: NO t'-1 E ABSENT: Mr. Ford MR. CARVIN-The Area Variance becomes moot. Variance without the Use Variance. There is no Area MS. CIPPERLY-There was one other thing. The Ermiger Variance that you denied. They're back. What you need is a vote from the Board on whether there's a significant difference in this application. The problems that you found with the previous one were that the building was positioned and the fairly wide accesses, and you'd have, really, the lins would be out to the Town road. What they've done is moved this all in so you'd have three lanes of cars on the site, instead of potentially out in the road. This has been narrowed down. The building is tilted. So the only relief needed is now a setback from right here. On the previous one, there was also a setback needed from the other road. MR. KARPELES-It looks better to me. MR. MENTER-It looks much better. MR. THOMAS-It does. MR. GREEN-What's the state of the road? MS. CIPPERLY-This is the resolution from the Town Board saying that this is, you know, a real project. MR. GREEN-So that road is going in pretty definitely. MR. CIPPERLY-So the agenda for unanimous vote different enough again. what we need from you, in order to put this on October, would be a, you'd have to have a of those present saying that it's at least a application that you're willing to look at it MR. KARPELES-I still think it would be better if you moved it over this way a little bit. MS. CIPPERLY-I think that had to do with traffic coming out of - 35 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/27/95) this one, and there's a septic system over here. MR. GREEN-Did they give any estimates on how many cars they could actually have lined up here? MR. CARVIN-·I guess those would be questions that would be brought out. Is this a significantly altered or changed application? MR. THOMAS-I believe it is. MR. MENTER-I think coupled with this. MR. GREEN-Coupled with the knowledge of the road. MR. MENTER-Is enough. MR. CARVIN-That was one of the big hang up I had the last time was that we really didn't have something concrete on the road. MS. CIPPERLY-Well, what we need is somebody to make a motion to have this on, well, what you're making a motion for lS to hold a public hearing. MR. CARVIN-All right. MOTION THAT THE MICHAEL SEAL. IT WOULD APPEAR THAT THE PROPOSED PROJECT RELATING TO THE ERMIGER CAR WASH. AREA VARIANCE NO. 42- 1995, IS SIGNIFICANTLY DIFFERENT. AND DOES HAVE ADDED MATERIAL ABOVE AND BEYOND THE PREVIOUS APPLICATION THAT WAS DENIED BACK IN JULY. AND THAT THIS BOARD WOULD ENTERTAIN A NEW APPLICATION, Introduced by Fred Carvin who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Karpeles: Duly adopted this 27th day of September, 1995, by the following '-iote: AYES: Mr. Green, Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Menter, Mr. Thomas, t-1r. Ca"\iin NOES: I'IONE ABSENT: Mr. Ford MR. CARVIN-Okay. So we will hear it in October. MS. CIPPERLY-Yes, the 18th. MR. CARVIN-It's come to my attention that I everybody make an attempt to visit the Phair Tender a fair decision. would stress that site, in order to MR. GREEN-I was up there this morning. M" ,,\ . CARVIN-Just as a point of information. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Fred Carvin, Chairman - 36 - --.,¡..