Loading...
1995-08-16 ~ OflGINAL QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 16, 1995 INDEX Area Variance No. 48-1995 Alfred Kristensen L t1ary Ellen K1- istensen Area Variance No. 36-1995 Leonardo Lombardo L Area Variance No. 39-1995 Bruce & Linda Breault 11 . Area Variance No. 51-1995 Gordon & Carol Stockman 16. Area Variance No. 52-1995 Colleen M. Cooper 27. Area Variance No. 42-1995 Kenneth Ermiger 3L Area Variance No. 60-1995 Herman Neal 50. Sign Va.riance No. 49-1995 l.oJal-Ma,rt 57. Sign Variance No.. 50-1995 Blockbuster Video 63. 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. J --'; QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 16, 1995 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT FRED CARVIN, CHAIRMAN CHRIS THOMAS, SECRETARY ROBERT KARPELES THOMAS FORD IrJILLIAM GREEN DAVID MENTER PLANNER-SUSAN CIPPERLY STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. CARVIN-Before we start, I want to make a couple of corrections. Area Variance No. 48-1995 Alfred Kristensen and Mary Ellen Kristensen. This one has been advertised incorrect. There is an additional variance that is going to be required. They're going to need relief from the 75 foot setback. So, if anyone is here this evening for public comment on the Kristensen's that will be put on the agenda of August the 31st. 50 if you have any public comment regarding, again, that Area Variance No. 48-1995 Alfred Kristensen and Mary Ellen Kristensen, I would ask for you to either put it in writing, if you can't make the meeting on August the 31st, or we will be hearing that one on August the 31st. Also, I'm going to move Neal from the very last one up to just before Wal-Mart. So we will hearing Neal before Wal-Mart and Blockbuster. Everything else looks to be in pretty good fashion. Okay. Ç>LD BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 36-1995 TYPE II HC-IA LEONARDO LOMBARDO OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE NORTH ON ROUTE 9, WEST SIDE OF ROUTE 9 AT LAKE GEORGE TOWN LINE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT AN ADDITION TO AN EXISTING NONCONFORMING RETAIL BUILDING. THE FRONT SETBACK WOULD BE 41.73 FEET. SECTION 179-28, TRAVEL CORRIDOR OVERLAY ZONE, REQUIRES A BUILDING SETBACK OF SEVENTY-FIVE (75) FEET FROM THE EDGE OF THE ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY. SECTION 179-23, HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL REQUIRES A FRONT SETBACK OF FIFTY (50) FEET FROM THE PROPERTY LINE SO APPLICANT IS SEEKING RELIEF FROM THESE SECTIONS. CROSS REF. SPR 28-94 MODIFICATION (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) 7/12/95 TAX MAP NO. 33-1-10, 11, 13 LOT SIZE: 3.851 ACRES SECTION 179-28 RON RUCINSKI, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. CARVIN-And I believe this was tabled for some additional input from the Planning. This was referred to the Planning Board, and I'm assuming that everybody has gotten the correspondence and the minutes of that particular meeting. MR. THOMAS-Do you want me to read that in, the tabling motion? MR. CARVIN-The tabling motion, and also their comment back to us. MR. THOMAS-Okay. The Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals has reviewed the following request at the below stated meeting and has resolved the following: Meeting Date: July 19, 1995 Variance File Number: 36-1995 for an Area Variance. It was tabled. "MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 36-1995 LEONARDO LOMBARDO, Introduced by Fred Carvin who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: Ref err i ng approved this application, and the Planning Board plan, back proposed reV1Slons to the to the Planning Board for - 1 - ......>, / their opinion, as to any impact that traffic flow, parking, or lot layout, the proposed changes might have, and I would table this matter for no longer than 60 days, which is our normal tabling time frame. Duly adopted this 19th day of July, 1995, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Green, Mr. Menter, Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Ford, Mr. Carvin NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Thomas" A letter from the Queensbury Planning Board, Site Plan Review Resolution regarding Leonardo Lombardo, Site Plan No. 28-94, Modification, dated July 25, 1995 Resolved: "MOTION TO RECOMMEND TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS THAT THE PLANNING BOARD WOULD APPROVE THIS SITE PLAN, Introduced by Timothy Brewer who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roger Ruel: Duly adopted this 25th day of July, 1995, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stark, Mr. Obermayer, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ruel, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Paling NOES: Mr. MacEwan (This motion refers to Lombardo)" Site Plan No. 28-94 Leonardo STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 36-1995, Leonardo Lombardo, Meeting Date: August 16, 1995 "This application was tabled at the July 19, 1995, ZBA meeting to receive input from the Planning Board regarding site-related concerns. A copy of the Planning Board response is attached. Staff maintain that the applicant can achieve this project without relief, as shown by his own drawings. Granting the full relief requested would be a significant departure from the 75' setback required in a Travel Corridor Overlay Zone, and a smaller variation from the 50 foot front setback normally required in any Highway Commercial zone. While input from the Planning Board is always helpful, the Zoning Board of Appeals does have different criteria concerning projects than the Planning Board is subject to." MR. RUCINSKI-I'm Ron Rucinski. Mr. Lombardo. I'm the architect representing MR. CARVIN-Okay. Is there anything that you'd care to add? MR. LOMBARDO-I pretty well beat it to death a month ago. I'm a little upset by the additional staff notes. At the Planning Board meeting, Staff said to the Planning Board they didn't really have a problem with this, and they did make the observation that if there is some break in the property line, in the front building line, they would be happier, and now here we are on the 16th of August and Staff is now saying there's still opposed to it. MS. CIPPERLY-Different Staff people. There's two differ~nt Staff people, and one worked the Planning Board and one worked the Zoning Board. MR. RUCINSKI-I would hope that the Planning Department for the Town of Queensbury spoke with one voice. Our position is the same as it was a month ago. If this Board could see it's way to approving the 50 foot, it would give the Planning Staff the break that they wanted in the building of about 10 feet. We'd be quite comfortable with that. My client is still very concerned that - 2 - ..,.,J ,.........", it's not very visible, that the addition is not visible to traffic either north or south bound, until it's too late for them to commit themselves to entering the curb cut. MR. CARVIN-Okay. gentlemen? Are there any questions of the applicant, MR. FORD-This is new as a result of working with the Planning Board? MR. RUCINSKI-This is exactly the same drawing we had a month ago. The underlay, the original drawing, was the drawing that was approved by the Planning Board a year ago. MR. ,FORD-Weren't there some modifications for the site for parking or something that I read in the minute~, a modification? MR. RUCINSKI-A Planning Board member a~ked that we do away ~ith this space, and we said we would. Again, this curb cut is gone. So that somebody southbound, by the time they see the addition, by the time they see the addition traveling southbound, they've passed it, or they've passed any available curb cut, and northbound they have a similar problem, because of the tree cover that we saved, at the request of the Beautification Committee, you can't really see the addition until you're right on top of it. MS. CIPPERLY-Why do you have to see the addition more so than the building that's already there? MR. RUCINSKI-Well, it's not like it was a strip mall with 15 or 20 stores and the mall itself was the destination. We're talking about two or perhaps three stores, so that individual identification to each store becomes important. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Could you show me on your drawing, there's going to be one curb cut or two, when all is said and done? MR. RUCINSKI-There's four now. When all is said and done, there will be two. MR. CARVIN-Okay, and where will they be, please? MR. RUCINSKI-There will be one access at the extreme north, and one access here in the middle. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Okay. Okay. Yes. Would this I see. be the entrance right here, then? MR. RUCINSKI-The entrance would be opposite this block of future stores. That will meet the 75 foot setback. We're not asking for those two to not meet it, and the other access will be here at the north end. MR. CARVIN-Okay, any other questions, gentlemen? remember whether I closed the public hearing or open the public hearing. Okay. I can't not, but I will PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENt PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. CARVIN-Okay. Gentlemen, any thoughts or comments? MR. FORD-I do have a question. If we could review once more, you mentioned in your brief presentation the 50 foot. Could you refer to that again? Are you referring to a 50 foot setback, rather than the 75? - 3 - ) MR. RUCINSKI-The normal setback, correct me if I'm saying this wrong, the normal setback in this zone would be 50 feet. There's an Overlay District, because of it being on Route 9, that is 75 feet, from the property line. The existing building is 40 feet from the property line at its closest point. The existing building, from the pavement line, is, traveling from memory, 65 or 70 feet, and the whole condition exists because of a State taking for highway expansion that they never used and never returned, and so whether we line this building up at the 40 odd foot setback line or set it back to the 50 foot setback line, the building would still be the distance from the pavement that is contemplated by the Ordinance. It's just that the property line's in an unusual location. MS. CIPPERLY-What you said about except for the, it says, shall be of the road right-of-way, which property line, also. the Ordinance was correct, setback 75 feet from the edge I think in this case is the MR. RUCINSKI-Yes. MS. CIPPERLY-So, it really doesn't have anything to do with the pav(~ment . MR. RUCINSKI-No, but normally the road right-of-way and property line are fairly close to the pavement. In this case, they're not. MR. FORD-So the proposal would be to have the new structure actually not directly in line, but setting back slightly, because you're going back the 50 feet. Is that correct? MR. RUCINSKI-We're comfortable with that, yes. MR. CARVIN-Okay. So, in other words, what you're saying is that you will move this back a little bit? MR. RUCINSKI-Yes. MR. CARVIN-Okay, and approximately how far back will that go? So it's going to come close to this original plan? MR. RUCINSKI-Well, it would be back in here. It would be about 10 feet back from the front of the existing building. MS. CIPPERLY-I believe your original plan there was 75 feet back from the property line, right? You made that conforming, the first one? MR. RUCINSKI-Yes. MR. CARVIN-Yes. That's what I thought. MS. CIPPERLY-So it's, say, 25 feet. I'1R. FORD-Closer. MS. CIPPERLY-Yes, which, as he said, about 10 feet back from the front of the building. MR. RUCINSKI-And that would be about 35 feet long, the violation. MR. CARVIN-Okay. I guess I'm confused now. MR. KARPELES-Neither one of those drawings is right, I guess. MR. CARVIN-Yes. MR. RUCINSKI-At this point, that's correct. - 4 - r ..... --- MR. CARVIN-Okay. The building originally was, reason that you can you tell me? wanted to square the MR. RUCINSKI-Our direct objective is to make the addition more visible from Route 9. MR. CARVIN-Okay. MR. RUCINSKI-And we've filed a variance lining it up with the existing building based on what other people on Route 9 have done and accomplished. MR. CARVIN-Okay, but now you feel you can move it back 10 feet? MR. RUCINSKI-If it moves it back 10 feet, that would still accomplish our objective of making the addition more visible. MR. CARVIN-Okay. plan will not. \Jis.ibility? Bringing it back the full, back to the original In other words, you think you're going to lose MR. RUCINSKI-Yes. We know we're going to lose visibility. MR. CARVIN-Of the addition or the total building, I guess is my question? MR. RUCINSKI-Of the addition. MS. CIPPERLY-And you're talking about traffic traveling south, because it would be visible for traffic going north. MR. RUCINSKI-Well, north it's screened by the trees, if it sets that far back. South, it's screened by the building if it's set back. The corner of this addition, at 75 foot setback, is at the rear corner of the existing building. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Now this new addition will have, you say, new retail, is that going to be a freestanding separate store, or will it have access off the larger? MR. RUCINSKI-No. It would be a freestanding separate store. MR. CARVIN-It will be? MR. RUCINSKI-Yes, in the fashion of a strip mall, not a courtyard mall. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Any idea of what kind of retail enterprise might go in there, or is that still kind of up in the air? MR. RUCINSKI-No, that's in the air. MR. CARVIN-Okay. For some reason I was under the impression, obviously mistaken, that this was going to be in conjunction with whatever activity was being conducted in the big building. That is incorrect? MR. RUCINSKI-Yes, right. I mean, obviously, tenant arrangements can change from time to time, but there's no expectation that the T-Shirt retailer that is there now would, we expect him to continue to be there, but we'd expect him to use only one third of the new building, which would give him an area approximately equal to what he's using now. MR. KARPELES-Which Planning Board, was one of these plans was presented there the one set back 10 feet? to the MR. CARVIN-No. MR. RUCINSKI-The bottom plan is the one that was presented to the - 5 - ----.. Planning Board, that were approved by the Planning Board. The original presentation to the Planning Board showed the 50 foot setback. MR. KARPELES-But the most recent presentation to the Planning Boa)"d? MR. RUCINSKI-You mean like two weeks ago? MR. KARPELES-Right. MR. RUCINSKI-Is the top one. It's the top one that the Planning Board said they had no problem with. MR. KARPELES-Okay. So when you move that back 10 feet, which is what you're now requesting, right? MR. RUCINSKI-Which I'm suggesting as a compromise. MR. KARPELES-Okay. MR. RUCINSKI-Would meet the Staff's objections aesthetically. MR. KARPELES-Well, I don't know whether that will or not, I haven't heard, but anyway, would you still sacrifice that parking space? MR. RUCINSKI-Yes. I was (lost word) to the Planning Board. MR. KARPELES-Yes, but that was on the other proposal. MS. CIPPERLY-It was on this one, Bob. MR. RUCINSKI-No. We said we'd do that. I mean, we can recover that parking place at the rear of the site. It's a minor thing. MR. CARVIN-I was going to say, that shouldn't be a problem. MR. KARPELES-Well, how does Staff feel about that now? MS. CIPPERLY-Well, another fairly recent case that you had was the LaMirage building, which was at 50 feet, and it wanted to expand out to the side, and it was at that 50 foot setback, and you granted that relief. This is asking to be at a 43 foot setback. So if you're trying to compare it to anything, this is asking for more than your most recent case on Route 9. I, personally, wouldn't have that big, I would just like to see it step back at least the 10 feet, at least to maintain that 50 foot setback which is normal to the zone, and he has had some difficulties here because of the taking by DOT for the Northway. My only other concern here would be the signage. Since he's going into a three or more business situation, the Sign Ordinance applies differently. So, that should be part of your thinking also, maybe part of your resolution. Right now, he has several signs for each business, and it should be one freestanding sign with, just like for a shopping plaza. People can have wall signs and people can have one freestanding sign with businesses listed on it. So, if he's willing to address that also, it would save us sending a Compliance person out. MR. MENTER-This is one piece of property. MR. CARVIN-Yes. MR. RUCINSKI-On the tax maps, it's three properties. agreed to consolidate it, when we finally get sorted out we're doing with these additions. I don't want to belabor issue of the signs, but the Planning Board approved this plan with the signs the way they are now. We've what the site - 6 - ..- '- MS. CIPPERLY-They don't approve signs. MR. RUCINSKI-And I know that the Planning Staff says that some of the signs are nonconforming. They certainly do not conform with the Ordinance. They preexist the Ordinance. The Building Department repeatedly tells my client that the signs are okay. That's an internal quandary that we have to deal with at some point some how, and I really don't think it's something that the Zoning Board has to get involved in. MS. CIPPERLY-I don't think, to date, it's been a problem, but if you're putting more businesses on there, it's going to require that you go into a different category of, in the sign. MR. RUCINSKI-We're prepared to do that when we build this next addition, and the Planning Board understands that. MS. CIPPERLY-Okay. MR. CARVIN-Okay, because there's, what, three businesses there now, right, the restaurant, is the miniature golf still going? MR. RUCINSKI-Yes. MR. CARVIN-And then the retail, right? MR. RUCINSKI-Yes. When this next addition, not the one that's before us tonight, when the next addition goes on, the miniature golf is gone, there'll be sign consolidation to conform with the current Ordinance. I don't think there's any question about that, but right now they're operating basically on three separate, as three separate businesses, more or less on three separate parcels of land, except property lines are on strange and wonderful places, and I can't explain to you how that happened. MR. CARVIN-Well, that kind of leads me to my What's the time frame on the consolidation here, these different phases? next question. or are all of MR. RUCINSKI-Well, the expectation is that this addition would be built starting in September, and if it's successful, the following September, the next addition would go in place, but that depends on the market place and his ability to finance it. MR. CARVIN-But there's really nothing, is there anything that is mandated that this has to happen? MR. RUCINSKI-No, to the contrary. The Planning Board specifically wanted another shot at looking at this addition. So they did not include it in their approvals. MR. CARVIN-So, conceivably, we could end up with two businesses on one parcel. Is that correct, as it would stand right now? MR. RUCINSKI-Yes. As it stands right now, there's a residence and three businesses on one parcel. MR. CARVIN-There's three businesses there now on one parcel. MR. RUCINSKI-On three parcels, technically. MR. CARVIN-You've got three parcels, but I'm just looking at your red building, and you say there's one business or two businesses there? MR. RUCINSKI-That's a single parcel. MR. CARVIN-Yes. I agree. - 7 - ( I '.-- MR. RUCINSKI-No, I mean, even by the tax maps, that's a single par cel . MR. CARVIN~Okay. business in there? Is there one business, there's only one MR. RUCINSKI-Yes. There was two. MR. CARVIN-Okay, but when you put this new addition on, you could conceivably have three businesses on one parcel? MR. RUCINSKI-Yes. MR. CARVIN-In which case, that's when we would have a problem? MS. CIPPERLY-Yes. MR. CARVIN-So, even though you've got two businesses with no, on one parcel now there's no problem, as far as the signage is concerned, but once that is, I think this is what Sue is trying to say, is that once that third business goes in there, even though it's on the one parcel, that's when you're going to have problems with your signs. MR. RUCINSKI-This parcel only has one sign. MR. CARVIN-As it stands right now. Yes. MR. RUCINSKI-Right. The other signs are on the other parcel, so to speak; MR. CARVIN-Bu't if you. had two businesses in there, they both would have individual signs, is that correct? MR. RUCINSKI-On the building, yes. MR. CARVIN-On the bu i 1 ding. MR. RUCINSKI-Or they would be identified on the street sign. MR. CARVIN-Yes. Well, that's what I'm saying is that once you get that third, then that kicks it over into a whole different situ.ation. MR. RUCINSKI-Yes, if it becomes three businesses. MR. CARVIN-Well, what you're telling me is that it's moving in that direction on the one parcel, and if that doesn't happen, then eventually the three parcels are going to be combined and, actually, you'll have probably five or six businesses there, or more? MR. RUCINSKI-Yes, ultimately, probably seven, ultimately. MR. CARVIN-And I guess my question is, there's nothing mandating the consolidation of the three lots, at this point. MR. RUCINSKI-We have agreed that we would do that, when we deal with this addition. MS. CIPPERLY-That was an agreement with the Planning Board? MR. RUCINSKI-Yes. MS. CIPPERLY-I don't mean to belabor the sign thing. MR. CARVIN-Yes, well, I think the sign thing eventually anyway, and I'm not quite sure we have to at this particular point. wi 11 happen address it - 8 - MR. RUCINSKI-Whenever we get around to addressing the sign, whenever that happens, we're going to be back before the Planning Board. We're also going to be back here because we have the same problem with the property lines again, that it's almost impossible to locate signs on that site, that would conform with the setback requirements. We've got signs that are gra,ndfathered. MR. CARVIN-Well, I'm Just thinking that, and again, I don't want to belabor the sign issue, but when you move it back, your visibility from the, well, heading south, will be somewhat obscured, is that correct, if that was a freestanding business? Going north on Route 9, it shouldn't be a problem, toward Lake George. MR. RUCINSKI-Going north on Route 9, you're coming up the hill, and with the tree cover on the left, the only thing you can see until you're right up on top of the hill is the existing sign, and then, bang, the building is there, and you're past the curb cut that the Planning Board asked us to close. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Well, I'm Just thinking several months down the road. That's all. Okay. MR. RUCINSKI-Coming south, you won't know there's an addition there until you're beyond it, or along side of it. MR. CARVIN-And unfortunately, there's nothing, the way configured, that signage almost becomes irrelevant, there's no place you can put a sign on there. that's because MR. RUCINSKI-There's almost no place you can put a legal sign on there, that would meet today's zoning, that would be useful from a marketing point of view. MR. FORD-I'd like to get back structure, the existing structure, closest point to the property line? to the setback. The current is how many feet back at the MR. RUCINSKI-At the closest point, which is this end, it's 32.45 feet. At this end, it's 41.75 feet. On the restaurant, the property line runs through the planting box. MR. FORD-At the closest point, then, if you were to drop the new structure back 10 feet, it would be some 51 plus feet, that would be the closest that it would be to the property line? MR. RUCINSKI-Yes. If we made it 50 feet property line is getting closer to Route you got to this back corner, it would mean, the buildings aren't parallel They're more or less parallel to Route line. back at this corner, the 9. So that by the time be somewhat further. I to the property line. 9, but not the property MR. FORD-But that southeast corner is 51. something feet, or, I'm sorry, 41. something feet? MR. RUCINSKI-The southeast existing corner? MR. FORD-Yes. MR. RUCINSKI-Yes. The southeast new corner would more than that, even if it lined up, because of lines running at an angle. be something the property MR. FORD-But what existing structure structure. you're proposing 10 feet deeper, is to drop back on and then start the t.he new MR. RUCINSKI-Yes. We'd be dropping back about to what we showed - 9 - there as a parking lot, well, no, a little further than that, to about there. So that this corner in here would be 50 feet. This corner here would be something greater than 50 feet. MR. FORD-So you're really not coming back 10 feet. You're coming back eight and change? MR. RUCINSKI-Yes, if come back the full 10 that, either. One about. we make it the 50 feet. If you want it to feet, I'm not going to argue with you about foot, four inches, that's tough to argue MR. FORD-Yes. identify. I'm not trying to argue. I'm just trying to MR. RUCINSKI-Yes. something clear. I understand. You're just trying to get MR. FORD-To make sure that we have it very clear in our minds what we're talking about. MR. GREEN-I think we've been through this enough. problem with having the 50 feet or the 51 feet, want to go, 10 feet off the corner. I don't have a or wha tever ~"'e MR. MENTER-I think that, I was looking at it. I think there is enough of a hinderance to justify a variance of a certain degree. I guess taking it to the 50 feet would be probably reasonable, particularly coming from the south, from both directions. I can see where there is something of a visibility problem which may turn into a safety issue. MR. KARPELES-It looks like it's a suitable compromise, as far as I'm concerned, the 50. MR. FORD-Not the 50, 10 feet back, from that building, which brings it back, actually, 51 and change. MR. GREEN-Fifty-one and change. MR. THOMAS-I have one comment and one question. The comment is, I like the idea of closing two of those four curb cuts. I think that will help the traffic around there a lot, rather than having people darting in and out. My question is, have you approached the State of New York to buy or try and get back that piece of property they took back in the, probably late 40's, early 50's? MR. RUCINSKI-Yes. I did talk with the local DOT office, that must be three years ago. That's almost impossible for him to do, I mean at any kind of reasonable cost. It's just the lawyer's fees and the nonsense you have to go through. MR. THOMAS-I've seen it done twice along that road, farther north, once in Warrensburg and once in Chestertown. MR. RUCINSKI-Yes. Well, it. Nobody's complaining. they Just said to me, the guy's using It's all right. Don't rock the boat. MR. THOMAS-Because that could help your signage in the future. MR. RUCINSKI-Yes. MR. THOMAS-Because right now your sign does sit on State Highway property, and like we talked about before, when you come back for those signs, you're going to have a real tap dance, but I like the idea of moving it back 50 foot from the existing property line, and I have no problem with that. MR. CARVIN-Okay. I just have one question. Does this go back to the PI~nning Board? - 10 - _._._-_._-~ - MR. RUCINSKI-Yes. MR. CARVIN-It does. MR. MENTER-It's supposed to go for Site Plan, right, the full SEQRA? MR. RUCINSKI-Yes. MS. CIPPERLY-Yes, you sent it to the Planning Board for a recommendation, but it still has to go. MR. CARVIN-Yes. That's what I thought I read, that it actually has to go back there with the final plan. Okay. All right. Then I would ask for a motion, if nobody's got a problem with it. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 36-1995 LEONARDO LOMBARDO, Introduced by Fred Carvin who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: The applicant is proposing to construct an addition to an existing nonconforming retail building. In order for him to accomplish this project, he needs relief from Section 179-28, which refers to the Travel Corridor Overlay Zone. requiring a building setback of 75 feet from the edge of the roadright-of- way. and Section 179-23, Highway Commercial Zone, which requires a front setback of 50 feet from the property line. I would grant relief from Section 179-28, a Travel Corridor Overlay. I would grant relief of 23.25 feet of relief from Section 179-28. However, there will be no relief from Section 179-23, which is the 50 feet from the property line. By granting this relief, the benefit to the applicant would be that he'd be able to construct the addition and still maintain a high degree of visibility for the new addition for any future tenants, while at the same time preserving and protecting the safety and health and welfare of the public. The applicant could build the addition conforming with the 75 feet. However, due to the unusual nature and make up of the lot, it would probably have a detrimental effect for a new business trying to establish its location there. After extensive review by the Planning Board and this Board, there does not appear to be any major effects on the neighborhood or the community, and by the applicant agreeing to reduce the number of entrances from four down to two will go a long ways in avoiding any traffic congestion. As far as this relief being self- created, there seems to be a balancing between the needs of the applicant and some general difficulties resulting from the land taking by DOT back a number of years ago when the Northway was established. The applicant has also indicated that upon need any applicable Sign Ordinances will be addressed at some point in the future. Duly adopted this 16th day of August, 1995, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Green, Mr. Menter, Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Ford, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Carvin NOES: NONE MR. RUCINSKI-Thank you. MR. CARVIN-Thank you. Just for any late comers, if you are here for Area Variance No. 48-1995, Alfred Kristensen, that application has had some flaws, as far as advertising, and will not be heard tonight, but will be heard on August the 31st. So, again, if anyone's here for the Kristensen application, that one has been postponed until the 31st. Okay. AREA VARIANCE NO. 39-1995 OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE TYPE II MR-5 64 MINNESOTA BRUCE & LINDA BREAULT AVENUE MOBILE HOME - 11 - APPLICANT PROPOSES TO INSTALL A 24-FOOT DIAMETER ABOVE-GROUND POOL AND SEEKS RELIEF FROM SECTION 179-67, WHICH REQUIRES A SETBACK OF 20 FEET FROM THE REAR PROPERTY LINE AND 10 FEET FROM THE SIDE LOT LINE AND ANY PRINCIPAL OR ACCESSORY STRUCTURE. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO PLACE THE POOL APPROXIMATELY TWO FEET FROM THE SIDE LOT LINE AND THREE FEET FROM THE HOUSE. TAX MAP NO. 127-1-14 LOT SIZE: 0.16 ACRES SECTION 179-67 BRUCE BREAULT, PRESENT MR. CARVIN-And this one was a tabled swimming pool. MR. THOMAS-"The Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals has reviewed the following request at the below stated meeting, and has resolved the following: Meeting Date: July 26, 1995 MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 39-1995 BRUCE & LINDA BREAULT, Introduced by Fred Carvin who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Karpeles: I'd like to table this for additional information as to the actual siting of the pool over the septic system, and also allow Staff an opportunity to go out and visit the site and see if there are any viable alternatives, or feasible alternatives, to the siting of this pool, and also, if there's any feasible alternatives or suggestions about placing the pool approximately three feet from the rear of the house, with emphasis on the septic. Duly adopted this 26th day of July, 1995, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Ford, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Green, Mr. Carvin NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Menter STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 39-1995, Bruce & Linda Breault, Meeting Date: August 16, 1995 "Additional Staff Notes: Bruce & Linda Breault - AV 39-1995 This application was tabled in order that the applicant could check out alternatives for the pool location and check the actual location of the septic tank. Mr. Breault called to inform staff that he had been advised that his pool frame could be reduced to a 16-foot diameter size, and that he would only have to buy a different liner. This would place the pool at least 6 feet from the rear of the house, and at least 2 feet from the property line. Mr. Breault dug up the septic tank, and found that the proposed 16 foot diameter pool would be several feet away from the nearest side of the septic tank. Staff visited the site and confirmed Mr. Breault's findings. The smaller pool will improve the distance from the house. Where a 2-foot separation was proposed, a minimum of 6 \lÚ 11 now OCCU)-." MR. CARVIN-Okay. Mr. Breault, is there anything that you'd care t.o add? MR. BREAULT-Only one thing. It's not 16 feet, it's 18, from a 24 foot pool t.o an 18 foot. MS. CIPPERLY-Okay. MR. CARVIN-Okay_ Will it still be six feet from the house? MR. BREAULT-Yes. MS. CIPPERLY-He laid the frame out on the ground, when I went out t.o look at it, it. was at least six feet from the house. So it was an 18 foot frame. - 12 - -- MR. FORD-And how many feet from the edge of the septic? It says several here. I'm just interested in a little closer. MR. GREEN-About three feet off it, wasn't it? MR. BREAULT-About three, three and a half feet away from the E;eptic system. MR. CARVIN-Okay. .leachfie.ld? It is not sitting over the septic or the MR. BREAULT-No. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Now, this was going to be a couple of feet off the property line~ wasn't it, if memory serves me correct? MR. MENTER-How many, now, from the side? MS. CIPPERLY-Stil.l it's two. What's really changed distance from the house has increased a bit, and it's the septic tank. is the not over MR. CARVIN-I was going to say, we don't have any original staff notes, right? This is the only staff notes we have on this? MR. THOMAS-Right. MR. CARVIN-Okay. So the 20 feet, we're going to, what's the figures on this? This is going to be sitting real close to the property line, isn't it? MR. MENTER-Two feet. MR. FORD-Two feet. It's remaining the same. MR. CARVIN-So we're going to need eight feet from the side. Okay, and from the back. They're going to have 20 feet from the back, the rear line? MR. BREAULT-Yes, that should make it 20 foot. MS. CIPPERLY-Yes. The side requirement is at least 10 feet from the side. So he's asking for eight feet of relief on the side. MR. CARVIN-Okay, yes, but he should be okay from the rear. He'd have 20 feet there. MS. CIPPERLY-Yes. I don't think, that wasn't the problem. It was just the side and the separation to the house. MR. CARVIN-Yes. Well, I guess that's what I'm asking is will he have the 20 feet and still have six or eight feet from the house, or are we going to take from one to give to the other? Because I've got a real poor map here. It's hard to tell. MR. GREEN-Is there a distance that he's supposed to be off the house? MS. CIPPERLY-He's supposed to be 10 feet, between the house. MR. BREAULT-The problem with that was I had a shed there at one time, and the shed (lost words) the house. MR. CARVIN-Well, from what I remember that shed is only partial bu i 1 t, is it? MR. BREAULT-Yes. It's just the frame. I've got a huge tarp I use. - 13 - MR. CARVIN-It's not inconceivable that that pool could be moved back and that shed be adjusted. MR. BREAULT-Well, there's a cement slab there, too. There's more involved than just tearing down the framework. MS. CIPPERLY-It's an 18 foot pool now, right? MR. BREAULT-Right. MR. CARVIN-All right, but can we move it back the 10 feet? So what you're saying is if he goes with an 18 foot, we still could have one or two feet to play with here, if this is correct. See, I want to get it back away from the house as far as possible. MR. FORD-The further you move it back, the closer it gets to that side Ii ne . MR. BREAULT-Yes, because the line runs at an angle. MR. CARVIN-It's not a perfect world. MS. CIPPERLY-Yes, if you're trying to avoid the septic tank here. This is going to come out like that about two feet. MR. CARVIN-So it would be in actually a little bit more, then, because he's losing four feet of pool, is that right? MR. BREAULT-I'm losing six feet, but the six feet I'm losing was to get away from the one side only for the septic system. MR. CARVIN-Okay. So you're shifting the whole thing. MR. BREAULT-Right. I'm still hugging the property line, just to get it back up. MR. CARVIN-Okay. MS. CIPPERLY-I don't think you're going to do any better on the side, and then there's that st}"ucture the,·e. MR. CARVIN-All right. So we'll give him, what, two feet of relief from the 10 foot on the house? MS. CIPPERLY-I didn't measure it, but it looked more like six than eight. MR. CARVIN-Because he's going to need relief from that. MR. FORD-Mr. Breault, have you laid out the structure there now, the pool structure? MR. BREAULT-Yes. Well, all I laid out was the rim on the bottom. MR. FORD-And have you taken an actual measurement from that to the edge of the closest point on the house? MR. BREAULT-Well, there was a back porch I had, remember, one of you guys had mentioned taking a look at it, it was so close to the back porch, and I was trying to get that six feet away from there and then away from the septic system as well. I already had three from the house. MR. FORD-Did you actually take a measurement? MR. BREAULT-No, I didn't. MR. FORD-Between the ring and where the porch is now? MR. BREAULT-No, I didn't. - 14 - MR. CARVIN-Well, it sort of makes a difference when you're trying to grant relief here, doesn't it? MS. CIPPERLY-Well, you're going to be foot. he can't closer. really move it this way, because You're going to be more like one MR. CARVIN-Well, we can give him two from the side. That's not a problem. MS. CIPPERLY-I think, from here you're going to have to give him the four feet of relief, because I don't think he can get it. I don't think he's got eight. MR. CARVIN-All right. I can't remember if I closed the public hearing. If not, I'm going to open the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. CARVIN-Okay, gentlemen, any final questions or thoughts? Okay. Then I would ask for a motion. Before you make your motion, the only thing I would like to point out is that, if you can get more than six or seven feet from the house, I'd like to try to get you as far from the house as possible. MR. BREAULT-I'll push it back as far as I possibly can. MR. CARVIN-Okay. It shouldn't be any larger than 18 feet, and no deck around it. MR. BREAULT-No. I have no deck. MR. CARVIN-Okay. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 39-1995 BRUCE & LINDA BREAULT, Introduced by David Menter who moved for its adoption, seconded by William Green: Property at 64 Minnesota Ave. Applicant is proposing to install an 18 foot diameter above ground pool. Seeking relief from Section 179-67, which requires a side yard setback of 10 feet. Applicant also seeks relief from the 10 foot setback requirement from a building. The applicant's proposing to place the pool approximately two feet from the side lot line and no less than six feet from the rear of the house. Relief granted, then, would be eight feet from Section 179-67 on the side. Also, relief of four feet from Section 179-67 as it applies to the pool distance from the rear of the house. The applicant has reduced the size of the pool in order to limit the relief needed. The unique configuration of the rear of his lot makes it extremely difficult to locate any type of pool within the zone setbacks. There appears to be no negative input from neighbors and no detrimental effect at all to the immediate community, and no danger to the health, safety and welfare of the immediate community, either. The applicant is asked to increase as much as possible from the six foot yard setback distance between the house and the pool, six foot being the minimum, but a greater setback would be desired if it will fit, maintaining the 20 foot rear setback. In addition, the applicant has agreed not to place any additional decking or structure around the pool other than a ladder for ingress and egress from the pool. Duly adopted this 16th day of August, 1995, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Ford, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Green, Mr. Menter, - 15 - Mr. C¿,H V in NOES: NONE NEW BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 51-1995 TYPE II SFR-1A GORDON & CAROL STOCKMAN OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE 98 AVIATION ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT A TWO-CAR DETACHED GARAGE AT A SIDE SETBACK OF FIVE FEET AND SEEKS RELIEF FROM SECTION 179-20, SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONE, WHICH REQUIRES A SIDE SETBACK OF 20 FEET. TAX MAP NO. 82-4-3 LOT SIZE: 0.421 ACRES SECTION 179-20 GORDON AND CAROL STOCKMAN, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 51-1995, Gordon & Carol Stockman, Meeting Date: August 16, 1995 "Applicant: Gordon & Carol Stockman Project Location: 98 Aviation Road Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to construct a two-car detached garage. Conformance with the Ordinance: Applicant proposes a side setback of five feet and seeks relief from Section 179-20, Single Family Residential zone, which requires a side setback of 20 feet. Criteria for considering an Area Variance, according to Chapter 267, Town Law 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be able to line her garage up with the existing driveway. 2. Feasible alternatives: While there are alternatives in siting this garage, placement of the garage and a driveway in a conforming location would have an undesirable impact on the backyard. It may be that the amount of setback could be increased somewhat. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance? The relief sought is 75% of the requirement. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community? The applicant has supplied statements from neighbors in support of this project. 5. Is this difficulty self-created? The placement of the existing house and driveway create the difficulty. Staff Comments and Concerns: No further comment. SEQR: Type II, no further action required." MR. THOMAS-And we don't have anything from Warren County. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Mr. and Mrs. Stockman, is there anything that you'd care to add? MR. STOCKMAN-No, not directly. We've got some nice birch trees right there. If we don't keep (lost words) drivewa~ right there, we'd have to chop them down. MRS. STOCKMAN-You make an S turn before you get into the garage. MR. CARVIN-Okay. As I remember the property, there's a fence or something you kind of drive through? MRS. STOCKMAN-I think that's the neighbor's hedgeway. MR. CARVIN-It seems to me, you've got a playground in the back of yours? MRS. STOCKMAN-Yes. MR. CARVIN-Okay. There's a driveway, it's just, and you're proposing to put that directly at the end of your driveway? MRS. STOCKMAN-There would be plenty of room in the back for play area. If it goes by five feet, I have a two foot lean over, before I start, and then there's the two foot more before you can start your footings. MR. FORD-That string that's laid out on the property now, what - 16 - ---.-------- does that constitute? MRS. STOCKMAN-That's the property line. MR. STOCKMAN-Originally, we got property just like the rest of you have been talking tonight, like that. MRS~ STOCKMAN-Pie shaped. MR. STOCKMAN-But that we acquired from the Deighbor~sp,It was to straight~3n the li'f:le, ;pretty .much, to Aviation Road. \.-Ie did, this a few years ago. So you wouldn't have to hug your house. You could drive in parallel to it, not have to be right up squeezed, because you do have snow in the winter time also. MR. FORD-By your count, how many structures are on your property right now? MRS. STOCKMAN-A house, a shed, and an empty house right next to it. MR. MENTER-Now is that on, as you face the house, to the left, is the one you're talking about, ,-ight? MRS. STOCKMAN-There's a vacant house to the left. MR. MENTER-A cottage there. ii MRS. STOCKMAN-And the lean-to building is the back is going to be taken down, because whatever's in there, that's what's going to be put for storage. MR. FORD-And area there. what about on Were there not the back property, back by some structures there? the bay MRS. STOCKMAN-You mean the green shed, the green storage building that's on cement blocks? MR. FORD-Yes. MRS. STOCKMAN-Yes. That's a building, but it's not, I thought they said something of a structure that couldn't be moved. MR. CARVIN-Are you counting the metal shed, too? MRS. STOCKMAN-My son-in-law put that up for storage, because they were going to be traveling. MR. CARVIN-Okay. MRS. CIPPERLY-You don't currently have a garage to put your cars into? MRS. STOCKMAN-No. MR. CARVIN-Okay. The structure that'~ very close to your house, that's white, is that a residence or a house, or is that just a storage or what is that little structure? MRS. STOCKMAN-That used to be a house that they lived in. No one lives there now. There's just stuff stored in there. MR. MENTER-Is that completely on your property? MRS. STOCKMAN-His mother lives next door. (lost word) her house. They put an addition on it years and years ago, and it's a little bit on her property and a little bit on my property, more of the house is on my property than on hers. MR. MENTER-I was just curious. - 17 - MR. FORD-The storage area directly back of your deck, off the back of your house, that is going to be demolished? MRS. STOCKMAN-That's coming down. MR. FORD-Has any consideration been given to the placement of your garage in that location? MRS. STOCKMAN-That would take it right behind my house. MR. CARVIN-And it would take out the whole lawn. MR. FORD-You'd come back out and take a left to go into the garage, and give you turning space as well. With this, you're going to have to find some place to turn around, aren't you, with the garage placed where you're proposing? MRS. STOCKMAN-I don't think I've got room for that, to come back, to swing back to where the existing lean-tb is right now, where you put that extra piece of cement (lost words), but if I put the garage square back right where the existing building is now, I wouldn't have any back yard, and I'd probably have to take down six white birch trees. MR. GREEN-Yes. The birch trees are right on the westerly side of the building. MRS. STOCKMAN-It's all the way around that building. There's six of them. MR. STOCKMAN-It would be to the east side of it. MR. CARVIN-Well, this storage building is coming down at some point, isn't it? MR. FORD-This one's coming down. MR. CARVIN-Yes. So, I mean, that would increase, see my, plus there's a metal shed over here, a playground. MR. FORD-There's a couple of storage sheds, I believe, that are not on the map. MR. CARVIN-Has there been any thought about maybe converting that structure that's next to your house to a garage? Is that a feasible situation? MR. STOCKMAN-No, it's old. MRS. STOCKMAN-The beams are rotten. MR. CARVIN-I'm just wondering aesthetically, up in that area, lack of a better term. if that would fit better, as opposed to that house, for MR. STOCKMAN-It's nearly as big as the garage would be. If you put the garage in, as you drive in, to the left of the birch trees, don't forget, we've got snow there in the winter. I'll be pushing it over to my neighbor's. It's my mother's now, but what about some other time? It would keep to the right, if I pushed it toward Glens Falls. It would still be on me. You back out of the garage, back toward Glens Falls and turn right and drive right out. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Well, my understanding would be your driveway comes straight, and then it's going to run right along the side of the house, is that correct? MR. STOCKMAN-Yes, toward the mountain. - 18 - ~ MR. CARVIN-Okay, and your turn area will probably, well, I guess your driveway would look something like this, so that you would have a turn area here to turn around to drive back through, as opposed to backing down it. Okay. Do you anticipate blacktopping that, do you, or will that remain as dirt? MRS. STOCKMAN-All cement. MR. STOCKMAN-Maybe, in a future time. I'm retiring in a couple of years. I don't know how the money's going to be there either. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Any other questions, gentlemen? MR. THOMAS-No, I'm set for now. MR. CARVIN-Okay. I'd like to open up the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. CARVIN-Any correspondence? MR. THOMAS-Yes. "We, Carol and Gordon Stockman, residing at 98 Aviation Road are applying for a variance five feet off our property line to construct a two-car detached garage. Below we have obtained signatures from our closest neighbors and have informed them of our intentions for this application. Bert Harvey, 94 Aviation Rd., Queensbury Comment: No problem; Phillip J. Mazzone, 99 Aviation Road Comment: No problem; Victor LeFebvre, 80 Aviation Road Comment: Should not cause problems for anyone" PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. CARVIN-Okay. Any questions or comments? MR. GREEN-My only concern is the idea of alternatives. It's a pretty big back yard. It's feasibly possible to put it some place other than encroaching on the side setback. My first reaction, when I walked back there, why has it got to be right over there? Maybe that's where you would like to put it, but if we can, I don't see a problem why you couldn't reconfigure it somehow and meet the 20 feet, maybe put it lengthwise, ~Jhere you would come in and turn left into the garage or something. I just think there's an awful lot of space back there to work with. I don't see why we can't meet the 20 feet. MRS. STOCKMAN-If I put 20 feet over, it's going to take down the white birches. MR. GREEN-Go further out behind. MRS. STOCKMAN-Go back to the fence? MR. GREEN-Whatever, as I work with at this point. said, I think there's too much room to That's my major concern. MRS. STOCKMAN-I have a play area back there. MR. MENTER-Do you use that area immediately behind the house for parking? I mean. as you come in now, it looks like. MRS. STOCKMAN-You're driving right up to my deck. MR. MENTER-Yes. That's what I mean. You drive right around the corner and park right in there. MRS. STOCKMAN-And that way we have to plow, take the snow plow and cover the whole yard instead of just the driveway. There's never going to be any lawn or grass there. It's all sand. - 19 - _/ MR. FORD-But that's what's existing, right. MRS. STOCKMAN-That's what exists now. The driveway and the whole yard is sand. That's why I want to put the garage there and put grass on one side. MR. FORD-But they come out by your house and turn left and go right back of the house all the way over to the deck and beyond nOlrJ. MR. GREEN-That would be a great place for a garage. MR. FORD-Come down the driveway, turn left back of your house, go back, at least out as far as your deck to the back of the small house beyond your residence. MRS. STOCKMAN-You mean the existing lean-to that's back there now, take that out and put a new garage there? MR. FORD-No. I'm saying that's the way that, that's a traffic pattern that exists right now. MRS. STOCKMAN-Only because that's the only place you coUld go. MR. FORD-You could go anywhere. MRS. STOCKMAN-I mean, I can't just drive in. MR. FORD-That whole back yard was open, and yet someone came out and drove around the back of your house over by the deck and were parked out there back of the little house to the left of your residence. MR. STOCKMAN-My daughter's car when I got home. We don't park it where there's going to be anywhere that somebody's going to, I've done it, back into somebody else. It could happen, to you or me or anyone, if it's sitting out of the way. MRS. STOCKMAN-If I have the driveway straight ahead, into the garage, I'm not going to be using that, this dry space, and all I'll have to do is plow the driveway. MR. STOCKMAN-Clost word) the room that's there. The weather condition, year round pattern could use a little thought. I have a jeep there, 1948, that's going to run forever, just like you and I are going to, it's going to push it over that way, and not to my neighbor's. I'm utilizing Clost words). My mother is next door. That may not always be. MR. FORD-Just as you say, nothing is forever, and some day someone else is going to own that adjoining property to you, and they may not appreciate a garage five feet off the property line. MR. STOCKMAN-There's nothing else out there. If you've seen the work we've done in the last 10 years. We had pine trees that were this big, and my son and I, we loaded the log trucks with stumps and logs to get it out of there. It used to be huge pine trees. They've been cleared off pretty good so we would have property that wasn't filled with large timber. MR. MENTER-Well, it seems to me like if the existing storage building, the 30 by 18 storage building over by the birch trees is going to be gone, that is essentially behind the deck. That, then, becomes open all the way to the back, doesn't it, and it just seems like, you could mitigate the relief that you need, you could lessen the relief that you need by moving this in, and you really wouldn't be sacrificing a lot. You're going to have a little bit of an US" going into the garage, rather than going straight in down the property line. You're going to have a little bit of an "5", but I don't see where that's a big problem, - 20 - ----------.---.---- --"" "'-.- snow removal or driving anyway, seeing that, as it is, you're using the area directly behind the house, and even between the house and the storage building as sort of a traffic area, and you'd be using a little bit of it that, maybe, as a turn around and treat it however you want, with concrete or even just leave it as sand, so you're backing up into that area and leaving, which is what you're going to be doing anyway, MRS. STOCKMAN-Yes, but it's not anywhere where the white birch is going to be. The thing of it is, I have a back yard there. I mean, you could put a picnic table. MR. MENTER-I'm not talking about removing the white birches, but I think we could move it substantially away from the property line, because you are going to be gaining something with that storage building being removed, in terms of back yard, that you don't have right now. MS. CIPPERLY-So, Dave, you're saying keep it on the, essentially the right hand side of the lot, but move it in from the lot line? MR. MENTER-Yes. I would look at that. MR. CARVIN-I was going to say, we've had driveways going down the side of mountains. So I don't think it's going to be a real challenge. MR. MENTER-Well, no, not in terms of, you know, I don't see snow removal and difficulty of getting in and out as being a big issue here. In fact, it may be easier because you may be able to take your snow and b,-ing it right in, you know, between the building and the property line. MR. GREEN-Turn the garage, like, side ways, maybe. thought, if you want to leave it forward. That was my MR. MENTER-I'm just kicking around ideas here, but it seems to me like, I certainly would feel more comfortable if you did something to lessen the relief, because 75 percent is substantial, and I think you have to look at the fact. that you are going to be opening up the other side of the back yard with that storage building gone, because that's all going to be open. From your deck to the back of your yard is now going to be open, which with that storage building, it isn't. MR. STOCKMAN-In other words, when immediately 90 degrees to the left? Is you turn in to drive that what you're saying? MR. MENTER-No. I'm saying keep the building as it is, only move it directly off the, just move it off the property line. Okay. This is Aviation. Just move the building this way, so your entrance to it would be like this. You'd be coming like this and going into it. You'd still have room to back out. This would all be open back here. MR. STOCKMAN-In other words, move it back and to the left? MR. MENTER-Not necessarily back, þut to the left. If you'd like, you can come up here. I mean, what I'm kind of thinking about is, as it is now, the drive comes in like this, and you're looking to go straight into it here. MRS. STOCKMAN-Yes. It looks like it would be right there, but when he measured it, it's way over by the, when it's 20 feet, it's way over here by this here part. So when you're coming in the driveway, you come around here and then entering the garage, at 20 feet. MR. MENTER-Okay. If we go to 20 feet here, you're saying that there's going to be a real big left/right to get into it. - 21 - ( MRS. STOCKMAN-Right. MR. MENTER-That's going to be unmanageable. MR. THOMAS-Just turn it 90 degrees, rather than doing an "5" tur n. MR. FORD-How about putting the back of it up somewhat close to the birch trees? Would you consider that? MR. GREEN-Make the front of the garage here, and you can have a back door out to your deck, and then you come out in back here and you go out that way. MRS. STOCKMAN-And the doorway's this way? MR. THOMAS-Yes. MR. MENTER-See, basically, what I'm saying is that, I understand you're trying to maintain the back yard, but we, if this building is gone, you're actually picking up something here, in terms of maintaining of some back yard. MRS. STOCKMAN-We've got, white birches are right around this building like this. Okay. So when this building comes down, I have some slate blocks over here. I was going to put the slates down here and we'll have our picnic table so we could at least eat outside here. We don't always use the deck. So this, here, ~.Jas goi ng to be. MR. MENTER-How much space is there, would you say, and where the birches you were just talking about? any idea? between here Do you have MRS. STOCKMAN-Went over 20, we'd only have another eight feet. MR. MENTER-Actually, I should be able to figure this out, right? You're at 50 feet minus 31. So you should be at 19 feet. There should be 19 feet to here, minus whatever the birches are. MRS. STOCKMAN-These trees, they've got branches that come over. It's not just a little circle. I mean, they reach over that way. That's why he said, if you come at 20 feet, you'd have to cut most of these down because you wouldn't be able to put the roof on because all the branches hanging over. MR. KARPELES-Well, is there somewhere between five feet and twenty feet that you could live with? I mean, we're supposed to grant minimum relief. So, five feet is 75 percent relief. Ten feet is 50 percent relief. If we could move over 10 or 15 feet and live with that, and maybe we could grant that. MRS. STOCKMAN-I just put it five feet because I didn't much they would allow you, because I know I've got that hang over, plus the two foot beyond that before you footings in. So that's another four foot. So that would foot before you could put a building in, not five foot. live with 10 feet. know how tvJO foot put the be nine I could MR. MENTER-Okay. Well, that was just mz thought on it. Maybe someone's got a different spin on this thing. MRS. STOCKMAN-So, do you allow 50 percent? MR. KARPELES-Well, that all depends on whether we agree upon it or not. MR. MENTER-Yes. It's not a question of what we allow. MR. KARPELES-We're more likely to allow 50 percent than we are 75 - 22 - -' '- percent. Lets put it that way. MRS. STOCKMAN-Well, I know he put some blue paint marks where it would be, just to show me how much room there would be. MR. STOCKMAN-Just a question. What would happen if somebody said, okay, we've gone over another five and made that ten. Now we're going to, just to keep a little more for ourselves, we're going to make this 24 now instead of 26. Then what happens? MR. MENTER-Then you're only 24 instead of 26. MR. STOCKMAN-I know, but it somebody else going to come along and say you've got to have a whole new set of plans, and different kinds of things? MR. MENTER-Well, the Building Department may. have to tell them about the change. You may want that, but we're only concerned about how far it is of the property. You "'Jou.ld just ask them about from the side MR. STOCKMAN-Okay. Well, that would be ffiZ question. If that was changed, this was changed and we changed that, too, to conform a little bit. MR. MENTER-That would not be a big issue, but you would want to notify them about that. MRS. STOCKMAN-To tell you the truth, I don't think I'd change the 26 by 30, because we need it for storage. The other building is coming down, and I'd have some place to put stu.ff, and then there's the building next door. Stuff has got to come out of there. MR. KARPELES-These letters from your neighbors. Was one of the neighbors on this side here? MRS. STOCKMAN-Right next door, as you drove in the driveway, it's on the right. MR. KARPELES-They're the ones that say no problem with this. Right? MRS. STOCKMAN-Yes, Harvey. MR. FORD-Is that the uncle? MR. STOCKMAN-Yes, my uncle Bert Harvey, and my mother's the one that lives on, towards Glens Falls from me. My grandfather owned that from there to Owen Avenue, on his side, years and years ago. MR. MENTER-Do you guys have any good ideas? MR. THOMAS-Right now the proposed garage is about 48 feet from the house. That's an awful long way to have a garage from a house. I was kicking it around with Fred and Tom over here, and came up with the idea of maybe putting the garage right directly behind the house, because they're 19 feet 9 inches, almost 20 feet off the property line there. There's 20 feet that they could swing a car into a garage directly behind the garage. It's possible to put a 26 by 30 garage behind the house, and not interfere with the deck, if they kept it off the house like 10 feet. Then they'd have a whole back yard with nothing there, if that storage building is going. There wouldn't be the 720 square feet, or whatever it is, where that new garage is proposed. It would be tight to the house. Easy entrance, access to the house from the garage, easy to back into, easy to drive into, easy to back out of because they'll have 20 feet between there and the property line, back right around, right down the driveway to Aviation Road. Plow right straight off the road and right across - 23 - the apron, right into the back yard. MR. CARVIN-So, I guess, essentially, what they're doing now. MR. STOCKMAN-You can see out our kitchen window and see what's going on around the neighborhood, see what's happening in your own back yard, instead of that garage sitting right in the vision of your own back yard. MR. THOMAS-Well, you have to make sacrifices here. MRS. STOCKMAN-Now we'd have to go behind the back of the garage in order to have a picnic? MR. THOMAS-You could come off the deck. There's an entrance to the house off the deck, isn't there? MRS. STOCKMAN-Off the side of the deck. MR. THOMAS-Yes, off the deck, but there's an entrance on the deck into the house. MRS. STOCKMAN-Into the house. MR. THOMAS-Yes, right. You could come out that way. MRS. STOCKMAN-But as far as back yard picnic's or anything. The reason I wanted to move it over a little bit was so I could have a back yard, some kind of a view other than just a garage. MR. THOMAS-Yes. Well, they were looking for ideas. cast in concrete, but it's an idea. So it's not MR. FORD-In other idea, if that big storage area is coming down, and as it exists right now, I think by your own count, you have four storage structures on your property as it exists now, and at least one of those would be coming down, that large one over by the birches. Did you give consideration to putting the back of the garage fairly close to those birches? MRS. STOCKMAN-Turning my garage half a turn you mean? MR. FORD'-Yes. MRS. STOCKMAN-And as you come out, you're toward the neighbors? MR. FORD-Yes. You come in, down the driveway, no further than you are now, make a left turn, sooner or later somebody's going to have to make a turn, either before they go in to the garage or when they come out of the garage to drive back out of the driveway. So you'd come in and make a left hand turn into the garage. You'd back out and drive down the driveway. Was that considered? MRS. STOCKMAN-Well, no, because it's put my garage a half a turn instead of facing (lost word) my house. I mean, I wouldn't mind, if it was attached to the house, you don't mind coming in that kind of an entrance. I've got my house rectangular here, and then I've got my garage over here, facing the other way. MR. CARVIN-I guess, am I hearing a consensus that to be other alternatives here, and that, and again, straw polling, that the Board is not enamored with of relief, or the five foot setback here? there appears I'm kind of a the five foot MR. MENTER-I would say that's accurate. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Well, our choices are as follows. We can either re-draw this, to the detriment of all the other folks waiting here. We can turn this down and have them come back, or - 24 - -_._._..~ - we can table this. So, I'm going to ask for a suggestion. How would the Board like to move on this? How would the applicant like to move on it? MRS. STOCKMAN-I would take 10 feet, if that's feasible. MR. GREEN-I just think that there's too many options that you can do it without even going on the 20, personally, without even encroaching on the 20 feet, or setting it back to 19, nine whatever. I think there's just too many options that you could accomplish it without a variance. Let me put it that way. MR. FORD-I agree. We can put it to a vote if you want. MR. CARVIN-I think that there's other alternatives here, and as I said, I don't want to really bog down in designing this here tonight. MR. GREEN-I don't think it's our position to re-design it. MR. CARVIN-No. So I'm going to eliminate the re-designing. So that we either move on this, or we can table it if the applicant wishes to consider other alternatives. We can table this for up to 60 days, and that way maybe you can sit down with the Planning Department and maybe look at some other alternatives from this and maybe come up with some accurate figures. MRS. STOCKMAN-Does that mean I can have it 20 feet, and go (lost word) and not get a variance? MR. CARVIN-You might want to go back and explore some of the alternatives. In other words, maybe up in the front here, I don't know. I'd like to see a more minimum relief situation, I think is what I'm hearing from the Board. I don't think you're going to get the five feet here. I'm not even sure you're going to get a consensus at 10 feet. MRS. STOCKMAN-So, I'll have to go the 20 feet. MR. CARVIN-Well, what I'm saying is that you might want to table this and explore some other possibilities to see, to take some time and look at other things to see what might be feasible without having us to turn this down and starting the whole process over again. We're not trying to be obstinate or difficult, here. We're just trying to work with you, but I do know that if it comes to a vote, I don't think it's going to go as such, and that will put you back at Square One. MRS. STOCKMAN-Well, I don't quite understand. You want me to turn my building and go 20 feet? MR. MENTER-Well, I think the point is, the question is, will we approve this as it is presented to us, and by our discussions, it seems like the answer to that is tonight would be no. So an option that yoU have is to say, okay, lets not vote on it now, and we'll go back, look at some other options. You may come back and say, this is the only possible option we have for this reason, this reason and this reason, and they may be real compelling, and that may convince us. You may come back with some other options. You may find that the best thing doesn't require any variance because it's going to be within the 20 feet, but I guess the point is that we can either turn this down, or you have an option to go back and look at again. You can table. You can come back at a later date and say, okay, we want to modify it this way, and give us a shot at that. MR. CARVIN-See, we're not in the design aspect here, and I think you may want to work with Staff, and maybe they can come up with some ideas. You can take a look at your property. You know your property better than we do, and maybe, I don't know where the - 25 - trees are on this. I mean, this is a, it's a rough drawing, but as I said, I've heard at least three alternatives he~e tonight. I don't know which one is the good one. I really don't, and what I'm saying is, you've heard at least three alternatives here tonight. Take a look at them. Don't discount any of them, and come back to us and say, well, this one's okay. This one's not, but for us to argue and sit here for the next two hours trying to reconfigure this thing, I don't think it's going to be very 'f1"u i t fu 1, is ~'Jhat !I!Y posi t ion is at this po i nt . MR. STOCKMAN-Is there a minimum it's got to be from the house? It's got to be 20 feet from each property line, am I correct? I don't know about the minimum from the house. MR. CARVIN-Ten feet, if it's going to be detached. MR. STOCKMAN-Well, sometimes your insurance makes a difference, too. MR. CARVIN-Yes. Again, these are things that have to be explored. Ten feet, you may find that fifteen or twenty feet, and at twenty feet from the property line is very acceptable, and you don't even need a variance. You just build it. You don't even have to go through this agony, but as I said, we're kind of hamstrung. I don't think you're going to get the relief here, and the other alternative is to, you know, we can turn it down. In which case, like I said, it sends you right back to Square One, or we can table this to allow you 60 days to take a look at other viable alternatives, and I think that that's my suggestion to you, is to, you know, to table this, play with your back yard. See what happens if you, and try to visualize removing the sheds, and as I said, maybe you will come up with a combination that requires no variance at all. MRS. STOCKMAN-Well, if I decide to go 20 feet, then what do I do, just call? MR. CARVIN-Yes. Just check with the Planning Department and, you know, show them your plan and they'll give you the building permit, if it meets all the criteria. MR. STOCKMAN-No variance, we wouldn't be sitting here? never done this. I've MR. CARVIN-See, I mean, you don't need any permission from us to build it, the Town requirements are 20 feet from the property line. If you want to put it right smack dab in the middle of your property. That's your problem, not ours. You don't need, you just have to file a paper, and they look at the plan, and if it meets all the criteria, then they give you a building permit. Mr. Ford was just saying, the fourth one is to withdraw it, but it's a viable, it's another option, but I don't think it's one that has to be exercised at this point. MR. STOCKMAN-Are there time limits? MR. CARVIN-Well, if we tabled this, it would be for 60 days. In other words, if we don't hear back from you within 60 days, this application automatically dies. If you decide that you can meet all the criteria, then you just don't come back. This variance becomes a dead issue. What the 60 days allows you is the opportunity to decide whether you want to pursue the variance procedure, or build it in compliance with the Town Ordinance, and again, I'm sure that the people at the Planning Office are more than willing to work with you, if you've got ideas or thoughts or questions, they'll be more than glad to try to get this thing rectified for you. So, at this point, I would make a motion to table. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 51-1995 GORDON & CAROL - 26 - ~ STOCKMAN, Introduced by Fred Carvin who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: To allow the applicants an opportunity to explore other possible sitings of the garage which would be more in conformance with the Town Ordinance or require a lesser relief than is being sought. Duly adopted this 16th day of August, 1995, by the following vote: MR. STOCKMAN-If you have a permit, if it gets into that part of the winter, we probably wouldn't d9 anything until the spring anyway. Can this thing expire on you? MR. CARVIN-I think there is a time frame on it. I think it's one year. MR. MENTER-It's one year. MRS. STOCKMAN-It's one year for a permit? MR. CARVIN-Yes. MR. KARPELES-And you can get it renewed too, I think. MR. CARVIN-Yes. MR. KARPELES-Before it expires. MR. MENTER-I think the year is to start. MR. CARVIN-I'm assuming that when you got the building permit, you gave them a plan that was in conformance with the Town Ordinance, because if you went out and built this now, you'd be back here under a lot other, real circumstances. MRS. STOCKMAN-The plot plan was 20 feet. That's how I. MR. CARVIN-Yes. See, they looked at it, there was no problems. You weren't violating any of the Town Ordinances. So, therefore, the plan that, that's why they'll come out and check. If they find that it's within eight or ten feet of the property line, then you will be served with a notice, but you've got to build what you tell them you're going to build. If you're going to build it 20 feet, that's what that building permit is for. MRS. STOCKMAN-Now, do they notify you, if you decide, later on, that maybe we want to put 20 feet, or would we notify the Board? MR. CARVIN-Well, I would contact the Board and let them know what you're doing, because if you're going to build it 20 feet, you can just tell them to, and then they'll notify us that this is off, but if you find an alternative and you want to bring it back within the 60 days, you've got to notify them also, because it's got to be put on the agenda. We will move with this, but you have through the end of October, basically, to come back to this Board. Okay. MR. STOCKMAN-Thank you. AYES: Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Ford, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Green, Mr. Menter, Mr. Carvin NOES: NONE MR. CARVIN-Anyone here for Area Variance No. 48-1995, Alfred Kristensen, that has been postponed until August the 31st. AREA VARIANCE NO. 52-1995 COOPER OWNER: MARIE TYPE II MR-5 MHOVERLAY COLLEEN M. KELLY CORNER OF MAIN AND EAST AVE. - 27 - APPLICANT PROPOSES TO INSTALL A SECOND MOBILE HOME ON A LOT ON THE CORNER OF EAST AND MAINE STREETS, WITHIN A MOBILE HOME OVERLAY ZONE, MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONE. SECTION 179-18 REQUIRES A REAR SETBACK OF TEN FEET. APPLICANT PROPOSES A SETBACK OF SEVEN FEET ALONG A FIFTEEN FOOT SECTION OF THE MOBILE HOME. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) 8/16/95 TAX MAP NO. 128-6-10 LOT SIZE: 0.30 ACRES SECTION 179-18 COLLEEN COOPER & MARIE KELLY, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 52-1995, Colleen M. Cooper, Meeting Date: August 16, 1995 "Applicant: Colleen M. Cooper Project Location: Corner of Maine and East Ave. Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to place a second mobile home on a parcel within a Mobile Home Ove'rlay Zone. Conformance with the Ordinance: Proposal conforms with all requirements except for a is-foot section along one property line, where the required rear setback cannot be met. Applicant proposes a setback of seven feet in this area, rather than the ten foot setback required by Section 179-18. Criteria for considering an Area Variance, according to Chapter 267, Town Law 1. Benefit to the applicant: The applicant would be able to place her mobile home on the same property as her mother's, and be available for her needs. This location would also be preferable, financially, to the current mobile home location in a mobile home park. 2. Feasible alternatives: This is the only possible location for the mobile home on this parcel, as the septic system will require the space to the west of the mobile home. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance? The applicant is asking for relief of three feet along a relatively short stretch of property line, which is buffered by vegetation. This does not seem to be a substantial request. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community? It does not appear there would be an adverse impact on the neighborhood. No comment has been received to date. 5. Is this difficulty self-created? The L-shaped lot is a major part of this difficulty, coupled with the corner lot having two front yard setback requirements of thirty feet. Staff Comments and Concerns: No further comment. SEQR: Type II, No further action required." MR. THOMAS-I'd also point out that the Warren County Planning Board is meeting Wednesday, August 16th, tonight. So there's nothing from Warren County Planning. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Is there anything that you'd care to add? MRS. COOPER-That's about it. MR. CARVIN-Any questions, gentlemen? MR. MENTER-Just on measurements here, to get this straight, the inside corner of that "L" is where it encroaches, right? MRS. COOPER-Yes. The mobile home would be in there, and because I have to have it 10 feet from the back property line, that brings it closer to that one little corner, just on that one section. MR. MENTER-So that's at 10 feet, on the other side of the t r a i ler . MRS. COOPER-Yes, 10 feet on the back, and there's 20 feet from the side to the end of the mobile home. MR. MENTER-Right. Okay. MR. FORD-That's a front setback, right? - 28 - - MRS. CQ9P.ER-No. The front setback. the front, front 'one is way out there. Theother front one ,becau~$ it '$1 ,a corner lot, tbat's 30 feet. MRS. KELLY-That's a driveway on the end of Lt. MRS. COOPER-It's actually, the front yard is actually a 100 foot setbac k . MR. FORD-The septic system is currently in existence ~s it? MRS. COOPER-For hers, yes. MRS. KELLY-I have mine, and they're going to put in theirs. It's going to be on the corner of my property, well, the property, the septic tank and leach beds are going to be right there. MRS. COOPER-It's going to go right straight up. MR. FORD-It isn't going to be shared by the two structures? MRS. KELLY-No. It'~ going to be theirs~ I've got mine. MRS. COOPER-No. She has her own. MRS. KELLY-I have mine right, it's, in the driveway is the leach bed, and the septic tank is right next to my trailer, right there on East Avenue. We don't want to share. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Your trailer, the ~xisting trailer has been built on. Is that correct? The existing trailer that's on that lot right now has a frame structure around it, I guess, for lack of.a betteì" ter m . MRS. COOPER-It has a roof on it, and it has a patio. MRS. KELLY-It has a peaked roof. patio, and I have natural gas. It's a $10,000 peak, and a MR. CARVIN-Okay, but I guess I'm looking at the width of that. This is not necessarily an accurate plot plan. Then, is it just 12 feet? MRS. KELLY-It's 12 by 60. MR. CARVIN-That's the trailer. MRS. KELLY-That's the trailer. MR. CARVIN-Okay, but the patio looks wider. MRS. KELLY-And then there's another 10 feet. MRS. COOPER-That's the other way. MRS. KELLY-It's toward East Avenue, the patio is. toward Maine Avenue. It's not MR. CARVIN-Yes. It's going to be on this end here. MRS. COOPER-Yes. That's going toward the road. MR. CARVIN-But I guess what I'm driving at, do you have any feel for what this distance between the two areas are going to be? MRS. COOPER-The two mobile homes are going to be approximately 17 feet (lost word) between. MR. FORD-Was consideration given to placing the mobile homes parallel to one another? - 29 - MRS. COOPER-Yes. We thought about it, and that would bring the mobile home way out into the middle of the yard. There would be no yard, because the whole back half of that. MRS. KELLY-It would be, this way they're in the yard (lost words) what was the driveway. MRS. COOPER-Putting it on the back part is the whole front would all be open. MRS. KELLY-There's 90 front by 130 back, and the back lot is where they're going to put the trailer, it's 30 by 134. MR. FORD-Right. I saw where it was going to go. MR. MENTER-By front, you mean the part of your trailer that faces the yard, when you speak about the front of your trailer, you mean the part that faces the yard? MRS. COOPER-The part, yes, when you come out the front door. MR. MENTER-The yard's in front of it. MRS. COOPER-They say they I have two front yards, because it's a corner lot. So, like I said, the one front yard, the main front yard sets back like 100 feet. That's why we didn't really want to put the mobile ho~e running parallel to each other. It kind of wipes out the whole yard. MRS. KELLY-This way nobody has to look at everybody. MR. CARVIN-Okay. If there's no other questions, I'll open the public hear ing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. CARVIN-Okay. Any final comments? MR. THOMAS-It looks like about the only way it could like that, and they're minimum. They're only asking foot variance for 15 feet at the trailer. I pea nuts ~ go i n th{~re for a three mean, that's MR. CARVIN~Tom, any thoughts or comments? MR. FORD-No. MR. KARPELES-I agree with Chr is. MR. MENTER-Yes. I agree with most of what he said, too. MR. GREEN-No, I think it's the only way we can do it. MR. THOMAS-Another thing, too, on this is that it's 11,700 square feet, and it's only 5,000 required per unit, in the MR-5 zone. MR. CARVIN-So what you're saying is that we could legitimately put two trailers on there. MR. THOMAS-Yes. You could do that, legally, with no problem. MR. CARVIN-Yes. My 3Rly hesit~tion is opening up a Pandora's Box about having Øt~ér situations. MR. reãl THOMAS-No, because of the nice. square footage, it fits in theì-e - 30 - ~ MR. FORD-Good point. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Any other comments, gentlemen? If not, I would ask for a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 52-1995 COLLEEN M. COOPER, Introduced by Thomas Ford who moved for its adoption, seconded by Fred Carvin: In the matter of the application of Colleen M. Cooper of So. Glens Falls, N.Y. for Area Variance No. 52-1995. The applicant proposes to place a second mobile home on a parcel within a Mobile Home Overlay Zone. Relief is sought from Section 179-18 which requires a setback of 10 feet. The proposal conforms to all requirements except for a 15 foot section of the mobile home along one property line where the setback could not be met. The applicant proposes a setback of seven feet in this area and therefore seeks relief of three feet. I move to approve the variance on the basis that: the applicant would be able to place her mobile home on the same property as her mother, thereby being closer to help meet her needs. There are no other possible locations for the home on this parcel because of the placement of the septic system. The relief is not substantial relative to the Ordinance. The applicant is asking for relief of three feet along a relatively short stretch of the property line. The relief sought would not negatively impact the health, safety or welfare of the community nor should it have an adverse effect on the environment. No negative comments have been received from the neighbors. The difficulty is self-created beoause the applicant wishes to be closer to her mother. However, the L- shaped lot is the major part of the difficulty coupled with the corner lot having two front yard setback requirements of 30 feet each. This is a Type II SEQR with no further action required, and unless there are modifications to the motion, ,I woµld ask for a second. Duly adopted this 16th day of August, 1995, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Green, Mr. Menter, Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Ford. Mr. Thomas, Mr. Carvin NOES: NONE AREA VARIANCE NO. 42-1995 HC-1A TYPE II KENNETH ERMIGER OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE CORNER OF ROUTE 9 AND WEEKS ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT A SELF-SERVE CAR WASH ,AND SEEKS RELIEF FROM THE REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 179-23, HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL ZONE. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) 8/16/95 TAX'MAP NO. 70-1-3 LOT SIZE: 1.52 ACRES SECTION 179-23 WALTER REHM, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 42-1995, Kenneth Ermiger, Meeting Date: August 16, 1995 "Applicant: Kenneth Ermiger Project Location: Corner of Weeks Road and Route 9 Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to construct a self-serve car wash on a property which already contains an automatic car wash. Conformance with the Ordinance: Section 179-23 requires a setback of fifty feet from the property line. Applicant proposes building setbacks ranging from 30 to 46.66 feet. Criteria for considering an Area Variance, according to Chapter 267, Town Law 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be able to construct his carwash. 2. Feasible alternatives: The applicant owns additional land on the north side of the proposed Weeks Road realignment, but that parcel appears too narrow and too,small to accommodate this particular proposal. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the ordinance? The greatest amount of - 31 - relief sought, on the southwest corner, would be 40% of the requirement. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community? It appears to staff that this project could create some major traffic problems for this area. It does not seem that the traffic and lines associated with self-serve car washes would have a desirable impact. There is not room for more than one car to line up in a 30-foot distance, and the planned access to the new Weeks Road could be problematic. 5. Is this difficulty self-created? While some of the difficulty can be attributed to the plans to revise Weeks Road, it does not appear that, even absent the road issue, the circulation needed for this car wash could be easily accommodated on this site. Parcel History: Mr. Ermiger purchased this property in February, 1994, with the existing automatic carwash. Staff Comments and Concerns: There are some concerns here with regard to the ability of this site to support this project. It is recommended that this be sent to the Planning Board for review of this aspect before a Zoning Board decision is made. The Highway Superintendent was unwilling to make comment on the access to the new Weeks Road until it has taken a more definite form. It is likely that the owner of this property would plan to use the northern section of the property as some other commercial property -- thus losing that factor in the permeability calculations for this site. SEQR: Type II, no further action. If the northern property were not included in the permeability, this would be considered an Unlisted Action." MR. THOMAS-"At a meeting of the Warren County Planning Board, held on the 12th day of July 1995, the above application for an Area Variance to construct an addition to the Queensbury Car Wash. was reviewed and the following action was taken. Recommendation to: Return Comments: Removed from the agenda per the Town's request - July 12, 1995." Signed C. Powel South, Vice Chairperson. MR. REHM-I'm sorry, but that's not what they did. MR. THOMAS-I've got it signed. MR. REHM-I was there. I'll tell you what they did. They made a motion to approve, and it was approved, and they recommended that it come back to the County Planning Board, to the County Planning Board, for Site Plan Review. Now, obviously, you have to check that with the County, but there was a motion to approve. It was passed and they, but with the condition that it go back to the County Planning Board for Site Plan Review. That was their action. MS. CIPPERLY-That sounds familiar. I'm expecting a call from Sandra from the County, when they're done with their meeting, and I can ask her about that. What did this one say? MR. THOMAS-This one says "Returned. Removed from the Agenda per the Town's fequest - July 12, 1995." MS. CIPPERLY-The first time you were. MR. CARVIN-Yes. This was scheduled for, what, last month. MR. REHM-Okay. That was last month. MR. THOMAS-Yes, July 12th. MR. REHM-Okay. Well, tonight's action was an approval, but they said something. MR. CARVIN-I was going to say, I thought they were meeting tonight on this. MR. REHM-Yes. They did meet tonight. a little bit of the history of this. Okay. I have to give you This is a matter that has - 32 - -' - been under discussion betw(:3en M'·. I;:noiger, who owns the Queensbury Car Wash, which is, I'm sure you all know where it is, and the Town for a number of months. The Town is interested in extending Weeks Road into the shopping center where Wal-Mart is being constructed. They propose to put a traffic light at the intersection of Route 9 and We~ks Road, and to take a strip of land through the middle of Mr. Ermiger's property, Mr. Ermiger has about one and three quarter acres of land there, and the major improvement is the existing automatic car wash building. We have been presented with a contract from the Town of Queensbury under ,which the Town of Queensbury proposes to buy this strip of land which is in yellow. That contract is contingent upon the app~pvalof a variance. We have met with the director of Planning, Jim Martin, on numerous occasions. We have met with the Supervisor, Mr. Champagne. We have met, on several occasions, with the Town Highway Superintendent, and the planning of this car wash building has been in conjunction with those individuals, and based upon that, I am surprised at the Planning comments that are before you tonight, and it was, our clear understanding that the Town was in favor of this project, and as I read these Planning comments, that's not what they say, and I feel a little"b.it like I've been bushwh.acked by somebody. In any event, with that the proposal is to construct a self service car wash on the back portion of the property. The property that is outlined in red is the property that it currently owned by Mr. Ermiger. This is the Town's map. This is the Van Dusen map. The Dickensen map that was originally submitted was changed because the Town re-aligned the road. The car wash building is in this area. It is proposed that Weeks Road will be a one way road, heading westerly, and so traffic into the car wash, both the automatic car wash and the self service car wash will be one way through Weeks Road. There is a set back on the south east corner of the building, the 30 feet, of where 50 is required, and a setback of almost 47 feet on the southeast corner, where 50 feet is required. There is another, approximately, 20 feet between the property line and Weeks Road as it currently exists. So the actual distance between Weeks Road, which is currently two way, which will become one way, and the closest portion of the building is about 50 feet, although we can't claim that because there is a little bit of no man's land in here. The Town does not own Weeks Road as we understand it, as the Town understands it. There's a little bit of no man's land in here, and then there is just area that has been used by the car wash for traffic for years. I n any event" that's the case. We have aright to build this building now, but we are applying for this Variance at this point because we know what the Town's plans are. Equipment for this building has been purchased and was purchasedJ I think, in the spring of this year before there was any communication with respect to the road that will come in here. Now, it's pretty hard for me to react to some of these things that are in these Planning comments, because it says it appears to Staff that the project will create some major traffic problems in the area. I don't see any major traffic problems. We've got a one way road, and the people that go to the automatic car wash will come in, as they do now, go in through here and go through the automatic car wash, and at that point, they can either come out and go along Weeks Road, or the proposal is for a curb cut in this area where they can come out and take a right turn only onto Sweet Road. We've discussed with the Highway Superintendent, had meetings with him, and he says that he feels that it probably would not be appropriate to take a left turn onto Sweet Road. There's no problem as far as site distances along ,this road. This is all a flat area. This is a controlled intersection, and there will be a speed limit in there. So the traffic flow from Weeks Road to the automatic car wash, of which there will be four bays, driving in from the south, and exiting and taking the right onto Sweet Road. Now, in that, I don't really see a, I don't see a major traffic problem. "It does not seem that the traffic and lines associated with a self serve car wash would have a desirable impact." Well, I think what they're talking about is - 33 - worrying about too many people parking on the south side of this. The car wash will accommodate four cars inside the building. There is room to park two cars in the westerly most, in the area of the westerly most bay. There's 30 feet there, but remember, there's an additional 20 feet before you get to the road. There's room to park at least three cars, well, three cars lets say, probably no more than three cars here. So you could have probably 21 cars serviced by this facility without interfering with the travel portion of the road, and I just don't see, I'm familiar with the Quaker Road Car Wash, and that's a, they've Qat much more land there, but I just don't see that many people backing up. I also know, from personal experience, what happens is that if people drive up and they see more than one or two cars there, they go around and go some place else, or wait to do it some other time, but that's, that is an issue. Our original plan was to have the building up in here, and then there was no problem. We could stack cars easily. This is a, this taking, and just let me tell you what the law is on this. We can either agree with the Town to sell this property to the Town. If we don't agree to sell it to the Town, the Town has the right to take it under eminent domain, and I am convinced the Town will do that. So this is going to be, for sure, a road, a Town road, I'm told, and I've got a letter from Paul that says that they want to start construction right after Labor Day. This is taking the guts out of an important and valuable piece of property, for the public good, and that's the way it has to be sometimes, and if the Town takes it, then there'd be the question of compensation, which will have to just get worked out after the fact, but what this does is really create some difficulty as far as the utilization of this property, and, historically, there has not been, and I don't want to overstate this, and Mike Seal is here, who is primarily responsible for the car wash, and has been since it's been owned by Mr. Ermiger, there has never, to my knowledge, that has been no problem as far as traffic tie ups in this area, and I don't think that you visualize any problem in this area, either, and as I look around at some of the smaller car washes, in other communities, some of them are certainly no more than 50 feet from the public highway. SOl other than that, I don't think there's any traffic problem as far as traffic circulation is concerned. I think that, theoretically, and I don't want to concede this, but I think that this needs to be looked at. It would be nicer if we could move this building a little further up, maybe, and create a little bit more room in there. This is a 50 foot swathe of land, and Weeks Road will probably only be about 30 feet wide. So if we, we could, I suppose, move it a little bit more this way to create this without interfering with any setback, except on this corner which is now 37 and a half feet. It needs to be 50 feet. One of the other things that's happening, in terms of difficulties, is that we're creating a piece of land with literally all front yards, because we've got, Sweet Road comes around like this, and we've got Route 9 that's here, and then we've got Weeks Road here. So we've got setbacks, you know, front yard setbacks from all sides. There's no front yard setback from this little chunk of land here, and then it says, it talks about, in the last part of Number Four, "could be problematic". Well, I just don't know what that means, but I do believe, and my clients do believe, that the construction of this building in this area provides sufficient space for cars to park here, for access to the building, without materially interfering with Weeks Road. As far as water and sewer is concerned, the equipment that has been purchased is basically recirculation equipment, so that there will be, the water that's used in the car wash, in most modern car washes, as you probably know, is recirculated. It doesn't go into sewage disposal systems. Every once in a while it's necessary to have a settling tank, it's necessary to have one of the sewer haulers come in and suck the sediment out of the bottom of the settlement tank, and then they back wash it, and once in a while they change the water, and if you look at the Dickensen map, there are a number of seepage pits shown on the map, and one of the things that was also required is - 34 - -' relocation of some of those seepage p~ts, even more than is shown on the Dickensen map, in order to get them out of the road way. The Town, at one time, there was a concern that these seepage pits couldn't be over traveled portions of the road. They can be, or the parking areas, they can be, and that's easily accommodated. I'd be happy to answer any questions, as would Mike or Ken Ermiger. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Any questions, gentlemen? MR. MENTER-What's the configuration looking at the old map here. In proposed curb cuts look like there? of the south entrance? other wordsJ what do Is that open? I'm the MR. REHM-It's pretty open. MR. MENTER-Pretty open to the south of that proposed building? MR. REHM-Yes. It's pretty open, but you know, we've talked to the Highway Superintendent a little bit about that, but you can have a separate entrance here for the automatic car wash. I guess you want to pull it back, because you want to be able to line up as many cars, that's where you get the line up. You want to be able to line up as many cars, you could have that, and then have, you know, this would all be open, but there are, this traffic can be contained with cones and things like that. MR. FORD-But that won't totally be open across there, though? MR. REHM-Along here? This would, there would be an area here. MR. FORD-From the opening to the automatic, around there? MR. REHM-No. There would be some differentiation between the two. They don't want to mix that traffic. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Any other questions, gentlemen? MR. GREEN-I have just, basically, one question right now. Originally, this was going to be back farther, but because of the Weeks Road extension, you're forced to push it forward, and that's where the whole problem draws from. MR. REHM-We'd need no variance. MR. GREEN-If Sweet Road wasn't going to go through there? MR. REHM-If they didn't take Sweet Road. As a matter of fact, I don't know about site plan review. MS. CIPPERLY-You would need site plan review because it's an expansion of a commercial use. MR. REHM-Okay. We'd need site plan review. MR. CARVIN-All right. I'll open the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. CARVIN-Okay, gentlemen, thoughts, comments? MR. GREEN-I think it was created because of the road. If you'd gotten the building in last year you would have been all set, but I don't see any other way to do it, really. I'm a little concerned about the traffic. As I said, I think we'd like you to get a referral or a recommendation from the Planning Board, but - 35 - at this point I don't have a real big problem with it. MR. THOMAS-I don't see any problem with it. Like Mr. Rehm pointed out, if you drive up there, and there's two cars waiting to get in the self service, you're going to drive on. I do it myself all the time, because I can't see hanging around waiting in line for somebody to do that. So I don't see where the backing up traffic waiting to get in line is going to be a problem, plus it's been stated that you've got between 30 and 50 feet between the driving surface and the building to get in there. So they can accommodate that. The only one problem I really see with this is the fact that Weeks Road and the Sweet Road extension where it comes together, right there with the outlet of Roberts Garden north. I could see there's going to be a traffic problem there, but that's something that the Town's going to have to address, and maybe a little increased traffic coming out of the car wash onto Sweet Road extension and taking a right may add to that traffic, but nobody washes their car on a rainy day anyway. MR. FORD-Sue, I know you weren't here for all of Mr. Rehm's presentation, but he did take issue with some of the comments from the Department, and I'm wondering if there are any particular issues that you want to emphasize or address in the Staff comments? MS. CIPPERLY-My main concern, really, was the traffic. You've got traffic already coming in and going around the building, for the automatic car wash, where you do develop quite a line, and I can just see, you've got 30 feet, whi¢h isn't big enough for two cars to line up, and 50 feet, I think on the other, not 50, but on the other corner there was a little more, but the traffic is also supposed to flow on that southern part of Weeks Road. I'm a little concerned about, if you have two cars in line and another one trying to make the turn, and you can't go over to the left, because that's the automatic car wash line, and then you've got traffic coming out of the automatic car wash that's going to, it seems to me, at least, interfere with traffic coming out of the self serve. It seems like you're trying to get too many. KEN ERMIGER MR. ERMIGER-No. Exit only. I'm going to be routing everybody to Sweet Road for exiting the car wash. MS. CIPPERLY-That's why I suggested, I don't know if the Planning Board would have some ideas on that or not. MR. REHM-Can I show you what happens now? MR. CARVIN-Sure. MR. REHM-Kind of what happens now, what the plan would be, people go into the car wash, here, and they line up here in an arch that comes around like this, and these are the vacuum cleaners. When they come out of the" car wash, they now make a turn and go out either this way or this way on Weeks Road, or go through the full service thing and then pullout here and do that. It's pretty easy to separate the traffic from the automatic car wash from the traffic that will be going in to and coming out of this. Now, if this road is in, then it's likely that some people, instead of coming out this way and going into the shopping, this would be the way into the shopping center, right out through here, will come out and take a right onto Weeks Road and go back out on 9N. So they have two alternatives. They can either go this way, or they can go this ~.Jay. These people that are going in ~.Jill also have two alternatives. They can go out this curb cut that we think will exist and take a right, or they can come around and go back out this way and go into the shopping center. So the traffic patterns are really pretty clear. This is not, the car - 36 - wash is not a high traffic area. I mean, you've got cars coming through, but it's, they come through one at a time, and people coming out of this, are coming out one at a time. So, I mean, in terms of exiting, there's no substantial amount of traffic. I don't know, how many people an hour can you put through the car wash, if you're going maximum? MR. ERMIGER-An hour? Maybe 50. MR. REHM-Well, if it was 60,it would be one a minute, and I don't think you could put 50 an hour through the. MR. ERMIGER-Usually there's a four minute timer. MR. REHM-Yes. There's a four minute timer, but usually it's, you have to put more than the initial deposit because it's all soapy when you run out of time, and I have had a lot of experience in car washes, and it looks like I might get some more, but in any event, so there's not a lot of traffic. This is a piece work type deal. It's not like a public highway or something like that, or a shopping center where you've got large volumes of vehicles coming in and going out. So I really don't think that the traffic's going to_ from this facility, will interfere with this facility, and I think that if we only have a right turn here, and we only have a left turn here, the traffic patterns are really pretty good. MS. CIPPERLY-The one thing that Paul, Naylor was willing to comment on was the width of the proposed curb cut. It's about 110 feet I believe, on the original map, at least. He thought that was probably was a little excessive a curb cut right there. So that's one point, and then what are you planning to do with the rest of this? MR. REHM-That's not a curb cut that you see there. That's just the existing condition. MS. CIPPERLY-This right here? MR. REHM-There? Yes, but Paul knows that because we've had a meeting with Paul talked about a curb cut of. that's not the plan, after that, and we've MS. CIPPERLY-Well, the curb cuts aren't shown on the survey map. MR. REHM-Well, we're waiting for the Highway Superintendent to tell us what the curb cut's going to be. We've been waiting for four months, and he hasn't known because hasn't known where the road's going to be because this road has meandered allover the place. MS. CIPPERLY-That's basically what he told me. MR. REHM-But the curb cut here onto Sweet ,Road is probably only going to be about two car widths, or 25 feet or whatever it is, because according to Paul, there's only going to be this right turn. There's no need for a large curb cut here. We don't care what the curb cut is, as long as it's enough to get into the car wash. Here, the curb cut has to be a little bit larger, but again, what difference does it make? We've got a one way street that's going to be utilized. MS. CIPPERLY-And my other question was about Are yOU leaving that other parcel, or part of to take care of permeability? the permeability. the parcel vacant MR. REHM-Well, let me just say right now, as far as permeability is concerned, we own the entire parcel, and we comply, and what we've said is, to the Town, look, if you take this, you are going to, perhaps, create some other zoning problems. You're going to - 37 - create a nonconforming lot here, and that's what'll happen is the Town, if the Town takes this, is to create a nonconforming lot, and the Town's position is, we don't care. We are not subject to our own zoning, and that is, that's true. They're not, and the theory is that the Town is responsible for doing what's best, as far as the public good is concerned, and they feel that the best thing to do is to extend this, and if they can do it without preference to their own zoning. MR. FORD-Mr. Rehm, in your initial presentation, did I recall you said you actually currently have a contract with the Town? MR. REHM-We have a proposed contract, with the Town, which we have not signed and the Town has not signed. It was just faxed to me either yesterday or the day before, and it's the latest draft, and I will level with you. We still have some differences in the value of the property, and I will also level with you that the Town feels that the value of the property is significantly less than they assess it for, for tax purposes, and, you know, ~.¡e're not really that far apart, frankly, and we're trying to work that out, but whether we sign a contract, and that contract has a contingency in it, drawn by the Town, has a contingency in it, and the contingency is that we get a variance, but I don't want to mislead you. Whether we sign the contract with the Town, whether we get the variance or anything, the Town can still do this, and I'm convinced that the Town will do it. 1'1R. FORD-And the Town could also not do it, in which case, we would have granted a variance based upon a contingency that would no longer exist. MR. REHM-Yes, but I would, if you grant the variance and you condition it upon the Town taking this road, it doesn't hurt my feelings at all, because, if you grant the variance and the Town doesn't take the road, we won't build it here. This is not the best, I mean, looking at the entire parcel, this is not the best location for this. MR. CARVIN-How big is the nonconforming lot that might be created on the other side? Do you know what the size of it might be? MR. REHM-It's got, well, see, this is not accurate, because the road (lost word) a little bit, but it's substantially accurate, in terms of size. I would say that it's less than half an acre. MR. CARVIN-Has any thought or any plans been made about putting the car wash on that corner, that road goes through? MR. REHM-On the other parcel? No, it's not large enough, and the traffic flow is impossible. I was going to say, this was all a subdivision. This is a paper road. Nobody knows who owns this. Nobody knows who owns this six foot strip in here, and nobody knows who owns Weeks Road. MR. CARVIN-Well, I'm just thinking that, I know that Pine Drive, like you say, is a paper road. Nobody knows who owns that. Are you familiar with the Board Street Car Wash? I don't think that's on a half an acre. I mean, that's on a pretty small parcel, and they seem to do a pretty decent job. MR. ERMIGER-That has two roads, one road to come in on and one Toad to go out on. Where this one only has one road. MR. REHM-Well, this has one road to come in on and one road to go out on. MR. CARVIN-No, I'm just saying on the other side, because that would give you your permeability too, I would think, or come darn close to it, because this is all going to be almost all blacktop or hardsurfaced of some sort, I would assume. - 38 - -- MR. REHM-I didn't realize what you were talking about. Yes. You can't compare this to the Broad Street Car Wash. Actually. the Broad Street Car Wash is on three separate, I think, three separate roads. isn't it? MR. FORD-Yes. You can't access it from, the cut through. though. MR. REHM-Yes. but the width of this is 83 feet. and if you put a building in there. It just doesn't work. MR. CARVIN-Well, you're going to be close. MR. REHM-I don't think the Town wants. would particularly want a car wash off of this curb. I mean. I don't know that there's a lot of room to spread people out there. MR. CARVIN-But on the other hand, if Pine Drive, and again, you're the lawyer, I'm not. I don't know what utilization can be made of that chunk of property. MR. REHM-Well, I think the owner of the Sunset Motel has got some claim to it. I'm sorry Jim isn't here tonight. MS. CIPPERLY-Yes. Well. we ran plaza. The Sunset motel has possession it belongs to him, ferreted out by the attorneys. into that with the Mount Royal claimed that by sort of adverse I guess. but it's still being MR. REHM-Well. the law in this is that this was a subdivision and every person that ever owned a lot in that subdivision has a potential right to use that as the street that is a paper street. I don't think anyone. and I'm certainly no planner. I don't think anyone. who has talked with Jim and with the others and with Paul ever conceived the possibility that this could be an alternative site for this building. MR. KARPELES-Well. it looks awfully tight to me. It seems to me the Broad Street Car Wash, they get a lot more than two cars lined up behind those bays in the winter time, and I can see it getting piled up there and traffic backing up onto Weeks Road. It's unfortunate that the Township is grabbing that property away. but I still don't think that would justify making a bad situation, and I think it would be a bad situation. MR. MENTER-Well, my immediate impression is exactly the same. I know that four bays right there, I live in the vicinity, and I use the car wash. actually, on Quaker. and I'd use it a lot more if I lived closer to it, but I think the traffic is going to be pretty heavy at this because of the residential population in the immediate area, and I think four bays is not a lot of bays. So I think you're going to have some stacking going into it. That's my only concern is the stacking going into it on that one way road. I just. that's what I foresee happening, and I do think that would be a problem. I don't think using the other lot is feasible for this. That's for sure. I'm not sure what there is that could be done about that. That would be my only concern. Not being any type of planner, I don't know what the remedies would be for that, given what we have to work within. MR. GREEN-I guess the only concern would be the back up of traffic. and I can't say if there would þe or not. I don't know. and I would like to have the Planning Board take a final look at it. or whatever, but I don't have a problem with the building si t,ti ng there. MS. CIPPERLY-Is that the minimum width that you need for the building, 29. five? MR. ERMIGER--Yes. - 39 - '- MR. REHM-You've got to have sufficient room to walk around, and some of the vehicles get larger and the trucks get larger. There's a dollars and cents component to this whole thing, too. If taking Sweet Road, taking that property, means that this facility which has been planned for some time can't be built, and the anticipated revenues from that building can't be achieved, that adds to the damage to the land owner by the public taking, and, you know, I don't say that as a threat, but I just say that as a fact, and I think maybe that's something that, from a community point of view, needs to be considered. As you would, if you owned a piece of land, and the municipality was taking the heart out of it, you would feel that you would be entitled to be compensated for whatever you've lost, and, currently, they have the right to do that which is proposed, and if they can't get a variance, that's part of the loss. MR. MENTER-Yes, that's legitimate, but I've got to believe that two pieces of commercial property, with road frontage, is not a total loss, from one piece. MR. REHM-No, not a total loss. MR. CARVIN-The existing car wash, if memory serves correct, is there two or three bays attached there now? There's the automatic, and then I believe there's, is there three extra bays, interior cleaning. MR. ERMIGER-Three bays. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Has any thought been given this equipment in there and opening that up? bays there. to maybe putting You've got three MR. ERMIGER-There's thought of that, but the problem is a building needs to be built (lost words). I mean, it doesn't work out either way, I mean, because traffic flow really gets messed up more with the water for the self washing cleaning in those bays than it would if I routed all the full service interior cleaning to another section, and then had all the traffic coming around and waiting in line and people from the car wash trying to get out through those lines. It just didn't work out. We went round and round trying to work on that, three different maps we drevJ up. MR. CARVIN-Well, how is your internal traffic going to be controlled for the gUY who goes to the self cleaning, and then decides he needs a vacuum cleaning. MR. ERMIGER-The vacuums are out in front. MR. CARVIN-Yes, but over here. MR. ERMIGER-Well, you have to go through the car wash for an interior cleaning. MR. CARVIN-No, what I'm saying is that, suppose, as I understand it, maybe I'm wrong, but I have a hard time washing my car. I hate to keep them neat for used car lots, but in any event, a person drives up in here, gets vacuumed, and then he's coming back this way. Is there not conflicting traffic flow here, to come back into this area? MR. MENTER-Are you going to put the vacuums in front of the new self wash bay? MR. REHM-They would use the same bay. I believe that there would be vacuums here so that while they're waiting, while people are waiting to go into the car wash. MR. CARVIN-Well, that's putting another operation right in front - 40 - ...,..,r there. isn't it? MR. REHM-Well, that's just for people that are waiting. I don't know, maybe he'd do it on the other end. I don't know. MR. CARVIN-Well, that was my next question. After I've washed my car, where do I dry it? MR. ERMIGER-Well, most people will take longer to wash their car than they will to dry it, because they'll pull right out, there's more room on the other side for drying than there is on the one side for washing, and there's also, you know, when you're saying about the two cars waiting in line, there's also, we have a full staff and signs on top of that that can help to alleviate that problem, you know, a sign, basically, no waiting past this line. I don't know how they would word it, but a limit of two cars per bay, something like in that terms, plus we have staff up the, like, when you come through, in the winter time is the busy time, when they go through the automatic car wash, and there's been times where our staff will go out and make sure that cars dqn't go into the road, because we don't want them backing up into the road because nobody'll pull in, on a business standpoint. If you've got cars waiting at the road, nobody's going to stop and sit right in the middle of the road to wait and get into the car wash. So we want to get those cars into our parking lot. So we'll route another, you know, a separate line or something like that. We'll put cones out, routing the cars. We'll have our staff out there. In other words, we won't let a problem exist like that, because you'll lose business, because people won't wait. They won't wait in line, and that's from experience. That's not just hearsay. As soon as the line gets to the road, that's it. You lose all the cars. They just pull right away. So we don't want that situation to come up as much as you don't want that situation to come up, but there's other ways to alleviate it. Like I said, limiting the cars, or having our staff go out there to maybe somebody's out there drying their car and somebody's waiting to get out, to hurry them out. I don't know what the case may be because this hasn't come up. There's way to alleviate that. There are going to be people manning that. I mean, I've got, when I was looking at putting this thing in, to see what I needed, how big a building I needed, how many bays I needed. So I would keep going over to Broad Street. As a matter of fact, I went all the way down to the Albany and looked at all their things, and the experience that I've seen going through there is that, on maybe two occasions, there've been more than two cars waiting, and that was at one of the larger washes, and that was not here. That was in Albany, and that was just my experience. I'm not there all the time. I'm not there ever mi nute. MR. CARVIN-I think it's a seasonal thing. I think you can go by, I think, I don't know, Dave or somebody had indicated, you can go by in the winter time, and on a nice sunny day, boy, they're lined up out the door. MR. ERMIGER-Exactly. So, I'm not there every minute, but I've driven through quite a bit, because this is, obviously, my business. I want to know what I'm getting involved with. MR. CARVIN-How much of a difference if this was a three bay? What kind of economic impact? MR. REHM-Reduces it twenty five percent. MR. CARVIN-Has any consideration been given to a three bay, or did you just order the equipment for bays? MR. ERMIGER-If you shorten it down, you have more people trying to get into those three bays, instead of opening up the four bays, where you'd have more caTS to be able to get in all at - 41 - once. MR. REHM-I think maybe, from a traffic point of view, it might be helpful to make it a five bay, and move the people through faster, although we don't propose to do that. MR. ERMIGER-If I had two automatic car washes, I would have no line. The cars would just be two in a line waiting. MR. CARVIN-Well, you have the three bays there. Again. any number of combinations here. Again, I think we're down into a designing, and I'm not quite sure I want involved with that, because smarter people than I have this stuff out. There's bogging to get figured MR. ERMIGER-That doesn't help alleviate backing up, though, if you only had three still have the same setbacks. the problem of cars bays, because you'd MR. CARVIN-I guess I have a number of problems with this, right up front. I don't like fate accomplis where things are conti ngent upon certai n thi ngs happeni ng. If you thi nk YOU ~...¡ere bushwhacked, I mean, your opening comments kind of set IT!.§.. back, but all of this is pre-arranged between the Town Board and so forth. MR. REHM-It wasn't pre-arranged, but I was leveling with you and just telling you what the history of the thing was. MR. CARVIN-But I also get the impression that if the variance is granted, then this goes through fairly easily, and if not, then it becomes a real hardship to the Town. So, I mean, we're being confronted, basically, with a harsh reality, and a situation that I think Tom has alluded to that may not even come to pass. I have no more idea whether the Town would pursue a course of action than the man on the moon, that you've outlined. I think that this, I have problems, I guess, with the permeability and the grade, if the Town goes certain ways, they can do their own zoning. I don't know if there's other viable alternatives if this should come to pass. I just am unsure on this. I really am. I'm really stymied. MR. REHM-But don't we comply, in every respect, as far as permeability is concerned? MR. CARVIN-On the full lot, I would assume. See, again, I don't know what the permeability would be in this particular case. MR. REHM-But I think we do comply. MR. CARVIN-Well, you comply now because there's no road there, right. MS. CIPPERLY-Well, it depends on whether we consider it one parcel or two. There's no particular site plan that's been prepared to tell us exactly what is going to be permeable and ~...¡hat isn't. MR. REHM-Well, we've got the application, and we've given you a (lost \l-Jord). MR. FORD-That's based on that strip of land that would be on the other side of Weeks Road? MR. REHM-But whether it's on the other side of Weeks Road or not, I mean, even if Weeks Road isn't there, the proposed development would be in that area, and so the permeability would be the same. MR. FORD-I have a question about the, if a new road goes through that parcel, does that road dividing the two portions of that - 42 - parcel then break up the permeability of this portion of the parcel being in with the car washes? MR. MENTER-I guess you'd have to consider the road itself an impermeable part of the overall parcel, too. MR. FORD-Correct. MR. MENTER-If you're looking at it that way. MR. REHM-See, there's the problem. The comply with the Zoning Ordinance, but, yes. is yes. If the road went through, I mean, if now, if we couldn't meet the permeability southerly lot, we'd have to get a variance. the two, if the road was there or not. Town doesn't have to The answer to that the road were there standards on the You cogldn't count MR. FORD-And if the road goes through, then that's going to be a natural divider, and that northerly section could not be used to look at the permeability for the total lot. MR. REHM-That's correct. Right now the total permeabiljty is 73.3 percent, as proposed, and 26.2 percent, buildings and vacant area. I gave it to you wrong, 37.2 percent would be impermeable, and 62.8 percent would be permeable. MR. KARPELES-Of what, the entire, both lots? MR. REHM-Yes, the entire parcel. MR. KARPELES-How about if you just considered it one lot? MR. REHM-I can't do that. I haven't done those calculations. I could do those calculations, but it would change them significantly, because the northerly lot is entirely permeable. MR. FORD-And the southerly lot will be almost totally non. MR. REHM-Yes. MR. CARVIN-Well, I think, you know, the argument still comes down to the road. I mean, we don't have a definitive action on the road. So, therefore, we would be granting maximum relief. I mean, this is not a minimum relief situation, because there is no road there. I mean, he's given us two scenarios of a possibility of a road being there, if they get the variance then the Town, more than likely, will come to an agreement, or the Town will move on imminent domain, but we don't have a road there right now. I mean, I see no need to grant any relief based on this full lot, because we're supplementing, we're thinking that the road is going to be there, but there's no guarantee that that road's going to go there. MR. REHM-If it didn't go in there, there'd be no need for the variance. MR. CARVIN-That's right, and that's what !!lì.: point is. MR. REHM-That's why we're here. MR. CARVIN-i'~o, that the road there. no. You're here because the possibility exists is there, and I'm saying is, if the road goes MR. REHM-We're here because the Town asked us to do this, and the Town asked us to do this and do it as quickly as possible, and the Town kept calling us and saying, hurry up, hurry up, and that's why we're here. MR. CARVIN-That puts us in a hot seat. - 43 - MR. REHM-Well, I think it's unbelievable that Jim Martin isn't here tonight, and it's not fair to us, to you. MR. CARVIN-Well~ this is what I'm having a hard time with. I think that the Town has kicked us a basketball here, that I'm not quite sure. MS. CIPPERLY-Jim Martin cannot possibly attend all the evening meetings that there are this month, and we've had to divide this up. We have three staff members and we've got about nine meetings, at least, and he can't go to everyone of them. So, do you have a copy of the letter that you sent to the Town with your proposal? MR. REHM-He's been after us and after us and after us, and he's been the driving force behind this, and he's the one that has assured us that this project is good for the Town, and he's the one that said we think, not you, but he said I think the Town's position will be, you know, we'll support this, and he is also in charge of the Planning and Community Development Department, and then when I get these planning comments, based on that, I am this far from saying that we don't care whether you approve it or not, but we do. That's not fair, and we're here, and we're doing the best we can. MR. CARVIN-Well, I think it gives us criteria away from the criteria that we should be looking at when we grant an Area Variance, and that's my problem with this thing, is that, I mean, we're being asked, and I'm not giving you an ~rgument here. I'm just saying that I think we're being confronted with a situation that, you know, if we were dutiful citizens of the Town of Queensbury, I think, obviously, the path of least resistance, as it's being presented, is to grant the variance, and they'd move on the property, and it's a done deal, but that's not part of our criteria for granting Area Variances. MR. REHM-That's true. I agree with that. MR. CARVIN-Yes, and, you know, I mean, if the Town wants to re- zone that, that's well within their purview to re-zone this, and I almost feel like kicking it back to the Town and saying, yoU guys re-zone it, I mean if this is the way it's going. MS. CIPPERLY-Re-zone it to what? MR. CARVIN-I don't know. Does anybody else feel this way, or am I just kind of hung out in the wind? MR. KARPELES-No, I agree with you 100 percent. MR. MENTER-Yes. There's no doubt about that. MR. FORD-I can't go for a variance on this basis. There's got to be, obviously, we're in a bind. We haven't got all of the information. It hasn't been supplied to us by, it has been forthrightly by the representative, here, but if the Town is negotiating for this, then some way we've got to be given official notification of that, and what the plan is. MR. REHM-Well, I mean, I can do that. I've got that in writing here, but I, could I just say one more thing and try to reduce this to what I consider to be at least the lowest common denominator, and that is, there may be some concerns about traffic, but I don't think there's any proof that there's going to be a traffic problem. We have people that have been running this operation for the last year and a half, are convinced that there will not be a traffic problem. We know that Weeks Road is going to be one way, and I would think that, as I doubt that you will, but I think that if you were to approve that, that would have to be a part of the condition. The traffic that, it's - 44 - - possible that there could be at some time some stacking of traffic on Weeks Road, which is currently a two lane road right now. It's unlikely that that would be for any long period of time, but it's possible that it could exist, There is plenty of room in there, to still maintain one way traffic on Weeks Road, and if a car or two parks here, which I really don't think they will, for the reasons that Chris stated, but if they do, it's not, that's not creating any kind of a hazard there. It really isn't. I mean, people park on the side of roads throughout the Town. So, I mean, it's easy to say there's going to be a traffic problem, but if you try to articulate exactly what the problem is, is it going to block this road all the way out to Route 9? No, it's not going to happen. It just isn't going to happen, and so I really don't think that there's any real proof that there's going to be any traffic problem, but I think that you can look at virtually, unless there's a tremendous amount of parking, if it's a restaurant or something like that. You can look at virtually any commercial establishment and say that under some circumstances there are not going to be sufficient facilities for parking or for the movement of cars, but the traffic pattern through here is fine. The only question is, will there be cars stacked up on Weeks Road to get into here, and I don:t think there's any proof of that. I think sometimes there probably has been, but it happens, you know, on Sunday morning if you go to church, on Aviation Road, people park on the side of Aviation Road, and it happens every place in the community. MR. FORD-Mr. Rehm, representative gave approving a variance go through there? can you give me the rationale that the Town you for making it contingent upon our as to whether or not Weeks Road is going to MR. REHM-Yes, I can do that. Sure. MS. CIPPERLY-Mr. Rehm, do you have a copy of the letter you sent to the Town? That might be helpful. You had a list of things that your offer was contingent upon, and one of them was getting a Vi,:n" iance. MR. REHM-Yes. One of them was getting a variance. MR. FORD-I thought it was the Town that stipulated that? MR. REHM-No, no. The contracts, the Town didn't. MR. FORD-It's your contract. You made up the contract. MR. REHM-No. The Town made up the contract. Look, let me just tell you, we've got a piece of land. We're making plans to build a building. The equipment is, which we can do. We don't need any variances, submit the plan, design the building, buy the equipment, and after all that, the Town comes in and says, we want to take Weeks Road, and we want to give you less than fair market value for it. We want to give you, for this land, less than the assessed valuation, and we said, you know, there may be some benefits to doing that. One benefit may be creating another lot here, but, most important, we've got to build this building, and so we will not agree to negotiate the price with you, if it's going to be a very low price, unless we can get a variance to build this building. That's got to be the contingency, and that's really what it was. So, I mean, the Town didn't say. MR. FORD-Were you granted a permit to build the new structure, without a variance? MR. REHM-No, but we could. We just didn't go in. We don't need a variance for this. MR. FORD-But was that applied for? - 45 - MR. REHM-No. MR. ERMIGER-I believe the prior owner had. MR. REHM-In answer to that. no. building was not applied for. Equipment was purchased. it was not, It was in the this specific design stage. MR. MENTER-I think that answers the next stage is the Town, Jim right? the question pretty saying, go get the well. So, variance, MR. REHM-Yes. MR. MENTER-That makes perfect sense. MR. REHM-I mean, nobody is trying to do anything, the Town and I, at least, have been trying to do this on a business like basis, and the Town wants the road. We want the building, and everybody realizes that you need the variance to do that, and the Town understands that, I think the Town understands, that if we don't get the variance, and they take the road, it's going to cost them an awful lot more, and ~e also understand that if we don't get the variance and they take the road, there's a very significant financial loss to our client. I mean, those are just the realities of the situation. MR. MENTER-None of which has a bearing on whether a variance should be issued for that project or not. MR. REHM-Right. Exactly. MR. FORD-Why don't you proceed on the basis of a variance is not needed, and proceed with the application, and let the Town tell you we're going to, by the negotiations or however, not allow you to do that, turn you down for that application. MR. REHM-Well, what's the sense of doing that? We know what the Town is going to do. I've got a letter from Paul Dusek that says hurry up with this because, I'll read it to you, well, anyway. I can't put my hands on it. The essence of it is they want to start right after Labor Day, and they've told us that. MR. MENTER-Well, I'm not so sure I'd be happy about anyone the Town, whatever that is, approaching us and saying, listen, this is a project that's coming up. He's going to for and apply for a variance. from hey, come MR. KARPELES-You guys better approve it. MR. MENTER-Lets see it happen. MR. CARVIN-Yes. In all fairness to all the applicants, we have a standard and a criteria that we have to follow. MR. MENTER-Absolutely, but I don't see anything that has been done out of the ordinary. I don't think anything has been shoved in our lap. I think the issue is what the issue is. MR. ERMIGER-You can approve it or not approve it. MR. MENTER-In logical. listening to your summation, it's perfectly MR. REHM-And my only complaint with the whole thing is that we spent a lot of time with Jim, and it was our understanding that this made sense and this is something that probably would be supported, but he made no commitments. He made no commitments, and I'm not saying that, but I just, anyway. - 46 - -- MR. FORD-Well, setbacks are only one of the issues. If we've got to base it upon the possibility of that road going through, that permeability is a tremendous issue, for that southerly parcel. There's no question, but what Weeks Road would divide that parcel into two portions, and I don't know how you can possibly count on permeability across a road as impacting where you're going to be having almost a total pavement. MR. REHM-If you just look at the last sentence there. That's yesterday's letter. I think right now we're entitled, fully entitled, to count the whole thing, in terms of permeability. MR. MENTER-You may be entitled to, but not for these purposes. I mean, it makes no logical sense whatsoever. MR. REHM-I don't think it's even germane. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Well, I don't know. It's going to show up in the minutes. So I don't know. I'll leave it to your discretion. I haven't seen it. MR. REHM-Yes. I just am referring to the letter dated August 14th, and the last sentence says, as you know, the Town would like to start the project as soo~ after Labor Day as possible. MR. CARVIN-Okay. MR. MENTER-Well, with regard to the permeability, reason whatsoever to count the whole parcel, talking about is only going to become, take property is divided and if that piece necessarily from the total. I don't see any if W h<3 t ~t.Je' 1- e eff,ect if the is discounted MR. REHM-Well, I think, with all due respect, the argument against that is, on the variance issue. We've got the permeability. If there's going to be a violation of the permeability standards, that's going to result from the Town's actions, not from our actions, and I don't think that we should be punished, particularly, because the Town wants to do something. MR. CARVIN-Yes, but that's the same argument, you know, you want to be judged on your permeability on the whole lot, but you want the variance based on the half lot. MR. ERMIGER-Regardless if variance that we're looking 50 feet. a road was going in or not, the for a variance of 30 feet instead of MR. CARVIN-If the road wasn't there, there wouldn't be any question. You could build it in compliance and probably would, and that's what I'm saying. So, I mean, you're arguing permeability on the whole lot, but the setbacks and so forth on just the half lot. Assuming that the road does go through, because, technically, you could. You've got a whole lot right now. There is no road there, and that's basically my position. MR. REHM-Actually, we have it. MR. CARVIN-I'm 99 and forty-four one hundredths percent positive that there's going to be a road there at some point in the future, but I think that in order for us to grant an Area Variance, I mean, there are certain criteria, and how do we justify using this criteria in this particular situation? And I'm not positive I can in all cases, not that we have to do it in all cases, but the two biggest ones are, if granted, the benefit to the applicant weighed against the detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community, and with a stretch you could, obviously, say that it would be a pretty good benefit to you to have the car wash there, and it would be a - 47 - benefit to the Town because it probably wouldn't cost us a ton of money to go through the litigation, but the other one is the, and then they've got subcategories, you know, creating an undesirable change in the neighborhood, maybe. Benefit sought by the applicant achieved by another feasible method, maybe. Is it substantial? Probably. Adverse impact on the physical environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district? Possibly. Self created? Obviously not a case, if the Town comes through there with the road, but then the other big item is the minimum variance necessary and adequate to preserve and protect the character of the neighborhood and safety, I mean, and it's the minimum, and the minimum would be no relief, because they, at this point, can technically meet everything. So, I mean, those are the issues. MS. CIPPERLY-Before you get person, the Secretary from confirmed what Mr. Rehm said. approved with the condition that shown, and that it go to site plan at which time it would come back to on the site plan. into motion, I spoke with the Staff the County, and she basically She said the application was the road is constructed as review by the Planning Board, the County for further review MR. CARVIN-It doesn't sound logical, does it. MS. CIPPERLY-Their approval was based on the fact that the road was there. That's what they're saying. So, if the road is not constructed, then that approval would, that's basically what. MR. REHM-That's fine with us. If the road isn't constructed, we don't need the variance. MR. CARVIN-Well, give it a rip, Chris. Lets see what happens. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 42-1995 KENNETH ERMIGER, Introduced by Chris Thomas who moved for its adoption, seconded by William Green: Grant 3.34 feet to 20 feet from the 50 feet required setback as required in Section 179-23 of Town Law. The applicant would benefit by being able to build his car wash. There does not seem to be any feasible alternative given the fact that the Town may or may not build a new road through the property. The relief is 6.6% to 40% which is substantial but given the circumstances of a potential new road it does not seem unreasonable. The effect on the neighborhood or community is increased traffic but with the proposed new road the traffic pattern would alleviate any congestion. At least two vehicles per bay could be parked while waiting to use a bay. The difficulty is not self created since the proposed road causes the difficulty. The variance would be contingent upon the Town of Queensbury buying the land from the applicant. If the Town does not acquire the property, the variance would be null and void. Duly adopted this 16th day of August, 1995, by the following vote: MR. FORD-Chris, you make no mention in there of permeability. Is this not an issue that we have to address? MR. THOMAS-Well, since the road isn't in there, or mayor may not be there, then I don't see where we'd have to address permeability, because the road doesn't sit there, at this point in time. If the road does go through, well then that difficulty is created by the Town putting the road through and splitting the property into two pieces, and that's nothing that the applicant has control over. MR. FORD-But that's the same reason that they need a variance, for setbacks. - 48 - MR. THOMAS-No. They need a variance for setbacks right now, as proposed, because the one corner is 30 feet off the existing highway and the other one is 46.66 feet off the existing highway. That's what they need the variance for right now. Permeability does not play into this right now, due to the fact that they still own that whole parcel, but if the Town comes through there and splits that parcel with a road, well then that's a whole different ball game, and the applicant has no control over that, because either the Town is going to buy it. The Town is going to take it, or the Town isn't going to do a thing, and in case number three, well, everything stays as lS. Permeability is there. MS. CIPPERLY-But, Chris, if the road weren't there, he could move the building back. MR. THOMAS-He could. MS. CIPPERLY-He probably would. MR. THOMAS-He probably would. MR. FORD-He's already indicated would not be in here for a variance. MR. THOMAS-Then the variance becomes null and void. MS. CIPPERLY-The same thing happens with the permeability, though. I mean, when I first saw this, I really thought it was unfair to the Board to have to consider this, in the absence of reality. Usually have a concrete situation before you. MR. THOMAS-Normally we do have concrete, but sometimes we have to look at the abstract. That's why the Board has to be a little bendable. We have to be able to look into the future. I mean, we can't read the future, but we can look into it, and the letter that Mr. Rehm has there says that, the most recent one Mr. Rehm has, what was it the 14th it was dated, two days ago, sounded almost like a commitment to me. The only thing that's missing lS the engagement ring. So, that's where I stand. I stand on my motion. MR. REHM-I do think the Board is sometimes put where you'd have to consider a variance when there word) many times in a subdivision where somebody subdivision that doesn't exist, but you want to do in a position is not a (lost wants to do a (lost ~40rd). MR. CARVIN-Any other questions on the motion? Hearing none, then I would ask for a vote. AYES: Mr. Thomas, Mr. Green NOES: Mr. Menter, Mr. Karpeles. Mr. Ford, Mr. Carvin MR. CARVIN-Okay. Now, that means that we, well, we have been instructed that we should have a motion to deny to really confirm the Board's opinion, I guess. MR. REHM-If it will hurry it up, I will denial. Really, I'll stipulate it on denial. There's no question about that. stipulate that that's a the motion. That's a MS. CIPPERLY-I think it might be good to have the reasons. MR. CARVIN-Yes. We really should pass, because if we're going to turn it down, we should have our motion, or we can still entertain another motion to approve, if there aTe certain aspects that the Board is uncomfortable with, because we haven't approved it, but we haven't denied it either. I will ask if anyone cares to make a motion to deny? - 49 - MR. KARPELES-Yes. I'll make a motion to deny. MOTION TO DENY AREA VARIANCE NO. Introduced by Robert Karpeles who seconded by Thomas Ford: 42-1995 KENNETH ERMIGER, moved for its adoption, The disadvantages seem to outweigh the advantages to the applicant. The disadvantages are that the way the proposal is submitted to this Board, the permeability appears to be far less than is required. It would appear to me that the traffic is going to be a problem. This would create an undesirable change to the neighborhood, and a detriment to nearby properties. I've already covered the benefits sought by the applicant, and the relief would be substantial in both the setbacks and the permeability. The need for the variance appears to be based upon a projected road that mayor may not be constructed, and that the applicant's lot, as it exists today, the applicant has indicated he could build a conforming structure without any relief being sought whatsoever. Duly adopted this 16th day of August, 1995, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Menter, Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Ford, Mr. Carvin NOES: Mr. Green, Hr. Thomas MR. CARVIN-I guess it's official. Just a point of information. If you're here for the Kristensen's, that has been postponed until August the 31st. AREA VARIANCE NO. 60-1995 TYPE: UNLISTED LI-1A HERMAN NEAL OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE EXIT 18, WEST ON CORINTH ROAD, LEFT ON VANDUSEN ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT A 36 FT. BY 60 FT. WAREHOUSE ON A PRE-EXISTING, NONCONFORMING 0.57 ACRE LOT, WHICH WOULD BE IN ADDITION TO THE EXISTING 660 SQ. FT. HOUSE. SECTION 179-26 ALLOWS ONE PRINCIPAL BUILDING OF UP TO TWELVE THOUSAND SQUARE FEET FOR EVERY ONE ACRE IN THIS ZONE, SO RELIEF IS NEEDED FROM THIS SECTION. CROSS REF. SPR 43-95 TAX MAP NO. 126-1-68.1, 69, 70.1 LOT SIZES: 0.23, 0.23, 0.11 ACRES SECTION 179-26 LARRY CLUTE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 60-1995, Herman Neal, Meeting Date: August 16, 1995 "PROJECT LOCATION: 369 Van Dusen Road PROPOSED PROJECT: Construction of a 36 x 60 ft. warehouse on a 0.57 acre lot which would be in addition to the existing 660 sq. ft. house. CONFORMANCE WITH THE ORDINANCE: Section 179-26 a11o\'> s one principal building of up to 12,000 sq. ft. for every one acre in this zone. The warehouse is a second principal building. CRITERIA FOR CONSIDERING AN AREA VARIANCE, ACCORDING TO CHAPTER 267, TOWN LAW: 1. Benefit to Applicant: Applicant wishes to store cabinet making materials and building supplies for his agent. 2. Feasible alternatives: Removal of the existing nonconforming residence would eliminate the need for a variance, but this may not be considered feasible by the applicant. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance? The request is for twice the number of principal buildings allowed, which could be considered substantial. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community? There is concern on the part of neighbors over whether the building will be used as a garage. Other issues will be brought up by those in attendance at the meeting. Is this difficulty self-created? Parcel History: Parcels 126-1-68.1, 69, and 70.1 have been combined into one 0.57 acre lot, with 69 being the tax number. Staff Comments and Concerns: Staff concerns would be the garage vs. storage question, the amount of traffic created through the residential site, type of vehicles, etc. SEQR: Unlisted. Short - 50 - - Form EAF must be reviewed." MR. THOMAS-I don't see anything from the Warren County Planning Board. MR. CARVIN-Did MR. CLUTE-No. MR. THOMAS-It you gentlemen go to Warren County tonight? We didn't have to go to Warren County. doesn't say anything about going to Warren County. MR. CARVIN-Okay. interest. So we will assume that Warren County has no MR. THOMAS-None whatsoever. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Is there anything that you'd care to add to the comments? Any questions, gentlemen? MR. GREEN-How tall is this going to be to the peak? MR. CLUTE-It's going to be 14 foot, just shy of 20 foot to the peak. MR. GREEN-What sort of door are you going to have on the front of the, garage door, overhead door? MR. CLUTE-We're trying for two 12 foot doors, so you could literally drive trucks on it, and we're looking to store kitchen cabinets and stuff like that. He does custom kitchen cabinets that he's looking to get in stock, to store,. , MR. CARVIN-Staff has made a comment, removal of residence would eliminate the need for a variance.' consideration or thought there? the exis:ti ng Was there: any MR. CLUTE-At this poi nt, it is be ing used as' a renta 1 . Down the road, it is definitely $ thought. At this point, no. ,It's income (lost word). He's simply looking for storage facilities and this is a property he has available to him. MR. FORD-Could you describe what that is going to be made of and look like if we were to approve this and go on site? MR. CLUTE-It's going to be' pretty much a standard, stick building, Tl11 exterior, painted, shingled. 'It's not really decided whether it's a shingled roof or colored metal roof. It's going to look like a warehouse. That~s what it's going to look like, no real windows or anything like that. MR. CARV~N-OkaY, and the Staff, again, has made a comment here. Staff concerns would be the garage versus· the storage question, the amount of traffic created through the residential site, type of vehicles, etc. Would you care to address any of that? MR. CLUTE-I'm not sure where these concerns are coming from. I'm telling you what the purpose of the building is, and you're bringing up the point that it may be a garage. The purpose of the building is not a garage. It's for warehouse purposes. MS. CIPPERLY-I can shed some light. I had ª neighbor call up today who had heard that it was going to actually be a garage. It was more of a, I said, we can establish on the record exactly what it's going to be used for. HERMAN NEAL MR. NEAL-That issue probably came up because about three years ago I did want to put a garage in there. I got turned down, to - 51 - sell used cars there. So probably saying, now, he's still trying to do doin9. somebody is coming back that, which we are not MS. CIPPERLY-And the other question really came up because, when I drove in there to look at it, because there is residential use in the front, and there were some little kids there, I was just a little concerned over the amount of traffic that might be goin9 in there. MR. NEAL-It's not like it's going to be some heavy traffic area. You're talking, ¡ might go in there once or twice a day with a small cube van, but it's not like it's going to be some high traffic area where there's big trucks going in and out. MR. CARVIN-Okay. I was just going to ask. You don't anticipate heavy equipment or trucks, things like that? MR. NEAL-No. MR. CARVIN-Okay. This would be primarily day time use, would it? MR. NEAL-Yes, definitely. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Nothing in the evening, in other words, trucks coming at six, eight, midnight? MR. NEAL-No, business hours. I mean, there's probably days where you don't go there at all. There might be a week goes by and you don't go there at all. MR. FORD-You said there won't be any large trucks using it? MR. NEAL-No. Just a small cube van. MR. FORD-What about the delivery to the site? MR. NEAL-It would pretty much be me delivering it. Anything that would come in in a larger truck would come to my facility on Highland Avenue. It's just a matter of, more or less, I build custom cabinets and I have to wait three weeks to put a kitchen in because the house isn't ready. I load the kitchen in my van, instead of now I pile it up in the corner of my shop. Now I can load it in my van and run over there and have it sitting there waiting, and then when it's time for the job, you go over and pick it up. I'm not going to be warehousing thousands of cabinets. It's more of a convenience to be able to take a junk job that's doe and move it out of my way. Where't rent now, I have a tractor trailer body there that I have to move. So it's very inconvenient. MR. CLUTE-It's pre-manufactured. He's looking at a kitchen at a time. He's not a large distributor. So he's not getting truck tractor trailer loads of cabinets. MR. FORO-Well, that's where I was going with the question, obviously. MS. CIPPERLY-Did you specify a height for this building? MR. CLUTE-Yes. The gentlemen just asked. approximately 20 foot high to the peak. It ~",ould be MR. CARVIN-Now this is going to be a 36 by 60, right? Is that t.he measurement? MR. CLUTE-Yes. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Any other questions, gentlemen? MR. FORD-Not at this time. - 52 - ~ MR. CARVIN-Okay. I'll open up the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED TOM CONDON MR. CONDON-Good evening, Board, members of the Planning Staff. Tom Condon. It's been a long evening for all of us. I purchased what was termed as an owner occupied hawly duplex in 1992 in Queensbury, encompassing a land area running between Corinth and Pitcher Roads, being the third lot in from VanDusen going toward West Mountain, 510 Corinth Road is the current address. I would like to thank the Zoning Board for notification of tonight's meeting regarding the Neal Variance application and the opportunity to speak to this matter. With all due respect to the Neal request, I'm opposed to any further relaxing of the existing zoning laws in this general area which would, or could, negatively impact property values. Existing zoning laws in this general area are not being enforced in all cases. One only has to drive through the area to appreciate this. Going to the specifics of the variance application, it appears to me to be unreasonable to allow an additional structure of a size, 36 by 60, to be constructed on such a small parcel of land. I believe there was good and reasonable Judgement made when the existing zoning laws were passed requiring certain land area, restricting building to a reasonable extent. The intended purpose, as stated in Mr. Neal's application, indicates intended purpose to be storage of construction supplies. There already is a traffic/noise problem in the area, and if this request were to be approved, the traffic volume and noise from the traffic can only get worse. To sum up, I am opposed to this request for variance on the following grounds. Land area available does not reasonably support it. Noise and volume of truck traffic would only get worse. The existing zoning laws should be enforced, not relaxed. I have to be concerned, not only from a property value standpoint, but also peace and quiet, not only for myself and family, but also that of tenants. Additionally, I would add that the warehouse, as commented on, may initially be used for kitchen cabinets, but what controls the future use? Thank you. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Thank you. Okay. Any correspondence? MR. THOMAS-No correspondence. MR. CARVIN-Any public comment at all? PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. CARVIN-Would you gentlemen care to address this gentleman's comments or alleviate some of his concerns? MR. CLUTE-The traffic, we're not going to significantly increase it. We are talking VanDusen Road. I'm sorry that he purchased a duplex. Obviously, his value isn't going to increase all that much. He's on Van Dusen Road. He's got Junk yards that have been there for longer than I've been existence, and they're going to be there. As far as the building being there, it's not going to lessen the value of his property any more than it already is. Like I said in the application, it's going to enhance the values, if anything else. I'm not proposing to put in another Junk yard. I'm proposing to put up a decent looking building. So it is going to add to the looks of the neighborhood. So I'm not really sure how we adversely affect it. MR. FORD-What's going to happen to the trailer portion of the 18 wheeler that currently is there? MR. NEAL-There's not an 18 wheeler there. MR. FORD-There's not an 18 wheeler? I thought you said that's - 53 - " what you were using? MR. NEAL-At my business location, at 6 Highland Avenue there's a trailer, which is at the location, that I'm using for storage no~· . MR. FORD-So that trailer that I saw there today is not yours, on VanDusøn? MR. NEAL-There's no trailer on the site on Van Dusen. MR. KARPELE5-I think part of the problem is we couldn't find site. I don't know how they got away with submitting application this way. Nobody could find that site. the this MR. FORD-I haven't been on it. I came as close as I could. I drove up and down Van Dusøn, and that's why I asked about that. MR. CLUTE-It's right next to the junk you, it stands right out. It's the yard. It really is. yards. To be honest with only part that's not junk MS. CIPPERLY-Well, it wasn't easy, when I went out. MR. CLUTE-To be honest with you, she helped me draw it up there. MS. CIPPERLY-Yes, well, I hadn't been there yet. MR. FORD-Would you agree when you go out Corinth Road, you don't turn left onto Van Dusen. MR. CLUTE-If you're coming from Glens Falls, you turn right onto Van Dusen, and it's on the right hand side. MR. FORD-As opposed to what you said on the application, which is tur n left. MR. CLUTE-I'm sorry. MR. NEAL-It's the only parcel that's not, used cars or junk cars allover the place. MR. FORD-Well, I looked at it all, both sides of Van Dusen. MR. NEAL-You've got to admit, I'm going to be enhancing the area. MR. FORD-No, I don't have to admit that. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Any other questions or comments, gentlemen? MR. THOMAS-You said eventually you're going to take that house dov. n? MR. NEAL-In the future. I wouldn't want to be committed to that at this point. MR. THOMAS-One year, five years, ten years, twenty? MR. NEAL-Five, probably. MR. CARVIN-The problem is the house is the nonconforming. This is a Light Industrial zone. The residential house is the nonconformity. If he were to take the house down, if I'm reading our Type II approved uses, and you can look at this on Page 17986, for those of you who have manuals, you'll see quite a long list of approved uses, and obviously, they're applying for warehouse for enclosed storage of goods and materials, distribution plants or wholesale business. I'm on 17986. It's Section 179-26. The fence that's there, that stockade fence, I did find the property, and I live very close to Luzerne Road. 50 - 54 - --- you must be careful what you say. MR. CLUTE-I live there as well. MR. CARVIN-Okay. There doesn't appear to be a driveway out through there. Is there? Is there an opening through that stockade fence? MR. CLUTE-Clost words) driveway going through there. There is an opening there, but it's not Clost word). MR. CARVIN-Okay. MR. FORD-There's a gate in the fence, in other words? MR. CLUTE-It's a full fence. Out back is all weeds. MR. FORD-Is there a gate in the fence? MR. NEAL-It's a stockade, but there's a gate. MR. CARVIN-Okay. I'm assuming your property at some fashion the comment? that this property must abut to or form, the gentlemen that made MR. CONDON-Yes. I'm not right abutting, no. If you come in and take a right off of Corinth and go back on Van Dusen, if you were to take a left on Pitcher, my property is in that area. MR. NEAL-His property is on Corinth Road. MR. THOMAS-He's within the 500 feet. MR. CARVIN-You're within 500 feet. Yes. MR. NEAL-If I put this way, you can't not see my property from your property, correct? MR. CONDON-I never tried. MR. CARVIN-I'm just wondering, if that fence was to remain up, if that would be a real problem? ~1R. NEAL -No. MS. CIPPERLY-I could use some help. The fence, the red stockade fence, is that the one? MR. CLUTE-The red stockade fence (lost word) property where the building is proposed to be put. MS. CIPPERLY-It was sort of falling down today. MR. NEAL-Well, that will be straightened out. MR. CARVIN-As you can see, there is a multitude of uses in a Light Industrial area, and it's the house that's really the complication. So they're asking for two principal structures MR. KARPELES-Is anybody living in the house? disadvantage, because we didn't see this place. everything before we come to these meetings. l,'Je ' rea t a I,.Je usuall y see MR. NEAL-Yes. There is somebody living in the house. MR. CARVIN-Well, is everybody comfortable with ~oving on this, or do you want to put it on the back burner until you get a chance to look at it? MR. MENTER-No. I probably know the neighborhood better than I would had I gone straight to the property. - 55 - --< MR. GREEN-Three times down that street. MR. CARVIN-Okay. If there's no other questions or comments, then I would ask for a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 60-1995 HERMAN NEAL, Introduced by William Green who moved for its adoption, seconded by Chris Thomas: 369 VanDusen Road. Applicant proposes to construct a 30 by 60 foot warehouse on a 0.57 acre lot, which would be in addition to an existing 660 square foot house. Section 179-26 allows for one principal building of up to 12,000 square feet for everyone acre in this zone. The warehouse would be a second principal building. The benefit to the applicant is he would be able to have a storage area for cabinet making materials and building supplies. The only probable alternative would be the removal of the existing nonconforming home, which may be a possibility as expressed by the applicant at some point in the future. Presently the home is actually the nonconforming structure in this neighborhood. The relief may be considered substantial relative to the Ordinance, going for twice the number of principal buildings allowed. There seems to be a number of other lots in the area with two and three structures on it. I don't feel this would be a problem. There does not seem to be any adverse effect to the neighborhood or community, Judging from the general condition of the neighborhood, and probably the building would be a benefit due to its new construction and appearance. The difficulty could be deemed self-created by the fact of wanting a storage area. I would further add that this variance be conditioned upon that there be no heavy equipment storage or hazardous chemical storage at this facility until such time that the home be removed and the garage become the one principal dwelling. Duly adopted this 16th day, of August, 19~5, by the following vote: MR. FORD-Is, there built into that,. motion, an ,intention that if, in six months, that we are automatically approving the storage hazardous chemicals? the way it is stated, house is removed, that of chemicals in there, MR. GREEN-But that, because once the house is gone, can we say he can't do is that approved under the Light Industrial? MR. THOMAS-Yes, because that's under the Light Industrial. Once that house is gone. MR. MENTER-There's no need for a variance. MR. THOMAS-There's no need for a variance. So he's not held to the confines of the variance, but as long as that house is there, he's held to the confines of the variance that we are about to grant. Okay, but if that house disappears, he can do anything that's listed in the Light Industrial. MS. CIPPERLY-But if the use change~, he has to go to site plan revie~· , though. MR. THOMAS-Yes. It's under site plan. MR. CARVIN-Where does it say ha~ardous chemicals are allowed? MR. THOMAS-It doesn't say it, but when you get into Section 179- 23, for the Light Industrial. MR. FORD-See, I don't want to build something in there that is going to supersede the Ordinance. - 56 - j".- -- MR. THOMAS-All right. You're not superseding the Ordinance, as long as that house is there, but once that house disappears, he can do any of these things on Section 179-26, by site plan rev ie~.J . Down under Type I I B2, a labor atory , you knov-J. Wha t could you have in a laboratory? You can have anything in there, but until that house disappears, he can-t do árlj~hi~g, ~~cept as stipulated in the variance, because a variance is required for a second principal building. If he takes that house out of there, he could put a television station in there, by site plan review, or he can put a limo service in there. MR. FORD-I'm not concerned about the limo service or all that. I was just concerned that, by the wording of the motion, that we'd automatically be, if not encouraging than automatically granting approval for the storage of hazardous chemicals. MR. THOMAS-Well, the hazardous chemicals can't go in now, but, if that house disappears, by site plan review, he can do anything that's listed. MR. MENTER-No. You're not approving outside of this zone, of what is zoned, what is allowable in the Light Industrial. MR. FORD-Okay. As I read through this quickly, I didn't see anything relating to hazardous materials and so forth, and you can take a broad brush for laboràtory and so forth. I could understand that. I just want to make sure that we're not encouraging that. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Any other questions? If not, vote, Maria. AYES: Mr. Green, Mr. Menter, Mr. Ford, Mr. Thomas NOES: Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Carvin SIGN VARIANCE NO. 49-1995 TYPE: UNLISTED HC-1A WAL-MART OWNER: L. GROSSMAN W. RUBIN & R.C. BAKER 891 ROUTE 9 SECTION 140-4 LIMITS TEMPORARY SIGNS TO 32 SQUARE FEET IN SIZE. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO INSTALL A 477 SQ. FT. TEMPORARY GRAND OPENING SIGN, SO SEÈKS RELIEF FROM THIS SECTION. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) 8/16/95 TAX MAP NO. 71~1-3 LOT SIZE: 6.46 ACRES SECTION 140-4 MARK PUTNAM & MIKE CALLAHAN, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MS. CIPPERLY-Warren County denied that they believed that the Ordinance. this application, on the basis sign should conform with the MR. CARVIN-Okay. Because Warren County denied, we're going to need a majority plus one. So we will need to have five positive votes for passage. MR. CALLAHAN-Good evening, Mr. Chairman, Board members, members of the Planning Staff. My name is Mike Callahan. I'm with Callahan Sign Company, and I do have a letter here from Wal-Mart Corporate that would authorize me to speak before this Board this evening, but along with me, the applicant is Mark Putriam, who is the Co-Manager of the store, and I'll let Mark introduce himself. MR. PUTNAM-Good evening. I'm Mark Putnam. I'm the Co~Mànager of the Queensbury store, here. I am also living here in Queensbury, and we expect great things from the Queensbury community. MR. CALLAHAN-Thank you. If it would please the Board, what I would like ta do is ask the Board to let me address two points before we get started, and with the spirit of my presentation, I'll keep it very brief, due to the hour. First of all; the application is for a banner. The original application was for a banner that's 108 inches by 53 feet long, and what I'd ask the - 57 - --,.-' Board to consider this evening, based on some publicity which appeared in the paper the other day, it was my impression that there was some concerns with the size of the banner. I've discussed that with the Planning Staff, and I'd like to ask the Board's permission for us to modify our application this evening, and as opposed to asking for a 477 square foot banner, we'd ask the Board's consideration to allow us to ask for a 264 foot banner, and I think that's probably our first point, and I have a couple of handouts, here. These are drawings that were done, that had the 477 square foot banner on the building, and as you can see, it's difficult. This building is 401 feet in total length, and it was difficult to show you the whole scale drawing. So I'm going to ask you to just pass along this picture, and the arrow in that photograph will identify the specific placement of the banner on the building. MR. FORD-Excuse me, this was from the original application? MR. CALLAHAN-That was from the original application. The reduction, and I'm not trying to play optical illusions, here. The original application, and I'm standing about 12 feet from the Board, believe it or not, this is scaled, but at 12 feet from, as you look at this particular drawing, this is how this would view from about 200 feet out into the parking lot looking at the building. This building is about 550 feet from Route 9. There's 186,000 square feet of retail in this building, and the front wall of the building is approximately 9,000 square feet in overall size. With all respect to people who've passed by along the earlier stages, I think the 32 square foot temporary sign was designed in such a fashion to help maybe a smaller scale retailer that couldn't, maybe was closer to the road, and I would represent to you, having done a fair amount of work in this community, this is probably one of the few buildings that are retail in nature that have such a setback from the highway. The second drawing I have before you this evening is our reduced SIze of the banner, at 264 square feet, and this does allow for a little, some more area around the outside of the banner, and this banner would be constructed the same material. The banner would be a temporary sign that would be installed. The store is scheduled to open on the 19th of September, and the variance we're requesting would be to have the sign in place for 36 days, beginning just prior to the opening, and ending 36 days henceforth from that date. We understand that there is some concern with the size. MR. FORD-Excuse me. You're talking 72 days, 73 days? MR. CALLAHAN-Thirty-six days, lets say from the 19th, and so it would be 36 days, and the reason ~.,¡e chose the 36 days is that I know that we have the ability to appear before your Board for a permit up to 60 days, and the permits are in 12 day increments. So we're proposing that we ask for three 12 day periods of times, or a total of 36 days. I will address those facts. I can send this down, too, if anybody wants to see the color rendering. I think the important things that we would share with the Board are, first of all, there's no question that Wal-Mart, their existing signage does meet the Code. Secondly, the building was designed, or went through Site Plan review, and in that early stage in the planning process, Wal-Mart officials or engineers did mention to the various Boards that this was part of the "plan". Wal-Mart does a fairly elaborate opening, both by way of openings and special things that are going on at the store. If you have any questions about that, I would yield to Mark who's an expert in that area. The existing, or the proposed banner, as I said, is contemporary. It's not illuminated. It would be fastened according to all of the Code requirements that we impose on how it's fastened to the building. The sign itself would be approximately 550 feet from Route 9. Therefore, the size requirement, we suggest to you that the original Code, at 32 square feet, might have been designed for smaller stores that - 58 - '''"''''-- '- overall size of the building, we are only occupying a very small percentage of that square footage, and as you can see the drawings, it covers that one end of the building. The grand opening promotions and things like that, as I said, we would restrict it to the 36 days. We are also concerned that, as far as the overall size of the building is concerned, we wanted to make sure we had representation through the entire parking lot, and some visibility from Route 9. The relief that we're looking for this evening is from Section 140-4, specifically Section C. We can meet all of the requirements in your temporary sign permit language, in the Bi-Iaw, in that this does mount appropriately and all the issues that are in there we have addressed, other than size. The offer, this evening, on our part, to reduce the size, is based on the fact that there was some publicity, prior to our hearing, on the size of the sign that had been required, and we were concerned about that and talked to the Planning folks to make sure that we would have an opportunity to at least make our date, and last but not least, I think that Wal-Mart has demonstrated an interest in working with the Town. They have some ongoing discussions with different levels of the community. I can assure you, this store, by the way, is Store Number 2116. We've had the pleasure of working with Wal-Mart for a number of years in a number of different states. You will find them not only to bea good business in your community, but they are certainly very interested in the communities, They will be involved. Their managers are involved, and we look at this~ not necessarily as a variance, but I can assure you that the community and the management of Wal-Mart are working together on a number of different items, and we want to make sure that this is not only a good thing for the community, but they are a Company does give back to the community. I think, in closing, and if you wish me to be specific on financial, hardship issues, and things like that, I can get into that, but I think, basically, what I would remind the Board is we're looking for a temporary sign permit. We were not going to be derogating from the intent of the Bi-law, and that this is a special, temporary Grand Opening. They will only have one Grand Opening, and I can assure you that the banner would be done, not only tastefully, but it would be mounted in accordance with all the specifications that we adhere to, and the banner would be removed in a timely fashion when particular permit time, if the Board so grants it, expires, and I'm here to answer any questions that you may have. The copy is very simple. It's just "Grand Opening", and I've given it to you in black in white. There also is a color rendering showing the yellow on the red, and if there's specific questions, we would be happy to answer any. MR. GREEN-What is the size of the new sign? MR. CALLAHAN-The proposed sign, if the Board accepts the amendment, would be 80 inches tall, which is six foot, six, by thirty-nine feet, six, and just, if somebody needs the calculation, that is signi fica ntl y lo~..,¡er, and I'll give you. the size. It's 260. We're looking for 264 feet. That's the number we're looking for, as opposed to the original application of 477. MR. KARPELES-I've got a question that's not for you. What's our precedent here? Did we grant anything to K-Mart at the time that they opened? MS. CIPPERLY-K-Mart did not ask for, this is the first one, I've been here two years today, and this is the first time somebody's come in with a temporary, variance for a temporary sign. So there is no precedent in the last couple of years. MR. MENTER-That's not that they haven't gone up. MR. 'CARVIN-I was haven't gone up. going to say, that's not saying that I'm going to open up the public hearing. they - 59 - PUBLIC HEARING OPENED GEORGE GOETZ MR. GOETZ-I'm George Goetz, Ray Supply. We're just on the south side of Wal-Mart, the south front side of Wal-Mart. We, first of all, welcome you to the community. I have one concern, well, several concerns, but one concern which is a major concern to me, is traffic, when you're, in your Grand Opening. I'm concerned that our customers will not be able to get into our store. Anybody who's traveling north, going north on Route 9, will have trouble turning left, and anybody coming out of our store will have trouble turning left, also. I think, with the Grand Opening sign, and with all the newspaper advertising you've been doing, certainly the size of the building, and your past reputation for having tremendous Grand Openings, I really question whether you really need a sign of that magnitude to attract people there. I think you will cause a hardship to us, with that traffic the first couple of months, and particularly during that Grand Opening. That's a big concern I have. The second concern I have is precedents. We've been in business for 56 years. The largest sign we have is 48 square feet. Sure we're close to the road, but I think if somebody's a good neighbor, a good citizen, a good company, you Ordinances, and you stick to them, and I think that's what Wal-Mart would want to do. Now I admit 32 square feet is a little low, a little small for where you're at, and I agree that you'd probably want to have a Grand Opening sign, but around eight times the allowable signage that you're giving now, I think that's going a little too much, and so I'm here to oppose. I appreciate your letting me in earlier, but I haven't eaten since seven o'clock this morning, and I really would like to go home and get something to eat. So I will leave it to you, if anybody has any questions for me before I go, go ahead. MR. CARVIN-Any questions? No. MR. GOETZ-Thank you very much. MR. CARVIN-Thank you. Okay. Would you care to comment? MR. CALLAHAN-Yes. I will, Mr. Chairman. First of all, our application before the Board this evening, and I certainly respect my neighbor's position on this, does not take into consideration traffic. We were not, and I can speak for Mark and I, we were not involved in the Planning process, Site Plan Review, and I'm sure that the traffic issues associated with the final permits being granted on this store were taken into consideration by those authorities, and that that really isn't part of our application. I would share with you a personal experience, and that is that Wal-Mart does a soft opening, and the purpose of the soft opening is to not only get their Staff up to speed with what has to go on in that store, but it also gives them an opportunity to iron out some bugs that new locations have a tendency to have, even though this is a pretty standard footprint for most of their stores. So, that soft opening is something that kind of builds, and it's not like all of a sudden one day we have a Grand Opening special for one day and that's the end of it, and I can understand this gentleman's concerns, and I know Wal-Mart has had that issue raised before, and the way it's dealt with is there's a period of time when this Grand Opening does take place, prizes and different things and promotions going on~ So, unfortunately, we can't adjust traffic, but we can assure you that the soft Grand Opening is designed to deter this situation from being a very heavy impact over one period of time and, secondly, I would comment to the gentleman's comment about the square footage of it's signage. Our applications that were submitted to the Town for the signs that are on the Wal-Mart building do meet the Code, as I commented earlier, and, secondly, our issue tonight before this Board is seeking relief for a temporary sign of 36 days in duration, - 60 - - unless the Board feels differently on that time table, and I can appreciate his concerns about the size of his signage, but ours what meets the Code and, needless to say, it has to do with, not only the entire Site Plan, the size of the building, and what's been allowed by the Queensbury Zoning, but, secondly, I think it also points to the issue that they are looking for a temporary sign which should only have a short term impact on his concerns, and our total signage will be reduced by 264 square feet, if the Board grants us relief, this evening, 36 days later. So it's not a long term situation that's going to cause his business to continue a hardship. MR. KARPELES-You keep the signs meet the Code. Didn't we grant variances? MS. CIPPERLY-Yes, a variance was granted for those signs. MR. KARPELES-Yes, they didn't meet the Code. MR. CARVIN-Correct me freestanding sign out freestanding sign? if my memory is failing here. front, is there going to be Is there a a L.Ja 1 - Ma r t MS. CIPPERLY-Yes. MR. CARVIN-What's the size of that? MS. CIPPERLY-I believe that was a conforming 64 square foot freestanding sign. One question ¡ had was whether you'd consider putting a smaller sign closer to the road. You can have a freestanding temporary sign. Have you gi\ien that any thought? MR. CALLAHAN-We looked at that, and I guess the only comment I could make there is that, one, there is some safety concerns with those, and many people are concerned about them being stolen and blown over, a potential liability, and I think that what's important here, and maybe I did comment on it earlier, but Wal- Mart attempts to do what we call a programmed in all of their locations, and even though some details are different, this is part of their check list of details when they try to open a store, and, believe you me, they wouldn't have sent me here this evening, or, I have to be honest with you. I've done variance work for 14 years, and was a member of a Zoning Board for six, and I've never done a variance where, and not to take anything away from the 8i-law, but I think it does prove the importance and prove out the fact that Wal-Mart has been successful, nationally, by standardizing what they do and how they run their business, and I would yield to Mark on that, but I would assure you that they would not have taken the time or the energy to file an application for a Zoning Board for a variance if it wasn't critical, and I can assure you, Susan, that they did look into options, but this is the part of their standard opening package and, quite frankly, Wal-Mart will have to incur the expenses of making a custom banner for this location, because they do mass produce those, too, and it's not a big issue, but that just gives an example of how they're trying to do it, and to your point, sir, I would refer to the Code meaning that whatever the process that has taken place before I appeared here, everything has been permitted legally and is operating within the confines of whatever permits they received, either Site Plan Review, previous Variances or whatever. I'm sorry if I misspoke. MR. CARVIN-Okay, any other public comment? MS. CIPPERLY-Dave asked me the question of whether K-Mart had, one of you asked the question, K-Mart wanted to have an inflatable balloon, I believe, on top of their building, which they were told they couldn't have, but that was the only request. MR. CARVIN-Okay, then I will close the public hearing. - 61 - PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. CARVIN-Okay. Gentlemen, any questions or comments, feelings? MR. THOMAS-I would say, since they have a freestanding sign there, why not just strap on a 32 square foot sign right on the pylon sign out front, make it the same color, orange with the yellow. It'll be seen from the road, because otherwise, that hill rises up, and the store sits back, and somebody driving down the road like this, with that new stop light there, there, sure as hell, is going to be an accident, if somebody's trying to look back there at a Grand Opening sign. Whereas, you could put it right out by the road, where it would appear to be the same size as that 264 square foot one, if you just tied it right to the pylon sign, and I imagine Wal-Mart's got a bunch of them hanging around. So you don't have to make them custom made. That's where I'd want a Grand Opening sign. I'd want it out by the road. I wouldn't want it 550 feet back. MR. KARPELES-Yes. MR. FORD-You have taken great pains to show us at what distance it would appear and how large it would appear, and I agree with Chris. To have something out by the road is going to appear so much larger and attract so much more attention than this variance would, even at 264 square feet, back several hundred feet from the road. MR. CARVIN-And I don't think it's going to be a failure. MR. FORD-I think it'll be just as grand. MR. CARVIN-Yes. I think it will be, too. MS. CIPPERLY-It does look like, temporary wall signs can be 32 square feet. Temporary freestanding signs are limited to 16 square feet, assumably double sided, so they could put one on the pylon sign. So 16 square feet is half a sheet of plywood. MR. FORD-And are they limited to the number? MS. CIPPERLY-They can have one, at any given time. MR. GREEN-So that would be one on each side of that pylon sign, basically? MS. CIPPERLY-I believe. It's not one I deal with an awful lot, but, yes, temporary, double sided freestanding signs. So they could have 16 square feet on each side. MR. FORD-So tHey could have a foot wide and sixteen feet high. MR. THOMAS-So tha.t could be two Now, the one th~Y'Te looking on Now, ~.¡hich would yOU rather see, feet back, or something two feet which one would you see better? foot long. feet ~Jide and eight feet long. the building is six fe¿t wide. something six feet wide and 550 wide and 30 feet back? I mean, The one two f60t wide and eight MR. CALLAHAN-I would not agree with your assessment. One of the parts of this marketing thing is that, as people are approaching the store, I mean, e~citement buildings. They have people outside greeting. They do the balloons. They do a lot of the special promotions, the flyers, the w~lcoming type of thing, so that what happens is kind of a festive period of time where, as people are approaching the store 'from this parking lot, or moving in, and the visibility of this banner is designed in such a way that, no matter where you þark in that lot, you would have a feel that this is a store that's just opening. There's some special things. - 62 - - MR. KARPELES-Yes, but you've got to be in there. MR. CARVIN-I was going to say, put the sign inside. MR. FORD-In terms or promoting the atmosphere and the gala portion of it, I certainly can see that point, but if it's to attract attention and attract attention to the fact that it is a Grand Opening, something out by the road, not after they've already committed to going into the store by driving into the parking lot, is our approach. MR. KARPELES-Yes. How big is that "Open Soon" sign there? I've noticed that. Every time I go by, I see that "Open Soon". MR. CALLAHAN-If I could comment why that's that way. Under State law, okay, there, will be a pharmacy in this facility, and under State law, until there's a registered pharmacist on the facility, and the store is officially opened, with their CO's, you cannot put the word "pharmacy" there. So the standard prototype is to put "Open Soon", or ~",hatever, and vJe take "Pharmacy" out. v,Je have the pharmacy facias for that sign, and they get installed there when the store is open. MR. KARPELES-Yes, but my point is that that's very noticeable, and I think it's a lot smaller than 16 square feet. MR. CALLAHAN-Hearing not a lot of support for the application, and I guess more support for us to file an application with the Town relative to a road sign, I guess I would ask the Chair to entertain us removing our application from the Board without prejudice. MR. CARVIN-Okay. I don't have a problem with that. applicant has requested the application be withdrawn. there's no objection, I don't have a problem with that. So the So , i f MR. KARPELES-Do you know you could table it? MR. CALLAHAN-It wouldn't do us any good, sir, with the Opening scheduled. MR. CARVIN-Yes. I don't think we need to have a vote on the withdrawal. So we'll move on to the next item of business. MR. CALLAHAN-Thank you. MR. CARVIN-Thank you, and good luck. SIGN VARIANCE NO. 50-1995 TYPE: UNLISTED PC-1A BLOCKBUSTER VIDEO OWNER: JOHN J. NIGRO ROUTE 9 SECTION 140-6 ALLOWS A BUSINESS A PERMIT FOR ONE FREESTANDING SIGN AND ONE WALL SIGN. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO INSTALL A SECOND WALL SIGN, SO SEEKS RELIEF FROM THIS SECTION. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) 8/16/95 TAX MAP NO. 102-1-3 LOT SIZE: 1.02 ACRES SECTION 140-6 ED KING, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Sign Variance No. 50-1995, Blockbuster Video, Meeting Date: August 16, 1995 "Applicant: Blockbuster Video Proposed Project: Applicant proposes a second wall sign. Conformance with the Ordinance: Section 140-6 allows a business one freestanding and one wall sign. Criteria for considering this Variance, according to Chapter 267, Town Law 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant believes this sign would make the entrance more obvious. 2. Feasible alternatives: Directional signs are an alternative which could solve this problem. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the ordinance? Applicant is asking for twice the number of wall signs allowed. 4. Effects - 63 - on the neighborhood or community? Previous requests for additional signage in this area have been described as visual clutter, and not desirable for the community. Parcel History: Staff Comments and Concerns: The applicant has proposed a 10.4 square foot sign - directional, signs may be 4 square feet, at 6 foot height, illuminated if desired, and would serve the purpose. SEQR: Unlisted. Short form EAF review needed." MR. THOMAS-And there's nothing from Warren County Planning. MS. CIPPERLY-They denied it. MR. THOMAS-They denied it. MS. CIPPERLY-For the same reasons as the Wal-Mart. They believed that the Town Sign Ordinance ought to be upheld. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Again, just for the record, because Warren County denied the application, we need a majority plus one, or five affirmative votes. Okay. Is there anything that you'd care to add? MR. KING-Basically, I've just come here to answer any questions that the Board might have. The reasoning is that the preexisting building there, with Empire Video, had it's main door at the front facing Route 9. Because of that, many customers still assume that's where the door is, especially considering that the Blockbuster Video sign is on the front awning there. This results in a lot of people going around parking in what, essentially, is the back of the building, walking around, wandering around, trying to find the front door. Some people have just given up and left. Some people have gotten in their cars, sped around from one end of the building to the other to see where the door is. If you look at the way the building is set up now, there's really no identification where the front door is. These freestanding pole signs is going to point an arrow, but it's not going to show them where the front door is at all. MR. FORD-Excuse me. You're Mr.? MR. KING-Ed King. I'm the Assistant Manager of the store. MR. FORD-Do you have any analysis of what your repeat business is? People don't generally come in to Blockbuster and take out one film and bring it back and that's the end of it. MR. KING-No, sir, but on the average, we may have 20 to 50 new memberships, meaning that's the first time they're coming into the store, and that's a given average, during the summer especially, because it's the tourist season up here, and just because of our change over from Empire Video to Blockbuster Video, we still have people coming in who are former Empire customers and are just now getting around to walking into the Blockbuster Video. So there's a substantial number of people who have not been in that store before. MR. FORD-But those who have not been to probably wouldn't have that problem, because been to the Empire Video. that store before they wouldn't have MR. KING-The way the sign is split up, I work at the store, and it still looks to me like the front is in the front, and not off facing the Bank, and that's just the way it looks. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Any other questions, gentlemen? MR. KING-I do have a problem problem at the store, because then go all the way around the don't get the movie they want, at the store. I know we have a people park around the back. They store to the front, and if they they kick open our emergency door - 64 - ----"" and go out the back, because that's where the back is. I've got it labeled "Emergency Exit Only". It's a kick door. They don't care. Once a week, maybe twice a week, ~he alarm goes off. MR. CARVIN-Well, that's an exit problem, that's not an entrance p)-ob lem, right? MR. KING-I realize because they think store. that, but that the they're parking around the entrance is in the front of back the MR. CARVIN-Fortunately, we live in the age of the couch potato. MR. KING-I won't disagree with that. MR. FORD-Have you considered moving the large signage to more represent where you want them to go in? MR. KING-I have no idea whether the ownership has thought about that or not. I would say probably not, just because the signage, where it is, is visible from the main artery. The sign where (lost word) is not going to be particularly visible. If we move it to the, over the entrance, then you're going to lose multiple signage in the front, and anybody going from Glens Falls, north, is not going to see much signage, except for our small, square sign. MS. CIPPERLY-Incidentally, directional signs can be mounted on the building. They just can't be more than six feet off the ground. MR. KARPELES-How big can they be, the directional signs? MS. CIPPERLY-Four square feet. Places use them, like, for customer entrance or they can say Blockbuster on them. They can say entrance. An example would be an auto repair thing where it says, oil or lubrication. Those are considered directional. MR. GREEN-But you said he could put one that says Blockbuster Video like mounted down next to the door, illuminated, four square feet, and that would be acceptable. MS. CIPPERLY-It's right here, business names or personal names shall be allowed, maximum height of six feet. MR. FORD-Or even with the blue background and yellow lettering saying "Entrance", with an arrow, would be allowable. MR. KARPELES-And he doesn't even need a variance for that. MS. CIPPERLY-He doesn't even need a sign permit for that. MR. KARPELES-Or a sign permit. 1'1R. KING-Is that included in the total signage? MS. CIPPERLY-No. MR. KING-So, in a sense, we could put one in each corner with ar ro~"'s? MR. FORD-Yes. MR. KING-I don't know if I'd prefer seeing that or the 10 square foot. If you're looking for something that looks decent, I mean, we can throw a dozen of those signs up. MS. CIPPERLY-Well, how are people still supposed to know where the main entrance is, if you've got the big one on the front and then the broken ticket one on the side. How are they supposed to know where the entrance is? - 65 - MR. KING-Hopefully, (lost words) are on that side. I do know that the owner tries to keep the store as clean looking as possible. As I said, it goes by your Ordinance, we could put up half a dozen of those little signs on the building, and it's going to look like hell from the street. I don't see where that's in the interest of zoning, let alone variances. MS. CIPPERLY-I'm just trying to accomplish your purpose. MR. MENTER-The entrance is on the north side, right? MR. KING-Yes. MR. MENTER-How come it looks like, when you look at the diagram here, it looks like there's an overhang on the south side? MR. KING-On the south side, there's an overhang on the Route 9 side, and it goes around in front, on the north side. There's no overhang on the back or the rear. MR. KARPELES-Yes, but the arrow here is pointing to the south side. MR. MENTER-What is that, an awning or something? That's the back of the store. This here. MR. KING-Okay. That's not an awning. That's part of the store, that's where the, used to be the restrooms of the Empire. That's part of the storage room back there. MS. CIPPERLY-There's actually a bump out on the opposite side of the building. MR. MENTER-Yes, that's what I'm looking at. MR. KING-That's on the south side. MR. MENTE~-t don't g~t in there much. I'm just trying to learn something here. MR. KING-There's one on the south side. MS. CIPPERLY-Your awning flops out, doesn't it? MR. KING-The awning comes out, yes, but that's awning all the way around, like, in an L-shape from the Route 9 facing to the north side. I noticed on that there was a small bump on the west side, and that doesn't exist. It's flat back there. That bump doesn't exist, and there is a small bump over here, on the back, the back of the store. MS. CIPPERLY-The place you want to put the sign is between the Bank and the. MR. CARVIN-I'll open the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. CARVIN-Any comments, gentlemen? MR. THOMAS-I think he could get away with directional signs without having a variance to put a 10.4 square foot sign over the door. I think they would see entrance this way or entrance with an arrow on it a lot easier than they would see a sign over the door, thinking the sign over the door is just another advertisement, whereas, at ground level, instead of looking up as - 66 - -~ they drive in. Six feet off the ground is easier to see than nine or ten feet off the ground. MR. CARVIN-I think it's a problem that goes away with time. If the person continually parks out back and forgets where the front door is, then I don't know if you want them as a customer. So I think it reaches a point of diminishing returns. You're still fairly new. You're still opening up. I have to admit. I was an Empire client who just opened up my Blockbuster account, and I had absolutely no difficulty finding the front door. Maybe I'm unusual. I don't knov. . MR. FORD-I don't think it's an 1.0. test. MR. CARVIN-No. I don't think it is, either. MR. FORD-I've driven in there. I don't see any problem with getting in there now, but if you need some additional signage, without even going for a variance, there are opportunities, pointing them and leading them by hand, so to speak. MR. CARVIN-If this continues to be a problem, you might consider putting a front door in. MR. FORD-Or eliminating the parking where you don't want them to par k. MR. CARVIN-I really don't see the need for Chris is right on the numbers as far as the think a directional sign will solve your comments? the sign. I think directional sign. I problem. Any other MR. KARPELES-I think you've said it all. MR. CARVIN-Okay. I'd ask for a motion. MOTION TO DENY SIGN VARIANCE NO. 50-1995 BLOCKBUSTER VIDEO, Introduced by Fred Carvin who moved for its adoption, seconded by Chris Thomas: The applicant has proposed to put an 11 square foot wall sign. This is in addition to an already existing approved wall sign. The applicant indicates that they need the variance to indicate or identify the entrance area for the store. I don't think that this particular benefit has been proven 100 percent, and I think that this particular hardship or difficulty could be addressed by utilizing a directional sign. I think that by granting a second wall sign, that we would be creating an adverse effect on the character of the neighborhood. Certainly, there are feasible alternatives to this particular variance. If this situation continues to prove irksome in the future, maybe we can revisit it, but at this point, I think I'd suggest the directional signs. Duly adopted this 16th day of August, 1995, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Green, Mr. Menter, Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Ford, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Carvin NOES: NONE MR. CARVIN-Okay. next t·Jednesday. We have, unfortunately, another full agenda MS. CIPPERLY-John Goralski will be here. On motion meeting was adjourned. - 67 - '----..., -' ...,r RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Fred Carvin, Chairman - 68 -