Loading...
1996-07-24 ,~ V/ORIGINAL QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SECOND REGULAR MEETING JULY 24, 1996 INDEX Area Variance No. 40-1996 Tax Map No. 13-1-8 Donald Wheeler 1. Area Variance No. 53-1996 Tax Map No. 40-1-19.2 Stephen C. Miller 3. Sign Variance No. 52-1996 Tax Map No. 130-3-18 Berkshire Acquisition 16. Sign Variance No. 54-1996 Tax Map No. 98-4-4.1 Fazoli's Italian Rest. 25. Area Variance No. 60-1996 Tax Map No. 7-1-3 Rolf W. Ahlers 37. Area Variance No. 59-1996 Tax Map No. 7-1-14 Gregg Brown 46. Area Variance No. 58-1996 Tax Map No. 11-1-21, 36 Myles Miller 5~ THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTHS MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES. / I \ ',. ~ .,., .. 1"\ V. l Ö v ..,/ ¡. >\.,1 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/24/96) QUEENS BURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SECOND REGULAR MEETING JULY 24, 1996 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT FRED CARVIN, CHAIRMAN CHRIS THOMAS, SECRETARY ROBERT KARPELES WILLIAM GREEN DAVID MENTER BONNIE LAPHAM PLANNER-SUSAN CIPPERLY STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI AREA VARIANCE NO. 40-1996 TYPE II WR-1A CEA DONALD WHEELER OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE APPROX. 1,600 FT. FROM THE NORTHERLY TURN IN MASON ROAD ON LEFT SIDE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO REPLACE A ROTTED OUT DECK WITH A NEW DECK. RELIEF IS BEING REQUESTED FROM THE SHORELINE SETBACKS LISTED IN SECTION 179-60 AND THE SETBACKS LISTED IN SECTION 179-16C. ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 6/12/96 TAX MAP NO. 13-1-8 LOT SIZE: 0.22 ACRES SECTION 179-60 DONALD WHEELER, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 40-1996, Donald Wheeler, Meeting Date: July 24, 1996 "APPLICANT: Donald Wheeler PROJECT LOCATION: Mason Rd., Cleverdale Proposed Project and Conformance with the Ordinance: The applicant is proposing to remove a rotted out deck and replace it with a newly constructed deck. The proposed deck would not conform to the shoreline setbacks and side yard setbacks required for the WR-1A district. Relief is being requested from the shoreline setbacks listed in Section 179-60, and the setbacks listed in Section 179-16C. Criteria for considering an Area Variance, according to Chapter 267, Town Law. 1. Benefit to the applicant: Relief would allow the applicant to build a new deck. 2. Feasible alternatives: There do not seem to be any alternatives that would provide less relief. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance? The applicant is seeking 12 feet of ,side setback relief and 25 feet of shoreline relief. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community? There do not appear to be any negative impacts on the surrounding neighborhood. 5. Is this difficulty self created? The size of this legal nonconforming lot would make it difficult to construct a deck that would meet all setbacks. Staff Comments & Concerns: It appears t1;t~t this replacement of an old deck would not have any adverse effects on the surrounding neighborhood. SEQR: Type II, no further action required." MR. THOMAS-"At a meeting of the Warren County Planning Board held on the 12th day of June 1996, the above application for an Area Variance for replacement of a rotting deck, was reviewed, and the following action was taken. Recommendation to: No County Impact" Signed by C. Powel South, Chairperson. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Does the Board understand what the applicant is requesting? Are there any questions? I'm assuming this deck is currently built, is that correct? MR. WHEELER-That is correct. MR. CARVIN-Okay, and when was it built? - 1 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/24/96) MR. WHEELER-Late last fall into the winter. MR. CARVIN-Okay, and this deck is identical to the deck that was there? MR. WHEELER-Yes. I have some pictures to document that if you would like to see them. MR. CARVIN-Okay. other questions? It might help to show the Board. I'll open up the public hearing. Okay. Any PUBLIC HEARING OPENED JACK CUSHING MR. CUSHING-My name is Jack Cushing, resident of Queensbury, and I have a home immediately adjacent to the south of Mr. Whalen. We have lived there with the old porch. We have lived there with the new porch. The porch, in my eyes, is identical to the porch that was there before, no added anything, and I was over there one day, a year and a half ago or so, and almost fell through one of the rotting slates, and made the comment, boy, you've got to get this thing fixed. It was a health hazard. It's a safety hazardr-or it was, and they took it upon themselves to take care of it, the footprint of the other porch. I'm sorry that this had to come before the Zoning Board of Appeals, because I think you've got better things to do than to take care of something that's maintenance, and I just want to say that the new porch is a great one. It's an asset to the neighborhood, and we enjoy it looking from our porch. It's no different from the other one except that it's newer and in better condition. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Thank you. Anyone else wishing to be heard in support? Anyone opposed? Okay. Any correspondence, Chris? MR. THOMAS-Yes. We have one letter. A letter dated June 21, 199.6, addressed to myself, regarding Area Variance No. 40-1996 "I am writing to support Dr. Wheeler in his variance request for the replacement of a rotted deck at the above location. The Wheelers have enhanced and maintained their property for many years. The new deck will conform to the footprint of their former deck and should have virtually no impact on the neighbors. In fact, this repair will only make the deck safer and more attractive. Sincerely, Margaret Schroeder" That's it. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Any other public comment? Hearing none, seeing none, public hearing closed. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED ./ MR. CARVIN-Does anyone have any questions of the appllcànt? MR. MENTER-I have one question. What's the direction to the other lot line? I've got seven or eight feet. What is it on the opposite side of the house there? MR. WHEELER-I would say 20 to 25 feet. It's more on that side. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Any other questions, anyone? MR. MENTER-I don't have any other questions. problems with it, either. MR. CARVIN-No. I was going to say. If nobody's got any problems, I'd ask for a motion. I don' t have any MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 40-1996 DONALD WHEELER, Introduced by David Menter who moved for its adoption, seconded by - 2 - ',-- "-' (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/24/96) Fred Carvin: Proposing to construct a deck on the footprint of an existing rotted deck. Said deck would require 12 feet of relief from the side setback and 25 feet of relief from the shoreline setback, which matches the existing deck location. The action is one more of maintenance than of new construction, as the pre-existing state of the deck is a safety hazard. There do not appear to be any alternatives to reconstructing the deck. It would have no negative effects on the neighborhood or community, and result in only positive effects, both in terms of appearance and safety. It's certainly not self created, both by the nature of the products and building the deck. Duly adopted this 24th day of July, 1996, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Green, Mr. Menter, Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Carvin NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Lapham --- NEW BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 53-1996 TYPE II WR-1A/CEA STEPHEN C. MiLLER OWNER: HARLEY & RITA DEWEY MARLEY WAY OFF OF BIRDSALL ROAD, SECOND HOUSE ON LEFT APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO CONSTRUCT AN ATTACHED GARAGE WITH A SECOND FLOOR. RELIEF IS BEING REQUESTED FROM THE SETBACKS LISTED IN SECTION 179 -16C. WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 7/10/96 TAX MAP NO. 40-1-19.2 LOT SIZE: 0.18 ACRES SECTION 179-16C STEPHEN MILLER, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 53-1996, Stephen C. Miller, Meeting Date: July 24, 1996 "APPLICANT: Stephen Miller PROJECT LOCATION: Marley Way Proposed Project and Conformance with the Ordinance: The applicant is proposing to construct an attached garage with a second floor. This addition would not be in compliance with the rear and side setbacks for the WR-1A district. Relief is being requested from the setbacks listed in Section 179- 16C. Criteria for considering an Area Variance, according to Chapter 267, Town Law. 1. Benefit to the applicant: Relief would allow the applicant to build a new garage with living space. 2. Feasible alternatives: There do not seem to be any alternatives that would provide less relief. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the ordinance? The applicant is seeking 8 fee~of side and rear yard relief. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community? There do not appear to be any negative impacts on the surrounding neighborhood. 5. Is this difficulty self created? The size of this legal nonconforming lot makes it difficult for this garage to meet the side and rear setbacks. Staff Comments & Concerns: The applicant has informed staff that due to septic concerns at this location, the garage will be constructed without second floor living space. Drawings of the new garage will be provided by the applicant at the meeting. The proposed two car garage would be 460 sq. ft. in size. Permeability on this lot would conform to the requirements of the WR-1A district. SEQR: Type II, no further action required." MR. THOMAS-fiAt a meeting of the Warren County Planning Board, held on the 12th day of June 1996, the above application for an Area Variance to construct an attached garage with a second floor. was reviewed, and the following action was taken. Recommendation to No County Impact." Signed by C. Powel South, Chairperson. - 3 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/24/96) MR. CARVIN-Okay. Are you Mr. Miller? MR. MILLER-I'm Mr. Miller, yes. MR. CARVIN-Okay. The garage will be now constructed without the second floor? MR. MILLER-Yes. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Do you have some kind of a diagram, possibly. Does anyone have any questions of the applicant? MR. MENTER-Sue, the front of this building is the south side or the north side? MS. CIPPERLY-The garage, I believe, is going on the Marley Road side. MR. MILLER-It would be the south side. MR. MENTER-South end of the building. MR. MILLER-Yes. --- MR. CARVIN-Okay. It still looks like you're going up though. Is that correct? There is going to be a second story? MR. MILLER-Just over the house section. MR. CARVIN-Okay, but how big is that space going to be? MR. MILLER-Probably about 150 to 200 square feet. MR. CARVIN-And how big is the existing camp? MR. MILLER-Almost 900 square feet. MR. CARVIN-Sue, have we got a 50% expansion here with this going up that way? MR. MENTER-Is the garage included? MS. CIPPERLY-Were there new plans presented just now? MR. CARVIN-Yes. I'm looking at an existing house here, okay, and it's being incorporated. It's going up, plus a garage. MR. MENTER-Is that square footage included? MR. CARVIN-The garage is new. So it's an expansion. / MS. CIPPERLY-You're enclosing the porch, your existing porch? Maybe if you came up here it would help. MR. CARVIN-Yes. MR. MENTER-The addition looks like the 12 by 24 upstairs. Is that correct? MS. CIPPERLY-Okay. This new piece, where does that fit over your house? MR. CARVIN-Directly over? MR. MILLER-Right. MS. CIPPERLY-This is 12. That'd be, what, 15? - 4 - "-' ~ (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/24/96) MR. MENTER-Twenty-four, it looks like. MR. MILLER-Yes, it's in this area. MS. CIPPERLY-So you're doing about half of, a third of this. MR. CARVIN-Do you want to figure this out and we'll move on, I mean, until we get all of this, because he's just presented this to us tonight. MS. CIPPERLY-This is where your addition is planning to be though, right, is about over half of your existing house? MR. MENTER-It's over the total. MR. CARVIN-It's going over the total, it appears. MR. GREEN-Minus the porch. MR. CARVIN-Minus the porch. MR. MENTER-It should be right over this section right here. -- MR. CARVIN-Yes. MR. MENTER-From here to here. MR. CARVIN-That's what it looks like. MR. MENTER-That's the front. Okay. That's right. That's this. MS. CIPPERLY-And this front part, is that currently being used for living space? MR. MILLER-No. That's kind of a screened in porch. That will stay as is. MR. CARVIN-Is this a big porch here and a porch here? MS. CIPPERLY-This is a three season, or screened porch. This is a carport more. MR. CARVIN-So you're talking, what, 20 by 24? MR. MENTER-Right. Is that correct. Does it match the porch here, which would be the 10 foot? So the corner would be here. So it's 24 by 20. MR. CARVIN-And what's the current structure? I've got to!elieVe we're close to 50% on this. . I MS. CIPPERLY-And is that going to be bedrooms upstairs? MR. MILLER-Just the one bedroom. MR. CARVIN-I mean, if he's got, what is this, 34 here? MR. THOMAS-That's 34 by 10. MR. CARVIN-It's got to be 50%. MR. MENTER-It looks like 940, and if you're going 20 by 23. MR. THOMAS-That's coming close. MR. GREEN-940, that would be 450, plus. MR. CARVIN-So you're darn close. You might be over. - 5 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/24/96) MR. GREEN-Can we still do the garage, and then if the actual plans that he submits to the Building Department go over the 50t, we don't have the structure over the garage, or not? MR. CARVIN-Well, again, does the garage count part as the expansion? MS. CIPPERLY-No, just living space. MR. CARVIN-Just living space. MR. GREEN-We can do the garage. MS. CIPPERLY-And the garage is one story right now, right? MR. MILLER-Yes. MS. CIPPERLY-And that's what you're asking for? MR. MILLER-Yes. MR. THOMAS-We can always do the garage, and then when he brings the plans in for the second story, if it's more than 50t, like Bill said, back here he comes. MR. CARVIN-Well then we'll just have to note it to Staff, that this looks like it's going to be a 50t expansion. MS. CIPPERLY-And the other thing is we haven't advertised for 50% expansion. MR. MILLER-Can I ask a question? On what square footage is it based? MR. CARVIN-On the original camp. MR. MILLER-Just the square footage itself? MR. MENTER-Right. MS. CIPPERLY-Like your screened in porch would not count. MR. MILLER-That does not count? MS. CIPPERLY-And your porch that's completely open there on the side doesn't count. It's living space. MR. MILLER-Now the front porch is connected to the house, and it has screens and windows in it. Does that change? / / MR. CARVIN-Is it living space? MR. MILLER-You could consider it that. It is connected to the house and there's an outside door on it. MR. CARVIN-Well, I would suggest that before you build on top of your house that you clear it with the Planning Department, because what we're looking at is awful close to the 50% expansion. Okay. So a word to the wise is I wouldn't put any nails in any boards until you made sure that you were okay as far as that expansion. The opinion is that I think we can move on the garage, because the garage is a new addition, okay, but what you're showing us here does appear that you are going to build a second story, and that second story addition does appear that it may be in violation of the sot expansion ordinance. MR. MILLER-Okay. I was not aware of that. - 6 - ----- .-.-/ (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/24/96) MR. CARVIN-Okay. Well, that's why we're here, and that's why it 'behooves anyone to get his application information in as soon as possible, and not pop it on us the evening of the application, because it really slows it down. All right. Are there any questions of the applicant other than on the garage? Does everybody understand what he's asking for? How high is the garage going to be? MR. MILLER-The same height as the house is now, which is, I don't know the dimension. The print is to scale. I believe the house is. MS. CIPPERLY-On here it's about an inch and a half would be about 18 feet. MR. MILLER-That sounds right. The roof lines would be even. MS. CIPPERLY-That's including the first couple of rows of the cinder blocks on the house. MR. THOMAS-That must be above grade, right? MS. CIPPERLY-Right. --- MR. THOMAS-No cinder blocks are shown at grade? MS. CIPPERLY-Yes. The house itself is more like 16. MR. MENTER-Your entrance, obviously, is going to be from the back, right? Yes. What's the situation with that dirt road? Is that a, that's not a Town road, is it? MS. CIPPERLY-That's a right-of-way. We went through that with a previous variance, the Peyton-Fitz variance. That's not a Town road. MR. CARVIN-Well, I'm looking at some significant differences here' between what's existing and what's proposed, even under the new plan. I'm looking at, if you take a look at your east side projection, and compare it to the east side, you're changing the angle of the roof, all right. Am I not right on this? MR. MENTER-From existing? MR. CARVIN-If this is east side existing, and this is east side proposed. MR. MENTER-That's not right. MS. CIPPERLY-Well, the directions are kind of That's why I, off the back where the driveway is. strange / there. I MR. MENTER-No, it made sense. MR. CARVIN-Take a look at your east side. MR. GREEN-Well, the east side, yes, because if he throws a second floor on there he's going to lose that top. MR. CARVIN-Yes, but the roof is all wrong. MR. MENTER-Well, he's going to go right over that. MR. CARVIN-Yes, but even still, where's this? His angle on this roof is this way. He's going 90 degrees. MR. MENTER-Yes, but he's taking that right off. - 7 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/24/96) MR. KARPELES-Is that right? Is that what you're doing? MR. MENTER-Take that roof right off. MS. CIPPERLY-Yes. This is a porch. MR. CARVIN-Go up at an angle, but then how are we going to come in? This is going to be the angle to the roof here? This is your height? MR. MENTER-You mean with just the garage, you're saying, just building the garage. MR. GREEN-Yes, because you've got a second floor. The garage buts into the second floor of the house. MS. CIPPERLY-See, here's his garage. original roof. Here's the peak of the MR. CARVIN-But then how does the west side match up with the roof line this way? Okay. This is going to jut out. MR. MENTER-Well, that's going to come out of the new structure. MR. CARVIN-Okay. I'm slow tonight. You just have to bear with me. MS. CIPPERLY-But if you were looking at it this way, from the west, his garage would be over here. MR. CARVIN-Traditionally, we give 16 feet on a garage, and I don't see why we can't, because there is no roof line. MS. CIPPERLY-Well, there's no reason. MR. CARVIN-I was going to say, if it was 18, then that's fine. We can only give 16 foot to the peak on a roof on a garage, but he's not matching up to a roof line. MR. MENTER-Yes, he's not tying in to anything. MR. CARVIN-He doesn't tie into anything. What I'm saying is, this is the way the east side looks now, okay, and what he's saying is that he was going to have the roof come in here. Well, he's saying that this is 18 feet, and we're figuring that this is 18 feet, but because he's changing the angle of the roof, there's no roof line to match to. MR. THOMAS-Yes. I've got it now. / / MR. CARVIN-Okay. Any other questions, anybody? MR. GREEN-So what are you saying, you want it to go 16 feet to the grade? MR. CARVIN-I'm not saying anything. I'm just saying that he's indicating a roof line connection, and there is no roof line connection. He's saying that the height of that existing roof right now is 18 feet, and I'm saying that, personally, I'm not really convinced that I want to give an 18 foot garage, because traditionally we go 16 feet, and if he was matching to a roof line, then I would have less of a difficult time, but there is no roof line at this point that he's matching to. It's coming in to a flat wall. So there should be no reason why he can't do it in 16 feet. Okay. Does everybody understand? I mean, that's just my feeling. Okay. I'm going to open up the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED - 8 - ,--,,' '-' (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/24/96) JANE BARTIS MRS. BARTIS-My name is Jane Bartis, and my property abuts his property on the west, and I have no obj ections at all to this garage being erected. MR. CARVIN-How about the second story of the house? familiar with the second story of the house? Are you MRS. BARTIS-I have not seen the blueprints. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Well, here's the garage, but he's also going up on the house. That's what he's proposing, not that that's part of the application tonight, but if he were to, well, why don't we leave that for another time? It's not part of the application. Lets just do the garage. MR. THOMAS-Yes. MR. CARVIN -Okay. Anyone opposed? Anyone else wishing to be heard in support? ANN RUSSELL --- MS. RUSSELL-My name is Ann Russell. I'm not exactly opposed to it. I just have some concerns that I'd like addressed when you're looking at it. I live at 26 Marley Way, which is directly across the road from this property, and Marley Way is, like you said, a right-of-way, a private, unimproved dirt right-of-way, and at that point, it's on mY property. So I own the road and also about 10 feet on the other side of the road, on the side of the property that's being built on. Basically I have two concerns about it. First of all, it's the adequacy of the septic system. As far as I know, that property has only been used seasonally since it was built, and I don't know if Mr. Miller is planning to use it year round, but if so, I'd like some kind of assurance that that septic system is built for that and can take that. My other concern is stormwater. Marley Road is, actually there are two stormwater concerns. The first is, in terms of the septic system, I haven't seen the new blueprint. So actually what I'm commenting on is just the one story garage. That's all, and what I saw of what I think that was, it looks like the stormwater is just coming off half of that roof, and is directed right toward the septic system, and it's my understanding that, in Queensbury you're supposed to make an attempt to direct surface water away from your sewage disposal system, not right on top of it. In addition, the extra runoff is going to come right down that driveway, which is going to be, from the blueprints I looked at, graveled, and I think you all usually consider that pretty much like a paved driveway, in terms of permeability, which means that the velocity of that wa~r and the volume of the water could be pretty significant coming'down that, you know, I went on a site visit. It comes down, and Marley Way comes down. My driveway is almost directly diagonal from that driveway. So, I'm not opposed to the project, but I'd like to see some sort of control of that stormwater, maybe with a d~ell up by the garage to keep it away from the septic system, maybe another drywell down at the bottom of the driveway to keep it off the road. I think there's a lot of potential for erosion from the stormwater. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Does Staff have any comments? MS. CIPPERLY-Having driven that road a few times, I know that it does wash out. I think some of the suggestions that have been made would be a good idea, as far as having maybe the roof guttered and run to a drywell. If you wanted to put that kind of a condition in, you could say to the satisfaction of the Staff. MR. MILLER-Could I make a comment here, to try to address these - 9 - ~ '..-/ (Queens bury ZBA Meeting 7/24/96) here? The second part of this variance process for me is to upgrade the septic system, to a totally new system, which I've already been in contact with Mr. O'Brien, and we've walked the property to address concerns, and that is the next step after this, to get that okayed through the appropriate approval process and I'm sure your concerns about the stormwater could be' also addressed. The original drywell was planned to be abandoned. If the Town, the approval people had no objection, and it was appropriate maybe I could run the runoff from rain to the original drywell, which would have been abandoned, and then also have the new septic system. So, that might address your concerns. MR. KARPELES-Is this leachfield that shows on the drawing,· is that existing or is that the new one that's going to? MR. MILLER-Which drawing, is it proposed? MR. KARPELES-It says proposed drawing. leachfield. It shows a garage and a MR. MILLER-Yes. Since I've submitted this, I've had conversations with Mr. O'Brien. I believe he's an inspector for septic systems or has something to do with that. MS. CIPPERLY-Yes. He's a Building Inspector. MR. MILLER-A Building Inspector. His recommendation was maybe to switch to a drYWell in a different location from what I originally proposed on that. MR. CARVIN-Okay. The current system that you have, has it failed or is it failing? MR. MILLER-No, but it would be very close to being disturbed by putting the footer in for the garage, and regardless, I would like to update it. It's a 20 year old system, and it needs to be upgraded, and I would like to do that, and after this approval, that would be the next step in the full project is approval of the new septic system. MR. MENTER-Would you need to upgrade that system, volume wise? Obviously, you can't build what you had originally planned because of the system you have. MR. MILLER-Right. Currently the house is three bedrooms, and I was going to keep it three bedrooms, but in talking to Mr. O'Brien, and what the requirements were for that house to upgrade, I just couldn't do it at all. So I've cut that back to two bedrooms and proposed with his Department a drYWell system which he felt fairly comfortable with, but that variance hearing is after this one. , MR. CARVIN-Okay. Well, first of all, we, under this particular application, don't necessarily get involved with. septic systems. Unless the system has failed, under the current Ordinance, we can't do anything about it. As far as stormwater runoff, or has Staff has indicated, we can condition it to gutters and that sort of stuff, but as far as the septic system, that's pretty much out of our jurisdiction at this point, but it sounds like this is a multi stepped, phased type of thing, is it? MR. MILLER-Yes, two step. The setback for the garage was number one, and I've worked with Mr. Hilton and Mr. O'Brien, and it was their recommendations to start here with this setback variance, and if the outcome was good, to go to the septic setback variance, and get that. MR. CARVIN-Okay. This doesn't go to site plan, does it, Staff? - 10 - "'-, ~ (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/24/96) MS. CIPPERLY-I don't believe so. It would go to site plan if it is in a CEA, Critical Environmental Area. It doesn't indicate that it is in one. On Glen Lake, it's generally 100 feet from the shore, and this is outside of that. It wouldn't automatically go to site plan. MR. CARVIN-Just another thought. If he builds that second story addition, he'll still need a variance for that too, won't he, because he can't meet the setbacks, I don't believe. MS. CIPPERLY-That's correct. Well, he would be just going up above the existing footprint. MR. CARVIN-It's new construction. hasn't been used. It's going into an area that MS. CIPPERLY-The air, you mean? MR. THOMAS-Yes, going up like that. MS. CIPPERLY-We haven't ever interpreted it that way, as far as Area Variances go. --- MR. CARVIN-It's always been interpreted that way, as far as I know, a second story addition on a nonconforming. MS. CIPPERLY-Well, I would suggest that he come up with his second floor plans, bring them in, and go over them with us. It's hard to address. MR. CARVIN-I think the garage is one thing, but I think this sounds like a multi phase thing. MR. MENTER-Well, I think what the situation is, though, that even if this garage variance is approved, he needs to do something else to tie that garage in, as he wants to. You're not going to build anything before you come back. MR. CARVIN-I think I would just as soon see the whole package and not just piecemeal. MR. MENTER-Right. Do you understand what I mean, Steve? I mean, you're not going to be able to do anything with this garage until you get the second story solved. Right? MR. MILLER-The second story, now, is an issue? MR. CARVIN-Well, it's piecemeal. MR. MILLER-Can I just kind of tell the whole story of th3k ? I MR. CARVIN-Sure, please. MR. MILLER-When I came in and started asking questions of everyone who I could contact, this is the recommendations that I was given, to come in and apply for this variance. If the outcome was positive, then go for the next septic variance, and this is kind of the plan that's been recommended to me already. So I've kind of done it to the letter, and I thought I was doing the right and appropriate thing. MR. MENTER-We're not saying you're not. MR. CARVIN-We're just saying that you're going to be back, in all likelihood, with another two or three variances. It would seem to me that it would be better to have a full plan, whether you implement that full plan this year, but get the full plan, and then find out all the things that you have to do, and then do it at that - 11 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/24/96) time. MS. CIPPERLY-My understanding of this application was that, originally you just had a two story portion over the garage? MR. MILLER-Right, and because of the septic capacity concerns, I scaled that back. MS. CIPPERLY-Right. So then you said you wanted to do a one story garage, and then tonight it's really two stories? MR. MILLER-No, that was always there. MS. CIPPERLY-The garage is now one story, but then above the house there's additional? MR. MILLER-That was originally there, in the original variance application. MR. MENTER-It was always going to be over the house and the garage. He eliminated the over the garage part, but he still wants to go up over the house. --- MR. CARVIN-What do you think, Sue? Do you want to work on this and see if we can get this thing all squared away, so you have a complete idea of what's going on here? MS. CIPPERLY-Yes. I guess I would like to discuss with George whether he thought this was a 50% expansion or not. I don't know whether he even considered that, because the second story, supposedly, was coming off. MR. CARVIN-Yes. I think this is something that Staff had better look at pretty serious, and as far as the expansion going up, it's always been, at least illY understanding that this has been a new area. So, I mean, if it's not conforming, that's going to have to come back for a variance in any event. MR. MENTER-You're talking about the side setbacks? MR. CARVIN-Yes. I mean, I don't have a problem with just a 400 and some odd square foot garage, but it seems to me that there's going to be other pieces to this, and it may be just, we grant the garage and now he's got to move the septic around, and then he's going to be back for another piece. MR. MILLER-That was part of the original plan. MR. CARVIN-I don't know. What does the Board feel, do Y9u want to push on, or do you want to refer it? / MR. MENTER-On the other any other part of it. about the whole thing, could look at it in the the other setbacks, as hand, there's no application before us for I know you're just tryipg to be logical but as far as this Board's concerned, we light that there is no variance request for far as the second story goes. MR. CARVIN-He may find that he might have to alter, I'm going to play devil's advocate here. We may grant a garage, but then when he sits down for phase two or phase three, finds out that the house can't, after the garage. So then where are we? Now he has to re- design the house. I mean, we've looked at two different designs already. MS. CIPPERLY-I'm just looking at the advertising that was written, and it says applicant is proposing to construct an attached garage with a second floor. It doesn't really say anything about the other part of the house, and it says, relief is being requested - 12 - '--" --- (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/24/96) from the setbacks in 179-16C. It may have even been George's impression that the whole second story issue was being taken away. MR. CARVIN-That may be an oversight on George's part, but I'm saying that this Board is not comfortable with, at least this member. MR. MENTER-What do YOU feel about it, Sue? Because we could go ahead and say, okay, do the garage, and this guy's going to have approval for this garage and he's going to want to build it, and then is he going to come into another problem next week, as soon as h~ tries to turn a page here and get the rest of the thing done? MS. CIPPERLY-It is probably possible to attach this garage to the house. If he just wanted to do a one story garage, he could attach it to the house. MR. CARVIN-Yes, the existinq house. MS. CIPPERLY-Yes. MR. CARVIN-There's no way that he can, because his existing~house looks like this, and his garage is going to come like so. MR. KARPELES-I think there are enough questions here so that we ought to table this and we can come back with what he proposes to do. I mean, this young lady's raised a question about what he's going to do with the stormwater. I think that ought to be answered. I mean, definitely. MR. CARVIN-Well, he's indicated that he wants to do the septic. So lets get a plan. Because it's a small lot. I don't know where the septic can go on this thing. I agree with you, Bob. I think this needs a little bit more development. MR. MENTER-Yes. I'm pretty sure you don't want to, I think they're right. I think you want to get this thing as a complete package, because I've seen it happen before where it's turned into a big problem, you know, if there were considerations that weren't solved. MR. MILLER-At this point, I'm not sure where to go, because I thought I was. MR. KARPELES-I think what you do is you draw up a plan of exactly what you want to do, what you want to end up with, and then if you want to do it in phases, indicate what the phases are going to be. I think what we want to see is what the final package iSloing to look like. At least that's what X want to see. MR. CARVIN-See, what the final package is going to look like what you've presented us tonight, there's more variances that are required. MR. MILLER-I was unaware. MR. MENTER-He should have been told that. MR. CARVIN-Yes. I know. I think part of the problem is that, and again, I don't want to point any fingers at Staff, but I think we've got a fairly new person on this who's not fully aware of all of the rules and regulations, and that's just my opinion. MS. CIPPERLY-It sort of looks like if you include, just eyeballing this, it looks like if you included that porch, it may not be a 50% expansion, but on the other hand, we need more figures here to be able to figure it out. - 13 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/24/96) MR. CARVIN-Yes. I think I'd like to refer this back to Staff and have them. I think, like some of the Board members have indicated, I think it would behoove you to come up with an exact plan of what you're looking to do, and that way they can layout all the variances that are required, and then you can start the process on that, and then you can show us. Because we can do the garage and the second ~tory at one time, okay, and my personal feeling is, we can move on the garage tonight, but then when you go to phase two, if you have to alter that, you're going to have to come back anyway for phase two, and if it's any changes, you may not be able to incorporate that garage. So then you're going to be asking to change the garage again. I'd just as soon see the whole package. MR. MILLER-Can I ask the question where to go for guidance on this? MS. CIPPERLY-Come in tomorrow morning and talk to me, Sue. MR. MILLER-I work from eight until five. So it's very hard. Is there an hour around lunch maybe, or some time the middle of the day, so I wouldn't have to take a vacation day to do this? MS. CIPPERLY-Sure. -- MR. MILLER-Should I, as they say, call your people and set something up. MR. CARVIN-Okay. I'm going to move that we table this application. MR. MENTER-I wanted to ask another question. Ann, you said that your property line is approximately 10 feet on his side of Marley Way. Okay. I just wanted to make sure that that was taken into consideration when you drew this, with the 12 foot setback. Is that from Marley Way or the property line? MR. MILLER-I could not draw that from the map I saw, and from the lot that I got from the office where you get that information. I, did not see that indication. As far as I know, from the deed that I saw, this is accurate, and as far as I know, my lot goes up to that road. This is new information to me. MR. MENTER-Okay. So maybe that's something else that you can address with Staff. They can probably help solve that question. MS. CIPPERLY-Is there a survey map that you have? Maybe you could bring, or do it you have it with you? Maybe I could borrow that. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Is there any other public comment? Anyone else wishing to be heard with regard to this application? W~:~ve got some correspondence. Why don't we read that into the reco~. I'm going to leave the public hearing open anyway. I , MR. THOMAS-A letter dated July 24, 1996, regarding Stephen C. Miller Area Variance application number 53-1996 "Deàr Zoning Board of Appeals Members:" MS. RUSSELL-Excuse me. You don't have to read that. exactly what I just said. MR. THOMAS-Well, it's a letter that's part of the public record. So it has to be read in, unless you want to take it back. That's MS. RUSSELL-Read it fast. MR. THOMAS-III live at 26 Marley Way, directly across the way from the site of Mr. Miller's requested area variance. At this location, my property includes the road itself and approximately 10' of land on the side of the road on which the subject site is - 14 - "---- '-./ (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/24/96) located. As you know, Marley Way is a private, unimpr~ved dirt right-of-way which is owned by various individuals as lt passes through their property with rights to use the road granted to owners of specific parcels. The rear yard variance requested by Mr. Miller is from the required setback from the boundary of my property. As someone who would be significantly impacted by the granting of this variance, I have concerns regarding its impact on adjacent environmental and physical conditions. My comments are based on the project consisting only of construction of an attached two car garage with no increase in living space. First, I am concerned about the adequacy of the existing septic system for year-round use. Since I moved to the neighborhood in 1987, the existing home has been used only as a seasonal dwelling and.it is my understanding that this has historically been the case. If Mr. Miller plans to use the home for year-round occupancy, Type II site plan review, including certification of suitability of the existing sanitary septic system, may be required under Section 179-69 of the Code of the Town of Queensbury. Second, I am concerned about the increase in stormwater runoff in terms of its impact on both the septic system and the road. According to Section 136-8(B} of the Town Code, surface waters should be diverted from the vicinity of any sewage disposal system. However, it appears from the drawings submitted with the variance application that the runoff from~half of the roof of the new garage will be flowing directly toward the septic tank and leach field. Additional runoff will also be flowing down the driveway and onto Marley Way. It is my understanding that the Town considers a gravel surface to be equivalent to a paved one. Therefore, this runoff could be significant in both volume and velocity. My driveway and well are both located "downstream" from this source of runoff and could be detrimentally affected. In addition, Marley Way itself could suffer significant erosion as a result of the increased flow of stormwater. It is especially vulnerable to erosion during rain storms and spring thaws when the ground is still frozen. I am certainly not generally opposed to Mr. Miller's proposed project. However, in order to avoid these potential problems, I suggest that Mr. Miller be required to install a dry well adjacent to the garage to contain roof runoff and another dry well at the bottom of the driveway to control the runoff from the driveway. Thank you for taking my concerns into consideration in your decision-making process. Very truly yours, Ann Russell" MR. CARVIN-Any other questions of the applicant at this point? MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 53-1996 STEPHEN C. MILLER, Introduced by Fred Carvin who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Karpeles: To allow the applicant time to consult with Staff to form~late a complete application, taking into consideration all of the ~oposed changes and alterations to this particular project. I Duly adopted this 24th day of July, 1996, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Thomas, Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Green, Mr. Menter, Mr. Carvin NOES: NONE MR. CARVIN-Okay. Now we have normally a 60 day tabling, but if you can contact Staff and work out, they'll work with you to try to get this thing up to speed. MR. MILLER-In the event that we work out and figure out what exactly the requirements are, what is the next step from there? MR. CARVIN-Depending on how quick it all comes together, I doubt very much it'll be this month. - 15 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/24/96) MS. CIPPERLY-Have you closed the public hearing? MR. CARVIN-No. The public hearing is still open. Then it probably would be heard some time in August, next month. I doubt very much, we've only got, what, one more meeting, and that's full. MS. CIPPERLY-There's one on the 31st. MR. CARVIN-Well, I mean, that's assuming that we can get this all squared away, because I think there's going to be additional variance requests. So we'd have to re-advertise it. So I doubt very much we'd be able to get to this much before August, my personal feeling. MR. MILLER-Yes. Just for the record, my first correspondence and submission of plans was May 23rd. That's a long time. MR. CARVIN-I hear you, but I can't do anything about it, I mean, unless this Board has a complete deck to play with. MR. MILLER-I just wanted to state that for the record that it's been a long time. -- MR. CARVIN-Okay, but I would like to note that you did submit the new proposals tonight. So, I mean, the Board saw it tonight, half an hour ago. Okay. MR. CARVIN-I understand. MR. CARVIN-And there's an awful lot of questions, and that's why we have the public hearing. I mean, we did not and were not aware of some of these other items. That's why we have a public hearing as these things come up, and we have to move through these. Okay. OLD BUSINESS: SIGN VARIANCE NO. 52-1996 TYPE: UNLISTED CR-15 BERKSHIRE ACQUISITION OWNER: KEITH CAVAYERO AND ELYSA BARON 50 FEET WEST OF THE NORTHWEST INTERSECTION OF MAIN STREET AND WESTERN AVENUE APPLICANT PROPOSES TWO WALL SIGNS FOR CVS PHARMACY. RELIEF IS BEING REQUESTED FROM SECTION 140-6 WHICH ONLY ALLOWS ONE WALL SIGN FOR A COMMERCIAL BUILDING IF A FREESTANDING SIGN IS ALSO BEING USED. WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 6/12/96 TAX MAP NO. 130-3-18 LOT SIZE: 2.01 ACRES SECTION 140-6 JON LAPPER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. CARVIN-Now, when last we met on this, this is the CVS, I think we tabled this for some reason, I'm pretty sure. / MR. GREEN-We got a three, three. MR. CARVIN-Yes. Okay. All right. Why don't you read the tabling motion. MR. THOMAS-The Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals has reviewed the following request at the below stated meeting and has resolved the following. The meeting date was June 19, 1996, Variance File No. 52-1996 for a Sign Variance, was tabled. "MOTION TO TABLE SIGN VARIANCE NO. 52-1996 BERKSHIRE ACQUISITION, Introduced by Fred Carvin who moved for its adoption, seconded by Chris Thomas: To allow the applicant to maybe develop a less intensive use of the signs and to get a complete Board, because of the super majority aspect of this particular variance. - 16 - -- '- (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/24/96) Duly adopted this 19th day of June, 1996, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Green, Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Carvin NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Menter, Mr. Ford" MR. CARVIN-Mr. Menter was apparently absent. Are you familiar with this, Dave? That you feel comfortable that you would be able to render a decision? MR. MENTER-Yes. MR. CARVIN-Okay. You've got as full a Board as you're going to get, Jon. MR. LAPPER-And I appreciate it. Tonight with me is Chris Peznola, one of the principals of Berkshire Acquisition Corp. who came from Massachusetts. When I was here last time, Dave wasn't here. We just explained how this is really important to CVS because of the design of the plaza, because this particular building is/on a corner, and the real, the site issue for them is that if you enter the plaza from Luzerne Road, on the whole length, which is the elevation right there, given two choices, they would have to put the one up facing Main Street because that's what cars would see, and that would be the one on top, but if that's all that they have, and you came in, which is from the right of the bottom drawing, you wouldn't know that that was a CVS. You'd have to come all the way down the side and not see the CVS, which, in a situation where, A, we're trying to get people to avoid the congested intersection at the corner of Western and Main Street, and, you know, anyone coming from the north to take the Luzerne entrance, it's important that they know that CVS is there, but also what probably isn't clear in the application, now, and Dave's probably not aware of, that after a lengthy discussion with this Board, we revised our application, so that what we're here asking for tonight is the same 100 square feet that we would be allowed on the front facade. It's just to be split into two signs of 50 square feet each. So we're not looking for any additional square footage, just because of the design of the building, we're at that corner piece up there, to just have two signs of 50 square feet each. We think that's a minimum request because it's not any additional square feet, and that's down from the 100 square feet each that's requested, and what you see there is 100 square feet. What's depicted would be signs of 100 square feet each. MR. CARVIN-So what you're approximately half the size? saying is that these 7Uld be CHRIS PEZNOLA MR. PEZNOLA-Yes. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Does anybody have any questions of the applicant? Does everybody understand what he's asking for? MR. LAPPER-There also has been no negative public comment. None of the neighbors have had a problem, no letters. So we don't think that this is something where there's any detriment to the neighborhood. MR. PEZNOLA-I'd just like to add one comment, just as point of clarification. If you are right here at the Shop N' Save, what we're trying to do, an important element is if you can see it from that intersection, which is over here, you're going to avoid this intersection, which is what we're trying to keep people away from. - 17 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/24/96) MR. KARPELES~Now, what have you got? Have you got freestanding signs, too? Where are they located? MR. LAPPER-There's a freestanding sign at each entrance, and that's, the Planning Board has allowed that, because there's two separate sites. If this were a plaza, it's not under the plaza designation because you have to have more than three businesses, three or more, and these are two separate sites. They're attached so that it looks like a plaza. If it was a plaza, you'd be allowed one sign at each entrance anyway. The Planning Board approved, as part of the site plan approval, that we could have a remote-sign. What that means is that each of the sites would ordinarily get a pylon sign which we're doing as a pretty attractive sign. I think I saw that Mr. Thomas had a picture of it, and that'll be at each entrance. MR. KARPELES-So you don't need a variance for these? MR. LAPPER-Those will be built in compliance with the Ordinance. MR. KARPELES-Really you're going to have four signs, then, the two of these and the two on the building? / MR. LAPPER-Right. MR. PEZNOLA-The only variance is just, instead of having one 100 square foot sign on Main Street or alternatively on the other side, we're asking to split it up so that there can be the level of visibility and identity, to ensure that people can see it from that side. MR. CARVIN-Remember, we've got two lots here. entitled to two pylon signs in any event. So they would be MR. MENTER-Right, and one would be on Luzerne and one would be o~ Main. MR. CARVIN-That's correct. We can regulate the number. We can't regulate what they put on it. MR. LAPPER-Architecturally, it's also important, just the way this thing lays out, to have a sign on each facia. It looks kind of blank if you just picture that without anything up there on the one side, and they are going to be half the size of what you see. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Does anybody have any questions? Any thoughts or feelings? Let me also point out that because Warren County turned this down, what we call a super majority vote is required~ That means five votes, positive, to override Warren County, ory1y four votes to turn it down. Okay. So having said that, any thoughts or feelings on this, Bonnie? MRS. LAPHAM-I'd like to hear public comment, but now that the signs are smaller, I'm not sure I have a terrible problem with them, but I'm still hesitant about two signs, and I thought we really went through this issue with Westwood, and their signs would be smaller and more tasteful and were more directional. These are good sized commercial signs. So I'd like to hear public comment, before I make a decision. MR. CARVIN-Okay. We'll get to that. What do you feel, Bill? MR. GREEN-I didn't have a problem with it before, and reduced 50% makes it that much better. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Dave? - 18 - ',,--- --" (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/24/96) MR. MENTER-I tend to think that the traffic problem there would warrant the additional sign on that building. I went out there again, and I think that the visibility from the other direct~o? ~ay actually help to divert some traffic. I mean, that was my ln~t~al thought, before seeing any of this. I didn't realize t,hat the pylons, that they have the pylons out there, but I still thlnk that that's probably the case. MR. KARPELES-Well, I'm still against it. I feel that we were led to believe that this was a complete package when it was submitted to us the first time, and I was led to believe it was an ideal spot to build this facility, and I didn't realize it needed a Sign Variance, and if it does, then I don't think it's such an· ideal spot. I think I would have voted against the variance in the first place. So I'm against it. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Chris? MR. THOMAS-I stick with my original stipulation, that I don't think they should have two signs on that building like that. They already have two pylon signs and they can have one sign on the building. To me, I think 90, 95% of the patrons of that business would come from the local area, and they would know, if they wanted to stay out of traffic, to go in through the Luzerne Road end, rather than come off the Main Street end. Even reducing it by 50%, I still say only one sign on that building. MR. LAPPER-Mr. Chairman, isn't there an argument that two smaller signs are less intrusive than one sign of 100 square feet, just in terms of what you see when you drive by when you have a lighted sign? From most directions, I mean, people certainly heading toward Glens Falls from Exit 18, they're only going to see the one sign on the front facade, and they're only going to be looking at a 50 square foot sign, which is a relatively small sign for a commercial facility. People coming from Glens Falls, there are the large trees that border that small site that runs across from th~ car wash, which are mature 50 foot tall trees, and they're, you know, coming on Main Street, you really aren't even going to see the CVS sign on the side facing Western. What Chris pointed out, that's really there for people that are coming south on Western Ave., so that they will use the Luzerne Road intersection, and avoid the congested Main Street intersection. I mean we don't, visually, we don't see how just taking the same 100 square feet, putting it on two sides which are not, except from one perspective where you're going to see both of them at the same time, and that's no worse than 100 square feet on one sign. Breaking this up is really less intrusive. The other thing that I have to make you aware of is just that this plaza represents a big change, architecturally, from other plazas that have been built he7e. By doing this in red brick and doing this all the way/_around, including the back of this, so that when the neighbors' look at this, they're not going to be looking at a painted cinder block or something, like some of the other plazas, but to be looking at the red brick with the soldier courses, the dental molding on top. This is a really high quality, polished, architecturally designed plaza, and I guess we have a problem with our tenant, which is not, it's not so much that it's an issue for you, except that the benefit to the applicant is one of the main factors here for an Area Variance, weighed with the detriment to the area, and the benefit to the applicant, they feel that it is absolutely crucial to have the two signs to face the two streets, and we feel that, to some extent, we deserve for you to give us that, because we're not asking for more than 100 square feet. Somehow, to encourage this kind of really nice, really fancy development for a strip center, compared to other strip centers, and if we don't get this, it's going to be a real issue with CVS as to whether they'll go forward, because the sign is so important to them that if they think that it's under signed, we don't have, well, we have a lease, but this - 19 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/24/96) is a contingency. So this is a real issue for us, and that's a benefit to the applicant issue. MR. PEZNOLA-The other thing I think it's important to say is that it isn't a matter of whether the tenant feels it's under signed or over signed. More important to them is the aesthetic appeal, and that it's consistent with the image that they're trying to project, and their concern, and the reason that they allowed us to offer the smaller signs, which is really a big concession on their part, because any tenant's going to want as big a sign as they can get, and legally we're entitled to 100. To go down to 50, to keep the look that they're looking for, and from certain angles, the balance and the architectural appeal, and we've spent an awful lot of time and a lot of money, creating here something that's a lot nicer than most of the centers that have been built in the last 10 years. For more than just the reason of wanting to appeal to the community and create something that's attractive, it's an image. It's a very important characteristic of this whole program that this particular tenant has been doing now for about three years, across the region that they operate in, and we've been doing this with them for about 20 years all together, and in the last couple of years have developed about seven or eight of these, all with this high quality, attractive looking facility, and generally speaking,-- the communities that we've approached have really liked it and thought that it was a real attractive addition. So what I'm getting at is that it isn't so much a one sign, two sign what do they deserve, as much as it is, what can create the best aesthetic appeal, and still sort of accommodate the Town, in that we're not putting up really any more sign, and that's what I wanted to get across. MR. CARVIN-Okay. MS. CIPPERLY-One question that I had, you keep talking about the nice architectural style that you've put here, and I know CVS has a nationwide trademark kind of thing, but I also know that in places where you really want to go, sometimes if you modify your sign, it's helpful. I mean, that sign, to me, doesn't really go with the colonial building. Has there been any consideration of a more appropriate sign to that architecture, possibly externally? MR. CARVIN-There are two other options here. The first is to have a round, so that the sign goes around, and the other is to have CVS on one side and Pharmacy on the other. MR. LAPPER-In terms of going around, I mean, we did that with the Bruegger's, you may remember, you know, in terms of staying within the letter of the Ordinance there, and we feel that here, architecturally, that wouldn't work, because the way this is designed, it's all square corners, square angles, so t;hat by rounding that out, I mean, we could do that now and If'áve one continuous sign, but we feel that, and that would cover both sides, but ,we feel that that would, architecturally, aesthetically, that would be less appealing than to have two smaller signs on the square facade. MS. CIPPERLY-My point was, maybe something other than an internally illuminated, plastic sign, if they're trying to make such a nice image there. MR. CARVIN-Again, I should state on the record, I'm not opposed to the smaller sign. All right. I have an awful lot of reservations about this site, from a traffic standpoint. I share Mr. Menter's concerns. In many cases, we've addressed these at some of the previous variances, but I don't have as much concern over the signage as I do the traffic. I don't know if there are alternatives, and I think this is what Staff and everybody is trying to come up with. - 20 - '-- ...-' (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/24/96) MR. PEZNOLA-I did want to answer, directly, your question about having CVS on one side and Pharmacy on the other. There are a number of reasons why they can't do it. One is that the CVS/Pharmacy is a trademark that they hope is recognized, to separate them would be to detract from that, because one side people would see one half of the whole trademark, but the other is, in some areas, and I don't know if it's applicable here, they're required to say Pharmacy as part of their sign, and in some states, in Massachusetts, you'll say that it says "includes", in real small letters above Pharmacy, because that's the legal requirement. So it may not be here, but that's one of the reasons that this whole logo has evolved. MR. MENTER-Wasn't there something with Walmart? MS. CIPPERLY-Yes. Pharmacy, below. They're freestanding sign, I believe, says MR. MENTER-But my question is, the signs themselves, raised, illuminated individual letters, okay, on background. those are a white MR. PEZNOLA-Efface, yes. MR. MENTER-Okay. That is the sign. -- MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. MENTER-Okay. So the actual square footage of white will be reduced to the 50, and there will be red brick visible outside of that 50, or is it all going to be white and you're just going to make the CVS smaller? MR. LAPPER-Right. The way the Queensbury Ordinance, the way the Town counts, when you have letters, I mean, the other alternative would be you just, when you have raised letters, that you just do the square foot of each letter, which would mean that you'd have a much bigger sign, and what's done here is that the Planning Department draws a box around the letters, and that's considered the sign, so the white's going to be the white, because if you see even down by the Chiropractor on the other side, the top of the facade is all white, where it's not brick, but the sign would be centered within that. MR. PEZNOLA-The white is an architectural detail that is not necessarily related to the sign. MS. CIPPERLY-Is the white going to be illuminated? MR. LAPPER-The white is not going to be eliminated. It's, ~ply t~e letters are back lit. So it's really less than 50 square reet, ln terms of the letters. MRS. LAPHAM-Did I understand you correctly to say that CVS would probably not follow through with this project? MR. LAPPER-I'm not going to say that they're going to pullout. We're going to convince them, do everything we can, you know, no matter what, that this is a great site, that we've got it all approved, but they've let us know that the signage is a real major issue for us, and, I mean, they came at it looking for something twice as big, and we had to go back to them to say, look, Queensbury takes their Sign Ordinance very seriously, and we feel that the best that we're going to be able to do is to take the same square footage and cut it into two signs, and we convinced them that, we got permission from them, essentially, that we could ask for that, with their consent, and that they would go forward. So, you know, we certainly hope that this isn't going to kill our proj ect, after everything that we've done. We're ready to - 21 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/24/96) construct as soon as we're done with signs, but we know that it's going to be a real issue for them. MR. PEZNOLA-Yes, and the only comment I can make is they won't say to us that they won't do it, but I don't have the right to require them to, if I can't get it. It's a condition of my lease. That's not to say that they won't give me sort of an exception on that, but I can say that they have killed deals in the past where they didn't get the signs that they wanted, and in this particular instance, it's a location that they really like, and one that they feel they'll do very well in, which would certainly influence them, but I couldn't say, necessarily, whether they would allow us to go forward. MR. LAPPER-I'd also like to address Bob's comment, because I wouldn't want the Board to think that we just weren't dealing with this up front. When we started with the variance and we were talking about the zero lot line variance, so that the Chiropractor could own his building and Berkshire could own the CVS building, that was sort of a legal pre-requisite for going forward with the deal because the property was owned by the Chiropractor. He wanted to not be a tenant, but to own his own space. So that, when we came to you first, that was to see whether or not we had a project, to see whether we could get that zero lot line variance, and it wasn' t that we were trying to hide that we would need a Sign Variance. It's that that was the first threshold and once we got over that, then we did the rest of the design for the site plan, the landscaping, the whole thing. I mean, we had preliminaries done at that point. It just wasn't an issue for us, in terms of signs, because we didn't even know if we had a project, and, I mean, you're right. The best thing to do, and in the future I'll certainly always keep in mind that you should come to the Board first with signs, because it always is an issue on the back end, but it wasn't an intent. MR. KARPELES-I see your point. I'm just saying that if I had known it needed a Sign Variance, with every other question that there was with this site, I would have turned it down. I would have been against it, illY vote anyway. MR. LAPPER-I know how seriously, Bob, you take Sign Variances, and how important precedent is to you, but I just think that we need to distinguish here that even though we have two signs, that we're only talking about the same square footage, and we just don't feel that we're asking for that much. MR. KARPELES-Well, then part of the Sign Ordinance ought to be changed. MR. LAPPER-Queensbury has a very restrictive Sign ordinan~, which, as a resident, I'm in favor of. I MR. KARPELES-Yes, right, and that's the way we want it. MR. LAPPER-I think so, too, but we're only asking for the same square footage, in two signs, and as Dave's pointed out, I mean, there's certainly an argument here in terms of traffic that you want people coming from Western Ave. to know what it is. MR. KARPELES-Everything is pointing out that may this isn't such a good location after all. So maybe it would be best, with the questions the Board's got, with the questions you've got about doing it, maybe they ought to find another location. MR. LAPPER-But it's a commercially zoned site, and just in terms of, in this part of Town near the Northway, it's not like we can just say, we'll get under our control another parcel. I mean, these were five tax map parcels that we aggregated to create this. - 22 - ''--' '--' (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/24/96) MR. CARVIN-Okay. Well, I'm going to kind of cut this short, because we're going over the same ground. I'm going to open up the public hearing, in case there is anyone else. Is there any public comment? PUBLIC HEARING OPEN NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. CARVIN-I don't see any new arguments coming out here. We're just going around in a circle. So I'm going to ask for a motion. Is everybody set? Has anybody got any other questions on this? Has everybody got their mind pretty much made up? MR. GREEN-I have my mind made up. I guess I'm a little curious, again, how Chris feels about it. MR. THOMAS-Well, to me, if you look at that building, all of us have driven up and down Main Street there. How many people do you think are going to see the sign on the front of that building, if you've got three lanes of traffic, two going toward the City, one turning lane, and one coming out, plus they've got three turning lanes, two coming out and one going in on that end of the building. There's going to be an awful lot of congestion at that end of the building, and who's going to be looking for that sign? You better be watching that road, and I don't see where anybody's going to see that sign. If you're going to see anything, you're going to see that pylon sign out front. I don't think you're going to see that sign on the building, because you're not going to be looking back at that. I can see the 100 square foot along Western Avenue. I have no problem with that, but I can't see where anybody's going to really see that sign on that Main Street side of that building. MR. LAPPER-This is the sign we're arguing about. MR. THOMAS-That's the one I, you know, put that 100 square foot sign on the Western Avenue side, and don't put one. MR. PEZNOLA-If they went with one sign, they'd put it on Main Street. MR. LAPPER-Because that's where the traffic is. MR. THOMAS-Yes, but who's going to see it in here? You've got these trees here. You've got three lanes of traffic, onT. going west, two going east. You've got a turning lane. You've g,Pt three lanes trying, possibly coming in and out of that place. I This is awful congested in that one area. I don't think anybody's going to be really seeing that sign on that end of the building. I could see the Western Avenue side of the building, having a 100 square foot sign there. EverYbody would see that one. MR. LAPPER-But you've got all the trees here that you're not taking into account. MR. THOMAS-What about all the trees here? MR. LAPPER-Well, these are low. MR. THOMAS-These are low, but you've got this one here, this one here. You couldn't possibly start seeing that sign until you got to here. MR. LAPPER-Look how high it is on the facade. - 23 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/24/96) MR. THOMAS-Look how big these trees are. These trees are as big as the one on Western. MR. LAPPER-I can't understand why this is such a big issue when we're just splitting the same square footage into two signs. MR. THOMAS-Because it's two signs. You've already got two signs. You've got two pylon signs, which you're allowed. MR. LAPPER-We always get a pylon sign on an entrance to a plaza. MR. THOMAS-Sure, but you rarely get two. Because it is two lots, you get two signs, but rarely, if this is one lot. MS. CIPPERLY-Well, they got approved for an off premises advertising by the Planning Board, is what happened. MR. LAPPER-If this was a plaza with one parcel, wouldn't we get a pylon at each entrance? That's the Sign Ordinance? MS. CIPPERLY-But it's not. MR. LAPPER-Right, but not getting any more because we drew-- the line. The off premises is a technicality because we drew the line. MR. CARVIN-In any event, did he answer your question, Bill? MR. GREEN 7 Yes , and I guess what I was going to try and do was to convince he and Mr. Karpeles, but I don't know if I'm going to be able to. MR. CARVIN-I would say you'd have a better chance hitting the lottery. MR. GREEN-I was just thinking about, you know, we went around with the Red Lobster, I'm thinking about the reduction, the glare. I'm reading through the benefit to the applicant versus the detriment to society, and I just can't see any. I think the benefit far outweighs any detriment that may be created by, you, we cut these down to 50%, we've got the same amount of "glare". I don't see where the freestanding can, personally, I have to keep those separate because I, I mean, the freestanding, he can put in the freestandings and that's fine, and so I'm, personally, not taking that into an awful lot of consideration. Maybe I should, but I'm not, and I can't see where it's going to have any problem. I just wanted to reiterate my point. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Well, having said that, why don't you make a motion. Lets see what happens. MOTION TO APPROVE SIGN VARIANCE NO. 52-1996 BERKSHIRE ACQU{SITION, Introduced by William Green who moved for its adoption, seconded by Bonnie Lapham: The applicant proposes two walls signs for the proposed CVS Pharmacy. These two signs would be placed on the southerly and easterly corner of the proposed building. The Sign Ordinance allows businesses two wall signs only if they do not have a freestanding sign. Relief is being requested from the requirements of Section 140-6. The benefit to the applicant would be that he would have the signage necessary for the design of this building. There does not appear to me to be any detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the community, based on the fact that the two signs would have a total square footage of 100 feet, meeting the one Sign Ordinance requirements. I feel that the two signs would not have any additional glare or would probably have less of a visual impact than one large 100 square foot sign. The two signs on the two corners of the building would also increase visibility - 24 - '--'~' ---- (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/24/96) on Western Ave., possibly drawing traffic away from the Western Ave./Main Street corner, and routing traffic to the Luzerne Road entrance. The applicant has suggested a feasible alternative by reducing the two signs to a total of 100 square feet. I do not feel that the two signs as proposed would have any detrimental physical or environmental conditions to the neighborhood. I feel that the increased visibility would reduce traffic. I feel the building is designed to have two signs and it would actually would look funny without the signs. Duly adopted this 24th day of July, 1996, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Menter, Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Green, Mr. Carvin NOES: Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Thomas MR. LAPPER-Is there any possibility of approaching the Board again when there's a seventh member? MR. CARVIN-Jon, you and I could be very old before we have a seventh member. Yes, you can approach. MR. LAPPER-I guess we'd just like to reserve our right to consider coming back in a month or two. MR. CARVIN-I'm just telling you that, in August is when I go off, and so there'll only be possibly a five member, and I don't know what the status is. By the time you get two additional members up to speed, it could be several months down the line. MR. LAPPER-I know the Town Board's advertising, and we'll consider that when there's seven members. MR. CARVIN-My recommendation is to contact CVS and see if they can deal with the signage as outlined the Ordinance. MR. LAPPER-We'll certainly try. MS. CIPPERLY-You might mention to them, too, the fact that, even without any permits, you can have the directional signs, which are up to four square feet, and they can be right out at the entrance. MR. CARVIN-So give up a pylon and put the two signs on. MR. LAPPER-Well, we'll consider that also. The reason for the pylon is because there are other users on the Luzerne side and we need to make people aware of that. Thanks for your consideration. MR. CARVIN-All right. SIGN VARIANCE NO. 54-1996 TYPE: UNLISTED PC-1A FAZOLI' ¡ITALIAN REST. OWNER: SEED RESTAURANT GROUP AVIATION ROAD APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TWO FREESTANDING SIGNS AND TWO WALL SIGNS FOR AN EXISTING RESTAURANT. RELIEF IS BEING REQUESTED FROM REGULATIONS REGARDING PLACEMENT AND NUMBER OF SIGNS LISTED IN SECTION 140-6,B,3. WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 7/10/96 TAX MAP NO. 98-4-4.1 LOT SIZE: 1 ACRE SECTION 140-6,B,3 STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Sign Variance No. 54-1996, Fazoli's Italian Rest., Meeting Date: July 24, 1996 "APPLICANT: Fazoli's Italian Restaurant PROJECT LOCATION: Aviation Rd. PROPOSED PROJECT AND CONFORMANCE WITH THE ORDINANCE: The applicant proposes to use two freestanding signs and two wall signs for the existing Fazoli's Restaurant. The Sign Ordinance allows commercial establishments - 25 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/24/96) one freestanding sign with one wall sign, or two wall signs without a freestanding sign. Relief is being requested from the placement and number of signs listed in Section 140-6,B,3. 1. How would you benefi t from the granting of this Sign Variance? Relief would allow the public to better identify the existing restaurant. 2. What effect would this sign have on the character of the neighborhood and the health, safety and welfare of the community? No adverse impacts are expected with this request, however the amount of signage that is proposed is not in character with existing signage in this area. 3. Are there feasible alternatives to this variance? The applicant could utilize the existing signage at this location which conforms to the Sign Ordinance. 4. Is the amount of relief substantial relative to the Ordinance? The applicant is seeking an additional freestanding and wall sign at this location. The Sign Ordinance limits commercial establishments to one freestanding sign and one wall sign, or two wall signs without a freestanding sign. 5. Will the variance have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood? No adverse effects on the physical and environmental conditions in the neighborhood are expected with this request. SEQR: Unlisted, short form EAF review needed." MR. THOMAS-"At a meeting of the Warren County Planning Board,---held on the 10th day of July 1996, the above application for a Siqn Variance for a freestandinq siqn and wall siqn. was reviewed and the following action was taken. Recommendation to: Disapprove Comments: The Warren County Planning Board believes that the Applicant should conform to the Queensbury Sign Ordinance." Signed C. Powel South, Chairperson. MS. CIPPERLY-Before you go further on this, I think we ought to clarify that they want two freestanding signs and two wall signs in addition to an existing, you want a total of three wall signs, right, one on each side of your tower? MR. HEATH-No, only one additional wall sign. MS. CI, PPERLY-Okay because on these plans, it looked like there was one on each side of your tower. MR. HEATH-The Fazoli's building is designed to have one on each side of the tower. However, we're only asking for one additional sign. MS. CIPPERLY-Okay. Thank you. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Because Warren County has turned this down, I don't know if you're aware or not, but you saw what happened before. You need to have five votes to approve this appli~ation. So, does everyone understand what the applicant is asking/for? MR. KARPELES-No. Where is the other sign? MR. CARVIN-I was going to say. Maybe you might want to take a minute. I'm not clear, either, what is being asked for here. MR. HEATH-Okay. First of all, with the freestanding sign, which, at present, looks like this, we would be adding a reader Board onto the same pole, underneath the existing identification sign. MR. GREEN-Double sided? MR. HEATH-Double sided. MRS. LAPHAM-So it would be one sandwich board added, not two signs? MS. CIPPERLY-It's considered two signs because it's two separate - 26 - ',--,' --- (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/24/96) entities. MRS. LAPHAM-But it's on the same pole? MS. CIPPERLY-Right. MR. HEATH-As I understand the interpretation of the Sign Code by the Staff is that two signs on one pole is two signs. I've always thought of it as one sign, but that's kind of beside the point, but it would be going on the same existing pole as the sign that's there now. MR. CARVIN - I'm going to ask Staff. Is there a maximum .square footage on a sign, a freestanding sign? MS. CIPPERLY-At 15 feet from the property line, it's 50 square feet, and at, I believe it's 25 feet from the line it's 64 square feet. MR. CARVIN-What is this? Is this a 50 or a 64? 50. It's right out by the road. MR. HEATH-This is a 50. MR. CARVIN-How big is the "Fazoli's" sign? It's probably a ..-- MR. HEATH-The "Fazoli's" sign is 42, and we're asking for an additional 24, which would put us 16 square feet over, for the pylon sign. Now for the building, the Code allows us 100 square feet on the building. The existing sign is 37 and a half, and we're asking for an additional 37 and a half, which would make us 75, 76 square feet on the building, and in total we would be allowed, of course, 150 square feet. Total signs, you know, width, what we have and what we'd be asking for would be just a little under the maximum that we're allowed now by Code. It would be about 141 square feet, and the reason, as stated in the application, is visibility. There is a pretty bad visibility problem coming off of the Interstate, as you can see, the way the road curves, you're right on the restaurant, really, before you can see it, and with the front sign facing the opposite direction, the visibility is very good traveling west, traveling east. It's not very good, plus the existing pylon sign is somewhat hidden by the trees. MR. MENTER-Are you, then, looking to put the wall sign on the south of tower there? MR. HEATH-Yes, facing Aviation Road. MR. KARPELES-Are the trees there blocking that? you'll be able to see that? So I "doubt if MR. HEATH-It's not blocking the tower. You have a beautiful view of the tower. MR. KARPELES-I drove by there two times today, and both times, there's a very, very short period of time when you can see that tower. MR. HEATH-Yes, it is short, and that's why I think it's best to make the best use of it. This is the first time I have visited the site, and I knew where it was, basically, and of course I recognized it first because I know what a Fazoli's building looks like. Otherwise, if I had been just getting off the Interstate looking for a place to eat, I wouldn't have known what it was, because I was already past the place where I could get into the left lane before I even saw the pylon sign. - 27 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/24/96) MR. CARVIN-Okay. applicant? Does requesting? Does anybody else have any questions of the everybody understand what the applicant is MR. KARPELES-He hasn't described where the other sign is going to go, the other freestanding sign. MR. HEATH-It's going on the existing pole. MR. CARVIN-In other words, it's not two freestanding signs. MR. HEATH-No. Really, it's not going to be two freestanding signs. It's just going to be a reader board on the existing. MR. KARPELES-And what's going to go on it, the menu and so forth? What type of thing will go on that sign? MR. HEATH-Well, first of all, it will advertise the drive through. I don' t know how many people know that Fazoli' s has a dri ve through, which is very important these days, and then Mr. Cochell here could probably tell you better what would put on there. BOB COCHELL --- MR. COCHELL- I'm Bob Cochell. I'm the Area Supervisor for Fazoli' s . We use reader board just to try to bring people into the restaurant. Lunch specials, we have a slogan, "Twelve items under three dollars" and that seems to work in most of our areas. So it really is a benefit to us build awareness to our guests, as they're driving by, so they know what we have in our restaurant. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Any other questions anyone? Okay. Does everybody understand now? MRS. LAPHAM-Do you have a sign on each side of the tower? MR. HEATH-Presently, there's one on the front side of the tower. Then we would have one on the south side of the tower also. MRS. LAPHAM-That's one more sign that you already have, and a reader board, MR. HEATH-Yes, and a reader board on the existing pylon. MR. CARVIN-Okay. If there's no other questions, I'll open up the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. CARVIN-Any correspondence? MR. THOMAS-Yes. A letter dated July 24th, "Dear Sirs: In/~egard to Sign Variance No. 54-1996 for Fazoli's Italian Restaurant, I find it astonishing that a business which is entitled to the maximum amount of signs allowed under the Queensbury Sign, and currently has as many signs as all its competitors, and more than some believes that they can make a case to be entitled to even more signage. It would seem to me that granting them any additional signage would only open the door for anyone doing business in Queensbury to request and expect the same consideration. I trust that the Board will not yield to their request and explain to them what they have in signage now is maximum and that it is a fair amount. Sincerely, John P. Mathis, M & W Foods, Kentucky Fried Chicken" That's it. MR. HEATH-I would like to point out, if I may, that we do not have the maximum square footage of signs presently. We are allowed 100 square feet on the building. We only have 37 and a half. We're allowed 50 on the pylon and we only have 42. - 28 - ~ -....../ (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/24/96) MR. CARVIN-Okay. be heard? Okay. public hearing. Any other public comment? Anyone else wishing to If there's no other comment, then I'll close the PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. CARVIN-All right, ladies and gentlemen, any questions, comments, feelings, thoughts? How about you, Bob? MR. KARPELES-Well, I agree they've got a problem. You can't see it when you're approaching it from the Interstate, but I don't think this is the answer. Because I just think that time span, when you see that sign, is too short a period of time to do any good. There must be some other way to get around it. I have no objection to this sign. MR. HEATH-Let me ask this. Is it possible to take these as two separate issues and vote on them separately? MR. CARVIN-In what respect? explain. I guess you're going to have to MS. CIPPERLY-Like the wall signs versus the freestanding? ~ MR. HEATH-Yes. Can you vote separately on the wall sign and on the freestanding sign, or does it have to be taken as a? MR. CARVIN-Did Warren County do that? It's up to you Board. I don't care. MS. CIPPERLY-I think, in past cases, there have been some adjustments to the request. MR. MENTER-Yes. You can say that we would approve it, in relation to this sign, but, you know, we'll approve the wall sign, you can condition it in such a way that you can have any effect you want. MS. CIPPERLY-I mean, if the applicant wants to withdraw part of. One thing that, I guess, the signs on the building don't bother me as much as reader boards do. MR. CARVIN-Yes, I agree. MS. CIPPERLY-And somebody just made the point that, you know, you have a very short window there. I don't, again, know how much good that reader board is going to do you. There may be a way, again, to use a directional sign to do, to show that there's a drive-in. MR. HEATH-Yes. I think, really, the curvature of the road and the fact that the directional would have to go down so far. ~ I MS. CIPPERLY-And I think local people know Fazoli's is there. MR. HEATH-But I'm not sure that local people know what Fazoli's is, and that's the point of the reader board. MS. CIPPERLY-Right. I go there, but maybe it's more the look of it than, I know the Mall has one that, I hardly ever read what's on it because I'm going by fairly quickly. That's a fairly fast road. MR. HEATH-First the Mall one is very large. read. You would have to MS. CIPPERLY-Yes. The other advantage you have there is the stop light. Some number of people are stopped there every few minutes, at least. So maybe the reader board would work. As far as the ones on the tower, if the Board thinks they're beneficial, but the reader board kind of. - 29 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/24/96) MR. CARVIN-What do you think, Dave? MR. MENTER-I tend to agree. I think the reader board, I don't think, creates a real nice image, just in general, and I think the tower blends in more as part of the logo, and would have, you know, would look nice as you're coming from the north. I mean, you wouldn't look at that and say, boy, look at all the signs up there, you know, it's not gaudy and it blends in nice with the building. I don't have a problem with that south tower, if you feel like that's going to help, generally speaking, but the reader panel, I think is, I'm not sure about that. MR. CARVIN-Bill? MR. GREEN-I did the same thing Bob did. I went there a couple of times in the last week, tried to pay special attention to it. If you want to put one on that side of the tower, I think that's a more attractive way to do it, but I don't know how much it's going to generate. I see the freestanding sign out there sooner than I do anything, to be honest with you, which brings me to my next concern, is I don't like the looks of the reader board. That's a personal preference, I guess, and I never seem to read them anywhere else in Town, but I've also got, I think Bob's going to appreciate this. On this particular site, I'm not really certain we shouldn't try and stick more to the Sign Ordinance, because I mean you're on one side of the road. You're not on a corner, that we had on a previous situation. Although it seems to be on a corner because of the turn of Aviation Road, but it's technically just a straight road, and so I'm almost leaning toward (lost word) . MRS. LAPHAM-My own thought is I really think they need another sign toward the Interstate, because the signage now is really placed to local clientele and local people know where it is, know what it is, for the most part, when you're getting off the Interstate is when you're really looking for something like that, some sort of a restaurant, usually fast food or whatever, and I think the signs are beneficial. The reader board, I have to agree, I think it's tacky. MR. GREEN-Have you looked into any other, if you're trying to use this to draw people from the Northway, have you looked into any of the restaurant signs they put out on the Northway? MR. COCHELL-Yes, they're limited. MR. MENTER-How long is the wait on that? MR. COCHELL-The Seven Steer, you saw that one. They held that one up for a long time, and there aren't any positions available. You have to wait until one comes up, and what I understand ?n that si tuation is, you're supposed to be open three day parts, and they're letting, for some reason, the State Department is letting someone put up a sign that's only open two day parts, but we don't have anything. Reader boards are important to our business. I mean, it is the success of our type of business. Burger King has one across the street, if you noticed. It helps. MR. GREEN-To be honest with you, I have never noticed. MR. HEATH-Yes, it's over there, and it's important. The drive through is important to us. We can't put banners up. I don I t know if that came through here, but we can't put banners up in front of our restaurant, advertising our product and what we are, and because we're new to the area, I mean, it's real important to us to let people know that we're a value company, and that's what the reader board is used for, is just to let people know that they can eat for a very good price, and it'll pull people off. I mean, again, there's a lot of traffic that goes by there from out of - 30 - '-' '-'" (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/24/96) towners that it would really be advantageous to us to be able to have th~t board there to catch their attention. It's just one other thing that'll catch their attention before they go by. MR. GREEN-You mentioned the advertising for the drive through a couple of times. I would be less objectionable to maybe a drive through addition with a Fazoli's circle underneath, without the lettering. As I said before, I guess, I don't have a problem with putting another sign on the tower, but I don't think it's going to do much good. MRS. LAPHAM-What about the Town's suggestion of a directional arrow for the drive through? MR. HEATH-We have directionals. Again, the setback on those are, you know, it's all the way into the driveway, which is, I think it's even further back than our pole sign is. There are directionals there. MRS. LAPHAM-Having it on the tower I can see where it would be very important to pull people off the highway, and then once they get into your driveway, then they could make the decision whether or not they want to go inside or go through the drive through. I mean, I don't think they'd decide not to patronize your restaurant because they don't know it has a drive through. MS. CIPPERLY-Whoever said, could you just do a drive, like push a drive through sign up right below your oval, without, and leave off the reader board, and you might be able to do it within the 50 feet you're allowed. MR. HEATH-If the two signs touched, would they be counted as one sign? MR. MENTER-Yes. Absolutely. done. I believe that's the way it's been MS. CIPPERLY -That's the way, like at Walmart where they had a Pharmacy sign underneath, that was considered one sign. MR. MENTER-Well, any reader panel, I mean, reader panels that are below the logo of businesses, and that's part of the sign. MS. CIPPERLY-But if it's getting people to know there's a drive through in addition to the restaurant, that's a possibility. MR. KARPELES-Well, are we saying if he just raised this? MS. CIPPERLY-Like take off the A, B, C part. MR. KARPELES-And raise this up to the top sign, that it "OUld all one sign, is that what we're saying? be MR. CARVIN-That's what I'm hearing. MR. MENTER-That would be my interpretation. MS. CIPPERLY-For instance, on the Rex T.V., they have, remember they had one part that was raised up, and you had them lower that, so that it was all considered one sign, even though it was three separate words, but if they could come within the 50 square feet. MR. THOMAS-Believe it or not, I like the reader board, but I'm not thrilled about the sign on the building, and I'll tell you why, because the alternative to the sign on the building is the awning on the front. They could put the lettering on the awning on the front. - 31 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/24/96) MR. CARVIN-That constitutes another sign. MR. THOMAS-That's another sign, but they're asking for another sign. Because the awning already exists and the other sign doesn't, I would like to see. MR. CARVIN-If they've got an awning with a sign, then that's in violation. MR. THOMAS-Well, let them put an awning with a sign on it, rather than another sign on the building. MR. CARVIN-But what I'm saying is that they still would need a variance. MR. THOMAS-Yes, but I would rather see the sign on the awning, on the building. MR. MENTER-The visibility is the issue. MS. CIPPERLY-Well, that green, white and red awning, if people know that's, I know what you're saying, people don't, in here, know that it's a Fazoli' s yet, and I was looking at the Kentucky Fried Chicken place as I was looking at this whole thing, and they don't even say Kentucky Fried on it. They have a picture of the Colonel and a red and white striped awning, but there's no words, but everybody knows that's a Kentucky Fried Chicken. So, I don't know, really, what the answer is here. I like your restaurant. I think the prices are great. My kids love it, but I don't know whether you've done studies as to whether local people are coming in or what part of the market it is that you're missing. Is it the Northway? MR. COCHELL-We're missing quite a bit of the Northway, at this point. I mean, that's why we feel a reader board is important, and when we go into a market like this, being new, it's a very valuable, part of our business is to let people know what our price structure is and what we have to offer to the public. So it's a real vital part. If you ask about people coming in, I mean, yes, this time of year we're finding, it's interesting because we were smiling today, a lot of people are coming in because they think we're Papa Gino's, and, which means they've missed everything we have out there now, and they're coming in. MS. CIPPERLY-We have a lot of people who don't come back until, you know. MR. COCHELL-Again, I watch all the traffic go by, and I don't think we're pulling in a lot of the locals, because a lot of peoP2e just don't know who we are, and that's just a good way to advert ire , and without being able to use any other signage. I MS. CIPPERLY-And you are entitled to 60 days worth of temporary banner. MR. COCHELL-Yes. I was told we already used those. It's a month a year, and I've already used those. MS. CIPPERLY-It's actually 60 days, I believe. MR. COCHELL-Okay, then we have some time, cleaner, though, than putting out a banner. look, if you look at the picture. but this is so much I mean, it's a clean MR. KARPELES-What are you talking about now, the reader board? MR. COCHELL-The reader board, yes. I'm talking about the reader board. - 32 - '- ----- (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/24/96) MR. KARPELES-The way 1 understand it, all you've got to do is raise it up from the bottom, you don't even need a variance. MR. CARVIN-See, they've got 42 square feet now, so they'd only have an additional eight square feet. MS. CIPPERLY-When I said that, Bob, we were talking about just the words "drive through". MR. CARVIN-If you put the drive through, they probably could get a one by whatever, in other words, they could probably pick up that eight square feet. MR. HEATH-You mentioned Kentucky Fried Chicken and McDonalds a minute ago. Almost everybody in the United States recognizes the picture of the Colonel, and there's probably not a kid in this country over the age of two that can't read the golden arches without the word "McDonalds" underneath it, from the signs a great distance. Unfortunately, Fazoli' s isn't in that position yet where people recognize the shape of the building or the shape of the sign without having to have any wording, and that's why the reader board is so important, that they can get the message out, you know, what they are, who they are and what they have to offer, other than the fact that, I think the name says that they're an Italian Restaurant, but other than that, what kind of Italian Restaurant, you know, what do they offer? Is it fast food, you know, what is it? And I believe that Bob would agree with me that of the two signs, the reader board's the most important. I asked you if you could vote on the two items separately, if we had to give away one, I think it would be the building sign, because the reader board is the more essential of the two. MS. CIPPERLY-Would limit on the period of time help you on that? I mean, not help you, but sort of as an introductory thing for a period of months or something? Then it would be hard to get down. MR. MENTER-I don't like that. It's not our job to put him in a position that's more recognizable. MR. GREEN-I've seen the portable reader board signs, just out of curiosity, not that I would recommend this here at all, but what sort of Ordinances do we have for those? MR. CARVIN-They're prohibited altogether, anything on a cart, without a variance. MR. GREEN-I guess I'm trying to just justify this to myself, that this would be better than what. I MR. CARVIN-Yes. I want to caution the Board. I don"t see a significant difference between this one and the last application, because I felt fairly comfortable with the last one that, by splitting the two signs, as long as they still can come in underneath the, what is it, 100 square feet, I didn't have a problem with it, and I don't think that this is significantly different than the CVS application, as far as the building signs are concerned. So, not that we don't take each case individually, but I think what is fair to one is fair to the other. As far as reader boards are concerned, I'm not really crazy about them. I think you've got a biqqer problem. I think anything you put out there for people coming off the Northway is going to be visible on that freestanding sign. That freestanding sign, quite literally, is hidden until you almost are by it, and I don't care what you put out there, I don't think, unless you chop down some of those trees, which is going to be interesting if you can get away with it. MR. HEATH-I think the reader board, though, is as important to - 33 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/24/96) local traffic as it is to people coming in off the Interstate. MR. CARVIN-Well, again, I'm just saying I know I've come down that road 12,000 times, and I never saw the freestanding sign until I had to go look for it. MR. HEATH-I think you will see the reader board on that freestanding sign before you actually see the identification. MR. CARVIN-I didn't even see the "Fazoli's" sign. MR. HEATH-Right. The Fazoli's part sits behind the foliage on the trees, where the reader board will be down where it's going ~o. MR. CARVIN-Well, maybe you should lower it, then. MR. HEATH-And it's also the color, the coloring, too. The Fazoli's blends in with the background, more than the white of the reader board would. MR. CARVIN-Well, my personal opinion is that reader boards on Aviation Road are just not, I mean, other than folks, you know, sitting at the red light, like you say, the rest of them are-too busy trying to get to the next red light. MR. COCHELL-We're in a tourist community, though, and that's, we're here to cater to them. I mean, that road, you watch the people going by, getting off at Exit 19 going to the Great Escape, and, you know, we're in a tourist community, and a reader board is what's going to get people to look and take a second look at our location. We put a billboard up at, I don't know if anybody knows our billboard, but we put a billboard up just north of the Million Dollar Mile, and on it, it's a very nice billboard, and it says 12 items under $3, and the Canadians were coming in last week when they, the two holidays that they've had because they have no idea where the Fazoli's is. So, I mean, it really is, it's an important, part of being in an area where we're trying to do business both in a, you know with locals and in the local trade. Look at the hotels in Town. There are reader boards out there. I mean, the one I'm staying at for this week, the reason I stopped there because it said it was a good value. So, I went in there, HBO available. So, I mean, we're just asking for what other businesses have in Town, and that's why we're here. I mean, it's real important. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Well, like I said, I appreciate your comments, but I'm not quite sure, has anybody else got any thoughts? Has everybody got a direction on this? If so, I'd ask for a motion. Do we have a consensus? I mean, your either for it or against it. MR. GREEN-Well, as I said, I don't necessarily have a probl~ with the additional tower sign, and to go along with my feelings, a couple of previous things, you're right. Under the 100 square feet or what have you, I guess I can't have a concern about it. I'm just not sure it would be a good use of money, advertising dollars. I personally don't like the reader board, though. MR. CARVIN-Well, they're asking for a reader board. So you either approve it or you don't. I mean, we can separate these into two sections. MR. GREEN-If they want to separate it and ask for just the tower, I don't have a problem with the tower. I cannot approve that as it's stated. MR. CARVIN-How about you, Dave? MR. MENTER-Well, I do see, from my perspective, a difference - 34 - "-" '--' . (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/24/96) between this one and the last one. I don't see a safety issue here at all, a traffic flow issue so much. I don't see it as being incumbent upon us to make up for the difference in their position with some of their competitors, although I do understand your visibility problem. MR. CARVIN- I guess all I'm asking is, do they have justification to grant a variance, and if so, how much and where? Chris, do you want to take a shot at it? MR. THOMAS-I think I'm in the minority here. MR. CARVIN-I'm not sure what is the minority. Are you for .it or against it? MR. THOMAS-I like the reader board sign, but I'd rather see the awning, rather than another sign on the tower, that the lettering go on the awning. MR. CARVIN-Well, I mean, we've gone through all the mechanics. I mean, we can put this off for 62 days, folks, if you want to think about it, or we can come to some kind of consensus. I mean, I guess I, personally, I'm not crazy about the reader board. MRS. LAPHAM-It's the height of the tourist season. I don't know if we want to put it off for 62 days. MR. CARVIN-Well, I'm just saying. That's my option. If I don't hear something here pretty quick, I'm going to carry it over until next month. MR. KARPELES-I'm not crazy about the reader board, but I think it's the only thing that's going to do them any good. I think they've got a problem in there. MR. GREEN-What is the total square footage of the freestanding sign now? MR. CARVIN-It's 42 square feet. MR. GREEN-And they're allowed 50? MR. CARVIN-Fifty. MR. GREEN-And how big is just the reader board? MR. HEATH-It's three by eight. MR. CARVIN-Twenty-four. MR. HEATH-So for the reader board, we'd need a varianc/ of 16 square feet, but then again, like I said earlier, we would be way under the total maximum of signage that the Code allows, and may I point out, too, you know, that if Fazoli's didn't really see the need for this reader board, I don't think we would be sitting here, you know, since they're open and doing business. MR. CARVIN~How long have you been open? MR. COCHELL-Since April. MR. CARVIN-Three months, and you attribute the lack of business because of the reader board or that you've only been open for? MR. HEATH-Lack of awareness. MR. CARVIN-You've only been open three months. - 35 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/24/96) MR. COCHELL-Well, this is the height of the tourist season. We should be knocking them dead, and we're not. MR. CARVIN-Well, see, again, I know that this is always the argument, that the signs are going to bring the folks just flocking in, and I've never been totally convinced of that. MR. HEATH-It's worked in other areas. MR. COCHELL-They do work. MR. HEATH-I mean, how about KFC, look at his window signs that they have allover the place. MR. CARVIN-Again, I know our Ordinance says 50 square feet. Now if you want to increase it by eight square feet, that's your prerogative, but you're asking for an additional 16 or 18 square feet over the Ordinance, and the presumption, and I've been on the Board à long time and I know a lot of the other members have heard these arguments before, that Levi's and everybody else, that if they don't get a sign out there, they're not going to do any business. I guess if you can come to the 50 square feet and get your reader board, then that's what the Ordinance is. MR. HEATH-That's why there's appeals. MR. CARVIN-Well, I'm saying three months worth of business, you can't show me that because you don't have a reader board out there that it's impacted your business. I'm saying that you've only been in business three months. You come back two years from now and say that my business is still down in the pits and that I need a reader board, I think you've got a convincing argument, because you've now got a comparison of another store some place else with a reader board. MR. COCHELL-Lakewood, New York. We have a reader board, Lakewood let us put, again, it fell within their Sign Ordinances, but we have a reader board there, and I don't know how much different, three times the sales, and that's why people say they come in. MR. CARVIN-Okay, but you made it in compliance with their Ordinance. MR. COCHELL-Yes, it was not an existing building with this. MR. CARVIN-Fine. Ours is 50 square feet. If you want to make a small Fazoli's and a big reader board, that's your prerogative, is what I'm saying. MRS. LAPHAM-Would that work for you? / MR. CARVIN-I mean, as far as the wall sign is concerned, I didn't have a problem with CVS. I know the other Board members, there was a couple of other Board members that did have a problem with the CVS. I don't see that wall sign as significantly different than this one because of the visibility situation. So I don't have a problem with the wall sign as long as it's not in excess of the 100 square feet for the two. MR. HEATH-The two would only be 75 square feet. MR. CARVIN-So, I mean, I would be willing to give the wall sign. I have a hard time with that sign. Does that give anybody any guidance? CVS wanted to do the same thing. There were two Board members here who turned that down. MR. KARPELES-Well, I think there's a difference between this and CVS. - 36 - --.- '-'" (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/24/96) MR. CARVIN-I agree. Each of these stands on its own merit. MR. KARPELES-They've really got a visibility problem. think CVS did have. MRS. LAPHAM-They can't apply that 25 feet to a reader board? I don't MR. CARVIN-If that's what you want to grant, then that's what they can do. MS. CIPPERLY-Could you access this reader board if it was up at the height of the Fazoli's sign? MR. COCHELL-It would be a little harder, but it could be done. MR. CARVIN-Do I have a motion? MOTION TO APPROVE SIGN VARIANCE NO. 54-1996 FAZOLI'S REST., Introduced by Fred Carvin who moved for its adoption, seconded by David Menter: The applicant is proposing to use two freestanding signs and two wall signs for an existing Fazoli's Restaurant. In order for~the applicant to proceed, he needs relief from the Sign Ordinance, Section 140-6B(3}. I would grant the applicant relief from the wall sign only. I would grant the applicant a second wall sign, no larger than 37 and a half square feet, to be placed on the south side tower. I would not grant any variance over the current Ordinance for the freestanding sign. By structuring this variance in this fashion, I believe that this is the minimum relief necessary to achieve both the benefit to the applicant and also to protect the character of the neighborhood, safety, health and welfare of the community. I do not believe that the applicant has demonstrated that an additional signage on a freestanding sign is significant enough to grant the variance there. However, I do believe the applicant has demonstrated, because of the location and the siting of the particular restaurant, that the second wall sign is justified. I do not believe that by the granting of this variance that it would be substantial, and I do not believe it will have an adverse impact upon the neighborhood or the community. Duly adopted this 24th day of July, 1996, by the following vote: MR. CARVIN-You've got the wall sign. You don't have the free, I mean, you've got SO square feet. Whatever you want to do with that SO square feet on that freestanding sign is your business, but you can have an additional wall sign of no greater than that 37 and a half square feet. AYES: Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Green, Mr. Menter, Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Carvin / I NOES: Mr. Thomas MR. CARVIN-All right. Now you have the wall sign. You do not have the freestanding sign. Okay. MR. HEATH-Thank you. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Thank you. AREA VARIANCE NO. 60-1996 TYPE II WR-1A CEA ROLF W. AHLERS OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE ASSEMBLY POINT TO KNOX ROAD, HOME IS AT THE END OF KNOX ROAD APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO REPLACE AN EXISTING GARAGE WITH A NEW GARAGE. RELIEF IS BEING REQUESTED FROM THE SETBACKS LISTED IN SECTION 179-16C. ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 7/10/96 TAX MAP NO. 7-1-3 LOT SIZE: 0.50 ACRES - 37 - ~' (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/24/96) SECTION 179-16C ROLF AHLERS, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 60-1996, Rolf Ahlers, Meeting Date: July 24, 1996 "APPLICANT: Rolf Ahlers PROJECT LOCATION: Knox Rd. Proposed proj ect and Conformance wi th the Ordinance: The applicant is proposing to remove an existing garage and construct a new garage. The new garage would not conform to the side setbacks listed in the WR-1A. Relief is being requested from Section 179-16C. Criteria for considering an Area Variance, according to Chapter 267, Town Law. 1. Benefit to the applicant: Relief would allow the applicant to build a garage on his property. 2. Feasible alternatives: There do not seem to be any alternatives that would provide less relief. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the ordinance? The applicant is seeking 11 feet of side setback relief. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community? It appears that this request would not have a negative impact on the surrounding neighborhood. 5. Is this difficulty self created? The size and dimensions of this legal nonconforming lot make it difficult for a garage to be built that would conform to the setbacks. Staff Comments & Concerns: The applicant should submit drawings of the proposed garage indicating the height and any living space that may be located on the second floor. Permeability on this property will be within the requirements of the WR-1A district. SEQR: Type II, no further action required." MR. THOMAS-"At a meeting of the Warren County Planning Board, held on the 10th day of July 1996, the above application for an Area Variance for the replacement of an existinq qaraqe with a new qaraqe. was reviewed and the following action was taken. Recommendation to: No County Impact" Signed by C. Powel South, Chairperson. MR. CARVIN-All right. Does everyone understand what the applicant is proposing? I have a question of the applicant. It says that you're going to submit some drawings of what the proposed height and living space and so forth? MR. AHLERS-Yes. I have plans here. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Does anybody have any questions of the applicant? MR. MENTER-Yes. that? The space over the garage, what is the plan for / MR. AHLERS-That is planned to be storage area. The space above the ceiling of the present garage has trusses. It's built with trusses, and I use it as storage area, but it is very difficult to get around there. MR. MENTER-So this is just going to be stick and open? You're not going to use trusses on this? It's going to be open and you're going to use it for storage? MR. AHLERS-I use it only for storage. I would like to add that both neighbors on the north and on the south side, Dr. Holmes and also Mr. MacElroy, have such storage area above their garages. So this proposed garage, which would be higher than the existing garage, would conform to the two garages that stand there now. MR. KARPELES-How are you going to get up there? Have you got steps there somewhere? A pull down? Is it a ladder? - 38 - ...--- ~ "--- ,,,,,/ (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/24/96) MR. AHLERS-Yes. There is a pull down ladder, and I plan to put the same into the new garage. MRS. LAPHAM-It would have a floor? MR. AHLERS-It would have a floor, probably floor boards. That's all that's needed. MR. CARVIN-How high is your current garage? MR. AHLERS-The current garage I did not measure. It would be an eight foot garage plus the roof, maybe another eight feet. MR. CARVIN-About 16 feet. MR. AHLERS-About 16 feet, yes. MR. CARVIN-And this is going to be how high? MR. AHLERS-Well, it's 29 feet above the first floor, 30 feet from the top of the roof down to the slab. MR. CARVIN-How high is your current house? --- MR. AHLERS-Twenty-four feet. MR. CARVIN-So this is going to be higher than the current house. MR. AHLERS-I plan to change the house later, so that the proposed garage will not be higher. MR. CARVIN-So you're going to build the house up? MR. AHLERS-That's right, later. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Any other questions of the applicant anybody? MR. GREEN-Is there electricity out there? MR. AHLERS-Not in the garage, no. In the house, of course. There is, of course, electricity in the current garage. You need lights, and the architect had suggested that perhaps automatic garage door openers be installed, electricity for that, but there will be, I think probably, lights for the storage area. MR. CARVIN-Okay. What is the upstairs storage area? About how big is that, do you know what the dimensions are? MR. AHLERS-I think the architect has drawn something as far as the area is concerned. I'm not sure. / I MS. CIPPERLY-It's 26 by 34, if you add. MR. CARVIN-With dormers. MS. CIPPERLY-Okay. So it's 30 by 26. MR. THOMAS-Yes, 30 by 26. That's 780 square feet. MR. CARVIN-So we're assuming that the upstairs is going to be 780, too. Do you know what the existing camp is, how large the existing camp is? MR. AHLERS-No, I don't know. The main structure is 26 by 26 feet, and the main building has two stories. So, I have not figured out the square footage of the existing building. MR. MENTER-Two stories are both primarily living space? - 39 - ~~ (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/24/96) MR. AHLERS-Living space, yes. MR. MENTER-If you have a 640 square foot footprint, okay, the second floor would be the same size. MR. CARVIN-About 1300. MR. AHLERS-Yes. MR. CARVIN-And this expansion would be 780. MS. CIPPERLY-But it's not living space. MR. CARVIN-Yes, well, it's not a garage either. MS. CIPPERLY-But the definition of the 50% expansion is. MR. CARVIN-I know, but he's asking for a garage with it, and a garage is 900 square feet and we traditionally only go 16 feet on a garage. I mean, this is a two story garage, is what it boils down to, because he's got an existing one story garage. MS. CIPPERLY-Well, the current method, not to contradict you,~-but the current height restriction is 35 feet for the zone. I think one thing that Mr. Ahlers has mentioned in his conversations with us is not wanting to store things out under the trees, but also he has a great regard for trees, which is kind of refreshing, to tell you the truth, on some of those peninsulas. So part of the reason for his storage in the garage is so that he can get things out from under the trees, which, having been out to the site, he's got a very nice. MR. CARVIN-I still am going to come back. I'll make my comment at the end. Does anybody else have any questions of the applicant, what we're looking at here? I'll open up the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. AHLERS-I have two letters of support. MR. CARVIN-Okay. If you would give them to Mr. Thomas here. MR. AHLERS-From the two neighbors, yes. MR. THOMAS-I've got them. I've got copies of them. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Then they will be read into the record. Why don't you read them. MR. THOMAS-Okay. A letter dated May 8, 1996, "To Whom lIt May Concern: I am a next door neighbor of Dr. Rolf Ahlers 'at Lake George. I am aware of his plans for replacing his garage. I have no objections whatsoever to his plans. The proposed building will not infringe upon my property in any way." It's signed by W. Robert Holmes. Another letter faxed, dated 7/23/96 "Dear Mr. Thomas: As the neighboring property to the south of referenced applicant, I wish to indicate my support for Mr. Ahlers Area Variance request. I have spoken with Mr. Ahlers regarding this plan and have reviewed the application file. I do not believe the four foot extension of the garage area will have a detrimental impact on the character of our neighborhood. Sincerely, Dennis MacElroy, Tax Parcel 7.-1-4" That's it. MR. CARVIN-Okay. MS. CIPPERLY-Just to clarify the 50% expansion thing, it says the gross floor area of a single family dwelling, and then in the definition of Gross Floor Area, for Residential, it's the area in - 40 - ~ -../ (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/24/96) square feet within the exterior walls of a dwelling unit, not including attached garages, porches, decks, etc. So if this is a garage, then that 50%. MR. CARVIN-One story I would agree, but I'd like to see him put a car in the second story. Again, is there any other public comment? Anyone else wishing to be heard? Okay. Hearing none, seeing none the public hearing is closed. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. CARVIN-Any questions of the applicant, anyone? MR. THOMAS-I don't have a problem with this one. The expansion looks like it is going to the east, and in line with the existing building. As far as the second story, seeing that there's only four foot knee walls on there, it could be used for living space, but it just depends on what they do with that second story on the existing camp. They could build through it, and out into this area and convert it to living space, even though they would need knee walls there and it would reduce it the 760 square feet that it is now, would be reduced down, but I would make it a condition of the variance that it not be used as living space, only storage space. MR. CARVIN-Again, we've tried to do that. I don't know who's going to go knocking on the door. Okay. MR. AHLERS-How can I convince Mr. Thomas and Mr. Carvin that it's going to be used for storage space? MR. CARVIN-You can convince me, but what happens when you sell the property? MR. AHLERS-Yes. I think that there is no plan to do that, but I would like to protest. I would like to suggest that perhaps the plans as you have them in your plans be modified so that your reservations can be met, so that in fact we will, have storage area and not potential living area. I think that one way to meet your concerns would be to take out the knee wall, because what I think I need primarily is floor storage area, and if you knock your head against the sides, you know, of the roof area, that is not so much of a concern. My concern now is with that storage area above the existing garage, is the trusses which are constantly in the way, and if we can take out the knee wall and just have the sides of the roof come down, then that's fine. Then it will not be convertible into living area. MR. THOMAS-You mean lower it by four feet? MR. AHLERS-Yes. / I MR. CARVIN-Which brings it down to 26 feet. MR. THOMAS-Yes, 27, it's 31 now. MR. CARVIN-I'll tell you, 27 feet is still pretty high for a garage. What's Bonnie feel? MRS. LAPHAM-I don't have a problem with this. When I looked at the site, it doesn't obstruct anyone's view. It doesn't bother the neighbors on either side. MR. CARVIN-Well, you're going up 31 feet. MRS. LAPHAM-He's talking about taking out the knee walls and bringing it down to 27. I don't have any problem with that. The one thing, in conversation, that I was questioning in my mind was when you said that you were going to re-do the house, which reminds - 41 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/24/96) me of the first one that we heard (lost words) everything together. Is there some reason why you're not presenting both packages? I mean, why are we looking at a garage, when you might be back here with a different house? MR. AHLERS-Are you asking why I'm not doing both projects at the same time? MRS. LAPHAM-Why are you not presenting them to ~ at the same time? MR. AHLERS-Why am I not coming to you at the same time? MRS. LAPHAM-Yes. MR. AHLERS-Primarily for reasons of funding. This is an expensive project, and I can't do both at the same time. I have children in college and it's very expensive. The garage also is in much immediate need of replacement. I have not mentioned those other items. The garage now as it exists is a safety hazard. The footing, I think, may be only 20 inches deep. I have seen this immediately when I bought the house in 1977, but the concrete sidewalk is constantly heaving in the winter time, and as you walk across there, you can easily stumble. The door, the garage_door can't be closed any more, so it's also a security hazard, and then the roof is beginning to leak. It has a roof covering that I think ought not to be applied. The garage is in immediate need of change or replacement. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Bill? MR. GREEN-How high is your present garage now, just a rough estimate? I know you said you didn't measure it, but do you have any rough guess? MR. AHLERS-Measurement of what now? MR. GREEN-The garage existing? MR. AHLERS-Yes, that's 24 by 24 feet, I think. MR. CARVIN-No. I think he meant height, about 16 feet I think he said. MR. GREEN-Sixteen, the camp, I'm sorry, I missed that. MR. AHLERS-So the new garage would come out toward the east a little bit, but otherwise it would conform to the same footprint. MR. GREEN-I'm in the same boat as Fred, here. I don' t have a problem with the additional four feet on the floor. I/m just really scared about this second floor. I understand bringing it down may help, but we're still at 26, 27 feet. MR. AHLERS-Well, okay, now, I must mention another item. I'm sure that you have seen the high garage doors. I have not mentioned yet that I have a sailboat that I want to put in there. However, I understand the Zoning Board's concern with the height of the planned garage, and so I think one way to get around the issue of the excessive height would be to put ordinary garage doors in and not the nine foot garage doors. That would probably lower the roof line another three feet. MS. CIPPERLY-Could you still get your sailboat in there? MR. AHLERS-No. The sailboat cannot go in, then, and I have made preliminary exploration to store the boat on Assembly Point outside. I would have to rent space outside, and that's, of course, a possibility. I must say that I don't like those boats - 42 - "--' --./ (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/24/96) standing around. I made a mistake buying the boat. It's very difficult to, I can't even give it away. It has a (lost word). It's admired when it's in the water, but it has to be lifted into the water with a crane. I have to go to Dunham's Bay to have it lifted into the water. It's a quite unusual sailboat. I don't have the time to sail it. For all practical purposes it's standing there, and it has to be taken care of. That's why I wanted to put it into the garage, but I understand the Board's concern about the excessive height, and I'd be willing to store the boat outside, if we can lower the roof line another three feet by doing that. MR. CARVIN-How about you, Dave? MR. MENTER-Well, I'll tell you, my real concern, also, is the height, especially if you're talking about, if it's not just a garage we're considering, because you're going to come back and you're going to look to put a whole house next to this thing and tie it in to this thing. So we're not only tied to this height, but, as you extend that roof line and drop down to the shore, you're talking about a lot more height in the overall structure, because we're going from the lowest point when you try to match it up to the Codes. -- MR. AHLERS-Right. MR. MENTER-So that's a real concern. My colleagues have done pretty good at getting this whittled down before it got to me. I guess we, initially, we were at about 31 and a half. MR. AHLERS-No, 30 feet, I think, is the greatest height according to the plan now, from the slab to the top of the roof. MR. MENTER-So, essentially, we're down to four feet off, taking off those knee walls, the outside knee walls, and another three feet. MR. AHLERS-Seven feet down. MR. MENTER-So you're talking seven feet off of that, so you're down to 23 feet, from the north, on the north side. I don't have a problem with 23 feet. MR. KARPELES-I don't have a problem with 23 feet. MR. CARVIN-Did I ask you, Chris? MR. THOMAS-Yes. with. I went first. I got it down four feet to start MR. CARVIN-Okay. Well, I'm going to mirror a lot of my colleagues comments. I do have a problem with the height. I don't krlow, 23 feet is still quite a ways up there. I'm just trying to think, an average, normally garages run 16 at the peak, right? So we're going, what, five above that. MR. THOMAS-Seven above that. MR. CARVIN-Seven. MS. CIPPERLY-It's also a steeper pitched roof than the average garage. It's a 12/12 pitch, I believe. MR. THOMAS-Yes, 12 on 12. MR. GREEN-Yes. If you could bring that pitch down to like a 7/12, that would knock another couple of feet off it, too. MR. CARVIN-At 23 feet, do we still end up with a two story structure? - 43 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/24/96) MS. CIPPERLY-I guess my point on mentioning the pitch was that you've got a really, it's not like you're building a two story house, which the average two story colonial is 25 feet or so, with a 5/12 pitch, and that's going to look bigger than a garage with a steep thing like this. MR. CARVIN-Because I'll tell you, we granted a garage out on Corinth Road there at 23 feet, I think it was, and, boy, when I went out and saw what that, it's a big structure. MR. AHLERS-I would like to mention, excuse me, I don't want to interrupt, but I would like to mention once more that my neighbor to the north in particular has a two story garage, and the second story is used as storage. The garage that I'm planning, the modified plan that I've just mentioned now, which is lower, would probably be lower than Dr. Holmes' garage on my north side. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Do you know when he built that garage? MR. AHLERS-Yes. That was in, I think in the late 80's, 1989 or so. MR. CARVIN-That may have been under the old Code. I don't know. ~- MR. AHLERS-Now he has a regular eight story garage, and then he has a knee wall, and then he has a roof on top. MR. CARVIN-Well, I'm going to be brutally honest here. I'll tell you why I have a great concern, because we are seeing a proliferation of garages that are two stories, that get attached to houses that get converted over time to living space. Now I'm not opposed to anybody living on the lake, trust me, but what we are finding is that these larger and larger houses are being built on smaller and smaller lots, and it is having a cumulative effect. Now, I am fairly adamant about a garage. A garage is a garage. A storage area is a storage area, and I just have to look with a jaundiced eye on plans like this. Again, no reflection upon what you're looking to do and your honesty and integrity and everything else, but I just know that over time these types of structures get converted into other uses, and I am opposed to having the Town of Queensbury go around knocking on doors and checking people's lifestyles. So when a person comes in and asks for a garage, I don't have a problem giving you a garage. You've got a 16 foot high garage right now. I was out there. I looked at it. You've got all the justification in the world for a garage. I just have a hard time going up 23 feet with that garage, all right. I mean, a normal person garage is 900 square feet and we normally go about 16, 17 feet high, which is a normal garage. MR. AHLERS-But then there is really limited storage space~n top. CARVIN-Well, again, the second story storage space, I guess I'm quite sure what you store up there. MR. not MR. AHLERS-There is an awful lot. MR. CARVIN-There's an awful lot of area, 780 square feet can be an awful lot of area. We've had people come in and ask for a mother- in-law to live in a 700 square foot garage. MS. CIPPERLY-Two fifty one of them was. MR. CARVIN-Or 250, I'm sorry, and people tell me they can't store in 780 square feet, and I appreciate your efforts in getting this down. I'd still like to see it come down a little bit more. I mean, I'd like to see it somewhere around 20 feet. MR. THOMAS-Change the pitch. Take out the 12 on 12, put a 5 on 12, would bring that down four feet, about. - 44 - '- ~ (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/24/96) MR. CARVIN-At the peak, no higher than 20 feet? I mean, that is my feeling on it, and again, if there's any other questions from the Board if there's no new information, I'd like to move it along. So I'd ask for a motion. If there's any questions. Has anybody else got any feelings on this? MR. THOMAS-So you're saying, what, the maximum height you'd like to see is 20 feet? MR. CARVIN-I'd like to see 20 feet on the garage, and I think that's four feet higher than what I normally like to see, because I think there's going to be additional plans coming in, in the future on this. MR. MENTER-No question. MR. CARVIN-No question. So I'd ask for a motion. Anybody feel adamant one way or the other? If I make it, is it going to get moved? Is 20 feet an adequate? MR. THOMAS-Twenty feet's all right with me. MR. MENTER-Yes, actually, Fred, I agree with you. ~ MR. CARVIN-Does the applicant understand, 20 feet? MR. THOMAS-Twenty feet to the peak. MR. AHLERS-Twenty feet to the peak from the slab? MR. THOMAS-From the slab. MR. AHLERS-That's what you're proposing? MR. THOMAS-Yes. MR. AHLERS-Well, then it'll have to be that way. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 60-1996 ROLF W. AHLERS, Introduced by Chris Thomas who moved for its adoption, seconded by Fred Carvin: The applicant is proposing to remove an existing garage and construct a new garage, which needs relief from the side line setback of Section 179-16C, the Waterfront Residential One Acre district. The benefit to the applicant would be it would allow him to replace an existing deteriorating garage with a new one. There doesn't seem to be any feasible alternatives for the location of the garage. The relief required from the Ordinance is 11 fert from the side line setback of the north property line. Ther~ do not seem to be any effects on the neighborhood or community. There has not been any objections, and there has been two letters to the Board with no objections to the building. The difficulty is not self created, due to the pre-existing nonconforming lot size. I would condition the variance that the building be no higher than 20 feet at the peak from grade, and that the upstairs or second floor be used strictly for storage and not for living space and that no water or sewer be brought into the garage, only electric power. Duly adopted this 24th day of July, 1996, by the following vote: MR. CARVIN-I just have one question of the applicant. You are not going to be altering the house structure, this only the garage. MR. AHLERS-Yes. MR. CARVIN-Okay. - 45 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/24/96) MR. AHLERS-We do plan to make an application probably for a variance later. MR. CARVIN-Well, the only reason I asked is I noticed in the front of the garage there appears to be a small section of living space here, this area here. So you're not going to be tearing this out at this point? MR. AHLERS-No, that will not be changed. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Yes, because all we are granting is just this floor plan that you're submitting. I'm saying this is your existing camp. I noticed there was some windows, and it IQoked like there was some living. MR. AHLERS-That's a porch. We're not changing that. MR. CARVIN-Okay. You're just going to replace that garage. MR. AHLERS-The only thing we're taking down is this. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Not a problem. Okay. Any question on the motion? Does the applicant understand what we're granting '/ no higher than 20 feet? MR. AHLERS-Yes. MR. CARVIN-There can be no toilet. MR. AHLERS-Yes. Are you asking me whether I'm protesting? MR. CARVIN-No. I just want to make sure that we don't have any problems later on. MR. AHLERS-No, no. I understand perfectly what you're saying. AYES: Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Green, Mr. Menter, Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Carvin NOES: NONE AREA VARIANCE NO. 59-1996 TYPE II WR-1A CEA GREGG BROWN OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE KNOX ROAD, OFF OF ASSEMBLY POINT ROAD AT BEND IN KNOX ROAD, HOME IS STRAIGHT INTO DRIVEWAY. APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO CONSTRUCT A NEW SINGLE FAMILY HOME. RELIEF IS BEING REQUESTED FROM THE SHORELINE SETBACKS LISTED IN SECTION 179-60. ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 7/10/96 TAX MAP NO. 7-1-14 LOT SIZE: 0.63 ACRES DEAN HOWLAND, JR., REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT / I STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 59-1996, Gregg Brown, Meeting Date: July 24, 1996 "APPLICANT: Gregg Brown PROJECT LOCATION: Knox Road Proposed Project and Conformance with the Ordinance: The applicant is proposing to construct a single family home on his property. The new home would not meet the shoreline setback which is currently 75 feet. Relief is being requested from the shoreline setback listed in Section 179-60. Criteria for considering an Area Variance, according to Chapter 267, Town Law. 1. Benefit to the applicant: Relief would allow the applicant to build a new home. 2. Feasible alternatives: The applicant may have the ability to relocate the proposed leach field along the east property line and move the home the required 75 feet from the shoreline. If this were done, the side and rear setbacks would also be met. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance? The applicant is seeking 25 feet of shoreline setback relief. 4. Effects on the - 46 - ,,,,..--'.lIi(,, '",-- .-,- ....../ (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/24/96) neighborhood or community? It appears that there are no negative impacts associated with this request. Additional comment may be made at the public hearing. 5. Is this difficulty self created? The size and dimensions of this legal nonconforming lot makes it possible to build a home that conforms to the existing setbacks. Staff Comments & Concerns: Staff believes relocation of the proposed leach field at this location can yield a home that meets the setbacks of the WR-1A district. However, lake views at this location may be diminished if the home were moved to a 75 foot setback. SEQR: Type II, no further action required." MR. THOMAS-"At a meeting of the Warren County Planning Board, held on the 10th day of July 1996, the above application for an· Area Variance to demolish existinq home and construct a new house. was reviewed and the following action was taken. Recommendation to: No County Impact." Signed by C. Powel South, Chairperson. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Any questions? I have one, Staff Notes, can you build it in compliance? MR. HOWLAND-Well, George called me last week in reference to this. I'm Dean Howland, by the way, and he mentioned about, if we had to move the septic system, basically turning it 90 degrees, and I don't know how we'd meet the Code to put a new septic system, is the first requirement there'd be a problem. I went up and I measured off the shoreline, and we'd have to move it back, well, come within 11 feet of the existing blacktop that's there now, and that would raise the elevation of the house about three feet, because we'd have to get up higher, just to be, because we wouldn't have enough space between that and the driveway. That's going to take the front, we're going to put the front of the building out of the ground, instead of two foot eight, almost six and a half feet. It wouldn't be exposed basement. There's a deck in the front with lattice work on it, that would also take us, up well over the 28 feet which is what we've been trying to keep down under. We met with Staff, when the architect met with your Staff on site, was it three times, I believe, and they tried to design the new house within the criteria, meeting everything at that time. It also would be loosing the trees in the back corner, and I don't think we could (lost word) because of the existing carport. We couldn't get back 75 feet, because I've got to move 25 feet, and I don't have that distance on the north side. MR. CARVIN-Well, what's Staff feel? What's Staff's opinion here? Can he or can't he build it in compliance if he turns the septic? MS. CIPPERLY-I was just studying this. You'd have to put your, you'd have to have room for your septic tank in there between the house and the leach field, and the septic has to be 10 feet from the house. Then the existing carport has to be five feet ftom the house. I suppose some, maybe it can't get back 75 feet, but it may be able to move back a little further than the 50. Again, just looking at this in terms of cutting trees, it seems like, as I said, that you would be taking down more trees that way. MR. CARVIN-I don't know. 1 looked at it, and my notes here says it looks like it could fit. I mean, I don't know if anybody else looked at it, what anybody else thought, but I know, I make notes on my applications here, and I was surprised to see Staff Notes, and then I looked at mine and it says it looks like it could fit. So, anybody else? MR. KARPELES-Can it be moved south a little bit? It looks like the same contour line runs around there. You wouldn't have to raise it up. MR. HOWLAND-Now we're getting into the leach field. It's getting close to the leach field. - 47 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/24/96) MR. KARPELES-The leach field could be turned, at a different angle, couldn't it? MR. HOWLAND-It was designed by VanDusen and Steves. That's the only place they found that it could go, given the contour of the land. GREGG BROWN MR. BROWN-One other problem with moving the house back 75 feet, and the fact that it would raise the elevation as much as it would, is that the neighbor to the north, Amerislay, he does currently get a view to the south through the property, you know, through the trees and things he has a very, he still gets a view. All of that would be cut off. MS. CIPPERLY-You're talking about a view sort of through where your existing parking is? MR. BROWN-Well, it's pretty much across the parking, the carport is flat roofed. There's no peak to it. So his view would be cut off. MR. CARVIN-Yes, but on the other hand his view, if I remember right, doesn't he face the lake? MR. BROWN-Well, he has two views, south and the lake. The largest section of the house faces south. MR. CARVIN-I know what you're saying, but I'm not totally convinced. I have a couple of other notes here. The existing house, has that been added on to, over the years, do you know? MR. BROWN-It was built over approximately a 10 year period, from about 1930 to about 1940, all built in pieces. It's sort of a cobbed construction of bits and pieces that were added at various, times. So it has not been added to, you know, over the last 50 years. It's still the same structure that was there. MR. CARVIN-But it was one of these add on type of things. MR. BROWN-It was one of these, it started as a very, very small house, a very tiny little place, but then they added one room, and then part of a kitchen, then expanded that, and then put a big family room on it, two story, that gave a master bedroom. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Are you Mr. Brown? MR. BROWN-Yes, I am. I MR. CARVIN-Okay, and how long have you owned the house? MR. BROWN-I have owned the house since about 1991. I bought it from my father, who had inherited it from my mother, who had inherited it from my grandmother, and she was the original purchaser in 1946, from the original owner whose name is Waters. MR. CARVIN-Okay, but your family, if I'm hearing you correctly, has owned it but has not put any additions on. MR. BROWN-No. MR. CARVIN-Okay, and I'll read just what I wrote, because this is the way it works. You're asking for a smaller home, currently? MR. BROWN-Yes. MR. CARVIN-The new house would be smaller than the existing? - 48 - '-..--' -- (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/24/96) MR. BROWN-The square footage is slightly smaller than the existing square footage. MR. CARVIN-And I have, how, and what's wrong here. MR. BROWN-How and what's wrong? The new house, it has the same number of rooms and bedrooms. The design is far more efficient because the older house was built in pieces. It's got things hanging off that don't work very well, in terms of space and flow. You end up with one large Great Room that serves as a dining room, Great Room and kitchen all attached. These rooms currently are all three separate, and I imagine that's how it ends up happening. MR. HOWLAND-It's also, well, it measures out about 1100 square feet, which is not as long as these. MR. CARVIN-You're saying you're going to lose 1100 square feet of living area? MR. HOWLAND-Right now you've got about 3800 square feet with all those little attached buildings and outcrops and spaces that you have. --- MS. CIPPERLY-And you're going down to 2130. MR. HOWLAND-I'm sorry, on the 3800 I also counted the porch. The porch is there, too. That's ground cover area. MS. CIPPERLY-I'm just looking at, it says first floor 1340 on your drawing. MR. HOWLAND-That's correct. MR. CIPPERLY-That includes the porches on this drawing? MR. HOWLAND-No, it does not. MR. CARVIN-Is this footprint or is this total living area? I mean, is it a one story, are you actually getting, when you say you're going from 38 down to 27, I guess is what it looks like here, or 2111 on the house? MR. HOWLAND-If you look at the living room on the plans. MR. CARVIN-These are all footprints, right? MR. HOWLAND-Correct, but if you look at the living room prints, that's has a cathedral ceiling in it. That is open, that's a 13 foot high wall. There's no second floor. All two story. There's no vaulted ceiling. There's no open area. / MR. CARVIN-Okay. So your 38 is a footprint? MR. HOWLAND-It's considerably less in size, yes, in square footage of living area, floor area. MS. CIPPERLY-Which is a concept we're trying to encourage. MR. CARVIN-That's why I'm saying, I'm putting "What's wrong here?". MR. THOMAS-Have you got that on the site development data, over on the left hand side, the house is 2111? MR. CARVIN-Yes. I saw that, 104 porch, 527. MR. THOMAS-Or an entry, you're up to 2773. - 49 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/24/96) MR. CARVIN-Okay, but I guess I'm coming back to the 2111 is the footprint. So if there's two stories, we're talking 42, theoretically. I'm not sure. MR. BROWN-Right. That would be if there were no vaulted ceiling and walkway. MR. HOWLAND-Upstairs is not as large as downstairs. MR. CARVIN-But then the 38 existing also has a second story, right? MR. BROWN-Yes, it does, a full second story. MR. CARVIN-So you actually have, I don't know, I'm just using rough figures, double that, so it's probably not correct. MR. HOWLAND-But the new house, the second story doesn't go to the outside of the walls on the ends. It's three feet shy of it. The second floor is not as long as the first floor. MS. CIPPERLY-And this is 28 feet tall, right? This house is 28 feet? /- MR. HOWLAND-Twenty-seven foot six from the front grade as it exists. If you move back, you're going to go up. It just keeps on going up because the grade doesn't go up that much, but you'd have to elevate the house. MS. CIPPERLY-Our first conversations with this applicant came in around February, I believe, when we had the public hearing coming up for the Waterfront Residential zone changes, and I actually used this as an example of how you could still have a decent sized house in compliance with those new changes. Unfortunately, the public hearing is re-set now for the first week of August or so, but the downsizing of the house and coverage of the lot and that sort of thing, especially compared to some recent proposals we've had that were 4500, I think they really made an effort here that I don't often come out and just encourage something, but as I said, that's a trend we'd like to see continue. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Are there any other questions of the applicant? I'll open up the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. CARVIN-How about you, Dave, have you got any thfughts, comments, feelings? MR. MENTER-I mean, obviously, to me, the only issue is whether actually it can go back. Dean, would you give me the elevation problem again with making that move. MR. HOWLAND-Let me show you, maybe I can show you a site plan. This would be your, it's stated, actually the south elevation. What you have back here is the existing grade. It goes up quite gradually until you get back, behind here there's a patio behind the existing building, if you saw it, we're going to try to take that out, re-use it again or re-do a patio back there, but when you get to the black top that's back here, which is, I believe that's a common right-of-way. MR. BROWN-He has a right-of-way for two parking spots in the deed, but basically it's common for both lots. - 50 - '-- .~ (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/24/96) MR. HOWLAND-Yes, but you're going to gain an elevation there about four feet, but this is already seeded and graded all the way around. The elevation wouldn't change. So we move it back, we'd be coming up the four feet, and this distance is going to become greater. Maybe it's not going to come four feet here, but it's going to be considerably close to five or six feet out of the ground on that end. MR. MENTER-Show me on here exactly where that four foot, I can't see the elevation change. MR. HOWLAND-When you get to, the elevation change is from here to down here. When you take this house back, I have from, I measured today, I've got from this point to where the new back of the house would be. It actually measures 35 feet. I took the 50 foot plus the width of the building, so I have 35 feet. So I've got to move back 25 feet, or actually, we're asking for 52, so I go back 25 feet it's going to put, within 10 or 11 feet of this area here. I've got to raise the building up out of the ground, just so I can do something with the water. This all comes this way, all this water comes this way, to get it around. This elevation in the front does not change until we get, the drastic elevation change is back here, plus I don't have the space over here to move it back that far. If I go this way, I'm going to end up too close to the septic system, because that's where they found out that they could put the septic system, and meet all the compliance. MR. MENTER-This system on here is existing and operating? MR. HOWLAND - No . MR. MENTER-That's proposed? MR. BROWN-That's proposed. MR. HOWLAND-There's a septic system on the north side of the building. MR. MENTER-Okay. So it's going to be a totally new system? MR. HOWLAND-Correct. MS. CIPPERLY-Do you have something that shows the location of the existing house? MR. BROWN-It's actually on there in a very fine dotted line. MR. HOWLAND-It's on the plot plan. MR. BROWN-Initially, we were going to leave it in the e/isting setback, but it doesn't even cover the 50 feet. MR. HOWLAND-It might show it easier here. MR. BROWN-It shows it better, yes, on your drawing. MR. HOWLAND-It shows a light dotted line. See the dotted line here. So if you have it on this existing. So this house is sitting inside the one corner on the north of the porch. It's all inside of the existing house. That's the existing house in red. It's not complete. Here's the patio. That's the existing patio, and the idea was to leave the house on the same spot, so that you're not changing anyone's views, you know, changing the basic layout of the lot at all, in addition to leaving the views from the house the same. You wouldn't be losing any views. MR. BROWN-This house, too, is the same height as the existing. - 51 - ~ (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/24/96) MR. CARVIN-I was going to ask, that's no higher? MR. HOWLAND-The existing house was estimated, I think, at 28. So it's within six inches. MR. HOWLAND-Again, they were designing that, from the previous meetings, to get it in. MS. CIPPERLY-If you moved it back and had an elevation, then you'd be over the 28 feet. MR. HOWLAND-Maybe by two or three feet. MR. MENTER-That answers my question. MR. CARVIN-Any other questions of the applicant? All right. What do you think, Chris? MR. THOMAS-Well, to me, I'd rather put that house at 50 feet than move it back to the 75 and stick it another six feet out of the ground. We're getting too many high houses along that shoreline. The existing house does sit at approximately 15 feet. One corner does sit closer now, and the problem with the septic system/and stuff like that, relocating that on paper, I don't know if it could or couldn't be re-Iocated, maybe add a couple of more runs and shorten them, but, to me, where the house sits now or is proposed to sit is, I think, the ideal spot, just to keep the elevation and the height of the house down. MR. KARPELES-Well, I'm not really convinced that it couldn't be moved to the south a little bit, without raising it up, if the leach field were turned, and the architect, evidentally, has just laid that out, but that doesn't convince me that that leach field couldn't be moved. The contour lines look to me like, if you moved it south, you could come back from the lake and not raise it at all, if those contour lines are all right. MR. HOWLAND-I don't understand, moving it south? MR. KARPELES-Yes. MR. BROWN-By moving it south, you'd be cutting off a big portion of the view to the lake, to the north side of, you see the existing boathouse, the house is set to look both north of the boathouse and south of the boathouse, and preserve those views, because the boathouse cuts off some of it. By moving it south, you'd be directing it directly behind the boathouse, and you'd lose a lot of those views. MR. KARPELES-Well, you'd still have your view to the north/and to the south, right? ' MR. BROWN-You'd look dead out at the boathouse. The way the whole house was designed, with the way the windows are and the positioning of the house, it's set to allow you to look at the lake to the north and at the lake to the south, without looking directly at the boathouse. It's cockeyed, if you can see, the corner still faces the boathouse, actually that's west, but the west windows give you a direct view out to the lake, and the south windows give you a direct view out to the lake. MR. HOWLAND-Their best view is right over that existing deck. It's quite heavily wooded to the northern corner there. MR. BROWN-Yes. It's tough to tell. These are all pine trees, and that is very heavily wooded in that section. You can't see through it, and they're left there to preserve the soil in the area, to make sure we don't get any erosion or anything breaking down. The - 52 - '''--- ~ (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/24/96) two trees south of there are very tall and their branches that are low drop, and so it keeps a clear view across the existing deck, south of that existing deck. MS. CIPPERLY-Which existing deck? MR. BROWN-The one on the north side of the boathouse. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Any other thoughts, Bob? MR. KARPELES-No, that's it. MR. HOWLAND-There was also concern too, just to let you know, ~oo, that the leach field, and where we show the septic just shown on the back, it might be able to go on the southern side, but we do have an elevation problem, possibly for getting a drainage way and to pump it to that leach field. We just keep on bringing everything up higher, as you go around that, which, again, really doesn't show on this, but it is higher, that back corner where the distribution box is. MR. MENTER-It seems to me like there would be some, there would be some visual ramifications, in moving back, I know that slope/is substantial there, behind the house. MR. HOWLAND-Can I ask one other question? allowed to build inside the footprint? Aren't they really MR. CARVIN-Not if they tear it down. MR. MENTER-I'd be inclined to go along with it. along with it as it is. I think I' d go MR. CARVIN-Bill? MR. GREEN-I think it's a wonderful idea. We've got a new system here. We're downsizing the house. They've made it a point that that's a trend they try to encourage, making the houses more efficient. I think that's a function, though, of sticking to our setbacks and guidelines that the Code has put in place to do. I think the better designed home, more home and less space is exactly what the Codes were supposed to provide. I think it can be better, though. I'm looking at the contour lines, the same as Bob, here, and that's all I can really go on. I went out and walked around a little bit, but if these lines are correct here, I can't see (lost words) . MR. HOWLAND-Again, it shows, if now, elevation line, is at 330. I said to go, you're at 335. So feet. you move it back, the front right You move it back to, again,.¡where it's going to elevate it fivr more I MR. BROWN-And then actually that 335 is in front of the driveway which, if you were there, as you come off the driveway, it drops about three feet, almost immediately, on the landscaped edge of what the driveway is built up to. MR. HOWLAND-We'd basically be able to walk out the basement, and I thought, really, that's what you were trying to do there. MR. MENTER-That's kind of what it looked like to me, Bill. I think if you moved, you can move it south, but I don't think that that is going to gain you anything in terms of distance, in terms of setback. MR. KARPELES-Well, you'd have to turn it on an angle. MR. MENTER-You're still just working around that middle, and you're - 53 - '- (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/24/96) going to pick up a few feet, but you're not going to pick up 25 feet, or anything close to it, I don't think. MR. HOWLAND-I know you have the 75 feet, but I don't think there's any neighbor that's within 75 feet, as you go north, and as you go south, there isn't anybody either. So, I know that's the law, but it's not. MR. MENTER-The law is that we have to come as close to 75 as we can. MR. HOWLAND-Yes. I understand that, but I'm just saying that in the past that was always taken into consideration. MR. CARVIN-We had one we moved right back 75 feet. MR. GREEN-Yes. That is foremost in my mind. MR. HOWLAND-Again, just going back to the new Ordinance, this was how this was designed, in preference to that, because I met Mike this winter, and said that you had changed the law, and that's how they got coming to your employees here at the Town. Is the new, the one that you're going to try to bring up again, are you going to try to move the line back the 50 feet back to 75 feet in the future? I know it's not passed yet. MR. CARVIN-I don't have an answer for you. I don't know what the Town Board's going to do. I mean, the proposed is 50 feet, and 28 foot height. I mean, there's no doubt in my mind, as I understand the new Ordinance, or proposed Ordinance, I mean, this house would be in compliance. You wouldn't be here. My only question would be, unfortunately we have to go with what's existing and not what's proposed, but if he were to go 75 feet, and next week they change it to 50, he wouldn't be required to do the 75. Is that correct? MS. CIPPERLY-That's correct. MR. HOWLAND-We'd be in limbo again. It was something we tried to prepare last winter for the spring, and then when they said, lets go, I said, well, you've got your variance, because I didn't know that it wasn't passed, after the three meetings with the Town, and that's when I made the application again. So we've missed the summer season already, but again, that's just to bring you up to speed as to how we got here. MR. CARVIN-Unfortunately, I don't know what kind of reception this is going to get. When is it, August the 2nd or 3rd or something? MS. CIPPERLY-August 5th. / MR. CARVIN-August 5th. MS. CIPPERLY-Will be the public hearing. We've done some revisions since the last public hearing. It went in front of the Town Board this past Monday, and their only suggestion was some septic wording. So they're going to put it back on for August 5th, to our knowledge. MR. CARVIN-So I guess, Bill, I'm not sure. You say, if he can build it in compliance, build it in compliance? Is that what you're saying? MR. GREEN-I guess. MRS. LAPHAM-I actually think it's quite well thought out, and without obstructing anyone's views. It's where the existing house is, and naturally they always like to see compliance if it can be - 54 - '-~. ---' (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/24/96) done, but like Dean said, he didn't think the leach field could be changed, and I'd be in favor of this as it is. Around the lake, that's always the largest worry is the septic system, and if that's the way the percolation tests come in and the engineers feel that that is the best place for it, not being a professional in the area, I would opt to leave it there. MR. CARVIN-Well, this is a dilemma for me, because what I'm hearing is both sides have got some pretty good arguments. I hear what Bob and Bill are saying, and I agree. It appears that this could be built in compliance to the 75 feet. I'm not totally convinced that in the day of the bulldozer and whatnot that that can't be leveled at 75 feet so you don't necessarily go up in height. I don't think the rise in contour is that significant that, like I said, 15 minutes with a good back hoe or bulldozer, and you've got yourself a pretty level spot. MR. HOWLAND-I can't change the ground elevation. That's what I'm saying. MR. CARVIN-Yes, but that's not an insurmountable problem. MR. BROWN-Well, the primary problem with doing anything like ~hat is you're going to significantly change the situation of the lot and the house, and the value of the lot. MR. GREEN-Well, I think that with this house on that lot your value is going to go sky high. MR. CARVIN-On the other hand, it does appear that the house is going to be smaller. It stacks up very favorably to the new Ordinance. MR. THOMAS-Plus if you move that back, it's going to obstruct the view of the neighbor to the north, the detriment to the neighborhood, and the benefit to the applicant. MR. CARVIN-Well, the benefit to the applicant and the detriment to the neighborhood, I mean, the detriment to the neighborhood is granting relief that's not minimum. I mean, nobody is guaranteed a view of the lake. I mean, that's just not written anywhere. MR. THOMAS-As it sits right now, everybody's happy, as the existing building sits. The guy to the north sees the lake through the rear of the existing property of the existing building, to the south, plus to the west off his own, but if you move that house back, he's going to obstruct the view to the south for the neighbor to the north. MR. CARVIN-But is the argument that's being proposed significant enough to warrant the variance? I guess I've got to come d6wn with Bob and Bill on this. I mean, if a house can be built in compliance to the variance, that's why it's there. I mean, this lot certainly appears to be large enough that it could be, and again, I understand where the applicant's coming from, but I just don't think that, and I was out there. I looked at it. Again, I think 10 minutes with modern equipment and you've got that problem. I just don't think it's a big enough, it's just not going to take it up high enough to be significant. MR. BROWN-The problem is, moving it back, I probably won't do it, and the advantage of doing it, I think you need to weigh. I think what's being lost here is the weighing of the advantages that are coming in with the new place against simply leaving the old place where it is, and bit by bit fixing it up. It's extremely expensive to do it that way. That's why I haven't done it that way, which would preserve the location of the place. - 55 - -..-/ (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/24/96) MR. CARVIN-My point is that if we had the new Ordinance, you wouldn't be here, and I know that, but the Ordinance says 75 feet at this point, and if the new Ordinance is not put in, in mY mind I don't have justification to grant a variance from the 75 feet, because you could build it in compliance to the 75 feet, in my opinion. Do you see where I'm coming from? MR. BROWN-I understand where you're coming from. obviously. I disagree, MR. CARVIN-After August the 5th, it may be a moot question. I have to be guided by the minimum relief, and what you are asking I don't feel is justification, or is not minimum relief. I mean, that's the bottom line. It can be built, if this was sitting on a cliff and there was a 30 foot drop off and you couldn't back it up the 25 feet, for whatever reason, because it was impractical, then I would say, you've got justification for the relief. I'm saying a five foot rise over however many feet, and that you probably could slide this over, and again, I'm not a topographical, but I was out there and I looked at it, and I agreed with Staff. It looks like it can be built in compliance. I mean, that's where I'm coming from, and again, that's just mY vote. I don't know if we've got four, three, if I've convinced anybody one way or the other. MS. CIPPERLY-You can't have a four to three vote, there's only six people. MR. MENTER-It looks like a three, three. MR. CARVIN-Well, again, I don't know. MS. CIPPERLY-Well, it's a no action, which means. MR. MENTER-You don't get a variance. MS. CIPPERLY-You don't get it, but it hasn't been denied either. MR. CARVIN-It hasn't been turned down, either. MR. MENTER-Right. MR. HOWLAND-Last month when I came here, I guess it was last month or the month before, for another one, the most important thing then was height of the building. I'm just asking, all this planning has been done over a period of time, with everybody's recommendations as to what to do, and three site visits by your people out there, before this was ever brought up, all the designs were made, the house design, everything was done after that time, after their initial meetings, other than very little preliminary sketch that's here. It's hard to tell what you're going to want when y~u come before here. That's what I'm getting at, because it ~ort of changes what's important for this month compared to last month. It's real confusing. MR. CARVIN-Let me ask you this. If I heard you, it seemed to me that you, basically, were designing this to the new Ordinance? MR. HOWLAND-No. MR. BROWN-No. We were trying to make sure we, at minimum, complied with the new Ordinance. I mean, the house currently sits, it's got 45 feet at a corner setback. We wanted to at least make sure we were at 50 feet, which is the proposed new Ordinance and pretty much what everything else around the lake is set at, and I've gone to a great deal of expense with an architect to make sure that I preserve the beauty of the lake, design the character of the house and the style of the house to fit the lake, so that we end up with something that is aesthetically pleasing, that fits the character of the lake and the Adirondack area, and fits within the existing - 56 - "- -.-' (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/24/96) area of the house. Now I realize that, by rules, it doesn't really make any difference, and that's fine, but to try and move this house anywhere from where it is is going to significantly, like I said, disrupt the views, the lot, the value of the lot, I believe, because you're going to be changing the advantages that are there with the grassed area and the openness of the lot, and the openness of the area. MR. CARVIN-Okay, but you're not being deprived of any views. You still will have views. MR. BROWN-You're going to be cutting down a great deal of the openness of the lot. MR. CARVIN-Not any more, but you're in compliance with the Ordinance. What I'm saying is, like Bob I think had suggested moving it to the south, I understand your dilemma, but it's your dilemma because the boathouse sits there, okay, but as Bob had indicated, there still is visibility. You're not being deprived of visibility. All right. It may be a hinderance because there's a boathouse there, but we didn't put the boathouse there. MR. HOWLAND-But the house, the corner of the porch to the leach field there, it can't be moved. MR. CARVIN-Well, the leach field is not in. MR. HOWLAND-I know, but that's the only spot that it can go in. MR. GREEN-Can you show us where that leach field cannot be turned sideways? MR. HOWLAND-I called the engineer who did that, and that's where he could meet compliance with the percolation tests that they had on that particular lot. That's where he would put it. If you turn it, I have to make it shorter and wider, and I have to be 20 feet from that corner of the building. I could maybe move it five feet to the south, maybe. Maybe that much, but it still is not going to let me go back that far. MR. KARPELES-Well, why can't you turn it at right angles to where it is now? MR. BROWN-It would flow uphill, I think. MR. HOWLAND-See the 100 limit line and the other lines? I've got to be within that dark line there. MR. KARPELES-You've got to be within the 100 feet from the lake? MR. HOWLAND-That's correct. ,/ MS. CIPPERLY-Sure. MR. HOWLAND-And I've got to be within that dark line, and what I'm going to do is I'm going to put shorter laterals, but I'm going to have to put more. So I'm going to take up, I'm still going to come over as far as that distribution box is now, and I have to be 20 feet off the corner of the house, which is about 25 feet. MR. KARPELES-I thought it was 10 feet? MR. THOMAS-Ten to the distribution box. MS. CIPPERLY-The leach field has to be 20 from the house. The septic tank has to be 10. MR. BROWN-And the farther you push the house back, that pie gets narrower. - 57 - '. (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/24/96) MR. HOWLAND-I've got to keep on coming over, and again, I'm going to raise up the elevation, and again, that was part of the planning out. My initial phone call, well from Gregg's was, you've got to get the septic first, and then you've got to go for the variance afterwards. MS. CIPPERLY-Is this drawing to scale now, or has it been reduced? This says 1 to 30. MR. HOWLAND-Yes. That's 1 to 30 because that's what you required. That's been reduced. MR. KARPELES-Where is the existing leach field? MR. HOWLAND-It's to the north side, there are two of them. You've seen the north side, it says, remove tree. MR. BROWN-There's one there, and there's also one to the south side that's sort of near that lilac tree. MR. CARVIN-Okay, over in here, Bob, apparently. MR. BROWN-There are two of them. The house, when it was buiLt in pieces, also septic was added in pieces. One section had been part of the original house to the north, and another section had been added with a portion of the house and the kitchen to the south, and by putting this new house in with the new leach field, I'm significantly improving the leach field septic capabilities of the lot, because those leach fields haven't been touched. The septic hasn't been changed since the 1940's when it was first installed. I imagine they're just drywells. MR. MENTER-I don't see how going south with it is going to help you out. MR. BROWN-I guess my point has always been the pluses here are numerous, and the minus is just the 50 foot setback. MR. CARVIN-Okay. So the most that you might be able to pick up would be another 10 or 15 feet? MR. HOWLAND-Not even that. MS. CIPPERLY-Well, I was just measuring this drawing. That's why I asked if the scale was, it appears to be okay. One thing George did with his drawing is put the back corner of the house on the south side, he put it 10 feet from the leach field, or 10, where 20's required. So the house really can't be quite back as far as he shows it. MR. HOWLAND-And I measured today, and I just couldn't ~ing it back. MR. CARVIN-What you're saying, Sue, is that this is probably the best location for the house in relation to this septic? MS. CIPPERLY-I would go with the opinion of the engineer that designed it. We've accepted that in other cases because we're not the ones out there doing the perc tests and knowing about the way it has to flow. I'm tempted to get on a soap box here, because Dean came in with a project last time I was here for a meeting that was significantly larger house, and that was granted relief. You have one coming in next week also, and I can appreciate Dean's comment, because on the previous one. MR. CARVIN-Again, I'm asking, this appears to be a minimum relief in your opinion? - 58 - ',,---, ---' (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/24/96) MS. CIPPERLY-I would say so. I guess my preferred bias, I guess, is if you can, given a site like this, if you ca~ loc~te th~ hou~e on an existing site, where you have a wooded slte 11ke thlS, I d prefer to see the house where it is, or the development where it is, as long as it's not like 10 feet from the lake. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Chris, do you want to move it. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 59-1996 GREGG BROWN, Introduced by Chris Thomas who moved for its adoption, seconded by David Menter: The applicant is proposing to construct a new single family home to replace an existing single family home in deteriorating condition. The relief is for 25 feet from the 75 foot shoreline setback in a Waterfront Residential One Acre zone, as listed in Section 179-60 of the Town Ordinance. The benefit to the applicant would be he would be able to replace an existing deteriorating home with a new one. The feasible alternatives would be to move the house back the 75 foot required, but with the configuration of the land and the new proposed septic system, this seems not to be feasible. The relief is substantial from the Ordinance, being 33%, but as stated before, because of the way the septic system and the land is arranged, this 25 feet of setback variance is about the only alternative that we have. There do not appear to be any effects on the neighborhood or community. There was no opposition to the application. The difficulty is self created, but because of the size of the legal nonconforming lot and the proposed septic system, that this difficulty can't be obviated by anything other than a variance. Duly adopted this 24th day of July, 1996, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Thomas, Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Menter, Mr. Carvin NOES: Mr. Green AREA VARIANCE NO. 58-1996 TYPE II WR-1A CEA MYLES MILLER OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE MICHELLE ROAD, OFF OF CLEVERDALE ROAD, GRAY CAMP WITH "MILLER" ON GARAGE. APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO MODIFY EXISTING ROOF LINE OF A SINGLE FAMILY HOME, CONSTRUCT A SLIDING GLASS DOOR AND AN 8 FT. BY 20 FT. DECK. RELIEF IS BEING REQUESTED FROM THE SHORELINE SETBACKS LISTED IN SECTION 179-60 AND THE SIDE SETBACKS LISTED IN SECTION 179-16C. ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 7/10/96 TAX MAP NO. 11-1-21, 36 LOT SIZE: 0.14 ACRES, 0.08 ACRES SECTION 179-60, 179-16C MYLES MILLER, PRESENT STAFF INPUT / , Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 58-1996, Myles Miller, Meeting Date: July 24, 1996 "APPLICANT: Myles Miller PROJECT LOCATION: Michelle Rd. Proposed Project and Conformance with the Ordinance: The applicant is proposing to modify an existing roof line of a home and construct a sliding glass door and an 8 ft. by 20 ft. deck. This expansion would not conform to the shoreline setback and the side yard setback. Relief is being requested from the shoreline setback listed in Section 179-60 and the setbacks listed in Section 179-16C. Criteria for considering an Area Variance, according to Chapter 267, Town Law. 1. Benefit to the applicant: Relief would allow the applicant to add on to his home and construct a new deck. 2. Feasible alternatives: There appear to be no alternatives which could provide a lesser amount of relief. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance? The applicant is seeking 5 feet of side setback relief and 25 feet of shoreline setback relief. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or - 59 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/24/96) community? It appears that there are no negative impacts associated with this request. Additional comment may be made at the public hearing. 5. Is this difficulty self created? The location of the existing building on this legal nonconforming lot makes it difficult to construct additions that would not require relief. Staff Comments & Concerns: The proposed addition will not encroach upon the east property line any more than the existing home already done. Permeability standards for the WR-1A district will be met with this addition. SEQR: Type II, no further action required. " MR. THOMAS-"At a meeting of the Warren County Planning Board, held on the 10th day of July 1996, the above application for an. Area Variance to modify existinq roof line to warrant the acception of slidinq qlass door on front of camp with the addition of an 8' x 20' deck. was reviewed and the following action was taken. Recommendation to: No County Impact" Signed by C. Powel South, Chairperson. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Does everyone understand what the applicant is requesting? Any questions? MR. KARPELES-Yes. I've got a question on these stairs. I don't understand. When I went out there and I looked at it, it looked like you had stairs that went down to the basement from the front there? MR. MILLER-Yes. MR. KARPELES-If you build a deck there, are you going to block off those stairs or? MR. MILLER-Not totally. It would be accessible but Accessible enough to access what's in there being the water heater, that type of application. limited. furnace, MR. KARPELES-You mean if you duck down low enough you could get down there? MR. MILLER-Yes, exactly. MR. MENTER-There's going to be stairs going up onto this deck, though at that location? MR. MILLER-Yes. Not at the same location as the access. That's a stairwell leading to a basement area. MR. CARVIN-Well, let me ask you this. entrance to that same area? Is there an internal MR. MILLER-No. MR. CARVIN-That's the only entrance? MR. MILLER-To the basement area? / MR. CARVIN-Yes. MR. MILLER-Yes. MR. CARVIN-You can't come at it from the house side? MR. MILLER-No. MR. CARVIN-And what's there, a furnace? MR. MILLER-Yes. - 60 - '-----' -' (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/24/96) MR. KARPELES-So what have you got to do, crawl underneath the deck? MR. MILLER-Yes, that's going to be the only access. It's a full basement just under the living space that's going to have the roof adjusted on it, which is probably 10 feet, 12 feet in depth by the width of the house. The rest of it is crawl space, beyond that. MR. CARVIN-You don't feel that that might pose a safety problem if something was to go wrong with the furnace or water heater, to have access, you've got to start crawling underneath the deck? How far is the deck going to be off the ground? MR. MILLER-Three feet, probably, but it's three foot right at the edge of the stairwell. I mean, there's three feet there, and then eight inch, eight inch right down into the stairwell. I mean, you don't have to crawl for 10 feet to get to the stairwell. The deck ends at the stairwell. MR.~ CARVIN-It still seems an awful poor thing for a furnace. MR. THOMAS-I wouldn't want to wrestle a new furnace through there. .-- MR. CARVIN-I wouldn't want to go down and change the filters. MR. MILLER-The new furnace would be very small, I believe, most new furnaces, high efficiency are, what, three foot by three foot by maybe four feet high. MS. CIPPERLY-Is this a year round home? MR. MILLER-No, it's seasonal. MS. CIPPERLY-One question I just need clarified. On the written part it says you're going to modify the roof line of the porch, but on the plans it says remove and rebuild. Are you taking the entire porch off and just using the foundation, or are you just changing the roof? MR. MILLER-No. We're using the floor system. The whole reason for changing the roof line is the fact that there is not enough room to put in an acceptable header system to accept the sliding door, because of the way the roof is. I could not get a header in there. So in order to do that, it has to be raised up, change the way the roof. MS. CIPPERLY-So you're not just going to come in and wipe out the entire porch? MR. MILLER-From the floor system up. / , MS. CIPPERLY-Okay. It's okay. We just needed to know what you're doing. MR. MILLER-Yes. MS. CIPPERLY-Because we've had some problems with that. MR. MENTER-So, in essence, aside from altering the roof line, you're building a deck eight feet closer to the lake than the existing? MR. MILLER-Yes. There wasn't any intention to alter the roof line until we realized there was just no way, I mean, to get a 12 foot slider in there, you've got to have a good size header, and there's just not room there. MR. CARVIN-What is the permeability? Is it 30%, Sue, on the lot? - 61 - '-/ (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/24/96) MS. CIPPERLY-What is it on this lot, or what's required? MR. CARVIN-Well, what's required? What's the minimum? MS. CIPPERLY-75, I think. MR. CARVIN-75, permeability? MS. CIPPERLY-65% permeable, so 35% can be covered with building or sidewalk, and according to this, the proposed will leave 70%. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Any other questions, anybody? MR. GREEN-The seasonal porch that's there now, what is that mainly? MR. MILLER-The existing porch? They listed it, when they drew the prints, as a three season porch. It's basically, a long time ago it may have been a three season porch. It's part of the house now, at this point, and has been since they've owned it. It should have just been listed as part of the house, really. MR. CARVIN-Is there a deck on top of the dock? Didn't I see a deck on top of the dock? Is that a covered dock or a boathouse? MR. MILLER-A boathouse, yes. MR. GREEN-Is it going to be all open from the existing house out to the sun porch, or is there going to be a doorway in there? It shows like a doorway in that, from the existing house onto the sun porch. Is that going to be all open across that? MR. MILLER-That's all open, existing. MR. GREEN-The existing in the sun porch is all open right across? MR. MILLER-Yes. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Is this two parcels that we're looking at? MR. MILLER-Yes, it is, two separate deeds. MR. CARVIN-Two separate deeds. MR. MILLER-The same owner. MR. CARVIN-Now when you come up with your 70%. You're taking into consideration the two lots or just the one lot? MR. MILLER-Two lots. MR. CARVIN-Two lots. / MS. CIPPERLY-Which are, actually under our Code they're one lot. Even if they're separate deeds, for zoning purposes they're treated as one lot. MR. CARVIN-Okay. MR. MENTER-Contiguous lots with the same owner, can they be treated that way? MR. KARPELES-That's strange. What if you sold one? MS. CIPPERLY-You can't. MR. KARPELES-That means you can't sell it? So why maintain it as two lots? MS. CIPPERLY-I don't know. They probably have lower taxes if they - 62 - ',-- ,-.../ (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/24/96) combine them, but people buy them and there's two deeds, this one the septic system is even on one of the lots. We had one on Mason Road that had three little lots and the fellow was an attorney. I don't know why he didn't just merge them. MR. MILLER-The smaller of the two lots was purchased in order to put the septic system in. Otherwise, it wouldn't have even had room to put a septic system in, basically. MR. CARVIN-Well, unless we really revise the zone, I don't think he'll ever build on it. That's for sure. MR. MILLER-No. I think you're safe there. MR. CARVIN-Your 50 foot here to the mean high water, that looks like it's from the end of the dock, is that a wall, is it, or is that the actual shoreline? MR. MILLER-It is a concrete abutment. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Any other questions, anybody? I'll open up the public hearing. --- PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. CARVIN-Well, what do you think, folks? Does somebody want to start? MRS. LAPHAM-I, myself, don't see anything that problematic with this, even though it is close to the lake, because there's no septic or permeability problems or any kind of an actual living space. Because of the existing boathouse, where you're putting it,. it's not going to obstruct anybody's view MR. MENTER-The edge of the deck is essentially over the end of the stairwell that goes down into the basement? MR. MILLER-Yes. MR. MENTER-About the same location? MR. MILLER-Exact same location. It does not project beyond that. MS. CIPPERLY-I guess one comment would be, you could shift the deck over, so that it's not that close to that property line. Ipstead of centering it on the house, you could shift it over. I thfnk the point of having a sun deck over the boathouse is kind of a thought, also. There's a certain amount of convenience to having it on the house, but is it a necessity? MR. CARVIN-I've got a problem with that deck over those stairs. I do. MS. CIPPERLY-I mean, if you shifted it over, that might help. MR. CARVIN-There's no other internal entrance. If that's the only entrance to those items, I just have a real problem with that. MR. MENTER-Is that a zoning issue? MR. CARVIN-Yes. I think it's a safety issue, I really do. I'm just telling you what I think. MR. MENTER-I'm just trying to take it a step further. I mean, - 63 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/24/96) really, isn't that a permit function? MR. KARPELES-I think we would be remiss in granting something that we thought was a safety issue. MR. CARVIN-I think if somebody has to come service that furnace, to ask them to crawl under a deck, even if it's a foot or two. MR. GREEN-(lost words} to put a hatch in the deck, where a portion of the deck is, the flooring or something like that, but I just told a guy he couldn't have a house 50 feet from the lake. I think there's an awful lot to be said for the sun porch there. MR. CARVIN-It is a real small lot. MR. GREEN-And there is a big difference in the area there, but I don't like the steps either, but that's not my concern. MR. KARPELES-I agree with Bill, but I don't like the steps either. I think that that's a safety hazard. I think if you had to get down in a basement, I realize there are a lot of crawl spaces with furnaces, and I wouldn't want to create one. MR. MILLER-Why do you feel it's a safety hazard? MR. KARPELES-Because if you had to get down there in a hurry, and get some water on it or whatever you've got to do to put the fire out, if there's a fire. MR. CARVIN-Or the water heater. I don't know what else is in there. At least this way you don' t have to be crawling around, and like Bill says, maybe you can design the deck to have a gate. MR. MILLER-So basically you're saying, then, if there was access other than crawling under there, you would feel comfortable about it then? MR. KARPELES-I'm saying I don't like either one. I also don't like the distance from the shore either, with that size lot. MR. THOMAS-I don't like the idea of the deck over the stairs anyway, but if a trap door could be put in there for access, then I wouldn't have a problem doing that. As far as being back from the lake, it really, the deck really doesn't impede on anyone else. There's really no other place on the lot to put the deck, even though there is one over the existing boathouse, but it's not off the house. It's on the boathouse. I really don't have a problem with it. It's just that there's a trap door on the deck. ELIZABETH MILLER MRS. MILLER-The only problem I have is using the deck o~r the boathouse as I have very steep stairs up to the deck. I know you went out there and saw the stairway up to the top of the boathouse. I have little kids allover the place up there. I would rather them not have to go up those stairs to do their thing, rather than just come right off the main house and be on the deck. MR. CARVIN-How big of a deck are we talking here? talking, what? We're only MR. THOMAS-One hundred and sixty square feet. MR. CARVIN-Well, here we are again. MR. GREEN-I guess due to the limitations of the lot size, I could live with this deck with some type of other access to the basement, either through the house or through a deck at (lost words) . MR. MILLER-Would a spiral staircase on the inside accessing the - 64 - ..'-"~ -'" (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/24/96) basement? MR. GREEN-I would think that would even be better yet, but that's not my decision. MRS. MILLER-It was always very damp down there. That's what it was. We have this kind of underground stream that kind of runs underneath the camp that's always very damp down there. It still is extremely damp down there, at this point, but that's why we covered up the spiral staircase going from inside the house down. MS. CIPPERLY -What's under the rest of the house? Is it crawl space, under the sun porch only there's a full basement? MRS. MILLER-Yes. When we originally bought it, it was a full room down there, but it was always, always wet. So we just ripped out everything under there, just to make it into a regular cellar, but it's always wet. I don't know how they had, they had bedrooms down there at one time, with a bathroom. MR. CARVIN-I wouldn't go with this unless it had a trap door or some mechanism in that deck. MRS. MILLER-So you would go ahead with that if there was some trap door, access, to lift up the deck to go underneath that? MR. CARVIN-I have the same reservations with Bob, but again, I don't know if anybody else lines up behind it, but I think I'd really want to see some sort of viable trap door, so that you'd have functional access without crawling underneath a deck, and I don't know if that's, I'm sure that can be designed in, I suspect. MR. MILLER-That's not a problem. To me, it doesn't seem like a convenient application either, but, I mean, to me, it would be more convenient to slide under the edge of the deck and walk down th~ stairway than it would be to have to drop through a hatch into a hole. MR. KARPELES-Well, I wouldn't build a deck over that in the first place. MR. MENTER-Yes, I mean, I'd go along with that. MR. CARVIN-I agree with Bob. I'm not crazy about creating a situation that doesn't have some sort of, I don't really care about the applicants. I'm thinking about a fireman or a service, you know, somebody else that comes out there. I realize that you live there, and you have to put up with it. MR. MILLER-I would be the one that would be crawling do~there, though, probably. MR. CARVIN-I'm just saying, if the applicant is away for whatever reason, if it's only a seasonal and something happens in the winter time, to have firemen running around trying to figure out how to get into the place. MR. THOMAS-Let me ask you this. Where's your breaker panel? MR. MILLER-In the basement. MS. CIPPERLY-Couldn't you take that deck, move it over and actually have it. MR. THOMAS-I know about 35 servicemen that would refuse to go under there, from Niagara Mohawk. - 65 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/24/96) MS. CIPPERLY-Have it so that the entrance to your porch, you know, like just kind of ilL" shape it around the corner? MR. MILLER-Because it cuts off your access to the lake. where the sidewalk, everything would be. That's MRS. MILLER-We have a sidewalk that goes right by the lake. MR. MILLER-You'd have to either go around a bunch of shrubbery or you'd have to cut it down. MRS. MILLER-We really worked on it a long time to figure out the best way to do it, because the only other deck we have is over the boathouse, and the steeps are very steep, and I don't encourage the kids to go up there. MR. MENTER-What are those stairs going down there, are those poured? MR. MILLER-Concrete. MR. MENTER-Concrete stairs. What are those considered? Are those considered a structure susceptible to the setback requirements? MS. CIPPERLY-Were they flush with the ground? I didn't go down. MR. CARVIN-Yes. They're flush. MS. CIPPERLY-Then they're not. There's not supposed to be any hardsurfacing within 50 feet of the lake. I don't know when they were done. MR. CARVIN-They don't look like they were done recently, lets put it that way. MR. MENTER-I would just wondering if that would constitute no increase of encroachment there? MR. MILLER-That was the first thing I checked. John Goralski said no, it won't work. MR. CARVIN-He was probably right. MR. MILLER-Yes, that's what I thought, too. MR. CARVIN-That's just a single family house? MRS. MILLER-Yes. MRS. LAPHAM- It's just a thought. The concern seems to be s1ety in the basement, a seasonal residence, you're not going to ,use the furnace. MR. CARVIN-Yes, but Chris says the breaker panel is there. MR. MILLER-It would be easier to put a hatch in it. MRS. MILLER-Would it be easier to put the spiral staircase back in, and keep? MR. CARVIN- I don' t know how, because your spiral staircase, I guess, would be in the new part that you're building, in the existing house. MR. MENTER-That's up to you. MR. MILLER-You should have asked me that. Yes. - 66 - ',-- ' ~ (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/24/96) MS. CIPPERLY -So the spiral staircase went down into the crawl space? MR. MILLER-Into the basement. MR. MENTER-It's a full basement down there. MS. CIPPERLY-Not in the existing house. It's a crawl space. MRS. MILLER-That's a good idea. MS. CIPPERLY-The only place there's a full basement is under the sun porch. MR. MILLER-No. MS. CIPPERLY-That's what you just said. MRS. MILLER-I don't really think of that as a sun porch now, because when we bought it, it's all carpeted. MS. CIPPERLY-Well, it's whatever you called it. ..-- MR. MILLER-They called it a three season. MRS. MILLER-And those windows on the front, there's two windows that open on either side, the big huge picture windows don't open at all, for some reason. They have these double paned windows, and there's no opening. MR. MENTER-I would make a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 58-1996 MYLES MILLER, Introduced by David Menter who moved for its adoption, seconded by Bonnie Lapham: Who is proposing to modify an existing roof line of a home, as well' as construct an eight by twenty foot deck on the lake side of the home. The resulting setback from the lake would be 50 feet, requiring relief of 25 feet from Section 179-60. In addition, he would require five feet of setback relief from 179-16C. The benefit to the applicant would be having the use of a deck off the house which they do not enjoy currently, and to achieve this there appear to be no feasible alternatives due to the configuration of the lot. The 25 foot relief is not necessarily substantial in light of the relative setbacks of nearby properties. It would appear to have no negative effect on the community, and the encroachment on the east property line would be no greater than currently exists with the present structure. One condition qf this variance would be that an alternative access to the elHsting basement would be constructed, either by means of a trap door access through the new deck or some other means from inside the house, as it seems like a crawl space that any service personnel would be required to go through would be at best inconvenient and possibly dangerous. The sun porch per their plan will be completely removed and rebuilt from the floor joists, and the required side yard relief would be 15 feet from the east side. Duly adopted this 24th day of July, 1996, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Green, Mr. Menter, Mr. Thomas, Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Carvin NOES: Mr. Karpeles MR. CARVIN-Just for the Board, for those of us unable to make the last meeting, we've rescheduled it for your convenience for next week, on the 31st. I am assuming you still have all the material, and don't be surprised if you see some really smiling and happy - 67 - _/ (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/24/96) people. August? As I understand it, the Mooring Post is coming up in MS. CIPPERLY-We're trying to get them on in August. We've asked them for some financial information, because really nothing new has been submitted. So we're waiting for them. We've sent them copies of the Use Variance criteria, talking about the evidence that's required. So the ball's in their court right now. MR. CARVIN-Okay, but as it stands right now, it looks like we'll have a meeting on the 31st, and if everything falls into place, we'll probably have the Mooring Post on the 7th of August. MRS. LAPHAM-I can't come the 7th. MS. CIPPERLY-Bonnie can't be here that whole week. MRS. LAPHAM-Right. That week is out for me. MS. CIPPERLY-But she told us. MR. CARVIN-Well, the 14th is probably going to be a meeting, and I will not be here for the following meeting, if there is one on--the 21st. MS. CIPPERLY-It's 21 and 28. Warren County has their meeting on the 21st this month. MR. CARVIN-Wéll, I know one of those dates I'm not going to be around. I can't remember. MS. CIPPERLY-The 21st. You're gone the 21st to the 25th. MR. CARVIN-I'm glad you keep me straight here. MR. GREEN-When George first talked to me on the phone about having, a special meeting for the Mooring Post, I was a little curious why you felt you needed that. Are we that full in August? MR. CARVIN-Well, I'm not quite sure what the public aspect of that. I mean, I think we've accomplished quite a bit. I don't know if we really want to pursue this. MS. CIPPERLY-If they don't get their stuff in. We could wait and see. MR. CARVIN-Yes. Lets see what they bring in. MS. CIPPERLY-They've already been to Warren County. So the¡y could actually be on the 21st. MR. CARVIN-Nobody wants to do minutes. We'll do minutes maybe next week. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Fred A. Carvin, Chairman - 68 -