Loading...
2010.04.28 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/27/10) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SECOND REGULAR MEETING APRIL 28, 2010 INDEX Area Variance No. 14-2010 Christian & Eustacia Sander 1. Tax Map No. 278.-2-29 and 30 Area Variance No. 19-2010 Jolley Assoc. 4. Tax Map No. 302.6-1-29 Sign Variance No. 18-2010 Jolley Associates 7. Tax Map No. 302.6-1-29 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. 0 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/27/10) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SECOND REGULAR MEETING APRIL 28, 2010 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT JAMES UNDERWOOD, CHAIRMAN ROY URRICO, SECRETARY JOYCE HUNT RICHARD GARRAND JOAN JENKIN RONALD KUHL BRIAN CLEMENTS LAND USE PLANNER-KEITH OBORNE STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. I’m going to call the April 28, 2010 meeting of the Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals to order, and starting out I want to quickly go through our procedures, once again, for anybody that perhaps is new here. As we handle each application I’ll call the application by name and number. The secretary will read the pertinent parts of the application, Staff Notes and Warren County Planning Board decision if applicable into the record. Then we’ll ask the applicant to present any information they wish to present to the Board. The Board will ask questions of the applicant, and then we’ll open the public hearing. The public hearing’s intended to help us gather information and understand it about the issue at hand, and it functions to help the Board members make a wise decision. It does not make the decision for the Board members. There will be a five minute limit on all speakers. We will allow speakers to speak again after everybody’s had a chance to speak, but not for more than three minutes, and only if after listening to the other speakers, a speaker believes that they have new information to present, and, Board members, I’d suggest that because we have the five minute limit that we not interrupt the speaker with questions while they’re speaking. Rather we should wait until the speaker has finished his five minute period and then ask the questions. Following all the speakers, we’ll read in any correspondence into the record, and then the applicant will have an opportunity to react and respond to the public comment. Board members then will discuss the variance request with the applicant. Following that, the Board members will have a chance to explain their positions on the application, and then the public hearing will be closed or left open depending on the situation, and finally, if appropriate a motion to approve or disapprove will follow. OLD BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 14-2010 SEQRA TYPE: I CHRISTIAN & EUSTACIA SANDER AGENT(S): HUTCHINS ENGINEERING OWNER(S): EUSTACIA SANDER ZONING: RR-3A LOCATION: 572 STATE ROUTE 149 APPLICANT PROPOSES A 10-LOT SUBDIVISION. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM ROAD FRONTAGE AND ACCESS REQUIREMENTS. ZBA TO CONSIDER THE PLANNING BOARD’S REQUEST FOR LEAD AGENCY STATUS. CROSS REF.: SUBDIVISION NO. 3-2009 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: MARCH 10, 2010 LOT SIZE: 55.65 TOTAL ACRES TAX MAP NO. 278.-2-29 AND 30 SECTION: 179-4-050 TOM HUTCHINS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. UNDERWOOD-At last night’s Planning Board meeting, the Sander’s subdivision application th was tabled to May 18 due to the lack of endangered species information for the SEQRA, as well as the requested Department of Transportation review. The Zoning Board of Appeals may wish to table this application to their May 19, 2010 meeting in anticipation of the completion of the Planning Board environmental review and the issuance of a recommendation concerning the variances associated with the project. I think what we will do is, anything you want to add, Tom? MR. HUTCHINS-No. I was just going to confirm that, and we were at the Planning Board last night. We had a fair amount of discussion with regard to the project as a whole, and the access issue was one of them that you folks were interested in and they were interested as well. It has gone to DOT. There’s a meeting scheduled with DOT and myself to review the project, and we’re going to get some feedback from DOT. It’s a little soon. So they tabled it, and on behalf of the Sanders I would request that, first I would answer any questions that you folks might have, th and I’d request you table this one to May 19, such that maybe we could make the sequence work again. 1 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/27/10) MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. So I guess, you know, we’re looking at waiting on that until we get their determinations, because they may want to give us some input into our decision that we make as a Board, too. MRS. JENKIN-It was endangered species? MR. UNDERWOOD-Well, when you do the SEQRA review, they go through the property, you know, it involves everything from doing archeological to whatever. I mean, you’ve got to do the whole nine yards if there’s any chance of things out there throwing a wrench in the works. MRS. JENKIN-Did they mention any details about? MR. HUTCHINS-It’s a Type I coordinated SEQRA review, and we understand that the SEQRA review must be completed before they can make referral to this Board. My opinion is that Board was ready to make referral to this Board. I don’t think that’s what the issue was. The issue was they couldn’t complete the SEQRA review. Part of the SEQRA review is are there any endangered species. That information that we had in there wasn’t enough for them, and rightly so, and as an update on that, I have had a discussion with DEC’s Endangered Species Unit, and I will have a formal determination shortly. MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure. So then you’d just be waiting on DOT, and they should probably be getting back to you between now and then anyway. MR. HUTCHINS-Yes, I hope so. MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure. Okay. I think what we’ll do then, before we do the tabling motion, is that, because we did advertise, we’ve got to open up the public hearing, and so maybe we’ll just see if there’s anybody from the public wishing to speak on the matter. Okay. Do you guys want to come up? And again, just to remind you, you have spoken twice before. If you’re going to tell us anything, we would be interested in new information or insight that you might have into what’s been proposed. Thank you. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN FRANCIS MARTINDALE MR. MARTINDALE-I’m going to talk about the safety on 149. It’s my understanding that people come before this Board for a variance because there’s a hardship. My question is, who created the hardship? It wasn’t the previous owner, Harry Bartlett or Bernard Beekman or Dr. Teft. It was this couple. I’m concerned about the Town road, and even though they’ve got a hardship and they want to have relief, they can make that property, without any need for variances, and the price of the property is not going to change because if it’s in the Lake George School District, it’ll sell. People want to be in that School District. My other concern is what about the rest of their land? Are they going to come back and be given the same privilege on that part at some further date? We don’t know. The gravel roads. What is going to be used to control the dust, and what is going to be the environmental impact on the whole area when they start using calcium, which is the main item used to control dust? If you’ve got a gravel road, what quality of a house is somebody going to build there with dust flying into their yards and their houses all the while? It just, there’s no reason for a variance. There’s no reason for a hardship, when it can be done. There’s 56 acres there. They don’t need two entrances. There’s proposals for subdivisions in front of you that will be in front of this Town, and it may come before this Board, of 29 subdivision houses with one entrance off of a road that is nowhere near as heavily traveled as Sweet Road, as 149, and that’s Sweet Road. Thank you for your time. MR. UNDERWOOD-Thank you. Is there anybody else that wants to speak? CAROLINE MARTINDALE MRS. MARTINDALE-Caroline Martindale, and I brought up the subject last night of the Indiana Bat. We personally experienced, and I talked with Keith today. He said more than likely it was an Indiana Bat. When they were working on the road, trying to straighten it out last year, the workers explained to my husband that they had to stop work because of the Indiana Bat. We didn’t know it was an Indiana Bat that had invaded our furnace. It had flown down through the chimney and gotten into our transformer and we had no heat and no hot water, and we called Royal Chadwick in and he found that it was a dead bat, it was all fried, right into the transformer of our furnace. So we do know that they are there, and I spoke to Keith today saying when I’m out in the summertime or in the Fall, I’m afraid they’re going to land in my hair. I cover my head with a hat or something, because they are there, and I had no knowledge it was an Indiana Bat, but this is what Keith said that it more than likely was, and also, about approximately five years 2 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/27/10) ago, Dexter Blake approached us and he wanted to build, we have 30 plus acres across the road, and he wanted to put in a housing development, and he explained to me, he was a realtor, and he said that there was a Karner blue butterfly in our area, and I have no knowledge. I spoke to Keith about that today again and he said that would go through the SEQRA process, and if there is that possibility, that also should be looked at, and then, thirdly, I’d like to question this application. I mean, who is the applicant? Who’s going to be developing the property? Should it be just the Sander’s name on this application, or should it be the people who are going to be developing the property, the Homeowners Association? Why is there a hardship if there’s going to be all these people involved? Shouldn’t their name be on it? That’s my question. Thank you. MR. UNDERWOOD-Thank you. Come on up. TODD ENGWER MR. ENGWER-Good evening. My name’s Todd Engwer. I own property adjacent to where the subdivision is being proposed, and I wasn’t able to attend last night’s meeting. So, I had an attorney there on my behalf, so I don’t know specifically what he said verbatim, but I will tell you that I’m opposed to this, and one of the reasons, my concerns is that on the back side, the southwest side of that property, is a large ravine and there’s a natural runoff now. I’m concerned that the gravel road, they won’t be able to control runoff. I’m concerned about the size of the houses they’re putting in there, that there will be a significant amount of excavation to put these houses in. I’m not really sure what they have in place, but there is wetlands that go on to my property then go on to Robinson property. They’re spring fed, small streams that feed into that large stream, and I’m concerned about that. I have a concern about traffic coming out onto that road. Essentially, as Mr. and Mrs. Martindale said, I think that they’ve created their own hardship and they can work around it with the Town roads and, you know, the setback issue is a concern of mine, and I just want to be on the record tonight, and my attorney probably will follow up with Mr. Hutchins or what not, whoever needs to, to get it resolved, but I want to be on the record that I’m opposed to this for those reasons. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Thank you. MR. ENGWER-Thank you. MR. UNDERWOOD-Anybody else from the public wishing to speak on the matter? Okay. I would comment, before you come out and make your comments, too, I think most of these issues that have been raised here tonight are Planning Board issues. They don’t really have much to do with us, other than the access issue, which is what is germane to this Board, and although everything is important here, I think that those probably will be resolved, you know, your issues about wildlife and things like that, that, you know, endangered species if they’re present. DEC will probably make that determination pretty rapidly, just by taking a walk down there. So, as far as what we’re going to do here next, any comments you want to make tonight? MR. HUTCHINS-The only point I would make is that, with request to doing this without variances, the reason we are here is because we submitted a compliant plan to the Planning Board and the Planning Board said, with a variance, we think this could be a much better plan, and we would support you if you were to seek that variance, and frankly, it is a better plan, but that’s the reason we’re here, and as far as who’s going to do the application, the applicants are the Sanders. As far as the gravel road, there’s going to be a lot of discussion on the gravel road. Probably when we’re all said and done, we’re not going to end up with a gravel road. Okay, but that, we believe, is a Planning Board item, and we discussed that with the Planning Board and we’re going to further discuss that in the Preliminary review process with the Planning Board, if we get there. Our concern is how far we have to go in order to get to the Preliminary review process because without this variance I mean our layout is scrap, and that’s where we’re trying to get to. We have no problem addressing everyone’s issue and everyone’s concerns, but without this variance, we don’t have a project and we’re back at Square One, and, yes, we had a layout that was compliant, and that was the only thing I wanted to make. As far as endangered species, that’s in the works. DEC is going to make that determination and I have a verbal but I will have that formally in a matter of days. Okay, and that’s all I need to add. I appreciate it. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Sure. So I think as far as the Board tonight, we’re just going to table this and wait to hear, and that should give us the answers that we need to proceed at that point. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 14-2010 CHRISTIAN & EUSTACIA SANDER, Introduced by James Underwood who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Hunt: th 572 State Route 9. We’ll be tabling that until the May 19 meeting of this Board. That’ll be for specific recommendation from the Planning Board and their finish of their SEQRA review, and we’ll keep the public hearing open for that evening also. 3 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/27/10) th Duly adopted this 28 day of April, 2010, by the following vote: MR. OBORNE-If I could state for the record, I am not a bat aficionado. I just want to make sure everybody understands that. I know that the Indiana Bat is endangered, even more so with the white nose syndrome that’s going on right now. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, and I think it’s pretty evident, I mean, my understanding is that they use hickory bark to hide under, in a lot of the rural areas in Town, and I don’t know what’s over there. I haven’t reviewed the property myself. MR. OBORNE-Lots of hickory. AYES: Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Clements, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Jenkin, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Underwood NOES: NONE MR. UNDERWOOD-Thank you. MR. HUTCHINS-Thanks. MR. URRICO-And the public hearing is still open? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, we’ll leave that open. NEW BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 19-2010 SEQRA TYPE: II JOLLEY ASSOC. AGENT(S): SEAN CRUMB OWNER(S): JOLLEY ASSOC. ZONING: HC-INT. LOCATION: 777 GLEN STREET APPLICANT PROPOSES DEMOLITION OF A 944 SQ. FT. CONVENIENCE STORE AND RECONSTRUCTION OF A 2,288 SQ. FT. CONVENIENCE STORE WITH ASSOCIATED SITE WORK. APPLICANT REQUESTS RELIEF FROM FRONT LINE SETBACK AND TRAVEL CORRIDOR SETBACK FOR NEW GAS CANOPY. CROSS REF.: SP 18-08; SP 24-10; AV 24- 2008; BP 381 YR. 1969 GASOLINE SERVICE STATION; BP 1095 SIGN; BP 1534 SIGN; BP 1576 SIGN; BP 2005-924 QUEENSBURY MOBILE C/O WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: APRIL 14, 2010 LOT SIZE: 0.81 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 302.6-1-29 SECTION: 179-3-040 SEAN CRUMB, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. UNDERWOOD-And just as a historical footnote, we did review this project last year, and we did grant them relief to do the re-do of this gas station. At the time, I don’t think they anticipated the canopy, and as far as I’m concerned, it’s pretty straightforward. The only difference I really see on this is I think that it’s going to be like one foot longer, one foot wider. MR. CRUMB-It is. MR. UNDERWOOD-It’s essentially exactly the same thing. You’re going to use the same structural steel that’s already present. MR. CRUMB-We’re going to use the same beams. The whole issue revolves around the structural steel off of the beams. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. MR. CRUMB-We had planned to re-skin it only. One thing lead to another, engineers came back and said. MR. UNDERWOOD-I know, a lot of those things leak, and once you get them opened up, they’re not what you thought they were. MR. CRUMB-Right. So they got into it and decided it wasn’t up to Code and we needed to replace it, one thing lead to another. Here we are. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 19-2010, Jolley Assoc., Meeting Date: April 28, 2010 “Project Location: 777 Glen Street Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes 4 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/27/10) demolition of a 944 sq. ft. convenience store and reconstruction of a 2,288 sq. ft. convenience store to include a new gas island canopy and associated site work. Relief Required: Applicant requests 27 feet of northeast front line setback relief, 27 feet of Route 9 Travel Corridor setback relief, 61 feet of north front line setback relief and 61 feet of Route 9 Travel Corridor setback relief for proposed new gas island canopy as per §179-3-040 of Queensbury Town Code. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination, the board shall consider: 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. Minor impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of the granting of this area variance. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. The limitations of the lot appear to preclude the applicant from seeking anything but an area variance. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The request for 27 feet or 36% relief from the 75 foot northeast front setback and 75 foot Route 9 Travel Corridor setback requirement as per §179-3-040 may be considered moderate relative to the ordinance. The request for 61 feet or 81% relief from the 75 foot north front setback and 75 foot Route 9 Travel Corridor setback requirement as per §179-3-040 may be considered severe relative to the ordinance. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Minor impacts on the physical and environmental conditions of the neighborhood may be anticipated. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. The non conforming nature of the parcel and the location of the proposed replacement canopy appear to contribute to the need for multiple area variances. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): S.V. 18-2010 Sign Variance Pending S.P. 24-2010 Demo and rebuild convenience store Pending S.P. 18-2008 Site Plan approval extension to 10/21/2010 Approved 9/22/2009 A.V. 24-2008 Front and Travel Corridor relief Approved 5/28/2008 S.P. 18-2008 Demo and rebuild convenience store Approved 10/21/2008 Staff comments: Please see Planning Board recommendation handout. The Planning Board approved Site Plan 18-2008 in October 2008 that included the demolition of a 944 square foot existing structure and replacement with a 2,288 square foot store with associated site work. At the time the applicant was only to “re-skin” the gas island canopy and as such was considered a pre-existing non-conforming structure. It has come to the attention of the applicant that the canopy will need to be replaced due to structural steel issues and will now need the setback relief discussed above. Front and Travel Corridor relief was granted for the proposed convenience store portion of this project in May 2008. SEQR Status: Type II – No further review required.” “Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form April 14, 2010 Project Name: Jolley Associates Owner: Jolley Associates ID Number: QBY-10-AV-19 County Project#: Apr10-24 Current Zoning: HC-Int. Community: Queensbury Project Description: 5 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/27/10) Applicant is proposing demolition of a 944 sq. ft. convenience store and reconstruction of a 2,288 sq. ft. convenience store with associated site work. Applicant requests relief from front line setback and travel corridor setback for new gas canopy. Site Location: 777 Glen Street Tax Map Number(s): 302.6-1-29 Staff Notes: Drawings provided show that the existing canopy is to remain. Documentation in the file indicates that the request is to remove the canopy and replace with a new structure. Additional information has been requested from the Town. Staff recommends discussion to determine where new canopy will be placed and to determine if there are impacts on County resources. County Planning Board Recommendation: No Action The Warren County Planning Board did not review the application due to the inconsistency of information submitted within the Site Plan and Area Variance applications.” Signed by Tim Lawson, Warren County Planning Board 4/15/10. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Do you want to fill us in? Anything more you want to add? MR. CRUMB-Pretty much sums it up. It wasn’t, our hope, like I had mentioned, was just to re- skin it and not have to spend $100 plus thousand dollars to do all the structural steel, but here we are. So I don’t really think I have much more that I can add at this point. MR. UNDERWOOD-Everybody understand the situation here? MR. GARRAND-Isn’t that just prefab? MR. CRUMB-Many of them are. A lot of it is standard sizes these days. Those are older canopies. I couldn’t give you an age on that one. We are trying to use more standard sizes in there, in fact, gives you some of the changes with the height as well as the width, you know, fascia widths and so forth. There’s some box units out there, yes, off the shelf, most of ours are custom. MR. UNDERWOOD-So we’re looking at one foot higher, one foot longer, is that the deal? MR. CRUMB-It is. MR. URRICO-I just have a question, though. How many, do you have any future projects in the works? MR. CRUMB-Not in Queensbury. MR. URRICO-This is the third project you’ve had before us and this is the second time you’ve had to come back for more relief. MR. CRUMB-Yes, and again, it was unanticipated on the canopy side of this. Again, we don’t look to spend this kind of money if we don’t have to, and I think that there was some confusion on our part where we said, hey, we’re going to re-skin it, which is fascia on the canopy. We were going to go ahead and do the structural steel and Keith kindly informed us that we needed to have, we could take it down, but we couldn’t put it back up. So, here we are. Again, you know, we’ve gone to the more standard, off the shelf dimensions to try and alleviate some of the pain, as far as the expense goes. Therein lies your foot taller. I think it’s 22 inches wider, longer, I should say, the width remains the same, but it’ll be a very nice property once it’s done. I hope that everyone has had a chance to see our other sites, and we look to have a similar look there when we’re completed. MR. UNDERWOOD-Any other comments you guys want to make? Any other questions? Okay. Then I think what I’ll do is I’ll open up the public hearing. Anybody from the public wishing to speak on the matter? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. UNDERWOOD-Any correspondence? Okay. Then I guess I’ll just speak for the group. I don’t see this as a major change. I think most times when we re-do these things, they get completely re-done. I think everybody kind of wondered why it didn’t come with the project initially, but I don’t think we would not grant this, you know, being that it’s only one foot higher, one foot longer, and no one’s probably going to know that there’s that dimensional difference from what’s already presently on site. MR. CRUMB-I certainly wouldn’t notice it. MR. UNDERWOOD-So does somebody want to do this one? MRS. HUNT-I’ll take it. 6 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/27/10) MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. MS. GAGLIARDI-You need to close the public hearing. MR. UNDERWOOD-And I’ll close the public hearing. Thanks. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 19-2010 JOLLEY ASSOC., Introduced by Joyce Hunt who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joan Jenkin: 777 Glen Street. The applicant proposes demolition of a 944 square foot convenience store and re-construction of a 2,288 square foot convenience store due to a new gas island canopy and associated site work. The applicant requests 27 feet of northeast front line setback relief, 27 feet of Route 9 Travel Corridor setback relief, 61 feet of north front line setback relief, and 61 feet of Route 9 Travel Corridor setback relief for the proposed new gas island canopy, as per Section 179-3-040 of the Queensbury Town Code. In making this determination, the Board shall consider whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this variance, and I believe just minor impacts on the neighborhood could be anticipated. The sign is pretty much what is up there now. Whether the benefit being sought by the applicant could be achieved by some method feasible, other than an Area Variance, and the lot has its limitations and also the existing sign was already up there and this is just a modification of it. Whether the requested Area Variance is substantial. The request of 27 feet or 36% relief from the 75 foot northeast front setback and 75 foot Route 9 Travel Corridor setback requirement, as per Section 179-3-040, may be considered moderate relative to the Ordinance. The request for 61 feet or 81% relief from the 75 foot north front setback and 75 foot Route 9 Travel Corridor setback requirement as per Section 179-3-040 may be considered severe relative to the Ordinance, but again, this is a pre-existing sign, and it’s just minor changes to it. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district, and I suggest there would just be minor impacts. Whether the alleged difficulty was self- created. The nonconforming nature of the parcel and the location of the replacement canopy appear to be contribute to the need of the multiple Area Variances. I propose we approve Area Variance 19-2010. th Duly adopted this 28 day of April, 2010, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Jenkin, Mr. Clements, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Garrand, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Underwood NOES: NONE SIGN VARIANCE NO. 18-2010 SEQRA TYPE: UNLISTED JOLLEY ASSOCIATES AGENT(S): SEAN CRUMB OWNER(S): JOLLEY ASSOCIATES ZONING: HC-INT. LOCATION: 777 GLEN STREET APPLICANT PROPOSES DEMOLITION OF A 944 SQ. FT. CONVENIENCE STORE AND RECONSTRUCTION OF A 2,288 SQ. FT. CONVENIENCE STORE WITH ASSOCIATED SITE WORK. APPLICANT REQUESTS RELIEF FOR ONE ADDITIONAL FREESTANDING SIGN AND ONE ADDITIONAL WALL SIGN ON GAS ISLAND CANOPY. CROSS REF.: SP 18-08; SP 24-10; AV 24-2008; BP 381 YR. 1969 GASOLINE SERVICE STATION; BP 1095 SIGN; BP 1534 SIGN; BP 1576 SIGN; BP 2005-924 QUEENSBURY MOBILE C/O WARREN CO. PLANNING: APRIL 14, 2010 LOT SIZE: 0.81 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 302.6-1-29 SECTION: CHAPTER 140 SEAN CRUMB, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Sign Variance No. 18-2010, Jolley Associates, Meeting Date: April 28, 2010 “Project Location: 777 Glen Street Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes demolition of a 944 sq. ft. convenience store and reconstruction of a 2,288 sq. ft. convenience store with associated site work and signage. Relief Required: Applicant requests relief for one additional freestanding sign facing Aviation Road and one additional wall sign proposed for the convenience store. 7 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/27/10) Criteria for considering a Sign Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination, the board shall consider: 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. Minor impacts to the district may be anticipated as a result of the granting of this area variance. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. The applicant could reduce the number of proposed signs in order to become more compliant or compliant. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The request for one additional freestanding sign or 100% relief from the one freestanding sign per parcel requirement per Chapter 140 may be considered severe relative to the ordinance. The request for a third wall sign or in this case 33% relief from the two allowable wall signs on this parcel as per Chapter 140 may be considered moderate relative to the ordinance. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Minor impacts on the physical or environmental conditions in the district may be anticipated. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. The alleged difficulty may be considered self created. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): S.V. 19-2010 Front and Travel Corridor setback relief Pending S.P. 18-2008 Site Plan approval extension to 10/21/2010 Approved 9/22/2009 S.P. 18-2008 Demo and rebuild convenience store Approved 10/21/2008 A.V. 24-2008 Front and Travel Corridor relief Approved 5/28/2008 Staff comments: The applicant, after consulting with staff, has designated the freestanding sign facing Aviation Road and the sign associated with the convenience store the two signs in need of relief. SEQR Status: Type: Unlisted.” “Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form April 14, 2010 Project Name: Jolley Associates Owner: Jolley Associates ID Number: QBY-10-SV-18 County Project#: Apr10-23 Current Zoning: HC-Int. Community: Queensbury Project Description: Applicant proposes demolition of a 944 sq. ft. convenience store and reconstruction of a 2,288 sq. ft. convenience store with associated site work. Applicant requests relief for one additional freestanding sign and one additional wall sign on gas island canopy. Site Location: 777 Glen Street Tax Map Number(s): 302.6-1-29 Staff Notes: From the materials provided it is unclear where the new freestanding sign will be placed. Staff recommends discussion to determine placement and if there might be sight distance obstructions or impacts. Site drawing included with summaries. County Planning Board Recommendation: No Action The Warren County Planning Board did not review the application due to the inconsistency of information submitted within the Site Plan and Area Variance applications.” Signed by Tim Lawson, Warren County Planning Board 4/15/10. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Do you want to fill us in? MR. CRUMB-Sure. The signage, particularly the freestanding signs, these do meet your size requirement. I want to be clear on that. I’m not proposing anything out of the ordinary as far as size goes. We discussed the matter of signage with the Planning Board during the Planning Board and had informed them and they asked, actually, and requested monument signs to replace the existing signs. I do understand that it doesn’t meet your current regulation and if, in fact, we did own the corner, we’d be happy to comply. However we don’t. So we’re just asking to replace the existing signs on site with monument signs in the exact location. The one area of clarity I would like to point out, the proposed stone based structure is actually brick. It’ll match the building. So regarding that, that is our hope that you would grant that relief, and regarding the additional building sign, we’re asking for one additional building sign. 8 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/27/10) MR. GARRAND-That’s going to be the Jolley sign on the building? MR. CRUMB-It is. It is, and I may have confused the issue and put some Short Stop information in there. My apology. MR. UNDERWOOD-It’s crossed off. MR. CRUMB-It is Jolley. I’ve been doing a lot of sign work. I’ve confused myself I’ve done so many signs. MR. GARRAND-Currently, there’s two monument signs and one mobile on the canopy, currently. MR. CRUMB-That’s correct, and there is a mobile mart over the door currently. That’ll be gone, and the existing signs are freestanding signs. They’re twin pole freestanding signs. So we think it’ll look much better and blend with the new appearance that we’re going to have there. I find it only fitting to replace the signs at the same time we’re re-doing the rest of the property. MRS. JENKIN-So the wall sign, the Short Stop, that goes over the front door? MR. CRUMB-It is actually Jolley. That’s correct. MRS. JENKIN-And where’s the other one? MR. CRUMB-The other one are two on the canopy. There was one facing. MRS. JENKIN-The Mobil? MR. CRUMB-Yes. MR. UNDERWOOD-One on the east, one on the north. MR. CRUMB-That’s correct. MRS. JENKIN-Okay, but there’s only one on the building. MR. CRUMB-That’s correct. MRS. JENKIN-Itself. MR. CLEMENTS-And that’s this one right here. MR. CRUMB-That’s correct. MR. CLEMENTS-Not that one. MR. CRUMB-That’s the one, I apologize for the confusion. You can throw the Short Stop out. We have a couple of different brands, and many gasoline brands, and I apologize for that. MR. UNDERWOOD-So as far as compliant, Keith, we’ve got two arterial roads here, and I know we’ve been in this situation before where a business is on a corner and they’re allowed to have a sign on either side. MR. OBORNE-As long as they’re facing that street, yes. MR. UNDERWOOD-Which could be construed to be the Mobil signs up on the canopy. MR. OBORNE-Correct. MR. UNDERWOOD-That would be my take on that, and the other one would be, they want two of these monument signs, and I’m looking at the locations, you want one over on the, like going on the south side there. MR. CRUMB-Southwest corner, yes. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, and the other one kind up of towards the corner of Quaker and so those are sort of in line with each other, almost. One’s set back in a little further. 9 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/27/10) MRS. JENKIN-Why aren’t you putting the one sign where it is existing now? MR. CRUMB-Well, my hope would be to put in two brand new signs, too. MRS. JENKIN-Well, I know, but why wouldn’t you put one brand new sign in where the existing one is now? MR. CRUMB-Well, I would plan to. However, I needed to go through the application process and I wouldn’t look to replace one without having done the other. I guess I’m not quite catching your question. MRS. JENKIN-Well, I guess, you have one now one freestanding sign now? MR. CRUMB-We have two freestanding. MRS. JENKIN-There’s two freestanding? MR. CRUMB-Yes. There’s one on each entrance. We’re still talking about the freestanding sign. MRS. JENKIN-Right. MR. CRUMB-There’s currently one here along Aviation, and there’s one here along Route 9. MRS. JENKIN-You do have two, okay, because I only noticed one. All right. Thank you. MR. URRICO-Who owns the property on the front? MR. CRUMB-The State. MR. URRICO-They won’t share? MR. CRUMB-No. We tried to add landscaping and they shot us down. We did, that was part of the Planning Board’s request. MR. OBORNE-Which actually makes sense from a field of vision point of view. MR. CRUMB-It does. They wouldn’t even allow us any low plantings. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Now this sign here, is this the same size as the one we’ve got over at Queensbury school? This is the size of the one up north. MR. CRUMB-That one meets your requirements. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, because I remember the last time they, it was pre-ordered. MR. CRUMB-I wasn’t going to go down that road again, nor was there an issue with the Planning Board regarding that. MR. UNDERWOOD-So if you want to keep in mind the one up in the miracle mile, which is much smaller than the one that we did over across from Queensbury schools. That one, to me, is much more sanely sized. MR. CRUMB-This is 40 square feet. MR. UNDERWOOD-Right. MR. CRUMB-The one on Aviation Road is 102 square feet, and I know that you did not like it. MR. UNDERWOOD-They did not want you to put the sign in on Aviation Road where that current one is, up that far towards the entrance? MR. CRUMB-Well, quite honestly, there wasn’t an issue about the placement. I guess we had to come up with an argument for the where. I think it’s just a matter of circumstance that we said that one. MR. UNDERWOOD-So the only thing you’re going to have on that side, on the Aviation Road side, really is going to be what’s up on the canopy and what’s on the, and the Jolley one on the entrance. 10 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/27/10) MR. CRUMB-That’s correct. MR. UNDERWOOD-All right. Do you guys want to talk about this a little bit? What are your feelings on it? MR. KUHL-Just for my knowledge, what’s the size of the signs there now? MR. CRUMB-Those are, I believe they, I want to say they were, I should know this right off the top of my head, I deal with these often enough. Bear with me one second. MR. KUHL-But they’re not going to be much larger? MR. CRUMB-No, they’re not. Again, these meet the current Code, as well as those meet the current Code. I want to say they’re within close proximity. Those, I believe, are actually larger. If my memory serves me, I want to say they’re about 48 square feet each. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. So, just so everybody’s clear again. We’re looking at two of these, all right, and we’re looking at the one extra one on the building with Jolley, all right. Let’s go through, then, and let’s talk about it. MRS. JENKIN-Now where is, the new one is going here, again, too, right? MR. CRUMB-There really is no new one. MR. GARRAND-It’s just replacing. MRS. JENKIN-Right, replacement of, they’re both going in the same place that they were before? MR. CRUMB-Exact same spot, yes. MR. UNDERWOOD-You’re going to have one here, and then you’re going to have one over. MR. OBORNE-And those will meet the setbacks from the road? MR. CRUMB-Well, I guess that’s open to your interpretation. If I look at it right now, the one along Route 9, no. I mean, it is what it is. You can look at the measurements yourself. I’ll do the best I can, but. MR. OBORNE-Yes. The one on Quaker appears okay. MR. CRUMB-Yes. We have plenty of area to play with that one. We just don’t have anything left along Route 9. MR. OBORNE-You’ve designated the one along Aviation Road as the one that you would be willing to lose? MR. CRUMB-I’m not willing to lose either one of them. MR. OBORNE-But through our discussion. MR. CRUMB-If push came to shove, I guess, yes, but, you know, I guess, to further that, if push came to shove I’m going to leave what’s there. MR. OBORNE-Well, the reason I ask is that this would basically be a change in copy almost for the non-compliant, pre-existing, non-compliant sign. So I’m just trying to work through that aspect of it. MR. UNDERWOOD-You’re just swapping out. MR. OBORNE-Yes, and the compliant sign would be the one that is open for interpretation, and typically. MR. UNDERWOOD-Were these given relief previously, then, I assume? MR. OBORNE-They were not. MR. UNDERWOOD-They were not. 11 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/27/10) MR. OBORNE-So they’re basically pre-existing, non-conforming, and typically when we ask an applicant which signs, pick which signs require relief, because those are the signs that they’d be willing to lose if they had to. He’s not willing to lose any. I can tell you that right now, but, if push came to shove, as he says, you know, those would be the ones that would be earmarked for that. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Why don’t we do this, then. I mean, everybody understands the situation. I’m going to run through each one of you, so do you want to go? MR. CLEMENTS-Well, no, I just want to ask, currently, on the canopy, do you have two Mobil signs? MR. CRUMB-Currently I believe there’s one. MR. CLEMENTS-And which way is that facing? MR. UNDERWOOD-East, I think. MR. CLEMENTS-That’s Glen Street? MR. CRUMB-Glen Street. MR. CLEMENTS-Okay, and you currently have a sign where the Jolley sign is going to be on the front of the doors there, there is a sign there now, right? MR. CRUMB-It says Food Mart. MR. CLEMENTS-Right. Okay. So really the additional sign is the other Mobil sign on the other side of the canopy. Would that be? MR. CRUMB-Theoretically, you could pick any one of the three, theoretically. MR. CLEMENTS-Okay. I just wanted that clarified. I’m okay. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Why don’t we do this, then. I’m going to close the public hearing. MS. GAGLIARDI-Excuse me. I don’t think you actually opened it. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Did I ever open it? We didn’t have anything. So I’ll close it. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Roy? MR. URRICO-I have several thoughts on this. Number One, this, in terms of visibility, this is the most traveled corridor that we have in Queensbury. It’s one of the most well traveled corridors between Albany and Montreal. Somewhere between 20 and 30,000 cars a day, that’s what I understand. Right? And so, when we take a look at the Sign Variance and we’re talking about visibility, this is not a problem with this site. It’s going to be visible from any direction, at some point during the day, by just about every car that comes past here, and 140-14, Sign Variance, talks about variances. It says no variance, in the strict application of the provisions of this chapter, shall be granted by the Board of Appeals unless it finds that there are special circumstances or conditions applying to the land or a sign and not applying generally to land or signs in the neighborhood, and I don’t think that’s the case here. We’re not depriving the applicant of reasonable use of such sign so that they’re not going to be able to be seen. That’s one thought. The other thought is that we’re talking about a variance which exists in all our commercial districts. We’ve had situations before where a gas stations or convenience stores have located on a corner and they’ve been restricted to one freestanding sign and two wall signs, and we’ve made that stick because we know if we don’t make it stick, we’re going to have everybody that applies for a sign on a corner come back and ask for the second sign, or the third sign on the wall sign, and now, again, you’re talking about this well traveled corridor where three on the corners exist, and if we pass this variance, then they’re going to be coming back and asking for the same break. We have an opportunity here to keep the signs minimal, and I think that’s what we should do. 12 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/27/10) MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Brian? MR. CLEMENTS-I think I’d like to listen to the other Board members, first. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Joan? MRS. JENKIN-Okay. I still want to clarify. You’re adding, you have a Mobil sign on the canopy now. MR. CRUMB-We’re talking about building signs. MRS. JENKIN-And you’re going to keep that one there, and you’re going to add another one on the other side? MR. CRUMB-That’s what I would like to do, yes. MRS. JENKIN-Okay. So you want two on the canopy? MR. CRUMB-Yes, I would. MRS. JENKIN-Okay. I just understood that you would have one. MR. CRUMB-It’s one building sign on the, over the entrance of the store itself. MRS. JENKIN-Yes, on the building. MR. CRUMB-That’s the one building sign, and then there’s two canopy logos. MRS. JENKIN-Right. MR. OBORNE-And all of them are considered wall signs. MRS. JENKIN-Right, and then you have the Mobil sign here. You’ll have two, if you get your wish granted, have two on each side with the Mobil sign there, too? MR. CRUMB-Yes. MRS. JENKIN-So it’s not going to be hard to see that it’s a Mobil station. MR. CRUMB-I won’t argue that point. MRS. JENKIN-You’ll be able to see it. So I feel that this is a little excessive. I guess I don’t understand, I know you don’t own the property, but I don’t understand why you can’t put the freestanding sign at the front of your property. MR. CRUMB-Because the State won’t allow it. MRS. JENKIN-No, no. Not where the State owns it, but at the front of your property. MR. CRUMB-I don’t find that that would be a reasonable area for advertisement. I have a question for clarity, if you don’t mind me interrupting here, and I understand your point. My point here is we have two existing freestanding signs. If you deny my application, what’s my rights? I can leave what I have there. MR. UNDERWOOD-Absolutely. MR. CRUMB-So, and I don’t mean this in a facetious way at all, but my thought here is we’re putting $1.6 million into this property. Do you want to spare $10,000 and have lousy looking signs on either one of the entrances? We’re trying to go the extra mile. We’re trying to put the money into our properties. I think we can all agree that we do a good job at our development. I think that our properties stand out in your community. I think we do a good job landscaping, and this is one final touch that’s going to help to finish off the project. So my hope would be to not have to leave 20 year old signs on a new, you know, a business that’s been refreshed and new. MRS. JENKIN-And I can agree with that, too, but I guess my point is if you have the Mobil sign on the two freestanding signs, is it absolutely necessary to have them, to just give a little, on the canopy as well? MR. CRUMB-In the end, no. Is it our preference? Yes. Is it Mobil’s preference? Yes. 13 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/27/10) MRS. JENKIN-Right. MR. CRUMB-I understand your argument, you know, and if the compromise here, if it’ll make the whole situation easier, I’m willing to go with one Jolley sign over the door and one Mobil logo on the canopy, if that’ll satisfy everybody’s concerns. MRS. JENKIN-That would make it easier for me. MR. CRUMB-Obviously we want to get as much as we can get. I understand your concerns about the look of your community. Believe me, we understand that, and if the compromise is that we fall back to a single canopy logo, we could do that. MRS. JENKIN-Well, unfortunately, there’ve been mistakes made in the past, and then when you come then you’re the scapegoat for the mistakes that were made before. MR. CRUMB-I understand that, and, you know, it’s part of the process, and I think, and I’ll throw it out to Keith. I don’t think that you’ve found any issues with our other properties. We’ve been in compliance. We’ve been in compliance. We’ve come to the Board with any issues that have been brought up. We’ve discussed those issues, come away with an agreement that everybody’s happy with. We’re looking to do the same here. MRS. JENKIN-I just think the one by the school is, but at any rate, that’s fine. That’s my comment. MR. UNDERWOOD-Rich? MR. GARRAND-I was looking at the circumstances of this. I’ve driven by this a lot, three times today, just to get an idea of the visibility of the existing signs that are there, and what the proposal is. I came at this intersection from three different directions. When you’re at that intersection, the one thing you’re not doing is looking up and looking around for signs, and when you do sit at the light and you’re looking for signs, when I was coming from Quaker Road headed west, I saw one sign. When I was going south, I didn’t see any, at quick glance, you couldn’t see any. There isn’t a lot of visibility, as far as signage from any one direction, and that’s what I was looking for. I was looking to see if they were going to do something that’s going to be obtrusive to this parcel of property, and from all directions that I came from, you know, I don’t see how it can, what they’re doing is going to be obtrusive. MR. CRUMB-These signs will be somewhat shorter than what’s there. I want to say the overall height of the twin pole signs there are eight and nine feet now. We’ll be down about seven feet when we’re all completed. So it will tone things down in some regard, but I appreciate what you’re saying as well. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Joyce? MRS. HUNT-Yes. I do have a question. This sign is going to replace the one that’s over on the other? MR. CRUMB-It’s going to replace both freestanding signs currently. There’ll be one. MRS. HUNT-In the same place? MR. CRUMB-Exact same place. MRS. HUNT-I never noticed the other one. I go past there every day. So, I have no problem with it. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Brian, are you ready to go? MR. CLEMENTS-Sure. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. MR. CLEMENTS-First I’d like to say, with the other projects that you’ve had, I think that you’ve done a very nice job with them. I think that the sign at Exit 19 is large, but I understand the process you went through with that and the problems with the Planning Board, and I guess, after listening to the other Board members, I can see both points here. As a matter of fact, if you owned the land where the State was right there, it would be a perfect place for your freestanding sign. I think that I would agree that you should have a Mobil sign on each side. So I would 14 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/27/10) agree with the plan as you’ve proposed it. I think that it is difficult for people to see when they’re coming down there, when they’re looking to see which lanes they want to go into. I think bringing it down a little bit would put it more at their eye level. So, I’d be in favor of this plan. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Ron? MR. KUHL-I think what everybody has said, you came and wanted two Mobil signs on the one at 20, and you reduced it to one. Okay. MR. CRUMB-Yes, we did. MR. KUHL-This being consistent with that, reduce the overhead Mobil sign from two to one, and I mean, these signs are good. It should be done, to satisfy the investment and to make your building look better. MR. CRUMB-Thank you. MR. KUHL-But, you know, with the two of them on top, I don’t think you need them. MR. CRUMB-And, you know, again, I’m agreeable to that. I would ask, you know, if we are working on compromising and reducing to a single Mobil canopy legend, the positions that they’re in now would be my optimum choice for two, but for a single canopy logo, it wouldn’t be my optimum choice. So I would ask that if a change is going to be made, I would prefer to put the Mobil legend along the southwest corner, which would be exact opposite of this position here, moving it from this corner to this corner. MR. GARRAND-Isn’t that southeast? MR. CRUMB-You’re right. I’m sorry, southeast. MRS. JENKIN-Okay, southeast. That’s probably a good idea. MR. CRUMB-Just to move it from the south to the north. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. So are you all set, Ron? MR. KUHL-Yes. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. I’m going to look at it, you know, both viewpoints are pertinent to the situation that we have requested here, but I will say this. I like these signs a heck of a lot better than the old lollipop signs that used to be at gas stations and, you know, like I drive my kid to school in the morning at Queensbury, and I’m looking right at that side. I don’t have to look around. I don’t have to turn my head or do anything, or look up or look down or anything to see it. It’s right there, and the same thing I think when you come off the Northway exit, you know, up at the miracle mile. So I think these signs here make a lot more sense to me. It is an excessive request, as Roy pointed out, because, you know, we have all the malls down there, and they’ve all requested signs on two sides, and I think that, he’s right on the mark when we may be looking at other requests for people to do this, too, but I think we can rationalize it in this case because we’re replacing two signs that are already there. They’re nonconforming signs, but nonetheless, I don’t think anybody has raised any red flags. If we didn’t have this sign coming down Aviation Road, you really would have to look up at the canopy to see if it’s a Mobil, but I mean, Mobil’s pretty distinctive. Everybody knows the color scheme. The bulk of people coming to the gas station, I’m going to guess a lot of business is generated by cars coming off the Northway, and coming down the hill, and if you haven’t been to Town before, I think you probably do need a sign that you can see at that point, and as you’ve pointed out, it’s an awfully busy corner. You’ve got to be paying attention to, with all those turn lanes and figuring out which way you’re going to go if you want to get gas, and if you miss, you’re probably going to want something else. The one that’s over there on the southeast corner of their property, you know, there’s still a lot of traffic that comes through Glens Falls. It’s not like Route 9 was 50 years ago when Route 9 was the only road in Town, but nonetheless, I think you still need a sign to identify the gas station, and so therefore I don’t have a problem with these two monument signs. I think they can go where they’ve been requested. The canopy signs up on top, I would go along with having one of those down there, and as far as having the Jolley over the door, I think that’s okay, too. I mean, it’s worked out on the other two that we’ve done. So I don’t think it’s anything too different than what we’ve seen so far. So, that being what it is, does somebody want to take this one? MR. GARRAND-You’re agreeable to that? 15 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/27/10) MR. CRUMB-Yes. MR. GARRAND-Okay. MR. CRUMB-Are you agreeable to the repositioning of the? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. So that’ll move the Mobil on the, that’ll be the north side elevation. You move that to further up towards? MR. CRUMB-Yes, that’ll be on the southeast corner. MR. UNDERWOOD-Southeast corner. Okay. MR. OBORNE-I would say that’s probably not an issue because the wall signs are compliant now. MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure. They can put them anywhere on there along that whole side. MR. OBORNE-Exactly. MR. CRUMB-So the positioning’s not a problem. It’s just a matter of the? MR. OBORNE-Amount. MR. CRUMB-Gotcha. MR. OBORNE-Now positioning for the freestanding signs, that’s another issue that hopefully won’t rear its ugly head. MR. CRUMB-Well, does it need to rear its ugly head? MR. OBORNE-Well, it can’t rear it here now, because that’s not what we’re here for now. MR. CRUMB-Okay. Am I going to have to come back? MR. OBORNE-I don’t know. MR. CRUMB-Okay. MRS. JENKIN-One thing I’d like to add, just for the record. The sign code says a business located on a parcel of property shall be granted a permit for two signs, one freestanding, and then etc. A building on a street corner lot or contiguous to two streets shall be allowed two building signs and one freestanding sign, and I think that assumes that you own the corner, which you don’t. MR. CRUMB-I appreciate what you’re saying, because that came into play over on Aviation Road with that sign where we could have had, had we had the setback, we could have had the second sign along Burke Drive, which doesn’t make sense to me in this instance, when it’s clearly an artery and there’s a separation. MR. OBORNE-Yes, I think there’s a little latitude here because they do own the side lines facing two separate roads. MRS. JENKIN-True. MR. OBORNE-To a certain extent, they do own the corner, because the State owns the rest. MRS. JENKIN-But I guess my point is, because t hey don’t own the corner, then I think there probably is a justification for allowing the two freestanding signs, because they’re, but then by you conceding that you’ll just have one wall sign, it’s very helpful, too. MR. UNDERWOOD-Are those going to have to come in for Travel Corridor Overlay relief? MR. OBORNE-That’s already been accomplished. You just did that. MR. UNDERWOOD-We just did that. MR. OBORNE-The signs don’t apply to that. 16 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/27/10) MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure. Okay. MR. OBORNE-It’s the structure. MR. URRICO-So what’s the other issue that might come up? MR. OBORNE-The sign to the southeast, the monument sign, would be a setback issue, but in the past, signs that are currently nonconforming pre-existing, if you’re just re-skinning them, and in this case, he’s making it smaller, I don’t think, I think there’s an argument where I don’t think this is an issue. MR. UNDERWOOD-We’ve got trees down there, too. Right? MR. CRUMB-There’s some along the neighboring property, but not anything too thick. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. Okay. Is somebody going to do this one? MS. GAGLIARDI-You need to do the SEQRA, too. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. First we’ll do SEQRA. All right. Based upon the SEQRA requirements, as we go through here. Okay. Having reviewed the Short Environmental Assessment Form for SEQRA on this project, we’re talking about the replacement of two freestanding signs with two slightly smaller freestanding signs, and one additional building sign. Is that, in essence, what we’re doing here, Keith? MR. OBORNE-No, not the building sign. MR. UNDERWOOD-We’re not doing the building sign. MR. GARRAND-Just one additional freestanding sign. MR. UNDERWOOD-One additional freestanding sign, that’s what we’re doing here. Will the proposed action comply with the existing zoning or other existing land use restrictions? No. The current bylaws allow for only one freestanding sign, and in this instance they’ll be having two, but we can acknowledge the fact that there are two, pre-existing, nonconforming signs on site that these will be replacing. This is a commercial zone. Does the action involve a permit approval or funding now or ultimately from any other governmental agency, Federal, State or Local? We’ve previously granted ZBA variances 18-2008, and 24-2008. So this would be in addition to those previously granted relief for the project, and that would be the replacement of a convenience store on the corner there. Does any aspect of the action have a currently valid permit for approval? Yes, those two previously mentioned projects that were granted relief in 2008. Does the action exceed any Type I threshold in 6 NYCRR Part 617.4? I would say, no. Will it receive coordinated review for Unlisted Actions? I would say yes because the Planning Board is going to review this at this point, still. Have they signed off on this, Keith? MR. OBORNE-Not yet. MR. CRUMB-I have to come back next Tuesday. MR. OBORNE-Next month. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Could the action result in any adverse effects associated with any of the following: Existing air quality, surface or ground water quality, I would say, no, it’s a sign. Aesthetic, agricultural, historic, or other natural or cultural resources; or community or neighborhood character? I guess you could term that it might be mildly aesthetically unpleasing to some people, the addition of an extra sign. A community’s existing plans or goals as officially adopted, yes, it is 100% relief because it’s for a second freestanding sign. Growth, subsequent development or related activities likely to be induced by the proposed action? I think in general everybody feels like, for directional purposes, it makes sense to have the signs as proposed, and the extra sign is going to make people identify the station in a more proper manner on such a busy corner and intersection. Long term, short term, cumulative or other effects not identified? I would say no. Other impacts, or changes, will the project have an impact on the environmental characteristics that caused the establishment of a Critical Environmental Area? I would say no. Is there or is there likely to be controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts? I would say no. MOTION THAT BASED UPON REVIEW OF THE SEQRA FORM, I WOULD GIVE THIS A NEGATIVE DECLARATION, Introduced by James Underwood who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Hunt: 17 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/27/10) 777 Glen Street. th Duly adopted this 28 day of April, 2010, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Clements, Mrs. Jenkin, Mr. Underwood NOES: Mr. Urrico MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. So now I’ll need someone to do the approval for the variance. MRS. JENKIN-I can do it. MOTION TO APPROVE SIGN VARIANCE NO. 18-2010 JOLLEY ASSOCIATES, Introduced by Joan Jenkin who moved for its adoption, seconded by Ronald Kuhl: 777 Glen Street. The applicant proposes demolition of a 944 square foot convenience store and re-construction of a 2,288 square foot convenience store with associated site work and signage. The relief required. The applicant requires relief for one additional freestanding sign. In making determination, the Board shall consider the following criteria: Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of the Area Variance. Minor impact to the district may be anticipated. Whether the benefit being sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method feasible for the applicant to pursue other than an Area Variance. Considering the site on a highly trafficked intersection corner, and considering that the applicant does not own the corner, to place the major freestanding sign, it is actually an improvement to the property if the applicant can have the two freestanding signs. Whether the requested Area Variance is substantial. According to Town sign law, it is substantial, but considering the circumstances, it’s the only really reasonable request. Whether a proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions of the neighborhood or district. Minor impacts on the physical or environmental conditions may be anticipated. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. It may be considered self-created because of the ownership of the property on this busy corner, but the signs will be well placed, and I move to approve Sign Variance No. 18-2010. The rationale that we used in this instance was we had two nonconforming signs that we’re replacing with those two new monument signs that are slightly smaller. th Duly adopted this 28 day of April, 2010, by the following vote: MR. OBORNE-Was there any mention of the wall sign being removed from the application in your? MR. GARRAND-Yes, when she excluded the additional. MR. OBORNE-Do you want to do it by default? MR. GARRAND-Yes, by default. MRS. JENKIN-I didn’t include it. I didn’t include that we were. MR. GARRAND-Yes, she didn’t include the relief for the additional wall sign. MRS. JENKIN-I just ignored it. MR. OBORNE-With all the pending lawsuits that might happen, you probably don’t have to really worry about it, I guess. MR. CRUMB-I promise you we won’t sue you over that. MR. OBORNE-Okay. MRS. JENKIN-So should I say that the applicant agreed to? MR. OBORNE-I think by default it’s fine, to be honest with you. MR. GARRAND-As you’ve presented is fine. MRS. JENKIN-Okay. Thank you. MR. OBORNE-I apologize. 18 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/27/10) MR. UNDERWOOD-The only other thing I would add in there is that the rationale that we used in this instance was we had two nonconforming signs that we’re replacing with those two new monument signs that are slightly smaller, and I just want that on the record because I don’t want other people coming in and saying we didn’t, because nobody else has two signs, and this one did. So we’re making that the basis for our argument for this. MRS. JENKIN-That makes sense. MR. OBORNE-And as so it is on the record now. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. Sure. AYES: Mr. Kuhl, Mrs. Jenkin, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Clements, Mr. Underwood NOES: Mr. Urrico MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. You’re all set. MR. CRUMB-Thank you. MR. UNDERWOOD-All right. We have a couple of sets of minutes here we need to approve. So we’ll go through those quickly. APPROVAL OF MINUTES March 17, 2010 MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING MINUTES OF MARCH 17, 2010, Introduced by James Underwood who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joan Jenkin: Duly adopted this 28th day of April, 2010, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Jenkin, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Underwood NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Clements, Mr. Kuhl March 24, 2010 MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING MINUTES OF MARCH 24, 2010, Introduced by James Underwood who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Hunt: th Duly adopted this 28 day of April, 2010, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Clements, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Jenkin, Mr. Underwood NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Kuhl MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. I guess we’re all set. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, James Underwood, Chairman 19