Loading...
2010.11.22 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/22/2010) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SECOND REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 22, 2010 INDEX Area Variance No. 60-2010 Richard & Linda Bleibtrey 2. Tax Map No. 266.3-1-36 and 37 Area Variance No. 61-2010 Dean & Pamela Romer 5. Tax Map No. 297.10-1-49 Sign Variance No. 62-2010 Holly Wheeler/K.D. Wheeler Custom Signs 13. Tax Map No. 296.9-1-12 Area Variance No. 64-2010 Charles E. Seeley for Papa’s Diner 20. Tax Map No. 308.16-1-3 Sign Variance No. 63-2010 Saxton Signs for Red Roof Inn 24. Tax Map No. 296.13-1-17 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 11/22/2010) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SECOND REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 22, 2010 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT JAMES UNDERWOOD, CHAIRMAN ROY URRICO, SECRETARY JOYCE HUNT RICHARD GARRAND JOAN JENKIN RONALD KUHL JOHN KOSKINAS, ALTERNATE LAND USE PLANNER-KEITH OBORNE STENOGRAPHER-SUE HEMINGWAY MR. UNDERWOOD-I’m going to call the November 22, 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 that 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 is intended to help us gather information and understand it about the issues 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 and 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 will then 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. We did have a request this evening from Mr. Salvador. As you will recall, the last meeting we had, we ran pretty late, and he had requested to speak at the end of that meeting, and he had to leave because of the late hour, and he wondered if he could speak to us for between five and ten minutes, I believe. Board members, would you be in agreement with that? MRS. JENKIN-That’s fine. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Why don’t you come up, Mr. Salvador, please. JOHN SALVADOR MR. SALVADOR-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I addressed a letter to this Board. I addressed it to th Mr. Underwood with copies to the Board members, a letter dated November the 5, dealing with the appeal that I was trying to bring on the subject of the Seaboyer property on Rockhurst, and the Town’s wastewater, stormwater management code. I hope you received that letter. That letter pretty much states how I feel, and where I think we should be going. thth MR. KUHL-Excuse me. Is that November 5 or October 25? MR. SALVADOR-November 5, 2010. MR. KUHL-Okay. MR. SALVADOR-Okay. In any case, a couple of days after I wrote that letter, I received a note in the mail from the Planning Department talking about a discussion you had at your meeting on th October the 20, in which you decided that a re-hearing will not occur due to a vote, and I address that issue in this letter here. You can’t have a re-hearing of an appeal that has never th been heard. So that’s covered in my November 5 letter. You’ll recall in your last meeting Mr. Strough’s presentation on the Hayes and Hayes project where he mentioned the fact that there 1 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/22/2010) was a document missing in the Town Code, that Table One that he referred to was missing, and he had communicated with the Secretary of State’s office and they told him unequivocally that if it’s not there and hasn’t been filed, it’s unenforceable, and that’s a fact, and that table that he refers to was not a part of the Code that was adopted by the Town Board and certified by the Town Clerk and the Town Attorney who transmitted it to the Secretary of State’s office. So it’s, it doesn’t exist. Now what I’m finding out here, in this appeal that I’m trying to make, the same thing is occurring. I just happened to go to the Queensbury website over the weekend and access the Stormwater Management Code, the one I’m trying to talk about, Chapter 147, and I find that it’s not the same Chapter 147 that I’ve been trying to appeal, and what they’ve done is somewhere along the line they’ve dumped in a new section, 147-11, and it has this title, Supplemental Additional Requirements for projects within the Lake George Park. Now what they’ve done, the resolution that they adopted in February of 2009, the Town adopted, they repealed the old 147. They repealed it in its entirety and put a new 147 in its place, and that supplemental regulation wasn’t a part of it. It was not a part of it, and so what they’ve done, they’ve gone to work and they’ve done this, and now it’s incorporated in there, but there’s no evidence anywhere, I’m still working on it, that it was noticed by the Town for public hearing, that a public hearing was held, that a vote of the Board was taken, that the resolution was adopted, that it was certified by the Town Clerk, that it was transmitted by the Town Attorney to the Secretary of State’s office. None of that happened. Now I’m still chasing it, but as far as I can see, it hasn’t happened. However, the Town Clerk maintained a jacket there of all local laws, and it’s a part of the local law that was passed in February of 2009. Now how does it get there? This is scandalous. What’s going on scandalous, and this is not the only case. Apparently there are a lot of other cases in the Town. Now one of the problems that we have with all of this the Town refuses to print the Codes in a booklet that you can take home with you. Everything they tell you it’s on the web. It’s on the web. Now I found out today that anybody can go to this agency, this firm they have out in Rochester, and authorize something be put on the Code, to be put on the Town website. I don’t know where they get the authority, but that’s what’s happening, and, you know, it’s often referred to as a fluid Code. It’s fluid all right. It’s just too damn easy to put something in and take it out, without authorization, and that’s what’s going on. So anyway, I’ll continue to work on t his and I’ll be back to you. Thank you very much. MR. UNDERWOOD-Thank you. NEW BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 60-2010 SEQRA TYPE: II RICHARD & LINDA BLEIBTREY OWNER(S): RICHARD & LINDA BLEIBTREY ZONING: RR-5A LOCATION: 105 WILDWOOD PLACE, GRANT ACRES SUBDIVISION, PHASE 2 APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 288 SQ. FT. DETACHED GARAGE ON THE SAME PROPERTY WHERE A 480 SQ. FT. ATTACHED GARAGE ALREADY EXISTS. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM NUMBER OF ALLOWABLE GARAGES ON EXISTING PARCEL AS WELL AS FROM THE MINIMUM FRONT YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REF.: BP 2010-444 SECOND GARAGE; BP 2000-566 SFR WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: NOVEMBER 10, 2010 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY: YES LOT SIZE: 2.85 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 266.3-1- 36 AND 37 SECTION: 179-3-040; 179-5-020 RICHARD & LINDA BLEIBTREY, PRESENT MR. UNDERWOOD-And just a memorandum, this was from Keith, before you read this in. The Bleibtrey application that is before the Board tonight will require less relief than what was indicated my Staff Notes. The parcel in question does not have to meet the 100 foot front setback requirement for the Rural Residential Five Acre zone as the subdivision was approved under the June 11, 1982 Zoning Code, which states that 30 feet was the front yard setback at the time of approval. The application is before you for relief from the number of allowable garages per parcel only. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 60-2010, Richard & Linda Bleibtrey, Meeting Date: November 22, 2010 “Project Location: 105 Wildwood Place Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a 288 sq. ft. freestanding garage on the same property where a 480 square foot attached garage currently exists. Relief Required: Relief requested from number of allowable garages on existing parcel as well as from the minimum front yard setback requirements for the RR-3A zone. 2 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/22/2010) 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 nearby properties are anticipated. 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 nature of the proposal appears to preclude any feasible method other than an area variance concerning the request for a second garage. With respect to the front setback relief request, locating the garage in a compliant location does appear feasible. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The request for a second garage or 100% relief from the requirement that only one garage is permitted per dwelling as per §179- 5-020D may be considered severe relative to the ordinance. The request for 14.7 feet or 14.7% relief from the 100 foot frontline setback requirement as per §179-3-040 may be considered minor 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/or environmental condition in the neighborhood are anticipated. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. The alleged difficulty may be considered self created. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): nd BP 2010-444 2 garage Pending BP 2000-566 Single Family Residence 2/22/01 Staff comments: The proposed location of the garage is approximately 174 feet from the denoted wetlands to the west and exceeds minimum wetland setback requirements of the town code. SEQR Status: Type II-no further review needed. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Do you want to tell us a little bit about, again, why you need the extra garage? MR. BLEIBTREY-Well, we have a 16 foot aluminum boat and it’s sitting on my lawn right now, and we would like to be able to store it. Last year we stored it in the winter in the garage, and the car sat out in the driveway. So we thought, I mean, we have actually, I don’t know if this is pertinent, but, as you can see, we actually have six and a half acres, and we’ve actually combined both those lots. So, that’s what we want to do. We want to just get it out off of the lawn or out of the driveway. So it’s kind of a nuisance where it is, and actually when we first started this, it was approved as a shed. Then I realized that the boat wouldn’t fit. It’s over six foot wide, the wheels, that the boat wouldn’t fit into the shed with the door, so I went back and said, I’m sorry, I don’t know if this is going to make a difference. It made a big difference, making the door larger. So that’s what it’s all about, basically. MR. KUHL-Where are you going to place it, where the turnabout is, the stone drive, the stone pathway right off of that? MR. BLEIBTREY-Yes. MR. KUHL-Right off of that? MR. BLEIBTREY-Yes. MR. KUHL-Okay, and what’s the outside going to look like? MR. BLEIBTREY-I have a picture of it here. It’s one of those Amish sheds from Garden Time. 3 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/22/2010) MR. KUHL-Okay. MR. BLEIBTREY-It’s going to match the house, actually, gray with white, light gray with white trim. MR. KUHL-Okay. MR. UNDERWOOD-Any other questions from Board members? MRS. HUNT-You said you combined two pieces of property? Because in the Town record it says you have 6.42 acres, and on the sheet here it’s 2.85. MRS. BLEIBTREY-I have the consolidation. MRS. HUNT-It is consolidated? MR. BLEIBTREY-It is consolidated, yes. Yes, we did that during this process. It was suggested, we thought it was a good idea. MR. OBORNE-Yes, the County might not have caught up to them at this point. MR. BLEIBTREY-Actually, I think they did, Keith. MR. OBORNE-Did they? MR. GARRAND-The Town that doesn’t record them. The Town is a little slow on that. MRS. BLEIBTREY-It was done in July, actually. MR. OBORNE-The County. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Everybody pretty familiar with what the request is? I think I’ll open the public hearing. John, do you have a question? MR. KOSKINAS-Yes, sir. Mr. Bleibtrey, is there a particular reason you’re building just this one car garage? It’s like a 14 by 20, something like that? MR. BLEIBTREY-It’s 12 by 24. MR. KOSKINAS-12 by 24. MRS. BLEIBTREY-There’s a lot of trees and we couldn’t get anything bigger in there. MR. BLEIBTREY-Yes. MR. KOSKINAS-The reason I ask, I think that Wildwood area, that whole community is lovely over there, and the size of the lots and the size of the homes. It seems to me, I mean, if I were in your place and getting a variance, I’d have built a two car, just in case you need it later. MRS. BLEIBTREY-You can’t get anything down. It’s a long driveway and a lot of trees, and that’s the biggest they thought they could get in there. MR. KOSKINAS-So it’s a pre-built. MRS. BLEIBTREY-Yes. MR. KOSKINAS-Okay. I just thought you might want to do that while you were doing it. MR. BLEIBTREY-Yes, that’s a good idea, actually. That sounds great. MR. KUHL-I think, bottom line, we allow, what, 900 feet of garage, and he’s still under that with the existing garage, and this he’s less than 800. MR. UNDERWOOD-All right. I think I’m going to open the public hearing, then, at this point in time. Anybody from the public wishing to speak on the matter? Do we have any correspondence? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED 4 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/22/2010) MR. URRICO-No correspondence, but I neglected to read in that the County weighed in on it and found No County Impact on it.. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. All right, then I guess I will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. UNDERWOOD-And everybody’s pretty familiar with what the request is and do you guys want to make any commentary on this one? I’ll go down through the ranks. I’ll start with you, John. MR. KOSKINAS-I’m fine. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Joan? MRS. JENKIN-It’s definitely reasonable, especially when the garage is already approved. There’s not much difference there. MR. UNDERWOOD-Ron? MR. KUHL-Yes, I think it’s reasonable. I think it’s a reasonable request. MR. GARRAND-I fail to see any adverse impacts from this request. MR. UNDERWOOD-Joyce? MRS. HUNT-I have no problem with it. MR. UNDERWOOD-Roy? MR. URRICO-I think it’s reasonable request. MR. UNDERWOOD-I would be in agreement. I don’t think it’s out of the ordinary, and you’ve got plenty of acreage. No one’s even going to know it’s there. So I’m fine with that. Does somebody want to take this one? MR. KUHL-Yes. I’ll take it. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 60-2010 RICHARD & LINDA BLEIBTREY, Introduced by Ronald Kuhl who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joan Jenkin: 105 Wildwood Place. The applicant proposes construction of a 288 square foot freestanding garage on the same property where a 480 square foot attached garage currently exists, and relief is requested for the number of allowable garages on existing parcel. In making the determination, the Board has considered whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood. Minor impact on that. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant could be achieved by any other method. In light of one garage and wanting to store a boat and a car, a second garage is the only way to go. Whether the requested Area Variance is substantial. No, it’s not really, because you’re still under the 900 square foot for garage. For those reasons, I recommend we approve Area Variance No. 60-2010. nd Duly adopted this 22 day of November, 2010, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Koskinas, Mrs. Jenkin, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Underwood NOES: NONE MR. UNDERWOOD-You’re all set. MR. BLEIBTREY-Thank you very much. MRS. BLEIBTREY-Thank you. MR. UNDERWOOD-Do you want any of your surveys back, keep your surveys? In case you ever want to do anything, you won’t have to go buy more. AREA VARIANCE NO. 61-2010 DEAN & PAMELA ROMER SEQRA TYPE: II OWNER(S): DEAN & PAMELA ROMER ZONING: MDR LOCATION: 641 RIDGE ROAD APPLICANT 5 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/22/2010) PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 2,400 SQ. FT. FREESTANDING GARAGE WHERE AN ATTACHED 900 SQ. FT. GARAGE TO HOME ALREADY EXISTS. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM NUMBER OF ALLOWABLE GARAGES AND MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE SIZE FOR A GARAGE ON A PARCEL LESS THAN 5 ACRES. CROSS REF.: BP 2002-428 SFD WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: NOVEMBER 10, 2010 LOT SIZE: 3.52 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 297.10- 1-49 SECTION: 179-3-040; 179-5-020D DEAN & PAMELA ROMER, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 61-2010, Dean & Pamela Romer, Meeting Date: November 22, 2010 “Project Location: 641 Ridge Road Description of Proposed: Applicant proposes construction of a 2,400 sq. ft. freestanding garage where an attached 900 sq. ft. garage already exists. Relief Required: Relief requested from number of allowable garages and maximum allowable size for a garage on a parcel less than 5 acres. 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 to moderate impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated as the size of the structure exceeds the code requirements and may set precedent. 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. Feasible alternatives appear limited due to the nature of the proposal, existing conditions and lot limitations. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The request for a second garage or 100% relief from the requirement that only one garage is permitted per dwelling as per §179- 5-020D may be considered severe relative to the ordinance. The request for 2,200 square feet or 200% relief from the 1,100 square foot maximum size requirement for garages on parcels less than five acres as per 179-5-020D may be considered severe to acute 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 difficulty may be considered self created. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): BP 2002-428 Single Family Dwelling Approved 1/14/05 Staff comments: The applicant has stated in the narrative that the proposal is for personal belongings and that the allowed 750 square feet of accessory structures would be inadequate, necessitating the need for this variance. Calculations for the relief requested are as follows: 900 Sq.Ft. = Existing attached garage 2400 Sq. Ft. = Proposed detached garage 3,330 Sq. Ft. = Total existing and proposed square footage -1,100 Sq. Ft = Allowable square footage for garages on parcels less than 5 acres 6 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/22/2010) 2,200 Sq. Ft = Relief requested SEQR Status: Type II-no further review needed” MR. URRICO-The Warren County Planning Board did look at the project and cited No County Impact. MR. UNDERWOOD-Do you want to fill us in as to what you’re going to put in that structure? MR. ROMER-Well, over the past 40 years I’ve collected a lot of vehicles. I have numerous pickups and tractors, ATV’s, snowmobiles, trailers, and I’m in the process of selling my commercial property in the near future, where I store all my personal property, and I plan on retiring in the next few years, and I want to accumulate everything at my retirement home. MR. UNDERWOOD-Questions from Board members? MR. KOSKINAS-Yes, sir, I have a couple. Sir, I was looking at your sketch, and it indicates a scale of one eighth inch equals a foot, with a height of 26 feet for the structure, and if I looked at your scale, the height from the wall sill to the peak of the gable is like 10 feet. That’s a heck of a tall building. MR. ROMER-A 12 foot building with the roofline, and I don’t have the actual specs. I assume it’ll come in at about 22 feet, with the four twelve pitch. MR. KOSKINAS-So then a cupola or something on top to make this? MR. ROMER-No. We guessed at a higher than what we should come in at. We were originally looking at a six twelve, which is the same as what we have on our house now, and a four twelve would bring the pitch down to about 22 feet, overall height. MR. KOSKINAS-Is there an attic or loft? MR. ROMER-None. Strictly cold storage. MR. KOSKINAS-No power? MR. ROMER-No power, nothing. Just strictly cold storage. MR. KOSKINAS-Thanks. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Anybody else? MR. URRICO-Mr. Romer, you understand that this is quite a request you’re making? It’s not only just bigger than the standard garage, but you’re asking for a second garage as well. MR. ROMER-Yes. MR. URRICO-Is there any room to negotiate here? Because, quite frankly, the request is a little bit out of the box. Is there any way of extending the current garage to accommodate some of these vehicles? MR. ROMER-No. The way the house is built, and so forth, it would not be any advantage to adding to the house, and it would change the whole look of the house. MRS. JENKIN-But you have a three car garage now? MR. ROMER-Yes. Right now my daily vehicle is parked in the driveway. Any time I need my snow plow, I have to get it out of storage at my place of business where I have it stored. Everything is under cover. I don’t like to have anything outside. Aesthetically, it would look a lot better having a building with my possessions in it, than spread around the yard. All these vehicles are registered and insured. So they could be sitting outside in the yard. MR. UNDERWOOD-How many vehicles are we talking total? 7 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/22/2010) MR. ROMER-I have three trucks, my wife’s car. I have a large tractor, two garden tractors, ATV’s, utility trailers, snowmobiles, and a large collection of motorcycles that I’ve collected over the 40 years that I’ve been collecting. MRS. JENKIN-I noticed where the points were for the garage was going to be placed in your backyard, and it won’t be surrounded by trees, because it’s out in the open field there. You’re not going to put it into the trees. MR. ROMER-It borders right up to the trees in the back and then the sides. MRS. JENKIN-The building itself will not be in the trees, will it? MR. ROMER-No, it will border right up to the trees. There’ll be a small buffer, but there’s over 100 feet from the property line on any side to where the building is going to be. MRS. JENKIN-Right, but the point I’m making, it will be out in the open? It won’t be covered.’ MR. ROMER-It won’t be covered all the way around, no. Two sides of it will be. Looking at it from the pictures I’ve submitted, the bottom left hand corner is looking straight out from the back of the house to where the building would be. The next picture going up from that is at the front of where I plan the building facing the house. So you could see that it would be blocked from the structure of the land, and the pictures were taken on Labor Day weekend. So that shows you where the coverage is. The majority of the year, you know, six, seven months, it would be almost blocked. MR. UNDERWOOD-Any other questions from you guys? MR. KUHL-On this drawing, you’re not showing any kind of a driveway? MR. ROMER-No driveway whatsoever. MR. KUHL-Are you going to have it, you’re going to grass right up to it, is that the plan? MR. ROMER-Grass, yes. MR. KUHL-Really? Okay. MRS. JENKIN-You’re not putting in a driveway? MR. ROMER-No. No driveway. MR. KUHL-Are you suggesting that what you put in there is more like long term storage, and the vehicles you use every day will be in your garage? MR. ROMER-Correct. Yes. MR. KUHL-And how do we know you’re not going to run a business out of this? MR. ROMER-I’ll sign anything you want. MR. KUHL-You’re done business. You’re over with business. MR. ROMER-My business is on Dix and Queensbury Avenue. It’s not at my house. MR. KUHL-Okay. MR. UNDERWOOD-Anymore questions at this time? All right. I’m going to open the public hearing. Anybody from the public wishing to speak on the matter? Do you want to come up, please, sir. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED DICK GRAY MR. GRAY-Good evening, Board members. My name is Dick Gray, and I reside at 42 Wincoma Lane. I’ve been a resident of the Town of Queensbury for over 25 years. If I may, I’d like to use the PowerPoint here to designate my property, if I could. May I stand and at least point it out? Here, this is my property right here, and my kitchen, living room, dining room, sunroom and deck face directly across this open field Mr. Romer’s (lost word). Twenty-four hundred square feet is 8 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/22/2010) probably larger than 80% of the homes in the Town of Queensbury, to start off with. To say that it won’t impact my home would be an understatement. If the Board members have been over on Wincoma Lane, I don’t know if you have or not, but believe me, I not only can see Mr. Romer’s home. I’m going to stare at this proposed garage which will be a monstrosity. Again, 24000 square feet, a garage, unbelievable that someone would propose to do that when they already have a garage. This will be an unsightly structure from my home, and it will decrease the value of my property, and that’s the last thing I think any resident of the Town of Queensbury needs today is to have their property decrease in value. To sum up, 2400 square feet could not be constructed for $20,000. The slab alone would be over $10,000. I think I’ve said enough, but thank you, Mr. Chairman and Board members. MR. UNDERWOOD-Thank you. Anybody else from the public wishing to speak? Do you want to come up, please. DAVE COLLINS MR. COLLINS-My name is Dave Collins. I live at 50 Wincoma Lane, and I can almost say ditto to what Dick Gray said. I keep hearing that the structure will not be visible from the road. Maybe not from Ridge Road, but I guarantee you that these folks on Wincoma are going to be staring at that 2400 square foot monstrosity as long as it’s there. I’m really opposed to this, for the reasons given. Thank you. MR. UNDERWOOD-Thank you. Anybody else from the public wishing to speak on the matter? TOM HUGHES MR. HUGHES-My name’s Tom Hughes. I live at 56 Wincoma Lane. That’s approximately from the 10 o’clock to 12 o’clock portion with the angular piece of property, and I’ve been here for, at this property for about 15 years, and my whole life, as you know, Jim, here in Queensbury. Just a few quick concerns, and no offense to the applicants, and I understand their desire, but I feel this project will certainly change the character of the neighborhood, and certainly decrease property values. One of the aesthetics of this entire area is the openness to pristine views and things like that, and that’s certainly something I’ve enjoyed as a piece of my property and its environment for many, many years. The property directly below me, going to Ridge Road, is forever wild, and that’s a wide open, beautiful area, and our neighbors understand, you know, the value of Rolling Ridge and what the properties mean there. I do believe this project is definitely substantial. We all know that, and I don’t think we need to argue about that, and more than twice the size of an allowable structure. I do have some environmental concerns about how this is going to go and I understand there’s a lot of vehicles there, oil changes, oil seepage, you know, obviously I’m sure he’s a conscientious neighbor, but I do have my concerns. Since the area, especially the forever wild part and exceeding into some of my property is wetland. It’s moist there all the time, and I do have concerns about that, and I also do have concerns about future improvements. He certainly says, and I believe him at this point, that he’s not going to change anything, but how do we know that two years, three years from now, four years from now, now there’s not power out there and all of a sudden there’s plumbing and the loft apartment got extended and there’s a living space in there. Who knows, but it certainly will change the character of our neighborhood, and we need to protect that. Thank you. MR. UNDERWOOD-Thank you. Anybody else from the public wishing to speak on the matter? CHRISTOPHER LYNCH MR. LYNCH-I’d like to drop off something for the record, if I may. MR. UNDERWOOD-You can give it to the secretary. MR. LYNCH-It might help. I’ve got some pictures that are part of the record, but you might want to look at that also. My name is Christopher Lynch, and I live directly north of this piece of property. This has been Lynch property for about 45 years. I’ve been living there since the early 80’s. I take a lot of pride in the property, the forever wild. If you look at it, I’ve got about eight acres and it is forever wild, as far as we care, we take care of our trees and our critters and all that. Put succinctly, we stand absolutely, totally against this proposal. It would destroy the neighborhood, as far as we can see. There are a couple of things we do have, just factual things we have problems with, as far as the proposal. A couple of them have already been brought up, and again, the idea of looking at a, I think the footprint of our home is about 800 square feet. To put a 2400 square foot building that would start about 200 feet away from our home, and describe that as small is preposterous. It’s just not the truth. If you get a chance to look at those pictures, I wake up every morning, and through my master bedroom I see the Romer house. Through my living room I see the Romer house. Through my dining room I see 9 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/22/2010) the Romer house. Through my front yard I see the Romer house, to the side and the back lawn I see the Romer house. It’s, there’s no way they can hide it, especially since they basically clear cut the entire parcel, rather than just right up to the edge, and that’s an extra three, four hundred feet away. This thing here would be right in front of me, 24/7. As far as the finances, $20,000 for a 2400 square foot, I become a general contractor when I build my houses, and as I did this one here, I’m a little bit aware of the cost. We’re probably, even if we get in close for that, we’re probably looking at something like a steel span building on a pad, ergo the lowest common denominator of building. The noise, just the visual of it, it just, you know, does anybody here question why I don’t want a 2400 square foot garage, 200 feet away from my bedroom window? MAUREEN LYNCH MRS. LYNCH-I’m Maureen Lynch, also residing at the parcel. Just one thing to also add in to this. The indicated height of the building is going to be indicated somewhere 22 feet, possibly up to 26. There is no reference made as to what the elevation of the foundation is going to be, and given that the house that is already on the property has had a formidable amount of fill trucked in and backed up to extend the pad outside the existing garage, this causes a tremendous amount of runoff in bad weather onto Joan Reid’s property now. If the pad goes in for this proposed garage, I have walked the property as of yesterday, and there are several downhill towards where it borders our land, and you have also got downhill flow going on to the Town of Queensbury land, the forever wild field there, and I have no idea what the potential risk is regarding runoff, and if there is an elevated foundation laid in, as there was for the house, that is also going to make for a higher roof. It’s not just the height of the building. MR. LYNCH-By the way, our well is in between the new building and our home. It sits right in there and it is in the down flow. We just went through something like this with the Crislip variance a couple of years ago, where we were nice neighbors and we said, sure, you can have a bed and breakfast, and as long as at the end of, you know, your ownership of the property you go, and then a little bit later, X number of years later when they decided to sell, all of a sudden what we had given them became a permanent being and then, you know, and again, with detriment to the value of our home. One of the problems that we have with this is, while the Romers have been good neighbors since they came on, 2400 feet worth of gasoline powered whatevers, string trimmers and tractors and all that stuff, it is the nature of these beasts to leak. It’s the nature of these beasts you have to store gasoline, whether they’re over ground or underground or in one way shape or form, it doesn’t make too much sense to have gasoline powered vehicles, you know, you can spill when you’re filling the darn things up, if you’re repairing them. It can spill there, too. You have a metal sided building, I believe, so you’re going to, you know, when you’re fixing them or running them, one of the things they teach us as hot air balloon pilots, never fly over metal buildings because the metal will amplify sounds, you know, from your balloon and it will panic the animals, and it’s just bad neighbor. So where we don’t really have a problem, you know, who knows what’s going to go in there right now, two years from now, three years from now, four years from now, who knows who’s going to have the property and who knows who’s going to be running it. Simply, we have five tests for granting a variance, and I don’t believe this proposal meets even one of them, you know, will an undesirable change be created? Absolutely, positively, for many, many, many people who are living around, next door, and across the way. Can the benefit be achieved by other means? Yes, sell some of the equipment. Who needs that much stuff? Yes, there are engineering ways of adding on to the garages, not a problem at all. There are other ways. Worse comes to worse, if you need 2400 feet worth of gasoline powered whatever the hecks and you have to live on the same land, there are places that are zoned for that. Again, is the request substantial? Under any reasonable scrutiny, of course it’s substantial. It’s monstrous. It would take over much of the community. It would be an eyesore. Will there be an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood? Every time you look at it there’ll be pollution there. As far as other pollutions, we don’t really know, nor do we especially want to be in the policing business to find out what’s going on day in and day out, and last, is the alleged difficulty self-generated, and admittedly, obviously, yes it is. So, if you have any other questions, feel free, but we stand very, very much opposed. There’s more stuff in the written finding. If you have any questions on any of the photographs, those were taken a week ago, and they’re accurate and unedited, and last but not least, if anybody would like to visit the house, you are more than welcome to just come in, eyeball it and see exactly what we’re talking about. Thank you. MR. UNDERWOOD-You’re welcome. MRS. LYNCH-If I may add one last thing. Our biggest concern above all is no matter what the intended use or perceived need for this building is, even if Mr. Romer holds it to the letter of the law, in terms of the variance, this land is going to change hands at some point down the road. It might be in 30 years, it might be in 2 or less. We don’t know. Anything can happen. Once the land changes hands, you can’t dismantle the existing building or demand it be taken down, and 10 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/22/2010) once that happens, it is out of our hands and out of our control, what is stored there, what it is used for, or if somebody tries to carry on a side business of off the property. It is also right south of dead man’s curve. We’re all familiar with it. It’s not the best place to have traffic or commerce going in and out of. It is our intention to stay on this property for the long term. We’ve been there well in the family over 50 years. God willing one day one of our kids or both may be living there as well, but whatever is decided tonight is going to impact them directly 30 years from now, and further out, and that is our concern. Thank you very much for your time. MR. UNDERWOOD-Thank you. Anybody else from the public wishing to speak? Any correspondence? MR. URRICO-No correspondence. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. I do think we have this one here, and maybe we should read that one in. MR. URRICO-Okay. Let me grab it. It’s kind of buried. MR. UNDERWOOD-Here, you can take mine. MR. URRICO-There’s a petition here. “I have reviewed Dean Romer’s plans, and he has discussed his variance request with me. I am in favor of the ZBA granting the relief he needs.” And it’s signed by six neighbors. I can only read a few of them. Randy Weeks, Lee Weeks, Michael C. Higgins, Doris Ciezenski-Shultz, Joan Reid. MR. UNDERWOOD-Could you respond to your neighbors concerns about the size of the building and where it’s located. MR. ROMER-Well, I understand that it is large. The way the Code is now, we’re entitled to up to three auxiliary structures totaling 950 square feet, and we have a difference in the Code from when we built our house from 900 square feet for the original garage to 1100 square feet under the new Code. So the way we looked at it was there’s 750 square feet there for auxiliary structures, and 200, so that brought it up to 950 square feet that we could build, without going through a variance process. So, aesthetically we felt that one building would look a lot better than having multiple buildings around the yard, and to have everything underneath one roof would look a lot better than having all these roofs around. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Do you guys want to ask any questions to them or ask for anymore information? MR. KUHL-Do you have any intentions for whatever size building that you put up, to put any shrubbery, bushes, trees around it? MR. ROMER-We can add, sure. We have a lot of trees right now around the yard, as you can see. We have tried to make a good size yard. I mow it regularly. I weed it, I clean. MR. KUHL-I understand that. Do we have within our authority to designate what bushes should go where, or is that somewhere else? MR. UNDERWOOD-I don’t believe we do. I mean, we can condition things, but, you know, I don’t know if we really have the authority to do that. MR. KUHL-Okay. I mean, that might appease some of your neighbors because they want to see forever wild. They want to put growth around, but if we don’t have the authority, then. MR. ROMER-It is very difficult with the number of deer there in the yard. MR. KUHL-Well, you could put evergreen or something they don’t like. MR. ROMER-Yes. They eat just about everything. MR. KOSKINAS-Is this structure a metal frame building? MR. ROMER-No, the structure would be two by six wood construction, vinyl sided, the same as the house. It would look just about like the house, just, you know, with a metal roof instead of a shingled roof, because of the snow conditions. No heat, no power in the building. So it would not be an issue as far as snow cover. 11 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/22/2010) MR. UNDERWOOD-Anything else from you guys? All right. I’m going to close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. UNDERWOOD-And I think what I’ll do is I’ll poll the Board. Roy, do you want to go? MR. URRICO-Yes. There’s no way I would approve this. We’re talking about a variance that is not only substantial but way over the edge, I would think. We’re talking about a second garage, and we’re talking about a structure that’s, as one neighbor said, and rightfully so, that it’s bigger than some of the houses in that neighborhood. Nine hundred square feet is allowed for one garage, and this is 2400 square feet. It just seems way over the edge for me, and when you take into account some of the other factors, like whether it changes the neighborhood, I think I does, because if we grant a second garage in this neighborhood, or in this area, it in effect changes the Code, because now we’re starting to allow second garages in a place, and if we’re allowing an oversized garage besides that, it also sort of starts speaking to a change in the Code. So it extends beyond just that neighborhood. It extends to the community as well. I don’t think there are feasible alternatives, unless he wants to add on to what he has right now, or use it as an accessory structure and then talk about minor impacts to the environment, I don’t know how the environment will be affected. I think there is a possibility for runoff to effect the neighbors as well. So I would be against it. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Joyce? MRS. HUNT-Yes. I have to agree with Mr. Urrico. The variance goes with the property, and who knows what could be done with a 2400 square foot building. I think it’s way over the top, and I would be against it. MR. UNDERWOOD-Rick? MR. GARRAND-Well I can certainly sympathize with the Romers on this, all my vehicles are outside at this point because there’s so much, I have in tractors, other equipment, snow blowers, everything. I can definitely see where there would be a need for something like this, but also the primary thing for me which sways me is whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or detriment to the nearby properties. Now several of the neighbors have come forward, Gray, Hughes, Lynch, have all come forward and said that it’s going to be a detriment to their properties, and I have to take them at their word on this. So I’d have to be not in favor of this. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Ron? MR. KUHL-Well, while I have many toys myself, I have them outside. I think your neighbors are talking about a huge structure, and I think if you would reduce the size of your structure and also indicate what kind of planters you would put around your house, your outside structure, that might work better, but at 2400 square feet, I think you’re asking for too much. So I’d be against it. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Joan? MRS. JENKIN-Yes. I agree with everything that the Board has said, and I really think the expectation that when you live in a residential that a homeowner should have the size of a building that you’ve asked for to store all this different equipment is really way out of any kind of expectation that you should have really if you have that many vehicles, that finding a rental space for them or doing something else with them, you really need to consider that closely. I think it would change the neighborhood, and I think it’s definitely excessive. I would be against it. MR. UNDERWOOD-John? MR. KOSKINAS-I’m not insensitive to the comments of the rest of this Board. In fact, I find it difficult to argue with them, but, having said that, and having listened to the neighbors, in all honesty I have to say that when you talk about the implication of internal combustion engines and having to fuel them, you have to do that anyway whether they’re inside or out. The neighbors all enjoy substantial buffer and very nice views. You’re the envy of most of this community and the forever wild view you have and how much of it you have. The lot is big enough to accommodate a building, and while we say it’s a residential area, it’s the rural nature of this part of, and this side of Queensbury. Nine hundred square foot garages can be built on one acre lots. This property is substantially grander than that. Look around this area. Big barns, multiple garages down the street from you, and I personally, if I was a direct neighbor, 12 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/22/2010) and I’m not far from you as a neighbor, but if I was a direct neighbor, I’d rather see that stuff inside than out, and we can’t prescribe against you owning that stuff. So you can park it hither, skither, and yon, as people down the road from you do. So I would like to see, you know, I can’t vote you a 2400 square foot garage in the face of this Board, nor would I try, but I think you should take another look, see if you can’t find a way to make it more compact and revisit this group and apply again. I think that you have an argument. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. To summarize, then, I think that everybody’s in agreement. I mean, we recognize that on the Ridge Road there’s some of those old, very large structures out there, the old barns that originally had original use in the area, and their time has come and gone, but I think everybody recognizes also that in a rural residential area, which this really is, that this would be out of character, and, you know, we understand your need for all the storage space, but it’s way, way over what we would allow for anybody, and I think if anybody came in with a similar request, or if we allowed this one it might stimulate more requests from others that have lots of possessions also, but, I’m sorry, I would think that at this point in time, you would probably want to either table this or withdraw, you’re going to have to withdraw the application, would be my suggestion, because you’re going to have to propose something substantially smaller and more compact that would fit more with the neighborhood, and it’s unavoidable, I would think, at this point in time for you not to consider that. So I don’t know what you want to do. Do you want to withdraw this application as you have it, or do you want to come back to us? You could table this and come back with something smaller. He’s going to have to re-advertise, right, if he changes the dimensions. MR. ROMER-What would be something within reason for the Board? MR. UNDERWOOD-I don’t want to put numbers in your head, you know. I mean, I think you could go look around and see stuff that people have. I mean, there are other properties that have second garages in the neighborhood down there, and maybe something similar in size to them, but I don’t think that we’d be looking at, something 60 feet by 40 feet seems like way over the top. So, you know, it may be a matter of downsizing and lowering the number of possessions or looking to keep some place, you know, off lot to store the things that don’t really get used, rotate them in as need be or something like that. MR. ROMER-Yes, that’s what I do, and as I need stuff, I have to travel and pull a trailer out of one building and load stuff on that from other buildings in order to, back and forth, and that’s what I’m trying to alleviate. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I think the other thing is, you know, I mean, you can put up those sort of Quonset hut, you know, buildings that blow away in the wind, you know. I don’t know how that would work out there in that situation, either, for some of the things that don’t need to be under complete cover, you know, in that situation. MR. ROMER-Aesthetically, the looks of that wouldn’t look good. MR. UNDERWOOD-Right. I would agree with you on that. MR. GARRAND-It’s also a non-permanent structure. MR. ROMER-Yes. MR. UNDERWOOD-All right. So, I take it you don’t want to us to vote on this? MR. ROMER-No, from the sounds, I don’t. MR. UNDERWOOD-Probably I would think you would want to withdraw your application and then come back with something more reasonable. MR. ROMER-Yes. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. So I guess at the present time, then, we will withdraw application, Area Variance No. 61-2010. I’ve got to run next door to a Town Board meeting and I’ll be back over later. So, Rick, you’re taking over. SIGN VARIANCE NO. 62-2010 SEQRA TYPE: UNLISTED HOLLY WHEELER/K.D. CUSTOM SIGNS AGENT(S): HOLLY WHEELER/K.D. WHEELER CUSTOM SIGNS OWNER(S): GAM OF THE ADIRONDACKS, LLC ZONING: CM LOCATION: 1048 STATE ROUTE 9 APPLICANT PROPOSES A 49.8 SQ. FT. FREESTANDING SIGN WITH AN 8 FT. FRONT YARD SETBACK TO ACCOMMODATE THE BUSINESS PLAZA FOR 5 TENANTS. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM THE FRONT SETBACK REQUIREMENT FOR FREESTANDING SIGNS 13 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/22/2010) AT OR LESS THAN 50 SQ. FT. CROSS REF.: SV 5-2006; BP 2010-458 HUDSON RIVER TRADING CO.; BP 2010-428 NORTHWESTERN MUTUAL CONOR, F.P. BOYD; BP 2009-477 COM’L ALT FOR ADK AUDIO & VIDEO; BP 2009-575 ADK AUDIO & VIDEO 30 SQ. FT. SIGN; ADK AUDIO & VIDEO 42 SQ. FT. SIGN, ETC. WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: NOVEMBER 10, 2010 LOT SIZE: 1.01 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 296.9-1-12 SECTION: 149-6-3d HOLLY WHEELER, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Sign Variance No. 62-2010, Holly Wheeler/K.D. Wheeler Custom Signs, Meeting Date: November 22, 2010 “Project Location: 1048 State Route 9 Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes a 49.8 sq. ft. freestanding sign with an 8 ft. front yard setback to accommodate the business plaza for 5 tenants. Relief Required: Relief requested from the front setback requirement for freestanding signs at or less than 50 sq. ft 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 neighborhood may be anticipated. 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. Removing the sign from its current location and placing in a compliant location, 15 feet from the property line may be feasible. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The request for 7 feet or 47% relief from the 15 foot minimum setback requirement 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 and environmental conditions of the neighborhood may be anticipated. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. The difficulty may be self created Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): SV 5-2006: Country Home at Suttons 45.31 sq. ft. sign 1/25/06 BP 2010-458: Hudson River Trading Co. BP 2010-428: Northwestern Mutual Conor, F. P Boyd BP 2009-477: Adk. Auto & Video Commercial alteration BP 2009-575: Adk. Auto & Video 30 sq. ft. sign BP 2009-484: Adk. Auto & Video 42 sq. ft. sign Staff comments: The current location of the sign was approved on January 26, 2006 (S.V. 5-2006). The applicant is proposing to add a tenant’s panel, increasing the overall size of the sign, necessitating this sign variance. Please see Zoning Administrator determination dated September 15, 2010. SEQR Status: Type – Unlisted” MR. URRICO-“ Dear GAM of the Adirondacks, LLC: I am writing to you in response to my review of your proposed signage for Northwestern Mutual at your 1048 State Route 9 location in Queensbury. We have recently, September 7, 2010, received updated information for your permit application. Upon review of the updated plans submitted to this office I find that a Sign Variance will be necessary for your proposed signage. Specifically, the proposed sign is not 14 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/22/2010) consistent with the sign code; Chapter 140, or the sign as approved by Sign Variance 5-2006. The approved sign (SV 5-2006) was for a single tenant freestanding sign. Your current proposal calls for a multiple tenant sign in a different size and configuration than the approved sign. As the sign variance granted was specific for that sign, any size, shape or location change can be considered new and different, thus requiring additional review. Please find the necessary Sign Variance application. Please note our established submittal deadlines when compiling your application materials. Should you have any questions regarding the above comments, please do not hesitate to contact this office. Sincerely, Craig Brown.” MR. GARRAND-Okay. For the purposes of the record, please state your name. MRS. WHEELER-My name is Holly Wheeler. I’m co-owner of K.D. Wheeler Custom Signs. I’m representing the owner of this parcel, which is GAM of the Adirondacks, LLC I believe. The proposed sign basically has been in the same spot since B.J. Baxter owned that property and called it the Village Collection. The post has never moved. We came in back when Suttons purchased it and it became Country Home at Suttons, because I applied for that variance. Again, used the same post. We didn’t move it. It is seven feet back, eight feet back from the front property line, and that happened when they widened Route 9, and when we went for the variance for Country Home at Suttons, it was a single panel sign because they were the sole tenant of the building. They then sold the building to GAM of the Adirondacks and the owner approached Craig Brown from what, this is what the owner told me, and said that he was planning to put multiple tenants into this parcel, and was told, no problem, it’s a business complex. He could put a sign out there and everybody could have tags, as long as it didn’t exceed 50 square feet. So he put his sign up first, which was Adirondack Audio and Video, and I went and got a permit for it, because he didn’t apprise me that he was going to have all these tenants at that point. So we put the first panel up and that conformed to the previous variance because it was under the square footage and it was all fine. So then Northwestern Mutual came along and I applied for that, and I figured, okay, it’s a business complex. No problem. Yes, problem. Anyway, overall, it’s, under a business complex it’s allowed. It’s not exceeding 50 square feet. The setback’s not changing from what it’s been forever. So that’s my request. MR. GARRAND-Any questions from Board members? MRS. JENKIN-I have a question, and it’s actually the location and where you want to put the signs underneath it, because I noticed when I was there, there’s bushes and there’s shrubbery around the sign, existing sign, and if those bushes grow, you’re not going to be able to see those lower signs. Were you planning to remove them, the bushes, or what were you planning to do about that? MRS. WHEELER-They can be, if, once these future tenants want tags, then I think they’ll address the landscaping. Frankly, I don’t think they’ve done anything with the landscaping since he put his panel in. It doesn’t look any different to me, but. MRS. JENKIN-No, there probably hasn’t been. MRS. WHEELER-Yes. MRS. JENKIN-But there is a bush right in front of, as you’re coming up from Town, there is a bush that’s, it’s a burning bush or something like that. MRS. WHEELER-Right. MRS. JENKIN-In front of it, and that right now, for the lower signs, that would obliterate them. MRS. WHEELER-I’m quite sure that they could take that out and put low growing, you know, stuff under it. MRS. JENKIN-You’d almost have to. MRS. WHEELER-Sure. For right now, the only one I’m really concerned with is Northwestern Mutual. He’s presently my client. Future tenants, we’re just, it’s like, let’s just do this at once, you know, and take care of the situation. He doesn’t project more than the five tenants. I think he’s got three in there now. MR. GARRAND-Any other questions from Board members? MR. URRICO-Where the future tenants, what will occupy that space for the time being? Will you have any signs at all? 15 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/22/2010) MRS. WHEELER-Nothing. There won’t be anything out there. MR. URRICO-No blank spots or? MRS. WHEELER-No. There wouldn’t be anything under there at all. MR. KOSKINAS-I have some comments. I know that the new Zoning, or new Sign Ordinance as part of the zoning that’s been proposed, is going to reduce that area. I think it’s down to 42 feet, at 15 feet. You’re going to be 50 feet at 8 feet, and it made me think, and so I made a little linear extrapolation of the setback area allowed per linear feet of setback, and it’s funny that the closer you get to the road, it’s unusual way they’ve built this Sign Ordinance, they closer you get to the road, the more square feet you’re allowed relative to the setback. So by Code today, at a 25 foot setback, you can have 64 square feet of sign. MRS. WHEELER-Right. MR. KOSKINAS-Or 2.56 feet of sign for every foot of setback. You get to 15 feet, and you can have 50 foot of sign area, which is 3.33 feet of sign for every foot of setback. If I just extrapolate this back to eight feet, you can have 40 feet of sign, but the truth is, when you look at that property, and the new zoning, by the way, would allow you 42 feet at 15 feet, so, I don’t know if that’s law yet, Keith? MR. OBORNE-No, it’s not. MRS. WHEELER-No. MR. KOSKINAS-But when it is, this sign that you’re asking for is quite grand, and I already believe the signage on Route 9’s problematic. This particular sign, when you add, make this, it’ll be, what, it’s six feet wide. It’ll be 8.33 feet tall, and if you are already at eight feet from the curb, you’re starting to block traffic. You can’t see when you’re coming out of the driveway because you’ve got a wall, a six foot wide wall, with, as Joan points out, vegetation literally goes to the ground, and the, adding area below the level of the sign as it exists now, I was in my truck when I was in that driveway, and if that sign came down much lower from the height of my truck, it would be difficult to see, and you’re looking at traffic coming and going. I was just thinking about it from a safety point of view. Why don’t you move that sign? Why don’t you take it back, I mean, I think any variance that’s allowed here should proscribe those trailers. There’s two marked trailers sitting at the curb. They’re fully lettered. They’re each bigger than 50 square feet. So there’s three 50 square feet signs out there right now, and I’m not counting the trucks that are lettered, parked at the curb. So I think any variance you ask for should include that those 50 foot sign trailers should be parked behind the building or as far from the street as you can. You’ve got a lot of signs out there. MRS. WHEELER-Well, the trailers do belong to the owner. So if you want to stipulate that he parks them behind his building, you can do that. Can I do that? Probably not. I could tell him that that’s your recommendation. MR. GARRAND-Keith, do those constitute temporary signs? MR. OBORNE-They have not been determined by the Zoning Administrator to be considered signs. That’s the only way I could look at it. MR. GARRAND-What are they considered? MR. OBORNE-They’re considered vehicles. I don’t know. They’re considered trailers, I guess. There has not been a determination made on that. MRS. JENKIN-The same thing has happened right across the street, if you remember. There’s a truck that sits right by the road, and it. MRS. HUNT-Colortyme does that. MRS. JENKIN-Yes. MR. OBORNE-It’s the same thing as if you see a Hannaford truck parked, you know, that you could see from the roadway. That could be considered a sign also. MR. KOSKINAS-When it’s loading and unloading, I don’t consider it a sign. 16 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/22/2010) MR. OBORNE-No. They sit there for days and weeks, just like these do, but regardless. We’re here for this sign. MRS. WHEELER-And in answer to your second question, as for moving the sign back, when I do that, it’s going to push it into the parking lot, which is going to cut out the center part of that parking lot. I don’t know if you’ve ever pulled in and parked in that area. There’s not a lot of room to back, I mean, there’s enough room to back out, but you shorten that up, and you’re effectively going to make two parking areas with an island kind of, you know what I mean. MR. KOSKINAS-Move it back even further. MRS. WHEELER-Then you won’t be able to drive through in front of that building. You’ll have to go in from one side or go in from the other. MRS. HUNT-I can see the need for that. I didn’t even know there was a Northwestern Mutual there until I got this application. MRS. WHEELER-Yes, he moved in three, four months ago. MRS. HUNT-And I go to Suttons frequently, and I just, it’s on the side. MRS. WHEELER-I’ll be honest with you. I don’t know where he is in the building. I know there’s a Hudson Trading something on the side that faces Suttons. They have twiggy things. MRS. JENKIN-There’s one other small consideration, and it’s just, often when you have the multiple signs, and you have several tenants in one building, then the signs are such that each tenant gets the same amount of space, and this is, for the future tenants, it really, and when it’s right down at the bottom, they’re not getting certainly the same exposure that the other one has. Have you thought about changing the sign? MRS. WHEELER-This owner species what his tenants get for signage. This Northwestern Mutual, they went back and forth over the height, a lot. He wanted to give Northwestern Mutual actually smaller than this. So he’s specifying the size. So when he rents it, this is what you’re allowed, and this is all that you’re allowed. MRS. JENKIN-Okay. MRS. WHEELER-So he’s the owner of Adirondack Audio. GAM of the Adirondacks and Adirondack Audio are owned by the same people. So it’s predominantly his business. So that’s, he’s the owner. He gets to make the rules. MR. GARRAND-Okay. At this time I’ll open up the public hearing. Is there anybody from the public that would wish to speak? Please step up to the microphone. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED CHRIS CARTE MR. CARTE-Good evening, Ladies and Gentlemen. My name is Chris Carte, and I own the Wood Carte, which is a piece of property across Route 9 from the location in question, and a few 100 feet north. I speak opposed to this Sign Variance, for a couple of different reasons, but primarily because even though I welcome new business and more business to our neighborhood, I feel like those businesses still need to play by the same rules as, so to speak, as the rest of us have to. I understand that Hudson River Trading Company is a business that will be, in some ways, direct competition for us, and I feel like, if you allow this larger sign to be put at less than the 15 foot required setback, that will certainly give them an advantage to some degree. There’s also, of course, the safety issue that the gentleman at the end mentioned, and that’s a concern, but mainly, you know, I don’t mind a little friendly competition, but it really has to be, I feel, on a level playing field, and I also don’t see where moving the existing sign or placing the new sign at 15 feet back is really going to negatively impact their parking area. I think that traffic will still be able to negotiation around that sign, and I don’t see that as being a reason for not re-locating the sign, so that it meets the same setback requirement that the majority of the businesses up and down Route 9 have been made to meet, and that’s my view on the situation. If anybody has any questions for me, I’d be glad to answer them. MR. URRICO-Chris, where is your sign located? Your freestanding sign, how far away from the road is it, you’re across the street from there. 17 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/22/2010) MR. CARTE-I haven’t measured it in a long time, to be honest with you. We looked at it when we re-did the front of the building, and actually thought about getting a variance because our sign is a little bit problematic for some of our customers, but we decided against that. I just know that it meets the 15 foot setback requirements. I’m sure it’s more than that actually. MR. GARRAND-Because I remember you got a variance for the front of the store. MR. CARTE-That’s right. We did, yes. MRS. JENKIN-What was the company, you’re saying about competition? Is that one of the future tenants that are going to come in? MR. CARTE-Well, I believe they’re there now, Hudson River Trading Company, is a furniture and interior decorating business. Yes. MRS. JENKIN-They’re going into this building or they’re tin this building now? MR. CARTE-They’re actually there now. I think they’ve been there for a month maybe. MRS. JENKIN-Okay. MR. KOSKINAS-They’re on the north side. MR. CARTE-And I’ve never been in the store, but I understand that they carry similar products. MR. GARRAND-Thank you, sir. MR. CARTE-All right. Thank you. MR. GARRAND-Anybody else in the public? MR. URRICO-I have a question for Keith. There’ve been issues in the past with where exactly the line for Route 9 is. Do we know where this sign is in relation to the front of the road? MR. OBORNE-Well, she does have a survey that depicts it. MR. URRICO-I know, but even with surveys in the past, we’ve had questions about where that line extends, where the overlay, is there an overlay there? MR. OBORNE-Not for signs, there’s not an overlay, but as far as what it states on the survey is what we go by. MR. URRICO-Yes, okay. I’m just wondering if you heard anything else, because I can specifically remember certain signs within, not only that complex, but going down to where Nemo’s is now, before it was Nemo’s, as to whether those signs are actually on the property itself. MR. OBORNE-On the property itself. Yes, absolutely. I think that’s a fair question. I think the only way that that would be alleviated would be by updating the surveys. MR. URRICO-Yes. Okay. MR. KOSKINAS-I think the Ordinance says that if you can’t determine the property line, you go from the center line of the road 40 feet. MR. OBORNE-Forty feet, exactly. MR. KOSKINAS-And a three lane is 45 feet. MR. OBORNE-And along that route those differ also, you know, the right of way differs, especially as you go north. MR. GARRAND-Okay. Mrs. Wheeler, would you like to address the comment by Mr. Carte? MRS. WHEELER-Yes. Okay. I measured from the center of that line of the road, and it is 36.6 feet to the first, from the center of the line back to the first post. That takes into account the edge of the sidewalk, the curb, all that. As for Hudson River Trading Company, if they put a sign out there, which I was told they didn’t want one out there, that could change. The owner’s only going to allow them one of those small panels at the bottom. So, how much impact is that going 18 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/22/2010) to have on Mr. Carte’s business, in my opinion. They already are there. I don’t know what else to say about it. So the signpost has been there for years, and years and years. There hasn’t been any accidents caused by it. You get out there and you’ve got eight feet, from the post to the sidewalk, then you’ve got the full width of the sidewalk which is nine feet, six inches. You’ve got 17 and a half feet to see up and down the road. I’m sorry to disagree, but I’ve never had a problem getting in and out of that location. I don’t know what to say. In my opinion, this variance is already pre-existing. The only difference is we’re looking to just bump it up to the 50 square feet and make it a business complex, rather than a single panel, but the setback’s not changing from what’s been there for years. MR. GARRAND-Is that it? MRS. WHEELER-I guess. MR. GARRAND-All right. At this time I’ll close the public hearing, and then I’ll poll the Board members and see what they think. Mr. Urrico? MR. URRICO-I’m thinking that this sort of reminds me of a complex down the road from there that very quickly got out of hand, Mount Royal Plaza, and I’m afraid this has the potential of getting there, too, with the number of signs and various tenants making demands at some point. That being said, I still think this sign is too close to the front of the road. I felt this all along when, going back when, and I think the sign needs to be moved to a compliant location. That’s where I stand. MR. GARRAND-Thank you, sir. MRS. HUNT-Yes, I have to agree. I mean, I don’t see how it can be a real problem to move it seven feet, and I think it would make a difference, because I agree with Mr. Urrico that, down the road, they may ask, people may ask for larger, a larger sign, more tenants, and they’d have to get relief for that. So I think they ought to make it compliant right now. MR. GARRAND-Okay. Mr. Kuhl? MR. KUHL-Yes. I’ll agree with those other two people, only because you’re not asking for a finality here, with the fact of future tenants. You’re going to want to grow it and grow it. Put it in a compliant location and you’ll be able to grow it without a problem. I mean, can’t you move it back to the berm area, the brick area, the block wall? MRS. WHEELER-They’ll have to move the block wall back. MR. KUHL-Move it right in. MRS. WHEELER-It’s already, the farthest post is at the edge of that inside of that brick wall, closest to the building. MR. KUHL-I’m talking about the one around the house. You have on here a brick wall around the house. Move it way back? MRS. WHEELER-Against the building? MR. KUHL-Yes, more towards the building, take up one parking space. MRS. WHEELER-If we move it back from the road, then they’ll expand the landscaped area in the front more towards the building, which currently is stacks of block with fill in there or landscape material. So it’ll have to be bumped back, the brick wall will have to be moved. MR. KUHL-Because you’re growing, because this is not the end, I think it should be moved, and I’d be against this variance. MR. GARRAND-Mrs. Jenkin? MRS. JENKIN-Well, I think the visibility, as I’ve mentioned before, I think the shrubs there give a lot, as much visibility as the sign does. They prevent any kind of, I don’t see that it’s a big problem with the visibility of the sign, or the shrubbery that’s there now. I guess my only concern is they’re going to grow bigger and you won’t be able to see the sign. I don’t think that your request is too substantial because you’re not adding to the height or the width of the sign. You’re only putting signs underneath. I feel the building, if you put three more tenants in there, that’s going to be the capacity of the building. The building isn’t absolutely huge. I don’t see how you can put more than three more in as it is now. That seems to be a very future thinking to 19 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/22/2010) put three more tenants in that building. So, I, because it’s existing, because you’re not changing it, you’re only adding to the bottom of it, I would be in favor of this. MR. GARRAND-Okay. Mr. Koskinas? MR. KOSKINAS-Sir, I believe the standards are 50 foot at 15 feet; 64 feet at 25 feet. I think this is a new sign and I think it should conform to the regulations. I’m not a sign person, but maybe you could convert to a pylon structure and make your placement a little less difficult for you, but I think it’s a slippery slope, these Sign Variances. The Board has to re-think them every time they come, and people point to every other variance as a reason why more should be granted. So I believe you should be conforming. MR. GARRAND-It seems as though we have somewhat of a consensus. There is a few options at hand for you. One, you could ask us to vote on the variance. Two, you could table it, ask us to table it. Three, you could withdraw the application at this point. MRS. WHEELER-Okay. I guess I’m going to ask to table it so I can talk to the owner and see what he chooses to do. MR. GARRAND-Okay. MRS. WHEELER-Because I’m not in a position to do that, on his behalf. Okay. Thank you. MR. GARRAND-We can get you a date. MR. OBORNE-You’re going to need to execute on a resolution tabling and with a specific date. Holly, what do you think? It’s going to be in January most likely. Do the first meeting, if at all th possible, Board, it would be the 19 of January. MRS. WHEELER-However, if they opt to move it back, then it becomes a conforming sign and I don’t have to come back here anyway. MR. OBORNE-That’s a sign permit, that’s all that is. MRS. WHEELER-Right. Okay. MOTION TO TABLE SIGN VARIANCE NO. 62-2010 HOLLY WHEELER/K.D. WHEELER CUSTOM SIGNS, Introduced by Richard Garrand who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Hunt: 1048 State Route 9. Tabled to the January 19, 2011 meeting. nd Duly adopted this 22 day of November, 2010, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Koskinas, Mrs. Jenkin, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Garrand NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Underwood MR. OBORNE-Thank you, Holly. MRS. WHEELER-Thank you. AREA VARIANCE NO. 64-2010 SEQRA TYPE: II CHARLES E. SEELEY FOR PAPA’S DINER AGENT(S): CHARLES H. SCUDDER OWNER(S): CHARLES E. & BARBARA D. SEELEY ZONING: CLI LOCATION: 398 CORINTH ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 378 SQ. FT. ATTACHED ROOF TO COVER EXPOSED ENTRANCE RAMP. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MINIMUM FRONT SETBACK REQUIREMENTS FOR THE CLI ZONE AND TRAVEL CORRIDOR OVERLAY ZONE. CROSS REF.: BP 2006-665 C/O PAPA’S DINER; BP 2006-666 SIGN PAPA’S DINER; BP 2006-560 SEPTIC ALT. WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: NOVEMBER 10, 2010 LOT SIZE: 8.59 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 308.16-1-3 SECTION: 179-3-040 CHARLES SCUDDER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT 20 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/22/2010) Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 64-2010, Charles E. Seeley for Papa’s Diner, Meeting Date: November 22, 2010 “Project Location: 398 Corinth Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a 378 sq. ft. attached roof to cover exposed entrance ramp and rear service platform. Relief Required: Applicant requests 23 feet of relief from the 50 foot front setback requirement for the CLI zone and 48 feet of relief from the 75 foot travel corridor overlay district for that portion of the proposed entrance ramp enchroaching on the respective setback requirements. 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. 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 nature of the proposal and existing conditions preclude the applicant from pursuing anything other than an area variance. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The request for 23 feet or 46% relief from the 50 minimum front setback requirement as per §179-3-040 may be considered moderate relative to the ordinance. The request for 48 feet or 64% relief from the 75 foot travel corridor overlay minimum setback as per §179-4-030 may be considered moderate to 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 difficulty may be considered self created. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): BP 2006-655 C/O Papa’s Diner BP 2006-666 Sign Papa’s Diner BP 2006-560 Septic alteration Staff comments: The roof associated with the rear service entrance is compliant in regards to front and travel corridor setback requirements. SEQR Status: Type II –no further review needed” MR. GARRAND-Thank you, sir. Good evening. MR. SCUDDER-Good evening. Charles Scudder for the applicant. I have some pictures here I’d like to submit, if I may. MR. GARRAND-Certainly. MR. SCUDDER-These are pictures of the entrance as it exists now. I don’t know if any of you folks have been to this diner. MR. URRICO-Yes. I didn’t eat there. MR. SCUDDER-These are the way it looks now, and we want to put a canopy over all of that, for the obvious reason of keeping the ice and snow, the rain off it, and I’ve submitted an bunch of 21 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/22/2010) exhibits. I don’t know if you’ve had a chance to look at them, but I don’t think there’s anything I need to talk about, other than perhaps to answer any questions. MR. GARRAND-I’m sure all the Board members have read the information enclosed in the packet. Any questions for the applicant? MRS. JENKIN-I have a question, and this is probably just because of my building, my not knowledge of the building. Why are you adding the extra roof over here? It looks like it’s going to go over the, is this a fireplace wall or something in here, and you’re going to cover that now? See this is, that’s a fireplace wall? MR. SCUDDER-That’s a chimney. Yes, it is. MRS. JENKIN-That’s a chimney. MR. SCUDDER-I mean, that whole thing isn’t a chimney. There’s a flue in there. MRS. JENKIN-Okay. MR. SCUDDER-And that’s just a structure that kind of covers stuff. MRS. JENKIN-So you’re going to be covering the flue now? MR. SCUDDER-This is a sketch. I don’t particularly like this. I didn’t do it. It’s too big. MRS. JENKIN-Because it comes up to the top of the roof. MR. SCUDDER-Yes. I wouldn’t do it that way. I would move it down and make it smaller. MRS. JENKIN-But is this a working chimney now? MR. SCUDDER-I don’t think so because the fireplace is just ornamental. It isn’t used. MRS. JENKIN-It is. Okay. Because I wondered how you could cover it completely if it’s a chimney. MR. SCUDDER-No, you couldn’t. I’ve never seen any kind of fire in it, and. MR. KUHL-Well, you are here presenting this, and we are trying to take you at what you presented to us. I assume, for the record what you’re saying is if there is a chimney there, it’s going to be taken down. It’s a non-functioning chimney? MR. SCUDDER-It is, it’s a non-functioning. MR. KUHL-Non-functioning chimney. MR. SCUDDER-And the fireplace is ornamental. MR. KUHL-And my guess, the reason why you’re putting that hip in there, so that when it rains not all the water runs down all in one location. It’s going to go off the roof away, right? You’re going to get the water coming this way, and you’re going to get it coming that way, where the people come out here. That could be the rationalization for that. MR. SCUDDER-But I think the sketch artist thought it would look nice to put a dormer up there. I think it’s too big and I don’t like it. MR. KUHL-As I look at this project, I believe you’re doing it for safety reasons more than anything. MR. SCUDDER-Well, that and maintenance. Every time it rains or sleets or snows, or there’s an ice storm, it’s, you know, there’s a handicap ramp there that has to be negotiated and a lot of people go in there who are semi-crippled, you know, and so it means scraping and it means salting. MR. GARRAND-And not cooking, and not waiting on people when they have to scrape and salt the ramp. MR. SCUDDER-You can appreciate, I mean, if you look at those pictures, there’s a lot of work to do there to keep it safe and navigable. 22 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/22/2010) MR. GARRAND-Questions, anybody? At this time, I’ll open up the public hearing and then close it. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. KUHL-There’s no public. MR. GARRAND-Mr. Koskinas? MR. KOSKINAS-I think it’s a very reasonable request, and I think it’s going to add to the appearance of the building and the neighborhood. MRS. JENKIN-I think it’s absolutely an addition, for safety reasons alone, and also for the comfort of the people coming in, because of not being rained on up that long ramp that they’re trying to get, rained on and exposed to the weather. I think that it’s a good project. I think that the other side is, putting it over the other staircase is a good side, even though it’s not a variance, and I would be definitely in favor of this. MR. GARRAND-Mr. Kuhl? MR. KUHL-Yes. I think for the safety factor of covering over that ramp and the stairs, never mind the fact that the cook has to come out and salt them, but for the safety, for the safety of the customers, for the people, I’m really in favor of this. I think it’s a good project. MR. GARRAND-Mrs. Hunt? MRS. HUNT-Yes. I have no problem. I think it’s an excellent idea to make it safer for the handicap going up that ramp, and so I’d be in favor. MR. GARRAND-Mr. Urrico? MR. URRICO-Yes. It kind of ruins the experience when you have to walk out through a waterfall or have snow falling on your head as you’re trying to get to your car. This is necessary, I think, for any business that opens up like this. MR. GARRAND-All right, well then, in that case, I guess I’ll make a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 64-2010 CHARLES E. SEELEY FOR PAPA’S DINER, Introduced by Richard Garrand whom moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Hunt: 398 Corinth Road. The applicant is proposing the construction of a 378 square foot attached roof to cover exposed entrance ramp, and rear service platform. The applicant requests 23 feet of relief from the 50 foot front setback requirement for the Commercial Light Industrial zone, and 48 feet of relief from the 75 foot Travel Corridor Overlay district for that portion of the proposed entrance ramp encroaching on the respective setback requirements. On the balancing test, whether benefits can be achieved by other means feasible to the applicant. I do not believe that the owner of the business wants to move the building back to accommodate the Travel Corridor setbacks. Will this produce an undesirable change in the neighborhood? I do not believe it’ll produce any change in the neighborhood whatsoever. Is this request substantial? At the very most I’d say this request is minimal. Will this request have adverse physical or environmental impacts on the neighborhood? None whatsoever. Is this difficulty self-created? The applicant is required to have a handicap access to his business. He would like to protect it. I do not believe this is self-created. So I move we approve Area Variance No. 64-2010. nd Duly adopted this 22 day of November, 2010, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Koskinas, Mrs. Jenkin, Mr. Kuhl, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Garrand NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Underwood MR. GARRAND-Sir, would you like your surveys and drawings back? MR. SCUDDER-Why not? Yes. They cost me a lot of money. 23 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/22/2010) MR. OBORNE-Mr. Chairman, you’re going to need to table Red Roof Inn to a specific date. Even though they requested tabling, you still need to execute on a resolution. MR. SCUDDER-Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. MR. GARRAND-You’re welcome. MR. KOSKINAS-Good luck with your project. MR. SCUDDER-Thank you. th MR. OBORNE-You could go with the 19, again, that would be my recommendation, to be the same as the other one. SIGN VARIANCE NO. 63-2010 SEQRA TYPE: UNLISTED SAXTON SIGNS FOR RED ROOF INN AGENT(S): SAXTON SIGN CORPORATION OWNER(S): ATLANTIC NATIONAL TRUST, LLC ZONING: CM LOCATION: 931 STATE ROUTE 9 APPLICANT PROPOSES TO INSTALL A 24 SQ. FT. CHANGEABLE COPY TO EXISTING 48 SQ. FT. PYLON SIGN FOR A TOTAL OF 66 SQ. FT. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR MAXIMUM SIGN SIZE REQUIREMENT AND MINIMUM FRONT SETBACK REQUIREMENT FOR SUCH SIGN. CROSS REF.: BP 2010-441 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: NOVEMBER 10, 2010 LOT SIZE: 3.49 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 296.13-1-17 SECTION: CHAPTER 140 MOTION TO TABLE SIGN VARIANCE NO. 63-2010 SAXTON SIGNS FOR RED ROOF INN, Introduced by Richard Garrand who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Hunt: 931 State Route 9. Tabled to the January 19, 2011 meeting. nd Duly adopted this 22 day of November, 2010, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Koskinas, Mrs. Jenkin, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Garrand NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Underwood th MR. GARRAND-How many does that give us for the 19? MR. OBORNE-Just two, right now. MR. GARRAND-Two? Okay. MR. OBORNE-Because December hasn’t rolled around yet. MR. GARRAND-Okay. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, James Underwood, Chairman 24