Loading...
Application Sign Variance Revised June 2009 General Information Tax Parcel ID Number: 303 . 8-1-6 Zoning District: NR Detailed Description of Project[Includes current&proposed use]: Applicant is seeking to maintain its freestanding sign in its current location. Location of project: 270 Queensbury Avenue Queensbury NY 12804 t ® • One Washington Stree ^ Saratoga Springs NY 12 :66 Glens Falls NY 12801 „580-1905 fax 584-5012 824-1034/824-1019 ephallenycap.rr.com jclebpsrlaw.com 3 f 7i ' ' ' .' same as Applicant ' :utt Y�F1 I 4 Town of Queenebury•Zoning Office•742 Bay Road•Queenebury, NY 12804.518-781.8238 Sign Variance Revised June 2009 Site Development Data g n , 5• .par . 2 "�"� , ; 1 .a k'T- -' z`i�3 � -t-ir .r r . au.. a.. . ,� .�.5 M.1,���u._! }3.Tf A. Building footprint 3885 1867 5752 B. Detached Garage --- C. Accessory Structure(s) --- D. Paved, gravel or other hard surfaced area 12, 116 5680 17, 796 E. Porches/Decks F. Other G. Total Non-Permeable [Add A-F] 16, 001 23, 548 H. Parcel Area [43,560 sq.ft./acre] 449, 371 449, 371 I. Percentage of Impermeable Area of Site [1=0/1-1] 3 .56 5.24 Setback Reauirements Front[1] 20 323-6" 323-6" Front[2] _- Shoreline -_ Side Yard[1] 10 ' -0" 18-3" 18-3" Side Yard[2] ■ ' ' Rear Yard[1] 15 ' -0" 753 ' -0 722 ' -5" Rear Yard [2] Travel Corridor Height[max] 40 , -0" 28-0" 15 , -0" Permeability 35% 96 . 44 94 .8% No. of parking spaces 1 / 400 sq ft 13 spaces 19 spaces 1 per 2 employees 2 Town of Queensbury•Zoning Office•742 Bay Rood•Oueenebury, NY 12804.518-781.8238 Sign Variance Revised June 2009 Como!lance with Sian Ordinance Section(s)that apply: 140-6 (13) (1) What signs are you allowed to have? Sign Type How many allowed Square Feet Height Wall 1 200sq ft n/a Freestanding 1 45 12 This application is for a chance in the: Number of Signs: from (currently): to(proposed): X Setback for Sign Size of Sign Height of Sign Other(specify) Elevation: if you are proposing to install wall signs, provide a scale drawing of the facade the sign(s)will be located on,with their location shown. If you are proposing more than two (2)signs,the following information must be provided for each sign (please use additional sheets if necessary) Sign Number: 1 (if you are applying for more than one sign) Sign Type Existing Proposed Length Width Total Height Depth for Sq.feet Projecting Wall n/a Freestanding X x Projecting n/a Illuminated n/a Awning n/a Property Line Setbacks: Front 1. 04 Side Sign Wording: Countryside veterinary Hospital (Boarding/Grooming) Town of Queensbury•Zoning Office•742 Bay Road•Queensbury, NY 12604.518-761.8238 3 Sign Variance Revised June 2009 The following questions reflect the criteria for granting this type of variance. Please complete them; use additional sheets if needed. 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to 10 rbysroPesrt will be prtede the�rantln� odf tt s sigrApplince4 g p �C3e ng n e pp cant is seeking the requested variance so that it can avoid cutting down the trees that are maintained pinng the frnnt rrnporty line 2, Whether the benefit benefit sou ht by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to buy"Y�rtruguc� t�nig TRI sign and cutting down the trees is an option, the Planning Board requested that the Applicant seek a Sign Variance prior to entertaining that option 3. Whether the requested sign variance is substantial? Although at first it may be deemed substantial, because this request corm a al1nut a mAt1fYP line of Proon to hP maintal nPA it ahniil rq ha tootrod „leer aL besot. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or Impact on the physical or environmental copditlons ir�jl71e neighborhood or distict? There w on y e a positive effect on the physical conditions if the variance is granted. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created? The Applicant does not believe that the existence of the trees should be considered a self-created hardship. Additional Project Information 1. If the parcel has previous approvals, list application number(s): No 2. Does this project require coverage under the NYS DEC Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program? No 3. Estimated project duration: Start Date End Date Existing 4. Estimated total cost of project: Town of Queensbury•Zoning Office•742 Bey Road•Queensbury, NY 12804•518-761-8238 4 Sign Variance Revised June 2000 Submittal of a atamoad and cloned SURVEY MAP depicting existing and proposed conditions shall Include the items as noted below, IITitle,Name,Address o applicant a person responsible for preparation of drawing survey il Deed Plain hiNorth arrow,Tax Map ID,date prepared and scale(minimum 1In,41 40 ft.) U Boundaries• the property p cited to scale,xon ng boundary MIS lia - ndpa structures,accessory structures th exterior dimensions n/a iiiiSite improvements Incl.outdoor storage areas, •rweways,parking areas,etc.: existing propose• n/a ill =et•a oral structures and improvements: ex sting proposed MIMI 11 Elevations and floor plans o all proposed and affected structures al 3 1. . I?x 11 Project sewage disposal facilities,design dela 5,construction details,flowrates,and number• bedrooms proposed Fla © Water supply(i.e.well)&septic on ad oining lots with separation d stances to existing or propoe-• one to water supp and n/a © = •arat on distances for proposed sewage disposal system to well and water bodies n/a S Existing public or private water supply (weti, lake, etc,]. Method • securing public or private water, location, design and a construction ofweler5 Includin• dal water us •e LiPercolation test location and results Num• • spaces requ -• •r project n.-u• ng a culat ons an. ust cation: exls.ng propose ILIIII © No. • exist! • •aril • 5. ces number to be removed number to maintain and •- of surfacln• material e.•, •ravel •aved © - • son •r •-•-s. an an. a •!cap access an• paIng: exetng propose. - laDesign details of ingress,egress,loading areas and cutting: existing A proposed - Locet on and c erecter• green areas(ex sting and proposed,mod fiction to green area,b -r zone to remain undisturbed - S Lighting,location and design of all existing and proposed outdoor lighting - 1..1.00j 1 ni_.'3 it I ∎1 ia,°i4L, , 1 i.l �, j4 IIl'Ll —1, ,1; I • I ' I ta' I: ti ' .."ti ,m�.-�» � ¢ „r? Wit.'" �'*r '`4t,��3:az -. �a,�'w,�. . ' - { • on•site&adjacent watercourses,streams,rivers,lake and wetlands a © t energy• e •ut on system sae,a ectric,solar,telephone]: existing •roposed a © Loatlon,design and construction details of all existing and proposed elle Improvements including: drains,culverts, relining walls,fences,fire a emergency zones and hydrants,etc n/a 5 ?•oars ootege • • •g. area propos-• o ce, manufacturing, retell sales or other commercia ac vies: ex a • 8lgnage: Local on,a ze,type,design an• setback: existing A proposed ka aWaiver Request: provide letter app cat on requesting any waivers: please re rent.spec 'a tams inidentification o Federal, late or County permits required for the project together with a record of application • all necessary - •ermka Town of Queensbury•Zoning Office•742 Bay Road•Queensbury,NY 12804.518-781.8238 5 Sign Variance Revised June 2009 pre-Submission Conference Form (1794.0401 1. Tax Map ID 303 . 8-1-6 2. Zoning Classification NR 3. Reason for Review: Sign Variance 140-6 140-6 (B) (1) 4. Zoning Section#: 6. Pre-Submission Meeting Notes; Outstanding Item To Be Addressed Include: Deed Yes _No General Information complete Yes No No Site Development Data Complete _Yes No Setback Requirements Complete Yes T No Compliance with Sign Ordinance Yes _No Checklist Items addressed Yes Environmental Form completed Yea No Signature Page completed _Yes _NNo dsie •4496 - o - FAA:- 96d4T Jrt - 1/GNi 17444 A 4th US;r AtitU Jr9WAJ Witt- MeoWAL sit,( Aingonxif ce Staff Representative: Adwrie= Applicant/Agen • J7ria Date: M Town of Queensbury•Zoning Office•742 Bay Road•Queensbury, NY 12604.518-781-8238 6 • CL/S1/4W.2 14:41! Oltlli4441 UUUNIKYb1Ut Vt ItKLNN 01/12/2012 09:02 08-792-0865 BARTLETT PONIIhF fNUt 01/01. i vu Site Plan Review Revised June 2009 Signature Page Authorialtdon for This Site v�isits;n4.) Other Permit ReeeponelbllitleE e)Official Meeting D4selosureeand I.)�Agreement to provide documentalbn required, 0*N1Rh AelII r Fool Complete the following If the OWNER of the property is not the seine as the applicant Owner: AJK PROPERTIES, LLC Designate" Bartlett Pontiff Stewart & itbodee , AS agent regarding: Ventura x Effie Plan Subdivision For Tex Map No.: Section Block ��Lot Deed Referenoka ,__Book — -Page DATA�o OWNER SIGNATURE: APPLICANT%Aeon PORM: Complete the following tithe APPLICANT Is unable to attend the meeting or wishes to be represented by another part Owner: Deslgnatse: Al agent regarding: Vsrlance Site Plan-,,,Subdivision For Tex Map No,: Section Block _-Let Deed Reference: _Book Page Date DAtE OWNER SIGNATURE d �t�e,two agatin.t$ t Apphcetlons may be referred to the Town consulting engineer for NMew of septlo design,sto m dreiMge,slo as determined by the Zoning or Planning Department Pees for erpineering review eeMos will be charged deedtly to the spea r, Pees for engMieeAng review will not naiad 11,000 without napeeedon to the appllam! Mange)By signing this page and eubrrating the ep$oidon metro etteohed nelsn the Owner,Wort end NIUherrtheh reviewing hereby authorise the Zoning lord or Planning Board and TOO Staff to enter the subject properties for the purpose of rwuwing 1hs epphoetlon submitted, other pink may be required for osnepuotlon or rnisreion ealwlty subsequent to approve i the rig BOa�rd. It Is the aaploenr5 responsibility to ohm any additional permits, • ¢,1 OPPICIAI.MB/TING MIMUTQ8..D11410eUPB: it M the premix of die Community Dove OD d minutes Qs V tdo h va a duigruteo stenographer tape record the proceedings of meetings resulting those topes oonetuutes the official record of all prooeedlnpe. : I, the undersigned, have thoroughly reed end understand the In for eaSn a Spree the news requheme its, I edrnovdeddgs mn aotMlas truest be oommenood odor to Issuance of a wild permit. I certly trot the app lfln, plane and the milkman work merle be eer bee b, complete a inentidesodption of the mating candles, and ire work proposed, Oyler to occupying accordance with the approved plena and In conforming.with long toning rogations. I I�that t+riot owe may be the faaatMn MODS, I or my spots,will ct'tr a oerhflaste of ocoupenoy ea required to provide en as but t survey bye licensed land surveyor of ss newly constructed reelttles prior to Issuance of a aeninaste of o-- ,.noy2, 1 have i ob. Lite- I I') ���� r ._ I ° ,, ,v� - P• pai=r 7 1- i;J a fir /rim/ i it N _ !' '� .� rY� r - lime[Aga la Date sig ed vir of Oueenebury • nmg Cellar 742 Say Road•QuIrobury, NY 12004•d10•7914220 11 SEAR ,rwncrtD.MUm 617. 21 Appendix F State Environmental Quality Review SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM For UNLISTED ACTIONS Only ?ART I - PROJECT INFORMATION (To be completed by Applicant or Project sponsor) 1 . APPLICANT/SPONSOR 2. PROJECT NAME AJK PROPERTIES, LLC SIGN VARIANCE 3. PROJECT LOCATION: WARREN TOWN OF QUEENSBURY COUNTY 4. PRECISE LOCATION (STREET ADDRESS MD ROAD INTERSECTIONS, PROMINENT LANDMARKS, ETC., OR PROVIDE NAP( 270 QUEENSBURY AVENUE 5. IS PROPOSED ACTION: NEW EXPANSION _ MODIFICATION/ALTERATION 6. DESCRIBE PROJECT BRIEFLY: APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A SIGN VARIANCE SO IT CAN MAINTAIN THE EXISTING FREESTANDING SIGN 7 . AMOUNT OF LAND AFFECTED: INITIALLY N/A ACRES ULTIMATELY N/A ACRES 8 . WILL PROPOSED ACTION COMPLY WITH EXISTING ZONING OR OTHER EXISTING LAND USE RESTRICTIONS? _ YES K_ NO IF NO, DESCRIBE BRIEFLY 9. WHAT IS PRESENT LAND USE IN VICINITY OF PROJECT? RESIDENTIAL _.INDUSTRIAL COMMERCIAL _ AGRICULTURE_ PARK/FOREST/OPEN SPACE DESCRIBE: THE PROPERTY IS COUNTRYSIDE VETERINARY HOSPITAL 10. DOES ACTION INVOLVE A PERMIT APPROVAL, OR FUNDING, NOW OR ULTIMATELY FROM ANY OTHER GOVERNMENTAL AGENCY (FEDERAL, STATE OR LOCAL) ? —X__ YES _ NO IF YES, LIST AGENCY(S) AND PERMIT/APPROVALS QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD 11 . DOES ANY ASPECT OF THE ACTION HAVE A CURRENTLY VALID A PERMIT OR APPROVAL? _ YES _ NO IF YES, LIST AGENCY (S) AND PERMIT/APPROVALS 12. AS A RESULT OF PROPOSED ACTION, WILL EXISTING PERMIT/APPROVAL REQUIRE MODIFICATIONS? _ YES js, No I CERTIFY THAT THE INFORMATION PROVIDED ABOVE IS TRUE TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE APPLICANT/SPONSOR NAME: AJK PROPERTIES, LLC. DATE: JANUARY 17, 2012 SIGNATURE: JONATHAN LAPPER, AS ATTORNEY FOR THE APPLICANT 4 if the action is in the Coastal Area, and you are a state agency, complete the Coastal Assessment Form before proceeding with this assessment 1 • Part II - ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (To be completed by Agency) A. DOES ACTION EXCEED ANY TYPE I THRESHOLD IN 6 NYCRR, PART 617. 12? IF YES, COORDINATE THE REVIEW PROCESS AND USE THE FULL EAF. YES NO B. WILL ACTION RECEIVE COORDINATED REVIEW AS PROVIDED FOR UNLISTED ACTIONS IN 6NYCRR, PART 617.6? IF NO, A NEGATIVE DECLARATION MAY BE SUPERSEDED BY ANOTHER INVOLVED AGENCY. YES NO C. COULD ACTION RESULT IN ANY ADVERSE EFFECTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE FOLLOWING: (ANSWERS MAY BE HANDWRITTEN, IF LEGIBLE) Cl. EXISTING AIR QUALITY, SURFACE OR GROUNDWATER QUALITY OR QUANTITY, NOISE LEVELS, EXISTING TRAFFIC PATTERNS, SOLID WASTE PRODUCTION OR DIS,ROSAL, POTENTIAL FOR EROSION, DRAINAGE OR FLOODING PROBLEMS? EXPLAIN BRIEFLY: C2. AESTHETIC, AGRICULTURAL, ARCHAEOLOGICAL, HISTORIC, OR OTHER NATURAL OR CULTURAL RESOURCES; OR COMMUNITY OR NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTER? EXPLAIN BRIEFLY: C3. VEGETATION OR FAUNA, FISH, SHELLFISH OR WILDLIFE SPECIES, SIGNIFICANT HABITATS, OR THREATENED OR ENDANGERED SPECIES? EXPLAIN BRIEFLY: C4. A COMMUNITY'S EXISTING PLANS OR GOALS AS OFFICIALLY ADOPTED, OR A CHANGE IN USE OR INTENSITY OF USE OF LAND OR OTHER NATURAL RESOURCES? EXPLAIN BRIEFLY. C5. GROWTH, SUBSEQUENT DEVELOPMENT, OR RELATED ACTIVITIES LIKELY TO BE INDUCED BY THE PROPOSED ACTION? EXPLAIN BRIEFLY. C6. LONG TERM, SHORT TERM, CUMULATIVE, OR OTHER EFFECTS NOT IDENTIFIED IN C1-CS? EXPLAIN BRIEFLY. C7. OTHER IMPACTS (INCLUDING CHANGES IN USE OF EITHER QUANTITY OR TYPE OF ENERGY) ? EXPLAIN BRIEFLY. D. IS THERE, OR IS THERE LIKELY TO BE, CONTROVERSY RELATED TO POTENTIAL ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS? _ YES _ No IF YES, EXPLAIN BRIEFLY. PART III - DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE (To BE COMPLETED BY AGENCY) INSTRUCTIONS: FOR EACH ADVERSE EFFECT IDENTIFIED ABOVE, DETERMINE WHETHER IT IS SUBSTANTIAL, LARGE, IMPORTANT OR OTHERWISE SIGNIFICANT. EACH EFFECT SHOULD BE ASSESSED IN CONNECTION WITH ITS (A) SETTING (I.E., URBAN OR RURAL) ; (B) PROBABILITY OF OCCURRING: (C) DURATION; (D) IRREVERSIBILITY; (E) GEOGRAPHIC SCOPE; AND (F) MAGNITUDE. IF NECESSARY, ADD ATTACHMENTS OR REFERENCE SUPPORTING MATERIALS. ENSURE THAT EXPLANATIONS CONTAIN SUFFICIENT DETAIL TO SHOW THAT ALL RELEVANT ADVERSE IMPACTS HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED AND ADEQUATELY ADDRESSED. CHECK THIS BOX IF YOU HAVE IDENTIFIED ONE OR MORE POTENTIALLY LARGE OR SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACTS WHICH MAY OCCUR. THEN PROCEED DIRECTLY TO THE FULL EAF AND/OR PREPARE A POSITIVE DECLARATION. CHECK THIS BOX IF YOU HAVE DETERMINED, BASED ON THE INFORMATION AND ANALYSIS ABOVE AND ANY SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION, THAT THE PROPOSED ACTION WILL NOT RESULT IN ANY SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND PROVIDE ON ATTACHMENTS AS NECESSARY, THE REASONS SUPPORTING THIS DETERMINATION: TOWN OF OUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS NAME OF LEAD AGENCY PRINT OR TYPE WANE OF RESPONSIBLE OFFICER IN LEAD AGENCY TITLE OF RESPONSIBLE OFFICER SIGNATURE OF RESPONSIBLE OFFICER IN LEAD AGENCY SIONETDRE or PREFARER OF DIFFERENT FROM REEFONSIBLE OFFICER) DATE 16472 2 WARREN COUNTY PAMELA J.VOGEL IIUIIJIIIIJIIHII Lake OwTY NY 12345 K Instrument Number: 2007-00002950 As Recorded On: March 29,2007 Deed Commercial Parties: FRENCH EDWARD B To AJK PROPERTIES LLC Billable Pages: 4 Recorded By: TITLE NORTH INC Num Of Pages: 6 Comment: "Examined and Charged as Follows:" Dead Commercial 97,00 Cover Page 6.00 RP-6217 Commercial 106.00 TP-6M 600 Recording Chimes: MOO Conad•nnon Amount Amount Ra91Cee Tnn•rr Tax 9e0.00 246000.00 TT 2069 Ba•Ic 0,00 OUEENSIURV Spada'Additional 0.00 Additonal 0.00 Transfer 980,00 Tex Mares: 090.00 • RECORDED County Clarks Office Mar 29x2007 101200 Paula J. Vocal ' Reran Coasts Clark "THIS PAGE IS PART OF THE INSTRUMENT" I hereby certify that the within end foregoing was recorded In the Clerk's Office For: WARREN COUNTY, NY FIN Information: Record and Return To: Document Number 2007-00002956 AJK PROPERTIES LLC Receipt Number. 28758 220 MONROE AVENUE Recorded Date/Time: March 29, 2007 10:20:07A MONROE NY 10950 Book-Vol/Pg: Bk-RP VI-9225 Pp-276 Cashier/Station: T Riddell I Cash Station 1 Ci VQLUMEiT3225GPAGEi6 277 -40.-9 f a*1 WARRANTY DEED WITH LIEN COVENANT / DATE OF DEED: March A 2007 / ■Rrj S' GRAQS EDWARD bFRENC• Q .Avenue Queening,New York 12804 GRANTEE: AJK PROPERTIES,LLC • 220 Monroe Avenue Monroe,New York 10950 THIS WARRANTY DEED made between Grantor and Grantee on the deed date stated above WITNESSES THAT GRANTOR in consideration of ....... .........._................One Dollar($1.00)---..........._......_........._...... • lawfLl money of the United States and other good and valuable consideration,paid by Grantee, DOES HEREBY GRANT AND RELEASE UNTO GRANTEE and his assigns forever all that property located at: 270 Queenebury Avenue Town of Queensbury County of Warren State of New York TAX MAP#: 303.8-1.6 • (THE PROPERTY IS DESCRIBED MORE FULLY IN SCHEDULE "A"ATTACHED) THIS GRANT IS MADE: TOGETHER with the appurtenances and all the estate and rights of the Grantor in and to said premises. TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the premises granted by this Warranty Deed unto the Grantee and his assigns forever. AND THE GRANTOR COVENANTS as follows: DOCUMENT• 00002956 V E 3223 PAGE 278 inn: That Grantee shall QUIETLY ENJO M a premisn; ISCOND: That Grantor will forever WARRANT the title to said premises; =MR: That this conveyance is made subject to the trust fund provisions of section thirteen of the lien law. If there are more than one Grantor or Grantee,the words "Grantor"and"Grantee"used in this deed includes them. IN WITNESS OF THIS CONVEYANCE,Grantor has executed this WARRANTY DEED on the deed date stated above. IN PRESENCE OF / A .S.) EDWARD FRENC : STATE OF NEW YORK ) *W V&t ) et: COUNTY OF WARREN ) On the_day of March in the year 2007,before me,the undersigned,personally appeared EDWARD B.FRENCH,personally known to me or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory,evidence to be the individual whose name is subscribed to the within instrument end acknowledged to me that he executed the same in his capacity,and that by his signature on the instrument,the individual,or the person upon behalf of which the individual acted,executed the in anent. ØM2 Notary Public KAP,A I. UUS Notary Pub,`.c,Stag or New York Saratoga Co.0021A81011701 Ccmmieslre;; Expires Feb.17,20.10. DDCUMENTi DDdO2956 VDLUMEa 3225 PAGEa 279 SCHEDULE "A" ALL THAT CERTAIN PIECE OR PARCEL OF LAND situate,lying and being in the Town of Queensbury,Warren County,New York.,more particularly bounded and described as follows: B ON=at a point in the easterly bounds of County Line Road at the southwesterly corner of lands conveyed by Nassivera to the Town of Queensbury by deed recorded in the Warren County Clerk's Office March 30, 1973 in Book 565 of Deeds at Page 319;running from thence South 76 degrees and 13 minutes East along a portion of the southerly bounds of the said lands conveyed to the Town of Queensbury,404.52 feet;thence South 73 degrees and 17 minutes East,still along the same, 121.70 feet;thence South 17 degrees and 38 minutes West, still along the same,90.32 feet;thence South 73 degrees and 17 minutes East,still along the same, 125.00 feet;thence North 17 degrees and 38 minutes East,still along the same, 125.00 feet to the northeasterly comer of the said lands conveyed to the Town of Queensbury,the same being in the canter of stone wall marking the northerly bounds of the lands of Nassivera;thence South 72 degrees and 22 minutes East in the center of the said wall and the northerly bounds of the lands of Naasivera,92.49 feet to the easterly end of the wall;thence South 84 degrees and 48 minutes East along the northerly bounds of the lands of Nusivera,205.13 feet to a nail in a stone pile at the northeasterly corner of the said lands of Nassivera,the same being on the approximate easterly bounds of the Town of Queensbury,thence South 05 degrees and 19 minutes West along a fence marling the easterly bounds of the said lands of Nassivera and being on the approximate easterly bounds of the Town of Queensbury,425.00 feet;thence North 85 degrees and 12 minutes West,530.00 feet;thence North 88 degrees and 14 minutes West,203.92 feet;thence running North 70 degrees and 13 minutes West passing 18.00 feet southerly of and parallel to the southerly end of the barn, 100.00 feet;thence running North 31 degrees and 54 minutes West, passing 5.00 feet northeasterly of the northeasterly corner of the egg room,so called 86.24 feet; thence rurming.North 54 degrees and 30 minutes West 271.16 feet to an iron pipe set in the ground in the easterly bounds of County Line Road,thence North 35 degrees and 27 minutes East along the easterly bounds of County Line Road,224.19 feet;thence North 33 degrees and 34 minutes Bast,still along the easterly bounds of County Line Road 90.00 feet;thence North 32 degrees and 30 minutes East,still along the easterly bounds of County Line Road,37.00 feet to the point and place of beginning,containing 10.316 acres of land,be the same more or less. Bearings refer to the magnetic meridian as of 1966. BEING the same premises conveyed from Leon Nassivera and Luraine Nassivera to Edward French by deed dated September 1, 1973,and recorded in the Warren County Clerk's Oft on November 7, 1973 in Book 576 of Deeds at Psge 202. A more modern description is miaow: ALL THAT CERTAIN PIECE OR PARCEL OF LAND situate, lying and being in the Town of Queensbury,Warren County,New York,more particularly bounded and described as follows: BEGINNING at a point In the easterly bounds of Queensbury Avenue at the northwesterly corner of lends of Edward and Patricia French;thence running northerly along the easterly bounds of said Queensbury Avenue,the following three courses and distances: (1) North 35'27' 00"East, a distance of224.19 feet (2) North 33' 34' 00"East, a distance of 90.00 feet; DOCUMENT* 00002956 (3)North 32' 30' 00"East,a distance of 374.1591Stitg EJsori ran orSet& 'landa3P° the Town of Queensbury used as a water tower; thence running along said lands the following Ave courses and distances; (1) South 76' 13' 00"East,a distance of 404.52 feet; (2) South 73' 17' 00"East,a distance of 121.70 feet; (3) South 17'38' 00"West,a distance of 90.32 feet; (4) South 73' 17' 00"East,a distance of 125.00 feet; (5) North 17' 38' 00"East,a distance of 125.00 feet to the northeast corner of said lands of the Town of Queensbury and the southerly bounds of the lands of Akron Industrial Corporation as evidenced by a stone wall;thence twining along the same,South 72'22' 00"East,a distance of 92.49 feet to the end of said stone wall;thence continuing along said lands of Akron Industrial Corporation,South 84'48'00"East, a distance of 205.13 feet to the southeasterly corn thereof in the approximate easterly bounds of the Town of Queensbury and the westerly bounds of the Town of Kingsbury; thence running along said line, South 05' 19' 00"West,a distance of 425.00 fret to the northeast corner of lands now or formerly of David Jones;thence running along the same,North 85' 12' 00"West,a distance of 530.00 feet to the northwesterly corn thereof at the northeasterly corner of the lands of Edward and Patricia French;thence running along said lands of French,the following four courses and distances: (1) North 88' 14'00"West,a distance of 203.92 feet; (2) North 70' 13' 00"West,a distance of 100.00 Abet; (3) North 31' 54'00"West,a distance of 86.24 feet; (4) North 54'30' 00"West,a distance of 271.16 feet to the point and place of beginning, containing 10.32 acres of land to be the same more or lass. Bearing given in the above description refer to magnetic North. Re}R: Fi d Moni eker .C.(]dl) P.O. x 2017 One road S P1 01 Falls,N rk 1 01 olacr mankee 7YLe vtA-t- N y ) 4 %CO • -..�,� r ,�. ', tip' • 41141 r yip . r f ■ ' o s 7 „c•p■r 4 y�` _ `r Ill�,r "- • ;5. hn.- 1 ) . ifilliat a _., / /1 / t A"/ A, / JCk- / �� 4 / I-/ - +, / / �J� :/ EXISTING SIGN LOCATION DOMINO `T.d, UONT PCLE / ,.. UONT POLE E CRUsto 5 I Diiht I a I �.&,1v,...0'4‘SI, .'• .. LANDS CF / III T""' EDWARD a PATRICIA FRENCH J / / 1 ( / WI II I EXISTING SIGN LOCATION IMF created v4th pdfFactory Vial version 1000004 Om c , Uet TOWN OF QUEENSBURY V , -sL a *clef'Sc 742 Bay.Road, Queensbury, NY 12804.5902 518-781-8201 FILE COPY November 18,2011 Jonathan C.Lappet Esq. Bartlett,Pontig Stewart&Rhodes,PC P.O.Box 2168,One Washington Street Glens Falls,NY 12801 Re: Countryside Veterinary Clinic Tax Map Parcel: 303.8-1-6 Dear Mr.Tapper: I am writing you with regards to the above-referenced project and to document our recent conversations of last week regarding the same. As discussed, I have reviewed your November 4, 2011 letter relative to the need for a Use Variance for this proposed expansion project. Further, I have discussed this matter along with the case law rehrenos that you provided with Town Counsel and have concluded that O your arguments and the court reRxences are applicable and on point in this matter. As such,I am revising my position on the need for a Use Variance for this project and we will not require such an approval for the project at this time. However, Site Plan Review is required. fbr the expansion of the lawMW non-contbrming use. I understand that you have submitted the necessary Site Plan Review application and we are reviewing the same. However,the outstanding sign varianodsign permit issue relative to the freestanding sign will likely delay the processing of the Site Plan Review until it (sign)is adequately addressed. Current dons have been Bled regarding this sign. Please no a out• eta shed deadlines when preparing your application materials. Sincerely, Town of Queensbury Brown Zoning Administrator CB/shh Co: Michael Hill Loss a cnng01I 1s1LpprC. )JM Vr II t!_Itioo "HOME OF NATURAL BEAUTY. . .A GOOD PLACE TO LIVE" SETTLED 1783 • • PAU1.L PONTIFF BARTLETT,PONTIFF,STEWART&RHODES,P.C. RICHARD J.BART1Z T ALAN R.Moms Retlred ROUST S.MeMUASN ATTORNEYS AT LAW Pena C.MCINrw P.O.Box 2165 ELMAISTU B.Mummer MARX A.Lw owae ONE WMHINOTON STREET JOHN D.W moor J.LAw m&PALT11owrR GLENS FALLS,NEW YORK 12501-216$ Jaws HUOAwNZ VINSON Hamm E. O'HAM BRAN C.Boas PAIMCA L WATKrtn MARX L Cjpp TEL (510)7012117 ROOM 8.SUMMIT Boyce O.LiPB10K1 PAULA NADnAU Beane FAx(Its)m4301. 037-0001 JONATHAN C.LAPPIN EMAIL IRh®aporkrme Barnum J.Dues BENJAMIN R.Purr,O. WE/MITE nybptAhrae 3016455 turns M.HAMS Jams R.BII WVr November 4,2011 STUANQ Maui inns Kama WILLIAMS Dun= ... 4 Craig Brown,Zoning Administrator Town of Queensbury 742 Bay Road I U V U " `I`"' Queensbury,New York 12804 Re: Countryside Veterinary Clinic Dear Craig: As you know,this firm represents Countryside Veterinary Clinic and Dr.James Keller.The Countryside Veterinary Clinic is a permitted use pursuant to a use variance granted to our client's predecessor.Recently,you have raised the issue of whether,pursuant to Town Code Section 179-13-010, our client is required to obtain an additional use variance in connection with the expansion of the Q veterinary facility,despite the thct that the use of the facility will remain unchanged. I have enclosed the case of Sandal.Shoonina Center ssociates Ll C v Boa d of Meals on mpg for the City of New Rochelle,64 AD3d 604(2d Dept. 2009).In that case,the Court held that"a use for which a use variance has been granted is a conforming use and,u a result,no further use variance is required for its expansion,unlike a use that is permitted to continue only by virtue of its prior lawfW, nonconforming status." Notably,the case expressly distinguishes between uses permitted by use variance(such as our client's clinic)and "lawful,nonconforming"uses,which are referenced in Town Code Section 179.13-010. Further,please note that the use of the property is not being modified in any way,and the only expansion is to the building, not the use. Based on the foregoing,we believe it clear that our client is a conforming use,and not subject to the requirements of 4 179-13-010. If you would like to discuss this matter,please feel free to contact me. Very truly yours, BARTLETT,PONTIFF, STEWART at RHOD ,P.C. e7. By:, o an C. Lapper,Esq. DI I#: (518)832-6434 i 0 ea Pax M: (518)824-1034 heel E-Mai:)calbarrlaw.com cc: Dr.lames Keller Ethan Hall Miller,Meantx,Schschner&Heber,t.LC • Scarsdale Shopping Center Associates,LLC v.Board of...,84 A.D.3d 804(2009) 882 N.Y.S.fd 38106114 r$Ilp 6p.06783 V 882 N.Y.S.ad 3o8 �✓ Supreme Court,Appellate Division,Second Department,New York. In the Metter of SCARSDALE SHOPPING CENTER ASSOCIATES,LLC,respondent, v. BOARD OF APPEALS ON ZONING FORTH&CITY OF NEW ROCHELLE,appellant. July 7,2009. Synopsis Background:Applicant commenced Article 78 proceeding to review determination of Board of Appeals on Zoning,affirming denial by building official of application for building permit on grounds that additional use variance was required for farther expansion of shopping center.The Supreme Court,Westchester County,Nicolai,3.,granted petition,annulled determination, and remitted to Board with direction that additional use variance was not needed.City appealed. Holdings:The Supreme Court,Appellate Division,held that: t additional use variance was not required; 2 variance granted in prior use variance was not limited to construction of one 10-store building;and 3 Issue of area variance would be remitted. Affirmed as modified. O West Headnotes(5) I Zoning and Planning an Enlargement or Extension of Use Zoning and Planning e- Effect of determination; roe judicata and collateral estoppel A use for which a S SO has been granted is a use and, as a result,no farther ON Matt$. S is required for its expansion,unlike a use that Is permitted to continue only by virtue of its prior lawf 1,nonconforming status. I Zoning and Planning e• Effect of detemtinetion: res Judicata and collateral estoppel Board of Appeals on Zoning's determination that additional till!t+tittlltr8,was required for proposed construction of addition to shopping center was Irrational and contrary to law,since commercial MN variants had previously been granted for construction of additional retail space, so no farther use V2/141161 was required for expansion of such elwaIe use. 3 Zoning and Planning e• Effect of determination; res judicata and collateral estoppel The fact that property may be used for commercial purposes does not leave the development of the property unrestrained;rather,the use of the property remains subject to the terms of the use variance and,where the Board of Appeals on Zoning has previously determined that the development is limited only to a certain extent by the terms of the variance,the Board is not free to later disregard that determination. 0 4 Zoning and Planning ea Shopping centers and malls WesttawNext W 2011 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 1 • , Scarsdale Shopping Center Associates,LLC v.Bard of...,84 A.D.3d 904(2009) SSIWY.8.2a 308,2009 KY,Slip Op.06785- Zoning and Planning ea Effect of determination; tea judicata and collateral estoppel 0 a Board of Appeals on Zoning's determination that use variance for oatruction of additional retail space at shopping v center was limited to construction of one 10-store building was arbitrary,since city's course of approvals for additions to shopping center over many years without requiring additional use variance indicated that use variance permitted retail use of property not limited to 10 stores referred to on original building card. 5 Zoning and Planning e• Directing farther action by local authority Although proposed expansion of shopping center did not require additional use variance, issues of whether area variance was required in addition to site plan approval would be remitted to Board of Appeals on Zoning, since proposed expansion of shopping center could exceed applicable dimensional constraints defined by zoning regulations at time of original use variance. Attorneys and Law Firms **309 Bemis B.Shapiro,Corporation Counsel,New Rochelle,N.Y.(Kathleen E.Oil of counsel),for appellant. Shamberg Manvrell Davis It Hollis,P.C.,Mount Kisco,N.Y.(Robert F. Davis and Diana Bunin of counsel),for respondent. REINALDO E.RI V ERA,J.P.,ROBERT A.SPOLZINO,DANIEL D. ANGIOLILLO,and RUTH C.BALKIN,Jl. Opinion O *614 to a proceeding pur cant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the Board of Appeals a Zoning for the City of New Rochelle dated May 22,2007,which,after a hearing,affirmed •605 the denial,by the Building Official of the City of New Rochelle,of the petitioner's application for a building permit,the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County(Nicolal,J.),entered February 1,2001,which granted the petition,annulled the determination,and remitted the matter to the Board of Appeals on Zoning for the City of Rochelle"with the direction that petitioner's proposed building is subject to Planning Board site plan review and approval without the necessity of an additional use variance." ORDERED that the judgment is modified,on the law,by deleting the provision thereof remitting the matter to the Board of Appeals on Zoning for the City of Rochelle"with the direction that petitioner's proposed building is subject to Planning Board site plan review and approval without the necessity of an additional use variance"and substituting therefor a provision remitting the matter to the Board of Appeals on Zoning for the City of Rochelle for remittal, in turn,to the Building Official for the City of New Rochelle for linter proceedings consistent herewith;as so modified,the judgment ls affirmed,without costs or disbursements. In this proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78,the petitioner, Scarsdale Shopping Center Associates, LLC,challenges the determination of the Board of Appeals on Zoning of the City of New Rochelle(hereinafter the Board of Appeals)affirming the determination of the Building Official of the City of New Rochelle(hereinafter the Building Official)that the petitioner is required to obtain a use variance for the Anther expansion of its shopping center.The Supreme Court granted the petition, annulled the Board of Appeals'determination,and remitted the matter to the Board of Appeals"with the direction that petitioner's proposed building is subject to Planning Board site plan review and approval without the necessity ofan additional use variance." We agree that no additional use variance is required.We do not agree,however,that the petitioner established that its application otherwise complied with the applicable zoning restrictions and may therefore proceed directly to the site plan review phase. The petitioner owns an 8.29-acre shopping center in the City of New Rochelle,on its border with the Village of Scarsdale.The original building in the shopping center "310 was constructed In 1936,after the Supreme Court determined that the property owner had a vetted right to build under the zoning code provisions applicable to the NR-2 neighborhood retell zoning district in WestlawNext m 2011 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 2 Scarsdale Shopping Center Associates,tiC v.Board of...,64 A.D.9d 604(2009) 882 N.Y.S.2d 3051009 A.Y.S1p p.05783 which the subject property was situated prior to 1956,despite the improper action of the New Rochelle City Council in *606 r prohibiting the greeting of any approvals for the property and then rezoning it a part of a residential district(an ,Wat ter of v Miller v. Dossier, 155 N.Y.S.2d 975[Sup,Cl.Westchester County 1956] ).The property owner was permitted to complete the construction that had been commenced prior to the City Council's action and,later that year,the Board of Appeals granted a use variance to permit the construction of additional retail space.In the ensuing years,the petitioner was permitted to expand the shopping center on several occasions,to its current 28 stores,without any additional use variances. In December 2006 the Building Official denied the petitioner's application for a building permit for the construction of a 14,243- square-foot addition to the shopping center on the ground that the 1956 variance did not permit such construction.The petitioner sought review of the denial before the Board of Appeals. After a public hearing, the Board of Appeals affirmed the denial, finding that the 1936 use variance was limited to the construction of one 10-stun building and,thus,that another use variance was required for the proposed expansion. Initially,the Supreme Court correctly determined that this matter was ripe for judicial review and that the petitioner exhausted its available administrative remedies by appealing to the Board of Appeals(rue Matter of Ward v.Bennett 79 N.Y.2d 394,583 N.Y.S.2d 179, 592 N.E.2d 787;of Alater of anodes v. Nocella, 40 A.D.3d 1088, 837 N.Y.S.2d 226; Waterways Drat Corp. v. Lavalle, 28 A.D.3d 539,813 N.Y.S.2d 485). I 2 With respect to the merits of the petition,a use for which a We vatlatic4 hu been granted is a oeafoPating use and, as a result,no Author IN is required for its expansion,unlike a use that is permitted to continue only by virtue of its prior lawful,nonconforming status(an Matter of Angel Plants v. Schoenfeld 154 A.D.2d 459, 461, 546 N.Y.S.2d 112). Thus,to the extent that the Board of Appeals determined that a use variance was required,its determination was irrational and contrary to law,and was properly annulled by the Supreme Court(an Matter of Brancato v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals 011ie City of Yonkers N.Y., 30 A.D.3d 515,817 N.Y.S.2d 361), O 3 The fact that the property may be used for commercial purposes,however,does not leave the development of the property unrestrained.The use of the property remains subject to the terms of the use variance(see Hatter of Borer v. Vlneherg, 213 A.D.2d 828,829,623 N.Y.S.2d 378)and,where the Board of Appeals hu previously determined that the development is limited only to a certain extent by the terms of the variance,the Board of Appeals is not the to later disregard that determination(see Matter of I<ogel v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Town((Huntington, 58 A.D.3d 630,632,871 N.Y.S.2d 638). 4 "607 Here,the resolution granting the use variance was destroyed in fire and,as a result,the terms of the variance must be gleaned from the available extrinsic evidence(see Mater of Borer v. l'neberg, 213 A.D.2d at 829.623 N.Y.S.2d 378). That evidence is equivocal.The original card maintained by the Bureau of Buildings of the City of Rochelle with respect to the property reflects that the Board of •"311 Appeals"granted permission to erect an addition ... as per plans submitted." This language can be read as reflecting the Board of Appeals'determination to limit the variance to the construction that was then proposed. To do so, however, would be inconsistent with the more compelling evidence derived from the conduct of the responsible municipal officials more proximate in time to the granting of the variance.That conduct included a course of approvals for additions to the shopping center over many years,none of which required a use variance,and many of which were explicitly rehired to as being pursuant to the 1956 use variance.On this record,therefore,the only reasonable view of the 1956 use variance is that it permitted the retail use of the property,but did not limit that use to the 10 stores referred to on the building card. The Board of Appeals acted arbitrarily,therefore, In concluding that the variance grunted in the 1956 use variance was so limited. 5 That the variance is not so limited,however,does not mean that there can be no constraints on the commercial development of the property.It is undisputed in the record that the 1956 application sought approval for the use of the property in accordance with the regulations applicable to the NR-2 neighborhood retail zoning district that had been in effect prior to the City Council's action.It would not be unreasonable,thersibre,to conclude that the extent of the 1956 variance is defined by those regulations. Thus,while a use variance is not necessary,an area variance may be required,in addition to the site plan approval to which the O Supreme Court referred,if the proposed expansion of the shopping center exceeds the applicable dimensional constraints(see Matto of Concerned(likens of Westbury v.Board(Appeals of Inc. ViI of Westbury, 173 A.D.2d 615,616,570 N.Y.S.2d 314; WestlawNext ®2011 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 3 Scarsdale Shopping Center Associates,LLC v.Board of...,64 A.D.3d 604(2009) befFIT.$2d 306,1009 N.Y. Bhp Op.68763 Alatter of Angel Plants v. Schoenfeld, 134 A.D.2d at 461,546 N.Y.S.2d 112)."'Mho power to interpret the zoning ordinance is vested in the building inspector and the Zoning Board of Appeals'"(Figgie Intl. r. Town of Huntington, 203 A.D.2d 416, \ ' 417-416.610 N.Y.S.2d 563,quoting Moriarty a Planning Bd o(IYL of SfoarsMog, 119 A.D.2d 188, 197,506 N,Y.S.2d 184). Since the Building Official concluded that a use variance was required,and the Board of Appeals sustained that determination, the Building Official did not reach the issue of whether an area variance may be required.Since the record does not conclusively demonstrate that no such "6118 area variance is required,the matter must be remitted to the Board of Appeals,for remittal,in turn,to the Building Official for consideration of that issue and a determination thereafter. Parallel Citations 64 A.D.3d 604,2009 N.Y.Slip Op.05783 Sad of Document r;)2011 Thomson Neuters.No claim to miginul U.S.Govemmem Works 0 C WestlawNe.t C 2011 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 4