Loading...
2001-11-27 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/27/01) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 27, 2001 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT CRAIG MAC EWAN, CHAIRMAN CATHERINE LA BOMBARD, SECRETARY LARRY RINGER ANTHONY METIVIER ROBERT VOLLARO CHRIS HUNSINGER RICHARD SANFORD, ALTERNATE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR-CRAIG BROWN TOWN COUNSEL-MILLER, MANNIX SCHACHNER & HAFNER-CATHI RADNER STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI NEW BUSINESS: SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 48-2001 TYPE: UNLISTED W & T ENTERPRISES/PHILLIP TUCKER PROPERTY OWNER: CURTIS LUMBER AGENT: PHILLIP TUCKER ZONE: LI-1A LOCATION: HOLDEN AVENUE APPLICANT IS OCCUPYING THE FORMER CURTIS LUMBER SITE FOR STORAGE AND SHOP USE. THE BUSINESSES ARE VOLT LANDSCAPE, ADIRONDACK P & M AND W & T ENTERPRISES. NEW USES IN LI ZONES REQUIRE PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: ENFORCEMENT, & LM LETTER OF 9/14/01 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 11/14/01 TAX MAP NO. 117-9-22, 26 LOT SIZE: 1.82 ACRES SECTION: 179-2 PHILLIP TUCKER, REPRRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 48-2001, W & T Enterprises/Phillip Tucker, Meeting Date: November 27, 2001 “Project Description Applicant is currently occupying the former Curtis Lumber site on the west side of Holden Avenue. Currently, the site is being utilized for shop use and both interior and exterior storage. The applicant proposes a mixture of unattended storage and shop/?manufacturing? type uses in the building. Further, an additional access drive onto Holden Avenue is proposed to be constructed. Project Analysis (Section 179-38) Site Overview Curtis Lumber formerly used the existing building on the site for the unenclosed storage of building materials. There appears to be a sufficient number of parking spaces shown on the plan. Per the Off Street Parking and Loading requirements, this site requires 1 parking space for each 1000 square feet of storage, plus 1 for each company vehicle. ?? 6268 square feet = 6.2 spaces say 6 ?? The number of company vehicles is not indicated on the plan assume 8 ?? Total parking required = 14 The proposed plan depicts 44 parking spaces. The proposed retention basin appears to be adequately sized for this application, however, no rationale or calculations for sizing have been provided. No new landscaping or lighting has been proposed for the site. No signage is shown on the current plan. Accessibility for emergency services appears to be adequate. Areas of Concern or Importance 1 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/27/01) A letter dated November 8, 2001 from David Hatin, Director of Building and Codes, states o that the building is currently being renovated and occupied without a building permit or certificate of occupancy. Additionally, it appears that such construction and occupancy may be subject to a variance from the State of New York, pursuant to the New York State Uniform Building Code. Are measures to keep vehicles out of the retention pond necessary? o Are 44 parking spaces necessary for the proposed uses? How many company vehicles? o Would added landscaping around perimeter of project be beneficial to adjoining residences? o Is any outdoor storage planned, other than vehicles? o Will the upper level of the building be used, now or in the future? o Is the proposed parking layout the most practical? (several spaces directly in front of storage o bays ) Suggestions Staff suggests conditional approval of this project with the following notes/conditions. 1. Written confirmation, from Dave Hatin, of the outcome of the State process with regards to the mixed occupancy and the State code. 2. Additional landscaping along the northerly property line, in the area of Feld Street. (This area is a required buffer area; see definition.) 3. Elimination of unnecessary parking spaces, particularly along adjoining residential uses. 4. Written confirmation from the engineer of record regarding the adequacy of the stormwater control measures. Prior to beginning this project, all plans are to be revised, if necessary, to reflect all such notes/conditions of approval. Such plans shall be submitted to the Planning Department for review and approval.” MR. BROWN-Nothing new, really, from the notes, other than reiteration of the Dave Hatin memo regarding determination from the State regarding mixed use of the building. Staff would recommend that you reserve decision on this until they get an answer from the State regarding the mixed occupancy of the building. MR. MAC EWAN-Can you add some clarification to that, a little bit, just a little bit of background regarding that? MR. BROWN-I’m not that well versed in the State building code. My understanding is when you start mixing storage with shop or manufacturing, those two types of uses just are classified as two different, are required to be placed in different types of buildings, and the building that’s there is only suitable for one, I believe it’s storage and not actual occupancy. So I may be off base, but I know you can’t mix the two without some variance from the State. MR. MAC EWAN-In this case, does the State code supercede the Town code? MR. BROWN-Absolutely. MR. MAC EWAN-Did we run into this kind of a situation with the Cleverdale Post Office? About a year or so ago, kind of the same scenario? MR. BROWN-That’s correct. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Is that it? MR. BROWN-That’s it. MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening. Could you identify yourselves for the record, please? MR. TUCKER-Phil Tucker, Adirondack P & M, W & T Enterprises. ROBERT WING MR. WING-Robert Wing, Volt Landscape and W & T Enterprises. MR. MAC EWAN-Have you gotten any kind of clarification from the State? 2 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/27/01) MR. TUCKER-No, we have not. We haven’t done any applications. We need to talk to Dave, actually. Dave said he would talk to us after this meeting. We were unaware of that until we got a letter this week. MR. MAC EWAN-Who’s responsibility is it to get clarification from the State, Craig? MR. BROWN-The applicant’s. MR. MAC EWAN-The applicant’s. And they’re to provide that to the Town when they get some sort of acknowledgement from the State one way or the other? MR. BROWN-That’s correct. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Have you made any kind of contact with the State or attempted to write them a letter or make phone calls? MR. TUCKER-Not as of yet, no. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. I don’t see us going much farther with this application until we do get some sort of clarification from the State. If you want to tell us a little bit about your project and what your intent is, I don’t want to get too bogged down in review here tonight until we get some of this cleared up from the State’s aspect. MR. TUCKER-Okay. I was under the understanding that, and I guess I misinterpreted what Dave had written to us. I thought that we were going to be able to proceed, pending approval by the State, but he thought that we’d be able to get through the site plan review at this point, and get bogged down in the building permit process. MR. MAC EWAN-It would probably make sense, I mean, not to go ahead and do a review of this application and give consideration to approving it. If we should approve this project and the State comes back and says, no, it’s not an allowed use in there, I mean, we just went through this whole process for naught. MR. TUCKER-Right. Okay. All right. Would Dave be able to direct us as to who to contact with the State? MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, I would think that would be available to you. MR. BROWN-Sure. MR. MAC EWAN-I mean, what kind of uses are you planning on using the site for? MR. TUCKER-Basically what we’ve done is we’ve taken the storage facility and we are putting our businesses in there. I have a sheet metal fabrication shop. I run a plumbing and heating business, and we’re using the facility to fabricate sheet metal and storage. Mr. Wing is doing the same thing with his landscaping business, and the rest of the building is just strictly storage, cold storage. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Anything else you wanted to add? I don’t know, how does the Board feel? Do you want to ask some questions? MR. VOLLARO-I think any questions that we ask now are, as you’ve just said, Mr. Chairman, are probably, depending on what the response from the State is, might just turn out to be useless until we get a position on this from the State. MR. MAC EWAN-Craig, a little direction. Don’t, typically, when you request some sort of clarification from the State, how long does it usually take? I mean, are they pretty responsive? MR. BROWN-I’m not familiar with the State variance process for building code requests, but I would guess maybe six to eight weeks. That’s a guess. MR. TUCKER-I’ve just got one quick question. Before we came into this site plan review, if you knew that we had to go to the State first off, why didn’t we have a little more notification before we had to get things prepared for this? MS. RADNER-It wasn’t a part of this process. It was a determination of Dave Hatin that you couldn’t get a building permit or a Certificate of Occupancy without that. It’s completely separate from this process that’s going on here, but if we go, let this process go forward, we’re putting the cart before the horse and we’re creating an appearance that we’re giving you permission to do something that you might ultimately not be allowed to do, regardless. 3 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/27/01) MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. I think what we’ll do is we’ll table this application, okay, and I’m going to open up the public hearing and I’ll leave it open. So that we don’t have to re-advertise it. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. MAC EWAN-Does someone want to introduce a motion maybe to table this, please. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 48-2001 W & T ENTERPRISES / PHILLIP TUCKER, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Larry Ringer: With the following conditions: 1. That the applicant work to satisfy Mr. Hatin’s memorandum of November 8, 2001 (attached), and 2. That the applicant get with the State and determine what the problem is, or what remedies can be applied to the mixed occupancy that’s imposed by the State Building Code. Duly adopted this 27 day of November, 2001, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Ringer, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Hunsinger, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE MR. MAC EWAN-As soon as you get some sort of response from the State, make sure that you get a hold of either Building and Codes or Craig Brown, and get them a copy of that letter. Okay. MR. TUCKER-All right. Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 50-2001 TYPE II JEAN HOFFMAN PROPERTY OWNER: SAME ZONE: WR-1A LOCATION: 93 CLEVERDALE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES 3-SLIP OPEN SIDED BOATHOUSE (1,170 SQ. FT.) WITH A SUNDECK (800 SQ. FT.) OVER THE MIDDLE SLIP. PURSUANT TO SECTION 179-16 OF THE ZONING CODE PRIVATE BOATHOUSE AND COVERED DOCKS REQUIRE PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. AP A, CEA CROSS REFERENCE: AV 91-2001, BP 2001-664, 2001-601, 2001-602 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 11/14/01 TAX MAP NO. 12-3-27.1 SECTION: 179-16, 179-60 LOT SIZE: 7.27 ACRES JEAN HOFFMAN, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 50-2001, Jean Hoffman, Meeting Date: November 27, 2001 “Project Description Applicant proposes construction of a 3-slip, open sided 1,170 sf boathouse with a 700 sf sundeck above. Project Analysis (Section 179-38) Site Overview The subject property consists of approximately 7 acres with 243 feet of shoreline on Lake George. The proposed location of the boathouse is generally located in the same area as the existing boathouse on the shore. The proposed structure appears to be of a rustic design. Also, the proposed size of the structure would be somewhat larger than those boathouses in the immediate area. Areas of Concern or Importance The Warren County Planning Board recommended approval of the project with the o condition that the land bridge be removed and that the stairs to the sundeck need to originate from the dock. Pursuant to the findings made by the Zoning Board of Appeals, the sundeck shall be reduced to a maximum size of 700 sf and no further construction of docks or boathouses shall be entertained for this portion of shoreline. 4 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/27/01) Will there be any lighting of the structure? o Given the oversized nature of this structure, can it be shortened, in height, at all? o How many boats are to be docked at this boathouse? o Can constructing a boathouse less than forty feet long attain adequate boat storage? o Suggestions Staff suggests conditional approval of the project with the following notes/conditions: 1. No external lighting of the boathouse other than flush, recessed, ceiling lighting. Prior to beginning this project, all plans are to be revised, if necessary, to reflect all such notes/conditions of approval. Such plans shall be submitted to the Planning Department for review and approval” MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening. MRS. HOFFMAN-Good evening. MR. MAC EWAN-Could you identify yourself for the record, please? MRS. HOFFMAN-Sure. I’m Jean Hoffman. MR. MAC EWAN-Could you tell us a little bit about your project? MRS. HOFFMAN-Basically, what we have now is a one slip boathouse on an angle, and we’re planning on taking that down and building a three slip boathouse straight out. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Anything else you wanted to add? MRS. HOFFMAN-The only thing is, in the last meeting, the 800 square feet has to be brought down to 700 square feet. That’s what the Zoning said. MR. RINGER-The ZBA. MR. MAC EWAN-The ZBA meeting? MRS. HOFFMAN-The ZBA. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. BROWN-Did you bring any revised plans to show that to the Board? MRS. HOFFMAN-No. MR. BROWN-Okay. I thought we talked about you were going to have some revised plans for the Board, so they could see the plans that were approved by the Zoning Board. I think these are probably the old plans. MR. MAC EWAN-We can so note it on the plan, can’t we? Okay. Craig, can we move on? MR. BROWN-Absolutely. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Bob, we’ll start with you. Any questions? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I do. I have questions on, I’ve labeled your drawings, one, two, three, four, so that I can make a response. I think what I want to do is talk a little bit to the drawings themselves. Okay. On drawing number two, that’s the side view, second page, which is a little rendition of the dock itself. Now the docks in this area are supposed to be no greater than 40 feet from the mean low water mark, extending out into the lake. Now, if I read your drawing right, I see that the dock touches the ground, with an additional six feet. It looks like, and I’m not talking about that land bridge that’s up there. That’s got to come out, but I’m talking about the dock itself appears to be over 40 feet on this drawing. If you take a look at your drawing and you drop vertical lines down, you’ll see that the 40 feet is from the beginning of the dock over to the last post, approximately. There’s six feet hanging over from that. Do you follow what I’m? Yes. You see where you have your 40 foot on the top? MRS. HOFFMAN-Right. 5 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/27/01) MR. VOLLARO-Okay. If you were to drop two lines vertically down. MRS. HOFFMAN-That’s correct. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. The other line vertically down, there’s six feet hanging over the dock itself, and they’re not supposed to protrude any further out into the water than 40 feet from the mean low water mark, and the mean low water mark on this drawing is not identified. You have the mean high, and you took that from the Lake George method of using today’s water level. I can see that, but I think you’ve got, this picture, anyway, depicts a dock that’s bigger than 40 feet. MRS. HOFFMAN-When we had the first one, though, this is the second set. The first drawings that we had, that we took back, has got the mean water line on it, and that’s where it was. MR. VOLLARO-Well, I’m only looking at what’s in front of me. MRS. HOFFMAN-Right. MR. MAC EWAN-You come up with 42 feet, you said, roughly 42 feet? MR. VOLLARO-Roughly 46. MR. MAC EWAN-Roughly 46. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. This scale is. MR. MAC EWAN-I come up with another six foot from the end of that post. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, right. You’ve got it, six feet into that post, and that’s 40 feet if you drop those perpendiculars down. The perpendiculars come about to the end of the last post closest to the beach. MRS. HOFFMAN-Right, and that’s where the mean water line is. MR. VOLLARO-That’s where the mean low water sits? MRS. HOFFMAN-Yes, sir. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I have no way of knowing that from this drawing, though. MRS. HOFFMAN-You’re correct. You’re correct. See, the first set that we sent in, a long time ago, it was on that, and then we took these back and made a second set, and it should be on there, and it’s not. MR. VOLLARO-It should be noted on there that that’s the mean low water? MRS. HOFFMAN-Absolutely correct. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Even so, if that touches at the mean low water, that’s fine. Then that, let’s assume that the dock sits at exactly the mean low mark now. Let’s make that assumption, okay. The dock is now 46 feet long. It can only be 40. MRS. HOFFMAN-The dock is 40 from the mean water line. MR. VOLLARO-No. It’s 46 from the mean low water mark. If we make the assumption that where the dock is touching the beach is where you have it drawn. MRS. HOFFMAN-Okay, but that’s not where the mean water line is. It’s about four and a half feet out on one side, and probably about five and a half feet out on the other side of the dock. MR. BROWN-Mr. Vollaro, could I ask you a question? Just interrupt for a second. Do you have a drawing that shows the mean low water mark? MRS. HOFFMAN-Yes. MR. BROWN-Would you like to show it to the Board? Maybe that would clarify this. I think, if I heard correctly, it’s her position that it’s not going to be any longer than 40 feet from the mean low water mark. MRS. HOFFMAN-That’s correct. 6 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/27/01) MR. BROWN-And through the building permit process, we’re going to make sure that’s the case, and when we inspect this project when it’s done, we’re going to make sure that that’s the case. If that answers the question, the direction that you’re headed in. MR. VOLLARO-No. I see the drawing itself, at 46 feet. MRS. HOFFMAN-You’re right. This is what we had originally, that we took back, because we were trying to do two docks and then we put them into one to make it easier, but this is your area in here. MR. VOLLARO-See, you’ve got it on this drawing as well, 40 feet to here, and yet the dock stops here. MRS. HOFFMAN-This is where the mean water line is. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. You’re saying that this rests up on the beach and the mean water line cuts through a section of the dock, and therefore from there to there it only extends 40 feet? MRS. HOFFMAN-That’s correct. MR. VOLLARO-See you measured from 317.74 which is the right number. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MRS. HOFFMAN-Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else, Bob? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. Go to the third drawing. I’m just trying to get these drawings clarified in my mind. This third drawing is the top down drawing showing the land closest to the reader and then the dock goes out into the water. MRS. HOFFMAN-That is correct. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. The top of this dock is to be no greater than 700 square feet. Is that correct? MRS. HOFFMAN-That is correct. THERESA HOFFMAN MS. T. HOFFMAN-That’s not correct. MR. VOLLARO-That’s not correct. Okay. Which one of you is right? MRS. HOFFMAN-The top of the deck, the sundeck? MR. VOLLARO-The deck. MRS. HOFFMAN-The sundeck is 700 square feet. MR. VOLLARO-Seven hundred square feet. Yes, I just wanted to make sure. Yes, that’s what I meant. Now if I look at this drawing. First of all, go back to drawing number one and take a look at the side of the dock, there’s six supporting posts. Okay, and if you take a look at the next drawing, there’s six supporting posts on each one of those piers, which would lead me to believe that the entire upper level is going to be supported by those posts. MRS. HOFFMAN-That’s correct. MR. VOLLARO-And that’s a lot, lot greater than 700 square feet. A lot greater. MR. MAC EWAN-No, it’s supporting the roof system, not necessarily the deck. MRS. HOFFMAN-It’s just supporting the roof. MR. BROWN-Look at drawing number one. 7 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/27/01) MR. MAC EWAN-Go back to the very first drawing. You can see it’s supporting two roof structures on either side of the deck. MR. VOLLARO-They’re looking at it, the way they’re looking at this deck, right now, this number one drawing shows four posts and not six. MR. MAC EWAN-But you’re looking at it from the lake side. That’s looking in on it, not from a side view. MR. VOLLARO-That’s looking this way. MR. MAC EWAN-No, it would be looking that way. That there with the four posts would be looking back toward that way. MR. VOLLARO-I’m looking at it from the lake. MR. MAC EWAN-Right there, four posts. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-And those six posts that you’re seeing on the other, from the other side, from either the north or south side, are the posts that are supporting not only the roof structure, but the posts that are supporting the deck structure as well. Okay. MR. VOLLARO-Well, let me look at it a minute. This drawing doesn’t clearly show me where the top deck or the sundeck if it’s called is going to be 700 square feet. I don’t see it even superimposed on this drawing. I have no way of telling from this drawing that that’s what it’s going to be. MR. BROWN-I think if you look at drawing number three, in the center slip where it says two, two by twelve’s, and it gives a dimension of how the beams are to be constructed in there. MR. VOLLARO-That’s 16 on center. MR. BROWN-That center slip, that’s where the sundeck is going to be above that center slip, and the slips on the sides are going to have a sloped roof on either side. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. BROWN-But I would agree that it’s not clearly shown on the plan view. MR. VOLLARO-I have no way of knowing, you know, I look at these drawings and I’m trying to give them every leeway that I can, and I guess you know the land bridge has got to come out there. I guess that’s something that’s, in other words, in drawing number two, that little bridge that goes across the top to the sundeck itself has got to come out. At least that’s according to what Warren County had to say about it. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, but we can override that with a supermajority. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. That’s all I have. MR. MAC EWAN-Larry? MR. RINGER-I have nothing right now. I may have something later. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Tony? MR. METIVIER-I really have nothing. If it’s my understanding, you have two antique boats? MRS. HOFFMAN-Yes. MR. METIVIER-What do you plan on doing with the third bay? MRS. HOFFMAN-Actually, I have four or five of them. MR. METIVIER-I know that, but two that you use, right. I was just wondering, you don’t have any plans on renting out on any of the slips? MRS. HOFFMAN-God no. 8 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/27/01) MR. METIVIER-Okay. That’s fine. I’m all set. MR. MAC EWAN-Rich? MR. SANFORD-Well, I have a conceptual concern, and that is, my understanding was that the total square footage for a boathouse should be in the neighborhood of, what is it, 700 feet in total? For a two slip. Is that what the Code calls for? MR. VOLLARO-It just says 700 square feet. It doesn’t. MR. SANFORD-I’m not talking the sundeck or anything. I’m talking about if this was typical boathouse construction on the lake, and they wanted to put something up according to specifications, it would be 700 square feet? MR. VOLLARO-That’s my understanding. MR. BROWN-That’s correct. MR. SANFORD-Well, I guess what I’m concerned with, I can clearly understand why you want to have a bigger boathouse, but, so might everyone on the lake, and so my concern is that if we move forward with approving this, are we basically setting ourselves open to approve every application that comes in for a larger boathouse? MS. RADNER-It already got a variance from the Zoning Board which has to determine those issues, whether or not a variance should be granted under the particular circumstances of each application. MR. SANFORD-I understand that. MRS. HOFFMAN-The reason being is we have enough frontage to put up two 700 square foot boathouses with two sundecks. I didn’t want two, one here and one here, or one here and one here. Craig and I worked a lot of hours on this, and we combined the two together to make one. So instead of having 1400 square feet of boathouse, now we only have basically 12. MR. SANFORD-No, no, I understand that as well. MRS. HOFFMAN-Okay. MR. SANFORD-But people are here only for a temporary period of time on earth, and that property could be potentially subdivided. A new owner could come in, put up a 700 foot boathouse, and your newly approved boathouse would be there, and then we would have two boathouses on that current plot of land, totally greater than. MRS. HOFFMAN-It’s also stipulated someplace in here that there’s no other boathouse going to be on it. MR. RINGER-The ZBA said there’d be no further docks on the property. So that couldn’t happen. MR. SANFORD-So that’s sort of going to be like a deed restriction or something? Is that what we’re talking about? MR. BROWN-That’s typically something to be tracked through the Town. If a building permit came in for that property, we’d review the old files and find this variance that had been issued to the property and let them know that, you know, the dock that’s there is the one that’s for the property, and if you want anymore you’d have to go back to the Zoning Board for a variance. It would be tracked administratively in the Town. MS. RADNER-You should make that a condition of your approval, though, if that’s a consideration here. If you make it a condition of this approval, then it’s enforceable by the Town. MR. RINGER-Well, with the ZBA, isn’t that enforceable by the Town, too? MR. BROWN-Yes. MR. RINGER-It would just be duplication, then, wouldn’t it, Cathi, if the ZBA has already? MS. RADNER-Well, I’m just reading over what the ZBA did to make sure that they’ve made it a clear condition of the granting of the approval. 9 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/27/01) MR. BROWN-I don’t know if it would be a duplication. They’re two separate applications. So you could certainly separate them out. MR. RINGER-Yes, we could put it in, but it would be somewhat of a duplication. MR. BROWN-Somewhat, but it’s. MS. RADNER-You’re right, too. They’ve got it clearly in the zoning. MR. RINGER-Yes, they’ve got it in the ZBA. MR. SANFORD-Well, again, I don’t know what the rest of the members feel, and again, my only feeling is I just don’t want to, by relaxing, I guess, the specifications, find ourselves in a situation where we’re compelled to be approving everybody who wants a three slip boathouse because, I mean, the lake is basically being converted from summer homes to permanent homes. MR. MAC EWAN-I’ll chime in here. I don’t think that’s the case, Rich. I think we take every application on its own individual merits, and what we may or may not have approved in the past or in the future is not in consideration what we do with that given an application at the time we’re reviewing it. MR. SANFORD-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-We have been, in the past, we have approved some pretty significant combination decks and boathouses up at the lake, and by the same token, we’ve turned thumbs down on some, too, or had them scaled back in size. So I think it’s fair to say that we take every application on its individual merits. MR. SANFORD-Okay. Now, are we interested, or is it necessary for us to put some kind of a provision in the approval, should it be approved, on this, or did you decide with your conversation that the Zoning Board adequately had addressed it? MS. RADNER-I would recommend that you continue it as a condition of this approval. MR. SANFORD-Okay. Well, I’m comfortable with that, and that’s all I have. MR. MAC EWAN-Chris? MR. HUNSINGER-In the Staff notes they asked about external lighting, and you didn’t address that at all this evening. MRS. HOFFMAN-That was the first I had seen it when it came in here. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. So there’s no plans to bring wiring down to the boathouse or to add exterior lighting? MRS. HOFFMAN-I guess not, now. MR. METIVIER-You have to have lighting. MRS. HOFFMAN-You have to have some sort of lighting. MRS. LA BOMBARD-It says here they can have flush, recessed ceiling lighting. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. I’m sorry. No exterior lighting other than flush, recessed ceiling lighting. MRS. HOFFMAN-Right. MR. HUNSINGER-Is what the Staff recommendation is. I just wanted to make sure you were okay with that. MRS. HOFFMAN-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, they’re trying to keep away from flood lights, that sort of thing. MR. HUNSINGER-Right, exactly. MRS. LA BOMBARD-I mean, you couldn’t put little lanterns on the posts, on the top of the deck? They won’t let you do that? 10 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/27/01) MR. BROWN-They can do whatever you guys tell them that they can do, basically. If you want to limit the lighting on the dock, you can certainly do that. If you want to keep it in the ceiling, if you want to have flood lights on all the corners, spotlights, strobe lights. MRS. HOFFMAN-No strobe lights, no floodlights. I would like a couple of little lanterns, especially on the front when you’re coming in. MR. MAC EWAN-You’d have to go to Lowe’s for that, probably. We don’t supply lanterns here. Anything else, Chris? MR. HUNSINGER-I guess I just raised the question. I don’t know what the consensus of the Board is. MR. MAC EWAN-I’ve always been of the persuasion that as few lights as possible to get away with. MR. HUNSINGER-Absolutely, yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Cathy? MRS. LA BOMBARD-I just have one question. I might have missed it early on, but where did you make it smaller? Where did you truncate it to get rid of that 100 square feet? MR. MAC EWAN-It’s not indicated. MRS. LA BOMBARD-I know it’s not on the plans, but did you say, I mean, that’s only 10 by 10, or 20 by 5. So, are you going to just take the sides and just make that a little bit, bring that in a little bit., just shorten the width? MRS. HOFFMAN-On Page One, when you’re looking at this, if you take this post and move it in about a foot, and you take this post and move it in about a foot, that’s it. MRS. LA BOMBARD-That’s what I thought. That’s what you would do. Yes. Right. I think it’s very nice. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Larry, did you have any questions? MR. RINGER-Yes. Staff has some other comments, too. The land bridge, are you planning on taking that out and putting stairs in, or are you going to leave the land bridge there? MRS. HOFFMAN-I would love a land bridge, but that’s, I guess, up to you guys. MR. VOLLARO-Well, Craig said we could override that. MR. RINGER-We can override it. I’m just asking you. MRS. HOFFMAN-Well, it’s just the dock is so far down, and two neighbors on one side and three neighbors on the other side all have land bridges, but that’s up to you guys. I would love to have it, but if I can’t, I can’t. MR. RINGER-Okay. Staff also made a comment, given the oversized nature of this structure, can it be shortened in height at all. Have you given, apparently you just got these notes tonight, so you haven’t had a chance to review them. MRS. HOFFMAN-If it can be, again, I have all wood boats, all antique boats. This 14 foot height, I mean, we put that on there, strictly because that’s what we were kind of told to do, but if I can bring it down, yes, I will, because I don’t want it up there. I want it down. I don’t store boats underneath. I take them out and put them in storage, and they’re all wood. I have no reason to have this thing up in the air. MR. RINGER-When Staff made that comment, Craig, did they have any idea as to how short they would like it or just a general comment they made? MR. BROWN-I think the plans were probably shown at the maximum, 14 feet, to show, let’s call it worst case scenario, or biggest case scenario. Whatever’s practical. I don’t think, you know, whatever’s going to work for the applicant. 11 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/27/01) MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. I don’t think that maybe we should consider limiting the height on them. She’s pretty clear that she doesn’t want to have it 14 feet, as long as I think what we’re trying to achieve here is that’s not to be any higher than 14 feet. MR. RINGER-I’m just trying to get clarification on Staff’s notes, and the other comment was, how many boats are to be docked there, and you already said three, I guess, and then their last comment was can constructing a boathouse less than 40 feet long attain the same thing that you’re looking for. MRS. HOFFMAN-Not really. Hooter Two is 33 feet long. MR. VOLLARO-As long as she stays within the building envelope, I’m happy with that. MR. RINGER-I just wanted Staff’s comments to be answered. That was it. That’s all I have on that, Craig. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Tony? No? Any other questions from Board members? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I have a question. When I sit here and I’m asked to review a set of plans, as a member of this Board, I like to se, in front of me, a clear depiction of what the project’s going to look like. For example, right now, when I’m approving, if I approve this, I’m approving an 800 square foot deck, 20 by 40. That’s what I just measured. I would like to make sure that when drawings come before us they show what’s going to be built. We’ve talked about a lot of things, that it’s going to be lower, okay, it’s within the envelope, and I’ll buy that, and 40 foot off the beach, off the mean low water is fine. The drawings, I want to make sure when I look at a set of drawings, that they reflect what’s actually going to be built. This drawing does not reflect. It doesn’t reflect a complete picture. It gives, unless, Craig, you’re expecting a set of building drawings to come in with this, that actually shows the Staff what is going to be built on that lake front. MR. BROWN-Are you done? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MR. BROWN-Okay. Yes, I am expecting that. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. BROWN-The condition that it go from 800 to 700 was imposed on the applicant by the Zoning Board a week and a half ago, two weeks ago. MR. VOLLARO-I saw that. Okay. MR. BROWN-I suggested to the applicant that they bring in revised drawings to give the Board a clear picture, drafting, whatever, didn’t happen. If you want to make it a condition of your approval, and I suggest that you do, prepare revised drawings to show a number of conditions that you’ve talked about tonight, and one of them being the reduced deck size. I think that’s a great idea. MR. VOLLARO-And those drawings come to you eventually, and that’s how you go out and take a look at the boathouse? MR. BROWN-Those drawings come to us before the building permit is issued. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I understand. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Anything else? MR. VOLLARO-No, that’s it. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else you wanted to add? We have a public hearing scheduled tonight. Does anyone want to comment on this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MAC EWAN-Would someone like to introduce a motion, please? 12 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/27/01) MS. RADNER-Before you do that, your proposed resolution anticipates a negative declaration, and this is a Type II SEQRA. So you want to chop that paragraph out. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Right. MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you for pointing that out. MR. BROWN-Mr. Chairman, I find a public comment in the file. MR. MAC EWAN-I’ll re-open the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING RE-OPENED MR. BROWN-It’s a November 14 letter from Leigh Beeman. It’s actually a letter that was directed th to the Zoning Board, but it’s applicable to this project, “Dear Mr. McNulty: I’m writing in regard to Jean Hoffman’s request to build an 800 square foot boathouse/sundeck above an oversized 1100 square foot dock. My property adjoins hers on the north side, and I have no objections to the building of such a structure. Leigh Beeman” MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. Any other hidden letters? MR. BROWN-No other hidden letters. MR. MAC EWAN-I’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MAC EWAN-Does someone want to introduce a motion, please. MR. HUNSINGER-Do you want to talk about conditions first? MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, let’s do that first. MR. HUNSINGER-I only had two, that no additional docks shall be constructed on the property, and, second, that revised drawings be submitted depicting reduced size of the sundeck. MR. MAC EWAN-What about the lighting aspect? MRS. LA BOMBARD-I’ve got that. MR. HUNSINGER-Go ahead, Cathy. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. I have, I mentioned, again, that the sundeck would be 700 square feet or less, that lighting would be limited to flush recessed ceiling or lanterns, in other words, no floods or spots. If possible, shorten the height of the structure to under 14 feet, and docking will be limited to three boats, and it would be according to Staff’s preparation of the resolution, omitting the negative dec for the SEQRA. MR. MAC EWAN-You got every one except the height. MR. BROWN-Yes, I’m not sure the height is going to be an enforceable issue. MR. MAC EWAN-Right. Everything else is great. MR. BROWN-Two questions. Did you want o show the lighting on the revised plan, or do you just want to limit it to flushed and lanterns, or do you want to see where they’re going to be? MR. MAC EWAN-I don’t think it’s necessary that we need to see where they are, as long as our conditions of approval is clear as to what we’re allowing. I think she’s pretty well got it nailed. MR. BROWN-That’s fine. The other one I had is, mean low water mark. Do you want the mean low water mark shown on the revised plans? MR. VOLLARO-It should be if the 40 foot is off the mean low water, sure. MR. BROWN-That’s fine. I think that’s easy enough to (lost words). 13 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/27/01) MR. HUNSINGER-Do we need to address the land bridge issue? MRS. LA BOMBARD-I have no problem with that. MR. HUNSINGER-I don’t, either. MRS. LA BOMBARD-I think it really, for safety’s sake, I think. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, my question is, if we approve the resolution. MR. MAC EWAN-It takes a supermajority. MR. HUNSINGER-It’s implicit that the land bridge is in the drawing. Okay. MR. VOLLARO-So long as we all agree. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. MAC EWAN-Or have five. MR. BROWN-Well, actually the County approved it with the condition. So I don’t think you need a supermajority. MRS. LA BOMBARD-We don’t even have to mention the land bridge. . MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, that’s true. I see you both thinking over there. MR. BROWN-Debating whether you need the supermajority to override an approval condition? MR. MAC EWAN-I would think we would if their approval condition is limiting the land bridge. Okay. We don’t have to mention it. So, go ahead and introduce it, Cathy. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 50-2001 JEAN HOFFMAN, Introduced by Catherine LaBombard who moved for its adoption, seconded by Chris Hunsinger: WHEREAS, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of Site Plan No.50-2001 Jean Hoffman for construction of 3-slip open sided boathouse (1,170 sq. ft.) with a sundeck (800 sq. ft.) over the middle slip. Pursuant to Section 179-16 of the Zoning Code Private Boathouse and Covered Docks require Planning Board review and approval, and; WHEREAS, the application was received 10/31; and WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation and inclusive of all newly received information, not included in this listing as of 11/23/01; and 11/27 Staff Notes 11/20 Notice of Public Hearing 11/15 ZBA resolution – approved w/conditions 11/14 Warren Co. Planning Board – approved w/condition 11/7 Meeting Notice WHEREAS, public hearing was held on 11/27/01 concerning the above project; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the Site Plan requirements of the Code of the Town Queensbury (Zoning); and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and WHEREAS, approval of the application means that the applicant can now apply for a Building Permit unless the lands are Adirondack Park Jurisdictional or other approvals are necessary. 14 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/27/01) NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that The application is conditionally approved as per the resolution prepared by Staff and is subject to the following: 1. With one omission that, in the resolution, it refers to a negative declaration for the SEQRA and you can take that out because this was Type II, and 2. The sundeck will be 700 square feet or less, and 3. The lighting will be limited to flush, recessed ceiling or lanterns, that is no floods or spots, and 4. The docking will be limited to three (3) boats, and 5. The mean low water mark would be shown on the revised plan, and 6. A complete set of new manufactured drawings are to be submitted, and 7. There will be no more docks built on that property, and 8. All conditions are to be noted on the final approved plans submitted for the Zoning Administrator’s signature in a form to read as follows: Plans have been approved under authority of a resolution adopted 11/27/01 by the Planning Board of the Town of Queensbury, New York with the following conditions: 1. Duly adopted this 27th day of November, 2001, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Hunsinger, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Sanford, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all done. Good luck. MRS. HOFFMAN-Thank you. MS. T. HOFFMAN-Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-You’re welcome. SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 51-2001 J & D MARINA, LLC PROPERTY OWNER: SAME ZONE: HC-1A LOCATION: 1212 BAY ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO UTILIZE THE FORMER WILLIAMS HARDWARE STORE SITE AS MARINE SALES AND STORAGE. COMMERCIAL BOAT STORAGE, REPAIR AND SALES IN HC ZONES ARE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: VAR. 1063, USE VAR. 12-90, SP 73-90 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 11/14/01 TAX MAP NO. 51-1-40 (279.00-1-63) LOT SIZE: 6.85 ACRES SECTION 179-23 JOHN MATTHEWS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 51-2001, J & D Marina, LLC, Meeting Date: November 27, 2001 “Project Description Applicant proposes to utilize the former Williams’ hardware store site for marine sales and storage. No new facilities are proposed at this time. Future plans are depicted on the current site plan; however, no approvals for such plans are sought at this time. Project Analysis (Section 179-38) 15 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/27/01) Site Overview This project proposes to occupy an existing building and operate a marine sales facility with a limited amount of outdoor display. No significant changes to the site are proposed. No new buildings are proposed at this time. The parking on the site, as depicted, appears to be sufficient for this use. No construction is proposed at this time; therefore, there are no changes in the stormwater conditions on the site and no formal stormwater plan is necessary. A display area is proposed along Bay Road. No landscaping is proposed, other that a planter for the sign base. Access to the site appears to be sufficient for emergency vehicles. Areas of Concern or Importance With the addition of a display area along Bay Road, consideration may be given to defining such a location or establishing a number of display items to be allowed. Additionally, consideration may be given to limiting the used boat storage, proposed behind the building, in favor of the necessary vehicular parking spaces, of which 19 are required. Suggestions Staff suggests conditional approval of the project with the following notes/conditions: 1. Revision of the plan to depict landscaping, boat display areas and numbers of boats. Prior to beginning this project, all plans are to be revised, if necessary, to reflect all such notes/conditions of approval. Such plans shall be submitted to the Planning Department for review and approval.” MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening. MR. MATTHEWS-Hi. MR. MAC EWAN-Could you identify yourself for the record, please? MR. MATTHEWS-John Matthews, owner. MR. MAC EWAN-Could you tell us a little bit about your project, please? MR. MATTHEWS-I own and operate Castaway Marina in Lake George, and we recently purchased this property to use as a sales facility. We would have probably one or two staff on site pretty much during working hours. The interior of the building would hold probably six or seven new boats, and exterior we’ll probably display some new boats and used boats. At this point in time, I have no plans for any service at all at this location. MR. MAC EWAN-Is that something you might consider down the road? MR. MATTHEWS-I doubt it. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Anything else you wanted to add? MR. MATTHEWS-Not at this time. MR. MAC EWAN-Larry, I’ll start with you. MR. RINGER-Displaying the boats on Bay Road. It doesn’t show on your site plan where that would be. MR. MATTHEWS-Well, I probably would display them in the area, the grassy area behind the sign, between the parking and the north boundary line. MR. RINGER-Where your sign planter is? MR. MATTHEWS-Your sign planter is 30 some feet back from the road. So we wouldn’t have anything in front of that. MR. RINGER-Okay. So it would be behind that, to the north going. 16 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/27/01) MR. MATTHEWS-In that wooded grass area to the north side of our parking facility. When I submitted the plans, and the application, there was no, nothing stipulated or no questions asked for me to put on the plan as to where I was going to display boats. I planned to utilize the front of the building or the area that is most visible from the road to display boats in a neat and orderly fashion. MR. RINGER-One of our concerns, particularly along that corridor of the Town, is where you would display those boats and how it would look. So I think we, as a Board, probably would want to know exactly where they’re going to be and perhaps limit the number. MR. MATTHEWS-Well, it’s going to be on the north side, and maybe a couple on the south side. I’m not exactly sure. I haven’t put any boats down there. So I don’t know what it’s going to look like. It is a valuable piece of property. I purchased it for the use of, to use it commercially. It’s zoned Highway Commercial, and my frontage is very important. I expect to be able to have people come down the road and be able to see what we have on display, but not block the view of anybody. I plan to keep things well behind the 30 foot or 30 plus foot mark, so that it’s not obstructing any turning or signage or whatnot. MR. MAC EWAN-Can I chime in here for a second? I’m reading the Ordinance, and it tells me it’s a Travel Corridor Overlay Zone, 75 foot setback? MR. BROWN-Right. MR. MAC EWAN-So anything 75 feet from the edge of the road in you can’t display in. Am I reading that right? MR. BROWN-That’s buildings. That’s a building setback. MR. MATTHEWS-I don’t believe so. MR. MAC EWAN-You can display within the 75 foot? MR. BROWN-Sure. MR. MAC EWAN-You can? MR. BROWN-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Are you sure about that? MR. BROWN-It doesn’t apply to signs. It doesn’t apply to parking lots. It’s a building line setback. MR. MAC EWAN-The reason why I asked that is I remember a couple of applications on Quaker Road where it became an issue. That was in the Travel Corridor zone. MR. BROWN-I don’t know. The reason for the Travel Corridor Overlay Zone is to limit any permanent structures in the area that may be, in the future, taken for a widening of the road. A display area with a boat on a trailer I don’t think is, or anything on display, is really going to cause any problems with that Travel Corridor zone. It’s for buildings. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Thanks for the clarification. MR. BROWN-Sure. MR. MAC EWAN-Sorry. Anything else, Larry? MR. RINGER-I don’t have anything right now. However, the Comprehensive Use Plan says for that corridor we want it to be, you know, really cleaned up, and I don’t know if boat display is really what they’re looking for. I just have a question in my own mind, and that’s why I was asking Mr. Matthews where he was going to store the boats and how many boats. Other than that, I didn’t have anything right now. MR. MAC EWAN-Tony? MR. METIVIER-I really have nothing much. I would like to see the property cleaned up a little bit, but I honestly feel as though, from what I’ve seen, of you in the past, that it’s not going to be an issue. Besides that, I’m glad to see it’s being turned over so quickly. 17 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/27/01) MR. MATTHEWS-Now, when you say the property cleaned up a little bit, what do you mean? I mean, have you been there today? I mean, all the junk is removed that Mr. Williams left, the tractor trailers and the pallets and the drums of oil. MR. METIVIER-No. I just mean the appearance of the building. MR. MATTHEWS-I will guarantee you that it will look nice. MR. METIVIER-And I’m sure you will. I don’t doubt that. MR. MATTHEWS-I’m looking forward to having a very professional and unique looking outlet along there, because I think that the area affords that type of display. We do have several other boat dealers in the area. Just like Quaker Road, you’ve got car dealers up and down the road. I don’t, however, plan on piling my boats one on top of the other like neighborhood boat dealers do. The boats are right on the road, on several instances along there, as far as display is concerned. I like to keep them back so that they can see the boats and it doesn’t look like a boat yard, like Harris Bay would, with everything packed one on top of the other. No, I’m planning on doing a nice job there. MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it? Rich? MR. SANFORD-Yes. I mean, that corner is becoming increasingly used for a lot of boats. I believe there was, across the street there’s going to be some boat storage as well, right? Right on Bay, but good luck. I have no questions. MR. MATTHEWS-Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Chris? MR. HUNSINGER-We did go on a site visit, a week ago, week and a half ago, and did tour the site, and you’re right, it has been cleaned up tremendously over what it looked like before. I guess I’m a little concerned that the plans don’t show where the boat display area would be. MR. MATTHEWS-Had I been asked to do that, I would have put it on there, but I had no idea that that’s what they were going to ask me until after I had submitted everything. MR. HUNSINGER-I understand. Well, I mean, I think you gave us a good idea of what you plan to do. The only other question I really had, and again it’s in Staff notes, is any additional landscaping that you might be planning for this site. MR. MATTHEWS-Probably, yes. I mean, the place is landscaped. The bushes need to be trimmed around the building. There’s a planter all around the front of the building which has some spreading Yews and what not in it. We’d probably put some more trees and shrubs in there to make it look a little nicer. The bushes around the sign need to be trimmed. That whole grassy area has some large trees which, there’s some low hanging branches which we’ll clean off and what not. I’m open for suggestions as far as landscaping and what not is concerned. I’d kind of like, didn’t indicate doing anything because I wanted to see what it would look like and how I could arrange my displays and what not, and utilize that front as best as possible before I figured a lot of shrubs. I know I have to do some stuff around the back. I plan on grading the banks and what not and re-shrubbing them so that they’ll make buffers and grow up and look nice. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I saw that in your letter. MR. MATTHEWS-But that all comes in time. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I didn’t have anything else. MR. MAC EWAN-Cathy? MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, it’s certainly a conforming use to the property. It’s the main gateway up the road to Dunham’s Bay and the lake, and I just love it when a vacant piece of property in Queensbury is purchased and something constructive is done to it. So I’m fine with this. MR. MAC EWAN-Robert? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I think the application fits correctly with that intersection, since it does, as the applicant pointed out, there are boat businesses on 149. What do you intend to do with the residence that’s on the property? You mentioned something about the manager might live there. 18 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/27/01) MR. MATTHEWS-Well, that’s a possibility. I would like that to happen. Right now the previous owners are renting it from me until they find a house, and in the mean time, I probably will rent for income. It will stay a residence until I see fit to tear it down or something. MR. VOLLARO-So it will be occupied? MR. MATTHEWS-Yes. That’s too nice a place to let sit idle. MR. VOLLARO-Sure. Now the drawing depicts that you get your water in the main building that you’ll be using from that residence. MR. MATTHEWS-That’s correct. MR. VOLLARO-And that residence gets its water from a well. MR. MATTHEWS-That’s correct. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Looking on the drawing, the well to the reputed septic system is less than 100 feet. I don’t know, if you take a look at where the well is, Craig, up to that reputed sign, reputed meaning I’m not sure where it really is, but that’s where we think it is? MR. BROWN-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-That measures 95 feet from the center of that well to the corner. MR. MAC EWAN-Forty inches equals a foot, Craig. MR. BROWN-Is that what it is? MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. MR. BROWN-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-I get about 95 feet from the center of the well to the corner of that reputed septic system. I’m just trying to make sure that, because all of the water on this property is going to be derived from the well, that the well and the septic meets the 100 foot separation or better. MR. BROWN-Yes. I’m not sure it’s an issue with this application, that there’s no changes proposed in any new building or floor area, and the Code doesn’t require, like in the Waterfront zone, any time you add floor space you investigate the septic system. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MR. BROWN-That’s not necessary in this. Would it be a good idea to make sure that meets the 100 feet? Yes. This is an existing. MR. VOLLARO-I’m just doing this for the applicant’s benefit. MR. BROWN-No, sure. MR. VOLLARO-As opposed to mine, that just make sure that, because all the water that you’re going to consume on this facility, you want to make sure that that well is situated at least 100 feet from that septic system. Because the septic system doesn’t even tell me where the tank is. This looks more like maybe where the field is. I’m not sure. There’s a block in here that says reputed septic system. It goes along with this residence. So there’d have to be a D box. There’d have to be a, probably a septic tank and a field, and that’s too small a space there to put all of that in. So I think, for your benefit, because you’re going to be consuming water on that property, you should really look at that. MR. MATTHEWS-I’m sure if there’s a problem we will, but I know that the water was tested and there wasn’t any problem. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. In order to get the mortgage you had to have the water tested? MR. MATTHEWS-Sure, and the people have been living there and they haven’t had any problem. MR. VOLLARO-Well, that’s just a comment. MR. MATTHEWS-I’m assuming that some day we’ll have Town water. 19 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/27/01) MR. VOLLARO-I’ll be planted long before that. I don’t have any further questions. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Anything else you wanted to add? MR. MATTHEWS-No, I don’t think so. MR. MAC EWAN-Any other questions from Board members? MR. RINGER-When we had, last year Barber came with his boat on 149, we had quite a few restrictions on where he could display and stuff on that. I wanted to be consistent. MR. MAC EWAN-I think we did with that application because it was such an undefined use over there. It was pretty much like a vacant lot. There was no. MR. RINGER-As I recall we wouldn’t allow him to display out front. MRS. LA BOMBARD-It was when he came for the rear parking area. We didn’t even discuss the front. MR. RINGER-We specifically said he couldn’t display out front. Well, I take that back. We gave restrictions as to what he could display in the front. MR. MAC EWAN-Wasn’t that earlier this year? MR. RINGER-I don’t know how big it was, but we’ve got to be consistent. I think we can’t tell one person they can’t display out front, and let another display out front. MR. MAC EWAN-You’re talking about the old Weller site. MR. RINGER-The one on 149. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes, but are you talking about his original site, the log house, or Wellers? MR. RINGER-The one on 149 and, was it Bay or Ridge, whatever. MR. BROWN-Bay. It’s the Barber site. Originally a condition of that approval was no display be in front of the building, be in line with the building. They came back for a modification to basically display along the edge of the parking area or driveway that kind of curved from the building out towards 149, and that was what the modification was for, to allow that additional display, or allow that display to be closer to 149 than what was originally done. MR. METIVIER-We also put a limit on the number of boats. MR. RINGER-Yes. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, wasn’t that for the back, when he cut? MR. VOLLARO-No, that was for the front. MR. BROWN-When they came back to add storage in the back, and add graveled area in the back, that was the modification to the site plan, right. They did both. They did the back and the display in the front. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, we said something like 60, I think. MR. RINGER-That was in the back, though, Cathy, and not in the front. MRS. LA BOMBARD-He only has the canoes in the front because there’s not much room in the front. MR. RINGER-No, that’s when we put these restrictions in, and there were other restrictions about there couldn’t be repair stuff or rental stuff in the front. I forget exactly how it was, but I know we had a lengthy discuss, and we had some restrictions, and I only want to be sure that we’re going to be consistent and fair with every applicant that comes before us. MRS. LA BOMBARD-I remember, Larry, about the front, because there’s no much frontage there, and he didn’t care about putting anything in the front because there wouldn’t be any place to park. He just has the rack of canoes, and then as you’re looking at the building, he has a lot over on the 20 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/27/01) side, like Craig just said, but I don’t think that the front was an issue with him because there wasn’t any room with that site plan. MR. BROWN-Right. I don’t know if this will answer the question that I think that you’re trying to ask here. There’s some notes on this drawing that I think she talked to Mr. Matthews. It says three to four boats behind the sign in that grass area, and I’m assuming they’re going to be, they’re not repair boats, boats awaiting repair, because there’s no service on the site. They’re probably going to be new boats for sale, and then in the parking in the back where it says leachfield, those spaces that wrap around that, it says used boats. So probably the used boats would be in the back of the building, and I think that’s what we heard him offer tonight that there’s going to be a few boats behind the sign in the grass area. MR. RINGER-Well, I heard him say he was going to put display boats behind the sign to the north, and also maybe some to the south, but I never got a number. MR. MATTHEWS-There’s a lot of room. Each site is different. I mean, you can’t compare our site with Nick Barber’s site on 149. Because 149 is a wider road. His frontage in front of his building is closer to his building. So he really doesn’t have the space to utilize. My building sets 120 feet back from my property line. So I’ve got, even though, and I’ve got almost 400 feet of frontage. So it would be crazy for me to buy a piece of property and think that I wasn’t going to put boats on my frontage that can be seen. MR. RINGER-But it wouldn’t be right for us as a Board to just say, you know, put the boats out there. I think we’ve got to come up with some kind of a number or something to show, I think you’re doing a great job with that building. I think putting something there is a great idea. I just want to make sure that we’re consistent and fair with everyone that comes before us, and I wouldn’t want to see, I don’t know what a number would be, but I wouldn’t want to see just a ton of boats out there. MR. MATTHEWS-Well, a ton of boats wouldn’t fit. First of all, that area is full of trees. So, in order to get a half a dozen boats in there is going to be a trick to maneuver them in around the trees and still have space for people to walk around them. I mean, you want people to be able to see them. I’m not going to pile one right on top of the other. I mean, I’d like to position them in a fashion so that they can be viewed nicely, so that people have an opportunity, as they’re driving by, to see them without running off the road. I don’t plan on stacking them one on top of the other. I mean, you go down the corner of 149, and the boats are piled one on top of the other, right on the road, and I know that’s not what you want. MR. RINGER-And I’m just looking for a way to make sure we don’t get it, and I’m not saying you would, but we get the opportunity to put those limitations in now. Where if we don’t do anything, then there’s no limitations or no restrictions. So I’m just going over it in my own mind, and I may be sitting by myself here. MR. HUNSINGER-No. I’m following you, Larry, because one of the comments that was made earlier was that there would be no boats displayed in front of the sign. So one of my thoughts would be to say in the resolution that no boats would be displayed within 30 feet of the Bay Road right of way. I’m sure that’s something that you could live with. MR. MATTHEWS-I mean, I would want at least that much space for people pulling in and out of the driveway and making turns and I want them to be able to see my sign. MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, that doesn’t go as far as what you’re suggesting, but it is a beginning. MR. RINGER-That sounds great, Chris, but I’d like to see maybe a limit of the number of boats, too. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. RINGER-But I don’t know what a fair limit would be. MR. MATTHEWS-Well, it’s going to vary. I mean, I could only put maybe two or three 25 or 30 footers in there, but I could put ten 18 footers scattered around. MR. MAC EWAN-I don’t know, in this particular case, that I would agree with you on a number in that area. I mean, he’s restricted in that area, if we were to entertain a resolution that had a condition on it, which Chris is coming up with, plus the fact that there’s already trees, mature trees on that site, which further limits how many boats he could put in there, and I think that, you know, he kind of hit on something, that we have to take every, as I said earlier with the previous application, we have to 21 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/27/01) take each application on its own merits, you know, and what might be good for one side of the road may not apply to the other side of the road. MR. RINGER-I agree. I just wish I had that in front of me so that I could remember exactly what we told them, because I remember it was a heated discussion that night. MR. MATTHEWS-Can I ask you one question? MR. RINGER-Certainly. MR. MATTHEWS-Are there stipulations as to how many cars Nemer can put in front of their place? MR. RINGER-No. There is not, no. You’re in a corridor, though, that the Town is trying to make attractive. MR. MATTHEWS-I’m trying to make it attractive, and I would like to see that be very nice, and I think it can be. MR. RINGER-And I’m sure you are. I’m not questioning what your plans are. I just want to have, to protect the Town, that we aren’t going to have, I don’t know what a number would be, but I like Chris’ suggestion, the 30 feet back or 40 feet back from the road, certainly. I don’t know what a number would be. MR. MATTHEWS-And I don’t plan on displaying any junk. It’s all going to be. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else to add? Anything else you wanted to add, Mr. Matthews? MR. MATTHEWS-No, thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-I’ll open up the public hearing. Does anyone want to comment on this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MAC EWAN-Would someone like to introduce a resolution? No, we need to do a SEQRA. I’m sorry. Short Form. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Short. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 51-2001, Introduced by Catherine LaBombard who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: J & D MARINA, LLC, and WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. No Federal agency appears to be involved. 2. The following agencies are involved: NONE 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury. 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant. 22 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/27/01) 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law. Duly adopted this 27 day of November, 2001, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Hunsinger, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE MR. MAC EWAN-Does someone want to introduce a resolution, please. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 51-2001 J & D MARINA, LLC, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Anthony Metivier: WHEREAS, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of Site Plan No. 51-2001, J & D Marina to utilize the former Williams Hardware store site as Marine Sales and storage. Commercial boat storage, repair and sales in HC zones are subject to Planning Board review and approval, and; WHEREAS, the application was received 10/31/01; and WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation and inclusive of all newly received information, not included in this listing as of 11/23/01; 11/27 Staff Notes 11/20 Notice of Public Hearing 11/14 Warren Co. Planning Board - approved 11/7 Meeting Notice WHEREAS, public hearing was held on 11/27/01 concerning the above project; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the Site Plan requirements of the Code of the Town Queensbury (Zoning); and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and WHEREAS, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; and/or if application is a modification, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered; and the proposed modification(s) do not result in any new or significantly different environmental impacts, and, therefore, no further SEQRA review is necessary; and WHEREAS, approval of the application means that the applicant can now apply for a Building Permit unless the lands are Adirondack Park Jurisdictional or other approvals are necessary. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that The application is approved in accordance with the resolution as it’s prepared by Staff and is subject to the following conditions: 1. The boats displayed along Bay Road be no closer than 30 feet from the property line. 2. Any new / additional use is subject to Planning Board review and approval. 3. All conditions are to be noted on the final approved plans submitted for the Zoning Administrator’s signature in a form to read as follows: 23 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/27/01) Plans have been approved under authority of a resolution adopted 11/27/01 by the Planning Board of the Town of Queensbury, New York with the following conditions: 1. Duly adopted this 27th day of November, 2001, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Metivier, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Hunsinger, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set on that one. MR. MATTHEWS-Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Don’t go away. SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 52-2001 TYPE II JOHN MATTHEWS PROPERTY OWNER: SAME ZONE: WR-3A LOCATION: 18 CEDAR POINT APPLICANT PROPOSES CONVERSION OF A SUMMER HOME TO A YEAR ROUND RESIDENCE (A 2,300 +/- SQ. FT. ADDITION). IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 179-69 CONVERSION OF A SEASONAL DWELLING UNIT AND EXPANSION OF A NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE IN A CEA REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. APA CROSS REFERENCE: AV 58-97, SP 42-97, AV 84-2001 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 11/14/01 TAX MAP NO. 2-1-9 (239.19-1-1) LOT SIZE: 2.68 AC. SECTION: 179-16, 179-69, 179-79 JOHN MATTHEWS, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 52-2001, John Matthews, Meeting Date: November 27, 2001 “Project Description Applicant wishes to expand the existing residence on the property and convert the same from a seasonal dwelling to a year round home. The project calls for a 2300 sf addition, mainly a second story and an attached garage. The Zoning Board of Appeals approved the applicant’s recent variance request for such expansion. Relief was granted for construction closer to the shoreline of Lake George than the required 75 feet. Conversion of a seasonal dwelling and the expansion of a non- conforming structure in a Critical Environmental Area requires site plan review. Project Analysis (Section 179-38) Site Overview This additions to the existing home are similar in size and location to the previously approved plan; SP 42-97. The location and arrangement of the attached garage addition do not appear to present a significant adverse visual impact when viewed from adjoining properties or from the lake. Traffic circulation on the site does not appear to be adversely affected by this addition. The plans appear to indicate that the stormwater runoff generated by the proposed structure will be captured and managed by stone filled infiltration trenches along the eave lines of the home. Areas of Concern or Importance This project is similar to a former plan; SP 42-97 which was approved by both the Zoning Board of Appeals and the Planning Board in 1997. The major change in the current plan is the reconfiguration of the roofline for the second story addition on the main house. The previous plan depicted a taller elevation on the lake side of the home, where the current plan calls for the eave of the roof to be at the lake side and the roof to slope back, away from the lake. Site Plan 42-97 was conditionally approved with the stipulations that the garage doors be located to the west side of the garage and that the westerly portion of the “loop” drive was to be the only active driveway. The current proposal depicts the garage doors on the westerly side of the garage. If approved, the plans will be reviewed and a determination will be made with regards to the necessity of a Stormwater Management Permit. 24 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/27/01) Staff Comments Consideration may be given to “closing” the easterly driveway, as the access doors to the garage are on the west side of the structure. Staff suggests approval of the project: Prior to beginning this project, all plans are to be revised, if necessary, to reflect all such notes/conditions of approval. Such plans shall be submitted to the Planning Department for review and approval.” MR. BROWN-Nothing additional, other than the comments that were made in the previous approval about the garage doors and the drive, and I think most of those have been addressed in this current application. MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening again. MR. MATTHEWS-John Matthews, owner. MR. MAC EWAN-The floor is yours. Tell us about your project. MR. MATTHEWS-Okay. What we have proposed here is a re-instatement of an already approved site plan and variance that I was unable to do back in 1997. We’re planning to move forward with it now. We’ve made some changes to the plans, one of which we re-located the entrance to the garage to the south rather than the north. There was an objection from a neighbor to the north who no longer is there anymore, but we had started to redesign the building at that point in time. So I kind of felt that it works better anyway. I also changed some of the design to allow the roof line to slope from the lake back, so that it didn’t give such a high appearance, looking at it from what we call the front, the lake side. It kind of will blend into the slope and the contour of the shoreline a little bit better than the strict contemporary style peak that I had designed originally, and basically, other than that, it’s pretty much the same as what we had before. MR. MAC EWAN-Tony, I’ll start with you. MR. METIVIER-Actually, I do like the new plan better than the old one. MR. MATTHEWS-I do, too. Unfortunately, the fellow that was my designer and architect retired from the business and was unable to do anymore. So I proceeded on my own to design the plans and have them drawn. MR. METIVIER-I can remember the stone wall, when we were there the other day, there’s a stone wall in the back, and the house will not be any higher than that, looking at it from the lake side. MR. MATTHEWS-Yes, pretty much. MR. METIVIER-So you’re not obstructing any views, well. MR. MATTHEWS-Well, as you’re coming down the driveway you’ll be looking right over. MR. METIVIER-Right. No, it’s very nice. MR. MATTHEWS-There will be a lot of stone work on it, a lot of natural Lake George materials. MR. METIVIER-I like what you did with the workshop, the garage. MR. MATTHEWS-The same. MR. METIVIER-It’s the nicest garage I’ve ever seen. MR. MATTHEWS-I’ve worked my whole life for that garage. MR. METIVIER-You should be very proud. MR. MAC EWAN-Moving right along. Rich? MR. SANFORD-I’m not sure, I think this has been addressed, but one of the concerns that a lot of us have, when it comes to construction on the lake, is stormwater runoff, and could you just clarify what the plan is? Do you have gutters with the basins and that kind of thing? 25 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/27/01) MR. MATTHEWS-We’ll probably have a couple of short sections of gutter in the front over the deck, which will go into some stone trench basins along the edge of the foundation and around the back side of the foundation. All the other eaves will go into a stone filled trench along the eaves. I mean, the land there is either earth or rock. So if it hits the rock it’s going to run in the lake anyway. So we plan to do the best we possibly can, with any roof that comes off the roof. MR. SANFORD-Yes, well, because, you know, everybody fertilizes their lawns. MR. MATTHEWS-There will be no lawn. What you see is what you get, pine needles and small shrubs. MR. MAC EWAN-My kind of guy. MR. SANFORD-That’s it. That’s the only concern I had. MR. MAC EWAN-Chris? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. There was a drawing on the front page that showed, and I don’t know if that is typical of the eaves and gutter system? MR. MATTHEWS-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Other than that, I really didn’t have any comments. MR. MAC EWAN-Cathy? MRS. LA BOMBARD-I just like this plan. It’s just beautiful. I mean, it’s so much more Adirondacky than the other one. I think it’s going to work nicely. MR. MAC EWAN-Robert? MR. VOLLARO-Just a matter of housekeeping with Staff. Does Area Variance 58-97 grant relief from the three acre requirement? MR. BROWN-I’m sorry, from the what requirement? MR. VOLLARO-From the three acre requirement. This is a three acre zone. MR. BROWN-Right. MR. VOLLARO-There was a previous Area Variance 58-97. MR. BROWN-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-Does that grant relief? MR. BROWN-From the three acre requirement? No. It’s a pre-existing lot. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So the 2.85 is pre-existing. MR. BROWN-Correct. MR. VOLLARO-It’s been there. So it’s pre-existing. MR. BROWN-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So that’s where we are on that. Now the height measurement, for example even on the site development data plan, I noticed that your height measurement of 25 feet 6 inches is from the eaves, as opposed to any peak. Is it commonly measured from the eaves, or do we measure from? MR. MATTHEWS-It’s measured. MR. VOLLARO-From the highest point of the building. MR. MATTHEWS-Well, it depends on the land. As the lay of the land goes, you measure to the eaves. 26 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/27/01) MR. VOLLARO-I realize that. I know what the 28 foot thing looks like, but you’ve measured from the height of the land to the eaves, according to what you’ve proposed here and the way I see it on your drawing. MR. BROWN-I might be able to answer that question for you. The overall height of the building is measured from final grade to the highest point of the building. MR. VOLLARO-From the highest point of the building. MR. BROWN-Yes, and this was a topic of discussion at the Zoning Board meeting, too, and Mr. Matthews stated the building is not going to be over 28 feet in height. It may be drafted inaccurately, but it’s not going to be constructed over 28 feet. MR. MATTHEWS-Some of the measurements that were put on there weren’t exactly the way they, where they should have been put, but it was too late for me to change them before I submitted the plans, but the maximum height won’t exceed the Town’s requirements. MR. BROWN-And no relief was granted for additional height over 28 feet. So I’m assuming there’s no plan to build the house over 28 feet. MR. MATTHEWS-No. MR. VOLLARO-Well, again, you’ll get a set of manufactured drawings and they’ll be looked over before building permits are issued. Is that correct? MR. BROWN-Absolutely. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. See, I’m just trying to, I don’t like to pick on stuff like this, but when I review a drawing, I take a lot of time to review the damn thing, and when I find things like that I’ve just got to say them because I’d like a drawing to come before me so I can look at it, understand it and say, yes, or no for good reason. MR. MATTHEWS-I’m glad you’re that thorough. That’s good. MR. VOLLARO-Well, there’s other people on this Board that are that thorough, too. He doesn’t happen to be sitting here tonight, but he’s in the audience. That’s all I have, Mr. Chairman. I do have one other thing. Do you intend to close the eastern portion of the loop of the drive where it? MR. MATTHEWS-That road will stay. MR. VOLLARO-Will stay? MR. MATTHEWS-It will not be a road, road. It’s access to the lake. A fire truck can drive right down there and suck water if it had to. I can back down there with a truck to do work on the dock. The grading of the area will stay. It won’t be a road. I mean, it won’t be paved. MR. VOLLARO-Since you moved the garage around now to face, I guess the garage, it looks to me like it faces south of it. MR. MATTHEWS-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-I was just wondering whether you had, because there was some words in Staff notes, I think there were some words in there. MR. MATTHEWS-I saw those notes also, but it will not be used as a driveway to the house. It’ll be basically a lane that I can use to get to the water. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. That was to service the old garage, essentially, when the garage was going to have its doors there. MR. MATTHEWS-Well, the way we had it drawn before, yes. MR. VOLLARO-That’s it now, Mr. Chairman. That’s all I had. MR. MAC EWAN-Larry? MR. RINGER-No, I have nothing. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything you wanted to add? 27 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/27/01) MR. MATTHEWS-No, thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-We have a public hearing. We’ll open it up. Any comments? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MAC EWAN-Does someone want to introduce a resolution, please. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 52-2001 JOHN MATTHEWS, Introduced by Anthony Metivier who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro: WHEREAS, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of Site Plan No.52-2001, John Matthews for conversion of a summer home to a year round residence (1 2.300 +/- sq. ft. addition). In accordance with Section 179-69 Conversion of Seasonal dwelling unit and Expansion of a non-conforming structure in a CEA requires Planning Board review and approval. Tax Mao No. 2-1-9. Lot size: 2.68 ac., Cross Reference: AV 58-97, SP 42-97, AV 84-2001; and; WHEREAS, the application was received 10/31/01; and WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation and inclusive of all newly received information, not included in this listing as of 11/23/01; and 11/27 Staff Notes 11/15 ZBA resolution – approved with condition 11/20 Notice of Public Hearing 11/14 Warren Co. Planning Board – No County Impact 11/7 Meeting Notice WHEREAS, public hearing was held on 11/27/01 concerning the above project; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the Site Plan requirements of the Code of the Town Queensbury (Zoning); and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and WHEREAS, approval of the application means that the applicant can now apply for a Building Permit unless the lands are Adirondack Park Jurisdictional or other approvals are necessary. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that The application is approved as per the resolution as prepared by Staff and is subject to the following conditions: 1. Remove the negative declaration clause in the resolution, and 2. The drawings will depict that the height of the building will be no higher that 28 feet, and 3. All conditions are to be noted on the final approved plans submitted for the Zoning Administrator’s signature in a form to read as follows: 28 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/27/01) Plans have been approved under authority of a resolution adopted 11/27/01 by the Planning Board of the Town of Queensbury, New York with the following conditions: 1. Duly adopted this 27th day of November, 2001, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Hunsinger, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set. MR. MATTHEWS-Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Good luck. Is that it? Any other business? Our site visits are going to be the 15, 9:00 a.m., and our meeting dates are the 18 and the 20. ththth MRS. LA BOMBARD-We definitely are doing the 20? th MR. MAC EWAN-Correct. Legal Counsel needs to be here. If they can’t, let us know, we’re going to joggle, I’ll go to the agenda meeting this month and we’ll joggle what we think. MS. RADNER-I think we had a problem with the 20, getting coverage here. th MRS. LA BOMBARD-What about the 13? th MR. MAC EWAN-The 20 is done. th MR. BROWN-If we have any problems anticipated, we’ll confer with Counsel and try and have an answer for the Board. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, and I’ll come to the agenda meeting and we’ll try and put our heads together, what we think may be a potential one, we’ll put them on the 18’s meeting, make sure we th have coverage for it. Are you getting a lot of applications for December? We have a couple of holdovers that we’ll see in December. MR. BROWN-I don’t know. Usually we get a flood of them tomorrow on deadline day. MR. RINGER-We have Pittengers as a holdover and maybe Schermerhorn’s if he gets back. MR. MAC EWAN-I understand we’ll be seeing Hayes and Hayes next month, too, for West Mountain. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes. I was going to ask you about that. They are working on that, right, Craig? They’re working on it. MR. BROWN-I would anticipate it not seeing them all yet, but it’s going to be pretty heavy. MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it? MR. RINGER-Let’s do the nominations for next year, if you’re so moved to do that. I would like to do that. MR. MAC EWAN-It wasn’t on our agenda, but if everyone feels comfortable, we can do that. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, let’s get it done. MOTION TO NOMINATE CRAIG MAC EWAN FOR CHAIRMAN FOR 2002, Introduced by Larry Ringer who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro: Duly adopted this 27 day of November, 2001, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Hunsinger, Mrs. LaBombard, NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. MacEwan 29 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/27/01) MOTION TO NOMINATE LARRY RINGER FOR HIS PRESENT POSITION AS VICE CHAIRMAN, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Catherine LaBombard: Duly adopted this 27 day of November, 2001, by the following vote: th AYES: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE MOTION TO NOMINATE MRS. LA BOMBARD FOR SECRETARY, Introduced by Craig MacEwan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Anthony Metivier: Duly adopted this 27 day of November, 2001, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Metivier, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Sanford, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE MR. MAC EWAN-Any other business? I move we adjourn. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Craig MacEwan, Chairman 30