Loading...
1987-03-05 ~)fr QUEENSBURY TOWN PLANNING BOARD ',- Special Meeting held: Thursday, March 5, 1987 at 7:30 p.m. Present: Richard Roberts, Chairman Frank DeSantis Susan Levandowski Kenneth Sorlin, Secretary Joseph S. Dybas Victor Macri R. Case Prime, Counsel Stuart F. Mesinger, Senior Town Planner Susan E. Davidsen, staff/stenographer Planning and Zoning Dept. Absent: Hilda Mann Chairman Roberts called the special meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Site Plan No. 1-87 John DeMarco Chairman Roberts introduced the applicant, John DeMarco of Rockhurst Road, stating that this was a continuation of a previous hearing and that the public hearing was left opened from the previous meeting. He said the Board needed updated mappings of the project. There were questions that needed to be answered from the previous Town Planning Board meeting. ( Attorney John Richards introduced himself and stated he represented John DeMarco. Mr. Richards said he believed he had addressed all the issues raised by the Planning Board, those being: 1. Updated survey, 2. Two letters from John Richards to Richard Roberts regarding APA regulations and an ENCON permit. 3. Engineering aspects regarding the seepage pit. Mr. Richards believed that there would be an overall beautification of the area as a result of completion of the project and also noted that there would be improvements in the traffic flow and an aesthetic improvement of the whole area. From the survey that had been done. Mr. Richards pointed out a problem with the rear setback of the building; a variation of 2~ feet. He stated the footings were misplaced due to the builders error. Mr. Roberts stated that Mr. DeMarco would need an area variance for the setbacks. He addressed the issues of 36 parking spaces shown by the survey along with the proposed location of the portable toilets. He pointed out that a representative from the Adirondack Park Agency had been down on the site and could see no apparent violations. On the question of the boat permits and the boat spaces available, Mr. Richards stated in a discussion with Michael White that they are required by a permit (1982) to have 50 spaces there. He said that this is all he is allowed to have at this point and if and when the need ',-_ arises to have more space available an application would be made for an amendment to that permit. Mr. Roberts clarified the need for a DEC marina's permit which requires 1 I '--' '\........ ?)B 50 parking spaces as well as allowing for 50 boats; not any less or any more. Mr. Richards stated that he "didn't have time to get anything from Michael White to explain the rational for any of the numbers there, other than to say that Mrs. Hall when she applied for it, who was elderly; I don't know what she told them in the way of usage and that he had reserved boat spaces for that and had very likely, had reserved any parking space requirements as well". Mr. Richards stated that Mr. DeMarco does have off site parking available and has a signed agreement for that. Mr. Roberts asked where the off premises parking was made available. Mr. Richards stated he had parking available at the Cleverdale Store down the road. Mr. Roberts said that it doesn't help in this case because the parking has to be adjacent; off street parking at the marina site or at the adjacent off street site. Mr. Roberts believed there wasn't any space available. It was clear and agreed upon that the Cleverdale Store is not adjacent to the marina site. Mr. Roberts stated that in regards to strict adherence to the DEC requirements that Mr. DeMarco was in a difficult situation. Mr. Richards said he would have to apply for an amendment to that permit on the 50 spaces and get something a little more realistic. He also said that Mr. DeMarco intended to comply with all requirements. Mr. Richards said that ENCON had been down to see the site and docks many times. Mr. Prime asked whether there was ever 50 parking spaces provided under the DEC parking permit on the property. Mr. Richards stated that he didn't know. The Board began to review the checklist. Mr. Roberts stated that under structures it was found to not be proper. The question of setbacks was that it is 17~ feet instead of the required 20 feet. Mr. Richards agreed with the Board that a variance was needed for the setback. Mr. Roberts stated that the size of the building is a pertinent point of discussion. He said that the Zoning Board of Appeals has said the preexisting cabin could be replaced by another dwelling unit on the property. He believed that the Zoning Board of Appeals had not indicated anything about size. Mr. Roberts stated his concern on whether or not replacing the small cabin with a full size home of this type would be sensible for the piece of property. Mr. DeMarco would be replacing a 300 square foot cottage with a 1,950 square foot structure. Mr. Roberts believed this was not really replacing the existing structure; instead it's a tremendous change in size. Mr. Richards interjected and stated that the Zoning Board of Appeals did say specifically that this was altering the structure. He said it was true that the Zoning Board did not address the size as to the limits or the excess, instead it was just given that Mr. DeMarco could do this. Mr. Roberts stated, "then it was now up to the Planning Board for all this to make sense on this piece of property". Mr. Sorlin question the use of the word altering in this situation. Mr. Sorlin believed that they were not altering anything but instead starting all over. Mr. Richards stated that the Zoning Board of Appeals used that word (altering) specifically. The phraseology regarding the findings of the Zoning Board was in doubt. Mr. Mesinger understood this project to be that Mr. DeMarco was rebuilding. He said that a specific part of the ordinance states that one can alter, enlarge, or rebuild a nonconforming structure with site plan approval. He thought Mr. DeMarco had planned on rebuilding. Mr. Prime stated that he thought everyone should be clear on what section of the ordinance this project pertained to. He believed it was section 9.010 which requires a site plan review for alteration, enlargement, or extension. He asked Mr. Richards if he believed that to be the purpose of this site plan review. Mr. Richards stated that according to resolution, the Zoning Board of Appeals found the building to be of conforming 2 '('dL- " I '--- use but wanted a site plan review for purposes of impact on the other elements. Mr. Prime stated that Mr. DeMarco would not be here before the Planning Board if it was a conforming use. He said it would have to be determined to be nonconforming structure and comes back under Section 9.010 for site plan review. There was much discussion regarding the interpretation of Section 9.010 of the ordinance. Mr. Prime read Section 9.010 and Section 9.011. Mr. Roberts noted for the record that there was some question about relocating the structure. It was agreed that the height was conforming, being less than 25 feet. In terms of arrangement and location, Mr. Roberts said that the Planning Board was looking at the entire site and stated that there was another principal dwelling on the property. He said there are three if you count the one that they say they propose to take down. Mr. Prime stated that the Casa Bianca restaurant is no longer a restaurant. Mr. Richards said that was correct. Mr. Prime stated it was a dwelling. Mr. Richards stated that Mrs. Hall lives there. Mr. Roberts stated that the restaurant was apparently the principal dwelling on the property. Mr. Richards stated that he believed the Zoning Board considered the cabin structure to be replaced as the principal dwelling. Mr. Sorlin brought up the subject of traffic access. The dumpster gate opens up into a right of way. The road width was not mentioned on the previous drawings submitted. Road width vs. the length of the parking lot was discussed. There is no access marking for traffic flow noted. There was concern about the traffic flow around the restaurant and on the premises. Mr. Roberts asked for changes in the parking layout. Mr. Richards addressed those concerns by moving the dumpster out off of the parking area so that there wouldn't be a problem with the gate. Mr. Richards stated that the dumpster would now be located at the north side of the property. The portable toilets would be moved to an area where they could be easily pumped by any truck. He stated they had also moved a parking space off of the right of way. There was some question regarding the portable toilet. Mr. Roberts stated that it was listed on the application as proposed toilet building. Mr. Roberts said then we are now talking about another building. Mr. Macri said that if it's a building it would have to be 20 feet from the line. Mr. Roberts was concerned that this would alter the parking lot design. Mr. Richards stated" it's difficult here in the winter of 1987 to tell you where we want to put something in the summer of 1988". Mr. Macri stated that the site is not going to change and stated that the Board needed to know what the site was going to look like when it was completed. Mr. Prime stated his concern over the traffic patterns now. Mr. Richards asked the Board members for any suggestions regarding their concerns they had for a better location of a permanent structure. Mr. Mesinger stated that the Queensbury Town Board was to hold a public hearing on a local law that would prohibit portable toilet facilities in the Town of Queensbury except at a construction site. "-' Mr. DeSantis stated that if a permanent building (toilet facility) was going to placed somewhere on site then Mr. DeMarco would need to locate it whether he chose to construct it now or in the future. He would be required to locate it before the Planning Board could 3 ?;LJ) ,,--I approve it. Mr. Richards and Mr. DeMarco paused for brief discussion amongst themselves regarding the location of the toilet facility. Mr. Roberts said, " perhaps it's one thing to have an adequate number of parking spaces on the piece of property, although according to the DEC permit it does not, even if you had the adequate number, it doesn't necessarily make it a good parking plan." Mr. Roberts stated that in his way of thinking, he thought that Mr. DeMarco's parking plan is not very good and has never been good in that area. The cars' back bumpers are practically in the edge of the road and they have to back onto the premises in the streets. Mr. Roberts said that in most cases the Planning Board would like at least 2 entrances Mr. DeSantis expressed his concern regarding a possible amendment to be applied for from the DEC. He stated there was a need for 50 slips and there are only 36 parking spots. The question is where are they going to park? Mr. DeSantis pointed out that Mr. DeMarco would probably not amend the DEC permit to reduce the number of boat slips. Engineer Raymond Buckley stated he was not involved in the parking plan for the site. He stated there is parking in front of the restaurant; a gravel base parking lot. Mr. Richards stated he would re-work the parking plan and said that there is space available for parking. Mr. Roberts disagreed and said he wasn't sure the space was there for a good parking plan. There was much discussion regarding the parking plan. There was a question in regards to the total acreage for the site; either .87 acres or 1.1 acres. Mr. Richards stated, "all of these things have been and will continue to be permitted; all we're trying to do is improve them." Board members and Mr. Richards discussed at length the parking plan situation. Mr. Roberts stated that it must be determined how much the site can handle in regards to use. He said there are 3 uses there now. Mr. Roberts stated that the Planning Board had a right to say no to the site plan review if the plan did not make good sense. He pointed out that just because one plan made good sense in one part of the zone it may not make good sense in another part of the zone. The lot, character of the neighborhood, parking, and a number of other factors must all be considered. Mr. Richards stated there was nothing that is being proposed here that is going to make the situation any less favorable that it was before the original project was applied for. Mr. Mesinger said that there wasn't a parking standard for marinas. The Planning Board, in such cases, will use its best judgement. He stated that he had a book on parking standards for every use imaginable and according to the book in regards to marinas, the suggested parking standard is .7 spaces per slip. The Board has its discretion to determine what is adequate. "-' 4 /' <i). t: , I ,-. Mr. Richards again stated that they were trying to improve the parking situation. Mr. DeSantis suggested that there be 1 parking spot per slip at the minimum. The parking situation continued to be discussed at length. A plan was needed to show where there was more parking available other than the 36 spaces now indicated. The matter of boat trailers was brought up by Mr. Sorlin. Mr. Richards stated that trailers were not allowed on the property. Mr. DeMarco stated that people would launch their boats one time only; the trailers would then be taken home. Boats were not launched daily. Pedestrian traffic was discussed and no major problems were found. Storm water drainage controls were discussed. Mr. Roberts asked for an explanation. Mr. Buckley said they would be creating drainage across the parking lot through the rear so there wouldn't be any ponding in the road. Mr. Richards said that basically, the drainage plan remains the same as it always has been. Contours were discussed. Mr. Roberts noted that the Board shouldn't be terribly intimidated by the fact that there is a house setting in the middle of the site plan. He said, "there is a need to look at what the site might look like as if the Board had gotten the site plan in a timely fashion, before the fact that the house was there." Mr. Buckley spoke about surface runoff from the parking lot. Water would be collected by putting in an inlet and culvert in the yard, outletting to the lake. Mr. Roberts suggested the possibility of filtration through the wetlands off to the west and then down to the lake. Mr. Richards stated that there wouldn't be any potential to contaminate the lake. The parking lot would not be maintained in the winter there wouldn't be any salt used on the parking lot. Since no salt would be used there wouldn't be any contamination to the lake. Water supply and sewage were discussed. Mr. Sorlin stated that the water supply for the entire project was supplied by the lake. Mr. Sorlin questioned the holding tank as to whether or not it was adequate. Mr. Roberts questioned whether temporary latrines were adequate and noted that the Town Board would no longer be permitting portable toilets. Proper toilet facilities were to be made available immediately. Mr. Roberts stated that Mr. DeMarco didn't have any other choice. A permanent holding tank must be put in. Mr. DeSantis stated that the Board needed to know where the permanent building was going to be put up as well as where the permanent holding tank would be placed. He said what is shown now is in violation of the ordinance. Visual and noise buffers was discussed. Mr. Roberts stated that there are no buffers. Normally there would have been a 50 foot buffer required on the west boundary between the commercial use and residential zone. Mr. Roberts stated that it has been rationalized because of the preexisting nonconforming use the requirement doesn't have to be adhered to in this case. He said it's not a very good plan to have a parking lot right next to the property line, next to the wetland. "- 5 ~~F '- Emergency access regarding fire lanes and fire hydrants were found not to be applicable. Mr. Roberts stated there is water from the lake that is available in case of a fire. Mr. Sorlin brought up the subject of conflict with other ordinances and laws. A concern was brought up regarding the fill in the wetlands. Mr. Roberts stated that a variance was going to be required by the Zoning Board for setbacks if the building were going to stay at its present location. Mr. Roberts also stated that the current and past operation of the marina would appear to be in violation of the DEC and Lake George Park Commission marina permit. There are inadequate toilet facilities and inadequate maintenance of the dumpster. Mr. Roberts asked if Michael White of the Lake George Park Commission had any comments. Mr. White asked what has been the current parking situation at the DeMarco si te. Neighbors of Mr. DeMarco spoke against the parking situation. An unidentified neighbor stated that people could not even park entirely off the road when they began to park along the lake last summer. Mr. White stated that at this point, DEC has not undertaken a review of the new construction on the site. Mr. Roberts said that maybe the Highway Department should be notified about the low spot in the road where drainage was now accumulating. Mr. Sorlin stated that there were no test hole shown regarding permeability. Mr. Buckley said that he had dug a hole today and that over the years, gravel has been brought in on the parking area in order to maintain the parking surface. He stated that there was at least 18 inches of gravel mixed with mud and below that a clay material. He said it still has enough gravel in it; it's quite permeable. Mr. Mesinger stated he had talked to the APA and that they probably wouldn't review the site plan but would review the variance hearing. Mr. Mesinger said he discussed that with them and they are now investigating that to determine if that's even reviewable under their guidelines. Mr. Sorlin said that the Warren County Planning Board recommended approval without any comments and the Zoning Board of Appeals referred it to the Planning Board. Public Hearing Opened: Bill Hall of Rockhurst Road was concerned about the present condition of the docks being constructed. He wanted to know if the construction was being observed by the Adirondack Park Agency. He said that none of the finger piers have been started yet but they do look nice. He expressed his concern on the use of the word cabin in this situation. He stated that the cabin that is on the south end of the property, close to the wetlands, and close to his property is a building 26 by 12 feet which equals 312 square feet. This is the building that the Zoning Board of Appeals made the declaration that it was an existing building on the property and could be moved or added to. In place of it there is a new house that is 2,400 square feet and two stories. Mr. Hall asked the Board where the setback violation of 2~ feet was. Mr. Roberts said it was on the wetlands side, west side. Mr. Hall expressed his concern with those persons using the Sandy Bay area; ',,- 6 ~J-6¡ _I people would probably walk ar-ound in that area over by the wetlands. He said there is about 18 inches distance between the swamp, Sandy Bay and the DeMarco's property. Mr. Hall said he had a copy of the ENCON permit which was issued for the marina, dated March 22, 1982. He pointed out the following facts: Restaurant facilities, trash disposals, shoreline and adjacent water maintenance, parking for 50 customer vehicles shall be provided and maintained. He also noted his concern about about underground sewage. Mr. Hall stated that he had talked to Vic Lefebvre, Building Inspector, on the telephone and was told by him that there would be no underground sewage allowed as per the original building permit. An unidentified neighbor of Mr. DeMarco asked if the dumpster was behind something or just sitting there. Mr. Hall spoke again, representing an unidentified neighbor. He asked if 20% of the lot is left permeable and undeveloped. Mr. Prime expressed a strong concern about Lena Halls' (John DeMarco's mother) participation in the project. He stated that he wasn't sure from a legal stand point if the Planning Board could make a final decision without her since she is a party to this as the owner of the property. Mr. Richards agreed to obtain a written consent from Lena Hall stating that she is fully aware and understands what is going on. Mr. Prime said a written consent would serve in her best interest as property owner. Bill Finch noted that the summer folks should be a party to this public hearing. Mr. Roberts stated that they are and that there are some letters filed for the record Public Hearing Closed. Mr. Sorlin expressed his concern that he felt the lot was already too crowded. Mr. Roberts felt that Mr. DeMarco was making a poor situation worse. He said he wasn't happy with the way the situation looks according to the checklist. Mrs. Levandowski stated that she thought that parking should equal the slips. Mr. Macri thought the application should be tabled until a workable situation is made. Mr. DeSantis spoke about the off premises signs. Since there wasn't a restaurant there anymore, the signs should be removed. Mr. Richards still believe that he was making a nonconforming use better. Mr. Roberts stated that that opinion was subject to argument. Mr. Richards said he would like the opportunity to resubmit the site plan and to obtain a variance. Mr. Macri MOVED to TABLE the rehearing of Site Plan Review No. 1-87 for review by the applicant for new information and new proposed changes. Concerns were noted and are as follows: .'-.. setback of new building is deficient (17.5 ft.) former restaurant is a dwelling unit (principal) Is it proper to replace a 300 sq. ft. cottage with a 2,000 sq. ft. house? 7 ~d-H , I '-- Is location away from existing cottage proper? Is bathroom building set back o.k.? Looks short. Is bathroom building permanent or temporary? Is this a 4th building on the site? Existing cottage would be removed. Are parking spaces sufficient for 50 docks, 50 spaces required on DEC permit. Parking plan doesn't look well designed - traffic backing on to Rockhurst Rd. Dumpsters moved to site near former restaurant building. Additional parking in front of former restaurant building is available but not shown. Why no permit for fill in or close to wetland? Holding tank location, if building moved, where is the holding tank? How will it be accessed? Drainage, lake side of road drains to lake, other side of road (parking lot) drains south and westerly toward wetlands. New house and bathroom each have holding tanks. Casa Bianca restaurant (former) is not a holding tank. There are 3 septic systems on this small lot. No buffers; probably cannot provide as preexisting use. Will need a variance from the Zoning Board for setback of house. Second by Mr. DeSantis. Passed 4 yes (Levandowski, Macri, DeSantis, Dybas), 2 no (Roberts, Serlin), 1 absent (Mann). The Planning Board then reviewed an environmental assessment for the Queensbury Forest Subdivision. More information on traffic impacts was requested. The meeting was adjourned at 9:30 p.m. \fLiJ ~ ~ Richard Roberts, Chairman Minutes prepared by Susan E. Davidsen, Planning and Zoning Department ',-- 8