Loading...
1998-10-27 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/27/98) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 27, 1998 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT CRAIG MAC EWAN, CHAIRMAN CATHERINE LA BOMBARD, SECRETARY ROBERT PALING TIMOTHY BREWER ROBERT VOLLARO GEORGE STARK MEMBERS ABSENT LARRY RINGER PLANNER -LAURA MOORE TOWN COUNSEL -MILLER, MANNIX & PRATT-MARK SCHACHNER STENOGRAPHER -MARIA GAGLIARDI NEW BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 54-98 TYPE: UNLISTED GARVEY KIA OWNER: GARVEY VOLKSWAGON, INC. ZONE: LI-1A LOCATION: 714 QUAKER ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES AUTOMOBILE SALES AND SERVICES. THE PROPERTY RECEIVED A USE VARIANCE APPROVAL FOR AUTO BODY REPAIR AND DESIGN. SITE PLAN REVIEW IS REQUIRED FOR THE ADDITION OF THE AUTOMOBILE SALES AND SERVICE AND TO CREATE A SECOND ENTRANCE TO THE SITE. CROSS REFERENCE: UV 1349, UV 72-1998, AV 73-1998 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 10/14/98 TAX MAP NO. 110-1-1.30 LOT SIZE: 1.377 ACRES SECTION: 179-26, 179-23 MR. MAC EWAN-The applicants have asked that the Board table their application. Did they give a specific date that they wanted it tabled to or just? MRS. MOORE-We can table it until the first or second meeting in November. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 54-98 GARVEY KIA , Introduced by Craig MacEwan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro: Until the first regular meeting of November. th Duly adopted this 27 day of October, 1998, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stark, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Paling, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Ringer SITE PLAN NO. 55-98 TYPE: UNLISTED JOSEPH LEUCI OWNER: GUIDO PASSARELLI ZONE: HC-1A LOCATION: RT. 9 & ROUND POND RD. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT A NEW 56’ X 108’ BUILDING TO CONTINUE AUTOMOBILE SALES AND TO ADD AUTOMOTIVE SERVICE AND REPAIR. PER § 179-23 AUTOMOBILE SERVICE AND AUTOMOBILE REPAIR IS SUBJECT TO REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 14-97 BEAUTIFICATION COMM.: 10/12/98 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 10/14/98 TAX MAP NO. 67-2-1.3 LOT SIZE: 5.59 ACRES SECTION: 179-23 1 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/27/98) MR. MAC EWAN-The applicant’s also requested that the application be tabled until the second meeting of November. Is that not correct? I think that’s what their letter said, they want to request a tabling until then. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 55-98 JOSEPH LEUCI , Introduced by Craig MacEwan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro: Until the second meeting of November. th Duly adopted this 27 day of October, 1998, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Paling, Mr. Stark, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Brewer, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Ringer SITE PLAN NO. 56-98 TYPE: UNLISTED JANICE GILLEY CRETE OWNER: BRYAN M. CRETE ZONE: SR-1A LOCATION: 20 HAMPTON COURT APPLICANT PROPOSES A PROFESSIONAL OFFICE INCIDENTAL TO HOME USE - HAIR SALON. APPLICANT PROPOSES A PROFESSIONAL OFFICE INCIDENTAL TO HOME USE IS SUBJECT TO REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REFERENCE: BP 93-518 TAX MAP NO. 121-14-11 LOT SIZE: 0.61 ACRES SECTION 179-19 JANICE GILLEY CRETE & BRIAN CRETE, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 56-98, Janice Gilley Crete, Meeting Date: October 27, 1998 “Description of Project Applicant proposes to conduct a beauty salon business in the home. Site plan review is required for a professional office incidental to home use in the SR-1A. Staff Notes The applicant met with staff prior to submission to address concerns with access, parking, and location of business in the home. The applicant has been informed a building permit is required to renovate a garage into an office use. The applicant has complied with the site plan review requirements. Staff recommended that the applicant contact neighbors prior to the public hearing, and to submit written support for her business. Staff was concerned the public may request enforcement of the Queensbury Forest deed restrictions. The Planning Board does not enforce deed or covenant restrictions however the review of project does consider neighborhood character and any infringements that may be caused by different projects. Staff has no additional comments.” MR. MAC EWAN-No other notes? MRS. MOORE-No. MR. MAC EWAN-Is there someone here representing the applicant? Good evening. Would you identify yourselves for the record, please. MR. CRETE-My name is Brian Crete. MRS. CRETE-And my name is Janice Crete. MR. MAC EWAN-And can you tell us a little bit about your anticipated project? MR. CRETE-It’s in the lower level of our raised ranch. We propose to finish off half of the garage for a part time business for my wife. The room’s approximately 12’ by 18’. MR. MAC EWAN-And the business is going to be? MRS. CRETE-I’m a professional certified electrologist. I would like to do some hair and electrolysis in the home. 2 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/27/98) MR. MAC EWAN-Would you be operating the business by yourself? MRS. CRETE-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-And no other co-workers, co-owners? Employees? MRS. CRETE-No. MR. MAC EWAN-Can you tell us a little bit more about the operations that you anticipate? MRS. CRETE-I do permanent hair removal, which is very quiet. It’s done in an office. It’s private and confidential, and I have a small hair clientele that I do hairstyling on. MR. MAC EWAN-How much traffic did you figure you would generate on an average day? MRS. CRETE-Probably anywhere from probably five to eight cars a day. That’s at the max, eight. MR. MAC EWAN-And when you say you anticipate running the business part time, what is part time? MRS. CRETE-Less than 40 hours. Like 30, 34. I only work part time now. I sold the business back in April. I owned it for 11 years, and I got out of that. I’m tired of having to work so hard, and we’re trying to raise a family and I’d just like to work at home. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. What will your anticipated hours of operation be? MRS. CRETE-Probably start up about nine or eight thirty and work until about three. MR. MAC EWAN-Monday through Friday? MRS. CRETE-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Is there anything else that you wanted to add? MRS. CRETE-Sometimes in the hair business people like to go to weddings or something like that. So the hours are kind of, you know, a little bit different at different periods of times. MR. MAC EWAN-Taking on special appointments, that sort of thing? MRS. CRETE-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Anything else? MRS. CRETE-No. MR. MAC EWAN-Now’s your time to say whatever you want to say. MR. CRETE-She’s not going to advertise or anything. It’s just a private thing that, like she said, we want to have a family of our own, too. So we’re worried about the traffic as well, and we’re not going to try to generate a lot of traffic in the neighborhood. We don’t want that as well, either. MR. MAC EWAN-What kind of renovations do you anticipate making to the garage area? MR. CRETE-I’m just putting a center wall down the middle, with heat. I’m going to put a handicapped door on the, where the garage door is on the outside, with lighting. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Anything else? MRS. CRETE-We have to put just a hair styling sink on and, you know, do the plumbing for that, and then we already have the heat in the cellar. So we’ve just got to put the ducts in, and then just the linoleum floor and the lighting, and we’re removing the garage door and siding the house to match the siding on it and putting in a 44 inch door that’s recommended. 3 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/27/98) MR. CRETE-Yes, for handicapped. MR. MAC EWAN-And your layout here of your plans of your house say that you have parking available for nine cars, and that’s all in the driveway? MR. CRETE-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Anything else? MR. CRETE-Seventeen hundred square feet on the driveway. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Any questions? MR. BREWER-The first and only question I have right now is, if it’s only a one person operation, why does she need nine parking spaces? MR. CRETE-She doesn’t. They just want us to measure the driveway. We just measured it for 1700 square feet. MR. BREWER-I would presume that you would probably only have one customer at a time? MR. CRETE-Right. MRS. CRETE-Right, but I think we needed four parking spaces. MR. BREWER-That’s a requirement for a home business? MRS. MOORE-Two for a residential, and there’s no description for how many parking spaces within a professional office incidental to a home use. So we recommended four total. MR. BREWER-That’s only one person. MRS. MOORE-Well, it’s just, she’s at least able to show that she can demonstrate parking availability. MR. BREWER-That’s all I have right now. MR. VOLLARO-What’s the estimated number of proposed stations in that 220 foot square foot area, in other words, servicing stations, between the electrolysis and the hair? MRS. CRETE-I’m not understanding you. MR. VOLLARO-Well, you’re going to, how many seats will there be, you know, dryers? MRS. CRETE-There’s only going to be one hair dryer, one styling station, and an office for the electrolysis equipment, and then just, I have a little high top octagon table for seating, if somebody were to come like 15 minutes early or 20 minutes early, unexpected some time. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I don’t have anything to add. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Well, we have a public hearing scheduled tonight, and I’m going to guess wildly there’s probably some people here who want to address this application. I’d ask you two to give up the table for a few minutes. We’ll open up the public hearing. Please feel free to come on up and address this application as you wish. The only thing we would ask you to do is please identify yourself for the record, speak clearly into the microphone so we can get it on tape. Does anyone want to address this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED TED WILSON MR. WILSON-Good evening. My name is Ted Wilson. I live at 14 Hampton Court, two doors down from the applicant. This is the first I’ve met them, and unfortunately it’s under these circumstances, but I just wanted to point out that when we built our homes, it was the intention it was going to be a neighborhood. The problem I see is that if you allow this business, the next 4 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/27/98) applicant who comes is going to say, well, you allowed them, you might as well allow us, and then it goes, and before you know it, we have, everybody’s a home business. Potentially, that could happen. I recognize the fact that the declaration of restrictions and easements is not enforced by you, but I think you should keep in mind that when we built our homes, we did so reading and understanding that these conditions applied to all the homes down there. Number 14, in the restrictions clearly states there’s not going to be any home businesses. We paid a substantial amount of money for our homes. While it’s not the nicest neighborhood in Queensbury by any means, it’s a nice neighborhood. We want to keep it that way. We all have children. Kids are always playing out in the street, whether it be roller hockey, baseball. I just foresee a situation, if you know our street, it’s got a little hill that comes down. Even if you’re trying to go slow, if you’re not familiar with that hill, you kind of wind up going 30 miles an hour anyway. There’s a family with two boys right down at the bottom of that hill. The whole street is filled with children. If you’re late for a hair cutting appointment, you’re not familiar with who lives there, or whether children live there, and you’re just wondering, you know, I’ve got to get to my hair cutting appointment, it’s a potential problem, as I see it. The bottom line is I think, no matter what you do, I’m still going to seek legal action to enforce these restrictions, because I think under 274A of the Town Law, what you’re considering is the general welfare of the community, and it’s my belief that the general welfare of the community would be best met by denying the applicant’s application, and so I ask you to do that. Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. Anyone else? MRS. MOORE-I do have public comment. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. DAVE MEYERS MR. MEYERS-Hi. My name is Dave Meyers. I live at 23 Hampton Court, across the street from the applicant, and my concern is if you grant this application for a commercial business, even though currently they don’t plan on doing any advertising or putting up a sign or anything, if this all of a sudden is designated a part time commercial business, can they pave their front yard, put in a parking lot, put up a sign, advertise, any of that kind of stuff? MR. MAC EWAN-If they were to be approved for this application, and they wanted to do that in the future, it would require them to come back in front of this Board for a modification of that site plan. So they just can’t arbitrarily do it, no. MR. MEYERS-Okay. So something like that, okay. That was my main question. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Anyone else? CAROLYN O’CONNOR MRS. O’CONNOR-Hi. My name is Carolyn O’Connor and I live at 24 Hampton Court, right next to the applicant’s house. I didn’t plan on speaking tonight, but I guess since everyone is being bashful, I’m just going to say a few words, from being a mom and I work in a school, quite a distance from here, but right now I’m on maternity leave. I have three children, ages 4, 2, and 2 months, and I do not want to be a bad neighbor or tell them what to do, but I really feel that once you have children, they come first, and it makes me really nervous to think that if this was approved, and things got a little busy, as Mrs. Crete mentioned, Saturday appointments for a wedding, I mean, I know how things can get, and I do not want to live being worried that when my kids are 8, 6, and 4 or whatever, that I constantly have to be looking for a person backing out of your driveway too fast. Are neighbors are wonderful, and everyone looks out for each other, and it just, it’s scaring me. So I would hope that it can’t happen, because like Mr. Wilson said, when we built, we did spend quite a bit of money, and we listened to the restrictions, and we just all like to follow those. So, you know, I wish them the best and I want to be friendly, but I really hope we don’t have to keep coming back here for more and more, like you just said, coming back and if this can get approved, then, you know, a sign with a neon light or whatever. I just really don’t, I hope that can’t happen. So, thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Thank you. Anyone else? TOM O’CONNOR 5 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/27/98) MR. O’CONNOR-My name is Tom O’Connor and I live at 24 Hampton Court, next door to the applicant. I wanted to bring up to the Board something that was brought to my attention several weeks ago when I was coming home early. There are roughly three different buses that come through that neighborhood and collect kids at the entrance to Hampton Court, Walton Court. I ended up waiting 10 minutes in a stopped position waiting for children to get off the bus, parents to pick up kids. There’s cars parked on both sides of the street. There were kids running all over the place. I thought it was a very dangerous situation. That’s why I ended up sitting there, but I could see a person that may be in a hurry, you know, I’m five minutes late for my appointment, trying to weasel their way through the traffic, and then some kid darting out in between the school bus and an oncoming car. I would like to welcome my neighbors. I’ve met with them a few times. I was a little surprised to hear about this. I happen to share Mr. Wilson’s viewpoint, my wife’s viewpoint and Mr. Meyers’ viewpoint, along with the rest of our neighborhood. We’re a very close neighborhood. We did build with the intention of raising families down there. Since I’ve been there for five years, the number of children in our neighborhood has escalated. There are kids all over the place. We’re guilty, too. So, I’d really think long and hard about that one issue, though, with having kids loading up in the morning around, seven, eight, nine o’clock in the morning and then discharging anywhere from two to three or four o’clock. That could be a very dangerous situation, and I know there’s probably 30 or 40 kids that get loaded on in that one spot, and you’d have to go through that spot to get to the applicant’s business. Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. Anyone else? DAVID MARGISON MR. MARGISON-My name is David Margison. I live at 18 Hampton Court, next door to the applicants, and I have two young children, and what I like about my street is that when any of my neighbors come down the street, and they see my daughter Christina riding her bike in the road, they truly watch out for her, because she’s a wild eight year old kid who could be riding along and just before she looks to see if there’s a car coming behind her, she can turn and come out into the road. I’m very concerned about all of our children and bringing commercial traffic, even if it’s eight cars a day, into our neighborhood, and another thing that concerns me is that, sure, now it could be five or six people a day, but you’ve allocated at least four parking spots at a time. Now that could make all of us policemen for the area. Are we going to have to sit there and count how many people go in there and come back and report to you? That’s just not a healthy, friendly environment for all of us to be in, and we truly welcome our new neighbors, and we love them dearly as neighbors, and we want to get to know them, but we think that it’s best to take your work some place else and make your home your home. So that’s my main concern is the children in the area, setting that precedent. If this gets passed, there’s no reason why I can’t come to you and say, I want to open a tattoo parlor, and I want to give tattoos next door, and have all of my friends with their motorcycles come in and work on the bikes. It’s not that environment. I don’t think it would happen in Bedford Close, and it shouldn’t happen in Queensbury Forest. Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. Anyone else? KAREN DOUGHERTY MS. DOUGHERTY-My name is Karen Doughrety. I live at 31 Hampton Court. I purchased my home in the subdivision because it is purely residential. I purchased it because I wanted to make an investment in the Town of Queensbury. If I had wanted to make it a mixed use property, I would have purchased it in a commercial area. I would prefer my home remain a family home in a family neighborhood, and I hope you will appreciate that in Queensbury Forest, or any other residential neighborhood in Queensbury, Bedford Close or not. Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. Anyone else? PATRICK PIERCE MR. PIERCE-Patrick Pierce. I live at 50 Hampton Court. As Mr. Wilson spoke, I live at the bottom of that hill that is the main entrance to our street. I have three children of my own. I’ll be concerned about their welfare as well as all the children that are around me, and there are a number. All of us in our neighborhood are excellent, in terms of supervising our children, but that’s not always going to happen, as they get to be seven, eight, and so forth, years old. I think another thing that the Planning Board should be aware of is that there is another entrance to our development besides Walton Court. If you go up higher, you also have Ferriss. So that doesn’t just effect those of us on Hampton Court or on Walton Court. If this business were to grow, and 6 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/27/98) get larger and larger, you have another entrance, and you’re effecting more than just, on our street, roughly 30 homes. You’d be effecting three phases of Queensbury Forest, us in Phase III, and Phase I and Phase II that are higher up. So I think that’s a serious number of people that would be effected by this business, and as my neighbors have spoke, why couldn’t there be another business that would come in there and be adding more and more commercial traffic? So I’d ask you to please consider this application and what kind of an effect it has on our neighborhood. MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. Anyone else? JOHN POUBLON MR. My name is John Poublon. I live at 32 Hampton Court, and I just wanted to keep it brief and agree with the rest of the neighbors, and I strongly disagree with the permit, for all the same reasons, the kids running around the neighborhood. I have two kids myself. It may be an innocent application, and maybe there will only be a few people there, but, again, we don’t want to be tracking how many people going up and down the street going to this, and I think the bottom line is, I just don’t feel as though it’s right for that neighborhood. It’s not right. I drive all over the place, and I see all kinds of areas that this would be suitable for, and our neighborhood is not one that a business is suitable, and that’s all I have. Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. Anyone else? JIM BACAS MR. BACAS-My name is Jim Bacas. I live at 62 Hampton Court. I strongly oppose this business. I live at the second house as you come down the hill, and as it is, sometimes you get traffic that loops around, and right at that hill, they get going at a pretty good clip. If 10 cars go by, I know eight of the cars, and we like that. My little girl is out playing all the time, and there’s not much more I can say to it, than what’s already been said, but I do strongly oppose this business. Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Thank you. TOM JABLONSKI MR. JABLONSKI-Hi. I’m Tom Jablonski. I live at 46 Hampton Court, and I do share the views of my neighbors on traffic. I have one daughter, and it’s hard enough to keep track of a four year old, without adding extra traffic. I wish the new neighbors luck in the new home, but I really don’t think a business in our neighborhood is a good idea, for the safety of our children. Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. Anyone else? You had some letters? MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-All right. Go ahead and read your letters in. MRS. MOORE-This is public comment. It says, “Claude and Theresa Legris oppose a professional office incidental to home use - Hair Salon Claude Legris Theresa Legris” And this was a fax, and then I have a petition. I’ll read the petition. It says “Dear Planning Board Members: In reference to the zoning change submitted by Janice Gilley Crete, site plan number 56-98, we the home owners listed below wish you to reject this change. When the undersigned families built this neighborhood from the pine wood that once stood here, we had one goal in mind. That was to provide a quiet, safe, and secure environment to live in and raise our children. We welcome our new neighbors, the Crete family to the street and hope to share in the growth of their family. We feel that a professional hair salon on our street will dramatically affect conditions in the area related to parking, means of access, signs, architectural features of the general health, safety and welfare of the community. There are many, many children ages 9 months to 16 years growing up here. Children learning to ride a bike in the street, as well as adults taking walks. The increase of non-residential traffic to our street is not acceptable. We built our homes with the security that it is in a residential area and we want it to stay that way. There are any commercial sites in Queensbury that would welcome an experienced hair stylist and her clients. We feel that this information and the opinions of the families that live on Hampton Court will allow the board to reject this application without reservation. We feel that the question of traffic increase and congestion is a proper matter of concern for the town planning board. We strongly feel that allowing a commercial establishment to be organized within the Queensbury Forest Phases will 7 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/27/98) further decrease our property values, as the unresolved drainage problem has decreased our property values. Please don’t ruin our neighborhood. Let us raise our children in the safe, secure environment that we have built. Please don’t set a precedent with this matter. One commercial venture will lead to another. When we purchased our homes from Joseph Amirati, President of Forest Wood Homes, Inc., we were aware of a “declaration of restriction and easement for th Queensbury Forest Phase Three” made the 11 day of June 1993. Paragraph 14 states that there shall be no trade, business or home industry permitted on a lot. Thank you for your concern and attention to this important matter, Residence of Hampton Court and Queensbury Forest Phase Three” 31 lines of the petition are filled, and some of the lines contain more than one signature, and that’s all. MR. MAC EWAN-How many signatures were on that petition? MRS. MOORE-Thirty-one lines, some of them are more than two signatures. MR. BREWER-I don’t know who I could ask this question to, but in that petition it said that these restrictions apply to Phase III. Do they apply to Phase I and II also? TED WILSON MR. WILSON-Just Phase III. Ted Wilson, 14 Hampton Court. MR. BREWER-Ted, do those restrictions only apply to Phase III, or are there another set of restrictions that apply to Phase I and II? MR. WILSON-I’m not sure if there’s restrictions that apply to I and II. The restrictions that I have are entitled the Declaration of Restriction and Easements by Forest Wood Homes, Inc., for Queensbury Forest Phase III. The Declaration was made June 11, 1993. It’s entered in the Clerk’s Office. MR. BREWER-My question is, are there similar restrictions in Phase I and II? I understand your concern. If this application were denied, I guess my question would be, if somebody came in from Phase II, you’d certainly still have the same concern. Is there anything that says anything about Phase I or II, or nobody has any idea? MR. WILSON-I’m not prepared to answer it. I just haven’t researched it. It seems to me, I think it’s the same builder. MR. BREWER-I think it was a different builder, wasn’t it? Ferrone did Phase I and part of Phase II, and then Amirati bought Phase III, I believe, is how it went. MR. MAC EWAN-I’m kind of curious. What difference does it make? What does Phase I and Phase II have to do with this application? MR. BREWER-Because this applies to Phase III, and I’m wondering if the whole subdivision has the same kind of a. MR. WILSON-Mr. Brewer, I think you’re just saying that if somebody in Phase II wanted to do this, what would be our argument, I guess? MR. BREWER-No, no. I understand your argument. I’m just curious if the restrictions apply to the other Phases, that’s all. MR. WILSON-I don’t know. I really don’t know. I wish I could answer that. I don’t know. MR. BREWER-In other words, if they apply on one street, and the next street over they don’t apply, is what my question is, that’s all. I’m not trying to make a big deal of it. I just was curious. MR. MAC EWAN-Point taken. Anything else? Did you want to make some additional comments? MR. WILSON-Well, I just wanted to point out, I’m not sure, that letter that was just read, is that part of the record? MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, it is. 8 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/27/98) MR. WILSON-Okay. That was my point. Everybody here, I think, is opposed to it. I read somewhere that public speaking is the biggest fear of adults. I’m sure everybody here, on a show of hands, would raise their hand that they oppose the application, besides that, what Mr. Margison said that, you know, we don’t want to be watch dogs and become stressful neighbors and saying, you know, gee, it seemed like there were 12 customers down there today, and I know Dave Hatin’s a busy ma. He doesn’t need to be coming down to our street every few weeks to address this problem. Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Thank you. Anyone else? Last chance. We’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. CRETE-I’d like to appreciate the neighbors. I’d like you guys all to know, I don’t want to start out on the wrong foot with you guys. We appreciate your opinion. However, when my wife and I did buy into the development, we did check with the Town of Queensbury. It was zoned for Light Office, and I think everybody’s not looking at the last statement on Number 14 of our restrictions. It does state, “however, not withstanding a previous sentence, a professional such as a doctor, lawyer or accountant shall be permitted to maintain offices for his profession at his residence”. I don’t see a real big difference in what my wife wants to do and what this says. MRS. LA BOMBARD-That says that you could have a doctor’s office on that street? MR. CRETE-Yes, it says it right here. MR. MAC EWAN-I think that we’d be off on the wrong tangent trying to interpret what your deed restrictions allow or don’t allow. MR. CRETE-Well, I just wanted to point out that last statement. MR. MAC EWAN-It’s not in this Board’s power or review process to enforce deed restrictions or covenants on the property. However, we can take such deed restrictions into consideration when we review an application for site plan approval, and I guess it’s how one would interpret what they’re talking about, and as I read that last line, I guess I would have trouble with a doctor or a lawyer or an accountant or any professional office out of their home in a residential area as well, which brings us back to, you know, your application in general, and a lot of the concerns the neighbors are having, and questions that the Board has had as well. I’ll start with Tim again, do you have any additional questions for them, now that you’ve heard the public hearing? MR. BREWER-Well, I sympathize, and I understand exactly what they’re saying, but I think something has to be done. We had an application last week or the week before, similar, or last month, actually, a similar instance, but these things are allowed in that zone. There’s worse things allowed in that zone, in my mind. I honestly, I don’t know what to do. I mean, there’s funeral homes allowed. I think seriously that the Town ought to look at this thing. MR. SCHACHNER-Craig, I think I should point something out here. We’ve approached this review of this application with our generic understanding that the Town’s not of the authority to enforce deed covenants or deed restrictions. You know that you’ve heard me, as your Counsel, say that to you in the past, when applicants and opponents have made various arguments about deed covenants and deed restrictions. I have never seen the deed restrictions on this particular property until tonight when I arrived at our meeting here. People are focusing on Paragraph Number 14 in the Declaration, which is the appropriate Paragraph that discusses what is or is not allowed. However, there’s, in my quick review, and I have not, you know, rehearsed any of this or done any homework on this. This is the first I’ve seen of this, but in my quick review sitting here, there’s also a Paragraph 18 of this Declaration, entitled “Enforcement”, and that Paragraph says, and I’m quoting it verbatim, “The owner and the Town of Queensbury…..”, and then there’s a bunch of language that’s not relevant, “shall have the right to enforce…” And then there’s a bunch more language, “all easements, restrictions, covenants and conditions imposed by the provisions of this Declaration”. So I think I need, as your Counsel, to point out to the Board that this is very, very unusual deed restriction language. I’ve never seen language like this in a deed covenant, but just my superficial review, as I sit here right now, would lead me to conclude that, unlike the generic statement which you’ve recited and Tim has mentioned also, which is absolutely correct generically, in this particular situation, it appears that the Town may, in fact, have some legal rights to enforce the deed covenants. As to why that would be the case, I suppose at the time, I guess I can’t really speculate as to why that might be the case. Maybe it was required by the 9 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/27/98) Town, maybe it wasn’t required by the Town, but these owners of property who bought these lots have a Declaration of Covenants that not only entitles each of them to enforce them, which is the normal course of events in deed restriction, in the world of deed restrictions, but in fact, there is an opportunity for the Town to enforce them as well. I was to emphasize my use of the word “opportunity” because the Paragraph goes on to state that the Town is not obligated to enforce the deed restrictions. So I want to make the Planning Board comfortable with, you know, you’re not exposed to any liability of any sort if you fail to enforce the deed restrictions, but what is very, very different about this deed or these covenants than any covenants I’ve seen elsewhere is that it appears that the Town does have more rights than you generally have in this type of situation. I feel you should know that. MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you for that clarification. Tim, we left off with you. MR. BREWER-I’m just uncomfortable with the whole situation. There’s so many things that are allowed under site plan, or Type II uses that require a site plan that contradict what, in my mind, a residential area should be. So I’m just going to hold off for a minute, before I say anything more. MR. MAC EWAN-Bob, any other questions? MR. VOLLARO-I guess I just have one. The thing that impressed me about some of the comments were, that seemed particularly detrimental, was the school bus issue. Children would be discharged from somewhere around one to two o’clock in the afternoon, or one to three. Perhaps a modification of the hours, down to something like 10 to 2 might be considered, where you limit your hours, so that it’s out of phase with the school buses. That’s just my comment for right now. I have to take into account the overwhelming participation by neighbors and also the petition that was read by Laura, in my final decision. That’s all I have. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Keep in mind we still have to do a SEQRA. Cathy, any questions? MRS. LA BOMBARD-I feel very much like Bob does. Also, I’m just not sure that this use would be in general harmony with the rest of the neighborhood, as stated in one of the requirements for approval for site plan, and also I’m not so sure that extra traffic would not present a public hazard there, and again, all of the people that have come out, and they’ve certainly given some valid reasons. MR. MAC EWAN-Why don’t we do this. Before we go much farther here, not to cut off George and Bob, lets do the SEQRA and get that out of the way. MRS. LA BOMBARD-All right. Here we go. “Could action result in any adverse effects associated with the following. C1. Existing air quality, surface or groundwater quality or quantity, noise levels, existing traffic patterns, solid waste production or disposal, potential for erosion, drainage or flooding problems?” MR. STARK-Yes. MRS. LA BOMBARD-And I say yes, also. MR. STARK-Traffic patterns. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes. Can it be mitigated? MR. MAC EWAN-Small to moderate, large? What is it? MRS. LA BOMBARD-I’d say it’s small to moderate now, but it could grow into something. MR. STARK-There’s really no mitigating it, either. MR. BREWER-Do you think eight cars a day in that neighborhood is going to change the traffic pattern? MRS. LA BOMBARD-But I think it was the, eight cars maybe not. Lets say if everybody there got another car. I don’t think that’s the type of transportation that we would be worried about, because those people are tuned in to that neighborhood, like one of the neighbors said, but eight cars from people that could be in a rush, could be driving down a street that they’re doing something commercial on, they might feel that, they might not understand that this is indeed a 10 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/27/98) residential area. That’s, you know, we’re here to look out for the welfare and the safety of the people in this community. MR. BREWER-I don’t disagree with that one little bit, Cathy, but I think, in that neighborhood, if you put. MRS. LABOMBARD-I know that. I’m just telling you the difference between the eight cars that I feel. MR. BREWER-Okay. MRS. LA BOMBARD-All right. I didn’t mean to digress here, but. MR. MAC EWAN-So we came to the conclusion that was a small to moderate impact, and that it could be possibly mitigated. Is that correct? MRS. LA BOMBARD-No. I don’t know how we’re going to mitigate it. MR. STARK-How are you going to mitigate it? MR. MAC EWAN-We could limit the amount of traffic that she does have, if you went along that lines. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. All right. “Aesthetic, agricultural, archeological, historic, or other natural or cultural resources or community or neighborhood character?” MR. VOLLARO-Definitely. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Definitely, neighborhood character. MR. MAC EWAN-This is from an environmental standpoint, now. MR. STARK-No, it’s not going to change anything environmentally, change the character of the neighborhood. MRS. LA BOMBARD-I know it’s from an environmental, but environmental can also be all the impact of the people, not just the natural growing things that are there, or the natural living animals. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Can you go back to Number C2. Did you decide that was a yes or a no? MR. BREWER-I would say, no. MR. MAC EWAN-It’s a no. MRS. LA BOMBARD-I say yes, but they say no. That’s okay. MR. SCHACHNER-Well, you need to have a majority of the Board say something. MRS. LA BOMBARD-We’re on C2. “Agricultural, aesthetic, archeological, historic, or other natural or cultural resources or community or neighborhood character”. MR. PALING-No. MR. VOLLARO-I would say, no. MR. BREWER-No. MR. MAC EWAN-The no’s have it. MRS. LA BOMBARD-I said yes. MR. STARK-But they say no. 11 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/27/98) MRS. LA BOMBARD-That’s okay. It’s four to two. Okay. “Is there or is there likely to be controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts?” MR. PALING-No. MRS. LA BOMBARD-All right. Then I will move for a negative declaration. MR. BREWER-We have to answer Question One, correct? MR. SCHACHNER-Well, I’m backing up a step before that. I’m troubled, as your Counsel, I’m troubled at the Board’s answer to the question about public controversy. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s related to an environmental review. MRS. LA BOMBARD-See, environmental. MR. SCHACHNER-Well, traffic is one. MRS. LABOMBARD-See, I thought so, too. MR. SCHACHNER-Traffic is definitely, no question about it, under the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act, traffic, and for that matter neighborhood character, are deemed to be within the realm of environment. Cathy’s description of that has sort of a broader term than what we might think as lay people is fairly accurate. So I guess I’m basing my concern on the number of people that spoke at the public hearing, the vehemence with which they spoke, and I’m sort of comparing with most of the public hearings we’ve had on the literally hundreds of applications during all of our collective tenure here, and I guess I’m just troubled at that answer. I guess I would suggest, as your Counsel, that you re-visit that issue. If that’s your answer. I mean, there’s discretion. MR. MAC EWAN-Well, putting it that way, then I would agree with what you’re saying. MR. SCHACHNER-All I’m saying is that as your Counsel I would urge you to re-visit that issue because, legally, I’m a little uncomfortable with that answer. MR. MAC EWAN-Go back and re-read that one. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay, because we’ve thrashed this over before, and I felt the same way about people being environmentally part. MR. SCHACHNER-Well, I’m not suggesting that just because people speak at a public hearing, automatically means it’s controversy. MRS. LA BOMBARD-No, I mean people in and out of the area that we’re specifying here, not necessarily the people that are speaking. MR. SCHACHNER-Well, again, the question isn’t, this particular question doesn’t really relate to what you all think about the potential environmental impact, it’s whether or not there’s public controversy about that. To my mind, that’s more of an empirical observation, has there been public, for example, lets just say this was a project on Lake George, and 50 people showed up and said, this is going to pollute the waters of Lake George, and we all thought they’re nuts. It just isn’t going to pollute the waters, the fact is that, if 50 people show up and say, this is going to pollute the waters of Lake George, then I would, as your Counsel, say you need to answer that question with yes. Whether the controversy is right or wrong, the fact is it’s created public controversy, and that was my analogy, but I think this application merits your close consideration in reviewing that question. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Thank you. MR. STARK-But it could still be a negative dec, though, Craig. MR. SCHACHNER-Absolutely. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes. All right. Then we can go back to the first one, which wants to know if there’s an adverse effects associated with, we said existing traffic patterns. We said yes, and we 12 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/27/98) said that could maybe be mitigated by only allowing a certain amount of vehicles up the street. All right. Then we went back to. MR. PALING-Are we saying traffic pattern or traffic quantity? I have a problem with traffic pattern being. If it includes quantity, then fine. MRS. LA BOMBARD-I think traffic pattern can be any way you interpret it, but I’m not the Counsel. MR. PALING-We’ve got to say, then, we include quantity in that interpretation. MR. MAC EWAN-I think that’s a fair assessment. It’s going to have an impact, and I thought we agreed that it was going to be a small to moderate, and that’s something that could be mitigated through conditions imposed on the application. Okay. Now you want to go to the last one. MRS. LA BOMBARD-“Is there or is there likely to be controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts?” MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes. If yes, explain briefly. MR. MAC EWAN-The neighbor’s concern over potential for public safety, traffic hazards, aesthetics of the neighborhood. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Right. So we can explain it. Now, is there anybody that wants to make a motion for a negative declaration? MR. MAC EWAN-Put it up. MRS. LA BOMBARD-I’m not so sure I do now, if there’s two that we said yes on. MR. MAC EWAN-But the two that we said yes on, you could mitigate it. That doesn’t necessarily mean you’re throwing it into an EIS or something like that. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, that’s true. All right. MR. SCHACHNER-Well, you’ve also described at least one of them as small to moderate. MR. MAC EWAN-Right. MR. SCHACHNER-Which, again, that’s within your discretion, that’s fine. One thing I guess I’ll advise you again, or remind you again, you know, don’t confuse the SEQRA review with the ultimate site plan decision. MRS. LA BOMBARD-That’s true. You’re right, Mark. Okay. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 56-98 , Introduced by Catherine LaBombard who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Paling: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: JANICE GILLEY CRETE , 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: 13 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/27/98) 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. 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. th Duly adopted this 27 day of October, 1998, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stark, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Paling, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Ringer MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. We muddled through that. Anything that you wanted to add? MRS. CRETE-I don’t think the school bus thing is going to be a problem because the school bus blocks the whole street, so cars can’t even get through when the kids get off the school bus. The school bus crosses over the street. So the school bus does block the whole street so that no cars can get through anyway, and every day of our lives, we stop for school buses, everywhere, every city, every town, everywhere. Do you know what I mean? People are aware of school buses. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Anything else? MR. PALING-We have a very difficult situation here, and if this were a doctor or lawyer, accountant or beautician coming in and there were no public comment, I dare say it would go through pretty smoothly without any hitch, because it is an allowed use, but the big difference, as Mark pointed out, is the public sentiment. There’s so much of it, and that’s the thing that’s swaying me to be against it, or to allow it to be open in such a restrictive way that it would have very, very little impact on the traffic pattern in the neighborhood. MR. MAC EWAN-I guess I would add to that, we’ve reviewed applications similar to this in the past, and you hear about the terms being allowed use. Just because it’s an allowed use doesn’t necessarily mean it’s an appropriate use. MR. PALING-But then I don’t think, in good conscience, you could ever have any professional office in this neighborhood of any kind. MRS. LA BOMBARD-I agree. MR. PALING-The traffic that would be generated by this operation, providing it’s one person running it, is going to be pretty small, a lot less than a doctor’s office, for instance, would generate, and if they can’t go in there, I don’t see how they could allow any professional office in this neighborhood. MRS. LA BOMBARD-I agree. I just have to say that it’s hard to not listen to the neighbors, because you buy a house, that’s your biggest purchase that you’re going to make in your life, for most people, and they bought their homes, thinking that they’re going to live in a residential only area, and raise their kids, and then all of a sudden, through a vote, their whole future is changed, and they don’t own, anymore, what they thought they had, and that’s where I just, I have a tough time okaying this. 14 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/27/98) MRS. CRETE-May I say something? MRS. LA BOMBARD-Sure. There are businesses in the neighborhood going on, just nobody has approached businesses in the neighborhood going on, just nobody has approached you. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, then that’s something that would have to be dealt with through other channels. As a matter of fact, over this past year, we had somebody that had been running a business for a long time out of a residential area, and it wasn’t until he wanted to be an upstanding person, he came to apply for a sign, and all of a sudden, it came out he’s running this business. Well, that was the end of his business. So, that’s too bad. I can’t make a comment on that. You can only deal with what’s in front of us now. I’m sorry. MR. VOLLARO-I think the pivotal thing with me is the restrictions and covenants. If I had bought a home with these kind of restrictions, and even if that got approved at this Board, I probably would carry this further through a legal position if I had to. So I think that that’s what’s going to sway my vote here, and the fact that the Town does have a part to play, as Mark pointed out, which certainly plays big in my mind. MR. BREWER-I echo the Board. I have to see it through the applicant’s eyes, also. They believe that it’s an allowed use. It is an allowed use in our Code. I don’t, personally, think it’s an appropriate use, and I would vote no for it. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Does someone want to put up a motion? MR. PALING-Could I just make a suggestion? The only thing I could think of that would possibly save this, and I’d say it’s about a five percent chance, is if the applicant went back and reviewed the way they did business and the amount of traffic generated, and they would limit themselves to a specific amount, like no more than two or three cars per day, and the business hours, and then re- submit, but I don’t even know if that would work. MR. MAC EWAN-I think that becomes a very difficult thing to police. MR. BREWER-I’ll make a motion. MR. MAC EWAN-Go ahead. MOTION TO DENY SITE PLAN NO. 56-98 JANICE GILLEY CRETE , Introduced by Timothy Brewer who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Stark: For the following reasons: The use would not be in harmony with the general neighborhood. Considerations given to traffic patterns and flow are of great concern to the Board, and I just don’t feel it’s an appropriate use, considering all the public outcry this evening. Also, it would not be in harmony with 179-38 of the Zoning Ordinance, that it would have an adverse impact on the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood. th Duly adopted this 27 day of October, 1998, by the following vote: MR. MAC EWAN-Can I amend that for you? I don’t think it would be in harmony with 179-38 of the Zoning Ordinance, in that it would have an adverse impact on the health, safety and welfare and the aesthetics of the neighborhood. MR. BREWER-I don’t think it has anything to do with the aesthetics. MR. MAC EWAN-I do. MR. BREWER-I made the motion. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. You don’t want it in there? MR. BREWER-No. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. What about the first part? 15 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/27/98) MR. BREWER-I think that’s probably included with our discussion, the welfare and safety, yes, I agree with that, but the aesthetic part I don’t. MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. Craig’s asking, I think, do you want the specific reference to the zoning law and section, and I think that would be very appropriate. MR. BREWER-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Lets have a second. MR. STARK-Second. AYES: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Paling, Mr. Stark, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Ringer MR. MAC EWAN-Sorry, folks. MRS. CRETE-That’s okay. That’s why we’re here tonight. MR. CRETE-That’s why we’re here. MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. MR. CRETE-Thank you. SITE PLAN NO. 57-98 TYPE II PAUL T. VAN SCHAICK OWNER: SAME ZONE: WR-1A, C.E.A. LOCATION: FIELDING LANE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT A 988 SQ. FT. ADDITION TO A SECOND FLOOR LIVING AREA. SITE PLAN APPROVAL IS REQUIRED FOR ANY ENLARGEMENT OF A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE WITHIN A CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL AREA. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 70-1998 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 10/14/98 TAX MAP NO. 12-1-11 LOT SIZE: 12,400 SQ. FT. SECTION: 179-16, 179-79 JOE ROULIER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 57-98, Paul T. Van Schaick, Meeting Date: October 27, 1998 “Description of Project The applicant proposes to construct an addition to a home that is located in the WR-1A zone and a CEA. Site Plan review is required for enlargement of structures in the WR-1A zone and CEA. Staff Notes The project does not appear to have visual interference with neighboring homes. The location of the home is currently in an area that is residentially dense. The Board may wish to review the waterfront density issue that includes the view-shed to Lake George and from Lake George. Staff has no additional comments.” MRS. MOORE-And Warren County said “No County Impact”. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else? MRS. MOORE-No. MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening. MR. ROULIER-Good evening. I’m Joe Roulier. I’m here representing Mr. Van Schaick, and I’ll be happy to answer any questions that you may have. MR. MAC EWAN-Why don’t you give us a short presentation about your project, and we’ll take it from there. MR. ROULIER-Okay. Basically what we’re doing is we’re taking the existing single story, wood frame home on the property, of approximately 1400 square feet, we’re raising the roof on that 16 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/27/98) structure. We’re using the existing footprint that is there, and we are then developing the interior of the house, so that it has the 1400 square feet on the first floor, and approximately 988 square feet on the second floor. The only change, in single story, wood frame home on the property, of approximately 1400 square feet, we’re raising the roof on that structure. We’re using the existing footprint that is there, and we are then developing the interior of the house, so that it has the 1400 square feet on the first floor, and approximately 988 square feet on the second floor. The only change, in my opinion the only change, well, there’s two changes of significance. The footprint is being altered by 44 square feet on the easterly side of the house, which would be 11 foot by 4 foot, and the other major change to the house is that we’re then taking the existing footprint and putting the second story on the house. We have obtained the required variances. We’ve received the approvals for that last week. We did address the height limitation of 28 feet, which is new height restriction in the Town of Queensbury for Waterfront Residential and we will conform to that, and basically, in a nutshell, that’s essentially what we’re doing. We’re not encroaching further on the lake. In fact, the front wall of the existing house, with the windows, as you see it on the front elevation, the first floor exists with the two separate sliders and the angle bay window on the front. That’s not being changed at all. So there’s no further encroachment out toward the lake. We will be remaining 62 feet from the lake shore. On either side of the property, they are narrow setbacks of six foot and eight foot respectively. With the exception of the 44 square feet on the easterly side of the property, there’s no change or encroachment on the boundary line or closer to either of the neighbors either to the east or west side of the property. The house currently, for drainage, has gutters that are on the east and west side of the house. It’s a gable end house, and the gutters will simply be raised to the second story of the house, so that the actual drainage from the property will not, it will not be drained either on the neighbor’s property, but will be no different than the way it is right now. That’s essentially what I’m working with. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. PALING-I’ve got a couple of questions. The prints I have are marked “preliminary”. MR. ROULIER-Yes. MR. PALING-What’s the difference between what I’ve got, in so far as the plan view is concerned, I think you said one thing, but I didn’t follow you all the way. MR. ROULIER-If you go to the first floor plan view of the property, and the area that says “area to be added”, okay, the diagonal area is four foot by four foot. That area right there will be the four foot by eleven foot. MR. PALING-Instead of four by four? MR. ROULIER-That’s correct. Okay. That’s one change. The other change is just internal changes in the kitchen, for example, the layout of the kitchen. MR. PALING-Okay. I don’t think we are concerned with that. MR. ROULIER-Right. That’s the only. MR. PALING-Then what is the Floor Area of the total area of the total house? MR. ROULIER-The Floor Area of the total house, when it’s completed, will be 2408. MR. PALING-2408. Now I think that’s the basis of your comment, isn’t it, Laura, in regard to density? Are you looking for that ratio that we came up with? MRS. MOORE-No. It’s not, I’m talking about the number of houses that you see on the lake currently, that the provision in the Waterfront zone, gives us an opportunity to review the option whether to allow additional construction on the lake shore. That’s a view to the lake, and a view from the lake. MR. STARK-This doesn’t impact anybody’s view. MR. PALING-No, no. That’s not my question. We also had a go around, about three or four years ago, in which Floor Area, there was a formula derived. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. That’s the 22%. 17 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/27/98) MR. PALING-The 22%. Now we’re under that, are we, we’re okay there? MRS. MOORE-As far as I know. He’s gotten relief for that. MR. PALING-Are we within that? MR. ROULIER-Can I address that? MR. PALING-Yes. MR. ROULIER-Yes. Last week at the variance meeting, one of the requests was that the Floor Area Ratio, which is 22%, be expanded, and what they allowed us to do was to expand it to approximately 25%. There was a three percent increase in the Floor Area Ratio, to accommodate this project. MR. PALING-That was a specific request and it was allowed? MR. ROULIER-Yes, it was. MR. PALING-I’m surprised. All right. It was allowed, and I have no other questions. MRS. LA BOMBARD-It’s beautiful. MR. MAC EWAN-Any questions? MRS. LA BOMBARD-Just the preliminary thing, that’s all. MR. ROULIER-Yes. Basically it’s only internal changes in layouts of the bathrooms, a couple of, the bathroom and the powder room, there’s been some minor changes in that area. The hot water heater, for example, has been moved downstairs, and the kitchen layout, but that is it. I haven’t had the final plans drawn, because of the economics of having another copy done, until I received all my approvals. That’s why this is stamped “preliminary”. All right. MR. VOLLARO-I have a question. On your site plan review checklist, under “G.” It says location of existing and proposed sewage disposal facilities, and so on. You can see the paragraph, you’re reading it now. The last portion of that paragraph says, and percolation test results. Also location of existing sewer and water systems on adjoining lots, and you have a “P” for provided, and I couldn’t find that data. MR. ROULIER-I provided that to the Town. First of all, we will be putting in a complete new septic system, okay. MR. VOLLARO-I understand that. I didn’t, it’s one of the things that we’re supposed to look at in site plan review, and we this Board should have an opportunity to look at that data that you say is provided. Has that been provided? Laura, do you have that package? MRS. MOORE-It may be in the variance file. I don’t have it in the site plan file. MR. ROULIER-I know that Craig, initially, Craig Brown, had initially called me on that. He asked me to give more detail as to the specifics of what the septic system was that we’d be putting on to the property. I provided him with that information. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I guess, I don’t doubt that you did. My problem is, as a Board member, I, in looking at what has been provided, and for me to review that, just to take a look at it, it isn’t here, at least it isn’t in my packet, and it’s certainly a requirement in the site plan review. MR. MAC EWAN-As part of the application, I mean, obviously, he must have submitted multiple material for both Board’s review. Was the perc test reviewed by Rist-Frost, are you aware of? MRS. MOORE-Not that I’m aware of, no. MR. ROULIER-There was no perc test done as part of this application. MR. VOLLARO-Well, then why did you say it was provided? I don’t understand that. 18 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/27/98) MR. ROULIER-Because when I initially went in and I spoke to Craig at the time, he said that the sewage portion of it, the sewage portion of the permit, would be handled by the Building Department, and, at that time, he asked me for a detail of what I was proposing for the sewage system or the new septic system that we’d be putting in, but he gave me every indication that the perc test, and any related material, would not be required until such time as a filed for the permit. MR. MAC EWAN-Could we get clarification from Staff on that, please. What I’m looking for is either and/or answer. Should he have provided and perc test and calculations for his proposed new septic system, or is he to wait until building permit application, to spell it out for the folks in Building and Codes for them to check it? MRS. MOORE-They generally view the sewer, I mean, we’ve discussed that before. We could have asked for it. It’s not, we felt that the Building Department would handle that issue. MR. BREWER-How come we do it on some of them, and some of them we don’t? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I don’t know why it’s on the site plan review checklist if it’s not germane. I have a problem with that. I mean, when I review these, and I see the “P”’s, for provided, I usually search my package out to see that that’s indeed in there, and I look it over. MR. BREWER-Especially in a CEA. MR. PALING-See at least where it’s located. MR. STARK-Yes, but, Tim, the Department of Health has to okay this. The DOH okays it. The Town Board, acting as the Board of Health, okays it. MR. BREWER-The Town Board won’t see this, will they? MR. STARK-Yes, acting as the Board of Health. MR. BREWER-Absolutely not, George, no. MR. MAC EWAN-Only if it’s a modification to the site plan. MR. BREWER-I guess what my point, George, is if we require for some of them, why don’t we require them for all of them? And I’m not picking on Joe, but, I mean, if we make one person do it, why shouldn’t we make everybody do it? MR. PALING-We do require location from everyone. MR. MAC EWAN-I have a drawing here that he’s submitted showing where the proposed new septic tank’s going to be. Is that not correct? This one right here? MR. ROULIER-That’s correct. MR. VOLLARO-I guess I’m just questioning the words that are on the site plan review, you know, trying to be transparent with a lot of this other stuff and read the words, and these words say to me that there’s a piece of material I should be looking at that’s not here. That’s my basic problem. Now, maybe this whole “G.” ought to be taken off this sheet, so we get rid of it. I’m not saying it should. I think Tim’s got an excellent point. Sometimes we do it, sometimes we don’t. MRS. MOORE-In most cases, some people provide existing, and in this case, this individual, because of Waterfront regulations, he’s putting in a whole new system. So I believe we concentrated on the proposed sewage system, the location of the new one. MR. VOLLARO-Because, to me, that’s even more important, that a new system is going in without even having percolation test data. He said he hasn’t taken it yet. MR. BREWER-It should be adequate. At least, and nobody’s indicating that it won’t be adequate, but. MRS. MOORE-You know, you can, lack of Staff review on that portion, then. 19 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/27/98) MR. BREWER-Shame on you. Maybe we should, if we approve this application, with the exception this application, make sure that he provides it before he gets his building permit. MR. ROULIER-That was the impression that I had from Craig, in my conversations with him, was that all of the, and I told him that we would be putting in a new septic system, which we are, and I’ve provided that to you, and he said that all of that would be part and parcel of the actual building permit application, to provide what I’ve presented to you, and in addition to that, as part of the application, would be the perc test for the Building Department, because, you know, had I felt as though it was critical to this proceeding, I certainly would have provided it to you. MR. STARK-Craig, can you poll the Board and we’ll, you know, he wants it in there, some of us don’t want it in there. Just poll the Board, and we’ll see if it’s necessary. MR. MAC EWAN-We can work around it, to the fact that, should we approve this thing, we can put, and tag it to the approval that the calculations are submitted to the Building and Codes prior to issuing a building permit. MR. STARK-It has to be anyway. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, that’s fine. MR. STARK-It doesn’t have to be in a motion. It has to be anyway. MR. ROULIER-I believe on all of the, in fact, we’ll be doing at least one other that I can think of up on Cleverdale this fall, and before we’ve even started that, we’ve already had the perc test, so that we have that information available to the Building Department. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Lets move along here. Anything else that you had, Bob? MR. VOLLARO-No, that’s all I had. MR. MAC EWAN-Tim? MR. BREWER-No. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything you want to add, Joe? MR. ROULIER-No. I know that, I just want to make a comment that, for the variance portion of this, we did receive two letters, both from the neighbor to the west and from the neighbor to the east, and at that point, they would have certainly addressed this Board, but at that point, they did not oppose this. They had seen the plans, and they had absolutely no objection to it. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Anything else Staff wants to add? Lets open up the public hearing. Does anyone want to comment to this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MAC EWAN-No SEQRA required, so we’ll entertain a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 57-98 PAUL T. VAN SCHAICK , Introduced by George Stark who moved for its adoption, seconded by Catherine LaBombard: That when he submits for his building permit for the septic system, that those calculations will be submitted for review. th Duly adopted this 27 day of October, 1998, by the following vote: MR. MAC EWAN-We didn’t get any written resolutions this time. MR. BREWER-Do you want to include that condition, George? 20 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/27/98) MR. STARK-I didn’t see any. MR. BREWER-No. The condition about the septic. MR. STARK-It’s got to be okayed by the DOH before he gets a building permit by the, the Building Department’s got to okay it anyway. MR. VOLLARO-George, I guess my only problem with that is, and I’m perfectly willing to have “G.” totally removed from this check sheet. I don’t even know why it’s on here. If what you say is true, why are we reviewing it on here? MR. BREWER-Where do you get that it goes to the DOH? MR. STARK-The DOH has to approve septic systems. MR. BREWER-Counsel’s saying no. MR. SCHACHNER-Well, Staff is saying no. I’m parroting her. MR. STARK-Gee, any time I had a septic system approved, I had to go to the State. MR. PALING-Does that include perc rate? MR. BREWER-No, it doesn’t go to them. MR. PALING-Then why don’t we just put that part in, then I think we’re going to satisfy everyone. MR. MAC EWAN-He’s willing to offer it. You were willing to offer it, right? MR. ROULIER-Yes, I certainly was. I would have provided it to you, but I was told that it would be completely handled by the Building Department, and based on the experiences that I’ve had in doing septic systems around the lake, that we always provided to the Building Department before they issue the permit to us. MR. MAC EWAN-You’ll provide that at time of building permit application, right? MR. ROULIER-For the septic system portion of it, that’s correct. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Do we have a second? MRS. LABOMBARD-I’ll second it. MR. BREWER-That’s fine with you, George? MR. STARK-Yes. MR. BREWER-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-You’ve got that, right? That that’s going to be added, that when he submits for his building permit, for the septic system, that those calculations will be submitted for review. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Paling, Mr. Stark, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Ringer MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set, Joe. MR. ROULIER-Thank you very much. 21 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/27/98) SITE PLAN NO. 58-98 TYPE: UNLISTED WAYNE D. KELLOGG CAROLYN R. KELLOGG OWNER: SAME ZONE: WR-1A, GLEN LAKE C.E.A. LOCATION: 14 JAY ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO DEMOLISH 3 BEDROOM RESIDENCE AND CONSTRUCT A NEW 3 BEDROOM RESIDENCE WITH NEW SEPTIC SYSTEM. SITE PLAN REVIEW IS REQUIRED FOR FILLING OR HARD SURFACING WITHIN 50’ OF THE SHORELINE. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 71-1998 TAX MAP NO. 43-2-23 LOT SIZE: 0.20 ACRES SECTION: 179-16, 179-60 B4 MICHEAL O’CONNOR, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 58-98, Wayne and Carolyn Kellogg, Meeting Date: October 27, 1998 “Description of Project Applicant proposes to demolish an existing structure and build a new structure. Site plan review is required for any hard surfacing within fifty feet of the shoreline. Staff Notes The applicant has complied with all aspects of site plan application including a landscape plan. The proposed construction does not appear to be a visual interference with neighboring homes. Again the Board may wish to review the waterfront density issue that includes the view-shed to Lake George and from Lake George. Staff has no additional comments.” MRS. MOORE-And the applicant did receive his variance approval. MR. MAC EWAN-Any other comments? MRS. MOORE-No. MR. MAC EWAN-Warren County? MRS. MOORE-It didn’t go to Warren County. MR. MAC EWAN-It didn’t go to Warren County. Okay. Before we get out of here, remind me to go back to Garvey KIA and Joseph Leuci. MRS. MOORE-Okay. MR. O’CONNOR-Mr. Chairman, I’m Michael O’Connor from the law firm of Little & O’Connor, and with me are Wayne & Carolyn Kellogg who are the applicants. Basically, what they wish to do is tear down a three bedroom home on Glen Lake, not Lake George, and replace it with a three bedroom home that is larger than the existing home, but more in compliance with side site lines than the existing home, front setback, and in fact, they have gone to extreme effort here to bring this into as much compliance as they can. They increased what was an 8200 square foot lot to a 23,000 square foot lot, so that they would have adequate room for septic, further away from the lake, and that’s basically what we’re trying to do. They have also put together an extensive landscape plan, which we have a copy of, and which I think has been submitted to the Board. We have contacted neighbors on both sides of the property. We have a written affidavit type consent that we used for the application before the Zoning Board of Appeals for the neighbors to the west of the property, saying that they had joined with the applicant and ask the Board to approve the project. The neighbors to the east of the project, in fact, facilitated the project by agreeing to convey to us the difference between our 8,000 square foot and the 23,000 square foot parcel. They’re giving up about 15,000 square foot of their parcel to make our lot more conforming, and that’s basically what we’re talking about. MR. MAC EWAN-Nothing else to add? MR. O’CONNOR-I’m trying to be brief. I’m told that I’m too lengthy. I’d rather answer your questions. I also have with me Matt Cifone who is the builder, and Dave Linehan from Girard Landscape, who is the landscape contractor. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. STARK-Well, the only concern I have with the applicant is if he’s going to paint it Goodyear blue or not. I have no questions at all. I’m sure the job will be done right. MRS. LA BOMBARD-It’s lovely. 22 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/27/98) MR. BREWER-I already got my answer about the “P”, the letter from Tom Nace. MR. VOLLARO-What the letter from Tom Nace said, that’s how I read that. MR. O’CONNOR-It described the soils and described that they had good filtration. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I read Nace’s letter, and I figured out that fill would be requirement. MR. O’CONNOR-We had him design the septic and locate it with that intent. MR. VOLLARO-That’s what I figured. MR. BREWER-It looks like a nice plan. MR. MAC EWAN-Lets do a SEQRA, then. MR. STARK-The public hearing. MR. MAC EWAN-The public hearing, I’m sorry, yes. See, I’m trying to speed it along here, too. Lets open up the public hearing. Does anyone want to comment regarding this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. STARK-SEQRA, Short Form. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 58-98 , Introduced by Catherine LaBombard who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Stark: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: WAYNE & CAROLYN KELLOGG , 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. 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. 23 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/27/98) th Duly adopted this 27 day of October, 1998, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Paling, Mr. Stark, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Brewer, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Ringer MR. MAC EWAN-One question before we move for an approval. You did go to Beautification? Did the Beautification Committee review this? MR. O’CONNOR-No, we did not. MRS. MOORE-Residential projects, no. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-Before we proceed, Mr. Chairman, I’d just like to get a clarification, for my own personal, if I may, sir. I guess I was somewhat confused, even at the Zoning Board, and I’m just trying to get something clear in my mind, with respect to 179-16, and that’s, in talking about the height, the 28 foot height. MR. O’CONNOR-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-And it’s measured along the vertical plane, and all of that, of the grade at any point, and it says, at any point of the building/structure, and I’m told that the interpretation of that is that the chimney doesn’t count. Is that true, or does anybody know what the answer is? MR. O’CONNOR-That has been discussed before, specifically with the ZBA, and they have not counted the chimneys. MR. VOLLARO-They don’t count the chimney. MR. O’CONNOR-No, and the last time I came, it came up with, and it’s in the minutes, is Phil Morse’s application on Lake George. MR. VOLLARO-Well, then we probably ought to make a change to 179, to say that chimney’s don’t count in this, really, because if you counted the chimney, you’ve got a 34% increase in height on that building. I measured it at thirty-seven, five. MR. O’CONNOR-All right. The only question I would have is the elevation of the ground underneath the chimney, because that back part of the roof is measured from a different ground elevation. MR. VOLLARO-Well, I took it from, on each drawing, a front elevation, side elevation and all of that, from finished grade indications. MR. O’CONNOR-Okay. This drawing here, which we got into a little bit of discussion, this drawing here, except for the front elevation, is not exactly true, as far as the final grade on the side elevations. The side elevations will be brought up so that the back portion of the house, even though it’s taller than the front portion of the house, will comply because there’s a change in grade underneath the back portion of the house, and I almost think that that chimney might, it’s academic, but I think the chimney might be under that part where there’s a change in elevation. MR. VOLLARO-I guess why I brought the question up is I’m a little bit confused about the words, in 179-16, and any Board member after me, or whatever, this really ought to have a disclaimer in there that says, not including the chimney, period, because I can make, you know, when I read it, I made that mistake, and in fact, as I put it on here, and somebody, some fellow saved my life from being embarrassed and said that the 37.5 chimney height is not included, and I said, well, gee, that’s nice, you know, I spent all this time fooling around with this. So I think it ought to be changed. I’m just letting the Staff know how I feel about that. 24 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/27/98) MR. BREWER-I have one other comment, just that caution be taken during demolition, hay bales and whatever be put out. MR. O’CONNOR-We show that. On our building and construction plans, we show that. It will be skirted to follow the erosion rules. There actually is a detailed sketch, was the second page of the survey, which had detailed construction for erosion control. MR. BREWER-Just a comment, worthy of note. MR. MAC EWAN-Lets have a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 58-98 WAYNE D. KELLOGG CAROLYN R. KELLOGG , Introduced by George Stark who moved for its adoption, seconded by Catherine LaBombard: th Duly adopted this 27 day of October, 1998, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stark, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Paling, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Ringer MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set, folks. MR. O’CONNOR-We thank you very much. WAYNE KELLOGG MR. KELLOGG-I’d like to thank the Board, and we’ll do a good job. MR. MAC EWAN-Going back to Garvey KIA, when we tabled that, I’d like to amend that so that we can open up the public hearing and leave it open, and also the Site Plan for 55-98, the same thing, I’ll open up the public hearing and leave it open. MRS. MOORE-Okay. thth MR. MAC EWAN-Our meetings next month are the 17 and the 24. Has anybody got anything else? I’ll make a motion to adjourn. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Craig MacEwan, Chairman 25