Loading...
1998-09-22 SP (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/22/98) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SPECIAL MEETING SEPTEMBER 22, 1998 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT CRAIG MAC EWAN, CHAIRMAN CATHERINE LA BOMBARD, SECRETARY ROBERT PALING ROBERT VOLLARO TIMOTHY BREWER LARRY RINGER MEMBERS ABSENT GEORGE STARK PLANNER -LAURA MOORE TOWN COUNSEL -MILLER, MANNIX & PRATT-MARK SCHACHNER STENOGRAPHER -MARIA GAGLIARDI CORRECTION OF MINUTES July 21, 1998: None July 28, 1998: None August 18, 1998: None THTH MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF JULY 21ST, 28 AND AUGUST 18 , Introduced by Robert Paling who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro: nd Duly adopted this 22 day of September, 1998, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Paling, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Brewer, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Stark OLD BUSINESS: SUBDIVISION NO. 9-1998 TYPE: UNLISTED PRELIMINARY STAGE FINAL STAGE KIMBERLEE GOSLINE OWNER: WILLIAM & MARYLEE GOSLINE ZONE: RR-3A LOCATION: END OF BLACKBERRY LANE, OFF OF BLIND ROCK ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO SUBDIVIDE A 9.30 ACRE PARCEL INTO TWO LOTS OF 3 ACRES AND 6.30 ACRES. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 58-1998 TAX MAP NO. 60-7-22 LOT SIZE: 9.30 ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS MARY LEE GOSLINE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Subdivision No. 9-1998 - Prelim. & Final Stg., Kimberlee Gosline, Meeting Description of Project: Date: September 22, 1998 “ Subdivision 9-1998 was tabled at the previous Planning Board meeting so the applicant’s Area Variance 58-1998 could be addressed prior to the Planning Board decision. The applicant received approval to have road frontage via a Staff Comments: right of way (attached). The Planning Board identified two concerns with the proposed subdivision - topography of the driveway and a previous use variance. The applicant was requested to prepare a driveway profile for lot access from Black Berry Lane. Section 183-24 J of the Subdivision Regulations indicates the grade of a driveway between the pavement and the 1 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/22/98) setback line shall not exceed 10%. The placement of the building within the building envelope does not appear to need a grading plan. The second concern was in regard to the condition contained in the original Use Variance #1321. The Zoning Board amended their decision by omitting the no further subdivision text. Therefore, the Board is able to make a determination on the proposed subdivision and the requested waiver. Staff has no additional comments.” MR. MAC EWAN-Did the Staff get a letter of waivers? MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Good evening. Could you identify yourself for the record, please? MRS. GOSLINE-Mary Lee Gosline. MR. MAC EWAN-I think everything, at this point, is in order, isn’t it? MRS. GOSLINE-I haven’t seen the new map. So I don’t know what. MR. MAC EWAN-It appears to be fine by me. Tim, we’ll start with you. Any questions? Larry? Bob? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I still have a question on the slope. The profile at the bottom of the map starts off at the intersection of Blackberry Lane, and it shows an acceptable slope on that, but that slope line stops at the property line. Now, 183-24J talks about no greater than a 10% slope from the beginning of the property down to the setback, which in this case is 50 feet, and I was over there today again and looked at it, and I calculated it, we’re looking at about a 20% slope. I got that from taking a look at the run and the rise, and just estimating it, and I noticed that on the drawing it says, individual lot grading shall conform to Section 183-25, and that’s where you pick up that 10% grade. So, it’s a question of whether we talk about that or that the drawing is the governing document here. MR. MAC EWAN-Are you talking about from the property line to the setback, is unknown? MR. VOLLARO-Here to here is unknown. MR. BREWER-Who did the map? MR. MAC EWAN-Van Dusen and Steves. MR. VOLLARO-It was a Van Dusen and Steves drawing. MR. BREWER-Well, in my mind, if he says that the grading will conform, and he’s stamped the plan, to me, I think it’s good enough for me, in my mind. I’m not saying we should or shouldn’t approve it, but I think an engineer or surveyor. MR. MAC EWAN-That falls into the scope of a building inspector inspecting the grading on site, so that if it doesn’t comply with the Ordinance, the Zoning Ordinance, that they would ask that they either re-grade, bring in fill, or whatever the case may be. MRS. MOORE-Or come back to have a variance to have a slope, or come back for site plan review for a slope greater than 10%. MR. MAC EWAN-Or comply with it. MRS. MOORE-Correct. MR. BREWER-And do they actually, how do they measure the slope? Do they actually go out, or do they just look at it and say it’s okay? MR. VOLLARO-No. The slope is determined by the run and the rise of the land. It’s determined by taking a look at how far out you’re going. It’s like the triangle, and somebody has to actually do that by construction on the site. MR. BREWER-Question, does our Building Inspectors? 2 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/22/98) MRS. MOORE-Our Building Inspectors? I believe they would, but I would have to ask them that question. MR. MAC EWAN-I don’t think we routinely have our Building Inspectors go out there with transits and shoot the site. I think we rely upon the documentation that’s presented with the application. In this case, it’s a licensed surveyor who signs off on the document, and if it becomes an obvious thing, then the Town would direct the applicant or the builder. MR. BREWER-But there is no stamp on this. So maybe we should have a stamp on it, to have it approved, so that that will be taken care of. Is that a problem? MRS. GOSLINE-He said he was going to put his name on there. MR. BREWER-He drew the map, but he didn’t stamp it. MR. PALING-The engineer isn’t telling us what the slope here is. MR. BREWER-No. It says here that it will conform to Section A183-25. MR. PALING-Yes, but there’s nothing we can do with that. We can only go by what’s on the print. MR. MAC EWAN-Right. What we’re saying is that Bob has raised a question that he’s not sure, from his site visit, whether the slope meets the 10% grade that’s required by the Ordinance or not. MR. PALING-And I would agree with him. MR. MAC EWAN-And our position is that if it doesn’t meet the Ordinance, then it would be up to the Building Inspectors, during their inspection process, to note that, either A, have the builder/homeowner/whoever’s responsible for it, make the grade adhere to the Ordinance or they have to come back in here and ask for a variance or a modification of the site plan. MR. BREWER-How is that checked, though? MR. PALING-I don’t understand that reasoning, but that’s all right. I agree with Bob that I don’t think, the slope is well above 10%, and I thought it was our duty, then, to pass or not pass on something like that, and it’s normally shown on the print. If we had the two foot contours here, we would know more, but we don’t, but anyway, I agree with Bob, and I thought it was our duty to enforce that kind of a thing and not pass it on to someone else to check. MR. BREWER-Well, I guess what my thought, Bob, was if he puts it on the print, he stamps it, then that would be fine with me. MR. PALING-I’ll accept that, sure, but I don’t. MR. BREWER-But it’s not stamped and it’s not on the print, so that if we can get him to do that, then I don’t have a problem with it. That’s my thought. MR. PALING-I just want to say one thing. I don’t think, Tim, that the slope is anywhere near 10. MR. BREWER-I agree. MR. PALING-Okay. All right. MR. BREWER-But if he can show it on the plan that it will be, because he says it will conform. MRS. GOSLINE-Excuse me. You’re talking about presently being 10? Nothing has been done now. That’s why I thought you wanted to show us what we had to do, and that’s what we were going to do. MR. PALING-But then you show it on a print. MR. BREWER-Right. 3 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/22/98) MRS. GOSLINE-Yes, it’s on the print isn’t it, to show? No? It just shows what I have to do, it tells me? MR. VOLLARO-It stops at your property line. It doesn’t go from the property line to the setback in front of the proposed position for your house, and that’s kind of blank on the drawing, and it’s not, you can’t interpret it, because there’s nothing there. You can measure it, and see that there’s about 50 feet to the line and about another 25 feet to the house, that would be roughly 75 foot from your property line to your house. When I’m out there and take a look out, I see that the house is going to be 15 feet, roughly, below where I’m standing. Now you do some quick calculation, you come up with a slope of between 18 and 20% on there, and that’s pretty steep. MRS. GOSLINE-You’d have to bring in fill and make a driveway, right? MR. VOLLARO-I don’t know if you can fill it that easy. You’re down pretty deep. What I see is you might have to move your house back in order to get some more ability to flatten out that driveway a little bit, but that’s going to be for see is you might have to move your house back in order to get some more ability to flatten out that driveway a little bit, but that’s going to be for your guy to, for your engineer to say. MRS. GOSLINE-Anything, you know, if you tell us what we have to do, we’ll just go along with that and get the 10% grade. I haven’t done anything on the property. We cut a few trees, and that’s it. MR. VOLLARO-I know. I was there today. I went back to look at it, and I know you haven’t done anything on it. MRS. GOSLINE-And they’re not planning on building now for probably a year or so. So it’s not going to be anything right in the, so we can do all this grading and such in the mean time. MR. MAC EWAN-Can you shed some light on this, please? MR. SCHACHNER-Well, the only light I can shed on it is I think you should be very careful about reading too much into a surveyor’s stamp. All that really does, and I don’t mean to belittle this. This is important, but what that is is a certification that the survey information on a map is correct, and that surveyor’s license backs that up. It’s appropriate to put notes like this on a subdivision map, but you can’t really hold the surveyor to the future that grading will or won’t take place in a certain manner. You can really only rely on the applicant for that, not the surveyor or engineer or anybody else like that. MR. VOLLARO-What weight does this Note Number Three carry on this drawing? MR. SCHACHNER-Well, the note is appropriate, because the regulation is in fact effect, but I think your concerns are totally valid, and you’ve already identified as a Board a number of ways to handle those concerns. You can either, it would certainly be appropriate to get that information on the map, because right now, as you say, it sort of stops, and you don’t have that information. You have no basis, right now, for assuring that that particular regulation is complied with. You can make it, you can enact a condition that handles that. You can require the map be changed prior to approval. You’re correct that the Building Department, I believe, would not issue a building permit unless that’s complied with, also. So any of those, there are a number of ways to handle that. My only advice was to be careful not to read too much into a surveyor’s or engineer’s or any other professional’s licensed stamp, in terms of future activities by the applicant. MR. BREWER-I guess I’m confused, then, because I was always under the assumption that if we had a plan in front of us, and probably I’m wrong, that if an engineer stamps it, or whomever, that we rely on that engineer for those facts to be true. MR. SCHACHNER-That’s absolutely correct, but this is not really a fact. This is a prediction, and that’s the distinction I’m making. You’re absolutely correct. You rely on the stamp of that licensed professional that the things that are stated as factual matters on the map are accurate, and that person’s professional license stands behind that, but when somebody says, for example, you know, future use limited to people over six feet tall, you can’t hold the engineer, and then somebody sells it to somebody who’s five foot ten, like, unfortunately, myself, you can’t, then stick the engineer for liability for not living up to some condition that was put down as a note on the map. You’re correct. What you’re relying on is the factual accuracy of the depiction of what’s depicted on a map. 4 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/22/98) MR. BREWER-So, if they show us a building that’s 12 stories high, and has whatever on the map, and it’s not even built yet, how can we be assured that that’s going to happen? MR. SCHACHNER-Your guarantee is essentially from the applicant. If the applicant builds something, I’m not saying these things don’t carry any weight. I’m saying you can’t stick the surveyor or the engineer with this liability. In other words, it’s not the surveyor or the engineer who has to live up to the future condition. It’s the applicant, and the answer to your question is, if somebody, if something’s supposed to be 12 stories high, and somebody goes and builds it 13 stories high, your recourse is against the applicant, not against the surveyor or the engineer, unless they built it. MR. MAC EWAN-I think the safety net that’s built into this is that she has to comply with that Section of the Zoning Ordinance, and if she can’t comply with it, she’s forced to come back here to seek either a modification to the site plan or seek a variance from it, right? MRS. GOSLINE-But if I comply with it. MR. MAC EWAN-Then there’s nothing wrong. We’re all set. MRS. GOSLINE-So can’t we just say that when I comply with that, then I’m able to get a building permit, and I can’t until I do? MR. MAC EWAN-No. You would apply for your building permit, but during certain steps of your building permit’s inspection process is when that would trigger in, at what step, I don’t know, and if it became a problem, and this is only my guess, but if it became a problem where the driveway didn’t conform with the Zoning Ordinance, you wouldn’t get a CO to occupy your house until it was corrected or you got a variance or a modification. MRS. GOSLINE-Because that’s probably going to be the first thing I’ll do is the driveway and that getting in there. MR. MAC EWAN-Get it out of the way early. Okay. Cathy, anything? Bob? MR. PALING-Yes. I’m still having trouble with this, and I don’t think that I can ever remember us approving something on the saying that we will comply with. I don’t see any reason why we can’t, as we normally do, ask that what they’re going to be doing be put on the print. Let the print be submitted to us so we can act on it. To say we’re going to comply with a certain law doesn’t tell me what they’re going to do. The laws are written too general, and if there’s planting, we want to know how many trees, where the trees, and the detail. Why are we not requiring that in this case? Put what you want to do on the print, and let us see it. MR. MAC EWAN-I think my response to that would be is that possibly they don’t know exactly at what elevation the house is going to sit at, so whether it’s going to be a five percent or a four percent or an eight percent slope. MR. PALING-Some day someone has got to do that work. When the work is, and they’re going to have to put it on a print. When that day comes, come on back and show it to us. Have we ever, and I’m not picking on anyone, but I just can’t recall ever having approved a plan like this. Can you cite me an example? MR. MAC EWAN-It’s not often we do a subdivision with a setback, in this kind of unique, this is actually kind of unique. I don’t recall seeing, in recent history, something along these lines, no. MR. PALING-I don’t think in any history, that we’ve approved something on a stipulation like this. We have looked at a print, and we’ve negotiated, but finally approved it, but not on something that just says, in general, what we’re going to do. We’re just passing the responsibility, approval, on to someone else. MR. BREWER-And I would agree, because I don’t know how they’re ever going to check that. MR. PALING-I don’t know, either. MR. MAC EWAN-So what do you want to do? 5 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/22/98) MR. PALING-My suggestion is that the applicant submit a print with the grading and the two foot contours and the layout of the land, so we can see how you’re going to handle what evidently is a slope in excess of 10%. MR. MAC EWAN-Was one of the waivers she requested to contours? MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. BREWER-How can she show what she’s going to do without the contours? MR. PALING-In this case, I think we waive contours, sure, we do that, but that’s on pretty flat land that we waive contours, and that’s okay, but this is not flat land. MR. BREWER-That’s fine. I don’t disagree. That’s a pretty general statement. We probably ought to see what they’re going to, granted it’s a house on a three acre parcel, but if it’s a regulation, we ought to see it. MR. MAC EWAN-Bob raises a very good issue. MR. RINGER-Here’s a house, and if we approve it, they will conform with the Sections. I don’t really see why we need it, for just a house on three acres of land. I mean, they’ve got to comply with the Codes, and the Code says they can’t have more than 10% grade, and someone’s going to look at it, from the Town. MR. VOLLARO-That’s just the point, and I think Bob’s point is well taken, that we’re passing that responsibility off to somebody else, though, and I think that it’s this Board’s responsibility to grapple with this problem. MR. RINGER-I think we pass responsibilities like this all the time, when we approve something, the Building Department has to go and look at whatever is built. MR. PALING-Well, I asked Larry for an example of that, and I didn’t get it, and no one can give me an example. MRS. GOSLINE-Isn’t this rule put into effect for safety reasons, and for the best use of the property? MR. MAC EWAN-For a lot of reasons, stormwater management, emergency access. MRS. GOSLINE-So why wouldn’t I want to comply with it, why wouldn’t I want it if I’m putting a house there? MR. BREWER-I don’t think anybody’s insinuating that you wouldn’t. MRS. GOSLINE-I just want to get it subdivided, and then we’re going to gradually do this. We’re gradually clearing the property. We’re gradually looking at the contour of it. We don’t even know where we’re putting the house. It could go back farther, like he said. MR. BREWER-But you still have to get that grade so that it’s less than 10%, don’t they? Regardless of where they put the house. MRS. GOSLINE-I can’t even get a truck in there if I don’t, if I don’t put in a proper driveway. MR. VOLLARO-This isn’t going to be very hard for somebody to figure out, you know, somebody who knows how to do this will possibly have to re-site your home, in order to comply with the 10%, and move it back. You just don’t have enough room, in my opinion, to get that slope under 10% and 75 feet. MRS. GOSLINE-Well, see, when I put the house on the map, it just said to do, you know, just put it where you think it might be, and that’s about where we thought it would be in that area. It is quite flat when you walk in there, you can go back. MR. VOLLARO-Once you get down there, it’s flat, but getting down that hill, it’s pretty steep. It’s about 15 feet from the top to the bottom. 6 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/22/98) MRS. GOSLINE-I know that, and I wouldn’t want to put all the money into a house and property and not maintain that property and have it properly done. We’ve done a lot of walls at our home, these stones and things, to maintain the land and tier it. So, I mean, we’re used to doing it. It’s not something I wouldn’t do. MR. VOLLARO-I think the problem this Board has is trying to do an approval on something that doesn’t show on the drawing. I think that’s the situation we’re grappling with up here is that the drawing is really silent in this area. MRS. GOSLINE-It’s like Mr. MacEwan said, I really don’t know what kind of design we’re going to go with. We could do, you know, a side driveway, it could be down, we thought we’d go kind of an angle with it, instead of right down steep. MR. VOLLARO-That might help some. MRS. GOSLINE-We haven’t looked, you know, we’re looking at things now. We’re just trying to get the subdivision part away, and our variances, so we can even look at it and know we can do it. MR. MAC EWAN-One that we recently did, and I’m thinking about it, was up on 9L. Remember the house we went and looked at, it was about a three acre parcel on 9L that he was building, where the old barn was, right up near the top of the road, and they were going to re-configure the whole driveway. It was on 9L. MRS. MOORE-The Bob Hayes property. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. That’s what it was, where he had to re-configure his whole driveway to put it in, and he had to re-do all the contour lines, and that was more than. MR. BREWER-Did he do it? MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. They did it. I’m trying to give a comparison to properties here where there’s some kind of steep slope. MR. BREWER-Did they show, they showed it on their map? Then that’s all we’re asking of this applicant is to show it on the map, Craig. MR. MAC EWAN-Maybe this is what we can do, a two pronged attack here. We have another meeting on Thursday. Can you get together with your surveyor tomorrow and have them put the contours on? MRS. GOSLINE-Now I have to have it exactly the way we’re going to do it? MR. MAC EWAN-They have a system, they can do it. Relatively easy for them to show the contours on there. Our concern is with the 10% slope. If they have any questions, they can call up here tomorrow and talk with Laura, and in the meantime, this is what I would like you to do is contact the building inspectors and ask them how do they check for this sort of thing, what sort of mechanisms are kicked in for their inspection process, to ensure that it meets the Code. MRS. MOORE-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. PALING-Now, Craig, you’re asking only for contour lines, not for the, how they’re going to correct the slope for a driveway? MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. MR. PALING-Okay. You want the both things, then? MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. MRS. LA BOMBARD-But what if she doesn’t know just exactly what kind of a driveway she’s going to put in or where she’s going to put it? MRS. GOSLINE-See, we don’t know. 7 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/22/98) MR. BREWER-I mean, the distance of that slope is only so far, and she needs to show how she can get that under 10%. It doesn’t really matter where the house is. MR. PALING-If you don’t have a quick building program, why can’t you wait until you figure out what the driveway is going to be and bring it back? MRS. GOSLINE-I can. I just don’t know, how long do I, it’s just coming back to all these meetings. I just wanted to get it subdivided, you know, say, all right, I can have my subdivision, and then if you want all these papers, I’ll do all that. MR. MAC EWAN-You can’t do one without the other. MRS. GOSLINE-So then I have to come back to another meeting. MR. MAC EWAN-We’ll put you on the first thing Thursday night. We’ll hear this Thursday night. MR. BREWER-If she can do it. If she can’t do it, then. MR. PALING-That’s asking a lot. MR. MAC EWAN-We aim to please, and if we can, if she can do it and get her surveyor to put those contours on it, I’d be willing to put it on as the first item on the agenda on Thursday. MR. BREWER-Not just the contours though, Craig. MR. MAC EWAN-No, showing that the slope can be accommodated. MR. BREWER-Just so she understands what she’s asking for. MRS. LA BOMBARD-I don’t think she does, because I, do you understand, Mary Lee, because I’m not sure what. MRS. GOSLINE-You’d want to see a driveway, the way they’re going to put a driveway and a 10 foot slope, or 10% slope. MATT STEVES MR. STEVES-My name is Matt Steves with Van Dusen and Steves Land Surveyors. The question, I guess, is how to maintain a 10% or less slope on the driveway. Without knowing exactly where to place the house, that would be the dilemma. I agree. I don’t see it as a problem maintaining 10% slope. From the end of Black Berry Lane, where it “T’s” there to her property line, I think we ran a profile, just a couple of points down into the property approximately around 40 feet, and there was about a three or four percent grade in there, and it does start to crest down into the bottom and then flatten out. You would have to show, if you wanted it in full detail, do the actual field topography, unless you wanted to use USGS topography as good enough. I haven’t performed actual field topography out there, besides just a straight line profile of the existing driveway, far enough onto the property to show that it is dropping off. As far as in my opinion of whether or not a 10% or less driveway could be maintained, I don’t think there’s any question that can be done, but there would definitely have to be some grading done to do so, and if you wanted to see a detailed grading plan, I’d have to do some field topography, and work on some design work within the office. MR. PALING-Well, doesn’t what you’re saying have to be done anyway, some time? MR. STEVES-To a certain extent, yes. MR. PALING-Yes. MR. STEVES-But it’s not like it’s a quarter acre lot and, you know, you have constraints that you know it has to be within a certain area. It depends on where the house wants to be placed, before you really can finalize that design. 8 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/22/98) MR. VOLLARO-If you were to just arbitrarily take and re-site that house back, due north, for example, providing that there was enough perc for the septic field and all of that, where it was going to go, you could move it back far enough to get your 10% slope. That’s what you need is some distance. MR. STEVES-That’s correct. MR. VOLLARO-You’re only dealing with 75 feet. MR. STEVES-That’s right. If you move it straight back, the overall grade will be less than 10%, that’s correct, but you’d have to do some grading to grade like a little bank like you see on quite a few other roads. I guess the question I might present to the Board is that, if the subdivision itself is suitable, is there a point where we can say the subdivision is okay, and we can approve the subdivision, but no building permit can be issued until such time as they pick a definitive location for the house? And at that time come back out with a detailed driveway location? I’d hate to design one at this point and have, I believe your daughter will be building on that lot, a year from now decide that the driveway location is nowhere near where she’s really going to build, and then that still puts the dilemma back onto the Building Department. Because who says they’re going to build exactly where I design it? Lets hope, but at the same time, it might be a totally different design. MR. MAC EWAN-When an applicant submits an application for a building permit on their plot plan, do they, they don’t normally show grading on there, do they? I was thinking that’s a way we could get around this. To me, it doesn’t seem that big of an issue, to me it doesn’t. I mean, I would be satisfied that, you know, during the inspection process, that the building inspectors deem that it’s more than 10% that you either accommodate what they’re requesting to meet the Ordinance, or come in and ask for a modification or a variance to the Ordinance. To me, that seems reasonable. Am I up here all by myself on this? MR. RINGER-No. I feel the same way. MR. BREWER-I think if he shows that it can be done on here, then I’ll be satisfied. MR. MAC EWAN-Larry, you’re with me? MR. RINGER-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-Well, I just want to ask the applicant a question. You’re stating to us that if we were to approve this with the proviso that a building permit not be issued until a drawing is submitted to show where the building is actually going to be, and that the 10% slope is maintained, or less than 10%? MR. STEVES-That was my suggestion, not the applicant’s, but at the same time, that’s a requirement before building permit can be issued anyway. So then, you know, we’re not asking for a building permit at this point, and say I design a driveway right where I showed that house. For subdivision regulation concerns, you’re supposed to depict that all the necessary setbacks can be met, septic system, well separation, setbacks from the property line, and that’s exactly what that sketch is for, and nothing more than that. I can’t be guaranteed, as Mark was stating, that I can guarantee where they’re going to build the house. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, but you could put a drawing before the Board that complies with the requirement. MR. STEVES-Correct. MR. VOLLARO-In other words, merely by re-siting that house, extending your profile down to where the house is going to be, and there you’d have it. You’d show the slope then at less than 10%, and we could go and approve it, just like that. MR. STEVES-That’s correct. Just like any other subdivision that’s ever been done in the Town, they’re just schematically shown, and then the house, the builder comes in at the time with the plot plan for application for a building permit and shows precisely where he’s going to put the house, the septic, the well, the drive. 9 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/22/98) MR. SCHACHNER-Craig, I don’t know if this is going to help or not, but both statements are correct. I mean, Bob Vollaro is, I think, saying that you could submit a diagram that theoretically or hypothetically shows full compliance with all criteria, not only setbacks, not only siting of utilities, the well, the septic, but also that the slope requirement is met. The surveyor is also correct that as a practical matter, in real life, that hypothetical drawing may not be where a driveway is ultimately put and where a house is ultimately sited, but I think, if I’m going to try to wrap this up together, part of your job as a Planning Board, and I think this is where Bob Paling is coming from, part of your job as a Planning Board is to not approve a proposed subdivision unless somebody can demonstrate to you that the lot can, theoretically, be utilized in full compliance with all applicable regulations. So, if you, and I’m not saying how you should go on this, but if you want to require the applicant to make that demonstration, that does not tie the applicant to actually putting the house at that location, to actually putting the driveway at that location. All that would do would be to demonstrate to the Planning Board’s satisfaction that this is a validly approvable subdivision lot, because it can be done, then when the applicant actually seeks to do it, if the applicant wants to build where that stuff was located, great. If the applicant seeks to build some place other than where that stuff was located, at that time the applicant has to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Building Department that the various criteria are met. MR. PALING-And I think there’s just one other point we should consider, because what Mark is saying is my thinking, that if we approve this, on this basis, then anyone that comes in here with a print can have it approved on that basis. We have no way to step back from what we do, when we set a precedent like that, and we’ve never done it before, and I don’t think we should start it now. MR. MAC EWAN-Is that something you can do before Thursday for her? MR. STEVES-No. MR. PALING-But there is no real reason to start the construction. There is no schedule, you’ve stated. Then why the rush? Why can’t it be done as it should have been done in the beginning? MRS. GOSLINE-I guess it’s just trying to tie up the ends. MR. STEVES-I don’t see it as any problem my end to maybe even have it in for submission, which would be next Wednesday, but there’s no way I could have it ready for Thursday’s meeting. MR. MAC EWAN-All right. Why don’t we plan on doing that then. MR. BREWER-That’s fine. Just demonstrate that it can be done. MR. STEVES-Which is totally understandable. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. PALING-Well, if there were real emergency situations we could have a special meeting. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay, do you want to introduce a motion to table, citing the reasons why. MR. PALING-Okay. MOTION TO TABLE SUBDIVISION NO. 9-1998 PRELIMINARY STAGE AND FINAL STAGE KIMBERLEE GOSLINE , Introduced by Robert Paling who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro: For the lack of information in regard to the following: two foot contour lines of the driveway to the house, so you can show the slope of the driveway as you’ve depicted at this time, a layout of the property proving that it’s within the slope requirements, and, third, sediment and erosion control program associated with the re-grading. nd Duly adopted this 22 day of September, 1998, by the following vote: MRS. MOORE-Are you just concerned with the driveway area, or are you concerned with the entire lot? MR. BREWER-Just the driveway area. 10 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/22/98) MRS. MOORE-Just the driveway area? I don’t know whether this makes a difference, if you want a two foot contour area for just the driveway area or for the entire property? I don’t know if it makes a difference for surveying. MR. PALING-The only real necessity, in my mind, is for the driveway, when it comes to the two foot contours, the only thing in question is the driveway. MR. STEVES-To the actual line of the house. MR. PALING-Yes. MR. STEVES-So you have a full profile of the driveway. MR. PALING-And so you can show the slope of the driveway, as you’ve depicted at this time, which can change, but the rest of the lot’s got to comply. I don’t mean to eliminate that, but we’ve got our attention directed on the driveway where it should be. MR. MAC EWAN-Well, it pretty much levels off, at that point. MR. PALING-Yes, it does. MR. MAC EWAN-Our concern is access onto the property. MR. STEVES-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. AYES: Mr. Ringer, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Paling, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Stark MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. STEVES-Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you for your help. SITE PLAN NO. 45-98 TYPE: UNLISTED CAROL CORLEW OWNER: RAYMOND J. STORMS ZONE: SR-1A LOCATION: 93 BIG BAY ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES BUSINESS IN HOME - PARALEGAL SERVICES. PROFESSIONAL OFFICE INCIDENTAL TO HOME USE IS SUBJECT TO REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE PLANNING BOARD. TAX MAP NO. 143-1-1.1 LOT SIZE: 0.69 ACRES SECTION: 179-19 CAROL CORLEW, PRESENT; NATALIE WILLIAMS, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 45-98, Carol Corlew, Meeting Date: September 22, 1998 Description of Project: “ The applicant proposes to utilize an existing building to operate a paralegal business and a residence. A professional office incidental to home use is an allowed use Staff Comments: with site plan review in the SR-1A zone. The applicant was informed that operation of a professional office within the home required site plan review. The applicant met with staff prior to submission to discuss parking on the site, access to the site, and location of the office within a home. The site is able to provide adequate parking and access for residential and office use. The applicant has indicated the frequency of clients to the home is few and she has verbally indicated to the clients to only use the parking area of the business for vehicle circulation. The applicant is in the process of moving her business to a place outside of Queensbury. The Board may condition the approval to a number of days until the new facility is available. The applicant has indicated that this would be about 60 days. Staff has no additional comments.” MR. MAC EWAN-Any other documentation? 11 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/22/98) MRS. MOORE-No. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. We left the public hearing open. Good evening. MRS. CORLEW-Good evening. I’m Carol Corlew. MR. MAC EWAN-Can you tell us a little bit about what your application is seeking get approval for tonight? MRS. CORLEW-Well, I’m really looking for a temporary approval. I’m building a house and will be moving within a 60 day period, probably less, but you know how that goes, and just seeking to be able to continue to work until that time. MR. MAC EWAN-Can you tell us something about your business and the amount of people you have coming in, traffic flow? MRS. CORLEW-Maybe one a day, some days none, two a day. It just depends, but it would be very rare for there to be more than two or three people there a day. MR. MAC EWAN-And you have provisions for how much parking? MRS. CORLEW-If there had to be, there’s probably places for at least five. MR. MAC EWAN-All on your property? MRS. CORLEW-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-What about handicapped access? MRS. CORLEW-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-And emergency access, emergency, what are the requirements? Could someone tell me that, for, even though this falls under a home profession. MRS. MOORE-It would fall under Building Department inspections, and that’s something that I would have to talk to Dave or someone else in the Building Department about. MR. MAC EWAN-How long have you been running this business out of your home now? MRS. CORLEW-I’ve been there for three years. MR. MAC EWAN-What kicked it in that you ended up filing an application with us? MRS. CORLEW-Well, I wasn’t aware of it, but evidently, I wasn’t aware that I needed to, but a neighbor, as I said, I wasn’t aware that anyone was bothering him, but evidently, some people had been turning around in his driveway, and, you know, he brought it to the attention of the Board. I wasn’t aware that it was going on. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MRS. CORLEW-And have taken steps to make sure he wouldn’t be bothered in that manner. MR. BREWER-What are those steps? MRS. CORLEW-Well, I tell everyone that comes, you know, that they have to use my driveway to turn around. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else that you want to add? MRS. CORLEW-Not that I can think of. As I said, it is strictly temporary. MR. MAC EWAN-Sixty days is the maximum you would need this approval for, if we were to grant one? 12 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/22/98) MRS. CORLEW-Yes, sir. MR. RINGER-Last month, when we had a public hearing, some of the people who spoke said that there were seven to eight customers, and your application says one to two, and you say two to three. Two to three is more like it than, not seven or eight? MRS. CORLEW-Yes. No, I’d like to have seven or eight, but, no, I don’t. MR. RINGER-It is, then, two to three? MRS. CORLEW-Yes. MR. RINGER-And you have talked to your customers or your clients, I should say? MRS. CORLEW-Everyone who comes. MR. RINGER-And there is room to turn around? MRS. CORLEW-Yes. MR. RINGER-I mean, part of the problems that we heard last month was, as they left your property, they went to your neighbor’s property into their driveways and backed out, and drove on their lawns and their shrubbery and stuff, and it was a real legitimate concern of theirs, and I’m certainly glad to hear you’ve addressed it with your clients. MRS. CORLEW-Yes, I have. MR. RINGER-Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else you want to add? MRS. WILLIAMS-Well, I live there also. I’m Natalie Williams and I reside at 93 Big Bay Road, and I will be living there more than 60 days, but I don’t need the permit for the business, but not everybody who drives down and turns around in his driveway has been a client of Carol’s. Big Bay Road is very long, and occasionally people are looking for somebody else or something and they turn around also, just as they turn around in our driveway and our neighbor’s driveway, and all the previous four houses. So, while he may have said that there’s, you know, her clients only turning around in his driveway, there’s certainly occasions that people that I don’t know turn around in my driveway and all the way up to the end of the street, because it leads to the river, and he, even now, has posted a sign that says “No U-Turn in the Driveway”, and it seems to be a moot point at this point. I mean, we can guarantee to the best of our ability that nobody is going to turn around in his driveway, but if next week, some passer-by gets lost on his way down to the river, or somebody could turn around. MRS. CORLEW-I can just say that nobody will from our house. That’s all. I certainly would, you know, it’s not my intention to bother anybody, and I certainly make every effort to make sure that it didn’t happen. MR. BREWER-One question. What happens if, sixty days is the maximum amount. MRS. CORLEW-Definitely. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. We left the public hearing open last month. Does anyone want to come up and address or make comments to this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPEN TOM VAN NESS MR. VAN NESS-My name is Tom Van Ness. I live at 85 Big Bay Road, next door. I’m the one that complained. I never said that every car that turned in my driveway went to their home. Three quarters of the cars that turn in our driveway pull into their yard. I watch them. I’ve got a list of thth cars that have been there since the 15, and there’s got to be 17 cars, since the 15. I’d have never had a problem with this if my driveway hadn’t have gotten ruined. Last Friday, I had a pick up truck park on my front yard, in front of my fence, on my lawn, and go over to her home. Now I’m 13 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/22/98) not here to start trouble. I take pride in my home. I’ve worked hard for it. I built in a residential area so I wouldn’t have to put up with this. Now they’ve got this going. She wants 60 days. She’s had 30 days already. You tabled it last month. I don’t feel it’s right. We’re in residential zone. She doesn’t have adequate parking. Mr. Brewer could tell you that. He’s been there. He’s seen it. They don’t have adequate parking for five cars in that yard, and I don’t feel they should get it. I feel that our homes are taking the brunt of it, and I’ve had to put signs up and everything, so people don’t ruin my yard. MR. MAC EWAN-That count of cars you’ve done, 17 cars you said? MR. VAN NESS-I’ve got 14 here that I’ve seen. That’s what I’ve seen when I was home. MR. MAC EWAN-All have gone to that residence? MR. VAN NESS-They’ve all been to their home, yes. MR. PALING-And what were the dates again? th MR. VAN NESS-From the 15 until today. MR. PALING-That’s a week. So that’s two cars a day. MR. VAN NESS-That’s what I’ve seen. MR. PALING-Yes. Okay. MR. VAN NESS-I do work, and that’s what I’ve seen. I know there’s been more than that. I’ve got some here where there was three a day. MR. PALING-You work a normal day shift? MR. VAN NESS-Yes, I do. MR. PALING-Okay. Then these cars are beyond normal working hours. MR. VAN NESS-Some of them are, yes. I’ve been out of work. So some of them aren’t, but today, there was one there at 3:40, 4:15 this afternoon. It’s just, you know, we’ve got kids down there, and these people turn around in our yard and stuff. My grandson plays in my driveway, rides a bike up and down my driveway, and this isn’t the place. This isn’t a business district. Main Street is a business district. They want to run a business, go down to Main Street, rent an office space. They don’t have the adequate parking. They don’t have a place for people to go. I’m sorry, it’s not right. That’s why I built in a residential zone. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. RINGER-Tom, can I ask you, 14 cars turned around in your driveway since Saturday? MR. VAN NESS-They didn’t all turn around in my driveway, but they’ve all been at that business, and they said they would only have one or two cars a day, maybe no cars a day. MR. RINGER-Okay. I misunderstood you. I thought you were saying that 14 cars turned around in your driveway. MRS. LA BOMBARD-You said that you watched it and you said that those 14 cars all went, that turned in your driveway went into her house. MR. VAN NESS-No, I never said they all turned in my driveway. MR. RINGER-I misunderstood you. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, we know that she’s having two to three clients a day. She told us that. MR. VAN NESS-Right, that’s in a residential home. 14 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/22/98) MRS. LA BOMBARD-I want to know how many turned around in your driveway? MR. VAN NESS-Since I’ve put the sign up? th MRS. LA BOMBARD-When did you put the sign up, September 15? MR. VAN NESS-I can’t remember exactly when I put it up, but there’s a sign on my mailbox that I put up, so people didn’t turn in my driveway. Now they go down to my other neighbor’s driveway, below me, and use his driveway. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, where’s he? MR. VAN NESS-He’s here, too. I mean, you know, I’m not here to start trouble, but I’m in a residential zone, and that’s why I built there. If I wanted to build in a business zone, I would have built in a business zone, and it’s not right to have that type of business in residential zone, where there’s people coming in and out all the time. It just isn’t right. MRS. LABOMBARD-Now, that truck that parked on your grass today, you said? MR. VAN NESS-No, that was last Friday. MRS. LA BOMBARD-And that was since you put the sign up, and since she supposedly has told her clients not to do those things? MR. VAN NESS-Yes. A lot of times they go by her house and they turn around in, before they use my driveway, before I put the sign up, and I’ve seen them go into my neighbor’s driveway and go back to their home because they missed her house. So she can’t tell them all, because they don’t stop there first. MRS. LA BOMBARD-So I can correctly infer that you wouldn’t even consider 60 days? MR. VAN NESS-No, I wouldn’t. I don’t agree with it. She’s been there three years illegally now, without a permit to run a business out of the home, and she’s building a home. Let her rent office space down in the City, or down on Main Street where it’s a business area, and they have the parking space for the people. MR. BREWER-Would you consider a compromise at 30 days? MR. VAN NESS-No. I don’t agree with it. It’s just not right. MR. BREWER-It’s your option to do that. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Thank you. MR. VAN NESS-Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Anyone else? RICHARD SPOERL MR. SPOERL-I’m Richard Spoerl at 79 Big Bay Road. The first problem I would have would be with children. I have a three year old and a seven year old that play in the driveway. Rollerblading, Jeeps, etc., bikes, we have a lot of woods before the driveway. So the driveway’s well shaded and blinded. So people that turn into them can’t very well see a child on a driveway. That’s my first one. The second one would be property damage. During the summer in the heat, pull in, stop, turn their wheels, it chews up the driveway, turn in the yard, missing the driveway altogether. The third one would be just public safety of like today at 4:20 a car parked in front of our house on the shoulder, not in our driveway, did a U-Turn right in the road. The guy got in the car, did not even look, front or back, pulled right around, did a U-Turn in the road, up the road. The driveway she’s talking about is 35% grade probably into the lower unit of the house below grade. I just don’t think it’s a safe thing for customers to be going in and out and turning around. If she could provide adequate parking for them, that would be one thing, a turnaround area. She has none. That’s it. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Thank you. Anyone else? We’ll close the public hearing. 15 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/22/98) PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MAC EWAN-Are you with the applicant, or not with the applicant? MRS. WILLIAMS-Yes. Could I say one more thing? I have three children who have lived there for three years with the property. My neighbor’s grandson to whom he refers comes over to my house and plays. There’s never been that he’s going to get hit by one of the cars that have been in the business. My neighbor, and three neighbors down the road, also have children and grandchildren who have played there. I would look for evidence that there’s been child endangerment at all with having these clients come there. There’s never been, to my knowledge, one person be almost hit or hit, have it be even labeled as an unsafe area. My children rollerblade and all of that, and I think those concerns, just looking at the history, given that there’s been no accidents would say it’s relatively safe, in the absence of any violation or child getting hit, I certainly could understand that. My children would be the first of my concern. It is a deep driveway, but four cars do park there, and to my knowledge, were allowed to park in front of our mailbox on our property, and at the side to where a truck is parked. I mean, in my family alone we have three vehicles, two which go into the garage, and for me not to have to pull back and forth out of the garage, so that’s certainly room enough for three vehicles, and we’re only talking about another 60 days, and it’s a little difficult to move the business twice. MR. MAC EWAN-So is one vehicle of your three vehicles always in the driveway? MRS. WILLIAMS-No. Usually I’m working during the day, but one vehicle is parked up on top of the property, but there’s still room totally in the driveway for two to three cars, and near the mailbox area two cars, if there had to be, but there’s rarely. MR. MAC EWAN-So you’d be parking cars on the shoulder of the road? MRS. WILLIAMS-Near the mailbox, which is a wide shoulder, which is into the lawn of my driveway, but inside the driveway itself, there are room for three vehicles. Both my husband and I work. So during the day when the majority of her clients are there, there’s literally room for parking. She can only assist one client at a time, and there’s not a waiting room. So if people are waiting, it’s such a small time that there would be just two people there at once, to begin with, then even a smaller time where there would be two people and three cars. MRS. CORLEW-I only schedule one appointment at a time. If there’s ever two people there at a time, it’s because someone has come to drop off something, or, you know, without my knowledge, but I do not schedule more than one person at one time. MR. PALING-And I’ve got a question here. Do you schedule these appointments on the phone? MRS. CORLEW-Yes. MR. PALING-People just don’t come in casually? You know they’re coming at a particular time? MRS. CORLEW-Yes, sir, yes. MR. PALING-Do you instruct them, before they come, about not turning around in driveways and where to park? MRS. CORLEW-I haven’t thought of doing that, but I could do that. MR. PALING-I think that if there’s going to be any kind of extension here, that you’d have to commit to something like that and really make it stick. I’m surprised you haven’t done it. MRS. CORLEW-Well, I would definitely commit to that. MRS. LA BOMBARD-I mean, with all the fervor that’s been going on, I mean, it’s amazing that you haven’t addressed that. MRS. CORLEW-Well, anybody, I’m saying anybody new. MR. PALING-What I was wondering is, supposing that you put a sign up that said Corlew Parking, I’m using the wrong term, Corlew Customers must park here. 16 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/22/98) MRS. CORLEW-Okay. MR. PALING-And you tell them over the phone that we a 10 o’clock appointment, now let me tell you about parking and turning around in other driveways, and so on. MRS. CORLEW-I certainly would be willing to do that. MR. BREWER-Bob, I would almost think the parking would have to be in their driveway, because the parking she’s shown here is the shoulder of the road. I don’t consider that adequate parking, the shoulder of the road. MR. PALING-Right. I don’t think we have a five car parking problem, Tim. I think we’ve got a one or a two car parking problem, and a turning around in driveways problem, is what I think we’re faced with. MR. BREWER-There’s no question. MR. PALING-And if you got on your high horse, and I mean it, to tell them, don’t mess around with this or my business is going to be shut down, I think they’d park where they’re supposed to, and if you had a sign there, if you told them, park where the sign is and nowhere else. MRS. CORLEW-I definitely would agree to do that. MRS. WILLIAMS-But at the same time, you can do that, and to hold her liable for not obeying an instruction given to them would be difficult. MR. PALING-Wait a minute, I guess I’m a little confused as to why. MRS. WILLIAMS-I mean, if she tells a client, do not pull around in the driveway, and the next thing somebody does is forgets that and pulls around in somebody’s driveway, is it her fault or is it the person who’s been told? MR. PALING-Wait a minute. We’re trying to come to a constructive solution to this thing. MR. RINGER-I think we’re looking for her to make an effort to do that. MRS. CORLEW-I definitely am willing to make the effort. MR. PALING-Well, wait a minute now. She’s already said she did not do this on the phone. MRS. CORLEW-No, I really did not think of that. MR. PALING-So I think you can see that this could be a big step in the right direction. MRS. CORLEW-I definitely would be willing to do that and will put up a sign. MR. PALING-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Has anybody else got anything? Okay. We need to do a SEQRA. MRS. LA BOMBARD-“Could action result in any adverse effects associated with the following: 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. VOLLARO-No. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, I beg to disagree. I really believe that there is an adverse effect with some existing traffic patterns here. MR. MAC EWAN-Can they be mitigated is the next question. MRS. LA BOMBARD-But the thing is, if the applicant tries to mitigate it, who’s going to oversee it? I mean, who’s going to be the policeman? If this were something that were a community thing. 17 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/22/98) MR. MAC EWAN-I don’t think that’s a fair statement to make. Any application, whether it’s commercial or individual residents who we do the SEQRA on, if it’s something that has to be mitigated, or it’s a condition of approval, it’s up to the applicant to police those approvals and ensure that they’re going to be followed through on. MR. VOLLARO-The only thing she can police is the people coming to her house. My understanding is, and I can understand that people going up and down there might inadvertently turn into one of these driveways because they’re lost, and she has absolutely no control over that at all. MR. PALING-Well, we could add another stipulation, too, that when there is a customer comes to her house, that she observes where they’re parked, and if they’re not parked where they should be, that they she instructs them to go out, before she’ll talk to them, and put their car where it belongs. MR. BREWER-How in the world do we ever enforce that, Bob? MR. PALING-She only has one or two people a day, Tim. MRS. CORLEW-Yes, and when I answer the door, wherever they are, I mean, I often have had to do that, because of the mailman or whatever, you know, whatever reason, but I definitely could see that that would. MR. PALING-So when you open the door, you can see where they’re parked. MRS. CORLEW-Definitely. I mean, I open the door to let them in and I open the door to let them out, you know, so I definitely can watch that. MR. MAC EWAN-Lets move on to the next question. We determined that it can be mitigated? MR. PALING-I say yes. MR. RINGER-I do, too. MR. MAC EWAN-I think I would agree that it can be mitigated. The question is will it be mitigated is another thing. MR. PALING-Yes. MRS. LABOMBARD-I mean, will it be. The applicant will say it will be, but we don’t have anybody to. MR. MAC EWAN-But we’re not determining that right now. We’re determining, can they be mitigated, and we’ve come up with a plan where, yes, we think it can be, and if this is going to be, you get to a point where you’re going to do an approval, and if this is going to be a condition of approval for her to police the people who are coming to visit her during her office hours, that’s part of a condition of approval for her to police herself, if we’re going to put it to that point. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. “Aesthetic, agricultural, archeological, historic or other natural or cultural resources or community or neighborhood character” MR. MAC EWAN-I think there’s a significant impact on neighborhood character. MRS. LA BOMBARD-There is. Yes, it’s zoned residential. MR. MAC EWAN-The analogy I’m drawing here is that we did a site plan about a year ago over on West Mountain Road for a gentleman who wanted to have. MRS. LA BOMBARD-A foot business, orthopedics. MR. MAC EWAN-And we ran into the same hurdles we seem to be jumping here tonight, with neighborhood character, traffic patterns, aesthetics, and I’m drawing a parallel view on this. Yes. I think it’s a significant impact on the aesthetics of the neighborhood. Can it be mitigated? For me, I don’t know that it can. 18 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/22/98) MRS. LA BOMBARD-See, in the other person’s case, his business was just getting bigger and bigger and bigger, and he wasn’t moving. In this case, you’re out of here in 60 days. So, if you end up having a bigger clientele, a half a year from now, you’re not going to be there. MR. BREWER-Sixty days from now, if that’s what happens. MR. RINGER-Yes, she won’t be there anyway. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, that’s what I’m saying, right, but I mean, what I’m saying is that the other gentleman on West Mountain Road, you know, his business was growing, and he wasn’t moving. So we had to just, that was the end of that. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. How does the Board feel? Can that be mitigated, neighborhood character? MR. VOLLARO-That’s tough to mitigate. I don’t know how you do that, because this is an allowable use within the zone, but that’s with site plan review, which is what we’re now doing, and how you mitigate the character of the neighborhood, with that kind of a business there, I’m not sure. I don’t know how you do that. MR. PALING-Well, lets say that the parking was all done properly. Then you could never have a neighborhood business if this would change the neighborhood, if you have, if you truly have only one or two automobiles there a day, to patronize the business, I don’t see how it changes the character of the neighborhood, provided they have permission to do it, but two automobiles in a neighborhood for the whole day, most people wouldn’t even know what they’re there for. MR. MAC EWAN-I’m not sure what you mean by your definition of a neighborhood business. MR. PALING-Well, there are businesses, out of house businesses, permitted. That can be granted. This business could receive that kind of approval, and one of the characteristics of this business is that it evidently has around two cars a day, and if they had received permission in the beginning to do it, I don’t think that the character of the neighborhood would have been altered with two automobiles a day added to all the traffic. MR. RINGER-I agree with that. MRS. LA BOMBARD-See I agree with you right now at the present, but if she wasn’t moving, I would have a real hard time with that because I would not believe that that would stay at two automobiles a day. MR. PALING-Yes, but she’s gone in 60 days. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes, well, that’s the saving grace here. MR. PALING-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-Lets say that the 60 day period would be interpreted as mitigating this problem, and go on with the next one. MR. MAC EWAN-Does everyone else feel that way? MR. RINGER-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 9-1998 , Introduced by Catherine LaBombard who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: CAROL CORLEW , 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, 19 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/22/98) 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. nd Duly adopted this 22 day of September, 1998, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Paling, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Stark MR. MAC EWAN-Does someone want to introduce a motion? MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 45-98 CAROL CORLEW , Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Larry Ringer: With the provision that the approval be based on that the operation exist for no greater than 60 days, or the date of November 20, 1998. The applicant is to instruct clients where to park, in her driveway, when they come in for a business consultation. th Duly adopted this 24 day of September, 1998, by the following vote: MR. VOLLARO-The applicant is to instruct clients where to park when they come in for a business consultation. MR. PALING-And that she will observe where every client’s car is parked when she lets them in and tell them to move it if it isn’t in the right place. MRS. LA BOMBARD-It has to be in her driveway. MR. VOLLARO-Well, I would have a problem with that in the policing action of it, though. MR. MAC EWAN-Hold it a minute. You guys are going to get all weighted down in here in having to have someone run to the door every five minutes and say, move your car from this point to this point. We need to come up with a better way, I think, to put that down as part of condition of approval to ensure that it’s going to be iron clad, because if it becomes a problem of a violation or a condition of the approvals, you’ve got to have something that’s going to have some meat in it, so that the Code Enforcement Officer has something to deal with. 20 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/22/98) MR. PALING-You’re giving it more meat. She’s already said that when she opens the front door, she can see the car. Now what’s so hard about going out and saying to someone, or telling someone, you’ve got to park here? MR. VOLLARO-Well, there’s all inclusive statement that I’ve made. Applicant is to instruct the clients where to park when they come for a consultation. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Where are they going to park, in the driveway. In the driveway, not along the side of the road. MR. VOLLARO-Where to park, in the driveway. MR. MAC EWAN-The point being here, Bob, if it becomes a violation, the Code Enforcement Officer goes out there, you have a condition that says to instruct the clients where to park, you know, being facetious, she could say, I did. I instructed them to park in the neighbor’s driveway. She did what she was supposed to do. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. We’ll add, in the driveway, in her driveway. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Right. MR. VOLLARO-So now the motion contains the statement that the applicant is to instruct each client where to park in her driveway when they come in for consultation. MRS. LA BOMBARD-And turn around there also. MR. PALING-Well, maybe that second part ought to be completely revised, because the way that we worded it originally was that she would start by instructing them on the telephone where to park. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Right. MR. PALING-And then she would observe, after they got there, where they did park, and if they were in the wrong place, you’d tell them where to put the car. That seems pretty straight forward to me. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Do we want to put that much detail in this motion? I guess we do. Okay. MR. LARRY-Is that the end of your motion? MR. VOLLARO-No. We’ll take it off from where Bob is putting it. We’ll start it off with, Number One, that the applicant will make an appointment with her client, and during that telephone conversation will instruct the client where to park. MR. MAC EWAN-This is getting to sound like a Ken Starr report. MR. RINGER-Yes. It doesn’t make any sense, to me, to be perfectly honest with you, to do it this way. I think the words that say the applicant is to instruct clients to park in her driveway when they come in for consultation is an all inclusive statement, and is enough. MRS. LA BOMBARD-All right. MR. MAC EWAN-I’ll second it. MRS. LA BOMBARD-I just have one thing to say before I vote on this, and, first of all, it’s ten after eight and we’ve only gone through two things, but what happens if the neighbors come in here and complain again within the next 60 days? MR. SCHACHNER-It depends on the validity of their complaints. Neighbors can complain about a whole slew of things. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. 21 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/22/98) MR. SCHACHNER-It depends on the validity of their complaints. The short answer is, if they come and complain to the Code Enforcement Officer, typically the Code Enforcement Officer goes to the site and sees if there’s a problem. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. Thank you. I just wanted to get that straight. I guess I knew that. All right. AYES: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer NOES: Mr. Brewer, Mr. Paling, Mr. MacEwan ABSENT: Mr. Stark MR. MAC EWAN-And I’ll tell you my reason for no. Although it’s an allowed use in the zone, sometimes things just aren’t an appropriate use in the zone, and I think this is one of those cases where it’s not an appropriate use. By the way the Board was struggling to even come up with a condition for approval on this should be a red flag going up that there are some real serious consequences with approving this thing for even 60 days. So I can’t support it. So, we have an option here. The options are, we can try to come up with another, someone introduce another resolution for approval, with some different conditions attached to it, or someone put up a motion to deny. MR. VOLLARO-Well, suppose we change the motion to 30 days, as opposed to 60? MR. MAC EWAN-In my mind if it was 10 days it wouldn’t be, that’s not the issue with me. MRS. LA BOMBARD-I don’t think that’s the issue either. MR. MAC EWAN-It’s not the length of time. MR. VOLLARO-Well, I don’t think any motion that you can make can mitigate the circumstance that exists. The woman is running a business out of her home, and she has a traffic problem and she has some neighbor problems. Now what we’ve tried to do is to lessen what those problems are by the motion, but if the Board, in its infinite wisdom, feels that that is not enough, then it’s not enough, and the vote seems to go that way. MR. BREWER-I’ll make a motion. MOTION TO DENY SITE PLAN NO. 45-98 CAROL CORLEW , Introduced by Timothy Brewer who moved for its adoption, seconded by Craig MacEwan: On the grounds that it would not be in harmony with the surrounding area. I believe it not only presents a safety hazard for children playing, via there’s not adequate parking at the residence, and hasn’t demonstrated it. th Duly adopted this 24 day of September, 1998, by the following vote: MR. PALING-His motion is to deny, and I’m saying, no, I vote against denying it. MRS. LA BOMBARD-But yet you voted no on the approval. MR. PALING-Because I didn’t like the way the motion was made, the content of the motion. I didn’t agree with it. I basically feel that we should find a way to allow the business to go for 60 days. AYES: Mr. Brewer, Mr. MacEwan NOES: Mr. Paling, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. That motion didn’t care, so, now, Bob, the opportunity’s up to you. MR. PALING-Okay. Back to Square One. All right. I’ll try it. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 45-98 CAROL CORLEW , Introduced by Robert Paling who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro: 22 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/22/98) With the following conditions: That her business will completely stop operation as of November 20, 1998. Number Two, that all customers that are going to be visiting her be advised of where they must park before they come, and while on the phone instructing them where to park, tell them to turn around only where the sign is, and don’t go to the neighbor’s driveway. Number Three, that she observe where every customer comes, and instructs them either not to come in or put their car where it belongs, put a two by two sign, easy to read, that says “Parking” with an arrow pointing to where they should park, and if there are any violations of this that are certified by the Enforcement Officer, that her business ceases to operate immediately. th Duly adopted this 24 day of September, 1998, by the following vote: MR. PALING-Number Four, that a sign be erected before any business be done, a minimum of two foot by two foot, that says “Corlew Parking” right in the middle of where ever you want them to park. MR. BREWER-Bob, just one interjection. I don’t think she’s allowed to have a sign. MR. PALING-All right. Then eliminate that. You’re probably right. MR. VOLLARO-There’s a sign application she’d have to go through. MR. PALING-Yes. There’s no need there, and the last provision I’ll make, if there are any violations of this, that are certified by the Enforcement Officer, that her business ceases to operate immediately. MRS. MOORE-I think she could do some type of directional sign, for parking, Parking Here. I don’t think her name can be involved with it. I’m not quite sure. MRS. LA BOMBARD-That’s a good point. MR. BREWER-It says no signs as far as their business name can be on there. MRS. MOORE-Right. So, I don’t think she could include her name in it. MRS. CORLEW-Parking here only, on the garage door. MR. PALING-Okay. Can that be done? Is that okay? MRS. MOORE-I believe it can. I don’t have my Sign Ordinance in front of me, but as far as I know, directional signs are allowed. MR. PALING-Directional signs are allowed. All right. You could put a sign with an arrow that says parking, all right, two by two sign, easy to read, that says “Parking” with an arrow pointing to where they should park. MRS. CORLEW-I agree. MR. MAC EWAN-Read that last condition again, please, your last condition regarding violations of the site plan approval. MR. PALING-All right. If there is any violation, substantiated by the Enforcement Officer of the Town of Queensbury, that your business shut down immediately, permanently. MRS. CORLEW-I agree with that. MR. MAC EWAN-Can I have a legal opinion on that? MR. SCHACHNER-The legal opinion is, it doesn’t work that way, but the applicant has agreed to it, and I don’t have any problem with including that. It doesn’t mean it’s enforceable. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. CORLEW-Within the Town of Queensbury, you’re talking about, is that right, for the location? I mean, this is the what the variance is for, this location. 23 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/22/98) MR. BREWER-Right. In other words, if you were to re-locate in Glens Falls, you could open up, we couldn’t stop you from doing that. MR. PALING-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-The condition as part of this approval is for this site plan application only. No other place. MRS. LA BOMBARD-I would like to just add one thing to it. Parking is one thing, but, and we’re getting nit picky here, turning around, too, and that would be a violation. So if somebody pulls out of your driveway and ends up turning around from your house in somebody else’s property, that would be a violation. MR. PALING-Yes, you can add that to Number Two that said in there, when she’s been on the phone instructing them where to park, to turn around only where the sign is, and don’t go to the neighbor’s driveway. MRS. LA BOMBARD-I’m only voting on this for 60 days. If you were going to stay there, I mean, I had already made my mind up there was no way that this was going to go. MR. PALING-I’d agree with that. MRS. CORLEW-It definitely will be 60 days or less. MRS LA BOMBARD-We all live in residential areas for that reason, we don’t want a business next door. th Duly adopted this 24 day of September, 1998, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ringer, Mr. Paling, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro NOES: Mr. Brewer, Mr. MacEwan MR. MAC EWAN-You’re approved. MRS. CORLEW-Thank you. NEW BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 51-98 TYPE II WILLIAM MASON d/b/a/ TAKUNDEWIDE MGMT. GRP. OWNERS: JOHN & JO-ANN FORBES ZONE: WR-1A, CEA LOCATION: 1 SENECA DRIVE APPLICANT PROPOSES A 556 SQ. FT. SECOND STORY ADDITION, AND BASEMENT. EXPANSION OF A NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE IN A CEA IS SUBJECT TO REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 60-1998 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: 9/9/98 TAX MAP NO. 11-1-1.3 LOT SIZE: 0.134 ACRES SECTION: 179-79 WILLIAM MASON, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 51-98, William Mason d/b/a Takundewide Mgmt. Grp., Meeting Description of Project: Date: September 22, 1998 “ The applicant proposes to construct an addition to an existing home in the WR-1A zone. Expansion of a non-conforming structure in a CEA requires site plan review. The applicant applied for an area variance for setback relief and Staff Comments: received one. The applicant met with staff prior to submission to discuss the proposed addition. The proposed project is similar to neighboring residential additions. The proposed project does not appear to interfere with the visual aesthetics of the area. The applicant is aware of the need to meet the Town’s septic regulations. Staff has no additional concerns.” MR. MAC EWAN-County? MRS. MOORE-No County Impact. 24 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/22/98) MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening. Could you identify yourself for the record, please. MR. MASON-Good evening. William Mason. MR. MAC EWAN-Would you tell us a little bit about your project, Mr. Mason. MR. MASON-The application is to put a second story and a basement under an existing home on Lake George, in Cleverdale. The owner bought last year, and would like to, it’s a two bedroom, 768 square feet total, that’s not the interior square footage, but that’s what the building measures, 24 feet by 32 feet, outside dimensions. So it’s a very small home, and he and his wife and two children need a little more space than that, or would like to. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. BREWER-Wasn’t something similar to this done a few years back on one of the other homes there? MR. MASON-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-About three years ago, wasn’t it? MR. MASON-Yes, three years ago. I consider it two years ago, but, yes, that’s right. MR. MAC EWAN-So it’s in harmony with at least one other, two other buildings up there. MR. MASON-From the outside, this will look very, very similar to the one I did, the Hickey Cottage, Number Nine. It also looks pretty similar to the other ones approved, the Fraiser’s, and the Dennis’, although their dormers are a little bit different. They’ve got teardrop dormers on one side and the shed dormer on the other side. This one has two full shed dormers. MR. VOLLARO-The right side elevation is what we’re looking at. That’s the dormer you plan to install is the one on the lakeside elevation? MR. MASON-No, both dormers. MR. VOLLARO-Both dormers, back and front? MR. MASON-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. MASON-It currently doesn’t have anything in the second floor. It’s a one story. MRS. LA BOMBARD-So you’re just putting the dormers on? MR. MASON-Well, actually, you have to take, it’s a one story with an eight twelve pitch roof. So you take the roof right off, and you build everything up, because that center roof has got to be a twelve twelve in order to get some pitch on the flat roof on the top. MR. MAC EWAN-What is going up on the second floor? MR. MASON-There are two bedrooms and two bathrooms. MR. MAC EWAN-How does that effect your septic system? MR. MASON-The septic system is obsolete. The current one has a cess pool and a grease trap. It works just fine for the existing home, but the existing home is only used three months out of the year. This was Code, it’s hard to believe, back in 1952 when it was built, but we will put in, and as part of getting the building permit, I’ve already talked to Dave Hatin about this. I’ll have to do this and I expected to do this. We’ll put in a, what we intend to put in is a 1,000 gallon concrete tank with probably 250 feet of drain field. We have to be back 100 feet from the lake, but we have an easement all over Takundewide Homeowners Association property to do this. So it’s just a question of finding a location and siting it and going through that kind of a, but the owner completely anticipates it. I’ve got the application with my packet all ready to put that in. 25 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/22/98) MR. PALING-And you have the Homeowners Association approval for this, did I hear you say? MR. MASON-He has an easement, yes. As part of ownership at Takundewide, each one of the owners has an easement on the common property. There’s 18 acres of land, well back from the water, that he could put in, we could put in a pump system, we could put in anything we need. These lakefront units, or the ones closest to the water are the ones I’m always concerned about, but there are plenty of opportunities, with that much land, to get this in. MR. MAC EWAN-And you’re also putting a basement under this, too? MR. MASON-Yes, and, I’m sorry, there’s one modification. I had a Bilco door, where it shows on the plan, especially if you look at the elevation from the right elevation, you can see down near the ground level, set a of Bilco doors, the Association has turned those down. So we won’t be putting that on. Now that effects the encroachment, there was an additional encroachment to the back property line, five feet closer, because of those Bilco doors. We won’t have that additional encroachment, or I’m not asking for that, will actually be exactly on the existing footprint. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay, and access to the basement will be inside? MR. MASON-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Larry, I’ll start with you. MR. RINGER-No questions. MR. MAC EWAN-Bob? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I guess Warren County had the same problem I did. When I read your site plan review application, and then I took a look at the site development data, I initially came up with 24 square feet, and I looked back at Warren County, and that’s exactly how they determined it, too. It’s a question of how the data was presented. So Warren County has got current building area as 769, and the proposed addition is 792. That’s 24 square feet. It looks like Warren County made the same mistake I did. Until I looked at it, went on through your application and found the area that you used the Floor Area Ratio worksheet, where you then come out with ultimately 556. MR. MASON-Yes. I wish that I, I did this because the Floor Area Ratio, it just so happened, the way they laid out this building, and they were going to fit underneath the, fit with the demands of the constraints of the Floor Area worksheet, I wish I’d just done it with, I did that on the Hickey one, two or three years ago. I just said 768 and that we were adding another 768 on the second floor. That’s not exactly according to the blue book, or the Code. You’re supposed to go by the interior dimensions. As you can see from the elevations, I’m taking the exact same building, or if I want to, first floor, and putting another floor on top of it, and really doubling what they have. We’d lose a little bit with the corners, where the roof is cut in, and I apologize for the confusion there. I was trying to fill it out the right way, and as I said, I kind of wish I’d just said 768 and another 768 upstairs. MR. VOLLARO-Well, the Zoning Board tied you down on that, in their approval of your variance request anyway. The property’s going to be essentially identical, with respect to the existing footprint. MR. MASON-We had the same discussion last week. MRS. LA BOMBARD-I think we should just approve it right now, and get on with this. MR. PALING-No questions. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Well, we’ll see if we can’t move it along, then. There’s a public hearing scheduled for tonight. I’ll open up the public hearing. Anyone that wants to come up and address this application, please come on up and identify yourself for the record. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED TED ARNSTEIN 26 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/22/98) MR. ARNSTEIN-My name is Ted Arnstein. I happen to be the President of the East side property owner’s association, 303 members all own property. We also happen to be the immediate neighbors of Takundewide. Perhaps your notes will show that when the last three cottages were granted approval, some years ago, it was done with the approval, no more density. We have no great objection to going up, and we did not raise any objection to the earlier, the three earlier additions. In fact, they look better than the original cottages, but we do have a problem with this one, to this extent. This property, this building lies less than 20 feet from the lake. It starts, really, a new precedent, more density, closer to the lake, and I don’t know if you’re aware, that this area’s been designated by the Stormwater committee, at the northern end of the property, way at the far end, as one of the three or four heaviest polluters in the Town of North Queensbury. So these things should be tied together. Now, again I say, we have no great objection to this particular addition, because it’s right next to my sister-in-law. She’s right on the lake, been there for many years, and so it will not intrude, interfere with her view, and she has, and they have, a buffer zone of probably 20 feet of foliage, trees and so on, but it should be kept in mind that you’re increasing the density, already have increased the density on three buildings. Now you’re going to increase it again. This time on the front facing Lake George, and if this continues, to all 31 cottages, which I don’t think it will, but if it does, in my book, you’re doubling the density. So I think that something should be done so that this doesn’t continue on and on and on, where you are doubling the density. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Would you expound upon the biggest polluters of? MR. ARNSTEIN-The largest polluter, as identified, as I understand it, by the Stormwater committee, that the Supervisor has set up, is the Assembly Point Road, and then they’ve identified the top ten, and this is among the top ten. I believe it’s Number Three. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Now, you’re talking about when they do those dye tests into the lake? MR. ARNSTEIN-Yes. MRS. LA BOMBARD-That the culprits are in that Assembly Point Road area? MR. ARNSTEIN-That is the worst because the road is there, and the Town puts the salt and the chemicals on it, it runs into the lake, and they’re taking steps to do something about that one. MRS. LA BOMBARD-I’m talking about septic tanks, those dye tests. MR. ARNSTEIN-Well, they did this, as I say, at the far north end of this property, about four, five hundred feet to the north of this particular building. If you look at the map, I think you have a map. MR. MAC EWAN-Are you talking about the tests, they did dye tests about a year and a half ago at the end of, there’s a drywell right at the end of that road. MR. ARNSTEIN-You’re talking about Hillman Road, I believe. MR. MAC EWAN-That might be it. They were also testing for runoff in the lake, and they were trying to alleviate the problem with the erosion and the runoff that was coming down the road and was going into the lake. It had nothing to do with anybody’s septic systems, though. MR. ARNSTEIN-No, but it was still coming off that property. That property leans down. You really, properly, you shouldn’t talk to me about that. You should talk to the Committee. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Now Mr. Mason said that he’s going to put in a new septic system. MR. ARNSTEIN-Yes, that’s fine. MRS. LABOMBARD-And it’s going to be in the area where it’s common area for everybody. It’s going to be pumped back up into there. MR. ARNSTEIN-I don’t know if it’s going to be pumped. You’d have to ask him. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes. 27 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/22/98) MR. ARNSTEIN-What I understood him to say was that there is all this property, which is true, but the property isn’t close by there. There’s a parking area behind this particular one. They’re pretty close in together there, but they do have a great deal of property going back up to the Cleverdale Road, but that’s 700, 800 feet, at least, away. MRS. LABOMBARD-I mean, if this house is 20 feet, I know, we were there. It’s right there, right on the lake, 20 feet, you’re right, it’s not far at all. Even if his septic system has to go quite a far distance in the back, behind that building, farther up, so it has enough distance. MR. ARNSTEIN-Yes, if they went that far, or anywhere near that far. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Right, and nothing would be okayed. It wouldn’t be okayed by the APA or the engineers or anything, unless it was built right. So I’m talking about your first statement about the major polluters there. MR. ARNSTEIN-I’m simply saying that this particular area is a heavy intensity, and when it was granted the permit by your predecessors, they were told no more cabins, no more people. It was never anticipated that they’d be going up, and we never complained, my organization, it didn’t even exist then, but we never complained because what they did, the first three was very nice. They improved the property. I think you’ll agree with that. Now we’re getting closer to the lake, and every time you go up there, you see more and more buildings closer and closer to the lake. So we should watch, I think, closely, not only here, but all of the places. That’s really all I have to say about it, unless you have a question. MR. VOLLARO-I have a question. Are you the President of the Homeowners Association? MR. ARNSTEIN-Not this one, not his. MR. VOLLARO-Not his. Okay. MR. ARNSTEIN-We do not have anything to do with it. That is a, the group of the 31, I believe it is, cottage owners, of which the Mason family are by far the largest owners. I’m a group of people who are from the Pilot Knob down to Plum Point. MR. VOLLARO-I was just concerned about your statement on expansion and that kind of thing, and whether or not anything like that was stated in the Homeowners Association, but you wouldn’t be able to answer that question. MR. ARNSTEIN-No, I don’t know anything about that. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Thank you very much. MR. ARNSTEIN-Thank you very much. MR. MAC EWAN-Anyone else? NANCY EPPEL MRS. EPPEL-My name is Nancy Eppel, and I’m also a neighbor of the Takundewide property, and I guess my only concern is to ensure, to the best of your ability, that whatever we do here certainly does comply with the septic system situation. You mentioned that there was an adder to a property that was built about three years ago that you all approved. Just make sure that that one complies with all the septic scenarios before going forward, because that is what concerns us all, because the concern that, frankly, we have is since we’re all being, pulling water out of the lake for drinking water, and we’re all right there, if you end up in a situation where you have a noncomplying septic system, and it does pollute it, as Ted mentioned, then we’re all in serious jeopardy, as we move forward, and so it certainly will degrade the property values, etc., as that goes along. I think I would agree with Ted that the two, that the second story is clearly a plus, from the perspective of aesthetics, and we certainly have no issue with that. It’s really just the perspective of ensuring, the most important thing to all of us, is that the septic system does meet Code, and that whatever you put in your resolution, can’t strongly recommend enough that we make sure that that violation is not a problem for us. Thanks. MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you very much. Anyone else? I will close the public hearing. 28 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/22/98) PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MAC EWAN-I have a question, I guess, in reference to your site plan map. The house appears to sit a heck of a lot closer than 40 feet to the shoreline. MR. MASON-I measured it. Did you measure it? I know you said you agreed that 20. I know, I agree, it feels close. I didn’t measure to the mean high water mark because there’s not a line drawn on the shoreline that tells me where that is, but I measured right to the rocks that form the shoreline at the base of the stairs, where the water laps against them, and I got 40 feet. I have no intention of changing the location of it. In fact, if the house is currently 20 feet, my map shows 40 feet. I guess I’d have to move it back 20 feet. MR. MAC EWAN-You’re going to maintain the existing footprint of the house? MR. MASON-Yes. MRS. LA BOMBARD-And the other gentleman said that his sister-in-law was next, basically right adjacent, in the other development, it wouldn’t present any problem to her, as far as obstructing her view, she’s right there also. MR. MASON-Yes. Her house is right on the water, and it would not, there’s a buffer line of trees between them. So unless they decided to start cutting down the trees to get a better view of each other, the trees go right down to the water, and neither. MRS. LABOMBARD-Where is your leaching field going to be, though, in respect to that building? MR. MASON-Well, the Code, I believe, calls for the leach field to be back 100 feet. I will try and put in a gravity system, not a pump system. That would be, ideally what I’d like is a 1,000 gallon concrete tank, with probably 250 feet of drain field, gravity fed, because it’s the simplest and the best system, I believe, around. Two hundred and fifty I arrive at because that’s what I had to put in when I built the Lightbody cottage last year, which I also got approval, but it looks a little bit different, but that’s the exact system I put in there, and it works fine, and on the Hickey one, I didn’t put in the system because that system had been put in two or three years previously, and it’s just the same system I’m describing. So I wouldn’t want to go back that far, all the way up to the road, with a pump system, but it would have to be back 100 feet from the, the drain field has to be 100 feet back from the shoreline, I believe. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. I’ll entertain a motion, if someone wants to introduce one. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 51-98 WILLIAM MASON , Introduced by Catherine LaBombard who moved for its adoption, seconded by Timothy Brewer: At Takundewide, with just a note, that special care be taken when the septic system goes in, so that there is no additional taxing on the waterfront, that the septic system conform to the current Town Code, and the Department of Health. nd Duly adopted this 22 day of September, 1998, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Brewer, Mr. Paling, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Stark MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set. MR. MASON-Thank you. SUBDIVISION NO. 10-1998 PRELIMINARY STAGE FINAL STAGE TYPE: UNLISTED PATRICK & RUSTY-ROSE MELLON OWNER: FLOYD MARTINDALE, SR. ZONE: RR-3A LOCATION: SE CORNER OF MARTINDALE RD. & RT. 149 INTERSECTION APPLICANT PROPOSES TO SUBDIVIDE A 6.47 ACRE PARCEL INTO TWO LOTS OF 3.00 ACRES AND 3.47 ACRES. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 61- 29 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/22/98) 1998 TAX MAP NO. 48-1-6.21 LOT SIZE: 6.47 ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS PATRICK & RUSTY-ROSE MELLON, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Subdivision No. 10-1998, Preliminary Stage Final Stage, Patrick & Rusty-Rose Description of Project: Mellon, Meeting Date: September 22, 1998 “ The applicant proposes to subdivide a parcel into two lots. The applicant received an area variance for relief from the Staff Comments: average lot width requirement. The applicant has submitted a letter requesting waivers from sketch plan, and two foot contour lines. In addition, the applicant will be requesting a waiver from the construction details of septic type and design. The proposed subdivision may be reviewed for preliminary stage noting the requested waivers. The applicant was informed the final plot plan would need additional information in regard to location of septic, well, access, and house. The surveyor for the applicant has indicated that the final plans will adhere to the subdivision regulations and will be submitted by September 16, 1998. The Final stage may be reviewed only if the applicant is able to provide the information requested for review prior to the meeting. Staff has no additional comments.” MR. MAC EWAN-Would you read in the letter to you from Charles Nacy, the one dated. th MRS. MOORE-September 16? th MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. Well, they’re both September 16, but the one in reference to the waivers. I think maybe you can just highlight it, I guess. MRS. MOORE-Okay. The following waivers were requested. Number One, “Existing and proposed contours of the development site”, Number Two, “Design details for individual sewage disposal facilities and water supply”, and Number Three, a “Landscape Plan, Clearing Plan, Grading Plan, Erosion Control Plan, and Drainage Report”. Do you want me to go into more detail than that? MR. MAC EWAN-No. That’s fine. Good evening. Could you identify yourself for the record, please. MR. MELLON-Patrick Mellon. MRS. MELLON-Rusty-Rose Mellon. MR. MAC EWAN-Could you tell us a little bit about your proposed subdivision? MR. MELLON-I’m looking to subdivide an approximately six acre parcel into two building lots, both of three acres, and I requested a variance from the Zoning Board. It’s normally double the lot width on a main arterial road, and to be able to build on our lot that we have is 230 feet wide. MR. MAC EWAN-The driveway on Lot Two, would you comment on that, please, other than the fact that it’s really, really long. MR. MELLON-As far as Lot Two goes, he put in the driveway there onto Martindale Road, estimating where that proposed driveway would go. We were looking, just for the record, at Lot Number One. We aren’t planning to build on Lot Number Two. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Anything else you want to add? MR. MELLON-No. MR. VOLLARO-On the drawing, they have a note that says “Installation of proposed septic tank and absorption field to be consistent with current standards of New York State Department of Health and the Town of Queensbury”, and what you’re saying in the waiver, that you’re just waiving the design details for individual sewage and disposal systems? MR. MELLON-Yes. 30 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/22/98) MR. VOLLARO-I’d like to ask Counsel, again, just a question. Here again is a note, on the drawing, where they’ve asked for a waiver in the design. So they’re not telling us how they’re going to do this, whether it’s going to be a shallow trench absorption system or a surface system or anything else. It’s merely a note on the drawing. MR. SCHACHNER-It seems to me, if I’m following your question, Bob, the distinction between this application and the previous one that you raised a concern about, this application, I’m just looking at it for the first time, but seems to show, on the drawing, what I called earlier the hypothetical location of developing utilities. MR. VOLLARO-That’s my interpretation as well. I’m just trying to raise the issue here. MR. SCHACHNER-Yes, but the last application didn’t show the hypothetical location. MR. VOLLARO-That’s correct. MR. SCHACHNER-And the long winded speech I gave earlier can be summarized by stating that part of your job as a Planning Board basically is to make sure that a proposed single family residential lot is capable of housing a single family residence. If the applicant then chooses to build somewhere different, then the applicant would have to demonstrate to the Building Department that Codes are complied with. MR. PALING-Plus the fact that they’ve got to demonstrate to the Health Department. MR. SCHACHNER-Well, whomever. MR. PALING-Yes. Right. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-I’ll open up the public hearing. Does anyone want to comment to this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MAC EWAN-We need to do a SEQRA, Short. MR. BREWER-For Preliminary Stage, right? MR. MAC EWAN-That’s correct. MR. SCHACHNER-Well, SEQRA review is for the Subdivision. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Right. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, but we are at Preliminary Stage. MR. SCHACHNER-Correct. MRS. LA BOMBARD-This is still Preliminary. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s correct. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 10-1998 , Introduced by Catherine LaBombard who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: 31 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/22/98) PATRICK & RUSTY-ROSE MELLON , 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. nd Duly adopted this 22 day of September, 1998, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ringer, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Paling, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Stark MR. MAC EWAN-Does someone want to introduce a motion? MOTION TO APPROVE SUBDIVISION NO. 10-1998 PRELIMINARY STAGE PATRICK & RUSTY-ROSE MELLON , Introduced by Catherine LaBombard who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Paling: th That the requested waivers in the letter dated September 16 will be granted. nd Duly adopted this 22 day of September, 1998, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ringer, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Paling, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Stark MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Final Stage. MOTION TO APPROVE SUBDIVISION NO. 10-1998 FINAL STAGE, PATRICK & RUSTY-ROSE MELLON , Introduced by Catherine LaBombard who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Paling: 32 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/22/98) nd Duly adopted this 22 day of September, 1998, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Paling, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Brewer, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Stark MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set. MR. MELLON-Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-You’re welcome. SUBDIVISION NO. 11-1998 PRELIMINARY STAGE FINAL STAGE TYPE: UNLISTED QUAKER VILLAGE DEV. CORP. OWNER: SAME ZONE: HC-1A LOCATION: CORNER OF QUAKER & BAY RDS. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO SUBDIVIDE A 25.753 ACRE PARCEL INTO TWO LOTS OF 1.604 ACRES AND 24.149 ACRES. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 63-1998 TAX MAP NO. 59-1-5.5, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19.1, 19.2 LOT SIZE: 25.753 ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS JON LAPPER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Subdivision No. 11-1998, Preliminary Stage Final Stage, Meeting Date: Description of Project: September 22, 1998 “ The applicant proposes a two lot subdivision in the HC-1A zone. The division would separate the proposed Applebee’s restaurant and the Lowe’s Home Improvement Center. The applicant has received an area variance for relief from minimum Staff Comments: road frontage. The parcels that are involved with the original Site Plan 29-97 are required to be combined before the subdivision may be reviewed. The parcel division complies with the subdivision regulations with the exception of frontage. Staff has no additional comments.” MR. MAC EWAN-Could you clarify that? I’m lost on that. MRS. MOORE-For the amount of tax map numbers? MR. MAC EWAN-No “The parcels that are involved with the original Site Plan 29-97 are required to be combined before the subdivision may be reviewed.” MRS. MOORE-Right. I’ve talked to Mr. Lapper about that, and right now there’s, like, five or four different parcels that make up the Lowe’s Home Improvement project, and for him to subdivide the property, he needs to combine them all into one lot, which was part of the original Lowe’s Home Improvement project. Does that clarify it? MR. MAC EWAN-So where does that put us for tonight’s review? MRS. MOORE-This letter that, he’ll read it. It’s a consolidation form to the County. MR. LAPPER-Good evening. MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening. MR. LAPPER-For the record, I’m Jon Lapper. I have with me the signed form that will be submitted, forthwith, to Warren County to combine the lots. I just got it signed today, at Laura’s request. Technically, we already have a whole bunch of lots right now. So we’re combining them to separate, and we could technically separate without, you know, because we already have, the property is on a different lot right now than the Lowe’s anyway, but it was always the intention that this would be one lot, and as I mentioned to you briefly when I was here for the site plan approval for the Applebee’s in August, this subdivision is being requested for convenience, for potential future sale, which is not at all proposed now. Mostly it’s being done now for financing, so that they can grant separate mortgages for the financing of the Lowe’s and for the Applebee’s, but that said, we recognize that the Planning Board has to look at this, considering that the sites could some day be in separate ownership, once subdivision approval is granted, and with that in 33 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/22/98) mind, we’re trying to clean it up and combine all the lots first and then ask you to grant subdivision approval. So I have a copy of the application, which I’ll submit to Laura now, to combine the parcels, and then we’re asking for subdivision approval for the Applebee’s parcel. MR. BREWER-I have one question. Mark, in Jon’s letter, it says the Area Variance is requested essentially because the parcel doesn’t have any frontage on a public street. We can create that? They’ve granted that variance? MR. SCHACHNER-Yes, the Zoning Board can grant that variance. MR. BREWER-No, I understand. They did? MR. LAPPER-I have a copy of that. That was last week, and I have a copy of the resolution. MR. BREWER-Okay. I don’t have it. MR. RINGER-We got it as part of Staff Notes, on the back of the Staff Notes. MR. BREWER-All right. I believe that it was done, Jon, I just want to make sure, that’s all. So how does, hypothetically, if that was ever sold, how does somebody have access, with the agreement that you mentioned in your letter? MR. LAPPER-There is a note on the plan. The Reciprocal Easement Agreement has already been recorded in the County Clerk’s Office, which gives the customers of either parcel free access to drive over and use the entrances at the other one, and that’s already recorded, and recording information is on the plan. We view it as a technicality that it doesn’t have the frontage, just because of that NiMo transmission line, and because of the stream corridor, it wouldn’t make sense to put a second access. MR. BREWER-The Aviation Mall did something real similar. MR. MAC EWAN-They did it with the Penneys expansion, I think it was, a couple of years ago. MR. LAPPER-Okay. I was told that that bridge cost $400,000 to put in because of the Army Corps requirements, because of the. MR. MAC EWAN-Vast improvement over what was there, vast improvement. Okay, now as far as combining all your lots? MR. LAPPER-At the end of the process, what we’re looking for is to have one parcel which would include all this, and which would include that little piece out by Quaker, and the second parcel is the 1.6 acre parcel, which complies in every respect with Town Code, with the exception that it doesn’t have frontage on Quaker, and now it does comply because the Area Variance was granted last week. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. So you’re here for the two lot subdivision tonight? MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-And as far as combining all of those other parcels before you get to this stage, that’s already been accomplished and taken care of? MR. LAPPER-I will commit to, before we file the separate deeds in the Clerk’s Office, which indicates the subdivision, or even before we file the subdivision map, we will submit the application to the County Tax Map Department. MR. SCHACHNER-Right. Just so you understand, it’s not actually been accomplished yet, and that certainly could be a condition of your approval, and it would be very appropriate for that to be a condition of your approval, but the applicant has furnished us with a document prepared today that would constitute the request of the County to consolidate the parcels. MR. PALING-Who approves this, your submittal for the combining? MR. LAPPER-Warren County Property Tax Map. 34 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/22/98) MR. PALING-That’s all it takes? MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. PALING-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Anything else you want to tell us? MR. LAPPER-I don’t think so. I think this is pretty straightforward. MR. MAC EWAN-Any questions up here? We’ll open up the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MAC EWAN-We need to do a SEQRA, before we get to that point, could I ask you a question? Why do we need to do a SEQRA if we’ve already done an Environmental Impact Statement on this? MR. SCHACHNER-That’s the point I was going to ask, and the question is, did the Environmental Impact Statement contemplate the subdivision? MR. LAPPER-It didn’t, under that provision that it wasn’t anticipated at the time, but I think that they could make a determination that the impacts that were contemplated and the Statement of Findings are sufficient, and that another SEQRA review would not be necessary. MR. MAC EWAN-But this isn’t really a modification, though. MR. LAPPER-There’s no site changes whatsoever. MR. SCHACHNER-It’s not necessarily a modification. Did the Environmental Impact Statement contemplate the restaurant? MR. LAPPER-But the Environmental Impact Statement never specified what the use was going to be. It said anything permitted in the Highway Commercial zone, because we had talked at the time that they were negotiating with a tire and battery retailer, but we didn’t have a lease, and that fell apart, and fortunately something better came along. So the Environmental Impact Statement was broad enough to encompass this. MR. SCHACHNER-But certainly discusses a commercial use at this location on the property? MR. LAPPER-Right, and actually we had shown a footprint of a 12,000 square foot building, and this is a 4,800 square foot building. MR. SCHACHNER-Was the Planning Board the SEQRA lead agency? MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. SCHACHNER-All right, the Planning Board is the SEQRA lead agency. So you have the authority, if you wish to do so, to make the determination that the potential environmental impacts of what’s proposed today have been adequately addressed in the previously adopted Environmental Impact Statement. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. I don’t see any reason or need to do a SEQRA. MRS. LA BOMBARD-I don’t, either. MR. PALING-Unless it could be challenged down the road. I’d favor going ahead, but could it be challenged? MR. SCHACHNER-Anything can be challenged. If you’re asking me, am I worried about the likelihood of a successful challenge? No, I’m not particularly concerned. 35 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/22/98) MR. LAPPER-And I agree with Mark on that point. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Right. Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. SCHACHNER-Especially based on the hue and cry at the public hearing about the subdivision. MR. LAPPER-Just Matt. MR. MAC EWAN-Lets entertain a resolution on Preliminary Stage. MOTION TO APPROVE SUBDIVISION NO. 11-1998 PRELIMINARY STAGE QUAKER VILLAGE DEV. CORP. , Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Catherine LaBombard: In the condition of approval is that the combination of the associated parcels, that being Lowe’s and Applebee’s, be submitted to the Warren County Real Property Tax Bureau, and approved by that Agency. The Planning Board has determined that there is no significant change in the previously determined SEQRA review, and any potential environmental impacts of the proposed subdivision have been adequately addressed in the previously adopted Environmental Impact Statement. nd Duly adopted this 22 day of September, 1998, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ringer, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Paling, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Stark MR. SCHACHNER-I’m sorry to interrupt, but it might save us some time. Our extremely capable Staff raises another issue that I think she’s right about, and that is, it might be more appropriate to include the condition of consolidation as part of your Final approval, rather than your Preliminary approval, although you’ve just done that, because you can’t really go on to your Final approval now because you don’t have a fulfilled Preliminary approval. MR. MAC EWAN-So do we need to modify the Preliminary and remove that? MR. SCHACHNER-I think that would probably be appropriate. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Lets scratch that, lets withdraw that approval and introduce a new one, for Preliminary. Do the SEQRA portion of it. MR. BREWER-Why can’t we just modify that motion? MR. MAC EWAN-We are. That’s what we’re doing. MR. BREWER-I thought you said to rescind it and do it all over. MR. MAC EWAN-Well, basically, you have to. MR. SCHACHNER-Either way. I mean, if you want, you could just modify it to eliminate the condition requiring consolidation. MR. MAC EWAN-Lets do that. Lets modify the Preliminary approval and remove the condition of consolidating the parcels, okay. Now, Final. MOTION TO APPROVE SUBDIVISION NO. 11-1998 FINAL STAGE, QUAKER VILLAGE DEV. CORP. , Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Catherine LaBombard: 36 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/22/98) With the following provision, that the combination of the associated parcel, that is Lowe’s and Applebee’s, be submitted to Warren County Tax Bureau and approved by that Agency. nd Duly adopted this 22 day of September, 1998, by the following vote: MR. LAPPER-Before you vote on that, I’m sorry to interrupt. I’m just wondering when some banker is going to look at this resolution, that because it says that you’re consolidating and subdividing at the same time, which is just complicated, I wonder if you could just distinguish that before the subdivision map is filed, that al of the parcels that encompass this property are consolidated into one parcel, and then that it’s subdivided. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, Jon. MR. SCHACHNER-I think the motion says that, does it not? MR. BREWER-Yes. It does. It says it should be consolidated before Final approval is. MR. SCHACHNER-A condition of Final approval is that, Final approval is not valid, and a mylar won’t be signed, and therefore it won’t be filable, until first your parcels are consolidated. MR. LAPPER-Okay. That’s fine. That’s everyone’s intention. AYES: Mr. Paling, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Brewer, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Stark MR. SCHACHNER-Did you all vote on modifying your Preliminary? MR. MAC EWAN-No, we didn’t. Back up. MR. SCHACHNER-Somebody made a motion to eliminate that condition. MR. VOLLARO-We just moved to modify the original motion. MR. SCHACHNER-Right, and then never voted on it. MR. MAC EWAN-Right. MR. VOLLARO-And never voted on it. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MOTION TO MODIFY APPROVAL OF SUBDIVISION NO. 11-1998 PRELIMINARY STAGE, QUAKER VILLAGE DEV. CORP. , Introduced by Craig MacEwan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro: To remove the clause of combining the parcels, leaving in the SEQRA determination. nd Duly adopted this 22 day of September, 1998, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Paling, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Brewer, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Stark MR. MAC EWAN-That got real messed up. MR. LAPPER-Thank you. MR. PALING-You’re welcome. 37 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/22/98) SUBDIVISION NO. 8-1998 PRELIMINARY STAGE FINAL STAGE TYPE: UNLISTED WEGMAN CO., INC. OWNER: R. GEORGE WISWALL CHARLOTTE WISWALL ZONE: MR-5 LOCATION: EAST SIDE WOODVALE ROAD BETWEEN GLENWOOD AND COUNTRY CLUB APPLICANT PROPOSES TO SUBDIVIDE A 33.78 ACRE PARCEL INTO TWO LOTS OF 7.38 ACRES AND 26.40 ACRES FOR AN ADULT ASSISTED LIVING FACILITY. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 50-98 TAX MAP NO. 61-1-21.1 LOT SIZE: 33.78 ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS MATT STEVES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Subdivision No. 8-1998, Preliminary & Final Stage, Meeting Date: September Description of Project: 22, 1998 “ The applicant is proposing to subdivide a 22.85 acre parcel Staff Comments: into two lots, lot 1 will be 7.38 acres and lot 2 will be 15.47 acres. The applicant has complied with the subdivision requirements for preliminary and final stages. Staff was concerned with access to Lot 2 in regard to wetlands. The proposed subdivision does not exceed the threshold of work within an Army Corps. wetland. The future development of Lot 2 may require an Army Corps. wetland permit. In regard to the access to Lot 2 from Glenwood it does not appear that a permit is needed, because the impact would not exceed the disturbance threshold. This was confirmed with the consultant (Deb Roberts) who delineated the wetland. Staff has no additional comments.” MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Mr. Steves. MR. STEVES-Good evening. My name is Matt Steves, and I represent the Wegman Companies on this application. It’s basically pretty much straightforward. It’s the same map as you had seen on the conceptual. The topography was there on the conceptual. No significant changes whatsoever. It just shows the neighboring owners the information as required by the subdivision application, the zoning districts, fire protection districts, so on and so on, as far as Laura’s comments as far as frontage on Woodvale Road, and there is still remaining frontage also on Glenwood on the lot, on the second lot, and we see no problem with that. MR. MAC EWAN-I do know that we have an application in front of us here tonight to develop that Lot One. What’s going to happen with Lot Two? Do you know any plans for it? MR. STEVES-No plans at this time. That’ll be retained by Dr. Wiswall. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. BREWER-I have one question. Why the crazy shape of this Lot Two, way over here, to, just so they can have access to Glenwood? MR. STEVES-That’s the existing configuration of the lot. You mean the portion where it shows the old track there that comes out onto Glenwood? That’s how his lot is currently configured. MR. MAC EWAN-On Woodvale. MR. BREWER-On Woodvale. MR. STEVES-Okay. The area on Lot One, or what incorporates Lot One, that’s just the road frontage that was set up for this particular use that is being proposed. As you know, we’ll be coming in on site plan for next week, or actually this week, on Thursday. That was just what would remain. I don’t think there’s any particular usage or proposed usage for that property that remains on Woodvale at this time. It just basically acts as a buffer zone between there and the lands of O’Connor. That’s why the Doctor wanted that to remain, leave about a 60 foot strip in there, and that’s just basically to provide a buffer to the O’Connor’s property. MR. BREWER-It’s just a crazy shape, that’s all. MR. STEVES-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. We’ll open up the public hearing. Does anyone want to come up and comment on this application? 38 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/22/98) PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MAC EWAN-We need to do a SEQRA, Short Form. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 8-1998 , Introduced by Catherine LaBombard who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Paling: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: WEGMAN CO., INC. , 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. nd Duly adopted this 22 day of September, 1998, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Paling, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Stark MR. MAC EWAN-Just a question before we move on to a motion. On the map, right behind the Wiswall property, going in a northerly direction, you have indicated on there like little square boxes and dashed lines. MR. STEVES-Yes, that’s a fence. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s a fence, because I’m looking on your key, and your key says it’s a catch basin, and I couldn’t figure out why it was a catch basin. MR. STEVES-No, different sized square. That’s a wooden fence. 39 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/22/98) MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. I knew there was a fence out there, but I wasn’t sure. Okay. Does someone want to introduce a motion for Preliminary? MOTION TO APPROVE SUBDIVISION NO. 8-1998 PRELIMINARY STAGE WEGMAN CO., INC. , Introduced by Robert Paling who moved for its adoption, seconded by Catherine LaBombard: As submitted. nd Duly adopted this 22 day of September, 1998, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Paling, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Stark MR. MAC EWAN-Now we need one for Final. MOTION TO APPROVE SUBDIVISION NO. 8-1998 FINAL STAGE WEGMAN CO., INC. , Introduced by Robert Paling who moved for its adoption, seconded by Timothy Brewer: As submitted. nd Duly adopted this 22 day of September, 1998, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Brewer, Mr. Paling, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Stark MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set. MR. STEVES-Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-You’re welcome. MRS. MOORE-Matt Steves, do you have your notification cards? MR. MAC EWAN-I just want to hold up for a minute. I just want to be sure he’s got the mailings. Everyone was notified weren’t they, Matt? MR. STEVES-Yes, they were. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Lets move on. OLD BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 72-96 TYPE II MODIFICATION G.F. INDEPENDENT LIVING CENTER ZONE: HC-1A LOCATION: 71 GLENWOOD AVENUE APPLICANT PROPOSES MODIFICATION TO EXISTING APPROVED SITE PLAN. THE MODIFICATION IS TO CHANGE THE LANDSCAPING. TAX MAP NO. 62-1-4.1 LOT SIZE: 3.44 ACRES SECTION: 179-23 JIM MILLER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MRS. LA BOMBARD-And there is no public hearing tonight. STAFF INPUT 40 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/22/98) Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 72-96 - Modification, G.F. Independent Living Center, Meeting Description of Project: Date: September 22, 1998 “ The applicant proposes to modify a Staff Comments: landscape plan for the existing site plan. The applicant was informed of non- compliance with the landscaping plantings of the original Site Plan #72-96 (see correspondence). The applicant has requested to delete the planting to the south of the building, seed the front area where there is stone, and plant two additional maple trees to the north of the parking lot. Staff has no additional comments.” MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening. MR. MILLER-Good evening. For the record, Jim Miller, representing the Wiswall’s Center for Independent Living. MR. MAC EWAN-Tell us a little bit about your modification that you want to do. MR. MILLER-Actually, this modification, as well as the next site plan, are tied together. When we submitted the original site plan and the first modification which modified the size of the building and added additional parking, the previous landscape plan indicated some planting along the east end of the parking lot, and along the south side of the parking lot. Now, that our clients have been in operation for about six months. They’re looking to expand the programs that they offer to, you know, as you know to people with various handicaps and multiple handicaps, and one of their plans is to try to maximize the use, the space, the outside space that they have. The proposal that’s before you next is their first effort, which is to construct a fully accessible handicapped playground, and in addition, they would like to, at some point in the future, which is going to take some time, because Army Corps permits would be required. They would like to expand and possibly have some fitness trails, which are wheelchair accessible, and some other components like that throughout the site. So, with that, what we’d like to do is modify the original landscape plan to eliminate the landscaping that was along the south side of the parking lot, and as future plans are prepared for the trails and other things that landscaping would be implemented with. The problem right now is they don’t want to spend the money to plant the plants, only to have to move them, and they’re not in a location that’s critical to the site plan. The Staff was on the site, and the area between the parking lot and Glenwood Avenue, there was some stone fill placed in there, and there was originally six trees proposed in there. What we’re proposing is that stone fill to be removed. That area would be either seeded or sodded, and three additional trees will be planted, two along the parking lot, and a third tree is going to be planted in conjunction with the playground that’s proposed as the next project. MR. MAC EWAN-And the reason, again, for not wanting to do what was originally approved? MR. MILLER-What we had looked at is, along the back of the parking lot we had planting of large pine trees and some other planting like that, and the client wishes to make use of that area, rather than just plant it. They intend to landscape it, but what they’d like to do is wait until they’re at a point where, when they have a proposal for the trail system and permits in place, incorporate that landscaping with any future plans. MR. MAC EWAN-You’re talking the western portion of the parcel, right, toward Quaker Road? MR. MILLER-Yes. It’s the planting that was down in this area. This heavy dark line that you see, that’s the limits the site that we could fill, based on the Army Corps permitting. Anything outside of that would require permitting. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. What does that have to do with the portion of the site that faces Glenwood, where they’re doing the excavating now, and removing the stone fill and the trees? MR. MILLER-Well, we’re proposing to landscape that. Originally, there was six trees located along here. So the proposal is to do that landscaping. So there’s three trees there now. This stone will be removed and used for fill in the playground site. Two additional Sugar Maples would be planted in this area, and a Honey Locust would be planted down along the property line with the playground. So basically we’d be completing the landscaping along the front, but what we’re doing is asking to delete the landscaping that was along the back of the parking lot, and it’ll be tied in with some future improvements on the property. MR. BREWER-Not totally delete it. It will be done? 41 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/22/98) MR. MILLER-It will be done, yes. It’ll probably be done but modified to conform with whatever proposals there were, because there’s been some talk there may be some accessible ramps or a lift and some things that traverse the slope there. So the landscape, what we’d like to do is design the landscaping at the time, you know, some of those improvements may happen. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-I guess the only thing I’m asking, what we just talked about, this future work. Is that going to be contingent on Army Corps of Engineer approval, did you say, or am I missing something here? MR. MILLER-It may be, because some of the things we’ve talked, we don’t have a definitive plan right now, just some ideas of what may be there. Some of the things that were talked about is possibly having a trail that went out to where there was a deck structure near Halfway Brook for fishing access for handicapped, and if we were to pursue something like that, it would require a permit. So I think what we want to do is when the plans evolve a little bit more, as to what they want to do, we would probably come back with a separate submission, which would probably include some Corps permits. MR. PALING-It looks real good. MR. MAC EWAN-A question, going back along the line, going back to what Bob Vollaro’s question was, the landscaping that’s assigned to the back portion of that parcel, you want to kind of postpone it until you come up with a definitive plan as to what you want to do with that back portion. How long will that be before we see a plan or something’s put in action? I mean, I, for one, don’t want to see the 10 years go by not having any plantings done out there. I mean, is there a time limit we’re looking at before somebody does something or says, it’s a good idea, no idea, or what? MR. MILLER-I don’t know. I can’t answer that. MR. PALING-Craig, what is the concern? They’re not going to do anything to the land. The land’s not going to change, what’s on the land. MR. MAC EWAN-Well, part of the original approval for the site plan had landscaping out there. They don’t want to put any landscaping out there until they come up with a definitive, they have ideas that they want to develop that back portion, which is going to be tied in to getting approvals from the Army Corps of Engineers. MR. PALING-Okay, but my question is, if the land is not modified at the present time, is there a penalty? MR. MAC EWAN-I don’t think penalty’s the right word. MR. MILLER-That particular area, for landscaping, you know, it’s in the back. It’s not a highly visible area, and it’s not like a screen planting or anything that was really crucial to the site plan. We, basically, at the time, we just thought we were going to have a slope there that, because the site had to be filled, where we just had planted some pine trees, you know, along that slope, to provide some screening, but in fact there’s very little view into that area, because most of the area on the other side of Halfway Brook is, well, it’s not wooded, but it’s heavy brush. MR. MAC EWAN-But from Quaker Road it’s highly visible. MR. MILLER-The parking area? MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. MR. MILLER-Aesthetically, you just see a blank bank. MR. MAC EWAN-I’m willing to want to do something like that for you, but I would want some assurances that some sort of plan is going to come back in front of us, in a given period of time, or some sort of extension would be granted. I don’t want to see like five or ten years elapse without having any landscaping out there. I mean, if I’m all alone here. MR. BREWER-No, I would agree. 42 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/22/98) MR. VOLLARO-As a matter of fact, Staff made a comment on that, in the Staff Notes. The Staff would recommend a time schedule for the project. Merely putting a schedule down on paper so there is some planning in the wind that shows us what’s going to happen there, and that should be submitted prior to obtaining a building permit, and that’s merely a schedule to say this is what we think. AL BLUMBERG MR. BLUMBERG-My name is Al Blumberg. I’m the Director of Facility Development of the Independent Living Center. Once we complete the playground itself, there are certain toys that will come in the fund raising that will be placed, starting up the bank from the playground, maybe to the first light pole, maybe a little bit beyond. Approximately halfway down, we would like to put a small pavilion and a ramp so that we can get wheelchair people down to a walkway that would be perhaps built along the silt fence line. We’d like an exercise trail, where somebody can get their heart rate up to a certain, whatever the acceptable. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s a plan that you have to develop that parcel in the near future, a year or so? MR. BLUMBERG-Right. Getting back to the plantings, if we put anything at all in the bank, we’re just going to have to remove it. We may very well be removing it, we may very well be using that space in the spring, to put in a water sand box and a regular sand box, for wheelchair kids to get up in close to, and we’re going to have to modify that bank. We’re starting a stone wall down, if you’ll notice on the plan. That stone wall we may have to continue, in order to get the grade level so that we can get the wheelchair kids from the parking lot to the sand box. Granted, I know we have to come back to do those things, and I know that you don’t like to see five and ten years go by, but people give their money, and you induce them to donate certain things, and as these things come forward this spring, it will more or less identify that time sequence that would satisfy you people. MR. BREWER-So you’re saying next spring? MR. BLUMBERG-I would say by the spring we will know just how long it’s going to. MR. BREWER-So if we said maybe by next, end of July, that you would have a plan for us, that would give us some idea what you were going to do? That would be acceptable? MR. BLUMBERG-Yes. We probably would have a plan by then. MR. BREWER-Okay. MR. BLUMBERG-That would be fair to say. MR. BREWER-Does that suit your needs, Craig? MR. MAC EWAN-Actually, I was thinking a little bit longer, a year extension on plantings on the back portion of the property. MR. MILLER-I think one of Staff’s comments about schedule, too, I think had to do with the playground, and what the plan is, is that some of the drainage and grading and preparation work will be done immediately, but the playground probably won’t be completed until next spring, early summer, for next year. So I think that if the landscaping, if our client is willing to look at a time, I’d say a year would probably be reasonable. That would give the. MR. BREWER-Not necessarily to have it done, Jim, to have an idea of what you’re going to do. MR. MILLER-I think so, but I think they probably need to get this next phase up and going before they’re sure what the next one’s going to be. So I think, you know, if they construct, and they’ll have their playground running next summer, that would give them time to start thinking about what the next phase is going to be. MR. VOLLARO-Some place in your plan you’re probably going to have to do some per charting or some similar kind of chart that says, this is our proposed and estimated time table for this program. 43 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/22/98) MR. MILLER-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-Based on whatever conceptual thoughts you had, what you think your funding might be. It’s all contingent, but at least it’s a plan. It doesn’t run out, like Craig says, for a long, long, long period of time, because that plan’s going to constrain you to do certain things anyway. So it seems to me you’re going to need a document like that, in-house, to be able to work this program. MR. BREWER-Right. Once you start constructing the playground, I mean, you’re not going to be taking anything away, because you haven’t done it, but at least you’d have an idea of what was going to be there and where you’re going to put it, I would think, before you even start the playground. MR. MILLER-Well, the playground was laid out in such a way that we know how a trail connection would work off of the playground, and we know that much. I guess what we don’t know, specifically, is what components will be associated with the trail system. One of the things that the Independent Living Center does, as Staff has mentioned, a lot of their scheduling is driven by donations. Right now, the Kiwanis Club is sponsoring this playground, and they are pushing to have this done. So that’s what’s making this playground become a reality, and I think once that takes place, then they’ll look to the next step. MR. MAC EWAN-I think what would be appropriate is grant the modification for the plantings along Glenwood Avenue, and grant a one year extension on plantings on the westerly slope of the property, and if for some reason their plans don’t come to fruition here, in a year, they can always come in and ask for an extension on that. That way we have a handle on it, and we have a way to police it, to stay on top of it. How does everybody feel about that? MR. PALING-I’ll vote in favor of that, but I don’t think it’s the right way to do it. If they had submitted this plan, originally, without a planting plan in that part of it, I think I would have approved it, and I don’t see where not planting now or not having a plan to plant has any adverse effect on the environment. It looks the same. It’s just vacant land, but I can go along with that, except I just don’t think it’s necessary, but I will vote with that, yes. MR. MAC EWAN-How does everybody else feel? MR. BREWER-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-I think that’s a good solution, Craig. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. I’ll introduce that as a resolution. MOTION TO APPROVE MODIFICATION TO SITE PLAN NO. 72-96 G.F. INDEPENDENT LIVING CENTER , Introduced by Craig MacEwan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro: Modifications to plantings along Glenwood Avenue, and grant a one year extension to the plantings along the westerly slope of the site, submission should be made prior to September 30, 1999, and that there were no significant changes to the original SEQRA findings for the Site Plan. nd Duly adopted this 22 day of September, 1998, by the following vote: MRS. MOORE-Instead of saying a date, why don’t you schedule it so it’s like the second meeting, the Planning Board’s second meeting in September, so you’re not stuck to a date that’s actually Saturday or Sunday. MR. BREWER-Because they’ll have to submit the last Wednesday of the month in September. MRS. MOORE-Or submit it by August, something so that you’re not stuck to September 30, 1999. MR. MAC EWAN-The only reason why I said that is in the past we’ve always been told to tie it to the last day of a month. 44 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/22/98) MRS. MOORE-Right, but you can also schedule it to a meeting time. Because you’re saying, I don’t have my yearly calendar in front of me, just in case you suggest a date that happens to be a Saturday, or not. MR. BREWER-Submission should be made prior to September 30, 1999. How’s that? MRS. MOORE-Okay. So that he’s on for October’s agenda. MR. BREWER-Right. MRS. MOORE-Okay. AYES: Mr. Paling, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Brewer, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Stark MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. NEW BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 52-98 TYPE: UNLISTED WISWALL CENTER FOR INDEPENDENT LIVING OWNER: SAME ZONE: HC-1A LOCATION: 71 GLENWOOD AVENUE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT A PLAYGROUND, INCLUDING A WOOD CLIMBING STRUCTURE. ALL LAND USES IN HC ZONES ARE SUBJECT TO REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 72-96, AV 62-1998 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: 9/9/98 TAX MAP NO. 62-1-4.1, 4.2, 5 LOT SIZE: 3.44 ACRES SECTION: 179-23 JIM MILLER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 52-98, Wiswall Center for Independent Living, Meeting Date: Description of Project: September 22, 1998 “ The applicant proposes to construct a playground facility to accompany an existing building. The proposal was reviewed by the ZBA for setback Staff Comments: relief of a structure. Staff met with the applicant prior to submission to discuss the scope of the proposal. The playground would be an additional use on the site to be used in conjunction with the Independent Living Center. Due to the extent of the project it was determined to be a new site plan versus a modification to the original Site Plan #72-96. The proposal addresses access to the playground facility and landscape plans. The intended use does not appear to have an impact on the amount of parking. The project will be funded by donations and constructed by the Kiwanis Club. Staff would recommend a time schedule for the project be submitted prior to obtaining a building permit. The schedule should address the landscape plans and phasing of the playground construction. Staff is concerned the construction of the playground will be done in a piecemeal fashion because of funding. A schedule will help minimize the aesthetic site impacts.” MRS. MOORE-And the County Planning Board approved the project. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Good evening again. MR. MILLER-For the record, Jim Miller. The proposal is to utilize the area, eastern most end of the parking lot, to construct a playground, and as we talked about before, the possibility of some trail system would be able to come off of the end of this playground where it would ramp down and could follow along the back of the property, and possibly access to the Brook. That was the intent. One of the reasons for the location of the playground is to stay out of the area where the Corps Wetland Permit requirements, and to be off of the parking lot where the eastern most end of the parking area can be used for parking for most of the children will be playing there will be wheelchair bound, and they will be driven to the site in vans. So there’ll be parking area adequate, in close proximity to the playground, plus some of that parking area could be utilized for some play surface for special events. The playground, one of the things that’s unique about this playground, it’s being designed by Jean Shapett, who is a specialist in design of play structures for handicapped 45 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/22/98) children. Most handicapped playgrounds that you see, you only have to provide access to the structure and then the children have to leave their wheelchairs and essentially find a way to climb or play on the structure. This particular structure is constructed to meet handicapped accessibility, where there’s various decks at different heights, connected by, essentially, handicapped accessible ramps. So a child in a wheelchair can meander through this play structure, going from level to level, and there’ll be different play facilities along this for children of various abilities. Children who aren’t handicapped can also use it, because there will be things like fire poles and ladder climbers and slides. So the intent is to allow the entire structure to be accessible, and then the children can play with the things that they’re capable of, and some various facilities they can utilize with assistance. There’s also a couple of sort of standard elements. There was a tire swing which was one of the structures that was, the Committee wanted, the see saw that there is actually a see saw that has seats where children could be transferred from a wheelchair and put into this, and so it could be used by either handicapped children or able bodied children. There is also some sand play areas, some of that would be constructed at table height, where children in wheelchairs can access it and play in it, and that’s why we have sort of an elaborate wood structure, and it was determined that it was a structure and subject to the same setbacks and requirements as a building would be, and we were granted setback variances from the Zoning Board, along, you know, to be 26 feet back from the front property line instead of 50. We are right along the property line, on the east side, and then we’re 23.4 feet back from Halfway Brook. Right now, there’s a drainage swale that discharges in here. When we did the original site plan, there was a series of culverts that came under Glenwood Avenue, from drainage across the way, Dr. Wiswall’s property and some of the other properties there. When this parking lot was constructed and this area was filled, a series of catch basins were installed, not only to pick up some of the road drainage, but it also picked those drains up, and then re-routed it around the parking lot and discharged it. In addition, the parking lot drainage was collected in a series of drywells, because the soils that were placed there were very porous sand fill. So we took advantage of that, using perforated pipe and drywells, and there’s also an overflow pipe that discharges into this swale, and of course at the time we were doing the site plan, we didn’t realize the playground was going to be proposed. So what we would have to do to accommodate the grade for this playground is construct a retaining a wall across the limits of where the Corps designation was, and then this area would be filled. These pipes would be extended to daylight, keeping the lower portion in the existing swale. The playground surface is a rubberized matting. It’s the only truly accessible playground material, things like sand and wood chips and those types of things aren’t accessible. So this area would be paved with asphalt, and then this rubber matting is put in place. It’s a shock absorbing matting which is also stable for wheelchairs, very expensive material. What we’ve done is the area underneath the deck, for the lower decks, where there’d be no access, we’ve kept that open. That will not be paved, and that area will be filled with stone, so that the drainage from the play surface will be pitched into that area. So this will not sheet off toward the Brook. It’ll basically go into that fill material and be absorbed, and there’ll be a perforated pipe which will gradually allow the drainage to drain down toward the Brook. So there would be no discharge off of that. The entire perimeter would be fenced. Some of it, where we have the wood deck, there would obviously be railings along that portion. The rest of it would be fenced with a four foot high fence, but the only access gate, at this point would be right off of the walkway into the parking lot. At some point in the future, if there was a connection, it would be, to the lower level it would be made traversing the slope down in this area where a gate would have to be added at that point to accomplish that. As far as the landscaping, you saw there was the one tree there. The intent is to landscape the perimeter of this with flowering shrubs, evergreen shrubs and perennials, to try to create as much summer time interest in color as we can in those plant areas, and with that, I’d answer any questions. MR. MAC EWAN-Could you address Staff’s comments regarding construction scheduling and fee scaling it? MR. MILLER-When would you expect to be completed, Al? AL BLUMBERG MR. BLUMBERG-Al Blumberg. What’s going to happen is that in the next two to three weeks, all the site preparation will be done. So that the pouring itself of the compound will be done in the spring, and added to that, the component pieces will be brought in, put a deck other, that far end of our parking lot, and assemble it in such a way as that in three weekends, which will be specified as probably late April, early May, the 150 Kiwanians and some Lowe’s employees and some Fleet Bank employees have already volunteered. These people will be coming in, and under the supervision of Jean Shapett and her husband, the whole thing will be assembled, in three weekends, and I would say immediately after the assembling, the landscaping, which is being bid right now, will be completed, and the fencing. So I don’t see this running into late May at all. 46 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/22/98) MR. MAC EWAN-By no later than July that it would be totally completed? You’re figuring on poor weather, rainy spring? MR. BLUMBERG-Yes. I’m figuring that we wouldn’t get any help. I mean, we’ve got these volunteers starting whatever summer vacation periods their own companies run, we just wouldn’t have the bodies. So we’re going to have to get it done prior to the real sunshine. MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. th MR. BREWER-Have all the comments on this August 12 letter been addressed? MR. MAC EWAN-No, we haven’t gotten to that yet. MR. BREWER-That’s why, I thought we were going to go through these first, and then. MR. MAC EWAN-Well, if you want to do that, lets do that right now. Tim wants to go through th the letter dated August 12. Could you address some of those questions and concerns. MR. MILLER-I don’t have the letter. MR. BREWER-Was the letter sent out to the applicant? nd MR. MAC EWAN-This is a follow up to a meeting that was held on July 22, between Mr. Blumberg and Chris Round and Laura Nowicki. MR. MILLER-Okay. There was a very general plan that had talked about some of the, before Jean Shapett got involved, it talked about some of the trails and things. So some of these comments deal with some things that were discussed that are what we’ve talked about as future. The deck was future. Area for fishing, nature trail and the bridge over the Brook, those would all be future possibilities which would require, as Staff has said, it would require permits from the Corps and DEC, and that’s why that’s not before you, because of the planning involved with that. MR. MAC EWAN-Item One is related to future plans for development of that slope area. MR. MILLER-That’s right, and we’ve also, for the filling for the playground, we’ve addressed that. We got the variance as it applies to the plan before you. The calliope music, there was part of the planning process for the park was this large committee got together and everybody kind of threw out ideas. In fact, I think Al might have been the calliope music guy, and right now, there’s no plans for any calliope music at the site. What’s proposed is the play structures as you see them. There’s no music associated with it, unless somebody brings a little radio with them. Fencing, we’re proposing a four foot high fence. We don’t want it to be a fence that’s too tall, that it looks like we’re trying to attract people, but we want to have a fence high enough that children don’t wander off into Glenwood. So we are proposing a four foot fence, or a three foot railing on the decks all the way around it. MR. MAC EWAN-What will the fence be made of, do you know? MR. MILLER-We don’t know right now, because I think what they’ll do is look to see if there would be a donation for some fence material. MR. PALING-It says chain link. MR. MILLER-Well, we put that in on our note, but it may be possible that someone would, a lumber company or something would donate some decorative wood fencing or something like that. I think it would at least be a chain link fence. Security lighting, that was another thing that was discussed as a possibility. If you look at the plan, you’ll see that the eastern most parking lot light is very close to the entrance to the park. There’s no intention to operate this park after dark, and no additional lighting is proposed, other than what’s in the parking lot right now. The permit landscaping, I think we addressed that in the modification. There was some discussion, also, in the wish list, about adding a drinking fountain. That was not included, because it would involve running additional water lines from the main. The pony cart was an idea that was also brought up. I believe Dr. Wiswall who’s also here talked about the possibility of a pony cart and pony cart rides, and obviously that’s not a permanent proposal. If there was some special event that was going on, or that was proposed and needed a permit or approval from the Town, that would be 47 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/22/98) sought for such an event, but again, that was just an idea being thrown out. I think some of these ideas that came out at this meeting scared Laura a little bit. Signs and banners, I think it was a desire that, you know, it would be sort of a festive kind of a playground. So there was some discussion about signs and banners, and as far as I know, the only signs that are included is that there would be some type of plaque board where donors would be listed, or there may be a sign up that identifies the park, probably tied in with the playground structure itself, that would identify this as Freedom Park. That would be the only signage. The amphitheater, again, there was some discussion about taking advantage of the slopes along the back of the property. Originally, it was talked about in the area where the playground is, but obviously there’s not enough room, and the idea was to provide an area that you could have puppet shows or plays for the children or something like that. If that were to occur, again, that would be a future plan. So a lot of these things were, the wish list, some of the ideas that were being kicked around for future planning and just kind of a brainstorming session, most of which have not been included in this proposal. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-I just have one question, and that’s on the zero setback on the eastern side of the property. I noticed in the variance there was a comment in there that said I would amend, and this is done, I guess, by Paul Hayes, I would amend my proposal to include a suggestion by this Board, that the applicant, at their site plan review, consider asking for the possibility of removing some parking spaces. Now, are you constrained to the number of spaces you have? In other words, are you at the absolute limit of spaces now? MR. MILLER-Well, part of the answer that was given at the Zoning Board meeting was that the facility has only been in operation for six months, and right now the appearance is that there’s substantial parking. The parking that’s there was what was required and approved by the Planning Board and constructed accordingly. The applicant is reluctant to reduce the parking, because they feel that as programs develop and special events, that parking would be required, and they don’t want to have their clients forced out onto Glenwood Avenue, which would be a dangerous situation. The other situation we have is that this playground area is going to generate some need for parking, and that parking is obviously going to be shared. So, at this point, the applicant would prefer not to eliminate parking. Also, the Zoning Board discussed this at some length. One of the things, we have a, the survey, the drawing I think shows the State Bank of Albany as the eastern abutter, and in fact it’s the Warren County ARC. That was a label from the original survey that I didn’t catch. We have a letter on file from the adjoining property owner, recognizing the fact that we’ve asked for a zero setback, and saying they don’t have a problem with it. They understand we might have to come onto their property occasionally for maintenance and for construction, and the other thing is, that we described to the Zoning Board, is that even though we’re asking for a zero setback, what this is a setback, it’s a two foot high deck with a wood railing. So it’s really no more intrusive than, say a fence would be. It just happens to fall underneath the definition of a structure. So, when we went through that, the Zoning Board had some discussion about reducing parking and everything else, but then turned around and granted the variance, and really didn’t have a problem with the zero setback, other than they were concerned with it being a precedent. So, with all that, I guess what we would like to do is maintain the parking spaces, not lose the parking spaces, and recognize that, even though it’s a zero setback, it’s simply a wood railing, and a two foot high deck at that point. MR. VOLLARO-Well, I quickly laid my scale on that today and just looking at the marks I set down, I don’t see it on this drawing, but I did set some marks down. It looks like moving it 40 feet to the west would only really take up one parking space, and that’s the one that sits in the northeast section of the lot. MR. MILLER-Well, a parking space is nine foot wide. So how could I move it 40 and only lose one space? MR. VOLLARO-No, because where you are now, if you take the line of the, if you look at the line that you have down for the playground, and if you move that line 40, do you see what I’m saying? Just shift the whole playground over, and take a look at the 40 foot, because while it’s only nine foot wide there, there’s a lot of room between that walk and the line itself. It’s feasible, if you wanted to do it. I don’t know how this Board feels about that. MR. MAC EWAN-I think it’s appropriate to leave the parking spaces as we originally laid them out. I mean, he raised a good point, that it’s only six months into the operation of this facility, and I think the Board recognizes that it has the potential for some rapid growth over there, and I think that the parking spaces were well thought out. 48 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/22/98) MR. VOLLARO-Okay. The only reason for me raising this is that, in the Zoning Board, they’re sort of saying, at this meeting, we ought to raise that, and I thought, in deference to what they had to say, I’d raise the issue. I happen to think that probably Craig is correct, but I wanted to raise it, to get it out on the table before this Board. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Anything else? MRS. LA BOMBARD-I think it’s wonderful. MR. PALING-Just a general question. Did you say this would be open to the public? MR. MILLER-Yes. MR. PALING-Okay. Will it be supervised? MR. MILLER-I don’t know. MR. PALING-That’s all right. That’s just a general question. I was just curious if it will, but neighborhood kids and what not can come in and use the facility. MR. MILLER-That’s true. As a matter of fact, there’s been some discussion with the Town that the Town may be involved with the, they may own it. That’s not official yet, but there’s been some discussions. MR. PALING-That’s all I have. It looks very good. MR. MAC EWAN-Two quick questions from me. Quickly tell me about this rubberized material that you put down. I guess I’m curious as to how it would stand up to our North Country winters and such. MR. MILLER-Well, there’s two different types. One comes in a mat, interlocking type of mat that’s applied with an adhesive, and the other one, which is probably the one we’re going to try to use here, is poured, and it’s very similar to the all weather running tracks that you see at the schools, only it’s a thicker more cushioned material than the running tracks, and I know the Hudson Falls School track we did 10 years ago, and we just re-surfaced it last year, and it’s been holding up. So I think if it’s properly constructed and water doesn’t get down underneath it where we can have frost action, it holds up well. It could also be repaired, where pieces could be cut out and re-poured if there’s a problem. MR. BREWER-Queensbury School has it on their track. I was up there at that football game Sunday, I was walking on it. It felt like a sponge you were walking on. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay, and the other question I think is probably self-answering, but you have some, on your decks, you have numbers underneath them. Are those the elevations that they’re going to be at? MR. MILLER-Those are the elevations relative to each other, yes. So the highest one is five feet. The intent was that the highest one would be at the southern most end, to sort of give an overlook over the Brook. MR. MAC EWAN-And that’s five foot off the surface, the rubber surface? MR. MILLER-That’s right. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. That’s it for me. All right. We need to open up the public hearing. Does anyone want to comment on this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MRS. MOORE-I have letters. MR. MAC EWAN-Do you? 49 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/22/98) MRS. MOORE-“To Whom It May Concern: I am writing to wholeheartedly endorse the Freedom Trail accessible walkway which has been proposed by the Independent Living Center. Here at Warren/Washington ARC, our mission is to provide opportunities for people with disabilities, and this project will culminate in a park like area in which individuals of all abilities can enjoy the outdoors. As the next door neighbor to the ILC, we are pleased to have such a beautiful facility in the neighborhood, and the Freedom Trail will only enhance the property. We recognize that occasionally people will have to come on to our property to maintain and construct. This is certainly acceptable to us. Sincerely, Mary Connell Executive Director”, and this is from Warren/Washington Counties ARC. From Fleet Bank, “To Whom It May Concern: We understand that the Glens Falls Kiwanis Club, in cooperation with the Wiswall Center for Independent Living and the Town of Queensbury will be constructing Freedom Park, a state of the art wheel chair accessible playground for disabled children. This will be located next to our office on Glenwood Avenue in Queensbury, New York. We feel that this park would be a welcomed addition to not only our neighborhood but to the community of Queensbury. Jack Hills AVP” A letter from Robert O’Connor, “To Whom It May Concern: I live across the street from the Independent Living Center on Glenwood Ave. I understand that they would like to develop a small park at the end of their property. I am in favor of this and feel it would be a nice addition to the neighborhood.” The next one is from George Wiswall and Charlotte Wiswall “To Whom It May Concern: We have no problem with having a handicapped equipped park across the street from our house. We are looking forward to seeing children enjoy using it. Yours truly, R. George Wiswall, DVM Charlotte T. Wiswall” That’s it. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s it? Okay. Lets close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MAC EWAN-We need to do a SEQRA. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 52-98 , Introduced by Catherine LaBombard who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Paling: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: WISWALL CENTER FOR INDEPENDENT LIVING , 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. 50 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/22/98) nd Duly adopted this 22 day of September, 1998, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Paling, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Brewer, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Stark MR. MAC EWAN-We need to have a motion. Does someone want to introduce a motion? MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 52-98 WISWALL CENTER FOR INDEPENDENT LIVING , Introduced by Craig MacEwan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Larry Ringer: th For construction of a playground, by June 30. nd Duly adopted this 22 day of September, 1998, by the following vote: MRS. MOORE-You don’t want any time schedule submitted? th MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, and completion of the playground by June 30. MR. BREWER-Why are we giving them a deadline? If a site plan comes in, they have a year to. MR. MAC EWAN-Once they start action, though, once they start action, if they don’t complete the construction, they’ve started action, it could go on for 20 years. MRS. MOORE-Right. If they don’t start anything within one year, then they have to come in, but if they’ve started something, he’s just talking about moving fill onto the site in October. So he’s started. So, if he doesn’t put any playground equipment on it, and it still remains just fill, then you’re stuck with a site with just fill on it. MR. BREWER-All right. MR. MAC EWAN-Not a problem. They said it would be completed by the end of May. So if we th say until June 30. AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Paling, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Stark MR. MAC EWAN-That’s it. You’re all set. MR. MILLER-Thanks. MR. MAC EWAN-There’s nothing else, is there? MR. PALING-I’ve got one thing, for Staff and for the Board, for the Lowe’s site. I want you to drive south on Bay, and I want you to enter into Lowe’s there. I can’t believe we did this. It is restrictive. I thought we learned our lesson years ago, and I’m part of it, but going in there is terrible. MR. RINGER-I went in today, straight across from Glenwood, and didn’t have any problem. MR. PALING-Yes, straight across would be okay. MR. RINGER-I didn’t have any trouble. I came out on Quaker, went right on. MR. PALING-Yes, when you’re going south. MR. VOLLARO-Which entrance, Bob, are you making the first right? 51 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/22/98) MR. PALING-No, I’m talking about the second one. MR. VOLLARO-The one at the light? MR. PALING-Right, and when you’re coming south, the temptation is to turn into the oncoming lane, and then when you realize it, you’re turning into the right, when it’s skinny in there, and I wish we’d re-visit that. It’s not the applicant’s fault. Because we looked at it and it looked okay to us, but there’s something wrong with that, and I wish you would have somebody take a look at it and we could discuss it in the future, and see if, do what I’m telling you to do and see if you agree. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Bob, it’s funny you should say that, because the same situation is, Kathleen Iriote keeps bugging me. This is going on two years, as you come south on Route 9 and you want to turn left into the Northway Plaza where Steinbach’s is, it’s the only part where there is no arrow that says to go left. Every other turn on every other road has this arrow. She said, you know, it’s the most confusing thing for people. Maybe that area there should have an arrow. It’s the same thing. MR. PALING-It’s painted and painted well. MRS. LA BOMBARD-But it doesn’t have an arrow. MR. VOLLARO-It’s too tight you’re saying. MR. PALING-It’s too tight. MRS. LA BOMBARD-It’s too tight, but is there an arrow there? There is? See, I don’t know. MR. PALING-It’s just too tight, I think, but I’d like you guys to look at it, and have Staff, because if we’ve made a mistake, unintentional, lets not repeat it again. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Craig MacEwan, Chairman 52