Loading...
1999-02-16 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/16/99) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 16, 1999 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT CRAIG MAC EWAN, CHAIRMAN CATHERINE LA BOMBARD, SECRETARY ROBERT PALING GEORGE STARK TIMOTHY BREWER LARRY RINGER MEMBERS ABSENT ROBERT VOLLARO PLANNER-LAURA MOORE STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI CORRECTION OF MINUTES January 26, 1999: NONE MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING FOR JANUARY 26, 1999, Introduced by Robert Paling who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Stark: Duly adopted this 16 day of February, 1999, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Ringer, Mr. Paling, Mr. Stark, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Brewer ABSENT: Mr. Vollaro NEW BUSINESS: SUBDIVISION NO. 1-1999 SKETCH PLAN TYPE: UNLISTED STANLEY RYMKEWICZ, JR. OWNER: SAME ZONE: SR-1A LOCATION: CHESTNUT RIDGE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO SUBDIVIDE A 14.17 ACRE PARCEL INTO 3 LOTS OF 5.00 AC., 5.00 AC. AND 4.17 AC. CROSS REFERENCE: SUB. 1-1998, 12-1997, 6-1997 TAX MAP NO. 54-2-7.5 LOT SIZE: 14.17 ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS LEON STEVES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MRS. LA BOMBARD-And because it’s at Sketch Plan tonight, there’s no public hearing that’s required. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Subdivision No. 1-1999 - Sketch Plan Stage, Stanley Rymkewicz, Jr., Meeting Date: February 16, 1999 “Description of Project The applicant proposes to subdivide a 14.17 acre lot into 3 lots - Lot E 4.17 ac., Lot D 5.00 ac., and Lot C 5.00 ac. Staff Notes The proposed subdivision appears to comply with the neighborhood character of larger sized lots. The applicant has provided a drawing of the proposed house, septic, and well location. Staff requests the drawing include a proposed driveway location and perc test results. Upon submission of the Preliminary Stage application Staff requires that the applicant submit in writing to the Board a request for all waivers from items in the preliminary application. The application will not be considered complete if a waiver letter is not included. Staff has no additional comments.” MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else attached to it? MRS. MOORE-No. 1 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/16/99) MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. STEVES-My name is Leon Steves from the firm of Van Dusen and Steves. STAN RYMKEWICZ MR. RYMKEWICZ-My name is Stan Rymkewicz. I’m the owner. MR. STEVES-One minor change. On the map that you have in front of you, that we prepared, the large scale one there. We want to make a change. Lot C will be the 4.17 acre lot, and Lot E will be a 5 acre lot. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s easy enough. Lot C becomes the 4.17, and Lot E becomes the 5 acre. That’s it? MR. STEVES-That’s it. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s simple. We’ve done a couple of these before. So it goes pretty smooth at this point. Any questions? MR. BREWER-Is this the end of it? Just out of curiosity. MR. RYMKEWICZ-We have the four acre (lost words) and possibly the five acre. MR. BREWER-No, I mean as far as anymore tracts of land? MR. RYMKEWICZ-We still have eight acres on the other road, County Line Road. MR. BREWER-On the other side. In the back of there. MR. PALING-How about the Staff Notes? There’s two comments in there. Request the drawing include a driveway location, perc tests, and then they go on to, will not be considered complete if a waiver letter is not included. MRS. MOORE-That’s for preliminary submission. We’re currently in sketch plan. We’re currently in Sketch Plan. So when he submits for Preliminary, that’s when I’m requesting this information be provided. MR. PALING-Okay. Then my other question is this. Do you consider the location of those septic fields the way it will be when these are built? Or will they change? MR. STEVES-All we are showing on the plan is a schematic outline of how it can be arranged. MR. PALING-Okay, because that’s not where they’re located. Well, we don’t know. You don’t know where they’ll be located. Okay. MR. STEVES-The lots are large enough that the effect of one to the other is slim. It can happen, but it’s slim. MR. PALING-Okay. Well, I’m asking that because of a practice that the Town follows which I think I’m going to disagree with, of allowing this and not having you find the exact location. It may be okay when you’re in single family houses, but in a housing development, apartments or townhouses, and you don’t know where these things are, it’s a problem, but this has nothing to do with this situation. I’m just asking for information purposes. That’s all I’ve got. MR. STEVES-Okay. You’re just making a general statement. MR. PALING-That’s right. MR. STEVES-I understand. Okay. MR. PALING-I’m not disputing anything here. It’s just a general comment, statement. MR. STEVES-Right. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else? We can move it on to Preliminary, then. MR. STEVES-Thank you very much. 2 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/16/99) MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Don’t forget your waivers. SUBDIVISION NO. 2-1999 PRELIMINARY STAGE TYPE: UNLISTED HELEN BARBER OWNER: SAME ZONE: LC-10A, SR-1A LOCATION: FULLER ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO SUBDIVIDE A 21.89 ACRE PARCEL INTO TWO LOTS OF 10.10 ACRES AND 11.79 ACRES. ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY TAX MAP NO. 123-1-15.31 LOT SIZE: 21.89 ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS CHARLES BARBER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Subdivision No. 2-1999 - Preliminary Stage, Helen Barber, Meeting Date: February 16, 1999 “Description of Project The applicant proposes to subdivide a 27.3 parcel into 2 lots of 17.2 ac. and 10.1 ac. per the submitted survey drawing (1/26/99). The property is split zoned SR-1A and LC-10A and located in the Adirondack Park. Two Lot Subdivisions in the Adirondack Park require Subdivision Review. Staff Notes The applicant met with Staff prior to submission to review the application process. The applicant submitted a drawing addressing many of the Preliminary application requirements. The applicant has submitted a letter for waivers from the remaining Preliminary application requirements. In addition, the applicant has requested a jurisdictional letter from the Adirondack Park Agency. Staff requested the subdivision be reviewed for Preliminary action only anticipating an APA jurisdictional letter prior to final review. Staff would recommend that access to the parcels remain on Fuller Road. Staff has no additional comments.” MRS. MOORE-We do have certified mail receipts. MR. MAC EWAN-Right off the bat a question. The agenda lists that it’s 21.89. Your Staff Notes say 27.3. MRS. MOORE-Correct. That’s an assessment issue, and his survey is more accurate than our current assessment. MR. MAC EWAN-So which one are we going with? MRS. MOORE-The survey. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else to add? Will you read in his letter requesting the waivers. MRS. MOORE-Okay. It’s addressed to myself. It says “Pursuant to your letter concerning our subdivision application, I would like to request a waiver by the Planning Board of the following requirements: Existing and proposed contours, The location of wells, septic tanks and field for neighboring properties, Profiles of the proposed sanitary sewer system, Existing vegetation, Limits of Grading, Driveway Profile, Areas where slopes are greater than 25%, Limits of proposed clearing of trees, Grading and drainage plan, Details of all erosion control measures, drainage report. I am requesting these waivers because the subject subdivision is a total of 27.3 acres which will be broken into only two lots, 17.2 & 10.1 acres. The new lot is a very large lot (10.1 acres) and a single family residence is proposed to be built on it (in accordance with the LC-10 zoning). In addition, a buyer of the property will ultimately submit an application for a building permit; thereby providing information as necessary to fulfill these requirements.” MR. PALING-Craig, I still didn’t get the conversation. Where is the 17 acre lot? I don’t see it on the print? MRS. MOORE-It is on the print. What happened was McCormack provided information that shows that part of the lot is in an SR-1 Acre zone, and the remaining lot is in the LC-10. You’ll see a two point something portion divided out in the LC-10. MR. BARBER-It’s a, the area, you see where there’s a pond noted on it? MR. PALING-A pond, yes. MR. BARBER-Okay. That’s part of the 17.3. MR. PALING-And you add that to the 15, is that how you get it? MR. BARBER-Correct. That’s right. I’m Charles Barber on behalf of my mother, Helen Barber. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Is that all we have to read in there, Laura? 3 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/16/99) MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Any questions? MR. STARK-All these waivers. That’s an awful lot of waivers. I mean, proposed clearing, this doesn’t come back to us, you know. I mean, it’s not like they’ve got to come back to us for a site plan and show the limits of the clearing then. Grant it they’re big lots, but I’d like to see something more than this. I do have a question. Laura, why are we not asking for perc tests in this case? MRS. MOORE-He’s requested some waivers. That’s where that falls under, is perc tests. MR. MAC EWAN-Well, maybe we could back up here a little bit. Mr. Barber, can you tell us what your intentions here are, and a little bit about the history of the site? MR. BARBER-Yes. Sure. The intention is to, that’s an LC-10 zoning. So it’s been proposed to be subdivided at 10.1 acres. So it’s in excess of the 10 acre requirement, and I have a proposed buyer at this time to put a single family home on that. Their exact location I’m not aware of. So we proposed a possible building there to show that, without variances, a building could be set on the property with a leach field that would be out of the way of any existing swale I believe that is on there. MR. BREWER-So that if that varies, even as much as a foot, you’re going to be within the 100 foot minimum, right? In other words, if they don’t put this house right where you have it located, back off the road? MR. BARBER-The swale that’s noted on there was from the, it hasn’t been updated as to whether it’s new this year or not, that’s from 1995, and the last time, I’m not a surveyor, but when I looked at it, it didn’t seem like the swale was that large, but I understood there’s a 100 foot distance that has to be, a septic system, from the swale. So you can actually talk more toward the western side. MR. BREWER-Do you know why that swale is there? MR. BARBER-No, it’s been on the prints all the way back since Ray Bailey did it back in 1983. MR. BREWER-Does it serve a purpose? MR. BARBER-I believe at one time they noted a little stream coming off it. Now, that stream’s, as far as I know, not existent today, because when I walk through it it’s not there, but that’s still on the print and he wouldn’t take it off. MR. BREWER-It doesn’t mean it won’t be there when the snow melts, right? MR. BARBER-That’s true. MR. BREWER-Okay. Yes, I’m kind of leaning toward having a location of the house, location of the septic and what not and the house, if it could be put on there, so that we know that everything is free and clear. MR. MAC EWAN-He’s showing it on there now. MR. BREWER-But he said he’s not sure that’s where it’s going to be. MR. BARBER-That’s proposed. MR. BREWER-He just said he shows that it could go there. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s all the requirements are for the subdivision is just to demonstrate that one could be put there, and not. MR. BREWER-But he’s asking for a waiver, Craig, for the septic and what not. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, that’s what I can’t figure out. It’s already there. MRS. MOORE-It says neighboring properties. MR. BARBER-Yes. The one thing that was pointed out from the Staff was that they were looking septics on all the neighboring properties. I may not have detailed that correctly, but that was the intention. 4 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/16/99) MR. BREWER-Okay. MR. STARK-We didn’t walk this property. Are you familiar with the property, Tim? MR. BREWER-Not really. I know exactly where it is and what not, but I haven’t been back as far as where the swale is. MR. BARBER-The access way is just, you’re familiar with Sandy Kruger’s house? MR. STARK-No. MR. BARBER-All right. If you go up Fuller Road, just before you go up the hill, across from Dr. Sconzo, there’s a little yellow house, and there’s a 50 foot right-of-way there which has been cleared back in, about probably 100 yards. After that, it dips about, well, that’s four feet higher than the surrounding road. The road is probably four feet higher. I was looking at it today, and then you go in, and the property is fairly flat for probably, well, up across, you see the big stream way back, 300, 400 feet back? Maybe more than that. It’s behind that. It climbs about 15 feet, and then the property plateaus. So, really the house is meant to stay toward the front of the property, but far enough back that it gets beyond that 50 foot causeway. I mean, until you get all the way back to the stream, it’s a fairly level piece of property. MRS. LA BOMBARD-What cul-de-sac did we come down? MR. STARK-This one way over. MRS. LABOMBARD-No. We did not come down Braeside. MR. BARBER-I think you came in my driveway, when you turned down my driveway. MRS. LABOMBARD-We came down a macadam drive. MR. BARBER-Yes, and you turned around and went back out, right? MRS. LABOMBARD-How come the house that we saw, the big house with the porch? MR. BARBER-The brown house? MRS. LABOMBARD-On the macadam drive, wasn’t there two houses in there? MR. BARBER-No, actually one’s a garage. If you look on that, you see where it says “barn”? MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes. MR. BARBER-That looks like a house. I could see if somebody turned around in the driveway. I don’t know if you went all the way through. You went around a circular drive or not? MRS. LA BOMBARD-I’ve been going down there for 20 years, and I don’t know why this map doesn’t. MR. BARBER-Okay. As you come down Fuller Road, there’s a set of black gates. If you come in those black gates, that’s the entrance to my mother’s house. I live there, and you come in, and there’s a house and there’s a, it’s a very large barn on the left side as you drive in So it looks like two houses, but there’s also a house, there’s a house on the east side of that drive when you’re first coming in. MRS. LA BOMBARD-I know. That’s why, it doesn’t show that on this map. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s where the gate is that he’s talking about. It’s right there. MRS. LABOMBARD-Yes, but where’s the house when you first come in? MR. MAC EWAN-There’s the house. There’s the barn. MRS. LABOMBARD-Yes, but there’s a house closer, I thought. MR. MAC EWAN-Well, that’s the house you’re seeing as you go through the woods. You can look and see that through the woods. 5 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/16/99) MRS. LABOMBARD-I thought there was another house there. MR. BARBER-No. As you first come in, it’s on the left. You come in, the house is on the right, and directly across from the circle, and the barn is off to the left. MRS. LA BOMBARD-All right. Now, can I just ask you, what about this “Wood Road”? What’s that? MR. BARBER-That’s like a horse trail that they had in there. They had a loop in the woods at one time. MRS. LABOMBARD-When we came down the macadam drive, I kind of thought that you would use this land, that there would be homes that would be having a frontage on the end of that cul-de- sac. MR. BARBER-The problem is on one side it’s very close to the road, and on the other side, there’s actually one lot directly behind, as you’re coming in the drive, on the left side, there’s a 300 by 150 lot there. The fellow’s got a house on, but there is room for another house like that. MRS. LA BOMBARD-But I thought on the other side of the road. MR. MAC EWAN-You need to understand, though, this entire loop is a private driveway. It’s not a public road. MR. BARBER-Yes, right. MR. RINGER-Macadam drive is? MR. BARBER-Is my driveway, 600 feet to get to the circle. MR. RINGER-That’s what I thought originally. MR. BARBER-It’s kind of deceiving when you come in there. MR. RINGER-Then where is the access going to be to the 17 acres? MR. MAC EWAN-This house right here is going to be right there. MR. RINGER-I realize that, but now he’s going to have 17 acres left. How is he going to get to that 17 acres? MR. BARBER-My intention is, and that’s up for sale, is to sell it as one piece. That’s more like a little retreat. I mean, nobody knows it’s there, except of course now you see it on the map. MRS. LA BOMBARD-But then how would you get to this? MR. RINGER-The 17 acres that’s left. MR. BARBER-There’s two pieces. If you look at the macadam drive, that’s to the 17 acres. If you go down the road, three lots I think it is, you’ll see where the little house is, and there’s a 50 foot entrance, that’s going to be the entrance to the 10 acre. They’re totally separate. The 17 acres, the macadam drive you’re seeing is a driveway. That goes all the way into the house. MR. BREWER-Right. Now he’s asking about the balance of the land. MR. BARBER-That 17 acres includes that drive and that circle and the house and the gazebo and the pond. MR. RINGER-Okay. Then this 17 acres includes all the macadam drive? MR. BARBER-Yes. MR. RINGER-All right. I’m sorry. MR. BARBER-The thing on here says 11.7. They’re talking about that 17 acre piece. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Seventeen, right. Okay. So then that other 17 acres is basically just yours. MR. BARBER-Yes. About four acres of it is taken up with that driveway. 6 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/16/99) MRS. LA BOMBARD-Right, but do you have intentions to sell part of that, have somebody build on it? MR. BARBER-If I sold it, I’d sell the whole thing. MRS. LABOMBARD-Right. Then they’d have to get to it through the macadam drive. MR. BARBER-Well, that would include the macadam drive. I mean, I would be selling it and moving out of town. That macadam drive is part of the 17 acres. MR. BREWER-So that’s one whole lot. MR. BARBER-That’s right. That’s what I’m trying to say. That’s one big funny looking lot. MR. BREWER-It’s not going to be three lots. It’s going to be one, two lots? MR. BARBER-Correct. MRS. LA BOMBARD-So right now you basically have one big piece of property. MR. BARBER-Yes, right. Exactly. MRS. LABOMBARD-I see, and this 10 acre spot, parcel, that is the only place that a house could go because of the setback? MR. BARBER-Well, I think you can go back farther into the woods. I tried to get it closer to the road so somebody doesn’t have a very, very expensive driveway to get to it. That was what I was trying to show is I asked him to pull it up as far up front as you can, and then of course you start pushing it back and you get away, because the property spreads out as you go back, but, you know, it’s 10 acre zoning. So you can only put one house there. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Right, and those are the dimensions of the person’s house that they want to build, that’s the footprint of 60 by 30? MR. MAC EWAN-No. He’s just demonstrating that a house can be placed in this parcel. MR. BARBER-It would be l800 square feet or better. I actually want more privacy. So my expectation is they’ll move back farther. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes, right. MR. BARBER-That’s why they want that piece of property. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. The waivers. How does everybody feel about the waivers? MR. BREWER-I wouldn’t mind seeing contours, like 10 foot contours, not necessarily two foot that’s required, but maybe 10 foot. MR. MAC EWAN-An idea that might even help that is just use the USGA contours. MR. BREWER-Whatever. MR. MAC EWAN-It’s easy, not expensive to do. MR. STARK-There’s got to be a contour map of this area. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, that’s what the USGA is. I’d prefer to see contours on there as well, just to know that we can do it. MR. STARK-Craig, I don’t think we need to see the limit of proposed clearing of trees. That thing is heavily wooded in there. MR. MAC EWAN-Actually, the only one, personally, for me, I’m interested in seeing the contours. Everything else is okay by me. MR. RINGER-It’s only one house. MR. MAC EWAN-How does everyone else feel about that? 7 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/16/99) MR. STARK-I agree. MR. BREWER-I would hold with reservation. If we see the contours, he says it’s quite flat, but. MR. BARBER-Well, I’ll tell you, if you did a 10 acre, I don’t know what USGA is, but if you did 10 foot contours, you might see one, maybe two lines in the far back, because other than that, at that point, it would look very flat. I mean, it doesn’t deviate more than five feet in the front, until you get back to the stream. MR. PALING-Well, why do you have in there, note that areas where slopes are greater than 25%? MR. MAC EWAN-That’s a requirement of the Subdivision Regs. MR. BARBER-I think I put not applicable, or “N/A”. MR. PALING-Okay. So it doesn’t apply to you. MR. BARBER-No. If you look at the contours, you would see there aren’t any 25 foot for 100 foot length climbs in that property. There is on the property directly next to me, which is Bailey’s property. That is down the other side of the stream. That climbs about 100 feet, at least 80 feet. That’s off the property. MR. BREWER-That’s the only thing that I think I would like to see. MR. BARBER-I don’t have any problem. I can get Coulter & McCormack. MR. BREWER-We can approve Preliminary and get that for Final. MR. MAC EWAN-Do we have a SEQRA that we’re doing tonight? MRS. MOORE-Yes, he submitted a Long Form. MR. MAC EWAN-Lets open up the public hearing. Is there anyone that wants to comment on this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MAC EWAN-Lets do a SEQRA. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 2-1999, Introduced by Catherine LaBombard who moved for its adoption, seconded by Timothy Brewer: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: HELEN BARBER, 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 8 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/16/99) 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. Duly adopted this 17 day of February, 1999, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Brewer, Mr. Paling, Mr. Stark, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ringer, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Vollaro MR. MAC EWAN-Does someone want to put a motion up? MR. STARK-Craig, in the motion, should we make mention of the waivers? MR. MAC EWAN-We have a prepared motion. So you can just say, as written, but just amend it that we are looking for the contours as outlined by the USGA. MRS. MOORE-Are you asking for the entire acreage? Are you asking for both lots to be USGS? MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, 27.3, right? MOTION TO APPROVE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 2-1999 HELEN BARBER, Introduced by George Stark who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Paling: As written, with the following condition, that all waivers be granted, with the exception of, the applicant, for Final, will provide 10 foot UGSA contour map, for the entire 27.3 acre parcel. Whereas, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of Preliminary Stage Subdivision No. 2-1999 for Helen Barber for subdivision of a 27.3 acre parcel into two lots of 10.1 acres and 17.2 acres; and Whereas, the above mentioned application, received 1/27/99 , consists of the following: 1. Preliminary Stage application with Long EAF 2. Map dated 3/27/95 and revised 1/26/99 Whereas, the above file is supported with the following documentation: 1. 2/1/99 - Letter to C. Barber from L. Moore 2. 2/8/99 - C. Barber to L. Moore Whereas, a public hearing was held on 2/16/99 concerning the above project; and Whereas, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the site plan requirements of the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and Whereas, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and 9 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/16/99) Whereas, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered; and 1. The Town Planning Board, after considering the above, hereby moves to approve Preliminary Stage for Subdivision No. 2-1999 - HELEN BARBER. 2. The applicant agrees to the conditions set forth in this resolution. 3. The issuance of permits is conditioned on compliance and continued compliance with the Zoning Ordinance and subdivision approval process. Duly adopted this 16 day of February, 1999, by the following vote: th AYES: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Paling, Mr. Stark, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Vollaro MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. You’re all set. SITE PLAN NO. 3-99 NORTHEAST REALITY/NAOMI POLITO OWNER: NORTHEAST REALITY, JOSEPH BUONVIAGGIO ZONE: HC-1A LOCATION: 1652 STATE ROUTE 9 RECOMMENDATION ONLY TRANSIENT MERCHANT MARKET REVIEW FOR PROPOSED VENDING SITES DURING 6/7/99 THROUGH 6/13/99 - AMERICADE. PER § 160-8A(2) ALL APPLICATIONS FOR TRANSIENT MERCHANT/TRANSIENT MERCHANT MARKET SHALL BE SUBJECT TO SITE PLAN REVIEW. WARREN CO. PLANNING: 2/10/99 TAX MAP NO. 33-1-3.1, 3.2, 3.3 LOT SIZE: 1.43 ACRES SECTION: CHAPTER 160 NAOMI POLITO, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 3-99, Northeast Reality/Naomi Polito, Meeting Date: February 16, 1999 “Description of Project The applicant proposes a transient merchant operation from June 7, 1999 through June 13, 1999. The operation will occur at 1652 State Route 9 Queensbury, New York. Site Plan review is required for transient merchant operations. Staff Notes The applicant proposes to sell motorcycle products during the Lake George Americade Event. The applicant has supplied a drawing that details parking, vendor location, and access to the site. Staff has included the previous resolution for review. Staff has no additional comments.” MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it? MRS. MOORE-For their County review, they had “No County Impact, with the condition that Ms. Polito coordinate traffic control with Lieutenant Piper of the Warren County Sheriff’s Department” and that’s it. MR. MAC EWAN-You know spring’s not too far away when you come through the door. MS. POLITO-So you’re happy to see me, then? MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, we are. Would you identify yourself for the record, please. MS. POLITO-Naomi Polito, Northeast Reality Development. MR. MAC EWAN-Nothing’s changed? MS. POLITO-Actually, I called Lieutenant Piper today, and again, I’m in the same position I was last year. We are not allowed to hire Warren County Sheriff’s or make a donation to have a sheriff there. He said at this time he’s committed all of his officers to the Village and cannot release another officer to our piece of property because we haven’t had problems in the past, and he also doesn’t want to jeopardize the manpower for the rest of the County during that time period. He suggested to me, again, to go to Warren County D.O.T., which I called, and they have a new gentleman there named Frank Climorski. He’s the new engineer up there, and he said he would check into some temporary signs for me, for Route 9. He said, well, gee, everybody knows that there’s no parking on the State Highway, but he also stated to me that, like everybody requested last year, I stay five feet back from the white line, and pretty much that I’m in the same situation I was 10 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/16/99) last year, whereas the Sheriff’s won’t step in and the State won’t, either, and I’ve just been asked to stay off of the State Highway and back on my line. The only thing that Lieutenant Piper did say to me is, well, maybe you should get a bigger sign for parking. That was really his only suggestion besides calling D.O.T. MR. BREWER-You’ve never really had any problems there in the past, right? You’ve done this how long, now? MS. POLITO-This’ll be my seventh year on the property during this, and I believe it was a couple of years before I came around that he did this also. I mean, the only problem we have is Saturday. I mean, Friday afternoon, Saturday people park on the highway, and my crew of people, I mean, even with Staff shirts on, because they’re not an authority figure, nobody listens to them. I mean, I’m not allowed to put cones. I’m not allowed to put signs. I mean, I’d be more than happy to do anything that’s requested of me if I’m allowed to. MR. STARK-There hasn’t been any incidents so far. MR. BREWER-If it’s a problem, call the Sheriffs and tell them they’re parking on the road. Then the Sheriffs, it’s in their hands. MS. POLITO-I mean, for me, honestly, I’m inside my store. You guys know I don’t even get outside that week at all. I don’t even notice. It doesn’t bother me. I don’t see it. I mean, really what it is is the Warren County Board, every year, who brings this up. MR. BREWER-Just out of curiosity, like with the Winter Carnival, how do they control the traffic? I know they control the traffic, but. MS. POLITO-Well, here was my suggestion to Lieutenant Piper. I said, gee, I said, why can’t we do something like they do in front of King Henry Motel? I mean, they have cones up and down in the Village road. I mean, they have sheriffs. They have people who aren’t actual, I mean, certified flagmen. I mean, you can tell just by the way they’re flagging when I drive past myself, and they said, well, that’s a Village road and the Village can do what they want to do, but because I’m on a State road, nobody will do anything. Do you know what I mean? But this gentleman from the D.O.T. up in Warrensburg told me he’d be more than happy to look into temporary signs, but then again, you know, like I said, for cones or anything like that, he said, well, that time of year, the Village has them, and if the Village doesn’t have them, the construction in the area does. So it’s not even that they’d have anything that they could give to us to let us use. I mean, every year the equipment and the cones you see used I steal them all from the Local 190 in Albany. So, I mean, we do our best with what we can. MR. BREWER-The State road isn’t in our jurisdiction anyway. MR. MAC EWAN-No, it’s not, but it’s kind of curious because the County’s recommending that she get a hold of the Warren County Sheriff. She did what the County Planning Board told her to do. The Sheriff said there’s nothing we can do about it. MR. PALING-Between a hard place and a rock. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. Anything else? So nothing’s really changed from last year, as far as your setup, your booth and so on and so forth? MS. POLITO-No, nothing’s changed. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Any questions from anyone? We’re doing a public hearing tonight and SEQRA? MRS. MOORE-No SEQRA. MR. BREWER-It’s a recommendation. MR. STARK-Public hearing. MRS. MOORE-There is a public hearing. As far as I know, there is a public hearing. MR. MAC EWAN-Lets do the public hearing. We’ll open up the public hearing. Does anyone want to comment on this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED 11 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/16/99) NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. STARK-Make the recommendation as written. MR. BREWER-Just echo last year’s. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. Whoever wants to put it up. MOTION TO RECOMMEND TO THE TOWN BOARD A MOTION FOR SITE PLAN NO. 3-99 NORTHEAST REALITY/NAOMI POLITO, Introduced by George Stark who moved for its adoption, seconded by Timothy Brewer: As written. Whereas, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of Site Plan No. 3-99 for Northeast Reality/Naomi Polito for Transient Merchant Market review for proposed vending sites during Americade ; and Whereas, the above mentioned application, received 1/27/99, consists of the following: 1. Application with 3 maps Whereas, the above file is supported with the following documentation: 1. 1/25/99 - Town Board resolution referring application to Planning Board 2. 2/10/99 - Warren Co. Planning Bd. resolution 3. 1/29/99 - Fax to N. Polito for Authorization form for J. Buonviaggio Whereas, a public hearing was held on 2/16/99 concerning the above project; and Whereas, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the site plan requirements of the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and Whereas, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and Whereas, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered; and 1. The Town Planning Board, after considering the above, hereby moves to make a recommendation of approval for Site Plan No. 3-99, NORTHEAST REALITY/NAOMI POLITO.. 2. The applicant shall present three (3) copies of the above referenced site plan to the Zoning Administrator for his signature. 3. The Zoning Administrator is hereby authorized to sign the resolution. 4. The applicant agrees to the conditions set forth in this resolution. 5. The conditions shall be noted on the map. 6. The issuance of permits is conditioned on compliance and continued compliance with the Zoning Ordinance and site plan approval process. Duly adopted this 16 day of February 1999, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Paling, Mr. Stark, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Brewer, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Vollaro MR. MAC EWAN-Just as one additional note, do you suppose it would be good idea to send a copy of the minutes of this meeting up to Warren County Planning so they can see the dilemma she’s in? 12 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/16/99) MRS. MOORE-They request from us local actions. They like to know what our local action is. So that’ll be done anyway. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Good luck. MS. POLITO-Thank you. MR. PALING-I do think that we ought to go on record as pointing out that Stewart’s intended use of that site as a bank building, is not a permitted use within that zone. MR. MAC EWAN-We’ll get to it. We’re moving to it right now. OLD BUSINESS: SUBDIVISION NO. 12-1998 PRELIMINARY STAGE FINAL STAGE TYPE: UNLISTED STEWART’S ICE CREAM OWNER: ROGER AND BARBARA BRASSEL ZONE: HC-1A LOCATION: CORNER OF BAY AND CRONIN ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO SUBDIVIDE A 7.70 ACRE PARCEL INTO TWO LOTS OF 1.327 ACRES AND 6.463 ACRES CROSS REFERENCE: AV 3-1999, SP 65-98 TAX MAP NO. 60-2-11.1 LOT SIZE: 7.70 ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS ROGER BRASSEL;TODD LEWIS; JIM GILLESPIE, REP. APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Subdivision No. 12-1998 Preliminary and Final, Stewart’s Ice Cream, Meeting Date: February 16, 1999 “Description of Project The applicant proposes to subdivide a 7.70 acre parcel into two lots of 1.3 ac. and 6.4 ac. Subdivision review is required for previously subdivided parcels. Staff Notes The applicant proposes to subdivide a parcel of land to locate a Stewart’s Ice Cream Store. The applicant has complied with the subdivision requirements and has requested a waiver from the contour requirement. Staff would recommend that the Subdivision resolution reference the two drawings, “Survey map and subdivision of lands of Roger and Barbara Brassel, revised 1/13/99” and “Stewarts Shops, revised date 1/26/99”. The drawings contain information required for the Preliminary Stage review. Staff has no additional comments.” MRS. MOORE-There’s comments in reference from Rist-Frost, which are the site plan review issues, if you’d like me to read them in now. MR. MAC EWAN-They’re included with our packet for this. Even though they’re site plan review, we should probably put them in the record. MRS. MOORE-Okay. Rist-Frost comments, “We have reviewed the documents forwarded to our office for the above referenced project and have the following comments: 1. No subdivision review was conducted as the technical issues are being reviewed under the site plan application and no subdivision plans were forwarded to us.” There’s a correction on this. That information was forwarded to Rist-Frost. “2. There are minor discrepancies in the building area between the plans/site plan application and the drainage report and environmental form. We assume the plans and site plan application are correct. 3. The entrances are subject to the approval of the Warren County Department of Public Works and the Queensbury Highway Department. 4. Water and sewer systems are subject to the approval of Queensbury Water and Wastewater Departments. 5. We recommend that the applicant show or describe the signage and/or pavement markings that will be used to properly direct traffic flow through the drive-thru banking facility. Is there adequate horizontal and vertical clearances for a trash hauler to go by the drive-in or is it proposed that he back-up to get to the dumpster? 6. Does 26 parking spaces require (2) handicap spaces? 7. Storm Drainage: a. The tie-in to the Bay Road drainage system requires approval of the Warren County Department of public works. b. The drainage report states an oil water separator will be provided but none is indicated on the plans. c. The drainage report design criteria does not agree with the Town’s standard procedures Section A 183-27B. Specifically, a minimum runoff coefficient of .35 should be used, inlet time should not be greater than 20 minutes and the design storm regarding retention basins should be 50 years. Revision of the criteria is not expected to alter the report conclusions. d. The drainage report should also demonstrate the adequacy of the pipe sizes to accommodate their share of the design flows. 8. We have no objections to the contour waiver requested by the applicant in their letter of January 27, 1999.” MR. MAC EWAN-Do you have that as part of your record, that letter? MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Could you read that into the record. 13 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/16/99) MRS. MOORE-It’s addressed to myself. It says, “Enclosed are copies of our subdivision map, site plan, construction details, elevations and drainage report. The parcel, buildings and layout have been revised per comments from the last planning board meeting. We would like to formally request a waiver of the 1 foot contour data required on the subdivision map. Contours are shown on the construction plans within the limits of work. The remaining parcel is very flat and 1 foot contours would not provide any information relative to the scope of this project. Please review the plans and report and call with any comments or questions.” This is dated January 27, 1999. MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it? MRS. MOORE-Do you want me to read in the County’s comments for their site plan? MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, thank you. MR. BREWER-For their site plan? MRS. MOORE-Because this information has been provided ahead of time, I believe Craig had asked me to read it into the record for now. This is for their Site Plan. County Planning Board recommendations, “Approved with the condition that both catch basins along Cronin Road will be equipped with oil/water separators.” MR. MAC EWAN-It’s kind of an unusual turn of events happening here because the subdivision we’re reviewing here tonight, and some site plan issues got heaped into the subdivision review process. So, we’re just trying to tie them down as part of the record. That’s all. Good evening. Could you identify yourselves for the record, please. MR. GILLESPIE-Jim Gillespie, Stewart’s Ice Cream. MR. LEWIS-Tom Lewis from Stewart’s Ice Cream. DR. BRASSEL-Roger Brassel, for myself. MR. MAC EWAN-You realize we are doing just subdivision tonight? MR. LEWIS-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. The letter, are you familiar with the letter of February 8 from Rist-Frost, th regarding some of the issues regarding site plan? MR. LEWIS-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Which is included in this subdivision review, which gets confusing because some of the issues we aren’t going to address tonight because they are for another application. Okay. I don’t think anything’s really changed since the last time we talked about this. MR. BREWER-Just the access, right, and you got straightened out on that. Everything is fine with the world, and Stewart’s and Brassels. MR. LEWIS-We heard the Board say that if Stewart’s is going to ask for that rental unit, then we have to purchase the additional 40 feet on the east, that is on the plan. So, the last comment that we made was, we would either have less of a rental unit, or we’d have to buy the additional land. So we have the additional land under contract, but I think on my way in here I heard someone say something new that I was not aware of, that is a bank not allowed? MR. PALING-That’s right. MRS. MOORE-It’s not a listed use in the zone for Highway Commercial. MR. PALING-Or Plaza Commercial. MRS. MOORE-Or Plaza Commercial. MR. LEWIS-Then what we’d ask this Board is to hopefully we can get Final approval this evening, if we meet all of the requirements for the subdivision as proposed. We’ll then have to go Zoning Board to try to get a Use Variance? MRS. MOORE-That’s one avenue to take. There may be a second avenue to take, with a zoning determination, through Chris Round. It’s something that we’ll have to discuss. 14 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/16/99) MR. LEWIS-Good. Now, if those options fail, and we’re not able to put the bank there, then think we’re going to have to come back to this Board again, for the original subdivision without the 40 feet. So, we’d like to move ahead, as we’ve submitted, with that caveat. MR. MAC EWAN-This just happens to be one of those quirks in the Zoning Ordinances. MR. LEWIS-It happens. DR. BRASSEL-I have a question, and that is, does the term “commercial uses” include only those things listed, or does it mean commercial uses? So this is an exclusionary list? If it is not one of these, it is not permitted? MR. BREWER-Correct. DR. BRASSEL-Okay. MR. BREWER-The way it was brought up, Bob discovered it, and we all agree that a bank certainly is a good use there, appropriate, but it’s listed in other zones that Bob found in the Ordinance. So if it’s not listed in the Highway Commercial, that’s pretty much out of our hands. There’s nothing we can do about it. MR. LEWIS-We understand. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Lets move forward. Why don’t you give us a brief description of your subdivision. MR. GILLESPIE-Okay. We’ve revised the subdivision as requested by the Board. We’re now proposing the subdivision of 1.3, approximately 1.3 acres from the existing 7.8 acre parcel. We are proposing the construction of a 2500 square foot convenient store, a 2,000 square foot bank, with a drive through, a 24 by 30 canopy, which will shelter the two gasoline fuel islands. By purchasing this land, we were able to shift our entire project to the east, which eliminated the need for a variance for our canopy, and we were able to move the future parking entirely out of the 75 foot open space along Bay Road. However, even with this additional purchase of land, we’re still going to require a number of variances. Portions of our pavement are within the 75 foot open space. Our freestanding sign is also within that open space. We are going to need a variance for the, we are shy of the 150 foot separation between driveways, from center line of our proposed driveway on Cronin Road to the center line of the Social Security driveway, we’re proposing, we are allowed three wall signs, we are allowed two wall signs. We are proposing three. One on the bank, one on. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s a site plan issue. This is subdivision. MR. GILLESPIE-Okay. The variance for the freestanding sign, the square footage is that. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s also site plan. MR. GILLESPIE-Okay, the 43 square foot is proposed, and that’s it. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Any questions? MR. PALING-Just one other thing. That when this does come to site plan, I noticed that there’s some what look like very good plantings, we’ll be asking a commitment directly from Stewart’s, that they will not only plant as they’ve shown it, but maintain it, and because of problems we’ve had in the past. MR. MAC EWAN-Shouldn’t we wait and hold that off? MR. PALING-I want to warn them, and I’m going to do it. We want it directly from Stewart’s when that happens. MR.. GILLESPIE-Not a problem. MR. PALING-Okay. It’s just a warning, to let them know what’s coming. MR. BREWER-I like what you’ve done. MR. LEWIS-Thank you. 15 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/16/99) MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else to add? We’ll open up the public hearing. Does anyone want to comment on this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MAC EWAN-Lets do a SEQRA. MRS. MOORE-This one has a Short Form. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 12-1998, Introduced by Catherine LaBombard who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Stark: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: STEWART’S ICE CREAM, 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. Duly adopted this 16 day of February, 1999, by the following vote: th AYES: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Paling, Mr. Stark, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Vollaro 16 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/16/99) MR. MAC EWAN-Do we have a motion for Preliminary? MOTION TO APPROVE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 12-1998 STEWART’S ICE CREAM, Introduced by Timothy Brewer who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Stark: As written, with one condition, a waiver granted for contour requirements. Whereas, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of Preliminary Stage Subdivision No. 12-1998 - Stewart’s ice Cream for subdivision of a 7.70 acre parcel into 2 lots of 1.327 acres and 6.463 acres; and Whereas, the above mentioned application, received 1/27/99 , consists of the following: 1. Preliminary Stage Application 2. Map - Santo Associates, Drawing No. 4444 dated 9/22/98 3. Maps - Lawrence Rutland, Jr. S-1 dated 11/2/99 revised 1/26/99, S-2 dated 11/24/98, revised 1/25/99, S-3 dated 11/24/98, revised 1/26/99. Whereas, the above file is supported with the following documentation: 1. 1/29/99 - Fax to T. Lewis from L. Moore 2. 2/8/99 - Rist Frost comments 3. Drawing S-2 revised 2/5/99 Whereas, a public hearing was held on 2/16/99 concerning the above project; and Whereas, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the site plan requirements of the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and Whereas, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and Whereas, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered; and 1. The Town Planning Board, after considering the above, hereby moves to Preliminary Stage for Subdivision No. 12-1998 - Stewart’s Ice Cream. 2. The applicant agrees to the conditions set forth in this resolution. 3. The issuance of permits is conditioned on compliance and continued compliance with the Zoning Ordinance and subdivision approval process. Duly adopted this 16 day of February 1999, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Ringer, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Paling, Mr. Stark, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Vollaro MR. MAC EWAN-We need a motion for Final. MOTION TO APPROVE FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 12-1998 STEWART’S ICE CREAM, Introduced by Timothy Brewer who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Stark: Whereas, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of Final Stage Subdivision No. 12-1998 - Stewart’s ice Cream for subdivision of a 7.70 acre parcel into 2 lots of 1.327 acres and 6.463 acres; and Whereas, the above mentioned application, received 1/27/99 , consists of the following: 1. Final Stage Application 2. Map - Santo Associates, Drawing No. 4444 dated 9/22/98 17 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/16/99) 3. Maps - Lawrence Rutland, Jr. S-1 dated 11/2/99 revised 1/26/99, S-2 dated 11/24/98, revised 1/25/99, S-3 dated 11/24/98, revised 1/26/99. Whereas, the above file is supported with the following documentation: 1. 1/29/99 - Fax to T. Lewis from L. Moore 2. 2/8/99 - Rist Frost comments 3. Drawing S-2 revised 2/5/99 Whereas, a public hearing was held on 2/16/99 concerning the above project; and Whereas, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the site plan requirements of the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and Whereas, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and Whereas, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered; and 1. The Town Planning Board, after considering the above, hereby moves to Final Stage for Subdivision No. 12-1998 - Stewart’s Ice Cream. 2. The applicant agrees to the conditions set forth in this resolution. 3. The issuance of permits is conditioned on compliance and continued compliance with the Zoning Ordinance and subdivision approval process. Duly adopted this 16 day of February 1999, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Ringer, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Paling, Mr. Stark, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Vollaro MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set. MR. STARK-Thanks, gentlemen. MR. LEWIS-Thank you. MR. PALING-Why have we got these other prints, site plans? MR. LEWIS-Because I think that’s an updated version of what you got before. MRS. MOORE-The information that I handed out this evening is reference to prior Stewart’s Ice Cream stores and their parking requirements. This is how to explain it better. We had requested during a site plan review or subdivision review, we had requested information from them about other sites and their parking requirements. Those are those drawings. MR. STARK-You’re coming in next month? MR. LEWIS-I hope so. MR. STARK-The first meeting. MR. LEWIS-I hope so. MR. MAC EWAN-The deadline for application submittals is next Wednesday. MR. BREWER-The last Wednesday of the month. MRS. MOORE-The 24. th MR. MAC EWAN-The deadline for submissions to get on next month’s agenda is Wednesday the 24 by 4:30. If you think that you’re going to be on next month’s agenda or wanting to be on next th month’s agenda, and you haven’t quite got everything together by Wednesday and you think you’re 18 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/16/99) confident that you can have it there by Thursday afternoon, call Laura and I’m sure we’ll squeeze you through. MR. LEWIS-Okay. Your Staff has been very accommodating. Hopefully we won’t have to change the plans. MR. MAC EWAN-Good luck on your variances. MR. LEWIS-Thank you very much. NEW BUSINESS: PETITION FOR ZONE CHANGE - P1-99 RECOMMENDATION ONLY GUSTAF H. MYHRBERG OWNER: SAME CURRENT ZONING: SFR-20 LOCATION: 88 EVERTS AVENUE APPLICANT PROPOSES REZONING OF PROPERTY FROM SFR-20 TO HC-1A. WARREN CO. PLANNING: 2/10/99 TAX MAP NO. 108-1-30, 29.2 LOT SIZE: 1.38 ACRES SECTION: 179-94 STEVE MYHRBERG, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Petition for Zone Change P1-99, Gustaf H. Myhrberg, Meeting Date: February 16, 1999 “Description of Project The applicant proposes rezoning for two parcels on Everts Avenue. The change of zone would be from SFR-20 to HC-1A. A recommendation from the Planning Board to the Town Board is required for a zone change. Staff Notes The applicant owns 108-1-30 and 108-1-29.2, these parcels are adjacent to parcels that were recently rezoned to HC-1A. The applicant has indicated that these parcels may be more useful as commercial since the parcels closest are zoned HC-1A and LI-1A. Staff agrees with the applicant for the potential use of the lots. Staff has no additional comments.” MR. MAC EWAN-Could you identify yourself for the record, please. MR. MYHBERG-Yes. My name is Steve Myhrberg. I’m the son of Gustav Myhrberg. MR. MAC EWAN-I think we met your father last month, I think it was, or the month before, when we were doing the recommendation for zone change for a parcel abutting the old Queensbury Motors. MR. MYHRBERG-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-And he was at that meeting, and said he wanted to get on the list, and we told him what he needed to do, and obviously he followed through with it. MR. MYHRBERG-Yes. He can’t be here tonight. He’s in Texas. So he’s asked me to step in. MR. MAC EWAN-All right. I’m going to ask the $64,000 question. Do we have paperwork that he has to sign saying he’s? MRS. MOORE-He’s already done that. Mr. Myhrberg took care of that long ago. MR. MAC EWAN-All right. It’s pretty simple, I guess, what he wants to do. It’s just one parcel he had. MRS. MOORE-Two. MR. MAC EWAN-And with the power lines that go through there, it makes a natural buffer from the. MR. MYHRBERG-I don’t think there’s a power line, but there is a right-of -way. It’s an old railroad track, at one time. That’s the right-of-way that kind of buffers that parcel from the residential. MR. BREWER-That would be 108-1-27 and 28? Is that what that is? MRS. MOORE-In the Staff Notes I have them listed as. MR. BREWER-Myhrberg owns 29 and 30. MR. RINGER-What’s 28 and 27, Laura? 19 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/16/99) MR. BREWER-I think that’s probably that railroad thing he was talking about. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. Because I remember Jon Lapper who was representing the bank on that was talking about that, thought it was going to make a nice natural buffer between commercial and the residential that’s on there. MR. BREWER-I don’t see it on the Staff Notes. MR. STARK-The power lines would be the buffer between that and the, over off of Ridge Road there, Ridge Street, Meadowbrook. MR. BREWER-That’s what I’m talking about. Is it this piece right here? Is that 108-1-27 and 28? MR. MAC EWAN-No. MR. BREWER-Or is that your father’s piece? Your father’s is in the black, right? MR. MYHRBERG-I don’t have that. I can come up and take a look. MR. BREWER-That’s your father’s house, right? MR. MYHRBERG-That’s correct. MR. STARK-It’s fine with me. MR. MAC EWAN-Are you all set then? MR. BREWER-Yes. MR. RINGER-What is next door to your property in 108-1-29.3? What is that? A house? MR. MYHRBERG-Would that be south? MR. RINGER-That would be south. MR. MYHRBERG-Yes. Those are two residential houses, I think. MR. RINGER-Okay. Laura, we sent them notices, and they didn’t show? MR. BREWER-Boy, that would be perfect for that to break right there. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. MR. BREWER-But, if they don’t want to, we can’t make them. MR. MAC EWAN-I’m sure they’ll be in sooner or later. Public comment. I don’t think anybody’s here to comment on it. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MAC EWAN-Throw up a recommendation. MOTION TO RECOMMEND FOR ZONE CHANGE P1-99 GUSTAF MYHRBERG, Introduced by George Stark who moved for its adoption, seconded by Timothy Brewer: As written. Whereas, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of Petition for Zone Change - P1-99 for Gustaf Myhrberg to rezone his two properties from SFR-20 to HC-1A; and Whereas, the above mentioned application, received 1/27/99, consists of the following: 1. Application 20 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/16/99) Whereas, the above file is supported with the following documentation: 1. 2/16/99 - Staff Notes 2. 2/10/99 - Warren Co. Planning Bd. Resolution 3. 2/9/99 - Notice of Public Hearing Whereas, a public hearing was held on 2/16/99 concerning the above project; and Whereas, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the site plan requirements of the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and Whereas, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and Whereas, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered - SEQRA to be done by Town Board; and 1. The Town Planning Board, after considering the above, hereby moves to approve r recommendation to Town Board for P1-99 for Gustaf Myhrberg. Duly adopted this 16 day of February 1999, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Paling, Mr. Stark, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Brewer, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Vollaro MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set. MR. MYHRBERG-Thank you. MR. STARK-Craig, I have some questions for Laura. MR. MAC EWAN-Go. MR. STARK-Laura, on something like this, when would this necessarily come up in front of the Town Board? Their immediate next meeting? MRS. MOORE-I don’t know how that schedule works. MR. STARK-Would it come up in their first meeting in March? MR. BREWER-Probably. MR. STARK-I was just wondering. That’s all. MR. MAC EWAN-It’s usually at their discretion, when they want to put it on the agenda. MR. STARK-Okay. MR. MYHRBERG-So what’s the next stage? Maybe I don’t quite follow you. MR. MAC EWAN-It goes on to the Town Board, this recommendation, and they’ll put it on their agenda when they have an opening to entertain the Petition for Zone Change. MR. MHYRBERG-Okay. They’ll send us a letter? MR. BREWER-Yes. They’ll have a public hearing and it’ll be approved or. MR. RINGER-If you don’t hear from them, then go see them. MR. MYHRBERG-Okay. Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-You’re welcome. Good luck. MR. STARK-Laura, anything extra on Formula One that we should know about, or what? 21 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/16/99) MR. RINGER-Well, we’ve got a letter. MR. STARK-I know, I mean, but after the letter. MRS. MOORE-After the letter. She had contacted us and she has indicated that she would like to file for site plan again, and things that are occurring, as far as I know, is that she herself will be representing the project. The proposal to sell cars is not the case anymore. The only thing that she would like to do is rent the cars. MR. STARK-Rent the cars. They cleared the property. They’re not going to buy that property. They’re just going to lease it. MRS. MOORE-They were going to lease it. She is not proposing to lease it anymore. MR. STARK-So what are they going to do, not even use that property? MRS. MOORE-Correct. MR. STARK-Okay. What about, are they coming in in March? MRS. MOORE-I believe so. I have to speak with her tomorrow. MR. STARK-What about Glenn? MRS. MOORE-Glenn Batease? MR. STARK-Yes. MRS. MOORE-He hasn’t submitted anything. MR. STARK-He hasn’t submitted anything, so you’re going to court? MRS. MOORE-He is currently in the process of court. MR. BREWER-He’s in violation. MRS. MOORE-He’s in violation. MR. STARK-He’s been jerking around for a year. MR. BREWER-Well, I know that, but what is he in violation of? Do you know what the violation is? MRS. MOORE-He is currently in violation of not complying with the variance that he was granted. MR. BREWER-Which was? MRS. MOORE-To, I don’t know. MR. BREWER-Go back so far and not. MR. MAC EWAN-He’s required to stay so many feet away from. MR. BREWER-Yes, it’s not as much as he was doing. MRS. MOORE-And he was required to apply to the Planning Board, which he hasn’t done. MR. STARK-How long has it been going on with him, exactly? MRS. MOORE-Since August of ’98. MR. STARK-That’s not bad, it’s less than a year. MR. BREWER-Yes, but how many years has this been going on over there? MR. MAC EWAN-That site’s had a history of trouble. MR. BREWER-Between him and Seeley, it’s been how many years? 22 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/16/99) MR. STARK-Four or five years. MR. BREWER-All of that, before Alley was born. MR. STARK-I don’t know, it’s been a long time. MRS. LA BOMBARD-That’s before I was on the Board. MR. RINGER-So the Town is bringing him to court? MRS. MOORE-Yes. Originally when we first identified the issues with this property, we had indicated that he should go to court because he was in violation. He went to court, and by orders he was required to submit application or prepare to apply. Well, he’s been in the applying process for a very long time. The Staff has decided that since he hasn’t complied with our requirements and hasn’t submitted the correct information, that we’re giving everything back to him that he’s supplied us and indicating that he is no longer in the application process, and we’ve requested him to submit new information or new materials that describe his project properly, which kicked him back into the non compliant issue with the court. MR. RINGER-But he’s still filling in all that land, though. MR. BREWER-Yes, and he will until he’s done. MR. RINGER-I mean, by the time he finishes, everything will be filled and he won’t have to come in. MR. BREWER-Well, the Town could make him dig it up. MRS. MOORE-Yes. It’s possible. MR. MAC EWAN-It sure would be nice, wouldn’t it? MR. BREWER-Yes, it would. MR. STARK-It would in his case, it would be nice, but. MR. MAC EWAN-Let me ask you a question. Is there a time frame that kicks in from when someone says, I’m going to submit an application, until when the Town deems, well, no they aren’t going to submit an application? Don’t you think that would be something nice to have in the Ordinances that says that? MRS. MOORE-Well, that’s something that we can indicate at our joint meeting, and it may be a discussion, because it’s occurring in the Zoning Board as well as the Planning Board. MR. MAC EWAN-The Town issues a certified letter, from the moment that certified letter is dated and sent out, the clock starts ticking. MR. BREWER-Craig, here’s an example. Say, all right, a guy doesn’t do it, we’re taking you to court. The day you take him to court, well, judge, I’m going to apply tomorrow, and then just, it’s like here. It just goes around in a big circle. MR. MAC EWAN-No, because he’s done this before. MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. BREWER-Yes, and he’ll keep doing it. MRS. MOORE-No. What it sounds like Craig is proposing, if we had given him a clock time, the first time he appeared in court and said, you have 180 days to have an application submitted, or two months, six months, however you. MR. MAC EWAN-Whatever the time frame is. MRS. MOORE-Whatever a good time frame is, and if that doesn’t occur, then fines will be imposed, but I think that’s something that we should review. MR. BREWER-Absolutely. I don’t think 180 days is adequate either. 23 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/16/99) MR. MAC EWAN-No. She just threw out an arbitrary number, not that that’s what you’d use, but you have to do something that’s reasonable, whether it’s 60 or 90 days or something. MR. BREWER-Sixty days is plenty. MRS. MOORE-Well, there’s information that he, engineering reports and thing like that, sometimes, or APA jurisdiction issues. Sometimes. MR. BREWER-That, you can always get a letter stating that the information, just like Barber did tonight. He said on the letter, my request has been submitted. Here’s a copy of the letter. Okay, then that’s done. You can consider that done, but if he plain just doesn’t do it. MR. PALING-Craig, I think it’s been the practice of most on this Board that if we see something which isn’t necessarily the exact subject of this meeting, and talking with an applicant, but if we tell them ahead of time they’re going to benefit from it, that we’ve done it. Not only does it apply to a zoning change, but it also applies, I think, to the planting. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s all right. MR. PALING-Well, you stopped me. MR. MAC EWAN-Well, I thought we were, I didn’t know how far you were going with it, and I apologize for that. MR. PALING-Well, I had about two more sentences to go, and I had qualified it, I believe, in that I know it’s not the subject of the meeting, but forewarned is forearmed, and you’re doing it for the benefit of the applicant. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s fine. I’m sorry. MR. PALING-All right. We have one more distinguished speaker tonight. MR. MAC EWAN-Who? MR. PALING-Well, I’ll tell you when you’re through. MR. MAC EWAN-Stewart’s tonight. This is just a question. Remember he started talking about all these waivers that they were going to start getting, or wanting, they were requesting a bunch of waivers? But most of them were site plan issues, right? MRS. MOORE-I believe so. MR. MAC EWAN-Variances, I’m sorry. Those were variances. Shouldn’t he be going to the ZBA first before he comes here for site plan? MRS. MOORE-Yes. He is. MR. MAC EWAN-I got the distinct impression he’s coming back here to get his site plan approval, then he’s going to go off to the ZBA and try to get the variance approval. MRS. MOORE-No. His variances are being reviewed tomorrow night. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. STARK-Just for the sign and so on? MRS. MOORE-For Area Variance as well as Sign Variance. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. RINGER-Is that bank issue going to be on there? MRS. MOORE-I don’t know. MR. STARK-I don’t think that’s a sure thing tomorrow night, for the sign. MRS. MOORE-What do you mean? MR. STARK-It might have trouble passing. 24 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/16/99) MRS. MOORE-Okay. MR. STARK-I mean, that’s not a. MR. BREWER-Yes. A variance is a lot different than a site plan. A variance you don’t just go in and apply and say what you’re going to do. MRS. MOORE-I mean, he’s made application. So it’s on. MR. MAC EWAN-I know what you’re up to. I caught wind of it the other day. MR. PALING-No, I don’t think so. We’ve got one more speaker coming up. It’s George Stark, Rural Route 3 Box 3335, would like to address the Board. MR. MAC EWAN-He’s going to have an application pending here in another month or two. MR. STARK-I plan on coming in next month for a site plan review for Kay’s Motel. I am going to be requesting a waiver for a stormwater drainage report. If there’s any questions about it, let me know, and I’ll make sure it’s involved, but I don’t really think it’s necessary because no water goes off the site now, and none will. MR. BREWER-I don’t know if any of us can vote on that. We all have a conflict. MR. STARK-That’s true, too. MR. MAC EWAN-We’ll treat your application with the same review that we give every other application that comes in front of the Board, no special treatment, and we’ll put you through no more rigorous review than we do anyone else. MRS. LA BOMBARD-What do you mean the water doesn’t go anywhere? What does it do, just evaporate into the air? MR. STARK-It infiltrates into the ground. The perc there is about a minute, a minute and thirty, nothing runs off the property. MR. MAC EWAN-The only issue you may have with that, seriously, is the fact that you’ve got the brook right there. MR. STARK-Well, if I’m 75 feet away from the brook or 100 feet away from the brook, it’s not a problem. I don’t think it’ll be a problem. MR. MAC EWAN-Do you have someone preparing your site plan? MR. STARK-Me, but I had a surveyor survey the place last year, when we bought it. MR. BREWER-What are you doing? MR. STARK-I’m tearing down all the old buildings and putting up all new buildings. MRS. LA BOMBARD-I thought you were adding on. MR. STARK-No. MR. MAC EWAN-Are you staying on the same footprint? MR. STARK-Definitely not. MRS. LA BOMBARD-You’re tearing down that motel? MR. STARK-Well, most of it, 90% of it. MRS. LA BOMBARD-I thought you were adding on you told me. MR. STARK-We are adding on. We’re adding on quite a bit. MR. PALING-That has a single access, George? 25 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/16/99) MR. STARK-That’s it. They’re changing that. They’re making it smaller when they’re putting the sidewalks in here. They’ve got the sidewalks in, but Duke didn’t do the sidewalks down there yet, but they’re making the entrance smaller, which is fine with me. It’ll stop the U-turns there, people come down the road and make a U-turn. MR. BREWER-That’s not a very big entrance there now anyway. MR. STARK-No. It is not. It’s big enough. It’s not a problem. They’re going to shorten it up maybe 10, 15 feet. No problem. That’ll stop people from making a U-turn going back to Martha’s then, hopefully. MR. MAC EWAN-Will you be able to meet all the setbacks? MR. BREWER-I still think it was a big mistake we didn’t make Martha’s close one of those driveways there. MR. MAC EWAN-You’re meeting all the setbacks, no problem with the setbacks? MR. STARK-Setbacks are not a problem. I went over them today with Craig. That’s all. Septic systems, I’ve got plenty of room for them. We’re putting up an indoor pool in the middle and all this kind of stuff. MR. MAC EWAN-Along the subject of maybe applications coming in, I heard from a little bird last week that H & G Warehouse is interested in looking at the old Queensbury Motors site. MR. BREWER-H & G? MR. STARK-What’s H & G Warehouse? MR. MAC EWAN-Home and Garden Warehouse. MR. STARK-I heard Home Depot. Now you’re saying H & G Warehouse. I never heard of H & G Warehouse. MR. BREWER-Regardless of what goes there, they’ll rip the buildings down and start over. MR. RINGER-Yes. MR. BREWER-What’s home and garden? MR. MAC EWAN-They’re like a Home Depot kind of thing. They’re more geared toward home furnishings and gardening than they are like lumber products. MR. STARK-Are there any concerns that I should put into this thing before I give it to Laura next Wednesday? MR. BREWER-Just make sure it’s a complete application like everybody else. MR. MAC EWAN-We’ll check it over at the agenda meeting. We’ll let you know if the application is deemed complete. MR. PALING-What’s the story with Aviation Mall? What do we know? MRS. MOORE-I would recommend putting a call in to Chris Round. He probably knows. MR. PALING-So it sounds like there’s nothing that you know of on Aviation Mall. MRS. MOORE-Nothing that I know of. MR. RINGER-Has D.O.T. approved the revised plans? MRS. MOORE-Not that I’m aware of. MR. RINGER-Okay. Again, you hear so many rumors. I had heard D.O.T. had approved it. MR. STARK-I heard D.O.T. approved their plans. MR. MAC EWAN-I heard that D.O.T. was putting together their recommendations for what they wanted to see happen. They hadn’t done it yet. We also have a Quality Inn coming to Town. 26 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/16/99) MRS. LA BOMBARD-A Quality Inn? Where’s that going? MR. MAC EWAN-Right next to the Ponderosa, across from Wal-Mart. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes, they had talked about that before. MR. STARK-When will that be coming in? MR. MAC EWAN-Are they on next month’s? MRS. MOORE-I haven’t even seen them. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Is that on that house there that was, in that house. MR. MAC EWAN-A couple of months away. MRS. LA BOMBARD-South of the Ponderosa or north of the Ponderosa? MR. STARK-North of the Ponderosa. MR. MAC EWAN-North of the Ponderosa. MR. STARK-It’s not so bad there. It goes down to where mousy had his place. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Why don’t they put the Quality Inn where that restaurant is that used to be. MR. RINGER-On Quaker Road, you mean? MRS. LA BOMBARD-Where Gee Ray’s used to be. MR. STARK-Who’s coming in with that, the two guys that own the Ponderosa? MR. MAC EWAN-I’m actually not even sure. All I know is that it’s coming. A month or two months away. MR. PALING-Are we going to have a little more activity in March, do you think, than we have in the past couple of months? MRS. MOORE-I would assume so. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. I’ll make a motion to adjourn. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Craig MacEwan, Chairman 27