Loading...
1999-04-27 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/27/99) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING APRIL 27, 1999 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT CRAIG MAC EWAN, CHAIRMAN CATHERINE LA BOMBARD, SECRETARY ROBERT VOLLARO GEORGE STARK ROBERT PALING TIMOTHY BREWER LARRY RINGER SENIOR PLANNER-CHUCK VOSS PLANNER-LAURA MOORE TOWN COUNSEL-MILLER, MANNIX & PRATT-MARK SCHACHNER STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI OLD BUSINESS: OFF PREMISES SIGN – 1-99 T.L. CANNON CORPORATION OWNER: AFTAB BHATTI ZONE: HC-1A LOCATION: NO. SIDE AVIATION RD., EAST OF EXIT 19 THE SIGN IS PROPOSED WITHIN THE EXISTING LANSCAPED PLANTER ON THE SOUTHEASTERN CORNER OF THE ECONO LODGE PROPERTY ON AVIATION ROAD. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 16-1999 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 3/10/99 TAX MAP NO. 72-5-13 LOT SIZE: N/A SECTION: 140-6(B)(5) MR. MAC EWAN-And that application is tabled. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Right. NEW BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 12-99 TYPE: UNLISTED JEFFREY HOWARD OWNER: J. HOWARD UNDER CONTRACT TO KAREN WITTE ZONE: MR-5 LOCATION: WEST SIDE BAY RD., ACROSS FROM MAIN ENTRANCE TO ACC APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 900 SQ. FT. OFFICE BUILDING. PROFESSIONAL OFFICE IS A TYPE II SITE PLAN REVIEW USE IN THE MR ZONE AND REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 95-1990, SP 32-91, AV 19-1999 BEAUTIFICATION COMM.: 4/12/99 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 4/14/99 TAX MAP NO. 60-7-4.3 LOT SIZE: 0.35 ACRES SECTION: 179-18 MR. MAC EWAN-That application is also tabled, but we’ll open up the public hearing. If there’s anyone that wants to comment to this application, you’re welcome to do so, but we’ll leave the public hearing open until it’s returned to the Planning Board. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED SUBDIVISION NO. 5-1999 SKETCH PLAN STAGE ROBERTA CONVERSE OWNER: SAME ZONE: SR-1A, MOBILE HOME OVERLAY ZONE LOCATION: WARREN LANE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO SUBDIVIDE PROPERTY SEGREGATING MOBILE HOME PARK FROM SINGLE FAMILY HOMES. CROSS REFERENCE: TOWN BOARD REVIEW (5/99) TAX MAP NO. 121-6-59 LOT SIZE: 16.32 ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS MR. MAC EWAN-This application, as well, has been tabled tonight, pending ZBA action. SITE PLAN NO. 13-99 DARREN & NANCY MANZARI OWNER: JAMES CULLINAN ZONE: HC-1A LOCATION: S.E. CORNER OF QUAKER RD. & EVERTS AVE. APPLICANT PROPOSES RELOCATION OF NORTHWAY CAR CARE BUSINESS TO QUAKER ROAD SITE (CENTER BUILDING ON FORMER QUEENSBURY MOTORS SITE) WITH CONSTRUCTION OF A 24’ BY 24’ ADDITION AND SUBSTANTIAL AESTHETIC SITE IMPROVEMENTS. AUTOMOBILE SALES AND SERVICE IS A 1 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/27/99) TYPE II SITE PLAN REVIEW USE IN THE HC ZONE AND REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: SUBDIV. 3-1999, AV 20- 1999 BEAUTIFICATION COMM.: 4/12/99 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 4/14/99 TAX MAP NO. 108-1-31, 21, 33.1, 34, 38, 27, 28 LOT SIZE: 11.22 ACRES SECTION: 179-23 JON LAPPER, JIM MILLER, & TOM NACE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 13-99, Darren & Nancy Manzari, Meeting Date: April 27, 1999 “Description of Project: The applicant proposes to utilize an existing building to operate a transmission auto service. An addition of an office is also proposed to the existing building. The use is compatible with surrounding auto related uses. Staff Notes: The existing structure is situated on the parcel providing an increase of green area fronting on Quaker Road. The proposed addition does not appear to present any traffic conflicts with the proposed use. Building mounted lights are proposed for security purposes, this is minimal outdoor lighting. The applicant’s parking layout meets the minimum requirements per the parking schedule outlined in Section 179-66. The applicant has provided a walkway for pedestrian traffic access. The applicant’s plans were submitted to the Beautification Committee meeting and Rist Frost for review and comment. The use does not appear to hinder emergency vehicle access or existing safety issues. Recommendation: Staff would recommend approval of the proposed site plan.” MRS. MOORE-Warren County has “No County Impact”. Rist-Frost comments, dated April 16, 1999 “We have reviewed Miller Associates’ letter of April 14, 1999 in response to our comment letter of April 13, 1999. Responses 1, 3, and 4 are acceptable. Regarding Response No. 2, the site plan designates all parking areas for customer vehicles. Further we are not aware of any provision of the State Building Code that allows fewer than the required number of accessible spaces when total spaces provided are more than necessary. Please advise if the Town is aware of different criteria.” The Beautification Committee comment, “1. Committee recommends any exterior dumpster placed on site be appropriately screened by fencing and plantings which are maintained.” That’s all I have. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Good evening. MR. LAPPER-Good evening. For the record, Jon Lapper and Jim Miller. For the record, neither of us can remember going first in like the last five years, so it’s nice for a change. This is the last piece. We were, of course, here last week for the subdivision and the approval of the site plan for the adjacent site for the Hewitt’s, but two of the members must have been on vacation getting tans and missed that, and we had to go to the Zoning Board last week for a variance for the Travel Corridor Overlay for the addition to this building, which was unanimously approved, and the Zoning Board was very supportive of this application. What we’ve done here, which we’ve described before, is that we have a site that’s 100% impervious, 100% pavement or building. Jim has designed the site so that it’s going to comply with the 30% green space, and on top of that, we received permission from the County DPW to remove a substantial amount of the pavement within the County right-of-way, and that will be green, also. If you drive by the site, a lot of the pavement’s already been removed on the other side of the line, for the Hewitt’s Garden Center, which is on its way. I guess, why don’t you just walk them through the site plan. MR. MILLER-What I’d like to do is respond first, there was a comment on Rist-Frost’s letter that was an outstanding issue that dealt with parking. I spoke to Chris Round, and the required number of cars for this facility was 25 cars. According to State Code, you only need one handicapped accessible parking space for 25 cars. The additional spaces we show, in excess of the 25, are vehicle storage. They’re not customer spaces. They’re not employee spaces, and in our opinion are not subject to the handicapped accessible requirement. Rist-Frost is saying that we need a second space. MR. MAC EWAN-Did Chris Round share that opinion with you? MR. MILLER-Well, I talked to Chris about that, and I didn’t know if he was going to touch base with Dave Hatin, because a typical situation, like a car dealership, they have hundreds of cars out there, and those spaces are not subject to accessibility because they’re not publicly accessed spaces, and we have the same type of situation here. MR. MAC EWAN-Just let me hold you up on that for a second. Laura and Chuck, any comment to this? MRS. MOORE-I have no comment on it. I didn’t receive anything, information from Chris or Dave. MR. BREWER-What is the problem if you did put two spaces in? 2 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/27/99) MR. MILLER-Well, the only thing is, Tim, they have to be right in the front, at the front door, and what we’re doing, we’re putting an addition on the front of the existing building, with a new sidewalk and a handicapped space there, and there’s only three spaces in the front, and these are for customers that come in to drop off a car, and then the cars are moved, and those are the primary spaces. If we had to add an extra handicapped space, it would take up, then, two of the three spaces we have in the very front of the building. That’s the only reason we felt that we’d like to not comply. The other option, we just wouldn’t stripe some of the spots in the back, and not call them spaces, just call it asphalt, but it seems. MR. MAC EWAN-What is the purpose of striping those spots in the back, if it’s going to be storage area? MR. MILLER-Well, I showed them there so you could see how much spaces we’ve got total, and plus to stripe them, it shows the circulation lane. So you can see how the site functions. MR. MAC EWAN-But it seems like you’re throwing yourself into a Catch-22 here, where we have some disagreement between what Rist-Frost is suggesting for how many recommended spaces you need for handicapped parking, and what you require for the site plan. MR. MILLER-Well, this is true, but I got a letter back, one time, from the State, saying that the Code should be interpreted with some common sense, and I think, I we have a storage area in the back, it’s obviously not a parking lot for customers or employees. So therefore, you know, why should you show a handicapped accessible spot? MR. VOLLARO-Are the number of spaces you’re talking about, where it says “Parking for Employee and Customer Vehicles” 23 spaces? MR. MILLER-Well, that’s in the back, and then we have an additional 14 in the front. MR. VOLLARO-So there’s 37 altogether? MR. MILLER-That’s right, and see, that’s what he’s doing. He’s looking at the total, where all that’s actually required by Code is 25. MR. BREWER-What does our Code require? MR. MILLER-Twenty-five. MR. VOLLARO-Twenty-five. MR. MILLER-But the handicapped accessible requirement is a State requirement, and for 25 spaces, you only need one. MR. BREWER-Is there anything in our Code that requires handicapped accessible parking? In other words, where does Rist-Frost? MRS. MOORE-We would defer to the State. MR. VOLLARO-I didn’t see anything in ours. MR. BREWER-Where does Rist-Frost come up with the idea that they need two? MR. MILLER-Well, they’re counting our storage area, as parking. MRS. MOORE-The 37. MR. MILLER-And that’s what I think shouldn’t be done. MRS. MOORE-Once you go over 25 spaces, it’s 25 to 50, you need two additional spaces. MR. VOLLARO-I have a problem with you saying you’re going to not consider those back spaces at all, and yet you’ve only got 23 spaces and not 25. I have a problem. You’re going to use another two spaces some place? MR. MILLER-No, Bob. The 23 just refers to this back area. That doesn’t count the spaces in the front and along the side. Those are the primary spaces. There’s another. MR. VOLLARO-Another two there, along side the handicapped. That’s how you get the 25? 3 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/27/99) MR. BREWER-No, the four on the side, Bob. MR. MAC EWAN-He doesn’t get the 25. The State gets the 25. The State says zero to 25 parking spaces, you have to have one handicapped accessible parking space available. Twenty-six to fifty spaces of parking, you have to have two handicapped spaces. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-So he’s basing his site plan on these parking spaces, not those, just these, and he’s saying that they only need one parking space. Rist-Frost is looking at these numbers and saying, no, you’re more than 26 parking spaces. You need to have two. Am I right on that? MR. MILLER-That’s right. I mean, I think it should be as simple as I could label 15 spaces in the back as storage or something, and. MR. MAC EWAN-Well, I don’t think it’s something we need to get really hung up on. I guess maybe the point would be, should we approve this thing tonight, be contingent upon Chris Round’s interpretation of it. If he requires you to have another parking space for handicapped, then we’ll do it. MR. MILLER-Well, I spoke to Chris, and he agreed with me, but unfortunately, I don’t have anything in writing to support that, but I would agree with that. I think the truth of the matter is I think it’s a Code issue that’s going to end up being resolved with Dave Hatin or Chris, and if the second space is required, we would have to add it, but it doesn’t make much sense to me. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. PALING-What’s the difference between this and a car lot, used car or new car? MR. MILLER-That’s what I said, it’s the same kind of thing. MR. PALING-I don’t see where we have an objection to only having one space, if those aren’t designated or required spaces in the back, they’re there to store cars and employee parking. MR. BREWER-Typically, though, a used car, well, I don’t know how you measure what kind of traffic you’re going to have. You’re going to have people dropping cars off, being fixed. MR. MAC EWAN-I don’t think it’s something we should get too hung up on, here. MR. BREWER-Well, Craig, I don’t think you should cut us off if we’re talking about something. MR. MAC EWAN-Trust me, I’m not cutting anybody off, Tim, not at all. MR. MILLER-I think the key is that the required number of cars that is required by the Town Code is 25. So, I mean, if we only had 25, we would have 24 regular spaces and the one handicapped space, and we wouldn’t have a problem, but what we’ve got is an additional 15 spaces that are for storage and overflow, vehicles that may be being worked on or, and they may, they probably won’t be used on a day to day basis. MR. LAPPER-Jim, why not just agree to the condition that, we’ll leave it with Chris and Dave Hatin, and if they say we have to have an extra space, then we’ll have an extra space. MR. MILLER-That’s fine. MR. VOLLARO-That makes sense. MR. MAC EWAN-I’ll agree with that. Move right along. MR. MILLER-What we’re doing is we’ve narrowed the entry down. We share a driveway with the adjacent building next door. These are the two repair buildings from the car dealership. This was at 60 feet. We’ve reduced it down to 40 foot, re-striped it, and it’s been approved by the County. All the asphalt from the ditch line all the way back in to our site is being removed, this area. Plus all the asphalt’s being removed around the front of the addition, where we’re installing new walkways, coming into the new office the existing door with sidewalks and curbing. In addition, we’ve removed some of the asphalt down the sides, and in the rear portion of the site. So we have exceeded the 30% green space and also improved the drainage in the same thing. We’ve also extended the culvert in the ditch to eliminate some of that deep ditch that occurs there along, and that’s been approved by the County, that curb along Quaker Road. The freestanding sign will be located in this area, that meets the 15 foot setback, and then landscaping around the entry of the building, and then 4 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/27/99) landscaping down the side and along the side, to sort of screen some of the parking area from Quaker Road. As Laura said, the lighting is all building mounted lights at the entry, even just security lighting. There will be no lighting around the site, and that’s pretty much it. MR. MAC EWAN-Last week, with the Hewitt’s site plan, as a related note, we talked about the idea of possibly streetscaping along Quaker Road and John was going to check with the County and what was available, what can be done. Can we implement the same idea here? MR. LAPPER-Well, with respect to Hewitt’s, and I have the whole site plan with me, or the whole subdivision. We don’t have an answer yet from the County, with respect that what we talked about were six, I have the survey, but I don’t know if I have the new subdivision map with me. The issue on this site plan is that there’s not a lot of space, because of where the property line is, and because of putting the, where he has the sign here, that’s not to say that there might not be room. We’ve got plantings in front of the site, and in front of the site here, and that’s not to say that there wouldn’t be the possibility of a street tree in the center of the island, but there’s going to be visibility issues here that aren’t, there’s just so much distance, 300 and some odd feet, but certainly as a condition, we can look into that, because of the sign and because of the visibility, I just don’t know if it’s as appropriate, if there’s the same opportunity as there is on the other part of the site. MR. MAC EWAN-When will you be hearing back from the County? MR LAPPER-Probably next week, because everything’s moving pretty quickly on that one. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Anything else? MR. LAPPER-Not from us. MR. STARK-I think it’s a big improvement. MR. VOLLARO-I’d like to congratulate you on your numbers. Everything plays. It all fits. Not bad. Not bad. MR. LAPPER-Thanks. MR. BREWER-It looks like a great job. One other comment. The distance between your property line, Jon, and the next lot? MR. LAPPER-Which next are you referring to? MR. BREWER-The next would be Mac the Knife. MR. LAPPER-Okay. MR. BREWER-From Hewitt’s. From property line to property line, I guess. MR. LAPPER-At the curb cut? MR. BREWER-No, where the berm is. MR. MILLER-Well, it’s 125 feet across the front. MR. BREWER-Okay. That’s the number I was looking for. I guess what I was thinking was, in reference to the tree that Craig spoke of. I don’t know where Hewitt’s is going to put the last tree, if they do. MR. LAPPER-On the other side of their entrance. All of Hewitt’s trees are west of their entry. MR. BREWER-So they don’t come down this far? MR. LAPPER-No. MR. BREWER-All right. Okay. I just was thinking that the number that they space them apart, if it was a continuation down in front of this, but if it’s not, it’s not. MR. LAPPER-The real problem is that we attempted to locate the sign, and the only place where it wouldn’t require a variance, because it’s 15 feet back and it’s still on the grassed area, and the obvious place for a tree where it wouldn’t interfere with visibility, would be sort of right in front of the sign, and then that would require doing something different with the sign. So that’s really the problem here. 5 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/27/99) MR. BREWER-It’s just a thought. MR. LAPPER-But there is a lot of nice landscaping in that area. MR. BREWER-Nothing else. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else from Staff? Okay. We’ll open up the public hearing. Does anyone want to come up and comment to this application? You’re more than welcome to do so. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MAC EWAN-We need to do a SEQRA. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 13-99, Introduced by Catherine LaBombard who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: DARREN & NANCY MANZARI, 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 27 day of April, 1999, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Paling, Mr. Stark, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE MR. MAC EWAN-Does someone want to make a motion? MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 13-99 DARREN & NANCY MANZARI, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Catherine LaBombard: In accordance with the resolution supplied by Staff. In addition, there’ll be some concurrence, based on the concurrence with Chris Round concerning the parking and the letter from Rist-Frost dated April 16, 1999, concerning the two versus one handicapped space. The Zoning Administrator will determine the amount of handicapped spaces required for this site plan. 6 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/27/99) Whereas, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of Site Plan No. 13-99, Darren & Nancy Manzari for relocation of Northway Car Care business; and Whereas, the above mentioned application, received 3/31/99, consists of the following: 1. Application w/Stormwater Man. Report 2. Maps – SP-1, SP-2, dated 3/31/99 Whereas, the above file is supported with the following documentation: 1. 4/27/99 - Staff Notes 2. 4/14/99 – Warren Co. Planning Bd. resolution 3. 4/12/99 - Beautification Comm. mtg. 4. 4/13/99 - Rist Frost comments 5. 4/21/99 - ZBA resolution, staff notes 6. 4/14/99 - Miller Assoc., response to Rist Frost comments 7. 4/16/99 - Rist Frost comments in response to Miller Assoc. of 4/14/99 Whereas, a public hearing was held on 4/27/99 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 approve Site Plan No. 13-99 for Darren and Nancy Manzari. 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 27 day of April, 1999, by the following vote: th MR. VOLLARO-And then also based on, this is the County input on tree scape. Is that something we want to make a condition? MR. MAC EWAN-I don’t know. For me, I think they made a compelling basis that this is, because he has a narrow entrance, and he has that sign out there, it would obstruct the view of the signs. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. AYES: Mr. Ringer, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Paling, Mr. Stark, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE MR. LAPPER-Thank you. SITE PLAN NO. 14-99 TYPE II MAY SUPPLY OWNER: SAME ZONE: WR-1A, C.E.A., APA LOCATION: HONEYSUCKLE LANE, ASSEMBLY POINT APPLICANT PROPOSES A 30 SQ. FT. ADDITION TO EXISTING DWELLING AND A NEW SEPTIC SYSTEM. ENLARGEMENT OF A NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE IN A CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL AREA REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: TOWN BOARD SEPTIC VAR. (5/99), AV 17- 7 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/27/99) 1999 BUILDING PERMIT – 98-633 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 4/14/99 TAX MAP NO. 8-5-11 LOT SIZE: 0.57 ACRES SECTION: 179-16, 179-79 DENNIS DUVALL, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 14-99, May Supply, Meeting Date: April 27, 1999 “Description of Project: The applicant proposes to construct an addition to an existing dwelling unit. This is an expansion of a nonconforming structure in a waterfront zone in a critical environmental area. Per Section 179-79 the project requires site plan review. Staff Notes: The applicant proposes an addition to an existing home. Residential homes require two parking spaces, which have been provided. The plan should demonstrate stormwater facilities and erosion control measures during construction. Recommendation: Staff would remind the Board the character of the neighborhood could be altered if the addition is approved. The construction of additions on waterfront property creates a congested structural appearance, possibly impedes the view to and from the lake, and could impact water quality from increased stormwater and septic design.” MRS. MOORE-Warren County comments “No County Impact”, and he received a variance. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else? MRS. MOORE-No. MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening. MR. DUVALL-Good evening. I’m May Supply’s agent. My name is Dennis Duvall. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay, Dennis, could you tell me a little bit about the project. MR. DUVALL-There is an existing carport and two storage sheds attached to the house now, and by removing those, we are actually going to move the setback from three and approximately a quarter feet to seven feet, and one of the sheds will, by removing one of the sheds, will give a better view of the lake, from the Honeysuckle side of the property, and we hope to have a one stall garage, two bedrooms and a bathroom, all on one floor. MR. BREWER-Say that again? Not in that addition? MR. DUVALL-Right. We're going to remove the carport and the two sheds and build almost within the same footprint. MR. VOLLARO-The same footprint as the existing house? MR. DUVALL-As the existing carport, and two storage sheds. MR. VOLLARO-So, I guess I've got to ask. Are these drawings that we have in front of us really representative of what you’re going to do? MR. DUVALL-Do you have the revised plan? MR. VOLLARO-Yes, I do. MR. DUVALL-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Where is the well currently located on the property? MR. DUVALL-There is no well there at this time. MR. MAC EWAN-You’re source of drinking water is from the lake? MR. DUVALL-From the lake, and Mr. Supply, this would be May’s son, told me that during construction, he’d like to tie into the Queensbury water supply that’s up there, if that’s possible, as well as have the lake water, and I think that Supply line’s on Honeysuckle Road. I haven’t looked into that. I’m not involved in that part of the project. MR. MAC EWAN-You’re just handling the addition? 8 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/27/99) MR. DUVALL-That’s correct. I must say, it’s quite an improvement to the property. The carports are falling down. There’s rotten roof boards, and it’s not a very attractive site, and the people next door are very pleased that we’re doing this. MR. VOLLARO-The size of this is 30 square feet? MR. BREWER-No, Bob, that’s a mistake. MR. DUVALL-I’m a little new at this, so it was hard to. MR. VOLLARO-I’m trying to understand that, because the square root of that is 5.4. MR. BREWER-On the Staff Notes it says 900. MR. VOLLARO-Nine hundred, correct. MR. BREWER-And your application says 30. MR. DUVALL-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-Well, which is correct, because it’s very important, to me, which of those numbers are planned. MR. DUVALL-I understand. Where it says “Anderson, 2832”, that’s just showing a window there, but that’s just to show you where I am on the plan. MR. VOLLARO-Well, lets get oriented to, what are you looking at? Okay. I’m looking at the same thing. Go ahead. MR. DUVALL-Okay. At that point, you’ll see the existing doorway. MR. VOLLARO-It’s called entrance door? MR. DUVALL-Entrance door, okay, and then I’m showing three posts out there. That’s going to be a sidewalk area. Is that considered part of the living space, even though we’re going to cantilever the roof over it? MR. MAC EWAN-Repeat that again, now, please. MR. DUVALL-That area right here, that area, we’re going to cantilever the roof over that. So we’ll have a sidewalk there with a roof over it. MR. MAC EWAN-But that’s exterior, right? MR. DUVALL-That’s exterior. MR. MAC EWAN-No, that wouldn’t be considered living space. MR. DUVALL-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-So now we’re down to 24 by 30? MR. DUVALL-What I think, if I’m explaining this right, and I’m not very good at this, the existing square footage is 664. We will be removing that and, without that sidewalk, I think we are adding 684. So we will be adding 20 square feet of living area. MR. VOLLARO-I’m lost. MR. DUVALL-The carport projects out from the house 20 feet. When we remove that and add the addition, we will be coming out 25 feet. MR. VOLLARO-The drawing I’m looking at, with your explanation, that you’re going to have a cantilevered overhang over cement, then that seems to me that the drawing I’m looking at shows 24 by 30, then, as the new addition. MR. DUVALL-That’s correct. MR. VOLLARO-And you’re saying that 24 by 30. 9 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/27/99) MR. DUVALL-Twenty-four by twenty-five would be the living area. MR. VOLLARO-Well, I've got 30 on my drawing. MR. DUVALL-Thirty includes the overhang, and then 30 down the side shows the projection of the addition going five feet past the corner of the house, and that’s approximately 60 square feet right there. MR. VOLLARO-I get 12 feet on my quarter to one scale. That that’s a 12 foot projection, that’s what I read on a quarter to one scale. From the existing house to here. MR. MAC EWAN-No, he’s talking from here to here. MR. VOLLARO-All right. MR. MAC EWAN-See, he’s got 30 feet here, which you said that was an additional six feet, right, that you added on to that bedroom area? Is that what you’re referring to? MR. DUVALL-Five feet, I think. MR. MAC EWAN-Five feet. Okay. MR. VOLLARO-It’s just not clear to me, based on the drawing in front of me, exactly what you’re doing. I guess I don’t understand it. MR. DUVALL-Do you have a plot plan? MR. VOLLARO-Yes, I’m looking right at it. MR. DUVALL-The survey’s map? I think there was a survey map. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, there’s a survey map. I see that, and this is the map dated 1984? MR. DUVALL-And that shows the carport? MR. VOLLARO-Yes, it does. MR. DUVALL-And the two sheds. MR. VOLLARO-Well, it shows the carport and it shows the house. MR. MAC EWAN-There’s a shed right there. MR. VOLLARO-And is this a shed, and the other little piece is the overhang? MR MAC EWAN-What’s the addition that’s in the front, on the driveway side of the carport? Is that just an additional overhang or something? MR. DUVALL-I think that’s the other small shed. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s the other small shed. MR. DUVALL-Yes, and where it shows 3.21 feet setback. MR. MAC EWAN-Well, that would be the one that’s on the southerly side, I guess it is, yes, southerly side of the site. MR. DUVALL-And that’ll be removed. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-I've got one more question, and then I can get off this. If you go back to your drawing, where you show the leach field and so on, if you take a look at the house itself, I get 17 feet from the line, by my scale, one to thirty. MR. DUVALL-From the house to the line? MR. VOLLARO-The house to the line. 10 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/27/99) MR. DUVALL-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-And then I get the projection, changing scales, in your drawing, I had to change scales from one to a quarter, and I get the new addition projects out 12 feet toward the line, 12 feet toward the line. MR. DUVALL-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-Okay, and you’re saying you’ve got a seven foot setback, it’s only five. In other words, you don’t have seven, you’ve got five feet. You’ve got 17 feet from the house to the line. The new addition projects out 12, and that leaves you a five foot setback, not seven. MR. DUVALL-I was basing my figures on that surveyor’s map that showed that one shed being 3.21 feet. MR. VOLLARO-Well, you’ve got, this is what I’m looking at. So that you know what I’m looking at. I’m looking at this drawing that shows the location of your septic field. MR. DUVALL-Right. MR. VOLLARO-And when I do the little calculation here, and I noticed that the Zoning Board of Appeals gave you a variance based on seven feet, not on five feet. Now I don’t know whether that has anything to do with anything, but I’m just wondering if the Zoning Board of Appeals comes up, I guess this is kind of addressed to the Staff, if the Zoning Board of Appeals gives a variance based on an incorrect number, or assumption, how does that affect that variance? It’s still in force? MR. SCHACHNER-The answer to that question is not necessarily. I mean, if there’s a material misrepresentation in the application, then, and that’s pointed out, then the Zoning Board should really re-consider the application. MR. VOLLARO-I think there’s a misrepresentation. It’s not seven feet. It’s five feet, by simple math, in what’s in front of me. MR. SCHACHNER-And what’s the “it”? When you say “it’s” not seven feet, it’s five feet. MR. VOLLARO-When the Zoning Board of Appeals reviewed this, they looked at a seven foot setback, versus a twenty foot setback. MR. SCHACHNER-Meaning 20 feet is what was required? MR. VOLLARO-Is what was required. MR. SCHACHNER-And what was proposed at the ZBA was a seven foot setback? MR. VOLLARO-Was the seven foot setback. MR. SCHACHNER-So there was a variance for 13 feet, or of 13 feet. Am I correct? MR. VOLLARO-The variance is two feet. They gave a seven foot setback. MR. MAC EWAN-No, no. What Mark’s saying is right. MR. SCHACHNER-Twenty feet is what’s required. Seven feet is what was applied for. So the variance granted was a variance of 13 feet. Am I right? MR. VOLLARO-That’s correct. MR. SCHACHNER-Okay, and what you’re saying, this is supposed to be a question, it doesn’t sound like it. What you’re saying is that in fact the plan is showing actually only five foot setback. So what the ZBA should have been considering was a request for a 15 foot variance, not a 13 foot variance? MR. VOLLARO-That’s correct, based on what I see in front of me. Yes. MR. SCHACHNER-Does the applicant have any reason to disagree with that? MR. DUVALL-It’s very possible that my figures are wrong there, but when I measure at the property, it comes out to seven feet and maybe a few inches. 11 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/27/99) MR. VOLLARO-All I can do is cast judgement on what I have in front of me. MR. DUVALL-I understand. MR. SCHACHNER-Well, from what the applicant’s saying, it sounds like perhaps the plan that we have in front of us now is inaccurate, the plan that’s showing five feet. I think the applicant is saying that the seven foot is correct. Is that correct that’s what you’re saying? MR. DUVALL-That’s right. MR. SCHACHNER-That should be verified and cleared up, I agree with you, but if that’s true, then there’s no Zoning Board of Appeals error. We need to have the accurate information in front of us. MR. VOLLARO-But I think the Zoning Board of Appeals had the same documentation in front of them that I have. MR. SCHACHNER-Well, that may be, but I would not suggest, as Counsel to both Boards, that, if the documentation is inaccurate, and in fact seven feet is correct, then to me the answer is not to have the Zoning Board re-review a variance based on wrong information. The answer is, lets get the right information. MR. MAC EWAN-It sounds like what he needs to do is correct the drawing, at building permit time or sit down with the owners and say, we’ve got to shave two feet somewhere. MR. SCHACHNER-Yes, because if seven feet’s what’s been granted, then that’s what should be built. Correct. MR. PALING-I have a question. Is this the final set of drawings we’re looking at, or will there be more to come? MR. DUVALL-I believe this will be the final set. MR. MAC EWAN-At this point, they won’t be. If we approve this, you’ll need to revise the drawings to put accurate dimensions on them. MR. DUVALL-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. BREWER-I have a question. How does, I’m just a little bit confused. If he’s taking sheds down, how do we translate that into living space? In other words, you’re demolishing sheds, and putting in living space, and say you’re only adding 30 feet, but are those sheds, in fact, living space now? MR. DUVALL-They’re storage sheds. I don’t understand how to interpret the carport as personal living space. MR. BREWER-Well, I guess I would say that, I guess it’s a little bit confusing to me. If I have a storage shed at my house, it’s a storage shed. It’s not living space. Do you know what I’m saying? What they’re saying on the drawing is they’re eliminating storage space. Is it cold storage? MR. DUVALL-Yes. MR. BREWER-Okay. So then it could be living space. Or it couldn’t. MR. DUVALL-I don’t think it could be unless you. MR. BREWER-So I guess what I’m asking is, if we’re eliminating like, to me a shed would be to store my wheel barrel, my lawn mower, and you’re going to encompass living space. How do you trade tit for tat, so to speak? MRS. MOORE-You’re looking at the new footprint. MR. BREWER-So it’s just the footprint we’re concerned with, not whether it’s living space or not living space? MRS. MOORE-Well, it has to meet the definition of living space. MR. BREWER-Do storage sheds meet the definition of living space? 12 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/27/99) MRS. MOORE-But his new space does. He’s creating new living space. So that space comes into play. You have to consider the whole thing. If it meets the definition of living space, then that’s his whole new living space area. MR. BREWER-Right. I understand that, but is the existing portion of what he’s taking away considered living space? Do you understand what I’m saying, or don’t you? I don’t have a problem with what he’s doing. I just don’t understand something. MR. VOSS-Yes, Tim, I think I understand what you’re saying, but I think the position is, one, they’re mutually exclusive. One doesn’t have anything to do with the other. MR. BREWER-Okay, one doesn’t have anything to do with the other. MR. VOSS-In this instance, yes. He could simply take those storage sheds and move them to another location on the property and still do the addition. It’s not a trade off, simply, of storage space versus living space. MR. BREWER-Okay. MR. VOSS-Again, like I said, they’re mutually exclusive. MR. BREWER-All right. MR. DUVALL-In the same respect, then, if you’re considering the living space a heated area, part of this addition will be a garage that will not be a heated area also. MR. BREWER-No, I guess I’m saying because there was a variance involved, does the storage space grant you living space room, if you understand what I’m trying to get at. MR. DUVALL-I think I do. MR. BREWER-I don’t know. It’s confusing. MR. DUVALL-It was confusing trying to figure out how to present this to you so you’d understand what I was trying to do. MR. BREWER-I understand exactly what you’re trying to do. That’s all I want to know. MR. VOLLARO-I just want to make sure that the site development data and the floor area ratio worksheets are re-calculated with the correct numbers. They’re incorrect as they stand. MR. MAC EWAN-How does that fit into our scheme of things here, with this application? MRS. MOORE-You can have the applicant meet with Staff again and go through, step by step, with the calculations. MR. MAC EWAN-As a condition of approval or something? MRS. MOORE-That’s up to you, yes. MR. MAC EWAN-What do you suggest? MRS. MOORE-I feel that he’s demonstrated on his drawings what he’s going to do. I think what occurred was this encompassing of the garage and trying to demonstrate how much new living space he’s having, in addition to what the garage is showing. I feel he had a difficulty trying to come up with the square footage, and I think that we could help him with that at Staff level. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MRS. LA BOMBARD-I've been gone and I didn’t get a chance to see it. So I’m having a tough time here, unfortunately. MR. PALING-How tall is the new addition to the peak of the roof? MR. DUVALL-I know 20 feet is the limit, and I believe it’s going to fall within that, but I just had the truss designs, they were specking those out for me, and I think it’s going to be about 15 feet. MR. PALING-Are these footings the right distance between each other? 13 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/27/99) MRS. MOORE-That’s something you’d have to ask the Building Department. That’s not. MR. PALING-I’m not at ease with this set of prints. I just think there’s too many questions that are not clear, and you’re going to do a fine job I’m sure, but I’d kind of like to see what, I’d like to understand it on the prints we’re looking at, and I wonder how you’d build from these prints. I see Homosote is on there. I thought that was a forbidden material? Homosote? MRS. LA BOMBARD-What’s that? MR. PALING-Homosote’s the stuff that they used to use for siding, that absorbs moisture and gets in all kinds of trouble. MR. DUVALL-It was suggested we use that, just where the floor meets the blocks, as a thermal break. MR. PALING-Okay. I’m not comfortable with the prints. I’d like to see something I totally understand. When you can’t tell me for sure how high the building is, and some other stuff, I’m not comfortable with it. MR. MAC EWAN-I’m just wondering if, considering the information that we have on here, and that some of it’s lacking, and there’s obviously a significant amount of confusion amongst Board members, that we shouldn’t just table this thing and have you revise your drawings, get together with Staff and re-do your data for your application here, make sure that everything’s in compliance, and set up a set of drawings that we can fully understand, and that Building and Codes would understand as well. Okay? MR. DUVALL-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-How does the rest of the Board feel about that? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Then maybe I can get out there. MR. MAC EWAN-With your blessing, we’ll table this thing. MR. DUVALL-Okay. All right. Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. So we’re clear on what you have to do now? MR. DUVALL-I’ll talk with Staff about it. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. They’ll be more than willing to help you. MR. DUVALL-Okay. Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-You’re welcome. MRS. MOORE-Craig, did you open up the public hearing? MR. MAC EWAN-No. I’ll open up the public hearing on this application, and we’ll leave it open. Thanks. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED SITE PLAN NO. 15-99 TYPE II JOHN STAALSEN OWNER: SAME ZONE: WR-1A, GF-18 CEA LOCATION: GLEN LAKE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES A 3,828.5 SQ. FT. ADDITION AND PLACEMENT OF A NEW SEPTIC SYSTEM TO AN EXISTING YEAR ROUND CAMP TO CREATE A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE. ENLARGEMENT OF A NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE WITHIN A CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL AREA REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 18-1999 TAX MAP NO. 43-2-1.1 LOT SIZE: 1.42 ACRES SECTION: 179-16, 179-79 MR. MAC EWAN-This application is also going to be tabled, pending, I believe, a ZBA determination, and we’ll open up the public hearing and leave it open. Does anybody want to come up and comment on this application? You’re welcome to do so, but we’ll leave this application open. 14 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/27/99) PUBLIC HEARING OPENED SITE PLAN NO. 16-99 TYPE II HOWLAND CONSTRUCTION OWNER: STEVEN & CATHIE SCHONWETTER ZONE: WR-1A, CEA, APA LOCATION: END OF HOLIDAY POINT, OFF SEELYE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 572 SQ. FT. ATTACHED CARPORT, REMOVAL OF EXISTING STORAGE SHED, AND CONSTRUCTION OF A DOCK WITH A SUNDECK. ENLARGEMENT OF A NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE IN A CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL AREA AND COVERED DOCKS REQUIRE PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. LAKE GEORGE PARK COMMISSION CROSS RERERENCE: AV 22-1999 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 4/14/99 TAX MAP NO. 16-1-1-24.1 LOT SIZE: 0.43 ACRES SECTION: 179-16, 179-79 MR. MAC EWAN-This one also is being tabled because of ZBA action that’s pending. We’ll open up the public hearing on this one as well, and we’ll leave that open. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED OLD BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 5-99 TYPE: UNLISTED STEVEN & DONNA SUTTON OWNERS: SAME ZONE: HC-1A LOCATION: 1066 ROUTE 9 APPLICANT PROPOSES A 7,200 SQ. FT. WAREHOUSE AND A 1,600 SQ. FT. ADDITION TO THE “TOY COTTAGE” AND ASSOCIATED SITEWORK. PER § 179-23 RETAIL BUSINESSES AND CUSTOMARY ACCESSORY USES ARE ALLOWED USES IN THE HC-1A ZONE AND ARE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 441, 490, SPEC. PERMIT 83, SP 49-89, UV 120- 1992, AV 119-1992, SP 52-92, 39-96, 18-97 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 3/10/99 TAX MAP NO. 68-1-15, 13.2 LOT SIZE: 6.86 ACRES SECTION: 179-23 MR. MAC EWAN-As a footnote to members of the audience, the application that they had in front of us for Site Plan No. 5-99, which was a combination of the addition for the Toy Store and the Warehouse has been withdrawn. We are only going to be listening to the application tonight for an addition to the Toy Store and nothing else. Just an addition to the Toy Store. NEW BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 17-99 TYPE II STEVEN SUTTON OWNER: SAME ZONE: HC-1A LOCATION: 1066 ROUTE 9 APPLICANT PROPOSES A 1,500 SQ. FT. ADDITION TO EXISTING “TOY COTTAGE” STORE. CONSTRUCTION OF NEW FACILITIES REQUIRES SITE PLAN REVIEW AND APPROVAL PER SECTION 179-23 – HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL ZONE. WARREN CO. PLANNING: 4/14/99 TAX MAP NO. 68-1-13.2, 15 LOT SIZE: 1.03 ACRES SECTION: 179-23 TOM NACE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; STEVE SUTTON, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 17-99, Steven Sutton, Meeting Date: April 27, 1999 “Description of Project: The applicant proposes a 1500 square foot addition to an existing commercial structure. This expansion will be primarily utilized for retail space for the “Toy Cottage”. The application complies with the Site Plan Review requirements of Article Five for site plan review and Section 179- 23 for Highway Commercial Zoning. Staff Notes: The applicant met with Staff prior to submission to discuss access, site layout, and conformance with the Code. The applicant has addressed the issues of the site. Recommendation: Staff would recommend approval of the site plan. Staff would request the applicant provide a note on the final plans about interconnection to the south of the property per Section 179-66.1.” MRS. MOORE-Warren County comments, “No County Impact”. MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it? MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening. MR. NACE-Okay. For the record, Tom Nace and Steve Sutton. MR. MAC EWAN-Go ahead, the floor is yours. 15 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/27/99) MR. NACE-Okay. I guess you’ve all seen this as part of the previous application. The only issue that has been brought up is really the interconnection of the parking lots, and I presume what Staff is commenting about is keeping an access between the existing commercial properties to the south of us and the parking lot here. That could be done by losing two parking spaces. I think we already have an additional, we have three more than we need. So it’s no big deal if they would like us to do that. That could be done. MR. MAC EWAN-We’ve been striving for it, in the last couple of years with applications. MR. NACE-In this particular case, I hadn’t done it originally because of the near, the closeness of that access to the ingress/egress area, and safety issues, but it can be done. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else? MR. NACE-No. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s it? MR. NACE-Do you have anything, Steve? MR. SUTTON-Not unless you have questions. MR. SCHACHNER-My only question is, I believe the very first statement Mr. Nace made was that this application is part of the previous application. MR. NACE-No. I made the statement that they had seen this particular site as part of the previous application. Okay. It is now a separate application. The previous application has been withdrawn. MR. SCHACHNER-That’s exactly what the record should reflect. MR. MAC EWAN-The siding on the building is going to be the same as what you currently have on the Toy Cottage? MR. SUTTON-Yes. It’s all going to be new roof, same siding, same basic motif. Nice window facing the north, facing the complex, a few windows to the south. We're trying to keep that cottage look on the front of it. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Anything else? We’ll open up the public hearing, then. Does anybody want to come up and comment to this application? You’re more than welcome to do so. Please identify yourself for the record. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED CHARLES MC NULTY MR. MC NULTY-I’m Charles McNulty. I live at 14 Twicwood Lane. First off a question. I heard you say that you’re opening the review of Site Plan No. 5-99, and then you said that was withdrawn. Are we now onto new business in Site Plan No. 17-99? MR. MAC EWAN-No, that’s a mistake. We should be dealing with 17-99, not that 5-99. That has been withdrawn. MR. MC NULTY-Okay. I think my main concern that remains now is I’m wondering what comes next after this, whether Mr. Sutton’s going to come back in next month or in the next two months with an application for a warehouse again? MR. MAC EWAN-That’s not germane to this application, Mr. McNulty. MR. MC NULTY-But it is, because this amounts to segregation. MR. MAC EWAN-Segregation? You mean segmentation. MR. MC NULTY-Segmentation. Whatever you want to call it. It ends up that now instead of dealing with the original proposal, which had two impacts, he has now siphoned off the more controversial. He’s dealing with this. What he does with the Toy Cottage may or may not affect what he options that he could have used with the warehouse. Now, if he’s withdrawn the warehouse and doesn’t intend to come back with that, that’s one thing, but otherwise, I would just submit to 16 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/27/99) you that it’s a very effective way of splitting the two issues and dealing with one now, and then we get that, we’ll come back and we’ll nickel and dime and get another thing. MR. MAC EWAN-The only thing I can tell you is that the application’s been withdrawn. So for this Board’s review process, we’re only reviewing the application that’s currently in front of us. MR. SCHACHNER-Craig, I think in fairness to the commentor, I think we can actually tell him a bit more, merely by reading into the record Mr. Sutton’s letter. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. That’s fine. MR. SCHACHNER-Who should do that? MR. MAC EWAN-We’ll have Laura do it. MRS. MOORE-All right. This is addressed to Chris Round, “Please be advised that we wish to withdraw our application, Site Plan No. 5-99 to construct a 7,200 square foot addition and the addition to the Toy Store. At this time, we had decided to look at other alternatives for both storage and additional sales areas for the furniture store. We do not anticipate re-applying during this building season, but would anticipate applying some time in 2000.” MR. MAC EWAN-Okay? MR. MC NULTY-Okay. Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-You’re very welcome. Anyone else? Any other comments? PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MAC EWAN-We need to do a SEQRA. MRS. MOORE-No, you do not. MR. MAC EWAN-No, we don’t. You’re right. Type II. Is there anything you wanted to add, hearing the application? MR. NACE-No. MR. MAC EWAN-Any questions from members of the Board? Staff? MRS. MOORE-No. MR. MAC EWAN-Does someone want to put a motion up? MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 17-99 STEVEN SUTTON, Introduced by Timothy Brewer who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Stark: For a 1500 square foot addition to an existing commercial structure, as written per Staff resolution, with a note on the plan about the interconnection. Whereas, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of Site Plan No. 17-99 Steven & Donna Sutton to construct a 1,500 sq. ft. addition to the “Toy Cottage” and associated sitework; and Whereas, the above mentioned application, received 2/24/99, consists of the following: 1. Application w/maps, SP-1, SP-2, SP-3 2. Map SP-1, SP-2, SP-3 dated 3/24/99 Whereas, the above file is supported with the following documentation: 1. 4/27/99 - Staff Notes 2. 4/14/99 – Warren Co. Planning Bd. resolution Whereas, a public hearing was held on 4/27/99 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 17 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/27/99) 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 approve Site Plan No. 17-99 for Steven & Donna Sutton. 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 27 day of April, 1999, by the following vote: th MR. BREWER-Tom, you’re going to make a note on there for the interconnection? MR. NACE-Yes, I will AYES: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Paling, Mr. Stark, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set, gentlemen. MR. NACE-Thank you very much. MR. MAC EWAN-Any other business in front of the Board? I’ll make a motion to adjourn. MR. BREWER-Second. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Craig MacEwan, Chairman 18