Loading...
2000-08-22 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/22/00) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 22, 2000 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT CRAIG MAC EWAN, CHAIRMAN CATHERINE LA BOMBARD, SECRETARY LARRY RINGER JOHN STROUGH CHRIS HUNSINGER ANTHONY METIVIER ROBERT VOLLARO PLANNER-LAURA MOORE TOWN COUNSEL-MILLER, MANNIX & PRATT-CATHI RADNER STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. MAC EWAN-We’re going to do a couple of things first. The first item on the agenda is Stone Cast. NEW BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 57-2000 TYPE: UNLISTED STONE CAST, INC. OWNER: DAVID DYMINSKI ZONE: LI-1A LOCATION: 39 BOULEVARD APPLICANT PROPOSES A 60’ X 150’ SINGLE STORY LIGHT MANUFACTURING FACILITY AND A 60’ X 65’ FREIGHT TERMINAL BUILDING. LIGHT MANUFACTURING FACILITY AND FREIGHT TERMINAL I LI ZONES REQUIRE PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 9-1989, AV 10-1989, SP 5-89, SP 53-2000 BEAUTIFICATION COMM.: 8/7/00 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 8/9/00 TAX MAP NO. 112-1-15.1 LOT SIZE: 2.56 ACRES SECTION: 179-26 KEVIN HASTINGS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. MAC EWAN-And it’s my understanding you haven’t address C.T. Male concerns, as of yet. Right? You haven’t responded? Could you identify yourself for the record? MR. HASTINGS-Kevin Hastings, Consulting Engineer. We have responded to C.T. Male’s comments, but we have not revised our plans to reflect that. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. HASTINGS-For the record. MR. MAC EWAN-And we have not received comments from C.T. Male addressing your response to them. What I’m inclined to want to do, and hopefully the Board will go along with me, is to table this application until we get everything signed off, so that we start fresh. We’re not going to sit here and discuss something to turn around and have to table it after a lengthy discussion. Okay. Has anybody got any significant points they want to bring up regarding this application that maybe hasn’t been addressed here, that you’ve seen already in your Staff notes or in their information? So that when they come back they can be prepared to answer your questions? MR. RINGER-The only thing I had was the comments from C.T. Male. MR. MAC EWAN-How does the Board feel about that, that we go ahead and table this until we get the response from C.T. Male, and they have to revise their drawings as well. Correct? All right. What I’ll do is I’ll open up the public hearing for this application. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. MAC EWAN-And we’ll leave it open, and would someone introduce a motion, please, to table this application to our first meeting in September. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 57-2000 STONE CAST, INC., Introduced by Larry Ringer who moved for its adoption, seconded by Catherine LaBombard: 1 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/22/00) Until the first meeting in September, September 19, the reason being that we’re waiting for th comments back from C.T. Male. Duly adopted this 22 day of August, 2000, by the following vote: nd AYES: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Strough, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE MR. MAC EWAN-We’ll see you the first meeting in September. Thank you. SITE PLAN NO. 56-2000 TYPE: UNLISTED CHURCH OF THE KING OWNER: SAME AGENT: ROBERT FLANSBURG ZONE: MR-5 LOCATION: 685 BAY ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A CHURCH. ALL USES IN MR ZONES REQUIRE PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 50-2000 BEAUTIFICATION COMM.: 8/7/00 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 8/9/00 TAX MAP NO. 60-7-2.1 LOT SIZE: 1.06 ACRES SECTION: 179-18 ROBERT FLANSBURG, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. MAC EWAN-The same scenario applies to your application as well. We’re waiting for comments to come back from C.T. Male. We haven’t gotten C.T. Male’s responses back yet. Right? MRS. MOORE-Right. MR. MAC EWAN-Are there any questions that Board members have regarding this application, that maybe can be addressed while we’re tabling this? MR. STROUGH-Nothing beyond C.T. Male’s. MR. VOLLARO-I do. It has to do with C.T. Male, but I’d like to ask that C.T. Male comment on Number Five, that I would like a statement from the Building Inspector that addresses Number Five completely, and also take a look at Drawing 97.5 of that submission, because there’s a lot of detail on that drawing concerning septics, and I would like the Building Inspector to comment on that if he could. That’s my only comment. MR. MAC EWAN-Larry? Tony? MR. RINGER-No comments. MR. METIVIER-No. MR. HUNSINGER-I had just a point of clarification. The original application talked about seating for 500 and all the future documents spoke to 300. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, there was a letter that was addressed that changed the 500 to 300. MR. HUNSINGER-My apology. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else? MRS. LA BOMBARD-Should we just save all this? MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Save the Stone Cast, too? MR. MAC EWAN-That’s correct. Hang on to them. MR. RINGER-Laura, did you get Bob’s comments about the Building Inspector commenting? MR. MOORE-I’m writing them down now. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. There’s also a public hearing scheduled for tonight. I’ll open the public hearing. If anyone wants to comment, you are welcome to comment, but we are going to keep this public hearing open until our first meeting in September, which will be September the 19. Okay. th PUBLIC HEARING OPENED 2 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/22/00) MR. MAC EWAN-Is there anything that you wanted to add? MR. FLANSBURG-Can you explain to me what C.T. Male is responsible for? MR. MAC EWAN-C.T. Male is our Consulting Engineers to the Planning Board who review all of our site plan and subdivision applications for not only completeness, but to make sure that they comply with the Zoning Ordinance, and I understand there are some outstanding questions that they have regarding your application that just need to be addressed. MR. FLANSBURG-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Do you have a copy of them? Did you ever receive them? MR. FLANSBURG-I haven’t, but it’s possible that our engineer did. MR. MAC EWAN-If you didn’t, would you call the Planning Office and ask for Mrs. Moore tomorrow, and she’ll be sure that you get a copy of it. MR. FLANSBURG-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-You should have received them. MR. FLANSBURG-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-All right. Would someone introduce a motion to table, please? MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 56-2000 CHURCH OF THE KING, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Larry Ringer: Until September 19, which is the first meeting in September of the Planning Board. The reason for th tabling is to receive information from C.T. Male, as a response to their letter of August 17, 2000. Duly adopted this 22 day of August, 2000, by the following vote: nd AYES: Mr. Ringer, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Strough, Mr. Hunsinger, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE MR. MAC EWAN-We’ll see you next month. MR. FLANSBURG-Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. Thanks for your patience. SITE PLAN NO. 54-2000 RECOMMENDATION MONTRAY HEIGHTS MOBILE HOME PARK OWNER: GEORGE KOUBA ZONE: SFR-1A LOCATION: MONTRAY ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES A BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT BETWEEN THEIR RESIDENTIAL LOT AND THE MOBILE HOME PARK. IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 113-23 OF THE TOWN’S MOBILE HOME ORDINANCE ANY MODIFICATION TO A LICENSED MOBILE HOME PARK REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATION TO THE TOWN BOARD. CROSS REFERENCE: TB RES. (7/24/00) TAX MAP NO. 70-3-8.2, 70-3-7 LOT SIZE: 0.72 ACRES, 1.70 ACRES SECTION: 113-23 GEORGE KOUBA, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 54-2000, Montray Heights Mobile Home Park, Meeting Date: August 22, 2000 “Project Description The applicant proposes boundary line adjustment to the Montray Heights Mobile Home park and a residential parcel. The boundary line adjustment affects the size of the residential lot and the mobile home park. Project Analysis (Section 179-38) The proposed use as reviewed by staff was found to be compliant with Sections 179-38 A, B, C, D and E of the Town Code and Section 113-23 of the Town’s Mobile Home regulation. The modification to a mobile home park requires Planning Board site plan review and Town Board approval. Site Overview The proposed lot line has been placed to accommodate the setback distances from the house and the mobile home. The main parcel 70-3-8.2 will increase from 30,000 3 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/22/00) to 32,726 square feet. The zone for the area is SFR-1A, the revised residential lot is considered more conforming because the zone requires one acre. Traffic, Circulation, Parking The proposal does not affect the existing travel pattern of vehicles to the mobile home park or the residential parcels. Utility, Stormwater, Landscaping, Emergency Services The proposal does not affect any utilities, septic system, stormwater management, or emergency services to the mobile home park or the residential parcel. Conclusions The proposal does not alter the existing operation of the mobile home park. Suggestions The Planning Board is to make a recommendation for approval or denial to the Town Board.” MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Anything else? MRS. MOORE-No. MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening. MR. KOUBA-Good evening. George Kouba, 80 Montray Road. MR. MAC EWAN-Mr. Kouba, could you tell us a little bit about your application? MR. KOUBA-Yes. You see, I want to change the residential lot lines in order to get adequate side line and setbacks from the garage building that’s shown on the map as framed garage. Presently, that is less than what’s required. When that was done was about 15 years ago, as I remember. It was just a haphazard sketching of the property without a survey. Now I’ve had this surveyed, and we find that it would be better to do it as we have proposed, getting 20 feet away from the garage, 20 feet away from the screened in porch on the mobile home, and also we want to extend the frontage to the full 200 feet of those two lots. It was 100 feet. There were three 100 foot lots, and the house, the residence was on the center lot, but an addition was placed onto the house. Again, it’s about 15 years, maybe 14, and at that time, we took 50 feet of that 125 lot, to get side clearance, but now I want to go the full 200 feet, so that, in the future, that will be a complete residential lot, and it will not be part of the mobile home park, and it would preclude the possibility of any driveway ever being built on that frontage over at the 125 lot. Do you follow that at all? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-We’re following you, I think. MR. KOUBA-Okay. So, that’s the sum of it, as I see it. It’s just a plain and simple lot line adjustment. It’s not effecting the outer, it’s not effecting anybody else’s property. MR. MAC EWAN-For Staff, by creating this, he’s going to meet all the setbacks and stuff? He won’t need any variances or anything to continue on through? MRS. MOORE-Right, yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Tony, we’ll start with you, any questions? MR. METIVIER-I guess I’m confused. You want to create, so you can’t put any mobile homes on this property? MR. KOUBA-Yes, of course, absolutely. MR. METIVIER-And that’s your only intention, really, here? MR. KOUBA-That’s not my only intention. I want to make the property more enticing, more residential, by going the full 200 feet, and I can, in the rear, I can create a fence to screen that mobile home park from the residents. As it is, many people don’t even know there’s a mobile home park there. They’ll never know there’s a mobile home park there when I get done with it. MR. METIVIER-Okay. That’s all. That’s fine. MR. MAC EWAN-Larry? MR. RINGER-No. This looks straightforward. MR. MAC EWAN-Bob? MR. VOLLARO-I don’t have any questions at all. MR. MAC EWAN-Cathy? Chris? 4 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/22/00) MR. HUNSINGER-No, I thought it was pretty straightforward. MR. MAC EWAN-John? MR. STROUGH-No questions. MR. MAC EWAN-We have a public hearing. Does anyone want to comment on this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MAC EWAN-Does someone want to introduce a resolution? MOTION TO RECOMMEND TO THE TOWN BOARD TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 54-2000 MONTRAY HEIGHTS MOBILE HOME PARK, Introduced by Larry Ringer who moved for its adoption, seconded by Anthony Metivier: To approve the lot line adjustment as presented. Duly adopted this 22 day of August, 2000, by the following vote: nd AYES: Mr. Metivier, Mr. Strough, Mr. Hunsinger, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set, Mr. Kouba. Good luck. MR. KOUBA-Thank you very much. SITE PLAN NO. 55-2000 RECOMMENDATION QUEENSBURY VILLAGE MOBILE HOME PARK OWNER: SAME AGENT: GARY MATTISON ZONE: MHO LOCADTION: PETRIE LANE, OFF WARREN LANE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO EXPAND THE EXISTING 49 LOT MOBILE HOME PARK BY FOUR (4) LOTS FOR A TOTAL OF 53 LOTS. IN ACCORDANCE WITH TOWN CODE § 113-23, & 17 ANY MODIFICATION TO AN EXISTING MOBILE HOME PARK IS FIRST REFERRED BY THE TOWN BOARD TO THE PLANNING BOARD FOR REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATION. CROSS REFERENCE: TB RESOLUTION 287, 2000 TAX MAP NO. 121-6-59, 121-6-61 LOT SIZE: 36,570 SQ. FT. SECTION: 113-23, 17 GARY MATTISON, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 55-2000, Queensbury Village Mobile Home Park, Meeting Date: August 22, 2000 “Project Description The applicant proposes to expand an existing mobile home park with four new lots. The new lots are approximately 7,300 square feet. They are located near the entrance of the park and are adjacent to the existing mobile home lots. Project Analysis (Section 179- 38) The proposed use as reviewed by staff was found to be compliant with Sections 179-38 A, B, C, D and E of the Town Code and Section 113-23 of the Town’s Mobile Home regulation. The proposed addition of four new mobile home lots requires a Planning board Recommendation and Town Board approval. Site Overview The lot arrangement is consistent with the existing mobile home lots in the park. The mobile home lay out is also consistent with the surrounding mobile homes. The applicant has explained some of the improvements made within the park including removal of accessory structures and improving landscaping. Traffic, Circulation, Parking The proposal will not alter the traffic circulation or parking within the mobile home park. Utility, Stormwater, Landscaping, Emergency Services The proposal has been referred to the Water Department for review and comment in regards to the water connection. The proposal will not affect existing stormwater, landscaping, or emergency services. The applicant has indicated the NYSDOH will be reviewing the septic systems. Conclusions The proposal is consistent with the existing mobile home park and will not affect the layout or operation of the park. Suggestions The Planning Board is to make a recommendation for approval or denial to the Town Board.” MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else? 5 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/22/00) MRS. MOORE-No. MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening. MR. MATTISON-Good evening. My name is Gary Mattison, and I represent Mr. Samuel Wahnon, the owner of Queensbury Mobile Home Park. Mr. Wahnon purchased the existing park from the Converse family several years ago, and not too long after that time, Mrs. Converse had mentioned to Mr. Wahnon that there was a landlocked parcel that was going up for tax sale by the Town of Queensbury, and that it might be in his best interest to acquire that piece of property, and continue the homes down that line. This is the map depicting the existing park as you see it, the surrounding properties, and in blue here is the annexed parcel, and the parcel that we’re requesting the additional four lots. The minimum size requirement for a lot in a mobile home park in the Town of Queensbury is 6,000 square feet. We’re proposing 7,275 square feet per lot. Mr. Wahnon, since he has purchased the park, has taken great measure to clean it up, remove the existing, some of the existing older homes, and his intention is to put new and newer homes in the park. We have recently paved half of the road portion of the park, and next week we will be completing all of the infrastructure remaining, as far as roads, sewer and well, septic and well. We’ve also spent about $40,000, and we will be planting trees and shrubs, in hopes of making this a Class A facility, and a nice place for people to live, who choose to live in the Town of Queensbury. The annexation of these four lots will not require any additional roadwork. The main entrance to the park is here. The road is in place here and runs by the proposed four lot addition. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Anything else? MR. MATTISON-I have nothing. I’d be more than happy to answer any questions. MR. MAC EWAN-Larry, I’ll start with you. Any questions? MR. RINGER-No, no questions on it. MR. MAC EWAN-Bob? MR. VOLLARO-I have two, and it’s right off the Staff notes. I don’t know if anybody’s read them, but there’s, the proposal has been referred to the Water Department for review and comment. Has that come back yet? MRS. MOORE-I’m sorry, no, and I forgot to follow up on that today. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. RINGER-Are they hooked up to Town water? MRS. MOORE-That’s my understanding. MR. MATTISON-Yes, we are. MR. VOLLARO-So there’s Town water on the property, that’s what you’re saying? MR. MATTISON-That’s correct. MR. VOLLARO-What was the reasoning behind asking the Water Department to review this? MRS. MOORE-I just wanted to confirm that they had the proper connections to hook up, and I’m assuming there is, because he did not respond back. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Well, you would like to get a response from the Water Department, though? MRS. MOORE-I can. I forgot to follow up on that today. MR. VOLLARO-Okay, and you’ve indicated that the Department of Health will be reviewing the septic system? MR. MATTISON-Yes. We have approved septic systems for the existing Park, and we will be continuing with that same design. There will only be two septic systems. There’s one septic system for every two units, and they will be as designed originally and approved by New York State, and will be inspected as they’re put in, yes, sir. MR. VOLLARO-Again, on the septic systems, on all septic systems, I’d like, I’m going to try to cultivate the idea that the Building Department constantly take a look at septic systems and get them 6 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/22/00) out of the Planning Board’s purview, in terms of having to deal with whether they’re big enough or whether there’s enough drainage, whether the perc is right, etc., etc., and I would like to see, I don’t know if the rest of the Board agrees with that or not. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s part of the building permit application process. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Then we should, even though it’s on the drawing, we should never have to deal with it, if it’s part of the building process, as I agree that it is. MR. MAC EWAN-It never hurts to ask questions, if anyone has a question, but it is, it’s part of the Building and Codes review process. MR. VOLLARO-Okay, and those are the only questions I had on it, and they’re right off, they’re not something, they’re right out of Staff notes. So, I don’t have anything else. MR. MAC EWAN-Cathy? Chris? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. MAC EWAN-John? MR. STROUGH-Just one short one. Is the mailbox canopy going to stay there? MR. MATTISON-We are probably going to move the mailbox canopy, if we find it necessary. We may only use three of the lots. We’d like to have the ability to use four, but we haven’t really decided. If we do relocate them, if it’s necessary, we’ll come back. If it’s not, we’ll find a spot and relocate the mailboxes, because you’re correct, they sit right there where the first additional lot would be. MR. STROUGH-Some of the lots out in back haven’t been rented out, you know, when market conditions prevail for that kind of thing? MR. MATTISON-Yes, sir. MR. STROUGH-No further questions. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. We have a public hearing scheduled tonight. Does anyone want to comment on this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED PETER SMITH MR. SMITH-My name is Peter Smith, and I don’t have a lot of data on this so far, but the first question that comes to mind is, is there really going to be a lot of open space for the residents of this Park? If you take a closer look, there’s no overlays. As I come up here, I can’t really see any detail as to where, you see where the four new trailers are going to go? I’d like to see overlays of each system, septic, roadway, etc. This is really just a rough sketch. MR. MAC EWAN-They’re on our drawing. They’re on that drawing, too. MR. MATTISON-Yes, they’re just lighter in color. MR. SMITH-I’d like a copy of that, if I could get one. MR. MAC EWAN-You can either deal with the applicant here, or through FOIL request you can get it through the Planning Department. MR. SMITH-Okay. MR. RINGER-Or after the meeting you can have one of ours, if it’s approved tonight. MR. SMITH-I guess my question then is, will there be any open space? Besides this 7200 square feet per trailer. MR. MAC EWAN-Per lot, per trailer lot, yes. MR. VOLLARO-For those four lots that we’re looking at there. 7 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/22/00) MR. SMITH-Yes, how about the others? MR. MAC EWAN-We’re only dealing with these four, because it’s an extension of this Park. The other ones are already pre-approved. Am I understand that correctly? MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-It’s an existing Park. MR. SMITH-So nobody knows how many square feet the others have? MR. VOLLARO-I’ll give it to you, if you want. MR. SMITH-All right. If they can find it, it would help. The concern comes up, though, for open space. Is there any? MR. MAC EWAN-You’re looking for like recreational area to be set aside? MR. SMITH-Sure. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. We’ll get that answered for you. MR. SMITH-Yes, that’s the first thing that came to my mind, when I thought about this project. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Anything else? MR. SMITH-That’s pretty much it. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. SMITH-Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Thanks. Mr. Mattison, do you want to come back up, please. Is there going to be any recreational space, open space set aside within the Park for recreational or just aesthetic purposes? MR. MATTISON-Yes, Mr. Chairman. You’ll notice that down in the lower left hand corner, there’s a lot that is twice the size of a lot for the placement of a home at the end that’s been set aside and approved by this Board for recreational purposes. It’s there. It currently isn’t being used. We have four different Parks, and this Park, for the most part, is an adult theme Park. We don’t refuse to put families in there, but I don’t see that many families going in. This is more of an adult park, but there already is existing space. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Thank you. Any other questions, comments from Board members? Staff? Did I close that public hearing? If I didn’t, I did now. It’s closed. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MAC EWAN-Does someone want to introduce a resolution, please. MOTION TO RECOMMEND TO THE TOWN BOARD TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 55-2000 QUEENSBURY VILLAGE MOBILE HOME PARK, Introduced by Larry Ringer who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro: To approve the four additional lots. Duly adopted this 22 day of August, 2000, by the following vote: nd AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Strough, Mr. Hunsinger, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE MR. VOLLARO-6300. MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set. MR. MATTISON-Thank you very much. 8 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/22/00) MR. MAC EWAN-Good luck. Next item. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Site Plan No. 61-2000 Type II for James and Deborah Mason. MR. MAC EWAN-Is anyone here representing the Masons? Okay. Let’s hold that one over and move on to the next one. SITE PLAN NO. 33-2000 TYPE II PETER & KAREN BOGERT OWNER: SAME AGENT: JAMES SCHOONOVER ZONE: WR-1A, CEA, APA, LOCATION: 133 SEELYE ROAD, CLEVERDALE APPLICANT PROPOSES REMOVAL OF AN EXISTING BOATHOUSE COVER AND CONSTRUCTION OF A 780 SQ. FT. SUNDECK. COVERED DOCKS IN WR ZONES REQUIRE PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 39-2000 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 5/10/00 TAX MAP NO. 16-1-35 LOT SIZE: 0.30 ACRES SECTION: 179- 16 PETER & KAREN BOGERT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 33-2000, Peter & Karen Bogert, Meeting Date: August 22, 2000 “Project Description The application has been tabled since May of 2000 because the zoning board of appeals requested the applicant revise the plans for a smaller sundeck. The applicant currently proposes an open-side boat house with a 616 square foot sundeck. The existing boathouse will be repaired and a portion replaced for maintenance and stability. The applicant’s have received an area variance AV39-2000 for setback relief. The zoning board had condition the approval that there be no land bridge. Project Analysis (Section 179-38) The proposed use as reviewed by staff was found to be compliant with Sections 179-38 A, B, C, D and E of the Town Code. The proposed use is an allowed use within the zone. Site Overview The boat house will be placed in the same location as the original boathouse, with the exception of adding a sundeck. The applicant’s first sundeck proposal was for a 780 square foot sundeck. They have reduced the size to 616 square feet. The applicant’s pictures of the neighboring docks, sundecks, and boathouses indicate the proposal is within the same character and does not appear to infringe upon neighboring views. The applicant has supplied letters of support for the construction of the proposal. Traffic, Circulation, Parking The boat entrance will be in the same location as the original structure. Utility, Stormwater, Landscaping, Emergency Services The proposal does not alter any existing utility, stormwater, landscaping or emergency services Conclusions The boathouse and sundeck are replacing an existing boathouse in the same footprint. The neighboring properties have boathouses, docks, and sundecks.” MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Anything else? MRS. MOORE-No. MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening. MR. BOGERT-Good evening. I’m Peter Bogert and this is my wife Karen. MR. MAC EWAN-Could you tell us a little bit about your application? MRS. BOGERT-The application, originally, was for replacement of an existing boathouse which had a peaked roof. It came about because the support beams, I guess, six by sixes that supported the roof had become rotted along the water line. Originally we asked to replace the peaked roof with a flat roof to be used for a sundeck purpose. Warren County Planning Board indicated that they felt that our stairs was a land bridge in the proposal. So we complied by changing the proposal to move the stairs over to come down on the existing deck, of the existing dock configuration. Lake George Park Commission had no problem with the plans, provided we didn’t change anything to the existing dock that was in place in the water. They said as long as we stayed within the height restrictions, the new construction was pretty much in line with the old construction, except for what we wanted to do to the top of it. Queensbury Zoning Board, they asked us to really take a good look at this proposal, to see what we could do to reduce the entire area of our dock. We were looking at different configurations, looking at something smaller moved to the center of the property. A more in-depth look at the deck itself proved that the side of the dock that was closest to our neighbor’s property line was actually crib dock, and provided a lot of support for the existing dock. The estimates for new construction were more than what we were looking at. What we were looking at originally was repair and replace and make do with what we had. We did reduce the sundeck area from 780 square feet down to 616 square feet. The Zoning Board said, provided we took into consideration that there was no land bridge, that satisfied the Warren County Planning Board that this was acceptable to them, and they passed it, and here we are. Any questions? 9 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/22/00) MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Bob, we’ll start with you. MR. VOLLARO-I don’t have any questions on this application. The way I read it, it’s pretty straightforward. I can see what they did for the ZBA. The $44 to $36,000 for new construction, that was something you didn’t want to deal with, and I don’t blame you for that one. So you just shortened it up a little bit. MR. BOGERT-We made repairs that we could afford, rather than go into debt there. MR. VOLLARO-I don’t see anything that I would want to comment on here. It looks pretty straightforward, looking at it from Site Plan review and so on. I have no further comments. MR. MAC EWAN-Cathy? MRS. LA BOMBARD-I’m fine. MR. MAC EWAN-Chris? MR. HUNSINGER-No, no questions. MR. MAC EWAN-John? MR. STROUGH-Nothing, other than I got to know Cleverdale really well here, doing site plan visits, and I said, after being there an hour, an hour and a half, gee, maybe Rockhurst, that sign that says Rockhurst that way, maybe that’s not all Rockhurst over that way. I gave it a try. I found Seelye Road. MRS. BOGERT-One other thing I did want to mention for the record, we have talked to all of our neighbors. It was something that was brought up at one of the first meetings for the Zoning Board. So we did go around and talk to everybody that’s around us, and everything, and we did have neighborhood support. So, I know a lot of letters were sent in, and we asked that those letters be sent forward to you guys, too, just to let you know that our neighbors do know what we’re up to, and nobody had any problems with what we wanted to do. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Tony? Larry? MR. RINGER-Nothing. MR. MAC EWAN-Public hearing. If anyone wants to comment on this application, you’re welcome to do so. Did you have letters that you wanted to read in? MRS. MOORE-I can read them in. They were read in at the Zoning Board. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s fine, as long as they’re on the record, then. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. No SEQRA required. Does someone want to introduce a motion, please. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 33-2000 PETER & KAREN BOGERT, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Strough: And on the approval I’d like to take a piece out of the Zoning Board of Appeals commentary, that this approved resolution should state that there be no land bridge associated with this. Duly adopted this 22 day of August, 2000, by the following vote: nd AYES: Mr. Ringer, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Strough, Mr. Hunsinger, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set. Good luck. MR. BOGERT-Thank you. 10 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/22/00) MRS. BOGERT-Thank you very much. MR. MAC EWAN-You’re welcome. SITE PLAN NO. 61-2000 TYPE II JAMES & DEBORAH MASON OWNER: SAME AGENT: JOHN A. MASON ZONE: WR-1A, APA, CEA LOCATION: 27 OLD ASSEMBLY PT. RD. APPLICANT PROPOSES REMOVAL OF HIPPED ROOF FROM EXISTING OPEN SIDED BOATHOUSE AND REPLACEMENT WITH FLAT ROOF FOR SUNDECK. COVERED DOCKS IN WR ZONES REQUIRE PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 64-2000 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 8/9/00 TAX MAP NO. 5-1-26 LOT SIZE: 0.73 ACRES SECTION: 179-16 JOHN MASON, REPRESENING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 61-2000, James & Deborah Mason, Meeting Date: August 22, 2000 “Project Description The applicant proposes an open-sided boathouse with a sundeck. The boathouse and sun deck measures about 512 square feet. Project Analysis (Section 179-38) The proposed use as reviewed by staff was found to be compliant with Sections 179-38 A, B, C, D and E of the Town Code. The construction of a boathouse with a sundeck requires Planning Board review and approval. Site Overview The applicants submission identifies the structure to be removed and replaced in the same location. The structure that is to be removed is the same size as the replacement, 512 square feet. The only change is the addition of the sundeck. The drawings show that the sundeck rail to the highwater mean mark meets the code requirement of 14 feet or less. Traffic, Circulation, Parking The entrance to the boathouse is in the same location as previous. Utility, Stormwater, Landscaping, Emergency Services The proposal does not alter any existing utility, stormwater, landscaping or emergency services. Conclusions The boathouse and sundeck are replacing an existing boathouse in the same footprint. The neighboring properties have boathouses, docks, and sundecks.” MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it? MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening, Mr. Mason. MR. MASON-Good evening. I’m sorry I’m late. You did move quickly. For the record, my name is John Mason. I am acting as an agent for my brother James and his wife Deborah, for property that they own on Assembly Point. The reason I’m here tonight representing them is that it is my company that does the reconstruction of these docks and boathouses, and it is our company that prepares the diagrams that are in front of you tonight. I really have very little to add to the application that you see in front of you. Our problem is one that you’ve seen similar times, and that’s why we have to have a variance. The setbacks have changed from the time period when this dock was originally built to today. There has been a change in setback in the Town from five feet to its current twenty feet. The setback changed at the Lake George Park Commission from 10 feet to its current 20 feet, and that’s why we had to go for a variance. The variance, as you know from the motions that you’ve seen, was approved unanimously by the Zoning Board of Appeals. The application will, in all ways, it will lower the visual effect of the boathouse, the current boathouse. There is a change in usage, because now the boathouse will be used as a sundeck. So it’s kind of a balancing act. You get the benefit of less visual impact. Certainly the property gets no more use. It’s not as if we’re planning on having more people live on this property, but you will have more than my brother’s two sons jumping off the sundeck. You will now have people actually using the flat roof portion of the sundeck. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Anything else? MR. MASON-Unless you have questions for me. MR. MAC EWAN-Cathy, I’ll start with you. MRS. LA BOMBARD-No. MR. MAC EWAN-Chris? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. MAC EWAN-John? 11 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/22/00) MR. STROUGH-No. MR. MAC EWAN-Tony? MR. METIVIER-I’m all set. MR. MAC EWAN-Larry? MR. RINGER-Nothing. MR. MAC EWAN-Bob? MR. VOLLARO-Area Variance 64-2000, we don’t have that in our packet. MRS. MOORE-No, you do not. They did receive an Area Variance. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I just wanted to, okay, Area Variance No. 64-2000 is correct? MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it? MR. VOLLARO-That’s it. MR. MAC EWAN-There’s a public hearing scheduled tonight. Does anyone want to comment on this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MAC EWAN-Does someone want to introduce a resolution, please. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 61-2000 JAMES & DEBORAH MASON, Introduced by John Strough who moved for its adoption, seconded by Anthony Metivier: Duly adopted this 22 day of August, 2000, by the following vote: nd AYES: Mr. Metivier, Mr. Strough, Mr. Hunsinger, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE MR. MASON-Thank you very much. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Laura, can I just ask you why there was a Short Environmental Assessment Form? MRS. MOORE-It’s included in the application itself. So applicants generally fill it out. When we receive applications, we make the determination what type of SEQRA review. MRS. LA BOMBARD-I guess we’ve asked you that before. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else? MRS. MOORE-I have stuff to hand out. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Thursday’s going to be a long meeting then, won’t it? MR. MAC EWAN-It shouldn’t be. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, I’m not going to be here, you know that, but I’ll be here next Tuesday, or at the School. 12 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/22/00) MR. MAC EWAN-That’ll be a long night. MR. RINGER-I thought you said we were going to close that at 10? MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, we are. I was just saying that to her, because she’s going to be at that meeting. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Seven until ten, and what are you going to do between six and seven? MR. MAC EWAN-There’ll be displays for people to look at, a copy of the Draft will be there for people to look at. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Craig, we’ll just sit there and listen. MR. MAC EWAN-You’re going to have to take notes. MRS. LA BOMBARD-I’ll have my notebook. Will we make any comments? MR. MAC EWAN-No. We’re there just to take public comment. MR. MAC EWAN-Are we all squared away as far as audio equipment, recording the meeting and such like that? MRS. MOORE-You’d have to confirm that with Chris. I do not know. MRS. LA BOMBARD-I have a question. Did Craig Brown get up to Mountainside Auto? MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes, and you have a revised planting plan. This evening you’re going to receive the new Zoning Ordinance proposal, and you’re receiving Staff notes for the 24. th MR. MAC EWAN-We didn’t have prepared resolutions tonight. How come, do you know? MRS. MOORE-Because Pam happens to be on vacation. MR. MAC EWAN-That woman gets more vacation than Clinton. Do we have prepared resolutions for Thursday’s meeting? MRS. MOORE-She’s due back tomorrow. It’s possible. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. I’ll call her in the morning. It’s nice to have them, because the prepare resolutions document everything in the application. MR. HUNSINGER-For the two projects that were tabled tonight, will we get new Staff notes? MR. MAC EWAN-You’ll get new Staff notes, but hang on to all of the drawings and stuff like that. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Anything else? Is that it? Nothing to discuss? MR. RINGER-Are you going to be here Thursday, or is Mark? MR. SCHACHNER-Mark’s going to be here Thursday, and Mark’s going to be Tuesday night. MR. MAC EWAN-Everyone’s here Thursday? Okay. I move we adjourn. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Craig MacEwan, Chairman 13