Loading...
2001-01-16 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/16/01) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 16, 2001 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT CRAIG MAC EWAN, CHAIRMAN CATHERINE LA BOMBARD, SECRETARY ROBERT VOLLARO LARRY RINGER ANTHONY METIVIER CHRIS HUNSINGER JOHN STROUGH PLANNER-LAURA MOORE TOWN COUNSEL-MILLER, MANNIX, SCHACHNER & HAFNER-CATHI RADNER STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI CORRECTION OF MINUTES November 21, 2000: NONE November 28, 2000: NONE December 19, 2000: NONE MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 21, NOVEMBER 28, stth AND DECEMBER 19, 2000, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Larry Ringer: Duly adopted this 16 day of January, 2001, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Ringer, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Strough, Mr. Hunsinger, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE OLD BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 10-99 MODIFICATION PAUL CHAMBERS/THE FIREPLACE COMPANY PROPERTY OWNER: SAME AGENT: VAN DUSEN & STEVES ZONE: PC-1A LOCATION: 845 STATE ROUTE 9 APPLICANT PROPOSES TO MODIFY AN APPROVED SITE PLAN. MODIFICATIONS INCLUDE LANDSCAPING IMPROVEMENTS AND TO LEAVE THE EXISTING PARKING AS IS. BEAUTIFICATION COMM: 1/8/01 OLD TAX MAP NO.: 72-6-27.2 NEW TAX MAP NO. 302.05-1-90 LOT SIZE: 0.24 ACRES MATT STEVES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MRS. LA BOMBARD-And there is no public hearing for a modification. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 10-99, Modification, Paul Chambers/The Fireplace Company, Meeting Date: January 16, 2001 “Project Description The applicant proposes to relocate landscaping and utilize the existing parking area in its present condition. The applicant was informed by the Code Compliance Officer, Craig Brown, the site was not in compliance with the original approvals (See letter November 21, 2000). The Planning Board had approved the site plan with removal of some green area for additional parking, a dumpster to the rear of the building, and a landscape plan for the site. The applicant has explained the business does not warrant additional parking or a dumpster. The applicant has indicated the site is able to accommodate the employee and customer parking with the existing parking spaces. See approved plan and proposed plan for comparisons. 1 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/16/01) Landscaping A plan has been provided that shows the location of the new plantings on site and a proposed sign location. The Beautification Committee had suggested in their 1999 review of the project to berm the planting beds with a mixture low bushes and perennials. The Committee had also suggested the trees adjacent to the Alpenhaus Motel be bush pine or 6ft minimum height trees and dumpster screening; these items are not part of the modification. The revised application was forwarded to the Beautification Committee for review and comment. The Committee indicated they were unable to provide comment because the applicant did not attend their meeting. The application was reviewed using the draft zoning landscape standards. According to proposed standards the additional landscaping for the site would include a total of five (5) additional shade trees. A minimum of three (3) of the trees would be located along Route 9. The remaining two trees may be located any place on site. Traffic The site currently supports six parking spaces for customer and employees. The gross leaseable space is approximately 604.5 sq. ft, which requires a minimum of six parking spaces. The applicant has indicated customers tend to pull to the front parking spaces, which allows for company vehicles to park on the side of the building. The site is accessible off of Route 9 and it appears the access is shared with Alpenhaus. The Board may consider requesting an easement agreement allowing The Fireplace Company traffic to cross over the Alpenhaus property. Suggestions Staff would suggest the following: 1. Provide additional shade trees as “streetscape” to Route 9. 2. Provide a deeded agreement that allows The Fireplace Company traffic to cross-over the Alpenhaus property.” MR. MAC EWAN-That’s it? MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening. MR. STEVES-Good evening. My name’s Matt Steves with VanDusen & Steves, and I represent Mr. Chambers on this application. As far as the Staff comments, we have no objections to either comment. As far as the additional shade trees, if there is any recommendation by this Board of how many they would like, my client has no problem with that. What facilitated coming back in here is when we originally were in here on this site plan, we tried to abide by what the lot and the size of the building would require as far as parking spaces, showed them that and said we wanted to use it for awhile and we found out that the use doesn’t warrant any more than what currently exists on the property. They typically have one to two employees there, at most two, usually one just in the showroom and then the customers park up front, typically one or two at a time. If you’ve ever driven by the site, you obviously have noticed that. That’s not a traffic generating problem at all. We’ve removed the dumpster. Anything that they use, as far as packaging and stuff, they’re able to compact and crush up, leave in the back room and take out to the recycling center or the dump, once a week, and most of the time twice, or every other week. So we’ve eliminated the dumpster. So the plan is in front of you now showing the site as it exists, except for some additional plantings and the proposed sign, and we do realize that if the sign stays where it is shown on the plan, that he will require a variance for the placement of that sign. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Anything else? MR. STEVES-No. MR. MAC EWAN-All right. John, we’ll start with you. Any questions? MR. STROUGH-Yes. Mr. Steves, you said they were going to eliminate the dumpster? MR. STEVES-They had a proposed dumpster on the original site plan. They never installed one. So therefore we eliminated it on this plan that’s in front of you at this time. MR. STROUGH-Well, that concerns me, because when I did my site inspection, he’s using the back and some of the side as places for his debris, his flashing fire (lost words) here and there. MR. STEVES-They’re going to be moving that all into the back room of the existing building. 2 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/16/01) MR. STROUGH-Well, that’s good to hear. Okay, and you say he has no, he doesn’t have a problem with meeting the proposed landscaping, the additional, a minimum of three trees will be located along Route 9? MR. STEVES-Well, along Route 9 we show, down in the southeasterly corner, we show a sign with some trees and some low plantings. We will gladly add a couple of more in there. The rest of the site is asphalt along the Route 9 corridor. There is that island that is in the State, but we will gladly accommodate a couple of trees in the southeasterly corner. MR. STROUGH-Okay. So you have one tree, (lost words) what was in the original plan. All right. I see one tree near the concrete pad. Is that correct? MR. STEVES-That’s correct. There’s one tree there with some shrubs, perennial plantings around it. Then you have where this proposed sign location is, and I said we’ll place two more there, on either side of the sign. MR. STROUGH-Now, I see the applicant uses that south side of the building for his truck. MR. STEVES-North side. MR. STROUGH-The south. MR. STEVES-For his trucks? There’s no asphalt on there at this time. He parks on the north side. MR. STROUGH-Well, I couldn’t tell if there was asphalt or not because there was snow coverage, but I did see the punch bug there, and I just was a little concerned that he would have ample parking area, given that in this particular lot he’s going to try and have some parking and some landscaping, but you say that’s not a paved area? MR. STEVES-What’s shown on the plan is what’s actually paved at this time. Paved is along the north and on the east side of the building. MR. STROUGH-And when I went there I drove right around the building. MR. STEVES-You can drive right around the building, it’s all, but it’s not paved. MR. STROUGH-I see. All right, well, if he’s willing to do the additional plantings, it seems to be fine as far as I can tell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. MR. MAC EWAN-Chris? MR. HUNSINGER-I think I might have struggled with some of the same things that other members may have struggled with. I had a hard time understanding what was originally proposed. Were they actually going to take out some of the existing asphalt? MR. STEVES-On the north side, and place some parking on the south side. That’s correct. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Really, that was the only question I had. I guess I was a little confused, looking at this old site plan. It still was labeled existing asphalt but showed trees in the middle. There was really no explanation as to where the project was. MR. STEVES-What is shown there is what currently exists and what has existed on the property. MR. HUNSINGER-Right, and that was pretty easy to see that when you go to the site. I didn’t have any questions, other than to try and understand what was originally approved, and how we were asked to deviate from that. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Cathy? MRS. LA BOMBARD-Fine. MR. MAC EWAN-Bob? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. What I noticed, when we went to site visits, was that the big sign that’s the billboard really overpowers this site, in any event. I don’t know what even putting trees as a streetscape on Route 9’s going to do for this. I see it as is being fine, without doing any, that’s my opinion. I don’t see what the owner has to go through the expense, when I don’t see any of those things improving that site at all. Now, I do have a question, however. Do the people at Alpenhaus own that property? 3 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/16/01) MR. STEVES-No. MR. VOLLARO-No. So there is a reason for providing a deed agreement? MR. STEVES-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. STEVES-We would have no problem with that. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. That makes sense. MR. STEVES-It’s basically implied because they both have used it, but as far as getting it in writing, we will gladly accommodate that. MR. VOLLARO-Fine. I don’t have any further questions on this site at all. MR. MAC EWAN-Larry? MR. RINGER-No, I have nothing. MR. MAC EWAN-Tony? MR. METIVIER-I have nothing, either. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else to add? Any comments from Staff? Okay. I guess it boils down to the issue. I’ll poll the Board as to how you feel about the planting of additional tree scaping? MR. RINGER-I kind of agree with Bob. I don’t see what one or two trees is going to make any difference. That billboard sign is really overpowering that whole thing through there. MR. MAC EWAN-Tony? MR. METIVIER-I have no problem with it, either. I think it’s about time we got something in there that looks like it’s going to be stable. I think it looks a lot better than it has in a long time, for some, for whatever reason, and it’s all fine just the way it is. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Cathy? MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes, Matt, I had made that comment on Saturday, as far as the billboard being so huge, but I mean, if he wants to put in some trees, between the two properties, I have no problem with that, but just run it by me one more time where he’s going to ask for the variance for the sign. MR. STEVES-Where he has the sign shown, or why I have the sign shown on the southeast property corner, is basically consistent with the signs up and down Route 9, but because of the width of the right-of-way there, the Zoning Board and the Planning Board have been well aware of this over the years, that people try to get the signs closer to the travel corridor. So that would be about nine and a half, ten feet from the property line, instead of the fifteen foot required. So if he decided to leave it there, he will have to obtain a variance for that sign. I just wanted to let you know that. MRS. LA BOMBARD-And I’m just thinking about, would it be an issue as far as traffic going in and out of that site, where he wants to put the sign? MR. STEVES-Right now, no. MRS. LA BOMBARD-I know that’s not the issue that we’re discussing, but, okay. MR. STEVES-We agree with the street trees. That’s why we’re trying to keep some low plantings, and then put some up in the southeast corner of the building to help buffer the building itself, and then again along the back on the northwest corner, helps buffer it slightly. To put some too far out also inhibits the site distance there coming out. So, I mean, it’s kind of a fine line. That’s why we suggested a lot of lower plantings there, on the south side of the parking. He has no qualms about, you know, cleaning up the site. I think he’s done a great job with what’s there, and he has no problem with adding to it. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, there was a vehicle parked on the south part of the south side. 4 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/16/01) MR. STEVES-Yes. MRS. LA BOMBARD-And is that the permanent spot for that? MR. STEVES-No. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. MR. STEVES-It will be, as we’re proposing now, put some plantings there and then put everybody along the building, parallel parking on the north side. MRS. LA BOMBARD-All right. Well, as far as the plantings go, that’s your call. MR. MAC EWAN-No, it’s the Planning Board’s call. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, I know, but as far as, I mean, if you think they’re going to make it any more aesthetic if everybody does, then go for it. MR. MAC EWAN-Chris? MR. HUNSINGER-I guess that’s how I feel. The billboard does overwhelm the site, but certainly a few trees isn’t going to hurt anything. MR. STROUGH-Well, if I had my way, I’d shove the parking over to the south side of the building, and I would landscape the front of the building. I mean, if I had my way, and I would try and get the kind of streetscape that we’re looking for in the Route 9 corridor, and I would also probably allow wraparound driving ability. Right now he’s going to be closed off. I know getting his vehicles in and out of there seems to be a problem. Some of them are rather large, and so, you know, if I was landscaping this from scratch, that’s what I would do. MR. MAC EWAN-But we’re not. MR. STROUGH-We’re not. MRS. LA BOMBARD-We’re not. MR. MAC EWAN-All I’m trying to get is an easy poll. Are you in favor of additional plantings? MR. STROUGH-Another thing, I would put trees all up in front of that billboard, if I had it my way. MR. VOLLARO-They’d have to be pretty good sized trees, John, I’ve got to tell you. MR. MAC EWAN-The only thing we can hope for is maybe the billboard won’t be standing too many more years. MR. STROUGH-Well, I think we can at least put one more shade tree, possibly locate it on the west side of that sign. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. We’re in agreement to maybe do three more plantings of three inch caliper maple trees, to the west of the sign you currently have. How’s that? MR. STEVES-Certainly. MR. MAC EWAN-Is that easy enough? All right. Does someone want to introduce a motion, please? MOTION TO APPROVE MODIFICATION TO SITE PLAN NO. 10-99 PAUL CHAMBERS/THE FIREPLACE COMPANY, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Larry Ringer: WHEREAS, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of a modification to Site Plan No. 10-99, Paul Chambers / The Fireplace Company. Applicant proposes to modify an approved site plan. Modifications include landscaping improvements and to leave the existing parking as is. Tax Map No. 72-6-27.2 (302.05-1-90, and; WHEREAS, the application was received 12/26/00; and WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation and inclusive of all newly received information, not included in this listing as of 01/12/01; 5 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/16/01) 1/4/01 Meeting Notice 1/4/01 PB from M. Steves – letter regarding modification 11/27/00 C. Brown from P. Chambers in response to CB letter of 11/21/00 11/21/00 P. Chambers from C. Brown 12/28/00 Map SP - revised Other: 4/12/99 Beautification Committee recommendation 6/1/99 Map stamped by ZA as approved from original file WHEREAS, public hearing was not held 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 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 the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; and/or if application is a modification, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered; and the proposed modification(s) do not result in any new or significantly different environmental impacts, and, therefore, no further SEQRA review is necessary; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that The application is approved in accordance with the resolution prepared by Staff with the following conditions: 1. That three (3), three inch caliper maple trees be planted on the south side west of the proposed sign, and 2. That the applicant will provide a deeded agreement that allows The Fireplace Company traffic to cross over the Alpenhaus property. Duly adopted this 16 day of January, 2001, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Ringer, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Strough, Mr. Hunsinger, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set. MR. STEVES-Thank you. SUBDIVISION NO. 6-2000 PRELIMINARY STAGE FINAL STAGE TYPE: UNLISTED MICHAEL VASILIOU OWNERS: PETER & EILEEN WEEKS, WM. HOWARD, JR., JUDITH WHITE & OTHERS, RAYMOND LEMERY, WALTER HOWARD, MORTON & FLORENCE PHILLIPS, SARAH MCECHRON, MICHAEL VASILIOU AGENT: VAN DUSEN & STEVES/NACE ENGINEERING ZONE: SR-1A LOCATION: PEGGY ANN ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF A 32+/- ACRE LOT INTO 28 RESIDENTIAL LOTS. CROSS REFERENCE: SB 21-1999, AV 26-2000, AV 95-2000 TAX MAP NO. 121-1-2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 1.3 LOT SIZE: 32.10 ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS MICHAEL O’CONNOR, MATT STEVES, & TOM NACE, REPRESENTING APP., PRESENT MRS. LA BOMBARD-The public hearing back on December 19 was tabled. It’s still open. th STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Subdivision No. 6-2000, Preliminary Stage Final Stage, Michael Vasiliou, Meeting Date: January 16, 2001 “Project Description The applicant proposes to create a 28 lot residential subdivision. The Planning Board reviewed the proposed project for Sketch Plan at the September 25th meeting. The applicant has received area variance approval for lot size and average lot width 6 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/16/01) (AV26-2000, AV95-2000). The applicant has reviewed the loop road with the Water and Highway Departments. Study of plat Lot arrangement: The arrangement utilizes the 32 +/- acres of land available for development. Location and design of streets: The Highway Department has been provided with a plan for review. The Highway Department has indicated the continuation of the loop road is acceptable. (see letter of October 6, 2000) Topography: The applicant has indicated the project area is wooded and flat. Water supply: The applicant will connect to the municipal water supply. Sewage disposal: The applicant proposes septic systems to be located in the back yard. The location of the septic system for some of the lots may limit future swimming pool installations. Drainage: The applicant has supplied a stormwater management plan. The plans have been forwarded to CT Male for review and comment. Lot sizes: The applicant received area variances for lot size and average lot width. Area Variance 95 2000 granted relief to lots 11-17, 19, 20-23. Area Variance 26-2000 granted relief to lots 1-5 (1-5), 7 (7), 9, (9), 23-28 (11-16). (The subdivision lots were renumbered from 16 lots to 28 lots. The lot numbers in parenthesis refer to a previously approved subdivision with associated lot references). Placement of utilities: The utility plan shows the drywells, waterlines, hydrant, and existing electric pole locations. Future development: The land is to be utilized for a residential development. The SR-1A zone allows for additional uses through site plan review including multi-family residence, professional office incidental to home use, day care center, etc. The Planning Board should review these uses and determine the compatibility of the uses with the surrounding neighborhood. Land Use Plan and Zoning Ordinance: The subdivision is located in Neighborhood 11. There are no specific residential recommendations in the area of the subdivision. State Environmental Quality Review Act: The applicant has submitted a long environmental assessment form. The project area may contain Karner Blue Butterfly habitat. The plans have been forwarded to Kathy O’Brien of the NYDEC for review. Town Departments: The plans have been forwarded to the Highway and Water Department. Areas of Concern or Importance 1. The location of the proposed septic systems 2. Potential Karner Blue Butterfly habitat Suggestions 1. The applicant should consider the relocation of the septic systems to the side yards. 2. The applicant should coordinate with NYSDEC Endangered Species unit to determine if suitable habitat is available for the Karner Blue Butterfly and how this area should be protected (i.e. a note may be added to the plat and in the deed.).” MRS. MOORE-Also, the Planning Board members have received a memo from the Attorney. MR. MAC EWAN-Maybe it would be better to have Cathi address that, if she wants to, briefly, but you also have another letter in here. I guess it’s all right. MS. RADNER-What’s happened here is that the Zoning Board of Appeals granted an Area Variance regarding the minimum lot width. It was determined, though, that there were a number of properties, roughly 20% of the people who should have received notice of the hearing before the Zoning Board of Appeals never received their notices, and we have reason to believe that these people did not have actual notice either, meaning, they didn’t learn about it through other channels. We think that that puts in jeopardy the Zoning Board of Appeals grant of the variance because the people who never received notice could still come forward and bring an Article 78 petition against the Zoning Board saying that they acted outside of their authority because they didn’t have an opportunity to appear at public hearing. We think that the proper thing that should happen is that the Zoning Board of Appeals should re-visit the grant of the variance, after the people who did not receive those notices have an opportunity to appear at a public hearing and to make their comments and feelings known to the Board of Appeals. Our recommendation to you is that if you wish to open tonight’s public hearing, you may do so, but that no decision be made, so that the procedural defect below can be cured, well, not below, but before the Zoning Board, can be cured. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. O'CONNOR-Mr. Chairman, may I be heard on that issue, for purpose of the record? MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. 7 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/16/01) MR. O'CONNOR-I’m Michael O’Connor, from the law firm of Little & O’Connor. We represent the applicant, and it’s an issue that was brought to my attention on Friday. We’ve been trying to contact the Town Attorney since then. We’ve traded phone messages back and forth. We did deliver to them today, by fax, an argument that we think is contrary to what has been presented to you, with cases that support the argument that indicate that even if what has been said did occur, the variance, as granted, or the variances as granted, are now valid variances. There has been no court action brought, commenced or completed, to set aside the variances, and we believe that you are obligated to go forward with the application, with that understanding, and maybe some of the people that are involved are here, present, and I would like to explain just a little bit for the record, so you get a feel of what we’re talking about, as far as the Area Variances. This is a piece of property which was combined with an adjoining piece of property to the west of this property, and the total density of this subdivision was not beyond what would be permitted if two separate cookie cutter subdivisions were created, and I’m not sure what the knowledge of the people are that live to the east of it, apparently, who were left out, and this is a notice requirement that the Town is supposed to comply with. It is not something that the applicant complies with. It is notices that they sent out. I’m told that they sent out approximately 62 notices, and there is a strip of owners that they apparently did not send notices to. Along the east side of this subdivision, there are five lots that would be affected by the variances. Two of those lots are affected only in the sense that they are less than the one acre that’s required. One of those lots is .97 acres, and the other is .90 acres. Those two lots, and three other lots, were also affected in the sense that the minimum lot width we obtained a variance for on three lots, I guess, just on the three lots, and on those three lots, we got a variance for lot frontage of 137.5 feet, as opposed to 150 feet. We’re not talking about increased use. We’re not talking about increased density. We’re talking about shape and configuration of lots, and I think we’ve been before this Board with this very application, and it was supported by this Board as well as by the Zoning Board, because this was a better way of planning a combination subdivision for the two lots, but basically the cases that we have indicate that where the Town has made a good faith attempt to give notice to adjoining owners, that is the obligation of the Town. The Town, in addition to actually sending out notices to people within 500 feet, does place an ad in the paper, and they did so in this case. There’s strong case law that says that that is not a jurisdictional defect to the variances, and we’re willing to stand on that, and are prepared to stand on that. Our problem is that the developer, after obtaining the variances, has gone ahead with his contractual commitments, has gone ahead with his engineering and surveying commitments, and expended money in reliance of those variances that were obtained we believe legitimately. I’m not sure when this first became an issue, but I was first aware of it last Friday. I think that we’ve met all the technical requirements of Staff and of the consultants, as to the subdivision aspect which is before this Board. The validity of our variance is not before this Board. This Board can’t, or doesn’t have jurisdiction, if we get into arguments of jurisdiction, to say that our variance is valid or invalid. I have a written opinion of the Zoning Board of Appeals, dated, I believe, November 15, well beyond the 30 days that’s required th for an Article 78 requirement, that says that we have a valid variance, and I ask you to look upon the application in that sense, even though I may be playing hardball as far as those innocent people, like ourselves, that are involved in this because of errors that were made by the Town, not by the applicant. MR. VOLLARO-Mr. O’Connor, I’d like to ask just a simple question, first, Craig. Would you just amplify obligation of the Town, so that? MR. O'CONNOR-Under our Zoning Ordinance, it says the Town shall give notices for variances to owners within 500 feet. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. That’s a Town obligation? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. It’s contrary to your subdivision requirement where the applicant has to give notice to the adjoining owners. MR. VOLLARO-Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-It’s a sticky situation and given, and I certainly appreciate the position that you’re taking on this. I don’t think it’s the responsibility of this Board to determine which side of the law is the right side. We only take the advice that our Attorney gives us. I think maybe the appropriate thing to do tonight is that we’ll let you go through your presentation. I’ll open up the public hearing. I’ll leave the public hearing open. We’ll table this and take no action on this tonight. However, we have a very light agenda next Tuesday night. We only have two items on the agenda, and I would hope that between now and Tuesday, maybe you can get together with the Town Attorney and see if this can’t be all unraveled somehow and just get a firm feeling of where everyone’s going with this. I mean, you seem to be pretty steadfast in your position that you have case law supporting you. The Town feels very stern in their position that they feel that everyone should have the right to be duly noticed by mail proceedings, under the guidelines of what the ZBA is supposed to do, and with a week to go here before our next meeting, maybe you guys can get together and try to sort this thing out. Is that fair enough? 8 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/16/01) MR. O'CONNOR-I have heard you, and you are the Chairman, so I will understand what you have said. MR. MAC EWAN-Somehow I thought this first month in office would go smoothly, too. MR. O'CONNOR-I never find an application that’s unique. MR. MAC EWAN-Given that, the floor is yours. MR. O'CONNOR-Given that, I’ll turn it over to Mr. Steves. MR. STEVES-Okay. As far as the Staff comments, I believe everything else except for one is going to relate to engineering, that I’ll let Tom Nace talk about, but again, for the record, I’m Matt Steves with VanDusen & Steves. The potential Karner Blue butterfly habitat I have had phone conversations with Cathy O’Brien, and been trying to borrow a map from the New York State website, GIS data. It’s an orthrophoto of the area. She had a gentleman walk it, and she said that the lands behind, to the south of this where the City has their leaf dump, you know, they wanted to know whereabouts the clearing limits of that were, in relation to our property. I assured her, since we walked this entire property when we did the survey, that that clearing did not protrude onto our property, and she will write a letter, once I have that map down to her, to confirm that. So I don’t think that that’s a hold up at this point at all. I will have a letter from her, and we’ll get that to Staff. She has voiced that. I don’t know if Laura has talked to her also, regarding the same scenario. MRS. MOORE-Yes, I can add to that that I did speak with Cathy, and she mentioned that she was waiting for a drawing from you. So, I’m aware of that. MR. STEVES-She just wants to have me confirm that our property does not extend onto that cleared area. MR. MAC EWAN-Maybe we can get that resolved before next Tuesday. MR. STEVES-Yes, and I definitely will have that resolved before next Tuesday. MR. HUNSINGER-I’m sorry. Right now, Cathy’s of the opinion that there is no Karner Blue habitat on your property? MR. STEVES-That’s correct. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. STEVES-She has no mapped habitat, I’ll step back. There is no mapped habitat or species for habitat here, okay, but she said the only place that she could possibly see the potential for it to occur some time would be in the cleared area where the City has their leaf dump. So, what she’s saying is that if I can show that that does not extend onto our property, which I can assure you it does not, but I’ll get a map to her that shows that clearing area, and then she can sign off on that. MR. NACE-For the record, Tom Nace with Nace Engineering. As far as Staff comment regarding the septic systems, these are large, one acre lots. They’re fairly wide. The septic systems, realistically, will be placed on the lots depending upon how the owner sets up his garage, driveway, house, whether he wants to reserve an area for a swimming pool along the back or on the side of the house. We’ve shown them, just for graphic purposes, shown them behind the houses, but they could be placed, as long as they stay within the parameters required on our standard details and the Health Department requirements, they could be placed either back or side or front. Along the back of the house, one of the reasons we showed them in the back, is there’s that no cut zone, and we wanted to show that there was room for septics with, you know, without encroaching on the no cut zone. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Anything else? Chris, I’ll start with you. Any questions? MR. HUNSINGER-No. I feel like we’ve reviewed this and looked at it a number of times, in a number of different configurations. The only outstanding issue I had was the butterfly issue which sounds as though that’s going away, also. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Cathy? MRS. LA BOMBARD-No, I’m okay right now. MR. MAC EWAN-Bob? 9 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/16/01) MR. VOLLARO-Yes. On the subject of the location of the septic tanks, this is something that comes up all the time. I’d just as soon see this to be the responsibility of the Building Inspector when he issues the CO’s for each building. For us to sit here and legislate where the septic tank ought to go doesn’t make any sense to me. From a practical point of view, and having lived with septic tanks for a long, long, long time, I’d prefer it on the side where it could be pumped easier. That’s just a personal preference, but I’d just as soon leave the septic tank thing up to the Building Inspector, as to where he feels that ought to go, based on whatever. The Karner Blue butterfly thing, all I said here since Mary has had these, or Cathy O’Brien has had these for so long, this may be a non-issue, and it turns out that, it looks like it is a non-issue. What does the minimum landscaping package refer to in Mr. Nace’s letter of December 7 look like? I need to know this so that we can th pursue the waivers in 183-47. We haven’t gotten a good feeling of minimum landscaping. I know why you’re doing it, but just let me go through that. MR. NACE-Sure. As far as Mr. Vasiliou’s input at this time, I don’t have a list from him. I could get a list from him before next Tuesday’s meeting, of what the minimum package would be. It wouldn’t be a set list of plants, but it would be a minimum number, minimum cost allowance for landscaping. The point is each lawn would be, or each lot would be landscaped, you know, and not just. MR. VOLLARO-To the owners requirement? Because there was some wording. MR. NACE-Well, no, but there would be a minimum package, such as, The Michaels Group does the same thing. They require that each lot have a minimum allowance set aside in the package for landscaping, so that when they develop the subdivision, you know, the houses that are completed look nice. MR. VOLLARO-The only reason that I mentioned that is because we’re going to have to grant waivers against 183-47 for that. MR. NACE-Correct. MR. VOLLARO-And in order to grant a waiver, I’d like to know just what the minimum package looks like. Just so we understand that. Now, C.T. Male’s comments on the stormwater management report are not evident in any of their letters, in the 12/15 or their 1/11 letter. I don’t see a reference to the C.T. Male sign off on stormwater management. Maybe I’m missing it, Tom. MR. NACE-They signed off their letter of the 11. Do you have that? th MR. VOLLARO-I’ve got, yes, 1/11. I have the 1/11 letter. MR. NACE-It says “The information contained in the re-submittal addresses all of the comments made in our letter dated December 15. th MR. VOLLARO-Well, the 12/15 letter, as I see it, didn’t comment on that either, or did it? Now, I’m looking at the 12/15 letter. MR. NACE-I’m looking for the 12/15 letter. MR. VOLLARO-There’s one through five, in the 12/15 letter, and I don’t see any mention in one through five on the stormwater management report. Maybe I’m missing it. MR. NACE-On the report itself? MR. VOLLARO-Yes, well, there’s a stormwater management report that you submitted with this. Right? MR. NACE-Right, and it was reviewed, as part of their review. MR. VOLLARO-And I don’t see, first of all, there’s no questions in C.T. Male’s December 15 letter that says anything about that at all. MR. RINGER-He says they received it, though, Bob, in the comments. He says at the top we received it. MR. VOLLARO-Received the application form for subdivision review, sheet plans, and a stormwater management report prepared. Okay. There it is. Then I missed that. Sorry, but that’s, okay. Good enough. Sold, and on the subject of future development for the zone, SR-1A, Type II site plan review uses, I think that we’ve been coached on that we should be addressing some of the future uses, and I would prefer not to address those before the fact. Let them come before this 10 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/16/01) Board as a site plan review issue, later on. There’s words in our, let me see where I am and I’ll give it to you in a second. MR. NACE-This is in reference to what, Bob? MR. VOLLARO-I’m trying to locate it. Future development. This is in our Staff notes, and there’s a note on future development, and I’ll read it. It’s very short. “The land is to be utilized for a residential development. The SR-1A zone allows for additional uses through site plan review including multi-family residence, professional office incidental to home use, day care center, etc. The Planning Board should review these uses and determine the compatibility of the uses with the surrounding neighborhood.” And I don’t see a reason for doing that at all, in this application. MR. O'CONNOR-None are proposed. MR. RINGER-Why did you put it in? Did you have a reason? MRS. MOORE-Just to bring it to your attention that it’s possible that you’re going to see in the future possibly some site plan reviews for any one of those allowed uses in the SR-1 Acre zone that requires site plan review. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. If that comes up, later on, a new use requiring site plan review in that zone, then it’ll be before this Board. MRS. MOORE-Correct. MR. VOLLARO-So I see no need for us to even address the subject here, and that’s all I have on it. MR. MAC EWAN-It was put in there just for that purpose, that we just went through, just to make you aware of it. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-Larry? MR. RINGER-No. We’ve looked at it many times. I don’t have any questions on it. MR. MAC EWAN-Tony? MR. METIVIER-I’m fine, as well. MR. MAC EWAN-John? MR. STROUGH-Just a few to probably re-hash things, if you don’t mind. The no cut zone in back is 75 feet, in back of the houses? MR. NACE-Correct. MR. STROUGH-Okay, and on the side, I’m measuring about 30 feet? MR. NACE-I think it’s labeled. I think on the main plan, on the upper right hand one, it’s labeled as to what the actual dimension is. Yes, it’s here. It’s 15 feet on each lot. MR. STROUGH-So it would be 15 feet on the side? MR. NACE-Of each lot, correct. MR. STROUGH-Okay. So two lots adjoining would be 30 foot? MR. NACE-Correct. MR. STROUGH-And how far on the back, then? MR. NACE-Seventy-five feet. MR. STROUGH-So the back zones are 75 feet? MR. NACE-Correct. MR. STROUGH-While you’re right there, Tom. Do you see Lot 18, down by the Peggy Ann Road? 11 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/16/01) MR. NACE-Yes. MR. STROUGH-Why didn’t they extend that no cut zone over to Peggy Ann Road, so that would afford that one neighbor that full protection? Is there a reason? MR. NACE-Here? MR. STROUGH-Yes. MR. NACE-Simply that that is, by definition of your Code, that’s a front yard. MR. STROUGH-Okay, but they could landscape, they could leave that vegetated if they wanted to? That would be up to the owner of the property? MR. NACE-That would be up to the owner of the property, however he wanted to landscape, and that would depend on how his house sits in here. MR. STROUGH-Yes. Now, if you would explain, see where Lot 13 is? MR. NACE-Yes. MR. STROUGH-And do you see this 78.45, right next to the road? MR. NACE-Yes. MR. STROUGH-What’s that figure mean? MR. NACE-That’s, okay, the front of the front property line of that lot has two different segments. There’s one tangent, straight segment that’s 78.45 feet long, and then there is a section along the curve, on this 275 foot radius curve, that has a length, a curve length of 63.24 feet. MR. STROUGH-So you would add those two together to get your full? MR. NACE-Yes. MR. STROUGH-Okay. I saw the same thing on. MR. NACE-That was one of C.T. Male’s comments. That78.45 feet had been left off, inadvertently left off. MR. STROUGH-But what you do, you add it to the radius. MR. NACE-Correct, you add it to the curve length. MR. STROUGH-Now, the setbacks of the homes, I can see that the setbacks for this zoning type are, we’ll say 15 feet. Now we already have 15 feet of no cut zone. So would the setback be an additional 18 feet from the no cut zone? MR. NACE-On the side lines? No. MR. STROUGH-So theoretically they could build their house right up to the no cut zone? MR. NACE-Theoretically, yes. MR. STROUGH-Probably not. MR. NACE-Most people wouldn’t want to. MR. STROUGH-Are they going to landscape the entrances at all? MR. NACE-The entrances, you mean in here? MR. STROUGH-Yes. MR. NACE-There’s no proposal. This is, as you are aware, there are existing houses here, and these houses, Mr. Vasiliou is going to reorient these driveways, and build new driveways for these two lots, so that they come off of the new road. 12 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/16/01) MR. STROUGH-Yes, I remember that, yes. MR. NACE-And with that, there’ll be some, you know, reseeding, but no, there’s no, because of these lots, or because of these existing houses. MR. STROUGH-Yes, I know that we’ve got those restrictions with width and then you’ve got to get utilities in there. MR. NACE-Right. MR. STROUGH-Now, on the stormwater system, just to probably re-hash, if you don’t mind. All right. There’s a note about Pond Three. What would, that be? Could you eliminate ponds and just go to drywells? MR. NACE-They’re just drywells. Well, there’s, in the stormwater report, the drywells are mottled as a pond. MR. STROUGH-Okay. MR. NACE-It’s for mathematical mottling. So Pond Three, I’d have to look back at the report, but it’s probably one of these three, lets see, well, there should be a map. You’ve got the report right there. In the front here there’s a map. Well, let’s see. Okay, Drywells Seven and Eight. So those are these two drywells. MR. STROUGH-Seven and Eight, and this would be subcatchment three, four, and five. The project’s going back some. MR. NACE-Subcatchment three goes to Pond Three, four to Pond Four, and five to Pond Five. So, what was your question. MR. STROUGH-No, I think you answered all my questions. MR. NACE-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it? Could I ask you gentlemen to give up the table for a few minutes, please. We’ll open up the public hearing. Does anyone want to come up and comment on this application? You’re welcome to do so. The only thing we’d ask you to do, if you have any questions, direct them to the Board and identify yourself, if you would, for the record. Any takers? MRS. MOORE-I do have a letter, when you get. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. We’ll get the letter last. Come right on up. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED TOM WALTON MR. WALTON-Hi. My name’s Tom Walton, and our property buts up to this proposed development, and this is the first I’ve seen of a map. So I just have a question. This no cut zone that’s shown on the map. Did you say that that was 75 feet, that buts up to the properties? MR. STROUGH-In the back, yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, in the back properties. MR. WALTON-And what prevents people from cutting in this no cut zone? MR. STROUGH-Well, I asked that question before, if you don’t mind, Mr. Chairman, they assured me that each lot’s deed would include no cut restrictions. I believe that’s right, but they can answer that. MR. MAC EWAN-On top of that, there’s also a note right on the plat which will be officially filed with Warren County. MR. WALTON-So, when you say no cut, I mean, they can clear it out, but just not cut, clear cut is it? MR. MAC EWAN-The definition, the note that they have on this particular plat, which isn’t approved yet, but will probably go through the process here, it says “No Cut Zone, no clearing shall 13 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/16/01) be permitted in this area except for removal of dead or diseased vegetation, rotten or damaged trees, or any other vegetation which presents a safety or health hazard”. MR. WALTON-Okay. Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-You’re welcome. Anyone else? LINDA WHITE MRS. WHITE-Hi. I’m Linda White. I also have property that borders that. I was just concerned about the density, and also the Karner Blue habitat that’s across the street, and I would like to perhaps include maybe in the deed restrictions something on the limitation of pesticide use, to protect the Karner Blue habitat that’s in such close proximity to it. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MRS. WHITE-Okay. I don’t think that had been addressed. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else? MRS. WHITE-I was concerned about the density and perhaps the increased traffic on the road. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MRS. WHITE-Okay. Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. Anyone else? JIM ZWNENBURG MR. ZWNENBURG-Yes. My name is Jim Zwnenburg, and I own property to the east of this development, and my property is about four feet below this development, and I’m wondering, with the drainage, where is it going to be drained, for one. Two, I’ve never seen this map before, either, nor have I received notice of this. All I’ve known is that they’re out back there cutting down trees all the time. Is there a way to obtain such a map, for people that live nearby? MR. MAC EWAN-I guess you’d need to speak with the developer, okay, applicants after the meeting, and they might be able to help you out. I don’t know. Is that something that the Town usually? MRS. MOORE-Interested individuals can file a FOIL request form, at the Planning Office, but they’re more than welcome to come down to the Planning Office and review the plans there. If they need a copy of that, that’s when they’d fill out the FOIL request form and pay the associated fee that goes along with that. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. All right? Anyone else? Do you have a letter? MRS. MOORE-Yes. This is from Nancy Wilson, it’s addressed to the Town Planning Board members. “A previous obligation has dictated that I had to be out of town Tuesday, January 16. th Please allow these concerns to be voiced in opposition of the proposed 28 lot subdivision of Mike Vasiliou. Several issues should be considered which environmentally are impacted by this expansion of homes and the loss of habitat in this area: 1. This tiny wooded corridor is the last connection available to deer and wildlife seeking to pass between the Sherman Ave. wooded areas and the watershed area near the mountain ridge without entering the backyard of a house. It is feared that deer, fox and other wildlife that have been visible this fall may be pushed out of this area completely. 2. It has been pointed out that this area is home to the Lupine flower that supports the Blue Karner Butterfly and we have personal knowledge that homeowners in the Lady Slipper area have destroyed surviving Lupine, either accidentally or not, when settling their lawns and doing landscaping after building. 3. The environmental impact of having a housing development within a few hundred feet of a landfill should be seriously considered. Even though the number of houses is less than 50 a long environmental impact statement form should be considered. Although the main use of the Sherman Ave. landfill may be listed as leaf material I have seen it filled and then materials removed several times over the past 15 years that I have lived in the area. Who knows what substances may have been stored there over the years. 4. A no cut zone has been proposed around each building lot, however it was only a short time ago that the entire parcel was logged of any hardwood. So what remains is scrub pine and low bushes. And again given my personal experience of living in the area, within a short time of moving in, homeowners purchase chainsaws and become weekend lumberjacks. As an area resident, I found myself scrambling last Monday to educate myself as to how this development was in its final stages of approval since Monday was the first time I had any 14 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/16/01) knowledge about it. As it turns out, it seems the variance board did not notify area residents before acting upon a variance request. Had we been properly notified we might have had more time to examine the request and prepare an organized response. One serous concern is the addition of more rush hour motorists speeding past large groups of children waiting on Peggy Ann for buses. I realize that as long as vacant land is taxed, and zoned for building lots, it is a difficult task to slow the expansion of house developments. Perhaps it is time to scrutinize our overall direction for Queensbury. I know I am not alone in fearing that Queensbury is growing too quickly and in the process of perhaps losing more than it is gaining. I would like to make one more comment and that is to voice opposition to the building of the Best Western motel. Removing this narrow strip of trees that acts as a carbon monoxide sponge and a buffer zone for the residents in the area would be a very sad moment for Queensbury. Given a perfect location for such development on the site of the former Howard Johnson’s Motor Lodge, I do hope that the Planning Board will refuse to allow the development of this small stand of trees. Sincerely, Nancy Wilson” MR. MAC EWAN-Just as a note, save that letter for the 29. th MRS. MOORE-Okay. Thanks. MR. MAC EWAN-Thanks. Anyone else? Okay. Gentlemen, I’d ask you to come back up. We’re going to leave the public hearing open. We’re not going to close it. MR. O'CONNOR-I would probably try to answer a couple of comments, just for your record. I think, Tom, you had one neighbor talk about drainage and that he’s to the east and his property is lower than our property. Do you want to explain the general flow of drainage? MR. NACE-Yes. The drainage on this property goes to two low points in the road. The road is cut in a couple of feet below the existing grade, and in the lower areas, we’ve set the house elevation so that the houses, the front yards in the front of the house, the driveways, will all drain down into the road and down to the low points in the road where there are drywells. So all the runoff from the new impervious surfaces will be contained within the roadway system. MR. O'CONNOR-The other question we would try to answer directly is the question of density that Linda White asked. We had proposed here two cookie cutter subdivisions on 33 acres plus. If you take out the acreage that’s used for the road, you’d still have more than 28 acres. I think you actually have 29 acres that are left. We’re not maximizing even the allowed density. The variances that we’ve applied for and that we’ve obtained have to do with lot configuration, and by making the lots, some of the lots narrower and some of the lots less than an acre and some of the lots larger than an acre, we are able to accommodate on this site a looped road system which would, in effect, take the traffic off of Peggy Ann Road in a more orderly manner, allows the water system to be looped. It allows the plowing of the road to be done in a loop type basis, and it was generally thought to be a better sense of development, a safer sense of development. The roads probably aren’t long enough that you’re ever going to have a school bus come in off the main road for them. I’m not sure what the configuration, so I don’t know if that necessarily effects that or doesn’t effect that. As far as Karner Blue, we’ve been told that there is no Karner Blue habitat on the property, and there is no blue lupine on the property, and I think we will get a letter to that effect, although we’ve been told for some time that the letter is forthcoming, and now there’s additional information that we’ve got to give to the same people, and hopefully we’ll have it by next Tuesday. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Has Staff had any conversation with her office, Cathy O’Brien’s office? MRS. MOORE-I spoke with her about a week and a half ago. MR. MAC EWAN-Did she give you any indication that a letter was coming and how soon it was coming? MRS. MOORE-She was just waiting for a map from Matt Steves. MR. MAC EWAN-And that you have forwarded to her? MR. STEVES-Yes. MR. O'CONNOR-But I think she’s indicated there’s no known blue lupine. I don’t know of any. MRS. MOORE-She just said she had to take a look at the map. So I was waiting for her comments. MR. O'CONNOR-I don’t know of any on this part of Peggy Ann Road. That in other environmental studies that have been done or, there’s nothing registered out there. 15 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/16/01) MR. MAC EWAN-Not too long ago she identified several sites in that end of town, and there was nothing. The closest that comes to it is Sherman Avenue. MR. O'CONNOR-I think some of the power lines have some on them. MR. MAC EWAN-Right. MR. O'CONNOR-But this is. MR. STEVES-She indicated to me that on this area of town, there is no mapped habitat. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. I don’t see that as a major hurdle. I just need to just get the letter in our hands. That’s all. MR. O'CONNOR-The other issue, I’m not sure if part of the property was logged, and I don’t dispute that it was or wasn’t. We’re under contract to purchase it in its present condition, and we will set up these no cut zones. They appear to have worked in other subdivisions where we’ve had them, and where others have had them. People seem to police them themselves, as much as anybody else, because the people that buy within the subdivision like the privacy that’s created by the envelope that’s created by the no cut zone. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MRS. LA BOMBARD-And also, Mike, if Mr. Vasiliou is the developer, he’s also going to be the builder. Right? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes, he is. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, he’s going to be the one that’s going to clear the lots for the homes anyway, and so, I would assume that when you have a lot that you have to clear to put your foundation, he’s going to go back to where you’re supposed to go back, you know, to what the 75 feet is, and then that’s it, and then after your house is up, and for anymore cutting to be done, it’s going to be quite an expense on the homeowner anyway. MR. O'CONNOR-My point is that, to even go beyond that period. Once we lose control of it, we will leave in place some restrictive covenant that the neighbors can enforce. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Right. MR. O'CONNOR-Or that the owners within the subdivision can enforce. There’s two levels. One what we do ourselves, and then secondly what we hope that the people that purchase will do in the future. MR. STEVES-As far as, I think Cathy hit that on the head with Mr. Vasiliou, I can speak on first hand knowledge, since I’m his surveyor, that on every lot he has, and then the one that he is currently working on, he has me go out and stake the envelope of the no cut zone, and all the corners and flag right in between, so he does not encroach upon that whatsoever. So, to answer that question. MR. O'CONNOR-The best treed lots are the lots that sell first, is one way I would explain it. So they don’t, there’s no incentive for anybody to go in and clear cut. MR. VOLLARO-Just to completely address Miss White’s question on the pesticide situation, we’re pretty sure that on the north side of Peggy Ann Road, there is no Karner Blue habitat to be concerned with, from the use of pesticides on this property. She had talked something about a deed restriction concerning the use of pesticides. I just wanted to raise that, so that you can address it adequately from there. MR. O'CONNOR-I presume that these people will be regulated in a manner that anybody else is regulated. They will use only permitted pesticides, fertilizers and whatever, that they will use. MR. VOLLARO-That would cover it. MR. MAC EWAN-Any other questions, comments from Board members? MRS. LA BOMBARD-But when you’re talking like that, what about, you know, when people have their foundations treated for ants, things like that, where they use things like Diazonon or, that are legal if they’re in the hands of a trained professional. 16 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/16/01) MR. MAC EWAN-Right, licensed applicator, right. MR. O'CONNOR-I’m not sure what you’re asking. It’s not something that we would. MR. NACE-Well, I think our response is that we haven’t shown that there’s any sensitive habitat close enough by to be concerned with. MRS. LA BOMBARD-That’s true. Well, I think that person was also concerned about, well, I guess there won’t be any deer or foxes going through, if there’s houses built. MR. MAC EWAN-Any other questions, comments? MR. STROUGH-Just a short comment. Now Mr. Vasiliou could have made a proposal of cluster development, and he could have come in with 32 homes on half acre lots. He didn’t. These are larger lots, most of them close to an acre, some a bit more, some a bit less. So I’m going to assume that these are going to be homes that they’re going to be of pretty good value. Do you know a price range? MR. O'CONNOR-I don’t recall that for a fact. It’s in the record with the Zoning Board of Appeals. I think what we did is. MR. MAC EWAN-It was mentioned at this Board, too, and I think you were talking starting out at like the $125,000, $130,000 range on up, the low end. MR. O'CONNOR-I thought he was higher than that. I think he made a comparison to the homes that are in Land O’ Pines on one side, and the other subdivision on the other side, and said they’d be comparable. They might even be a little bit more expensive because of the cost of construction. MR. STROUGH-With the larger lots, you would look for a little bit of a higher end house. MR. O'CONNOR-And until the Town addresses its Ordinance on clustering, it’s not something that developers readily get involved with because there’s problems with the open space. We’ve had those discussions before, and I don’t mean to confuse the issue. I appreciate your thought, and these lots, you know, the density is no different than what you would do, except it’s not a cookie cutter subdivision. We could have two dead ends, which are just not healthy from a planning point of view, as opposed to having a looped system. MR. MAC EWAN-Any Staff comments? Okay. We’ll leave the public hearing open. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. So we will be on your agenda for Tuesday night? MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. What I’ll do is I’ll formally make a motion to table. MOTION TO TABLE SUBDIVISION NO. 6-2000 MICHAEL VASILIOU, Introduced by Craig MacEwan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro: For the following reasons: 1. To verify from Kathy O’Brien, DEC Karner Blue habitat via a letter, either for or against whether it’s there, and 2. That the applicant’s going to provide a landscaping package description for the Board, and 3. Pending the ZBA determination (That’s to be worked out with the applicant’s legal and Staff’s attorney), and 4. Information for the Karner Blue and the landscaping package, it will be here by close of business on the 22, for a meeting on the 23 (January 23, 2001). ndrd Duly adopted this 16th day of January 2001 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Strough, Mr. Hunsinger, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE MR. O'CONNOR-We thank you very much. 17 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/16/01) MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. O'CONNOR-And we’d be happy to meet with any of the neighbors outside if they want to look at the map in more detail. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Thank you. NEW BUSINESS: SUBDIVISION NO. 1-2001 SKETCH PLAN STAGE TYPE: UNLISTED HELEN MITCHELL OWNER: SAME AGENT: MATT STEVES, JIM MILLER, JON LAPPER ZONE: RR-5A, LC-10A, LG PARK CEA, APA LOCATION: LOCKHART RD. & NYS RT. 9L APPLICANT PROPOSES TO SUBDIVIDE A 141 +/- ACRE PARCEL INTO 13 RESIDENTIAL LOTS. OLD TAX MAP NO.: 23-1-13, 40, 41 NEW TAX MAP NO.: 239.18-1-50, 252.00-1-31, 28 LOT SIZE: 141 +/- ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS MATT STEVES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MRS. LA BOMBARD-And at time of Sketch Plan, public hearing is not required. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Subdivision No. 1-2001, Sketch Plan Stage, Helen Mitchell, Meeting Date: January 16, 2001 “Project Description The applicant proposes a thirteen lot residential subdivision on Lockhart Mountain Road. The applicant has requested a waiver from sketch drainage, grading, clearing plan. Study of plat (§ A183) a. Lot arrangement: The lots are arranged to accommodate a residential dwelling. b. Location and design of streets: There are no proposed driveways on the plan. The area contains some steep slopes. Driveway grade should be addressed to determine if a reduction of lots or adjustments of lot lines are needed. c. Topography: The project contains a 140 plus acres on a Mountain Road. The area is noted to contain some sloped beyond 25%, but the applicant has indicated that the buildable envelope is suitable for driveway, dwelling, well, and septic. d. Water supply: The subdivision does not identify potential well locations. The approximate location should be shown on the plans for preliminary review. e. Sewage disposal: The subdivision does not show septic data such as perc tests, leach field. f. Drainage: The plans do not reference any drainage patterns or structures. g. Lot sizes: The lot sizes exceed the required minimum for each of the zones the property is located within. All of thirteen lots except 8 and 9 are located in a split zone. h. Placement of utilities: Utilities are not shown for sketch plan. i. Future development: The arrangement of the lots on Lockhart Mtn. Road and Route 9L makes it difficult to subdivide further for residential use. The land conservation zone (LC-10) and the rural residential zone (RR-5) allows for additional permitted uses and other uses through site plan review. The Board should review the uses allowed in the zones and consider if conditions should be placed on the subdivision. j. Land Use Plan and Zoning Ordinance: The property is located in Neighborhood One and Neighborhood Two. These neighborhoods request evaluation of septic systems; can a system be placed on the lot. In addition, they request evaluation of development on steep slopes; is the development interrupting an important viewshed. k. State Environmental Quality Review Act: A short form was submitted. Staff would suggest a long environmental assessment form to assist in determining buildable lots. (Lots able to support house, driveway, septic, and a well.). l. Town departments: The application has not been referred to other departments. m. Adirondack Park Agency: The applicant has indicated APA has been contacted. Areas of Concern or Importance The Board should review the waivers requested for sketch plan and identify them in the motion. Suggestions The following items should be addressed for preliminary review. 1. The Plat should include a note that “the plan is in compliance with the Zoning Ordinance of the Town of Queensbury”. 2. The Plat should include a note "Approved under authority of a resolution adopted _____________________ by the Planning Board of the Town of Queensbury, New York.________________________________, Chairman.", 18 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/16/01) 3. Show locations of shared driveways for lots on 9L. 4. Provide the density calculations for each of the parcels as outlined in Chapter 183A Section A183-22 Density 5. Review of lot number 6, 10, and 3 for short road frontage compared to the other lots with 200 feet plus 6. Show the approximate building location with septic, well, driveway, and cleared area. 7. Show driveway percentages for lots with driveways greater than 10%. 8. Provide a long environmental assessment form” MR. MAC EWAN-That’s it? MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening. MR. STEVES-Good evening. Again, I’m Matt Steves, and I represent Helen Mitchell on this application, and we have no problems with any of the items that have been addressed by the Staff. They’re all typical stuff. They should be addressed at Preliminary. As stated, this is just Sketch. We show USGS Topography. We show the number of lots, the approximate road frontage on each lot, and the area on each lot. The stream corridor on the southwest of the property has been delineated by the APA, and you can see the note on the top of the map. It has also been sent to the APA for signoff by Mark Rooks of the APA Staff. So that has been taken care of. As far as the common driveway for the two lots on Route 9L, it is the existing driveway. We will show that in detail at the Preliminary. As far as the compliance with the zoning, that’s not a problem, either. We’ll put that note on. We’ll gladly put on the note that you’ll approve this, once we get to that point. The shared driveway, we’ll also put a note on there that the driveway must be shared. We don’t anticipate, or we don’t want to have another driveway. The one that is there would suffice. Density calculations for each of the different zones. That’s, again, not a problem. We will put that on the map. I do have it on the upper right hand corner at this time. I will label it a little bit better, but you can see the amount of land in each zone, and then also under that information is listed the Adirondack Park land use intensity. The approximate building location with septic, well and driveway, again, that’ll all be provided to you at Preliminary, as well as the details of all that engineered by Tom Nace, and the Long Environmental Assessment Form, again, we have no problem. There was one other issue that maybe Laura didn’t touch on. There was a 50 foot access to Lockhart Mountain Road, off of one of the adjoining property owners, and you see a boundary line adjustment is going to be accomplished and then provide him an extra 100 feet to make his lot a little larger lot, and I do have a letter, signed by that land owner, allowing us to do that. MR. MAC EWAN-Which lot are you referring to? MR. STEVES-I’m referring to, where we show the proposed 50 foot access to that larger lot. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-Is that Lot Three? MR. STEVES-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes. MR. STEVES-Other than that, as far as some of the lots and the lot widths, you know, we’re working with the topography that we have to date, and we will show you in more detail, as far as the driveways. We will not put in a driveway over 10%. We will show that. As far as the lot widths, we’re trying to accommodate the best usable and buildable areas on these lots. It’s a 200 scale plan, and you have, there’s still five, six, seven acre lots or larger, and we will show the clearing limits, the proposed house, proposed septic, proposed well and so on, and open to any suggestions that the Board would have. MR. MAC EWAN-All right. Cathy, we’ll start with you. MRS. LA BOMBARD-I just want to listen for awhile. MR. MAC EWAN-Bob? MR. VOLLARO-Matt, on our Staff notes, anyway, there’s a study of plat, and A through M. Have you seen those? 19 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/16/01) MR. STEVES-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Anything on that that you don’t intend to put into Preliminary? To eliminate anything that you don’t. MR. STEVES-No. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Well, that’s the only thing I have, because there’s a regular laundry list there from Staff on the things that Preliminary should review, and I just want to make sure that we’ve talked to each one of those, besides one through eight on the second page. MR. STEVES-Yes. We have no problem with all of those. MR. VOLLARO-If you don’t have any problem with all of those, I don’t have any problem with it. MR. MAC EWAN-Larry? MR. RINGER-Lot Number 10, it looks like you’re going to have a driveway of about 800 feet? That’s a big lot, 26 acres, but you’d have 50 foot access going into it, and the lot doesn’t start for about 600 feet back or 450 feet back. MR. STEVES-That’s correct. MR. RINGER-Then the house would be behind there. So you’re looking at a 700, it seems to be our month and year for these driveways of 800 feet that go straight up a mountain. MR. STEVES-There’s an existing building on the lot that sits in front of that, just to the east of that, and that lot that you’re talking about, you’re not really, you’re running parallel with the contours. If you drive in the back there, there is an actual road there, in place now, a small driveway that goes back to the stream, and there is actually a bridge across that stream, and I don’t think you exceed four percent on that drive the whole way out. MR. VOLLARO-Well, Number Seven asks them to do that, in Seven. If he’s got a driveway greater than 10%, he’s got to talk about it. MR. RINGER-On the grade, yes. I was concerned about the length of the driveway, and we’ve just had so many of these, and every one of them I’ve, personally, objected to, even though they’ve been approved. It’s just, for fire and emergency services and stuff, given that distance, I’d just have a concern, and if there was a way you could look at that perhaps differently, or, I don’t know. I’m only questioning that it’s a long driveway. MR. STEVES-I’ll take that into consideration and see what we can do. MR. MAC EWAN-Is that road maintained right now? MR. STEVES-Absolutely. MR. MAC EWAN-It is? MR. STEVES-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-So next month we can drive out there in the Town van? MR. STEVES-You can drive in the Town van all the way. That’s Lockhart Road, that goes from Bay Road all the way across to Route 9L. MR. MAC EWAN-No, no, no. I’m not talking Lockhart Road. I’m talking the road, the drive that’s going in off building Lot 10. MR. STEVES-No. That is not. You said road. I can check and maybe see if the caretaker of the property, Mrs. Mitchell’s caretaker, would plow that for you. MR. MAC EWAN-Would you? MR. STEVES-I will certainly ask him. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, because next month we do site visits, we make sure, just a note, make sure the van’s gassed, up and there’s a cell phone in it, blankets and water. No, seriously, I would like to 20 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/16/01) go see it. If you’re saying that it’s accessible as a four percent grade or less, and yet it has a bridge back there crossing that brook, I’d like to walk in and see it. MR. STEVES-Certainly. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Anything else? MR. RINGER-No, I didn’t have anything else. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Tony? MR. METIVIER-I guess I’m curious as to what type of bridge you’re talking about. I guess we could wait and see when we go out there, but it’s actually a bridge that you can drive on, or is it? MR. STEVES-Yes, you can drive across it. MR. METIVIER-Would you? MR. STEVES-Would I? Yes. Would you? MR. METIVIER-I’ll let you know next week or next month. MR. STEVES-Who’s driving the van? MR. MAC EWAN-Cathy. MR. RINGER-Maybe we won’t take the van. MRS. LA BOMBARD-I don’t ride unless I drive. MR. VOLLARO-Fasten your seatbelt. MR. MAC EWAN-All right. Moving right along. MR. METIVIER-I have nothing else. MR. MAC EWAN-John? MR. STROUGH-The entire project’s in the Adirondack Park, right? MR. STEVES-Yes. MR. STROUGH-Okay. Would they have to give special permission to approve a bridge, or it’s a pre-existing bridge? I mean, I don’t know what condition it’s in. MR. STEVES-As far as the APA with the wetlands, we’re getting a signoff on that. If there is an existing bridge, they allow you to upgrade, fix, repair, replace in kind. MR. STROUGH-Well, I haven’t been up in awhile, but there’s some beautiful homes that have gone up in there. I mean, that Kruger house. So, I suppose that’s going to attract more of the same kind of housing up there, but my concern was the clear cutting that might go on here. Now, I know that, you take, for example, the Kruger house. They left one tree up. I mean, I’d like to see a little bit more preservation of the age, mature, significant trees, and not see the clear cutting done that I have seen, even though they’re beautiful homes, and by the time this is all done, and then Top of the World wants to expand their course to 18 holes, and they’ve been before us. I don’t know if you represented them, Mr. Steves, or not. You did? So I know that they’re going through the APA process. MR. STEVES-Yes. MR. STROUGH-And I’m assuming that some of that proposal is going to come, approach this. So I’m trying to look at the big picture of the clear cutting for the houses. If we could limit this cutting, it would be great, and leave the significant trees. MR. STEVES-On a residential subdivision, within the APA, we have to present them with a clearing plan. It has to be abided by, not necessarily in the specific location, but in the percentage of clearing. So, in other words, once you have subdivided for residential purposes, you can’t go in and clear cut the lots. 21 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/16/01) MR. STROUGH-Well, that was my primary concern, and I’m glad to hear that, but obviously Mr. Kruger’s had to do that, too, and he’s done a very good job. MR. STEVES-I don’t know if he was part of an approved subdivision by the APA, or if it was an existing lot. MR. STROUGH-So it might be different for individuals going before them, as opposed to a project. MR. STEVES-Correct, not for the individual, but for the property. MR. STROUGH-Okay. Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Chris? MR. HUNSINGER-I guess the only thing I really had is sort of a personal kind of preference, and that’s these long sort of pencil shaped lots, and I realize that our, you know, current Ordinances almost encourage that, but specifically lot four, five, twelve and thirteen. I mean, I just think it’s bad planning overall, and, you know, 30, 40 years down the road, somebody will be saying, you know, it never should have been approved, but I also realize that our Ordinance almost encourages that. I mean, that was sort of one of my first blush feelings about this subdivision. I share in the comments of the long driveways, also. MR. STEVES-As far as the lots, I couldn’t agree with you more. There are some constraints, as far as the five and ten acre zones, and also trying to develop that lower half, like I said, what it would be, and you’re also looking at a 200 scale map. Those are fairly wide lots, even though they’re extremely deep, but we do, you know, the client has been a lifelong resident of the area, and, you know, she’s very much in tune with trying to keep the character of the rural area up there, and would definitely strive to do that in the clearing plan and the house locations. MR. MAC EWAN-Back to you. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes. Matt, as far as this stormwater runoff and septic systems and the fact that that stream is flowing, I’m sure, right into Lake George, is there any kind of a setback that you have to have from that stream? MR. STEVES-Yes, 75 feet with any building and 100 feet with any septic system, and we’ll actually probably almost triple that with our proposed setbacks. MRS. LA BOMBARD-All right, and will these lots have wells? MR. STEVES-Yes. MRS. LA BOMBARD-They’ll have wells, and as far as the stormwater runoff and all that, I mean, because whatever goes up here, gets put up on this property is going to eventually end up in Lake George. MR. STEVES-We’ll be addressing all that. MRS. LA BOMBARD-All that, and because it’s in the APA, there’s a lot stricter regs. MR. STEVES-We’re required to provide them with a full stormwater management plan that has to be not only approved by this Board, but must also be approved by the APA. MRS. LA BOMBARD-And what about like blacktopping. How much, is there any special limit on the impermeable area that is allowed on each of these lots? MR. STEVES-Yes, and the amount of clearing on each lot. MRS. LA BOMBARD-So all that’s. MR. STEVES-All that will be addressed at Preliminary. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Is addressed, and that’s one reason why these lots are so large. MR. STEVES-That’s correct. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Because they’re in the APA. MR. STEVES-Yes. 22 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/16/01) MRS. LA BOMBARD-What was the minimum? MR. STEVES-You have a five acre minimum, in Queensbury’s approved plan, a five and ten acre zone, and you can have five acre lot. As a matter of fact, you can go down to one acre in the five acre zone, which is approved by the APA, but the overall density for the entire area I believe is 8.2 acres by APA standards. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. Now are there going to be, because this is a subdivision, will there be covenants? Will there be one builder, or if a person purchases a lot, use their own contractor? MR. STEVES-That’s correct. These will be up for sale to individuals. There won’t be a developer, but there will be a list of deed restrictions placed on every lot, and we’ll provide you with that list. MR. VOLLARO-Will those deed restrictions talk about further subdivision? MR. STEVES-Absolutely. There won’t be any further subdivision. They’ll note most likely size of homes. They’ll address the clearing limits, so on and so on. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else? MRS. LA BOMBARD-No. What a nice spot. MR. MAC EWAN-Cathy touched on a couple of spots here I was interested in as well. When she’s talking about the potential for erosion runoff and trying to keep any stormwater on site. What kind of plans do you have to maybe do something along the lines of perimeter drains around the foundations or along the roof edges to catch all the rain coming off the eaves and keeping everything right there, isolated? MR. STEVES-That’s what we, with the APA, and with the size of the lots, and especially in some of the areas, even though up top is quite flat, in some areas you do have some slope concerns. We would definitely be addressing that, as far as like an eaves trench around the entire perimeter, you know, the sides of the building where the roofline would warrant that, perimeter drains. MR. MAC EWAN-I’d be looking for that. MR. STEVES-Absolutely. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. I’m curious. Does APA have design standards, architectural standards within the Park, as far as colors and things like that? I know the farther you go up, deeper into the Adirondacks, there are some places where, I don’t know whether those are local ordinances or? MR. STEVES-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-They are? Okay. The third question I had for you, depth to wells. Give me a feel for how deep you think one would have to drill for a freshwater well? MR. STEVES-I’ll find that information out. We are gathering some information on neighboring properties, and talking to two or three of the well drillers that have done it to supply that to the Board. MR. MAC EWAN-Do you have an idea, roughly? MR. STEVES-No, I do not. I’ve talked to two or three of the neighbors up there, and everybody says they don’t have any problems obtaining water, but I haven’t found out how far they’ve had to go to obtain that yet. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Lots Six and Seven, will they have a shared driveway? MR. STEVES-Yes. Those are the two down on 9L you’re talking about? MR. MAC EWAN-Right. MR. STEVES-9L? MR. MAC EWAN-No, they’re on Lockhart Road, Lot Six and Seven, right on the bend. MR. STEVES-Yes. You would want to have a shared driveway there? 23 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/16/01) MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, one’s only got 71 feet of frontage. MR. STEVES-Yes, you’re right. It’s the one with the narrow frontage, correct. MRS. LA BOMBARD-How can you have 71 feet of frontage? MR. MAC EWAN-What’s the requirement in the Ordinance? It’s more than 71 feet, isn’t it? MRS. MOORE-You’re required to show 50 feet for road frontage, they have 71. The average lot width measures out, though. I already took a look at that. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MRS. LA BOMBARD-All you need is 50 feet? MR. STEVES-That’s correct. Fifty feet on a Town road. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Any other questions? Staff? Anything else to add? Okay. Will you just let Laura know if that road, that driveway can be plowed out? Our site visits next month will be MRS. LA BOMBARD-What driveway? MR. MAC EWAN-The one with the infamous bridge. MRS. LA BOMBARD-That would be exciting. MR. MAC EWAN-It would be if you’re going to drive, Cathy. Our site visits are going to be on the 10. th MR. STEVES-On the 10. That would be provided that we have our information ready to submit th for next month, too. Correct? MR. MAC EWAN-No, we’ll go look at it anyway. MR. STEVES-I just wanted to make sure, because if I don’t have the information ready, you’re still going to go. I’ll get a hold of him and see if he can have that taken care of for you on the 10. th MR. MAC EWAN-Thanks. Any other questions, comments? Anything you want to add? MR. STEVES-What time, if you don’t mind me asking, do you typically do your site visit, if you’d give me an idea? MR. MAC EWAN-Three to four in the morning. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Nine a.m. on Saturday. MR. MAC EWAN-We leave here at nine, we’d be up there by twenty after. MRS. LA BOMBARD-It’s always the Saturday, Matt, before the first meeting. MR. STEVES-I just want to know what time, because if we have a snow storm that night before or something, what time to have him up there. MR. MAC EWAN-Site visits are on the 17. I’ve just been corrected. Thank you. th MR. STEVES-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay? MR. STEVES-Certainly. MR. MAC EWAN-Thanks. MR. STEVES-Thank you. MRS. MOORE-Mr. MacEwan, he’s asked for some certain waivers from the Sketch Plan. MR. MAC EWAN-We’ll worry about them at the time of preliminary. 24 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/16/01) MRS. MOORE-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-At Sketch Plan? We don’t give waivers at Sketch Plan. MRS. MOORE-Okay. He’s asked for them. I’m just clarifying if you’re going to address them. MR. MAC EWAN-We’ll talk about them at preliminary. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay? MR. STEVES-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-Thanks. Good luck. SITE PLAN NO. 1-2001 TYPE: UNLISTED JOHN H. OWEN OWNER: JOHN OWEN, LINDY OWEN, PETER & CHERYL FRASIER, DAN DAVIES, SHARON DAVIES ZONE: NC-1A, APA LOCATION: CLEVERDALE RD./9L, OLD FIREHOUSE BETWEEN RESCUE SQUAD AND TELEPHONE BUILDING APPLICANT REQUESTS APPROVAL OF MULTIPLE USES IN AN EXISTING BUILDING – 1 FLOOR CONTAINS POST OFFICE (665 SQ. FT.), 3 BAYS OR 1732.5 ST SQ. FT. FOR STORAGE, 1036 SQ. FT. WOOD WORKING AREA; 2 FLOOR nd CONTAINS 1,207 SQ. FT. OFFICE SPACE AND 1046 SQ. FT. STORAGE AREA. NEW USES IN NC ZONES ARE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. WAIVERS REQUESTED FROM STORMWATER MANAGEMENT REPORT, GRADING PLAN, LIGHTING PLAN, AND LANDSCAPING PLAN. CROSS REFERENCE: BP 98-373, 11/20/00 LETTER FROM C. BROWN, CODE COMPLIANCE OFFICER WARREN CO. PLANNING: 1/10/01 OLD TAX MAP NO. 10-1-8.1/NEW TAX MAP NO. 240.09-1-14 LOT SIZE: 0.57 ACRES SECTION: 179-25 JOHN OWEN & PETE FRASIER, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 1-2001, John H. Owen, Meeting Date: January 16, 2001 “Project Description The applicant proposes to operate several uses in an existing building. A portion of the building is currently used as the “Cleverdale Post Office”. The other proposed uses include a personal woodworking shop and an office for Avex. The Code Compliance Officer, Craig Brown, informed the applicant the uses on the site would need to be in compliance with the zone. The applicant was also informed by Building and Codes Department the building may need to be altered to occupy the space with the proposed uses. Project Analysis The applicant met with Planning Staff and the Building and Codes Department to review the uses. Staff also provided correspondence to the applicant in regards to the requirements of the zone. Staff explained the use of the building for rental/leased storage is not an allowed use in the zone. The building may be used to store personal items of the owner(s) of the building. Rental of storage space is considered self-storage and reviewed through site plan review in Light-Industrial zones. The applicant supplied supporting information that the office business, Avex Flight Support, is a Professional Office. See applicant’s letter of January 8, 2001. The Office meets the intent of the definition and is compatible with the zone that is located in. See Zoning Administrator’s note to file. The applicant proposes no exterior changes to the building or site. The building will be altered to comply with the NYS Building and Codes requirements. The exterior lights are shown on the plan, and noted to be wall mounted lights. The plans do not indicate any new signs or landscaping on the site. The applicant has provided an interior layout of the building. The estimated lease gross floor area for the Post office and the Professional Office is approximately 2,247 square feet. The parking schedule indicates 15 spaces would need to be available. The plan shows 17 spaces for the site. Suggestions Staff would suggest the Planning Board review any new occupancy.” MR. MAC EWAN-That’s it? MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening. MR. OWEN-Good evening. 25 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/16/01) MR. MAC EWAN-Could you identify yourselves for the record, please. MR. OWEN-John Owen, and I’m one of the principal owners. MR. FRASIER-Pete Frasier. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay, gentlemen, the floor is yours. MR. OWEN-This building was originally, it’s a pre-existing building. It was the old North Queensbury Firehouse. It sits on a lot that was, it was given to the Fire Company back in 1948. The only subdivision off of it, if you want to call it that, was one 100 by 100 foot lot that was given to the Rescue Squad for their operation. We are not proposing any changes to the outside, other than what the Town requires, as far as handicap access. All the proposed uses are going to be on the inside. I think you’ve got a letter there, starting with the upstairs, for Avex, that satisfies the needs as far as a professional business. That particular business employs basically there three people. It is a jet, not cleaning. I don’t want to use that word. It is a jet detailing business that their main business is out of Washington D.C. I guess they also just picked up Albany. So most everything they do there is telephone calls, that type of thing. They store no chemicals there. He has basically rented the whole upstairs. One change is that we’ve got 1,207 square foot of office space. The 1046 square foot of storage space was proposed, actually proposed addition to his office space. The downstairs was rented a few years ago, the contract with the Federal Government for the Post Office, and there’s a couple of bays that are used for a wood shop that is Pete’s personal use, and the other two, three bay, two, well, actually three bays, would be for storage, and this is the type of thing where there’s only basically one person for each bay. It’s not divided up into, you know, sections where people can come in. It’s just one bay for one individual, and that’s basically been used for, in the past, things like contractors who are working in the area, some of the large homes, they’ve got equipment that they don’t use every day. They need a safe spot to put it. So they’ve been storing in our barn, or in our garage at that point. Other than that, I guess I’ll leave it up to you, if you have any questions, or anybody else wants to make a comment. Do you want to make a comment, Peter? MR. FRASIER-No, that pretty much covered it. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay, Bob, we’ll start with you. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Since I went up there today and I had a chance to talk with Mr. Frasier, I look at this as there’s really four distinct activities housed in this firehouse. I know that you said that Mr. Frasier’s woodworking business was personal, but it looked to me like it is a business. You just don’t do that for your self entertainment, do you? That’s a business that’s in there. MR. FRASISER-I have some apartment houses. We make some things for those houses, but it is my personal shop. MR. VOLLARO-Okay, and there’s nothing sold out of that shop? It’s not a business? MR. FRASIER-No, sir. MR. VOLLARO-The second activity in that building is a post office, the third is Avex Flight Support, he’s upstairs, and then there’s the lease and storage space of Accurate Stone, which is the first bay over to, I guess, the west. One of the things, this property is 25,000 square feet, or .57 acres. That’s the size of it, in this NC-1 Acre zone. The one thing I noticed in Craig Brown’s letter of 11/20, which is in our packet, that he can find no CO’s for any use in these buildings at all, Certificates of Occupancy. That’s something I don’t understand. There are no CO’s for any of those four activities that are in the building, and I talked to him today. I talked to Craig Brown today, and he said he definitely hasn’t found any CO’s related to this building at all. Of course there’s the waiver request for stormwater management, grading, lighting, and landscaping, but what I’m trying to determine in my mind is this totally pre-existing? Because this building was deeded from the North Queensbury Fire Company. It was deeded to this Company in 1997. Is that correct? I see the deeds in here that are stated that this property was deeded. MR. OWEN-That’s the time that we bought it. That’s correct. MR. VOLLARO-Is in 1997. MR. OWEN-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-So the fact that you took it over at that time, I don’t know that that classifies that as a pre-existing building now? I want some clarification from, we take on a building with a deed in 1997. Does that mean that that building is no longer subject to NC-1A requirements? 26 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/16/01) MRS. MOORE-I guess I don’t understand your question. MR. MAC EWAN-You’ve lost me, too. MR. VOLLARO-Well, we have, the size of the property is 25,000 square feet. The zone says that there can be a principal building up to eight single stories and 10,000 multi story for each one acre. We’re only talking a half acre here. MRS. MOORE-This is a pre-existing building. MR. VOLLARO-That’s what I want to know from you. It’s a pre-existing situation. MR. RINGER-For the building, but not for the occupancy. MRS. MOORE-Correct. MR. RINGER-For the building it’s pre-existing, but the occupancy changed. MR. VOLLARO-Well, that’s correct. I just want to make sure that it’s a pre-existing situation. So I’ve got that clear in my head. As far as the Certificates of Occupancy are concerned, I don’t know what the story is on that. MRS. MOORE-I believe the applicant’s working with Dave Hatin at this time, and during this review process, those things will be obtained or applied for. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. RINGER-What about the use of the storage? Chris says that it’s not an allowed use. MRS. MOORE-Correct. MR. VOLLARO-I just want to get to that. The lease of storage space for Accurate Stone, that’s the letter that Chris is saying is not allowed. Now, the woodworking situation is, in the accessory uses or Type I or Type II in Site Plan Review uses, I don’t see that covered either, as an activity. I don’t know. MRS. MOORE-It’s not, but he owns the building. He’s allowed, his personal use. MR. VOLLARO-The idea is this is his personal shop? MRS. MOORE-Correct. MR. VOLLARO-And that sets him out from underneath any requirements? MRS. MOORE-Yes. When he, if he’s to sell something there, then it falls into the retail business or maybe one of those other site plan review uses, and the applicant’s been made aware of that. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So the only thing that’s really standing out, as far as I can see, then, is the leased storage of the space that’s being leased to Accurate Stone, in accordance with Chris Round’s letter? MRS. MOORE-Correct. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. That’s all I have. I don’t have anything else. MR. MAC EWAN-Larry? MR. RINGER-I’ve got the same thing Bob got. It was the storage wasn’t an allowed use. That would be, ZBA would have to approve that if they wanted to continue that. MRS. MOORE-Correct, through a Use Variance, I believe, is the process. MR. RINGER-Other than that, I have nothing. MR. MAC EWAN-Tony? MR. METIVIER-I’m quite familiar with this area, and perhaps Mr. Owen can clarify. I would assume Accurate shouldn’t be there much longer than the end of this summer? 27 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/16/01) MR. OWEN-They claim that, we’re talking about Phil Morse’s house, basically, and Cantanucci. I believe they’re claiming another year. MR. METIVIER-Are they going to start over? MR. OWEN-I don’t know, but they’re claiming another year. Obviously, there’s different things going on inside the house, and I know, because I live down from Tony, and I know that, running by every day, that, you know, they’re there maybe once a week, doing something. So, probably another year, I would say. MR. METIVIER-My point being is that, you know, I pass the Firehouse on almost a daily basis and see very little activity, except for the Post Office. I was surprised to find out that Accurate was actually, you know, storing stuff there. I realize that they have to get variances to store things, but it almost, to me, seems like a non-issue. It seems like they’re just borrowing a garage. I mean, there’s such little use, and I know that I’m probably out of line here, and they probably have to go through and get variances, but it just seems like such a non-issue. MR. MAC EWAN-While it’s probably a very insignificant use, and it’s something that’s really not overbearing on the property, nonetheless, the Ordinances are in place, and it’s not an allowed use within that zone, and if they want to continue doing that in that zone, then they have to follow the ZBA format and get a Use Variance. MR. METIVIER-But my point to the whole thing is that there’s such little activity, except the Post Office, there, you know, going on, that it just never even dawned on me. I knew that Apex was upstairs. MR. VOLLARO-The Post Office was active today. MR. METIVIER-Yes, the Post Office is active, but as far as Apex and everything else going on, I mean, you don’t see. MR. VOLLARO-Other than that, there wasn’t much going on. MR. METIVIER-Right. MR. RINGER-I assume Craig probably had a complaint, and that’s why he ended up there. MRS. MOORE-I’m not certain how that began. MR. METIVIER-I’m sure it was the article in the Post Star a few weeks back, about Apex. MR. OWEN-Apex. In fact, actually, it was a couple of months ago, where they had an article about how big the company was, and where it was running out of. Otherwise, there’s just really nothing going on there. MR. FRASIER-We were unaware of the procedures that we had to go through. Now that Dave Hatin has brought it to our attention, we are trying to work with the Town to remedy the situation. We’re not trying to sneak anything in. We’re trying to work with the Town, as far as what is allowed and what isn’t, and I believe that’s why we’re here tonight, and we’re taking the steps to remedy the situation. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Anything else, Tony? MR. METIVIER-No. MR. MAC EWAN-John? MR. STROUGH-Well, I agree with Tony about the uses for this. They’re actually ideal. They seem to be low impact, casual, informal uses. I mean, it’s not a discotheque or anything. It doesn’t generate a lot of traffic flow, and it’s set aside so it’s not impacting anybody in any significant manner. So I don’t have any problem with the proposed uses at all, and it seems fine, and I’ve looked through the waivers. I don’t have significant problems, speaking personally, with any of those, because it’s an existing thing. The only little thing that I have with this is just that I just want to make sure the documentation is straight. I’m looking at a page that’s listed, it looks like one of you have probably done the work here on the site development data sheet, where you determine permeable and impermeable surfaces, and I think what you listed down as non-permeable is 54%. MR. OWEN-Correct. 28 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/16/01) MR. STROUGH-Which is really the permeable. The non-permeable would be 66%, just by looking at the project, it rang a bell. MR. OWEN-Yes, you’re correct. I’m sorry. I apologize for that. MR. STROUGH-I have nothing else. MR. MAC EWAN-Chris? MR. HUNSINGER-No, I really didn’t have anything. MR. MAC EWAN-Cathy? MRS. LA BOMBARD-I’m fine. MR. MAC EWAN-Just to touch on the storage thing just for a second. What avenue do you plan on pursuing? Are you going to have the storage no longer used there, or are you going to go the route with the ZBA and obtain a variance? MR. OWEN-We’ll probably go, I would imagine, the ZBA, to try and do that, because we really have no plans, at this point, of putting anymore offices into the place. The way it works now, it is very low impact because we don’t rent slots in the garage. We rent the whole bay, and the bay is approximately 14 by 35, and it’s a way of generating income, obviously, to pay off the debt of owning the place. So we will probably do that for a while, until maybe someone comes in and wants to build an office, or we move our offices, Owen Davies, from across the street over, something along that line. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Anything else to add? MR. OWEN-Nothing that I can think of. MR. MAC EWAN-Staff? I’ll ask you to give up the table for a minute and we’ll open the public hearing. Anyone wishing to comment on this application, you’re welcome to do so. Please come up and address the Board. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MAC EWAN-We need to do a SEQRA, please. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 1-2001, Introduced by Catherine LaBombard who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Strough: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: JOHN H. OWEN, 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. 29 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/16/01) 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 January, 2001, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Strough, Mr. Hunsinger, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Metivier, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE MR. MAC EWAN-Motion? MR. RINGER-Before we make a motion, I have a little problem with a point of order on it. In that the application shows a storage area, and we can’t approve a storage area in this zone, even though it’s insignificant. Either the application should be changed, as Chris suggested, and remove the storage area from the application, or we don’t make a motion on it, because I don’t feel we’d be in order. MR. MAC EWAN-Well, you could, you know, modify your motion to specifically say that storage is not a part of this approval. You could go that route. MR. VOLLARO-Well, we’re saying that he said on the storage he was going to go for a variance. So we could condition this motion on the fact that. MR. MAC EWAN-You could also add this memo as part of the record, per the determination of the Zoning Administrator. MR. RINGER-I just want to be sure that, you know, I just don’t know where we would stand on that, approving an application with the application saying three bays or 1732 square feet of storage. MR. MAC EWAN-Would Counsel or Staff like to give some clarification? MS. RADNER-Well, typically, this Board’s taken the position that when zoning is required, a variance, etc., that you require that to be completed first. That’s the position you’ve taken in the past, and we recommend you follow your past position, and so that you either defer on the issue of approving the portion of it having to do with storage, or you table the whole thing, to see how that’s resolved. That’s our recommendation. MR. RINGER-It seems minor, and the storage is minor, but I just think that procedurally we should be right in the way that we do things. MR. MAC EWAN-I understand. MR. VOLLARO-If I made the motion, I was going to condition the motion on that, that the variance for storage be approved, that this motion is conditioned upon that, approval of that variance. We could certainly do that. MR. MAC EWAN-We don’t want to do that. MR. VOLLARO-No? Why? MR. MAC EWAN-Well, because, historically, we’ve never granted approvals that require an approval such as that from the ZBA. It’s usually the route, just like Counsel’s saying, is they go to the ZBA before they come here. The perfect case in point is the Wall application. MR. VOLLARO-Well, you could certainly table it until the ZBA. MR. MAC EWAN-When do you plan on making application to the ZBA? 30 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/16/01) MR. OWEN-Well, we’ve done, thanks to the help of the Town of Queensbury, this last group of things we went through, we were able to do in probably, what, two weeks or something, something along that line. So, by the mistake we had, I would say probably as quickly as possible. MR. MAC EWAN-You’re not on their agenda for this month or next? What’s the deadline for next month? MRS. MOORE-January 31 is the next month. st MR. FRASIER-According to Dave Hatin, with the type of structure it is and the Post Office being there, before we can obtain a Town variance, we have to obtain a State variance, which we have the application in for. MR. VOLLARO-Was that the stairway you were talking to me about? You have to change the stairwell? MR. OWEN-No, this is because we’re dealing with the Federal Government, because they have the Post Office in there. So we have to go through the State, and we’ve got an application that the Town’s working with us on with that as well. MR. MAC EWAN-Wow, it gets stickier and stickier. MR. OWEN-Yes. MR. RINGER-I don’t see any problem with tabling it because they’re already doing the uses that are there. So if it’s tabled a month or two months or three months, it doesn’t make any difference. We’re not holding anything up since the uses are already there, and there’s not going to be an enforcement proceeding against them as long as this is still pending. That way we’ve done everything the way we should. MR. MAC EWAN-I just want to be sure that they’re going to go the ZBA route, that you’re going to make application. MR. OWEN-We are. I mean, I think the last few weeks, certainly, with the Town’s help, we’ve made quite a bit of headway. So, you know, we’re going to keep on going. MR. FRASIER-We’ve already met with Mr. McGrath from the State on the site. We were told to go to the Planning Board first, and I guess the storage kind of throws us into a loophole, but there was also a question of the office space upstairs being a professional office, which we have designated that that is a professional office, and we wanted to make sure that some of the uses we could go ahead with, and do the application for the State according to what they wanted for what was going to be there. The storage, the State isn’t very concerned about it, but the professional office upstairs they were, and with Dave Hatin and Mr. McGrath, we’ve, after tonight, tomorrow or the next day, we will fill out the application for the State variance, and whenever that comes through, we will go for the Town variance. MR. MAC EWAN-Well, there’s nothing to prohibit you from going, pursuing the ZBA, the Town variance while you’re waiting for the State variance. God knows how long that would take. Are you familiar with the State variance? It only has to do with the Post Office, is that because it’s a Federal? MR.. OWEN-Originally, when he told us we had to do it, he brought to mind that he said, verbally, he said that because you have the Federal Government in there with the Post Office, that you’ve got to go through a State variance. MR. MAC EWAN-And the variance is for what reason? MR. OWEN-Because the Federal Government, as was put to us, and I’m not exactly quoting properly, but because the Federal Government is concerned what is in the same building. In other words, they don’t want to have a nude dance club next to a Post Office, or in the same building as the Post Office. So that was their concern, so that we have to go through a State variance. MR. FRASIER-Not so much that, but the type of structure that it is, with the concrete, first floor, and a wood frame above it, put us into what Dave called a Class Five Structure, and with the Post Office, you need a State variance, and we’re going that route. MR. OWEN-So between those two issues, we’ve got to do this. MR. VOLLARO-And there’s also the issue of obtaining CO’s as well, and Dave is plugged into that loop as well. So there’s a whole bunch of things that have to be cleared up here, I guess. 31 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/16/01) MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, and I think the proper course of action here is lets do the hurdles in the order they’re supposed to be done, and I’d be more comfortable tabling this while you seek the ZBA route to get your Use Variance, and if you get your Use Variance, and that’s dealing with one set of issues. Then if you don’t get your Use Variance, we then know where we stand with this application. MR. OWEN-Let me ask a question. If we were to withdraw the storage aspect of it ourselves, and applied for that at a later time, would that help? MR. VOLLARO-That means all the material that’s in that bay that I saw today would have to go out. MR. OWEN-Yes, we understand that. MR. MAC EWAN-And you’d have to resubmit another application, I think. MR. OWEN-Okay. So, we’ll stick with what we’ve got. MS. RADNER-For just that last use. MRS. MOORE-Only for that use, and the difficulty, if the applicant offers to remove that use at this time, because attempting to go for a Use Variance, there’s obviously the difficulty of filling out the application, and the answers that have to be addressed in filling out that, but if the applicant offers to withdraw that from this site plan at this time, that may be beneficial, from a site plan review standpoint. MR. MAC EWAN-And just resubmit a new application. MR. OWEN-Yes. I think what we’re going to do is we’ll stay with, I was just talking with Peter. We’ll stay with the variance. We’ll go that route. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Then I think we’d be inclined to table this, pending the outcome of your ZBA application. MRS. MOORE-The other concern is that Chris has written another letter that was dated January 8, th that I’m not certain if it was included in your packets, and this was addressed to Mr. Owen, and I’ll just read a sentence in there. “It is my determination that the uses as described above, specifically the rental of storage space and the creation of office, other than professional office, are not allowed, and since this currently exists, must be discontinued within 30 days, unless necessary approvals have been issued.” So, there’s a timeframe that’s been started. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-Thirty days from the date of Chris’ letter. Is that what he said? MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, well, that’s something the applicant’s going to have to deal with. MR. RINGER-Then they could request an extension. That’s all we can do. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. I’ll entertain a motion to table, if anyone wants to throw it out. I think what I’m going to do is I’ll re-open the public hearing, and leave it open, because I did close it. PUBLIC HEARING RE-OPENED MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 1-2001, JOHN H. OWEN, Introduced by Craig MacEwan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Larry Ringer: For the purpose of the applicant to pursue his ZBA Use Variance. Tabled until February 27, 2001. (Note: Use Variance required for rental/lease of storage space in the NC-1A zone). Duly adopted this 16th day of January 2001 by the following vote: MR. MAC EWAN-And I don’t want to flag a date to it, okay. MRS. MOORE-Okay. What that means, when you don’t put a date on it, that the applicant may be subject to additional advertising fees. MR. MAC EWAN-Let’s table it, if someone would tell me when our second meeting. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Our second meeting in February is on the 27. th 32 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/16/01) MR. MAC EWAN-If he makes application, he can get on the ZBA’s first meeting. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Tuesday the 27 is February, the second meeting. th MR. MAC EWAN-Table your application to February the 27. th AYES: Mr. Ringer, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Strough, Mr. Hunsinger, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE MR. MAC EWAN-Before we do anything, do you think that, in hindsight, we should withdraw our SEQRA determination, too? MS. RADNER-I don’t think it matters. You’ve done it. It’s on the record. If the issue’s raised and you want to re-visit it, nothing prevents you from doing that. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. We’ll do that, then, and the reason why I said February 27 meeting, th because that’s our second meeting of the month. That means there’s a ZBA meeting prior to that one. So if you work with Staff and get your application together, you can get on that first meeting, which would get you, if you’re approved for your variance, would get you on our meeting that month, and you could do both in one month and be done. MR. OWEN-Good. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. OWEN-Thank you very much. MR. MAC EWAN-You’re welcome. Any other business? Okay. I’ll make a motion we adjourn. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Craig MacEwan, Chairman 33