Loading...
2002-02-19 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/19/02) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 19, 2002 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT CRAIG MAC EWAN, CHAIRMAN CATHERINE LA BOMBARD, SECRETARY LARRY RINGER ROBERT VOLLARO CHRIS HUNSINGER JOHN STROUGH THOMAS SEGULJIC, ALTERNATE PLANNER-LAURA MOORE TOWN COUNSEL-MILLER, MANNIX, SCHACHNER & HAFNER-CATHI RADNER STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI CORRECTION OF MINUTES December 18, 2001: NONE December 20, 2001: NONE MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF DECEMBER 18 & DECEMBER 20 2001, THTH Introduced by Larry Ringer who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Strough: Duly adopted this 19 day of February, 2002, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Strough, Mr. Hunsinger, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Seguljic OLD BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 2-2002 ADIRONDACK OVERHEAD DOOR CO. PROPERTY OWNER: CURTIS INDUSTRIAL PARK, LLC ZONE: LI-1A LOCATION: 10 SO. WESTERN AVENUE APPLICANT HAS ESTABLISHED TWO ADDITIONAL CONSTRUCTION COMPANIES ON THE PROPERTY; MDM TILE AND MANUFACTURING AND QUALITY CABINETS. ALL LAND USES IN THE LI-1A DISTRICT REQUIRE SITE PLAN REVIEW. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 48-2000 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 1/9/02 TAX MAP NO. 117-10-5, 7 LOT SIZE: 90’ X 230’, 0.30 ACRES SECTION: 179-26 D.1. MICHAEL RINGER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 2-2002, Adirondack Overhead Door Co., Meeting Date: February 19, 2002 “Project Description: Applicant had proposed two additional construction companies to operate at the site. The applicant was tabled at the previous meeting to provide stormwater information and to provide staff with time to review revised information. The applicant has provided a stormwater report prepared by an engineer. Criteria for considering a Site Plan according to Section 179-38 of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance: 1. Does the proposed project comply with the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance? No new information. 2. Will the proposed use be in harmony with the intent of the ordinance, specifically, could the location, character and size of the proposed use increase the burden on the supporting public services and facilities? 1 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/19/02) No new information. 3. Will the proposed use create public hazards with regards to traffic, traffic congestion or the parking of vehicles and/or equipment or be otherwise detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the persons residing or working in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the town? The revised plans show a new arrangement of parking that is compliant with the parking standards. 4. While considering any benefits that might be derived from the project; Will the project have any undue adverse impact on the natural, scenic, aesthetic, ecological, wildlife, historic, recreational or open space resource of the town or Adirondack Park or upon the ability of the public to provide supporting facilities and services made necessary by the project? No new information. The following general standards were considered in the staff review of this project: The location, arrangement, size, design and general site compatibility of buildings, lighting and signs. The revised plan identifies the location of lights for each building and other outdoor lights. The adequacy and arrangement of vehicular traffic access and circulation, including intersections, road widths, pavement surfaces, dividers and traffic controls. The revised plans have removed the diagonal parking for end-to-end horizontal parking adjacent to the property line. This arrangement provides for a 22-foot wide access aisle, exceeding the minimum 20 foot requirement. The location, arrangement, appearance and sufficiency of off-street parking and loading. Staff would suggest that customers, not employees, should utilize parking spaces closest to the building entrances. The adequacy and arrangement of pedestrian traffic access and circulation, walkway structures, control of intersections with vehicular traffic and overall pedestrian convenience. No new information. The adequacy of stormwater drainage facilities. The stormwater information indicates one drywell; 8 ft. by 8 ft. would accommodate the stormwater generated on the site. The file plan was revised on February 12, 2002 showing the location of the drywell at the gated entrance on South Western Avenue. The adequacy of water supply and sewage disposal facilities. No new information. The adequacy, type and arrangement of trees, shrubs and other suitable plantings, landscaping and screening constituting a visual and/or noise buffer between the applicants and adjoining lands, including the maximum retention of existing vegetation and maintenance, including replacement of dead or deceased plants. The revised plans identify the location of permeable area and flower pots. The adequacy of fire lanes and other emergency zones and the provision of fire hydrants. No new information. The adequacy and impact of structures, roadways and landscaping in areas with susceptibility to ponding, flooding and/or erosion. The engineering report indicates the new dry well will accommodate the stormwater generated on site. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): No new information 2 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/19/02) Staff comments: The applicant has addressed the requirements of the application. SEQR Status: Type Unlisted Site Statistic Confirmation: The site contains three buildings: Quality Cabinets 1,616 sq. ft., Adirondack Overhead Door Co. and MDM Marble/Tile 3,564, and Warehouse/Storage 2,785 sq ft. for a total of 7,964 sq. ft. Land Use Plan: The project is located in Neighborhood 12. The plan indicates that inquiries have been made about allowing commercial and office uses in this area that is zoned light industrial.” MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening. MR. M. RINGER-Good evening. MR. MAC EWAN-For the record? MR. M. RINGER-Michael Ringer. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything you want to update us on, Mike? MR. M. RINGER-Well, no. We had Tom Nace come in and we do have a drywell there now. We dug it up once, but it (lost words). MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it? MR. M. RINGER-That’s it. MR. MAC EWAN-John, we’ll start with you. MR. STROUGH-Good evening. Where is this drywell going to be located? I don’t see it on the map. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I didn’t see it either. MR. M. RINGER-See where that mailbox is? MR. STROUGH-No. I’m at an angle and it’s kind of hard. MR. M. RINGER-This one’s an existing one that’s always been there. We have one in the back that the Town has in the back. This one’s in the front. It’s always been there, and we had it vacuumed out (lost words). MR. VOLLARO-It’s not on the map, is what the problem is. MR. STROUGH-So, on this map, where the gate entrance is? Okay. The only other thing that is of concern to me, I see that you’ve added flower pots and such, and I think I expressed a concern that in front, where we have pavement, if my memory is good, I talked about, boy, wouldn’t that have been nice if there was no pavement there and some landscaping and the sidewalks going to the Adirondack Overhead Door and to the marble and tile display area, and then you went on to explain that everything happened rather quickly and you had to button it up and we expressed how nice the front looks now and that’s a lot better and much improved. I was just wondering, and Staff even says, that they’re a little bit concerned about parking in the front, in front of those areas. If we could put some flower pots and such in there, to not only spruce it up but to deter people from parking in that area. MR. M. RINGER-Yes. Well, we still have the old parking signs on the front (lost words). I will do what I can to discourage people from parking there. MR. STROUGH-All right. Otherwise, I don’t have any problems with this. I think it looks like a good plan otherwise, and you’re willing to put some flower pots and potted bushes or whatever, and they’re mobile. You can move them. 3 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/19/02) MR. M. RINGER-The only thing I’m worried about, I don’t want any disaster like over to Cool Beans there where they’ve got their stuff real close to the road and every year they’re working on it. MR. STROUGH-Well, this you can locate it so that it’s convenient for you. MR. M. RINGER-I can do that. MR. STROUGH-Okay. That’s all my concern. Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Chris? MR. HUNSINGER-I guess I really didn’t have anything new to add. I appreciated having the stormwater management report depicted specifically what size storm drain you needed, and I would agree with John, regarding some additional landscaping out in the front, but otherwise, I think, I agree, I think it looks a lot better than it did before. MR. M. RINGER-Thank you very much. MR. HUNSINGER-The plan looks okay. MR. MAC EWAN-Cathy? MRS. LA BOMBARD-Mike, I wasn’t here the last time, for the last meeting, because I had a commitment at school, but I read through the minutes and I think that you were very compliant with everything that was asked, and I know that the guys here had some questions on the parking and the turning and going and I think that was all resolved, and this is fine. MR. M. RINGER-Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Bob? MR. VOLLARO-I don’t have any questions for the applicant. I do have a couple of questions, however, to make sure that this package, when it’s filed, is correct. The drawing that came with this doesn’t have a date on it, but I notice that in the Staff notes it says the file plan was revised on February 12, 2002. I just want to make sure that the file contains the correct drawing. The drawing, John brought it up first, but the drawing does not contain the replacement of the drywell. It doesn’t show the drywell along South Western Avenue at all. There’s no scale on the drawing, although everything looks like it’s measured, but there’s no scale on the drawing at all. Do you have an updated drawing? Is that what we have? MRS. MOORE-That’s correct. No. The copy that you have is not updated since February 12. Only the th file copy has been updated. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So we don’t have the updated copy. MRS. MOORE-As it regards only to the location of the drywell. MR. VOLLARO-Of the drywell, okay, and the drawing date. MRS. MOORE-Correct. MR. VOLLARO-So when it gets filed, it will be correct? MRS. MOORE-That’s correct. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. That’s the only question I really had was that I wanted to make sure that the paperwork was corrected. I have no further questions. MR. MAC EWAN-Larry? MR. L. RINGER-I have nothing. MR. MAC EWAN-Tom? MR. SEGULJIC-I’m all set. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything you wanted to add, Mike? MR. M. RINGER-No, that’s it. 4 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/19/02) MR. MAC EWAN-Staff? MRS. MOORE-No. MR. MAC EWAN-We have a public hearing scheduled for this application. Does anyone want to comment on this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MAC EWAN-We need to do a SEQRA, please. How would that work for us? MS. RADNER-I’m sorry, did you do a SEQRA at the last meeting? MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. We did it on, we didn’t do a SEQRA for this one. I’m wondering, did we do it for? MS. RADNER-It’s my understanding on this one you needed to do SEQRA. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes. MS. RADNER-Okay. There’s only one on the agenda for tonight that you have to make a determination of whether or not to do a SEQRA, whether the modification is significant enough. MRS. MOORE-I think what, is there another business? MR. MAC EWAN-That’s what I’m just thinking of. We did a SEQRA for Volt Landscaping, didn’t we? MRS. MOORE-I don’t know whether you did or you didn’t. Volt Landscaping was, that was previous months. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s just a matter of formality. I mean, it certainly probably wouldn’t hurt anything, but I’m just curious as to because this is all one site. MRS. LA BOMBARD-I understand what you’re saying. MS. RADNER-I don’t know enough about what you did at the last one to tell you, so I would err on the site of completing it here, and doing the SEQRA. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Well, let’s go ahead and do it. It’s not going to hurt anything. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Cover all bases here. Okay. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 2-2002, Introduced by Catherine LaBombard who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: ADIRONDACK OVERHEAD DOOR CO., 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. 5 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/19/02) 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 19 day of February, 2002, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Strough, Mr. Hunsinger, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE MR. MAC EWAN-Would someone like to introduce a motion, please? MR. STROUGH-Can I review a condition with the Planning Board? MR. MAC EWAN-Sure. MR. STROUGH-I’ve written a condition. It’s the only one I know of, a minimum of three large, as in half barrel size, potted flowers or shrubs would be placed on the pavement area between the overhead and tile showroom fronts and Western Avenue to enhance roadside landscaping and deter parking of motor vehicles in this area. MR. VOLLARO-John, just where are we talking about on this file map? MR. STROUGH-Between the shop fronts of Overhead. MR. VOLLARO-Where it says pavement? MR. STROUGH-Where it says pavement. MR. VOLLARO-And are these going to be mobile? MR. STROUGH-They’ll be mobile. He’ll be able to move them around. MR. L. RINGER-You don’t move those things around when they’re full of dirt, though. MR. VOLLARO-That’s right. MR. STROUGH-Well, he can add more. I’m just saying three, in my mind, and the applicant if he has any ideas, I’m open. MR. M. RINGER-I’d just like to, plowing’s an issue with me, you know, just, but we can probably plow and then shovel around them. I don’t know. MR. L. RINGER-John, I can see people running into these things, backing over them. MR. STROUGH-But nobody’s supposed to be there. MR. MAC EWAN-I agree with John. There’s no parking in that area, and I think it would be a good deterrent for you. MRS. LA BOMBARD-I agree. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. It seems like you have a consensus. MR. STROUGH-All right. MR. M. RINGER-Is that something like when it comes springtime I can deal with? MR. STROUGH-Well, you know, as long as it does what, in essence, we’re looking for, and that is to enhance the landscaping and deter people from parking there. MR. MAC EWAN-Tie your approval with a date. It’s all got to come into compliance by May 31. st 6 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/19/02) MR. M. RINGER-That’s fair enough. MR. MAC EWAN-That’ll give them an opportunity, when the weather warms up, to re-stone that drywell and put those planters in. MR. STROUGH-Okay. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 2-2002 ADIRONDACK OVERHEAD DOOR CO., Introduced by John Strough who moved for its adoption, seconded by Chris Hunsinger: WHEREAS, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of Site Plan No. 2-2002, Adirondack Overhead Door. Applicant has established two additional construction companies on the property; MDM Tile and Manufacturing and Quality Cabinets. All land uses in the LI-1A district require SPR. Cross Reference: SP 48-2000, Tax Map No. 117-10-5, 7. Lot size: 90’ x 230’, 0.30 acres. Section: 179-26 D.1., and; WHEREAS, the application was received 12/26/01; and WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation and inclusive of all newly received information, not included in this listing as of 2/15/02: 2/19 Staff Notes 2/12 Map revised to indicate drywell location 2/4 Stormwater Management 1/30 Revised Information received 1/22 Planning Board resolution - Tabled 1/22 Staff Notes 1/18 Revised Information 1/15 Notice of Public Hearing 1/9 Warren Co. Planning 1/3 Meeting Notice WHEREAS, public hearing was held on 1/22/02 and 2/19/02 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 WHEREAS, approval of the application means that the applicant can now apply for a Building Permit unless the lands are Adirondack Park Jurisdictional or other approval are necessary. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that The application is approved in accordance with the resolution prepared by Staff and is subject to the following conditions: 1 . That a minimum of three large, as in one half barrel size, potted flowers or shrubs will be placed on the pavement area between the Overhead Door and Tile Showroom fronts and Western Avenue to enhance roadside landscaping and deter the parking of motor vehicles in this area. This condition should be in compliance by May 31, 2002, and 2. All conditions are to be noted on the final approved plans submitted for the Zoning Administrator’s signature in a form to read as follows: Plans have been approved under authority of a resolution adopted 2/19/02 by the Planning Board of the Town of Queensbury, New York with the following conditions: 1. Duly adopted this 19th day of February, 2002, by the following vote: 7 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/19/02) AYES: Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Strough, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Vollaro, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set, Mike. MR. M. RINGER-Okay. Thanks very much. Have a good evening. MR. MAC EWAN-Good luck. You’re welcome. NEW BUSINESS: SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 6-2002 TYPE: UNLISTED DOUGLAS GIPE PROPERTY OWNER: GEORGE ROOP ZONE: CR-15 LOCATION: 438 DIX AVENUE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO UTILIZE THE BUILDING FOR FLOORING CENTER/RETAIL. RETAIL BUSINESS IN A CR ZONE REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: UV 103-1992, SV 46-1992, SP 29-99, SV 11-2000, VAR. 852 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 2/13/02 TAX MAP NO. 111-4-2 LOT SIZE: 1.11 ACRES SECTION 179-24 DOUGLAS GIPE, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 6-2002, Douglas Gipe, Meeting Date: February 19, 2002 “Project Description: Applicant proposes utilizing a portion of an existing building to operate a floor covering installation business. Criteria for considering a Site Plan according to Section 179-38 of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance: 1. Does the proposed project comply with the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance? The proposed use is compliant with zoning requirements of the Commercial Residential Zone. 2. Will the proposed use be in harmony with the intent of the ordinance, specifically, could the location, character and size of the proposed use increase the burden on the supporting public services and facilities? The proposed use is compatible with the adjacent retail businesses and does not appear to be a burden on existing public services. 3. Will the proposed use create public hazards with regards to traffic, traffic congestion or the parking of vehicles and/or equipment or be otherwise detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the persons residing or working in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the town? The proposed use will utilize the existing access points on Dix and Queensbury Avenue. There is ample parking space for a company vehicle, and customer vehicles. 4. While considering any benefits that might be derived from the project; Will the project have any undue adverse impact on the natural, scenic, aesthetic, ecological, wildlife, historic, recreational or open space resource of the town or Adirondack Park or upon the ability of the public to provide supporting facilities and services made necessary by the project? The proposed use in an existing building will not have an undue adverse impact on the Queensbury Community. The following general standards were considered in the staff review of this project: The location, arrangement, size, design and general site compatibility of buildings, lighting and signs. The leased space will be used as a showroom. The storage of materials will be done at another location; the main storage at the store will be for materials that are on display. The applicant has requested a waiver from providing a lighting plan. There are no exterior alterations proposed. The adequacy and arrangement of vehicular traffic access and circulation, including intersections, road widths, pavement surfaces, dividers and traffic controls. 8 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/19/02) The existing access points will remain as full movements. The location, arrangement, appearance and sufficiency of off-street parking and loading. There will be no changes to the existing parking layout at the site. The adequacy and arrangement of pedestrian traffic access and circulation, walkway structures, control of intersections with vehicular traffic and overall pedestrian convenience. The proposed use does not generate pedestrian traffic. The adequacy of stormwater drainage facilities. The applicant has asked for a waiver from providing this information. The adequacy of water supply and sewage disposal facilities. The use does not impede on the existing water supply or sewage disposal facility. The adequacy, type and arrangement of trees, shrubs and other suitable plantings, landscaping and screening constituting a visual and/or noise buffer between the applicants and adjoining lands, including the maximum retention of existing vegetation and maintenance, including replacement of dead or deceased plants. The applicant has asked for a waiver from providing a landscaping plan. The adequacy of fire lanes and other emergency zones and the provision of fire hydrants. The plans do not identify fire access or fire hydrants. The adequacy and impact of structures, roadways and landscaping in areas with susceptibility to ponding, flooding and/or erosion. The applicant has requested a waiver from providing information on grading. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): The leased area was utilized by “Alley’s Place” kitchen/deli, Site Plan 29-99. Staff comments: This area is mixed with commercial and residential use. The proposed use would be compatible with the existing residential and business uses in the area. SEQR Status: Type Unlisted Site Statistic Confirmation: The applicant is leasing approximately 700 square feet of the building. Land Use Plan: The project is located in Neighborhood 10. The plan suggests a study of the area to determine what can be done to improve the visual quality.” MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening. MR. GIPE-Good evening. MR. MAC EWAN-Could you identify yourself for the record, please. MR. GIPE-My name is Douglas Gipe. MR. MAC EWAN-Tell us a little bit about your proposed project, Mr. Gipe. MR. GIPE-I lease the space over there on Dix Avenue. I’m hoping to open a retail floor store. I’ve been installing all my life, since I was a kid, and I’ve got the opportunity now to open up a store. I was working for Sears, and they went out of the flooring installation business. So that’s why I’m proposing to do this. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Anything else you wanted to add? 9 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/19/02) MR. GIPE-No, sir. MR. MAC EWAN-Chris, I’ll start with you. MR. HUNSINGER-When I first read through the Staff notes, I was a little concerned about some of the waivers that were requested, but then, because it was an existing building, I was a lot less concerned. I guess other than that comment I really didn’t have any specific questions, and I’m comfortable with the project. MR. MAC EWAN-Cathy? MRS. LA BOMBARD-The carpet center’s going to be in the, I didn’t go on site visits with the guys because I had surgery, but is it in that place where the, that round window is? MR. GIPE-Yes, ma’am. MRS. LA BOMBARD-The window is. MR. GIPE-Yes. MRS. LA BOMBARD-And the parking is fine? MR. GIPE-Yes. MRS. LA BOMBARD-There’s no problem with, are you going to have the people coming in off the Dix Avenue or the Queensbury Avenue? MR. GIPE-There’s access either way they can drive in, through Queensbury Ave. or Dix Ave., and basically park. MRS. LA BOMBARD-It doesn’t get confusing with? MR. GIPE-No, not that I can see. MRS. LA BOMBARD-All right. I guess I was just, I see that you have parking, there’s parking spots on the Dix Avenue side. MR. GIPE-Yes. MRS. LA BOMBARD-And there’s parking spots on the Queensbury Avenue side. MR. GIPE-Yes. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay, and how many, is there just one ingress on the Dix Avenue side, or is there two? MR. GIPE-There’s one there. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay, and it’s more toward the western, is it more toward the western part of the? MR. GIPE-Yes. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay, and the eastern part, where the sign is. MR. GIPE-That’s all basically parking. There’s parking, there’s like a little parking cement things all along that. There’s probably about 10 parking spots there, the way it looks. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay, but I mean people can’t come around that Queensbury Avenue and come in, take it really close, take a real quick turn into it? MR. GIPE-There’s a lot of room in there. MRS. LA BOMBARD-There is a lot of room in there. Okay. All right. Yes. I guess that was my only concern when I drove by. Thanks. MR. GIPE-Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Bob? 10 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/19/02) MR. VOLLARO-I don’t really have any significant questions on this application at all. We were there. I looked at it. This is going to be basically as a showroom, as opposed to an installation area. MR. GIPE-It’s going to be a showroom. MR. VOLLARO-And your installations will be off site. MR. GIPE-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-Everything will be on someone else’s floor, right. So, no, I don’t have any questions. MR. MAC EWAN-Larry? MR. RINGER-I don’t have anything. MR. MAC EWAN-Tom? MR. SEGULJIC-I’m all set. MR. MAC EWAN-John? MR. STROUGH-It’s kind of a nifty room, isn’t it, unique. I kind of liked it. So that’s going to be your showroom. Storage is going to elsewhere. MR. GIPE-Storage is going to be elsewhere, yes. MR. STROUGH-Where’s your storage going to be? MR. GIPE-I have, for warehouse space right now, it’s Manor Drive. I store all Sears’ carpet. MR. STROUGH-Now, are you going to paint it up or fix it up on the outside a little bit? MR. GIPE-I talked to George about that, and he said it’s not a problem. I’d like that. It doesn’t look very nice. MR. STROUGH-I think having somebody in there will make it. MR. GIPE-He’s willing to work with me on that he said. MR. STROUGH-Yes. It’s interesting. It’s an interesting location, and I hope you do well there. I have no further questions. Thank you, though. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Anything Staff wanted to add? Mr. Gipe, anything you want to add? MR. GIPE-No. MR. MAC EWAN-We have a public hearing scheduled for this application. Does anyone want to comment on this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MAC EWAN-We need to do a SEQRA, please. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 6-2002, Introduced by Catherine LaBombard who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Strough: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: DOUGLAS GIPE, 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 11 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/19/02) RESOLVED: 1. No Federal agency appears to be involved. 2. The following agencies are involved: NONE 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury. 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant. 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law. Duly adopted this 19 day of February, 2002, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Strough, Mr. Hunsinger, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE MR. MAC EWAN-Would someone like to introduce a motion, please. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 6-2002 DOUGLAS GIPE, Introduced by John Strough who moved for its adoption, seconded by Chris Hunsinger: WHEREAS, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of Site Plan No. 6-2002, Douglas Gipe. Property Owner: George Roop. Zone: CR-15. Location: 438 Dix Avenue. Applicant proposes to utilize the building for Flooring Center / retail. Retail Business in a CR zone requires Planning Board review and approval. Cross Reference: UV 103-1992, SV 46-1992, SP 29-99, SV 11-2000, Var. 852. Warren Co. Planning: 2/13/02. Tax Map No. 111-4-2. Lot size: 1.11 acres / Section: 179-24, and WHEREAS, the application was received 1/3/02; and WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation and inclusive of all newly received information, not included in this listing as of 2/15/02 2/19 Staff Notes 2/12 Notice of Public Hearing: 2/13 Warren Co. Planning 2/6 Meeting Notice WHEREAS, public hearing was held on 2/19/02 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 WHEREAS, approval of the application means that the applicant can now apply for a Building Permit unless the lands are Adirondack Park Jurisdictional or other approvals are necessary. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that 12 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/19/02) The application is approved in accordance with the resolution as prepared by Staff, and that we’re granting a waiver request for Stormwater Drainage Plan, Grading Plan and Landscaping Plan. Duly adopted this 19th day of February, 2002, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Hunsinger, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Strough, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set, good luck. MR. GIPE-Thank you very much. MR. HUNSINGER-You’re welcome. SUBDIVISION NO. 3-2002 PRELIMINARY STAGE FINAL STAGE TYPE: UNLISTED JOSEPH ROULIER PROPERTY OWNER: SAME AGENT: VAN DUSEN & STEVES ZONE: SR-1A LOCATION: EAST SIDE QUEENSBURY AVENUE APPLICANT PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF AN 8.07 +/- ACRE PARCEL INTO THREE LOTS OF 1.03 AC., 1.12 AC., AND 5.92 ACRES. CROSS REFERENCE: SB 5-2001 TAX MAP NO. 109-5-8.1 LOT SIZE: 8.07 +/- ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGS JOE ROULIER, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Subdivision No. 3-2002, Preliminary and Final Stage, Joseph Roulier, Meeting Date: February 19, 2002 “Project Description: The applicant proposes a three lot subdivision with a common drive for all three lots. The Board had previously approved this subdivision under the name McMurry who was the agent for Roulier. The McMurry subdivision was never filed with the county, as a result the Planning Board approval has expired. Study of plat: Lot arrangement: The lots are arranged to facilitate the common access drive unto Queensbury Avenue. Topography: Lot 2 has slopes to the rear of the property that would discourage development at the rear of the property. The plans identify the best location for proposed homes on the property. Water supply Sewage Disposal: The development will connect to municipal water supply and have on site septic systems. Drainage: No changes in site grading are proposed, therefore, no alterations to existing site drainage is anticipated. Lot sizes: Lot 1 is 1.03 acres; Lot 2 is 5.92 acres; and Lot 3 is 1.12 acres. The property is zoned SR-1A the subdivision meets the minimum lot size requirements. Future development: The previous approval was conditioned upon no further development of Lot 2. Lot 2 would be difficult to further develop due to the topography and access. State Environmental Quality Review Act: Type Unlisted with a short form submitted Land Use Plan: The project is located in Neighborhood 10. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): Subdivision 5-2001 McMurry Staff comments: Staff would suggest approval of the three lot subdivision as submitted for preliminary and final. The signature block should show the following: 1) 2002 2) a line for approval date 3) a line for date signed {Time Clock: If approved with no conditions the time begins with the approval date; If approved with conditions the time begins with the signed date.}” 13 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/19/02) MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening. MR. ROULIER-Good evening. MR. MAC EWAN-For the record you are. MR. ROULIER-Joe Roulier for Joe Roulier. I really even hate to bore you with this because about three months ago apparently you went through this with Mr. McMurry, and as is indicated, it was never filed, and the real estate transaction or deal that I had going with him fell through. It’s in my best interest, and I feel as though it’s a reasonable request for this Board, to proceed ahead with the subdivision. The only thing that has been changed, to be perfectly honest with you, is the name at the bottom of the survey page. All of the other details, all of the other boundary lines, the square footages, the acreages, everything remains identical to the original proposal that you approved at that time. I, of course, would be happy to answer any questions you may subsequently have, or if you need any one of the maps up on the board, I’d be happy to put those up for you also. MR. MAC EWAN-I think you should probably end up doing that. Do you have a copy of the map on your projector? MRS. MOORE-No, I do not. MR. MAC EWAN-This original subdivision was for three lots. MR. VOLLARO-The original subdivision was for three units, but it had a condition, there be no further development on this lot. It was conditioned that way. MR. MAC EWAN-With three. We allowed the three, because it was a big issue. We discussed that quite in depth. MR. VOLLARO-But if there’s not going to be anymore development on this lot, why is there a house and a septic system on this lot? MR. MAC EWAN-Because the original approval was for three and no further development after the three, not the two. MR. RINGER-I brought the minutes and the resolution from when you. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s what it was, wasn’t it? Because we spent a lot of time discussing that shared driveway with three units. MR. RINGER-Right, and I figured we’d approve it with the same conditions that we had before. MR. VOLLARO-That wasn’t clear in the last, it’s not clear in the words. I think I remember it from before. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Cathy, we’ll start with you. MRS. LA BOMBARD-What is different from this application with the other? MR. ROULIER-Absolutely nothing. The only thing that has been changed or altered on this particular map right here is my name. Everything else is identical to the way it was filed approximately three, four months ago. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Did we ever come to any kind of closure on that one driveway? MR. MAC EWAN-We approved it. MRS. LA BOMBARD-We did approve it? MR. MAC EWAN-They just never filed the plat. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. That’s what I thought. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, it expired. MRS. LA BOMBARD-All right. MR. ROULIER-The driveway as you approved it before is all identical. 14 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/19/02) MRS. LA BOMBARD-Right. MR. ROULIER-The lot lines, the setbacks, all of the square footages that were previously approved are also identical. There has been, to be absolutely honest with you, there has been no alterations to that particular survey map, other than my name on it. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Joe, is that a driveway or a road, as it comes off Queensbury Avenue? I mean, it looks wider than a normal driveway. MR. ROULIER-On this particular map? MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes. MR. ROULIER-What the proposal is is to actually just have a private road that goes off Queensbury Avenue. That’s all. Matt Steves will be actually delineating the property lines and also indicating, at the same time, where that road will actually be established. MRS. LA BOMBARD-But it’ll be able to have both ways of traffic? MR. ROULIER-I cannot answer that at this time because it will be a private road. We do not have any expectations of paving it, and the lots that will be using it are basically going to have easements to that road. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes, but what if somebody’s coming in and somebody else is going out? MR. ROULIER-Well, it will be more than adequate for two vehicles to pass. I can assure you of that. MRS. LA BOMBARD-That’s what I was concerned about. MR. ROULIER-I mean, it’s not going to be like an eight foot wide road or dirt road that’s going to go down through there. It’ll be more than adequate. MRS. LA BOMBARD-And so this is your project now? MR. ROULIER-Yes, it is. It’s my property and my project. I’ve had the property for probably 15 years now, and I originally had expectations of developing it into apartments and subsequent zoning changes followed in that 15 years, and we feel as though this is a reasonable use of this particular piece of property. The majority of trees will be left on it. MRS. LA BOMBARD-And will this be speculation or just, or find a builder and let them design their own house? MR. ROULIER-Well, there’ll be either of two scenarios. Either I’ll build all three of the homes on spec, or as perspective buyers come to me and build, but at this time, as I speak to you, Mr. Craig Brown has actually indicated that he would like to buy one of the lots already and possibly two of the lots. So it looks like he may be going over there. We have a tentative agreement already, based on the outcome of this Board’s approval. Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Bob? MR. VOLLARO-No, I don’t have any questions. MR. MAC EWAN-Larry? MR. RINGER-Your previous approval, the approval we previously gave, had some conditions in it, three of them to be exact, and those conditions were that the property would be developed only as single family, no further development of Lot Number Two, and the third condition, I’ve got to look it up, if you’ll give me a second. My question to you is, those conditions, if we approve with those conditions, they’re acceptable? MR. ROULIER-Since I don’t know what the condition number three is. MR. RINGER-Okay. Let me read them off, then. MR. ROULIER-Okay. MR. RINGER-Okay, Condition One, there be no further subdivision of Lot Two. Condition Number Two, the applicant shall construct single family dwellings only, and, three, that we grant the waivers requested for Sketch Plan that had previously been requested. That was the third one. So the two conditions that you would be, would be no further development of Lot Number Two, the five acre lot. 15 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/19/02) MR. ROULIER-That’s correct. MR. RINGER-And only single family dwellings would be built. MR. ROULIER-That’s correct, also. MR. RINGER-Okay. MR. ROULIER-And I would agree to that. That, in fact, is correct. MR. RINGER-Okay. I don’t have anything else, Craig. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Tom? MR. SEGULJIC-Just for my edification. This is going to be a shared driveway. Who’s going to be responsible for taking care of it? Do you just come to an agreement? MR. ROULIER-Okay. Yes, actually the way Mr. Steves has set it up is that the Lot Number One and Number Three will have easements over the driveway which will be owned by Lot Number Two. It’s not something that’s out of the ordinary to do. In fact, where I live, we have an easement over the driveway. MR. VOLLARO-So this will be a cross easement? Is this what you’re talking about? MR. ROULIER-I’m not sure exactly about the legality of how it will be drawn up, but Lot Number One and Three will have a right or way or easement to it, yes. MR. VOLLARO-Then it will be a cross easement. MR. SEGULJIC-Any objections from the neighbors at all? MR. ROULIER-Not that I’m aware of. I don’t know if Staff has received any comments one way or the other, to be perfectly honest with you. I just want the Board to know that it’s not my intent to go in there and bulldoze down every tree on the property at all. I’m a firm believer of keeping as much of it as natural as possible, and I think by maintaining at least Lot Number Two in the size and dimension it is will help to solidify what I’m telling you. There’s a lot of, and I don’t know if any one of you have had the opportunity to walk that property, but in that whole back section of Lot Number Two, there’s probably 50 or 60 Black Walnut Trees that run that whole ridge back there. It’s really quite a nice piece of property, and whoever actually winds up with Lot Number Two, there’s a tremendous view, because that slopes down. You can see from the gradation on the survey, there’s just a great view right out the whole back side of that property, the way it sets. So I just think it’s important for all of us in our community to keep the aesthetics there, but at least as long as I own the property, no one’s going to go in and clear cut it. Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it, Tom? MR. SEGULJIC-That’s it. MR. MAC EWAN-John? MR. STROUGH-Hi, Joe. MR. ROULIER-John, how are you doing. MR. STROUGH-The only, I’ve got one question, Joe. On C1 it says that the acreage is 7.55. Is that, but if you add all three lots, 5.92, 1.12, 1.03, it adds up to 8.07 acres. MR. ROULIER-Right, and the 8.07 is probably the closest estimate I’ve ever seen. I know it’s very difficult for them to come up with the exact square footage because of the different dimensions to the property, but I’ve seen, I think on the tax map it’s 7.95. I’ve seen it at 8.07. So I think that’s one of the reasons why they always put plus or minus in front of the acreage when it’s shown, but I do know that the lots, as Mr. Steves has drawn up, are the minimum is in excess of one acre. MR. STROUGH-Yes, well, I know that this probably came from the County, and County is trying to clean it up and make it more accurate, but sometimes it can be inaccurate. MR. ROULIER-Yes. I know it’s a significant problem, particularly up around the Assembly Point and Cleverdale area where you’re working with 52 feet, 54, etc. 16 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/19/02) MR. STROUGH-Now my other concern, and I think I had it last time, too, was I see some mottling in some of the areas about 19 inches down. Is that going to pose any problems with water in basements or the septic systems? MR. ROULIER-To be perfectly honest with you, there has been a series of test wells that have been done on that property, and depending on the time of the year, the test results have come back with different results. Because we’re only putting three houses on the property, I could not foresee any problem of any drainage going from one property over to the other. So I don’t think that the drainage problem would be significant or even come into play. I think that, on Lot Number Three, for example, where there’s a good slope to it, the upper portion of the house will be, the basement area will be in grade, whereas the back of it will probably almost be above grade, and I think that at that point we would have to then address drainage around the peripheral area of the basement, but I realistically do not expect to have any type of a water problem over there, and if I do, I think during the time of construction that we would address the drainage. MR. STROUGH-Which is funny, because by appearances, you know, after a while you get a feel for where water might be close to the surface, and it didn’t look like that kind of terrain, where it would be. So I was surprised, myself, when I saw mottling 19 inches below the surface. MR. ROULIER-I just want to address that for one second. Several years ago, about 20 years ago, I built a house over on the west side of Lake George, and it was in a situation that was very similar to that. It was on a sloped area, and for the life of all of us that were involved in it, we would never expect that we would have any type of a water problem, and it was on the side of the hill. The drainage around it was great, and come that spring, we did have a water problem. I’m not saying that this is the identical situation as that particular piece of property, but just because you’re on a side of the hill doesn’t necessarily eliminate or preclude you from having a potential problem with the water. The water, even if it is a problem, it can be addressed around the foundations of the house, but as you go further out from the property, you go towards the south/southeast portion of the property, you get into a swampy type area that adjoins it out there. So any type of water that runs down from that particular area always does wind up in that swamp area. MR. STROUGH-I also know you as a builder, a very good reputation, that should you dig out the foundation I’m sure if you suspect there might be water, you’ll take the necessary precautions in your building style to remedy that, and so I have no further questions. Thank you. MR. ROULIER-Thank you very much. MR. MAC EWAN-Chris? MR. HUNSINGER-I don’t think I was on the Board when this was approved last year, but personally I like the shared driveway concept, and other than that, I really didn’t have anything to add. MR. MAC EWAN-Cathy? MRS. LA BOMBARD-Fine. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything you wanted to add? MR. ROULIER-Well, I would like to address Chris for one second. I think in that particular application, where you do, you have traffic. There’s no doubt about it. There’s traffic over on Queensbury Avenue now. We’re trying to further develop the airport and the industrial park, and I think the beauty of having the one driveway right there is that instead of having three cuts in the road, haphazardly, we can have one main cut and everybody, you know, can use it. MR. HUNSINGER-That’s why I like it. MR. ROULIER-Yes, I think it will work. MR. HUNSINGER-We have suggested shared driveways to certain applicants in the past, and sometimes they agree to it, sometimes they don’t. So it’s nice to see an applicant coming to us with it already proposed. MR. ROULIER-Okay. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Does Staff want to add anything? We have a public hearing scheduled tonight. Does anyone want to comment on this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT 17 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/19/02) PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MAC EWAN-We need to do a SEQRA, please. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 3-2002, Introduced by Catherine LaBombard who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Strough: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: JOSEPH ROULIER, and WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. No Federal agency appears to be involved. 2. The following agencies are involved: NONE 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury. 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant. 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law. Duly adopted this 19 day of February, 2002, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Strough, Mr. Hunsinger, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE MR. MAC EWAN-Would someone like to introduce a motion? MOTION TO APPROVE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 3-2002 JOSEPH ROULIER, Introduced by Larry Ringer who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Strough: WHEREAS, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of SB 3-2002, J. Roulier. PRELIMINARY STAGE. Property Owner: Same. Agent: Van Dusen & Steves. Type: Unlisted. Zone: SR-1A. Location: East side Queensbury Avenue. Applicant proposes subdivision of an 8.07 +/- acre parcel into three lots of 1.03 ac., 1.12 ac. and 5.92 acres. Cross Reference: SB 5-2001. Tax Map No. 109-5-8.1. Lot size: 8.07 +/- acres / Section: Subdivision Regs, and; WHEREAS, the application was received 1/30/02; WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation, and inclusive of all newly received information, not included is this listing as of 2/15/02; 2/19 Staff Notes 2/12 Notice of Public Hearing 2/6 Meeting Notice WHEREAS, public hearing was held on 2/19/02 concerning the above project; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the Subdivision requirements of the Code of the Town Queensbury (Zoning); and 18 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/19/02) 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 for Preliminary Stage is approved with the resolution prepared by Staff and is subject to the following conditions: 1. There be no further subdivision of Lot No. Two, and 2. The applicant shall construct single family dwellings only, and 3. All conditions are to be noted on the final mylar submitted for the Chairman’s signature in a form to read as follows: “Plans have been approved under authority of a resolution adopted 2/19/02 by the Planning Board of the Town of Queensbury, New York with the following conditions:” Duly adopted this 19th day of February, 2002, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Strough, Mr. Hunsinger, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE MR. MAC EWAN-Do we have a motion for Final, please. MOTION TO APPROVE FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 3-2002 JOSEPH ROULIER, Introduced by Larry Ringer who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro: WHEREAS, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of SB 3-2002, J. Roulier. FINAL STAGE. Property Owner: Same. Agent: Van Dusen & Steves. Type: Unlisted. Zone: SR-1A. Location: East side Queensbury Avenue. Applicant proposes subdivision of an 8.07 +/- acre parcel into three lots of 1.03 ac., 1.12 ac. and 5.92 acres. Cross Reference: SB 5-2001. Tax Map No. 109-5-8.1. Lot size: 8.07 +/- acres / Section: Subdivision Regs, and; WHEREAS, the application was received 1/30/02; WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation, and inclusive of all newly received information, not included is this listing as of 2/15/02; 2/19 Staff Notes 2/12 Notice of Public Hearing 2/6 Meeting Notice WHEREAS, public hearing was held on 2/19/02 concerning the above project; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the Subdivision 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 19 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/19/02) RESOLVED, that The application for Final Stage is approved in accordance with the resolution as prepared by Staff with the condition as approved on Preliminary: 1. There be no further subdivision of Lot No. Two, and 2. The applicant shall construct single family dwellings only, and 3. All conditions are to be noted on the final mylar submitted for the Chairman’s signature in a form to read as follows: “Plans have been approved under authority of a resolution adopted 2/19/02 by the Planning Board of the Town of Queensbury, New York with the following conditions:” 1. 4. All necessary outside agency approvals have been received by the applicant, with a copy sent to and received by Planning Department Staff within 180 days. 5. The plat must be filed with the County Clerk within 60 days of receipt by Planning Department Staff of outside agency approvals noted. Duly adopted this 19th day of February, 2002, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Strough, Mr. Hunsinger, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set, Joe. MR. ROULIER-Thank you very much. MR. MAC EWAN-Get that plat signed. MR. ROULIER-Yes. Thank you very much. SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 7-2002 TYPE: UNLISTED DAVID ADAMS PROPERTY OWNER: SAME AGENT: FRANK DE NARDO ZONE: WR-1A LOCATION: 129 ASSEMBLY POINT RD. APPLICANT HAS REMOVED A 40’ X 44’ BOATHOUSE AND PROPOSES TO REPLACE WITH A 30’ X 32’ BOATHOUSE WITH A SUNDECK. IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 179-16, PRIVATE BOATHOUSE AND COVERED DOCKS REQUIRE PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: BP 2001-872 LGPC PERMIT# 5234-44-01 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY WARREN CO. PLANNING: 2/13/02 TAX MAP NO. 7-1-16.5 LOT SIZE: 0.80 ACRES SECTION: 179-16 FRANK DE NARDO, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 7-2002, David Adams, Meeting Date: February 19, 2002 “Project Description: The applicant proposes to construct an open-sided boathouse with a 960 square foot sundeck. The applicant has removed the boathouse and is the process of resurfacing the deck. Criteria for considering a Site Plan according to Section 179-38 of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance: 1. Does the proposed project comply with the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance? Construction of a sundeck is an allowed use in the WR-1A zone. 2. Will the proposed use be in harmony with the intent of the ordinance, specifically, could the location, character and size of the proposed use increase the burden on the supporting public services and facilities? The project is compatible with the surrounding waterfront uses. 20 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/19/02) 3. Will the proposed use create public hazards with regards to traffic, traffic congestion or the parking of vehicles and/or equipment or be otherwise detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the persons residing or working in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the town? Not applicable. 4. While considering any benefits that might be derived from the project; Will the project have any undue adverse impact on the natural, scenic, aesthetic, ecological, wildlife, historic, recreational or open space resource of the town or Adirondack Park or upon the ability of the public to provide supporting facilities and services made necessary by the project? The proposed project is similar to nearby sundecks and boathouses. There is no anticipated undue adverse impact. The following general standards were considered in the staff review of this project: The location, arrangement, size, design and general site compatibility of buildings, lighting and signs. The sundeck is 960 square feet and covers a U shaped boat slip. The existing U shaped boat slip remains in the same horizontal orientation with the proposed constructed sundeck. The plans show the location of four lights under the sundeck The adequacy and arrangement of vehicular traffic access and circulation, including intersections, road widths, pavement surfaces, dividers and traffic controls. Not applicable. The location, arrangement, appearance and sufficiency of off-street parking and loading. Not applicable. The adequacy and arrangement of pedestrian traffic access and circulation, walkway structures, control of intersections with vehicular traffic and overall pedestrian convenience. Not applicable. The adequacy of stormwater drainage facilities. Not applicable. The adequacy of water supply and sewage disposal facilities. Not applicable. The adequacy, type and arrangement of trees, shrubs and other suitable plantings, landscaping and screening constituting a visual and/or noise buffer between the applicants and adjoining lands, including the maximum retention of existing vegetation and maintenance, including replacement of dead or deceased plants. Not applicable. The adequacy of fire lanes and other emergency zones and the provision of fire hydrants. Not applicable. The adequacy and impact of structures, roadways and landscaping in areas with susceptibility to ponding, flooding and/or erosion. Not applicable. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): Building Permit 2001-872, Lake George Park Commission Permit 5234-44-01 Staff comments: The construction of the sundeck is consistent with the projects occurring on the lake. SEQR Status: 21 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/19/02) Type II Part 617.5 Type II Actions: (c) (10) Site Statistic Confirmation: The original boathouse roof was 1,760 square feet; the proposed sundeck is 960 square feet. The height of the structure is 13 feet. Land Use Plan: The project is located in Neighborhood 1” MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening. MR. DE NARDO-Good evening. Frank DeNardo for Dave Adams. MR. MAC EWAN-Can you tell us a little bit about your project. MR. DE NARDO-Okay. Basically we took down the old boathouse, replaced it with a new boathouse right now. We’re downsizing it, approximately 900 square feet. So I have all the pictures up there right now. That’s what was there, blowing in the wind. It was approximately 16 feet high. It wasn’t conforming, and it was very unsafe. So the owner hired me to take it down and replace it with something smaller and more aesthetically pleasing and usable. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Larry, we’ll start with you. MR. RINGER-I don’t have anything on this. MR. MAC EWAN-Tom? MR. SEGULJIC-I don’t have anything. MR. MAC EWAN-John? MR. STROUGH-Well, I didn’t see where Warren County reviewed this application. MRS. MOORE-On the front page, of your Staff notes. MR. STROUGH-Okay. My eyes must have just missed it. It’s there. I’m getting old. Now, how far does this dock extend into the lake? MR. DE NARDO-It’s approximately 36 feet out. Actually, it’s 40 feet out. I’m sorry. It’s 40 feet out. MR. STROUGH-Now your plans show 42. Are they inaccurate, or did I miss something with them? MR. DE NARDO-No, it’s 42. MR. VOLLARO-I think the plans are showing 42. MR. DE NARDO-It’s 42. MR. STROUGH-Well, Town Code says that no dock shall extend more than 40 feet from the mean low water mark. MR. DE NARDO-It was an existing structure. MR. STROUGH-Did you replace it? MR. DE NARDO-I did not replace it. I resurfaced it. MR. STROUGH-The cribbing wasn’t replaced? MR. DE NARDO-I replaced the cribbing on the inner section, on the inner finger towards shore. I did not touch the outside finger at all. MR. STROUGH-So this dock was grandfathered? MR. DE NARDO-Grandfathered from the Lake George Park Commission. 22 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/19/02) MR. MAC EWAN-How does that fit in with Town Code? We’ll come back to you, let you look that up. MR. DE NARDO-Actually, we brought the dock into conformity. It was nonconforming when we got it. It was too close to shore. There was no six foot wash in between them, when I removed the inner crib by the walkway that blocked the water circulation. MR. STROUGH-Yes, that’s good. MR. DE NARDO-We replaced the solid cribs that were on the one side with existing open cribbing now for the environmental impact, of course, fish habitat. Basically it’s conforming now. MR. STROUGH-Okay. Very good. Now I have a problem with the height. What’s the height? MR. DE NARDO-The height was 16, now it’s 13’6”. Where are you measuring from? MR. STROUGH-Well, you’re supposed to measure from the mean high water mark. MR. DE NARDO-Correct. MR. STROUGH-Now your plans show you measuring from the deck and up. I don’t see any. MR. DE NARDO-That measurement’s from the mean high. MR. STROUGH-So the deck of your dock is only six inches above your mean high water mark? MR. DE NARDO-Actually the line should be lower. The line should be over, where it says MHW. MR. STROUGH-Yes. MR. DE NARDO-That should be down lower. MR. STROUGH-All right. How high is the structure above the surface of the dock deck? MR. DE NARDO-It’s 10 feet. MR. STROUGH-You’re having the same problem I am. How high is the structure, the vertical posts, the sundeck and the railing? MR. DE NARDO-And the railings. MR. STROUGH-Above the surface of your dock deck? MR. DE NARDO-Okay. I understand what you’re saying now. It’s not listed in here. To the top of the railing is probably about nine foot ten, I believe, if my calculations are correct. MR. STROUGH-All right, but you wouldn’t have any problems if we made it a condition for assurance purposes that the structure would not exceed 13 feet 6 inches above mean high water mark? MR. DE NARDO-Correct. MR. STROUGH-Okay. Now the only other question, I’d probably address this to Staff, is that Code says that dock surface area shall not exceed 700 square feet. Laura, does that apply just to the lower part? MRS. MOORE-Correct. MR. STROUGH-And we have no limiting specifications for the sundeck? MRS. MOORE-For a sundeck. MR. STROUGH-Okay. That’s what I thought. Thank you. Do you need four lights under the deck, under the sundeck? MR. DE NARDO-Actually, yes, he would like four lights under there. The customer requested that, two in each slip. MR. STROUGH-Are those going to be left on all night? MR. DE NARDO-No. Actually he has a remote control on it. So when he comes in, the remote control comes in, he turns them on, turns them off by electric garage door opener. 23 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/19/02) MR. STROUGH-All right. That’s all the questions I have. Thank you. MR. DE NARDO-Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Chris? MR. HUNSINGER-I had similar questions as John did. I was quite confused about the height of the structure, because of the way the drawing was represented, and I certainly agree with the condition that he suggested that the top of the railing not be greater than 13 foot 6 inches from the mean high water mark. MR. DE NARDO-I believe in the application with the Lake George Park Commission has listed as that, too. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. It is consistent with what was stated in the application, but not consistent with the drawing, and I had a similar question about the lights as well, because typically we either put conditions on lighting or else applicants don’t request lighting when we review projects of this kind, but other than that, I didn’t have anything else to add. MR. MAC EWAN-Cathy? MRS. LA BOMBARD-I just want to put this in the record, that in our agenda it’s listed as an Unlisted site plan for the SEQRA review, but in the Staff notes it’s really Type II, under Part 617.5 of the law, the Code. So, I didn’t get out to see it. We don’t have to do a SEQRA on it. I mean, the pictures look fine to me. I guess I have a question as far as the Lake George Park Commission. Did they express any kind of, I read their letter, but did they have any kind of comment over the fact that you started construction of the deck after you tore it down without going to them first? MR. DE NARDO-Actually, no, they didn’t express anything. They were happy that I was downsizing the structure that was really looking ridiculously large. I mean, like everything’s happening up around the shoreline right now, people are just blowing things right out of the water, and my business I don’t do that. I mean, I try to turn my customers around to making them more aesthetically pleasing. So far I’ve been successful with every one. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Thanks. MR. MAC EWAN-Bob? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I’m going to continue where John left off for a minute. I just want to, I see the drawing, and I see the mean high water mark and so on. Can you just quickly and briefly tell me how you arrive at your mean high water mark level? MR. DE NARDO-You can call up the Park Commission and they give you their reading off Roger’s Rock. You go out there with a yardstick, you measure, and. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. You used the graph that they use. MR. DE NARDO-Right, and the mark is actually established and marked on the dock in permanent ink right now. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. DE NARDO-So if anyone goes down there they can see where that mark is. I’ve been across this quite a few times. It’s a good reference point for my customers, too. MR. VOLLARO-It’s a fairly simple procedure. MR. DE NARDO-Very simple. MR. VOLLARO-A lot of people don’t seem to know how to do it, though. I’ve created something that maybe I’ll pass off to Staff as a quick schematic for anybody to understand. You can do this without a yardstick. You can do it with any stick. MR. DE NARDO-Any stick. MR. VOLLARO-Any stick at all. MR. DE NARDO-Basically it’s only an 18 inch difference, too. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. It’s simple. I don’t have any further questions. As long as you’re using this scale. 24 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/19/02) MR. DE NARDO-That scale. MR. MAC EWAN-Any other questions or comments from Board members? Staff? MS. RADNER-Your resolution, if you’re inclined to adopt it as it was written, you’re going to want to chop out the paragraph about having done SEQRA review. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Right. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else? Anything else you wanted to add? MR. DE NARDO-No, unless anyone has any questions. MR. MAC EWAN-We have a public hearing scheduled tonight. Does anyone want to comment on this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MRS. MOORE-I do have a letter. The letter’s from Joseph Tornabene, Sr., “Dear Planning Board Members: This letter is in support of David Adams constructing a boathouse with a sundeck at his Assembly Point Road address. As a neighbor in the immediate vicinity, 141 Assembly Point Road, I believe that replacing the existing dock will only add to the aesthetics of Lake George. Mr. Adams’ property improvements are of the utmost quality. As I cannot attend the meeting in person, please accept this letter as testimony of my full support of this project. Sincerely, Joseph J. Tornabene, Sr.” MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it? MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Anyone else? I’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MAC EWAN-Would someone like to introduce a motion? MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 7-2002 DAVID ADAMS, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Larry Ringer: WHEREAS, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of Site Plan No. 7-2002, David Adams. Property Owner: Same. Agent: Frank DeNardo. Zone: WR-1A. Location: 129 Assembly Pt. Rd. Applicant has removed a 40’ x 44’ boathouse and proposes to replace with a 30’ x 32’ boathouse with a sundeck. In accordance with Section 179-16, Private Boathouse and Covered Docks require Planning Board review and approval. Cross Reference: BP 2001-872. LGPC Permit # 5234-44-01. Adirondack Park Agency. Warren Co. Planning: 2/13/02. Tax Map No. 7.-1-16.5. Lot size: 0.80 acres / Section: 179-16, and; WHEREAS, the application was received 1/30/02; and WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation and inclusive of all newly received information, not included in this listing as of 2/15/02: 2/19 Staff Notes 2/13 Warren Co. Planning 2/12 Notice of Public Hearing 2/6 Meeting Notice WHEREAS, public hearing was held on 2/19/02 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, approval of the application means that the applicant can now apply for a Building Permit unless the lands are Adirondack Park Jurisdictional or other approvals are necessary. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT 25 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/19/02) RESOLVED, that The application is approved in accordance with the resolution as prepared by Staff. We’re going to remove the seventh Whereas on the resolution pertaining to the SEQRA. The approved is subject to the following conditions: 1. The mean high water mark to the top of the railing shall not exceed 14 feet, and 2. All conditions are to be noted on the final approved plans submitted for the Zoning Administrator’s signature in a form to read as follows: Plans have been approved under authority of a resolution adopted 2/19/02 by the Planning Board of the Town of Queensbury, New York with the following conditions: 1. Duly adopted this 19th day of February, 2002, by the following vote: MR. STROUGH-I’d just like to make sure and ensure, by conditioning this just for, like I said, insurance, that the structure’s height will not exceed 13 feet 6 inches above the mean high water mark. MR. VOLLARO-Do the drawings depict that? MR. STROUGH-Not clearly. MR. VOLLARO-I see 10 and 3.6 on the drawing. MR. STROUGH-Well, I see where no harm done in just adding. MR. VOLLARO-No. I’ll add to the resolution that the dock height from the mean high water mark to the top of the railing shall not exceed 14 feet. MR. STROUGH-Well, 13 feet 6 inches is what the applicant said. MR. RINGER-Well, Code is 14. MR. VOLLARO-Code is 14. Anything below 14 is fine with me. AYES: Mr. Ringer, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Strough, Mr. Hunsinger, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set. MR. DE NARDO-Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Good luck. SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 46-86 MODIFICATION ED MOORE, FRENCH MT. COMMONS PROPERTY OWNER: L & M ASSOCIATES, LLC ZONE: HC-1A LOCATION: 1439 STATE ROUTE 9, FRENCH MT. COMMONS PLAZA APPLICANT PROPOSES TO ADD WOOD CARVING BUSINESS ON A PORTION OF PARKING AREA CURRENTLY UTILIZED FOR FRENCH MT. COMMONS PLAZA. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 46-86, SP 26-87 TAX MAP NO. 288.00-1-55 LOT SIZE: 4.11 ACRES SECTION 179-23 ED MOORE, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 46-86, Modification, Ed Moore, French Mt. Commons, Meeting Date: February 19, 2002 “Project Description: The applicant requests approval to operate an outdoor woodcarving business on a portion of the parking area of French Mountain Commons Plaza. Criteria for considering a Site Plan according to Section 179-38 of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance: 1. Does the proposed project comply with the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance? 26 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/19/02) The sale of wood carvings is an allowed use in the highway commercial zone. 2. Will the proposed use be in harmony with the intent of the ordinance, specifically, could the location, character and size of the proposed use increase the burden on the supporting public services and facilities? Sidewalk/outdoor activities are becoming more popular and will be encouraged in areas with pedestrians. 3. Will the proposed use create public hazards with regards to traffic, traffic congestion or the parking of vehicles and/or equipment or be otherwise detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the persons residing or working in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the town? The plaza has more parking than required for the existing building and the proposed use. 4. While considering any benefits that might be derived from the project; Will the project have any undue adverse impact on the natural, scenic, aesthetic, ecological, wildlife, historic, recreational or open space resource of the town or Adirondack Park or upon the ability of the public to provide supporting facilities and services made necessary by the project? The proposed use would most likely be a benefit to the community as it encourages pedestrian traffic in an area where it is needed. The following general standards were considered in the staff review of this project: The location, arrangement, size, design and general site compatibility of buildings, lighting and signs. The operation appears to be in a good location – it can be seen from the road to attract people and is away from the stores where the main vehicle traffic flow is generated. There is space leased inside the building as an office where the operator can meet with clients and answer phone calls. The materials are brought in and removed by the operator’s vehicle. The adequacy and arrangement of vehicular traffic access and circulation, including intersections, road widths, pavement surfaces, dividers and traffic controls. This is a visual operation that attracts people to observe the activity. The location, arrangement, appearance and sufficiency of off-street parking and loading. Not applicable. The adequacy and arrangement of pedestrian traffic access and circulation, walkway structures, control of intersections with vehicular traffic and overall pedestrian convenience. There are no defined pedestrian elements specific for the business, but there are benches located near the plaza stores. The operator does have a barrier in place when carving to provide safety for the business and observers. The adequacy of stormwater drainage facilities. Not applicable. The adequacy of water supply and sewage disposal facilities. Not applicable. The adequacy, type and arrangement of trees, shrubs and other suitable plantings, landscaping and screening constituting a visual and/or noise buffer between the applicants and adjoining lands, including the maximum retention of existing vegetation and maintenance, including replacement of dead or deceased plants. None proposed. The adequacy of fire lanes and other emergency zones and the provision of fire hydrants. Not applicable. 27 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/19/02) The adequacy and impact of structures, roadways and landscaping in areas with susceptibility to ponding, flooding and/or erosion. Not applicable. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc. :) Site Plan 46-89 and Site Plan 26-87 Staff comments: The applicant was informed to continue the business that site plan review was required. The applicant has complied with this and there are no other outstanding issues. SEQR Status: Determination of significance; is the modification significant enough to necessitate additional SEQR review? Site Statistic Confirmation: The applicant proposes to utilize three parking spaces out of 253 spaces or about 600 square feet. The building footprint of 46,500 would require about 234 parking spaces. (This was calculated using the drawings provided by the applicant.) Land Use Plan: The project is located in Neighborhood 4.” MR. MAC EWAN-Just for clarification, how is this a modification? MRS. MOORE-It’s adding an additional use to the site. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. It’s a modification to the French Mt. Commons site plan. Is that what you’re saying? MRS. MOORE-Correct. Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Good evening. MR. MOORE-Good evening. I’m Ed Moore, French Mt. Commons. MR. MAC EWAN-Can you tell us a little about your project? MR. MOORE-Well, basically, like you said, it was zoned for parking. We just want to use the three spaces, it’s the parking lot, the corner lot, and there’s three spaces that were used for parking previously, and the bear carver, it’s not me personally, it’s Tim O’Brien. He just takes up the three spaces to carve bears and it’s more of an attraction to be used to attract people and have them come in and see it, because it was zoned parking, you know, the Town asked me to come and get it modified to be zoned for an attraction. MR. MAC EWAN-Larry? MR. RINGER-Are you going to be making these figurines there or sawing and? MR. MOORE-I, personally, will not. MR. RINGER-But there will be? What kind of noise does that generate? MR. MOORE-Very minimal. MR. RINGER-These aren’t big chainsaws? MR. MOORE-Actually, you could ask him. Tim’s here, but. MR. RINGER-Well, why don’t you bring him up and let him try to answer that. TIM O’BRIEN MR. O’BRIEN-I’m Tim O’Brien. MR. RINGER-Yes. Tim, my question was, how much noise does this generate? 28 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/19/02) MR. O’BRIEN-An ordinary chainsaw. It’s hard for me to give you like a decibel reading or something like that, but, for example, up by the building, this is down in the corner where the sawing is being done. Up by the building, it’s very faintly heard. There’s music that’s being played up there, as pedestrians walk from store to store, and you can hear the music, and very faintly the chainsaw in the distance, and then you also have Route 9 going by there. So you have quite a bit of automobile traffic and trucks and things. So it pretty much gets washed right out. We’ve never had any complaints, and unfortunately, we have been doing this for a while already, didn’t realize that we were in violation, and that’s why we’re here, you know, to find out if we’re doing something wrong, what we can do to make it right. MR. RINGER-My only concern was how much noise, and obviously these aren’t the huge chainsaws that you see. MR. O’BRIEN-Well, I’m usually out there from six to eight hours a day, and carrying around a huge chainsaw just isn’t going to be a practical thing, so I try and use the smallest, lightest things possible, but they do make quite a bit of noise. I mean, I’m not going to sit here and tell you that. MR. RINGER-Yes. My chainsaw makes some noise, too, but I have like a little one, too. MR. O’BRIEN-I’d be welcome to like a decibel meter or something like that, if there was a code. MR. RINGER-I don’t want to get into that. It was just a question and you answered it, and I thank you. Other than that, I didn’t have anything else. I was a little concerned. MR. MAC EWAN-Tom? MR. SEGULJIC-So, you have the three parking spots in the corner, as I look at the drawing. One is where the wood carver parks, the second where the work is done, and the third is for the wood storage. MR. MAC EWAN-Laura, put that picture back up, would you, please. MR. SEGULJIC-What happens with all the sawdust that’s generated? Do you sweep that up at the end of the day? MR. O’BRIEN-It’s removed, shovel it on a truck and take it away. MR. SEGULJIC-Is it on a daily basis, then? MR. O’BRIEN-Depending on how much work is being produced, usually three, four days, something like that. It’s not usually a daily, unless it’s, if it’s needed, you know, if you’re carving something real large and you’re there for eight or ten hours or something and you’re making a huge pile, and a lot of chips, then, yes, it needs to be removed daily, but mostly it’s, I’d say once a week minimum, yes. Sometimes twice a week, during busy times, things like that. MR. SEGULJIC-And you store all your equipment in one of the trailers there, I assume? MR. O’BRIEN-Yes. It’s a trailer that I have I tow. I don’t leave it there. MR. SEGULJIC-How about, one of my concerns would be safety. What if some little kid went running down there? Has that ever happened? MR. O’BRIEN-Well, I’m not alone down there, so I do have someone working customers, in other words, greeting and talking price with them, things like that. I also have more or less of a barricade so that they can’t just attack me, so to speak. It has been a concern of ours in the past, and unfortunately you can’t stop everybody, especially kids, but we do do our best to try and keep our eye out for small kids because there is a lot of cars in the parking lot and there’s a lot of activity going on, and as far as that, I’m concerned as well. I wouldn’t want to see someone else’s child getting hurt like that, whether it be a direct responsibility of my own or something else. MR. SEGULJIC-So you’d probably build a barrier there. MR. O’BRIEN-Yes, absolutely, try and keep them back, you know, at least 15, 20 feet, at least, as far as that goes, even kids with noise and stuff, I don’t feel real good with it little virgin ears, so to speak, you know. I don’t want to be responsible for making these kids deaf, that’s for sure. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. I’m all set. MR. MAC EWAN-John? 29 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/19/02) MR. STROUGH-I share Tom’s concern here. Now what kind of a barrier do you have around it? I didn’t hear it if you said it. I’m sorry. MR. O’BRIEN-It’s more or less like logs laid down, maybe like a rough estimate might be 20, 24 inches in diameter, and it’s laying down. From the picture you can see it roughly covers the front area of two of the three parking spots, and that third parking spot is where I park. So no one could really get around on that side, and then there’s logs, and right now it’s a large snow bank down on the left side here as you look at the picture. So you can’t get around that way either. So to get back there, there’s a very slim walk area, which pretty much I’m using just for myself. No one else is going back in there. MR. STROUGH-And that’s proven effective? MR. O’BRIEN-Yes, so far, I haven’t had any problems. MR. STROUGH-That’s good. I think it’s a great use of the area. I mean, it adds a little spice to it. It gives the Adirondack flavor to it, and I like those little bear carvings and stuff, and I like chainsaws, too. So I think it’s an interesting use, and I’m in favor of it, and that’s all, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Chris? MR. HUNSINGER-I was actually up there Saturday afternoon while you were carving, and I guess I would just sort of agree with your comment. There is a lot of background noise with traffic and other things, and I, personally, didn’t find the noise to be offensive, but I think it’s also something that’s relative. MR. O’BRIEN-Sure. MR. HUNSINGER-But that was really about the only concern that I had, in terms of the actual views. I guess one comment that I did have is on the drawing that was, I guess it’s numbered U-1, which is, I presume, the original site plan from the development. It didn’t really, it doesn’t show where the operation would be occurring. That led to my question which is, would the location of this always be the same three parking spots? MR. O’BRIEN-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I would like to see the drawing clearly depict where those three are. MR. O’BRIEN-Okay. Is that something I can do for you right now? Can I approach you? MR. HUNSINGER-Well, just on the final. MR. O’BRIEN-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, there’s this other one here that shows that, but I just thought it should be consistent to have it labeled on the big drawing. MR. MAC EWAN-Before he leaves here tonight, do you have a copy in your file? Just get him to mark on the drawing and just initial it and date it. MR. O’BRIEN-Sure. MR. MAC EWAN-That’ll be fine. Anything else? MR. HUNSINGER-No, that’s all I had to add, and I agree with John. I used to work in Vermont, and I used to see these all over the place. It was very common, and it does attract attention. It does attract additional pedestrian traffic and car traffic, and I think it’s a good thing. MR. MAC EWAN-Cathy? MRS. LA BOMBARD-I’m assuming it’s right at the corner where the parking lot is built up? MR. O’BRIEN-Yes. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Where one time I thought I could just kind of walk down there and walk across, and I was confronted with a six foot drop. Okay. I’m just a little concerned about a safety factor here, especially with there’s a lot of children with their parents, you know, little kids running all around. When you take a break, where do you put your saws and your equipment? Do you lock them back up in your van or your truck, or do you just leave them there? 30 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/19/02) MR. O’BRIEN-Not usually. When I do take a break, I don’t leave. I don’t vacate the area, so to speak, but normally what I do is I’ll have a log that’s not laying down horizontally, more or less it’ll be three foot or so standing up on end, and I’ll kind of make a groove with the saw where they can stick right in there, so there’s no blade being exposed. The muffler, the hot parts, in other words, of the saw are right up against the log. So things like that can’t be readily accessible to, if someone did happen to get back in there before we were, you know, before we saw it or something like that, there wouldn’t be really too much that they could get in trouble with. There’s no electrical tools being left plugged in, things like that, the bare minimum. MRS. LA BOMBARD-I’m just saying just for your own liability. It only takes one inquisitive child to just go there and see that thing and just press the trigger. MR. O’BRIEN-I’ve seen it before. We’ve done a lot of shows in the past where we’ve been on the road and you never know what you’re going to, especially with kids. You’ve got to be real careful there. They’ve been known to come walking right up to you. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Do you have, have I seen you before maybe in the Dexter parking lot? MR. O’BRIEN-There was another carver over there by the Basketville, yes, and then there was another one across the street. Previous to this, I was up the road at the Teepee there. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Right. MR. O’BRIEN-I was up there for years working. MRS. LA BOMBARD-So I don’t know if we’ve addressed this, but do you have it cordoned off or? MR. O’BRIEN-Yes. There’s more or less a perimeter of logs set up around me that the accessibility is pretty much one person can get back in there. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Do you usually have, do you have one of those little tents? MR. O’BRIEN-Yes, I do have a tent with sides and everything. I don’t use it all the time. MRS. LA BOMBARD-One of those like it doesn’t really have sides. Does it have sides? MR. O’BRIEN-Yes, I do have four sides for it, yes. It’s totally enclosed. MRS. LA BOMBARD-I thought it was just one of those little tarps that you put up. MR. O’BRIEN-In the past I’ve had those, but right now what I do have that I use, especially on rainy days and when it’s really hot, and things like that, is a small tent, they call it an easy up or something like that, ten minutes it’s up and you can have sides. In other words, it can be totally enclosed or you don’t have to put the sides on. You could take it down and hit the road, five minutes it’s gone. So it’s no eyesore, nothing being left out there, things like that. MRS. LA BOMBARD-And you’ll always be in that corner? MR. O’BRIEN-Yes. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Right there where it’s high up from the next, from the main level of Route 9. MR. O’BRIEN-Yes. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. All right. I just wanted you to just be careful about the safety factor. MR. O’BRIEN-I appreciate the concern. MRS. LA BOMBARD-That was the only thing. Thanks. MR. MAC EWAN-Robert? MR. VOLLARO-I was just wondering whether you needed, do you need a transient license to do that? MR. O’BRIEN-I don’t know. I was going to ask you all about that. You’d probably be better qualified. MR. VOLLARO-Staff is shaking her head very authoritatively saying no. MRS. MOORE-No. 31 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/19/02) MR. VOLLARO-That’s my answer. I don’t have any questions. MR. MAC EWAN-Can you expound on that? MRS. MOORE-Because the applicant is going through site plan versus a transient merchant, rotating. It’s not the same as when we used to have the project come in from. MR. MAC EWAN-Americade. MRS. MOORE-Americade. This is a permanent use on this site. MR. MAC EWAN-We’ve done site plans for temporary Americade events. MRS. MOORE-That was under Transient Merchant site plan, referred from the Town Board to the Planning Board back to the Town Board. MR. VOLLARO-Why is this different? I don’t understand. MRS. MOORE-It’s a modification of a site plan, of an original site plan. He’s adding this use to this site. It’s linked to this site. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Enough on that topic I guess. MR. VOLLARO-It sounds like something the lawyers would create. Is that about it? Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else? MR. VOLLARO-No, that’s it. MR. MAC EWAN-Any other questions or comments from Board members? MR. STROUGH-I don’t know. Let me see with the other Board members. Should we condition it that some kind of a barrier be provided around the perimeter of the identified site area, should be provided by the applicant when the chainsaw is in use? MR. VOLLARO-He says he does. MR. STROUGH-I know he does, and he says he does. I’m just wondering about our liability, that if we just leave it unaddressed, is that okay with everybody? Or do you want it addressed? That’s my question. MR. MAC EWAN-Let’s ask this. In your work area where you’re actually doing the carving, it’s not part of the display area where people are looking at your product? MR. O’BRIEN-No, absolutely not. Where I work is strictly just for work area. There’s no. MR. MAC EWAN-How do you separate that from your display area? MR. O’BRIEN-Well, basically, with a log perimeter, and also I have someone down there working with me that addresses customers while I’m working so that they can’t attack me, more or less. They have to go through her and speak with her. Ninety percent of the time I don’t even speak with the customer. I stay busy doing my own thing. So the customers and the chainsaw massacre is being done separately, so to speak. It’s not hands on or I don’t even deal with the customers, ninety percent of the time. MR. MAC EWAN-I’m comfortable with that. MR. STROUGH-Okay. I just thought I’d throw it out. All right. I can live with that. MR. MAC EWAN-Any other things you wanted to add? Staff? MS. RADNER-I think we need to just clarify one point for the record, which is that he said he was here for a zone change. It’s not a zone change. It’s merely a use change. MR. MAC EWAN-Right. MRS. LA BOMBARD-And I have a question. Do you have to pay rent to L & M Associates? MR. O’BRIEN-It’s more or less bills for power, things like that, you know, for usage, for upkeep on the area. 32 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/19/02) MR. MOORE-For our purposes, we like having Tim and Chainsaw Creations there, as an attraction, to bring that Adirondack flavor, you know, and actually, originally, I’m not from the area. I’ve lived here for 15 years, and we’re from Staten Island and last year I think it was, we went to a party down there, and someone asked us, what’s going on, how are you doing, and I said, we own an outlet center up in Lake George, New York. Which one? And I said, well, the Gap’s there and Nine West is there and Tommy Hilfiger’s there, and he said, is that on the left hand side and I said, yes, and he said, is that where the bear guy is? So it’s become kind of like, you know, what we’re shooting for, to create a happening, and, hey, the bear guy’s over there and stuff like that. It’s a little added, we don’t look at it to make money. It’s a draw more for us than anything else. MR. MAC EWAN-Any other comments? MRS. LA BOMBARD-No. MR. MAC EWAN-Does someone want to introduce a motion, please. MR. STROUGH-Do we have to do SEQRA? MR. MAC EWAN-No. MRS. LA BOMBARD-No. MOTION TO APPROVE MODIFICATION TO SITE PLAN NO. 46-86 ED MOORE, FRENCH MT. COMMONS, Introduced by Larry Ringer who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro: WHEREAS, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of Site Plan No.46-86, Applicant: Ed Moore, French Mt. Commons. Property Owner: L & M Associates, LLC. MODIFICATION. Zone: HC-1A. Location: 1439 State Route 9, French Mt. Commons Plaza. Applicant proposes to add wood carving business on a portion of parking area currently utilized for French Mt. Commons plaza. Cross Reference: SP 46-86, SP 26-87. Tax Map No. 288.00-1-55. Lot size: 4.11 acres / Section: 179-23, and WHEREAS, the application was received 1/30/02; and WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation and inclusive of all newly received information, not included in this listing as of 2/15/02: 2/19 Staff Notes 2/12 Notice of Public Hearing: 2/6 Meeting Notice WHEREAS, public hearing was held on 2/19/02 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 WHEREAS, approval of the application means that the applicant can now apply for a Building Permit unless the lands are Adirondack Park Jurisdictional or other approvals are necessary. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that The application for Modification is approved in accordance with the resolution prepared by Staff and also include the waivers requested in the letter dated January 29 from French Mountain Commons, th from Mr. Moore. Duly adopted this 19th day of February, 2002, by the following vote: MR. STROUGH-Are we going to, Planning Board grants waivers for landscaping, stormwater drainage, lighting and grading plans? 33 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/19/02) MR. MAC EWAN-This is a modification. MR. STROUGH-So there is a request for waivers from those. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, I would grant them. MR. STROUGH-I’d grant them, too. Should we have that in the resolution, as Bob had pointed out earlier? MR. VOLLARO-Probably should. AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Strough, Mr. Hunsinger, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set. MR. MOORE-Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Good luck. MR. RINGER-We had a gentleman tonight, sir, did you have a question? MEMBER OF PUBLIC-That Queensbury Avenue thing where they’re going to build three houses. MR. RINGER-That was on the agenda earlier tonight. MEMBER OF PUBLIC-He didn’t seem to know what he was going to do for a driveway. MR. VOLLARO-He has a shared driveway. It’s a shared driveway. One drive, shared, three lots. MEMBER OF PUBLIC-Is that going to be big enough for a 20 ton fire truck in there, to turn around, if they have? MR. RINGER-Like any drive, if you get the truck in there, he may not be able to turn around. He’d have to back out. MRS. LA BOMBARD-I had asked if the road would be wide enough to have two way traffic, you know, what if somebody was going to drive in and somebody else from another house was going to drive out, and he said, yes, it would be. We usually always address that. Were you sitting here at that point when we had the public hearing? MEMBER OF PUBLIC-Yes. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Why didn’t you say something? We could have gotten an answer from him. MEMBER OF PUBLIC-The hill’s like this, and his property is part way over the top of the hill. MR. VOLLARO-Well, for whatever reason, it’s over now. MEMBER OF PUBLIC-I know it’s over. MR. RINGER-It certainly would have been nice if you’d brought your question to the Board at that time. MR. MAC EWAN-The short answer for you, it’s a private driveway, and like any other private driveway in the Town, if a fire truck can or cannot make it on a private driveway, that’s the responsibility of the homeowner or the property owner. It’s not a public road. It won’t be a public road. It won’t be deeded to the Town. It’s still a private driveway. So it would be in his best interest to make his driveway be able to accommodate emergency vehicles at any time. Okay. MR. RINGER-Your concern is that if the fire truck backs out, there’s not enough room to make the turn. MEMBER OF PUBLIC-Not enough room to back a fire truck up there. MR. RINGER-I wish you had come forward. MR. RINGER-Well, being a fireman, I’ll tell you what happens in a situation like that. You have one fire policeman down the road and one fire policeman up the road and we stop all traffic. No fire truck would back out onto the road without having support out there to halt traffic. 34 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/19/02) MR. MAC EWAN-We still have the microphone going. I’m trying to adjourn this meeting, and we’ve got all sorts of conversations going on that makes it difficult. So on that note I’m going to adjourn the meeting. MR. RINGER-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-Thanks. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Craig MacEwan, Chairman 35