Loading...
2004-09-28 (Queensbury Planning Board 9/28/04) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING SEPTEMBER 28, 2004 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT CRAIG MAC EWAN, CHAIRMAN ANTHONY METIVIER LARRY RINGER RICHARD SANFORD GRETCHEN STEFFAN, ALTERNATE ALBERT ANDERSON, ALTERNATE MEMBERS ABSENT CHRIS HUNSINGER PLANNER-GEORGE HILTON TOWN COUNSEL-MILLER, MANNIX,SCHACHNER, AND HAFNER-CATHI RADNER STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. MAC EWAN-Before we begin, our agenda is going to be somewhat revised tonight. There are several items, several applications that are being removed from the agenda tonight for one reason or another, and we’ll begin with Subdivision 18-2004, for Jeffrey Clark. It was a Sketch Plan review. It wasn’t required under public notice, but the applicant has requested a tabling until November. So it will be tabled to our second meeting of November. Moving on Subdivision 11-2004 for Diamond Point Realty, which is a location off of Oakwood Drive. They did not post the legal sign that’s required under Subdivision Regulations that notices public hearing on the property. So that application is scheduled to be heard again in November, which would be our second meeting of November, and the applicant will have to post a sign on the property. MR. HILTON-Mr. Chairman, can I just make an announcement here? We’ve had some members of the public calling asking about this application. We do have some written comment in our file. I just want it to be known that at the time, in November, at the second meeting, all comment received to date will be read into the record at that meeting, and certainly the public hearing will be open at that meeting as well, so that people who are here tonight can come back and participate in the discussion and contribute at that meeting. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Moving on. Site Plan 56-2004 for Queensbury Partners, the BRB Group, that’s the site plan for the 174 multifamily development across the street here, that application is being tabled to our second meeting in October. I will open up the public hearing and leave it open. We will not take comment tonight because the Town Board still has their public hearing left open regarding this matter and they’re going to reconvene October the 4. th Correct, on that? So I would suspect that they would come to some sort of conclusion that evening, or shortly thereafter, and they’ll be back on our October agenda, and lastly, Site Plan 58-2004, for Nasreen Khurshid, that’s at 931 State Route 9, he’s requested a tabling to our second meeting in October. I’ll open up the public hearing on that one as well and leave it open, and that application will be heard on our second meeting in October, and that’s it. Now we can move along on our agenda. OLD BUSINESS: SUBDIVISION NO. 9-2003 MODIFICATION MICHAELS GROUP ZONE: RR-3A LOCATION: MOON HILL RD. & BAY RD. INTERSECTION APPLICANT PROPOSES TO 1 (Queensbury Planning Board 9/28/04) MODIFY A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED SUBDIVISION LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF BAY ROAD AND MOON HILL ROAD. MODIFICATION OF PREVIOUSLY APPROVED SUBDIVISIONS REQUIRES REVIEW AND APPROVAL FROM THE PLANNING BOARD. TAX MAP NO. 278.20-1-5.1, 5.2, 5.3 TOM NACE & JOHN MICHAELS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. MAC EWAN-Staff notes? MR. HILTON-Really quickly, this is a simple lot line adjustment to a previously approved subdivision, which results in conforming lots and conforming setbacks. Really it’s just a straightforward application. Simple modification, and that’s all I have at this time. MR. MAC EWAN-Board members comments? Does somebody want to move it? Anybody? MOTION TO APPROVE MODIFICATION TO SUBDIVISION NO. 9-2003 MICHAELS GROUP, Introduced by Richard Sanford who moved for its adoption, seconded by Gretchen Steffan: WHEREAS, an application has been make to this board for the following: Subdivision No. 9-2003 Applicant/Property Owner: MICHAELS GROUP Modification Zone: RR-3A Location: Moon Hill Rd. & Bay Rd. intersection Applicant proposes to modify a previously approved subdivision located at the northwest corner of Bay Road and Moon Hill Road. Modification of previously approved subdivisions requires review and approval from the Planning Board. Tax Map No. 278.20-1-5.1, 5.2, 5.3 Public Hearing: Not required for modification WHEREAS, the application was received August 2004; and WHEREAS, the above is supported with all documentation, public comment (n/a at sketch plan), and application materials in file of record; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter A183, Subdivision of Land, Section A183-9J and A183-10C, D of the Code of the Town of Queensbury a public hearing is not required for a modification; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the Subdivision application requirements of the Code of the Town Queensbury (Zoning); and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and WHEREAS, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; and/or if application is a modification, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered; and the proposed modification(s) do not result in any new or significantly different environmental impacts, and, therefore, no further SEQRA review is necessary; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that We find the following: The application for Modification is hereby granted as per resolution prepared by Staff. Duly adopted this 28th day of September, 2004, by the following vote: 2 (Queensbury Planning Board 9/28/04) AYES: Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Anderson, Mr. Ringer, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Hunsinger MR. NACE-Thank you. MR. MICHAELS-Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set. SUBDIVISION NO. 7-2004 PRELIMINARY & FINAL STAGES SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED HAYES & HAYES AGENT: VAN DUSEN & STEVES ZONE: SFR-20 LOCATION: SOUTH SIDE OF DIXON ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES THE SUBDIVISION OF AN 8.47 ACRE PROPERTY, LOCATED OFF OF DIXON ROAD (EAST OF I-87), INTO 12 RESIDENTAL LOTS RANGING IN SIZE FROM 0.46 ACRES TO 0.72 ACRES. CROSS REFERENCE: SUB 6-2003 TAX MAP NO. 302.14-1-79.2 LOT SIZE: 8.47 ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS MICHAEL O’CONNOR, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. MAC EWAN-We have completed Part III of the EAF. Rich, will you read that into the record? MR. SANFORD-Sure. “The Town of Queensbury Planning Board, as Lead Agency, has identified several Potentially Large Impacts and has evaluated the importance of these impacts under Part 3 of the Long EAF. The Planning Board finds that the proposed subdivision would have the following potentially significant adverse environmental impacts: - A negative impact on land and water resources by placing development in an area of high groundwater. The proposed development would remove existing vegetation and would introduce municipal water service to this site, which would result in high water conditions for this site and the surrounding residential properties. – A negative impact on aesthetic resources by removing existing vegetation from the site and replacing natural views from Interstate 87 with views of a residential development. This would negatively impact the existing rural character of this area. – A negative impact on the surrounding neighborhood and proposed development by removing vegetation, which acts as a natural noise buffer, as well as subject neighborhood residents and future residents to negative impacts from pollution and odor generated from vehicles traveling on the adjacent Interstate Highway. – A negative impact on the existing character of the surrounding neighborhood by negatively impacting land and water resources, aesthetic resources, as well as producing objectionable noise and odor impacts as identified above.” MR. MAC EWAN-Discussion amongst Board members? MR. RINGER-I think we’re just having some difficulties here with the fact that the applicant has provided detailed information on all of these objections that we’ve quoted here, which was then turned over to our engineers, who verified all of the applicant’s statements, and I think that the applicant has mitigated all of the information, or all of the data that we’ve determined a Positive Declaration on. I just had difficulty with it. MR. MAC EWAN-Any other comment? MR. METIVIER-I will agree with Larry in some aspects of the statement. I think they have done a good job with supporting their findings, and I mean, I just, you know, I do think they did their homework on this, but, you know, I guess that was all I have. 3 (Queensbury Planning Board 9/28/04) MR. MAC EWAN-Any other questions, comments? Does somebody want to move the resolution, then? MR. O'CONNOR-Mr. Chairman, may I speak? MR. MAC EWAN-It’s a matter of us just adopting this resolution at this point. MR. O'CONNOR-I think at the last meeting when you set a sub committee to talk about making a recommendation to the full Board, you indicated that you would allow us to look at that resolution or look at those findings and speak to those. MR. MAC EWAN-No, what I did allow you was that you asked could I get a copy of that, and we said, yes, you could get a copy of that. MR. O'CONNOR-So that our consultants, I think the language was so that our consultants could speak to those findings. MR. MAC EWAN-We’re in a position we want to move on this. Any discussion, we’ve had all the discussion I think we need to discuss on it, at this point. Either the resolution’s going to fly or not. MR. O'CONNOR-Well, I think the, my understanding is that it’s based upon facts that you don’t have in your record. MS. RADNER-The public hearing’s been closed, Mr. O’Connor. So I think if you want to present your facts now, then the public would have to have the opportunity to (lost words). So it’s not the right time to be presenting new facts. MR. O'CONNOR-I’m not presenting any new facts. I’m commenting on what is in the record. I also have a copy of the minutes of the last meeting when the public hearing was conducted, and I’ve compared those to the proposed Statement of Findings. MR. MAC EWAN-Let us proceed with this resolution. It’s either going to be approved or it’s going to be voted down. Whatever the outcome is, you certainly have avenues to pursue. MR. SANFORD-Okay. I’ll make the resolution, Mr. Chairman. MOTION FOR A SEQRA POSITIVE DECLARATION REGARDING SUBDIVISION NO. 7- 2004 HAYES & HAYES, LLC, Introduced by Richard Sanford who moved for its adoption, seconded by Gretchen Steffan: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application by Hayes & Hayes seeking approval of a twelve lot subdivision located off of Dixon Road and east of Interstate 87 (the “Project”), and WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the Project is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA); and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has reviewed the application materials and full Environmental Assessment Form (“EAF”) Part I, and WHEREAS, the Planning Board is the only Involved Agency for the Project and is therefore the Lead Agency under the SEQRA Regulations; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has completed EAF Part 2 and identified several Potentially Large Impacts; and 4 (Queensbury Planning Board 9/28/04) WHEREAS, the Planning Board has prepared EAF Part 3 to analyze these Potentially Large Impacts and evaluate their importance; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has reviewed the criteria contained in the SEQRA Regulations and concluded that due to their rural setting, probability of occurrence, magnitude, duration, irreversibility and number of people affected, several of the Potentially Large Impacts are important; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That the Planning Board hereby determines that the proposed Project may have significant adverse impacts on the environment for the reasons set forth in the attached SEQRA Positive Declaration and authorizes the filing of a SEQRA Positive Declaration – Notice of Determination of Significance for the action substantially in the form attached to this Resolution; and be it FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Community Development Department is hereby authorized and directed to file and publish the Positive Declaration as required by the SEQRA Regulations; and be it FURTHER RESOLVED, that the applicant is required to prepare a Draft Environmental Impact Statement; and be it FURTHER RESOLVED, that a scoping session shall be scheduled at the applicant’s request to establish the issues to be discussed as part of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Duly adopted this 28 day of September 2004 by the following vote: th AYES: Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Anderson, Mr. MacEwan NOES: Mr. Metivier, Mr. Ringer ABSENT: Mr. Hunsinger MR. MAC EWAN-So the resolution carries. So this kicks it into an Environmental Impact Statement. So you can proceed in completing an Environmental Impact Statement. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. I think in fairness to the application, could I ask the understanding of the Board? Because we actually have presented all the studies that you’re going to get out of the Environmental Impact study, and is that going to change the Board? I mean, you have engineering reports here that say stormwater works, groundwater works, that there’s not a significant noise impact. We can put those in a cover, and we can call it a Draft Environmental Impact Statement, and we can spend probably $40,000 doing that, and it comes back to you then as a completed Draft Environmental Impact Statement, and if this Board is simply saying, at this point, they don’t approve any residential construction on this site, it’s something that, whether in a workshop or not, something ought to be worked out, or we can go the other route. We can go the hardball route if we have to. MS. RADNER-Mr. O’Connor, if I may answer that. The resolution, as it’s been prepared, calls for a Scoping Session, which would give you the opportunity to help narrow the issues and define which of those reports are relevant to the positive impacts that have been, or potential positive impacts that have been identified. If, after you go through the Scoping process, you’ve narrowed it down and you’re able to establish that the project can proceed or that some other project that you might wish to present can proceed, the process will reveal that, but this Board 5 (Queensbury Planning Board 9/28/04) hasn’t determined that no residential development’s allowed. They’ve only considered the application which you’ve presented, which is for this subdivision. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. Can we get a date for a Scoping Session? We don’t have the benefit of your prepared resolution. MR. HILTON-Yes. I’ll certainly give you a copy of the prepared resolution right now. Simply it says schedule a, for you to schedule with Staff a Scoping Session. At this point, I’d probably have to talk to you at some point tomorrow or during business hours to schedule that. MR. O'CONNOR-Are we going to have a Scoping Session with Staff or members of the Board? MS. RADNER-With Staff. MR. MAC EWAN-I’ll bring up that topic in tomorrow afternoon’s staff meeting, whether we want to have some member of the Planning Board there. MR. O'CONNOR-I guess my gut feeling is that this is an accomplished taking of the property. It’s the only zone, permitted zoned use of the property, but that’s, if this Board thinks that they can do that, that’s fine. SITE PLAN NO. 59-2004 SEQR TYPE II NEMER FORD PROPERTY OWNER: ROBERT AND PETER NEMER AGENT: FRANK ROMAINE ZONE: HC-INTENSIVE LOCATION: 323 QUAKER ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO INSTALL NEW FREESTANDING LIGHT FIXTURES IN THE PARKING AREA OF NEMER FORD ON QUAKER ROAD. LIGHTING ASSOCIATED WITH COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENTS IN THE HC-INT. ZONE REQUIRES SITE PLAN REVIEW AND APPROVAL FROM THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REFERENCE: SV 38-02 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 8/11/04 TAX MAP NO. 296.20-1-7 LOT SIZE: 3.72 ACRES SECTION: 179-4-020 FRANK ROMAINE & GREG KOMORA, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. MAC EWAN-Staff notes, George? MR. HILTON-As requested by the Board, the applicant has submitted revised information, showing reduced wattages on the lights and overall revised lighting plan, which appears to be more consistent with what the Board has recently approved. So therefore I think we’re pretty much all set at this point, and that’s all I have at this time. MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening. MR. ROMAINE-Good evening. MR. MAC EWAN-For the record, you are? MR. ROMAINE-Frank Romaine, Nemer Ford. MR. KOMORA-Greg Komora, Point Source Group. MR. MAC EWAN-Marked improvement. I think this is more what we’re looking for. MR. ROMAINE-I tried. MR. MAC EWAN-Questions of Board members? MR. METIVIER-Is this going to work for you, Mr. Romaine? MR. ROMAINE-I’m going by what the Board’s looking to build. 6 (Queensbury Planning Board 9/28/04) MR. METIVIER-I mean, it’s excellent. It’s exactly what we’re looking for. MR. ROMAINE-I’m hoping. I won’t know until the lights go on. MR. METIVIER-That’s a good point. MR. ROMAINE-That’s the sad part, but Craig seems to think that it should be sufficient for us. MR. METIVIER-I think it’s exactly what we’re looking for. You did a great job. MR. ROMAINE-Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Any other questions from Board members? Anything you wanted to add? I left the public hearing open on this application. Does anyone want to comment on this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPEN NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MAC EWAN-Does somebody want to move it? MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 59-2004 NEMER FORD, Introduced by Richard Sanford who moved for its adoption, seconded by Larry Ringer: WHEREAS, an application has been made to this Board for the following: Site Plan No. 59-2004 Applicant: NEMER FORD SEQR Type II Property Owner: Robert and Peter Nemer Agent: Frank Romaine Zone: HC-Intensive Location: 323 Quaker Road Applicant proposes to install new freestanding light fixtures in the parking area of Nemer Ford on Quaker Road. Lighting associated with commercial developments in the HC-Int. zone requires site plan review and approval from the Planning Board. Cross Reference: SV 38-02 Warren Co. Planning: 8/11/04 Tax Map No. 296.20-1-7 Lot size: 3.72 acres / Section: 179-4-020 Public Hearing: 9/21/04 WHEREAS, the application was received in August 2004; and WHEREAS, the above is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application materials in file of record; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Art. 9 of the Zoning Ordinance of the Code of the Town of Queensbury a public hearing was advertised and was held on September 21, 2004; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the Site Plan application 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 7 (Queensbury Planning Board 9/28/04) WHEREAS, this approval does not relieve the applicant from obtaining all necessary permits whether Federal, State or Local, and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that We find the following: The application is hereby approved in accordance with the resolution prepared by Staff and is subject to the following condition which shall be listed on the final plans submitted to the Zoning Administrator: 1. The approval is based on the new lighting information submitted to the Town on 9/23/04, the revised lighting package. Duly adopted this 28th of September, 2004, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ringer, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Anderson, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Hunsinger MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set. Good luck. MR. ROMAINE-Thank you very much, gentlemen. MR. MAC EWAN-Don’t forget, before you put those light poles up, call the Town so they can look at them. MR. ROMAINE-All right. Will do. Thank you. SITE PLAN NO. 55-2004 SEQR TYPE II PHILIP J. HAAKENSON PROPERTY OWNER: FRANK BRENNEISSEN ZONE: WR-1A LOCATION: 340 GLEN LAKE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT A 10’ X 6’ ADDITION TO AN EXISTING RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE. EXPANSION OF NON-CONFORMING USES IN A CEA (GLEN LAKE CEA) REQUIRES SITE PLAN REVIEW AND APPROVAL FROM THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 12-91, UV 58-91, AV 63-04 TAX MAP NO. 289.9-1-73 LOT SIZE: 0.39 ACRES SECTION: 179-4-020 FRANK BRENNEISEN, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; P. HAAKENSON, PRESENT MR. MAC EWAN-Staff notes? MR. HILTON-This is an application for a very minor addition to an existing residence, and it is before you based on the fact that it is an expansion of a nonconforming structure in a Critical Environmental Area. The applicant has requested waivers from stormwater, grading, lighting, landscaping, which all appear appropriate. Very straightforward application. That’s all I have at this point. MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening. For the record, you are? MR. HAAKENSON-Good evening. I’m Phil Haakenson. MR. MAC EWAN-Can you tell us about your application, Mr. Haakenson? MR. HAAKENSON-It’s a small addition, total of 60 square feet, closet, and can I just give you some pictures? This is an after the fact thing. We were given a permit here a while ago. So it’s 95% complete. I can’t explain that one. 8 (Queensbury Planning Board 9/28/04) MR. MAC EWAN-You were issued a building permit, then they realized after you were issued the building permit that it required site plan approval? MR. HAAKENSON-I guess so. When I had my first meeting, the application with Craig Brown, he said he knew that we would have to go to two of the hearings. He didn’t think we’d have to go to this one, because it was such a minor detail. The total square footage that’s affected actually, as far as rainwater or other issues that you might deal with, is five foot by six foot, which, just to put it into perspective, is the size of that piece of plywood back there that I cut six inches off from. We did put additional four inches of black dirt around the little space that we’re dealing with. We put peat moss in with the dirt and we seeded it. So I don’t know why we didn’t end up here before, but it’s taken six months to get the permit approved the way it is. MR. SANFORD-I can’t read minds, but I would suggest it’s probably because they just missed, when they issued the permit, they missed the fact that it was in a CEA, and so because it’s in a CEA, you have to come in front of us, but if there’s no other, you know, items, I’ll move it along. MR. MAC EWAN-George, just out of curiosity, why did he need to have an Area Variance? Where this is sitting, as part of the structure, is no closer to the property line with it. MR. HILTON-Without the map in front of me, I would say that because, even though it’s going up, if it’s currently a nonconforming setback, you’re still required to get an Area Variance if you’re not going to meet the setbacks. MS. RADNER-Any time you modify a nonconforming structure. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Any questions from Board members? MR. METIVIER-I do have a question, and I don’t want to make a big deal of this, believe me, but your site development data sheet, I think, is all wrong. If you’re not doing much work with this, just the 60 foot addition, you take the required shoreline setback of 50, as it’s currently at 47, and the proposed is 75, and that just doesn’t work. Keep on looking down, and your side setback changes on the one side, it improves as well. Unless you’re taking the building, picking it up and moving it, that sheet’s wrong. So I don’t know if that’s something that we have to take out of the record, or just let it be, or what, but it’s just not correct. I mean, I have no problem with this application at all, but if that’s part of the application. MR. HILTON-If you wish to approve this application, you could certainly condition it upon a revised site statistics page. MR. MAC EWAN-Any other comments from Board members? MR. RINGER-You probably should change that, though, to 47. There’s no change on the shoreline, because the building’s on the back part. So it would still be 47. So if he changed his application to 47. MR. METIVIER-Actually, your height’s wrong, too, if we’re going to really go for it. MR. MAC EWAN-Well, you know, when we approve this thing, we’ll just, we’ll make it a condition of approval that the site development data sheet be revised to more accurately reflect what site conditions are. Before and after. All right? MR. METIVIER-That’s fine. MR. MAC EWAN-I’ll open up the public hearing. Does anyone want to comment on this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED 9 (Queensbury Planning Board 9/28/04) NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MAC EWAN-Does somebody want to move it? MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 55-2004 PHILIP J. HAAKENSON, Introduced by Larry Ringer who moved for its adoption, seconded by Anthony Metivier: WHEREAS, an application has been made to this Board for the following: Site Plan No. 55-2004 Applicant: PHILIP J. HAAKENSON SEQR Type II Property Owner: Frank Brenneissen Zone: WR-1A Location: 340 Glen Lake Road Applicant proposes to construct a 10’ x 6’ addition to an existing residential structure. Expansion of non-conforming uses in a CEA (Glen Lake CEA) requires site plan review and approval from the Planning Board. Cross Reference: SP 12-91, UV 58-91, AV 63-04 Tax Map No. 289.9-1-73 Lot size: 0.39 acres / Section: 179-4-020 Public Hearing: 9/28/04 WHEREAS, the application was received in August 2004; and WHEREAS, the above is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application materials in file of record; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Art. 9 of the Zoning Ordinance of the Code of the Town of Queensbury a public hearing was advertised and was held on September 28, 2004; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the Site Plan application 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, this approval does not relieve the applicant from obtaining all necessary permits whether Federal, State or Local, and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that We find the following: The application is hereby approved in accordance with the resolution prepared by Staff and is subject to the following conditions which shall be listed on the final plans submitted to the Zoning Administrator: 1. The Site Development Data Sheet be revised to show the correct setback requirements. 2. Waivers requests granted: Stormwater, Grading, Landscaping and Lighting Duly adopted this 28th of September, 2004, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Metivier, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Anderson, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Sanford, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Hunsinger 10 (Queensbury Planning Board 9/28/04) MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set. MR. HAAKENSON-Thank you very much. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. SPECIAL USE PERMIT 60-2004 SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED K. REYNOLDS, EVERGREENS INDOOR GOLF CENTER PROPERTY OWNER: KENNY BROCK PARTNERSHIP ZONE: HC-INTENSIVE LOCATION: 1468 ST. RT. 9, LAKE GEORGE OUTLETS APPLICANT PROPOSES TO OPERATE AN INDOOR AMUSEMENT FACILITY IN A COMMERCIAL BUILDING LOCATED ON ROUTE 9, SOUTH OF ROUTE 149. AMUSEMENT USES IN THE HC-INT ZONE REQUIRE SITE PLAN REVIEW AND APPROVAL FROM THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 40-94 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 9/8/04 TAX MAP NO. 288.12-1-20 LOT SIZE: 7.90 ACRES SECTION: 179-10, 179-4-020 KEN REYNOLDS, PRESENT MR. MAC EWAN-Staff notes. MR. HILTON-The applicant proposes to use a portion of his existing residential building for an indoor golf center which is classified as an Amusement Center. Amusement Centers in this zone, HC-Intensive zone, require a Special Use Permit from the Planning Board. As I’ve indicated, the applicant has requested several waivers, stormwater management plan, grading, landscaping and lighting. The proposed use would be within the existing square footage of the strip center, retail center. The Amusement Center, along with some food service and outdoor seating, no changes to the site are proposed, external changes, based on the information provided by the applicant, and the number of parking spaces appears to meet Code. With that, that’s all I really have on this one at this time. MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening. MR. REYNOLDS-Good evening. MR. MAC EWAN-For the record, you are? MR. REYNOLDS-Ken Reynolds. MR. MAC EWAN-Could you tell us a little bit about your application, Mr. Reynolds? MR. REYNOLDS-Well, what we want to do is we want to open up an indoor golf center, obviously, and that will consist of five indoor golf simulators which are 15 foot by 20 foot booths which are, you bring actual golf clubs, hit actual golf balls into a screen which, once the ball hits the screen, there are sensors that graphically take over and you can play golf courses from all over the world. It does swing analysis, lessons and so forth. We want to have private lessons, group lessons, children’s clinics. We’ll also be doing a light, we’d like to do a light fare food, as well as beverage service, just consisting of sodas, juices, beer, wine, and so forth. Other than that, I mean, just generally a quiet atmosphere. Simulators are, the maximum we’ll have in there is generally around 23, 24 people at a time, because each simulator will only be able to take four people maximum. MR. MAC EWAN-Four people at once in the simulator? MR. REYNOLDS-Right. MR. MAC EWAN-So you can go actually basically play a round of golf. MR. REYNOLDS-Basically be able to play a foursome. Exactly. I mean, you could play five or six, but generally you’d just do a foursome, or an individual person or two or whatnot. 11 (Queensbury Planning Board 9/28/04) MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Anything else to add? MR. REYNOLDS-No. MR. MAC EWAN-It seems fairly straightforward. I’ll open it up for questions, generally. MR. RINGER-The outdoor, food, beer and wine. Are you going to be serving that outdoors in that 13 by 42 foot? MR. REYNOLDS-Well, we were probably going to have, I mean, probably three tables out there, just to kind of add to the outdoor atmosphere of it. Currently, it’s an existing awning that was there from the previous restaurant, which was there prior to the CD store, which was there, if you understand that. MR. RINGER-And they had outdoor? MR. REYNOLDS-Right. There’s an awning that’s currently there. I went under the assumption that the entire roof of that building is going to be redone. So the awning may not be there when they’re done. So we wanted to take use of it while it’s there. If not, it’s not an important feature. MR. RINGER-I think it’s a great venture you’ve got going there. I have a little bit of trouble with that outdoor beer and wine, but, you know. MR. REYNOLDS-Understandable, and that’s something that we wouldn’t, I mean, if it came down to it, we’d just do food out there, sodas and juices and what not. Again, our biggest draw is going to be the golf, and just to be able to have that outdoor seating for the summertime crowd rolling by was kind of a nice feature. MR. RINGER-No, I don’t know if I’ve got a real problem. I’m just a little unsure of that portion. I don’t have anything else, Craig. MR. MAC EWAN-Any other questions of Board members? MRS. STEFFAN-Do you have a lease agreement with the site owner? MR. REYNOLDS-Correct. Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-Any other questions? I’ll open up the public hearing. Does anyone want to comment on this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MAC EWAN-Tony, SEQRA, please. MR. METIVIER-Short Form. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 60-2004, Introduced by Anthony Metivier who moved for its adoption, seconded by Larry Ringer: 12 (Queensbury Planning Board 9/28/04) WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: K. REYNOLDS, EVERGREENS INDOOR GOLF, 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 28 day of September, 2004, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Ringer, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Anderson, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Hunsinger MR. MAC EWAN-Does somebody want to move it? MS. RADNER-Can I make one comment before you do? MR. MAC EWAN-Sure. MS. RADNER-Just to clarify for the record. Just because there’s been some discussion of alcohol, I just wanted to make sure we said on the record that this Board doesn’t approve alcoholic beverage service, and you’ll have to go to the Liquor Control Board for that. MR. RINGER-I assumed he’d need a liquor license to do that. MS. RADNER-I did, too, but I just felt we better say it. MRS. STEFFAN-That’s part of the application. They have it in here. MS. RADNER-Okay. Proceed. 13 (Queensbury Planning Board 9/28/04) MOTION TO APPROVE SPECIAL USE PERMIT NO. 60-2004 K. REYNOLDS, EVERGREENS INDOOR GOLF CENTER, Introduced by Larry Ringer who moved for its adoption, seconded by Gretchen Steffan: WHEREAS, an application has been made to this Board for the following: Special Use Permit 60-2004 Applicant: K. REYNOLDS, EVERGREENS INDOOR GOLF CENTER SEQR Type: Unlisted Property Owner: Kenny Brock Partnership Zone: HC-Intensive Location: 1468 St. Rt. 9, Lake George Outlets Applicant proposes to operate an indoor amusement facility in a commercial building located on Route 9, south of Route 149. Amusement uses in the HC-Int zone require site plan review and approval from the Planning Board. Cross Reference: SP 40-94 Warren Co. Planning: 9/8/04 Tax Map No. 288.12-1-20 Lot size: 7.90 acres / Section: 179-10, 179-4-020 Public Hearing: 9/28/04 WHEREAS, the application was received in August 2004; and WHEREAS, the above is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application materials in file of record; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Art. 10 of the Zoning Ordinance of the Code of the Town of Queensbury a public hearing was advertised and was held on 9/28/04; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the Special Use Permit application 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 apply for a Building Permit unless the lands are Adirondack Park Agency Jurisdictional or other approvals are necessary, and WHEREAS, The Planning Board has determined that the proposal meets the requirements § 179-10-035 and, as such, shall be considered a Pre-Existing Use. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that We find the following: The application is hereby approved in accordance with the resolution prepared by Staff and is subject to the following conditions: 1. Waivers requests granted: Stormwater, Grading, Landscaping & Lighting. Duly adopted this 28th day of September, 2004, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Anderson, Mr. Ringer, Mr. MacEwan 14 (Queensbury Planning Board 9/28/04) NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Hunsinger MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set. MR. REYNOLDS-Thank you very much. MR. MAC EWAN-Hope you have a lot of success. SUBDIVISION NO. 17-2004 SKETCH PLAN SEQR TYPE: N/A @ SKETCH APPLICANT/PROPERTY OWNER(S): JOHN W. DREPS & EUGENE CERNIGLIA AGENT: NACE ENGINEERING, JOE WALSH, ESQ. ZONE: HC-INT. & PUD LOCATION: EAST SIDE OF BAY ROAD, NORTH OF CRONIN ROAD INTO FIVE (5) LOTS ZONED HC- INTENSIVE. CROSS REFERENCE: SV 9-99, AV 3-99, SP 65-98, SB 12-98, AV 42-94, SB 10-94, SP 29-94 TAX MAP NO. 296.16-1-16.1, 14 LOT SIZE: 5.76, 0.62 ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS TOM NACE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; JOHN DREPS, PRESENT MR. MAC EWAN-Staff notes. MR. HILTON-This is a Sketch Plan subdivision which proposes to subdivide a 6.37 acre property into five commercial lots, north of Stewart’s on Bay Road, north of Cronin Road. The property is zoned HC-Intensive and PUD. A portion of the property is part of the Queensbury Partners PUD. Vehicular access is proposed off a new unnamed cul de sac, and with the exception of the southernmost lot, all lots would have access off this new cul de sac. As I’ve written in my notes, the applicant proposes a land swap between some of the areas currently zoned PUD and HC Intensive, and certainly before any preliminary subdivision or final subdivision approval, the Town Board must first approve this rezoning or land swap, if you will. As I’ve mentioned, the proposed lots appear to meet the area and dimensional criteria of the HC-Intensive zone. It’s a Sketch Plan. No SEQRA review is required at this point. That’s all I have at this time. MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening. MR. NACE-Good evening. For the record, Tom Nace and John Dreps. What we’re proposing here is a commercial zoned subdivision of five lots. Because of the configuration of the land, we’ve proposed a land swap with Queensbury Partners, which would take a small, narrow finger of land they own parallel to Bay Road and trade that for a piece of land along the northern portion of the Dreps’ property, and it would, in fact, make both properties more contiguous and less broken up. It would give us the option or the opportunity to build a standard Town road cul de sac into the subdivision. That cul de sac would serve four lots. As Staff mentioned, the lot to the south, Lot Number One, would not be served by that cul de sac, but there’s an existing access easement agreement with Stewart’s where the driveway that Stewart’s is presently using on Bay Road would be a shared access, both for Stewart’s and for our Lot Number One. MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it? MR. NACE-That’s it. MR. MAC EWAN-When you talk about the land swap with the PUD, the land that you’re going to get from the PUD, the one acre up front. MR. NACE-Correct. 15 (Queensbury Planning Board 9/28/04) MR. MAC EWAN-Is that going to revert back to Highway Commercial? MR. NACE-That would be our intention that that would revert to Highway Commercial, and the 1.02 acres that we would be giving to the PUD would change from Highway Commercial to PUD. MR. MAC EWAN-Does that require Town Board approval? MR. NACE-Yes. We’ve submitted this to the Town Board and asked for a concurrent review so that they can get your comments on the land swap and the zoning change in their process of rezoning. MR. MAC EWAN-What do you have envisioned for this subdivision? MR. DREPS-My name is John Dreps, and right now we have no definitive plans, except to possibly sell them off as separate commercial lots. It just made more sense for us, both of us, to make this type of a swap. MR. MAC EWAN-So you’re looking to do like a Professional Office, something along those lines? MR. DREPS-Something in that nature, yes. MR. MAC EWAN-How far outside of the PO zone are we on this? Do you know offhand? We’re relatively close to it. MR. HILTON-The PO zoning to the north is relatively close. I don’t know offhand how close. MR. NACE-I believe it ends up at the northern property line of Bay Meadows. Bay Meadows golf course property comes out to Bay Road, north of where that large culvert crosses, and well north of the old Lupo’s boat place. You can see that one hole there up in the northeast corner, or northwest corner of their site. MR. MAC EWAN-I thought it came more this way. MR. NACE-No, I believe it stops at that property, because all of that is zoned PUD, and then there are the couple of lots that are chunked out of that. MR. MAC EWAN-Even though we’re not in the PO zone, then, you know, I’m just curious as to what your thoughts are on complying with the PO zone design standards for the Bay Road corridor? MR. NACE-I hadn’t given it any thought because we’re in the Highway Intensive zone. MR. MAC EWAN-I know. We’re a ways down the road from site plan, if we get to that point, but I just want to plant a seed. That’s all. I would like to see the theme continued, carried over. MR. NACE-Well, we’ll just look at that. I’m not sure what the differences would be, other than the commercial versus professional office restriction. MR. MAC EWAN-I think probably what I’m thinking is more toward the streetscaping, architecture, and stuff like that. MR. RINGER-Well, it’s Highway Intensive. Just about anything is allowable in the use. The Highway Intensive, they’re very loose. MR. NACE-Okay, but if you’re thinking the streetscape aspect, and, you know, there is, we still have that 75 foot setback to deal with. So I don’t think that would be any great burden. 16 (Queensbury Planning Board 9/28/04) MR. MAC EWAN-I just want to plant a seed. That’s all. Any other questions from Board members? MR. RINGER-The driveway off of Stewart’s, that’s already existing, Tom? MR. NACE-That’s already existing. You can see it on our plan, and when Stewart’s went in, the Planning Board required that they provide a cross easement to this property for access. MR. RINGER-I thought Dr. Brassel owned this property? Doesn’t he own some property? MR. NACE-He did own this at one time. MR. RINGER-Okay. All right. Because he owned the Stewart’s property, I thought, before. MR. NACE-Right, and the one towards Stewart’s. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Any other questions? MR. NACE-Was I right, as far as where that PO zone is? MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. It’s right at the property line, the country club’s property line. MR. METIVIER-Would that require then, I mean, if we wanted to lean towards PO, that’s all right in the Highway Intensive? MR. MAC EWAN-No, it’s Highway Commercial, but he said that he’s thinking going along the lines of doing professional offices, if I understood him correctly. MR. METIVIER-Would that require a rezoning? MR. MAC EWAN-So that’s why I asked him, even though it’s not in the PO zone, would they start thinking about, or would they think along the lines, if they’re going to go with professional office park, to go along with the theme for the Professional Office zone and the Bay Road corridor design standards? MR. METIVIER-But would that require rezoning of the area? MR. MAC EWAN-No, no, no. All I’m saying is theme wise. That’s all. MR. METIVIER-Just theme wise, as far as the look. MR. NACE-You’re not asking us to go PO use, specifically. You’re asking for the overall street scape issue. MR. MAC EWAN-Theme, the architectural theme of the Bay Road corridor. Keep that vision going. MR. NACE-Gotcha. MR. METIVIER-I misunderstood you there. I thought that you were going towards a rezone. MR. MAC EWAN-No, no, no. MR. METIVIER-All right. That’s fine. MS. RADNER-The rezone is just for the land swap. 17 (Queensbury Planning Board 9/28/04) MR. METIVIER-No, but I meant when he was referring to the PO. MR. NACE-At first I did, too, Tony. I thought he meant strictly office use. MR. RINGER-Yes, I thought so, too. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. My fault. Any other questions? MR. RINGER-He could have it in there without changing the zone, or their allowed use. Site plan approval, they’re an allowed use. MR. METIVIER-I was going to say, most of them are, right. MR. SANFORD-Just a question. Since these lots are going to be sold off, so what, is there anything to prevent the future owner of Lot Number Three from coming across to this Board and saying, I would like to have an entrance directly onto Bay Road rather than using your access road? MR. NACE-You can certainly institute those restrictions with your approval of the subdivision. MR. SANFORD-Yes, because, you know, we were just conferencing a little bit and we were thinking about. MR. NACE-Well, actually what would prevent it is your own zoning. Your access management. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, and on top of that, he doesn’t meet the separation either. MR. RINGER-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-He doesn’t meet the separation on a collector road. MR. SANFORD-Okay. There’s nothing to stop him from trying, but it’s not likely it would be approved. MS. RADNER-Exactly. MR. METIVIER-And every one of the five has to come before us anyway. MR. MAC EWAN-Right. Any other questions, comments? MR. SANFORD-Well, just an educational one. The PUD, you know, this land swapping in regards to something that’s been granted that kind of a zoning, is this typical to have this kind of a thing or is this? MS. RADNER-This is creative, but it’s a zoning change. The PUD becomes the zone for that area, and as I understand this land swap, basically the same acreage is basically going to go into the PUD as is going to go out, and it’s definitely something the Town Board can consider, whether the change that they’re planning, this land swapping, meets with the goals of the PUD and also meets with the goals of this Highway Intensive zone. MR. SANFORD-Okay. MS. RADNER-No, it isn’t something we see often, but it’s definitely within the realm of what the Town Board has the authority to do. MR. SANFORD-Okay. 18 (Queensbury Planning Board 9/28/04) MR. NACE-It’s not, the PUD was created specifically for an elderly housing complex over on the other side of the site, and this land swap in no way affects that particular aspect, or the goal of the PUD. MR. SANFORD-I understand. MR. NACE-It was just that the remainder of the golf course, if that other project had gone, would have had all development rights removed from it, and this land that we sought would be so encumbered also. MR. SANFORD-Okay. MR. RINGER-It’s just a little sleeve on the thing, on the PUD. MR. NACE-Yes, it’s really just trying to make the land more contiguous. MR. RINGER-I mean, a PUD is broken up with that little piece in there. MR. SANFORD-All right. I don’t have anything further, Craig. MRS. STEFFAN-I just have a question on the logic behind Lot Two and Three. Obviously there are strips. Lot One, Lot Two, Lot Three have Bay Road frontage, even though they don’t have Bay Road access, well Lot Two and Lot Three have to come in on the cul de sac, and I just wondered why they had the road frontage versus, you know, sections, you know, just turning their orientation. MR. NACE-Well, to give some presence on Bay Road. I mean, you’ll have presence on Bay Road architecturally without having parking in front of the building on Bay Road. So actually it kind of meets the goals of the corridor anyway, just by design. The parking’s going to be around back and it’ll present a nice architectural front on Bay Road. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. I just, you know, depending on what goes there and the design, you know, could be confusing. You see something from Bay Road but you can’t get to it, and you have to go into the cul de sac. So that’s why I wondered the logic behind the lot separation that way, versus changing the orientation. I understand. MR. NACE-It’s a little bit like the one we just did for Rich Schermerhorn, you know, the access is all off of the new road, or mostly. MR. MAC EWAN-Any other questions? Anything you wanted to add? MR. NACE-No, not at all. I appreciate your input. MR. MAC EWAN-Good luck with the Town Board. MR. NACE-Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Any other business? MIKE SIEGEL MR. SIEGEL-If I may. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. Come right up to the microphone, please. MR. SIEGEL-Mike Siegel. I live 12 Chelsea Place in Queensbury. It says public hearing on this application. 19 (Queensbury Planning Board 9/28/04) MR. MAC EWAN-Which application are you referring to? MR. SIEGEL-The Sketch application, unless I’m reading it wrong, cross reference. MR. MAC EWAN-The one we just did? MR. SIEGEL-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-There’s not a public hearing scheduled at Sketch Plan. Sketch Plan is just a conceptual discussion between the applicant, proposed application and the Planning Board. MR. SIEGEL-I appreciate that. Just, for my information, if I can give you a little input on what I see. I use Cronin Road quite a bit, and there seems to be a lot of traffic going in to the Stewart’s right now, and I was wondering how many lots the Stewart’s entrance will service. MR. MAC EWAN-One lot. MR. SIEGEL-One lot. MR. MAC EWAN-As it’s proposed. MR. SIEGEL-Okay. You showed concern in possible exit and entrance on Bay Road some time in the future. That is a concern, but being that there’s a lot of traffic now building up on Cronin Road going into Stewart’s, you might not put, you might not stop the possibility of using Bay Road for entrance and exit, being that you have a nice shoulder wide enough, possibly a good entrance could be made. MR. MAC EWAN-Well, the way their concept is right now, and I’ll give you this map, you can take it with you. MR. SIEGEL-Yes. I saw it over there. There’s no entrance to the buildings on Bay Road. MR. MAC EWAN-There’s one access feeding the other five lots, and one lot that’s kind of like, for lack of a better term, is landlocked. That’s a shared access with the Stewart’s site, and we approved Stewart’s three years ago or so, however long it’s been up. Part of their approval was that the next lot over was to have internal access, to help alleviate so many curb cuts on Bay Road. That’s what we’re driving for. MR. SIEGEL-Yes. I was just concerned about Cronin Road being narrower and build up of traffic going in that one spot. I’m not an engineer. MR. MAC EWAN-No, I do know the County right now is looking in to, and it’s on the docket for that road to be re-striped, and I don’t know where they are as far as doing traffic warrants on that, whether it’s going to call for a traffic signal at the intersection of Cronin Road. I don’t know if that’s in their planning. If you’re curious about it, you might want to give Bill Remington a call up to the County DPW. He’d be able to answer that question for you. MR. SIEGEL-Thank you. MR. RINGER-When they come for a Preliminary and Final, if they come back, there’ll be notices sent out to all the area residents, 500 feet, and a public notice will be posted also. MR. SIEGEL-Right. Okay. Thank you very much. MR. MAC EWAN-Do you want to take this map with you? You’re welcome to it. Any other business? We’re done. On motion meeting was adjourned. 20 (Queensbury Planning Board 9/28/04) RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Craig MacEwan, Chairman 21