Loading...
1992-11-24 ;' "- ~/ QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 24TH. 1992 INDEX Subdivision No. 4-78 Berkeley Subdivision 2. Site Plan No. 49-89 Anthony and Linda Russo 3. Freshwater Wetlands Permit No. 3-92 Robert Rowe 4. Subdivision No. 16-1992 PRELIMINARY STAGE Robert Rowe 6. Site Plan No. 50-92 Bob Buruchian 9. Subdivision No. 15-1992 SKETCH PLAN Harry Ruecker 17. Site Plan No. 52-92 Steve & Donna Sutton 26. THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTHS MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES. " I' QUEENSBU~PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 24TH, 1992 7:05 P.M. ----/' MEMBERS PRESENT EDWARD LAPOINT. ACTING CHAIRMAN CAROL PULVER. SECRETARY TIMOTHY BREWER KATHLEEN ROWE CRAIG MACEWAN CORINNE TARANA MEMBERS ABSENT ROGER RUEL PLANNER-SCOTT HARLICKER EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR-JAMES MARTIN STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. LAPOINT-It will be on the 8th, and the subject of the meeting pertains to planning for a possible development in the Town of Queensbury. MR. MARTIN-Right. It's one of those things where we're really not at liberty to say. It will be announced that night, but I encourage you all to be there, and as a prelude to that. we have a matter of an applicant for site plan review, that if we could get together as a Planning Board prior to that meeting, which, the main meeting would be up here. but if we could meet in the small conference room downstairs a half hour prior to the main meeting and just deal with that one application. it would help the applicant. It would be at 7:00. and then the main meeting would be at 7:30. So. it would be 7:00 down in the small conference room, 7:30 up here. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. Great. Okay, the second item maybe we could handle fairly quickly is a letter from Jonathan Lapper from Lemery & Reid. regarding the extension of a submission for a Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the proposed roller coaster at the Great Escape. Their submittal date is November 26th, and they're looking for a six month extension. which would be to May 24th. Has anybody got any questions. comments? Would that be a problem to give them another six months to submit? Okay. I'll make a motion. MOTION TO EXTEND THE SUBMISSION DATE FOR THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE PROPOSED ROLLER COASTER AT THE GREAT ESCAPE. Introduced by Edward LaPoint who moved for its adoption, seconded by Timothy Brewer: For six months. until May 24th. Duly adopted this 24th day of November, 1992, by the fOllowing vote: AYES: Mrs. Rowe. Mr. Brewer. Mrs. Tarana. Mr. MacEwan. Mr. LaPoint NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Ruel MR. LAPOINT-And would Staff make sure that they get a letter off to Mr. Lapper, confirming that we've extended it? Okay. Item Number Three on Pam's letter, "Resolution regarding Site Plan No. 40-92 for Dr. Kim. This was tabled at your November 10th meeting". but 1 , .---- do we háve to do anything tonight? '..../" MR. MARTIN-I don't believe so. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. MRS. TARANA-Before we forget about it. can we go through and get rid of these minutes? MR. LAPOINT-Yes. Tim had a comment that he hasn't had a chance to read them yet. Maybe you have an older set that maybe he has read. and maybe we can get rid of one? MRS. TARANA-I went through them all. How far are you, Tim? MR. BREWER-I haven't got them with me. MRS. TARANA-Do you know if you're in August or September or October? MR. BREWER-September. MRS. TARANA-Okay. So, could we approve at least August 25th. and that'll be done with August. and we'll leave from September on. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. Anybody have any comments for the August 25th minutes? August 25th. 1992: NONE MOTION TO APPROVE MINUTES OF AUGUST 25TH. Timothy Brewer who moved for its adoption, Tarana: 1992, Introduced by seconded by Corinne Duly adopted this 24th day of November. 1992, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Brewer. Mrs. Tarana. Mr. LaPoint NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. MacEwan, Mrs. Rowe ABSENT: Mrs. Pulver. Mr. Ruel MR. LAPOINT-I guess they're not approved. I'll tell you what. Lets make sure we try to get everybody up to speed by December 8th, and if we can take the first five minutes of our Special meeting. MR. BREWER-August 25th is the last set? MRS. TARANA-August 25th is the last one. We have to take them right through to November 18th. the Special meeting. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. Now, another item for discussion is the Berkeley Subdivision No. 4-78. "Request to sign a new subdivision plat containing revised property line descriptions. This is a result of a new road and drainage system design created to eliminate previous drainage problems." Do we need a motion, or is this just something the Acting Chairman signs? MR. MARTIN-Well, this is a very old subdivision, and there were problems from the very beginning with the drainage on this, and the road design, and for that reason, it was never developed, and now I think it's under new ownership. right, Tom? TOM NACE MR. NACE-That's correct. 2 - '-- ------ MR. MARTIN-~nd the new owner has retained Haanen Engineering, and they've come up with a new plan, and this slightly amends the configuration of the road and the lots. and we just wanted to bring the Board up to date as to what was happening with this. prior to just having you come in and sign a plat when you really didn't know what it was about, and this is some 15 years? MR. NACE-Twelve years. MR. MARTIN-Twelve years old, and we just wanted to have a short discussion with the Board and bring you up to date as to what's happening. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. No additional lots? . MR. MARTIN-No. MR. LAPOINT-And the road is just slightly reconfigured? MR. NACE-That is correct. MR. LAPOINT-Drainage swales, that type of thing. and whatever they put in is going to meet Town standards for roads? MR. MARTIN-Right. Paul Naylor has already reviewed the design of the road. and he's accepting of it. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. So. if we were to make a motion that we approve the changes, allowing the Acting Chairman to sign the final plat. that would be the way to go? I'm just looking, procedurally. what to do. MR. MARTIN-Yes. I would think a resolution to the effect of an amended final subdivision approval. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. Does anybody want to take a shot at that? MOTION TO APPROVE REVISED SUBDIVISION PLAT NO. SUBDIVISION, Introduced by Edward LaPoint who adoption. seconded by Timothy Brewer: 4-78 moved BERKELEY for its For road and drainage modifications, per agreement with the Town Highway Department. Duly adopted this 24th day of November, 1992. by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Tarana, Mr. MacEwan. Mrs. Rowe, Mr. Brewer. Mr. LaPoint NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Ruel MR. LAPOINT-"Site Plan No. 49-89 Anthony and Linda Russo, for the Lake George Cue Club - Revised parking lot layout." I think Scott has provided us all with a revised parking lot layout. and maybe you could give us, in a nutshell. what the differences are. because I don't think we have the old plan. Would you mind pointing out the five new spaces. or whatever the changes are, for us? DENNIS FRANKLIN MR. FRANKLIN.-I' m Dennis Franklin, the Construction Manager for Mr. Russo. We have two changed conditions. We were originally approved for 66. We ran into a high volume spring inside of the bank, here, and we turned that back to the architect. and he designed a French drain to go around here, which took seven feet out of the width of this parking lot. There was also a white coat billboard there. It required them to build a substantial retaining wall to keep the sign. They decided not to, so we had another 3 "--' "..--' slope condition here. The end result was. this lot became seven foot. We had to reconfigure it. We were originally 10' x 20' spaces. The Town changed that requirement to nine. We added three here. So. we ended up with a net five gain. Nothing from here over changed. It was just this one area of this lot. '- --,,' MR. LAPOINT-And that French drain is effective? It's all installed in and working? MR. FRANKLIN-Yes. We observed it for two months before we had it redesigned. MR. MARTIN-And I've been to the site, and that is. in fact. the case. and they've made the improvements. It's just something they couldn't avoid. with the physical constraint they ran into. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. this one. Jim? What is it, procedurally, we have to do with MR. MARTIN-Again, it's a motion to accept the site plan as amended. It's a small change. but nonetheless a change. and any amendment to a site plan requires the Board's review and approval. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. applicant? Okay. Does anybody have any questions Would anybody like to make a motion? for the MOTION TO APPROVE AMENDED SITE PLAN NO. 49-89 ANTHONY AND LINDA RUSSO LAKE GEORGE CUE CLUB. Introduced by Timothy Brewer who moved for its adoption. seconded by Carol Pulver: As revised. Duly adopted this 24th day of November. 1992, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Pulver. Mrs. Tarana. Mr. MacEwan, Mrs. Rowe. Mr. Brewer. Mr. LaPoint NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Ruel MR. LAPOINT-Okay. Before we get into the Old Business, I'm going to repeat what I said earlier. If anybody is here for Site Plan No. 51-92 James M. Weller "Site Plan for existing construction of three (3) 14' x 50' seasonal greenhouses", or Site Plan No. 53-92 Dean Howland, Jr.. those both have been scratched from tonight's agenda. So, there's no sense hanging around. OLD BUSINESS: FRESHWATER WETLANDS PERMIT NO. 3-92 ROBERT ROWE PROPERTY INVOLVED: G 26 SW 313 WEST MOUNTAIN ROAD TAX HAP NO. 123-1-34 CURRENT ZONE: SR-1A AREA OF PROPERTY: 2 ACRES CROSS REFERENCE: AV 45-1992 AV 124-1992 SUBDIV. 16-1992 ROBERT ROWE. PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Freshwater Wetlands Permit No. 3-92. Robert Rowe. November 23. 1992, Meeting Date: November 24, 1992 "The applicant is before the Board for a wetlands permit. The applicant also requested an area variance to allow construction within 75' of a wetlands. Mr. Rowe is also applying for a two lot subdivision. Mr. Rowe received the needed variance to build wi thin 75' of a wetlands on 11/18/92. The wetland is jurisdictional to the APA. The applicant was told by the Staff about the Board's policy of allowing the other agency to issue a permit prior to the Town. Mr. Rowe has applied to the APA and is awaiting their determination. The APA had to wait until the applicant received the variance to 4 ',-- begin processing the wetland application. The Staff contacted the APA on 11/4/92 to see where the application was in their review. They indicated that they were awaiting the granting of the variance prior to taking any action and they had 45 days after the granting of the variance in which to make a determination. The staff recommends that the Board maintain its policy and put this application back on the agenda when an APA wetlands permit has been issued." MR. HARLICKER-The applicant will be back in next month for. hopefully. final approval of a subdivision that relates to this wetlands permit. and you can. at that time. deal with the final subdivision and the wetlands permit. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. objections? Does the applicant have any comments to that. MR. ROWE-No. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. MR. BREWER-I have a question. Can we proceed with the Preliminary Stage before he has a permit? If we don't do anything with the Wetlands Permit. can we proceed with the Preliminary Stage now. or should that wait also? MR. HARLICKER-I don't know why not. MRS. PULVER-My question is. so, has he got the variance or not? MR. HARLICKER-He received the variance. Yes. MRS. PULVER-Okay. So, he's got the variance. So now he's here. but he still doesn't have the Wetlands Permit? MR. HARLICKER-Right. He's in the process of. MRS. PULVER-And it's our policy to refer him back toAPA to get the Wetlands Permit? MR. HARLICKER-Right. MRS. PULVER-So, why are we having Preliminary before? MR. BREWER-Before he has his permit? " MR. LAPOINT-Well. we'll get him back for final, correct? MR. HARLICKER-Right. MR. MARTIN-The only issue that, you may want to consider this as you go through the environmental review. That's done at the Preliminary Stage. So. it's a question as to whether you feel comfortable enough to go ahead now, and look at the Preliminary Stage. At least see what other items come up in a Preliminary review, and if you can. get to point of doing the SEQRA, is the wetlands permit an issue, do you want to wait until you have the permi t. or you can go through with your assessment and maybe proceed on through the Preliminary approval. but we thought it was worthy of at least getting the issues out on the table with the Board. at the Preliminary Stage. and if there's anything. in addition to the wetlands permit issue that could be raised tonight. so we didn't delay it again, later on. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. I think that makes sense. Just to paraphrase. I think what you're saying is that if there are any other issues aside from the wetlands. MR. MARTIN-Right. 5 ,----. --- MR. LAPOINT-Because we know we can't do the SEQRA tonight, or at least that's what mY inclination would be. you not do the SEQRA until you do the Freshwater Wetlands Permit. So, lets take a look at this from the perspective of the subdivision, in absence of the wetlands? MR. MARTIN-Exactly. MR. BREWER-That's fine. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. So, can we move, transition right into the first item of New Business. and take Staff Comments on the subdivision? MR. MARTIN-I would just recommend a motion tabling the Wetlands Permit. MR. LAPOINT-All right. Permit? Would anyone like to move to table the MOTION TO TABLE FRESHWATER WETLANDS PERMIT NO. 3-92 ROBERT ROWE. Introduced by Carol Pulver who moved for its adoption. seconded by Timothy Brewer: Duly adopted this 24th day of November. 1992. by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Tarana, Mr. MacEwan. Mrs. Rowe, Mr. Brewer, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. LaPoint NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Ruel (7:20 p.m.) NEW BUSINESS: SUBDIVISION NO. 16-1992 PRELIMINARY STAGE SR-1A ROBERT ROWE OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE WEST MOUNTAIN ROAD. SOUTH OF SHERMAN AVENUE INTERSECTION. SUBDIVISION OF PROPERTY INTO 2 LOTS FOR RESIDENTIAL PURPOSES. CROSS REFERENCE: AV # 124-1992 FRESHWATER WETLANDS PERMIT: 3-92 TAX MAP NO. 123-1-34 LOT SIZE: 4.63 ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS ROBERT ROWE, PRESENT (7:20 p.m.) STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Subdivision No. 16-1992. Robert Rowe, November 23. 1992, Meeting Date: November 24. 1992 "Pro;ect Description: The applicant is seeking preliminary approval to subdivide a 4.63 acre parcel into two lots. The new lot will be 1.95 acres and the remaining lot will be 2.58 acres. The property is located in the Adirondack Park on West Mountain Road just south of Clendon Brook Road and is known as tax parcel 123-1-34. The rear of the property is bounded by Clendon Brook and there is a freshwater wetlands on the property. The property is zoned SR-1A. The applicant is also required to get a freshwater wetlands permit and a variance to build wi thin 75 feet of a wetland." As a result of the ZBA hearing. the site plan was revised. So. the house is now going to be 60 feet from the wetlands, as opposed to 22 feet. "The applicant is proposing to build a house on the second parcel only 22' from the wetland. Pro;ect Analvsis: The project was reviewed with consideration given to the provisions found in Section A183- 10E (1) of the zoning code. The applicant is not proposing any streets in his proposal; it is a simple two lot subdivision. Both of the lots will be hooked up to Town water. The lots will have individual septic systems. Since lot two is in a low lying area adjacent to a wetland, information should be provided to ensure that the proposed lot is able to support a septic system. The exi sting lot, which has a dwelling on it. has it's own septic system. Drainage could be a problem with the proposed new lot. It 6 ...... -- ',-, ',,-- is located in a hollow and appears to be a natural catch basin for stormwater runoff and snow melt in the spring. Because of the steep slope at the front of the property and along the side. access to the parcel could be a problem. Grading information should be provided showing how the problem of the steep slope will be mitigated. The lots are both over one acre, and therefore meet the lot size requirements of the Zoning Code. as well as the other dimensional requirements. The proposed structure on Lot 2 is located so it meets the setbacks for front. rear and side yards. However. the structure is to be located only 22' from a wetland." You can scratch. it's 60 feet from the wetlands. "The code requires a 75 foot setback from the wetlands; therefore, the applicant has to seek a variance of 53'. According to Section 179- 30C of the zoning code. all residential lots fronting on a collector or arterial road shall have two times the lot width permitted in the zone unless the ingress and egress are limited to one common driveway. In order to gain an exception to the two times the lot width requirement. the applicant has to show the common driveway on the subdivision plat and in a written legal document. There is the possibility that one lot, which has 2.58 acres. could be further subdivided in the future. The limiting factors to this possibility appear to be wetlands and the road frontage requirements for arterial and collector roads. Recommendation: The Planning Staff believes that there are certain issues that need special consideration. Because of the nature of the property, drainage, the septic system and the impact of development on the wetlands all have to be carefully examined. Because of the steep slope and frontage on an arterial road. access also should be looked at closely. If the applicant can show that the low elevation will not cause drainage problems, the property can support an up to code septic system. the development will not have a negative impact on the wetlands. and safe access to the site can be provided. the Staff can recommend preliminary subdivision approval." MR. LAPOINT-Okay. Mr. Rowe. any comments to our Staff's comments? MR. ROWE-What do you want me to respond to? MR. LAPOINT-Well, the questions I would have is that. when you come back in with your revised Preliminary. that you could show that the lot can support its own septic system? MR. ROWE-Yes. We had an engineer draw up the plans. and it's been approved by the Adirondack Park. MR. LAPOINT-Okay, for septic? MR. ROWE-Yes. MR. LAPOINT-Okay, but that's not in our package, is it? MR. HARLICKER-No. MR. LAPOINT-We would need that for Preliminary. when we go through SEQRA. and final. So. what you've got to do is provide that to us, plus the idea, what the grades will be, the steepness of the slopes in and out of the property, and that type of thing. per the Staff's Comments. I think those are the only two technical items that I see, and maybe other Board members may have a couple of other things that they want to take a look at. Those are the two things we need to see. MR. ROWE-When I come back in. or now? MR. LAPOINT-When you come back in. MR. ROWE-Okay. MRS. PULVER-I have a question. Are you going to have a shared 7 '- driveway? HR. ROWE-Yes. MRS. PULVER-It is going to be a getting a permanent easement in driveway? shared driveway, your property for and are you this shared MR. ROWE-I have a driveway now. MRS. PULVER-I know. but I see on the plans that you're going to a shared driveway. HR. ROWE-Right. MRS. PULVER-I'm going to assume that this house you're building is son, daughter. mother. MR. ROWE-My daughter. MRS. PULVER-Okay. daughter. If they sell the property. is there going to be a permanent easement for you to use that driveway? MR. ROWE-It's going to be on mY property, the driveway. MR. BREWER-It's going to be half on hers and half on yours. actually. according to the map. MRS. PULVER-Yes. MR. ROWE-Well, we're going to change this, it's going to be on my property. MRS. PULVER-Okay. MR. ROWE-Her driveway is going to come around, because they're going to have their garage there. MR. LAPOINT-Yes. Those are the type of things we need to see. MR. ROWE-Yes. I can change these no problem. MRS. PULVER-Okay. MR. ROWE-We're in the process of, Warren County is going to abandon some land back to me. on my property. MR. BREWER-I have a question, when we were out there, the fill that you're using. is the house going to be on the fill? MR. ROWE-No. MR. BREWER-It's not? MR. ROWE-That house is going right down onto where it's level, on the bottom. MR. BREWER-Down below the fill? MR. ROWE-Yes. From the top of the cellar wall to the road is going to be a six foot slope in the 60 foot, the house is going to be 60 foot from the road. and it's going to slope six feet. The elevation's 84, down where the cellar floor is. and it's 98 up on the road. So there's 14 feet difference from the road to the. MR. BREWER-So, when you back fill around the house. is that going driveway that's there now? it. you're going to back fill to bring it up even with the MR. ROWE-No. I think. it'll slope from my driveway down a little 8 '-. - '- -- ------ bit to theirs. MR. BREWER-I guess I was just curious as to how much of a slope it's going to be. MR. ROWE-Not much. MR. MARTIN-It's going to drop six feet over a 60 foot distance. MR. ROWE-Yes. From the road down to the top of their cellar. it's going to drop six feet. MR. BREWER-Okay. If it's not going to be on top of the fill, I'm not concerned about that. MR. ROWE-No. It's hard to visualize the house now with that dirt pile up there. MR. BREWER-Yes. it is. MR. ROWE-Once we get the cellar in there, and level it off. MR. LAPOINT-Yes. All you have to do is include that on your drawing. so it's apparent to the people who review it that it looks like it's going to be all right. MR. ROWE-Right. MR. LAPOINT-Any other comments. questions? Okay. I think, if you'll agree to tabling this. pending the APA Wetlands Permit. and then bring back the Preliminary Stage with these changes. we ought to be able to get you right through both of these as soon as you have that all done. MR. MARTIN-Yes. What I might encourage you to do, Mr. Chairman, is to open a public hearing tonight, also, and leave that open, in case anybody did come tonight. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. LAPOINT-And we'll leave this public hearing open until we do the SEQRA Review at Preliminary. Okay. Do we have a motion to table this pending APA Permit and subdivision revisions? MOTION TO TABLE SUBDIVISION NO. 16-1992 ROWE. Introduced by Carol Pulver who seconded by Timothy Brewer: PRELIMINARY STAGE ROBERT moved for its adoption. For a subdivision of property into two lots, until we receive the APA Freshwater Wetlands Permit. Duly adopted this 24th day of November. 1992. by the following vote: AYES: Mr. MacEwan. Mrs. Rowe. Mr. Brewer, Mrs. Pulver. Mrs. Tarana. Mr. LaPoint NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Ruel (7:30 p.m.) SITE PLAN NO. 50-92 TYPE I (LAKE GEORGE CEA) LC-42A BOB BURUCHIAN OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE LOCATION: RT. 9L ON DUNHAM'S BAY RIGHT ABOVE DUNHAM'S BAY LODGE, ACROSS FROM BOAT CO. SITE PLAN TO OPERATE A BED & BREAKFAST FOR UP TO 4 PERSONS. TAX MAP NO. 10-1-22 LOT SIZE: +1/2 ACRE SECTION: '179-13 SHARON DAVIES. REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT (7:30 p.m.) 9 STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff. Site Plan No. 50-92. Bob Buruchian, Meeting Date: November 24, 1992 "Proiect Description: The applicant is proposing to use an existing single family dwelling as a bed and breakfast. The building is known as the Old Grange Hall and is located on Rt. 9L just northeast of Dunham's Bay. The property is zoned LC-42A and is about 26.000 sq. ft. in area. The applicant is proposing no modifications to the building or the property. The bed and breakfast will be secondary to the building's principal use as a single family home. The structure is located in the Adirondack Park and the Lake George Critical Environmental Area. Pro;ect Analysis: The project was compared to the following standards found in Section 179-38 E of the Zoning Code: 1. The location, arrangement. size. design. and general site compatibility of buildings. lighting and signs. The proposed new use of the building will not impact the character or compatibili ty of the site. The building is a historic structure built in 1904 and its use as a bed and breakfast would be right in character. There are no proposed changes to the site. 2. The adequacy and arrangement of vehicular traffic access and circulation. including intersections. road widths, pavement surfaces. dividers. and traffic controls. The additional use as a bed and breakfast would not impact vehicular traffic access or flow. 3. The location, arrangement, appearance and sufficiency of off-street parking and loading. The bed and breakfast use may crea~e a need for parking. The bed and breakfast will use two bedrooms in the structure . There is currently parking for 6 or 7 cars on the site. If two of them are dedicated to the single family use, that leaves 4 or 5 spaces for guests of the bed and breakfast or of the owners. 4. the adequacy and arrangement of pedestrian traffic access and circulation , walkway structures. control of intersections with vehicular traffic and overall pedestrian convenience. Pedestrian traffic should not be a problem. The parking is adjacent to Route 9L but visitors would not have to cross the highway or walk along it to gain access to the house. 5. The adequacy of stormwater drainage facilities. There will not be modifications to the site and stormwater facilities will not be impacted. 6. The adequacy of water supply and sewage disposal facilities. The site is served by an existing deep well and on site septic system. The septic system is 1000 gallon capacity and was constructed in 1988. The existing facilities should be able to accommodate the additional use. 7. The adequacy. type. and arrangement of trees. shrubs, and other suitable plantings, landscaping and screening constituting a visual and/or noise buffer between the applicant's and adjoining lands. including the maximum retention of existing vegetation and maintenance including replacement of dead plants. The site is currently landscaped, the bed and breakfast will not impact the existing landscape, nor should it create a need for additional landscape. 8. The adequacy of fire lanes and other emergency zones and the provision of fire hydrants. The bed and breakfast will not impact fire or emergency accessibility. 9. The adequacy and impact of structures, roadways, and landscaping in areas with susceptibility to ponding. flooding. and/or erosion. The bed and breakfast will not impact any areas of ponding. flooding, or erosion. Recommendation: The bed and breakfast does not include any modifications to the existing buildings or site. The structure's use as a part time bed and breakfast would be in character with the historic nature of the property. Since the bed and breakfast use should not have a negative impact on the site or the neighborhood, the Planning Staff recommends approval of this project." MR. LAPOINT-Do we have any comments from the applicant on Staff Comments? Any response? MS. DAVIES-I'm Sharon Davies, and I just basically wanted to say. the applicant has done a beautiful job of restoring this building. He's only asking for permission to have four people stay overnight. It's customary around the lake. Many people rent out their homes 10 to six or eight people or more, and he was hoping that it wasn't a major character change for the area. MR. LAPOINT-Any questions? MRS. TARANA-Just a couple of minor questions. What about a sign? Will he have a sign on it? MS. DAVIES-I don't believe so. I'm only representing him. He's in Florida. I don't believe so. MR. LAPOINT-Would he have to come in and get a permit for a sign? MR. MARTIN-Yes. He'd have to come in for a sign permit. MR. LAPOINT-Separate from this. MR. MARTIN-Yes. MRS. TARANA-What about lighting? lights. for that parking? Will he plan on putting any MS. DAVIES-He does have lighting. in fact, that's mentioned in the application. He does have exterior lights. MRS. TARANA-I thought that was just street lights. I guess I was thinking about in front. by the garage. MR. BREWER-It doesn't show any lighting in the picture. MS. DAVIES-There is a street light in the picture. MRS. TARANA-There's a street light by that by that parking lot to the rear of the building, right? MS. DAVIES-Yes. MRS. TARANA-But what about. I just noticed it was kind of rocky and stuff. for people who are not familiar, if they were coming at night. if there could be some sort of a light. MS. DAVIES-There's a nice walkway going up into the house that's cement and very easy to negotiate. That's just beyond that truck. right. MRS. TARANA-I guess I'm just looking at this area right in here. MS. DAVIES-That's actually a rock garden, but this is. and there's parking. and there's parking here. too. MR. MACEWAN-So, there's enough to accommodate four or five trucks. and guests for parking. and room for any staff or residents of the house as well. right? MS. DAVIES-Definitely. MRS. ROWE-Will there be additional lighting for the deck? MS. DAVIES-For the porch, you mean? MRS. ROWE-For the deck out back. MS. DAVIES-I would have to find that out. I'm not sure. MRS. ROWE-I don't know how much entertaining is going to take place out there. MS. DAVIES-I don't know either. but I understand your concern. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. This is a Type I Short Form? 11 MR. HARLICKER-They have to fill out a Long Form, but you can just go through. There really shouldn't be any environmental. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. So. we do have a Long Form? MR. HARLICKER-Right. One was submitted with the application. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. If there aren't any other objections. are we ready to do the SEQRA on this? questions Okay. or MR. MARTIN-You should open a public hearing. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. We should open a public hearing before we do SEQRA. Okay. I'd like to open up the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED DICK WALDRON MR. WALDRON-My name is Dick Waldron. and I'm a close resident of this property in question. I'll submit to you a copy of this letter. I hate to do it this way. spring it on you cold, but I think by the time I get through. you'll see why ~ didn't have time to do this properly. "As a summer resident at parcel 4-1-26. within 500 feet of the applicant. Bob Buruchian, I object to the permitting of a bed and breakfast at parcel 10-1-22 for the following three reasons: 1. Ours is primarily a residential area and it should remain that way as much as possible. 2. The property location is so poorly defined in the public notice that many owners have not been notified as required by Article 14. Section 179-103." That's on Page 18062 of the zoning pamphlet which I left back there. "It is not across from the Boat Company. It is on the east side of Route 9L, at mile post 1121. Fourteen property owners should have been notified in accordance with Section 179-103." And I've attached a list of those 14 people that should have been notified. I know of only one that was. I was not. "3. It would be illegal to permit this new use under either accessory use or site plan review use. because the lot is too small. The supplementary regulations, Article IX, Section 179-61, specifically Tourist Accommodations, on Page 18029, state in part. 'And provided that no tourist accommodation shall be located on a lot smaller than the minimum lot size required in the zone in which the lot is located.' The lot must be 42 acres, not 1/2 acre. Respectfully submitted. Richard Waldron" The lot must be 42 acres, not 1/2 acre. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. Comments from Staff. Did we miss our notification requirement on this, or did the applicant? MR. MARTIN-No. not that I'm aware of. MR. HARLICKER-Not that I'm aware of. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. receipts? Doesn't the applicant copy you in on mail MR. MARTIN-They're not required to notify until Preliminary Stage. for subdivision. MR. LAPOINT-Well, this is site plan. MR. MARTIN-I'm sorry. Yes. Okay. then the Staff. Pam sends these out. MRS. PULVER-Isn't it receipt requested, though? I mean, don't you get a? MR. MARTIN-No. only at subdivision. The applicant's do that. We notify everybody. from the office. 12 MR. LAPOINT-Okay. So. it's not clear as to whether or not. I mean. one neighbor got a notification, but 13 others did not, and these people are all within 500 feet or whatever the? MR. MARTIN-We can double check that. but Pam's usually very good about those things. I can't imagine that she missed. This is the first I've heard about it. I know they were sent. MRS. TARANA-Are they summer residents. maybe? MR. WALDRON-Well, we're all summer residents, but the requirement that I cited here says everybody within 500 feet. MRS. TARANA-I' m just wondering if, would the notice be sent to their summer residence. or to their winter residence? MR. MARTIN-It would be sent. she pulls those off the tax rolls. So. wherever the tax bill is sent. that's where the notification goes. MRS. ROWE-In the application, he only lists two different names as being his neighbors, Geraldine Banta, and Mitchells. He doesn't list anyone else as being involved in this either. MRS. PULVER-Well, he probably just lists to the north, to the south. to the east. and the west. MRS. ROWE-And since the rock wall is most of his neighbor, I guess. MR. MARTIN-If there's any question about that, we can double check. We can check that out. MRS. PULVER-I think there is a question. MR. LAPOINT-Definitely. MRS. PULVER-Yes. since we. So. I think that that should be checked out, MR. LAPOINT-Okay. What are the two key points? Notification, and then a change of use within a nonconforming, due to lot size. MRS. PULVER-Could this be grandfathered? Was this. it's Land Conservation 42 Acres. but is that a 1988 change in zoning. or? MR. MARTIN-Yes. I'm sure it was changed in '88. MRS. PULVER-So. he would be. this particular parcel would be grandfathered? MR. MARTIN-Well. I think it was deemed a permitted use under a site plan review, recreation center and lodge, and then bed and breakfast is also listed on the next page. under Type I. MR. LAPOINT-Under LC-42A? MR. MARTIN-Right, and it was a preexisting lot. nonconforming. So, it didn't have to meet the lot size requirement. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. So, that clears up Item Number Two. MR. MARTIN-That's why it's clearly listed as Type I. MRS. TARANA-The application says Type II. Is that just an error? MR. MARTIN-Right. It should be listed as Type I. That's the way it is right out of your Ordinance. MR. BREWER-It's on the agenda, also. 13 '"-' MR. HARLICKER-On the agenda. I believe the types are referring to SEQRA. MR. BREWER-Okay. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. The third point, in Mr. Waldron's, there's a third point in there, in his letter? MR. WALDRON-Well. the third point is the property size. This is a new use for that property. That's never been used as a bed and breakfast. So. you have a new use. and in order to conform, specifically under the Tourist Accommodation provision of your own Statutes, you can't put it on a lot smaller than the minimum size in the zone that it's in. and it's a 42 acre zone. MR. LAPOINT-I thought we just cleared that up. MR. MARTIN-Yes. but it's a preexisting lot of record, preexisting nonconforming lot of record, prior to the date of the adoption of the Ordinance. then the lot area size is removed. MR. WALDRON-But this is a new use. MR. MARTIN-But it's still a lot of record. So, it's an allowed use under Site Plan Review, and the lot doesn't have to meet the lot size requirement if it's a lot of record prior to the adoption of the Ordinance, even if it's the introduction of a new use. I mean. you can appeal that if you'd like. for further interpretation. That would be my interpretation as the Zoning Administrator. MR. WALDRON-Thank you. MR. MARTIN-But the notification wi thin 500 feet is clearly an issue. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. Now. I want to be clear about what we take a look at when we table. We want to be sure we have our notifications correct. and we'll get a specific response to Mr. Waldron's letter, in terms of. I mean. his letter was very specific. in terms of what he felt was wrong. So, we need to respond to it like that. MR. MARTIN-Right. Well. we can supply that in our Staff Comments, the next time. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. All right. Okay. Any other public comments? DOUGLAS WRIGLEY MR. WRIGLEY-I'm Douglas Wrigley. and I'm a summer resident on Dunham's Bay, east side. I won't attempt to speak to these items of law or technicality that my good friend Dick spoke to, because I'm not aware of them, but my wife and I would very much go along wi th the approval of this site for the B & B. Bob has done an excellent job in restoring the old mountainside grange, and the property looks very, very fine, as Sharon pointed out, so that I don't think in any way it will effect us as nearby residents. I'm not within 500 feet. Our property is not within 500 feet, but we are very close. up the hill a little ways. So that I think that it will be an addition of merit to the entire area. So I would speak favorably for the approval of this application. MR. LAPOINT-Thank you. Mr. Wrigley. Anybody else? MS. DAVIES-I'd like to stress. because I tend to be very conservation minded. they're only talking about four people using this. MRS. ROWE-Maybe I'm missing something. the house? How many bedrooms are in 14 ',----, --- MS. DAVIES-I believe it has four bedrooms, but the only plans are these. MRS. ROWE-Two of the four would be used then? MS. DAVIES-Right. MRS. ROWE-And that would leave two remaining for any company or whatever he might have? MS. DAVIES-For himself and maybe one of his family or something. I see an awful lot of summer homes being used, that are right on the water, a lot heavier usage than this. This is limiting it. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. If we leave the public hearing open. and we have a pending SEQRA Review. and then of course a site plan, and we'd try to make sure they get on as the first order of business the next time around MR. MARTIN-Yes. I apologize for the notification to the neighboring property owners. Pam has done this literally hundreds of times. I can't imagine what went wrong. MR. LAPOINT-I'm sure if it's always worked out to be just fine before, but it's very important for people to be notified of what's going on. MR. MARTIN-Yes. MR. LAPOINT-And even if she has done it. send them out again. just get them out one more time. because I think what happens is she probably mails them and they either get transferred once or twice. or something. MRS. PULVER-I have one question. Can this bed and breakfast possibly somehow move into rooms for rent? How do we? MR. HARLICKER-How do you control it? MRS. PULVER-Yes. MR. HARLICKER-I don't know about that, but taking more rooms and using them as a bed and breakfast. I believe there's building code restrictions that prohibit that. You've got to do upgrading of the structure. if you put in fire-walls and things like that, if you use more than two bedrooms as a bed and breakfast. I think it's considered a motel unit, or something along that line. MRS. PULVER-I'm saying. what's to stop this from going from a bed and breakfast, which we kind of think of as being seasonal. to a year round renting of rooms? MR. BREWER-I don't think that's something we can control. How can we control you from renting a room in your house. MRS. PULVER-I'm not saying we should control it. I'm just saying, what is to prevent that? MR. MARTIN-I don't know that we can. MRS. PULVER-What I'm saying is. is this a stepping stone to getting a piece of property as rental property? MR. MARTIN-The only thing I could offer is that if someone. you know, you're saying like a full time motel or something of that nature. MR. BREWER-A boarding house. or whatever. MRS. PULVER-A boarding house, yes. I'm thinking, is a bed and 15 --../ breakfast a convenient way to start and then basically have a boarding house? Not that I would object to that. and not that I feel that the applicant's intentions are even to do that. MR. MARTIN-The only thing I can offer is that usually something like that would require some sort of advertising or signage out front and that would tip the Town off to something like that. Beyond that, I don't know how you would regulate that. MRS. PULVER-Okay. That was only a question. MR. MARTIN-That was a good question, and I don't know that I have a good answer. MS. DAVIES-Can I say, what prompted this was Mr. Buruchian thought about renting the grange hall. and the idea of just turning it over to somebody. a family. or a group of families. bothered him. So he thought, well. this is a nice way of doing it and supervising what was going on, and that's basically what brought this about. MRS. ROWE-How many bathrooms are in the house? MS. DAVIES-I believe there are three. MRS. ROWE-Whole bathrooms, each of them? MS. DAVIES-Possibly four. I think it's on the application. then. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. Any other comments? With the applicant's request. approval, to table. we'll clear this up, and I'm just trying to think. aside from this particular applicant. is there any other way we can make sure. functionally. that this doesn't happen, because I mean. this could be a manner that people objecting to pro j ects. stop them dead cold. I mean. just the accusation that people weren't notified seemed to be enough. MR. MARTIN-Right. MRS. PULVER-Doesn't the applicant have to pay for sending out the notices? MR. MARTIN-I'm fairly certain that that only happens in subdivision. Site plan and variance. the Town notifies. It's legally noticed in the paper and all of that, and then we always contact within 500 feet off of the tax maps. MR. LAPOINT-Yes. Maybe we ought to consider what we do for subdivision, do it for site plan. and make it the applicant's, I mean. that way the applicant, there's a step involved where the appl icant gives the Town all the rece ipts and says. the re, the mailing's done. HR. MARTIN-There is somewhat of a higher cost involved to the applicant, but it may be worth it. MR. LAPOINT-Yes. Okay. Would anybody like to make a motion to table Site Plan No. 50-92? MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 50-92 BOB BURUCHIAN, Introduced by Carol Pulver who moved for its adoption. seconded by Corinne Tarana: For a bed and breakfast up on Route 9. until we can notification as to whether or not everyone was notified, other comments by the public can be addressed. receive and the Duly adopted this 24th day of November, 1992, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Pulver, Mrs. Tarana. Mr. MacEwan, Mrs. Rowe, 16 - Mr. Brewer, Mr. LaPoint NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Ruel MR. LAPOINT-And I'd like to add that we'd like to try to get them on the next agenda. MR. MARTIN-Yes. MR. LAPOINT-We'll let you know. MR. MARTIN-It'll be the third Tuesday of December. MRS. TARANA-Could you put. in the public notice, when you put it in the paper. could there just be a note that notices were sent out to. I mean, that would cover the Planning Department, I think. Send them out and then just make a statement that it was done. MR. LAPOINT-Yes, that would work. MRS. PULVER-Add it to the notice, you mean? MRS. TARANA-Yes. MRS. PULVER-Notices were sent to. MRS. TARANA-Either they were sent or notices will be sent so that anyone who doesn't get one could call. (7:54 p.m.) SUBDIVISION NO. 15-1992 SKETCH PLAN TYPE I (LAKE GEORGE CEA) WR-1A HARRY RUECKER OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE LOCATION: WESTERLY OF CLEVERDALE RD. AND SOUTHERLY OF GUNN LANE. PROPOSED THREE LOT RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION UTILIZING EXISTING BUILDINGS WITH POSSIBLE REMOVAL AND NEW RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION ON LOTS. TAX MAP NO. 12- 3-18 LOT SIZE: +3.289 ACRES SECTION 179-16 WALTER REHM. REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT (7:54 p.m.) STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Subdivision No. 15-1992, Harry Ruecker, November 24. 1992. Meeting Date: November 24, 1992 "Proiect Description: The applicant is before the Board for sketch plan approval. He is proposing to subdivide a 3.28 acre parcel into 3 lots. The property is located on Gunn Lane across from Lake George. The parcel is currently has four structures on it. Lots two and three will each have a house on it; lot one has two houses on it. The houses will be sold will be sold with the lots; it will be up to the purchasers to keep them or remove them. The houses are currently seasonal structures. The lots will be serviced by indi vidual on site septic systems and water. The proposal also ties in with a proposal to construct a single family house on an adjacent parcel. The septic system for the house is to be located on lot one. The subdivision is located within the Adirondack Park and the Lake George Critical Environmental Area." Well. we can cut to the, I would guess, meat of the application, here, to begin with. There were some questions raised regarding this subdivision and it's relation to the proposed construction of the single family house on the other side of Gunn Lane. One of the problems, or issues I guess. raised is the ability. or the acceptability, of locating a septic system for somebody else's house on property that will not be owned by that house. What they want to do is use lot one as the home for the septic system for the house that is proposed to be built right on the lake. That's one problem. The other issue relates to the, I guess you'd call it the separability of these two projects. The applicant claims that they are two distinct and separate applications. It's the opinion of the Town Attorney that since the parcel is separated from the property by a 17 -' - Town road, it should be considered a separate parcel and therefore two separate applications. It's the opinion of the Planning Staff that the two parcels, the parcel to be subdivided and the .43 acre parcel on the lake should be considered as one. The property is listed as one parcel according to the Tax Assessor's Office. The Zoning Administrator has been referred to this, in relation to making a determination regarding this issue. That determination has yet to be made. "Proiect Analysis: The proposal was compared to Article III of the Zoning Code which includes regulations relating to sketch plan submission and review. The project is a Type I action under SEQRA because it is wi thin the Lake George Critical Environmental Area. The SEQRA Review will be completed during preliminary subdivision review. There are now new streets proposed in this subdivision. All lots will front Gunn Lane and lot one will be a corner lot. Each lot will have its own septic system and water service. Each house has an existing septic system. but it is not known what the condition of the septic systems are or if they are capable of handling year round use. However. there appears to be enough room on the lots to accommodate new systems if they are needed. It is unclear as to where the source of the water will be. Accessibility does not appear to be a problem. The lots all front on a town road and should not impose any new hardships on emergency accessibility. Since the new houses are to remain on the properties. lot lines will have to be amended to ensure that all setback requirements are met. Since there is only one principal structure allowed per acre, one of the houses on lot one \vill have to be removed. SummarY/Recommendations: It appears that there are several problems with this proposal. It is unclear as to where the source of water is. There are two principal structures on lot one¡ therefore, one of the houses has to be removed. Several of the lot lines have to be adjusted to make sure that all setbacks are met. The house on lot two is 29' from the front property line and 30' is required. There also appears to be a problem with locating the septic system for the lake-front parcel. which is on the other side of Gunn Lane, on lot one. A discussion wi th the Director of Building and Codes has determined that this is an unacceptable situation. If these issues can be addressed to the Board's satisfaction. Staff can recommend approval of this sketch plan." MR. HARLICKER-I tried to contact. this is the applicant's representative, I tried to contact your office this afternoon and was unable to reach you, but I was wondering, are these two pieces of property separate deeds, or are they on the same? Are there separate deeds for each of these two pieces? MR. REHM-They're separate parcels on the same deed. At one time they mayor may not have been separate parcels. I don't know, but there's no question that Gunn Lane is a Town road. MR. HARLICKER-Right. MR. REHM-And if you look at the definition of lot in the Zoning Ordinance I think that there's no question that that's a separate lot. If that were not the case, property on nonconforming lots. on one side of Quaker Road or the other side of Quaker Road and so on, would be. or other roads would be connected, and that is not the law. I don't think the Queensbury Ordinance speaks exactly to that point. I know the Town Attorney is of the opinion that the lakeshore lot is a separate lot. The Adirondack Park Agency Regulations clearly state that it would be a separate lot. The definition of lot in the Zoning Ordinance says that it's "a parcel or portion of land separated from other parcels or portions by description as/or a subdivision map, survey map, or by meets or bounds for the purposes of sale, lease. or separate use. There is no contiguous ownership. So. it's really got to be a separate lot. MR. BREWER-Can you tell me where that is? MR. REHM-It's Definition Number 150. I have a different paging, I 18 ",,/' "-. , ~ think. MR. HARLICKER-It's on page 17928 of the zoning code. that, in the past, this is according to the Town. considered and assessed as one piece of property. It just seems it has been MR. REHM-That has nothing to do with zoning. how it's assessed. The question is, how it's zoned. Is it a separate lot, or is it. in fact, not a separate lot. is the issue. How it's arranged on a tax map and how the assessor assigns tax map numbers really isn't the issue. This is a fairly sizable lot for this particular area of Cleverdale. It's a little bit under a half acre, and I don't know what else I can say. I know the opinion of the Town Attorney is that it's a separate lot. I know that under the Park Agency Regulations. specifically, it's a separate lot. I believe it's a separate lot under the Town of Queensbury Definitions. and I don't know what else I can say. If you had a lot in a. lets say a one acre zone, Quaker Road is a bad example, but a residential zone that's one acre. minimum lot size. and you have a half acre lot on one side of the street, and a half acre lot on the other side of the street. and they were both prior nonconforming lots and there was no contiguous property, there is no possibility that the Town of Queensbury would say that they are one lot, and if it were in Twicwood. for example, there's just no possibility that the Town would say you can build on one side of the street, but you can't build on the other side of the street. assuming that you could meet setbacks and sewage disposal and other issues. MRS. PULVER-So. Administrator? what's our determination here, Mr. Zoning MR. MARTIN-Well, this was just introduced to me this afternoon at about 4: 30 in the afternoon. I hate to sound like an attorney. here, but I'd like more time to research this. I mean, this is a pretty sticky call, and I can understand Mr. Rehm's argument here. but I'd like to research this further. Typically what I've seen is that if there's one deed there's one lot, but he's saying that there's separate description's. here. within the same deed. So. that may. in fact. mean that it's a separate lot. The definition does in fact say a parcel or portion of land separated from other parcels or portions by description. If we have a separate description, then that would mean that is a separate lot. MR. REHM-Even, and I'm obviously representing the applicant, here, but even if it was all one description. and then the Town took a highway down through there. it would still, legally, be a separate lot. I don't know that we have to resolve this issue tonight. This is only sketch plan. and I know you're certainly going to want to talk with Paul, which is fine. and I'm aware of the issue. I mean. this is not a new issue. I'm sorry you just learned about it. I had a meeting two weeks ago with the Planning Department. and that issue was raised. MRS. PULVER-Two weeks ago it was a separate Planning Department. MR. MARTIN-Well. yes. It's not like we're miles apart from each other. Granted, this maybe should have come to me earlier. but I wasn't aware. but I would like an opportunity to talk this over with Paul. and if you could supply us with a copy of that deed, and I could review the separate description and all of that. that would certainly be helpful. We don't have that, as yet. MR. REHM-Happy to do it. The other issue had to do with the location of a sewage disposal system on another lot. MR. MARTIN-Right. and when I saw this today, it strikes me as, have you had any discussions with Paul Naylor regarding your desire to run a septic line under the Town highway? MR. REHM-No. we haven't. at this stage. It's preliminary, but I'm 19 "'-- sure that that wouldn't be a problem there. but I did talk to Dave Hatin. after my conversation with Scott, and Dave indicated to me that there was no regulation that would prohibit that at all. as far as he understood. He said that they would probably have some planning questions. but that there was no prohibition. The theory. here, is to try to get the septic system as far from the lake as possible, and this happens to be a particularly good area for sewage disposal, as opposed to trying to. which would probably be impossible, to fit a septic system or certainly not wise, to try to fit a septic system on the lake shore parcel. So. I've got the test hole data for this area, which is really quite good. and it would seem to me that that would be the better solution. and you can always articulate potential difficulties that, well, gee. this septic system and this line is going to be on someone else's lot. but it's certainly very easy. from a legal point of view. to prepare easements that allow for that and that allow for the access to the lot for the purpose of maintaining and repairing and doing whatever else you have to do. and while at first you say. gosh, there's going to be an easement running across the lot. well, if it was the Town of Queensbury sewer system. there would be an easement running across the lot, or if it was the Town of Queensbury water line. or something like that. so that's not really that unusual. and I think we can deal with that in a proper manner that would protect everyone concerned. MR. LAPOINT-Yes. that was my main concern about the septic there, a bit of a technical question. all the lot gobbledy go ok and all that stuff you guys can work out. Any questions. comments? MR. MARTIN-This is also in for a variance. right? MR. REHM-Just for the setback to the lake shore. but that's an issue that the Zoning Board of Appeals has designated or asked the Planning Board to be lead agency for SEQRA Review. MR. MARTIN-Right. They'll be seeing that next month. That'll be on their agenda next month. MRS. PULVER-I have a question. Wasn't one of the buildings going to be removed? MR. REHM-Yes. If you look at lot number one. you will see that there are two buildings here. There's a 20 foot setback supposedly, and this corner is a little less than 20 feet. I can assure you that that will not be the case on the final maps. This building is either going to have to be removed or moved, and remodeled as part of this building. because we can only have one building on the lot. MR. MARTIN-Just that point right there. Now, lot one comprises the lot across the street also, right? MR. REHM-No. it does not. Lot one is a one acre lot. one acre zone. It's a separate lot. This is a MR. MARTIN-Okay. subdivision? Then why isn't this listed as a four lot MR. REHM-Because we're not subdividing. This is a preexisting lot. This exists. MR. MARTIN-So it's not part of this subdivision at all? MR. REHM-No. The application that's presently before the Board is just for these three lots. MR. MARTIN-Okay. It's confusing to have that shown there. HR. REHM-I know it is. It just happens to be the contiguous ownership and the Subdivision Regulations require that the map show 20 , "'-"" "'.", the contiguous ownership. but this is a little over three acres. 3.3 acres or so, and there are four buildings. and the proposal is to subdivide thi s into three lots. one acre. one acre. and the balance which would be one plus acre, and to maintain all the setbacks. No variances requested. to remove one of the buildings, or to move it and use it as part of the existing building. There was a planning comment, with respect to water. You'll see that there are proposed water lines for all of these buildings. and for lake access, that's just from a planning point of view. It's probably going to be better to drill wells. and the idea would be to design the septic system locations to allow for the proper separation for wells. if the owners wish to drill the wells. or to give them the opportunity to take water from the lake. MR. HARLICKER-Have there been tests done on the other lots. as to their suitability for septic systems? HR. REHM-Yes. MR. HARLICKER-Okay. MR. REHM-I'll submit all that. and you'll see that there are test holes located on this map. but since that map was done, since those test holes were done. there's been some more extensive subsurface investigation. So. it's better. No access to the lake from any of these lots. These are strictly residential lots. No easements to the lake. no docking rights. no beach rights or anything like that. The history of this, which may interest the Board. is that this was originally. some years ago. presented to the Board as a four lot subdivision, with a beach lot. and a variance was granted to allow for four lots, which would have been undersized. if there were four of them. and give these people access to the lake over this property, but Harry Ruecker who owns the property has decided he would like to build his own residence there, and he is adamant that since it's going to be his own residence. he doesn't want anyone else using the beach or the lake shore or anything like that. MR. MACEWAN-I'm confused. real confused. three lot subdivision. right? If this is just for a MR. REHM-Right. MR. MACEWAN-Why are we talking about a septic tank for a proposed house on another lot? MR. LAPOINT-Because if you look on the map, that septic tank from that house on the lake runs right back through Lot Number One. Do you see it? MR. MACEWAN-Yes. but that's not why he's here. Am I wrong, or am I right? MR. REHM-No, it's just, we got into that because of the Planning comments. There's a separate application before the Zoning Board of Appeals for a variance because the p~oposed house on this lake shore lot can't meet the shoreline setbacks. MR. LAPOINT-You see, when we do subdivision for those three lots. we have to be concerned that there's an outside septic system on it. So, when we go through this, probably at Preliminary or Final. we have to make sure that all that's buttoned up, in terms of easements and all that. MR. MARTIN-Would you propose an easement for Mr. Ruecker to have his septic line going through, what's that indicated as Lot One? MR. REHM-Yes, but not in it's present location, because Scott and I were talking the other day. This isn't a very good place to put it. It's not good to put the line down through the middle. We'll go over to the property line, probably. and put it down. but. yes, 21 '- this would all be easements, but another reason for talking about this is that this Board is going to have to review the whole thing. including the variance. from a SEQRA point of view. MR. MARTIN-And you're also going to allow. that easement would allow maintenance of the septic system, like if the leachfield failed for construction equipment to come on to the site? MR. REHM-Absolutely. Maintenance repair. construction. reconstruction. and you know it's. this location is pretty good because there's access from the Town highway right here. So. unless there's a problem with the line. which is unlikely. any maintenance is not going to have much of an effect on this lake. It's not like you have to bring a bull dozer up through this lot. because this is Cleverdale Road right here. and it's right in this location. If you've seen this property, this is really pretty open. reasonably level land. MR. LAPOINT-All that's Preliminary and Final stuff anyway, right? Okay. Any other questions for? MRS. TARANA-I just want to ask Jim. the variances that they got before. and the site plan review. that's all voided now? Are we starting over again? MR. MARTIN-Yes. I believe so. MRS. TARANA-And they go back to '85. I think. So, all of that is gone? MR. REHM-It's gone. They never finished the subdivision, and God knows why. My client. Mr. Ruecker. thought he had a four lot subdivision, and in talking with Lee York. we made a determination that that wasn't the case. and the variance was granted, but there's a provision in the Zoning Ordinance that says that if a variance was granted, if whatever it's granted for doesn't take place within a year. it automatically extinguishes. MR. MACEWAN-Just so I'm clear on this, he's only here for the three lot subdivision? MR. LAPOINT-Yes. MR. MACEWAN-That's all we're concerned about, not whether there could be or couldn't be a proposed septic system on the other side of the road? MR. LAPOINT-Yes. We're at Sketch Plan. the very first stage. So. we have to be concerned with that septic tank, but he's told us all kinds of things he's going to do before he comes before us again. So. yes, we are concerned with that septic tank, but. B. we're not concerned with that house across the street. It's not part of this subdivision. Now. we won't do SEQRA until we do Preliminary. and we open a public hearing and all that stuff. Again. being a new member. I'm not sure if you're uP. Sketch Plan is just what it sounds like, just real roughing this all out. and we usually take them through the ringer at Preliminary. MR. MARTIN-It's just conceptual at this point. MR. LAPOINT-Just conceptual. MRS. PULVER-And Lord help them at Final if they don't have it together. MR. LAPOINT-Now. he's already said, and I heard Kathy whisper something that. my goodness, you don't want the pipe line coming underneath your house or in between houses. and he commented that, we ll, of course. you'd run it along the property line. So, it wouldn't look anything like that. 22 ft< -' --../ MR. MARTIN-I would strongly recommend that you make that easement wide enough for vehicles to get, because I know my brother-in-law just had a line fail. The tank and the leachfield were fine. The line from the house to the tank is what failed. and I would recommend strongly that easement be wide enough to accommodate a backhoe to get up and down there. MR. REHM-That is the intention. and I'll do a draft of the easement language, not the exact. MR. MARTIN-Certainly you don't want to do it now, but I'm just saying. at Sketch Plan. MR. REHM-No. but I'll submit it to the Board so that you can see what the language is. MR. LAPOINT-Now, for example. he's got two houses on that one lot, I would comment. I'd try to get to him before we made a motion. was that I'd like to see that tidied up, by Preliminary. also. MR. REHM-Yes, that's fine. MR. LAPOINT-That he's told us he's got some options of moving here or there. that type of thing. We'd want that firmed up probably in the next stage. MR. MARTIN-I don't think the Ordinance would allow for more than one principal use on the site anyhow. MR. REHM-Yes. We're aware of that. MR. HARLICKER-And then some of the lot lines have to be adjusted to make sure of the setbacks on the existing houses are met, and things like that. HRS. TARANA-Neighbors have not been notified at this point? At Sketch Plan, they're not notified? MR. MARTIN-Right. That's correct. It will be the applicant's responsibility for notification and return receipt requested. MRS. ROWE-What happens if this sewer pipe fails under the road? HR. MARTIN-That's why he's got to talk to Mr. Naylor. MR. LAPOINT-We'll get comments from Paul. I'm sure, on this letter. MR. HARTIN-It's been told to me by the Building Inspector's today. in an informal manner, that there is boring equipment available. that you can go under the road and not have to touch the surface, but again, he certainly is going to want to address that with Mr. Naylor. MR. REHM-This road is something less than Bay Road, I might add. MR. BREWER-Yes. We were out there. MR. LAPOINT-Like that. that's something that I would try to specify. probably between Preliminary and Final. that he'd have a highway 20 loading type. whatever is installed underneath that road would be for highway loading, and that would be right on the drawing. and because we don't necessarily get engineering review. I would make sure something like that is taken care of. MR. REHM-We'll have our engineer put all the specifications for the sewer and everything on the drawings. MRS. PULVER-The only comment that I have is a couple of years ago. when the Hans were in to rebuild their camp. and there was a lot of controversy from the neighbors at the time, originally for them 23 ---' Preliminary Stage, because they had thought they also were going to be renting. and at this particular time, they were turning their residence, they actually tore it down and rebuilt a new one, into a year round residence. but the concern from everybody around there was the docks that were on this property, on this lakeshore lot. that they were being rented all summer, and there was a lot of boats and a lot of people using this, I don't know if they classified it a mooring or a marina use was going on. Now you're saying these three lots are not going to have any access at all? MR. REHM-That's right. MRS. PULVER-And I guess what I'm saying is in the past, there were docks out there, they were brought in in the winter. they're used. that were used in this particular area for rental purposes. for swimming and so forth. but that's no longer going to exist? MR. REHM-My understanding is that those, in answer to your question, yes, and I'm sure you'll make that clear, but we'll make that clear also, but this was kind of a small cottage colony, and there were four buildings here that Mr. Ruecker used one and he rented the others, and continues to rent them. and those people used this lakeshore parcel. which will change.. I can't comment on whether or not there's any dock space rented to other than these people. because I don't know. MRS. PULVER-Well, I guess what my question is. and what I want as an answer is, he's going to build this house there. Is he going to continue to rent dock space? MR. REHM-No. MRS. PULVER-To anyone? MR. REHM-No. I don't think he can, under the Ordinance, anyway. MRS. PULVER-Well, in the past. he has used dock space there for these cottages and for "others", so I'm told, but I don't know. MR. REHM-It's true. MRS. PULVER-Yes. I mean. he did. The neighbors were very upset about it, and they were worried that the Hans. they were also in for another dock. They were moving their dock, and they were going to reconstruct their house and live there year round. MR. REHM-Yes. I represented the Hans people also. MRS. PULVER-Okay, then you remember what an up and down. but I just want you to be prepared that they're probably, when these notices go out. everybody's going to come in. because as you very well remember, they were all talking about this parcel. as well as their concern with the Hans rebuilding and so forth. the rental of the docks. that people coming, renting these cabins did not take pride in the lake like the people who owned property on the lake. There was a lot of boats coming and going that they felt shouldn't be coming and going. So. I just would like to clear that up. that if he's going to build, that that's no longer going to be rental. MR. REHM-That is the offer. and that's what I said initially. in the presentation, and from that point of view. it would seem, if I lived in the neighborhood to be quite an improvement. to use that lot for residential purposes, rather than common access to the lake. MRS. PULVER-Definitely. MR. REHM-Yes. That is the case, .and that is the offer. and I would suspect if this is approved, that would be a condition of approval. 24 "--" ' MRS. PULVER-Ye s. Well. I just que stion why. then. would anyone want to rent one of these cabins. or buy one. I mean. if they have no, they get to look at the lake, maybe. through his house. MR. REHM-I don't know. from a marketing point of view, that's not my thing. It may be somebody's got a boat at the yard arm and they want some dry land. I don't know. I know that there has been discussion with at least one of the lakeshore owners. to purchase one of these lots for use by their family, but who knows. As a matter of fact, Harry has indicated to me that in the foreseeable future, probably he'll allow his family to use them until he sells them, but I just don't. I don't know what the marketability of the lots would be. MRS. PULVER-Well. I don't know either, and I'm not sure that I should be concerned with it. but I am concerned that he may be having his residence, and then renting dock space. MR. REHM-Well. you know. another thing. you look at this just on a map. these are sizable pieces of land. this is nice land. MRS. PULVER-Yes, we've been up there. MR. REHM-And could be quite desirable for someone just to have a home over there. whether or not they have access to the lake. MR. LAPOINT-Anything else? Okay. Does anybody care to make a motion. one way or the other. on this one, it would be a recommendation to proceed to Preliminary. MR. MARTIN-Yes. It's not necessarily a decision. just yet. MR. LAPOINT-Not necessarily an approval. so everybody knows what we're doing. We're just telling the applicant that he should move towards a Preliminary with the comments he's heard tonight. MOTION TO PROCEED TO ANSWER STAFF COMMENTS AND THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD COMMENTS ON SUBDIVISION NO. HARRY RUECKER, Introduced by Carol Pulver who moved adoption. seconded by Timothy Brewer: TOWN OF 15-1992 for its Duly adopted this 24th day of November, 1992, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. MacEwan, Mrs. Rowe. Mr. Brewer, Mrs. Pulver, Mrs. Tarana, Mr. LaPoint NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Ruel MR. MARTIN-This is a question. When do you think you would be in with your Preliminary application. seeing as how the deadline is tomorrow? MR. REHM-Well, not tomorrow. MR. MARTIN-Okay. It'll be. you're planning on January's meetings. then? You'll be shooting for January? MR. REHM-I guess it would be January. Does that mean that we're done with Sketch Plan? Is that what that means? Mr. LAPOINT-Yes. well. what we used to do is we used to just approve Sketch Plan. but I think that's a technicality? MR. MARTIN-Yes. It's technically not correct. It's more of a recommendation for you to proceed, that the Board is in agreement with your concept. (8:28 p.m.) 25 -' MR. LAPOINT-Okay. We're skipping Site P Ian No. 51-92. James Weller. for anybody who's here for that. SITE PLAN NO. 52-92 TYPE: UNLISTED HC-1A STEVE & DONNA SUTTON OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE LOCATION: ROUTE 9. 1/4 MI. SOUTH OF GREAT ESCAPE. FOR A 3.000 SQ. FT. EXPANSION OF STORAGE FACILITY FOR FURNITURE. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 119-1992 UV 120-1992 (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) TAX MAP NO. 68-1-15 LOT SIZE: +7 ACRES SECTION: 179-23 STEVE SUTTON, PRESENT (8:28 p.m.) STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 52-92, Steve & Donna Sutton. November 20, 1992, Meeting Date: November 24. 1992 "Project Description: The applicant is proposing a 3.000 square foot addition to an existing storage building. The property is located on Route 9 1/4 mile south of Round Lake Road and is zoned HC-1A. The existing storage building is 30 x 50 feet in size as is the proposed expansion. The storage building is located on the rear of the lot 30' from the rear property line. The applicant received variances from Sections 179-72A and 179-79D which regulate expansion of a nonconforming use and provide for a 50' buffer between commercial and residential uses. The applicant is doing construction within the 50' buffer and is expanding the storage building which is a nonconforming use. The project is an unlisted action requiring a short environmental assessment form. Pro;ect Anal ysis: The pro j ect was compared to the following standards found in Section 179-38 E of the Zoning Code. 1. The location. arranqement. size. desiqn and qeneral site compatibility of buildinqs. liqhtinq and siqns: The addition will be constructed of wood and will be 18' high. It is located at the rear of the property and is not highly visible from the street or other parts of the property. The existing shed is wood and blends in quite well with the surrounding area. The addition will be made of wood and should match up well with the existing structures on the site. No new lighting or signs are proposed. 2. The adequacy and arranqement of vehicular traffic access and circulation. includinq intersections. road widths. pavement surfaces. dividers and traffic controls: The addition will not impact traffic access or circulation. 3. The location. arranqement. appearance. and sufficiency of off-street parkinq and loadinq: The addition will not impact parking or loading. 4. The adequacy and arrangement of pedestrian traffic access and circulation. walkway structures. control of intersections with vehicular traffic and overall pedestrian convenience: The addition will not impact pedestrian access 5. The adequacy of storm drainaqe facilities: The addition should not impact significantly the stormwater drainage facilities. Any additional runoff from the roof of the addition should be handled by the existing open space. 6. The adequacy of water supply and sewaqe disposal facilities: The addition will not affect the water supply or sewage disposal facilities. 7. The adequacy. type. and arranqement of trees. shrubs and other suitable plantinqs. landscapinq and screening constitutinq a visual and/or noise buffer between the applicant's and ad;oining lands. including the maximum retention of existinq veqetation and maintenance includinq replacement of dead plants: The addition should not create a need for any additional screening or landscaping. 8. The adequacy of fire lanes and other emerqency zones and the provision of fire hydrants: The addition should not impact emergency access to the site nor create a need for new fire hydrants. 9. The adequacy and impact of structures. roadways and landscapinq in areas with susceptibility to pondinq. flooding and/or erosion. The addition is on a hill and not susceptible to ponding or flooding. Recommendation: The Planning Staff recommends approval of this application." MR. LAPOINT-Does the applicant have any comments or questions? Okay. We have to open a public hearing for this. I'd like to open 26 -~ the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MRS. ROWE-My first question to you is. you said you were going to use this, in the documentation. for furniture storage. How is the furniture going to be transported up there? Is this going to be dropped off at some building down on the lower level and then brought up by smaller truck. or are you planning on tractor trailers driving up there? MR. SUTTON-They do now. MRS. ROWE-I only ask that because while I was on the site looking over the buildings, I happened to be present when Double A Provisions and Saratoga Flower and a Suttons truck all were driving around on the site. and the tractor trailer appeared to be having some difficulty maneuvering. in order to get behind your Market building. MR. SUTTON-Right. At a busy time, it is, they finally learned how to do it, but it's a struggle. for sure. The furniture trucks, as much as possible. unless it's a bad snowy day. do pull right up to the barn up there. and then when we want to make floor changes on the store, we transport the furniture down the hill from up there. Most of the things that are coming in to that barn are special orders that go to customers homes. They have to be prepped, made sure they're perfect to go on. We can't just take the box and go. Obviously, when we built that barn. we had no idea we'd be in that business. but it seemed huge at the time. but sofas and chairs and tables take up a tremendous amount of room. So, we're really in a tough situation without some more storage space. MRS. PULVER-My question is the little building next to the garage? MR. SUTTON-Well. that's already been moved. in optimism that I was going to be able to go ahead and build. MRS. PULVER-Okay. Well, when we were there the little building was still there. and we're going. well, we think he's moving it. MR. SUTTON-Right. Yes. That was the original laundry room for Bluebird Motel, when we bought the property, and it's been used seasonal storage of like excess Christmas or spring or whatever left over, but that's already been moved out of there. actually the site will look better when this is done, because be cleaning up a lot of odds and ends that were left over. the for was So, we'll MRS. ROWE-In the dimensions, the 30 by 50 feet, are that little porch overhang in the back included in that dimension, or is that an addition that you put on the back of that storage barn? MR. SUTTON-That was added on at one time. I believe. MRS. ROWE-The only reason I ask is, when you build this storage barn. is all that material, because, to be honest with you. I wasn't very thrilled with this. It looked like a garage sale waiting to be. MR. SUTTON-Right. Right. You're right. In fact, closing it in somewhat, woods, they don't see it. around the property. one everything inside. There's a lot of displays back there. we've talked about disguising that or so that if people do look through the I agree with you. and things that are of the things we hope to do is get MRS. ROWE-I saw rusty old lawn mowers and things like that all around the property. MR. SUTTON-Yes, and I can't tell you how many trips to the 27 -..;' "-, landfill, as expensive as it's getting to be. that we do, it's quite a struggle to keep a property like ours. with displays coming in and going out. keeping it as neat as we can. but I think overall we try to do a pretty good job there. MRS. PULVER-Well. the day ~ was there. I thought, kind of impressed. I thought it was pretty neat. wi th all the acti vi tie s you've got going on up remarkably well kept. really. I was and I thought there, it was HR. SUTTON-Well, Thank God when we started. I mean. obviously nobody has a crystal ball. I mean. we started with a little family business. and it's grown bigger than ~ would have ever expected. In fact. sometimes I drive in, I can't believe that that's ours. but Thank God we had that property up there to park employees cars and things like that. because it's really made all the numbers work. So. the property has lent itself very well to what we do. None of us can really see, when you go into something, what the requirements are going to be. MRS. PULVER-We all know it changes. depending on who's in power, the requirements for different things. HR. SUTTON-Well, I don't know about that. In '88 is when the major change was. as far as when the structure was originally built and when things were built, and then setbacks are changed. so that makes it harder to proceed forward, but all the neighbors in the near vicinity, I've talked to them all. I don't have any problems with them. and we went through that with zoning. MRS. ROWE-Even this Mr. McNulty? MR. SUTTON-Well, Mr. McNulty, they have legitimate concerns, as anybody does that owns a home, whether it be home or people fighting the Red Lobster right now. Everybody has a legi timate concern. Mr. McNulty happens to be three. four hundred yards from this project. He's way down on. our property, like, L shapes behind. MRS. ROWE-I only ask because I got the minutes, and this name appeared as somebody who seemed to have a concern. MR. SUTTON-Right. I talked to Joanne Walton and Tom Piesik. and Marianne McDonough. and they own all the property that really would ever be affected by this. In fact. McDonoughs came and stood up for us. The McNultys have been there, they're actually one of the very few people that have been there longer than we have. and they enjoyed woods all the way down through there. before the Drummer Boy shop came and the Village. So, their property has changed out the back, and that is a real concern for them, but in this project, anybody that listened, and I really didn't feel that they would be affected at all by this, and I talked to them. after, too. and said that I would be more than happy to plant some trees and work with them any way we could to help disguise, because they look down on what is the Garden Center now. and that's their main gripe. It really wasn't anything to do with what we're doing now. It was more the way their property has changed over the years. HRS. ROWE-Well. I just have one more question, going back to the buffer zone between the two of you. When you put that little porch on the back of the storage barn. then that actually moved your buffer zone even closer to the surrounding properties. and what you're saying to me is none of these homeowners have any problem with that. Is there a possibility of this porch or addition kind of thing being put off of this other storage shed, too? MR. SUTTON-Well. I'd have to come back. I'm sure. for that. and, no. because then we would be invading the 25 feet. I believe. is what we had talked about. So. no, there wouldn't be. 28 - '--- MRS. ROWE-Okay. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. LAPOINT-I guess we're ready for the Short Form SEQRA. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 52-92. Introduced by Edward LaPoint who moved for its adoption, seconded by Carol Pulver: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: STEVE & DONNA SUTTON. for a 3,000 sq. ft. expansion of storage facility for furniture.. and \'fHEREAS, 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. Dul y adopted thi s 24th day of November. 1992. by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Rowe. Mr. Brewer, Mrs. Pulver, Mrs. Tarana, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. LaPoint NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Ruel MR. LAPOINT-Okay. Does anybody want to entertain a motion? MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 52-92 STEVE & DONNA SUTTON, Introduced by Carol Pulver who moved for its adoption, seconded by Timothy Brewer: For a 1,500 square foot addition for storage of furniture. All Staff Comments have been addressed. Duly adopted this 24th day of November. 1992. by the following vote: 29 - AYES: Mr.~rewer, Mrs. Pulver. Mrs. Tarana. Mr. MacEwan, Mrs. Rowe, Mr. LaPoint NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Ruel (8:40 p.m.) MRS. PULVER-What about Tippett? MR. LAPOINT-Tippett, what are we going to do with Tippett? MR. MARTIN-Well. the reason why that was tabled was because the variance wasn't in order. due to the fact that the ZBA. again. referred this matter on to you for SEQRA Review which you'll be undertaking next month. I think there's someone here waiting around from the applicant. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. So we have to do a SEQRA for this tonight? MR. MARTIN-No, not tonight. possible al ternati ve, if the and everything is in order. variance. It would be next week. The only other Board would wish to, it was noticed You could consider it, pending the MR. LAPOINT-So. why don't we wait. I mean. this is what we do all the time, right? MR. MARTIN-Right. DEAN HOWLAND. JR. MR. HOWLAND-I'm Dean Howland. I came last week to the Zoning Board, and at the last minute, we waited until the last moment and they didn't tell us that we were off the docket that night, and then Jim, he just explained it to me, he said, now we have to come through for a SEQRA hearing on a, we're taking down a 12 foot by 22 foot addition and putting up a 24 by 16 foot addition. I really don't know what it is. I've been building on the lake for, gee, 20 years. I've never had to go through this before, but the timing now is, we got all our information in last month so that we could get ready so we could start it. but this is going to be pushing it back up into when we get severe frost, and I mean. the crew that will be doing that. I won't have other work for them. I don't want to lay them off the week before Christmas. So, it gets sort of critical now, and as I said. I mean. we just walked in tonight and found out that we were delayed again. MR. MARTIN-See. what happens. our problem with timing is, usually there's another Zoning Board meeting after your first Planning Board meeting. and this times up better than it does, and with the holiday, the Zoning Board met twice last week. in lieu of a meeting tomorrow night. the night before Thanksgiving. and this happens, it probably will happen again next month. because the Zoning Board meeting for next month. I believe. is scheduled for December 23rd. and I don't think they're going to want to do that. So. we may be. see. you'll get this for SEQRA next month, hopefully we can get it on a ZBA meeting thereafter. and then you wouldn't be seeing it for actual site plan until January. MR. BREWER-The ZBA's going to refer this to us. when, next month? MR. MARTIN-They already have. getting it on your agenda. It was just a matter, now, of MR. LAPOINT-Okay. Does the SEQRA thing have to be publically noticed and all of that? MR. MARTIN-Yes, but what I'm saying is, the Site Plan already has, and that's what it was scheduled for tonight, prior to this, you 30 -- know. our notices went out way before the Zoning Board action last week, and that's why it was on the agenda, and the Staff Notes were prepared. MR. LAPOINT-Can I make an executive decision to do it, or no? MRS. PULVER-So, what you're saying is that we can go through the site plan? MR. MARTIN-And condition it upon. MRS. PULVER-Right, and condition it upon the approval of the variance. MR. MARTIN-Your SEQRA approval and the variance. MRS. PULVER-Right, SEQRA and the variance. MR. BREWER-When will he be up for the variance? MR. MARTIN-He'd be up. hopefully, next month, if we can time it up where he comes to you for a SEQRA Review. and then Zoning Board thereafter for the ultimate decision on the variance. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. Then what would be the problem to wait for site plan? I mean. the end point is not going to be any different. MR. HOWLAND-It's going to push me off another two weeks again. MR. BREWER-The end result would be the same if we did the SEQRA and the site plan the same night. MR. HOWLAND-Well. I don't know. I've got to go back in tomorrow because I don't even know why we're getting the SEQRA. to be quite honest with you. MR. BREWER-It's a Critical Environmental Area. MR. MARTIN-It's a Type I Action. MR. HOWLAND-I just came through here twice this summer for taking down houses and putting up a lot bigger places than this and didn't get a SEQRA. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. So. in a nutshell, in two sentences, what can we do tonight? MR. HOWLAND-You could do the site plan and condition it upon the variance. MR. LAPOINT-And there would be an advantage to that? MR. MARTIN-Yes. Somewhat of a time frame for the applicant. MRS. PULVER-Well, why would there be an advantage? Because if he got his variance on the 23rd of December. we meet the week after that. We could still do SEQRA and site plan the same night. MR. BREWER-So. if we do anything tonight, he's not going to gain anything because he's still going to have to come back next month. MR. MARTIN-Right. MR. HOWLAND-Well. I've got to meet you before I meet the Zoning Board. MR. BREWER-Well. you can do that at our first meeting. first meeting going to be before theirs? Is our MRS. PULVER-Why do you have to see us first? 31 ........", MR. HOWLAND-They deferred me last week to come here. MR. MARTIN-He has to come to you for the SEQRA Review by the Zoning Board of Appeals. MR. BREWER-Could we do that at our Special Meeting? MR. MARTIN-Yes. we could do that. MR. BREWER-We have a meeting the 8th. We could do the SEQRA the 8th. and the approval the 8th. MR. LAPOINT-Can you notice it, and it will be enough time and everything like that? MR. MARTIN-Yes. MR. BREWER-Then the 8th, if you got approved, then you could go ahead and do your construction. MR. LAPOINT-Well. he could move on to the Zoning Board and site plan. MR. BREWER-The Zoning Board. MR. LAPOINT-It would be before Christmas. MR. MARTIN-Yes. We could have it all done before Christmas. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. Can we put him on for the 8th? MR. MARTIN-Yes. MRS. ROWE-May I just ask a question? How is what we're doing here affected by what the Warren County Planning Board determined? MR. MARTIN-Warren County Planning Board disapproved. MRS. ROWE-Disapproved this whole thing. MR. HOWLAND-That's because I wasn't there. engagement in Fort Edward. I had a previous MR. MARTIN-It requires a five vote. MR. BREWER-A majority plus one. MR. MARTIN-Yes, a majority plus one. votes to override. It requires five positive MR. HOWLAND-They told me they thought it was a whole new building, and all we're doing it taking down an addition and putting up a new one. MRS. TARANA-Well. there's a question about an encroachment on a neighbor's property. MR. HOWLAND-It's there. closer. It's existing. We're not getting any MRS. TARANA-You're not. the addition won't come any closer to the neighbor's property? MR. HOWLAND-No. There's concrete and an addition there. just extending it further. So, it's not getting any closer. already there. We're It's MR. LAPOINT-Right. but you just said you're extending it further? MR. HOWLAND-Extending it towards the rear of the property. further. 32 ----- There's concrete. MR. LAPOINT-Have we seen all the plans and all that. because I don't recall this? It's in our packets? MR. HOWLAND-I've turned it in. MR. HARLICKER-It might be in your packets. MR. BREWER-We almost thought you were going to take that shed off and then go up to the second story with that? MR. HOWLAND-I'm taking the shed off. but we're taking 12 feet. it's like a room with a deck up above it. That's coming off, and the concrete's being removed. the foundation. and then we're extending, staying the same with his existing building, but going out for 16 feet. MR. MARTIN-What I might recommend is that you could do both the SEQRA and the site plan on the 8th. and then you'd only have to condition it upon variance approval. MR. LAPOINT-Site plan and SEQRA for the 8th. MR. HOWLAND-Okay. Thank you. MR. MARTIN-Okay. MR. LAPOINT-Yes. We have a half an hour, which I thought was pretty generous for what we had to do. right? MR. MARTIN-Right. So. he should have one site plan that we were going to take. and now you have two site plans and a SEQRA. MR. LAPOINT-Okay, and you'll make sure we get noticed and the whole nine yards? MR. MARTIN-Right. MR. BREWER-And he'll know to be there at 7 o'clock? MR. MARTIN-Yes. Seven p.m. December 8th. It'll be downstairs in the small conference room, right next to the Planning Office. Okay. I appreciate the Board's indulgence in that. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Edward LaPoint, Acting Chairman 33