Loading...
1992-12-15 --' QUBENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MBETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING DECEMBER 15TH. 1992 INDEX Site Plan No. 54-91 Peter J. Valenti 1. Subdivision No. 11-1991 FINAL STAGE Sunset Hill Farm 3. Site Plan No. 50-92 Bob Buruchian 4. PUBLIC HEARING RE, Aaendments-Subdiv. Regs 17. SEQRA Review Only Harry Ruecker 18. Subdivision No. 17-1992 PRELIMINARY STAGE Boyce & Barbara Rawson 28. 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. _# QUEENSBURY PLANNIHG BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING DECEMBER 15TH, 1992 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT EDWARD LAPOINT, CHAIRMAN CORINNE TARANA CRAIG MACEWAN TIMOTHY BREWER ROGER RUEL MEMBERS ABSENT CAROL PULVER, SECRETARY KATHLEEN ROWE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR-JAMES MARTIN PLANNER-SCOTT HARLICKER STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI OLD BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 54-91 TYPB I WR-1A PETER J. VALENTI OWNER: PETER & LISA VALENTI LOCATION: JAY ROAD. GLEN LAKE TO REBUILD THE SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING. REQUEST FOR A ONE YEAR EXTENSIOH FROM 12- 17-92 APPROVAL. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) TAX MAP NO. 43-1-5 LOT SIZE: 0.2763 ACRES SECTION: 179-79 PETER J. VALENTI, PRESENT (7:00 p.m.) MR. LAPOINT-And we have a letter. dated 2 November, to Mr. James Martin, from Peter J. Valenti, regarding the extension of approved site plan file No. 54-91, "Dear Mr. Martin: We received Site Plan Approval from the Queensbury Planning Board on December 17. 1991 to reconstruct our home on Jay Road. Unfortunately due to unexpected financial difficulties. we have not been able to commence construction of our home. We are requesting an extension of our approved site plan for an additional term of one year from its expiration date. My wife & I hope to have the funds necessary, so we could begin construction this spring. Please let us know if we must appear in front of the Planninq Board aqain and if you require any additional information." Any discussions? Comments? MR. VALENTI-I'm Peter J. Valenti. If I could, I'd like to modify that to a two year extension. That's what we did at the variance, only in that if any unforseen things happen with this next presidential administration. I may not be in a position to do it this spring. So, if that's possible. I'd like to modify that to two years. My wife would like to see it started tomorrow. but frankly. MR. BREWER-What's the procedure if we only give him a year? Is there a lot of paperwork involved? MR. MARTIN-No. It would be the same thing allover again. He'd have to come back in, if it didn't happen within that year, just like he is now, and extend it again, at the Board's discretion. MR. BREWER-Is that too much paperwork to keep track of? MR. MARTIN-It only requires, actually, a request from him. and that's it. MR. BREWER-No, I mean for you to keep track of the expiration of it. 1 -- MR. MARTIN-We can put it on a calendar. MR. LAPOINT-That's more the applicant's responsibility. MR. MARTIN-Right. MR. VALENTI-If it lapses, I. end up with the problem. MR. LAPOINT-Yes. I'm just trying to think out loud as to what disadvantages there would be with you just coming back another year from now. Procedurally, there's no problem with two years? MR. MARTIN-No. You've already got an approval there. plan's been agreed upon. He's bound by that approval. The site MRS. TARANA-What did you mean by, when you went for a variance. you got a two year? MR. VALENTI-There was a variance that was granted, again, last year, that was a minor modification of the site. MR. MARTIN-Yes, an area variance? MR. VALENTI-An area variance. MR. MARTIN-Yes, and he recently got an extension for two years on the variance as well, because if the applicant doesn't act on the variance. it'll expire within a year. MR. LAPOINT-And you've already got an extension on that from the ZBA for two years? MR. VALENTI-Two years. So, I just thought it would be simpler for myself if they expired together. which they better not expire this time. They better get the house done. MR. BREWER-I don't have a problem with that. MR. RUEL-It's okay by me. MR. MACEWAN-It's fine. MRS. TARANA-I'd rather see us be consistent with the variance. I mean, if they granted two years. I think we ought to grant two years. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. and there's no public hearing due on this at all. So. anybody care to make a motion. MR. HARLICKER-There was a couple of conditions in your original approval you might want to reference. MR. MARTIN-What you could say, in terms of your resolution, is just, per the previous resolution, you're extending the approval with those conditions as. MR. BREWER-What is the date of the expiration? MR. MARTIN-It would be the .17th of December. So, it would be two days from now. So, the new one would be the 17th of '94. MOTION TO APPROVE BXTBNSION OF SITE PLAR NO. 54-91 PETER J. VALENTI, Introduced by Timothy Brewer who moved for its adoption, seconded by Corinne Tarana: To rebuild a single family dwelling. for a two year extension to expire 12/17/94, with previous conditions of approval. Duly adopted this 15th day of December, 1992, by the following vote: 2 ""--' - AYES: Mr. Ruel, Mr. Brewer. Mrs. Tarana, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. LaPoint NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Pulver, Mrs. Rowe (7:09 p.m.) SUBDIVISION RO. 11-1991 FINAL S~AGB TYPB I WR-1A SUNSBT HILL FARM OWNBRa PAUL KNOX. III LOCA~IONa KROX RD.. ON ASSEMBLY POINT ~O SUBDIVIDE 25 ACRBS INTO 10 LOTS. REQUBST FOR A 90 DAY EXTBRSIOR OF THEIR COHDI~IORAL APPROVAL WHICH EXPIRES OR DEC. 23. 1992. ~AX MAP RO. 7-1-16.1 LOT SIZEa 25 ACRBS SECTION: SUBDIVISIOR RBGULATIONS SANDY ALLEN, REPRESENTING APPLICANT. PRESENT (7109 p.m.) MR. LAPOINT-We have a letter from Sandra Allen, Miller, Mannix, and Pratt, to the Planning Board, the Planning Department. dated 2 December 1992, requesting a 90 day extension of our conditional subdivision approval in the event that this condition is not yet fulfilled. Any Staff Comments on this? MR. HARLICKER-No. I just, there's conditions on this one. too. So, this would be the same thing. MR. LAPOINT-Okay, and we have that motion in front of us, that was the 23rd of June 1992. I have one attached to mine. Okay. any comments. questions from the applicant? MS. ALLEN-Hi. I'm Sandy Allen. Just that we did not get the DOH approval prior to tonight. So, I'm here tonight asking for the extension. I've been told by the LA Group that we anticipate it at any time now, but apparently DOH is very backed up, and not moving very quickly right now. MR. LAPOINT-So, with the Department of Health approval, that would finalize the whole package? MR. LAPOINT-Right. Then that would clear the way for your signature. Okay. I'm not sure how many of us were on the Board at that time. MR. MARTIN-Plus we still have. I think a recreation fee would be due, also. MS. ALLEN-Perhaps, but basically the approvals. the permitting part will be done. MR. MARTIN-Right. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. I don't know if Craig and Roger have had a chance to take a look at the motions. Do you have any questions? Roger? Craig? And I guess the next question would be. are you guys comfortable on voting on extending a previous subdivision approval? MR. MACEWAN-I don't have a problem with it. as long as everything was okay with you guys. MR. LAPOINT-Yes. well, we have a conditional approval here that's fairly extensive. Okay. Would anybody care to make a motion, or a question or comment from anyone? MRS. TARANA-I just happened to notice. there was present and absent and everything. I'm not there. I don't know why. MR. LAPOINT-Yes, you were part of that. The no vote, as a matter of fact. MRS. TARANA-Yes. That's exactly what I was thinking. Wasn't I the only no vote maybe? 3 ~ --" MR. HARTIN-Yes. Do you have those tapes that long ago, Haria? We can go back and we can amend that, and make sure that it's, we'll check it again. MR. LAPOINT-We may have approved the 23rds notes anyway. MOTION TO GRART EXTBNSION FOR SUBDIVISIOR RO. 11-1991 FIRAL STAGE SURSBT HILL FARM. Introduced by Timothy Brewer who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roger Ruel. For a 90 day extension with conditions of previous approval, with approval to March 31st, 1993. Duly adopted this 15th day of December, 1992, by the following vote. MR. MARTIN-I think if you could mention a date in that motion, that would be helpful. We're looking at March 15th, a 90 day extension through March. MR. LAPOINT-How about March 23rd, 90 days from the 23rd? Because that's when it expires. MR. MARTIN-The other thing about these extensions, I've always found it helpful if you extend it, like, to the last day of the month. That way we always have Planning Board meetings prior to that, that we can catch it. If you were to go, like, through March 31st. or something like that. That way you have the meetings in March, if something should go amiss still. AYES: Mr. Brewer, Hrs. Tarana, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Ruel. Mr. LaPoint NOES: NONE ABSENT. Mrs. Pulver, Mrs. Rowe HRS. TARANA-Can I say just one thing to the Staff? I noticed that I did not vote no. I must have been absent that day. and the only thing I can think of is that might have been when I was sick and you called me to come in late? I just don't recall being absent from the meetings. HR. MARTIN-I think there may be several, I thought Peter was still on the Board at that time, too. HR. BREWER-Yes. he was. MRS. TARANA-Because he was on until August. HR. MARTIN-And I thought I recalled him voting no. MRS. TARANA-He and I both voted no? HR. MARTIN-You may not have been here, or you voted no. but I know Peter was here and voted no for sure, because he didn't resign until August or September. or something like that. MRS. TARANA-Right. I know I voted no. but it might have been at a different stage. because this was at final. MR. MARTIN-Yes. We'll double check that tape and we'll have, if you could get that by, maybe. the next meeting. and we'll tell them, we'll amend that accordingly, in the file, also. (7:15 p.m.) SITE PLAN RO. 50-92 TYPE I (LAKE GEORGE CEA) LC-42A BOB BURUCHIAR OWNER. SAMB AS ABOVE LOCATION. EAST SIDE OF RT. 9L ON DUNHAM'S BAY (OLD MOUNTAINSIDE GRANGE HALL). RIGHT ABOVB DURHAM'S BAY LODGB ACROSS FROM BOAT CO. SITE PLAN "10 OPERATB A BED & BREAKFAST FOR UP TO 4 PERSORS. TAX MAP NO. 10-1-22 LOT SIZE. + 1/2 ACRE SBCTIOR. 179-13 4 '- - / SHARON DAVIES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT (7:15 p.m.) MR. HARLICKER-As you will recall, the public hearing was left open from last meeting. There was some discrepancy about the notices going out. People within 500 feet were renotified. It appeared what had happened was the maps that were used for determining the 500 feet were at different scales, and that's what caused the discrepancy in the notices. MR. MARTIN-Yes. We used the Tax Maps, and as you all know, Tax Maps can vary one inch to one hundred feet. or one inch to four hundred feet, and sometimes when the 500 feet overlaps between maps, it's difficult for her to pick up, and apparently, I think approximately 10 people were missed. MR. LAPOINT-But subsequently picked up. right? MR. MARTIN-Right. So, the notices ~ sent out, but that was the reason why the neighbors there were referenced weren't noticed. MR. HARLICKER-We went through Staff Notes the last meeting, and in response to the staff reports. there was members of the public that had comments. We've got several letters here that we can read into the public hearing. MR. LAPOINT-Please do. MR. HARLICKER-From Mr. and Mrs. Eagle. "As a summer resident and owner of parcel 4-1-28 I am writing to voice ob;ection to you approving this application, as my property is within 500 ft. of this applicant. This is primarily a residential area and should remain that way! For you to approve this site for a Bed & Breakfast for only 4 persons is a joke. In no time at all there would be 20 - 30 or more once the initial approval is granted! Next would be a full scale restaurant! Further, parking and congestion would be a dangerous problem on Route 9L at that site area. There have been several fatal accidents at that area in past years and this proposal would make it even more dangerous. We do not need nor want a commercial establishment in our residential zone. As owners and tax payers we come here in the summer to enjoy the peace and quiet of this area. Again, we strongly ob;ect to you approving this application!! Charles and Margaret Eagle" MR. LAPOINT-And they're from out of town? MR. HARLICKER-Yes. MR. MARTIN-Yes. Their address was Lincoln Street, Hudson Falls. MR. HARLICKER-Another letter from Stanley Wawrejko, "Reference is herewith made with respect to the Board Staff's recommendation to grant approval to the above described project. I most vehemently voice my serious objection to this recommendation for the following reasons: 1. My property was purchased in 1966 and is directly across from the proposed project. 2. The traffic that is generated North and South on Route 9-L has been and continues to be excessively dangerous. It is totally blind in the northerly direction. and it becomes a raceway in the southerly direction. During my residence here, two lives were lost. It is even extremely dangerous to back out of one's driveway. Furthermore, a parking area is non-existent. 3. It becomes most serious to tacitly permit or encourage more traffic in an area already saturated beyond exaggerated tolerances. 4. The responsibility for more accidents and possibly more fatalities rests totally with the Queensbury Planning Board. I am not against progress or a person's judicial right to conduct a legal business. However, this should not be allowed in a residential area, already saturated with intense traffic and without the business providing an adequate parking area. Stanley J. Wawrejko" This is from Zoni Sheremeta, "Gentlemen: As a summer resident (property-Tax Map No.523400 4. - 5 -./ 121). 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 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 (18062). It is ~ "across from (the) Boat Co." It is directlY across from my property. It is on the east side of Route 9L at mile post 1121. 14 property owners should have been notified in accordance with 179-103. 3. It would be illegal to permit this new use under either Accessory use of Site plan review use because the lot is too small. The supplementary regulations. Article 9, section 179-61, Tourist Accommodations (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. Yours truly, Zoni Sheremeta" This letter is from Andrew and Irene Bania, Dear Sirs: I heard today of the Planning Board's approval of the application of Bob Buruchian to open up a Bed and Breakfast across the road from me. I am lodging a complaint that this proposal not be approved and for several reasons: 1. Parking is very limited at that site and since my lot is across the road, I am sure attempts will be made to use my property. 2. I have lived there for 30 years and notice how fast cars speed up Rt. 9L around that curve and it would not be surprising to see these new comers back out into the road and onto speeding traffic. 3. I do not believe I was fully informed of this Planning Board meeting. 4. The lot size of Mr. Buruchian is smaller than the minimum lot size required in this zone to accommodate tourists. Refer to Article 9, Section 179-61. 5. This area is residential in nature and up the road from Dunham's Bay Marina and so not appropriate for the communi ty. 6. I feel it is illegal to permit new use of a residential home for a Bed & Breakfast. 7. I also feel the 14 property owners contiguous to this site should have been informed. 8. For travelers. Dunham's Bay Lodge is down the road across from the Dunham's Bay Marina that can easily accommodate traveling tourists. In conclusion, kindly accept my complaint and deny this application to open up a Bed and Breakfast. Sincerely yours, Andrew J. Bania Irene A. Bania" This one was brought to your attention at the last meeting. I'll read it to you again. This is from Richard Waldron, "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 3 reasons: 1. Ours is primarily a residential area and 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 [18062]. It is not "across from (the) Dunham's Bay Boat Co." It is on the east side of Rt. 9L at mile post 1121. 14 property owners should have been notified in accordance with 179-103 (List attached) 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 9, section 179-61. Tourist Accommodations [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. Richard W. Waldron" The Zoning Administrator, in a written response to this last letter, said the following: "After reviewing your concerns regarding the Buruchian project, as expressed at the November 24 Planning Board meeting and outlined in your letter to the Queensbury Planning Board dated November 24. 1992, I would like to offer the following responses: First, since a bed and breakfast, as defined in Section 179-7, is not a hotel or motel but is a dwelling in which over night accommodations and breakfast are provided for transient guests and its use is secondary to the occupancy of the dwelling by the Buruchian family and there are no modifications proposed for the dwelling or the property, the proposal should not have a significant impact on the residential character of the neighborhood. Secondly. the description of the property was 6 '-' defined by the applicant and a second notice was sent out to all property owners wi thin 500 feet of the property. (see attached list) Thirdly, regarding your concern about lot size. the lot is a pre-existing non-conforming lot with a pre-existing, non- conforming structure on it. The requirements and regulations found in Section 179-61 "Tourist Accommodations" pertains to tourist accommodations as a principle use, not a secondary use. Therefore. since the bed and breakfast use is secondary to the occupancy of the dwelling by a family and the lot and structure are pre- existing, the requirements found in Section 179-61 do not apply to this particular application. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact me at 745-4440. Sincerely, James M. Martin, Executive Director, Zoning Administrator" And in response to that letter, Mr. Waldron replied, "Dear Mr. Martin: Thank you for your letter of December 9, 1992. A Bed - and - Breakfast facility it itemized as a tourist accommodation in the definition on page 17945. The new parenthetical entry, "Old Mountainside Grange Hall", in the notice now locates the building for those familiar with the area instead of 1/10 mile south "across from the boat company". The second notice should cover all owners within 500 feet. While both the lot and the building are preexisting nonconforming, the proposed use is not preexisting. The new proposed use would change the property classification code from its present 210 to 418 and cannot "be located on a lot smaller than the minimum lot size required in the zone in which the lot is located." (Chapter 179-61A on page 18029) Very truly yours, Richard W. Waldron" Those are the correspondence relating to this project. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. Refresh my memory. Were you just in for SEQRA at the last meeting. alone, or was it SEQRA and then site plan? MR. HARLICKER-It was for both. MR. LAPOINT-For both. Okay. Thank you. MS. DAVIES-Does anyone have any questions? I kind of disagree with what they said about traffic safety. There is a bad curve before the property, but then there is a straight away. The fatal accident they were referring to was not related to the road conditions. It was, I think. a question of drivers, a very elderly woman on a motorcycle. There's always risks. 9L is a bad road, the entire length of it. I mean, it's a road where people have to be careful. I've pulled in and out of there many times. You don't have to pullout on the road from the parking area. There's enough room to pullout and back around safely. There were some questions, last time, about lighting on the back deck. and there are spotlights. I wasn't familiar with it. and somebody asked me how many bedrooms are in the house. On the lower level there's a master bedroom, kitchen, family room area. and he's tried to maintain and restore it just like it was, the actual Grange Hall, big. open hall, and then two small bedrooms and a bath, and that's what he's planning on. MR. LAPOINT-A total of three bedrooms, one of them for the owner? MS. DAVIES-Yes. MRS. TARANA-Only one bath? MS. DAVIES-No. Downstairs there's a bath in the master bedroom. MRS. TARANA-And there's a large room you said? MS. DAVIES-Yes. It was the actual original dance hall, and he's kept that the way it is. He has nice antiques. MRS. TARANA-And what is that, like a sitting room, or what is the purpose of that room? MS. DAVIES-Well, he actually displays some of his wife's paintings 7 '-- and some of the antiques. It's like a sitting room. MRS. TARANA-If that were to be divided into bedrooms. MR. HARLICKER-I was just going to mention that. If you were going to expand this at all. right now, the building code limits the building as is, without any improvements, to either two bedrooms or four persons. If he were to go beyond that, he would be required to go back in for a new building permit and upgrade the bUilding to meet current hotel and motel standards. So, it could be a very costly and limiting project. MRS. TARANA-Who else lives in the home besides Mr. Buruchian? MS. DAVIES-Just Mr. Buruchian and his fiance. MRS. TARANA-So. there are two of them. and they are the ones who will be running the bed and breakfast? MS. DAVIES-Right. He has married children that come and visit occasionally, but they're the ones that are there 99 percent of the time. MRS. TARANA-And do they stay upstairs? MS. DAVIES-No. They stay downstairs. MRS. TARANA-In one bedroom? MS. DAVIES-Yes. MRS. TARANA-All these people stay in one bedroom, he and his fiance and his family? MS. DAVIES-When his family comes they stay in the other two bedrooms that are up on the upper level. His wife is an artist. She uses it as a studio. MRS. TARANA-The upstairs? MS. DAVIES-Yes, the big room. There's one great big room and the two small bedrooms. MRS. TARANA-Is she going to continue to use that when there's? MS. DAVIES-I doubt it. I imagine she can't leave her art supplies out. She'll have to, or his fiance, rather. I made a mistake. I'm sorry. MR. BREWER-I just want to know how big this parking area is from, there's a wall that goes across that, this is the parking area, isn't there a stone wall or something that comes out through here? I just was curious how big this? MS. DAVIES-I've got to get my bearings. This shows ita little better. There's actually more parking here. MR. BREWER-We were there, but I just was curious how much room they have to back out. or if there was room to turn around. or, not a lot. is there? There's the edge of the road right there. MS. DAVIES-There's parking on this side, too. MR. BREWER-There's room to pull cars in. but the only problem that I have is cars backing out onto 9L. MS. DAVIES-I understand that, but you can see it is a straight away. MR. BREWER-There's no real way to even drive them in and let them 8 í" -- drive out, either, is there? MS. DAVIES-But I have not, personally, backed out on that road. That is not a road you want to back out of. MR. BREWER-No, it's not. concern I had. No road is, really. That's the only MS. DAVIES-This shows it a little better. I mean. I think that if you're careful. MRS. TARANA-Are those letters surrounding homes are residential? correct, in that all tnose Do we know that for a fact? MS. DAVIES-Yes. MRS. TARANA-Do you know where the closest commercial establishment is at the Dunham's Bay? MS. DAVIES-The Dunham's Bay Boat Company is right adjacent to, Banta has cottages that he rents out. Their little, like, one bedroom type. MR. MACEWAN-It's not on the other side of the road. though. the cottages? MS. DAVIES-The same side, just south of, the little white cottages. MR. LAPOINT-There's a bit of confusion as to, the Type I on this sheet refers to SEQRA, correct? MR. HARLICKER-Right. It's in a Critical Environmental Area. MR. LAPOINT-What our confusion is, is now on this sheet. MR. MARTIN-Yes. The Ordinance is confusing that way. The reference is to uses in the Ordinance as Type II have no relationship, or can potential Iv have no relationship to the SEQRA classification. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. We have a public hearing that is still open, and before we get to the public, any other questions of the applicant from the Board? MR. MACEWAN-Their intent is to use it just two bedrooms for the bed and breakfast. and obviously when family, relatives, guests, other than bed and breakfast, it will just be one room, if it's available, or no rooms. if it's available. MS. DAVIES-If there isn't enough room, and it's limited to four people. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. We can actually stipulate that in a motion, if we get that far, limiting that, and including parking, possibly. MRS. TARANA-So, we're going to vote on the SEQRA. and we're going to vote on the site plan? MR. LAPOINT-Yes, well, what we're going to do is we're going to hear from the public. and have probably another go around there, and then if we feel like we're ready, we'll go through the SEQRA Review and then see how that turns. if that turns up one way or the other, then we proceed. Okay. No further questions from the Board, I'll open it back up to the public. even though the public hearing's still open. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN DICK WALDRON 9 1 ," -' -----' ------ MR. WALDRON-I have just three questions for you. testimony recorded? Is verbal MR. LAPOINT-Yes, it is. MR. WALDRON-How long is it kept? MR. LAPOINT-Indefinitely. MR. MARTIN-Yes. MR. WALDRON-Is it available for public inspection? MR. MARTIN-Yes. MR. HARLICKER-There's written copies, verbatim, of minutes, that are kept. MR. MARTIN-And if you dispute the written copy, then you can come in and listen to the tapes. MR. WALDRON-Thank you very much. MR. LAPOINT-That's it? Okay. Do we feel like we're ready to go through a SEQRA Review of the project? Any other questions? Any other information we need? Okay. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATtON OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 50-92. Introduced by Edward LaPoint who moved for its adoption, seconded by Timothy Brewer: MR. LAPOINT-"Impact on Historical and Archeological Resources. Will proposed action impact any site or structure of historic or prehistoric or paleontological importance?" MR. BREWER-That's tricky, because that is an historic building. MR. LAPOINT-It's a historic building if it's on the State Registry. Is it? MS. DAVIES-I don't believe it's registered. MR. MARTIN-Even if it's eligible for listing, that's a. MR. BREWER-But I don't think it'll have any negative impact. MR. LAPOINT-No. that. There's no structural changes or anything like MR. HARLICKER-No, and that's one of the reasons it would be a building worthwhile to be used as a bed and breakfast, is the fact that it's a historical. So, it would be a plus. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. No. "Impact on Growth and Community or Neighborhood. Will the proposed action effect the character of the existing community?" MRS. TARANA-Yes. I think to some extent it might. MR. MACEWAN-I agree with her. MRS. TARANA-It's a commercial enterprise in a residential area. MR. BREWER-Yes, but you've got, right across the street, you can see from there, you've got Dunham's Bay Boat, you've got the Lodge right up the street. 10 -- ~ ,----" MR. HARLICKER-The Bed and Breakfast is a secondary use. It's not the principal use of this structure. The principal use of this structure is still that of a single family home. I'm just throwing that out. MRS. TARANA-I know. So. it's not considered a commercial use because it's secondary to the family's home? MR. HARLICKER-It could be, but it's not a principal use. It's not principally used as a commercial establishment. It's principal use is that of a residence still. MR. MARTIN-The Board may want to consider a small to moderate. I just throw that out, also. for your consideration. MR. LAPOINT-Just to debate the other way, if you have guests, is this any different than a resident with guests, if there's no structural change? MRS. TARANA-The difference is that you're charging people to stay there. MR. LAPOINT-Right. I guess the question is. how does that impact the neighbor, whether someone staying there is paying or staying there free? MR. MACEWAN-It becomes a commercial endeavor. MR. LAPOINT-The same question, how does that impact? MRS. TARANA-Well, I think it's setting a precedent that other residential homes, I mean, you could start having a lot of bed and breakfasts popping up. If you have one spare bedroom, you could start charging people to stay in your bedroom. I guess that's what I'm thinking of. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. I buy a small to moderate then. We'll call that one small to moderate. "Is there or is there likely to be public controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts?" MR. HARLICKER-You might want to note the letters. MR. LAPOINT-Yes. There we'll say, yes, and note the public comment at the previous meeting and this meeting here. WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: BOB BURUCHIAN. for site plan to operate a bed and breakfast for up to 4 persons and, WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, NOW. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. No federal agency appears to be involved. 2. The following agencies are involved: The Adirondack Park Agency 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. 11 -.../ '_J 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes. Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law. Duly adopted this 15th day of December, 1992, by the following vote: MRS. TARANA-I guess I'm a little bit confused. Can you just read that last part again? MR. LAPOINT-The last part of the SEQRA resolution? MRS. TARANA-Yes. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the cri teria 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. MRS. TARANA-Do we know what non-significant means? MR. LAPOINT-Yes. It's defined in 617.11. MRS. TARANA-I guess I don't know what that means. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. That's the SEQRA Law, and maybe the Staff can help me out here. When you go through the SEQRA form as we did, and normally we have all no impacts, and we just stop at Number 19, but we've had some small to moderate impacts. So, I continue to read on. which is Section Three. So, we had, I think, two small to moderate impacts, and I'll repeat what comes after Item Number 19. "If Any Action in Part 2 is Identified as a Potential Large Impact or If You Cannot Determine the Magnitude of Impact. Proceed to Part 3". So, if we had checked any of the boxes, "potential large impact", we would have to proceed to Part 3, and we did not. MR. MARTIN-Also providing that you can't assess the magnitude of those impacts. MR. LAPOINT-Also, and what Part 3 leads you to, in short, is an Environmental Impact Statement, a Determination of Significance. I can read you Part 3, if you're interested. That's the bottom part. So, for example, if we had determined that "Will proposed action effect the character of the existing community" as a potential large impact. then we'd have to, A. "Briefly discuss the impact", 2. "Describe (if applicable) how the impact could be mitigated or reduced to a small to moderate impact by the project changes." So, we'd have to look at how we could change the project to make it from a potential large impact to a small or moderate. in terms of its effect on the existing community, which is a moot point, and then. "Based on the information available, decide if it is reasonable to conclude that this impact is important." And what you would do to consider that is to answer the questions of importance. Considering, "The probability of the impact occurring", the likelihood that it will occur. "The duration of the 12 ~'------,- impact, Its irreversibility, including permanent lost resources of value, Whether the impact can or will be controlled, The regional consequences of the impact, Its potential divergence from local needs and goals, Whether known objections to the project relate to this impact. tI So, we had a motion for the SEQRA seconded, and we're calling the roll. Now, what would happen if you determined i t ~ significant, you end up doing an EIS, and Environmental Impact Statement, which is what we're doing for the roller coaster, is an Environmental Impact Statement. I think that's the only project in the Town that has one of those. MR. MARTIN-Yes. that's currently in that process. MR. MACEWAN-The SEQRA is just, we're just approving is or disapproving it based on its environmental standpoint. MR. MARTIN-Right. It's an environmental assessment. MR. LAPOINT-Correct. What we're doing is we're empowered by the State as lead agent, here. So, we are enforcing a State mandate. MRS. TARANA-Okay. AYES: Mrs. Tarana, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Ruel. Mr. Brewer. Mr. LaPoint NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Pulver. Mrs. Rowe MR. LAPOINT-Okay. It's non-significant. Okay. Would anybody care to make a motion, one way or the other for the site plan? MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 50-92 BOB BURUCHIAN, Introduced by Timothy Brewer who moved for its adoption. seconded by Roger Ruel: To operate a bed and breakfast for up to 4 persons, not to exceed the maximum of two bedrooms for rent. not to allow Mr. Buruchian's private cars in the parking area for the patrons. A maximum stay for any single guest would be a maximum of a week. Duly adopted this 17th day of December, 1992, by the following vote: MR. MARTIN-If you're looking for a limitation, I think the number of bedrooms would be a better way to frame it in. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. For accommodations up to two bedrooms. MR. BREWER-Yes, but he's already got a bedroom downstairs. So. that's three bedrooms. MR. MARTIN-Yes, but two bedrooms as a service to bed and breakfast. MR. BREWER-To rent. MR. LAPOINT-I was actually thinking of something different than Jim. I was thinking the number of cars. MR. BREWER-Yes. but how can you do that if, hypothetically, if he had two people renting the bedrooms, and he had company. you can't. MR. LAPOINT-Well, we can keep it to five or six. That's within our scope. MR. MARTIN-Yes. MS. DAVIES-The only reason I'm having a little problem is because Mr. Buruchian happens to collect cars. MR. BREWER-I've said nothing about cars. yet. 13 --../ , MRS. DAVIES-He may have four cars of his own there. That's what I'm worried about. MR. LAPOINT-Keep that to two bedrooms and four persons. MR. BREWER-Two bedrooms and four persons renting. I don't know what we can do with cars. If he has cars, the cars can't be in the parking lot for the patrons. I would say. MS. DAVIES-I guess not, no. MR. MARTIN-That would be a restriction you might want to consider also, then. no parking in the patron's parking lot, no storing of private vehicles in patron's parking, or something to that effect. MR. BREWER-Okay. MRS. TARANA-Do we have to also add for a limit of one week's stay, or because that's in the zoning regulations, we don't have to say that? MR. MARTIN-That's under the definition of a bed and breakfast. MRS. TARANA-Okay. Duly adopted this 15th day of December, 1992, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ruel, Mr. Brewer, Mr. LaPoint NOES: Mr. MacEwan, Mrs. Tarana ABSENT: Mrs. Pulver, Mrs. Rowe MR. LAPOINT-Three to two, it does not pass. MR. MARTIN-Because it was turned down at the County? MR. LAPOINT-No. Do we have to have four? MR. MARTIN-No. MR. LAPOINT-Three to two is the majority here tonight, that passes, then. Okay. MRS. TARANA-Do we need a majority of the quorum? MR. LAPOINT-Three to two with a majority of the quorum. MR. MARTIN-I can't think of why it would be otherwise. MR. MACEWAN-You're thinking a majority plus one. MR. BREWER-No. She's thinking a majority of what's here. Did the County deny it? MRS. TARANA-I don't know. It didn't go to the County, did it? MR. MARTIN-I don't believe so. MRS. TARANA-Why wouldn't it have gone to the County? MR. BREWER-Is it on a County highway? MRS. TARANA-9L. Isn't that a County? MR. MARTIN-Have you been to the County? MS. DAVIES-They said it wasn't, the number didn't come up. I called them. 14 -- '-.-'-----, MR. BREWER-Don't ~ do that, Jim, send it to the County, when she puts an application in? MR. MARTIN-Usually it's referred on through from our office. MR. HARLICKER-Also, as a double check, and it's happened before, is the County gets a copy of our agenda. and if they have any comments on any of the projects or they note that something's missing, they call back and say. MR. BREWER-I thought, in the past, when an application came to us, we automatically sent it to the County if it had any County road abutting it or. MR. MARTIN-It's supposed to be within 500 of a County or State road or property. It appears to me that it should have gone, being right on 9L. Then I would suggest that you condition that upon County approval. MS. DAVIES-I called and they said it wasn't being, a lot of times they dismiss something like that. MR. HARLICKER-Yes, but it appears that the reason that it wasn't being heard was because. MR. MARTIN-It was indicated on your application that it wasn't within 500 feet of a County or State right-of-way. but in fact 9L is a State road. So, we're too late, certainly, for December. but there's a January meeting. It would be heard at that. MR. HARLICKER-I think it's the third Wednesday. MR. MARTIN-Call the office tomorrow. We can tell you. MR. BREWER-So what happens with this motion? MR. LAPOINT-We can leave the motion. I mean, if they've missed a piece of the pie, then it just goes there next, and if they come up wi th a no. then it's denied automatically because we'd need a majority plus one. MR. MARTIN-Right. MR. LAPOINT-If they come up and they approve, then we're already done. MR. MARTIN-Right. MRS. TARANA-So. we have to add to the motion, contingent upon the County approval. MR. MARTIN-No. I think it already is. MR. LAPOINT-It already is, by default. MR. MARTIN-It's three to two, and if the County denies. then it's disapproved. MR. BREWER-I almost feel uncomfortable with that, because we're not looking at County, if County has any. MR. LAPOINT-Well, we did the SEQRA without them, too, right? MR. BREWER-Right. I don't feel comfortable with that. They should see that first, before us. shouldn't they, rightfully? MRS. TARANA-I would think so. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. What do you want to do? Do you want to rescind our motion and throw it on over to the County? 15 '--' -,.~ MR. MACEWAN-If the County is supposed to look at it first. before we get it, I think we should. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. MOTION TO RESCIHD MOTION ON SITE PLAN NO. 50-92 BOB BURUCHIAN AND ALSO TO RESCIND OUR PREVIOUS MOTIOH ON THE SEORA, Introduced by Edward LaPoint who moved for its adoption, seconded by Timothy Brewer: For a site plan to operate a bed and breakfast for four persons, pending, County review. Duly adopted this 15th day of December, 1992, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ruel, Mr. Brewer, Mrs. Tarana. Mr. MacEwan, Mr. LaPoint NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Pulver, Mrs. Rowe MR. LAPOINT-At which time, I think we've got to go through the SEQRA again. They're an involved agency. correct, and as lead agency, we didn't consider any of their 'comments. MR. MARTIN-I would rescind your previous motion on the SEQRA also. MR. LAPOINT-And have the Planning Staff forward these notes to the County Planning Department along with this project for their next agenda, and then get these people back on our agenda at the next opportunity. MR. BREWER-Now, do we have to table this again? MR. MARTIN-Yes. Do we have the applicant's consent to a tabling? MS. DAVIES-Yes, but I just have a problem. I'm going out of town. MR. MARTIN-Is there anyone else who can act in your stead? MS. DAVIES-I would have to call Mr. Buruchian and find out. Could it be tabled until February instead? MR. LAPOINT-February is fine. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 50-92 BOB BURUCHIAN, Introduced by Edward LaPoint who moved for its adoption, seconded by Timothy Brewer: Pending the previous motion, until February. Duly adopted this 15th day of December, 1992, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Tarana, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Ruel, Mr. Brewer, Mr. LaPoint NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Pulver. Mrs. Rowe MR. WALDRON-Will there be any notice of when this meeting takes place, other than in the Post Star? MR. LAPOINT-Yes. What we've got to do is we've got to redo this whole thing, and we've practiced it once, so we'll. MR. MARTIN-Well. actually, the public hearing doesn't have to be re-held. That's the Board's option, that they can reopen the public hearing. but that much of it has been done. 16 "--' ~.'.--_/ MR. LAPOINT-Yes. I always like to open the public hearing, because we know there's dissent, and we're doing this SEQRA thing, and we don't know what the County's going to kick open. MR. MARTIN-Even if you leave the public hearing open, it won't be renotified. That's already been done. I would suggest that you reopen it. MR. LAPOINT-I did close it. MR. MARTIN-Well, you have the option of reopening it, as Chairman. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. I'm going to re-open the public hearing on Site Plan No. 50-92 Bob Buruchian. MR. MARTIN-That won't be re-noticed, now. That's left open. MRS. TARANA-But doesn't the County have to notify within 500 feet. MR. MARTIN-Of their meetings. yes, not of ours. MRS. TARANA-The County will notify you that they're having a meeting to listen to the project. MR. MACEWAN-You should probably call the Planning Office the beginning of February to see when it's coming up on the agenda, on which meeting. MR. WALDRON-When normally is it, the third? MR. MACEWAN-Normally it is, but if we have a lot of things on the agenda that month, then we could have a couple of meetings that month. MR. MARTIN-We're the third and fourth Tuesday, and I believe the County is the second Wednesday. I think it's the second Wednesday for the County. MS. DAVIES-It would have been, this month. December 9th. MR. MARTIN-Yes, and I think the holiday may have effected it. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. Is that it for this issue? (8:01 p.m.) NEW BUSINBSS: * Public HearinG concerning whether certain a.endaents to the subdivision regulations shall be adopted. Specifically a.end sections to provide that applicants shall furnish ~ instead of 1! copies of applications and certain other docuaents. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. I'm going to open a public hearing on the proposed Planning Board Subdivision Regulations amendments that are only going to require the submittal of 10 rather than 14 copies of Sketch Plan review. It appears that the only change is the difference between 10 and 14 copies. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSBD MR. LAPOINT-Okay. Now. if I just close the pUblic hearing, it goes on to the Town Board to vote on it, right? MR. MACEWAN-We have to make a motion to adopt it, right? MR. BREWER-We already did that. 17 ',>~ MRS. TARANA-I thought they voted on this? MR. HARLICKER-I don't think the Town Board has to vote on this. This is just, open the public hearing, and the Town Board doesn't vote on it. MR. MACEWAN-It's just us changing the regulations for how many they've got to submit. MR. HARLICKER-Yes. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. Then we closed the public hearing, and we'll pass these notes onto the Town Board, Staff will. Okay. (8: 03 p. m. ) SEQRA REVIBW ORLY TYPE I WR-1A HARRY RUECKER OWRER: SAME AS ABOVE LOCATIOR. WBSTBRLY OF CLEVERDALE RD. AND SOUTHBRLY OF GUNN LANE. FOR AN EVALUATION OF THE ERVIRORMEMTAL ASSESSMEMT REVIEW ARD A DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCB ON THE RBQUBST WHICH CONSISTS OF: CORSTRUCTIOM OF A SIMGLE FAMILY DWBLLIRG OM A PRBBXISTING NONCONFORMING LOT. AMD SBBKING RBLIEF FROM SHORELI8B SBTBACK. LOT SIZE REQUIRBMBNT. ARD FRORT YARD SETBACK. CROSS RBFBRB8CB AV 1121- 1992 TAX HAP 80. 12-3-18 LOT SIZE: 0.43 ACRBS WALTER REHM, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT (8:03 p.m.) STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff. SEQRA Review Only, Harry Ruecker, Meeting Date: December 15, 1992 "Pro1ect DescriPtion. The proposal involves the construction of a two story house on Lake George in Cleverdale. The applicant is requesting three variances I shoreline setback of only 50' where 75' is required. front yard setback of 20' where 30' is required and lot area of .43 acres where 1 acre is required. The applicant is also proposing to place the septic system for the house on a different parcel of property. The property is located in the Lake George Critical Environmental Area and the Adirondack Park. Proiect Analysisl The Planning Staff reviewed Part 2 of the Long Environmental Assessment Form submitted with this project and has the following comments I IMPACT ON LAND The project involves construction of a two story house. The lot on which the house is to be located is undersized and in an area in which the shoreline is developed to capacity. This proposal will result in a physical change in the project site. The property is currently vacant and the proposal is to place a two story house on the property. In part 1 of this EAF the applicant states that the depth of the water is about 3'. This could cause problems. The applicant should further explain how he will mitigate the impacts of the high water table. There are no unique or unusual land forms on the site. IMPACT ON WATER The project will affect a designated protected water body. The action is located in the Lake George Critical Environmental Area. Pollution from over-stressed and non functioning septic system is a problem on Lake George. There may also be a negative impact on the shoreline. The proposed structure is only fifty feet from the shore and could have a negative physical impact on it as well as the appearance of it. The proposal could also effect groundwater quality. Since the depth to the water table is about three feet, new construction and the placement of a septic system could have a negative impact on the groundwater. The applicant should show that the site has suitable soils and percolation rates for a septic system. The proposal will also alter drainage patterns and flows. The site is currently all permeable and drainage flows unimpeded either to the lake or into the ground. IMPACT ON AIR The project should not affect air quality. IMPACT ON PLANTS AND ANIMALS The project should not affect any threatened or non-threatened species. IMPACT ON AGRICULTURAL LAND RESOURCES The project should not affect agricultural land resources. IMPACT ON AESTHETIC RESOURCES The project could have an impact on the aesthetic resources of the lake shore. The shore of Lake George is already overdeveloped and the 18 -' "-- construction of this two story house will only add to the problem since the lot is less than half the size required by code. Since the owner of this parcel also owns the land on the other side of Gunn Lane and he is proposing to subdivide them, the possibility of using this land as open space for those lots should be explored. IMPACT ON HISTORIC AN ARCHEOLOGICAL RESOURCES The project should not affect an area of historical importance. IMPACT ON OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION The proposal should not affect the quality or quantity of open space or recreational opportunities. IMPACT ON TRANSPORTATION The pro j ect should not affect existing transportation systems. IMPACT ON ENERGY The project should not affect the community's sources of fuel or energy. NOISE AND ODOR IMPACTS There should not be any objectionable odors. noise. or vibration as a result of this project. IMPACT ON PUBLIC HEALTH The proposal should not adversely affect public health and safety. IMPACT ON GROWTH AND CHARACTER OF COMMUNITY The project could have a negative impact on the neighborhood. The placement of the house only 20' from the street and 50' from the shore will give a very cluttered appearance to the area. RECOMMENDATION The Planning Staff, after taking a hard look at this project has the following concerns: the project's affect on the lake and the cluttered appearance that will result from this project are issues that should be looked at. The applicant is proposing to site the septic system on a different parcel; the sui tabili ty of this concept should be looked at. If the applicant can address the above issues to the Board's satisfaction, staff can recommend a negative declaration for the purpose of SEQRA." MR. LAPOINT-Okay. I have a quick question before we get rolling on this. Why just a SEQRA review only on this? MR. MARTIN-It's up for variance. This is another referral from. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. We're doing this for the ZBA then? MR. MARTIN-Right. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. MR. HARLICKER-This doesn't have any impact, really, except for the issue of the septic system on the subdivision. MR. LAPOINT-Right. We saw that two weeks ago, or whenever. MR. MARTIN-Right, and that'll be coming back to you for Preliminary. MR. LAPOINT-Right. So the types of things we're looking at, here. when we go to SEQRA, is the sUitability of that second lot to accept the septic system. MR. HARLICKER-Yes. We spoke with the Building Department. aren't really any restrictions, any legal restrictions prohibit him from placing a septic system on the other. There that MR. MARTIN-Yes. I think the items only are as we discussed in the subdivision. You want to ensure, the applicant's indicated he can provide proper easement to maintain the septic system. and that type of thing, and that would be indicated as a deed with lot number one, I believe it's referred to as. and then the other issue is, and I believe he's also looking at this as, talking with the Highway Superintendent about crossing the line under the public right-of-way. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. Do we have any more questions for Staff before we open this up to the applicant? MR. MACEWAN-Yes. Shouldn't we also be concerned, Jim. with the proposed house and how it's going to sit on the lot. as far as this SEQRA Review is concerned? 19 -- MR. MARTIN-That's really a ZBA matter, because they are in for area variance for the shoreline setback and so forth. MR. MACEWAN-But wouldn't this SEQRA kind of coincide with what he's proposing, because we're reviewing this for them. MR. MARTIN-Yes. There's a neighborhood character that you're going to look at. in terms of the SEQRA. MR. MACEWAN-Setbacks and so forth? MR. MARTIN-Really, any sort of setback issue is, the dimensional technicali ty of that. that purview is with the Zoning Board of Appeals. MR. LAPOINT-So, I guess what II are looking at is, from just a SEQRA point of view, is its impact on the setbacks. MR. MARTIN-I would say the environmental impact of granting this setback, this variance, if it were to be approved. MR. LAPOINT-Now, he gets the variance, then he's back in for site plan? MR. MARTIN-No, he won't be, because a single family home is a permitted use. The only thing you typically look at, in terms of site plan, along a waterfront residential zone, is a dock. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. So, we would be, essentially, done with this if the ZBA approves. So, actually, the ZBA, is going to be final approval for this house. MR. MARTIN-Right. MR. LAPOINT-Not the Planning Board. MR. MARTIN-Right. See, this, it's kind of tough, initially, to sort this out in your mind. We've struggled with it. as the Staff. There's really two separate issues here. This parcel is a separate lot on which he's proposing this house, and a variance is required, okay. Separate from that is he has a larger parcel across the road which he's attempting to subdivide into three lots. and that's what you're seeing as subdivision. MR. LAPOINT-Right. That was in front of us the eighth. MR. MARTIN-Right. MR. BREWER-Then wouldn't this be a preexisting nonconforming lot? MR. MARTIN-Right, but as I indicated to Mr. Rehm here just a minute ago in the lobby, there's new exemptions for that, but lots in Critical Environmental Areas, the exemptions don't apply. MR. BREWER-So he's not preexisting nonconforming? MR. MARTIN-That's why he's in for variances. MR. BREWER-So, we could, ultimately, make him make that part of the other parcel. if he owns it all, or not? MR. MARTIN-No. I don't think so. MR. BREWER-So there's nothing he can do with it except what he wants to do with it, pretty much. MR. MARTIN-Right. Yes, he has to prove practical difficulty. MR. REHM-He doesn't even have to prove practical difficulty any more, under the ~ law. 20 - MR. MARTIN-Yes. Okay, even that's. hardship's with a use variance. MR. REHM-Right now the standard under the new law is the balancing of the benefit to the applicant against the detriment to the health, safety, and welfare of the community. That's basically, that's the new standard. MR. MARTIN-The new law went into effect last July. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. So when it gets time for us to ask him. we've got to ask him about the three foot depth to ground water, and what he plans to do, in terms of foundation, etc., etc., the septic acceptability on the other lot. and the suitability of the soils on that lot. and the ability to get underneath the highway. MR. MARTIN-Right. We're in sort of a unique situation where that septic could be accommodated on that new lot, because the deeds are yet to be written for that. pending subdivision approval, and that can be worked into a new deed. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. Now we're ready for the applicant. MR. MARTIN-And we apologize to you for not having the Staff Comments available to you to read prior to this. That's something we're going to. MR. REHM-Yes. Staff Comments are the sort of things that drive people crazy because they're conclusions that are made before the evidence is in. but I think we can get that. What I'm going to give you, and I know that you haven't, this was delivered to my office today, and I know you haven't had an opportunity to review these, and I don't you expect you to do it tonight, obviously. but these are sewage disposal and stormwater reports that have been prepared by the engineers of this project, but they're really pretty simple and straight forward. If I could just take a minute or two of your time. If you'll recall. the last time I was here, I showed you a survey map of the property. and the area in green is the allowable building area. and the area that is outlined in red is the configuration of the house and the part that's yellow is the area that the variance is needed from. Now, this setback from the road is the required setback, and the setback from both side lot lines meet the required setbacks, 30 on one side. 20 on the other. The reason this house is sited a little bit to the south is to provide better views for people that own houses along Gunn Lane. This gives them a corridor of about, it's something between 80 and 100 feet between the Hans house that some of you are familiar with because that was approved a year or so ago, and this house. So there's a pretty good corridor. It would be more conforming to move the house a little bit north, but more destructive to the views of people that live along this Lane, so that Mr. Ruecker decided that. these are his neighbors and he knows them more, it should be moved to the south, but anyway, that is the situation. In the materials that I gave you are two maps, and one is entitled site plan details. and these details not only show the house on the property in question, but shows the redesign of the force main for the sewer system, and remember it was discussed that this was originally running up through the middle of this property, and it was discussed that it would be better to move it a little bit to the south, closer to the property line, but still leave enough room between the property line and the force main to allow for maintenance and repair. This frame camp that you see right here, that's very close to the force main, is to be removed. So, we don't have to worry about that being there, and the sewage disposal system is back by Cleverdale Road. One of the main issues in any SEQRA Review has to do with what are the subsurface conditions for sewage disposal, and not only do we have to deal with the Town of Queensbury, but we have to comply with the Park Commission Regulations. and through the grace of God, this is a wonderful place to dispose of sewer. If you look at the planning, well, if you look at Test Hole Number 9, and Charlie Main, who is a soil 21 scientist, did these test holes. Test Hole Number 9 gives you fine sandy loam up to 61 inches. which is five feet, and that is extremely unusual any place in the Lake George basin, and almost unprecedented in the Cleverdale area. MR. BREWER-Does that really work. that kind of a system? MR. REHM-Yes. That works fine. Do you know what those are? Those are, I think, inch and a half lines. MR. BREWER-Two inch. MR. LAPOINT-Two inch, yes. MR. REHM-Two inch lines, very small lines. This is done a lot. because everything from the lake has to be moved back, and usually it's uphill, and so it's necessary to have a pumping system. On the next sheet there are details of. MR. BREWER-I guess what I don't understand is, why do you go down here and then over here and then up here and then down here? Why don't you go, like that? MR. REHM-Right straight up? Well. because at the last meeting. the suggestion was that it would be better to. from the Board, it would be better to move this line, the force main, down toward the common boundary line between lots one and two, and it doesn't make any difference, really. MR. BREWER-I understand what you're saying. but I thought, is one, two, three camps, you were going to subdivide it into three parcels, right? MR. REHM-No. This is just one lot. this is just one of the three, and this lot, this is being removed. MR. BREWER-Okay. MR. REHM-I mean, before it went right up through the middle. MR. BREWER-Yes. That's more logical, I think. MR. REHM-It is more logical, but I talked to Mr. Ruecker and I talked to the engineer, and the engineer said. no problem, but in any event. MR. LAPOINT-The whole idea there is convenience. if you ever had to maintain it, where is the best. MR. BREWER-Place for it to be. MR. LAPOINT-Right. MR. BREWER-Yes. MR. REHM-This is all relatively flat land. So. as long as you can stay away from the buildings, it doesn't make much difference, as far as maintaining good soils. Another question that was asked was, another observation that was made is that you wanted another road crossing detail. and you'll see that that's done, and the trench details are done. also for the sewage disposal system. What is planned is a three bedroom house. I looked at the plans of the house and upstairs, and I'll give you a copy of those plans, if you'd like them. MR. LAPOINT-Yes. What I'm particularly interested in is the foundation of how we're going to do this. MR. REHM-Okay. Upstairs, there's a room that is, I can't remember what it was called. but it's a study or something like that. and 22 I've been to enough Planning Board meetings where the observation is made, well, maybe it's a study on the plans, but when the family expands, it's going to be a bedroom, and so I asked the engineer, since we had such good soils, to design this system for a four bedroom house rather than a three bedroom house. So, you'll see that the engineering details for the sewage disposal system on four bedroom. even though it is a three bedroom house as planned. MR. HARLICKER-I have a question. please. On this, is there enough spacing out to support another septic system for whatever other house goes on here? MR. REHM-Yes. MR. HARLICKER-Okay. MR. REHM-Yes. This is a one acre plus lot. MR. HARLICKER-Right. I'm just not sure if there's certain setbacks that there has to be between the two leachfields. MR. REHM-Between the two systems? No. MR. HARLICKER-Okay, and what about. are there any wells within 100 feet of this, like on the adjacent properties across Cleverdale or anything? MR. REHM-No wells within 100 feet. MR. HARLICKER-Okay. MR. RUEL-Do you have the results of the perc tests? MR. REHM-They're on the map. You'll see them, just if you pull that over, you'll see that they're right there. MR. RUEL-I see. MR. REHM-If you would, I'll caution you. If you look at the subdivision map, the perc test numbers on the subdivision map don't correspond to Charlie Main's numbers. The perc test numbers on the sewage detail map correspond to Charlie Main's numbers. The second map has some additional sewer details, but because we're in the Lake George Park, and also in the Critical Environmental Area, a second most important issue has to do with stormwater runoff, and the Town of Queensbury has a rule, I guess, that a driveway, even though it's not paved, is considered to be an impervious surface, and so it's necessary to dispose of the water, and so you will see that there is a typical driveway section. This is shown as paved, and there are trench drains for the driveway. There are also eave drains all around the house which are, as you know, ditches with crushed stone, and in some places, there is filter fabric on top of the crushed stone and then bark or something like that for aesthetic purposes. but to allow for the drainage. and then around, you can see that there is a silt fence proposed for the entire construction area, and details for the silt fence. Now, I've gone through all this fast. If you don't feel comfortable with it, I don't expect you to make a determination tonight, because you really haven't had a chance to look at these closely, and neither has Staff. MR. MACEWAN-I have a couple of questions for you. One camp you said is basically where that proposed septic tank is going to go, it's going to be demolished, correct? MR. REHM-Well, it's going to be removed from the site. MR. MACEWAN-This other one is going to be existing? MR. REHM-Yes. 23 "'- ,..--',,- MR. MACEWAN-Where do they get their water source from, do you know? MR. REHM-Their water source is from the lake. MR. MACEWAN-Is from the lake, and is this setback from this leachfield, from the town road, is it far enough? What is the setback, do you know, Scott? MR. HARLICKER-I don't know. MR. MACEWAN-It seems like it's awfully close to the boundary line. MR. REHM-But I don't know. I mean, this is subsurface. MR. LAPOINT-Right. Well, it mayor may not be applicable. Lets start with making a list here. We've got to know setback, if at all, for leachfield from Cleverdale Road. MR. REHM-Can the Staff tell us about that? MR. HARLICKER-I don't know. MR. LAPOINT-Now. back when we used to have, and most everybody's gone. Back when we used to have engineering support. and I'm an engineer, and I just, some things start to ring about what they would ask for on this drawing, and you said there are no other wells in the area, and we would normally have to put wells on adjacent properties as part of one of these reviews. I mean, somebody's got to have wells. MR. BREWER-How come we don't have an engineer look at this anymore? MR. LAPOINT-Well, this is one that I would have the engineer look at. We don't have the, I guess we spent. like, $300,000 last year in engineering, and now that's it. MR. BREWER-But isn't an engineer part of Staff Review anymore? MR. MACEWAN-Unless it's been requested of us. MR. HARLICKER-Yes. No, this is the first time we've seen this stuff. We don't have the Staff expertise to do these reviews. MR. LAPOINT-Right. I'll tell you, he would ask for. and I can tell they're big enough. They're 48 inches wide. and better than a foot deep. He would ask for the eaves trench acceptability. and how much they would take in a storm, etc. MR. REHM-Those calculations are done, and those are in the report there. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. Those are in the report. Great. So he would ask for that. They're here. He's got runoff from the residence, and I've seen Jim's work before. It's obviously going to be all here. MR. REHM-Jim is the one that indicated, he asked me the question about the wells. and I said, honestly, Jim, I don't know, you're going to have to find out for yourself. MR. LAPOINT-Right. What I'm guessing is we'll have to come back again for the SEQRA Review. Is that everybody's inclination here? You'd like to see some engineering? MR. BREWER-I would say, because I would like to look at this report, and maybe we could have our engineer look at this. MR. MACEWAN-Another question I have on here. This other camp that's going to remain, and their water source comes from the lake, does his water line run through the proposed residence that this 24 ....,.......... guy is going to build? If so, will he relocate that guy's line, or what will happen? MR. REHM-Well, he owns all of that. MR. MACEWAN-Yes, but you're saying this one is going to stay. right? MR. REHM-Yes. MR. MACEWAN-And if his water line comes from the lake, it looks like it could very well cut right through where the proposed house is going to be. MR. REHM-If you look at the subdivision map, you will see that, and that's not it. I have it here. You will see that there are provisions for that, and this one, I don't know that it shows it or not, but the fact of the matter is, yes, there is a provision for the water line on this one, on the subdivision. This is that, and you'll see the water line comes down and then crosses, these are the easements for the water lines, for each one of these. This shows the three lots. and this was the location of the force main, but now it's been moved down to here. MR. MACEWAN-Okay. Thank you. MR. LAPOINT-Jim, we've got a bunch of engineering details on the highway crossing, the drainage report for the roof runoff to drainage trenches. We have a detail for the parking lot runoff to a drainage trench. We have some questions as to, if there's the adequate separation distances from the leachfield to any possible wells. The indication is that there aren't any other wells near there, but that's a question I can always remember having Rist- Frost ask us square away. MR. MARTIN-Right. This is the first I've seen these details. MR. LAPOINT-Right. Exactly, and I guess where we're leaning here, and I don't want to speak for everybody else, is that. if we can get a quick engineering review of this, with comments, a quick engineering review, is that budgeted in the Town? Do we still get that at request? MR. MARTIN-Yes, well, it would be at the. MR. REHM-We have to pay for it. MR. MARTIN-Yes. When they sign the application, they automatically consent to that expense, but we still, as a matter of courtesy. confirm that before we initiate anything like that now. MR. LAPOINT-Well. again, I think we can limit it to what we're looking for, here. MR. MARTIN-Well, if you give me some specific parameters that you want Tom to review, we will certainly pass those on directly. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. Do you want to try that? I mean. is everybody comfortable with that, or do you just want him to, carte blanche? MR. BREWER-I would feel comfortable if he didn't, I mean, if he just looked at it and not. MR. LAPOINT-Without telling him what to look for? MR. BREWER-Yes, without telling him what to look for. Lets see what he says. I mean. I don't think it's going to make that much of a difference. If he's looking at it for specific things, and he sees something else, I'm sure he's going to tell us. 25 MR. MARTIN-Okay. The only thing I would indicate to the applicant is this sort of messes up our tight time-frame, here. We had you listed on the Zoning Board for either tomorrow night or the next night. That would be tabled pending. MR. REHM-I knew that we weren't going to make that because I couldn't get these from Jim Hutchinson until today. So, I knew this wasn't going to be finalized tonight. MR. MARTIN-Okay. So there would be no pOint in rushing for even your meeting next week. We could do this the first Planning Board meeting in January and then you'd be on for the Zoning Board meeting in January thereafter. MR. REHM-When is the first Planning Board meeting in January? MR. MARTIN-Does someone have a calendar? Tuesday. It would be the third MR. REHM-Could we do it the second Planning Board meeting in January? I'm going to be away until the 15th. MR. MARTIN-Then you're going to miss the Zoning Board meeting. Then you'll be off the Zoning until February. MR. REHM-We'll have to do that. MR. LAPOINT-I guess. I like to save applicants money and engineering and all that type of thing. If Rist-Frost can come up with written comments that they can forward to Mr. Hutchinson. and hopefully resolve before the meeting. What I don't want to see happen is have Rist-Frost sitting at the desk and we have an engineering debate at the meeting. MR. MARTIN-What I encourage, then, if we can be authorized. is to have Tom Yarmowich contact them directly. MR. REHM-Contact Hutchins directly? Yes. MR. MARTIN-Right. That's what I mean. MR. REHM-I would like that, too. MR. MARTIN-So. we just don't get into this letter exchange. here. MR. LAPOINT-Right. I want them to work this out in an expeditious. cost effective manner. MR. RUEL-Before the meeting. MR. BREWER-But I would still like to see his comments, though. MRS. TARANA-I would, too, with a copy just to us of what he's giving to Hutchins. MR. MARTIN-Okay. That can certainly be worked out. So then we're in agreement, then, on that sort of time-frame. We can get you on the last Planning Board meeting for the SEQRA Review in January, and then you'd be on the Zoning Board, probably, the February thereafter. MR. REHM-And probably Planning Board in February. MR. MARTIN-No. There's no site plan. MR. REHM-No, I mean for the subdivision. MR. MARTIN-Yes. MR. LAPOINT-Okay, now, maybe to save some time and effort, and help 26 -- - -----' consolidate things. is it worth, you're the applicant, having him look at whatever subdivision engineering we'd need? Is there any applicable to that? I mean. you're basically just drawing lot lines. MR. REHM-I think that's a great idea, and I think, it's just subdivision, so I think probably the only issue would be sewage disposal, existing. MR. MARTIN-What we're doing now is we're trying to do like a sort of in-house assessment of whether engineering is appropriate or not. engineering review, in the interest of saving cost for the public. and in those cases where we do have complicated configurations, we are sending them on. certainly, like the larger commercial projects are being sent on. So, if we have the applicant's consent informally, here, for that to be done. we'll do that, and, I don't know, the subdivision seemed pretty straightforward to me. The septic design. we usually defer to the Building Department. MR. BREWER-After he goes through subdivision, we see that no more, unless he needs a variance for a building. correct? MR. HARLICKER-Well, even if they need a variance for a building. MR. BREWER-Whether they don't. MR. MACEWAN-Because it's only one lot. MR. MARTIN-As long as he's only, if he was proposing a permitted use, then you wouldn't see it. If it's a site plan review use, you'll see it. MR. REHM-But that doesn't mean that the sewer wouldn't be reviewed, because if we apply for a bUilding permit, I mean, YOU might not review it, but it's going to be reviewed by the Town of Queensbury. MR. MARTIN-Well, what we do, in lieu of a formal engineering, or what we've done with this application, in lieu of a formal engineering review on this three lot subdivision, we've shown it to the Building Inspectors and to Dave Hatin, and we've asked if Dave had any comment. We didn't see that a real formal engineering review was necessary. If you want one. we'll do it. MR. LAPOINT-If they feel it's needed, lets do it now. So try to get that to them, so that they say, okay, no. we don't need it, or we do need it. and if we do need it, Rist-Frost will take a look at the whole ball of wax. Do you see what I'm saying? They may not even have to take a look at the subdivision. MR. REHM-The subdivision is going to require SEQRA Review also. MR. MARTIN-Right. MR. REHM-And I just wondered if that couldn't be done concurrently, since you're doing the SEQRA Review. I don't know if, maybe that complicates it more. MR. BREWER-It does, because then you're mixing the two up. MR. LAPOINT-Well, frankly, I'd like to see the whole project. MR. MARTIN-I don't know that you can, because that's a SEQRA Review of a subdivision action and a SEQRA Review of a variance action. MR. LAPOINT-Well, if we did them back to back on the same night, because, I mean, they are like this. They're intermingled. MR. REHM-Well, we've got plenty of time to get the information to you. 27 -, -- MR. LAPOINT-Yes. Lets try to do them back to back. MR. MARTIN-Okay. MR. LAPOINT-Why break it up? MR. MARTIN-Okay. Well, then, we'll, providing you can get us the necessary information for the Preliminary Stage, we can have you on. because that's when the SEQRA Review is done, at Preliminary, for your subdivision. We can have that on for February. and that would require you getting your blessing from Mr. Naylor on the septic under the road. MR. REHM-Yes. That can't be a problem. MR. LAPOINT-And we recommended that he move from Sketch Plan to Preliminary the last time. MR. MARTIN-Right. If we can get his Preliminary application and the information for this SEQRA Review, in terms of this variance, they can be done on that same night in February. MR. REHM-So, can I assume that the Zoning Board of Appeals meeting Thursday night, it'll be tabled and I don't have to come? MR. MARTIN-Right. You can assume that. MOTION TO TABLE THE SEORA REVIEW FOR HARRY RUECKER, Introduced by Edward LaPoint who moved for its adoption, seconded by Craig MacEwan: At the applicant's request, for the evaluation of the environmental assessment review and determination of significance on the request which consists of. Construction of a single family dwelling on a preexisting nonconforming lot, and seeking relief from shoreline setback. lot size requirement, and front yard setback, pending engineering review of the site plan details with respect to the engineer's drainage report. and septic system design. and the overall concept in general. DUly adopted this 15th day of December, 1992, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Tarana, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Ruel, Mr. Brewer, Mr. LaPoint NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Pulver. Mrs. Rowe {8:36 p.m.) SUBDIVISION NO. 17-1992 PRELIMINARY STAGE TYPB SFR-1A BOYCE & BARBARA RAWSON OWNER: SAKE AS ABOVE LOCATION: SOUTH SIDE SWEBT RD. BETWBEN LANDS OF PAUL TIMMS & FLOYD HILL FOR A 2 LOT SUBDIVISION. CROSS RBFERENCE: AV I 122-1992 TAX MAP NO. 64-1-5.5 LOT SIZB: +11.6 ACRES SBCTION: SUBDIVISIOR RBGULATIONS LEON STEVES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT (8:36 p.m.) STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Subdivision No. 17-1992. Boyce & Barbara Rawson, Meeting Date: December 15, 1992 "Pro; ect Description: The applicant is proposing to create a 1.03 acre flag lot with 30 feet of frontage with access via Sweet Road. The property is zoned SFR- lA. The property to be subdivided was originally a landlocked parcel that was part of a larger parcel that was subdivided to create Hickory Acres. Access to this parcel was through the Hickory Acres subdivision. On November 18, 1992 the applicant received a variance to allow 30 feet of road frontage where 40 feet is required. Because the subdivision is for only one new lot, the applicant is seeking waivers for grading, erosion control plan, 28 -- -- drainage report and the need to show contours on the entire site. Pro;ect Analysis: The subdivision does not include the construction of any new streets. The site will be serviced by Town water and an individual on site septic system. Drainage on the site appears to be towards the back of the lot. The front of the lot is fairly level with a moderate slope on the rear of the lot with a drop of about 20 feet. Future development of the remaining land will be limited. The location of a pond and an intermittent stream as well as the steep slopes will restrict development. Furthermore, the property is only accessible through the Hickory Acres subdivision and a large portion of the parcel which abuts the subdivision is used as a retention area for stormwater runoff from the subdivision. SummarY/Recommendation: It does not appear that this subdivision has any significant problems associated with it. The existing situation, that of a almost landlocked parcel. is not very desirable, but it is unavoidable and has to be dealt with. The new lot is the most suitable area for development and seems to be the most logical parcel to subdivide. It is unclear at this time what the owner will do with the remaining property. However, the possibilities seem to be limited because of environmental factors and the lack of accessibility." MRS. TARANA-Scott. where was the access to Hickory Acres? MR. HARLICKER-It's off of Sweet Road. It's a cul-de-sac. MR. BREWER-You have to drive down through somebody's driveway, actually. MRS. TARANA-I mean, I live right near there, and I don't know how you got in there. Is it through somebody's driveway? MR. STEVES-No. no. Do you see it on the Tax Hap? MR. MACEWAN-Do you see the bike trail, right here? MRS. TARANA-Yes. MR. STEVES-This is Hickory Acres. That's that subdivision. right there. MRS. TARANA-What's the name of this street? MR. STEVES-Hickory Acres. It's not in yet. It hasn't been built. MRS. TARANA-Okay. See, I just can't figure out where it is. When I went down. MR. STEVES-Okay. Here's the bike trail. Here's the first house, and there's a little house right here, and there's a road right between the two of them, for access to the back. MRS. TARANA-But the road's not there. MR. STEVES-Not yet. MRS. TARANA-But there is a little sign. It's where the little sign is, for subdivision? MR. STEVES-No. The little sign's right here. It's confusing. You live up in here? MRS. TARANA-Yes. MR. STEVES-Okay. You live in Edgewood? MRS. TARANA-Right. Okay. So this is down, I know where you are now. MR. MACEWAN-The minute you get across the bike trail, the first 29 '"-- house at the end of his property line. MRS. TARANA-Right. I know where it is. MR. STEVES-Right. There's two houses here. MRS. TARANA-You know where I was? I was way up at the top of the hill. I didn't realize it was. MR. HARLICKER-The applicant brought along, in case you'd like to see the contours of the remaining 10 acre parcel. he brought along an application. Staff doesn't have any problems with the subdivision and could recommend Preliminary approval. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. We're at Preliminary. this at Sketch plan. I don't recall seeing MR. MARTIN-Two lots typically are automatically waived. MR. LAPOINT-Skipping Sketch plan? MR. MARTIN-Right. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. We have to do SEQRA, so we have a public hearing. and SEQRA. and I think we have all the plans in front of us. Okay. Do I open up the public hearing with the applicant, or before the applicant, after the applicant? MR. MARTIN-I recommend getting applicant comment. MR. LAPOINT-Then going to public hearing? MR. MARTIN-Right. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. but nobody's in the room. All right. Does the Board have any questions for the applicant? MR. BREWER-Who owns the rest of this property, Mr. Steves? Isn't this? MR. LAPOINT-Tax Map 64. MR. BREWER-64. MR. STEVES-Do you want me to go through a scenario on this with you or not. or leave it alone? I mean, it's up to you. It's a confusing issue. MR. LAPOINT-Less than five minutes? Go ahead. MR. STEVES-Quick synopsis. All right. Fair enough. A subdivision approval process was taking place of Hickory Acres which was a 10 lot subdivision, if you will, and that just received final approval this year, about six months ago. During the interim period, and this was taking place since October of '88. It's one of the first subdivisions that came in under the new Regulations. Many problems existed with it. which were all overcome. but during the period of time Mr. Timms wanted to give to his daughter a parcel of land, and she lived in Poughkeepsie, I think it is, and he did. He gave her a parcel of land. Of course, what it did. it created a nonconforming lot immediately, in that it wasn't through a subdivision review. So, that's why we're here tonight with the two lot subdivision. because otherwise we wouldn't be here on the two lot subdivision. It would be exempt. but because this was created. then, in violation of your Code, we're trying to clear that up. It was also created with less than the desired frontage, but we cleared that up by going to the Zoning Board. I've asked for a waiver of the contours, not because we don't want to do them, but because we've already done them and submitted them under the application of Hickory Acres. and I'm trying to save 30 copies of 30 ___n";;;,;>" __ ---- map, plus making a two sheet application, when really it isn't necessary. Okay? That's why I made that application request, but really all we're trying to do is resolve, I didn't want to say it all in the letter, but we're trying to resolve a problem that took place in 1990, when a lot was created in violation of your Code. MR. BREWER-I guess. then. I'll get to my question. Who owns Tax Map No. 64? MR. STEVES-Mr. Timms. MR. BREWER-Mr. Timms. MR. LAPOINT-Which will then become totally landlocked and totally. MR. STEVES-No. Mr. Timms still has that 50 foot access right here. off of Hickory Acres. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. I see. MR. STEVES-So, it wasn't landlocked. You didn't create the landlocked parcel, nor did we. That's why we left that open for him. so he does have access to that parcel. MR. LAPOINT-Some how we got this in here with those two fingers out on two roads? That went through in 1990 when I was here? MR. STEVES-No. Which two fingers, now? MR. BREWER-This 50 foot. MR. LAPOINT-The whole lot, you would have a 50 foot access to Hickory, plus a 40 foot out to Sweet Road? MR. BREWER-No. That was never there. MR. STEVES-That was not there in 1990. MR. BREWER-They created that right now so that she could have access to this back piece of property. MR. LAPOINT-I just, in hind sight, I couldn't believe we would have done that. MR. STEVES-No. you didn't. MR. MARTIN-Not without hearing from me. MR. STEVES-The parcel next to it. right here. is the brother of the applicant. The brother gave the 30 feet up for her access. gave that to the father, who in turn gave that, plus this lot. to the daughter. MR. BREWER-So where does he live, the father? MR. STEVES-The father lives up in here. MR. BREWER-So he could have access to that property right from his own backyard? MR. STEVES-Exactly. He isn't hurting from it at all. I told you it was confusing. MRS. TARANA-So what's happening with Hickory Acres? That's never going to be developed? MR. STEVES-Yes, it is. It was just approved within the past couple of months. MR. BREWER-I don't remember it. 31 - ~ MR. STEVES-Well, it had a six month extension. So, that was approved seven months ago, finalized in October or November, and filed at that time. MR. MARTIN-And this parcel that we're seeing tonight was never indicated on any of those maps. MR. STEVES-No. It was never indicated on those maps. We were told before, by Staff, present Staff excluded, that we didn't want to confuse the issue by bringing it in before. MR. BREWER-But that doesn't interfere with any size of these lots in the other subdivision, right? MR. STEVES-No. I tried to indicate the subdivision itself. You see, this borders right on to the subdivision. MR. BREWER-All right. So they didn't move any of these lines? MR. STEVES-No, not a bit. MR. BR~WER-Okay. MR. STEVES-This is the subdivision line right there. MR. BREWER-And they did not move them at all? MR. STEVES-No, sir, they did not. MR. BREWER-Okay. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. I'm sure glad we didn't mire all this in fact early on, when we were doing Hickory Acres. MR. STEVES-The configuration and the distances should be the same. MRS. TARANA-Mr. Timms owns the one side, and who owns the other side? MR. STEVES-Mr. Timms owns one side, and Hill owns the other side, Floyd Hill. MRS. TARANA-Now. that's the house for sale? MR. STEVES-I don't know. MRS. TARANA-It's been for sale for several years. MR. STEVES-I don't know. I don't recall any sign there. MR. MACEWAN-This roadway right here is kind of, sort of existing already. MR. STEVES-Yes, it is. through here. Yes. There's a driveway right down MR. MACEWAN-There's a little mini logging operation or something down there. He's got a little sawmill or something or other. MR. STEVES-Yes. He's got that little shed right here. MR. MACEWAN-Yes. and these people get to their house via this access right here. MR. STEVES-He's a logger, I think. MR. MACEWAN-We met him the other day, he and his dog. MRS. TARANA-You mean the big yellow house, with the little yellow house next to it? 32 -----..; -- MR. STEVES-In fact, the Zoning Board asked me if emergency vehicles could get in and out of there, and one of the members of the Board said that when he was up reviewing it. a County truck, he said. came up out of there. MR. BREWER-Yes, but that's his truck. County. He bought that from the MR. MACEWAN-If you cross the bike trail, across the bike trail. immediately, there's that white house right there on the left, that big landscaped yard. MRS. TARANA-Yes. MR. MACEWAN-You come up two more houses. about halfway up the hill. MR. STEVES-Right. with a fence, like a rail fence. MRS. TARANA-Right across from the gravel pit. MR. MACEWAN-Just about, not quite. This side of it. MRS. TARANA-Okay. MR. BREWER-I have a question. Now that you said that he's logging or whatever down there. or he's not logging, but he has an operation down there where he's cutting wood or something. MR. STEVES-No. He is a logger, I believe, and he has the truck that goes back and forth all the time. MR. BREWER-Right. MR. MACEWAN-Yes, but he's got some little out building down there that he's operating something out of. MR. BREWER-He does have a building or something down there. MR. STEVES-No, no. MR. BREWER-I sawall kinds of wood down there, like firewood. MR. STEVES-Yes, but that's his father's lot. MR. BREWER-All right, so how is he going to get down to that operation he has down there if this is going to be a lot with a house on it? Cut right through their yard, or? MR. STEVES-No. he can't. There's no way he could do that. MR. BREWER-He drives down there now. MR. STEVES-Right. he does now, but he won't in the future, because it'll be private property. He'll have a right to use the driveway back as far as his garage, but not to go through there. MR. BREWER-So. all this will cease down here then? MR. STEVES-I don't know if it will cease, because he will still have a right to come in off of this road. MR. BREWER-All right. I see. there's a road here. Okay. MR. STEVES-It's not landlocked. MR. MACEWAN-Yes, but there is another building down there. not that shed that you're talking about that's halfway down the hill on the left hand side. There's one way down on the bottom by the pond. MR. STEVES-By the pond. that Sidney owns. but not. See, there's 33 - -- two Sidney's. There's Sidney Paul the son, and then Sidney, the older man that lives up on Sweet Road. They both live on Sweet Road. but the older man is the guy that owns all the property that we're talking about. MR. MACEWAN-And he's still going to have access down to the pond, down to that shed in the back? MR. STEVES-He has access from his own backyard. as well as from the Hickory Acres Subdivision. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. comments? I'm going to open the pUblic hearing. Any PUBLIC HBARIRG OPBRED RO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. LAPOINT-Okay. Are we ready to do the SEQRA, or do we have any more questions? Do we notify neighbors at this point? MR. MARTIN-Yes. We've got the packets. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. So everyone within the stipulated for subdivisions were noticed? MR. MARTIN-That's his responsibility, in this case. Right. MR. STEVES-Incidentally. you probably do know, your Code has' either/or in it, 500 feet from the radius or 500 feet along the road. so that I'm sure that if you notified people. in the last instance, for instance. 500 feet up and down the road, you got them all. You don't necessarily have to go within the radius. and that's not an interpretation, because your Code does give either/or. MR. MARTIN-Thank you, Mr. Steves. now on, I mean that in sincerity. We will bear that in mind from I appreciate that. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. Here we go. Are we ready for SEQRA? RBSOLU~ION WHBN DETBRMINATIOR OF NO SIGRIrICARCB IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 17-1992,ìIntroduced by Edward LaPoint who moved for its adoption, seconded by Corinne Tarana: WHEREAS. there is presently before application for: BOYCB & BARBARA subdivision. at Preliainary Stage, and the Planning Board an RAWSOR. for a two lot WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. No federal agency appears to be involved. 2. The following agencies are involved: NONE 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury. 34 -- -- 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 Regulation for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law. Duly adopted this 15th day of December, 1992, by the following vote I AYES: Mr. Ruel. Mr. Brewer. Mrs. Tarana, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. LaPoint NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Pulver, Mrs. Rowe MR. LAPOINT-Okay. Are we ready for a motion at Preliminary Stage, and if we do, make sure we get any stipulations we had in there. MR. BREWER-We didn't have any stipulations. did we? MR. LAPOINT-No. not that I recall. MOTION TO APPROVB SUBDIVISION NO. 17-1992 PRBLIHIRARY STAGE BOYCE & BARBARA RAWSOR, Introduced by Timothy Brewer who moved for its adoption. seconded by Craig MacEwan I For a two lot subdivision, noting that the ZBA has granted Area Variance No. 122-1992. Duly adopted this 15th day of December, 1992, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Brewer, Mrs. Tarana, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Ruel. Mr. LaPoint NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Pulver, Mrs. Rowe (8155 p.m.) CORRECTION OF MINUTBS October 27th, 1992: NONE November 10th, 1992a NONE November 18th, 1992a NONE HOTIOR TO APPROVB THB MINUTES FOR OCTOBER 27TH. NOVEMBBR 10TH. AND NOVBMBER 18TH, Introduced by Corinne Tarana who moved for its adoption. seconded by Craig MacEwan a Duly adopted this 15th day of December, 1992. by the following vote: AYES a Mrs. Tarana, Mr. MacEwan. Mr. Ruel. Mr. Brewer, Mr. LaPoint NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Pulver, Mrs. Rowe MR. MACEWAN-Do we want to schedule our meetings for January? 35 ..- ---,' -/ MR. LAPOINT-Yes. MR. BREWER-Lets do it Saturday morning. MRS. TARANA-Site visits. he means. MR. BREWER-Site visits. MR. LAPOINT-Just pick them, and we're there. MR. BREWER-The first meeting is when? MRS. TARANA-The 19th. MR. BREWER-So, the 16th, we'll go on site visits. MR. MACEWAN-What time are we going for site visits, Saturday morning? MR. LAPOINT-Early. 9. MR. BREWER-Can we go the 9th, because I'll be off that Saturday, 9 a.m. MR. MACEWAN-9 a.m. MRS. TARANA-January 9th. site visits. and the 19th is the meeting. MR. MACEWAN-The 9th of January. site visits. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Edward LaPoint, Acting Chairman 36