Loading...
03-13-2018 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/13/2018) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SPECIAL MEETING MARCH 13, 2018 INDEX Site Plan No. 17-2018 William & Bonnie Thomas 1. Tax Map No. 289.10-1-35, 289.10-1-36 Site Plan No. 16-2018 Judkins Family Trust 5. Tax Map No. 289.10-1-36, 289.10-1-35 Site Plan No. 20-2018 William Miner 8. ZBA RECOMMENDATION Tax Map No. 302.7-1-24 Site Plan No. 11-2018 Michael Serini 18. ZBA RECOMMENDATION Tax Map No. 239.20-1-18 Site Plan No. 21-2018 Michael Badera 22. ZBA RECOMMENDATION Tax Map No. 226.16-1-20 Subdivision No. 3-2018 Richard & Sharon Bapp 25. PRELIMINARY STAGE Tax Map No. 308.19-1-29.1 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. 1 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/13/2018) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SPECIAL MEETING MARCH 13, 2018 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT STEPHEN TRAVER, CHAIRMAN CHRIS HUNSINGER, VICE CHAIRMAN DAVID DEEB, SECRETARY BRAD MAGOWAN JOHN SHAFER MICHAEL VALENTINE JAMIE WHITE LAND USE PLANNER-LAURA MOORE STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. TRAVER-Welcome, Ladies and Gentlemen, to the Town of Queensbury Planning Board meeting for Tuesday, March 13th. This is the first meeting for the month of March and the sixth meeting thus far this year. There should be some agendas on the table at the rear of the room if you so desire. If you have a cellphone please turn it off or silence the ringer so that doesn't interrupt our work. The first item of business we have this evening is approval of minutes for the meetings from January 16th and January 23d APPROVAL OF MINUTES January 16, 2018 January 23, 2018 MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES OF JANUARY 16 TH AND JANUARY 23 R11, 2018, Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brad Magowan: Duly adopted this 13th day of March, 2018, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-All right. Next we move to our regular agenda items. The first category being Old Business, and the first application being William and Bonnie Thomas. Site Plan 17-2018. OLD BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 17-2018 SEAR TYPE: TYPE II. WILLIAM & BONNIE THOMAS. AGENT(S): HUTCHINS ENGINEERING/MICHAEL J. O'CONNOR. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: WR. LOCATION: 9 GENISTA LANE. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT A NEW DRIVEWAY GREATER THAN 10% SLOPES AND TO CONNECT THE DRIVEWAY TO THE ADJOINING LOT (289.10-1-36). PROJECT WILL ALLOW ACCESS TO PARCEL 289.10-1-36 THROUGH PARCEL 289.10-1-35. DRIVEWAY EXISTING IS 2,160 SQ. FT. AND AN ADDITIONAL 875 SQ. FT. TO BE ADDED TO TOTAL 3,035 SQ. FT. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-6-050 & 179-6-060 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE CONSTRUCTION OF A DRIVEWAY ON A SLOPE OF 10% OR MORE SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: 1991 REPLACE DOCK; AV 13-2018; SP 16-2018 & AV 12-2018. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: N/A. SITE INFORMATION: CEA. LOT SIZE: .25 ACRE. TAX MAP NO. 289.10-1-35, 289.10-1-36. SECTION: 179-6-050 & 179-6-060. LUCAS DOBIE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; DAVID & DAWN JUDKINS, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? 2 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/13/2016) MRS. MOORE-So this applicant is before this Board in reference to construction of a driveway greater than 10%. They did go to the Zoning Board meeting where they were granted their permeability relief, and they were granted, 66.5% was granted were 75% is required. So they're only before this Board for creating a driveway greater than 10%. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Great. Thank you. Welcome back. MR. DOBIE-Thank you. MR. TRAVER-So you're back before us after having been reviewed by the ZBA and you received the variances that you requested without any changes to your project. MR. DOBIE-That's correct. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just briefly for the record, Lucas Dobie with Hutchins Engineering. With me are the neighbors to the Thomas', Dr. Judkins and Mrs. Judkins, and they're working together as you may recall. MR. TRAVER-Right. MR. DOBIE-We were here the middle of February and at the end of February we got our variances for our permeability on the Thomas parcel, just to give them a much more functional parking area and we worked through the two projects concurrently through the Town Engineer and we're down to one simple comment on the Judkins' project and we're comfortable with where we're at with the project and we're looking forward to undertaking the project in the spring. We're here to ask for your approval tonight, and to answer any questions. Thank you. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you very much, and this is really a co-application with the Judkins Family Trust. Right? So it's really kind of, even though for agenda purposes it's two items, it's really one consolidated project. MR. DOBIE-Correct. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Well looking at the Thomas property first, and we will have a public hearing on this application as well, but first I'll open it up to members of the Planning Board for any initial questions they may have. I know we did discuss this before they went to the ZBA. Is there any follow up that anyone has? MR. DEEB-You said you had one, you're down to one comment with Chazen? MR. DOBIE-That's correct, sir. MR. DEEB-Could you tell me which one it is? MR. DOBIE-It's about the retaining wall on the Judkins' parcel. Where we've got to do a little more design work on that. MR. DEEB-So that's really the next. MR. DOBIE-That's correct. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-I'm confused by the revised Staff Note that was handed out. MRS. MOORE-The only revision was I had 40% permeability, and it's really 65%, 66.5%. MR. HUNSINGER-So 66.5 is the correct number? MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. That was my question. Okay. MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Very good. Well if there are no other questions at this point from the Board, we will open the public hearing and inquiry of the audience is there anyone here that wants to address the Planning Board on this application? Speaking now of the Thomas property. No? Are there any written comments, Laura? 3 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/13/2018) PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MRS. MOORE-There are no written comments. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Then we'll go ahead and close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TRAVER-This is a SEQR Type 11. So no SEQR additional actions on our part are required. Are there any other questions before we consider the motion? MR. VALENTINE-1 just have one if you don't mind, and I should have asked before. MR. TRAVER-Sure. MR. VALENTINE-We talked last time. There was a shared agreement mentioned in the notes as far as, I don't remember what it was. It was for, shared agreement for, the applicant shall execute a maintenance agreement that shall be binding on all subsequent landowners. That was with regard to stormwater management only? MR. DOBIE-1 believe, Mr. Valentine, that's a stormwater management and access easement. MR. VALENTINE-Okay. So it is the driveway in itself. MR. DOBIE-Correct. MR. VALENTINE-Okay. Because the letter just addressed stormwater management I believe. I'll read it. It's Number Seven on there. It says "The applicant shall execute a maintenance agreement that shall be binding on all subsequent landowners served by the stormwater management facility", and then of course Chazen's letter always starts off with they're only addressing stormwater, but I think the question last time that I had asked about was is there going to be some type of a maintenance agreement between the two landowners regarding that, the driveway in itself, is it going to be part of a deed reference. DR. JUDKINS-So two things. Mr. Thomas is a lawyer. So I can sure things will be, but more importantly the driveway has been in existence for about 46 years. So it's been a common driveway. It's just being included. MR. VALENTINE-But does that take care of the fact that, is there going to be, and it says subsequent owners. That's what I'm thinking about. DR. JUDKINS-Right. It will be for that. Yes. MRS. MOORE-Do you think that a note should be added to the final Site Plan that says that this is a common driveway and through deed and through this note on this plan that they'll remain? MR. VALENTINE-1 would feel more comfortable with that, if there's something to that effect because obviously you're going into the project right now with the owners right here and I'm thinking as that's passed down. DR. DOBIE-Yes, we're fine with that. That's the intention. MR. VALENTINE-Okay. Thank you. MR. SHAFER-Mr. Chairman, I noted the Chazen comments were dated February 8th. Were they discussed at the, I guess my question is have they all be accommodated? MR. TRAVER-All, but one, I understand. MR. SHAFER-All but that one? MR. DOBIE-Yes. MR. TRAVER-And they will require a signoff. I'm sorry, did that answer your question? MR. SHAFER-Yes. 4 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/13/2018) MR. TRAVER-Anything else, then, from members of the Board, before we consider a motion? So I guess we're ready for a motion. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP # 17-2018 WILLIAM & BONNIE THOMAS The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board to construct a new driveway greater than 10% slopes and to connect the driveway to the adjoining lot (289.10-1-36). Project will allow access to parcel 289.10-1-36 through parcel 289.10-1-35. Driveway existing is 2,160 sq. ft. and an additional 875 sq. ft. to be added to total 3,035 sq. ft. Pursuant to Chapter 179-6- 050 & 179-6-060 of the Zoning Ordinance construction of driveway on a slope of 10% or more shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Pursuant to Chapter 179-6-050 & 179- 6-060 of the Zoning Ordinance construction of driveway on a slope of 10% or more shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter 179-9-080, the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; As required by General Municipal Law Section 239-m the site plan application was referred to the Warren County Planning Department for its recommendation; The Planning Board opened a public hearing on the Site plan application on 03/13/2018 and continued the public hearing to 03/13/2018, when it was closed, The Planning Board has reviewed the application materials submitted by the applicant and all comments made at the public hearing and submitted in writing through and including 03 13 2018; The Planning Board determines that the application complies with the review considerations and standards set forth in Article 9 of the Zoning Ordinance for Site Plan approval, MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN 17-2018 WILLIAM & BONNIE THOMAS; Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption. According to the draft resolution prepared by Staff with the following: 1) Waivers requested granted; 2. Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution. a) The limits of clearing will constitute a no-cut buffer zone, orange construction fencing shall be installed around these areas and field verified by Community Development staff; b) If applicable, the Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater Department for its review, approval, permitting and inspection; c) If curb cuts are being added or changed a driveway permit is required. A building permit will not be issued until the approved driveway permit has been provided to the Planning Office; d) If application was referred to engineering then Engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator of the approved plans; e) Final approved plans should have dimensions and setbacks noted on the site plan/survey, floor plans and elevation for the existing rooms and proposed rooms in the building and site improvements;- f) If required, the applicant must submit a copy of the following to the Town: a. The project NOI (Notice of Intent) for coverage under the current "NYSDEC SPDES General Permit from Construction Activity" prior to the start of any site work. b. The project NOT (Notice of Termination) upon completion of the project; c. The applicant must maintain on their project site, for review by staff: i. The approved final plans that have been stamped by the Town Zoning Administrator. These plans must include the project SWPPP (Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan) when such a plan was prepared and approved; ii. The project NOI and proof of coverage under the current NYSDEC SPDES General Permit, or an individual SPDES permit issued for the project if required. g) Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel; 5 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/13/2018) h) The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work; i) Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; j) As-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed according to the approved plans to be provided prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy. k) This resolution is to be placed in its entirety on the final plans. 1) Common driveway easement will be maintained with subsequent ownership and noted on the final Site Plan. Motion seconded by Brad Magowan. Duly adopted this 13th day of March, 2018 by the following vote: MRS. MOORE-1 would clarify that that comment you made in L should be a note on the final Site Plan. MR. TRAVER-So just add to that it's a note on the actual final Site Plan. MRS. MOORE-Correct. MR. DEEB-Okay. AYES: Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Deeb MR. TRAVER-All right, and so next we move to Part 11 of this project, the Judkins Family Trust, Site Plan 16-2018. SITE PLAN NO. 16-2018 SEAR TYPE: TYPE II. JUDKINS FAMILY TRUST. AGENT(S): HUTCHINS ENGINEERING/MICHAEL J. O'CONNOR. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT & WILLIAM & BONNIE THOMAS (DRIVEWAY). ZONING: WR. LOCATION: 15 GENISTA LANE. APPLICANT PROPOSES REMOVAL OF A 550 SQ. FT. (1100 SQ. FT. FLOOR AREA) HOME TO CONSTRUCT AN 832 SQ. FT. (1664 FLOOR AREA) HOME. WORK INCLUDES HARD SURFACING WITHIN 50 FT. OF SHORELINE AND OCCURS WITHIN 50 FT. OF 15% SLOPES. PROJECT INCLUDES RE-WORKING DRIVEWAY ON APPLICANT PARCEL AND ADJOINING PARCEL PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-6-050 & 179-6-060 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, CONSTRUCTION WITHIN 50' OF 15% SLOPES AND HARD SURFACING WITHIN 50' OF SHORELINE SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: BP 99273 REBUILD DOCK; AV 12-2018; SP 17-2018 & AV 13-2018. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: N/A. SITE INFORMATION: CEA. LOT SIZE: .37 ACRE. TAX MAP NO. 289.10-1-36 & 289.10-1-35. SECTION: 179-6-050 & 179-6-060. LUCAS DOBIE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT: DAVID & DAWN JUDKINS, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-Okay. So this applicant also received their variance. They were granted setbacks. MR. TRAVER-Setbacks and road frontage. MRS. MOORE-And road frontage. MR. TRAVER-Okay, and this also, after our discussion, was reviewed by the ZBA and you were granted your variance. Were there any changes required in any of your plans to do that? MR. DOBIE-Thank you, again, Mr. Chairman. For the record, Lucas Dobie and the Judkins Family with me, Dr. and Mrs. Judkins, and regarding the ZBA there were no changes to the plans. We had a couple of minor changes after we were with you folks last month. Specifically at Mr. Magowan's request, we went to permeable patio on the lakeside, and so that cleaned up that area to help mitigate some runoff, and then at one of the Chazen comments we had to add a catch basin ahead of the drywell on the Judkins' property for sedimentation pretreatment. So to look at the, our revised plans that we submitted to Chazen versus what was submitted to you 6 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/13/2018) folks it's very, very minimal changes. No changes to the driveway, the grades. Stormwater management we're good with this new catch basin and it's pretty straightforward from when we were here last time. So we'd be happy to answer any questions again. Thank you. MR. TRAVER-Okay. So those changes were to improve stormwater, or permeability I should say and the engineering involved. This also has a public hearing. Before we go to public hearing, are there any initial comments or questions by other members of the Planning Board? MR. DEEB-This is the one that you had the comment with Chazen on this Site Plan? MR. DOBIE-Yes, sir. MR. DEEB-Okay. Which one was it? MR. DOBIE-That is on their March 8th letter, the follow-up letter. It's Comment Two, the structural design for the retaining wall. MR. DEEB-And you won't have any problem getting that resolved? MR. DOBIE-No. It's just we had to do the math and we didn't want to put in the effort until we were sure we got the project approved. MR. TRAVER-All right. There is a public hearing on this application. Are there any members of the audience that are here to address the Planning Board on the Judkins Family Trust application? Seeing none, Laura, are there any written comments? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MRS. MOORE-There are no written comments. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Then we will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TRAVER-This, too, is a SEQR Type II. So no additional SEQR action is required by the Board. Are there any additional questions or comments by members of the Board before we hear a motion? I know we did review this fairly extensively, and the applicant actually accommodate some recommendations for changes. MR. VALENTINE-Now is this submitted as a single Site Plan or are we looking at two different Site Plans for the Thomas? MR. TRAVER-It's actually two different applications. MR. VALENTINE-Then the only thing I would look at is requesting that the same wording, as far as a maintenance agreement for the Site Plan, be included this Site Plan. MR. TRAVER-As well. Okay. Yes. MR. VALENTINE-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Okay. All right. I guess we're ready for a motion, then. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP # 16-2018 JUDKINS FAMILY TRUST The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board for removal of a 550 sq. ft. (1100 sq. ft. floor area) home to construct an 832 sq. ft. (1664 floor area) home. Work includes hard surfacing within 50 ft. of shoreline and occurs within 50 ft. of 15% slopes. Project includes reworking driveway on applicant parcel and adjoining parcel. Pursuant to Chapter 179-6-050 & 179-6-060 of the Zoning Ordinance, construction within 50' of 15% slopes and hard surfacing within 50' of shoreline shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Pursuant to Chapter 179-6-050 & 179-6-060 of the Zoning Ordinance, construction within 50' of 15% slopes and hard surfacing within 50' of shoreline shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter 179-9-080, the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; 7 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/13/2018) As required by General Municipal Law Section 239-m the site plan application was referred to the Warren County Planning Department for its recommendation; The Planning Board opened a public hearing on the Site plan application on 03/13/2018 and continued the public hearing to 03/13/2018, when it was closed, The Planning Board has reviewed the application materials submitted by the applicant and all comments made at the public hearing and submitted in writing through and including 03/13/2018; The Planning Board determines that the application complies with the review considerations and standards set forth in Article 9 of the Zoning Ordinance for Site Plan approval, MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN 16-2018 JUDKINS FAMILY TRUST; Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption. According to the draft resolution prepared by Staff with the following: 1) Waivers requested granted; 2. Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution. a) The limits of clearing will constitute a no-cut buffer zone, orange construction fencing shall be installed around these areas and field verified by Community Development staff; b) If applicable, the Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater Department for its review, approval, permitting and inspection; c) If curb cuts are being added or changed a driveway permit is required. A building permit will not be issued until the approved driveway permit has been provided to the Planning Office; d) If application was referred to engineering then Engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator of the approved plans; e) Final approved plans should have dimensions and setbacks noted on the site plan/survey, floor plans and elevation for the existing rooms and proposed rooms in the building and site improvements;- f) If required, the applicant must submit a copy of the following to the Town: a. The project NOI (Notice of Intent) for coverage under the current "NYSDEC SPDES General Permit from Construction Activity" prior to the start of any site work. b. The project NOT (Notice of Termination) upon completion of the project; c. The applicant must maintain on their project site, for review by staff: i. The approved final plans that have been stamped by the Town Zoning Administrator. These plans must include the project SWPPP (Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan) when such a plan was prepared and approved; ii. The project NOI and proof of coverage under the current NYSDEC SPDES General Permit, or an individual SPDES permit issued for the project if required. g) Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel; h) The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work; i) Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; j) As-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed according to the approved plans to be provided prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy. k) This resolution is to be placed in its entirety on the final plans. I) Common driveway easement will be maintained with subsequent ownership and noted on final Site Plan. Motion seconded by Michael Valentine. Duly adopted this 13th day of March, 2018 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Ms. White, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Deeb 8 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/13/2018) MR. TRAVER-All right. You're all set. MR. DOBIE-Thank you very much, Board. MR. TRAVER-So we move, next, to the second portion of our agenda, which are Planning Board recommendations to the ZBA. We have four applications that we're considering. The first being William Miner, Site Plan 20-2018. PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SITE PLAN NO. 20-2018 SEAR TYPE: UNLISTED. WILLIAM MINER. OWNER(S): CKT ENTERPRISES, LLC — STARR MOWERY. ZONING: CI. LOCATION: 2 GLENDALE DRIVE. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO MAINTAIN TWO EXISTING APARTMENTS AND CREATE TWO NEW APARTMENTS ON THE FIRST FLOOR AND TWO NEW APARTMENTS ON THE SECOND FLOOR. PROJECT LOCATED IN COMMERCIAL INTENSIVE ZONE DOES NOT ALLOW APARTMENTS. APPLICANT IS APPLYING FOR A USE VARIANCE — PROJECT WILL BE SUBJECT TO SITE PLAN IF USE VARIANCE IS GRANTED. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-13-010 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, EXPANSION OF A NON-CONFORMING USE OR STRUCTURE SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCE: RELIEF IS REQUESTED FOR APARTMENTS IN A CI ZONE. PLANNING BOARD SHALL PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE: 2003-372 SIGN; DEMO 498-2017 INTERIOR ONLY; RC 500-2017 RES. CONSTRUCTION; UV 1-2018. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: MARCH 2018. LOT SIZE: .33 ACRE. TAX MAP NO. 302.7-1-24. SECTION: 179-13-010. STAR BAKER MOWERY &WILLIAM MINER, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-Okay. The applicant proposes to maintain two existing apartments and create two new apartments on the new apartments on the first floor and two new apartments on the second floor. This project is located in the Commercial Intensive zone that does not allow apartments. The applicant is also applying for a Use Variance. The project is subject to Site Plan if the Use Variance is granted. I've identified in the application, or in the Staff Notes, where the four additional apartments are. I've tried to describe where the parking is, and related Site Plan issues on that site, and referencing to upgrade the two apartments to six apartments. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you very much. Good evening. MR. MINER-Good evening. MR. TRAVER-Do you want to tell us about your project? MR. MINER-Yes. Currently 2 Glendale houses other residential properties under 4, 5, and 8. It's in the Commercial Intensive zone in Queensbury off Upper Glen Street. However currently now it's a financial hardship. There's a $2975 mortgage payment on the property, but with the two rental incomes coming in it generates $1900. So there's a loss of$800 on that monthly not counting water, sewer and taxes annually. Now we've entertained other commercial entities going into there, but with no road signage from Glen Street properties, it kind of makes it like a dead avenue. So to us getting approved for residential we can fit four more residential apartments in the additional square footage which would generate more than enough income and make a profit for the owner. MR. TRAVER-1 see. Okay, and the two apartments that are existing, were they installed before the zoning change? Is that it? MR. MINER-They were originally within the properties. They dated back from I believe the 50's from some of the paperwork, I looked. How it was set is that Evelyn's Flower shop used to be there years ago. MRS BAKER MOWERY-George's. 9 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/13/2018) MR. MINER-George's. So there was a couple of different, and a glass company in there, which, like I said, it was a lot of unused space for it. At the time it was probably beneficial property because obviously they owned it. They didn't have a mortgage, but how it is now, you know, the times have changed. I have a letter in here from Mr. Steve Borgos and he said that he remembers the property from years ago and that as a commercial entity now it has no value again because there's no road signage from Glen Street itself. MR. TRAVER-Right. MR. MINER-And then like I stated, the existing properties on Glendale, 4, 5, and 8, are residential. That's the last residential area in the Commercial Intensive zone. So that's our request is if we can get the Use Variance for 2, then we'll get the architectural drawings and bring it to the Planning Board after we get the approvals and it's going to improve the neighborhood. MR. TRAVER-Understood. Okay. Thank you very much. So what we're doing this evening then is we're looking at not your site design, but just your concept of the variance, and then you would then go to the ZBA. MR. MINER-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Well thank you for the explanation. Are there questions, comments from members of the Planning Board? MR. MAGOWAN-How's the parking going to be there? Because I know you kind of spoke up there when O'Reilly's was coming in. MR. MINER-Yes. O'Reilly's is across the street from the properties, but on Glendale, on 2 Glendale, the parking was on the side and in the front. There's like five or six places in the front off of Glendale but there's not much room, but additionally there's the square footage of hard surfaces and gravel now allow us to have the 12 parking spaces existing that's there, and an additional five for visitors off road parking on Glendale. So there's still 17 spaces there that's original now. That's going to stay the same. They're just going to be designated and improved. MRS. BAKER MOWERY-And also just to clarify, I own the Baker Funeral Homes. So I'm at the front side of Lafayette. I just wanted to clean up the backyard. Meta owned the three. She wouldn't sell me the two good ones without taking the big eyesore. So I kind of inherited it as part of that back there, and we used to own the other big house at the very end of the street. It came with the Funeral Home property. We did subdivide that, sold that off, and I own now 2, 4, and 5 Glendale. So if we need to, it looks like the percentages come out correctly to be able to go between 2 and 4, plenty of parking back in there, which would be between the big red and white building and the Bank parking or the Bank property. MR. MINER-But basically with that if the architect says that we need more space or parking in the back, she has more than enough parking on the 2, if something has to get transferred from 4 to 2 to make that happen. MR. VALENTINE-Can I go backwards to where we should have started off? Do you mind if I ask who each of you are? MR. MINER-I'm sorry. I'm William Miner and this is Starr Mowery. MR. VALENTINE-And who owns what? MRS. BAKER MOWERY-I'm Starr Baker Mowery. I own the Baker Funeral Home. This is property that I acquired behind the Funeral Home that I got from Meta Murray, which is the wife of deceased George, George's Flowerland. I don't know if any of you guys remember that. MR. VALENTINE-You have the Funeral Home off of Lafayette. MRS. BAKER MOWERY-1 own the Funeral Home on Lafayette. MR. VALENTINE-And this. MRS. BAKER MOWERY-This is that dead end street. 10 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/13/2018) MR. VALENTINE-Yes, I know that, but I'm just saying, that property we're looking at today does not back up to the. MRS. BAKER MOWERY-Yes, it does. MR. VALENTINE-Not directly to the Funeral Home. MR. MINER-No, it goes up to Glens Falls National. MRS. BAKER MOWERY-Maybe 2 doesn't, but 4 does, 4 Glendale. MR. MAGOWAN-You own the lean-to shed? MRS. BAKER MOWERY-1 own the lean-to shed. So, yes, the lean-to shed of the Funeral Home property from the old Woodbury's Lumber. MR. MAGOWAN-So it does actually back up to your other building. MRS. BAKER MOWERY-It does, and that's something eventually I want to kind of turn and face Glendale and clean all that up. MR. MINER-It's a future project. MR. TRAVER-Yes. One at a time. MRS. BAKER MOWERY-There's a lot going on back there, but already just the one 3 bedroom, 2 bedroom, or 3 bedroom 2 bath apartment that we did, 1400 square feet, it's beautiful. I've already done inside there. Can't wait to get all the windows, doors, everything, and then we want like the garden section where the Flowerland already had the concrete, between me and Edward Jones' house. So that's where I want it all nice balconies, all garden area, beautiful lighting, fencing. Inside will be nice, parking in the back and still have plenty of room, that whole square back area, for a play area for kids, whatever. Safe. MR. VALENTINE-Did you ever consider a purchase of that Edward Jones' property? MR. MINER-Yes. MRS. BAKER MOWERY-If this could be off the record. It's already on the record. Okay. MR. MINER-He's not interested in parting with his property right now. MRS. BAKER MOWERY-Not right now. MR. MINER-Maybe future use. MR. VALENTINE-So Edward Jones' property is commercial use in the district zoned for that commercial use. MRS. BAKER MOWERY-Right. MR. VALENTINE-You have a residential use right now that has two apartments. MRS. BAKER MOWERY-And the rest all just ugly, big vacant, trashed junk that we've already cleaned out, ready to do construction. MR. VALENTINE-Ready for demolition and re-construction. MRS. BAKER MOWERY-Already demoed. MR. MINER-But then again the Edward Jones' building, they have Glen Street. So Glen Street they have the Glen Street road and signage and advertisement. MR. VALENTINE-But you, you have 4, 5, and 8. They are residential uses. MRS. BAKER MOWERY-Kids walking on the street. School bus comes down. MR. VALENTINE-They're yours, 4, 5, and 8? 11 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/13/2010 MR. MINER-Four and Five. MRS. BAKER MOWERY-Two, Four and Five are mine. Yes. MR. VALENTINE-Okay, but they're residential with single family detached. MRS. BAKER MOWERY-And Eight is residential. Yes, and they have kids in them, school bus comes down there. That's why we were so concerned with O'Reilly's. I love to see new places come in, but I just wanted to make sure we didn't have big tractor trailers coming in that dead end street. Because it is residential. MR. TRAVER-We did address that with them, in terms of signage and so on. MRS. BAKER MOWERY-We did, you guys were good with that. MR. MINER-And basically the only residential, but it's right in their central, their C-1 zone. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. MINER-But on their aspect there is residential surrounding properties, the only ones on that street. MR. TRAVER-So in terms of neighborhood character, this would fit. MR. MINER-It would be a huge improvement. MRS. BAKER MOWERY-It would be very fitting, yes. And the goal is, I did talk to Carl Cedrone and I said, hey, you've got the Main Street little postage stamp and I've got the bigger property. Maybe 10 years when I retire, he retires, we can sell it and do like O'Reilly's did. It was like a million and a half that they paid for that, but at least right now it cleans it up. I want to do siding, fix it up, make it nice and who knows what the future holds, but, it's not worth anything like it is now. It really isn't, and when you do commercial you don't know how much parking you need. That to me would require more parking, and I'm even willing to, if we have to, it sounds like we can go in and still be able to turn around, come back out or we could do a one way in, go behind the cape towards, you know, the Funeral Home property and come back out again. I mean, I have lots of options because I do own all that. MR. SHAFER-Question. How big would Apartments 2B and 2C be? MRS. BAKER MOWERY-Are those the two upstairs back apartments? The purpose why I want A-1 bedrooms up there is upstairs I think of safety. I think of kids going up and down stairs. So I only wanted to do one bedroom apartments. The other thing is owning the Funeral Home ideally it's for my residents. Single people. We have a resident in training at the Funeral Home now. Ideally I'd really like to rent it for usage for the Funeral Home for my residents, for the people in training for funeral director. MR. MINER-There's actually a few of the residents now at the Funeral Home they travel, Granville. MRS. BAKER MOWERY-Right, well they come from Canton College. One's coming in from Long Island. MR. MINER-We want them to be in-house without being at the Funeral Home. MRS. BAKER MOWERY-And then I have a gentleman in his 70's, chomping at the bit wanting that downstairs single bedroom. MR. MINER-Which would be a nice studio apartment for him and it would be handicap accessible, even though he's not handicap, but it's at the ground floor level. Ground floor entrance. Everything would be. MRS. BAKER MOWERY-Not even studio. It's a separate bedroom. Did that answer your question? MR. SHAFER-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Any other questions or comments? 12 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/13/2018) MR. VALENTINE-1 have a general comment. This is defined as a Commercial Intensive district. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. VALENTINE-And the Ordinance calls out the purposes and intents of those districts, and it states in the Ordinance, the purpose of this district is to provide for continuing in-fill development of this type. This type is the one that says it's in the areas that already have intense commercial development. And it says while encouraging the overall improvement and appearance of these areas. And it looks like in general to me this is a step backwards. This is a step going from a more intense residential use, which is not defined by the Ordinance there. This is defined as Commercial Intense. That whole street is defined as that. Whether you have existing residential there, does that mean that you dictate to this property that you have to remain residential because other lots are residential? You've got a use already in front of this building. You've got a use on both sides of it and you've got a use behind it that is, there are commercial uses and that's what this property is zoned for. I just look at this going in the reverse direction. And this will be your place before the Zoning Board is to provide them with information as, financial information to show them, did I list this for other commercial, did I list it for uses that are permitted under the Commercial Intensive district. Do I have a realtor that says, hey, I got rejected on so many times? MRS. BAKER MOWERY-We do have a letter. MR. MINER-We did speak to a realtor, and if I may comment, we've entertained an amusement center, bowling alleys, but then again, when you don't have the signage from Glen Street it's going to be, you know, any of those properties, like Steve Borgos said in here, you know, years ago when it was Glens Falls and Queensbury was the outskirts, and then when they started developing up through Glen Street that was the boom for that. Well Glendale Avenue was always off of Glen so it didn't have that same prosperity as the rest of Glen Street did. So, to me, it wouldn't be a step backwards, it would definitely be a step forwards, because with that building now we've entertained the notion of having an auto repair shop in there, any of that, but any other business entity is not going to succeed there without some kind of road signage. MR. TRAVER-Yes. Well you have apartments in there now. I mean when I looked at this I thought of it in somewhat the same way that we do with some of the properties we have up on the lake is say like a pre-existing, nonconforming situation. MRS. BAKER MOWERY-Meta who I bought it from, Meta Murray, George's wife, she's tried to rent it. It's been empty, a big vacant building for over 48 years, closer to 50 years. Nobody wants to go in there with no parking. There's, I mean it's just, it's very low ceilings downstairs. MR. VALENTINE-Is there an economic obsolescence in it, then? MRS. BAKER MOWERY-What does that mean? MR. VALENTINE-Is it time to tear it down and do something else? MRS. BAKER MOWERY-1 can't afford to do that. I have a mortgage on it. I owe Meta $250,000. MR. MINER-But still, no matter what, if it was leveled off and had a vacant lot there, it wouldn't be anything practical for usage of a commercial value because you have no. You have access from Glen Street, but you do on any. MR. TRAVER-Nobody would know it's there. MR. MINER-Exactly. MR. MAGOWAN-Well the last one that was there, I think it was the glass shop. MRS. BAKER MOWERY-The glass shop was. MR. MAGOWAN-There was the flower shop. There's always been apartments up above. MRS. BAKER MOWERY-They've been there forever. MR. MINER-That's when it was making money. It was able to take. 13 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/13/2016) MR. MAGOWAN-1 agree with you. Mike, I see where you're coming from, but I see what you're doing is turning it all into apartments. To me, you know, it's almost a commercial business for you in the rental business. MRS. BAKER MOWERY-1 own 25 houses already. This is what I know, besides the funeral business. On the side I pick up a lot of houses and properties and things and I love to get people in there. MR. MAGOWAN-That's been a tough market for a long time. A long, long time. MR. TRAVER-Well it's a difficult location. MRS. BAKER MOWERY-It's a very difficult. A, the street is very narrow, and that's another concern, because like I said, the bus goes in. We allow them to turn around at the end of the, it's a dead end street in the property. I mean, I'll do whatever, but it was a big undertaking for me. My big thing was the Funeral Home, the old Woodbury fencing, the stuff was growing. We spent over $10,000 just to clean up the yard. How many dumpsters, we have over $2,000 worth of dumpster bills, just the weight of getting those clean dumpsters. MR. MINER-Whoever had it before, like you said it was the glass shop, but it was just left in disrepair. MRS. BAKER MOWERY-It was infested with squirrels. The one apartment that people are living in, the upstairs apartment, they had to put boards on the ceiling because the squirrels were literally pushing the sheet rock down. He put traps up there to get the squirrels out of there. MR. MINER-The two existing apartments now are completed and cleaned up. MR. DEEB-I'm looking for the letter from Borgos. I don't see it in this. MR. MINER-Yes. I was just looking under that. It's S-1, Page Five. MRS. MOORE-It'll be in the Use Variance application. It won't be in your Site Plan application, but it is something, if you're looking for it, we can add it to the Site Plan application. MR. MINER-1 have it here if you'd like me to read it to you. MR. DEEB-Can you read it? MR. MINER-Yes. This is dated November 6, 2017, addressed to me, regarding 2 Glendale properties. It says, "Thank you for your phone call requesting that I provide my written opinion regarding the value of the property at 2 Glendale Avenue if used for commercial purposes. As you know, location is a major factor in every real estate situation, whether residential or commercial. In the "old" days, when Queensbury hadn't really developed its explosive growth, the former Evelyn's Florist" MRS. BAKER MOWERY-He means George's. MR. MINER-Yes. "was the only game in town, and with limited signage along Route 9 it was able to flourish. Once development took over, roads were widened, competition increased and Queensbury changed from a suburb of Glens Falls into its own economic center. Most people forgot about Evelyn's and probably even forgot about Glendale Avenue. Retail business, in fact almost any commercial that relies on visibility to the general public, must have frontage on a main road. Property along Glendale Avenue is no longer nearly as attractive for commercial use as it once was. Glendale Avenue does have abundant electric power, natural gas, municipal water and sewer. It has existing residential uses and it seems that additional residential use would be appropriate if permitted by the zoning regulations. I hope that this satisfies your request." Stephen Borgos. MR. TRAVER-Good. Thank you. MR. DEEB-I remember George's flower shop as well. It was a destination but I think people knew it was there. MR. MINER-A lot of the businesses back then word of mouth. That's how you, you wouldn't really need signage in there because that's how people did it back then, but now. 14 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/13/2018) MR. TRAVER-Yes, I think they actually had a sign. Or was that before some of the roadwork on Glen Street? MR. MINER-Yes. I think before it was widened. MRS. BAKER MOWERY-1 know the flower, or the glass shop, it was up on the end of the building, a big, because it was inside the building. That said the glass shop. MR. VALENTINE-What is the status of Four and Five? Are they there, are they solidly single family without the future intent of dividing them into other units also? MRS. BAKER MOWERY-No. It is literally a one and a half story cape, definitely single story. The big house at the end, that came with our Funeral Home property. We subdivided it and sold that separate. That has the potential of an upstairs, downstairs, I believe. I don't know. You would know more, and then the little ranch definitely is only big enough for a single family as well. MR. MINER-1 mean there's going to be future improvements on there when the time, new siding, windows, you know, to maintain it. She's very good at taking care of her properties. MRS. BAKER MOWERY-If you look at 18 Connecticut Avenue and you see what that looked like and what he made that look like today, it's a cute little place. That's one of the places that we have fixed over. So it will definitely be beautiful when we get it done. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Any other questions, comments? We know this is a recommendation, and the ZBA is going to be looking at this specific issue of the use in a commercial zone. So really what they've charged us with is if we have any specific recommendations in addition to what's on the record that we want them to consider. MR. MAGOWAN-Well I kind of call it a commercial identity of what they're trying to do. MR. TRAVER-Commercial Residential. MR. MAGOWAN-Yes, Commercial Residential. MR. VALENTINE-Well if that's the case then you're looking at that to happen on the next lots one by one by one. So you're doing a zone change here, or use change, just in your own thought process. You're looking at, I'm looking at this as an aerial photo. I'm looking at all the blacktop and I'm looking at the potential with you owning those other lots to tie into the Bank lot, to tie into the cross connection with the Bank property, to tie in with your own future, with your property with the Funeral Home and stuff there, and looping the dead end road into it. MR. MINER-No, that's a grass area. You can't really see it, but the whole side of that, and to the left side of the drawing towards, behind the white part of the building is a concrete slab which is a courtyard. The only gravel is to the right side where that strip is, right where it goes down through the property line, 18, 20 feet wide. MRS. BAKER MOWERY-So what it is, is it is kind of narrow down through here. The residents are now, doors in here, parking here. That's unacceptable. To me this is your street. This is what I refer to as the courtyard. This is the big building and then it goes this way and then this is a one story addition. I want to be able to come in here. I own this and all this property. If you have to even change the lines so this comes over so we can do more parking, but either way come in. Plenty of parking in here. Keep this grass. Right now this is all grass right now. This is the only, where he had an old greenhouse. So this is already concrete. We already did a nice wall between here. Another nice retaining wall here, and this is what I want to have as balconies, and balconies make that the courtyard area. MR. VALENTINE-1 was addressing more Brad's comment about there's a commercial aspect of turning a, your building there into multi-family, and if that's the case there's also that possibility, potential, with your house on the next lot, and then the house on the lot after that. What happens is that changes, within, you know, five, eight, ten years you have the potential for commercial uses in there rather than residential, and you have the potential of making connections, whether it's cross connections or that road becomes a connection over to the Funeral Home or whether there's cross connection from the subject property we're looking at now to the Bank property. My point is there could be a domino effect by this one building into the others. Whether you see it right now or want it right now or say it. 15 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/13/2015) MRS. BAKER MOWERY-1 see what you're imagining, but I'm never going to want people to cut through my Funeral Home parking lot to come into here. That's not going to happen. Safety wise, old people coming in the Funeral Home for calling hours, whatever. I hate this eyesore, the old pole barn, can't wait `til it's out of there, but I don't want to lose my footprint. So eventually because we're outgrowing the Funeral Home, thank the Lord we're doing wonderful. I would like to use the footprint either add on, you know, whatever, get this gone and get something facing that way and we need the 25 feet, you know, whatever the setbacks are. So that will be a future plan, but right now because I wanted to clean up all this, I purchased this and I want to be able to, this is going to stay a house. This is going to stay a house. This is a huge eyesore building. What else do I feel I can do with it, but there's already two apartments. Do more apartments. I don't know what else to do with it. Meta didn't know what to do with it. That's why it was like a storage and literally turned into trashed. She couldn't seem to rent it. She couldn't do anything with it and thank goodness she didn't have a mortgage. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. MAGOWAN-1 don't have a problem allowing you to do that, and who's to say down the road she changes it back to, something commercial comes and says we want that building, and then, hey, we'll tear that down, we like that, we don't need a sign. Or they put a sign out the top of the roof that you see it from West Mountain. Who knows? MR. TRAVER-Well, the other thing that we need to be careful of as a Board is we can't talk about what we might have. We have to deal with what we've got. MRS. BAKER MOWERY-That's why I was nervous to say that I did talk to Carl. His game plan, 10 years retirement, about then I'm ready to retire. The plan could be, they paid I think a million and a half. It goes right to, it's my fence here. The property line is five feet here and one foot here. So it kind of does this. With O'Reilly's paying a million and a half here, some day, hey, you know, maybe we could do away with this and there's .75 acres and there's our retirement. MR. VALENTINE-Well the Chairman's got a point is I brought it up just to elicit an answer from you and I got it. We can't vote on what might be imagined. MRS. BAKER MOWERY-Exactly, and I could die tomorrow if it doesn't happen. We have to work with what we have, and what we have now is this history says this building has not done anything for almost 50 years. MR. TRAVER-Other than residential. MRS. BAKER MOWERY-Other than residential. Correct. Correct. MR. MINER-See I knew I shouldn't have given her the mic because I'll never get it back. MR. HUNSINGER-Of course it's not the role of the Planning Board to have you articulate the reasons for why you're requesting a Use Variance. That's the purview of the Zoning Board. MR. DEEB-Could you tell us about your attempts to market it commercially? What was done? Did you get any interest at all? MRS. BAKER MOWERY-1 didn't do a lot only because history with Meta. MR. MINER-1 did some research on it, though, myself. I've been working on this for about two, two and a half, three months. The letter from Steve was dated from back in November. I've met with Laura endless, endless, endless times. Like I said, I have entertained other options for, like I said, bowling alley, you know, Ken the one that owns the Fun Spot up there. They said if they didn't have the avenue like they do he wouldn't have prospered like they do. Now they have the go karts. They have tons of things going on inside. It doesn't have the appeal to get somebody in there, and it doesn't have the condition in the building, and you're not going to get anybody in there, even tax prep. I talked to a couple of other tax prep people and they said that they would have zero interest in renting an office in that building because of the location of it. So it wasn't that we haven't tried other avenues because we have, and that's when I reached out to Steve because he's a commercial realtor. If anybody knows the commercial business Steve Borgos has been doing it for a number of years. The same with Bob Gover. I've known Bob for years and he said the same. He said I'm not going to put anything on the record for it because he doesn't really do the commercial now, but Steve, that's his specialty is commercial real estate. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. 16 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/13/2018) MR. MINER-So I brought the expert in and that's what he told me. MR. TRAVER-So for the Board this evening, basically the variance they're looking for is adding apartments to existing apartments in the Cl zone. So do we have any specific recommendations? We have the discussion that we've had with the applicant, and they have some additional materials prepared evidently to present to the ZBA, but do we have anything specifically that we want to pass along to the ZBA? MRS. MOORE-So one of the things that you might want to discuss is that this applicant is going from two to six and does this site support a total of six units. The applicant has provided some information about parking. It may need a little more detail. Right now there's no survey of the site. It just shows a sketch of the property. So you want to know that there is suitable parking and room to maneuver the vehicles in there and access. The applicant's already said they may be able to move the line. Those may be things that you want to address to the Zoning Board that, you know, does this site support six apartments as a Site Plan. I also identified that in the Commercial zone at 30% this site would only be, if we looked at just this parcel as is, you'd only be allowed a building that handled 4,312 square feet. That's large, but I mean right now this site, this building is twice that size at 8,000. So adding, you know, thinking about that commercial aspect or that residential aspect that you may want to think of those things when you talk to the Zoning Board. MR. VALENTINE-And one thing, too, on the application material it says there's 12 spaces existing and then there would be 12 spaces required. So the 12 that were required are supposed to be there right now, and how do they work now? MRS. MOORE-It's two per unit. So it's not required now. It's two per unit. So he would be required to have 12. MR. VALENTINE-I'm just wondering how the 12 are working right now. MRS. MOORE-There's only four. MR. MINER-There's only two apartments and I don't think they have that many visitors. The thing is it's gravel space now. They could fit 20 cars through there versus parking them. When Starr does a property she tries to get, it's functional, it's economical and it's an improvement to the community. Obviously when we do get the approvals on that we'll sit down with the architect, which I have talked to Clure Associates in Corinth. I've known Tom for years. He's played around with it some. We've just got to get through Stage One before we can go to Stage Two and get the finals, and if the architect says we need an additional 400 square feet for parking, Mrs. Mowery does own the additional property, we can transfer the additional whatever he says we need for that, for the parking for that, without losing the courtyard and not losing any of the space that's already there, but the building footprint itself is staying exactly the same except for the improvements, because right now we have 4,398 square feet. There's 2,000 of it on the second floor that's used, but it's times two because we have two floors of it. So you're talking 8,976 I believe, someplace in there, square footage. So over 6,000 square foot of this building is just empty space storage for now. MRS. BAKER MOWERY-That I'm heating. MR. MINER-We just got done putting new furnaces in because when we did the upstairs apartment over everything's been a new furnace upgrade, and we had to have the downstairs to have a conditioned space. So now there's a new furnace that's been down there for a conditioned space. The other exits are just blocked off with Styrofoam, like I said, until we see where we're going with it, but it's of no commercial value to her, and like she said, she wouldn't have taken the property if they weren't getting, but still a 2975 mortgage payment and you're only getting two rental incomes of 950, you're at a loss. We've had water bills for the previous month of over $500 because a tenant left the toilet running continuously for like two months straight because the chain was dropped in there. So it's got Town water, Town sewer already, everything's right there. Nothing's going to change existing with that. The only existing thing that's going to change is she's not going to have a five or an eight thousand dollar loss with this property every year. I couldn't take a loss like that and still have other business. MR. TRAVER-Right. So you want to add a note that they need to elaborate on their plans, to make sure they have a viable plan for the Building Department. MR. DEEB-What else did you say, Laura, parking and? 17 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/13/2018) MR. TRAVER-The Site Plan needs to be. MRS. MOORE-Additional details may be necessary to determine if six apartments would be suitable. MR. DEEB-What details? MRS. BAKER MOWERY-1 was going to say, because I thought we addressed that, like lighting. MRS. MOORE-Right. So in this sense it's not a scaled drawing. It would be, if it were a survey then we could confirm that you have visitor parking that shows up on the road. If there's off street parking that may be allowed, but it's not considered on your property potentially and we just need to verify that those parking spaces at the right size can be accommodated on that site. MR. MINER-And I think we did kind of brief that a little bit. I think it was, what, 180 square feet per vehicle. MRS. MOORE-180. Right. So it's hand drawn. It would be beneficial to see it on a survey or on an architectural drawing. MR. VALENTINE-With the parking that you're going to need to see, a Site Plan issue later on, too, is the aisle width wide enough there to accommodate backing out and turning? MR. MINER-Well I think 20 feet would be, I talked to Dave Hatin on that and I believe I talked to you on that. The 20 foot corridor, and actually I talked to Craig brown on this personally. He said 20 foot corridor allows any emergency fire vehicles, anything that had to get through there to access. MR. VALENTINE-You're right, but I was just thinking it goes back to the point that Laura's making. Without a survey, without a final Site Plan, you don't know if that exists there, but that will come. If you get your Use Variance, that's what's going. MR. MINER-Definitely. The architectural drawing obviously would have everything listed on there, the same with the fire suppression system. The two existing apartments have to be retro-fitted now for fire suppression if we do go forward with this project. So like I said I know there's still a lot going on, but we've just got to get through Phase I and 11, and then the architects, like you said, if we need the additional square footage, she has it. So that's a plus. MRS. BAKER MOWERY-1 just don't want to spend like $50,000 in architect's plans if you're not going to allow me to put a parking. MRS. MOORE-So what I'm saying to the Board is to discuss with the Zoning Board saying there are some additional site details, if the Zoning Board chooses to move forward, they're aware that the Planning Board has seen it in reference to what's happening on the site. So the Planning Board may ask for additional information once you go through the Zoning Board. If the Zoning Board grants it then there may be additional drawings that may be necessary. MR. MINER-Yes, okay. That's perfect. MR. MAGOWAN-And I can introduce you to Dennis over here and he'd be more than happy to help you out. I don't know how busy he is right now. MRS. BAKER MOWERY-There you go. I want your card. MR. TRAVER-Okay. So are we ready for a motion? MR. DEEB-Yes. RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION RE: Z-UV-1-2018 WILLIAM MINER The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Applicant proposes to maintain two existing apartments and create two new apartments on the first floor and two new apartments on the second floor. Project located in Commercial Intensive zone does not allow apartments. Applicant is applying for a use variance — project will be subject to site plan if use variance is granted. Pursuant to Chapter 179-13-010 of the Zoning Ordinance, expansion of a non- conforming use or structure shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Variance: 18 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/13/2018) Relief is requested for apartments in a Cl zone. Planning Board shall provide a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals. The Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance, per Section 179-9-070 J 2 b. requires the Planning Board to provide a written recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals for projects that require both Zoning Board of Appeals & Planning Board approval; The Planning Board has briefly reviewed and discussed this application, the relief request in the variance application as well as the potential impacts of this project on the neighborhood and surrounding community, and found that: MOTION TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION ON BEHALF OF THE PLANNING BOARD TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR USE VARIANCE NO. 1-2018 WILLIAM MINER. Introduced by David Deeb who moved its adoption, and b) The Planning Board, based on a limited review, has identified the following areas of concern: 1) Additional details including scaled drawings to support parking. 2) A detailed Site Plan to be completed. Motion seconded by Brad Magowan. Duly adopted this 13th day of March, 2018 by the following vote: MR. VALENTINE-My first inclination would be to vote no, but knowing that we will see it again at Site Plan and there will be issues to address there, I would say yes. AYES: Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-All right. You're off to the ZBA. MRS. BAKER MOWERY-Thank you so much, guys and ladies. MR. MINER-Thank you. MR. TRAVER-All right. Next on our agenda we have another referral to the ZBA. This one for Michael Serini, Site Plan 11-2018, and we also got some additional materials this evening on this application as well. SITE PLAN NO. 11-2018 SEAR TYPE: TYPE II. MICHAEL SERINI. AGENT(S): DENNIS MAC ELROY. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: WR. LOCATION: 2934 STATE ROUTE 9L. APPLICANT PROPOSES REMOVAL OF EXISTING CAMP TO CONSTRUCT 1,008 SQ. FT. HOME AT 2,284 SQ. FT. FLOOR AREA. PROJECT INCLUDES NEW SEPTIC, SITE WORK FOR HOUSE AND DRIVEWAY. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179- 3-040 & 179-6-060 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, CONSTRUCTION WITHIN 50 FT. OF 15% SLOPES SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCE: RELIEF IS SOUGHT FOR SETBACK & PERMEABILITY. PLANNING BOARD SHALL PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE: RC 717-2017 ALTERATIONS; SEP 567-2017 SEPTIC ALT., AV. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: MARCH 2018. SITE INFORMATION: LGPC, CEA. LOT SIZE: .32 ACRE. TAX MAP NO. 239.20-1-18. SECTION: 179-3-040; 179-6-060. DENNIS MAC ELROY, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-This applicant proposes removal of an existing camp to construct a 1,008 square foot home at a 2,284 square foot floor area. The project includes new septic, site work for the house and driveway. The project's before the Planning Board because the project occurs within 50 feet of 15% slopes. The variance relief that's being sought is for setback and permeability. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. 19 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/13/2013) MR. MAC ELROY-Good evening. I'm Dennis MacElroy with Environmental Design, representing the owners Sharon and Michael Serini for their property at 2934 Route 9L. That's a property that's off of 9L on the east shoreline of Dunham's Bay. As indicated this is a property on about a 3/10th's of an acre parcel. The Serini's are relatively new owners. When they purchased it we did a new design for wastewater system on that. They lived there the first summer and decided that because of some structural issues and what not they decided that perhaps they should, it should become a teardown and re-build. So this application for a variance and site plan review involves the removal of the existing structure, which is pre-existing nonconforming. It has some setback issues, side yard setback issues that exist to the southern boundary, and a replacement with a new two-story structure, better centered within the parcel which is approximately 70 feet wide, the lot itself. So we've got a structure that's centered and we have basically 17 foot, both north and south. So that's the one variance is the side yard setback variance and then there's a permeability issue. We're aware the permeability standard now is 25% impervious area. So 75% permeability. Right now it's right around that level. We're going to bump it two percent. So we're seeking some relief of about three percent, three and a half percent on the permeability standard. So instead of 75 it will be 72%. So we're seeking your recommendation in moving forward to the Zoning Board next week. MR. TRAVER-So you're basically three percent under on permeability and you have some pre- existing setback issues. MR. MAC ELROY-Correct. MR. TRAVER-For Site Plan, did you notice in the Staff comments there was clarification requested for the retaining wall and there was also a question about the new structure, is it going to be on a slab or is it going to have a crawl space? MR. MAC ELROY-Those were notes that, I apologize, in the Staff Notes. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MRS. MOORE-So we, I apologize, I'll interject a little bit, is that Dennis and I had talked. There is some definite, why you got new drawing sets was there were some, a little bit of a calculation that had to be re-done in reference to permeability and the location of stormwater management. There was the driveway, the one stormwater management piece needed to be moved so that it was greater than 100 feet. So that was the stormwater and permeability was a slight calculation summation of that, and then I had forgotten to ask him whether there was a crawl space or a slab or how it was working at the base. So that should be clarified. MR. DEEB-Did you address the height, length and width of the wall, retaining wall? MR. TRAVER-And again these are Site Plan issues, not variance issues, but we've got to pay attention to then anyway. MR. DEEB-You didn't talk about that. MRS. MOORE-No, I did not. There's an existing retaining wall that's on the north side, this side right here. There's a strange retaining wall that comes. MR. MAC ELROY-Yes, that's a rock area, rock retaining wall that the owner built while he was, part of the wastewater system, which he was permitted for and did initiate the construction. So that's why if you've been to the site you may have seen some activity. That was part of the wastewater permit that was approved by the Board of Health. MR. SHAFER-So that system was all in, Dennis, and new? MR. MAC ELROY-No, actually they didn't put in the, he got to a point where that's when they decided they were going to tear down the house where they were positioning the treatment tank and it's going to be an enhanced treatment unit, a clair system with a pump tank. So those aren't in. He built the field, the absorption system. MR. SHAFER-Why did he not do it parallel to the contours which is the norm? MR. MAC ELROY-Because that's where I designed it. MR. SHAFER-Okay. Why? 20 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/13/2015) MR. MAC ELROY-Because that's an area that had suitable area of soils, and right now you wouldn't necessarily recognize it from what was there. I know that that shows some lines above there, but the area where the bed is itself was relatively level. MR. SHAFER-Okay. MR. MAC ELROY-Toward the road you see those two contour lines. It's true that it slopes up from there, but where the bed is is relatively level. There weren't a lot of choices on that property. MR. TRAVER-Yes. All right. Well, with regard to the variance, are there any specific questions or comments regarding the setback and the three percent permeability variances requested? MR. MAGOWAN-The only thing I would, we've got the lot next door, right? And that looks relatively, actually it looks like the next door neighbor's house is on the property there. MS. WHITE-That's what it looks like. MR. MAC ELROY-Correct. Yes, the property to the south. MR. MAGOWAN-And the property to the north isn't much larger. So I mean how does it fit in with the other houses along the street? MR. MAC ELROY-Size wise? MR. MAGOWAN-Lot wise. MR. MAC ELROY-Lot wise. I think they're similar lot sizes, yes, they're all smaller lots along that stretch of the shoreline. MR. VALENTINE-That lot to the south that you're looking at, that Brad's bringing up, that says framed cottage on yours. MR. MAC ELROY-Correct. MR. VALENTINE-All right. Is that a building lot? MR. MAC ELROY-Is that a building lot? Yes, sure. MR. VALENTINE-That is? MR. MAGOWAN-Yes. It goes from line to over line. MR. MAC ELROY-Right. That's a pre-existing situation. It's unusual, but not that. MR. VALENTINE-Twenty-five foot frontage? MR. MAC ELROY-Twenty-five foot frontage? No, it would be more than that. MR. VALENTINE-Well, I'm just looking at what you've picked up there. It says iron pipe found and then it comes, you know, heading north again where you've got your common property line, and then it shows a width there with a gravel drive of 25 foot. MR. MAC ELROY-At the roadside, yes, sure. Twenty-five there and, you know, maybe it's forty or so on the lakeshore. Yes. MR. VALENTINE-So that gravel drive, did that service that house? Where it says gravel drive it looks like you might have had a curve in it. Is this a new driveway? MR. MAC ELROY-That's a contour line. That's not a, but, no, that gravel drive as shown on the property to the south heads right through that garage. MR. VALENTINE-So that's not a new driveway for the subject that we're on? MR. MAC ELROY-No. MR. VALENTINE-Okay. 21 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/13/2018) MR. MAC ELROY-No, that one is, I know there's a lot of lines on here, so you have to differentiate, but the driveway and parking for the subject property is a little bolder. MR. VALENTINE-It said proposed driveway but that is an existing driveway? MR. MAC ELROY-There was an existing driveway there, yes. That's correct, serving the house that exists there now. MR. VALENTINE-So there's no DOT curb cut required? MR. MAC ELROY-Correct. MR. VALENTINE-Okay. MR. MAC ELROY-It was existing. MR. VALENTINE-Okay. MR. TRAVER-All right. Are there any comments or recommendations we'd like to forward to the ZBA as they look at the setback and permeability variance? MR. MAGOWAN-1 kind of see it as an improvement on the lot. MS. WHITE-When you first look at this you have a lot of questions and it's improving, and then when you see that little thing next door you're like, ah, why are we worried. Because if they ever came to us, that would be a struggle. MR. MAGOWAN-And we have a house that's five feet off the lot now. And they're going to 17 feet. MS. WHITE-Yes. MR. MAGOWAN-And they're going from 20 feet on the other side down to 17.7. 1 think it would be a nice improvement and plus the upgraded septic. MR. TRAVER-There are a lot of these difficult lots as we know. MR. MAGOWAN-And you're 80 feet back. MR. DEEB-And there's probably nothing you can do about permeability because of the size of the lot and where you're building. MR. MAC ELROY-Right. MR. DEEB-You did the best you could with it, and you kept it close. MR. MAC ELROY-Yes. I always kind of fall back on this but the regulations came along and made this nonconforming. It was already there and the regulations created that situation. It went from 35 down to 25. So at 35 it was fine. Now it's 25. It didn't quite make it and we're taking a little bit more. MR. DEEB-You worked hard to get it there. MR. VALENTINE-Can I ask you a question mainly just for information, not related to the approval or whatever of this one, but what did your client do when you have that encumbrance on his parcel because of that? MR. MAC ELROY-1 assume he's aware of that. He had a survey done. Mike Montana did this boundary survey, and we just used that as part of the base mapping. Again, I assume that he knows about it. If he wanted to be legal and proper they would go and create some kind of a. MR. VALENTINE-Area variance around it. MR. MAC ELROY-Yes. Some kind of recognition in their deeds that there's an encumbrance or whatever. That's more of a surveyor and lawyer exercise. MR. VALENTINE-Like I said. 22 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/13/2018) MR. MAGOWAN-Well back in the day when these things were built everything was done with a handshake. MR. MAC ELROY-1 think if that house ever came back to you, there'd probably be a correction made on the new project. MR. TRAVER-Yes, I would suspect. They certainly seem to have a setback issue. MR. DEEB-But it doesn't concern us now. MR. MAGOWAN-It's definitely nonconforming. MR. TRAVER-Yes. All right. So then what do we have for our referral to the ZBA? Do you have a draft motion? MR. DEEB-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Do you want to go ahead and read that/ MR. DEEB-Sure. RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION RE: Z-AV-11-2018 MICHAEL SERINI The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Applicant proposes removal of existing camp to construct 1,008 sq. ft. home at 2,284 sq. ft. floor area. Project includes new septic, site work for house and driveway. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 & 179-6-060 of the Zoning Ordinance, construction within 50 ft. of 15% slopes shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Variance: Relief is sought for setback & permeability. Planning Board shall provide a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals. The Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance, per Section 179-9-070 J 2 b. requires the Planning Board to provide a written recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals for projects that require both Zoning Board of Appeals & Planning Board approval; The Planning Board has briefly reviewed and discussed this application, the relief request in the variance application as well as the potential impacts of this project on the neighborhood and surrounding community, and found that: MOTION TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION ON BEHALF OF THE PLANNING BOARD TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR AREA VARIANCE NO. 11-2018 MICHAEL SERINI. Introduced by David Deeb who moved its adoption, and a) The Planning Board, based on a limited review, has not identified any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with current project proposal. Motion seconded by Michael Valentine. Duly adopted this 13th day of March, 2018 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Ms. White, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-All right. You're off to the ZBA. MR. MAC ELROY-Thank you very much. I'll see you in a couple of weeks. MR. MAGOWAN-Good luck. MR. TRAVER-The next application we have before us is also a referral to the ZBA, and this one's for Michael Badera, Site Plan 21-2018. SITE PLAN NO. 21-2018 SEAR TYPE: TYPE II. MICHAEL BADERA. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: WR. LOCATION: 55 MASON ROAD. APPLICANT PROPOSES A 198 SQ. FT. ENCLOSED SUNROOM ADDITION ON SOUTHWEST SIDE OF THE NEW PROPOSED DECK AREA. EXISTING HOME FLOOR AREA IS 6,611 SQ. FT. 23 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/13/2013) AND WILL INCREASE TO 6,809 SQ. FT. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040 & 179-13- 010 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, EXPANSION OF A NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCE: RELIEF IS SOUGHT FOR EXPANSION OF A NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE, SHORELINE SETBACKS AND FLOOR AREA. PLANNING BOARD SHALL PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 46-95, SP 59-96, AV 83-96, AV 55-96, AV 41-95, SP 50-2017, AV 74-2017, SP 66-2017, AV 15-2018. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: MARCH 2018. SITE INFORMATION: LGPC, CEA. LOT SIZE: .45 ACRE. TAX MAP NO. 226.16-1-20. SECTION: 179-3-040, 179-13-010 MICHAEL BADERA, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-The applicant proposes a 198 square foot sunroom addition on the southwest side of the proposed deck area. The Board recently, both the Zoning Board and the Planning Board, approved the deck, where he squared off the deck on each side of the property, and in reference to this now adding a sunroom. So it comes back to this Board unfortunately because there's a beach area that interjects causing the shoreline to jut into his property causing the setback issue. So again it's a setback issue and because the sunroom is enclosed it actually increases the floor area so it bumps that up further as well. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Good evening. MR. BADERA-Hello, Mike Badera, back again. My simple deck repair project from April of last year continues to grow, and there's a correction. It's not 198 square feet. That's what the deck, not the deck, the three season room contractor estimated early on. I don't know if it matters all that much but it works out to about 175 now that the deck extension was actually built. MRS. MOORE-Okay. So it's just a clarification and it's smaller than what originally was estimated. So that works in your favor. MR. BADERA-Yes. Like I said, this started out last year as a repair the deck project, but as we got to all the bad parts in the deck it was like let's replace all the boards, all the railings, well if we're doing that let's extend it a little bit to make it more useful, and I was here back in November and thank you all, you agreed to the extensions that I wanted. As Laura said part of the problem is there's a little beach area on the south corner of the property that juts in about eight or nine feet, and a corner of the deck, the new extension, ends up being within the 50 foot zone of that little beach jut in. The three season room is going to go into the area that's the existing deck plus the extension. As far as appearances and stuff go, it's basically a white frame with glass. It looks very similar to what's there now. It's just that it's out 10 feet further from the side of the house. There's no major construction. We have to put in a couple of more piers and hopefully that's it. Any questions? MR. MAGOWAN-You're not moving any closer to the lake. You're just going, you're putting it on top of the deck basically. MR. BADERA-Exactly. On top of the deck extension that was approved back in November. MR. MAGOWAN-All right, and my next question is this little jog in beach area. Is that like a manmade? MR. BADERA-1 don't know. Looking back it was there when the house was surveyed. After the house was built it shows up on the survey. I didn't go back before '95 to see if it was existing before that. MR. MAGOWAN-All right. I would look into seeing if that was kind of done way back, you know, maybe was there a house there before tht was torn down? MR. BADERA-There were. I think there were two homes there, two camps. MR. MAGOWAN-So I'd just look into that. That just seems like an unnatural jog, you know, and if it was manmade, you know, even though it is considered shoreline, but if it's not a natural shoreline. It was kind of cut in and give you a little bit more of a beach area there, but, you know, for me what you're doing there, you're not really extending out, I mean, we gave you an extension for the rail. You just want to make it a three season little sunroom. I don't have an issue with that. 24 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/13/2018) MS. WHITE-It's just not covered. So that just changes. MRS. MOORE-Just a small section of that porch extension. MR. DEEB-Now it's down to 175 square feet you said? MR. BADERA-Yes. MR. DEEB-But I know it's not going to affect the 44 feet 11 inches from the shoreline. It's going to still be 44 feet. MR. TRAVER-Yes, that's in effect pre-existing. MR. DEEB-Yes, that's right. MR. TRAVER-But it will have an impact on the floor area ratio, but he'll still need a variance. MR. DEEB-Yes. MR. TRAVER-It doesn't affect the need of the variance but it does affect the degree of request for the variance to some degree. So the variances that we have before us this evening, are there any concerns or do members of the Board feel that we need to make specific comments in our referral to the ZBA regarding the expansion? Although again it's not an additional encroachment, but we do need to, again, re-affirm the setback issue and now the floor area ratio issue, but do we have anything specific that we want to forward to the ZBA for their consideration? MR. DEEB-I don't think so. MR. TRAVER-Okay. I guess we're ready for a motion. RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION RE: Z-AV-15-2018 MICHAEL BADERA The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Applicant proposes a 198 sq. ft. enclosed sunroom addition on southwest side of the new proposed deck area. Existing home floor area is 6,611 sq. ft. and will increase to 6,809 sq. ft. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 & 179-13-010 of the Zoning Ordinance, expansion of a non-conforming structure shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Variance: Relief is sought for expansion of a non- conforming structure, shoreline setbacks and floor area. Planning Board shall provide a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals. The Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance, per Section 179-9-070 J 2 b. requires the Planning Board to provide a written recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals for projects that require both Zoning Board of Appeals & Planning Board approval; The Planning Board has briefly reviewed and discussed this application, the relief request in the variance application as well as the potential impacts of this project on the neighborhood and surrounding community, and found that: MOTION TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION ON BEHALF OF THE PLANNING BOARD TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR AREA VARIANCE NO. 15-2018 MICHAEL J. BADERA. Introduced by David Deeb who moved its adoption, and a) The Planning Board, based on a limited review, has not identified any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with current project proposal. Motion seconded by Brad Magowan. Duly adopted this 13th day of March, 2018 by the following vote: MR. BADERA-I'm sorry, did I hear that right? What was the Site Plan number stated? MR. DEEB-15-2018? MR. TRAVER-No, 21-2018. MRS. MOORE-But it's for Area Variance 15-2018. 25 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/13/2018) MS. WHITE-He read it correctly. MRS. MOORE-The Area Variance is 15-2018. MR. DEEB-We're not doing the Site Plan. MRS. MOORE-Correct. You're making a recommendation to them about their Area Variance. MR. TRAVER-Right. That's right. Yes, the Site Plan will come next. Okay. That's what's confusing. So you're right. Your motion is correct. MR. MAGOWAN-1 would just do a little research on that, if there's any questions that might come up at the next meeting for you. MR. BADERA-Yes, thank you. AYES: Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-All right. You're off to the ZBA. Again. MR. BADERA-Yes. Thank you all very much. MR. HUNSINGER-You're welcome. MR. TRAVER-All right. Next we have Richard and Sharon Bapp. This is Subdivision Preliminary Stage 3-2018. They, too, are looking for a variance. This because of creation of two lots less than two acres and setbacks on Lot One for the pre-existing home. SUBDIVISION PRELIMINARY STAGE 3-2018 SEAR TYPE: UNLISTED: RICHARD & SHARON BAPP. AGENT(S): STEPHEN PERKINS. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANTS. ZONING: AGRICULTURAL MDR. LOCATION: 45 OGDEN ROAD. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO SUBDIVIDE A 1.37 ACRE LOT INTO TWO LOTS OF .92 ACRE AND .46 ACRE. THE EXISTING HOME IS TO REMAIN ON LARGER LOT (LOT 1) AND SMALLER LOT (LOT 2) TO BE SOLD WITH FUTURE BUYER TO COMPLETE CONSTRUCTION DETAILS FOR HOUSE SIZE, LOCATION OF DRIVEWAY, CLEARING, GRADING AND EROSION CONTROL. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 183 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, SUBDIVISION OF LAND SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL VARIANCE: RELIEF IS SOUGHT FOR CREATION OF TWO LOTS LESS THAN 2 ACRES AND SETBACKS ON LOT 1 EXISTING HOME. PLANNING BOARD SHALL PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE: 2016 SEPTIC ALT.; AV 21-2018. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: N/A. LOT SIZE: 1.37 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 308.19-1-29.1. SECTION: CHAPTER 183. STEVE PERKINS, REPRESENTING APPLICANTS, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-Okay. So this applicant is dividing a 1.37 acre parcel into two lots. One lot is .92 acres. The other lot is .46 acres. Lot One, which is the larger lot, is to remain with the existing house. The smaller lot to be sold to a future buyer. The applicant is requesting waivers, we should think about that, in reference to stormwater, subdivision details that we would typically see on a plat, where we typically look for the well or the septic, things like that, and the applicant is asking for waivers from that, leaving that for the people who will purchase that lot. MR. TRAVER-Thank you, Laura. Good evening. MR. PERKINS-Good evening. Steve Perkins. I'm here on behalf of the Bapps. It's nice to meet all of you. So, yes, they're looking to just do a basic subdivision. It requires three variances. It will create two sub-standard lots, and then we will need a side setback variance and go from I think it's 25 feet and it's going to be 18 and a half foot side setback, and then I do believe in my application I don't know if I included a variance for the front because it looked like on the map that it was just lining up correctly, but it's already in place but we'll need an additional front setback relief. 26 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/13/2013) MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. PERKINS-And the Bapps weren't interested in getting an engineer out there. They just wanted to subdivide it. MR. TRAVER-Okay. So, Laura, just a process question. So hypothetically they go to the ZBA. Should they get their variance, they would come back to us for the site plan. MRS. MOORE-For the subdivision, right. MR. TRAVER-I'm sorry, subdivision. At which point we would then have access to the information that you're pointing out is now absent, correct? MRS. MOORE-Not necessarily. The applicant is asking for waivers from providing that. MS. WHITE-They want to put that off to the new person that purchases that lot. MRS. MOORE-But that's a discussion between the Board and the applicant at that time when it comes into play. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MRS. MOORE-So right now it doesn't show that information at all, and you should just be aware that the applicant is not intending to do that. MR. TRAVER-Understood. I guess a follow up question I have is, would that information be required to establish that this smaller lot that they're desiring would be a buildable lot? MRS. MOORE-No, because the applicant has already said, all right this is the benefit of this application is that the setbacks are already shown on this lot and showing the potential house and the structure. What it's not showing is the clearing of the place where, and I apologize, I can't remember if this site was on Town sewer or water, but it's one of them. It's either on Town sewer or Town water. MR. TRAVER-Probably water. MRS. MOORE-Probably water, and so right now it doesn't show where the septic system is located. MR. TRAVER-1 see. MR. PERKINS-Yes, so the property right now, 45 Ogden, is on public water and private sewer, just like most of the rest of that street. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Can you talk about the neighborhood? What are the typical lot sizes? MR. PERKINS-So there's, I included an exhibit in the variance application. So there's several lots, five, that are .46 acres. So literally the whole street I have all the numbers here. So you have .69 acres, .75 acres, you have .23 acres which is vacant, .57 acres, .45, and then the Bapps is 1.37 and then the rest of the neighborhood is all under one. You have .46, .46, .46. MR. TRAVER-And this would create one would be 46 and one would be .92. MR. PERKINS-.92. MR. HUNSINGER-So .46 is pretty common. MR. PERKINS-Yes. MR. MAGOWAN-Yes, you look at all the properties behind it. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, usually we get that information, though. I had the exact same question. What are the other similar lots? That's usually what we would go by. MR. TRAVER-Yes. 27 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/13/2018) MR. HUNSINGER-In a recommendation to the Zoning Board is look at the neighborhood and see if what was being proposed was consistent with what exists within the neighborhood, and, you know, based on your verbal comments just now it appears that it's fairly consistent. MR. PERKINS-Yes. MR. MAGOWAN-Well that almost looks like double the size if you're looking at all the lots behind that, you know, nine, eight, seven, six, five, four, three, two. It's still a double sized lot, you know, and then you look at the one next door, Linda and Raymond Burke, you know, that's another narrow thin one. MR. TRAVER-So for neighborhood character we're okay. MR. DEEB-We're okay, but what about the salability of the lot? For the owners to sell this lot, it could be a tough sell. MR. PERKINS-1 explained the risks to them that, you know, you can't necessarily market it as a full buildable lot if you're, you know, you haven't had the engineers in there for the septic, for whatever, if you wanted to hook up to the public water, but they weren't interested in doing any further, you know, they wanted to seek the subdivision and try to sell it. MR. DEEB-I don't know if it's legally required when they sell whether or not it's not, it's a nonconforming lot, but ethically I think it would be. MR. VALENTINE-Because you're going to wind up with a house size to match the setbacks on that lot, and that house size is not going to match what's in the neighborhood. MR. DEEB-I know it's in character with the rest of the neighborhood, but I think that's a consideration. That's not our consideration. MR. TRAVER-Well, that's right. We find ourselves again in a situation where we're, you know, anticipating versus looking at what we have before us rather than what might be. So again for this evening we're looking at the, well Number One the waiver from Sketch, but also the creation of two lots less than two acres. I mean my feeling is it's neighborhood character. So I don't have any issues with it, but how do other Board members feel? MR. SHAFER-Well, I guess, Steve, I have a question. If all of these lots are a half acre in size or smaller as they seem to be on this drawing, why would this area be zoned for two acres? Are there other areas? MRS. MOORE-Chris can answer this question better than I can. The MDR zone has triggered. I'm sorry, Chris, I don't mean to pick on you, but you probably have a better answer than I do. MR. HUNSINGER-1 felt picked on. Well, when the new Comprehensive Land Use Plan was developed, we tried to do like a broad brush of residential neighborhoods and areas and it was acknowledged that there would be certain neighborhoods that didn't meet what was the proposed zoning. MR. SHAFER-So there are acres of vacant land in this two acre zoning zone that are not yet developed? That was the whole purpose of the two acre zoning? Because it certainly doesn't apply here. MR. HUNSINGER-So when, well, I mean, there were lengthy discussions about that and one of the specific concerns that was identified was, in the creation of the two acre zone, was specifically where there was not Town sewer. Where there was Town sewer it was mostly one acre zoned, and the whole concept behind the Comprehensive Land Use Plan was that as you were closer to the City of Glens Falls the development would be more concentrated and dense and then as you moved away from that it would be less dense, and so it was like a broad brush approach, you know, sort of, almost ignoring some of the existing development but saying, hey, it's already there, it's already developed, you know, we don't really need to worry about it. MR. TRAVER-And I think knowing this was going to be part of the process, too. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. It would be for new subdivisions more than existing neighborhoods. Is that a fair? MRS. MOORE-Yes, that's the same thing I would have brought forward but you were on a. 28 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/13/2018) MR. HUNSINGER-1 mean, it's almost 10 years ago. So it really is time to revisit the Comprehensive Plan. MR. SHAFER-Well I guess the correlator to that question is are there other lots in this general neighborhood that are one acre in size that will now be inundated with requests for subdivision? MR. PERKINS-No. MR. TRAVER-It doesn't look like it. MR. MAGOWAN-Can you blow something up, there, Laura? MR. DEEB-Also, John, we've had several people request variances for one acre lots. It seems we've done a lot of them. MR. SHAFER-Yes, I know. MRS. MOORE-This is the lot that we're talking about and these are the lots that are around it. The lot just behind it is probably the largest size in that neighborhood, and it's not two acres. The rest of it is all, I don't know what this area is. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Well I guess we're ready for a resolution. Unless, does anybody have anything else for the applicant? I guess we're ready for the resolution. RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION RE: Z-AV-21-2018 RICHARD & SHARON BAPP The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Applicant proposes to subdivide a 1.37 acre lot into two lots of .92 acre and .46 acre. The existing home is to remain on larger lot (Lot 1) and smaller lot (Lot 2) to be sold with future buyer to complete construction details for house size, location of driveway, clearing, grading and erosion control. Pursuant to Chapter 183 of the Zoning Ordinance, subdivision of land shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Variance: Relief is sought for creation of two lots less than 2 acres and setbacks on lot 1 existing home. Planning Board shall provide a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals. The Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance, per Section 179-9-070 J 2 b. requires the Planning Board to provide a written recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals for projects that require both Zoning Board of Appeals & Planning Board approval; The Planning Board has briefly reviewed and discussed this application, the relief request in the variance application as well as the potential impacts of this project on the neighborhood and surrounding community, and found that: MOTION TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION ON BEHALF OF THE PLANNING BOARD TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR AREA VARIANCE NO. 21-2018 RICHARD & SHARON BAPP. Introduced by David Deeb who moved its adoption, and a) The Planning Board, based on a limited review, has not identified any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with current project proposal. Motion seconded by Brad Magowan. Duly adopted this 13th day of March, 2018 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-All right. You're off to the ZBA. Good luck. MR. PERKINS-Thank you very much. Thank you for your time. MR. TRAVER-Do we have any other business before the Planning Board this evening? If not, we'll entertain a motion to adjourn. 29 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/13/2018) MR. HUNSINGER-So moved. MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF MARCH 13th, 2018, Introduced by Chris Hunsinger who moved for its adoption, seconded by Michael Valentine: Duly adopted this 13th day of March, 2018, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Shafer, Ms. White, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-We stand adjourned. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Stephen Traver, Chairman 30