Loading...
1997-10-21 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/21/97) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 21, 1997 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT ROBERT PALING, CHAIRMAN CATHERINE LABOMBARD, SECRETARY LARRY RINGER ROGER RUEL GEORGE STARK CRAIG MAC EWAN MEMBERS ABSENT TIMOTHY BREWER SENIOR PLANNER -SUSAN CIPPERLY PLANNER -LAURA NOWICKI TOWN COUNSEL -MILLER, MANNIX & PRATT, STENOGRAPHER -MARIA GAGLIARDI OLD BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 47-97 TYPE: UNLISTED COLUMBIA DEVELOPMENT GROUP OWNER: I.D.A. OF WARREN WASHINGTON COUNTIES ZONE: LI-1A LOCATION: 24 NATIVE DRIVE, SOUTHERN END OF CAREY ROAD ON WEST SIDE OF NATIVE TEXTILES FACILITY PROPOSAL IS TO CONTRUCT A NEW 60’ BY 100’ CONCRETE PAD WITH OVERHEAD COVER ATTACHED TO EXISTING WAREHOUSE FACILITY. ALL LAND USES IN LI ZONES ARE SUBJECT TO REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE PLANNING BOARD. TAX MAP NO. 146-1-6.22 LOT SIZE: 14.28 ACRES SECTION: 179-26 MARK WASS & DON HYDE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT th MRS. LABOMBARD-And the public hearing was on October 7, and it’s still open. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 47-97 Columbia Development Group, Meeting Date: October 21, 1997 “The Planning Board requested this be seen on October 21, so the applicant could respond to Rist Frost comments. The Public hearing on this application was left open, per minutes on October 7, 1997. An updated plan was submitted and delivered to Rist Frost Engineers. The updated plan addressed the following. 1) existing and proposed grading plans 2) existing and proposed contours or elevations lines 3) fire access road approval and dimensions 4) show access to the addition if proposed 5) storm Drainage Plan including drawing and calculations The Fire Marshal indicated that the access road and width should be approximately 50 feet wide. On the updated plans, October 8, 1997, the road width was about 35 feet. The applicant indicated that a new drawing would indicate the Fire Marshal’s request. Rist Frost had no further comments. th Attached are Staff Notes from the October 7 Planning Board meeting.” MS. NOWICKI-The Rist-Frost comments, “We have received and reviewed the revised information sent to us today in response to our comment letter of October 3, 1997. The revised information satisfactorily addresses our comments.” MR. PALING-Okay. Would you identify yourselves, please, for the record. MR. WASS-Mark Wass with Columbia Development. MR. HYDE-Don Hyde with Columbia Development Group. 1 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/21/97) MR. PALING-Okay. On the fire access that you have, has that been approved by Kip Grant, the road around the building? MR. WASS-Yes. I’ve talked to Kip, and the only concern he had was the 50 foot radius from the edge of the building, which we addressed. MR. PALING-Now, looking at this print here, the dimensions of the tree line, whatever direction we’re faced here, I think it’s west, I’m not sure, is 35 feet. Now that’s under the, is this part of what you talked with him about? MR. WASS-Yes. I reviewed that with Kip and he wanted an additional 10 feet of that tree line. MR. PALING-Additional 10 or 15 feet. Do you have a plan that shows 50 feet? MR. WASS-We don’t have the revised plan, we talked with Kip about. MR. RUEL-I don’t think they’re talking about this. I think they’re talking about the access road. MR. PALING-No. Right here. I’m talking about the road that goes around here, the road that goes around the back, where the addition is. I’m talking about this addition here, right? MR. WASS-Correct. MR. PALING-Mine shows 35 feet, but there’s another print that shows 50 feet. MR. WASS-When we first talked with Kip, he said it was fine, and then he called us back, just recently, and said that he wanted 50 feet around the building. MR. PALING-Right. MR. WASS-And we said that would be fine. MR. PALING-Okay, but you don’t have a print showing that. MR. WASS-No. We didn’t have time. MR. PALING-All right. MR. HYDE-After we submitted the revised information, that’s when we spoke, or Kip called us back. MR. PALING-Okay, and, Laura, you don’t have a print that shows that either, on there. So that’s, at least, got to be made part of the motion. Okay. Any other questions and comments on this? Now do you have any other comments on Rist-Frost? You’re pretty much in agreement with them now? MR. WASS-Yes. MR. PALING-Okay, and, Laura, you agree that they are? MS. NOWICKI-Yes, I do. MR. PALING-Then we’re going to have to have a revised print showing the fire access. MS. NOWICKI-At 50? MR. PALING-At 50, right, because I believe that’s what you’ve agreed with Kip Grant. MR. WASS-Correct. MR. PALING-Okay. Then the public hearing on the Columbia Development matter is still open. Is there anyone here that cares to speak on this matter? PUBLIC HEARING OPEN 2 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/21/97) NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. PALING-Now this is Unlisted. We need a SEQRA on this, I assume. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 47-97 , Introduced by Catherine LaBombard who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Stark: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: Columbia Development Group , and WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. No Federal agency appears to be involved. 2. The following agencies are involved: NONE 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury. 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant. 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law. st Duly adopted this 21 day of October, 1997, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Stark, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ruel, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Brewer MR. PALING-Okay. We can go to a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 47-97 COLUMBIA DEVELOPMENT GROUP , Introduced by Roger Ruel who moved for its adoption, seconded by Craig MacEwan: To construct a new 60 foot by 100 foot concrete pad, with attached cover, overhead cover attached to existing warehouse facility, with the condition that the plan be modified to reflect a 50 foot fire access space around the perimeter of the warehouse, prior to the issuance of a building permit. st Duly adopted this 21 day of October, 1997, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stark, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ruel, Mr. Ringer, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Paling 3 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/21/97) NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Brewer MR. PALING-Okay. Thank you. MR. WASS-Thank you very much. NEW BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 43-97 TYPE: UNLISTED JEFF JACOBS OWNER: SAME ZONE: SR-1A LOCATION: WEST MOUNTAIN ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES MEDICAL LAB/PEDORTHIC SERVICES OFFICE IN HOME. PER SECTION 179-19 PROFESSIONAL OFFICE/LAB IS SUBJECT TO REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE PLANNING BOARD. WARREN CO. PLANNING: 10/8/97 TAX MAP NO. 125-2-37 LOT SIZE: 2.90 ACRES SECTION: 179-19 JEFF JACOBS, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 43-97, Jeff Jacobs, Meeting Date: October 21, 1997 “Applicant proposes to operate a professional office within the home. Site plan approval is required for this use in SR-1A zone. The site has a clear view for entrance and exits, provides adequate parking and is landscaped. The applicant would like to display a sign indicating the location of the business - “Section 140-3M. One (1) double-faced freestanding sign and one (1) single-faced attached sign for professional offices (physician, dentist, architect, engineer, surveyor or lawyer) and permitted home occupations, not to exceed two (2) square feet of surface area per face, stating name and vocation only.” Applicant has been informed of sign requirements. The sign can be reviewed under site plan review because it does not require a permit. The Staff was made aware of a deed restriction on this property that indicates no businesses are allowed. A copy of the Deed is included for the Planning Board to see.” MS. NOWICKI-And I do have comments from the public. MR. PALING-Okay. Lets let that go for a minute on this. This is, evidently there’s a deed restriction involved here, no matter what we do. Mark may want to add to this or change it, but no matter what we do tonight cannot be construed as any kind of permission to void or bypass that deed restriction. That has a life of its own, and this Board has nothing whatsoever to do with it. So if we, can we still proceed, Mark, and work with this, but with the recognition? MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. That’s very well put, and for that reason, we can proceed. MR. PALING-Okay. Does anyone have any questions about this, or comments? MR. RUEL-Just the deed is the only one. MR. STARK-Bob, no businesses are allowed. That’s a deed restriction. MR. PALING-Yes. MR. STARK-No business can go there? MR. PALING-Well, the deed restriction is acted upon as a deed restriction by the proper bodies. We’re not one of them. We have nothing to do with the deed restriction and have no effect on it, and I’m pointing out specifically to the applicant that whatever we disapprove or approve tonight has no relationship to the deed restriction, but Mark says we can still go ahead with our normal procedure tonight. MR. SCHACHNER-For exactly the reason that you stated, and you stated it very well, Bob. We are not the body that is in the business of enforcing, interpreting or construing deed restrictions, and as you stated, very well, I thought, the fact that this Board, if this Board were to grant any applicant permission to do something that is otherwise restricted by deed or something else, that’s 4 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/21/97) not our business. That’s between the applicant and whoever has the benefit of the deed restrictions. MR. PALING-Okay. We couldn’t make it much clearer than that, I don’t think, especially to the applicant. Okay. Would you identify yourself, please. MR. JACOBS-I’m Jeff Jacobs. I’m the owner of Foot Dynamics. MR. PALING-Okay. MR. RUEL-What is “Pedorthic Service”? MR. JACOBS-I evaluate people’s foot problems, counsel them on appropriate footwear, and when indicated make custom foot support products for them. MR. PALING-Okay. Do you have any comments you’d like to make to explain to us what you’re doing? MR. JACOBS-It’s basically a home office, but I do occasionally, I have other locations that I practice out of, a number of health facilities, doctor’s offices, but occasionally I do have people who want to come to my facility, and it’s much more efficient when they do that because I can treat them in an immediate fashion. Basically I see, at most, three to five people a week at the house. Minimal impact on the neighborhood. Frankly, I was a little surprised we had to go through all this to hang out a shingle. MR. PALING-All right. Then why don’t we go to the public hearing on this matter, I think. Is there anyone here that cares to speak on the Jeff Jacobs application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED CAROLYN GREEN MRS. GREEN-I’m Carolyn Green and I live directly across the street from Mr. Jacobs. DANIEL GREEN MR. GREEN-My name is Daniel Green, and I live at 131 West Mountain Road, which is also directly right across the street from the Jacobs’ residence. MRS. GREEN-I would like to read a petition for the Board. “We the undersigned landowners strongly oppose the medical lab/pedorthic services office proposed by Jeffrey Jacobs of 132 West Mountain Road. This area is a long established residential neighborhood free from the intrusion presented by business establishments. We feel that approval of this proposal will significantly alter the quality and character of this locality. We respectfully request that this business proposal be denied.” And it’s signed by 21 landowners in the immediate vicinity of this. Would you like me to read their names? MRS. LABOMBARD-I would like to hear their names. MR. PALING-All right. Okay. MRS. GREEN-Okay. Daniel Green; myself, Carolyn Green; David Hubert, Kathleen Hubert, Irving Fowler, Jane Fowler, Margaret Stuerzebecher, Ed Nichols, Jane Nichols, John Lord, Bob Jones, Joanne Jones, Charlie Baldwin, Carolyn Lord, Sandy Baldwin, Raymond Hubert, Marianne Hubert, Jennifer L. Jacobs, Michael J. Jacobs, Richard Rozelle and Susan Rozelle. Thank you. MR. PALING-Okay. MR. GREEN-There are several fundamental reasons for opposing this project, and I think that, in general, the project specifically suffers from severe and chronic illness. This type of project in a neighborhood like this, and the illness takes three forms, in my opinion. First is that it’s ill- conceived. In other words, it’s designed to benefit one person at the expense of everyone else in the neighborhood. I also believe that in this case the proposal is specifically that the plan is woefully inadequate, incomplete and ambiguous. When I first looked at this, I couldn’t tell whether he was applying for a business or a sign. So I hope this is going to be addressed as we go through the 5 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/21/97) check list. The second illness that this plan suffers from is that it’s ill-mannered. By this I mean that it does not fit into the character of a residential neighborhood. The people in this area have seen traffic and noise increase to a point where it’s simply going to get, where simply going out to get your mail or blow the snow from your driveway during the winter time can become a life threatening endeavor, and I think this is especially frightening for many of the residents who are getting older. I’m presenting this petition, noting that the names of many of the people that are on that petition are, in fact, retired or getting very near retirement age, and I think that they deserve some consideration in this matter. The third illness that this plan suffers from, I believe, is that it’s illegal, and we’ve already mentioned the fact that it’s illegal in terms of what the covenants present, but unless I’m wrong, there has been some business conducted at this establishment already, and I’m not sure that anything has been approved by this Board that would legally allow him to conduct business at 132 West Mountain Road. The phone number is listed in the yellow pages, and it’s listed as 132 West Mountain Road. I’m not sure that that’s legal. I guess I’ll have to leave that to you people to answer. Unless I’m wrong, a business operation must be approved before it can legally open to the general public, and this is done for some very obvious reasons, not the least of which is to ensure the safety of the public. Finally, I’d like to say that the people in this area have generally lived by the rules, that is the rules in the covenants and the deeds and so forth, and the result has been a neighborhood that we can all enjoy without the intrusions that come with a business, and I believe that a majority of the neighbors want to see it stay that way. Thank you. MR. PALING-Okay. Thank you. Who else would like to talk on this matter? DAVE HUBERT MR. HUBERT-Good evening. Dave Hubert, 112 West Mountain Road. Before I came up here tonight, I retrieved my deed from the archives, and it read 1956, and that’s about how long I’ve owned the property at West Mountain Road, and looking back over the years as to why we bought that property, it was obviously one that was going to ensure a piece of property that was rural in nature, business free, based upon the covenants and so forth that were involved in the deeds, and I’ve heard your word on this, obviously, earlier, but as Mr. Green stated, you know, we in the neighborhood have lived by these. We’ve accepted these when we bought the property, and we said this is what we live by, and the Code is there. It doesn’t have to be re-read to us day in and day out, but this is what we do to respect our neighbors. There’s been a willingness by the neighbors to try and maintain this neighborhood, however small or large you perceive it. We’ve tried to maintain it as a residential area, and we’ve worked together to do this over the years. At times we had to hire lawyers to do it, and probably are prepared to do it again if we need to, but that’s kind of where we come from. We have a strong feeling and a strong commitment to this. Over the years, the Planning Board has supported on this. They’ve helped us maintain the integrity of this residential neighborhood, which we’ve all struggled so hard to maintain. Thanks to the Cornells, the old folks that own the residence that Dick Rozelle now resides in with his wife, we had a plan to work with, which was the covenant, and he was a generous man in providing us with this plan. I think West Mountain Road in general reflects what we’re seeing right in our own neighborhood from beginning to end. If you take West Mountain Road from Corinth Road to Gurney Lane, you’re probably going to find two businesses in the whole length of that, two long established businesses. So I think that, if you look at what we have here, it’s a commitment to a residential road, a rural road, and obviously a very beautiful one that people still enjoy coming out to see. The colors right now are just aglow. In the winter time it’ll be a different scene. So I’m going to ask this Board once again to support us, a resident and as a small area of West Mountain Road, to stay committed to residential only, because we’ve all seen what happens when that first step, second step takes place, and Corinth Road is a good example of that. We hope that West Mountain Road does not become a Corinth Road, that the residents can enjoy the peace and the quiet and the serenity of the Mountain. Thank you gentlemen, ladies. MR. PALING-Okay. Thank you. Anyone else? RICHARD ROZELLE MR. ROZELLE-I’m Richard Rozelle. I live right across from Mr. Jacobs, and I own the Cornell farm, and this is past history. A few years ago I came here to do a little business in our Town, and my neighbors which are still my neighbors now, they didn’t want it, and I accepted that, and the Board members here, they had stated, I think a couple of them here said that they had traveled the West Mountain area and certainly didn’t want to see any more business go up there, and she stated herself that it was a beautiful area from one end of Luzerne Road to the Corinth Road, and she said she thought maybe there was enough businesses there. We have the West Mountain Ski Center on two sections of one end and down a little further is the other opening for the ski center, and we 6 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/21/97) have a lot of traffic there, and we’re accepting that because the people enjoy skiing, and I don’t think we need any more businesses there. He lives across the road from me. I don’t see any signs. I was one of the first ones to move up there when I bought the Cornell farm, and none of these people live there I don’t think any of them, there was any houses, only about two houses, when I lived there. When I first moved there there was just a dirt road. They just started to put the macadam road in there, and there’ve been a lot of houses built up in there, and up in the back, West Mountain’s built a lot of houses up in the back there and believe me, I don’t want to see anything more changed. My deeds, there’s no commercial buildings in there. When I got his deeds and everything, his property things, I had all the maps and everything how the land was separated out, and no commercial was allowed there at that time, on his property that he had sold all these lots to. So myself, I would like to see it stay just the way it is. I don’t think we need any signs up across the road. We don’t need any more cars parked across the road. We certainly have enough cars coming up and down the road now, as it is. Everybody has a right, if they want to have a business. I can understand that, but you look on Corinth Road and West Glens Falls, buildings open for commercial, empty. There’s plenty of places around where I’m sure a business would be more suitable, and that’s all I have to say at the meeting. Thank you very much. MR. PALING-Thank you. Who’s next? Okay. If no one else, Laura, you have a letter or letters? MS. NOWICKI-Just a letter. MR. PALING-Okay. MS. NOWICKI-It’s addressed to Mr. Goralski. “I am unable to attend the Planning Board meeting on 10/21/97, due to an open house at the school where I teach. Please know that I am in opposition to Site Plan No. 43-97, submitted by Jeff Jacobs. My concerns include a road sign, parking lot for eight cars, entrance and egress signs, increased traffic, delivery trucks, hours of business, additional lighting needed, an exact definition of the label “medical lab”. On 8/18/87, the Planning Board wisely denied Site Plan No. 20-87 in the same general area. It was denied because it would have resulted in a change of character of the neighborhood which is one of long established single family homes without commercial intrusion. I hope to see the neighborhood maintained without commercial intrusion.” MR. PALING-Okay. Thank you. MRS. LABOMBARD-Who’s that from? MS. NOWICKI-This is from Kathleen Hubert. MRS. LABOMBARD-That’s what I thought. MR. PALING-Okay. If no one else cares to speak on this matter, then I’m going to close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. RUEL-I’ve got a question for Sue. Why is this application not subject to variance requirement through the Zoning Board of Appeals? It sounds like a variance would be required here. MS. CIPPERLY-Well, because under the Suburban Residential zoning, it does allow a professional office or medical facility, I think it’s called, with site plan review by the Planning Board. MR. PALING-Yes. It is a permitted use. MS. CIPPERLY-It’s not automatic, like building a house would be automatic, but this type of use would need review from the Planning Board. MR. RUEL-I see, and it includes a sign, right? The sign would not be subject to a separate building permit for the sign? It would be part of this, wouldn’t it? MS. CIPPERLY-Right. MS. NOWICKI-That specific section, for that particular type of sign. 7 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/21/97) MS. CIPPERLY-For this type of use for a medical sign. MR. RINGER-Sue, there’s no restrictions as to the number of parking spots or anything like that? MS. CIPPERLY-Just in the parking section, which I was just looking at. For instance, office building, which this really isn’t. There isn’t really anything that works well with a home office, but since an office building requires one space for every 150 square feet, generally, we’ve gone with how many people can you see at one time. He’s one person working in a home office, and eight seems actually a little more than he would ever need. MR. PALING-Well, the applicant has stated that there would be three to five visitors a week, if I remember correctly, and that wouldn’t justify a four space parking lot, I wouldn’t think, maybe one handicap and one regular. MS. CIPPERLY-No. When the applicant came in, we came up with, you know, sort of a maximum figure, including his own vehicles and a handicap space, and, you know, the maximum you would be thinking of would be eight. MR. PALING-Okay. The more parking spaces you’ve got, the more commercial it looks, especially where they’re located, so close to the street. MS. CIPPERLY-Well, the Planning Board also has the option of, yes, he’s got grass there, in the future, if this looked like a problem, to come back and get your approval to expand that, but I don’t think he’s planning on having a huge parking lot. MR. PALING-Well, the question I have is you’re talking three to five visitors a week. Why do you even need a sign? You’re not picking up customers because they’re running by, driving by and seeing a sign. Why don’t you forget the sign completely and tell the people the house number. MR. JACOBS-I have been doing that. Basically, people that come to visit me come because they have an immediate problem. MR. PALING-You have been doing it. MR. JACOBS-Well, I have a home office. People come to see me so I can do an evaluation of their foot problems. Most of my work is done off site. MR. MAC EWAN-Are you currently running a business out of this location? MR. JACOBS-It’s my office. When I changed my occupation. MR. MAC EWAN-Is that a business? MR. JACOBS-Well, it is a business, but it’s a home office. The difference is that we’re not exchanging, people aren’t coming in, giving me money and walking away with something. They come in for an evaluation. MR. PALING-You don’t take any money for your service at the house? MR. JACOBS-I want to take money from them, for my services at the house, but currently most of my patients are seen off site. They’re either seen at the doctor’s office. They’re seen at, I do contract work for a company called Sampson’s Prosthetics and Orthodics. They’re located in Schenectady and they have an office in Glens Falls. I travel to the health clubs and do my work there. My office is 12 feet by 15 feet. I have a toaster oven, a belt sander and a vacuum cleaner. I mean, that’s essentially my equipment, and I do my fabrications in this small office. So I’m saying that people do come occasionally because they need me and they need me right away. The sign’s a th convenience for those people trying to find the house. I mean, I could tell them it’s 6/10 of a mile from the time you turn onto West Mountain Road. I’m not sure, is the issue the sign? I didn’t buy my house on West Mountain Road because I wanted to be in a commercial district. I found myself in a situation where I had to change occupations and started my office in my home. The concept of putting up a sign was for the convenience of those people who were trying to find me, to visit my office. 8 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/21/97) MR. PALING-Well, there are businesses in that area, and what you’re asking for is a permitted use for that area, but when you look at it from the character of the neighborhood standpoint, then it becomes a different situation, and one of the things in my mind that would make it look more commercial is a sign which is a commercial sign, and the parking lot. MR. JACOBS-The parking lot exists. The driveway is enormous. It’s too big. In fact, if the Zoning Board would like, I would be happy to remove some macadam. It would make the place look better. The Fourth of July when they have the concert at West Mountain, you can easily put 12, 15 cars in there, if friends come to park. It seemed to me, I wanted to hang a small shingle out, a directional sign, one foot by two foot sign, and that’s how I ended up here going through Site Plan Review because all these things seemed to be required to have that little shingle up. If that’s the primary objection. MRS. LABOMBARD-That’s not what’s on our description. I don’t even see the word sign in the description. MR. MAC EWAN-What triggered you into a Site Plan Review was the fact that you’re running a business out of your home without the proper approvals. It has nothing to do with the sign. MRS. LABOMBARD-Right. This is the business right here. MR. JACOBS-What I’m saying to you is I operate, I have my home office, where I fabricate foot orthodics, and 90% of the work that I do is off site. There are a few people who need to come and see me at the house. Those people I see. MR. MAC EWAN-There’s where you need to stop because, see, when you have people coming visiting your home, you’re operating a business out of your home. MR. JACOBS-I inquired with the Town, and they said that I could have people come to visit me in my office. People can come and visit my home office. MR. MAC EWAN-Who in the Town told you that was okay? MR. JACOBS-It goes back eight months ago. MR. RUEL-Sue, is this gentleman here because of the sign only? MR. PALING-No. MS. CIPPERLY-No. He’s here because he needs approval from the Planning Board to run either a professional office or medical lab in his house, and the sign is part of it. Perhaps if the sign is a detrimental thing, instead of having Foot Dynamics on a sign, he could just put his name out there, which would be something that a lot of residential people do. MR. MAC EWAN-It seems to me the issue surrounding it is not so much the sign but the fact that there’s a business taking place in this residential area. MRS. LABOMBARD-Right. MS. CIPPERLY-Well, if you want to call it a business, that’s one thing we considered it a professional office. MR. MAC EWAN-Isn’t a professional office a form of doing business? MS. CIPPERLY-But it’s not a retail thing where you have people. MR. MAC EWAN-No one said it was retail. MS. CIPPERLY-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-It doesn’t matter whether you’re a professional office or your selling brushes out of your home. MR. PALING-Okay. 9 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/21/97) MR. STARK-I think we’re just re-hashing it now. Why don’t you just poll the Board, then we’ll go to a SEQRA and a motion. MR. PALING-Well, one thing though, Craig. It is a permitted use. MR. MAC EWAN-With Site Plan approval. MR. PALING-With Site Plan approval, correct. MS. CIPPERLY-It’s professional office incidental to home use is allowed with Site Plan Review. MR. PALING-I guess two things bother me. One is the sign, and the other is that once you open this business, and you’re doing business there, legally or whatever you want to say, what’s to stop it from growing, then all of a sudden you don’t do off site business, you’ve got a lot more traffic and a lot more parking and that kind of thing then we anticipate would have resulted from three to five visitors a week. MR. JACOBS-It would actually be a good problem for me, but I don’t have an answer for that. I guess at some point I should move this company into a facility, when it’s big enough to do that. It’s 10 months old. It’s very much a start up. I’m trying to support myself in the best manner that I can, using the skills that I have. I’m not anticipating a large business operating out of my home. It’s not conducive to that. I have to drag people through the kitchen to get back to my little office in the back part of the house. It’s not my anticipation to have a lot of traffic through my home. That’s not what my intention is. My intention was to just put up a little shingle so that those few people could find me, and I guess I had no idea we were going into. MR. MAC EWAN-I’ve got a question for Staff. How many businesses are located within a quarter of a mile of where you want to have your business? MRS. LABOMBARD-And would you name them? MR. JACOBS-West Mountain Ski Center, West Mountain Rental, I mean, they have five or six businesses that operate at that site, the ski area. MRS. LABOMBARD-You mean at the ski area. MR. JACOBS-Yes. I mean, they’ve got a bar. They’ve got a little shop. They’ve got two restaurants. Lifts, ski school, (lost word) apartment. MRS. LABOMBARD-What else besides the facility there? MR. JACOBS-Well, Pumpkin Hill, well, that’s 6/10ths of a mile. MRS. LABOMBARD-Is that a different zoning, though, when you get over there? MR. JACOBS-I have no idea. I don’t know where the zoning changes. I don’t know. MR. MAC EWAN-The question I would have for Staff, I guess. Lets suppose this was approved tonight and the business, with great expectations, flourishes, is there any mode that would kick in that would require him to come back if he wanted to totally expand, like totally remodel the house and make it into a professional office? Is there anything that would kick him to come back to this Board? MR. SCHACHNER-You mean a professional office which no longer contained a residence? MR. MAC EWAN-Right. Once he has approval. MS. CIPPERLY-Well, the site plan use that’s listed here says professional office incidental to home use. So you do have to live there in order to have the professional office. MR. STARK-I think we’re starting to kill it. MR. PALING-I know, but we’ve got a tough situation here. Larry, how do you feel? 10 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/21/97) MR. RINGER-We do have a tough situation. I’m concerned that if we allow this, then the next one comes through with a real estate office or an insurance office or whatever the case may be, we’ve established something. So I’m kind of reluctant. I feel sorry for Mr. Jacobs. I’m concerned about where we stop. MR. PALING-Okay. Roger? MR. RUEL-Since it’s a permitted use, I’d like to see the sign be removed, and that the parking area be somewhat limited to lessen what you have now, and I don’t know whether we can limit the size of your, the area of the room that you use for these services or not. What is it 12 by 18 you said? MR. JACOBS-Twelve by fifteen. MR. RUEL-But I would approve it on the basis that these restrictions apply, so that it still looks like a residential neighborhood, and you could still conduct a business, and you could put your name on the mailbox. It’s out by the road, right? That’s my feeling. MR. PALING-Okay. Cathy? MRS. LABOMBARD-Well, by the way, I made a slip at the beginning when I introduced this. SR is Suburban Residential. I don’t know what I was thinking about something else, but the purpose of Suburban Residential is to enhance and protect the character of Queensbury’s suburban neighborhoods and to provide for future residential development opportunities. Although I have to agree a professional office incidental to a home use is allowed, but, to me, the whole purpose of zoning something SR-1 Acre is to enhance and to keep the quality of the residential neighborhood farther out, like West Mountain Road is, and I do have a little problem with this. I feel that if we deny it, it’s not as if Mr. Jacobs isn’t going to have another place to perform his livelihood. He has other places that he can work out of. It’s not that he needs this in order to exist, and I think that in the future, it will grow, this business will grow, and he could put an addition on his house and still live there and still continue to meet the SR zoning and still have a lot of traffic in and out of that property. MR. PALING-Okay. George? MR. STARK-I think it violates the, this is SEQRA now, a community’s existing plans or goals as officially adopted or change in use, SR-1A, you know, granted, it’s permitted, but I think it’s a start for a change in that area. MRS. LABOMBARD-We may get a negative when we get to C-4 on the Short Form here. MR. STARK-That’s what I was going to say. I was just going by this, Bob. MRS. LABOMBARD-That’s what George was saying. MR. PALING-Okay. Craig? MR. MAC EWAN-I can’t support it, for all the reasons Cathy said. She hit the nail right on the head. MR. PALING-It’s a very difficult thing, and it is a permitted use. I would allow it, simply because he’s obeying all of the rules and regulations involved here, but I would definitely say no sign. Like Roger said, put your name on the mailbox with a number, as far as I’m concerned, and I’d like to also agree with Roger in limiting the parking, and if there were some measure that we could put on this to limit the size of your business, that is, if you did prosper, and I hope you do, that at whatever point that is, then you’ll move your business some place, but I have no idea how you can measure such a thing, but I think we could say, my mind say no sign, cut that parking, cut the macadam way down and put grass there, and then on that basis, I think you’re still, it’s going to be self-limiting. I think at a point if you did get busy you’d have to get out. So that would be my thought on it. All right. We’ve had the public hearing. We’ve polled the Board. Does anyone else have any other comments? MR. SCHACHNER-Bob, relative to the deed restriction, typically, the cases or application in front of the Planning Board that involve issues about deed restrictions are very complex deed restrictions, and our position is not to get involved and let the applicant and/or any neighbors deal 11 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/21/97) with them, but I am curious, in this particular case, the deed restriction seems fairly simple and straightforward, and although it should not be the basis of the Planning Board’s decision one way or the other, since the applicant is presenting the application, since we are aware of the deed restriction, I wonder if the Board would be interested in the applicant’s position relative to the deed restriction. The deed restriction says, and I’m quoting it directly “the said premises or buildings thereon to be erected or maintained, shall not be used for any business, commercial or manufacturing purposes of any kind”, and I wonder what the applicant’s position relative to the deed restriction is. MR. PALING-I would like to hear his comment on that, too. I think the rest of the Board would. How do you comment on something like that? MR. JACOBS-I inquired with my attorney’s, Little & O’Connor, and their interpretation of that, since they did my real estate work for me, was that it really wasn’t specific to any professional office or home office. It was implied that a commercial activity like retail or manufacturing with specific manufacturing equipment involved, and again, this was part of my inquiry to the Town, as to what was a home office, what was a business, and I was told, well, you can have hand tools and basic tools. You can’t have any equipment that wouldn’t normally be found in a residence, and so based on that, the interpretation is basically a home office, call it professional office if you will, and it’s not necessarily excluded by the deed. MR. SCHACHNER-Okay. I mean, I was just curious. I’m not going to pass any judgment on that opinion because it’s not appropriate for us to do that, but I think it helps at least me to know what the applicant’s position is in that regard. MR. PALING-Okay. All right. Then this is an Unlisted. So we can go to a SEQRA. Do you have any other comments that you’d like to make? Okay. Roger, do you want to do it this time? MR. RUEL-Okay. “Could action result in any adverse effects associated with the following: Existing air quality, surface or ground water quality or quantity, noise levels, existing traffic patterns, solid waste production or disposal, potential for erosion or drainage problems?” MR. PALING-No. MR. RUEL-“Aesthetic, agricultural, archeological, historic or other natural or cultural resources or community or neighborhood character?” MR. STARK-Very slight. MR. PALING-Yes, or small. You could say yes, slight. MR. STARK-Neighborhood character would be very slight. MR. MAC EWAN-How would that be environmental? MR. RUEL-Slight impact. MR. PALING-In so far as the last, read the last few words of that. MR. RUEL-Well, it’s says, “Could action result in any adverse effects associated with community or neighborhood character”. MR. PALING-Okay. That’s what I think we’re talking about. MR. RUEL-Talking about adverse effects associated with. MR. PALING-If we’re looking at that, then there is no sign. It looks like a normal house, a name on the mailbox or a number or both, and there is no excessive parking. There is no way you can look at it and say that’s a business. Then I don’t think that, and the traffic is not a factor here. I’d say, in my mind, no. Does everyone agree with that? MR. RUEL-Any other comments? MR. PALING-Any other comments about that? All right, it’s a no. 12 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/21/97) MR. RUEL-“A community’s existing plans or goals as officially adopted or a change in use or intensity of use of land or other natural resources?” MR. STARK-Yes. MRS. LABOMBARD-I think, yes. MR. STARK-There’s a change in use. MRS. LABOMBARD-As officially adopted. MR. STARK-It’s a change in use. MR. RUEL-The action could result in adverse effect associated with a change in use or intensity of use of land or other natural resources. MR. PALING-How does it have an adverse effect? MRS. LABOMBARD-The adverse effect is, you get a business started, another business there, and it will negate the provision for future residential development opportunities, and taking the residential quality of that part of West Mountain Road. MR. RUEL-But we placed a couple of restrictions like no signs and cut down the parking, so forth. The next business, if someone should apply, they would have to come before us anyway, right? MR. PALING-That’s right, absolutely right. MR. RUEL-And we could again limit it so that it would not change the character of the community, such as we’re asking now. MR. PALING-And this is a permitted use. I say, no. MR. RINGER-I think possibly it could, yes. MR. PALING-Well, are you saying, we can’t say possibly. MR. RUEL-It’s got to be one way or the other. MR. PALING-Why don’t you explain your position. MR. RUEL-Change in use or intensity of use. MR. PALING-That would have an adverse effect. MR. RUEL-Yes. MR. RINGER-I say it has a change in use, and an adverse effect that I could see is the next one that comes through with a similar. MR. STARK-I’m just saying, go ahead. We said it was slight, the change in use would be slight to moderate, very slight, and then just go ahead and we’ll do the SEQRA and see how the SEQRA turns out. That’s all, when it comes time to vote on it. MR. RUEL-You want to make this a slight impact and then it can be mitigated by the requirement of taking a sign off and changing parking area? Would you consider that to be a mitigating factor? MR. STARK-I don’t know. We’ll have to wait and see how the vote goes on the SEQRA. MR. PALING-This is the SEQRA that we’re doing. MR. STARK-We’ve got to vote on it, yet, too, at the end. MR. PALING-All right, then leave it undetermined right now. Go ahead. MR. RUEL-This is open? Item C-4 is open? 13 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/21/97) MRS. LABOMBARD-C-4 is undetermined. MR. PALING-Right now. We’re going to come back to it. MRS. LABOMBARD-We’ll come back. MR. RUEL-All right. The next item, then, is C-5, which is the growth, subsequent development or related activities likely to be induced by the proposed action. MRS. LABOMBARD-No. MR. STARK-No. MR. RUEL-Subsequent development, adverse effects. MRS. LABOMBARD-He hasn’t specifically stated any subsequent development. So I don’t think that that would be relevant right now. MR. STARK-I think that’s a no. MR. PALING-All right. Then we’re saying that’s a no. MR. RUEL-Yes. So we’re okay on that. Okay. So now we do have Part III, Determination of Significance, because we have adverse effects possibly identified in Item C-4 above, right? MR. PALING-Yes. MR. RUEL-And we’ll have to determine whether it’s substantial, large or otherwise significant. MR. PALING-All right. Re-read the one we’re hung up on. MR. RUEL-C-4. Well, first of all, at the top it says “Could action result in any adverse effects associated with” C-4 “A community’s existing plans or goals as officially adopted”, I guess they’re talking about the Master Plan or Comprehensive Land Use Plan. MR. PALING-That would be no. MR. RUEL-“Or a change in use or intensity of use or intensity of use of land or other natural resources.” MR. PALING-No. MR. STARK-That’s a change in use. It’s a slight change in use. MRS. LABOMBARD-I mean, this book was drawn up by the community, and the existing plans for an SR zone is to enhance and provide for future residential development opportunities. MR. PALING-Then why did they have an allowable use as an office incidental to the home? MR. MAC EWAN-We’re getting off the track, here. We’re doing an environmental assessment form. You’re jumping back and forth from the Zoning Ordinance into the Environmental Assessment. The Environmental Assessment is just to determine whether this project’s going to have any adverse environmental impacts, not how it impacts with the Zoning Ordinance. MRS. LABOMBARD-That’s true. MR. RUEL-Well, it seems that we’re hung up on the change in use, but actually there is no change in use, because it’s a permitted use. MR. STARK-Okay. Fine. Go ahead and we’ll vote on it, then. MR. RUEL-Right? MR. RINGER-No, it has no effect. 14 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/21/97) MR. RUEL-No. MR. PALING-I say no. MR. MAC EWAN-No. MR. STARK-No. MRS. LABOMBARD-No. MR. RUEL-Okay, and it has been determined by the Planning Board that there is no significant environmental impact on this application. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 43-97 , Introduced by Roger Ruel who moved for its adoption, seconded by Craig MacEwan: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: Jeff Jacobs , and WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. No Federal agency appears to be involved. 2. The following agencies are involved: NONE 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury. 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant. 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law. st Duly adopted this 21 day of October, 1997, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stark, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ruel, Mr. Ringer, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Brewer MR. PALING-Okay. Now we can go right to a motion. MR. RUEL-I’ll make a motion, but I want to put some restrictions in. MR. PALING-Yes. 15 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/21/97) MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 43-97 JEFF JACOBS , Introduced by Roger Ruel who moved for its adoption, seconded by For a medical services office in his home, with the conditions that the applicant remove the requested sign, and also that you limit the parking area to one handicap and two regular spaces, and remove the macadam that might be there and put grass in its place. I would like to limit the size of the office to the existing area, which I believe is 12 by 18. MRS. LABOMBARD-Roger, can I say something? When you said that, you just said medical services. You didn’t say medical lab. MR. RUEL-Well, I couldn’t pronounce that other word, so I skipped it. MRS. LABOMBARD-No, no. You just said the services. You didn’t say the lab. I think a lab is. MR. RUEL-All right. Then lets change it to medical lab/pedorthic services. MR. PALING-All right. Now what’s the other question? Or are we all set? MR. MAC EWAN-So what are you doing for parking now? MR. RUEL-I want to cut it down to one handicap and two regular. MR. MAC EWAN-So that’s three, and removing half the macadam. MR. RUEL-Remove the macadam and replace it with grass. MR. PALING-He said remove half the macadam, I think. Can you do that? MR. JACOBS-Well, I can’t really afford to right away, but have you been out to see the? It was there long before I moved into the house. MR. STARK-Bob, you know where the basketball court is? MR. PALING-Yes. MR. STARK-You’re talking about removing that? MR. PALING-Yes, on the right hand side, and establishing three parking spaces. MR. RUEL-I would leave handicap and Numbers Two and Three, and remove parking spot one. MR. STARK-Bob, wouldn’t it be safer to leave that there, because you don’t want anybody backing out onto West Mountain Road. They’d be backing into where the basketball court is and turning around and going out. MR. RUEL-You take one out, you’re in good shape, because it’s the closest one to the road. MR. PALING-That’s a valid point. We don’t want everybody backing out onto West Mountain Road. I didn’t think of that. MR. RUEL-Well, you take one out, you’d be all right. MR. PALING-All right. Then revise the part of your resolution that concerns the parking and just ask for that. MR. RUEL-All right. Maria, that part of the resolution about the parking area, it would be limited to the handicap area, the present handicap area, and parking slots two and three, with parking area number one removed and replaced with grass. MS. CIPPERLY-According to the Zoning Ordinance, just as a point of information, just even a single family home should have two parking spaces. So this, what you’re coming up with would be an addition. 16 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/21/97) MR. RUEL-He’s allowed two? MS. CIPPERLY-It’s required to have two for a single family home. So are you making? MR. RUEL-The only change I’m making is removing one. MS. CIPPERLY-Okay. MR. PALING-Yes. There would still be three parking spaces, two parking and one handicap. MR. MAC EWAN-But I think, aren’t you driving at that you need to have two for residential, plus anything above and beyond that? So he needs at least two for the business and one handicap. Right? MRS. LABOMBARD-Right. MR. MAC EWAN-So you’re looking at a minimum of five there, right? MS. CIPPERLY-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-And he shows four on the plan. MR. RUEL-You could. MR. MAC EWAN-You could. It’s required. MS. CIPPERLY-But the Board also has the ability to look at the grass area and say, you know, if somebody had to park there, that would be. MR. STARK-Bob, I think it’s good just to leave it the way it is. MS. CIPPERLY-As it’s shown on the plan? MR. STARK-Yes. Just not have them take out any macadam. Just leave the basketball court and the whole thing. MR. JACOBS-May I ask a question? MR. PALING-Yes. MR. JACOBS-Am I obliged to mark off these parking spots? I’d prefer not to. MR. PALING-No. There’s no requirement for marking parking spaces. MR. RUEL-No. How do you know it’s handicap? MR. PALING-Then they would not be marked. You just leave it as it is. MR. JACOBS-I just want to leave it as it is. I don’t want it to look like a shopping center. MR. PALING-All right. Then maybe the best thing to do is leave the parking alone, just leave it be. Just don’t say anything about it. MR. RUEL-Do you want to delete that, Maria, from the resolution. Yes, but I also added a limit on the size of his office. MR. PALING-Mark, have you got any problem with that? MR. SCHACHNER-Well, two questions about it. Number One is I thought the applicant indicated it was 12 by 15, and the Board keeps saying 12 by 18. I don’t care. It just should be consistent, one or the other, and the second thing is I guess it would be helpful to have the applicant’s representation that he is in agreement with that proposed limitation. I think the Board does have the authority to limit the size of the business. In fact, I think the application itself, I haven’t seen the application itself, but the applicant himself indicated, I believe, that the physical area in which the business takes place is 12 foot by 15 foot. Am I correct? 17 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/21/97) MR. JACOBS-Right. That’s my recollection. I’ve measured it three, four weeks ago. I didn’t write it down. MR. SCHACHNER-I’m presuming it hasn’t grown or shrunk. I think that if the applicant represents that that’s the physical size in which the business will take place, then I think all the Board is doing is reflecting that representation by the applicant and stating that it can’t take place in any larger physical area, and that’s fine. MR. PALING-Okay. Well, we’d ask for your agreement to that, and then it will also be part of the resolution. So is that okay with you? MR. JACOBS-Sure. MR. PALING-Okay. MR. RUEL-All right. So we have two conditions. MR. PALING-Why don’t you just start the resolution at the beginning again. MR. RUEL-All right. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 43-97 JEFF JACOBS , Introduced by Roger Ruel who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Paling: For a medical lab/pedorthic services office in his home, with the following two conditions. That the applicant remove the requested sign, and that the office area be limited to the existing area, which I believe is 12 by 15, to remove the requested sign. st Duly adopted this 21 day of October, 1997, by the following vote: MRS. LABOMBARD-No, and I’m going to cite the reasons of the zoning book 179-38 and 179- 19 Paragraph B. MR. RUEL-Yes, because it’s a legal application and with the conditions that we placed, I believe I should vote yes on this. AYES: Mr. Ruel, Mr. Paling NOES: Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Stark, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ringer ABSENT: Mr. Brewer MR. PALING-Okay. Then that motion is denied. Okay. Thank you. MR. SCHACHNER-Well, I mean, that motion is denied. Is the Board inclined to pass a motion of denial or leave it in limbo? How do you want to handle that? MR. PALING-Okay. I’m not going to carry it further. I’m going to leave it in limbo, myself. I don’t care what someone else may wish to. You can now make a motion to deny. MR. RUEL-Well, let the people that denied it make the motion. MOTION TO DENY SITE PLAN NO. 43-97 JEFF JACOBS , Introduced by Craig MacEwan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Catherine LaBombard: As outlined in 179-38 of the Zoning Ordinance, Section C, that it would create a public hazard for vehicle traffic and be detrimental to public safety, and also that it would have an adverse impact on the neighborhood aesthetics and natural beauty, and in 179-19, Section D, where it would be that the purpose of the Suburban Residential zones is to enhance and protect the character of Queensbury’s suburban neighborhood. I don’t think it would fit in. st Duly adopted this 21 day of October, 1997, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ringer, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Stark 18 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/21/97) NOES: Mr. Ruel, Mr. Paling ABSENT: Mr. Brewer MR. RUEL-Mark, does the applicant have recourse through the ZBA? MR. SCHACHNER-No. MR. PALING-No. MR. RUEL-That’s it. SITE PLAN NO. 37-97 TYPE II GERALD C. MACKEY OWNER: SAME ZONE: WR-1A, CEA LOCATION: ROCKHURST ROAD, WEST SIDE, LARGE TUDOR HOME APPLICANT PROPOSES TO REMOVE EXISTING STAKE DOCK AND RECONSTRUCT A CRIB DOCK AND OPEN SIDED BOATHOUSE WITH SUNDECK. PER SECTION 179-16 PRIVATE BOATHOUSE WITH SUNDECK. PER SECTION 179-16 PRIVATE BOATHOUSE IS SUBJECT TO REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE PLANNING BOARD WARREN CO. PLANNING: 10/8/97 LGPC TAX MAP NO. 15-1- 18 LOT SIZE: 0.21 ACRES SECTION: 179-16 JOHN CREEDE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 37-97, Gerald C. Mackey, Meeting Date: October 21, 1997 “Applicant proposes to remove an existing stake dock and replace it with a U shaped crib dock with a sun deck. All projects in WR-1A require site plan review. Agent has confirmed that the new dock will contain a sun deck, and the sun deck will have stairs. Agent has submitted a drawing of the deck with stairs. See attached. There will be no apparent visual interference. Applicant has indicated that the trees located in the front of the existing dock will not be removed. The Agent confirmed that the trees do not need to be removed to complete the project.” MR. PALING-Okay. Is the applicant here, or someone representing the applicant? Okay. Laura or Sue, in the length of a dock, is that only the part you walk on, or is that the roof, too? MS. CIPPERLY-The roof? MR. PALING-Yes. In this particular case I think we’re going to find the dock is 40 feet long, at least, but if you look at the overhang of the roof, then it becomes whatever, six feet longer or something like that. Because it’s at the maximum dimension now, by the 40 feet. MR. STARK-Where do you measure the length from, Bob? Do you measure the length from the water line 40 feet out, or do you measure? MR. PALING-No, right here, the dimension from that post to that post is 40 feet. MR. STARK-Okay. MR. PALING-And I’m questioning, I don’t know. I’m just asking if the overhang of the roof, where does that come in? MS. CIPPERLY-Normally on a setback I know we do measure to the overhang. I think if this was a matter of a six inch overhang, that would be one thing, but you say it’s six feet, sticking out six feet past the 40 foot. MR. PALING-That’s right, on both ends, yes. MR. STARK-Well, the three foot toward the shore would be overhanging the shore. So it wouldn’t be a six foot, it would be a three foot increase. MR. PALING-No. It’s part of the dock structure, George. It’s all the same roof. 19 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/21/97) MR. STARK-Why don’t you measure the stairs then that go down to the land. I mean, is that part of it? MR. PALING-That’s part of it, too, I think. MR. STARK-Suppose they go 10 feet up on the shore? You’re saying they can only be 24 feet out? MR. PALING-I’m asking, George, I’m asking. I’m asking the question. I think it’s a valid question. MR. RUEL-What’s the question? MR. PALING-How do you measure a dock? Do you measure it from here to here or from there to there? MR. CREEDE-Excuse me, sir. I think I can answer that question for you. MR. PALING-Go ahead. MR. CREEDE-My name’s John Creede. I’m representing Gerald Mackey. According to your rule book, and correct me if I’m wrong, it’s 40 feet from the mean low water mark, and this dock starts at the shoreline, and technically we could go out, at this time of year, as I measured it, another six feet. So this boathouse, including the overhang, is within your permitted rules. MR. PALING-A dock’s maximum. MR. CREEDE-Length is 40 feet measured from the mean low water mark. MR. RUEL-Right. What is the mean low water mark? MR. PALING-I thought we measured a dock would stand by itself. The boards are 40 feet by 40 feet, regardless of the. MS. CIPPERLY-It says measured from the mean low water mark, and we had this situation on Seeley Road also last year, where the length does get measured from the mean low water mark. MR. RUEL-The low one, mean low water mark. MS. CIPPERLY-Right, which does not necessarily mean the shoreline. MR. PALING-Yes, so then this dock. MR. RUEL-It could exceed 40 feet, right, in timbers. MR. PALING-Yes. That’s what they’re telling us. MR. RUEL-Yes, because the water could be here. MR. PALING-Yes, then you measure from there, but you’ve got dock here that’s not part of that measurement. MR. RUEL-Don’t you measure the dock itself, the structure? MS. CIPPERLY-I’m not the one that goes and measures docks, but just in similar cases I know that people have been asked to provide additional drawings and things like that that show exactly where the mean low water mark is, and then it’s measured from there. MR. PALING-All right. Lets not get into this like we’ve gotten into it before. Lets just put it aside. We’ll assume that the explanation they’re giving us is correct, but I would like to follow up on this, because I was under the impression that you measured lumber, not that you measured from any kind of a mean low water mark. MR. RUEL-As far as that’s concerned, can’t exceed, what, 700 square feet, right? Isn’t that the maximum size? 20 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/21/97) MS. CIPPERLY-Yes, 700 square feet, but directly from the Ordinance it says “No dock shall extend more than 40 feet off shore from the mean low water mark”. MR. RUEL-Which means the dock could be a lot longer than 40 feet. It could be, say, 45, 50, 55. MS. CIPPERLY-Right. MR. RUEL-But then it would have to be narrower to meet the 700 square foot requirement. MS. CIPPERLY-Right. MR. RUEL-Yes. MR. PALING-Okay. We’re not going to settle this here tonight. MR. SCHACHNER-Bob, just to save future debate, I don’t see a big here. I think Sue has read you from language that’s very, very clear. So I’m just interjecting because you seem to want to pick this up at later meetings. The language is pretty straight forward. She read it. It means that a dock can exceed 40 feet. It just can’t be more than 40 feet from the mean low water mark. So I think we can settle this right here and right now. MR. PALING-All right. MR. SCHACHNER-I’m only saying that to save us time in the future. MR. PALING-Does the square footage also apply? MR. SCHACHNER-The square footage is the square footage. It doesn’t mean from mean low water, as someone just indicated. Square footage is total square footage, as I understand it. Right, Sue? MS. CIPPERLY-Right. MR. PALING-Now that’s lumber we’re talking now in square footage. MR. SCHACHNER-Total square footage. MR. PALING-Okay. MR. RUEL-Not necessarily the roof, though. Just this. MR. PALING-That would not include the roof, I wouldn’t think. Is the dock part of the roof? If you’re going to say that, then is the roof part of the dock? MR. STARK-No, it’s not. MS. CIPPERLY-If I had my way, yes, but I don’t. It hasn’t been figured that way. MR. PALING-From the dock itself, rather than the roof. MS. CIPPERLY-Just the base that you walk on. MR. PALING-Okay. MR. RUEL-But the 700 square feet would include a ramp? MR. STARK-No. MR. RUEL-Why not? MR. PALING-It doesn’t have to. MR. RUEL-It’s part of it. If you put a ramp, then you have to reduce the size of the dock accordingly, according to the size of the ramp. 21 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/21/97) MS. CIPPERLY-That’s a ramp. I don’t know that it’s part of the dock. It’s kind of like figuring the square footage of the stairs. MR. PALING-We’ve never done that, I don’t think. MS. CIPPERLY-No. There’s just nothing in here that says how long a dock can be. It’s delineated by the square footage. MR. PALING-I wish I hadn’t raised the question. MR. RUEL-Yes. We’ve got to take a course in this. MS. CIPPERLY-We’re going to re-write this. MR. PALING-All right. Lets proceed. Any other comments, other than what I brought up? Okay. We’ve got a public hearing on this. Did you have anything you wanted to tell us before we go to a public hearing? MR. CREEDE-Just that Mr. Mackey has been approved by the Lake George Park Commission. If you would like a copy, I can. MR. RUEL-Yes, we have it. MR. PALING-We’ve got it. You’re all set there. Warren County Planning and Lake George Park Commission. You’re all set with both of them. MR. RUEL-And there were three permits under that. MR. PALING-Okay. We’ll open a public hearing on the Gerald Mackey application. Does anyone care to speak? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. PALING-This is Type II. We don’t need a SEQRA on this. We can go right to a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 37-97 GERALD C. MACKEY , Introduced by Roger Ruel who moved for its adoption, seconded by Larry Ringer: To remove existing stake dock and reconstruct a crib dock and open sided boathouse with sun deck, with the condition that the maximum height of the structure not exceed 14 feet from the mean high water mark. st Duly adopted this 21 day of October, 1997, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stark, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ruel, Mr. Ringer, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Brewer MR. PALING-Okay. Thank you. SITE PLAN NO. 38-97 TYPE II J. DAVID MICHAELS OWNER: SAME ZONE: WR- 1A, CEA LOCATION: 30 BEAN ROAD, KATTSKILL BAY PROPOSAL IS TO INSTALL SUNDECK ABOVE EXISTING U-SHAPED DOCK. WARREN CO. PLANNING: 10/8/97 LGPC TAX MAP NO. 153-1-1 LOT SIZE: 0.68 ACRES SECTION: 179-16 JOHN CREEDE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT 22 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/21/97) STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 38-97, J. David Michaels, Meeting Date: October 21, 1997 “Applicant proposes to build a sun deck on top of an existing dock. The sun deck stairs will run North to South and be built on the existing dock. Agent has submitted a drawing of the deck with stairs. See attached. Projects in WR-1A and CEA require site plan review. The drawing may cause confusion about the applicant’s sun deck application. Applicant is repairing the dock boards to a five foot board instead of an eight foot board. The cribs on either side of the dock will not be removed. This is not under site plan approval. Research indicates the applicant has approved building permits for a residential addition, residential alteration addition, and a deck.” MR. PALING-Okay, and Warren County Planning says No County Impact. MR. RUEL-Before you go on, could you explain that second paragraph. I don’t know what that means. MS. NOWICKI-“The drawing may cause confusion about the applicant’s sun deck application. Applicant is repairing the dock boards to a five foot board instead of an eight foot board. The cribs on either side of the dock will not be removed. This is not under site plan review.” MR. RUEL-What does that mean? MR. PALING-I don’t see that it makes any difference to us. MS. NOWICKI-Okay. I just wanted to make you aware. MR. RUEL-We can just ignore that, right? MS. NOWICKI-Yes. MS. CIPPERLY-Right. That’s basically the point. MR. RUEL-Great. MR. PALING-Okay. Would you identify yourself, please, for the record. MR. CREEDE-John Creede. DAVE MICHAELS MR. MICHAELS-Dave Michaels. MR. PALING-Okay. Do you have anything you want to tell us about this? MR. CREEDE-Just that I just got approval from the Lake George Park Commission today on this project. MR. PALING-Right. Yes, okay, and Warren County Planning. Okay. Any comments from the Board or questions? Okay. This is a Type II action. No SEQRA required. I’ll open a public hearing on the J. David Michaels application. Does anyone care to speak about it? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. PALING-Now we’ll go to a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 38-97 J. DAVID MICHAELS , Introduced by Roger Ruel who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Stark: To install sun deck above existing U-shaped dock. 23 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/21/97) st Duly adopted this 21 day of October, 1997, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ruel, Mr. Ringer, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Stark, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Brewer SITE PLAN NO. 42-97 TYPE: UNLISTED JOHN P. MATTHEWS OWNER: SAME ZONE: WR-1A, CEA LOCATION: CEDAR POINT, .8 MILES WEST ON RT. 9L FROM BAY ROAD TO CEDAR POINT ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO ENLARGE AN EXISTING SUMMER HOME TO A YEAR ROUND RESIDENCE. SITE PLAN REVIEW SHALL BE REQUIRED FOR ANY ENLARGEMENT OF A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE WITHIN A CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL AREA. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 58-1997 TAX MAP NO. 2-1-9 LOT SIZE: 2.68 ACRES SECTION 179-16, 179-79 JOHN MATTHEWS, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 42-97, John P. Matthews, Meeting Date: October 21, 1997 “Applicant wishes to modify an existing home to a year round resident. All projects in WR-1A and CEA require site plan review. There is no apparent visual interference with other property owners. The applicant has submitted additional drawings that provide setback limits and height of building.” MR. PALING-Okay. There was a variance, but that’s okay. MR. RUEL-That was approved 10/15/97. MR. PALING-Yes. Okay. Would you identify yourselves, please. MR. MATTHEWS-John Matthews, owner. CARL BRANDT MR. BRANDT-Carl Brandt, Brandt Krus Architects. MR. PALING-Okay. MR. RUEL-I’m looking at a sketch, SK-17, I don’t know if you’re familiar with it. It shows the height of the building is 28 feet, but to the left, the building structure is even higher, and I was wondering what that dimension was. MR. BRANDT-It’s in the back. So from the grade in the back it’s less. MR. MATTHEWS-One story. MR. RUEL-It’s higher than 28 feet, right? MR. MATTHEWS-From the grade where that measurement would be taken is less than 28 feet. MR. BRANDT-Because the grade slopes up. MR. RUEL-Yes. Well then it would exceed 28 feet. MR. MATTHEWS-No. MS. CIPPERLY-It’s measured at that point, Roger. It’s measured where that ridge is. MR. PALING-From the ground up. MR. RUEL-Where? See this is 28 feet from here. 24 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/21/97) MS. CIPPERLY-The maximum is now 28. MR. RUEL-Then that’s worse, because this, you draw this line, it’s across this way. According to Sue, it exceeds the 28 feet, on this sketch. MS. CIPPERLY-Maybe the architect could clarify that for you. It looks, as the slope goes down, the house is going up. MR. PALING-Yes, and you’re measuring it from ground level up. MR. RUEL-You have a dimension from here to here, right? 28, and this dimension is what? MR. BRANDT-From the grade in the back. MR. RUEL-And the grade in the back is higher than this? MR. BRANDT-Yes, by. MR. MATTHEWS-It’s one story higher. MR. RUEL-Okay. I couldn’t tell from this. Okay. All right, thanks. MS. CIPPERLY-Just one other clarification before you go on. The zone here is WR-3A, not 1A. It was advertised, it was listed as 1A. It’s not something you need to. MR. PALING-Okay. What difference does that make? MS. CIPPERLY-It really doesn’t. It’s just a housekeeping kind of thing. So it’s been noted. MR. PALING-All right. Now what about, are you putting more bathrooms on? MR. MATTHEWS-More than there are now? MR. PALING-Yes. MR. MATTHEWS-Yes. MR. PALING-How many? MR. MATTHEWS-Two. MR. PALING-Two more. Septic system, what are you doing? MR. MATTHEWS-Septic system was revised to an engineered system three years ago. It was designed, and it’s shown on the site plan, if you look at the large map. MR. RUEL-Excuse me, Bob. The septic system is predicated on the number of bedrooms. You said bathrooms. MR. MATTHEWS-That’s correct. MR. RUEL-You have two extra bedrooms? MR. MATTHEWS-We’re only going to add one bedroom. The septic system was designed for five bedrooms. MR. PALING-And you say three years ago? MR. MATTHEWS-Yes. MR. PALING-Yes, okay. MR. MATTHEWS-I listed the permits and what not right on the letter that I attached to your application, the permit number and date. 25 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/21/97) MR. PALING-Okay. What do we have, comments, questions? All right. MR. RUEL-It looks like it’s going to be a beautiful place. MR. PALING-All right. Lets open the public hearing on the John P. Matthews application. Is there anyone here that cares to speak about this? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED SUSAN WEBBER MS. WEBBER-Hello everyone. My name is Susan Webber. My family owns the property immediately next door to the Matthews, to the east. MR. RUEL-This property is at a point, isn’t it? MS. WEBBER-Yes. MR. RUEL-Surrounded with water? MS. WEBBER-No. It borders, we’re on the east, and we’re quite close, actually. MR. PALING-Right here. MR. RUEL-Okay. Where’s the water? It goes this way. Okay. I found you. MS. WEBBER-All right, and I’d just like to say I received rather inadequate notice of this project, but we’ve rectified that by having discussion with the Matthews, and John has agreed to make a couple of changes to accommodate my concerns, and I’d like that incorporated into the proceeding. MR. PALING-Could you tell us what those changes are. MS. WEBBER-Yes. He has agreed to have the garage doors positioned on the opposite side of the garage, and not to have the driveway come down the property line immediately outside our bedroom window there. In other words, it will not be necessary to have the garage go along the eastern side of. MR. PALING-Okay. That must be that side toward your home. MS. WEBBER-Correct. MR. PALING-It would be right here. MR. RUEL-Where was the entrance, here, wasn’t it? Didn’t we go in this way? MR. PALING-I thought it was there. Didn’t we? I thought we went in this way. MR. MATTHEWS-Originally, I had planned to come down this way, and in the garage doors here. MR. RUEL-Yes, but now you’re going to have them on this side. MR. MATTHEWS-Now we’re going to come down here, and come in from this direction. MR. RUEL-What are you going to do with this. MR. MATTHEWS-That road’s going to stay there because that’s the way I get down to the dock and what not. I’m just not going to use it as a loop around. MRS. LABOMBARD-John, what about that arc, the way that other side of the garage is arced? Could you show me on this print? MR. RUEL-Are you going to take this macadam out? 26 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/21/97) MR. MATTHEWS-I wasn’t planning on paving that anyway. This is all dirt. It’s got mulch on it. It’s just a walk way so that we can get down, if we ever have to work on the dock. MR. RUEL-All right. So that the entrance to the garage will be on the west side, rather than east. Okay. MS. WEBBER-Right, and I just want to also say that we agreed that in order to accomplish this he’s going to have to move the garage a little bit toward our property line, and I don’t know how much a little bit is. MR. MATTHEWS-Eight feet. MS. WEBBER-Eight feet. MR. PALING-The dotted line’s the existing garage. MR. RUEL-Yes. MR. PALING-And the one we see here will be moved eight feet to the east then. MR. MATTHEWS-Correct. Well, it’s going to go back and to the east. MR. RUEL-What’s going to be moved? MR. PALING-The garage will go. MR. RUEL-He’s going to have a new garage. Right? MR. PALING-Yes. MS. CIPPERLY-But in order to come in this side, he’s going to move the garage back eight feet. MR. MATTHEWS-Right now it’s where this hatched mark is. MR. PALING-Right. MR. MATTHEWS-What I’m going to do is cut this back here and come this way. MR. RUEL-Now what about the Zoning Board variance, is that effected? MR. MATTHEWS-Actually, it won’t, because this niche here is the same as this niche. MR. RUEL-So it won’t change? MR. MATTHEWS-It won’t change anything. I got a side setback for this line right here. MR. PALING-You got the two provisions? MR. RUEL-Yes. MR. PALING-Okay. MS. WEBBER-Okay. That’s it. Thank you very much. MR. PALING-Thank you. Does anyone else care to speak about this matter? Okay. If not, the public hearing’s closed. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. PALING-Okay. This is Unlisted. So we can go right to the SEQRA. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 42-97 , Introduced by Roger Ruel who moved for its adoption, seconded by Craig MacEwan: 27 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/21/97) WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: John P. Matthews , and WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. No Federal agency appears to be involved. 2. The following agencies are involved: NONE 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury. 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant. 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law. st Duly adopted this 21 day of October, 1997, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ruel, Mr. Ringer, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Stark, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Brewer MR. PALING-Okay. We can go to a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 42-97 JOHN P. MATTHEWS , Introduced by Roger Ruel who moved for its adoption, seconded by Catherine LaBombard: To enlarge an existing summer home to a year round residence, with two conditions: one, that the garage doors be located on the west side, rather than the east side, as presently noted on the plan. Two, that the drive to the garage will now be on the west side of the property only. Plans are to reflect these changes, as well as the slight re-location of the garage, which apparently has no impact on ZBA approval. st Duly adopted this 21 day of October, 1997, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ruel, Mr. Ringer, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Stark, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Brewer MR. PALING-Okay. Thank you. MR. MATTHEWS-Thank you. 28 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/21/97) SITE PLAN NO. 44-97 TYPE: UNLISTED JOSEPH GROSS OWNER: SAME ZONE: LI-1A LOCATION: 399 BIG BAY ROAD PROPOSAL IS TO CONSTRUCT BUILDING FOR STORAGE OF TOOLS AND MATERIALS AND A CAR PORT BETWEEN BUILDINGS FOR VEHICLES IN WINTER. ALL USES IN LI ZONES ARE SUBJECT TO REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 59-1997 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 10/8/97 TAX MAP NO. 137-2- 3.22 LOT SIZE: 1.50 ACRES SECTION: 179-26 JOE GROSS, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 44-97, Joseph Gross, Meeting Date: October 21, 1997 “Applicant proposes to construct a building to store tools and materials, and a car port between buildings for vehicles in the winter. A drainage report was submitted and a copy delivered to Rist- Frost Engineers to review. There is no apparent visual interference with other businesses. Applicant’s project is located in a minimal flooding area. Research of parcel indicated that there has never been a drainage plan done on this parcel. Therefore it was requested of the applicant to submit a drainage report. Rist-Frost Engineer did respond with comments. See attached.” MS. NOWICKI-Rist-Frost comments. Rist-Frost sent us two sets of comments, one on October th 15 regarding certain things being shown. Do you want me to list those as well? MR. PALING-Yes. MS. NOWICKI-Okay. “Existing and proposed grades are not shown. Construction details of the new drywell are not shown. The adequacy of the existing sewage system to serve the addition should be addressed. Location of existing system is not shown. There is a discrepancy between the plan and the stormwater plan regarding drywell size. The site plan should indicate that erosion control will be provided in accordance with New York State Guidelines for Urban Erosion and Sediment Control.” I also had information sent by Nace Engineers addressing those comments, and they read as follows, “The drywell has already been installed and finished grades established. I have visited the site and observed that the existing grading works to provide positive drainage to the drywell. The drywell is a standard 8 ft. diameter by 4 ft. high Fort Miller precast concrete drywell with a minimum 2 feet of #2 crushed stone under and around the sides. The drywell has a precast top with a standard frame and grate. The building addition is only to be used for storage. There are no new rest rooms or additional employees proposed as a result of this project. The stormwater report was prepared with the assumption that the drywell was 6 ft. in diameter. Mr. Gross has just informed me that it is in fact an 8 ft. diameter drywell. The larger drywell will simply provide for additional stormwater capacity beyond what the stormwater report concluded to be adequate. As previously stated this system has already been constructed. Therefore, erosion control details are not needed. Please call me if you have any further questions or comments.” From Rist-Frost again, “We have received and reviewed Nace Engineering P.C’s letter of October 20, 1997 responding to our comment letter of October 15, 1997. The letter satisfactorily addresses our comments.” MR. PALING-Okay. Would you identify yourself please. MR. GROSS-Yes. I’m Joe Gross. MR. STARK-We were out there today to look at the site, and we saw where the drywell was, and there appeared to be a pipe coming in there from the east going in a westerly direction that you had dug down to. MR. GROSS-Yes, sir. MR. STARK-All right. Then when we were over by the new building, there was another pipe with a snake in it. Where does that pipe go? MR. GROSS-No. That snake, unfortunately, things happen in threes or something, but the septic system’s backed up, totally isolated from that. That’s an existing. MR. STARK-It doesn’t go to that. Because it looked like it was going in that direction. That’s why I asked. 29 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/21/97) MR. GROSS-No. The snake was in the back property? MR. STARK-Yes. MR. GROSS-That septic system’s a pre-existing septic system. It’s in the back area, and that place actually goes on an angle. Did you see where they had dug the hole? Did you look out? Okay. Well, that’s the septic system out there, and I just rented that building to Mantros Machines, the new business that just moved in the area, and probably the first one that’s used the bathroom, been active for a little while, and of course it plugged up on me. So my men were out there enjoying every minute of unplugging it. So, nothing to do with it. Totally isolated. The drywell’s at this end and the septic is over here. MR. PALING-You’re in the contracting business, right? MR. GROSS-Yes. MR. PALING-What happened to the approval process here? We go out to visit a job site looking for bare dirt and we look at a cement slab, an erected building and provision for a car port to go up. MR. GROSS-I screwed up, Sir. There’s no doubt about it. I’m at your mercy. Just to give you some history on how, why it happened and where my theory was, it wasn’t a good theory, it wasn’t the right theory, is I bought this place this winter, and I don’t know if you’re familiar. This place was on the market for a long time, and it was a disaster. Back taxes weren’t paid and everything, and I picked that up. Well, when I got the taxes and figured out what I was going to do here this spring, I’ve been gainfully trying to find someone to rent this back building. I put it through the realtors and they found this Mantros Machines. Unfortunately, they wouldn’t sign until, it was kind of a, it was the roll of the dice gamble on how everything was going to fly with that, and they went to Queensbury and asked for loan so they could initiate, you know, for start up money, and they got their granted money from Queensbury, from different banks, and until that would happen, th which was on the 27 of August, they wouldn’t sign the lease. So, being an electrical contractor, I just couldn’t really afford to proceed with this project until I had money in hand, and to be honest with you, this deal had gone through four and five times over, so I didn’t think it was ever going to fly. Well, Mr. Levack called me and said I’ve got a check here for you, and I was pretty surprised. Well, then I had nothing to do with all this material, and if you gentlemen and women were out there to look at the products that are underneath there, there’s just thousand and thousands of dollars. One roll of wire is $25,000. Those light fixtures are a couple of hundred dollars a piece. We do industrial, electrical work, and I had to move them out of there. I had no place to put them. I’ve still got a cluster of a mess on the right. I’m trying to make this place pretty nice. I think if you were to talk to any of my neighbors, my immediate neighbor, Jamie Hayes. MR. PALING-Are you getting to the point of why you didn’t go through the approval process? MR. GROSS-Well, because I really didn’t think it was going to, I just went ahead and put the building up, and I was asked about a cold storage area, and I didn’t think a cold storage needed a planning review. So I said, well, gee, if it’s just a building permit, I’ll get going on it, and when I got, Mr. Hatin came out. MR. PALING-I think the word’s going to go out now. Forget about the Planning Board. Just put the building up and then present yourself and just tell them a long story and then they’ll say, okay, go ahead. MR. RUEL-Did you start building before the building permit? MR. GROSS-Yes, I don’t have a building permit, sir. MR. RUEL-You didn’t have a building permit. Your application states that the car port’s going to be used in the winter. Aren’t you going to use it in the summer? MR. GROSS-Yes. I don’t know where that came up. It was just, the idea is I put it up for the winter use, but, yes, I’m not going to tell you I won’t use it in the summer. MR. RUEL-Well, we’ll leave out “winter”. 30 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/21/97) MR. GROSS-Okay. Thank you. MR. STARK-What happened to the rest of the story, after Hatin came out? MR. GROSS-He was quite mad, and then I thought it was going to be a matter of just paying $500 for the building permit, and then he informed me of all the due process that I had to go through, and since I’ve gone through the due process. I’ve done the engineering. Prints got generated, and I’ve gone through your Zoning Board, of course thinking I was right, but I was wrong. I thought 20 feet off the line, because I live right up the road. Of course you have to be 30 foot because it’s industrial, and I was just naïve enough to think that I was in the industrial area, and it was just not going to be a big impact. It wasn’t going to be a big thing, to be honest with you. I’ve got some reasons why I didn’t put in the back. I know that would be a concern. I really need this storage, and honestly I could use more, but economically I can only afford so much. MR. RUEL-Is this electrical contracting? MR. GROSS-Yes, sir. MR. RUEL-Just electrical? MR. GROSS-Just electrical. MR. RUEL-Do you get a permit when you do electrical work in Town? MR. GROSS-Yes, sir. You’re absolutely right. I should have went through the proper channels to start. As soon as I was told the way it was going to go down, I immediately stopped. I’ve been going through the due process. You can see two by fours hanging off there. That’s how it, of course Mr. Hatin’s been out there and he’s looked at things, and I can’t give you anything in writing, but he has looked at it and said what I’ve done is within the building, I’m building it proper. Everything I try to do, it’s there to stay, two foot on centers instead of four foot on centers with the roof trusses. MR. PALING-Do we know that for sure? Has Dave said this is okay? MR. GROSS-If he inspects it and it’s wrong, I’ll change it. I’ll tell you that now. MR. MAC EWAN-At this point, Bob, it wouldn’t matter what he says because it’s not an official inspection. MR. GROSS-That’s right. MR. PALING-It’s not an official anything. MR. MAC EWAN-Right. Pending his approval here, he’s starting, theoretically, from scratch again. MR. GROSS-Well, Mr. Hatin and I have already talked, and I’ll be digging up the earth to show him the footers. Because he’ll want to see them, but with all confidence, you know, everything has been done proper. MR. PALING-There’s a pitch on that roof that goes away from the existing building to your neighbor. MR. GROSS-Yes, sir. MR. PALING-There’s going to be a bunch of water cascade off that thing. Now is that taken care of in the Rist-Frost? MR. GROSS-Yes, sir. I put that, do you see that round circle, do you have the full drawing? MR. PALING-I think I do. That’s probably it here. MR. GROSS-There’s a round. MR. PALING-So there will be a gravel area graded to a drywell? 31 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/21/97) MR. GROSS-Yes, and what I’m doing is I’m putting a gutter system. MR. PALING-You are putting a gutter on it? MR. GROSS-Yes, sir. I’m also, that area there will be contoured and graveled. It will go right to that gutter. MR. PALING-Okay. MR. RUEL-That was a gross miscalculation. MR. GROSS-That’s a good statement, sir. A good way to put it. MR. PALING-Okay. What other comments, questions does the Board have? Nothing. MR. RUEL-All engineering comments have been addressed? MR. PALING-That’s according to Rist-Frost. They have been addressed. MS. CIPPERLY-Yes, that’s what the letter indicated. MR. STARK-Bob, you didn’t open a public hearing, did you? MR. PALING-No. I didn’t open the public hearing yet. I’m just asking final, any questions, comments? No? Okay. We’ll go to the public hearing on this. I’ll open the public hearing on the Joseph Gross. Does anyone here care to speak on this matter? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. PALING-This is an Unlisted Type Action. So we’ll go to a SEQRA. I would assume the Short Form is okay on this one. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 44-97 , Introduced by Catherine LaBombard who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Stark: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: Joseph Gross , and WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. No Federal agency appears to be involved. 2. The following agencies are involved: NONE 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury. 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant. 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of 32 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/21/97) environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law. st Duly adopted this 21 day of October, 1997, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ruel, Mr. Ringer, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Stark, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Brewer MR. PALING-Okay, then we’ll go to a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 44-97 JOSEPH GROSS , Introduced by Roger Ruel who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Stark: For the construction of a building for storage of tools and materials, and a carport between buildings for vehicles. st Duly adopted this 21 day of October, 1997, by the following vote: MR. RUEL-And needless to say you will obtain proper building permits before any further building. MR. GROSS-Yes, sir. AYES: Mr. Ringer, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Stark, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ruel, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Brewer MR. PALING-If we see you again, Mr. Gross, and I hope we do, in your future business life, we’ll look forward to glorious prints and everything before the shovel hits the dirt. MR. GROSS-I can assure you that will be the case. MR. PALING-Thank you. MR. GROSS-Thank you. MR. PALING-Good luck. MR. GROSS-Thanks. SITE PLAN NO. 46-97 TYPE: UNLISTED NUTECH INDUSTRIES, INC. OWNER: ALICE & CHARLES MCNEIL ZONE: LI-1A LOCATION: SOUTH ON QUAKER ROAD, RIGHT ON HIGHLAND AVENUE, PROPERTY IS ACROSS FROM F.W. WEBB AND IS THE ADJACENT LOT NORTH FROM WARREN TIRE APPLICANT PROPOSES NEW OFFICE AND WAREHOUSE DISTRIBUTION FACILITY FOR CHARLIE’S OFFICE FURNITURE. ALL USES IN LI ZONES ARE SUBJECT TO REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 85-1992 SUB. 9-1993 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 10/8/97 TAX MAP NO. 110-7-1.1 LOT SIZE: 0.83 ACRES SECTION: 179-26 TIM BARBER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT 33 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/21/97) STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 46-97, NuTech Industries, Inc., Meeting Date: October 21, 1997 “Applicant proposes a new office building and warehouse distribution facility. All use in Light Industrial Zone need site plan review. The present site is an open field. The proposed use would be contingent with the other businesses in the area. A drainage report was submitted and sent to Rist Frost for review. Rist Frost responded with comments. See attached.” MR. RUEL-And we have it here. MR. PALING-And then we have the Rist-Frost. I don’t think we need to go through everything. st Why don’t you read the Rist-Frost reply of October 21. MR. RUEL-That’s all you need. MS. NOWICKI-“The revised document satisfactorily addresses our concerns regarding traffic flow, storm drainage and erosion control. Planning Staff should review the number of proposed parking spaces for the indicated warehouse and display or office area.” MR. PALING-Wait a minute. This is a different letter than we got. st MR. RUEL-He’s talking about the letter from Rist-Frost to John Goralski dated October 21, in response to the engineering comments. MR. SCHACHNER-That’s exactly what she just read. MR. PALING-No. Okay. It’s not what I’m reading, then. MR. RUEL-It’s not what I’m reading. st MR. PALING-October 21. There must be something in that letter we don’t have in this letter. MR. RUEL-What’s the number under the date? MR. SCHACHNER-She just read you that letter verbatim. MR. PALING-You put some words in there that weren’t here. MR. SCHACHNER-No, she didn’t. MR. PALING-All right. Lets start anew. Go ahead. MR. RUEL-Is that the same one? MR. SCHACHNER-I followed along, and she read the letter verbatim. She didn’t read the first sentence, which just says “We have received and reviewed the revised site plan and drainage report submitted on October 20, 1997 in response to our comment letter of October 14, 1997.” She then read the last three sentences verbatim, perfectly. MS. NOWICKI-“The revised document satisfactorily addresses our concerns regarding traffic flow, storm drainage and erosion control. Planning Staff should review the number of proposed parking spaces for the indicated warehouse and display or office area.” MR. PALING-All right. All we need to worry about is the last sentence. Laura, do you have any other comments besides this? MS. NOWICKI-When NuTech came in to apply, Chris Round and I looked at his application and we discussed the parking, okay, and we decided that I think what is in question are the two parking spaces, 10 and 11, which are next to the loading area. MR. PALING-Yes. MS. NOWICKI-The reason why we suggested that was because otherwise he would have to have them in the back, and that would have an impact on your septic. 34 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/21/97) MR. BARBER-No, on the permeable area. MS. NOWICKI-On the permeable area. MR. PALING-All right. Wasn’t there also something about the fact that the parking spaces were angled wrong, and you’d have to back out and go in the same direction you came in to there? MR. BARBER-Yes. MR. PALING-That they should be either straightened out or something done to the traffic pattern. MS. NOWICKI-I mean, it says Rist-Frost regarding traffic flow satisfactorily addresses the comments. MR. BARBER-Tim Barber, NuTech Industries. CHARLES MC NEIL MR. MC NEIL-Charles McNeil. MR. BARBER-What we initially had was we had combined enter and exit to the north side of the site. What we have done is we have added an exit, the south side of the site, and leaving the north side of the site just the entrance, and maintaining the skewed parking areas. MR. PALING-Okay. So when you come in to the parking spaces, do you come in from the east? MR. BARBER-I think it’s north, isn’t it? Yes, it’s north/northeast. Yes, you’re right. MR. PALING-Okay. So then when you back out, it’s not, you’re going to back out and go to the left. MR. BARBER-Go to the west. MR. PALING-Yes, it would be to the west, right. So that’s okay now. MR. BARBER-Yes. MR. PALING-Yes. All right. Okay. That was the only comment I picked up. That addresses that. Any questions, comments? MR. STARK-Could you identify yourselves, please. MR. BARBER-Tim Barber, NuTech Industries. MR. MC NEIL-Charles McNeil. MR. STARK-Now, you’re going to be the builder for this project? MR. BARBER-Yes. We are the design build company, yes. MR. STARK-Who owns the land right now? Rozelle? MR. BARBER-Rozelle. MR. STARK-Jody. MR. BARBER-I don’t know. It’s under Hollister Plumbing or Industries or whatever. MR. STARK-Okay. MR. RUEL-This is a warehouse, combination warehouse and display area office? MR. BARBER-Yes. MR. RUEL-For Charlie? 35 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/21/97) MR. BARBER-Charlie’s Office Furniture. MR. RUEL-And Charlie will have the whole thing? MR. BARBER-Yes. MS. CIPPERLY-This is Charlie right here on the end of the table. MRS. LABOMBARD-Right. MR. RUEL-Okay. I didn’t know what the connection was. MR. PALING-All right. We’ll open the public hearing on the NuTech Industries application. Is there anyone hear that would care to speak about it? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MS. NOWICKI-I received comments. MR. PALING-Go ahead. MS. NOWICKI-It’s addressed to Mr. Goralski again. “I’m writing in reference to Site Plan No. 46-97. I am in favor of the Planning Board approval for the new office and warehouse distribution facility proposed by NuTech Industries, Inc. I believe it would be an asset to the area. Sincerely, John McCall, The Tire Warehouse” MR. PALING-Okay. All right. Anything else? MR. STARK-How did John McCall get notice? He’s not even near this project? MR. BARBER-Just adjacent, across the street. MR. STARK-Yes, way down on the other street, down the Boulevard. MRS. LABOMBARD-He’s on the Boulevard. MR. BARBER-Within view. You can see all those areas from there. MRS. LABOMBARD-Yes, but is that within 500 feet? MR. BARBER-I would say maybe. MR. PALING-Does it make a difference? MS. CIPPERLY-It doesn’t matter. MR. BARBER-It’s just a nice comment from a neighbor. MR. PALING-Okay. The public hearing is closed. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. PALING-This is an Unlisted Action. We need a SEQRA on this one. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 46-97 , Introduced by Roger Ruel who moved for its adoption, seconded by Catherine LaBombard: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: NuTech Industries, Inc. , and WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, 36 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/21/97) NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. No Federal agency appears to be involved. 2. The following agencies are involved: NONE 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury. 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant. 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law. st Duly adopted this 21 day of October, 1997, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ruel, Mr. Ringer, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Stark, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Brewer MR. PALING-Okay. Make a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 46-97 NUTECH INDUSTRIES, INC. , Introduced by Roger Ruel who moved for its adoption, seconded by Larry Ringer: For a new office and warehouse distribution facility for Charlie’s Office Furniture. st Duly adopted this 21 day of October, 1997, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Stark, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ruel, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Brewer MR. PALING-Okay. Thank you. MR. BARBER-Thanks a lot, fellas. MR. PALING-Okay. I’ve got, for next month, Laura, does it look like two meetings next month? MRS. LABOMBARD-We don’t have a meeting next week? MR. PALING-Yes, we do have a meeting next week. I just want to go over November now. MS. NOWICKI-What are you looking for? MR. PALING-How does November look to you? Can you tell yet? 37 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/21/97) MS. NOWICKI-I can’t tell yet. th MR. PALING-Okay. The meetings in November will probably be the regular. That’s the 15 and thth the 18. I mean, the 15 is site visits. Now we’re back to Saturdays, nine o’clock Saturday thththth morning on the 15. Then it will be the 18 and the 25, right, and on the 25 now we’ll have election of officers. The election of officers will take place at that meeting, and the officers will take their positions the first of January. MR. STARK-What happened to December? MR. PALING-No, December was turned down by this Board. MR. STARK-Why was it turned down? MR. PALING-I was against it. I wanted December. No, the Board voted it down. MR. MAC EWAN-But I’m saying, that’s when we did it last year. The Board voted in favor of doing elections for the following year in November, by resolution. MR. RUEL-That’s right. MRS. LABOMBARD-Because you weren’t going to be there. MR. STARK-I’m here in December. MR. PALING-I don’t know why we turned down December. It’s an illogical thing, but that’s the way it’s set up. MRS. LABOMBARD-I thought we turned down January. MR. PALING-No, we changed from January. MRS. LABOMBARD-Yes, but then I thought we were going to change from January to December. MR. PALING-Well, that was the proposal, but the Board voted to make it November, for whatever the reason. The only other thing I have to say, I will not be a candidate for Chairman or any other Board position. Okay. I just want to let you know. I will stay on the Board, but I won’t be a candidate. MR. MAC EWAN-Weren’t we supposed to be having a discussion item for Michael Sundberg? MR. PALING-No, it’s off. It was taken off. MR. MAC EWAN-Even as a discussion item? MR. PALING-Yes. MR. RUEL-It’s off. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. RUEL-I have one comment, and it has to do with the Planning Staff. I don’t know who did th the notes or the minutes for August 26, but they were elegant. Very well done. A lot of good detail and an excellent job. MR. STARK-The packets that we’re getting now are very nice. They’re all set up. Everything’s separate, directions to the sites. Big help. The notes are all categorized and everything. It’s a really good job. MR. MAC EWAN-I even saw a couple of ugly orange site planning signs posted on trees out there in the wilderness. MR. RUEL-Yes. We don’t see those yellow signs anywhere. 38 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/21/97) MR. PALING-Are we giving them to the applicants? MS. CIPPERLY-They started doing that again. MR. MAC EWAN-I saw a couple of them here the last trip. MR. PALING-Why did they stop? MR. RUEL-We didn’t see any, did we? MR. PALING-We didn’t see any this time out. MR. RUEL-We didn’t see a single one. MR. MAC EWAN-I’ll tell you where I saw them. Matthews had one and so did the Michaels. MR. RINGER-We saw Michaels, yes. Michaels had it, but we didn’t see Matthews. MRS. LABOMBARD-I have a question regarding these permit fees. Are you supposed to get a permit to do your basement over? Isn’t that kind of picky? It says here residential interior alteration for this family, and then in parenthesis, basement. MS. CIPPERLY-I don’t know about the fees for the building permits, but. MRS. LABOMBARD-You mean if you do something to the inside of your house, you have to get a permit? MS. CIPPERLY-It has to meet building code. MR. MAC EWAN-I can respond to that. As far as basements go, you’re supposed to, if you’re converting your basement, which is generally perceived as a storage area, into living space, what they’re primarily looking for is another access to the (lost words). If it’s considered living space, you have to have two accesses in and out. MRS. LABOMBARD-What do you mean two accesses in and out? MR. MAC EWAN-It would have to have outside entrance to the basement, according to Code. That’s State Code. MRS. LABOMBARD-So you can’t just have a, what about the basement stairs that go up into the house? MR. PALING-That’s one. MR. MAC EWAN-You need to have another one. MRS. LABOMBARD-And then another one. MR. PALING-But they can be windows. MR. MAC EWAN-What a lot of people do is they’ll take a cellar window and put into like a big push out kind of window with a big window well, so that you don’t have to put the (lost words). MRS. LABOMBARD-So to convert your cellar to a family room/play area, you have to get a permit? MR. RUEL-Because the assessment will go up. Your taxes will go up. MRS. LABOMBARD-What’s that got to do with a permit? MR. MAC EWAN-That’s in case your house burns down. MS. CIPPERLY-That’s how the Assessor finds out that somebody did something to their basement which will increase the value of their house. 39 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/21/97) MR. PALING-Yes. MS. CIPPERLY-In fact there was one in the paper, for example, last week, in the Chronicle, that house of the week, and the Assessor’s Office had it as like a 2,000 square foot house or something, and the realtor listed it as a 3,000 square foot house. MR. PALING-With a basement. MS. CIPPERLY-Because the basement had been finished. MRS. LABOMBARD-But that’s not really the reason for getting a building permit. It’s for meeting codes. MS. CIPPERLY-No, mainly it’s for safety, because you have to have a way to get out of that basement if there’s a fire, and also depending on what you’re storing down there. MRS. LABOMBARD-Interesting. MR. STARK-Is this Barber any relation to the Barber from AMG Industries? MS. CIPPERLY-Yes. I think it’s either father and son. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Robert Paling, Chairman 40