Loading...
1999-07-27 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/27/99) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING JULY 27, 1999 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT CRAIG MAC EWAN, CHAIRMAN CATHERINE LA BOMBARD, SECRETARY TIMOTHY BREWER ROBERT PALING LARRY RINGER ROBERT VOLLARO PLANNER-LAURA MOORE TOWN COUNSEL-MILLER, MANNIX & PRATT STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI OLD BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 1-86 TYPE: UNLISTED MODIFICATION RECOMMENDATION NORTHWINDS/DANIEL & GEORGE DRELLOS OWNER: SAME ZONE: LI- 1A/MOBILE HOME OVERLAY LOCATION: LUZERNE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES A MODIFICATION TO AN APPROVED SITE PLAN. MODIFICATION REQUEST IS TO LOCATE A BUILDING WITHIN THE 100 FOOT BUFFER OFF LUZERNE ROAD TO ALLOW A 24’ X 50’ OFFICE BUILDING. THE OFFICE BUILDING WILL BE USED FOR TENANT TRANSACTIONS, AND A TENANT COMMUNITY MEETING HALL. TAX MAP NO. 93-2-5, 6.9 LOT SIZE: 12.41 AC., 9.52 AC. & 24.79 ACRES SECTION: 179-26, 179-29, CHAPTER 113, ARTICLE II MATT STEVES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MRS. LA BOMBARD-And there is not a public hearing tonight, because we don’t need one for a modification. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 1-86, modification, recommendation, Meeting Date: July 27, 1999 “Description of Project The applicant proposes to construct an office for the Northwinds Trailer Park. The application for a trailer park was approved by the Town Board, any alterations or modifications requires a recommendation from the Planning Board and an action from the Town Board. The proposal is located in a Light Industrial zone within a Mobile Home Overlay district. Staff Notes The Northwinds Trailer Park was approved in 1986 with the concept to build an area for office/meeting building/laundry area identified at the time of approval. The applicant intends to locate a doublewide building within 100 feet of Luzerne Road. The Mobile Home Zoning regulations require housing lots to be located 100 feet from a public road. This regulation appears to include the proposed structure because of its location to Luzerne Road. The site is proposed to have access from within the park. Staff would encourage the site to be landscaped so the structure is screened from the road (Luzerne Road). Recommendations Staff would suggest the Planning Board recommend approval with the conditions noted to the Town Board of the proposed structure.” MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it? MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening. MR. STEVES-Good evening. My name is Matt Steves with Van Dusen and Steves. I represent George & Dan Drellos, owners of Northwinds Mobile Home Park. As Staff has stated, we’re proposing a 24 by 50 doublewide to be placed in the 100 foot buffer zone that exists now, along and parallel to Luzerne Road. What they have now is they have a small office within the bounds of their sanitary sewer business, which borders this property, and running both offices out of there is getting a little cluttered up. So they want to provide a meeting room/small office for the mobile home park within the bounds of the park. That’s the extent of it. It is basically wooded. There is a small area where there are a few trees cleared out of it. If you have visited the site, we tried to place the building in the area where the trees were the thinnest, toward the easterly end of that buffer area. 1 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/27/99) We're going to propose to just use the existing access easement that is there, with a breakaway gate, as they are using now. Typically tenants will come up there, park one, maybe two at a time, bring in, make their payments, talk to the owners, and then leave. About 60% of the actual traffic they get is pedestrian from the homes in the park. No access will be from Luzerne Road. We’ll leave a large buffer of trees, as is outlined on the map, and they will probably use some type of an earth-tone colored building and roofing material, so that it’ll be screened in from the road. We have no objection to planting some shrubs around the front of the building, but we have no intentions of clearing the trees out that are already there, other than what is required to place the building. That’s why we’re putting it as far forward as possible. Within the mobile home overlay there’s a 20-foot setback, as there is on the existing mobile home lots. We're replacing this at the same setback to push it close to the existing road. MR. MAC EWAN-Just enough to snug it into that location, then. MR. STEVES-That’s correct. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Anything else? MR. STEVES-No, any questions you may have, though. MR. PALING-You said there’s no access from Luzerne Road? MR. STEVES-No, there is access from the mobile home park. I’m saying that we’re not going to provide a new driveway for this building. MR. PALING-And the Staff comment about landscape for the structures, screened from Luzerne Road. Are you going to do that? MR. STEVES-Yes. We don’t believe that you’ll be able to really, it won’t stick out and be visible from Luzerne Road, because of the fact that the existing trees that are there, but we have no problem in planting some additional shrubs, after the building is in place. MR. PALING-Okay. We’d have to have some condition, then, on that would be acceptable to Staff, at least. MR. STEVES-I would think that it would be better suited, in this case, to have Staff review it after the placement, to see where it would be best suited, because like I say, it is substantially wooded there, if you’ve visited the site, and this is area that we’re proposing, it is one of the sparser wooded areas. That’s why it’s proposed where it is. MR. PALING-Okay. That’s all I have. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. This drawing is labeled 10/14/86. Now this proposed office, was that on the original drawing, the 24 by 50, was that always there? I’m trying to understand. MR. STEVES-No. There was a note that was placed future placement of office/meeting room/laundry room, but no specific location was shown at that time. This was added in the last month. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So this was an addition. Now, I guess this drawing pre-dates 179-29? What I’m trying to do is understand how this thing is to be authorized within the buffer zone. Is that because this drawing and this note that’s on it, that says future laundry area, meeting room and so on pre-dates 179-29? Is that where we’re at? MR. STEVES-I believe so. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Now, just one other thing, how does this application comply with Chapter 113 entitled “Mobile Homes”? Is that compatible with that? MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-I don’t have a copy of that. So I was unable to read that Chapter. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else, while she’s looking that up? MR. VOLLARO-No, I don’t have anything else. I’m just trying to understand what the modification is, and since he put this on the drawing, since the drawing was made, then that is a modification to this drawing. 2 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/27/99) MR. MAC EWAN-Laura has an answer already. MRS. MOORE-Under Chapter 113, which I reviewed, I've asked comment whether there would be commercial sales, mobile homes, and he indicated no. It’s only tenant transactions, and no portion of the lot shall be located within 100 feet. He’s taken care of this. As a lot, this really isn’t the proposed lot, but it’s an office building. It’s not a dwelling unit. So it doesn’t. MR. VOLLARO-I’m just wondering what the significance of the 100 foot buffer really is, concerning this application, whether or not, like under what basis are we putting this building within the 100 feet? MRS. MOORE-I’ll read this from there. It says, “The natural vegetation within the areas above provided shall be maintained and not removed, in order to provide natural screening from adjoining properties and public roads.” The purpose was to provide screening. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So we’re providing screening, but we’re allowing him to build this proposed office within the buffer zone. MRS. MOORE-Correct, but he’s also maintaining a buffer, a continued buffered area. MR. BREWER-Sixty-four feet. MR. VOLLARO-It’s 64 feet versus the 100. MRS. MOORE-The 100. MR. VOLLARO-Is that a variance? I mean, I’m having a problem trying to figure that, how will allowing this 64-foot, if I look at the paved portion of Luzerne Road. MR. MAC EWAN-Isn’t this prior to the Town Zoning Ordinance that was adopted. MR. PALING-This is a recommendation. MR. STEVES-That’s correct. MR. VOLLARO-If it’s prior to, then all this stuff is just. MR. BREWER-Right, it’s prior to, but it’s just a modification of his plan. MR. STEVES-It’s a modification to an approved site plan. The stipulation I believe, as Laura has stated, in the Mobile Home Overlay, is that no home will be placed within 100 feet of Luzerne Road, and this is not a home. So therefore, my understanding of it is a modification to the approved plan. MR. VOLLARO-You’re saying the determining factor is home versus structure? MR. STEVES-That’s correct. MR. BREWER-Right. MR. VOLLARO-All right. MR. SCHACHNER-Well, I think Staff believes that’s correct, right, Staff? MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. SCHACHNER-And I think the thing that’s a bit confusing here, that the Board should realize, is that you’re actually doing two things, or considering two things here. You’re considering a recommendation to the Town Board because the mobile home park part of this is a Town Board judgement call, or a Town Board jurisdiction call, but there’s also, as Mr. Steves has indicated, and as Staff has indicated, there’s also a previously approved site plan. So we’re doing a, you’re considering a site plan review modification. So you’re actually doing both, or considering both, and that is a bit confusing. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. That’s all, Mr. Chairman. I don’t have anything else. MR. RINGER-The only use is going to be an office, no Laundromat, no grocery, strictly office? MR. STEVES-Office/meeting room for the tenants of the park. 3 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/27/99) MR. RINGER-No commercial? MR. STEVES-No, no other use, other than Northwinds Mobile Home Park. MR. RINGER-You don’t show any parking at all. I realize you said most of the people are going to walk to the place. MR. STEVES-Right now that’s just an easement or there’s a paved area there that goes out to the east, and along that dog leg back up to Luzerne Road where our breakaway gate is for emergency access. So right now it’s just like a long parking lot, driveway, and people that are coming to their office is right about over where the signature and seal is on the map now. There’s parking there and we’re walking through the gate. So we’re just proposing to park right where they are now. There’s typically no more than two cars there at a time. They park on the edge of the road. So there was no really reason to cut out anymore and put in a blacktop parking area. MR. BREWER-I think it’s a good use. I don’t have any problems with it. MR. MAC EWAN-There’s no public hearing scheduled, but if anyone wants to come up and comment to this application, you’re welcome to. Does someone want to put a recommendation up? MOTION TO RECOMMEND TO APPROVE MODIFICATION TO SITE PLAN NO. 1- 86 DANIEL & GEORGE DRELLOS/NORTHWINDS, Introduced by Timothy Brewer who moved for its adoption, seconded by Larry Ringer: With the prepared resolution, with the condition that after the placement of the mobile home or office structure, Staff will review, or go out and look at the site, and recommend not or more screening from Luzerne Road. That the Planning Board has determined that there is no significant modification to the original SEQRA findings. Whereas, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of a modification to Site Plan No. 1-86; and Whereas, the above mentioned application, received 6/30/99, consists of the following: 1. 6/30/99 – Letter w/map 84-26D dated 10/14/86 Whereas, the above file is supported with the following documentation: 1. 7/27/99 - Staff Notes Whereas, a public hearing was not held concerning the above project; and Whereas, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the site plan requirements of the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and Whereas, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and Whereas, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered; and 1. The Town Planning Board, after considering the above, hereby moves to approve modification to Site Plan No. 1-86, Daniel & George Drellos/Northwinds. 2. The applicant shall present three (3) copies of the above referenced site plan to the Zoning Administrator for his signature. 3. The Zoning Administrator is hereby authorized to sign the resolution. 4. The applicant agrees to the conditions set forth in this resolution. 5. The conditions shall be noted on the map. 6. The issuance of permits is conditioned on compliance and continued compliance with the Zoning Ordinance and site plan approval process. Duly adopted this 27 day of July, 1999, by the following vote: th MR. PALING-You’re going to put the addition in there, though, that they’re going to have to have final landscaping plan approved by Staff. 4 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/27/99) MR. BREWER-Well, if they’ve got 65 foot of trees, you mean in the front, Bob, or in the back? MR. PALING-Well, I’m referring to the Staff Notes in which the applicant has agreed to, that there may be more landscaping required, and in the judgement of Staff there is. MR. STEVES-I would gladly allow that to state whatever Staff recommendation are after the time the home is placed. MR. BREWER-After the home is placed, we’ll have Staff look at it, and if they see a need for more screening, then you’ll supply whatever the Staff recommends. MR. STEVES-That’s correct. AYES: Mr. Ringer, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Paling, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set. MR. STEVES-Thank you. NEW BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 37-99 TYPE II FRANCIS R. KOENIG OWNER: FRANCIS R. & MARILYN M. KOENIG ZONE: WR-1A, APA, CEA LOCATION: HANNEFORD ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 28’ X 38’ ADDITION TO PRESENT SEASONAL CAMP. CROSS REFERENCE: TOWN BD. OF HEALTH VAR., RES. 27.99 AREA VARIANCE NO. 59-1999 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 7/14/99 TAX MAP NO. 19-1-13 LOT SIZE: 0.42 ACRES SECTION: 179-79, 179-60, 179-16 FRANCIS KOENIG, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 37-99, Francis R. Koenig, Meeting Date: July 27, 1999 “Description of Project The applicant proposes to construct a 1064 +/- square foot expansion of an existing dwelling. Expansion of a dwelling in the Waterfront residential zone and a CEA requires site plan review and approval. The applicant received an area variance from the ZBA, and a septic variance from the Town Board. Staff Notes The applicant proposes to expand the dwelling by more than fifty percent for single story home. The applicant has noted the drainage path running from the Hanneford Road, under the existing home, and then to Lake George. The site has a shallow depth to bedrock and much of the area is exposed ledge. This situation makes it difficult to provide for stormwater controls on site for the proposed project. Site Development Data and Drawing Notes: The applicant has indicated the drawing is incorrect as to the size of the structure, the size is 28 feet by 38 feet (1064 square feet). This corresponds with the site development data. The drawing indicates a broken asphalt drive that is not included as part of the calculation. An estimated square footage is 700 square feet. This would change the total non-permeable surface to an estimated 17% of the parcel. The extent of the project does not change with the new calculations. Recommendations: Staff would recommend the Board review the stormwater generation issue of the proposed project and determine if there are alternatives to the location or extent of the project.” MRS. MOORE-Would you like me to read the Town Board’s, or Department of Health, rather? MR. MAC EWAN-That would be good. MRS. MOORE-This is Resolution No. 27.99, “Whereas Francis Koenig previously filed an application for five variances from provisions of the Town of Queensbury on-site sewage disposal ordinance as follows: 1. Section 136-11B of the Town Code requires an applicant to obtain a variance for holding tanks. Mr. Koenig has requested a variance to allow a holding tank. 2. Mr. Koenig has requested a variance to locate the proposed holding tank 30 feet from the well in lieu of the required 50-foot setback. 3. Although Mr. Koenig proposes to install the holding tank below grade as required by Section 136-11B(18) a variance is requested the grade will be less than the required 50 feet distance from the radius due to rock ledges. 4. Mr. Koenig has requested a variance to locate the proposed holding tank 10 feet from a stream in lieu of the required 50-foot setback. 5. Mr. Koenig has requested a variance to locate the well two feet from the property line in lieu of the required 15-foot setback set forth in Appendix C of Chapter 136. Whereas, the Town Clerk’s Office published the notice of public hearing in the Town’s official newspaper, and the local Board of Health conducted a public hearing concerning the variance requested on June 7, 1999, and Whereas 5 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/27/99) the Town Clerk advised the property owners within 500 feet of the subject property, has been duly notified, Now, Therefore Be It Resolved, A. That due to the nature of the variance, it is felt that the variances would not be materially detrimental to the purposes and objectives of the Ordinance or to the other adjoining properties, or otherwise conflict with the purpose and objectives of the plan or policy of the Town of Queensbury, and Be It that the local Board of Health finds that the granting of the variance is necessary for the reasonable use of the land, and the variances granted are the minimum variances which would alleviate the specific unnecessary hardship found by the local Board of Health to effect the applicant, and Be It Further Resolved that the Town of Queensbury local Board of Health hereby approves the application of Francis Koenig for five variances from the Sewage Disposal Ordinance to allow: 1. Mr. Koenig to have a holding tank, 2. Mr. Koenig to locate the holding tank 30 feet from the well in lieu of the required 50-foot setback. 3. Mr. Koenig to install the holding tank less than the required 50 feet distance from the radius of the holding tank, due to rock ledges, 4. Mr. Koenig to locate the holding tanks 10 feet from a stream in lieu of the required 50-foot setback and, 5. Mr. Koenig to locate two feet from the property line, in lieu of the required 15 foot setback set forth in Appendix C of Chapter 136, on property situated on Hanneford Road, Queensbury, and bearing Tax Map No. 19-1-13. And Be It Further Resolved that as a condition of this approval, the residence shall only be utilized as a seasonal camp and not for a year round occupancy.” That’s it. MR. VOLLARO-Laura, I didn’t hear anything in those five variances that talked about prohibition for a year round use for the septic tank. MRS. MOORE-The last one. Year round use for the septic tank? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MRS. MOORE-“And Be It Further Resolved that as a condition of this approval, the residence shall only be utilized as a seasonal camp….” MR. VOLLARO-Okay, because in the application it talks about seasonal residence with some all year long residence. MR. BREWER-I think that’s describing the vicinity, isn’t it? Because I just read the same thing a minute ago. MR. KOENIG-Yes, it’s the area. My name’s Frank Koenig. MR. BREWER-On the top of that column, right where you’re reading that, it says the vicinity, I think if you’re reading the same thing that I am. MR. VOLLARO-It says, what is the present land use in the vicinity of the project. MR. BREWER-In the vicinity of the project. He’s saying that there are seasonal residences with some. MR. VOLLARO-In the vicinity of the project, okay. MR. BREWER-Do you see what I mean? MR. VOLLARO-Yes, but there is a prohibition on this particular application that it will not be year round. MR. SCHACHNER-Right. That’s a condition of the Town Board’s, or the Town Board acting as the local Board of Health, that’s a condition of its approval. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. KOENIG-What I wanted to do, originally, was tear the camp down and put up a new one, but because of the holding tank, it’s State law, from what the attorney mentioned, you can’t do that. So the only thing I could do was put an addition on my present camp, and that’s what the proposal is. That’s the only place that the addition can go. It stays within the setbacks under the zoning, 20 feet from the side, so much from the front, so much from the rear. I don’t know of any problems with it, other than what the Staff is talking about, about stormwater, but I am the low man on the totem pole on Hanneford Road, and all the water from the north, the east and the southeast comes my way. I disagree with the comment that it’s a stream, because the only time it’s wet is when it rains, or in the spring of the year with the runoff. I don’t know where the water could go, other than where it’s going right now. I mean, the site is solid rock. MR. PALING-How does the water get under the house? Is it on a rock ledge? 6 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/27/99) MR. KOENIG-Yes, it’s all rock. MR. PALING-It just flows right underneath? MR. KOENIG-It flows underneath. Right where you see it going underneath, there’s little grades, so we can walk along the side of the present camp, down to the porch, and then down to the lake, and there’s another bridge because there’s a drainage down in front, too, that it just empties into. MR. VOLLARO-Does that 24 inch culvert going to the lake? MR. KOENIG-I think the one down by, in the Pilot Knob is 30 inches. I think it’s bigger. MR. VOLLARO-It says 24 on the map. That’s all I can, I can only go by what the site plan says. It says 24-inch culvert. MR. KOENIG-Okay. Maybe it is then. I never measured it. MR. MAC EWAN-It seems like an awful lot of variances were asked and received to do this application. That somewhat concerns me. MR. BREWER-In my mind, it’s quite a seasonal home. I mean, to do all this and not be able to stay there year round is. MRS. MOORE-What pictures are you looking at? MR. BREWER-Am I looking at the wrong ones? MRS. MOORE-I think so. MR. BREWER-I think so, too. MR. VOLLARO-Let me ask a question. We in the Town recently passed a Stormwater Ordinance for northern Queensbury, to do with operations on the lake, and I read that today, and I don’t know when this Ordinance, if we can consider this, this pre-dates the Ordinance. Is that what you’re saying? MRS. MOORE-Correct. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So there’s no question about that one. MRS. MOORE-And to be honest with you, I worked through the calculations on my own, as a test, and there’s really, I didn’t see any other stormwater structures you could place on the property, unless you can come up with something. MR. VOLLARO-If the Ordinance was in place for this application, that Ordinance says, if you add impermeable area in excess of 1,000 square feet, you have to then deal with the Ordinance. It says if you disturb more than 5,000 square feet, and add an impervious area in excess of 1,000, then that Ordinance comes into play, but if this pre-dates the Ordinance, we don’t have to even talk about that. One of the things I see, I just calculated the slope today, and you’ve got a 13% slope here. It’s 29 feet and 225, and the way this rock looks, this water will just plain sheet down to the bottom of this. There’s a fast run here, down to the lake, and I guess what I had asked myself when I was doing this, how is the holding tank? Is it above ground or below ground? MR. KOENIG-It would be covered. It has to be covered, under the Town Health law, whatever it is. MR. MAC EWAN-It’s a mounded system. MR. VOLLARO-It’s a mounded system. So the water will sheet around that, and I can’t believe, with this kind of ledging, and at a 13% slope, that you’ve got any kind of direction into that culvert at all. It looks to me like this water will sheet this property right toward Pilot Knob Road. That’s just my look at it. MR. KOENIG-Did you walk the site? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. 7 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/27/99) MR. KOENIG-Because it goes right underneath the camp, and then it goes right into the drainage into the front, and right on down into the culvert. It’s been going there 40 years since we’ve owned it. The camp’s been there for more than that. MR. MAC EWAN-Why would you want to pursue such a large expansion of the property if you knew that part of the approvals that you got would only allow you to use it seasonal? MR. KOENIG-Because that’s all we’ve used it for 40 years. It was a camp that was owned by my mother and my father and my two brothers and I, and we all got married. There’s children. There’s grandchildren. My mom and dad passed away. My brother, my older brother owns a place on Seeley Road. My kid brother owns one on Rockhurst, and I got stuck with this one, I guess. I would have loved to have torn the old camp down, but I couldn’t, and there just isn’t, if you look at the size, the porch is big because my dad lost a leg and we made the porch bigger so he could walk and get exercise because of circulation problems. So the camp itself, the old camp, isn’t that big. MR. MAC EWAN-In what aspect, Laura, are your recommendations in review of the stormwater generation issue? What are some of the things that you want us to be considering here? MRS. MOORE-What I was looking at was that considering that it’s exposed ledge rock and things like that, even if he puts up the structure, considering, are you really creating new impervious surface? It’s already so close to it, it already sheet drains anyway. Maybe there’s something we could do with the pitch of the roof or something to that effect, where it directs it to the Hanneford Road side before it drains into the lake. MR. MAC EWAN-But draining it toward the Hanneford Road side, being at the site, that’s trying to drain it up hill. MRS. MOORE-The pitch of the roof. MR. MAC EWAN-But even the pitch of the roof, if you pitched it in that direction, it’s still going to go downhill. I mean, because going down into a site is going down at a little bit of a grade. MRS. MOORE-Right, but you’re deterring it for a moment. I mean, you’re not going to deter it any further anyway, if you allow the structure. MR. BREWER-If the home wasn’t there, where would the water go? MRS. MOORE-Right to the lake. MR. VOLLARO-Right, and it’s still going to go to the lake. With a 13% slope, it’s going to go to the lake, no matter what. MR. MAC EWAN-So the question is, does he allow more water to go to the lake? MRS. MOORE-But is he truly making more water to the lake? MR. BREWER-How is it going to create more water? It isn’t going to create any more. MR. VOLLARO-No matter what you do, it’s going to be, that amount of water is going to shed down. MRS. LA BOMBARD-I know what Craig is saying by more water. I mean, if the area of the roof is greater than the area of the footprint, where it’s going. MR. BREWER-Right, but if it’s all ledge, it’s not going to penetrate the ledge. MRS. LA BOMBARD-No, I understand that. MR. BREWER-I understand what he’s saying, but. MR. KOENIG-Right now the site for the proposed addition is just about all bare rock with some moss and, you know, there might be some weeds and stuff growing, and it’s up in the air. So the water hits it and it just runs down whatever the grade is. MR. VOLLARO-You’re going to have to penetrate the rock with footings and that kind of stuff? MR. KOENIG-Probably, yes. 8 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/27/99) MR. VOLLARO-I guess that leads me into my next question. When I look at the height of the building, it’s 24.5 and a half plus or minus. Now, in the Ordinance, I think it says. MR. KOENIG-Twenty-eight feet. MR. VOLLARO-Twenty-eight, but, that twenty-eight feet is to be measured from the highest point of the ground around it, and I can’t tell from this drawing what the situation is on the terrain below it. MR. KOENIG-The only end that’s going to be really exposed would be Pilot Knob, and when we move the rock, we’d be putting it in front of where the foundation is going. MR. VOLLARO-What I’m trying to do is validate that 24 and a half feet is from the highest point of elevation around the house, because that’s how the Code reads. That’s how you determine the peak. MR. KOENIG-Right, but you can fill in, along your foundation. All right, which is what we’re going to be doing. So you’re not going to go over the 28 feet. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So you’re going to, I was just wondering how you’re going to do that on that much ledge, but that’s something I suppose the building inspector will look at when he gets out there, to determine the height, I would guess. Is that correct? MR. MAC EWAN-The height, in this case, is probably going to be determined from that exposed ledge rock, because the Ordinance here says any increase, …highest point…structure at grade at any point adjacent to the building, considering the corner of the building is going to be on that exposed ledge, that’s where they’re going to measure it from. That’s the highest point. MR. BREWER-So certainly it will benefit him, with the ledge. MR. MAC EWAN-Like I say, backing up here, my concerns are, you’re adding a little more than a 1,000 square foot addition to this thing, that’s 1,000 more square feet of impervious area that you’re going to have. Granted, there’s ledge rock up there. Granted, that the depth to bedrock is rather shallow, but a natural setting, it’s going to be able to soak up rain water and runoff quicker than a shingled roof is going to be able to do it. MR. VOLLARO-It’ll be close though, Craig, I think. This stuff probably doesn’t hold any water at all. I’ll bet that all just goes down the lake. MR. KOENIG-I’m open to any suggestions on where to put it. I don’t know where it can go, other than where it’s going now, because I’m the lowest guy there. That location is 10 foot lower than Hanneford Road. MR. BREWER-What does Staff think about alternative? It’s your comment. Do you have any alternative designs or ideas? MR. VOLLARO-Which way does the peak go, the ridge on this proposed addition? MR. MAC EWAN-Does it face the lake? MR. KOENIG-Yes. If you were down at Pilot Knob looking up, the windows would be facing, so the peak would be this way. MR. VOLLARO-So the peak is facing, okay, so you’re shedding off. MR. MAC EWAN-On the exposed ledge. MR. VOLLARO-Right. Well, if that’s the case, you’re also shedding off toward the existing camp. That’s going to remain there? The porch and the camp? MR. KOENIG-Yes, well, whatever they’re going to let me do. It’s going to be up to the contractors and the Building Department to tell me what I can do and what I can’t do. MR. MAC EWAN-Now, with the pitch of the roof in that direction, what about your neighbors? Now, is rainwater going to hit that ledge and then sheet over onto their property? MR. KOENIG-No, he’s higher. Well, there’s 20 feet between us to start with, and he’s a little higher than I would be. 9 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/27/99) MR. VOLLARO-Why does this drawing show the next door camp encroaching on your property line? MR. KOENIG-Because it is. MR. VOLLARO-Because it is, okay. MR. KOENIG-I guess back when they were, if you look where the back end of my camp is only a foot off the north property line, too. So the Town let them build them, years ago, that close, I guess, to the line. MR. MAC EWAN-It must be real homesteading back in those days. MR. BREWER-Probably the lines weren’t that. MR. MAC EWAN-Clear. MR. VOLLARO-I’m out of gas. MR. BREWER-I just don’t know what else you could do. I mean, if it’s all ledge, whether you put something there or not, I don’t think it’s going to create more. Certainly it’s going to, maybe the direction is going to go in a different direction, but I don’t have any alternatives or ideas. MR. RINGER-I don’t see any other way for him to do it, if we decide to allow it. I don’t see any other way to do it. So either we let him do it, or it’s not going to work. MR. VOLLARO-I guess my only comment is some lots shouldn’t be improved. I guess that’s the only comment I have on it, but having, you know, trying to turn this around in some other way, it just doesn’t play. No matter if you shift the peak 90 degrees, that doesn’t play much. You’ve got a tough lot here with a lot of slope. So I don’t have anything to recommend, other than what’s on the drawing. MR. MAC EWAN-Cathy? MRS. LA BOMBARD-All I have is this right here? MR. MAC EWAN-That’s all you have. MR. VOLLARO-That’s all you’ve got, yes. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Mr. Koenig, who helped you design, did you do this yourself? MR. KOENIG-No, that was just a drawing that I saw of what we would like to put up there. I didn’t go out and hire an architect. The 28 by 38 that we’re interested to fit in with the zoning requirements with setbacks. MRS. LA BOMBARD-And you’re not worried about this gable, is there going to be a little pocket there between here and your existing camp where snow could collect and the roof could cave in? MR. KOENIG-That’s something that the architect would want to get into, is going to have to tell me what’s got to be done. MRS. LA BOMBARD-So you are going to hire a professional to do the final? MR. KOENIG-Yes. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, I’d like to see it when you finish, because like I say, we’re not versed in design. MR. KOENIG-I’m not, either. MRS. LA BOMBARD-But I’d like to see how it will end up coming out. Well, we can go back and look on our visits. MR. KOENIG-All right. MRS. LA BOMBARD-I mean, I don’t have any problem with you. I can see why you want to put on some extra room. It’s not a huge addition, comparatively speaking. 10 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/27/99) MR. KOENIG-What I wanted to do, there’s a couple of things. I wanted to jack the camp up, but every contractor I talked to said, you’ve got two by fours in there. How are you going to, it’s too costly to do anything with what you’ve got. Tear it down. So I said, okay. Then the Town says I can’t tear it down. So then the building inspector said the only thing you can do is put an addition on. So that’s what I’m hear for. MRS. LA BOMBARD-I’m sure that if you have a professional person helping you out with this, and we have a code, a building guy coming in, that it’s going to meet all the specs. MR. BREWER-It seems as though they would let him take it down, and be an improvement. MR. MAC EWAN-I guess the question I've got for Staff is why couldn’t he. MR. SCHACHNER-We're guessing you’re going to ask why he couldn’t just tear it down and replace something on the same square foot footprint. MR. MAC EWAN-There you go. MR. SCHACHNER-The answer is, as we understand it, and we’re not the building inspector, obviously, but we believe that what the applicant sought from Mr. Hatin was guidance as to how he could tear down the structure and replace it with a structure that was capable of year round occupancy. I believe that’s where this application, or this applicant, started off. Not necessarily to be utilized for year round occupancy at this time but to be capable of year-round occupancy. That runs afoul of the New York State Health Department regulations prohibiting holding tanks on year-round occupied structures, and one of you, I don’t remember who, started to ask awhile back, I think it was Mr. Ringer, how would they enforce, you know, year-round occupancy issue, and the obviously we don’t want Dave Hatin to have to go out and visit on Thanksgiving night various seasonal residences up and down the peninsulas of Lake George. The answer is the determination is based on what the residence is capable of, in other words, heating system, insulation, things like that. This applicant, as I recall, has been through a number of iterations of the proposal with the Building Department and the Town Board, but I think where he started off was tearing this down and building a structure that would have been capable of year-round occupancy. The Building Inspector told him, and rightly so, that he could not do that because he couldn’t put a septic system, an on-site septic system, at this location. He’s tied to the holding tank because of the ledge. MR. MAC EWAN-Well, then, would your proposed addition have a furnace system in it, heating system? MR. KOENIG-No, and I had, when Dave Hatin told me that I couldn’t build a year-round one I said, okay, then I’ll build, just put a fireplace in like I've got in my present one, and he said, are you going to insulate it, and I said, well, yes, because I want to put air-conditioning in the darn thing. So I want to insulate it. I said, no heating system. He said, well, that’s a gray area. We don’t have an answer. So I said, gee, I’ll wait two or three more months, but you can put an addition on. So that’s why I’m here, but the Town road doesn’t even go up to my place. So I can’t get in there in the winter, to start with. MR. MAC EWAN-What’s below you, past your residence, over the hill, there’s like a right-of-way going down there. Is there a camp down there? MR. KOENIG-Yes, well, there’s quite a few camps. There’s vacant land right to the north of me, then there’s, maybe four other camps all the way down in. MR. MAC EWAN-Do they come over in the wintertime, do you know? MR. KOENIG-From what my neighbor across the street says, when the Town plows, it all ends there, and you can’t get through it. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Any other questions from the Board? MR. VOLLARO-I’d certainly like to explore a little bit more the basis of, and maybe with Hatin, the basis of not being able to tear that down. If he was to tear the existing structure down and build it so it could not be occupied in the winter, for example, no heat, no heating system, whatever, why couldn’t that structure be torn down and built like he wants to build it, and it’s not occupied? MR. KOENIG-They tell me the State Health law says you cannot build a new home if you use a holding tank. My argument was, I’m not building a new home. My home is in Kingston, New York. MR. VOLLARO-Well, once you tear this down, I guess what happens, you start a structure from scratch. 11 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/27/99) MR. KOENIG-And they’re classifying it as a new home. MR. BREWER-New construction. Suppose you were to sell it, somebody moved in, and it was capable of year-round residence, with the holding tank, it wouldn’t. MR. SCHACHNER-Ownership is irrelevant. It doesn’t matter who owns it. MR. BREWER-Well, what I’m saying is, he’s telling us his home is in Kingston. If somebody were to buy it, their home is there. MR. RINGER-There’s no getting around it. It’s either a yes or a no. MR. MAC EWAN-So where are we here? We want to open the public hearing. Does somebody want to comment to this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MRS. MOORE-I have public comments. MR. MAC EWAN-Go ahead. MRS. MOORE-This is addressed to Cathy LaBombard, this is from Ruth Bredlau, it says, “Message: Please do not approve the Koenig addition application.” She doesn’t give an address of where she’s located. All right. There’s an attached letter. I’ll go through this. “To Whom It May Concern: As owner of the adjoining north property, I believe there is a parking problem that should be considered. Many years ago, the Koenig family extended their blacktop parking area onto my property without permission. When requested not to park there, they always complied. However, since my land is vacant, the unlawful parking is not policed and undoubtedly continues. A 100% structural addition will allow a longer season of use by more individuals. It also offers the possibility of becoming a retirement residence. Thus the parking problem increases exponentially. This request for a structure 100% larger than the present nonconforming one is completely inappropriate for the size of the parcel. The Town of Queensbury has set building rules believed to be in the best interest of everyone. Please comply with the established precedents.” And I have another comment. “We have no objection.” And this is from Harold and Eleanor Smith, which is 43 Hanneford Road. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s it? MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. KOENIG-Can I answer the comments from the lady to the north? MR. MAC EWAN-Fine. Go ahead. MR. KOENIG-I don’t know what the problem is, because my son got married May of ’98, over in Amsterdam, and she sent us a clipping that was in the paper and everything, and I talked to her last year. So I was surprised when this came in. As to the comments about present nonconforming one, the Chairman of the Zoning Board said that if the present camp wasn’t there, he could build a 3900 square foot building, and we couldn’t stop him, which is true based on the area, and the 22%, I don’t know what the phrase is they used, but that’s what they said at the Zoning Board. As far as the parking goes, apparently when they black-topped, when my dad was living, and some of the blacktop went over on the side there a little bit, but there’s plenty of parking for what we’ve got. As I mentioned earlier, it’s just my family now that uses it, not my brothers. My two brother’s family’s and my mom and dad are deceased. So there’s less people, actually, using the camp than there were before. You don’t have the automobiles that she’s referring to here. As far as retirement residence, we know we can’t use it as a retirement residence because you can’t use it, it’s only a seasonal place. I don’t know if there’s anything else you’d want to ask me in there. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, I have a question about the driveway. When we, where it says the old b broken asphalt, is that where you park, in there? When we drove in, I was driving, and it was pretty precarious. MR. KOENIG-Actually, if you go down to the proposed well, you go down in there, that’s where we park, there, and you can park up where the old broken asphalt, and also there’s two trailers we park. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Now see where the dotted line goes? That’s just a contour line? Okay. MR. KOENIG-Up by the 365? 12 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/27/99) MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes. See where it says old broken asphalt? MR. KOENIG-Right. Well, see where the 365 is? MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes. MR. KOENIG-We actually can park a car up there. We park two or three cars down by the well, if we needed it, and I can park, up where it says old broken asphalt, that it looks like a bone up in there. I've got two trailers up there right now. I pull my car in there. I’m also proposing, I think I’m going to when I put the holding tank in, put one of those, a lady down on Pilot Knob put one in, where you can drive on top of it. I guess it’s stronger or something, so I can use that for parking, too. MRS. LA BOMBARD-And Mr. Koenig, just one other thing. Where’s your well now? MR. KOENIG-Well, actually, today, they took it up today, where it says proposed, 620 feet down in the ground. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Is that where your original, where was the original well? MR. KOENIG-No. We took the water out of the lake. MRS. LA BOMBARD-You got it out of the lake? MR. KOENIG-Yes. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. I was wondering. I thought maybe it had gone dry or something. MR. KOENIG-It’s not safe to use it. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Not in there. MR. KOENIG-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else from Board members? I’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. If someone wants to put a motion up, I’ll entertain one. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 37-99 FRANCIS R. KOENIG, Introduced by Timothy Brewer who moved for its adoption, seconded by Catherine LaBombard: As per prepared resolution, with one condition that this home not be used as a year round residence. Whereas, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of Site Plan No. 37-99 to construct a 28 x 38’ addition to present seasonal camp; and Whereas, the above mentioned application, received 6/29/99, consists of the following: 1. Application with map S-1 dated 3/9/99 Whereas, the above file is supported with the following documentation: 1. 6/7/99 - Town Bd. resolution 27.99 2. 7/7/99 - Meeting Notice letter 3. 7/14/99 – Warren Co. Planning Bd. resolution 4. 7/21/99 - Zoning Board of Appeals resolution 5. 7/27/99 - Staff Notes Whereas, a public hearing was held on 7/27/99 concerning the above project; and Whereas, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the site plan requirements of the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and Whereas, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and Whereas, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered; and 13 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/27/99) 1. The Town Planning Board, after considering the above, hereby moves to approve Site Plan No. 37-99 for Francis Koenig. 2. The applicant shall present three (3) copies of the above referenced site plan to the Zoning Administrator for his signature. 3. The Zoning Administrator is hereby authorized to sign the resolution. 4. The applicant agrees to the conditions set forth in this resolution. 5. The conditions shall be noted on the map. 6. The issuance of permits is conditioned on compliance and continued compliance with the Zoning Ordinance and site plan approval process. Duly adopted this 27 day of July, 1999, by the following vote: th MRS. LA BOMBARD-The only thing is, I don’t know if I heard all of that, Tim. I would just like to put in the resolution the stipulation, in the proposal, rather, that it is not to be used as a year-round residence. MR. BREWER-I think that’s redundant because. MRS. LA BOMBARD-I know, but something like that is going to be very difficult to enforce, down the line. MR. BREWER-Yes, but I think from, I was at the Town Board meeting the night he was here. When he gets a building permit, they’re not going to let him have a heating system, or whatever. Am I right, Mark, or not? MR. SCHACHNER-Yes, but I mean, it is redundant. There’s no harm. I mean, I think that’s a discretionary call by the Board. It is redundant, but there’s no harm in doing it if you wanted to. If you want it to appear in both places, you could certainly do that. If you don’t, you don’t have to. MR. BREWER-That’s fine. MRS. LA BOMBARD-No, I just really feel that, you know, maybe 30 years from now, with Mr. Koenig’s children and their children, you know, if they want to come back and do some research, or somebody has a problem, I’d like to have it said right in this resolution that we specifically referred to, you’re not supposed to stay there all the time. Who knows what’s going to happen down the line. I think that we were remiss with the property that we did on Glen Lake, with that little attachment, that little building that they added on the great big one. I really think we should have made some kind of a stipulation that. MR. BREWER-That the little one couldn’t have been? MRS. LA BOMBARD-Broken apart and sold separately or something like that. I don’t know. I’m just being extra cautious because this is so nonconforming. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. So our resolution is as written with the addition that. MR. BREWER-With one condition, that this home not be used as a year-round residence. Is that what you’re trying to say, Cathy? MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes. That just, even though it’s not supposed to be, I just want it to be said again in the motion. MR. BREWER-It’s said again. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Before we call the vote, just so I’m clear in my mind. Year-round residences, do we have anything definitive? I mean, if he wants to live there from September to June, and move out July through August? MR. RINGER-Nine months. 14 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/27/99) MR. SCHACHNER-There is something I believe in the Zoning Ordinance that says nine months, but as a practical matter I think the way that’s going to be enforced is the way the Board talked about earlier, through what is or is not in the structure. MR. BREWER-And I think the Town Board took care of that. Right? MR. MAC EWAN-Call the vote, please. MR. VOLLARO-No, and I’d like to qualify the no vote. In looking at this less than half acre lot, I just don’t believe it lends itself to any improve, and some lots, I said this before, that some lots should not be improved, and I don’t believe that this one should be either, and that’s the basis of my no vote. AYES: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Paling NOES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. MacEwan MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set. Good luck. MR. KOENIG-Thank you. SUBDIVISION NO. 14-1999 PRELIMINARY STAGE FINAL STAGE TYPE: UNLISTED LEIGH P. BEEMAN OWNER: SAME ZONE: WR-1A, APA, CEA LOCATION: WEST SIDE CLEVERDALE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF AN 8.27 ACRE PARCEL INTO TWO LOTS OF 7.27 ACRES AND 1.01 ACRES. CROSS REFERENCE: SUBDIVISION NO. 8-1995, AV 60-1999 TAX MAP NO. 12-3-27.1 LOT SIZE: 8.27 ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS MATT STEVES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; LEIGH BEEMAN, PRESENT MRS. MOORE-Before I begin, Matt, did you bring certified mail receipts? MR. STEVES-No, I do not. MR. BREWER-Did you do them, or you just forgot them? MR. STEVES-That I do not know. It was a joint venture, here, between John Caffry and myself, and I don’t have them. So I cannot tell you whether they were sent out or not. MR. MAC EWAN-How anxious are you to move on this thing? MR. STEVES-As long as I can get a feeling of the Board, I can come back at your next meeting. MR. MAC EWAN-Next month. MR. STEVES-Okay. MRS. BEEMAN-The reason this is so critical is because the other part of the property is for sale, and they’re waiting to get this part determined. MR. BREWER-How about we have a special meeting? MR. MAC EWAN-If you can get your mailers. MR. STEVES-All the names are out here. So I mean, it won’t be a problem. MR. MAC EWAN-I mean, if you have them, okay, and you’ve already gotten your receipts back, just get a hold of Staff, and I think we’d be accommodating. We’ll give you a special meeting to get your project moving. However, if you haven’t done your mailers yet, then we’ll just hold you over until the next regular meeting. MR. STEVES-Which would be? MR. MAC EWAN-The second. MR. SCHACHNER-August 17. th MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, thank you, Mark. 15 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/27/99) MR. STEVES-That’s all right. I’ll check with the attorney tomorrow. MR. BREWER-I mean, as far as it goes, it doesn’t take very long. We could get together at five o’clock some night after work. MR. RINGER-You’re still going to have a public hearing. MR. BREWER-Yes. MRS. BEEMAN-I've contacted my neighbor to the north, and they have no problem, and I have a letter from the Moynihans. They’re pleased with what we’ve done. MR. MAC EWAN-But, Leigh, the law requires us to send out 500-foot notices to all surrounding neighbors, and we have to have those little green postcards. MR. STEVES-In the variance last week, I don’t think they could have been sent out until after the variance was granted either. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. So why don’t we just open up the public hearing, and we’ll table this application. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. MAC EWAN-We’ll leave it so that you’ll let Staff know whether we can do a special meeting for you, which we’ll be more than happy to accommodate you on that, or if you haven’t done your mailings, then obviously you’ll be looking around the 17 anyway. th MR. STEVES-Right. First of all, are there any questions from this Board? There were a couple of conditions placed on it, as far as the variance, the Zoning Board, that one shed that says to be moved has been removed already. MR. BREWER-Do we have a copy of the variance map? MRS. MOORE-No, you don’t. MR. BREWER-Do you have a copy of it? MR. STEVES-That was just last Wednesday. MR. BREWER-What was the variance? MR. STEVES-This lot was created, actually, by survey in 1980. It meets the area, and actually in 1980 it met the requirement of subdivision, but the gentleman, the doctor who had it surveyed at that time, never filed the deed, just put it into a life estate, basically, a life use, so that the variance now, it would be for the setback of the garage on the second lot and the width of the shore frontage, and that was granted last Wednesday. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Excuse me. Which lot does the house sit, on Hillman Road that’s there, is it Lot One or Lot Two? MRS. BEEMAN-Lot A, the large lot. MRS. LA BOMBARD-It’s Lot A, okay. Wait a minute. Then how do you get to that? Because it was set, when we went down there. MR. MAC EWAN-We went down Hillman Road. MRS. LA BOMBARD-We went down Hillman Road, and then we turned around and we stopped at the driveway of the house. That’s not your house. MR. MAC EWAN-No. Her lots are off Cleverdale Road. MRS. BEEMAN-My driveway is U-Shaped driveway. MRS. LA BOMBARD-You’re on Sunnyfields, right, but we came down Hillman, and I just wanted to orient myself here. When we had subdivided this before, when you came in. That new house was set way back, but I thought its driveway was on Hillman Road, but you had to drive in, but that was on Lot A, way in here, and you had to cut through Lot 2 to get to it? 16 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/27/99) MRS. BEEMAN-No, both of those two acre lots face Hillman Road, front on Hillman Road, and the one that was purchased by Bill Wetherbee has a driveway that goes in, a driveway, the driveway goes in from Hillman Road to Bill Wetherbee’s property, which is that western most lot on Hillman Road. His driveway comes directly off Hillman Road. MRS. LA BOMBARD-It’s not on this map, though, the driveway and that house that was built. It’s not on this map. MRS. BEEMAN-Okay. It just doesn’t have anything to do with what we’re doing. MRS. LA BOMBARD-I know it doesn’t. It’s just that it, I just, by looking at this map, we didn’t come in on Sunnyfields. MR. MAC EWAN-We went down Hillman Road. When we came back up, we were going to go back down right in front of, it was right next to the site. We were on Hillman Road, and when we came back up from doing the other site, we went right in front of her place, right on Cleverdale Road. MRS. LA BOMBARD-But we never went down Sunnyfields Road. MR. MAC EWAN-No, we never went down Sunnyfield Road, no, but we were right in front of the parcel. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else? MRS. LA BOMBARD-So we came down around this road here. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. MRS. LA BOMBARD-I just wanted to know where I am, and then I kept trying to stretch my neck because I wanted to see the house. MR. MAC EWAN-Actually, to tell you the truth, we went all the way down around that bend right there to the end of the driveways. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes, we did, and then we went and we turned around, right. MR. MAC EWAN-Any questions? MR. PALING-What about the septic locations? They’ve been asked to specify that, right? MR. STEVES-Yes, that’ll be shown on the plan. They’re both directly to the east of the existing home. The subdivision lot does not encroach upon the 10-foot setback for the septic. The septic will conform to the Code. MR. PALING-But you don’t show it here. MR. STEVES-No, I will be showing it. They’re both perpendicular to the lake from behind the two houses, running back toward Cleverdale Road. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Leigh, where is your father’s home that I was very familiar with on this map? MRS. BEEMAN-It’s the A parcel. It’s the larger house that you can see there. MRS. LA BOMBARD-The one on the left, upper left-hand corner, but not the one up at the very top? MR. STEVES-That’s correct. MRS. LA BOMBARD-It’s, right, that’s the one I thought. Okay. MR. VOLLARO-When this drawing was drawn, I’m looking for the date on this, Matt. What’s the date of this drawing? MR. RINGER-June 29, 1999. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So it’s a very recent drawing. 17 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/27/99) MR. STEVES-Correct. MR. VOLLARO-Then this Lot B, the 1.01 acres, was that, were those lot lines recently drawn? MR. STEVES-No. MR. VOLLARO-That’s been there awhile? MR. STEVES-That’s been there since 1980. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So it pre-dates anything in the current zoning law. All right. I was just wondering what the situation was on the 150-foot wide lot, but I see that that doesn’t play, based on the pre-date. MR. STEVES-There’s a survey done December 23, 1980, with Dr. Colgate Phillips that established those lines, and at the time, it conformed to all the zoning, and no variance or subdivision was required at the time, and he put it into a life estate, but never filed the map. MR. MAC EWAN-We’ve had cases like that before. MR. VOLLARO-When you’ve got pre-dates, it doesn’t make any difference what you do, it seems to me. It’s something I think we ought to be looking into, though, at the Town level. That’s my feeling on it. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. I guess you’ve got pretty much the consensus. I think things will go relatively smooth for you. MR. STEVES-I’ll get back to Staff tomorrow morning. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. We’ll table the application until we hear back from you. MR. STEVES-Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Anything else from Staff? So you’re going to provide us before our next meeting, though, a new map, right, delineating the septics? MR. STEVES-That’s right. The new map has actually been drawn in the office on Auto CAD. It’s all drawn up showing the septic, and I’ll provide all new maps. MR. MAC EWAN-All right. Thank you. Should we save the stuff for Howland Construction and Ryan? Or will we be getting new stuff? MRS. MOORE-You should save the stuff for Howland Construction. Mark Ryan has submitted new information. MR. MAC EWAN-Lemery & Reid Great Escape parking lots, new stuff going to be coming? MRS. MOORE-As far as I know. MR. VOLLARO-Laura, have you gotten any narrative from? Do you expect any? You don’t know? Do you feel you would expect any? MR. SCHACHNER-No comment. You can’t make me answer that question. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Larry, the floor is yours. MR. RINGER-Okay. Craig asked me to go to the Warren County Regional Economic Development meeting last week, a member of the Planning Board was invited, and I just thought I might go over some of the things that we discussed, and what it was, it was a focus group. The Warren County Regional Economic Development Corporation has hired a firm to come in and evaluate the area, make some recommendations and form an action plan or something to get something started in this area, and so they’ve sent letters out, and they’re having these focus groups throughout the area, and the idea was to get people’s, pick people’s brains as to what the current economic situation is in the area, what are our strengths. What are our weaknesses? What do we think is going to be in the area? And just very briefly, it was a two hour meeting, and it’s going to take me five minutes to give you my take on what it was, and I found it was somewhat informative, because you learned something. I didn’t have a lot to offer. I don’t think the Planning Board has a lot to offer, but pretty much a consensus of opinion about the economic situation in the area was that, particularly from an income 18 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/27/99) standpoint, it’s stagnant, at best, with all the new jobs coming mainly from the tourist area and the service area, with not a heck of a lot of optimistic outlook as to what’s coming forth, and the jobs that are coming into the area are generally low-paying. The assets of the area, as put forth by many of the people there, and Bob was also there. So Bob may have some comments on this also, our assets of the area, quality of life was one. Low crime rate was another. Good schools. ACC was an asset. The hospital, closeness to Albany, New York City, Canada, four seasons, the Northway, these were all things that we have as a positive nature, as to get stuff into the area. These are things that basically we all know. The problems that many of the people saw. Some of them I personally agree with. Some of them I don’t. So I’m just throwing them out here. Lack of a skilled work force seemed to keep coming up and coming up and coming up. It seemed to be a consensus of many of the people there that we just don’t have a labor force here, if we did get the industry that could accommodate. MR. BREWER-How did they determine that? MR. RINGER-From the people that were there, and I probably should have said. The people that were there were a broad scope. We had politicians there. Fred Champagne was there. Dennis Brower was there. We had the General Manager of Encore Paper was there. Do you remember any of the other people there from the business sector, Bob? MRS. LA BOMBARD-Was anybody from International Paper there? MR. RINGER-Nobody from IP was there. MR. BREWER-I guess when they make that kind of a statement, I wonder how they determine that there’s no workforce. MR. MAC EWAN-I can tell you, being in the business, there isn’t a workforce available. They’re gone. They started moving out over 10 years ago. MR. RINGER-We didn’t have an answer to any of. MR. BREWER-They’re saying there’s no jobs, so how the heck, it goes around in a circle. MR. MAC EWAN-I've got jobs. I can’t fill them. I can’t find people. MR. RINGER-That was a good part of the consensus from many was there are jobs of some level, but not skilled people to fill them. The suitable industrial development land may be scarce, at least shovel ready land, as Bob brought up. We may have land, but it doesn’t have sewer, or it doesn’t have water, or a combination of sewer and water, and that’s necessary for industrial development. MR. VOLLARO-Plus it’s got to have communications infrastructure. You need wide band modem access here for people. That’s one of the things they’re going to be looking for. MR. RINGER-And we’re getting that, at least in Queensbury. They’re putting that through the Northway now. High-energy cost was another factor, as one of the problems that we have in this area. The area generally seems, is perceived more now to be a tourist area versus an industrial area, and that seems to be a perception that seems to be getting greater and greater, some of the people thought. Some of the ideas that have come up with what type of industry should we be looking for? Light Industry was one that we thought we might have a possibility at. Technology, if we can get it. I’m trying to read my own notes here. Technology, light industrial, pretty much a consensus we’re not going to get the paper industry back. We're not going to get the nut and bolt industry back into the area. We're not going to get any of that type. If we’re going to get something, it’s probably going to be technology field, catheters, if we could. Some of the thoughts were, they should look for entrepreneurs. Where do you go find them? The colleges came up. Go to RPI. Those were some of the ideas. Like I say, this was a focus group, just to get thoughts from the community. These were some of the ideas that people had as to where we stood. Some of the people, you know, felt, I got the impression that some of the people felt there’s not a lot we can do. Other people thought that should certainly not be the approach we should take, but it should be a positive, we can do this, we can do that. MR. BREWER-Absolutely. If you take a negative approach, you’re going to. MR. RINGER-But I think that they really do have to face the realities, there are some problems as to developing this area. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Larry, did anybody come up with the fact that we have too many little towns around here, that we should all combine? So we could run more efficiently? 19 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/27/99) MR. RINGER-Okay, that was one of the, let me put it this way, it wasn’t so much the government, but everyone in the room agreed, I think to a person, that it wasn’t Queensbury that had to develop, it wasn’t Glens Falls that had to develop or South Glens Falls. It had to be a regional development, and in order to do that, you had to get everybody working together, and that certainly is one of the problems that we’ve run into here. We have a city going one way, a town going another way, this town going that way. So they had to develop some kind of a. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Did they talk about the fact that the home building in this community has sky-rocketed because so many people don’t mind the one hour commute to Albany? They’d rather live up here? I mean, you mentioned that before, the proximity to Albany, but the fact that we do have a workforce here that does commute to Albany now. MR. RINGER-There was no mention of that, but my personal belief is that we do have some skilled workforce, and I agree with you, Cathy, that a good portion of that workforce is going to Albany, is going to Schenectady, is going to Troy every day and returning home. MR. BREWER-Just get in your car and go down to Albany at seven o’clock in the morning. I mean, once you get, I had to go down to the doctor’s office, and once you get to Exit 9, forget it. You just literally stop. Absolutely. MR. RINGER-My son-in-law is a perfect example of that, who works in Albany, on the very south end of Albany, and he has to take that every day. It’s two hours and twenty-five minutes on the road, on good days, every day, and in his carpool there’s four or five people. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes. MR. RINGER-And I believe other people are doing that, too. That’s a personal opinion. MRS. LA BOMBARD-They have to be, because why are all these developments that are coming in just taking off? Somebody’s buying those homes. MR. BREWER-Sure they are. MR. RINGER-This group is not looking to build houses. This group is looking to bring industry in. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes, I know that. I understand what you’re saying. MR. PALING-Is your timing one way or round trip, when you say how long it took? MRS. LA BOMBARD-Two twenty-five. MR. RINGER-That was a, it takes about an hour and fifteen minutes to go down and an hour and fifteen minutes coming back. MR. PALING-That’s not too bad. MR. RINGER-Bob, you were there, and Bob had several good comments. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Did they state the airport as an asset? MR. RINGER-The airport was not mentioned as an asset, only that the land there might be developable for industrial work, but with no sewers, until we get the infrastructure completed, there really wasn't a heck of a lot. MR. MAC EWAN-I have my thoughts on the airport. The airport’s a great asset if you plan on doing a 1940’s vintage film here. MR. RINGER-I can’t believe our airport, again, I’m putting a personal thing, but, you know, Albany’s International Airport (lost words) the private corp. jets coming in and going up to the Sagamore. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Right. MR. RINGER-But, Bob. MR. VOLLARO-I don’t have many comments. All my comment is this. This community is in competition with the whole world for light industry, and unless you put a real task team together here that goes to work every day, trying to figure out how to bring light industry into Queensbury, it’s not going to happen. Period. Somebody’s got to be working on this, other than meetings and talk and 20 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/27/99) somebody really has to start to scratch ground, and it’s a tough job. For every 100 opportunities, you may make a strike, one. MR. RINGER-If you’re lucky. MR. VOLLARO-If you’re lucky. Yes, and somebody has to do that. I mean, somebody has to be, get up every morning to worry about how to do that job, and if you’re not putting that kind of a thing together, it’s just, you know, it’s a lot of rhetoric, in my opinion. MR. RINGER-It was interesting to go to. As a Planning Board itself, we really wasn’t much. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Anything else? MR. PALING-Craig, are we supposed to table these other two, Howland and Ryan? MR. MAC EWAN-No, they’re going to be re-advertised. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Should we save the? MR. MAC EWAN-Just the one for Howland. MRS. LA BOMBARD-That’s the only one. Should we save Beeman? MR. MAC EWAN-No, we’re going to get a new drawing for that. MR. PALING-There’s another one. MR. MAC EWAN-Ryan, we’re also going to get new material for that. Our site visits are going to be August the 12 at 4 o’clock, and the two regular meetings are the 17 and the 24. Okay. I make a ththth motion to adjourn. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Craig MacEwan, Chairman 21