Loading...
2000-04-27 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/27/00) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SPECIAL MEETING APRIL 27, 2000 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT CRAIG MAC EWAN, CHAIRMAN LARRY RINGER ROBERT VOLLARO ANTHONY METIVIER ROBERT PALING MEMBERS ABSENT CATHERINE LA BOMBARD ALAN ABBOTT SENIOR PLANNER-MARILYN RYBA TOWN COUNSEL-MILLER, MANNIX & PRATT-CATHI RADNER STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI NEW BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 27-2000 TYPE: UNLISTED KONOVER PROPERTY TRUST FACTORY STORES OF AMERICA OWNER: SAME AGENT: RIST FROST ASSOCIATES ZONE: HC-1A LOCATION: EAST SIDE RT. 9, SOUTH OF RT. 149 AT FACTORY STORES OF AMERICA APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 20 FOOT WIDE ACCESS ROAD TO INTERCONNECT WITH ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 9-2000, SP 17-86 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 4/12/00 TAX MAP NO. 36-1-34.3 LOT SIZE: 4.82 ACRES SECTION: 179-23 STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 27-2000, Konover Property Trust Factory Stores of America, Meeting Date: April 27, 2000 “Staff Notes: The applicant proposes construction of a 280 foot linear access road on the Konover/Factory Stores of America property. The access road will connect the existing Boats By George business to an area proposed for boat storage by Boats By George. A site enhancement in the Highway Commercial zone as described is an allowed use through site plan review. The proposed project affects 0.70 acres of the 4.82 acre parcel. The project is designed for a fifty year storm. The area will be re-graded and a new drainage area will be constructed to maintain stormwater on site. The construction of the access road will meet the Konover/Factory Stores of America obligation to provide access to Boats By George. Site Plan 28- 2000 presents the proposed boat storage facility. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the site plan as submitted.” MRS. RYBA-And I think you have the C.T. Male comments and Warren County Planning Board did approve, their recommendation was approval. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay, and just let the record show that Konover is applying for an Area Variance for permeability, correct? MRS. RYBA-Correct. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Is there anyone here representing that applicant? Okay. What we’ll do is we’ll open up the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. MAC EWAN-We’ll leave it open, and we’ll table this item, pending the outcome of their Area Variance application. Okay. Next Item. SITE PLAN NO. 28-2000 TYPE: UNLISTED BOATS BY GEORGE OWNER: SAME AGENT: JAMES E. MILLER/NACE ENGINEERING ZONE: HC-1A LOCATION: VACANT LOT BEHIND EXISTING BOAT SALES AND REPAIR FACILITY APPLICANT PROPOSES TO GRADE THE VACANT LOT BEHIND THE BOAT SALES AND REPAIR FACILITY, ADD CRUSHED SURFACE PAVEMENT FOR 1 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/27/00) STORAGE OF BOATS. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 9-2000 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 4/12/00 TAX MAP NO. 36-1-34.1, 37.1, 37.2 LOT SIZE: 1.5 ACRES SECTION: 179-23 TOM NACE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 28-2000, Boats By George, Meeting Date: April 27, 2000 “Staff Notes: The applicant proposes to gravel a 30,000 square foot area of a 1.5 acre site to store boats. The parcel is adjacent to the existing Boats By George business and is to be utilized by Boats By George. Commercial Boat storage, repair and sales is an allowed use in the Highway Commercial zone through site plan review. The site plan and information submitted meets the zoning requirements for the development. Stormwater generated by the project will be handled on site. The proposed site will be 54% permeable with plantings and regarding within the storage area. The site will also include a 10 foot high chain link fence surrounding the site and a gated entrance. The access to the site is coordinated with the neighboring property owner Konover/Factory Stores of America to utilize the access drive from the existing business to the new proposed boat storage area. Recommendations: Staff recommends approval of the site plan for the use of the area as a boat storage area conditioned upon the construction of the access road as defined in Site Plan 27-2000 “Konover Property Trust”.” MRS. RYBA-The Warren County Planning Board has made the recommendation for approval, and you also have comments from C.T. Male. MR. MAC EWAN-Have the applicants received, both applicants in these two projects, Konover and Boats By George, received the comments from C.T. Male? MRS. RYBA-Yes, they have. MR. MAC EWAN-So both of their site plan applications are going to be revised to reflect the comments that C.T. Male has? MRS. RYBA-I believe that they will be responding in reference to the stormwater drainage report. Whether or not that results in the need for revising the site plan, I don’t know. MR. MAC EWAN-Well, I do remember there were some comments, specifically for Boats By George regarding the trench, they wanted to see that changed. They wanted it longer. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, it was five wide and four deep. MR. MAC EWAN-Longer and different stone in there, which reflects that the drawings have to be revised. What I’m getting at is there’s no point in us keeping any of this information. Because we’re going to get all new submittals. Both of them. I mean, Konover’s got permeability issues. So their site plan will reflect those changes that they submit. MRS. RYBA-That’s correct. MR. MAC EWAN-And Boats By George has got drainage issues that are going to be revised. So there’s no point in even keeping the information. Okay. Anyone here representing that applicant, that’s Site Plan 28-2000? Okay. Boats by George? MR. NACE-Yes. That has been tabled though. MR. MAC EWAN-We haven’t gotten there yet, but we were about thirty seconds away from doing it. MR. NACE-Okay. Yes, it’s our understanding that because of the adjoining application, and the permeability issue, that that’s been tabled, or will be tabled. MR. MAC EWAN-And if and when they make new submissions, they’re going to revise the drawings according to C.T. Male’s comments regarding that ditch and stuff like that? MR. NACE-That is correct. So you will have new drawings, to address comments. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. NACE-For the record, I’m Tom Nace, Nace Engineering. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. We’re going to open the public hearing on that and leave that open. 2 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/27/00) PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. MAC EWAN-And we’ll table that one as well. Next item on the agenda. SITE PLAN NO. 29-2000 TYPE: UNLISTED NORTHEAST POWER SYSTEMS, INC. OWNER: WARREN WASHINGTON CO. I.D.A. AGENT: TED BIGELOW ZONE: LI-1A LOCATION: 66 CAREY RD., CAREY INDUSTRIAL PARK APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 6,000 SF ADDITION TO EXISTING MANUFACTURING BUSINESS. NEW USES IN LI ZONES REQUIRE BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 66-98 TAX MAP NO. 137-2-1.14 LOT SIZE: 2.402 ACRES SECTION 179-26 TED BIGELOW & PETER STECIUK, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 29-2000, Northeast Power Systems, Inc., Meeting Date: April 27, 2000 “Staff Notes: The applicant proposes a 6,000 square foot addition to an existing business to be used as manufacturing space. An expansion of a business in the Light Industrial zone is an allowed use through site plan review. The applicant has expressed a need for additional space to assist in the growth of manufacturing electrical components. The waivers requested in regards to percolation tests are acceptable. The applicant will need to confirm the adequacy of the septic system ability to accommodate the new addition. The number of parking spaces for the use are adequate and meet the zoning requirement for a manufacturing use. There are no exterior changes to the site proposed such as landscaping, lighting, or parking. the addition will not alter the existing stormwater drainage, currently all stormwater is contained on site. Recommendations: Staff recommends approval of the site plan.” MRS. RYBA-There were some comments from the applicant, which I believe the Planning Board members received. MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it? MRS. RYBA-Yes, and those comments I think were addressing the Staff Notes in reference to lighting, drainage, and the septic system. MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening. MR. BIGELOW-Good evening. MR. MAC EWAN-Could you identify yourselves for the record, please? MR. BIGELOW-I’m Ted Bigelow, representing Northeast Power, and with me is one of the principles, Peter Steciuk, Northeast Power. MR. MAC EWAN-And can you tell us a little bit about your site plan that you’re requesting? MR. BIGELOW-Sure. The only modification I would add to your comments were that I believe you had said there were going to be no exterior modifications, and it’s doubling the size of the building. So, just for clarification, that’s all. MRS. RYBA-You’re correct. I was trying to summarize and didn’t. MR. BIGELOW-If you recall, last year we were before you folks for the initial site plan review to build a 6,000 square foot building, Northeast Power Systems, for a manufacturing facility that moved up from the Albany area. Business has gone very well. They’ve found that they need more space. From the pictures that I gave you, these are just digital pictures, but it looks like half the building, and what they’re proposing is to put the other half up now. It’s designed with a shed type one slope roof and now what they want to do is just add the other side. So it’ll have a gable appearance, and doubling the size of the building. MR. VOLLARO-Will it look like that? MR. BIGELOW-Yes. The last picture, just for information, you can see the kind of thing that they manufacture, and what’s in that huge compartment, I guess I’d have to have Peter explain, because I don’t understand it, but they need more room to manufacture that type of basically large capacitor banks. 3 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/27/00) MR. VOLLARO-Are all those purchased parts that go into the cabinet? MR. BIGELOW-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Simple and straightforward. I know there were some comments in Staff Notes regarding whether you needed to enlarge your septic system to accommodate this addition, but your responses were that it’s strictly basically assembly and warehouse storage facilities? No expansions to the bathrooms or anything like that? MR. BIGELOW-No expansion of any plumbing facilities, and at this point, they’re not even sure about adding employees. They need the space for their current workforce. MR. MAC EWAN-As I remember the first application, when we approved this thing, I’m trying to remember, and I don’t know if Marilyn has it over there in her files. Was there a landscape plan approved for that first site plan? MRS. RYBA-I’ll take a peek. MR. MAC EWAN-I kind of want to say that there was. MR. BIGELOW-They have work that they’re going to do there in the spring, but obviously, by the time they got up last fall, it was too late to do anything. I don’t recall that there was, on our site plan I know we showed some shrubs out in, right in front of the building. MRS. RYBA-It’s on the site plan. MR. BIGELOW-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-The original approval. MRS. RYBA-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-That there was a landscaping plan. MRS. RYBA-Well, it’s not a separate landscaping plan, but it does show where trees are located on the site plan. MR. MAC EWAN-All right, and it calls out a planting list, just like on this one. There was a planting schedule in there, as I recall. MRS. RYBA-Well, I’m looking for that. MR. MAC EWAN-Very small key. It’s very similar to this one that’s right here on the bottom, right by my thumb. MRS. RYBA-Okay. I have a reduction here. Are you talking about the current site plan, or the previous one? MR. MAC EWAN-The previous site plan, I believe, had a landscaping plan that went with it. I may be wrong. MR. BIGELOW-I don’t recall that there was. MR. MAC EWAN-No? I just wanted to get that verified. I could have sworn there was. I could be wrong on that, but I see that you do have one on this one. I’m not looking at the right one. Never mind. I stand corrected. MRS. RYBA-Would you like to see it, Mr. Chairman? MR. MAC EWAN-No. I trust everybody around me. Do you have plans for a landscaping plan of some kind, some sort of beautification, foundation shrubs or anything like that? MR. BIGELOW-Planting grass around, it would be the south side of the building, then shrubbery in the front of the building. MR. VOLLARO-This is a digital enhancement photograph? MR. BIGELOW-That’s just a picture they took this afternoon. 4 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/27/00) MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So behind those trucks. MR. BIGELOW-Right. There’s an area between the sidewalk and the building, where they’re going to put a few shrubs, yes, and then you see the area there, where you pull from the driveway into the parking lot, that was going to be planted with grass, and then if you look to the left hand side of the building, is that transformer? MR. STECIUK-Yes, that’s a transformer. MR. BIGELOW-Where the transformer is. MR. MAC EWAN-On the side where the handicapped space is, that side of the building you’re referring to? MR. BIGELOW-Yes, there was grass down along there because there was disturbed earth from when they built the building. Of course, on the right hand side of the building, that’s where the addition’s going to be, and that’s going to go right up, well, to within a foot of the 30 foot setback. So then you’re into the tree line. That area was previously cleared, and the existing building was put up. MR. VOLLARO-You can still put something in the front of the building, though. MR. BIGELOW-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-This is my sketch. If you’re wondering what this is, this is what I did. I put your building, from the plans I drew this. Because I couldn’t quite understand what you had in the plans, so I decided to try to translate it into that, but you could certainly put your plantings right out front here. MR. BIGELOW-Now, when you look at that picture I gave you, if you look at the right hand side of the picture, the windows there, on the end of the building, it’s right out in front of that, probably 10, 15 feet is the septic system, at least the tank, and then your leach field goes off from there. So, you’re not going to want to get, up against the building is going to be fine, but as far as out, way out in front of the other part of the addition, you’re not going to want to put the fence there. Because it’s going to be right in the leach field. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Any questions? MR. RINGER-I’m glad to see your business is prospering. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else you want to add? I’ll open up the public hearing. Does anyone wan to comment on this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED DAVE ARMSTRONG MR. ARMSTRONG-My name is Dave Armstrong, and I reside at 115 West Mountain Road. About three years ago I purchased a little tiny sliver of heaven down over the bank near the river, in back of where Northeast Power Systems is building, and I just am here to express a concern about the clear cut, where this building has been, as to the river side. I know you’re talking about landscaping plan for the front of the building, which I’m sure will be very nice, but in the back, where we enter my property on Eagan Road, there are six people that have little camps down on the river there, and we try to keep it as natural as possible, and right now, as it stands, as of last fall, it’s been clear cut, and the tops remain. Pines have been dropped onto very near my property. MR. MAC EWAN-Excuse me. How do you get to your camp, now? MR. ARMSTRONG-You go down Big Bay Road, and you take your first right on Eagan Road, and at the very end of Eagan Road, you drop down over the bank to the river. MR. MAC EWAN-This site plan is nowhere’s near that. MR. ARMSTRONG-I’m sorry. MR. MAC EWAN-I think what you’re thinking of is on the other side of Carey Industrial Park. They have been logging in there for a couple of four sites on that side, which would be the east side. These guys are located right on the corner as you start to go into the Native Textiles site. 5 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/27/00) MR. ARMSTRONG-Then I just assumed that we were talking about this Northeast Power Systems. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s the one we’re talking about, but they’re not where you think they are. If you looked at Carey Industrial Park and imagined the big loop that it is, where you come in off Corinth Road by Northern Distributing, and if you went, took that road closest to Northern Distributing and as it bends to the back, where you can go into Native Textiles’ new building, those guys are sitting right on there on that corner. MR. ARMSTRONG-So it’s not off Native Textiles? Then I’m, okay. That’s just clear cutting going on in there, logging. MR. MAC EWAN-Where I think you’re talking about is the other, which would be the southeast corner of the Carey Industrial Park, which is far and away from where these gentlemen have their site plan. MR. ARMSTRONG-I apologize. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s no problem. That’s no problem, because they have been logging in there for four or five months now I believe, off and on. MR. ARMSTRONG-I just assumed when I received this notice they were talking about the building going up. MR. MAC EWAN-You received a notice that you’re within 500 feet of this? MR. ARMSTRONG-I received to come on the 27 Thursday at 7 o’clock to talk about the th Northeast Power Systems, Warren County, 6,000 square feet addition, Map No. 137-2-1.14. MR. MAC EWAN-Do you have something over there, Marilyn, that documents where his property is? MRS. RYBA-Possibly. There is a list of the folks who are given the, there is a map, and what’s the map number again? MR. ARMSTRONG-The Tax Map No. is 137-2-1.14. MRS. RYBA-Actually, you have it in your packet, and, yes, it is, it looks like there’s a, let’s see, there isn’t a north arrow on here, but it looks like it’s to the south of this parcel. I don’t know if you get this in your packets, but it is nearby, and it looks like it’s touching the parcel below it. So it’s one parcel removed from the site. MR. MAC EWAN-And the parcel that he’s probably seeing, where they’re clear cutting, is that one that’s closest to him, not Northeast Power. Because that whole southeastern side of Carey Industrial Park, like about four or five lots in there, they have been in there skidding it and logging it. MR. ARMSTRONG-Last fall. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, probably for five months anyway. Okay. There’s Eagan Road right there, and that’s Northeast Power is right there. Where is his parcel now, Marilyn? MRS. RYBA-The gentleman’s parcel is. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s your parcel right there? MR. ARMSTRONG-No, no. MRS. RYBA-That’s the other gentleman’s parcel. MR. BIGELOW-No. Our parcel is right here. Now, as the crow flies, it may be 500 feet from there to there, but I will tell you what happened, is that for some reason the Carey Trust, Carey people who own Northern Distributing, they own this subdivision, and it was a marketing decision they made to go in there and clear cut a bunch of these lots. So if you ride in there, you’ll see a bunch of these lots where they’ve all been cleared. They thought that was going to help their marketing effort, and that’s, they went in and did that. So, if he’s down in here, it had to be, this parcel right here is like 20 some acres, and they did clear a big, big spot in there. So he might be within 500 feet of this parcel over here. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. 6 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/27/00) MR. BIGELOW-That’s what it is. MR. MAC EWAN-It is the parcel closest to you, but not their parcel. MR. ARMSTRONG-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-But you are within 500 feet of their parcel, if that clears it up. Okay. MR. ARMSTRONG-So I guess my whole opinion of what’s going on has nothing to do with Northeastern, it has more to do with Carey Trust. MR. MAC EWAN-Right. MR. ARMSTRONG-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Thank you. Anyone else? Okay. We’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Any other questions from Board members? MR. VOLLARO-I just have one on the lighting. I looked on the print for, on the recently supplied drawing for the lights you talked about on the building, and they don’t appear anywhere. At least I don’t see them on this one. MR. BIGELOW-They’re not on the prints. MR. VOLLARO-They’re not on the prints? MR. BIGELOW-Not on the prints there. On the existing building, I don’t know if you can see them there. MR. VOLLARO-I see one. MR. BIGELOW-There’s one on the front. MR. VOLLARO-One dead center. MR. BIGELOW-Yes, and there’s two on the left hand side, which would be on the Native Textile Road side. MR. VOLLARO-I see that. MR. BIGELOW-And for new lighting, what they’re asking for is one other light on the front, on the other half. MR. VOLLARO-So this is the old building. MR. BIGELOW-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-That’s the new. MR. BIGELOW-Yes. There’d be one right where your pen is going to be. They’re asking for one there, and if the building code requires it, one over, it would be the new walk door on the edge of the building. They don’t plan on any in the back of the building, because Native Textiles lights theirs up like a candle back there, and none is needed. MR. VOLLARO-All right. So you’re talking one over this side door. MR. BIGELOW-Yes, if the building code requires it, they’ll have one there. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. BIGELOW-Is there on there on the existing? MR. STECIUK-There isn’t one there now because Native Textiles basically lights both of those. MR. VOLLARO-The back of the building. 7 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/27/00) MR. BIGELOW-The back, the sides. MR. STECIUK-Both of the sides, too. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. It’ll, your western side, your new western side, will be lit by them, the west side? MR. BIGELOW-It is now, yes. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. That’s all I had. MR. MAC EWAN-Anybody else got anything else? Okay. We need to do a SEQRA. The Short Form, right, Marilyn? MRS. RYBA-That’s correct. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 29-2000, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Paling: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: NORTHEAST POWER SYSTEMS, 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, 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. Duly adopted this 27 day of April, 2000, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Ringer, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Paling, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Abbott MR. MAC EWAN-Now you can introduce a motion, if you want. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 29-2000 NORTHEAST POWER SYSTEMS, INC., Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Larry Ringer: WHEREAS, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of Site Plan No. 29-2000 Northeast Power Systems for construction of a 6,000 sq. ft. addition to existing manufacturing business. New uses in the LI zones require Board review and approval, and; WHEREAS, the application received 3/29/00 consists of the following: 8 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/27/00) 1. Letter, Application w/three drawings dated 3/27/00 WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation: 1. 4/27/00 Staff Notes 2. 4/05/00 Meeting Notice 3. 4/20/00 Notice of Public Hearing 4. 4/24/00 L. Moore from P. Steciuk regarding request for addtl. info. WHEREAS, public hearing was held on 4/27/00 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 the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; and/or if application is a modification , the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered; and the proposed modification(s) do not result in any new or significantly different environmental impacts, and therefore, no further SEQRA review is necessary; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, The applicant is subject to the following condition: 1. Approved in accordance with the resolution as prepared by Staff. Duly adopted this 27 day of April, 2000, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Metivier, Mr. Paling, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Abbott MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set, gentlemen. MR. BIGELOW-Thank you very much. MR. MAC EWAN-Good luck. Next item. SUBDIVISION NO. 1-2000 PRELIMINARY STAGE FINAL STAGE TYPE: UNLISTED BYRON AND JUDY RIST OWNER: SAME ZONE: RR-3A LOCATION: CORNER OF BAY AND ELLSWORTH APPLICANT PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF A 16.14 ACRE PARCEL INTO TWO LOTS OF 6.00 ACRES AND 10.14 ACRES. CROSS REFERENCE: SB 8-1999 TAX MAP NO. 28-1-16 LOT SIZE: 16.14 ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS MATT STEVES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MRS. RYBA-And this particular subdivision, I won’t get into the Staff Notes because the public hearing was warned preliminarily because of the notice to adjacent land owners was not done. MR. MAC EWAN-Did they withdraw the application, is that my understanding? MRS. RYBA-I believe, I don’t know if the applicant actually withdrew it, but because it has not, that that requirement was not met, then the procedure has to be re-started. MR. STEVES-Matt Steves, Van Dusen & Steves. I did the survey work for Mr. and Mrs. Rist. The previous subdivision approval, they did their own mailings, and represented themselves at the meeting. He was intending to do the same thing, kind of dropped the ball, called me today, told me that the Staff had notified him that he had not sent out his mailings, and so I went up, picked up an authorization to act as agent form today, and I will be submitting all that back, and I gave him the information for the mailings so that we can get on for next month’s meeting. 9 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/27/00) MR. MAC EWAN-My understanding, though, in this particular case, that I thought it was indicated to me today that they withdrew the application because you do have to start the ball all over again. MRS. RYBA-It does have to be re-warned, yes. MR. STEVES-I believe that’s correct, yes. MR. MAC EWAN-All right. With that being said, let’s move on to the next one. SUBDIVISION NO. 21-1999 PRELIMINARY STAGE FINAL STAGE MICHAEL J. VASILIOU, INC. OWNER: WALTER & OLGA HOWARD ET. AL. AGENT: VAN DUSEN & STEVES ZONE: SR-1A LOCATION: SOUTH SIDE OF PEGGY ANN ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF 17 +/- ACRE PARCEL FOR A 16 LOT RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION CROSS REFERENCE: AV 26-2000 TAX MAP NO. 121-1-2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 LOT SIZE: 17.17 ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS MATT STEVES & TOM NACE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Subdivision No. 2-2000, Preliminary Stage Final Stage, Michael J. Vasiliou, Inc. Meeting Date: April 27, 2000 “Staff Notes: The preliminary subdivision application was tabled at the previous month’s meeting pending an Area Variance request. The applicant has submitted an updated drawing showing the no cut zone for each lot in the subdivision. The no-cut zone will act as a buffer between the neighboring parcels and the proposed parcels. The applicant received an area variance relief for development of lots having less than the required average lot width of 150 ft. The plans identify some parcels on the cul de sac to have limited access that may cause internal circulation problems. These parcels meet the required 40 feet of road frontage but some alternatives may provide for better traffic circulation. One alternative is to provide shared driveways, this may assist with better access. Another alternative is to eliminate some lots on the cul de sac for improved access to the road. Staff would also suggest additional plantings to the entrance way of the subdivision to border parcels 121-1-10.1 and 121-1-1.2. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the subdivision plan for preliminary and final stage with the following conditions: 1. The no cut zone area be labeled and described on the final plans. 2. Confirmation that the test pits were verified by NYDOH, if needed” MRS. RYBA-As I said, you did get a copy of the Zoning Board of Appeals’ motion to approve the variance. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Is that it? MRS. RYBA-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening. MR. STEVES-Good evening. Again, my name is Matt Steves with Van Dusen and Steves. With me is Tom Nace from Nace Engineering. We representing Michael J. Vasiliou, Inc. in this application. As Staff has stated, when we were here previously, we were discussing some green areas or no cut zones, which we have included on the plan in front of you, and it was also noted that we had to go back in front of the Zoning Board to obtain a variance for the minimum lot width. We have obtained that. We show the 75 foot no cut line along the west, southeast side of the property, abutting the lots that face off Peggy Ann Road to the north of our lots, we show a 20 foot no clear, and a 15 on either side of every lot in the interior, which in effect gives you a 30 foot no clear between every lot, and we’re talking about trees three inch and higher, at four foot in height, unless they’re dying or diseased, as far as the language for the map and for the deed restrictions. So that will be something that will be enforceable by the Town, because of the fact it’s not only in the deed, it also will be on the filed subdivision plan. As far as the statement made as far as the width of the lots on the cul de sac, they’re all ample enough room in width. I don’t see any really necessity for shared driveways. If it was something that it was a through road where there was a lot of traffic, possibly, but that’s the nature of a cul de sac is the narrowness on the road, and the larger lots as you go back. Just like any other cul de sac in the Town of Queensbury, I can name three or four, such as Cardinale Court and a couple of other ones that are all comparable in lot frontages and size, and there isn’t any problem. MR. MAC EWAN-I see that that Lot Number One, too, you reconfigured that corner to add a little bit more buffering for that neighboring property, that was a concern last time. 10 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/27/00) MR. STEVES-That’s correct. We angled that 75 foot no clear to wrap around the northwest corner of Lot One. That’s correct. We’ve also performed, Tom can talk to you about the test pits and perc tests. MR. NACE-We were holding off on the test pits, trying to get the Department of Health out. They’ve been bottled up for a while, and it’s hard to get projects through there. We still weren’t able to get them out, so we went ahead, yesterday, and did test pits and perc tests on our own. We’ll probably have to go back and re-do them with Department of Health when they’re available. MR. MAC EWAN-Not to interrupt you, but it’s standard procedure that Department of Health verifies any test pit done for a subdivision? MR. NACE-They, for subdivisions, they normally want to come out and be with you when you’re doing test pits. That’s correct. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. NACE-Perc tests, they don’t care, you do the perc tests on your own, but at any rate, the soils are no surprise. It’s typical Queensbury Windsor Sands. Deep, no water to 90 plus inches, no mottling, perfectly good soils for both septic and drainage. Perc rates were just over a minute. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. STEVES-As your Board is well aware, we still have to, before we can file this, have the Department of Health approval. MR. MAC EWAN-As far as the Staff’s suggestion of additional plantings along the entrance way, which lots are 121-1-10 and 121-1-1.2, which lots are those that they’re referring to? Is that on both sides of the street, or just the two on the west side of the street? They’re not indicated on this map. MR. VOLLARO-It’s got to be Lot One and Lot Sixteen. MR. STEVES-You’re talking existing tax parcels? MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. MR. STEVES-You’re talking 1.1 and? MR. MAC EWAN-Do you have a copy of Staff Notes there with you? MR. STEVES-Yes. The tax map, there’s eight existing lots, by tax parcels, there now, and one of them is a 25 foot sliver, which is, we’re coming in off Peggy Ann Road with their entrance. As far as additional plantings, I’m wondering, is the Staff talking about the two lots that were coming through or bordering next to, coming in off Peggy Ann Road, on their respective east and west lines? MR. VOLLARO-Lot One and Lot Sixteen. Those are the two that you would be coming to first off Peggy Ann from your entrance. MR. STEVES-Right, and we’re saying we’re leaving a 15 foot no cut zone all the way down to the road, as you can see, instead of cutting the lot on the front setback 30 feet all the way across, we’re showing a no cut zone all the way down to the highway bounds. As far as planting in the highway bounds, I don’t want to go there. MR. MAC EWAN-Are you implying no yellow rocks or anything like that for decoration? MR. STEVES-And I think that would accomplish that, I mean, if there’s a few additional plantings, you know, we can certainly look at that, at the Board’s discretion, but with the Lots One and Sixteen, as Bob pointed out, with the no cut zone extending all the way to the road line, I don’t know what else we can do. MR. MAC EWAN-What are the two lots that are referenced in Staff Notes? MRS. RYBA-I believe those are Lot One and Lot Sixteen. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MRS. RYBA-There are some, I’m trying to recall when we went to visit the site. In front there, those lots are empty, fronting Peggy Ann, the lots in front of yours, correct? 11 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/27/00) MR. NACE-No, they’re occupied. MR. STEVES-They’re occupied. MRS. RYBA-They are occupied. Okay. MR. STEVES-We showed driveways on both sides, the houses are. MRS. RYBA-Okay. You have a very narrow strip. That’s right. Okay. So I think that’s what Laura was intending, was for some additional protection there. MR. MAC EWAN-They have it. I mean, they have a no cut zone right into the Town right-of-way. MR. STEVES-Maybe what the Staff was talking about is these two lots that we border, one on the east and one on the west, but both of those want us to supply them with side entrance driveways, which we are going to do, and I think that, you know, if they wanted to buffer their house, they would probably plant themselves, at that point. MR. MAC EWAN-Both of those lots that are on the east and west of your entrance to the subdivision, they want you to put driveways in for them? MR. STEVES-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-And get them off Peggy Ann Road? MR. STEVES-Yes. MIKE VASILIOU MR. VASILIOU-For the record, my name is Mike Vasiliou, the builder for the subdivision. We have an agreement with both parties, for both lots, to take the driveways off of Peggy Ann and move them onto the new roadway being developed. Additionally, on the westerly side, the owners have asked us to put a stockade fence along the back line, and we have agreed to do that. MR. MAC EWAN-Just where it abuts Lot One? MR. STEVES-Yes. MR. VASILIOU-This distance right here. The driveways will be coming in approximately opposite one another. We’ll be tearing the trees, we’ll be removing the blacktop here and we’ll be taking the stone out here. This is not a paved driveway. Taking the stone out here and putting the stone in on this side, so that it won’t come out on Peggy Ann Road. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Good deal. That’s a definite plus. MR. VASILIOU-Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Anything else? MR. VOLLARO-There’s a statement on the Rist-Frost document of March 20 that I don’t th understand, and maybe somebody can help me with it. It says, if the documents are accepted as a final submission, and I think that we are going to final here, aren’t we, isn’t this a final? MRS. RYBA-Yes, it’s preliminary and final. MR. VOLLARO-They should include the seal and signature of a licensed professional engineer or licensed surveyor with the appropriate exemption. I don’t even understand why that statement is being made by Rist-Frost. MR. STEVES-We have to submit those to the Staff, once you approve it, with both of our signatures on that. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. It’s not this document that they’re talking about. They’re talking about the final document that you submit. MR. MAC EWAN-The final subdivision that they submit to the Town to have all the signatures put on it. MR. VOLLARO-Why is that even on? 12 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/27/00) MR. STEVES-That your Chairman will sign for us. MR. MAC EWAN-Maybe. MR. VOLLARO-He doesn’t like to have the gun jumped on him. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else? Okay. We have a public hearing open. Does someone want to come and comment on this application, you’re welcome to do so. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MAC EWAN-We need to do a SEQRA, please. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 21-1999, Introduced by Larry Ringer who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: MICHAEL J. VASILIOU, 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, 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. Duly adopted this 27 day of April, 2000, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Ringer, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Paling, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Abbott MR. MAC EWAN-How about a motion for Preliminary. MOTION TO APPROVE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 21-1999 MICHAEL J. VASILIOU, INC., Introduced by Larry Ringer who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Paling: WHEREAS, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of Subdivision No. 12-1999, Preliminary Stage for Michael J. Vasiliou, Inc. for subdivision of a 17 +/- acre parcel into 15 residential lots, and; 13 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/27/00) WHEREAS, the above mentioned application received 2/23/00 consists of the following: 1. Application, Stormwater Management Report dated 2/2/2000 w/maps S1 thru S4, C1 dated 2/21/00 WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation: 1. 3/23/00 Staff Notes 2. 3/2/00 PB from L. Moore 3. 3/12/00 PB from Rick Missita 4. 3/20/00 Rist Frost comments 5. 3/27/00 Map S-1 revised 6. 4/21/00 ZBA resolution 7. 4/27/00 Staff Notes WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on March 23, 2000 concerning the above project [proof of notice received]; 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/or if the application is a modification, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered; and the proposed modification(s) do not result in any new or significantly different environmental impacts, and, therefore, no further SEQRA review is necessary; and THEREFORE, LET IT BE RESOLVED, AS FOLLOWS: The applicant is subject to the following conditions: 1. Preliminary Stage – Approved in accordance with the resolution as prepared by Staff. Duly adopted this 27 day of April, 2000, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Paling, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Abbott MOTION TO APPROVE FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 21-1999 MICHAEL J. VASILIOU, INC., Introduced by Larry Ringer who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro: WHEREAS, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of Subdivision No. 12-1999, Final Stage for Michael J. Vasiliou, Inc. for subdivision of a 17 +/- acre parcel into 15 residential lots, and; WHEREAS, the above mentioned application received 2/23/00 consists of the following: 1. Application, Stormwater Management Report dated 2/2/2000 w/maps S1 thru S4, C1 dated 2/21/00 WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation: 1. 3/23/00 Staff Notes 2. 3/2/00 PB from L. Moore 3. 3/12/00 PB from Rick Missita 4. 3/20/00 Rist Frost comments 5. 3/27/00 Map S-1 revised 6. 4/21/00 ZBA resolution 7. 4/27/00 Staff Notes WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on March 23, 2000 concerning the above project [proof of notice received]; and 14 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/27/00) 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/or if the application is a modification, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered; and the proposed modification(s) do not result in any new or significantly different environmental impacts, and, therefore, no further SEQRA review is necessary; and THEREFORE, LET IT BE RESOLVED, AS FOLLOWS: The applicant is subject to the following conditions: 1. Final Stage – Approved in accordance with the resolution as prepared by Staff. Duly adopted this 27 day of April, 2000, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Metivier, Mr. Paling, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Abbott MR. NACE-Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set, gentlemen. MR. MAC EWAN-Any other business? Has anybody got anything else? I have one question. I just want to throw it out for what it’s worth. Regarding these new test pits for Mega Save, how does anybody feel about maybe asking Craig Brown to just go there the day they do it, just to verify it from the Town? MR. VOLLARO-I think that’s fine. I would go along with that. I think it’s appropriate. MR. PALING-It’s okay. I’ll go along with it. MR. VOLLARO-Any verification is. MR. RINGER-How does Staff feel about it? MR. PALING-I think the test pit, really, is a waste. So, coming from there, I’m in a hard position, and I don’t think we’ve ever doubted, you know, questioned the word of the engineer’s technical. MR. VOLLARO-The problem with that is, Bob, I have never seen, I have never seen the Rist-Frost report on this, on any of this. Because the way this project went, the Rist-Frost comments were against the re-zoning. They were used in the re-zoning when the Town Board made, did the SEQRA, you know, on this, and they did the SEQRA program and so on. It was 4/3/2000 is the date that Rist Frost did their analysis on this, but it’s not part of our packet. If you looked through all of the stuff on our packet, I have never seen a Rist Frost analysis, in our packets. MR. MAC EWAN-And let me just substantiate where I’m coming from. It’s not that I have a distrust for them. It’s just that I question how accurate the test pits were done a year ago, considering that it was an abnormally dry April, that it was well below what the average rainfall is, and I took into account everything that I heard neighbors say about how wet their cellars are and how much they run. I took into account how much rain we’ve already had this month. I also based it on the fact that I used to rent office space on the other side of Quaker Road, and I can vividly remember the day we went out to stick our sign in the dirt out in front of our office, we went down, Bob, 18 inches, and I didn’t have standing water, I had bubbling water coming out of the hole. MR. PALING-They have a factor of safety, however, in their building, in their footings and all that seemed quite adequate. I’m not going to be against anything you say. You’re asking for comment, I’m giving it. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. 15 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/27/00) MR. PALING-You want to do test pits, fine. You want to have them verified by Craig, fine. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. RINGER-I don’t have any objections, but I’d like to hear Staff’s comments. MRS. RYBA-I was just going to say a couple of things, make one suggestion maybe. There is an Environmental Committee, and there is a former soil scientist, retired soil scientist who’s on that Committee. I mean, if you’re looking for someone who has the background and expertise in soils evaluation, that might be a request you could make of that person. In fact, I met with them before I met with this Board here. MR. PALING-Don’t set this one applicant to far afield. MR. MAC EWAN-No. Bob, I realize that there’s no definites here. I mean, maybe, you know, internally that Staff will feel it’s inappropriate to send Craig or someone else up there to verify the pits. It’s just one of those things, you know, I’ve just got a gut feeling about that, and I would hate to see us approve a project, eventually down the road, only to ask them to come back and modify it because they can’t put the footers in and they need to bring fill in. MR. PALING-I wouldn’t go beyond Craig verifying it, though. MR. MAC EWAN-Craig or somebody from the Building and Codes, one of the Inspectors or something. JOHN STROUGH MR. STROUGH-Do they have the ability to go down five foot to establish the water table? MR. VOLLARO-To answer the question, they’re going to have to bring a crane in. They’ll have to use a crane to do the boring. That’s not going to be a. MR. MAC EWAN-They’ll use a back hoe. All they’re doing is a pit. MR. VOLLARO-I heard him say, Frank Palumbo, that it’s going to take us a while to get the crane there. I heard him distinctly say that from that chair the other night. I don’t know if anybody else heard him, but I heard him. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. I’m thinking test pits. I just assumed that’s what we were talking about. I just assumed a back hoe. That’s what we’re looking at. MRS. RYBA-I think he was talking about the fact that when they do their soils testing for their actual final footing placement, that they’re doing quite a few in the area where the building’s going to be. So in that case, I thought he was going to do, go ahead and do that type of activity now, sooner rather than later, but then I also recall at the meeting where the suggestion was made by the Board to perhaps do a few soil tests where it would be most likely you would find water, to just really reassure. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. It’s really in that southeast corner that he really ought to be looking at, because I went up there the other day, right after the rain, and I drove my automobile through water on Homer Avenue, not 15 feet or 20 feet from where they’re going to have to do that boring. MR. MAC EWAN-I just wanted to bring it up. I just wanted to get some input from them. Tomorrow morning when we have agenda meeting I will bring it up and ask if we can do that. I don’t think we need to have a formal motion on that or anything else. It’s just that we’ll ask that that be done. Anything else? Okay. If nothing else, then let’s adjourn. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Craig MacEwan, Chairman 16