Loading...
2001-02-27 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/27/01) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 27, 2001 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT CRAIG MAC EWAN, CHAIRMAN CATHERINE LA BOMBARD, SECRETARY LARRY RINGER ANTHONY METIVIER JOHN STROUGH ROBERT VOLLARO CHRIS HUNSINGER PLANNER-LAURA MOORE TOWN COUNSEL-MILLER, MANNIX SCHACHNER & HAFNER-CATHI RADNER STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. MAC EWAN-The first item on the agenda, let’s do that resolution, Lead Agency Status. We need a little bit of background on that, Laura, please. MRS. MOORE-All right. The New York State DEC is requesting to be Lead Agency Status for review of a sand and gravel mine located on the Fitzgerald property, Glen Lake Road, and Route 149. This project will come before us as a site plan review, but right now it’s in the DEC permitting process, and so they’ve requested Lead Agency Status. MR. VOLLARO-We’re going to look at the site plan for this? MRS. MOORE-You’re going to look at a site plan for this, yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Does someone want to move it? MOTION THAT THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD DOES CONSENT TO THE DESIGNATION OF THE NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL AS LEAD AGENT FOR THE GREEN ISLAND CONSTRUCTION PROJECT, TAX MAP NO. 44-1-1.1 DATED THE 27 DAY OF TH FEBRUARY 2001, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption seconded by Larry Ringer: Duly adopted this 27th day of February 2001 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ringer, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Strough, Mr. Hunsinger, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE OLD BUSINESS: SUBDIVISION NO. 7-2000 PRELIMINARY STAGE FINAL STAGE TYPE: UNLISTED JOHN, JR. & KATHLEEN A. SALVADOR ZONE: WR-1A, RR-3A LOCATION: DUNHAM BAY APPLICANT PROPOSES TO SUBDIVIDE A 6-ACRE PARCEL INTO TWO LOTS OF 1.8 ACRES AND 4.2 ACRES. APPLICANT ALSO REQUESTS WAIVERS FROM THE SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS. CROSS REFERENCE: NOTICE OF APPEAL 7-2000 TAX MAP NO. 10-1-17.3 NEW TAX MAP NO. 252.00-1-75.1 LOT SIZE: 6 ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS MR. MAC EWAN-Subdivision 7-2000 is removed from tonight’s agenda. It’s being tabled. When do we want to table that until, next regular meeting, next month? MRS. MOORE-That’s tabled until April at the request of the applicant. MR. MAC EWAN-To our first regular meeting in April of this year, at the request of the applicant, and we’ll leave the public hearing open. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN 1 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/27/01) MR. MAC EWAN-Next item. SITE PLAN NO. 1-2001 TYPE: UNLISTED JOHN H. OWEN OWNER: JOHN OWEN, LINDY OWEN, PETER & CHERYL FRASIER, DAN DAVIES, SHARON DAVIES ZONE: NC-1A, APA LOCATION: CLEVERDALE RD./9L, OLD FIREHOUSE BETWEEN RESCUE SQUAD AND TELEPHONE BUILDING APPLICANT REQUESTS APPROVAL OF MULTIPLE USES IN AN EXISTING BUILDING – 1 FLOOR CONTAINS POST OFFICE (665 SQ. FT.), 3 BAYS OR 1732.5 ST SQ. FT. FOR STORAGE, 1036 SQ. FT. WOOD WORKING AREA; 2 FLOOR ND CONTAINS 1,207 SQ. FT. OFFICE SPACE AND 1046 SQ. FT. STORAGE AREA. NEW USES IN NC ZONES ARE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. WAIVERS REQUESTED FROM STORMWATER MANAGEMENT REPORT, GRADING PLAN, LIGHTING PLAN, AND LANDSCAPING PLAN. CROSS REFERENCE: BP 98-373, 11/20/00 LETTER FROM C. BROWN, CODE COMPLIANCE OFFICER WARREN CO. PLANNING: 1/10/01 OLD TAX MAP NO. 10-1-8.1/NEW TAX MAP NO. 240.09-1-14 LOT SIZE: 0.57 ACRES SECTION: 179-25 JOHN OWEN & PETE FRASER, PRESENT MRS. LA BOMBARD-And the public hearing on January 16 was tabled. th STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 1-2001, John H. Owen, Meeting Date: February 27, 2001 “Project Description The application was tabled at the January 16, 2001 meeting pending a use variance decision from the zoning board of appeals. The Planning Board gave direction to the applicant to apply for a use variance to utilize a portion of the building for rental or lease space. The use of storage space as rental lease is allowed in the Light Industrial zone if approved through site plan review. The applicant has currently leased/rented space to construction companies to store equipment and materials. These companies are doing work within the neighborhood and a storage area is utilized to avoid lengthy material/equipment transports to a project site in the area. The applicant was denied a use variance, UV8-2001, for the use of building for rental/lease storage (resolution attached). The applicant has provided a letter removing the lease/rental storage from the site plan application (attached). Areas of Concern or Importance The applicant had requested waivers from the stormwater report, grading plan, lighting plan, and landscape plan. The building and site are pre-existing, no site alterations are proposed at this time. The applicant has met with the building department to review improvements needed to the interior of the structure. In addition, the applicant does not propose any use for the remaining building space at this time. Any future uses of the building in relation to the allowed uses within the zone are subject to site plan review. Suggestions Planning Staff would suggest establishing a time frame for the removal of the material being stored for rent.” MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it? MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening. MR. OWEN-Good evening. MR. MAC EWAN-Could you identify yourselves for the record, please. MR. OWEN-John Owen and Pete Fraser. We’re partial owners, I guess you could put it. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything that you wanted to add? 2 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/27/01) MR. OWEN-Pete would about the rental, I think. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. FRASER-As far as the storage space upstairs, we had on our application, I believe, that it was going to be proposed all office space upstairs. We have removed the storage from downstairs, as requested by your Board. MR. OWEN-AvEx is renting the entire upstairs at this particular point in time. So, they’re in there. MR. MAC EWAN-But the issue of storage was relative to, didn’t you say there was some contractors who were working on the Morse property that were? MR. OWEN-That’s basically been eliminated. They were, we got letters, which I think are in your files, and they told us, before this was even settled, that we had to have them out by February 8, at th that point in time, they stopped paying for the right to storage there. We didn’t want to break any rules. MR. VOLLARO-Are we talking about Accurate Stone? MR. OWEN-Yes, Accurate Stone. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Anything else you wanted to add? MR. OWEN-The only question I had, that kind of leaves that open down there as to what we can do with it, and would we have to file another paper in order to use it as, you know, professional offices, as designated in NC-1A? MR. MAC EWAN-Anything in that zone, I do believe, is going to require site plan review. MRS. MOORE-Correct. If you’re proposing a new office use, you would have to come back for a site plan review. MR. OWEN-Okay. We could do that at a later time? MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. OWEN-Otherwise, we’d just use it to store our own stuff in. MRS. MOORE-Correct. MR. OWEN-Okay. Fine. We’ll do that at a later time. MR. MAC EWAN-They can store their own, what do you mean by your own stuff in? MR. OWEN-Well, for example, I’ve got snow mobile trailer. Pete’s got a plow. I’ve got a plow. We could put that stuff in. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. OWEN-Obviously, we can’t lease it out to anybody at this point in time. So our own stuff we’ll put in. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Anything else? MR. OWEN-That’s it. MR. MAC EWAN-Tony, we’ll start with you. Any questions? MR. METIVIER-I have nothing, no. MR. MAC EWAN-Larry? MR. RINGER-No. MR. MAC EWAN-Bob? MR. VOLLARO-Yes, I have a few. The 1,036 square foot of woodworking shop downstairs on the first floor, and then adjacent to that there’s about 735 square foot right adjacent to it, between the 3 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/27/01) woodworking shop and the post office. Now, what is the woodworking shop actually used for? I mean, I had a chance, I was invited in by Mr. Davies. MR. OWEN-Mr. Fraser. MR. VOLLARO-Mr. Fraser, sorry, pardon me, and took a look around and it just appears to me that that shop has some pretty expensive woodworking equipment in it, and I was just wondering what you were doing with it. MR. FRASER-It’s stuff I’ve gathered over the years. I have some apartment houses in Glens Falls. I make some cabinets for those and do some work for myself. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So it’s your own personal shop, and it’s not a business of any kind? MR. FRASER-Not at all. MR. VOLLARO-All right. On the second floor, taking a look at that, the 1,207 square feet that’s leased out to AvEx Flight Support Systems, is that 1207 feet the only thing that you’re leasing out? MR. OWEN-No. AvEx rents the entire upstairs. What we had proposed was, in the original drawings was a proposed, the rest of the square footage up there to be divided up, at some point, so that we could have either accountant or whatever, professional office in there, at some point, if AvEx decided they didn’t need all that space. Obviously, he’s a growing business. He may take it or he may not. So what Dave Hatin told us was go for the max, go for everything you can conceivably think of doing to the building, and go for that and submit that plan. That’s what we had originally done. In fact, at this point, we’ve already sheet-rocked the downstairs. So we’ve got the fire barrier. We’ve got an engineer in there now, addressing. MR. VOLLARO-Where did you sheet rock? MR. OWEN-On the ceiling downstairs, so there’s a fire break. We also have been told we’ve got to put a handicap bathroom down there. We also have been told, for the State variance, that we’ve got to have an engineer come in and give us a three hour fire rating from an engineer on those concrete walls between the, each one of the bays, or each set of bays, I should say. There’s two and two, and then the other two at the end. So, we’re already in the process of that. MR. VOLLARO-Is this so you can get a CO, is this what this is all about? MR. OWEN-Basically, this is so we can get a CO, and also, a little further down the line, this is so that we can divide it up into other offices, which, obviously, you answered my question tonight. I’m going to have to come back, at some point, if we can ever lease that, you know, whatever business come back and say, here’s what we want to do, is it okay. MR. VOLLARO-On the second floor there’s a thing called an attic. This is your drawing I’m working with. It says attic unusable, 1400 square feet. MR. OWEN-That’s correct. MR. VOLLARO-Now, I looked up into the windows there, just from the parking lot, and there’s a lot of stuff stored up in there. What’s in there? MR. OWEN-That’s all AvEx’s stuff. That’s all his stuff, from his office. MR. VOLLARO-So he’s storing that in there free of charge? MR. OWEN-No. He’s renting the whole upstairs. MR. VOLLARO-Because it says attic unusable. I didn’t understand. MR. OWEN-That’s the lower. Do you know the two roof lines? Okay. That’s the second roofline that’s lower than the first. That’s unusable space. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I talked to the Code Compliance Officer, and so far there’s still no CO’s for this building, but what you’re going through now is trying to get yourself ready to do that. MR. OWEN-That’s correct, we’ll answer that. 4 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/27/01) MR. VOLLARO-There’s a letter on waivers. I just wanted to go over those for a minute. Incidentally, on your letter of February 21 where you talk about, “we’re withdrawing the portion pertaining to storage”, now. MR. OWEN-That’s referring to the 1800 square that we were going for. That’s correct. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. You should have been a little more specific there, because I said to myself, when I reviewed this, well, they’re pulling all the storage out of this building, you know, with the way this is written. MR. OWEN-Well, it’s in reference to the 1800 square feet that we have been entirely talking about the entire time. It has nothing to do with AvEx and what they’re doing upstairs. AvEx is just renting the entire upstairs at this point. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Because, you know, if you take a look at your drawing, where you talk about AvEx, you have three arrows in there, existing professional office, then you talk about 1207 square feet, and then the other two pieces, well, I guess the whole thing, 1207 square feet. There it says existing professional office, and this is the space I thought that was being rented to Flight Support, but you’re saying that whole top floor is theirs? MR. OWEN-Right now is being, but we, as I explained to you, with Dave Hatin, he wanted us to go for any conceivable use we had in the future, to do it now, i.e. why we’re doing all these other things that I previously mentioned. So, I apologize to you. I should have been more clear on that, that we were talking about the 1800 square feet downstairs. MR. VOLLARO-I guess, on the waivers, I can understand why you want waivers. That’s an existing property and there won’t be any, I don’t see any problems. MR. OWEN-It’s been that way since 1948. MR. VOLLARO-Mr. Chairman, that’s all I have right now. MR. MAC EWAN-Cathy? MRS. LA BOMBARD-I’m fine. MR. MAC EWAN-Chris? MR. HUNSINGER-No, I didn’t have anything. MR. MAC EWAN-John? MR. STROUGH-No. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. We have a public hearing scheduled tonight. If anyone wants to come up and address this application, they’re welcome to do so. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MAC EWAN-You didn’t have any letters or anything, did you? MRS. MOORE-No, I do not. MR. MAC EWAN-We need to do a SEQRA. MRS. MOORE-You did your SEQRA at your last meeting. MRS. LA BOMBARD-I thought we did. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. We did. Okay. I stand corrected. Anything else that Staff wanted to add? MRS. MOORE-No. MR. MAC EWAN-Any other questions or comments from Board members? Anything the applicant wanted to add? I’ll entertain a motion. 5 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/27/01) MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 1-2001 JOHN H. OWEN, Introduced by John Strough who moved for its adoption, seconded by Anthony Metivier: WHEREAS, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of Site Plan No. 1-2001, John H. Owen. Applicant requests approval of multiple uses in an existing building - 1 floor contains Post Office st (665 sq. ft.), 3 bays or 1732.5 sq. ft. for storage, 1036 sq. ft. wood working area; 2 floor contains nd 1207 sq. ft. office space and 1046 sq. ft. storage area. New uses in NC zones are subject to Planning Board review and approval. Waivers requested from stormwater management report, grading plan, lighting plan, and landscaping plan. Cross Reference BP 98-373, 11/20/00 letter from C. Brown, Code Compliance Officer and Use Variance 8-2001. Tax Map No. 10-1-8.1, and; WHEREAS, the application was received December 28, 2000; and WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation and inclusive of all newly received information, not included in this listing as of 01/12/01; 2/27/01 Staff Notes 2/21/01 Letter to File from J. Owen - withdrawing portion of application pertaining to storage 2/21/01 Zoning Board Resolution – Use Variance, Denied 1/16/01 Staff Notes 1/11/01 Note to File prepared by Chris Round 1/10/01 Warren Co. Planning Bd. recommendation - No County Impact 1/9/01 Notice of Public Hearing 1/8/01 New Information 1/4/01 Meeting Notice 1/2/01 J. Owen from L. Moore regarding request for additional info by 1/9/01 12/28/00 Site Plan application w/ drawings and deed attached 11/20/00 P. Fraser from C. Brown, Code Compliance WHEREAS, public hearing was held on 01/16/01, 2/27/01 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 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, that The application is approved as per resolution prepared by Staff. Duly adopted this 27th day of February 2001 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Metivier, Mr. Strough, Mr. Hunsinger, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set, gentlemen. MR. OWEN-Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Good luck. Next item. SITE PLAN NO. 77-2000 TYPE II ROBERT WALL OWNER: SAME AGENT: KEVIN MASCHEWSKI, JONATHAN LAPPER ZONE: WR-3A, APA LOCATION: 15 ANTIGUA ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONVERSION OF SEASONAL RESIDENCE TO A FULL TIME YEAR ROUND RESIDENCE WITH A 1,154 SQ. FT. 6 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/27/01) ADDITION, A 784 SQ. FT. DETACHED GARAGE AND NEW SEPTIC SYSTEM. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 101-2000, SP 73-2000 (WITHDRAWN) WARREN CO. PLANNING: 12/13/00 OLD TAX MAP NO. 1-1-5/NEW TAX MAP NO. 239.17-1-5 LOT SIZE: 0.27 ACRES/SECTION 179-16 KEVIN MASCHEWSKI, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MRS. LA BOMBARD-And there were three public hearings, December 26, 2000, January 23, 2001 which was tabled and of course there’s one tonight. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 77-2000, Robert Wall, Meeting Date: February 27, 2001 “Project Description The applicant was tabled from the December 26, 2000 meeting pending a zoning board decision. The applicant was granted an area variance for the expansion of a non-conforming structure, AV101- 2000 (resolution attached). The zoning board requested the applicant revise the plans eliminating the second floor living space. The applicant has provided amended drawings showing a one story structure with attic dormers. The information submitted references both the Lake George and Queensbury portion as one lot. Project Analysis (Section 179-38) Site Overview The applicant proposes 1,154 square foot addition to an existing 1,440 square foot dwelling. The addition includes alterations to the existing footprint and roofline. The applicant also proposes a 784 square foot two car garage. The plans with a revision date of 12/26/2000 indicate stormwater will be controlled on site with roof drains and wet-wells. The water supply is from Lake George as shown on the plans. The applicant proposes to install a new septic system in the location as shown on the plan. The plans indicate areas of new landscaping and lawn/trees to be retained. Suggestions The applicant’s plans should be revised to show Area Variance 101–2000 conditions. All of the submitted plans should remove the second floor notation. The garage square footage from 624 sq. ft. to 784 sq. ft. should be revised on Sheet S-1. In addition, the board may consider requesting the applicant to provide site development data for the portion of the structure in Queensbury.” MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it? MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening. MR. MASCHEWSKI-Good evening. MR. MAC EWAN-Would you identify yourself for the record, please? MR. MASCHEWSKI-Yes, I will. Kevin Maschewski, project engineer and architect. MR. MAC EWAN-And did you have a copy of the Staff notes here? MR. MASCHEWSKI-Yes, I do. MR. MAC EWAN-In the interest of the fact that we need to see some significant revisions to the drawings, I’m not going to proceed with this to in depth tonight, so that we can get you to bring your drawings up to reflect what the Area Variances and the ZBA variances granted. MR. MASCHEWSKI-Can I ask what drawings? You say drawings. MR. MAC EWAN-Well, I’m looking at two, so I don’t know if it’s going to affect both of them or not. It would affect both drawings, I would think. MR. VOLLARO-The latest copy of S-1, dated January 3, 2001, has the 684 square foot of garage, rd as opposed to the 784. 7 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/27/01) MR. MASCHEWSKI-My understanding is that should be the only change that needs to get addressed on that drawing. MR. VOLLARO-6/24. I’m sorry. MR. MASCHEWSKI-Yes. There’s been a lot of back and forth with the Town Zoning Board. The owner originally wanted a 28 by 28 garage, had reduced it to appease some of the zoning floor area ratio requirements. The floor area ratio requirement concerns were taken care of at the house, not the garage. So the owner wanted to go back to the 28 by 28 garage. As far as S-1 site plan, everything should be relatively addressed, other than just that garage. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I guess we ought to settle on the fact, is the January 3, 2001 S-1 drawing the rd latest revision to the drawing package? MR. MASCHEWSKI-Yes. I made certain of that. MR. VOLLARO-So that’s the only one that has to have a garage change on it? MR. MASCHEWSKI-Yes, and at this point, the owner wanted to put the 28 foot by 28 foot back in there, but not knowing we might not even build it at that size. He’s not sure yet because of budget constraints. So he wants to put the 28 foot by 28 foot garage in there, and that’s the only change, to my knowledge, that needs to get addressed on the site plan. MR. MAC EWAN-But for any review being done by this Board or any other Town Board, or Town review process, if you haven’t gotten the variances in place to put that extra square footage on the garage, that size garage, it shouldn’t reflect in any of the drawings that you’re going to have in front of us for review. MR. MASCHEWSKI-A variance wasn’t tied to that garage. That garage meets all setbacks, side yard, front yard, everything. The variance was only applied to the residence for a nonconforming, pre- existing side yard setback. MR. VOLLARO-Well, you know, in looking at the ZBA motion, it says, the applicant proposes the construction of 1,178 square foot first floor. I understand that, as well as a 624 square foot freestanding garage. That’s what the motion says from the ZBA. It doesn’t talk to the 784 square foot garage. MR. MAC EWAN-What you need to do is take this drawing and make it reflect what the ZBA variance approved. MR. MASCHEWSKI-Okay. It’s only that one item. If we go to that 28 by 28 garage, will that mean I have to reapply and resubmit and come back? MR. MAC EWAN-That’s correct. MR. MASCHEWSKI-Then I’ll leave it 24 by 26, just for the intention of, this is my 12 meeting. th MR. MAC EWAN-It doesn’t work that way. It doesn’t work that way. Unfortunately, what the ZBA granted. MR. MASCHEWSKI-That is the 24 by 26 garage. MR. MAC EWAN-The 624 square foot? Okay. All right. I’m sorry. I apologize. MR. MASCHEWSKI-Then the site plan is 100% accurate. MR. VOLLARO-If you want to leave it at that, then S-1 reflects what you’re going to do. MR. MASCHEWSKI-Yes. Because we want to start going on this project. A little bit of history was that, being that it falls between Lake George and Queensbury, we had applied, in both towns, again, not that it’s really much interest to you folks, but this is my 12 meeting, and we want to get the ball th going. I feel pretty confident. We got the variance in Lake George, addressed all of their site plan issues, I got the variance in Lake George, addressed all those issues. I guess the only thing remaining is the Queensbury Planning Board, and I really don’t want to re-do this again. MR. VOLLARO-When I looked at your calculations on the 22%, you’re familiar with that 22%? MR. MASCHEWSKI-Yes, I am. 8 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/27/01) MR. VOLLARO-I recognize that I’m only looking at a very small portion of that, but it would be a good idea. I did the rough math and you’re below 22%. MR. MASCHEWSKI-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-But somehow or other. MR. MASCHEWSKI-For the entire parcel, or just Queensbury? MR. VOLLARO-Just Queensbury. The entire parcel is something else. MR. MASCHEWSKI-I’ve got those numbers. MR. VOLLARO-You’ve got the Queensbury numbers, and that should be under 22%. MR. MASCHEWSKI-It’s 20.8. MR. VOLLARO-That’s close to what I came up with. I came up with 20 something. MR. MASCHEWSKI-I didn’t, because I just got the Staff notes, today’s Tuesday, just got the Staff notes yesterday, did some number crunching and came up with just the Queensbury part of it. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. All right. MR. MASCHEWSKI-In addition, I’ve got copies for all the Board members for the site development data, for just Queensbury, if that’s required. MR. VOLLARO-But I don’t know how far you’re going with this, Mr. Chairman. I’ll back off this thing. MR. MAC EWAN-I don’t know. How does Staff feel about this? MRS. MOORE-My understanding was that the comments I made could be addressed as a set of final plans. MR. MAC EWAN-The plans he submits at the time of building permit, you mean? MRS. MOORE-Right. I didn’t expect, I didn’t anticipate tabling it, unless the Board felt they needed that information to review the project. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. All right, Larry, we’ll start with you. Any questions? MR. RINGER-No. I’m still not sure, we’re only looking at a 24 by 26 garage. MR. MASCHEWSKI-That’s correct. MR. VOLLARO-That’s what he said. MR. RINGER-That’s what he said, but the application that he revised shows a 28 by 28. You’d have to change the application, too. MRS. MOORE-Could I interrupt again? My understanding is the square footage of the garage had nothing to do with what the variance was applied for. The variance was only applied for the main dwelling structure, so that the actual size of the garage can be what it is as proposed now. It’s supposed to be 784 square feet. MR. MAC EWAN-784 square feet, is that what you’re saying? MRS. MOORE-Correct, because it wasn’t subject of. MR. MAC EWAN-But that’s not what the ZBA variance motion says. MS. RADNER-The ZBA’s variance is relief of 9.66 feet from the 20 foot minimum side setback. So, if the change of the garage is not going to change that relief from the side setback, then it doesn’t affect the variance they’ve granted. They’ve granted 9.66 feet of relief from the setback requirements. MR. MAC EWAN-Then why would they make the comment, as well as a 624 square foot freestanding garage, in the first line of their? 9 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/27/01) MS. RADNER-Well, I think if the project as it was presented to them, if the placement of the garage, though, isn’t going to be changing that 9.66 feet of relief that was granted, I don’t think that it matters in terms of the relief that they’ve been given from the ZBA. The ZBA doesn’t do site plan review as you folks do, in terms of deciding the size or not. They’re looking at the distance. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, but I don’t know if I necessarily share that position, because by looking at the way this motion is prepared by the ZBA, it indicates to me that the variance that’s being approved here is not only the setback relief that they’re looking for, but also the fact that it’s going to be an 1178 square foot first floor addition, as well as a 624 square foot freestanding garage. MS. RADNER-My understanding from reading that is that that wasn’t a portion of the relief that they were requesting from the ZBA. That’s what they were proposing to construct, but then if you read the next sentence, it says specifically, the applicant requests 9.66 feet of relief from the 20 foot minimum side setback requirement. MR. VOLLARO-That’s exactly right, and I tied those two together. I tied the 624 square foot garage with the 9.66 feet of relief. That’s how I saw that. MS. RADNER-I don’t have the maps in front of me. You folks do. If the placement of the garage is what was tied to this 9.66 feet of relief from the side yard setback, then you’re absolutely right, you can’t move forward. MR. RINGER-At 24 feet, he’s just at the 20 foot side yard setback, unless you put the other four feet on the other side, down on this end. MR. VOLLARO-Where are you at, Larry? MR. RINGER-On the map here. See, he’s got, he’s right at 20 feet here with the setback, and the 24 feet. If we went to 28, the other four feet are all going to have to come out of here. My question was, either the application’s got to change or the map has got to change, to make it. MR. VOLLARO-The two should definitely tie in together. MR. RINGER-Yes, tie in together. MR. VOLLARO-It seems to me. MR. RINGER-I don’t have a problem with it, as long as he stays within the ZBA approval. MR. VOLLARO-Right now, the way he’s got it on the drawing, with the 624 square foot, he’s okay, it looks to me, but I can’t say that when he goes to 784, that that 9.66 relief that he got from the ZBA holds. You’d have to sit down and look at that. Because I tied that 9.66 to the 624. MR. MASCHEWSKI-Again, just for simplicity, I am representing the owner, and I would like to keep it to 24 foot by 26 foot, 624 square feet. The owner did have legal counsel at the variance meeting, at the zoning meeting, and we did indicate, once we received the paperwork, that that comment should have been stricken from the, because as Counsel here does indicate that it is not tied to the variance, but it was not stricken, and we’ll keep it that. MR. VOLLARO-See, I can only read, you know, what’s put in front of me, and that’s how I read it, that the 9.66 foot of relief was tied to the 624 square foot garage, as opposed to the other 784. MR. MASCHEWSKI-At the time there had been a lot of horse trading on square foot, floor area ratio, and we had struck the whole second floor off the design of the house. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Larry, any questions? MR. RINGER-No. Just that we should change the application, then, to 24 by 26. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Bob, are you all set? MR. VOLLARO-I just want to say, while I’ve got the mike here for a minute, that the resolution that was prepared by Staff, I believe, should be changed. In the Whereas, the first Whereas, we talk about “with the addition of a second floor”. There is no second floor. MR. RINGER-Which resolution? MRS. LA BOMBARD-Say that again, Robert? 10 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/27/01) MR. VOLLARO-Okay. In the resolution, the first paragraph of the resolution, it says, “Whereas the Town Planning Board is in receipt of Site Plan No. 77-2000, Robert Wall, for conversion of a seasonal residence to a full time, year round residence, with the addition of a second floor”. Well, what happened during the ZBA meeting is the second floor was totally removed. There is no second floor to this building. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, that just answered my question. All right. Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Cathy? MRS. LA BOMBARD-I guess what confused me was back on December 26, I was told to save the th original project description, and then we had visited the site, and then when I started to read this one, I got confused because the dimensions were different, all right, and then I’ve got the plans of the house in front of me, and those show an upstairs. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, there isn’t any more upstairs. MRS. LA BOMBARD-And now I’ve got something, I don’t know what, I guess what I’m saying is we’ve always made it a practice to have in front of us exactly what we’re going to vote on, and what we’re discussing, and I don’t feel like I have that. MR. MASCHEWSKI-If you don’t mind, can I see the elevations you have there? MRS. LA BOMBARD-Sure. MR. MAC EWAN-Those are the ones with the second floor. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Right here. MR. MASCHEWSKI-They’re out. You’ve got the right elevations. MRS. LA BOMBARD-But this has a second floor. MR. MASCHEWSKI-You do not have the right elevations. MRS. LA BOMBARD-And I’ve been looking all over. MR. VOLLARO-The block title is wrong here. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. Do you feel comfortable moving along with this? MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-You do? MRS. MOORE-Yes. I know we provided you with the same information that I have in the file. MRS. LA BOMBARD-I just have to know and have an idea, I have to see in my head what we’re talking about, and I have had the wrong elevations, the wrong plans. Now, this one in front of me is the front of the house, and it’s got. MR. VOLLARO-What’s the date on the title block, Cathy? MRS. LA BOMBARD-He said these are the correct ones. MR. VOLLARO-What’s the date on the title block? MR. HUNSINGER-February 2001. MR. VOLLARO-And it says proposed second floor on that as well. The title block on this drawing. MR. MASCHEWSKI-The title block, yes, is wrong. MR. VOLLARO-It’s pretty confusing when we’re trying to sort this out. MR. MASCHEWSKI-It is confusing, the whole project. MRS. LA BOMBARD-But these are four dormers, and there’s the second floor. 11 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/27/01) MR. MASCHEWSKI-They are attic dormers to illuminate the attic up top. The owner has 10 foot high walls downstairs, creating elongated height wise looking house, instead of all roofline, the house is 39 feet wide. So that roofline climbs. MRS. LA BOMBARD-All right. So, in other words, those are just? MR. MASCHEWSKI-They’re just dormers, up in the attic. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Decorative? MR. MASCHEWSKI-Yes, they’re more architectural than anything. MRS. LA BOMBARD-There’s not a floor there? MR. MASCHEWSKI-No. MRS. LA BOMBARD-All right. Now, what about the rear elevation here where we have, this is all X’d out. MR. MASCHEWSKI-That’s a side X’d out. The following page should be additionals. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. That’s the side, and that’s X’d out, and then the west is facing the lake? MR. MASCHEWSKI-That’s correct. MRS. LA BOMBARD-This is all one floor? MR. MASCHEWSKI-One floor. MRS. LA BOMBARD-But high ceilings. MR. MASCHEWSKI-High ceilings. That big front is a Great Room. MRS. LA BOMBARD-How high are they ceilings? Usually, they’re 17, 19 feet. MR. MASCHEWSKI-That Great Room is about 20 feet, with the rest, remaining of the house 10 foot high. MRS. LA BOMBARD-So then basically you’re adding just the part that was in the front, the new footprint that comes out? MR. MASCHEWSKI-Correct. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Facing the lake. MR. MASCHEWSKI-Correct. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Which is 1100 square feet, about? MR. MASCHEWSKI-Which is 1100, and out of that 1100, I know it gets very confusing, but out of that 1154 square feet, 329 of it is in Queensbury. That’s the only addition we’re asking for in Queensbury. MRS. LA BOMBARD-And how many new bathrooms? How many bedrooms and how many bathrooms? MR. MASCHEWSKI-We had designed, there’s three bedrooms existing. We kept three bedrooms in the house, and the new septic system is designed for three bedrooms. The bathrooms, there’s one and a half in there, existing, and we’re putting two fulls in there. So the bedroom quantity remains and the bathroom quantity basically stays the same. It just becomes a half to a full. MRS. LA BOMBARD-So the overall square footage will be about 1440, plus 1100, about 2600? MR. MASCHEWSKI-Twenty-six hundred, exactly. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Thank you. 12 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/27/01) MR. MASCHEWSKI-You’re welcome. MRS. LA BOMBARD-You answered my question. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Chris? MR. HUNSINGER-I’m okay with it. MR. MAC EWAN-John? MR. STROUGH-Kevin, how high are the ceilings in the so called attic? MR. MASCHEWSKI-In the attic? The house is 28, we’re maxing the 28 foot requirement. We’ve got 10 foot high downstairs, from the grade up to your first floor is about another three and a half, plus 10, plus your ceiling joists, 11. Thirteen feet to the peak. MR. STROUGH-So it’s livable space. MR. MASCHEWSKI-I guess it depends on what you call livable. Height, just because of height, you’re saying? MR. STROUGH-Yes, well, the height and the dormers. I’m saying that looks like a second floor that can be used for. MRS. LA BOMBARD-He just told me there was no floor up there. MR. MASCHEWSKI-There is no floor up there. He’s got ceiling. Yes, I mean, if you’re going to say the height makes it a living space, but we’re submitting, I knew that would be an issue. One is we’re submitting first floor plans only. Second is there’s going to be no stairwell going up to that attic space. He’s going to have a pull down set of stairs. The dormers are for aesthetics. When you’re standing on Antigua Road looking at the property, you actually are at about the roof level, and that house is already 18 feet high. It sits in a hole, as you go down, and once you get to the house, you still step down a stone retaining wall that re-sets it down about three feet below where it is. So what we had tried to accomplish was, you know, since the variance, I changed the elevations about three or four different times, and by putting just a straight roofline in there, that’s all you saw from the road, Antigua Road, is roof. MR. STROUGH-(lost words) what triggered that thinking, because I’ve seen the whole process. MR. MASCHEWSKI-Yes. MR. STROUGH-I’ve been to all three, what is it, three Zoning Board meetings. MR. MASCHEWSKI-Yes. MR. STROUGH-And I sympathize with you. I mean, there’s parts of that where, unfortunately, the Building Code doesn’t always jog with. Well, you know, the bigger eaves is an Adirondack thing, and it helps keep your foundation dryer and it helps keep your siding dryer, and generally, I like to support wider eaves. It just makes sense, but they venture from the eaves, instead of the building, so, I can see why, what you had to deal with, and I can sympathize. Now my main concern, though, and I was with your house, too. I don’t know if you remember, but I asked you, what are you going to do with the stormwater runoff, are you going to put gutters on, and you said, yes. Are you going to keep it on site, and you said yes, and this was the place on Assembly Point, and then I believe you said that you’re going to put the gutters in to like a dry well system so that? How about this house? MR. MASCHEWSKI-Yes. There should be on the revised site plan. Again, attending Lake George Planning Board, and getting site review, there were requirements that they also had, and again, like Queensbury, was what to do with the stormwater runoff. The revised site plan dated, well, November 2000, it should have gutters and wet wells shown at the four corners of the house, if you have the latest and greatest. MR. STROUGH-Well, I do. I have one and a revised info. MR. MASCHEWSKI-The site plan? MR. STROUGH-Yes, 2/5/01. MR. MASCHEWSKI-I specifically put them on the site plan and put a cloud around them to indicate those changes. 13 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/27/01) MR. STROUGH-Okay. So they are going to go into dry wells? MR. MASCHEWSKI-Yes. MR. STROUGH-And did you do that, you’re finished up with the house on Assembly Point? MR. MASCHEWSKI-Not for the site work on my project, no. MR. STROUGH-So you’re going to do that? MR. MASCHEWSKI-Yes, the gutters, actually the gutters just got installed last week, last Wednesday. I still have an intensive site work to do and landscaping on it. MR. STROUGH-And I was at the Zoning Board meeting, and I have to second what Cathy said. When they said they were going to remove the second story, then the only thing that they were going to address was the setback. I mean, the floor area ratio wasn’t a factor anymore. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Can we jump back to the second floor here for a second? MR. MASCHEWSKI-Certainly. MR. MAC EWAN-The windows that you have up there, that are on all the dormers. Are they functional windows? Or are they just? MR. MASCHEWSKI-They’re double hung. Yes. They slide up. MR. MAC EWAN-So they, and is there any intention of using this as storage or anything like that up there? MR. MASCHEWSKI-I can’t answer that because I don’t know what the intentions of the owner is. I do know he’s got a big basement that he’s going to do wood shopping. He’s got his own little equipment and he’s got plenty of storage down there. A pull down set of stairs is not going to allow sufficient room to put boxes and all that. So I can’t really say yes or no on the storage. MR. MAC EWAN-You had answered one of the other Board members, when they asked a question, regarding that second floor, that there wasn’t even a set of stairs that went up there. It was a pull down stairs? MR. MASCHEWSKI-It’s going to be a set of pull down, yes. MR. MAC EWAN-What is this stair system here right off the foyer in the main entrance? MR. MASCHEWSKI-That’s going down into the basement. I showed stairs going up to the attic as well as going down, and Craig Brown, on zoning, did indicate that you can’t have your stairs going up. It may be misinterpreted as a second floor. So I said, really, we’ll just put a set of pull down stairs in there to get up to the attic. MR. MAC EWAN-But your drawing shows that you have stairs going to a second floor. I’m looking at two sets of stairs. You have a set of stairs off the Great Room which indicate they’re going downstairs to the basement. MR. MASCHEWSKI-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-You have a set of stairs coming right off the foyer which shows that they’re going upstairs to a second floor. MR. MASCHEWSKI-Can I take a look at those? MR. MAC EWAN-And this is the most recent drawing, right? There you say it’s going up, and here’s where it says it’s coming down. MR. MASCHEWSKI-No. That’s an old set. That’s an old set of drawings. MR. VOLLARO-I searched around today. This is the only drawing I could come up with that showed me the first floor layout. This one here, dated November 2000. It’s the only thing I could find that shows the first floor. 14 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/27/01) MR. MAC EWAN-I may be all by myself here, but I don’t want to move any further on this application until I see the drawings done to reflect what the ZBA had granted, so that we have an understanding up here, because I think there’s at least a couple of us up here that are somewhat confused as to what the intent is here. I’d prefer, I don’t know where I stand on this, if I’ve got any support here. MRS. LA BOMBARD-I have a second floor in front of me that shows three bedrooms, a sitting area, and three bathrooms. MR. MASCHEWSKI-They should not have been submitted. They should not have been submitted to you or allowed in this meeting, because they are not, that’s what was taken back from the Zoning Board, from the applicant, was that set of drawings. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Like I said before, I’d just like to have in front of me what we’re voting on. MR. STROUGH-See, it is kind of confusing because you’ve got your old stuff and new stuff, and. MR. MAC EWAN-The site data sheet’s got to be revised, too, as well, right? MR. VOLLARO-To reflect Queensbury only. MR. MASCHEWSKI-Laura may be able to strengthen this one, on my side, but I had been asked to, once the Zoning Board had made their determination, I was asked to revise elevations to show no second floor. At that time, I couldn’t complete them for the January meeting of the Planning Board, made the submission at the end of January, which should be the revised elevations. The only floor plan that had been changed and submitted was to Craig Brown, who had requested that, to indicate if we were adhering to the revised requirement of Queensbury. So I had, I was never told to revise floor plans for this Planning Board meeting. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. MASCHEWSKI-What, I guess my intention here is, because I’m still, I’m the project architect, I’m still making these changes. I admit it was significant. Every drawing that I had completed had gotten changed, and these were all done by hand. My hopes were that a Planning Board approval could be granted, conditional upon the revised set of drawings to conform to the Zoning Board request. The site plan is complete. We can stick to the 24 by 26 garage. Site plan is accurate. It’s just the drawings, architectural drawings that need to be revised, submitted, for a building permit. MR. MAC EWAN-Well, I think, I don’t know how the rest of the Board feels. I’d like to get some opinions. John, would you rather see an accurate set of plans and site data development sheet? MR. STROUGH-Yes, well, first I want to preface that by saying that I’m familiar with the project. I don’t have a problem with the project, but I have to concur with what Craig says. I don’t have any recent floor plan layout, not that I necessarily need one, but who knows? It would probably be a good idea to have a complete set of updated, totally accurate plans. MR. MAC EWAN-Chris? MR. HUNSINGER-I guess I’d have to reiterate the same thing John said. I really don’t have a problem with the project, per se. I think the, you know, the site plan pretty much tells us what we need to do, but we really should have up to date information. MR. MASCHEWSKI-And I understand, but, again, is there any way that could be tied to the building permit? I mean, the completed set of drawings with a septic system, you know, if it doesn’t get past the Building Department and Zoning, this project’s never going to go forward anyway. MR. MAC EWAN-Well, let me finish polling the Board. How do you feel? MRS. LA BOMBARD-I know where you’re coming from, but we have made it a policy, in all the years that I’ve been on this Board, to approve what is in front of us, and at this point, we don’t have what’s in front of us, we don’t have in front of us what your plans really are, and I know that I’m not going to have a problem with it, either, but, we have to be careful. MR. MAC EWAN-Bob? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I think I probably spent more time reviewing this today than all the other applications combined, trying to dig out a set of drawings I could relate to. I have to go along with Cathy on this because what we approve here is what we see, and that’s the only thing we can do. I mean, you can’t kind of speculate on what could be or what would be. I just can’t do that. 15 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/27/01) MR. MAC EWAN-Larry? MR. RINGER-With the changes that they’ve made, I don’t think I’m going to have trouble with the project. However, because of all the changes that they’ve made, I think we should have a complete and accurate site plan map and stuff in front of us. So I think we should get a new one, too. MR. MAC EWAN-Tony? MR. METIVIER-I certainly am familiar with your work. You do absolutely beautiful work on your home, but I would love to see any reference to a second floor be absolutely removed. All of these plans, and I think I have the most updated ones for whatever reason, because I’m the new guy. They all show a second floor, and, you know, I think we’re going to run into problems with that. I really do. Even if you left it an attic, and on your drawing, five of seven, it shows, you know, second floor plan, you’d have to take that out, because I know what’s going to happen. The next thing you know, we’ll see a set of stairs going up, and I think that’s what they’re trying to avoid, besides that, I’m pleased with it. I think it’s going to be nice. MR. MASCHEWSKI-Excuse me. Laura, when is the deadline for submission for next month? MRS. MOORE-That would be tomorrow by 4:30. MR. MAC EWAN-Kevin, I’m one step ahead of you. MR. MASCHEWSKI-It’s going to be a late night. MR. MAC EWAN-No. Considering where I think the Board is wanting to go here, we want to see the drawings revised to reflect what you’re actually going to do, up to date drawings, in addition to revising your site data sheet as well. We’ll table this thing tonight. MR. MASCHEWSKI-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-I’ll give you until close of business, March 9, okay, that’s a Friday. th MR. MASCHEWSKI-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. That’s a week from this Friday, and we’ll put you on our agenda. We’ll table you to our March 20 meeting. th MR. MASCHEWSKI-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-Reasonable? MR. MASCHEWSKI-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-You understand our position, don’t you? MR. MASCHEWSKI-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-It’s difficult because there’s three of us up here looking at three different sets of plans, and we’re confused. MR. MASCHEWSKI-I know. It is, believe me, I’ve got drawings all over the place of modifications and changes. MR. MAC EWAN-We’ll get through it. Okay? All right. I’ll introduce a motion. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 77-2000 ROBERT WALL, Introduced by Craig MacEwan who moved for its adoption seconded by Robert Vollaro: So that the applicant’s agent has time to revise the site plan drawings, the elevation drawings, and to revise the site data sheet. We’ll give the applicant until close of business on March 9, 2001 to resubmit the new information, and we’ll table this application to our first regular meeting of March. Duly adopted this 27th day of February 2001 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Strough, Mr. Hunsinger, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. MacEwan 16 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/27/01) NOES: NONE MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. MASCHEWSKI-See you in a little bit. MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. MR. MASCHEWSKI-Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Next item. NEW BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 4-2001 TYPE II MIKE & HOLLY DANSBURY OWNER: SAME AGENT: PHIL HAAKENSON ZONE: WR-1A, CEA LOCATION: 9 HEMLOCK DRIVE APPLICANT PROPOSES THE ADDITION OF A 6’ X 8’ DORMER BATHROOM TO SECOND STORY. EXPANSION OF A NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE IN A CEA REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 3-2001 SEPTIC VARIANCE: 2/5/01, 2/26/01 TOWN BD. MTG. OLD TAX MAP NO. 43-2-19 NEW TAX MAP NO. 289.10-1-31 LOT SIZE: 0.21 ACRES SECTION: 179-16, 179-79 MRS. MOORE-At this time, there’s no one here to represent the applicant. Does anybody, I’ll leave it up to the Board. MR. MAC EWAN-Let’s just move on. We’ll put them off until the end. MRS. MOORE-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Next item. SITE PLAN NO. 6-2001 TYPE II GREGG & DEBRA JELLEY OWNER: SAME AGENT: MICHAEL O’CONNOR & VAN DUSEN & STEVES ZONE: WR-1A, CEA LOCATION: 40 NACY ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES A 1,352 SQ. FT. RESIDENTIAL ADDITION. CONVERSION OF A SEASONAL DWELLING AND EXPANSION OF A NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE IN A CEA REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 7-2001 OLD TAX MAP NO. 44-1-16 NEW TAX MAP NO. 289.06-1-30 LOT SIZE: 0.25 ACRES SECTION: 179-16, 179-69, 179-79 MATT STEVES & MICHAEL O’CONNOR, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 6-2001, Gregg & Debra Jelley, Meeting Date: February 27, 2001 “Project Description The applicant proposes a 1,352 square foot expansion to an existing 847 square foot dwelling. The applicant was granted an area variance for the expansion of a non-conforming structure, AV7-2001 (resolution attached). Project Analysis (Section 179-38) Site Overview (1) The location, arrangement, size, design and general site compatibility of buildings, lighting and signs. ?? The addition will be one story and will be designed to match the existing dwelling, ?? The addition will actually meet the second floor of the existing dwelling due to the grade of the property, and ?? The elevation drawings show the different views of the building. (2) The applicants final submission should address the following items: ?? How stormwater will be maintained on site, ?? What landscape (trees, bushes, gardens) will be retained, ?? If any new landscaping will be installed, ?? What will happen to the existing septic system, 17 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/27/01) ?? Erosion control methods to be used during construction, ?? Grading information Suggestions The site development data for permeability should be revised to 75% existing and 65% proposed. The site plan should be revised to address information outlined in item # 2.” MRS. MOORE-I’ll address, under the “Site Overview” under Item No. 2, the applicant’s final submission, the applicant has actually submitted the information I requested prior to that, and that’s information that you received this evening. I’ve had a chance to look it over, and it address the questions that I had. MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it? MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening. MR. STEVES-Good evening. I’m Matt Steves with Van Dusen & Steves Land Surveyors, and I represent the Jelleys on this application. As far as the Staff comments, we have no problem with the typo on that, to change that to the 65 and 75%. What you see in front of you is a parcel of property on the south side of Nacy Road and Glen Lake. The proposed addition is going to sit on the north side of the house, away from the lake. The existing camp that sits on the property, as you can see from the site plan in front of you, does not sit relatively perpendicular or parallel to the property lines. So with the addition coming off the back, being in line with the existing back wall of the building, to avoid any kind of a gap, because this is a pre-fabricated building that’s coming into play, in order to make it work, we had to come straight back off the building, and therefore we needed to obtain a variance for the side line setback, which we did obtain last week. As far as the other comments from the Staff, they were for erosion control, which is shown on the plan for during construction. Tom Nace has provided you with a stormwater management report, and has designed a new septic system. There were a couple of other comments made by the Staff, as far as. MR. VOLLARO-Excuse me, Matt? MR. STEVES-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-The February 25 drawing, is that what you have up there? th MR. STEVES-No, I believe not. The one that’s up here is revised the 27. th MR. VOLLARO-The 27? th MR. STEVES-Right. The only addition, Bob, is you have, on the one that was submitted to Staff today and the one that’s here in front of you, is the erosion control measures, the standard erosion control notes with the silt fences, that has been added and delivered to Staff today, the three copies of the required. I’m sure Staff will have one, or I can pass this one around, but that’s the only revision to the plan that you have. The plan that you have also shows how we’re incorporating the stormwater. As far as roof gutters, downspouts into dry wells, one on the east side of the building and one on the west side of the building, and I believe the only other question that the Staff had was what we’re going to do with the old septic system, and that’s going to be dug up and filled in with sand. It’s going to be abandoned and a brand new system installed, and it’s not going to be used for any purposes whatsoever. It’ll be filled in with sand and abandoned. As far as removal of trees, in the location of the proposed structure, there isn’t any real trees that the applicant will be removing. Most of the trees are on the bank, or up closer to the property on adjoining properties, and as far as landscaping, yes, they will be doing landscaping once they complete the structure. This is going to be their year round home, and they’re going to do a fair amount of landscaping around it, and I’m open for questions from the Board. MR. MAC EWAN-Cathy, we’ll start with you. MRS. LA BOMBARD-You’re going to have to pass me for a minute. MR. MAC EWAN-Chris? MR. HUNSINGER-I really didn’t have any specific questions. MR. MAC EWAN-John? 18 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/27/01) MR. STROUGH-Matt, where was the old septic system located? MR. STEVES-I’m not sure of the exact location, but it’s near where the proposed addition is going, in the back of the building. MR. STROUGH-Okay, and I just got the stormwater management report. So the gutters are going to drain, it says, into dry wells? MR. STEVES-That’s correct, on both sides of the house. MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it? MR. STROUGH-I’m reading it. MR. MAC EWAN-Do you want me to come back? MR. STROUGH-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Tony? MR. METIVIER-Matt, those stakes that are in the ground now, is that a 10 foot setback? MR. STEVES-There are double offsets from the corners of the proposed building, so that the neighbors and the client could see where the proposed structure was going to be. MR. METIVIER-So where the stakes are, that’s exactly where the? MR. STEVES-That’s 10 feet off. MR. METIVIER-Ten feet off? MR. STEVES-That’s correct. MR. METIVIER-Okay. So you’re not going to go into that bank at all? MR. STEVES-No. MR. METIVIER-Okay. That’s really all I had. MR. MAC EWAN-Larry? MR. RINGER-No, nothing. MR. MAC EWAN-Bob? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. Matt, maybe you can lead me through this. Okay. MR. STEVES-Certainly. MR. VOLLARO-The two things we want to do, 179-79A 1 & 2 talk about no more than 50% expansion of a building. MR. STEVES-Correct. MR. VOLLARO-And then you get into the 22% calculations. MR. STEVES-As far as floor area ratio. MR. VOLLARO-As far as floor area ratios are concerned. Those two play together in this application, I believe, and I had some problems with the floor area ratio worksheet. I looked at that, and it looked to me like, even though the ZBA talked about 105% expansion, I have a problem with the ZBA wording against the floor area ratio worksheet. I can’t make that play together. Can you help me with that? MR. STEVES-As far as the proposed and the existing first floor and second floor combined, is, I think they’re looking at just the first floor. I’m not exactly sure either, Bob, but existing first is 847 and second is 445, and they’re proposing to enlarge the first floor again only to 2199. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, that gives them an overall 2644. Because they’re using the existing area. 19 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/27/01) MR. STEVES-That’s correct. MR. VOLLARO-And, boy, I’ll tell you, I went round and round with this, and I couldn’t make it play in my own mind. MR. STEVES-I’m not the one that came up with the 105%. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, I understand that, and I don’t know how that happened. I know that’s wrong. I get 136, when I did it. So I know that the ZBA’s variance application isn’t correct, and, you know, it’s really a Staff problem. It’s not my problem. I know what the right number is. It just doesn’t say that on the ZBA motion. MR. STEVES-I don’t disagree with you, and you’re wholeheartedly right, but I think what is in front of you, as far as the ZBA is concerned, is that they basically said that the expansion of greater than 50%, no matter what it was, it didn’t really bother them because of the fact that the existing camp was such a small camp, and in reality, they could tear the camp down and build a, you know, a 3,000 square foot home here. MR. VOLLARO-And the thing that put them over the top was it didn’t exceed the 22%. I think that’s the other thing that put them over the top. MR. STEVES-That’s correct. MR. VOLLARO-I’m just trying to make the math play, here, and I couldn’t make it play. So I finally gave up, after looking at it for 45 minutes. MR. STEVES-The only thing I can say is Staff, they have a lot of numbers they have to deal with, as well as we do, but the numbers that are on the application in front of you, I can say that they do reflect what is actually on the site and what we’re actually proposing. MR. VOLLARO-I’m not going to go any further with that. I’ll let Staff wrestle with this thing. I’m not going to do it. MR. STEVES-And it was also approved as submitted. MR. VOLLARO-I have no further questions, Mr. Chairman. You can do what you’ve got to do. MR. MAC EWAN-Are you done reading? MR. STROUGH-Yes. Okay. I see where the dry wells are and that looks good. I mean, not only is it going to collect what’s coming off the roof, but it’s also going to collect surface runoff. MR. STEVES-That’s correct. MR. STROUGH-And that’s good. MR. STEVES-The purpose of this addition is to grant the applicant the year round home, but also being conscious of the fact that we’re trying to keep, you know, away from the lake. We’re putting the addition away from the lake. We’re incorporating stormwater management plan. We’re putting in a brand new, up to date, bio mat septic system. They’re doing the right thing. MR. STROUGH-Yes, well, and I agree, it sounds like the right thing. I mean, the one concern everyone has, especially Glen Lake, is everyone’s going bigger, and what used to be just seasonal cottages are now going year round, but, if we can upgrade and make it better at the same time, that’s a step forward. MR. STEVES-That’s correct, and staying substantially under the floor area ratio. MR. STROUGH-Was this the project, the other night, where a lady was, an adjacent neighbor, was it Etu, yes, she was concerned about a tree? MR. STEVES-That’s correct. Actually, she was more concerned with, not the trees, but the garage that sits on her side of the property, or actually against the Jelley’s, which would be to the east. MR. STROUGH-Yes, I saw that. MR. STEVES-Okay, and what her concern was, so the Board knows, is that she came out and said I have no problem with their proposed addition, just as long as they can go on record and the Board 20 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/27/01) said, well, we can’t do much about that, but she wanted to put on the note that she had no problem with their addition, as long as they had no problem with the fact that someday she’s going to have to replace that garage in kind because it’s not in good shape, and our clients have no problem with the garage. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else? MR. STROUGH-No, that’s it. Thanks. MR. MAC EWAN-The one question I had, I’m assuming the pump house is drawing your water out of the lake? MR. STEVES-Correct. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Anything else that you wanted to add? MR. STEVES-No. MR. MAC EWAN-Staff? The public hearing. We have a public hearing scheduled tonight. Does anyone want to comment on this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. STEVES-There was a correction. Mr. Jelley just wanted me to let you know that the pump house does draw the water, not from the lake, but it does draw it from the well on Swezy’s property. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Thank you. JOHN SALVADOR MR. SALVADOR-My name is John Salvador. I just have a couple of questions. There was mention of the fact that they’re going to excavate the existing leach field in order to accomplish the new construction. What provision is being made for the handling of that contaminated soil? MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. What’s your next question? MR. SALVADOR-The next question is, they talked about filling in the septic system. I presume that’s the tank, filling it in with sand. Why couldn’t you use that tank for stormwater control? MR. MAC EWAN-It’s just sitting under the foundation of the house, the proposed addition. MR. SALVADOR-You can still use it to put water in. Just channel the water. Why put new, occupy land with new infiltration structures when you’ve got one? MR. MAC EWAN-Because it’s sitting under the foundation of the proposed addition. MR. SALVADOR-You can’t put water in it? There’s water in it now. This is a better grade of water. MR. STROUGH-You might have a problem with access to it, too. MR. SALVADOR-You don’t have to access it. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s not a debate that we’ll take up. MR. SALVADOR-It’s a good use of an existing structure. That’s all I’m saying, and I’d like to know how they’re handling the contaminated soil. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Anyone else? I’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MAC EWAN-Would you care to take a stab at either one of the questions? MR. O'CONNOR-We will handle it in accordance with the applicable regulations. MR. MAC EWAN-Just so I know procedurally, I don’t know if you can answer that, when you remove an existing septic system, and the Department of Health regulations, obviously, must be followed, which would be on site inspection by the Building and Code, or building inspector, to insure that they follow those procedures? 21 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/27/01) MRS. MOORE-I don’t know the procedure for that. MR. O’CONNOR-We will hire a third party contractor, Mr. MacEwan, that is familiar with it. I’m not sure exactly what they do do or don’t do, to be honest with you, but if there are some rules and regulations, I’m sure they’re aware of them and they’re going to follow them. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Anything else you wanted to add? MR. STEVES-No. I just think that septic systems are replaced every day in the Town of Queensbury in some manner, and that, you know, whether it be, whichever contractor does it, I’m sure will abide by the rules and regulations that he has to. MR. VOLLARO-I can shed just a little light on this for you, since I’m going through the same problem with some systems that we’re working with. The DEC is the regulatory agency on this. When you excavate out contaminated material from a leach bed, if you’ve got sufficient ground on your property to take out, spread it and dry it, and then you could cart it off, or if that property’s big enough, the DEC will allow you to spread it around. In our case, we would have to take it across the road. It’s very, very expensive, to either a Colonie landfill which will accept that, or to Plattburg, one of the two. So if it’s a small, a small leach field like you’re working on, I think DEC will allow you to just pile it, spread it, and dry it, and then. MR. STEVES-And we’re talking a tank that will be pumped and cleaned out and removed, and then it is not a leachfield, it is believed to be a seepage pit that would be, if we get into it with the excavation, because it’s quite a ways back on the property and quite deep, about eight feet to the top, it would probably, then, just be filled in with sand and left. MR. VOLLARO-It’s not a typical leachfield? MR. STEVES-No, it is not. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. If it’s a seepage pit, I think it’s a whole other story. MR. O'CONNOR-And I don’t know if DEC actually has jurisdiction of single family. They do of a package plant like your operation. Typically, this is more Department of Health, and I’m not trying to be cute, but we will hire a reputable contractor and have him follow whatever is his typical manner of operation, and we can find out if there are some rules and regulations that we’re not aware of. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Any other questions, comments from Board members? Staff? Anything you gentlemen wanted to add? MR. STEVES-No. MR. MAC EWAN-I’ll entertain a motion. MR. VOLLARO-I’ll make a motion to approve site plan no. 6-2001 for Gregg and Debra Jelley, in accordance with the resolution as it’s prepared by Staff, with just one question. I would suggest that Staff take a look at the 2-21-01 ZBA resolution to see if it squares up with 179-79 A 1 & 2. MRS. MOORE-Are you making this a condition of your resolution, or are you making? MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, let’s do the resolution first and then make a comment after. MR. VOLLARO-Well, the resolution contains, it says that, the resolution lists the ZBA resolution of 2/21, and I don’t think that that resolution squares with the paperwork that’s been supplied, and that’s why I’m bringing it out now. If you don’t want to do that, I don’t know how you do it. MRS. MOORE-I mean, if the Zoning Board needs to revisit their determination. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, I think they do. MRS. MOORE-I don’t think it should be part of your resolution. I think that’s something different. MR. O'CONNOR-But I think the Zoning Board approved the project as submitted. If, administratively, they have calculated something that is in error, the map was before the Board. We’re not changing that map. We’re not changing the project in any manner. I think that approval stands on its own, on its merits. 22 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/27/01) MR. VOLLARO-And you’re right and it should stand on its merits, and I have a problem with the merits, Mr. O’Connor. MRS. MOORE-I’m sorry. Could in interrupt again? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MRS. MOORE-The math is correct, if you go through the calculations. Just because you don’t understand how it was calculated, I would ask you to come in and speak with Staff and go through that, so that you can understand how it was calculated, versus saying it’s an error just because you’re not sure of how it was determined. It’s just a comment. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I’ll accept your comment, Laura, on this one, and I will come in. MRS. MOORE-Okay. Please. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I’ll withdraw that last statement. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 6-2001 GREGG & DEBRA JELLEY, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Strough: WHEREAS, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of Site Plan No. 6-2001, Gregg & Debra Jelley proposing a 1,352 sq. ft. residential addition. Conversion of a seasonal dwelling and expansion of a non-conforming structure in a CEA requires Planning Board review and approval. Cross Reference: AV 7-2001. Tax Map No. 44-1-16, and; WHEREAS, the application was received 1/31/01; and WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation and inclusive of all newly received information, not included in this listing as of 02/23/01; 2/27/01 Staff Notes 2/21/01 ZBA resolution - approved 2/20/01 Notice of Public Hearing 2/8/01 Meeting Notice w/copy of project ID notice 2/21/01 Zoning Board of Appeals resolution 10/18/98 Support Letters from Neighbors – Etu’s and Swezey’s 1/31/01 Application w/map S-1 revised 1/15/01 WHEREAS, public hearing was held on 2/27/01 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 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, that The application is approved in accordance with the resolution prepared by Staff. Duly adopted this 27th day of February 2001 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Strough, Mr. Hunsinger, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Metivier, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE MR. O'CONNOR-We thank you, and I apologize for being late. I was in another jurisdiction that I have no control over. Everybody wants to have their public hearing at seven o’clock. 23 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/27/01) SITE PLAN NO. 2-2001 TYPE II PAUL E. CUSHING, ARCHITECT, P.C. OWNER: PETER C. JOHNSON ZONE: WR-1A, CEA, APA LOCATION: 278 CLEVERDALE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITIONS AND ALTERATIONS TO EXISTING RESIDENCE. EXPANSION OF A NON- CONFORMING STRUCTURE IN A CEA REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. WARREN CO. PLANNING: 2/14/01 CROSS REFERENCE: AV 9- 2001 OLD TAX MAP NO. 226.16-1-42 LOT SIZE: 0.46 ACRES SECTION: 179-16, 179-79 PAUL CUSHING, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 2-2001, Paul E. Cushing, Architect, P.C., Meeting Date: February 27, 2001 “Project Description The applicant proposes first and second story alterations and additions to a 1,008 square foot existing dwelling. The applicant was granted an area variance for expansion of a nonconforming structure, AV 9-2001 (resolution attached). Project Analysis (Section 179-38) Site Overview The submission includes elevation drawings that show the location of the additions to the first and second story. The additions and alterations will be incorporated into the existing structure. The applicant has explained that stormwater will be maintained on site directed to the lawn and garden areas. The applicant and their neighbors obtain water from the lake. The existing septic system was installed 1993 and was designed for a four bedroom home as now proposed. The plan identifies existing plantings and lawn area. The plans do not indicate erosion control methods to be used or their located during construction. Suggestions The plans should be revised to show erosion control devices to be used during construction.” MRS. MOORE-Under Staff notes, I have a suggestion that the plan be revised showing erosion control devices. I did speak with the applicant’s agent today and we had that discussion, and I feel it’s, as he goes through his site plan, he can describe what’s going to occur with that, and that will satisfy my requirement for revisions. MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it? MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening. MR. CUSHING-Good evening. Paul Cushing, Architect for the Johnsons on their project in Cleverdale. MR. MAC EWAN-The floor is yours, Mr. Cushing. MR. CUSHING-Thank you. We are proposing to build two additions, one on the west side of the existing structure and one on the east side of the existing structure. The west side is a two story addition. The east side is a six foot cantilever over the building line toward the east. The comment from the Staff, relative to the stormwater, we had some discussions in our original meeting, relative to gutters that were there, handling the existing situation and providing runoff from the existing roof structure into present gardens all around the existing building. Those gutters will be retained. The addition on the east side, on the lake side, actually is a little bit less in total roof area. The existing gutters go north and south, a down pipe into gardens on the north side and across into a grass area on the south side. On the west side of the building, there’s a continuous gutter that runs along the existing roofline that has a downspout at the corners. On the north side, it goes into a gravel area, which is quite extensive, from the existing walkway almost all the way to the present garage. On the other side, it comes back in and ties into existing gardens which will remain on that southwest corner. A comment that Laura was referring to in our conversation this morning had to do primarily, it’s my understanding, with a construction situation which was neglect on my part, in that I didn’t show that they probably would be accomplished either with hay bales and/or a silt fence 24 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/27/01) around the area of construction, wherever this may occur, as this is going to be a fairly long and partial building than the next phase project. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else to add? MR. CUSHING-Not really, sir, I’d be happy to try to answer any questions. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. John, we’ll start with you. MR. STROUGH-Okay. Now the total addition, the square foot addition, is 277 and a half feet? MR. MAC EWAN-That’s the floor, that is the footprint area of the west side, correct. MR. STROUGH-Okay. Now what I would like to see is dry wells for your gutters, and the dry wells of appropriate size for the water runoff that would take place from the current and additional roofing, and we just made the previous lakeside residents, as we have made many of the lakeside residents, and I think we forgot you, no, yours was an addition on the garage. MR. CUSHING-Correct. MR. STROUGH-Okay. This is an addition on the house. I’d like to see, personally, drywells, those gutters emptying into dry wells, and not become surface runoff. That’s the only comment that I have. MR. MAC EWAN-Tony? MR. METIVIER-I really have nothing. I’m curious as to the neighbor above the house, if, I don’t know if they’re here tonight, but right behind them to the, I would say west, across the road. I would think that, since you’re going up, you know, they might have issues with it, but if they’re not here, they, I’m sure, have been notified, and we’ll see if there’s a. MR. CUSHING-Yes. They were notified and they are good friends of the Johnsons. MR. METIVIER-That would be my only concern, but, obviously it’s not a concern of mine as much as it would be theirs. MR. MAC EWAN-Larry? MR. RINGER-I don’t have anything. MR. MAC EWAN-Bob? MR. VOLLARO-I don’t have anything at all, except to comment how well your floor area worksheet hangs together with the motion from the ZBA. It fits right on the nose. MR. CUSHING-Thank you. MR. VOLLARO-Thank you, sir. MR. MAC EWAN-Cathy? MRS. LA BOMBARD-I didn’t have the chance to visit the site, and I will abstain on this, but it looks good. MR. MAC EWAN-Chris? MR. HUNSINGER-I didn’t have any questions, but I would support John’s comment about the dry wells to collect the stormwater runoff off the roof, the existing roof, as well as the expansion. MR. CUSHING-I’d be happy to accept those comments as a condition for approval. MR. MAC EWAN-Very good. Any other Staff comments, concerns, questions, are the Board members all set? There’s a public hearing scheduled tonight. Does anyone want to address the Board regarding this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT 25 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/27/01) PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. VOLLARO-I don’t think you have to do a SEQRA on this, do you? MR. MAC EWAN-No. Anything else you wanted to add, Mr. Cushing? MR. CUSHING-No, sir. MR. MAC EWAN-I’ll entertain a motion. Does someone want to put one up? MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 2-2001 PAUL E. CUSHING, ARCHITECT, P.C., Introduced by John Strough who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro: WHEREAS, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of Site Plan No. 2-2001, Paul Cushing for a first and second story additions and alterations to existing residence. Expansion of a non-conforming structure in a CEA requires Planning Board review and approval. Cross Reference: AV 9-2001. Tax Map No. 13-3-24, and; WHEREAS, the application was received 1/31/01; and WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation and inclusive of all newly received information, not included in this listing as of 02/23/01; 2/27/01 Staff Notes 2/21/01 ZBA resolution - approved 2/20/01 Notice of Public Hearing 2/8/01 Meeting Notice w/copy of project ID notice 2/14/01 Warren Co. Planning Board 1/31/01 Application w/ pre-ap. Notes attached, Warranty Deed, Drawings 1-3 dated 1/28/01 and 1/29/01 WHEREAS, public hearing was held on 2/27/01 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 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, that The application is approved in accordance with the resolution as prepared by Staff and is subject to the following conditions 1. Roof stormwater runoff will be guttered and drained into appropriately sized drywells. Duly adopted this 27th day of February 2001 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Strough, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mrs. LaBombard MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set, Mr. Cushing. MR. CUSHING-Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. MR. MAC EWAN-Good luck to you. I just want to quickly jump back to Site Plan No. 77-2000. I didn’t make it clear on the record that we’re going to leave the public hearing open. 26 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/27/01) ROGER BOOR MR. BOOR-Is that public hearing still open? MR. MAC EWAN-For Wall? MR. BOOR-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, it will remain open. MR. BOOR-Thank you. Can I speak? MR. MAC EWAN-Regarding that application? MR. BOOR-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-No, because we tabled it. Come on back on the 20. What do we want to do th about this other application? MRS. MOORE-You still have Site Plan 4-2001. I’m sorry. MR. MAC EWAN-Were they representing themselves? MRS. MOORE-Yes. I’m not certain if, I know they’re out of town. I’m not certain, there’s an agent involved. I didn’t receive any phone calls that he wasn’t able to attend, but I know that we’ve been trying to get a hold of them, and they haven’t been in. They had just received their septic variance, on Monday, and the Zoning Board had just conditioned their variance to receiving a septic variance. So, if the Board has any questions, I don’t know whether they would like to make a decision this evening on this application. MR. MAC EWAN-I think it’s been our policy we don’t like reviewing applications unless we have someone here, because questions always seem to come up. Procedurally, I just don’t think we should break what we, historically, have done. MRS. MOORE-I know. It’s up to you. MR. MAC EWAN-I’ll make a motion to table site plan 4-2001, to our March 27 meeting. th MRS. LA BOMBARD-But he does have an agent, it says in here. MRS. MOORE-Yes. I would suggest that you keep it to the March 20 meeting, the first meeting, th because we typically take old business first. MR. MAC EWAN-So noted, and we’ll open up the public hearing and leave it open. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 4-2001, MIKE & HOLLY DANSBURY, Introduced by Craig MacEwan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro: To our March 20, 2001 meeting, because there was no one here representing the applicant. Duly adopted this 27 day of February 2001 by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Strough, Mr. Hunsinger, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE JOHN SALVADOR MR. SALVADOR-I’d like to speak at that public hearing. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, you’ll have to come back on March 20. th MR. SALVADOR-You just opened it. MR. MAC EWAN-And I tabled the application. That motion was to table the application. 27 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/27/01) MR. SALVADOR-I won’t be here on March 20. Mr. Chairman, this is an extremely important th issue, this application. I’d just like the opportunity to speak. MR. MAC EWAN-Then I would suggest that you submit your concerns in writing to Staff, so they can be read into the record on March 20. Okay. Next item. th MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, I don’t see another item here, Craig, and but I don’t know why Mr. Salvador can’t speak. MR. MAC EWAN-Because I just tabled the application, Cathy. MRS. LA BOMBARD-But you did it in one breath. You did it all in one move, and I don’t understand. MR. MAC EWAN-I did it with two other ones, tonight. That’s typically what we do. MRS. LA BOMBARD-I don’t see why Mr. Boor can’t speak either. MR. MAC EWAN-Because the application has been tabled. MRS. LA BOMBARD-But it happened all at once. MR. MAC EWAN-Enough argument. It’s been done. Thanks. MRS. MOORE-At last week’s meeting, one of the items on the agenda was your Planning Board Policies and Procedures, and what we were looking for is a resolution this evening that adopts that, as a formal resolution. That was Marilyn’s comment. I don’t believe there was anymore further questions from that. The next step was to adopt that. If you’re not comfortable with that, let me know that, and I need to know what comments that you’re looking for. MR. STROUGH-Can you refresh my memory? MR. RINGER-I thought she was going to type them, with all the changes, and then give them to us and then we would adopt it, not adopt something that we haven’t seen. MRS. MOORE-I thought you already? MR. RINGER-No. We went over and we made a lot of changes to it. MR. VOLLARO-During the workshop. MR. RINGER-Right, but we never got a final draft. MRS. MOORE-Okay. I know she sent out a memo listing the things that she changed. So I guess that’s not, you would like a? MR. MAC EWAN-I think we’re looking at a final draft that we can put our stamp of approval on. MRS. MOORE-Looking for a final draft. All right. I’ll inform her of that. Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Hayes and Hayes application, this Petition for Zone Change PZ1-2001, last week’s meeting there was some interest by Board members to ask questions relative to the application, as far as procedure for SEQRA and stuff? MR. STROUGH-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MS. RADNER-You might want to wait about five minutes and see if Mark Schachner shows up because he was going to try and be here for your workshop session. MR. MAC EWAN-You can’t answer the questions? MS. RADNER-I can answer them. I just might not answer them as well or as. MR. STROUGH-Well, are we going to have the workshop tonight, or are we going to? 28 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/27/01) MR. MAC EWAN-No, it was my understanding, I talked with Larry last week, there were a few questions that Board members had, relative to procedural, I don’t want to delve into site plan or petition for zone. MR. STROUGH-I know where you’re going, but in addition to that, it was also discussed that we might discuss it at a March 6 workshop. th MR. RINGER-Right. I talked to Craig about that, and Craig thought that we possibly could do it tonight, and still have Hayes & Hayes on the March 6. th MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. MR. RINGER-And he was going to talk to Staff to see if that was acceptable. MR. STROUGH-Is March 6 going to be enough time for the public notice to go out and all that? th MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, it’s taken care of. The reason for moving that application was, traditionally, applications of this nature that seem to have a lot of public interest, instead of having the public sit around through a lengthy agenda, we give them a separate meeting. We’ve done that. So we’ve changed that, but the way it was (lost word) to me was that there were some questions that wanted to be asked of Counsel and Staff, before we reviewed that application, as far as procedure. So that’s why we’re having this tonight, because you won’t have an opportunity before the 6. th MR. STROUGH-Do you want to take a five minute break? MR. MAC EWAN-Sure. That’s fine. MR. STROUGH-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-Take five. In reference to the procedures, Planning Board procedures, we’re just looking for a final draft to put our rubber stamp approval on. Anything else? Okay. I’ll move that we adjourn. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Craig MacEwan, Chairman 29