Loading...
2001-03-20 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/20/01) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING MARCH 20, 2001 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT CRAIG MAC EWAN, CHAIRMAN CATHERINE LA BOMBARD, SECRETARY ROBERT VOLLARO CHRIS HUNSINGER JOHN STROUGH ANTHONY METIVIER MEMBERS ABSENT LARRY RINGER PLANNER-LAURA MOORE TOWN COUNSEL-MILLER, MANNIX SCHACHNER & HAFNER-MARK SCHACHNER STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI CORRECTION OF MINUTES January 9, 2001: NONE January 16, 2001: NONE January 23, 2001: NONE MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF JANUARY 9, JANUARY 16, AND THTH JANUARY 23, 2001, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by RD John Strough: Duly adopted this 20 day of March, 2001, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Strough, Mr. Hunsinger, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Metivier, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Ringer MR. MAC EWAN-The next item, we’re going to jump ahead a little bit on the agenda, is Subdivision 9A-2000. SUBDIVISION NO. 9A-2000 PRELIMINARY STAGE FINAL STAGE TYPE: UNLISTED APPLICANT: SCHERMERHORN PROPERTIES PROPERTY OWNER: GUIDO PASSARELLI AGENT: NACE ENGINEERING ZONE: MR-5 LOCATION: EAST SIDE BAY RD., OPPOSITE WALKER LANE APPLICANT PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF AN 81 +/- ACRE PARCEL INTO A 16 LOT SUBDIVISION: 12 LOTS FOR PROFESSIONAL OFFICE USE. 3 LOTS FOR RESIDENTIAL USE AND 1 LOT FOR FUTURE USE. CROSS REFERENCE: SB 4-1992, UV 130-1992 BEAUTIFICATION COMM.: 11/6/00, 3/12/01 TAX MAP NO. 60-2-4 LOT SIZES: 81 +/- ACRES SECTION SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS MR. MAC EWAN- That application is going to be tabled to our meeting of March 27, pending th additional information required to be completed for the application. We have a public hearing. I’ll open up the public hearing and leave it open. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. MAC EWAN-Does someone want to second that motion, please. MOTION TO TABLE SUBDIVISION NO. 9-2000, SCHERMERHORN PROPERTIES, Introduced by Craig MacEwan who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Strough: Until March 27, pending additional information required to be completed for the application. th 1 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/20/01) Duly adopted this 20 day of March, 2001, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Strough, Mr. Hunsinger, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Metivier, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Ringer MR. MAC EWAN-Next item. NEW BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 7-2001 TYPE II APPLICANT: JOYCE BOOTH, TONY BOOTH & MARTIN VAN TASSEL PROPERTY OWNER: CRAYFORD & HIGGS ZONE: SR-1A LOCATION: LOT 8, COUNTY LINE RD. APPLICANT PROPOSES A 3,900 SQ. FT. RANCH STYLE DUPLEX. DUPLEXES IN SR ZONES REQUIRE PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: SUBDIV. 6-1997 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 3/14/01 TAX MAP NO. 54-2-7.48 LOT SIZE: 4.22 ACRES SECTION: 179-19 JOYCE BOOTH, TONY BOOTH, MARTIN VAN TASSEL, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 7-2001, Joyce Booth, Tony Booth & Martin Van Tassel, Meeting Date: March 20, 2001 “Project Description The applicant proposes to construct a 3,900 square foot two family dwelling. The project requires site plan review as per section 179-19. During the pre-application meeting staff reviewed the application and drawing(s) submission. The parcel is lot #8 of the Crayford and Higgs residential subdivision (Subdivision 6-1997). Project Analysis (Section 179-38) Site Overview (1) The dwelling is located on the parcel meeting all required setback distances. The building will be a one story ranch with a basement. The building will be no higher than nineteen feet. There will be attached garages to each unit that are approximately 400 square feet. The plans indicate a 200 square foot porch will be attached to the rear of the building. Traffic, Circulation, Parking (2) The applicant proposes a shared driveway to accommodate each unit. The site plan indicates there is adequate room for each of the dwelling units on site; two spaces are required for each unit. Utility, Stormwater, Landscaping, Emergency Services (3) The application information indicates the run-off from the building will be accommodated on site by eave gutters and stone trenches. The project is supported by an on-site septic system and a well. The property contains an Army Corps wetland towards the north property line. The project does extend into the wetland, but is not subject to ordinance setback issues because it is not a NYSDEC designated wetland. Our wetland ordinance, Chapter 94, only regulates NYSDEC wetlands. The applicant’s project is located in Zone C areas of minimal flooding and is not subject floodplain development permit. The applicant has been informed of the Army Corp wetland and has contacted someone for additional information. Areas of Concern or Importance The project is located in Neighborhood Five of the 1998 Comprehensive Land Use Plan. The plan recommends residential use including duplex and single family. The plan specifically recommends no multifamily residential projects, (no more than two units per lot), page 3 of Neighborhood Five.” MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it? MRS. MOORE-Yes. 2 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/20/01) MR. MAC EWAN-Is anyone here representing the applicant? Come up to the table, please. Good evening. Would you identify yourselves for the record, please. MR. BOOTH-I’m Tony Booth. This is my wife, Joyce Booth, and Martin Van Tassel, my father-in- law. MR. MAC EWAN-Could you tell us a little bit about your project? MR. BOOTH-Our proposal is to build a 3900 square foot handicapped accessible duplex. We’re trying to use some State of the Art stuff to make it easier for Joyce to take care of our new born daughter. It would be located in Lot Eight of the Crayford & Higgs subdivision on County Line Road. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else? MR. BOOTH-That’s pretty much it. MR. MAC EWAN-John, we’ll start with you. Any questions? MR. STROUGH-Okay. Thanks. Now you said it’s going to be wheelchair accessible? MR. BOOTH-Yes, sir. MR. STROUGH-Because I didn’t notice the ramps or anything, but I guess it’s going to be through the garage, I assume, then? MR. BOOTH-Yes, sir. All the specifications are designed to meet both safety and ADA requirements. MR. STROUGH-Okay. Now, it’s going to be over near the airport I see. So you don’t mind the air traffic, I hope? MR. BOOTH-I kind of enjoy it. MR. STROUGH-Okay. Well, so do I. Not everybody does. Now what’s the depth to groundwater there? Do you know, off hand? MR. BOOTH-Right off hand I don’t. It’s in our papers here somewhere. I know it’s reasonably high groundwater there. MR. STROUGH-That’s what I would assume. That general area is kind of high, and you’re going to put a full basement in? MR. BOOTH-Yes, sir, with drainage and sealant, everything. Tom Hall, our builder, has already examined that, and it will be fully taken care of. MR. STROUGH-All right, and is it going to be guttered? Are the roofs going to be guttered? MR. BOOTH-Yes, sir. MR. STROUGH-And I believe I read that the, it would be drained into a pit that was filled with stones? MR. BOOTH-The stone pit, yes sir. MR. STROUGH-Just a little aside. They’re not going to have any trouble backing cars out of your two garages that are facing one another, kind of wing-like? MR. BOOTH-Their distance is plenty far enough, and the area is widened right there with the asphalt driveway, that there’ll be plenty of room even to back, turn around and come out the driveway forward MR. STROUGH-Okay. Well, it almost looks like, you know, that wouldn’t be certainly anything I would make a condition on. It was just an observation. Like I said, an aside. It looked like, if there were cars parked visiting your neighbors, then it might be difficult to back out enough to swing to face into the driveway, if they had visitors there, or were not pulled into their garage. Now, I see that you have a back porch, and that’ll be neutrally used by both? MR. BOOTH-Yes, sir. 3 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/20/01) MR. STROUGH-And now, who will be responsible for cleaning it, things like that? MR. BOOTH-Me. I’m the son-in-law. So I’m, ultimately, responsible. MR. STROUGH-So, basically, this house is designed to suit your own personal needs? MR. BOOTH-Yes, sir. My wife, being a quadriplegic, it helps her parents being next door, someone there to help Joyce with our child while I’m working, and it keeps us able to stay on the payroll and not depend on somebody else. MR. STROUGH-Okay. Well, I had a concern here, too, and this is a, looking at the architectural, it’s been about a week or so since I’ve looked at your application, but, did you design the place yourself? MR. BOOTH-My father-in-law did. MR. STROUGH-Okay. Well, I just had a concern. You know where your window height, the top of the window, and your eaves? Now, when you do an eaves cut back, there looked like there might be a potential problem. I’ve designed houses in the past as well, and I’ve run into that problem with other people’s designs, where they have put the windows too high. I do an eaves cut, and now I’m into the window. So, that might be something you just want to take a second look at, okay. MR. VAN TASSEL-The windows are all going to be somewhat lower than normal. The window sill level will be lower than normal. So the top of the window may not be as high as normal. MR. STROUGH-Again, all I have is that picture to look at. So, it may be in error, but a lot of the architectural programs, you know, they show what you put in. The input and the output match, and I’ve run into that problem before. So I just thought I’d mention it. MR. VAN TASSEL-I appreciate it. MR. STROUGH-And that’s my list. Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Chris? MR. HUNSINGER-No. I think the only concerns, I would have had they already addressed, regarding storm runoffs with the trenches and the pit to control the runoff. So I really didn’t have anything other than that. MR. MAC EWAN-Cathy? MRS. LA BOMBARD-I’m okay. MR. MAC EWAN-Bob? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I’m just wondering. Is the porch going to be a future addition, or is it included in this build? MR. BOOTH-There will be a basic foundation for the porch, and leaving us the ability, at some time in the future, to enclose the porch. MR. VOLLARO-Is that an economic consideration? Is that what that is? MR. BOOTH-Yes, sir. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I guess I wanted to ask something of Staff, under “Utility, Stormwater, Landscaping and Emergency Services” here on your Staff Notes, where we talk about, “the property contains an Army Corp Wetlands toward the northern side of the property. I think that, in our last meeting, Cathy Radner was going to take a look at the jurisdictional responsibility of Army Corps versus DEC. I was just wondering how that fits into here. Whether this is just a DEC responsibility or Army Corps. Are you familiar with that? MR. SCHACHNER-Extremely so. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. SCHACHNER-I wasn’t here, but I don’t think that’s an accurate characterization of what you asked us to look into. What I think you asked us to look into was a recent opinion issued. 4 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/20/01) MR. VOLLARO-By the United States Supreme Court. MR. SCHACHNER-By the United States Supreme Court. MR. VOLLARO-I knew you knew, Mark. I didn’t want to bring the whole thing out, but, okay, yes. That is what I was wondering, whether anybody has looked into that, with respect to the two jurisdictional requirements. MR. SCHACHNER-The answer is, yes, we’ve looked into it. It sounds like there’s a fair amount of confusion, at least in your mind. It doesn’t change, nothing in the Supreme Court decision changes the fact that State wetlands are regulated by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, and Federal wetlands are regulated by the United States Army Corps of Engineers. That’s not what the case was about. That’s not what the case was about. That’s not the topic of the case. So it’s not relevant to your inquiry. MR. VOLLARO-Thank you. That’s all, Mr. Chairman. I don’t have anything else. MR. MAC EWAN-Tony? MR. METIVIER-No. I’m fine. I wish you luck. It’s nice. MR. MAC EWAN-Staff? MRS. MOORE-No. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything you folks wanted to add? We have a public hearing scheduled tonight. Does anyone want to comment on this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MAC EWAN-I’ll close the public hearing. Any other questions, comments from Board members? MR. VOLLARO-We do not have a SEQRA on this? MR. MAC EWAN-No. Does someone want to introduce a motion, please, one way or the other? MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 7-2001 JOYCE BOOTH, TONY BOOTH, & MARTIN VAN TASSEL, Introduced by John Strough who moved for its adoption, seconded by Chris Hunsinger: WHEREAS, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of Site Plan No.7-2001, Joyce Booth, Tony Booth, & Martin Van Tassel proposing a 3900 sq. ft. ranch style duplex. Duplexes in SR zones require Planning Board review and approval. Cross Reference: Subdiv. 6-1997. Tax Map No. 54-2- 7.48, Zoned SR-1A, and; WHEREAS, the application was received 2/28/01; and WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation and inclusive of all newly received information, not included in this listing as of 03/16/01; 3/20/01 Staff Notes 3/16/01 Revised Map, moving residence south 3/14/01 Warren Co. Planning – No County Impact 3/13/01 Notice of Public Hearing 3/7/01 Meeting Notice w/project ID notice attached Undated GIS map prepared by staff Map Portion of SB 6-1997 mylar WHEREAS, public hearing was held on 3/20/01 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 5 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/20/01) 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 the resolution as prepared by Staff. Duly adopted this 20th day of March, 2001 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Hunsinger, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Strough, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Ringer MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set, folks. Good luck. MR. BOOTH-Thank you. MR. VAN TASSEL-Thank you. OLD BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 77-2000 TYPE II ROBERT WALL PROPERTY 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. ADDITION, A 784 SQ. FT. DETACHED GARAGE AND NEW SEPTIC SYSTEM. CONVERSION OF A SEASONAL RESIDENCE AND EXPANSION OF A NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE IN A CEA REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. TABLED TO SUBMIT REVISED INFORMATION BY MARCH 8, 2001. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 101-2000, SP 73-2000 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 12/13/00 TAX MAP NO. 1-1-5 LOT SIZE: 0.27 ACRES SECTION: 179-16, 179-69, 179-79 JON LAPPER, KEVIN MASCHEWSKI, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MRS. LA BOMBARD-And the public hearing back on December was left open and January and February’s meetings were tabled. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 77-2000, Robert Wall, Meeting Date: March 20, 2001 “Project Description The applicant’s site plan was tabled at the February 27, 2001 meeting. The Planning Board requested revised drawings addressing the site plan and building elevations. The applicant received a conditional Area Variance, AV 101-2000. The condition was the removal of living space on the second floor. Project Analysis Site Overview The applicant has submitted: ?? A revised Floor Area Ratio Sheet for the combined property within Lake George and Queensbury, ?? A revised Site Development Data Sheet for both the combined property and the portion of property within Queensbury, and ?? Drawings showing elevations, site plan, floor plan, and house cross sections. 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 6 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/20/01) proposes a 684 square foot two car garage. The plans 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 Areas of Concern or Importance The project is located in Neighborhood One of the 1998 Comprehensive Land Use Plan. The Plan acknowledges the demand for residential development along the waterfront, page 7 of Neighborhood One. This includes the support of the 22% Floor area ratio development and the upgrade of septic systems upon expansion. The plan recommends allowing clustering in the waterfront zone to preserve open space. The Building Department reviewed the cross sections, and sheets S-1, 1, 2, and 4 for habitable space, during a 3/13/01 meeting with Staff. The building department indicates the current plans show the attic area does not have access and is not insulated. However, the attic area does have the potential to be habitable space in the future. Suggestions Planning Staff would encourage the Planning Board to condition the resolution that upon inspection of a final CO that it is confirmed there is no living space in the attic area; this would apply if the Board approves the site plan.” MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it? MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening. MR. LAPPER-Hello. MR. MASCHEWSKI-Good evening. MR. MAC EWAN-Could you identify yourselves for the record, please? MR. MASCHEWSKI-Kevin Maschewski. MR. LAPPER-Jon Lapper and Bob Wall. MR. MAC EWAN-The floor is yours. MR. LAPPER-The only issue, I think, that we’d like to address, just the issue about that attic space. It’s really there, visually, with no intention of making any room, and Kevin calculated that under the New York Building Code, you don’t have the proper ventilation and light that would be required. So it wouldn’t be, because there really just is little windows, to make it look more interesting. So it wouldn’t even meet building code. So you couldn’t just go and finish it, which is not Bob’s intention anyway. MR. MAC EWAN-If we were to entertain approving this project you wouldn’t have a problem putting a condition in our approval for that? MR. LAPPER-Absolutely not, no problems. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else? MR. LAPPER-I don’t think so. MR. MAC EWAN-Chris, I’ll start with you. MR. HUNSINGER-I didn’t have anything. MR. MAC EWAN-Cathy? MRS. LA BOMBARD-Not now. MR. MAC EWAN-Bob? MR. VOLLARO-I looked at these drawings very carefully. I think you did a nice job in the time you had. I can tell you that. 7 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/20/01) MR. MASCHEWSKI-Thank you. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes, they’re beautiful. MR. VOLLARO-The garage is 624 square feet, am I correct? 624. MR. LAPPER-We have a garage story also. When Bob first went to the Zoning Board, he had asked for a. MR. MASCHEWSKI-Seven hundred and eighty-four square foot. MR. LAPPER-Which, coincidentally, is what’s on the agenda tonight. MR. VOLLARO-Just let me interrupt. The drawing says 624. The motion to approve the variance says 624. You’re locked right into position. You’re okay, just as you stand. MR. LAPPER-Right, but he may want to make it a little bit bigger than that, ultimately. MR. VOLLARO-Bigger than what’s on the drawing now? MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-So we’ve got a drawing change here. MR. LAPPER-Well, for now, that’s all he’s asking for approval for, but we want to explain that when he gave up his second story, at the Zoning Board, he was trying to get the 22% Floor Area Ratio, and throwing in everything he could, besides taking off the second story of the house, which, ultimately, he did, previously he threw in making the garage smaller. So, in Queensbury, as we all know, you can have garages up to 900 square feet, and he is well below the 22%. I think he’s at 17.8% Floor Area Ratio. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, that’s good. MR. LAPPER-So, since Bob is so far under the 22%, he’s thinking now, gee, maybe he should go back to the 724 square feet, and if he decides to do that, we may have to go back to the Zoning Board and talk to them, but I just want to put that on the record so, for now, it is what you see. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. It is what we see, 624? MR. MASCHEWSKI-Correct. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else? MR. VOLLARO-No. MR. MAC EWAN-Tony? MR. METIVIER-I think the drawings are excellent, no reference to any second story, which is a good thing. I have nothing else. MR. MAC EWAN-John? MR. STROUGH-Yes. Good evening. MR. MASCHEWSKI-Good evening. MR. STROUGH-Well, what I did like was, you know, as Kevin and I had talked about, those four wet wells, and I see you’ve got one in each corner, and I see they’re two foot in width, and what’s the depth? MR. MASCHEWSKI-Typically, I’ve been seeing anywhere from two to three feet. MR. STROUGH-Yes. Usually, two by two would be enough to disperse the rainwater. I didn’t see it on the drawings anywhere. It’s not a big thing, but I was glad to see them there. MR. MASCHEWSKI-Okay. 8 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/20/01) MR. STROUGH-And I notice that we’ve got also good news, a 1,180 square foot reduction of paved ground surface, when we took out that circular driveway that’s out of there, which means even after we look at the expansion of the structure, we’re only looking at a 15% expansion here, of impermeable surface, which falls under the Floor Area Ratio and all that. So all that’s good news. Now, some just miscellaneous questions. Now, looking at the plans, the floor, the first floor, is going to have 10 foot ceilings MR. MASCHEWSKI-That’s correct. MR. STROUGH-All right. That’s a nice feature, and the basement’s going to be eight feet? MR. MASCHEWSKI-That’s correct. MR. STROUGH-And it’s currently eight feet, or you’re going to have to extend the wall? MR. MASCHEWSKI-It’s currently six feet. So the addition area is going to have a step. MR. STROUGH-And then you’re going to block the old foundation? MR. MASCHEWSKI-I’m going to block it. MR. STROUGH-What’s the old foundation, isn’t it block? MR. MASCHEWSKI-Yes, it’s blocked. MR. STROUGH-So you’re going to have to bring that up another two feet? MR. MASCHEWSKI-Yes. MR. STROUGH-Okay, and the attic space is going to be seven foot? MR. MASCHEWSKI-Yes. MR. STROUGH-And where is, now you’re going to use one of those pull down stairs for that, right? MR. MASCHEWSKI-Yes. I haven’t devised where it’s going to go yet. MR. STROUGH-I couldn’t find it. So that’s good. MR. MASCHEWSKI-Probably going to hide it in the front hallway closet. MR. STROUGH-Okay, and you don’t mind, I mean, that just seems to be a general concern, that not be used because the septic system is designed for three bedrooms. MR. MASCHEWSKI-Absolutely. MR. STROUGH-And I know Lake George, and the problem I have is the next group of people, despite the fact that it doesn’t meet Code for lighting and ventilation, etc., that somebody’s going to try and use that for living space, as they do areas above garages and every little thing they can find in Lake George. I was going to ask you what you were going to use on the corners here, and I see that you’re using the Shaker Town Cedar shingles? MR. MASCHEWSKI-Yes, that’s correct. MR. STROUGH-And then I saw how you’re dressing it out with the one by eight and the one by six and all that. It looks very nice. MR. MASCHEWSKI-Yes. It’s a pretty typical look that I’ve been seeing, kind of Adirondack style, the Cedar, and I’m not sure yet different colors. As a matter of fact, we had a long meeting today, but, yes, it’s going to be kind of an Adirondack, rustic look. MR. STROUGH-And then I was just wondering. It’s not the traditional thing, because usually you’ll see the corners, you’re using one by four or something like that. MR. MASCHEWSKI-We’re still, we’ve talked about that. We’re still debating if we’re going to go to cedar corners, not sure if it’s going to be overwhelming on the corners for cedar shakes, but, yes, I wanted to give a little different look to it. 9 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/20/01) MR. STROUGH-Okay. I was just wondering. I’m always looking for new products, and I see here, this is Corinthian Granite? MR. MASCHEWSKI-Granite. It’s actually a granite stone. MR. STROUGH-It is? How do they attach that? I know it has nothing to do with this. MR. MASCHEWSKI-It’s, actually, it’s a three to four inch granite stud. It’s just regular granite. They call it a veneer, but it’s just, you know, you’ve got a, like a brick shelf, like a stone shelf, and then you have your ties going back to the foundation. Really all it is is just a stone wall. MR. STROUGH-Okay, and then just dresses up the concrete. MR. MASCHEWSKI-Yes. MR. STROUGH-Well, see, I haven’t seen that before, so I wanted to ask for. MR. MASCHEWSKI-Yes, it’s a pretty, it’s a nice look. MR. STROUGH-And the windows, the transom windows. It looks like it’s going to be a beautiful project when it’s done. Okay. Well, that takes care of all my notes. Thank you. MR. MASCHEWSKI-Okay. You’re welcome. MR. MAC EWAN-Cathy? MRS. LA BOMBARD-What’s a cricket? MR. MASCHEWSKI-It’s a very little roof pitch behind the fireplace, to prevent the snow from building up and backing up. So as the snow comes down the roof, there’s a little roof behind, shedding the snow and the water. MRS. LA BOMBARD-That’s what I kind of thought it was. MR. MASCHEWSKI-Yes. MRS. LA BOMBARD-No, the drawings are very, very nice. MR. MASCHEWSKI-Okay. Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it. MRS. LA BOMBARD-That’s it, sir. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else to add? MR. MASCHEWSKI-No. I think we’re set. MR. MAC EWAN-Staff? MRS. MOORE-No. MR. MAC EWAN-We left the public hearing open. Does anyone want to comment on this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MAC EWAN-Would someone like to introduce a motion? MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 77-2000 ROBERT WALL, 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. 77-2000, Robert Wall for conversion of a seasonal residence to a full time year round residence with a 1,154 sq. ft. addition, a 784 sq. ft. detached garage and new septic system. Conversion of a seasonal residence and expansion 10 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/20/01) of a non-conforming structure in a CEA requires PB review and approval. Tabled to submit revised information by March 8, 2001. Tax Map No. 1-1-5. Cross Reference: AV 101-2000, SP 73-2000. Lot size, 0.27 acres, WR-3A, APA, CEA, and; WHEREAS, the application was received 11/29/00; and WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation and inclusive of all newly received information, not included in this listing as of 3/16/01; and 3/20/01 Staff Notes 3/9/01 New Info received 3/7/01 Meeting Notice 2/27/01 Planning Board resolution - tabled 2/27/01 Staff Notes 1/17/01 ZBA resolution - Approved w/conditions 12/26 Staff Notes 12/21/00 ZBA Resolution - Tabled 12/19/00 Notice of Public Hearing 12/13/00 Warren Co. Planning Board - NCI 12/8/00 Meeting Notice WHEREAS, public hearing was held on 12/26/00, 2/27/01, 3/20/01 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 and is subject to the following conditions: 1. Approved in accordance with the resolution as prepared by Staff, with just one change in the Staff Notes. The Staff Notes should read 624 square feet since the Staff Notes are part of the motion, and 2. The Motion is also that there be a note on the Certificate of Occupancy that states there shall be no living space in the attic area, and that this would run with the house. Duly adopted this 20th day of March 2001 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Strough, Mr. Hunsinger, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Metivier, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Ringer MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set, gentlemen. MR. LAPPER-Thank you. MR. MASCHEWSKI-Okay. Thank you very much. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Kevin, would you like any of these drawings back? MR. MASCHEWSKI-No. It would be like last meeting. It would confuse things. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. 11 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/20/01) SITE PLAN NO. 4-2001 TYPE II MIKE & HOLLY DANSBURY PROPERTY 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. TABLED TO ALLOW REPRESENTATIVE TO APPEAR ON BEHALF OF APPLICANT. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 2001/SEPTIC VAR. 2/26/01 TAX MAP NO. 43-2-19 LOT SIZE: 0.21 ACRES SECTION: 179-16, 179-79 PHIL HAAKENSON, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MRS. LA BOMBARD-And there is a public hearing tonight, but it was tabled last month. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 4-2001, Mike & Holly Dansbury, Meeting Date: March 22, 2001 “Project Description The applicant’s site plan was tabled at the February 27, 2001 meeting. The Planning Board requested the applicant or applicant’s agent is present during the review of the project. The applicant has received an Area Variance (AV 3-2001) for a non-conforming structure and a Septic Variance (Septic Variance DOH 7-2001). Project Analysis (Section 179-38) The applicant proposes a 48 square foot dormer to the existing home. The expansion would increase the size of the bathroom. Site Overview The applicant’s addition will alter the second floor bathroom. The addition will be constructed to match the existing home. The addition does not change the footprint of the building or increase the impermeable surface. The construction of the project will not alter the existing stormwater control or landscaping of the site.” MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening. MR. HAAKENSON-Hello. MR. MAC EWAN-Could you identify yourself for the record, please. MR. HAAKENSON-I’m Phil Haakenson. MR. MAC EWAN-Could you tell us a little bit about the project, please. MR. HAAKENSON-I’m just curious if it might be one of the smallest ones that’s come before your Board, 48 square feet. MR. MAC EWAN-Sorry, you don’t get that ranking. We’ve done smaller. MR. HAAKENSON-I don’t get that one? It’s a very simple dormer that will make it better for their convenience because there’s two bedrooms upstairs, with no bathroom currently, a shed dormer. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else? Cathy, I’ll start with you. MRS. LA BOMBARD-No, I’m okay right now. MR. MAC EWAN-Bob? MR. VOLLARO-No. I saw nothing in this one at all. This is fine, as far as I’m concerned. MR. MAC EWAN-Tony? MR. METIVIER-I have nothing. MR. MAC EWAN-John? MR. STROUGH-Well, I don’t have a problem with this project, but is it going to be guttered? MR. HAAKENSON-It isn’t currently, on that side of the house. 12 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/20/01) MR. STROUGH-The reason why I ask is anything that’s in a Critical Environmental Area, that’s lakeside, specifically, and Glen Lake most specifically of all, because, you know, everyone’s got concerns. The lake is, you know, has had two major algae blooms this last summer. It’s, by appearances, and if you were to do a general survey, the quality of the lake, it seems to be deteriorating, and some of this is because of stormwater runoff. People fertilize their lawns. They use herbicides, pesticides. It’s only exacerbated when all the roof runoff becomes a sheet of water going across the lawn directly into the lake. So, just it’s just a request that, and I’m not going to make it a condition, but as the applications come before us, we’ve been making them gutter their roofs and direct in downspouts into these wet wells. I wish you would consider that when you do your renovation, if you would, just for the lake. MR. HAAKENSON-You’re only requiring it for my eight feet, though, right? MR. STROUGH-Yes. I don’t have a problem with your project. MR. HAAKENSON-Okay. MR. STROUGH-It’s just a commentary, okay. MR. HAAKENSON-Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Chris? MR. HUNSINGER-I don’t have a problem. MR. MAC EWAN-Cathy? MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all right with it? No questions? Anything from Staff? MRS. MOORE-No. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything to add? We left the public hearing open on this application. I’ll open up the public hearing. Does anyone want to comment on this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MAC EWAN-Does someone want to introduce a motion please? MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 4-2001 MIKE & HOLLY DANSBURY, Introduced by Chris Hunsinger who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro: WHEREAS, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of Site Plan No. 4-2001, Mike & Holly Dansbury for 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. Tabled to allow representative to appear on behalf of applicant. Cross Reference: AV 3-2001, Septic Variance (TB mtg. 2/5/01 & 2/26/01), 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 03/16/01; 3/20/01 Staff Notes 3/7/01 Meeting Notice 2/27/01 Planning Board resolution - tabled 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 1/31/01 Application w/revised site dev. data & FAR sheet. 3 maps, deed` 13 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/20/01) WHEREAS, public hearing was held on 2/27/01, 3/20/01 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 according to the resolution prepared by Staff. Duly adopted this 20th day of March, 2001 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Strough, Mr. Hunsinger, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Ringer MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set. Good luck. MR. HAAKENSON-Thanks. MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. NEW BUSINESS: PETITION FOR CHANGE OF ZONE – PZ 3-2001 RECOMMENDATION LARRY CLUTE PROPERTY OWNER: SAME CURRENT ZONING: LI-1A PROPOSED ZONING: UR-10 LOCATION: 3 FELD AVENUE APPLICANT PROPOSES REZONING OF A 4,600 SQ. FT. PARCEL FROM LI-1A TO UR-10 FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING. CROSS REFERENCE: TOWN BD. RES. 102,2001 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 3/14/01 TAX MAP NO. 117-9-11 LOT SIZE: 0.11 ACRES SECTION: 179-94 GEORGE DUNFEE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, PZ 3-2001, Larry Clute, Meeting Date: March 20, 2001 “Project Description The applicant proposes to rezone a parcel of land from Light Industrial to Urban Residential for the construction of a single family dwelling at the end of Feld Avenue. 1. What need is being met by the proposed change in zone or new zone? The applicant proposes to construct a single family dwelling. The size of the parcel does not encourage light industrial uses. The location of the parcel does not appear to have access to other light industrial uses in the area. 2. What existing zones, if any, can meet the stated need? The adjacent zone, Urban Residential, allows for single family homes. 3. How is the proposed zone compatible with adjacent zones? The proposed zone affects one parcel and extends the adjacent zone by 4,600+/- feet. The change of zone also increases the potential conformity of the adjacent parcel. The applicant intends to combine this parcel 117-9-11 with parcel 117-9-10, the total square footage of both parcels together would be 7,884 +/- sq. ft. 4. What physical characteristics of the site are suitable to the proposed zone? The property adjoins a vacant parcel to the north and has frontage on Feld Avenue. The parcel is flat and has no other topography uniqueness. 14 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/20/01) 5. How will the proposed zone affect public facilities? The residential use of the property will include the connection to the waterline, and a driveway permit. 6. Why is the current zoning classification not appropriate for the property in question? The property location and size are not compatible with the allowed uses in the Light Industrial zone. 7. What are the environmental impacts of the proposed change? The development of the lot for a single-family dwelling would be the environmental impacts. 8 . How is the proposal compatible with the relevant portions of the Comprehensive Land Use Master Plan? The property is located in Neighborhood 12. The 1998 Comprehensive Land use Plan recognizes some areas in this neighborhood should be zoned for residential and not for light industrial. The Plan recommends changing the zoning in some of the areas to represent the existing lot sizes. 9. How are the wider interests of the Community being served by this proposal? The change of zone to the urban residential use would promote consistency in the neighborhood and encourage residential development. Areas of Concern or Importance The Light Industrial zone is adjacent to the Urban Residential zone requiring a buffer setback of fifty feet between the zone lines. The applicant will be applying for an area variance for the construction of the dwelling unit within the buffer zone area. Suggestions The purpose of Planning Board review of the change of zone is to evaluate the positive and negative impacts to the surrounding area and to provide a recommendation to the Town Board about the change of zone. The Town Board is the SEQR lead agency for this Petition of Zone Change because the development of a single-family home requires no Site Plan review from the Planning Board.” MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it? MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening. Would you identify yourself for the record, please. MR. DUNFEE-George Dunfee. MR. MAC EWAN-George, could you tell us a little bit about the project? MR. DUNFEE-Basically all we’re asking is for a re-zoning of the LI to a UR-10. It’s an approximately 40 by 115 foot lot, pretty much useless for anything unless combined with an adjoining lot, which is approximately 44 by 110. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Anything else to add? MR. DUNFEE-Not at this time. MR. MAC EWAN-Bob, we’ll start with you. MR. VOLLARO-Are any of the properties alongside this Light Industrial zone or are they both residential zone, or do you know how the property’s laid out next to this one? MR. DUNFEE-The property to the south of 117-9-11 is Light Industrial, and the properties to the north are all residential. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Now, where are you going to couple these two up together, to get this 7,884 square feet? Which lot are we really going to use that? They’re two lots. MR. DUNFEE-Correct. MR. VOLLARO-17-9-11 and 117-9-10. Is that correct, you’re going to put those two lots together? MR. DUNFEE-That’s correct, yes. MR. VOLLARO-Come up with the .18 acres. MR. MAC EWAN-The house would straddle it. 15 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/20/01) MR. VOLLARO-Yes, I see that, right. I’m just trying to make a determination in my mind. It says that you’ll be applying for an Area Variance for construction of the dwelling within the buffer zone area. You’re going to have to go to the ZBA to build a house on this particular lot. MR. DUNFEE-Not if we have the property re-zoned. MRS. MOORE-Because we don’t have construction drawings showing the exact location of the dwelling, I would say it’s possible, either way, that once we get the development for a dwelling unit, from that time we will determine if it needs a variance. Last time I looked, it was proposed, the proposed location of it, there was a potential for the need for an Area Variance. If they’re changing the location of the dwelling unit on a lot, you know, that’ll be determined at the time when they submit it. MR. VOLLARO-That will be determined at the time the application is made for the house, because that’ll just be for a building permit. It won’t be as a site plan. MRS. MOORE-Correct. MR. VOLLARO-So that’s going to be within. MRS. MOORE-Right. I’m sorry to, I know I made that comment, but that was based on the information that was provided. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Well, the only thing that I had is we’ve had, and I can see where this is probably a good idea. We’ve been concerned with converting Light Industrial to Urban Residential, losing Light Industrial properties, but in this particular case, it looks to me like it’s probably warranted, particularly when looking at Neighborhood 12 in the Comprehensive Land Use Plan, and the Plan does recommend a change of zone in some areas to represent the existing lot sizes. I read through that Neighborhood 12, and it looks like this tends to fit what that suggests. That’s all I have. MR. MAC EWAN-Tony? MR. METIVIER-No, I have nothing. MR. MAC EWAN-John? MR. STROUGH-Yes, well, it seems like, you know, if you didn’t rezone the south parcel, what are you going to do with it? MR. DUNFEE-Exactly. I mean, both parcels have been owned together for a very long time. MR. STROUGH-Yes. MR. DUNFEE-And nobody’s ever done anything with them. MR. STROUGH-Well, that seems to work in your favor in my mind. The only thing that I have concerns is the Urban Residential, it asks for 10,000 square foot minimum, and you’ll be slightly under that, but you can’t do anything about that because it’s an existing situation. MR. DUNFEE-Correct. MR. STROUGH-And then you have a minimum lot width of 75, which exceed in front, and it’s less than that in back, but I suppose it averages out more than that. So that doesn’t seem to be a problem in my mind, but I don’t know if that’s a problem with zoning, and so then I took a look at rezoning this Urban Residential and taking a look at maximum impact, which I have to do, and I see that would allow condominiums, townhouses, multifamily apartments, PUD’s, churches, hospitals, none of which could fit here. So, I said, that’s not a realistic approach, then. Given the size of the lot, you’re basically down to using it for residential purposes, and, in the current zoning, Urban Residential, and this is how they describe it, it encompasses mostly older, more traditional high density neighborhoods in Queensbury. Secondly areas subject to intense development pressure, located near service areas are rezoned similarly, and it goes on, pretty much describes your situation. So you’re not varying, in my mind, that far from an Urban Residential situation, and, furthermore, I see that we’re in the process of taking a look at re-zoning the Town, or not re-zoning. Most of it stays the same, but we’re looking at the zoning picture, and we may make some changes. Now this area, what we’re proposing is a mixed use area, and that, and you fit right into that. So even in the new proposed zoning, there’s no major problem with your request, because in the multiple use, it allows a mixed use. 16 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/20/01) MR. DUNFEE-Right. MR. STROUGH-Everything from residential, duplexes, convenient stores. It really is, it’s a mixed bag is what it is. So just, everything seems to be allowed in it, in what’s being proposed for this area. So I absolutely don’t have a problem with this, and it only seems to make sense to rezone this, to allow you to use it for some purpose, okay, and we don’t like giving up Light Industrial, but in this case it’s so minimal that I don’t think it’s significant. Okay. Well, thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Chris? MR. HUNSINGER-I would concur with John’s comments. I guess really the only question I had is, has a buyer been identified for the house to go on the site? MR. DUNFEE-We haven’t gone that far yet. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I didn’t think you had. One of the concerns that we have talked about, particularly in this area, we looked at another project, and we talked about the concerns of, you know, noise impacts and light impacts of, you know, the Light Industrial uses adjacent to the residential users, and particularly since this lot, even though it’s really small would, if it were approved, would extend into the Light Industrial zone. There’s the potential that, you know, this property would be the closest to any future Light Industrial user on the adjacent property, but, you know, I think anyone buying property there would certainly know that going into it. MR. DUNFEE-Right. You can stand there, and Curtis Lumber’s old storage shed is right there. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. So I didn’t really have any problems. MR. MAC EWAN-Cathy? MRS. LA BOMBARD-I’m okay. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything from Staff? MRS. MOORE-No. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything to add, George? MR. DUNFEE-No. MR. MAC EWAN-We have a public hearing scheduled tonight. Does anyone want to comment on this application? George, could I ask you to give up the table for a couple of minutes while we do our public hearing? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED TAMMY HERMANCE MS. HERMANCE-Hi. MR. MAC EWAN-Hi. MS. HERMANCE-My name is Tammy Hermance. I live directly across from where they propose to build a house, and I was just concerned. I didn’t realize that there were two lots there that they are trying to rezone. I just wanted to know how much the total lot size was like because I assumed it was just .11, which is very small. MR. VOLLARO-It’s .18, if he marries these two lots together, he’ll have 7,884 square feet, which is .18 acres. MS. HERMANCE-.18, and is, what’s the minimum requirement for the Town of Queensbury? MR. VOLLARO-In that area, in that zone? MS. HERMANCE-I’m just concerned because I know he built houses on Holden Avenue, three houses on very small lots, and my house is probably 50 years old. I don’t even know, but I think my lot size is like .44, and we bought the lot next door just so we could have more property, just so we felt like we had a yard. So I just can’t imagine, you know, what’s going to be put there on such a small lot, and there’s just, I’m concerned with the Queensbury Town truck, when he comes through 17 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/20/01) now to plow, he has nowhere to put the snow, and I’m not even allowed to have my mailbox on the street, because there’s no room. It’s on the next street over. MR. MAC EWAN-Really? MS. HERMANCE-Yes. So it’s very, I mean, the lot is just so small, and I just. MR. MAC EWAN-Are you on Feld Avenue? MS. HERMANCE-Yes. I’m right across from the property. My house is right diagonally across, and I own the vacant lot next to it, that’s directly across from that. So I have a double lot. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. So, basically, you border the Light Industrial property as well? MS. HERMANCE-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-And you can’t have your mailbox on Feld Avenue? MS. HERMANCE-No. I’ve called several times and they won’t put it on the street. There’s nowhere for the mailman to turn around, is what I’ve been told, and I know when the Town of Queensbury comes through to plow, he has a tough time, always, just coming through to plow. He has nowhere to put the snow. MR. VOLLARO-Well, in answer to your question, Urban Residential zones, it’s UR-1 Acre, 179-17, as I read it. So, Mr. Clute would have to get a variance. MR. STROUGH-No, it’s UR-10. MR. VOLLARO-Well, there’s two in there. MR. MAC EWAN-He’s asking for UR-10, though, which is less than that. MR. VOLLARO-He’s asking for UR-10, UR-10 is 10,000 square feet. Okay. So, he’s going to be off by a little if he’s only got seven. MR. STROUGH-Yes, I made that point. He’s going to be a little bit less than that, but it’s a pre- existing condition, and I don’t know how they would handle that, if at all. MRS. LA BOMBARD-But here’s the house on the lot. MR. MAC EWAN-Whatever recommendation this Board was to make tonight, the next step would be for him to petition the Town Board for the actual change of zone, which would require another public hearing, and if the Town Board was to grant him a change of zone. MS. HERMANCE-I mean, the neighborhood certainly could use improvement. So to see a nice house, you know, isn’t going to hurt, but I just, I don’t want him throwing up, like he did on the end of Holden Avenue, you know, on such small lots, even one, two or three, however many houses he can squeeze. Do you know what I’m saying? MR. MAC EWAN-Well, he could only build one house here. MS. HERMANCE-Right. MR. MAC EWAN-He couldn’t put more than one house on this parcel of land. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, he’s got a sketch of where it’s going to go, if I’m not mistaken, and it’s got a lot of. MR. MAC EWAN-The properties on Holden you’re referring to are the ones down behind the nursing home? Is that where you’re talking about? Those are smaller lots. MS. HERMANCE-They’re small. I don’t know the size of those. MR. MAC EWAN-They’re smaller than this lot. MR. DUNFEE-They’re smaller width wise, but they’re deeper. They were 75 foot lots, and I believe they were 125 deep. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else? 18 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/20/01) MS. HERMANCE-No. Thanks. MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. Anyone else? Did you folks want to comment? Okay. I’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MAC EWAN-Do you want to come back up, George. Anything from Staff? MRS. MOORE-No. MR. MAC EWAN-Any other questions, comments from Board members? MR. STROUGH-George, who does own the, if you go straight on Feld Avenue, who’s property are you going to end up on? MR. DUNFEE-It did belong to Curtis Lumber. I’ve been told that several people have bought the properties. Right now it’s being used for like boat storage. MR. STROUGH-Now, do you live on Feld Avenue as well? MR. DUNFEE-No. I work for Larry. AUDIENCE MEMBER-That’s a dead end street, too. MR. DUNFEE-Yes. MR. STROUGH-And if you were to progress forward, it would end up in the old Curtis site? MR. DUNFEE-Right. AUDIENCE MEMBER-There’s a fire hydrant right in front of the house, too (lost words). MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else, John? MR. STROUGH-No. I just, it is a problem with the snow plow, but I don’t see it as Mr. Dunfee’s problem. I see it as the Town’s problem that we’ve got to solve. Mr. Dunfee’s problem is that he’s got two parcels of land that if he doesn’t rezone it, what’s he going to do with it, and that doesn’t seem entirely fair either, and I realize that there’s problems with the turnaround of the mail trucks, but I don’t see that as Mr. Dunfee’s problem. All right. MR. MAC EWAN-Any other questions, comments? Does someone want to introduce a recommendation? MOTION TO RECOMMEND A ZONE CHANGE, PZ 3-2001, LARRY CLUTE AND RECOMMEND A CHANGE FROM LIGHT INDUSTRIAL-ONE ACRE ZONE TO URBAN RESIDENTIAL-10,000 SQUARE FEET, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Catherine LaBombard: That a copy of tonight’s minutes be presented to the Town Board with the application. [Note: The Planning Board was made aware of snow removal concerns on Feld Avenue.] Duly adopted this 20 day of March 2001 by the following vote: th AYES: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Strough, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Ringer MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set. MR. DUNFEE-Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Good luck the rest of the way. Anything else? This Schermerhorn stuff, should we retain it, or will we get fresh? MRS. MOORE-You should retain that, and I’ll add new ones as well. 19 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/20/01) MR. VOLLARO-I didn’t get one of those. Those are the C.T. Male notes? MRS. MOORE-You asked for the Church of the King, and I don’t think. MRS. LA BOMBARD-I have also two packets of the Church of the King map. MRS. MOORE-That could be where it went. Give one to Bob Vollaro, please. MRS. LA BOMBARD-But I’ve been saving one from a long time ago. MR. VOLLARO-I’m talking about a C.T. Male letter. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Should I be saving all this stuff? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-Did you get a C.T. Male letter? MR. MAC EWAN-For tonight? Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-My question was on the Hayes & Hayes. MR. VOLLARO-I didn’t get that. MRS. MOORE-I know there’s going to be a set of revised plans, but I don’t know if, the concept doesn’t change at all. You’re just going to get updated, like, utility plans. So the concept and the location of the maps do not change. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. I’ll keep it. MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it? MR. HUNSINGER-My question is the Hayes & Hayes application. MR. MAC EWAN-Dump it. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MRS. MOORE-I’m sorry, I was thinking of Schermerhorn. MR. MAC EWAN-No, Hayes and Hayes, dump it. MRS. MOORE-Yes, sorry. MR. VOLLARO-Hayes and Hayes is dead. MRS. MOORE-Hayes is gone. I misunderstood. I thought it was Schermerhorn’s project he was discussing. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. I make a motion we adjourn. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Craig MacEwan, Chairman 20