Loading...
2002-04-16 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/16/02) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING APRIL 16, 2002 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT CRAIG MAC EWAN, CHAIRMAN CATHERINE LA BOMBARD, SECRETARY CHRIS HUNSINGER ANTHONY METIVIER LARRY RINGER THOMAS SEGULJIC, ALTERNATE RICHARD SANFORD, ALTERNATE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR-CRAIG BROWN TOWN COUNSEL-MILLER, MANNIX, SCHACHNER & HAFNER-CATHI RADNER STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI APPROVAL OF MINUTES February 19, 2002: NONE February 26, 2002: NONE MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 19, 2002 AND FEBRUARY 26, 2002, Introduced by Chris Hunsinger who moved for its adoption, seconded by Larry Ringer: Duly adopted this 16 day of April, 2002, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Ringer, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Seguljic, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Sanford, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE OLD BUSINESS: SUBDIVISION NO. 7-1997 MODIFICATION MICHAEL SUNDBERG PROPERTY OWNER: SAME LOCATION: 188 MEADOWBROOK ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES MODIFICATION OF AN EXISTING SUBDIVISION. THE MODIFICATION WILL MOVE APPROXIMATELY 0.2 OF AN ACRE FROM A 6.47 ACRE LOT TO HAVE TWO LOTS OF 1.01 ACRES AND 6.27 ACRES. ANY MODIFICATION TO AN APPROVED SUBDIVISION IS SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: ADMINISTRATIVE SUBDIVISIONAPPROVAL TAX MAP NO. 297.13-1-10.2, 10.1 LOT SIZE: 0.8 ACRES, 6.47 ACRES MICHAEL SUNDBERG, PRESENT MRS. LA BOMBARD-And a public hearing is not needed for this. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Subdivision No. 7-1997, Modification, Michael Sundberg, Meeting Date: April 16, 2002 “Project Description: Applicant proposes modification of the boundary lines of a previously approved subdivision. The proposed modification will transfer approximately 0.2 acres of land from a 6.47 acre lot to an existing 0.81 acre parcel. Study of plat: Lot arrangement: The boundary line agreement occurs along the westerly boundary line of lot 1 of Subdivision 7-1997. Topography: The area of the property transfer, as well as the surrounding lands appears to be relatively level. Water supply Sewage Disposal: No changes are proposed to the water and wastewater systems on either lot. Drainage: No changes in site grading are proposed, therefore, no alterations to existing site drainage is anticipated. 1 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/16/02) Lot sizes: Lot 1 will decrease by 0.2 acres to 6.26 acres and the adjoining parcel will increase by 0.2 acres to 1.01 acres. Future development: No future development for lot 1 is outlined in this modification request. The adjoining parcel is currently vacant and if enlarged, it should be considered a buildable lot. State Environmental Quality Review Act: The board should determine if the boundary line agreement is significant enough to require additional environmental review. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): Subdivision 7-1997 resolved 12/16/97 two lot subdivision Staff comments: The proposed subdivision modification appears to be in response to a recent property transfer to an adjoining landowner. The previous transfer reduced the then compliant 1 acre lot to less than one acre and therefore non-compliant. This application is to restore the acreage of the lot to at least 1 acre.” MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. In an effort to move things along, any discussion? Good evening. MR. SUNDBERG-Good evening. MR. MAC EWAN-For the record, you are? MR. SUNDBERG-I’m Michael Sundberg. MR. MAC EWAN-It seems pretty straightforward. MR. SUNDBERG-I hope so. MR. MAC EWAN-Any questions from Board members? I’ll entertain a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE MODIFICATION TO SUBDIVISION NO. 7-1997 MICHAEL SUNDBERG, Introduced by Larry Ringer who moved for its adoption, seconded by Anthony Metivier: WHEREAS, an application has been make to this board by Applicant: Michael Sundberg. Property Owner: Same. MODIFICATION. Zone: SFR-1A. Location: 188 Meadowbrook Road. Applicant proposes modification of an existing subdivision. The modification will move approximately 0.2 of an acre from a 6.47 acre lot to have two lots of 1.01 acres and 6.27 acres. Any modification to an approved subdivision is subject to Planning Board review and approval. . Cross Reference: Administrative subdivision approval. Tax Map No. 297.13-1-10.2, 10.1. Lot size: 0.8 acres, 6.47 acres, and WHEREAS, the application was received 3/27/02: WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation, and inclusive of all newly received information, not included is this listing as of 4/12/02; and 4/16 Staff Notes 4/4 Meeting Notice WHEREAS, a public hearing was not held concerning the above referenced project; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the Subdivision 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 2 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/16/02) We find the following: The application for Final Stage Modification is hereby granted as per resolution prepared by Staff and is subject to the following condition: 1. The plat must be filed with the County Clerk within 60 days. Duly adopted this 16th day of April, 2002, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Metivier, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Seguljic, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Sanford, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set. MR. SUNDBERG-Thank you. NEW BUSINESS: OFF PREMISES SIGN 1-2002 TYPE: UNLISTED HOLLY WHEELER PROPERTY OWNER: SCOTT & SUE RICHARDSON ZONE: CR-15 LOCATION: 45 MAIN STREET APPLICANT PROPOSES A 10 SQUARE FOOT OFF PREMISES DIRECTIONAL SIGN FOR “WHEELER CUSTOM SIGNS” TO BE LOCATED ON THE BUILDING AT 45 MAIN STREET. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 140, SIGNS OF THE CODE OF THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY PERMITS FOR SUCH SIGNS SHALL BE SUBJECT TO THE APPROVAL OF THE TOWN PLANNING BOARD. WARREN CO. PLANNING: 4/10/02 TAX MAP NO. 130-3-40 SECTION: 140-6 HOLLY WHEELER, PRESENT MRS. LA BOMBARD-And there is a public hearing tonight. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Off Premises Sign 1-2002, Holly Wheeler, Meeting Date: April 16, 2002 “Project Description: Applicant proposes placement of a 10 square foot directional sign on the westerly face of the building at 45 Main Street. Criteria for considering a Site Plan according to Section 179-38 of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance: 1. Does the proposed project comply with the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance? The sign ordinance states that Off-premises directional signs shall be limited to 10 square feet in size for each business and that such signs shall contain only business names and directions and that no advertising messages shall be displayed. Further, Off-premises directional signs shall be limited to major or collector streets. The proposed sign appears to meet these requirements. 2. Will the proposed use be in harmony with the intent of the ordinance, specifically, could the location, character and size of the proposed use increase the burden on the supporting public services and facilities? The proposed sign appears to meet the intent of the ordinance. 3. Will the proposed use create public hazards with regards to traffic, traffic congestion or the parking of vehicles and/or equipment or be otherwise detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the persons residing or working in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the town? The proposed sign may prove beneficial to traffic patterns by providing additional direction to the business. 4. While considering any benefits that might be derived from the project; Will the project have any undue adverse impact on the natural, scenic, aesthetic, ecological, wildlife, historic, recreational or open space resource of the town or Adirondack Park or upon the ability of the public to provide supporting facilities and services made necessary by the project? No such adverse impacts are anticipated. 3 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/16/02) Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): The proposed site has been the location of several retail businesses during recent years. The property is currently vacant and there are no signs on the property. Staff comments: The proposed Off-premises directional sign appears to comply with the requirements of the Sign Ordinance; §140-6, B,(5). The Mixed Use zoning along this corridor is intended to promote a diversity of uses and is anticipated to be appealing to both vehicular and pedestrian traffic. The proposed sign does not appear to present a conflict with this goal. Consideration may be given to the future occupancy of this building and the allowable associated signage. Please see 140-6, B, (3), (c). SEQR Status: Type Unlisted” MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening. MRS. WHEELER-Hi. MR. MAC EWAN-For the record, you are? MRS. WHEELER-Holly Wheeler. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Again, any questions, comments? It seems pretty straightforward. Anything you wanted to add? MRS. WHEELER-No. MR. MAC EWAN-It seems pretty simple. MRS. WHEELER-It’s pretty simple. MR. MAC EWAN-I love applications like this, actually. All right. We have to do a public hearing. Does anyone want to comment on this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MAC EWAN-We need to do a SEQRA, please. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. OPS 1-2002, Introduced by Catherine LaBombard who moved for its adoption, seconded by Larry Ringer: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: HOLLY WHEELER, and WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. No Federal agency appears to be involved. 2. The following agencies are involved: NONE 4 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/16/02) 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury. 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant. 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law. Duly adopted this 16 day of April, 2002, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Ringer, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Hunsinger, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE MOTION TO APPROVE OFF PREMISES SIGN 1-2002 HOLLY WHEELER, Introduced by Chris Hunsinger who moved for its adoption, seconded by Larry Ringer: WHEREAS, an application has been made to this Board for the following: Off Premises Sign 1-2002 Applicant: Holly Wheeler Type: Unlisted Property Owner: Scott & Sue Richardson Zone: CR-15 Location: 45 Main Street Applicant proposes a 10 square foot Off Premises Directional Sign for “Wheeler Custom Signs” to be located on the building at 45 Main Street. Pursuant to Chapter 140, Signs of the Code of the Town of Queensbury permits for such signs shall be subject to the approval of the Town Planning Board. Warren Co. Planning: 4/10/02 Tax Map No. 130.-3-40 Section: 140-6 Public Hearing: April 16, 2002 WHEREAS, the application was received on 3/27/02; and WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation and inclusive of all newly received information, not included in this listing as of 4/12/02: 4/16 Staff Notes 4/10 Warren Co. Planning: No County Impact 4/9 Notice of Public Hearing: 4/4 Meeting Notice WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter 140, and Chapter 179, Zoning Ordinance, Section 179-103 of the Code of the Town of Queensbury a public hearing was advertised and was held on April 16, 2002; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the Off Premises Sign 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 WHEREAS, approval of the application means that the applicant can now apply for a Building Permit unless the lands are Adirondack Park Jurisdictional or other approvals are necessary. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that 5 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/16/02) We find the following: The application is hereby approved in accordance with the resolution prepared by Staff. Duly adopted this 16 day of April, 2002, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Ringer, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Hunsinger, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set, Mrs. Wheeler. MRS. WHEELER-Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Good luck. SITE PLAN NO. 20-2002 TYPE II TAMMY HERMANCE PROPERTY OWNER: FOUR M LTD. PARTNERSHIP ZONE: CR-15 LOCATION: 6 MAIN STREET APPLICANT PROPOSES TO UTILIZE THE BUILDING AT 6 MAIN STREET (FORMERLY ADIRONDACK OVERHEAD DOOR) FOR A HAIR SALON BUSINESS (RETAIL). PURSUANT TO SECTION 179-15 OF THE CODE OF THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY NEW USES IN CR ZONES REQUIRE PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. WARREN CO. PLANNING: 4/10/02 TAX MAP NO. 309.11-1-42/131.-1-16 LOT SIZE: 0.22 ACRES SECTION: 179-15 TAMMY HERMANCE, PRESENT MRS. LA BOMBARD-And there is a public hearing tonight. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 20-2002, Tammy Hermance, Meeting Date: April 16, 2002 “Project Description: Applicant proposes to utilize the building at 6 Main Street for a hair salon use. Criteria for considering a Site Plan according to Section 179-38 of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance: 1. Does the proposed project comply with the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance? The proposed project, hair salon, is an allowable use in the CR-15 (old) and the Mixed se, (MU) zoning districts. The proposal appears to be consistent with the requirements of the CR-15 requirements. 2. Will the proposed use be in harmony with the intent of the ordinance, specifically, could the location, character and size of the proposed use increase the burden on the supporting public services and facilities? The project does not appear to present any discernable increase on the burden of the supporting public services. 3. Will the proposed use create public hazards with regards to traffic, traffic congestion or the parking of vehicles and/or equipment or be otherwise detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the persons residing or working in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the town? The proposed site layout and traffic pattern appear to be marginal at best. The newly adopted zoning ordinance requires this type of site to have 1 parking space per 300 sf of building floor area which equates to 3 spaces for this site. 4. While considering any benefits that might be derived from the project; Will the project have any undue adverse impact on the natural, scenic, aesthetic, ecological, wildlife, historic, recreational or open space resource of the town or Adirondack Park or upon the ability of the public to provide supporting facilities and services made necessary by the project? The proposed project does not appear to present any undue adverse impacts related to these matters. The following general standards were considered in the staff review of this project: 6 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/16/02) The location, arrangement, size, design and general site compatibility of buildings, lighting and signs. No changes are proposed to the overall size and location of the building. The adequacy and arrangement of vehicular traffic access and circulation, including intersections, road widths, pavement surfaces, dividers and traffic controls. The proposed layout appears to be marginal, at best. However, consideration may be given to the new parking requirements when reviewing this project. The location, arrangement, appearance and sufficiency of off-street parking and loading. Please see previous comment. The adequacy and arrangement of pedestrian traffic access and circulation, walkway structures, control of intersections with vehicular traffic and overall pedestrian convenience. The proposed layout offers a handicap parking space immediately adjacent to the building entrance. No provisions have been made for pedestrian circulation to and from Main Street. The adequacy of stormwater drainage facilities. The applicant has requested a waiver from this requirement. The adequacy of water supply and sewage disposal facilities. No changes to the existing systems are proposed. The adequacy, type and arrangement of trees, shrubs and other suitable plantings, landscaping and screening constituting a visual and/or noise buffer between the applicants and adjoining lands, including the maximum retention of existing vegetation and maintenance, including replacement of dead or deceased plants. The proposed plan presents two areas labeled “shrubs.” No formal landscape plan has been offered. The applicant has requested a waiver from this requirement. The adequacy of fire lanes and other emergency zones and the provision of fire hydrants. Please see previous comments regarding on site circulation and parking. The adequacy and impact of structures, roadways and landscaping in areas with susceptibility to ponding, flooding and/or erosion. The applicant has requested a waiver from the requirement to provide a grading plan. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): The project site is the former location of Adirondack Overhead Doors and has been vacant for about a year. No formal site plan was performed on the previous use of this site. Staff comments: While the proposed project was submitted under the previous zoning ordinance and is ultimately subject to the requirements of the same, it appears as though a consideration of a few of the new zoning ordinance requirements may make a more attractive project. Specifically, if the new parking space requirements were applied in conjunction with the some of the landscaping and design guidelines for the Main Street corridor is appears as though the site could be recycled effectively. Additionally, it appears as though the adjoining landowner is currently utilizing this property for off street parking. Is there to be a dedicated space or spaces for the neighbor? SEQR Status: Type II” MR. BROWN-Just a question, is there to be a dedicated space for the neighbor? 7 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/16/02) MS. HERMANCE-Hi. Tammy Hermance. I’ve already spoken to them, and he’s actually already started parking, there’s a parking driveway on the opposite side of his house. So he’s already started using that. He just, I think, used it because it was available. MR. BROWN-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-Rich, I’ll start with you. MR. SANFORD-Yes. No, we took a look at it the other day. It doesn’t look like you’re going to have a parking problem there. MS. HERMANCE-No. MR. SANFORD-How many spaces are currently there? MS. HERMANCE-Well, I figured you can fit at least seven cars there, at least, and we never have that many there. There’s only myself and one other girl. So there’s usually no more than two or three cars there, at the most. MR. SANFORD-And you’re full-time and the other person’s part-time? MS. HERMANCE-She’s part-time, yes, and I’m actually kind of part-time, too. I’m there usually three and a half days a week. She’s there two days a week. MR. SANFORD-I wish you well, I have no questions. MS. HERMANCE-Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Chris? MR. HUNSINGER-I really didn’t have any questions either. I mean, she’s only required to have three parking spaces, and there seem to be certainly adequate room for that. I guess the only real question I had is if you had planned any new plantings or landscaping around? MS. HERMANCE-Yes, I’m going to. Along the fence line, on the left hand side if you’re facing the building, I’m going to plant shrubs all along there, and then there’s, where the sign’s going to go out near the road, I’m going to, in that box, I’m going to put some topsoil and put some flowers and stuff in there, and then I’m also going to get those big like whiskey barrel type things, because up in the front it’s just all cement. So I’m going to put whiskey barrels out there with some flowers and stuff, just to dress it up. MR. HUNSINGER-Great. MS. HERMANCE-And make it look nice. MR. HUNSINGER-I think that’s kind of what we were hoping. MS. HERMANCE-Yes. It needs it, just so it looks prettier on the outside. MR. HUNSINGER-Sure. Okay. Great. MR. MAC EWAN-Cathy? MRS. LA BOMBARD-I think it’s great that you’re going to utilize that building. It looks like a pretty strong, structurally sound building, you know, nice brick, and I wish you a lot of luck. MS. HERMANCE-Thank you very much. MRS. LA BOMBARD-You’re welcome. MR. MAC EWAN-Tom? MR. SEGULJIC-I was just going to ask about the shrubs she had on the property. She’s addressed that, and it sounds good to me. MR. MAC EWAN-Larry? MR. RINGER-No, I don’t have anything. MR. MAC EWAN-Tony? 8 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/16/02) MR. METIVIER-No, I’m fine. MR. MAC EWAN-We have a public hearing scheduled. Does anyone want to comment on this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MAC EWAN-Type II. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes. It’s a Type II. MR. MAC EWAN-I’ll entertain a motion, if someone wants to put one up. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 20-2002 TAMMY HERMANCE, Introduced by Chris Hunsinger who moved for its adoption, seconded by Larry Ringer: WHEREAS, an application has been made to this Board for the following: Site Plan Review No. 20-2002 Applicant: Tammy Hermance Type II Property Owner: Four M Ltd. Partnership Zone: CR-15 Location: 6 Main Street Applicant proposes to utilize the building at 6 Main Street (formerly Adirondack Overhead Door) for a Hair Salon Business (retail). Pursuant to Section 179-15 of the Code of the Town of Queensbury new uses in CR zones require Planning Board review and approval. Warren Co. Planning: 4/10/02 Tax Map No. 309.11-1-42 / 131.-1-16 Lot size: 0.22 acres Section: 179-15 Public Hearing: April 16, 2002 WHEREAS, the application was received on 3/27/02; and WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation and inclusive of all newly received information, not included in this listing as of 4/12/02 4/16 Staff Notes 4/10 Warren Co. Planning: No County Impact with Stipulation 4/9 Notice of Public Hearing 4/4 Meeting Notice WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter 179, Zoning Ordinance, Section 179-103 of the Code of the Town of Queensbury a public hearing was advertised and was held on April 16, 2002; 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, approval of the application means that the applicant can now apply for a Building Permit unless the lands are Adirondack Park Jurisdictional or other approvals are necessary. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that We find the following: The application is hereby approved in accordance with the draft prepared by Staff with the following change: 1. The top paragraph on the second page, that starts with “Whereas” and references the SEQRA process, be deleted. Duly adopted this 16 day of April, 2002, by the following vote: th 9 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/16/02) AYES: Mr. Ringer, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Hunsinger, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set, Tammy. MS. HERMANCE-Thank you very much. MR. MAC EWAN-Good luck. MS. HERMANCE-Good night. Thank you. NEW BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 14-2002 TYPE: UNLISTED HEATHER & MARK MC LEOD PROPERTY OWNER: SAME AGENT: JAMES W. MOONEY ZONE: WR-1A LOCATION: 91 ROCKHURST ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES A 14’ X 40’ BOATHOUSE/SUNDECK. PURSUANT TO SECTION 179-60 OF THE CODE OF THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY PRIVATE BOATHOUSE/COVERED DOCK REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. LG PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED WARREN CO. PLANNING: 4/10/02 TAX MAP NO. 227.13-2-37/15-1-15 LOT SIZE: 0.22 ACRES SECTION: 179-60 JAMES MOONEY, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; MARK MC LEOD, PRESENT MRS. LA BOMBARD-And there is a public hearing tonight. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 14-2002, Heather & Mark McLeod, Meeting Date: April 16, 2002 “Project Description: Applicant proposes construction of a 560 sf boathouse/sundeck above an existing dock. Criteria for considering a Site Plan according to Section 179-38 of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance: 1. Does the proposed project comply with the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance? A boathouse/sundeck is an allowable use within this zoning district. 2. Will the proposed use be in harmony with the intent of the ordinance, specifically, could the location, character and size of the proposed use increase the burden on the supporting public services and facilities? The proposed use appears to be consistent with the intent of the ordinance and such a use should not present an increase to the burden on the supporting public services. 3. Will the proposed use create public hazards with regards to traffic, traffic congestion or the parking of vehicles and/or equipment or be otherwise detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the persons residing or working in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the town? The proposed use/structure should not present any adverse impacts on the neighborhood, with respect to traffic and off street parking. 4. While considering any benefits that might be derived from the project; Will the project have any undue adverse impact on the natural, scenic, aesthetic, ecological, wildlife, historic, recreational or open space resource of the town or Adirondack Park or upon the ability of the public to provide supporting facilities and services made necessary by the project? It is not anticipated that the proposed project will present any undue adverse impacts, nor be inconsistent with the existing conditions of the neighborhood. The following general standards were considered in the staff review of this project: The location, arrangement, size, design and general site compatibility of buildings, lighting and signs. The proposed location meets the minimum setback requirements and appears to present a more uniform spacing of the structures along the shoreline in this area. The adequacy and arrangement of vehicular traffic access and circulation, including intersections, road widths, pavement surfaces, dividers and traffic controls. No impacts are anticipated. 10 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/16/02) The location, arrangement, appearance and sufficiency of off-street parking and loading. No impacts are anticipated. The adequacy and arrangement of pedestrian traffic access and circulation, walkway structures, control of intersections with vehicular traffic and overall pedestrian convenience. No impacts are anticipated. The adequacy of stormwater drainage facilities. No stormwater measures are necessary for this structure. The adequacy of water supply and sewage disposal facilities. Not applicable. The adequacy, type and arrangement of trees, shrubs and other suitable plantings, landscaping and screening constituting a visual and/or noise buffer between the applicants and adjoining lands, including the maximum retention of existing vegetation and maintenance, including replacement of dead or deceased plants. No site plantings have been proposed with this project as none are required. The adequacy of fire lanes and other emergency zones and the provision of fire hydrants. Not applicable. The adequacy and impact of structures, roadways and landscaping in areas with susceptibility to ponding, flooding and/or erosion. Not applicable. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): Building Permit 2002-151 U-shaped dock. Issued 3/14/02 Staff comments: The proposed structure appears to be consistent with the requirements of the Shoreline and Wetland Regulations. SEQR Status: Type Unlisted” MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening. MR. MOONEY-Hi. MR. MAC EWAN-For the record, you are? MR. MOONEY-James Mooney. MR. MC LEOD-Mark McLeod. MR. MAC EWAN-Chris, I’ll start with you. MR. HUNSINGER-I guess I had two fairly quick and simple questions. Number One, on the elevation that you provided with your application, you show that the top of the sundeck would be no more than 13 feet above the high water mark, the mean high water mark. I just wanted to confirm that. MR. MOONEY-Correct. You’re allowed 14, but it’s only going to be 13. MR. HUNSINGER-Right, and then the length of the dock, because it really wasn’t clear on the plans. MR. MOONEY-Well, the length of the dock is actually 39 and a half feet from the mean low water mark. MR. HUNSINGER-And you probably realize you’re allowed 40? MR. MOONEY-Right. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Okay. Those were the only two questions I had. MR. MAC EWAN-Cathy? MRS. LA BOMBARD-No. The only question I had you answered when we were there on the site visit, as far as you built the dock, which you already had a permit to build the dock. 11 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/16/02) MR. MOONEY-Correct. MRS. LA BOMBARD-And then you’re here basically for the boathouse. MR. MOONEY-Correct. MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it? MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes, for now. MR. MAC EWAN-Larry? MR. RINGER-Nothing. MR. MAC EWAN-Tony? MR. METIVIER-Nothing. MR. MAC EWAN-Rich? MR. SANFORD-No, just the question that Craig had at site plan, which was, we saw construction was taking place on the dock, and I guess that was all established ahead of time? MR. MOONEY-That was permitted. Correct. MR. SANFORD-Okay. No questions. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything you gentlemen wanted to add? MR. MOONEY-No. MR. MAC EWAN-We have a public hearing scheduled. Does anyone want to comment on this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. BROWN-It’s Unlisted. MR. MAC EWAN-Why is it Unlisted? MR. BROWN-Because it’s, they’ve always been Unlisted. It’s not a residential structure. MR. RINGER-The docks have always been Unlisted. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. We need to do a SEQRA. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 14-2002, Introduced by Catherine LaBombard who moved for its adoption, seconded by Anthony Metivier: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: HEATHER & MARK MC LEOD, and WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. No Federal agency appears to be involved. 12 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/16/02) 2. The following agencies are involved: NONE 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury. 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant. 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law. Duly adopted this 16 day of April, 2002, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Metivier, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Hunsinger, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Ringer, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 14-2002 HEATHER & MARK MC LEOD, Introduced by Larry Ringer who moved for its adoption, seconded by Anthony Metivier: WHEREAS, an application has been made to this Board for the following: Site Plan Review No. 14-2002 Applicant: Heather & Mark McLeod Type: Unlisted Property Owner: Same Agent: James W. Mooney Zone: WR-1A Location: 91 Rockhurst Road Applicant proposes a 14’ x 40’ boathouse/sundeck. Pursuant to Section 179-60 of the Code of the Town of Queensbury Private Boathouse/Covered Dock requires Planning Board review and approval. LGPC Warren Co. Planning: 4/10/02 Tax Map No. 227.13-2-37/ 15.-1-15 Lot size: 0.22 acres Section: 179-60 Public Hearing: April 16, 2002 WHEREAS, the application was received on 3/27/02; and WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation and inclusive of all newly received information, not included in this listing as of 4/12/02: 4/16 Staff Notes 4/10 Warren Co. Planning: No County Impact with Stipulation 4/9 Notice of Public Hearing 4/4 Meeting Notice WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter 179, Zoning Ordinance, Section 179-103 of the Code of the Town of Queensbury a public hearing was advertised and was held on April 16, 2002; 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 WHEREAS, approval of the application means that the applicant can now apply for a Building Permit unless the lands are Adirondack Park Jurisdictional or other approvals are necessary. 13 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/16/02) NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that We find the following: The application is hereby approved as per resolution prepared by Staff. Duly adopted this 16 day of April, 2002 by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Metivier, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Hunsinger, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Ringer, Mr.MacEwan NOES: NONE MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set, gentlemen. Good luck. MR. MOONEY-Thank you very much. OLD BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 27-2001 MODIFICATION J & J MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATES PROPERTY OWNER: SAME AGENT: NACE ENGINEERING, JONATHAN LAPPER ZONE: HC-1A & RR-3A LOCATION: RT. 149 AND WALKUP CUTOFF ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO UTILIZE A BUILDING FORMERLY USED FOR CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT FOR BOAT ENGINE REPAIR. ALL USES IN HC ZONES REQUIRE PLANNING BOARD REIVEW AND APPROVAL AND/OR ANY MODIFICATION TO AN EXISTING SITE PLAN APPROVAL REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: UV 120-1989, AV 119-1989, SP 59-89, PZ 4-2001 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 4/10/02 TAX MAP NO. 48-1-26 LOT SIZE: 11.25 ACRES SECTION: 179-23, 179-15 TOM NACE & JOHN BROCK, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MRS. LA BOMBARD-And there is a public hearing tonight. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 27-2001, Modification, J & J Management Associates, Meeting Date: April 16, 2002 “Project Description: Applicant proposes modification of a previously approved site plan. Applicant proposes to add a Boat Engine Repair facility to the exiting approved uses on the property. Criteria for considering a Site Plan according to Section 179-38 of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance: 1. Does the proposed project comply with the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance? Boat sales and service are allowable uses in the Highway Commercial, HC-1A zone. 2. Will the proposed use be in harmony with the intent of the ordinance, specifically, could the location, character and size of the proposed use increase the burden on the supporting public services and facilities? It is not anticipated that the proposed use will present an undue increase to the burden on supporting public services. 3. Will the proposed use create public hazards with regards to traffic, traffic congestion or the parking of vehicles and/or equipment or be otherwise detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the persons residing or working in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the town? It appears as though the proposed usage of the 3200 sf may present visual and/or audible impacts on the neighborhood. It is uncertain as to the scale of such impacts, at this point. 4. While considering any benefits that might be derived from the project; Will the project have any undue adverse impact on the natural, scenic, aesthetic, ecological, wildlife, historic, recreational or open space resource of the town or Adirondack Park or upon the ability of the public to provide supporting facilities and services made necessary by the project? It is not anticipated that this project will present significant undue adverse impacts with regards to these concerns. The following general standards were considered in the staff review of this project: 14 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/16/02) The location, arrangement, size, design and general site compatibility of buildings, lighting and signs. No alterations to the building or site is depicted in this proposal. No new exterior lighting is shown on the plan and no signage is proposed. The adequacy and arrangement of vehicular traffic access and circulation, including intersections, road widths, pavement surfaces, dividers and traffic controls. No changes to the internal traffic pattern are anticipated. The location, arrangement, appearance and sufficiency of off-street parking and loading. The existing parking spaces appear to be planned to support this additional use. The adequacy and arrangement of pedestrian traffic access and circulation, walkway structures, control of intersections with vehicular traffic and overall pedestrian convenience. No specific details to address on-site pedestrian traffic have been submitted. The adequacy of stormwater drainage facilities. No additional impermeable areas are to be constructed. The adequacy of water supply and sewage disposal facilities. Both systems are existing, the adequacy is unknown at this time. The adequacy, type and arrangement of trees, shrubs and other suitable plantings, landscaping and screening constituting a visual and/or noise buffer between the applicants and adjoining lands, including the maximum retention of existing vegetation and maintenance, including replacement of dead or deceased plants. No additional landscaping has been offered. The adequacy of fire lanes and other emergency zones and the provision of fire hydrants. The existing service roads and driveways appear to be adequate in the event of an emergency. The adequacy and impact of structures, roadways and landscaping in areas with susceptibility to ponding, flooding and/or erosion. See previous stormwater comments. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): Site Plan 27-2001 Resolved 7/24/01 Boat Sales and Display Petition for Zone Change 4-2001 resolved 5/21/01 RR-3A to HC-1A**** Staff comments: **** The Petition for Change of Zone granted to this property in 2001 was unique in that the Town Board specifically proscribed several of the otherwise allowable HC-1A uses. It appears as though the intent of the Town Board, when limiting the allowable uses, was to be consistent with the then envisioned “new zoning” which called for the property to be rezoned to Neighborhood Commercial. Ultimately, on April 1, 2002 the property was in fact rezoned to Neighborhood Commercial. As such, Commercial Boat Sales and Service are not allowable uses in this zone. However, this application was presented to the Town prior to the adoption of the new zoning classifications, therefore the project is ultimately subject to the “old zoning.” Consideration may be given to limiting the intensity of the use in light of the new zoning requirements. If the request is for boat engine repair, which is a specific type of repair, additional types of vehicles and or engines could not be serviced at this location. SEQR Status: Type II” MR. BROWN-If the request here is for boat engine repair, maybe a specific approval for that, and not just an engine repair shop, or an auto body repair shop, not that they’ve been thinking they’re going towards auto body, but if it’s just boat engine repair, let’s try and be specific to that. 15 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/16/02) MR. MAC EWAN-In your comment that the Town Board’s intent was to limit the allowable uses. MR. BROWN-It appears to be that’s the direction they were headed. MR. MAC EWAN-Do you have an understanding of what they were trying to accomplish? MR. BROWN-Well, in reviewing the resolution for the rezoning, they specifically listed out eight or ten of the uses that normally would be allowed. They specifically said you can’t have these uses. MR. MAC EWAN-Does this fall under it? MR. BROWN-And this commercial boat sales and service was one of the uses they proscribed. It was for another portion of this property. It wasn’t where the building is located. It’s for the northwestern portion of the property that was rezoned. MR. MAC EWAN-Right. I remember that application. MR. BROWN-Yes, right. MR. MAC EWAN-Should we maybe refer this back to the Town Board for clarification? MR. BROWN-No. I don’t think that’s necessary. The property where this building is located is zoned HC- 1A, under the old Ordinance, with no restrictions. The other portion of the property was rezoned to HC with limitations. So you’ve kind of got a hybrid, and still another portion of the property is zoned Rural Residential. So you’ve got all this going on in there, and on top of that you put the new zoning, which is Neighborhood Commercial, which doesn’t allow the use, but I think since it was in under the previous Ordinance, you need to go forward with the fact that it is allowable, but you can certainly limit it, based on the new Zoning Ordinance. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Good evening. MR. NACE-Good evening. MR. MAC EWAN-For the record? MR. NACE-For the record, Tom Nace, Nace Engineering, and John Brock, one of the owners of J & J. Basically, with the rezoning of the portion of the property to the west of what we’re talking, the area we’re talking about now, when that was rezoned by the Town Board a year ago, if I remember right, they simply didn’t want to rezone it HC-1A and then allow any old use that was considered acceptable under HC-1A on that. So they did want to restrict it to something that was appropriate to what was already being used around the intersection, okay. So all the rezoning of the adjacent property was for, was to sort of incorporate a larger chunk, and square off an area that had historically been zoned HC-1A and had been used for HC-1A purposes. What the applicant would like to do, his needs have changed a little bit in the past year. He originally didn’t think he wanted, or was going to use the shop area for repair services, and at this stage, he’s reevaluated. The shop that’s in question is an enclosed shop. It has two, I don’t know if you’ve all been to the site. It has two overhead doors that sort of face in to the middle of the site. So even the overhead doors that access that shop area are not visible from Bay Road. They are just barely visible from 149, and it’s my understanding, John, correct me if I’m wrong, that the repair that’s anticipated would be engine repair, and other types of repair that would be done only inside. There would be no vehicles, no boats parked outside waiting for repair to go in. Stuff would be brought to the shop on a truck or trailer, put in the shop. Things would be closed up, and all of the repair work would be taking place inside. John, I don’t know if you can add a little more. MR. BROCK-No. What it is, it’s basically an engine repair shop where we can do the heads and valves and stuff like that to the engines. Any engine, I mean, a boat engine, a car engine. All engines are all the same. So it’s, what we’re going to be doing is taking the engines out of boats, taking them over to the shop, servicing the engines, then you take them back and they’ll be put in the boat at another site, whether it be our site or one of the other marinas on the lake. Whoever does the service will bring the engine to us, or we will go and pick it up and bring it there. MR. MAC EWAN-But you’re actually not going to have the boats themselves there? MR. BROCK-No. This is strictly an engine repair shop. So what we’re going to be doing is, whatever engine they bring us, we will repair. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else? MR. BROCK-No. 16 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/16/02) MR. MAC EWAN-Cathy, we’ll start with you. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. So, in other words, I wouldn’t drive my boat on a trailer up to your site, and you would take it out there, it would be done somewhere else? MR. BROCK-You would take it to wherever you have it serviced, and if it needed an engine repair, now I don’t mean just like a tune up. We don’t do any of that stuff. What it would be is a machining. Let’s say it needs new pistons. Okay. Then they take everything off of that engine, and they bring us just the block and the heads, and then we re-seat the valves and do that, and give it back to them, and they put it all back together and put it back in the boat or car or whatever they want to put it in. They’re identical. MRS. LA BOMBARD-All right, and my other question had to do with, will there be like waste products on the site, like compounds that are, you know, like organic compounds like benzene or cleaning type of things where you would clean the parts off, or oil or grease removers that would have to be disposed of carefully, or oil itself? MR. BROCK-No. Well, there wouldn’t be the oil, other than what you would use on your own machines, but there will be, there is a cleaning tank like you have, just for cleaning parts, but that material, it doesn’t go to waste. It just stays in there and gets flushed over, and over and over again. MRS. LA BOMBARD-So you won’t have any disposal of any of those toxic cleaning agents on the site. MR. BROCK-No disposal of waste, not at all. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay, and what are your hours of operation that you plan on? MR. BROCK-Normally it’ll be like eight o’clock to five o’clock. MRS. LA BOMBARD-On weekends too? MR. BROCK-Maybe a Saturday. It won’t be Sunday. I mean, if we’re lucky enough to have enough work to have to work Saturday, that would be nice. It’s the same thing that we used to take these parts, when we used to take them off, we used to take them down to NAPA, and they used to do this, for us and a lot of people. Well, they quit doing it. So they did away with their shop. So now, all this stuff has to be sent away to get done, and it takes too long to get the stuff. I mean, yes, you’ve got to send it, there’s nobody around really doing it. MRS. LA BOMBARD-So how many people are you going to employ there? MR. BROCK-There’ll probably be four people employed there, on-site. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Tom? MR. SEGULJIC-What is being done in the building now? MR. BROCK-Right now it’s empty. I’ve purchased that from Weller, okay, and they used that as a shop. That’s what that building was. It was a shop building for repairing his equipment. Okay, and it makes a good shop. So when this happened with NAPA and we couldn’t get our stuff repaired locally, one of my mechanics wanted to know, why don’t we open up an engine shop. We’ve got the perfect place to do it, and so that’s how that all came about. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. Continuing on Cathy’s line of questions, with regards to any scrap metals, things like that, is that all going to be stored inside? Do you plan on storing it outside? MR. BROCK-That’ll all be inside, yes. The stuff we have, everything will be stored inside, yes. MR. SEGULJIC-Nothing’s going to be stored outside? MR. BROCK-No. MR. SEGULJIC-So there’s not going to be any piles of junk sitting outside. MR. BROCK-No piles of junk. MR. SEGULJIC-No engine parts, things like that, empty drums? MR. BROCK-No. 17 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/16/02) MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. Just a clarification. In looking back at the Staff notes from April 2001, there was a comment about wetlands on site, on the southern property line. MR. NACE-Yes, they’re way down in the southwestern corner of the property, way away from anything we’re doing. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. That’s why I don’t see them on the map. Okay. That’s it. MR. MAC EWAN-Larry? MR. RINGER-My only concern was there were going to be boats there and parts and stuff, and I’m real pleased to hear that that’s not going to happen. When we do the resolution, I think, though, I’d like to take a minute and make sure that we get it in the resolution that they won’t be doing the boats on premises, and stuff like that, and I didn’t have any questions other than that. MR. BROCK-Anything we do will be inside that building. MR. RINGER-Right, and I understand that. I just wanted to, when we do our resolution, we want to make sure that we cover ourselves so that we won’t have boats stored up there at a future date if you change your mind. I don’t have any problem with it, and I’m really pleased that what you’re proposing is going to be all inside. MR. MAC EWAN-Tony? MR. METIVIER-No, I was originally a little bit concerned. I recalled back when we were looking at this last year that it was my impression that there wasn’t going to be any work done on site. It was mostly for boat displays, but, you know, I think you’ve covered that quite well. I mean, you know, it’s a good use for it. So I certainly have no problems with it now. MR. MAC EWAN-Rich? MR. SANFORD-Is this located across the street from the Castaway’s remote? MR. BROCK-Yes, but they’re, we’re directly across the street from them. MR. SANFORD-Okay. Yes, we took a ride by, but I always get a little confused with that corner, because there’s so many boat dealers up that way. MR. BROCK-Our boat sales are going to be, right where you are there. That’s where our boat sales operation that we applied for the boat sales operation, and since it’s a zoning change, that’s in that area where the hand is right now, and at that time, we were thinking of, when they were talking about doing any service work, we never had any intention of doing any service work over there anyway. Never thinking that we were referring to that shop, because that’s a big service shop, okay, and we just never thought. MR. BROWN-This is Matthews over here. MR. SANFORD-Okay, and then across the street is yet another dealer. MR. BROCK-That’s Pilot Knob, yes. MR. SANFORD-Pilot Knob. Okay. All right. I’ve got my coordinates down. Thanks. No other questions. MR. MAC EWAN-Chris? MR. HUNSINGER-All the questions I had have already been addressed. So I’m all set. MR. MAC EWAN-No new ones? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything you wanted to add? MR. BROCK-No. MR. MAC EWAN-A public hearing is scheduled tonight on a modification? MR. BROWN-Yes. 18 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/16/02) MR. MAC EWAN-Why? Typically we don’t. MR. BROWN-I think just because of the zoning change on the property, it was a good idea to do that. MR. MAC EWAN-There’s a public hearing scheduled. Does anyone want to comment on this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED HOWARD BOMBARD MR. BOMBARD-Howard Bombard. I live in the first house to the south of, right there. That’s the garage, and I have no problem at all with him running a machine shop in there. I’m familiar with boats and engines, and it’s not something that is going to bother me in the least. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Thank you very much. Anyone else? I’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MAC EWAN-Anything you wanted to add? MR. NACE-No. MR. MAC EWAN-Do you want to take five to compose your resolution? MR. RINGER-Yes. I’ve got a little bit of it done. MR. HUNSINGER-I’ve got some. I don’t know if this is what you had in mind or not. MR. RINGER-Go ahead. You start. MR. HUNSINGER-I had started to write something about, you know, no storage of outdoor parts or anything, but I think the easier way to say it is to say that all activities, including storage of parts and materials, will be within the confines of the building. MR. RINGER-Okay. I’ve got inside the shop, the same thing. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Well, we can say that instead. MR. RINGER-No, yours is fine. Yours is fine. It’s just basically the same thing I had. I was trying to get something that says no boat storage, therefore repairs, just to cover it, but I don’t know if it’s necessary or not. MR. MAC EWAN-I think he’s pretty well got it covered. MR. RINGER-Yes, it sounds good. MRS. LA BOMBARD-And just take out the SEQRA part. MR. HUNSINGER-I was going to ask about that, yes. Okay. MOTION TO APPROVE MODIFICATION TO SITE PLAN NO. 27-2001 J & J MANAGEMENT, Introduced by Chris Hunsinger who moved for its adoption, seconded by Catherine LaBombard: WHEREAS, an application has been made to this Board for the following: Site Plan Review No. 27-2001 Applicant: J & J Management Associates Type II Property Owner: Same Agent: Nace Engineering, Jonathan Lapper MODIFICATION Zone: HC-1A & RR-3A Location: Rt. 149 and Walkup Cutoff Road Applicant proposes to utilize a building formerly used for construction equipment for Boat Engine Repair. All uses in HC zones requires Planning Board review and approval and/or any modification to an existing site plan approval requires Planning Board review and approval. Cross Reference: UV 120-1989, AV 119-1989, SP 59-89, PZ 4- 2001 Warren Co. Planning: 4/10/02 Tax Map No. 48-1-26 Lot size: 11.25 acres 19 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/16/02) Section: 179-23, 179-15 Public Hearing: April 16, 2002 WHEREAS, the application was received on 3/27/02; and WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation and inclusive of all newly received information, not included in this listing as of 4/12/02: 4/16 Staff Notes 4/9 Notice of Public Hearing 4/4 Meeting Notice WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter 179, Zoning Ordinance, Section 179-103 of the Code of the Town of Queensbury a public hearing was advertised and was held on April 16, 2002; 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 WHEREAS, approval of the application means that the applicant can now apply for a Building Permit unless the lands are Adirondack Park Jurisdictional or other approvals are necessary. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that We find the following: The application for Modification is hereby approved in accordance with the resolution prepared by Staff and is subject to the following conditions: 1. The resolution shall contain the following condition: that all repair activities, including storage of parts and materials, will be within the confines of the building. 2. All conditions are to be noted on the final approved plans submitted for the Zoning Administrator’s signature in a form to read as follows: Plans have been approved under authority of a resolution adopted 4/16/02 by the Planning Board of the Town of Queensbury, New York with the following conditions: a. Duly adopted this 16 day of April, 2002, by the following vote: th MR. HUNSINGER-In accordance with the resolution prepared by Staff, with the following change. The second paragraph on Page Two that references SEQRA review shall be deleted. MR. RINGER-Before we second it, Chris, I don’t know if you want that deleted, because what is says is that because it’s a modification, no changes in the SEQRA. So I don’t think we’ve got to delete that. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. RINGER-So I don’t even think we’ve got to mention it. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-I got bad advice from my colleague. MR. RINGER-If you read it, it takes into consideration that. So I don’t think we need that. MR. HUNSINGER-No, you’re right. I will change that to include the SEQRA paragraph. 20 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/16/02) MR. MAC EWAN-No change to the original SEQRA findings. Do we have a second? MRS. LA BOMBARD-I’ll second that. AYES: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set. MR. NACE-Thank you. MR. BROCK-Thanks. OLD BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 7-2000 MODIFICATION THE MORSE FOUNDATION PROPERTY OWNER: SAME AGENT: NACE ENGINEERING ZONE: SFR-1A LOCATION: SHERMAN AVENUE APPLICANT PROPOSES THE ADDITION OF A MAINTENANCE BUILDING ON THE SITE OF THE GLENS FALLS HIGH SCHOOL ATHLETIC FIELDS. ANY MODIFICATION TO AN APPROVED SITE PLAN REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. TAX MAP NO. 302.18-2-61.1/115-1-1.31 LOT SIZE: 38.74 ACRES SECTION: 179-20 TOM NACE & JIM GIRARD, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MRS. LA BOMBARD-And there is a public hearing tonight. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 7-2000, Modification, The Morse Foundation, Meeting Date: April 16, 2002 “Project Description: Applicant proposes the addition of a maintenance building on the site of the Glens Falls High School Athletic Fields. Criteria for considering a Site Plan according to Section 179-38 of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance: 1. Does the proposed project comply with the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance? The proposed accessory building appears to meet all zoning requirements for such a use in this zoning district. 2. Will the proposed use be in harmony with the intent of the ordinance, specifically, could the location, character and size of the proposed use increase the burden on the supporting public services and facilities? It does not appear as though the proposed use will present an undue increase on the burden to the supporting public services. 3. Will the proposed use create public hazards with regards to traffic, traffic congestion or the parking of vehicles and/or equipment or be otherwise detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the persons residing or working in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the town? A relatively narrow (12ft) service drive is proposed to connect the area where the structure is planned to the pedestrian path throughout the complex. 4. While considering any benefits that might be derived from the project; Will the project have any undue adverse impact on the natural, scenic, aesthetic, ecological, wildlife, historic, recreational or open space resource of the town or Adirondack Park or upon the ability of the public to provide supporting facilities and services made necessary by the project? The proposed location is in an area that is substantially free of trees at this time. The proposed planting plan appears to be an attempt to add visual and audible screening to the Ripley Place parcels. The following general standards were considered in the staff review of this project: The location, arrangement, size, design and general site compatibility of buildings, lighting and signs. 21 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/16/02) The proposed project appears to be consistent with the architecture of the field house. No exterior lighting plan has been presented. The adequacy and arrangement of vehicular traffic access and circulation, including intersections, road widths, pavement surfaces, dividers and traffic controls. It does not appear as though the maintenance area will be accessible by regular vehicular traffic. It appears as though the traffic will be limited to service equipment. The location, arrangement, appearance and sufficiency of off-street parking and loading. The proposed plan calls for all equipment and maintenance storage needs to be handled inside the building. No outside storage is depicted. The adequacy and arrangement of pedestrian traffic access and circulation, walkway structures, control of intersections with vehicular traffic and overall pedestrian convenience. It appears as though the pedestrian walkways might be used for traffic to and from the building. The adequacy of stormwater drainage facilities. The proposed stormwater management details appear to adequately address the potential runoff. The adequacy of water supply and sewage disposal facilities. The project is planned to utilize municipal water and an on site septic disposal system. The adequacy, type and arrangement of trees, shrubs and other suitable plantings, landscaping and screening constituting a visual and/or noise buffer between the applicants and adjoining lands, including the maximum retention of existing vegetation and maintenance, including replacement of dead or deceased plants. The proposed plantings appear to be minimal. If year round screening is planned, additional plantings may be necessary to the East of the building. The adequacy of fire lanes and other emergency zones and the provision of fire hydrants. While no formal emergency access drive is planned in the event of an urgent situation, the proposed maintenance building should be accessible across any of the playing fields. The adequacy and impact of structures, roadways and landscaping in areas with susceptibility to ponding, flooding and/or erosion. The proposed stormwater management methods should adequately address this concern. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): Site Plan 7-2000 resolved 3/21/00 Athletic Field complex Staff comments: The proposed maintenance building appears to be a suitable and necessary use for the complex. Consideration should be given to the use of the pedestrian walkways for vehicular traffic and the potential conflicts that might arise. It appears as though vehicles might exit through the back of the building. Will staff members be driving personal vehicles out to the maintenance building? How will deliveries such as fertilizer, gasoline, equipment and other miscellaneous supplies be delivered to the maintenance building? Is there a planned fuel storage tank/ fill station planned for the site? Will any exterior lighting be needed? Security lighting? What impacts will such lighting, if necessary, have on the Ripley Place parcels? SEQR Status: Type Unlisted” MR. MAC EWAN-Staff notes. 22 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/16/02) MR. BROWN-Just a couple of quick comments, and then a few questions. I don’t know if you want to read all the questions or not, but the proposed maintenance building appears to be a suitable and necessary use for this complex. Consideration should be given to the use of the pedestrian walkways, whether it’s a good idea to have them used or not used, for vehicular traffic and the potential conflicts that might arise from that. It appears as though vehicles might exit through the back of the storage building. We’re just curious what that’s all about, and then there’s a few questions, if just somebody on the Board may consider those during the review, it would be a good idea. I don’t think you have to read them all. MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it? MR. BROWN-That’s it, just the questions. MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening. MR. NACE-Good evening. For the record, Tom Nace, Nace Engineering, and also Jim Girard, from Girard Landscaping, that’s been doing work on the site. Okay. Let me real quickly go through some of the questions and provide some answers. One of the questions was exterior lighting, and that was my fault. I forgot to put an exterior light on the plans. There will be, over the front of the building, between the front doors, a shielded building mounted security light that provides some security lighting to that area. No lighting to the rear or the north of the building which would interfere with the adjacent neighborhood. Vehicle access to the back, Jim can correct me here if I’m wrong, but I’m assuming that that’s going to be just for lawn mowers, etc., that are, will go directly out onto the grass. There is no paving to the rear of the building. As far as access and parking and what have you across, we know we’re using the existing pathways that were part of the original site plan. Those are just a little over eight feet wide. They are wide enough to get a vehicle down when you need to, but they’re not intended for routine vehicular travel. Our intention is that there will probably be on stake truck or small dump truck type of thing that is stationed out at this building that is owned by the Athletic Department or the School System, but otherwise, there will be no traffic in and out of the building. The field maintenance people will park out in the main parking lot. So their cars won’t be going back there. Deliveries, such as fertilizer, will be applied by a commercial firm, such a Jim’s, so they will deliver it and work from the main parking lot and not from this building. Really the road in and out of the building is primarily for lawn mowers and maintenance equipment that will be using the, or maintaining the fields. Fuel storage, again, that fuel storage, I presume that will be fueled by a vehicle mounted tank, brought over from the School, to fuel the vehicles, or if there’s any fuel storage at all in the building, it will be above ground mounted, inside storage tankage. MR. MAC EWAN-Well, which is it going to be? MR. NACE-I don’t know exactly, and I’m not sure that the Athletic Department knows, at this point. Do you have any further input? MR. GIRARD-I don’t know what the School System uses at present, but I would assume that they would probably have five gallon OSHA cans and things like that, that they would leave in that garage during the season. I don’t think they would truck fuel there every day. MR. MAC EWAN-Typically, it’s like one of the containers you could find at home, that kind of thing. Right? MR. NACE-Sure, yes. MR. GIRARD-Well, no. They have to use OSHA. They have to be metal OSHA tanks. They can’t use. MR. MAC EWAN-Well, my gas tank at home meets OSHA standards. MR. NACE-One of the comments was regarding the septic system. As you’ll notice, we submitted a revised plan, which should be the one that you have, that does not have water service or septic for the building. It was determined that the employees, the maintenance employees, would be using the main facilities. Okay. So there is no water or septic. MR. MAC EWAN-So the septic system is out, and the water service to the building is out. MR. NACE-And the water is out, that is correct. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. NACE-Were there any other things that you had there, Craig, that I didn’t note down that I haven’t answered? MR. BROWN-I think in the beginning you talked about, if you guys have questions, I don’t want to, exterior lighting, is there a plan for exterior lighting? 23 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/16/02) MR. NACE-Yes. There will be, and I will show on the final site plan, there will be a front mounted security light over the front doors. MR. BROWN-Interior to the complex? MR. NACE-Interior to the complex. MR. BROWN-Okay. MR. NACE-Shining away from the neighborhood. MR. MAC EWAN-That would be on the side of the building facing west. MR. NACE-Facing the fields, that’s correct, facing west. MR. MAC EWAN-On your rear elevation of the building, you show that single overhead door that you were talking about was just going to be access for mowers and such? MR. NACE-That’s correct. MR. MAC EWAN-Is that planned on being lighted at all? MR. NACE-No. We can do without lighting there, because that would be back towards the neighbors. MR. MAC EWAN-Right. That’s why I’m asking. MR. NACE-Yes. There will be no light there. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else? MR. NACE-Not that I have, unless you have questions. MR. MAC EWAN-Tom? MR. SEGULJIC-So that building’s going to be used for storage of the lawn, or field? MR. NACE-The maintenance equipment, yes. MR. SEGULJIC-The lawn mowers. MR. NACE-Mostly mowers and rollers and whatever else they use to maintain the fields. MR. SEGULJIC-Is the building going to be used in the wintertime at all? MR. NACE-No. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. Because that was one of my concerns about how would you get up there in the wintertime. MR. NACE-Yes, it will not be used in the wintertime. MR. GIRARD-It probably will be used for storage, though, of the goals, fencing and things like that. MR. SEGULJIC-But not so someone has to get out there and get it. MR. NACE-Not accessed during the winter. MR. GIRARD-There’ll be nothing that. MR. SEGULJIC-Is the building going to be heated, then? MR. GIRARD-No. MR. NACE-No. MR. SEGULJIC-And as far fuel storage, you don’t think that, as far as the tank goes, no indoor tank? MR. NACE-I think we could stipulate that they’ll all be five gallon type containers. 24 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/16/02) MR. SEGULJIC-And then security light, when you say security light, what do you mean by security light? MR. NACE-Building mounted, shielded light that shines down, just to light the front stoop area, for security reasons. MR. SEGULJIC-And I guess as far as the building looks, is it going to match the other building, the field house? MR. NACE-The general roofline, as you’ll see, elevations, yes, the color of the siding will be, it’s a different material, but it will be coordinated to blend in with the earth tones of the other building. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay, and then stormwater from the roof and the parking areas is going to be sheet flow into the trench drain on the western side. MR. NACE-Sheet flow out to the trench drain. That’s correct. MR. SEGULJIC-On the western side of the parking area. MR. NACE-Correct. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. That’s it for me. MR. MAC EWAN-Larry? MR. RINGER-No, my concerns were lighting, which Tom has addressed. I don’t have any other. MR. MAC EWAN-Tony? MR. METIVIER-No. I’m confident it will be as nice as everything else. I commend everyone for the job done. It’s wonderful. It’s beautiful. MR. RINGER-It looks nice up there. MR. METIVIER-You guys did a great job. MR. MAC EWAN-Rich? MR. SANFORD-No. I just want to say it’s a beautiful field. I mean, when we took a look at it, we were all very impressed, but my only concern I have is proximity to other neighbors and what have you, and we weren’t 100% sure, it’s been clarified by the overhead as well as these prints where the building’s going to be located, but are the neighbors going to have a view of it or how is that going to, is there going to be any kind of a visual impact there? MR. NACE-Well, you can look. There is a deciduous screen. We’re planting some additional evergreen screening right up closer to the building. There are some, and I won’t say gaps. There’s some sparse areas in the deciduous screen that’s already there, and our hopes are that the evergreen screen will fill that in. MR. SANFORD-Is that what this is here? MR. NACE-No. That dark line is just to say that’s the area that we, this is the old site plan, and that’s the area where I’ve modified the old site plan. Okay. There is a light squiggly line on there that depicts the existing tree line. MR. SANFORD-I don’t see it. Okay. I’ve got it. I’m all set. Okay. That’s the only question I have. MR. MAC EWAN-Chris? MR. HUNSINGER-Just following along with some of those same comments, roughly how far is the building from the edge of the tree line, 50, 60 feet, something like that? MR. NACE-I’ll give you an accurate answer. It’s about 35 feet, maybe, from the tree line, and to the east, it’s 40 feet from the tree line. MR. HUNSINGER-How about, how far is the tree line from some of the neighboring houses? MR. NACE-I don’t have the exact location of the houses. It’s about 60 feet from the rear property line of those lots. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. 25 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/16/02) MR. NACE-The edge of the existing tree line. The building is about 90 feet from the property line. MR. HUNSINGER-From the property line, okay. There was a Staff comment about some additional plantings on the east side of the building, but, I don’t know, my opinion in looking at that, it looks like it would be kind of tough to find room, actually. Maybe a couple of more. You’re showing some additional plantings to the northeast corner of that property. MR. NACE-There’s no reason that that couldn’t be wrapped down across the rest of the east portion of the building, another maybe five or six white pine in there would cover the remaining eastern wall of the building, and there is room. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-Are you talking in addition to what you’re indicating on the plan, five to six more? MR. NACE-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-What’s the caliper width on those? Do you know, offhand? MR. NACE-I’d have to go back to the original planting plan. I think they were, they’re white pines. So they’ll be specified in height. It was probably four foot. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. I’m sorry, Chris, anything else? MR. HUNSINGER-No, that’s okay. MR. NACE-Yes, probably six feet anyway. MR. MAC EWAN-Six foot? MR. NACE-Six to eight. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Cathy? MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. My question has to do with the 12 foot wide vehicle access drive. Okay. Now that, though, connects with the sidewalk. MR. NACE-Well, it’s a paved sidewalk. When it was originally designed, it was meant to be a sidewalk plus maintenance access way. MRS. LA BOMBARD-But you can get like a truck on that sidewalk? I mean, we were there. MR. NACE-It’s eight feet, you have to be careful, but, yes, a typical. MRS. LA BOMBARD-It’s eight feet? MR. NACE-Yes. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes, okay, but now when they, so in other words, the truck can go up on the sidewalk in the parking area, does it climb over the curb? MR. NACE-Yes. MRS. LA BOMBARD-All right, and then it goes to the 12 foot wide access drive to the maintenance building. Right? MR. NACE-Correct, but that’s a very rare occasion. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, that’s what I was wondering, because now you have enough blacktop that’s, you have as much blacktop as the footprint of that building in front of there. That’s what I was wondering, how many vehicles do you plan to be parking there, Tom? MR. NACE-Out in front of the building? MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes. MR. NACE-Mostly mowers and stuff. 26 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/16/02) MRS. LA BOMBARD-So in other words, you want to keep it blacktop there for cleaning things. MR. NACE-Just for maintenance, you know, for cleaning off the mowers and that type of thing, yes. MRS. LA BOMBARD-All right, now, that’s another question, like when you clean the mowers out and stuff, you know, you hose them down and all the grass just comes off, that’s no problem, but, any oil or things like that? MR. MAC EWAN-They won’t be doing it there. There’s no water. MR. GIRARD-Yes, there is. MR. MAC EWAN-You just got through telling us there’s no water to the. MR. NACE-Not potable water. MR. GIRARD-No potable water. MR. NACE-There’s sprinklers. MR. NACE-There’s irrigation and there’s quick (lost words) the irrigation so you can run a hose to clean your equipment. MRS. LA BOMBARD-So then you can just hose those lawn mowers and things down, but you’re not worried about any oil or leaking out or anything like that? MR. NACE-From the mower deck? No. MRS. LA BOMBARD-All right, and the first plans were brick, to have a brick building. Is that correct? And then the second plans that came in are a wooden side building? MR. NACE-It’s a metal side, with metal siding to match, in color, to match the other building. MRS. LA BOMBARD-So it’ll be like a deep brown or a reddish brown or something like that? Because the other building, is the other building brick? MR. NACE-It’s colored block. MRS. LA BOMBARD-That’s right, it’s the colored block, but this is not going to be colored block. MR. NACE-Right. The roof will be the same shingles and it’ll, you know, the roofline is similar. MRS. LA BOMBARD-And just one more thing. You said you were going to be storing, I just wanted to make sure I understood you, the fuel, the gasoline and stuff, in five gallon drums? MR. NACE-In typical, pick up, walk away with type cans. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes, okay. Five gallon, not fifty gallon, got you, all right. MR. NACE-Right. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it? Anything else you want to add? MR. NACE-No. MR. MAC EWAN-Questions from Board members? I’ll ask you guys to give up the table for a second. We have a public hearing scheduled. Does anyone want to comment on this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED HANS HANSEN MR. HANSEN-My name is Hans Hansen. I live on Seward Street. I’m the one with the big lot there. First of all, last time I was here, when they got the whole permission to do this, this gentleman in back of me here said there would be no more water there than there was before. Is that what you said? MR. MAC EWAN-If you could address your questions to the Board. 27 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/16/02) MR. HANSEN-Okay. They have a sprinkler system. I assume they’re going to put in a septic system. How could that be? First of all, I never was against this thing, but I asked one thing, to be a good neighbor, and make sure that this field was drained, which I have a problem with my property, which I’m lower than everybody’s house. He spoke to everybody else but me. Now, they did not have $3,000 before to go under the road and hook in. The storm drains come right up Sherman Avenue, and all they would have had to have done was go under that road, hook up to Sherman Avenue, because they brought that out there for Fireman’s Field, because they used to dump all the snow there, and that runoff will go there. They didn’t have the $3,000 to do that. Now, I assume this place, the building is going to cost more than $3,000. All I’m asking is if they would be a good neighbor and do the right thing for us. He told me, he said at the meeting, like I said, that there would be no more water on there, but there is more water, and this year it’s perfectly dry. There was no snow to melt. I’ve got water in my basement. If I don’t pump, I’ve got about two inches of water. So that means that water table is down about six feet. That’s my only comments. I wish you would talk to these gentlemen, see if they can do things. They talked to the other people that have no problems there, and the only thing they were worried about was kids going around. I’m not even worried about that. MR. MAC EWAN-Have you had water problems prior to the development of this field? MR. HANSEN-Yes, always had. The Town of Queensbury helped out by putting storm drains in, and like I said, the storm drains are there. They won’t use it. They don’t want to use it, or what it is. Like he told me at the last meeting, when I was here, it was $3,000 to go under Sherman Avenue to the other side, and they didn’t have the money to do it. Where can they find money to do this project then? Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. Anyone else? JEANETTE MOYER MRS. MOYER-Hello. I’m Jeanette Moyer, and I actually am at 1 Ripley Place. It was photos of my lovely back yard that were shown, and it’s just basically a question. It sounds like the plans have changed since the last time that I saw them. Since when I saw them there was an intended water line and a septic system, and that does not seem to be the case currently. I just wanted to make sure that no more trees were going to be cut down in order to, it looks like the land is cleared, from what I can see, and obviously from what’s going on tonight, but just to double check that what already exists, in terms of that buffer in the back of my property and also to the side of my property which is, you know, at the end of Barber Avenue, stays as it currently is. MR. MAC EWAN-There’s no intentions to cut any further into that buffer. As a matter of fact, we’ll probably ask them to plant more trees. Okay. MRS. MOYER-All right. That’s it. Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. Anyone else? MR. BROWN-Mr. Chairman, I just have one letter for the public comment portion. It’s dated April 15, th from Mr. Hansen, and I just spoke to him. It basically sums up what he just said. So, just to let you know there is one public comment. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Thanks. I’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. NACE-Okay. For the record, I don’t recall conversations regarding the $3,000 to connect to the storm system on Sherman. However, if you’ll recall, we are connected to the storm sewer at the end of Grant Avenue. We’ve got an overflow that goes into that, and what I had said during the previous review was that we will not increase the amount of stormwater runoff, and that with the under drains we’re putting in, over at the low portion of the site, that we will probably end up decreasing or lowering some of the groundwater in there during the wettest part of the year. We obviously can’t solve all the groundwater problems from here on down stream, but we’ve tried to limit and actually improve the runoff conditions for the developed site. Obviously the first winter before the storm system was finished and the inlets were available, we did have some problems, but I believe this spring everything was working and it did its job. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Anything else? MR. NACE-No. Any questions, comments from Board members? MR. RINGER-Well, the last commenter on the trees. No more trees are going to be cut? 28 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/16/02) MR. NACE-No. There will be, we are not running a water line in from Barber Avenue, Ripley Place, but we will be running an electric line, but that can be snaked in between the trees and will not require cutting of any trees. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Are you going to bury it? MR. NACE-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Any other comments? MR. METIVIER-Can I ask one question, Tom? MR. NACE-Yes. MR. METIVIER-It’s unfortunate this spring that it’s been so dry. There’s no real indication of whether or not this is all going to work. What kind of guarantees are you giving us that in, you know, another year, when we have more snowfall, more runoff, that this is going to work, that the stormwater? MR. RINGER-His reputation. MR. NACE-I can only guarantee that we designed it to work and that, you know, your engineer reviewed it. There are no guarantees in life. MR. METIVIER-No, I know, but I guess in the last two rains episodes that we’ve had, which have been considerable amounts of rain, have you noticed anything adverse about it, or has it been working? MR. NACE-I have not. Did you, Jim? Did you notice anything out there in the last? MR. GIRARD-No. As a matter of fact, I went over Saturday, Sunday morning, after these last rain storms, to see how that system was going to function. If you notice in the field we have large what we call swale areas, and those are actually retention areas to hold water in the event we get a severe storm. They were bone dry Saturday morning, or Sunday morning. Where most of the water comes off of our field, it exits underneath the parking lot, ends in this wetland area, and from that area it then proceeds through the tennis courts. It was just about up to the culvert, but not going through the culvert. We’ve had about four and a half inches of rain in the last week. What you have to understand is last spring, when that rapid snow melt happened, those drains were covered. They were not open. That system was not functioning at the time. Now that it’s functioning, it does its job. MR. HUNSINGER-When you say the drains were covered, they weren’t covered by snow, they just weren’t operational yet. Right? MR. NACE-No. They were covered with fabric. There had been no grass. We had just topsoil on the fields, and there was about, probably eight inches of water that came off those fields in the morning, in one morning. I’ve never seen anything like it. The snow got translucent, to the point where the sun could get through to that dark topsoil, and we had eight inches of slush came off those fields in the morning. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else? Did you have something penned down there? MR. RINGER-Yes. On conditions, some of the conditions I’ve put down as we’ve been going through this is that there will be no water or sewer connections to the building. The only lighting will be security lighting, and that will be on the front of the building only. MR. NACE-You could say the west side. MR. RINGER-On the west side. Okay, and that condition number three, all gasoline and other flammable materials will be stored in an approved explosion proof, fire resistant cabinet. We have to do that at the firehouse. We have one, and, you know, they’re expensive. I think we paid $800, something like that for it, but it. MR. MAC EWAN-It pays to have a fireman on the Planning Board, doesn’t it? MR. RINGER-And those were the three conditions that I had. MR. MAC EWAN-Six additional plantings in the southeast corner of the proposed building, to the like species as indicated on the plan. How’s that? MR. RINGER-Okay. Give it to me again so I can write it down. 29 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/16/02) MR. MAC EWAN-Six additional plantings in the southeast corner of the building, to the like species as indicated on the plan. Is that it? Anything else anybody’s got? Okay. Go with it. MR. RINGER-Okay. MS. RADNER-Did you do SEQRA? MR. MAC EWAN-Why would we be doing a SEQRA on a modification? MS. RADNER-Well, you either have to say that you’re finding that you’re not modifying your original. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s in the prepared resolution. MS. RADNER-All right. You had it listed here as a Type Unlisted. MR. MAC EWAN-No. I don’t do the agendas. Had I, I would not have had it on there. MS. RADNER-Sorry. MR. RINGER-But it is in the resolution. MR. BROWN-It’s in the resolution. MR. MAC EWAN-Right. Go with it, Larry. MOTION TO APPROVE MODIFICATION TO SITE PLAN NO. 7-2000 THE MORSE FOUNDATION, Introduced by Larry Ringer who moved for its adoption, seconded by Catherine LaBombard: WHEREAS, an application has been made to this Board for the following: Site Plan No. 7-2000 Applicant: The Morse Foundation Type: Unlisted Property Owner: Same Agent: Nace Engineering MODIFICATION Zone: SFR-1A Location: Sherman Avenue Applicant proposes the addition of a maintenance building on the site of the Glens Falls High School Athletic Fields. Any modification to an approved site plan requires Planning Board review and approval. Tax Map No. 302.18-2-61.1 / 115.-1-1.31 Lot size: 38.74 acres Section: 179-20 Public Hearing: April 16, 2002 WHEREAS, the application was received on 3/27/02; and WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation and inclusive of all newly received information, not included in this listing as of 4/12/02: 4/16 Staff Notes 4/9 Notice of Public Hearing 4/4 Meeting Notice WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter 179, Zoning Ordinance, Section 179-103 of the Code of the Town of Queensbury a public hearing was advertised and was held on April 16, 2002; 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 WHEREAS, approval of the application means that the applicant can now apply for a Building Permit unless the lands are Adirondack Park Jurisdictional or other approvals are necessary. 30 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/16/02) NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that We find the following: The application for Modification is hereby approved as per resolution prepared by Staff and is subject to the following conditions: 1. There will be no water or sewer connections to the building, and 2. The only lighting will be security lighting on the west side of the building only, and 3. All gasoline and other flammable material will be stored in an approved explosion proof, fire resistant cabinet, and 4. Six (6) added plantings to the southeast corner of the building, as to the like species on the plan, and 5. All conditions are to be noted on the final approved plans submitted for the Zoning Administrator’s signature in a form to read as follows: Plans have been approved under authority of a resolution adopted 4/16/02 by the Planning Board of the Town of Queensbury, New York with the following conditions: a. Duly adopted this 16 day of April, 2002, by the following vote: th AYES: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set. MR. NACE-Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Any other business? MR. RINGER-Can we make a note what time we’re adjourning so Mr. Strough, so Mr. Vollaro can see the time that we’re adjourning and make that part of the record? MR. MAC EWAN-I’ve got two things. Next Thursday night there’s a teleconference, ACC, on Conflict of Interest. I would encourage anyone who can go to go to it. Just e-mail Pam Whiting, if you would, and let her know you want to attend it. It starts at 6:30 at the Scoville Learning Center. The other thing is, I don’t know if anybody watched the news last night Fox Channel 23 News, on our cell tower at the Ramada Inn? MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes. I knew I had something. I saw it. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s coming back next month. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes, and Dennis wouldn’t go on camera. MR. HUNSINGER-What’s the issue? MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, the issue is the Planning Staff, you must have told them they had to take it down, somebody told them. MR. MAC EWAN-As it stands now, they’re in violation of the site plan approval. MRS. LA BOMBARD-But they took the flag down, the flag is down. MR. MAC EWAN-Right. MRS. LA BOMBARD-But it hadn’t been down, but who told them to take the flag down? ROGER BOOR MR. BOOR-It’s a compliance issue for a mortgage and a sale (lost words). MR. MAC EWAN-Right, and compliance with their approvals, and they’re not in compliance by having the flag on display. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, I know that, but the flag has been there for six months. How come all of a sudden it came down? 31 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/16/02) MR. MAC EWAN-They went to get refinancing. MRS. LA BOMBARD-I didn’t hear you say that, Roger. I’m sorry. Okay. So anyway. MS. RADNER-I’m glad to hear that explanation, because we were wondering who told them and where it came from, too. MR. MAC EWAN-It came from a visit by Code Enforcement. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes. Okay. So then they interviewed somebody sitting in a nice upholstered chair in the, I think in the waiting room of the Ramada, and he said it was, as far as he was concerned, it was the most beautiful flag he’d ever seen, and that he hopes that the Planning Board will reconsider their modification and let them keep the flag up. MR. MAC EWAN-So they’ll be in here next month. That’s all I had. Anybody got anything else? MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes. I have something. On Saturday, May 18, Marilyn Ryba has scheduled a th workshop for the Open Space Committee, and unfortunately, I will be in Virginia at my son’s graduation, but I would encourage any of you to sign up. I think it’s going to be a wonderful workshop. She’s put an awful lot of effort into it and they’re hoping that they can, she’ll have facilitators. They’ll put the public in groups of I think eight, and hopefully they’ll get a lot of, the Committee will get a lot of good feedback on where our open space is going, and what’s going to happen in the future. So think about attending. It’s only from eight until noon on that Saturday. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Anything else? Okay. We’re adjourned. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Craig MacEwan, Chairman 32