Loading...
2002-01-22 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/22/02) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 22, 2002 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT CRAIG MAC EWAN, CHAIRMAN ROBERT VOLLARO CHRIS HUNSINGER ANTHONY METIVIER LARRY RINGER JOHN STROUGH RICHARD SANFORD, ALTERNATE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR-CRAIG BROWN TOWN COUNSEL-MILLER, MANNIX, SCHACHNER & HAFNER-CATHI RADNER STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI NEW BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 1-2002 JOSEPH & NANCY POLONSKY PROPERTY OWNER: SAME AGENT: CURTIS DYBAS ZONE: WR-1A LOCATION: 98 BAY PARKWAY, ASSEMBLY POINT APPLICANT PROPOSES REMOVAL OF EXISTING PEAKED ROOF(15’9” X 46’) AND CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW SUNDECK/ROOF (15’ X 35’8”). A NEW STAIRWAY WILL PROVIDE ACCESS TO THE SUNDECK. 581 SQUARE FEET INCLUDES STAIR AND ROOF. CONSTRUCTION OF A COVERED DOCK REQUIRES SITE PLAN REVIEW. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 1-2002 LGPC PERMIT NO. 5234-40-01 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 1/9/02 TAX MAP NO. 9-1-18 LOT SIZE: 0.23 ACRES SECTION 179-16, E CURTIS DYBAS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 1-2002, Joseph & Nancy Polonsky, Meeting Date: January 22, 2002 “Project Description: Applicant proposes removal of a peaked roof boathouse structure and construction of a flat roof sundeck. 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 project requires an Area Variance due to the deficiency with the side setback requirement (resolution attached). 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 appears to be consistent with 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 project does not appear to present any significant traffic hazards or be otherwise detrimental to the health, safety or welfare of the neighborhood. 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? 1 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/22/02) The project may present a visual impact on these features, however, it is not anticipated that such impacts will be significantly adverse. 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 project appears to be consistent with similar uses along the shore in this area. The adequacy and arrangement of vehicular traffic access and circulation, including intersections, road widths, pavement surfaces, dividers and traffic controls. No increase in traffic or additional roadways are anticipated with this project. The location, arrangement, appearance and sufficiency of off-street parking and loading. No additional parking areas are anticipated with this project. The adequacy and arrangement of pedestrian traffic access and circulation, walkway structures, control of intersections with vehicular traffic and overall pedestrian convenience. No adverse impacts on pedestrian traffic are anticipated with this project. The adequacy of stormwater drainage facilities. No additional stormwater facilities are necessary for this project. The adequacy of water supply and sewage disposal facilities. No impacts on the water and sanitary sewer systems are anticipated with this project. 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 and/or screening is proposed with this project. The adequacy of fire lanes and other emergency zones and the provision of fire hydrants. The fire lanes and emergency zones should not be affected by this project. The adequacy and impact of structures, roadways and landscaping in areas with susceptibility to ponding, flooding and/or erosion. This project does not appear to present any adverse impacts with regards to ponding, flooding or erosion. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): AV 1-2002: 1/16/02, Sideline setback relief for new sundeck structure. Approved. AV 86-2001: 11/15/01, Demolition of garage and construct 528 sq. ft. two-car garage. AV 14-2000: 2/23/00, Expansion of deck and setback relief sought. BP 98-380: 10/13/99, Temporary c/o; 2670 sq. ft. Single family dwelling. BP 98-379: 7/1/98, Demolition of structure. AV 5-1998: 2/18/98, Setbacks and FAR relief. AV 55-1995: 8/23/95, Demolition of 2000 sq. ft. house and replace with a 2500 sq. ft. house, setback relief (second 1 year extension denied 8/23/97). Staff comments: The project, replacement of a peaked roof boathouse with a flat roofed boathouse/sundeck does not appear to be consistent with the character with the neighborhood. Adjoining properties have boathouses similar to the existing peaked roof boathouse, however, a site inspection revealed that neither adjoining property maintained such a sundeck/boathouse nor could a sundeck/boathouse be observed along the shoreline from the subject property. The proposed structure is approximately 12.5 feet above the Mean High Water Mark of Lake George and should not present a significant adverse visual impact on surrounding properties or when viewed from the lake. SEQR Status: 2 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/22/02) Type Unlisted” MR. MAC EWAN-Procedurally, is this an Unlisted or a Type II? Most things we do up there are Type II. I was just curious. MR. BROWN-I think it’s Unlisted, but I’ll check. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Anybody here representing the applicant? MR. DYBAS-My name is Curtis Dybas, and I’m representing Joseph and Nancy Polonsky. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Tell us a little bit about the proposed project, please. MR. DYBAS-The existing boathouse roof has been there for a good number of years, and has deteriorated and will have to be replaced, and in looking at replacing the existing roof, the client has decided that they would like to have a sundeck roof over the existing dock. The existing dock will remain in its configuration. The sundeck/roof will be smaller than the existing roof that is there now. We’re opening up some of the rear portion of the dock. The existing roof is approximately 12 feet high to the peak. The new sundeck railing would be 12 foot 10 above mean high water level. We have been through the, from the notes as you’ll see we’ve done the Zoning Board, as far as the setback requirement, because the existing roof does not comply with the current 20 feet, and we had a variance for that last week. I think the notes pretty much cover the extent of the project. It’s fairly straightforward. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. John, we’ll start with you. MR. STROUGH-Good evening. MR. DYBAS-Good evening. MR. STROUGH-I was very glad to see that you’ve restricted the height to 12 foot 10 inches above the mean high water level when you could have gone up to 14, as many applicants do. So, I did appreciate that burden that you imposed upon yourself. Now we went up there for a site visit, and it doesn’t appear to be obstructing anybody’s view, whether you put a sundeck on there or not. So I, personally, couldn’t see any problems with it, and so that’s all the questions I have, Mr. Chairman. MR. MAC EWAN-Rich? MR. SANFORD-Yes, just a question for Staff, if I could. In the past, when we’ve looked at these covered sundecks or boathouses that have a sundeck on them, were there some issues regarding staircases and whether they should be or can be located from the main land to the sundeck, or should they start at the dock and go up? Have there been any issues like this? MR. BROWN-Historically, the County Planning Board discourages those land bridges, what the County refers to. MR. SANFORD-Right. MR. BROWN-To my recollection , this Board doesn’t have an issue with the land bridge from the land to the sundeck. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s usually a County thing. It’s a pet peeve of the County. MR. SANFORD-Okay, and in this case, actually, isn’t there sort of steps down to get to the dock and then, so there wouldn’t be that much of a. MR. DYBAS-The grade in the rear of the boathouse is approximately four feet above the existing dock level, and the stair up is approximately four feet up to the sundeck, and basically there’s a feeling that you’re going to go down to go up eight feet. MR. SANFORD-It doesn’t make sense. MR. DYBAS-And the visual impact is really pretty much the same. MR. SANFORD-I have nothing really further except that I think you did a very nice job with your presentation material. I appreciate that. MR. DYBAS-Thank you. 3 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/22/02) MR. MAC EWAN-Chris? MR. HUNSINGER-Really the main question I had Richard just asked, and that was regarding the land bridge and whether or not this had gone to the County for review. Other than that, I’m all set. MR. MAC EWAN-Bob? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I guess we all have the same question. Maybe my fellow Planning Board members can tell me. Did we have a review by County at all? I didn’t see it. MR. RINGER-I don’t think County had a quorum last month because most of our stuff came back that they didn’t have a quorum, so there was no action taken. MR. VOLLARO-I had absolutely no question with the land bridge at all. I never do. The County does, but I, most of the time, don’t. I’ve got to say this is one of the better applications I’ve ever seen on a dock. I think the presentation material is clear. You’ve done a nice job of coming up from 320.20 from the mean high water mark. Drawings are absolutely clear and understandable. Maybe I ought to keep this and pass it on for people who are going to do the same thing. That’s it. Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Larry? MR. RINGER-I have nothing. MR. MAC EWAN-Tony? MR. METIVIER-I have no further comment. MR. BROWN-Was there a question about the County action? MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. What happened with the County? They didn’t have a quorum this month? MR. BROWN-No quorum, no action. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. On numerous applications, I’m guessing. Right? MR. BROWN-All the applications. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Anything else you wanted to add, Mr. Dybas? MR. DYBAS-Nothing. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. We have a public hearing scheduled tonight. Does anyone want to comment on this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MAC EWAN-We need to do a SEQRA, please, and they submitted a Long Form. MR. VOLLARO-No, Short. I’ve got a Short. MR. MAC EWAN-I’ve got a Long in mine. It says Full. MR. STROUGH-It’s Unlisted. You have the option of doing Long or Short. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Do the Short one. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 1-2002, Introduced by Chris Hunsinger who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Strough: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: JOSEPH & NANCY POLONSKY, and 4 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/22/02) WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. No Federal agency appears to be involved. 2. The following agencies are involved: NONE 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury. 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant. 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law. Duly adopted this 22 day of January, 2002, by the following vote: nd AYES: Mr. Strough, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Metivier, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE MR. MAC EWAN-Would someone like to introduce a motion, please. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 1-2002 JOSEPH & NANCY POLONSKY, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Anthony Metivier: WHEREAS, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of Site Plan No. 1-2002, Joseph & Nancy Polonsky, for removal of existing peaked roof (15’9” x 46’) and construction of a new sundeck/roof (15’ x35’8”). A new stairway will provide access to the sundeck. 581 sq. ft. includes stair and roof. Construction of a Covered Dock requires Site Plan Review. Cross Reference: AV 1-2002, LGPC Permit No. 5234-40-01, Tax Map No. 9-1-18, Lot size: 0.23 ac., Section: 179-16 E, and; WHEREAS, the application was received 12/26/01; and WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation and inclusive of all newly received information, not included in this listing as of 1/18/02: 1/22/02 Staff Notes 1/16/02 ZBA Resolution 1/15/02 Notice of Public Hearing 1/9/02 Warren Co. Planning Bd. 1/2/02 Meeting Notice WHEREAS, public hearing was held on 1/22/02 concerning the above project; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the Site Plan requirements of the Code of the Town Queensbury (Zoning); and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and WHEREAS, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; and/or if application is a modification, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered; and the proposed modification(s) do not result in any new or significantly different environmental impacts, and, therefore, no further SEQRA review is necessary; and 5 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/22/02) 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 approval are necessary. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that The application is approved as per resolution prepared by Staff. Duly adopted this 22nd day of January, 2002, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Metivier, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Strough, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set. Good luck. MR. DYBAS-Thank you. SUBDIVISION NO. 2-2002 PRELIMINARY STAGE TYPE: UNLISTED JAMES MARTO, MELANIE SCHWAB PROPERTY OWNER: MELANIE SCHWAB ZONE: SR-1A LOCATION: 573 WEST MOUNTAIN ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF A 2.84 +/- ACRE PARCEL INTO TWO LOTS OF 1.645 AC. AND 1.056 ACRES. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 3-2002 APA, DEC WETLANDS TAX MAP NO. 123-1-9 LOT SIZE: 2.84 AC. SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGS JAMES MARTO & MELANIE SCHWAB, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Subdivision 2-2002, Preliminary Stage, James Marto, Melanie Schwab, Meeting Date: January 22, 2002 “Project Description: Applicant proposes a two lot subdivision originating from a 2.7 acre parcel. The property is zoned Suburban Residential, SR-1A with a minimum lot size requirement of 1 acre. Study of plat: Lot arrangement: The proposed subdivision would create one building lot. The lot would not have the required lot width per §179-30,C. and therefore an Area Variance is required for such relief (ZBA resolution dated 1/16/02 attached). Topography: The applicant has requested a waiver from the requirement to show existing and proposed contours. Water supply Sewage Disposal: The proposed lots have access to the municipal water system and will be serviced by on site sanitary disposal systems. Drainage: The applicant has requested a waiver from the requirement to show existing and proposed site grading. Lot sizes: Lot 1 is proposed at 1.056 acres. Lot 2 is proposed at 1.645 acres. Future development: No future development is outlined in this request. State Environmental Quality Review Act: The Board should determine if the subdivision is significant enough to require additional environmental review. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): Area Variance 3-2002: 1/16/02, Relief for less than the required lot width, Approved Staff comments: The proposed subdivision would create an additional building lot on West Mountain Road. Such a new lot is required, per §179-30, C.; to have two times the permitted lot width as the proposed lot would front on a local arterial road. The intent of such a requirement is to limit, as much as possible, the number of access point onto arterial and collector roads. While relief from such a dimensional requirement lies with the 6 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/22/02) Zoning Board of Appeals, the final approval of such a subdivision layout lies with this Board. It appears as though the alternative of a shared driveway exists and is relatively feasible. Additionally, there appear to be wetlands to the rear (West) of the site. The applicant has been instructed to furnish information regarding such wetlands. Such information is necessary to insure the accuracy of the density calculation. SEQR Status: Type: Unlisted” MR. MAC EWAN-Just for clarification, before we go on, if we don’t have the wetlands delineated, we don’t know if the property can handle the density of the proposed action. Is that not correct? MR. BROWN-It’s impossible to do an accurate density calculation without an accurate location of the wetlands. That’s correct. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay, and the best way to achieve that is through what mechanism? MR. BROWN-Delineation and location by a surveyor. That’s my opinion. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Good evening. MR. MARTO-Good evening. MR. MAC EWAN-Can I get you to identify yourselves for the record, please. MR. MARTO-James Marto, agent. MS. SCHWAB-Melanie Schwab. MR. MAC EWAN-Can you tell us a little bit about your proposed action? MR. MARTO-Basically, we’re looking to just simply subdivide the land in accordance with all the regulations and requirements, for the purpose of sale. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Do you understand our conversation regarding the wetlands and delineating the wetlands? MR. MARTO-Yes. You should have copies of the National Wetlands Inventory from the US Department of Interior. MR. MAC EWAN-When did you submit those? MR. MARTO-You should have had them on your desk. They were submitted early this evening. MR. MAC EWAN-Early this evening. Okay. Typically what we do is we do not review any new information that’s been submitted the night of a meeting. So we’re probably going to table, I can tell you we’re going to have to table this application tonight, along with probably a couple of others, give us time to review the information that was submitted to see if that is what the Staff is looking for. A quick look at the map, I’m not 100% sure that’s what they’re looking for. I think what we’re looking for is a surveyed map. MR. MARTO-Well, the reason why I brought this in is I went to the National Wetlands Inventory and the map that is, the copies that Craig is looking at right now, shows that the reason why there was no wetlands noted on our survey is because there’s no wetlands on our property, and this map indicates that. As a matter of fact, what the attachment on those maps are the property of codes, and they were provided for me by Dean Long, who’s the Director of Environmental Planning for the LA Group, and we went over this hours, and he clearly stated that that particular wetland that’s being mentioned, near our property, is on our neighbor’s property, and that wetland has been excavated, which basically means that is manmade, okay, and that particular wetland, and that’s the only manmade wetland in that area, and the only person who has a manmade wetland is our neighbor, and that’s on his property. That’s why there was no showing of any kind of wetland on our survey. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Are there any other outstanding issues, Craig, that we should be aware of, as far as needing information? MR. BROWN-I don’t believe so, no. MR. MAC EWAN-Just that, and you’ll need time to review that and make sure it’s what we’re looking for? 7 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/22/02) MR. BROWN-Yes. I took a quick look at it just now, and it’s information with regards to the National Wetlands Inventory, not the DEC wetlands, which is the information that we have here at the Town, of record, that shows there may be some wetlands, there appear to be wetlands in that western portion of the property. Typically what you get, if you don’t have wetlands on the property, you get a, not so much a nonjurisdictional letter, but confirmation from any involved or interested agency that says we don’t have any wetlands on this property, we don’t have any concern with it. MR. MAC EWAN-And we haven’t received that as of yet? MR. BROWN-It’s not in with this information. These are just copies of maps. I’m not sure where the subject property is on here. It’s not shown, but I think I know where it is, and there’s no correspondence from anybody that’s made any determinations. It’s just the copies of the map. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. We will require that, though. MR. BROWN-If you say so. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Anything else you wanted to add? MR. MARTO-That’s it. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Rich, we’ll start with you. MR. SANFORD-I don’t have any questions. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Chris? MR. HUNSINGER-I just had a question of the applicant. There’s comments from the Staff regarding a shared driveway, and the potential for a shared driveway, and I wanted to see what your feeling was on that. MR. MARTO-Well, we had a meeting last week with the variance board, and the main reason why we were there last week is simply because it’s a pre-existing driveway, it’s been there, and the driveway is right in front of our house, okay. Tantamount concern here is the children. We have two children that will be playing in front of the house, and the driveway is approximately 135 feet long, and it’s a tree lined drive, and the thing is is that what our concern is that if we use a shared driveway, the kids are going to know when we’re going to be coming and going. They’re not going to know when our neighbor, if there is going to be a neighbor, is coming and going. We have two cars. When the kids grow up there’s going to be two more cars. That’s four. Whoever buys the property, they’re going to have cars, there’s six, if they have kids, possibly eight. We have eight cars coming in and out of that driveway. Our main concern is the safety of the children. That is the concern, and when we had our meeting last week, Mr. Signorelli, who’s our neighbor, he said if he was to buy the property, and annex it to his lot, he would have over 600 foot of road frontage, which would be more than adequate to accommodate two separate driveways if he wanted to, but that was our concern over a shared driveway is just simply the safety of the children. I mean, we can go on the other points and say, well, okay, potential civil liabilities or who knows, but as far as maintenance, as far as, you know, there’s a lot of other issues that to be discussed, but our main concern is the safety of the children, because the driveway is right in front of our house. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. You understand the requirement, though, the three hundred foot requirement? MR. MARTO-Yes, I did. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. MARTO-That’s why we brought that up to the variance board, and the discussion, and they addressed that same issue in the opening comments, and what I’m telling you right now is what I told them. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. MARTO-And they took that into consideration, and they said they are a Board that has to adhere to guidelines, but they also said, within reason, they’re able to go ahead and give some type of lenience in certain situations. The bottom line we’re subdividing our property because we’re kind of forced to do it. We had no intention on doing it. It’s just that we’re in the middle of a construction project, and we have a contractor who didn’t pay his creditors. So, this is kind of the situation we’re in, and that’s also part of the issue, because the question was raised, why are we doing this in the first place, and that was the response I gave them. MR. HUNSINGER-We have reviewed a lot of projects where there was a common driveway between two lots, and the driveway was, you know, on the edge of one of the lots, or even straddled the two lots, and then branched off to either property, and that has been, I wouldn’t say the norm, but it has been used in the past 8 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/22/02) by other applicants, and so I mean, it’s really not a new concept or a new idea for us to approve a shared driveway. MR. MARTO-It would be, the pre-existing driveway also has some blacktop to it, too, and it’s a tree lined driveway. MR. HUNSINGER-Right, no, I understand. MR. MARTO-Again, we’re talking a cost. We’re talking a lot of money here to do this, I mean, to entertain the idea of what they’re doing. Can it be done? Absolutely. Can we afford to do it? Because basically now we’re going to have to remove this one and to build a new one. I mean, we’re looking at $40,000, and we don’t have it. I mean, yes, it can be done, but it can’t be done by us. I mean, I’m just being forthright here, being honest. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. MARTO-And the Board, when we met with them yesterday, they did say, well, it is a pre-existing driveway. It’s not something that was just recently put in there, during construction. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. MARTO-They said, well, since it is pre-existing, and that’s, it’s already fixed, and it was there, and it hasn’t been, it’s not something that was created to build the house or to renovate the house, the driveway should stay where it is. It’s a pre-existing driveway. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Bob? MR. VOLLARO-In looking at this, I just scaled this off. There’s 215 feet between the proposed drive and the drive you’ve got now, and then you’ve got 667 feet to the center of Fuller Road. It seems to me that that’s, in my view, that’s perfectly acceptable. I don’t see any problem with the two drives. So I don’t know whether I would push the issue of a single drive here. If it was practical, perhaps, but I see that this one drive, if we were to move it over, and do away with the other drive, I kind of think it would slice between properties and there would be a problem with the property line there. So I don’t have really any problem with the way that’s drawn now. I did take a look, just briefly on a map that I have home, which doesn’t bear too much on this, but I looked at where Clendon Brook lays, about 1300 feet west of this property, and this property goes back 466 feet at its longest depth, so, with the Brook being that far behind, I didn’t know just how much wetland would be up close to this property line, but that doesn’t mean that it’s not there. It’s just that I, the map that I looked at doesn’t really show it, and so that’s really all I have, since I think we’re going to table this issue tonight, I didn’t have anymore comments than that. MR. MAC EWAN-Larry? MR. RINGER-After getting Staff notes last week, I went up and took another look at the place again today, and I don’t have any difficulty with another driveway either, because it is going to be significantly away from the other driveway, and Signorelli’s driveway, next to the house, driveway is way north of that, also. When you made those notes, Craig, I don’t know if you did those notes or not, but your intention was to move the driveway that’s there to the center of the two lots or to? I had difficulty with your notes. MR. BROWN-Yes, that was the thought. I mean, that’s a feasible alternative. MR. RINGER-Okay. Because when you said easily, I was thinking well you were going to make the second lot go all the way over to that other driveway. So, you were thinking of actually him moving. I wouldn’t call that easily. That’s why I was just trying to determine your notes here, but in any event, I don’t have any difficulty with the two driveways. MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it? MR. RINGER-That’s it. I didn’t have anything else. MR. MAC EWAN-Tony? MR. METIVIER-I have nothing further on this. 9 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/22/02) MR. MAC EWAN-John? MR. STROUGH-I was intrigued by what I read in the Zoning Board motion. It said that this is not a situation of your own making, and it went on to say there’s no intention of you dividing or prior intentions of you dividing these lots, but based upon life and circumstances, you’ve become the victims. MS. SCHWAB-Well, they said that. That was what their opinion was. MR. STROUGH-But in reaction to what? MS. SCHWAB-We hired a contractor a year and a half ago. He started the project, and failed to pay our purveyors. So therefore now we’re in legal issues. It’s been almost two years, at this point, that we’ve been faced with debt and how we were going to finish this house and get into it within a reasonable amount of time, and unfortunately, we decided that we should probably subdivide, and in order to do that, we’re here in front of you. We also feel that this is going to enable us to finish our project, with the sale of the property, and for us, you know, the sooner the better. We have, you know, financially drained our funds. MR. STROUGH-Okay. I see. Thanks. Now originally that was, what, a one story ranch? MS. SCHWAB-Yes. MR. STROUGH-And then the second story was added? MS. SCHWAB-Well, no there was an existing upstairs, but it was so shallow that it was about a five foot ceiling. MR. MARTO-It wouldn’t pass Code. MS. SCHWAB-It would have been more like an attic. MR. STROUGH-Yes, well, that’s fine. I just was looking at the history of the place. MS. SCHWAB-Yes. So we decided to take that existing roof off, which had to be done anyway, and put an upstairs, which is, you know, where we’re at at this point. MR. STROUGH-And then the siding didn’t get completed. MS. SCHWAB-Right. MR. STROUGH-And probably other things as well. It’s obvious. The siding that did get completed looks nice. MS. SCHWAB-Well, that was existing. We’re hoping to have it all match some day. MR. STROUGH-Yes, well, the brown is nice. Okay, and just out of curiosity, and since it’s your property, the, in back, it looks like there used to be a dam there, and maybe a manmade pond at one time, and I think you alluded to that. MS. SCHWAB-Yes. MR. MARTO-Well, Mr. Signorelli, basically what, and I think it’s a great idea, I mean, I think it adds so much to the property, or just actually add so much to the view, add a lot to his property, but add a lot to our view, and what he’s been doing is that primarily it seems like it’s a runoff. I was talking to Mr. Long here, and it’s a seasonal kind of a wetland, which basically means like in the spring, during the spring and like the latter part of spring, earlier summer, everything starts to melt and the water fills up, but when you get to mid-summer, it starts draining because of the mud and the sediment that won’t hold the water in. So what Tony’s been doing is that he’s been kind of going down with a tractor and creating a bank, creating a pond, basically. MR. STROUGH-The pond, though, looks like it’s on your property. MR. MARTO-I know, but it’s not. What it does is that, our property, if you have the survey maps in front of you, kind of tapers off on an angle, and our property line literally goes like right around the edge of that pond he’s creating. MS. SCHWAB-Tony owns the pond. MR. MARTO-Right. He owns the land underneath the water. 10 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/22/02) MR. STROUGH-Yes, well, I understand the intermittent streams. There’s lots of those. I live on West Mountain as well, just down the road from you people. MR. MARTO-Right. MR. STROUGH-Okay. Well, that’s all the questions I have, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. I’ll open up the public hearing. Does anyone want to comment on this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. MAC EWAN-I think what we’ll do is we’ll leave the public hearing open. We are going to table this for tonight, so that we can get confirmation from DEC regarding the wetlands and what your setbacks are, and we’ll table it until next month, I think is what we’ll do, and that way we can get that squared away and get you folks on your way, I think. All right. MR. MARTO-What would you need from me? MR. MAC EWAN-I really don’t know, at this point. I think it would just be a matter of us contacting DEC, isn’t it? MR. BROWN-No, that’s the applicant’s responsibility. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. If you see Staff or talk to Craig tomorrow, he’ll tell you who you need to contact. Basically what we’re looking for is a jurisdictional letter, signoff acknowledging that his property abuts wetlands or it doesn’t. It’s that simple. MR. BROWN-If it does, to come out and delineate it, so that it can be located. If it doesn’t, just confirmation of that fact. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay, and that would be the Warrensburg office. Does someone want to introduce a motion, please. MOTION TO TABLE PRELIMINARY STAGE, SUBDIVISION NO. 2-2002, JAMES MARTO & MELANIE SCHWAB, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Larry Ringer: To table this application until the Department of Environmental Conservation supplies information on the possible location of wetlands on this property. Tabled until the 19 of February. th Duly adopted this 22nd day of January, 2002, by the following vote: MR. VOLLARO-Now I have here that no specific date for this application has been set until the DEC supplies the above information. We can table it until next month. I just don’t know that they’ll have all the information ready by that time. MR. MAC EWAN-I would prefer to table it until the first regular meeting of next month. That way he’ll know the deadline date to get submissions to. MR. MARTO-I don’t know when the first meeting is of next month. MR. VOLLARO-The 12, I believe it is. th MR. BROWN-It’s the 19. th MR. VOLLARO-Is it the 19? Okay. Then the motion will contain a date for reviewing this application of th the 19 of February. th AYES: Mr. Ringer, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Strough, Mr. Metivier, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE MR. MAC EWAN-Mr. Marto, if you contact Craig’s office tomorrow, he’ll be able to give you the information, who you need to contact with DEC in Warrensburg, and he’ll also let you know what the deadline date is to get your stuff in to us so we can guarantee that you’ll be on the agenda for next month. MR. MARTO-Okay. 11 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/22/02) MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Good luck. MR. RINGER-Craig, one other thing on this. His application is only for Preliminary. He might want to do a Final application at the same time, and we could do Preliminary and Final in the same day. MR. BROWN-Right. That was going to be a question for you. They’ve started the Final application. We suggested that until the Preliminary was complete, and approved, that we not do Preliminary and Final, basically because of this wetlands issue, but I think if we get this wetland stuff together, if you’d be comfortable entertaining Final at the same time. MR. MAC EWAN-We can do them both, yes, we can do them both in one night. MR. RINGER-It’s just that there’s no Final here. So make sure that we have an application for the Final, to save you a couple of months. MR. BROWN-Yes, it’s started. MR. MAC EWAN-And it’s important to get that confirmation from DEC. MR. MARTO-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. All right. Good luck. MR. MARTO-Thanks. SITE PLAN NO. 5-2002 TYPE: UNLISTED BRIAN & ELIZABETH NELSON OF GF REFRIGERATION & HEATING WORKS, LLC PROPERTY OWNER: U.J. LIMITED PARTNERSHIP ZONE: LI-1A LOCATION: 475 CORINTH ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO UTILIZE A PORTION OF EXISTING VACANT BUILDING FOR OFFICE (800 SQ. FT.) AND WAREHOUSE (4200 SQ. FT.) FOR GF REFRIGERATION & HEATING WORKS. ALLLAND USES IN THE LI-1A DISTRICT REQUIRE SITE PLAN REVIEW. CROSS REFERENCE: VAR. 474, VAR. 824, VAR. 910, VAR. 998, USE VAR. 94-1996, SP 69-96 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 1/9/02 TAX MAP NO. 147-1-1.1 LOT SIZE: 1.28 ACRES SECTION: 179-26 ELIZABETH NELSON, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 5-2002, Brian & Elizabeth Nelson of GF Refrigeration & Heating Works, LLC Meeting Date: January 22, 2002 “Project Description: The applicant is occupying 4,200 sq. ft. in an existing building for office and warehouse uses. Applicants have relocated an established Refrigeration and Heating business. All land uses in the Light Industrial district require site plan review. 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 project appears to be consistent with the allowable uses for the Light Industrial 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 project appears to utilize only a portion of the existing structure. Minimal, if any impacts on public services are anticipated with this action. 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 project does not appear to present significant adverse impacts on the health, safety or general welfare of the neighborhood. 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, 12 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/22/02) 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 project will have minimal visual impacts on these issues, as the majority of the activity is proposed to take place inside an existing structure. No outside storage, other than company vehicles, is proposed. 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. No new buildings are proposed with this project. The applicant has requested a waiver from the requirement for a lighting plan. The adequacy and arrangement of vehicular traffic access and circulation, including intersections, road widths, pavement surfaces, dividers and traffic controls. No new access drives are proposed with this project. The existing drives on site appear to be marginal at best. The location, arrangement, appearance and sufficiency of off-street parking and loading. The proposed plan depicts 9 parking spaces. The Off Street Parking and Loading regulations require 9 spaces. There appears to be ample room for additional spaces, if needed. The adequacy and arrangement of pedestrian traffic access and circulation, walkway structures, control of intersections with vehicular traffic and overall pedestrian convenience. Minimal pedestrian traffic is anticipated on this site. The adequacy of stormwater drainage facilities. The applicant has requested a waiver from the requirement for a stormwater management plan. The adequacy of water supply and sewage disposal facilities. The site is serviced by the municipal water system. The location and adequacy of the on-site sanitary system in unclear. 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 applicant has requested a waiver from the requirement for a landscaping plan. The adequacy of fire lanes and other emergency zones and the provision of fire hydrants. The project appears to provide adequate emergency accessibility. The adequacy and impact of structures, roadways and landscaping in areas with susceptibility to ponding, flooding and/or erosion. With no stormwater management plan and no grading plan it is difficult to address this issue. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): This parcel has a lengthy history of variance applications. The most recent applications were approved in 1996; Use Variance 94-96 and Site Plan 69-96. Both applications were approved for the operation of North Country Cycle Sales; a motorcycle, snowmobile, small engine repair shop. Such uses are not allowed in the Light Industrial Zone. No certificate of occupancy has been issued for the current use of the building. The applicant was informed that occupancy of the space prior to approval was not allowed. Staff comments: Staff recommends consideration be given to additional landscaping on the site. The proposed use would recycle a vacant unused building; therefore, attention should be given to recycling the site as well. A careful review of the stormwater management on the site might focus on the placement and containment of the fuel oil delivery trucks proposed to be associated with this type of use. It is unclear, without confirmation from a professional engineer, if the current stormwater control measures, if any, are adequate. Staff recommends consideration be given to gaining additional information regarding the 13 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/22/02) stormwater conditions on the site as well as what measures may be proposed for the planned use in the event of a leak or spill. SEQR Status: Unlisted” MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening. Would you identify yourself for the record, please. MRS. NELSON-Elizabeth Nelson. MR. MAC EWAN-Could you tell us a little bit about your project, please. MRS. NELSON-We’re planning on using the existing building as is, with some minor interior changes. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Anything else? MRS. NELSON-No, that’s it. MR. MAC EWAN-Chris, we’ll start with you. MR. HUNSINGER-I had a couple of questions. Are you in the building now, currently? MRS. NELSON-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay, and there was no Certificate of Occupancy issued, according to Staff notes. There also were comments here about the sanitary sewer system. Do you know the location and size of the septic? MRS. NELSON-I’m not positive, but we had IBS come out. For the building we’re in, do you know which building we’re in? There’s two buildings. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, the old Tri County Kitchen and Cabinet building, the main building. MRS. NELSON-Right. It’s not the cycle shop. MR. MAC EWAN-Right. MRS. NELSON-Right. If you’re looking at the building from the road, it’s, there’s some sort of septic leach thing, behind the front building, and there’s a grassy area in there. That’s where we’ve located it. MR. HUNSINGER-I really didn’t have any other questions. I was a little concerned about the lack of any stormwater management plan, but understanding it’s an existing structure, you know, that concern is really pretty minimal. MR. MAC EWAN-Bob? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I’ve got some comments. I just want to address her comment. The area behind there doesn’t look sufficient to me, just taking a quick look at it. You need almost, if you’ve got regular laterals out there for leachfields, you’d need around 60 feet, and you really don’t have that. You’re only about somewhere short of 60, about 50 feet. So I don’t know whether a septic will fit right in behind the building that’s vacant now. You have a vacant building, if you’re standing in front of your building, the building you want to occupy is on your right. MRS. NELSON-Do you want me to show you? MR. MAC EWAN-The parking lot we pulled into, Bob. MRS. NELSON-There’s like an existing tank or something. I don’t know what he called it. MR. VOLLARO-All right. Just looking at the back of the property here. MRS. NELSON-It’s not in the way back. It’s kind of like in the grassy area alongside the building. Is that what you’re saying, in the way, way back? MR. VOLLARO-If it’s alongside either of those front buildings, then it seems to me that that’s what you’re using for a gravel driveway. There looks like almost a capability for an in and an out on that driveway. MRS. NELSON-It’s not in the driveway. MR. VOLLARO-It’s not in the driveway. 14 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/22/02) MRS. NELSON-There’s a manhole cover, you can see it. I don’t know if it says sewer on it, but there’s definitely a cover. MR. VOLLARO-Mr. Chairman, why doesn’t she come up and point out where she thinks it is on this drawing, so that I have a feeling for that. Do you want to take a look at this drawing and just point to me where you think your septic field is? MRS. NELSON-Right in here. MR. VOLLARO-Right there. Okay, and there’s a cover there? MRS. NELSON-There’s a cover. MR. VOLLARO-Of some kind. MRS. NELSON-A metal cover. MR. VOLLARO-All right. MR. HUNSINGER-So it’s to the west of the building? MR. MAC EWAN-Right. It’s this area right here. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Looking at the rear portion of the lot, I’ve taken a look at it, and the rear portion of that lot is slightly over a half acre, going back from this second building here, and with that much room out back, now, I understand that that’s all wooded back there, though, that whole half acre is all wooded, is that correct? MRS. NELSON-There’s woods back there, yes. MR. VOLLARO-I’m just looking for, one of my fellow Board members is about to talk about the parking up front here, and with having better than a half acre in the back, being along Corinth Road, it would be nice if the way you’ve got your traffic coming in now, if I understand it, there’s, you can get into the property and you can come out on the other side of the building. So there’d be some circulation of traffic on that site, and with a half acre sitting out in the back, and if your leach field is definitely where you say it is, you’ve just got to be careful that the leach field isn’t, you know, leach fields and septic tanks take up quite a bit of room. The laterals are usually around 60 feet long,. So I don’t know how your septic tank lays with respect to that other building, what’s the orientation of it, whether it’s in that driveway or not, but what I’m looking at is potential parking in the rear, as opposed to out front close to Corinth Road. That would be one thing that I was just looking at, and with that much room, with close to a half acre back there, there’d be plenty of room to put parking in. I also picked up the same thing in the Staff notes about no Certificate of Occupancy has been issued for the current building. I just want to make a comment to Staff. This seems like, lately, I see an awful lot of this. Is this just something that’s coming up recently, that Certificates of Occupancy have kind of been missing, or is this just coincidental, do you think? MR. BROWN-Well, it would be nice to think it was coincidental. Most of the time applicants are informed of the process, and the way they proceed is at their discretion. MR. VOLLARO-Sure. I understand. All right. So that’s really where I’m going, is that we can look about putting some parking in the rear, and I’d really like to know a little bit more about where that septic tank and leach field is, so that I know it doesn’t interfere with what I’m thinking of doing, and that’s using a driveway to come in to the parking, and then having a way to circulate it out, and then possibly doing some plantings out in front of this, not anything very elaborate, but something that makes that piece of property a little more attractive out on the front of Corinth Road, and for now that’s the only questions I have, Mr. Chairman. MR. MAC EWAN-Larry? MR. RINGER-What type of customer accounts do you get in a day? I mean, how many people are going to be in and out of that place? MRS. NELSON-We typically may have one person stop a day, if that. We have days where nobody drives in. Most of our billing is through the mail, and we go to customer’s homes to service. So typically it would be my car, and the secretary’s, out in the front. MR. RINGER-You’re saying like two cars? MRS. NELSON-Right, and she’s going on a maternity leave. So there’ll only be one. 15 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/22/02) MR. RINGER-Okay. I didn’t have anything else, Craig. MR. MAC EWAN-Tony? MR. METIVIER-I really don’t have anything. I would prefer to see a little bit more landscaping in front, just to make it look, you know, have a little bit more curb appeal, but besides that, I mean, it’s an existing structure. I just wish you luck with it. MR. MAC EWAN-John? MR. STROUGH-My only concern was the same as Tony’s. I agree with Tony, and I’m glad somebody’s, this building’s getting used, rather than sitting vacant as it has off and on. It’s got an unusual history to it, but I just want to understand, now you own the parcel and the buildings? MRS. NELSON-No, we’re renting. MR. STROUGH-You’re renting. MRS. NELSON-Right. MR. STROUGH-So actually the ownership is someone else. Who is the owner of the property and the building? MR. RINGER-U.J. Limited Partnership. MR. STROUGH-Okay. Can you tell me a little bit more about your business? Because in Staff notes it says something about fuel oil delivery trucks. I mean, is that part of it, or? MRS. NELSON-We have one fuel oil delivery truck. We do not store oil on the site. Typically the truck is empty when it’s on the site. When we have it filled, we go deliver, and then usually he’s pretty much emptied, and then he parks it there. We have a couple of work vans. We service furnaces and air conditioners. We do some plumbing. So basically we’re an HVAC firm. MR. STROUGH-And so you sell heating and air conditioning systems? MRS. NELSON-Right, and we put them in. MR. STROUGH-One particular manufacturer, or different? MRS. NELSON-I think he’s got a couple of different ones, yes, that he uses. MR. STROUGH-Okay. In the office do they have set up a show place? MRS. NELSON-We were hoping to put a showroom in. MR. STROUGH-Okay, eventually? MRS. NELSON-Yes. MR. STROUGH-Now do you plan on using all the buildings on the property, or just those front buildings? MRS. NELSON-Only part of that front building. MR. STROUGH-So that’s all you’re renting is that front part? MRS. NELSON-We’re renting half of the front. I don’t know, you see where it’s kind of shaded? MR. SANFORD-The 800 square feet? MRS. NELSON-Yes, that’s just for a little office and a little showroom. MR. STROUGH-So theoretically somebody else is going to possibly come along and rent the rest of it? MRS. NELSON-I think we, as far as our budget goes, I don’t think there’s any plan for that. MR. STROUGH-Well, if you expand, of course, and it’s there and it’s available, you’ll take it. MRS. NELSON-Right, if it’s in our budget. 16 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/22/02) MR. STROUGH-Which is your hope and my hope as well. Okay. So I just wanted to clear that up in my mind. So really, you’re only responsible for, right now, the front end part, and the concerns so far seem to be some landscaping out in front, which would be nice, I think you admit, but you don’t own the property. So that kind of sets me aside, and I’m sure that as you developed and as you got more successful and you had more capital for that kind of stuff you’d do that. I’m pretty much glad to see it being used right now, and that’s all the concerns I have. Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Rich? MR. SANFORD-Yes. So you’re going to be the tenant of just a part of this. It seems, going back to your comments, we should have the owner in here to talk to. MR. VOLLARO-Really. I mean, if we want to do something with this property to make it look a little more presentable and get rid of the really almost on street parking, you’ve got to talk to the person who owns it. I didn’t realize this was a rental when I started into this. MR. SANFORD-How many employees just are going to be in this office space? MRS. NELSON-If you consider myself, it would be two. MR. SANFORD-So there’s not going to be a lot of heavy use there. MRS. NELSON-Right. MR. SANFORD-No, I have no problems at all with the project. MR. MAC EWAN-Craig, you wanted to chime in? MR. BROWN-Well, I just wanted to be clear on one point. Mr. Strough had a question about the building occupancy and area. According to the plans, it’s approximately, I think a total of 4200 square feet. The only portion that they don’t rent is the, if you’re looking at it from the street, is the front right portion. They occupy the office to the left in the front and the entire rest of the building for warehousing. MRS. NELSON-There’s an upstairs, too, that we’re not. MR. BROWN-I’m just going by what’s on the plan here. MR. STROUGH-All right. Well, what’s in those, I’m looking at this map. Are you familiar with that? MRS. NELSON-Yes. MR. STROUGH-Now this building and this building, they’re vacant? MRS. NELSON-I believe so. I think it’s like just cold storage, if anything. MR. STROUGH-Are they rentable? MRS. NELSON-I have no idea. I’ve never been in them. MR. STROUGH-So the owner, you have nothing to do with that? MRS. NELSON-Right, or that rear building either. MR. STROUGH-This rear building either. MRS. NELSON-Correct. MR. STROUGH-Okay. Let me ask Staff. Now, if they expand their services on this property, are they going to have to come before us again? I mean, if they want to go to one of these adjacent buildings? MR. BROWN-Yes. MR. STROUGH-So if they do expand, as a business, to these other buildings, they’ll have to come before us again. MR. BROWN-Absolutely. MR. STROUGH-All right. Well, I, myself, in speaking as one Planning Board member, don’t have a problem with your proposal, and, you know, you’ve seen the concerns about future expansion, septic, landscaping, that 17 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/22/02) should you expand and come before us again, those are going to be the ones we’re going to take a hard look at next time, at least I’m speaking for myself. MR. BROWN-Mr. Chairman, the other point I wanted to make is the applicant that appears before you is an authorized agent from the owner. They have signed the application. So any condition you want to put on the property, if the applicant’s comfortable with it, they’ve been authorized by the property owner to accept and acknowledge those conditions. I mean, if you’d be more comfortable having the actual property owner here, that’s certainly at your discretion, but the applicant does have an authorization from the owner. MR. MAC EWAN-Speaking as a former tenant, I think it’s hard pressed to try to put this Board in a position to ask a tenant to do landscaping on behalf of a landlord who’s not here representing themselves. So I’m kind of reluctant to push that envelope, so to speak. MR. RINGER-I would agree with you very much, Craig, on that. MR. BROWN-Yes, I wouldn’t want to argue. I don’t know if the landscaping is in favor of the landlord. The landscaping is in favor of the tenant. MR. MAC EWAN-True. MR. BROWN-So, that’s all I have. MR. MAC EWAN-But in reality, I’m not speaking on behalf of the tenant, but if I was going to do some landscaping, I’d be going back to the landlord and either taking it off my next month’s rent or looking for reimbursement on whatever I’m going to do, and that’s where you can end up potentially getting into a snafu, and we certainly don’t want to put a condition on that would impose that kind of a problem down the road for an applicant that’s in front of us. What I would like to do, though, is the next time we see one of these other buildings come in here, is just kind of like red flag it that we would like to see the owner of the property here as well. So that maybe we can make some headway toward getting some things done up there that we’d like to see get done. MR. BROWN-You can certainly do that at this time if you want to. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Anything else from Board members? Anything you wanted to add? I’ll open up the public hearing. Does anyone want to comment on this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MAC EWAN-We need to do a SEQRA, please. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 5-2002, Introduced by Chris Hunsinger who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Strough: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: BRIAN & ELIZABETH NELSON OF GF REFRIGERATION & HEATING WORKS, LLC, and WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. No Federal agency appears to be involved. 2. The following agencies are involved: NONE 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury. 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant. 18 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/22/02) 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 22 day of January, 2002, by the following vote: nd AYES: Mr. Strough, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Metivier, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE MR. MAC EWAN-Before we entertain a motion, I’m open to comments regarding a couple of the comments that were made regarding septic. MR. STROUGH-I was going to make the motion and condition it that the applicant before us understands that should an expansion occur to the other buildings, that we’re going to take a harder look at septic and landscaping system, and we want to see the land owner present at the next application. MR. MAC EWAN-Are you comfortable with that? MR. VOLLARO-I don’t have any problem with the way this is. I do, if it’s our intention, as a Board, to, taking a page out of your book, John, really, most of the time you get into the landscaping and the parking out front and parking in the back, and here we have a lot that’s very conducive to doing just that, good circulation possibilities on it, and yet we can’t do anything about it, because the owner of the property is not here, and that’s kind of bothersome. This may never, I hope it does, but these folks may be perfectly content to run their business right out of the part that they’re leasing now. MS. RADNER-Legally, nothing prevents you from considering this application, just like any other application before you, based upon the fact that it’s a tenant rather than the owner. The onus is no different, based on the ownership issue. MR. VOLLARO-So what we’re really saying is that this applicant has the authority of the tenant to agree to certain things imposed by this Board on this application? MR. STROUGH-Well, we could also, I don’t know the wording, that we’d like to see an effort, on behalf of the applicant, to upgrade the landscaping in the near future. MR. MAC EWAN-If you’re going to put something like that, it would have to be very black and white. MR. STROUGH-I know. I figured that when I threw it out there. MR. MAC EWAN-I guess I’m of the persuasion I’d rather not dabble in it at all. That’s my position on it. MR. STROUGH-All right. How about the condition I original considered, as a red flag to, next time it comes before us. MR. MAC EWAN-I’m leaning toward that way. MR. SANFORD-I like that. MR. MAC EWAN-Do I have a consensus here? MR. VOLLARO-I could go with it. MR. RINGER-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Go ahead, make your motion. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 5-2002 BRIAN & ELIZABETH NELSON OF GF REFRIGERATION & HEATING WORKS, LLC, Introduced by John Strough who moved for its adoption, seconded by Larry Ringer: WHEREAS, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of Site Plan No. 5-2002, Brian & Elizabeth Nelson proposing to utilize a portion of existing vacant building for Office (800 sq. ft.) and Warehouse (4200 sq. ft) for GF Refrigeration & Heating Works. All land uses in LI zones requires SP Review, and; 19 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/22/02) WHEREAS, the application was received 12/26/01; and WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation and inclusive of all newly received information, not included in this listing as of 1/18/02: 1/22 Staff Notes 1/15 Notice of Public Hearing 1/9 Warren Co. Planning 1/3 Meeting Notice WHEREAS, public hearing was held on 1/22/02 concerning the above project; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the Site Plan requirements of the Code of the Town Queensbury (Zoning); and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and WHEREAS, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; and/or if application is a modification, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered; and the proposed modification(s) do not result in any new or significantly different environmental impacts, and, therefore, no further SEQRA review is necessary; and 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 approval are necessary. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that The application is approved in accordance with the resolution as prepared by Staff with the following conditions: 1. Should the applicant come before this Planning Board in the future for an expansion, we’re (the Planning Board) going to take a harder look at the septic and landscaping plan, and 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 1/22/02 by the Planning Board of the Town of Queensbury, New York with the following conditions: 1. Duly adopted this 22 day of January, 2002, by the following vote: nd AYES: Mr. Ringer, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Strough, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set. Good luck. MRS. NELSON-Thanks. SITE PLAN NO. 2-2002 ADIRONDACK OVERHEAD DOOR CO. PROPERTY OWNER: CURTIS INDUSTRIAL PARK, LLC ZONE: LI-1A LOCATION: 10 SO. WESTERN AVENUE APPLICANT HAS ESTABLISHED TWO ADDITIONAL CONSTRUCTION COMPANIES ON THE PROPERTY; MDM TILE AND MANUFACTURING AND QUALITY CABINETS. ALL LAND USES IN THE LI-1A DISTRICT REQUIRE SITE PLAN REVIEW. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 48-2000 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 1/9/02 TAX MAP NO. 117-10-5, 7 LOT SIZE: 90’ X 230’, 0.30 ACRES SECTION: 179-26 D.1. MIKE RINGER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 2-2002, Adirondack Overhead Door Co., Meeting Date: January 22, 2002 “Project Description: 20 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/22/02) The applicant has added two uses to the site. MDM Marble & Tile is located in the same building as Adirondack Overhead Door and Quality Cabinets is operating in the freestanding outbuilding on the site. All land uses in the Light Industrial district require site plan review. 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 project involves the addition of two construction companies to the site. Such uses are allowable uses in the Light Industrial 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? The project does not appear to present any significant impact on the burden of supplying 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 project traffic and parking layout does not comply with the requirements of the Off Street Parking and Loading Requirements. Specifically, the access drive from Western Avenue needs to be at least 20 feet wide. The proposed angled parking spaces along northerly line will not allow for an adequate access aisle. The site appears to have ample area for the necessary spaces. 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 project does not appear to present significant adverse impacts on these features or further restrict the public from providing necessary services. 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 project plan does not call for any new construction. No site lighting information is shown. The adequacy and arrangement of vehicular traffic access and circulation, including intersections, road widths, pavement surfaces, dividers and traffic controls. The proposed access aisle does not meet the requirement of the Off Street Parking and Loading Regulations. All parking spaces are to be accessed by a drive aisle at least 20 feet in width. The location, arrangement, appearance and sufficiency of off-street parking and loading. A site inspection revealed vehicles parking in front of the building. This area should not be used for parking. Such use does not offer patrons or employees ample area to turn around before exiting the site. The adequacy and arrangement of pedestrian traffic access and circulation, walkway structures, control of intersections with vehicular traffic and overall pedestrian convenience. The project plan does not depict any areas for pedestrian accessibility. The adequacy of stormwater drainage facilities. The project plans do not address stormwater management. No new facilities, which would cause an increase in impermeable areas, are planned. However, confirmation of the adequacy of the existing stormwater measures is recommended. The adequacy of water supply and sewage disposal facilities. The project is serviced by municipal water and sanitary sewer facilities. 21 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/22/02) 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 project plans do not depict any details regarding landscaping. The adequacy of fire lanes and other emergency zones and the provision of fire hydrants. The limited width access aisle may present difficulty for emergency vehicles on this site. The adequacy and impact of structures, roadways and landscaping in areas with susceptibility to ponding, flooding and/or erosion. No stormwater or site grading information has been provided; therefore, it is difficult to assess this matter. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): Site Plan 48-2000: Resolved 7/18/00 No certificates of occupancy have been issued for either “existing” new use. Staff comments: The project plans appear to be deficient in several areas. Specifically, the access aisle and parking space layout do not comply with the requirements of the Off Street Parking and Loading Regulations. The applicant has been informed of the deficiencies with the site plan, all of which appear correctable, however, to date the additional information requested; revised site plan depicting new parking and drive layout, stormwater information, lighting, landscaping, has not been submitted. Site Plan 48-00 was approved with the condition that the applicant removes any overgrowth on the site and maintain the site landscaping. SEQR Status: Type II” MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening. MR. M. RINGER-Good evening. MR. MAC EWAN-For the record. MR. M. RINGER-I’m Mike Ringer, owner of the property. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. You’re aware of what we talked about earlier? MR. M. RINGER-Yes. I guess, I apologize for getting the stuff. My girl in the office has been handling it. I’ve been on the fly, and it’s, I thought she had everything in, the letter from Bob and the Park, and we didn’t. The engineers, I’ve been in contact with an engineer, and it was just too short a time for him to get the drainage together, and we’re working with him, and he’s talked to Craig, and within a few, we had tried to go back to getting a plan, when Bob Curtis had it, when he redid the whole thing, but it’s been about four or five days and no response. So I just told him to go ahead, and, you know, they’ve got to survey the property and do it. Virtually, we don’t have any really drainage problems that, up front, I’ve got a storm drain up front which needs to be dug back up in the spring. We’ve cleaned all the leaves and stuff out of it, but what happens is that the water comes down in, and it filled it up. So, for a little bit, I had a pond there, but there’s no water, because it goes right out onto Western Avenue. There’s really not much of a water problem, but I guess we will do what you need to have done. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. I don’t want to spend a lot of time on this application tonight, only because of the new information that was submitted tonight. I would like Staff to have the opportunity to review it for its completeness, and if there’s anything that’s required, above and beyond what you submitted tonight, that would give you time, ample time to get it in before next month’s meeting, but I would like to ask the Board members if they have some questions, if they’ve got them. So that if there’s anything else that’s new, that w need to have, we can get it out here tonight. So we’ll start with you, Bob. MR. VOLLARO-Well, I guess in the parking area there’s no handicap parking shown here, that I can see on this drawing, and I think you’re going to need a handicap parking space here. It looks like the gross leasable area here is about 3500 square feet. So somebody’s already calculated that you need 15 spaces, and that’s the 15 spaces that are on the side, and that fits the Code. There should be, going along with those spaces, there should be about a 20 foot drive between the building and the parking itself, so that when you’re backing out you’ve got enough room to back out. I’ve only got about 15 feet. There’s no scale on this drawing. So, this is fairly close to one to twenty, plus or minus ten feet. 22 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/22/02) MR. M. RINGER-All right. Well, what we did, what we proposed on the drawing is coming in one gate and going out the back gate. MR. VOLLARO-Right MR. M. RINGER-Through traffic, and that was a way to, I believe we worked with Craig on that, and that was the way that Tracy and you worked together to avert that, going in and out the back gate? MR. BROWN-We didn’t, but that’s the way the new information is shown. MR. MAC EWAN-Do you have a new site plan that was submitted? MR. BROWN-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. So don’t pay any attention to that, then. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. This is, you have something new, so there’s no sense in me, I’ll just ask one question, on the sewage in the front, is that municipal sewage? MR. M. RINGER-No. MR. VOLLARO-No. There’s a septic system that goes with that, I would assume. MR. M. RINGER-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. There’s no sense in me going through all that stuff. MR. MAC EWAN-Larry? MR. L. RINGER-There’s a lot of information he’s got to present. There’s not much going on, however, there’s some junk and stuff you’ve got out behind there, the gas grill, the old electric stove, that apparently should all be taken out of there. MR. M. RINGER-Yes, they will be. MR. L. RINGER-So when you come before us, that’s one of the things we’ll probably be asking you to do. Hopefully it will be done by then, but until we get more information, there’s nothing. MR. METIVIER-I agree. Until we get more, we’ll just wait on this one. MR. MAC EWAN-John? MR. STROUGH-Yes. I was over there tonight, and I drove around a little bit. I see the snow piled up on the west side of the fence seems to be knocking over the fence, or that fence was never in great shape. I mean, I can’t count how many times I’ve been in and out of Curtis. It was never in great shape to begin with, but packing up the snow against it certainly isn’t helping. MR. M. RINGER-We had a guy there, I’ve got a neighbor that’s got a big truck, and he denies it, but he’s hit that fence there a few times. He parks right in front of my fence on the weekends, on Holden Avenue. You see big oil spots in front of the driveway. I’ve had a few words with him about it, and one of them is that when the gate was open one time on that Holden Avenue side, he hit, and it’s still, it’s in pretty bad, we’ve got to fix it. MR. STROUGH-Okay. The only other thing, you know, I’ve driven in and out of there a thousand times. I’ve been all right, you know, with the parking as it’s been in Curtis, although it’s less than the Town Code, but you don’t have a heavy traffic flow over there. It’s rather casual. The paving in front, I was a little bit disappointed in that, because I’m a big one, and it’s not going to be anything new to my members here. The landscaping out in front, and a walkway going to your new tile showroom where your tenant’s tile showroom and your overhead door company, you know, with some nice landscaping in front would have certainly been an upgrade, of course what you did to the front of the building is an upgrade from what was there. That looks nice, and to top it off, I would have just liked to have seen a couple of nice walkways going to the front doors to the two respective businesses and some landscaping rather than paving, but those were my early on comments, anyhow, and I guess that’s what we’re kind of sharing. MR. M. RINGER-Well, the biggest thing is I didn’t want to run into something like Hayes ran into, down on the corner there. MR. STROUGH-Well, that’s exactly my thought. 23 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/22/02) MR. M. RINGER-They’re always tearing something apart with snow plows, and we were upfront with you. Like I had worked on the inside of my building for so long that when I had that storefront done, we just couldn’t want to, I mean, I had that front building off within, it was about an hour and a half, and I had a guy there within two days, because I’ve lost a lot of business, because when we were tearing the front off and putting a new front on, people were asking us, well, who’s moving in here, you know. So I was anxious, just threw the blacktop down and figured, you know. MR. STROUGH-All right, well, the front does look a whole lot nicer than it ever did before, and as far as comments on the Cool Beans and the way the parking is over there, I agree with you, that’s not right, but still it almost encourages parking in front of your place in the same manner by having it paved. I’d rather see it landscaped. It would make the whole area look nicer if it was, but those are my comments. Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Rich? MR. SANFORD-Yes. There shouldn’t be a whole lot of need for parking, compared to when it was Curtis, I wouldn’t think. MR. M. RINGER-No. I mean, we get, Rosario, he’ll be open just by appointment. Do you know what I mean, and Herman, all he does, he has no customers come in there at all. Just like our people that come in, that’s in and out, and that’s not as much as I’d like, let’s put it that way. MR. SANFORD-Yes, no, it’s just not going to be like it was when it was Curtis Lumber. MR. M. RINGER-No, it’s not going to have all that traffic. MR. SANFORD-The storage area/warehouse storage, is that being utilized currently for Overhead Door? MR. M. RINGER-Yes, that’s for me.. MR. SANFORD-Okay. I have nothing further at this time. MR. MAC EWAN-You’re turn, Chris. MR. HUNSINGER-I agree with John. I think the front of the building looks a lot nicer than it used to be. MR. M. RINGER-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-And I was in and out of there a whole bunch of times, too, when it was Curtis, and it was always a little tight, but it did work. I really didn’t have any other questions, other than what Staff had outlined as being deficient in the plan. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Anything you wanted to add, Mike? MR. M. RINGER-No, it’s just the way we understand it right now is just, we’re, I need the engineer. That’s it on the water drainage, right? I’ve got everything that you need. You’ll see it. MR. MAC EWAN-What’s the deadline for next month? MR. BROWN-The 30. th MR. MAC EWAN-The 30. So just make sure your engineering stuff gets in by the 30, so you can be on thth next month. MR. M. RINGER-The 30 of January? th MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. We have a public hearing scheduled tonight. We’ll open it up. Does anyone want to comment on this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. MAC EWAN-We’ll leave the public hearing open, and would someone introduce a motion, please, to table. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 2-2002, ADIRONDACK OVERHEAD DOOR CO., Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Larry Ringer: Tabled until the 19 of February, which is the first meeting of the Planning Board for that month, and to give th Staff time to review the newly submitted information. : 24 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/22/02) Duly adopted this 22nd day of January,, 2002 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ringer, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Strough, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE MR. MAC EWAN-See you next month, Mike. MR. M. RINGER-All right. Have a nice night. Thank you. SITE PLAN NO. 4-2002 TYPE: UNLISTED TOM KUBRICKY PROPERTY OWNER: SAME ZONE: LC-42A LOCATION: JENNIFER LANE APPLICANT PROPOSES AN 8,400 SQ. FT. INDOOR HORSE-RIDING ARENA FOR PRIVATE USE. ESTABLISHMENT OF RIDING STABLE REQUIRES SITE PLAN REVIEW. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 16-2000 APA, DEC TAX MAP NO. 26-2-14.4 LOT SIZE: 13.66 AC. SECTION: 179-63, 179-13 TOM KUBRICKY, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 4-2002, Tom Kubricky, Meeting Date: January 22, 2002 “Project Description: The applicant proposes an 8,400 square foot indoor equestrian riding arena. A riding stable requires site plan review in the Rural Residential zone. 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 riding stable is an allowable use in the Rural Residential 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 project appears to be consistent with the intent of the ordinance and does not appear to present significant adverse impacts on the burden to supply 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 project does not depict any additional outdoor parking spaces. The application states that this riding facility is for personal use, therefore, no additional cars are anticipated nor planned for. 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? While the proposed facility is planned on a moderately sized ( 13 acre ) parcel, the appearance of an 8,400 square foot structure, in a residential area, may present an adverse visual impact on 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 building, at 8,400 sf may present an adverse visual impact on the neighborhood. No additional exterior lighting is proposed for this structure. The adequacy and arrangement of vehicular traffic access and circulation, including intersections, road widths, pavement surfaces, dividers and traffic controls. No additional vehicular traffic is anticipated with this project, as proposed. 25 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/22/02) The location, arrangement, appearance and sufficiency of off-street parking and loading. No additional off street parking spaces are anticipated with this project, as proposed. The adequacy and arrangement of pedestrian traffic access and circulation, walkway structures, control of intersections with vehicular traffic and overall pedestrian convenience. No pedestrian access arrangements have been planned for this project. The adequacy of stormwater drainage facilities. The applicant has requested a waiver from the requirement for a stormwater management plan. The adequacy of water supply and sewage disposal facilities. The project, as proposed, will not be serviced by either water or sanitary sewer facilities. 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 applicant has requested a waiver from the requirement for a landscaping plan. The adequacy of fire lanes and other emergency zones and the provision of fire hydrants. The project is serviced by a gravel road originating on Jennifer Lane. The adequacy and impact of structures, roadways and landscaping in areas with susceptibility to ponding, flooding and/or erosion. Without the benefit of a grading plan and a stormwater management plan, it is difficult to assess this condition on the site. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): Site Plan Review 16-2000: Resolved 2/22/00, Barn/stable, Class D agricultural use. Staff comments: The project plans are minimal, at best. The proposed project appears to be accessory to the existing Agricultural use approved for the site. Apparently, the horses are to be kept in the previously approved barn and when desired, taken into the proposed structure for riding. As proposed, the enclosed structure would have no lighting either on the interior or exterior of the building. A change to the plan in the future, to add exterior lighting, will require the applicant to reappear before the Board to modify this approval. A review of the information of record reveals the site to contain Adirondack Park Agency wetlands. Consideration may be given to gaining additional information with regards to the location and magnitude of the wetlands, to assure this project does not adversely affect such wetlands. SEQR Status: Type II” MR. MAC EWAN-Could you identify yourself for the record? MR. KUBRICKY-Yes, Tom Kubricky. MR. MAC EWAN-Could you tell us a little bit about your proposed project. MR. KUBRICKY-Not much. It’s pretty simple. It’s not going to be near the wetlands. It’s pretty basic. It’s just a shelter to keep stuff out of the rain. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Larry, we’ll start with you. MR. RINGER-Where are the wetlands on there? MR. VOLLARO-They’re not delineated. MR. KUBRICKY-Probably about a two, three hundred feet from where I’m going to be putting the building. 26 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/22/02) MR. RINGER-Whereabouts exactly? Get the map and show us. MR. KUBRICKY-Where are you looking? Okay. See this right here where it says “stream”, okay, right here. This is your wetlands. Does everybody see that, where it says “stream”, and there’s an arrow pointed, that’s your wetlands right there. It comes down through here. Right here, see this black line right here, see it. MR. RINGER-Okay. MR. KUBRICKY-This black line right here is your stream. Okay. I see where you couldn’t pick it up right here, where it’s embedded. That’s it right there. MR. RINGER-Thank you. MR. KUBRICKY-I’m pretty far away from that. MR. RINGER-Craig, you had talked about stormwater because of the size of the building? I mean, it’s just such, hard to envision a building that big sitting there on just. MR. BROWN-Yes. It’s also in the Lake George Park, Lake George drainage basin. So it’s going to be required to get a stormwater management permit per the new stormwater ordinance. That’s typically handled at building permit time. If you want more information regarding that, we can certainly ask for that. MR. VOLLARO-That permit is pending? MR. BROWN-We haven’t started that process yet. MR. KUBRICKY-I’ll take care of that, with Lake George Park, right? MR. BROWN-No, it’s a Town permit. MR. KUBRICKY-We’re not at that stage yet. MR. BROWN-If this doesn’t get approved, there’s no need to apply for that stormwater management permit. It’s done at the building permit process time. MR. RINGER-And this is just your horses you’re going to ride around? MR. KUBRICKY-Yes. MR. RINGER-No commercial operations whatsoever in there? MR. KUBRICKY-No. MR. RINGER-And the horses aren’t going to be stored in there, just for riding? MR. KUBRICKY-Yes, that’s it, just mainly for the winter. MR. RINGER-I don’t have anything else, Craig. MR. MAC EWAN-Tony? MR. METIVIER-I really have nothing on this. MR. MAC EWAN-John? MR. STROUGH-No, not much. I mean, I grew up around horses, Arabians, and I like them. We may hear otherwise, but I have no questions. MR. RINGER-You mean if you didn’t like horses you’d have a different opinion? I’m sorry, John, I just couldn’t pass that up. MR. STROUGH-Well, I know horses. To me they don’t smell. I think they’re beautiful animals, and I’d be glad to have them located next to my house, but that’s just my opinion. MR. MAC EWAN-Go ahead, Rich. MR. SANFORD-My understanding is there’s, obviously, there’s no plumbing or? MR. KUBRICKY-No. I’ve got all of it run already. 27 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/22/02) MR. SANFORD-Okay. MR. KUBRICKY-I’ve got plumbing in the main barn. This is just mainly to ride basically in the winter. It probably won’t be used in the summer. It’s just a, you said no lights in there. I will have lights inside, but that’s done by another agency altogether. It’s that under UL? You were more concerned about outside lighting, right? MR. BROWN-Any electrical work is considered building permit time. Interior. If there’s any exterior lighting, that’s something that could be considered (lost words). MR. KUBRICKY-I am going to have lights inside of it. I heard him say there was no lights outside or inside, but there will be lights inside. MR. BROWN-That was just based on the information, you told me no power, no water there. So I just passed it on. MR. KUBRICKY-Yes. He’s right. MR. SANFORD-How many horses do you have? MR. KUBRICKY-None yet. I’m probably going to have, you know, a half dozen, when I do it. MR. SANFORD-Okay. I have no further questions? MR. MAC EWAN-Chris? MR. RINGER-The lights are all going to be inside? No spotlights? MR. KUBRICKY-Right. MR. RINGER-Okay. I just wanted to make sure. I’m sorry. MR. HUNSINGER-That’s okay. Because I had the same questions. The letter that you submitted said that it would not require plumbing or electrical hookups, and then somewhere in Staff notes it said it would only be used during daylight hours. So I was wondering how you would construct such a large facility. MR. KUBRICKY-Yes, well, what happened is I, yes, it’s going to have lights inside. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. KUBRICKY-I mean, it’s not going to be lit up. It’s not going to have search lights on it or anything like that. It’s not going to have outside lights on it. You can walk in it and you hit a light and it will light up, but you won’t see it from the outside. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. I mean, I would have liked to have seen a little more detail on some of the plans. MR. KUBRICKY-I was weak on that part because I didn’t know if you guys were going to say you wanted it here and here and here, do you know what I’m saying? I mean, I’ll do it up right. Before we build it, I’ll bring a copy to them and say, look it, this is how it’s, this is the style I’ve got, and if you don’t like it, I’ll change it. I thought this preliminary that we’re having was just to say, hey, are you against it, are you for it? To hear everybody say what they like about it and what they don’t. I didn’t get into the nitty gritty on it because I didn’t see, at this point, there was any reason to. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. BROWN-I guess, just for the record, this is the Board that says yes or no, and probably to make a clear decision you probably need to know all this information about what it is, what it looks like, how it’s lit up. MR. KUBRICKY-It’s going to match, if everybody’s been up to the site, it’s going to match my house. It’s going to be white with black trim. It’s going to be a nice looking set up. It’s not going to be like an afterbirth hooked on thing. It’s going to be a first class set up. MR. RINGER-How’s your roofline going to go? MR. KUBRICKY-Well, I’ll tell you, the roofline, it’s going to be hanging over, did everybody see that horse trailer there, where it’s going? MR. MAC EWAN-The horse trailer? 28 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/22/02) MR. KUBRICKY-Yes, there’s a horse trailer right there. That’s where it’s going to be going. Yes. It’s going to be going where that horse trailer is sitting. It’s kind of hard to see it with the snow on the ground. When I filled this out, I was hoping you guys could get up there where you could see what, you know what I mean, because the snow might distort it, but, the roofline is going to be, it’s going to be a little bit lower than a barn, because I don’t want it, I’m trying to build it down low so the only house that’s going to see it is John LaBourr's house and my house. That’ll be the only two houses in the area that see it, and John has trees growing up at his house. So, in another couple of years, he won’t even be able to see our back yard. I’m building it down low, so from everybody’s house, they’ll be looking over the top of it, because it’ll be down, do you know what I’m saying, if you can sort of visualize it out there. It’s going to be lower than my barn was. It’s going to be probably about four foot lower than my barn. MR. MAC EWAN-Any other questions? MR. VOLLARO-I haven’t had a chance to talk yet. MR. HUNSINGER-I guess I’m all set. MR. MAC EWAN-We’re getting to you. You’re all set? Okay. MR. VOLLARO-Normally when applicants come before the Board, we like to see some architectural rendering of what a building is going to look like. I, for one, and I’ve been to your property. It’s beautiful. I understand that, but I certainly would like to see something better than this sketch I see on this drawing to just depict what that building’s going to really look like. So I’ve got, as a Planning Board member, have some idea of what I’m approving. Right now I’ve got a very rudimentary sketch. That doesn’t show me very much. MR. KUBRICKY-You know what I’d like you to tell me there, Bob, is say, look it, I want it white with black trim. I want four foot trees going all the way around it. MR. VOLLARO-I’ll send you a bill. MR. KUBRICKY-No, I mean, I’ll do it. I’m going to make it look nice, if that’s what you’re asking. MR. VOLLARO-That isn’t the point. The point is that when this goes into file, and when it’s, you know, we should have information in there that actually shows what it’s going to look like. I mean, we have applicants coming before us all the time with renderings. We make the look, do renderings. John puts them through the mill on renderings and what things are going to look like and how the roof’s going to look from the road, and on and on it goes. Here we don’t have anything. I don’t have anything at all to show me what that building’s going to look like on that site. I assume you’re going to do a great job because the rest of your site is very, very attractive, and I understand that, but I certainly would like to have something that I can see, that’s in the record. MR. KUBRICKY-See, what it is, before you sign on with these builders, what they do is, when like, say I’m going with this particular builder, I’m locking on, and before they’re going to do any of the, before they’re going to sit at a desk for eight hours and start drawing up the hardcore and doing all the preliminary work and the final plans to submit to the Town of Queensbury, right, because we have to not only submit them to, you know, we have to submit them to these guys, here. So before they’re really going to do that, do you know what I mean, they want to make sure, before I’m going to give the guy a deposit, money down to get it rolling, I’m not going to do it unless, you know, I don’t want to play a shuffle, then I’ve got to go back, okay, say you guys say no, and I give the guy $50,000 to draw the plans up and all that stuff, then I’ve got to go back to him and say, they disapproved, sorry, give me my money back, then, you know, you’ve got to go get a lawyer, and you pay him five, pay him five. It costs $10,000 to do what? When, you know, if you’ve seen the work I’ve done, you should know that I’m not going to screw it up. You should know it’s going to look nice. MR. VOLLARO-I’m agreeing with what you say. It’s just that this Board, normally, when we look at things like this, for other applicants, I’m kind of looking at a level playing field out there. Most applicants that come, I don’t know if you’ve ever been to any of our Planning Board meetings. MR. KUBRICKY-No, I have. MR. VOLLARO-And kind of seeing what renditions they put up, this rendition is no $50,000 rendition. I could do a rendition, you could explain this building to me. I’ll do a rendition for you for $100. I’m just kibitzing around with you. I’m not going to do it for you, but it’s not going to be that expensive, to give us some idea of what this building’s actually going to look like. MR. KUBRICKY-I can draw you up something and give it to you. I can. I can do that. What I was trying to do was get on, because what I want to do is I’ve got sort of dead time right now, so I wanted to like get it rolling. So in August we’re not talking about this, it’s done by then. 29 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/22/02) MR. VOLLARO-This would take you all of a couple of hours to do what I’m asking you to do. MR. KUBRICKY-Yes, no, you’re right, it probably would. MR. VOLLARO-Now the next thing, and I know that when you put this building on this site, it isn’t going to, in any way, effect this site development data plan here. You’ve probably looked at this. I don’t know who scratched on this, but there’s, it’s really, there’s just a couple of numbers on here. It looks like somebody said, the hell with it. That’s just what it looks like. MR. KUBRICKY-You’re probably right. MR. VOLLARO-And for it to go in the record, without, we should be able to say what percent of this land is going to be non-permeable as a result of this building, and I know that it’s going to pass this. I mean, I can see from the size of your property, but I would like to see that this shows what it’s actually going to be. MR. KUBRICKY-No, tell me what you want, and I’ll bring it to you. MR. VOLLARO-Adequately fill out the Site Development Data sheet. That’s what I’m looking for. MR. KUBRICKY-Do you want a picture of what the actual building is actually going to be? Do you want like a color picture of it? MR. VOLLARO-Well, you’ll know. It doesn’t have to be a color picture. It can be a black and white rendition as far as I’m concerned. I just want to have a, and it should look pretty close to what you think it’s going to look like. MR. KUBRICKY-No, I’ll show you exactly what I’m going to build. I just didn’t want to go, have him draw the barn up on it and the fence and the paddocks and all that. It gets expensive doing that. Do you know what I mean? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MR. KUBRICKY-If you want just a picture of the plan, the plan is $50. As long as you don’t want it plotted and shown the fence and the shrubs and all that kind of stuff on it, that gets expensive when you start doing that. MR. VOLLARO-The other thing is, I see where you pointed out to Larry while I was here where the wetlands are, but it seems to me we’d need, you heard one of the last people that came in for the subdivision, here on West Mountain Road, where we asked them to go back and get some information from DEC to certify where that wetland really was on their property, and it also, if we’re asking them to do that, we should also ask you to have a degree of certification that tells us where this wetland is. I see where you’ve got it plotted. MR. KUBRICKY-Okay. Who do you want to tell that? Do you want like DEC, the Town of Queensbury, Helen Otte? MR. VOLLARO-No, the Department of Environmental Conservation in Warrensburg. MR. MAC EWAN-The APA. MR. BROWN-The property lies within the Adirondack Park. MR. VOLLARO-It’s the Adirondack Park? MR. KUBRICKY-Yes. See, it’s DEC, the Army Corps of Engineers, the APA, the Town of Queensbury, that’s the regimentation that it falls. MR. MAC EWAN-This is APA jurisdictional. Isn’t that right, Craig? MR. BROWN-This property is within the Adirondack Park, so they have jurisdiction over the wetlands. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. BROWN-Nobody else has jurisdiction over the wetlands, just the APA. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. 30 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/22/02) MR. MAC EWAN-So we need to have, just like we did with the prior application, in this case we need to have a signoff or a confirmation of some kind from the APA regarding the wetlands on this property, or that he’s not infringing on them or within. MR. BROWN-If there are other wetlands on this area, you may want to have them delineated, accurately located on the survey map. If there aren’t wetlands on the property, some jurisdictional letter from the Park Agency that states that, may be what you’re looking for. MR. VOLLARO-Does the APA also delineate, if there is? MR. BROWN-Absolutely. MR. STROUGH-Well, that was my point. Wouldn’t the APA make him do that anyway? MR. BROWN-Would the APA make him do that? I don’t know. That’s their decision. MR. STROUGH-I mean, part of their stormwater management plan, they’d certainly have to have that information. MR. BROWN-Well, the APA’s not going to have a stormwater management plan requirement for this. MR. STROUGH-Well, who was it, then? Maybe I got my notes wrong, needed a stormwater management permit? MR. BROWN-The Town of Queensbury has stormwater management regulations that’s going to require permit. Right, but since this property lies within the Park, the Park Agency has jurisdiction over the wetlands. MR. KUBRICKY-Okay. So, what are you guys, what’s our verdict here? What are we saying? Just so I know. MR. VOLLARO-I think you have to talk to the Chairman about the verdict. I mean, I can’t give you that. MR. STROUGH-Well, we still have a public hearing. MR. MAC EWAN-We haven’t gotten that far, yet. MR. STROUGH-Well, have the applicant come back up here, and then we can summarize. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. Anything else anybody wanted to add? Could I ask you to give up the table for a couple of minutes, Mr. Kubricky. We’ll open up the public hearing. Anyone want to comment on this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED JOHN LA BOURR MR. LA BOURR-Yes. I’m John LaBourr. I live to the north of Tom’s property. I overlook it, and I was just concerned, I would certainly like to see a sketch of what was going to be presented there, what effect the roof would have on runoff into the wetlands. You’re talking a large square footage roof here, and I think that should be addressed, and if those, I’m also concerned with the concentration of buildings on the property. At one time it was supposed to be forever wild. I guess it’s within the 52 acre zone, and a lot of the wetlands were filled in, and I’m sure you’re aware of that. If those concerns are addressed and the APA approves everything, and you people approve it, there’s, you know, he’s entitled to do what he wants to with his property, but that certainly should be addressed. MR. MAC EWAN-And we’re going to. MR. LA BOURR-Thanks. MR. MAC EWAN-You’re welcome. Anyone else? DAVE SEAMAN MR. SEAMAN-I’m Dave Seaman. I live on Fox Road, directly opposite, just north of the applicant, and I have a concern with the look of the building, and the height of the building, and I believe there’s more people going to be affected than just John LaBourr and the other person he mentioned. I think Bernie Charlebois to the south. I think there’s other people that are going to see this building besides just the two that he mentioned, and I have a concern with, or I had a question, how many outbuildings can be built on a single property like this? Because, you know, there’s a house, there’s a garage, there’s a barn. Now there’s going to 31 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/22/02) be a riding stable. There’s about six little outbuilding sheds scattered throughout the property. Is there a limit to how much can be put on one single property? MR. MAC EWAN-It’s based on density, and I’ll throw it to you, Craig. MR. BROWN-Yes. This compound, I guess we’ll call it, it’s unique. It’s made up of three separate parcels. So the parcel that we’re talking about now, the only structure on that parcel is the barn, which is an allowable site plan use. The riding stable is also an allowable site plan use. As long the property can support each use and has the density for each use, it’s going to be allowable at the discretion of the Board. I don’t know if that answers your question or not. MR. MAC EWAN-There comes a point when you hit a threshold where the acreage will only allow so many buildings to be built on it, and then it comes to a stop. MR. SEAMAN-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-And what Craig was pointing out is because this is a unique situation with three different parcels that are joined together, you’re allowed so much density on each parcel, and that’s where we’re at right now, and he’s meeting the density requirements with this application at this point. MR. SEAMAN-I guess I just don’t feel it’s visibly, you know, there’s a lot of buildings for the area. I’ll see the building, too. So, that’s all I had to say. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Thank you. Anyone else? SEAN GARVEY MR. GARVEY-Good evening. My name’s Sean Garvey. My property borders Tom Kubricky’s property. It’s the same size. It’s about 13 acres. A couple of things I wish to comment on this evening. I’ve kind of agonized over this since I received the application in the mail. I feel uncomfortable telling anyone what to do, especially a neighbor with his property, and if I could make a few initial comments on the initial application, I’m amazed that the application was allowed to be presented in an incomplete form. I’ve been in front of these boards, a number of the boards in front of the Town over the years, and not having a detailed relief for drawings of the property, mechanical drawings of buildings on the property, stormwater management, lighting, septic, things such as that. I’m amazed that it was even allowed to be presented in front of the Board, and obviously you’re going to have to go through this process again because it wasn’t handled property. Tom mentioned earlier something about the height of the property. He says he’s going to build it low. This structure is 35 feet tall, because if it’s over 36 I think you need a variance in this Town. Thirty-five feet is fifteen to twenty feet higher than the average house in the neighborhood. This is going to be an extremely tall and very large structure. Obviously, beauty is in the eyes of the beholder. If I, personally, lived on the North Forty and had invested hundreds of thousands of dollars in my personal home, and had something that was out of character built in the neighborhood that would devalue my property, that would have offended me tremendously, though I do not have my house in the North Forty. Any of the other structures that he has built since then have not affected the value of my property. I honestly believe that having a structure 35 feet high, in the shape that it’s going to be in and the location that it’s going to be, is going to affect many of the households around it. There are some people that will be able to see the structure from their back yard, that did not receive a notice of tonight’s hearing, and I believe that you should, on the next time that there’s a public hearing, maybe a few more people should be notified, because many people aren’t aware of this size, and the nature and the scope of this project. When it comes to the wetlands, you and I probably, and maybe you don’t know, but they were disturbed dramatically, and it might be difficult to locate the exact location where they should have been. Also the application mentioned there’s going to be no lights inside the building, and earlier tonight we heard that there are going to be lights. So there’s inconsistencies in the application, and what I’m looking for is some consistent information so that the affected parties can make an educated decision. Thank you very much. MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. Anyone else? All right. We’ll leave the public hearing open. MR. BROWN-Mr. Chairman, there is one piece of correspondence. It’s a faxed letter that came from Heather Shoudy Brechko from the Lake George Association. It’s dated today, and it’s addressed to the Planning Board. “Dear Board Members: I am writing on behalf of the Lake George Association, Inc. (LGA) on the above subject matter. The LGA had the opportunity to review the file for this application,; the comments here are based on these records. The applicant is proposing to build an 8,400 square foot indoor riding arena on a 13.66-acre site on Jennifer Lane. The LGA’s research shows that the project is in the watershed of Lake George and is visible from some of the surrounding hillsides in the view shed of the Lake. The LGA is concerned about this project’s impact on the water quality and scenic resources of Lake George, even though it is an allowed use in this zone. Please consider these items when making your decision on this application: 1. There is a possibility that there are Adirondack Park Agency regulated wetlands on this property. Please do not make any decision on this project until the extent and presence of these wetlands are known officially. Wetlands play an important role in the protection of the water quality of Lake George. 2. 32 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/22/02) The placement, orientation, architectural design, materials and color of the structure proposed will play a large role in how visible the building will be from the surrounding hillsides and neighboring properties in the watershed. Please examine and mitigate these impacts by requiring the applicant to use earth tone colors for the structure, vegetation to screen and filter the view of the building from the surrounding hillsides, and non- reflective materials for the structure. 3. Because this property is in the Lake George watershed, please ensure at the site plan or building permit level, if the project is approved, that the proper stormwater control measures are applied under the Town’s stormwater regulations based on the area of disturbance of the project. The LGA asks you to please consider and address the issues we have raised, before any approval is given. We ask this in the interest of protecting the water quality and aesthetic resources of Lake George. Thank you for your consideration of our comments, concerns, and suggestions. Respectfully submitted, Heather K. Shoudy Brechko Land Use Management Coordinator” MR. VOLLARO-Craig, can copies of that letter be issued to the Board? MR. BROWN-This came in, was on the fax machine as I was walking over here tonight. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. It’s a recent letter. Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it? MR. BROWN-That’s it. MR. MAC EWAN-Could you come back up, Mr. Kubricky. I have two questions for you. Are you proposing to use the building for any other purposes other than just riding or exercising horses in? MR. KUBRICKY-No, not really. MR. MAC EWAN-Why does it need to be 35 feet high, then? MR. KUBRICKY-Just for jumping and stuff like that. MR. MAC EWAN-You have some pretty frisky horses. MR. KUBRICKY-No, I mean, if everybody’s against it, just be honest with me. Because it’s like, you know, you’ve got me taxed for $650,000 right now. MR. MAC EWAN-I’ll stop you right there. That has nothing to do with this Board. MR. KUBRICKY-No. You’re right, but I’m just saying, if the arena’s going to cause too much trouble, just say we don’t think it’s a good idea, but what I’m going to do is I’m going to go build two houses on the property, and I don’t need to come in front of you guys at all. So, you know, anybody that’s complaining, it’s like, what I’m trying to do is keep it sort of an estate looking, but I’d rather go through two 5,000 square foot houses on it and sell the lots, and, you know what I mean, sort of split it up a little bit is what I’d really like to do. I mean, I don’t need anything for that, right? No APA, no Town Board, no nothing. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, you do. MR. RINGER-I don’t think the people are complaining. I think the people are showing their concerns, but I wouldn’t necessarily say that they’re necessarily complaints. MR. MAC EWAN-I don’t think it’s that simple of a decision, pick one or the other. MR. KUBRICKY-Well, it is really. MR. MAC EWAN-Well, it may be for you, but for this Board we’ve got a couple of books to adhere to in our decision making. MR. KUBRICKY-But the Town of Queensbury’s telling me that it’s not wetlands. Now here you guys are, you know, I’m back, it was only a year ago I was in front of you guys, right or wrong? Do you guys remember me? MR. MAC EWAN-A couple of years ago. MR. KUBRICKY-Okay, the same piece of property. Now here we are, we’re back again, and you’re asking me what the wetlands are. Helen Otte already told me that I only have three quarters of an acre of wetlands. That’s why we’re taxing you $650,000. I didn’t argue. MR. MAC EWAN-But Helen Otte, she’s not. 33 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/22/02) MR. KUBRICKY-No, she has nothing to do with the Town of Queensbury, I know that. MR. MAC EWAN-Well, she’s the property assessor for the Town. MR. KUBRICKY-You guys are asking me to go stake out the wetlands and all that stuff. It’s like, what are you asking me this now? MR. STROUGH-Well, two main themes that I hear, Mr. Chairman, if I can kind of summarize how I see it, I see, repeated over and over again by the people that came up here, that they’re concerned what it’s going to look like architecturally. Well that can be solved, and the stormwater plan identifying wetlands, that’s easily solved. Those are the two thoughts that I saw most frequently, and both of them seemed to be something that can be overcome. MR. KUBRICKY-No, that’s it. You’re correct. You guys tell me what you want. MR. MAC EWAN-Well, what we’re going to do is table this application, and we’re going to give you a list of things we’re going to be looking for for you to supply to us so we can make a decision on this. MR. KUBRICKY-Now, do I come to you with them? MR. MAC EWAN-You’re going to submit them to Staff. To get on next month’s agenda, you need to submit them to Staff by the 31 of this month, close of business. st MR. KUBRICKY-You’ve got it. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Larry, have you got something that you want to run by us? MR. RINGER-I’ve got something that I can start, and if members want to add something to it. MR. LA BOURR-Can I make a comment? MR. MAC EWAN-You’re going to have to come back up because we do tape our meetings. MR. LA BOURR-John LaBourr. We aren’t here to antagonize Tom. I think it should be understood to him mostly that we want to know what’s going to be going on because it is possibly going to have a big impact on us, and I think we should be entitled to that. There shouldn’t be any threats made. MR. KUBRICKY-No. MR. LA BOURR-Everyone’s busy. We just came down here tonight because we’re concerned, and it’s nothing against Tom. MR. MAC EWAN-Right, and I think you folks should understand, if you didn’t voice an opinion one way or the other, we’re still going to look for the information. MR. LA BOURR-Right. I think that’s all we’re looking for. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. LA BOURR-There’s no reason to make any threats. MR. MAC EWAN-So noted. MR. KUBRICKY-No. I’m not making any threats. MR. LA BOURR-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Very good. MR. LA BOURR-Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-All right. You’re welcome. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 4-2002, TOM KUBRICKY, Introduced by Larry Ringer who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro: So he can bring the following information and provide it to Staff: 1. Provide a new site plan development data sheet, and 34 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/22/02) 2. Provide a new site plan map showing wetlands and architectural design of the building, showing the height and the roof design, and 3. Get an APA Jurisdictional Designation letter for the wetlands, and 4. A Stormwater Management should be provided, and 5. A Lighting Plan, put it on the site plan map, lighting to be indoor only. Duly adopted this 22nd day of January, 2002, by the following vote: MR. RINGER-Anything else that any other members might have? MR. MAC EWAN-I’m looking for a lighting on this as well. I know he’s saying he’s not going to have any outdoor lighting, but I’d like to see that it’s confirmed that there’s lighting, and I’d also be interested, for me anyway, a landscaping plan for the new building. MR. STROUGH-Well, in addition, I think some of the neighbors were expressing concern. It’s a beautiful area, and Tom even said that he’s willing to do this, is to make it architecturally compatible with the neighborhood character. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s up to him to do, John, to come back with a plan. MR. STROUGH-Well, if he comes back with a plan that looks way out of base with what’s there, and I think Tom knows this because he already expressed it, so this is nothing new. MR. RINGER-In the motion for the tabling, we’ve asked for him to provide us with an architectural plan. MR. STROUGH-And so I’m just reinforcing the concept that I’m expecting. You don’t have to put it as a condition. I think that’s understood. MR. MAC EWAN-Can you go back to that, Larry? You did say you were looking for elevations and a plan view of the building? MR. RINGER-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-What was the thing about the site plan that you mentioned? MR. RINGER-A new Site Development Data sheet, which is incomplete, provide a new site plan map showing wetlands and architectural design of the building. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. RINGER-APA jurisdictional letter for the wetlands, stormwater management plan, a lighting plan, and that’s what I’ve got. I’m looking for any other. MR. SANFORD-What’s the APA wetland letter consist of? MR. MAC EWAN-Basically like we did with the application earlier this evening. It’s just APA jurisdictional. His property sits within the APA, now whether his property, that the wetlands are on his property, the course of action will be delineated by the APA or delineated by someone from the APA, or if there’s not, then the APA will say there’s no. MR. SANFORD-Because you’re asking two things about wetlands in your proposal, Larry. One is you want a map showing wetlands, and then you’re asking for this other thing. MR. RINGER-Well, apparently there’s wetlands on there. So we want APA jurisdictional as to where these wetlands are. MR. VOLLARO-I think there’s two things. The plot would show the wetlands, but I think the APA really has to delineate where they are, as opposed to just putting it on a drawing without any supporting information. MR. MAC EWAN-The easy answer to that, Rich, if there’s no wetlands on the property, there’s nothing to show on the plan. MR. VOLLARO-Right. MR. MAC EWAN-But he’ll supply a letter from the APA saying such a fact. MR. KUBRICKY-Have you gotten letters like that from the APA? 35 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/22/02) MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. MR. KUBRICKY-Okay. Who do I get to see one of them? MR. MAC EWAN-Talk to his office tomorrow, and he’ll give you the information. MR. RINGER-Talk to Staff. MR. KUBRICKY-You got it in like less than four or five years, Craig? MR. BROWN-Do you want to come back up to the table? MR. KUBRICKY-That’s like trying to go out with the Governor for coffee. Who do I get it from, from the APA? I just want to know who I go to at the APA. MR. MAC EWAN-If you contact his office tomorrow, Mr. Kubricky, he’ll give you the telephone numbers, addresses, contacts that you need to get a hold of. MR. KUBRICKY-Okay, and if it takes like five years, do we want to keep going that way, or can I like change? If I know what I’ve got to do, because I’ve done this before. I know how long it takes. It’s not a month. It’s like eight years, eight year exhibition. MR. MAC EWAN-I don’t think it really takes that long, but. MR. KUBRICKY-How long have you been in office? MR. MAC EWAN-I’ve been on this Board for 10 years. MR. KUBRICKY-Okay. 1980 to now is how many? Twenty-two years. MR. MAC EWAN-For what, though? MR. KUBRICKY-To get a letter from them. They haven’t sent one. MR. MAC EWAN-Well, I’ve seen other applications in front of this Board on a regular basis where APA responds to it in a timely fashion. So I don’t know what particular case you’ve got going on. MR. KUBRICKY-A timely fashion to you is? MR. BROWN-Typically with a wetlands delineation or jurisdiction letter, and I don’t want to set a timeframe for the APA to act on, but a month is definitely reasonable time that they can act and have acted within a month to respond with a letter or a delineation. MR. KUBRICKY-Okay. No problem. MR. BROWN-Back to one condition about lighting. I think the applicant said there isn’t going to be any outdoor lighting. I don’t know, do you need a lighting plan or just? MR. MAC EWAN-I want it clear. MR. BROWN-Just something that says there’s no outside lighting. MR. MAC EWAN-If there’s no outside lighting, I want a letter from the applicant saying that. If there’s going to be indoor lighting only, I want something to that effect. MR. BROWN-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-And if he plans on having outdoor lighting, it’s got to be shown on the plan. MR. BROWN-Okay. That’s fine. MR. KUBRICKY-So inside lighting, do you want anything on that? MR. RINGER-I would put it on your site plan map, just lighting to be indoor only. I would think that would satisfy the Board. MR. KUBRICKY-So when we talk to the APA, we’ll give them like two months, and if we don’t hear back from them in two months, what’s the Board going to do? 36 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/22/02) MR. RINGER-Work with Staff. MR. KUBRICKY-Okay. He’s in charge, or you guys? MR. RINGER-He’s the man, until it comes back to us. MR. KUBRICKY-Okay. What are we going to do on a case like that, if we don’t hear from? I’ll give them two months to hear back. I’ll give them two months. If we don’t hear back from them in two months, what is the Town Fathers and you going to do? MR. BROWN-I don’t know the answer to that, but probably what this Board will do is they’ll condition this application that you get a jurisdictional letter from the Adirondack Park Agency. If you don’t get a jurisdictional letter from them or delineation about the wetlands, you don’t have an approval for this project. MR. KUBRICKY-Okay. So that’s our choices. Right? We all agree, everybody up there? MR. SANFORD-Well, I think the Chairman does, and maybe Staff does. I have a question. Does this Board need that? MR. KUBRICKY-No, they don’t. MR. SANFORD-As a condition to approve this, or is this just highly desirable in your opinion? MR. MAC EWAN-We need it. MR. SANFORD-I’d like the legal, the lawyer left, but. MR. KUBRICKY-Where’s the lawyer? Get a lawyer and ask him that. MR. MAC EWAN-Look. I don’t want to turn this into a 24 hour debate. Before we go any farther, we’ve got a motion up here. I want to get a second on it. I want to put it through, so we don’t drag our feet any longer. Do we have a second on this? MR. VOLLARO-I’ll make a second to Larry’s motion. AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Strough, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE MR. MAC EWAN-Now, any questions that you have regarding what your requirements to fill your application, contact Craig’s office tomorrow and he’ll give you the laundry list that we just went over, and what you need to do and the contacts that you need to make to get the information we’re looking for. MR. KUBRICKY-Okay. So we’re going to go back to him? I won’t be coming to you guys again? MR. MAC EWAN-You’ll be coming back to us once you get this information ready for us to review again. MR. KUBRICKY-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-We’re the Board asking you, but we’re not the Board who supplies the information. There are other agencies involved. The APA is one of them, but most of this stuff has got to come from you, the site plan, the stormwater management plan, the architectural. MR. KUBRICKY-I’m not worried about all that stuff. I’ll do all that. The only thing I’m worried about is the APA thing. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s the biggest hurdle you’ve got to overcome. MR. KUBRICKY-That’s the biggest hurdle I’ve got to overcome. What I’m saying is, let’s abort it. Let’s not even pursue it. MR. MAC EWAN-I’m telling you that we’re not going to do that. MR. KUBRICKY-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s not what this Board’s all about. We’re not going to do that. MR. KUBRICKY-Well, I see you backing down. I see him stepping up to the plate, but I see you, like, backing down and saying we’re going to table it and. 37 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/22/02) MR. MAC EWAN-That’s not backing down. Tabling this application is giving you an opportunity to get additional information so we can continue to review this application and make a decision either to approve or not to approve. That’s all we’re doing. We’re giving you some time to put the additional information together we’re seeking. This is what we just did. MR. STROUGH-I think you’ll find it a lot easier than you’re making it out to be. It may be a bad experience before. MR. KUBRICKY-Yes. I’ve done it before. MR. STROUGH-Well, it may be a different situation. This situation shouldn’t be so bad for you. MR. KUBRICKY-Okay. MR. RINGER-If you run into barriers, Craig’s going to help you through it, and if you get a barrier that you can’t resolve with APA, I’m sure Craig is going to allow the application to come back to the Board or suggest that the application come back to the Board without it and see where we go from there. I’m not saying that’s going to happen, but it could happen, and rather than put the obstacles up there now. MR. KUBRICKY-The laws change like on a daily basis. That’s what I’m trying to figure out what we’re doing here. MR. RINGER-If you run into obstacles, then Craig can help you. MR. KUBRICKY-I built a house, I didn’t need it. I built a barn, I didn’t need it. Now I build an arena and I need all these letters from all these people, and I’m just trying to figure out why we need them all now. I’m just trying to find out, is there like a law book we’re following or is this just something we’re, you know, as we’re going around, we’re making it up? MR. MAC EWAN-No. This Board is not making things up. We’re not pulling things out of the air. We have these ordinances to go by, along with DEC, APA, and all this comes together, and these are some of the issues we need to get resolved. MR. KUBRICKY-Can I just ask you one more question? MR. MAC EWAN-One more. MR. KUBRICKY-So like if the APA comes and says your 14 acres is, you’ve got eight acres of wetlands, is like the Town of Queensbury going to sit there and they say, are they going to agree with the APA? Are you guys going to agree with the APA? MR. MAC EWAN-They’re the jurisdiction. They’re the ones calling the shot. MR. KUBRICKY-So if the APA says you’ve got eight acres of wetlands there, and the Town of Queensbury’s saying you’ve got a half an acre of wetlands there, and they’re taxing me on eight acres, you’re going to like, what are you going to do like give me like a refund? Are you going to take my taxes and cut them in half? MR. MAC EWAN-That’s not a decision that would come from this Board. That’s not even under our review. That’s not even our authority. You’d have to go see the tax assessor and deal with that issue at that point. Cross one bridge at a time. MR. KUBRICKY-Yes. No, well, I’m trying to figure out your system here. Because it’s like you assess me, then the bank assesses. MR. MAC EWAN-Stop. We’re not assessing you. We don’t assess you. MR. KUBRICKY-Then they say, we don’t get involved, but you guys are the same office. MR. MAC EWAN-No, we’re not. Okay. MR. KUBRICKY-You’ve got it. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Other item, we talked about having a workshop. We can have a workshop next Tuesday night, if we’re so inclined to have a workshop. Do we still want to have a workshop? MR. HUNSINGER-What are we going to cover? 38 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/22/02) MR. MAC EWAN-Well, when we had our Executive Session, some issues came up in there about things that people thought they wanted to do to improve the functioning of our Board, in several different capacities, I guess, and I asked everyone at that meeting to draw up a short little list of things they’d like to talk about. MR. STROUGH-Well, I think we’re going to need a workshop, but maybe we ought to wait until the Town Board passes or not this new zoning plan, because I think everyone’s got to be on the same page here when we step up to the plate. MR. MAC EWAN-I thought we were talking procedural stuff. That’s kind of what I was. MR. STROUGH-Well, we can do everything at the same time. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. There’s one vote not to have one. Tony, do you want to have one or not? MR. METIVIER-That’s fine with me. MR. MAC EWAN-What’s fine with you, one way or the other. MR. METIVIER-I would be happy to have a workshop. I just don’t know if I’ll be able to make it to it. MR. MAC EWAN-Larry? MR. RINGER-A workshop is fine with me. I think after the new zoning is approved then we should have another workshop, certainly, John, but I think we probably need to get some procedural things gone over. MR. MAC EWAN-Bob? MR. VOLLARO-Yes, I’m for a workshop, just for general discussion of what took place the last time. It’s always good for us to get together in a workshop mode and talk about the interrelationships of this Board. MR. MAC EWAN-What took place last time? MR. VOLLARO-Well, at the special session. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s Executive Session and that’s where it stays. MR. VOLLARO-Well, yes, but at that Session, you said. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, there was a couple of comments about doing some procedural. MR. VOLLARO-Right, that’s what I’m driving at. MR. MAC EWAN-All right. Here’s what I’m going to ask everybody to do. We’ll have a workshop next Tuesday night, seven o’clock, down in the conference room, in the Planning Department. MR. SANFORD-What day is that, Craig? Is that the 29? th MR. MAC EWAN-It’s Tuesday, seven from today, the 29. th MR. SANFORD-Yes, the 29. th MR. BROWN-We may be able to do it upstairs. It’s a little more comfortable, but we’ll find an open room. MR. MAC EWAN-Wherever. Just e-mail everyone and let them know. I’ll e-mail Pam tonight and let her know that we’re on. Alternates I expect and hope will be there. So, let Tom know as well. What I’m asking everybody to do is two topics that you want to discuss next Wednesday night, referencing procedural aspects of this Board. Send them to Craig tomorrow, your two wish list things. MR. BROWN-That way we may be able to get you some answers and some background information. MR. MAC EWAN-Tomorrow, that’s why I’m asking, so that it gives you time to put together background information, if you have background information that goes along with the wish list. MR. BROWN-Or at least pass it on to Counsel in case they need to. MR. MAC EWAN-Right. You guys had last week to think about this. You’ve already had a week. How much more time do you need? You’re retired. MR. RINGER-I know, but it might take me four days to think of a topic. 39 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/22/02) MR. MAC EWAN-All right. I’ll give you guys a reprieve. Wednesday. MR. RINGER-All right, that’s one day better. MR. METIVIER-Tomorrow is Wednesday. MR. RINGER-And I was ready to accept it. MR. VOLLARO-It almost worked. MR. MAC EWAN-All right. Thursday. Make sure you get the stuff up to him by Thursday. I’ll send Pam an e-mail tonight and let her know to advertise the meeting for next Tuesday. MR. RINGER-Yes, fix your fax. MR. MAC EWAN-My fax works great. Your phone doesn’t work. Anything else? Motion to adjourn. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Craig MacEwan, Chairman 40