Loading...
1982-11-03 MINUTES Queensbury Town Planning Board Wednesday, November 3, 1982 Present: R. Roberts, Chairman R. Montesi, Secretary J. Dybas H. Mann K. Sorlin S. Lynn, Staff C. Scudder, Engineer Absent: B. Harrison W. Threw The minutes of the October 6, 1982 meeting were approved as written. OLD BUSINESS Site Plan Review No. 8-82 - The Great Escape Camping Resort, Inc. Round Pond Road RC-15 and LC-IO Zone Mr. Roberts noted that the Board had spent a great deal of time in workshop session going over EAS forms preliminary to determining the necessity of an EIS. Letters were sent to the proper agencies, none requested lead agency status. Mr. Wayne Judge, Esq. presented modified plans as a result of con- cerns expressed by Mr. Scudder and Dr. Lapointe, representative of the Glen Lake Association. Lots adjacent to the wetlands area have been eliminated. There will be 43 sites in the tongue area. Pro- vision has been made for an earthen berm which will be 20 feet wide, 320 feet long and 2 feet high. All of roads have been moved a dis- tance of 100 feet trom the nearest boundary of wetlands area. Further, there is a 50 foot buffer zone between the nearest property line. There is no 1eachfield projected within 300 feet to the nearest point of the wetland. Letter received from Fred Austin, WCDPW, stating no significant traffic problem anticipated. Mrs. Mann disagreed, saying common sense tells you that RV vehicles in and out of Round Pond Road on a summer day is going to create a tremendous traffic problem. Mr. Wood stated that if problem occurs state DOT will address it and require a traffic light. Mr. Richard Mead detailed the landscape plan including the plantings on the berm. Site pads will be no more than gravel surrounded by grass. Mr. Robert Kafin, Esq. hired by applicant to look at procedures applicant was following to make sure that no corners were being cut as they move their way toward complying with regulations, especially SEQR. Page Two November 3, 1982 Mr. Michael Muller, Esq. representing the Glen Lake Association. They are concerned about the peninsula area. They have no objection to the largest part of proposal above the tongue in RC zone. Con- cerned about marsh area that feeds into Glen Lake. Pat Collyer representing Adirondack Mountain Club. Stated they must be 150' from water when they camp, felt it would be okay (tongue area) for tent sites, not RV vehicles. Dr. LaPoint requestéd they strike tongue area from project. Feels LC-IO area should be preserved in the spirit of the way that the zoning ordinance was drawn up. Mr. Wages stated that based on the Board's comments and comments they had heard tonight, Mr. Wood has just made the decision that, if the Board wishes, he will restrict tongue area to strictly tent sites so that RV vehicles will not be allowed there. They would hope that this would solve the concern for the ten acre area. Mr. Scudder, engineer stated that 1. From his standpoint, one of the things the project has going for it is that it is only a 12-14 week operation. 2. Mr. Wood has a proven track record in taking care of his property. 3. Waste water can be handled properly. 4. Traffic situation is a problem. Mr. Dybas stated that one month ago he had many questions. He feels that those questions have been answered reasonably well. Feels there is no reason for more studies, as problems do occur they will have to be rectified. That's what planning is - to plan perfect is impossibler to plan reasonably well is Board's job. Mr. Roberts stated that when LC-10 zone was planned he did not envision this type of development occurring, perhaps ordinance is not specific enough. Mr. Montesi offered motion to approve Site Plan Review, seconded by Mr. Dybas. Motion carried unanimously. RESOLVED: The Board granted approval of this Site Plan Review. 1. Queensbury Planning Board declares a negative impact or negative declaration on this project. 2. Queensbury Planning Board grants approval to this Site Plan Review No.8-82 pending the 30 day waiting period for other State agencies to respond. 3. Restriction that the LC-IO area zone be used only as tent sites. Page Three November 3, 1982 Off-Premises Sign No. 16 - Attractions Land, Ltd. UR-5 Zone northeast corner I-87 and Aviation Road Sign brought before Board in October 1981, turned down by Board in November 1981. Applicant appealed and by direction of New York State Supreme Court comes back to Board for review. Mr. Robert Stewart, Esq. Of three requirements under ordinance only one is in question - Is the purpose of the sign to direct people to a business or activity. Written statement from Mr. Martin Makarick, employee of J.R. Sousa, Aviation Road, one mile west of Exit 19. Average of 10 to 15 cars per day during summer season seeking direction to Story town. Mr. and Mrs. Marsh - former operators of Arco Mini Mart, Aviation Rd. Estimated they had at least 75 cars per day asking directions to Story town. Manager of Story town - People indicate difficulty in finding park be- cause of poor directional signs. Mrs. Mann stated she has been outspoken critic for a year or more. They (the Board) hæerequested guidance from the Town Board to clarify the Law and they have not acted. Mr. Sorlin stated that there is no real reason, the way the ordinance is currently structured or written, for the Planning Board not to approve this sign. Mrs. Mann offered motion for approval, seconded by Mr. Sorlin. Motion carried unanimously. COMMENTS: The Board granted this Off-Premises sign as it meets the following criteria. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Sign is on major or collector street. 10 sq. ft. in size. 15 ft. setback. Copy content is by ordinance standards. Is directional in content and copy. Need was demonstrated bv 1eter of Martin Makarick and statement from Mrs. Marsh. P.,,1ge Four November 3, 1982 VARIANCE NO. 796 - NPSC Corporation, Northway Plaza Route 9 To place an ornamental spire on the facade of shopping center higher than the 50 ft. maximum allowed in Plaza Commercial Zone. Mr. Robert Kafin, Esq. Spire exceeds building height in this zone by 16 or 17 feet. The way zoning ordinance is written a structure is everything, including for example awe~her vane on a barn. Architect feels if you take away the spire you will eliminate the focal point of project. The Board feels this will be aesthetically pleasing. Mr. Sorlin offered motion for approval, seconded by Mr. Dybas. Motion carried unanimously. COMMENT: The Board recommend approval of this area variance based on the following: 1. As far as fire hazard we have no problem with this structure. 2. It will not obstruct or block any neighbor's view. 3. It does not violate the intent of the ordinance. VARIANCE NO. 797 - NPSC Corporation, Northway Plaza Route 9 To place the words "Northway Plaza" on the main gable as part of proposed facade improvement. Mr. Robert Kafin, Esq. The Board has no problem with this request. Motion for approval offered by Mr. Dybas, seconded by Mrs. Mann Motion carried unanimously. COMMENT: The Board recommend approval of this sign variance based on the following: 1. Identification sign for shopping center is in keeping with new design of shopping center. 2. Unique design does not add to clutter of signs. VARIANCE NO. 798 - NPSC Corporation, Northway PlazåRoute 9 To replace a pre-existing non-conforming free-standing sign with another non-conforming free-standing sign in Plaza Commercial Zone. Mr. Robert Kafin, Esq. Discussion of sign location on Route 9, Quaker Road and gas station sign. Regarding gas station sign, Mr. Swanson of Christopher Associates, stated that on instruction from the Fire Marshal they have been forced to lease that into another gas station or remove three 10,000 gallon tanks out of a brand new Page rive November 3, 1982 parking lot. In the gas station lease they take over the Ward signage. They are aware of sign ordinance and they will have to have a variance to put up new sign. Signage is no longer on t~at structure. Mr. Lynn pointed out weakness in sign ordinance - says sign must be removed but not the structure. The sign request for Route 9 is less non- conforming, less wide than present sign. Mr. Montesi offered a motion for approval, seconded by Mr. Sorlin. Motion carried unanimously. COMMENT: The Board recommend approval of this new free-standing sign based on the following: 1. New sign is lower, one free-standing sign, not two. 2. Gives owner chance to use old sign base. 3. Sign color is green and blends in well with new design. The Board also recommend that this sign be excluded from non-conforming 1986 removal. The Planning Board recommends approval of this Variance with the understanding that the applicant will not use the Quaker Road entrance for additional sign, which it is allowed. VARIANCE No. 799 - Frank K. Bronk, Applehouse Lane West Mountain Park Section II To offer for sale for the purpose of residential construction, lots in a preexisting subdivision not meeting the required one (1) acre lot size and not covered by the grandfather provisions of Article 8 Section 8.011 in SR-lA Zone. Mr. John VanDusen representing Mr. Bronk. Mrs. Mann noted that lots had been developed at both ends of development, creating a hardship for the properties in the middle. Lots are fairly small but soil conditions for septic are excellent. Mr. Montesi offered motion for approval, seconded by Mr. Sorlin. COMMENT: The Board recommend approval of. this area variance based on the following: 1. Nature of neighborhood is 15,000 sq. ft. lots. 2. Other lots are sold and most have homes on them. 3. Lots have Town water. 4. Drainage problems are now being addressed with a new line. 5. Orderly manner of development is on 15,000 sq. ft. lots. 6. Center of development is undeveloped leaving both ends developed. Page Six November 3, 1982 Discussion regarding amending zoning ordinance regarding mining standards. Correspondence read between Mr. Roberts and Mr. Kafin, Esq. seek- ing clarification concerning Paragraph B, Section 7.051 zoning ordinance. Mr. Robert's stated that the strict application of the regulations would prohibit the mining of peat at Rosenkrantz Farm because of water table. It would seem that the solution would to be to grant a variance. It is the BoardFs understanding that they are not entitled to 'give variances to standards. That would leave, amending the ordinance. The ordinance was not designed to mine peat, it had not been thought of. Mr. Robert's response to Mr. Kafin is the recommendation that the ordinance be amended with an addition to the Section in question. Suggested language to be added: ..~except upon a showing satisfactory to the Planning Board during Site Plan Review under Article 5 that the site plans contain mitigative measures adequate to assure that the proposed use of the land will not cause any undue adverse impacts either to such ground- water table or to any surface waters into which such lands drain." Discussion on whether this is or is not an excavation. It is felt that it is not an excavation according to the definition set forth. Steve Lynn recommended adding this to list to go to Town Board so they could take it under consideration with the other amendments to the ordinance. Mrs. Mann offered a motion of approval for suggested paragraph for Section 7.051, Paragraph B on the grounds that it clarifies and makes more flexible, seconded by Mr. Montesi. Motion carried unanimously.