Loading...
1989-09-19 ---- ',,-- '- ~ - --./. QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD REGULAR MEETING SEPTEMBER 19th, 1989 INDEX APPLICANT PAGE Site Plan No. 47-89 Robert Eckardt 1. Site Plan No. 40-89 Thomas & Carolyn Clary 2. Subdivision No. 3-1988 Maple Row Farms 2. Final Stage Site Plan No. 40-88 Dr. Kit & Loretta Burkich 3. Petition for Change of 4. Zone P9-89 Site Plan No. 59-89 James M. Weller 7. Site Plan No. 60-89 Jean M. Hoffman 10. Site Plan No. 61-89 Daniel & George Drellos 11. Agenda Control 13. Setting Public Hearing Site Plan No. 57-89 Bay Road Reality 13. Site Plan No. 64-89 John Hughes 13. '---- ~' -,' ',- '--- - ,--,,' QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD REGULAR MEETING SEPTEMBER 19th, 1989 7:30 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT RICHARD ROBERTS, CHAIRMAN HILDA MANN, SECRETARY VICTOR MACRI PETER CARTIER JOSEPH DYBAS KEITH JABLONSKI TOWN ATTORNEY-PAUL DUSEK TOWN ENGINEER-WAYNE GANNETT LEE YORK, SENIOR PLANNER JOHN GORALSKI, PLANNER P AT COLLARD, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR MEMBERS ABSENT FRANK DESANTIS APPROVAL OF MINUTES APPROVAL OF THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OF AUGUST 15th, ]989 AS SUBMITTED OLD BUSINESS SITE PLAN NO. 47-89 ROBERT ECKARDT TYPE n WR-lA ASSEMBLY POINT ROAD, 1 MILE FIRST HOUSE ON WATER (GRAY), ADJACENT TO TOWN WATER STORAGE TANK (BLUE) FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A BOATHOUSE WITH A SUNDECK ON TOP (I8 FT. BY 30 FT.) OPEN SIDED. WILL BE ADDED ON SIDE OF EXISTING STAKE DOCK. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) TAX MAP NO. 8-2-6 SECTION 4.02D-D LOT SIZE: .21 ACRES ROBERT ECKARDT PRESENT MR. GORALSKI-Stated that the last time Mr. Eckardt was before the Board the application had been denied by Warren County Planning Board and he could not achieve a majority plus one vote by this Board. Since then Mr. Eckardt, has been back to Warren County Planning Board and they have approved this. MR. CARTIER-Asked if the stairs were going come from the dock? MR. ECKARDT-Stated at the last meeting the only way it would pass was if I did have a stairway. MR. GORALSKI-Stated that according to the Zoning Ordinance and the Adirondack Park Agency Regulations, if the top of the boathouse is connected in that way to the deck it would be considered part of the deck and they would need a variance. MR. CARTIER-Asked if he understood that he was avoiding having to go through the variance? MR. ECKARDT-Yes. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 47-89, ROBERT ECKARDT,Introduced by Peter Cartier who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joseph Dybas: To approve all the concerns that have been raised have been dealt with. They have received County approval. Duly adopted this 19th day of September, 1989, by the following vote: A YES: Mr. Macri, Mrs. Mann, Mr. Cartier, Mr. Dybas, Mr. Jablonski, Mr. Roberts NOES: None ABSENT:Mr. DeSantis 1 "--' ~' '-- "---- SITE PLAN NO. 40-89 THOMAS AND CAROLYN CLARY REARDON ROAD TYPE: UNLISTED WR-lA TO ENCLOSE THE PRESENT DOCK AND INSTALL WINDOWS AND SCREENS. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) TAX MAP NO. 45-3-15 SECTION 9.010 LOT SIZE: 9,800 SQ. FT. BILL MILLINGTON REPRESENTING THOMAS AND CAROLYN CLARY MR. MILLINGTON the reason why this was tabled is because they needed to obtain a variance. Stated the deck was installed on the back of the house which is the lake side with the approval of the building inspector, but a variance was needed. They have received the variance for a L shape building on the back of the premises. What they would like to do is enclose the L shape deck by putting windows and screens in. This was installed in 1985 and has been there since that time. They now need site plan approval because the construction was made without approval previously. To increase the size of the living area is the purpose of this application. The expansion would be an L shaped area 8 ft. by 20 ft. and 6 ft. by 12 ft. The area would not involve an increase in any of the bedroom facilities in the house, any of the occupancy of the house, and would not involve increasing the plumbing facilities or any other facilities. It would not affect water, sewage, or any other facility. Although this does not move closer to the side lines it does go closer to the lake, but it has no effect on the lake. There would be no adverse effect on the neighbors, vegetation. (Presented pictures to the Board) Feels this would be a betterment of their home. The Clary's propose to put an addition on an existing house that is going to be consistent with the area. MRS. MANN-Concerned about putting a deck out on a house and then later coming back in to enclose the deck. Asked about the driveway to the left whose driveway is it? MRS. CLARY-Stated the driveway is their property going down most of the way and then it goes onto the property of the Olsen's to the left which has been shared. MRS. MANN-Stated since the Olsen aren't present then they must not be concerned about this addition. I know what your saying as far as there is no septic system involved, but this deck has openings between the pieces of wood so the water is being recharge into the ground from the deck. Anytime this becomes a solid building as it will with the roof there is more runoff that is going to be closer to the lake, so there is an effect on the environment anytime this type of thing is enclosed. MR. MILLINGTON-Stated that the deck was built in 1985 so four years have past. Doesn't think this was the purpose of building the deck. STAFF INPUT John Goralski, Planner (on file) DISCUSSION HELD MR. CARTIER-Asked if the Olsen's were notified of this? MR. GORALSKI-Yes. Stated that they did come in and look at the plan. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 40-89 THOMAS AND CAROLYN CLARY,Introduced by Hilda Mann who moved for its adoption, seconded by Peter Cartier: Approve since they have received their variance and note that there seems to be no public controversy over this project. Duly adopted this 19th day of September, 1989, by the following vote: A YES: Mr. Macri, Mrs. Mann, Mr. Cartier, Mr. Dybas, Mr. Jablonski, Mr. Roberts NOES: None ABSENT:Mr. DeSantis SUBDMSION NO. 3-1988 SFR-IA MAPLE ROW FARMS FINAL STAGE TYPE: UNLISTED EAST SIDE OF COUNTRY CLUB ROAD, OPPOSITE WINCREST DRIVE FOR 20 ACRES INTO 15 2 "--' ~' ',-- "--- - .---, LOTS. TAX MAP NO. 60-7-16.1 LOT SIZE: 20 ACRES CHARLES SCHUDDER REPRESENTING MAPLE ROW FARMS STAFF INPUT John Goralski, Planner (on file) DISCUSSION HELD MR. GANNETT-Has no additional comments. MOTION TO APPROVE SUBDIVISION NO. 3-1988, MAPLE ROW FARMS, FINAL STAGE,Introduced by Joseph Dybas who moved for its adoption, seconded by Hilda Mann: To approve having met all the requirements of the Planning Board. Duly adopted this 19th day of September, 1989, by the following vote: A YES: Mr. Macri, Mrs. Mann, Mr. Cartier, Mr. Dybas, Mr. Jablonski, Mr. Roberts NOES: None ABSENT:Mr. DeSantis SITE PLAN NO. 40-88 DR. KIT AND LORETTA BURKICH, TYPE: UNLISTED UR-5 129 A VIA TION ROAD REQUEST FOR A ONE YEAR EXTENSION FROM THE SEPTEMBER 27, 1988 APPROVAL BY THE PLANNING BOARD FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A ONE, FOUR UNIT (MULTIFAMILY) DWELLING. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) TAX MAP NO. 78-1-6.1 LOT SIZE: 1.37 ACRES LORETTA BURKICH DAUGHTER REPRESENTING HER MOTHER MR. GORALSKI-Read the following letter: TO: Planning Board FROM: Zoning Administrator RE: Site Plan No. 48-88 129 Aviation Road DA TE: September ll, 1989 As of October 1988, 129 Aviation Road zoning changed from UR-5 to a more restrictive SFRIA zoning. Since approval last September, a 2-family house has been constructed on this parcel that also has a single family house and garage on it. It may be difficult to sell the lot as single family with existing apartments in the area. I feel a multifamily residence would be over use of the parcel and the year extension should be denied. The applicant should be encouraged to construct a duplex. DISCUSSION HELD MR. ROBERTS-Stated that their approval was prior to the change in zoning. MRS. YORK-Stated this application came before the Board for the first change just prior to the change in zone. MR. ROBERTS-Stated that this was grandfathered. MR. GORALSKI-Stated it was at that time when the Board approved it. MS. BURKICH-Stated the reason they requested the extension is that they are in the process of trying to get financing for the four unit. It is under bidding now for contractors and we haven't decided on who will build it. The other duplex was built in the middle of winter and the way the schedule is going right now we are not going to be able to get started in the middle of the winter. Confused as to why they should build a duplex when they have approval of the four unit. MRS. YORK-Stated the Ordinance allows you a year to get your building under construction 3 '----' '- -,,' "-- - --./' '--- in that period of time if nothing occurs after a year then the Board re-reviews your application to look at any changes that have occurred in the property, neighborhood, zoning, to reevaluate the petition. MR. MACRI-Asked if they have started construction and completed one unit on this project? MS. BURKICH-Stated they have built a duplex on this project. MR. DYBAS-Feels that they should go along with the Zoning Administrators recommendation. MR. MACRI-Doesn't see any reason why they couldn't grandfather this approval. MR. DYBAS-Stated that within the last year they have discovered the intersections of Aviation Road have become to busy. MR. MACRI-Stated a lot of things have taken place and the construction that we approved has taken place, but nothing is any different. We created the traffic problem. MRS. MANN-Stated the zone was changed for a good reason. Either you give people a year to get their project underway or you don't. MR. DYBAS-Thinks the members of the Advisory Panel recognized what has been happening in Queensbury and I feel their outlook has been correct. MR. CARTIER-Stated that this was probably the most dramatic change in zone that the advisory committee made. MR. ROBERTS-Feels that this is something that was approved in the past feels it would be a hardship for them to redesign their project in midstream. MOTION TO DENY SITE PLAN NO. 40-88 DR. KIT AND LORETTA BURKICH,Introduced by Peter Cartier who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joseph Dybas: Deny request for extension for reason stated by the Zoning Administrator of her letter dated September ll, 1989. Duly adopted this 19th day of September, 1989, by the following vote: A YES: Mrs. Mann, Mr. Cartier, Mr. Dybas, Mr. Jablonski NOES: Mr. Macri, Mr. Roberts ABSENT:Mr. DeSantis DISCUSSION HELD MR. ROBERTS-Asked if Ms. Burkich understood that she was denied the extension. MS. BURKICH-Stated she understood. Would like to clarify that I have a year to get a building permit. MR. GORALSKI-Stated that she has until September 27th, 1989 to get a building permit for the four unit dwelling. MR. ROBERTS-Stated the recommendation that you build a duplex not a fourplex is just that. Asked if this meant they had to come in for another site plan? MR. GORALSKI-Stated that they would need a variance. MR. MACRI-Stated that she doesn't need to have a building permit she just needs to apply for one. MS. BURKICH-Asked if that meant she had another year? MR. GORALSKI-Stated that a building permit is only good for 6 months. PETITION FOR A CHANGE OF ZONE P9-89 WALT BURNHAM-NORTHEASTERN ELECTRIC MOTORS FRANK CATTONE-TRI COUNTY KITCHEN CENTER VITO CALALLARI-WEST MOUNTAIN DELI &: PIZZA SHOP LORETTA BAIRD-HUDSON-MIKE BAIRD SIGNS GARY BALL-GARY BALL COUNTERTOPS ROY BALL-RESIDENCE SALLIE BRANDT AND LORRAINE BRANDT-WEST MT. SALES 4 "---" --./ , '- "--- --" --" -./ THE ENTIRE AREA IN QUESTION IS ZONED FOR RESIDENTIAL USE. LOCATION: CORINTH ROAD. THROUGH VARIANCES OR PRIOR EXISTING USES THE AREA IS NOW PRIMARILY LIGHT INDUSTRIAL IN NATURE. TillS APPLICATION REQUESTS THAT THE ZONING FOR TillS AREA BE AMENDED TO LIGHT INDUSTRIAL (LI-lA). PAUL BRANDT REPRESENTING HIS WIFE SALLY BRANDT, MIKE BAIRD MAP SHOWN TO BOARD MR. ROBERTS-Stated that this was before the Board a month ago and was tabled so they could come back with better mapping. We indicated that we were not generally in favor of rezoning individual pieces of properties, but more like general areas. MR. BRANDT-Stated that this is a rezoning of an area along Corinth and VanDusen Roads. At the last meeting we asked more or less for spot zoning which you said you could not do and recommended that we ask for rezoning of an area. My wife contacted several owners along the road one which is Mike Baird, owner of a business along Corinth Road. Asked Mike Baird to come up and make a presentation. MR. BAIRD-Stated this area right now is zoned residential one acre, we propose to change this to LI-IA. Presented signed petitions to the Board of residents and business in the area in favor of this change. (on file) The map with all the colored areas of red are those of all the people who do not oppose the change in zone. MR. CARTIER-Asked if he contacted all these people? MR. BAIRD-Yes. MR. MACRI-Asked if anyone on Stephanie Lane was contacted? MR. BAIRD-Stated the way he understood the object of being here tonight is to possibly see if the Planning Board would suggest this to the Town Board for a public hearing. At that time they would notify everyone within the propose change and everyone within 500 feet of the change. MR. ROBERTS-Stated that the Advisory Committee worked on the rezoning that went into effect a year ago and there has been considerable discussion about this area that some of us thought that this should be light industrial one acre. At the time that was a minority, but I think, today there is a great number of people along that area that came to the public hearing and disagreed with that. MR. BAIRD-Stated that he understands that it was publicized in the Post Star for the meeting. I have investigated this and 98% of the people in the area to be changed didn't know that this was happening, neglect on our part. I do understand this now and if this does go to the Town Board they will send out letters to everyone within 500 feet. MR. ROBERTS-Wonders way this area couldn't be larger? BRUCE LIPINSKI-representing Web Graphics. Stated that Wed Graphic is one of the largest land owners in the proposed area to be rezoned. Web Graphic is a major employer in the area with 165 employees and they produce preprinted business forms. Pointed out to the Board that there is a lot of support in this area from the zoning ordinance itself the purpose of the light industrial district is the following; highway oriented and research businesses need opportunities appropriately located near major highway in which they receive the materials after which they dispense their product. Pointed out that here we have a perfect location next to the northway, I think if the area was rezoned to light industry then they would have the opportunity to grow in this area. Stated with the various businesses there that in effect it is light industrial even though on the books it appears to be suburban residential. FRANK CATTONE-of Tri County Kitchens. Stated he didn't see the papers when this was happening understood that when a zoning change happened even the people that aren't involved in that change would be notified. Didn't realize they could change the zoning of my property without being notified. I didn't know this change was happening it did happen and it obviously affected me and many other people, but there was no direct notification. Now we're talking about possibly going back to what it had been and we're saying immediately we must now notify everyone around who's not involved in the actualland ownership this seem confusing to me. MR. CARTIER-Stated this was a town wide rezoning. A number of notices were in the paper, there were public hearings held that were available to people. To do what you are suggesting would involve notifying every land owner in the entire Town of Queensbury. MR. CA TTONE-Stated if the zoning in the entire town was going to be changed this is true, 5 "---" -- " ,--,,' ----"" ---' ." '-- but I don't believe it's been changed at all. My point is, I was surprised the zoning could be changed without some type of letter or notification. MR. ROBERTS-Stated the Board has three ways to go with this; (1) Could disagree with this. (2) We could agree with it to the extent that we ask the Town Board to hold a public hearing. (3) Maybe we want to look at this more closely or in a wider area. MRS. MANN-Stated you have to address the issue that is presented. MRS. YORK-Asked if Mr. Roberts, was suggesting the recommendation would be to rezone and make it a larger area? MR. JABLONSKI-Thinks if the Board is going to make a change to light industrial zone, thinks we should look at it in a larger area or boundary lines. MRS. YORK-Stated that this is something that hasn't been applied for. The Town Board has asked the Board to make a recommendation on this specific request. MR. ROBERTS-Asked if this has already gone to the Town Board? MRS. YORK-Yes. MR. ROBERTS-Stands corrected. MR. MACRI-Asked that in the recommendation could they ask the Town Board to investigate a larger area? MRS. YORK-Yes. MR. CARTIER-Asked if the petitioners understand that what they border is residential property that if there is a change in zone that you will be required to have a 50 foot buffer? MR. BAIRD-Yes. PAUL NAYLOR-owner of real estate in this area. Has a problem with enlarging it feels this is going to create problems. The people in the neighborhood like it this way. If you start you may cause us problems. MR. CARTIER-Stated this is a comment that should be addressed to the Town Board because this is where it is going to get site specific. MRS. MANN-Asked what was the original zone? MRS. YORK-Stated it was HC-15. It was narrower than this. MRS. MANN-Stated she would recommend approval of this as a light industrial zone as outlined. Feels they were in error when it was rezoned the other way. ROY BALL-resident in the area (pointed out his property on map). Asked if this goes back to commercial. Wanted to know how much room there had to be between boundary lines? MR. GORALSKI-Stated there would have to be a 30 foot setback. MOTION TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL FOR PETITION FOR CHANGE OF ZONE P9-89, WALT BURNHAM-NORTHEASTERN MOTORS, FRANK CATTONE-TRI COUNTY KITCHEN CENTER, VITO CALALLARI-WEST MOUNTAIN DELI &: PIZZA SHOP, LORETTA BAIRD HUDSON-MIKE BAIRD SIGNS, GARY BALL-RESIDENCE, SALLIE BRANDT AND LORRAINE BRANDT-WEST MR. SALES,Introduced by Hilda Mann who moved for its adoption, seconded by Keith Jablonski: To recommend approval as it is outlined. If the Town Board wishes to expand zone we will leave it up to them. Duly adopted this 19th day of September, 1989, by the following vote: A YES: Mr. Macri, Mrs. Mann, Mr. Cartier, Mr. Dybas, Mr. Jablonski, Mr. Roberts NOES: None ABSENT:Mr. DeSantis 6 ''--' - \ ......."----" -~ NEW BUSINESS q- ¡t1-8q SITE PLAN NO. 59-89 HC-lA TYPE: UNLISTED JAMES M. WELLER CORNER OF WALKUP CUTOFF AND BAY ROAD FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A 2,570 SQ. FT. COLD STORAGE BUILDING AS AN ACCESSORY TO THE EXISTING USE. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) TAX MAP NO. 48-1-26 SECTION 4.02D-K LOT SIZE: 11.15 ACRES MICHAEL HUPENCE PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from John Goralski, Planner (on file) MR. GORALSKI-read the following letter: TO: Queensbury Planning Board FROM: Patricia Collard-Zoning Administrator RE: Site Plan No. 59-89-James Weller BUFFER ZONES DATE: September 19, 1989 It is my interpretation that Section 7.079-BUFFER ZONES does not apply to this site pan as the proposed cold storage building is not a commercial or industrial use per definition of the zoning ordinance. COMMERCIAL USE-any use involving the sale or rental of distribution of goods, services or commodities, either retail or wholesale. INDUSTRIAL USE-any manufacturing, production or assembly of goods or materials, including anyon-site waster disposal area directly associated with an industrial use. ENGINEER REPORT Wayne Gannett, Project Engineer (on file) DISCUSSION HELD MR. ROBERTS-Asked the Zoning Administrator to explain her reasoning in her letter of September 19th. PAT COLLARD-Stated she used the definitions in the beginning of the Ordinance, my interpretation of commercial use doesn't involve cold storage buildings. MR. MACRI-Asked if it allowed construction companies? PAT COLLARD-Stated it doesn't define a construction company it basically refers to sales, retail, distribution of goods, and services. MR. MACRI-Asked if she was saying the use on this property is a nonconforming use? PAT COLLARD-Stated it is an existing construction use. MR. MACRI-Asked if it was a conforming or nonconforming use? PAT COLLARD-Stated it is a conforming use. MR. MACRI-Stated if the conforming use is operation ask why this wouldn't be allowable? PAT COLLARD-Feels it doesn't require a buffer. It also a existing use, thinks when the use began that a buffer zone wasn't required. MRS. MANN-Stated if an industrial business is taking place on this site and part of the process is to keep some of their materials under cover then the building that is stored in it is like an accessory use to the main function. PAT COLLARD-Agrees with Mrs. Mann, doesn't think this is an industrial use of the property. MRS. MANN-Stated it would be an accessory building to the industrial use. PAT COLLARD-Agreed. Stated the only thing she doesn't agree with is the use of industrial. 7 '--- '-/ \ ~- -- ----- MR. CARTIER-Asked if goods or services were going to be sold? MR. HUPENCE-Stated the primary purpose of the building is not to keep the existing equipment or material undercover, but to clean up the area to make it more attractive. MR. CARTIER-Stated his concern is setting a precedent. Asked if all of this is zoned HC-IA? MR. GORALSKI-No. Stated the highway commercial zone basically runs along the driveway to the west back to the property. It's the corner where the actual building is from the site is highway commercial. MR. HUPENCE-Stated there are two existing buildings that are within 25 feet of the property line. MRS. MANN-Asked if the construction company that exists there is conforming? PAT COLLARD-Yes. MR. CARTIER-Asked what was going to be stored in the building? MR. HUPENCE-Stated preexisting equipment; machinery, preexisting metal forms for foundations, construction trailers. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MARK BOMBARD-my parent's own the property just to the south. They really don't, I think have a problem with it this is the first chance I've had to take a look at it. Our main concern about this is the overall height of the property and what it's going to be made out of. MR. HUPENCE-The proposed building isn't any higher than any existing buildings as a matter of fact it's really a one story structure with an existing garage with a two story structure. MR. BOMBARD-What's the siding made out of? MR. HUPENCE-The siding would be Tl-llsiding with t splits on the gable end. MR. ROBERTS-Are you saying this building is not as tall as the existing building? MR. HUPENCE-No it's not. The side facing Mr. and Mrs. Bombard would be a Tl-11 siding so in effect they would no longer be in site of the existing building sitting out there. The only part of the building that's open would be the front. The siding will be stained and finished. MRS. MANN-Will you please explain to me where construction companies are allowed? MR. MACRI-Since there is a definition for a construction company, I guess we"re asking where is it allowed? PAT COLLARD-When this first came before Dave Hatin and I, we researched this and brought it in under the definition of. . .and construction equipment in that this is an existing construction equipment use on that property. MR. MACRI-I think, your losing track of the fact that it is a construction company which encompasses this property. I think you have to look at it in that respect. PAT COLLARD-I'm not sure I understand what your saying. MR. MACRI-The overall definition is construction company it's on one site and it should be treated as that definition nothing else. MR. HUPENCE-That's not the total purpose of the company we're a design build firm. MR. MACRI-You can call yourself what you want, but you have construction equipment, you go out and put down concrete, put up masonry. MR. HUPENCE-That's not our primary purpose; our primary purpose is design. MR. MACRI-Put your construction company some place else because if you want to be considered a professional office you can't have all that other stuff there. MR. HUPENCE-The point I'm trying to make is that we are trying to clean up the area. 8 '----' -- "- ,-, "-- -~ MRS. MANN-We realize that. What the Board has to look at is not the highest use of the property which would probably be the engineering office alone, but when you have the heavy equipment you have to be reduced to what would be the construction firm. If your a construction firm this is light industrial one acre not highway commercial. PAT COLLARD-From your explanation, I would agree. MRS. MANN-If this is the case then you may need a buffer which he may not have. There is no reason why you couldn't get a variance. Asked under those circumstances wouldn't they be obligated to have that buffer? PAT COLLARD-I just don't understand why would he have to buffer the entire side yard? There is already existing buildings there. MR. MACRI-Your're the Zoning Administrator, you should be telling us. The buffering would be for the new construction. PAT COLLARD-I don't know what purpose that would serve. MRS. MANN-We are not in the position to grant that. MR. MACRI-Then he has to go for a variance. PAT COLLARD-It's my interpretation that he does not need a buffer. MRS. MANN-That was when we thought he was a use that was not a preexisting nonconforming use when he was a use that was compatible with the zone. PAT COLLARD-This is an existing use of the property. MRS. MANN-This is an expansion of what is really. . .a nonconforming use. MR. CARTIER-I'm reading out of Article IV here that says, "a 50 foot buffer shall be required adjoining residential and industrial zones". It doesn't say anything in reference to having a type of operations. . .it's just a flat statement. MR. MACRI-You have to consider this is a preexisting nonconforming use. MR. CARTIER-I understand that, but for us to grant this. . . MRS. MANN-We can't. MR. WELLER-Your telling me I'm going to need a variance. MRS. MANN-That's what I would suggest. MR. CARTIER-It needs to be clarified by the Zoning Board. MR. DUSEK-Mr. Chairman, if the Zoning Administrator has made a decision there wouldn't be a need to go to the ZBA. MR. ROBERTS-I guess, we're disagreeing with the Zoning Administrator. MR. DUSEK-The proper procedure then would be for the Board to appeal to the Zoning Board not the applicant. TAPED TURNED MR. MACRI-She misinterpreted the use. There is a definition for a construction company that lies within the light industrial zone. MR. DUSEK-Are you reversing your decision at this point? PAT COLLARD-I don't see that I have any choice. MRS. YORK-Your're the Zoning Administrator, Mrs. Collard, if you make a decision. MR. DUSEK-Do you feel you see the logic of their position? PAT COLLARD-Yes, I do. MR. DUSEK-In light of this you wish to reverse your decision? 9 ''--- ~ ~- --/ PAT COLLARD-Yes. MARK BOMBARD-I don't know if this is going to help anything now, but I was talking to my Dad and since we're the immediate owners to the addition we don't find it necessary for the 50 foot buffer. MRS. MANN-Then I suggest that he go to the Zoning Board of Appeals, and you should stand right up and say that. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO.59-89, JAMES M. WELLER,Introduced by Victor Macri who moved for its adoption, seconded by Hilda Mann: Table with the agreement of the applicant pending variance application. Duly adopted this 19th day of September, 1989, by the following vote: ALL IN FAVOR ABSENT:Mr. DeSantis SITE PLAN NO. 60-89 TYPE: UNLISTED JEAN M. HOFFMAN WR-lA CORNER OF ASSEMBLY POINT AND KNOX ROADS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF AN ENCLOSED BOATHOUSE ON TOP OF AN EXISTING DOCK. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) TAX MAP NO. 7-1-16.5 SECTION 4.02o-D BOB OVERROCKER REPRESENTING JEAN HOFFMAN HIS WIFE STAFF INPUT Notes from John Goralski, Planner (on file) Warren County Planning disapproved. Application appeared to illustrate that the boathouse would be enclosed. (on file) Phone conversation between Lee York and John Quinlan, September 19th, 1989 3:20 p.m. Mr. Quinlan is a close neighbor of Jean Hoffman and is in favor of this site plan. (on file) DISCUSSION HELD MR. ROBERTS-Asked why Warren County Planning turned this down? MR. GORALSKI-Stated they feel that close sided boathouses have a negative impact on the atheistic value. MR. ROBERTS-Stated he feels this depends on the location and the neighbors. Asked why haven't they seen construction of a boathouse. With the new crib dock being built doesn't recall seeing this. Asked John to have the building inspector look into this to see if they have a proper application. MR. CARTIER-Asked how close Mr. Quinlan's property was? MR. OVERROCKER-Stated Mr. Quinlan lives on the property directly to the rear of us. There is a 5 foot right-of-way which is Knox's Road. Originally applied to the Building Department to enclose the existing dock they in turn had referred us to the Planning Board. Asked why the County had turned this down? MRS. YORK-Stated Warren County Planning Board, our community is required to send all variances and site plans to Warren County. They may approve or deny it's a recommendation only to this Board. MR. OVERROCKER-Stated they have specific reasons of why they want the boathouse enclosed. In effort to keep it opened by design the plans call for the four corners to be permanent on the boathouse, but the center of all four sides to go behind the corners so there is an open effect when security is not required. Asked the Board to act favorably upon this and what there recommendations would be if they found this not acceptable? MR. ROBERTS-Asked if it would be in effect partially open in the summer and closed in the winter? MR. OVERROCKER-Correct. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED 10 '--,' , '--- ~ ,..-/ '---" NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 60-89, JEAN M. HOFFMAN,Introduced by Peter Cartier who moved for its adoption, seconded by Hilda Mann: Approve the use of the sliding walls provides an openness that enhances or takes into account some of the concerns that have been made. Duly adopted this 19th day of September, 1989, by the following vote: A YES: Mr. Macri, Mrs. Mann, Mr. Cartier, Mr. Dybas, Mr. Jablonski, Mr. Roberts NOES: None ABSENT:Mr. DeSantis SITE PLAN NO. 61-89 DANIEL AND GEORGE DRELLOS, TYPE: UNLISTED LI-lA MOBILE HOMES OVERLAY ZONE NORTH SIDE OF LUZERNE ROAD FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A 6,600 SQ. FT. CONSTRUCTION COMPANY: SPECIALIZING IN INSTALLATION AND MAINTENANCE OF SEPTIC SYSTEMS. TAX MAP NO. 93-2-6, 1, 8, 9 (PART) TAX MAP NO. 93-2-22.1 SECTION 4.020-N LOT SIZE:' 2.29 ACRES EFFECTED REMAINING 9.53 ACRES NOT EFFECTED BY PROJECT: WOULD DILUTE GREEN AREA PERCENTAGE TO 98% MICHAEL O'CONNOR FIRM OF LITTLE AND O'CONNOR REPRESENTING DANIEL AND GEORGE DRELLOS/LEON STEVES VANDUSEN AND STEVES/MR. IRISH STAFF INPUT Notes from John Goralski, Planner (on file) ENGINEER REPORT Wayne Gannett, Project Engineer (on file) DISCUSSION HELD MR. ROBERTS-Stated the Beautification Committee approved, but had questions about type of shrubbery being planted. (on file) MR. O'CONNOR-Stated that the Drellos's own four or five different parcels of land that are contiguous. They are shown in the manner not to confuse this particular project with other uses. On the map the property in on the north side of Luzerne Road and west of the Northway. To the west of the property they have an approved mobile home park which was approved by this Board and the Town Board. Staff is correct in saying that the line here (refers to map) is not their property line. The Drellos's own the parcel that is behind the front piece that is shown which could be utilized in this particular use. The land behind which is 325.55 feet or the line along the side of it 339.25 can be ignored as property lines. The site is self sufficient in and of itself we hope to have other uses of the property behind it in the future. Stated they have shown the topographical information on the total site and we've shown you what we plan to use as the construction facility on the front of the property; and we've shown that property is self sufficient. We acknowledge that your not approving a subdivision only site plan review. If there is a subdivision on this parcel we would have to comeback and apply. MR. ROBERTS-Asked if the right-of-way would change from whatever it is now to 50 feet? MR. O'CONNOR-Stated if it were going to be a public highway. The lot front requirement is 40 feet for an individual parcel in the light industrial zone. There is an overlay in certain zones that says in certain travel corridors the average lot width has to be twice what is required in that particular zone, but this applies only to residential. Stated that he doesn't know of any restriction that would prohibit a subdivision except that it could not be a public highway it would have to be individually owned all of one parcel if it were subdivided in this manner. Thinks if they get to this point and wanted to go back in there with some kind of road they might be able to change the configuration of this and comeback and ask for a amendment of the site plan that we are presenting to you we could move the boundary to the west or further out behind it. The drainage retention is inside of the boundaries. Referred to the second comment made by staff, the requirement of a 20' wide access way to the parking area, has no objection to this and will amend it. As to the inside storage that has been the practice for the most part of the operation that were talking about it is our intention to do this in the future. Noted that they are in a light industrial zone and there are many uses that are permitted. We hope the site will be as attractive as it has been it's been a well maintained 11 "--" " ',,--- - ,-.....r' building where we presently are and there hasn't been any problems with the operation. Not sure what staff is indicating we have no problem with the present use saying we think everything will be kept inside, except occasionally something may be left out, but if it is left out it will behind the building. As to the comments of the engineer, we have no objection to comment #1 the 20' foot driveway we have no objections to that. Comment #2 says, that the road cross sections provided may be inadequate. We have shown 4 inches of crush stone as our paving we will increase this to 8 inches. MR. IRISH-Stated they were amendable to making modifications to address all of the comments of the engineer. Stated that they have modified the plan and have increased the driveway to 20' wide, and have increased the road cross section to 8 inches of stone, added the details on the sewage disposal system, trench detail; detail of the layout of the asorption trenches and the distances from the building, septic tank detail, and distribution box detail. In addition we have indicated design flow, we have five employees, 125 gallons per day. The percolation rate is slightly in access of one minute we're in the five minute classification. We would actually on the basis of the standards only have to provide 52 feet, Mr. Drellos is going to put in 250 feet. MR. GANNETT-Stated based on the modified plans this addresses all of our concerns. MR. CARTIER-Stated the soil out there is high perce MR. O'CONNOR-Stated the actual test taken was 1 minute 5 seconds. MR. STEVES-Stated that it doesn't mean that only one reading was taken. In this instance eight readings were recorded. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO.61-89, 1989,Introduced by Hilda Mann who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joseph Dybas:: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: SITE PLAN APPROVAL, DANIEL AND GEORGE DRELLOS; 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, BElT 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. A full Environmental Workshop was held on the project with the entire Environmental Assessment Form reviewed and a Negative Declaration was recommended at that time. 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 19th day of September, 1989, by the following vote: A YES: Mr. Macri, Mrs. Mann, Mr. Cartier, Mr. Dybas, Mr. Jablonski, Mr. Roberts NOES: None ABSENT:Mr. DeSantis 12 ----- - \, '- -..../" PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 61-89 DANffiL AND GEORGE DRELLOS,Introduced by Joseph Dybas who moved for its adoption, seconded Hilda Mann: Approve having met the requirements and having the concurrence of our Town consultant. Duly adopted this 19th day of September, 1989, by the following vote: A YES: Mr. Macri, Mrs. Mann, Mr. Cartier, Mr. Dybas, Mr. Jablonski, Mr. Roberts NOES: None ABSENT:Mr. DeSantis FURTHER BUSINESS AGENDA CONTROL MR. ROBERTS-Stated that recently they voted to set a public hearing to address agenda control it was set for September 19th, 1989 and it never happened. Asked to set another date. MOTION TO SET A PUBLIC HEARING ON OCTOBER 17th, 1989 FOR AGENDA CONTROL,Introduced by Victor Macri who moved for its adoption, seconded by Peter Cartier: A YES: Mr. Macri, Mrs. Mann, Mr. Dybas, Mr. Cartier, Mr. Dybas, Mr. Jablonski NOES: None ABSENT:Mr. DeSantis SITE PLAN NO. 57-89 BAY ROAD REALITY, LOT 'I KURT DYBAS OF CUSHING AND DYBAS ASSOCIATES MR. DYBAS-Stated last month he was before the Board for site plan review for the Prudential Building that is on Lot #1, Cross Roads Development. Stated the boundaries that were on the site plan that were submitted last month did not agree with the subdivision drawings. Stated he was here tonight to revise the boundaries lines for the site. The basic concept of the site remains the same. What has happened the site is reduced from 1.45 acres to 1.28 acres. The percentages we did adjust slightly the building is 6,000 sq. ft. The paved area last months was 35% it is now 44%. The green area has been reduced from 55.5 down to 49.6 and one additional parking space has been added. MRS. MANN-Asked if there was any problem with the permeability? MR. DYBAS-No. MR. GANNETT-Stated that this is just a minor revision this is not that much different than original plan. MR. ROBERTS-Asked Staff if they felt comfortable with this change? STAFF-Yes. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 57089 BAY ROAD REALITY, LOT 'I.Introduced by Hilda Mann who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joseph Dybas: To approve and feel after talking to our consultants this does not effect the overall plan nor will it effect the negative declaration that was issued with the original approval. Duly adopted this 19th day of September, 1989, by the following vote: A YES: Mrs. Mann, Mr. Dybas, Mr. Jablonski, Mr. Roberts NOES: None ABSTAIN:Mr. Macri, Mr. Cartier ABSENT:Mr. DeSantis SITE PLAN NO. 64-89 JOHN HUGHES SOUTHSlDE BA YWOOD DRIVE LOT'5. 13 '---' '-../' \. .~- -" "-..I MR. ROBERTS-Stated that staff found some minor changes that he again has already corrected. MR. HUGHES-Stated they had a 10 ft. driveway rather than a 20 ft. driveway going all the way in. (Pointed out to Board where driveway is located) On the parking out front instead of it being inner parking it was shown as parking coming in off of the street. We changed that so it is inner parking and brought the driveway back to 20 ft. all the way through and put in one handicap parking space. MR. ROBERTS-Asked for copies of this before next week's meeting. Asked if the Board was willing to put this on the agenda for next week. BOARD-Yes. On motion the meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULL Y SUBMITTED Richard Roberts, Chairman 14