Loading...
1992-12-22 -/ QUBENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING DECEMBER 22ND. 1992 INDEX Site Plan No. 55-92 Hugh & Karen Sinclair Site Plan No. 53-92 Dean Howland, Jr. Site Plan No. 57-92 TPI Staff Leasing 5. 9. 12. THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTHS MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES. '- -../' QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING DECEMBER 22ND, 1992 7:02 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT EDWARD LAPOINT. CHAIRMAN CAROL PULVER. SECRETARY ROGER RUEL TIMO'l'HY BREWER CORINNE TARANA MEMBERS ABSENT CRAIG MACEWAN KATHLEEN ROWE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR-JAMES MARTIN PLANNER-SCOTT HARLICKER STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. LAPOINT-And we're going to juggle the items of business, because no one's here. and first we have a letter from the Aviation Mall. Lou Gagliano, dated 1 December 1992, "On October 15, 1991. the Queensbury Planning Board unanimously approved a motion extending site plan approval for the Aviation Mall expansion to January 22. 1993. Due to protracted financing procedures and lease negotiations, Pyramid Company of Glens Falls is requesting a one year extension of the site plan approval to January 22. 1994. I am available to answer any questions you or the Planning Board may have regarding this request. Thank you for your time and consideration of this matter. Sincerely, Louis C. Gagliano General Manager" MR. LAPOINT-Any questions? Planning issues, on that? We've got Lou here. Any issues. MR. MARTIN-No. The site plan remains unchanged. They've had some troubles leasing up. and I understand they hope to look for the spring. Is that the idea? MR. GAGLIANO-Lou Gagliano from the Aviation Mall. I don't know if I'd use the word "troubles". Jim. but just protracted negotiations, especially when you're dealing with banks, and today's economy. You've got to go through 8,000 different hoops and make sure every T is crossed and every I is dotted, and we're moving forward. We have a number of leases signed, actually. and negotiations with department stores are at various stages. Things are moving forward. We're committed to it and we plan on making it happen, we're just not prepared to start in January of '93. MRS. TARANA-Could you just quickly tell me what the expansion is. because I wasn't on the Board. MRS. PULVER-Is Penneys still going to expand? MR. GAGLIANO-Yes. MR. MARTIN-Essentially what it is. Corinne, as I recall and this will show, will turn into like a corridor mall area. much like is there now. and then a completely new store will be built on that end, to accommodate a new Penneys store. MRS. PULVER-The Penneys is going to be some boutiques in there. It'll be like. MR. MARTIN-Right. Exactly. The existing Penneys store will be 1 ,'. -" diced up into. MR. GAGLIANO-Okay. Essentially. this is the existing shopping center, okay, and what we're proposing to do is construct a brand new JC Penneys where the parking area is now, on the west end of JC Penneys. Where that hill is currently. that hill will be pushed back about 75 feet, and that will become the new parking area on this end. We will then take the eXisting penneys store. add the fourth department store off the rear. towards the back of the site, and then convert the eXisting Penneys into about 15 mall stores. So. now when you're coming by CVS and Just A Buck and Liberty Travel. instead of entering into Penneys, you'll still be in the mall, and just walk through different shops, the other department store, and then enter Penneys down near the end. MRS. TARANA-Okay. MR. GAGLIANO-It's an increase in square footage of about 106,000 square feet, about a 20 percent increase over the eXisting shopping center right now. Also approved was a 15,000 square foot expansion to the Sears store. which is shown right here. The indications are that Sears is probably not going to exercise that option. MRS. TARANA-Do you have any concern that they're moving out? MR. GAGLIANO-I assume you're referring to the report that came out today. My understanding of that report, they're going to close about 100 stores across the nation. phase out. When leases are over, they'll terminate. Sears has three types of stores. what they call A Stores. B Stores. and C Stores, C's being small. hard goods only type stores. B. they add a few more pro line, and then A Stores, like the one we have here, which has everything in it, essentially. They're going to close mostly C Stores and a couple of B Stores. So the A Stores won't even be effected, I saw the report on 13 tonight. and it was a little misleading. MRS. TARANA-It was. because it certainly made it sound like the Glens Falls store was a good possibility of closing. MR. GAGLIANO-Yes. They presume because we're in a smaller market that we're suspect. but actually that's not true. We're probably. I think if you look at the bottom line and had access to the books. that you would find that this store is extremely profitable for Sears. MRS. TARANA-What about the fact, though. that there's one, also, in Wilton? Is that a factor? MR. GAGLIANO-I can't speak to that. When Sears opens. when any store of that size opens, this close, they segment their market. So, they tend to, if they have a traditional loyal Sears or penneys shopper, for that matter. in this example, they don't have to drive to Glens Falls or Clifton Country, if they live in Saratoga, so they tend to just spread the dollars out somewhat. MR. MARTIN-I think what we're seeing, as a practical matter, and I don't know the numbers, but it appears that the Wilton or Saratoga market is considered as a different market area. I know WalMart, for example. is bUilding a separate store down in the Wilton area. as well as the one up here. MRS. TARANA-Yes. MR. GAGLIANO-It is definitely a separate market. It's a much smaller market, both from a dollar standpoint. and also population base wise. MR. MARTIN-I think the thing that will continually be in Queensbury's favor is that we're the last thing before the blue 2 *'"'" '-- -./ line, and that's why you see the development pressure here, and I think you draw everything from the north. the market area I think goes extremely farther north than it might. MR. GAGLIANO-We serve all the way to Ticonderoga. People who live north of Ti go to Plattsburgh. and we also draw heavily from the Rutland. Vermont area. MRS. TARANA-Thank you. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. Is anyone ready to make a motion? MOTION TO GRANT AN EXTENSION OF SITE PLAN NO. 1-91 PYRAMID COMPANY OF GLENS FALLS. Introduced by Carol Pulver who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roger Ruel: For the Aviation Mall, for one year from January 22nd, 1993. Duly adopted this 22nd day of December, 1992, by following vote: AYES: Mrs. Tarana, Mr. Ruel. Mr. Brewer, Mrs. Pulver. Mr. LaPoint NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Rowe, Mr. MacEwan MR. GAGLIANO-Thank you very much. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. We have Mr. Tippett here. Why don't we move on to that one. MRS. PULVER-So, where are we? Okay. agenda, I have, like. three agendas correct agenda? I would like to know what here. What agenda is the MR. MARTIN-Revised 12/10 at the upper left hand corner. MRS. PULVER-The one that says 12/7, 12/10? MR. MARTIN-Yes. MRS. PULVER-Okay. This is the correct one. All right. MALVERN TIPPETT MR. TIPPETT-Do you want me to come up? MR. LAPOINT-Yes. We'll get started. Come on right up. MR. TIPPETT-Dean Howland is supposed to be here. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. Would you like to wait for him? MR. TIPPETT-I'll answer every question that I can. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. I'll tell you what. subdivision regulations. Lets move to the MR. MARTIN-You have this general resolution. You can move on that. MR. LAPOINT-Right. Okay. Last week we held a public hearing on the amendments to the subdivision regulations that would require the applicant to submit only 10 copies. instead of 14. We missed. or we did not run an amendment to adopt those. MR. MARTIN-Yes. We didn't have this. provide us with a quick resolution. Paul was good enough to MR. LAPOINT-We're going to entertain a formal resolution to have applicants submit 10 copies instead of 14 copies during the site 3 c' -- -/' plan process, and we have an attached amendment. Would we be reading this whole thing in, Jim? MR. MARTIN-No. It's not necessary. You can just move it. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. It would be just reference to the title? MR. MARTIN-Right. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. Do we have anybody willing to make a motion to adopt them? RESOLUTION TO AMEND THE PLANNING BOARD SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS AS WRITTEN. Introduced by Carol Pulver who moved for its adoption, seconded by Timothy Brewer: Duly adopted this 22nd day of December, 1992, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ruel, Mr. Brewer, Mrs. Pulver, Mrs. Tarana, Mr. LaPoint NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Rowe, Mr. Ruel MR. LAPOINT-Okay. You'll pass that along to the attorney? MR. MARTIN-Yes. It'll go to the Town Board next. MR. LAPOINT-Right. Okay. Why don't we give Dean a few minutes to show up. MRS. TARANA-Can't we just go down the agenda, then, until we get to him? MR. LAPOINT-There's nobody else here. So, we're at that point now. MRS. TARANA-Yes. but don't we have to do something with the rest of these? MR. LAPOINT-Just one other one tonight. right? MRS. PULVER-Well, you've got Hugh & Karen Sinclair. MRS. TARANA-Sinclair, and Hermance. MR. BREWER-Hermance is off. MR. HARLICKER-Hermance is off. MR. BREWER-Because of the Zoning Board last night. MR. HARLICKER-The variance was tabled. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. So all we have is the Sinclair. MRS. TARANA-What do you do when no one's here? MRS. PULVER-Well. unless you really have any questions. I mean. you could pass it without. I mean, we've passed things before when they're not here. It depends on. is everybody. MR. TIPPETT-Isn't there something about TPI, also. MR. MARTIN-Yes. Those are the last two items. MR. TIPPETT-Because I'm affiliated with TPI also. Apparently. Dean told me there were some questions with regard to parking in the front of the building? 4 ~ -- MR. LAPOINT-Okay. I mean, do you want to try the Sinclair thing? MRS. PULVER-Yes. Lets go through the Sinclair one. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. NEW BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 55-92 TYPE: UNLISTED LI-1A HUGH & KAREN SINCLAIR OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE LOCATION: CORNER OF CORINTH RD. & MERRITT RD. CONSTRUCTION OF A 13' 8 II X 22' 6 II LEAN TO SHED TO EXISTING GARAGE. ALL USES IN LIGHT INDUSTRIAL ZONES REQUIRE SITE PLAN REVIEW. CROSS REFERENCE: UV' 126-1992 AV' 118-1992 (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) TAX MAP NO. 146-2-10 LOT SIZE: +.52 ACRES SECTION: 179-26 D(l) HEIDI MEYERS. REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 55-92, Hugh & Karen Sinclair, Meeting Date: December 22. 1992 "Pro;ect DescriPtion: Applicant is seeking approval for a lean-to which is attached to a garage. The property is located at the southwest corner of Corinth Road and Merri tt and is zoned LI-1A. It is in for site plan approval because the Zoning Code requires that all uses in the LI zone receive site plan approval. The lean-to is considered to be an expansion of a nonconforming structure and is located within the required 50 foot front yard setback. On December 16, 1992 the applicant received variances to allow the expansion and its placement within the front yard setback." This same project was before you a couple of months ago. Service Master. "Pro;ect Analvsis: The project was compared to the following standards found in Section 179-38 E of the Zoning Code: 1. The location, arrangement, size. design and general site compatibility of buildings. lighting and signs; The lean-to should not be incompatible with the site. It has the appearance of a carport and a natural extension of the existing garage. 2. The adequacy and arrangement of vehicular traffic access and circulation, including intersections, road widths. pavement surfaces, dividers and traffic controls; The lean-to should not affect vehicular access to the si te. It will be accessible from the existing parking area. 3. The location, arrangement, appearance and sufficiency of off-street parking and loading; The lean-to should not affect parking. 4. The adequacy and arrangement of pedestrian traffic access and circulation, walkway structures, control of intersections with vehicular traffic and overall pedestrian convenience. The lean-to should not affect pedestrian access. 5. The adequacy of stormwater drainage facilities; The lean-to should not affect drainage. 6. The adequacy of water supply and sewage disposal facilities; The lean-to should not affect water supply or sewage disposal." The septic tank is located partially underneath this lean-to. but the leachfield is located out behind it. to the southwest. So, it's not really affecting the septic system at all. " 7. The adequacy, type and arrangement of trees. shrubs. and other suitable plantings, landscaping and screening constituting a visual and/or noise buffer between the applicant's and adjoining lands. including the maximum retention of existing vegetation and maintenance including replacement of dead plants; The lean-to should not affect or require landscaping. 8. The adequacy of fire lanes and other emergency zones and the provision of fire hydrants; The lean-to should not affect emergency access or require a hydrant. 9. The adequacy and impact of structures, roadways and landscaping in areas with susceptibility to ponding, flooding and/or erosion. The lean-to should not be susceptible to flooding or ponding. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Staff recommends approval of this application." MR. LAPOINT-Okay, and we have Warren County's approval. It's comments are. "Concur with local conditions." Do we have to open 5 ''-"' -- a public hearing on this? MR. HARLICKER-Yes, and the Short Form SEQRA. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. Before I open a pUblic hearing. do we have any questions for the applicant that we can deal with without him being here? MR. BREWER-The only thing I would ask him, if he was here. what was he going to store in there? He does cleaning. He's got chemicals and stuff. MR. HARLICKER-It's an outside storage. MRS. PULVER-Yes. vehicles there. I think he's just going to drive one of his MR. HARLICKER-Yes. The times I've driven by there, he's had one of his vans parked in there. MRS. PULVER-Yes. I think that's what he's going to do. I've been kind of watching it. It's got a dirt floor. So it's not suitable for really any kind of storage. MR. RUEL-You mentioned a moment ago about the septic system being adjacent to it, according to the sketch, it's right next to it. MR. HARLICKER-No. The tank is partially underneath it, but the leachfield is out back, and the Building Department, we'd asked them about it. The question came up during variance. MR. RUEL-The lean-to is not over the tank, is it? MR. HARLICKER-No. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. Any other questions before I open a public hearing? Okay. There being none. I'd like to open up the public hearing with respect to Site Plan No. 55-92, Hugh & Karen Sinclair. for the construction of a lean-to shed. Any public comment? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. LAPOINT-Do we have enough information to go through the SEQRA? Okay. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 55-92, Introduced by Edward LaPoint who moved for it adoption, seconded by Carol Pulver: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: HUGH & KAREN SINCLAIR. to construct a 13'8" by 22'6" lean to shed to existing garage. All uses in Light Industrial Zones require Site Plan Review. 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: 6 '-' -- 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 22nd day of December, 1992. by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Tarana. Mr. Ruel. Mr. Brewer, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. LaPoint NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Rowe. Mr. MacEwan MR. HARLICKER-The applicant is here. if you'd like to ask her some questions. MS. MEYERS-I apologize. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. We just have some brief questions for you. regarding storage and septic tank, possibly. MR. BREWER-Were you just going to store a vehicle in here? MS. MEYERS-No. Basically it's for storage of equipment. that are bothered by the elements, such as scaffolding, things like that. Things ladders, MR. BREWER-I was just concerned about chemicals. MS. MEYERS-No. All chemicals get stored inside. because most of them cannot be exposed to freezing. MR. BREWER-The cold, or whatever. Okay. MR. RUEL-The four by four posts are indicated two feet in the ground. Shouldn't that be below the frost level? MR. LAPOINT-Well, if there's no heat in the building. the bUilding is not going to be frost susceptible. Right? MS. MEYERS-Right. MR. LAPOINT-So, there'd be no heave. MR. RUEL-Doesn't have to be? MR. LAPOINT-No. The reason why you use frost walls is because you have a freeze thaw cycle, in a heated dwelling. and if the thing isn't heated, it's not going to heave. MR. BREWER-Yes. but doesn't the Town make you put, like for a deck, four feet. posts four feet? 7 '-' ~ MRS. PULVER-I think only two feet. on a deck. MS. MEYERS-I think it's two. MR. MARTIN-I think the other thing for the Board to bear in mind is the safeguard on something like this is her plans will be subject to review by the Building Department. MR. RUEL-Yes. it was just for my edification. That's all. MR. MARTIN-Yes. Usually a structure that's attached to the house. like an attached garage or something, the footings have to go four feet. If it's detached. and as they said, it's not heated, then simply a footing, or a two foot post is fine. MR. RUEL-Well, then, you don't even need two feet. just on top of the ground. It could be MR. MARTIN-That's what I mean. A garage that's not attached to a house could simply. the footing could be at grade level. MRS. PULVER-Except that the Town of Queensbury Code is two feet. MR. LAPOINT-There are entire neighborhoods in Queensbury on slabs, and not effected at all by frost. MR. MARTIN-Yes. all of Cottage Hill is on a slab. MR. BREWER-The only other thing I would ask is, we had you before us back. I don't know when it was. a couple of months ago, your boss said he was going to put a fence up before winter. MS. MEYERS-Before winter? MR. BREWER-That's what he said. I realize it's too late now. MS. MEYERS-Part of the problem is that Mr. Sinclair was called back to Idaho, which is why I'm here. His family's from Idaho, and he had to return home for something personal. and I'm not sure when he'll return. That's probably why that got put off. He left in the middle of October, but I'm very aware of that. I realize that that was part of the original variance. MR. BREWER-Okay. Did we set a date on that or anything? MS. MEYERS-I think the original application stated that we had one year to comply. MR. BREWER-Okay. MRS. PULVER-We can always check that in the minutes. MR. LAPOINT-So, how would we want to leave that fence. Tim? MR. BREWER-If he was going to close off the fence. or put the split rail fence up. I don't think he had to go all the way over to here, but just in front of that driveway, because we were worried about traffic coming around the house. MR. LAPOINT-Right. Okay. So, if we were to go with an approval that within one year he. MRS. PULVER-No. that was on the last approval. MR. BREWER-I'm pretty sure it was on the last approval. MS. MEYERS-It was. I have it right here in front of me. MRS. PULVER-You have the minutes? 8 '-' MS. MEYERS-Yes. Motion to approve site plan so and so. with the following stipulations: the curb cut on Corinth Road be close to the split rail fence, and relocate handicap parking accessible to the entrance in the rear. That this parking area will be graveled, condi tions being met within one year from this date. The date being September 17th. MR. LAPOINT-So. we don't need to re-cover that, then? MRS. PULVER-No. MR. BREWER-No. MS. MEYERS-It'll be taken care of in the spring. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. Would anybody like to make a motion on this? MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 55-92 HUGH & KAREN SINCLAIR, Introduced by Carol Pulver who moved for its adoption, seconded by Timothy Brewer: For construction of a 13 ft. 8 in. by 22 ft. 6 in. lean-to shed. All planning issues have been addressed. Duly adopted this 22nd day of December, 1992, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Brewer, Mrs. Pulver, Mrs. Tarana. Mr. Ruel, Mr. LaPoint NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Rowe, Mr. MacEwan MR. LAPOINT-Okay. Refresh my memory, one more time, what TPI was, and are they on for tonight, still. too? MR. HARLICKER-Right. MR. MARTIN-Yes. MR. LAPOINT-So we're down to our last two items. Okay. Si te Plan 53-92, we did the SEQRA. the first week in We're going to have another public hearing tonight. As far as December. SITE PLAN NO. 53-92 TYPE I SEQRA COMPLETED ON 12-8-92 WR-1A DEAN HOWLAND. JR. OWNER: MALVERN & CAROLYN TIPPETT LOCATION: BEAN RD. OFF PILOT KNOB RD. REMOVAL OF REAR PORTION OF EXISTING RESIDENCE AND REPLACEMENT WITH EXPANDED ADDITION. CONSTRUCTION OF A FIRST FLOOR UNENCLOSED PORCH WITH A SECOND FLOOR DORMER. CROSS REFERENCE: AV I 125-1992 (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) TAX MAP NO. 152-1-12.1 LOT SIZE: .34 ACRES SECTION: 179-79F DEAN HOWLAND. PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 53-92. Dean Howland, Jr. For Malvern & Carolyn Tippett, Meeting Date: December 22, 1992 "Proiect Description: The proposal involves the removal of a rear portion of an existing house and replace it with an extended addition. The project involves the construction of a porch and a second floor dormer. The addition requires an area variance for construction within the side yard setback and site plan approval. The property is located on Bean Road off of Pilot Knob Road, is .34 acres in size and zoned WR-1A. On December 8, 1992 the SEQRA review was completed. Project Analysis: The project was compared to the following standards found in Section 179-38 E. of the Zoning Code: 1. The location. arranqement. size. desiqn and general site compatibility of buildinqs. liqhtinq and siqns: The addition will be built in the same style as the existing structure and will 9 extend off of the rear of the building. It appears to be compatible in both style and size with the existing structure. 2. The adequacy and arranqement of vehicular traffic access and circulation. includinq intersections. road widths. pavement surfaces. dividers and traffic controls: The project should not affect vehicular access. 3. The location. arrangement. appearance and sufficiency of off-street parking and loadinq: The project should not affect parking. 4. The adequacy and arranqement of pedestrian traffic access and circulation. walkway structures. control of intersections with vehicular traffic and overall pedestrian convenience: The project should not impact pedestrian traffic. 5. The adequacy of stormwater drainaqe facilities: The addition is proposed to be built on an existing concrete slab so the amount of impervious area should not be increased. There should not be any negative impact on stormwater drainage. 6. The adequacy of water supplY and sewaqe disposal facilities: The project should not impact water supply or sewage disposal. 7. The adequacy. type and arranqement of trees. shrubs and other suitable plantings. landscapinq and screening constitutinq a visual and/or noise buffer between the applicant's and ad;oininq lands. includinq the maximum retention of existinq vegetation and maintenance includinq replacement of dead plants: The project should not impact existing vegetation or require additional language. 8. The adequacy of fire lanes and other emerqency zones and the provision of fire hydrants: The project should not impact emergency access or fire hydrants. 9. The adequacy and impact of structures. roadways and landscaping in areas with susceptibility to pondinq. floodinq and/or erosion: The project should not impact ponding or flooding on the site. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Staff recommends approval of this project." MR. LAPOINT-Okay. We have a letter from the Warren County Planning Board dated 18 November 1992, that disapproves the project. and the comments are, "Density and encroachment on the neighbor's property." That would require, for approval tonight, a majority plus one, which in this case would be three to one? MRS. PULVER-No, five. four, plus one. It's the majority of the Board. which is MR. LAPOINT-So, we are at another case where we can do nothing. What's Tim's conflict? MRS. PULVER-How bad is it? Yes. Now, what happened up at Warren County on the 18th? Lets discuss that. MR. HOWLAND-We were at the Zoning Board meeting. there, and I went up afterwards. Nobody was up MRS. PULVER-All right, and did they just disapprove it before, like, they come out, lots of times, and say, okay. this is approved, this is approved, this is approved, this is disapproved. this is disapproved, and then anything they have a comment on. they'll bring it up and discuss. Were you one of those that didn't get discussed? MR. HOWLAND-There was nobody there to discuss it with them. and they didn't really know what we were doing, is what the Secretary said. So they just denied it. MRS. PULVER-Yes. because I know from seeing it and from doing the SEQRA. you are running along the property line, but you are not encroaching any more. You're still using the same footprint. So, you're not going any farther. MR. HOWLAND-We also. at the Zoning Board we just showed them that the reason we're going out back, too. is that they own two other lots, the Tippetts do, and I mean. that's the way that there property is situated. See. they own all this property here, even though they're separate lots. 10 "'- - "'-' MRS. PULVER-Well. I'm just going to say. from their comment, what the Warren County is saying, this is the property line, and you're building along there, and so therefore it's encroaching on the lands of C. H. Morrison, but in actuality, you're still staying within your same footprint. and just tearing down and putting up. MR. HOWLAND-Right. MRS. PULVER-Okay. MR. LAPOINT-Before we go too much further, Tim, what our problem is. is we're going to need a majority plus one. in this case it would be five. to overrule the County's disapproval, and their disapproval was based up, and I'll let you read it for yourself. density encroachment on the neighbor's property, and we were just curious. as a Board, as to what your conflict was. MR. BREWER-Well. basically it's because Mal's company is a leasing company. and our company's leased through his company, and I just didn't want there to be any appearance of a conflict. I don't have a problem with his personally. but on his TPI Staff Leasing, I'd just as soon not have anything to do with it. I was up at the site. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. MRS. PULVER-Yes. This is more of a personal thing. MR. BREWER-It's personal, but through business we're affiliated. I don't have a problem with the plan. I mean, we were up and looked at it. MR. MARTIN-I think it'll help a great deal, this being exposed. This is on the record. MRS. PULVER-And also there's a public hearing tonight, of which you have just announced it to the public. although. MR. BREWER-I don't have a problem voting on his personal issues. but as far as the company, I'd rather not. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. Well. this would not be a company issue. MR. BREWER-Right. MR. LAPOINT-I mean, because we all do business in Queensbury, to one degree or another. So. I guess the real question is, would you be uncomfortable voting. you wouldn't be encroaching any ethical standard or anything like that. and I don't think any of us have a problem with that. MRS. PULVER-No. My feeling is the public is notified, and it's up to them to take issue. Right now is their opportunity. MR. LAPOINT-Right. I'll open up the public hearing for comments. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. LAPOINT-The SEQRA on this was done. So that we do not need to do. Okay, any other questions for the applicant, while we're right here? None. Okay. Would anybody care to make a motion? MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 53-92 DEAN HOWLAND, JR., Introduced by Carol Pulver who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roger Ruel: 11 '- ---*"" '--- Applicant for Malvern and Carolyn Tippett. to remove the rear portion of the existing residence and replace it with an addition. Duly adopted this 22nd day of December, 1992. by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Tarana. Mr. Ruel. Mr. Brewer. Mrs. Pulver, Mr. LaPoint NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Rowe, Mr. MacEwan MR. LAPOINT-With the next Site Plan, the County says "No County Impact". so that he is completely free of? MR. MARTIN-A simply majority with do it on that. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. SITE PLAN NO. 57-92 TYPE: UNLISTED HC-1A TPI STAFF LEASING OWNER: JOHN & DEBBIE SKINNER MALVERN & CAROLYN TIPPETT LOCATION: 275 BAY ROAD FOR AN ADDITION OF 970' TO EXISTING OFFICE BUILDING WITH 10 PARKING SPACES. 896' OF FUTURE SPACE ON 2ND FLOOR. ALL USES IN HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL ZONE REQUIRE SITE PLAN REVIEW. CROSS REFERENCE: AV I 136-1992 (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) (BEAUTIFICATION COMMITTEE) TAX MAP NO. 107-1-48 LOT SIZE: 43.560 SQ. FT. SECTION: 179-23 D(l) DEAN HOWLAND, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT. MALVERN TIPPETT. PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 57-92. TPI Staff Leasing. Meeting Date: December 22, 1992 "Pro;ect DescriPtion: The applicant is proposing to construct a 970 sq. ft. addition to an existing office building. The construction of a 10 space gravel parking area, located to the rear of the expansion, is also part of the project. The property is located at 275 Bay Road, is one acre in size and is zoned HC-1A. The expansion requires a variance to construct within the side yard setback. On December 17, 1992 the applicant received the needed variance. Pro;ect Analysis: The project was compared to the following standards found in Section 179-38 E. of the Zoning Code: 1. The location. arranqement. size. desiqn and general site compatibili ty of buildinqs. liqhtinq and siqns: The proposed addition to the back of the building is to be constructed in the same style as the existing structure. New vinyl siding and roof will be put on the existing building and is to match the addition. The porch on the building is to remain. The existing sign will remain and no new one is proposed. The addition should be compatible with the existing building and site. 2. The adequacy and arranqement of vehicular traffic access and circulation. includinq intersections. road widths. pavement surfaces. dividers and traffic controls~ The existing ingress and egress is sufficient to service the site. Its width allows room for cars to both enter and exit the site at the same time. There is a 20 foot wide drive that services the existing parking area. Access to the new parking area will be through the existing lot. The entry into the new lot is to be 16 feet wide. 3. The location. arranqement. appearance and sufficiency of off-street parkinq and loading: The 546 sq. ft. of addition will bring the total square footage of the building to 2.562 sq. ft. This will require a total of 18 parking spaces. The applicant is proposing a total of 21 parking spaces. There is an existing gravel lot that accommodates 11 spaces and a proposed parking area that accommodated 10 spaces. However. one of the spaces in the existing parking area is extremely close to the entrance off of Bay Road. The possibility of eliminating that space should be looked at. There are also two spaces in the front yard that should also be eliminated. Parking in those spaces requires backing out on to Bay Road when exiting. The two spaces 12 '- -'- in the front yard were not included in the calculation of the total number of parking spaces so their elimination does not affect the parking calculation: however. the space adjacent to the entrance was included and its elimination would reduce the total number of spaces to 20. 4. The adequacy and arranqement of pedestrian traffic access and circulation. walkway structures. control of intersections with vehicular traffic and overall pedestrian convenience: There are two entrances proposed. One will service the rear parking area and a side entrance will service the existing parking area. Both entrances will have pedestrian walkways that lead to the parking areas. Pedestrian access on the site should be adequate. 5. The adequacy of stormwater drainaçre facilities: Drainage from the building will be collected and directed to a dry well. The gravel parking areas should allow for most of the stormwater to drain into the ground. The parking areas should be graded to direct surface water flow away from adjacent properties. 6. The adequacy of water supply and sewaqe disposal facilities: The addition should not impact the water supply or sewage disposal facili ties. 7. The adequacy. type and arranqement of trees. shrubs and other sui table plantinqs. landscapinq and screeninq constitutinq a visual and/or noise buffer between the applicant's and ad;oininq lands. includinq the maximum retention of existinq veqetation and maintenance includinq replacement of dead plants: The existing chicken wire fence and vines which are located along the north and south sides of the existing parking are to be removed. The Beautification Committee has approved the project. There have been no formal landscaping plans submitted, however. the applicant states that the site will be professionally landscaped and the plantings will start as soon as the front is out. The possibility of planting a landscaping buffer to replace the existing fencing and vines and along the adjacent property to the north should be looked at. 8. The adequacy of fire lanes and other' emerqency zones and the provision of fire hydrants: The project should not impact emergency access or require additional hydrants. 9. The adequacy and impact of structures. roadways and landscapinq in areas with susceptibility to pondinq. floodinq and/or erosion: The parking areas should be graded to ensure that surface drainage on the site does not flow onto the adjacent properties. There should not be any impact on areas that are susceptible to flooding, ponding or erosion. RECOMMENDATION: Providing the three parking spaces are eliminated, existing fences and vines are removed and replaced with a landscaped buffer and the parking areas are graded to prevent runoff onto adjacent properties the Planning Staff can recommend approval of this project." MR. LAPOINT-Okay. We have a letter from the Warren County Planning Board. dated 9 December 1992, that says "No County Impact". We have a letter dated 8 December 1992. from the Beautification Commi ttee. I think our Staff summarized adequately. We have a letter dated 17 December 1992 from the ZBA. for the setback variance. and that's it for written input. Before we open a public hearing. I could lead with some questions. unless anybody's would prefer to. MRS. TARANA-I want to just ask, before you even get into that, are you just a local firm? You don't have anything to do with the leasing company in Albany? MR. TIPPETT-No. We're a competitor. MRS. TARANA-Okay. I just wanted to be sure. because I was afraid that I might possibly have a conflict. but as long as you're not. Okay. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. I'm ready to lead with some questions, unless anybody else has any. Would the applicant be willing to make the parking lot changes, as specified by the Staff? MR. TIPPETT-Yes, sir. 13 '-.. -'-' MR. LAPOINT-Which would be elimination of the, or moving the handicap parking to the east. probably eliminating one of the nine foot parking spots. That's probably what you'd do. I would assume. MR. HARLICKER-Yes. entrance. You've got that one that's right next to the MR. TIPPETT-The first two parking spaces. MR. LAPOINT-Right. Eliminate the two in front. So, what we'd do is eliminate one of the nine footers, and move the handicap down into the site, so there'd be 18 feet within the site for easy back out distance, right? Would 18 feet be acceptable? MR. HARLICKER-From the entrance? Yes. MR. LAPOINT-I mean, right now the first handicap is nine feet out. If we eliminated the last parking spot on that row, that first handicap parking spot would be 18 feet in. MR. HOWLAND-We can make that green anyway, because we have enough parking. as it stands right now. MR. LAPOINT-Right. I just want to make sure we all get on the same page, when it comes to the motion. That's the first parking change. The second one would be to eliminate and landscape the two in front. MR. TIPPETT-Right. MR. LAPOINT-And the applicant's willing to do that, and we'll put that right in our motion. Okay, and as far as stormwater management goes, you'd have no problem with us insisting that the gravel be graded in such a fashion that it does not run off your property, and if it does, you would have to fix it, when we sent our Building Inspector around. Okay. Is there a drywell on site. or would that be something you'd install? MR. HOWLAND-No. There isn't at this time, but I was just talking with Scott yesterday. and said that if they were going to pave these in the future, that we would put drywells under the parking lots just to get the stormwater from the parking lot, either a drywell around the building itself, or we'll back fill with crushed stone. something like we do, stormwater management system up at Lake George. all the time. So. that's for the run off from the roof. that will take care of. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. I think I've got the three parking space s addressed. Does that sound about right, Scott? MR. HARLICKER-Yes. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. Now the fence with the vines on it are going to come down? MR. TIPPETT-The one between our two properties, yes. The one between the neighbor's property and our property. I'm not sure who's property that's on right now. If it's on our property, we'll take it off, but we hesitated to do anything because we weren't quite sure if it was on our property or not. MR. HOWLAND-It's been there since they bought the property. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. I think we can probably leave that open, right? I mean, if neither of the neighbors have a problem with it. I mean. it's a nice green hedge in the summer time, isn't it? MR. HARLICKER-It just looks. when I was out there, it looks pretty ratty. 14 '-.. - ---- MRS. PULVER-Yes. but I'm thinking it's probably a divider between the two properties, and they. MR. HARLICKER-That's why I'm saying, if they could remove that and put a nice, some sort of a hedge in there. I think it would really be an improvement to the whole property. MR. LAPOINT-Well, it might be green. I'm trying to picture this in the summer. MR. TIPPETT-Yes. I don't know what type of vegetation it is. but it gets very green, and it stands almost as tall as I am. so you really don't see that. MR. HARLICKER-So you don't see that, like, metal around the bottom, that big tin or whatever it is. MR. TIPPETT-No. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. So. I'd tend to want to leave that up to the two property people to work that out. Was there anything specific in the Beautification Committee? What did they say, specifically? MR. HARLICKER-No. There wasn't any reference. MR. TIPPETT-If it belongs to us. we will take it out. MR. LAPOINT-No. I'm not saying to take it out. MR. TIPPETT-Well, I don't know whose it belongs to. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. So, my tendency would be to leave that one alone and just try to make our motion conditional on the parking lot changes and the grading. Any questions? MR. RUEL-The one question I have is, do you gentlemen have any elevation type drawings. sketches, or anything, or the proposed? MR. HARLICKER-I've got one here that they submitted to the. MR. HOWLAND-I had another one. too, and I left it back in the office. MR. RUEL-From what I've heard, you seem to be compatible with the existing building, in every respect. MR. HOWLAND-Well, we're trying to make the existing building a little better looking. I'm still working on that. MR. HARLICKER-This would be the side that's facing the existing parking lot. MR. RUEL-I see. MR. HOWLAND-We're trying to fit it in so that you won't know it's an addition of the existing building. MR. RUEL-The same style. MR. HOWLAND-It will all be the same style. This, hopefully, will be better looking than it is now. MR. RUEL-Okay. Thank you. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. All right. I want to open a public hearing on Site Plan No. 57-92, TPI Staff Leasing, for the addition of office. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. HARLICKER-Yes. I've got a letter that was sent to the office 15 '--' -'--" today, regarding this project. from Gail Swinton. "I am writing to let you know I am concerned about the addition to the Site Plan No. 57-92. I am concerned about the increased traffic to the area around my home. A building six feet from my property line will decrease the value of the home. due to the increase of more and larger business. I feel it will also effect the homes in the neighborhood. Sincerely, Gail Swinton" MR. LAPOINT-Okay. On the drawing, you're within nine feet eight inches? MR. HARLICKER-Yes. I think, what they did is they might have read the notice that was sent out for the Zoning Board, and thought it was from their property line. So. I think what the problem was, it was six feet. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. Any other public comment? MR. HARLICKER-That was it. MRS. PULVER-My question on that, where are they. in relationship to this? Are they on either side of it? MR. HARLICKER-I think they're right next door. I think they're the next door neighbor, just by the reference that the building is to be six feet from my property line. MRS. PULVER-So. they're in a Highway Commercial area, too. then? MR. HARLICKER-They are in the Light Industrial. I think the property just to the south of them is Light Industrial, I think. MRS. PULVER-You mean one lot is Light Industrial and the next lot is Highway Commercial? MR. HARLICKER-I think it is. MR. TIPPETT-As you face the building. there's a home to the left, and then there's our building and there's a parking lot, and there's another building. MR. HOWLAND-It must be to the south, then. MR. HARLICKER-Yes. They're the property right next to the existing parking lot. MR. HOWLAND-Okay, because that's not the main building. MR. HARLICKER-Yes. He was in. That's why I brought up the drainage issue, because he was in asking about that. MRS. TARANA-Your business. you don't have people coming very often. clients. MR. TIPPETT-No. not at all. MRS. TARANA-I mean, you do most of it over the phone, and you're advertising by brochure. MR. TIPPETT-We deliver the payroll to our requirement would be staff parking spaces, requires, besides the building, but as far as it's almost nonexistent, because we deliver. clients. The only and what the Town people coming to us, MRS. TARANA-Yes. I don't think that her concern about increased traffic. because of the addition to the building. MRS. PULVER-I wonder if she's thinking leasing, like car leasing. MRS. TARANA-Well, either that, or she may think that people are 16 -- ----~ going in and out of there all the time. and that's not what's going to happen. MR. TIPPETT-Yes. My staff comes in in the morning and leaves at night. but there isn't shuttling of people back and forth. because we deliver all of our products, which it sounds like you're somewhat familiar with this service. So, you have their location, you call or fax your hours in, and we deliver the payroll to you. MRS. TARANA-Yes. You may, if you respond to that letter. maybe just let her know that. MR. TIPPETT-It's not a retail type of an operation where people are coming to us. It's a service in which we physically deliver the product to the customers. MRS. PULVER-And about how many staff people are you? MR. TIPPETT-Presently we have 15. including the partners. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. LAPOINT-Okay. Do we have any other Board comments before we move on to the SEQRA? Okay. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS HADE RESOLUTION NO. 57-92, Introduced by Edward LaPoint who moved for its adoption. seconded by Carol Pulver: WHEREAS. there is presently before application for: TPI STAFF LEASING. existing office building, and the Planning Board an for the addition to the WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project considered by this Board 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 necessàry a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law. Duly adopted this 22nd day of December. 1992. by the following vote: 17 --- ---.'!~ AYES: Mrs. Pulver. Mrs. Tarana. Mr. Ruel. Mr. LaPoint NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Rowe, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Brewer MR. LAPOINT-Does anybody want to make a motion? MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 57-92 TPI STAFF LEASING. Introduced by Carol Pulver who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roger Ruel: At 275 Bay Road. for an addition of 970 feet to existing office building, with the following stipulations: That three parking spaces recommended by the Staff be eliminated, and that the parking areas are graded to prevent runoff onto adjacent properties, and all other issues have been addressed. Duly adopted this 22nd day of December, 1992, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Tarana, Mr. Ruel, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. LaPoint NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Rowe. Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Brewer MR. LAPOINT-I'd like a nominating committee for a ballot for our next meeting, come up with our officers for the Planning Board. It would be the Chairman, the Vice Chairman, and the Secretary. and I'm going to nominate Carol to come up with that ballot, and we'll have something we can vote on the first meeting of January, and when we take our vote. if it's a majority. one way or the other, for the nominee, then we propose that to the Town Board. who has to either accept or reject. So the whole process is, nominating committee. the nominating ballot, voting on the ballot, submitting the results to the Town Board, getting their approval or disapproval of that. So we've got plenty of opportunity to express our opinions. give Carol a call one way or the other. She's our nominating committee and will have a ballot for us. We can take either a secret vote or an out in the open vote. However you want to do it. MR. BREWER-Fine. So she's just going to come, like we did last year. just come with the ballot and we'll vote and that will be it? M~. LAPOINT-Right. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED. Edward LaPoint, Acting Chairman 18