Loading...
1993-02-17 SP -- ./' QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SPECIAL MEETING FEBRUARY 17TH, 1993 INDEX SEQRA Review 1-93 Peter Sahlke 1. SEQRA Review 2-93 Joseph & Mary Carolyn Shay 4. Site Plan No. 1-93 John P. Matthews 21. Subdivision No. 2-1993 FINAL STAGE Malcolm & Betty Batchelder 23. "-- 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. '-., í /' ~ -../ QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SPECIAL MEETING FEBRUARY 17TH, 1993 5:15 P.M. MEMBERS PRESEN'l' TIMOTHY BREWER, CHAIRMAN CAROL PULVER KATHLEEN ROWE ROGER RUEL CRAIG MACEWAN MEMBERS ABSENT CORINNE TARANA EDWARD LAPOINT EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR-JAMES MARTIN PLANNER-SCOTT HARLICKER STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. BREWER-The first order of business is Peter Sahlke. SEQRA REVIEW 1-93 PETER SAHLKE CROSS REFERENCE AV '127-1992 JOHN RICHARDS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, SEQRA Review No. 1-93 Cross Reference AV #127- 1992, Peter Sahlke, Meeting Date: February 16, 1993 "Prolect Description: The applicant is proposing to demolish an existing house and construct a single family residence. Variances are being requested for a front yard setback of only 45' where 50' is required, frontage on a collector street of 327' where 400' is required, shoreline setback of 55' where 75' is required and a lot size of .8 acres where 5 acres is required. The property is located on Ridge Road in the Lake George Critical Environmental Area and the Adirondack Park. Project Analvsis: The Planning Staff reviewed Part 2 of the Long Form Environmental Assessment Form submitted with this proposal and has the following comments: IMPACT ON LAND The project involves construction of a two story house. The lot on which the house is to be located is undersized and is bisected by a brook, which is believed to be a tributary of Lake George. There are no unique or unusual landforms on the site. Since there was a house on the property prior to the construction of this one. there should be no new impacts on the land. IMPACT ON WATER The action is located in the Lake George Critical Environmental Area. Pollution from over-stressed and non- functioning septic systems is a problem in the areas around Lake George. The proposal could also effect groundwater quality. Since the depth to the water table is about 2.5 feet, new construction and the placement of a septic system could have a negative impact on the groundwater. The applicant also should show that the site has suitable soils and percolation rates for a septic system. The applicant also indicated the possibility of wetlands on the property. This issue should be clarified. IMPACT ON AIR The pro j ect should not af fect air qual i ty. IMPACT ON PLANTS AND ANIMALS The project should not affect any threatened or non- threatened species. IMPACT ON AGRICULTURAL LAND RESOURCES The project should not affect aesthetic resources. IMPACT ON HISTORIC AND ARCHEOLOGICAL RESOURCES The project should not affect an area of historical importance. IMPACT ON OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION The proposal should not affect the quality or quantity of open space or recreational opportunities. IMPACT ON TRANSPORTATION The project should not affect existing transportation systems. IMPACT ON ENERGY The project should not affect the community's source of 1 - fuel or energy. NOISE AND ODOR IMPACTS There should not be any objectionable odors, noise or vibration as a result of this project. IMPACT ON PUBLIC HEALTH The proposal should not adversely effect publiç health and safety. IMPACT ON GROWTH AND CHARACTER OF COMMUNITY OR NEIGHBORHOOD The project should not have a negative impact on the character of the neighborhood. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Staff, after taking a hard look at the project, can recommend a negative declaration for the purpose of SEQRA provided the issue of the possible wetlands on the site is clarified. If there is a wetlands on the property, it has to be shown that the construction of the house and septic system will not have an adverse impact on it." MR. BREWER-Do we have someone here for the applicant? MR. RICHARDS-Yes. My name is John Richards. I'm the lawyer for Peter and Olga Sahlke, and Peter Sahlke is here, as is his mother, Mrs. Sahlke. MR. BREWER-Do you have a copy of these notes, as far as the wetlands? MR. RICHARDS-I don't, but I can just give you a little more information on the wetlands. Okay. We've been in contact, frankly over the last year, with the Adirondack Park Agency, and they originally told us there were no wetlands on this property, and then they have told us that there are possibly some along this line, although most of them appear to be. well, you can almost see where it's marked here, it would be to the east of the creek, which would not be on our property, but now I've just received word from them, Friday, I believe. They believe there is, based upon the map, although they tell us that there's no way you can pinpoint things given the scale of the wetland maps, they believe that there may be some wetlands that do touch this property. She's also told me, and I'm supposed to be getting a letter from her, that even if there are wetlands, that the reconstruction of the existing house, particularly with an improved septic system, is not going to have any impact on it, and I've written a letter to Arlyne Ruthschild that confirms my conversation with her. So that should be in your file. MR. BREWER-Okay. Do we have to verify whether there is or there isn't wetlands out there for SEQRA? MR. MARTIN-I think that's what the letter was verifying, from APA. MR. RICHARDS-Telling you it's their position that there are some that may effect, but even if there are, the reconstruction would not have any adverse impact on those wetlands. MR. BREWER-And we can have that on file before any construction? MRS. ROWE-It's in the packets that we have, there's a paragraph. MR. BREWER-This is from you to her. ;' MR. RICHARDS-I don't have anything in writing from Eleanor Duffus. although I told her the Town wanted me to do this, and she didn't have any problem. MR. BREWER-Well, if you expect to forward a judicial inquiry, maybe we could get that into our files before any construction. Does anybody on the Board have a problem with that? MR. HARLICKER-Here's a copy of this. MR. RICHARDS-I can certainly get you a letter from them confirming what you said before construction. MR. BREWER-I don't believe you're going to construct right away 2 ~ anyway. What about the concern about the septic system. MR. RICHARDS-We're replacing it and upgrading it. PETER SAHLKE MR. SAHLKE-There's a septic tank there, and a leachfield behind the house. MRS. ROWE-Where is the driveway going to be located when this mound of septic moves in? MR. SAHLKE-Perhaps on the north side of the. MRS. ROWE-So we're not going to be driving over it as much? MR. SAHLKE-No. MR. RICHARDS-You'd have to relocate it. MRS. ROWE-That's what I thought. MR. RUEL-It would be out here somewhere? MR. SAHLKE-Yes. It would be about in here. MR. MARTIN-Usually mounds are fairly noticeable. three or four feet, higher, above grade. There's like MR. RICHARDS-We could plant grass on it. MR. MARTIN-Yes. I'm just saying, it's nothing you can drive over very easily. MR. SAHLKE-As far as driving, no. MR. BREWER-Okay. Does anybody else have anything else? We left the public hearing open. MRS. ROWE-I wanted to ask him a question. Has this 15 foot strip of land been deeded to you at this point in time? MR. SAHLKE-Not as yet. MRS. ROWE-Okay. MR. SAHLKE-There shouldn't be any problem. MR. RICHARDS-None of this property has been deeded to him. MR. MARTIN-I don't think there's a public hearing, per say. Tim. I mean, you can take public comments, but there's not one. MR. BREWER-All right. Anybody else? Okay. I guess we can go through the SEQRA. Carol, do you want to take us through the SEQRA? Would you? MRS. PULVER-Short Form or Long? MR. BREWER-Long. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION AS IT REFERS TO THE SEQRA REVIEW NO. 1-93 PETER SAHLKE AND THE AREA VARIANCE NO. 127-1992, Introduced by Carol Pulver who moved for its adoption. seconded by Timothy Brewer: WHEREAS, there application for: is presently before A SEQRA Review, and the Planning Board an 3 ',-- -/ 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: The Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is a Type I 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 17th day of February, 1993, by the following vote: MR. BREWER-Did this go to Warren County? MR. RICHARDS-Yes, it did. MR. BREWER-Maybe we could put that in there for an involved agency? MRS. PULVER-No. They're not involved. MR. HARLICKER-They're advisory. MRS. PULVER-Yes. MR. BREWER-Okay. AYES: Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Ruel, Mrs. Rowe, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Brewer NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Tarana, Mr. LaPoint SEQRA REVIEW 2-93 JOSEPH & MARY CAROLYN SHAY CROSS REFERENCE AV '4-1993 WALTER REHM, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, SEQRA Review 2-93 Cross Reference AV # 4-1993, Joseph & Mary Carolyn Shay, Meeting Date: February 16, 1993 "Pr01ect Description: The applicant is proposing to demolish an existing camp and construct a single family residence. Variances are being requested for shoreline setback of only 25' where 75' is required, lot width of 90' feet where 150' is required, lot size of .58 acres where 1 acre is required and lot frontage, the lot does 4 '~ ~ ~' not front on a Town road. The property is located off of Brayton Lane on Lake George. The property is also located within the Lake George Critical Environmental Area and the Adirondack Park. Proiect Analvsis: The Planning Staff reviewed Part 2 of the Long Environmental Assessment Form submitted with this proposal and has the following comments: IMPACT ON LAND The project involves construction of a two story house. The lot on which the house is to be located is undersized. The property has been used as a camp for many years. therefore, the replacement of the camp with a year round residence of similar size should have little adverse impact on the land. However, since the size of the new structure is approximately 65% larger and depth to water table is less than 18", there may be a problem with construction of the house. The large increase in impermeable surface, its concentration near the lake and the slope of the property towards the lake may have an adverse impact on the drainage of the property and create stormwater management concerns. IMPACT ON WATER The action is located in the Lake George Critical Environmental Area. Pollution from over- stressed and non-functioning septic systems is a problem in the areas around Lake George. The proposal could also affect groundwater quality. Since the depth to the water table is about 18", new construction and the placement of a septic system could have a negative impact on the groundwater. The increase in the impermeable space and the location of the house so close to the lake may have an adverse impact on the lake. Stormwater and snowmelt will wash down the slope to the lake and groundwater. This water will probably contain salt and other chemicals used to melt snow and ice as well as pollutants from cars. IMPACT ON AIR The project should not affect air quality. IMPACT ON PLANTS AND ANIMALS The project should not affect any threatened or non- threatened species. IMPACT ON AGRICULTURAL LAND RESOURCES The project should not affect agricultural land resources. IMPACT ON AGRICULTURAL LAND RESOURCES The project should not affect agricultural land resources. IMPACT ON AESTHETIC RESOURCES The project may have a negative impact on the aesthetic resources of the neighborhood and the lake shore. From the lake, the house has the appearance of a three story house because of the walk out basement. This combined with the structure's close proximity to the shore (18') creates an imposing and cluttered appearance of the shore. The house's proximity to the shore may also impact the neighbor's views of the lake. The current structure is smaller and not as tall as the one proposed. therefore, even though it is the same distance from the shore as the proposed structure, it does not have the same negative impact. IMPACT ON HISTORIC AND ARCHEOLOGICAL RESOURCES The project should not affect an area of historical importance. IMPACT ON OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION The proposal should not affect the quality or quantity of open space or recreational opportunities. IMPACT ON TRANSPORTATION The project should not affect existing transportation systems. IMPACT ON ENERGY The project should not have an affect on the community's sources of fuel or energy. NOISE AND ODOR IMPACTS There should not be any objectionable odors, noise or vibration as a result of this project. IMPACT ON PUBLIC HEALTH The proposal should not adversely effect public health and safety. IMPACT ON GROWTH AND CHARACTER OF COMMUNITY OR NEIGHBORHOOD The project should not have a negative impact on the character of the neighborhood. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Staff, after taking a hard look at the EAF has several recommendations to mitigate the adverse environmental impacts this proj ect will create. In order to mitigate the adverse impact on the shore and the neighbors property the house should be moved back from the shoreline to a distance of approximately 60'. This would decrease the amount of impermeable space by reducing the length of the drive. Furthermore, by moving the house farther away from the shore the area of impermeability is also moved away from the lake, thereby, mitigating some of the adverse impacts from stormwater runoff and snowmelt." MR. BREWER-Okay, and we do have someone here for the applicant. MR. REHM-Yes. I'm Walter Rehm. I've got a series of maps to show 5 -- '--'" you. These have already been submitted, but this is the survey map of the lot. This is the lake, and it's almost six tenths of an acre, which by zoning standards is substandard, by average lake shore lot, it's a pretty good sized lot. I have a home on the lake and have half an acre, which is, after I shoveled most of it last night, is plenty. Anyway, there is an existing home on this lot which is located in close proximity to the lake, and it shows on the survey map. The location shows on the survey map. This has been owned by the Shays for many years, and they have now retired, and their plan is to spend the full year at Lake George, and so this would be their permanent residence. They live in Syracuse. We submi tt~d, also, a site plan show;i.ng the 10catiQn hof ,the h1)ew house. and I think you've got photocop1es of that, ana t at s t 1S. and what this shows is the outline of the existing house, and the location of the new house. It also shows the location of the houses along the shoreline, both to the north, which is considerably closer than the proposal. and also to the south. You just don't have the, I guess you don't have the. MR. MACEWAN-You don't even have the same map that I do. That map is not even close to this map. MR. REHM-Well, I think that's a photocopy, a reduced photocopy of what we submitted, b~t in any event, in fact, that is a reduced photocopy of this. MR. RUEL-That's a little different. MR. REHM-Okay. That's a little bit different, but this has got some engineering, but this is basically it. What you see here is the same as you have there, in terms of the location of the house, the existing house and the proposed house. Now, this was going to be on last month and there was some question as to whether there needed to be SEQRA Review, and at that time, this neighbor wrote a letter to the Board, and said that he thought that the existence of the house as it's located would interfere with his view. The view along this portion of the shoreline is up this way, up north, across is just across Harris Bay, but from here, these houses tend to want to look up toward the Sagamore, and the open part of the lake. These people have been neighbors for years, and so we had the architect take another look at this view situation, and yesterday, this was delivered to me, which moves the house back a little bit. and is done for the purpose of providing this neighbor with the same view that he has with this house, and so it is, you can see that everything is moved back a little bit further, probably, I can't tell you exactly what that distance is. I'd have to scale it, but it's back, and the sole purpose for moving this back is to maintain this view. There's an on-site sewage disposal system presently used. and we've submitted this to the Town, and the location of that system is in fairly close proximity to the lake, and this is the copy of the map I think that you have, is in fairly close proximity to the lake. A good bit of engineering has been done, and the plan is to build a new mound system back in this area that conforms with all of the regulations. So in terms of environmental impact, at least from the point of view of groundwater, there has to be an advantage by removing this old, and probably substandard. I know substandard, system and building a new modern system back here. MR. BREWER-But we don't know how far back he moved it. The Staff has some concerns about the runoff into the lake. MR. REHM-Well, I know Staff has said that, but we've submitted a stormwatermanagement plan which accounts for all of the runoff. We've had Jim Hutchins do that, and that report Staff has had for some time, and we submitted. I don't know. 10 copies of it or something ~ike that, and this map, this is the drainage report that we submitt~d, and basically, I'll tell you what it does, and you can see th~t this map has some of the engineering details on this, but with construction there would be silt fences around everything. 6 '-' -./ For the entire new building, there would be eaves drains, so that all of the runoff from the new building would be dealt with by recharging into the ground. There are no eaves drains on the old building. So that's the improvement. Also, if any runoff from a gravel drive, will be dealt with with the drainage trenches. MR. RUEL-Did you say gravel? I thought it was asphalt? MR. REHM-It's gravel. MR. RUEL-It is? MR. REHM-yes. The Town of Queensbury looks at gravel drives, in terms of $tormwater management, in the same way they look at asphal t, because they're compacted and there is the rich runoff from them. So the fact of the matter is, the runoff that gets to the lake will be less wi th this plan than with the existing, because there is no stormwater management at all. MR. BREWER-Actually you're not changing the driveway at all, really. MR. REHM-No. This is really building a new house on an existing lot, really, taking an old house down and doing it. From an environmental point of view, I think it's an improvement. The lot size is the lot size, and if this was any place else in the Town of Queensbury it would be allowed as a prior nonconforming lot, but it is not in the Critical Environmental Area, which is fine, but the one thing that I think raises concern with this type of thing is the proxim¡ty to the lake. Even though this house is fairly close to the lake, what does this do to the neighborhood, and I got a copy of tl)e shoreline map, this is the shoreline map. I had Coulter & McCormack go up and check all of these buildings to make sure they were in the proper locations, and also if there were any addi tions to try to show the additions. This is the house in question, and these are the locations of the houses along the shoreline. This one is probably a little bit closer. MR. RUEL-Tnis is the old house? MR. REHM-This is the old house. The new house will be back about, probably about 10 feet further back than this. If you go back any further. MR. RUEL-Tne house or the deck? MR. REHM-Well, the way it's situated, you get a little house and deck. MR. RUEL-Yes. You get this line, lined up at the deck, right? MR. REHM-Yès. MR. RUEL-And the deck is what, one story off the ground? MR. REHM-R1ght, and he could see it under the deck, but it's not. MR. RUEL-He could see under the deck and over the deck? MR. REHM-I don't know if he could see over it, but it's not an. it's still an obstructed view, because there are posts that, you know, support posts and so on, but now his view is as good as it was with the old house. MR. RUEL-The basement is exposed in this building, right? MR. REHM-The basement is exposed. MR. RUEL-Rilght, and this deck is what, on the first floor? 7 -.. --../ MR. REHM-Yes. MR. RUEL-All right. Is the basement exposed in this building? MR. REHM-I can't tell you. I don't know. MR. RUEL-So it looks like three stories here. right? MR. REHM-Yes, it does. MR. RUEL-And it looks like this is on a second story, the deck. MR. REHM-Yes. I mean, this type of construction is not the least bit uncommon along the lake. MR. RUEL-How about over here. Is this an exposed basement over here, too, the back end? It slopes down? MR. REHM-No. It slopes down. MR. RUEL-Do you have a sketch of the house? MR. REHM-Sure. See, that's what it would look like from that. MR. RUEL-So he would look this way, right? MR. REHM-He would look this way. This view, right now, would be a house out in here. MR. RUEL-The old house is about here you say? MR. REHM-Yes, it is. Just like that. So this is moving back. The problem is, if you move this back further, then this house substantially interferes with the view from this house, and really that's why these houses were built the way they were built is to preserve the views. The Shays would have no problem moving back further if it didn't have such a devastating effect on the view, but that's what lakeshore property is, and from an impact point of view, there's really no environmental impact. MRS. ROWE-What is the size of the current house, compared to this size house? MR. REHM-Thirteen hundred is the current on, and twenty-four. MRS. ROWE-twenty-four, and how many bathrooms are in the current house comp~red to the new house? MR. REHM-Well, I can tell you, but I'm going to have to look. I can't tell you how many are in the current house, but as far as the new house is concerned, let me tell you something. it's going to be a great improvement. MRS. PULVER-Yes. The septic has to accommodate the size and the bedrooms and the bathrooms of the house. MR. MARTIN~The septic system size is determined by the bedrooms, also. MR. REHM-Yes. MRS. PULVER-Yes. MRS. ROWE""'!Well, I'm just wondering, because of the amount of parking allowed, and the gravel drive, and the amount of expanded area in th~s new house, how many more people are we going to have living in this new house, compared, and the impact on it will be compared tþ, versus the old house. I'm not concerned with views. I'm concerned with environmental impacts. 8 -- -/ MR. REHM-Well, environmental impacts, if nothing else, just to take a sewage system within 30 feet of the lake and move it back 250 or 200 feet from the lake, if nothing else would, I think, justify this project, but the sewage system that has been designed is designed for this particular, for this house, for the capacity of this house, which is based on bedrooms, not on bathrooms, and there are so many safety factors now in the standards that are required by both the Town and the Park Commission that these systems are really substantially over-designed, for safety purposes, but this is a family, this is a retired man and woman that probably have some children, and once in a while the children are going to be up over the summer, but this is not going to be a rooming house or a boarding house or anything of that nature. It's going to be a substantial improvement in the neighborhood, as far as taking down a deteriorating building that is unsafe, and that's probably a fire trap. MRS. ROWE-How long have you owned the present house? MR. REHM-I don't own the present house. MRS. ROWE-I mean the Shays. How long have they owned it? MR. REHM-I don't know. Maybe I can tell you from a map reference. I probably can. A long time, though, I would say, probably. MRS. ROWE-So, if it's deteriorated, it's because of neglect on their part, or for what reason? MR. REHM-I don't know. I don't know that that's an issue, is it, really? I mean, it's an old house that is not winterized. It was built using standards that everyone around the lake used at that time. This isn't a situation where these people have let this house go or anything like that, but the foundation is cobblestone foundation, which is probably the better part of 100 years old, and what they could do is they could come to the Town and say, look, we want to add on to this house, but that doesn't make any sense from their point of view, and it doesn't make any sense from the Town's point of view. MR. HARLICKER-Other than imposing on their view from the house, are there any other reasons why they can't move the house back, farther back from the shoreline? MR. BREWER-Because then they'll impose on their view. MR. HARLICKER-That's what I'm saying, other than that or imposing on the Shay's view of the lake, are there any other reasons, site reasons, why they can't move the house back, other than their desire to have a view of the lake? MR. REHM-No. I can't imagine that there are. I don't know of any, but that's the reason that you build a house on the lake. MRS. ROWE-How many stories is this house? This is two story also? MR. REHM-This is a two story house. Yes. What you have seen around the lake time and time and time again is people with cottages, and that's what they really were, and that have become substandard, and people have purchased the property and they've 1 i ved with it for years and years and years and they've raised their family, and it's a wonderful place to live, and all of a sudden they've decided now that they're retired, they would like to build a permanent home, and that's what these people want to do, and they want to do it in a way that is aesthetically pleasing to the neighborhood. They want to do it in a way that doesn't interfere with their neighbors, and they want to do that which is right by the lake, and I don't see any environmental impacts. I don't see anything but an improvement, from an environmental point of view, from a SEQRA point of view. They meet the standards as 9 -- - far as height is concerned. MRS. ROWE-But not lot size. MR. REHM-But not lot size? That's why we're here. MR. BREWER-That's why they're going for the variance. MR. REHM-Six tenths of an acre is around probably 24,000 square feet, something like that, which is much larger than the average building lot in the Town of Queensbury, much larger. MR. BREWER-The average lot in the Town of Queensbury? MR. REHM-The average building lot in the Town of Queensbury, six tenths of an acre, I'll bet, is larger. MR. BREWER-I find that hard to believe. MR. REHM-If you look at all the subdivisions. MRS. PULVER-Well, 43,560 square feet is an acre, so this is half an acre building lot. MR. BREWER-I understand that, but he's saying that's larger than the average building lot in the Town of Queensbury. MRS. PULVER-Well, because a half acre is about what average for the Town of Queensbury, and that's a little over a half acre. So, it's a little larger. MR. REHM-You know, you look at what happens with Zoning Ordinances, you look at, there's a regulation that says, okay, you've got to have an acre. Well, these are preexisting lots. I mean if they could have an acre, they'd love it, but you've got to have an acre, and all of a sudden, anything less than an acre is bad, and that's not true. That's not true at all. As I said, I've got a half an acre, which is smaller than that, and I have got more land than I can take care of. MR. MACEWAN-Jim, you're proof for the SEQRA has nothing to do with the site plan he's shown us. It's just from an environmental point standpoint. MR. MARTIN-Right. MR. HARLICKER-From an environmental standpoint, what effect will these variances have on the environment. MRS. PULVER-He still has to go to the ZBA and convince them that the size will be justified on this lot. MR. RUEL-I have a question. This indicates that variances are being requested for shoreline setback of 25 where 75 is required. Is that still 25? MR. REHM-No. It's going to change. It looks like it is probably something between 30 and 35 now. MR. RUEL-But you're going to apply for a variance for this, right? MR. REHM-Well, I've got a hearing tonight. MR. RUEL-Well, you better know the footage, right? MR. REHM-Well, I will know the footage tonight. You can be sure of that. MR. RUEL-Okay. So tha~ will change, right, but the other dimensions probably remain the same, right? 10 ',,--, -../ MR. REHM-Yes. MR. RUEL-Yes. Okay. MR. BREWER-Okay. Anybody with anything else, before we go on? Okay. Then we'll go through the SEQRA. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 2-93 JOSEPH & MARY CAROLYN SHAY CROSS REFERENCE AREA VARIANCE NO. 4-1993, Introduced by Carol Pulver who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roger Ruel: WHEREAS, there application for: is presently before SEQRA Review, and the Planning Board an 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: The Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is a Type I 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 17th day of February, 1993, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ruel, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Brewer NOES: Mrs. Rowe, ABSTAINED: Mr. MacEwan ABSENT: Mrs. Tarana. Mr. LaPoint MRS. PULVER-It didn't work. MR. BREWER-No action. So now what do we do? MRS. PULVER-Well, I guess, Kathy, what are your concerns? MRS. ROWE-The size of the building is my main concern. It's so much more expansive, I have a feeling it's going to have a major impact on the site, on the neighbors, with runoff. 11 ---- --" MRS. PULVER-But now, Jim, should we be concerned with that? That's the ZBA's concern, isn't it, the size? They may decide that that building is too big for that property, or they may, I mean, they have to justify that setback, and. MR. MARTIN-Right. You've got to assess this from an environmental standpoint. MR. BREWER-If we think there's going to be a significant impact, we have to state so on the SEQRA. MRS. PULVER-Yes, right. MRS. ROWE-What you're saying is small to moderate, to me, can be significant in the long run. I mean, we're saying here that right now this gentleman is putting in a three story home. Who is going to be next down this side line here on this waterfront issue, to come back before us. It just seems like every issue we're dealing with lately are waterfront homes that are trying to expand, put on additions, we've seen more and more, yes modifications to the sewer systems, but overall, I'm seeing a much higher impact on this lakefront area. MR. BREWER-Okay, and I guess we have to come back to, if you think there's a potential large impact, can the problem be mitigated, and with the stuff that we have, is the problem mitigated? That's how we'd have to answer it. I'm not denying you the right to say you think it has an impact. MR. REHM-Could I say something? The way you have to look at SEQRA is kind of a site specific thing. You can't say, we:Ll, something's going to happen down the line that is going to impact this. This is site specific. Is there a significant environmental impact from this project, and it really isn't a situation where I think there may be. I mean, you have to articulate it. Now, what we've done is we have provided the Town, and I know the Board hasn't reviewed it, but we've provided the Town with detailed engineering, and with detailed sewage disposal plans, and they've been sized properly, with detailed drainage plans, and with every piece of information that the Town requires. So if there is, and the Board has, at least some of the Board has indicated that there is no significant large impact. Well, if you can articulate an impact that's significant, I would be happy to react to it. MRS. ROWE-Why is it, then, that these people feel the necessity for having a 65 percent increase in the building size over what's there? MR. REHM-If they had a 2,000 square foot house. MRS. ROWE-I have no objection tö them replacing the home with a similar size. MR. REHM-Why would this Board be telling someone that they have to live in a little square camp? Twenty-four hundred square feet is not a particularly large house by today's standards. You probably live in a twenty-four hundred square foot house. MRS. ROWE-I live in smaller than 2400 square foot. MR. REHM-Well, maybe you do, but many people, and with new construction most people, this is not a huge house at all. This is kind of a regular sized house, and it's going to be their permanent residence. It's no longer going to be a summer residence, and the size of the house is not an adverse environmental impact. MR. RUEL-It's 2100 square feet, according to that map. MR. REHM-If there was a law that said you cannot build a house that's greater than 1800 square feet, that would be one thing, but 12 "'---- ~ we live in a democracy where people are entitled to do what they want to do. as long as it doesn't have an adverse environmental impact. MRS. ROWE-Why do you think that one acre zoning was set up there in the first place? MR. REHM-Well, I know why one acre zoning was set up there in the first place. I'll tell you the history of that, as a matter of fact, because the idea was to limit the amount of growth on the lake where there was vacant land, and in the original Ordinance, when it was originally done, they said that any preexisting lot was, did not have to conform to the one acre zoning. The original Ordinance said that if you had a half an acre and it was a preexisting lot and it was in existence at the time of the Ordinance, then a half an acre was fine, and recently the Zoning Ordinance was changed, and they said that if that was on the lake, or in the Adirondack Park, then these preexisting lots were no longer grandfathered, but lots of people bought lots on the lake that were less than one acre size, in reliance on the zoning that existed at the time that the one acre size was put in, and those were legal lots, and then I think without real thought. the law was changed. Any community that wouldn't trade a new modern house and a new modern sewer system for an old, dilapidated house and a sewer system that's 30 feet from the lake just is not thinking about the environmental impacts. MRS. ROWE-I'm not thinking in terms of the environmental impacts of another house of a similar size going in there. It would probably have very little impact. MR. REHM-But that's not your job. I mean, the Planning Board is not here to tell people what size houses they can have. What kind of a system would that be? It really isn't your job. You show us where we're polluting the lake. You show us where runoff is going into the lake. You show us where there's something really wrong with this that is really a significant environmental impact and we'll fix it, but you just can't sit there and say no just because you don't like it. MRS. ROWE-I have sat here and said no. MR. REHM-Well, I understand that. MRS. ROWE-And you're not going to make me change my mind. GENTLEMAN IN THE AUDIENCE-It's not your legal responsibility. Excuse me. The gentleman is correct. Excuse me. You're stepping outside of bounds of your authority and responsibility. Nice presentation. MR. MACEWAN-Jim, any guidance here? MRS. PULVER-Yes, Jim, do we go back here to the impact on the land, or? MR. MARTIN-Yes. I'd go back through it again. if you want to attempt to move this along. With no action, it's a dead issue. It doesn't move on. It can't move on. MR. BREWER-Okay. Do you want to go back through it one more time? MRS. PULVER-Well, I think what we have to do is find in here something that Kathy can either hold on to, to maintain her no vote, or. MR. MARTIN-Well, I think the point is well taken. You've got to convey what you're environmental concern is, and what has not been addressed, what has not been mitigated. 13 "--' ---' MR. MACEWAN-I think the concerns that you have, at this standpoint, are site plan concerns, not environmental concerns. MRS. ROWE-The zone was set up as one acre zoning to eliminate some of the overcrowding on the waterfront. It was acceptable half acre zoning, or .6 acre zoning when it was a much smaller home. I don't see where it's acceptable now for it to be so much oversized. The property didn't change. MR. MACEWAN-That's a site plan concern, that's not an environmental concern. It wouldn't matter if he wanted to put up a 300 square foot house or a 300,000 square foot house. MR. BREWER-That'll take place tonight with the ZBA. MR. RUEL-It has nothing to do with this. MR. BREWER-We have to, in this SEQRA, come up with what impact it's going to have on the lake or the environment, that that is going to cause. and if we think it does, we have to put it down here, and nobody's saying you can't say that there is something that is going to have an effect. We have to tell them what it is. MR. RUEL-But there is nothing about building size in that. MR. HARLICKER-If you tie it in to the aesthetics. MRS. ROWE-The aesthetic thing where he's talking about, the two story high deck here. I distinctly recall him saying that these people will have to look either under or over this deck now, that's going in. MR. REHM-I did not say that. MR. MARTIN-Lets go to the aesthetics here, okay. Impact on Aesthetic Resources, okay. Now lets go through some of the examples that have been cited for us. Examples that would apply to Column Two, if you think there's a potential large impact. We're on Page 9. Proposed land uses or project components obviously different from or in sharp contrast to current surrounding land use patterns, whether man made or natural, okay. Now, in reviewing that statement, do you think there's any impact in there, and if there is, is it small to moderate, is it potentially large, and in either case, can it be mitigated, all right. So lets discuss that specific statement. Proposed land uses or project components obviously different from or in sharp contrast to current surrounding land use patterns, whether man made or natural. MR. BREWER-And basically the surrounding area is homes. MRS. PULVER-Residential. Right. MR. BREWER-Residential homes, and that's what they're putting there. The size of it may have a small impact, but, personally, I don't. MRS. PULVER-No. In this particular question, is this appropriate for what's already there. MR. MARTIN-Well, I might suggest that the Chairman poll the Board. MR. BREWER-Okay. MR. RUEL-How many columns do you have there, three? MR. MARTIN-Well, you have two. MR. RUEL-Well, where's a no impact column. MR. MARTIN-Yes. If there's no impact, you just don't fill any out. 14 -- --- MR. RUEL-So a fourth column then? MR. MARTIN-Yes. MR. RUEL-Okay. Craig? MR. MACEWAN-I'm going to abstain. and the reason being is that I did not see the site, and that's the reason why I'm abstaining. I did not see where your proposed house is. We couldn't find it. MRS. PULVER-I don't think there's a problem. MRS. ROWE-What I feel is that they've brought up this aesthetic impact themselves. MR. MARTIN-So do you deem it as no impact, small to moderate, potentially large? MRS. ROWE-No, it would be small to moderate. MR. MARTIN-All right. MR. BREWER-Roger? MR. RUEL-No impact. I think it's an improvement. MR. BREWER-Okay, and I'll say the same. no impact. MR. MARTIN-Okay. Proposed to users of aesthetic significantly reduce their that resource. land uses or project components visible resources which will eliminate or enjoyment of the aesthetic qualities of MR. BREWER-Okay. Carol? MRS. PULVER-I say no. In fact, it should be better, because before they had a total wall of a house that they were looking at, correct. and now they're going to be looking through a deck. MR. REHM-Actually, fact, they'll have the corner of the deck. Actually, improved. they won't be looking through the deck. In exactly the same view they had before. This is existing house and this is the corner of the if they look under the deck. their view is MRS. PULVER-Well, okay. What I'm saying is, before, they were looking, and their sight here, this was solid. MR. REHM-Yes. MR. RUEL-That was solid. Yes. MRS. PULVER-So all they could see was what was in front. Now with their view, they still have that same view, but now they can look under and over. MR. RUEL-Plus this. MRS. PULVER-Right, plus that much more. So it's an improvement. MR. RUEL-It adds about eight degrees. MRS. PULVER-Yes. MR. BREWER-Kathy? MRS. ROWE-I still say the whole thing is small to moderate. MR. BREWER-Okay. Roger? 15 ",,--"" -.-"" MR. RUEL-No impact. It's an improvement. MR. BREWER-I would also agree with that. Next, Jim? MR. MARTIN-Project components that will result in the elimination or significant screening of scenic views known to be important to the area? MR. BREWER-Carol? MRS. PULVER-No. MRS. ROWE-No change. MR. BREWER-You're saying small to moderate, or no change? MRS. ROWE-Well, he's going to end up, ultimately, with the same view, so. MR. BREWER-Okay. MR. RUEL-No impact. MR. BREWER-No impact. MR. MARTIN-All right. Any other impacts that come to anybody's mind from the impact on aesthetic resources? MR. BREWER-Carol? MRS. PULVER-No. MR. BREWER-Kathy? MRS. ROWE-No. MR. RUEL-No. MR. BREWER-No. MR. MARTIN-Okay. Are there any other issues or topics of a concern, as you look through this form? I'll read through them from the beginning. Number One, Impact on Land, you've indicated yes, and from the standpoint, I take you down to the second bullet there, so to speak, construction on land where the depth of water table is less than three feet. The indicated response was small to moderate impact. MR. BREWER-Right. MR. MARTIN-And then moving on down. MRS. ROWE-Does the water table remain at the same place throughout the entire property? MR. REHM-No, but that's, the water table location of the sewage disposal system. system is shown. was measured at the That's why the mound MR. MARTIN-That's typically the requirement. The measurement is taken in the area of the proposed septic system. Okay. Would you like to go down and review them? I don't see anything else there that's going to. MRS. PULVER-That's the only one that I had. MRS. ROWE-What is the water table nearer to the house, do you know? MR. REHM-No, but it's really not much of an issue, because all the sewage goes back. 16 '~ -../ MRS. ROWE-Consideration to the elevation on the house. because of the fact that the basement will be above ground? MR. REHM-I think the reason that a portion of the basement is above ground is because there's ledge in there, but the septic system is pumped back. That's uphill. MR. RUEL-They put a pump on this? MR. REHM-Yes. MRS. PULVER-Well, I think with Impact on Water we said Small to Moderate, because it was environmentally protected, but there was small to moderate. MR. BREWER-But is it mitigated, is the question. MR. MARTIN-Well, my question on that is, is the water runoff from the roof, the eaves, directed directly into the ground, or is it simply caught in a catch-basin, or what's the approach? MR. REHM-Eaves trenches all around. You see, these are shown on here. These are eaves trenches, and what you have is 24 inches of crushed stone. MR. MARTIN-But they're generally sloped, aren't they, to the rear of the property? MR. REHM-No, because you don't drain back to anything. seeps in. It just MR. BREWER-Okay. MR. MARTIN-All right. Is there anything else? anything else indicated on the responses. I didn't see MR. BREWER-Okay. Would we like to go back through it? I'd like to get through it if we could. MRS. PULVER-One more time? MR. BREWER-One more time. MRS. PULVER-"Will the proposed action effect any water body designated as protected?" MRS. ROWE-What is the drainage flow of the water on this right now, towards the lake? MR. REHM-Yes. There are no eaves trenches, no mitigation measures at all. So that portion of it will improve. MR. MARTIN-Well, just to highlight, what is the conclusion of the engineer, just to summarize, in the drainage report, for the Board. MR. REHM-These calculations, what he did is he designed the stormwater management system, based upon the calculations that engineers do, and I certainly can't speak to that, but what his conclusion is, is that the system that he designed takes care of all of the stormwater that is created by this project, which is required by the Park Commission Regulations. MRS. PULVER-During site plan review, won't Rist-Frost? MR. MARTIN-You're not going to see this during site plan. MR. BREWER-Why wouldn't they have a site plan if there's construction over 65 percent? MR. MARTIN-It trips. 17 '-- -/ MR. BREWER-Over 50 percent there should be. Shouldn't there be a site plan review? MR. REHM-There may have to be, but the first thing is the variance, anyway. MR. BREWER-So there should be a site plan review. MR. MARTIN-Yes, okay. I think you're right about that. MR. BREWER-Construction over a 50 percent increase. MRS. PULVER-Yes. Right. MR. HARLICKER-But the catch is what I think we were talking about earlier, is that they're removing. It's not an addition to an existing structure. They're removing it. So, it's considered new construction. MR. MARTIN-That's right. MRS. PULVER-Well, why do we require this drainage report if no one's looked at it and haven't had anybody review it. MR. BREWER-We're not engineers. MRS. PULVER-Right. MR. MARTIN-It was reviewed by Elaine, in terms of the Zoning Board, for their review tonight. MR. MACEWAN-He won't be back? If he gets his variance, he won't be back here for site plan review for that? MR. MARTIN-I don't believe so, as it's a replacement of an existing, not. MR. REHM-He still has to deal with the, conform to all the Park Commission Regulations which are more stringent than the Town's regulations. MR. BREWER-I think, in my mind, it should come back for site plan. MR. REHM-That's no problem. If it has to go to site plan review. it has to go to site plan review. MR. BREWER-If it doesn't it doesn't, but I just think that it probably should. You're increasing the use by more than 50 percent. That's not the way it was written, but I think that was the intent. MR. REHM-Well, I don't know. You see, with Ruecker, if you can remember last month, a couple of months ago, this is really the same situation that Ruecker was. MR. BREWER-Except that there's no house there. MR. REHM-Yes. That's right. I don't believe that he had to get site plan review. He had a vacant lot. The plan is to make this a vacant lot also. MR. BREWER-Yes, but really you're not making it a vacant lot. What you're doing is you're taking down a structure and putting another structure there that's 65 percent, again, larger than the one that's there. So, you're not, if you took the house down today, and three years you went and said you wanted to build a house, that's something different, but what you're doing is removing it and putting something right back. That's where we're coming from. MR. REHM-I understand that. I understand that, but they're both 18 -../ starting from vacant lots. This is the same engineer, this is the same plan as the Ruecker plan. MR. RUEL-His studies are based on ignoring existing camp/garage? MR. REHM-Yes. The garage is going to be removed. MR. RUEL-All these studies are based on that, that it isn't there, and it also indicates that you have asphalt. Did you change that? MR. REHM-No. The reason that it's asphalt is the Town of Queensbury requires that you do the stormwater management plan based on asphalt, whether it's asphalt or gravel. MR. RUEL-Also he's got these water runoffs, not only from the house, but the driveway, all along the driveway. MR. BREWER-But the driveway is not changing any. MR. RUEL-No, the driveway is a little shorter, I guess. MR. REHM-It actually is a little shorter. MR. RUEL-It's about 10, 15 feet shorter, and it's crushed stone, which is considered asphalt. So, they have drain off on that, and they have drain off on the house. MR. REHM-He doesn't have to, according to the regulations, deal with the stormwater from the driveway, but he did. The reason that he doesn't have to is because it's not a new impervious area, it's an existing impervious area, but the idea is to do it properly the first time. MR. RUEL-Well, he's got runoff here before and after construction. He apparently meets the engineering requirements. MR. MACEWAN-Were your concerns addressed? MRS. ROWE-I just want to ask one question. through this, then we'll never see it again? If th is make sit MR. MARTIN-The thing that doesn't trip the requirement is, and I'll read you the Section, "Site plan approval by the Planning Board shall be required for any enlargement or extension of a nonconforming structure or a use of the structure containing a nonconforming use existing within a Critical Environmental Area", and so on. This is Section 179-79F, Page 18052. This is not extension of this structure. The nonconforming structure is the old camp. Technically, when he tears that down, he's got a clean slate, he's not extending or enlarging that nonconforming structure or the use within the nonconforming structure. MR. MACEWAN-His big hurdle, though, is to get by the ZBA. MR. MARTIN-Definitely, and the other thing, the same thing, I call your attention to 179-69, Conversion of Seasonal Dwelling Units. Conversion to year round occupancy of any seasonal dwelling shall be permitted only after approval under a Type II Site Plan Review. Again, I don't think that's by the Planning Board, according to the Uniform Fire Code and so on, but again, that's not tripped here, in this case, because it's not, as yet, the dwelling is technically torn down. We have a whole new structure. MRS. PULVER-Well, you have 179-79 that says no enlargement or rebuilding. Now, rebuilding, to me, is. MR. MARTIN-It just says, shall be required for any enlargement or extension. MR. BREWER-Where are you reading, Carol? 19 " '--' MRS. PULVER-Page 18052,179-79(2), Single family dwelling or mobile home may be enlarged or rebuil t as follows, no enlargement or rebuilding shall exceed an aggregate of 50 percent of the gross floor area of such single family dwelling. MR. MARTIN-That's why he's in for variance. MRS. PULVER-Right, but that doesn't mean that he has to come back in for site plan review? MR. MARTIN-No. MR. REHM-No. I don't think it does. MR. MARTIN-It's letter F that applies. remember, as a Staff. We discussed this, MR. REHM-The information that you have is more than you would ordinarily require for site plan review. MR. BREWER-Yes, but we didn't review that information. We didn't get your stormwater. MR. REHM-Well, the Town's had it for 60 days or so. MR. MARTIN-That's true. We reviewed it at the Staff level. MR. REHM-The Staff has reviewed all of that. MR. BREWER-Well, if we get a site plan for a project, we usually would get that information. This project we didn't. MRS. PULVER-Yes, but we're not getting a site plan. MR. MARTIN-That information is being referred on to the Zoning Board because this was in for a variance. It wasn't in for a site plan. MRS. PULVER-All right. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 2-93 JOSEPH & MARY CAROLYN SHAY CROSS REFERENCE AREA VARIANCE NO. 4-1993, Introduced by Carol Pulver who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roger Ruel: WHEREAS, there application for: is presently before SEQRA Review, and the Planning Board an 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: The Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is a Type I 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. 20 - .....,,' 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 17th day of February, 1993, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ruel, Mrs. Rowe, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Brewer NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. MacEwan ABSENT: Mrs. Tarana, Mr. LaPoint MR. BREWER-Okay. We'll go to the next one. SITE PLAN NO. 1-93 TYPE II WR-3A JOHN P. MATTHEWS OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE LOCATION: ROUTE 9L, EAST SIDE CEDAR POINT PROPOSAL IS TO REMOVE EXISTING DETERIORATING, ROCK FILLED CRIB DOCKS NOW IN A U-SHAPE TO REPLACE WITH NEW E-SHAPED DOCK TO SHORTEN NEW DOCKS SO THEY CONFORM TO EXISTING REGULATIONS. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) (APA) LOT SIZE: 2.68 ACRES SECTION: 179-16(D)(3) STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 1-93, John Matthews, Meeting Date: February 16, 1993 "proiect Description: The applicant is proposing to construct an E-shaped dock. The property is located on Lake George west of the Bay Road and Rt. 9L intersection and has 220 feet of shoreline. The dock will consist of two slips and a boat cover/sun deck. There is approximately 1,000 square feet of dock surface area and it extends 40 feet into the lake. The sun deck extends 13 feet above the water. Proiect Analvsis: The project was compared to the criteria listed in Section 179-60 (b) which pertains to docks and moorings. It was determined that the proposal complies with the criteria of Section 179-60 (b). Recommendation: The planning staff recommends approval of this application." MR. BREWER-Okay, and we've got also from Warren County, approved, concur with local conditions. Now, you're here for the applicant, and we have a problem. We went out on site visits twice and could not find this dock, and I spoke to John personally and he said he would give us a better map, and I don't think it's any better than the one we got the first time. That's just my opinion. There were four of us in the vehicle when we went there to find it, and we could not find it. MRS. ROWE-And I've been up there twice. MR. BREWER-And it's not your fault, but I don't know how we can review this if we haven't seen it? MR. MACEWAN-When's our next meeting? MR. BREWER-Next Tuesday. MRS. SEFROM-Well, John said that, he's out of town right now, and he said if you have any kind of a problem with this at all, that he would like for a continuance, he'll be back in town, and we were going to go take a look at the dock, and I'm afraid even the jeep 21 -- '-./ won't make it down there. MR. BREWER-Right. So is John going to be back Tuesday? MRS. SEFROM-No. He'll be back a week from this Friday. MR. BREWER-All right. We have a meeting the second. Will he be back then? MRS. SEFROM-He'll be back two weeks from last Friday, whenever that is. MR. BREWER-Will he be back the second? MRS. SEFROM-He left last Friday, and he'll be back two weeks from last Friday. MR. HARLICKER-So he should be back by the end of the month? MRS. SEFROM-Right. MR. BREWER-All right. So, if we have your permission to table this, we'll table it until the meeting. MRS. ROWE-You know where the property is? MRS. SEFROM-Yes. MRS. ROWE-Where is the property on this map? MR. BREWER-Because if when he comes here the second, and we tell him we couldn't find it, he's not going to be. MRS. SEFROM-Is the property not marked on that? MRS. ROWE-There's a big house up here. There was a sign on a rock that said Matthews on it. MRS. SEFROM-That's John's house. Back up. MRS. ROWE-Okay. Now behind that rock, there was a big, long drive with beautiful lampposts and everything. I drove all the way down. I walked there. There was like a dutch colonial in there, where is it in relation to that property? MR. HARLICKER-It's farther east. HRS. SEFROM-John has a stone front on his house that says John Matthews Construction. MRS. ROWE-Right. That's the one that I saw. MR. BREWER-Across the street from that is a driveway that goes down in, with the lampposts and everything. MRS. SEFROM-You have to come a little bit back up from John's house, take the first street down in. MRS. ROWE-The tennis courts were in the front there, and there was a marker that had like four or five different names on it. MR. MACEWAN-That's the same driveway we went down. MRS. SEFROM-That's the driveway. That's it. MR. RUEL-We never found that, did we? MR. BREWER-We never found that. MRS. ROWE-Where do we go from that driveway? 22 --- "----' MRS. SEFROM-Straight back down in, all the way to the back. You don't veer off. If you veer off, you go to, I believe it's, is it Weber's house? MR. MACEWAN-Yes. That's where we ended up. We should have veered to the left, instead of veering to the right. MRS. SEFROM-Right. MR. MACEWAN-Now we all know where it is. MR. BREWER-Lets see if we can get to that. MRS. ROWE-So, he doesn't necessarily have a house there? His house is back up across on the other side? MRS. SEFROM-The house that he lives in right now is across the street. MR. BREWER-Okay. So we have your permission to table this? MRS. SEFROM-Yes. John said if there was any problem with this at all. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 1-93 Carol Pulver who moved for its Brewer: JOHN P. MATTHEWS, Introduced by adoption, seconded by Timothy Until March 2nd. Duly adopted this 17th day of February, 1993, by the following vote: MR. BREWER-Now, the only problem I have with that is, if you mark it and we know where it is and we can't get to it, what good is that? MRS. SEFROM-Well, now that could be a real problem, because there's lots of snow down there. MR. MACEWAN-When he comes home, will he be plowing out? MR. BREWER-If they plow it any day after this weekend, we can go up there. MRS. SEFROM-Well, and the other thing that John told me to tell you is that somebody had a problem with this piece of the dock. He had it squared off at first, and he said he has no problem with cutting that off, and he did send it to the Lake George Park Association, and they have already okayed it. AYES: Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Ruel, Mrs. Rowe, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Brewer NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Tarana, Mr. LaPoint MR. BREWER-Okay. We've got the last item on the agenda. ~SUBDIVISION NO. 2-1993 FINAL STAGE TYPE I SR-1A C.E.A. MALCOLM 'jA & BETTY BATCHELDER OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE LOCATION: CLEMENTS ROAD ~ - EAST OFF RIDGE ROAD, NORTH OF RTE. 149 PROPOSAL IS FOR A 2 LOT f'I,1' SUBDIVISION. (APA) TAX MAP NO. 27-3-1.1 LOT SIZE: 7.17 ACRES ~ SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS WILLIAM NEALON, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Subdivision No. 2-1993 - Final Stage, Malcolm & 23 - ..-' Betty Batchelder, Meeting Date: February 16, 1993 "Pro;ect DescriPtion: The applicant is proposing to subdivide an existing 7.17 acre parcel into two lots. One lot, on which an existing house, barn and swimming pool are located, is to be 4.39 acres in size. The second lot, which is a flag lot, is currently vacant and is 2.78 acres in area. The property is located on Clements Road just west of Ridge Road and is zoned SR-1A. The flag lot will have 40 feet of frontage on Clements Road with the bulk of the parcel located behind the larger lot. It appears that both lots are bounded on the east by a pond. The proposal does not involve the construction of any new roads or public utili ties. Pro; ect Analysis: During the preliminary subdivision review it was found tha~ there were no significant problems but there were a couple of outstanding issues that had to be addressed prior to subdivision approval. One issue was the location of the existing structures on the larger lot. The Board wanted their location clarified. it was their belief that the structures were actually located farther to the east than what was indicated on the map. Further site visits seem to indicate that the structures locations are accurately shown on the map. The second issue that staff brought up was the impact of the subdivision on a large tree that appears to be located wi thin the 40 foot road frontage. The staff would like some assurance that the tree would not be damaged or removed when the access drive for the flag lot is put in. SummarY/Recommendation: As previously determined, it does not appear that this subdivision has any significant problems associated with it. It appears that the proposal follows accepted planning practices and provided the Board is satisfied with the placement of the existing structures on the map and the applicant addressed the possibility of preserving the large tree, the planning staff recommend approval of this final subdivision application." MR. BREWER-Is this driveway in? MALCOLM BATCHELDER MR. BATCHELDER-No. MR. NEALON-There is no existing access. MR. MACEWAN-Where is the driveway, on this map, that we went down, for the house that's being built up in back? MR. HARLICKER-That's farther back. BETTY BATCHELDER MRS. BATCHELDER-That is up where Mr. Jablonski, it was up in his driveway. MR. BREWER-That's where the misunderstanding took place. I presumed we were in that strip of land going up to the driveway. MR. BATCHELDER-I told you it was all right, when I was here. MR. BREWER-And I apologize for that. It was our mistake. We were in the wrong driveway. That's because, in my mind, I went there three times and said, I'll be a son of a gun, if this is this road right here, that house is in the wrong, and you can see where we would make that mistake. MR. RUEL-Mr. Chairman, we seem to have a problem findings these locations. Something should be done to clarify this. MR. BREWER-Something is going to be done, because I'm going to talk to Mr. Martin about maybe having some kind of a sign. This last one we were just talking about is a dock. If we go to a dock in the middle of the winter, there's not going to be anybody there. MR. BATCHELDER-What about his house? 24 -- -/ MR. BREWER-His house isn't anywhere near it. contractor bUilding it. He's just a MR. BATCHELDER-Yes, but if he's home, he could tell you awful quick. MR. BREWER-I understand that, but if he lives on this end of the lake and the dock he's bUilding is over on this end of the lake. MR. BATCHELDER-I know. MR. NEALON-That wasn't the case on this one. MR. BREWER-That wasn't the case on this one, but I'm just saying it could be. MR. HARLICKER-Okay. What about the trees? MR. NEALON-Well, there is the tree that is, essentially, at the point of access. MR. HARLICKER-Right. That's 40 feet wide, though. driveway be put in so it won't? Can the MR. BATCHELDER-There's plenty of room. MR. RUEL-It's 40 feet there, the frontage, isn't it? MR. NEALON-Yes. MR. RUEL-And how wide is the tree? MR. NEALON-Twenty six inch. MR. RUEL-Well, so you put a road on each side. MR. BATCHELDER-The road would have to go on one side, because the line off. MR. RUEL-The tree is right in the center? MR. BATCHELDER-It's almost over to the line on the other side. MR. NEALON-I guess I would presume that, I know Scott and I had discussed this before, and certainly the suggestion would be to mitigate that. The reality is, that's the only tree that's there. MR. HARLICKER-Yes. on it, so there's won't, if you have a driveway in. I think Mr. Steves redid this and put the trees room on either side to put the drive in, so it 40 feet, you've got 20 feet on that side to put MR. RUEL-It looks like it's in the center here. MR. HARLICKER-Yes. MR. BATCHELDER-That's not in the center. I can tell you that. It's more to the west than it is to the east. MR. RUEL-Now there seemed to be some doubt as to the location of the house and the barn. Did anyone move the house and the barn to conform to the map? MR. NEALON-The map was right as previously drawn and it's right now. MR. BREWER-We were in the wrong driveway. MR. RUEL-Okay. 25 - ~ MR. BREWER-Does anybody else have any concerns? There was a public hearing on this. It was closed. Okay. Would somebody care to make a motion? MOTION TO APPROVE SUBDIVISION NO. 2-1993 FINAL STAGE MALCOLM & BETTY BATCHELDER, Introduced by Craig MacEwan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roger Ruel: For a proposal of a two lot subdivision, with the stipulation that, as a result of putting in the driveway, the tree shall not be removed. Duly adopted this 17th day of February, 1993, by the following vote: \ MR. BREWER-With the stipulation of leaving the tree in. MR. MACEWAN-With the stipulation that the tree remains. MR. BREWER-You have no problem with that? MR. NEALON-I would prefer that that not be included. Certainly, it's an aesthetic consideration for the new owner, but I don't think it's for this Board to legislate whether a tree sometime in the future becomes diseased and we have to come back to you to. MR. HARLICKER-How about if we said that, as a result of putting in the driveway, the tree shall not be removed, or something like that, tying it in to construction of the driveway. If the tree happens to die somewhere down the line, you could take it down, but. MR. NEALON-I think that would be acceptable. AYES: Mrs. Rowe, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Ruel, Mr. Brewer NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Tarana, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. LaPoint On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Timothy Brewer, Chairman 26