1983-05-04
/07
Regular meeting the the Planning Board of the Town of Queensbury
was held Wednesday May 4, 1983 at 8:00 P.M.
Present: Mr. Threw, Mrs. Mann, Mr. Dybas, Mr. Roberts,
Mr. Montessi, Mr. Sorlin, Mr. Noll
The first order of business was the approval of the minutes of
the meeting conducted April 6, 1983
All members present voted for approval except Mr. Dybas who
abstained as he was not present for the meeting.
Public Hearing on the subdivision Stonecroff, lots off of
~est Mountain Road. Mr. Mahowski is the developer.
Chairman asked the question, what is the grade of the road,
it looks over 8%.
Mr. Mahoski answered that it was right now. He mentioned that
the approach would have to have some cutting done.
Chairman mentioned he was concerned as to whether or not the
soil was a little 'bonier' than it should be for maximum
utilization of septic systems. If in the process of back-
filling the septic systems you might want to sift out some of
the stones or mix a little more dirt with them for bacterial
action. A soil can be too stoney.
Mr. Threw eXDlained to those present how the proposed systems
will work as he has done work in the area himself.
Mrs. Mann asked if any permits have been applied for yet.
Chairman reminded everyone that this was a preliminary approval
here tonight.
After approval here tonight, if given, it will be submitted to
the Department of Health.
~lr. Threw explained the work that had to be done and that he
has spoken with the Highway Departments both the Town and
County.
Chairma~ asked if there was anyone present who had any questions
regarding this application. He mentioned that conceptual approval
was given last month, 1)reliminary approval possibly tonight and
final next month.
~1rs. Mann mentioned that the environmental impact statement and
the fact that it was very negative.
----
Mrs. Mann moved that the Planning Board declared a negative
environmental impact as per the statement and the review of the
project anð it is only for the first seven (7) lots, second by
Hr. Sorlin.
A.II voted yes.
(Approved)
168
Planning Board
Page 2
-
Chairman noted to Þ1r. Mahoski that he should be working for
highway approval, Department of Health, etc. all by next month.
Public Hearing Closed.--
!lotion by Mr. Dybas, seconèed by Mrs. Mann that the Planning
Board recommend approval of Stonecroft subdivision Section One (I)
Seven (7) lots off West Mountain Road.
All voted yes except Mr. Threw who abstained.
Approved.
Next order of business was an off-premises sign - Regency Park
Associates, Quaker and Meadowbrook Road.
After discussion regarding the exact area where the proposed
sign would be it was decided that this would be tabled for
next month. The exact area and who owned the property where
the sign would be located, could not be determined.
Chairman mentioned that possibly something could be posted near
the spot where the sign is to go so that it can be located. Also
a better map could be provided and the staff should be notified
with a better description of the area.
The next item was Site Plan Review No. 3~3 - Randolph and Susan
Bardin off Stone Schoolhouse road.
Chairman no~ed that this came up last month
have a building permit on property fronting
road. He is back now for site plan review.
site plan review.
for a variance to
on other than a Town
He asked why it was
The answer given was that it was within the Adirondack Park.
Mr. Bardin said that two years ago he was approved for this by
the APA,
Mr. Montessi mentioned that the Warren County Planning Board
had reviewed this. He read the minutes for the Board Members,
The Planning Board (Queensbury) had recommended disapproval as
this would not be in good planning. County also felt that this
is a self-imposed hardship. The Warren County Planning Board
in the end recommended approval. The Zoning Board approved it
and it is now back here for site plan review.
Chairman again asked why it is here under site plan review.
Mr. Dean answered that section 5.020 deals with areas within the
Adirondack Park and this is within that area.
Mr. Sorlin said that a single family dwelling is not a site plan
review use, it is a permitted use.
The general feeling was that this was not necessary to come back
here for this review. Mrs. Mann said that she felt it was not
/0 '1
Planning Board
Page 3
fair to hold this man up any longer, the other boards have approved
this, we gave our reasons why it would not be good planning and
there is no reason to continue on with this.
Motion by Mr. Montessi, seconded by Mrs. Mann that site plan
Review 3-83 is hereby approved.
Discussion-
Chairman said that he had hoped that before this was brought to
a vote that mention could be made to safeguard the Town to be
sure that the applicant knows that the Town of Queensbury never
intends to take care of that distance of road between the end of
what they are now taking care of and this property.
Mr. Sorlin said he felt that the board didn't even have to act
on this and that the fee of $25.00 be returned to Mr. Bardin.
Mrs. Mann said that she said we can't say never, who knows what
will happen in the future.
~1r. Sorlin added that the Zoning Board has the last say here and
they said go ahead and build your house.
Chairman said the Zoning Board did not have the last say, they
have nothing to do with site plan review.
Vote - All yes except Mr. Sorlin who abstained.
Site Plan Review - 4-83- Mobil Oil Corporation - Represented by
Mal O'Hara, Attorney.
Public Hearing -
Mr. O'Hara said the Mobil Station at the corner of Aviation Road
and Burk Drive is a nonconforming pre existing use. The proposed
change is an alteration of that station to remove the current
pumping islands containing 3 pumps each and replace them with a
streamline single unit and place a canapy over the islands. This
is just a modernization of the station to improve its use and
safety.
~1r. Montessi reviewed the County Planning Board notes. There
seems to have been a problem.
~1r. O'Hara interjected that there was a question as to whether
the set-back requirement should be measured frOTIl the overhang of
the canapy or the posts that support the canapy. They called the
Town Attorney and he gave the opinion that they should measure
from the canapy in which case our application should proceed
by variance as opposed to site plan review. He said he asked the
County Board if they would approve this on the condition that I
could convince the town attorney that it was a site plan review
that was in order and not a variance. A letter was sent to Case
Prime and he returned a letter saying that it could proceed by
site plan review.
110
Planning Board
Page 4
Mr. Montessi read the following letter into the record:
Mr. Roberts, Chairman
Mobil Station Aviation Road application
Upon review of the present Zoning Ordinance with respect
to the above application, it is my opinion that the ordinance
does not include canapies as a structure for set back require-
ment purpose. Therefore the purpose of the proposed gasoline
island pump and canapy location, as proposed by the Mobil
station application does not require a variance. Even though
this is a corner lot and it fronts on two public roads, it is
my understanding that the application is being submitted to you
for site plan review. The situation is addressed in the pro-
posed amendment to the ordinance and if it is accepted it should
control this type of situation in the future.
Case Prime.
Chairman noted that this is just one of the amendments to the
ordinance.
Chairman said it is far enough back from the road, it shouldn't
be bothering anyone.
Motion by Mrs. Mann, seconded by Mr. Noll to approve Site Plan
Review No. 4-83 as it is a legitimate request and not changing
the character of the area, it is improving it.
All voted yes.
Site Plan Review - 5-83- Papa Gino'~
Public Hearing -
Chairman said he recently had a conversation with the owner of
the property here and that there was no agreement and without the
agreement why are we dealing with this tonight.
Mr. Parmentier, Dunn Engineering represented the Papa Gino's
organization. He said he was not aware that there was no contract.
Chairman asked the Board if they wanted to go ahead with this as
it is.
The discussion regarding the contract, who has it, who said it
didn't exist. The Chairman adùed that his information came from
an interested neighbor who couldn't be here this evening.
Mr. Parmentier asked if it was unusual for an applicant to make
an agreement with an individual for a parcel of land pending this
procedure.
Chairman said that was the normal procedure. Making the agreement
subject to the Board approvals.
Iii
Planning Board
Page 5
Mr. Montessi interjected that he felt that if Mr.. Balkus had a
real concern about this, he should have been here tonight and said
I own the land and I do not want this presented.
Mr. Parmentier added the Town has had some type of correspondence
with the family to do something with this property.
Mr. Parmentier then shouwed the area where the proposed building
will be. He showed plans of existing buildings in other areas.
He mentioned that the proposed building is on a slab, he explained
the proposed shrubbrey and this has been discussed with the
chairman of the Beautification committee. Drainage in the area
was discussed along with the trash disposal system to be used.
This is a one-acre site to the left of the Pearl Vision Center.
He mentioned the grass pervious area is 25% the bylaws require
a minimum of 20, the proposed building is about 3,086 sq. ft. and
there is approximately 56 parking spaces provided. Under the
bylaws 31 are required. This will be a paper product disposable
utinsils. The septic system is to the rear of the building, the
existing now is in the front. The existing foundation there now
will not be used for the building. The drainage basins were
described. The entrance will remain the same as it is now.
He said that there will be II parking spaces in the front with the
remaining ones on the side and to the rear. There is a loading
area to the rear of the building.
~1rs. Mann asked why the additional parking since they weren't
needed.
Mr. Parmentier, answered that they have construc1:ed several sites
and designed them for Papa Gino recently. They would like to
construct what they can. They do a very good business and rather
than expanding in the future, they have probably checked the
marketing for this site and they probably want to rather than be
under spaced they would rather be safe.
Mr. Montessi asked if it would be safe to assume that Papa Gino's
would probably receive once a week a trailer load of food. The
area could have a problem.
Mr. Parmentier said that it wouldn't be a trailer load, but a single
unit van, refrigerated.
Chairman asked about the septic system.
Mr. Parmentier said that the washrooms and lavatories are on a
separate line to a septic tank, no water from thE~ lavatories go
into the grease trap line, the grease trap flows to the septic
tank. Five pits are proposed here. The whole system was explained
in full.
Chairman pointed out that having septic systems under a paved area
is a second best arrangement.
"'
1/2--
Planning Board
Page 6
Mr. Parmentier said that the company has planned many systems
under paved areas and the only problems that have come out of
it is the fact that the owners neglect to maintain them.
General feeling of the Board that this will be a good project
for the area.
Mr. Montessi said that this was also reviewd by the Warren
County Planning Board and that they recommended approval.
Chairman asked if there were any further questions or comments,
Public hearing was closed.
Motion by Mr. Montessi, seconàed by Mrs. Mann for approval of
site plan 5-83 on the basis that it is a good sound plan, sound
re-cycling of an existing commercial lot.
All voting yes.
Approved.
Site Plan Review 6-83 - Bay Road and Glenwood Avenue
Public Hearing
Mr. John Matthews explained the proposed office building units
in the area of the Corner Post restaurant. These units will be
some one and some two story units basically for professional
offices. The restaurant will remain. This is a highway commercial
zone. It will be set up so that the interior can be devided as
the tenants require. The exterior of the restaurant will be up-
lifted to the design finalized to the exterior of the rest of the
buildings so that everything will blend. The plantings on the
diagram were described. Sewage for the office buildings was
explained. He mentioned that he started working on this a year ago
and according to the zoning regulations then he ~ras in compliance
as far as set backs and parking. As of now I am underparked as
the zoning regulations have doubled the number of parking spaces
required per square foot of building. I will comply with it but
I haven't changed the drawings yet. His feeling in a situation
such as this is that they don't require as much parking and I
would like not to see blacktop around these buildings if it isn't
necessary.
Mr. Matthews explained one of the ways ~ro90sed to take care of
the parkin0 which that perhaps some of the areas proposed to make
one story we would put the one story up and have some under building
parking.
Mr. Montessi asked how close to 10% of the land being permiable.
È~r. I~atthews answered that it is \<lell over 25% now.
l'1rs. !-~ann asked why the parkinç; area had to be blacktop, why couldn't
it be gravel or something similar so that it remained Dermiable and
at the same time qive additional parking.
/u
Planning Board
Page 7
-
It was then explained that after gravel or something similar is
down it gets packed and also isn't permiable. The upkeep is
difficult in bad weather.
Matthews explained that the dumpster would probably be a block
encased unit perhaps with a roof. Drainage will be taken care
of and discussions have been held with the County about adding
new catch basins.
Chairman asked Mr. Matthews to describe the northern boundary.
Mr. Matthews explained that the area is approximately l~ to 2'
from the building and that there is a 50' setback from the
highway.
There being no further discussion the Public Hearing was closed.
Motion by Mr. Dybas, seconded by Mr. Montessi for approval of
site Plan Review 6-83 as it is making good use of the area and
it will enhance the area and is properly planned.
All voting yes.
Approved.
Variance No. 825 - Herbert R. Tyrer and Joyce Stock
Quaker Road & Glenwood Avenue
This is the same proposal as last month. He was given a temporary
sign permit and that is why the sign is up. He is now applying
for the variance.
Mr. Tyrer mentioned that the sign is not completely finished.
It is constructed but not complete there will be shrubs put
around it. He mentioned that any comments he has heard from
residents have been extremely favorable. Everything is the same
as on the original application, no changes in size, lettering etc.
Mrs. Mann asked why some of the shrubbry was removed.
Mr. Tyrer said that was done for safety purposes. There has been
a blockage coming out of the circular drive. There will be a
garden replacing the shrubs.
Motion by Mrs. Mann, seconded by Mr. Noll to recommend approval
of Variance 825 because it is an attractive sign, technically
he could have had more signs that would be less attractive.
Mr. Montessi questioned if in 1986 anything will have to be done.
Mr. Dean answered only if the County requests it.
All voting yes on motion.
Approved.
¡lif
Planning Board
Page 8
Variance No. 826 - John A. Winslow
Luzerne Road & Wisco-sin Avenue
Chairman said that this is a pool on a corner lot:. This problem
has come before us before.
Motion by Mrs. Hann, seconded by Mr. Thres for approval of
Variance 826, there is plenty of land in the area, it is on
a corner lot and it meets the set back requirements and the
intent is to change the law to cover this kind of problem in
the future.
Mr. Dean mentioned that he spoke with the applicant a while back
and he showed him the proposed changes and the area where he plans
to put the pool is exactly where it would be required under the
new amendment. He debated a while and then decided to go for the
variance rather than wait.
All voting yes.
Approved.
Variance No. 827 - Mrs. Paul Cushing
Cleverdale Road
Mr. Cushing was present to represent his wife.
Mr. Cushing explained that the addition to be added on is in
line with the rest of the current building. It is 21.8 ft. from
the north side line plus it is 5' back.
Chairman noted that the proposed addition is no closer to the
lot line than the present building. The major item of concern
here is the wood deck.
Mr. Cushing explained his feelings as to the term deck. He
mentioned that if he wanted to fill it in and make it a patio it
would be conforming. According to the ordinance the wood deck
is an accessory structure.
MR. Montessi added his feelings that if it is to be attached to
the house it is part of the building and we would be hard pressed
to justify approving of it.
Chairman asked if the deck would be 'slotted' Mr. Cushing said yes
it would be.
Chairman asked if both of these problems were to be delt with
now and Mr. Cushing said yes, the addition and t.he deck.
Mr. Montessi said that legally we can make a recommendation and
if the Zoning Board of Appeals does its job and asks where the
hardship is Mr. Cushing, why do you have to have that deck. There
is no hardship here.
lIS:
Planning Board
Page 9
Mr. Cushing gave the definition of an accessory structure.
He said that you step off the side porch onto the deck, he
dosen't agree that it is an accessory structure.
Mr. Montessi added that he had no qualms about the addition but
he would be in trouble trying to find a hardship in which to
allow the deck.
Mr. Cushing added that on the practical side building the deck as
proposed it allows me to build a less expensive foundation for the
addition. If in fact I decided to build a patio, it could be built
right up to the area.
Discussion among the members about the difference between a deck
and a patio.
Mrs. Mann mentioned that in the variance application the deck
isn't included. How can we technically deal with it when it isn't
even in it. We talk about the addition in it but no mention of
a deck.
Chairman noted that on the map it mentions a proposed wood deck.
Mrs. Mann suggested dealing with the request and then the deck.
Chairman stated that the one nice thing about this is that the
Zoning Board of Appeals has to make the final decision.
Chairman asked if there was anyone present who had anything to
add to this.
Mr. Matthews spoke and stated that he not too long ago had a
request which involved a deck. The zoning board was very adamant
about the fact that the deck had to meet the set back requirements
and other requirements for the area.
Mr. Cushing stressed again that if he wanted to have a patio he
wouldn't even have to discuss it here, it is permitted.
It was next mentioned that maybe we should say to Mr. Cushing that
we, as a Planning Board, don't agree with any encroachment beyond
what already exists in the area. Our decision here should be
based on whether it is good planning for the area involved.
Mr. Sorlin added that somewhere along the line we have to
the line as to what can be done in these congested areas.
trying to administer the ordinance, we are a recommending
our recommendation should be based on good planning.
draw
We are
body and
Mr. Cushing added that"with respect you have granted variances
since the inception of the ordinance and if you are going to do
that I would hope that you would have started that immediately.
Mr. Sorlin said that each time a variance is granted we are supposed
to have some type of practical difficulty demonstrated by the
IIG
Planning Board
Page 10
applicant. Putting this deck in is not beyond your control.
Mr. Cushing said his practical difficulty would he that he has no
definition to work with where it comes to this situation.
Mr. Sorlin said the definition of an accessory structure was given.
Mr. Sorlin then said he had no problems with the kitchen addition,
the practical difficulty there is that your current building line
is already there. Now you are talking about adding another
structure, and also closer to the building line and there is no
practical difficulty shown there.
Mrs. Mann again said he dosen't really technically ask for a set
back for the deck, the only thing he has asked for is a set back
for the proposed addition. We can vote on the addition which does
not include any deck and then he can come back for "round 2".
Motion by Mrs. Mann, seconded by Mr. Montessi to recommend
approval of Variance No. 827 - the proposed addit:ion (kitchen)
as the existing building is already in place with that particular
set back. This in no way includes any proposed deck.
All voting yes.
Approved.
Variance No. 828 - Aviation Road Development Corp.
(Copper Kettle Restaurant)
Corinth and Big Boom Roads
Attorney Mal O'Hara represented the Corporation. Mr. O'Hara
said that they would like to expand the kitchen facilities, this
is a much need expansion. He explained why the set back would
go from 50 ft. to 7. He explained the strip of land near the
restaurant which provides the setback. This request is basically
a part of the building where the present fence enclosure is now.
The strip of land which is paved is used for parking for the
restaurant even though the corporation dosen't own it. No one
could build there, the requirements couldn't be met. The proposed
addition, where the fence is now, will not cause any viewing hazards.
There is a letter from Mr. Nailer stating that the highway depart-
ment has no problems with the proposed addition.
Chairman asked if the addition was all kitchen.
Mr. O'Hara said yes, part is to comply with new state regulations,
part to meet expanding business.
Motion by Mrs. Mann, seconded by Mr. Noll to approve Variance
No. 828 the area involved is a deserted piece of land now used
as a parking lot, there is no safety hazard and it will come
close to the 50 ft. setback with the vacant strip. It will not
affect the health and welfare of the area.
All voting yes.
Approved.
1/7
Planning Board
Page II
Variance No. 829 - Arthur David Swinton
West side Bay Road
Mr. Swinton was present and represented himself. He explained
that five (5) years ago he built the building for storeage. He
had a permit from the building department. He now uses this
for repair of logging equipment. He also added t:hat most of his
repair work is done on the job.
Mr. Montessi asked if there was much noise put out by the repair-
work.
Mr. Swinton answered there is no noise, very little is done there.
The original permit was issued in 1978. He said he has been working
in the garage now for five years and not aware of any problems until
Mr. Dean came up about a month ago and made me aware that a problem
existed. He then said he made a survey of people in the area who
might be within hearing range and no one had any problems. He
then showed pictures and explained where they were in relation to
his building.
Mr. Sorlin asked if he has been operating there for five (5) years
wouldn't that make it a pre-existing non-conforming use.
Mr. Dean said under the new zoning yes.
Mr. Sorlin questioned-'it does make it a pre-existing non-conforming
use?'
Mrs. Mann asked what the old zoning was, just residential.
Mr. Sorlin asked if it was pre-existing, non-conforming, it would
be grand fathered wouldn't it?
Mr. Dean mentioned here that if you travelled up Bay Road to
Rt. 149 there are probably about 25 businesses.
Mr. Swinton said he has talked to several of the people who have
been operating businesses and they don't have any variance but I
was wanted to do right, this is why I am here tonight.
Mr. Dean mentioned now that many of the businesses predated the
ordinance.
Mr. Sorlin added that "in our infinate wisdom, we zoned the area
south of this area as RR3 and the particular zone we are discussing
as RR5, residential area. I think we should do everything we can
to prevent further expansion of the non residential uses in that
area. If it is pre-existing, it is there and we have to let it
stay there but we shouldn't proliferate it any further.
In
Planning Board
Page 12
Motion by Mr. Noll, seconded by Mr. Montessi to approve
Variance NO. 829 because to request him to remove the business
to another area would create a hardship and it is a pre-existing
business in the area for 5 years.
All voting yes.
Approved.
Variance No. 830 - Peter N. Smith
West side Stone Schoolhouse Road
(Woodchuck Hill)
Mr. Smith was present and represented himself. He stated that
he is operating a auto repair business in a building that pre
exists zoning. He also said to find an existing garage to use
for an auto repair business is next to impossible. Those that
are available are too expensive.
Mr. Montessi asked if a sign would be needed with Mr. Smith saying
he wouldn't need a sign. He added that he dosen't live there he
lives two houses from Mr. Swinton all he wants to do is operate the
business there.
Chairman noted that this is way back in away from where noise might
create a problem.
Mr. Smith said he wanted a temporary variance.
Chairman interjected that this would be a variance to Mr. Smith
only, not with the land. Variances usualy don't get granted like
this.
Mr. Dean mentioned that this is on a town road, 15' from the
building itself.
Mr. Montessi said he would like to approve this but keep a handle
on it for the Town.
Motion by Mr. Montessi, seconded by Mr. Sorlin for approval of
Variance No. 830 with the variance to go to Mr. Smith only, not
with the land. The hardship being that this is a pre-existing use
that predated zoning. The building is not conducive for residential
use.
All voting yes.
Approved.
Reces5
-~~~,
1/9
Planning Board
Page 13
Copy change on two signs for fuel oil dealer
',-,
The Zoning Board had a problem with this under the zoning
ordinance. They determined that there is no practical purpose
for the issuance of a sign permit or application for a variance
under the present ordinance in the Town of Queensbury. This is
practically unenforceble without modification and/or amendments
to conform to districts and definitions of the new zoning
ordinance. The Town Attorney has come up with some mandated
changes in the sign ordinance.
Motion by Mrs. Mann, seconded by Mr. Dybas to recommend to the
Town Board that they set a public hearing to adopt these amendments
to the sign ordinance.
All yes.
Approved.
Recommended amendments to the Zoning Ordinance worked on at a
Workshop meeting April II, 1983 which were previously worked on
by steve, Mack and the Town Attorney. We agreed in principal to
most of these and left it to the Attorney to put it in the proper
verbage.
Informal discussion between members about amendmE~nts as a whole.
Motion by Mr. Montessi, seconded by Mr. Threw
The Planning Board recommends to the Town Board that they approve
the proposed amendments to the Zoning Ordinance revised at workshop
meeting of April 11, 1983 and May 4, 1983
All voting yes.
Approved.
There being no further business to come before the Board, the
meeting was adjourned.
" GUJ'
- < II / /
( I" , \ I
,1-, jl 1- ~,~_ ,,\ ' "
'\. ;.t-.\ ~"",f\"'~/ /Æ'/ ...J
6/1/;;3