Loading...
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