The URL can be used to link to this page

2011.08.23 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/23/2011) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 23, 2011 INDEX Site Plan No. 39-2011 Inwald Enterprises 1. Tax Map No. 227.17-1-16 Subdivision No. 6-2011 Gerald Monrian, Jr. 16. PRELIMINARY STAGE Tax Map No. 308.20-1-32 FINAL STAGE Site Plan No. 56-2011 Lynda Johnson 18. Tax Map No. 226.12-1-18 Site Plan No. 26-2011 Edward & Philomena Vanputte 22. MODIFICATION Tax Map No. 289.10-1-18 Site Plan No. 54-2011 Hospitality Syracuse 24. Tax Map No. 309.13-2-2, 3 Site Plan No. 57-2011 Gregg Laber GMS Realty, LLC 26. Tax Map No. 308.16-2-4 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. 1 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/23/2011) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 23, 2011 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT CHRIS HUNSINGER, CHAIRMAN GRETCHEN STEFFAN, SECRETARY DONALD SIPP PAUL SCHONEWOLF STEPHEN TRAVER BRAD MAGOWAN, ALTERNATE MEMBERS ABSENT THOMAS FORD LAND USE PLANNER-KEITH OBORNE STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. HUNSINGER-Call to order the meeting of the Town of Queensbury Planning Board on Tuesday, August 23, 2011. PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SITE PLAN NO. 39-2010 SEQR TYPE II INWALD ENTERPRISES AGENT(S) JONATHAN LAPPER, JONATHAN LAPPER OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING WR LOCATION 38 GUNN LANE SITE PLAN: APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT A 697 SQUARE FOOT BOATHOUSE WITH SUNDECK ACCESSED BY HANDICAP ACCESS RAMP ABOVE TWO EXISTING DOCKS. BOATHOUSE IN A WR ZONE REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. AREA VARIANCE: APPLICANT REQUESTS SHORELINE & SIDELINE SETBACK RELIEF FOR ACCESSORY STRUCTURE [RAMP]. PLANNING BOARD TO PROVIDE WRITTEN RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. PLANNING BOARD SHALL MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZBA AS PER ZBA RESOLUTION DATED 4/27/2011. CROSS REFERENCE AV 26-10, AV 45-10, AV 68-08, SP 38-08 WARREN CO. PLANNING 6/9/2010 APA, CEA, OTHER L G PARK CEA LOT SIZE 0.66 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 227.17-1-16 SECTION § 179-5-060 JON LAPPER & PETER LOYOLA, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Keith? MR. OBORNE-This is basically a recommendation that the Zoning Board of Appeals has requested the Planning Board consider for the Inwald application. I believe that the Board is aware of what the applicant is trying to do here, and they have submitted alternatives that the Zoning Board wishes for you to make a recommendation on one of them, which you would prefer, and maybe help them with their decision. They are having troubles trying to give firm guidance to the applicants at this point, and if you want me to read it in, that would be fine, or just roll from there. I’ll turn it over to you guys. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Great. Thanks. Good evening. MR. LAPPER-Good evening, everyone. For the record, Jon Lapper with Peter Loyola and Bill Springnether from CLA. We are trying to get this right so this is the third time back before you for a recommendation. Our client still prefers the alternative with the raised bridge to get to, for handicap access to the top of the boathouse, but in order to make this a better application every time, we’ve refined the landscaping and the design, and we’ve got a short PowerPoint presentation to just show you the character of the neighborhood and how this looks with the proposed landscaping. After we show you that, we’ll go through the alternatives, but just in terms of, it’s our position that if you’re going to have to make a handicap ramp to go on the land, you’re going to have to do a lot of disturbance to get it down at a five percent grade to get it down to the water which would be disturbing, and then to have a big mechanical box on the boathouse which nobody else has is not particularly good looking. So we still think that this is the best alternative, but let’s go through the PowerPoint and then we can talk about it. BILL SPRINGNETHER 2 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/23/2011) MR. SPRINGNETHER-I’m going to start it now. Existing conditions. So I know you all are very familiar with the project to date. We’re going to go through the existing condition, show you the context of the neighborhood and then also follow that up with a discussion of the alternatives. We have two more alternative designs as well, as requested by the Zoning Board for discussion, because they wanted to see additional options, and then we’ll show you the proposed site plan. Could we have the next slide. So as you can see here, the Inwald’s property is the property in the middle of that photograph. Keith, could you expand it so it’s a whole? Her property is the property in the middle, but it’s where the sailboat is. The property to the right of that is property that has a boathouse and a ramp leading to the boathouse already. The property to the left of it has a boathouse and that white shed on top of the boathouse. So as you can see, the immediate neighborhood already has similar structures. Next slide please. MRS. STEFFAN-Do you know how long those structures have been in place? Have they been there a while? MR. LOYOLA-Yes, those are, we’re not sure exactly how long, but they’ve been there a while. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MR. SPRINGNETHER-So this is an expanded panoramic of the shoreline, looking further to the north and to the south, and you can see additional boathouses. All three of the boathouses south of her property all have ramp access to them. Next slide please. This is the view looking down towards the south from the north. The Inwald’s property is immediately behind that white shed. This photo illustrates that, you know, from this particular location, from this exact view, obviously, and from a lot of views on the lake, you would never even see her structure. There’s the white shed as well as the vegetation behind it that would hide of that structure. Next slide please, and this is the proposal from the south. You can see what it looks like. This is without any vegetative screening, just so you can see the, for lack of a better term, naked structure. MR. LOYOLA-And that’s what we’re proposing as a photo simulation. MR. SPRINGNETHER-Next slide please. This and the next two slides after this are aerial photos of the lake with her property highlighted in red, so we can get a context of where on the lake this is, so you can see here the little red dot where our client’s property is. From the main portion of the lake, back in that cove in Harris Bay, it would never be visible. Next slide. This zooms in. You can see that again. You can see where the client’s property is on the right of Harris Bay. The property is basically, or anyone to the north of her property essentially would never see her ramp. So, again, you’re only looking at potential view from the south. Zooming in a little closer, you can see the white shed next to her two docks, and you can see how she’s right at the apex of that concave curve, sitting back in that cove. So the property is well hidden. The ramp would be well hidden from viewers, especially to the north, and then with our additional screening, it would be out of sight from the south as well. Next slide, please. Yes. We’re just looking, you can go through these pretty quickly here. These are just existing ramps, the next couple dozen slides are all existing ramps, boathouses with ramps. This one in particular was under construction this Spring, and that’s in Harris Bay, in the Town of Queensbury. So we’re just going through, showing precedent that these do exist on lake, and they’re new. So, next slide, please. There’s a number of existing ramps. The precedent has been set already. Next slide. It will not look like that, but next slide. You can just keep going right through. Here’s one with a ramp that goes right to their back door. This is a large ramp and boathouse structure that has three different ramps attached to it. There’s one. That’s on the south. There’s another ramp that accesses that structure, and then the third one there. You can go through these quick. The point is there’s a lot of ramps on the lake. These are all in Harris Bay. They’re all in her neighborhood. Precedent has already been set, and we feel that putting an additional ramp does not violate the visual context of the area, the architectural context of the area, installing a lift of any sort would. To our knowledge there’s only one lift existing anywhere on the lake. MR. LOYOLA-And one of the things you should look at is just the, kind of the treatments to the railings. I mean, there’s the Adirondack style railing. There’s the balustrades are all different kind of shapes and sizes, and you can see. MR. SPRINGNETHER-This one’s a wire rail, similar to the one we’re proposing. MR. LOYOLA-Yes. One of the comments at the County, and I think actually at the Zoning Board, was just, you know, how can we make it a little bit less opaque with the railings, and let’s try something that was a little bit more transparent to just kind of hide that, because you can see that the railing system there is, you know, that’s a lot of wood that’s there. That’s a little bit lighter in texture with the transparent railing system. So you only see the post rather than, you know, the whole full railing system. That’s what we’re proposing for Inwald. Okay. Go ahead. 3 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/23/2011) MR. SPRINGNETHER-Now this next group of slides shows our proposal in contrast to the existing conditions on the lake. This is our current proposal, again, unvegetated. Next slide, please. Vegetative screening goes in, hides the majority of the ramp, and you can see the picture on the bottom left, an existing ramp in very similar context. MR. LAPPER-Can that be blown up, just to show that vegetation better? Or is that as big as it can get. MR. SPRINGNETHER-Right now? MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. SPRINGNETHER-I believe that’s. MR. LOYOLA-As big as we can get it. MR. LAPPER-I just meant so it would be easier for the Board to see it. MR. SPRINGNETHER-Yes. There you go. So that’s the proposal to date. We have addressed a number of comments. Both the Zoning Board and to the Planning Board have offered, in terms of increasing the vegetative screening, increasing shoreline buffer, adding permeable pavers to the ramp system, and decreasing overall disturbance, and that’s actually our third alternative that I can show you. So if you want to go through the next slides. This is the first alternative that was proposed back in December showing a lift down at the boathouse end of a handicap accessible ramp that would descend from her patio down to the shoreline where somebody could then take a lift to the top of the boathouse. A project, could you please go back. A project of this scale requires, it’s about 160 linear feet of ramp, which actually, installing that would push her total area of disturbance over the 25% limit for zoning. So we’d have to be asking for an additional variance for this proposal. It also requires a lot more construction down by the water’s edge, in terms of putting in concrete piers and footings for the elevator system, and you would also need to have a stair access as well, in case the elevator didn’t work, a lightning storm came in and knocked power out. So this solution, it really doesn’t decrease overall disturbance that much. The amount of land disturbance in this proposal versus the one that we have currently proposed as the site plan is about 1,000 square foot decrease in disturbance. So it’s not, to put it in perspective, our proposal has 5500 square feet of disturbance. This one has 4500. MR. OBORNE-And if I may ask you a question. When you’re talking about additional variances, are you specifically talking about permeability? MR. SPRINGNETHER-Yes. MR. OBORNE-Okay. So that would be one of the issues that they would have with this. The other issues that are with the other alternatives, and I’ll comment on that later. MR. SPRINGNETHER-And this, you know, would end up creating a ramp that would descend the property, have to have handrails throughout. It would be a fairly large visual impact, in our mind, equal to what a ramp would be. Next slide, please. Other direction. There you go. This is Alternative Two. This was requested by the Zoning Board. This is what is bringing us back to the Zoning Board tomorrow night. They wanted to see another lift alternative. This is a horizontal lift. It would take her from the location close to the patio across the property to the top of the boathouse, and it would run almost dead level, because that elevation up by the patio is only a foot lower in elevation than the boathouse itself. Next slide, please. Wrong way. This is a picture of a similar type structure, carriage, that would ride on the lift. Next slide, and these are some similar systems. All of these are descending or ascending a much steeper hill. If we were to propose this, it would be almost level. MR. HUNSINGER-Are these currently on Lake George, these pictures? MR. SPRINGNETHER-None of these are on Lake George, no. These are just example images of what could be there, if this structure was built. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. SIPP-Is this for a motorized wheelchair, or is this for a scooter? 4 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/23/2011) MR. SPRINGNETHER-Well, for the Inwald’s property, they would require a carriage that would be a minimum of seven feet by five feet, because she will have to have a reclining wheelchair. So it would have to be able basically to take a gurney. MR. LOYOLA-Yes. I mean, all these alternatives that we’re investigating, again, I mean, we’re trying to investigate every kind of a situation that we can. I mean, obviously, this is not compatible with anything on that lake. The Inwald, Robin does not want to have any kind of mechanical system. She’s afraid for her mom if there’s lightning strikes. I mean, there’s safety. There’s maintenance to all of this. There’s an added cost to this. It doesn’t make any sense. I mean, we’re going through these alternatives and we’re trying to come up with the most feasible aesthetic design, but, you know, given the constraints of our site, what we’ve tried to do is just balance land with this ramp, and do it in a way that’s not going to be incompatible with everything else that we have around the lake. We’re trying to work with the Zoning Board on this to come up with some feasible solutions here, but there really, and we spent a lot of time on the design on this, and I think there’s only so many ways that we can do this ramp, and you know get her to the top deck of this, and it seems like a very reasonable proposal. MR. OBORNE-It’s safe to say that this alternative is not going to be employed. MR. LOYOLA-No way. MR. LAPPER-Nobody would want to see that. MR. SPRINGNETHER-Next slide, please, and this is the most recent alternative, Alternative Three, where we’re proposing an additional wall, retaining wall on the south side of the handicap path that leads up to the ramp, and the purpose of putting that wall there is to reduce the amount of grading on the site. So that wall will eliminate the need to disturb as much soil. MR. SCHONEWOLF-What’s the length of the ramp? MR. SPRINGNETHER-The length of the ramp is 50 feet. MR. SCHONEWOLF-From the? MR. SPRINGNETHER-From the boathouse to where it ends, and then there’s the handicap accessible ramp which is 85 feet. MR. LOYOLA-Yes, that’s the land portion of it. So what we had to do is we had to bring out the land portion of it, and then it attaches to the actual wood structure of the ramp is actually 50 feet. MR. MAGOWAN-So you’re going to berm it up? MR. LOYOLA-So then we berm it up, and we naturalize it, and that piece, which is pavers, permeable pavers, that would be about, what, 80, 85 feet, approximately. MR. MAGOWAN-I’m just a little confused. It’s such a nice, gradual, even slope down to the lake. It’s been such a long process to get her this far is, you know, I’m just confused of what is the purpose of the boathouse when you have all the other ones that you kind of show all usually have a pretty sharp edge down to the lake where I could see where you’d need to be up above, you know, to enjoy the lake and then go down to the lake to swim, but here you have such a gradual, isn’t easier just to get a path down and put a permeable pad down to the lake to sit and view? MR. LOYOLA-Yes, I mean, she wants to be up on top. MR. SPRINGNETHER-That’s not what the client wants. MR. LOYOLA-She wants to enjoy the deck up on top, I mean, and again, although it seems like a gradual slope, it’s more than, you know, ADA, it’s more than a ramp. So we do have to grade this thing out. It looks like it’s gradual, but it’s way more than eight percent, and the five percent that we’re trying to get is going to mean we’re going to have to kind of do this circuitous route to get down to the bottom where, you know, it’s kind of limited view. Yes, she can have access to the lake frontage, but the idea is just to get up and over. MR. LAPPER-She’s looking at both of her neighbors’ boathouses, too. MR. LOYOLA-Yes, so you’re kind of caught in this pocket where you have a boathouse on one side, a boathouse on the other side. Why be down below when you could just be up above where you have, you know, on either side. So, you know, and the other objective here was, she 5 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/23/2011) loves her lawn area. I mean, that’s the open space part of the lawn. What we’re trying to do is just maximize the disturbance to that, just kind of keep it as open as possible. She doesn’t want to give that up. So that was the idea of trying to keep the ramp and that whole system, you know, along the northern property, and mitigate it with planting. MR. MAGOWAN-Well, she talks about a view in that, but yet she puts her sailboat up on a lift which brings it right up out of the water, which is not too often you see a sailboat up on a lift out of the water with that big, huge mast. I mean, I’m just making things questionable. MR. LOYOLA-Well, I mean, that’s kind of a temporary situation. I don’t know how long they’ve had the sailboat, but, you look at the precedent of everything that’s around it. There’s boats of all different sizes that are on the lake. MR. MAGOWAN-But a sailboat is a much larger cavity with a keel and that up out of the water. Have you seen it up on the lake? I mean, to me you’re saying she wants view, she wants this, but yet she takes the sailboat and lifts it way out of the water, you know. I don’t think it’s, again, personally, if I was a neighbor, I was like, wow, that would just bother me. MR. SPRINGNETHER-No neighbors are complaining about anything that she’s doing. MR. SCHONEWOLF-It depends on what side it’s on. MR. MAGOWAN-Yes, but like I said, I’m just trying to raise some questions here that I see that that I would like to know more about. MR. SCHONEWOLF-The sailboat wasn’t there when I was there. Is that on the north side or the south side? MR. LOYOLA-It’s on the south side. MR. SCHONEWOLF-She’s going to be wanting to look north to look up the lake. So it doesn’t make any difference. MR. MAGOWAN-And she’s got the big white boathouse there. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes. That’s not hers. MR. LOYOLA-The whole objective is just to get to the top of the boathouse. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Well, isn’t her deck going to be past the front of that boathouse? MR. SPRINGNETHER-I talked with her about this just today. The end of her boathouse roof is essentially in line with the end of the boathouse that’s adjacent to her. MR. SCHONEWOLF-So her views block both of those? MR. SPRINGNETHER-Her view would not be blocked because the white shed is set back on that boathouse roof. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Well, that’s what I meant, yes. MR. LOYOLA-She’s in line with the northern boathouse. So she’ll have views beyond that white shed. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Okay. That’s what I mean, and you’re saying from when you come off the deck until you get back to where you hit the lawn it’s 55 feet? MR. LOYOLA-Fifty. MR. SCHONEWOLF-That’s all? MR. LOYOLA-Yes. MR. TRAVER-And I think it should be noted that that shed structure, sooner or later, that’s going to come down. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. TRAVER-I mean, that’s a temporary structure. 6 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/23/2011) MR. SPRINGNETHER-Well, it’s been there. MR. LOYOLA-Just like a sailboat coming up and down a lift. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Well, I mentioned it to the owner, and he said, because if it comes down, it’s never going back up, and he said I’m going to paint it. MR. TRAVER-The lifts are actually more common in the northern end of the lake, but there are more and more of them being used. MR. LAPPER-I guess just to sum up, we feel that the landscaping has really been beefed up to buffer this, and that that’ll be attractive, and it’s less disturbance than what was previously proposed, and less disturbance than there could be to get a ramp that would be handicap accessible. So we hope you’ll view this as the least impact and a better design than what she came with previously. MR. SIPP-Will there have to be any fill brought in if you use this Number Three? MR. SPRINGNETHER-Yes, there will have to be fill. It will be reduced amount of fill, but. MR. LAPPER-Just in that area where the pavers are. MR. MAGOWAN-What they’re doing, instead of making the ramp longer, they’re going to berm up the ground and make the ramp shorter. MR. SIPP-Yes, I understand that. MR. LAPPER-But in a concentrated area, because of the retaining wall. MR. SIPP-You’re going to put in permeable pavers, right? MR. LOYOLA-Right. MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. SIPP-All the way up. MR. LOYOLA-As far as we can. MR. SIPP-What’s the rails on the side going to be made of? MR. SPRINGNETHER-There would be no rails on the side of the path. The slope is below the five percent requirement. MR. LOYOLA-Just to point out real quickly, if you can see this, from here to here is where the wood decking would be for the ramp, and then from here to here would be the pathway for impermeable. So on this side we have retaining wall, and in this particular plan we show just natural grading coming down. The other alternative with the retaining wall on either side just eliminates, this one, just eliminates having to actually berm this up, and we can do a retaining wall here and then just have the existing grades but into the retaining wall, and then we can mitigate it with planting, and that would minimize the amount of fill and disturbance. We’d have retaining wall on all sides here, and allow just this to be undisturbed. We’re getting kind of the same effect with the natural berm. So it’s just a question of which alternative you’d like to see. I mean, I personally prefer just the natural grade with the planting because I think over time it’ll have a tendency to blend in a little bit more with the landscape. A retaining wall is a retaining wall. I mean, we can mitigate it with plantings, but I think it makes a little bit more sense just to kind of gently grade it down. MR. HUNSINGER-So how high is the retaining wall at the furthest point to the west? MR. SPRINGNETHER-At the highest point it does not exceed three feet. I think it’s two feet nine inches or something. MR. LOYOLA-Right. So, I mean, this is just a small retaining wall coming. The overall context of this is it’s a really small scale project. 7 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/23/2011) MR. SCHONEWOLF-I don’t even see a need for that, and you’re talking about the footage in that ramp going from the deck back of being 50 feet. That’s about the size of the 30 of them that are across the waterfront. They’re all about that size. MR. LOYOLA-Right, and the only reason we did the, we brought the land out was just to minimize that, you know, the wood structure, you know, just to try and bring a little bit more earth to it and tie it in a little bit more to the landscape. On the north, we are a little bit higher in elevation here. So, you know, we’re not even coming close to the elevation of that northern property. MR. HUNSINGER-So this isn’t the current proposal? This is just one of the alternates? MR. LOYOLA-That’s one of the alternates. MR. SPRINGNETHER-This is an alternate that the Zoning Board requested. So it doesn’t have all the, it just shows grading and land disturbance. It would be vegetated and made to meet the requirements in a similar way that this one is. MR. SIPP-You’ll have to put in a buffer that’s 15 foot wide. MR. SPRINGNETHER-Right. MR. SIPP-And it’s going to have to be carried on back. MR. SPRINGNETHER-On this plan we’ve done that. The buffer, the 15 foot buffer, vegetated buffer starts here and extends all the way back through there. MR. SIPP-All right. MR. OBORNE-I do want to make sure that also, that 15 foot buffer is well and good, but every lot on the lake has the ability to have a 35 foot access to their lake, to their property on the lake. So please keep that in mind, along their property line that fronts the lake. So it’s not a requirement that 15 foot buffer needs to run the whole length of the shoreline. They do have the ability to have a 35 foot opening by which to access the lake. MR. SPRINGNETHER-Which is what’s on the south side. MR. TRAVER-I had a question for Staff. Mr. Oborne, do you know, we saw a picture tonight of what appeared to be a ramp under construction. Is it possible that somebody could do that without planning approval? MR. OBORNE-Yes, if it is just a replacement. MR. TRAVER-If it’s a replacement? Okay. MR. OBORNE-Yes. MR. TRAVER-I also understand from reading the minutes and just the history that I’ve been aware of that we, this Planning Board has never approved a land bridge. Do you know if that’s true? MR. OBORNE-That’s not true. MR. TRAVER-That’s not true. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, there’s been a handful, maybe. MR. OBORNE-There’s been at least one in my tenure. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. OBORNE-Off of Knox Road, the very end of Knox Road. That was approved. That was a land bridge, but it didn’t require any fill, and just to, just for the edification of the Board, Staff’s concerns is the import of fill. That really is our main concern and my main concern is the import of fill and the change in the natural grade. Most of those structures that were shown, with the exception of the ones that had the retaining walls in them, you know, they totally changed that, but a lot of those structures just tie in to what the natural grade is, and I’d like to comment, and I truly mean this, it’s the client that’s driving this. 8 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/23/2011) MR. LOYOLA-To some degree. MR. OBORNE-To some degree. MR. LOYOLA-The idea with the ramp was that we make it shorter. I mean, that came out of a comment from the Zoning Board that they would like to see less of a structural bridge. So in an effort to mitigate that, it is way cheaper for us to actually extend the piers and extend the wooden structure all the way to hit the grade. We could absolutely do that. If that’s your major issue, we would take all the grading out of there and just extend the wooden structure all the way to hit the grade. MR. LAPPER-This is a compromise between minimizing the change in the grade and making a shorter ramp. MR. LOYOLA-Exactly. Because, you know, we have a Zoning Board that’s saying one thing, and we have, you know, the Planning Board saying another. MR. OBORNE-Right. MR. LOYOLA-So whichever you folks would like to see, it would be way cheaper, like I say, for us to just extend the wooden structure all the way to the grade and not even disturb the grade whatsoever with the exception of planting. So if we can get the Zoning Board to agree to that, hey, we’d be happy to do that. MR. OBORNE-No, I do understand, but when I made the comment that the client is driving the structure, as you were saying, Brad, she wants to be up top, and, you know, that’s important, obviously, for her to have access to that. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Well, if you’ve got a deck, you want to be up there. MR. OBORNE-Exactly. No, I agree. Absolutely. MR. SCHONEWOLF-You don’t build decks to sit underneath them. MR. OBORNE-But our main concern is the import of fill and the change in the natural grade. MR. TRAVER-Well, my feeling before was that having the handicap accessible ramp was something that we could support, particularly if there was some way that when it was no longer required, if the handicapping condition went away, that it could be removed, but evidently there’s not a practical way to ensure that that happens, and, you know, from my reading of our minutes and the minutes of the Zoning Board, it’s difficult to imagine getting approval for another land bridge. I can certainly understand the client wanting to be down on the water. I guess to me the wanting to be up high as opposed to being down on the water line, probably the best of the two alternates that are before us, the one that probably makes the most sense to me is Alternate One, which would be the lift at the dock. That way we have, we’re accommodating, you know, the client, in terms of getting her up on top, but we’re not adding to the number of land bridges. That’s, at this point, I guess, my feeling. MR. SCHONEWOLF-I don’t know how we can take exception to the land bridge when there’s about 50 of them there. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, a lot of those pre-dated zoning. They weren’t subject to Site Plan Review. MR. SCHONEWOLF-About half of them have been re-built in the last three years. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, you heard what Staff said. They can be re-built in kind without coming before the Planning Board. MR. SCHONEWOLF-There’d be no sense to take this down, just because there’s isn’t a handicap person to use it. They might cut it off a little further back, but how else is anybody going to get to the deck? MR. OBORNE-They’d be required to have stairs. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Climb a ladder? MR. OBORNE-You’d have stairs and a list. 9 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/23/2011) MR. SCHONEWOLF-Well, if they put the stairs, if they leave the structure up here, you’re going to have to have stairs to get down to the dock. MR. LAPPER-There’s not a prohibition in the Code about a land bridge, either. MR. SCHONEWOLF-That’s right. The place is populated with them. MR. HUNSINGER-Other comments from the Board? Anyone else have a preference for one of the alternates? MR. SIPP-In the case here of whatever alternate alternative you may come up with, I still want to see that 15 foot buffer strip put in there, with the plantings that are supposed to be there. What you have in this alternative here are plantings that look pretty, but are not necessarily what we want. MR. SCHONEWOLF-I thought you had to buffer the entire shoreline? MR. OBORNE-There is provision in the Code that 35 foot access is allowable. So if you have a buffer along the lake and you want to access the lake, you can disturb up to 35 feet. MR. SCHONEWOLF-And not buffer it? MR. OBORNE-And not buffer it, correct. MR. SCHONEWOLF-That’s the first time I’ve heard that. MR. SIPP-Yes, where did that come from? MR. OBORNE-It’s always been in the Code. MR. SPRINGNETHER-Yes, but we’re adding buffer. I mean, there’s no buffer there now. MR. SCHONEWOLF-I’m not talking about you, but we make (lost words) across their property, and this is the first time I’ve heard that we didn’t have to do that. MR. TRAVER-Well, I think we’re normally talking about buffering, not un-buffering. That’s why we don’t talk about it. MR. HUNSINGER-Other comments from the Board? MR. SIPP-If you can keep this retaining wall, the visible part of the retaining wall down to two feet or two and a half feet, I think it’s doable, because you can get a lot of stuff to cover two and a half feet. MR. LOYOLA-Absolutely. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, that’s some pretty small brush. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes, if you put a retaining wall there and have something on it, it will look better than most of them that are up there. MR. LAPPER-That’s right. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Because most of them are just hanging it in. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. What’s the will of the Board? Would anyone like to put forward a recommendation? MR. SCHONEWOLF-Which is One, Two, and Three, the order that they’re posted for us? MR. TRAVER-Well, One and Three, realistically. MR. SPRINGNETHER-One is the option with the circuitous path down to the lift. Two is the option with the horizontal lift, and three is the option with the additional retaining wall to reduce disturbance. MR. LOYOLA-And this plan is the proposed site plan. So we have the, this is the proposed site plan. Then we have an alternative to the proposed site plan which is the path down and the switchback up, and the alternative to this proposed site plan, two, is the one with the horizontal 10 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/23/2011) lift, and the alternative to this proposed site plan is number three with the additional retaining wall on the south side just to minimize the grading footprint. So this is the one with, the proposed site plan that we have up here colored that we would like to see is the one with only the retaining wall on the northern side with the gentle slope that we’re creating and the buffer, and the retaining wall, the proposed site plan and three are essentially the same, with the exception of three has a little bit more retaining wall around it. MR. SIPP-Now, this number three here would require no fill being brought in? MR. SPRINGNETHER-It would require fill. Keith, could you go back, please? It would require fill within the retaining wall, fill would happen in that area. MR. SCHONEWOLF-But if you didn’t build the retaining wall on one side, it would be less fill. MR. SPRINGNETHER-If we didn’t build the retaining wall on one side, it would be more fill. MR. LOYOLA-It would be a little bit more fill because we’ve got to bring up the grade. MR. SPRINGNETHER-We’d have to grade this whole area, and that’s with the current proposal. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes, that’s right. I forgot. MR. LOYOLA-It’s either the proposed site plan or three that we’re kind of talking about here. MR. HUNSINGER-Is the Zoning Board looking for us to make a recommendation on one of the alternates? I mean, the Zoning Board asked to see alternates, we didn’t. MR. LAPPER-Right. MR. HUNSINGER-It only came back to us. MR. OBORNE-Yes, as part of the resolution for tabling. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. OBORNE-They’re looking for guidance on either the original plan, what you preferred through a recommendation, or, if you so choose, one of the alternate plans. MR. HUNSINGER-Other questions, comments from the Board? MR. SCHONEWOLF-No, I like that plan, and I really don’t care whether they put the retaining wall on this side or not, but at two and a half feet, it’s not an issue either way. MR. HUNSINGER-Keith, is there less concern with bringing in fill if you build a retaining wall around it to contain it? I mean, in some ways it would lessen any potential for erosion or runoff. I mean, you’re trading off some issues here. MR. OBORNE-Yes, I would say the construction of that wall would also be, and concern’s not the word. It’s more of a, I don’t know what the right adjective is, but. MR. LOYOLA-I mean, during construction, keep in mind, I mean, we can contain the retaining wall, whether we do the retaining wall or not, I mean, we can put silt fence up. We can contain. This is not a big project. We can contain, you know, with silt fence, you know, the perimeter and lock it down, key it in, bring the fill in, and we’re talking about probably a day and a half’s worth of work here for somebody to come in, grade it out, and then we can get the planting in immediately and seed it. MR. OBORNE-I think Alternate Three is a pretty decent compromise to reduce the length of the land bridge, and it does bring in minimal fill as compared to the original plan that you had. So it’s still imported fill, though. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Okay. I’d go with that. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Well, would anyone like to make a recommendation? Paul? MR. SCHONEWOLF-I haven’t got the write up. 11 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/23/2011) MR. HUNSINGER-It’s attached with the Staff Notes, last page of the Staff Notes. I mean, normally we choose either A or B, but in this case I think the Zoning Board’s looking for some input on the alternates. So, I don’t know if we want to go that far, if there’s agreement among this Board. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Well, which alternate number? MR. LAPPER-Three. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Three is what we’re talking about. Right? MRS. STEFFAN-You know, if you looked at this site plan during many iterations, and when we first went to look at this particular site, it was remarkably different than it is right now, you know, when the house went through their rehab, and for all of the scenarios that have been laid out, whether it’s Alternative One, Two, or Three, you know, it’s kind of remarkable to me that, I understand that the individual wants to have a deck and wants to go sit out there, but all of the remedies that we’re looking at, whether it’s Alternative One, Two or Three, are really going to impair the visuals of the lake from the house, and, you know, for an individual, you know, I’m just trying to look at this from a couple of different perspectives. I’ve read the Zoning Board minutes. I’ve listened to some of the dialogue. I haven’t been here for every meeting where we’ve discussed this project on the Planning Board, but some of the issues that have come up, they’re all about, you know, putting this elaborate infrastructure in place that’s really going to impair the view of the lake for the individual at the house, and so I understand for six months of the year this individual may want to be on top of the deck down near the water, but it just seems remarkable to me that the individual wants to invest this much money, put this much infrastructure in place, will need variances in order to build this, for something that will impair the view from the house, and so the things that it appears the individual is trying to accomplish they will also impair, you know, the beauty of the lake, their visuals. So I’m confused on a lot of levels because, you know, I’ve listened to the whole argument, and I get it, but. MR. LAPPER-From her perspective, she feels that she’s handicap and she wants to have the same view as the neighbors that aren’t handicap, and that’s really what it’s about, and everything else has been a compromise to try and change the plan to gain approval. MRS. STEFFAN-You know, and some of the things that have been talked about here tonight, I read the Zoning Board minutes, you know, they’re adamant that they’ve never approved a land bridge, and the properties that you’ve shown are, there are obviously a lot of land bridges, and we’ve talked about tonight that there are things that they may have been replaced because they are pre-existing, they are non-conforming, but yet they’ve been re-built to the exact specifications, you know, where a breakdown occurred, whether it was erosion and whether they fell apart, whatever, rotted, but we’re still in a situation where if we approve something like this, we will be getting many applications that will come forward for exactly this type of thing. When you look at the aging population that we have, when you look at the number of handicap individuals in our society and that number’s increasing daily, we’re going to be seeing a lot more applications just like this one. MR. LAPPER-It looks like almost everybody has a land bridge, you know, it’s so common on the lake. MR. SPRINGNETHER-Virtually every boat deck has one (lost word) has one. MR. SCHONEWOLF-And has rebuilt it. MR. SPRINGNETHER-And has re-built it. MR. SCHONEWOLF-And it’s been approved by the Park Commission. It’s not something that, the person looking out his house wants to sit out there, he’s got to have a land bridge. MR. SPRINGNETHER-Can I ask what’s so detrimental about the bridge extending out to the boathouse? I mean, what, why, I guess is the question? Is it a visual, aesthetic issue? Is it a constructability issue? Is it a, I mean, why not? MR. SCHONEWOLF-I don’t see anything wrong with it. It’s the person that lives there that’s got to live with it, and it’s their choice. MR. SPRINGNETHER-Well, I mean, is it obstructing a view I guess is the question. MRS. STEFFAN-The discussions that have happened, the discussions, you know, I’ve been on the Planning Board for six years, and I was on the Comprehensive Land Use Committee, and 12 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/23/2011) the discussions that have occurred over time is that for the homes that have these large decks and viewing surfaces and the land bridges that exist, you know, they want them, but for the small camps that have existed on the lake for a long period of time that don’t have those structures, their view of the lake is impaired. Now we know that a lot of properties around the lake have been re-developed and there’s been a tremendous amount of investment on Lake George, and so the little camps that once existed, many of them no longer exist, and so we are transitioning to a different period of time, and there’s a tremendous amount of investment and wealth on the lake where these land bridges and elaborate infrastructures exist, and people want them, but we’re still transitioning to what we believe we want as a community, and what the zoning supports, and so that’s part of our job, Zoning Board, Planning Board. We have to call the shots because we’re appointed officials, but at the same time, you know, we have to look at the intent of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan and the zoning that exists and try to make the best decisions we can based on the information that’s presented. So, you know, that’s a little of the history. MR. LOYOLA-Yes, and I totally agree with that, and I think that’s why, on a case by case basis, that has to be looked at, the context of what you have, exactly what you talked about. You do not want to impact someone who is immediately adjacent to, you know, this structure to be impacted from a visual standpoint. We have two property owners immediately to the north and south who are not complaining, are not visually impacted by any of the structure that’s going up here, and that’s where I think, you know, this Board and the Zoning Board’s I think responsibility to look at it on a case by case basis. The land bridge itself, I mean, I can understand if the context were different if you were impacting a majority of people that are around. Let’s say you have small camps to the south or small camps to the north where you’re actually impacting a view, I’m all for that because I, you know, we obviously don’t want to create that impact. That’s not the case here, and I think, you know, the idea that if you approve this that you’re going to get more and more applications, well you look at it on a context by context basis and make the decision whether or not you are impacting something to the north or somebody to the south, and you will know immediately because you’re going to have 100 people here saying we don’t want this here. MR. TRAVER-There’s also precedent involved and that’s why I support Option Number One for a person with a handicapping condition that makes it a high priority to get up on the upper level of a yet to be constructed structure, rather than this Board approving a new land bridge. It seems like to accommodate a person with a disability, the best option is a lift. MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, really, the bottom line, you beg the question. We could sit here for hours and hours and hours and debate this, but the bottom line is you’re replacing a natural environment with a manmade environment, and that’s really what the issue boils down to. At one of the prior meetings, I had made a comment that, you know, this is not a, it’s not a public building. So there’s no obligation by the Town or the landowner or anybody else to ensure handicapped accessibility. Now, I mean, I appreciate the homeowners concerns, their right to use their property. I mean, I’m willing to go along with some reasonable design and reasonable alternative here, but, you know, to start debating hypotheticals, three quarters or more of the land bridges that you showed us pictures of tonight, this Board would never approve them. They’ve never been before this Board. We would never approve them. I mean, I think I can speak for everyone by saying that. Creating greater manmade environment in natural setting is not really the goal of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan or the goal of the development that the community wants to see on the lake. Now, you know, again, we can debate this all night. I think we need to really bring this to some conclusion. It was the Zoning Board that asked this to be re-visited, not this Board. We had forwarded it before with a positive recommendation. I think we would. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Okay. I’ll make a motion. MOTION ON BEHALF OF THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD TO THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR AREA VARIANCE NO. 45-2010 AND SITE PLAN NO. 39- 2010 INWALD ENTERPRISES FOR OPTION THREE, Introduced by Paul Schonewolf, seconded by MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. We have a motion. Is there a second? No second? MR. SIPP-Is that strictly just option three, without any other? MR. LAPPER-With the buffer. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I mean, that was the motion. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Option Three included the. 13 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/23/2011) MR. SPRINGNETHER-All the planting. MR. SCHONEWOLF-All the plantings and all the, the wall, as presented to us. MR. OBORNE-There’s a motion. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, we have a motion, but there’s no second. No second. Would anyone else like to present another motion? Another recommendation? MOTION ON BEHALF OF THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD TO THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR AREA VARIANCE NO. 45-2010 AND SITE PLAN NO. 39- 2010 INWALD ENTERPRISES THAT ALTHOUGH WE HAVE A NUMBER OF CONCERNS WITH ALL THE ALTERNATIVES THAT WERE PRESENTED, TO ACCOMMODATE A PERSON WITH A DISABILITY, WE FEEL THAT IT IS REASONABLE TO FURTHER DISCUSS AND CONSIDER OPTION ONE, A HANDICAP LIFT, Introduced by Stephen Traver who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brad Magowan: rd Duly adopted this 23 day of August, 2011, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Magowan, Mr. Traver NOES: Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger ABSENT: Mr. Ford MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Would anyone else like to make another motion? MR. SCHONEWOLF-Well, we’ve only got two options. MR. TRAVER-Or we could be unsatisfied with all three, but I don’t think we’re at that point. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I mean, one of the options that we can make is to pass it on to the Zoning Board without any recommendation. MR. OBORNE-And you’re going to have to say, you know, you could not come up with four votes, you could not get a positive yes. MR. TRAVER-We certainly had some constructive discussion I think. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, absolutely. MR. TRAVER-It is, it’s a difficult situation. I mean, we do have a person with a disability who, you know, we can, as Mr. Magowan pointed out, I mean, the individual could choose to not access the top of the structure, but, you know, that’s certainly the applicant’s decision, and I think it’s reasonable to try to accommodate them as much as we can. I think we do have some legitimate concerns with approving a land bridge. I think I, myself, again, am more comfortable accommodating the person with a disability with something like a lift that probably eventually will go away, rather than approving a new land bridge. That’s my feeling. I think that the Zoning Board can look at the minutes of this discussion and go from there. MR. SCHONEWOLF-I think the land bridge is about the ugliest thing you could put there. I mean, everybody else has got a land bridge, and they’re all over the place now, and if the people in Town don’t like it or it’s against the Code to build a new one I don’t know because I’ve seen them go up, but it seems that the people at the lake have no complaint about it, because they’re all over the place. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. I agree. MR. TRAVER-Well, we don’t have the people of the lake with us tonight commenting on that. MR. SCHONEWOLF-They’ve all got one, and nobody’s complaining about it. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. SCHONEWOLF-And they’ve built at least 10 on Assembly Point that I know of in the last couple of years, in Cleverdale and all that area, they just keep building them. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. 14 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/23/2011) MR. SCHONEWOLF-If somebody really didn’t want them, they’ve be tearing the roof off this place. MR. SPRINGNETHER-Can I just clarify one point? You started that statement saying that you think the land bridge is the ugliest thing? MR. SCHONEWOLF-No, the lift. MR. MAGOWAN-He meant the lift. MR. SPRINGNETHER-I just wanted to clarify that for the record. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Did I say the wrong thing? Sorry about that. MRS. STEFFAN-When will this be heard by the Zoning Board, tomorrow night? MR. OBORNE-Tomorrow, yes. MRS. STEFFAN-So there’s no way that Maria can transcribe these notes. MR. OBORNE-I think by the fact that you could not come up with a recommendation will pretty much tell them what’s going on, and Craig will be there tomorrow and I’ll be briefing him tomorrow morning. MRS. STEFFAN-Well, Chris had a good point, and I think I can probably squeak one out here. Let me put forth a recommendation. MR. HUNSINGER-If I could just follow the point that I was starting to make before Paul made his motion is, you know, we did give this a positive recommendation before. So I think, I mean, I certainly feel an obligation to move it forward. Whether or not we as a Board can agree on the specific design, we weren’t the ones that asked for the alternates to be presented. MR. TRAVER-Right. Well, we do have additional information since then, especially concerning the fact that the land bridge probably would not go away. I think we can assume that a lift would, and that’s significant. The lift, you know, yes, it is going to be a bit of an eyesore, you can argue it’s more or less of an eyesore than a land bridge, but a lot of that can be mitigated through site plan, through architectural work, but I think the most fundamental thing, at least for me in thinking about this, in trying to accommodate an individual with an existing disability, trying to come up with a plan that we’re not contributing to an existing problem, as Paul pointed out, and trying to accommodate their need. I think if we approve a land bridge, it’s not going to go away. If we approve a lift, eventually it will go away. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Then how do you get to the deck? MR. TRAVER-With the lift. MR. SCHONEWOLF-I know, but when the lift goes away, what do you do, jump? MR. TRAVER-No, there’ll be stairs there. The lift will go away, and then you’ll have a boathouse and a deck. MR. SCHONEWOLF-(Lost words) there’s a lot of people that go out on those decks that are older people and would have trouble climbing stairs. MR. TRAVER-I agree, and I think that’s one of the things that we need to think about is are we going to have people who are not disabled who are going to want land bridges? MR. SCHONEWOLF-Of course. That’s what’s happening day in and day out. MR. TRAVER-Well, I haven’t seen applications day in and day out. MR. SCHONEWOLF-You don’t need an application, they’re just building them. MR. HUNSINGER-Did you want to put forward a motion, Gretchen? MRS. STEFFAN-Yes. I’ll put forward a motion. 15 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/23/2011) MOTION ON BEHALF OF THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD TO THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS REGARDING AREA VARIANCE NO. 45-2010 AND SITE PLAN NO. 39-2010 FOR INWALD ENTERPRISES, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brad Magowan: According to the resolution prepared by Staff. The Planning Board selects Option B. The Planning Board based on limited review has identified the following areas of concern: After considerable discussion, replacing an existing environment with a manmade one, the Planning Board has concerns with the alternatives presented, and after considerable discussion recommends that the ZBA carefully consider the alternatives presented. Part of our discussion was the difference in longevity of a land bridge versus a lift, and that we feel that, at least some feel, that the potential is there for a land bridge to be there forever, once approved, whereas a lift probably would be removed and stairs remain at some point in the future. rd Duly adopted this 23 day of August, 2011, by the following vote: MR. TRAVER-Could I ask an amendment or an addition to that? In that the point was also made that a land bridge likely is not going to away and a lift would? MR. HUNSINGER-That’s in the minutes. MR. TRAVER-Yes, but they won’t see the minutes. MR. HUNSINGER-I will second the motion. Is there any discussion? MR. TRAVER-So the motion was not amended as I suggested? MR. HUNSINGER-No, the motion was not amended. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Now, I mean, you could ask to make an amendment to the motion if you will. MR. TRAVER-I’m sorry, I thought I did. MRS. STEFFAN-You did, but I just didn’t hear any support. MR. HUNSINGER-Mr. Traver would like to amend the motion. Is there a second to the amendment? MR. MAGOWAN-I’d second that. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. So we have a motion with an amendment. MR. TRAVER-Just reflecting that part of our discussion was the difference in I guess longevity of a land bridge versus a lift, and that we feel that, at least some feel, that the potential is there for a land bridge to be there forever, once approved, whereas a lift probably would be removed and stairs remain at some point in the future. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. We have a motion with an amendment to it. MRS. STEFFAN-But I don’t agree with the amendment to my motion. MR. OBORNE-You would vote against that, then. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Everyone clear what we’re voting on? MR. SCHONEWOLF-What are you voting on, the amendment? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, the motion. MR. TRAVER-Including my amendment. MR. SCHONEWOLF-You vote on the amendment, first. MR. HUNSINGER-You’re right, we vote on the amendment first, thank you, Paul. We’ll vote on the amendment first. This is just the amendment. 16 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/23/2011) AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Magowan NOES: Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger ABSENT: Mr. Ford MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you for straightening out that procedural, Paul. So now we can vote on the original motion. RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION FOR AV 45-2010 INWALD ENTERPRISES The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Site Plan: Applicant proposes to construct a 697 square foot boathouse with sundeck accessed by handicap access ramp above two existing docks. Boathouse in a WR zone requires Planning Board review and approval Area Variance: Applicant requests shoreline & sideline setback relief for accessory structure [ramp]. Planning Board shall make a recommendation to the ZBA as per ZBA resolution dated 4/27/2011. The Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance, per Section 179-9-070 J 2 b. requires the Planning Board to provide a written recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals for projects that require both Zoning Board of Appeals & Planning Board approval; and The Planning Board has reviewed the ZBA minutes dated 4/27/11 provided by planning staff, briefly reviewed and discussed this application, the relief request in the variance application as well as the potential impacts of this project on the neighborhood and surrounding community, and found that: MOTION ON BEHALF OF THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD TO THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS REGARDING AREA VARIANCE NO. 45-2010 AND SITE PLAN NO. 39-2010 FOR INWALD ENTERPRISES, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Chris Hunsinger: According to the resolution prepared by Staff. The Planning Board selects Option B. The Planning Board based on limited review has identified the following items of concern: After considerable discussion, replacing an existing environment with a manmade one, the Planning Board has concerns with the alternatives presented, and after considerable discussion recommends that the ZBA carefully consider the alternatives presented. rd Duly adopted this 23 day of August, 2011, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Magowan ABSENT: Mr. Ford MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. You have a recommendation. MR. HUNSINGER-Good luck. MR. OBORNE-If I could make a clarification to the 35 foot cutting, I’d like to clarify that it’s actually 30% of the shoreline up to 75 feet, whichever is smaller, and then you have to put it on an angle. So that is the clarification. All of the remaining items on the agenda we do have public hearings scheduled. There is a handout on the back table with a copy of the agenda that also has a handout regarding the procedures for public hearings. OLD BUSINESS: SUBDIVISION NO. 6-2011 PRELIMINARY/FINAL STAGE SEQR TYPE UNLISTED GERALD MONRIAN, JR. OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING MDR-MODERATE DENSITY RESIDENTIAL LOCATION 47 DIVISION ROAD SUBDIVISION: APPLICANT PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF 2.26 +/- ACRE PARCEL INTO TWO RESIDENTIAL LOTS OF 1.13 +/- ACRES EACH. SUBDIVISION OF LAND REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. AREA VARIANCE: RELIEF REQUESTED FOR LOT SIZE AND SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. PLANNING BOARD SHALL MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE AV 51-11, BP 91-545 LOT SIZE 2.26 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 308.20-1-32 SECTION CHAPTER A-183 17 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/23/2011) GERALD MORIAN, JR., PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Keith, whenever you’re ready to introduce the next item. MR. OBORNE-Yes, sir. This is a two lot subdivision off Division Road. This was before you last week. You accomplished SEQRA. What’s before you now is Preliminary and Final subdivision review. They have received their variances with no conditions, is my understanding, and really not much to this, and I’ll leave it to the Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Good evening. Could you identify yourselves for the record? MR. MONRIAN-Gerald Monrian. COURTNEY FIEFIELD MRS. FIEFIELD-Courtney Fiefield. MR. HUNSINGER-Did you have anything else that you wanted to add? MR. MONRIAN-No. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I’ll open it up for questions, comments from the Board. Would anyone like to ask any questions or make any comments? MRS. STEFFAN-No. I think we talked about this last week. It was straightforward. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-We gave it a positive recommendation. We have a public hearing. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I was going to say we do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. Is there anyone in the audience that wants to address the Board on this project? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. HUNSINGER-I will open the public hearing. Were there any written comments, Keith? MR. OBORNE-No. MRS. STEFFAN-And we did SEQRA before we did the recommendation. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, we did SEQRA last week. I’ll close the public hearing, and let the record show there were no comments received. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MRS. STEFFAN-Then I’ll make a motion. RESOLUTION APPROVING PRELIM. STG. SUBDIV # 6-2011 GERALD MONRIAN, JR. A subdivision application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes subdivision of 2.26 +/- acre parcel into two residential lots of 1.13 +/- acres each. Subdivision of land requires Planning Board review and approval; The Planning Board provided a recommendation to the ZBA on 8/16/11; and the ZBA approved the variance request on 8/17/2011; A public hearing was scheduled and held on 8/16/2011 and 8/23/2011; This application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application material in the file of record; MOTION TO APPROVE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 6-2011 GERALD MONRIAN, JR., Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: 18 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/23/2011) According to the resolution prepared by Staff. There were waivers requested for Sketch Plan Review, construction details, storm water, grading and erosion, landscaping and lighting, which the Planning Board grants. rd Duly adopted this 23 day of August, 2011, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Magowan, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Ford MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Then I will next make a motion to approve Final Stage. RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL STG. SUBDIV # 6-2011 GERALD MONRIAN, JR. A subdivision application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes subdivision of 2.26 +/- acre parcel into two residential lots of 1.13 +/- acres each. Subdivision of land requires Planning Board review and approval. The PB provided a recommendation to the ZBA on 8/16/11; the ZBA approved the variance request on 8/17/11; A public hearing was scheduled and held on 8/16/11 and 8/23/2011; This application is supported with all documentation, public comment and application material in the file of record; and MOTION TO APPROVE FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 6-2011 GERALD MONRIAN, JR., Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: According to the resolution prepared by Staff with the following: a)Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code [Chapter A-183], the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; b)SEQRA Negative Declaration was approved on 8/16/2011; c)Final approved plans, in compliance with the Subdivision, must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel. The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work. Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; d)The limits of clearing will constitute a no-cut buffer zone, orange construction fencing shall be installed around these areas and field verified by Community Development staff. rd Duly adopted this 23 day of August, 2011, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Magowan, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Ford MR. HUNSINGER-You’re all set. Good luck. MR. MONRIAN-Okay. Thank you very much. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. SITE PLAN NO. 56-2011 SEQR TYPE II LYNDA JOHNSON AGENT(S) DENNIS MAC ELROY OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING WR-WATERFRONT RESIDENTIAL LOCATION 347 CLEVERDALE ROAD SITE PLAN: APPLICANT PROPOSES A 937 SQUARE FOOT RESIDENTIAL ADDITION TO INCLUDE ATTACHED GARAGE, STUDY, 19 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/23/2011) POWDER ROOM, AND HALLWAY SPACE REPLACING EXISTING DETACHED GARAGE WITH CARPORT AND SHED SPACE. EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE IN A CEA REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. AREA VARIANCE: RELIEF REQUESTED FROM SIDE SETBACK AND FLOOR AREA RATIO REQUIREMENTS OF THE WR DISTRICT AS WELL AS FOR THE EXPANSION OF A NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE. PLANNING BOARD SHALL MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE AV 52-11, AV 93-04, AV 68-04, AV 9-02, SP 43-99 WARREN CO. PLANNING 8/10/2011 APA, CEA, OTHER APA WETLANDS, LG CEA LOT SIZE 0.47 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 226.12-1-18 SECTION 179-9 DENNIS MAC ELROY, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. OBORNE-Yes. Site Plan 56-2011. This is for Lynda Johnson. This is Site Plan Review. Location is 347 Cleverdale Road. This is a Type II SEQRA so there’s no further action. I believe the Planning Board is aware of this project. You saw it last week I do believe, and the following night they gained their Area Variance approval, and again, they’re tearing down a couple of structures, adding a breezeway garage and an office area. What I do ask for is that the limits and location of the septic field and pump tank be demarcated. I don’t think that’s that big of an issue. Any existing impermeable that is to be removed have a 12 inch scarification to promote stabilization with vegetation, and the shoreline is actually an exemplary shoreline. You don’t see many of these with the large trees and the native species. I will say that rain garden has been proposed but details have not been given, as well as the trench detail, and I do add in my notes that if the trench is just for storage, there’s no use or no real reason to have test pit information if it’s just for storage, and with that I’d turn it over to the Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. MAC ELROY-Good evening. For the record, I’m Dennis MacElroy with Environmental Design for applicant and owner Lynda Johnson. I guess I’m on my own tonight. As described, the proposal is to replace existing garage with carport and a shed. The footprint of the proposed addition is very similar to what currently exists. There is an additional floor area that results. We’ve done pretty excruciating measurements of the area within the existing house, including the basement, to come to a point of satisfaction by Staff that we do not exceed Floor Area Ratio standards. The comment regarding stormwater, we are, we do not trigger the threshold of the requirement of stormwater management as per Chapter 147. In the spirit of the Ordinance, we are proposing some devices, stormwater management devices, drip edge infiltration and a rain garden basically in an area that is currently landscaping. If you’ve seen the property, you know there’s fairly extensive landscaping on the property. So we would incorporate that into that existing area on the roadside, and hopefully that addresses the needs for stormwater management. Other than that, well, you’ll get into the request of public hearing, but both neighbors, north and south, have written letters that are in the file. They were written to the Zoning Board, but they are to become part of the project file, and Keith perhaps will discuss those, but both were positive and supportive of the Johnson’s plan. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Questions, comments from the Board? MRS. STEFFAN-So, Dennis, just to be clear, the rain garden details? MR. MAC ELROY-We certainly can add those to the plan. Again, it’s, in fact, that was on an S-2 sheet, maybe there’s not an S-2 sheet. Typically a second sheet provides details, but we can certainly place on the final plan the typical detail and planting for rain garden. That’s not a problem. MR. OBORNE-The reason I ask, and I know that I’ve brought this up in the past, is that he is correct. I mean, they’re asking for a stormwater waiver, yet stormwater controls are being offered, and what I would like to look for, moving forward, are details on those stormwater controls. MR. TRAVER-So we really don’t need a waiver for stormwater, because details are being presented. MR. OBORNE-Yes. I mean, Dennis is right. It doesn’t meet that 1,000 square foot I believe is what it is. MR. MAC ELROY-Right. There’s not a 1,000 square feet of new impervious, nor 5,000 square feet of disturbance, but the Ordinance does encourage doing stormwater management where you can to gain back what might not have been done in the past. So we’re providing some of that, yes. 20 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/23/2011) MR. TRAVER-But you don’t need a waiver. MR. MAC ELROY-Well, we’re still, technically I’m still requesting a waiver, and maybe it’s a fine point from my perspective, but we’re not required to provide those details or computations. MR. TRAVER-Right. So there’s nothing for us to waive. MR. MAC ELROY-Well, yes, you’re waiving the requirement. MR. TRAVER-Well, there isn’t a requirement. There’s nothing for us to waive. MR. MAC ELROY-There’s another fine point, yes. Technically. MR. HUNSINGER-Does that make sense to Staff? MR. OBORNE-Yes, yes it does. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes and no, right? MR. OBORNE-I certainly would be satisfied with the submittal of details on the stormwater practices being proposed. MR. MAC ELROY-Yes, and I don’t have a problem with that. MR. TRAVER-I’m just trying to avoid being in a situation where stormwater details are provided. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, and we give them a waiver. MR. OBORNE-And this is a residential, obviously, residential project. If you were on a commercial site, there’d be different issues. MR. SIPP-This is a peculiar situation here in my way of thinking. The lakeside has got natural vegetation, four, I think, good sized oak trees and a beech tree and ground cover that would stop most anything, even though it’s very steep, but the picture that was up there just before us, the front, which has a lawn, and a steeper slope, and where does that water run from the driveway into the street into what, into the lake? MR. SCHONEWOLF-The Town does that. They take care of that. MR. SIPP-It is rather peculiar here to say that there’s an awful lot of stuff going to be push in that lake from those houses that are up on the ridge, and the driveway’s slope right down to the road. MR. TRAVER-It is getting better and better, but there are still a lot. MR. SIPP-Well, I just wanted to get it on the record. MR. HUNSINGER-Interesting perspective. Other questions, comments from the Board? We do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. Is there anyone in the audience that wants to address the Board on this project? Anyone that wishes to address the Board, I would ask that you state your name for the record. We do tape the meeting, and then that tape is used to transcribe the minutes. I would ask that you speak clearly into the microphone and address any comments or questions you have to the Board. Good evening. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED CHRIS NAVITSKY MR. NAVITSKY-Good evening. Chris Navitsky, Lake George Water Keeper. We do not oppose the proposed addition to the dwelling, but recommend that the Planning Board take the opportunity to maximize water quality protection measures. We just had a discussion on the waiver request. We would not support that and would not recommend that being granted. The property currently exceeds the allowable impervious cover. So, again, we should think about stormwater management on these projects. Although there is a slight reduction in overall impervious cover proposed, more stormwater management should be contemplated on the site and also make it a more stormwater compliant site. Again, this project is also located in a Critical Environmental Area along Lake George. So again, we should take the opportunity to increase stormwater management where possible. Even taking a look at the stormwater calculations, what is proposed actually doesn’t even meet the minor requirements, although it can be contemplated that stormwater management is not even required. You, also, as a 21 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/23/2011) Planning Board, could require it. So that should be considered. We just would like the wastewater treatment system certified. Again, if there are rooms that are added that could be converted to potential bedrooms in the future, those should be included, and the impervious cover should be further reduced, if possible, through permeable pavers, and those are our thoughts and recommendations. We also support the Staff’s comments on protecting the septic system and scarifying the existing soils or making them more porous and aeriable. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Anyone else? We know you have a couple of letter, Keith? MR. OBORNE-I do not have those letters. They’re not in the file, and hopefully the applicant has said letters, and he does. Zoning Board, and I’ll put Planning Board, Town of Queensbury “We are Wally and Sue Allerdice, and we live next door to Lynda Johnson.” I believe to the south, Dennis, is that correct? MR. MAC ELROY-Correct. MR. OBORNE-“The addition she wants to add to replace the two buildings presently there is next to our driveway. We have reviewed the plans and are very pleased with the whole project. We hope that you are able to grant the approval that she needs as this would improve the whole neighborhood, and would be more aesthetically pleasing to the eye than what is currently there. Thank you. Sincerely, Wally and Sue Allerdice” To the Queensbury Zoning Board Lynda Johnson application “Dear Board Members, I am in full support of the project that has been proposed to you by the Johnson family. They have been wonderful neighbors for many years.” I believe this is the property owner to the north, which would be Mary O’Brien. Also I have public comment from the Lake George Water Keeper who has just entered that into the record. So that is all I have. MR. HUNSINGER-Good. Thank you. What’s the feeling of the Board? Likely to move forward here? MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-And are there any other questions or comments from members of the Board? Then I will entertain a motion. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. So are there any changes? We’re good with the Staff comments, rain garden, trench detail. Okay. MR. TRAVER-And no waiver for stormwater. MR. HUNSINGER-And the limits and location of septic field to be demarcated to avoid disturbance. MRS. STEFFAN-Got that. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MRS. STEFFAN-All right. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Anything else? Okay. MRS. STEFFAN-And you closed the public hearing? MR. HUNSINGER-I did. MRS. STEFFAN-I’ll make a motion. RESOLUTION APPROVING SITE PLAN # 56-2011 LYNDA JOHNSON A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes a 937 square foot residential addition to include attached garage, study, powder room, and hallway space replacing existing detached garage with carport and shed space. Expansion of a nonconforming structure in a CEA requires Planning Board review and approval. 22 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/23/2011) The Planning Board provided a recommendation to the ZBA on 8/16/2011; the ZBA approved the variance request on 8/17/2011; A public hearing was advertised and held on 8/23/2011; This application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application material in the file of record; MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 56-2011 LYNDA JOHNSON, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Paul Schonewolf: According to the resolution prepared by Staff. The applicant has asked for waivers on grading and landscaping, and those are approved. 1)Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code [Chapter 179-9-080]], the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; 2)Type II, no further SEQRA review is necessary; 3)Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel. The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work. Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; 4)As-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed according to the approved plans to be provided prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy; 5)The Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater Department for its review, approval, permitting and inspection; 6)Waiver requests granted: grading, landscaping; 7)The limits of clearing will constitute a no-cut buffer zone, orange construction fencing shall be installed around these areas and field verified by Community Development staff; 8)If curb cuts are being added or changed a driveway permit is required. A building permit will not be issued until the approved driveway permit has been provided to the Planning Office. 9)This is approved with the following conditions: a)Limits and location of septic field and pump tank should be demarcated to avoid disturbance. We recommend orange construction fence be placed along the perimeter of the septic field and tank. b)Concerning walkway and portion of the driveway to be removed, we recommend a 12 inch scarification of the existing bed prior to seeding to promote vegetative stabilization. c)Please provide a rain garden detail providing the under drain information of proposed as well as soil amendments and plant species. d)Trench detail should be provided. If for storage only, test pit data may not be necessary. rd Duly adopted this 23 day of August, 2011, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Traver, Mr. Magowan, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Ford MR. HUNSINGER-You’re all set. Good luck. MR. MAC ELROY-Thank you very much. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. SITE PLAN NO. 26-2011 MODIFICATION SEQR TYPE II EDWARD & PHILOMENA VANPUTTE AGENT(S) JARRETT ENGINEERS OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING WR-WATERFRONT RESIDENTIAL LOCATION 23 JAY ROAD WEST APPLICANT 23 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/23/2011) PROPOSES MODIFICATION TO AN APPROVED SITE PLAN. MODIFICATION IS DESCRIBED AS REMOVAL OF THE STORMWATER INFILTRATION CHAMBERS AS PER THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED PLAN. ANY MODIFICATION TO AN APPROVED SITE PLAN REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE AV 17-11, BOH 24-10 APPROVED ON 5/19/11 LOT SIZE 0.10 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 289.10-1-18 SECTION 179-9 MR. HUNSINGER-And that application has been withdrawn. MR. OBORNE-It has been withdrawn. They received the DOH waiver for separation distance for the stormwater chambers to the well on the lake. They got the waiver. That was the main concern. We got that waiver approval after the agenda and after Staff Notes were written. So this was a quick update on that. It now has to go back to Chazen for approval and signoff then it’s really under the auspices of the original approval. MR. HUNSINGER-So there’s no need for us to do any review? MR. OBORNE-You don’t have to do anything. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. So we don’t have to worry, my concern was about the public hearing. There’s no need for a public hearing because there’s no need for the Site Plan Review now. MR. OBORNE-That is correct, unless there is somebody in the public here. MR. MAGOWAN-Will we see this? MR. OBORNE-You will not see that again, no. MR. SIPP-As I remember it, it was a pretty sketchy landscaping plan. Are they going to upgrade that? MR. OBORNE-It wasn’t part of the approval. MR. SIPP-Yes, it was part of the approval. MR. OBORNE-I’ll take a look at it. If it is, it will be part of the approval, but my understanding. MR. SIPP-Yes, that’s what I mean, it will be. MR. OBORNE-That’s fine. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, sir, if you want to make a comment, I’ll need to ask you to come up to the table, so you can get on the microphone. MR. OBORNE-Absolutely, there is a public hearing. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. RICHARD BOHL MR. BOHL-My name is Richard Bohl. I’m a neighbor of the property, and I’d like to know when this was all approved? MR. TRAVER-It hasn’t been approved. MRS. STEFFAN-It wasn’t approved. MR. BOHL-It says approved plans on this. MR. OBORNE-This was approved. th MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, on May 19. th MR. OBORNE-On May 19. MR. HUNSINGER-May 19, 2011. MR. TRAVER-But the modification hasn’t been approved. 24 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/23/2011) MR. HUNSINGER-Right. There’s no need for the modification that was before us this evening. PIERRE DUMOULIN MR. DUMOULIN-My name is Pierre Dumoulin and I’m the next door neighbor to the south, and my biggest concern is where is the drain system going, on the south side, which is going to be close to my house? Because I have a basement. MR. TRAVER-Well, that will be, as we were told this evening, that will be engineered and, well, and won’t be presented, but it will be re-engineered and the plans will be with the Town. MR. OBORNE-It won’t be re-engineered. It was approved as engineered, because you’re not having a modification. My suggestion would be to stop by my office and certainly look at the plans. I think that’s a valid concern. Absolutely. I mean, our office is open from eight to four thirty, and I can give you a card and give me a call and we can have those plans ready for you. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, and I’m sorry you weren’t aware of the meeting back in May. There were actually several meetings, Keith. I don’t have the list in front of me, that that project was before us at least twice. MR. BOHL-I was out of town. When we came back it was tabled, and then we never had another one, that we were notified of. MR. OBORNE-Right. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. OBORNE-Well, usually you’re notified once, and if there’s a long lapse in time, you get re- notified. MR. BOHL-All right. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. NEW BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 54-2011 SEQR TYPE II HOSPITALITY SYRACUSE AGENT(S) BARTLETT PONTIFF STEWART & RHODES; BOHLER ENGINEERING OWNER(S) FRANK PARILLO ZONING CI-COMMERCIAL INTENSIVE LOCATION 199 & 203 CORINTH ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 2,800 SQ. FT. TACO BELL. RESTAURANT AND/OR NEW COMMERCIAL USE IN A CI ZONE REQUIRE PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE SV 53-11 WARREN CO. PLANNING 8/10/2011 LOT SIZE 4.62, 0.31 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 309.13-2-2,3 SECTION 179-9 MR. HUNSINGER-The applicant has requested to be tabled, as a result of Warren County Planning Board access concerns. Could you elaborate on that, Keith? MR. OBORNE-Yes. This is, I don’t see the applicant here, but what they have, they went to the Warren County Planning Board. The Warren County Planning Board had a No County Impact with stipulation. That stipulation was they had concerns with the lining up of the ingress and egress roads, ingress and egress driveways in relation to the McDonald’s across the road. What they want to do is they want to accomplish a traffic study to support their current conditions. They would like to continue with that at this point. My suggestion is that this gets tabled to an October meeting, obviously because the September deadline is gone, and I also, and I know this, Mr. Chairman, that the public hearing should be opened, as I believe there are people in the audience that would like to speak. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. As Staff commented, the applicant has requested a tabling. We do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. Did you want to address the Board on this project? Okay. I will open the public hearing, and if you could come on up to the microphone, please state your name for the record and address your comments and concerns to the Board. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED FLORENCE GOEDERT MS. GOEDERT-Well, first of all, my name is Florence Goedert. I live at 469 Big Bay Road, which is about five houses down from where they want to build this Taco Bell. One of my 25 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/23/2011) concerns, though, right now is that the people that are involved in the building of this are not here, so how are they going to hear our concerns? MR. HUNSINGER-Well, it’s really up to the Board to hear your concerns. MR. TRAVER-They’ve also asked to be tabled. MR. HUNSINGER-And you’re certainly welcome to come back or to provide written comments as well. MS. GOEDERT-Okay. Now living where I live right now, because there’s no plans or anything shown to us, I don’t know what roads they’re intending using for, you know, people coming in and out. I mean, it’s going to affect us overall. I mean, we’re already overwhelmed with more traffic now because more and more the residential area where I live is becoming overgrown with businesses that are being built and such, which, you know, it affects us with traffic. We’re affected in the middle of the night people are out snow blowing these areas. I mean, we live directly across the street from Curtis Lumber. We’re constantly awakened two, three o’clock in the morning with snow removals. Their alarms go off in the middle of the night. We’re concerned, are we going to have these same issues with the, a new business, and, you know, then there’s the concerns about the additional traffic in our neighborhoods, you know, what kind of people are going to be coming there, because in my knowledge, Taco Bell has long hours, where they’re open until one or two o’clock in the morning, and we’re concerned about the noise, the additional noise, and also, you know, about their trash disposal and such like that, you know, are they going to have compactors outside their facility, and, you know, are there going to be odors from that, is that going to draw more wild animals into the area? There’s just a number of things that we have concerns about. MR. OBORNE-Ms. Goedert, I would highly suggest, just like the previous gentleman that was before me, is to come on in to my office and I certainly can show you the plans. I could answer some of the questions that you have posed, and they are proposing a 24 hour operation there. Access is off of Corinth Road, not Big Bay. MS. GOEDERT-Right, but we’re right down, we’re five houses down the road from Corinth Road. MR. OBORNE-I understand. Certainly come on in and take a look at the plans and make sure that when this is tabled that you write the date down and come on back in October. MS. GOEDERT-Will be notified of the new date? MR. HUNSINGER-Well, you’ll know this evening when the new date is, but there will be no additional notification. MS. GOEDERT-As long as we know what the date is. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, you will. th MRS. STEFFAN-It’ll be October 18. th MS. GOEDERT-October 18, and I thank you for your time. MR. HUNSINGER-You’re welcome. Thank you. MRS. STEFFAN-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Anyone else? All right. Well, we will table this. There will be additional opportunity for public comment when we do hear the project again, and you can also provide written comments that would then be read into the record as part of the application. So with that, I will entertain a motion to table. We will leave the public hearing open. MRS. STEFFAN-I’ll make a motion. RESOLUTION TABLING SITE PLAN # 54-2011 HOSPITALITY SYRACUSE A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes construction of a 2,800 sq. ft. Taco Bell. Restaurant and/or new commercial use in a CI zone require Planning Board review and approval. A public hearing was advertised for 8/16/2011; and 26 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/23/2011) This application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application material in the file of record; MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 54-2011 HOSPITALITY SYRACUSE, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Paul Schonewolf: th To the October 18 Planning Board meeting. Submission for any new materials would be on th September 15. rd Duly adopted this 23 day of August, 2011, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Magowan, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Ford th MR. HUNSINGER-So we will hear this again on October 18. Again, you’re welcome to come to the meeting that evening as well. SITE PLAN NO. 57-2011 SEQR TYPE II GREGG LABER GMS REALTY, LLC OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING CLI-COMMERCIAL LIGHT INDUSTRIAL LOCATION 319 CORINTH ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES MULTI-TENANT USE TO EXISTING ON-SITE OFFICE SPACE. CHANGE AND EXPANSION OF USE IN THE CLI ZONE REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE SUB 10-10, SP 56-10, AV 49-10 WARREN CO. PLANNING 8/10/2011 LOT SIZE 3.94 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 308.16-2-4 SECTION 179-9 GREGG LABER & PATRICK MANNIX, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Keith, whenever you’re ready. MR. OBORNE-All right. Site Plan 57-2011 for Gregg Laber, Site Plan Review is the requested action, 319 Corinth Road. CLI is the Commercial Light Industrial district. Type II SEQRA at this point. Project Description: Applicant proposes multi-tenant use to existing on-site office space. Specifically, the 5,090 square foot office located to the north will be retrofitted to accommodate multiple tenants (up to 9) in a shared office space environment. The applicant is looking for approval of up to 9 office suites located in the northern office space. Plans to lease the wooden building facing Corinth Road will be submitted at a future date as this structure will require an area variance for the construction of a handicap ramp within the front setback of the parcel. All reference to the stand alone wooden structure concerning approval for office space within the application should be ignored at this time. The applicant is requesting waivers for lighting, stormwater, grading and landscaping. Staff has no issues with this request for site plan. He has compliant parking, lighting. If you recall, this was previously approved back earlier in the year, and with that I’d turn it over to the Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. LABER-Good evening. MR. HUNSINGER-If you could identify yourselves for the record. MR. LABER-My name is Gregg Laber. MR. MANNIX-My name is Patrick Mannix. JACK KELLY MR. KELLY-Jack Kelly with Prime Companies. MR. LABER-What we’re doing is taking the existing building that’s there, it’s been there for years, and pretty much just making accelerator or incubator spaces within in, in the front section, Green Mountain Electric Supply, Glens Falls Electric, is in the back section. We currently have Riverside Gas & Oil in one of the sections. Patrick Mannix of Upstate Printing would like to rent another one of the sections, and then there’ll be a few more sections in there for like upstart companies or accelerator businesses, people that are just needing a little bit more space and to get going and stuff like that. We’ve improved the area there quite a bit from what it was, new 27 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/23/2011) paving, new entrance for the wholesale side, lighting is not quite up yet but it will be, new seeding, landscaping, things like that, signage. Pretty much that’s it. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I’ll open it up for questions, comments from the Board. MR. TRAVER-Well, this is what we hoped would happen. MRS. STEFFAN-Sounds good. MR. MAGOWAN-Great to see life in the old building. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Nothing from the Board. We do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. There’s no one left in the audience, but were there any written comments, Keith? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. OBORNE-There are no written comments. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I will open the public hearing and let the record show no comments were received. I will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-And if there are no questions or comments. MRS. STEFFAN-The only question I have, Keith, when they start to lease this space out, they’ll have to apply for sign permits? MR. OBORNE-I believe you have an existing sign located in the front at this point that actually has space for that. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. So we don’t need to put it in. MR. OBORNE-That’s my assumption. MR. LABER-That is correct. MR. OBORNE-And it’s basically already been pre-approved. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. So we don’t have to add any conditions on the signage thing. MR. OBORNE-I don’t believe so. MRS. STEFFAN-Perfect. MR. OBORNE-If it’s, for some reason, Gregg requires more signage, we’ll probably see him again, but we hope not, we hope to work with him to mitigate any issues that may arise. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. I’m good. MR. HUNSINGER-I’m good. I’ll entertain a motion. MRS. STEFFAN-Did you close the public hearing? MR. HUNSINGER-I did. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. I’ll make a motion. RESOLUTION APPROVING SITE PLAN # 57-2011 GREGG LABER GMS REALTY, LLC A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes multi-tenant use to existing on-site office space. Change and expansion of use in the CLI zone requires Planning Board review and approval; A public hearing was advertised and held on 8/23/2011; 28 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/23/2011) This application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application material in the file of record; MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 57-2011 GREGG LABER GMS REALTY, LLC, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: According to the resolution prepared by Staff. Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code [Chapter 179-9-080], the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; 1)Type II, no further SEQRA review is necessary; 2)Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel. The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work. Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; 3)As-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed according to the approved plans to be provided prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy; 4)The Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater Department for its review, approval, permitting and inspection; 5)Waiver requests granted: stormwater mgmt., grading, landscaping & lighting plans; 6)The limits of clearing will constitute a no-cut buffer zone, orange construction fencing shall be installed around these areas and field verified by Community Development staff; 7)If curb cuts are being added or changed a driveway permit is required. A building permit will not be issued until the approved driveway permit has been provided to the Planning Office. 8)This is approved without conditions. rd Duly adopted this 23 day of August, 2011, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Magowan, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Ford MR. HUNSINGER-You’re all set. Good luck. MR. LABER-Thank you. MR. KELLY-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just want to make note here, not as part of the official presentation, but in an earlier life that you had, you wanted to see incubator accelerator space here in Warren County, and this takes and fulfills one of those dreams of yours. MR. HUNSINGER-Now we’ve got it. MR. KELLY-The second thing is that Mr. Mannix here is currently a Queensbury resident. He’s also a Queensbury business, and during the process that he was looking for new space because he’s growing his business in size, he was looking at other areas, and this is something that we were able to keep him in the Queensbury community, and this is also going to afford the opportunity for people that may have offices in the home and are now beginning to expand, to many FedEx trucks and UPS trucks going into the subdivisions, well, they won’t go there, they’ll go into an area that’s properly zoned. So this has been a multi-meeting process with you. I think your next meeting you’re going to have another party in that’s part of this whole complex that we’ve been trying to develop in the Corinth Road area, and we do appreciate your cooperation and courtesies as we bring these companies in to you. MR. TRAVER-Congratulations. MR. HUNSINGER-Great. Yes, thanks. MRS. STEFFAN-I’m assuming you’re working with economic development. MR. KELLY-We do have a background to work with those people, and I must say that it was a very nice looking sign over at that location, too. 29 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/23/2011) MR. HUNSINGER-Is there anything else to be brought before the Board this evening? MRS. STEFFAN-Were we trying to put a different meeting together? st MR. OBORNE-We have a meeting on the 31 of this month for Fowler Square across the way. We did receive some paperwork today which we’ll get out to you folks post haste. You’re familiar with the project. There really has been no changes to that. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. OBORNE-But the application I do believe requires an Area Variance application in order for the ZBA to sit at that meeting, because they are appellate only and they need to have something to appeal. MR. HUNSINGER-Even if it’s a workshop? MR. HUNSINGER-It’s very difficult for it to be a workshop at this point. It will be, most likely, go through those machinations as a workshop. We’re not asking any of the Boards to go forward with any decision making at that point, and that’s the only thing I wanted to bring to the attention of the Board. We’ll have something to you before the end of the week, obviously. st MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. So the Zoning Board did agree to hold the joint meeting on the 31. MRS. STEFFAN-So that’s a week from tomorrow night. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Keith, what time? MR. OBORNE-Seven o’clock. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Okay. A couple of us are going to be late. MR. OBORNE-In fact, we’ll get stuff out to you tomorrow. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. OBORNE-All right. We need for you to obviously look through that for the Wednesday meeting. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. SCHONEWOLF-I think Don and I might not be able to get here until about eight. MR. OBORNE-Okay. MR. SCHONEWOLF-He can speak for himself. I don’t know. I talked to him last week. MR. HUNSINGER-Is there anything else that we need to bring before the Board this evening? MR. SCHONEWOLF-No, this was enough. MR. HUNSINGER-So is the workshop going to be in this room, Keith? MR. OBORNE-The workshop will be in this room. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MRS. STEFFAN-And just a reminder that the Planning Federation meeting I believe is in October, and it is in Albany this year, and it’s like a Sunday, Monday, Tuesday. MR. SCHONEWOLF-It’s in the Association of Towns thing that you just got. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. SCHONEWOLF-I think it’s the end of October, isn’t it? MRS. STEFFAN-Not the end. MR. OBORNE-No, it’s not the end. 30 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/23/2011) MRS. STEFFAN-Because it’s usually the third week in September, but I think it’s back a little bit more. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Where was that last year? MRS. STEFFAN-Lake Placid. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. thth MR. OBORNE-October 9 through 11. MR. SCHONEWOLF-That’s Columbus Day weekend, isn’t it? MR. TRAVER-Right after Columbus Day weekend. MR. OBORNE-Crown Plaza. MR. HUNSINGER-Crown Plaza. MR. TRAVER-Wow, nice facility anyway. MR. OBORNE-Yes, my understanding is that overnight stays will not be picked up by the Town because it’s not that distance, the distance isn’t great enough for that. MR. SCHONEWOLF-So which day should we go? MRS. STEFFAN-But there’s really good, I’ve been to the annual conferences before, and there’s usually some really good programs. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Which day is the best? MR. OBORNE-Monday and Tuesday. MRS. STEFFAN-Monday, usually Monday is the jammed full day. MR. OBORNE-Yes. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Anyone else? MR. SCHONEWOLF-I move we adjourn. MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD OF AUGUST 23, 2011, Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: rd Duly adopted this 23 day of August, 2011, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Magowan, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Ford MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you, everybody. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Chris Hunsinger, Chairman 31