Loading...
2005-06-30 (Queensbury Planning Board 6/30/05) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SPECIAL MEETING JUNE 30, 2005 INDEX Site Plan No. 4-2004, 61-2004 Great Escape Theme Park 1. MODIFICATION Tax Map No. 295.8-1-5, 4 Site Plan No. 31-2005 Richard & Teresa Dynes 6. Tax Map No. 296.9-1-29 Site Plan No. 32-2005 Eric Cottrell Contract Vendee 13. Tax Map No. 302.8-1-33 Site Plan No. 33-2005 Frank & Renee Palangi 21. Tax Map No. 303.16-1-47.2 Site Plan No. 35-2005 John Harris 23. Tax Map No. 239.7-1-33 Site Plan No. 36-2005 Northway Christian Family Church 30. Tax Map No. 302.8-2-5 Subdivision No. 11-2005 Ruth Kouba 34. PRELIMINARY STAGE Tax Map No. 296.13-1-57 FINAL STAGE 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. 0 (Queensbury Planning Board 6/30/05) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SPECIAL MEETING JUNE 30, 2005 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT RICHARD SANFORD, ACTING CHAIRMAN GRETCHEN STEFFAN, SECRETARY THOMAS SEGULJIC GEORGE GOETZ THOMAS FORD, ALTERNATE MEMBERS ABSENT ROBERT VOLLARO ANTHONY METIVIER LAND USE PLANNER-SUSAN BARDEN GIS ADMINISTRATOR-GEORGE HILTON TOWN COUNSEL-MILLER, MANNIX, SCHACHNER, & HAFNER-MARK SCHACHNER STENOGRAPHER-SUE HEMINGWAY OLD BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 4-2004, 61-2004 PREVIOUS SEQR MODIFICATION GREAT ESCAPE THEME PARK PROPERTY OWNER: WARREN WASHINGTON CO. IDA AGENT: JOHN LEMERY, LEMERY GREISLER, LLC ZONE: HC-INT. LOCATION: 1213 & 1227 STATE ROUTE 9 APPLICANT PROPOSES TO RELOCATE THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE +/- 120 FEET TO THE NORTH ON ROUTE 9 AND TO REVISE CONSTRUCTION OF THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE CROSSING THE STREAM/WETLAND ON THE WEST SIDE OF ROUTE 9. ALSO APPLICANT HAS RELOCATED FIVE (5) CABINS PREVIOUSLY APPROVED FOR DEMOLITION. FURTHER THE APPLICANT SEEKS REVISIONS TO THE PARKING; ACCESS & FENCING AREAS NEAR THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY SANITARY SEWER PUMP STATION. CROSS REFERENCE: MANY TAX MAP 295.8-1-5, 4 LOT SIZE: 6.76 AC., 3.90 AC. SECTION: 179-4-020 JOHN LEMERY & JOHN COLLINS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT 1 (Queensbury Planning Board 6/30/05) MR. SANFORD-Welcome. Good evening. It looks like you brought some pictures for us to review. Mr. Lemery, the floor is yours. MR. LEMERY-Thank you. Good evening, Mr. Chairman, and Members of the Planning Board. My name is John Lemery, Counsel to The Great Escape Theme Park and also to HWP, the company that owns the Hotel and Water Park which is under construction. These issues before you tonight are site plan modifications. The first involves the pedestrian bridge. During all of the engineering processes and everything that has been going on with that, we were told by the engineers that it would probably be better to move the location of the bridge out of the peak and to a place where there was much less peak, and the foundations would be less expensive to build, and from a relocation perspective would be better for pedestrian movement. So we’ve submitted an application to modify the site plan to move the bridge from its location to approximately 120 feet north. The relocation is going to result in a lot of construction efficiencies. It will allow us to get construction started earlier, regarding the foundation preparation, and will allow us to replace steel ramps with earthen ramps, which will reduce the cost. One of the things we’ve been dealing with is trying to get the cost of this bridge down. It was approaching the two million dollar mark, and we’ve been working, trying to get it down to where it becomes reasonable, in terms of the company’s budget and the need for it. Reconfiguring the easterly approach ramp, which Russ can point out, will provide a visual and physical barrier to pedestrian (lost word) crossings of Route 9 which I know has been of consideration to this Board and of concern. So we think we’re better addressing that. The second item has to do with, which has not been an issue for this Board to my knowledge. It involves the wetland bridge over the wetland, in the interior of the Park, and we’re simply, rather than build a concrete structure, which turned out to be several hundred thousand dollars in cost, we’re going to do a floating pontoon bridge to allow the pedestrians to cross that wetland. We just got provided with a letter from DEC, which I believe got provided to the Planning Staff that DOT, or rather DEC doesn’t view a problem with that. The third item is relocating five of the Samoset cabins, which were originally approved for demolition, but we decided that if we could, we’d try to save them. They’ve been moved away from where the ring road, I don’t know if any of you have had a chance to go down the ring road. It’s pretty impressive. It’s really nice work, and you’ll note that the five cabins along there have been moved out of the way of the ring road. So we ultimately want to retain them. MR. SANFORD-Will that be a permanent retention of these cabins, or temporary? MR. LEMERY-I can’t answer that. MR. COLLINS-Pending approval, it’ll be a permanent relocation. They will obviously have to undergo rehab. They’re currently on blocks. They need to be tied to the municipal sewer, and as soon as we get the approvals, that whole process. They’re not being rented out to the general public this year, just due to the amount of construction going on around them. We are using them for employee housing, and then we anticipate reopening for 2006, with all of those. We did do the electrical upgrades on that site, but these cabins right now are just on blocks. MR. SANFORD-Okay. MR. SEGULJIC-Just to clarify, do you plan on using those in the future for employee housing? MR. COLLINS-No, to rent them. MR. SEGULJIC-To rent them. MR. COLLINS-The Samoset will remain open, correct. It’s just not, we’re not taking reservations for this year. 2 (Queensbury Planning Board 6/30/05) MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. Got you. Thank you. MR. LEMERY-And this fourth item is revision to the parking and access to the sewer pump station. This is a request of the Town of Queensbury, because once they got their site organized, they determined they couldn’t get a tractor trailer in and out without an impact. So at the Town’s request, we’ve provided some additional area, so that there can be some turning lane improvements in there. Parking, we lost some parking to the truck movements. So we’ve added some parking in another spot where that had not been the case before, but as I said, Mike Shaw called the Theme Park and asked that this be done, and we determined that we would have to come here and get a site plan, also modification and revision, to do that. So those are the four things, Mr. Chairman, that we’re looking to get approval as redesigned. MR. SANFORD-Okay. Thank you. I don’t anticipate a public hearing. I believe a public hearing is not required for a modification. Hopefully people from the audience aren’t here for public comment, but typically in a modification we do not re-open public hearings. So I just wanted everybody to know that. At this point, I’ll open it up for Board discussion. I do have one question myself, and I might as well start off, and that is, based on what I read through the notes and material that you provided, is you don’t expect these revisions to the pedestrian bridge to really alter the timeline much, and I would like you to confirm and perhaps make a couple of comments along those lines, if you would. MR. COLLINS-Okay. Actually, it gives us more opportunity, as John had mentioned, to do work through the summer. This location, the new west side ramps, are in the middle of our two driveways, where before it was in the one lighted driveway. So that would have restricted what work, if any, we could have done on that side of the road. As you know, there is a lot of construction going on in the site. We’ve been able to do some pretty decent numbers and work around that. We have a, if you drive by the site, you’ll see that center island area, it’s not seeded there, so it’s pretty obvious where this proposed area is, and we’ll be able to fence that off and do the, as John mentioned, the foundation work, pretty much as soon as, you know, we get the go ahead and continue that through the fall and, time wise, based on that schedule, we should be able to do the same schedule we had previously submitted. MR. SANFORD-Now, have most of the, I don’t know, governmental or regulatory hurdles now been jumped over? MR. COLLINS-Yes. We have met with DOT and DOT has basically, to my knowledge, said that, you know, they cannot commit to it until you give the approval, however they don’t have a problem with the new location, but they, it’s one of those chicken and the egg things. They wouldn’t say anything until you did, and we told them that you wouldn’t say anything until they did, but they don’t have a problem with it, and then all we would go for is the highway work permit at that point. MR. SANFORD-Okay. Any Staff comments that you feel are appropriate at this time? MR. HILTON-I guess maybe just to comment on a couple of things that I’ve outlined. I did make a comment about sight distance from the Coach House. Based on the plans, as I mentioned, it’s kind of difficult to determine if there would be any impact. Upon further review, after these notes, it appears that it probably will not be any visual impact or I guess impact on cars accessing that Coach House drive. So I did want to comment on that. MR. FORD-There’s sufficient leeway there? MR. HILTON-It appears. 3 (Queensbury Planning Board 6/30/05) MR. FORD-It appears. MR. SEGULJIC-I guess, could you just clarify where the Coach House is in relation to where the new bridge location is? Where is the Coach House, then? MR. COLLINS-Russ, show the driveway, is the question. The driveway for the Coach House is there. MR. SEGULJIC-So that’s how far away, a couple of hundred feet? MR. SANFORD-No, that’s probably 500 feet. So you’re moving the bridge closer to the Coach House from where it is now. Maybe it almost makes sense, if you think about it. MR. COLLINS-Yes, and obviously that was another consideration, is you’re closer to the Hotel guests who will be walking down our sidewalk, so that 100 feet, even though you’re getting further away from what would be the southern end of those parking spaces, getting closer to what potentially could be 800 guests any given day certain made sense, too. It’s about 600 feet away from that driveway. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. That’s fine. MR. SANFORD-Any other discussions that people have on this issue? MR. FORD-I have a couple of questions. What is the lighting going to be for this? MR. COLLINS-For the bridge? MR. FORD-For the bridge. MR. COLLINS-We do have to submit a lighting plan to DOT for their approval. The light fixtures themselves will mirror what you’re doing on the outlet strip, as far as that style of lighting, and part of their approval for the Occupancy Permit, not the Work Permit, is for DOT to sign off on those lighting plans, and I have gotten your Town specs from Marilyn and we’ll mirror those. MR. FORD-Have you had contact with NiMo? MR. COLLINS-Yes. Yes, we have. MR. FORD-And? MR. COLLINS-And we do have to, there’ll be a service for there, those lights, I guess, would be the question. The lighting is for the ramps and for the bridge itself. They do have to, since there will be public access to the bridge, it does have to be dusk to dawn lighted. So it will be on, but DOT, we went through their concerns and have addressed all of their issues, in reference to not impacting a driver on Route 9. Yes, but we still have to submit a final lighting plan to them. MR. FORD-Okay. Thank you. MR. SANFORD-Other comments? I’ll entertain a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE MODIFICATION TO SITE PLAN NO. 4-2004 & 61-2004 GREAT ESCAPE THEME PARK, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Goetz: WHEREAS, an application has been made to this Board for the following: 4 (Queensbury Planning Board 6/30/05) Site Plan No. 4-2004, 61-2004 Applicant: Great Escape Theme Park Previous SEQR Property Owner: Warren Washington Co. IDA Agent: John Lemery, Lemery Greisler, LLC Zone: HC-Int MODIFICATION Location: 1213 & 1227 State Route 9 Applicant proposes to relocate the previously approved pedestrian bridge +/- 120 feet to the north on Route 9 and to revise construction of the previously approved pedestrian bridge crossing the stream /wetland on the west side of Route 9. Also applicant has relocated five (5) cabins previously approved for demolition. Further the applicant seeks revisions to the parking; access & fencing areas near the Town of Queensbury sanitary sewer pump station Cross Reference: Many Tax Map 295.8-1-5, 4 Lot size: 6.76 ac., 3.90 ac. / Section: 179-4-020 Public Hearing: Not required for Modification WHEREAS, the application was received on 5/16/05; and WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation and inclusive of all newly received information, not included in this listing as of 6/28/05; and 6/28 Staff Notes 6/23 Chazen engineering review 6/20 Fax to S. Mesinger, Chazen from M. Ryba: engineering review 6/9 J. Collins from M. Ryba: engineering review 6/2 Meeting Notice sent 6/2 Transmittal from M. Ryba: application materials to Chazen Co. 5/25 J. Collins from M. Ryba: engineering review 5/25 Transmittal from M. Ryba: D. Stec – 5/18/05 letter from NYS DOT 5/25 R. Vollaro from Lemery Greisler, LLC: DOT letter 5/23 C. Brown from M. Shaw Deputy 5/11 K. Hastings [LA Group] from M. Shaw, Deputy Director Wastewater 5/10 P. Dusek, Warren Co. Attorney from M. Kennedy, Asst. Regional Traffic engineer, NYS DOT WHEREAS, a public hearing is not required for a modification; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the Site Plan application requirements of the Code of the Town Queensbury (Zoning); and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and WHEREAS, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; and/or if application is a modification, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered; and the proposed modification(s) do not result in any new or significantly different environmental impacts, and, therefore, no further SEQRA review is necessary; and WHEREAS, this approval does not relieve the applicant from obtaining all necessary permits whether Federal, State or Local, and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that 5 (Queensbury Planning Board 6/30/05) We find the following: The application for Modification is hereby Approved in accordance with the resolution prepared by Staff and is subject to the following conditions which shall be listed on the final plans submitted to the Zoning Administrator: 1. A copy of the required NOI to be provided prior to issuance of a Building Permit. 2. Final approved plans in compliance with this site plan must be submitted to the Community Development Dept. before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building & Codes personnel. Subsequent issuance of further permits; including building permits are dependent on receipt. Duly adopted this 30th day of June, 2005, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ford, Mr. Seguljic, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Goetz, Mr. Sanford NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Metivier MR. LEMERY-Thank you. MR. COLLINS-Thank you. MR. SANFORD-I’m sorry. Mr. Ford has indicated that he did have an issue related to this, and perhaps should have brought it up before we voted. I don’t believe that it will influence our vote, but I would appreciate it if you’d entertain his question. MR. LEMERY-Sure. MR. FORD-Thank you. I’m interested in the stormwater runoff and how that is being monitored, with the two most recent storms, and any reaction to that. MR. COLLINS-Actually, Russ can give you greater detail. The system has worked extremely well. The slopes on the hill are maintained. Obviously, the part of the stormwater monitoring that is required through the DEC permits is being done by the LA Group. So I’ll let you, let Russ explain a little bit more on that. RUSS PITTENGER MR. PITTENGER-Thanks. My name’s Russ Pittenger. I’m a Landscape Architect with the LA Group in Saratoga Springs. We are administering the Phase II stormwater regs. It’s a DEC requirement. So we have a Pollution Prevention Plan. We do weekly inspections, and inspections within 24 hour of a half inch or more of rain, which happened, a weekly inspection was last Tuesday, and our half inch of rain the next day inspection was today. Kubricky Construction is the site contractor. They do a very good job. We’ve had, except for the last two weeks, we’ve had a little blow out just south of the wetland, but we’ve, the site’s been maintained very well. There hasn’t been erosion. Where we do have an issue, a silt fence falls down, they clean it up and fix it up responsibly. So I’m very happy with, compared to some of the sites that we’re dealing with down in Saratoga, this one has been working out very well. MR. FORD-How many breaks have their actually been? MR. PITTENGER-I have the report actually in my car. There have been, we’ve had some issues down in here where this road crosses this existing stream with silt fence, as 6 (Queensbury Planning Board 6/30/05) these basins were being constructed. There’s been a little bit of silting in here and in the bridge where this was built up. Most recently, what happens is this water flows through into here and there’s a break out right here. I noted that in my report. They cleaned it up, and after last night, we had, again, the silt fence almost held, and they’re in the process of cleaning that up, but really his hill has held very good. We have no issues in here. We’ve had a little break out here. So I think there’s been probably three minor events and a couple of places where the silt fence had to be repaired. MR. FORD-And it’s at the lower elevations, rather than on the steepest slope as well. Correct? MR. PITTENGER-Absolutely. That’s correct. MR. FORD-Thank you. MR. PITTENGER-They’ve done a remarkable job with this. This is a pretty aggressive hill in here, and they did a good job building it and it’s held very well. MR. LEMERY-It’s being landscaped. It’s all being seeded, and there will be an irrigation system in there to hold the plantings in there to keep from any erosion coming down the hill. MR. FORD-With the success of that steep grade, I certainly would be encouraging that similar procedures be utilized, so that we don’t have anymore breaks on that lower elevation where we don’t begin to have the slope that we do on the large one. MR. PITTENGER-I guess I’m not clear on exactly what you mean by that. MR. FORD-Okay. On one of the southernmost parking lots, where there was a break, right. Okay. Would you say that that was at a low elevation, but it was caused largely because of, what? Why was there a break? MR. PITTENGER-It was concentrated flow. What it was was concentrated flow. MR. FORD-Because of the parking lot? MR. PITTENGER-Correct, and so it was an area where water was designed to go, but we didn’t have the proper controls in there to prevent it from eroding. MR. FORD-Now they’re in there? MR. PITTENGER-The instructions are there, and I wrote the instructions, and they’ll be there tomorrow. So, I mean, they did the fix that I suggested to them on Tuesday, and yesterday there was a lot of issues, but actually it really wasn’t that bad. I can appreciate your concern about it, and we’re very concerned about it, and all we can do is monitor it and we’ll get it fixed, and I’m embarrassed because it’s really right in front of the Park entrance, and it’s really the only issue we’ve had. MRS. STEFFAN-Actually, we saw that on our Planning Board drive around, when we went out and took a look at it. As we were standing on the sidewalk, we looked at the elevation and it didn’t look quite right because there’s two retention ponds one right next to the other, and just the way the grading, they all flowed into the smallest. MR. PITTENGER-The design is for the smaller one to flow into the large one and then flow out, and that was a little thing that we didn’t catch, and actually it’s been that way all summer. It wasn’t until just recently that that broke through and broke out. So we’re in the process of getting that fixed. 7 (Queensbury Planning Board 6/30/05) MR. FORD-The storm before last that it gave way. MRS. STEFFAN-Well, I think that that was a 50 year storm event during that storm, and so that was an unusual situation, but I have to admit, I followed up on it, and I appreciated how fast The Great Escape took care of that problem. MR. PITTENGER-Timing is everything, I guess. MR. FORD-Thanks for allowing me to revisit this. MR. SANFORD-You’re welcome. You’re all set, gentlemen. MR. LEMERY-Thanks very much. MR. PITTENGER-Thank you very much. NEW BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 31-2005 SEQR TYPE II RICHARD & TERESA DYNES ZONE: SFR- 1A LOCATION: 26 TWICWOOD LANE APPLICANT PROPOSES LAND CLEARING WITHIN THE REQUIRED 50-FOOT BUFFER AREA BETWEEN THE HC-MOD AND SFR-1A ZONE. TAX MAP NO. 296.9-1-29 LOT SIZE: 0.46 ACRES SECTION: 179-4-020, 179-8-050 RICHARD DYNES, PRESENT MR. SANFORD-Good evening. MR. DYNES-Good evening. MR. SANFORD-Could you please identify yourself, for the record. MR. DYNES-Certainly. My name is Richard Dynes. I reside at 26 Twicwood Lane in Queensbury. MR. SANFORD-Okay. Could you please take a couple of minutes and sort of give us an overview as to what you’re hoping to receive an approval for tonight. MR. DYNES-Okay. Essentially what I’m looking to do is, we just want to install an above ground pool, an 18 foot diameter above ground pool, and when I went in for the pool license, I learned that that was a Code that prohibits residential from commercial touching within a 50 foot boundary. There needs to be some type of a buffer, and we seem to meet all the other requirements rather easily besides that. So I was hoping to get a waiver or variance for that buffer. MR. SANFORD-Okay. Thank you. Really, there’s no formal, we had (lost words) such waiver, is that correct? MR. HILTON-Yes. MR. SANFORD-Okay. I’ll open it up for Board discussion at this point. MR. SEGULJIC-I don’t have a problem with it. I would just like to see if there’s any public comment with regards to it. MR. SANFORD-Yes. We have a public hearing scheduled for tonight. There’s no SEQRA, I don’t believe, and we will open it up, but I thought that we might want to have a discussion ahead of time, if anybody had questions for the applicant. 8 (Queensbury Planning Board 6/30/05) MRS. STEFFAN-No. I was pleased that there are going to be plantings, and so I was satisfied with the plan as laid out. MR. SANFORD-The plantings are going to be, as I look at your drawings, pretty much protecting the visual view from a commercial site, pretty much, which is Suttons. Is that correct? MR. DYNES-Yes. It backs up to a six foot stockade fence, and the trees that are there now are more thin hardwood trees. I’m looking to get thicker hemlocks to block out some of the sound, as well as some of the visual. It’s not that you can really see anything from there anyway. It’s only at the rear end of that lot there. You can’t see anything from Route 9 into my backyard or anything, but just really for the sound or anything else, I’m going to look to put some thicker trees, some hemlocks, basically. MR. SANFORD-Now, moving to the north, I mean, again, you’re looking for relief, it looks like, to me, to the west. Is that correct, based on the drawing, and not really so much from the north. Am I correct in that understanding? MR. DYNES-Correct. It would just be along the stockade part of the fence. MR. SANFORD-Okay. Thank you for that clarification. Other comments from Board members? MR. FORD-Not at this point. MR. SANFORD-Okay. I’ll open up the public hearing. Does anybody care to speak to this application? Could you please identify yourself for the record. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED CHARLES MC NULTY MR. MC NULTY-Sure. I’m Charles McNulty. I reside at 14 Twicwood Lane. Several points on this, since it’s before you. I was a little surprised that it ended up before you instead of before the Zoning Board, since this is an intrusion into a buffer zone, but the buffer on this lot and the two to the south have already been cleared of all underbrush, shrubs, and small trees. The Code definition of a buffer says that a strip of land with sufficient permanent planting, generally consisting of trees and shrubs, to provide a continuous physical screening to mitigate conflicts of land use between two or more areas. No parking or storage of vehicles of any kind or objects within the zone is permitted. Now, none of the lots on the west side of Twicwood Lane in this area have such a buffer. The lot in question, and the two lots to the south of the one that we’re talking about tonight, should have, because these lots were developed in the last year or so, last couple of years, and the current zoning should apply to them. The other lots, including mine, that are south of the three that I mentioned, were developed back in the early to mid 70’s. It wasn’t until 1988 that the dividing line between commercial and residential was moved to the lot lines. Up until 1988, the commercial residential zone line was 400 feet from Route 9. It cut through the middle of a number of properties including Sutton’s property. In 1988, the Town decided it would make more sense to have the zone line conform to lot lines, and they didn’t, apparently, give any consideration to the consequences. The consequences were that all the other lots had already been cleared to their lot line because there was residential area behind, beyond, to the west of their lot line, but these last three lots were just developed, and I can see no excuse for the buffer zones having been cleared. There’s a note in your file for this application that indicates, I don’t know whether it was a Building Inspector or somebody had made a note back in November, indicating that the 50 foot buffer should be maintained, and it obviously wasn’t, because all that’s left there is big, mature trees. 9 (Queensbury Planning Board 6/30/05) So this is a problem. It’s not the applicant’s problem, I think it’s the developer’s problem, and maybe the Town’s, because somewhere things got screwed up in the process, but nevertheless, there is supposed to be a buffer there. It is supposed to have sufficient vegetation to provide a physical screen, which it does not. Admittedly, there is a fence there. That’s one point. Next point is, the Code also says pools must be 20 feet from the rear lot line or from the buffer. So, this means this request is not for 29 feet of clearing into the buffer. It means that it’s a multiple request, first off for 49 feet of relief, because you’ve got 29 feet into the buffer and a pool should be 20 feet the other way from the buffer line, and it’s not a single request for just clearing 29 feet in the buffer. It’s a multiple request. Clearing the buffer, place an object closer than 20 feet from the buffer, and actually place an object within the buffer. So it’s more severe than what it really sounds like. Buffers are intended to protect residential areas, not just the property on which they rest. Allowing the applicant to violate the buffer on his property affects the entire neighborhood, not just the applicant. Further, allowing such an intrusion into a buffer suggests that such intrusions are okay and encourages others to request the same sort of relief, which ultimately could affect enumerable other neighborhoods. Now while buffers are intended to primarily protect residential areas, and to reduce conflict between residential and commercial areas, they are a shared responsibility. They rest half on the residential side and half on the commercial. Now the applicant’s talking about the 50 foot buffer that he is supposed to maintain, but there’s also supposed to be a 50 foot buffer on the Suttons side of his property, in the commercial area. I suspect a lot of that isn’t there, too, but that’s the way the buffers are set up. Commercial has half of it, residential has half of it. It strikes me as being totally unreasonable for the residential side to ask to ignore buffer restrictions and for us to expect the commercial side to maintain their half. It’s a shared responsibility. Buffers inhibit sound transmission. They act as wind breaks. They reduce conflicts. They screen and reduce visual impacts, and when not illegally cleared of ground undergrowth, as these have been, they provide valuable wildlife habitat and provide food and shelter for critters that otherwise seek nourishment of ornamental shrubs, flowers, and seek shelter onto porches and eaves of homes. So a buffer is a multi function strip. It strikes me that only in extreme compelling circumstances should we consider justifying, or should justify even considering allowing an intrusion into a buffer, and while I can understand the desire of an applicant to want a pool, it strikes me that a pool is not such a circumstance that we should allow intrusion into a buffer, because once we start allowing it here, we’re going to allow it other places, and we’ve had a lot of conflicts, especially on Twicwood, between the commercial and the residential area. Thank you. MR. SANFORD-Thank you. Any other comments from the public, please? Having heard none, applicant, if you’d please rejoin us, I’d appreciate it. Do you have any rebuttal to those comments? I think they were valid points. MR. DYNES-No. They’re very valid points. It’s just that I’m looking to basically make the buffer what it was, even more dense with thicker trees, basically. It would just be more aesthetic to the backyard as well as the background where the buffer would be. I’m not looking to remove anything or have any visual impact. I don’t want that. I want to put a pool there for my kids. I don’t want anyone looking through the yard or anything like that. Not that you could, but I agree with what he said. I’m just looking to put better trees there, basically, and clear out the perimeter. MR. SANFORD-How big a pool is it? MR. DYNES-Just 18 foot. MR. SEGULJIC-Couldn’t you move it closer to your house? Reduce your impact on the buffer? 10 (Queensbury Planning Board 6/30/05) MR. DYNES-A couple of feet here or there, five feet, depending. It’s not really that big of a deal. I think that from the end of my deck it has there to the end of that fence is only 53.9 feet. So that was the mark I used to point down on my application. MR. SEGULJIC-From the end of your wood deck to the end of? MR. DYNES-End of that fence, which would be the end of the property line, and the beginning of the buffer, which is supposed to be within 50 feet there, was 53.9 feet. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. So your deck is within 3.9 feet of this buffer. MR. DYNES-Correct. MR. SEGULJIC-But, for example, you could put it up towards where that gas meter is located, up in that area, and avoid the whole going into the buffer. MR. DYNES-That would be very close to the foundation of the house. I’d rather not do that. MR. FORD-How close would that be? MR. DYNES-Well, if I were to put it in there, it would be within, I don’t know, eight to ten feet. Very close. MR. SANFORD-This is why we have a Planning Board, folks. Anybody else have any other comments? MRS. STEFFAN-As far as on the other side of the fence, the Suttons property, is that a slope, and is there any vegetation on the other side of that? MR. DYNES-There is vegetation, and it is sloped. You cannot see up there. It’s probably, I haven’t been on that side, but I know that, from looking at it from above, from my upper four windows, it is probably a six foot slope, four to six foot slope there. So it’s 10 feet above, and there is vegetation. There are trees. MR. SEGULJIC-George, for clarification, there’s supposed to be a 50 foot buffer on both sides? MR. HILTON-Yes, I guess in the case of Suttons my guess would be that that was developed prior to this requirement being placed in our Zoning Code, and if some commercial use, new use, were to come in today, certainly that 50 foot buffer would apply on both sides of the fence. MR. SEGULJIC-And how about the comment about keeping the undergrowth, because I think it says in here generally or it doesn’t say you have to. MR. HILTON-I’m not sure I follow your. MR. SEGULJIC-I’m just looking for clarification on the definition. Now I can’t find it. MR. FORD-On the buffer zone. MR. SEGULJIC-Generally consisting of both trees and shrubs, land cover with sufficient permanent plantings shall be consisting of both trees and shrubs. MR. HILTON-And there are examples in the Code that show typical, what we’re looking for for a 50 foot buffer, and the idea is, is that it’s going to be 50 feet on either 11 (Queensbury Planning Board 6/30/05) side, really undisturbed unless this Board, which is being requested this evening, waives that requirement partially or entirely or how you see fit. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, I guess my position would be that you can minimize the impact on the buffer by moving the pool further to the east, if I’ve got my directions correct. MR. SANFORD-It would be pretty much to the east, yes. MR. SEGULJIC-I mean, I don’t know how far away from the house you have to have a pool. MR. HILTON-That’s more of a Building and Codes question that I honestly don’t know. I think somewhere in the area of 10 feet is the absolute minimum from the pool. It can go no closer than 10 feet. That’s my guess, though. I mean, that’s more of a Building and Codes question. MR. SANFORD-All right. I’d ask the applicant if he would, in light of the public comments, which I thought were well stated, voluntarily agree to some kind of a compromise where the pool would be moved closer to the proximity of the house, and therefore still maintain a greater degree of that buffer. MR. DYNES-Yes, I would agree to that, sure. MR. SANFORD-And so what I think we need, Tom, if you have any ideas, I would like to hear them right now. MR. SEGULJIC-I guess where I’m caught up is, can we say something like as close to the house as allowed by the Building Department, Building Department Code? By Building Code? MR. FORD-I’d like to react. The stipulation for buffer zones have been put in Codes for a purpose. I believe that we should be enforcing those, and I believe that this is a self- created issue that can be very possibly accommodated without impacting the buffer zone itself. MR. DYNES-And you’re suggesting I put it more to the east, is that what you’re suggesting? MR. FORD-If we could get clarification on how close and how great, that would address the issue, to what extent. MR. SEGULJIC-Or if you were to go to the north of the house. I don’t know what exactly is there, up where you had the 48, where the 48 is written, up in that area. MRS. STEFFAN-The fence is already in place, isn’t it? Is it a new fence that’s there? MR. DYNES-Yes, there’s fencing all around the property, correct. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. I thought when we went to look at it there was new fencing there. MR. GOETZ-I had a similar situation a few years ago. I wanted to put a pool on my property, and I ran into some of the same problems that you’re running into, and I ended up not doing it because I just couldn’t work it out, but I had to comply, and I feel that’s why we have some of the zoning regulations. It looks like, as these other gentlemen have said, there’s a possibility you could still pull this off if you can move the pool, maybe make it happen, but I feel pretty much the same as Mr. Ford. 12 (Queensbury Planning Board 6/30/05) MR. DYNES-I believe to an extent we could do that, but I don’t still believe it would be within 50 feet of a buffer, at least 10 feet away from that or whatever the. MR. SANFORD-Right now, it’s not totally clear to me, from the property line, in your proposed drawings, how many feet is the edge of the pool to the other property line? MR. DYNES-The edge of the pool would be 21 feet. MR. SANFORD-Twenty-one feet. I’m sensing a pretty good consensus from this Board, I don’t know if you are as well, from your end, that they’re really more inclined to want to stick with the Code rather than provide a relief, and of course I’ll entertain a motion, if one comes from the Board, one way or another, but I think where this Board is heading at this point in time is for you to sort of reconsider, re-evaluate it and see if you can’t place your pool and in be in compliance with the 50 foot buffer reg. MR. FORD-Another consideration, perhaps, would be a smaller sized pool. MR. DYNES-Right. I was already thinking of that along the same lines. That’s pretty much what it would have to be. MRS. STEFFAN-I’m just not sure if there’s some kind of compromise between the two places. I understand we’re trying to enforce the 50 foot buffer requirement, but if the pool were to be able to be moved much closer to the house, and there was a small amount of trees taken out of the buffer, and then there was the addition of evergreens to add substance to the buffer that’s there, because as Mr. McNulty points out, what was left by the builder was mature trees with no undergrowth. Then really what kind of buffer is it providing anyway, and if the applicant is looking to put in evergreen trees that that would provide a greater degree of buffer, then we’re really helping the situation. You’re acting to support the spirit of the regulation. So, you know, could we come to some kind of a compromise to get it closer to the house, instead of 20 feet from the property line, could we get it? MR. SANFORD-Forty. Is that what you’re saying? MRS. STEFFAN-Yes, half the distance. MR. SANFORD-Give you ten feet or something, but not that much. MR. DYNES-Sure. That would be fine with me. The problem is, too, that with the large size trees there, the sun only comes in that general area where I have the illustration. It’s shaded pretty well. Those are very large trees that surround the perimeter of the home. So obviously in a pool you want to have some type of sunshine with children and everything else. MR. SEGULJIC-Based on the public comment, there was a comment about you can’t put anything within 20 feet of the 50 foot buffer either? MR. HILTON-I think that comment was specific to pools and the setbacks, where the Code states 20 feet from a property line or a buffer. There is a notation on the plan 21 feet from barrier proposed, and I guess, you know, beyond that, this plan has been, I guess, you know, it was reviewed by the Zoning Administrator and it was identified that it needed site plan review for the proposed construction in the buffer, and that no setback variances were required. MR. SEGULJIC-No setback variances. MR. HILTON-Correct, yes, just the site plan review that’s before you this evening. 13 (Queensbury Planning Board 6/30/05) MR. SEGULJIC-Well, I would say since he’s willing to put trees, I’d be willing to give him some buffer, but I’d want to see the impact on the buffer minimized. MR. SANFORD-Again, I’m a little confused, and perhaps I could just ask a question of Staff, and they could clarify it. I thought these types of issues would be classified as a variance and would be ZBA type of decisions, rather than Planning Board. MR. HILTON-No, not at all. Actually, if you look in your Zoning Codes at Article 8, there’s a clause, a statement that says applicability, that the Planning Board has the ability to waive all or any of the buffer requirements. MR. SANFORD-Okay. MR. SCHACHNER-Just for clarification, please understand, that’s as they relate to this Article, not your general setback and distance requirements in general. Those would be zoning restrictions, only changeable by the Zoning Board of Appeals. MR. SANFORD-Okay. Well, you know, rather than to go on up with this, if there’s any other discussion, let’s have it. Otherwise, I’ll entertain some form of a motion, if someone cares to put one on the table. MR. SEGULJIC-I’d want to figure out how to word such a thing. MR. SCHACHNER-Did you close the public hearing? MR. SANFORD-I’m sorry. I have to close it. I’m sorry. I’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. SANFORD-Does anybody care to put forth a motion? MR. SEGULJIC-I’m really struggling with this. MR. DYNES-Could I offer something? How about if I just lower the size of the pool. We bring it back up 10 feet, instead of 21 feet, it would be 31. I’ll get a 12 foot instead of an 18? I just want to try and keep it in the sun. MR. SEGULJIC-Say that again? MR. DYNES-Instead of getting an 18 foot, I would get a 12 foot diameter, something smaller like that, bring it back up to 21 feet, it could go 31, for example. MR. SANFORD-If someone cares to make a motion, and it gets seconded, we’ll put it to a vote. MR. FORD-You said 12 foot, as opposed to 18? MR. DYNES-Twelve foot, that would give us six feet right off the top of that, and then I would just move it another four feet closer to the home. MR. SANFORD-Have we got a motion? MR. SEGULJIC-I figure, if he puts in a 12 foot pool, he can then limit his impact on the buffer by 10 feet. MR. SANFORD-Yes. I think if you’re interested in looking towards a compromise situation, you would just merely take the proposal prepared by Staff, and specify no more than X number of feet from the property line. That kind of a thing, and that way it 14 (Queensbury Planning Board 6/30/05) would be pretty clear. I mean, if you’re inclined to want to move in that direction, I would specify it in terms of feet. Right now our Code says 50 feet. He’s coming in with a proposal looking to be within, what did you say, 21 feet? And if you feel that it’s appropriate for this Board to consider something in between the 50 and the 21, specify it in feet. MR. SEGULJIC-Yes, I would say 40 feet. MR. SANFORD-Then make the motion, and we’re working partial them, and if they can do it, they can do it. If they can’t, they can’t. Provided it passes. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 31-2005 RICHARD & TERESA DYNES, Introduced by Thomas Seguljic who moved for its adoption, seconded by Gretchen Steffan: WHEREAS, an application has been made to this Board for the following: Site Plan No. 31-2005 Applicant/Property Owner: Richard & Teresa Dynes SEQR Type II Zone: SFR-1A Location: 26 Twicwood Lane Applicant proposes land clearing within the required 50-foot buffer area between the HC-Mod and SFR-1A zone. Tax Map No. 296.9-1-29 Lot size: 0.46 acres / Section: 179-4-020, 179-8-050 Public Hearing: 6/30/05 WHEREAS, the application was received on 5/16/05; and WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation and inclusive of all newly received information, not included in this listing as of 6/24/05, and 6/24 Staff Notes 6/23 Notice of Public Hearing sent 6/2 Meeting Notice sent WHEREAS, pursuant to Art. 9 of the Zoning Ordinance of the Code of the Town of Queensbury a public hearing was advertised and was held on 6/30/05; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the Site Plan application requirements of the Code of the Town Queensbury (Zoning); and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and WHEREAS, this approval does not relieve the applicant from obtaining all necessary permits whether Federal, State or Local, and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that We find the following: The application is hereby approved in accordance with the resolution prepared by Staff and is subject to the following conditions which shall be listed on the final plans submitted to the Zoning Administrator: 1. That will allow the buffer to extend 40 feet for the addition in the area of the pool to be installed on the site, to the eastern side of the property line, the lots now owned by Donna Sutton, 15 (Queensbury Planning Board 6/30/05) 2. To restrict them to infringe upon no more than 40 feet from that property line. 3. Minimize tree clearing in the buffer, and also have eight (8) 10 – 15 foot evergreens to be planted, when they’re matured, 40 feet from the property line. 4. A copy of the required NOI to be provided prior to issuance of a Building Permit. 5. Final approved plans in compliance with this site plan must be submitted to the Community Development Dept. before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building & Codes personnel. Subsequent issuance of further permits; including building permits are dependent on receipt. Duly adopted this 30th day of June, 2005, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Goetz, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sanford NOES: Mr. Ford ABSENT: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Metivier MR. SANFORD-You’re all set. MR. DYNES-So I have to be within 40 feet of that back line? MR. SANFORD-Yes, and I’m not sure, is there anything that we require as far as submissions to Planning Staff on this or revised plans or anything? I would think not, but I’ll ask you. MR. HILTON-It is a site plan review. I think I’d leave that up to the Zoning Administrator. Typically, with site plan approvals, three copies of the approved plans do need to be submitted prior to issuance of a building permit or further action. MR. SANFORD-I would ask you to revise your plans to be in compliance with the motion just passed. MR. DYNES-Okay. MR. SANFORD-And work with Staff on how all the logistics work out. Okay. MR. DYNES-So go to the Zoning Administrator with the revised plans, and I’ll be good to go? MR. SANFORD-Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-Yes, and Code Enforcement will be able to come out and check on the status of the plan as you build. MR. DYNES-Great. Thank you very much. SITE PLAN NO. 32-2005 SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED ERIC COTTRELL CONTRACT VENDEE PROPERTY OWNER: THOMAS ROSS AGENT: NACE ENGINEERING ZONE: HC-INT. LOCATION: CORNER OF EVERTS & HOMER AVENUE APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A PROFESSIONAL OFFICE BUILDING AND ASSOCIATED SITE WORK. PROFESSIONAL OFFICE USES IN THE HC-INT. ZONE REQUIRE SITE PLAN REVIEW. CROSS REFERENCE: SUB 3- 2005 TAX MAP NO. 302.8-1-33 LOT SIZE: 1.03 ACRES SECTION: 179-4-020 16 (Queensbury Planning Board 6/30/05) TOM NACE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; ERIC COTTRELL, PRESENT MR. SANFORD-Good evening. Could you please identify yourself for the record, please. MR. COTTRELL-Hi. Eric Cottrell. MR. NACE-Tom Nace. MR. SANFORD-Would you care to tell us about your proposal. MR. COTTRELL-I propose to build a new dental office. I’m currently in Glens Falls, and I have a piece of property at the corner of Homer and Everts, which I purchased from Tom Ross, the neighbor, and it’s a little in excess of an acre, and I’m proposing to build an approximately 4300 square foot building, with adequate parking for Staff and patients. It will be as nice, if not nicer, than Tom’s next door, and if you know the neighborhood, not that it’s a bad neighborhood, but it would be a very nice building. The builder is Dan Valente, and Tom Nace has done the engineering, and that’s a quick. MR. SANFORD-Yes. I’m familiar with the site. I believe it was in front of us quite some time ago, that particular piece of property. MR. COTTRELL-A subdivision, I believe. MR. SANFORD-Subdivision. Okay. Staff notes or comments or anything? Is there any discussion. Okay. We’re going to go through our site plan review criteria. You have requested some waivers here, and I think we need to deal with them. We’ll go through it. Lighting plan, I guess, is one, right? And that’s pretty much it, isn’t it? MRS. STEFFAN-Yes, they asked for a lighting plan waiver. That was it on the waivers. MR. SANFORD-Okay. The first item is design standards. Anybody have any comments on design standards? MRS. STEFFAN-One of the points that was brought up in the Staff notes is that the entrance to the building faces the accounting firm. MR. NACE-No, the entrance is in the back. Well, the parking is in, it’s a corner lot, so there is no real back or there are two backs and no sides, whichever way you want to look at it, but the parking is off of Homer Avenue, and the entrance will be, of course, from the parking lot. The front out on Everts Avenue is a nice architectural side of the building, and there’ll be some street trees, but the parking is, I guess you would say, in the back of the building, as your Code kind of directs us to do in most cases, and we felt that that was better than having it out front, and it’s not really possible to put it, Tom Ross’s office is over here, and so we’ve made the fronts, or the architectural fronts of the building, kind of line up, and I think that’ll present a good front to Everts Avenue. MR. SEGULJIC-Where is the parking for the adjacent building? MR. NACE-How’s that? MR. SEGULJIC-The parking for the adjacent building. MR. NACE-Tom Ross’s parking is on the side and in the back. He’s got a little bigger lot and more space to spread out, but he has employee parking back here and then visitor parking up front, or up on the side. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. 17 (Queensbury Planning Board 6/30/05) MR. COTTRELL-The difficulty with the design, and I know where you’re coming from, is that, the corner lot has a 50 foot setback off of Everts and a 50 foot setback off of Homer, and if I pushed the building into where the parking lot is, then the parking lot’s in the front, so to speak, and I think that would detract away from Tom Ross’s office. So, also being the dental/medical type of facility, handicap access and that sort of thing is really important, plus that’s one of the reasons that I’m leaving Glens Falls and going to Queensbury. Parking down at Iron Gate is horrible. So this allows me to kind of hide the parking. We have a nice buffer in the back for the residential, and make it efficient for my patients, also, to get in and out, and I’m certainly willing to beef up Everts Ave. with more foundation landscaping and that sort of thing to give it certainly a more appealing look to it if you’re driving by. MR. FORD-That infiltration trench is an issue there. Is it not? MR. NACE-An issue in what manner? MR. FORD-What are you going to do to build a further buffer or how will that impact that, how would that impact that infiltration trench? MR. NACE-One of the things we didn’t realize until we got the Staff comments was that if you look at the landscaping, Jim Miller did the landscaping, and put some street trees out on Everts to help the streetscape, as you will, and he put landscaping on the entry way area of the building, but he didn’t put any foundation landscaping either along the Everts front or along the Homer Avenue front. Homer Avenue there are some trees on out toward the street, which will help that, but there still needs to be some foundation landscaping on both, and the infiltration trench is on out, a good ways away from the building. MR. FORD-How close to those proposed trees would the infiltration trench be? MR. NACE-For these trees? MR. FORD-Yes. MR. NACE-It looks like about 10 to 15 feet. MR. FORD-Okay. Thank you. MR. SANFORD-Okay. Moving down, we were on design standards. Site development design. I think Staff notes are they recommend consideration of a connector for vehicle access between offices. What’s your comments on that? MR. NACE-Well, it really, I don’t think would serve any purpose there. They’re not uses, the two buildings are not uses that are similar or that would have interconnecting traffic generated for any reason. One’s a medical dental office, and the other is an accounting office, and neither one of those are likely to change in the near future. So, I mean, how many times do you go to your dentist right after going to your accountant, or vice versa? It’s something we don’t anticipate the need for. MR. SEGULJIC-I guess it would still make sense to have the sites interconnected. MR. NACE-For what reason? MR. SEGULJIC-Who knows what’s going to be there in five years? MR. NACE-Well, remember, when a commercial property changes use, it comes back before you for site plan review, and at that point, you have the opportunity to say, now 18 (Queensbury Planning Board 6/30/05) they’re both shopping centers, and there is some need for interconnection, let’s have that interconnection. MR. SANFORD-I believe that’s a fair point. Anybody have anything on? MRS. STEFFAN-I also think the interconnection at this particular location would be odd, because there could be a cut through between these buildings to get to Quaker Road, because on the other side of the accounting firm is a chiropractic office that has a back entrance that goes into a retail operation, and so I could see it becoming a dysfunctional intersection. MR. NACE-I think the interconnection is already there. MR. COTTRELL-It also makes for a lot of pavement, too, personally. I mean, I’m trying to make the building look at presentable and not that it couldn’t be done in the future if the need is there, but right now, as clean a look as I can get I think is what I’m looking for, trying to accomplish. MR. SANFORD-Stormwater, sewage design. Anybody have any questions on that? C.T. Male has, we have a letter from C.T. Male. Where do we stand with that at this point in time? Is there a signoff at this point? MR. SEGULJIC-All their comments look pretty minor anyways. MR. SANFORD-So you feel comfortable any approval could be conditioned upon final satisfaction of C.T. Male comments? MR. SEGULJIC-Yes. MR. SANFORD-Okay. All right. Okay. So it looks like things are pretty well on course here. We would condition it for final approval on C.T. Male, I guess, signoff, if we go in that direction. Let’s go to lighting. There’s no lighting plan, but are there concerns and issues from this Board? MR. SEGULJIC-I guess, I forget where I saw it, there’s, you’re going to have soffit lighting or something like that? MR. NACE-Yes, there’s going to be under canopy, each entry way has a little roof and canopy area, and that, there will be under canopy lighting on that that will reflect out into the parking lot enough for the minimal need. MR. SEGULJIC-So no lighting in the parking lot, then? MR. NACE-That’s it. MR. SEGULJIC-That’s it. MR. GOETZ-What are your hours going to be? MR. COTTRELL-Typically eight to five. Also I did drive by there last night. I haven’t been by there much at dark, but there’s approximately four large street lights in the area, and I’m not a big fan of spotlights, but across in the Y property, they’ve got plenty of spotlights that are lighting up the area. So, once again, I’m trying to give it a classy appeal. We’re not looking at any spotlights or anything like that. MR. SANFORD-Less lighting’s preferred. I think that’s the consensus here on this kind of a site. 19 (Queensbury Planning Board 6/30/05) MR. NACE-I think the parking lot’s small enough that the canopy lighting will reflect for safety. MR. FORD-Even at five o’clock, in the middle of winter, when the sun has gone down an hour before. MR. SEGULJIC-So that’s only on the entrances of the parking of the lot side, correct? MR. NACE-That’s at the two entries into the building. MR. SEGULJIC-That are both on the parking lot side. MR. COTTRELL-Correct. MR. NACE-That’s correct. MR. SANFORD-Okay. I’m going to move back up to one of the earlier things that wasn’t mentioned. That is proposed color of the building, color schemes, that kind of a thing. Has that been determined? It obviously should have been. MR. SEGULJIC-I thought the building looked very good. MR. COTTRELL-Thank you. It’s going to have kind of an Adirondack natural kind of a look, probably like a grayish rectangular type of bricks on the bottom, and then earth tone type of horizontal siding, those are then shakes up top, and then a matching roof, color I’m not exactly sure, but reddish or greenish, depending on. Do you want to get into color? MR. SANFORD-That’s up to you guys, I mean, you’re the Board. MR. SEGULJIC-I mean, what he’s saying sounds good. MRS. STEFFAN-I think the earth tones work for me. MR. SANFORD-Okay. I think we’re probably okay with what you just said. There are some landscaping issues. Were they previously addressed, and I just wasn’t paying attention, or I know Staff talks about them. MR. NACE-Some of the landscaping was addressed. One of the Staff comments was regarding, we addressed the fact that we will beef up with some landscaping, with some foundation landscaping along the Everts and Homer Avenue fronts of the building. One of Staff comments was the suggestion of beefing up the width of the buffer here, between the residents next door and the parking lot. We have a pin oak proposed here. We also have two existing trees that I don’t rightly remember what they were. They’re deciduous. So we’ve filled in between with some Norway Spruce which will, if you’re familiar with the Norway, they keep their branches down low and they expand fairly good down at the base. So that’ll provide a pretty good screen, even though it’s only one thick. We could possibly. MR. FORD-You’re anticipating how many would be there? MR. NACE-There will be the pin oak plus seven Norways. We could probably beef up by putting an extra Norway up front and maybe beef up this rear section in here with another Norway. So we could probably add two in there would beef that up sufficiently. I don’t think it’s necessarily the width of the buffer that makes it effective, but rather what kind of trees you use there. 20 (Queensbury Planning Board 6/30/05) MR. SEGULJIC-I guess, with regards to landscaping, is it possible to get some of the, what do you refer to them, the Norway Spruce in front of the building along Everts? MR. NACE-Well, they’re already, along Everts, I’m not sure, we do have two red maples out there that make it, they’re street trees. MR. SEGULJIC-Could we get some trees closer to the building also, like the arborvitaes or something? MR. COTTRELL-In five years I wouldn’t want them to be so large that they block out the whole building. MR. NACE-Right. You want foundation planting there that is going to stay manageable. The Norways, you know, in five years, if you plant a six foot tree in five years, it’s going to be almost 15 feet, and I don’t think that’s what you want. MR. SEGULJIC-So then you would put some landscape plantings in front of the building? MR. NACE-Yes. We’re talking about where we don’t have any now and that was our mistake. We just overlooked that when we were doing the landscaping plan, but there needs to be foundation planting along both the Homer and Everts fronts of the building. We will add similar to what we’ve shown at the entry way. MR. SEGULJIC-And those three existing trees along Homer will stay, also? MR. NACE-Yes, that is correct. MR. SEGULJIC-And then what about, because there is a nice stand of trees just to the east of the entrance there. MR. NACE-Just to the east of? MR. COTTRELL-There’s like trench there, and then it’s very overgrown, and then there’s some nice mature trees there. MR. SEGULJIC-Right. So one thing that always gets me is we cut down trees and then we plant trees again. MR. NACE-Well, unfortunately because of the two 50 foot setbacks really limit what we can do with the building placement. So unfortunately the building and the parking have to be, and the tree line there is right down the middle of the site. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, could we keep some along the street there? MR. COTTRELL-I’m sorry. The three that on Homer are very nice, mature trees, as are the two back on the residential. They’re very nice mature trees, and once again, between Tom Ross has some very nice landscaping and some more mature trees up towards Everts. So I wish I could keep all those, but it’s not practical. MR. SANFORD-Okay. The last two items, I’m not sure if there’s any questions that the Board might have, would be environmental, i.e. wetlands, noise, air quality, aesthetics, that kind of thing, neighborhood character, impacts to the neighborhood, health, safety and welfare. Does anybody have anything on those? MR. SEGULJIC-The only other question I have is I’m looking at Sheet One of Three, S-1, I guess it is, you identify a trench and a ditch. 21 (Queensbury Planning Board 6/30/05) MR. NACE-It doesn’t do anything. There’s nothing that goes into it. I’ve been there in the spring, and there’s no water in it. In the past, for some reason, I have no idea why. MRS. STEFFAN-I just wanted to follow up on the landscaping. In the buffer behind the parking lot, between this property and the Pontiff property, were you going to add any trees to that? MR. NACE-We said we would add two Norways to that. MR. SANFORD-Okay. We have a public hearing scheduled for tonight. So I’ll ask if anybody from the audience wishes to comment on this application. Please step forward. Okay. Seeing none, I’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MRS. BARDEN-Mr. Chairman, excuse me. One thing that I think that I forgot to address in the Staff notes was signage. Maybe the applicant could talk about signage. MR. SANFORD-Yes. I think we ought to talk about signage, where you stand with that at this point. MR. NACE-I’m sure it’s not finalized as to what the signage is going to be. We have shown a location here in front of the building. I’m not sure, when we finish up the landscaping for the foundation, whether that sign is going to stay there or maybe move over where it’s also visible from Everts Avenue as well as Homer. MR. SANFORD-Totally unlit sign, right? Okay. It’s a professional office. Any other comments from the Board? MR. GOETZ-I just have a quick question. I probably know the answer I think, but just under the draft resolution it says 4300 square feet, and I’ve heard some, I thought I read 4700 square feet. For the record, what are we talking? MR. COTTRELL-4322 or something like that. MR. NACE-The building footprint is 4300. There is a second floor office, single office, which adds a couple of hundred square feet. So the actual floor area is 4700 square feet. MR. GOETZ-Thank you, Tom. MR. SANFORD-Okay. Moving along here. I’ll entertain a motion, if anybody cares to make one. MR. SEGULJIC-Why don’t we talk about what the conditions will be. MRS. STEFFAN-Yes. MR. SANFORD-Okay. Sorry, we have SEQRA. It’s Unlisted. Tom wants to spend some time discussing conditions to the approval or the motion, but we might as well do SEQRA first. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. 22 (Queensbury Planning Board 6/30/05) RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 32-2005, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: ERIC COTTRELL CONTRACT VENDEE, and WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. No Federal agency appears to be involved. 2. The following agencies are involved: NONE 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury. 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant. 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law. Duly adopted this 30 day of June, 2005, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Goetz, Mr. Ford, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Sanford NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Metivier MR. SANFORD-Okay. Let’s discuss what conditions we want to put into a motion. MR. SEGULJIC-What I have is the foundation plantings along the eastern and southern portion of the building. MR. SANFORD-Why don’t you write them down as you’re talking. MR. SEGULJIC-I’ve got it written down. We said additional plantings along the southern boundary, property boundary. MR. NACE-To the western property line. MRS. STEFFAN-Western. MR. SEGULJIC-Western, and what type of trees would they be? 23 (Queensbury Planning Board 6/30/05) MRS. STEFFAN-Two Norway Maples. MR. FORD-Norway Spruce. There are already red maples there. Right? MR. SEGULJIC-The lighting, site lighting to be limited to the entrance way soffits? MR. SANFORD-Is that what you agreed to during our discussion, that there would be only that lighting? Okay. MR. SEGULJIC-And then the building color. Do we want to get involved with that? MR. SANFORD-We can. I asked Gretchen her preference, because there’s certain people on the Board who take a greater interest in that, and I think there was a comfort level with earth tones and. MR. SEGULJIC-Do we want to put that in the conditions, and then, how do we say that, building colors to be earth tone? MR. SANFORD-If you want to. It can’t hurt. It might not help. MR. SEGULJIC-And then C.T. Male signoff. MRS. STEFFAN-And the square footage change from. MR. SANFORD-What is the actual square footage, Tom? I mean, again, I want to make sure that our resolution prepared by Staff is exactly the same as what you’re drawings our. MRS. STEFFAN-Right. Our resolution says 4300, instead of 47. MR. NACE-The footprint of the building is 4300 square feet. MR. SANFORD-Do you have a question, George? MR. HILTON-Just a comment. As far as your specifying earth tones in the resolution, that may be kind of difficult to enforce, and, you know, one person’s opinion, I guess , is. MR. SANFORD-Especially if you go to Arizona, you could have a pretty bright red type of building. You guys could either back away from it, or get specific, I guess. You have to get pretty specific here. You might have had an idea of what color you were going to go, and throw it out, and if we like it we’ll (lost words). You haven’t decided yet. Is that what you’re telling us? MR. COTTRELL-No, I haven’t. I’m using like a rectangular type of stone, which is usually like a grayish with some brown and orange tinges to is, and I was thinking along the lines of like a (lost words). MR. SANFORD-I’m comfortable with leaving it at your discretion. Okay. MR. SEGULJIC-Is there anything we want to add to the list? MRS. STEFFAN-I don’t know, George, should we say grays, greens, browns and tans? Is that going to work for you guys? MR. HILTON-That definitely specifies acceptable colors. I guess that’s better. MR. SANFORD-That’s fine. 24 (Queensbury Planning Board 6/30/05) MR. SEGULJIC-I don’t think we have to. I’m comfortable. MR. NACE-The resolution prepared by Staff (lost words) site is under an acre. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 32-2005 ERIC COTTRELL CONTRACT VENDEE, Introduced by Thomas Seguljic who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Goetz: WHEREAS, an application has been made to this Board for the following: Site Plan No. 32-2005 Applicant: Eric Cottrell Contract Vendee SEQR Type: Unlisted Property Owner: Thomas Ross Agent: Nace Engineering Zone: HC-Int Location: Corner of Everts & Homer Avenue Applicant proposes construction of a 4,300 sq. ft. Professional Office Building and associated site work. Professional Office uses in the HC-Int. zone require Site Plan Review. Cross Reference: SUB 3–2005 Tax Map No. 302.8-1-33 Lot size: 1.03 acres / Section: 179-4-020 Public Hearing: 6/30/05 WHEREAS, the application was received on 5/16/05; and WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation and inclusive of all newly received information, not included in this listing as of 6/24/05, and 6/24 Staff Notes 6/24 C.T. Male Associates engineering comments 6/23 Notice of Public Hearing sent 6/13 PB from S. Smith Fire Marshal: No fire dept. access issues 6/2 Meeting Notice 5/23 C. Brown from M. Shaw Deputy Director Wastewater WHEREAS, pursuant to Art. 9 of the Zoning Ordinance of the Code of the Town of Queensbury a public hearing was advertised and was held on 6/30/05; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the Site Plan application requirements of the Code of the Town Queensbury (Zoning); and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and WHEREAS, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; and/or if application is a modification, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered; and the proposed modification(s) do not result in any new or significantly different environmental impacts, and, therefore, no further SEQRA review is necessary; and WHEREAS, this approval does not relieve the applicant from obtaining all necessary permits whether Federal, State or Local, and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that 25 (Queensbury Planning Board 6/30/05) We find the following: The application is hereby approved in accordance with the resolution prepared by Staff and is subject to the following conditions which shall be listed on the final plans submitted to the Zoning Administrator: 1. Foundation plantings along the east and south sides of the building. 2. Two (2) additional Norway Spruces to be planted along the western property boundary. 3. Lighting to be limited to soffits at the building entrance. 4. C.T. Male Associates sign-off be obtained. 5. Final approved plans in compliance with this site plan must be submitted to the Community Development Dept. before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building & Codes personnel. Subsequent issuance of further permits; including building permits are dependent on receipt. Duly adopted this 30th day of June, 2005, by the following vote: MR. SEGULJIC-And the colors to be earth tones. MR. SANFORD-Well, we just received that pretty clear advice from Counsel that earth tones really doesn’t mean a whole lot. If you’re going to specify colors, specify colors. Earth tones is pretty vague and it’s probably not enforceable. MR. SEGULJIC-I’m comfortable without specifying colors. It gets tough. MR. SANFORD-No fluorescent orange, okay. MRS. STEFFAN-It’s not a big deal. AYES: Mr. Ford, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Goetz, Mr. Sanford NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Metivier MR. COTTRELL-Thank you very much. SITE PLAN NO. 33-2005 SEQR TYPE II FRANK & RENEE PALANGI ZONE: MU LOCATION: CARROLL STREET APPLICANT PROPOSES A 2,288 SQ. FT. SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE WITH ATTACHED GARAGE. RESIDENTIAL USES IN THE MIXED USE ZONE REQUIRE SITE PLAN REVIEW. CROSS REFERENCE: SUB 8-2004 TAX MAP NO. 303.16-1-47.2 LOT SIZE: 0.33 ACRES SECTION: 179-4- 020 FRANK & RENEE PALANGI, PRESENT MR. SANFORD-Good evening and welcome. Could you please identify yourself for the record, please. MR. PALANGI-I’m Frank Palangi and this is my wife, Renee. MR. SANFORD-Could you take a couple of minutes, please, and review your application with us. 26 (Queensbury Planning Board 6/30/05) MR. PALANGI-We want to build a ranch style home on the property (lost words) site plan review. Did anybody have a chance to go out to the site? MR. SANFORD-Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-I know that, I drove down the road. I wasn’t sure exactly what site it was. MR. SANFORD-Okay. MRS. STEFFAN-I know the neighborhood. MR. FORD-There were several open spaces there. I wasn’t positive which one it was. MR. PALANGI-We’re closest to Queensbury Avenue. As you come off Queensbury Avenue, it would be right on the left. MR. FORD-Okay. Thank you. MR. SANFORD-We have some Staff comments. I’m sure everybody has read Staff comments. Does Staff have anything additional to add? MRS. BARDEN-Not really. MR. SANFORD-To me, this looks like a pretty straightforward application, but I’ll open it up for Board discussion. Any comments from members of the Board? MRS. STEFFAN-Are you able to move the house back three feet so that it’s within the 30 foot setback? MR. PALANGI-Yes, I saw that. I talked with Dave. I was under the impression that it was 30 feet with the house, but I guess it is the lot line. I didn’t get a chance to clarify that with him. Yes, I got that today. I thought Dave said it was the house portion should be 30 feet from the property line, but the letter I got stated that (lost words), but the letter I got stated from the walkways. MRS. BARDEN-It’s probably from the walkway, is where you would, and that’s from Dave, was it, or from Craig Brown? MR. PALANGI-It was actually from Dave. MRS. BARDEN-Okay, and that’s something that you can do? MR. PALANGI-Yes. MR. SANFORD-Any additional comments? Okay. We do have a public hearing scheduled for tonight on this site plan. Anybody from the public have any comments or wish to address the Board? Seeing no one, I’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. SANFORD-This is SEQRA Type II. We don’t have a SEQRA . I’ll entertain a motion. 27 (Queensbury Planning Board 6/30/05) MR. PALANGI-Can I just add one thing? I talked to George previous to this. He said just to mention this. I do have another plan which (lost words) the house was going to be two foot bigger, but the garage was going to be two foot smaller. So it’s identical property, same 88 feet long by 20 foot. George said just to mention that. MR. SANFORD-I understand that. I appreciate your coming forward with this. George, any implications to something like that? MR. HILTON-I guess typically, no. I mean, this is an odd case that a single family needs site plan review in this zone. MR. SANFORD-It’s a Mixed Use. I guess that’s just a requirement. MR. HILTON-Yes, you know, if you’re comfortable with it, and if it’s going to meet the setbacks and be within the same footprint, I personally don’t see any problem with it. MRS. STEFFAN-It’s a design feature. MR. SANFORD-I think you’ll be okay. Okay. Does anybody care to make a motion? MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 33-2005 FRANK & RENEE PALANGI, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: WHEREAS, an application has been made to this Board for the following: Site Plan No. 33-2005 Applicant/Property Owner: Frank & Renee Palangi SEQR Type II Zone: MU Location: Carroll Street Applicant proposes a 2,288 sq. ft. Single-family residence with attached garage. Residential uses in the Mixed Use zone require Site Plan review. Cross Reference: SUB 8-2004 Tax Map No. 303.16-1-47.2 Lot size: 0.33 acres / Section: 179-4-020 Public Hearing: 6/30/05 WHEREAS, the application was received on 5/16/05; and WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation and inclusive of all newly received information, not included in this listing as of 6/24/05; and 6/24 Staff Notes 6/23 Notice of Public Hearing sent 6/2 Meeting Notice sent WHEREAS, pursuant to Art. 9 of the Zoning Ordinance of the Code of the Town of Queensbury a public hearing was advertised and was held on 6/30/05; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the Site Plan application requirements of the Code of the Town Queensbury (Zoning); and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and WHEREAS, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; and/or if application is a modification, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered; and the proposed modification(s) do not result in any 28 (Queensbury Planning Board 6/30/05) new or significantly different environmental impacts, and, therefore, no further SEQRA review is necessary; and WHEREAS, this approval does not relieve the applicant from obtaining all necessary permits whether Federal, State or Local, and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that We find the following: The application is hereby approved in accordance with the resolution prepared by Staff and is subject to the following conditions which shall be listed on the final plans submitted to the Zoning Administrator: 1. Final approved plans in compliance with this site plan must be submitted to the Community Development Dept. before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building & Codes personnel. Subsequent issuance of further permits; including building permits are dependent on receipt. Duly adopted this 30th day of June, 2005, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Goetz, Mr. Seguljic, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Sanford NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Metivier, Mr. Vollaro MR. SANFORD-You’re all set. MRS. PALANGI-Thank you very much. SITE PLAN NO. 35-2005 SEQR TYPE II JOHN HARRIS ZONE: WR-1A LOCATION: 171 ASSEMBLY POINT ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES DEMOLITION OF A 480 SQ. FT. PORTION OF AN EXISTING STRUCTURE AND RECONSTRUCTION OF A 760 SQ. FT. “BUNKHOUSE” ADDITION. EXPANSION OF A NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE IN A C.E.A. REQUIRES SITE PLAN REVIEW. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 34-01, AV 44-01 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 6/8/05 TAX MAP NO. 239.7-1-33 LOT SIZE: 0.79 ACRES SECTION: 179-4-020, 179- 13-010 JOHN HARRIS, PRESENT MR. SANFORD-Good evening. MR. HARRIS-Hi. I’m John Harris. MR. SANFORD-If you want to just take a minute or two and tell us what you propose to do. MR. HARRIS-Yes. We have a bunkhouse attached to another part of the building, and the bunkhouse has become deteriorated and the foundation is deteriorated. I hand dug it when I was in college (lost words). In essence, it has to be torn down and some mold underneath it (lost words), want to make it a little bit bigger and also we thought we’d put a cellar in. The attached structure is a garage that has an apartment over top of it (lost words) and it’s very expensive to heat it. So what we’d like to do is use the cellar as (lost words) bunkhouse (lost words). MR. SANFORD-We do have a public hearing scheduled tonight, and there is no SEQRA. I’m a little surprised at that, but, okay, Type II. Discussion from Board members? 29 (Queensbury Planning Board 6/30/05) MR. SEGULJIC-Is the building footprint changing at all? MR. HARRIS-Yes. The current bunkhouse is 20 by 24, and we’re going to increase it to 20 by 38. So we are going to make it slightly larger. MR. FORD-That’ll make a total of how many structures on that property? MR. HARRIS-Two. The current bunkhouse is attached to the part of a garage apartment complex, and then there’s the main structure, the house. By the way, I went through this whole process in 2001, and we had it pretty much approved, and (lost words) informed me that if I don’t get a building permit and renew it, I have to go through the whole process again, and in the process my father got ill and so forth. MR. FORD-But in fact you’re not submitting the same plan. MR. HARRIS-It’s a little different. MR. FORD-It’s larger. MR. HARRIS-No. The footprint’s the same size. The only thing is I’m putting a cellar underneath it. MRS. BARDEN-It’s a re-build. MR. SEGULJIC-Just so I can clarify in my mind here. You’ve got the bunkhouse. So you’re going to excavate deeper and further out to increase that area. MR. HARRIS-We’re going to tear the bunkhouse down totally, and put a cellar and extend it out. So basically tearing the whole thing down and building a new structure. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. What is going to happen to the water from the roof leaders, then? What are you going to do with that? MR. HARRIS-The water from? MR. SEGULJIC-Well, that’s generated on the roof, on the additional? MR. HARRIS-Right now, basically the front will be exactly the same, because the footprint is exactly the same in the front. In the back (lost words). MRS. STEFFAN-Is this for private use? MR. HARRIS-Yes. It’s for family use. MRS. STEFFAN-So it’s not going to be a rental property? MR. HARRIS-No. It’s just a matter of the kids have gotten older, and we have two full sized beds in one room, (lost words), separate rooms (lost words). MR. SANFORD-It seems pretty straightforward to me. Any other additional comments that Board members might have? MR. SEGULJIC-The septic system. There’s seven bedrooms there, I believe? MR. HARRIS-Yes. The septic system was re-done about three years ago (lost words). MR. SEGULJIC-Has it been tested to make sure it’s working adequately? 30 (Queensbury Planning Board 6/30/05) MR. HARRIS-No, I have not done any tests, but we’ve had absolutely no problems with it. We’ve got two thousand gallon tanks. MR. FORD-They were installed what year? MR. HARRIS-I’m going to say three years ago. I think I have the paperwork. MR. FORD-It’s designed for? MRS. BARDEN-Seven bedrooms. MR. FORD-Thank you. MRS. STEFFAN-How do we verify that the septic is working well? MRS. BARDEN-Well, I was hoping that there might be some kind of maintenance records or pump out records or that kind of thing, but it is a fairly new system. MR. HARRIS-Yes, we wouldn’t have pumped it out since it was put in. MR. SANFORD-What is the current system? What kind of system is it? MR. HARRIS-There’s a thousand gallon tank servicing the main house, and 1500 gallon tank. Both are going into a common pipe which goes out to a distribution box, and then the distribution box goes across the property. I have a picture, I think it’s either five or seven laterals going across. MR. SANFORD-Okay. MR. HARRIS-We use that plastic (lost words). MRS. STEFFAN-Infiltrators? MR. HARRIS-That might be what it’s called. It’s not the type with the crushed stone, but something like the plastic. MRS. STEFFAN-Infiltrators. MR. SANFORD-How does everybody feel about that? Staff notes commented that they thought it made sense to have verification that the system’s functioning properly. I, personally, don’t feel as strongly. I think this new system is probably going to be adequate, but I’d ask everybody else for their opinion. MR. SEGULJIC-Given it’s location, I think it would be a good idea. MRS. BARDEN-I think my only concern on that was a system, assuming that this is a seasonal occupancy, that this would be a dormant system for most of the year, and then flooded by eight people. So that’s my only concern, but as designed, and as approved, it’s certainly adequate. MR. SANFORD-Again, you know, it’s the pleasure of the Board. I can poll the Board on it, about whether we want to table this and have him come back with something. My own personal preference is that it’s probably adequate the way it is. It’s going to be seasonal use only? MR. HARRIS-Yes. That’s pretty good sized holding tanks. MR. FORD-Could you define seasonal? 31 (Queensbury Planning Board 6/30/05) MR. HARRIS-The bunkhouse is all seasonal use. The main house has been used year round. MR. FORD-Approximately from what date to what date? MR. HARRIS-To be very honest, that’s changed quite a bit. Because my mother is now living with my sister, and so this is the first time we’ve been up here in a year. In the past we’ve been here more. So I would say you’re talking. MR. FORD-I’m not trying to pin you down specifically, but are you talking April to October, for example? MR. HARRIS-No. Probably I would say May to the end of September. I don’t know. MR. SEGULJIC-But you’re indicating you’re putting oil tanks in the basement, I think. MR. HARRIS-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-So you could very likely use it year round. MR. HARRIS-The apartment is used year round. MR. SEGULJIC-I would think what we want to do is, as part of our conditions, have this septic system verified that it’s functioning properly. MR. SANFORD-And how would we do that? MR. SEGULJIC-You could hire a septic person to inspect it. I’m not sure how, but given its location, I mean, one of the biggest problems out on the lake is faulty septic systems. We have a chance, now, to at least look at one of them. MR. HARRIS-I will say that the septic system is approximately 200 feet from the lake, and it does set back. I understand your concern, and I’m not against doing it. MR. SEGULJIC-The other thing is, I mean, he’s going to be doing some excavating on the site, and I’d like to see some stormwater controls in place during excavation, you know, silt fences, things like that. MR. FORD-That’s a substantial slope. MR. HARRIS-Actually, where it’s located, it silts up from the lake, from where the (lost words) is located. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, to put up some silt fences doesn’t cost a lot of money. To put up some silt fences around the area where you’re excavating and digging this out does not cost. MR. HARRIS-That’s fine. MR. SANFORD-Here’s what I’d like to do with this, Tom. I think these are all good suggestions, and we can discuss them and perhaps put them in our motion. Let’s open up the public hearing now and see if there’s anybody that wants to speak to this, get the benefit of their input, and then continue any conditions for a motion. Okay? MR. SEGULJIC-Sounds good. MR. SANFORD-Okay. 32 (Queensbury Planning Board 6/30/05) MR. FORD-I do want to come back at some point in the future, however, because he mentioned apartment, and that’s year round use. MR. SANFORD-After public hearing, we’ll have some discussion with the applicant, and then we’ll go to our discussion as to preparation for a motion. I’ll open up the public hearing now, and could I ask if there’s anybody from the audience who wishes to speak to this application? Seeing none, I’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. SANFORD-Let’s continue our discussion. MR. SCHACHNER-At some point, I have a comment on the seasonal use issue. MR. SANFORD-Well, make it now. MR. SCHACHNER-I think this is where Mr. Ford is headed, perhaps, but he’s asking about the apartment. This is sort of an example of a way, mindful of some of the comments I made Tuesday about a different aspects, which was economics at the time. This is another example where I think, from our standpoint as Town Counsel, you should be careful not to get into too much inquiry about the particular individual’s usage, seasonal, non-seasonal, and the reason is because, nothing against this particular individual, this individual may say, well, we don’t use it much except for May through October, or they may say we use it all the time, but remember, you’re supposed to make your decisions based on planning and zoning principles, not the particular individual who appears before you as the applicant, and although I’m sure there’s no intention to do this, the property could be sold tomorrow to somebody who’s going to use it every single day of the year. MR. SANFORD-Or he could change his mind. MR. SCHACHNER-Absolutely. So I’m just sort of making an analogy to, it’s an example where the particular individual characteristics of a particular applicant are not really supposed to be the subject of your focus because often, I mean, they can turn around and change it tomorrow. MR. SANFORD-Okay. MR. FORD-Thank you. MR. SANFORD-I think what I’m sensing from the Board is we’re going to want to have some more information regarding the integrity, if you will, for lack of a better word, of the septic system and its ability to be satisfactory, given the possibility of additional usage. Okay. Now, what I think we need to talk about a little bit it just how we go about doing that. What do you suggest, Tom? MR. SEGULJIC-Well, is it possible that we condition the approval, let’s say he gets it inspected, and then he can, as part of getting his building permit, he can submit that, and, based upon that, they grant the building permit. MR. SANFORD-See, I don’t know if an inspector is in a position to give an opinion as to future potential. I think typically in this case what we get is an engineer who provides us with some form of a report. Do we want to go to that kind of a, a certified engineer? 33 (Queensbury Planning Board 6/30/05) MR. HARRIS-The septic system was designed by an engineer. MRS. STEFFAN-Mr. Harris, when was that last septic system put in? MR. HARRIS-2001. MRS. STEFFAN-2001. So that system is four years old. So it met the Code at that time? MR. HARRIS-Yes. MR. SANFORD-But for a 480 square foot structure, not a 760, with expanded bedrooms and that kind of a thing. MR. HARRIS-Correct. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MRS. BARDEN-Can I just interject one thing? I don’t think that there needs to be any kind of additional engineering, or just a septic inspector, even a Code Enforcement Officer from the Town can go out and just take a, observe this system. It shouldn’t be, it’s designed for seven bedrooms. It was installed four years ago. You just want to, you know, make sure that there aren’t any visible signs of any kind of failure. MR. SEGULJIC-That’s something the Code Enforcement Officer can do? MRS. BARDEN-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MRS. BARDEN-And that can be done prior to issuing a building permit. MR. SANFORD-Well, do we have, another suggestion might possibly be, do you have the septic system plans available? Because what we might be able to do, we might be able to forward them to C.T. Male for review and comment. MRS. BARDEN-They’ve been approved by the Town, and they’ve been engineer designed. MR. SANFORD-Yes, but for 480 square foot. What we’re saying is, we’re looking at potentially heavier usage. Maybe C.T. Male, as our Town engineer, could review them, and we condition it on a potential signoff. MRS. BARDEN-I don’t believe that there’s going to be any more usage. It’s designed for seven bedrooms. He’s proposing seven bedrooms. MR. SEGULJIC-Because I guess you installed the septic system and never got around to expanding the house. Is that what happened? MR. SCHACHNER-I don’t know if this will help clear this up or not, Mr. Sanford, but it’s larger, in the sense that there’s more square footage, but the proposal, at least as I understand it, does not include any increased number of bedrooms, and that’s what the septic calculation is based on. MR. SANFORD-Right. Okay. I’m sorry. MRS. BARDEN-So it’s designed for what he’s proposing. 34 (Queensbury Planning Board 6/30/05) MR. FORD-Pursuant to that, the previous approval, just so we’re consistent, that I understand it fully, for septic it was based upon seven bedrooms, and at that time, they did not differentiate whether that was seasonal or year round? MRS. BARDEN-That’s right. MR. FORD-The anticipation is that it would be year round. MRS. BARDEN-They’re all year round, designed all year round, and I think that he designed it in anticipation of building this addition, and then didn’t act on that approval. MR. SEGULJIC-Is that accurate? MR. HARRIS-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. SANFORD-What do you want to do with this? MR. SEGULJIC-There’s a trailer right over the septic system on this drawing. That’s been moved? MR. HARRIS-Yes. MR. GOETZ-I think, Susan, you just suggested just having somebody from the Building and Codes Department go out and take a look. MRS. BARDEN-John O’Brien or Dave Hatin. MR. SANFORD-Does anybody care to make a list of some conditions, and then put together a motion, and if we get a second, we could discuss it further? MRS. STEFFAN-One of the things, I’m not concerned about, I went to visit the site, and the way the slope of the land is, Tom, you mentioned silt fences during construction? MR. SEGULJIC-Right. MRS. STEFFAN-I’m feeling that it’s not going to be an issue because the property slopes. Actually the house is located here, and the property, actually the land in front of it where the infiltrators are, actually comes up and then it slopes down to the lake, and so the only opportunity for anything to run down towards the lake would be the driveway. So it would be unlikely. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, it’s just my opinion that whenever you do any excavation, and you have a dirt pile sitting there, to me it just makes a lot of sense to put some stormwater controls in place, i.e. silt fences. MR. SANFORD-They’re relatively inexpensive. MR. SEGULJIC-They’re relatively inexpensive. MR. SANFORD-Would you be agreeable to that? MR. HARRIS-Yes. I don’t know where to put them. MR. FORD-Between the construction and the residential development. 35 (Queensbury Planning Board 6/30/05) MR. SEGULJIC-You would just put it around your construction area. That way any runoff just all gets contained in that area and there’s no MR. HARRIS-I have no problem doing that. MRS. STEFFAN-And as far as the septic goes, based on a lot of the septics we’ve looked at, this one is four years old. It was built to handle this capacity, and from my understanding, septic tanks under significant use should be pumped out every five years. So this one has not had year round use. MR. SEGULJIC-Even less than five years. Sometimes as much as two years, but the problem is with this septic system is that it gets dosed heavily, and then nothing. Then all of a sudden sixteen people show up, showers, bathroom, everything, and then nothing for a month. That’s the worst thing you can do to a septic system. MR. SANFORD-Okay. So we want to have an inspection to determine the state and integrity of the system. What do we suggest for a practical approach to this? MR. SEGULJIC-The Code Enforcement Officer inspect the system and provide a letter. MR. SANFORD-Okay. So two conditions now, silt fencing for construction phase, and what you just said. Anything else? MR. SEGULJIC-That’s it. MR. SANFORD-Put it together in a motion and let’s go with it. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 35-2005 JOHN HARRIS, Introduced by Thomas Seguljic who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Goetz: WHEREAS, an application has been made to this Board for the following: Site Plan No. 35-2005 Applicant/Property Owner: John Harris SEQR Type II Zone: WR-1A Location: 171 Assembly Point Road Applicant proposes demolition of a 480 sq. ft. portion of an existing structure and reconstruction of a 760 sq. ft. “bunkhouse” addition. Expansion of a non-conforming structure in a C.E.A. requires Site Plan review. Cross Reference: SP 34-01, AV 44-01 Warren Co. Planning: 6/8/05 Tax Map No. 239.7-1-33 Lot size: 0.79 acres / Section: 179-4-020, 179-13-010 Public Hearing: 6/30/05 WHEREAS, the application was received on 5/16/05; and WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation and inclusive of all newly received information, not included in this listing as of 6/24/05, and 6/24 Staff Notes 6/23 Notice of Public Hearing sent 6/2 Meeting Notice sent WHEREAS, pursuant to Art. 9 of the Zoning Ordinance of the Code of the Town of Queensbury a public hearing was advertised and was held on 6/30/05; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the Site Plan application requirements of the Code of the Town Queensbury (Zoning); and 36 (Queensbury Planning Board 6/30/05) WHEREAS, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and WHEREAS, this approval does not relieve the applicant from obtaining all necessary permits whether Federal, State or Local, and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that We find the following: The application is hereby approved in accordance with the resolution prepared by Staff and is subject to the following conditions which shall be listed on the final plans submitted to the Zoning Administrator: 1. The building permit is subject to an inspection of the on site septic system by a local Code Enforcement Officer. 2. The area of excavation and soil storage be provided with stormwater management controls, such as silt fencing. 3. Final approved plans in compliance with this site plan must be submitted to the Community Development Dept. before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building & Codes personnel. Subsequent issuance of further permits; including building permits are dependent on receipt. Duly adopted this 30th day of June, 2005, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Goetz, Mr. Sanford NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Metivier MR. SANFORD-You’re all set. MRS. STEFFAN-Good luck, Mr. Harris SITE PLAN NO. 36-2005 SEQR TYPE II NORTHWAY CHRISTIAN FAMILY CHURCH PROPERTY OWNER: DONNA L. DALY, INC. AGENT: JONATHAN LAPPER; ETHAN HALL ZONE: LI LOCATION: 37 HOMER AVENUE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONVERT AN 8040 SQ. FT. RECREATIONAL USE BUILDING INTO A CHURCH. SITE PLAN REVIEW IS REQUIRED AS THIS IS AN UNLISTED USE IN THE ZONE. CURRENTLY A USE VARIANCE APPLICATION IS UNDER REVIEW BY THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD. CROSS REFERENCE: UV 44-2005, PENDING TAX MAP NO. 302.8-2-5 LOT SIZE: 0.65 ACRES SECTION: 179-4-030 STEPHANIE BITTER & ETHAN HALL, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. SEGULJIC-Good evening. MS. BITTER-Good evening. MS. BITTER-Hi. My name is Stephanie DiLallo Bitter. I’m an attorney for the applicant. I’m here together with Ethan Hall, the project architect, and Pastor John Tether, who’s the applicant. MR. SANFORD-Okay. Could you please take a few minutes and walk us through your proposal. 37 (Queensbury Planning Board 6/30/05) MS. BITTER-Absolutely. I believe you have the Staff notes in front of you. If I could just highlight some of the items that were focused on in those notes. The applicant is the Contract Vendee of this parcel. On June 22, we obtained a Use Variance, by nd unanimous vote, to allow for a place of worship to exist on this parcel. We’re not proposing any exterior changes. We’re utilizing the existing building. We’re going to clean up the landscaping but nothing in particular is being identified at this point. We are proposing to add a wall sign, which is going to identify the name of the Church, which I’ll hand out a copy of the demonstrated wall façade for you. The only item that’s been mentioned in the Staff notes that causes some sort of concern is parking. However, we do have enough spaces, which I’ll let Ethan go into detail to provide for the 16 spaces on the actual lot. Even with the 16 spaces, we’ve reached out to our neighbors, and they’ve agreed to extend us parking during the service hours, specifically with regards to a Child’s World Day Care, which our plan shows has 11 spaces to offer, and the doctor’s office, which is on the other side of the Child’s World, and that’s 25 spaces. MR. SANFORD-So you have how many now, 16? MS. BITTER-We can have 16 on the actual site. MR. SANFORD-So 16, 11, and 25, is 52. MR. SANFORD-You’ve got 80 seats. So if some people ride with others, you’d probably be okay. MR. HALL-Based on the Code requirement we’re required to have for 80 seats, we’re required to have 16 parking spaces. It’s like one for every five. MR. SANFORD-Now, will your neighbors provide us, if we request, something in writing for us, agreeing to provide this shared parking for the Church? MS. BITTER-We do plan on reaching out to them, but due to the fact that it wasn’t required, or a zoning requirement, we haven’t obtained anything in writing at this point. MR. SANFORD-Well, it’s maybe not a zoning, but we look at this stuff on the Planning Board level and we want to make sure that there’s not going to be a problem, and so I’ll talk to the Board about it when the time’s appropriate, but perhaps everybody might feel comfortable with some form of conditioning an approval, if we get there, with something like this provided. MR. SEGULJIC-Clarify for me. How many spaces are available on site? MR. SANFORD-I think Mark Schachner might have something that he’s anxious to say. He’s looking that way. MR. SCHACHNER-Well, only, I was just going to basically back up what you were saying, Mr. Sanford. If you end up deciding that, as a component of the application, that the applicant’s going to be utilizing the neighboring properties for parking, then I would strongly recommend that the applicant produce something in writing from the neighbors authorizing that. MR. SANFORD-Thank you. Continue, please. MR. HALL-As we said, by Code, 16 parking spaces are required. We currently have 13 parking spaces indicated across here, okay. We have not taken into account there is a paved driveway here, which accesses an overhead door. We have not taken into account the fact that there could be at least five parking spaces along that driveway for the Church staff. There is also, as you can see by the property line, this is the line of 38 (Queensbury Planning Board 6/30/05) Homer Avenue. The property line sits inside Homer Avenue, and between the property line and Homer Avenue, there currently exists between 10 and 12 striped parking spaces. They are paved. They are striped. Currently the gymnastics company uses them, the YMCA uses them, and we intend to leave the parking just, the paving and everything, just as it is. So there are currently 10 or 12 parking spaces that we can’t take into account for our parking calculation, but they do exist. MR. SANFORD-We’ll be getting to a public hearing in a little bit, but right now I’ll open it up for Board discussion if anybody has questions for the applicant. MR. SEGULJIC-So you got the Use Variance, then? MS. BITTER-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. FORD-Who owns the property between the street, where those 10 places are? MS. BITTER-I think it’s a right of way. So I believe it’s owned by DOT or the State. MR. FORD-Have you researched and determined that, in fact, there would be no time when you would anticipate the Church being used at a time simultaneous for use with any of the neighbor’s structures? MS. BITTER-I’ll actually turn it over to the Pastor to describe the activities. PASTOR JOHN TETHER PASTOR TETHER-Hi. John Tether, Pastor of Northway Family Christian Church. Yes. I spoke to Michelle Scheffer who directs the Child’s World Day Care, and she said that, you know, children are picked up, you know, it’s a Monday through Friday operation. Children are picked up by six or so. We’re looking at Sunday morning services. So that would not conflict at all. I also spoke to Dr. Bill Tackett of the Chiropractic Center, and he also operates his office hours from, I believe it might be from Monday to Saturday, but definitely not on Sunday. So there was no conflict there at all. MR. GOETZ-What about funerals and things like that, weddings? They wouldn’t be necessarily on those hours. PASTOR TETHERS-That’s true, that’s an excellent point. We’re proposing 80 seats, and so I think that any event, you know, would be no larger than that anyway. So even if that were the case, we’d still be looking at the parking that we have available on our lot, if need be, in those events, but that’s an excellent question, yes. In an event like that, we could schedule availability around, you know, when the parking is available to us, if we needed to do that. MR. SANFORD-Additional questions? I have one. You’re currently planning on keeping the building pretty much the way it is now, I think I heard. No real changes at all. What we’re really talking about is just a change in use. It seems like the parking seems to be the most material issue. If there’s no further discussion among Board members at this time, I’d like to open up the public hearing. Okay. Is there anybody here who would like to comment on this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MRS. STEFFAN-There’s also another doctor’s office, based on the last approval, there’s also now another professional office across the way. 39 (Queensbury Planning Board 6/30/05) MR. SANFORD-Okay. We’ll close the public hearing then. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. SANFORD-And because it’s just a change of use, apparently, there’s no required SEQRA here. It’s a Type II. Any further discussion on the Board, by the Board? I’d be certainly pleased to entertain a motion. I certainly respect what Mr. Schachner said. I think we want to be somewhat specific in terms of what we’re looking for, in terms of agreements between adjoining property owners to provide parking for the Church, so we want to keep it more specific rather than vague, if we go there. Would it be appropriate to identify the parties that you mentioned, and we can request, as a condition of approval, that we receive an agreement where they’re willing to share parking with you, and identify who those property owners are. MS. BITTER-They are William B. Tackett and A Child’s World Day Care. MR. SANFORD-And how many spaces are we dealing with there? MS. BITTER-On the Tackett property is 25 and on A Child’s World is 11. MR. SANFORD-Okay, and those are the two? MS. BITTER-Yes. MR. SANFORD-And then, I thought there might have been another property. MS. BITTER-Well, we’re going to reach out to the property across the street now, too. MR. SANFORD-Okay. So those two plus what we have. MRS. STEFFAN-Right, and then there’s the five spaces on the side of the building that are potentially. MR. SANFORD-So as a condition of potential approval, we would be looking for two agreements? Okay, and any other conditions that the Board feels might be appropriate in this motion? MRS. STEFFAN-Is the signage acceptable? MR. SANFORD-Is your signage as indicated on this picture? I don’t even know, is this name going to appear on the building, and then the crucifix? PASTOR TETHER-That will be installed above the front door. MR. SANFORD-Okay. PASTOR TETHER-Over the main entry. MR. SANFORD-Okay. I don’t have a problem with any of that. PASTOR TETHER-And as depicted, the letters will be applied right to the building, as opposed to a block sign. MR. SANFORD-I’ve got you. MR. FORD-And they’re white on the existing color. 40 (Queensbury Planning Board 6/30/05) PASTOR TETHER-They show up white on that. I believe they’re talking about a blue, a light blue in color. MR. SANFORD-Okay. I’ll entertain a motion. Are you going to do it, Gretchen? MRS. STEFFAN-Sure. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 36-2005 NORTHWAY CHRISTIAN FAMILY CHURCH, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: WHEREAS, an application has been made to this Board for the following: Site Plan No. 36-2005 Applicant: Northway Christian Family Church SEQR Type II Property Owner: Donna L. Daly, Inc. Agent: Jonathan Lapper; Ethan Hall Zone: LI Location: 37 Homer Avenue Applicant proposes to convert an 8040 sq. ft. recreational use building into a church. Site Plan Review is required as this is an unlisted use in the zone. Currently a Use Variance application is under review by the Town of Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals [approved 6/22/05]. Cross Reference: UV 44-2005 Tax Map No. 302.8-2-5 Lot size: 0.65 acres / Section: 179-4-030 Public Hearing: 6/30/05 WHEREAS, the application was received on 5/16/05; and WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation and inclusive of all newly received information, not included in this listing as of 6/24/05; and 6/24 Staff Notes 6/23 Notice of Public Hearing sent 6/22 ZBA resolution 6/2 Meeting Notice sent 5/23 C. Brown from M. Shaw Deputy Director Wastewater WHEREAS, pursuant to Art. 9 of the Zoning Ordinance of the Code of the Town of Queensbury a public hearing was advertised and was held on 6/30/05; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the Site Plan application requirements of the Code of the Town Queensbury (Zoning); and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and WHEREAS, this approval does not relieve the applicant from obtaining all necessary permits whether Federal, State or Local, and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that We find the following: The application is hereby approved in accordance with the resolution prepared by Staff and is subject to the following conditions which shall be listed on the final plans submitted to the Zoning Administrator: 41 (Queensbury Planning Board 6/30/05) 1. The applicant must provide written authorization from William B. Tackett Chiropractic for 25 parking spaces and Child World Day Care for 11 parking spaces and that is for permission to utilize their parking facilities. 2. That events held other than on Saturday and Sunday would be limited to the existing on site parking. 3. Final approved plans in compliance with site plan must be submitted to the Community Development Dept. before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building & Codes personnel. Subsequent issuance of further permits; including building permits are dependent on receipt. Duly adopted this 30th day of June, 2005, by the following vote: MRS. STEFFAN-With the condition that the applicant provide written authorization from William B. Tackett Chiropractic for 25 parking spaces and A Child’s World Day Care for 11 spaces and that is for permission to utilize their parking facilities. MR. SANFORD-Is that satisfactory? MS. BITTER-Right. Just that we both understand we’re talking about Sundays, the weekend hours. MR. SANFORD-Okay. I do appreciate Mr. Goetz’s comment, though, that churches occasionally do utilize their facility for funerals and weddings and things of that nature, other than on Saturdays and Sundays, but I’m not sure, is there a practical way to address those occasions where you may? MS. BITTER-That we will obviously, and we will try and incorporate that, if there’s an opportunity in which there’s an event that we could reach out to the neighbors. We’re obviously going to be limited to the parking spaces we have to hold events at the Church. So we’ll take those into consideration. MR. SANFORD-She could add a condition there that events held other than on Saturday and Sunday would be limited to the existing on site parking, and you’re agreeable to that, and I think that’s probably a safe thing to do. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. AYES: Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Goetz, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Sanford NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Metivier MS. BITTER-Thank you very much. PASTOR TETHER-Thank you. MR. SANFORD-You’re welcome. MRS. STEFFAN-Good luck. SUBDIVISION NO. 11-2005 PRELIMINARY & FINAL STAGE SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED RUTH KOUBA ZONE: SFR-1A LOCATION: 165 MONTRAY ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES A (2) LOT RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION TO CREATE LOTS OF 0.30 ACRES AND 0.37 ACRES. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 45-2005 42 (Queensbury Planning Board 6/30/05) PENDING TAX MAP NO. 296.13-1-57 LOT SIZE: 0.61 ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS RUTH KOUBA, PRESENT MR. SANFORD-Good evening, and if you could please identify yourself for the record. MRS. KOUBA-Thank you. Good evening. I’m Ruth Kouba. I live at 165 Montray Road in Queensbury. I’ve been in Queensbury now since December of 1974 and consider it home, except for a few years that I spent in Maine. MR. SANFORD-Okay, and could you take a minute and just merely explain what you’re looking to do here with your property. MRS. KOUBA-I would like to take my home now and sell it, and build a one level home on the lot right next to it. This way I’ll have a garage all on one floor, and right now I’m taking care of two driveways, because my garage is down underneath the house, and I’m getting older. I’m 67 and I’m finding in the wintertime the snow’s a little bit tough to deal with. So between the garage, having my laundry on the first floor, and also I, when I moved in there, I had hopes of putting in a shower, and I’m finding that all the things that I planned on doing when I moved in there, it’s like building a new home. It’s very costly. So I’ve been there a little over two years, and every time I look out my kitchen window, I think, gee, it would be nice if I could build a home right out there in that lot, and that’s what I came here tonight hoping that I’ll get approval for. MR. SANFORD-Okay. Staff comments please. MRS. BARDEN-A variance was granted on June 15, 2005 for minimum lot size and minimum lot width for each of the two lots, and SEQRA is Type II. MR. SANFORD-That’s what’s throwing me off a little bit. It says Single Family Residential One Acre, but it has apparently a history where it was nonconforming, and so I guess I’m trying to get a history of this. It’s about two-thirds of an acre right now, and they’re looking to basically go into one-third and one-third. Have these, what’s the history on these subdivisions of the two-third acre? Is there any history that we need to know at this point? I thought somebody just said that it was approved, previously approved. MR. SCHACHNER-The Zoning Board of Appeals approved the variance that’s necessary because the lot already being substandard, the two newly created lots, if they’re approved, and whether they’re approved is up to you, would be substandard, certainly in area and I believe in width as well. So the Zoning Board of Appeals authorized those variances. That does not create the subdivision or authorize the subdivision. That’s up to this Board whether you want to do that. MR. SANFORD-Okay. MRS. BARDEN-It’s one acre zoning, minimum. MR. FORD-And the variance allowed? MR. SCHACHNER-The variance authorizes the creation of the two substandard lots, if approved by this Board, they’d be substandard both in lot size. As Rich mentioned, they’re approximately a third of an acre each, and one acre, as Susan said, is the minimum lot size. They’re also both, I believe, substandard in width as well, and the variance would authorize that as well, but the variances only authorize the creation of the lots, subject to this Board approving a subdivision. 43 (Queensbury Planning Board 6/30/05) MR. SANFORD-I’ve got you. MRS. BARDEN-The resolution from that variance is, that meeting, is in your packet. MR. SANFORD-Yes, I see it. MRS. BARDEN-Okay. MR. SANFORD-Okay. It’s kind of peculiar to me in this regard, because if the lot was smaller than what was deemed to be appropriate for the zone, and now the ZBA feels it’s appropriate to make them even smaller, that’s their call, as I see it. MRS. KOUBA-I think because all the homes that are in that area are pretty much established, and a lot of the lots, in fact, I hope in your packet I gave you a sheet showing a lot of the homes in that area, and a lot of the lots are even longer, or, I’m sorry, smaller. MR. SANFORD-Well, I think it’s pretty clear what you’re looking for, now. Let me take a look here. I think we have a public hearing. Let me first ask this Board if they have any questions for the applicant. MR. FORD-I’ll hold until after the public hearing. MR. SANFORD-Gretchen, any questions right now? MRS. STEFFAN-No, not right now. MR. SANFORD-Okay. Let me open the public hearing, please, and see if there’s anybody here who wishes to comment on this application. Could you please give up the table for a minute while we hear from the public. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED EARL MILESON MR. MILESON-My name is Earl Mileson. I live at Number 10 Twicwood Lane. Twicwood Lane is directly across the street from this property that we’re talking about. I go by this property every day, several times, and I would like to say that the home that Ruth is now in, she’s improved tremendously from an outside appearance standpoint, and I’m very sure that the changes that she would make to the adjacent property, providing it went into two properties, she will make that look every bit as good as any house in the area, and adjacent to the property, there are many, many homes that have a lot less than the property size that she’s asking you for. MR. SANFORD-I’m pretty familiar with that area from years back. Thank you very much, sir. Anybody else wish to comment on this application? CHARLES MC NULTY MR. MC NULTY-Charles McNulty. I live at 14 Twicwood Lane, also on the Zoning Board. To give you a little bit of my thoughts on the Zoning Board, and I voted for this, I won’t purport to represent the entire Zoning Board, because I don’t have their agreement with it, but from my point of view, as has been mentioned, this SFR-1A zone includes all of Twicwood, and goes down, I believe, almost to Sweet Road, and there are some fairly large lots in the southern portion of the zone, but when you look at the zoning map, your first reaction is why did they ever zone it that way. The average lot in the Twicwood area is probably 100 by 150. I own two of them, and both my lots are that size. So they’re about a third acre. What’s being proposed will really create two lots 44 (Queensbury Planning Board 6/30/05) that are approximately what already exists in the rest of the area, both up in the Twicwood area and across the street from the proposal in that whole general area. So it’s consistent with what’s there, even though it’s not consistent with, you know, what the zoning is. There were a couple of our members that voted against it, I believe just on the general principle that it was a fairly severe change from what it’s zoned for versus what’s being requested, but what’s being proposed is typical for the area, and I personally can’t see any reason to deny it on that basis. If this were lakefront, or there were some other environmental conditions there that says really we need to have larger lots and fewer houses, then I could see the point in denying the application, but in this case I can’t see any reason to push for a larger lot. MR. SANFORD-Thank you very much. Any additional? I guess I’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. SANFORD-Further discussion? MR. SEGULJIC-I’m okay with it. MR. SANFORD-It seems like your neighbors like you quite a bit, and they seem to be in support of this. MRS. KOUBA-I like my neighbors, and that’s why I would like to stay right where I am. MRS. BARDEN-I’m sorry. I misspoke when I said it was a SEQRA Type II. It’s actually an Unlisted. There’s a Long Form. MR. SANFORD-There’s a Long Form. MRS. BARDEN-I’m sorry about that. MR. SANFORD-I’m sorry. We have to do a SEQRA first. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 11-2005, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Richard Sanford: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: RUTH KOUBA, and WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. No Federal agency appears to be involved. 2. The following agencies are involved: NONE 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury. 45 (Queensbury Planning Board 6/30/05) 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant. 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law. Duly adopted this 30 day of June, 2005, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Seguljic, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Sanford NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Goetz MR. SANFORD-Okay. Now, I’ll entertain a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 11-2005 RUTH KOUBA, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Richard Sanford: WHEREAS, an application has been make to this board for the following: Subdivision No. 11-2005 Applicant/Property Owner: Ruth Kouba Preliminary & Final Stage Zone: SFR-1A SEQR Type: Unlisted Location: 165 Montray Road Applicant proposes a two (2) lot residential subdivision to create lots of 0.30 acres and 0.37 acres. Cross Reference: AV 45-2005 [approved 6/22/05] Tax Map No. 296.13-1-57 Lot size: 0.61 acres / Section: Subdivision Regulations Public Hearing: 6/30/05 WHEREAS, the application was received in 5/17/05, and WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation, and inclusive of all newly received information, not included is this listing as of 6/24/05, and 6/30 Staff Notes 6/23 Notice of Public Hearing 6/15 ZBA resolution 6/2 Meeting Notice WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter A183, Subdivision of Land, Section A183-9J and A183- 10C, D of the Code of the Town of Queensbury a public hearing was advertised and was held on 6/30/05; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the Subdivision application requirements of the Code of the Town Queensbury (Zoning); and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and 46 (Queensbury Planning Board 6/30/05) WHEREAS, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; and/or if application is a modification, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered; and the proposed modification(s) do not result in any new or significantly different environmental impacts, and, therefore, no further SEQRA review is necessary; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that We find the following: The application for Preliminary Stage is hereby approved in accordance with the resolution prepared by Staff. Duly adopted this 30th day of June, 2005, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Ford, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Sanford NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Goetz MR. SANFORD-Now we move on to Final Stage. MOTION TO APPROVE FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 11-2005 RUTH KOUBA, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Richard Sanford: WHEREAS, an application has been make to this board for the following: Subdivision No. 11-2005 Applicant/Property Owner: Ruth Kouba Preliminary & Final Stage Zone: SFR-1A SEQR Type: Unlisted Location: 165 Montray Road Applicant proposes a two (2) lot residential subdivision to create lots of 0.30 acres and 0.37 acres. Cross Reference: AV 45-2005 [approved 6/22/05] Tax Map No. 296.13-1-57 Lot size: 0.61 acres / Section: Subdivision Regulations Public Hearing: 6/30/05 WHEREAS, the application was received in 5/17/05, and WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation, and inclusive of all newly received information, not included is this listing as of 6/24/05, and 6/30 Staff Notes 6/23 Notice of Public Hearing 6/15 ZBA resolution 6/2 Meeting Notice WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter A183, Subdivision of Land, Section A183-9J and A183- 10C, D of the Code of the Town of Queensbury a public hearing was advertised and was held on 6/30/05; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the Subdivision application requirements of the Code of the Town Queensbury (Zoning); and 47 (Queensbury Planning Board 6/30/05) WHEREAS, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and WHEREAS, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; and/or if application is a modification, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered; and the proposed modification(s) do not result in any new or significantly different environmental impacts, and, therefore, no further SEQRA review is necessary; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that We find the following: The application for Final Stage is hereby approved and is subject to the following conditions which shall be listed on the final plat submitted for Planning Board Chairman’s signature and filing: 1. To waive the public hearing. 2. Recreation Fees in the amount of $500.00 per lot are applicable to this subdivision. 3. Waiver request(s) are granted: [Sketch plan, Stormwater, Grading and Landscaping Plan] 4. No-Cut Buffer areas shall be field located by surveyor and flagged in a color that is different from boundary markers. 5. All necessary outside agency approvals have been received by the applicant, with a copy sent to and received by Planning Department Staff within 180 days. 6. The plat must be filed with the County Clerk within 60 days of receipt by Planning Department Staff of outside agency approvals noted. 7. Final approved plans in compliance with this subdivision must be submitted to the Community Development Dept. before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building & Codes personnel. Subsequent issuance of further permits; including building permits are dependent on receipt. Duly adopted this 30th day of June, 2005, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Ford, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Sanford NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Goetz MR. SANFORD-You’re all set. MRS. KOUBA-Thank you. Thank you all very much. MR. SANFORD-I don’t believe we have any other miscellaneous information in front of us, except Mark has something to say. MR. SCHACHNER-I just have a question, on the Northway Christian Family Church approval, did you end up, as a condition, requiring written confirmation of the use of the neighboring parking properties? MR. FORD-Yes. 48 (Queensbury Planning Board 6/30/05) MR. SANFORD-Yes. MR. SCHACHNER-Okay. That’s what I thought. MRS. BARDEN-I just have one quick housekeeping thing, from Marilyn. The Zoning Board has indicated that they want everything e-mailed. Do you want hardcopies of minutes or e-mailed attachments, both? MR. SEGULJIC-E-mail is good. MR. SANFORD-You’re talking just the minutes? MRS. BARDEN-Yes, Planning Board minutes. MR. SANFORD-Yes. I’m fine with e-mail, but I’m not sure how everybody is in terms of their computers and how often they use them. So any member wants to request hardcopy, I certainly think they should be provided. MRS. BARDEN-Sure. MRS. STEFFAN-I’d rather have a hardcopy, just because of the amount of space that they take up in your e-mail server. MRS. BARDEN-Okay. Well, we’ll just keep it the way it is, and the other question is, do you want copies of the PORC minutes as well as Zoning Board minutes. MR. SANFORD-I frequently go to the Town website, and there the minutes are posted. Are they posted after we review and approve, or are, probably they are, so we couldn’t just get them there. Because they’re not approved. MRS. BARDEN-That’s right. MR. SANFORD-I see what you’re saying. So I now appreciate what Gretchen’s saying. It’s a big file. It’s a big e-mail file. Let’s leave it e-mail unless requested otherwise, and that way, Gretchen has requested otherwise. I’ll see how it works for me. I may request otherwise, too. MR. FORD-I feel the same way. I’ll try it this way, e-mail. MR. SANFORD-We’ll try it the e-mail, and then if I can’t hack it. MRS. BARDEN-Then I’ll send them out, and PORC minutes, ZBA minutes, interested? MR. SANFORD-We get those in hardcopy now, and you’re saying, would it be appropriate for us to get those e-mailed. MRS. BARDEN-E-mailed or accessed off the Intranet. MR. SANFORD-My own opinion on that is that that would be fine, again, with the same provision that if for some reason a person requests hardcopy, that they not be refused. I don’t know how everybody else feels about it. MR. SEGULJIC-I’d prefer e-mail. It would be a lot easier to file. MRS. BARDEN-One last thing, and I’m sorry. Because of the Intermunicipal cooperation between the Town and City, we get a copy of their agenda for their Zoning Board/Planning Board meetings. There is a project that’s on Dix Avenue, right at the 49 (Queensbury Planning Board 6/30/05) boundary between the Town and the City, and it’s for, it’s a bank and a shopping center and self-storage. So it’s a pretty big project on four acres, and would anybody like to review that? MRS. STEFFAN-Yes, that’s the Monty Liu project? MRS. BARDEN-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-I think you volunteered. MRS. BARDEN-It’s only for consistency with our zoning, and it’s not. It’s not for specifics of site plan. You wouldn’t go through our list of things. It’s really just, is this something that if it was located in Queensbury would we, are there any impacts on traffic or larger impacts for the Town? MR. SANFORD-The only role we would have in something like this, I guess, would be if we cared to show up at one of their public hearings. I mean, we don’t have much of an interface with them. MR. SCHACHNER-Or you could send a letter, or you could send a resolution, but your input would be purely advisory, and you have no obligation to render any input, but if you wish, you have the opportunity to render what would be purely advisory input, and you could do that by resolution in a motion. You could do it by sending a letter. You could do it by showing up. MR. SANFORD-So what are you saying? Do we want to get copies of this stuff? MRS. BARDEN-I’m asking somebody to look at this and do a consistency review. MRS. STEFFAN-What’s the deadline? MRS. BARDEN-Well, actually the meeting is next Tuesday. MR. SCHACHNER-That’s a problem, because the Board can’t act before next Tuesday, because the Board’s not meeting. That’s why I’m confused by what you’re asking. In order for somebody to express a view of the Queensbury Planning Board, the Queensbury Planning Board has to adopt a resolution. MRS. STEFFAN-I have company for the weekend. MR. FORD-We can’t have a person acting as an individual representative of the group. MRS. BARDEN-Well, you’re all off the hook. MR. SANFORD-We’re off the hook. Okay. I’m going to make a motion to adjourn the meeting. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Richard Sanford, Acting Chairman 50