Loading...
2003-05-20 Queensbury Planning Board 5/20/03) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING MAY 20, 2003 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT CRAIG MAC EWAN, CHAIRMAN CATHERINE LA BOMBARD, SECRETARY JOHN STROUGH ANTHONY METIVIER CHRIS HUNSINGER LARRY RINGER RICHARD SANFORD, ALTERNATE PLANNER-GEORGE HILTON TOWN COUNSEL-MILLER, MANNIX, SCHACHNER & HAFNER-MARK SCHACHNER STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. MAC EWAN-The first order of business is approval of the minutes for March 18 and th March 25. Would someone introduce a motion, please. th MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF MARCH 18, 2003 & MARCH 25, 2003, Introduced by Anthony Metivier who moved for its adoption, seconded by Richard Sanford: Duly adopted this 20 day of May, 2003, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Sanford, Mr. Strough, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Ringer, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. LaBombard EXTENSION REQUEST: FRESHWATER WETLANDS PERMIT – FW1-2002 & SITE PLAN NO. 30-2002 GIRL SCOUTS OF THE ADIRONDACK COUNCIL ORIGINAL APPROVAL: AUGUST 20, 2002 APPLICANT REQUESTING A ONE YEAR EXTENSION – SEE LETTER DATED 4/22/02 FROM J. LAPPER. STEPHANIE FITTER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MS. FITTER-Good evening. My name’s Stephanie Fitter. I’m here on behalf of Jonathan Lapper. I’m an associate of his, for the Girl Scouts of the Adirondack Council, requesting the extension. As you’re aware, we’re expanding the existing structure. We’re successfully involved in a contribution campaign, a fundraising campaign. We’re expected to be in the ground by next spring. We’re just hoping to get this one year extension. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Any questions, comments? MR. SANFORD-None at all. MR. MAC EWAN-Does someone want to move it? 1 Queensbury Planning Board 5/20/03) MR. STROUGH-I’ll make a motion to grant a one year extension for Freshwater Wetlands Permit No. 1-2002 and Site Plan No. 3-2002. Until August 30, 2004, per letter dated 4/22/03 from Jonathan Lapper. MR. MAC EWAN-Would someone second that, please. MR. METIVIER-I’ll second it. MR. RINGER-Before you take the vote on that, would you mind doing that in two motions, one for the Freshwater and one for the Site Plan? We approved them that way. MR. STROUGH-Well, the motion prepared by Staff has them together, Larry. MR. RINGER-Okay, but I’m asking that we do them in two separate motions. MR. MAC EWAN-Is there a problem if we bunch them together? MR. RINGER-Well, it’s just I feel I would vote differently on one than I would on the other. MR. STROUGH-Okay. Well, I’ll do that, Larry. MR. SCHACHNER-It’s a reasonable request. MR. STROUGH-All right. MOTION TO GRANT A ONE YEAR EXTENSION FOR FRESHWATER WETLANDS PERMIT FW 1-2002 GIRL SCOUTS OF THE ADIRONDACK COUNCIL, Introduced by John Strough who moved for its adoption, seconded by Richard Sanford: Until August 30, 2004 per letter dated 4/22 from Jonathan Lapper. Duly adopted this 20 day of May, 2003, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Sanford, Mr. Strough, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. MacEwan NOES: Mr. Ringer ABSENT: Mrs. LaBombard MR. MAC EWAN-The second one, John. MOTION TO GRANT A ONE YEAR EXTENSION FOR SITE PLAN NO. 30-2002 GIRL SCOUTS OF THE ADIRONDACK COUNCIL, Introduced by John Strough who moved for its adoption, seconded by Richard Sanford: To August 30, 2004, per letter dated 4/22/03 from Jonathan Lapper. Duly adopted this 20 day of May, 2003, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Sanford, Mr. Strough, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Ringer, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. LaBombard MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set. MS. FITTER-Thank you. 2 Queensbury Planning Board 5/20/03) MR. MAC EWAN-You’re welcome. SITE PLAN NO. 22-2002 JOSEPH STRAUSS ORIGINAL APPROVAL: MAY 16, 2003 APPLICANT REQUESTING A ONE YEAR EXTENSION – SEE LETTER DATED 5/14/03 FROM J. STRAUSS. MR. MAC EWAN-Anyone here representing the applicant? Any discussions? Does someone want to move it? MOTION TO APPROVE EXTENSION REQUEST FOR SITE PLAN 22-2002 JOE STRAUSS, Introduced by John Strough who moved for its adoption, seconded by Anthony Metivier: Originally approved May 16, 2002, to May 31, 2004. Duly adopted this 20 day of May, 2003, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Metivier, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Strough, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. LaBombard EXPEDITED REVIEW: SUBDIVISION NO. 7-2001 PREVIOUS SEQRA MODIFICATION DKC HOLDINGS ZONE: SFR-20 LOCATION: SOUTH SIDE SHERMAN AVE., EAST OF SMOKE RIDGE RD. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO MODIFY A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED SUBDIVISION. MODIFICATION OF PREVIOUSLY APPROVED SUBDIVISIONS REQUIRES REVIEW AND APPROVAL FROM THE PLANNING BOARD. TAX MAP NO. 93-2-20.1 MATT STEVES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. STEVES-Good evening. Matt Steves from VanDusen and Steves, representing DKC Holdings, Inc. on this application. This is part of the Burnt Hill subdivision between Lots 11, 12, and 13. Modification to the lot line between those three parcels is depicted on the cross hatched area on the map. Lot 11 is (lost words) foundation (lost words) as much distance northerly from that buffer zone that was required along the Niagara Mohawk right of way. We got a little close to the northerly line. We wanted to adjust that line as shown, and while we’re doing that, the land of (lost word) that was currently built by DKC, Clute Enterprises, the house there, is to extend that line southerly to take that pie shaped piece out and square off this property. MR. MAC EWAN-Questions, comments from Board members? Does someone want to move it? MOTION TO APPROVE MODIFICATION TO SUBDIVISION NO. 7-2001 DKC HOLDINGS, Introduced by Larry Ringer who moved for its adoption, seconded by Anthony Metivier: WHEREAS, an application has been make to this board for the following: Subdivision No. 7-2001 Applicant / Property Owner: DKC Holdings Previous SEQRA Zone: SFR-20 MODIFICATION Location: South side Sherman Ave., east of Smoke Ridge Road Applicant proposes to modify a previously approved subdivision. Modification of previously approved subdivisions requires review and approval from the Planning Board. Tax Map No. 93-2-20.1 Public Hearing: Not required for Modification 3 Queensbury Planning Board 5/20/03) WHEREAS, the application was received 4/15/03, and WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation, and inclusive of all newly received information, not included is this listing as of 5/16/03, and 5/20 Staff Notes 5/7 Meeting Notice WHEREAS, a public hearing is not required for a modification, and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the Subdivision 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 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT, RESOLVED, that We find the following: The application for Modification is hereby granted and is subject to the following conditions: 1. The plat must be filed with the County Clerk within 60 days of receipt by Planning Department Staff of outside agency approvals noted. Duly adopted this 20th day of May 2003 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Metivier, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Strough, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. LaBombard MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set. MR. STEVES-Thank you. SITE PLAN NO. 24-2003 SEQRA TYPE II CHRIS MACKEY AGENT: DENNIS MAC ELROY, EDP ZONE: WR-3A LOCATION: 15 WILD TURKEY LANE APPLICANT PROPOSES ADDITION OF COVERED BOATHOUSE. BOATHOUSES IN THE WR-1A ZONE REQUIRE SITE PLAN REVIEW AND APPROVAL FROM THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 78-99, SP 46-99, AV 4-03, AV 5-03 APA, CEA WARREN CO. PLANNING: 5/14/03 TAX MAP NO. 239.15-1-6 LOT SIZE: 1.31 ACRES/SECTION: 179-4- 020 DENNIS MAC ELROY, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. MAC EWAN-Staff notes. STAFF INPUT 4 Queensbury Planning Board 5/20/03) Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 24-2003, Chris Mackey, Meeting Date, May 20, 2003 “APPLICATION: Site Plan 24 – 2003 APPLICANT: Chris Mackey is the applicant for this request REQUESTED ACTION: Applicant is seeking Site Plan Approval from the Planning Board to allow the construction of a covered boathouse. LOCATION: The subject property is located at 15 Wild Turkey Lane, just to the north of Route 9L, west of Bay Rd. EXISTING ZONING: The property is zoned WR-3A, Waterfront Residential Three Acre. SEQRA STATUS: The requested action is a SEQRA Type II action. No further action is required. PARCEL HISTORY: A review of Town records found no prior Planning or Zoning actions involving this property. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant proposes to construct a boathouse by constructing a roof over an existing “F” shaped dock. The proposed meets the dimensional requirements for boathouses as well as the setbacks for the WR-3A zoning district. The applicant’s request qualifies as an expedited review item. STAFF COMMENTS: The applicant has requested waivers from the following Site Plan Requirements: Stormwater Management Plan - Grading Plan - Lighting Plan - Landscaping Plan - Staff recommends that prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant submit a copy of the required Lake George Park Commission (LGPC) dock permit.” MR. HILTON-This application proposes to construct a covered boathouse, and the applicant, Chris Mackey, proposes that construction would take place over an existing F-Shaped dock. The applicant has requested waivers from a number of items, stormwater management plan, grading plan, lighting plan and landscaping plan. Staff has no comments other than recommends that prior to the issuance of a building permit that a copy of the required Lake George Park Commission dock permit be provided, and that’s all we have. MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening. MR. MAC ELROY-Good evening. Dennis MacElroy from Environmental Design, representing Chris Mackey on this application for the addition of a roof structure over his F-Shaped dock. MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it? John, we’ll start with you. Any questions? MR. STROUGH-Nothing at the moment. MR. MAC EWAN-Rich? MR. SANFORD-Nothing. MR. MAC EWAN-Cathy? MRS. LA BOMBARD-No. 5 Queensbury Planning Board 5/20/03) MR. MAC EWAN-Larry? MR. RINGER-Nothing. MR. MAC EWAN-Chris? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. MAC EWAN-Tony? MR. METIVIER-No. MR. MAC EWAN-I’ll open up the public hearing. Does anyone want to comment on this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MAC EWAN-Any final questions or comments? Does someone want to introduce the resolution? MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 24-2003 CHRIS MACKEY, Introduced by Larry Ringer who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Strough: WHEREAS, an application has been make to this board for the following: Site Plan No. 24-2003 Applicant/Property Owner: Chris Mackey SEQRA Type II Agent: Dennis MacElroy, EDP Zone: WR-1A Location: 15 Wild Turkey Lane Applicant proposes addition of covered boathouse. Boathouses in the WR-1A zone require Site Plan Review and approval from the Planning Board. Cross Reference: APA, CEA Warren Co. Planning: 5/14/03 Tax Map No. 239.15-1-6 Lot size: 1.31 acres / Section: 179-4-020 Public Hearing: May 20, 2003 WHEREAS, the application was received 4/15/03, and WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation, and inclusive of all newly received information, not included is this listing as of 5/16/03, and 5/20 Staff Notes 5/14 Warren Co. PB recommendation: 5/12 Notice of Public Hearing 5/7 Meeting Notice WHEREAS, the Zoning Administrator has identified this application as eligible for inclusion in the expedited review process and has placed the same on this Planning Board agenda as such and, 6 Queensbury Planning Board 5/20/03) WHEREAS, The Planning Board hereby confirms that this project is acceptable for expedited review and, WHEREAS, a public hearing has been conducted and the public in attendance and the Board members in attendance have been polled regarding this matter and, WHEREAS, the application has been found to be in compliance with the required SEQRA regulations, pursuant to 6 NYCRR Part 617 and, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT, RESOLVED, that WHEREAS, the following conditions of approval have been discussed and agreed upon; 1. That prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant must submit a copy of the required Lake George Park Commission dock permit. 2. Waiver requests granted: Stormwater Man., Grading, Lighting & Landscaping Plan. Duly adopted this 20th day of May, 2003, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Strough, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Sanford, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mrs. LaBombard MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set, Dennis. MR. MAC ELROY-Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Is there someone here representing the Suttons application? Skip it and go on to the Smith application. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. OLD BUSINESS: SPECIAL USE PERMIT SUP 1-2002 TYPE: UNLISTED HAROLD & ELEANOR SMITH PROPERTY OWNER: SAME ZONE: WR-1A/LOCATION: 43 HANNEFORD ROAD APPLICANT SEEKS TO ESTABLISH A MARINA INVOLVING THE RENTAL OF 8 BOAT SLIPS AND ASSOCIATED SITE AMENITIES. MARINAS REQUIRE THE ISSUANCE OF A SPECIAL USE PERMIT BY THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 52-93, AV 27-94, SP 21-94, SP 38-94, AV 31-99 LGPC, APA, CEA WARREN CO. PLANNING: 6/12/02 TAX MAP NO. 240.6-1-11 LOT SIZE: 0.40 ACRES SECTION: 179-10 HAROLD & ELEANOR SMITH, PRESENT MRS. LA BOMBARD-And there have been three public hearings that have been tabled, and it’s still open tonight. MR. MAC EWAN-Staff notes. MR. HILTON-Okay. As a follow up to the Town Board amending the Town Codes, specifically the Zoning Ordinance in regards to the Special Use permits, the applicants have provided additional information. Just to back up, there’s a new Section in the Ordinance, 179-10-035, that outlines the criteria for granting pre-existing, nonconforming Special Use Permits for previously 7 Queensbury Planning Board 5/20/03) existing marinas. Both applicants, the Smiths and the Hoppers, have submitted information in support. I understand it’s their intent to try to be considered or to seek Planning Board approval for such a pre-existing, nonconforming Special Use Permit. In the case of the, in both cases, the applicants have provided prior Lake George Park Commission Wharf Registrations. In the case of the Smiths, they have, I believe, a notarized letter dating back to, or indicating that docks were rented at this location back to the mid 80’s. In the case of the Hoppers there are notarized documents indicating that docks were used for rental as far back as the 60’s. I think in my notes I’ve outlined what information has been provided. If the Board finds that there’s substantial information to support granting a prior, pre-existing, nonconforming Special Use Permit. You have the ability to do that and exempt these two applications from a comprehensive review. That’s all I have at this time. MR. MAC EWAN-Rich, I’ll start with you. MR. SANFORD-Yes. I don’t know if this is more for George or for you as the applicants, but I might as well start and he can fill in. I’ve read through it, and I’ve got to admit was a little confused. Maybe I should have spent more time with it, but I do know where there’s, in my mind, you do a very nice job in establishing that four of these slips have a documented use by way of the permits that were issued. One, I guess, was noncommercial then three were commercial, or something along those lines, but in here you’re looking for eight slips, and I was wondering what the history is of those other four that I didn’t, and maybe I missed it, but I didn’t see a whole lot of documentation on those other four slips. MR. SMITH-It’s not the slips. It’s dock. Each dock has two slips. MR. SANFORD-Okay. Each dock has two slips. Okay. So I see what you’re saying, two boats, one on each side of the dock. MR. SMITH-Correct. MR. SANFORD-Okay. I just wanted clarification there. That’s all I have, Craig. MR. MAC EWAN-Cathy? MRS. LA BOMBARD-I want to just listen for a while. MR. MAC EWAN-Larry? MR. RINGER-I have nothing to add on this at all. MR. MAC EWAN-Chris? MR. HUNSINGER-I really had a couple of questions. The first one, in the cover letter dated April 14, signed by the Smiths, it makes a comment that, as you are aware, the Lake George th Park Commission has documentation showing that our four docks were constructed in 1979. Is that documentation in the file? Because I didn’t know what I was supposed to be looking for, but I didn’t see what I considered to be documentation. MR. SMITH-There should be permit documentation in there, from when Red Johnson did it, turned it in. MR. HUNSINGER-I saw a permit dated 1982. MRS. SMITH-Yes, and we sent all that. MR. RINGER-It could be in the old stuff that we got with the original application. Because they had submitted a lot of stuff with that. 8 Queensbury Planning Board 5/20/03) MR. SMITH-What date do you have, Chris? MR. HUNSINGER-Well, there’s a DEC document that was signed by Irwin Johnson, 12/12/81. MR. SMITH-’81, okay. That is correct. MR. HUNSINGER-Is that the document that you’re referring to in the cover letter? MR. SMITH-I believe so. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay, and then I guess the other question that I had, I guess it was really more of a comment, and it pertains more to Staff notes, and it says that there’s notarized letter stating that the docks were rented from the mid 1980’s to the early 1990’s. I really didn’t see what that had to do with the permitting procedures. You know, if the argument is that they’re grandfathered because the docks were constructed based on the permitting procedures that were in place prior to 1982, I guess I didn’t really see the relevance to that. That’s sort of a side note. MR. HILTON-That’s certainly part of it. I think the other section, item two, in 179-10-035, says that, states that in order to be considered for such a pre-existing nonconforming permit, you have to demonstrate that these docks have been used as a marina as far back as 1981 I believe. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. HILTON-And this is I believe, I don’t want to speak for the applicant, they’re providing information to support their case that they’ve been used for rental. MR. HUNSINGER-Right, they’re making both claims. MR. HILTON-I believe they’re trying to. MR. HUNSINGER-Exactly. MR. SANFORD-But do they go to ’81, I mean, just to beg the, do they go to ’82? I mean, you know, this ’81 date, I’m kind of scratching my head and wondering what’s magic about it, but do they go all the way to ’81, or do they start in the mid 80’s or ’82 or something along those lines? MR. HILTON-When you say “they”? MR. SANFORD-The docks, in terms of documenting their use in a commercial. MRS. SMITH-The docks were built in ’79. The application was made in ’81 by Mr. Johnson who we believe is in a nursing home, and Mr. Batease, who notarized his letter, said that the prior owner showed them papers to indicate that this was done from the ‘70’s, until they purchased the property. MR. SMITH-The magic number of ’81 is when the Lake George Park Commission required that docks be set up as commercial. MR. SANFORD-So that’s why you. MR. SMITH-That’s why we’re going back to the ’81. Correct. MR. SANFORD-Okay. I understand. MR. HILTON-Does that answer your question? Again, I mean, in the Staff notes and in the file we have. 9 Queensbury Planning Board 5/20/03) MR. SANFORD-Well, yes, I mean, it’s not a question as much, I mean, for this particular application, but I’m wondering, you know, the criteria for this, ’81 was apparently a date that was selected by somebody, Craig Brown, I don’t know who came up with ’81. MR. HILTON-I think there was a lot of discussion based on, and I’m not sure the agency, but either the Lake George Park Commission or the DEC in 1981 began requiring registration for marinas and commercial docks. MR. SANFORD-Yes, and we’ve tended to adopt that. I guess what I’m wondering is, you know, say somebody in 1983 began doing it, and did it continuously, you know, I’m not so sure that those two years makes a difference here. Okay. Fine. MR. MAC EWAN-Mark, did you want to add something? MR. SCHACHNER-No. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else, Rich? Chris? MR. HUNSINGER-I guess the other comment that I had, and I’m not sure if it’s a comment or a question, again, it goes back to Staff notes, the last sentence on that first page where it says that this permit will be a permanent Special Use Permit. At one of the last meetings we had a lengthy discussion about conditional use permits and use permits that would have a certain time period. I just wanted to be clear in my own mind what it is that the applicant’s seeking, and if we were to approve this, what we would be approving. MR. HILTON-Well, and I guess I would defer to Mark on this, but I’m taking that directly from the Ordinance. It says that it will be a permanent, a pre-existing, nonconforming Special Use Permit. I don’t think that in any way says that you can’t, and correct me if I’m wrong, attach possible conditions or ask for some sort of review, should conditions change on the site. Again, it’s just directly from the Code, stating that it will be a permanent Special Use Permit. MR. SCHACHNER-The point is that it will not be subject to recurring review, unless there’s expansion or modification. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it? MR. HUNSINGER-That’s it. MR. MAC EWAN-Tony? MR. METIVIER-I don’t really know what to add. The truth be known, that this has been going on for a while, and I happen to drive by there almost every day, and don’t foresee, or have never seen any problems. Never any problems with parking, and as we move forward, certainly in any new applications that would come forward, I think we would have a leg to stand on, but the fact remains that, and you’ve proven this very well, that these docks have been in existence for quite some time, and their use has been what you proposed. So I guess I don’t really have anything more to add. I think that things have run smoothly there throughout the years. I’ve never seen any accidents. I know that, for the most part, people who rent docks, you know, they respect the lake. You don’t see any dumping, and I just think it’s just time to just put this to bed and move on. I certainly hope that at any point if you were to see anything going on that would, you know, cause any damage to the lake, you know, you would put an end to it, and I’m sure you would, and I’m sure that you have, in the past, if anything has happened, as far as dumping or, you know, for the most part people that are on Lake George respect the lake for what it is, and they don’t, you know, dump and abuse the lake. So, it’s probably better to provide them facilities here that, you know, you have people that respect the 10 Queensbury Planning Board 5/20/03) lake. You know, shut down some of the ramps, you know, the people that bring their boats up from other states, and from the ocean that have open heads that’s more of a problem than you have here. So, I think it’s, you did a good job. You really did, and I have nothing more to add. MR. SMITH-Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-John? MR. STROUGH-Yes. According to the new law, and I’m still trying to wrestle with this, it says that if we find that these docks were created and used in a continuous manner being rented, prior to 1981, then there’s going to be, an administrative Special Use Permit will kick in automatically. MR. HILTON-Well, I don’t want to say administrative. I guess Planning Board approved, pre- existing nonconforming Special Use Permit. MR. STROUGH-Yes, because it says administrative Special Use Permit, and it goes on to say an administrative Special Use Permit shall be considered a permanent permit, and may be modified only upon review and approval by the Planning Board. An administrative Special Use Permit shall serve to document the existing status of the project, but in other areas of the same Code, in reference to discussing marinas, it says that this marina, as noted in a February 10, 2003, must be consistent with the Lake George Park Commission, Law 646, and also in our Code 179-10-020, it says that a site plan is required, and then in 179-10-030, it says only the Planning Board has the power to specify the terms. So I’m not sure where the administrative Special Use Permit is getting its powers. MR. SCHACHNER-John, aren’t you focusing on the administrative Special Use Permit instead of the pre-existing nonconforming use permit in 179-10-035? MR. STROUGH-Yes. I’m on 179-10-035. MR. SCHACHNER-You’re on 035? All the stuff you just read from was from earlier sections. Unless I misunderstood, all the language you just quoted was from Sections in Article 10 on Special Use Permits, but sections earlier than 179-10-035, which was the new Section that George referred to earlier, just enacted this past March, and relates specifically to pre-existing nonconforming uses and it has specific provisions that relate to marinas as pre-existing nonconforming uses in particular. I’m not disagreeing with anything, but I’m asking about where your focus is. Unless I misunderstood or misheard, all the provisions you just read about were the provisions relating to Special Use Permits under Article 10, including administrative Special Use Permits, but not the pre-existing nonconforming use Special Use Permit of 179-10- 035. Did I misunderstand you? MR. STROUGH-Maybe. If you would, maybe we can unravel this a little bit. If you would go to 179-10-030, Paragraph K. MR. SCHACHNER-Okay. MR. STROUGH-The Planning Board. MR. SCHACHNER-Right. MR. STROUGH-As a condition of granting any special permit, may specify its term of validity. MR. SCHACHNER-Right, and what I’m suggesting to you is that, by virtue of the fact that you’re in 179-10-030, I think you’re not in the right Section of Article 10 for this particular application. Unless I’m misunderstanding, this particular application is being brought under Section 179-10-035. It wasn’t initially being brought under that, because in fact that Section didn’t exist when this application was first submitted, but now, partially as a result of this 11 Queensbury Planning Board 5/20/03) application and the difficulty that’s arisen, my understanding, these are just my words, but my understanding is that partially as a result of the difficulty that this Board and the Town Board have realized, when dealing with marinas in particular, recognizing that the term “marina”, in and of itself, is quite misleading, because we’re not talking about “commercial” facilities in the traditional sense of the term, that have ships stores and quick launch and boat servicing facilities and large scale operations like that, gas pumps and what not. We’re talking about marina the way it’s defined initially in the Lake George Park Commission regulations, and subsequently in the Queensbury Zoning Ordinance is basically docks that are used for anything other than the owners exclusively residential use, and that’s why this Section was enacted, and I think, unless I’m wrong, and Staff can correct me if I’m wrong, or for that matter so could the applicant, what you’re looking at now is an application whereby the applicant seeks to substantiate that it fits within Section 179-10-035, and if they have made that showing, and that’s a Board decision, but if they’ve made that showing, as it’s described in 179-10-035, then that’s the type of Special Use Permit we’re talking about, not all the rest of the provisions that you read so eloquently. All of the ones you read are true, but what I guess I’m saying is I don’t think they apply to this application, if the applicant has met its burden. MR. STROUGH-All right, given that, and I’m with you so far, but according to 179-10-035, it basically is saying this, that should we agree with the applicant’s submissions, establishing those docks, and that use, prior to 1981, then everything ceases. MR. SCHACHNER-Everything ceases? MR. STROUGH-Yes. MR. SCHACHNER-What do you mean by everything ceases? MR. STROUGH-Well, what confuses me. MR. SCHACHNER-The activities cease at the site? No. MR. STROUGH-Yes. Is there a site plan review that goes along with this? MR. SCHACHNER-They’re exempt, if it’s a substantiated pre-existing, nonconforming use, it’s exempt from comprehensive Planning Board review. So, in essence, I guess, if I’m understanding your question correctly, you would not have a traditional site plan review, until and unless an applicant, and I’m speaking generically now, an applicant that fits under this Section, seeks to change their pre-existing use. MR. STROUGH-Right. MR. SCHACHNER-So you would not have, if I’m understanding your question correctly, the answer to your question is no, you would not have site plan review. MR. STROUGH-Right, which, this is what confuses me, because if you look at the prepared motion by Staff, and you go to the second page of the Whereas, it says that the Planning Board has considered the extent to which the use is in harmony and promotes the general purposes and intent of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan. MR. SCHACHNER-Let me interrupt you. I apologize for doing so, but I see where you’re headed. I know what you’re reading. I would respectfully submit that the Staff prepared motion is not appropriate and was probably prepared a long time ago, before the enactment of Section 179-10-035, and based on looking at the Staff prepared motion, I can certainly understand your confusion. MR. STROUGH-That’s where I was confused. 12 Queensbury Planning Board 5/20/03) MR. SCHACHNER-I would suggest that if the applicant has met its burden to your satisfaction as a Planning Board, then the motion you’re seeking to enact here is actually much more simple and straightforward. It would be a motion, not the prepared motion, but it would be a motion to the effect that the applicant has made its burden of showing that it’s a substantiated pre- existing, nonconforming use, and that therefore the Planning Board hereby issues a pre-existing, nonconforming Special Use Permit, and that would be your motion. MR. STROUGH-Okay. All right. Now I’m clear on that, but it still doesn’t make me happy. MR. SCHACHNER-But at least you’re clear. MR. STROUGH-At least I’m clear, but it doesn’t make me happy with 179-10-035, which says that we’re not going to have an opportunity to address parking, facility adequacy, public safety issues, environmentally friendly, straighten me out if I’m wrong, somebody. MR. SANFORD-Well, John, if they come in and want to change from where. MR. SCHACHNER-Right. MR. STROUGH-If they come in and want to change, yes, but right now, no site plan. MR. SCHACHNER-That’s correct, but there’s an easy, the sort of glib lawyer’s response to your unhappiness is, you’re not the legislative body. The Town Board has made the decision that if somebody fits these criteria, you don’t have your traditional site plan review, and you’re unhappy, but. MR. STROUGH-That’s tough luck. MR. SCHACHNER-I think that’s right. MR. STROUGH-Yes. Okay. Now, with all that aside, you did pretty much establish to my satisfaction that those docks were established, except for the length. I’m going to ask you about that in a minute, but were established prior to 1981, and three of the four docks, the use of renting them commercially has been established in a continuous nature since 1981, but only three out of the four docks. If you go back through the documentation, you were paying $75 for three of the docks for commercial rates and one dock $25 for residential rate, and that was fairly continuous. So in my eyes, based on the documentation that we got, only three out of the four docks would meet the criteria, and you would be allowed to continue renting in a marina fashion, but not the fourth dock. The fourth dock, I think, is, as is established by the information you gave us, has to be residential only. Okay. Are you with me? MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes. I didn’t know how to word it. MR. STROUGH-All right. Well, with that aside, now, the length of the dock, now all through here they were talking about the length of the dock being 33 feet, and now the update says 36. Is there, was there permission to get the length of the docks? MR. SMITH-That I don’t have the records of. They were that length. We have not touched the docks since we’ve owned the property. We’ve owned the property for over 11 years. MR. SANFORD-I’m sorry, just in the interest of materiality, you’re going back to ’81, ’82, where they added the six feet on to the dock. Go ahead and make your point, though, John. MR. STROUGH-My point is, look at these, 35, 34, 36, see. I’m just asking, when did that happen? Okay. So, anyway, I don’t know what I’m going to do with the length of the docks issue, and I don’t know if it’s even our. MR. MAC EWAN-I don’t think it’s even relevant. 13 Queensbury Planning Board 5/20/03) MR. STROUGH-Relevant, but as far as I’m concerned, at this point in time, the bottom line is, three out of the four docks, we give you the okay. That’s the way I look at it, and based on the documentation, and even the letter that you give us, dated April 14, says, three of the four th docks were registered for commercial use. So the usage has been established on three of the four docks. MR. SMITH-One problem with that. I don’t know how you put it in a Special Use Permit, (lost word) for marina, but if that’s the way you see it, we have no problem with that. MR. STROUGH-Fine. Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Cathy? MRS. LA BOMBARD-John kind of put into words what I had been thinking, and I just didn’t know how to put it all together, but I kind of felt that we had a conflict because you’re saying that, right now, you don’t want, these are, these docks have been used by family and friends, since your ownership, which has been 11 years, but, if we go back and take the history of the docks since the initiation of the LGPC’s, you know, getting permits for people that have docks, in 1981, it goes back that far that they were used for commercial purposes, but yet, right now you only want to say that they’re used for guests and family. MR. SMITH-Any time, like before it was listed, that somebody else used the dock, that’s why they were listed as commercial. MRS. LA BOMBARD-But, the fact that, if we go along with this grandfathering, I have a tough time saying that four docks are going to be used for commercial purposes when only in actuality three of them were, are under the grandfather clause. MR. SMITH-If you can put that in there somehow, I don’t know a Special Use Permit with only three docks, fine. I mean, one dock will be used by the camp, the house. MRS. LA BOMBARD-And as far as the Class A Marina, and all the amenities that a Class A Marina has to offer, my question is this. Because you have the fact that you’re going to rely on the grandfathering clause, then do you still have to establish all the amenities for a Class A Marina? MR. SMITH-To get a Class A Marina, you have to go through the Lake George Park Commission. Fill out an application and fill all the requirements for it. What you’ve done, the only thing you’ve done was a step, when we went through that to begin with, that they had to put this in that we had to have a Special Use, they said before we can take and accept your application, you need to go before the Town of Queensbury. MRS. LA BOMBARD-So then, let’s say, hypothetically, you get the Special Use Permit, then you go to the Lake George Park Commission and file for your Class A Marina status. MR. SMITH-Definitely. MRS. LA BOMBARD-And then you have to prove to them that you have all those environmental amenities and. MR. SMITH-I’ve done that. MRS. LA BOMBARD-You’ve done that, but you haven’t done that yet to them. MR. SMITH-We had given all that information to them as we had given it to you. 14 Queensbury Planning Board 5/20/03) MRS. LA BOMBARD-Right. I remember. Refresh my memory. Yes, we did go through all that, because I remember John had written up everything, but I didn’t know that you had gone to the LGPC at that point, that you were, I thought maybe you were waiting for. MR. SMITH-They had stopped. We submitted our application and they came back and said, before we can review it, we need this requirement fulfilled. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Exactly. So in other words, they hadn’t really reviewed it or made any comments on it. Okay. So, one last thing. Then right now, are your plans to still offer these docks as places for your friends and family to park their boats, or are you going into business? MR. SMITH-I have, right now, the docks, the people that use those docks, I have a couple of people that work with me. I have a cousin that uses one, and some other people have just been there forever, and they’re just people that, you know, I’ve known for a long, long time. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Now let’s say down the line you don’t own that anymore, 10, 15 years from now, and you sell it to somebody and now you have a Class A Marina, instead of a residential home. MR. SMITH-They will rent the docks out, per se, the same as. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. So in other words, now your property’s gone from just strictly residential to commercial business. Not that you’re going to use it. I’m just going hypothetically. MR. SMITH-But even what you’re saying, a marina permit, we’re not selling gas, is the definition, I mean, people use the docks. MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. I don’t mean to interrupt, but, Cathy, I’m concerned that, when you’re talking about, I’m concerned that you’re putting too much into the term “Class A Marina”. Class A Marina does not involve all those amenities I mentioned earlier. I mean, if you had all those amenities, you surely would be a Class A Marina, but all Class A Marina means is rental of more than two docks. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, then what about all the different paragraphs and all the letters that are in the zoning book? MR. SCHACHNER-What about them? Look at the definition of Class A Marina. MR. METIVIER-If they were to change the use or they wanted to do something that they would have to come back for a site plan review. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. Then you answered my question. Thank you, Tony. Okay, because see I have all these uses here, and I just thought that immediately, once you grant the Class A Marina status, that all of these things can. MR. SCHACHNER-Like what things? MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, docks, wharfs, moorings used as an accessory use to a restaurant, use to a hotel, motel, inn, housekeeping cottages. MR. SCHACHNER-Like Tony says, those would all be material changes that are grossly different than what the applicant is currently doing, and all those would require full scale site plan review. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. Offering of rides, instruction. Okay. Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Would this approval run with the land or run with the ownership? 15 Queensbury Planning Board 5/20/03) MR. SCHACHNER-All approvals run with the land. MR. MAC EWAN-Any other questions or comments from Board members? Anything to add? I’ll ask you to give up the table for a second. We’ll open up the public hearing. Does anyone want to comment on this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED JOHN SALVADOR, JR. MR. SALVADOR-My name is John Salvador. My wife and I are property owners in North Queensbury, and I have a Special Use Permit from this Town for the operation of a marina. I, too, John, am very confused with just a procedural thing. In essence what we have here is an application that is running under two different versions of the Zoning Ordinance. If that’s possible, fine. It just makes it complicated, but I would like assurance, then, that all previous submissions, all public comments, are a part of the record of this application. MR. MAC EWAN-They are. MR. SALVADOR-They’re a part of the record of this application and have been submitted as such. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s correct. MR. SALVADOR-So the only thing the applicant is trying to do here is, as Section 179-10-035 states, if they can substantiate that they had a pre-existing, nonconforming use, that they will be exempt from the comprehensive Planning Board review, which was what you were going through before. MR. MAC EWAN-Correct. MR. SALVADOR-Okay. Section 179-10-035, the first sentence says substantiated pre-existing nonconforming uses, I would think that the word “substantiated” leads to legally pre-existing nonconforming uses, and I think that phrase should include, and structures. Because down below they talk about the structures and the use of the property. So I think you have to substantiate both the structures and the use, two different things. Number Two under the second paragraph says the use of the property and the associated structures has been continuous to date without interruption since prior to 1981 for marinas. The property and the structures for marinas, prior to 1981. I think what we’re all referring to is the DEC, and I emphasize the Department of Environmental Conservation promulgated regulations Part 646 that deal with the registration of docks, wharfs and moorings and the permitting of marinas. It’s a two pronged regulatory program. I have a copy of 646 here. They define a marina, means any waterfront facility which provides accommodations or services for vessels by engaging in any of the following, and you know the four famous criteria. The third one is the sale, lease, rental or any other provision of storage, wharf space, or mooring for vessels not registered to the owner of said facility. Not registered to the owner. General prohibitions, Section 646.3, no marina shall be operated on Lake George without first obtaining a permit therefore from the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. Now our Town participated in this regulatory program. There was a public hearing held on December 8, 1979, prior to the promulgation of the regulations in 1981. I can read you a few excerpts from this hearing. I am Malcolm A. Coutant, Counsel to the Lake George Park Commission and Regional Attorney for the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, assigned to Region Five in Ray Brook, which includes the Counties that encompass the Lake George Park. I am the legal technician involved with the drafting of these rules and regulations and these were drafted based on input from the Lake George Association and members of the DEC staff. With that as a basis, on October 10, 1978, Part 190 of the Rules and Regulations of the State of New York became effective, which created what we now refer to as the Lake George Recreation Zone. It’s 16 Queensbury Planning Board 5/20/03) described as a portion of the entire Lake George Park, namely the bed of the lake, the waters of the lake, the State owned lands, which are not presently described as parks, to a distance 1,000 feet back from the shoreline. MR. MAC EWAN-Where are you going with this, John? MR. SALVADOR-Our Town participated in this program. Dick Roberts, Chairman of our Town Planning Board at the time, testified at this hearing. Since the Town of Queensbury Planning Board finds that there is an increasing water quality problem in Lake George, that boats and boaters must assume an undetermined amount of responsibility for the water quality deterioration for the following examples of real or potential contamination, and they talk about petroleum and human waste and all that sort of thing. That certain boats are violating reasonable noise levels, that the spirit and perhaps the letter of the Queensbury Zoning Ordinance is being increasingly violated by renting dock and mooring space on private lots. Commercial establishments in a residential zone. MR. MAC EWAN-What’s the connection you’re trying to make here? MR. SALVADOR-That the Town of Queensbury participated in and was supportive of Part 646 which requires the registration of marinas. Marinas being defined simply as someone who rents out one dock space, mooring space, wharf space, other than his own use. MR. MAC EWAN-Isn’t that what the Lake George Park Commission does? MR. SALVADOR-Exactly. MR. MAC EWAN-So they’re registered. They have documentation showing that they’ve been registered since 1982. MR. SALVADOR-I’ll get to that point. The point here is that the Town of Queensbury was supportive of Part 646, which involved a two pronged permitting process. One, the registration of wharfs, docks and moorings, and if you registered, you were permitted to continue to use them, and the registration of marinas, and the definition of marina has not changed. That’s the point. Now, I’ve reviewed the application that both the Smiths and the Hoppers have submitted, and there is no application for the operation of a marina, nor is was there a permit granted, and they are in noncompliance. MR. MAC EWAN-From DEC you’re referring. MR. SALVADOR-The DEC regulations. 1981 is what you refer to in this text, and I assume it’s that, it’s that regulatory program. MR. MAC EWAN-I think the 1981 is referencing the Lake George Park Commission. MR. SALVADOR-No. The 1981, it was the Department of Environmental Conservation. That’s Part 646 of the regulations, and our Town participated in that, was supportive of it, and was desirous of having that. Controlling the number of docks that can be built and rented will not control the number and kinds of boats and the ability of their operation if there is no control over commercial use of the lake. Commercial use. Now, it’s my contention that, and these people have in their application willfully admitted, that they are conducting commercial business, and the fundamental violation is that they are conducting commercial business in a residential zone without a permit to do so, and have been for many years, but a permitting program was in place, and they should have conformed. Now we were advised, in our particular case, we were advised that we had to get this permit, and we did. We applied and got a permit to operate a marina. So, I believe their submission is a half a loaf, and the crux of this whole problem is commercial use in a residential zone, and it’s uncontrolled because you’re not, you’re on your way to negate the need to do a site plan review. That’s what’s necessary. That’s what’s necessary. I don’t want to belabor the point, but I just don’t think they’ve met the 17 Queensbury Planning Board 5/20/03) requirement of substantiating that they are a legally pre-existing, nonconforming use simply because they did not obtain a permit to operate a marina in 1981. That was a requirement of the law. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Thank you. Anyone else? MR. HILTON-Craig, I’ve got a comment letter to read in. A letter dated May 18 from Ruth th Bredlau. “To Who It May Concern: Since I am unable to attend the May 20, 2003 public hearing, this letter will inform you of my views. 1. This issue should be permanently tabled. The shoreline already mimics a cheap public marina instead of a private residential area. 2. There are no facilities available for boaters, neither sanitary or water. 3. There is woefully insufficient parking space. The congested roadway is dangerous to both pedestrian and driver. 4. My vacant property is used as a picnic site accumulating unsightly trash and litter. 5. More ugly development just downgrades all property and the name of Queensbury. PLEASE! NO MORE DOCK SLIPS, CONGESTION UGLINESS. Sincerely, Ruth M. Bredlau” And that’s all I have. MR. MAC EWAN-Any comments? MR. SCHACHNER-Well, I’m not sure how much credence the Board is going to give, if any, to the one gentleman from the public who commented, but I guess since he talked about legal standards, I feel compelled, as your Counsel, to make sure you understand that the legal standard that you have to apply for determining whether this fits within the pre-existing, nonconforming use section is not anything that the gentleman from the public commented, said in his comments. He gave you a 16 minute lecture about what he believes should be the qualifications necessary to document that you’re a substantiated, pre-existing, nonconforming use, but none of the things he said are in the Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance. I just want to make sure everybody understands. We don’t have to go through all the complexities that that gentleman urged. The Zoning Ordinance amendment was written intentionally to not drag through all that complexity. It was written so that, it says very clearly, and I’m not going to bother rehashing, I just want to make sure everybody’s clear on this. It says very clearly what an applicant has to demonstrate to show that they’re a substantiated pre-existing, nonconforming use, and it’s very simple, and very straightforward and it’s none of the things that that gentleman said. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Can I just follow up on that? So we don’t need to worry about whether or not they had a marina permit. MR. SCHACHNER-Precisely. Precisely. MR. HUNSINGER-By the Lake George Park Commission. MR. SCHACHNER-That was my concern, was that you would be mislead in that regard. If you look at 179-10-035, it nowhere says that an applicant has to demonstrate that they have any permits from anybody. What is says is that they have to demonstrate, in order to demonstrate that a use qualifies for this exception, a property owner shall submit a site plan review application together with information demonstrating that, and this is the important part, it’s B 1 and 2, the structures were constructed according to the permitting procedures enforceable by the Town, not by DEC, not by the Lake George Park Commission, and, 2, that the use of the property and associated structures have been continuous, etc., etc. None of, that’s exactly right, Chris, what you said. You don’t need to worry about the DEC stuff or the Park Commission stuff. Applicants will submit that to demonstrate the continuous use and the fact that they were also permitted under other agencies, and that’s fine, but it’s not required. MR. HUNSINGER-That’s the documentation. 18 Queensbury Planning Board 5/20/03) MR. SCHACHNER-Correct. Exactly. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. RINGER-Mark, as I read this 179-10-035, the last paragraph in it, it says the Zoning Administrator shall, upon finding substantiating evidence, complete and satisfactorily issue. MR. SCHACHNER-Wait. I’m sorry to interrupt. You just said the Zoning Administrator and I think it says the Planning Board. MR. RINGER-Mine says the Zoning Administrator. MR. SCHACHNER-That’s a problem. 179-10-035, as adopted, you’re talking about Subparagraph C, I assume? MR. RINGER-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-You’re looking at an old draft. MR. RINGER-Okay. That’s the only one I have. MR. SCHACHNER-All right. It starts off with, the Planning Board shall, upon finding, etc. MR. RINGER-Okay. I don’t have a question then. MR. SCHACHNER-Okay. MR. STROUGH-Well, this is the most recent one that we’ve got. MR. SCHACHNER-It says Zoning Administrator? MR. RINGER-Yes. MR. SCHACHNER-Then you don’t have the most recent one. MR. STROUGH-Well, nobody gave us the most recent one. That’s what I was talking about before, too, the Zoning Administrator. I’m reading this. MR. SCHACHNER-I understand why this is frustrating. I can’t help you. I’m not the person in charge of distributing the new version, but I certainly understand your confusion. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Any other questions, comments? Okay. I’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MAC EWAN-Anything you folks wanted to add? Does someone want to introduce a motion, please. MR. RINGER-Well, since Mark suggested we not use the prepared motion, why don’t we just table this for a few minutes, do the Hoppers, and then do the motions together. Because Mark has suggested that we don’t use the prepared motion by Staff. MR. STROUGH-Well, the Hoppers, I think, have got a different situation going. MR. MAC EWAN-My preference is to look at each application individually. MR. SCHACHNER-Right, and I don’t think Larry means one motion. 19 Queensbury Planning Board 5/20/03) MR. RINGER-No. Not one motion. I just thought that we’re going to have to draw up a motion, and I thought we could draw up one motion, but if John feels differently, then. MR. STROUGH-Well, for example, in this case, Larry, I think we can only consider that the use has been established and continuous for three of the four docks. The documentation shows that. Every year, they paid for three commercial docks and one residential dock. So they’ve only established use on the three docks. MR. METIVIER-But that doesn’t mean they can’t have and use a fourth dock. They just can’t use it for rental purposes. MR. RINGER-Let’s go on with this one, then. I just thought we’d save ourselves time, but apparently we won’t. So do the SEQRA. MR. MAC EWAN-I’ll ask again. Does someone want to introduce a motion? MR. RINGER-Do you want to do a SEQRA? MR. SANFORD-You don’t need a SEQRA, do you? MR. STROUGH-Well, it’s Unlisted, yes, you do have to do a SEQRA. MR. SANFORD-We’re grandfathering it in. MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. Exactly. I think Rich is right. I think, see, the reason you’re seeing, George and I were talking about this, the reason you’re seeing it listed on your agenda as Unlisted and therefore subject to SEQRA review is, like the Staff’s pre-prepared motion, it dates back to before the Zoning Ordinance was amended. If, in fact, you end up confirming either or both of these as pre-existing, nonconforming uses, then it doesn’t make sense to go through SEQRA review. MR. MAC EWAN-I’ll ask again, does someone want to introduce a motion? MR. STROUGH-Well, Mr. Chairman, could we maybe have a minute for a couple of us to re-do the prepared motion and see what condition we’re going to do and how we’re going to word it, but first of all, I have a question for the applicant. Which dock is it that you use for residential purposes? Is it the northernmost dock? MR. SMITH-It’ll end up the northernmost dock. MR. STROUGH-Can we have a couple of minutes? MR. MAC EWAN-Take three or four or five. MR. HUNSINGER-I think the applicant has clearly established that one of the docks was for residential purposes, but the Code says that the use of the property and associated structures has been continuous to date without interruption. I don’t think it really matters if one of the docks was residential, as long as it was consistent since 1981. MR. STROUGH-Well, I think it does matter because we’ve got four docks here. You’ve got four docks. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. STROUGH-Only three of them have been used since 1981 as rental docks. MR. HUNSINGER-But that’s not what it says. It doesn’t say rental docks. It just says continuous without interruption. 20 Queensbury Planning Board 5/20/03) MR. SANFORD-I think it’s important because if none of them were used for rental purposes, it wouldn’t even be in front of us. MR. METIVIER-What difference does it make if they have four docks or eight? MR. MAC EWAN-The point they’re trying to make is that the fourth dock would not be used for commercial purposes. MR. METIVIER-But you’re still going to have two boats there. MR. HUNSINGER-How would you enforce that? To me, that’s the issue. Not, you know, whether or not one is residential or commercial, but how do you enforce? MR. STROUGH-Well, I’m going to word it the same way I see the Lake George Park Commission word it in similar situations. The boats have to be registered to the owner, that are regularly berthed there. MR. METIVIER-But they can’t enforce that either. MR. SANFORD-It may not be enforceable, but there’s many things that aren’t enforceable. MR. METIVIER-The fact remains that that fourth dock is going to be used whether it be by the Smiths or whoever. MR. STROUGH-Well, Tony, if you want to draft a resolution, okay. MR. METIVIER-The point is, we’re dwelling on the fourth dock. It doesn’t really matter. MR. STROUGH-Well, because it’s very clear to me, the fourth dock was never established as being used for commercial reasons. The law says that they have to show that it was established, that it’s been used commercially, rented, that is, since 1981. What they do is in fact show that one of the docks has never been rented for, or at least that’s the way they’ve been paying their registration fees. It’s been a private dock. It’s been a residential dock. Only three of the other docks has the use been established that they’ve been rented that they are a commercial use. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. So let’s take the worst case scenario. Suppose they decide to start renting out that residential dock. MR. SANFORD-According to how he’s going to word the resolution, they’re not authorized. MR. STROUGH-Well, this goes to the Lake George Park Commission, right? For example, Lake George Park Commission, how do they know? They collect fees here. We’ve got the fees here. It’s $37.50, right here, the most recent one. Let me read it to you. $37.50 for the residential dock, and $75 each for the commercial docks. Okay. How does the Lake George Park Commission regulate that? MR. SANFORD-How do they enforce it? MR. STROUGH-How do they know that that dock, that they’re only paying $37.50 for, they aren’t in fact renting out and they should be paying $75? There must be some kind of a regulatory thing. MR. MAC EWAN-You’re going to get an answer in about 30 seconds. MR. SCHACHNER-The answer is the Lake George Park Commission has enforcement staff that among other things drive around the lake checking boats at docks to see if the boats at the docks are or are not registered to the people who own the docks. 21 Queensbury Planning Board 5/20/03) MR. STROUGH-Then my resolution will be right in line with the Lake George Park Commission’s. MR. HUNSINGER-See, I think what we’re doing is confusing the definition with the use. Because ”marina”, as it’s applied in, as I read it, as I read the Code, is being applied as a definition. If you rent out one dock, one or more docks, then you become a marina. If they only rented out one of the four, then they would still be a marina, and it really wouldn’t matter. MR. STROUGH-But how many boats, according to the documentation, how many boats have they been allowed to rent to? MR. HUNSINGER-See, I don’t think it matters. If it was just one, that would classify them as a marina. You’re confusing the definition with the land use. MR. STROUGH-No, I’m not. My definition is in line with what they’ve been paying for dock fees. It’s in line with the Lake George Park Commission. MR. HUNSINGER-I don’t disagree with that, John. I just don’t think it’s relevant to what we’re being asked to do. MR. STROUGH-Okay. So we’ll agree to disagree. Now, you can draw up the resolution or I will. MR. MAC EWAN-All right. We’ll take five. Tony and Chris draw up the resolution, please. We’ll reconvene. Do we have a resolution ready? MOTION TO APPROVE SPECIAL USE PERMIT SUP 1-2002 HAROLD & ELEANOR SMITH, Introduced by Chris Hunsinger who moved for its adoption, seconded by Larry Ringer: WHEREAS, an application has been made to this Board for the following: Special Use Permit Applicant: Harold & Eleanore Smith SUP 1-2002 Property Owner: Same Type: Unlisted Zone: WR-1A / Location: 43 Hanneford Road Applicant seeks to establish a marina involving the rental of 8 boat slips and associated site amenities. Marinas require the issuance of a Special Use Permit by the Planning Board. Cross Reference: AV 52-93, AV 27-94, SP 21-94, SP 38-94, AV 31- 99 LGPC, APA, CEA Warren Co. Planning: 6/12/02 Tax Map No. 240.6-1-11 Lot size: 0.40 acres / Section: 179-10 Public Hearing: June 20, 2002 – Tabled July 23, 2002 – Tabled August 15, 2002 - Tabled May 20, 2003 WHEREAS, additional information was received on April 15, 2003; and WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation and inclusive of all newly received information, not included in this listing as of 5/16/03, and 5/20 Staff Notes 5/13 Notice of Public Hearing 5/7 Meeting Notice 22 Queensbury Planning Board 5/20/03) WHEREAS, pursuant to Art. 10 of the Zoning Ordinance of the Code of the Town of Queensbury a public hearing was advertised and was held on 6/20/02, 7/23/02, 8/15/02, and 5/20/03; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the Special Use Permit requirements of the Code of the Town Queensbury (Zoning); and Whereas that the applicant has shown that the use of the property and associated structures has been continuous to date without interruption since prior 1981 for marinas, and Whereas, the Planning Board finds that the substantiating evidence is valid, complete and satisfactory, and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has considered the extent to which the use is in harmony with and promotes the general purposes and intent of the CLUP and this chapter and its effects on the health, welfare and safety of the Town and its residents, and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has considered the overall compatibility of the use with the neighborhood and the positive and negative impacts on community character, including the character of adjoining properties, districts and uses, and the positive and negative impact on density, including the density of adjoining properties, districts and uses, and, WHEREAS, the Planning Board has considered the positive and negative impacts of the use on vehicular congestion and parking, including the provision of adequate parking and the absence of hazardous parking or traffic conditions, and, WHEREAS, the Planning Board has considered the positive and negative impacts on infrastructure and services, including utilities, public facilities and services, including the extent to which the project extends or provides infrastructure and services to areas in need of such infrastructure and services, and, WHEREAS, the Planning Board has considered the positive and negative impacts on environmental and natural resources, including the environmental and physical suitability of the site for development, the risk of fire, flood or erosion and impacts such as emissions of electrical charges, dust, light, vibration or noise detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare, and, WHEREAS, the Planning Board has considered the extent to which the use provides positive or negative effects on the long term economic stability and community character of the Town and surrounding properties, districts and uses, 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, approval of the application means that the applicant can now apply for a Building Permit unless the lands are Adirondack Park Agency Jurisdictional or other approvals are necessary. 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: 23 Queensbury Planning Board 5/20/03) 1. The first page, and then I would add, Whereas that the applicant has shown that the use of the property and associated structures has been continuous to date without interruption since prior to 1981 for marinas, and that Whereas, the Planning Board finds that the substantiating evidence is valid, complete and satisfactory, and 2. We will issue the Special Use Permit, and 3. One condition for this permit is that only three of four docks can be used for commercial purposes. The fourth northern most dock must remain a residential dock only, and 4. The applicant will prepare a document hereafter referred to as “Rental Conditions.” This document will contain instructional information relative to conditions numbered 1-6 as listed in a document entitled “ Special Use Permit Conditions of Approval.” It is understood and agreed that these Rental Conditions will be supplied, individually, to all customers and will be made available to all patrons and employees of the facility by way of conspicuous posting, and 5. The applicant will maintain a record of signed copies of the agreement with each renter. Duly adopted this 20th day of May, 2003, by the following vote: MR. SANFORD-Just a comment, if I could. If you’re going to reference the resolution prepared by Staff, and the first page, they’re not using “docks”. They’re using “slips”, and they’re using eight boat slips as opposed to six boat slips, and then you’re changing that, on a Whereas, you’re going. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, but he added the condition to the end of it. So he’s modifying the prepared resolution. So he’s okay with where he’s going with it. MR. SANFORD-Right. My only suggestion would be Page One modified to read six boat slips, and then. MR. MAC EWAN-He did it, by adding the condition to it. MR. SANFORD-Well, if you feel it’s been done, okay. MR. SCHACHNER-I think that your resolution as crafted is excellent because it very nicely tracks the language, except I do have one question which is, why are you including the word “administrative”? MR. HUNSINGER-Because that was in the draft Zoning Ordinance. MR. SCHACHNER-All right. It’s not in, that’s what I thought. It’s not in the final. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. SCHACHNER-So I would suggest that the word “administrative” be stricken from the motion. MR. HUNSINGER-I would find that to be a friendly amendment. AYES: Mr. Ringer, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Strough, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE 24 Queensbury Planning Board 5/20/03) MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set. Finally. MR. SMITH-Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you very much for your patience. SITE PLAN NO. 5-99 PREVIOUS SEQRA STEVE & DONNA SUTTON ZONE: HC-1A LOCATION: 1066 STATE ROUTE 9 APPLICANT PROPOSES TO USE A TEMPORARY OFFICE TRAILER ON-SITE. A MODIFICATION TO PREVIOUSLY APPROVED SITE PLANS REQUIRES THE APPROVAL OF THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 119-92, SP 56-99, SP 18-97, SP 39-96, SP 48-89, SP 52-92, UV 120-92, SP 52-92 TAX MAP NO. 296.9-1-10/68-1-15 STEVE SUTTON, PRESENT MRS. LA BOMBARD-And there’s no public hearing because this is a modification. MR. MAC EWAN-Staff notes. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 5-99, Modification, Steve & Donna Sutton, Meeting Date: May 20, 2003 “APPLICATION: Site Plan 5 – 1999 (modification) APPLICANT: Steve & Donna Sutton are the applicants for this request REQUESTED ACTION: Applicant is seeking approval for the use of a temporary office trailer to be used on-site. LOCATION: The subject property is located at 1066 State Route 9. EXISTING ZONING: The property is zoned HC-Int. Highway Commercial Intensive. SEQRA STATUS: An environmental review was previously conducted as part of previous Site Plan approvals at this location. PARCEL HISTORY: A review of Town records found numerous applications relating to the existing businesses at this location. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant proposes to add a temporary office trailer behind the existing Sutton’s furniture store. The proposed 12 foot tall trailer will be located just below an existing retaining wall and should not be visible from the adjacent residential properties to the east. Vehicular access, traffic patterns and parking should not be negatively impacted as a result of this proposal. STAFF COMMENTS: The applicant has requested waivers from the following Site Plan Requirements: Stormwater Management Plan - Grading Plan - Lighting Plan - Landscaping Plan - The applicant has described the project as a temporary addition of an office trailer. How long will the trailer be used, and are there any plans to eventually construct a permanent addition to one of the existing buildings at this location? 25 Queensbury Planning Board 5/20/03) It should be noted that if the applicant’s proposal is approved, a building permit will be required to install the proposed temporary office trailer.” MR. HILTON-As mentioned, the applicant proposes to use a trailer for use as a temporary office, and the applicant has requested waivers from stormwater management plans, grading plan, lighting plan, and landscaping plan. The applicant has described the project as a temporary addition. Staff would just ask the question how long will the trailer be there and are there any plans to eventually construct a permanent addition? And secondly it just should be noted that if an approval is granted, a building permit will be required from the applicant, and that’s all we have at this time. MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening. MR. SUTTON-Hi. Steve Sutton, Sutton’s Marketplace. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything you wanted to add to that? MR. SUTTON-No. We feel that, you know, we’ve just outgrown our office space and are desperate, at this point, to have a temporary fix until we’re ready to build something more substantial, and the fact that it’s tucked right behind the furniture store, out of sight, you’d have to be standing at our dumpster area to actually even see where it is. We actually had a trailer there before we built the addition on the furniture store. There was a storage trailer there for years that we moved out after we built the warehouse. So it’s a good spot there, kind of hidden out of the way. So we’d like to be able to give our girls a little more working space in there. MR. MAC EWAN-Cathy, we’ll start with you. MRS. LA BOMBARD-I have no questions, and I just hope it works, and your property looks beautiful all the time. MR. MAC EWAN-Larry? MR. RINGER-Define “temporary”. Are you looking for a one year approval, twenty-four months, eighteen months? MR. SUTTON-Thirty-six months, maybe. I don’t know what the future holds as far as building climate or what not or site plan review, or, you know, what we might be able to do there. MR. RINGER-How about something like 18 months, and you come back for a modification, or something like that. MR. SUTTON-We could come back. I mean, once you see what’s there and we, you know. MR. RINGER-I agree with everything you’ve said, that where you’re putting it is not going to be, but I hate to be giving an approval for a temporary without having an end date somewhere, and I would think that. MR. SUTTON-Right, and if it’s something that I suppose is working very well for us, maybe I’d come back and approach the Board about it being a permanent structure, and then I guess you’re involved more in handicap access. MR. RINGER-And as a permanent, you know, I’d have some reservations, perhaps, but as a temporary, I don’t think 36 months, I think that’s a long time, but I think 18 months would be more like I would, and then come back, if needed, for a modification or an extension, but I don’t have any questions on it, other than I would like to have a timeframe on it. That’s it. MR. SUTTON-Okay. 26 Queensbury Planning Board 5/20/03) MR. MAC EWAN-Chris? MR. HUNSINGER-I only had the same questions that Larry had. How you would define temporary, and I agree with his comments. I think the 18 months would be reasonable. Thirty- six I think is almost a permanent. MR. SUTTON-Right. MR. MAC EWAN-Tony? MR. METIVIER-That’s the only thing I could add. I just can’t foresee you putting a trailer there and having it be an eyesore to one of the most, you know, beautiful places on Upper 9. So I don’t doubt for a second that it would be a problem. MR. SUTTON-Right. MR. MAC EWAN-John? MR. STROUGH-No questions. MR. MAC EWAN-Rich? MR. SANFORD-Yes. Who owns the property up on the hill, the house? MR. SUTTON-I do. MR. SANFORD-You do? MR. SUTTON-Yes. MR. SANFORD-You don’t live there, though. MR. SUTTON-No. Actually, I have a full-time maintenance person now that resides there, watches over the property when we’re not there, in case of emergencies. MR. SANFORD-Okay. So it’s not completely. MR. SUTTON-It’s not a residential situation. MR. SANFORD-Okay. MR. SUTTON-I mean, Twicwood is guarded by the trees behind there and. MR. SANFORD-I understand. My concern was if a totally removed person owned that, then looking down on the trailer, it might be unsightly. MR. SUTTON-Right, and even from the house, I mean, that retaining wall is so darn high. I mean, I guess you could see it from the house, probably, but it is our property. MR. SANFORD-Right, and just, Larry mentioned 18 months, are you comfortable with that time parameter? MR. SUTTON-Yes. MR. RINGER-It doesn’t mean you can’t have an extension, but it just gives us a timeframe to look at. 27 Queensbury Planning Board 5/20/03) MR. SUTTON-Right, and by then you’ll see what the structure is and whether it should or could be made permanent or whether we add on at that point or whatever. I have no problem with that. MR. SANFORD-I’m all set. MR. MAC EWAN-Will the office have restroom facilities in it? MR. SUTTON-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-How are you going to take care of that? MR. SUTTON-Actually the septic is very accessible right there, and as you know, actually it’s kind of in the entranceway when you drive back behind there. So we plan on hooking in at that juncture right there, and I suppose that comes with the Building Department, but as you know the sewer system’s going by here pretty quick. So that’ll be hooked into that. MR. MAC EWAN-Hopefully. MR. SUTTON-Hopefully not if you’re sitting where I am, but hopefully, if you’re sitting where you are maybe. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Any other questions, comments from Board members? Staff? Would someone like to introduce a resolution, please? MOTION TO APPROVE MODIFICATION SITE PLAN NO. 5-99 STEVE & DONNA SUTTON, Introduced by Anthony Metivier who moved for its adoption, seconded by Catherine LaBombard: WHEREAS, an application has been made to this Board for the following: Site Plan No. 5-99 Applicant / Property Owner: Steve & Donna Sutton Previous SEQRA Zone: HC-1A Location: 1066 State Route 9 Applicant proposes to use a temporary office trailer on-site. A modification to previously approved Site Plans requires the approval of the Planning Board. Cross Reference: AV 119-92, SP 5-99, SP 56-99, SP 18-97, SP 39-96, SP 48-89, SP 52-92, UV 120-92 Tax Map No. 296.9-1-10 / 68-1-15 Public Hearing: Not required for Modification WHEREAS, the application was received on 4/15/03; and WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation and inclusive of all newly received information, not included in this listing as of 5/16/03, and 5/20 Staff Notes 5/7 Meeting Notice WHEREAS, a public hearing is not required for modification, and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the Site Plan 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 28 Queensbury Planning Board 5/20/03) 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, approval of the application means that the applicant can now apply for a Building Permit unless the lands are Adirondack Park Agency Jurisdictional or other approvals are necessary. 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: 1. The trailer will be on the property for a period of 18 months. If they wish to increase that timeframe, they’ll have to come back for another modification. 2. All conditions are to be noted on the final approved plans submitted for the Zoning Administrator’s signature in a form to read as follows: Plans have been approved under authority of a resolution adopted 5/20/03 by the Planning Board of the Town of Queensbury, New York with the following conditions: 1. Duly adopted this 20th day of May 2003 by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Strough, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Ringer, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set, Steve. MR. SUTTON-Thanks very much. MR. MAC EWAN-Good luck. SPECIAL USE PERMIT SUP 2-2002 TYPE: UNLISTED DAVID & JANE HOPPER PROPERTY OWNER: SAME AGENT: J. MARK NOORDSY, MATTHEW FULLER ZONE: WR-1A LOCATION: 35 HANNEFORD RD. & OFF PILOT KNOB RD. APPLICANT SEEKS TO ESTABLISH A MARINA INVOLVING THE RENTAL OF 5 BOAT SLIPS AND ASSOCIATED AMENITIES. MARINAS REQUIRE THE ISSUANCE OF A SPECIAL USE PERMIT BY THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 32-02, SP 21-99, BP 99-338 APA, CEA WARREN CO. PLANNING: 6/12/02 TAX MAP NO. 240.6-1-14 LOT SIZE: 0.43 ACRES/SECTION: ART. 10 MATT FULLER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; JANE HOPPER, PRESENT MRS. LA BOMBARD-And the public hearing, the three prior to this meeting, have been left open. MR. MAC EWAN-Staff notes. MR. HILTON-Similar application in that the applicant, it’s Staff’s understanding that the applicant is seeking a pre-existing, nonconforming Special Use Permit approval from the 29 Queensbury Planning Board 5/20/03) Planning Board. The applicant has submitted the documentation to support their position, I guess, and as previously mentioned, this includes affidavits and documents stating that the docks have been rented back to the sixties and also previous Lake George Park Commission registration documents showing that there have been registrations back to the early 1980’s. Again, similar application. If the Board finds that the requirements of 179-10-035 have been satisfied, you can grant the pre-existing, nonconforming Special Use Permit. That’s all we have at this time. MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening. MR. FULLER-Good evening. MR. MAC EWAN-For the record, you are? MRS. HOPPER-Jane Hopper. MR. FULLER-Matt Fuller from Fitzgerald, Morris, Baker, Firth. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything you wanted to add? MR. FULLER-No, I think that we, before the last one, felt that everything should be included in the letter that we sent in dated the 14. We’ll answer any questions. th MR. MAC EWAN-Larry, we’ll start with you. MR. RINGER-I have nothing. MR. MAC EWAN-Chris? MR. HUNSINGER-I have nothing. MR. MAC EWAN-Tony? MR. METIVIER-Nothing. MR. MAC EWAN-John? MR. STROUGH-Well, I was looking for the same thing that I saw with the Smiths. I was pretty impressed by the Smiths because it showed the docks, the registration of the docks, and the usage of the docks since 1982 and forward, suggesting that they were there in 1981, but I don’t see that with yours. I mean, is there any reason why you did not give us the Lake George Park Commission registration receipts? MR. FULLER-I think Exhibit A is the registrations. MR. STROUGH-And for what year? MR. FULLER-When they registered it first in ’81. MR. STROUGH-But you’re also supposed to establish a continued use. MR. FULLER-Do you want the annual payments? MR. STROUGH-Yes. Well, all the receipts, to show that the use for, that you were paying commercial rates on some or all the docks, to show us that the use was continuous, because that’s the way, because that’s the way our zoning law is worded. 30 Queensbury Planning Board 5/20/03) MR. FULLER-I personally, with Jane, went to the Lake George Park Commission, under a FOIL request, to review their entire file on this particular property and the dock structures, and, you know, from their files, the Hoppers have only owned it for a few years. So they don’t have the receipts themselves back before that. MR. STROUGH-But they can get copies of them. MR. FULLER-That’s all they had. Everything, what we gave you is what’s in the Park Commission’s file. MRS. HOPPER-That’s it. MR. STROUGH-Well, how can the Smiths, the Smiths could get copies of every year’s, documentation that they paid a dock registration fee, like everyone does on Lake George, and what did they do, lose yours? MR. FULLER-I’d like to look into what the difference is between the Smiths and the Hoppers. MR. STROUGH-Yes. You guys are right next to each other. MR. FULLER-Absolutely. MR. STROUGH-And I’m going to assume that Lake George Park Commission keeps records for everybody that’s paid dock permit. MR. SANFORD-John, the applicant could have had those receipts. We don’t know that they came from the Park Commission. MR. FULLER-That’s what I’m wondering. MR. STROUGH-Well, I’m saying with the Smiths they did. The letterhead is Lake George Park Commission. MR. FULLER-I think that’s why we went to the extent that we did in trying to get in touch with people in the past to see who had actually been there, do we know these people, can we get to them. MR. STROUGH-But when you do that, it doesn’t tell me what docks were rented, were they all rented, were one or two of them rented? I mean, we’re trying to establish a use. MR. FULLER-The one that we did find was from ’94. So, that’s what I wondered, when you say that, do they have the receipts or do the Smiths, did the Smiths have the receipts, or does the Lake George Park Commission have them? That’s what I’m wondering. I’m not arguing with you. Certainly, I FOIL’d everything. It was a blanket FOIL. MR. STROUGH-But what I liked about the Smiths is they show me every single year, that those docks, three of the four, they were paying commercial fees for them. I’m going to assume that they paid the extra money because they were renting them out. Now, so they established what they had to establish. They have to establish that the use has been continuous since 1981. MRS. HOPPER-Well, I’ve proved through documentation back to ’64 that these docks have been used for exactly what they’ve been. MR. STROUGH-All the docks? MRS. HOPPER-All the docks. Exactly what they’re used for. MR. STROUGH-So you’re asking that all the docks be considered commercial? 31 Queensbury Planning Board 5/20/03) MRS. HOPPPER-No. We are not. MR. FULLER-Well, I hesitated to get up on the previous application because I didn’t want to seem like I was trying to make them prove something or differentiate, but the commercial use, I guess, is the distinction that I’m confused about. Why, when this law first went in, the change, I met with Craig, and we had discussion about what are we going to have to prove here, because obviously, you know, as we were here all last summer, we wanted to see if we could do it, and he said you have to show that you were, roughly the marina, under the Park Commission’s definition, I think that’s why it’s capitalized, is your marina definition that we cited earlier is similar to that, and it’s not limited to the rental. I think it reads, if you provide a dock space to anyone not registered to yourself more than, it’s two, that buzz word, that’s why I was a little, I didn’t want to get up on the Smiths because I know they came back last year and said we don’t rent. We never rented. That’s different this year, but I didn’t know that was the distinction, I guess, is my point. MR. STROUGH-Two or more motorized vessels, not registered to the owner. MR. FULLER-Right. MR. MAC EWAN-Tony has something to add to this. MR. METIVIER-I just want to add something here. If you look at the Smiths application, there were 17 pages faxed from the Lake George Park Commission, dating back to 1989. So obviously the Park Commission keeps these records on file, and they faxed them to the Smiths. MRS. HOPPER-We went and personally met with Molly Gallagher. I took and Matt went. We personally went to Molly Gallagher. Molly Gallagher not only went into her, what they had in the office. They went out to their barn where they have different records. They gave me and Matt every single thing they had. Every piece of paper pertaining to the Hannaford Road property they gave me. I presented to you everything I could get my hands on. MR. STROUGH-Did you pay dock registration fee last year? MRS. HOPPER-Yes, we did. MR. STROUGH-Well, where is a copy of that? MR. FULLER-Again, I guess that’s, if you want us to go back and get that and bring it back to you, I guess, for the sake of going off another month. MR. STROUGH-Well, it would show me, well, they showed me that you’re paying commercial rates or you’re paying residential rates. MR. FULLER-Well, that’s why they’re going to the Park Commission now, and that was something that the Smiths didn’t bring up is they’re going back now because they’ve been cited for not having a Class A Marina permit. So I think, from my standpoint, if the Lake George Park Commission was charging them a commercial dock fee for registration, and they didn’t have a Class A Marina permit, then they should go back and ask for their money back. Right? Because if they didn’t have the Marina permit, they shouldn’t have paid the money. MR. STROUGH-And that’s an interesting point, but now your job is to show me and convince me or convince the majority of the Board members here that all or part or some of these docks were used commercially and have been used commercially since 1981. Now you established that the docks existed in 1981, and I don’t have a problem with that, because they’re still there in pretty much the shape, form and configuration that they are today. Okay. What you haven’t established in my mind is that the use of the commercial version, where some of the docks are used by boats that are not registered in your name, that’s the wording we’ll use, you haven’t 32 Queensbury Planning Board 5/20/03) shown me that that use has been continuous, because that’s what the law says. You have to show that the use of the property and associated structures has been continuous to date without interruption. In other words, if there’s been interruption, you may not be allowed to have your Marina permit, Special Use Permit. Okay. Since prior to 1981. So, that’s pretty much all I have to say is that in my mind, on the documentation that I have, I am not convinced, I am not compelled to believe that the use has been continuous, based on the documentation that I have in front of me. MR. FULLER-Again, I am very concerned if there is this documentation you’re talking about at the Park Commission that wasn’t supplied on that FOIL. If it’s there, and they didn’t supply it under that FOIL blanket request, what I’m saying if that’s going to, you know, cast a negative light on this, then at least give us the shot to go back and say listen. MR. STROUGH-I would like to see that. If the Smiths got it, I believe that you can get it, but I may be a loan gun here. MR. FULLER-I think that the use, I mean, it’s, I guess my concern was just the distinction between the commercial use and not a commercial use. I didn’t think that was the main criteria, and that’s how we set this up. MR. STROUGH-Well, my assumption is that, if you’re renting dock space, then you’re going to pay the commercial rate for that dock, right? MRS. HOPPER-We paid the commercial rate. They even questioned giving them back money. We paid commercial rate. MR. FULLER-Yes, that’s what I gave them, was the information from ‘95. MR. METIVIER-But where’s the other 10 years of records? I mean, the fact is if the Smiths could have gotten every record from 1989 to 2002, where are your records, if the Lake George Park Commission faxed everything to them in one day at the same time? Obviously, they have all the records there. So the point being, they proved continuous use. Commercial docks for three docks and a residential dock for the fourth. For all those years. So why don’t you have the same? MR. FULLER-Mr. Metivier, what I’m telling you is I’m going to go to the Park Commission, and if that is, I don’t have the Smiths’ application, but I’m relying that that is faxed from them. I’m going to be up there tomorrow, and wanting to know where was this when we were there. Because we were there for quite some time. In fact, we had them go get the photo imaging that they had done in the early 80’s and that they had on file from DOT from the 50’s, to try to track these docks, to see when everything was done, and they got all of it. So it really surprises me that if that information is there, and it wasn’t supplied, that’s between them and me. MR. METIVIER-Right, and I understand that, as long as you can prove it. I mean, that you had the registrations for those years. MR. FULLER-If you prove registration, you prove that second use? MR. METIVIER-No. MR. SANFORD-The criteria hasn’t been established. I’d like to just weigh in on this. We haven’t stated that what you need to present for proof, and everybody here is making the assumption that somehow the Lake George Park Commission registration receipt is the criteria that has been established according to the Town law, and as far as I’m concerned, there’s been no criteria that has been absolutely specified. In fact, if you rented these, illegally, and never registered them at all, with the Lake George Park Commission, but could demonstrate that you had done so, I would assume we could grandfather you in, and so these are some of the issues that some of the people of this Board were uncomfortable about when this whole issue was 33 Queensbury Planning Board 5/20/03) being discussed how we were going to do it, and so I think that, I don’t want everybody on the Board here to jump to the conclusion that somehow or another receipt on the Lake George Park Commission is essential. MR. STROUGH-Well, I agree with you, Dick, but I did find the receipts from the Lake George Park Commission that the Smiths presented compelling evidence. MR. SANFORD-Fine. MRS. HOPPER-The people that we were dealing with also, I think to put this a little bit in context, this might help you a little bit. The people that Dave and I purchased the property from was the Executrix of an estate. The people that owned the property, Mrs. Irivelli’s mother, was also a Hopper which, believe me gentlemen, was no relation, but they were very elderly people, okay, very elderly. When they have continually, that’s why I went and I got every letter I could find, as far as documentation on how these docks have been used, people that rented them, real estate, anybody I could find to document the usage that you’re looking for. I understand what you want, okay. I may not be able to find, if the Park Commission, when we went to them and asked them for the records, you’re asking me for stamps and receipts. I asked for whatever they had. They didn’t have any of those. Where they are, what they did, I don’t know, but I’m saying to you, if there are no “commercial fees”, those docks have been paid fees, every year, just like clockwork. My husband and I write a check every year. What I’m saying to you is that it might be one of those things that slipped through the cracks because they’re old. The Park Commission did not send them a letter and say, by the way, 1981, the Army Corps of Engineers gave us permission to regulate the lake. Now, with those new regulations, you have to do this, this, and this. Being the age that they were, they probably weren’t even up on, maybe they didn’t see it in the paper. I don’t know, but I can tell you that those docks have been rented for years, and years, and years. MR. SANFORD-You don’t have to convince me. I feel that this particular, first of all, it’s not my turn here, but I’ve always felt that the criteria surrounding the establishment of the continuous use was vague to say the least, and perhaps just a statement signed by you could constitute appropriate proof of that, but I do wonder why, on the one receipt that we do have, it says one commercial dock, and when I look at the Smiths, they also said one commercial dock, and those are crossed off and they put in three commercial docks, and it looks like when you do the arithmetic, it’s $50 a piece for a dock. Yours is a total bill of $200. So is there four docks that we’re talking about here? MR. FULLER-For eight slips. MR. SANFORD-Eight slips, four docks. Okay. MR. FULLER-That’s, I guess, my wonder is, you know, again, if it’s a slip by slip basis, and I think that’s kind of what happened with the Smiths, one of my wonders was it’s the docks. Two slips on each dock. MR. SANFORD-It’s the dock is what you’re paying the $50 for, I think. MR. FULLER-It’s nearly impossible to show how every slip on every dock was used. MR. STROUGH-No, see, you’re registered as two docks. MRS. HOPPER-I know what this gentleman’s asking for. MR. STROUGH-You have finger like slips, but your registration shows two docks. MRS. HOPPER-Two docks. 34 Queensbury Planning Board 5/20/03) MR. STROUGH-Now, look at the Smiths registration. They’ve got a registration number for each dock, four docks. You, when you look at yours, you only have two numbers. Because you only have two docks. MR. FULLER-But they’re structures. The two dock structures are four each. MR. STROUGH-Yes. They may have multiple berths. MR. SANFORD-John, I’m not sure about that. I’m looking at 1994 Smith application, and I’m looking at 1994 Hopper application for mooring of boats, and what I come up with is for the commercial docks, the Hoppers are paying $50 more than the Smiths. The Smiths paid $150 for their commercial docks, and they spent $200 here at the Hoppers. So they had more docks or more slips. MR. STROUGH-Well, let’s compare apples and apples here. Here is the Smiths. How many numbers do you see? MR. SANFORD-I see four. MR. STROUGH-Four. Here is the Hoppers. How many numbers do you see? MR. SANFORD-I’m looking at this, and I see they paid more than the Smiths paid, suggesting to me they have a bigger operation. MR. FULLER-All right. MR. STROUGH-Well, you know, in my opinion, the bottom line, I think you can get the documentation, and I think I can be convinced, but at this point, I don’t feel that way. MR. FULLER-If you go to Exhibit A, that has the 1981 registration, those are two docks. They’re two docks. MR. STROUGH-Yes, two docks. The registration numbers for the docks are right there, but it doesn’t tell me if they were being used commercially, for a marina. MR. FULLER-See, that goes back to my question is, is it just a commercial use distinction? MR. STROUGH-Yes, because the law says, and I’ll read it to you again, the use of the property and associated structure has been continuous to date, without interruption, prior to 1981. You’re trying to establish that it was a marina use. MR. SANFORD-No, wait, let me debate you on this. I think we asked the question in workshop. If these docks, if you didn’t charge anybody any rent at all, it would still be a marina. So, remember that was an issue. Consideration wasn’t necessarily a key element. MR. FULLER-And the Park Commission will tell you that up and down. MR. STROUGH-Right. MR. FULLER-Consideration doesn’t play into it. MR. SANFORD-So, as far as I’m concerned, unless we’re going to establish concrete criteria for what we’re going to be looking for to grandfather these in, we’re being arbitrary to say this is good enough or this isn’t good enough. MR. STROUGH-No, I know. I don’t think so, because the Smiths showed that they paid a commercial rate every year since 1982, on three of those four docks. They established it very clearly. This is not established as clearly. If you’re going to accept this as acceptable 35 Queensbury Planning Board 5/20/03) documentation to show that the use has been continuous since 1982, I think we’re in trouble in the long run. We’ve got, what, nine more of these? MR. SANFORD-Going by your line of reasoning, you’re almost suggesting that in the absence of being able to have a Lake George Park Commission registration application for every single year, I won’t approve, is basically your point. MR. METIVIER-Well, keep in mind that you, on the other application it was approved with a condition that that fourth dock could not be rented out, and we based that on the fact that the Lake George Park Commission charged them as a residential dock. MR. SANFORD-Well, no. They basically made that representation that they did not rent that out, Tony. You’re right, and it was also shown by the application, and they didn’t have a problem with not asking for that to be a part of the approval. Here we have an applicant who’s saying, look it, this fits in the same way. I just don’t have all the documentation that Mr. Strough or maybe others are happy with, and I’m saying who are we to sit around and prescribe the criteria when the law doesn’t do it. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, wait a second, I would like to interject something right there. MR. MAC EWAN-Let me chime in here first, Cathy. When we were dealing with these applications last summer, and this is the exact area where we got hung up on, and this is why we tabled it, why we went back to the Town Board to ask that the Ordinance be clarified, so that we could establish when the commercial activities were happening with these parcels on the lake, and one of those criteria was to show that there was a continuous use. The Hoppers haven’t demonstrated that, but the Smiths have demonstrated that, and if that information is available through the Lake George Park Commission, I would encourage the applicant to go back up there and see if they can dig through their files more and provide us that continuous history of those docks being used as a commercial use. MR. SANFORD-Mr. Chairman, I appreciate what you’re saying, and I questioned whether or not it isn’t appropriate for the applicant to merely provide us with a signed statement stating that they were. I don’t know what. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s not the criteria we looked for when we discussed. MR. SANFORD-We don’t know. We don’t have criteria. MR. MAC EWAN-We did. We sat and established it in a workshop a year ago. Rich, we established it in a workshop a year ago, the criteria we were looking for. MR. SANFORD-I remember. I was at that workshop. I remember it was something, well, maybe a photograph, of boats at the docks going over the, you know. MRS. LA BOMBARD-That was to make sure the docks were there. MR. SANFORD-I remember Craig Brown in a series of what if questions that were going at him, and it didn’t seem like we had nailed it down all that in a very specific sense, Craig. That’s my memory on this. MR. MAC EWAN-Let me take an informal poll. Is the information that’s supplied with this application enough for us to move forward and render a decision one way or the other? MR. RINGER-It is for me. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. SANFORD-It is for me. 36 Queensbury Planning Board 5/20/03) MR. MAC EWAN-Two. MR. HUNSINGER-I think so. MR. MAC EWAN-Three. MR. METIVIER-I think so, too. MR. MAC EWAN-Four. All right. We’ll move forward, then. Anything else that you wanted to add, John? MR. STROUGH-No, I don’t think so. MR. MAC EWAN-Rich? MR. STROUGH-And I think it’s setting a bad precedence. MR. SANFORD-No, I think there is, I mean, again, I knew this was the kind of stuff we were going to be faced with. It doesn’t surprise me. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Cathy, do you want to (lost words)? MRS. LA BOMBARD-I just want to say that I had a tough time voting at all on the last, on Smiths application, just because if this came right to us now without having any past use, it would definitely not be in existence. However, I had no recourse but to vote yes because everything was there. Well, right now, I have a tough time voting yes because now I’ve got a loophole. Now I can say, hey, wait a minute, we have a lot of impacts here, and the criteria that we did establish at that meeting I feel hasn’t been met, and I do believe that you can get this documentation, but right now, like I said, if this was going to go down in today’s, in 2003 for the first time, you wouldn’t even be here. So I really have to have proof that this is going to be grandfathered in. That’s your escape. I mean, that’s your little diamond in the rough. MR. FULLER-I guess from our standpoint, I’m just. MRS. LA BOMBARD-But you’re going forward. Hey, wait a minute, there’s only just two of us here, I can express my opinion. MR. FULLER-In general, I’m just troubled that the criteria that we’re talking about here is nothing any of us that can come here could know about. There’s no way for us to know what criteria you guys set in a workshop a year ago. I’m just, it’s. MRS. LA BOMBARD-You had the minutes to that. MR. MAC EWAN-Both these applications were told what we were looking for for criteria to establish the continuous use. MRS. HOPPER-I thought we answered them. I thought we had it all. I really did. I thought we answered every question you have. I’m building a home right there now. I’m going to live there. This is where I’m going to retire. MRS. LA BOMBARD-This hasn’t gone down, Mrs. Hopper. You can still live there. I’m just saying I think you can still get that documentation, but I think we established a precedent with the Smiths. MR. RINGER-I think you’re in pretty good shape right now, and as we move forward with this, I think it’s going to go through. 37 Queensbury Planning Board 5/20/03) MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else you wanted to add? MRS. LA BOMBARD-I mean, a Class A Marina, to me, is heavy duty, and you’re going for all the guts. You are. You could just say I’m going to build my house and have one dock for myself, and you wouldn’t even be here. Do you know what I’m saying? MR. RINGER-Let’s not get into an argument with them. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. That’s enough. Let’s not belabor it. Anything else you wanted to add? MRS. HOPPER-No. MR. FULLER-That’s it, I guess. MR. MAC EWAN-Can I ask you to give up the table for a minute. We’ll open up the public hearing. Does anyone want to comment on this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED JOHN SALVADOR, JR. MR. SALVADOR-My name is John Salvador. For the record, I’d like to pretty much reiterate what I said during the Smith application and a few points of clarification. Contrary to Mr. Schachner’s rebuttal to my position on Part 646, if you read the Zoning Ordinance where it talks about the need for a Special Use Permit for marinas, there’s an inseparable link between Part 646 of the Park Commission regulatory program, it’s stated there, that these applications have to meet those standards. Secondly, on the question of the record of dock fees, there were no dock fees prior to 1988. The legislative enactment of 1987 gave the Commission the power to collect dock fees and it was not effective until January 1, 1988. When this program was put into place, the Park Commission staff conducted a survey, and there’s a piece of paper that each operator had to sign, and that piece of paper established the operating level of that marina, number of docks, number of this, parking, all of it, storage, the whole thing is on there, and that established the basis for the collection of the fees, whether they were commercial docks, residential docks, what have you. That is a matter of public record, for every one. In the event that the Commission missed someone in the spring of 1988 when they made the survey and they came upon them later, these people were assessed for back fees, and they were assessed penalties and interest, and that has to be a matter of public record. A State agency is required, under the State Finance Law Section Five, the monies they collect to be collected against an identification number, you can use your social security number. We use our Federal ID. The Commission has to know what they’re collecting, and this is a matter of public record, and I can’t understand why they haven’t answered the FOIL. I’ll be honest with you. I’ve been to the Commission many times on this subject. The records are there. They have impeccable records. So, if that becomes a criteria, it has to be there, and those of us who operate commercial marinas, we use these Commission fees as tax deductible expenses. They’re reported on our tax returns. In fact, your Town Assessor has asked for this evidence in an assessment justification in our case. So there’s no reason why this isn’t available. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Thank you. Anyone else? JOE BARONE MR. BARONE-I’m Joe Barone. My only concern is the parking. Is the parking still planned on Hannaford Road or down on Pilot Knob Road? MR. MAC EWAN-The short answer is not parking at all. The issue is whether it is a pre- existing, nonconforming use that will continue to be allowed to be pre-existing nonconforming 38 Queensbury Planning Board 5/20/03) use under a Special Use Permit, which doesn’t require a site plan review or approval. Am I right on that? MR. HILTON-It doesn’t require a comprehensive review. MR. MAC EWAN-Right. MR. HILTON-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Did that answer your question? MR. BARONE-I don’t understand. I just, before it was a big issue with the parking, and that’s what we were here before and we wrote the letters. MR. STROUGH-But the law got re-written since the last time we met. MR. BARONE-It has? MR. STROUGH-That’s what I was talking about in the beginning of this meeting, where I wanted to still have site plan review capability, and it boiled down to, we’re not going to get that. Tough luck was my assessment. MRS. LA BOMBARD-So basically they can park where they’ve been parking. MR. BARONE-Okay. MRS. LA BOMBARD-To answer your question. Wherever that’s been. MR. STROUGH-For what it’s worth, I don’t like the way the law has been re-written. MR. BARONE-Okay. Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Anyone else? GRACE HANNAFORD MRS. HANNAFORD-Mine is the same question. That they don’t park on Hannaford Road. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MRS. HANNAFORD-Because it’s residential. My name is Grace Hannaford, 15 Hannaford Road. What I’m concerned about is parking. These cars from the marina up on Hannaford Road, which is residential, and the Board knows that it’s a very narrow road, and that when cars go to pass, they’ve got to get on somebody else’s property to pass. That’s what I’m against. I mean, we live in a residential area, and now they want to make it commercial with this marina. Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. Anyone else? All right. MR. HILTON-Very quickly, I’d just like to reference the previous letter from Ruth Bredlau that was read into the record at the Smith application. It’s also contained in the Hopper application. I’d just like to reference that again. That’s all we have. It’s the same letter. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. I’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MAC EWAN-Discussion? 39 Queensbury Planning Board 5/20/03) MR. METIVIER-I do think, because this is new to us, I would recommend, to cover ourselves more than anything, to see if we can get any documentation from the Park Commission on those commercial docks, for the Hoppers themselves, because this registration goes back to the other Hopper, back to 1982, but there’s no documentation whatsoever that these docks were registered to the existing Hoppers, and I think that if we need to set precedent, because we do have so many more applications ahead of us that might be affected by this, that we should be careful before we jump ahead, and furthermore, if the Park Commission can get that information, I might ask for the applicant’s sake that maybe we could squeeze them in at one of the next two meetings. Instead of having them have to wait next month. Because, I mean, pretty much the application itself is done, but I would like to see the documentation prior to. MR. SANFORD-Okay. Tony, the way I see this, looking at the history of this, this has been kicking around here since the first public hearing was June 20, 2002. Could Staff and/or Counsel cite for the Planning Board what the criteria that has been identified that we should be utilizing to determine whether or not appropriate proof has been presented? MR. SCHACHNER-Counsel certainly cannot (lost words). MR. SANFORD-Okay. MR. HILTON-Yes, and I can only point you to Section 179-10-035 that has the two items that are used to substantiate. MR. SCHACHNER-But I think, correct me if I’m wrong, but I think what Rich is asking is what information or what level of information would fit those two items. MR. SANFORD-Here’s what I’m leading to. I think it’s obvious that if we table this and they come back with a nice chronology of every year, we’re all going to feel comfortable with it. However, if they don’t, we’re not necessarily going to feel uncomfortable about it, and so again, I think that we made our bed here, and I think what we have to basically recognize is there’s not a nice, neat criteria that we can rely on and say, hey, we have a checklist here and you’ve got some boxes that you still need to, you know, come up with stuff, and I think on balance, we have to be reasonable and prudent here, and I think when I look at this, I’m comfortable in moving forward with it. MR. SCHACHNER-And I guess, just to add to that, I think that’s very well put. You don’t have, in some instances you have very specific check list type criteria for some of your decisions, some you don’t here you don’t. What you have is the burden is that you have to find substantiating evidence, valid, complete and satisfactory. That’s not much guidance, and I agree with Rich. Because that’s what you have. MR. MAC EWAN-Any other comments? Well, I’m still hearing basically it’s a minority. So if someone wants to introduce a resolution, then we’ll entertain it. One way or the other. MR. RINGER-To move forward with it? MR. MAC EWAN-To do whatever you want. MR. RINGER-I’m for approving it and moving forward. MR. SANFORD-Can Larry and I work on a resolution? Give us a couple of minutes to put one together. MR. MAC EWAN-Sure. MR. SANFORD-Take it to a vote. 40 Queensbury Planning Board 5/20/03) MR. MAC EWAN-That’s fine. MOTION TO APPROVE SPECIAL USE PERMIT SUP 2-2002 DAVID & JANE HOPPER, Introduced by Larry Ringer who moved for its adoption, seconded by Richard Sanford: WHEREAS, an application has been made to this Board for the following: Special Use Permit SUP 2-2002 Applicant / Property Owner: David & Jane Hopper Type: Unlisted Property Owner: Same Agent: J. Mark Noordsy, Matthew Fuller Zone: WR-1A Location: 35 Hanneford Rd. & off Pilot Knob Rd. Applicant seeks to establish a marina involving the rental of 5 boat slips and associated amenities. Marinas require the issuance of a Special Use Permit by the Planning Board. Cross Reference: AV 32-02, SP 21-99, BP 99-338 APA, CEA Warren Co. Planning: 6/12/02 Tax Map No. 240.6-1-14 Lot size: 0.43 acres / Section: Art. 10 Public Hearing: June 20, 2002: Tabled July 23, 2002: Tabled August 15, 2002: PH left open WHEREAS, the additional information was received on March 17, 2003; and WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation and inclusive of all newly received information, not included in this listing as of 5/16/03, and 5/20 Staff Notes 5/13 Notice of Public Hearing 5/7 Meeting Notice 4/9 Warren Co. PB resolution WHEREAS, pursuant to Art. 10 of the Zoning Ordinance of the Code of the Town of Queensbury a public hearing was advertised and was held on 7/22/02, 7/23/02, 8/15/02, and 5/20/03; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the Special Use Permit requirements of the Code of the Town Queensbury (Zoning); and WHEREAS, the Planning Board feels that the materials submitted with the Hopper’s application substantiated the pre-existing, nonconforming use, and that the use of the property and associated structures has been continuous to date without interruption since prior to 1981 for marina and prior to 1967 for all other uses. Consistent seasonal use may qualify as continuous use. WHEREAS, the Planning Board has considered the extent to which the use is in harmony with and promotes the general purposes and intent of the CLUP and this chapter and its effects on the health, welfare and safety of the Town and its residents, and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has considered the overall compatibility of the use with the neighborhood and the positive and negative impacts on community character, including the character of adjoining properties, districts and uses, and the positive and negative impact on density, including the density of adjoining properties, districts and uses, and, 41 Queensbury Planning Board 5/20/03) WHEREAS, the Planning Board has considered the positive and negative impacts of the use on vehicular congestion and parking, including the provision of adequate parking and the absence of hazardous parking or traffic conditions, and, WHEREAS, the Planning Board has considered the positive and negative impacts on infrastructure and services, including utilities, public facilities and services, including the extent to which the project extends or provides infrastructure and services to areas in need of such infrastructure and services, and, WHEREAS, the Planning Board has considered the positive and negative impacts on environmental and natural resources, including the environmental and physical suitability of the site for development, the risk of fire, flood or erosion and impacts such as emissions of electrical charges, dust, light, vibration or noise detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare, and, WHEREAS, the Planning Board has considered the extent to which the use provides positive or negative effects on the long term economic stability and community character of the Town and surrounding properties, districts and uses, 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, approval of the application means that the applicant can now apply for a Building Permit unless the lands are Adirondack Park Agency Jurisdictional or other approvals are necessary. 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: 1. The first page of the resolution prepared by Staff and the first paragraph of the second page of the resolution prepared by Staff, and also include in there that the Board feels that the materials submitted with the Hopper’s application substantiated the pre- existing, nonconforming use, and that the use of the property and associated structures has been continuous to date without interruption since prior to 1981 for marina and prior to 1967 for all other uses. Consistent seasonal use may qualify as continuous use. 2. The applicant will prepare a document hereafter referred to as “Rental Conditions.” This document will contain instructional information relative to conditions numbered 1- 6 as listed in a document entitled “ Special Use Permit Conditions of Approval.” It is understood and agreed that these Rental Conditions will be supplied, individually, to all customers and will be made available to all patrons and employees of the facility by way of conspicuous posting. 3. The applicant will maintain a record of signed copies of the agreement with each renter. Duly adopted this 20th day of May, 2003 by the following vote: MR. MAC EWAN-I’d like to qualify my vote with the fact that you have not been able to substantiate, in my mind, continuous use as a marina, as the previous application has done. That’s the reason I’m voting no. If you can provide that proof to me, I certainly would vote yes on it. 42 Queensbury Planning Board 5/20/03) MR. STROUGH-I’ll concur with the Chairman. MRS. LA BOMBARD-And I concur with that. AYES: Mr. Sanford, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Ringer NOES: Mr. Strough, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. MacEwan MR. MAC EWAN-With that being said, you’re all set. Good luck. MR. SCHACHNER-I have to raise the question, because that’s why I’m here, did this go to the County Planning Board, and if so, what was its recommendations? MR. RINGER-Have to go through the old files. MR. HILTON-Does a nonconforming use (lost words)? MR. SCHACHNER-That’s what we’re just deciding. Probably not. MR. RINGER-It has to be supermajority up at the County. MR. SCHACHNER-Yes, but you know, George is raising a good question. Which is, under this kind of determination, one would presume it doesn’t have to go to the County Planning Board. This has been an evolving process, I would say. So it didn’t go in the last month. MR. MAC EWAN-No. MR. SCHACHNER-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-No, I’ve got the sheet right here. MR. FULLER-Thank you. NEW BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 30-2003 SEQRA TYPE: UNLISTED GF INN ASSOCIATES AGENT: MICHAEL J. O’CONNOR ZONE: HC-INT. LOCATION: 1 ABBEY LANE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT A 2,610 SQ. FT. ADDITION TO AN EXISTING HOTEL TO BE USED AS AN INDOOR POOL. HOTEL USES IN THE HC-INT. ZONE REQUIRE SITE PLAN REVIEW AND APPROVAL FROM THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REFERENCE: VAR. 3, 191, 666 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 5/14/03 TAX MAP NO. 302.9-1-29 LOT SIZE: 5.11 ACRES SECTION: ART. 9 MICHAEL O’CONNOR & KEVIN MARKHAM, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MRS. LA BOMBARD-And there is a public hearing this evening. MR. HILTON-As mentioned, the applicant proposes to construct an approximately 2600 square foot addition to use to relocate the existing swimming pool and the hotel and convert the existing swimming pool to banquet facility. The applicant also proposes additional, or new parking areas to be created and the removal of some impervious surface as creating of parking islands as such. The applicant has submitted or has requested waivers from a lighting plan and landscaping plan, and although the applicant has requested a lighting waiver, the applicant should clarify if any new lighting is proposed, and Staff also recommends that interior parking lot landscaping as required in Section 179-8-40D be included, and Staff recommends the inclusion be the addition of shade trees within the proposed seeded parking lot islands. The number of parking spaces provided meets the Zoning Ordinance requirements. However, the 43 Queensbury Planning Board 5/20/03) 24 foot drive aisle width that’s required does not appear to be met on a portion of the plan adjacent to, or just to the west of the proposed addition. One possible solution is to widen the drive so that you have the 24 foot access. Again, I should say that that’s based on our scaling. If the applicant can submit a revised site plan indicating that that drive aisle is 24 feet, then that would meet Code. The only thing to consider is that the site permeability cannot exceed zoning requirements without a variance. This application has been referred to C.T. Male for their comment and review, and any of their comments should be addressed during the review of this application, and that’s all we have at this time. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 30-2003, GF Inn Associates, Meeting Date: May 20, 2003 “APPLICATION: Site Plan 30-2003 APPLICANT: GF Inn Associates is the applicant for this request REQUESTED ACTION: Applicant proposes to construct a 2,610 sq. ft. indoor pool addition to an existing hotel (Ramada Inn), along with additional paving and parking areas. As part of the site plan, the applicant is also proposing to remove some paving in order to create grassed islands within existing parking areas. LOCATION: The subject property is located at 1 Abbey Lane, south of Aviation Rd. and west of I-87. EXISTING ZONING: The property is zoned HC-Int, Highway Commercial Intensive. SEQRA STATUS: The requested action is an Unlisted SEQRA action. The applicant has included a SEQR Short Environmental Assessment Form with the Site Plan application. PARCEL HISTORY: A review of Town records found references to previous variances at this location, but no record of Planning Board actions involving the existing hotel operation. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant proposes to construct a 2610 sq. ft. addition to the existing Ramada Inn located just west of I-87 and south of Aviation Rd. The applicant plans to construct a new swimming pool in the addition, while converting the existing hotel pool to a banquet facility. The proposed site plan also indicates new parking areas and some parking expansion, as well as some seeded parking islands to be created within the existing parking area. The applicant has submitted information concerning stormwater management, which has been submitted to CT Male for their review and comment. STAFF COMMENTS: The applicant has requested waivers from the following Site Plan Requirements: Lighting Plan - Landscaping Plan - Although the applicant has requested a lighting waiver, the applicant should clarify if any new lighting is proposed as part of the addition. Any proposed lighting should be indicated on the site plan. Staff recommends that the site plan be revised to include Interior Parking Lot landscaping as required in § 179-8-040 D by adding shade trees within the proposed seeded parking lot islands, as well as adjacent to new parking areas. Shade trees should be a more salt tolerant deciduous tree from the list contained in § 179-8-030. 44 Queensbury Planning Board 5/20/03) The total number of parking spaces provided (249) meets Zoning Ordinance requirements. It appears that the 22 proposed parking spaces to the west of the building addition do not have the required 24 ft. drive aisle as called for in 179-4-040 B. In order to provide the required 24 ft. drive aisle, the Planning Board can approve the plan with a stipulation that the drive aisle behind these 22 proposed spaces be widened to 24 ft. However, the amount of impervious area (currently shown as 69.8 %) cannot go over 70% without a variance from the ZBA. If the applicant feels that widening this aisle is not possible, a variance must be granted by the ZBA in order to allow a drive aisle less than 24 ft. as is currently represented on the site plan. The applicant has submitted information indicating that the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) for this site will be less than 30 % with the proposed building addition. Any comments from CT Male should be addressed during the review of this application.” MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening. MR. O'CONNOR-Good evening, Mr. Chairman, I’m Michael O’Connor from the law firm of Little & O’Connor representing the applicant, and with me is Kevin Markham who is the manager of the Ramada Inn here at Exit 19. We have received the comments from C.T. Male that are dated May 16, and we have had direct contact with James Houston, and it’s my th understanding that Peter Nelson, of Nelson Associates, has pretty much run through each of those comments. I’ve got a summary of what his response or what their response was. MR. MAC EWAN-The general comment that came back to us was that the comments, although numerous by C.T. Male, were not substantial in any manner, and I think that, in part, the fellow was very congenial in our trying to address them, and I’ll address them, if you will, one by one. On his letter of May 16, he said the plan should include a site location map. The drawing will th be modified to include a site location map. The next comment was the site plan should identify the adjoining roads. The site plan will show adjoining roads. This is the motel that is at Exit 19 on the west side of the Northway. You go in John Burke Road. You take a left behind the Mobil station on Abbey Lane. You go to the end of Abbey Lane, and that’s the motel. I don’t think there’s a lot of confusion about this and some other site, but we can document it. Consideration should be given to re-naming the wastewater structure seepage pits and leaving the stormwater structures as drywells. The drawing will be modified to comply. Proposed grading information is warranted in the area west of the addition to determine the watershed tributary to the catch basins. The drawing has been modified to show drawing concept. Refer to attached Sketch C-100A, and these came in about five o’clock tonight or five thirty tonight, if you look at the fax, I guess it was five thirty. Unfortunately the shading didn’t come in all that well, but there are two catch basins that are going to be installed, Catch Basin One and Catch Basin Two, along the west boundary of the property, and basically the grading will be a high point so that half of each end goes into each catch basin, and our proposal is that we will show that on the final drawing in a manner that’s clear, and if you take a look at C-100A, I think you can see it in part. I’ve drawn letters for the actual flowage of the sheet water drainage. That is an existing driveway, I’ll also tell you, that’s there. What we’re adding at most is on the east side of that existing driveway, provision for 22 parking spaces. We’re not adding a great deal of non-permeable area to it. They have had no problems with the drainage, and we’re actually putting in two catch basins just to pick up those 22 parking spots. You asked, it’s not clear if Catch Basins One and Two are existing or proposed. The answer is they are proposed. This has been noted on the revised drawing. Proposed grading information is warranted in the areas east of the existing building where new paving is added. If you look at the big drawing that you have, the new paving is probably not much more than a couple of hundred square feet, and he has done a separate drawing, which he has labeled C-100B, and he went over this with Mr. Houston from C.T. Male, and he showed how that corner, or triangle of paving will be drained, and I don’t think there’s a, there’s not a great area there, and that will be incorporated into the final plan. Consideration should be given to relocating the stormwater drywells further to the south, giving greater separation from the kitchen septic system. My understanding is that those, the separation was in compliance with regulation, but given the suggestion, we will make the move. We will move them a little bit further away. It doesn’t hurt. It means that we’re 45 Queensbury Planning Board 5/20/03) going to add another length of pipe to it. The stormwater design perimeters should identify the design storm event, frequency of return, and demonstration of drywells proposed can exfiltrate the computed runoff. The stormwater system is designed to exceed the requirement of a 50 year storm, which I understand is our regulation or our requirement. The plans should contain pertinent soil information and depth to groundwater to support the use of drywells. The entire site is over laid by a minimum of 19 feet of highly permeable sandy soil, and this is consistent with observations made at the existing drywells. There are drywells on the site that have been observed by this engineering firm, and it’s also consistent with the Warren County Geological maps. No groundwater is present to this depth, and I think you’re all familiar with where we’re talking about. My understanding was that the groundwater was approximately 60 feet there, and I go back to when we did the testing for Indian Ridge many, many years ago. So there is, this is a well drained area. There is not a high groundwater, but I understand their question. Consideration should be given to relocating the sidewalk off the kitchen septic area, and the distinction was made that the kitchen septic leaching field is an absorption trench and not dependent upon evapotranspiration. Due to site constraints, it would be difficult to relocate the sidewalk and Mr. Houston indicated that this was only a suggestion and not a requirement. Information should be provided regarding the anticipated quantity of wastewater generation and demonstration that the existing system is designed to handle the computed flow. The renovation of the existing pool area calls for removal of existing bathrooms. The new bathrooms will be located in the pool addition area. No change in sewage disposal anticipated. We are providing a more direct piping path to the existing septic system. Maybe I should have not jumped so quickly. Basically what they’re doing is converting the existing pool area into a banquet area, and they are going to build an addition of 2610 square feet where they will put the new pool, or the replacement pool. It’s almost interior to the site. It’s not going to be visible in any great way to anyone at this present time. It certainly is not going to be visible to the Northway because it’s on the back side of the site. The motel is on the front side. It’s not going to be visible to anybody on Abbey Lane, simply because the front of the building is in the way, and on the west side, they own the vacant land that’s adjacent to it. There is a parcel of vacant land that lies between them and the continuation of Burke Road, but they own it, or have control of it, through another partnership. This is a tax map, if anybody has a question as to the general area. MR. MAC EWAN-We were all there Saturday. MR. O'CONNOR-Good. Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-Can you jump back to your letter from Nelson, in response to the telephone conversation with Jim Houston at C.T. Male. MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-How was it basically left? MR. O'CONNOR-Houston was satisfied, if we made these modifications, he would approve the project. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. O'CONNOR-I do not have anything in writing from him. If we can get to a point where we talk about consideration, I would ask you to make it subject to his signoff, and that we present plans that are satisfactory to him. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. O'CONNOR-There were comments by Staff as well, and Staff is correct that we asked for a lighting waiver. I would continue that request. There is no new lighting, except that there if there is an exit door on any part of this, there would be wall mounted fixtures on the wall, downcast, and I would stipulate to that effect. There’s no parking lot addition. There’s no 46 Queensbury Planning Board 5/20/03) significant lighting of any nature, in addition that’s planned to what’s there now. Staff also recommended that in the front part of the motel we have created some islands, green space islands. There are four green space islands there. Staff has recommended that we do some shade tree planting in there that would be salt tolerant. We spoke, and we spoke in part to the fellow from C.T. Male on this, as well as through our engineering people. We would prefer to put in some low shrubs in each of those planting areas. We think that they would have a better chance of survival than trying to put in trees, unless we put in some type of dwarf trees, and I’m not an arborist, but we’re amenable to doing a planting satisfactory in those islands. I do note that on the north side of the property there’s heavily treed areas. I mean, this planting is not going to be visible to many people at all, and on the west side it’s an entirely forested lot. They aren’t really center to the parking lot. It’s not that big a parking lot. I understand the regulations, but I don’t think it should be that significant an issue. If you want us to stipulate, and my thought would be three low lying shrubs in each of the four areas that we’re going to create. It would give us something numerical that Staff could monitor and review when we complete the project. Staff had a question on scaling of the drives, and on Schedule, I’m sorry, on Sketch C-100A, Nelson has put in that there will be a 24 foot minimum drive along the west boundary line with those new parking areas that we’re going to create, and we will show that on the final drawing. We did not need to create any new non pervious area in order to do that. If you look at that sketch, and I don’t know if this is the darkness or what not, but when it came out, it looks like a little corner of the piece, and a part of that green area might be beyond what he has marked as 24 feet. If it is, we will make those a little narrower, and we will eliminate that sidewalk that’s in the back there. We don’t need that for any particular reason. That runs along the back, I’m sorry. There’s a sidewalk on the main drawing, shown on the main drawing, that can be eliminated, and will more than make up the difference. I think we had 69% permeable. We had 30% building, when we did the actual calculations. So that would be my answer to comments by Staff and comments by engineering firm. I would ask for your approval, conditional approval, upon us filing a map that C.T. Male signs off on, with the condition that we show on that map the planting that I spoke of, in addition to what the engineer has requested. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Chris, we’ll start with you. MR. HUNSINGER-I’m a little confused on the drive aisle. It’s existing, right? MR. O'CONNOR-It’s existing, but we’re creating parking that will back out into it. Part of our new regulations, correct me if I’m wrong, says that all drive aisles are to be 24 feet wide. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. O'CONNOR-We got into a big thing with this. We actually delayed it a month because the engineer thought that the 24 foot would only apply if you had two-way traffic, or if you were trying to promote two-way traffic. So we went back to the drawing board and came up with this. We can comply with the 24 feet. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. O'CONNOR-We will comply with the 24 feet. It won’t hurt us on permeability. MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, my confusion is, since it’s existing, you know, it’s either there or it’s not. Do you know what I’m saying? MR. O'CONNOR-Well, we’re showing parking spots along the side of it. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. O'CONNOR-I guess. MR. HUNSINGER-I don’t know. 47 Queensbury Planning Board 5/20/03) MR. O'CONNOR-I don’t know, either. It’s a CAD drawing. You’re talking, I don’t know, what are you talking? You’re talking 222,000 square feet, and we’re down to a fraction of one percent. So the width of the line is probably what we’re looking at. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. HILTON-And just to clarify, the Zoning Ordinance calls for parking spaces to be accessed by a 24 foot drive aisle. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. HILTON-And that’s where the comment came from. Because there are new parking spaces proposed. You know, I agree with you, and it is an existing drive aisle. However, the addition of new parking spaces requires the 24 feet, and again, be it a scaling issue or whatever, if the applicant can provide the 24 indicated on the plan, then that satisfies our concern. MR. HUNSINGER-I guess, you know, my thinking is, you know, just take a tape measure to the existing pavement and you’re going to know if it’s there or not, but, maybe that’s too simplistic. I don’t know. I don’t think I had anymore questions. It appears that everything has been addressed in the latest submission. I didn’t have anything else to add. MR. METIVIER-Can we do a conditional or would you, we could do that? MR. MAC EWAN-We’ve done it before, yes. MR. METIVIER-I even have to agree with the request for waivers. It’s an established place, and I think overall the upkeep is nice. So I don’t foresee any problems with landscape or lighting waivers on this one. I, too, was very confused about the whole driveway thing, but it’s been clarified for me. So I really have no other questions. MR. MAC EWAN-John? MR. STROUGH-No. The applicant seems to address almost all concerns except with, I think it’s reasonable that they ask for shrubs instead of trees at those four areas where the paving’s going to be removed. I don’t know what to suggest. I’m just going to assume that, in our Town Code, we have suggested evergreen, low screening shrubs, and I think that’s what you’re looking for. MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. MR. STROUGH-And I’m going to assume that, because they’re listed in the Code, that they’re salt resistant, and they list Yews, Junipers. So then it comes down to, do you have a preference for, I think Spruces are going to be too tall for what you had in mind. I think what you had in mind was a low-lying Juniper or a Yew. Do we want to put two or three in each one of those spots. I mean, one isn’t going to fill it out much, maybe two, maybe three. MR. HUNSINGER-I think John had suggested three, or, I’m sorry, the applicant had suggested three. MR. O'CONNOR-My suggestion was three, just based on size. I know, and I’ll just add this to you, that they stood on their hands in the corner and worked with DOT to do the landscaping that’s outside of their property line on the entrance way. They’ll do a nice job. MR. STROUGH-Yes, well, it seems to me that three seems reasonable, and would fill out that space and make it attractive yet pretty maintenance free. Okay, and so I have no further questions. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. 48 Queensbury Planning Board 5/20/03) MR. MAC EWAN-Rich? MR. SANFORD-Yes. I’m comfortable with it. You’re saying conditioned upon C.T. Male signoff? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. MR. SANFORD-Yes. I’m fine with it. MR. MAC EWAN-Cathy? MRS. LA BOMBARD-I would just like to say, for the record, that the past two year, 2001 and 2002, my students, as a junior class advisor, have held their post prom parties at your Ramada, and it’s been a very safe environment there. It’s been quiet, and our students had a great time, and I think the addition of this new pool with the banquet facility is just going to enhance the overall building and what it can offer to the community, and it’s the go ahead, just contingent upon C.T. Male, and thank you, Mr. Markham. MR. MAC EWAN-Larry? MR. RINGER-I have nothing further to add, and we have made approvals based on, you know, that they would get a signoff from Male, but generally there hasn’t been as many items as are here, but I don’t think I’d have too much of a problem with it. MR. MAC EWAN-Most of the stuff on that letter. MR. RINGER-Is minor. MR. MAC EWAN-It’s basic housekeeping stuff. Yes, I mean, it’s not relative, there’s really no outstanding issues on there to verify. MR. RINGER-It’s just a long list. I don’t particularly have a problem, but there were just so many items on there, but I don’t think I’d have a problem with it. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Any other questions, comments? I’ll open up the public hearing. Does anyone want to comment on this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MAC EWAN-We need to do a SEQRA, please. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 30-2003, Introduced by Catherine LaBombard who moved for its adoption, seconded by Chris Hunsinger: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: GF INN ASSOCIATES, 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 49 Queensbury Planning Board 5/20/03) 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 20 day of May, 2003, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Ringer, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Strough, Mr. Metivier, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE MR. MAC EWAN-Have you got a motion up there, Mr. Strough? MR. STROUGH-It’s going to take a minute. Can I have a couple of minutes to draw one up? MR. MAC EWAN-Four minutes. That should be plenty of time. Shouldn’t it? Let’s reconvene. Just highlight what you’ve got on that. MR. STROUGH-All right. I just said that the applicant will address C.T. Male concerns, and will receive a C.T. Male signoff, and that additional wall mounted lighting will have cut offs and be downcast. That the, I guess there are five northern areas labeled on SP-100 as areas where paving will be removed will each be landscaped with three Yew shrubs and wood chips, and the last item that the drive aisle behind the western 22 proposed spaces will be widened to 24 feet. MR. O'CONNOR-I have four areas, John. Are you counting the side piece? MR. STROUGH-Five? MR. O'CONNOR-I’m not suggesting that we’re going to, I’m not going to landscape that. MR. STROUGH-You don’t want to? MR. O'CONNOR-No. It’s right next to the, this whole thing is all forested. It would be buried. MR. STROUGH-What are you going to do? MR. O'CONNOR-Just grass it over. 50 Queensbury Planning Board 5/20/03) MR. STROUGH-That’s fine with me, the four northern, how about the four northern areas. Is that clear enough? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes, four most northerly. MR. HUNSINGER-John, did you have that the waivers requested were granted? MR. STROUGH-No. Thanks. MR. HUNSINGER-It’s actually on the Staff prepared. MR. STROUGH-It’s on the Staff? MR. HUNSINGER-Well, it says granted or denied. You just need to cross off denied. MR. STROUGH-All right. Then I’ll make that condition five, then. MR. MAC EWAN-All right. Run with it. MR. STROUGH-All right. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 30-2003 GF INN ASSOCIATES, Introduced by John Strough who moved for its adoption, seconded by Larry Ringer: WHEREAS, an application has been made to this Board for the following: Site Plan No. 30-2003 Applicant/Property Owner: GF Inn Associates Previous SEQRA Agent: Michael J. O’Connor Zone: HC-Int. Location: 1 Abbey Lane Applicant proposes to construct a 2,610 sq. ft. addition to an existing hotel to be used as an indoor pool. Hotel uses in the HC-Int. zone require Site Plan review and approval from the Planning Board. Warren Co. Planning: 5/14/03 Tax Map No. 302.9-1-29 Lot size: 5.11 acres / Section: Art. 9 Public Hearing: May 20, 2003 WHEREAS, the application was received on 4/15/03; and WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation and inclusive of all newly received information, not included in this listing as of 5/16/03, and 5/20 Staff Notes 5/ C. T. Male engineering comments 5/14 Warren Co. Planning 5/13 Notice of Public Hearing 5/7 Meeting Notice 5/6 Water Dept. comments 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 May 20, 2003; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the Site Plan 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 51 Queensbury Planning Board 5/20/03) 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, approval of the application means that the applicant can now apply for a Building Permit unless the lands are Adirondack Park Agency Jurisdictional or other approvals are necessary. 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: 1. The applicant will address C. T. Male concerns outlined in the May 16, 2003 letter, and Final approval will be dependent upon receiving a C. T. Male sign-off. 2. Additional wall mounted lighting will have cut offs and be downcast. 3. The four most northern areas labeled on SP-100 as areas where paving will be removed will each be landscaped with three (3) Yew shrubs and wood chips, 4. The drive aisle behind the western 22 proposed spaces will be widened to 24 feet, 5. Waivers requests granted: Lighting and Landscaping Plan. 6. All conditions are to be noted on the final approved plans submitted for the Zoning Administrator’s signature in a form to read as follows: Plans have been approved under authority of a resolution adopted 5/20/03 by the Planning Board of the Town of Queensbury, New York with the following conditions: 1. Duly adopted this 20th day of May, 2003, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ringer, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Strough, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set. Good luck. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. For the purpose of you record, I’d like to acknowledge the cooperation of George Hilton and C.T. Male. We’d dealt with somebody that wasn’t familiar with our Ordinance, and it was kind of like pulling teeth, to a degree, but they were very cooperative with us. So I thank them. MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. MR. O'CONNOR-Thank you. SITE PLAN NO. 21-2003 SARATOGA WEST END DEVELOPMENT PROPERTY OWNER: DELWYN MULDER, RONALD NEWELL ZONE: C1-1A LOCATION: CORINTH ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES THE CONSTRUCTION OF TEN (10) 3,000 SQ. FT. SELF- 52 Queensbury Planning Board 5/20/03) STORAGE UNITS WITH ASSOCIATED PARKING, LIGHTING, AND LANDSCAPING. SELF-STORAGE UNITS IN THE CI-1A ZONE REQUIRE SITE PLAN REVIEW AND APPROVAL FROM THE PLANNING BOARD. WARREN CO. PLANNING: 5/14/03 TAX MAP NO. 308.15-1-37 LOT SIZE: 4.22 ACRES SECTION: 179-4-020 TOM JARRETT & JEFF O’TRUBA, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MRS. LA BOMBARD-And there is a public hearing this evening. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 21-2003, Saratoga West End Development, Meeting Date: May 20, 2003 “APPLICATION: Site Plan 21-2003 APPLICANT: Saratoga West End Development is the applicant for this request REQUESTED ACTION: Applicant proposes to construct ten (10) 3000 sq. ft. self-storage units along with associated lighting, landscaping, vehicular access and parking on an approximately 4.22 acre property. LOCATION: The subject property is located on the north side of Corinth Rd., just to the northeast of the Pinello Rd. / Corinth Rd. intersection, and east of the NIMO overhead transmission lines. EXISTING ZONING: The property is zoned CI-1A, Commercial Industrial One Acre. SEQRA STATUS: The requested action is an Unlisted SEQRA action. The applicant has included a SEQR Short Environmental Assessment Form with the Site Plan application. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A review of Town records found no prior Planning Board or Zoning Board applications for this parcel. ANALYSIS: The applicant proposes to construct ten (10) 3000 sq. ft. self-storage units (30,000 sq. ft. total). The proposed storage units would have access from a proposed driveway off of Corinth Rd. The existing residence at this location will also use the proposed access drive. Internal vehicular circulation will be one way around the buildings with parking located adjacent to the self-storage units. The applicant has submitted a landscaping / buffering plan along with a lighting plan, and a stormwater management plan/report. STAFF COMMENTS: This property is located just to the east and south of existing residential uses. As a result, a 50 ft. landscaped buffer is required as listed and described in §179-8-050 and §179-8-060 between the residential uses to the north and west. The applicant has submitted a landscaping plan showing a landscaped buffer from the property to the west. Staff suggests that additional evergreen shrubs be added to this buffer for visual screening, and/or retaining more of the existing vegetation in this area in order to provide more of a visual buffer from the residential property directly to the west. Although retaining existing vegetation between this property and the property to the north may be an effective visual buffer, the buffer zone is required to be 50 ft. If the intent is to leave existing vegetation as a buffer from the residential property to the north, clearing should be outside of the required 50 ft. buffer from the residential property to the north. A 50 ft. visual buffer between the proposed storage units and the residential property at this location is also required. 53 Queensbury Planning Board 5/20/03) The applicant has submitted a preferred lighting plan which calls for only wall pack lighting to be used for on-site lighting. The applicant preferred lighting plan is acceptable to staff, one in which light spill into the residential area of this site would not occur. The applicant’s plans call for clearing and construction in three phases. Staff recommends that the applicant appear before the Planning Board for review of each separate phase prior to construction. The purpose of a phased review by the Planning Board would be to review the project, as it develops in order to ensure that development has occurred as it is proposed; and to address any issues or concerns that may have come up as a result of development. Any review of future phases can be done as a site plan modification and will not require new applications. The applicant has submitted a stormwater management plan and report, which has been submitted to CT Male for their review and comment. Any comments from CT Male should be addressed during the review of this application.” MR. MAC EWAN-Staff notes. MR. HILTON-As mentioned, the applicant proposes to construct 10, 3,000 square foot self- storage units with internal driveways, parking, landscaping, lighting, and a stormwater management report has been submitted. This property is located just to the east and south of existing residential uses. As a result, a 50 foot landscape buffer is required, as provided in the Zoning Ordinance. The applicant has submitted a landscaping plan showing a landscaped buffer to the property to the west. The applicant has also indicated the limits of clearing which do, in fact, retain some vegetation, existing vegetation, between this use and the property to the west. Staff is looking for potentially a little more landscaping to buffer the noises and visual impacts that this proposed use may have on this property to the west. Just for clarification, a 50 foot buffer is also required between this proposed use and the property to the north. Although it’s probably feasible to just leave the existing vegetation, the plan should reflect the required 50 foot buffer. An actual buffer, as described in the Zoning Ordinance, is required from the existing residential use on this property, as well. The applicant has submitted a preferred lighting plan which, in fact, has been updated since the writing of these notes. Staff has been able to take a look at this lighting plan and has no problem with what’s presented by the applicant, and the plans call for clearing and construction in phases, and Staff recommends that the applicant potentially, or that the applicant will appear before the Planning Board for future review of each separate phase, in order to review the project as it develops, in order to ensure that the development has occurred as it’s proposed, and to address any issues that may arise. The applicant has submitted a stormwater management plan and report which has been submitted to C.T. Male for their review and comment, and any comments from C.T. Male should be addressed during the review of this application. That’s all we have at this time. MR. MAC EWAN-Could you go back over that part you just said about the 50 foot buffer? MR. HILTON-Absolutely. MR. MAC EWAN-Re-read that. MR. HILTON-A 50 foot buffer is required from the adjacent residential use to the west and the adjacent residentially zoned and adjacent residential use to the north. Now, based on the way the Ordinance is written, a 50 foot buffer is also required from an existing residential use, even though it exists on this same property. Again, the Planning Board has the ability to modify as they see fit that requirement, but it, nonetheless, is a requirement listed in the Zoning Ordinance. MR. MAC EWAN-So what then you’re saying is that the lands of Paul and Dorothy Baird. MR. HILTON-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-The lands of Robert Clark to the west, have to have a 50 foot buffer. 54 Queensbury Planning Board 5/20/03) MR. HILTON-Well, that one just north of Baird I believe does not contain a residential use. MR. MAC EWAN-The lands of Clark? MR. HILTON-I believe so. MR. STROUGH-They’re all zoned Commercial Industrial. I looked at the zoning map. The only property that was zoned connected to this, it’s zoned residential, is on the northern end of it. MR. HILTON-Yes. Just to the north you have, it’s zoned, I believe, SR-1A, just to the north of this. There’s a residential use, and again, the buffering section specifically says buffer requirements as they apply between uses. MR. MAC EWAN-What about the lands of Butler? MR. HILTON-I don’t have the plan in front of me. Which property are you pointing? MR. MAC EWAN-That would be to the east? MR. HILTON-The 50 foot buffer. If it’s a residential use, it would be required, also. MR. MAC EWAN-All right. Is that it? MR. HILTON-That’s it. MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening. MR. JARRETT-Good evening. Tom Jarrett, of Jarrett-Martin Engineers, and with me tonight is Jeff O’Truba, representing the developer. As the application states, we’re proposing 10 self- storage buildings that contain 28 units each. The project is proposed in three phases. Four buildings each in Phases I & II, and two buildings in the third phase. They are proposing parking for each building, landscaping along the east and west boundaries, buffers on the north and south, along with stormwater management and fencing around the entire site. The fencing on the north, east and west would be chain link. The fencing on the south would be a solid fencing to help in screening. In the application we ask for a waiver on lighting. We showed you actually the Code lighting, and then we’ve shown you a preferred lighting, which reduces the amount of lighting on the site, and there would be no spillage with this preferred lighting plan. We’ve also asked for, let me stop. With lighting, I need to bring to your attention that the preferred lighting plan has been modified, and we can show you that tonight, if you wish to consider this, but upon looking at the actual design of the structures, the eaves height was not quite as high as what we thought it was going to be. So our uniformity ratio is not quite as, it doesn’t come into compliance as we thought it would. So we actually need a waiver on number of lights, and uniformity. Just bringing that to your attention. You’re not aware of that in the application. With regard to landscaping, the landscaping plan that you have in your package is per Code, with the exception of the buffer to the existing residential use on the property. Upon discussion with Staff and review of our, of adjoining uses, we’re proposing a waiver from that landscaping plan and from the Code to reduce the number of trees in the buffer at the southwest corner, that buffers the Baird property, and we want to put in a hedge instead of all these trees. The concern that Staff noticed to us was the headlights entering the site, and we would concur with that, and so we think the hedge is a more appropriate screen, or more appropriate buffer. We can show you those details at the appropriate time. I think that would conclude our opening comments, and we’re open to questions. MR. MAC EWAN-Tony, we’ll start with you. MR. RINGER-What about C.T. Male’s comments? 55 Queensbury Planning Board 5/20/03) MR. JARRETT-C.T. Male has signed off on responses that we’ve given them. We can show you, Staff has reviewed the revised plan, and we can show you those. MR. HILTON-Just to clarify, we did get a signoff from C.T. Male today. MR. RINGER-We didn’t get it, though. MR. HILTON-Yes. I’m sorry it didn’t make it in your packet, but we did get one. MR. METIVIER-I’m very confused about the buffers on the east and west sides. What appears to be the most impacted lands of Clark, Baird, Butler, and yet there’s no way we could have any kind of buffer. Are they not required? I’m very confused. MR. JARRETT-Those are all zoned commercial and they’re vacant right now. MR. METIVIER-But, regardless if they’re vacant or not, isn’t it up to the applicant to be responsible for a buffer? MR. HILTON-Well, again, and if you have your Code handy, it’s Section 179-8-50, and it describes the type of buffers required between uses, and it says buffer requirements between adjacent uses. The residential use to the west requires a buffer. The residential use to the north requires a buffer. MR. METIVIER-Right. MR. HILTON-The residential use on this property requires a 50 foot buffer. If you have a residentially zoned piece of property, be it vacant, the way, based on this Section, a buffer would not be required. The Board certainly can ask for something, but. MR. METIVIER-It’s really, the whole thing with the buffer just really doesn’t, it’s not a big deal, then, just on that southwest side where the Baird land is? MR. HILTON-Well, I think they’re probably the most impacted. I don’t want to say that it’s not a big deal. Certainly it’s written into the Code for a reason. MR. METIVIER-Right. MR. HILTON-For protecting adjacent residential uses. MR. METIVIER-All right, but besides that, because they’re commercial uses, they’re not responsible for any buffers? MR. HILTON-Well, the requirement between two commercial uses, there’s no buffer required per the Ordinance. MR. METIVIER-Okay. That makes sense. I was just so confused by that. I guess I don’t have much problem with the lighting either. It seems fitting, wall mounts as opposed to anything else there. As far as gates for the front, fencing, you said there’s going to be fence around it but it’s going to be controlled by an electronic gate? MR. JARRETT-What I stated tonight was that the fence on the front would be solid fence to help in screening to the south. MR. METIVIER-Right, but I’m saying to get in and out. MR. JARRETT-Okay. 56 Queensbury Planning Board 5/20/03) MR. O’TRUBA-To get in and out, we would use a typical, I’ve looked at several different types of gates, something automatic seems to be what’s typical. This is my first storage unit facility I’ve been involved with. So I think it would be an automatic gate that somebody would put a key in, or you push a code number in to get in and out of. MR. METIVIER-Where would the gate be positioned, toward the units or toward the road? MR. O’TRUBA-The gate would be parallel with the road, because the ones I’ve seen have slid, similar to like a pocket door, they slide back and forth, and that’s what I had in mind. MR. JARRETT-We didn’t illustrate that way. It wasn’t clear to do that. We probably could have labeled it better that way. MR. O’TRUBA-Yes. That’s the common types of gates that I’ve seen. MR. RINGER-Where would the gate be at (lost words)? MR. JARRETT-The gate is located on the driveway right in front of the south end of the units, but Jeff’s saying he’s planning right now on a slide type of gate that would slide back to the west or the east. MR. RINGER-How far off Corinth Road would the gate be, Tom? MR. JARRETT-Three or four hundred feet. I don’t have a scale. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else, Tony? MR. JARRETT-At least 200 feet. MR. METIVIER-The gate would be 200 feet off Corinth Road? MR. JARRETT-You’ll see on your site plan, the gate is back where the fence is, where it enters the actual storage area. MR. METIVIER-Okay. That’s what I was asking before. Is it going to be off Corinth Road, or is it going to be closer to the storage area? MR. JARRETT-Closer to the storage area. MR. METIVIER-Okay. MR. JARRETT-Not on Corinth Road. MR. METIVIER-I didn’t want it on Corinth Road. MR. JARRETT-I misunderstood you. MR. METIVIER-And, you know, looking at that, thinking, here we have all these plantings that, the Baird residence, and you’re going to have this gate. What’s that going to do? So, I would like to see more of something out front. Well, let me take that back, no, I’m done for now. MR. MAC EWAN-John? MR. STROUGH-Just that this area, with its sandy soils and where it’s located, and adjacent to the NiMo right of way, and does it have, has it been checked for any Karner blue habitat? MR. JARRETT-We have not. I don’t know if any has been investigated or not. I don’t believe so. 57 Queensbury Planning Board 5/20/03) MR. STROUGH-Well, for the most part, I’m looking at an aerial photo. It’s mostly forested. Am I right? MR. JARRETT-I think it’s all forested, as I recall. MR. O’TRUBA-Yes, but the front isn’t forested, right. MR. JARRETT-Yes. It’s all forested behind the houses, to the north of the houses. MR. STROUGH-Yes. The residence to the east, and, what’s the building to the west of the entrance? Is that the machine shop there? MR. JARRETT-To the west of the entrance? MR. STROUGH-Yes. It would be on the other side of the transmission lines. That’s not West Mountain Sales, is it? I think Craig might know. Craig, what’s on the west of the entrance here. MR. MAC EWAN-What’s on the west of the entrance? MR. STROUGH-Yes. Remember we did site visits? MR. MAC EWAN-The old West Mountain tractor sales facility, but that’s on the other side of the power lines. MR. STROUGH-Yes, well, that’s what I was asking. MR. MAC EWAN-From the power lines, that’s just vacant parcel between that and that house. MR. STROUGH-You know what, another thing I noticed, too, was when I looked at the Town map, it looked like the Baird property and the Clark property were landlocked. Are they? MR. O’TRUBA-I don’t know where. MR. JARRETT-We didn’t investigate that. They do look like that from here. MR. STROUGH-They appear to be on the zoning map as well. Which, yes, I brought with me, but. I mean, they show lines. I don’t know. I mean, out of curiosity, maybe that’ll come up at some time. It just was a concern, but, no, the Karner blue, and inspection for the Karner blue, but it’s mostly wooded. So I don’t expect to find it here, but I thought it was worthwhile asking. What was, how did you address the 50 foot buffer on the northern end, that you would leave that wooded? MR. JARRETT-Yes. That is existing wooded, and that should be left. Inadvertently, we designed it as a 20 foot buffer. It should have been a 50. We’ve now modified that. MR. STROUGH-Okay. MRS. LA BOMBARD-But there’s nobody behind that buffer right now. MR. JARRETT-No. MR. O’TRUBA-No, at this point there’s nobody back there. MR. MAC EWAN-There’s no residential that’s required. MR. HILTON-Well, I think there’s actually a residential use. That’s a rather large lot to the north, but because it is one piece that has a residential use on it, even though the use is quite far 58 Queensbury Planning Board 5/20/03) away, it’s an adjacent use. So I think we’re pretty comfortable with a 50 foot buffer being just a no clearing area north of there, pardon me, at the northern end of this site. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else, John? MR. STROUGH-Nothing, but I’ll pass this down. This is the zoning map, and I’ve put a line going to the lot that we’re, that is in question I put here. I’ll just pass that on. Can I get that back afterwards, down at the end of the line? Thanks. MR. MAC EWAN-Rich? MR. SANFORD-Hello. How are you doing? I guess when I took at look at this when we were doing site plan, I’m a little off on where I thought it was. I kind of thought this was sandwiched in between two houses, but apparently only to the east is there a residence. Is that correct? MR. MAC EWAN-We’ll give the public time to comment. MR. O’TRUBA-Going to the west side. MR. SANFORD-You’re going down Corinth Road, the west side would be the lands of Paul and Dorothy Baird. That’s the west side. The east side would be the lands of Raymond Butler. Correct? MR. JARRETT-Correct. MR. SANFORD-All right. Now, are there houses on, as you go into this entrance to both sides of this, or only to one side? MR. JARRETT-I think the house you’re referring to is on the property itself. MR. SANFORD-Okay, and that’s going to remain. MR. JARRETT-That remains, and that’s own by this owners of this property, the developers of the property. MR. SANFORD-Okay. MR. JARRETT-And that’s one of the uses that’s talked about as requiring a buffer. We’ve described that the vegetation we’re leaving, the fencing, the existing garage to provide screening, and it’s not really a. MR. SANFORD-What kind of fencing are you thinking of putting in? MR. JARRETT-We described wood fence. Jeff would like to describe maybe a vinyl fence, but solid, so that it’s not visible through it. MR. O’TRUBA-Vinyl would just, for long term care, and maintenance. It looks nice. MR. SANFORD-Like a brown or earth tone. MR. STROUGH-What height are they allowed to do, six foot on the sides? MR. HILTON-I’d have to check that. I believe, let me check that and get back to you. MR. STROUGH-Dick, can interrupt for a minute? MR. SANFORD-Sure, go ahead. 59 Queensbury Planning Board 5/20/03) MR. STROUGH-All right. Now the owners of the house on this property are Delwyn Mulder and Ron Newell? MR. O’TRUBA-That’s correct. MR. STROUGH-That’s it. MR. SANFORD-Now, I don’t know, I guess it’s another situation where it’s zoned for this use, but it looks like it is going to have a disruptive impact on some of the people who live in the proximity of it. So of course I would encourage the use of fences and buffering whenever possible, as well as, I guess you’re doing it in phases. So Phase I would be these first four units? MR. JARRETT-These first four units, yes. We’ve attempted to show the limit of Phase I there on Site Plan C-1. MR. SANFORD-Okay. No one’s living in these landlocks, this second parcel, okay, of Baird. It’s sort of just a vacant lot. You know, John brought up the butterfly issue, and I know they do like to hang around power lines, and you’re not too far from there. So, and the soil is that kind of soil. I’m not sure what the Board wants to do about the potential here for having a. MR. RINGER-I don’t think it’s identified as a Karner blue habitat, and they don’t generally go into the wooded area. You’ll see them on the power lines, but you won’t see them in the woods. I mean you may see them in the power line area, but. MR. JARRETT-I mean, I wouldn’t know one if they landed on my nose. MR. RINGER-I wouldn’t, either, but there are certain areas that are identified. Am I right, George, as Karner blue possible habitat? And this isn’t, I don’t think, one of them. MR. HILTON-I think there are protection areas, and I think there’s, for lack of a better word, an area of interest which includes pretty much the western side of the highway between West Mountain and the highway, West Mountain Road and I-87. This area being in that larger area. Although I believe it’s probably not in a protection zone, it’s an area of interest, and I think your comment is correct also that it’s generally in less wooded areas. MR. RINGER-When I had a meeting there with the girl from the, I can’t remember her name. MR. HILTON-Kathy O’Brien. MR. RINGER-Kathy, yes. She identified the areas. I don’t remember this area as being one of those areas that she identified as being potential in Queensbury, and that’s where I was trying to comment to Richard. MRS. LA BOMBARD-But don’t you think Staff would have picked it up? MR. RINGER-I don’t know, but I just remember those areas, and this was not one of those areas, and this was not one of the areas that Kathy had, Kathy O’Brien, that she had identified. MR. SANFORD-All right. Well, anyway, my only comments are I guess, from a visual point of view, I would like to see the lowest possible impact, if you’re going to move forward with the project, simply because, while I recognize it’s zoned for these types of uses, I question whether or not it fits in in a very congruent manner with the character. As I drove by, I said, boy, aesthetically, I’m not so sure that it’s going to improve things or compliment what we’re trying to do here, but I’ll pass it on and see what others have to say. MR. HILTON-Really quickly, John, just to answer your question, Code states in commercial zones an eight foot high fence is allowed. 60 Queensbury Planning Board 5/20/03) MR. STROUGH-Thank you, George. MR. MAC EWAN-Cathy? MRS. LA BOMBARD-What is the dimensions of that lot? MR. JARRETT-Of the lot? It’s in excess of four acres. The dimensions are. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Pretty good rectangle there. MR. JARRETT-Yes, very, very. MR. SANFORD-Very narrow. MRS. LA BOMBARD-But I guess it’s, if the building’s are 100, I would say it’s about 175, 200, not quite 200, about 175 by. MR. JARRETT-A lot is 160 by. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes. I should have taken mine up. I didn’t see the scale. There it is, right in front of me. MR. JARRETT-A little over 1,000 feet long. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Wow, and just, I think we answered this, but the house that is on the east side, is that on this property? MR. JARRETT-Yes. MRS. LA BOMBARD-It is? MR. JARRETT-The one that’s to the east of the driveway is on this property. MRS. LA BOMBARD-And they have no problem? They’re okay? MR. JARRETT-It’s owned by the owners, the property owners. MRS. LA BOMBARD-That’s what I wanted to know. I guess you answered that before. To tell you the truth, I think the buildings are good looking, as far as storage buildings go. I mean, with the brown. It’s going to be brown, right? MR. O’TRUBA-Yes. MRS. LA BOMBARD-With a wood grain or whatever, and look, and the way I look at it, anything that’s new on the Corinth Road right now probably can’t be too bad of a thing as long as it’s kept up nicely. So, right now, it might be okay. MR. JARRETT-If I can interject one thing before you move on. We do have some photos that we can pass around, and we can use those for the public hearing, of some of the buffer that, some of the trees that are there now and some of the views from adjoining vantage points. If the Board wishes to look at those we can pass that around. MRS. LA BOMBARD-I have a question. As far as people storing something in here, I mean, the traffic that goes through there. MR. JARRETT-The amount of traffic? 61 Queensbury Planning Board 5/20/03) MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes, like people bring their stuff in, and they might be building a house, let’s say, for six months, and they store their belongings there maybe, and then they, is there much traffic through there, in storage places? MR. JARRETT-These sites are, it tends to be, it depends on the type of storage that’s involved. Like office storage is different than people storing personal items, but typically when the site is first built there’s going to be more traffic. Then it’s going to slow right down to just a few trips a day. MRS. LA BOMBARD-And this is for any kind of storage use? MR. JARRETT-You can address that, Jeff, if you would, but I think it’s primarily personal. MR. O’TRUBA-This is primarily personal storage, cold storage. It’s not going to be temperature controlled storage. MRS. LA BOMBARD-So you wouldn’t store a piano in there? MR. O’TRUBA-No. You might store your skis and ski boots in there for the summer, or bicycle for the winter, or something like that. You wouldn’t store valuable furniture in there because it’s not moisture controlled. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes. MR. O’TRUBA-But it’s a pretty limited storage facility. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Could you store a vehicle in one of those? Can you get a vehicle through one of those doors? MR. O’TRUBA-You probably could. MR. JARRETT-Vintage autos are often stored in this kind of thing. MR. STROUGH-Is there going to be any auto storage outside of the buildings? MR. JARRETT-No. No, just the parking while they’re using it. MR. O’TRUBA-That’s correct. MRS. LA BOMBARD-And the people will have access to the buildings 24/7? All the time? MR. O’TRUBA-Yes. MRS. LA BOMBARD-If they need to get something at two in the morning they can go in? MR. O’TRUBA-Yes. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Because there will be lighting, all the time. MR. O’TRUBA-Yes. MR. STROUGH-When will the gate be closed? MR. O’TRUBA-If the gate will work, there are several systems available. As you become a tenant, the gate will work. There’ll have to be a code to the gate, the ones I’ve seen where the people, the paying tenants, will have the code to the gate. They can go in and out as necessary for their use. You get somebody that works shift work, he might have to go at a different time than a guy that works nine to five. 62 Queensbury Planning Board 5/20/03) MR. MAC EWAN-Larry? MR. RINGER-Someone going in, by mistake, getting in that driveway, he gets to the gate, has he got enough room to make a u-turn to get out of there, or how is he going to get back out? MR. JARRETT-Worst case scenario, he’s got to drive around one of the buildings, but. MR. RINGER-He can’t get through the gate because he doesn’t have the code. Someone goes in the driveway. MR. JARRETT-I see what you mean, in the front driveway. MR. RINGER-Someone goes in the driveway, and you’ve got 200 feet to go before he gets to your gate. MR. JARRETT-Well, he can certainly do it by jockeying. It’s a 20 foot wide driveway. Certainly. MR. RINGER-When I was working, I rented one of these units down in Clifton Park, and it had the similar code. It was 24/7, and they happened to have an office there. So it was open sometimes, but Sundays when I had to go in sometimes it was the code I had to use to get in, but I couldn’t get a car in the unit. I guess they come different sizes. MR. JARRETT-I’ve seen cars in there, but I’m not sure how the driver got out. They’re so tight. MR. RINGER-I don’t have anything else right now, Craig. MR. MAC EWAN-Chris? MR. HUNSINGER-I didn’t have any questions, other than what’s already been addressed. MR. MAC EWAN-Tony? MR. METIVIER-You started with me. MR. MAC EWAN-I guess I did, didn’t I? It’s getting late. I’ve got a question. Is the house occupied now? Is somebody living in it? MR. O’TRUBA-Yes, it is. MR. MAC EWAN-Is the house used as a rental house, tenants in it? MR. O’TRUBA-I’m not 100% sure what the usage is. At this point, I’m an outside party. The owners are, it’s going to be a joint venture between Saratoga West End and the present owners. MR. MAC EWAN-I know both Mr. Mulder and Mr. Newell, and I can pretty much guess that they don’t live there. So that’s why I’m asking if it’s a rental property. MR. O’TRUBA-Yes. I don’t believe the owners live there. I don’t know what the arrangement is with the property. Honestly, I couldn’t answer your question accurately. I would guess they’re renting it. MR. MAC EWAN-My other question is why this parcel for mini storage? Why did you pick this area? MR. O’TRUBA-This was a piece of property that another affiliate of mine who was personal friends with these two gentlemen own the property and they came up with the idea of the mini 63 Queensbury Planning Board 5/20/03) storage. It seemed to be kind of an odd shaped type of a parcel, property, and the use seemed to be somewhat limited as to what we could do there. MR. MAC EWAN-Most of the parcels up in that part of Town are very unusual, long, deep lots. My concern is that, while we’re looking at the north side of Corinth Road, where we’re basically looking at the impact of two houses, it’s the south side of Corinth Road that worries me more, because it’s several residences on both sides of Pinello Road, both to the west and to the east of this parcel, that, in my mind, what I’m looking at here is something that, to me, at this stage of the game, is going to have real serious consequences to the neighborhood character up there. Yes, you have the old West Mountain tractor sales on the other side of the power line, but that’s a pre-existing use that’s been there for 45 years or so, and if you come to the east of this parcel, you have to come down the road quite a ways before you would run into Web Graphics, which would be the next parcel, right next to Web Graphics is the little electric motor repair facility that, that buildings been there 50 years probably. I’ll be honest with you. This doesn’t give me the warm and fuzzies, this location for this type of venture. MR. O’TRUBA-The positive to the project is it sets a significant distance off of Corinth Road, and we propose the lower level lighting, so it doesn’t, when you come onto it, it doesn’t look like a full moon in the evening. It’s kind of a low-keyed. We’re keeping it quite low-keyed, trying to use all the natural vegetation we can for buffers, and I really think that the guys have done a great job on the buffers and the fencing. It’ll be fenced. MR. MAC EWAN-Do you have that aerial photograph down there? MR. JARRETT-Directly across the road is the trailer park. MR. MAC EWAN-It doesn’t matter what it is. They’re homes. MR. JARRETT-To the southwest, excuse me, the southeast corner of Pinello and Corinth. Southwest corner, interestingly enough, is the staffer that works for us. She didn’t have any concern. I don’t believe she mentioned any concerns to you, did she? Whether that’s an unbiased review or not I’m not sure. MR. MAC EWAN-I don’t know if that’s really acceptable. MR. JARRETT-May be a stretch to bring that up. MR. MAC EWAN-To me, if it’s a 24/7 operation, and people are going to be using that facility at night, is the kind of headlight wash you’re going to get coming out of that facility all the time, and that proposed driveway is going to be right opposite. MRS. LA BOMBARD-But you know, Craig, how many people are really going to go in there? MR. MAC EWAN-I don’t know. I’m asking the questions, Cathy. I don’t know. MRS. LA BOMBARD-I know. I asked that same question, but then as I think about it, you know. MR. RINGER-I think it would depend on the type of person who rented it. Particularly the one I used down in Clifton Park, I was in it, maybe twice a week, but other reps from the company also had access to it. So they could be in there, too. How often they were in it, I don’t know. So it depends on who rents it and if it’s permanent storage or if it’s a vendor or a salesman who stores material or displays or whether he’s going to use it more often than someone who uses it to store furniture. So it would be variable, I would think, as to how many. MRS. LA BOMBARD-He said it’s going to be personal storage. That it’s not going to be regulated with heat or humidity. So it’s not going to be a lot of valuable stuff that would be in there. 64 Queensbury Planning Board 5/20/03) MR. MAC EWAN-Any outside storage at all? MR. O’TRUBA-No. A typical use for something like this is during the daytime hours. I wouldn’t guarantee it would all be daytime hours, but typically people come during the daytime, they get their things in and out of a facility like this. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Right. MR. MAC EWAN-Is there any potential for, at some point down the road, do you think, discussions regarding razing the house? MR. O’TRUBA-Razing the house? MR. MAC EWAN-Tearing it down. I know it’s an opposite thing, but that’s what razing means, to tear it down. It doesn’t make sense, but that’s what it means. MR. O’TRUBA-I don’t know of any discussion at this point. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. That’s all I’ve got. Any other questions or comments? MR. RINGER-How many storage units in each building? MR. JARRETT-Twenty-eight. MR. STROUGH-Now, Tom, the preferred lighting, I see that you just use the cutoffs. MR. JARRETT-Yes. MR. STROUGH-The pole mounted is not included in that. MR. JARRETT-Correct. If we try to meet Code, we need pole mounted lights, in addition to the wall packs. MR. STROUGH-But what you’re offering is lower than Code and might be more appropriate in this situation. MR. JARRETT-Correct. We think so. MR. STROUGH-Okay. MR. O’TRUBA-Keep in mind, the quantity of the unit sounds high, but on the end of each building, there’s actually, you’ve got these little units that you might be able to throw a duffle bag in. So they’re not all large. The ends are, actually, are a large percentage of the number of units at each building. MR. RINGER-I just had asked the question for information, not to add a concern. I just wanted to know how many, and I don’t think the size of it would make much difference as to the use. I mean, if you rented the small unit, it doesn’t mean, you’re going to use it less than a big unit. MR. JARRETT-The frequency of trips in and out, yes, could be haphazard. MR. RINGER-I was just curious how many, you know, we’re talking 280 possible units in there, at full build out, and that’s what I was just trying to get a picture in my mind of 280. MR. STROUGH-Would somebody like Finch Pruyn use this storage for? 65 Queensbury Planning Board 5/20/03) MR. O’TRUBA-I don’t believe so. Finch Pruyn, a couple of years ago, built quite a facility for themselves to store things in. MR. STROUGH-Yes, but I mean, like a commercial enterprise like Finch Pruyn use these facilities much? Because we’re noticing there’s a lot of these around here. MR. SANFORD-When I was with Continental, we did off site temporary rental. I’m saying, businesses do, at least in the short term basis, quite often rent these for some of their marketing supplies and brochures and things of that nature. MR. STROUGH-I mean, but it wouldn’t be like, well, tractor trailers going in and out. MR. JARRETT-We didn’t design this site to accommodate large trucks. MR. MAC EWAN-A tractor trailer couldn’t navigate that. MR. JARRETT-We don’t want to encourage that kind of thing at all. MR. RINGER-There were times, though, in my particular case, where we had deliveries to the facility, like I say there was an office out front in the one down at Exit 8, and the tractor trailer, I had arrangements down at the office to open it up and the tractor trailer would. MR. JARRETT-Certainly moving vans would want to get in and out periodically, but we’re not encouraging that kind of use, as far as storage for commercial. MR. RINGER-Well, mine was the exception. It wasn’t the rule. MR. JARRETT-Right. MR. RINGER-But I did have, on occasion, a tractor trailer come in there. MRS. LA BOMBARD-I have one more question. When these are rented, do you ask the people what they’re using them for? I mean, can people store contraband or illegal things? What if there were a bunch of burglars? MR. JARRETT-Typically, you would exclude hazardous materials and hazardous wastes. MR. O’TRUBA-There is a contract that excludes specific things. Contraband would be one of them, hazardous materials, lubricants, things that were not temperature controlled we’d have to exclude, any kind of oils, you know, you couldn’t have gas cans in there. MRS. LA BOMBARD-How would you know that? MR. O’TRUBA-Well, you’d have to screen the people you get. Basically it’s like purchasing a, trying to get a credit card. So you end up with a person that’s somewhat responsible, and then you go by trust and a contract. I mean, there’s room for slippage in anything that you do. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Sure. MR. O’TRUBA-But you try to control it the best that you can. MRS. LA BOMBARD-But you get all that kind of information. MR. O’TRUBA-Yes. Absolutely. MR. STROUGH-Well, have you talked to liability insurance companies yet? MR. O’TRUBA-Yes, we’ve talked to a few liability companies. 66 Queensbury Planning Board 5/20/03) MR. STROUGH-I mean, they seem to be pretty fussy. I own commercial property, and I’m pretty fussy. Would they make you have an applicant for one of your storage areas sign a form saying that there will be no gasoline, etc., etc.? MR. O’TRUBA-That’s where the contract would come in. They would sign the contract which would be a waiver for the insurance company also. MR. STROUGH-I would almost think that your insurance company would force you to do that. MR. O’TRUBA-Yes, absolutely. Insurance is a huge consideration of items that you want to rent. I guess if somebody wanted to put an old car in one, you’d have to make them put their own insurance binder on it, if it’s something that’s super valuable. That would be something that you’d address as it came along. MR. MAC EWAN-Any other questions or comments? I’d ask you gentlemen to give up the table for a couple of minutes. We’ll open up the public hearing. Would you care to comment? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED PAUL BAIRD MR. BAIRD-Yes. Paul Baird, 462 Corinth Road, and I’ve been there probably 50 years, and nobody’s ever bothered me, and all of a sudden somebody bought those houses. Well, first of all, well, the guy across the road, Butler, he bought the house, after Phyllis passed away, and then he apparently turned around and sold it to these two on that paper that you have, Newell and whatever the other guy’s name it. MR. MAC EWAN-Mulder. MR. BAIRD-And like I say, for all these years, we’ve never had a problem. All of a sudden they move in and, bingo, we’ve got a problem. I don’t know, you probably haven’t seen the place, the two places. The house on that side is a small house. That’s what Stan built, for two people, and we live on the other side. Well, they’re trying to put a 20 foot thing in which brings them right up to just about where my lilac bush is, right to the edge of it just about, and before we had a whole lot of area that we could use for the kids and all that. Now that’ll be gone. Of course the kids are, too, but still, if somebody were to buy it, they would like that same thing, and it’s not an even match, because right on the Corinth Road, right here say, there’s a telephone pole, and then there’s a fire hydrant (lost words). So that means that has to come close to my lilac bushes, so they can get their 20 feet in, which I think is nonsense. I’ve looked at 101 ways to do something with that lot I’ve got out back. No way. There’s not room enough to do it, and when it gets done, it’s going to look like hell, and I don’t care what they do to it. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. BAIRD-So I’d like to say more, but I can’t. MR. STROUGH-Mr. Baird, is your property not the one adjacent to Corinth Road, but the one in back of that? MR. BAIRD-Yes, that’s vacant. That’s what I say, I can’t use it. There’s nothing I can do with it. MR. STROUGH-How do you access that property? MR. BAIRD-I just walk from one to the other. I mean, that’s my whole lot. In other words, when my dad passed away, I got another, what is it, 200 or 300 feet behind the property I have in the front. 67 Queensbury Planning Board 5/20/03) MR. STROUGH-Yes, but it’s subdivided. I see a property line. Is it there? Yes, but I’m wondering about the Robert Clark lot in back of you. MR. BAIRD-That, well, Clark has a junk yard up there, and it’s probably his, and he told me one time that he’d buy my property, if I wanted to sell it, and use it for junk cars. MR. STROUGH-But that’s not landlocked either? That’s not landlocked, that’s accessible? MR. BAIRD-I don’t know what you’re talking about, landlocked. MR. MAC EWAN-In other words, that Clark parcel you can access off VanDusen Road. I can’t remember the street that goes by Clark’s junkyard, but you take that right around back. MR. BAIRD-Sanders Road. I think it’s Sanders Road, isn’t it? MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes. MR. STROUGH-Then NiMo doesn’t own the property under the transmission line. They only have a right of way there? MR. MAC EWAN-Probably. MR. BAIRD-If you could get to his place from Sanders Road, but you’re telling me his is beyond mine. Is that what you’re saying? MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes. MR. BAIRD-So then mine you can’t get to, not at all. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yours is like a big back, that makes your house have a big back yard, basically. MR. BAIRD-Well, I can’t use it. We had plenty without it, when my dad gave it to me. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes. MR. BAIRD-So, I can’t sell it. I can’t do anything. I’m paying taxes on it. It’s a waste of money. Like I say, we’re getting a, well, you can’t really see, per se, where the house is. We’re going to be right to the edge of our property, but they’re going to have plenty of room over here, on that side, but because of that pole, telephone pole or light pole, whatever it is, and the fire hydrant, there’s not room to go that way, and to top it off, they tell me the driveway existing, with that other house, they’re going to cancel that out and have them come out around through this way. MR. STROUGH-Now where is your house, in relation to this? MR. MAC EWAN-Right here, John. MRS. LA BOMBARD-It’s on the corner. The corner lot, and it faces Corinth Road. MR. STROUGH-Yes, where it says lands of Paul and Timothy Baird? MR. BAIRD-Right across from Pinello Road. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Right. Right across from Pinello. MR. STROUGH-Yes, but I don’t see a structure shown on there. MR. SANFORD-I don’t see a structure on it either, yes. 68 Queensbury Planning Board 5/20/03) MR. STROUGH-That’s what confused me. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes, they don’t have a footprint of a house drawn on here. They should have. MR. STROUGH-Okay, and that’s what you were saying. MR. SANFORD-That’s what I was saying, yes, that it’s right in between two houses, going in, and it is. One of the houses happens to be the property owner. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Right. See, that was deceiving because they didn’t put a little footprint of the house in. MR. BAIRD-I was surprised that anybody would come up with this idea, because there’s not that much, as far as I’m concerned, that much room. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Thank you. Anyone else? FRANK USHER MR. USHER-Yes. My name is Frank Usher. I live on the corner of Pinello and Corinth Road, and I’ve been there 46 years. MR. STROUGH-The eastern corner? MR. MAC EWAN-He’s right over here. MR. USHER-Directly across the road from where they’re going to put their new road. MRS. LA BOMBARD-The western corner, John. MR. USHER-I’m next to the pole line. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. USHER-And as far as the Karner butterfly, those people are up there. I used to mow the pole line to keep the bugs down, and you can’t mow in there anymore because that’s all Karner butterfly. The foliage that they eat. I can’t think of what it is. MR. MAC EWAN-Lupine. MRS. LA BOMBARD-The lupine. MR. USHER-The lupine. That’s it, and it’s across the road on the pole line, next to the Baird’s house. So if it’s out there where these people are planning on doing, you better check with these people first, because I think it is, and I just can’t understand why they chose this property to put this place. It doesn’t make any sense whatsoever, to go between two houses, and you’ve got property down the road that’s been vacant for years. You’ve got the Carey Road now. You can build in there, and why they would go here, I have no idea, no idea whatsoever, and, you know, in the past, we had a motorcycle shop went in, and then we got a notice in the mail, they had the hearing. That was the one, up the road. The machine shop went in. They had machinery in there. They were running it. We get a notice in the mail. They’re going to have a hearing on it. Now what good is it if you get the notice and it’s all cut and dried? MR. MAC EWAN-Well, I would like to speak to that. MR. USHER-Well, I’d like to hear it. 69 Queensbury Planning Board 5/20/03) MR. MAC EWAN-The realtor who made the arrangements for that tenant to move in there did so without any approvals from this Board. MR. USHER-He did it twice. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, he did. MR. USHER-Yes, he did. They moved out, and more people in there I never heard of. MR. MAC EWAN-I have brought it to the attention of Staff. MR. USHER-Okay, but it did happen. MR. MAC EWAN-It did, you’re right. MR. USHER-He was stocked. Sign up, and this is another question I’d like to ask, if this does go through. Are these people going to have a sign out front? Is it going to be lighted? Are the lights that they plan on putting out shining in my house, or are they going to be on their building? MR. MAC EWAN-That’s a good question. We’ll ask it. We’ll ask the question. MR. USHER-And as far as buffer, I don’t know about that. I’ve seen other places where they say, yes, they’re going to have a buffer, and it takes three, four, five years for them to do anything, and they are going to come quite close to Mr. Baird’s property with that road, and I’m dead set against it. That’s all I’ve got to say. If this does go in, I don’t know, I’m surrounded by businesses, and they’ve got lights all over the place and everything. When I moved there it was strictly residential. The whole thing has just been flipped right around. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Thank you. MR. USHER-So if there’s anything you can, sell my house and get out of there. I guess you’re driving me out. MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. Anyone else? MR. HILTON-We have a letter to read. MR. MAC EWAN-You’ve got a letter? MR. HILTON-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. HILTON-It’s dated May 15 from James Butler. It says, “Ladies and Gentlemen: Last th week I called you for more information about the proposed “Saratoga West End Development”, a set of storage lockers on Corinth Rd. In response, you sent me a map of the area and a diagram of the proposed facility. I’m writing mainly to thank you for your prompt and generous response, but also to say that in my opinion this is an excellent place for a storage locker facility. I hope the proposal will be approved. Sincerely, James N. Butler” That’s all we have, and I would just like to say that we did have the aerials and the zoning and everything, that we had hoped to bring them tonight, but computer problems prevented that, and I apologize. MR. MAC EWAN-The question was asked of signage. MR. O’TRUBA-I guess we haven’t really addressed the signage plan yet. 70 Queensbury Planning Board 5/20/03) MR. MAC EWAN-It should be part of your application. MR. O’TRUBA-We’re going to try to keep the signage to a minimum. Whatever, I guess we’d be open for ideas that would make everybody. MR. JARRETT-The proposed sign, would it be lit or unlit? MR. O’TRUBA-It would be an unlit sign, I think, would be all we’d need for this facility. We’re trying to keep it low-keyed. MR. MAC EWAN-But what I’m saying is that you need to make it part of the application, so that there’s a size, and it meets Code, the location of it. MR. STROUGH-Style. MR. O’TRUBA-We wouldn’t want the size of the sign to exceed Code in any manner. MR. MAC EWAN-I know, but you need to have something as part of the application. That’s the crux here for that. MR. O’TRUBA-I guess that slipped through the cracks. MR. HUNSINGER-Tom, what hours would the lights be on? MR. O’TRUBA-What we discussed doing is having the signage go out shortly after darkness, or the lights, then have motion detectors, so if somebody came in, they would come on and then go out shortly after they leave. So the facility wasn’t lit all night. MR. RINGER-The sign wouldn’t be motion detectored, but inside would be? MR. O’TRUBA-Right. MR. JARRETT-Think of it as the lighting inside would be motion detectors. MR. HUNSINGER-How about access? You had mentioned earlier that there would be 24 hour access. Aren’t most of the gates, could you program them so that they could not be opened at certain times? MR. O’TRUBA-Absolutely could. All you’d have to do is just take the code off the gate. There’s a code that you put in, and you notify all the tenants of the code. They get a code number to use, and if for some reason you had to close the facility, or whatever it may be, you’d just decode the gate, and no code will work on the gate. MR. HUNSINGER-So you’d have to do that every day. MR. O’TRUBA-You would have to. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. There is actually a self-storage unit near my house, and what they do is they come every day, the owners come and open the gate, and then at the end of the day they come and close the gate. MR. O’TRUBA-Yes. I’ve seen some older facilities like that. It seems to be the popular way these days is where everybody could have freedom to come and go. MR. MAC EWAN-Any other questions or comments? MR. SANFORD-So where do we go with this? 71 Queensbury Planning Board 5/20/03) MR. MAC EWAN-I don’t know. MR. RINGER-Well, someone said there is the butterfly habitat in the area. So you may have a potential roadblock right there. MR. MAC EWAN-I do know that it’s on the other side of Corinth Road. It would be on the south side of Corinth Road, there are some areas designated on a habitat map. I honestly don’t know that if it’s between Corinth Road and Luzerne Road, if there’s anything designated or not, but it would be worthwhile to look into it. Maybe what we should do is table this application and have Staff look into it and see if there is habitat there. MR. HILTON-That’s fine. I mean, we could certainly do that, but I think with other applicants, in sensitive areas, we’ve directed them to contact DEC. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s fine. We can go that route, too. I don’t have a problem with that, and also give an opportunity to put together a sign that you are proposing for this and where it’s going to be located and size. Anything else? MR. RINGER-There’s no way you can make that buffer on Baird’s side more than the 32 feet? MR. JARRETT-We’ve got a 50 foot buffer and it’s actually 60 feet from the driveway to the property line. MR. MAC EWAN-You’re going to need to revise your plan, too. Because you talked about getting rid of those plantings and going with a hedge. MR. JARRETT-That’s what we’ve asked for. Yes. We have that plan with us. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, I know, but you’d need to revise your plans for us to have, too. The plans we’re looking at right now show just scattered. MR. JARRETT-Well, we had submitted to the Staff and you don’t have it. MR. MAC EWAN-Do you have a full set of revised plans? MR. HILTON-Well, we have one set of plans that were submitted. Since you’re going to be requiring further information, I think they can get you additional copies. MR. JARRETT-Well, we can certainly get sets for the Board. MR. MAC EWAN-Could you clarify on the plan, on your planting schedule, on the column you have labeled planting size, and in parenthesis, minimum, and the description you give for size is underneath it like, take for example the Pin Oak, are these supposed to be three inch caliper? MR. JARRETT-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Would you revise your plans to indicate that you’re talking caliper size? What’s the dbh stand for? MR. JARRETT-Diameter breast height. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. STROUGH-Pin Oak is not a great screening piece of vegetation, Mr. Chairman, if that’s what you’re looking for. 72 Queensbury Planning Board 5/20/03) MR. MAC EWAN-Well, by the same token, he should be relying upon the new Zoning Ordinance that has the plantings in there suggested for screening. MR. STROUGH-Well, those aren’t all inclusive. I mean, for example, the Austrian Pines are good screeners. MR. O’TRUBA-What our intentions were by taking the bigger trees out and putting the hedge in was greater screening capabilities for the plants we were using. MR. JARRETT-Right now, on the revised plot plan, which you don’t have in front of you, we have three spruce and five pin oak plus the hedge, and the hedge is a juniper. MR. RINGER-That’s on the Baird side? MR. JARRETT-Yes. MR. RINGER-And then you’ve got a fence behind that? MR. JARRETT-Actually no, there’s no fence along that property line between the driveway and the Baird property. The fence stops at the storage. MR. RINGER-The fence starts at the storage building. If you put a fence up to shade the Baird property from the cars coming in. MR. JARRETT-In lieu of the hedge, you mean? MR. RINGER-Well, I would think that the hedge, or get rid of the hedge and put trees and the fence, but I’m just thinking a six foot high vinyl fence might be more attractive than just a hedge would. The lights wouldn’t go through the. MR. O’TRUBA-The fence would be no problem. MR. JARRETT-Interestingly enough, the lilac hedge on the neighbor’s property is on that property line just on the far side of, just on the west side of. MR. RINGER-On your property line? On his property line. So it would be in front of the lilac. MR. JARRETT-The fence would be, yes, on the line just to the east of the lilac hedges. MR. RINGER-It would certainly take some of that visual light, more than the trees. It’s a thought, and it’s something that you might want to talk to the land owner about, to make sure that he would kind of like that idea, too. I mean, you don’t want to put a fence up if he doesn’t want a fence up, but it’s a thought. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Why don’t Larry and Chris take a couple of minutes and pen a resolution to table this thing. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 21-2003 SARATOGA WEST END DEVELOPMENT, Introduced by Larry Ringer who moved for its adoption, seconded by Chris Hunsinger: Tabling is so the applicant can come back with the following: 1. A revised site plan showing the change in landscaping, fencing as to design and height, and lighting changes that they’ve proposed to be shown on the new site plan. 2. A description and a size, and if lit, of all signs to be used on the property. 3. The investigation of the possibility of a Karner Blue habitat. 73 Queensbury Planning Board 5/20/03) Duly adopted this 20th day of May, 2003, by the following vote: MR. O’TRUBA-You’ve requested the size of all signs. Would that be the traffic, directional signs? MR. RINGER-No, they’re not considered as part of this. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, they are. MR. RINGER-I didn’t think directional signs were. MR. HILTON-Well, directional signs are usually allowed without a permit. I believe. That’s the case in our Code. MR. MAC EWAN-We’re more interested in the advertising portion of the signs. MR. RINGER-Yes, right. We want the size and lighting, and directional signs probably wouldn’t be lit. MR. JARRETT-We have noted some traffic directional signs on our plans. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. That’s fine. AYES: Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Strough, Mr. Sanford, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ringer, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE MR. JARRETT-Okay. We’ll address your issues and come back. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. RINGER-For the public, it wasn’t table to a. MR. MAC EWAN-I’m leaving the public hearing open. MR. RINGER-And we don’t have a specific date, though, when they’re going to be back. So we’ll somehow, you can call the Town and Community Development and they can probably let you know when this is going to be on the agenda again. MR. MAC EWAN-Do we have it standard in our Planning Board procedures that if an application is tabled more than 60 days that they’re required to re-advertise it? We had discussed it a couple of times, but I don’t know that it’s part of our policies. MR. HILTON-Off the top of my head, I don’t think that that’s part of the policies. MR. MAC EWAN-Worthy of amending. Okay. Next item on the agenda. What’s this thing with the Lead Agency for the Lake George Park Commission? MR. SCHACHNER-Short answer, we’re not sure, but there’s correspondence from the Park Commission referencing their receipt or its receipt of a Class A Marina permit application, and asking whether the Planning Board wants to be SEQRA Lead Agency, and it says in it, as often they say, if no response is received, it will be assumed your agency has no interest in being Lead Agency. We have no idea why the Park Commission all of a sudden on this particular application is seeking the Planning Board’s input on Lead Agency status. It lists it as SEQRA, it says in the Park Commission letter, this is dated April 28, that the SEQRA classification is th 74 Queensbury Planning Board 5/20/03) Unlisted. Unlisted means there is no requirement of coordinated review or Lead Agency designation, and we haven’t the faintest idea why the Park Commission sent us this. MR. MAC EWAN-Do we need to respond to this? MR. SCHACHNER-You don’t need to, because it says right in it if you don’t respond it’ll be assumed you’re not interested in being Lead Agency, which seems fine. MR. STROUGH-Well maybe they read our new re-written marina law and they don’t like it either. MR. SCHACHNER-It seems like a bit of a leap, but maybe. MR. SANFORD-Well, my feeling is that unless they give an explanation as to why apparently they’re looking to be the Lead Agent, I don’t feel comfortable with seeding that. MR. MAC EWAN-We talked about this before, earlier tonight, on two previous marina applications for Special Use Permits, about setting dangerous precedents and being uniform and consistent in what we’re doing. So if that’s the case, then why didn’t the Lake George Park Commission ask to be Lead Agency on those two applications? The fact that they’re asking on this one, I would say, no, we’ll take over, we’ll be Lead Agency. MRS. LA BOMBARD-I don’t interpret this as their saying, they want to be. They’re just asking us if we want to be. MR. SCHACHNER-I think that’s correct, and. MR. STROUGH-The motion says, it’s a request by the Lake George Park Commission to be Lead Agent. MR. SCHACHNER-That may be what the motion says, but if you’ll look at what the Lake George Park Commission wrote, I agree with Cathy. I don’t think that’s clear at all from what they wrote, and, Craig, getting back to your comment, let’s not move too hastily here. Remember that if you determine, I have no idea what, I know nothing about this particular application, other than. MR. MAC EWAN-How long do we have to respond to this thing? MR. SCHACHNER-Thirty days. MR. MAC EWAN-How long has it been in our possession? MR. RINGER-April 28 was the letter, the date of the letter. th MR. SCHACHNER-Received April 30. th MR. MAC EWAN-So we basically have about another five days or so before we need to respond to this thing. MR. SCHACHNER-Sounds right. MR. MAC EWAN-We’ll be convening one more time, which will be Thursday of this week, before we have to respond. So can you guys research a little bit more and find out maybe what this is all about? So we can do this thing Thursday night? MR. HILTON-Yes. That’s not a problem. I mean, off the top of my head, I’m thinking that they have an application for a marina in front of them, and based on the Town’s regulations, they 75 Queensbury Planning Board 5/20/03) feel that it will probably wind up before this Board for review as a Special Use Permit, and they’re trying to coordinate such a review. MR. MAC EWAN-Do you think it’s possibly an old, pre-existing, nonconforming use marina, or something someone new wants to do? MR. HILTON-Based on the project name with the Short Environmental Assessment form that’s attached, Laursen marina, Assembly Point Road, it sounds to me it’s not one of the big, truly commercial ones that I’ve ever heard of. I’ve got to believe it’s similar to the ones that we saw earlier this evening, but we can certainly research a little bit more and get back to you Thursday. MRS. LA BOMBARD-She has one dock and wants to rent out two slips, one on each side. To help pay her taxes. MR. METIVIER-This woman’s about 95 years old. I think her husband passed away like two years ago, three years ago maybe. She lives on Assembly Point Road. She has one dock. She’s rented out one dock slip forever, and recently, after, you know, she’s too old to have a boat now I’m sure, to help pay taxes, because there’s about $10,000 on her house, I’m sure that’s what she’s doing, and I’m sure the Park Commission’s coming after her, because they’re going around checking everybody’s registrations and probably noticed that Laursen, you know, that both boats aren’t registered to a Laursen, and I’m sure it’s just the beginning of what they’re doing up there, but she is, she’s, you know, very elderly, and I’m sure she’s having a tough time paying taxes. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, my mother’s in the same position. MR. SANFORD-What I don’t like, though, is this pick and choose type of thing. I mean, you know, I didn’t feel comfortable with us getting involved with this to begin with, but now that we’re in it, I don’t like all of a sudden one to come along and they say we’ll take Lead on it. MR. SCHACHNER-It seems confusing at best, but the only thing I wanted to say earlier is remember, I think one of you, I don’t remember who anymore, said something about no, let’s us, meaning the Planning Board, take Lead Agency. Remember, that if, in fact, and I have no idea what this application is about, but if in fact this is one seeking the pre-existing, nonconforming designation, then you won’t be doing SEQRA review. So you can’t be a Lead Agency if you’re not doing SEQRA review. That’s the only thing I wanted to point out to you. MR. RINGER-That’s a good point, though, Mark. If this falls under that 035, then we would not be doing a SEQRA on it. MR. SCHACHNER-Right. That’s what I’m saying. MRS. LA BOMBARD-If you have 100 feet, aren’t you allowed your own boat and one other? MR. SCHACHNER-First of all, do you mean in the Town regulations or Lake George Park Commission regulations? MRS. LA BOMBARD-I thought the Lake George Park Commission regulations. MR. SCHACHNER-The Lake George Park Commission regulations talk about how many docks you’re allowed per 100 feet of frontage, not how many boats. MRS. LA BOMBARD-So 100 feet of frontage, you can have two docks. MR. SCHACHNER-I don’t believe so. MRS. LA BOMBARD-I mean, like a U Shaped dock. 76 Queensbury Planning Board 5/20/03) MR. METIVIER-A U Shaped dock. MR. SCHACHNER-There is a whole list of approved shapes of docks. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Right. MR. SCHACHNER-And it’s straight pier or I, T, U, F, L, I believe. MRS. LA BOMBARD-All right, but back to how many, this is like one dock and two boats. So, according to the Lake George Park Commission, do the registrations of those boats mean anything? MR. SCHACHNER-Sure they do, because if the boats are registered to somebody other than the owner, then she’s operating a marina. MRS. LA BOMBARD-But can’t the owner have one and register one to somebody else with one dock, isn’t that the way it is? MR. SCHACHNER-Yes, then it’s what’s called a Class B Marina. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Right. No problems. MR. SCHACHNER-But that must not what’s happening here, because they apparently have a Class A Marina application in front of them. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Right, because she doesn’t have a boat anymore and now she wants to have two others. MR. SCHACHNER-That could be, I mean, this is all very speculative. MRS. LA BOMBARD-I know. I’m slow on this, Mark. MR. SCHACHNER-No, no. I’m just saying I don’t know the facts. MRS. LA BOMBARD-No, I understand that. MR. SCHACHNER-Everything you’re saying makes sense, but I don’t know if any of it’s factually correct because I don’t know the facts. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes, so you’re going to help us get the facts. Staff is. Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Anything else? Let’s adjourn. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Craig MacEwan, Chairman 77