Loading...
1995-11-28 .¡ .' -' QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD SECOND REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 28,'1 19,9,:5 INDEX Subdivision No. 15-1995 FINAL STAGE Site Plan No. 62-95 Site Plan No. 64-95 Freshwater Wetlands Permit No. 4-95 Site Plan No. 68-95 subdivision No. 14-1995 PRELIMINARY STAGE Site Plan No. 69-95 Site Plan No. 63-95 Subdivision No. 21-1989 MODIFICATION Site Plan No. 67-95 Site Plan No. 61-95 DISCUSSION ITEM¡, ~ I ': J Malcolm Batchelder Tax Map No. 27-3-.1.1 Paul Schonewols Tax Map No. 8-5-8 Peter & Cheryl Fraser Tax Map No. 10-1-6 Lisa & Richard Churchill Tax Map No. 108-1-4.8 ,; Nicholas Cutro, Jr. Tax Map NQ4 22~1-1~4 Gary Higley Tax Map No. 105-1-38 Garden Time Tax Map No. 102-2-4 Ronald Benjamin Tax Map No. 8-2-6 Cross Roads Park Tax Map No. 46-2-9.4, 9.5 " . Richar:d:;S,chermer:hQ:rn :.Tax Mqp' N,p,. 48"'3-34,.1 , John ßrock Tax M&p No. :13-2-19, :21, 37 1. 2. 4. 6. 11. 22. 28. 33. 36. 39. 56. THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTHS MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WIL~ STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES. , ' "-' --.-/ -.../ (Oueensbury PlannfT'l'g Board'Mee1iing 11/28/95) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 28, 1995 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT ROBERT PALING, CHAIRMAN CATHERINE LABOMBARD, SECRETARY GEORGE STARK ROGER RUEL TIMOTHY BREWER JAMES OBERMAYER CRAIG MACEWAN CODE COMPLIANCE OFFICER-JOHN GORALSKI PLANNING BOARD ATTORNEY-MARK SCHACHNER STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. PALING-For the benefit of the Board members, we have four changes from last month's schedule, three of which are on the revised schedule that you have in front of you, namely, Benjamin, Mooring Post, and Crossroads. We will also have a discussion of the election rules and procedures as the very last item on the agenda. Okay. OLD BUSINESS: SUBDIVISION NO. 15-1995 FINAL STAGE TYPE: UNLISTED MALCOLM BATCHELDER OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE ZONE: SR-1A LOCATION: SOUTH SIDE CLEMENTS RD., 900' EAST OF RIDGE ROAD. PROPOSAL IS FOR A SUBDIVISION OF A 4.39 ACRE PARCEL INTO 2 LOTS OF 1.53 ACRES AND 2.86 ACRES. CROSS REFERENCE: SUB. 11-1994 APA TAX MAP NO. 27- 3-1.1 LOT SIZE: 4.39 ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS LEON STEVES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. PALING-The SEQRA on this has been done. So we can proceed. Does anyone on the Board have any comments on this? Okay. Now from last week, I don't have any notes or any changes on this. There were no changes. Would you identify yourself, sir, for the record. MR. STEVES-My name is Leon Steves, from Van Dusen and Steves, and there has been no changes since last week. MR. PALING-Okay. John, do you have any comments on this? MR. GORALSKI-No. There's been no changes. They just need final approval. You did SEQRA. You did a neg dec on SEORA last week. You did a public hearing. MR. PALING-All right. MR. RUEL-I'll make a motion to approve. MOTION TO APPROVE FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 15-1995 MALCOLM BATCHELDER, Introduced by Roger Ruel who moved for its adoption, seconded by James Obermayer: As written. Duly adopted this 28th day of November, 1995, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Stark, Mr. Obermayer, Mrs. LaBombard, - 1 - "'-' (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/28/95) Mr. Ruel, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE NEW BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 62-95 TYPE II PAUL SCHONEWOLS OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE ZONE: WR-1A LOCATION: BAY RD. TO 9L, LEFT TO ASSEMBLY PT., APPROXIMATELY 400' FROM END OF ROAD. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO REPAIR EXISTING DOCK AND INSTALL NEW SUNDECK. PRIVATE BOATHOUSE AND DOCK ARE PERMITTED SUBJECT TO SITE PLAN REVIEW. WARREN CO. PLANNING: 11/8/95 LGPC TAX MAP NO. 8-5-8 LOT SIZE: 13,940 SQ. FT. SECTION: 179-16, 179-60 STEVE HOERTRORN, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. PALING-Okay, John, how about your comments on this. MR. GORALSKI-Okay. I have to say, I didn't get a chance to go out and look at this. "The WCPB denied this application without prejudice. The Board would agree to re-hear this application when and if an elevation drawing is provided, access to the sundeck is shown and the Board would like to see the Lake George Park Commission's approval." The applicant did submit elevations. I believe Pam got those out to you. MR. RUEL-No. MR. OBERMAYER-Unless it's with tonight's. MR., MACEWAN-It came in yesterday's packet. MR. RUEL-Don't you have to wait for Warren County anyway? MR. GORALSKI-Well, Warren County, at this point, denied it. So if you have a majority plus one, you could override that denial. MR. RUEL-I had the same questions, elevation, sundeck. You can't even tell where the sundeck is. MR. HOERTRORN-I'm Steve Hoertrorn, representing the owner of the property. I'd like to point out, A, that I was not aware of the Warren County meeting. I would have been there. Maybe that would not have happened. I've taken some pictures to explain their questions. So, it's my understanding this could be dealt wi th tonight. MR. PALING-Now you've got to give us a minute to look at the elevation. What is the height of the structure? MR. HOERTRORN-The truss is 14 It's approximately 12 pitch. sundeck at one time. It was because it was rotting. feet, which I think is the limit. The dock is existing. It was a torn down approximately a year ago MR. RUEL-According to this, it's about 13'6" to the water level. MR. PALING-Okay. MR. GORALSKI-I believe the reason Warren County denied it is because of the ramp on the, from the road to the top of the deck. They typically do that. MR. OBERMAYER-They always deny them if it's a ramp. MR. GORALSKI-Right. MR. OBERMAYER-I don't know what the logic is behind it. - 2 - --- "'--" --../ (Queens bury Planning Board Meeting 11/28/95) MR. HOERTRORN-The ramp is not exactly from the road. ,I took pictures to show how the ramp, I don't know what the reason is. I imagine it's aesthetics. That's why I've taken these pictures to show the ramp wouldn't impair anybody's vision, or be something that sticks out. At the point we're bui1din~ the sundeck the road is actually much higher than the lake, where at the beginnIng of the road, the road is actually the same level as the lake. ¡ MR. PALING-Does the C'oUnty send out the: same kind bf' not'ices that wé 'db?' MR. GORALSKI-No. The applicant gets hotited through thè'Town of the meetings they have to go to. Now I don't know if the agent got the letter, but the letter was sent. I have a copy of it in the file here. The letter was sent to the Schonewols, that they were supposed to be at the Warren County meeting at 7:00 o'clock, Wednesday, November 8th, and the Queensbury Planning Board meeting 7 o'clock, Tuesday, November 28th. MR. PALING-What's the date of that letter, John? MR. GORALSKI-November 1st. MR. PALING-Okay. MR. HOERTRORN-Could I comment on that? The address I gave him for the Schonewols is in Assembly Point. At that point, they weren't the owners of the property. So they did~'t get that letter, and I think John can tell you, I'm new here. I'm from California, basically, and I went to the Queensbury Planning Board about four or five times to determine what exactly I had to do, and I didn't find out about this meeting until after it occurred. MR. PALING-Okay. Well, could our approval by the County, and then if got to come back? motion be contingent upon they don't approve it, he's MR. RUEL-No, you don't need to. MR. BREWER-You don't need to. MR. RUEL-You don't need the County, if the vote is, what, five to one? MR. BREWER-Yes. MR. GORALSKI-If it's five or more, you overrule the County's denial. MR. PALING-Okay. I wish I knew exactly why they were turning it down. There was a lack of an elevation drawing, I understand. Then there was some, may be some problem with the ramp. MR. STARK-There was nobody there representing the applicant. That's why it was turned down. Nobody was there to speak on behalf of them. MR. PALING-I understand that, George, but I'm saying their comments. I'm reading from their comments on this, and they. MR. STARK-They turn down all ramps. MR. HOERTRORN-Just one more comment. There are seven sundecks existing out there along that stretch, and all seven of them have ramps. - 3 - '~~ --- (Oueensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/28/95) MR. PALING-Okay. All right. This is a Type II, so there's no SEORA. Okay. So at this point, unless you have any comments, we'll open the public hearing on the matter, if anyone would like to talk about this. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. PALING-Okay. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 62-95 PAUL SCHONEWOLS, Introduced by Roger Ruel who moved for its adoption, seconded by James Obermayer: As written. Duly adopted this 28th day of November, 1995, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Obermayer, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ruel, Mr. Brewer, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Stark, Mr. Paling NOES: \lONE SITE PLAN NO. 64-95 TYPE: UNLISTED PETER & CHERYL FRASER OWNERS: SAME AS ABOVE ZONE: NC-1A LOCATION: OFFICE SPACE AT RT. 9L AND CLEVERDALE RD. ADJACENT TO CLEVERDALE COUNTRY STORE. APPLICANT PROPOSES A 20' ADDITION TO EXISTING REAL ESTATE BUILDING TO PROVIDE BATHROOM AND CONFERENCE ROOM. WARREN CO. PLANNING: 11/8/95 TAX MAP NO. 10-1-6 LOT SIZE: 4.148 ACRES SECTION: 179-25 PETER FRASER, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 64-95, Peter & Cheryl Fraser, Meeting Date: November 28, 1995 "The applicant proposes to construct a 16' x 20' addition to the existing real estate office on this 4.1 acre site. 1. The location, size and general site compatibility appear to be appropriate as it relates to the neighborhood and to the purpose of the neighborhood commercial zone. 2. This proposal will have no impact on the adequacy and arrangement of the existing vehicular circulation:,p~ttE!rns ,nor on the sufficiency of parking facilities. 3. The large lot compared to the size of the addition as well as th~ significant amount of permeable area on the site makes the impact on stormwater facilities insignificant. 4. The 6>iisti¡ng building is not serviced by sewage disposal facilities. The installation of a new sewage disposal system that is in conformance with all applicable regulations is a positive aspect of this proposal. Unless , :,~¡ny, 1¡,.mf;q.JLeSf.!sn j.ssu~s ,ar ise as a res4lt: of the publ ic comments I would recommend approval of this proposal." MR. GORALSKI-Warren County Planning Board said, No County Impact. MR. PALING-Okay. Would you identify yourself, please? MR. FRASER-I'm Peter Fraser. I own the property. MR. PALING-Okay. Are there any comments by the Board? MR. RUEL-I just have a question. I see several driveways along Clever dale Road on the southwestern part of the property. Do you have any idea the distance between those two driveways on the '- 4 - '----'" -- --' --- (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/28/95) southwestern portion of the map? MR. FRASER-The one coming in off Cleverdale Road? MR. RUEL-Yes, the one that's labeled driveway, gravel driv~way. MR. FRASER-Right. MR. RUEL-And the one where it says parking area, down lower. .J: " MR. FRASER-Right. MR. RUEL-Do you know the approximate distance there? MR. FRASER-It's about 100 feet. MR. RUEL-About 100. driveways? Do we have a recommended spacing on these MR. BREWER-It's all open there, though. MR. GORALSKI-It's an existing driveway, but I think 100 feet is plenty. MR. BREWER-There's no defined driveway there anyway. MR. GORALSKI-There is a worn, kind of a worn path where that driveway is, wh~re people usU~lly~ull in and ou~ upitHer~." Is that correct? 'r'mean,it's not paved. :' , , ¡ic' ','Ii' MR. FRASER-It's béen existin~. , , ( !, .:', MR. RUEL-And so the parking area is not defi~ed either, ri~ht1 MR. BREWER-Correct. MR. RUEL-That's just, what, gravel area and lawn? ~ j MR. FRASER-Right. MR. RUEL-You've got plenty of space, that's for sure. Thank you. MR. PALING-Okay. public hearing. application? Any other comments or questions? Lets ¿pen the Does anyone here care to comment on this PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. PALING-This is Unlisted. Short Form. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO S¡GNIFICANC~ IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 64-95, Introduced by James Obermayer who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roger Ruel: WHEREAS, there application for: is presently before the PETER & CHERYL FRASER, and Planning Board an 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 - 5 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/28/95) 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 28th day of November, 1995, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ruel, Mr. Brewer, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Stark, Mr. Obermayer, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NQ. 64-99 PETER & CHERYL FRASER, Introduced by James Obermayer who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Stark: As listed. Duly adopted this 28th day of November, 1995, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ruel, Mr. Brewer, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Stark, Mr. Obermayer, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE FRESHWATER WETLANDS PERMIT NO. 4-95 LISA & RICHARD CHURCHILL OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE ZONE: SFR-20 LOCATION: LOT # 6, CLINE MEADOW DEV. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO PLACE FILL WITHIN A WETLAND TO BUILD A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING. CROSS REFERENCE: FWl-89 TAX MAP NO. 108-1-4.8 LOT SIZE: 1.70 ACRES SECTION: 94-5 A LISA CHURCHILL, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Freshwater Wetlands Permit No. 4-95, Lisa & Richard Churchill, Meeting Date: November 28, 1995 "When the Cline Meadow subdivision was approved, a wetlands permit was also issued for the project. Because the original wetlands permit indicated specific building locations and areas of fill, the applicant requires a new permit to change the building location and related facilities. NYSDEC also issued a permit for the original layout and has issued an amended permit for the new layout. This new proposal does not appear to have more impact on - 6 - -- ~ -- -" (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/28/95) the wetland than the original proposal. I would recommend approval of the application with the requirement that all of the DEC conditions be met." MR. GORALSKI-I have a Record of Telephone Conversation between Emma Johnson and Jim Martin "Expressed concern that the change to the grading on the Churchill lot may impact drainage on her lot across the street. She indicated there is a natural flow of drainage from her lot across the Churchill lot and any alteration grading should not interfere with this drainage pattern." MR. PALING-Did you have a chance to look at that, John? MR. GORALSKI-To be honest, that's the first time I've seen that letter, but I can look at that. MR. PALING-Yes, because we've got the contour map here. MR. GORALSKI-And then there's the DEC letter which authorizes the transfer of the wetlands permit to Lisa Churchill, a copy of the permit's with the conditions listed. MR. RUEL-They'll be getting these conditions allover again, right? MR. PALING-Yes, well they'll have to meet them. I think we're concerned with the questions brought up in that letter. MR. RUEL-You said across the street. MR. GORALSKI-The way the lot is graded, the general flow of stormwater is still going to continue to the wetland. MR. PALING-Yes. It isn't going to be affected. MRJ GORALSKI-I don't think it's going to:st6p~'any wat~rfrom leaving the Johnson property and going on to the, or stop any water from going on to the Churchill property, the way it's graded at this point. MR. PALING-Yes. I don't think so, either. MR. GORALSKI-It will change the direction of the flow on the Churchill property, but as far as water continuing to flow toward the wetland, I don't think that's an issue. MR. PALING-Okay. please. All right. Would you identify yourself, 'MRS. CHURCHILL-Lisa thurchill. MR'; ÞALING-Okay; Thank you. Any qUestions or comments? MR. RUEL-The ~otion will have the requir~ment that they must meet all the DEC? MR. PALING-Yes. MR. BREWER-Don't we have to issue another wetlands permit, this Board? MR. GORALSKI-That's what we're here for right now. MR. PALING-Yes. This is a permit recommendation. MR. GORALSKI-No. It's not a recommendation. You will be issuing a freshwater wetlands permit. - 7 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/28/95) MR. RUEL-It's more than a recommendation. That's it. MR. PALING-All right. At this point, if there are no questions, lets open the public hearing on this matter. Is there anyone here that would care to speak on this subject? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED SHARON MOYNIHAN MRS. MOYNIHAN-Sharon Moynihan. We live next door on lot 5, and I just wanted to question whether there might be an impact on that property with change of flow of water. We've always had a problem at the end of our driveway, running toward that property, with a lot of water, and then when they plow, that's always been a problem for snow removal, and water staying there. We would question what the impact would be if there were to be a change. MR. PALING-Okay. How far is your driveway to the driveway of this proposed house? MRS. MOYNIHAN-Seventy-five feet, maybe. MR. PALING-Okay. MR. OBERMAYER-The snow removal, they'll probably have to remove the snow instead of stock piling it there now, if the driveway is going to be located at the end, right? MRS. MOYNIHAN-Right. MR. OBERMAYER-I would think they'd have to. MRS. MOYNIHAN-We were more concerned whether they would make an alteration with what was there before, some of that water would come back in our direction. MR. OBERMAYER-I see. MRS. MOYNIHAN-We're they talking about the placement of the structure on the property, or just the wetland problem? MR. GORALSKI-There is no structure on the property. Originally, the house was proposed to be setback further from what is the easement that goes through there, okay. It was proposed to be set back further from that. Now they'ye trying to pull it closer so they can shorten up their driveway. That's the reason for changing the permit. MR. PALING-Do you want to see where the house is on the print? MRS. MOYNIHAN-Yes. MR. RUEL-That 322 on the house, that's the elevation? MR. GORALSKI-That's the finished floor elevation. MR. RUEL-Yes. MR. OBERMAYER-I see proposed elevations 316, what's the existing elevation right now? MR. GORALSKI-You can see on there where the 316 line kind of goes through the center of the lot? MR. OBERMAYER-Yes. MR. GORALSKI-That's the existing elevation there. This is the - 8 - ~ ~ '--' (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/28/95) original. That's the proposed. MR. PALING-There's 316 and this one is 314. So the flow would be in this direction, because of the difference in elevation, but I don't think it would be any different than what it is now. There's so much of a distance here. The house might make a little bit of difference, but they're not cha~ging, Idori't think they're changing anything, are you doing any re-grading of this property? Are you changing the contours or pushing the dirt around at all? MR. GORALSKI-If I could answer that, the only place that they are allowed to do any grading is what's shown on this plan, be¿ause that's all that DEC has approved. MR. MACEWAN-Repeat what you just said. MR. GORALSKI-The only place they can do any grading is what is shown on this plan, that fill, those new contours. MR. MACEWAN-So they plan on raising the elevation? MR. GORALSKI-Right. They're raising the elevation in the area of the house. Out in the back there, they can't do any grading or anything because there's no DEC permit and they're not asking for a local wetlands permit. MR. MACEWAN-That 322 figure, is that to a slab? MR. GORALSKI-No, that would be to finished floor. MR. MACEWAN-Finished floor. Do you know if they're proposing a cellar over there? What's the majority of the houses over there? MRS. MOYNIHAN-Cellars. MR. GORALSKI-They all have cellars. MR. MACEWAN-Are there water problems? MRS. MOYNIHAN-We have a pump. We have not had a problem. MR. MACEWAN-You didn't have any problems last summer, not with all the rain we had? MRS. MOYNIHAN-No, we didn't. MR. MACEWAN-Not this past summer, the summer before, '94. MR. PALING-John, what is the present elevation of the ground where the house is going to be? MR. GORALSKI-It's actually 317 right there. MR. PALING-And they're going to change that to 318, 320, and 322. Okay. So they're raising that level. MR. RUEL-Five feet. MR. GORALSKI-Actually the finished grade around the house will probably be somewhere around 321 because you've got your floor joist. MR. PALING-But is that going to have any great affect, there's quite a distance between driveways and between houses, too, I guess. Is that going to have any affect on runoff water? MR. GORALSKI-What will happen, if you look at the exi~ting - 9 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/28/95) contours, what should happen on this site is that the water will, the basic lot is going to stay the same. The water around the house, there'll be a portion that will flow basically to the property line, and then run back to the back of the lot toward the wetland, and then the same thing on the other side. It will run down away from the house and then out toward the wetland. MR. PALING-The lot to the right, this woman's lot, that's higher elevation as you get into her lot? MR. GORALSKI-Where her house is, her house is probably actually, if you look, Jim's got the map of the original. MR. OBERMAYER-It says, they're all the same elevation. The finished floors are all the same. MR. GORALSKI-You should have two maps, ona is ~he o~iginal and one is the proposed. The original shows the adjacent lot. MRS. MOYNIHAN-I think the concern here is, what would, if house is brought forward that far, what would then be their yard would be (lost word) our living room in the front yard. the back MRS. LABOMBARD-Right, I know what you mean. MRS. MOYNIHAN-So, therefore, even if the driveway that's so far, forward that Qur living, room wQuldQe their driveway, and then their back yard would be:~~ They're back yard would actually be in front of our were there, looking into front of me. fl-ont porch. MR. GORALSKI-I'm not sure that that's accurate. MR. BREWER-Well, it appears to be that way, if you look at the map. MR. BREWER-John just put the$e two together, to scale. That's what it'll be. MR. OBERMAYER-Yes, the house is going to be behind it, actually, your house is going to sit back. MR. BREWER-Actually, it'll be a lot closer than it looks. MR. OBERMAYER-It's closer, but it'll set þehind it. MR. PAL~NG-They're the $ame elevation. MR. OBERMAY~R-I~'s not a bad location. MR. BREWER-I think what this lady wa$,~p~ri,d&b~4t, if you look on t..b.i..§. map wh,re they've dl¡al1n the c¡'rcle:, what she's sayin9 is, her frontr. · yard's in their, back, ya,rd, but if you put these together, then you get a whole different picture. What she's thinking is, they've got the house in this circle. MR. OBERMAYER-No, they don't. MR. PALING-Well, this would be okay, that you're looking at now. MRS. MOYNIHAN-Can I see it again? MR. PALING-Okay. You've got to look at them both together. MRS. LABOMBARD-I thought the same thing she's thinking. That's the way it looks. MRS. MOYNIHAN-So it meets the setback. - 10 - "_/ '"--, '--' (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/28/95) MR. BREWER-Here's your setback here. MRS. MOYNIHAN-Okay. So they're not asking to move the setback. MR. BREWER-See, originally the house was way back here, and they just want to bring it in so they won't have such a long driveway. It'll meet the regulations. Actually, it'll look better. MR. PALING-Is that okay now? MRS. MOYNIHAN-If I understand it, yes. MR. PALING-Okay. All right. Thank you. Now else who would care to speak on this matter? we'll close the public hearing. is there anyone Okay. If not, PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. PALING-Okay. Now there's no, John, we just go to a motion 0 this? MR. GORALSKI-I think you should just include in your motion that the SEQRA review that was done for the original subdivision, that the neg dec is or is not changed because of this plan, like we typically do for a subdivision modification. MOTION TO APPROVE FRESHWATER WETLANDS PERMIT NO. 4-95 LISA & RICHARD CHURCHILL, Introduced by Roger Ruel who moved for its adoption, seconded by James Obermayer: With several stipulations. One, with the requirement that all DEC conditions be met, and, Two, that the original SEQRA made for the first application still applies, the Cline Meadow Subdivision, still applies. Duly adopted this 28th day of November, 1995, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stark, Mr. Obermayer, Mr. Ruel, Mr. Brewer, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mrs. LaBombard SITE PLAN NO. 68-95 TYPE: UNLISTED NICHOLAS CUTRO, JR. OWNER: FLORENCE MURPHY ZONE: LC-42 A, CEA LOCATION: RT. 9L, 2 1/2 MILES NORTH OF INTERSECTION OF RT. 149 ON LEFT. APPLICANT PROPOSES COMMERCIAL BOAT STORAGE ON PREMISES IN EXISTING BUILDINGS WITHOUT CHANGES. THIS IS A USE IN THE LC-42A ZONE SUBJECT TO SITE PLAN REVIEW. WARREN CO. PLANNING: 11/8/95 APA TAX MAP NO. 22-1-1.4 LOT SIZE: 14.67 ACRES SECTION: 179-13 NICHOLAS CUTRO, JR., PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 68-95, Nicholas Cutro, Jr., Meeting Date: November 28, 1995 "The applicant states that the property will be used for the storage of boats in the existing buildings. This implies that there will be no boats stored outside. If all of the boats are stored inside the existing buildings there will be no visual impact from this site. The other major issue regarding this project is traffic generation. If the facility is for seasonal storage and not for 'quick launch' there should not be a major increase in traffic. If, on the other hand, there will be daily traffic to and from the site, the driveway should be better defined so that oncoming traffic - 11 - ........- '- (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/28/95) will be alerted to the situation. Finally, the application does not call for the construction of any new buildings. In fact, the Warren County Planning Board approval states that no additional buildings can be constructed. Upon review of the density requirements of the LC-42 zone it appears that only one principal building for each 42 acres is allowed. This would mean that a variance is required to construct a new principal structure." MR. GORALSKI-And the Warren County Planning Board approved "With the condition that no more buildings be added to this lot and that the storage is strictly limited to the inside of the building. " MR. CUTRO-Hi. I'm Nicholas Cutro, Jr. representing this use of property. SHARON DAVIES MRS. DAVIES-I'm Sharon Davies, the realtor involved with the property. MR. CUTRO-On the application, boats to be stored on the premises, a commercial boat storage buildings and boats on the premises, which includes outside the buildings also. I don't know. MR. GORALSKI-Okay. I wasn't clear on that. MR. CUTRO-Yes. period. I think it's a little boo boo, maybe, with a MR. GORALSKI-It says premises in existing building. MR. CUTRO-Right, or commercial boat storage, whatever the zoning permits in that area. MR. PALING-Okay. the advertising, outside. I don't think we specified beyond this, like in whether it was just limited to inside or MR. GORALSKI-Not in the advertising. MR. PALING-Yes. Okay. So this is still an open question. MR. GORALSKI-Right. MR. PALING-Okay. the moment? All right. Did you have any other comments at MR. CUTRO-Well, just that, since your Zoning Ordinances, but description of this project is, boat storage, which encompasses I'm just we're inside not too well versed with to maybe simplify the just asking for commercial and outside. MR. PALING-Okay, and there were three comments, I think one you've addressed, the boat storage outside, we'll leave that open for other comment by the Board, or what not, or the public, and then the other is the quick launch. Do you intend that this be quick launch, which you're saying no. MR. CUTRO-No. MR. PALING-All right. MR. CUTRO-Yes. Do you know what quick launch is? MR. PALING-Okay, and you realize, and there will not ever be a quick launch? . - 12 - '-' - .../ "--' (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/28/95) MR. CUTRO-Yes. MR. PALING-Okay. MR. CUTRO-We're too far from the lake to do that. MR. PALING-I don't know if distance makes any difference, but you must be. MR. CUTRO-I understand what you're saying. MR. PALING-Okay, and then how about new buildings on the property? MR. CUTRO-As of this time, no, but I'd like to know if that's a consideration of the Board, how they felt about that maybe for the future. MR. PALING-Well, if you come in for the future, then I think there will be other considerations given to the appearance of the lot and perhaps accessing curbing and traffic circulation, that kind of thing. MR. BREWER-They'd have to get a variance, first. MR. PALING-Yes, a zoning variance. MR. GORALSKI-The LC-42 zone specifically reads one principal building for every 42 acres. So since you're going to have a principal building here, being a boat storage building, if you wanted to come in and build a house on there, you'd have to get a variance, or anything else for that matter, any other principal building. MR. CUTRO-When they say principal, there's already two buildings on this site already. MR. GORALSKI-Right, and that's a preexisting condition. So you're allowed to maintain that. MR. CUTRO-Okay, and that would be considered, one of them would be considered a principal. MR. GORALSKI-One would be a principal. MR. CUTRO-What about additions to the existing building? MR. GORALSKI-That would still be the same principal building. MR. BREWER-It depends on how big it is and what you're going to do wit hit . MR. GORALSKI-Yes. I guess it would depend on exactly what you're proposing. MR. CUTRO-I'm just trying to be very honest, before I go out and buy a piece of property that I can't develop or do what I think I'd like to do with this piece of property. I'd like to bring to the Board's attention that there is a gun range next door, across the street, and I do have some letters from, a percolation test was done, just stating that the property is really unsuited, it's like a hardship property. So I'm trying to use the property to its best ability, so, to let the Board know, I have a future, I'm in the boat business, and I'd like to expand over to that area, which would also bring tax revenue to your area, you know, generating storage and things like that. So there's things to take into consideration for this piece of property. - 13 - ~ (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/28/95) MR. RUEL-Is the building presently vacant? MR. CUTRO-Yes. MR. OBERMAYER-It's really difficult to having any type of plans in front of us to need a variance anyway. say anything without look at. Plus you'd MR. CUTRO-Right. MR. PALING-Well, you'd need,a variance. You might need a site plan review, too, or both, depending upon what you're going to do. MR. RUEL-It's not part of this application. MR. CUTRO-No, it's not, but I'm just wanting, would like to get an honest feel. I want to be honest with you, so that next time I do come in front of you. MR. SCHACHNER-I think we have to be careful here. I mean, I don't think we can offer hypothetical opinions. First of all, they wouldn't bind this Board anyway. Second of all, at such time as the applicant might have these ideas about plans in the future, there might be a different mix on the Planning Board. I think we have to stay away from advisory opinions. MR. OBERMAYER-Yes. MR. RUEL-That's right, drop it. MR. PALING-We'll act on wh~t's in front of us. MR. BREWER-Maybe Department and see property. the applicant should go what, potentially, you into the could do Planning on that MR. MACEWAN-Is it your intent to have outside boat storage? MR. CUTRO-Yes. Inside, I want to utilize the buildings for what ability they are, and there will be some outside. MR. MACEWAN-How many outside? MR. CUTRO-It would be hard to say at this time. MR. MACEWAN-Three, ten, fifty, one hundred? MR. CUTRO-Well, I've dealt with Boards before, and if I say ten and it ends up being fifty, I'm in trouble. So I've dealt with thi ngs . MR. BREWER-That's why we're asking. MR. CUTRO-I would say, if I say a lot, maybe 35, outside. It probably depends on what I do. Honestly, I make more money with the boats inside the building. Outside, it's not a lot of money, and I have another piece of property not far from there. So if there was a problem with, like if we're going toward the future, of putting a lot of boats outside, I have property two and a half miles from there that I can put boats outside. I'm looking for putting boats in buildings. MR. OBERMAYER-How many boats can you put inside these buildings? MR. CUTRO-There's various sizes and shapes. MR. OBERMAYER-Average size, how many did you plan on putting in - 14 - -- ---- '--' ~ (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/28/95) there? Let me ask you that. I mean, you must have run something through your mind. MR. CUTRO-There's probably space right now, I only can have like 10 or 12 customers. I mean, I may surprise myself. I may have 10 people who have wave runners. That's considered a boat. They're only seven or eight feet long, in length. MR. STARK-John, would the approval from the County saying strictly limited to the inside of the building, and applicant says outside the building, does that mean we have a super majority? they're now the have to MR. GORALSKI-Yes, it does, if you're going to go ahead and allow storage outside the buildings, yes. MR. CUTRO-I would like to clarify, I won't mention any names, but I think the person who was on the Board, now I wasn't present at the meeting, Sharon was. I was out of town at the time. I was unaware there was a Warren County meeting that I should have attended, if this person was to speak up, but the person who spoke up at the meeting, that had anything to say àbout this piece of property, is also my neighbor in Lake George Village, and I really think that those things should have been taken in to consideration because I wasn't there. So I wasn't there to really properly represent it. Just take that into consideration. If I'm not well liked or I have a dog and she doesn't like dogs or something, that might just be something, her wanted to get back. MR. PALING-Yes. I think we can only assume that you'll have a building full of boats and a lot full of boats, and take it from there. So there will be a lot of boats stored outside. Whether it's 35 or not, I don't think is of any consequence. That's a lot of boats, however you count it. MR. RUEL-Why can't we put a limit on it? MR. PALING-I don't see why you can't, but lets see how this thing plays out f i )·st. MR. BREWER-Any anticipation of repair work on the boats there? MR. CUTRO-No. It's basically, as I read in your Code book, it says commercial boat storage. That's really what I'm going for. MR. BREWER-So there's no problem if we put a stipulation that no repair work be done on the boats? MR. CUTRO-No. I don't have any problem with that. that's what I'm looking for. I mean, MRS. DAVIES-No, because I think sometimes a boat might need minor repair, you're putting grease in it or something to store it for the wi nter . MR. BREWER-That's not a repair. To me, that wouldn't be. MR. CUTRO-You mean operating a full service type? MR. BREWER-Repair shop. MR. RUEL-No major repairs. MR. CUTRO-No. MR. BREWER-Something minor I wouldn't consider. MR. CUTRO-I already have a business in another location. It's - 15 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/28/95) not like I'm going to open up another place to go in competition with myself. MR. PALING-Okay. If there are no other comments at the moment, I think we should open the public hearing at this point, and the public hearing is open. Does anyone care to comment on this? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MAC COFFIN MR. COFFIN-Mac Coffin. I border the property on the south. When I read through this application, along with some of the other neighbors, we were under the impression that they were inside. I came here just to support the Cutros, because inside storage is what that property should be. Outside storage, to familiarize you with it a little bit, one of our famous neighbors was a dope dealer. He put a lot of money into that property with fill. All that property drains over onto me now, where it never did before. Right now there's no problem. If, all of a sudden, there's 100 boats there, there could be a major problem. If it's inside storage, and he wants to build more buildings, I would defend him on that. If it's outside storage, I'm against it. MR. PALING-What problems would 100 boats on the lot create for you? MR. COFFIN-It all drains over onto me now, because of the massive amounts of fill that were brought in when the former owner had it. MR. CUTRO-I'm not changing the contour of the land. MR. COFFIN-The contour of the land was already changed. I think we mislead everybody that got these forms saying it was inside stO)" age. MR. PALING-Do you recall how it was that you concluded it was only indoor storage from the notice? MR. COFFIN-The letter that I got as a neighbor said indoor. MRS. LABOMBARD-Well, it says right here, "the applicant states that the property will be used for storage of boats in the existing building. This implies that there will be no boats stored outside", and that's what we just, that was the opening remarks. I felt the same way. MR. GORALSKI-No. That was not the neighbors. I can read the, you know letter says, so the gentleman is proposes commercial boat storage buildings without changes". letter that was ~ent to the what though, here's what the correct. "The applicant on premises in existing MR. PALING-Well, that's where the difference comes. That kind of puts us in a tough, everybody in a tough spot now. I think it could be said that if it were, no, that isn't right. Okay. The public could be under the impression that it's inside boat storage only, and, therefore, they said, okay, and didn't come, and that gives us a problem. MR. MACEWAN-Can I make a recommendation? MR. PALING-Yes, what is it? MR. MACEWAN-I'd recommend we table this thing, re-notify the neighbors, and give the applicant ample time to come back to us with a set number of boats he plans on storing in and out. - 16 - "-- -../ ~ -' (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/28/95) MR. STARK-Mr. Coffin, is there any number of boats outside that you could live with at all? MR. COFFIN-Actually, I wouldn't care if he built wall to wall buildings on the property, and put a buffer up of some sort, because every tree on it's been cut. I don't have any problem with that at all. The way ¡ read it, and thought that it was going to be, I was here to support it, not to condemn it. There's been several options with this property mentioned, Timmy's familiar with a few of them, that were terrible. This is a good idea, but outside storage, to me, could be a future problem for me, and I Just really don't want to run into that with runoff coming over onto me. As it is now, what am I getting? I'm getting rain. I could be subject to all kinds of things, oil, antifreeze on that property. MR. STARK-So you don't want boats outside, but he could build bigger buildings put boats inside. MR. COFFIN-That's no problem at all. MR. RUEL-I think this Board should limit it's activity to the, what the application reads. MR. PALING-I application. let that play number when we think, though, I like Craig's out, and then see it, rather we should let it go suggestion. It might we can decide what we than try and set it. ahead as an be a way to do with the MR. OBERMAYER-Actually, the application says permission to store boats on premises, in existing buildings without changes. MR. PALING-Yes. It's got to be changed so everybody understands what's going on. Okay. Is thers anyone else that would care to comment from the public? BILL CASEY MR. CASEY-My name's Bill Casey. I'm the President of the Dunhams Bay Fish and Game Club, and also I was interested in purchasing this property. To me, at the meeting, the letter that was sent out, and the questions that Mr. Cutro starts asking of the Board sends up a red flag to me, that there's a lot more intended for this property than what's being put in front of you right now. I mean, the asking of, can I put additional buildings on it, can I store my boats, more boats outside, it really bothers me for the aesthetics of that area, and then find out later on that you end up with a bunch of new (lost word) and that's all the people see scattered allover the property. I have no problem with the inside storage. I've been over to those buildings, and they're very small, especially for the use of an average boat saying 18 foot, 19 foot. You're not going to fit 10 boats in there. So, my question is, what is the real intent of this piece of property? I don't think we're seeing that, and I had some other questions, as far as, you were mentioning, I was wondering about, would they be washed, active wash, before they're stored? Where would the fuel be stored, that's taken out of the boats, and also the waste products that are in the boats. I think some of those questions should be addressed, and one of my concerns is that most of the properties that are surrounding this area are, I know the Dunhams Bay Fish and Game Club is a designated wetland. All those properties are wetlands, and I'm wondering why that hasn't been addressed, as that piece of property, would that change the uses, permitted uses, or possibly put more regulations into, stipulations as to the use, because all these piece of property around there are wetlands. MR. PALING-Okay. If it impinges on wetlands, we've got setbacks - 17 - ,~~ (Queensbury Planning Boa)-d Meeting 11/28/95 ) and all from there that they'd have to go b,' . Yes. MR. BREWER-There's no flagged wetlands on this map, though. MR. OBERMAYER-Yes. It doesn't show any on the map. MR. BREWER-50 there's none on that land. MR. RUEL-Are there any wetlands in the area? MRS. LABOMBARD-In the area there are, but not on his property. MR. CASEY-I don't think the property has been looked at as a wetland site, and I'd like to see everything addressed, for the concerns of the community. MR. PALING-Okay. MR. COFFIN-Thank you. MR. PALING-Thank you. Is there anyone address this application? All right. then we'll close the public hearing. else that would care to If there is no one else, PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. BREWER-I've got a question. I think if you come back, Nick, I'd like to know, myself, how big the buildings are. I saw them. We went out there, but I still want to know how big they are. MR. CUTRO-It should be on the application, and to give you an idea, like I mentioned before, my goal is, inside storage is where more money is to be made. I have property not too far down the road, and if you wanted to limit the number of boats outside, I wouldn't have any problem with that. Again, the outside storage is really not what that piece of property in that location, what I'd be looking for. I'm looking for more inside stor age. MR. PALING-Okay. Well, I think that we're at an impasse here, and we're going to have to get more information, and I agree with Craig's suggestion, tabling this. Now are there any other comments from anyone? MR. BREWER-Yes. Is it our responsibility to contact the neighbors, or is it the applicant's, or what is the deal? MR. GORALSKI~I can tell you that the way it was advertised was taken directly off of the application. So, I mean, we were just taking the information that was given to us. So, since it's a site plan, it has to be re-advertised, the Town would do the advertising. However, I don't think we were at fault in our advertising. So I would think that another $25 fee. MR. PALING-Yes, $25. MR. CUTRO-Could I ask a question? Queensbury Code book has, I've been looking on the 1994 book, and I don't know if there's been any changes, but on Page Number 17955, it says on permit, that with site plan review, you can have commercial boat storage. I mean, is that an easier term? I'm just trying to make sure I put the right things on the application. Maybe I should have just said that right from the start. MR. PALING-No. I don't zoning question, no. storage is permitted as things that enter into think anyone's question, that's like a The answer is it is, commercial boat a zoning thing, but there may be other it, and what we'll be asking you for, it - 18 - "-- ~ '--' --- (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/28/95) appears, is to be a little more specific as to what you're going to do regarding the building and the number of boats on the lot, and then we can talk about the limitations on repair, and things like that, and the question I have now is, John, should we look a little further at the adjacent wetlands, or are you satisfied with that? MR. GORALSKI-Right now, the applicant was not proposing to change any of the physical features of the site. If he's not proposing to change any physical features of the site, there's no jurisdiction. There's no need for a wetlands permit. If he's going in to build a building, or place fill or do some grading, then we'd have to contact the Adirondack Park Agency, have them flag any wetlands on the site and determine if there was any jurisdiction, but at this point, he's not proposing anything that would be jurisdictional. MR. BREWER-Well, if this survey map shows no map, then we have to assume that there's no property. Is that right or wrong? wetlands on wetlands on this this MR. GORALSKI-That's wrong. MR. BREWER-But don't they have to put wetlands on the map? MR. GORALSKI-The APA doesn't map, well, they have mapped some wetlands, but in general, a wetland in the Adirondack Park, you have to call if you feel there's a wetland on the site. APA comes out and flags it. Then you have your surveyor place it on the map, but it's not like DEC wetlands where they publish a map and you can see if there's a wetland on it. MR. BREWER-Then that poses another question, to me, anyway. Where do you propose to put the boats, right next to the buildings? I mean, there's 14 acres here. He could put them all the way back to the back lot. I mean, if we don't have some kind of an idea of where he's going to put the boats, he can put them all the way back to the back line, if he wants to. MR. PALING-Do we care, Tim, as long as he's obeying the setbacks? MR. BREWER-I would care only if there's wetlands or whatever in the back. Certainly I would care. MR. STARK-Have the applicant, ask him for his permission to table it. Re-advertise it at his expense, to the neighbors,· to indicate whether there's outdoor storage required or indoor storage, very specific to that point, and then draw on a sketch where, if there is outdoor that he wants, where the boats would be, and we can limit it to that area, not put them all on, like Tim says, 14 acres. Then we know exactly what we're talking about. MR. RUEL-I have a comment. The application stated indoor storage. The newspaper ad stated indoor storage, and if the applicant wishes to change the application, then he should do so, but I think the motion tonight should be predicated entirely on the application and what it stated. MR. PALING-Well, there's been want to over play that. We're go through the process again. inconvenience, and I think we motion like we have here. a misunderstanding, and I don't just asking them to re-advertise, The cost involved is $25, plus can go along with that, with a MR. OBERMAYER-Yes. I agree. MR. RUEL-Why can't we have a motion tonight indicating that we - 19 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/28/95) give him an approval based on storage strictly indoors. MR. PALING-Roger, we've got to re-advertise so that the public is fully informed, accurately, of what's going on. MR. RUEL-But then he'll have to re-do his application. MR. PALING-Yes. MR. SCHACHNER-Supplement to start from scratch. enough to indicate that don't see any reason to back to Square One. might be a better word. He doesn't have I mean, the applicant has been candid he intends outdoor storage as well. I penalize the applicant and make him go MR. RUEL-The applicant is the one that originally said there would be indoor storage, didn't he? MR. SCHACHNER-Correct, and now he's come before us and stated that. MR. RUEL-Well, you can't change it at the time that you go before the Planning Board. MR. OBERMAYER-Well, it's better to change it now, Rog, than late)" . MR. BREWER-It happens a lot. MR. SCHACHNER-Applications are very often refined before us, and generally speaking, when that happens, if there's sufficient new information, we require re-advertisement and we take it up at a subsequent meeting. MR. RUEL-This is not a refinement. This is a major change. MR. BREWER-That's the purpose of having them re-advertise to the neighbors. MR. RUEL-AlI right. I'm out voted. MR. CUTRO-It's kind of a gray area. I should have maybe just put commercial boat storage, and it would maybe. MR. PALING-The question would have come up anyway, either from the public or the Board, but it's got to be answered. Now, are there any other basic comments or questions? Do you want to talk aga1 n? MR. CASEY-I don't think I quite got an answer whether the wetlands issue will be addressed or researched. MR. PALING-It appears that it's not necessary or required to do it, unless they start putting a lot of buildings on. MR. BREWER-We can ask to have, how can we find out if there's wetlands on the property? MR. GORALSKI-I can certainly call the APA and ask them to have someone go out and flag any wetlands on this property. MR. BREWER-Can that happen in a reasonable amount of time? MR. GORALSKI-Yes, but I don't know who's going to, you're going to have to have a surveyor, whether it's the applicant, somebody would have to have the applicant's surveyor go out and survey that flagged line. - 20 - '---, -- '- --- (Oueensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/28/95) MR. CUTRO-Sometimes they can't get an accurate read on different times of the year, either, certain growth. MR. CASEY-I'm sure you all have these books. MR. PALING-I'm not sure which book. We have lots of books. MR. CASEY-The Resource Guide to the Land Use Development Approval Process of New York. MR. PALING-I don't think so, not that book. MR. CASEY-Because it lists the descriptions to actions in the New York State Freshwater Wetlands, and it covers anything that's freshwater marshes, swamps, or wet metals. MR. PALING-We have closed the public hearing on this. So, okay. Now, did you want to make a quick comment, sir? MR. COFFIN-New York State bought all that they considered wetlands up through there, several years back, as a matter of fact about 1978 or '80, they bought everything that they considered wetlands. This property borders what was Dunhams Bay Wetlands. Supposedly, according to New York State, it's not wetlands, if that's any help to answer the question. That was where the border was. They bought what they deemed wetlands. They left the rest. MR. PALING-Okay. John, do you have a print that sheds any light on this? MR. GORALSKI-All I can tell you is, I will call the APA and ask them for a Jurisdictional determination as to whether or not there are any wetlands on this property. Hopefully they can do it before the next meeting. MR. PALING-All right. Do you understand what John just said about calling APA and getting them involved in this? MR. CUTRO-I'll talk to John tomorrow. MR. BREWER-Well, we don't have to try to figure it out tonight. Let John figure it out tomorrow. MR. PALING-Either by looking at prints or calling APA, which is the more likely one I think you'll end up doing. All right~ On the basis that we're talking now, of talking with the APA or using prints, are you willing that this be tabled, and we'll try to have it on the next meeting that we have, which is the third Tuesday of December. MR. BREWER-And the applicant knows all the issues that we spoke of. MR. PALING-Yes. Well, we'll put that, we'll make that all part of the motion. MR. CUTRO-That's fine. I want to be perfectly honest with this Board. MR. PALING-And it's okay if we table it? MR. CUTRO-Sure. MR. PALING-Okay. MR. CUTRO-I would ask one question. With the holidays coming up, how often does the Board meet? - 21 - --.../ (Cueensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/28/95) MR. PALING-The same number of times. We're meeting twice next month. We meet twice a month. MR. CUTRO-I had a meeting with the APA, and it can take up to 15 months by the time they table it. MR. PALING-Okay. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 68-95 NICHOLAS CUTRO. JR., Introduced by Craig MacEwan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Catherine LaBombard: Pending further information, one being the APA wetlands Jurisdiction, notification of neighbors for outside storage on the agenda, and the applicant's going to come back to us with a number of boats he plans on storing on the property, and general location. Duly adopted this 28th day of November, 1995, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Brewer, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Stark, Mr. Obermayer, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Paling NOES: Mr. Ruel SUBDIVISION NO. 14-1995 PRELIMINARY STAGE TYPE: UNLISTED GARY HIGLEY OWNER: GARY HIGLEY ZONE: HC-1A LOCATION: CORNER OF QUAKER AND GLENWOOD (FORMER SAWHORSE/NO. HOMES COMPLEX) PROPOSAL IS TO SUBDIVIDE A 2.91 ACRE PARCEL INTO 2 COMMERCIAL LOTS OF 1.65 ACRES & 1.26 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 105-1-38 LOT SIZE: 2.91 ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS GARY HIGLEY, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Subdivision No. 14-1995, Gary Higley, Meeting Date: November 28, 1995 "The applicant is proposing to subdivide a 2.91 acre lot into a 1.65 acre lot and a 1.26 acre lot. The two proposed lots meet all of the requirements of the subdivision regulations and the zoning ordinance. There are no new road cuts proposed for lot 12. Access to lot 12 will be through lot 11. The issue regarding this proposal is the fact that the approved site plan for the existing building shows parking on a portion of lot 12. The applicant's consultant has provided a modified parking layout for lot #1 which shows that all of the required parking can be provided on lot 11. What the applicant is proposing is that the original site plan approval be maintained until such time as a site plan review application is submitted for lot 12. At that time, they will either propose a shared parking plan or modify the existing site plan approval to provide all of the parking for lot #1 on lot #1. Both of the proposed lots are serviced by public water and sewer and any stormwater management issues related to the development of lot #2 can be addressed at site plan review when an actual development plan is proposed. The subdivision plan shows a 50' setback from the rear property line. This is actually a 50' buffer required because the property abuts a residential zone. Everyone involved should be advised that although the proposed lot 12 meets all of the zoning requirements, it will be difficult if not impossible to build the maximum square footage allowable based simply on the density calculation. The combination of setbacks, buffers, parking requirements, and other applicable regulations will all serve to limit the amount of development that the lot can accommodate. " MR. PALING-Okay. - 22 - '-' --- '---' ~~ (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/28/95) MR. HIGLEY-My name is Gary Higley. DAVE LINEHAN MR. LINEHAN-I'm Dave Linehan. MR. PALING-One of the strong comments I think that Staff is making is that you could do a shared parking, you know, think about 'it and do it in the future, but in doing so, if Lot W2, I guess it is, were to become something with a heavy traffic and parking requirement, you wouldn't be permitted to have that use. So, in other words, what it's saying is that the future of that lot, the future use of that lot, would be limited, and it would be limited by traffic control, parking space and so on. MR. HIGLEY-Right. site plan review. The future use of that lot would be subject to MR. PALING-But we certain businesses allowed. want you to be clear and understanding that that you would propose there would not be MR. HIGLEY-Right. MR. PALING-Okay. MR. BREWER-What business wouldn't bè allowed? What do you mean? r MR .PALING-Anythi rig 'that would ~exceed the traffic requireménts of the, he's going i& have a co~bined parking right now. MR. GORALSKI-Maybe I can clarify that a little. I'm not saying that there's a specific business that would not be allowed. What I'm saying is that because of the buffer zone and the odd shape in the back corner there and potential for limited parking area, that you may not be able to walk in there and put a 12,000 square foot building on it, even though the zoning would allow it. The other thing is, because of the size and shape of the lot, if you had intense, a use that is parking intense, that may also limit the size of the building. I'm not saying it can't be done. Certainly it can be done, but I just want everyone to be aware that there are limitations on this lot. It's not going to be the type of lot where just the standard layout is going to work. MR. PALING-Okay. MR. BREWER-What about connections to neighboring lots? We don't have any idea what possibly could go there. He's got the Sports Page and other businesses there. MR. GORALSKI-Right, and they'll be sharing a driveway. MR. BREWER-Correct, but I'm talking about maybe cutting a hole, in the future, possibly leaving room to go into the bank and the kitchen place. Who knows what could happen? Maybe some day down the road there could be an arterial road like there is down by Gar den Time. MR. HIGLEY-The only comment, the last time that I sat down in front of you, I did not know what was in my building. I do know, now, what is in there, and they are not, I mean, they're small independent businesses, and it's mainly offices that are in there. MR. BREWER-I'm just thinking that, even though they are offices, Gary, I mean, people in offices go to the bank. There's a bank right down the street. I'm just, not necessarily put it there. I mean, leave the option so it could be put there. - 23 - '--' (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/28/95) MR. HIGLEY-I'm trying to just take this one step at a time, open this property up. I mean, I'm looking for ideas. MR. BREWER-I understand. No, there, so that possibly, if somebody did come to you and option is there to go to the have to go out onto Quaker and and bac kin. I mean if you just left the option you did put a business there, want to put a business there, the next parking lot, so people don't then back in, and out on to Quaker MR. HIGLEY-I think it's a great idea MR. MACEWAN-Isn't that something that we could down the road, should he ever come back to try second parcel, whatever business he has intended? address better to develop that MR. HIGLEY-Well, they'll have to come back, whenever it sells, it'll have to come back. MR. MACEWAN-I mean, there's a lot of if's you've got to be able to work through with Key Bank or whoever the bank is at the time, with that parcel, how big the parcel is, what he's putting in there. MR. PALING-No, no. I think you're right, Craig, but I also agree with Tim, in that we're trying to alert people about this and encourage them to do this kind of thing, to make traffic on the streets less of a problem. MR. BREWER-So that if he go~s away tonight and, whatever, two months down the road, that thought's in his mind, hey, if I'm going to put a building here, lets just keep the thought there. I don't say put it on paper, but keep the thought there, so that, potentially, if he does do it, then he'll know what things we're looking for. MR. RUEL-It's called planning. MR. PALING-All right. Are there any other comments moment? If not, lets go to the public hearing on this. anyone here that would like to comment on this? at the Is there PUBLIC HEARING OPENED BARBARA SEELEY MRS. SEELEY-Barbara Seeley. We're next door to the Sports Page now. I was just concerned about square footage versus the amount of land that will be left on the one lot number one. MR. HIGLEY-The lot that the building is on now? 1.65 acres. The,-e wi 11 be MRS. SEELEY-And how many square feet of building? It looks like the building consumes most of the lot. Are you planning more pav i ng? MR. HIGLEY-This will be paved. This will be paved. This will be paved, and this will be paved. This is all, the whole frontage on this lot, that's all green area. MR. GORALSKI-And also back, right adjacent where the entrance to that back parking lot planters on the corner there. to your property, is, they're adding MR. HIGLEY-John, we sat down and figured out the square footage of building and the required lot size that we needed to have? - 24 - --./~ --- '--' (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/28/95) MR. GORALSKI-Yes. That was all within the zoning requirements. MRS. SEELEY-If anybody builds on the other one, they have to maintain the buffer, because there are no buffers at this point? MR. GORALSKI-Exactly. Right. That's correct. MRS. SEELEY-All right. MR. PALING-Okay. Does anyone else care to talk about this? All right. If there's no one else, we'll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. PALING-Okay. Any other questions or comments? MR. HIGLEY-We have approval from Warren County on the entrance to Quaker Road, a one year permit, right? MR. GORALSKI-I didn't know it was a one year permit. As far as I know, unless they put a special condition on it, I don't know, but my understanding from Fred Austin is that the way the entrance is shown on this plan is the permit that they've issued for the project, and that it would be a shared driveway for the two lots. That's what Fred Austin told me on the phone. MR. PALING-All right. SEQRA. This is an Unlisted. So we'll need a MR. OBERMAYER-Which map is the correct one for the entrance and the exit? MR. GORALSKI-The one on the actual subdivision map, I believe, is the correct one. MR. OBERMAYER-We've got two of them. We've got a Jim Girard one. MR. GORALSKI-The one on the actual subdivision map is the one that Fred Austin approved, Sheet 2. MRS. LABOMBARD-That's a good question. Well, is there some kind of a built up berm or something in the Jim Girard map~ MR. GORALSKI-That was the original proposal. During the at the site plan review, the discussion was left that Warren County would have to issue a driveway permit for this project, and my discussions with Fred Austin were that he is issuing the driveway permit and the configuration that he wants is the one that's on the Dennis Dicki nsen plan. ' MR. OBERMAYER-So they're going to be able to make a left hand turn onto Quaker Road, is that correct? MR. GORALSKI-Yes. MR. OBERMAYER-This has already been approved, right, the site plan? MR. GORALSKI-The site plan was approved as it showed on the Jim Girard plan. MR. OBERMAYER-When was that approved? MR. BREWER-Last month. MRS. LABOMBARD-That is a littlé cumbersome with the light, just 100 feet a~.¡ay. - 25 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/28/95) MR. MACEWAN-Why would they approve something that close to that light, to go left hand turn? MR. PALING-The original print does not show a left turn. MR. GORALSKI-That's correct. MR. OBERMAYER-So is there a left hand approval? MR. GORALSKI-Yes. Warren County DPW approved a left hand turn. MR. PALING-All right. Okay. MR. GORALSKI-I don't know why. with him. I didn't have that discussion MR. OBERMAYER-But did ~ approve a left hand turn? MR. BREWER-We don't have any say, do we? MR. OBERMAYER-Yes, we do. MR. MACEWAN-We do. I mean, we approve the site plan as a configuration for ingress/egress. I mean, I think our plan would make more sense than the County plan. I mean, if I was going to try to go left and head north on Quaker Road or west on Quaker Road, I'd come back out through his parking lot and catch the light. MRS. LABOMBARD-So would I. MR. OBERMAYER-I mean, if we approved it without a left hand turn, why, then, I mean, I'm confused. MR. HIGLEY-It was approved with, I don't know if the minutes show, but it was approved with, at the time, Fred Austin had not approved a plan for us to use that Quaker Road entrance. So it was approved with the stipulation that I get the permit from Fred Austin, which I got. MR. GORALSKI-The condition said, with two conditions, DOT approval, actually, it should be, approval from Warren County be obtained for the curb cut, and rearrangement of the handicapped parking place to the north proposed parking lot. Those were the two conditions. MR. OBERMAYER-That's kind of misleading, really, though. It's nothing that they did purposely or anything, but it is a little misleading, in that the drawing does show no left hand turn, and then all of a sudden you do. I think it's a safety issue myself. That's why I'm bringing it out. MRS. LABOMBARD-I do, too. MR. MACEWAN-Would it be okay with you if our approval of this subdivision, preliminary, says right turn only? MR. HIGLEY-I have no problem either way. I agree with everybody here. Anybody using that property is going to go out and hit the light. The traffic pattern is designed to pull people away from that area. MR. MACEWAN-So would it be acceptable to you if we put a condition on it that said right hand turns only, eastbound turns? MR. HIGLEY-I don't have a problem with that. MR. PALING-And could you move that structure, that piece there to - 26 - '-/ -...../ '-" (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/28/95) the middle, or to the left, like it is on the original print? MR. OBERMAYER-You can be going west and make a left hand turn into there. MR. MACEWAN-Yes. I mean, you can come in, but you can't exit out, you can exit west out. MR. PALING-In other words, go back to this. MR. HIGLEY-Can I bring up one more thing? If this lot sells, and it goes to site plan, that will also come up on what kind of entrance we're going to need in there if we're sharing the same entrance. MR. MACEWAN-Sure. MR. GORALSKI-Right. MR. SCHACHNER-And you could sort of re-visit that issue at that time, also. I mean, I don't want to speak for the Board, but the applicant would be able to re-visit that issue with the Board at that time, also, I would assume. MR. PALING-Now, are we putting the applicant at disadvantage now by changing what the County approved? what we're doing and give them full approval? any real Can we do MR. SCHACHNER-I don't see a problem with that, because the County is merely saying that they can, from the County's standpoint, if they want, have a DPW Highway Work Permit allowing turns either way. What you would be doing is imposing upon that the restriction that it be right turn only coming out of there. MR. PALING-Okay. Then they do not have to go back to the County. Okay. All right. That sounds like something everybody can live with. we've got to do a SEQRA. It's Unlisted. Short Form. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 14-1995, Introduced by James Obermayer who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roger Ruel: WHEREAS, there application for: is presently before GARY HIGLEY, and the Planning Board an WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. No federal agency appears to be involved. 2. The following agencies are involved: NONE 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury. 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the appl icant . 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas - 27 - --- (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/28/95) 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 28th day of November, 1995, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Stark, Mr. Obermayer, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ruel, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE MR. BREWER-Okay. following, two drainage report? Do we want to grant foot contours, grading, the waiver for erosion control the and MR. PALING-Yes. MR. BREWER-Can I do that with the motion, Mark, or do it separate? MR. SCHACHNER-What, the waivers? MR. BREWER-The waivers. MR. SCHACHNER-Either way. MR. BREWER-Why don't I Just include it in the motion, then. MOTION TO APPROVE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 14-1995 GARY HIGLEY, Introduced by Timothy Brewer who moved for its adoption, seconded by James Obermayer: With one condition re-arrangement of the Quaker Road exit/entrance to eliminate left hand turns onto Quaker Road, and also I'd like to grant the waivers requested. Duly adopted this 28th day of November, 1995, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Obermayer, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ruel, Mr. Brewer, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Stark, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE SITE PLAN NO. 69-95 TYPE: UNLISTED GARDEN TIME OWNER: PRICE CHOPPER SUPERMARKET ZONE: HC-1A LOCATION: PRICE CHOPPER PARKING LOT ON GLEN ST. BETWEEN GLENWOOD AVE. AND LAFAYETTE ST. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO SELL PLANT MATERIAL. ALL LAND USES IN THE HC ZONES WILL BE SUBJECT TO SITE PLAN REVIEW. WARREN CO. PLANNING: 11/8/95 TAX MAP NO. 102-2-4 LOT SIZE: 18.86 ACRES SECTION: 179-23 FRANK TROELSTRA, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 69-95, Garden Time, Meeting Date: November 28, 1995 "The applicant is proposing to sell plant material from the parking lot of Price Chopper on Glen Street. It is my understanding that this will entail selling Christmas - 28 - ''-" --/ "--' ---../ (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/28/95) trees in December and other plant material periodically throughout the year. The plan submitted indicates an area in the southeast corner of the property dedicated to this use. The plan does not indicate whether there will be any structures or signs erected for this use. The Board should be sure that any structures, signs, or displays will not obstruct the view of motorists entering or leaving the site. I would recommend that any displays be setback 50' from the )·oad and that any structures - meet the required 75' setback. Parking appears to be more than adequate for both uses on the site and the vehicular and pedestrian circulation on the site should be adequate if the above referenced setbacks are maintained. The only other issue is lighting. If lighting is going to be installed for night operations, the type and location should be indicated." MR. GORALSKI-Warren County Planning Board approved, concurring with local conditions. MR. PALING-Okay. Now the only drawings we have, John, are what I have here with the little orange markers on them. MR. GORALSKI-That's all I have, yes. MR. PALING-Now there are two, why are there two markers? MR. GORALSKI-I think the one in the corner is the key, and the one on the site shows you where that area is. MR. TROELSTRA-Frank Troelstra, representing Garden Time. MR. OBERMAYER-What size is it going to be, and is it going to be permanent? MR. TROELSTRA-Just for the month of December right now. MR. OBERMAYER-Andwhat size? MR. TROELSTRA-The area is probably going to be running about 30 by maybe 80 in area, and it's just Christmas trees. MR. OBERMAYER-Are you going to have an awning? MR. TROELSTRA-No awning. sheds, probably one of secured with snow fence the Christmas trees. I'm in the business of selling storage those structures there, and it'll be around the perimeter, the perimeter of MR. PALING-Okay. I wish we had that on here. MR. RUEL-And it'll be 75 feet from the road? MR. TROELSTRA-Yes. MR. BREWER-You'll have one storage building there, Frank? MR. TROELSTRA-One stora~e building. MR. BREWER-The storage shed is not a problem, John? MR. GORALSKI-The storage shed would have to meet the setbacks, which are 75 feet from the property line, and if it's larger than 100 square feet. MR. TROELSTRA-It won't be. MR. GORALSKI-Well, then it wouldn't need, if it's larger than 100 square feet, it would also need a building permit, but if it's not larger than 100 square feet, then it wouldn't need a building - 29 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/28/95) permit, but it would need to meet the setback. MR. RUEL-Any lighting? Do you propose any lighting? MR. TROELSTRA-Yes. There'll probably be some string of lights there. There is parking lot lighting there, but I sold Christmas trees there prior, back in '90, '91 and it was inadequate. So I just put some strings of lights there. MR. RUEL-And would the lights be along the perimeter of the snow fence? MR. TROELSTRA-Yes. It would be within the confines. MR. RUEL-Yes. MR. OBERMAYER-Where are you going to hang the lights from, the electrical from? MR. TROELSTRA-From the sign there. Chopper's allowed me to draw from. There's a sign that Price MR. PALING-None of these lights would be strong enough, I would think, to affect traffic. MR. TROELSTRA-House lights, bulbs. MR. RUEL-Construction type lights. MR. TROELSTRA-Correct. MR. RUEL-And you'll be using this year round? MR. TROELSTRA-No. Christmas time. I'll probably be dismantling it after MR. RUEL-Are you going to limit this application to just Christmas trees? MR. TROELSTRA-For the present time, yes. My present plans right now are just for Christmas trees. MR. GORALSKI-Okay. I want to make sure we're very clear on this, okay, because they're coming in for a site plan review. If they're coming in for a site plan review, and you say all you're doing is Christmas trees, that means, you know, Mother's Day, Easter, everything else, you can't set up. If, on the other hand, you say we're going to occasionally sell plant material from this specific location, given the constraints that are set up at this meeting tonight, then you don't have to come in every individual time, if that's agreeable, if approving it that way is okay with the Board. MR. TROELSTRA-Okay. I'1R . PALING-Well, that's the IrJay the application reads. MR. GORALSKI-That's the way the application reads. MR. RUEL-So you will be selling plants throughout the year? MR. TROELSTRA-Possibly. MR. GORALSKI-As long as it doesn't lapse fOT ffiQre than 18 months, you can continue to do that. MR. OBERMAYER-So then shouldn't you have more permanent lights and things of that nature, instead of everything so temporary, if - 30 - '-' '--'" -' -.../ (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/28/95 ) it's going to be more? MR. TROELSTRA-Well, lets say, I don't want the material laying around between the time spans. MRS. LABOMBARD-Yes, because he's going to stop selling trees at the end of December, and then might not sell flowers until May. MR. TROELSTRA-Yes. That's going to be five months at least. MR. RUEL-And you wouldn't need lights then anyway. MR. TROELSTRA-That's correct. MR. PALING-The snow fence will represent the border, and we can judge the setbacks from the snow fence to the boundary. MR. GORALSKI-That would be fine with me. MR. PALING-Okay. MR. OBERMAYER--Price Chopper doesn't care what you put up there? MR. TROELSTRA-No. I've done business everything was acceptable at that time. it would be the same. with them before, and I basically stated that MR. BREWER-So, in other words, if we grant this approval, next Christmas he doesn't have to come in here to do this again. He can just continue the use? MR. GORALSKI-Exactly. MR. RUEL-But if it stays dormant for 18 months or more. MR. GORALSKI-Then he's got to come back. Right, but if all he does is sell Christmas trees every year for the next 20 years, and on the 21st year he shows up on Mother's Day selling plants, he can do that, too. MR. OBERMAYER-What's the Queensbury Ordinance when people on the side of the road sell fruit that, they're required to go by? that's required and things like MR. GORALSKI-That's the Transient Merchant Law. MR. OBERMAYER-What's the difference between this and that? MR. GORALSKI-He's coming in for a site plan review to establish a permanent use. MR. 08ERMAYER-This is probably a more cost effective way to go? MR. GORALSKI-Absolutely. MR. OBERMAYER-Okay. MR. RUEL-Yes, this is the way to go. MR. PALING-All right. Why don't we move into the public hearing on this. Is there anyone here that would care to comment on this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED - 31 - ,.",,- (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/28/95) MR. PALING-Okay. Any other questions, comments? SEQRA. Short Form SEQRA on this? We need a MR. GORALSKI-Short Form. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 69-95, Introduced by James Obermayer who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roger Ruel: WHEREAS, there application for: is presently before GARDEN TIME, and the Planning Board an WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. No federal agency appears to be involved. 2. The follQwing age~cies are involv~d: 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 28th day ,of November, 1995, by the following vot,e: AYES~ Mr. Stark, Mr. Obermay~r, Mrs~ LaBombard, Mr. Ruel, Mr. Brewer, Mr.,M¡3CEwan, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE MR. OBERMAYER~Before we entertain a motion, what about handicapped parking in this area? I mean, are you going to have a sign there or something like that, next to your fence post? MR. TROELSTRA-If you want me to. It's all open. MR. RUEL-It's all open. MR. OBERMAYER-Is it required? MR. GORALSKI-It wouldn't hurt. I mean, I don't think it's a big deal to get a handicapped parking sign and put it up on the snow fence, just so that you're providing that reserved spot, by the entrance to your sales area. - 32 - --- -../ ''-,.., .......-" (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/28/95) MR. MACEWAN-One spot closest to the entrance into your fence. MR. OBERMAYER-And the other thing is that, I'm not sure how, you're 30 by 80 feet, it's a little difficult to tell by this sketch. Which way is the 80 feet going to run? ,Is it going to run parallel to the property1 MR. TROELSTRA-From the, yes, east west. MR. OBERMAYER-Okay. So will there because, depending on where you could coming in, and the flow of traffic. the flow of traffic. Okay. Maybe we be any parking in front, interfere with any traffic There'll be no parking in should just add that. MR. PALING-Yes, but I would suggest, in the future, that a little better, just a little bit better drawing be submitted, so that Jim's question would have been answered just by looking at it. I think it's a very legitimate question. Okay. MR. RUEL-Motion? MR. PALING-Yes. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 69-95 GARDEN TIME, Introduced by Roger Ruel who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Stark: To sell plant material in the Price Chopper parking lot, with the condition that you reserve one spot for handicapped parking next to the entrance and the snow fence. That there'll be no parking interfering with the flow of traffic from entering or exiting Price Chopper southerly entrance way. That any buildings be set back 75 feet from the property line. That the size of the building be under 100 square feet, that the fenced in area be 30 by 80, running east/west. That the signs conform with the Queensbury Sign Ordinance. Duly adopted this 28th day of November, 1995, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ruel, Mr. Brewer, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Stark, Mr. Obermayer, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE SITE PLAN NO. 63-95 TYPE I RONALD BENJAMIN OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE ZONE: WR-1A, CEA LOCATION: ASSEMBLY POINT ROAD AT SHARP BEND. PROPOSAL IS FOR AN ADDITION OF NEW 580 SQ. FT. SECOND FLOOR TO EXISTING SINGLE STORY 1,175 SQ. FT. RESIDENCE. SECTION 179-79 REQUIRES SITE PLAN REVIEW AND APPROVAL FOR ANY ENLARGEMENT OF A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE WITHIN A CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL AREA. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 78-1995 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 11/8/95 TAX MAP NO. 8-2-6 LOT SIZE: 10,411 SQ. FT. SECTION: 179-16, 179-79 CHARLES JOHNSON, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MRS. LABOMBARD-There were a few items tabled from last week's November 21st meeting, and the first one that we would like to take care of right now is for Site Plan No. 63-95, Ronald Benjamin. MR. PALING-Okay. Thank you. MR. BREWER-This is the one we were going to get the'information on? MRS. LABOMBARD-Yes. - 33 - ,.- (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/28/95) MR. GORALSKI-The Board left it that the applicant's agent was going to meet with the neighbors and show them the elevation to the north, and I believe that was the only outstanding issue. MR. PALING-Was not the print supposed to be to us? MR. BREWER-Yes. MR. GORALSKI-I never received a print. MR. BREWER-That we were going to get Monday. Right? MR. RUEL-Yes. MR. PALING-Yes, we were supposed to have received the print ourselves, and this is what we had from before. MR. JOHNSON-That's the previous print. These are the revised ones. My name's Charlie Johnson with Paradox Design Architects, and what we were going to do is meet with the neighbors, which has been done. They've granted their approval to the refinements that came about in our discussions from last time, and I was simply going to show you at the meeting the proposed and the revised elevations. MR. PALING-All right. Would you put it on the board. MR. BREWER-We're we also going to make, the applicant was going to make specific drawings, so that it wasn't just a general. MRS. LABOMBARD-He has specific drawings. MR. GORALSKI-That's what he's got here. MRS. LABOMBARD-Now you took away the turret roof? MR. JOHNSON-The octagonal shape is Code allows 35 feet maximum height. to 30. gone. I think the Building The Zoning Board limited it MR. OBERMAYER-On this? MR. JOHNSON-Yes. MR. OBERMAYER-Okay. isn't it? The neighbor's house, I think, is taller, MR. JOHNSON-Yes. MR. OBERMAYER-We won't get into that. MR. PALING-We must have left the public hearing open on this? MR. MACEWAN-Yes, you did. MR. PALING-All right. Then we'll just ask the neighbors to, would you like to comment on it? PUBLIC HEARING OPEN ENOCH ZYLOWSKI MR. ZYLOWSKI-It looks fine. MR. PALING-Okay. The neighbors say it looks fine. MR. RUEL-The north elevation doesn't substantiate the revised lake elevation. It looks more like the original proposed, on the - 34 - '---' ~ ',,-. --/ (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/28/95) right hand side, on the second floor. MRS. LABOMBARD-I know. MR. JOHNSON-I see. That's a dormer that's facing on the opposite side of the lake. MR. RUEL-That's not right, though. MR. GORALSKI-Yes, it is. MR. JOHNSON-That was never shown. That elevation that faces the driveway, which is opposite to the lake, was never depicted. That side does have the octagonal dormer. It always did. It was just never shown in any of the previous drawings. MR. RUEL--Okay. MR. OBERMAYER-It's the back side of the house. MR. JOHNSON-The back side. MR. OBERMAYER-They're limited on height, 30 feet, by the ZBA. MR. PALING-Okay. Are there any other questions or comments? I think we can. Have we done the SEQRA on this? MR. SCHACHNER-No. MR. PALING-We've got to do a SEQRA. MR. GORALSKI-This is a Type I Action because it's an expansion of a nonconforming structure in a CEA. I have a copy of the Long EAF here I can go through, if you'd like. MR. OBERMAYER-Yes, that would be great. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 63-95, Introduced by John Goralski who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Stark: WHEREAS, there application for: is presently before RONALD BENJAMIN, and the Planning Board an WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. No federal agency appears to be involved. 2. The following agencies are involved: NONE 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is unlt~t~d 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 - 35 - -- (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/28/95) 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 28th day of November, 1995, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ruel, Mr. Brewer, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Stark, Mr. Obermayer, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE MR. GORALSKI-Excuse me, Mr. Paling. I'm not sure if you closed the public hearing. I don't know if you did or not. MR. PALING-If I didn't, does anyone care to add anything? we'll close the public hearing. Then PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. OBERMAYER-I'd like to make a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 63-95 RONALD Introduced by James Obermayer who moved for its seconded by George Stark: BENJAMIN, adoption, Per the plan prepared by Paradox Design Architects, dated 9/26/95, revised 11/28/95. Duly adopted this 28th day of November, 1995, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Brewer, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Stark, Mr. Obermayer, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ruel, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE SUBDIVISION NO. 21-1989 MODIFICATION CROSS ROADS PARK OWNER: RICHARD SCHERMERHORN ZONE: MR-5 LOCATION: CROSS ROADS PARK, CORNER OF BAY ROAD AND BLIND ROCK ROAD. PROPOSAL IS FOR LOT LINE ADJUSTMENTS. SECTION A 183-F REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD APPROVAL FOR ANY MODIFICATIONS TO AN APPROVED SUBDIVISION. TAX MAP NO. 46-2-9.4, 9.5 TOM NACE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. OBERMAYER-Okay. I guess where we left off, we were going to, we had the applicant prepare us a landscaping plan, and we were going to have the engineering comments. MR. GORALSKI-Okay. If I could step in, the applicant's consulting engineer and the Town's engineer have been working diligently this week to try and come to some resolution of the concerns regarding the amendment to the subdivision. To this point, I don't believe that they have resolved all of the engineering issues that are related to the entire subdivision. That leaves us, and correct me if I'm wrong, Tom, that that leaves us, basically, with the fact that we should probably table the modification of the subdivision at this point, so that the engineers can continue to work and iron out these issues. The next step would be the site plan review for Lot 9. The existing Lot 9 is actually larger than the Lot 9 that is on the proposed - 36 - "-' ------' '-- '......".. (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/28/95) modification. Therefore, what the applicant would like to do is continue with the review of Lot 9, because the existing Lot 9 can accommodate what they're proposing to do. MR. BREWER-I thought the purpose of us tabling last week was we couldn't do the site plan without doing the subdivision? MR. OBERMAYER-Right, that's what I thought, too. MR. BREWER-So I don't see any benefit to do exactly the thing that we didn't do last week. I mean, we could have done that last week. That's ffiZ opinion. MR. GORALSKI-Okay. That's certainly within your rights to do. The only thing I'm telling you is that there were, well, let me step back. The existing Lot 9, which is larger than what he's proposed, he has the right to come in and get a site plan re0iew on that, whether or not he's doing modifications. The reason this whole thing came up is because he's modifying this, all the lot lines. There were other issues related to the site plan regarding screening of the northerly property line, moving some drywells to maintain separation distances and that type of thing. It's up to the Board whether you want to go ahead and review the site plan, with the applicant's understanding that he's certainly at risk if he gets approval for that site plan, and then that limits what he can do in the rest of the subdivision, once the engineer's iron out what happens in the rest of the subdivision. MR. BREWER-But it's kind of crazy, modifications are going to affect the personally, see any sense in doing the the modification straightened out. because ultimately the site plan. So I don't, site plan without getting MR. MACEWAN-Kind of putting the cart in front of the horse. Let me ask, if we went on and we reviewed the site plan, and we theoretically approved the site plan, for whatever reason, we never could come to an approval of the modification of the subdivision, does the current site plan meet the setbacks, without the modification? MR. GORALSKI-Yes, it does. That's what I'm saying. MR. SCHACHNER-That's part of his point. The only reason you could legally proce~d a~d review the site plan application now if you decide to do~so is because it does comply with zoriing, and because there is an approved subdivision al r'~ady on reèord and filèd which includes this particular lot on which the site plan application has been made. MR. OBERMAYER-So what he's looking to do with the subdivision, then, if I understand, is to modify the original subdivision, the lot lines, to accommodate the intense use of the property. Is that correct? MR. NACE-For the record, my name is Tom Nace, with Haanen Engineering. There are still remaining a couple of technical issues with the subdivision modification that need to be ironed out. The modification was proposed simply for the purpose of being able to layout the' lot lines in a configuration that we felt would be beneficial for the overall use of the entire subdivision. As John stated the existing lot line on Lot 9, the westerly boundary of that existing lot line, prior to modi fication, is over here, okay. The way we propose it to be modified is to move it in toward the lot more. So what we're asking is we need time to address some of the technical issues. The groundwater mounding, we feel fairly confident we can do that. We dug a test hole today which was 18 feet. Charlie Main, who is probably the best Soil Scientist I know around this area - 37 - -- ----"'~ -- -- (Cueensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/28/95) and has more experience than most of us engineers put together, as far as telling where high groundwater is, looked at the hole and did not find any evidence of seasonal high groundwater. So I'm confident that the groundwater and soils all the way down were uniform fine, not very fine, but fine sand, which has good permeability and allows water to move freely through it. So I'm confident that we can overcome that groundwater mounding issue given enough time to provide the engineer with an analysis that's acceptable. So, moving this, or leaving this existing lot line here and getting approval for this site plan simply allows us to go ahead and get in the ground before winter. If we don't proceed with that, we're going to lose this construction season for this particular site plan, and development would start in the spring. So that's all we're asking is, give us the necessary time on the modification. We realize that we're putting ourselves at some risk, that if the modification isn't approved, and we've got a lot here that may be a hair bigger than we needed, maybe not. So, we're simply asking, lets, if we can, proceed, addressing all the issues on Lot 9, and give us some time, table the subdivision, and come back with submission data so that the engineer can sign off on it. MR. BREWER-Do you feel comfortable with us doing that, Bill? BILL MACNAMARA MR. MACNAMARA-Good evening. In terms of looking at this just the site plan versus the subdivision, is that what your question is? MR. OBERMAYER-Yes. MR. BREWER-Keeping in mind that the subdivision is going to happen, do you feel comfortable with us going ahead with the site plan? MR. MACNAMARA-That site plan is probably the least of any of the concerns we have, even if the rest of the subdivision were built out, in that, if you look to the north of it, there's not an immediate field behind it from Cedar Court. If you look to the east, there's ~o~ a lot right there, and we don't believe that what would be b4ilt there is part of the apartment¡ kind of a multifamily aspect. We believ~ that's still part of the Phase I, which was intended to be the smaller credit union banks, if you will. So even if the rest of the shooting match were to occur over there, that's probably the least concerned site that we have, if that makes any sense. MR. OBERMAYER-Yes. That sounds good to me. I have no problem proceeding. I'll hear from the rest of the Board, but that's my opinion, I have no problem with proc.eding. MR. STARK-No problems. MR. MACEWAN-Comfortable. MR. RUEL-Fine. MRS. LABOMBARD-Fine. MR. GORALSKI-Okay. I have a couple of site plan issues, then. So then the subdivision modification is tabled, is that the understanding? MR. BREWER-It was tabled last week. We'd just leave it tabled, right? MR. SCHACHNER-I think if it's on the agenda again, you ought to have a motion to table it. - 38 - ''-'' "'-"" "'-, --/ (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/28/9.5 ) MR. OBERMAYER-Which one did you introduce, Cathy? MRS. LABOMBARD-The first one, just for the subdivision. MR. OBERMAYER-Okay. So maybe we should table the subdivision, and then open the site plan. MRS. LABOMBARD-All right. Then I'll do that now. MR. GORALSKI-Before you table it, I have a couple of letters. I'm not sure whether they addressing the site plan or subdivision or both, but maybe I should read them now. MR. SCHACHNER-I mean, on the subdivision we public hearing, because it was merely a subdivision. On the site plan, we did open a it was left open. So I guess I'd suggest to when we get to that, in the p~blic hearing. never even had a modification of a public hearing, and read the letters in MR. GORALSKI-Okay. Go ahead. I'm sorry. MR. OBERMAYER-Okay. MOTION TO TABLE MODIFICATION TO ROADS PARK, Introduced by James adoption, seconded by Roger Ruel: SUBDIVISION NO. 21-1989 CROSS Obermayer who moved for its Duly adopted this 28th day of November, 1995, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Brewer, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Stark, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ruel, Mr. Obermayer NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Paling SITE PLAN NO. 67-95 TYPE: UNLISTED RICHARD P. SCHERMERHORN, JR. OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE ZONE: MR-5 LOCATION: LOT #9, CROSSROADS PARK PROPOSAL IS FOR AN 8 UNIT APARTMENT BUILDING ON .98 ACRE SITE. ALL USES IN THE MR-5 ZONE ARE SUBJECT TO SITE PLAN REVIEW. WARREN CO. PLANNING: 11/8/95 TAX MAP NO. 48-3- 34.1 LOT SIZE: .98 ACRES SECTION: 179-18 RICH SCHERMERHORN & JIM MILLER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. GORALSKI-The applicant's landscape architect, surveyor and I walked the site on Wednesday, last Wednesday. Mainly we walked the property line in terms of Cedar Court. That's when I asked them to provide the plan that they first put up, matching Cedar Court with Crossroads Park. Now we're talking about Lot Number Nine, now, which is the lot closest to the east, to show the relationship of that building to the other units on Cedar Court. As we walked along, there were some areas in the existing vegetation that were sparse, I guess you would say, and what I talked about with Jim Miller was that they should fill in those areas with some type of native evergreens. Jim's provided 13 or 14. MR. MILLER-About 20. MR. GORALSKI-There's 13 pines along the northern property line. What I would recommend that, instead of holding the applicant to that specific location, that it could be a condition that we field locate those, that number of trees to best screen the Crossroads Park and Cedar Court projects from each other. The other thing he's done is he's added some pines along what would - 39 - (Cueensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/28/95) TOM NACE MR. NACE-Even on area between what the existing lot replacement. closed spaces, at this point, the additional we had originally proposed as Lot 9 and what line is provides 50 percent area in there for MR. MACNAMARA-So, in terms of the grading and drainage changes they had addressed, but they essentially centered around making sure whatever roof water gets off the roof can get into the drywells that are parked on either side, and the drywells are spaced, we believe, a comfortable distance away from the septic field. That's a point we're discussing also, regarding the other site plans, but in this one here, I believe it's at least 50 feet, if not more. So, those are the specific site plan comments that we've worked out. Thanks. MR. OBERMAYER-It sounds good. Any questions? MR. RUEL-John, you walked the property. MR. GORALSKI-Yes. MR. RUEL-Was there any smell of sewage as indicated by Mr. Brown in his letter? MR. GORALSKI-No. When we were there Wednesday, I didn't smell any sewage, and I've been to the site several, on the Cedar Court side, doing inspections, and I never smelled sewage. MR. BREWER-I was there today and I didn't smell any. MR. RUEL-Mr. Brown must have picked a bad day. MR. BREWER-What are the buildings going to be constructed of, Rich, just out of curiosity? MR. SCHERMERHORN-Rich Schermerhorn, for the buildings are going to be like Meadowbrook Road. to be wood structure, vinyl siding. record. The They're going MR. BREWER-Similar to the ones that are on Meadowbrook? MR. SCHERMERHORN-Yes. MR. BREWER-That's a nice looking building. MR. RUEL-Where are these septic systems, on this map? You've got the leach fields here. MR. OBERMAYER-Yes, I don't see a septic there. MR. MILLER-The proposed leach fields, are, there's two of them, one for each half a unit indicated in these two areas in the rear of the property, meeting all the setbacks. MR. RUEL-And the tanks would be directly behind the building? MR. MILLER-Yes. One septic tank for this four plex is on this end, and one is on this end. MR. RUEL-And how many apartments are there? MR. MILLER-Eight. MR. RUEL-So it would be four and four for the septic? MR. MILLER-Four and four. - 41 - '-" -..,;' '--~ ..-' (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/28/95) be. MR. MACEWAN-John, go back to that for just a second. out and supervises? Who goes MR. GORALSKI-I would do that. MR. MACEWAN-Okay. MR. GORALSKI-And, obviously, if for some reason we disagreed in the field, then they'd have to come back to the Planning Board. They also added some pines along the eastern property line. You'll see on the map that the existing pool is right at the property line. So we thought it was in the best interest of that property owner that a screen be provided there also. MR. BREWER-How did that ever occur? MR. GORALSKI-The existing shed out there is actually on this property. It just was never used. The only other comment we have is that we would like to see, along the Hunterbrook Lane, we'd like to see the maple trees planted at about 30 feet on center, and when we finally get to the subdivision modification, I'd recommend that there be a requirement that all along that road that maple trees be planted at about 30 feet on center to provide a tree lane in that area, to give it more of a residential feel. MR. MACEWAN-Good idea. MR. RUEL-What's the separation now? MR. GORALSKI-Right now, I think they're about 50 feet apart. You might want to put one on this island on the eastern side, and then slide these other two a little closer together. MR. RUEL-Are you talking about just the red maples up front? MR. GORALSKI-Right, and I believe location to the dr/wells and stuff can address. there's some changes made in like that that I think Bill BILL MACNAMARA MR. MACNAMARA-Yes. Initially, in terms of the site plan itself we had, a couple of weeks back actually we probably talked on the telephone, both Tom and Jim, about some grading changes and some of the more boiler plate sanitary design changes on the back leach fields. The had submitted stuff in letter form indicating that essentially all the comments have been addressed in letter form, and now I just suggest that they show up on a site plan. Tom also went out and had some more test pits dug, and we had a little bit of discussions on how deep they ought to be dug, but he certainly is going to be able to provide, I trust, some data that shows it's consistent soils all the way through, and again, there's the obligatory seasonal high groundwater note that needs to show up, and as confident as everyone may be, it still should show up, just as that on a drawing, particularly if there's any kind of possible concerns that have been raised previously. The last thing that we talked about in great detail, but I'm pretty sure you can squeeze, is even though there's some thoughts about a Bay Road sewer coming at some point in time, there still is the general requirement that at least 50 percent available area be shown somewhere in and around where the fields are, and I think that, using some rough thumb nail sketches, I tried to measure up here and there, and it looks like you could somehow cram some kind of an approach say, hey, we've got an area for replacement here if it needs to be. - 40 - -' -.....--' (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/28/95) MR. BREWER-Originally you said this was senior housing. not? Is it MR. OBERMAYER-Yes. That was the original plan, we talked about that. MR. SCHERMERHORN-That was one of the proposals at the time we talked, but I have plans to make, see, this is kind of premature I guess. We laid out what we could fit. Some of my buildings are going to be senior buildings. Some of them may be restricted to children. I don't know what I'm going to do yet, but I do know there's going to be rentals there, but there will be some senior buildings. MR. OBERMAYER-Is this one here going to be a senior building? MR. SCHERMERHORN-No. This will be a mix. MR. OBERMAYER-I have no questions. Does anybody else have any questions? Okay. I'd like to open up the public hearing to anybody who'd like to comment on this. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. GORALSKI-I have a couple of letters. MR. OBERMAYER-Yes. Sure. You might as well read them in. MR. GORALSKI-This is addressed to Catherine LaBombard, Secretary, "I am writing this letter because I will be unable to attend the public hearing on this subject on November 28, 1995. My concern is over the density, the storm water and on-site sewage plans. At the last meeting (Nov. 21, 1995) I heard loud and clear from this meeting that the volume of discharge would be greater than the soil could absorb. Hence it was my understanding that the proposal included the overflow go to the adjacent pond which has me extremely concerned. During the public comment session of that meeting, I indicated that this pond and stream eventually would flow into Halfway Brook, however an individual who spoke at the side table corrected me by stating that it did not flow into Halfway Brook. Over the last few days, I have walked the area from the pond as it discharges to the South. While I did not walk the entire area, I am convinced that the water from this pond eventually makes its way to Halfway Brook. While we are not opposed to apartments, we are opposed to the negative impact that this project will have on the environment. It is already evident that when we walk out of our home we already have the smell of sewage and can imagine what the future will hold. Also, we are concerned with the careless raping of the entire landscaping. This affects not only the beauty of having natural buffer areas but also displaces our animals. Our birds and wildlife are a wonder of God and should not be discarded in this manner. Thank you, William F. and Kathleen R. Brown 10 Cedar Court Queensbury, NY 12804" And then there's a letter from J. David Michaels to the Queensbury Planning Board, "Pursuant to the attached Site Map which aligns Cedar Court and the Schermerhorn property, our only major concern is the close proximity of the four and eight unit apartment buildings at lots 10/11 to the property line. Taking into account the rear patios, these buildings are only 20' +/- from the property line. After speaking with Mr. Schermerhorn on this issue, he relayed that he understood our concerns and will investigate alternate site planning ideas to insure more privacy between the two projects in this particular area. We appreciate his common concern on this issue and are confident alternate solutions can be employed to provide more privacy to the benefit of both projects. At present we have at least four prospective purchasers interested in lots 17, 18, 19, 20, and 21, however, they are hesitant to purchase - 42 - '-' '-'" ......... ~ (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/28/9.5 ) until they fully understand the proximity of the proposed lots 10/11 apartment buildings. Thank you for your consideration of these concerns. Sincerely, J. David Michaels, President" MR. OBERMAYER-Okay. Anybody else who'd like to speak? JIM ROBERTS MR. ROBERTS-Good evening everybody. My name is Jim Roberts. I'm a resident of Cedar Court, 14 Cedar Court. My townhouse is probably the one that's 'most directly behind the lot number nine in question. I appreciate Mr. Schermerhorn putting this site plan to show the correlation between his apartment proposal and our existing development. I have just a couple of concerns, and I hope I didn't mislead anybody last week when I was talking about the big common area there. That is not Mr. Schermerhorn's doings or problems, that's the Michaels Group, and one of my main concerns appearing in front of your Board tonight, is to make sure that his development does not end up with what I've got in my back yard right now. I don't know if any of you have had the time to go over there and look, but I wasn't exaggerating when I said I had the Super Bowl Stadium in my back yard. The rendering L>iÌth the round buffer between the back end of the common area and his proposed lot nine, I believe is a little sparser than what that site plan shows. There's probably, at most, 10 or 12 trees there, with a lot of underbrush or whatever. There isn't much buffer there at all. Another concern that I have is, the intersection right out here at Bay and Blindrock and Haviland Road, over the history of the Town, there's been several traffic accidents here over the last 10 years or so, and I think that's why they put the light up. I don't know whether anybody's considered this or not, but once Cedar Court is fully developed, and if, in fact, these apartments are fully developed, you're going to have some major influx and outflux of cars every day. Now if anybody can sit out here in this Town parking lot at eight o'clock in the morning, and I'm telling you, there's a lot of cars going down Bay Road. I don't know if there's anything that can be done about it. I'm not trying to stop Mr Schermerhorn from building these apartments, but that is one of the concerns I have. Another concern I had is, he proposes 72 units in such a small area of land, I see no accommodations for children. There's no play area. Where are these kids going to go? I mean, I think the closest, correct me if I'm wrong, but the closest rec site here in Queensbury is the one at Glen Lake. I'm very well versed in this. I was in the apartment business for 17 years. I had 110 apartments, and I know that, Number One, you cannot discriminate against renting to children, and Number Two, kids in a rural area, with nothing to do, with idle time, there's going to be some problems. They're going to be allover here, not only in ~ development, but they're going to be over here on the Town property, and believe me, it's going to lead to some problems. So I hope that that's addressed, as far as making some kind of accommodations for a play area, or whatever. As far as the stormwater drainage, etc., just to give you an idea, I'm on Number 14, which I think is depicted as, is it 14 or 7? Last winter, or whole back yard flooded to the point, and froze over, that there was practically a skating rink, the whole back of those three duplexes, not the one on the corner, but the, well, I say the three, the three now, but ours was the only one there last winter. The other two weren't filled. So there is some drainage problems in that area. MR. BREWER-Now is that created from YOU1- properties, 01- is it from Schermerhorn? MR. ROBERTS-That was not ours, and I don't know, because I've never walked the fields back there, last year, or have no idea. - 43 - (Cueensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/28/95) MR. BREWER-To me, I was there today, and that's lower than. MR. ROBERTS-Yes, it is. MR. BREWER-So I can't see how their water could go into your. MR. ROBERTS-Well, I'm not saying it's going to go into ours. I'm just saying I don't know whether there's going to be a problem on that parcel like I had on mine. MR. BREWER-I see what you're saying. MR. RUEL-Which is your property up there? MR. ROBERTS-All right. Going from Bay Road, taking a left onto Cedar Court, mine is the fourth duplex. MR. RUEL-Okay. I see. MR. OBERMAYER-Could you point it out for us, just so we have an idea? MR. ROBERTS-Mine is this one right here. MR. OBERMAYER-Okay. MR. ROBERTS-And when I moved in, this was all very nicely wooded with some very big white pines, and whatever. Now there's absolutely nothing there. Now I can look from here practically down, I can almost see the College. MR. RUEL-What's the distance of that open area, a couple of hundred feet? MR. ROBERTS-This here? MR. RUEL-Yes. MR. ROBERTS-I don't know exactly what it is, but I bet I could put a football field in there. MR. RUEL-I mean, from your location to the property edge. MR. ROBERTS-From here to here? MR. RUEL-Yes. MR. GORALSKI-Three hundred and forty feet. MR. ROBERTS-I would say about 280, 300 feet. MR. GORALSKI-Three hundred and forty is what it scales off. MR. RUEL-Yes, that's quite a distance. MR. ROBERTS-Yes, it's quite a distance, but it's. MR. OBERMAYER-Really, though, there's nothing that Schermerhorn can do relating to that, because his development. MR. ROBERTS-No, I know that. here. Believe me, this here Here's where is not here now. I'm concerned right MR. OBERMAYER-Right. Okay. MR. ROBERTS-Thank you. MR. OBERMAYER-Thank you. Anybody else who'd like to come up and - 44 - '- ',--, -- (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/28/95 ) comment, now's the time, on site plan anyway. You still chance to comment on the subdivision, because that hearing's still open, I believe. have a public MR. RUEL-Has anyone contacted the Michaels Group to get increase the size of that buffer zone? them to MR. ROBERTS-Well, I was over to the office of the, at the model over there on Saturday. I was in the sales office Saturday afternoon talking to Don Engel, who's the Site Coordinator there, and I have expressed my displeasure with what they did there, and of course, you know, it's totally out of his hands. He really has nothing to do with that part of it, but I had asked him if he would get a hold of the Michaels Group to see if they were going to doing anything. I doubt they're going to. See there's a little problem here with the original buildings that were built in there before John Michaels took over. We are not part of the homeowners association. So we do not live by his covenants and declarations or whatever. There was a legal, not mishap, but when we bought our units, the attorney that represented LAD Enterprises, the original owners, failed to file with the County the deeds and covenants that went along with the property, and when they did that, there was no legal grounds that we were tied in, as far as any homeowners association. So we had our option. So my duplex that I pointed out, the one on the very corner of Cedar Court and Bay Road, and that fourplex which is around the corner, are not part of John Michaels Homeowners Association. MR. RUEL-But all the rest are. MR. ROBERTS-All the rest are. forgotten six over there, and with the Michaels Group. So we're kind of known as the we really don't have much muscle MR. OBERMAYER-Okay. Thank you very much. MR. RUEL-Thank you. MR. OBERMAYER-Okay. Do you guys want to come back up? I guess there's no one else that wants to comment. I'll close the public hearing then. I know a lot of those comments are dealing more with the subdivision than the site plan of this site. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. SCHERMERHORN-Before you close it, I just have a question. Why don't we discuss the issue with the recreation possibilities, that Meadowbrook lot. MR. GORALSKI-Well, modification. that goes back to the subdivision MR. SCHERMERHORN-Because I'll have to pay rec fees on eight units tomorrow, if I get approval. MR. GORALSKI-One of the things that we had talked about, Rich had talked about with Harry Hansen, the Recreation Director, and with us in our office, was A, donating lot six from his Meadowbrook Road subdivision as part of his rec fee, and, B, possibly supplying some type of playground structure or play area, basketball court or something here to accommodate just what the gentleman was talking about, in lieu of his rec fees. MR. SCHERMERHORN-There's $36,000 I approvals for 42. I already paid and last year alone. There's recreations. would have to pay if I get all $42,000 in rec fees this year been no additional parks or - 45 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/28/95) MR. BREWER-Yes, but those subdivisions you paid on, Rich, have nothing to do with this subdivision. MR. SCHERMERHORN-No, no, no. They do. In general, the money's going for recreation for the Town of Queensbury. I'm just saying that the money for rec fees that we're pooling in there has not been spent yet. I'm just saying, if possible, I'd put in recreation for my own complex, but just think of alternatives, that's all. MR. BREWER-I think it's a great idea if you provided some recreation, like the Garth Allen, they provided recreation area in that subdivision. I think that's a great idea. MR. OBERMAYER-Yes, I do, too. MR. BREWER-If you want to show something on the map. MR. OBERMAYER-I don't know whether that's up to us, though, or the Town Board. MR. SCHERMERHORN-That doesn't go back to a legal description that rec fees are not used for a project like this, it has to be used for public use? MR. SCHACHNER-Yes, that's true, as far as the issue of recreation fees. That's correct. MR. MACEWAN-I guess I'm kind of curious as to, when did all, transpire going from senior housing, which I thought this is what we were talking about all along, to mixed housing in there now? From the first day you put an application in front of us, I was under the assumption it was senior housing. MR. SCHERMERHORN-If we pull the minutes up, I came in with two proposals, and you said, come back to us with one, and you didn't like the idea of the cuI de sac, and you wanted me to complete the road. So I came back with the road completed, and came in with a proposal for apartments. Now some will be senior buildings. Some won't. MR. OBERMAYER-Right. The way I remember it is that it wasn't really a definitive, exactly, if it was going to be senior or not. I think Rich wasn't sure in which direction he was going to go at the time. That's the way I remember it. MRS. LABOMBARD-I interpreted it to be totally senior, and I went out and said, wait 'til you hear this. MR. MACEWAN-That's the impression I got. I got no impression of anything other than that. MR. SCHERMERHORN-Well, I'm sorry if I mislead you, but I don't what bearing it has with the zoning. MR. MACEWAN-Well, now it has a bearing on the fact that you want to, you're looking for us to maybe take land in lieu of rec fees. We're now, I think, all kind of thinking, well, what kind of recreation facilities can you supply now to this potential of varied family living in this complex? I can't picture, you know, seniors interested in too many recreation facilities that would interest children, in a complex. Now you've opened up the discussion that you're avenues. MR. SCHERMERHORN-I guess next time I'll just come in with the modification of the lot lines. MR. OBERMAYER-I understand. - 46 - '- -' '--- '- (Cueensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/28/95) MR. BREWER-I don't think, to me, it makes any difference whether it's senior housing. MR. OBERMAYER-It doesn't make any different to me, either. I think it's a great idea, as far as the rec plan. We have all this money in the Town of Queensbury, and stick it in the bank, and we have no development of parks in the Town of Queensbury, and here's a developer that's willing to do something. MR. MACEWAN-That's not for this Board to decide, though, Jim. MR. OBERMAYER-I know that, but I understand where he's coming from, and I'm saying go for it. MR. RUEL-We can make a recommendation to the Town Board. MR. BREWER-I think it's a great idea that he's doing mixed housing here and senior housing, but if he is going to have mixed housing, why don't we try to incorpoyate some recreation for the facilities? MR. MACEWAN-That's exactly what I'm saying. MR. OBERMAYER-We have the facility right here, right across the street, the senior, what about here we paid for. MR. MACEWAN-No. What he's saying is supply a plan or explore the avenues of supplying recreation area for the use of the complex. MR. BREWER-It doesn't have to be a baseball field, a basketball court and all that. I mean, just some sort of area set aside for recreation for the tenants. That's all. MR. STARK-Maybe in the future, when he comes plans. Why is it necessary for this site plan? is eight apartments. in for more site That's all it is MR. BREWER-Yes, but we're looking at the whole thing, George. It's going to be 72 units. MR. STARK-I know, but at the next stage let him put in. MR. BREWER-That's fine, as long as he comes back with some kind of a plan, but I don't want to get down to the last section of units and say, gee, what about the recreation we talked about in the first place? MR. STARK-I understand that. Well, make it known tò the applicant that when he comes back in again for another site plan at that point, then, he would have to show some recreation set aside. MR. NACE-Well, I think we've got to come back with the subdivision modifications, okay, and at that point we need to supply the engineering for those modifications, we're going to be detailed enough on the individual sites within that subdivision to be able to set aside, if that's what's proposed, but that's going to take some time to work out with the Town Board, and with the Planning Department. MR. OBERMAYER-Right. It's worth looking at, I would think. MR. STARK-If the applicant agrees that, supposing this site plan gets approved and so on, when he comes back in again for another site plan for another building or set of buildings, at that point there, talk it over with you or the Town Board as to what type of recreation would be needed or necessary for those remaining buildings. At that point there, does he still have to pay a fee - 47 - -- --- (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/28/95) tomorrow for the recreation, or what? MR. STARK-On the one site plan probably, right? MR. GORALSKI-Well, I think what I can, I guess I can't give you an absolute answer right now. Certainly, if you want, what we can look into is maybe getting a letter from Rich agreeing that if the Town does in fact decide to require the rec fee be paid, that he will agree to pay it prior to getting any additional site plan approvals or something like that. MR. OBERMAYER-Yes. All you can do is pursue it, really. MR. STARK-Is that agreeable to the applicant? MR. SCHERMERHORN-Yes, that's agreeable to me. MR. OBERMAYER-He's the one that brought it up. MR. GORALSKI-I think what I would say is that that whole rec fee thing should be worked out prior to approving the subdivision modification. MR. OBERMAYER-Right, that would be part of it. MR. BREWER-We can still ask the applicant to provide some sort of an area for recreation, though. I don't think the issue of the fees is our job. I think we should just stay right away from the fees and just still ask him. MR. STARK-Tim, not at this point, though, tonight. MR. BREWER-No, for the subdivision, when he comes in for the subdivision. MR. MACEWAN-Yes, for when he comes back with his modification. MR. BREWER-For that modification, ask him to show some sort of recreation area. MR. NACE-If we come back with a proposal that you like (lost words) we would ask for your support to go to the Town Board to get that approved, just your support. MR. BREWER-Right. MR. OBERMAYER-I don't have a problem with giving ~ support. MR. MACEWAN-I would be agreeable to that. MR. RUEL-That's good. MR. BREWER-Provided the recreation is adequate for the facility. MR. MACEWAN-I'm not looking for something elaborate, either. I think there was some nice ideas that were tossed around for the Garth Allen project. MR. OBERMAYER-Yes. MR. GORALSKI-And if the issue does get into rec fees and whether or not that can apply toward their rec fees, one of the things I would say is that you're not going to lock this up with a gate that only the residents will have a key or anything like that. I doubt if anyone else would come and use it, but certainly, it could be a public area. MR. BREWER-Sure. - 48 - '--' '--' ---- ..- (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/28/95) MR. OBERMAYER-Then you run into a lot of other logistics. MR. SCHACHNER-Well, the Planning Board is allowed to require that, though. MR. OBERMAYER-Right. MR. GORALSKI-The Planning Board could require it. I guess what I'm saying is, if it's not open to the public, you can't use it toward your rec fees. MR. OBERMAYER-Right. MR. BREWER-Exactly, because the rec fees are open for everybody, right? MR. OBERMAYER-Right, that's true. MR. STARK-You could leave it open to the public, but who would use it? MR. SCHERMERHORN-Right. MR. OBERMAYER-The neighbors over in Cedar Court? MR. SCHERMERHORN-I proposed that lot 6 on Halfway Brook, which everyone seems to have interest in, on the east side of Halfway Brook, behind that Meadowbrook/Cronin subdivision we just approved. I wasn't asking if all in lieu of the $36,000 rec fees, but partial of it, or whatever. That may make a nice park. That was one of my ideas. Harry Hansen liked the idea of it. He didn't think it was worth $36,000, but. MR. OBERMAYER-Right. What you ought to do is just put it in writing and submit it to the Town. MR. SCHERMERHORN-Well, I did. MR. MACEWAN-You'll have plenty of time to work it out. MR. OBERMAYER-Okay. MR. MACNAMARA-I have one more thing that I'm hoping, I haven't seen any kind of comparison before Tom, so I'm hoping that maybe you can shed some light on this. I haven't seen any of the Cedar Court actual comparison, or adjacent view or whatever. I'm curious. Where is the septic field that they were speaking of, that's football size or something? MR. MILLER-It's this area in here is shown as common area. MR. MACNAMARA-Is that higher up there? Is there a knoll behind lot 9 that drops back off again? MR. MILLER-What happens, our grade slopes up from our finished floor to about five feet to the top of the bank, and what happens, it pitches away, pretty much in a northerly direction, as a matter of fact, the gentleman was talking about some drainage problems, here. I suspect what happened was when there's frost in the ground, it drained back into the low area back in the1-e. MR. MACNAMARA-Okay. So surface water goes that way. In terms of the elevations of their leach fields, if they're at the elevation that's the back property line, plus or minus, I'm trying to get your opinion, Tom, on this, because I have a thought, and I won't sleep if you don't answer it. I don't know if they took their 10 foot, if you will, from the property line, which they're allowed - 49 - '--' (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/28/95) to do, but if in fact they did, and they're up at about 394, and your grade, Tom, is down here at 386, 387, does that gradient concern you, from the bottom of their leaching area, that 50 feet plus or minus, to where the grade is behind this lot? MR. MILLER-We're at 88. MR. NACE-This comes up and back down. MR. MILLER-The top of the bank is 395, and then it starts sloping down. So their field is like 394 and less. MR. MACNAMARA-Right, and I don't know how close they put it to the property line. You guys might know this. MR. SCHERMERHORN-I saw them put it in last week, and it's, I'd say they're 15. MR. NACE-I'm not losing sleep over it. I think when we look at the overall subdivision, groundwater analysis, and take that into a specific area, this will be an area where we will (lost words), but I'm not losing sleep over it. MR. MACNAMARA-If I look at contours, it shows actually a round, almost general area right there behind this reading the contours wrong or not. like I pull a USGS Map out, like a high point for the lot, and I don't know if I'm MR. NACE-We're going to be grading that off to some extent. MR. MACNAMARA-Okay, but in general, what I!m hoping is that in fact that is a high point, maybe the groundwater actually follows the contours, and maybe the groundwater of Cedar Court pitches and heads north, which is good, because what I'm thinking about is I'd rather have it go north than south. MR. NACE-It's possible, but it was on lot 9 that we did pit today, and it was on the lower part of the lot, elevation is down around 96, 86. the test so that MR. MACNAMARA-How much of this field is operation? I mean, is there any discharge going on over here on this Cedar Court? MR. NACE-Presently, I don't think so. MR. GORALSKI-No. LEON STEVES MR. STEVES-No, it's under use right now, some of it. MR. MILLER-They're building some of it, MR. STEVES-My name is Leon Steves. John, you know more about this than I do, but don't units 35, 36, 37, and 38 enjoy a CO? MR. GORALSKI-Yes, they do, but the bed right along the property line is not the one that's connected to those units. MR. STEVES-There's four beds there, and those four beds, they're pumped up from the pumping station, force main, to a tank, and then dispersed equally to four beds, periodically, each one separately. MR. GORALSKI-To be honest with you, I'm going to have to check on that. I'm not sure. I know where the pump station is, and I know where the beds are. I'm not sure if those are functioning - 50 - '-' ----- ~ ',-- (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/28/95) at this point. MR. MILLER-I don't think they are. MR. OBERMAYER-I guess I'm not quite sure, is this relating to the site plan? MR. MACNAMARA-I'm just trying to get Tom's thoughts. what I'm worried about. He knows MR:. NACE-You're worried about the mounding from here interfering with our system. MR. MACNAMARA-Yes. world, drop down. I mean, everything doesn't, in a perfect I mean, there's some lateral dispersement. MR. NACE-There's some lateral, but there's always, I mean, with 18 feet of unsaturated soil, even if it does move laterally, it's going to move down also. So even if you assume the worst case cone of influence, a 45 degree angle, by the time those cones interfere, they're going to be down far enough at that dispersal area, and the amount of fluid reaching that area on a daily basis is so small. MR:. MACNAMARA-Just to make you feel better, here, if you do, lets take a 45 degree cone of influence, we'll go 10 foot off the property line, bear with me, here, and we'll go another 15 feet, that's 25 feet. So if you go at a 45, at 25 feet, then that's certainly, I'm kind of asking, that's certainly below. MR. NACE-Where our surface is, that's correct. MR. MACNAMARA-I'm just trying to look down sure, when this baby's cranking, Cedar Court's that we won't have any Clost word) space any future reference, that's one of the benefits outside of the boundaries of the site plan, question. the road and make in full operation, place else. For of showing data for that kind of MR. OBERMAYER-Right. Okay. Do we have to do a SEQRA on this? MR. GORALSKI-Yes. BOB PALING MR. PALING-I'd like to talk, if I could. My name is Bob Paling, and I nearly came up during the public hearing, but things have been said since the public hearing are what caused me to come up. So I would like to tell you what I have to say. I have been under the understanding for many, many weeks and months, that this was going to be senior housing, and we discussed the number of parking spaces and a lot of other things in conjunction with it. I'm going to move into Cedar Court, and the fact that it was senior housing influenced my buy decision. It's also something, senior housing, that I've passed on to quite a few of my friends, and one of them has bought a lot, and it backs up to this, and I feel very clumsy now, at least, where now they say, no, it won't, we're going to try to get a play ground in there for kids, and I think that this subject perhaps should be re-visited. I hate, I'm in a very awkward position. It did influence my buy decision. I've talked to other people, one of which has put a deposit on a lot, and I suggest that that subject be re-visited. MR. OBERMAYER-Thank you. MRS. LABOMBARD-I thought it was senior housing, too. MR. BREWER-What can you do about it? Literally, there's nothing - 51 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/28/95) we can do about it. MR. GORALSKI-Let me just state a couple of things. One been at all these meetings, and I don't think that it definitively stated that this was going to be senior When he first came in, he talked about senior housing, was at a conceptual stage, before he even came in with of modification for the site, any official plans. is, I've was ever housing. and that any kind MR. OBERMAYER-That was my understanding, also, John. wrong. Maybe I'm MR. GORALSKI-It was discussed at that point, but there was never a definitive answer made. My understanding, actually, was that when he came in with the senior housing, it was with larger buildings. The senior housing plan was going to be larger buildings, and the other, the alternate plan, was with these smaller buildings. On the flip side of that, this is an allowable use in the MR-5 zone. I caution the Board, and Mark can disagree with me if he'd like, if you're going to restrict this to senior housing, you better have a good reason why you're going to restrict it to senior housing. MR. OBERMAYER-I, personally, have no intention of voting to restrict it to senior housing, and that's my personal opinion, just because, I find it a little discriminatory that families can't live in the place. MRS. LABOMBARD-Now, wait a minute. That same night that Rich proposed this, conceptual proposal, we also heard, later on, about the senior project, farther down on Bay Road that way. So, I left that night under the impression, wow, we're really doing some neat things for the senior people, because we talked about the fact that Hiland Park originally was going to have senior housing, and it never materialized. So now we've got something, we've got senior housing in an area that's even close to Hiland Park. So I left here that night thinking, wow, we're going to have two new projects in this Town for senior housing, specifically for senior housing. I told tons of people myself. Now, I don't know why Bob and I came away with that feeling and some of you didn't. MR. BREWER-I came away exactly with the same feeling, Cathy, but I, personally, I can't, I mean, how can we hold him to senior housi ng? MRS. LABOMBARD-No, no. I thought you were saying, no, you can't hold Rich to senior housing. MR. BREWER-Right up until tonight I was under the assumption this was going to be senior housing. MRS. LABOMBARD-Right, right. You can't. MR. BREWER-I guess I just took it for granted that it was, because he mentioned that. MRS. LABOMBARD-Me, too. MR. BREWER-I mean, that's illZ fault. MRS. LABOMBARD-But Jim Just said, how can you discriminate against, I don't think this is being discriminatory. I mean, if a builder says, like the people down that way, if they're going to, they're building a senior citizens development, you mean they're going to get the Civil Liberties Union on their case? MR. STARK-No, there's is different, Cathy. There's is a, like a - 52 - '-- ~ ~ '--' (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/28/95) home care thing, where they provide their meals. MRS. LABOMBARD-I understand that, too, right. I realize that. I know that, but in this case, you just can't build apartments and say they're restricted to people over a certain age? MR. OBERMAYER-I don't know if you can or not. MRS. LABOMBARD-But I can see where Bob's coming from. I think Bob's got a big lump in his throat right now. He just bought, put a major amount of money into a piece of property that he was under the assumption he was going to have quiet, peaceful neighbors, and now, when you start putting, you know, now you've got a whole different scenario. MR. OBERMAYER-Okay. Is Cedar Court senior citizen? MR'. GORALSKI -No. ' MR. OBERMAYER-Okay. So families are welcome in Cedar Court. MRS. LABOMBARD-There you go. All right. MR. ROBERTS-At this point there's no children. MR. MACEWAN-I guess my only comment and my only concern was, all this time I thought it was, your project was aimed toward senior housing. Now that I find that it's not, I want to be sure that we're going to plan this well enough to accommodate family life for children and young people in that development, like we do with a lot of other complexes and projects we take on. MR. SCHERMERHORN-I'm sorry that people were mislead in any way, but the first meeting that we had when I came in here, we discussed, all it was was just, as a matter of fact, I think if you look at the minutes, it was just a discussion item that came before us. It was an idea of senior housing. I had an original idea of not putting the road in, just running a cul-de-sac. The other idea was mixed use apartments like Meadowbrook, if you'll recall. I even brought pictures of the Meadowbrook apartments in. MR:. MACEWAN-I mean, it's water under the bridge at this point. MR. SCHERMERHORN-Right, but I feel bad because I've been trying to be up front with everybody, and I feel bad because some people feel that all along this was senior housing. I will have some buildings that will probably be restricted to seniors, but I'm sorry that everyone thought this was going to be totally senior housing. I never did imply that, and I'm sure if you checked the minutes, it was just a proposal of options, because I did come in for discussion first. MR:. PALING-For the record, I'm Bob Paling. The question was, do you allow seniors or not in Cedar Court. Anyone can move into Cedar Court that wants to, but there are no recreation facilities planned for any type. So there's no temptation or no real incentive to bring kids into Cedar Court, and I don't think you're going to see any. MR. OBERMAYER-Thank you. M~:. BREWER-The point being, because they're not there, though, if we know that this is ~..¡hat it's going to be, I mean, Bob, if it's going to be similar to Meadowbrook, we know that children are going to be there. So I think that we should plan for it. I mean, not encourage it, but we shouldn't discourage it either. - 53 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/28/95 ) MR. OBERMAYER-Okay. I'm kind of talked out on the subject myself. Do(~s anybody else have any comments? MR. MACEWAN-I think we know what we've got to do, don't we? MRS. LABOMBARD-Well, I have a comment to make. I received this phone call, this past week, from this William Brown who wrote this letter, and he expressed his concerns to me, and I just, I didn't jump on him, or jump down his throat or anything, but I did say to him, I reminded him that I thought he was being very unfair to Rich about leading us to believe that it was Rich that cut down all the trees at the onset of his little talk last week, but now I feel like, when this guy comes back from wherever he is tonight and finds out that this is not going to be senior citizens, you know, maybe he wouldn't have purchased those homes, a townhouse there. MR. SCHERMERHORN-I didn't say, it was There may be five senior buildings everybody thought that, where did I, going to be restricted to seniors? thought it was a great idea. going to or four. in stone, I think be a mixed use. r don't know say that it was eve,-ybody just MRS. LABOMBARD-That's right. We must have wanted to believe what we wanted to hear. MR. SCHERMERHORN-I'm sorry. That's all I can say. MRS. LABOMBARD-Well, there's nothing that you can do about it. MR. OBERMAYER-Did you say we have to do a SEQRA on this site plan? MR. GORALSKI-Yes. MR. RUEL-Just one question when yoµ mentioned about a mixture of senior and non senior, a whole apartment complex would be senior? MRS. LABOMBARD-A whole building. MR. SCHERMERHORN-Yes. I would like to take a few buildings that would just be for seniors, some for. MR. RUEL-And possibly group them together? MR. SCHERMERHORN-Right. That's what I would like to do. MR. RUEL-You wouldn't divide a building, in other words? MR. SCHERMERHORN-No. I would keep the seniors in one building. MR. OBERMAYER-Okay. Lets do the SEQRA. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 67-95, Introduced by Catherine LaBombard who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Stark: WHEREAS, there application for: is presently before the RICHARD SCHERMERHORN, and Planning Board an WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: - 54 - ~ ---- ',-- (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/28/95) 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 28th day of November, 1995, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Stark, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Brewer, Mr.Obermayer NOES: Mr. Ruel ABSENT: Mr. Paling MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 67-95 RICHARD P. SCHERMERHORN, Introduced by Timothy Brewer who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Star k: With the stipulation that engineering comments are satisfied before building permits are issued. That maple tree~ that meet the size shown on the plan be planted at 30 feet on center along the roadway, and that the 13 trees shown on the north property line be field located with the Code Compliance Officer. Duly adopted this 28th day of November, 1995, by the following vote: MF:. MACNAMARA-One more engineering comment that Tom and I talked about during the meeting, it would help us, Tom, if you would show where the septic field is behind this, what elevation you believe their leaching happens, and make an assumption in terms of a cone of influence. I'd just like you to come forward and show. MR. BREWER-Bill, can't we just pull the plan out fr6m'the file for their leach field? MF:. MACNAMARA-Sure, if we need to, but I'd still like to, I'm not sure if that's something Tom should do, because it's not really his site plan. It's wastewater from the adjoining lot. Maybe that's something somebody else should do, and maybe that's open for discussion. unless you're willing to do it. MR. NACE-I will look at it. AYES: Mr. Brewer, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Stark, Mr. Obermayer - 55 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/28/95) NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ruel ABSENT: Mr. Paling DISCUSSION ITEM: SITE PLAN NO. 61-95 JOHN BROCK OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE ZONE: WR-1A LOCATION: MOORING POST MARINA FOR SEQRA DISCUSSION ONLY. TAX MAP NO. 13-2-19, 21, 37 LOT SIZE: 3.386 ACRES SECTION: 179-16 MR. PALING-Okay. I'd like to kind of review what we've done and tell you where I think we are now, because there's been quite a bit of information that you've received, even tonight, that I don't think it's going to be possible for you to see. This meeting tonight is between Staff and the Board. There is no public comment from applicants, their representative, or the public. So it's strictly a Staff/Board discussion, as it was before, and we're going to maintain that. Now, since that time, we have received the information that was promised to us, primarily letters from conce1-ned citizens about this, and I have read all of the letters, and if my count is right, there was a total of 48 letters, 15 in favor of and 33 against. Since that time, we have received another nine letters, which you have tonight, that are from people concerned with this subject, one in favor of and eight against, and so that means 16 in favor of, 41 against. Now why I'm saying that, and the point that I'd like to make is that if we take time to read all the letters, or you do. I took them home this afternoon and read them. The point I'll make here is that there were some very nice letters in there, but there were no new points made, as compared to the other 48. I kept track of the different points they made, and they're all good letters, but they're all repetitive, and I don't see the need to delay the meeting for you to read those nine letters, but that's up to the Board to make a decision on that one. There are other information which you have received tonight, which you have never seen before, also, and I'd like to comment on them. One of them, and I really don't know why we even got it, was a commentary, or a record, of the 1986 American Marina in Bolton Landing, and I skim read through this, and okay, but do we need this for, and I'd like John to comment on this one. MR. GORALSKI-That was information that was submitted to the Town, related to this project. What we've tried to do is just provide you with all the information that was submitted related to this project. My assumption is that that was, the Bolton Landing Marina was a quick launch building that was built a few years ago. The people who submitted felt that it was relevant to your review. MR. PALING-Who submitted it? MR. GORALSKI-I faxed to us by letter that was dropped it off. believe, well, the actual findings statement was Michael O'Connor's office, and there was another dropped off to the office. I'm not sure who MR. PALING-Well, John, obviously, we cannot practically reabsorb and act on something like this tonight, and we have still a third item here, and this is all coming to us right now. MR. GORALSKI-We're getting it to you as quickly as we can. We get new information every day. We're getting it to you as quickly as we can. MR. PALING-But then that puts us behind the eight ball, in so far - 56 - '-" -...../ --' -- (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/28/95) as proceeding with the meeting is concerned. MR. GORALSKI-There's nothing I can do about that. My only other choice is to not give you the information, and that's certainly not appropriate. MR. STARK-I don't feel behind the eight ball, Bob, a~ ~ll~ MRS. LABOMBARD"'"'! don't, either. MR. BREWER-I think, Bob, in short, we've got enougH public comment, because like you said, it's all repetitive. What the ZBA's looking for is our comments pertaining to the SEQRA. MR. PALING-The point, that's the place I want to get to, but I'm also noting, I think there should be a cut off for this kind of stuff, John, so that we're not put in this kind of position, and maybe later somebody's going to say, well, you didn't take time to read all these letters. Why do we allow this to come in at this late date? MR. RUEL-Who wanted to do this in the first place? MR. PALING-Who wanted to do what? MR. RUEL-What we're doing now. MR. GORALSKI-I can't stop the public letters from coming in. MR. PALING-We can establish a cut off date after which they're not accepted, yes. MR. BREWER-No, you can't. MR. PALING-Well, we can make a recommendation. MR. MACEWAN-Bob, that has nothing to do with this Board. MR. PALING-Well, we can, however, make the recommendation. I don't think anyone would disagree that this is putting us in an awkward position. Now, if we all agree. MR. MACEWAN-I said that last week. MR. PALING-Right, and what happened? It was delayed until this week. MR. MACEWAN-I haven't changed my opinion on it. MR. PALING-What is your opinion? MR. MACEWAN-That we shouldn't even be discussing this, period. MR. RUEL-I don't think we should have done this at all. MR. PALING-You mean that we shouldn't have transferred lead agency? MR. MACEWAN-That's right. MR. OBERMAYER-That's not the issue anymore. MR. PALING-That's not the issue. MR. MACEWAN-I know that's not the issue, but the issue is you're trying to give some feedback to the ZBA regarding any potential SEQRA problems you may have in your review process, which brings you back around to the Catch-22. How can you be prepared, - 57 - ....-' (Oueensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/28/95) whether you mayor may not have a problem, without having any information? MR. PALING-I think that's a decision that's been made, and it's not up for discussion, Craig. I understand your opinion. You've expressed it last meeting. You've expressed it tonight, and okay. Now lets move on. MR. RUEL-Is the ZBA waiting for our comments? MR. PALING-The ZBA is, yes. They are very interested in our comments, and Tim and I will be at the meeting as kind of representatives to answer any questions they might have, and relay to them anything we have on that. What I would like to do is to go through this Long Form SEORA, both the regular Long Form, and the visual, as recommended by Planning Staff, but what gets me is that the, I don't know what people think when they do Bomethinglike this, unless they have something else in mind. MRS. LABOMBARD-Do something like what? MR. PALING-Give information in, that we can't possibly review before we act on it. MRS. LABOMBARD-I think the people are being realistic. They're sending everything in. They know that we've got to get these proceedings on. So maybe they say, well, I'm going to just write this letter, get my frustrations off my back, and just hopefully it'll get to them in time. I don't think the public wants more than that. MR. BREWER-I think, in this particular instance, it's been going on for over a year now, and it just keeps coming and coming and coming. If you were going to write a letter, Cathy, about something that effected you, I wouldn't wait a year to write it. J,.Jould you? MRS. LABOMBARD-Well, that's what I'm saying. I think that you said you want to get on with this, but then you said, original in your opening statements, that you feel we can't because we haven't turned over all the stones. MR. PALING-All right, then let me just mention one more item and then I think we'll poll the Board. The third item is a letter from John Brock, and it's outlining the financial situation that this has imposed, has brought about on him. There are also quite a number of letters there written to John, but the letters are not saying pro or con. They're proof of John losing customers, for the most part. They're saying, we like your service, but if I can't put my boat inside, I've got to go somewhere else. I'll see you in the future, and that's what that was. My suggestion is that we don't take the time to read through all of these, that we proceed tonight with the SEORA, and both the regular and visual form, and based on everything we know, make a recommendation to ZBA. MR. RUEL-Yes, I agree with you. I mean, I don't think the Long Form or the visual should be predicated entirely on the comments. There's no end to the comments anyway. MR. PALING-I guess not. MR. BREWER-I think we should go through the SEQRA, and if we have any comments pertaining to that structure or structures he's going to build, or the concerns that are in the SEQRA, we should voice them to the ZBA, but I don't, the visual I've never seen before. I've never done that before. I saw it. It's the first time I ever saw it. - 58 - '--' --/ - / .' "--- (Cueensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/28/95) MR. MACEWAN-The question L have is, why was that in the packet, the visual SECRA checklist? MR. BREWER-I don't know. MR. GORALSKI-The notes that I wrote regarding this application were for the Use Variance, the Area Variance, and the Site Plan Review, regarding the SECRA, at least. A portion of the SECRA Review discusses visual impact, and one of the things that is provided in the SECRA Regulations is a visual EAF. It's an addendum to the SECRA Regulation. MR. MACEWAN-Why, for this applicant, is it an addendum, and it's never been in any other packet we've ever had? MR. GORALSKI-Because there have been several comments, both in the previous meetings of the Zoning Board of Appeals and in the letters that are received, specifically related to visual impact. So we thought it would be helpful for both Boards, actually, to have that in front of them if they wanted to use it. MR. MACEWAN-Is this a new policy that's being started? I mean, we certainly have had projects in front of our Board in the past that have been significant visual impacts. MR. GORALSKI-This is something that's always been available. MR. RUEL-Yes. I heard it mentioned several times, but we never used it. MR. 08ERMAYER-Yes. MR. GORALSKI-You don't have to use it if you don't want to. I'm just saying it's something that's always been available, and when I was writing these notes, I thought it would be appropriate to use the visual EAF for this project. MR. MACEWAN-The comment I'm making is I've never seen the form before. I've never seen it enclosed in any packet. MR. OBERMAYER-Is the ZBA going to use it? MR. GORALSKI-I don't know if they're going to use it. the same notes you did, and the same packet you did. They got MR. PALING-Lets move on. Do you have any comment on the visual, Tim? Are you willing to use it? MR. BREWER-I'm very willing to use it, but I don't know why. I've never used it before. MR. PALING-Why don't we treat the visual this way. If, after the end 6f using it, we all disagree, don't like it, we'll throw the visual out and just use the other one. Is that agreeable? MR. BREWER-I don't think we should discard it. I think we should use it as a tool to help us. MR. PALING-If, at the end of the evening, we say we don't want it submitted to Z8A, we won't submit it, but lets use it. Lets do it. MR. BREWER-Are you suggesting we're going to go through and do a SECRA, and then give that to the ZBA? MR. PALING-We're going to do both of these. MR. RUEL-Aren't you just going to give recommendations in letter - 59 - '-- (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/28/95) form? MR. PALING-We're going to use both of these. MR. RUEL-You're going to give them a composite? MR. PALING-No. We're going to use both of these tonight, and then based on whatever we come up with, we're going to decide whether we just give them a copy of the minutes, whether we write them a letter, or we transmit it verbally, but I don't want to decide that until after we finish, so we know what we want to say. So lets use both forms, and then at the end we'll comment on the whole thing. All right? MR. RUEL-Okay. MRS. LABOMBARD-Can I make a comment here? Just by perusing this briefly, it is so negative toward the applicant, I mean, everything that comes across this Board has a visual impact. Everything that came up tonight had a visual impact. That guy with his boats, I don't want to see those blue tarps. Why didn't we take this out to use it? I mean, take a look at this, right away, you don't stand a snowball's chance in hell by using a visual impact. MR. RUEL-Lets do the Long Form first, and then we'll get to this. MRS. LABOMBARD-And I'm not expressing an opinion for either person. MR. OBERMAYER-I just have one more question regarding the EAF. Is there a reference to this Appendix 8 anywhere in the SEQRA that we do? I mean, I don't see where this plays into it. I mean, did you pull this out of the back of a book, or is there a reference point that triggers visual EAF? MR. GORALSKI-Number 11, under Impact on Aesthetic Resources, "Will Proposed Action Impact Aesthetic Resources, yes or no? If necessary use Visual EAF Addendum to Section 617.20, Appendix ß. I'll read it. MR. OBERMAYER-Thanks, John. MR. PALING-All right. MR. GORALSKI-Number One, "IMPACT ON LAND 1. Will the proposed action result in a physical change to the project site? MR. STARK-Yes. MR. OBERMAYER-Yes. MR. GORALSKI-Okay. So you want me to go through all these? MR. PALING-Yes, now the ones underneath. MR. GORALSKI-Okay. greater" "Any construction on slopes of 15% or MR. RUEL-No. MR. GORALSKI-"Construction on land where the depth to water table is less than three feet." MR. PALING-No. I believe it's four feet. MR. RUEL-Yes. - 60 - '",--- -.- ~ ""-, (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/28/95) MR. GORALSKI-"Construction of a paved parking area for 1,000 or more vehicles." MR. RUEL-No. MR. GORALSKI-"Construction on land where bedrock is exposed or generally within 3 feet of existing ground surface." MR. RUEL-No. MR. PALING-No. MR. GORALSKI-"Construction that will continue for more than 1 year or involve more than one phase or stage." MR. PALING-Well, it won't go on for a year, but I don't know if it'll involve, I don't think it involves more than one phase. MR. OBERMAYER-Well, your building permit's probably only for one year anyway, right? MR. BREWER-Well, no. MR. GORALSKI-You can receive a building permit that's good for one year. You can get an automatic six month extension on that. MR. PALING-I think they were saying four months to build. MR. BREWER-Doesn't that mean that the permit is for one year, and then if you commence construction, then the permit's in effect until you get done, right? MR. GORALSKI-No. MR. OBERMAYER-No, a building permit expires. MR. GORALSKI-A building permit expires at a specific date. MR. RUEL-In other words, you run out of time. MR. GORALSKI-Whether you're complete or not. MR. RUEL-So the answer is no, right? MR. PALING-I would say no. Yes. MR. GORALSKI-All right. "Excavation for mInIng purposes that would remove more than 1,000 tons of natural material (i.e. rock or soil) per year." MR. RUEL-No. MR. GORALSKI-"Construction or expansion of sanitary landfill." MR. RUEL-No. MR. PALING-No. MR. GORALSKI-"Construction in a designated floodway." MR. RUEL-No. MR. BREWER-No. MR. GORALSKI-"Other Impacts". MR. OBERMAYER-Impact On Land? - 61 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/28/95) MR. GORALSKI-That's correct. MR. PALING-Is that proposed buildings buildings? a question mark? greater than the Is the area area covered by the covered by the old MR. RUEL-The footprint is the same, isn't it? MR. GORALSKI-My understanding square foot,age is the same. footage is exactly the same. is that footprint, I'm not saying that It's pretty close. the actual the square MR. PALING-My concern was square footage. would now be no. My answer to that MR. RUEL-The square footage is essentially the same. MR. PALING-Yes. MR. RUEL-And the cubic footage is up 100 percent. MR. PALING-But that doesn't have an impact. I think we come to that later on. MR. BREWER-So what you're saying, then, is there's no impact on the land. Is that what you're saying? MR. PALING-If the square footage is the same, I would think there's no impact on the land. MR. RUEL-The fact that it's a higher structure has no bearing on the land, right? MR. OBERMAYER-Right. MR. PALING-I don't think it does, no. MR. OBERMAYER-So I guess the answer to Number One is no. MR. BREWER-So we've got to go back and change that, will the propose action result in a physical change to the site. MR. GORALSKI-If I could just, these are guideline thresholds that DEC established in designing this form. It doesn't mean that there is no impact on land. It just means none of these thresholds were met. MR. BREWER-If we're putting down that there's an impact on land, don't you think we ought to put down what the impact is? MR. PAWáJ~G-There ought to be a reason. MR. BREWER-That's exactly what I'm asking. Jß we're saying that none of those appl y, and you have no othê'ri'lmpact, then the answer should be no. MR. RUEL-Well, why did we say yes in the first place? MR. BREWER-I don't know. That's what I'm asking you. MR. PALING-I might have said it because I had marked this originally yes, because I didn't know about square footage. Now that I've got the square footage answered, I changed my answer to no. MR. OBERMAYER-Okay. MR. GORALSKI-Let me just go back and read the top section of this - 62 - '''--.- '---' ''--"'' --/ (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/28/95) for you. "The examples provided to assist the reviewer by showing types of impacts and wherever possible the threshold of magnitude that would trigger a response in column 2. The examples are generally applicable throughout the State and for most situations. But, for any specific project or site other examples andlor lower thresholds may be appropriate for a Potential Large Impact response, thus requiring evaluation in Par t 3." MR. OBERMAYER-Okay. MR. GORALSKI-So you want me to change that to no? MR. PALING-Item One is a no, then, if everybody agrees. MR. RUEL-No impact on land. MR. GORALSKI-Number Two. "2. Will there be an effect to any unique or unusual land forms found on the site? (i.e., cliffs, dunes, geological formations, etc.)" MR. RUEL-No. MR. PALING-No. MR. GORALSKI-"IMPACT ON WATER 3. Will proposed action effect any water body designated as protected?" MR. OBERMAYER-No. MR. PALING-No. MR. BREWER-Wait a minute. MR. GORALSKI-Lake George is not protected under Articles 15, 24, 25, if that's what you're asking. "4. Will proposed action effect any non-protected existing or new body of water?" MR. PALING-No. MR. OBERMAYER-No. MR. GORALSKI-"S. Will the proposed action affect surface or groundwater quality or quantity?" MR. RUEL-If the footprint's the same, it shouldn't. MR. BREWER-But the use is going to change, right? MR. RUEL-The permeability remains the same percentage. MR. PALING-John, what's the fuel storage? It talks about 1100 gallons storage down the line there. MR. MACEWAN-I think I would back up to that previous question. MR. GORALSKI-Any non-protected existing or new body of water, that one? MR. MACEWAN-Non-protected? MR. GORALSKI-Non-protected. MR. MACEWAN-Okay. I'm sorry. I misunderstood you. MR. GORALSKI-Lake George is considered non-protected in this context. - 63 - '--- (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/28/95) MR. MACEWAN-It is? Then there's a potential it may. MR. OBERMAYER-No, if you go through and read underneath here, a 10 percent increase or decrease in the surface area of any body of water or more than a 10 acre increase or decrease. No. MR. MACEWAN-What are they looking for as possible effects? MR. GORALSKI-Well, as I read here before, they give these general thresholds that are guidelines State wide. If you feel that Lake George is more sensitive than the general water bodies in the State, or that there's an impact here, it's something you should at least bring up and bring to the Zoning Board's attention. MR. BREWER-Do you think the alleged increased use in the letters that were supplied to us is going to have a negative impact on Lake George? MR. MACEWAN-See, that's what you're doing is you're basing this whole review just on those letters. MR. PALING-Well, we can ask John to comment on that question, about the, it would have, if some of the numbers are true in there, yes, but I think, isn't the increase a little lower than some of the letters estimate? MR. GORALSKI-Well, here's, "The project may have an impact on a non-protected water body. Although the project does not exceed any of the thresholds listed on the EAF, the potential increase in the number of boats launched from the site could have a small impact. A determination of the maximum number of boats to be stored would assure that this would be a small andlor insignificant impact." I guess what I'm saying is, if you're going to say there's going to be an impact on Lake George, you should determine, first of all, what that impact is, and second of all, what's causing that impact, and then, do you have enough information to determine if that impact is going to be significant or not. MR. MACEWAN-You don't even have enough information here to tell you if there's going to be a potential for an impact. MR. GORALSKI-That's what you should tell the Zoning Board. MR. PALING-Yes. Could we not comment on that point that we would like to see the numbers limited such that the impact is small to moderate, or minimal? MR. BREWER-Who determines what the numbers are though, Bob? MR. PALING-Well, to determine the suitable, so that if any, small. then they will find out. Our recommendation is number and come up with a number that's you don't have a large impact, keep the impact, MR. MACEWAN-Who's going to determine that? The ZBA's going to determine that number is suitable? MR. PALING-Well, the ZBA and Staff, sure. MR. BREWER-I think we should stay right away from it. MR. PALING-How do you mean? How would we determine it? MR. MACEWAN-We have the luxury of having engineering staff at our disposal. MR. PALING-Well, they can call on that, too. - 64 - '~, ',-- "--'" .-' (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/28/95) MR. BREWER-I don't know that a marina that's going to put a couple of hundred boats, I mean, if they're not put in at that particular marina, they're going to be put in somewhere else. MR. MACEWAN-But that's not a very good statement to make. I mean, if it's done at another marina, this is the marina that's in front of the ZBA for an application. MR. BREWER-But we're talking about the impact on the water, aren't we? MR. MACEWAN-We're talking about this Marina's impact on the water, this application. We're not talking about another marina. We're talking about this application. MR. BREWER-But we're also talking about the number of boats put into the lake. MR. MACEWAN-Of this application, no other application, just like you would in any other review process for SEQRA. You don't take into consideration something else that's not in front of this Board. MR. PALING-Well, Tim makes a valid point, though. If the Mooring Post numbers are changed, it's not going to limit, I don't think it'll change the number of boats on Lake George or sort of in that area. I think the total boats will be the same. MR. BREWER-That's what question, though, Craig. water. we're talking about in this particular We're talking about the effect on the MR. STARK-Lets move on. We're killing it. debate every item on this thing like this. If we're going to MR. BREWER-That's what we're supposed to be doing, George. MR. PALING-Well, lets get a consensus on this, then, of the Board, as to how we should vote on that. MR. OBERMAYER-Well, is it going to be small to moderate, or potential large? That's what you're looking for. MR. MACEWAN-You don't have enough information to make that determination. MR. PALING-Okay. Jim, what do you think? MR. OBERMAYER-I think it'll be very similar to what's there right now. He's not really increasing the capacity of the property. MR. PALING-So you're saying, no. MR. OBERMAYER-I'm saying no. MR. PALING-Okay, Cathy? MRS. LABOMBARD-Let me think a little more. MR. PALING-Okay. We'll come back to you. Roger? MR. RUEL-I agree that it could possibly have an effect, but I have no idea how we could make that determination, and the impact would be, I think, extremely small. MR. PALING-Very small if we had it. Okay, Tim? no, that's the way you'd vote? You're saying - 65 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/28/95) 1'1R. BREWER-Yes. MR. PALING-All right. Well, I'm a no also, that's the majority vote. The majority is no on that, yes. All right. Lets go on to the next one. MR. GORALSKI-"5. Will Proposed Action affect surface or groundwater quality or quantity?" MR. RUEL-I have a question about the storage of fuel. MR. PALING-Yes. I have the same question. MR. RUEL-Did he indicate the amount of fuel he would store on that property? MR. GORALSKI-To be honest with you, I don't know off the top of my head. Currently they have underground fuel storage. There was a discussion about having above ground fuel storage. MR. RUEL-Because here it indicates over 1100 gallons. MR. PALING-Yes. MR. RUEL-It's to be considered. MR. PALING-Yes, well. I question. They can easily that, one. think we could make that a specific determine that, just by asking, on MR. BREWER-We could ask them to ask that question, then, Bob. MR. PALING-Yes. MR. GORALSKI-That 1100 gallon number is established is because that's what kicks in permit requirements. MR. RUEL-They're going to have two tanks above ground, right? MR. GORALSKI-Yes. MR. RUEL-They could be probably 500 gallons. MR. BREWER-So we'll just mark that to ask them. MR. PALING-Right. MR. GORALSKI-So you want to put yes here, and you have a question, "Proposed Action will require the storage of petroleum or chemical products greater than 1,100 gallons." MR. PALING-Right. That's a question we have. John, I don't think that this is going to cause any additional waste treatment or anything like that to be added to the facility, correct? MR. GORALSKI-As far as I know, that's correct. MR. PALING-Yes. I've never heard it talked of. MR. GORALSKI-I don't know what they do, as far as pumping out the boats. They must have some type of facility there, but I don't know what they do with it. That may be something you want the ZBA to. MR. OBERMAYER-What about washing down the boats, you know when you take your boat out of the water you have algae on it? MR. STARK-They don't have time to grow on the bottom with a quick - 66 - ''''--0 '"-' '-~ (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/28/95) launch boat. MR. PALING-They're not all quick launch boats. TOM NACE MR. NACE-I know you're not accepting public comment, but. MR. PALING-There are no comments allowed by anyone in any classification, sir. MR. NACE-I'm just saying. MR. PALING-I would ask you to please not comment. MR. NACE-I take exception. MR. PALING-You're out of order. MR. NACE-So, I'm out of order. MR. PALING-This meeting's adjourned. MR. NACE-You're allowed to ask us questions, that's all I was tr y i ng to say. MR. MACEWAN-Lets move on to the next topic, then. MR. OBERMAYER-Why are you adjourning the meeting, Bob? MR. PALING-I'll tell you exactly why I adjourned the meeting. In anticipation of such a situation, legal was checked, and this was the advice I received, to do exactly what I did. MR. MACEWAN-I stand behind you. MR. PALING-I can also re-open the meeting. MR. OBERMAYER-If that's what legal advised you to do, then maybe you should have informed us of what would happen if there was an outburst from the public on this, on what would happen. MR. PALING-Perhaps I should have. MR. STARK-Bob, why don't yOU ask me. MR. PALING-George. MR. STARK-A quick launch boat is only hours a day, okay, once a week, twice doesn't have a chance to grow algae. the water for a month or so, then you can wash it off. in the water for a few a week or something. It If you leave your boat in get algae on it. Then you MR. PALING-All more time. previously. right. I will call the meeting back to order one The meeting is open under the rules we stated Okay. MR. OBERMAYER-He answered my question. MR. PALING-Okay. So, where are we on this one? MR. GORALSKI-Number Six. "Will proposed action alter drainage flow or patterns, or surface water runoff?" MR. PALING-John, would it be worthwhile, at this point. to describe to the Board while they're looking at the plan, what these buildings look like, compared to what they were? You told - 67 - "-- -- (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/28/95 ) us the square footage is about the same. MR. GORALSKI-Right. MR. PALING-So in this, then the drainage or flow patterns would have to do, on where it's placed. MR. GORALSKI-Right, and I mean, the answer to that is yes, because there were separate buildings there, with areas in between that were crushed stone or whatever. So the fact that you're putting one large building, the surface, the patterns definitely will change. MR. PALING-Okay. moderate. So the answer to that is yes, small to MR. OBERMAYER-Is the roof surface area changing? increasing or decreasing? Is it MR. GORALSKI-I believe it's approximately the same. MR. STARK-Yes, but I'm sure any effect, small to moderate, could be mitigated, for stormwater management. MR. OBERMAYER-Yes. That's one thing we're not asking over here, is can the impact be mitigated by project change. MR. BREWER-We haven't answered any question yes yet. MR. OBERMAYER-Okay. MR. GORALSKI-Well, would you like me to go on with the items in Numbe1' Sb:? MR. PALING-Yes. MR. GORALSKI-"The Proposed Action would change flood water flows. " MR. PALING-No. MR. GORALSKI-"Proposed Action may cause substantial erosion." MRS. LABOMBARD-No. MR. GORALSKI-"Proposed Action is incompatible with existing drainage patterns." MR. OBERMAYER-No. MR. GORALSKI-I would say you're changing the existing drainage pattern. MR. PALING-But I don't think it means anything, does it? MR. GORALSKI-I think that, obviously, given requirements that are usually implemented they most likely can be mitigated. the site plan review by this Board, that MR. PALING-Yes, I would think so. MR. RUEL-I agree. So I guess it's no on that one. MR. GORALSKI-Well, I would say yes, but it can be mitigated. That would be Œ!.:i.. opinion. MR. RUEL-Okay, under which one? - 68 - ", '-, --- ..-/' (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/28/95) MR. GORALSKI-"Proposed Action is incompatible with existing drainage patterns." MR. RUEL-I see. Yes, small to moderate. MR. PALING-Can be mitigated, and it is small to moderate. Okay. Yes. MR. GORALSKI-"Proposed Action will allow development designated floodway." The answer to that's, no. Impacts". Can we go on to Number Seven? in a "Othe)- MR. PALING-Yes. MR. GORALSKI-"IMPACT ON AIR 7. Will proposed action affect air quality?" MR. STARK-No. MR. RUEL-Possibly. MR. PALING-How? MR. RUEL-They intend to use a diesel fork lift truck, and there's been several letters complaining about, not only the noise, but the smell of the diesel oil. So it will have an effect on the air. MR. PALING-All right. other comments? MR. STARK-No. MR. PALING-Craig? MR. MACEWAN-No comment. MR. OBERMAYER-No. MRS. LABOMBARD-I think it'll have a slight effect, yes, small. MR. OBERMAYER-Can it be mitigated? MR. RUEL-Yes, it can be mitigated. They can use some other fuel, either use electric forklifts or propane. MR. OBERMAYER-If it's an issue. MRS. LABOMBARD-Well, it was brought up. MR. RUEL-Well, it was mentioned. MR. PALING-John, how about reading what's underneath that, because I think. MR. GORALSKI-"Proposed Action will induce 1,000 or more vehicle trips in any given hour." MRS. LABOMBARD-No. MR. GORALSKI-"The Proposed Action will result in the incineration of more than 1 ton of refuse per hour." MR. RUEL -No. MR. GORALSKI-"Emission rate of total contaminants will exceed 5lbs per hour or a heat source producing more than 10 million BTU's per hour." - 69 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/28/95) MR. PALING-No. MR. GORALSKI-"The Proposed Action will allow an increase in the amount of land committed to industrial use." MR. PALING-No. MR. GORALSKI-"The Proposed Action will allow an increase in the density of industrial development within existing industrial areas. " MR. PALING-Yes. I would think that's a no. MR. OBERMAYER-Yes, I agree. MR. RUEL-Well, I think it should be an "Other Impact". I really think that diesel fuel, I've been around places where they use these diesel operated forklift trucks and other vehicles, and if the wind is blowing the right way, it's really annoying. MR. OBERMAYER-They're not too common anymore. more propane trucks. Actually you see MR. RUEL-Yes. I know, but I say it can be mitigated. However, he's indicated that he's using fuel there, okay. That's all I'm saying. He's using diesel. I say, yes, it has an impact, and, yes, it can be mitigated. MR. OBERMAYER-I think we ought to poll the Board. MR. MACEWAN-No comment. MR. STARK-According to the criteria that John read, there's no impact. MR. OBERMAYER-No. MRS. LABOMBARD-George is right, according to the criteria that comes under Number Seven, there isn't any impact, but what we have here is like big time max, maximum, but now you're talking about more of a, we're talking about a residential area, a little bit more of a critically environmental type of place, and I guess diesel fuel scares me because my father was an electrician and repaired diesel engines all his life, and he's lost a major portion of his lungs by breathing it in. So you're talking to the wrong person when it comes to diesel fuel. MR. RUEL-It's very offensive, just the odor. MR. PALING-All right. So you agree with Roger? MRS. LABOMBARD-Yes. MR. BREWER-I think one or two diesel tractors that he's going to have will have absolutely no impact. MR. PALING-Okay. I think the consensus, then, is no, as the answer to Question Seven. MR. GORALSKI-Eight. "IMPACT ON PLANTS AND ANIMALS 8. Will Proposed Action affect any threatened or endangered species?" MRS. LABOMBARD-No. MR. PAL INGW"No . MR. GORALSKI-"9. Will Proposed Action substantially affect non- threatened or non-endangered species?" - 70 - ',,-- --- --.,/ -../ (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/28/95) MR. OBERMAYER-No. MR. GORALSKI-"IMPACT ON AGRICULTURAL LAND RESOURCES" 10. Will the Proposed Action affect agricultural land resources?" MR. PALING-No. MRS. LABOMBARD-No. MR. GORALSKI-"IMPACT ON AESTHETIC RESOURCES 11. action affect aesthetic resources?" Will proposed MR. PALING-Yes. MR. RUEL-Yes. MR. GORALSKI-"Proposed land uses or project components obviously different from or in sharp contrast to current surrounding land use patterns, whether man-made or natural." MR. RUEL-Yes. MR. PALING-Wait a minute now. MR. RUEL-The size of the structure. It can't be mitigated. MR. PALING-In my mind, the difference there would be a comparison to the old buildings, rather than a comparison to a house. MR. OBERMAYER-No, but it does surrounding land use patterns. say surrounding, current MR. STARK-Yes, but that was there before, though. change. There's no MR. PALING-Yes. There's no changing of surrounding it. The only change is in the buildings themselves, size and location and what not. MR. RUEL-Well, what do you think a project component means, isn't that the building? Obviously different from or in sharp contrast to current surrounding land use patterns. MR. PALING-Yes. I think it's the building they're referring to. MR. BREWER-It's the building, but the building was there, and they're replacing it with a. MR. RUEL-A one story building, they're replacing it with a three story building. So it's obviously different from or in sharp contrast to the surrounding area. MR. PALING-I don't think that's an accurate John, you tell us what was and what is, buildings and size and all. description of the, and the number of MR. GORALSKI-That's not a simple question to answer. There's much debate ove)- that, also, because as everyone knows, those buildings have been removed. I would say that the eaves of those buildings were somewhere between 10 and 12 feet high. I'm not exactly sure what the ridge height was. MR. PALING-Now how about the number of buildings, as compared to what is proposed. Where there was three buildings is there not going to be one now? MR. RUEL-No. There's going to be three now, and I think there were five or six before. - 71 - '-- (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/28/95) MR. OBERMAYER-I think what the answer to Number 11 is going to be, yes. MR. PALING-Yes. Well, it is yes. MR. OBERMAYER-Is what 1 say. MR. GORALSKI-If you take out site plan, the one I have in front of me is the landscaping plan. You'll see that there were five buildings perpendicular to Mason Road, and then there was a portion of a building that fronts on Cleverdale Road, and all that's being removed, and that's being replaced by three buildings that are shown on the map. MR. PALING-And the objection being raised is, allegedly, that the buildings are taller than they used to be, and that there was some relief looking between the old buildings, where now the three on the north side, he's got one block across the road, rather than three with space in between two, spacing between them. MR. RUEL-John, there was a comment in one of the letters that indicated that even though the new proposed building was three times the height of the old building, there are tall trees along the road, and it would screen that, or it would not allow anyone to be able to see the lake because of the trees. So it didn't matter whether the building was there or not. Is that correct? MR. GORALSKI-Is it correct that there was a letter stating that? MR. RUEL-No. Is it correct that there are tall trees there adjacent to those tall buildings? MR. GORALSKI-There certainly are tall trees there. Whether or not that is going to mitigate the impact of a three story building is a determination. MR. OBERMAYER-What's the siding on the building going to look like? MR. GORALSKI-I don't know. MR. OBERMAYER-Of the new building. MR. GORALSKI-I don't know. MR. PALING-We don't know. MR. OBERMAYER-I would think that would definitely a. MR. BREWER-That's to our disadvantage, because we don't know, and we can't ask the applicant these kind of questions. MR. MACEWAN-We're getting an awful lot of "I don't know" answers tonight. MR. RUEL-The applicant is looking to increase the size of his storage facility, right? MR. STARK-Bob, sometimes we can't give an answer. MR. GORALSKI-The determination by the court was that, by virtue of the increase in height of the building there would be a Use Variance required for expansion of a nonconforming use. Because that determination is made, because they are expanding a non- conforming use, they also require a site plan review. MR. STARK-Bob, maybe our recommendation to the ZBA would be that - 72 - ',-- --' '--' (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/28/95) we just don't )-ecommendation, have enough information to so just leave it blank. make an intelligent MR. PALING-In some areas, we don't have enough information, and that's what we should do, but I think that the impact, based on the letters I read, based on the drawings I've seen, I think there is an impact on aesthetic resources. Now there is a lot about it I don't know, but from what I do know, I think there is, I would say yes to that. MR. OBERMAYER-Is that because of the letters? MR. PALING-Is that agreeable to everyone? MR. RUEL-I agree with it. MRS. LABOMBARD-Fine. MR. OBERMAYER-Well, I can't agree until I have more detail of what the building is going to look like. MR. PALING-Well, I'm just saying, now ours is a recommendation onl y . MR. OBERMAYER-Fine. I can't recommend anything. MR. PALING-All right. What would you suggest to ZBA? The consensus is, that's a yes. Okay. We'll just leave it a yes. MR. BREWER-Isn't that what they're asking us for is any real significant comments that we think that they should look at? I mean, I think that they know, they've been through it. They know what the buildings are going to look at. They can decide that question on their own. MR. STARK-Just leave it blank, Bob. MR. RUEL-Then we might as well stop right now. MR. PALING-Okay. Well, I personally feel, based on what I'm looking at right there, and other things I've seen, the other drawings, that there is an impact, and when you tell me you're putting a solid wall in place of three buildings with space in between them, I say, yes, there's an impact on aesthetic resources. Can it be mitigated? Sure, change the design, but I say I don't have any trouble answering that question yes, but I'll go by the consensus. MR. OBERMAYER-Well, aesthetics can be very opinionated also, though. MR. BREWER-Yes, is the one building going to look a lot better than three buildings that are all beat up and old? MR. OBERMAYER-Right. MR. STARK-Do you want to put down it has a positive impact? MR. MACEWAN-But isn't the ZBA looking for us to render a recommendation based on looking more from the technical aspect of the stormwater management or the engineering concerns, things like that, that they normally don't get involved with? MR. PALING-They're not isolating it to anything. They're just asking us to do, have a SEQRA review and give them our comments, and they're going to take it from there. What we say is not binding. - 73 - '-- ~ (Cueensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/28/95) MR. STARK-My comment would be, okay, it has an impact. going to have a positive impact. It's MR. OBERMAYER-For Aesthetic Resources? I don't know, because I don't know what the building's going to look like. MRS. LABOMBARD-What's there right now? MR. PALING-Nothing. MRS. LABOMBARD-Right. That's what I'm saying. MR. OBERMAYER-I think that's aesthetically unappealing, all the blue tarps. MR. PALING-Well, we're going to have to poll the Board again. MR. OBERMAYER-Just say it doesn't matter. MR. MACEWAN-No comment. MR. STARK-I'd say, yes, it's going to have a positive impact. MR. OBERMAYER-I'll say, really no comment. MRS. LABOMBARD-Move on. MR. RUEL-I say moderate impact on all three items under Item Number 11. MR. BREWER-Lets move on. MR. PALING-Move on. All right. The consensus is, we're not going to comment on Item Number 11. MR. RUEL-That's ridiculous. What are we doing shouldn't even do this if we're not even going to thi ngs . here? We a nswe," these MR. BREWER-We're not doing the SECRA, Roger. MR. RUEL-Yes, we are. That's what 1.. have in !I!2::. hand. MR. BREWER-Well, I understand that, but we do not have all the information to do a proper SECRA. MR. RUEL-Why are we doing it then? MR. PALING-We're going to do the best we can, because we're going to be an assist to the ZBA. MR. RUEL-What kind of assist are we to the ZBA when we don't even know what we're talking about, because we can't answer the questions? MR. PALING-We're doing the best we can with what we've got, sir. MR. GORALSKI-"IMPACT ON HISTORIC AND ARCHEOLOGICAL RESOURCES 12. Will Proposed Action impact any site or structure of historic, pre-historic or paleontological importance?" MR. STARK-No. MR. GORALSKI-"IMPACT ON OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION 13. Will Proposed Action affect the quantity or quality of existing or future open spaces or recreational opportunities?" MR. PALING-No. - 74 - '''---.' --' '--'" .,../ (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/28/95) MR. BREWER--No. MRS. LABOMBARD-Well, now wait a minute here~ I just have this one letter in my mind that said if the place can store more boats, then there's going to be more cars and traffic and that that one person called Mason Road and Cleverdale Road a skateboarding, roller blading, jogging, dog walking, bird watching, I mean, went on and on and on. So now these people are going to be more in jeopardy of getting run over by a car or something. MR. STARK-Cathy, what about the people that live there and have a guest come up? They're adding to the traffic, correct? MRS. LABOMBARD-There you go. See. There's always an answer. There's a counter to everything you say in this whole. MR. OBERMAYER-I guess they really ought to look at the capacity of what that's going to increase. MR. STARK-Have a gate at the beginning somebody comes out, they let another one in stores. of Cleverdale, and if in, right, like they do MRS. LABOMBARD-Wait a minute. moderate. Yes, I do. I think it could have a small to MR. PALING-Okay. Does anyone else agree with Cathy? MR. STARK-No. MR. BREWER-No. MR. PALING-All right. Then that becomes a no. MRS. LABOMBARD-Okay. MR. GORALSKI-"IMPACT ON TRANSPORTATION 14. Will there be an effect to existing transportation systems?" MR. PALING-No. MR. BREWER-What system is going to be effected by it? MR. OBERMAYER-The alteration of present patterns people. People will have to go around because crossing so rapidly back and forth. of movement of of the boats MR. PALING-I think that's a no. MR. GORALSKI-Okay. "IMPACT ON ENERGY 15. Action affect the community's sources of fuel Will the Proposed or energy supply?" MR. BREWER-No. MRS. LABOMBARD-No. MR. GORALSKI-"NOISE AND ODOR IMPACTS Will there be objectionable odors, noise, or vibration as a result of the Proposed Action?" MR. STARK-No. MRS. LABOMBARD-Well, we said that that diesel fuel. MR. BREWER-You said that. MRS. LABOMBARD-Roger said it, too. - 75 - , -- (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/28/95) MR. RUEL-Yes, but I'm not saying anything else. that. I'll tell you MRS. LABOMBARD-Noise and vibration? MR. OBERMAYER-No. MRS. LABOMBARD-See, been, ever since the vibration and odors. this is where I'm confused. There's always Marina's been there there's been noise and MR. RUEL-He's increasing the size of the Marina 100 percent. MRS. LABOMBARD-I know that. MR. RUEL-Okay. That doesn't mean anything to you? MRS. LABOMBARD-But that's only going up. We're not going around the perimeter. MR. PALING-John, they're putting on an extra forklift, and it's a diesel. Is that correct? MR. GORALSKI-That's my understanding. MR. PALING-That's my understanding, also, that there is another. MR. GORALSKI-Although I have to say that I'm not actually positive of that. MR. PALING-Well, lets answer the question based on adding a diesel forklift, all right. Lets base it on that, and we can modify it when we're talking to them, if it's different, okay, and then answer then considering it's a diesel, in addition to whatever else they have. What you're saying is, what is the effect of one additional diesel, one additional forklift truck which happens to be a diesel. MR. BREWER-Nothing. MR. PALING-Okay. No? MR. OBERMAYER-No. MRS. LABOMBARD-Well, I still say that's small to moderate, but that's ~ opinion. MR. OBERMAYER-It depends on whether you're standing inside with the door closed or not, Cathy. MR. GORALSKI-Okay. "IMPACT ON PUBLIC HEALTH 17. Will Proposed Action affect public health and safety?" MR. BREWER-No. MR. PALING-No. I don't think so. MRS. LABOMBARD-Well, we have all these hazardous waste type stuff. MR. BREWER-They there now. MRS. LABOMBARD-You're right. MR. GORALSKI-"IMPACT ON GROWTH OR CHARACTER OF COMMUNITY OR NEIGHBORHOOD 18. Will proposed action affect the character of the existing community? The permanent population of the city, town or village in which the project is located is likely to grow - 76 - '-..". '--' -...-' ..,../ (Cueensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/28/95) by more than 5%." MR. PALING-No. MR. GORALSKI-"The municipal budget for capital expenditures or operating services will increase by more than 5% per year as a result of this project." MR. PALING-No. MR. GORALSKI-"The Proposed Action will conflict with officially adopted plans or goals." MR. PALING-No. I wouldn't think so. MR. GORALSKI-"The Proposed Action will cause a change in the density of land use." MR. BREWER-No. It's not going to change the density, is it? MR. PALING-Well, if you said boats per acre, or boats per square foot, or something or other, it might. MR. BREWER-Isn't that the amount of population, or are we talking boat density? MR. PALING-Yes. We can raise these as questions. MR. GORALSKI-"The Proposed Action will replace or eliminate existing facilities, structures or areas of historic importance to the community?" MR. PALING-No. MR. GORALSKI-"Development with create a demand for additional community services." MR. PALING-No. MR. GORALSKI-"Proposed Action will set an important precedent for future projects." MR. PALING-No. MR. GORALSKI-"Proposed employment." Action "'Jill create or eliminate MR. PALING-No. MR. GORALSKI-"Other Impacts." MRS. LABOMBARD-Well, I think that "Other Impacts" is nobody wanted to answer Question Number 19 outright. Nobody answered, the question was "Will Proposed Action affect the character of the existing community." Nobody answered that. So instead of answering that as no or yes, and then going through the examples, the very last example says, can you come up with another impact that hasn't been listed. Now George says it would affect the character of the existing community in a positive way. I mean, nobody's answered Number 19, I mean 18. MR. STARK-Bob, when we went to that course at ACC, the guy said that if something has a positive impact, you have the right to put that down on the SECRA also, remember? MR. PALING-Yes. MR. STARK-So if something has an impact, yes, it's a positive - 77 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/28/95) impact. MR. OBERMAYER-Again, it's opinionated. MR. STARK-Of course. MRS. LABOMBARD-Right, and then somebody else might say, because of the height of the building, that would be a negative impact. MR. OBERMAYER-Right, exactly. MRS. LABOMBARD-But we haven't said anything here. MR. BREWER-Right. We went down through the examples to come up with our answer, yes or no, and if it's yes, then we've got to pick one out or put an "Other Impact". MRS. LABOMBARD-But we can put something there that says "Other Impacts" that can make us say yes or no. MR. PALING-What are the impacts? MRS. LABOMBARD-I just named two. One could be aesthetically pleasing because it's a new building, like George said, that's a positive one, or then somebody else could say it's non pleasing because the structure's too tall. MR. BREWER-Does that aesthetic feature have an impact on the growth and character of the community or neighborhood? MRS. LABOMBARD-Well, it say affect the character. I think both of those can have an impact on the character. MR. STARK-Bob, you have a lot of new houses up there, and they have an impact on the neighborhood. Now you could say that they had a good impact, because they're newer buildings, or you could say there's a negative impact of the newer houses up there because they're so large and they change the character of the neighborhood. I mean, you could debate this all night. MR. OBERMAYER-It's very opinionated. on. I think you ought to move MR. PALING-Okay. that? Is it no, then? Does everybody agree with MRS. LABOMBARD-I think it does affect the character of the existing community, but I'm not so sure I know how. I mean, I could tell you, I just told you two ways that it can. MR. PALING-Yes, and I think from certain people's point of view it would affect the character of the community because of the way the building looks to them, and in their opinion, it does affect the character growth, and I think it could be called a yes, and it could be, but I would say small to moderate. MR. OBERMAYER-I'd agree with that. MR. PALING-All right. Okay. MR. BREWER-Small to moderate under what impact, under "Other Impacts", is that what you're saying? MR. PALING-Yes. I have neighborhood environment as the neighbor's oplnlon that it would be a small impact on the character of the neighborhood. checked as to moderate MR. BREWER-Okay. - 78 - -- '--/ -- (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/28/95) MR. PALING-Okay. That'll be a yes with a check on, I've got it listed as neighborhood environment and opinion. MR. BREWER-But is that an environmental impact? MR. PALING-It's an aesthetic impact. MR. BREWER-So go back to "Aesthetic Impacts" and see what we said back there, Bob. What did we say on Aesthetic Impacts, John? MR. PALING-We said no comment. We wouldn't answer the question. MR. STARK-Don't answer this one, then. MR. OBERMAYER-We don't need to answer everyone of these. MR. MACEWAN-But the ZBA asked the Board to go through and answer and give a recommendation. What kind of recommendation are we going to give them? MR. OBERMAYER-On that question, none. MR. MACEWAN-What kind of recommendation are you going to give them on the overall SEQRA? MRS. LABOMBARD-We've got to give them some kind of a final. MR. BREWER-We don't have to do anything. We don't have to give them anything. MR. MACEWAN-Then why are you going through the exercise? Tim, why are you going through the exercise if you don't have to give them anything? MR. RUEL-Good. MR. GORALSKI-The last question. likely to be, public controversy environmental impacts?" "19. Is related to there, or is there potential adverse MR. OBERMAYER-I don't know of any. Definitely yes. MRS. LABOMBARD-Of course, yes. MR. BREWER-How can you answer that yes, when we just when we just went through this whole SEQRA and didn't pick out one adverse environmental impact? I mean, if that's what we're going to go by. MR. PALING-You did. You just picked out an environmental impact, Tim. MR. OBERMAYER-It's just, we're asked whether there's going to be any public comments. I don't know. MR. BREWER-Related to adverse. MRS. LABOMBARD-And we have said that there are no adverse environmental impacts, as far as we're concerned. MR. OBERMAYER-But is there going to be public comment? I'm sure. MR. PALING-Wait a minute. Question 19 we labeled neighborhood impact and opinion, neighborhood environment and opinion. MR. BREWER-I can't answer that because I don't have all the information. I don't know. That's ~ comment. I can't answer it because I don't have all the information. - 79 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/28/95) MR. OBERMAYER-Well, what kind of information do you need? MR. PALING-Wait a minute. Lets stick with John's question, and then we'll get to the next stage of this. Do you want to repeat the question, and we'll ask you guys to comment, please. MR. GORALSKI-"19. Is there, or is there likely to be, public controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts?" MR. PALING-I would say there has been and will be public comment related to the environment. MR. STARK-Yes. MR. PALING-You can't avoid that You've got so many letters here, otherL>Jise. one. I think I don't see how that's a yes. you could say MR. BREWER-They're commenting on adverse impacts, though. Are they adverse impacts? MR. PALING-They're environment. commenting, yes, that it affects the MRS. LABOMBARD-They're commenting on what they feel are adverse impacts. MR. RUEL-Wait a minute. They've got comments both ways. MRS. LABOMBARD-You're right, both ways. That's right. MR. OBERMAYER-So I think we why. We normally hear from okay, so we don't really know. have to say yes. the public before Let me tell )iOU we do a SEQRA, MR. PALING-All right. That's a yes. Let me tell you, first, what you've done here. Let me read here, if I can find it, what it's going to say is that if you throw one of these in, a yes in, it's going to be an EIS. MR. OBERMAYER-No, unless it can be mitigated. MR. PALING-Unless it could be mitigated. Otherwise it would be an EIS, and we have two yeses, I think. MR. BREWER-Where do we have two yeses? MR. PALING-Well, I think Tim and I should sit down for a few minutes somehow, but I think we've got to very definitely qualify our answers, not only. MR. BREWER-We have one yes, and that's Number 19, isn't it? MR. PALING-Well, we had Number Six. MR. OBERMAYER-Why would just you and Tim sit down? I thought this was a Board thing? MR. PALING-No. At the meeting, we were designated as the two that would go as kind of the representatives. Now you're welcome to come and join our committee, and your welcome to come, but that was the designation. MR. OBERMAYER-I didn't realize that we designated specific parties to go. MRS. LABOMBARD-Yes, we did. - 80 - ~ "'--' --../ '-- (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/28/95) MR. MACEWAN-So are we done with the SEQRA here? MR. GORALSKI-Well, I think to do. Are you going to going to send the minutes additional comments to the you have to decide what you're going send this EAF to the Board? Are yoU to the Board? Are you going to make Zoning Board? MRS. LABOMBARD-I think the minutes should be sent to the Board. MR. OBERMAYER-Yes, I do, too. MRS. LABOMBARD-I think our findings on this should be sent to the Board, and let them draw their own inferences. MR. BREWER-Let me ask you a question. If we send the minutes, how are we going to get the minutes typed and sent to the Board and give them time to read them? Think about it. We've been sitting here for over an hour. MR. RUEL-And we haven't done anything. MRS. LABOMBARD-Can they hear the tape instead of having Maria type them up? MR. BREWER-What do you propose they do, have them come in here 5:30 tomorrow night and have them listen to the tape? MR. GORALSKI-Nothing says they have to make a decision tomorrow night on the SEQRA. MR. BREWER-No, but to get our comments before they do it is what ~..¡e ' r e . MR. GORALSKI-Right, but they don't have to make a decision tomorrow. They can hold their decision until they receive your minutes if that's what you're, if that's what you ask them to do, they can certainly make that decision at tomorrow night's meeti ng . MR. MACEWAN-It seems like everyone's really stumbling here. When it came to some pretty significant portions of the SEQRA, that you need to have information from to determine whether it was going to be an impact or not, you tippy toed through it, or around it, and didn't even answer it. Such questions were the siding, the oil, gas, the height, the stormwater, the drainage, the traffic, the noise, the health and safety, the neighborhood character, and the aesthetics of it. Everything that you guys based your input on tonight were solely based on those letters in that packet. Everyone kept referring to a letter that they read about this or about that, and you can't do that when you do a SEQRA Review. If you want to give the ZBA the information that they're looking to get from us from looking at this, and giving us an evalued recommendation based upon what we're supposed to look at, you should take in all the information that we should have in front of us like we review for any SEQRA process. I think there was so much information lacking tonight for us to sit here as a group and come up with a consensus as to whether we think this is going to have some impacts or not, we're way off in left field. MR. RUEL-I agree wholeheartedly, absolutely. MR. PALING-Let me make a suggestion then, because I don't entirely agree or disagree with you on that, Craig, because I think you can do, you can pass on information, qualified as it may be, that would be valuable to the ZBA. My suggestion is that Tim and I relay to them as best we can, looking at this form, what we said, but it's going to be qualified allover the place. - 81 - -' (Cueensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/28/95) I agree with that. When we come to a question, we'll tell them there was too many things that we don't know for us to give you an answer that you can rely on. We give you an opinion, but here's what we're missing. We didn't know these things. You've got to find out, and then make a determination after that. MR. BREWER-I think that's all they asked for. MR. PALING-That's all they asked for anyway. MR. MACEWAN-If you're going there to represent this Board tomorrow night, I want to know from both of you exactly what you plan on telling them. If you're going to go there and tell them that, well, we were able to determine this and we couldn't answer these, well, you're dead wrong. I disagree with you 120%. MR. RUEL-I do, too. MR. BREWER-The consensus of the whole Board, every question was answered, Craig, whether you agree with them or not, whether you like it or not. MR. MACEWAN-But there's members on this Board right now who are saying that Craig is right, maybe we didn't have all the information. So what the heck is it? Did we have it or didn't we have it? MR. PALING-Craig, you were the only non participant. MR. MACEWAN-No, I participated. MR. PALING-No, you sat there and kept saying, no comment. MR. MACEWAN-No comment because there wasn't enough information for me to make a comment on. MR. PALING-Well, I think that just projects the wrong attitude toward this thing, and they've asked us to do the best we can with what we've got, and I think we can. We keep repeating, it's going to be very qualified, and if we discuss with them only the ones that we answered yes, we can make up a list of questions that have got to be answered before, we would want to know the answers to before we gave any kind of definite answer. MR. MACEWAN-Bob, I really take exception to the fact that you say I'm projecting the wrong attitude. I'm not. I'm projecting the attitude that we use for any SECRA process review we've ever had in front of this Board, ever. We've had engineering. We've had public comments. We've had legal comments, and we didn't have any of that tonight to do this. MR. BREWER-But what you don't understand is, Craig. MR. MACEWAN-I understand fully, Tim. MR. BREWER-No, you don't. You won't shut your mouth for a minute and listen to somebody. You're an involved agency, like any other agency's involved with us when we do a SEQRA, and if we have a comment to the SECRA we should relay it to them. That's all they're asking us to do~ They're not asking us to make it a neg dec or positive dec. MR. MACEWAN-That's exactly right. I'm asking information are you going to relay to them? you what MR. BREWER-From the questions that are answered on that form tonight, we'll just give them a copy of it and say, here's what we answered the questions as a group. Here's our answers, black - 82 - '--~ ~' ---./' -- (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/28/95) and white. agreed on. Whether you like it or dislike it, that's what we all So that's what we should give them. MR. MACEWAN-I haven't heard it put to a vote yet. So I'd like to hear that. MR. BREWER-We voted on it. That's why we're here doing it. MR. STARK-Bob, I have a question. The Town Board is an involved agency. Are they offering an opinion on this? MR. GORALSKI-The Town Board is not an involved agency. don't have any permit power over this project. They MRS. LABOMBARD-I feel that, what I said originally was we've done our best. Give them that. They can deduce what they want from it, and we've accomplished the task that we've set out to do. Maybe not as thorough as we wanted to, but we're not the lead agent, and we can only go by what we had. MR. PALING-If we were to do that, would you agree that a letter would be appropriate which states the reasons that we had for answering it, or better, suggesting to them what they find out before they accept, or determine their own answers based on our general opinion, but you better find these things out, whatever they are that apply to this item, and then make a decision based on that, the total of all. MRS. LABOMBARD-I think that's good advice. That's very good advice, however, they have the authority and the right to do whatever they please, too. We have to remember that. MR. PALINGw·Yes. MR. PALING-They probably have the answers to the things that we were lacking. MRS. LABOMBARD-That's true, also. I do think it would be remiss, though, to have them go into a meeting tomorrow and not have access to the dialogue that went on tonight, and we knew that when we came, I never even thought of it, but we knew, when we started this meeting tonight, or the Staff knew, that it would be almost impossible to get the minutes to the members 24 hours later. MR. GORALSKI-The final decision won't be made tomorrow night on the SEQRA. MRS. LABOMBARD-That's true, too. MR. BREWER-How do you know that? MR. GORALSKI-Because the public hearing wasn't properly noticed, and they're going to have to properly notice it again. MR. PALING-They can't make any decision tomorrow night. MR. GORALSKI-So there minutes and get them decision. will be time for Maria to type up the out to them before they make the final MRS. LABOMBARD-Okay. Then that's fine. MR. PALING-Then what I'm proposing, I'm making a suggestion, motion, whatever it is, that Tim and I work this out, and what I would do is to try to get this needed up and draft a letter, and then you and I get together and read it and agree on it, get it typed, and then with this marked up thing, and go to the meeting - 83 - -' - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/28/95) tomorrow night, give it to them, and go to the meeting tomorrow night and answer any questions. MRS. LABOMBARD-That's all you can do. MR. BREWER-I don't know what questions we can answer. We're not doing the SEQRA form. We're just giving them comments on the SEQRA. That's all we're doing. MR. PALING-Yes, comments on the SEQRA. MRS. LABOMBARD-The only thing that I feel maybe, I don't want to put any words in Craig's mouth, but I feel this way, that whatever you tell them tomorrow night cannot deviate from what we as a Boaíd, the general consensus was tonight, and that could, and maybe that could be easy to do, under a different context or a different situation. MR. PALING-Well, I think I can see the opening paragraph in this thing, at least in my own mind, is that the Board was uncomfortable in doing this because they didn't have enough information to really answer the questions, and therefore we have to tell you, list the following qualifications and suggest that you determine at least this kind of information before you make a decision. However my words came out, it's only a recommendation. I don't mean it to sound otherwise. MR. BREWER-Bob, that's the thing, it's not even a recommendation. It's not a recommendation. It's comments to the SEQRA, isn't it, John? MR. GORALSKI-Yes. MR. BREWER-It's not a recommendation. MR. GORALSKI-You can make a recommendation if you'd like, or you can just give them input. MR. PALING-Now, if anyone else wants in on this committee, please come, and we'll meet you some place. We'll figure out how to get together. MR. OBERMAYER-What do you mean "committee"? What do you keep on saying "committee" for? MR. PALING-Well, give it another name. MR. OBERMAYER-I mean, are you advertising that these two guys are going to be there? MR. PALING-This is what was decided at the last meeting. MR. OBERMAYER-I know, but is it being advertised? MR. BREWER-Why does it have to be advertised? MR. GORALSKI-It only has to be advertised if there's a quorum of t.he Board. MR. OBERMAYER-Okay, which is four. MR. PALING-Okay. MR. OBERMAYER-Are you going to write a letter, Bob? MR. PALING-Yes, and I'll get everyone a copy of it. MR. RUEL-I didn't agree with this right from the beginning. I - 84 - '-.. --.../ ....../ -- (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/28/95) don't believe we should have done it. I agree with Craig, and it's an exercise in futility. MR. PALING-Thank you. MR. OBERMAYER-I think if we had a little more information, it might have, we would have been able to do a more thorough job on the SEQRA. MR. PALING-Okay. Now, do you understand what we're going to do? MR. OBERMAYER-Does everybody agree with the letter? MR. PALING-Does anybody have any objections to the way we're going to handle it? MRS. LABOMBARD-No, I think it's fine. MR. PALING-All right. MR. MACEWAN-Just as long as you say that opening paragraph is very strongly stated that. MR. PALING-I may even put in there that two members of the Board didn't even want to do it. MR. MACEWAN-That would make me feel better. MR. PALING-And I don't mean that in a negative way. MR. MACEWAN-I would actually ask you to put my name in there, saying that I was adamantly opposed to doing this review. MR. PALING-I don't know if I'll use the name or not. I think I'd rather say two members, but it's nice that you would stand behind what you're saying. That's fine. All right. We're going to do it that way, then. All right. The Mooring Post discussion is closed. All right. Yes. What would you like to say? MICHAEL O'CONNOR MR. O'CONNOR-You indicated that you had opinion from legal counsel as to what to do if someone from the audience spoke up on the subject of the Mooring Post. MR. PALING-Correct. MR. O'CONNOR-Who was counsel that gave you that opinion? MR. STARK-Dusek. MR. PALING-No, I think it was Schachner. MR. STARK-It was Dusek. MR. PALING-Dusek then, whatever it was. MR. STARK-Sob, it was Dusek. MR. PALING-Was it Dusek, okay. MR. O'CONNOR-Who was it that gave you that advice? MR. PAlING-I got it from a person related to me from legal counsel. I consider that just as good as getting it direct. MR. O'CONNOR-For public record, who gave it to you? - 85 - "'...... ---- (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/28/95) MR. PAL_lNG-John Goralski. John, they're questioning the conduct I used in canceling the meeting. Was it Dusek that was involved? MR. GORALSKI-My understanding is that came from Mr. Dusek. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. I'm just asking the question. Thank you. MR. PALING-You're welcome. All right. Let me give you one hand out and make two comments. Okay. That I'm making two suggestions. First of all, that we change the officers expiration, we have a hand out, and the hand out is, I didn't realize it, but the rules and procedures for the Planning Board that I have was obsolete. I assume you people had no more up to date one than I did, so I'm going to give yoU an up to date one. Okay. I'm going to make two suggestions, that the election month for the officers be changed from January to December, so that it is in line with the way that they're changing when the offices expire, and it just makes more sense to be in a calendar year, plus the fact fewer people take, long vacations are taken more in January than they are in December. Now the other thing I'm suggesting is this, that the Chairman's position only be rotated. That the manner in which it be rotated, that the Chairman be allowed to stand for re-election once. After that, he can't hold any office for one year. For example, if I were to run and be re-elected, I would be in office for another year, but then I would not be able to run again until I stood out for a year. MR. RUEL-That wasn't a recommendation by a couple of Town Board members? MR. BREWER-I disagree with that. This Board should decide that. MR. PALING-Wait a minute. Board member. This is not a suggestion by a Town MR. BREWER-No, you're suggesting it. I think that we should ask the whole Board. I say, no. MR. PALING-I don't think anybody's in the mood to vote on anything. MR. OBERMAYER-I thought the way the policy was that, I mean, you could seek re-election if you don't have to. or igi naIl y IrJas ~.¡a nt, or you MR. PALING-Well, I'm it rotates, that the election once. suggesting we rotate. I'm suggesting that Chairman only be allowed to stand for re- MR. BREWER-I think if a change is necessitated, it'll happen. That's m.:i. suggestion. MR. PALING-All right. Well, those are the two suggestions. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Robert Paling, Chairman - 86 -