The URL can be used to link to this page

1996-08-20 QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 20, 1996 INDEX Subdivision No. 13-86 MODIFICATION Subdivision No. 13-86 MODIFICATION Subdivision No. 13-86 MODIFICATION - Conveyance Site Plan No. 41-96 Site Plan No. 26-96 Site Plan No. 52-96 Site Plan No. 47-96 Site Plan No. 53-96 Site Plan No. 49-96 Site Plan No. 6-96 Site Plan No. 51-96 Herald Square, Phase II 5. Herald Square, Phase III 6 . Herald Square, Phase III 8. Mr. & Mrs. Jack Hickey Tax Map No. 11-1-11.1 14. Lou & Christine Lecce Tax Map No. 16-1-28 16. Stacie A. Hopkins Tax Map No. 54-1-36 33. Robert Orban Tax Map No. 101-1-14, 15 38. BMI Supply Tax Map No. 55-2-19.5 40. Knights of Columbus Council 194 Tax Map No. 73-1-11.2 47. Ken Ermiger Tax Map No. 73-1-4.1 53. Jay Curtis Tax Map No. 136-2-7, 8.2 85. THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTHS MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES. (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/20/96) QUEENS BURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 20, 1996 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT ROBERT PALING, CHAIRMAN CATHERINE LABOMBARD, SECRETARY GEORGE STARK TIMOTHY BREWER ROGER RUEL CRAIG MACEWAN MEMBERS ABSENT DAVID WEST PLANNER-GEORGE HILTON PLANNING BOARD COUNSEL-MILLER, MANNIX, & PRATT, MARK SCHACHNER STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI CORRECTION OF MINUTES April 16, 1996: NONE April 23, 1996: NONE May 7, 1996: NONE May 14, 1996: NONE May 21, 1996: NONE May 30, 1996: NONE MOTION TO APPROVE ALL THOSE MINUTES AS WRITTEN, Introduced by Craig MacEwan who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Stark: Duly adopted this 20th day of August, 1996, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Stark, Mr. Ruel, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. West MR. PALING-Okay. The first item on the agenda tonight is the Subdivision No. 3-1996 for CVS, and there's been a request for a 30 day extension on this. LEON STEVES MR. STEVES-Mr. Chairman, my name is Leon Steves, representing CVS. MR. PALING-Give us a reason for request. MR. STEVES-So we can get your signature affixed thereto and file it in the County Clerk's Office. MR. PALING-Okay. Any problem with that? Do you want to make a motion? MR. MACEWAN-Thirty days from today? MR. STEVES-Yes, sir. - 1 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/20/96) MR. BREWER-Why don't you go to the end of the month, Craig. MR. PALING-Yes, make it the end of the month. MR. STEVES-That would be fine. MOTION TO GRANT AN EXTENSION UNTIL AUGUST 30, 1996 FOR CVS PHARMACY SUBDIVISION 3-1996, Introduced by Craig MacEwan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roger Ruel: Duly adopted this 20th day of August, 1996, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stark, Mr. Ruel, Mr. Brewer, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. West MR. PALING-What's the date on this? MR. BREWER-8/20. MR. HILTON-Today's the 20th. Yes. MR. BREWER-When did that run out, or did it run out? MR. PALING-I hope not. No, CVS couldn't have run out, could it? MR. STEVES-I have no idea. MR. HILTON-The 60 day approval on the subdivision, the approval was May 21st. July 21st would have been the 60 days, but you're okay if you want to extend it. MR. BREWER-We went through this. MR. MACEWAN-We can't extend that. MR. BREWER-We can't. It's already expired. How can we extend it? MR. PALING-It hasn't expired yet, it's the 21st. MR. MACEWAN-He said July. MR. HILTON-There's a 60 day tabling period, I mean, 60 day time period to file a subdivision after it's been approved. It was on the 21st day of May, 1996. Sixty days later, if I'm correct, would be July 21st, around that date. MR. STEVES-That was last month. MR. HILTON-But I was under the understanding that this Board has the opportunity to grant them an extension, I guess we said the end of September, to get the map filed, without having to come back and re-file the subdivision. MR. PALING-Well, Mark, can you clarify this for us? MR. BREWER-We've been through this and got opinions from our attorney that we can't do it. Once it expires, it's a done deal. MR. PALING-It hasn't expired yet, Tim. MR. RUEL-July 21st. MR. BREWER-It's August. MR. PALING-That's right. - 2 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/20/96) MR. RUEL-It expired July 21st. MR. PALING-All right then if it's expired, that's right. We cannot, we went through this before. I didn't hear the month. MR. HILTON-Yes, well, for what it's worth, Staff is comfortable with it. We have no problem granting it. MR. STEVES-Would it be working as a re-approval, then? MR. PALING-That's what's happened in the past. MR. BREWER-We have to do it over, right? MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. I think I have to agree with everything Tim has said. This Board has been through this a number of times, and I think that this Board ultimately adopted a resolution, correct me if I'm wrong, adopted a resolution stating that it would be this Board's policy to not do what is called after the fact or post expiration extensions. In other words, no retroactive extensions. I think this Board did that by a formal resolution, if I'm not mistaken. MR. BREWER-It all started with Bay Meadows. MR. SCHACHNER-Correct. MR. PALING-It was a five to one vote, I remember it. MR. RUEL-So what's the alternative, a re-application or re- submittal? MR. SCHACHNER-That's what that would mean, and I believe we've had other applicants have to do that in the past, since you've adopted that policy. MR. BREWER-So, we have to rescind that now, Mark? MR. RUEL-Yes, rescind that. MOTION TO RESCIND THE APPROVAL JUST MADE, Introduced by Craig MacEwan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roger Ruel: Duly adopted this 20th day of August, 1996, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ruel, Mr. Brewer, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Stark, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. West MR. MACEWAN-Now what can be done to expedite this? Nothing's going to change? MR. STEVES-No. MR. BREWER-We just have to have time to advertise, right? MR. SCHACHNER-Yes, just exactly what you've done in the past, with other applicants, which I think is you've put them on the next agenda that you could take with your advertising time, which probably would not be next Tuesday, but presumably would be the first meeting in September, which I think is on the 17th of September. MR. PALING-I guess I'll have to hang on to this, or you'll have to hang onto it, whichever, because it would be considered unsigned. - 3 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/20/96) MR. STEVES-Have you signed it? MR. PALING-Yes. MR. STEVES-Well, that's fine, then, hang onto it. anywhere anyway. It won' t go MR. PALING-Yes. All right. MR. BREWER-Nothing against you, Leon. MR. STEVES-No, Tim, that's fine. I was thinking tomorrow as well. MR. SCHACHNER-Now the other thing is, I think all I've heard so far is a motion to rescind the motion to grant. So you haven't made any decision, now, as to the request for extension. MR. BREWER-Right. So now we have to make a motion to deny. MR. PALING-We can't act on the request for an extension. MR. SCHACHNER-You can act on it. MR. PALING-It's expired. Wait a minute. What have I missed now? MR. STARK-You can't extend it if it's expired. MR. SCHACHNER-What I'm suggesting is, if somebody has made that request, I thought you would perhaps. MR. BREWER-Deny. MR. SCHACHNER-Correct. MR. BREWER-Yes, just giving the reason that the application, or the time limit is expired. MOTION TO DENY THE EXTENSION FOR SUBDIVISION NO. 3-1996 BERKSHIRE ACQUISITION, Introduced by Timothy Brewer who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Stark: On the premise that the time frame has expired. Duly adopted this 20th day of August, 1996, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Stark, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Paling NOES: Mr. Ruel ABSENT: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. West MR. PALING-We have no choice. MR. STEVES-That's consistent with your policy, and I have no problems with that. MR. PALING-Yes, okay. MR. STEVES-Thank you for your consideration. MR. BREWER-I don't think anybody has a problem with the application or the extension. MR. STEVES-No, I understand, Tim. MR. PALING-No. We've got to be consistent. I didn't hear the month right. I thought we were within the 60 day period. Okay. - 4 - -. (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/20/96) All right. Well, maybe we'll see you next week, or whenever, as soon as we can. Okay. I think we're finished here, are we not? There's nothing else we can do. Okay. OLD BUSINESS: SUBDIVISION NO. 13-86 HERALD SQUARE, PHASE II MODIFICATION TO AN APPROVED SUBDIVISION - LOTS 66, 67 & 88. LEON STEVES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. PALING-Okay. The applicant is represented. Perhaps you could identify yourself and just summarize what it is we're doing here. MR. STEVES-Yes. My name is Leon Steves from Van Dusen and Steves, and the applicant and the adjacent owners wish to enlarge their lots, as reflected on our modified subdivision plan of July 30, 1996, basically to enlarge their rear yards, or back yards, as shown on that plan. MR. PALING-Okay. time. All right. We can go through these one at a MR. STARK-Each one needs a motion. MR. PALING-Yes, one at a time. Okay. The first one is for the modification of lot lines, 66, 67 and 88, and we now have two drawings on this. One is before, and one is after. I think I'm saying that right. MR. BREWER-Didn't we do something similar to this a while ago, different lots or something? The same thing, make them bigger, in Herald Square? I think we did. MR. MACEWAN-When Phase III was here, they were getting ready to open up Phase III. MR. BREWER-Phase II I think we did it, didn't we? MR. STEVES-Not to my knowledge. MR. BREWER-Yes, we did. I think two or three lots, same type of thing, Leon. MR. PALING-So these lots are being made bigger, is what they're doing? MR. STEVES-Yes, they are. MR. PALING-And what is the land that they're taking it away from? What is that? MR. STEVES-That's just land held in the rear, which will be considered, not the next one, but the third item tonight, in lieu of recreational fees. MR. PALING-Okay. So that's what would have been recreation land. MR. STEVES-Part of that. MR. PALING-Part of it. Okay. MR. STEVES-This dog leg that you see right here, is the dog leg right there. MR. PALING-Okay, that's that same dog leg. MR. STEVES-That one there is the same as shown on this plan. The - 5 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/20/96) present subdivision comes straight across here, and then right along like that. MR. PALING-Right. Okay. MR. STARK-There's no problem with this. You're just bending all three of them out. MR. STEVES-That's right. That's all we're doing. MR. PALING-Okay. Now this is a modification, so there's no public hearing and no SEQRA on this, but we still need a motion. MR. STARK-But when you make the motion, you've got to say that there's no significant detriment to the existing environment. Is that the word, Mark? MR. SCHACHNER-Yes, basically no modification to the environmental impact, or anything like that. MOTION TO APPROVE SUBDIVISION NO. 13-86 MODIFICATION TO AN APPROVED SUBDIVISION LOTS 66, 67 « 88 FOR HERALD SQUARE, PHASE II, Introduced by George Stark who moved for its adoption, seconded by Craig MacEwan: With the stipulation that there's no detrimental effects to the existing environmental impact statement. Duly adopted this 20th day of August, 1996, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stark, Mr. Brewer, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ruel, Mr. West MR. STEVES-Thank you. MR. PALING-Okay. SUBDIVISION NO. 13-86 HERALD SQUARE, PHASE III MODIFICATION TO AN APPROVED SUBDIVISION - ROAD SECTION WILL BE MODIFIED TO ELIMINATE THE WING SWALE AND TO CONFORM TO THE ROAD SECTION USED IN PHASES I & II. TOM NACE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. PALING-And this was at the request of Dave Hatin, I believe. Was it? MR. NACE-For the record, my name is Tom Nace with Nace Engineering representing Guido Passarelli. This was at the request of Paul Naylor. MR. PALING-Paul Naylor. Okay. MR. NACE-Now, on this one we also need to get an extension. This was approved exactly two months ago. We've been delayed here trying to get the modifications done so that we can get it filed, get Paul to sign it. So we'd like to request an extension. MR. STARK-First. MR. NACE-Yes, first, and then the modification, or either way. It doesn't really matter. MR. PALING-Okay. Just to be on the safe side, what was the date? It would be in June? - 6 - '- (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/20/96) MR. NACE-The meeting date was June 20. MR. BREWER-Today is the day. MR. PALING-June 20th was a Thursday. We met on the 18th and the 25th. MR. NACE-My notes say, meeting date the 20th. MR. BREWER-Do you have it on file, George? MR. SCHACHNER-Actually, there was a Thursday meeting in June. MR. PALING-I'll bet there was, and I wasn't here. MR. SCHACHNER-I'll tell you in a second. MR. PALING-No. I think that's right and I wasn't able to attend. That's why it's crossed off. MR. BREWER-Yes, there were three meetings, Tuesday, Thursday, Tuesday. MR. SCHACHNER-There was a meeting Thursday night, June 20th. MR. PALING-Yes, there was and I wasn't here. Okay. Fine. MR. STARK-Do you want a 30 day extension? MR. NACE-Enough time to get Paul. Yes, that would be fine. MR. BREWER-The end of September? MR. NACE-The end of September would be fine. MR. PALING-Do the extension first. MOTION TO GRANT AN EXTENSION FOR SUBDIVISION NO. 13-86 HERALD SQUARE PHASE III, Introduced by Timothy Brewer who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Stark: Until September 30th. Duly adopted this 20th day of August, 1996, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stark, Mr. Brewer, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Rue 1 , Mr. West MR. PALING-Okay. Now we want to talk about the modification of the road section. Are there any questions on that? All right. Then the same thing. We can go to another motion on this. MOTION TO APPROVE MODIFICATION TO SUBDIVISION NO. 13-86 HERALD SQUARE PHASE III, Introduced by Timothy Brewer who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Stark: To eliminate the wing swale and to conform to the road section used in Phase I and II with no significant environmental impacts. Duly adopted this 20th day of August, 1996, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Stark, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE - 7 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/20/96) ABSENT: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ruel, Mr. West MR. PALING-Okay. Moving right along. SUBDIVISION NO. 13-86 HERALD SQUARE, PHASE III MAP SHOWING THE PROPOSED CONVEYANCE TO THE TOWN OF QUEENS BURY FROM GUIDO PASSARELLI, FOR PHASE III HERALD SQUARE IN LIEU OF RECREATIONAL FEES. TOM NACE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. MACEWAN-Is this a recommendation to the Town Board? LEON STEVES MR. STEVES-Yes, it is. MR. BREWER-I have a question. Did we go through this in Phase I or Phase II of this subdivision, in Phase II, and they denied that? Is this the same property? MR. NACE-Yes, I believe this is the same property. At that point, the Recreation Committee walked the property. I don't remember what the hang up was at that time, but it's a piece of corridor along Clendon Brook that makes sense for open land and recreation, passive recreation. MR. BREWER-Okay. Now, do we have any recommendation from them now, or is it from the Rec Department? MR. STEVES-No. We're starting here. MR. PALING-Do we need one? MR. SCHACHNER-Well, it's really, ultimately, a Town Board call. I think, if I'm not mistaken, this would be before the Planning Board for a recommendation to the Town Board, and then the process would include Recreation Commission input and ultimately a Town Board decision. MR. PALING-It doesn't say it, but this is for a recommendation only. MR. HILTON-Yes. MR. PALING-Okay. All right. Then we can go ahead on that basis. Any questions? MR. BREWER-My only comment would be, I think if the Town Board and the Recreation Commission turned it down before, I don't want to recommend taking it now. It's the same piece of property. MR. STEVES-We have been asked to resubmit it because the Town Board has accepted the land to the north, west of Clendon Ridge, this being the continuation of that Clendon Brook corridor. They may want to consider it at this time. MR. PALING-Well, could we also add to the recommendation that they confer with the Recreation Commission? MR. BREWER-They have to anyway, I think. MR. PALING-Yes, before they do anything, otherwise I don't think we have a problem. I don't know. MR. MACEWAN-Did the Town Board originally decline the offer on this? - 8 - -... (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/20/96) MR. NACE-I'm trying to remember. I walked both of those properties with the Recreation Commission, and I'm sure this is, we walked this first, and then the piece north of this, which was part of Al Cerrone's subdivision, Clendon Ridge. We walked that, I think, a year or two later, and from just my memory, I believe the attitude of the Board, or of the Recreation Commission, was a little different, in that open land and passive recreation opportunities, fishing along the brook, cross country skiing, seemed to have a little more influence on them when they looked at the Clendon Ridge property, although the same opportunities exist in this property. I think their attitude had changed a little over time. So I think it's worth a revisiting of that Commission on this property as well. MR. HILTON-If the Town Board has accepted land in lieu of recreation fees since this was denied the first time, then possibly the position of the Town Board could have changed, and Staff has no problem recommending that they at least look at it to see if they have different ideas than they did before. MR. MACEWAN-How much of an input does the Rec Commission have into this? MR. SCHACHNER-It's a recommendation, similar to what this Board does. MR. MACEWAN-I mean, do they go to the Rec Commission as well with this proposal? MR. SCHACHNER-Any proposed acceptance of land for recreation purposes is reviewed by the Town Recreation Commission, in its advisory capacity, for that Commission to make a recommendation to the Town Board. MR. MACEWAN-Have you sought them out yet? MR. NACE-No. That will be, I'm sure, the next step. MR. PALING-There isn't a public hearing on this tonight, but I think we can allow comment, if there's anyone that wants to speak about just this particular one. ROGER RUEL MR. RUEL-I abstained from this application because I live in Herald Square. My name is Roger Ruel. I live at 10 Mabel Terrace in Herald Square. That is Phase I, and I have some comments for the Board to consider, I think items beyond what you discussed a few moments ago. First of all, one question I have for the Board to explore is, how much of these 20 acres are wetlands? Because the area bordering Clendon Brook is labeled wetlands. Secondly, the 20 foot wide entry points indicated are too narrow, and they are not cleared for access. If the Town Board accepted this, I believe that these roadways would have to be widened, and I think some sort of a road would have to be put in there. There's nothing now at this time. The most important item I have, I guess, has to do with the fact that Phase I borders on this 20 acre area, because, as Tim indicated earlier, there was an application made, or a request made, to have the Town Board accept this for the Recreation Commission, in lieu of the $500 fee per homeowner. This was denied. I really don't know the reasons why. However, it was denied, and it's my feeling, now, that if this was accepted by the Town Board and the Recreation Commission, then the landowners, the homeowners in Phase III, and possibly in Phase II, would not be burdened with the $500 each. Now Phase I borders on the same land, and we all paid $500 each. If this went through and this land was available to all three phases, I believe that the homeowners in Phase I should be reimbursed. - 9 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/20/96) MR. BREWER-Well, it wouldn't only be available to you. It would be available to anybody in the Town. MR. RUEL-It's available to everyone. MR. BREWER-Sure. If the Town owns it, then it's Town property, and anybody in the Town can go on it. MR. RUEL-Yes. MR. BREWER-It would be like a Town park, so to speak. MR. PALING-Being part of the subdivision, though, I think it would be limited to anyone within Herald Square. It wouldn't cover the Town. MR. BREWER-No. Anybody in the Town. MR. SCHACHNER-As a practical matter, these things are typically used, of course, by people that are nearby, but if it's public property, then it's available, as Tim says, for anybody's use. MR. PALING-No, I was saying the $500 refund would only apply, I would think, to someone in Herald Square subdivision. MR. MACEWAN-I don't think that's something this Board is even going to get involved in. MR. SCHACHNER-Right. MR. PALING-No, but we can pass it on, perhaps, as a comment, because we're not going to get involved in that. MR. SCHACHNER-Neither will any other Town entity. That's between the developer and his residents, so to speak. MR. RUEL-Well, I'd be curious to find out why it was rejected the first time and why it should be accepted now. MR. PALING-Well, a building permit, you've got to pay it when the permit goes in. MR. RUEL-No, I mean, the fact that the area was not picked up by the Town Board for the Recreation Commission. I don't know if we have any documentation on that. MR. BREWER-I think they just deemed it that it wasn't, I don't want to say not usable, but it wasn't. MR. BREWER-Desirable for that purpose at that time. MR. RUEL-But why should it be more desirable now? MR. BREWER-That's what I said, 10 minutes ago, and I think Leon said because they took other property along that corridor, and maybe that Tom would want to extend that at this point. I don't know. MR. MACEWAN-I do remember a conversation, maybe a year or so ago, that was the hopes that they would get a continuous piece that entire parcel of the Brook. MR. BREWER-Yes, because it starts over on West Mountain Road with Vasiliou, with his property, and it ties into Al Cerrone's. This would be the third piece, and then the other side of the Brook, Hudson Pointe. MR. PALING-Okay. Thanks, Roger. Anyone else? Okay. It's not a - 10 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/20/96) public hearing, but we did allow that comment. I think perhaps in our recommendation to the Board we could at least ask them, make note that some comment has been made and suggest they follow it further. MR. MACEWAN-I would like to know, on the four parcels that abut the right-of-way, this 20 foot right-of-way going in there, is there any development on those parcels right now? Are there homes on there? MR. STEVES-Yes, there are. MR. MACEWAN-There are? MR. STEVES-Yes. MR. MACEWAN-Is there any place close to this parcel where there could be some access for parking, off street parking? MR. STEVES-I don't know that that's being offered, parking, but rather pathways. We don't want to encourage people to come across town to park over there. MR. MACEWAN-Why not, if it's Town property? MR. STEVES-That's right. MR. MACEWAN-Everybody's got a right to use it. MR. STEVES-This is true. We're not denying them the right to use it, but rather if they're going to use it, they're going to walk into it. MR. MACEWAN-So if someone was to come across Town to want to walk this portion of Clendon Brook, where would they park? MR. BREWER-Park in the street. MR. MACEWAN-How well would that go over? MR. STEVES-But if the Town wishes to develop this, 20 feet is wide enough for a road path to be built and access made on that. MR. PALING-Are we going beyond what we should be doing with this? This was, did you say was accepted by the Town already, this parcel of land? MR. NACE-No. MR. PALING-It was not. MR. NACE-Adjacent, to the north of this, there was a parcel in Clendon Ridge, and that parcel had no accessways into it, other than a strip which came along the Brook all the way down to Luzerne Road, and again it was the same sort of thing. There was no real parking area allocated or available, but the Board, at that time, felt that it still could be used. MR. PALING-Okay. George? MR. STARK-Why don't we let the Town Board decide and just make the recommendation that they look at a few of the comments that were made. Let them make the decision. MR. BREWER-Well they're going to, but we still have to make a recommendation, whether we should or we shouldn't. MR. STARK-We made the recommendation that they approve Al Cerrone's parcel and they didn't have any access to it. - 11 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/20/96) MR. BREWER-Did we? MR. MACEWAN-Just so I'm clear one more time. Will this parcel abut the one that they got from Clendon Ridge? It comes right up to the road, though, right? MR. NACE-No. I think there is some intervening stretch of brook. MR. STEVES-Yes, there is. It will not be contiguous. MR. NACE-I'm not sure it's a short stretch up between Luzerne Road and the north end of this property. MR. PALING-Well, this is kind of a strange way to request a recommendation, really. The word isn' t even used in here, plus the fact we have no, there is no public hearing, and here we are asked for a recommendation again, and I feel kind of hung up. If there is comment, we've got comment from one, but maybe there's other comment that we should hear, and again, in these recommendations, we were embarrassed one time, and we said no more, and this doesn't even say recommendation in it. MR. MACEWAN-Well, in our past practices, where we want to go with this thing, is that, give the public all the input they could, you know, into a project like this, and there's a lot of homes that this would effect. MR. PALING-Yes. MR. BREWER-Lets advertise then? Make the recommendation next week or next month. MR. PALING-Well, could we make the recommendation that either the Town Board handle this themselves, or that they allow us time to advertise it, and have a pubic meeting on it, and then we'll come back with a recommendation. MR. NACE-Well, we're forced with filing this by September 30th, which means we have to have the fees paid before you can sign it, before we can file it. MR. BREWER-Didn't they just pass a new law last night, about something about that? MR. NACE-When's that effective? MR. SCHACHNER-It's effective when filed with the Secretary of State, it'll probably be next week. The gist of the local law passed, it was an amendment to the local law. The gist of it would be, the fees are due at the time of building permits, as opposed to at the time of approval. MR. BREWER-So then you wouldn't have to come up with the. MR. NACE-So then how does that effect subdivisions that are already in the approval process? MR. SCHACHNER-I believe what the Town Board said is that any subdivision that's already been approved is still subject to the law of previous. MR. PALING-But if they're not approved yet, it's the new one. MR. SCHACHNER-No, as I understand it, this is an approved subdivision. MR. NACE-This is Phase III, which was approved two months ago and just extended. - 12 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/20/96) MR. PALING-Then that would be under the old. MR. SCHACHNER-That's my understanding. MR. NACE-Which puts us into the bind of having to pay the fees before September 30th. MR. PALING-George, how are we supposed to act on this? Can you answer that? MR. HILTON-It's a recommendation only, and I assume, you know, it would go to the Town Board, with your recommendation, and they don't hold a public hearing at that point, either. MR. PALING-You're telling us it's a recommendation, but what is this sheet telling us? MR. SCHACHNER-What sheet are you referring to, Bob? MR. PALING-I'm looking at the schedule. MR. SCHACHNER-It seems to me, I don't know if it's worth this amount of attention, but when Staff prepares the agendas, I mean, in this case it should certainly have said, recommendation, but that's just one word added to the agenda. I'm not sure how that would change, it wouldn't change the level of information before this Board. MR. PALING-Yes, it would, Mark, in that we have gone on record, and very firmly, stating that if we're going to make recommendations to the Town Board, we want a public hearing. MR. SCHACHNER-Okay. I'm sorry. Well, the word itself wouldn't change the level of information, but it might change how you'd go about it. MR. BREWER-Lets not make a recommendation. I mean, it's not our fault. We said we were going to do it. Let the chips fall where they may. MR. PALING-I don't think we have any choice but to do that, pass it back. MRS. LABOMBARD-All right. MR. NACE-If you do that, can you make it clear that you're doing it without prejudice? MR. PALING-Yes, absolutely. MR. STEVES-Well, I think it's a Catch-22. The applicant is required to make an application to the Planning Board for recommendation to the Town Board to either accept this or not accept it, but we are under the gun, then, to make that application for recommendation. Now I don't believe there's anything in the law that specifies or clarifies the procedure for that, but certainly the portion of the public hearing can be at the discretion of the Town Board, and I don't know that it should be at this level. MR. BREWER-I think what Bob's referring to, Leon, is we made a recommendation on a certain project, with no input. MR. STEVES-Depending on your recommendation, I understand that. MR. BREWER-Right. We felt that we didn't make an informed decision. So we said that, in the future, we make recommendation, we hold a public meeting. - 13 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/20/96) MR. STEVES-Yes. MR. PALING-We would have voted the opposite had we had a public meeting. MR. STEVES-Yes. I understand that. MR. BREWER-Not in this case. MR. STEVES-No. I understand that. I'm not trying to compare apples and oranges, but rather, and the particulars that we're referring to here is for a recommendation for recreational land. MR. PALING-I'll entertain any way to get around it, but I can't see it myself. MR. SCHACHNER-I don't think the applicant has any problem with a non recommendation, so long as it's clear that it's, to use Tom's words. MR. PALING-Without prejudice, sure. MR. SCHACHNER-Right. That doesn't seem to be a problem with the applicant. I don't see why it would be, you can certainly do that. MR. PALING-All right. MOTION TO DENY THE REQUEST FOR RECOMMENDATION FOR SUBDIVISION NO. 13-86 HERALD SQUARE PHASE III, Introduced by Robert Paling who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Stark: This is done without prejudice to the applicant. It is also done because insufficient information was not provided for the Planning Board to act. Duly adopted this 20th day of August, 1996, by the following vote: MR. BREWER-So do we want to schedule a public meeting for this? MR. HILTON-At this point, I think it goes on to the Town Board with this recommendation. AYES: Mr. Stark, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Brewer, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Ruel, Mr. West MR. PALING-Sorry. MR. STEVES-No, I understand perfectly. Thank you very much. MR. PALING-Okay. SITE PLAN NO. 41-96 TYPE II MR. & MRS. JACK HICKEY OWNERS: SAME ZONE: WR-1A, CEA, APA LOCATION: RT. 9L TO CLEVERDALE ROAD, TO HILLMAN ROAD, TO ONONODAGA DRIVE (PARKING LOT) I #9 IS STRAIGHT AHEAD AS YOU ENTER THE PARKING LOT. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO BUILD A SECOND FLOOR ADDITION ON EXISTING HOME. PER SECTION 179 -7 9 EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE IN A CEA IS SUBJECT TO REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 57-1996 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 7/10/96 TAX MAP NO. 11-1-11.1 LOT SIZE: .05 ACRES SECTION: 179-16 BILL MASON, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HILTON-This application was tabled from the 23rd of July 1996. - 14 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/20/96) We're re-hearing this this evening. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 41-96, Mr. & Mrs. Jack Hickey, Meeting Date: August 20, 1996 "The applicants are proposing to construct a second story addition to an existing home. The proposed height of this second story will conform to the requirements of the WR-IA district. Setbacks and permeability at this location will not change with the proposed addition. The applicants have received the appropriate variances from the ZBA for this expansion. Staff foresees no negative impacts associated with this application and recommends approval of Site Plan No. 41-96." MR. PALING-Okay. How tall is it, George? MR. HILTON-I don't have it in my notes. I would have to look at the plan. Maybe the applicant could clarify the height for you real quick. MR. PALING-Okay. Would you identify yourself please. MR. MASON-I'm Bill Mason. I'm the agent for the applicant. MR. PALING-Okay. MR. MASON-And I also am going to look at the plan. MR. PALING-I think I estimated 31 feet. MR. MACEWAN-I got 21'6", I wrote on my. MR. PALING-21, 6", okay, but that's the approximate height, is 21'6". That's close enough. MR. MASON-It's 21'6" approximately, depending on the grade level. MR. PALING-Okay. Does anyone else have any questions on it? MR. RUEL-Did this have ZBA? MR. PALING-Yes. His variances have been approved. MR. HILTON-Yes. MR. PALING-All right. This is a Type II. We do not need a SEQRA then, right? MR. HILTON-Yes. MR. PALING-Okay. The public hearing was tabled. We will re-open the public hearing. Does anyone care to comment on this matter? PUBLIC HEARING OPEN NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 41-96 MR. & MRS. JACK HICKEY, Introduced by Roger Ruel who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Stark: To build a second floor addition on existing home. Duly adopted this 20th day of August, 1996, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Stark, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ruel, - 15 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/20/96) Mr. Brewer, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. West SITE PLAN NO. 26-96 TYPE II LOU & CHRISTINE LECCE OWNERS: SAME ZONE: WR-IA, CEA LOCATION: RT. 9L TO CLEVERDALE ROAD TAKE CLEVERDALE ROAD TO ROCKHURST THEN FOLLOW SEELYE ROAD TO HOUSE ON LEFT SIDE WITH LECCE SIGN IN FRONT. APPLICANT IS REMOVING AND REPLACING OLD STONE RETAINING WALL ALONG SHORELINE WITH NEW INTERLOCKING RETAINING CONCRETE WALL APPROXIMATELY 80' LONG AND 2 1/2 TO 3' HIGH. PER SECTION 170-60 15(3) ALTERATION TO SHORELINE, NO REPLACEMENT OF RETAINING WALLS ALONG THE SHORELINE SHALL BE UNDERTAKEN WITHOUT SITE PLAN REVIEW. ALSO PROPOSED IS CREATION OF A SANDY BEACH AND MODIFICATION TO EXISTING U-SHAPED DOCK TO RESULT IN A 40' X 40' U-SHAPED DOCK WITH OPEN SIDED BOAT SHELTER. SECTION 179-16 REQUIRES SITE PLAN REVIEW AND APPROVAL FOR DOCKS AND BOATHOUSES. DEC, LGPC WARREN CO. PLANNING: 6/12/96 TAX MAP NO. 16-1-28 LOT SIZE: .92 ACRES SECTION: 179-60 15(3), 179-16 179-60 B(l) (a) [2] LOU LECCE, PRESENT MR. HILTON-First of all, due to an advertising error, this application was re-advertised and notice was sent to the neighbors within 500 feet. That has been completed, and this is going to be a new public hearing tonight, that you will open and close during the course of this meeting. MR. PALING-Okay. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 26-96, Lou & Christine Lecce, Meeting Date: August 20, 1996 "The applicant is proposing to replace an existing retaining wall, the creation of a sandy beach area, and modification of an existing U shaped dock. Staff has reviewed this application in accordance with Section 179-38 of the Zoning Ordinance and has the following comments. The proposed retaining wall conforms to the Zoning Ordinance requirements for retaining walls (Section 179-60B,3,E,3). The proposed wall would be constructed so as to connect to the existing stone wall which is being used by the property owner to the south. The construction of this wall will better prevent any possible increase in soil erosion or runoff into Lake George. The proposed sand beach area conforms to the shoreline regulation clearing limits listed in Section 179- 60B,2. The retaining wall which is proposed will be built behind this beach area. Planning and Engineering staff believe that adequate erosion control methods are proposed to effectively control runoff in this area of the property. The proposed modification to the U shaped dock will conform to the area, length and setback requirements pertaining to docks listed in Section 179- 60B,l,b. The dock as proposed would extend into the lake 40 feet from the mean low water mark of Lake George which conforms to the above mentioned regulations. The applicant's property is located on an inlet on the lake. The dock which is proposed would not extend into the lake farther or be of a different character than other docks and boathouses on surrounding properties. The proposed boat house modification would conform to the height requirements for boathouses and would not adversely effect views of the lake from surrounding properties. The dock presently in use at this location is built next to an existing wood deck. The deck is completely anchored on land and currently extends out over the water and rests on top of the dock which is anchored on the bottom of the lake. The deck, which is a separate structure than the dock, is located in the shoreline setback area of the applicant's lot. The applicant has indicated that he plans to remove this deck - 16 - '- ~ (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/20/96) from his property. Staff would offer a stipulation of approval for this application that the deck be removed prior to the issuance of a building permit for any dock expansion. This application conforms to all applicable portions of the Zoning Ordinance and has received approval from the Lake George Park Commission. Planning and Engineering staff have reviewed this application and are both satisfied that this proposal will not effect the physical environment and character of the surrounding neighborhood. Furthermore this application is in compliance with the requirements for approval listed in Section 179-38 of the Zoning Ordinance and the approval criteria listed in Section 274-a of Town Law. As a result staff recommends approval of Site Plan No. 26-96 with one previously mentioned stipulation." MR. HILTON-I have public comment here. I think I will wait for any discussion. MR. PALING-Yes, wait until the public hearing is open on that. Do you have any other technical or engineering or what not comment beyond that? MR. HILTON-I believe we have a technical letter from Rist-Frost which has been read into the record previously, as part of this application. MR. PALING-That's the June 17th letter. MR. HILTON-I have a July 12th, after supplemental information. MR. PALING-July 12th. MR. RUEL-Yes. We don't have that. MR. PALING-Let me see here. I have a June 24th, that's C.T. Male. I have a June 17th, Rist-Frost. MR. HILTON-Yes. had a meeting, letter. I have a June 17th, also, and then after that, we and Rist-Frost responded again, on a July 12th MR. PALING-Does anyone on the Board have that? You better read that in. I don't think anyone has it. We better read that into the record. MR. HILTON-Sure. No problem. It's dated July 12, 1996. It's addressed to Mr. James Martin, Town of Queensbury Office Building. It says "Dear Mr. Martin: We have reviewed the supplemental information received July 9, 1996, C.T. Male letter of June 24, 1996, C.T. Male Drawings Sl and 95-445, and C.T. Male letter dated July 10, 1996 and received July 12, 1996. The concerns enumerated in our letter of June 17, 1996 have been addressed except that a note incorporating the requirements of 'NY Guidelines for Erosion and Sediment Control' has not been added to the drawing." (Lost word) of any concerns, Staff would accept a stipulation that that note be placed on the drawing prior to the issuance of a building permit. MR. PALING-That's it, erosion control? MR. HILTON-Just that it has to be noted that it complies with New York State Guidelines. MR. PALING-Okay. All right. Any comments, questions by the Board at the moment. Is the applicant here? Would you please come forward and identify yourself? MR. LECCE-Hi. I'm Lou Lecce, the applicant in this application. MR. PALING-Okay. Are you familiar with the engineering comments - 17 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/20/96) that were made, and would you update us on any changes or plans YOU have? Do you agree with the Staff comments? MR. LECCE-I think, on the record, I did last time. I think there's a responding letter from C.T. Male that was sent to address those concerns, George. MR. HILTON-The initial concerns that were raised by the public, the letter that I just read of July 12, 1996 was in response to the re- submitted drawings that Mr. Lecce gave to Planning Staff, and these comments reflect the latest drawings. MR. PALING-The only item I think that might have been extra to that is the removing of the deck from the property, and you confirm that that'll be done? MR. LECCE-Yes. I think on record the last hearing I consented to that as well. MR. PALING-Okay. All right, then, if there are no other comments or questions, why don't we open the public hearing. Does anyone here care to comment on this matter? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MARK MCCOLLISTER MR. MCCOLLISTER-We're Mark and Linda McCollister. We own the property immediately to the south of Lecce's. If I could, I'd like to ask questions to begin with. Number One, are we still talking about a structure, in the drawings that were submitted previously? I just want to make sure we know we're talking about the same arrangement? MR. HILTON-We are talking about the same dock. MR. MCCOLLISTER-From C.T. Male Associates drawings that were dated, like, August, well this one says August 16th. I think that's probably an error, and June 24. MR. HILTON-Yes. We're talking about the same drawings. MR. MCCOLLISTER-They're still appropriate. Okay. Good. The other question is, regarding the erosion control, what is the remedy if a problem does occur? We've had two letters saying that there will be no problem, but there's been no detail as to that effect. My only concern is, if a problem does arise, what is the remedy, or how is that take care of? MR. PALING-Well, we have an enforcement control officer, and I think that would fall into his bailiwick. If something goes wrong, or isn't done right, then it would be up to John. MR. HILTON-I think more importantly, at this location in one of our Staff comment letters, we stated that a DEC permit has been issued at this location. The DEC, they have attached conditions to their permit, for erosion control methods. If something is to go wrong here, I think our enforcement staff, if contacted, would refer the matter to DEC, and they would be responsible for any clean up or any monitoring. MR. MCCOLLISTER-We do have a means of coming back and revisiting the issue if it occurs? MR. HILTON-You can certainly contact us. MR. MCCOLLISTER-From a comment standpoint, to reiterate, I think, some previous concerns that we had, although it seems to be - 18 - -../ (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/20/96) improving., Number One, we are still concerned about the overall size of the dock. It is still going to be 47 feet long. It's still going to be twice as wide under the covered portion or between the piers, lets say. The current configuration, I mean, we'll take exception to what the Staff recommended. This is not in character. Almost every other dock in this particular part of our bay is a single slip dock. There's only one other that I'm aware of, nearby. So this is different than what most people have in the neighborhood. MR. PALING-Just to modify one thing you said, if the wood deck is removed, and then the dock itself is only 40 feet. It isn't 47. MR. HILTON-It's 40 feet from the mean low water mark, which is the requirement of the Zoning Ordinance. MR. MCCOLLISTER-But that mean low water mark is approximately seven feet from the beginning of the existing pier. MRS. LABOMBARD-It would still be 47 feet from the shore. MR. PALING-But not from the mean low water mark, which is the way they're measured. All right. Okay. MR. MCCOLLISTER-We still think that's excessive and three boats will easily fit at the dock. His current boats that he owns have been tied up to the dock, fit at the dock. We just don't see the need for the excessive, the additional length. It's going to be two slips under cover, as well as a slip on the outside of each pier. So, again, that's a net addition of one slip to the existing arrangement, at the minimum. MR. RUEL-What's the average length of the dock for neighbors in the area? MR. MCCOLLISTER-I think they run something in the neighborhood of 30 to 35 feet. That would be my guess, and that's not the mean low water. I mean, in the area people commonly start measuring their deck where it starts, which is at the shoreline. MR. RUEL-It meets the Zoning Ordinance, though. MR. MCCOLLISTER-We still object. MR. RUEL-What's the maximum on the Ordinance? MR. HILTON-For length of a dock? MR. RUEL-Yes, 40 feet? MR. HILTON-40 feet from the mean low water mark. MR. RUEL-So this is the maximum? MR. HILTON-Yes. MR. PALING-But it starts, in a way, it depends upon how you look at it. It starts from seven feet from the shoreline, if you look back here, if the mean low water mark is here, and that's the 40 foot measurement. MR. MCCOLLISTER-And our concern with the length relates to the number of boats that are going to actually be at the dock. Up until now there's been basically three rentals. Now there's two rentals and one of his. He stated before that he's going to only have three boats at that dock at any particular time. We would like to see that become a stipulation, if it's approved. - 19 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/20/96) MR. BREWER-That's already in the Ordinance. MR. HILTON-It's in the Ordinance, and if there's a violation, as a concerned citizen, if you do have a concern, you can contact our enforcement staff and we would certainly investigate the violation. LINDA MCCOLLISTER MRS. MCCOLLISTER-Can it become part of this particular application? MR. RUEL-It is. MRS. MCCOLLISTER-It is already? MR. RUEL-Yes. It's in the Ordinance. It's written in the Ordinance, and this application picks up the Ordinance number. It's in there. As a matter of fact, I think it was discussed at the last meeting. MR. MCCOLLISTER-Well, what's in the Ordinance and what actually takes place is sometimes different. MR. PALING-But that's what we have an enforcement officer for, and you're welcome to use that facility. MR. RUEL-We always hope that the applicant will meet the requirements of the Ordinance. MR. MCCOLLISTER-I guess our concern is if that is really going to take place or not. MRS. MCCOLLISTER-I guess over the years we've seen more abuse to these things than somebody abiding by it. MR. PALING-We didn't have a Code Enforcement Office recently, but it seems to be very effective, and you are certainly welcome to use it. John Goralski is his name, and if you do have a problem, a complaint, refer to John. MR. RUEL-But be optimistic. You may not need him at all. MR. MCCOLLISTER-The other concern we had was with regard to the deck, and if the deck is going to be removed, then our objections are dropped there. MR. PALING-Right. That's all been committed to. MR. RUEL-It's one of the conditions. MRS. MCCOLLISTER-Did I hear correctly, will that be removed before any construction can take place on this dock? MR. HILTON-Before a building permit is issued. MR. MCCOLLISTER-I guess that's it. MR. PALING-Okay. Thank you. Is there anyone else who would care to speak on this matter? Please come up. MARY ELLEN MERRIGAN DR. MERRIGAN-My name is Mary Ellen Merrigan, and I live at the end of the road that this is on. My question, first, is about the size. The agenda refers to it as a 40 by 40 foot U-Shaped dock. MR. HILTON-40' by 40' . DR. MERRIGAN-Okay. Do I have the same drawing that you all have? - 20 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/20/96) MR. PALING-I don't know. You can look at this one if you'd like. That isn't the same drawing we have, no. It may be an older one or a different one, but this is the one we're using, if you'd care to look at it. DR. MERRIGAN-Okay. I would like to know how the 40' by 40' is arrived at, because the numbers that I see on this drawing that we're all going by is 35'. It's 24 plus 6 plus 5. Okay. MR. BREWER-I think what they're saying 40' by 40' is each leg of it. MR. HILTON-I think originally that the proposal was for a 40' by 40', and the applicant has since revised the plans to make it the width smaller. MR. PALING-Okay. So the width is 35 feet, as shown on the print. MR. LECCE-From the meeting, the second meeting, on the record I stated that the advertisement shows 40' by 40', but in essence it's 40' by 35' . MR. PALING-Okay. So it is 40' by 35' . DR. MERRIGAN-Since when you vote, these things get written down, I would like you to be really careful. MR. PALING-It is on the print, however. I read it too quick. It is on the print, and we'll have to go by that. MR. BREWER-So we can just say 35' by 40' in the motion. MR. PALING-Right, either way. DR. MERRIGAN-Okay. All right. MR. STARK-It was advertised as 40' by 40'? MRS. LABOMBARD-Yes. MR. HILTON-It application is. opinion. was advertised for something greater than the So I don't think there's an error, in my personal MR. PALING-All right. DR. MERRIGAN-How do you arrive at the square footage? MR. PALING-Multiple length times width, would be 40 times 35. MR. HILTON-It would be the dock surface. MR. PALING-I get about 608. MR. HILTON-I think the official figure we had last time was somewhere in the neighborhood of 661. I think I can reference the letter. MR. PALING-It'll be under 700 square feet. MR. HILTON-661 square feet as noted in the July 19th letter from Jim Martin to the Planning Board. MR. PALING-Okay, 661. DR. MERRIGAN-Okay. Is that using the 35? - 21 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/20/96) DR. MERRIGAN-This seems, in proportion to the house and the property, and the drawing appears to me to be at least (lost words) . MRS. LABOMBARD-You're absolutely right what you're saying. We've gone through it. DR. MERRIGAN-I realize that it's under the number, but I also understood from the last meeting I came to that you folks have the option of having an opinion separate from that number, and of expressing that opinion and making a finding, and I would ask you to really consider helping us protect the character of the neighborhood, and not letting it just become overrun. MRS. LABOMBARD-Ma'am, could I make a little response to what you just said? I know just where you're coming from, except, and you're right, we do have the option of making an opinion. However, when we make our opinion, it's very subjective, and he's got the facts and figures. He is within all legal limits. When I make my opinion, I don't have any numbers or any facts or figures at this point to back my opinion up because it's so subjective, and that's what kind of puts me in a quandary here as far as what's down on here, when George read it. I'm making little notes, and it's positive, positive, positive, positive, positive, positive. There's no negatives. There's not one negative thing that he read, except when YOU talk, what you're saying makes a lot of sense. DR. MERRIGAN-Well, I didn't speak at the last meeting because I had the same feeling that you had. I heard the people at this table say, it's under the limit. It's in compliance, and I didn't bother to speak, because I felt the same way. There are no negatives. It meets all the standards, and then the Board voted, and one of the people who voted no said I'm voting no because I don't like the size, and I felt like, I didn't know you could do that, and he was supported by the legal people over here who said, yes, if you don't like the size, you can vote no. That's why there's a Board, and so I did feel the way you expressed, but when I heard them say that, yes, the Board has that right to not like the size, I would ask you to consider the size and how it does effect the neighborhood, because it appears that there is more than just the number, and that's why there's a Board and you're entitled to not like it, whether it meets the number or not. MRS. LABOMBARD-Just where is your place? DR. MERRIGAN-I'm at the end of the road. MRS. LABOMBARD-All right. You know the big long dock that's right, you know where the little point goes out, as you're standing on Mr. Lecce's dock? MR. STARK~North of the Lecce dock. MRS. LABOMBARD-Just north of the Lecce, there's that big long dock, and there's a little point that curves around. DR. MERRIGAN-Yes. MRS. LABOMBARD-Are you on the point that curves around? DR. MERRIGAN-I'm on the inner part of the bay, the other way. MRS. LABOMBARD-You're on the south end of the road. DR. MERRIGAN-Further in to the corner of the bay, and that's illY feeling. I've survived for 23 years with one dock space. Why does someone need six, and I think it's to rent, and when you rent, you bring in people, and people bring friends, and it turns it into a - 23 - -' (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/20/96) MR. PALING-Yes. MR. HILTON-That's using the surface of the dock. DR. MERRIGAN-Based on the drawing, not on the 40' by 40'? MR. HILTON-Based on the drawing. DR. MERRIGAN-Okay. I really have a very serious concern about the number of boats that will be docked here, and I think when somebody builds something, whether they promise you that it's going to be one or two or three, that you have to look at the potential, because the potential winds up being actualized, whether it's next year or the next owner, even if someone builds something and sincerely promises you that they have no intention of having extra boats there, once you create that size dock, with the potential to hold six boats, that potential will eventually be realized, even if it's after the property changes hands. So my feeling is that Seelye Road is a neighborhood. It's not a marina, and I would ask your help in maintaining the character of the neighborhood, and not turning it into a small marina there, which would have extra cars, extra traffic, extra boats, traffic on the road, traffic in the water, and then I would really like you to consider that, because I have tried to get the person right next to me to stop renting, to stop having six boats, and I have not been successful. We've gone to the Park Commission, and the six boats are still there. MR. MACEWAN-Have you contacted the Code Enforcement Officer in the Town? DR. MERRIGAN-It seemed like the Park Commission investigated it. They came out. They talked to us. They went and looked at it, and then nothing changed. MR. MACEWAN-But have you contacted the Town of Queensbury's Code Enforcement Officer? DR. MERRIGAN-That's what I'm saying. I thought the Park Commission was the route, since they said, yes, here we are. MR. MACEWAN-Not necessarily. I would urge you to contact the Town. DR. MERRIGAN-John Goralski? MR. MACEWAN-Yes. DR. MERRIGAN-Okay. Is it your feeling that something would be done? Because currently those boats are sitting there. MR. MACEWAN-I can tell you that he would definitely pay a visit out there and take a look at the situation and render an opinion. DR. MERRIGAN-Okay. Because there is a difference between what the Ordinance might say and what is actually done in a lot of these cases, and I have concerns, too, about the visual effect of it, why the dock has to be, it looks to me like more than doubled. Do you have the dimensions of the current dock? MR. PALING-I don't have them, no. The dimensions called for are well within the Ordinance. There's no violation of any kind. You're saying the character of the neighborhood, we understand. DR. MERRIGAN-The character of the neighborhood. Exactly. I have a photo of how the dock looks right now, and if I could show it to you. MR. PALING-Okay. We've all visited there. So we've been up there. - 22 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/20/96) small marina, and I've seen it happen. That's all I have to say. I appreciate your listening. MR. PALING-Okay. Thank you. Does anyone else care to talk on this matter? MR. HILTON-I have a few letters. MR. PALING-Okay. Go ahead, George. MR. HILTON-First of all, I have a letter dated August 19, 1996, to the Town of Queensbury Planning Board. It says "Dear Planning Board members: We are writing regarding the Lecce Site Plan No. 26-96, and requesting you deny the site plan. Since lake frontage is decreasing and the current dock space Mr. Lecce possesses seems adequate, a larger dock appears to be desired for purposes of additional moorings for boats. Lake George is already overburdened with too many boats and the resulting offensive traffic, noise, and pollution. Therefore, the desire to turn residential waterfront into commercial usage would be detrimental to the lake and the surrounding neighbors. Regarding the wood deck recently built, we are concerned about the way zoning laws are being enforced at Lake George. Recently, we had to repair our deck because it rotted out. We made no dimensional changes of any kind. We were required to get a building permit and go through two variance hearings, even though we were merely repairing a part of our house. At least six different town officials or representatives inspected our property and deck. We don't understand why we were required to adhere to the 'letter of the law' and Mr. Lecce is allowed to build a deck ,without any permit or variance hearings. Now, he asks for additional dockage and nothing has been done about his breaking the law by building the deck. It seems that some of us are made to follow the zoning laws while others, like Mr. Lecce, just ignore them and still get the courtesy of additional building variance consideration. We can't see the fairness in this kind of law enforcement. Sincerely, Sarah W. Wheeler D. Billings Wheeler, Jr." I have a second letter here dated August 19, 1996, addressed "Dear Members of the Planning Board: This is written in reference to Site Plan No. 26-96 which involves a dock plan proposal of Mr. Lou Lecce. It is our understanding that Mr. Lecce proposes a dock expansion on his waterfront. In a July 19, 1996, memorandum to the Planning Board on this matter, Zoning Administrator Jim Martin points out that the proposed size and layout of the new dock are in compliance with the Town Zoning Ordinance, and we recognize and acknowledge this stipulation. However, the same document points out that the applicant has preceded this application with the unauthorized erection of a wood deck which would be integrated with the proposed new dock configuration. Destructive shoreline clutter and overburden will be the eventual consequence of this 'piecemeal' system of constructing waterfront facilities. This proposal should be evaluated and examined within the totality of all the eventual shoreline construction, both that which has occurred without authorization and that which is now proposed. In this context, the overall impact of the expanded dock and deck complex would be significant and substantial with respect to shoreline density, intrusiveness upon those whose properties lie proximate, lakefront ecology, and, potentially, marine traffic. Therefore, we urge a comprehensive review of this matter which includes all facets of the reconfigured waterfront structures, even if the now-completed and unauthorized deck construction was done inadvertently. Such review should include consideration of the overall impact upon neighboring properties and appropriate measures to define and limit the extent of marine use which the dock may accommodate. Thank you for your consideration and attention with respect to these concerns. Sincerely, Judy S. Wetherbee William B. Wetherbee" MR. PALING-Now the Wetherbee's in the first letter, they live at the lake also, nearby. They're neighbors? - 24 - ---' (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/20/96) MR. HILTON-Well, they live on the lake. They're not within 500 feet. I think they're up on Cleverdale, closer to the Mooring Post Marina, but they have concerns. I have a letter dated August 19, 1996, from Kathleen M. Tarrant. It says, "Regarding the application for Lecce 26-96 for expansion, please be advised that we are opposed to any changes which will permit additional boats to be docked or rented at said location. This area of Lake George is already over crowded and literally lined with docks and boats. When will the governing boards for the Town of Queensbury say 'Enough', and enforce the existing laws rather than allow variance after variance after variance. We are also very concerned with a deck that was built on this property without the proper review and authority, and is in direct violation of the codes. It is also an 'eyesore', and the type of construction that is meant to be prohibited with proper enforcement of the regulations. After years of attempting to control development in this bay, only to have this type of activity approved by the board is not only personally frustrating, but results in dire consequences for the long-term quality of the lake. Sincerely, Kathleen and John Tarrant" That's all we have for public comment. MR. PALING-Okay. Again, I'll ask if there's anyone else who would care to talk on this matter. JIM MERRIGAN DR. J. MERRIGAN-My name is Jim Merrigan. I live at the end of Seelye Road. Mary Ellen is my wife. I came in a little bit late today. I spoke to you last time. Basically, I share the concerns of my neighbors about traffic, safety, the size of the project, feeling that it doesn't need to be that large, and the fact that Warner Bay is beginning to look like Warner parking lot, and I think that we've been on the lake since 1973, and there's probably been 100% increase in the number of boats. I think it happens in small ways like this, and I think that we need to take some action to prohibit that and protect the lake. Thank you. MR. PALING-Thank you. ROSE GUERRA MRS. GUERRA-I'm Rose Guerra. I also live on the road, Seelye Road, and I'd just like to make my comment noted that I agree with my neighbors regarding this dock. Seelye Road is a very narrow, narrow road. There is increased traffic. People do not follow the speed limit. If you're only up there for a day, or a week, you're not really too interested in what's going on. I don't see any need for the dock to be this big. That's all I have to say. Thank you. MR. PALING-Thank you. MRS. ROBERT MIDDLETON MRS. MIDDLETON-I'm Mrs. Robert Middleton. I live on Seelye Road. I'm a few doors away from the Lecce property. I'm concerned with the added traffic that this would involve, not only in boat traffic but also on the road. As Mrs. Guerra stated, the property around this particular site is very crowded now. We have many new families with many, many children, and we get a lot of rental people now. So it's hard to understand why you would want to put more boats into this Bay, and more cars. That's all. Thank you. MR. PALING-Okay. Thank you. Is there anyone else who would care to talk on this matter? MR. LECCE-Just to reference the comments made about additional boating, boats, I'll go on record again. The intent of this dock is not to have additional boats be moored or docked or stay at the - 25 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/20/96) property. I went on record from Day One that this boathouse is being used for my own personal use, and it's not going to increase any more traffic on the road than currently exists. The comment made that there already exists enough traffic. Just because I bought my house two years ago, does that mean I'm not allowed to increase any traffic, or to drive to my house or have people visit? The intent of this boathouse is not to rent. I've gone on record with that from Day One, since the June meeting. So I just want that to be on record again, that that is my intent not to rent slips to anybody at the site, and as far as the environment itself, other boathouses, directly across the Bay from me I think there's a double boathouse, covered. Next door to that is another double wide boathouse. Tarrant, who stressed the concern, that's the boathouse where you come around the Bay and you go back out to the Point, it's that big dock structure that sticks way out into the lake. I believe every dock up and down the shore exceeds mine by at least 10 or 15 feet into the water, because I'm located within a little cove area. So I think the dock itself would be consistent with the length as the other docks that currently exist on the lake. So I don't think that adversely impacts the nature of the environment or area of the other docks that are on the lake. MR. PALING-Okay. Anyone else? Okay. If not, then we'll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. PALING-All right. So that is the official public hearing now is open and it is closed, and this is Type II. So we don't need a -SEQRA. MR. STARK-George, if this dock is to start seven feet out from the shoreline, okay, at the mean low water mark, how do you get from the shore to the dock then, where it starts, or is the dock starting on the shoreline, and then if it does start at the shoreline and go out 47 feet, is that first seven feet added into the square footage that you calculated? MR. HILTON-The first seven feet is counted in to the square footage that was measured. As far as reaching the dock from land, the dock would come up to the shore. They would step off the property onto the dock, off the land onto the dock. MR. PALING-It's going to start 'at the mean low water mark. MR. HILTON-The physical construction of the dock will start where the land meets the water, but the length as defined in the Zoning Ordinance is 40 feet from the mean low water mark. So if the mean low water mark were two feet off the shoreline, he or she, any applicant, would have that extra two feet of length, in addition to the 40 from the mean low water mark. MR. SCHACHNER-If it was 15, it would be 15. MR. STARK-So you figured the length of the dock at 47 feet. MR. HILTON-We figured the length, for square footage purposes, yes, but as far as length, we were referencing the Zoning Ordinance which says 40 feet from the mean low water mark. MR. MACEWAN-Educate me on the mean low water mark. Is that something that's established by the Army Corps of Engineers, that all along the shoreline is seven feet off, or is it, I guess what I'm asking, could it be less or more depending on the areas of the lake? MR. HILTON-It's an elevation. I think it's a base elevation. I'm not sure if it's Lake George Park Commission, APA or the State that - 26 - ---- (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/20/96) sets the level. MR. SCHACHNER-It's not APA. MR. MACEWAN-It's the Army Corps of Engineers. MR. SCHACHNER-I'm not sure who it is. MR. MACEWAN-My question is, could it be different? fluctuate as you go around the shore of the lake? Does it MR. HILTON-I would think it would. MR. BREWER-Yes, because it's an elevation. MRS. LABOMBARD-It has to do with sea level. MR. BREWER-Right. It's an elevation. MR. PALING-I guess I'm just thick tonight, or every night. This dock is going to start at the mean low water mark? MR. BREWER-No, only for the purpose of measuring the length of, it, Bob. The length of the dock, the measurement. MR. PALING-Cannot go beyond where I'm looking at on this print. MR. HILTON-Cannot go beyond, the length of the dock cannot go beyond 40 feet from the mean. MR. PALING-Well, it can't start closer to the shoreline unless they narrow it and push it in that little inlet. It's too wide. MR. BREWER-No, Bob. Imagine this as an imaginary line in the water. You measure it from this point, 40 feet for purposes of the length. MR. PALING-All right, and that's the outer limit. MR. BREWER-That's the limit. MR. HILTON-But the mean low water mark could be five feet off the shore, it could be ten. It varies. MR. PALING-You're saying the mean low water mark is going vary. All right, but the original question to you was, how do you get on the dock? MR. HILTON-You get on the dock from walking off the property onto the dock. MR. PALING-There is no deck. MR. HILTON-There is a deck now. will remove it. The applicant has said that he MR. PALING-There will be no deck. So the answer to the question is, you'll walk from the sand onto the dock. MR. HILTON-Right. onto the dock. From the property, from the physical property MR. PALING-And if that happens to be five feet out, then it's going to be five added to the seven that's there now on that little inlet. MR. BREWER-Right. - 27 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/20/96) MR. PALING-Yes. MR. MACEWAN-I don't think it met the requirements of the zoning code 179-38 B & D. MR. PALING-Tell us what those are, please. MR. MACEWAN-It's self sufficient. It's right in there. Read it. MR. PALING-Well, wait a minute, so everybody can understand. MR. MACEWAN-Number One, I don't think it was in harmony with the intent of the Chapter. I think it would have an adverse effect on both the scenic and the aesthetic qualities of the area. MR. STARK-I concur. MRS. LABOMBARD-Ditto. MR. BREWER-I agree with that also, but just to it, I don't think just because the numbers meet the Ordinance, we don't have a right to make a change and lessen the effect, and I think that's what we're doing here. I think we had the right to do that, it's in the Ordinance to do it. I think that's our right, and that's my opinion. MR. PALING-We have the right. There's no question about it on the character of the neighborhood basis, there is the right. MR. BREWER-I mean the whole Article V, that's what the whole, t,he site plan is all about, and I see areas in that Article V that this doesn't meet, and that's how I base my vote. MR. MACEWAN-I think it should be added, too, that the Board, and I'm not speaking for everyone, might be more receptive to an alternative plan. MRS. LABOMBARD-Yes. That's true. MR. PALING-So it has been turned down. MR. SCHACHNER-Technically, it has not been turned down. Technically all that has happened is that a motion to approve has not been carried. So if the Board intends to dispose of this matter tonight one way or the other, then my recommendation is that there be a motion for denial, and that that motion state the grounds, within the motion, so that the record is clear as to what the grounds for denial would be, if you intend to dispose of this matter tonight. Obviously, you're not obligated to do that. MR. BREWER-I feel in my opinion, I don't know how everybody else feels, but if the applicant wishes to bring back an alternative plan, I'm open to that idea. MRS. LABOMBARD-I am, too. MR. BREWER-Rather than deny it and make him go through the whole application process. MRS. LABOMBARD-I feel the same way, yes. MR. PALING-Well, could we table it under those conditions? MR. BREWER-No, I mean, that's totally up to the applicant. MR. SCHACHNER-Well, you can't force the applicant to come back with a revised plan. You can table this if you like, because you're not obligated to make any decision for another 62 days. So you don't have to decide this application tonight. That's why I prefaced my - 30 - '- ...- (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/20/96) Duly adopted this 20th day of August, 1996, by the following vote: MR. PALING-You might say, because it has been discussed, you might say, and that there will be no rentals considered. I know it's part of the Ordinance, but. MR. RUEL-I don't think that should be added, because you might as well repeat everything in the Ordinance. MR. PALING-Sometimes it's good to send a message. MR. RUEL-Well then you add it. MR. PALING-It's your motion. If you don't want it, forget it. MR. RUEL-Right. It's my motion. I don't want it. MR. PALING-Okay. So be it. Do we have a second? MR. MACEWAN-I guess not. MR. PALING-Okay. There is no second. All right. Then that becomes, at this moment, an item of no action. We can make, a-new motion can be entertained. MR. HILTON-Yes. MR. PALING-Does anyone care to make a new motion? MR. BREWER-Does this fall under the default? MR. SCHACHNER-Site plan? No. MR. RUEL-Could you ask why there's no second on it, if anybody wants to volunteer. MR. PALING-Yes. We can poll, we'll poll the Board, because when we do something like that, we should be able to acknowledge why. MR. RUEL-If we have noes, I'd like to know why. MR. MACEWAN-No one voted no. MRS. LABOMBARD-We haven't voted no. MR. PALING-Well, there was no second. MR. MACEWAN-There's a big difference between not giving a motion and voting no. MRS. LABOMBARD-We just don't want to pass that motion. MR. PALING-All right. I'll tell you what. Make your motion again. MR. BREWER-Why? The motion still stands. MR. RUEL-Yes, it stands. MR. PALING-All right. The motion stands. I'll second it. AYES: Mr. Ruel, Mr. Paling NOES: Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Stark, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Brewer MR. PALING-All right. Now, may we poll the Board? Because now it's been voted down. MR. MACEWAN-You're asking me why I voted no? - 29 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/20/96) MR. PALING-Yes. MR. MACEWAN-I don't think it met the requirements of the zoning code 179-38 B & D. MR. PALING-Tell us what those are, please. MR. MACEWAN-It's self sufficient. It's right in there. Read it. MR. PALING-Well, wait a minute, so everybody can understand. MR. MACEWAN-Number One, I don't think it was in harmony with the intent of the Chapter. I think it would have an adverse effect on both the scenic and the aesthetic qualities of the area. MR. STARK-I concur. MRS. LABOMBARD-Ditto. MR. BREWER-I agree with that also, but just to it, I don't think just because the numbers meet the Ordinance, we don't have a right to make a change and lessen the effect, and I think that's what we're doing here. I think we had the right to do that, it's in the Ordinance to do it. I think that's our right, and that's my opinion. MR. PALING-We have the right. There's no question about it on the character of the neighborhood basis, there is the right. MR. BREWER-I mean the whole Article V, that's what the whole, the site plan is all about, and I see areas in that Article V that this doesn't meet, and that's how I base my vote. MR. MACEWAN-I think it should be added, too, that the Board, and I'm not speaking for everyone, might be more recepti ve to an alternative plan. MRS. LABOMBARD-Yes. That's true. MR. PALING-So it has been turned down. MR. SCHACHNER-Technically, it has not been turned down. Technically all that has happened is that a motion to approve has not been carried. So if the Board intends to dispose of this matter tonight one way or the other, then my recommendation is that there be a motion for denial, and that that motion state the grounds, within the motion, so that the record is clear as to what the grounds for denial would be, if you intend to dispose of this matter tonight. Obviously, you're not obligated to do that. MR. BREWER-I feel in my opinion, I don't know how everybody else feels, but if the applicant wishes to bring back an alternative plan, I'm open to that idea. MRS. LABOMBARD-I am, too. MR. BREWER-Rather than deny it and make him go through the whole application process. MRS. LABOMBARD- I feel the same way, yes. MR. PALING-Well, could we table it under those conditions? MR. BREWER-No, I mean, that's totally up to the applicant. MR. SCHACHNER-Well, you can't force the applicant to come back with a revised plan. You can table this if you like, because you're not obligated to make any decision for another 62 days. So you don't have to decide this application tonight. That's why I prefaced my - 30 - -- (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/20/96) remarks earlier by saying if you wish to decide this application or dispose of this application tonight. You can't force the applicant to come back with an alternative plan, but if you want, you can make a motion, you could certainly ask the applicant. That's perfectly appropriate. MR. PALING-Well, it appears that the objection to the dock is the size, and the length to which it goes out. Could you kind of come back up and comment as to what you would like to do from here. MR. LECCE-Let me address the Board. What size would be acceptable? MR. PALING-That's a good question. MR. LECCE-We've gone through this process since June, and I've asked input from the Board since June and I've got new input. MRS. LABOMBARD-Well, I could probably start you off on that. First of all, 47 feet out from the shoreline, right away, even though it's within compliance, it's still awfully long. So maybe, considering the seven feet, up to the mean low water mark, maybe then you should just, you should have the dock seven feet shorter. MR. LECCE-Okay. Would the Board propose removing the dock from the application? And proceeding with the sandy beach and the retaining wall? MRS. LABOMBARD-That was something I was thinking about earlier. I, personally, feel that what you've done on the other side with the beach is fine, and all the questions that we had that first night you've answered and addressed and I don't think there's going to be any problem over there. MR. BREWER-Can we do that, Mark? MRS. LABOMBARD-I think the main thing is the dock, at this point. MR. PALING-We have two beaches. Lets clarify which beach we're talking about, the sandy beach which was going to be there anyway, or the one created by the removal of the wooden deck? MR. LECCE-There's no beach under the wooden deck. MRS. LABOMBARD-There's no beach under there. MR. BREWER-No. That's on land. MR. PALING-Then the sandy beach would stay, as it is on the plan. MR. LECCE-Correct. MR. PALING-Okay. MR. SCHACHNER-Well, Tim's asking if you can do that, and I'm not wild about partial decisions. I mean, there's an application pending before the Board, and it seems to me that if the Board should dispose of that application, I don't mean toniqht necessarily, but I'm a little troubled at the notion of a partial decision, deciding on only part of an application and not the entire application. I don't think that makes for a very neat and clean administrative record. MR. BREWER-How about we table until next week, come back with just a different drawing with the elimination of the dock on there? MR. SCHACHNER-Well, the applicant can certainly modify the - 31 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/20/96) application, or withdraw parts of the application. I mean, the applicant has some control over that situation, certainly. MR. PALING-Well, we'll have to re-open the public hearing, I would assume. MRS. LABOMBARD-Couldn't you make a motion where you would use as a stipulation the fact that the dock hasn't met our approval but the rest of the plan has? And so you could go on with the rest of the plan as far as the beach goes, and you could use a stipulation in the motion, and the dock part would be the stipulation? MR. SCHACHNER-If you mean that that's the decision on this application, if the decision on this application is the beach, and what is the other part, not the dock, but whatever the other part is. MR. LECCE-The retaining wall. MRS. LABOMBARD-The retaining wall. MR. SCHACHNER-The beach and the retaining wall was approved, and the dock is denied. If that's your decision, yes, you can dispose of this application by making that decision. That means that application number whatever, 26-96, has been decided, and that means that if the applicant wants this Board to consider another application for the dock, he has to submit a new application and be put on an agenda, have a new public hearing, and go through the process. MR. LECCE-I have no problem with that. MR. PALING-All right. Then if you don't, then lets do it, because it'll include a public hearing, and everyone that is involved will have an opportunity to come back and talk again. MR. LECCE-I think I misunderstood. I thought Mark said that you could still make a vote today, removing the dock, denying the dock but approving the beach and the retaining wall this evening. MR. SCHACHNER-That's precisely what I said. MR. PALING-Yes. Right. We can rescind the previous. MR. SCHACHNER-No, you don't have to rescind anything. All that happened under the previous motion was there was a motion to approve, and that motion did not pass, because only two people voted in favor of it. MR. HILTON-If I may, when we say removing the dock, where does the boathouse sit in all this? MR. LECCE-Well, I think the dock and boathouse is part of that one issue. MR. HILTON-Okay. So you're going to remove the boathouse, also, out of this application? MR. LECCE-Exactly. MR. HILTON-Okay. MR. SCHACHNER-Well, wait. That's not mY understanding. My understanding is the application remains as it is. What is being discussed, without binding the Board to its decision, but what's being discussed is that the application/decision will be approving certain parts of the application and denying other parts of the application. That's my understanding of what's being proposed, not - 32 - '- (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/20/96) altering the application. MR. LECCE-Correct. That's my understanding. MR. SCHACHNER-That appears to be the applicant's understanding, but more importantly, we need to make sure that the Board is all comfortable with this. MR. PALING-Yes. effect. All right. We'll entertain a motion to that MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 26-96 LOU & CHRISTINE LECCE, Introduced by Catherine LaBombard who moved for its adoption, seconded by Craig MacEwan: To have the application remain as it is, but only to approve in this motion the sandy beach and the retaining wall, but deny the boathouse/dock. Duly adopted this 20th day of August, 1996, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. MacEwan, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Paling NOES: Mr. Stark, Mr. Ruel ABSENT: Mr. West MR. BREWER-So he's got the beach and the wall. MR. PALING-The beach and the wall, and then you'll come back with a modified. MR. SCHACHNER-Well, he may. That's up to the applicant, and I don't think it's appropriate for this Board to try to force the applicant to come back with an application or not. He certainly can avail himself of that opportunity. MR. PALING-Okay. NEW BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 52-96 TYPE II STACIE A. HOPKINS OWNER; SAME ZONE: SR-1A LOCATION: LEFT ON QUAKER ROAD, LEFT ON RIDGE ROAD, 4 1/2 MI., 1ST LIGHT, RIGHT ON SUNNYSIDE EAST, .6 MI. RIGHT ON DRIVEWAY JUST BEFORE CREEK OVERPASS. APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO CONSTRUCT A 1,066 SQ. FT. GARAGE AND 1,066 SQ. FT. LIVING SPACE ABOVE (DUPLEX). WARREN CO. PLANNING: 8/21/96 TAX MAP NO. 54-1-36 LOT SIZE: 4.001 ACRES SECTION: 179-19 PETER O'CONNELL, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, 52-96, Stacie A. Hopkins, Meeting Date: August 20, 1996 "The applicant is proposing to construct 1066 sq. ft. of new living space and a 1066 sq. ft. garage on a four acre piece of property located on Ridge Rd. The additional living space would be a separate dwelling than what already exists at this location. The present zoning of the property, SR-1A, allows for a duplex to be constructed after site plan approval by the Planning Board. Staff has reviewed this application in accordance with the approval requirements listed in Section 179-38 and has the following comments. The proposed addition would consist of a first floor garage/storage area and a second floor of new living space. The addition will be accessed by a gravel driveway to be built off of an existing stone drive. Permeability and setback requirements for the SR-IA zoning district will be met at this location. Staff foresees no adverse environmental impacts associated with this - 33 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/20/96) request. The additional building area and small reduction in site permeability could result in some minor stormwater management concerns. As a result, staff would recommend that some method of stormwater retention such as gutters or eave trenches be shown on any plans submitted for a building permit. The amount of garage area proposed is 1066 sq. ft. The Zoning Ordinance limits the area of a garage to 900 sq. ft. The applicant has submitted plans to staff that show a wall to be constructed on the first floor to separate the garage area from a proposed storage area. The new amount of garage square footage will be 768 sq. ft. Staff has reviewed the revised plans and finds them in compliance with the Zoning Ordinance. Staff recommends approval of Site Plan No. 52-96 with the stipulation that some method of stormwater management be incorporated into any plans to be submitted for a building permit for the proposed duplex." MR. HILTON-As an additional note, this application requires no Warren County approval. MR. 0' CONNELL- I got a letter to go tomorrow night because I'm within 500 feet of the County Road. My name is Peter O'Connell. I'm here for Stacie A. Hopkins, my wife. MR. PALING-Okay. MR. HILTON-If the applicant does have to go to Warren County tomorrow, we would just offer a stipulation that proof of Warren County decision be presented at the time of building permit. MR. PALING-What's the indecision, in regard to the County thing? What's the indecision there? MR. SCHACHNER- I'm not sure why it hasn't been reviewed. Typically, the County Planning Board meets on the second Wednesday, and I'm not sure if something changed for this month. It seems to me the second Wednesday has to have passed already. MR. PALING-Okay. Well, they just didn't get to reviewing that. MR. HILTON-Well, no, I can explain that. MR. SCHACHNER-And that's one of the reasons that this Board meets not until the third and fourth Tuesdays. We can't proceed, if something's been referred to the County, unless more than 30 days have elapsed since that referral, we can't make a decision on an application unless it's already been reviewed by the County Planning Board. MR. HILTON-As far as Staff goes, we have a particularly odd month where the County, I guess their vacation, the members of the County Planning Board have their vacation earlier in the month, and had to postpone their meeting date until tomorrow, and Staff and Zoning Administrator call on this one was to require applicants that needed County approval to present that at the time of building permit. MR. PALING-All right. Well, it could be approved pending County approval. MR. SCHACHNER-Not lawfully it can't be. MR. PALING-Well, what do we do then? MR. BREWER-So what do we do about previous applicants? MR. SCHACHNER-There weren't any, that I'm aware of. MR. BREWER-Okay. - 34 - '- (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/20/96) MR. PALING-Well, can we go ahead or what? MR. SCHACHNER-You can go ahead and review your application. You can conduct your public hearing, you can do whatever you want, but it's not legal to make your decision prior to receiving the recommendation from the County Planning Board. MR. PALING-Well, then we'd table it. MR. SCHACHNER-Sure, that's fine, or just don't make a decision tonight. MR. PALING-All right. Then we'll proceed with this. George, do you have any other information or letters or anything? MR. HILTON-No, no other public input. The only additional comment I would have is if we are going to table this, until the County votes on it, we would open the public hearing, leave it open, and specify that we could hear it next week. MR. PALING-Yes. Okay. We're going to go through with all our regular discussions, and then open a public hearing. MR. RUEL-Why don't you just table it? MR. PALING-Well, you can't when you advertise. You've got the public here. You've got to give them the chance, if they want to speak, to speak. MR. BREWER-Yes, I agree. MR. PALING-Okay. Is the height of this building 31 feet? MR. O'CONNELL-In height? Correct. MR. PALING-Okay. MR. RUEL-Is that from the finished grade? MR. O'CONNELL-Yes, it is. MR. PALING-And you noticed the, what is your comment about the stormwater management? MR. O'CONNELL-Well, the fill I have on my property is very sandy and very perky. I don't seem to have a problem with that right now. I have gutters on my house right now, which is also the same size that the addition is going to be. I have no problems with putting gutters, actually I plan on putting gutters on the new addition, but with rain runoff, I don't see a problem. What I'm going to do is eventually I'm going to blacktop my whole driveway, in addition to where I'll be putting the new addition. It will all be blacktop area, and it's going to pitch down, you know, with a grade going down toward where this storm drains, and I have a big creek in my back yard. MR. PALING-George, are you with us on this? MR. HILTON-Yes, I'm listening. MR. O'CONNELL-A big portion of my property is wetlands right now. MR. RUEL-Just a question for the applicant. Mr. O'Connell, your plan doesn't show it, but you had mentioned somewhere about a future attic, and I don't see any access to it. MR. HILTON-The access will be through the garage or through the main structure, the home right now. - 35 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/20/96) MR. RUEL-It can't be through the garage. MR. HILTON-Well, you can walk in, and if you look on the floor plan that I just handed you, there's an entry way from the garage area into the existing home. MR. RUEL-Yes, but I'm talking about the attic. You can't get there from the garage. MR. HILTON-Okay. I thought we were discussing second floor space. MR. O'CONNELL-I had put down, yes, for future attic, in case I ever wanted to cut in a stairwell there. I would put that basically in the living room area. MR. RUEL-Yes, well, if you could add that to the plan. You'll have a chance now. Just put in future. MR. O'CONNELL-Draw in like a future pull down staircase? MR. RUEL-Yes. MR. O'CONNELL-That's no problem. MR. RUEL-Okay, and I have a question for Staff. bedroom. He's adding a MR. HILTON-Yes. MR. RUEL-This would alter the septic requirements, wouldn't it? MR. HILTON-The septic requirements would, there'd be some concern over that. The ultimate review on that would be our Building and Codes Department. Preliminary review indicates that the septic will be able to handle the increased load at present time. MR. RUEL-It was reviewed? MR. HILTON-Yes. MR. RUEL-I see. So there's no problem there? MR. HILTON-No. MR. PALING-You say that's a yes, that it is okay? MR. HILTON-It's okay. There is no problem. MR. PALING-All right, and are you satisfied with the guttering that has been discussed? MR. HILTON-Yes. That's fine, as long as what's there is extended. MR. RUEL-will that be shown on the plan? MR. O'CONNELL-If you'd like me to draw it in, yes, I will. If not, maybe I can just kind of draw it in and just write it down, also. MR. RUEL-Yes. MR. PALING-Well, what Staff is saying, it would have to be on any plans submitted for building permit. MR. HILTON-Yes. MR. O'CONNELL-Okay. Now how do I have to go about this? Do I have - 36 - - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/20/96) to get a stamp by an engineer prior to getting a permit? MR. HILTON-No. I believe you can just submit these plans that you have. MR. PALING-We don't require an engineering stamp. MR. RUEL-This is a mother-in-law apartment? MR. O'CONNELL-It's my mother-in-law, yes. MR. RUEL-But you're getting a big benefit out of a two car garage. MR. O'CONNELL-Yes, I am. I've got to do something. She's got MS so she can't walk. MR. RUEL-Did you have a garage originally? MR. O'CONNELL-No. I have a shed on the property. I only moved up about three months ago. So, I'm pretty happy about getting a garage. MR. RUEL-Yes. Is there a driveway? MR. O'CONNELL-Yes. My driveway is about 150 feet long by about 9 feet wide, and I'm also doing some excavating, which I got a permit from the DEC, because I'm within the 100 foot buffer. MR. RUEL-Okay. Thank you. MR. PALING-All right. Lets go to the public hearing on this. Is there anyone here that cares to speak on this matter? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. PALING-Okay. The public hearing will remain open. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 52-96 STACIE A. HOPKINS, Introduced by Roger Ruel who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Stark: Until such time as the Warren County Planning Board input. Duly adopted this 20th day of August, 1996, by the following vote: MR. HILTON-Yes. You can certainly do that, but I want, if anyone comes in and reads the minutes, and wants to know when this item is going to be heard next, they can just look at prepared minutes and say, yes, until which time that Warren County has comments prepared, but the intent is to hear it a week from today. MR. O'CONNELL-Am I under the impression here that I'm supposed to see the County prior to coming here? MR. HILTON-Yes. MR. RUEL-Get Warren County Planning Board input. MR. PALING-You may have tried that, but they weren't available. MR. O'CONNELL-No. I wasn't aware of it, because I've been working on this for a couple of months, and naturally I would have taken that step. MR. PALING-Well, they weren' t available anyway. So we're tabling it until they're available and you can get to them. before we proceed, we have to have your consent to table it. just Now - 37 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/20/96) MR. SCHACHNER-Bob, I don't know how to phrase this without capital letters and underscoring it. YOU DON'T NEED THE APPLICANT'S CONSENT TO TABLE IT. In no situation do you need the applicant's consent to table it. The only one I could think of would be a subdivision, if 62 days were about to run out after the public hearing, and you've never had that situation. ,MR. PALING-Okay. Well, we've done it that way time and time again, Mark. MR. SCHACHNER-And I've said, and I don't mean to be stubborn about this, but I've said time and time again, we don't need the applicant's consent. Getting the applicant's consent is fine, but I get concerned whenever you say we need to have the applicant's consent. MR. PALING-All right. AYES: Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Stark, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ruel, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. West MR. PALING-Hopefully we'll see you next week. MR. O'CONNELL-Is that what the word tabling means, to put me off until next week? MR. PALING-Yes. MR. HILTON-Peter, if you want to call me tomorrow, just call me. MR. O'CONNELL-Okay, good, and I'll let you know how I made out. Thank you. MRS. LABOMBARD-You're welcome. MR. PALING-Okay. SITE PLAN NO. 47-96 TYPE: ROBERT ORBAN OWNER: SAME ZONE: SFR-10 LOCATION: 132 DIXON ROAD RENOVATION OF EXISTING SPACE FOR PROFESSIONAL OCCUPANCY. SITE PLAN REVIEW IS REQUIRED AS A CONDITION OF USE VARIANCE NO. 9-1995 APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: UV 9-1995, SP 13-95 TAX MAP NO. 101-1-14, 15 LOT SIZE: 20,550 SQ. FT. SECTION: 179-20 ROBERT ORBAN, PRESENT MR. RUEL-I have a question for Staff. George, on this application here, 47-96, isn't it overkill to have Planning Board involved in moving walls around for interior renovation? It's kind of heavy, isn't it? MR. HILTON-It would seem that way, but under the current zoning of this property and the Use Variance, any additional occupancy of this structure requires a site plan review. This use is normally a use that requires a site plan review. So even though we're moving walls around, there's an additional business that's coming into this location. It has to be reviewed as a site plan. MR. PALING-Okay. I have the same questions, but I think we ought to just put our questions aside and proceed and get the job done. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 47-96, Meeting Date: August 20, 1996 "The applicant is proposing renovation of existing space for - 38 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/20/96) professional occupancy. Under Use Variance 9-1995, which was approved by the ZBA on March 22, 1995, the applicant is limited to no more than two principal occupants at this location. The applicant should be aware that the use of this office space is limited to those listed in the Use Variance resolution. No exterior modifications or expansions are proposed at this location. Staff foresees no negative impacts associated with the operation of a use as outlined in the resolution for Use Variance 9-1995. Staff recommends approval of Site Plan No. 47-96. One point of clarification: The SEQR designation for this project is Type II, no further action required." MR. PALING-Okay. Would you identify yourselves please. DR. ORBAN-My name is Dr. Robert Orban. I'm the owner of the property at 123 Dixon Road. This is Dr. Paul Shultze. He is the potential occupant of the proposed space that will be renovated. MR. PALING-Okay. Do you have any comments or difference with the Staff Notes that were just read? DR. ORBAN-I have none. MR. PALING-No? Okay. Any questions or comments? MR. RUEL-I've got a question for George. What was that statement you made about the Building Inspector should check what? MR. HILTON-On this application? MR. RUEL-Yes. MR. HILTON-I don't believe I said anything. MR. RUEL-You wanted them to check the Use Variance? MR. HILTON-No. I'm saying that the applicant is limited to the uses that were outlined in the initial Use Variance. MR. RUEL-Yes. MR. HILTON-No. Did you want somebody to check that, did you say? It's just a matter of clarification. MR. PALING-It's passed by the ZBA. That's what they're limited to. MR. HILTON-And the applicant, I assume, is going to state what type of use is going in there tonight. MR. RUEL-All right. Okay.- I'm sorry. I thought it was a condition. MR. PALING-All right. Lets go to the public hearing on this matter. Does anyone here care to talk on this matter? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED JOYCE WILSON MRS. WILSON-I'm Joyce Wilson from 2 Hughes Court. I live across the street from this gentleman's business, and it's a pleasantly addition to the neighborhood. I'm very pleased with it. So I'm for anything that goes in there. MR. PALING-Very good. Thank you very much. MRS. WILSON-You're quite welcome. MR. PALING-Is there anyone else? - 39 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/20/96) PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. PALING-This does not require a SEQRA or anything. MR. RUEL-I don't know. It just says, Type:, nothing. MR. PALING-Go right to a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 47-96 ROBERT ORBAN, Introduced by Roger Ruel who moved for its adoption, seconded by Catherine LaBombard: To renovate existing space for professional occupancy. Duly adopted this 20th day of August, 1996, by the following vote: MR. BREWER-Yes, with the proviso that I would like to commend you on the job you've done with the building. DR. ORBAN-Thank you. MR. STARK-Yes, and I'd like to add Mr. Brewer's comment. DR. ORBAN-Thank you. AYES: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ruel, Mr. Brewer, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Stark, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Ruel MR. HILTON-Just one last Staff comment, it's minor, on application. There was a condition of Use Variance 9-1995 site plan would be required for any use at this location. that's why they're here. this that So MR. RUEL-Limited to whatever that indicates. MR. HILTON-Limited to. MR. PALING-Okay. DR. ORBAN-Thank you. MR. PALING-Thank you. SITE PLAN NO. 53-96 TYPE: UNLISTED BMI SUPPLY OWNER: ADIRONDACK INDUSTRIAL PARK ZONE: LI-1A LOCATION: WEST SIDE OF QUEENSBURY (COUNTY LINE ROAD) SOUTH OF HICKS ROAD - SITE IS FIRST VACANT LOT NORTH OF EXISTING MASONRY WAREHOUSE OWNED BY ADIRONDACK INDUSTRIAL PARK. PROPOSAL IS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF 6,000 SQ. FT. OFFICE/WAREHOUSE AND ASSOCIATED SITE WORK. BEAUTIFICATION COMM.: 8/12/96 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 8/21/96 TAX MAP NO. 55-2-19.5 LOT SIZE: 1.603 ACRES SECTION: 179-26 TOM NACE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 53-96, BMI Supply, Meeting Date: August 20, 1996 "This application is for a 6000 sq. ft. warehouse/office building to be built on a 1.6 acre lot zoned LI- lA. Staff has reviewed this site plan in accordance with Section 179-38 and has the following comments. Parking, permeability, setbacks and landscaping all conform to Zoning Ordinance requirements. Comments from the Washington County Wastewater and Town of Queensbury Water officials must be addressed prior to the issuance of a building permit at this location. Signs at this - 40 - - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/20/96) location are not being approved as a part of this application. A separate sign permit must be applied for prior to installation of signage at this location. The proposed access to this lot does not contain an ingress/egress island as required by Section 179-66B,4. The access to this lot as indicated on Subdivision 8-1990 is off of a proposed new road tentatively named "Marcy Drive". As a part of this site plan the applicant is proposing a curb cut off of Queensbury Avenue which was previously not identified at the time of subdivision. Staff recommends that the applicant's access to this lot be redesigned through the area shown as future entrance drive to the area outside the lot shown as a future roadway. Redirecting access to the area that was originally proposed at the time of subdivision would reduce potential conflicts that could exist with two curb cuts located so close to each other. The development of future lots within this subdivision will require complete construction of "Marcy Drive" throughout this subdivision. Comments from the Town Engineering Consultant should be addressed prior to any Planning Board action on this application." MR. HILTON-I have a comment letter from Rist-Frost. Lets see here if I can pick out some of the comments. I guess I'll just go ahead and read them all here. It says "We have reviewed the site plan submitted on August 7th for a facility to be located in a previously approved subdivision, Subdivision No 8-1990. This is Lot Five of that approved subdivision. The submitted plan appears to meet all requirements of the Queensbury Town Code. The original subdivision plan specified the developer of the industrial park site was to provide roadways, drainage, access and sewer provisions in this Light Industrial zone. They are not yet in place." Our comment is to have the applicant have access off of what is proposed to be Marcy Dri ve . We're not asking for complete construction of the road at this point, but if we get the driveway in the location of the future proposed road, you'd already have, you know, the driveway in the area that it's supposed to be. You wouldn't require any following up to close the curb cut that they've proposed, and the next applicant through the door would be required to construct that road throughout the industrial complex. "This separate site plan provides the proposed facility with provisions to meet the standards with sewer connections, drainage, and access without depending on subdivision development." And we've required, you know, that the Washington County Wastewater and Town Water follow up on this prior to a building permit. Basically all their other comments are addressed. It's signed Paul Collins, proj ect Engineer. We also have a Queensbury Beautification Committee letter. They've reviewed this site plan, and a motion was made to accept as submitted, seconded by Karen Dougherty, and this is from August 12, 1996. That's all the comments we have at this time. MR. PALING-I always have trouble with their statement "As submitted", but they all have that paragraph prior to that makes it sound like. Okay, well, we can get that clarified so there's no problem. Do you have any other input, George? MR. HILTON-No. We're all set for now. MR. PALING-Okay. MR. NACE-Okay. For the record, my name is Tom Nace, representing BMI Supply. George, wasn't there also a comment from the Water Department that they've looked at it? MR. PALING-Yes, there is. MR. HILTON-I was going to address that also. We have a letter from Tom Flaherty dated August 19th. It mentions several applications, one of them being BMI Supply. Their comment is, "There is adequate water available on County Line Road to supply this project with - 41 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/20/96) standard service. If fire sprinkler is proposed, please re-submit for approval." Staff's position would be, if it's required to be sprinkled, we'll check that at the time of building permit. Our Fire Marshal and Water Department people will review it. MR. PALING-Okay. Did you hear the paragraph in the Beautification letter? MR. NACE-No. I don't have that letter. I have a set of stamped plans from the Beautification Committee. MR. PALING-Do you want to take a look at it? Just make sure what they said there is what was agreed to. MR. HILTON-It seems to me that the Beautification letter just explains a bit about the project. There's no recommendations. MR. PALING-They say that it was approved as submitted, and then the prior paragraph seems to put a lot of qualifications on it. MR. NACE-I think that's just an explanation of. MR. PALING-All right. So you have no problem with what they're? Okay. MR. MACEWAN-Are you talking about the end of their motion about the signs and artificial flowers, and replacing dead? MR. PALING-No. MR. NACE-No. I think you were talking about that paragraph that says that Jim Miller explained that this was the way it was going to be. MR. RUEL-Talking about parking area, entrance. MR. PALING-The paragraph that starts with "Jim Miller". That's where I got a little confused by that. Okay. We're all set. Okay. Any questions? MR. BREWER-Just a comment, that it hasn't been to Warren County yet. MR. NACE-Well, that's tomorrow. concerns? Can I address some of the MR. PALING-Yes, sure. Go ahead. MR. NACE-Okay. I think the biggest thing was the entrance, and let me explain. Right now this entire property which was the subdivision that was referred to, was Adirondack Industrial Park did that back, in '90, '91, and this piece, that one lot in the subdivision is the only remaining lot that is still accessible from Queensbury Avenue. Okay. We don't know, at this stage of the game, BMI has no idea and ~ have no idea, when, if ever, this road is going to be constructed. Therefore, what they've proposed is to, for the present, put an entrance into their parking lot directly off of Queensbury Avenue. They have agreed, and it's stated right on the drawing here, that as soon as this road is dedicated to the Town, that will be closed off and removed, and permanent access will come into this new Marcy Drive. The reason for that is, first of all, financial. They don't want to have to construct a big long driveway here that, you know, they're taking over part of the responsibility for constructing this eventual road. That's a long driveway to pave and to maintain. Secondly, for the identity of the property, until this is constructed and this road becomes usable to the public, their property maintains a better identity with an entrance that's easily identifiable with - 42 - -- (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/20/96) the property. If the entrance is over here, and it's not really a public road, that's sort of a grey type of thing. You don't know where you're going into when you go in this driveway. MR. MACEWAN-So, you just wanted the parcel located (lost words) . MR. NACE-No. There are a bunch of parcels in that. These were these deep lots that were the IDA,lots in the original subdivision, and Joe Clark who is Adirondack Industrial bought up, I think, seven of these lots, and we created a subdivision for him, so that he could divide them into more usable lots that weren't so deep, and we designed this little ring road, or little circulation road for it, but at present, I don't know when his financial picture is going to look rosy enough to be able to construct that road and complete the subdivision. So it may be years before that road's done. I just don't know. MR. RUEL-This dedicated road, does that have a name? MR. NACE-It's not dedicated yet. It's paper street on the filed subdivision plans. When he wants to sell the next lot back here, he has to build the road then, okay, otherwise he doesn't have public frontage. MR. RUEL-How far would that road go? MR. NACE-It circulates around behind these seven lots and comes back out. MR. RUEL-I see, it comes back out to Queensbury? MR. NACE-Yes, to Queensbury Avenue. If you've looked at all those block buildings that are there now, I think there are five of them, it comes out between the last, well, between the Pest Control place and the last block building to the south. MR. MACEWAN-What's the nature of this business? MR. NACE-They design, assemble and install equipment for stages, curtains, lighting equipment. Sort of like Adirondack, they're a competitor of Adirondack Scenic, and a small portion of Adirondack Scenic's business. They don't get into all the sets and scenery type stuff that Adirondack does. They're more high school gYmnasiums, curtains, lighting facilities, that type of thing. MR. MACEWAN-Would the parcel that this fronts on be subjected to a lot of tractor trailer traffic? MR. NACE-No. I would say they probably send a tractor trailer out maybe every two or three weeks out with one of their productions. MR. MACEWAN-No problems with them turning around in there? MR. NACE-No. It was designed, this is 90 feet here. It was designed so that a tractor trailer could swing up in and back up to the loading docks, but most of their deliveries are UPS type truck deliveries. MR. RUEL-What's the number of employees? MR. NACE-Ten, eventually ten. now. Right now they're located shop that they're bursting at business. I think there are seven or eight in Downtown Glens Falls in a little the seams. They're an expanding MR. BREWER-Is there room for expansion there? - 43 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/20/96) MR. NACE-Here? Yes. We've allowed room. As you can see, we've tucked the building over to the north to allow room to expand here to the south in the future if they need to. The other comment there I'd like to respond to is the sewer. I've talked Jim Fishbeck, who is the Director of the Washington County Sewer Agency today and provided him with a letter. He simply has to get approval from DEC, which for this type of facility is no problem. So it's just a paper trail at this point, for sewer connection. MR. PALING-You're referring to the Rist-Frost letter now? MR. NACE-And the Staff letter. There was some comment about having to comply with Washington County sewer requirements. MR. PALING-Okay. I see what you're saying, and you're satisfied that the sewer drainage and access are taken care of, or will be taken care of? MR. HILTON-Yes. I'm comfortable with that. MR. NACE-The only other thing, I think there was one comment on there that I was hoping by now the Town Board would have changed your ingress/egress island requirement, but I guess it hasn't. So we will change the plans before we get a building permit to put the island in. MR. PALING-Okay. MR. RUEL-You're going to put the island in you said? MR. NACE-We'll have to. MR. RUEL-Make it portable so you can move it around to Marcy Drive. You're going to have a note on this plan indicating when that road, Marcy Drive? MR. NACE-There is a note on it right now. MR. RUEL-Okay. All right. George, do you think it's necessary for them to indicate on the plan the location of that other drive? MR. HILTON-If the Board is comfortable with this configuration, yes, I think the note has to be submitted, and I also think that a stipulation requiring language put into the deed of that property and the property behind it that the access will be closed up would satisfy Staff's concerns. MR. NACE-And the property behind it? MR. HILTON-Yes, because they're going to be required to build the road, and so it would somehow trigger. MR. NACE-No. The person that owns this now, Adirondack Industrial Park, will be required to build the road before he can sell this property back here, before he can transfer that, because this property back here now has no Town road frontage. MR. RUEL-It's landlocked? MR. NACE-Well, it has Town road frontage on a paper street, but not a dedicated street. So you've got to build a street, turn it over to the Town, and be accepted by the Town prior to selling that next lot back here. MR. RUEL-I would like to see, just in dotted outline the location. MR. NACE-It's shown right here, the future roadway. - 44 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/20/96) MR. RUEL-What, the entranceway? MR. PALING-Yes. That's the one that will be when they put the new road in. MR. RUEL-Now wait a minute. That's not on their property. MR. PALING-No. It's a shared drive. MR. RUEL-It's shared. I see. MR. NACE-When we did the original subdivision, one of the requirements that the Planning Board wanted us to incorporate was sharing of entrance drives, even off of Marcy Drive. MR. RUEL-That's where your deed restriction comes in. MR. HILTON-Yes, if we had some language in the deed of this property, we'd be comfortable with that. MR. NACE-Sure. I have no problem with that. MR. RUEL-No problem? Okay. MR. PALING-Any other comments? Questions? MR. STARK-I have a question for the Staff and for Mark. They didn't go in front of Warren County either. So we can go ahead and hold the public hearing, keep the public hearing open, do the SEQRA tonight, get that out of the way. The only thing is we just have to table it until. MR. SCHACHNER-Yes, and you can even, you're not required to keep the public hearing open either. You're allowed to close the public hearing also. It's up to you. You can do all the business on any application like this you want, other than the actual decision. MR. HILTON-We're kind of concerned here because we have quite a lot of items here tonight that are going to be continued because of the Warren County situation, and if we pile them all onto next week, that's going to be a very, very long meeting. MR. PALING-We will meet on the agenda, George, prior to this. MR. HILTON-Well, just to start the discussion, if you guys can, through the course of the meeting, maybe either this Thursday or the Thursday after, we'd like to maybe get a meeting here, special meeting, where we can address the items that are being continued tonight. MRS. LABOMBARD-You mean have another day? MR. PALING-All right. meeting. We'll take that up at the end of the MR. HILTON-Sure. MR. SCHACHNER-It's up to you all, but if you're going to take that issue up, I suggest you do it while some of your applicants are present, because it will be that much easier to, not only applicants, but people who are making comments would then have some idea. It's up to you. You don't have to do it that way, but it might be easier. MR. PALING-Well, no. For the convenience of the applicants, yes, I can see that we should do it. We can just interrupt and say, you're talking like the 29th? - 45 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/20/96) MR. HILTON-The 29th or the 22nd. Whatever's, you know, we can hear it this Thursday because the Warren County decisions will be in. MR. STARK-Maybe. MR. HILTON-No. They will, because their meeting's tomorrow. MR. STARK-Maybe they won't have a quorum, like they usually don't. MR. BREWER-So give them until the 29th. MR. PALING-Does that put a burden on any applicant if we go to the 29th? That way we feel a little bit more sure. MR. NACE- I guess I missed some previous discussion. There's no way the Board can do a contingent approval? MR. BREWER-No. MR. PALING-No. MR. BREWER-By law, right? MR. NACE-Okay. MR. PALING-It's okay if it goes until the 29th? MR. NACE-Yes. MR. PALING-Do you want to make it the 29th? MR. BREWER-That's fine with me, Bob. MR. PALING-Okay. August 29th, if we can have this room. If not, we'll have to go to the other building. Okay. August 29th, special meeting. All right. We should go to a public hearing on this right now. We'll open the public hearing on the BMI application. Is there anyone here that cares to talk about it? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. PALING-I think we can go right to a motion. Wait a minute. I'm sorry. This is SEQRA on this one. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 53-96, Introduced by Catherine LaBombard who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Stark: WHEREAS, there application for: is presently before BMI SUPPLY, 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: - 46 - ~ (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/20/96) 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 20th day of August, 1996, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stark, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ruel, Mr. Brewer, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. West MR. PALING-All right. Now we can go to a motion. MR. RUEL-Is this to be tabled, a motion for tabling. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 53-96 BMI SUPPLY, Introduced by Roger Ruel who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Stark: For a special meeting on 8/29/96. Duly adopted this 20th day of August, 1996, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ruel, Mr. Brewer, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Stark, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. West MR. PALING-Okay. Then we'll come back to this on the 29th. MR. MACEWAN-George, would you notify Mr. O'Connell for Stacie Hopkins? MR. HILTON-Yes. MR. STARK-George, you ought to notify him tomorrow to go up to Warren County, because I don't think he was clear on that. MR. HILTON-Well, yes, I'm going to talk to him about the whole procedure. We'll let him know. MR. PALING-Good. Okay. SITE PLAN NO. 49-96 TYPE: UNLISTED KNIGHTS OF COLUMBUS COUNCIL 194 OWNER: SAME ZONE: HC-1A LOCATION: QUAKER ROAD TO ROUTE 9 - ONE MILE NORTH PROPOSAL IS TO CONSTRUCT A KITCHEN EXPANSION, BANQUET DINING AND BINGO ROOM TO EXISTING BUILDING. BEAUTIFICATION - 47 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/20/96) COMM. : 8/12/96 11.2 LOT SIZE: WARREN CO. PLANNING: 3.58 ACRES SECTION: 8/21/96 179-23 TAX MAP NO. 73-1- DAN BARBER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 49-96, Knights of Columbus Council 194, Meeting Date: August 20, 1996 "The applicant is proposing to construct a 6437 sq. ft. addition to an existing facility on Route 9. The addition will contain a kitchen, banquet hall/dining/bingo room. The new building will be connected to the existing building near the southern property line. The parking and permeability standards of the HC-1A district will be met at this location. Landscaping which was approved by the Beautification Committee should be included on any plans submitted for a building permit. Details of the proposed stormwater management system need to be submitted prior to the issuance of a building permit. The increased use at this site will result in a need for additional water service and a greater use of existing septic facilities. The applicant needs to indicate how much of an increase in water usage will occur after development. Approval of this plan by the Queensbury Water Dept. is needed prior to the issuance of a building permit. Information on the existing septic system needs to be included which indicates the system will be able to handle the increased volume that will result after development. Any drawings submitted for a building permit must indicate that 8 inch traffic covers will be used over paved septic areas of this site. Any concerns from the Queensbury Water Dept. and Fire Marshall must be addressed prior to the issuance of a building permit at this location. Comments from the Town Engineering Consultant must be addressed by the Planning Board prior to final action on this application." MR. HILTON-Now as far as the Rist-Frost comments go, they're quite lengthy, and I really, in the interest of time, I'm not going to read them all. I'm satisfied. Rist-Frost is satisfied. Our Building Department is satisfied that these concerns have been met. If the Board has any specific questions, I'd be more than happy to address them. I also have a Queensbury Water Department letter here, concerning the Knights of Columbus, a statement from Tom Flaherty that there is a sufficient capacity in the Route 9 main to serve this project. The 8 inch traffic covers that were mentioned before for the septic in this parking lot, in a letter from George Kurosaka, it is indicated that they will be used. The letter also indicates that the septic system existing and proposed at this location will be able to handle the increased volume. So as far as, we're satisfied with those comments. MR. RUEL-George, you mentioned about the engineering comments were addressed. Have these comments been shown on a plan? Is the plan modified to reflect the answers to these engineering comments? MR. HILTON-To the best of my knowledge, the plan does not indicate the 8 inch traffic covers or a notation that the septic will be able to handle the increased flow, but we can ask for that, again, prior to a building permit being issued. MR. BREWER-Is like the perc tests and all that going to be required before this is, I mean, there are comments on here that Rist-Frost has, that I don't think we should just overlook. MR. RUEL-There are 15 comments here. MR. BREWER-Yes. MR. RUEL-It's not just like we had a couple of them. - 48 - '-' (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/20/96) MR. PALING-George, is there a problem? engineering comments now. Because we're on MR. HILTON-Yes, submitted to me. can't make out. and I have some plans here that have just been I'm going to go through them, here, and see if I MR. PALING-On which ones are you talking now? MR. HILTON-Well, I just have plans in general. I'm going to try to find if any of the comments have been addressed on these plans, any of the engineering comments. MR. PALING-The Rist-Frost ones. MR. HILTON-Yes. MR. PALING-Okay, because we'd like to go over these. MR. HILTON-Sure. MR. PALING-And can we do it simultaneously? Now is this a new print that we haven't seen? MR. HILTON-It's an additional page that I haven't seen. It's dated today, August 20th. MR. BREWER-Well, why don't we give that to the engineer and let him go over it and get the comments taken care of before we look at it. MR. HILTON-The applicant has spoken with Paul Collins of Rist- Frost. Unfortunately, Paul could not be here tonight. He had some, I guess, he had a death in the family, and we went over it briefly. I don't have an official letter from Rist-Frost, but I've got to believe that we have comments addressed. MR. MACEWAN-There's going to be plenty of time for Rist-Frost to comment on this, because we can't take action on it anyway. MR. HILTON-Right. MR. RUEL-I don't like the way this is going. MR. PALING-Wait a minute. Would you identify yourselves please. MR. BARBER-My name is Daniel Barber from the Knights of Columbus, and here's Charlie Scudder, engineer. MR. PALING-Okay. Yes. We're hamstrung I think by the County thing, but we want to have time to review these things. This Kurosaka letter, I don't think we saw before tonight. MR. HILTON-No. This was just handed out tonight. MR. RUEL-There are replies to the 15 comments, engineering comments, new drawings. I think there's an awful lot of material that we haven't had an opportunity to review. It's unfair to just dump all of this on us at a meeting and expect us to review it. MR. BREWER-I agree. I think it's a pretty shoddy way to do I think we should give the comments back to the engineer, plans, let him come up with more comments, if he has them. that's what we pay the engineer for. things. the new I mean, MR. RUEL-That's the way we usual Iv do it. MRS. LABOMBARD-It's not going to make any sense to do anything. MR. PALING-Is that the consensus? - 49 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/20/96) MRS. LABOMBARD-Yes. MR. HILTON-If you would like to review this application, as it was mentioned before, we obviously cannot vote on this tonight. I will work with Rist-Frost to get a letter stating that he is satisfied with all of the information that's presented. MR. PALING-All right. Well, I know I have one major question in this, and I don't know that much about them, but I'd like to know, in detail, how they determine if the septic system is adequate to handle this addition. It just seems that they're putting an awful lot of capacity in there without adding anything more than 1,000 gallon septic system, and I would like to know more about the justification of that. MR. HILTON-Maybe the applicant can help explain that. I think that hours of operation, how many times the system will be used, factors into it. MR. BARBER-It's on the sewage criteria, on the blue print here, which in George Kurosaka's letter is states, you know, because it's based on lady's restroom, because the use is going to be so sporadic, but it's the system of drywells that he's developed beyond that, with the two systems of holding tanks with the extensive drywells, which Paul Collins, we had a meeting with Paul Collins yesterday, and he had a death in the family, and he had a few questions, and I spoke to Mr. Hilton, and it was only two different questions he had, and one was a sewage, which we satisfied by the letter from George Kurosaka, and the other was the catch basins, and those were the only two questions that he had, and he said we answered them there, and I got back to Staff on this, and of course he was supposed to come back, but he didn't, because of the problems that he had, but that was the only two questions he had. MR. PALING-Okay. Well, we have not seen the Kurosaka letter until just now. That's the problem. We have not had a chance to read it, and it's kind of tough reading it under these conditions, and understanding everything that's in it. MR. MACEWAN-Has Rist-Frost received a copy of the Kurosaka letter? MR. HILTON-They've spoken with them directly and received a copy of the letter. MR. BARBER-He was satisfied with the design by George Kurosaka. MR. HILTON-Again, if the Board wishes more information from Rist- Frost confirming that, we have a week here. MR. MACEWAN-I just want a letter saying they're signing off on it. MR. HILTON-Yes. MR. PALING-Yes. We've got to have that. MR. BARBER-The only other thing he had was a question on the drainage basins, which, in the hard covers, which the letter indicated also there would be hard covers in there, in that letter, which apparently you didn't have, and I don't know why it wasn't sent in, but it wasn't, and we have the engineering data right here, schematic detail. MR. PALING-And those will be put in, you're saying? MR. BARBER-Yes, and Charlie Scudder could address any of that stuff that you wanted on that. - 50 - '- -' (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/20/96) MR. PALING-Okay. MR. BARBER-But those are really the only two questions that Paul Collins had. MR. PALING-Okay. We've got to get written confirmation on that. MR. HILTON-Sure. MR. PALING-So that we know where we are and it gives us a chance to review this material in detail. How about other questions or comments for the moment? MR. BREWER-It's basically the engineering. MR. PALING-Yes. I think that's the only real hang up we have it getting the written confirmation from Rist-Frost. MR. RUEL-Yes, and a set of modified plans accordingly. MR. BARBER-Well, we have the plans that he would approve. already told us he approved this. He's MR. RUEL-We don't. MR. BARBER-Yes, I understand, but he just wanted to see this sheet here. MR. PALING-All right. Well, this requires a SEQRA. We could either do it tonight, or perhaps we'd rather do it next week, when we have further engineering. MR. HILTON-Sure. That makes sense. MR. RUEL-Yes, put it off. MR. HILTON-I have a couple of, just a couple of other comments here. One is the Beautification Committee letter, which they reviewed it on August 12th, and the motion was made to approve as submitted. It was seconded and carried. In addition to this, when you open the public hearing, I have one piece of public comment. MR. PALING-All right. Why don't we go right to the public hearing on this matter. MR. MACEWAN-Bob, before you go, on the Beautification's approval, was there a landscaping plan submitted of some kind? MR. HILTON-There are species mentioned. There's a, you know, brief review of what was discussed between the applicant and the Committee. There are certain trees that are mentioned that are not shown on the plan. That's why one of my stipulations was to have those trees shown on a plan for building permit. MR. BREWER-As well, the engineer did, too. MR. RUEL-So that's another modification to the plan. MR. HILTON-Yes. MR. PALING-Did the say, approved as submitted? MR. HILTON-Approved as submitted. However, I believe that the applicant presented them a plan which we do not have on file, and we would like to have that plan prior to a building permit. MR. MACEWAN-I would like to see that plan included for our next meeting. - 51 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/20/96) MR. HILTON-Next meeting. Okay. MR. RUEL-Well, the next meeting we should have documented response to the engineering comments. We should have a modified plan reflecting these comments, and also we should have a landscaping plan included in that, as far as ~ can see. CHARLIE SCUDDER MR. SCUDDER-We have a print that's marked up and is signed and stamped by the Beautification Committee. MR. BREWER-Well, we should get a copy of that for our next meeting, then. MR. SCUDDER-It was just marked up in pen, but if you want a separate plan, that can be done. MR. PALING-No, no. We're not trying to get any kind of fine work out of you. We're just trying to get complete detail that we can work with. MR. SCUDDER-I understand. MR. PALING-Yes. Okay. The public hearing is open. Does anyone care to speak on this matter? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. HILTON-I have a record of a telephone conversation between Ron Jeckel and Jim Martin, the date, August 15, 1996. His concern is "Will there be any increase in odor as a result of this proposed project?", and this is the only comment we have. MR. BREWER-What kind of odor? I mean, if it was cook out odor you could handle it. MR. PALING-All right. If there are no further comments, we'll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. PALING-And now I think we can go to SEQRA. MR. BREWER-I'd rather wait. MR. PALING-No. You're right. Lets wait. MR. RUEL-We're going to wait on that. MRS. LABOMBARD-Wait. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 49-96 KNIGHTS OF COLUMBUS COUNCIL 194, Introduced by Roger Ruel who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Stark: Until 8/29/96, until such time as engineering comments are addressed and plans modified accordingly. Duly adopted this 20th day of August, 1996, by the following vote: MR. SCUDDER-Could I engineering comments. ask, sir, you mentioned several times What comments are we speaking about? MR. BREWER-The 15 of them. MR. HILTON-I think we're just looking to get a letter from Rist- Frost saying that they are satisfied. - 52 - -- (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/20/96) MR. BREWER-Taken care of. MR. SCUDDER-Okay. MR. PALING-Yes, that won't come from you. What we're asking for there will come from Rist-Frost. MR. RUEL-From engineering. MR. SCUDDER-So we have to satisfy the Rist-Frost Consulting Engineer? MR. PALING-Yes. MR. SCUDDER-And he will submit paperwork to the Town. MR. PALING-Right. MR. RUEL-And attach your landscaping plan to the plans. AYES: Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Stark, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Rue 1 , Mr. Brewer, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. West SITE PLAN NO. 6-96 TYPE II KEN ERMIGER OWNER: SAME ZONE: HC- 1A LOCATION: RT. 9, WEST SIDE OF ROAD, JUST NORTH OF AGWAY PROPOSAL IS TO CONSTRUCT GO CART TRACK, OFFICE/ARCADE BUILDING & ROLLERBLADE RINK. CROSS REFERENCE: SUB. 1-1996 SP 58-95 BEAUTIFICATION COMM.: 3/11/96, 8/12/96 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 3/13/96 8/21/96 TAX MAP NO. 73-1-4.1 LOT SIZE: 5.6 ACRES SECTION: 179-23 TOM NACE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 6-96, Ken Ermiger, Meeting Date: August 20, 1996 liThe applicant is proposing to construct a go cart track, and a 13375 sq. ft. office/arcade/inline skating rink building, on a 5.6 acre piece of property. The present zoning of the property, HC-IA, allows for an amusement center to be built with site plan approval from the Planning Board. Staff has reviewed this site plan in accordance with Section 179-38 and has the following comments. To the north of the access drive for this site an existing curb cut is indicated. This access point is to be abandoned per a stipulation for the final plat for this land (Subdivision 1-1996)." Which incidentally, as a matter of record, I would like to know from the applicant at some point whether that subdivision has been filed, and if we can have some kind of date that it was. MR. NACE-Yes, it has been filed. Staff. I'd be glad to supply that to MR. HILTON-Okay. That's fine. MR. NACE-But we checked that for sure. MR. HILTON-Okay. "This site plan should be revised to include a note indicating that the access point is to be removed. The site plan indicates that 136 parking spaces will be shared by this site and the 'Pirates Cove' property to the north. Amusement centers of these types do not have a parking required listed in the Zoning Ordinance. Staff believes that the amount of parking proposed is adequate to serve both sites. The Planning Board should determine - 53 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/20/96) if the amount of parking proposed is a sufficient amount for both locations. Setbacks and permeability requirements at this location will conform to the requirements of the HC-1A district. It should be noted that signage shown on the site plan is not being approved at this time. The applicant will have to seek a separate sign permit for any signage at this location. Proposed landscaping and fencing for this site conforms to the requirements contained in the Zoning Ordinance. However, the Planning Board may wish to consider having the applicant provide more landscaping and a taller solid screen fence at the southern property line of this site. This would have the effect of buffering the property to the south from the noise that is anticipated with this land use. As mentioned above, noise associated with this land use is expected and could have negative impacts on surrounding properties. Planning and Engineering staff are not comfortable reviewing and commenting on the sound study prepared for this project. The impact that noise may have on adjacent properties must be identified and reviewed prior to Planning Board action on this application. Engineering staff is expected to comment on what steps need to be taken in order to effectively review the sound study and the potential impact on the neighborhood. As a point of clarification, the SEQR designation listed on the agenda is incorrect. The proper designation is Type Unlisted which requires a short form EAF to be reviewed by the Planning Board. Any comments and concerns from the Town Water Dept. and Engineering Consultant should be addressed prior to any final action on this application." MR. HILTON-Again, the comment letter from the Queensbury Water Department, dated August 19, 1996, indicates that in conversations with Mr. Nace, this site "will probably require a one service not to exceed one inch. There is sufficient capacity in the Route 9 main to serve this project." Lets see. We're going to start with engineering comments. These are prepared by Rist-Frost. Their comments are as follows. MR. PALING-George, what date is your letter from Rist-Frost? MR. HILTON-The letter that we have is August 16, 1996. MR. PALING-Do I have a copy of that? MR. HILTON-You should. If not, I have a copy. MR. STARK-It's right underneath the Staff notes, Bob. MR. HILTON-Okay. The comments are as follows. "The plan has been satisfactorily changed to address our comments of March 19, 1996. The grading and drainage plan provided should add a note for the contractor that 'NY Guidelines for Urban Erosion and Sediment Control' must be followed during site preparation, i.e. grading, drywell and sanitary installation. The plan is dependent on development of the adj acent 'Pirates Cove' miniature golf facility. This should be cross referenced on both site plans. NYSDEC and NYSDOT permits are required for sewage system and highway entrance work. Applicant should determine need for SPDES General Stormwater Discharge Permit from NYSDEC. We do not feel that our firm has the expertise to review the acoustical aspects of this project and the report submitted. Since this is an important factor with this project we request the Town's authorization to engage a specialized consultant. It is estimated that the cost of the initial review and a letter report would be $1,000." It's signed, Very truly yours, Paul Collins, Project Engineer. One point of clarification. If the Board so chooses to authorize this expenditure, they would be authorizing additional information to be provided, and the cost would have to be absorbed by the applicant. We also have a Queensbury Beautification Committee letter. The item was reviewed on August 12th, a motion made to approve as submitted by Karen Dougherty. Seconded by Pat Carpenter. That's all the comments we - 54 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/20/96) have at this time. MR. PALING-Okay. Well that Acnotech is just confirming that $1,000 thing, right? MR. HILTON-Yes. MR. PALING-Okay. That's all that is, and do you have public comment on this, too? MR. HILTON-Yes. We have some public comment. We're going to wait. MR. PALING-All right. Okay. Do we have any comments at the moment? I think we ought to move to the applicant, and kind of summarize where you are on the project, if you would. MR. NACE-Sure. For the record, my name is Tom Nace representing Ken Ermiger. Let me first show you what we've changed since we were here back in March. As you recall, we originally had a go kart track which was, at our belief and the Zoning Administrator's belief, correctly located within the Zoning Ordinance. We had it located up relatively close, I believe about 30 feet or so from the front property line, and it was relatively close, I believe 11 or 12 feet from the side property line. After the meeting here, we were taken to the Zoning Board for a determination of whether or not the setback lines applied to just our building or also to the track surface, and the determination of that Board was that the track surface also had to meet the setback lines. So what we have done is move the track back so we're a little more, like 76 feet, a foot or two extra, beyond the 75 foot front setback line, since this is in a Travel Corridor Overlay Zone. The side setbacks on this HC-1A property are 20 feet minimum with an addition of the two side lines having to be 50 feet. What we have done is made each of the side line setbacks 25 feet. For the building envelope we've shown the actual track surface is located an extra foot inside that. So the actual track surface setback from the property line is 26 feet on the side lines. We've kept the general configuration, except that as we move the track back, we've tucked one piece of it back into a little corner back here in the property. We've also, the staging area for the track originally was located underneath, as part of the bridge structure. We've pulled that out from there and located it back here, adjacent to the building, which will serve as a skating rink, amusement area, and service facilities for the track. The parking, we've added, the building has become a little bit bigger with the addition of a skating facility, and we've increased the parking by putting some additional parking up front here, and that is the primary change. The grading has changed somewhat. With tucking this track back in, we've also lowered the track, as you will remember. Originally, the front of this track was built up fairly high on a bank. We had a retaining wall along the entrance road. We've lowered the entire track down into the land a little bit more, which helps us in the back portion of the site by setting it down in a depressed area, which also helps with the noise issues. So that's sort of where we're at and why we're there. I'd like to also address some of the comments from Staff and the engineering. The curb cut, existing curb cut up front obviously will be removed, but I will be glad to add a note to the drawing to that effect. We're, right now, working with DOT to get the curb cut permit for both facilities. This is a combined curb cut with Pirates Cove Golf, which is presently under construction. The parking we have researched. As Staff said, there are no good Codes that are available, and the Queensbury Code really doesn't address the amusement type facilities. We do have good records with Pirates Cove Golf, as far as their requirements for parking, and we've researched other facilities of this type, and have come up with the parking we have shown as what we feel is relatively conservative for our needs. - 55 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/20/96) MR. PALING-And you think you'll have spaces left, when you say conservative, you think it'll be too much parking? MR. NACE-I don't think there's a lot too much. I don't think we're skimping, let me put it that way. MR. PALING-Because you've got three facilities going there. I have no idea what numbers to use either. MR. NACE-Well, we've gone through a calculation to come up with what we think is right, and there's obviously some interplay between the facilities as far as what the peak hours of use are. We've taken that into account and come up with a number that we believe is reasonable. MR. RUEL-Is there room for expansion, in the event that this is inadeqUate? MR. NACE-Yes, there is. There's room to do some more expansion in this direction, okay. MR. PALING-Okay. So you're covered. MR. NACE-Yes. It would require some filling, but there's room for another probably. MR. RUEL-Is Pirates Cove part of this whole application? MR. NACE-Well, no, it's not. Pirates Cove is doing their own facility, but they have agreed to share the entrance road, and in essence to share parking, okay. Nobody's going to go put a ticket on a car if somebody using the Golf Course parks up here. The same as they're not going to put a ticket on one of our cars if somebody parks here to use the racetrack. MR. RUEL-The reason I ask is that you have designated parking for Pirates Cove, parking for Ermiger. MR. NACE-That's just to show that this is what was originally shown on the Pirates Cove site plan as their required parking is these two areas. MR. RUEL-But customers from either one can use any place at all? MR. NACE-Yes, and in fact, it's expected that somebody will park here and go play golf and maybe afterwards go over and use the amusement facilities or the racetrack, or a family may park here and part of the family play golf and part of the family. MR. RUEL-There's no fence separating these properties? MR. NACE-No. The only fence here, and let me speak to that for a minute, too. There is a fence, obviously, for crowd and safety control around the racetrack. MR. RUEL-While you're up there, I want to ask you about a fence. You don't show a guardrail on the bridge. Do you have any? MR. NACE-Yes. We do. MR. RUEL-All you have is a road going over the top of another one. MR. NACE-No. There will be a guardrail there, and I thought it was on one of the plans. MR. RUEL-I didn't see it. MR. NACE-No, you're right. When we re-drafted it, it disappeared - 56 - - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/20/96) somewhere. There should be a guardrail there, yes. MR. RUEL-Bring it back, put a detail in there. MR. NACE-Yes, we will. Okay. MR. RUEL-While I have your attention here, what is the difference between rollerblade and in-line? MR. NACE-Rollerblading and in-line skating are the same thing. MR. RUEL-It's all new stuff to me. different names. I wondered why they had two MR. NACE-No. They're interchangeable terms. Okay. The other comments from engineering, we will take care of the comments regarding drainage and erosion control notes be placed on the drawing. We will cross reference the sharing of the parking and the access road on both sets of plans, and we are presently underway getting, as I said, getting the DOT permits, and yes we realize we need a New York State DEC SPDES Sewage Permit, and we'll also file for a construction, stormwater and erosion control permit. One of the questions that has been foremost, I'm sure, in everybody's mind, is noise. MR. PALING-Tom, before you go to that, the landscaping and solid screen fence, you might cover that. MR. NACE-Sure. Yes. I'm sorry. I intended to. We have, in the landscaping plan, we have clusters, I think the comment from Staff was along this south property line we have some clusters of trees planted to help break up the track where it's close to the property line, and we also have a chain link fence along this side. The fence across the front is going to be an architectural type fence with pillars and rod iron of that sort. The rest of the fence around the facility will be chain link, with a vinyl colored fabric so that it will not stand out as just a big ugly chain link fence. MR. PALING-George, you were asking for more landscaping and a taller fence there. MR. HILTON-That's a comment of mine that the Board may wish to consider, in effect to screen the property from the south from the noise and visual impacts on this. MR. NACE-The noise we believe that we can take care of with other methods of screening, so to speak. The visual, we think we're going to have a fairly nice looking facility here, okay, and I'm not sure whether the visual screening is desirable or not. I'm of a mind that, you know, a big barrier can sometimes be more of a visual impact than a natural sight line into a facility. I've got here pictures, I don't know if any of you have seen the race track up at Old Forge, but we're planning similar types of landscaping along the track with boulders. The chain link fence, if you'll look at it there, sort of with the fabric, the dark fabric on it, works into the scheme of things without being too obtrusive, and I'm not so sure that a barrier of trees wouldn't be more visually obtrusive than a sight line into the facility. MR. RUEL-You show a sound wall. Do you know what the db reduction is on that sound wall? MR. NACE-Okay. What I'd like to do, I have with me tonight Rick Graul, who is the gentleman that prepared the sound study for this project. Rick has a Master of Science degree, and has extensive experience in vibration analysis of all types, blasting and noise, sound studies. I'd like to have Rick spend a minute and go through the sound study and what he did with you and explain the features - 57 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/20/96) here that help mitigate the noise issues. Also, I think I talked to most of you at one time or another, and have suggested that you take a look and hear for yourself what the noise impacts really are from one of these tracks. There's one up the road at Charlie Wood's Gaslight Village, another one at Skateland. Noise studies are maybe a little bit like traffic studies. You've got to be an expert to really understand what the numbers mean, and even to me, I've spent several days now with a noise meter around some of these tracks, taking noise measurements for my own information, and the numbers still don't mean a whole lot in assessing the impacts. This Board is going to be the one that makes that eventual determination, and my thoughts are that, you know, studies are fine, good. We've done one here, but you've got to be able to assess what the numbers mean, and I think, unless you've stood and listened to one, it's very difficult to truly assess that, but let me have Rick come up and explain to you what he's done. RICK GRAUL MR. GRAUL-My name's Rick Graul. I am a person who deals specifically with the issue of the earth as a transmitting medium of vibration and sound, being the earth, the atmosphere, hydrosphere, lithosphere. In this particular study, as in any sound study, we have to quantify both the ambient conditions and the impact that a proposed condition will have on those ambient conditions. Ambient conditions are merely existing conditions. Proposed conditions, in this case, is a go kart track. What we did, first of all, was took a series of sound level measurements off of Route 9, at a distance of anywhere from the curb to 200 feet away from Route 9 to determine what the noise levels are at Route 9. I think, being that you're all residents of this area, you know that Route 9 is a source of fairly constant noise from traffic during daytime and early evening hours, probably until about 11 o'clock at night, especially in the summer time. Human activity in this area seems to be fairly abundant until maybe midnight on such a road because of its various amusements and recreation type facilities. The sound levels were then compared to sound levels along other highways that were of similar dimensions, for checking their validity. Then what we did was we took sound level measurements of go karts, a single go kart, manufacturer's specs on just an engine mounted on a block, taken 15 feet away. We've got one kart up to 30 karts, and we also have manufacturer's data on up to 30 karts operating on a track in real time. What we have determined was that 30 karts of similar composition and construction to those that are proposed for this facility produce a sound pressure level of 71 decibels at 100 feet from the track center. So, using that as a real number, what we have done is we have placed that figure into this situation. There are three sensitive receptors that are adjacent to this site. The first being the southern boundary, Agway, the second being a campground, over in this region, the third being a motel, somewhat off the page on this plan, but nonetheless there. What I've done is, using the expected 71 decibels that we would get from 30 karts, although there are not 30 karts proposed for this facility, I always work with conservative figures. We have taken clear propagation levels to the campground, to Agway, to the motel. Then we took the barrier conditions. Barrier conditions can either be imposed for the purpose of noise reduction, or can be natural, being part of the construction of this track. In this case, we have two barrier conditions that are imposed for the purpose of noise reduction. They're wooden walls that are placed in close proximity to the bends closest to Agway. What this does, by putting the barrier close to the receiver, is it maximizes the efficiency with which the barrier will reduce sound. The next, by insetting this portion of the track deep into the earth where its elevation is approximately eight feet lower than the elevation of the ground surface along here, at the campground, and it doesn't really demonstrate it too well on this particular plan, but if you were to - 58 - -- (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/20/96) go out and actually look at the ground surface, the campground ground surface is indeed six to eight feet below this ridge. A third condition, the hotel. There is a major highway here that produces sound pressure levels at 100 feet of 62 decibels on average. To calculate sound pressure levels at the nearest point which is the canopy in front of the office, was 65 decibels. The sound pressure level at the nearest occupied portion of the hotel was 62 decibels. With the reductions of the barrier that is inherent to the construction of this portion here, the reduction in sound was sufficient to lower it to ambient over here. This region in here has an ambient of approximately 50 to 56 decibels. Over here, with clear field attenuation, and the barrier tenuation, the sound pressure levels will actually be below what is received from the roadway combined with what is received from the highway. If you take a finite number of sources of sound that are equal in intensity, and you doubled it, you will increase the overall sound pressure level by three decibels. If you take a finite number of sound level sources and you add a sound level source which is 10 decibels less, a finite number of sound sources which are 10 decibels less. MR. RUEL-I have a question at this point. MR. GRAUL-Yes. MR. RUEL-Does that mean that the 62 db's from the road to the motel would now become 65, due to the 71 db at the track? MR. GRAUL-No. Simply because you are not necessarily doubling the number of sources. That would assume that you have 30 karts sitting right on this portion of the track, right on this very edge, which is a physical impossibility. Instead, you would have a distribution of karts, which would be put across the track, okay. They might be in small packs. MR. RUEL-All right. So instead of using the 30, why don't you use a realistic figure? MR. GRAUL-The reason that I do that is for worst case scenario. This way there can be no argument that we are skewing our calculations in a way which is favorable toward the applicant. MR. RUEL-Yes, but it's practically impossible to have 30 cars in one spot. MR. GRAUL-Precisely. What I'm saying here is a very conservative estimate, beyond which no argument can be made. MR. RUEL-So what would the db level be at the motel, then, if you use a realistic figure on the track? MR. GRAUL-About 62 decibels. MR. RUEL-The same as the highway? MR. GRAUL-What I was getting to was if you add sources that are 10 decibels less than the overall, it only increases the overall sound pressure level one half decibel. MR. RUEL-Okay. MR. GRAUL-Now, the barrier walls are placed in an area on this particular portion of the track which is somewhat equal in elevation to that of the greenhouse area. By reflecting the noise directly at that closest point in bend and equal elevation, you are reflecting that sound level to the point where it will be significantly attenuated to the degree of 10 decibels, and that's only for the karts, regardless of the number of karts, that are up - 59 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/20/96) against this wall, or near this wall. Now, in coupling with those other karts being distributed across the track, we have something called a track effect. Track effect is a reduction in overall sound pressure levels with the distribution of sources across a broad area. Instead of it being a pinpoint source, and a multiplication of the pressure levels from that pinpoint level with an increase in the number of sources. Instead, it is a reduction as a result of that pinpoint source being spread over distance. It is eight decibels at 350 feet, and it's called track effect. It is five decibels at 750 feet. It is irregardless of the number of point sources on the track. It is a physical constant. This is something that has been documented by the go kart industry, which is by the way a very well regulated and organized industry, as I found out from previous studies. Essentially, my findings on this particular situation are that, with the number of karts proposed, that they would not increase the overall sound pressure levels at this site, at any of the sensitive receptors, more than three decibels on average at any time, and in all likelihood would not increase the overall sound pressure levels at all in most instances, due to the inactivity of the karts being at idle, being behind barriers, not working at all because it's off hours, things of that nature. Worst case would be three decibels above ambient. The normal case would be equal. MR. RUEL-Have you made a similar study for other go kart tracks? MR. GRAUL-Yes, I have. MRS. LABOMBARD-I have a question, a little bit about the physics of the sound being carried. Because there is sound from the go karts and because the go karts are coming at you, I don't know we could draw an analogy with the Doppler Effect. MR. GRAUL-Absolutely. MRS. LABOMBARD-But the sound wouldn't be uniform all the time if you were standing in one specific spot. MR. GRAUL-Precisely. If you're standing at one spot, there are times that the sound level increases, and there's times that the sound level decreases. Its frequency characteristics change with what you have said, the Doppler Effect, where you have a shift toward longer wavelengths as the source goes away from you, and a shift toward higher wavelengths as the source comes toward you. Now higher frequency sound is much easier to abate than low frequency sound. Now it should also be kept in mind that these are 5.5 horsepower engines. These are not large scale mechanical operating engines. These are very small, high frequency producing engines. MR. PALING-There are some eight and a half, are there not? Are there not some larger engines? MR. NACE-With the double karts, they do come. They're not necessarily eight horsepower engines. They come both ways. MR. PALING-Will you have higher horsepower engines at this track? MR. NACE-Yes, I believe we will. MR. PALING-Yes, right. That's what I thought you said last time. MR. RUEL-And they're four cycles, and they have mufflers. MR. GRAUL-Yes. They have mufflers and they are governed to travel at a governed rate of speed around the track for safety purposes. MRS. LABOMBARD-But back to what I was asking you about. You said - 60 - ~ (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/20/96) you could abate the higher frequencies easier than the lower frequencies. MR. GRAUL-Right. There is essentially no low frequency component to the sound levels from these vehicles. It is a high frequency sound that you would get from a motor of this type, and the sound is also greatly abated through muffling systems and governing systems that are on the motors themselves. Plus that the motors are enclosed in a fiberglass housing. So that there is not a direct contact with the open atmosphere and the engine itself. MR. PALING-In any of the figures you gave us, did you give us any figures above 71 decibels? MR. GRAUL-No. MR. PALING-Okay. Tell me again where you measured? You said 100 feet from where, that you measured the 71? MR. GRAUL-From the track to the center, the arithematic center of the track. I did not personally, a manufacturer, conduct this survey. MR. PALING-Okay. Which direction did you go? MR. GRAUL-They went perpendicular to the track surface. I did not conduct this survey myself. The manufacturer conducted. MR. PALING-100 feet anyway. MR. GRAUL-Yes. That's how the go kart track studies are conducted because these are transient noise sources. You can't stand at one point along the side of the track and get a decent average of the overall sound pressure levels. You have to take a step back to some distance. MR. PALING-Okay. MRS. LABOMBARD-But did they do it like a complete concentric distance from that center, like 100 feet on a circle? MR. GRAUL-Yes, as a matter of fact. Yes. MRS. LABOMBARD-From all points. They just went, like here's the center and they just kept going back here, all the way around? MR. GRAUL-They went a 100 foot distance from the arithematic center of the track is how it was quantified for the study. MRS. LABOMBARD-Three hundred and sixty degrees. MR. GRAUL-I don't know if they went 360 degrees. However, they did, they were 100 feet from the arithematic center of the track. MR. NACE-I believe, from what I've seen the sound study that he's referring to, the track was much more circular than what we're looking at here. It did have some turns, but was more of a square (lost words) . MR. PALING-What was the highest decibel reading, ambient wise, that you got, exclusive of the track, I'm thinking mostly of Route 9? MR. GRAUL-At the curb, 83 decibels average. MR. PALING-So there was one higher than the 71. Okay. That's the 83 is on the. MR. GRAUL-On the curb of Route 9. - 61 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/20/96) MR. PALING-Yes. That's important, though. MR. RUEL-What side of 9? MR. GRAUL-The same side as the site, and that number is actually consistent with records that I have taken at approximately 50 other sites. Two to four lane highways just generate a tremendous amount of racket. MR. HILTON-I have a question for the applicant. When you said in your study that there's not going to be an increase of three decibels on average, as a result of this proposed development, that's an average. What's the highest reading that you might get, and what's the lowest reading that you might get? I'm still confused on that. MR. GRAUL-Okay. When I speak of average, what I am referring to is the integrated time average of that operating hours, okay. That means all times during the time that they operate, in comparison with all times similar on a day where they would not be operating, such as right now where the thing does not exist. MR. HILTON-Right. MR. NACE-Bob, to clarify, make sure that your question is answered correctly, the 83 decibels was a traffic noise. MR. PALING-Yes, traffic. No, that's what I was looking for. MR. BREWER-Tom, was there any study that you know of done for Charlie Wood's park up there? MR. NACE-I did not follow that through the planning process. MR. BREWER-Maybe we could find out if there was a study done there. It probably wasn't any concern up there. MR. PALING-There isn't anything around it that would bother it. MR. SCHACHNER-There was a noise study done. MR. BREWER-I know, for the roller coaster, but I'm talking Lake George Action Park. MR. SCHACHNER-You're talking about Gaslight Village. MR. PALING-Yes, Action Park. MR. BREWER-There wasn't a study done. MR. SCHACHNER-I don't believe there was. MR. PALING-I don't think anyone would have asked for it, the way they're located. MR. RUEL-Is it possible to translate all this in english, such as, the noise level at the motel? MR. GRAUL-Yes. MR. RUEL-There is existing noise now from the road. MR. GRAUL-That's correct, a constant barrage of traffic. MR. RUEL-Now what does the go kart noise level do to increasing or decreasing or what does it do to the motel area? MR. GRAUL-If you took, as I stated before, all 30 go karts - 62 - -- (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/20/96) operating on the track simultaneously, okay, put them on this particular track, they would only create a sound pressure level which is equal to what is already existing at the motel. MR. RUEL-Okay. Now that's assuming that there's traffic on the road. Now suppose there is no traffic on the road. There's zero db, right? MR. GRAUL-Well, the thing is people have to drive to the track in order to use it. MR. RUEL-I mean, it could be very little traffic, right, and you're taking the worst case. You've given me 62 db on the road. MR. NACE-Roger, that road has many thousand vehicles per hour. MR. GRAUL-That road carries probably 80,000 vehicles per day. MR. RUEL-But I still think it's possible for the noise level to go beyond 62, to go up to 71, as you mentioned, if you had that many karts in one area. MR. GRAUL-I'm sure that the applicant would love to be able to sustain that kind of activity on the track, but realistically speaking, it is highly unlikely that he will have a stream of people waiting to use the karts with that frequency at all times. MR. RUEL-So what you're saying is then there's no noise problem in the motel area. MR. GRAUL-There should be none. MR. RUEL-And apparently there's no noise problem in other areas. MR. GRAUL-That is correct. MR. RUEL-Then we don't have a noise problem. MR. GRAUL-There should be no noise problem with the layout of this track as it is designed and proposed. MR. BREWER-As you speak right now, how loud, how many db are you speaking? MR. GRAUL-My conversational speech, well, right now, at one foot from my mouth, the sound pressure level is about 60 to 66 decibels. MR. BREWER-So as you're talking, and I'm not asking you. MR. GRAUL-That would be referred to as an acoustic power vental, and conversational speech is anywhere from 60 to 66 decibels. MR. BREWER-The conversation we're having right now, how loud is that, about? MR. GRAUL-Well, right now with this microphone, I'm generating about 70 decibels. MR. BREWER-That's as loud as the go karts are going to be? MR. GRAUL-That is correct. MR. RUEL-And what's the db level for the threshold of pain? MR. GRAUL-90 decibels, according to OSHA standards. That's when you have to put headphones on in an enclosed space, and that is in any engineered environment in an enclosed space. OSHA's very strict about that. - 63 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/20/96) MR. PALING-Did you have further? We're going to go to the public hearing. All right. Lets open the public hearing on this matter. Does anyone care to speak about the Ermiger application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MARTIN AUFFREDOU MR. AUFFREDOU-Good evening. My name is Martin Auffredou. I'm an attorney with the Bartlett/Pontiff firm in Glens Falls. I'm here on behalf of the Lake George Campsite and also Skateland. Sitting to my right is Mr. Dean Long of the LA Group, who is also here on behalf of the Lake George Campsite and Skateland, and rather than get into any specifics about illY comments at this time, I think it would be appropriate to turn to Mr. Long. Mr. Long, as I said, is with the LA Group. He's had an opportunity to review the study that the applicant has submitted, and has indeed submitted a critique to Staff of that analysis, and I think while the issue of sound and noise is fresh in our minds, perhaps we should stick with that, and simply turn to Mr. Long. DEAN LONG MR. LONG-Thank you. As Martin said, I'm Dean Long from the LA Group. I'm the Director of Environmental Planning. I've worked at the LA Group for the last 10 years, working primarily in the areas of preparing Environmental Impact Statements. Many of them have dealt with noise issues, especially as it relates to large construction sites and gravel mines and other such things. One of the things I want to focus on immediately here is Tom Nace' s beginning statement of all this thing, and what you folks on the Board were doing at the end of the presentation of the sound studies, and that is, what do all these numbers mean, and what have you got to do with them? Noise is one of those things that's difficult to deal with, and unless you're methodical about it, it can become very, very confusing. So the first thing, the first part of the setting that I want to make clear about the situation that we have out there is that there are some operating noise standards that the federal agencies and housing utilize as well as the Federal Highway Administration, as well as New York State DOT, and as well as all these other agencies use in order to guide their planning and determine when noise bar·riers are necessary for highways, and suggest what kinds of structures may be necessary in order to allow normal housing activities to occur both in urban and rural environments. Out of that guidelines, and that's part of what I submitted to the Planning Department, what it very clearly states is what we have out there is a very, very marginal situation. We have a situation out there where the noise levels that they have put forth in their study are at the very edge of the limits of where community discomfort and community opposition would take place, to new noise and new activities, and I think that's the critical thing, what the Board has to look at is, are you going to push it over the thresholds because of this new noise source. The study that's been put forth diminishes it and says it's only going to be a three decibel increase, but when you're at the edge, that three decibels becomes significant, and I think that's what you have to evaluate. I think, specifically, one of the items that you are also working on or trying to get a hold of was what was the ambient study really about, and that's one of the problems I have. The ambient study that they submitted was variable measurements taken from distances of curb side to a distance of 200 feet off of Route 9, but how many cars were driving on Route 9? I was out there Friday afternoon walking around, just listening, just trying to get a hold of the idea, just as Tom Nace said, of what is the noise environment. I counted 105 cars in five minutes. So, you know, at least Å know what I heard and what I saw and how that related. One of the problems here with the geosonic study is that we don't know how many cars were on Route 9, so we don't know if - 64 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/20/96) that 83 decibels represents an average afternoon, a Sunday morning, or a Friday afternoon, which I think what you folks were trying to get at by asking questions, you know, what really was the traffic there. Also, the other typical things that you would have with that kind of ambient noise study was what direction was the wind, because the wind certainly pushes around noise. If it's a hot, humid day, that causes noise to be different. If it's just after a rainstorm or the ground is wet, that also causes the noise to be different. All those things are lacking from the ambient study that's been submitted to date. The other critical thing here is, and it seems like a picky thing, but what kind of meter? The meters are vastly different, and the types and nature of meters has changed dramatically over the last two and three years. So it is a critical part of any noise analysis to know exactly what kinds of instruments are being used, and how that might effect the overall ambient noise study. The other issue, another issue I had with the study is that it talks about 27 and 30 cars, and it's never absolutely clear. It appears as if they've judged the potential noise from this new track on 30 cars, but that seems to be somewhat unclear. Now, in the noise abatement discussion, in the noise calculation discussion of geosonics, it talks about how the noise barriers will be effected. Now, it lists the major criteria of noise barrier being proximity to the noise source, which certainly is one of the controlling factors, the height of the barrier, because what it has to do is as they correctly stated is block the line of sight, but they did not discuss that generally barriers have to be very long. The studies generally tell they want them to approach continuous. The barrier that's been proposed along the Agway boundary has a very large gap, and I think what needs to be done here is that we need an analysis as to whether or not that gap is going to have a significant detrimental effect on the quality of that noise barrier and whether or not it's going to cause the true abatement that they're predicting that's going to occur at this site. In general, the discussion of the noise calculations haven't given us those specific calculations for each location. It discusses cross sections, but in our review that took place yesterday, of the planned sets, we only found one cross section that basically showed a wall section and didn't show a cross section through the grading plan to show exactly how the track is going to be positioned on the earth, because if it is, as they said, slightly cut in, that will have a positive benefit, but unless we have all that information teamed up with the information on the exact position of the barrier in relationship to the wall and how continuous it is toward the noise source, it's really difficult to evaluate whether or not you are going to get that three decibel decrease that they're relying upon. Another issue in the noise study is whether or not the three decibel decrease. The noise study mentions a number of times noise attenuation by ground effects. Now ground effect noise reductions only occur when noise passes over soft absorptive ground surfaces such as earth or vegetation that does not take place over pavement, concrete or stone, and that's according to the Noise Barrier Design Handbooks of the Federal Highway Administration. So in the absence of having the cross sections, in the absence of having more information on the barrier, it's very hard for me to agree upon, you know, whether or not you're going to have the prescribed or the estimated three decibel decrease that they're relying upon, especially in the relationship that they're relying upon that three decibel decrease to allow the noise from this track to mix compatibly with an unknown noise source, being Route 9, since they did not give you the traffic counts, and what were the actual ambient conditions out there. Another issue is, in their study, they discuss the Northway, as it relates to the Lake George Campground. Now, it states that there will be high throttle, full throttle truck noise occurring on the Northway at that position next to Lake George Campground, but the problem is that the grades at the Campground on the Northway on the northbound lanes are flat, and they start dropping downhill. I spent some time out there last Friday, and I - 65 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/20/96) didn't hear any trucks gearing down to go downhill, so that you'd have that additional noise source, and certainly the trucks don't operate a full throttle to go down that hill. Any of the trucks that are throttling out, up to go up the southbound lanes are doing so probably 300 feet away from the right-of-way fence, all the way across a very large median that's heavily vegetated. So I think one of the problems they must address is whether or not the assumption that there was going to be this high throttle, full engine noise on the Northway is going to be part of the overall ambient conditions on the Northway causing an overall reduction or the heightening of what they perceive is ambient levels at the track side and around the track. Another one of the interesting things about these tracks, as Tom Nace said, what everybody's got to do is go out and listen and hear it for yourself is the amount of noise that the participants make themselves. As Rich demonstrated, voices can be pretty loud. I was surprised, last Friday, walking around, how loud the voices actually are. Actually, many times it surpasses the actual noise of the motors. So you can certainly have spites of noise occurring at these facilities that mayor may not disturb the adjacent land uses and other people going about their recreational activities in the area. So, at this moment, you know, I see that there's a significant number of problems with the study as submitted, the primary one being you can't get a full understanding of the ambient conditions, and then the additional issue is that, what does it mean within the planning context here? Again, we're basically right at the edge of the planning guidelines for community noise acceptance, and what it means to the Lake George Campground is that the area that this facility will be adjacent to is the area that happens to be the furthest away from the Northway. Now granted that campground is subject to a lot of noise from the Northway, but here, what's going to happen is you're going to have a new noise source immediately adj acent, reinforcing the noise that's already coming off the Northway, at the location that happens to be the furthest away from the Northway, which potentially holds out the area that could be a portion of a future development or a few additional campsites that would be, essentially, the quietest campsites on that property, and I think that's part of the burden that the Planning Board has is evaluating this noise study and evaluating its long term effects on all the adjacent users, since we are at this boundary level. MR. BREWER-Can I ask one question? track is proposed to the campsite, Skateland to the campsite, in feet, In relationship to where this how far away is the one at in comparison? MR. LONG-The Skateland track is out in front of. MR. BREWER-Yes, I know where it is, but just how far away, it goes out in back, doesn't it? MR. LONG-No. When I went out there and walked around to the back of the campsite, their overflow loop sits right immediately behind the Skateland water slide, and the Skateland water slide was the dominant noise source in that back part, because you have the motors right at ground levels, as well as the rushing water cascading down from the entire tubes. The track was operating with about 12 cars at the time I was there Friday afternoon, and the track really wasn't noticeable in the back because it was all being masked by the water slide itself. MR. RUEL-I thought this was an exact science, because you can come up with a study, and somebody else will punch holes in it, forever. MR. LONG-Right, and I think the problem, like any science, and any approach of a study is it needs to be methodical, and as you are getting at, you know, what is the noise on Route 9 and what is it being caused by, and I think that's the key issue. - 66 - ---- (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/20/96) MR. RUEL-There are many assumptions made. assumptions. I mean, that's not methodical. You have to make MR. LONG-Right, but in order to make assumptions, you have to have a well grounded base of data, and what I'm saying here, on this ambient study is we don't know how many cars are going past during that time. We don't even know what time of day it was. MR. RUEL-Yes, but aside from all the studies, I know when I go next to Skateland, one of these places, I don't find the noise excessive at all. MR. AUFFREDOU-You may not, but I don't know if you've ever camped at the campground behind where this object is proposed, and I think that's the issue that I'd like to take up on it, at this point. The site specific concerns that we have, obviously, in opposition to the project, is the noise, and Mr. Long has addressed what he believes are some of the flaws in the testing that's been done. We would echo the concerns of Staff that were raised preliminarily here this evening, that a separate study should be done. I think that it's incumbent upon you to engage in that type of a study, given the scope of it and the nature of the project that's at hand, and given the amount of SEQRA review that this project is going to require. I don't see how you could make a thorough SEQRA review, take the requisite hard look, without having an independent study of the noise that this project is going to produce. MR. BREWER-There's no SEQRA on this. MR. STARK-Yes, there is, Tim. They made a mistake. It's Unlisted. MR. RUEL-Yes. It's a short form. form, Noise Level. That's the first item on the MR. AUFFREDOU-And on that issue, I mean, it is a short form. I understand that that's what the applicant has submitted, and I understand that's what's typically utilized for an Unlisted Action. MR. RUEL-But noise level is listed there. MR. AUFFREDOU-It is listed, but you do have the discretion to require a long form, and I would strongly urge that you do take that under consideration. Again, given the scope of the project, given the nature of the uses that are proposed, and given the assistance that a long form will give you in identifying noise issues and perhaps some other environmental issues that are presented as well. I would urge you to use your discretion in that regard. Our site specific concerns, again, are the noise. Our site general concerns, basically, what I'd like to do is just take a minute and appeal to your authority as a Planning Board and I think your obligation as a Planning Board to take a look at the proposed project in light of the uses that are ongoing now on Route 9, the commercial highway zone. Your Zoning Code talks about the purpose of a Highway Commercial zone, and it defines the purpose as follows, and this is the Highway Commercial zone. "Those areas of Queensbury which have already developed fairly intense and haphazard commercial patterns. The purpose of these zones is to confine development of this type to these areas while providing for minimal expansion, primarily through infill. II Thus the Zoning Code, in my opinion, recognizes the necessity for keeping commercial zones diversified and the uses haphazard. You have a similar, if not identical use, right down the street that's already there. It's a unique use. It's not like a restaurant. It's not like a gas station on Aviation Road where you would expect to see two gas stations in close proximity. You may expect to see two restaurants, less of a unique use. You have unique uses here, a skating facility and go karts. You don't see them all up and down Route 9. Seeing them in such close proximity, I submit, is not - 67 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/20/96) keeping in line with the purpose of the Code which is to develop haphazard commercial uses, and commercial patterns. Having these in such close proximity, I think, is a detriment to the character of the community. Going north or south on Route 9, yes, you're going to see a number of motels there. You may see a couple of restaurants, not necessarily right on top of each other. You may see a cinema. You're going to see a campground. You're going to see a go kart track and a go kart track. You're going to see a skating facility and a skating facility. Granted permissible uses, yes, but again, I appeal to your obligation to take a look at this project from a commercial, from the Commercial Highway zone perspective, and from an overall planning concept. That's a site general concern. Getting to a specific concern, I would like you to consider the impact that this project is going to have on the campground. The south side of the campground you have an existing amusement center and Skateland facility. It's been there for a long time, well run, well operated. Go kart tracks are running at night. To the north of the campground, you're going to have another go kart facility. Right now, Mr. Gardner, proprietor of the Campsite, is here tonight. What he does is he sends his campers to the north side of that camping facility for peace and quiet. They've come to expect that. His customers have come to expect that tranquility. You put a go kart track up on the north end, you can have studies 'til our hearts desire, call it a study, call it whatever you want. Call it a camel as far as I'm concerned. What you're going to have is you're going to have two go kart tracks on each side of his property, and nowhere for his campers to go. You're creating a tremendous hardship for Mr. Gardner and his wife, the proprietors of that campground. I need you to consider that. I know it's a permitted use. I understand that, but I need you to carefully consider what this use is going to do to Mr. Gardner's business. MR. PALING-Okay. Thank you. The hour is getting late, and I don't want to take time away from anyone, but I would ask you to keep your comments as brief and to the point as you can. Who would be next? ART SMITH MR. SMITH-My name's Art Smith. I represent Lake George Zoo, Animal Land for Mr. Dave Osbourne. The only thing we're concerned about is the fencing. We got the fence from Pirates Cove, and all we ask is you continue it, Mr. Ermiger to us. MR. PALING-Right. This was brought up before, and I think this will be taken care of. MR. SMITH-Right, but I was told this was a new submission and I had to be here to say it. MR. PALING-Okay. MR. SMITH-The only other thing I've got to say is, there is a drainage problem there, but you guys all tell me there isn't, for their parking lot. From where their parking lot's going to be, there's a good 20 or 30 foot drop down to me, but the drywells are supposed to handle it. I just want to be on record that there is that much of a drop. It's a valley that comes right through there, and then it goes right back up, but right where their parking lot is, where both of those empties right into the valley, which is a 20 to 30 foot drop down to me. MR. MACEWAN-Has Rist-Frost looked at these latest plans? MR. HILTON-Yes, they have, and the comment letter which I read previous was in light of these new plans. MR. RUEL-Are you getting water from that property now? - 68 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/20/96) MR. SMITH-Absolutely. Sure, 'when it those hills and right into me. I rains. It lays real wet there when rain. rains, it comes right down off only have a problem when it it rains, when I get a lot of MR. RUEL-Well, they're going to solve it for you. MR. SMITH-Well, I'm hoping, but on the map it only shows a little droppage, but there is 20 to 30 feet, but as long as it's on record, I'm happy. Our animals, noise is noise, you know. I've got a bulldozer over there now, beep, beep, beep all day long. Anyway, just the fence. We need the fence continued up to the end of his property, the same as Pirates Cove, is all we're asking. MR. PALING-The fence and the drainage, right. Okay. MR. SMITH-Thank you. MR. PALING-Thank you. Who's next? TOM MCDONOUGH MR. MCDONOUGH-Good evening. My name's Tom McDonough. I'm here to speak on behalf of myself, the Greycourt Motel. We are directly across from the proposed area of development, and staying with the site specific issue of noise, I would join in the correspondence of Mr. Auffredou that he sent to the Board, as well as Staff requesting an independent study of this issue, in light of the fact that the issues brought up by the expert here as well as the fact that understanding what these numbers mean requires some outside source to tell us what they really are. It's quite hard to believe that the noise is going to be equal if not less with the 30 go karts across the street from the motel. It's just hard to understand, and I also would point out that even as the petitioner has stated, the average number of decibels that they were talking about comes from some other survey done somewhere else, and the highest noise level was done, the average noise level he comes out to is the 71 db's was done over a 24 hour period. So you're going to have peak periods where the db's exceed the numbers he's already told us, okay, and I don't know what the source of those surveys of those numbers are, and in addition, even putting up the barriers, they're not sound absorbent barriers, and in light of the fact they're not sound absorbent barriers, they reflect noise, they increase noise. In the service we used to shout to have our voice bounce against the wall and come back to us, and sound does bounce, okay. So you have that increase based upon the barrier that's not a sound absorbent barrier. It's just a sound barrier. So to that extent, there's going to be an increase in noise. No question about it, and I think an independent study based upon Staff's recommendations and based upon the critique of the experts sitting up here, it ought to be done. That's just addressing the noise issue, and that's an impact on the Motel, and I just want to emphasize that without pushing the issue. It's noise. It's an increase in noise, and you're pushing the envelope at 71 decibels. How many more over 71 does the noise become irritant, not painful, and as the expert here stated, you are pushing the envelope at the 71 dbl limit. I don't know if this is the time to address these issues, but I think perhaps I'm going to point them out. There's no statement as to the hours of operation with respect to this. MR. PALING-That was discussed before. MR. MCDONOUGH-It was, but it wasn't resolved, as I recollect. MR. PALING-No. resolved. I think you're right. Yes. It's got to be MR. RUEL-It's open. - 69 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/20/96) MR. MCDONOUGH-And also, there's no provision in these designs here for vehicle storage. So apparently there's going to be open storage of vehicles. Where do they go at night? Are they going to store them out in the front lawn? Where are these vehicles stored? MR. BREWER-I think that there was discussion of a building somewhere near the bridge. MR. MCDONOUGH-But it's not on this map. MR. BREWER-Outdoor storage, at one time, we talked about under the bridge. MR. MCDONOUGH-Yes, and they talked about storing them under the bridge, 30 vehicles. MR. RUEL-Yes, it's not there now. MR. PALING-All right. Well, we can bring the point up if you'd like. MR. MCDONOUGH-How about fuel storage? There's no provision on the maps or charts or information on it. MR. PALING-Yes. Well, we have to ask for protection there. MR. MCDONOUGH-Hours of maintenance. MR. BREWER-Like I said, there was a building on the previous plan. There was a building for that. MR. RUEL-There's a maintenance building here. MR. PALING-Okay. Well, lets go ahead with your, I've got vehicle storage followed by fuel storage. What was the next one? MR. LABOMBARD-Maintenance. MR. PALING-Maintenance, yes. Okay. MR. MCDONOUGH-There was some discussion, as I recollect, on one of the last meetings, that maintenance was going to be done at night. MR. PALING-Okay, maintenance hours. All right. MR. MCDONOUGH-Now this map is a little different than the last one that was here. That's the question I have about setbacks visa via ingress and egress. What's happened here. Here's the entrance from Route 9. You've got your property line right here. No delineation on the property, going down through what is the driveway on two separate pieces of property, okay. MR. PALING-That's shared drive, now. MR. MCDONOUGH-Well, it said shared parkinq. It wasn't shared drive, okay. There's no indication of shared drive, because the Code, I understand, requires egress and ingress of 10 feet for the property owner, for each property. If one property owner here decided he was going to put his boundary up, neither one of these would meet the requirements of the Code. MR. HILTON-I think it's a stipulation of the subdivision for this property that they share access. MR. MCDONOUGH-Well, that's fine. I understand the shared access because that was the route, the only way they could develop the property. This came up years ago, okay, and shared access was a - 70 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/20/96) requirement, because DOT took the position that the line of sight access from the other open area was inadequate for safety to the north because of the turn and downgrade. So they required only one access to this piece of property. That's the history that goes with that okay, and it was generally agreed shared access, but there was nothing stated with respect to each one of these property owners having equal outgoing and ingoing, and your result here is that you've got a problem here, just like you probably have right over at the Pizza Hut. You can just about get your car in and out and turn it around, and it doesn't meet the Code requirement, which requires you to have enough room to turn a car around and back it out in your own back yard. There's no agreement with respect to this line, and I don' t think at this stage you can make an agreement to rectify the problem, and it does require a variance. No variance was given. MR. HILTON - I don I t understand the problem. there's a violation either. I don't see where MR. MCDONOUGH-Well, lets say this man was developing this piece of property by himself. He would have to have 20 foot wide parcel here, 10 foot in and 10 foot out, plus his parking, plus adequate room for the parker to get his car in and out. This does not have that space available. MR. PALING-We have, again, made note of it. I don't know. We'll find out. MR. HILTON-If you're asking about the width of the parking areas and the drive, the access aisle between the two, they meet the Code. We require 60 feet, and you do have double wide parking. They have approximately, they have like 63 feet wide. MR. MCDONOUGH-I think if you were to meet Code, you're required, at this point, to have 80 feet between this point and this feet. MR. HILTON-No. I can tell you it's 60, and they meet it. MR. MCDONOUGH-Well, I understand what you're saying, but to make my point, if they were separate parcels of property, which they are, this parcel would not meet the requirements for this parking space and have two lines of traffic, one in and one out, and this one would not either. MR. PALING-Okay. MR. MCDONOUGH-And there's been no agreement, provisions with respect to it, and also they're using that same line for the side setback, to meet the 25 foot minimum. MR. PALING-Okay. MR. MCDONOUGH-I believe that's all I have to say at this point in time. Thank you for your attention. I appreciate it. MR. PALING-Okay. Thank you. JIM VALENTI MR. VALENTI-Jim Valenti, owner of Agway. Again, I have concerns which I come tonight about the sound. Okay. I feel as though this site needs an independent study done to tell me at 26 feet away what it's going to sound like in my nursery, okay. They're telling me three decibels. I can't see it. You're taking 30 cars, five and a half horsepower engines, and in the information they gave us last time, four cars at 10 feet is 82, at 50 feet is 68.5. I'm 26 feet. That's got to lie at four cars in the 70 range of the decibels. With 30 cars, kids screaming, cars bumping into each - 71 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/20/96) other, I can't see it going down to that, and with an independent study done, we will all know what the sound's going to be like. I conduct a lot of business out there in my nursery. I have my counters. MR. HILTON-I'd just like to state for the record that what Rist- Frost is suggesting and what Staff is suggesting is not a separate study. It's just a review of the current study submitted. MR. VALENTI-Okay. Right here is where we conduct the business out there in the greenhouse. Right in front of the greenhouse, I've got about 15 feet with counters where everybody checks out, okay. In the spring time, May and June, I'm busy out there. Saturdays and Sundays are my busiest days. With these go karts going around here, which they're going to be their busiest days on that time, I need to know the sound. They have the wall coming around here, ending here. Now I would like to know, in the study, how much is that wall going to knock it down compared to the front of the greenhouse, to a little more out front where the wall isn't. You see where that wall ends in the front here? Okay. I would like to know what that sounds going to be like over in here. I want to know what that wall's going to do, which I haven't heard yet on that. So the sound's my main issue on it. Then I have some other issues, subject to approval on this. Back here, where the walkway is, the sidewalk, they've got the chain link fence coming around and tying in to their maintenance building here. I feel as though that sidewalk where the people are going to be at night, you know, unattended there, I should have a chain link coming around the back side, tying into the building, to keep these people from coming over into my back yard, which I don't see any chain link. You see right here. I carry inventory back there, and it's free to walk back there, which looks like only about 35 feet away from the edge of that sidewalk there to my back yard. Number Two, there's a little problem right here on the back. I have retained this wall here, which back here shoots straight down. If this track is coming around, this is getting developed here, I think we could be looking at an erosion problem right here, which I feel as though that should be retained. There's a six foot embankment that runs around 100 feet that is vertically straight up and down. Nothing I did. Nothing Ken did. This embankment was there when we came in 10 years ago. Over here there's a fuel tank to be removed. I'm sure that DEC regulations will be taking that fuel tank out with all the information on contamination, a clean bill of health. I would like to see that. Well, the sound was the main thing, and with an independent study done on that, I'd feel a lot more comfortable with this development right here. MR. PALING-Okay. Thank you. Who's next? EDWARD GARDNER MR. GARDNER-My name is Edward Gardner. I own the Lake George Campsite, and as you requested ever so briefly, I am concerned, in addition to the other statements that have been made prior, this evening, I'm concerned about the securi ty of the campground, and to the extent that Jim has just brought to your attention the need for fencing to protect his property, I would encourage that fencing be provided for the entirety of the go kart property so as to prevent involuntary access to the campground through the go kart track, if it is eventually approved. That's it. Thank you. MR. PALING-Okay. Thank you. Go ahead. MR. VALENTI-Again, along with what I had forgot was that chain link fence. I didn't see the pictures of that other, I would like arbs, as a sound wall, to help with the sound, upright arbs along that whole fence, along the whole southern line of where it goes. I think the nursery, the plantings will look nice and it's going to - 72 - '~ (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/20/96) give me a lot of added protection with the sound. Thank you. MR. PALING-Thank you. Is there anyone else who'd care to speak on this matter? Okay. If not, the public hearing is closed. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. PALING-Would the applicant come on back. address some of these issues? Would you like to MR. NACE-Sure. What I'd like to do is go through and address a bunch of the general issues, hit on some of the sound stuff myself, more from a laYman's standpoint, we can have Rick address some of the sound questions, from a technical standpoint. First of all, I'd like to point out something. You all saw these pictures of the track at Old Forge. Okay. You'll notice in the background here, you see that building, that's in fairly close proximity. This is the upper section of track. There's a lower section that you saw in one of the other photographs, but that building that you see in the background here is a motel. It's directly across the street from the track. It's closer to this track than the motel across the street will be to our track. Well, that's the road through Old Forge. There's probably less traffic, but that's a very viable and very busy motel, and in talking to the people at the track at Old Forge, sure there were some initial concerns from residents about noise, but there have not been any complaints since the track was open. MR. BREWER-How many karts at this track? MR. NACE-There were quite a few. Ken says 27, and he was there with me, and I believe that, if it's not exactly 27, it's certainly in the 25 to 30 variety. Okay. Let me start down through the issues. First of all, Dean Long presented criticism of the sound study. I'd like the Board to know, and I'd like to know myself, what Dean's specific qualifications, doing himself, not reviewing or not incorporating into an Environmental Impact Statement, reports of other experts. I'd like to know what his qualifications, specific qualifications, regarding sound producing and doing sound studies are, and I think that's a question I'd like the Board to ask him. Okay. Most of Dean's issues on sound are technical. I'll let those be answered by our sound expert. One of the questions came up, by Martin Auffredou, was limiting competition, at least that's what I put it down as. Do we need two tracks on the same stretch of road? Do we need McDonalds and Burger King together? They normally go into the very same areas. Competition is good for our commercial establishments. So I would hope that the Board would look at that issue in the proper light. The Campground, the issue came up with moving people to the north end of the Campground for peace and quiet. I've looked at the Campground. I've walked out along the property line. I've listened to the Northway noise. I don't necessarily believe that that north end of the Campground is necessarily quiet. If you listen to the trucks on the Northway, and I think some of you have, it's pretty noisy, and I'm sure that any campground operator would tell you you don't physically ask people to move from one site to another in the middle of the night if it's too noisy for them. They just, they don't do it. The Animal Land comment, I apologize. The fence, I meant to put it on the plan. It will be there. MR. PALING-That's okay. All right. MR. MACEWAN-To interrupt you, just along the lines of his concern with the possible erosion down that hill. MR. NACE-Yes. That was down further. The erosion, for the Animal Land issue, the erosion, we are collecting all the water off our paved surfaces, and putting them into three drywells here. My - 73 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/20/96) engineering calculations, drainage calculations, showed that only two of those drywells were really necessary. The third I put in recognizing that this is a low point. If any of those were to overflow, there is a large potential, because there's a fairly high slope there, but I don't think, in fact I think that we will be reducing the existing amount of runoff that reaches the slow spot back there on the property line. MR. MACEWAN-What is the edge of the parking pavement like? I mean, has it got a swale to it? MR. NACE-It's curbed. So it's got to go over a six inch curb before it can get off that parking surface, and that's shown right on the plans. It's labeled curb. Okay. While I'm at it, the erosion issue over on this other property line is a pipe drain. There's really no tributary area to create erosion from runoff. There's a very small little hummock here of land. He has a retaining wall that's along here. We aren't creating a retaining wall, but we are making a cut in here which will produce a slope that's steep but maintainable, but there's no area up here large enough where runoff could concentrate and become a problem. MR. MACEWAN-What about his request in that area of re-locating that fence to the other side of the perimeter, going from that corner up to the corner of the building? MR. NACE-From here up to the corner of the building? MR. MACEWAN-Yes. MR. NACE-That cuts off any future plans we might have in this area. MR. MACEWAN-Why is that? MR. NACE-Because the fence would go through it. If we eventually want to do something with this area, we'd come back for site plan, obviously, but I don't think there's any specific need. He's got a retaining wall here. People from the track, you know, this track is going to provide the attraction for people from the Campground or other facilities to come look at the track. It's not vice versa. The people that are here are focused on what's here. They're not going to go off wandering back through the woods because they think there might be a campground back there. The attraction's here. MR. MACEWAN-I think he's raised some legitimate concerns, that the potential for people to want to wander out, on his side of the property. MR. NACE-If you walked back through there, they'd have to go and climb down a six to eight foot retaining wall made out of stones that's rather precarious, and even if they got to the bottom of that, they would end up in a bunch of bushes without any pads. I just don't think it's a reasonable assumption. Okay. We addressed Animal Land. The source, Mr. McDonough requested a little bit of knowledge about the source of the information for the sound study that came from the go kart manufacturers. That information was generated by a sound consultant out on the West Coast who is an expert noise consultant. Again, I'll let our consultant address that in more detail. Hours of operation. We are planning to be open until midnight. MR. PALING-What time do you open in the morning? MR. NACE-We'll probably open nine or ten o'clock in the morning. MR. PALING-Okay. intend? That's what you, ten to midnight is what you - 74 - '- (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/20/96) MR. NACE-That is correct. MR. RUEL-You should consider 11 p.m. MR. NACE-No. The track down the street is open until midnight. They advertise it. MR. BREWER-How can we control a business' hours? MR. PALING-Okay. They are open until midnight. That's the correct hours for them, but lets not try to debate this point right now. Okay. That's your intention. Lets go on. MR. NACE-Okay. Vehicle storage and fuel storage. What we are doing is very similar to the pictures I showed you for the track at Old Forge. They have a starting area. I think I passed this one out. Maybe I didn't. They have a starting area for their karts which is a covered building, and we've indicated here covered starting area, which will have side slatting doors that can be drawn down for security at night, and that's our storage of karts. We have a maintenance building, and that maintenance building will include a small storage tank, about less than 1,000 gallons, that is done according to Code for fuel storage. The karts, generally the tracks we've observed, the karts require refilling once during the day, and that is done with the portable gas cans. So the karts will be maintained there. The hours of maintenance won't be after the track closes. It'll be during off periods during the day. MR. PALING-Okay. Within track hours. MR. NACE-Within track hours, and there's also a little office area indicated with that maintenance building which will be a place for collection and selling of tickets, etc. MR. MACEWAN-The only storage of gasoline will be with the containers? MR. NACE-No. There will be a tank within that building. It will probably be, I'm guessing, it may be a 150 gallon tank that will have proper containment, secondary containment, but it'll be an above ground, visible. If anything happens, you can see it, tank. MR. MACEWAN-How often do you think that that tank would have to be filled? MR. NACE-The karts, I believe the karts hold two to three gallons, fill them a couple of times a day. There's 30 of them. They're filled twice a day, 30 times two times three is 200 gallons. So probably every day. MR. MACEWAN-And you said they would deliver like home heating tanks, that idea? MR. NACE-That is correct. Simply, like a truck delivers gasoline to a farm. Okay. Maintenance we've covered. The shared driveway, okay. I think the driveway indicated on there is 24 feet wide. The parking stalls are 20 feet long. It makes a total width here of 64 feet. It will be shared. It's noted as shared on the subdivision plan, for shared entrance. When the property was transferred to Pirate's Cove, this was transferred as an easement between the two for access. I don't know what more I can say. One thing on the sound that I would like to point out. Agway has been concerned and has expressed additional concern about his sales area, and specifically the sales area up here by the greenhouse. If you look, that's pretty close to Route 9. Plus, if you'll note, our sound measurements, as Rick had said, were taken on the conservative side, and the analysis was done on the conservative side. Our analysis is at the property line, okay. If you come - 75 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/20/96) back to the nearest point where he has existing walkways or customer access areas, you're another 10 to 15 feet back into his property. MR. RUEL-Yes, but that one section in front of the greenhouse does not have the advantage of the sound wall. MR. NACE-Yes, it does. The sound wall wraps around all the way to here. MR. RUEL-Yes, but I thought you were talking about an area further to the right. MR. NACE-I'm not sure I understand where you're saying. MR. RUEL-The sound wall starts here, correct? MR. NACE-That's correct. MR. RUEL-He was talking about this area. MR. NACE-Okay, but if you get to that area, by the time you look at where a kart's going to have free straight line transmission to there, you're quite a distance away. This is 20 scale. You're 80 feet away. MR. RUEL-Yes, but he had asked what the effect of the sound walls was, from a db level, on one side and the other side, and also what is the db level over here without the sound wall, this way. MR. PALING-Well, I think we'd like to get clarification of the effectiveness of the sound wall, but I don't think if we remove it, the sound wall is going to exist. So lets talk about only that condition. MR. RUEL-We don't want to remove it. MR. PALING-No. MR. NACE-The person from Agway also referred to the studies which had been previous provided, which were from the J & J Kart Manufacturers sound expert, and referred to the levels that were at different distances away in that study. I want you to keep in mind that that study did not have any sound barriers. We do, or the areas of the track that are in close proximity to Agway. The erosion problem at Agway, security fencing I addressed as applies to the. MR. PALING-The only thing I have left on my list is, I'd like to get the sound wall explained a little bit more in detail. MR. NACE-Okay. Well, lets have Rick come do that, and I'll review the rest of my notes while he's doing that. MR. GRAUL-First of all, I kind of need to refer to the plan. The sound wall is merely put in place to mitigate noise levels from the closest portion of the track to the greenhouse. The clear distance attenuation, which with doubling of distance you have a drop of six decibels in sound pressure level, is going to take over past the end of this wall, plus the focusing of the sound energy is not going to be directly at this property, but rather it's going to be in an oblique angle, which is going to be out in this area adjacent to the roadway. Yes, indeed, this is the area where he conducts his sales, but that is also the area where human activity is most prominent, such as transacting sales, trucks and cars coming in and leaving, people speaking, loading and unloading, and things of that nature. Also, you have sound pressure levels in excess of 60 decibels at that distance off of Route 9, which are consistent. - 76 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/20/96) These sound walls will, indeed, provide 10 decibels plus, depending on the distribution of the kart in relation to the wall. Now, if the kart is on this side of the track, and your receptor is standing directly on the property line, you're going to have a 10 decibel reduction. If the kart is right up against the wall, you're going to have about a 14 decibel reduction. That is the purpose of having these two sound walls in place is to reduce the, take the bite out of the noise from the karts being at that closest point to that property line. Clear distance attenuation will break down the sound levels further in these further points. MR. PALING-It was noted that these would be absorbing or bouncing. Which are you saying? MR. GRAUL-These are wooden walls. They will have a very good sound transmission loss, but they will also be absorbed because the wood surface is not perfectly flat, but it is continuous within itself, and it's a porous substance as well. So it is an acoustically absorptive material, and if it becomes an issue, it's something that can be added later, as well. Putting an absorptive material on a wall is not unheard of. The next thing that I'd like to get into. They mentioned who did the studies and what time they were done. The ambient study was taken at the curb, right here on the curve of Route 9, and back to a distance of 200 feet, at intervals of 10 feet, 20 feet, 40 feet, 50 feet, 75 feet, 100 feet, 150 feet and 200 feet, both typical or average levels or range levels were both recorded. They were taken at 11:45 a.m., March 22, 1996 at the location of the proposed access road. All readings were taken with the normal automobile traffic present on Route 9. Readings were A rated readings taken with a realistic meter Model Number 33- 2050. MR. MACEWAN-They were taken in March? MR. GRAUL-That is correct. MR. PALING-What day of the week was that? MR. GRAUL-I believe that was a Friday. Also, standards. You asked about noise standards. There were two noise standards that are not imposed. However, they are recommended by the Federal Government. One is by the Federal Interagency Committee on Urban Noise. This area is decidedly urban. If you look at a definition of an urban area, this would definitely classify as an urban area. They recommend that noise levels be maintained between the hours of seven a.m. and ten p.m. at 65 decibels, and between the hours of 10 p.m. and seven a.m. at 55 decibels. That is not a law. It is merely a recommendation by a committee of people who come from various studies in our government, and the intellectual community and the like. The second standard, which is established by the Federal Highway Administration, is 67 decibels. That is the limit that if you are a residential receptor, you qualify to have noise barriers put between your property and the edge of a highway, 67 decibels. MR. MACEWAN-Can I get you to step back in your presentation for a couple of minutes. Someone asked, regarding this sound wall. If it was a thicker, taller wall, would it work better, as far as deadening sound? MR. GRAUL-It wouldn't have to be thicker. MR. MACEWAN-In other words, this one's four by eight by four foot high. If it was like six by six's, five foot high, would it work better? MR. GRAUL-The transmission loss characteristics of the materials themselves are going to be highly'efficient. You're going to have - 77 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/20/96) a very good transmission loss with that type of material, regardless of thickness, as long as it is sufficiently thick to deaden the sound. It's height and length, yes. The longer you distribute the materials and the higher you distribute the materials, the more attenuation you will get. However, you have to remember where the source of the sound is from these karts. It's down near the ground level. The karts are only about this tall. The motor is mounted on a frame which is approximately three inches off of the ground, with a baffle that sticks off the manifold of the motor. The source of noise from all these motors is approximately 10 to 12 inches off the ground surface. So therefore, a four foot wall will sufficiently attenuate the sound from this. MR. MACEWAN-But if you have your sound deadening wall on this side, and you have karts on that side that have a farther distance to carry the sound. MR. GRAUL-Well, the sound deadening wall is not intended to significantly reduce sounds on that side of the track. Clear distance will do that. MR. MACEWAN-Okay. My next question for you is, the day that the survey was taken, the sound tests were taken up there on that property, was the property clear cut at that time? Was it cleared? MR. NACE-The property? The property's not clear cut now. You're talking about the pirates Cove property. MR. MACEWAN-Okay. That was going to be the second part of my question. How did that effect that test, in having the Pirates Cove area that was clear, which would allow more noise to come in? MR. NACE-The Pirates Cove property was clear. It was approximately the way you see it now. MR. MACEWAN-That's it. MR. GRAUL-Okay. I had a couple of other issues. First of all, i want to clarify, the proposed number of karts is 27. We used 30 because that's the number that was supplied to us by the kart manufacturer, J & J Amusements. They did their study with 30 karts. Seeing as how that is more karts than what we're proposing, it would not be unacceptable to use the numbers for 30 karts. It would only be conservative. Overly conservative, maybe, but it is not the number of karts that we were proposing. Also, we were not talking about a three decibel reduction. However, we were talking about no more than a three decibel increase in the overall sound pressure level, to correct the expert from the abutters. I do apologize for one thing. I did make a mistake in saying that the northbound lane was an upgrade. I'm sorry about that. That is, indeed, the southbound lane that is on an upgrade. However, these two lanes are in very close proximity to each other and the noise levels from both lanes are evident at all times during the day and night, and if anybody wants to dispute that, you can merely stand at any point on this site, and you'll be able to hear the drone of the traffic. What else do we have? I did cross sections on this property as well. As a matter of fact, back when it was originally proposed, I conducted approximately 15 cross sections, and I conducted another four to six cross sections, I believe I in addition to those, when we re-calculated the new distribution of the track and the walls. You have to keep in consideration here that there is, a very substantial portion of this track is going to be bounded barriers of one type or another. It's going to be bounded by barriers of wood, barriers of solid ground, and barriers of vegetation. The receptors over here are going to be completely out of the line of sight by a factor of two feet. This track - 78 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/20/96) surface is seven to eight feet below this ground surface. This ground surface is six to eight feet below this ground surface as well. That makes a continuous, unbroken barrier between the Campground and the nearest portion of the track where the sound level, pressure levels, would be the highest. MR. RUEL-All the barriers you've shown are on the south side, though. MR. GRAUL-That is correct, because this side here is a similar land use, and across here we have a distance between the nearest edge of the track and the road surface, well of the road right-of-way of 75 feet, 90 feet between the edge of the track and the road surface. MR. RUEL-So the barrier there is the distance. MR. GRAUL-Yes. The barrier there is the distance and the overall ambient condition of the road surface itself. MR. RUEL-How about on the other side, in the back there? MR. GRAUL-Over here? This is all part of their operation, and their neighbor's operation in which they're in conjunction, because they are similar types of land use. MR. NACE-Plus the building will provide a barrier, too. MR. GRAUL-The nearest campsite is somewhere, it's 200 feet off of the property boundary, I believe. MR. NACE-From about here, it's about 200 feet out this way. MR. GRAUL-And it's about 350 feet from the nearest portion of the edge of the track, plus there is an eight foot high effective discontinuous barrier between the track surface and the Campground, which will provide a decibel reduction of approximately 14 decibels, in and of itself, just the barrier alone, plus the reduction of noise levels because of distance, and this will be the furthest receptor, and if we are planning this to be a reducing condition for the closer receptors, the further receptors are going to be far less impacted, and I said before, if you're getting a sound pressure level of 71 decibels at 100 feet, you double that distance to 200 feet and you're down six decibels, which is 65 decibels, 400 feet, you're down to 59 decibels, and in that range, you're starting to find your ambient conditions, because if you go any further, you're going to be getting closer to the Northway. You're going to be getting closer to the roadway of Route 9, plus that there is substantial human activity that takes place in this, in and about this corridor at all times. There are always people talking somewhere. There are always people splashing in the pool when the pool is operating. So if there is any question of diminishment of the environment around the pool, you must remember that the people at the pool also make noise. They splash, yell, play, the like, just like they will be doing in here, and I don't know what your laws governing who is allowed to make more noise when they're having fun, but it would seem to me that it would be unfair or, I don't know exactly what term you'd want to use, but. MR. RUEL-Unconstitutional. MR. GRAUL-Unconstitutional to allow these people over here to have less fun than these people, or vice versa. MR. NACE-I think another question that I had jotted down here is, how many complaints has the Town had regarding the noise from the existing go kart track at Skateland? Are there any? MR. BREWER-We have no Ordinance for noise. - 79 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/20/96) MR. NACE-We have no Ordinance. We really haven't had any Ordinance. I'd like to point out, this yelling and screaming and what have you has been brought up, regarding impact on the Campground. If you take a look, I think I passed around that overall area map that showed the proximity of Skate land to the Campground, and the waterslide area of Skateland is right adjacent to the Campground. MR. PALING-Okay. Do you have more? MR. NAtE-We have two or three more here. MR. GRAUL- I would like to ask one question. The existing situation, is it marginal? By Federal Highway standards and by standards of the Federal Interagency Committee on Urban Noise, they are not marginal. They are well below those thresholds established by both of those organizations, and pushing the threshold at best we would be approaching the threshold at an extreme condition. We would not be pushing the threshold consistently or in a manner that would jeopardize the overall sound quality of the area, because it is indeed already an area i which this type of human activity is traditional and accepted. MR. PALING-Okay. Thank you. MR. STARK-Tom, Mr. Valenti also asked about putting some arborvitaes up on the southern side to fill in the spaces and so on. I don't think there's a set plan. MR. GRAUL-Solid rock provides the ultimate transmission loss. However, being that it's solid surface, that in itself acts as a reflector that the surface is irregular in shape and geometry will do something to break down the sound levels, such as rough acoustic tile will. MR. STARK-I don't think he was referring to so much for the sound, as for the aesthetics. MRS. LABOMBARD-The aesthetics. MR. PALING-That's more Tom's bailiwick, I think. I don't think it was referring to sound. MR. GRAUL-Yes, you know, putting up any kind of barrier in places. MR. NACE-Okay. As far as doing some additional barrier work with landscaping there, yes. We'll be glad to put some additional arborvitae in to provide, not a solid wall. I don't think that's to anybody's benefit, but to provide more of a continuous line of landscaping down along that property line. MR. STARK-One other question, and I think this might be a concern to more than just myself, is the hours of operation, Tom, being open to 12. Granted Skate land is open until 12, but there's no motel across the street from Skate land. I could see where that could be a problem, you know, from 11 to 12, the extra hour, with the pulling in, the pulling out. I think we restricted the hours at Pirate's Cove to 11, if I'm not mistaken. MR. NACE-I'd have to go back and look. I don't remember. MRS. LABOMBARD-I think we did. MR. MCDONOUGH-Yes, you did. That was a topic of discussion. MR. STARK-Why don't you confer with Mr. Ermiger or Mr. Rehm. I think, Walt, I think 12 o'clock is really pushing it. Skateland is open until 12, fine, but there's no motel across from Skateland. - 80 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/20/96) MR. MACEWAN-I think, more importantly, Skateland is not in front of this Board with an application. MRS. LABOMBARD-And we're not dealing with Skateland either. You're right, Craig. MR. PALING-Okay. MR. NACE-We are agreeable to, if you'll let us originally stay open until 12, okay, we're agreeable to close at 11, if the McDonough's come back to the Planning Department and say, we have a problem, once the thing is constructed, in operation. If they truly have a problem at that point, they don't have to demonstrate, all they have to do is complain. Then we will be glad to close at 11. MR. PALING-You said the McDonoughs. Is that the motel? MR. NACE-That's the motel. Is that reasonable? MR. PALING-And you're talking about 11 o'clock. midnight. You'd start at MR. NACE-We'd start closing at midnight. MR. PALING-And then if there are any complaints you would back off to 11. MR. NACE-If they have a problem with it, perceived or real, all they have to do is complain to the, or give notice to the Planning Department and. MR. PALING-You'll back off to 11. MR. NACE-Right. MR. PALING-All right. We'll just, we'll take it down. We're not saying anything final yet. Okay. MR. MACEWAN-I'd like legal input in that. MR. BREWER-Yes, do we have a right to control hours of business? MR. SCHACHNER-Well, the answer is that, upon an applicant's representation of what the hours of operation will be, and I'm speaking in general now, that would become, that can become part of an application, and therefore if we approve an application in which an applicant has made representations about hours of operation, those are the limitations on the hours of operation. Getting to Craig's question. That would be an unusual condition, and for one thing I'm troubled with the notion that it would be specific to the McDonoughs. I don't know that that's appropriate. If you want to tie that to Staff determination in the future and come back, you know, if in fact this application is approved at some point, come back for re-visitation of the hours of operation issue. There are ways to structure that. I mean, you're not acting on this application tonight anyway, as I understand it, by virtue of the Warren County Planning Board limitation. So that's something we can think about between now and whenever you do act on it. MR. PALING-Okay. MR. BREWER-We can leave it as an open issue right now, Bob. MR. PALING-Yes. No. We're not deciding anything. It's written down. We're not doing anything yet. We haven't done anything. All right. Do you have anything further? WALTER REHM - 81 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/20/96) MR. REHM-My name is Walter Rehm, and I represent Mr. Ermiger. I just want to say in response to George. We don't want to cause the McDonoughs or anyone else any problems. We don't want any problems. We'd like to have this operation run smoothly and be a benefit to the community, but what Mark says is absolutely right. There needs to be some kind of a standard. If Tom feels that, after this starts, that running until 12 o'clock is a problem, if he gets in touch with the Staff and the Staff makes an assessment and reports to the Board, that would be fine. It is very, very difficult, very difficult, and it's bordering almost on the unconstitutional to tell people how long they can be operating before there is a demonstration of some negative effect. I mean, it's like saying that a bar has to close at 11 o'clock at night or something like that. It's a difficult problem. We want to cooperate with the Board. We want to with the neighbors, and we want to do this in a way that has really beneficial to the community. This is a pretty well developed area, and it looks pretty good now, and we'd like to make it look a little bit better. MR. PALING-Okay. Fine. Okay. You're all set then? Okay. All right, then the public hearing has been closed. Everybody has had their say. Now the conversation will be within the Board, okay, within the Board and with Staff. We've got a SEQRA review, but I think we ought to perhaps, I would like to just see if there's anyone that would like to express their feelings about this whole thing before, then hit the SEQRA, and see what we'll do. MR. BREWER-Why don't we do the SEQRA the next meeting. MR. RUEL-Because most of the items that are open are in the SEQRA. MR. BREWER-I'm sure the applicant's going to come back with some type of a response, I'm sure, to these, or not. MR. RUEL-I suggest that we hold the SEQRA open. MR. PALING-Why can't we do a SEQRA tonight? MR. HILTON-First of all, Bob, if I may. I would just like to point out or ask the Board if you are considering Engineering Staff's comment that they have further review of the sound study. If that is the case, we'd like to get that started as soon as possible, because if we meet on the 29th, between now and then, there's the opportunity to have the study done. Have the letter come in with the comments from the people out in Cambridge, and at that time, SEQRA can be done in response to those comments. MR. RUEL-Yes. You can't do it now. MR. STARK-I don't think it's necessary. MR. RUEL-No. Don't do it now. MR. STARK-No. I mean, I don't think it's necessary for a further sound study. MR. PALING-Well, yes. This is why I was going to try to get an idea of how you felt, because I'm not sure I feel a sound study is necessary. Craig, do you have any comments? MR. MACEWAN-I guess the only comment I have, you have parties on both sides who have conflicting analogies of what the reports hold, for the minimal amount of money it would cost them, I guess it would seem appropriate to me to at least have these people analyze the report. If they're an outside interest, they don't have anything vested in this, other than supplying a report that says they're report taking was accurate or not. - 82 - -' (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/20/96) MR. STARK-I don't think it's necessary. MRS. LABOMBARD-As far as the sound study goes, we're talking about the numbers again, and I wish we could just start up three or four karts in the middle of the property and go down there and listen to it. I mean, to me, the numbers are. MR. BREWER-We can. Why can't we? MRS. LABOMBARD-Well, MR. NACE-Have you listed to the karts up at the? MRS. LABOMBARD-No, but I'm saying there. I mean, to me, that's more relevant than these numbers that, another thing is this sound study, who's going to pay for it? The applicant? Well, how biased is that going to be, again? Please, I didn't mean to imply a thing there. Seriously, I really didn't, but I'm thinking, you know, if the applicant has to pay for the sound study, then where's your bread buttered here? MR. MACEWAN-No. Cathy, what it is is taking this report, sending it to an independent company who will review that report for its integrity. Am I correct on that? MR. SCHACHNER-Correct. The applicant would bare the cost for this in the same sense that the applicant pays, sometimes pays engineering review fees, for example, not to their own engineer, although they do that, too, but to the Town's consultants. So this is not something that the applicant would have any direct control over. MRS. LABOMBARD-So the applicant wouldn't hire this person? MR. SCHACHNER-No. In fact, in your packet of materials is the proposal that was solicited by Rist-Frost, the Town Engineer, of a company from Cambridge, Massachusetts that holds itself out as being expert in this area. What Rist-Frost and the Town Planning Staff are proposing is that the Planning Board authorize Rist-Frost to engage this consultant, this independent consultant, that would be engaged by Rist-Frost, on behalf of the Town, not to conduct a new independent study, but to evaluate the study that the applicant conducted that would be, the expense for that which would be capped, as I understand it, from the proposal at $1,000 would be borne by the applicant, but there'd be no direct contractual relationship between the applicant and that consultant. MRS. LABOMBARD-Okay, but then when we get these numbers again. I mean, that's where I really have a problem with these numbers. I really do. MR. RUEL-I have to have faith in somebody somewhere. We get noise level studies, and we also get traffic studies, and if we start questioning these things and we show that we don't have any faith in these studies, where do we go from here? We have somebody check the study and then we don't believe him and then we have somebody check him again. This could go on forever. MR. PALING-You don't think it's necessary? MR. RUEL-No, I don't think it's necessary. The only thing that's missing is that maybe a traffic study would have helped to assist in the noise study here. That's the only comment I have, but I don't think it's necessary. I'm willing to accept the studies that we have. I think they've been checked and re-checked, and I'm satisfied with them. Also, I have experience and gone near these racetracks, and I don't believe, to me anyway, they're not, the noise is not excessive. - 83 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/20/96) MR. PALING-Okay. Tim? MR. BREWER-I would agree with Roger that I don't believe that a study is needed. If there's any doubt in anybody's mind, we can all go to Gaslight Village. MR. MACEWAN-I think you're all being confused here about what's being requested by Staff and the Engineering Department. It's an evaluation of the one that was conducted. MR. BREWER-Right. I think it comes right back to what the gentleman said to us tonight. He's telling us numbers and terms. I don't understand them. I think if I want to know about noise, I want to go listen to it. MR. PALING-All right. Let me tell you about my experience with this if you will. I went to the Campground with the group here, and about the only thing that we heard there in the Campground was the noise from Interstate 87, when we visited that. I went on my own Sunday evening at nine o'clock to Skateland, as well as up to the Action Park, and in Skateland, you go up to the track and you hear the noise of the cars, but I went across the street to Leonard's Insurance, and I went down to the curtain place there. I could not hear the cars for the noise of Route 9. All I could hear was traffic. I came back across the street and walked north from the parking lot trying to approximate 100 feet. I could, again, only hear traffic noise. I could not hear the karts. I did the same thing at Action Park, and it's a little bit different atmosphere up there, and there's no motels or anything, but I got about the same reaction because the loudest thing up there is the music that they played at the Park. When the music shut off, you could hear the cars, but if you got across the street near the other building, the noise faded way away. I went back again, today, at four o'clock this afternoon and went through a similar exercise, and the most noise that I could get up there was from the road, and I stood across the street, in the park, did the same thing down at Charlie Wood's, and I don't think, with the distances we're talking, and the barriers that we're talking, that noise is that much of a factor, and I don't think it's necessary to go back over the noise thing, because I'm going to go by what I hear, and experience, because I can't understand all the numbers anyway, but that was my experience, and the most noise up there is on Route 9, and it drowns out the noise of the cars, and so I don't think there's any necessity to do the noise thing further. MR. RUEL-So you think we should do the SEQRA? MR. PALING-I'm in favor of going ahead and doing the SEQRA. MR. STARK-No. MR. PALING-Why don't you want to do the SEQRA, because you want to get the other inputs? MR. STARK-There is no other input. MR. RUEL-No. There's nothing else. MRS. LABOMBARD-When do you want to do it? MR. STARK-Next Thursday we'll have more time. MR. BREWER-We didn't do the SEQRA on the previous application because of Warren County. We'll just wait for the next one. MR. STARK-Yes. The same thing with this. MR. RUEL-Yes, but we're not waiting for anything now. - 84 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/20/96) MR. STARK-Well, you've got a point there, also. MR. RUEL-We were waiting on the other one. MR. BREWER-Waiting for what? MR. STARK-For the input from Rist-Frost. MR. PALING-But you have nothing to wait for on this. MR. HILTON-If I may, if the members of the Board, if you're all planning on, lets say, going out to other sites in the area between now and the 29th and observing and hearing for yourself, and that's the way you want to handle it, you may want to wait to do SEQRA based on what you may find between now and the 29th. MR. PALING-If somebody wants to do that same kind of exercise, I'd say that's great, that's good. MRS. LABOMBARD-All right, because we're going to get that snag, the first question on the SEQRA. MR. BREWER-Lets just wait. MRS. LABOMBARD-So then lets all do what you did. MR. RUEL-I did that. Who else did it? MRS. LABOMBARD-I haven't heard them in a while. again. I'll hear them MR. RUEL-So you want to wait until everyone has an opportunity to observe the noise? MR. PALING-Yes. If that's what we're waiting for, I think that's legitimate, yes. MR. RUEL-All right. Okay. MR. PALING-And we can wait. Are we doing this next Thursday night? MR. HILTON-The 29th, yes. MR. PALING-All right. Then what other comments or input do we make? Nothing? Then we'll go ahead and table this, and we'll take it up again Thursday. Okay. MR. NACE-Thank you. MR. PALING-All right. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 6-96 KEN ERMIGER, Introduced by Roger Ruel who moved for its adoption, seconded by Timothy Brewer: Until the meeting of 8/29/96. Duly adopted this 20th day of August, 1996, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Stark, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ruel, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. West SITE PLAN NO. 51-96 TYPE: UNLISTED JAY CURTIS OWNER: FRANK PARILLO ZONE: CR-15 LOCATION: CORINTH ROAD, WEST OF NORTHWAY TO BIG BAY ROAD SOUTH APPROXIMATELY 800'. PROPOSAL IS TO DEVELOP A - 85 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/20/96) 6.7 ACRE PARCEL FOR BUILDING MATERIALS STORE (10,000 +/- SF) AND WAREHOUSE SPACE (67,390 +/- SF) WITH ASSOCIATED PARKING, STORMWATER MANAGEMENT, ON-SITE SEPTIC AND GREEN SPACE AREAS. BEAUTIFICATION COMM.: 8/12/96 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 8/21/96 CROSS REFERENCE: UV 50-1996 TAX MAP NO. 136-2-7, 8.2 LOT SIZE: 6.724 ACRES SECTION: 179-24 JOHN RICHARDS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. PALING-George, I think you'd want to give us a kind of special presentation on this one. MR. HILTON-Yes. In the interest of time, first of all, and the fact that we, as Planning Staff, aren't prepared to really go forward with this application tonight anyway, I'm not going to read in any of the notes and the comments from engineer or Beautification Committee. Attached with your comments is a letter from Cathy O'Brien of the DEC. We met on this property. A field inspection was conducted on August 12, 1996. It was a Monday. At that time, the property was inspected because of information received that the plant, Blue Lupine, existed on the property, which is a habitat for an endangered butterfly known as the Karner Blue. At that time, it was observed, as I've said, that there was a, lets say, a substantial amount of the plant, Blue Lupine. Since then, I have personally been working with Curtis and their representative and the DEC in order to kind of come to some form of mitigation that would allow for Curtis to continue with their plans in a more timely fashion. The DEC is receptive to this. They are working with us. We are, at this time, in the middle of discussions to try to come to, as I said, some sort of mitigation. In your letter, there are some forms of mitigation that are mentioned. The one at this time that I think we're pursuing is that the applicant would contribute the sum of between three and, it's estimated at between three and four thousand dollars where that money would be used to conduct a survey of the entire Town of Queensbury to identify sites that are Karner Blue habitats. In exchange for that, the idea, at least right now, is that the Curtis people would be able to proceed with their plans on this property. A ruling would have to come down from DEC, and I think the basis of that ruling, if I'm not mistaken, would have to be that the benefit of this study would outweigh the benefits of protecting this site. It still, I think, has to be determined, in its entirety, whether or not this site really has the potential to be a substantial habitat for the Karner Blue butterfly. I know it sounds very confus ing , and we are in the middle right now, as I said, of negotiations, and speaking with DEC and Curtis to try to come to some sort of mitigation here. Short of that, I think that if we were to open up the public hearing tonight, if you felt that was necessary, and we could continue it to the 29th. Between now and then, we could address any engineering comments. I've been working with Dennis MacElroy. He could address some of the site specific, the Zoning Ordinance issues, and we would continue to work with DEC to come to some sort of compromise. MR. BREWER-Doesn't DEC themselves have some sort of a map of where it is? MR. HILTON-The mapping that they have, that was done, I believe, around 1990, was for Saratoga County. Their information for Warren County and Queensbury in particular is not up to date. Therefore, there is a need for some sort of study that has been mentioned in the letter from Cathy O'Brien. MR. BREWER-What about when we did Native Textiles? Wasn't Nature Conservancy involved and they had some sort of mapping or what not? MR. HILTON-Again, I'm not familiar with what happened at that site at that time. There are some, DEC has limited mapping that shows - 86 - ,-,' (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/20/96) some areas of the Town, but there is not a comprehensive study that indicates where the areas are throughout the entire Town, and that would be the benefit of this study. MR. PALING-That was site specific, I think, just limited to there, but we don't have anything like this, and I would like to see this because we're running into this too often. MR. HILTON-Right, and that would be an obvious benefit. We would have it mapped out. If someone came in and proposed a development, we could, up front, alter them and go through the procedures and the process much quicker, and not have it happen almost after the fact. MR. PALING-Yes. MR. RUEL-George, the Blue Lupine is the thing of concern, right? MR. HILTON-The Blue Lupine is really not the main concern. The main concern is the Karner Blue butterfly which uses the Blue Lupine as a habitat. MR. RUEL-Okay. Now, do we know where that is on this site? MR. HILTON-We know that there is, as I said, a substantial portion of the plant, but at this time we cannot determine if there's a large or a population at all of the Karner Blue butterfly. MR. RUEL-Okay. I understand that, but there could be. You'd have to wait until next year to find out. MR. HILTON-Well, that's one possible way. MR. RUEL-Okay. What about, whatever it is, Blue Lupine? Can this be transplanted, picked up and moved somewhere else to one of our recreation areas? How is the butterfly going to know? MR. PALING-Why don't we wait and see what the DEC. MR. RUEL-I'm just wondering if that's an alternative. MR. PALING-Well, lets what they have to say. MR. SCHACHNER-Actually, I know a tiny bit about this. It's a pretty low survivability species and it requires certain types of soils or almost lack of soils. MR. RUEL-We have plenty of that soil in this area. MR. SCHACHNER-Well, typically it's considered a very low survivability transplant species, and that's one of the reasons that the significant habitat has taken on the significance, because if were that easy, then it would be that much easier to repropagate and to make new Karner Blue habitats, and that's, I'm told by Wildlife Biologists who have been years studying this issue that that's actually a very difficult proposition. MR. STARK-Is the applicant agreeable to paying three and four grand for this? MR. HILTON-Well, the applicant is obviously going to address you this evening. We've been talking, and I think that that's probably the way we're headed right now. MR. STARK-When I'm saying we're not holding them up, we're forcing them to pay three or four grand in order to get their application processed a little sooner? - 87 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/20/96) MR. HILTON-We're not forcing anything. That's a suggestion of DEC. If they choose to follow that as a form of mitigation, and it's acceptable to DEC, then we are agreeable to it. The other options being that they wait until next year and survey the site, or the accommodate the possibility of the Karner Blue existing right now, by modifying their current site plan, which I think would be potentially more costly to the applicant. MR. PALING-But that's a reasonable question. What's the applicant toward it? MR. HILTON-Well, I think that they should address you. MR. PALING-Okay. address this. Would somebody want to identify yourself and MR. RICHARDS-Good evening. My name is John Richards. I'm the attorney for Jay Curtis who's the applicant. We do have several members of the Curtis Lumber team here, as well as Dennis MacElroy from Environmental Design Partnership. Certainly this, as George said, this did come up almost after the fact, but we're right in the middle of addressing it and working closely with DEC. As a matter of fact, I spoke this afternoon, and they'll be one of my first calls tomorrow to DEC because we do want to do this properly for the Town. It's not something we expected when we got involved with the parcel, but it's certainly something we want to deal with correctly and hopefully to everybody's advantage. However, we want to do that in a very time sensitive manner. It is essential for this project and for the jobs it involves that we move on this quickly, and so that's effected how we look at some of these different mitigation alternatives, and certainly in our discussions with DEC. So we'll handle that, and we will come back to the Town and I talked to both Jim and George, earlier today, and my understanding from the Town is you obviously have to feel comfortable. DEC has agreed to whatever mitigation we put together, and once that's in place, that we can go forward here. Obviously we have to be able to satisfy all the SEQRA requirements and everything else. So we're working on that, and we're ready to go ahead and hopefully have this in place so we can appear next Thursday and complete the process here, and my question is, I know it's very late. Is there other, can we proceed with some of these other aspects and maybe get them out of the way tonight, or did you not want to talk about those? MR. PALING-No. We can open the public hearing and we can also proceed with other parts of it and then just table it. MR. RICHARDS-Well, my suggestion would be, since it's very easy to get deeply involved in this type of a subject, but we're dealing with things when the investigation is not quite complete. We haven't finished talking to DEC. I think it's premature to get involved in the Lupine question tonight, because we'll have answers for you. MR. PALING-Well, it was only to ask you if you were, what the Staff and DEC was coming up with would be okay with you, like the money. MR. RICHARDS-I'm not going to say that we're agreeing to anything right now, but we're certainly right in the middle of conversations. So, we realize something's got to be done. MR. PALING-All right. Then why don't we proceed as far as we can with your application now, and then table it and come back next Thursday. I think it's pretty straight forward. MR. BREWER-I don't have any major questions. MR. RICHARDS-If it's all right, I'm going to ask Dennis to come up - 88 - '-"" (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/20/96) and sit at the table, because he's the expert on the details of the plan. MR. BREWER-The only question that I saw, Bob, that hit my mind was the traffic. The engineer said something about traffic here. MR. PALING-Okay. Now, George, you said you wouldn't read anything to us tonight. MR. HILTON-I had not planned to. If the applicant wishes, I think we can address a few of these question. I'm going to hold off on the engineering comments. MR. PALING-Just avoid the other subject and go ahead. MR. HILTON-Okay. Well, the basics that have been mentioned before. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 51-96, Jay Curtis, Meeting Date: August 20, 1996 "The applicant is proposing to develop a 6.7 acre site as a building materials store and warehouse space. Staff has reviewed this application in accordance with Section 179-38 of the Zoning Ordinance and the Requirements of SEQRA and has the following comments. The site plan proposes an initial phase of 73370 square feet of combined office space, retail space, and warehouse space. A specific breakdown is as follows: Office Space = 3120 sq. ft. Retail Space = 10000 sq. ft. Warehouse Space = 60250 sq. ft. The application lists the proposed square footage of all buildings at 77390 sq. ft. Staff believes the current figure to be 73370. Proposed future expansion would bring the amount of square footage to 78620 sq. ft. Planning staff would like to meet with the applicant and verify the site development data as it may have an effect on lot permeability requirements and may limit future expansion." MR. PALING-Okay, and that can probably be done between now and Thursday. MR. HILTON-Yes. "The applicant is proposing to construct two points of access to this property off of Big Bay Rd. The current design of these curb cuts does not include an ingress/egress island which is required by Section 179-66B,4. Staff would like to have a shared access point on Big Bay Rd between this site and the abutting CR-15 property to the north. The proposed location of the northerly curb cut on this site could present future access management difficulties if the property to the north were developed with an additional curb cut on Big Bay Rd. From a planning perspective, staff is interested in reducing the number of curb cuts along major thoroughfares such as Corinth Rd. In response to this, staff feels that any access for this property and the property to the north should be off of Big Bay Rd. An additional curb cut that would be located approximately 70 feet from the drive proposed for the Curtis Lumber site would result in unsafe ingress/egress for both properties. Staff would like to work with the applicant to redesign the northerly access point at this location so it can be utilized by any future development to the north and provide 1 inkage of the proposed parking lot to the property to the north as required in Section 179-66.1." MR. PALING-Is the shared access a problem, do you think? MR. RICHARDS-Well, we don't have any objection. I don't think that there's any proposals on the table for the northern parcel. So it might be a little premature to start siting that. - 89 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/20/96) MR. PALING-No. I didn't know, basically, if you had any objection. MR. RICHARDS-Not in concept. MR. PALING-Okay. MR. HILTON- "The amount of parking that is required for this site is 110 spaces: 50 spaces for retail 60 spaces for warehouse The site plan indicates 62 spaces will be provided. The applicant has indicated that the 42000 sq. ft. warehouse building will be a "drive-thru" warehouse where cars will go inside the building to pick up materials that are being purchased. The inside area of this building that will be used by cars can count toward the total parking requirement for the site. In order to determine how many spaces exist in this warehouse and to calculate total site parking requirements, staff needs to see a floor plan of the warehouse and calculate the number of spaces inside." MR. MACEWAN-Did those calculations take into account the future expansion as well? MR. HILTON-Well, at the time of future expansion they would have to have enough parking on site at that time, or provide it with the future expansion. "The Zoning Ordinance requires a planted traffic island at both ends of each aisle of parking (Section 179-66B,3,b) . Staff would recommend the addition of a Red Oak to be placed at the west end of the parking aisle directly in front of the proposed retail building." MR. MACEWAN-If they couldn't meet the parking, they're in line to have to get a variance? MR. HILTON-They would either have to get a variance, yes, or redesign the site plan. MR. MACEWAN-It's kind of a unique situation. I mean, I can't see where they would need to have that kind of parking for the kind of business that's going on here. MR. HILTON-Right, and that's why the interior of the warehouse can count, and we did some preliminary calculations today, with the square footage and the amount of drive through lanes that are going to be used. I'm not going to go on record, but I think that they will be able to meet parking calculations. MR. PALING-If not, that would have to go to ZBA? MR. HILTON-Yes. Now, the only other comments that I have are all concerning the presence of the Blue Lupine and the concerns of DEC. Subject to a resolution of that issue, we will work with the applicant between now and the 29th, and on the 29th address any other issues that need to be addressed. "Staff met with the applicant and a representative of the NYS DEC at the site on Monday August 12, 1996. At that meeting the site was found to have a substantial amount of the plant Blue Lupine which is a known habitat for the endangered Karner Blue butterfly. The potential that the Karner Blue could habitat this site would conflict with the environmental assessment that will be done under SEQR. Since that meeting staff, the applicant and the DEC have been discussing possible mitigation measures and courses of action in light of the plant being found on the property. Because the flight of the Karner Blue has taken place already this year, it is difficult to determine if a population of Karner Blue's exist at this location. One possible course of action would be to wait to observe the sight in the Spring of 1997 to see if the butterfly exists at this - 90 - / (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/20/96) location. This would mean that review of this site plan would be put off until that time. As stated before, staff has been discussing alternative mitigation measures which would involve a shorter time delay than almost one year. At the present time staff is unable to recommend approval of Site Plan No. 51-96 until DEC approval is given or acceptable mitigation is agreed to by Planning staff and the DEC. Before final action by the Planning Board, any comments from the Town of Queensbury's Water Dept. and Engineering Consultant must be addressed." MR. BREWER-The only question I had was on the engineering comments, was traffic. They suggest, does the applicant have these comments? MR. RICHARDS-Yes. MR. BREWER-It just says it should be determined if there are any effects on the traffic generation. MR. RICHARDS-As George knows, that subject was addressed at length with the Zoning Board, and we had both our own, independent study by an affiliate of EDP, Transportation Concepts, and we have a report on that, which if you haven't seen this, we'd be glad to provide you. Also, Paul Naylor reviewed the whole situation and issued a letter that he did not feel it had any significant impact. So we don't feel that's a problem. MR. PALING-Were you before the ZBA? MR. CURTIS-We were before the ZBA because of the use. We had to get a Use Variance. MR. PALING-Okay. MR. CURTIS-With respect to the other matters raised here, we certainly don't think any of them are going to require a variance, and we're in compliance. MR. PALING-Okay. right. If we're this. Is there matter? Yes. If we can work that parking out. All at that point, we'll open the public hearing on anyone here that would care to speak on this PUBLIC HEARING OPENED LORRAINE TROY MRS. TROY-My name is Lorraine Troy, and I live just a little bit to the, I guess it's the north of the proposed site, kind of kitty corner across the road, a few feet up the road. They say there's no problem with traffic. It must be there isn't. I must be blind. Another thing, I think it was the Zoning Board, they stated delivery was going to be, there were going to be no deliveries before seven a.m. and none after seven p.m. I don't know if you're aware of that. I'd just like it in the record. MR. PALING-Now, say that again, please. MRS. TROY-At the Zoning Board, they said, Curtis agreed there would be no deliveries before seven a.m. and none after seven p.m. MR. RICHARDS-That was actually a condition of the variance. MR. MACEWAN-Whatever variances they received from the ZBA would be enforced through the site plan. MRS. TROY-Okay. I just wanted to make sure, and it seems the building has grown from what it was at the other meeting. It was - 91 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/20/96) a 20,000 square foot for one building and 42,000 for the other. That's gotten bigger. What are they going to do in the area as far as blacktopping? Are they going to blacktop the parking area, or what's going to be used there, and I guess that's all I'm really concerned with. MR. PALING-We can find out. Okay. MRS. TROY-The butterflies, too. MR. PALING-Do you want to comment on what she has said now, what she asked about? Okay. Is there anyone else that would like to talk on this matter? Okay. Now the public hearing must stay open because we're going to meet Thursday. Would you care to comment on these questions raised? MR. RICHARDS-Well, I'd just say that we had a number of neighbors that were in favor of the project, too, both at the, and signed a statement both for the variance approval and hopefully the site plan approval if you'd like to see that, but these issues, we're very cognizant of the very issues she raised, and we certainly have addressed them all and will continue to address them all. As far as the blacktopping, it is self evident. MR. PALING-Okay. You will blacktop. There will be blacktop. MR. RICHARDS-Certainly we'd take that into account with the stormwater plan. MR. PALING-Okay. DENNIS MACELROY MR. MACELROY-The site plan you see here, this is Big Bay Road, Corinth Road to the north. The areas in grey are the hardsurface area, so to speak. In particular, the areas with parking, the more public areas, are those that will be paved. The areas back in here which will be for truck delivery, material delivery, will be a graveled surface. MR. PALING-Okay, but wherever automobiles go you're going to pave, is that right? MR. MACELROY-And the public, correct. MR. PALING-Right, and the public. Okay. That answers that question, and the hours of operation you worked with the ZBA anyway. The traffic, we can't answer that too much, and building size they said changed. I don't know. MR. MACELROY -The size of the buildings from the retail to the warehouse has increased since our initial application, but certainly I'll work within the percentages of green space and building area, permeability within the lots. MR. MACEWAN-What are the proposed hours of operation? MR. PALING-What hours will you have at this location? JON HALLGREN MR. RICHARDS-This is Jon Hallgren, the Vice President of Curtis Lumber. MR. HALLGREN -Okay. The hours of operation would probably be something, right now they work seven to six weekdays and probably seven to eight or nine on weekdays, Saturdays most of the stores tend to work seven to five or eight to five, and there is a potential to go maybe eight to six on Saturdays, or if the - 92 - -- (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/20/96) conditions warrant we could go later. We tend to adapt to the local conditions, what's needed for the retail environment and the area, and we also have Sunday hours. They vary from store to store, from anywhere from nine in the morning until three, four, five at night. MR. PALING-So there's nothing before seven a.m. and nothing after seven p.m. MR. HALLGREN-No. What we talked about at the Zoning Board of Appeals was there was a concern over tractor trailers parking in the neighborhood, waiting with their engines running, in front of houses, parked on the road, and we're not going to allow trailers to park on the property and leave their engines running before seven in the morning. They can McDonald's parking lot, that parking area, before we open, but the issue relates to large tractor trailer deliveries, not our operations. That's what was agreed upon at the Zoning Board of Appeals meeting. We could possibly have employees earlier in the morning or later at night working on staging loads, but we would not have a series of. MR. PALING-Store hours. MR. HALLGREN-Store hours or some operations in the yard. MR. TROY MR. TROY-McDonalds has already posted, it has been all this time, no overnight parking. So if that's the plan for parking, that's out. The signs there are very clear. MR. HALLGREN-Okay. That was our thoughts that they could park there. We would not allow parking on our property overnight. MR. PALING-You won't allow it. Let it be at that. Okay. MR. HILTON-One thing that I would like to raise. This may have an effect on my discussions with Dennis between now and the 29th. From the Rist-Frost comment letter, they have noted that on the site plan, stormwater mitigation will be through retention ponds or detention ponds, however you want to term it, on the property. It's been historically, I guess, the Town's position that they really don't like this. They look for some sort of sub surface infiltration, and if we can get a position, maybe, from the Board, if you feel that you'd rather see sub surface infiltration, and Dennis and I would sit down and work, between now and the 29th, to revise the plan, so that we don't have any further snags on this. MR. MACEWAN-Back up again on that for a second. against? The Town is MR. HILTON-Not against. Historically in favor of having sub surface infiltration. That's listed in the Rist-Frost comment letter, and I'm going by that and I'm going by our example with Perry Noun. There were some concerns about retention ponds and safety of people in and around those ponds. MR. BREWER-I think in that area you're not going to have a real big problem with retention of water there. MR. HILTON-Okay. Sure. I mean, if that's the Board's position. MR. RUEL-Is this a change of heart? It seems to me that you were advocating? MR. BREWER-That has always been my position. myself. I don't like them - 93 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/20/96) MR. RUEL-You were advocating ponds the last time. MR. BREWER-Why would you advocate standing water somewhere? MR. HILTON-Well, if the Board feels that it's not any major concern here, that's fine. I just wanted to get it out in the open so we could avoid any further delays. MR. PALING-Okay. All right. Then we have a motion to table. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 51-96 JAY CURTIS, Introduced by Roger Ruel who moved for its adoption, seconded by Catherine LaBombard: Until 8/29/96. Duly adopted this 20th day of August, 1996, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Stark, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Rue 1 , Mr. Brewer, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. West MR. BREWER-I would make a suggestion that we shorten the agendas down a little bit. MR. PALING-I hear that. MRS. LABOMBARD-This is really out of line. MR. BREWER- I think we do terrible work late at night. terrible. It's MRS. LABOMBARD-I know it. MR. HILTON-Well, we had eight new items. We had eleven. Eight of them were, lets say, newer items. The others were modification of pre-existing subdivisions. MR. BREWER-We always had a practice of eight items on the agenda. MR. HILTON-Well, we had eight, except that the three quicker. MR. PALING-All right. MR. HILTON-This is regarding Site Plan No. 45-95. The applicant is requesting a one year extension. I believe you have the information in front of you. They fully, stated in their letter, they fully expect the construction to be completed this fall. In the event of delays due to dock builders schedule or winter weather, a request of one year seems reasonable. They've had their approval from the Lake George Park Commission. Staff foresees no negative effects with extending this period for one year, and I would leave it in the Board's hands. MR. PALING-Lets see, when was this approved. September 19, 1995. They have one year, right? MR. HILTON-Yes. MR. PALING-So we're okay in so far as dates are concerned. MR. HILTON-Yes. MR. STARK-What do they want, another six months or another year? - 94 - -' (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/20/96) MR. HILTON-They want another year. MOTION TO EXTEND SITE PLAN NO. 45-95 by Roger Ruel who moved for its MacEwan: JOSEPH TORNABENE, Introduced adoption, seconded by Craig For one year, to September 19, 1997. Duly adopted this 20th day of August, 1996, by the following vote: AYES: ,Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Stark, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ruel, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. West, Mr. Brewer MR. HILTON-I believe we're all set. The only other thing is that this application for the Sportline Honda, Gary Cardinale, which was handed to you this evening. We will be reviewing this next Tuesday. MR. MACEWAN-Do they consider this a minor modification? MR. HILTON-Minor modification. MR. PALING-George, we are going to get together on the agenda, and it better not go out until I participate in it actively. MR. HILTON-Sure. welcome. If you'd like to sit down, you're more than MR. PALING-As soon as you people are ready to go, you call me. MR. HILTON-Okay. MR. PALING-We're going to have to hand deliver another package to these people before next Tuesday. MR. HILTON-Next Thursday. MR. PALING-Thursday, excuse me. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Robert Paling, Chairman - 95 -