Loading...
1998-08-18 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/18/98) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 18, 1998 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT CRAIG MAC EWAN, CHAIRMAN CATHERINE LA BOMBARD, SECRETARY TIMOTHY BREWER ROBERT VOLLARO GEORGE STARK ROBERT PALING LARRY RINGER PLANNER -LAURA NOWICKI TOWN COUNSEL -MILLER, MANNIX & PRATT- MARK SCHACHNER STENOGRAPHER -MARIA GAGLIARDI CORRECTION OF MINUTES June 16, 1998: NONE June 18, 1998: NONE June 23, 1998: NONE MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MINUTES FROM THTHRD JUNE 16, 18, AND 23, 1998 , Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Larry Ringer: th Duly adopted this 18 day of August, 1998, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Paling, Mr. Stark, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Brewer, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE OLD BUSINESS: SUBDIVISION NO. 1-1998 FINAL STAGE TYPE: UNLISTED STAN RYMKEWICZ, JR. OWNER: SAME ZONE: SR-1A LOCATION: CHESTNUT RIDGE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO SUBDIVIDE A 19.17 ACRE PARCEL INTO TWO LOTS OF 5 ACRES AND 14.17 ACRES. CROSS REFERENCE: SUB. 12-1997 TAX MAP NO. 54-2-7.1 LOT SIZE: 19.17 ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS STAN RYMKEWICZ, JR., PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Subdivision No. 1-1998 - Final Stage, Stan Rymkewicz, Jr., Meeting Date: August 18, 1998 “Description of Project Applicant proposes final stage of Subdivision 1-1998. The applicant has complied with the items listed in the resolution of Preliminary Stage 1-1998. Staff Comments Staff would recommend the Board request a subdivision plan for the remaining fourteen acres. Staff has no additional comments.” MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Good evening. MR. RYMKEWICZ-Yes. My name is Stan Rymkewicz, and I’m owner/applicant. MR. MAC EWAN-Did you get a copy of Staff Notes for tonight? MR. RYMKEWICZ-I don’t believe so. 1 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/18/98) MR. MAC EWAN-I guess everything else that we had given you at Preliminary approval has all been addressed? We’re all set? Ready to go on to Final Stage on this. The only question that Staff has any concern about is what the intention is to do with the remaining 14 acres. Any plans? MR. RYMKEWICZ-Like I said before, it’s for sale. I’ve got somebody from Alabama interested in the whole 14 acres. MR. MAC EWAN-What exactly is Staff looking for? MS. NOWICKI-If he continues to subdivide at five acres, or he can subdivide at one acre per lot, I’m concerned with the steepness of the slopes, so that if he eventually gets to a lot that’s unbuildable, but he’s stated his intentions before that he plans to sell 14 acres. MR. BREWER-Yes, but what happens if that falls through? MS. NOWICKI-Well, I’m concerned, if he comes back in for continually subdividing the land, that I’m concerned that we’ll get to a lot that’s unbuildable. MR. MAC EWAN-I think the other thing we need to keep in mind, too, even if you sold it to one party for 14 acres, what’s to prevent that party from coming in and wanting to subdivide that 14 acres? MR. RYMKEWICZ-According to the people who made this map, that’s not a problem if I did make three lots out of it. MR. BREWER-But on the other hand, if he comes in with a lot that’s unbuildable, he can’t build on it. MR. MAC EWAN-I mean, there’s a certain window of building opportunity that they’ve got to meet, setbacks and grades and everything else. MS. NOWICKI-Maybe I’m being over-concerned, if you want to put it that way. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. BREWER-No. That’s a genuine concern, but if he has slopes that are greater than what’s allowed in the Ordinance, then he just can’t build on it. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-I think that’s the subject of another meeting, if it happens. I think this is all speculation as to whether it would happen or not. MR. BREWER-But that’s what we’re supposed to do, planning. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else that you wanted to add? MR. RYMKEWICZ-No. Like I say, I’ve discussed this with the, this is the second guy that’s made the maps, and he said there’s no problem to, if I did want to sell three lots later on, or two lots, whatever. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. th MR. VOLLARO-In your letter of July 29, to the Planning Board, it says “I am requesting a waiver for stormwater drainage on Chestnut Ridge Road”. MR. RYMKEWICZ-Yes. I was asked to do that at the last meeting. MR. VOLLARO-Right, but we’re being asked to, by copy of this letter, are we being asked to provide that waiver? MR. MAC EWAN-That’s what it’s all about. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. And are we? I mean, where are we on that particular subject? 2 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/18/98) MR. MAC EWAN-I don’t have a problem granting the waivers. MR. RINGER-It’s only one building. MR. BREWER-It’s only one lot. MR. MAC EWAN-I mean, it’s something that we’ve done in the past, on a regular routine, depending upon how intense the subdivision is, and this isn’t very intense, this one. MR. VOLLARO-No, I don’t see it as intense either. I just don’t see it called out in any of the Staff Notes or in any of the resolutions. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s okay. We can add it to it. MR. BREWER-Because he’s asked for the waiver, maybe. MR. VOLLARO-Incorporating that letter? MS. NOWICKI-You can incorporate it, or you can list his waivers in the resolution. MR. MAC EWAN-You could do it either way. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. BREWER-My only question was when the subdivision was going to end, but I guess we got the answer to that. I was going to ask how much more are you, because this is about the third time you’ve been in here subdividing this land. MR. RYMKEWICZ-This is the third time on this particular lot. MR. BREWER-Right. MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it? Anything else to add? MS. NOWICKI-No. MR. MAC EWAN-Does somebody want to introduce a resolution? MOTION TO APPROVE FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 1-1998 STAN RYMKEWICZ, JR. , Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Stark: In accordance with the resolution as provided by Staff, with the provision that this Board is granting a waiver for stormwater drainage on Chestnut Ridge Road. Whereas, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of a Subdivision No. 1-1998, STANLEY RYMKEWICZ, JR. To subdivide a 19.17 acre parcel into two lots of 5 acres and 14.17 acres, and Whereas, the above mentioned application, received 7/29/98, consists of the following: 1. Application w/map Whereas, the above file is supported with the following documentation: 1. 8/18/98 - Staff Notes Whereas, a public hearing was held on 5/19/98 concerning the above project; and Whereas, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the site plan requirements of the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and Whereas, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and 3 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/18/98) Whereas, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered; and 1. The Town Planning Board, after considering the above, hereby moves to APPROVE Subdivision No. 1-1998, STANLEY RYMKEWICZ, JR. 2. The applicant agrees to the conditions set forth in this resolution. 3. The conditions shall be noted on the map. 4. The issuance of permits is conditioned on compliance and continued compliance with the Zoning Ordinance and site plan approval process. th Duly adopted this 18 day of August, 1998, by the following vote: MS. NOWICKI-He’s also asked for a two foot contour. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, relief from two foot contours. MR. VOLLARO-It says, and any other waivers needed for final applications. “I am requesting a waiver for stormwater drainage on Chestnut Ridge Road”, and this is the only other waiver needed for Final application. I don’t see him asking for anything else in this letter. Maybe I’m missing something. MR. BREWER-If he’s lacking that, I would. MR. RYMKEWICZ-According to the letter I have, it says, provide a letter requesting any waivers from any of the Final subdivision requirements as listed on the application. MR. VOLLARO-And the only one you asked for was the stormwater drainage on Chestnut Ridge Road. MR. RYMKEWICZ-Right. That was brought up at the last meeting, and then I asked for any others that were required. MR. VOLLARO-My Chairman is telling me that there’s another one. Is there another one, Craig? MR. MAC EWAN-Two foot contours that he had asked for, right? MR. RYMKEWICZ-Isn’t that what the maps are now, two foot? MS. NOWICKI-The map shows two foot contours. It just doesn’t show it for the entire lot. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. We’ve noted it on the map, right? MS. NOWICKI-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. RYMKEWICZ-The new map shows the whole. MR. MAC EWAN-Right. We’re okay. AYES: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Paling, Mr. Stark, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set, Stan. MR. RYMKEWICZ-Thank you. SUBDIVISION NO. 7-1998 SKETCH PLAN TYPE: UNLISTED WENDY STEWART OWNER: SAME ZONE: SR-1A LOCATION: FULLER ROAD APPLICANT 4 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/18/98) PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF LOT 4 OF THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED BRAESIDE SUBDIVISION - NO. 2-87 INTO TWO LOTS OF 1.00 AC. AND 2.183. CROSS REFERENCE: SUBDIV. 2-87 TAX MAP NO. 123-1-8.1 LOT SIZE: 3.183 AC SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS WENDY STEWART, PRESENT MRS. LA BOMBARD-And there is no public hearing scheduled because it’s a Sketch Plan. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Subdivision No. 7-1998 - Sketch Plan, Wendy Stewart - Braeside Subdivision, Meeting Date: August 18, 1998 “Description of Project Applicant proposes to subdivide lot four of the Braeside Subdivision; (2-87) into two lots, one acre and 2.183 acres. Staff Comments The applicant’s proposal should address a proposed location of access, home, septic and well. Staff is concerned that the proposed one (1) acre lot may require variances to be built upon. The problem is with the setback requirements as follows: the lot is zoned SR-1A with a thirty (30) foot front setback, the stream that runs through the property requires a seventy-five (75), and on the submitted plan there is a one hundred (100) sewage setback line. Staff would request this information be clarified with the preliminary application.” MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else? MS. NOWICKI-No. MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening. MS. STEWART-Hi. I’m Wendy Stewart, President of Braeside Limited, which owns the property we’re talking about. MR. MAC EWAN-Are you familiar with what Staff’s concerns are regarding this? MS. STEWART-Yes, I just heard them. MR. MAC EWAN-For the first time? MS. STEWART-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Well, Sketch Plan is just basically the first step in the process, the subdivision process, and it just allows us an opportunity to have some dialogue here, and try and get you going on the right track to make your subdivision go through as smoothly as possible. The first red flags that seem to be raised up is whether that lot in question is going to have enough of an area so that you can put a house on it. MS. STEWART-The reason we’re doing this is that the owner of the property adjacent to this lot four wants to add one acre to his property, just to protect his own property. So at the moment, there is no plan to put any building on the one acre. MR. STARK-You’re talking about lot three? MR. MAC EWAN-Lot Three? MS. STEWART-Lot Three is owned by the Tators, and they’d like to add another acre on to their property. MR. STARK-So that’s why you’re subdividing it? MS. STEWART-Right. It would just increase their property at this point, but he would like to know that it would be a buildable. So I’d like to know just exactly, in writing, what the concerns are, so that we can address them. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. There are a couple of questions, I guess. Number One, if he’s the current owner of Lot Three, and he wants to add, take an acre away from you on your Lot Four, and add it to his parcel, what parcel is he referring to that he wants to know if it would be buildable in the future, his own? 5 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/18/98) MS. STEWART-He would like to know if this one acre would be a buildable lot, if, in the future, it ever were to be turned into a lot that he would sell for a building. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s what you need to try to determine. Probably the best course of action to do would be sit down with the surveyor who did this, and have him layout a building envelope on there, so you know where the setbacks are going to be, because what throws a unique feature into this parcel is that you have the stream running through there, which requires a 75 foot setback. Normal building envelopes would have something like you’re, depending on what zone you’re in, could have a 20 foot side yard setback, 30 foot front yard setback, etc., etc., but the fact that you have a stream running through this parcel, even makes that parcel more difficult to build on. MS. STEWART-Okay. So you want a 75 foot setback from the stream? MR. MAC EWAN-I guess maybe the best way to put this, to save you possible aggravation down the road, is that, show us that, yes, a house can be built on there with the required setbacks according to the Code, before you go through all this avenue of great expense of doing your subdivision, and paying surveyors and legal fees and everything else. MS. STEWART-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MRS. LA BOMBARD-The only thing is, if that was going to be just a buffer, and just add on to his property, with never any intentions, it would be fine, but we have to go through this. MS. STEWART-Yes, I understand that, but as he said, you never know what the future might bring, and so he just wants to know if he can sell it as a lot for building on. So, what do you need from Mr. McCormack now, at this point? MR. MAC EWAN-I would suggest that either you, or have him get a hold of Laura, and she could give you the guidelines, and what you need to do to show that a building could be built on this proposed new lot. MS. STEWART-Okay. Right. Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-And then we can take it to the next step. If indeed it can be done, then we can take it on to Preliminary and go that route, okay. MS. STEWART-Okay. Fine. Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. SITE PLAN NO. 42-98 TYPE II GARY STRASSER OWNER: JOE CLARK/ADIRONDACK INDUSTRIAL PARK ZONE: LI-3A LOCATION: 527 QUEENSBURY AVENUE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO OCCUPY SUITE B TO MANUFACTURE AND SELL AUDIO SPEAKERS, TURNTABLES AND CABINETS. REPAIR FACILITIES FOR SPEAKERS AND ELECTRONICS. NO CONSTRUCTION OR MODIFICATION OF BUILDING, SITE OR DRIVEWAY. ALL USES IN LI ZONES ARE SUBJECT TO REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE PLANNING BOARD. WARREN CO. PLANNING: 8/12/98 TAX MAP NO. 55-2-19.51 LOT SIZE: 3 ACRES SECTION: 179-26 GARY STRASSER, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 42-98, Gary Strasser, Meeting Date: August 18, 1998 “Description of Project Applicant proposes to utilize suite B of an existing building for a manufacture retail business. Staff Comments The use is consistent with the surrounding Light Industrial uses. The application complies with the site plan review requirements in regards to an allowed use in the Light Industrial Park. Staff has no additional comments.” MS. NOWICKI-Warren County Planning had “No County Impact”. 6 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/18/98) MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it? MS. NOWICKI-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening. MR. STASSER-Good evening. My name is Gary Strasser. MR. MAC EWAN-Would you like to tell us a little bit about your proposed use on the site? MR. STRASSER-Yes. We’ll be operating basically a woodworking cabinet shop for manufacturing audio loud speakers, home theater loud speakers, cabinets for both. It’ll involve also doing all the electronics there, constructing circuit boards, wiring them in with the speakers, plank (lost word) speakers, (lost words). MR. MAC EWAN-How many employees do you have? MR. STRASSER-Right now, it’s myself and one helper, but we will have more, hopefully, as this becomes successful. MR. MAC EWAN-Good for you. Anything else that you wanted to add? MR. STRASSER-No. We’ll be putting a sign out. That’s not mentioned here, but I assume that goes through another review process. So, I’ve already submitted for that. MR. MAC EWAN-You’ve already got your permit application? MR. STRASSER-Yes, I do. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. BREWER-This is one of those applications that we’ve talked about in the past that should be a simple review process, through Staff, rather than have the applicant come here. Absolutely no modification to anything. The only thing he’s doing is occupying it. MR. STRASSER-And putting a sign out. MR. BREWER-And that doesn’t have anything to do with us anyway. So, I just want to note that. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. I’ll open up the public hearing. Does anyone want to come up and comment on this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MAC EWAN-Now, I’ll entertain a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 42-98 GARY STRASSER , Introduced by Timothy Brewer who moved for its adoption, seconded by Larry Ringer: As prepared in the motion. Whereas, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of a Site Plan No. 42-98, Gary Strasser, to occupy Suite B to manufacture and sell audio speakers, turntables and cabinets. Repair facilities for speakers and electronics; and Whereas, the above mentioned application, received 7/29/98, consists of the following: 1. Application w/map Whereas, the above file is supported with the following documentation: 7 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/18/98) 1. 8/18/98 - Staff Notes 2. 8/12/98 - Warren Co. Planning Bd. Resolution Whereas, a public hearing was held on 8/18/98 concerning the above project; and Whereas, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the site plan requirements of the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and Whereas, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and Whereas, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered; and 1. The Town Planning Board, after considering the above, hereby moves to APPROVE Site Plan No. 42-98, GARY STRASSER. 2. The applicant shall present three (3) copies of the above referenced site plan to the Zoning Administrator for his signature. 3. The Zoning Administrator is hereby authorized to sign the resolution. 4. The applicant agrees to the conditions set forth in this resolution. 5. The conditions shall be noted on the map. 6. The issuance of permits is conditioned on compliance and continued compliance with the Zoning Ordinance and site plan approval process. th Duly adopted this 18 day of August, 1998, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Paling, Mr. Stark, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set. Good luck. MR. STRASSER-Okay. Thank you very much. SITE PLAN NO. 43-98 TYPE: UNLISTED DONALD KRUGER OWNER: SAME ZONE: LI-1A LOCATION: BIG BOOM ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO USE PROPERTY TO PROCESS AND STORE EARTH MATERIALS SUCH AS TOPSOIL AND MULCH, ETC. WARREN CO. PLANNING: 8/12/98 TAX MAP NO. 137-2-4.5 LOT SIZE: 6 ACRES SECTION: 179-26, 179-64 DONALD KRUGER, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 43-98, Donald Kruger, Meeting Date: August 18, 1998 “Description of Project Applicant proposes to utilize a lot for earth material storage and removal. Staff Comments The applicant was informed by the Code Enforcement Officer of Queensbury that the activity (storage and removal of earth materials) that is occurring on the property is an allowed use with site plan review. The applicant has provided a plot plan indicating location and type of material storage. The applicant intends to re-grade the lot to a 301 foot elevation and continue storing earth materials on the site. The applicant has indicated that soil erosion controls will be put in place as needed and will comply with the NYS Guidelines for Urban Erosion and Sediment Control. Staff recommends the erosion control compliance be included within the resolution to ensure enforcement. In addition, the applicant was informed that the amount of soil removed from the site would be considered a mining activity per section 179-64. This section requires a 50 foot undisturbed buffer around the excavation, the entry to the excavation area should not be seen from the public right-of-way, and proper soil erosion control measures are operating and in place. The applicant has shown a six foot high berm at the front of the property for hiding the view of the site. The plot plan indicates one borrow area on the site. The applicant has implied that the borrow area 8 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/18/98) will comply with the Town’s ordinance section 179-64, Mining Excavation. The storage of earth materials appears to be a compatible use for this site. However, Staff would recommend the applicant contact the Warren County Soil and Water District for some suggestions on erosion control and site set up. Staff has no additional concerns.” MS. NOWICKI-Warren County Planning, they disapproved. “The Warren County Planning Board denied this application without prejudice and will re-hear it when and if the following information is provided: what type of equipment will be used, ingress/egress, hours of operation, noise, drainage control on-site, erosion control, dust control, buffering, lighting and signage.” Do you want me to read the record of Field Inspection? MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, it probably wouldn’t hurt. MS. NOWICKI-Okay. This is dated August 17, 1998, “Site: Kruger Boom Road A preliminary site inspection with Dave Wick to familiarize him with the site in the event that Mr. Kruger contacts him in the future. The borrow area in the front center portion of the property has been re filled. Materials were being processed on the site in violation of the Stop Work Order.” MR. RINGER-Do we have a copy of that, Laura? MS. NOWICKI-You may not have that. MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it? MS. NOWICKI-That’s it. MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening. MR. KRUGER-Good evening. I am Donald Kruger. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Mr. Kruger, what can you tell us? MR. KRUGER-I think what I have there is your basic pile of dirt. It is a pile of topsoil. We had a chance to build a couple of roads and we had extra topsoil that we gained from that, and we have it there, and I have a man that I believe is 71 years old, and he runs a machine, and he sits and screens the topsoil, and makes a pile of topsoil out of it. I was very reluctant to go and tell him that he was out of a job, pending whatever Mr. Brown’s idea was from the Town. I did not realize that I was violating any laws or orders. My son and I bought that piece of property. There’s six acres of commercial land there, and we do not intend to keep doing this indefinitely. We feel there’s a greater use for the property, but in the interim, we felt that we could get some income by using it in this manner. I had no idea that I was rankling anybody. If I have, I have to apologize publicly for that. MR. MAC EWAN-So what you’re saying is that you’ve just been bringing in the topsoil that you’ve been getting from other private sites? MR. KRUGER-The topsoil that was on that property when I bought it had already been stripped and taken away. Pro Craft did that about five years ago. There were no buffers all around it. It was stripped all the way up to the property lines on all sides. Any topsoil that is there, for the most part, we have imported. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. On that note, let me ask Staff, how did the Code Enforcement Officer come to the determination that this was a mining operation? MS. NOWICKI-Because he recognized that there had been removal of soil on the site. He recognized there were borrow pits, and they met the limit of mining excavation for the Code requirement. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay, and his definition of a borrow pit is? I mean, is there certain elevations that it has to be at to be defined as a borrow pit? MS. NOWICKI-It’s defined by amount of soil removed. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. 9 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/18/98) MR. STARK-I can vouch for that, because when I bought a lot of topsoil, years ago, Pro Craft dug it off that site for me. I was down there, and they said, where do you want it from, and I told them, and Mr. Kruger didn’t do anything. It was all stripped. He didn’t remove anything. MR. MAC EWAN-I guess I’m trying to get to the source here, is that Mr. Kruger’s saying that the topsoil that’s on the site didn’t originate on that site. MR. STARK-There’s nothing on the site now. MR. MAC EWAN-The topsoil that he has there now. MR. STARK-Is not native topsoil. MR. MAC EWAN-Right. It didn’t originate on, it came from other building projects and other building sites, and Staff is saying, the Code Enforcement Officer is saying that he thinks that the topsoil came from the site? MS. NOWICKI-No, there’s two. He’s putting topsoil on the site, and he’s also excavating the sand within, for some other reason, which I’m not quite sure why, but there’s a borrow pit there that has mostly sand used. MR. MAC EWAN-Are you taking sand off the property? MR. KRUGER-We’re trying to level the property, and there’s one spot there where there is a hole, and the plan that we have for the future development of it, Jim Martin has it down at the LA Group, and it shows a recycled berm on the north side, and the idea of that was to start the cold North air blowing up in the area, before it hits the buildings. That’s planning in the future, but he does show a 40 foot wide recycled berm, and I believe it’s not to exceed 12 feet high, if I have the number right. MR. BREWER-It says eight to twelve feet, it says eight to twelve on the plan. MR. KRUGER-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-What is Staff looking to get accomplished out of this? MS. NOWICKI-This type of use is approval by site plan review, if that’s the information you’re looking for. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. I guess I need to ask you what kind of use? That’s what I’m trying to get at here, because what we’re getting here is a difference of opinion of what’s actually being done there. MS. NOWICKI-That type of use is called storage of materials, under Light Industrial use. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MS. NOWICKI-And he has to receive approval from the Planning Board to do so. All uses in Light Industrial zone require site plan review and approval. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. I guess where I was getting hung up on was the borrow pit definition. MS. NOWICKI-Did you by any chance look at that Section, the Section I referred to? MR. MAC EWAN-No, I’m saying I didn’t look at the Section during this conversation, but we looked at the site last week. MS. NOWICKI-And it didn’t seem to cross your mind? Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-No. That’s one person’s opinion, though. Read us the Section, if you would, just into the record. MS. NOWICKI-Okay. I’ll just read the Section that’s in accordance, it’s Section 179-64A(2) “The depth of excavation shall approach no closer than five (5) feet to the average high point of the groundwater table measured annually, except upon a showing satisfactory to the Planning Board 10 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/18/98) during site plan review under Article V that the site plans contain mitigative measures adequate to assure that the proposed use of the land will not cause any undue, adverse impacts either to such groundwater table or to any surface waters into which such lands drain. (3) Stockpiled materials shall not exceed thirty-five (35) feet in height. B. Buffer zones. (1) An undisturbed buffer of fifty (50) feet shall surround the excavation within the limits of the property. (2) The entry into the excavated area shall be curved so as to prevent a direct view from the public right-of-way. (3) The provisions of the soil erosion standards shall govern all excavations.” MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Just so we get this all clear, we’re basically talking about excavating, borrow pits. You’re talking about, you’ve been storing material over there, and you have been moving some material around to try to fill in some areas. Is that what you’re saying? The wood chips that are over there? MR. KRUGER-The wood chips. My next door neighbor to where my business is located is Richard Sears Tree Experts. He just purchased a $300,000 machine they call it the Tub Grinder. You put those chips in there and garden mulch comes out the other end, and we just thought it would be a great idea to process it through the machine. Now, he would have had that done, but that machine has been tied up at that ice storm damage up in Plattsburgh and Peru, and he’s been up there since January working on that. I can’t very well ask the man to. MR. MAC EWAN-The other question for you is the proposed building on the site plan map. MR. KRUGER-We’re not going to build anything there. MR. MAC EWAN-Nothing’s going to go there, and you just want to be able to continue to use this parcel as an interim storage location, for topsoil, whatever comes from other sites, and these wood chips? MR. KRUGER-That is correct. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else, construction debris, cement blocks? MR. KRUGER-Any construction debris, if we were to use anything there, it would be what would be going in a recycled berm, which would be broken concrete, broken block, blacktop such as that, but with the exception of wood. We’re not burying any painted wood there. MR. MAC EWAN-Are you planning on doing any of that on that site, bringing any construction debris in? MR. KRUGER-Yes, that’s what we’re going to build our recycled berm out of. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. PALING-Not wood? Asphalt and concrete? MR. KRUGER-That’s correct. It’ll illegal to buried painted wood in Queensbury. MR. PALING-He’s not removing any native material from this site, and all they’re doing is re- processing topsoil, I don’t have any problem with it. MRS. LA BOMBARD-I agree. MR. VOLLARO-I wanted to ask a question of Staff. “A stormwater management plan should be prepared for the site”. That’s on your letter. MS. NOWICKI-My notes in reference to Dave Wick? MR. VOLLARO-No. This is in a letter from yourself to Donald Kruger, July 7, 1998, and the second page of that letter states “A stormwater management plan should be prepared for the site. Portions of the site development data within application was incomplete and should be corrected to present the proposed paved/gravel parking area and impermeable surface”. Is that still a requirement? 11 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/18/98) MS. NOWICKI-I talked to Mr. Kruger, and his site, he is going to drain it so it drains toward the road, and that was my concern, that it was draining to other people’s properties, and we were going to have a soil erosion problem on something else. So he clarified that issue with me. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-So a stormwater plan is not necessary. Okay. MR. BREWER-A couple of things. Don, it shows on this map your proposed building. You said you’re not going to build it. It’s not a problem, if you do go to build it, you come back and have us look at that? MR. KRUGER-That’s no problem. MR. BREWER-Okay. The next thing is, are there materials that are going to be sold from there? In other words, are you going to process the topsoil? MR. KRUGER-They’ll be sold out of my office and shipped out of there. MR. BREWER-So you’ll be doing it? In other words, I couldn’t drive my pick up truck up there and buy? I just want to get kind of an idea of what’s going to happen there. I don’t care, I have no problem with it. I just, if there’s going to be trucks in and out of there, pick up trucks. MR. KRUGER-Tim, you and I have been friends for 20 years. You can go load your pick up there any time you want. MR. BREWER-I’m sure that I probably could, but I guess what I’m getting at, is it going to be like a Pro Craft type of thing where trucks are, I’m trying to get an idea about traffic, that’s all. MR. KRUGER-Where my entry and egress is, which I’ve tried to limit to one spot because I have people coming in there dumping stuff, that has driven me crazy. So we had to build a berm. The berm wasn’t to stop stormwater. The berm was to stop thieves from going in there and dumping their junk on my property, and that doesn’t sound real nice, but unfortunately, that’s the world we live in. MR. MAC EWAN-Where you have your back hoe parked, that’s your entrance and exit? MR. KRUGER-Yes, we call that the “lock”. We put the lock on the gate. Okay. There is absolutely no way that that’s hindering entry and egress from that road. I mean, you can see a multitude in both directions. Every site up and down that street has truck traffic making entry and egress. So I don’t feel like, I was the red-headed stepchild in boy’s home, but I don’t think that I’m the red headed stepchild in this matter, okay. MR. BREWER-No. I’m just trying to get an idea of what’s going to happen on the property, that’s all, and the last question is, what is the purpose of the 40 foot recycled berm, and if you could explain to me what a recycled berm is. MR. KRUGER-Okay. It was Jim Martin’s idea, was to start the air current up from the North winds, when we go to build a building there eventually, and it was to go down the length of the property there, and it’ll be grassed and seeded, eventually. It should look pretty nice. MR. BREWER-Okay, and the recycled berm is similar to what they did on the side of the Northway at 18? MR. KRUGER-Yes. MR. BREWER-Just black top and concrete? MR. KRUGER-Yes. MR. BREWER-Okay. That’s all. MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it? Okay. We’ll open up the public hearing. If anybody wants to come up and comment on this application, please do. 12 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/18/98) PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MAC EWAN-We need to do a SEQRA. MS. NOWICKI-Could I make a comment? You wanted to know about the amount of soil, that’s under the Definition of Soil and Gravel Extraction, and I’ll just read this. “Any extraction from the land of more than fifty (50) cubic yards in any two year period of sand, gravel or topsoil for the purpose of sale or use by the persons other than the owner of the land, or for the purpose of use by any municipality”. This is where Craig Brown’s, where he identified where he felt that Mr. Kruger was removing soil up to, more than 50 cubic yards. So, I just wanted to clarify that. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Thank you. MS. NOWICKI-This is a Short Form RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 43-98 , Introduced by Catherine LaBombard who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Stark: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: DONALD KRUGER , and WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. No Federal agency appears to be involved. 2. The following agencies are involved: NONE 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury. 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant. 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law. th Duly adopted this 18 day of August, 1998, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Paling, Mr. Stark, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE MR. MAC EWAN-Does someone want to introduce a motion? 13 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/18/98) MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 43-98 DONALD KRUGER , Introduced by Timothy Brewer who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Stark: As written in our prepared motion by Staff. The only condition I see is that if a proposed building is built, that they come back for site plan review. Whereas, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of Site Plan No. 43-98 DONALD KRUGER to use property to process and store earth materials such as topsoil, mulch, etc.; and Whereas, the above mentioned application, received 8/5/98, consists of the following: 1. Application w/map Whereas, the above file is supported with the following documentation: 1. 8/18/98 - Staff Notes 2. 8/17/98 - Record of Field Inspection - Staff & Dave Wick - Warren Co. Soil Conservation 3. 8/11/98 - Notice of public hearing sent 4. 8/4/98 - Meeting notice sent 5. 7/23/98 - Record of Phone Conversation - L. Nowicki & D. Kruger 6. 7/7/98 - Letter to D. Kruger from C. Brown 7. 7/6/98 - Letter to D. Kruger from C. Brown 8. 6/29/98 - Notice of Stop Work Order 9. 6/10/98 - Record of Field Inspection - C. Brown 10. 8/12/98 - Warren Co. Planning Bd. resolution Whereas, a public hearing was held on 8/18/98 concerning the above project; and Whereas, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the site plan requirements of the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and Whereas, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and Whereas, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered; and 1. The Town Planning Board, after considering the above, hereby moves to APPROVE Site Plan No. 43-98, DONALD KRUGER. 2. The applicant shall present three (3) copies of the above referenced site plan to the Zoning Administrator for his signature. 3. The Zoning Administrator is hereby authorized to sign the resolution. 4. The applicant agrees to the conditions set forth in this resolution. 5. The conditions shall be noted on the map. 6. The issuance of permits is conditioned on compliance and continued compliance with the Zoning Ordinance and site plan approval process. th Duly adopted this 18 day of August, 1998, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Paling, Mr. Stark, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set, Donald. SITE PLAN NO. 44-98 TYPE II TIRE WAREHOUSE OWNER: LOUISE SILVERTHORNE ZONE: HC-1A LOCATION: 274 QUAKER ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES USE OF EXISTING VACANT BUILDING FOR TIRE AND BRAKE 14 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/18/98) REPLACEMENT CENTER. BEAUTIFICATION COMM.: 8/10/98 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 8/12/98 TAX MAP NO. 107-1-57 LOT SIZE: 0.563 ACRES SECTION: 179-23 ALFRED MUGRACE & JOHN MCCALL, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 44-98, Tire Warehouse, Meeting Date: August 18, 1998 “Description of Project Applicant proposes to utilize an existing building for an automobile service. Staff Comments The applicant has complied with the site plan review requirements in regards to parking and use. The use is compatible with the site and the neighboring uses in the area. Staff has no additional comments.” MS. NOWICKI-Warren County indicated “No County Impact”. MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it? MS. NOWICKI-Do you want me to read Beautification? MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. MS. NOWICKI-It says “Site Plan No. 44-98, Tire Warehouse Building will be painted, new service on black top. Bay door will stay, back side will stay as is. Parking in front of building and facing toward Quaker Road. Plantings to be used are sea green juniper, arborvitae globe, purple sand cherries, variegated dogwood, and various flowering shrubs. The above mixture of plants have been used at the other Tire Warehouse locations. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s not a Beautification recommendation, though. Are you reading the one from the Tire Warehouse, August 10, 1998? MS. NOWICKI-I incorporated them both, because I’m looking through the Beautification Committee notes and. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s what I’m looking for. I’m looking for mine and I don’t have them. MR. RINGER-Yes, I don’t have them, either. MR. MAC EWAN-What happened to Beautification’s formal approvals and resolutions and such? MS. NOWICKI-I’m not sure. This was all that was submitted to me. MR. MAC EWAN-Can this be construed, Mark, as a binding official document on behalf of the Town? MR. SCHACHNER-It didn’t look it. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s what I kind of figured. MR. SCHACHNER-Keeping in mind that the Beautification Committee is merely a recommender anyway, what I think Staff is telling us is that these are the notes made by the Beautification Committee, but you’re correct. It’s less formal than the typical Beautification Committee recommendation, which is done by resolution, motion, seconded, etc., but again, it’s just a recommendation, even when it’s more formal. So it’s up to you all how you want to deal with that. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Thanks. Good evening. Would you identify yourselves for the record, please. MR. MUGRACE-My name is Alfred Mugrace. I’m the architect. This is John McCall, representing the Tire Warehouse. All right. One of the first things that I wanted to point out to the Board is that we made a correction to the site plan. We added a strip of land in the back, in the rear of the property, which it doesn’t appear in that plan you have there. It is part of the total parcel here. I do have additional prints if you’d like to. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Where did you add it on there? 15 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/18/98) MR. MUGRACE-Right here. MRS. LABOMBARD-I see. I’ve got you. MR. PALING-I’m sorry, what did you say you added there? MR. MUGRACE-Well, there was an additional piece of land that went with this property, in the back, in the rear, which is also shown on the plan. MR. PALING-And this would come out here? MR. MUGRACE-Yes. I do have a revised plan, if you’d like to take a copy. MRS. LA BOMBARD-I can see that perfectly. MR. MAC EWAN-You just need to make sure that Staff gets a copy of it. MR. MUGRACE-So basically what we did is the property now, the total acreage is .645, which is roughly 28,226 feet more or less. Out of that, we have approximately 7600 square feet of building, 19,676.88 square feet of asphalt. The green area, unfortunately, is minimal, dealing with about three percent green area, over the whole area, and the rest is all asphalt. The proposed vegetation would have to go in these areas in the green here. I don’t know if you can see them, but here, there, and there’s a little bit of green space in the rear, very minimal. That’s just going to remain as a grass area. MR. MAC EWAN-You’re adding the plantings to the front of the building, right? MR. MUGRACE-Yes. We’re adding a few mixed type of flowering shrubs, right in this area right here. What we’re doing basically is removing the black top. There’s existing black top there. We’re going to remove that and provide a green space area with shrubbery. MR. BREWER-I’m confused a little bit here. On this piece of paper we got from Brett Porter, it shows you’re going to have a berm, five foot wide, three foot high, with shrubs, and then you do show shrubs in the front, but on your SEQRA that you submitted said no external and site changes are proposed. You are definitely going to put this berm out in front? MR. MUGRACE-Well, I don’t know anything about the berm. I’ll be honest with you. I don’t what documents you’re referring to, or what drawing. MR. BREWER-Well, this was submitted by the Manager of the store, I guess. MR. MC CALL-Al Mugrace had the paperwork. I didn’t attend the meeting myself, from the Beautification Committee. My Manager went for me. He misplaced partial paperwork and went to the meeting. That paperwork was done by the Beautification Committee, and Brett signed it. That was drawn up at the meeting, and we came back and revised what the total plans would be. MR. BREWER-So this is scrap? MR. MC CALL-Exactly. MR. BREWER-I’m just confused, because I’ve got that says you’re going to do it, this says you’re not going to do it, and then this says you’re going to do it. MR. MC CALL-Well, the final plans that we have here is what we intend to do. MR. BREWER-Okay. MR. MUGRACE-Do you remember seeing this? MR. MC CALL-I never saw it in my life. It was drawn up that night. MR. BREWER-Do you have this on file, so that we can take that out of the file, or whatever we’re going to do. 16 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/18/98) MRS. LA BOMBARD-I just thought that maybe to, if that’s okay with the Beautification Committee, obviously, it’s okay with me, but I just thought maybe in the nice weather you could put out some kind of bigger planters on top of the, or close to the building, because there is so much asphalt there, and as long as a new tenant is going in there, and we’re having new business, we could probably make it a little, take this opportunity to just dress it up a little bit more. I mean, obviously, you can’t tear the asphalt up, but you know, just for the nice weather, maybe some bigger planters made out of the barrels or whatever, with some nice colorful arrangements in them. MR. MUGRACE-Sure, maybe scatter them toward the front more or less. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Like I say, I don’t have the Beautification Committee’s recommendations here, and whatever they feel is okay is okay by me. MR. MUGRACE-What we did basically here is try to, obviously, we don’t want to go into the State property with anything. MRS. LABOMBARD-Right. MR. MUGRACE-And we’re limited in the amount of green space that we have already on the site. So we’ve tried to condense all the vegetation, the new plantings within that restricted green space. MRS. LA BOMBARD-I know you’re doing the best you can. MR. MUGRACE-Yes, basically. MR. STARK-The only question I have is now when you get the 18 wheelers in there, but they deliver to Millbrook, so they must be able to get in here. MRS. LABOMBARD-Well, we drove around it twice. MR. PALING-There’s a divider of steel cable and red ribbon between yours and the adjacent property. What’s going on there? MR. MC CALL-Mr. Minogue is here. Apparently he’s stating where I belong, where he belongs, and it’s kind of ify. MR. PALING-If you don’t share that drive, isn’t that going to create a problem for the trucks coming in and out of there? MR. MC CALL-It’ll make it difficult. MR. PALING-Very difficult. If he sticks to that, I don’t know how you’re going to handle trucks in there. MR. MC CALL-Well, the trucks will go on the other side of the building. The building itself has four double large bay doors on the. MR. PALING-Other side. MR. MC CALL-On the other side there’s six large doors on the liquor store side. MR. PALING-Those aren’t set up as bays though. MR. MC CALL-No. The bays are on the beverage side. MR. PALING-Yes. The bays are the ones that are blocked, how are you going to get the vehicles through them? MR. MC CALL-Well, it’s 25 feet. You do have enough room for turning radius, if was continually blocked, to pull in the building. The confusing part would be if I decided to keep those markers and the tape going right out to Quaker Road, and we’re both probably losing a lot of business. That’s something that we’d have to work out, apparently. MR. PALING-If you take the barrier or whatever it is down, there’s no problem, but if you leave it up, then you’ve both got a problem. 17 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/18/98) MR. MC CALL-I agree. MR. MUGRACE-With the barrier up, a regular vehicle, a car, will be able to pull in here and get into the bays. MR. PALING-A regular vehicle would get in, but you couldn’t put a truck in there, and if you had a truck in there for service, you couldn’t, you use the other side, you can’t get into the building. Those aren’t bay doors. MR. MC CALL-On the previous, with Strohemans, on the right hand side facing the building, the area is striped for parking on the showroom side. On our plans, we show eliminating that parking. So no parking at all on the beverage side of the building, period. MR. MUGRACE-Yes. They have some line strips here, you know, obviously, we’re parking cars perpendicular to the building, in this location, and we’re planning on removing all of that, and parking no cars whatsoever. MR. PALING-Okay. Well, the obvious concern is that there isn’t room, if you would put some kind of a barrier between the two properties, and you acknowledge that this would make it tough. MR. MC CALL-Well, 25 feet, we’ve tested a few different vehicles, even as far as a panel sized van, but 25 feet, because these are oversized garage doors. The average door is say 12 feet. These are 20 foot wide doors. You can swing in on the first swing. MR. PALING-Okay. I’ll get off the subject. I’m not leaving it, I’m just going to get off it, at least for a while. Junk in the back, are you going to remove that? There’s some debris out there occupying the 10 by 10. Is that yours? MR. MC CALL-From the clean up that we did. The dumpster’s due in tomorrow. MR. PALING-Then that’ll be taken care of? MR. MC CALL-That’ll be totally cleaned out. MR. PALING-Yes. Is this the only business you’re going to run from this building is tire and brake replacement? MR. MC CALL-Exactly. MR. PALING-Okay. That’s all I’ve got for now. I may want to come back to re-visit this accessibility. MR. MAC EWAN-A question for me is, what kind of provisions are you going to make for doing maintenance and storage of solvents or whatever that need to be done? Have you contacted the Town’s Fire Marshal? MR. MC CALL-Not as of yet. We have, basically, I have all the permits through OSHA, as far as any chemicals, training, and it’s the same type of chemicals that we’ve used at our other location since ’85. MR. MAC EWAN-You’re going to do oil changes and stuff like that though, right? MR. MC CALL-Exactly. MR. MAC EWAN-So your provisions for storing used oil and getting it out of there, I mean, you have somebody like Safety Kleen come and pick it up for you? MR. MC CALL-Well, it’s basically all the equipment that’s at the store at Quaker and Boulevard, the Safety Kleen equipment, the OSHA approved oil drums for waste oil, would just be moved over to the store. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. BREWER-When are the plantings and landscaping going to take place? This fall? 18 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/18/98) MR. MC CALL-The next two weeks. MR. BREWER-Okay. MR. MC CALL-We have a couple of estimates from a couple of local vendors to come in for it. MR. VOLLARO-I’m confused on this 10 August thing. In the prepared resolution, we’re talking about the Beautification Committee’s comments of 8/10/98, which has been submitted on a letter from Brett Porter, who’s the Manager of the Tire Warehouse. Then tied to that is the Beautification Committee’s comments, then Tim made mention, a little bit ago, that we were going to delete the drawing that came with that, because it’s in conflict with what’s been proposed here, and I don’t think you can have both of these things submitted. If we’re going to take the Beautification Committee comments in total, we’ll have to make some sort of a mention in our motion that the drawing attached to that is to be deleted. MR. MAC EWAN-I would suggest that the revised site plan he gave tonight is much more definitive than both the sketch and the recommendation by the Beautification. So we’ll go by the site plan. MR. VOLLARO-So should we remove the 8/10 Beautification Committee report from the resolution? MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, because this is much more definitive than everything that’s spelled out in it. MR. BREWER-It shows exactly everything that they’re going to do on this plan. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. We’ll open up the public hearing. Does anyone want to come up and comment on this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED JOHN POHL MR. POHL-Good evening. My name’s John Pohl. I represent Minogue’s Beverage Services, Inc., the property owner to the west of the property. Our only comment, and really what doesn’t show is that to achieve access from the westerly side of that parcel into the bays that are created, where that gentleman on the end, Mr. Paling, was talking about, the property line marker that’s got up, I don’t think there’s any question they’re going to have to swing on to our property to make that turn in there, unless they’re only going to be changing tires on Yugo’s, maybe. I’m saying, that’s a pretty narrow accessway in there, and we don’t really wish to make an issue of it, but we want to make clear that we’re not granting any prescriptive rights over that property, and I’d also like to be assured that on the site plan as prepared, it shows them removing parking spaces on the westerly front of the parcel. That would be the lined, parking lines that are there, and they’re going to come out, and further, we’d like to be assured that there isn’t going to be anything done, either parking cars or anything that would interfere with the free flow of access on that passageway, if you will, between Minogue’s and what’s going to be at the Tire Warehouse. MR. MAC EWAN-Let me ask you a question, just to try to get a handle on what the activities at this site might propose, how would you, how do you perceive the activity, the traffic activity, on this proposed site, versus what it was when it was the Millbrook store? MR. POHL-When it was the Millbrook store, basically what you had there was overnight parking of empty bakery trucks. MR. MAC EWAN-What about the thrift store, though, I mean, that had a lot of traffic going in and out, didn’t it? JACK MINOGUE, JR. MR. MINOGUE-Well, in that corridor there, where the bays are, essentially. My name is Jack Minogue, Jr. When the bread company occupied that parcel. Those bays were used to store their delivery trucks. So essentially what had going on the bread store was trucks that left at five or six o’clock in the morning, and returned at three or four o’clock in the afternoon, backed into the 19 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/18/98) garage, they were re-loaded for the next day’s delivery. So, in essence, there was no activity in that corridor at all during, except for passage of cars and they did have trailer trucks that backed up and made deliveries, maybe once a day or so. I don’t know how active, you know, once or twice a day, and that was the extent of the activity, when the bread people occupied the location. Our concern, at this point in time, is that there may be an increased amount of activity in that corridor with cars being brought in on some sort of a regular basis to have service work done, and that this corridor still remain open. In other words, that the parking spaces at the front right corner, as you face the property, are removed, so that there will be clear passage there, and that there isn’t any service work taking place in that corridor. In other words, that the service work would have to be done within the building, and not in the corridor, restricting the flow, because there is going to be an increase of activity there, but I don’t believe it’ll be detrimental, as long as there isn’t any service work being done in that corridor, and that the parking spaces at the front are removed and in fact parking is restricted on that front corner there, so that there’s continued free flow in that corridor. That’s the only concern that we really have. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. So you just want to rest assured that you’re not going to have a bottleneck overflowing onto your site, prohibiting people from moving around freely on your site. MR. MINOGUE-Exactly. That’s all. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. PALING-We encourage the sharing of commercial parking and access, and you don’t object, evidently, to maybe a car swinging around to get into the bay. You just don’t want them parked out there servicing them. MR. MINOGUE-Exactly, because then all of the, then every bit of the through traffic going through there will go over our property, and none of it would be able to pass the Tire Warehouse’s side if service work were going in there, or if parking were taking place on that front corner, and that would restrict the free flow there of traffic, and that’s what we don’t want to see is the obstruction of the open passage in that corridor. That’s all we’re really concerned about. MR. PALING-I think that’s a reasonable request. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Anything else? MR. MINOGUE-No. MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. MR. MINOGUE-Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Does anyone else want to come up and speak to this application? I will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MAC EWAN-You’ve heard your new neighbor’s concerns. What can you do to help appease the situation, so that you won’t have overflow parking onto his parcel, or obstructing traffic movements within his parcel? MR. MC CALL-Well, I feel the print clearly shows that we eliminated all the parking spots on the west side of our property. It would just be seal coated. So we’d have no parking there at all, but I can’t guarantee Mr. Minogue 100%, any more than the past three Saturdays, I counted about 50 of his customers in my parking lot. It’s just a way of life, the way the land runs there and everything. The reason why the bay doors are there, to put the cars inside the building, to work inside, not work outside. We don’t work outside buildings. So nothing’s going to be blocked there at all. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. MUGRACE-We don’t plan on parking any cars whatsoever there. MR. MC CALL-No, because then I can’t get the cars back out of the building. MR. MAC EWAN-So we’re moving five spaces, and we have left over eight spaces in the front. 20 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/18/98) MR. BREWER-How many spaces are required for this? MS. NOWICKI-When I went and calculated it, I didn’t have any problems with the spaces. He had more than enough. MR. MUGRACE-We’ll also add additional spaces internally. MRS. LA BOMBARD-I’m glad somebody’s going in there. MR. BREWER-He’s got plenty of room, no problem. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. I’ll entertain a motion, if someone wants to make one. MR. BREWER-How about SEQRA? MR. MAC EWAN-We don’t need one. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 44-98 TIRE WAREHOUSE , Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Stark: In accordance with the pre-written resolution, with the following comments: One, that the Beautification Committee comment of 8/10/98 be removed and be substituted by the drawing, site plan dated 8/18/98, the latest update, and, Two, that the free flow of traffic be maintained on the western side of the property, and that no cars be parked there for service, and that all service work shall be done inside the building. Whereas, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of Site Plan No. 44-98 TIRE WAREHOUSE for use of existing vacant building for Tire and Brake replacement; and Whereas, the above mentioned application, received 7/29/98, consists of the following: 1. Application w/map prepared by A. Mugrace dated 7/27/98 Whereas, the above file is supported with the following documentation: 1. 8/18/98 - Staff Notes 2. 8/12/98 - Warren Co. Planning Bd. resolution 3. 8/11/98 - Notice of public hearing sent 4. 8/10/98 - Planting list 5. 8/4/98 - Meeting notice letter 6. 7/2/98 - Letter to C. Round from J. McCall Whereas, a public hearing was held on 8/18/98 concerning the above project; and Whereas, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the site plan requirements of the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and Whereas, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and Whereas, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered; and 1. The Town Planning Board, after considering the above, hereby moves to APPROVE Site Plan No. 44-98, TIRE WAREHOUSE. 2. The applicant shall present three (3) copies of the above referenced site plan to the Zoning Administrator for his signature. 3. The Zoning Administrator is hereby authorized to sign the resolution. 4. The applicant agrees to the conditions set forth in this resolution. 5. The conditions shall be noted on the map. 21 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/18/98) 6. The issuance of permits is conditioned on compliance and continued compliance with the Zoning Ordinance and site plan approval process. th Duly adopted this 18 day of August, 1998, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Paling, Mr. Stark, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set, gentlemen. MR. MC CALL-Thank you. SUBDIVISION NO. 6-1998 PRELIMINARY STAGE FINAL STAGE TYPE: UNLISTED PAUL KNOX, III OWNER: SAME ZONE: WR-1A LOCATION: BAY PARKWAY ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO SUBDIVIDE A LOT OF 1 OF THE SUNSET FARM SUBDIVISION INTO TWO LOTS OF 3.85 AC. AND 1.00 ACRES. CROSS REFERENCE: SUBDIV. 11-1991 APA DOH TAX MAP NO. 7-1-16.1 LOT SIZE: 4.98 ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS PAUL KNOX, III, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Subdivision No. 6-1998, Preliminary and Final, Paul Knox, III, Meeting Date: August 18, 1998 “Description of Project The applicant proposes a two lot subdivision for preliminary and final review. Staff Comments The applicant met with staff prior to submission to discuss requirements for preliminary and final application. The application complies with the subdivision requirements in regards to creating a building lot in size and road frontage. Staff has no additional comments.” MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it? MS. NOWICKI-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening. MR. KNOX-Good evening. I am Paul Knox. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. We left off at Sketch Plan. We moved on to Preliminary and Final tonight, and we have all of Staff’s concerns addressed? MS. NOWICKI-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-I guess there aren’t going to be a lot of questions, I don’t think. MR. VOLLARO-Under Lot 1b, you start to cross your drawings a little bit here. This is the Preliminary, not for construction drawing? It has a septic area defined. This is the larger drawing. MR. KNOX-No. I’d also like to introduce my professional engineer, Jim Hutchins, and perhaps he can answer that question. MR. VOLLARO-Well, the question is that that’s identified as a septic area, but I noticed that on the plan you have up there, there are lines here that, (lost word) property lines, and the septic system is in an area that it looks like this doesn’t belong to you, and yet the drawing talks about that area as a septic area. JIM HUTCHINS MR. HUTCHINS-The answer to the question is the septic area that you’re pointing to is, I believe, of Mr. Knox’s neighbor, Mr. McCall. 22 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/18/98) MR. VOLLARO-Okay. It kind of looks like, when you first look at these drawings, it looks like that that’s the septic area you’re defining. MR. HUTCHINS-That’s not the one we’re proposing. That is an existing septic area for the McCall residence, I believe, to the south. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. On the drainage report, in taking a look at that, I was hoping that I’d see a Rist-Frost comment on that. I have some, having looked at that, setting C at Point 35 and running C up to Point 95 and the way you define it in here, there’s a somewhere near 180% increase in the runoff. Now, I’d like, I’m not challenging your report. I just thought that Rist- Frost might want to comment on the validity of this piece of paper. I didn’t see it in the packet. MR. MAC EWAN-Have they reviewed it? MS. NOWICKI-I did not send it to Rist-Frost. MR. MAC EWAN-Why not? MS. NOWICKI-Because it was a two lot subdivision, and sometimes we do not send two lot subdivisions to Rist-Frost for review. MR. MAC EWAN-Even in a CEA? MS. NOWICKI-As far as I know. Chris and I sat down and looked at it and felt that, if it became an issue that, yes, we could submit it, but as a review now, we didn’t feel that it was required to send it out to Rist-Frost. MR. BREWER-Should we not send it to him, and give it an approval with the condition that Rist- Frost has no problem with it? MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. Actually, I’m kind of surprised at that, because I thought that everything was reviewed by Rist-Frost. MR. BREWER-The reason I say that is because, way back when, there was a lot of concern about runoff. MR. KNOX-But that related to the property far removed from this property. MR. BREWER-Okay. MR. KNOX-They were really focusing on the driveway cuts off of Knox Road servicing the lots with lake views, but not, nowhere near this property we’re speaking of. MR. HUTCHINS-In response to your comment, what my basic assumption for this, the land, as it stands now, I assume the C, as you say, was 35, or you would get 35% runoff. When you pave it or cover it with roof, I assume you would get 95% runoff. I believe you will find that they are relatively standard assumptions, going from a non hardened surface to a hardened surface. MR. VOLLARO-I just want to get some assurance in my mind that the 100 foot infiltration trench is going to take that additional runoff properly. That’s really what I’m driving at, and looking at your figures here, I’m not trained in the particular area of engineering, but I certainly would like somebody that is to look at and verify that these figures are accurate, or correct at least. That’s just my point, and I didn’t see it in the packet. MR. BREWER-That would be my recommendation, to send it to Rist-Frost, just let them look at it. MR. MAC EWAN-We’ll open up the public hearing. If anybody wants to come up and comment to this application, we welcome you. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED JOHN L. POLK, JR. 23 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/18/98) MR. POLK-My name is John L. Polk, Jr. My daughters and I own an area across the bay from this one acre lot that’s proposed, and I’ll read the letters. This is my letter. “As you will note on the enclosed overlay,” MRS. LA BOMBARD-And you said you live across the bay? MR. POLK-Yes, this is Canal Bay. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. MR. POLK-This is two acres divided, and we’re directly across the bay. MRS. LA BOMBARD-On that point? MR. POLK-Yes, and we have over 500 feet of shore frontage here, more shore frontage than is left here. MRS. LA BOMBARD-So this is all your property? MR. POLK-Yes. MRS. LABOMBARD-All your, no, to there. MR. POLK-This is McCall’s, here. MRS. LABOMBARD-All right, from here to here is your 500 feet? MR. POLK-Yes. We have three cottages and three docks. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. MR. POLK-Needless to say, the assessment is based on the shore frontage and so forth. So it accounts for more than 50% of the Canal. The property has been in the family since before 1900, and we have two 1 acre lots, and three cottages. The configuration of the proposed lot is quite different. I’m questioning what this squared area is here, at one time, I believe this is wetlands, and we are concerned about the increase in the Canal Bay. Jet skiers, it’s sandy and shallow, and with a lot of swimming activity. Also, whether you’re aware of it or not, this dock has a limited marina permit, which I doubt many people know, and that limited permit was granted because he also rents spaces over on the main lake. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Wait a second. These aren’t his lots, these aren’t Mr. Knox’s lots. MR. POLK-Well, they’re other people’s. MRS. LABOMBARD-Yes, they’re other people’s. So the other people, so you’re saying that the people that own these lots dock their boats over here? MR. POLK-I don’t know who docks their boats there. Three people dock their boats there, that he rents to, but he also rents over here, and that’s why they granted him a limited. MR. VOLLARO-Can you hear this, Mr. Knox? MR. KNOX-No. MR. VOLLARO-I think the applicant has the right to hear this testimony. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, we’ll tell him. We’re reiterate, but this is Mr. Knox’s property right here, and so he’s also putting other people’s boats on that property besides his own? He has a limited marina permit for that property as well as the property? MR. POLK-It’s in conjunction with this. That’s why I feel that if this lot is sold, that this should make it be negated as a marina. MRS. LA BOMBARD-When you say “limited marina”, Mr. Polk, how many boats can that allow, a limited marina? You don’t know? 24 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/18/98) MR. POLK-It depends on the Lake George Park Commission. MRS. LABOMBARD-All right, and you’re positive of that, what you’re saying? MR. POLK-I attended the meeting and objected to it, yes, and so did the fellow from (lost words), but it did go through, and that is a limited marina license, and I don’t think that should be carried over to a new one. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. Thank you. MR. BREWER-If it’s a limited marina, what’s the limitations? MRS. LA BOMBARD-He doesn’t know. I just asked him that, how many boats, what max would that be. Tim, we had that same type of thing over on the other side, remember? MR. POLK-These are letters from each of my daughters. We own the property jointly, and their objections, too. Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Thank you. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Thanks. MR. POLK-I’m very concerned about that. MR. MAC EWAN-Can we have this, and we’ll enter it into the public record. Thank you very much. Does anyone else wish to come up and speak to this application? BRUCE LOGAN MR. LOGAN-My name is Bruce Logan, and my wife and I own the property, it’s marked on this subdivision map, 7-1-20, which is directly behind the property that’s going to be subdivided. Mr. Knox is our neighbor to the north, and the property to be subdivided, I believe, would be to the east, and I’ve spoken to Mr. Knox personally, which I don’t know how many other people have done, and I spoke to the person who’s going to buy the property. I feel it’s a vast improvement over what’s there. I have no objection to it, and I’d just like to strongly support it, and that’s the only comment I have. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Thank you. MRS. LABOMBARD-Could I ask you a question? Are you aware that that is a limited marina boat permit? MR. LOGAN-I am, but I don’t understand the law probably as well as you do, but I would assume that you don’t buy a limited marina, that the new owner would once again have to apply for it. All it is is a two stall dock like you have all over the lake. I mean, if the new owner wanted to rent docks, I would assume he would have to go through all the same procedures Mr. Knox did. I can’t see where it’s a carry over. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Now, do you own that little part that jets in there? MR. LOGAN-No. That’s Mr. McCall. MRS. LABOMBARD-Okay, because I’m not exactly sure where, could you just point out on that map where it is? MR. MAC EWAN-I’ve got it right here. His parcel is right there. MRS. LA BOMBARD-I see it. Okay. I’ve got you. Thanks. MR. LOGAN-Any other questions? MR. MAC EWAN-No, we’re all set. MR. LOGAN-Thank you. 25 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/18/98) MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. Anyone else wish to come up and comment on this application? ROBERTA KAHAN MS. KAHAN-I am Roberta Kahan. I have a piece of property 7-1-9, on Knox Road. Originally, several years ago, when this tract of land on the other side of Knox Road was subdivided, as I understood it, a request was made and was granted. I believe it had even been grandfathered in, that a marina was to be on that piece of property that is now being discussed, a limited marina, and as I understood it, that specifically was the docks that were on the west side of that property, between Brown and Gower/Logan. MR. MAC EWAN-What did you mean by “grandfathered in”? MS. KAHAN-Well, I believe that there was a limited marina on that property previously, and there was no objection to it continuing as such. MR. MAC EWAN-You’re under the impression it runs with the land, then? MS. KAHAN-Yes. That’s what I understood. It was to be a part of that parcel, which there has now been a request to subdivide. I have no objections whatever to it being subdivided. My only concern, from an environmental standpoint, is that we don’t end up with two limited marinas, one on Harris Bay, and one on the main body of Lake George. That’s my only concern. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Thank you. MS. KAHAN-You’re welcome. MR. MAC EWAN-Anyone else? JOHN MC CALL MR. MC CALL-My name is John McCall. I own the property two parcels adjacent to Paul Knox’s property. Very simply, from comments that Mr. Logan made, I have no problem with the property being subdivided. It’s a good level piece of property, as compared to the majority of the property that is quite hilly toward the main lake side. It could be a good asset for somebody in the future, and I have no problem with it. Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Thanks. Anyone else? JEAN WANNAMAKER MS. WANNAMAKER-Good evening. My name is Jean Wannamaker. My family owns the piece of property smack dab in the middle. We’re very new to the neighborhood. I really don’t know very much of what’s gone on in the past, but I think my outlook dittos that of my neighbors. We can’t see any harm coming from the development of this lot. It’s a nice flat piece of property. A house would be put there, adjacent to the house to the left of it, and the house to the right of it. I really can’t see anything that we would object to. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Thank you. MS. WANNAMAKER-You’re welcome. Anyone else? MS. NOWICKI-Craig, I have two comment letters. MR. MAC EWAN-Go for it. MS. NOWICKI-Okay. This is a Record of Telephone Conversation between myself and William Bernard that lives at 133 Assembly Point Road. William Bernard has no objection to the Paul th Knox, Number 6-98 Subdivision. I have a letter from Mary Trello, dated August 17, received in rd our Office on 8/18. It says “This letter is in reference to Paul Knox the 3. I’m in favor to his request. This will help to make more people Lake Living. And this is fine for the Area. You know the old say the more the merry. Thank you. Sincerely yours, Mary Trello 1352 New Assembly Pt. Rd. Assembly Pt. Lake George, NY 12845” That’s it. 26 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/18/98) MR. MAC EWAN-All right. We’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MAC EWAN-Limited marinas, enlighten us. MR. KNOX-In 1998, the Park Commission strengthened their rules and regulations with regard to docks, moorings and rental of docks. Prior to that, my father and I had been renting this particular dock since at least 1970. I do it only because I want to help pay the taxes, which are enormous, given the amount of property that we have on the lake. Four years ago, I rebuilt the dock. That cost $14,000. The permit process, which I had Mark Schachner as my legal representative, okay, that was quite involved, quite emotional, but I did get my permit to continue renting two covered slips, and one open slip. That’s all I have permission to do, no rental of jet skis. It’s an “F” Shaped dock. There’s two covered slips. There’s an open slip parallel to the shore. I could have perhaps gone for a permit to rent the outside perimeter of the dock, as some of my neighbors do, with those fiberglass whips, and probably gotten another two or three boats in there, but I chose not to. Why? Because I, you know, I have an appreciation for the lake, too, and sometimes my neighbors look at me because I own property, and they want to keep it forever wild. They don’t want any change on the property. I can understand that. I can appreciate that, but we, as a family, have been renting this dock since at least 1970, and if need be, I can get sworn depositions from some of the neighbors that rented from me. I got approval for this so called marina, and it is a misnomer, because they call it a Class A Marina, but I don’t pump gas. I don’t do boat launches. I don’t do anything other than rent my residential dock that’s been there for probably 50 some odd years. Now, if you want a little history on the land, where I propose to sell, the one acre, there used to be a cottage on that property. Ian Cruckshank leased the property from my grandfather. When he died, around 1970, his parents disassembled the cottage, moved it up to Shore Colony, which is a good mile up the road, reassembled the cottage, left this property vacant. That’s why there’s a dock there and no cottage, and so what my father did was, okay, we’ve got a dock. We’ve got taxes, what do we do with it? We have the dock on the other side, and so we, my father rented the dock. At the time, we got no objections from any of the neighbors, and I got no objections. In fact, Jack Quinlan, who is the first one in on the right as you go up Knox Road, he rented from my father for years, and me. Now, the concern about what’s going to happen to that dock, once the property is sold. I can understand my neighbor’s concern. My concern is too, I’m going to be a neighbor, abutting the rear end of that one acre lot. The gentleman two doors down, who has agreed to buy the land from me, is paying an astronomical amount of money. Now, if he’s going to pay that kind of money, why would he want to continue renting a dock for a measly several thousand dollars? Logic dictates that he’s going to build a nice house for his family. MRS. LA BOMBARD-I don’t know. MR. PALING-Aren’t we getting into an area we don’t belong in? MR. MAC EWAN-No, I was just trying to get a definition of what the usage of the marina was, that’s all. MRS. LABOMBARD-No, because if you’re selling this piece of property, and it says on the deed that this person is indeed buying a Class A Marina. MR. KNOX-It’s not going to be deeded rights. It’s all subject to Lake George Park Commission rules and regulations, which are very strict. It’s a permit that’s only good for “X” number of years, and you have to re-apply, and you have to pay an annual fee. I have to pay at least $400 fee to the Lake George Park Commission, so that I can continue renting that dock. MR. VOLLARO-Does this license run with the land? MR. KNOX-I did contact the Park Commission because, in talking to some of my neighbors, that was a concern, what’s going to happen to that so called marina when you sell the property. The answer I got from the Park Commission is the new owner would have to submit papers. MR. VOLLARO-He has to re-apply? MR. KNOX-I believe so. MR. VOLLARO-Mark, can you shed any light on that at all? You have a so called limited marina license, the property is sold, does that license run with the land, or does? 27 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/18/98) MR. SCHACHNER-The answer is just what Mr. Knox just indicated. A new owner can submit papers to the Park Commission to carry that forward. MR. VOLLARO-He has to re-apply. MR. KNOX-I believe the wording I got from Molly at the Park Commission was that the permit is transferable, subject to doing the necessary paperwork. It’s not going to be subject to public hearing, but the new owner is going to have to abide by the same rules and regulations and stipulations that I have in that permit, and I’m telling you right now that I agreed to limit it to three docks, or three boats, no personal water craft, no jet skis. Okay. Now, I didn’t even bring this up because it’s not, this is not the right forum to discuss the regulation of docks. MR. MAC EWAN-Absolutely. We had some neighbors that were concerned, and there was concern on my side, I wanted to know how it was fitting into the scheme of things, too. Although it’s not part of the review of this application, I just think that, you know, it was good to get it out in the open, so people understood where he was coming from. MRS. LA BOMBARD-It is part of the review. It’s an environmental issue. It’s a noise issue. It’s a more people issue. MR. KNOX-We’re not proposing any change whatsoever to the current use of the land, and the Park Commission has got their permit in force, and there is very strict guidelines on that permit. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. Here’s the way I interpreted it. Like right now that’s one piece of property. So there’s one permit that you have. As soon as you subdivide it, you make two permits. MR. KNOX-No, no. It would go with that, I’ll call it the Harris Bay lot. It’s a one acre lot that includes that dock. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Then I misunderstood Mr. Polk. I thought he said that both frontages could act the same way, yours on the main lake, and the Harris Bay part. So then, Paul, you’re part isn’t a part of the Class A Marina? MR. KNOX-No, it’s not. The dock that’s rented is a three slip “F” Shaped dock, which faces Mr. Polk. Now the Polk family, I’ve known all my life. In fact, I dated one of his daughters, and he’s got three properties in Canal Bay. Two rentals. He’s got a cottage here, with a dock. He’s got a cottage here with a dock, and he’s got a house here. Okay. Now, if he’s concerned about activity in a cove, he should look to his own tenants, who are constantly water skiing in and out of this cove. Okay. Now, we both share a common interest in trying to keep people from rafting, meaning from throwing an anchor off your boat and having a big party, and between Mr. Polk and I, we’ve called the Park Commission a million times, because people will go in there and try and take advantage, because it’s a nice sandy cove. It’s great for swimming. It’s shallow. MR. POLK-We have two pieces of property, not three. MR. KNOX-He has two cottages that he rents. He has a main residence that he uses for his own use. So he has three buildings, two of which are rental properties. Now, he has single pier docks at each location, which could accommodate two boats each. He could conceivably have four boats in here, more than my one dock. So, I mean, this is an issue that I think will go away, because the new owner, he’s indicated to me he’s going to build a house. We expect him to build a house. As I said, I don’t expect him to spend that kind of money just for the privilege of renting to three slips. Economically, it doesn’t make any sense whatsoever. Furthermore, he’s going to be subject to any Park Commission rules and regulations, which, believe me, are tough. MRS. LABOMBARD-Will he be able to keep the three slips for himself, though? MR. BREWER-Provided he does the proper paperwork and gets approved. MRS. LA BOMBARD-I mean, he just can’t automatically keep the three slips for his own personal use? Because the dock is already built for that kind of use? MR. KNOX-Well, it’s an “F” Shaped dock, and you’ve got two, you bring your boats in like this. They’re covered, okay. Now, I mean, if somebody buys this property, Mr. Polk would be sitting 28 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/18/98) over here in his lawn chair looking at a house, as there are houses all along Assembly Point Road. There’ll be a house here, and there’ll be a family using this dock, and that should be preferable, in his mind, to strangers parking here, getting out of their car, hopping in their boat and going, but I’ll tell you, I’ve had conversations with both his daughters, particularly Laurie, just recently, and she praised me for keeping track of the tenants and also how quiet I’ve kept it. I mean, in many respects the neighbors have been spoiled because this land has been undeveloped, and I’ve taken great care to allow nothing other than people keeping their boat at my property, and when they come, they park, they get in their car, and they go. I’ve got a dentist. I’ve got a businessman, and I’ve got a GE Engineer. I mean, they’re all good people. I’ve had no complaints from the neighbors, and as far as continued dock rental, that would be subject to the Park Commission, not you folks. It’s a Park Commission issue, which they do regulate the docks. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Enough on the topic. Okay. We’ll close the public hearing. We need to do a SEQRA. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. I have a Long Form. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, we do. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. , Introduced by Catherine LaBombard who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Paling: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: PAUL KNOX, III , and WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. No Federal agency appears to be involved. 2. The following agencies are involved: NONE 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury. 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant. 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law. th Duly adopted this 18 day of August, 1998, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Paling, Mr. Stark, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE MR. MAC EWAN-Does someone want to introduce a resolution? 29 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/18/98) MOTION TO APPROVE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 6-1998 PAUL KNOX, III , Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Larry Ringer: In accordance with the prepared resolution. Whereas, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of Subdivision No. 6-1998 PAUL KNOX, III to subdivide lot 1 of the Sunset Hill Farm Subdivision into two lots of 3.85 ac. and 1.00 acres; and Whereas, the above mentioned application, received 7/27/98, consists of the following: 1. Application w/drainage report (8/98) and 2 maps (97-019), survey map revised 5/26/98 Whereas, the above file is supported with the following documentation: 1. 8/18/98 - Staff Notes 2. 8/4/98 - Meeting notice 3. 7/28/98 - Letter to L. Nowicki from P. Knox 4. 7/24/98 - Letter to L. Nowicki from P. Knox 5. 7/21/98 - Staff notes 6. 7/1/98 - Meeting notice letter 7. 6/16/98 - Staff notes (Sketch) 8. 6/4/98 - Letter to P. Knox from C. Round 9. 6/4/98 - Meeting notice letter Whereas, a public hearing was held on 8/18/98 concerning the above project; and Whereas, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the site plan requirements of the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and Whereas, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and Whereas, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered; and 1. The Town Planning Board, after considering the above, hereby moves to APPROVE Subdivision No. 6-1998, Preliminary Stage, PAUL KNOX, III. 2. The applicant shall present three (3) copies of the above referenced site plan to the Zoning Administrator for his signature. 3. The Zoning Administrator is hereby authorized to sign the resolution. 4. The applicant agrees to the conditions set forth in this resolution. 5. The conditions shall be noted on the map. 6. The issuance of permits is conditioned on compliance and continued compliance with the Zoning Ordinance and site plan approval process. th Duly adopted this 18 day of August, 1998, by the following vote: MR. VOLLARO-We want to add to that the drainage report that was submitted, dated August 1998, by James E. Hutchins, P.E., be reviewed by Rist-Frost for comments. MR. BREWER-That would be contingent upon the approval? MR. VOLLARO-Right. MR. BREWER-How would that work, Mark? Technical question, if we go ahead with preliminary, approve it, and then approve final and then there’s a problem with the report? MR. SCHACHNER-First off, your wording is better than Bob’s wording, in that you’re not sending it to Rist-Frost for comments. It’s contingent on Rist-Frost approval. 30 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/18/98) MR. BREWER-Right. MR. SCHACHNER-Which I think is what Tim said. That’s a little clearer, I think, and the answer to your question, is if that’s a condition of preliminary approval, then that condition has to be fulfilled for final approval to be valid. MR. BREWER-Okay. MR. KNOX-Can I ask a question? Last month when I was here, someone threw out the idea of can’t we do a preliminary and a final in one night, and I thought the answer? MR. BREWER-Yes, we are. We’re just going to do them as separate motions. MR. KNOX-I’m sorry. All right. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. We’re going to revise that motion to reflect that, for preliminary approval, that the drainage report to be reviewed and approved by Rist-Frost. MS. NOWICKI-Can I make a suggestion? Can you, because you’re limiting yourself, if you want to approve it in preliminary stage, you’re saying that you can’t go on to the next stage this evening. So if you hold on to that condition and approve it within you final stage. MR. BREWER-That was my question. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Duly noted. MS. NOWICKI-Are you going to remove that condition? MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, we are removing that condition. MR. RINGER-We’re going to approve preliminary as written? MR. MAC EWAN-As written. AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Paling, Mr. Stark, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE MR. BREWER-All right, now, Bob, you make the motion that final approval be contingent upon Rist-Frost approval of the drainage report. MOTION TO APPROVE FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 6-1998 PAUL KNOX, III , Introduced by Timothy Brewer who moved for its adoption, seconded by Larry Ringer: As per the prepared resolution, and that the Final approval be contingent upon Rist-Frost approval of the drainage report. Whereas, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of Subdivision No. 6-1998 PAUL KNOX, III to subdivide lot 1 of Sunset Hill Farms Subdivision into two lots of 3.85 ac. and 1.00 acres; and Whereas, the above mentioned application, received 7/27/98, consists of the following: 1. Application w/drainage report (8/98) and 2 maps (97-019), survey map revised 5/26/98 Whereas, the above file is supported with the following documentation: 1. 8/18/98 - Staff Notes 2. 8/4/98 - Meeting notice 3. 7/28/98 - Letter to L. Nowicki from P. Knox 4. 7/24/98 - Letter to L. Nowicki from P. Knox 5. 7/21/98 - Staff notes 6. 7/1/98 - Meeting notice letter 31 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/18/98) 7. 6/16/98 - Staff notes (Sketch) 8. 6/4/98 - Letter to P. Knox from C. Round 9. 6/4/98 - Meeting notice letter Whereas, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the site plan requirements of the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and Whereas, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and Whereas, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered; and 1. The Town Planning Board, after considering the above, hereby moves to APPROVE Subdivision No. 6-1998, Final Stage, PAUL KNOX, III. 2. The applicant shall present three (3) copies of the above referenced site plan to the Zoning Administrator for his signature. 3. The Zoning Administrator is hereby authorized to sign the resolution. 4. The applicant agrees to the conditions set forth in this resolution. 5. The conditions shall be noted on the map. 6. The issuance of permits is conditioned on compliance and continued compliance with the Zoning Ordinance and site plan approval process. th Duly adopted this 18 day of August, 1998, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Brewer, Mr. Paling, Mr. Stark, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set. MR. KNOX-Thank you. PETITION FOR CHANGE OF ZONE - P2-98 TYPE I TOWN OF QUEENSBURY OWNER: SAME LOCATION: BETWEEN HUDSON RIVER AND NATIVE TEXTILES CURRENT ZONING: LIGHT INDUSTRIAL (1/3) & WATERFRONT RESIDENTIAL (2/3) PROPOSED ZONING: WATERFRONT RESIDENTIAL - 3A APPLICANT REQUESTS REZONING OF THE LIGHT INDUSTRIAL PORTION OF THE PARCEL TO WR-3A. TAX MAP NO. 137-2-10 LOT SIZE: 29.43 ACRES PLINEY TUCKER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Petition for Zone Change P2-98, Area between Hudson River and Native Textiles, Meeting Date: August 18, 1998 “Description of Project The Town of Queensbury has requested this selected parcel to be rezoned to waterfront three acres. Staff Comments The application has complied with the requirements for rezoning a parcel. Staff would suggest the Board recommend rezoning of this parcel to WR-3A. Staff has no additional comments.” MS. NOWICKI-And this recommendation is to the Town Board. MR. MAC EWAN-Just a recommendation. MS. NOWICKI-Just a recommendation. MR. MAC EWAN-I always wondered who the Town of Queensbury was, and you must be the Town of Queensbury. 32 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/18/98) MR. TUCKER-It’s happening in my ward, so I’ve got to be here. Pliney Tucker, Councilman, Ward 4, Town of Queensbury. MR. MAC EWAN-You know more about this than I. Just tell us what we’re doing here, and what the game plan is. MR. TUCKER-What it is is a parcel of land that was purchased when Mr. Solomon was Supervisor here, to move the City Landfill to this site, and in 1988, I believe it was, this area was re-zoned and they followed the 500 foot, 100 year flood line rather than the property line. This piece of property that’s zoned Light Industry I think could support one 10,000 square foot building. MS. NOWICKI-Probably. MR. TUCKER-But it would be right on the edge of the bluff, and a great deal of drainage there, and I do believe when Native Textiles built their factory, which is located right in the area, that this piece of land was held for the simple reason that they didn’t want the Light Industry going right out to the edge of the bluffs. So, I do believe if we change it to WR-3A, people in the future won’t be able to put a building on it, and it’ll be compatible to Faith Bible Church property, which Nature Conservancy is in the process of purchasing, and they’re going to turn it over to the Town of Queensbury for park. MR. MAC EWAN-It’s just basically adding one more piece of land to the entire corridor of the river from, basically, Spire Falls all the way on down, that’s going to try to remain forever green, forever wild. MR. TUCKER-Yes, right, and it goes along with what Govenor Pataki’s declaring the Hudson River, some kind of river, a great one, I guess. MR. MAC EWAN-Heritage River. MR. TUCKER-Yes, Heritage River, that’s it. MR. MAC EWAN-Designated Federal (lost words). MR. STARK-Do you just want to poll the Board and see where we all stand? MR. MAC EWAN-I’ll start with you. MR. STARK-I’m for it. It’s fine. MR. PALING-For it. MRS. LABOMBARD-For it. MR. VOLLARO-Plus, yes. MR. RINGER-Yes. MR. BREWER-Absolutely. The only thing I wanted to ask, Pliney, is the Comprehensive Master Plan going to include this, or have they considered this before you guys even requested the zone change? MR. TUCKER-I can’t say for sure. MR. BREWER-I guess what I’m thinking about is the land adjacent to it, or around that area. I was out of town when they had the unveiling, if you will, of the Master Plan. I didn’t get a chance to look at it. MR. TUCKER-What we’re doing is picking up this little piece here. Remember when Native Textiles, and they didn’t sell them this thing because they didn’t want them coming out on the bluff. MR. BREWER-Right. 33 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/18/98) MR. TUCKER-And this is going to be, is Faith Bible land right here. MR. BREWER-Right. MR. TUCKER-And I believe when we acquire this, will change the zone of this SR-1 Acre. MR. BREWER-I guess my point being that, to go through this again, with that other piece of property, is it included in the Master Plan to do it, when that thing is approved, rather than do this, or it doesn’t make any difference. MR. TUCKER-It doesn’t make any difference. MS. NOWICKI-Yes. The Master Plan is not re-zoning. Those are recommendations. MR. BREWER-I understand that, but doesn’t the Master Plan include re-zoning of some parcels at some point, at some time? MR. SCHACHNER-It makes recommendations, but I think Laura’s point is, who knows if and when those recommendations will be implemented. Mere publication and adoption of the Master Plan, as you know, doesn’t actually change the zoning. MR. BREWER-Okay. Yes, I’m absolutely, 100% for it. MR. MAC EWAN-We’re not lead agency in this, so we’re not doing a SEQRA. Just a recommendation. I’m all ears. Someone throw one up. MOTION TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PETITION FOR ZONE CHANGE P2-98 TO THE TOWN BOARD , Introduced by Timothy Brewer who moved for its adoption, seconded by Larry Ringer: th Duly adopted this 18 day of August, 1998, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Paling, Mr. Stark, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Brewer, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE MR. BREWER-It’s a done deal. MR. TUCKER-On behalf of the Town of Queensbury, thank you. MRS. LA BOMBARD-You’re welcome. MR. TUCKER-We’ll try not to raise your taxes. We’ll try. MR. MAC EWAN-A question for Staff regarding the Comprehensive Land Use Plan. Why did not Planning Board members get a copy of it? MR. BREWER-Yes. MS. NOWICKI-They only made limited copies, as far as I know. MR. MAC EWAN-Well, I’ve got to tell you, I take real personal offense to this whole deal because we’re the guys that use that thing, and we’re the guys that should have gotten copies of it so we could take the time to review it. MS. NOWICKI-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-Now, as much paperwork as I see float up and down this table twice a month, whoever said we had limited editions or limited copies, I don’t buy it. MR. BREWER-I’ll kick in the extra buck it costs to make. MR. MAC EWAN-And I’m not taking it out on you, make that for the record. 34 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/18/98) MS. NOWICKI-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-But you get it back to the hierarchy at the end of the hall, the one that says Executive Administrator of Zoning, and tell him I want copies for everyone next week, please. Okay. MS. NOWICKI-Okay. I will do that. MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. Has anybody else got anything else to add? MRS. LA BOMBARD-I wish I had a copy of that. MR. BREWER-I do have one question, other business. MR. PALING-Well, lets get this one settled. I’m totally in agreement with Craig, and I’m very surprised, I couldn’t get to the meeting, that you’d eliminate us, because people are going to be referring to it, and here we are stuck without a plan. Unbelievable. MR. BREWER-Yes, I agree. MR. PALING-I don’t mean you personally. MS. NOWICKI-I know. MR. BREWER-I remember when I became a member of the Board, that’s the first thing I got was a copy of that. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, you’re right. MRS. LABOMBARD-I have a question regarding green areas. Chris Round, at one of the meetings recently, just kind of alluded to the fact that things don’t always stay the same, and because of the way things are evolving in the Town, that, and he was referring, just to that, that maybe green areas in various subdivisions would no longer remain green areas. So I want to do some research on that, Laura, regarding my own subdivision, Bedford Close, just to, because see you happened to use Bedford Close as an example that night, and I’ll tell you, I was really quite worried about it, and I want to know if I can go into the Office and where I would go to go back and look at deeds, like who owns those green areas, and who is paying taxes on them. Would I be able to do that? MS. NOWICKI-The deed information is with the County Tax Office, however, I do have a file on Bedford Close that you are more than welcome to look at. It’s two boxes. MRS. LABOMBARD-And that’s over in the municipal building? MS. NOWICKI-No, in our Office. MRS. LABOMBARD-It’s in your Office, okay. MS. NOWICKI-Just contact me ahead of time, so can pull all that file, so that you have an opportunity to review it. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Great. You’ll be hearing from me, or one of my neighbors in the near future. Thanks. MS. NOWICKI-Okay. MR. BREWER-Two things. Next week, Sinclair? MR. MAC EWAN-He’s off. MR. BREWER-He’s off. Well, when he comes back on, when we originally approved that, that fence was supposed to go across there, from the edge of his building all the way. MS. NOWICKI-You tabled the application. 35 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/18/98) MR. BREWER-No, the first time, before your time. MS. NOWICKI-Okay. MR. BREWER-When we originally approved that. MR. MAC EWAN-His original site plan. MR. BREWER-The driveway that he has from Corinth Road to the back, there was supposed to be a fence, the whole length of that, and for the last year, he’s taken a section of that down and using it as a driveway, and the reason we put that up is because we didn’t want access on Corinth Road. MS. NOWICKI-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s the split rail that goes from the corner of the property, that runs east/west. MR. BREWER-That’s right. The fence is down. I’d like to see it back up. MR. MAC EWAN-I didn’t even notice it. MR. BREWER-I have. I go by it every day. MR. MAC EWAN-Me, too, but I didn’t notice it. MR. BREWER-The second thing is, Big Boom Driving Range, what’s the status with using the? MS. NOWICKI-They’re not supposed to, the entrance. Okay. As far as I know, they’re supposed st to close that by August 31, and move their signs off that fence. st MR. BREWER-Okay. So they’ve got until the 31. MR. MAC EWAN-And the status of Burns News Agency, the Brandts, with the landscaping plan for those buildings? MS. NOWICKI-Their landscaping plans will be submitted to Beautification Committee for September. MR. MAC EWAN-For September. MR. BREWER-Was there any time frame that was supposed to be done with our resolution? MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, it was within two weeks after we had done the resolution. MR. BREWER-So maybe we ought to do something about that. MR. STARK-Craig, anything on Pyramid Mall? MR. MAC EWAN-I don’t know. Anything on Pyramid Mall? MS. NOWICKI-No. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else? MR. BREWER-Moore’s is closing. MR. MAC EWAN-Are they really? MR. BREWER-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else? I’ll make a motion to adjourn the meeting. MR. BREWER-And I’ll second it. 36 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/18/98) On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Craig MacEwan 37