Loading...
2002-08-15 SP (Queensbury Planning Board 8/15/02) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SPECIAL MEETING AUGUST 15, 2002 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT CRAIG MAC EWAN, CHAIRMAN CATHERINE LA BOMBARD, SECRETARY ROBERT VOLLARO LARRY RINGER JOHN STROUGH CHRIS HUNSINGER MEMBERS ABSENT ANTHONY METIVIER PLANNER-GEORGE HILTON TOWN COUNSEL-MILLER, MANNIX, SCHACHNER & HAFNER-CATHI RADNER STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI OLD BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 32-98 TYPE II MODIFICATION OMALL FAMILY LTD. PARTNERSHIP PROPERTY OWNER: SAME AGENT: WILLIAM TROMBLEY/JARRETT-MARTIN ZONE: HC-1A APPLICANT PROPOSES MODIFICATION TO AN EXISTING SITE PLAN – CHANGE IN USE. LAST USED AS FURNITURE STORE (J. ALLEN FURNITURE); NEW USE TO BE HEALTH FOCUS OF N.Y. WITH OFFICES, STOCK AREAS, RETAIL SALES AREAS AND ADDITIONAL PARKING SPACES. RETAIL BUSINESS IN HC ZONES REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: P3-93, AV 40-1998 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 5/8/02 TAX MAP NO. 110-1-1.25 LOT SIZE: 43,350 SQ. FT. SECTION: 179-22 WILLIAM TROMBLEY & TOM JARRETT, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MRS. LA BOMBARD-And the public hearing on May 21 was tabled. MR. MAC EWAN-Staff notes? MR. HILTON-Okay. As I understand it, when this was last heard and tabled, there were many comments on a list from C.T. Male that the Planning Board was looking to have addressed, and through their correspondence between C.T. Male and the applicant, it appears that they’ve been addressed. However, we would be looking for their changes, C.T. Male’s changes, to be reflected in an updated sheet just to be submitted to Planning Staff. Also in the Staff notes, we’ve talked about wall pack information for lighting and landscaping details. We kind of just crossed paths and that information has been received. It looks good. However, again, it would be nice to have it reflected on a plan that could be submitted to Planning Staff. The only other issue was taken care of by the Town Board. The extension of the Technical Park sewer district was complete and this property is now included and will be required to connect and that will be looked at at the time of building permit, and that appears to be it at this time. MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening. MR. TROMBLEY-Good evening. MR. MAC EWAN-For the record, you are? MR. TROMBLEY-William Trombley, I’m the agent for Mr. Boychuk. MR. JARRETT-And Tom Jarrett of Jarrett Martin Engineers. MR. MAC EWAN-The floor is yours, Tom. MR. TROMBLEY-Well, we were here in May, originally, on this change, and at that time, if you’ll recall, (lost words), but at that time, we didn’t have all the answers and it wasn’t addressed (lost words), and consequently we needed more information done by a civil engineer, and that’s when Mr. Jarrett was brought in, and I think now that he has all the answers (lost words) C.T. Male’s office to your satisfaction. 1 (Queensbury Planning Board 8/15/02) MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. John, we’ll start with you. MR. STROUGH-Well, good evening. I didn’t have much here, C.T. Male, I went through it before I got their comments, had some of the similar comments such as the turning radii. I mean, this is going to be a commercial enterprise. Is this still going to be Health Focus? MR. TROMBLEY-Yes, which, basically, I think this company bought out what was called Continuous Care beforehand, and they deal with helping people who are in home that need nursing care. MR. STROUGH-And the Omall family owns the business? MR. TROMBLEY-Yes. MR. STROUGH-Okay, and C.T. Male had a comment about, are there any of C.T. Male’s comments that you want to comment on that you disagreed with? MR. TROMBLEY-I’d leave that up to Mr. Jarrett. MR. STROUGH-For example lighting on the north side. What did you think of that, you know, where the driveway is going in? MR. JARRETT-On the north side or the west side? MR. VOLLARO-The west side. MR. JARRETT-The west side. MR. STROUGH-Is it the west side? I’m sorry. MR. JARRETT-I believe C.T. Male’s comment was intended to address the dumpster that is shown on the site plan, on the west side, and that actually is a temporary location. So we explained to them that the dumpster will be relocated to the rear when that parking is constructed. They were fine with the lighting plan that we’ve submitted. MR. STROUGH-Do you have any plans, set plans for constructing that parking area in the rear? MR. JARRETT-It’ll be done as soon as the connection to the sewer is made, which is planned for September, and I guess that’s all dependent on the sewer district. MR. STROUGH-Because I see in your updated plans, when you do that, any large trucks trying to access that dumpster will have a better chance of getting at it with your new plan than they probably would where it’s currently located. The use is compatible. I think it’s a good location for it, and that’s all the notes that I have, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Bob? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I was looking for a response from the Wastewater Superintendent, Mr. Shaw, to this application. This application was sent to him on 8/2, but I don’t think we’ve gotten a response from him, and what I was looking for was his position on the removal of the septic tank, and the time to remove it. I know that the Wastewater Superintendent has in the past, for most applications, when an area, a use was being connected to a municipal sewer, he wants to see the septic tank removed almost coincident with that, and I was wondering what the plan was and do you have a removal plan? I haven’t seen that. Whether or not any of the contaminant, because they do consider that contaminated soil, will that be removed, how will it be trucked out. How will it be, you know, the Department of Transportation wants that stuff dry before it’s put on a truck on the road. There’s a whole scenario that goes with removing a septic system. MR. JARRETT-The plan is to remove that existing septic system as soon as the new lateral is constructed. The tank will be removed at that time. The leach field, we’ll actually investigate it. If it’s a deep leach field, we’re probably leaving it in place. If it’s a shallow leach field, we’ll pull it out, and generally, the disposition of domestic sewage is not a major issue, but obviously it is contaminated fill. So it will be transported to the appropriate location. MR. TROMBLEY-I assume that that will be pumped out prior to the tank being removed anyway. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I know I played around with who will accept that. It’s kind of interesting. You’ve got a landfill at Colonie and one in Plattsburg. That’s the resources we have to getting rid of contaminated soil these days. Second, I looked at Trent Martin’s letter, which was dated 8/8/02, to permit planting in the 2 (Queensbury Planning Board 8/15/02) County right of way. I haven’t seen that letter. Do we have a letter from the DPW that says that? I know Trent’s letter says the DPW has agreed to this, if you read it. MR. JARRETT-Are you referring to the memorandum dated 8/8? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. It says the islands will encroach on the County right of way, but have been approved by Warren County Highway Department. MR. JARRETT-We have not seen anything in writing. I actually discussed this with DPW. I’ve met with them in the field to discuss drainage, and I told them that we planned the landscaping in the front to shorten the curb cut, the entrance, and that we plan the landscaping there with some landscaping there with some landscaping bordering on the right of way, and they said that would be fine, but they did not respond in writing. MR. VOLLARO-Normally they do. We’ve been using a document lately that’s almost become a pro forma kind of document that was issued to another applicant where the Department of Public Works actually talks to the approval of a certain application, and they usually do that, and I know that, as I say, we have a document that we use as a pro forma document, and I wanted to see that document, you know, and I don’t know whether it exists or not, although Trent says and you say, and I have no reason to disbelieve you. MR. JARRETT-I don’t believe there’s a document that exists right now. We could solicit that if the Board requests. MR. VOLLARO-I would like it to be at least contained as part of our record, that Planning Staff has that in their file in a documented form. MR. HILTON-We don’t have anything right now. Certainly you could make it a condition that they provide some information. MR. VOLLARO-I’m sure Planning Staff would like to have that as well. MR. HILTON-Sure. MR. VOLLARO-I mean I certainly don’t need it in my position, but I think you certainly need it in yours. MR. HILTON-Yes. We’d like that verification. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. Talking about that western wall, just looking at your cut sheets on some of the, going from 100 watts to 70 watts to 50 watts and so on, it looks like that 70 watt high pressure sodium on the west side would really help to illuminate that driving lane, and it may eliminate some light spillage over the property line. It might be close. I looked at it to see whether it would, but there’s really no illumination on the west side of the building, and that’s a 24 foot drive lane there it seems like. MR. JARRETT-The times I’ve been there after dark, I’ve actually seen quite a bit of illumination from the properties on Quaker Road. In fact, there was an argument that no lighting was needed on our building at all. We decided we needed some lighting. We can check that again and see if the lighting is sufficient for that travel way. There’s not going to be activity there. MR. VOLLARO-So what you’re saying is there’s enough random lighting to help light that? MR. JARRETT-There’s actually quite a bit of spillage from properties on Quaker Road right now onto this property. MR. VOLLARO-All right. Well, that may be the solution then. I haven’t been out there at night, so I wouldn’t know what the lighting. MR. JARRETT-The sensitivity over lighting, we’ve tried to add as few new lights as we possibly. MR. VOLLARO-Sure. MR. TROMBLEY-This business closes down at five o’clock. They don’t have any nine o’clock hours like a shopping center or something. MR. VOLLARO-There’s no deliveries before or after hours, that kind of thing? MR. TROMBLEY-No. 3 (Queensbury Planning Board 8/15/02) MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Then probably light is not, I just wanted to explore that west side of the building, and, Mr. Chairman, that’s the only remarks I have. I just want to make sure that we do have a letter from the County on the right of way. MR. MAC EWAN-Cathy? MRS. LA BOMBARD-I just have a question regarding the landscaping. Could you be a little more specific as to what is going in and am I to assume that where it’s green on the plan that that’s going to be grass? MR. JARRETT-Actually, the first plan that’s there shows our current design as it was submitted to the Board, and we have a plan underneath that addresses what C.T. Male asked us to do, but what’s shown on that plan, the light green is essentially lawn, and the darker green are the landscaped islands, plantings and trees along the perimeter to meet the new Town Zoning Ordinance. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay, and my question is what kind of trees do you have, and are they going to be deciduous or conifers? MR. JARRETT-We’ve got, maybe, Trent, you can highlight what we’ve got shown there on the plan. MR. STROUGH-Tom, if you don’t mind me interjecting, wasn’t there a hedge along the parking area, too? MR. JARRETT-Yes, there is. MR. STROUGH-Which I thought, personally, and I’m sorry for interrupting, Cathy. MRS. LA BOMBARD-No, that’s good. MR. STROUGH-But the hedge did kind of hide the parking, and soften that look. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes, I just, it’s been a while. I don’t remember the hedge being there. MR. STROUGH-I remember looking at the landscaping and being pretty impressed with the way it was designed. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Good. Okay. MR. JARRETT-Just to enumerate, we’ve got red maple and spruce and we’ve got a total of seven red maple and I believe it’s three spruce, if I’m counting correctly, and as John says, the hedge along the entire Dix Avenue frontage and two landscaped islands in front of the hedge. MR. STROUGH-Which are mounded. MR. JARRETT-Which are mounded, as well as shrubs. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Is that there now? MR. JARRETT-No, there’s no landscaping there now MRS. LA BOMBARD-No, that’s what I was going to say. I guess it’s just been a while. MR. JARRETT-The whole frontage is curb cut right now. We’re going to cut that down and add the landscaping. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. That’s right. MR. STROUGH-I looked at that I said this is going to be a whole lot nicer than what. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes. MR. JARRETT-I think the traffic flow will be much improved, too, because right now it’s a little bit haphazard. MRS. LA BOMBARD-So then you’ll put a, like an evergreen hedge in the front? MR. JARRETT-Right. We’ve shown that as evergreen shrubs, as a matter of fact. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Great. It’s nice. Okay. That’s all I had. MR. MAC EWAN-Larry? 4 (Queensbury Planning Board 8/15/02) MR. RINGER-I have nothing. MR. MAC EWAN-Chris? MR. HUNSINGER-I really had nothing. I just wanted to comment, you know, based on some of the other comments, you know, how much nicer I think this site will be with the landscaping that’s proposed. It certainly is haphazard coming in and out right now, and having controlled access and the landscaping proposal will be a major improvement. MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-I would concur with Mr. Hunsinger. I think it’s a great step forward for this site. Anything else you wanted to add? MR. JARRETT-Would you like us to go through the detailed comments that C.T. Male made? MR. MAC EWAN-I think we’re comfortable with it. MR. RINGER-They signed off on it. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. I think we’re comfortable with it. We don’t need to go through that. We have a public hearing scheduled. Does anyone want to comment on this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MAC EWAN-Would someone like to introduce a motion, please. MR. STROUGH-Yes. One question, though. Now you’re going to do the rear parking and the dumpster relocation after the sewer connection? MR. JARRETT-More or less concurrently, immediately after. MR. STROUGH-In my resolution I just wanted to assure that that did take place. I did (lost words) for it. The rear parking and dumpster relocation will occur, what, six months after sewer connection is achieved, or one year? MR. TROMBLEY-No. I assume that that will be done when the project is continued right through. I assume this project will be all done, I would say no later than probably the end of October. MR. STROUGH-So, just to assure that, you know, everything does get, when’s the sewer connection supposed to take place? MR. JARRETT-I’ve seen correspondence that suggests September, October. I think anytime you’re dealing with new districts or district extensions, we need to hedge that a little bit, but frankly the applicant you’ll noticed has asked for more parking than what the Town minimums are, and they need the parking in the rear so that really needs to happen as soon as the sewer connection is made. MR. STROUGH-Then you wouldn’t have a problem if I just conditioned it the rear parking and dumpster relocation will occur within one year after the sewer connection? MR. TROMBLEY-That’s plenty. MR. JARRETT-No problem. MR. TROMBLEY-No problem. MR. TROMBLEY-We have to get that part of the work done first before they can go in and grade and blacktop. MR. STROUGH-All right. Well, here’s what I have for conditions. 5 (Queensbury Planning Board 8/15/02) MOTION TO APPROVE MODIFICATION TO SITE PLAN NO 32-98 OMALL FAMILY LTD. PARTNERSHIP, Introduced by John Strough who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro: WHEREAS, an application has been made to this Board by: Site Plan No. 32-98, Omall Family, LP. Owner: Same. Agent: William Trombley / Jarrett-Martin Eng. Zone: HC-1A, Location: 295 Dix Avenue. Applicant proposes a modification to an existing site plan – change in use. Last used as furniture store (J. Allen Furniture); new use to be Health Focus of N.Y. with offices, stock areas, retail sales areas and additional parking spaces. Retail Business in HC zone requires Planning Board review and approval. Cross Reference: P3-93, AV 40-1998. Tax Map No. 110-1-1.25. Lot size: 43,350 sf. WHEREAS, the application was received on 4/24/02; and WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation and inclusive of all newly received information, not included in this listing as of 8/12/02: 8/9 Memo to PB from G. Hilton 8/9 New Information received – Lighting and Landscaping 8/9 CT Male engineering comments 8/7 New Information received – Stormwater Management report dated 8/02 8/5 TB Res. 310,2002 – adopting SEQRA determination regarding Qu. Tech. Park sewer district extension #4 8/5 TB Res. 311,2002 – approving Qu. Tech. Park sewer district extension #4 8/2 New Information received 5/29 New Information received 5/21 Planning Board resolution – Tabled 5/21 CT Male comments received 5/21 Staff Notes 5/16 CT Male comments received 5/14 Notice of Public Hearing 5/8 Warren Co. Planning: NCI 5/3 C. Round from Mike Shaw, Wastewater Dept. 5/1 Meeting Notice WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter 179, Zoning Ordinance, Section 179-103 of the Code of the Town of Queensbury a public hearing was advertised and was held on May 21, 2002 and August 15, 2002; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the Site Plan requirements of the Code of the Town Queensbury (Zoning); and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and WHEREAS, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; and/or if application is a modification, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered; and the proposed modification(s) do not result in any new or significantly different environmental impacts, and, therefore, no further SEQRA review is necessary; and WHEREAS, approval of the application means that the applicant can now apply for a Building Permit unless the lands are Adirondack Park Jurisdictional or other approvals are necessary. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that We find the following: The application for Modification is hereby approved and is subject to the following conditions: 1. A revised set of plan will address C.T. Male comments, August 9, 2002 comments, and 2. Rear parking and dumpster relocation will occur within one year of connecting to the sewer, and 3. That the Warren County Department of Public Works permission or permit, whichever is required, for the Dix Avenue curb cut and landscaping will be obtained by the applicant, and a copy will be given to the Planning Staff. Duly adopted this 15th day of August, 2002 by the following vote: 6 (Queensbury Planning Board 8/15/02) MR. STROUGH-And those are the three conditions I had, unless the Planning Board members have. MR. MAC EWAN-Bob wanted that other one added. MR. VOLLARO-I think John just covered it. MR. MAC EWAN-As far as the paper trail you’re looking for? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MS. RADNER-I think that John said that he’s responsible for it, but I don’t think he said he’d get a copy of it to Planning Staff, which you might want to add. MR. MAC EWAN-Would you amend that, John. MR. STROUGH-Okay, and a copy will be given to the Planning Staff. Will that suffice? MS. RADNER-Yes. I think that’ll cover the paper trail concern. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Do we have a second on this? MR. VOLLARO-I’ll second that motion. AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Strough, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Ringer, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Metivier MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set, gentlemen. MR. JARRETT-Thank you very much. MR. MAC EWAN-Good luck. Thanks for working on such a nice site. MR. TROMBLEY-Thank you. NEW BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 43-2002 TYPE II HFD #55, D/B/A J. CREW PROPERTY OWNER: MITCHELL COHEN AGENT: STEPHEN BORGOS ZONE: HC-INT. LOCATION: 1471 STATE ROUTE 9 APPLICANT SEEKS SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR THE TEMPORARY SALE OF MEN’S CLOTHING AND ACCESSORIES AS A TRANSIENT MERCHANT APPLICATION TO BE REVIEWED BY THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REFERENCE: TB REFERRAL 8/5/02, SV 1173 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 8/14/02 TAX MAP NO. 288-1-58/35.1-1-1.2 LOT SIZE: 1.99 ACRES SECTION: ART. 4 STEVE BORGOS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT Project Description: Applicant proposes to use an existing retail location for temporary sales as a Transient Merchant. Criteria for considering a Site Plan according to Section 179-9-080 of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance: 1. Does the proposed project comply with the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance? Applications for a Transient Merchant license require Site Plan review before the Planning Board. 2. Will the proposed use be in harmony with the intent of the ordinance, specifically, could the location, character and size of the proposed use increase the burden on the supporting public services and facilities? It is not anticipated that this temporary use will present a significant increase to the burden on the supporting public services. 3. Will the proposed use create public hazards with regards to traffic, traffic congestion or the parking of vehicles and/or equipment or be otherwise detrimental to the health, safety or 7 (Queensbury Planning Board 8/15/02) general welfare of the persons residing or working in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the town? Temporary sales at this location should not present any public hazards related to traffic or the parking of vehicles. 4. While considering any benefits that might be derived from the project; Will the project have any undue adverse impact on the natural, scenic, aesthetic, ecological, wildlife, historic, recreational or open space resource of the town or Adirondack Park or upon the ability of the public to provide supporting facilities and services made necessary by the project? Not applicable to this proposal. The following general standards were considered in the staff review of this project: The location, arrangement, size, design and general site compatibility of buildings, lighting and signs. No new buildings and lighting are proposed during this sale. The application calls for a temporary sign to be used during the sale. The proposed sign will require a temporary sign permit. The adequacy and arrangement of vehicular traffic access and circulation, including intersections, road widths, pavement surfaces, dividers and traffic controls. Vehicular traffic should not be impacted by this project. The location, arrangement, appearance and sufficiency of off-street parking and loading. The off street parking on this site should not be affected by this project. The adequacy and arrangement of pedestrian traffic access and circulation, walkway structures, control of intersections with vehicular traffic and overall pedestrian convenience. Pedestrian traffic for this project is not an issue. The adequacy of stormwater drainage facilities. The stormwater drainage for this site is not an issue. The adequacy of water supply and sewage disposal facilities. The water supply and sewage disposal systems are not at issue with this application. The adequacy, type and arrangement of trees, shrubs and other suitable plantings, landscaping and screening constituting a visual and/or noise buffer between the applicants and adjoining lands, including the maximum retention of existing vegetation and maintenance, including replacement of dead or deceased plants. Not applicable to this project. The adequacy of fire lanes and other emergency zones and the provision of fire hydrants. Not applicable to this project. The adequacy and impact of structures, roadways and landscaping in areas with susceptibility to ponding, flooding and/or erosion. Not applicable to this project. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): Property was previously used by Play Xtreme Sports. Staff comments: Minimal impacts are anticipated with this temporary use of a currently vacant building. SEQR Status: Type: II, no further action required.” 8 (Queensbury Planning Board 8/15/02) MR. HILTON-This application is before you as part of their application for a Transient Merchant license application, if you will. They’re required to seek site plan approval before the Planning Board. That’s why we’re reviewing it this evening. The impacts really seem very minimal. It’s a temporary use of an existing building for, like I said, a temporary amount of time. There’s really not much to this. MR. MAC EWAN-It’s one of those very rare no-brainers. MR. HILTON-Very rare no-brainers. MR. RINGER-A gimme. MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening. MR. BORGOS-Good evening. My name is Steve Borgos. I’m a broker with Realty USA, and I represent J. Crew this evening. J. Crew proposes to come back for their 4 year for an outlet sale that will take just over a th week, and they want to move into an existing building that’s been retail for 30 or 40 years. The owner has a tenant in there now. The tenant will move out for a week or eight days, whatever this is going to take. J. Crew will move in. We’ll sell out of the building. We’ll make absolutely no changes to the property. When they leave, the other tenant will return. MR. MAC EWAN-Sounds very simple and straightforward. Robert, we’ll start with you. MR. VOLLARO-Nothing. MR. MAC EWAN-Nothing? MR. VOLLARO-Nothing. MR. MAC EWAN-Cathy? MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. Fine. MR. MAC EWAN-Larry? MR. RINGER-Not a thing. It’s too bad we have to have something like this. MR. MAC EWAN-Chris? MR. HUNSINGER-The only question that came to my mind is do you know when the timeframe is? MR. BORGOS-I believe the application would say August 26 to September 2. There is one change I’d thnd like to make. I just noticed in here it says temporary sale of men’s clothing. I don’t know where the word “men’s” came from, because it would be men’s and women’s, whatever they have, probably, in their catalog. Can we just take out the word “men’s” and say “clothing”? MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes, clothing. MR. MAC EWAN-So noted. Anything else, Chris? John? MR. STROUGH-Nothing. I don’t have a problem with this. I just had trouble envisioning, you’re just moving from one building to another building? MR. BORGOS-No. The building’s there now. They’re going to come in with a tractor trailer. MR. STROUGH-Where is the building? I mean, I’ve read. MR. BORGOS-I presumed you had all the documents. Site plan and everything. MR. STROUGH-No. MR. BORGOS-It’s the building that had been the Small Word shop, and then it became Play Xtreme Sports, and then it was sold a couple of months ago. Now it’s being used by the owner’s relatives for a retail store, and they’re going to move out for a week, ten days, whatever this is. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Is this the Christmas store? MR. BORGOS-No. The Christmas store is north of that. MRS. LA BOMBARD-All right. I’ve got you. 9 (Queensbury Planning Board 8/15/02) MR. STROUGH-This wasn’t the old cheese shop? MR. BORGOS-It was, way back, and then it was Small World shops for many years. MR. STROUGH-Okay, and so J. Crew wants to move into? MR. BORGOS-It has been empty. J. Crew just wants to rent it for a few days and out. MR. STROUGH-Really? That would be a good location for them. MR. BORGOS-And the Town gets $500 a day to allow them to do that. MR. MAC EWAN-And how many days are they going to do this? MR. BORGOS-It’s either seven or eight. MR. MAC EWAN-George, it’s been some time since we’ve done a transient merchant review, and I’m trying to recollect, when we do these things, if we are so inclined to approve something, do we put a time limit on these things? I can’t remember. The last one I recall was a guy who was doing something to do with Americade, like three or four years ago. Should we put a time limit on it? MR. HILTON-To be honest with you, yes, I was going to say, I think it’s on the application. MR. RINGER-Yes, the application. MS. RADNER-I think it’s on their application. They’re getting a permit, and as he said, they pay by the day. So it’s got a built in time limit, and they have to have, if they’re not an established business, they have to come before you to get a transient merchant license. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. It’s nothing we need to worry about, then. Okay. I’m sorry, John, did you have anything else? MR. STROUGH-Nothing. It’s just temporary, Steve? MR. BORGOS-Just temporary. MR. STROUGH-And then they’re moving some place else? MR. BORGOS-And then they go to another town and another state. MR. MAC EWAN-It’s a traveling road show. MR. BORGOS-The public seems to like it. MR. STROUGH-Yes, okay. MRS. LA BOMBARD-They were across the street for three years. That store has been leased. That wasn’t available this year. MR. BORGOS-They could go to the Mall and not have to even come in for an application or pay any fee, but they preferred that site. MR. HUNSINGER-How long ago was it that they were at the Civic Center? MR. BORGOS-I don’t recall. Probably four or five years. That was the first year. MR. STROUGH-And also just a question to the Chairman. This is a SEQRA Type II. So should we, when we make a motion, scratch the SEQRA part of the motion? MRS. LA BOMBARD-SEQRA isn’t needed for Type II. You don’t need a SEQRA for Type II. MR. STROUGH-Yes, but in the motion it’s got the SEQRA. MRS. LA BOMBARD-It does have it? Yes. Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-It’s a standard thing. Strike that out of there. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Just scratch it. 10 (Queensbury Planning Board 8/15/02) MR. MAC EWAN-All right. We’ve got a public hearing scheduled for this application. Does anyone want to comment? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MAC EWAN-Does someone have an inkling for a motion? MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 43-2002 HFD #55, D/B/A J. CREW, Introduced by Larry Ringer who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Strough: WHEREAS, an application has been made to this Board for the following: Site Plan Review No. 43-2002 Applicant: HFD #55, d/b/a J. Crew Type II Property Owner: Mitchell Cohen Agent: Stephen Borgos Zone: HC-Int. Location: 1471 State Route 9 Applicant seeks Site Plan Review for the temporary sale of men’s clothing and accessories as a Transient Merchant application to be reviewed by the Planning Board. Cross Reference: TB Referral 8/5/02, SV 1173 Warren Co. Planning: 8/14/02 Tax Map No. 288-1-58 / 35.-1-1.2 Lot size: 1.99 acres / Section: Art. 4 Public Hearing: August 15, 2002 WHEREAS, the application was received on 8/2/02; and WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation and inclusive of all newly received information, not included in this listing as of 8/9/02, and 8/15 Staff Notes 8/14 Warren Co. Planning 8/8 Notice of Public Hearing 8/5 TB Res. 326,2002 referring application to Planning Board 8/5 Meeting Notice WHEREAS, pursuant to Art. 9 of the Zoning Ordinance of the Code of the Town of Queensbury a public hearing was advertised and was held on August 15, 2002; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the Site Plan requirements of the Code of the Town Queensbury (Zoning); and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and WHEREAS, approval of the application means that the applicant can now apply for a Building Permit unless the lands are Adirondack Park Jurisdictional or other approvals are necessary. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that We find the following: The application is approved as per the resolution prepared by Staff, striking out the paragraph regarding the SEQRA requirements. Duly adopted this 15th day of August, 2002 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Strough, Mr. Vollaro, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Metivier 11 (Queensbury Planning Board 8/15/02) MR. BORGOS-I have a question, Mr. Chairman. Can we be sure that the word “men’s” gets eliminated or says “men’s and women’s” or something? MR. RINGER-Your application does say men’s and women’s, in the letter. MR. BORGOS-I thought so. MR. MAC EWAN-The permit will cover that. MR. BORGOS-Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-You’re very welcome. Thank you. OLD BUSINESS: SPECIAL USE PERMIT NO. 1-02 TYPE: UNLISTED HAROLD & ELEANORE SMITH PROPERTY OWNER: SAME ZONE: WR-1A LOCATION: 43 HANNEFORD ROAD APPLICANT SEEKS TO ESTABLISH A MARINA INVOLVING THE RENTAL OF 8 BOAT SLIPS AND ASSOCIATED SITE AMENITIES. MARINAS REQUIRE THE ISSUANCE OF A SPECIAL USE PERMIT BY THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 52-93, AV 27-94, SP 21-94, SP 38-94, AV 31-99 LGPC, APA, CEA WARREN CO. PLANNING: 6/12/02 TAX MAP NO. 240.6-1-11 LOT SIZE: 0.40 ACRES SECTION: 179-10 HAROLD & ELEANORE SMITH, PRESENT MRS. LA BOMBARD-And the last two meetings on June 20 and July 23 were tabled. The public hearing thrd has been left open. MR. MAC EWAN-George? MR. HILTON-Okay. Since we last met, we were, Planning Staff was directed to get some information from Warren County DPW and the Lake George Park Commission concerning parking within the County right of way, and as far as the previous existence or the grandfathering, so to speak, of the docks at this location. To begin with, we contacted in writing Warren County DPW. They sent us back a letter, dated August 9, which th I can read into the record if you’d like. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. MR. HILTON-Okay. It says “Dear Mr. Brown:”, Craig Brown, our Zoning Administrator, drafted the letter that went to Mr. Remington. “Dear Mr. Brown: In response to your letter dated July 25, 2002, the Warren County Department of Public Works is not authorized to issue parking permits per NYS Highway Law and V&T Law. Parking restrictions and ordinances are a Town/City/Village function. The permits issued in the area of concern were only for work being performed in a County right-of-way and are in place to protect the integrity of the highway as well as the safety of the traveling public. As I understand it, neither Harold or Eleanore Smith or David & Jane Hopper are requesting a R.O.W. Work Permit, because no changes are being made from present conditions. Presently, the Department of Public Works is not aware of any site distance, storm water, or safety problems in that area. Please call if you have any questions. Thank you. Very truly yours, William L. Remington, P.E. Superintendent – Public Works” So we also contacted Lake George Park Commission and we’ve got a response from them. The information they sent back was a little more detailed. In both cases, and particularly in the Smiths, they gave us information regarding their records as to what they show at this property for number of docks and what they have on file, and their information shows the correct number of docks that are out there right now. However, the lengths that are shown on the Lake George Park Commission permit are 30 feet, not the 33 to 36 which are shown on the survey that the Smiths have presented before the Board, and in an August 13, 2002 letter, Craig Brown, the Zoning Administrator, spoke to that issue, stating that the docks as they exist now would require area variances and building permits if they were to be used in the future, and I think this is something that the Board, they don’t necessarily have to go back for the variances right now as I understand it. Any action could be taken by the Board, and at a later time they could apply, as it’s stated in the letter, for the area variance and building permits, if they plan to use them in the current dimensions that exist shown on the Smith’s survey. That’s the information we have from the two boards, bodies that we contacted. At this point, we have some additional public comment we can read in during the public hearing, but that’s all we have for now. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. In reference to the Lake George Park Commission, did I see something in one of these correspondence that said that, and I don’t remember whether it was the Smith application or the Hopper application, that they did not have any record of any permits on file for those docks? MR. HILTON-Yes. Well, no. They stated that they did not have, well, in their correspondence, they gave us records showing the number of docks and that they were in existence as of 1981. In both cases, the number 12 (Queensbury Planning Board 8/15/02) of docks, as I said, and the boathouse, were accounted for. They did not provide any information showing that a marina permit was applied for or granted at that time in 1981. MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it? MR. HILTON-That’s all I have for now. MR. HUNSINGER-Were any marina permits issued after 1981? MR. HILTON-The information that I have doesn’t contain any of that. They were, the information was designed to prove the validity of their existence, but all we have is the original 1981 drawing and some photos of each site. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Good evening. MR. SMITH-Good evening. MR. MAC EWAN-For the record. MR. SMITH-Harold and Eleanore Smith. MR. MAC EWAN-Is there any new information that you wanted to add? MR. SMITH-We have not received a letter on the area variance or building permits needed. We received all the other information. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. So you did receive the letter that I noticed was carbon copied to you from Warren County Highway? MR. SMITH-Correct. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. All right, Cathy, we’ll start with you. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, I think right now, I’m a little confused. Because I’ve got these letters in front of me. I guess I’m not really exactly sure what’s going on here. If we need a permit, a marina permit, in the past, and you don’t have one, but now we’re supposed to give you the go ahead to operate a marina. This has been very confusing for me. I guess my question is, how come you didn’t have a marina permit for the past? Is it because you didn’t, I shouldn’t answer my own question. MR. SMITH-We’ve been there 10, 11 years, okay. When we bought the place, we had permits. As you notice in the record that they were listed as commercial docks and one private. Nothing was ever said about marina permits needed. That’s where we went from, okay, and then when it was brought to our attention that a marina permit was needed, that’s when we, again, went to file with the Lake George Park Commission to get the marina permit, who in turn told us we now need a Special Use Permit, but until then, every year, we’ve been issued commercial dock stickers for those docks, and nothing’s ever been said. MRS. LA BOMBARD-All right. So now, and I would feel a lot better if, to okay this application, if the Park Commission issued you your marina permit. MR. SMITH-We need to get the Special Use Permit before they can go ahead and issue that. The Special Use Permit will not give us the marina permit. All that will give us is the ability to apply for it. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Right. Now back to, all right, so I think that’s cleared up a little bit. Now, back to the parking. Help me with that. MR. SMITH-Well, with the parking, okay, we have provided, on our drawings, if we need to go back, I mean, there’s more than sufficient parking, if we need to go back, with the Special Use Permit, re-draw on there the four parking spots that are required on private property, we can go ahead and do that, if that’s what’s needed, but I believe for the Special Use Permit, we have to show four parking spots. MR. MAC EWAN-Just to interject here, do you own the property at the bottom of the bluff? MR. SMITH-I own on, my deed says I own from the high water mark at such a point north to the high water mark, east to so many feet and back. Pilot Knob is a road of use. All land up to it and including the road I own, it is a road of use there, and, yes, I own the land. They do put a right of way in, figure it there, but I own land down on the road, from the right of way to the cliff. MR. MAC EWAN-How much distance from the County right of way to the cliff? 13 (Queensbury Planning Board 8/15/02) MR. SMITH-I would have to look at the drawings to know for sure, but I do have property down there, and I can have that re-drawn, we can, if we need to, for the four parking spots, whether it be there or up as I showed on the original drawing, I have land, plenty of room up above. MRS. LA BOMBARD-That explanation helps a lot, right there. All right. I want to hear what everybody else has to say. MR. MAC EWAN-Larry? MR. RINGER-I guess my question is more to Counsel, regarding grandfathering and if the Planning Board has the authority to grandfather. MS. RADNER-No. The Planning Board doesn’t have the authority to grandfather. It’s basically a determination for your Zoning Administrator if something’s entitled to grandfathered status, and I think it’s the applicant’s duty to prove that they’re entitled to that status, and what you’ve got here is that they’d never had a marina before. We’ve got no evidence that they had a marina before, and I’m using marina in the terms we’re using it here, not as a commercial enterprise has a marina, but any commercial use. So that the Lake George Park Commission considers it a marina. If it’s a new use, then they’re required to get this Special Use Permit and you need to go through the criteria that’s set forth for the Special Use Permit. MR. RINGER-Okay. Well, in the letter, or the memorandum from Craig on August 13, on the second th page, because the first paragraph there, where he says he believes that this should be considered grandfathered, that, in effect, we can say that he has the authority to say, so we could consider that the Zoning Administrator? MS. RADNER-Well, he’s saying that the number, location, spacing and size are grandfathered, meaning that the structures themselves are grandfathered. It’s the use, though, that isn’t grandfathered, and that’s why it’s here. MR. RINGER-Okay. See, this is where I’m having difficulty with this, all through this operation. I really feel that they should be grandfathered. However, I don’t feel that we, the Planning Board, has the approval or the authority to grandfather, and we have to look at it as a new application. MS. RADNER-You’re right. MR. RINGER-If we looked at it as a new application, every member in the past who had anything to say has said if this were a new application, there’s no way I would approve it. MS. RADNER-Right. You’re not considering the location of the dock. If you tell them, no, you can’t have your permit, it doesn’t mean that they go and rip out those docks, because they’re entitled to have those docks there. It’s just whether or not they can use them in the commercial way that they intend to, so that they’re renting them, and that they’re a marina. MR. RINGER-I’m just really concerned. I really would like to say yes. However, I just don’t feel my position on the Planning Board gives me the authority to say yes, because the only way I could say yes is if I said, all right, I’m going to grandfather it, and that’s where I’m having difficulty with it, and you did answer my question, Cathy, and I thank you very much, and, outside of that, I don’t have anything, Craig. MR. MAC EWAN-Chris? MR. HUNSINGER-Just kind of reiterate some of the comments that Larry just made. I know at the last meeting we talked a lot about showing evidence that the docks were in place, which they were able to do, but when you look down through standards that we have to apply, it becomes very difficult. MR. RINGER-It becomes impossible. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I mean, I don’t have any specific questions. MR. MAC EWAN-John? MR. STROUGH-You know me. I think this is new. I see this and agree with the Zoning Administrator as being grandfathered and, you know, I suggested the dock rental agreement, which I updated a little bit. I just added what Mr. and Mrs. Smith have added to theirs, and I’d like to put it on the first one, length, draft, beam and registration number of the boat would be important as well. So I did add that, but everything else has stayed the same, and I know the applicant has agreed to the dock rental agreement, and I have a potential condition that the dock rental agreement be included in this as I have worded it, and I’ve just labeled this Exhibit A, just to make sure, and I’ll label it Exhibit A and give it to the zoning person here, and it will be signed by each renter at the onset of the season, one copy should be, I put down will at first, but I put down should, because I know it’s not an enforceable thing by us, nor do we want to make it enforceable, should be 14 (Queensbury Planning Board 8/15/02) given to the renter and another copy should be retained and maintained on file by the owner, and the only other question that I had in reading the thing is, you know, are we going to make this renewable or what. I see those options at the end of the thing and I don’t know if we’re at that point, but it’s something that we have to consider at some point. MS. RADNER-John, can I interrupt you a minute? Can you back up a moment? That document that you’re referring to, the dock rental agreement, who drafted that agreement? MR. STROUGH-Well, actually the applicants did. MS. RADNER-The applicants did. MR. STROUGH-And I made a hybrid of it. I put both of them together and the last meeting I asked the applicants, both the Smiths and the Hoppers, if they thought it was satisfactory, and they did. MS. RADNER-I would strongly urge you not to get into the position of drafting a contract for an applicant because you create legal (lost word) responsibilities for them. MR. STROUGH-Well, we told them what we would be interested in, and we made a list, and so each of them, then, made their own rental agreement, and so I kind of put the, merged the two together to make sure that we have some consistency, because if we’re going to be looking at I don’t know how many other marinas that we have to look at, I think it’s important that we remain consistent. MS. RADNER-I sympathize with your position, but I am, again, going to caution you that you don’t want to get in that position. MR. STROUGH-Well, we answer, in our dock rental agreement, we answer a lot of loose ends. We answer what we expect of the applicant with the trash receptacle, and basically is it just a condition. It’s a list of. MS. RADNER-Well, I think that that’s fine, and you can give the applicant a list of conditions that they want to file. What I’m telling you, though, is that I caution you against creating what ends up being a contract between the applicant and their clients. MR. STROUGH-Looking at it your way, I could see your point, but my way, I would say that this would be a list of conditions, okay, that we would suggest that the owner at least make the renters aware of. MR. RINGER-Can I ask a question, John, if you don’t mind, on that agreement, if you would, not to interrupt you, and my question is more to Cathi, what good is an agreement if it’s not enforceable by us or by the Town? I mean, we’re putting in a condition to have a contract that’s not enforceable. MS. RADNER-I’m not saying that you’re putting in a condition to have a contract that’s not enforceable. I’m saying you shouldn’t be the people drafting that agreement. If part of your concern is that the applicant has a contract in place that is going to have the conditions in it, then make that your condition that they provide you with a contract that covers these items, but you do not want to be the ones telling them we impose this contract upon you, because then you’ve just become their lawyer. You’ve just drafted their document for you. MR. RINGER-I guess I asked my question wrong, Cathi. The question was, if we make a condition that all the renters sign a contract, and we can’t enforce that, what good is it to put a condition into a resolution? MS. RADNER-You can enforce the condition. You can’t enforce the contract. It’s similar to the situation you often end up with where you tell an applicant, we want you to have an easement with your neighbor allowing such and such a use. The condition that you’ve just imposed, that they have that easement, you can police, so to speak, but you have no rights under that contract, under that deed between them and their neighbor, creating that easement. So if a person rents a dock from them and they’ve signed this contract saying we’re going to follow these conditions, and then the very next day that person throws their garbage in the lake, you can’t say, no, you signed this agreement, that’s not your contract to enforce. You have the conditions that you impose on them that are enforceable conditions because they’re conditions of the permit and our Code Enforcement Officer or Zoning Administrator, as appropriate, can go out and issue appearance tickets, informations, and enforce those things for you, but you can’t go back and make sure that they’re following this contract and that the tenants are actually doing the things that they’ve signed on for. MR. RINGER-Or even signing the agreement. MS. RADNER-If you’ve conditioned it that they have an agreement with every applicant, and you find out that they’re not doing that, then they’re in violation of their condition, and unless they can come to court and prove to Judge Muller or Judge McNally that they’ve got a contract with every renter, then I’m going to get a fine against them. 15 (Queensbury Planning Board 8/15/02) MR. RINGER-I try to avoid putting things in or conditions that are unenforceable, and you answered my question again. That’s all I had, John. I didn’t mean to. MR. STROUGH-That’s all right. What if we were to say, Counsel, that the owner have a contract including a dock rental agreement similar to the dock rental agreement that was agreed upon by the applicant? MS. RADNER-I’d be much more comfortable with that. MR. STROUGH-In other words, just word it a little bit more carefully. MS. RADNER-Similar to or including as a minimum would be much better. MR. STROUGH-I like that, including as a minimum. All right. Well, okay, I think I can work that one out. I don’t if my other Planning Board members, but we can work out something there. Now, I know that two or three people, this road thing and this parking thing and the road of use, and where the property ends and where the right of way starts and all this really gets confusing. So I was thinking of another condition, and that is to limit adverse impacts on the Hanneford Road neighbors. I’m saying this now because I might get comment one way or the other from other members and everything else, so try and work this out. To limit adverse impacts on the Hanneford Road neighborhood, dock berth renters are to be encouraged to initially seek available parking alongside Pilot Knob Road; only if parking there is not available will parking on owner’s premises address location Hanneford Road, be of avail. MR. SMITH-In 11 years, we’ve never had one docker come up, but that’s fine. No, that’s no problem. MR. STROUGH-Well, I don’t know where we’re going to go tonight. I mean, every time we’ve met with this thing, it’s gone twisted in directions that I had not predicted. Now, I did have a couple of other notes. The walkway, have you gotten that constructed yet? MR. SMITH-No. We’ve got a contractor waiting, all set and ready to go. . MRS. SMITH-Yes. MR. STROUGH-Okay. Well, thank you, applicant. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. MR. MAC EWAN-Robert? MR. VOLLARO-I’m going to start off by asking that the letter that was submitted by John Shafer, it’s a long letter, but I want to make sure that it’s been entered into the record. MR. MAC EWAN-It will be read in when we do the public hearing, when I re-open the public hearing. MR. VOLLARO-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Okay. I’m going to start off by referencing our Comprehensive Land Use Plan, which has always been a guide on for this Board in the past. It’s obviously not law, but it’s been used as a guidance document, and I’m going to start by reading off the recommendations in R1.5 for Neighborhood Number One, which is the neighborhood we’re speaking of here. “It is recommended that marinas be allowed in specific overlay zones which would include all lands currently in marina use (where the upland use is also a marina). While additional marinas may be deemed desirable in the future to accommodate increased demand for lake access, it is not apparent that any additional areas currently exist that could provide adequate lake and road access, parking and buffering of adjacent residential uses to support a marina. Marinas would be allowed by Special Permit, which would include specific criteria and performance standards to be met. The emphasis would be on modernization and upgrading for instance boat washing facilities and environmentally sound parking areas, drainage, etc.” That’s the first thing that I see in the Comprehensive Land Use Plan. Then I go to Comprehensive Land Use Plan R1.8, under their recommendations for residential dock regulations. “In order to eliminate the redundancy of regulations it is recommended that the Town of Queensbury remove itself from the review of docks, except for the issuance of building permits. It is recommended that dock regulation be the responsibility of Lake George Park Commission.” I’m having a real problem with that one and the way we’re attacking this whole operation here, that we’re in conflict with a recommendation in our own Comprehensive Land Use Plan. It further goes on to say that “Docks would still have to conform with the upland uses allowed by the Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance. For instance, a commercial dock use would not be allowed on a residential parcel. To address concerns regarding the growing number of docks and boats along the shoreline, it is recommended that each residential parcel be allowed one dock of size and capacity suitable for the single family residential use allowed in the area.” Those words are pretty clear to me. Going on further to get into our own Zoning Ordinance, getting into the area that they talk about the number of feet, front footage of lakefront that’s required, here we have, from 66 to 150 feet, we allow one straight, T, L, or U shaped wharf. For four straight wharfs, whether they be T, F, L, or E or U shaped wharfs, we require 500 or more feet of lakefront. Obviously, in this particular area, we’re completely ignoring our own recently approved and adopted April 1, 2002 Zoning Ordinance. I don’t understand that part of this either. Now the proposed dock configurations, there’s been no variance issued against our zoning law. There’s been an Area Variance 16 (Queensbury Planning Board 8/15/02) 32-2002 which was issued to their site plan, which was Site Plan 27-2002, but there’s no variance that ever has allowed or has been issued to cover the number of docks that are out there now against our new Ordinance, and. MS. RADNER-They’re grandfathered, Bob. They’re location and shape is grandfathered. They pre-exist the Zoning Ordinance in that regard. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Then I figured that when you said that. MS. RADNER-Except for those extra feet that’s at issue in one of the two. I don’t remember which one. MR. VOLLARO-Now, I have a question, I guess, I guess, Cathi, it’s a question for you, really, it’s a question for Counsel, that I have a question on. My question is this. Could any denial be based on the traffic where the record shows the proposed use would create greater traffic than the as of right uses in the neighborhood? Would this be considered one of the valid reasons for denial of an application of this type? MS. RADNER-I think it’s a matter of discretion and degree. I think that traffic is definitely among the criteria that you have in your general standards for Special Use Permits, is whether or not it’s going to be compatible, the negative impact, and I think the positive and negative impacts of the use on vehicular congestion and parking, including the provision of adequate and the absence of hazardous parking or traffic conditions, and I’m what I’m looking at is 179-10-050C, specifically refers to that, parking. If you think that the parking or the traffic situation here cannot accommodate this use, then, yes, that would be a criteria on which you could base it. MR. VOLLARO-Right. That was the basis of my write up on that. Going to our own general standards here, I’m going to, it says “Before granting approval of any special use, the Planning Board shall consider the positive and negative impact of the use of the following characteristics A. The extent to which the use is in harmony with and promotes the general purposes and intent of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan and this ordinance and its effect on the health, welfare and safety of the town and its residents….C. The positive and negative impacts of the use on vehicular congestion and parking, including the provision of adequate parking and the absence of hazardous parking or traffic conditions.” These are all part of 179-10-040. Now all that I read, and the fact that an application that was required, I guess against Part 646 in 1981, has, this was Part 646, I believe, has to do with the Park Commission itself, and we don’t have one of those. We don’t have a permit issued by the Lake George Park Commission, as of their proclamation of 1981 or what’s called Part 646. MS. RADNER-Right. Now your Section 179-10-060 does refer to Class A and Class B Marina permits complying with the standards of the Lake George Park Commission. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, it does. MS. RADNER-So you can consider those criteria. MR. VOLLARO-So I guess, Mr. Chairman, with all that I’ve read and all that I’ve studied and I’ve put a lot of time on this going through the Ordinance, the Comprehensive Land Use Plan, particularly letters that have been issued on this, and I think very, very well done by Mr. John Shafer, I’m going to have a very hard time, regardless of a lot of the other things and whether we should or, you know, discussing the parking issue and all of that. I see that we’re flying in the face of, you know, some of our own rules and regs here, and I’m having a difficult time trying to (lost word) this out, and so I’ve fallen back on our Ordinances and our Comprehensive Land Use Plans for guidance, and that’s what I’ve done, as opposed to giving my own particular spin on this thing, and that’s all I have, Mr. Chairman, on that. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. SMITH-Can I comment just one thing, Robert? On your Comprehensive Land Use ordinance of not growing number of docks and such, these docks have been there over 20 years. There’s no difference in usage of these today than there was 20 years ago. The parking is no different today than it was 20 years ago. The increase in usage is no different than it was over 20 years ago. It’s not a growing thing. It’s not a changing thing. It’s doing something been there and working and people use them the way it was over 20 years ago. MR. VOLLARO-Do you think that there’s anymore traffic being generated today than there was 20 years ago? MR. SMITH-From this site? No. There is no difference from this site than there was 20 years ago. MR. VOLLARO-Well, see, I have before me not only one site to deal with, but I’m now dealing with two applications that are very, very similar. 17 (Queensbury Planning Board 8/15/02) MR. SMITH-But we’re working on mine. MR. VOLLARO-I understand that, but I’ve got to take a look at, in my own mind, there’s a term called segmentation where I only start to look at these permits one at a time, and I know there are a lot more coming, and I have to put in my mind, rather than segment this operation, I’ve got to take a look, a little bit, at the overall viewpoint. MR. SMITH-I understand that totally. I’m just asking you to look at mine. MR. VOLLARO-And I have. Believe me I have read it. How many times you wouldn’t want to know. MR. MAC EWAN-My thoughts here, and I, unfortunately for your position, I echo a lot of Mr. Vollaro’s sentiments, and it’s something that I’ve been struggling with since we first started reviewing this application, and what I am particularly hung up on are several different factors that revolve around the operation of a commercial marina. Number One, being in a residential zone. I think that a commercial operation in a residential zone is inappropriate to begin with. Whether the fact that these docks have been there 20 years plus or however long they’ve been, in my mind, because we’re looking at what the Ordinance tells us we have to look at now, even though in one instance you’re telling me that these cars have been parked all along the road for all these years, we have documentation now from the County Highway Department saying that no one ever authorized anyone to park cars along the side of the road all these years, and whether you were doing it or not or directing people to do it, you were doing it illegally. So that becomes a problem. MS. RADNER-Well, I don’t think that’s what they said. I think they said that we don’t forbid it. We don’t control it either way. I don’t think that they’ve said it’s illegal. MR. MAC EWAN-But it would be up to the Town to issue the proper permits for parking in the public right of way. Is that not what I read in that? MS. RADNER-No. It’s up to the Town, if the Town wanted to forbid parking along that road, to issue an ordinance, is what that is. MR. MAC EWAN-I think it’s inappropriate that we try to do that, we use public lands for private enterprise. MS. RADNER-I think there’s a lot of places, if you drive down most residential streets, you’re going to find cars parked along the side of the road, and unless there’s specific signs that say no parking in this area, then it’s pretty standard that people do that. I don’t think it’s illegal and I don’t think it’s fair to them to characterize it as illegal. MR. MAC EWAN-I guess my response to you would be, we don’t have those applications in front of us for review. MS. RADNER-Right, right. I’m just trying to make an analogy for you. MR. MAC EWAN-I’m concerned about utilizing private residences to provide the accessory uses you need to, such as the restrooms, particularly, not only with this application, but with the next application, where the houses are located, high up on a bluff, the accessibility at nighttime, during inclement weather to climb those steep stairs. I see more negatives in this application than I see positives, and it’s been a real wrestle with me. I mean, believe me, I’ve been on this Board for a very long time, and I can tell you this is probably one of the most difficult applications I personally have had to look at. I’ve dealt with a lot of them over the years, and it’s a difficult situation. MR. SMITH-I think the connotation of commercial business, I mean, you’re looking at something as if I’m putting up an industry, business type. This is something that we’ve been doing, that’s been going on for 20 years, the use of those docks. To come up and climb those stairs, there’s never been one time anybody has come up to use the restroom, and they’re more than welcome because they’re friends. They’re people that work with me. We know them. There’s never been a time. To take any parking out back. There has never been. To say that I’ve got a commercial business there, there are no signs. It’s not a commercial business as the word “commercial”. It’s semantics. I mean, this here is the same it’s been, people come up. They park their car. They go out in their boat. They may go out one time a week. They may go out, most of them don’t come up one time a week. It’s lucky if there are two to three boats out at a time. MR. MAC EWAN-Did you have, this past weekend, did you have people come up utilizing the boats over the weekend? MR. SMITH-There were probably, there were not three cars parked down there last weekend. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. I’ll rebut that to you because Sunday I happened to be on the lake, and I went with my sister, and she moors her boat at Castaway. We left Castaway Marina at 11 o’clock in the morning, and I counted nine cars along Pilot Knob Road right there. 18 (Queensbury Planning Board 8/15/02) MR. SMITH-In my spot? MR. MAC EWAN-All along that stretch of road for probably. MR. SMITH-All along, there’s tons of docks along there. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s the point. I mean, it’s the cumulative impact that Bob was talking about. I mean, if we look at each individual as a little separate piece of the puzzle, and not looking at the overall big picture and what the potential is up there, I mean, we’re not doing our job. MR. SMITH-We’re looking at my spot. There weren’t three cars there this weekend. One spot, my spot, 100 foot of frontage, there were three cars there this weekend. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Anything else you wanted to add? MR. SMITH-No, not right now. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. We left the public hearing open. Does anyone want to come up and comment on this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED JOHN SALVADOR MR. SALVADOR-Could we hear the submission first? MR. MAC EWAN-The letter? Do you want to read that letter in, George, please. MR. HILTON-The letter is dated August 14, 2002. It is from John Shafer. “Dear Board Members: I’m writing on the above subjects”, SUP No. 1-2002 and SUP No. 27-2002, “based on attending and speaking at the last Planning Board meeting. The above two applications were tabled and will be taken up again on 8/15. First, some general comments. It has never been clear why the Town has undertaken the regulation of docks, if the Town adopts the definitions and approach of the Lake George Park Commission and merely sanctions existing uses. If it is to collect a permit fee from the many residents who rent out part of their dockage, these first two applications should make it clear that the agony, effort, energy and tax dollars expended and anxiety to Town residents will far outweigh the revenues. If, however, it is to bring the use of existing waterfront into compliance with current regulations (governing new construction), even over a period of time, that is a different matter indeed. My personal view is it should be this latter approach. While I am aware of the long standing practice, by property owners in residentially zoned areas to rent out dock space, the Town defining and sanctioning a commercial marina in a residential area is counter to all zoning concepts. This is particularly true given the conditions to be placed on the property owners and the impracticality of those conditions as discussed below. To require a property owner to secure a pump out agreement with an operating marina, knowing that vessels with on-board facilities would have them pumped out at marinas anyway, provides no real benefit to the Town. Likewise, for the Board to require an applicant to state that they would allow renters to use the bathroom in their homes as meeting the “rest room” requirement is silly; the Board should understand that it will just not happen. As to parking, it is not practical, in some instances, for the Board to try to formalize parking for these “special use permit” marinas when there is no formality to parking elsewhere around the entire lake or, for that matter, in any heavily used recreational area. Whether one looks at commercial marinas, Harris Bay Yacht Club, Dunham’s Bay Lodge, the Cleverdale Store, the entire Lake George Village, etc., parking is first come, first served. If an area seems filled, a patron finds a parking spot nearby. That’s even true of residential properties when they have guests, family reunions, etc. Applying these “special use permit” criteria to the two applicants under consideration should make it clear how impractical they are. While both applicants’ can get agreements with Castaway Marina or Fischers, boaters go there or to some other marina anyway. Both applicants’ will state their homes are available to renters for bathroom use but given that the homes are occupied and the long climb of stairs, such an arrangement is unworkable. As to parking, the residents of Hanneford Road are strongly opposed to the creation of a commercial parking lot on this one lane, two way roadway serving residential properties. Complicating these applications further, there is no private property available for parking along the Pilot Knob Road as the County highway boundary extends to the base of the vertical rock face just behind the highway shoulder. While upland private property owners have placed No Parking signs for a portion of this segment of road, there is no legal jurisdiction to do so as this portion is publicly owned and is therefore available for use on a “first come-first served” basis. Additionally, there is no statutory authority for the County to issue parking permits to upland property owners for the exclusive use of renters of their associated dock space. As to the safety of parking along Pilot Knob Road, the County can get statistics from the NYSDOT’s Local Accident Surveillance System and incorporate the data as part of a traffic study. The result of such a study would be to either leave parking informal as it is today or to post No Parking signs based, in their professional judgment, on any unacceptable safety experience in recent years. I would hope the above would make it clear that granting “special use” permits for commercial marinas, with the associated criteria 19 (Queensbury Planning Board 8/15/02) for doing so, doesn’t accomplish very much. Unfortunately this is made more complex since most of the waterfront property owners have rented portions of their dock space for many years. At the last meeting, the Board asked the applicants to provide evidence that the docks were legally permitted by the LGPC in 1981 as the legal test for pre-existing use. My expectation is that if an applicant can do so, the Board will conclude it has no right under law to deny a permit as long as they “state” they can meet the criteria discussed above. I’m not legal scholar on grandfathering, but I fail to see the connection in regulation and/or law between Town special use permit for the landside use of residential property and the date of the first LGPC dock permit. Based on the above, I strongly urge the Board to, if they regulate docks, do so with an objective to bring each waterfront property, over a period of time, into compliance with current regulations. I recognize that some property owners would face a hardship over the near term and some might argue that such a Board action would constitute a “taking” of their property rights under the Town’s power of eminent domain. However, courts have upheld a municipality’s regulatory authority in cases relating to water quality, environmental protection, etc. Even if a court were to decide that such cases were compensable, what better way to spend Queensbury tax dollars than to protect the water quality, shorefront and environment of Lake George? Alternatively, the Board could apply the marina “special use” criteria to the existing owner with the condition that if the property changes ownership, the more stringent regulations would apply to the new owner. Such a condition would be filed with the property deed as currently is required of permit conditions by the APA. In the long run, such a public policy would not only protect the shoreline and water quality of Lake George, it would also ensure the continued increase in waterfront property values and, therefore, the Town’s tax base. If you have any questions or comments please contact me at 518/782-0882. Sincerely, John H. Shafer 21 Hanneford Rd. Queensbury” MR. MAC EWAN-Thanks. Anyone else? John? MR. SALVADOR-Good evening. My name is John Salvador. It is a complicated matter, and it’s been made that way, but I think we can unravel it. Some of these comments you’ve heard before, and I’ll just keep them brief, but I have prepared some comments tonight to address the submissions of the Park Commission and the Highway Department. First, we have to separate this. We’ve got the legality of a pre-existing dock and how that came to be, when it came to be, and how it’s justified to be legal, and then you have the use of that dock. So it’s a two part, it’s a two part problem, and Part 646 of July 3, 1981 was a two part regulatory program. Now the regulations were revised. Those regulations were revised in 1988 by the Lake George Park Commission, and they took and further defined marina. In 1981, we just had something we called a “marina”. All of a sudden, we’ve got a Class A and a Class B Marina. We’ve got two different kinds of marinas, and why. Why do we have this? Under the first Part 646, you were able to divert, it talked about commercial use. So why do we have this A and this B? The other thing we failed to realize, that we always talk about commercial and private, or residential. It’s commercial and non-commercial. Those are the way you differentiate between something that is commercial and something that is not commercial. We have a very private facility, but we’re licensed to conduct commercial business. I don’t consider my facility, visa vie a public facility. You compare public and private. You compare commercial and non-commercial. Mr. Smith is correct. He does own the shoulder of the road. He owns the bed of the road. He has fee title to that. As far as I can determine, and I’ve studied at length, there’s no such thing as a County road by use. There is a Town road, there is provision for a Town road by use, but County’s are supposed to own the fee and the land under which they build their roads, and we had this very same problem on Bay Road, up in North Queensbury. When I talk to Remington and Dusek about the boundary lines of Bay Road, all I get is we’re not going to open that can of worms, and I think you’ve got the same can of worms on the Pilot Knob Road. We’re in a process here to grant or deny a Special Use Permit. Part of that is to do a site plan approval. The site plan requires, as I see it, variances, and I believe that these variances can only be granted by the Zoning Board. Surely you don’t expect an approved site plan that’s going to allow commercial activity in a residential zone to be granted in the absence of the ZBA overview. Site plans are, I think they’re serious business. Site plans get filed. Site plans are a property right. Site plans add enormous value to property. So I think it has to be taken very seriously. We talked briefly about the wastewater issue and the proven access. Absolutely right. It’s the most impractical approach. It just doesn’t work, but, if you’re going to require that, then I think you need an easement. You need something that goes with the land, and then it’s in place. Also, I think, as I read the law, Planning Boards have the power to approve, deny, or approve with modifications site plans. There’s a big difference between a modification to a plan and a condition of approval. I’ve always been of a mind that a condition of approval is coercion. You do it our way and you get the permit. Otherwise, you don’t get it. In any case, I would like to reinforce my stand that some of this Special Use Permit should be before the Zoning Board of Appeals because that’s exactly the way we did it a number of years ago when we got a Special Use Permit. Back in 1975, we had, you know, recently purchased property up there, and we had all these docks on the waterfront, and I got a visit from the Town Building Inspector at that time, and he advised me that we needed a building permit for the docks along the lake. We needed a building permit. In order to get the building permit, we had to get a Special Use Permit. That was the procedure then. We made application for a Special Use Permit, and we did that and we appeared in November of 1975, at the Zoning Board of Appeals, and I’ll read you just shortly, you know, in those days, we didn’t have Maria, and people were making hand notes and so the minutes are sort of short-circuit if you will, but they tell the story. This Special Use Permit would be to provide additional boat docking space on Lake George. The subject docks are classified as temporary, in that they are in less than four feet of water and not more than 40 feet from shore. The following people opposed the application, and there’s a long list, but I’ll only read a couple of them. Tom West, of Dunham’s Bay, argued against the Salvador’s docks, saying the ownership of the land 20 (Queensbury Planning Board 8/15/02) upon which the docks are located may be in question, and should be checked. He also said there was a tremendous amount of traffic in Dunham’s Bay, and that this sometimes presents a safety problem. I think he was referring to boat traffic. Mr. Allan Wrigley thought that the action should be tabled so that the Association would have time to send out a letter to its members so their views could be heard. The Dunham’s Bay Association thinks that approval of this application would prove dangerous. Jim West, that’s Tom West’s brother, of Dunham’s Bay, questioned if the docks belonged to the State. He also questioned hardship. Tom West, at the time, was a pro-bono attorney for the Lake George Park Commission, and he, in fact, developed the first Part 646. He wrote those regulations. The Chairman of the Zoning Board of Appeals, Mr. Jack Fitzgerald, made a motion to disapprove site plan, special use permit number 60, since there was not sufficient reason for hardship given, and in view of opposition from the people attending the meeting, he further stated, that it be part of the record that the title is uncertained. This motion was seconded by George Kurosaka. In December, in December, we received a letter from the Town, from Mr. Liapes, informing that I, you are directed to have the violation removed by, on, or about December 19, 1975. All being subject to the legal action of the Town and whatever penalties may be involved. We got a stay in that, and we said, look, we’ll try to sort this thing out. We didn’t know what the hell to do. On February 13, th I got a letter from Mr. Boynton, the Assistant Building Inspector, in view of the fact that no action on your part has been taken prior to the February 18 meeting, the Town Zoning, meeting of the Town Zoning th Board, legal action will be forthcoming to uphold the decision originally set forth by the Zoning Board. We went another couple of months, and we got a special use permit tabled in March, and then finally, it was tabled until April 21, 1976 meeting to obtain legal opinion from the Town Attorney, and then in April we finally received Special Permit No. 60, Special Use Permit No. 60. So that’s the procedure we went through a number of years ago to get a Special Use Permit to continue the operation of our marina which was a nonconforming use. All of North Queensbury has never been, at least the shoreline, has never been zoned anything but residential. Every parcel on that lake is zoned residential, either one acre or three acre, and all of us in business on the lake, and there are about 10 marinas like ourselves, have been nonconforming from Day One. What I’d like to do is remind everyone that all the permits that the Park Commission issues are highly conditioned upon getting other agency approvals, whatever they might be. That’s the applicant’s responsibility. They don’t tell you what, where you need what. You are on your own. Now up until the date of this letter I’m going to read you, we had applied for and gotten all of the dock permits we needed. We applied for and got a DEC permit to operate a marina in 1981. We registered our docks, everything, and the Commission promulgated their new regulations in 1988. Now, we had not been contacted by the Commission in 1988 that we needed to update, modify or get a new marina permit. We continued to just operate. They didn’t come knocking on our door. February in 1990, I get this letter, from the Executive Department of the Office of General Services. “Dear Mr. Salvador: The Lake George Park Commission has requested the Office of General Services to determine if the captioned facility is authorized to use and occupy State owned lands submerged by the waters of Lake George. Our subsequent investigation has resulted in a determination that the facility presently operates without authorization from the Office of General Services. In Lake George, the boundary between public lands and privately held upland has been established at 1.81 feet on the gauge of the US Geological Survey at Roger’s Rock.” That’s what we know as 317.74 and as the mean low water mark. “Under the provisions of the New York State Public Lands Law, the Office of General Services is delegated with the statutory authority to administer the State’s title and convey easements for the use and occupation of these lands. These conveyances are restricted to the upland property owners. Access easements provide the upland owner with a property interest in underwater lands, and authorize the use of these lands for the term of the easement. An easement in underwater lands is a valuable proprietary interest, transferable to successors in title with the consent of the Commissioner of General Services. The fee for the underwater land easement is based on a fair market appraisal, discounted to recognize the value of riparian rights. Your convenience, the nine page easement packet has been enclosed. Please complete these forms together with the environmental assessment form and return them to the Division of Land Utilization for processing.” Now listen to this. “After your application has been reviewed, you will be informed of the easement fee. Upon payment of the fee, an interim permit will be issued for occupation of the easement area. In the event you do not apply for authorization to use the subject parcel, your installation will be treated as a trespass and reported to the State Attorney General for appropriate legal action. If you require additional information, please call.” Now we got that letter, you know, you don’t know what to do, and we immediately contacted them. We look at this packet, and it took us two and a half years, surveys, title search, okay, permits, all of this, and we finally submitted to the OGS documentation, and we get this letter in return, two and a half years later. “After reviewing the documentation you forwarded, the Office of General Services recognizes that the land constituting lots number eleven and twelve of the French Mountain Tract was, indeed, conveyed in full simple fee title estate. The only exception pertains to the reservation of any gold, and/or silver. Except for these gold and silver rights, the State of New York has no other sovereign claim of right, title or interest in and to the land now or formerly submerged south of the respective northern boundaries of the aforesaid lots.” Now, as far as I’m concerned, I’m the only guy on Lake George that got this letter, but anyway, that’s the law. MS. RADNER-Mr. Salvador, can you please get to where this relates to the application we’re considering. MR. SALVADOR-I’m getting there. MS. RADNER-That’s what this public hearing is for. 21 (Queensbury Planning Board 8/15/02) MR. SALVADOR-Yes, I’m getting there. MS. RADNER-Thank you. MR. SALVADOR-The Lake George Park Commission took the liberty to send this map. It should be, is it in your packet? MR. VOLLARO-No. MR. HILTON-We have it on file. MR. SALVADOR-You asked, in your letter, for evidence of, you know, when were the docks, how were they, what was, and the Park Commission went into their file and they made a copy of a map of that area of the shoreline of Lake George, and they refer to it as the 1958 Shoreline Survey. The real title is State of New York Department of Public Works, New York Department of Conservation is the aerial survey shoreline of Lake George, and there are, I can’t tell you how many of these maps, the whole shoreline has been done, okay, and this shoreline was mapped because in 1957 the legislature authorized and directed the Conservation Commissioner to cause a survey to be made of the shoreline of and of certain lands underwater in Lake George to determine the extent of any authorized encroachments on State land, and that’s what they’ve done on this map. This is a poor copy, but they have all of the boat docks and boathouses that existed at that time, and the purported upland owner, but that’s the evidence of what existed in 1958. MR. MAC EWAN-John, could I ask you to please summarize? You’ve been going for almost 20 minutes. MR. SALVADOR-Yes. Okay. A site plan is supposed to have property boundaries on it, and there’s a very significant property boundary associated with both of these applications, and it’s associated, it’s going to be associated, with every single application you get if you move forward with this program, and that’s mainly the mean low water mark. Now this map, it’s hard to see, but this has the mean low watermark, and the reason that this survey was undertaken was the Conservation Commissioner is hereby authorized and directed to cause a survey to be made of the shore of Lake George indicating thereon the mean low watermark. You know the mean low watermark is the demarcation between the public land that’s State owned land and private land. Okay. The Conservation Department doesn’t own any land on Lake George. It’s the Office of General Services. The people own the land. It’s public land, and they were trying to determine who’s encroaching on the State land. Well, where does the State land begin? It begins at the mean low watermark. The extent by which any structures erected or fill placed upon land now or heretofore underwater in said lake encroaches beyond such mean low water line, and such surveys shall also bear the name of the reputed owner of the adjacent upland. A print of each survey shall be forwarded by the Commissioner to the Board of Commissioners of the Land Office to ascertain if any such encroachment shall have been erected or placed on lands underwater in Lake George which may have heretofore been granted to adjacent upland owners by patent, fees, easement, license, etc. That’s what we were being called to compare. This wasn’t the act, this is the survey, and we were being called to adhere to this program. Now, the State has come out, the State come out with a. MR. MAC EWAN-Two minutes. MR. SALVADOR-A refinement and a definition and an easy little design, this is the packet they sent that we work to. This is what, and it’s what everybody should work to, and my point here today is that the Park Commission can, at any time, regardless of what you do, regardless of what you approve, I think I had all the right approvals, but the Park Commission took the liberty to ask the OGS to investigate our title. It came up once in 1976. It didn’t go away. It came up again in 1990. Just a couple of other points. We talk about setbacks from property lines. The Office of General Services has prepared regulations. They are Part 274 of Subtitle G, and they define how you measure setback from property lines extending into a public body of water. They deal with concave, convex, shores that aren’t necessarily perpendicular to property lines. They’re al line here. They’re all addressed, and they respect people’s riparian rights. We don’t use this. We don’t use this at all. One other small point, just to show you how disjointed our local government is. The Town Assessor assesses property and puts property into what they call property classifications, and this is necessary for assessment purposes. The Hopper property is classified as a property classification 260, and property classification 260 is seasonal residential property. The inventory card shows absolutely no commercial activity whatsoever on that property. The Smith property is classified 210, that’s year round residential use. Absolutely no recognition that commercial activity is going on on that property. Now that’s part of assessment. The way the property is being used is what the Assessor is bound to assess it as, and income from the rental of docks is a very important factor. So the Assessor is not even up to speed, as far as what’s going on here. So, I’ve prepared, for your benefit, I did this when I appeared before the Zoning Board of Appeals once on an issue involving shoreline, and I prepared this sort of comparison. Incidentally, the tax parcel number I’ve noted there is Lew Stone’s old tax parcel, but that gives you the relationship between mean high, mean low, public lands and private land. Also of interest, I have a current tax map from the County, and they show you here, this tax map, you can see here, in this area, this is the Town of Bolton here. See that? That’s the taxing and zoning jurisdiction of the Town of Bolton. The Town boundary line is the mean low watermark. The Town boundary is this mean low mark here, and to the extent that those docks 22 (Queensbury Planning Board 8/15/02) and boathouses are built beyond that mean low watermark, they are in the taxing and zoning jurisdiction of the Town of Bolton. Here, the Town of Bolton. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. SALVADOR-And that should be shown on your site plan. That is a, that’s the County, it’s a tax map. These are available for anybody. So it is a difficult subject and it somehow should be sorted out, but I think you’ve got to appreciate that there’s a big picture here, and there are just two applications before you, but there are many more coming down the pike. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Do you sleep? MR. SALVADOR-Seldom. Also, appreciate the Park Commission permit is a five year permit, and all those commercial marinas that they’ve permitted up there, their permits are going to expire. Some in two years, and if you think it’s a thorny issue with regard to the County highway, wait’ll we get to Town roads. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Thanks, John. MR. SALVADOR-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-Anyone else? KATHLEEN SALVADOR MRS. SALVADOR-Kathleen Salvador. Am I correct in understanding that there is no Lake George Park Commission permit in hand at this point? MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes. MRS. SALVADOR-Okay. There is no permit MR. HILTON-For the marina. MRS. SALVADOR-For the marina. MR. HILTON-Operation. For the docks, there are. MRS. SALVADOR-For the docks, okay. The docks were registered? MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes. MRS. SALVADOR-They were registered before January 1, 1982? MR. HILTON-Yes. MRS. SALVADOR-Okay. So the reason they’re here before you is that they need this site plan review, and then they go to the Park Commission. Okay. Whatever happened to the one stop shopping for marinas? That was supposed to be the Park Commission, and now we’ve got the Town in it. I just, I don’t understand it at all, but anyway. So they don’t have that. They’re going to have to go for their Park Commission permit. The subject of parking is going to come up. Their requirement is one parking place for every one and a half boats. So if we have eight boats, it doesn’t really mean that we need eight parking places, but I still don’t believe they’re going to have enough parking places. It was noted in the letter this evening that we, Dunham’s Bay Boat and Beach Club, now formerly Dunham’s Bay Lodge, do not have adequate parking. We do. We have 75 registered parking places, more than sufficient for our marina, and each of our marina clients also and maybe they will want to do this also, has a parking permit, an issued parking permit that they must display on their window. One reason being that we have a lot of difficulty maintaining our privacy and we don’t believe in fences, but that’s going to be a subject that they’re going to have to deal with there also, is the parking, and I think that’s very critical, too. Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. GILBERT BOEHM MR. BOEHM-Gilbert Boehm, Dunham’s Bay. I have some concerns about the precedent that you people may be setting here, and that is you’re assuming that because, or I think you may be assuming that because the docks have some prior use that they may, in fact, grant grandfathering conditions to a business that might, in fact, have been illegal for many years, since they have had no marina permit, and yet they’ve operated as a marina permit, and I think you’ve got to look very carefully at how you, in turn, render a decision here, if, in fact, you say, well, it’s grandfathered because the docks are grandfathered. That’s my concern. 23 (Queensbury Planning Board 8/15/02) MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Thank you. Anyone else? MATT FULLER MR.. FULLER-Matt Fuller. I’m also the attorney of record for the Hopper application, and just because it is appearing that it’s going to affect both of the applications at this point, one thing I would like to put out there, that is up to the Board, would be to ask Staff, Craig, for a determination on the grandfathered status of these properties, the use of the docks. I think we have established that it’s been consented to with the Town. Everybody agrees that the docks were there in existence, as they stand in 1981. To get from there to how they were used, I don’t think, is a very difficult stretch, and I feel very comfortable that, particularly with ours, I’m not sure about the Smiths, I think they’ll probably be in the same boat, too, that they may be able to show they were used by others than the property owners, to owners that precede them. So if the way it’s going that these applications are going to be noed tonight and everybody sent on their way, then I would like to throw that out there as a possibility, that, you know, if may, if they are grandfathered, they may be at the point that they don’t have to be here, and that’s certainly an option to you, that we would entertain. Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. Do you want to offer some comment on that? MR. HILTON-Yes, just real quickly. It’s my understanding that the letter from August 13, 2002 from Craig Brown speaks to the whole issue of grandfathering, and based on the information we’ve received from the Lake George Park Commission, he’s made such a determination. I’d be happy to read the letter into the record, if it pleases the Board. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. Why don’t you. MR. MAC EWAN-Mrs. Hopper, did you want to speak first? I’m sorry. MR. HILTON-Let me just read this letter, and then I’ll provide you guys with a copy. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, let Mrs. Hopper. MR. MAC EWAN-Let Mrs. Hopper speak. JANE HOPPER MRS. HOPPER-The only thing I would like to say, is because I agree with Matt that I’m listening to what the Board is saying, and what the Board is thinking in terms of the Smiths is going to have a direct effect on ours also. The letter from Mr. Remington was predicated by me speaking with him on the 9, because it was th important to me that the Board understand that Warren County does not issue parking permits, but Warren County has no problem with parking as it exists on Pilot Knob Road. Mr. Remington said to me, quote, I don’t care what you do from the white line over. We’ve had no problems on Pilot Knob Road. If we had a problem with Pilot Knob Road, there would be no parking signs, because we would have talked to the Town or the Village. If there was a sign that said no parking, then they would issue parking permits. There’s no incidence, I talked to Warren County Sheriff’s Department over a year ago, because I put my permit before this Board on December 28, 2001, is how long I’ve been before Boards. There is no incidence of accidents or people getting run over. They park along Pilot Knob Road, as they do with many, many roads in the Town of Queensbury because we live in Lake George, and as Mr. Smith said, people will park their cars where there is room to park them, that is my property. Mr. Remington stated that is my property they’re parking their cars on, at the bottom of that hill. It happens to be alongside the County road, but it’s mine. So when three cars pull up there to park their car to go on their boats, they’re literally parking on David & Jane Hopper’s property. Also, they keep bringing up the problem about marina permits. I guess ignorance is not a good way to put this, but I guarantee you, back in 1981, when you needed a marina permit, the only person that I know that has a marina permit is Mr. Rooney, and Mr. Rooney happens to work for the Park Commission, or on the lake as a patrol officer. He was well aware, in 1981, that now he needed a marina permit. It was not a big deal back then. You simply gave them the information. You paid them their $25, and you had a marina permit. I guarantee this Board that if the property owners before me and Mr. Smith had known that you needed to go before the Park Commission and register those docks as a marina, it would have been done. If a letter had been sent out, when you register your docks, as of 1981, if you rent out a dock, you have to have a marina permit, I guarantee you, sir, that they would have done this. This was not public knowledge. It might have been printed in the paper on Page 17, on a Thursday or something. I don’t know, but I guarantee you, the public didn’t know this, as a general basis. If you ask the general public, what is a marina, they will state, Fischer’s, Castaway, Dunham’s Bay. Renting a dock, to the average layperson, is not a marina. Hence, that’s why you have a lot of people, such as myself, sitting before you, in this situation, because, up until a year ago, I had no idea what the Board considered a marina. I now know, but if you look at Pilot Knob Road and you look at Hanneford Road, and you look at the three properties involved now, Mr. Rooney’s, Mr. Hopper’s and Mr. Smith’s, the only one that has a marina permit is someone directly in the business of being on the lake in law enforcement, and that’s Mr. Rooney. So I guess if I had anything to say to the Board, please consider that into your judgment, that both Mr. Smith and I, our predecessors, if they 24 (Queensbury Planning Board 8/15/02) had known this, I guarantee you they would have gotten a marina permit, and on my docks, on my southernmost dock, there is no boat there that goes with the cottage. I wish the Board had gone and looked at what the waterfront looks like when there’s no activity around one dock at that end of the lake. It is weeds this high coming out of the water. It’s unusable. So, that’s all I have to say. Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. Anyone else? Two minutes, and I will be watching the clock. MR. SALVADOR-Mrs. Hopper is exactly right. You’d have to read the fine print in that very fine print regulation to parse out the fact that a person renting any other provision of storage, wharf space, etc., you’re a marina. She’s absolutely right. The Commission did not go around knocking on doors. They confined their activity to the conventional marinas, if you will. Can you imagine the public outcry? Can you imagine? You know, they were just feeling their way in 1981. If they went knocking on everybody’s door that the public outcry would have been incredible, but as long as, you know, they were just going after the conventional marinas, the businesses, if you will, there was no outcry, and so the Commission went around and it took them another five, seven years, and then they got their expanded powers, and then they changed the regulations. It’s a step by step process. This happens very frequently with State agencies. They don’t run around and enforce their, the OGS. The OGS should be requiring an easement from everyone. They don’t. They sit down there and they wait for you to apply. Meanwhile, you’re noncompliant. That’s a cloud over you and your title and your operation, but look at the SPDES permit program from the DEC. You’re supposed to have a SPDES permit if you have, if you’re discharging more than 1,000 gallons a day of wastewater. There’s hundreds of properties that, to this date, don’t have a SPDES permit, and the program went in in the late 1970’s. They don’t, you know, enforce this, and so it’s a sort of an entrapment, if you will. It’s very unfair. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Can I ask a question? Maybe you can answer this, Mr. Salvador. In other words, when Mrs. Hopper applied for her dock permits back in 1980 whatever, ’84 for, how many docks do you have now, four? Four docks. So you would have four dock permits. So she paid her money. The LGPC issued her dock permits, and they never questioned her whether she owned eight boats that were all registered in her name. In other words, they’re just assuming that those four docks that she registered, they’re her eight boats that are going there? Or did they not care who’s boats were going there? MR. SALVADOR-The registration program, under Part 646, the original one, was two pronged. There was one form for the registration of your wharfs. It didn’t ask you how you were using them. You just size, dimension, location, number. That’s all you had to do. There was no question how you use it. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, I’ll tell you right now, I was just out today, and over in Rockhurst, and along the lake, there are lots of individual homes who have more than one or two boats that belong to them. I’m not mentioning any names right now, but this, how is this going to be, in other words, all these other people that have these long docks, or many docks, that are also renting their docks to other people, when are they going to come before us? MR. SALVADOR-The Commission sent a letter to all residential property owners saying if you’re using your dock in a commercial way, you may have to get a marina permit. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, what if people don’t come forward? MR. BOEHM-Then you’re in violation. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Unless somebody else pulls the plug on it. MR. SALVADOR-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Let’s move along here. MR. SALVADOR-But again, it’s was a two pronged system, and it was not coordinated, but you were, it was a voluntary thing. You registered voluntarily. MRS. LA BOMBARD-I would feel a lot better if Mike White were here or somebody. We should have invited him to come. MR. MAC EWAN-Thanks, John. MR. SALVADOR-When you get that determination you want, then we can appeal it to the ZBA, then we could subpoena him to be here. MR. MAC EWAN-One last time. I’d like to move things along here. MR. BOEHM-Just to clarify things, that same form also requires that you indicate your boats and their lengths and they charge you on the basis of the boat length, on that same form. So in that particular case, as 25 (Queensbury Planning Board 8/15/02) an example, if you have four docks, and you’re registering four docks, if you only have one boat, that’s an indication to them that there are three additional slips that might be used for something else. Just a point. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Or they might not be. You might just like them there to lie out in the sun. MR. BOEHM-Or they might not be used. They might be empty. True. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Thanks. MR. SALVADOR-Only since 1988, Gil. Only since 1988. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Anyone else? All right. I’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MAC EWAN-We need to do a SEQRA. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Was this the Long Form or the Short Form SEQRA? I can’t remember. MR. VOLLARO-I think the Short Form was submitted. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. MR. SMITH-Can I just clarify one thing? They kept going over the marina permits and all that stuff. The letter they were referring to, they changed the rules. Okay. The letter came out which stated that if the boat’s not registered in the landowner’s name, it now needs a permit, but before, this 646 he’s talking about, is we had talked before about needing a permit, it said, you need a permit, the storage or berthing or mooring of two or more motorized vessels or non-motorized vessels, 18 feet in length or more, not registered in the owner of the property, regardless of remuneration, profit, except, the use of resident or associate docks, wharfs or moorings by the owner of the facility, the owner’s family or the owner’s gratuitous guest, okay, and such person part of if they rent or such, and gratuitous guest. When I contacted Irwin Johnson, original builder of the docks, the first one was built by a friend who had a sailboat, asked if he could build it and use it, and through clubs and associations he had other friends come up and the same thing. They built three more docks, and since then, it has been more or less passed on through friends, guests, and it’s been on a gratuitous nature. There has been no rental contracts or rent, and that was issued right in it, and as before we had talked to Molly Gallagher in previous years we were fine, until this year, with this letter said that we must have a Class A Marina permit. The rules were changed. MR. HUNSINGER-So, you don’t charge any rent for those docks? MR. SMITH-There is no rent, per se. I have no rental contract or what. We have friends. MR. HUNSINGER-I understand you don’t have a contract, but I’m saying. MR. SMITH-The people, some people come up, they help build docks, some people do this, and we do a lot of different things. Some of them give us money, yes, but for me to say that, you know, that the rental fee or no, it has never been. They’ve always been as guests. MRS. SMITH-They give us fruit baskets. MR. MAC EWAN-Didn’t you say, a couple of meetings ago, that you use that to supplement your taxes on your property? MRS. SMITH-No, sir. MR. SMITH-No, sir. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MRS. SMITH-The other I just wanted to mention, too, is that, as far as commercial versus residential, we’ve already given the condition that we wouldn’t do fueling. We wouldn’t be washing boats. So we’re not really a marina. We’re not doing anything that would be different in this residential community that we live in as well. So I don’t know how that fits, but it’s not really a commercial enterprise. MR. MAC EWAN-Unfortunately, that’s what complicates the whole thing. It’s one of the complicating issue to it. MRS. SMITH-And that’s why I was wondering if, since we have the condition here for the Special Use Permit that, you know, we could have the special use, but you can’t have, on this property, retail sales or 26 (Queensbury Planning Board 8/15/02) gasoline or fueling and that kind of thing, that at least when it goes to Lake George Park Commission, yes, we can have these docks, and yes we can have other people there, but we can’t make a commercial operation out of this. That’s what I thought might help that, for the property and the area going forward. MR. SMITH-We’re asking no more to use the docks from use of a Special Use Permit than what they have been. To get the marina permit, we’ll have to go through the Lake George Park Commission, and they, in turn, will put their rules and regulations on us, but they have, as I can show you here, they have changed and that’s what brought us to this point. MR. MAC EWAN-All right. Let’s do SEQRA. MRS. LA BOMBARD-“Could action result in any adverse effects associated with the following: 1. Existing air quality, surface or groundwater quality or quantity, noise levels, existing traffic patterns, solid waste production or disposal, potential for erosion, drainage or flooding problems?” MR. RINGER-Could have traffic. It could have solid waste. MR. MAC EWAN-Anybody chime in any time. MR. VOLLARO-Have her read that one again, slowly. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Existing air quality? MR. MAC EWAN-No. MR. RINGER-No. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Surface or groundwater quality or quantity? MR. MAC EWAN-No. MRS. LA BOMBARD-No. Noise levels? MR. MAC EWAN-Potentially. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Existing traffic patterns? MR. MAC EWAN-Potentially. MRS. LA BOMBARD-But existing traffic pattern. Nothing has changed, in 23 years. MR. VOLLARO-How do we quantify that nothing has changed? I don’t understand. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, because this has been going on for 23 years. MR. VOLLARO-Cathy, you and I were both standing on Pilot Knob Road on that rainy day when you said, boy, there’s a lot of traffic out here. Do you remember that? MRS. LA BOMBARD-I was thinking, excuse me. I’m not on the same page. I’m thinking of boat traffic. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Sorry. I’m thinking of boats and pollution on Lake George with the noise and the existing traffic patterns right now, but now I can see the automobile and vehicular that way. All right. Solid waste production or disposal? MR. MAC EWAN-No. I mean, I’m the only one talking up here. I’d like to hear other voices as well. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Potential for erosion? I think we’re okay on that. Drainage or flooding problems? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. MAC EWAN-No. MRS. LA BOMBARD-No. So, what are the things you want to kind of take a look at here? Noise levels and traffic patterns? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. 27 (Queensbury Planning Board 8/15/02) MRS. LA BOMBARD-All right. Can they be mitigated? Are they, okay, let’s say it. What level are they? Low? Moderate? Or high? MR. VOLLARO-I think they’re moderate. MR. MAC EWAN-Any other opinions? MR. STROUGH-Well, we have put in our dock rental agreement suggestion that they have to meet their minimums. MR. MAC EWAN-John, we keep going to that thing. I’d like to stay away from that thing. MR. STROUGH-We say noise shall be maintained at reasonable levels, no loud music, etc., this is a residential area, please act accordingly. MRS. LA BOMBARD-We’ve discussed the whole mitigating factors and the ways that we’re going to be able to get around all these potential adverse effects. MR. STROUGH-Right, and then we can condition that to say that the owner’s contract with all dock renters shall include, as a minimum, suggestions outlined in the dock rental agreement. MRS. LA BOMBARD-I mean, we spent hours on the first meeting on just trying to take all those adverse effects and do something about them. MR. RINGER-Yes, but we found some of them that don’t work, like the parking in the road. They don’t have any right. MRS. LA BOMBARD-But he owns the land, but he just told me he owns that land. MR. RINGER-Yes, but he doesn’t have the, anybody can park there. So if we say that that meets his parking requirements, he doesn’t really own that property yet. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes, but he owns the land that they’re parking on. MR. RINGER-Yes, but anybody else can park there. You could park there. MR. SMITH-There is land outside the three rod. MR. MAC EWAN-What I’d ask you to do is just withhold comment while we try to get through this SEQRA process, please. MRS. LA BOMBARD-All right. Okay. I’m just trying to cover all bases, Larry. MR. MAC EWAN-Well, let’s bang that around for a couple of more minutes here. I mean, I understand where Larry’s coming from. I understand where you’re coming from. The question is because this application has been talked about using the County right of way to park vehicles in, which we now know that’s not a doable thing. So the question is, does the applicant have enough private property to accommodate the parking of vehicles, to accommodate the needs of his marina? That’s the issue. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Right. MR. STROUGH-Well, one of the issues is that since it’s a road by use, the State’s right of way ends at the edge of the pavement, I believe. MRS. LA BOMBARD-You know, I have a question, too. What if I want to go to the doctor’s or to a lawyer’s office on Glen Street, and I park on Glen Street. MR. MAC EWAN-There’s parking provisions on Glen Street, clearly marked by the City that you can park there. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, but it’s still a City parking spot for a private use. MR. MAC EWAN-Correct me if I’m wrong, Counsel, but if the City stripes a parking spot, they’re authorizing you a sort of permit to park there? MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, no there’s no stripes. There’s just the curb. MR. MAC EWAN-Baloney. Upper Glen Street from say, actually right from the old Continental Insurance building all the way up to Crandall Park, they’re all striped alongside the road. 28 (Queensbury Planning Board 8/15/02) MRS. LA BOMBARD-Excuse me. I didn’t think they were. MS. RADNER-They’re striped for anyone to park there. MR. MAC EWAN-Right. MS. RADNER-They’re not striped, these three spaces are for the this business, these two are for this business. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes. I understand that, but the thing is, I’m still using those public spaces for my, for a private venture. MS. RADNER-And that’s exactly what they’re proposing to do, too. MRS. LA BOMBARD-That’s right. MR. MAC EWAN-The issue is here if we took the equation out of using the County right of way to park these patrons vehicles in, does the applicant have enough room on his own property to accommodate his parking needs without impacting on traffic unjustly on the road? That’s what I want to hear comment on. MR. STROUGH-Well, I think both of them showed their original applications, not exactly to our liking, but they did show a capability of having parking spaces on their own property, should they have to. MR. VOLLARO-Up in the back. MR. MAC EWAN-We’re talking on the Pilot Knob Road, though. MS. RADNER-Remember, let’s restrict our dialogue now just to this application. MR. STROUGH-Well, no, we’re talking the Hanneford Road. They showed in their plans that they could park. MR. MAC EWAN-Right, I do remember that. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Right. MR. STROUGH-They could, but it’s not ideal, and it’s not really what I’d like to see, but this is not an easy application, neither of them, but they did show, in both cases, that they could provide parking for their renters. MR. RINGER-There’s nothing on the Smith’s that shows parking on Hanneford Road. The Hopper’s did, but not the Smith’s. MR. SMITH-It’s on the last page. The last one was not requested, we didn’t need to show it on the last one. The original one, there were parking spots up above. MRS. SMITH-Yes, the original one there was. MR. STROUGH-Yes. I see Dock Parking No. 8, Dock Parking No. 7. MRS. SMITH-The original one. MR. SMITH-Yes, you’ve got the original one. MR. MAC EWAN-All right. Let’s come to some conclusion on the traffic thing, please. MRS. SMITH-Yes, you have the right one. MR. SMITH-That’s the original application. MR. STROUGH-Yes, well, they show that they could provide parking on their own property right here. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. So can traffic be mitigated in your mind? MR. STROUGH-Well, the only thing I’d like to mitigate is to reduce traffic on Hanneford Road, and their proposal seems to make me seem like it’s the best one could do. I think it’s satisfactory. It’s not perfect. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Bob? I’ll take that answer as a yes, it can be mitigated, is what you’re saying? 29 (Queensbury Planning Board 8/15/02) MR. STROUGH-Yes, it can. MR. MAC EWAN-Bob? MR. VOLLARO-I’ll go along with the mitigation, but I think we’re, okay, I’ll go along with the mitigation and I’ll say what I have to say later on. Yes, the answer is yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Cathy? MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes. It can be mitigated, and I think that when the few days, like you said last Sunday, when you came in there were 12 vehicles there at the end of the day. Those days are few and far between, and it’s like when there’s the rush hour traffic or when there’s holiday traffic, you just have to be extra careful. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Larry? MR. RINGER-They don’t have room, and if you don’t use the Pilot Knob, then they’ll have room over here for eight parking spots. So I don’t know if it can be mitigated or not. They only show two parking spots on Hanneford Road. MR. STROUGH-But the property down on Pilot Knob Road is there’s. MR. RINGER-But anybody can park there. MR. STROUGH-No, not on their property. It’s on their property. MR. MAC EWAN-At this point, I’m going to ask you folks to refrain so we can go through this, please. MR. RINGER-Somebody could park on the road. MR. STROUGH-Do you see where their property line is? MR. RINGER-I see that, John, but somebody could come and park on the road and block every car that they put in there out. MRS. LA BOMBARD-That’s their problem. MR. STROUGH-They could call the police and have them moved. MR. RINGER-No, that’s a public right of way. Anybody can park there. MR. STROUGH-Not on their property it’s not. MR. RINGER-They’re parked on the side of the road, John. MR. STROUGH-They show further than on the side of the road. MR. MAC EWAN-What he’s saying, if someone comes and parks on their property, someone else comes along and parks in the right of way of the Town. MRS. LA BOMBARD-And the people that are on their property can’t get out. That’s their problem. MR. STROUGH-But they did show that they could have that parking on their property. Now, if somebody else causes a problem, I mean, that’s up to the police and the landowner. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes, that’s the way I think. MR. RINGER-Well, I don’t see it that way, but that’s my opinion. MR. MAC EWAN-Chris? MR. HUNSINGER-I kind of see it two ways. I think for purposes of SEQRA I don’t really see traffic as being a particular problem, but I think when we look at the general standards for Special Use Permits I have a different feeling. Because I don’t particularly agree that there’s an absence of hazardous parking or traffic conditions, but I’m okay for the SEQRA process. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. It seems like that can be mitigated. So let’s go on to the next question. 30 (Queensbury Planning Board 8/15/02) MRS. LA BOMBARD-All right. “Any adverse effects associated with aesthetic, agricultural, archeological, historic or other natural or cultural resources or community or neighborhood character?” Well, if this is a residential area, then maybe community or neighborhood character could be an issue. MR. MAC EWAN-Anybody else? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I agree. MR. STROUGH-Well, Cathy, you were making the point that this is a wide spread practice all around Lake George. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, but wait a minute, John, we’re dealing with this application. MRS. LA BOMBARD-No, I was just saying, now I’m getting a little nervous because, you know, and that was my question to Mr. Salvador. How do we, when are these other people going to come forward? Who’s going to pull the plug on them? MR. VOLLARO-I think we have to deal with this application. MRS. LA BOMBARD-But we’re not dealing with them. We’re dealing with this one. MR. STROUGH-Yes, well, I’ve got a few comments afterwards, too, but pertaining to SEQRA, I don’t see how you’d say it’s out of character when it’s so common place. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, that’s a good point. MR. STROUGH-It has not been historically incompatible. I mean, historically, you take a look at these mom and pop dock rentals, and I haven’t heard too many people voice complaints about it. I mean, it seems to be fairly compatible, that the complaints we’ve heard is where the renters are parking. That seems to be the outrage, and sometimes the parking is out of character with the residential nature of where they’re parking, but the use itself has historically been pretty compatible with residential uses, I think, throughout the. MR. MAC EWAN-But if residents complain of parking issues related to a marina being operated in a residential area, does that not change the character of that residential area? MR. STROUGH-Not if there are like residential areas. You show me one neighborhood on Lake George where boat rental use is not commonplace. MR. MAC EWAN-I don’t know if that’s an appropriate angle to take on it when we’re talking about these particular applications in front of us tonight. MR. STROUGH-I think we’d be hearing quite a public stir about the whole thing if, you know, I haven’t had anybody come up and ask me or anybody else that I know of, in any of the publication I’ve read, asking for banning of rental space, as far as the docks go. I mean, where is the outrage? MR. MAC EWAN-There’s four of us saying there’s a potential for it. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Small to moderate? MR. VOLLARO-Well, I’d like, before we go into small to moderate, let’s say that where the record shows the proposed use would create greater traffic than the as of right uses in the neighborhood. What I’m trying to get at here is does the existence of these marinas cause more traffic than would normally be there if they were not there, in this residential neighborhood? I think that’s what we’re, that’s the issue we’re trying to drive at here. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Then it does. MR. VOLLARO-And if it does, now we’re saying, okay, can that be mitigated, and by how much? Is it small, medium, moderate or large? MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, the fact that the maximum number of vessels that are going to be berthed there is eight, so we can have a maximum number only of eight cars. So we’re never going to have more than eight cars there, or vehicles parked. MR. VOLLARO-But it’s talking about the traffic that that might generate, not just the parking, but the traffic patterns that are on the road when people are pulling out and so on. It’s not just. 31 (Queensbury Planning Board 8/15/02) MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. Traffic patterns, but don’t say generate traffic, because that makes me feel that there’s going to be more vehicles on the road going back and forth because of that. There’s only eight more. MR. VOLLARO-During the time the marinas are in operation, when special use permit marinas are in operation, there will be more traffic than there is out of season. In other words, there are certain residents on that road who when it’s not in season, have a greater use of that road than they would have in season. MRS. LA BOMBARD-But that’s not, we’re not talking about those. We’re talking about this application generating more traffic, and I can only see it generating eight more automobiles or trucks, or vehicles. MR. VOLLARO-In that short section of Pilot Knob Road. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Eight more. Is that an impact, eight more? They’ve got to go in and they’ve got to go out. MR. VOLLARO-It’s eight more than what would be there in the out of season, yes. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Right. MR. MAC EWAN-So you say small? MRS. LA BOMBARD-And that’s if they all show up. MR. MAC EWAN-So how are we going to label this, small? Moderate? Large? Humungous? MR. VOLLARO-I would it’s a moderate impact, in this short section of Pilot Knob Road. MR. RINGER-I’d say moderate, small to moderate. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, small to moderate. MR. MAC EWAN-Small to moderate seems to be the way it’s going on that one. MRS. LA BOMBARD-All right. Now, the only problem is, how are we going to mitigate, how are we going to lessen this impact? MR. VOLLARO-The only way to lessen it is for the applicant to show that they have adequate parking in other than the Pilot Knob Road area. It seems to me. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Then when we move up to Hanneford Road, I think of all those people that live up on Hanneford Road that objected to their, an encroachment on their nice, quiet domain up there. MR. STROUGH-I agree with Cathy, forcing them to locate on properties up on Hanneford Road actually creates a bigger impact. MR. VOLLARO-So we’re going to sanction either one of the two evils, is what we’re saying here. MR. STROUGH-Well, I think we’ve come down to that. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Now, like today when I was there, there were, all the boats were in their berths. There were no cars there today, but Craig was there on Sunday and there were a bunch of cars. So it’s not as if there’s. MR. VOLLARO-Well, today is Thursday. Sunday everybody’s off. MRS. LA BOMBARD-That’s right. So what I’m saying is, out of seven days in a week, how many days are we really worried about? Two? MR. STROUGH-Two busy months of the year, and eight weekends. So you’re only, you’re talking about 16 potential high density days, Saturday and Sunday. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Basically. MR. STROUGH-I’m assuming. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes. So I’m just talking about. MR. STROUGH-Out of a 365 day year. 32 (Queensbury Planning Board 8/15/02) MR. HUNSINGER-Well, yes, I mean, you have to look at the full potential. You’re right, from a practical standpoint, you’re probably right, but the full potential is certainly greater than that. MRS. LA BOMBARD-But the full potential, you’re right, but practically, and what really does happen is they’re not there on Monday and Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday and Friday. Maybe one or two, but they’re not all there. They have to work. I don’t know. I’m just trying to look at all sides of this. MR. MAC EWAN-I think that’s a fair assessment. That’s what we need to do. MR. VOLLARO-In effort to get by this one, we’re looking at a consensus of small to moderate, and we’re saying that it could be mitigated by the applicant moving cars onto their own property. That’s the only thing we can say. I don’t think we can start to talk about what happens up on Hanneford Road now. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Right. I want to keep them right away from Hanneford. I said that from Day One, reduce the density, get rid of a dock. I said that a long time ago. MR. MAC EWAN-So the short answer here is we have some, there are some potential mitigation measures we could use. What avenue we thought would be the best way to go we haven’t come to that determination yet. MRS. LA BOMBARD-And I’ll be honest with you. After what I just heard, that I was thinking this was like a livelihood to pay taxes and now when, so we get rid of one dock. If you’re only getting remuneration in the form of a fruit basket, I have a, really, I’m going to be stronger now towards getting rid of a dock, because I thought that this was more of a livelihood and to help you pay your taxes and that type of thing. That’s what I was lead to believe from Day One. MRS. SMITH-We’re hoping to eventually, yes. Yes, eventually. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, you’ve got to tell me what’s going on. MR. MAC EWAN-All right. Let’s move on to the next one. MRS. LA BOMBARD-“Community’s plans or goals as officially adopted or a change in use or intensity of use of land or other natural resources?” MR. RINGER-I think you’ve got a yes on that one. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. Let’s be specific. MR. RINGER-Well, the Comprehensive Land Use Plan says this is a residential area, and commercial operations should be avoided. MR. HUNSINGER-That one dock, only one dock be allowed for each single family residence. MR. VOLLARO-It says it is recommended that each residential parcel be allowed one dock of size and capacity suitable for the single family residence use allowed in the area. MRS. LA BOMBARD-And that’s a community’s plans or goals as officially adopted. MR. VOLLARO-That’s right. That’s our Comprehensive Land Use Plan. MRS. LA BOMBARD-That’s right. MR. RINGER-I don’t know how to get around that. MRS. LA BOMBARD-You get around it because it’s been there. It was there from before. MR. RINGER-If you want to grandfather it, but we don’t have the right, perhaps, to grandfather. MR. VOLLARO-Well, we’re not talking about the docks. We’re talking about grandfathering the use. MRS. LA BOMBARD-The use. MR. VOLLARO-So long as we’re all on the same page here. It’s the use of the docks that we’re talking about, and our Comprehensive Land Use Plan is very, very clearly written in that area, unless we want to try and change that plan, but that is our. MR. MAC EWAN-So what’s the consensus here? 33 (Queensbury Planning Board 8/15/02) MR. RINGER-I think that’s where the problem comes up on this site. MRS. LA BOMBARD-That’s it. MR. MAC EWAN-So what’s the mitigation measures? MR. HUNSINGER-There isn’t any. MR. VOLLARO-I don’t know if there’s a mitigation to that one. I don’t know how to address that. I don’t know how to get around those words, how to parse those words in a different manner. MR. STROUGH-I don’t think the intent of that Comprehensive Land Use recommendation was to make everyone that has multiple docks on a single lot erase and take down all those docks. I think what the recommendation is saying and suggesting is that you should never permit, on any given lot, any more than one dock, and that’s from 1998 onward. We should never approve two docks on one lot. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Unless there’s enough frontage. MR. STROUGH-Unless there’s enough frontage. MR. RINGER-I think when you’re looking at this application the way our rules are, that we have to look at it as this is brand new before us and can’t say that they were there before. MR. STROUGH-I think the way they’re written is, they don’t want any more of this. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Right. MR. STROUGH-No more. MR. RINGER-If this were a new application, this wouldn’t be there. Maybe it would have been gone a long time ago. MR. STROUGH-But this exists and has some legality to its existence, and I think that has to be considered. I mean, you can’t tell them. MR. RINGER-I wish I could find a way to do it, but I can’t find a way. MR. VOLLARO-The docks are legal. I have to buy, the docks themselves are legal. The use of them, in my mind, is something that we’re grappling with here. That’s our problem. There’s two, pretty separate, discernable issues here. MR. STROUGH-The use has been historical, but I think the question. MR. VOLLARO-That doesn’t make it right, John, in my opinion. The historical use does not, at least in this case, I don’t think the historical use overrides that. MR. STROUGH-I read the intent of that recommendation a little differently. MR. MAC EWAN-Counsel, do you want to chime in with a thought or two? MS. RADNER-No. I think you’re right. You’re wrestling with it and it’s a test you have to decide. You’ve got to make the decision. I can’t make it for you. What you’re considering here is, is this use, using another rental dock space, going to have an impact on your community’s goals and plans. MR. VOLLARO-And as far as I’m concerned, the community’s goals and plans is stated in our Comprehensive Land Use Plan. That’s what I’m having a problem wrestling with. By ignoring this document, which we normally take as a guide on to this Board. See there’s a section in the Comprehensive Land Use Plan that I would certainly like probably our Staff and even our Town Board, I might add, to look at, and it says, it is recommended that the Town of Queensbury remove itself from the review of docks, except for the issuance of building permits. It is recommended that dock regulations be the responsibility of the Lake George Park Commission. When the rules were set up that we have to do this, I wonder if anybody who was involved in getting us involved in this, ever read that recommendation at all. I have a real problem with us being in this position when our Comprehensive Land Use Plan says we shouldn’t be. MR. MAC EWAN-Well, I think we all agree that that was our feelings when we first started out reviewing these two applications, but unfortunately this is the deal we’re dealt with, and we have to deal with it. MR. VOLLARO-Well, we could certainly petition the Town Board to take a much harder look at this. 34 (Queensbury Planning Board 8/15/02) MR. STROUGH-Well, I think there should be a moratorium on all marinas until the Town Code has been rewritten, at least rewritten, to accommodate us and people like the Smith’s and the Hopper’s. MR. RINGER-I would agree with that. It’s unfortunate that we’ve got an application before us and we’ve got to act on it. MR. STROUGH-Well, I know. MR. MAC EWAN-All right. We’ve got this hurdle here. How are we going to get over this hurdle here? Are we going to get around it, under it, or where are we? What are we going to do with it? MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I guess I kind of tend to agree with John, is the recommendation, as it’s written, is something that the Town’s striving for, not necessarily something that has to exist on every single parcel. MR. MAC EWAN-We’ve got two leaning that way. MR. HUNSINGER-Not only that, but it pre-exists the Comprehensive Plan. MR. VOLLARO-I’m sorry, I didn’t get that one. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, the condition pre-exists the Comprehensive Plan. MR. VOLLARO-It pre-exists the Comprehensive Plan from the position of the docks themselves. MR. HUNSINGER-Right, exactly. MR. VOLLARO-It doesn’t pre position itself with respect to the use. MRS. LA BOMBARD-To the use. MR. VOLLARO-And that’s what I’m struggling with. MRS. LA BOMBARD-You’re right. I know, Bob. MR. HUNSINGER-No, I understand. MRS. LA BOMBARD-You’ve really got a good point. MR. MAC EWAN-What do we do? MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, let’s go on to the next one. MR. MAC EWAN-We can’t go on to the next one until we come to some sort of resolution. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, I think this is where you could poll the Board. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s what I’m trying to do. I keep asking. I keep coming up with two people. I’m doing my job. MRS. LA BOMBARD-In other words, when I say poll the Board, I mean, I say, you know, if this is where you’re hung up, then there’s no way you can vote for this application. MS. RADNER-You’re just doing the SEQRA now. MRS. LA BOMBARD-But that’s what I’m saying, but if you really have a problem with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan and the use. MR. MAC EWAN-That doesn’t necessarily Pos Dec a SEQRA Finding. What I’m trying to get the Board is to a position, is there a way that we can work with that (lost word). MRS. LA BOMBARD-What John said, because everything, the use was in effect before the Comprehensive Land Use Plan. They were, other people were docking their boats at those docks than the owner, other people. MR. MAC EWAN-But Bob also raises a very good point, that the issue here is the docks were a pre-existing use, which is accurate. However, the use wasn’t a pre-existing use. It’s the way the Zoning Ordinance is written, and the way we are looking at the Comprehensive Land Use Plan in its entirety. So, I mean, that’s 35 (Queensbury Planning Board 8/15/02) where the struggle is. So somewhere along the line for us there’s got to be some sort of, for lack of a better way to put it, a middle of the road we could come up with on how to answer this question. MR. STROUGH-Well, if the Comprehensive Land Use Plan said there’ll be, it was the desire that we have no more barns on Ridge Road, and that a guy had a barn and he was using it as a barn and he came to us for approval of its use as a barn, we would make him take it down or not use it as a barn? MR. MAC EWAN-That’s not a very good analogy because he wouldn’t be coming in front of us for a Special Use Permit to use his barn as a barn. MR. STROUGH-Well, if the Town Code required that he get barns approved every five years, that they be special permitted. I’m just saying that you’ve got to give some weight to the fact that it’s preexisting, and it was used that way, and we’re in kind of a novel situation, and I think the intent of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan was to not have any more of these take place, no more. That’s it. You’ve got to put your foot down on that. I think that’s what the Comprehensive Land Use Plan is saying. You’ve got to put your foot down on these, no more of these. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, that’s all well and good, but when you think about the next step, which is really what we say we should be doing more of, is how do you begin to move it in the other direction? And that’s really where you begin to achieve your Comprehensive Plan. MR. STROUGH-Well, one thing that we can do, Chris, since this is new, is it gives us the option to place some kind of temporary nature to our approval. We can approve this in line with Lake George Park Commission’s approval and have this come back before us in five years, and see what direction we’re going. This is so new, I don’t want these people and the Hoppers to pay for something we’re wrestling with right now, that may need to be rewritten. MR. VOLLARO-Well, I heartily agree with that. I think we’re putting them under undo stress here. MR. HUNSINGER-And I think we need a discussion on that. MR. STROUGH-I for one, I don’t want to deal with anymore of, I’ll deal with these two, and I’ll give them, in my mind, approvals with some conditions, but I want to send a message to the Town Board that you guys have got to re-write this or do something with this. I don’t want to deal with another one of these things. MR. HUNSINGER-I agree. MR. RINGER-Wouldn’t it be easier to, if you feel that way and the Board concurs, to table this thing for a period of time until we go to the Town Board, telling them what our problems are and having them review it. MR. STROUGH-Well, I don’t know which is the best route. That certainly is a possibility. MR. MAC EWAN-I don’t know if that’s an appropriate thing to do. MR. VOLLARO-I think it’s very appropriate. MR. RINGER-Why wouldn’t that be appropriate, though, Craig? MR. VOLLARO-I think that’s appropriate. MR. RINGER-I mean, they’re looking at a possible denial right now. MS. RADNER-You’ve closed your public hearing. So you have 31 days after the hearing to render your decision. MR. RINGER-But we can table it. MS. RADNER-No. You have 31 days to render your decision. MR. MAC EWAN-If I opened up the public hearing again and left it open, then what’s the alternative? I’m not inclined to want to go this way, but I want to listen to the options. MS. RADNER-If the applicant agreed to it, it can also be extended or tabled, beyond the 31 days, but you do have a 31 day deadline built in here. MR. VOLLARO-I think all of the people, similar to the Hoppers and the Smiths, that are in the wings, are going to be coming up against this same problem, and putting them through this unnecessary ringer that we’re putting these people through, I think I’d like to take that 31 days if I need to, to get, and talk to the 36 (Queensbury Planning Board 8/15/02) Town Board about, and I hate to say this, but getting us off this hook, and let the Lake George Park Commission issue these permits themselves, as opposed to us issuing the permits. MR. STROUGH-Or have another Code that’s set aside, instead of a Class A Marina, call it a residential/marina, or something else. You’ve got it label Class A Marina, you know, that’s a pretty high standard. MR. MAC EWAN-I know. MR. VOLLARO-I agree with you, John. MR. MAC EWAN-And I think we are all in agreement. This is a really terribly bad idea. There’s no doubt about it, but, it’s something we have sitting in front of us and we have to deal with it. Let me ask you folks. If we were inclined to want to table your application and the Hopper application, and lobby our Town Board like crazy to amend this stupid permitting process, I’ll probably get kicked off the Board for this, but that’s the way I feel, would you be inclined to want to go that route, while we try to resolve this thing? Because this is like a Pandora’s Box. MR. RINGER-It looks like it’s going to go down tonight, if it comes to a vote. MR. MAC EWAN-The next thing you know we’re going to be trying to regulate the Mohican in Dunham’s Bay or something. MS. RADNER-Make sure your record reflects that you got consent not just from the applicants at the table, but from the other applicants. MR. MAC EWAN-Mrs. Hopper, do you guys feel the same way? MRS. HOPPER-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-I mean, there’s got to be some resolution we could come up to. I mean, the idea of parking cars up on Hanneford Road is not something I don’t think any Board member up here would support in his wildest imagination. MRS. HOPPER-Nobody wants to do this. MR. MAC EWAN-And we understand that, but to go through the gauntlet that we all are going through, not only you as applicants, but us as Planning Board members and Staff, it’s just ludicrous. It’s absolutely ludicrous. What I’ll do is re-open up the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING RE-OPENED MR. MAC EWAN-For the Smith application. I’ll entertain a motion. You know what I want to do? Here’s what we’ll do. Let’s take a ten minute recess, and I’d like Bob and Chris and John to pen an iron clad, tight lipped chain holding motion to table this thing and the direction we want to get from our Town Board, from Staff. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Let me understand, before we sit down and do that, Craig, the direction now is what we’d like to do is clearly send a message to this, from this tabling motion. MR. MAC EWAN-Counsel will help you on this, but I think the mission statement we need to get here is to seriously ask the Town Board to re-look or re-review this process that we are being asked to undertake for its practicality and us to be able to issue Special Use Permits for marinas that are “commercial” operations when they clearly are not, and to go through this exercise. How you put that into words, I really don’t care. MS. RADNER-I think you just did. You can vote now. MR. MAC EWAN-Let’s take ten and do it. MR. VOLLARO-I’d like to tie Craig’s idea to the Comprehensive Land Use Plan that says we shouldn’t be doing this. Their recommendation is don’t do it. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. Let’s take ten and you guys do that. All right. MR. VOLLARO-I’ll give it a shot. MR. MAC EWAN-Any time. 37 (Queensbury Planning Board 8/15/02) MOTION TO TABLE SPECIAL USE PERMIT NO. 1-2002, HAROLD & ELEANORE SMITH, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Strough Tabled with the consent of the applicants, because the Planning Board intends to request that the issue of the Special Use Permits for Class A Marinas be reviewed by the Town Board, and that the Town Board consider revising the Zoning Ordinance to be more in accord with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan (R.18, R.15) due to the inherent difficulties/conflicts between Zoning Ordinance as written and the application of the Ordinance, and the difficulty of applying the definitions created by the Lake George Park Commission to our Town’s Ordinance. Duly adopted this 15th day of August, 2002 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Strough, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Ringer, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Metivier MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. We’ll get an answer, hopefully, somehow, some way. All right. Next item on the agenda. SPECIAL USE PERMIT NO. 2-2002 TYPE: UNLISTED DAVID & JANE HOPPER PROPERTY OWNER: SAME AGENT: J. MARK NOORDSY MATTHEW FULLER ZONE: WR-1A LOCATION: 35 HANNEFORD ROAD & OFF PILOT KNOB RD. APPLICANT SEEKS TO ESTABLISH A MARINA INVOLVING THE RENTAL OF 5 BOAT SLIPS AND ASSOCIATED AMENITIES. MARINAS REQUIRE THE ISSUANCE OF A SPECIAL USE PERMIT BY THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 32-2002, SP 21-99, BP 99- 338 APA, CEA WARREN CO. PLANNING: 6/12/02 TAX MAP NO. 240.16-1-14 LOT SIZE: 0.43 ACRES SECTION: 179-10 MATTHEW FULLER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; JANE HOPPER, PRESENT MRS. LA BOMBARD-And the public hearings on June 20 and July 23 were tabled and left open. thrd MR. MAC EWAN-Can I save you folks a whole lot of time? MR. FULLER-Absolutely. MR. MAC EWAN-We’re interested in tabling this for the same reasons as the previous application. Do we have your concurrence? MR. FULLER-I believe yes. I’m Matthew Fuller, attorney for the Hoppers. MR. MAC EWAN-All right. What I’ll do is leave the public hearing open on this. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. MAC EWAN-Do I hear a motion to table, please? MOTION TO TABLE SPECIAL USE PERMIT NO. 2-2002, DAVID & JANE HOPPER, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Strough Tabled with the consent of the applicants, because the Planning Board intends to request that the issue of the Special Use Permits for Class A Marinas be reviewed by the Town Board, and that the Town Board consider revising the Zoning Ordinance to be more in accord with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan (R.18, R.15) due to the inherent difficulties/conflicts between Zoning Ordinance as written and the application of the Ordinance, and the difficulty of applying the definitions created by the Lake George Park Commission to our Town’s Ordinance. Duly adopted this 15th day of August, 2002 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Strough, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Ringer, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Metivier MR. MAC EWAN-Now, a question for Staff is how does Site Plan 27-2002 fit into this scheme of things? 38 (Queensbury Planning Board 8/15/02) MRS. LA BOMBARD-Applicant seeks approval of the reconfiguration of an enclosed peaked roof boathouse to a boathouse with a flat roof sundeck MR. MAC EWAN-It doesn’t really apply, does it? MRS. LA BOMBARD-No. MR. MAC EWAN-So we can advance forward with the site plan. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I think so. MR. MAC EWAN-Next item on the agenda. SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 27-2002 TYPE: UNLISTED DAVID & JANE HOPPER PROPERTY OWNER: SAME AGENT: J. MARK NOORDSY, MATTHEW FULLER ZONE: WR-1A LOCATION: 35 HANNEFORD ROAD & OFF PILOT KNOB RD. APPLICANT SEEKS APPROVAL OF THE RECONFIGURATION OF AN ENCLOSED PEAKED ROOF BOATHOUSE TO A BOATHOUSE WITH A FLAT ROOF/SUNDECK. THE PROPOSAL IS SIMILAR TO SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 21-99. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 32-2002, SP 21-99, BP 99-338 LGPC, APA, CEA WARREN CO. PLANNING: 6/12/02 TAX MAP NO. 240.16-1-14 LOT SIZE: 0.43 ACRES SECTION: 179-4-020 MATTHEW FULLER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; JANE HOPPER, PRESENT MRS. LA BOMBARD-And both public hearings were tabled. MR. MAC EWAN-Staff notes, minimal at best. MR. HILTON-We have no additional comments. There’s been no additional information. MR. MAC EWAN-It seems pretty simple, straightforward. MR. RINGER-I thought they didn’t want to go ahead with this until they got the approval on the other. That’s what they had said before. MR. FULLER-That was when we were on coordination under SEQRA. This is interesting. MS. RADNER-Yes. I think since the claim is now that the use isn’t changing at all, that you can probably do the SEQRA without concern. I think you’re safe to go forward. MR. MAC EWAN-We’ll move forward. Anything you wanted to add about it? MR. FULLER-Not unless you have questions. I’m fine. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Larry, we’ll start with you. Any questions on it? MR. RINGER-No. I’m trying to remember all the stuff. There was an Area Variance or Variance of some sort that you had to do, that you had to comply with in reducing the size or something. MR. FULLER-All those conditions would remain. MR. RINGER-I don’t have anything else. MR. MAC EWAN-Chris? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. MAC EWAN-John? MR. STROUGH-As part of the agreement, you’re going to take off that northern finger like projection? MRS. LA BOMBARD-Right. MR. STROUGH-And all the other things it says in these papers, I’m not ready yet. MR. FULLER-Yes. The conditions from the ZBA will, no change. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Should that be in the? 39 (Queensbury Planning Board 8/15/02) MR. STROUGH-Yes, I’ll condition it when I find the paperwork. MR. MAC EWAN-It’s probably already in the prepared resolution anyway. Bob? MR. VOLLARO-Based on what we’ve just gone through. I don’t have any major objections to this, no. This changing from the peaked to the flat roof has been going on on the lake for a long time. This is almost the kind of thing we could put on a fast-track that we’ve been thinking about with the Planning Staff. So I don’t have any comments. MR. MAC EWAN-Cathy? MRS. LA BOMBARD-Same, concur. MR. MAC EWAN-I’ll open the public hearing relative to this thing. Does anyone want to comment on this boathouse application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MAC EWAN-We need to do a SEQRA. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 27-2002, Introduced by Catherine LaBombard who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: DAVID & JANE HOPPER, and WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. No Federal agency appears to be involved. 2. The following agencies are involved: NONE 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury. 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant. 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law. Duly adopted this 15 day of August, 2002, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Strough, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Ringer, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Metivier MR. MAC EWAN-Do I hear a motion? 40 (Queensbury Planning Board 8/15/02) MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 27-2002 DAVID & JANE HOPPER, Introduced by Larry Ringer who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro: Site Plan Review No. 27-2002 Applicant: David & Jane Hopper Type: Unlisted Property Owner: Same Agent: J. Mark Noordsy, Matthew Fuller Zone: WR-1A Location: 35 Hanneford Road & off Pilot Knob Rd. Applicant seeks approval of the reconfiguration of an enclosed peaked roof boathouse to a boathouse with a flat roof/sundeck. The proposal is similar to Site Plan Review No. 21-99. Cross Reference: SUP 2-02, AV 32-02, SP 21-99, BP 99-338 LGPC, APA, CEA Warren Co. Planning: 6/12/02 Tax Map No. 240.16-1-14 Lot size: 0.43 acres / Section: 179-4-020 Public Hearing: June 20, 2002 WHEREAS, the application was received on 5/29/02; and WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation and inclusive of all newly received information, not included in this listing as of 8/12/02; and 7/23 Staff Notes 6/20 Planning Board resolution: tabled 6/20 Staff Notes 6/13 Notice of Public Hearing 6/12 Warren Co. Planning 6/5 Meeting Notice WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter 179, Zoning Ordinance, Section 179-103 of the Code of the Town of Queensbury a public hearing was advertised and was held on June 20, 2002 and July 23, 2002; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the Site Plan requirements of the Code of the Town Queensbury (Zoning); and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and WHEREAS, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; and/or if application is a modification, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered; and the proposed modification(s) do not result in any new or significantly different environmental impacts, and, therefore, no further SEQRA review is necessary; and WHEREAS, approval of the application means that the applicant can now apply for a Building Permit unless the lands are Adirondack Park Jurisdictional or other approvals are necessary. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that We find the following: The application is hereby approved in accordance with the resolution prepared by Staff and is subject to the following conditions: 1. That the ZBA approval for Area Variance 32-2002, all conditions of that be included in this approval, and 2. Also, that the site plan include the changes granted in the variance, and 3. All conditions are to be noted on the final approved plans submitted for the Zoning Administrator’s signature in a form to read as follows: Plans have been approved under authority of a resolution adopted 8/15/02 by the Planning Board of the Town of Queensbury, New York with the following conditions: 1. 41 (Queensbury Planning Board 8/15/02) Duly adopted this 15th day of August, 2002, by the following vote: MR. STROUGH-And does the ZBA resolution also include that it will relinquish in writing to Mr. Harris any and all interests that may? MR. RINGER-It says all the conditions are to be noted on a final approved plan submitted for the, wait a minute, maybe it doesn’t say that. I’m sorry I said yes to that. I don’t see it on here. No, it doesn’t say it on here. MR. MAC EWAN-Amend your motion that the ZBA requirements be met, and so noted, we want it on the plat, on the site plan drawing. MR. VOLLARO-It says here, it should be noted that as a condition of Area Variance 32-2002, the applicant has agreed to remove the finger dock which is actually located on the property to the north. MR. HILTON-I would ask for revised plans that show the dock being removed and also note which conditions are being met, from the ZBA variance approval. MR. MAC EWAN-Add that in. MR. RINGER-Okay. The condition one being that the applicant comply with all the requirements as set forth in the ZBA approval of Area Variance 32-2002. MR. STROUGH-Mr. Chairman, just a clarification. Could I ask the applicant, did the ZBA also require you to relinquish your adverse possession rights? MR. FULLER-I haven’t read that thing in a while. I think it was something we agreed to do because there was a question of the legality of enforcing that by the Town, as Counsel said earlier, but yes, it was. MR. HILTON-The way I understand it is there was a letter that you drafted on May 22, 2002. MR. FULLER-Right. MR. HILTON-That outlined the conditions they were willing to agree to, and in the ZBA motion they just referenced that letter. MR. FULLER-Okay. MR. HILTON-So what I’m saying is if you have a plan that outlines those conditions, submit it to Staff. MR. FULLER-I’ll submit you. MR. VOLLARO-Is that letter dated May 22, 2002, and it is indeed referenced in the motion to approve? MR. HILTON-In the ZBA motion. MR. VOLLARO-In the ZBA motion to approve. AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Strough, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Ringer, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Metivier MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set. MR. FULLER-Thank you very much. MR. MAC EWAN-Again, on behalf of the Board, I apologize for this gauntlet we all seem to be going through. MR. FULLER-Thank you for your patience. MR. MAC EWAN-Hopefully in the next couple of months we’ll have some sort of a resolution to the whole thing. MR. FULLER-Thank you. MR. RINGER-That’s why they call us the Board from hell. 42 (Queensbury Planning Board 8/15/02) MS. RADNER-I never called you that. MR. MAC EWAN-At least not on the record. All right. A couple of quick notes. Site visits Saturday morning, nine o’clock. MRS. LA BOMBARD-I can’t come, but I have a question, so when I go out. Where is Burch Road? MR. MAC EWAN-There’s a couple of Burch Roads. There’s Burch Road on Glen Lake. There’s a Birch Road up off of. MRS. LA BOMBARD-This is the one we have to go to, Burch, Christopher Connelly, the subdivision. MR. HILTON-You go down Luzerne Road. MR. MAC EWAN-Luzerne Road up, you know where the people, go past Van Dusen Road, heading west. MRS. LA BOMBARD-I know. MR. HILTON-And it’s on your right. MR. MAC EWAN-It’s just before the church. MR. RINGER-Up by you. MRS. LA BOMBARD-It’s off Van Dusen. MR. HILTON-Off Luzerne. MR. MAC EWAN-If you go out Van Dusen Road, okay, to Luzerne Road. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. What church, though? MR. MAC EWAN-There’s a Methodist church, a Baptist church up there. MRS. LA BOMBARD-All right. When I go out Van Dusen to Luzerne, do I go west? MR. HILTON-West. If you get to West Mountain, you’ve gone too far. I mean, it’s probably about a half mile, just. MRS. LA BOMBARD-I know where it is now. Now, where is 88 & 90 Glenwood, which one is that? MR. HILTON-It’s right across the street from Adirondack Nautilus. It’s two buildings, one’s a red building. MR. MAC EWAN-It’s where she had the hair place. MR. HILTON-Right. MR. MAC EWAN-Tammy what’s her name there had her hair salon there. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. I know where it is. MR. MAC EWAN-It’s now called the Advocate or something or other in there. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Is that Bolen? MR. HILTON-Yes. MRS. LA BOMBARD-That’s Bolen. He just wants to add, okay, now wait a second, where is Mason Road? MR. HILTON-That’s up on Cleverdale. MRS. LA BOMBARD-It’s Cleverdale, yes. Okay, and where’s Eagan? I saw that on the map. MR. HILTON-That’s Big Bay. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Big Bay. MR. HILTON-And when you get down about two miles it’s on the right. 43 (Queensbury Planning Board 8/15/02) MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-Are we all squared away now, Cathy? MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else? MRS. LA BOMBARD-Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Site visits, nine o’clock. If you promise it will be a very brief comment. JOHN SALVADOR MR. SALVADOR-Well, yes. Just a reminder. I served on the Town’s Comprehensive Planning Committee, and I was my observation that the Planning Board was conspicuously absent representation on that Committee, and I don’t know how many months it took me to convince Jim Martin and to convince this Board to send a representative to serve on that Committee. Remember Roger Ruel? MR. RINGER-Yes. Roger served on that Committee. MR. SALVADOR-Roger served on that Committee, reluctantly served on that Committee, okay, and before the Committee finished its work, I think he resigned from this Board, and then he was no longer serving on that board. So we finished that plan without representation from the Planning Board. It was always my contention that the Comprehensive Plan should have been prepared by the Planning Board, not some ragtag group of people that. MR. VOLLARO-You consider yourself part of the ragtag group, John? MR. SALVADOR-Well, seriously, planning is your mission, comprehensive planning is what the Planning Board is all about. They’ve got you bogged down in this project review. MR. RINGER-You have to make us full time employees, to find enough time for us to do that. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes, that’s the truth. MR. SALVADOR-Yes, well, I can understand, but a lot of thought went into that, and by the way, Mr. Vollaro, you read, repeatedly, that section about leaving to the Park Commission. It only applies to docks, not land use. The problem we have with the Commission back from the beginning is they got off of the lake and got up onto land use. That’s the conflict. That’s where you are today. MR. VOLLARO-I think the line of demarcation is there. We can say, we’ll take care of the upland section. You take care of the docks. There’s a nice clean line that defines that. MR. SALVADOR-Yes, that’s the mean low. MR. VOLLARO-That’s the mean low water mark. MR. SALVADOR-Yes, but land use involves marina use. MR. VOLLARO-Well, somebody’s going to have to clarify those regulations because I don’t think, you know, it’s not clear to me. What we don’t want to do is be our own worst enemy here in the way we word these things, otherwise this will never get resolved. MR. SALVADOR-Every job has its dirty side to it, and this is one of them. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, but I think this was dealt to us by somebody who decided that they didn’t want to handle their own laundry in this particular case. MR. SALVADOR-Well, I maintain land use is the purview of local government, not a State agency. MR. STROUGH-Well, I think one of the things that was in the Comprehensive Land Use Plan was that our Ordinance be in line with the Lake George Park Commission, I mean, as far as stormwater, that we are all on the same page. Well, this kind of got wrapped up in the same page, and I think this needs a little bit more attention. I mean, the stormwater. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I mean, the issue is, we were talking about when we were drafting the resolution, is, you know, if the intent of the new Zoning Ordinance is to never approve one of these Special Use 44 (Queensbury Planning Board 8/15/02) Permits, that’s really what’s going to happen, because I mean my reading of the Ordinance would never approve one. MR. SALVADOR-No, I don’t think that’s the intent. The idea is to get them into conformance. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. Exactly. MR. SALVADOR-That’s the purpose. MR. VOLLARO-You know, John, I think that the framers, the people who did all of this stuff, had no idea, when we actually put this into practice, whether this bird would fly or whether this dog would hunt. I don’t think they have any idea. MR. HUNSINGER-The conflict that we have is between a new land use, you know, someone new coming in that wants to build the docks and build a new marina, and, you know, the existing ones that are out there. I mean, clearly if it’s one in a real commercial enterprise, you know, we would make them conform, but all these little grandfathered residential docks where they’re renting out a dock. MR. MAC EWAN-And conversely along that, those residential docks have to comply with what the requirements of a commercial Class A Marina are by providing all the amenities that go along with it. That’s where you wrestle with it. That’s where you really wrestle with it, but anyway, there are elected officials who will now be the official wrestlers. MR. SALVADOR-I will be at that table. MR. MAC EWAN-I’ll bet you will. MR. SALVADOR-I’ll be there. MR. MAC EWAN-And I’ll be in the audience watching you. Site visits nine o’clock Saturday morning. If anybody can’t be here next Tuesday, please let me know. Tuesday after. MR. SALVADOR-This box is almost full. I don’t want to go on to a second. MRS. LA BOMBARD-I don’t blame you. MR. MAC EWAN-All right, let’s adjourn. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Craig MacEwan, Chairman 45