Loading...
1995-11-29 SP '-, n R , GIN Il/ QUEENS BURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SPECIAL MEETING NOVEM~ER 29, 1995 INDEX Use Variance No. 82-1995 Tax Map No. 13-3-19 Tax Map No. 13-2-20 Tax Map No. 13-2-21 John Brock Mooring Post Marina 1 . Area Variance No. 83-1995 Tax Map No. 13-3-19 Tax Map No. 13-2-20 Tax Map No. 13-2-21 John Brock Mooring Post Marina 1 . THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE S~BJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTHS MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE $UCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES. ," 1/ ,. .~ A "'-. ,,,,,-/ (Queensbury 18'Ä MeetIng "11/29')95) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOA~b OF APPEALS SPECIAL MEETING NOVEMBER 29, 1995 7:00 P.M. !I MEMBERS PRESENT FRED CARVIN, CHAIRMAN CHRIS THOMAS, SECRETARY BONNIE LAPHAM WILLIAM GREEN ROBERT KARPELES DAVID MENTER THOMAS FORD EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR-JAMES MARTIN CODE COMPLIANCE OFFICER~JOHN GORALSKI PLANNER-SUSAN CIPPERLY ATTORNEY REPRESENTING ZBA-JON LAPPER STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI NEW BUSINESS: USE VARIANCE NO. 82-1995 TYPE I WR-1A CEA JOHN BROCK MOORING POST MARINA OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE WESTERN SIDE OF CLEVERDALE ROAD, NORTH OF THE INTERSECTION WITH MASON ROAD APPLICANT SEEKS TO EXPAND A PRE-EXISTING, NONCONFORMING MARINA IN A WATERFRONT RESIDENTIAL - ONE ACRE ZONE. ACCORDING TO SECTION 179-79, A NONCONFORMING USE MAY BE INCREASED ONLY BY VARIANCE GRANTED BY THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. (ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY) (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) 10/11/95 TAX MAP NO. 13-3-19 TAX MAP NO. 13- 2-20 TAX MAP NO. 13-2-21 LOT SIZE: 0.65, 0.16, 1.96 ACRES SECTION 179-79 TOM NACE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; JOHN BROCK, PRESENT AREA VARIANCE NO. 83-1995 TYPE II WR-1A CEA JOHN BROCK MOORING POST MARINA OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE WESTERN SIDE OF CLEVERDALE ROAD, NORTH OF THE INTERSECTION WITH MASON ROAD APPLICANT SEEKS TO CONSTRUCT COMMERCIAL BOAT STORAGE BUILDINGS ON A PRE-EXISTING, NONCONFORMING SITE, AND SEEKS RELIEF FROM THE REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 179-16, WATERFRONT RESIDENTIAL - ONE ACRE ZONE. (ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY) (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) 10/11/95 TAX MAP NO. 13-3-19 TAX MAP NO. 13-2-20 TAX MAP NO. 13-2-21 LOT SIZE: 0.65, 0.16, 1.96 ACRES SECTION 179-16 TOM NACE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; JOHN BROCK, PRESENT MR. CARVIN-We have a lot on the agenda this evening. So before we get started, I'd like to try to make this as simple as possible, as to the format. With regard to this particular application, there are essentially three parts. The first part is what we call the SEQRA, which is an environmental study that has to be conducted before we can get to Part II, which would be the Use Variance, and Part III which would be the Area Variance. Now under SEQRA law, as I understand it, we have cert.ain criteria and certain guidelines that we have to look at. Under SEQRA, we do not necessarily have to have a public hearing. However, one of the questions that we have to answer has to do with public controversy, so that it is my feeling that it is very important that we have a public hearing. Now we have noticed, this evening, a meeting. In other words, many of you have received notification that the Zoning Board of Appeals would meet. However, due to a snafu, there has been no public advertising of - 1 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/29/95) the public hearing. Now what does this mean to ~ folks? What this means is that we still can move on the SEORA. We have to move on the SEQRA first before we can, as I said, get to the other parts. There are two parts to SEQRA. There is the Part. I which the applicant fills out, and then there is the Part II, which the Boayd, which is a lis~ of questions that this Board, as lead agency, and we have been granted lead agency status, has to determine its relevance. The first thing that we have to do under the SEQRA procedure is to make sure that we have a complet.ed Part I, that all the pertinent information that this Board feels that we require or need to allow us to look at Part II has been completed. Because the public hearing, I think, is an integral part of that, it's going to be very difficult for us to move on Part II without the public hearing. Now we have to notice the public hearing. There will be a public hearing on this i$sue. However, we do have to notice it. We will have to determine a date that this Board can meet, giving proper time for proper notice. Now I realize many of you have come out this evening hoping and anticiP?ting to make public comment. We will not have any public comment tonight. Now we still will ask the applicant, this Board, and some of the other involved agencies, we still can ask him questions and seek information as to the Part I, but because we have not legally advertised the public hearing, I cannot take any comments from the public until that particular aspect is taken care of. Well, my hands are tied as far as the U$e and thel,Area Variance are concernedJ because I've got to get through S~QRf1¡ firs,t before we can address those issues, and the ,Use and Area Vari~nce crit.,(Hia demand we have to have a public h~ar iog the?r,e. No.w as I said before, we do not necessarily have to have a public hearing, as far as the SEQRA. I feel very strong, and I'm hoping that the Board will support me in this, that I think t.hat we definitely need public input as far as this particular SEQRA is concerned. Now, the rest of the format, as I said, what we will do is, any questions that this Board has this evening will only pertain to the SEQRA. In other words, we do not necessarily have to look at any of the Use or Area Variance criteria. Some of them are simultaneous. In other words, there is an overlapping here. You can't separate on all cases, but there are some issues under Use and Area that are not necessar i ly (¡:overed ,under SEORA. So, agai n, I'm goi ng to emphasize that we should k~,ep ourçisçu,ssion and our questions relevant to the SEQRA only. What I will do at this point, or the format that I'm hoping to use here is that this Board will go through the Part I. We will take a look at the Part II, hopefully everybody's got the Part II. I know L have a number of questions of the applicant, try to format. that. After we are satisfied then I'm also going to ask for some input from the Planning Board. Now the Planning Board is acting as a consultant and an advisor to the Zoning Board, with regard to the SEQRA. Now they have met a couple of times, and I do have some information and some of their concerns and some of their findings, which again we will address. I will also ask Planning Staff if they will read into the record what their relevant points are, with regard to the SEORA. I also have some information, I think, from the Lake George Park Commission, which we'll put in. I then will schedule another meeting for the public hearing, and at that public hearing, we'll entertain any of your comments. Now, for those of you who cannot make the public hearing when it is scheduled, if you have not done so, I would strongly request and ask that you put your comments in writing and address them to the Planning Department, because as I said, when we get. to the public hearing, those comments and your comments will be taken into consideration. Are there any quest.ions of the Board of this procedure? Okay. MICHAEL O'CONNOR MR. O'CONNOR-Mr. Chairman, may I ask a question of you? - 2 - '- '-" (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/29/95) MR. CARVIN-No. I'm not having any public questions or comments or anything. If the Board has a question of our procedure, then I will entertain that from the Board, but I cannot take any public comment. If you have a question, I would refer you to Pls.nni ng and if they feel it's relevant orsomethi ng they feel we need addressed, then they can make us known of that. MR. O'CONNOR-My'question is basic. My question is why the Town Board is not an in~olved agency. MR. CARVIN-That may be addressed undet the Planning Staff notes. I do not. know. MR. O'CONNOR-That is a question. MR. CARVIN-You don't know whether it's a question or not, because they haven't gotten to that procedure. That may be an item that is raised. My point is, let us do our procedure, and then at the publ ic hear i ng , if you take exception to whatw'e have done, then you will have the opportunity to voice that opinion. 'MR. O·CONNOR....AIl right. I take exception, on the record. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Now. RESOLUTION ACKNOWLEDGING LEAD AGENCY STATUS IN CONNECTION WITH USE VARIANCE. AREA VARIANCE, SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR THE MOORING POST MARINA RESOLUTION NO: INTRODUCED BY: Fred Carvin WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Thomas Ford WHEREAS, in connection with the Mooring Post Marina Use Variance. Are4 V~riance and Site Plan Review project, the Town of Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals, by resolution previously authorized the Executive Director to notify other involved agencies of the desire of the Zoning Board of Appeals to conduct a coordinat.ed SEORA Review, and WHEREAS, the Executive Director has advised that other involved agencies have been notified and have consented to the Town of Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals being lead agency, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Appeals hereby recognizes itself of SEORA Review. of Oueensbury Zoning as lead agency for the Board of purpose Duly adopted this 29th day of November, 1995, by the following vot.e: AYES: Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Green, Mr. Menter, Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Ford, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Carvin NOES: NONE MR. CARVIN-As I have indicated, you all should be in possession of a Part I, and I'm assuming a Part II of an Environmental, the SEQRA report. All right. Now as I said, we will not necessarily go through all the Part II, but you can use it as a referénce, - 3 - --- --' (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/29/95) certainly, if you have questions, with regard to any information that's contained on Part I. MR. MARTIN-Fred, might it be a relevant time for us to read our Staff Notes on this? MR. CARVIN-Yes. I think it probably would be. Why don't we let Staff read their comments in, and then we can add to those. MR. GORALSKI-"In an effort to assist in the review of the potential environmental impacts of this proposal, the Communit.y Development staff has reviewed Part 2 of the Full Environmental Assessment Form. Our comments are based on Part I of the EAF submitted by the applicant and our own knowledge of the environmental conditions in that area. The Board should be aware that the responses to Part I are subject to verification and are accurate to the best of the applicant's knowledge. 1. IMPACT ON LAND There will be a physical change to the site. The depth to the water table is reported by the 'qpplicant to be less than 4'. This could represent a potential impact but can be mitigated by designing stormwater management facilities ,that will provide a rate of recharge that is equal to the pre-development conditions. 2. IMPACT ON WATER The project will not have any impact on any water body designated as protected under Article 15, 24, 25 of the ECL. The project may ~a~e an impact on .'non-protected water body. Although the project does not exceed any of the thresholds listed on the EAF, the potential increase in the number of boats launched from the site could have a small impact. A determination of the maximum number of boats to be sto)-ed would assure that this would be a small andlor insignificant impact. The impact on groundwater appears to be small to moderate and any impact can be mitigated by proper stormwater management practices as ,are typically required for Site Plan approval. The project. will alter drainag~ flows' ,and pat,terns. However, proper stormwater management practices should mitigate any significant negative impact." Now, at this point, I want to' divert from this prepared statement a little bit to point out that there is shown on the plan that was submitted a 15 inch pipe that crosses Cleverdale Road. If, in fact, that is part of the final plan, an easement will be required from the Town Board in order to do that, and then the Town Board would become an involved agency, if that remains part of the plan. They would have to consent to the lead agency status and be given the opportunity to make any comments. "3. IMPACT ON AIR There does not appear to be any significant impact on air quality related to this project. There may be some additional use of the diesel powered forklift as a result of this project, but, this should not significantly change the air quality from current levels. If this is a concern, an alternate fuel could be used. 4. IMPACTS ON PLANTS AND ANIMALS The proPosal should not affect any threatened or endangered species or any non-threatened or non-end,ngered species to any significant degree. 5. IMPACT ON AGRICULTURAL LAND RESOURCES There are no agricultural lands involved in this project. 6. IMPACT ON AESTHETIC RESOURCES This project is obviously different from the existing surrounding land use patterns. The size of the st.ructure proposed makes it different from the existing marina use. The applicant has proposed a berm along Mason Road and an extensive landscaping plan to minimize the impact of the large building. This impact could also be minimized by changing the location of the building on the site or perhaps constructing multiple smaller buildings that would accommodate the same amount of storage capacity. It might be helpful for the Board to utilize the Visual EAF. 7. IMPACT ON HISTORIC AND ARCHEOLOGICAL RESOURCES There does not appear to be any impact on any historic or archaeological resources. 8. IMPACT ON OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION The project site has been a marina for many years. This proposal will not change that basic use. 9. IMPACT ON TRANSPORTATION The impact on transportation - 4 - ~, ~ (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/29/95) is directly related to the parking patterns on the site and the pot.ential for more vehicle trips due to the project. The applicant is proposing 15 new parking spaces in addition to the existing 93 spaces. There is also the potential for parking vehicles in the building after the boats are removed from the ground level. Using a standard 9' wide space, as many as 36 additional vehicles could be stored in the building. There has been much discussion regarding the number of boats stored on the site previously and how many will be stored as a result of the project. The applicant has st.ated that there have been between 120 and 140 boats stored and that this number will not change. If t.his number is accurate, the parking pyovided far exceeds the 1 space for every 1 1/2 boats stored. The other issue related to transportation is the potential for problems caused by moving boats from the storage building to the lake. If, as the applicants said, there is not. going to be an increase in the numbef of boats stored or in the amount of "quick launch" then this proposal should not create tYaffic problems above the existing level. 10. IMPACT ON ENERGY The proposal should not affect the community's sources of fuel or energy supply. 11. NOISE OR ODOR IMPACT The only odors or noise that could be produced as a result of this project will come ftom the "quick launch" operation. As with the parking, ti.hi!s will d'ì"lly be a problem if there is a significant increase in the number of boats launched. 12. IMPACT ON PUBLIC HEALTH There does not appear to be any significant impact on public health. Some people have raised concerns related to the potential fire hazard created by storing boats with full gas tanks. A letter from the Fire Marshal indicates that there does not appear to be any code requirements for a fire suppression system or a fire alarm for this new construction. It would be advi~able to require some type of fire alarm so that t.he fire department can be altered as early as possible in the event of an emergency. 13. IMPACT ON GROWTH AND CHARACTER OF COMMUNITY OR NEIGHBORHOOD The project does not appear to meet any of the thresholds described on the EAF. 14. PUBLIC CONTROVERSY Based orl the amount of letters received to date, it is obvious that there is substantial public controversy regarding this project. CONCLUSION It appears that there are several potentially large adverse environmental impacts regarding this project. Those impacts include: stormwater runoff, traffic, visual impact., pot.ent.ial for fire, impact on air quality, and impact on water quality. Most of these impacts can be' better defined with additional information regarding the number of boats "quick launched" ,from tne ;si te. The applicant should provide factual evidence of the pre-development condition to support the claim that there will be no increase in activity. Other impacts related to the actual size of the proposed structure can be mitigated by changes in the project." !-~ ¡ ¡ i ci MR. CARVIN-Okay. Could I have a lit.tle more information on the Town Board agen~y ~i~uatio~, ple~~~. MR. GORALSKI-Yes. If you notice, the stormwater management system shows a 15 inch pipe that ç'rÖsses Cleverdale ~oad,)If you look on your plan. MR. CARVIN-Okay. MR. GORALSKI-My understanding is that is a proposed pipe and there is no existing easement. across Cleverdale Road. If that's the case, and that pipe is installed, an easement would be required from the Town of Queensbury in order to install that ÞiÞ~~ and therefore the Town Board would have involvement in the project, and would be an in0~I0~d agency. MR. MARTIN-The Town Board is: the Only agency in the Town'that:. can accept such an easement. - 5 - '../ (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/29/95) MR. CARVIN-Okay. Well, I will ask Mr. Brock, is there a pipe t.here now? MR. BROCK-We have a water pipe that goes across there now, yes. Our water comes from the lake and comes up across, but it's not a drainage pipe for runoff. MR. CARVIN-So this pipe that you're proposing here would be in addition to that pipe would it? MR. BROCK-Yes, that would be in addition to it. MR. CARVIN-Okay. MR. BROCK-That can be re-located in another parcel. We do not perceive that as a problem, but that can be, those holding tanks, the tanks can be moved over on the side lot, over into this area over here, along side the boats. It can be put over there also, and it wouldn't have to go across the road. MR. MARTIN-I think it needs to be decided if that is, in fact, a project change. If that is a project change, and soon to be, from this point on, we need to see documentation to that effect, and then that should be figured in to the resulting stormwater management calculations that are yet to be provided. MR. CARVIN-Okay. So we need to have regard to that particular situation. Town of Queensbury. additional information in We also should request the MR. LAPPER-Not if they're going to change it. MR. MARTIN-If they are, in fact, going to change it, then that issue goes away, but if they don't, then we need Town Board concurrence on lead agent status. MR. CARVIN-Okay. So we will need additional information there. Okay. Are there any other comments? MR. GORALSKI-Well, you have in your packet the letter from Kip Grant the Fire Marshal, and I can answer any questions if you want some clarification on any of the items. MR. CARVIN-Okay. The only thing that I have highlight.ed with regard to that letter is "Regarding boat storage, the Standard regulates or prohibits certain uses - such as repairs and battery charging;and storage - of liquid fuels, LP gas, and charcoal. The Standard also sets down requirements for portable fire extinguishers and governs heaters, torches, etc." Are there any of these activities currently occurring that might be prohibited by the Standards, as far as the fire codes are concerned? MR. BROCK-Not the new storage buildings. MR. CARVIN-Not in the storage buildings. t.he other area that I had is, that there fire suppression in the proposed buildings. Okay, and continuing, is no provisions for Is that co,-rect? MR. GORALSKI-I'm sorry? MR. CARVIN-In other words, the Code doesn't require fire suppression, but are there any plans for fire suppression in your program? MR. BROCK-We plan a portable fire extinguisher. MR. CARVIN-Just portable. - 6 - ......... -'" (Queensbury ZSA Meeting 11/29/95) MR. BROCK-Yes, a portable fire extinguisher. MR. MARTIN-It's Staff's position that it would require at least a fire alarm system that, I systems available that provide an alarm right at directly. That would shorten the response time. be advisable to thi nk there's the firehouse MR. CARVIN-Okay, but that would have more bearing on the Use or Area Variance, would that be correct? MR. LAPPER-Those are SEQRA.' MR. CARVIN-Those are SEQRA requirements? MR. GORALSKI-Under Public Health and Safety. MR. CARVIN-Public He.lth and Safety. Okay. MR. FORD-Is there a plan for a detection device or devices? MR. BROCK-Yes. We will install, as requestéd by the Department, we install and provide to the firehouse, so they are not.ified. MR. FORD-That really doesn't address the issue of detection. In other words, I'm not sure how that response is ~oing to be sent in, or the call would be sent in. MR. BROCK-Okay. MR. NACE-My name is Tom Nace from Haanen Engineering. There will be a detection system with an automatic dialer on the phone line which will notify the firehouse. MR. FORD-Is that noted? MR. NACE-No, that is not noted in the present information you ha~e in front of you. So that will be. MR. FORD-Okay. So that is documentation that we could receive? MR. NACE-We will add that. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Are there any other planning comments or concerns that you feel should be addressed at this point? MR. MARTIN-I think you have all of ours on SEORA at this time. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Well, do you gentlemen and ladies have any comments with regard to any of the Part I, where you feel you need more information or explanation? MRS. LAPHAM-No, not at this time. MR. GREEN-You're asking for questions about Part I that Mr. Srock filled out? MR. CARVIN-That's correct. MR. GRËEN-I think I had something here. No, I guess not. I'm sorry. I thought. I did. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Well, you'll have plenty of opportunity. Dave? MR. MENTER-One thing I just wanted to get cleared up is the par ki ng, not necessar i 1 y the whole issue, but just the par'ki ng numbers. There's a discrepancy, the Staff notes that L received are still looking at 93 existing, expanding to 108, and on your figures here, I have 148 existing, and staying at 148, where is - 7 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/29/95) the difference? MR. NACE-Okay. We intended to show the maximum possibly parking that. could occur. A lot of the parking that's already there and is proposed will be on lawn areas and grassed areas, mostly on t.he lake parcel. What we have added, I believe, are 15 possible parking spaces, if needed, on the lawn area immediately north of the main sales building, okay. We've also noted there is additional overflow parking available, once the boats are launched, in the lower rack storage in the buildings. It's intended that we're not going to construct anything to put in those additional 15 parking spaces. It's just area that's available that could be used if the need arises. I think there was some feeling of the Staff and the agencies, not having a good handle on what's really necessary for parking for quick launching services, whether we need one for every boat, or whether we need two for every three boats, or however many. We simply intend to show what. the maximum could be available if needed. MR. MENTER-So, Staff, is that your interpretation difference lies in the number of spaces that are parcel that are outlined are defined as spaces now, t.hat could be added if you need to? to it, the on the lake versus ones MR. GORALSKI-The counts I took was the ones that were actually shown on the plan. My guess was, when I read this, was that the additional spaces were the ones that they're talking about that could potentially be inside the building, ~nd I would say that's probably where the discrepancy is. MR. MENTER-But you're saying, in addition, there's additional spaces in that lake parcel that could be? MR. NACE-On the lake parcel? No. on the plan what is possible possible. The la ke on that parcel we have shown parcel, the maximum MR. MENTER-The difference, I mean, 148 spaces to 93 spaces. Ninety-three is the Staff's existing parking number. MR. GORALSKI-If you look on the parking plan that was submitted, there are 93 spaces labeled as existing parking, and 15 spaces labeled as proposed parking. MR. CARVIN-Okay, those 93 existing, are they delineated or are they just an approximation number parked on the grass, that you could par k 93? MR. NACE-They're actually delineated. MR. CARVIN-They're are delineated. MR. NACE-And I apologize, what's shown in Part I appears to be correct, but the latest and most accurate information is what's on the plan. The plan itself has the correct tabulations, what the total number of spaces available are, also referring t.o the possible additional spaces beyond that, inside storage areas. MR. MARTIN-Fred, if I might make a suggestion before we get much farther into this, I think it would be a good idea to, we'll keep good notes on this, but to require a new Part I, if there are, in fact, errors, or updates to the existi ng Part I. I thi nk it would be advisable, as one of the requirements before the evening is finished, that we agree to a submission of a new Part I. So the Board has accurate information in front of you. MR. CARVIN-I think that makes a lot of sense. - 8 - "-' ~ (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/29/95) MR. MENTER-So the variable, then, is just the parking that will be inside, the additional parking that you can fit on the ground inside. MR. NACE-I wouldn't say, I would say that the Part I information that you see in front of you there is wrong. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Give me a land reference here. What numbeT are we talking about, on t.his Part I? MR. MENTER-B, Page Three, B1F, down near the bottom. ~R. CARVIN-Okay. Thank you. Okay, so that the 148 is incorrect, and it should be? MR. FORD-We'll find that out on the new application. MR. THOMAS-Yes, w~en he re-submits. MR. MARTIN-I think what we basically want to come up with is, what~ver we have as information on the Site Plan coincides with the information on Part I, and vice versa. MR. CARVIN-That.'s correct. Okay. Anything else, Dave? MR. MENTER-Yes, for right now, one other question. The, on Page 4, Number 19 and Number 20 "Will the project routinely produce odors", and then the noise issue is 20. What is the difference in equipment that will be used, due to the storage structure, you know, the size of the equipment, the type of the equipment? MR. BROCK-In racking the boats, we would be using a fork truck to lift them up, put them on a rack, take the off the rack and set them on a plat.form, and the tractors would continue to pick them up off the platform and take them to the lake, okay. So the main difference in equipment will be the use of the fork truck to take them off from the back of the building down to the front. That's being done by a tractor that we have now. The boats are allover the yard, and then:we have a diesel tractor that goes and gets the boats and brings them back and put.s them in the lake. We do have a diesel fork truck and a gasoline fork truck that would be used to take them off the rack. MR. MENTER-The same fork truck that you've been using, or? MR. BROCK-Those trucks we use around the yard we don't have those on an every day basis for racking. We do use them, but not on an every day basis for racking the boats. MR. MENTER-So that's equipment that's there? MR. BROCK-That's equipment that is there, yes. MR. FORD-But not curréntly in use? MR. BROCK-I should say moderately in use. occasion to pick up boats, bigger boats, that what you want to put on a tractor. We use them on are heavier than MR. FORD-Do you anticipate an expanded use of that? MR. BRÖCK-The use of that equipment will increase, but at the same time, the use of the tractor will decrease. The diesel tractor won't be running as much, then the other truck will be running a little bit more, because the one fork truck will bring the boat to this position, and then the tractor will take it to the lake. Right now, the tractor has to'gó all the way to the end of the property to get the boat, and then come back. So - 9 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/29/95) there will be less use of one, and more of another. MR. FORD-Sometimes I have a little difficulty visualizing this as you shift from one vehicle to another. One of the things I would like to call for is some sort of documentation, so that I can review it and look at it, and make sure I know which vehicle we're referring to and how much it's going to increase or decrease in use. MR. BROCK-We'll furnish that. MR. CARVIN-Okay. they? All these vehicles are all gas powered, are MR. BROCK-No. I have one gas powered fork truck and two gas powered tractors, I should say, a tractor and a tug. I have one diesel powered fork truck and one diesel powered tractor right now. MR. CARVIN-Okay, but you're indicating that, and correct me if I'm wrong, as the use of one goes up, the use of the other goes down. All right. Can you give me, is there a significant difference between the odors produced by a diesel engine, as opposed to a gas engine, and if so which one is going to be increasing, and which one is going to be decreasing? MR. BROCK-Pretty much, we use the diesel tractor primarily right now for the bulk of the use. That will continue the same amount. of use, taking boats to the water, but it'll be used less in the back and the diesel fork truck will be used more in the back yard. So it's almost an overlap. It would be using one diesel more and the other diesel less. Those are the two trucks being used, the two vehicles that are being used the most. MR. CARVIN-Well, wait a minute. diesel? You've got two gas and two MR. BROCK-Yes, and primarily the diesel fork truck will be used in the building, with the back up of the gas fork truck, and right now the diesel tractor is used with the back up of the gas tractor. MR. CARVIN-Okay. So you don't anticipate any expanded use, then. I think that was Tom's question. MR. BROCK-No. We don't. I anticipate the same number of quick launch boats. We have had, in the past, up to 130 to 140 quick launch customers, launching ,on any given time a maximum of probably 80 on weekends. Now when I say 80 on weekends, I don't mean 80 on Friday and 80 on Saturday. I mean, maybe we would put 40 in on Friday and 40 in on Saturday. Okay. That was the maximum. Now, most of the time yo~ only put 30 or 40 boats in, okay, but you could, on a very good, hot weekend, long weekend, like the 4th of July, end up with as many as 70 boats, or 80 boats gone from the Ma,"ina, at one time. MR. CARVIN-Okay, but I still am trying to determine, again, I'm thick and I'm slow tonight, but I think you indicated the use of one would go down and the other would go up. MR. BROCK-With a rack building, okay, the use of the fork truck will go up. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Is the fork truck diesel or gas? MR. BROCK-That's a diesel. MR. CARVIN-That's a diesel. All right. So that one will go - 10 - -- --- (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/29/95) down? MR. BROCK-Go up. We'll be using that one more. MR. CARVIN-Okay. So diesel's up. What's going down? MR. BROCK-The diesel tractor. MR. CARVIN-The diesel tractor will go down. about the gas? All right. What MR. BROCK-They will remain about the same. MR. CARVIN-Is one bigger than the other? MR. BROCK-The diesel fork truck is bigger than the gas fork t.ruck, yes. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Is it safe to assume that the fork truck is the more noisy? MR. BROCK-I would say, yes, the diesel truck is noisier. I have checked with the factories, that the truck can be quieted down, as they've done on the west coast, by adding resonators and different muffler systems to it. I have called, and that stuff's available, and they're sending me the information to do that. So those diesel trucks can be quieted down a lot. I have just found out more about this in the past couple of weeks. MR. FORD-When you 'document your vehicular use, if it intention to modify them for noise purposes, would you indicate that? is your please MR. BROCK-Yes. MR. FORD-And by the same token, if you don't intend to, also indicate that. MR. BROCK-We intend: to. We've already gotten that stuff underway. We'll document that. MR. MARTIN-Before we leave the parking issue, I have a couple of questions. I just want to clarify, on the west side of Cleverdale Road, there's a parking area shown for 15 spaces of parking. I'd note that the parking on the northerly most side of that lot döes go on to lot number, Tax Map Parcel No. 13-3-20. That has been a residential lot, and so therefore, the proposal is expansion of parking into that lot, in a formal manner. MR. NACE-It is my uhderstanding that that lot has been used over the past as part of the boat business. The northernmost lot to the north of that (lost words). MR. MARTIN-And then on the east side of Cleverdale Road, the large parking there, the 44 spaces, those are double stacked spaces. I assume, then, that the access to that northerly most row of spaces, you park those first., and then you park in that, because there's no access aisle shown. MR. BROCK-Yes. The way that.'s done, normally, those are used only on a busy weekend, and what we do is when someone comes in and parks there, to have anybody that parks behind them leave their key and move the cars accordingly, so that, that's how they get out. There is no access to the other side. In fact, thâ're's a row of hedges and some timbers down through there that you can't. go through there. MR. MARTIN-It might be a good idea to note those hedges on the - 11 - -' (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/29/95) plan. MR. CARVIN-Okay. I'd also like some clarification on, I think we might need a determination on that residential lot. That's also, there's a house on there. Is that correct? MR. MARTIN-That's the northerly most lot. There's actually three lots there. The northerly most lot where it says, existing house, okay, then there's a 50 foot lot. immediately to the south, that carries the Tax Map Parcel No. 13-3-20, and then there's the larger lot to the south again, 13-3-21, that has t.raditionally been the Marina site. The 13-3-20 is the one I think you're speaking about. MR. CARVIN-Okay. All right. I don't have a problem with that. MR. FORD-May I come back to the vehicles again. When you address the issue of the noise suppression, would you also address the issue of the beepers that sound automatically in reverse? MR. CARVIN-Do the current vehicles have beepers? MR. BROCK-None of the vehicles have beepers on them at this time. MR. CARVIN-I'm assuming you're anticipating a change there? MR. BROCK-I have not, unless they are requested. requested, we'll put them on. If they're MR. CARVIN-Let me ask you this. Who would make such a request? MR. BROCK-A Board beepers would add objectionable by the They don't have them other marinas have. around the lake area. or someone else. I mean, I feel that the to the noise in t.he neighborhood and be neighbors. OSHA does not require them. on the other trucks and equipment that the Nobody is running the beepers right now MR. CARVIN-Okay. vehicles? Let me ask you this. How old are these MR. BROCK-Early 70's. The most recent vehicle, tractor was bought in 1986, I think it was. That would be the newest. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Are new vehicles required to have the beepers, if you were to replace those? MR. BROCK-Depending on the use and the area they are used in. MR. CARVIN-Because I, and again, I'm not in the construct.ion business, but I know that whenever you buy a new piece of construction equipment, I believe it's now mandatory that you have a beeper. I would like an answer to that, because even though your current vehicles do not have beepers, if they're 20 years old, and I don't know what the life expectancy of a forklift i$, it may be 100 years for all that I know, but at some point, they may have to be replaced, and that may have a significant impact, at some point in the future. So I guess I'd like some kind of determination as to whether that's now mandatory law of some sort. Does Staff know? MS. CIPPERLY-Would you like some documentation from OSHA? MR. CARVIN-Well, I just want to know if new equipment is automatically manufactured, like the seat belt bingers, that you used to be able to disconnect them, and now you car doesn't work. MR. MARTIN-The other question in that regard, is there any - 12 - --- '-' (Oueensbury ZBA Meeting 11/29/95) electric fork trucks of a sufficient size and capacity to meet your needs? MR. BROCK-I don't know of anything electric that would meet the needs. Gasoline trucks are available, if this had to be replaced, it could be replaced with a gasoline truck. MS. CIPPERLY-How about for going across the road, the tractor, that's what uses diesel. MR. BROCK-That also uses diesel, yes. MS. CIPPERLY-But is there any other way? MR. BROCK-I have looked into other ways of replacing those tractors to make it easier on the neighbors, direct neighbors, to either replace them with gasoline type tUgs, or a gasoline engine, to replace that tractor. That tractor was bought, it's efficient, it does the job, not realizing that there was going to be a problem with diesel fuel back in the early 80's, and I had talked to the neighbors and mentioned that fact that I would,' and I was looking at another tractor, and I was going to look for something other than a diesel. I planned on doing that.. MR. KARPELES-How about propane? Have you explored that? MR. BROCK-I don't know of any propane t.ractors. propane. They do make MR. KARPELES-Fork trucks, a lot of fork trucks. MR. BROCK-Yes, I know that. would need. I'm not sure on the size of what we MR. KARPELES-I've got a couple of questions. On Item Number 17 on Page Three. "18 the site served by existing public utilities, and no is checked. I can't believe that's right. MR. NACE-We normally address those public as utilities, water, sewer, when we're doing a SEORA, assuming that every place is served by electric. So, obviously, there is electric utility to that site. MR. KARPELES-Jim, concerned? is that satisfactory as far as you're MR. MARTIN-It's really what the Board feels comfortable with. MR. NACE-We can modify that. MR. KARPELES-Well, it just doesn't sound right. MR. MARTIN-I've always done it as electric power, water, sewer, but, Tom, I can understand why he'd indicate why he did, also. MR. KARPELES-And on Number Nine "Number of jobs generated during construction", and you've got, not applicable. Won't there be any jobs generat.ed during construction? MR. BROCK-Yes. There will be additional people I have contracted with that will concrete work and some of the erection, and ourselves, but it's hard to say, depending ourselves would depend on how much we would people used, local do some grading and we will do some of it on the portion we do farm out. MR. KARPELES-Okay, and Number Ten, in spite of t.he fact, I presume one of the reasons you want to do this is to increase efficiency, there will not be any jobs eliminated? - 13 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/29/95) MR. BROCK-Jobs eliminated? MR. KARPELES-Yes, that's the question, number of jobs eliminated by this project. MR. BROCK-I don't foresee any jobs being eliminated, no. MR. KARPELES-That's all I've got. MR. CARVIN-Tom? MR. FORD-Well, I've out as well here. waste". I'm looking building, but what that sort of thing? got several, but I'll probably jump in and Item 16, "Will the project generate solid there particularly, not necessarily with the about waste disposal, pump out facilities, MR. NACE-Well, we're looking to complete the SEQRA issue as a change, net. change, from existing conditions or pre-existing conditions, therefore, with no increased number of boats or increased use anticipated. Therefore, there's no net increase in pump out facilities or solid waste generated. MR. FORD-While we're on that issue, it brings up one that is of real concern to me, and that deals with the, I believe that we need to make some sort of determination as to what previous year you wish to compare with, and then as we project future use, that it would be helpful, so that we can get some sort of written documentation relative to the use and pick a year we can collectively say, perhaps 1993, or whatever would be an appropriate year, and get the actual usage, and then project from that what. the possibilities are for future use, because only then can I make a real determination on the impact of this expansion. MR. CARVIN-So what are you asking, Tom? MR. FORD-I would like the, for openers, the number of boats, winter stored and quick launched, and I don't know, Board members, is 1993 a good year to select for comparison's sake, or would you like another year to request. information on? MR. CARVIN-I think each of us have to ask in our own mind whether there is an expansion here. In other words, if the potential for expansion exists, or if, as the applicant has indicated, he is going to continue to use the same number of boats, and I think that each one of us have to address that issue under Part II. Now, if you feel that it's relevant to have some kind of basis of what 1993 or 1992, to help you make that determination, I guess I don't have a problem with that, but I think the bigger issue is, are we going to have an expansion here, and if we are going to have an expansion, how is it going to impact some of the other areas? MR. FORD-I think it has been clearly determined that there is an enlargement. in the proposal, and what I want to do is try to document, first of all, the comparative size, and then the comparison in the boats stored for winter storage, and those quick launched, and I'll pick 1993 as the comparison year, and then we'll project into '96. MR. NACE-I would think, and this is from personal experience, that the use of the lake varies from year to year, depending on the weather conditions are, how crowded the lake is. I would think if you were headed in that direction, that you can't pick a year, that you've got to pick a time span. MR. FORD-It sounds fair, pick a time span. - 14 - "--' -.....;' (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/29/95 ) MR. BROCK-I think we can bring in some documentation to show what the numbers were, in the past. We'll bring that in to you. MR. FORD-Okay. MR. MARTIN-Befo~e we leave that issue, we should establish a time span. Is it. two years, three years? MR. BROCK-The late 90's have not been good years, I mean the early 90's. The late 80's were naturally a higher, was a time when there were more boats, and everyone was, the lake was doing better. So to pick a down year, and say, this is what we're looking at, I don't feel. MR. FORD-I'm just trying to get in fairly close to when the structures were razed. MR. BROCK-The structures, the buildings that were there? MR. FORD-Yes, and I'm trying to get a comparison slightly close to that, and that, obviously, is not back in the 80's'. MR. BROCK-No, but I can bring, have documentations did previously for you. MR. CARVIN-Okay, is that what you're looking for, Tom, in other words, what was the capacit.y of the existing buildings, or the old buildings? MR. FORD-In terms of number of boats, number of boats stored, and number of boats quick launched, and pick a three year period in the 90's, please. MR. KARPELES-I don't see why should stick to the 90's. How long have the buildings been there? MR. BROCK-Most of them went up in the early 1900's. MR. KARPELES-So, I would say the maxiMum that those buildings ever held. MR. BROCK-That's what I thought I was going to do, is bring the maximum, what those buildings could hold, for you, and what they've done in the past. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Then why don't you do this, I think maybe to try to simply it. Give us the worst year, and then the best year. Now if thè best year was 1973, fine. Just say, well, in 1973, we had 4,000 boats, and in 1992, we had 11. $0 I want a best case, worst case, and then let the Board. MR. FORD-That's a good way of gett.ing what I was after. MR. BROCK-Okay. MS. CIPPERLY-Do you want to limit this to during Mr. Brock's ownership? We've been through this before. MR. KARPELES-Yes, we went all through this. MR. CARVIN-The Marina is a Marina, so I can't, personally, I don't see where we can limit it just to Mr. Brock. MS. CIPPERLY-It's just that you've got that stick quéstion about 215 foot boats. MR. CARVIN-Yes. I'm just saying that if in 1972 that there was a bet.ter manager than Mr. Brock, and they were able to seYvice 300 - 15 - .~, (Oueensbury ZBA Meeting 11/29/95) boats, that's not, you know, that still is the capacity of that Marina. So I guess I would not necessarily, my personal feeling, and I don't know if the Board agrees or disagrees with me, I think that we should, if he can research those records and substantiate, and he may only have the records back as far as he goes, but if he can substant.iate a record in 1972, that that was indeed the best year, then, fine, I don't have a real problem with that. MR. KARPELES-Well, I remember Mr. Henderson was here with some figures on how many boats are in t.here and out of there, at t.he last session. MR. CARVIN-Okay. MR~ MARTIN-In two categories you're saying, winter storage and quick launch, those two categories? MR. CARVIN-And I think we better make a separation here, because the quick launch is one issue, and the winter storage is a second. Would you agree or concur? MR. FORD-I do. MR. CARVIN-Okay. MR. FORD-As a normal part of a site plan review, you would submit a stormwater management report.. MR. NACE-That's correct. MR. FORD-And I would like to see that documentation. MR. MARTIN-While we're on that issue, I think it would be useful, if you are truly going to look at the SEQRA of this, in the entire action, meaning your variances and a potential site plan, nOTmally, in the context of that issue, it's dealt with at Site Plan, and as a part of that, there is an engineering review by the Town's Consulting Engineer. I would suggest that be done, and if that is to be done, I would like concurrence of the applicant on the record that he would pay for that charge, because I've gotten caught in the past. MR. CARVIN-Is this something that may be better addressed under the Planning? MR. GORALSKI-These are SEQRA issues. MR. BROCK-Yes, we can do that. MR. MARTIN-The billing will be forthcoming. MR. CARVIN-Okay. So are we comfortable with the billing aspect? MR. MARTIN-Yes. MR. CARVIN-And we will get that information from you regarding the stormwater? MR. BROCK-Tom will handle it. MR. NACE-Yes. MR. CARVIN-Okay. MR. FORD-So that we can try to determine the impact on aesthetics, can we have something other than estimates on the proof of the size of the old buildings? We know the size of the - 16 - ""'-', ~ (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/29/95) proposed buildings. MR. BROCK-I have photographs that show the old buildings, and we have the dimensions of the footprint, okay. That's the best we have to work with~ but we do have the photographs. I brought thoée, that show the various buildings, existing building's height, which we can measure, and it shows the other buildings next to them. MR. FORD-So it would be possible, John, to come up with cubic footage comparison? MR. BROCK-Total cubic footage? No, sir. It could be estimated, I think. I don't know about exact figures. MR. CARVIN-Well, I was going to say, I me~n, maybe this question should be directed to Mr. Nace. Is it possible, if you've got a give building, to come up with a ratio to determine what the height of a building standing next to it is? MR. NACE-Because of the perspective of the various photographs, the best you would come up with would be an estimate. There is no hard and fast documentation that I can put my name to that would be incont.rovertible. MR. CARVIN-After doing due diligence, and coming up with a best estimate, would you be comfortable coming up with a figure? MR. NACE-It would be an estimate, but it's got to be understood t.hat that's what it. is. MR. CARVIN-I can appreciate your position, but I think that's what Tom is asking, is your best estimate, and I ùnderstand that sometimes you need two or three different perspectives, is that correct? In other words, like you say, sometimes the dimension of one building may be forward, another one may be back. You may want t.o consult with Planning, because I understand there may be additional photographs. MR. MARTIN-There is a photograph that's taken, and I don't recall the year, of the old buildings, and it's taken in suchs manner that it's looking down the row of them, from standing in like the marina yard, and you may be able to get some sort of perspective by other things in the photograph as to the height of that, because it is taken at ground level, and that is available. MR. NACE-That's one of the problems, most of these (lost words). MR. CARVIN-Well, again, I'm just making an offer to you thát I understand, and I think John has confirmed. MR. MARTIN-That is available in the assessment file. assessment file. It's your MR. CARVIN-So if you could utilize that tool, and it may give you a lit.tle bit closer, accurate estimate. MS. CIPPERLY-Fred, are you looking for a three dimensional drawing comparing those? MR. CARVIN-No. I think what Tom is asking, and I don't want to put words in anybody's mouth, but I think what he would like to get a rough idea of the exact height, and we've got the footprint, so that we can determine the volume issue. MR. MENTER-Would it make sense, here, to just review the method that was used already by Planning to do the estimate. - 17 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/29/95) MR. CARVIN-I know what \:iê. used, but I'm asking Mr. Brock. See, in other words, we do not know, and he does not seem to have a firm grasp as to what the actual dimensions of the existing, or pre-existing, buildings were. So, I think M~. Nace has indicated that, given enough photographs, and using whatever engineering, mathematically wizardry that they might have, may be able to come up with a best guess estimate, that he would be willing to stake his reputation on, and we can have a positive or negative, you know, within a foot or two, I suppose. MR. NACE-I will prepare something that will give you an estimate, and it will have with it some idea of what the variation might be, okay. MR. CARVIN-Well, all we can ask you to do is what you can, and as I said, I'm just offering, and hopefully you will seek out and use t.hat information. MR. MARTIN-That's the only ground level photograph I've seen. Well, I think thera may be some others available, but it's the only one in ~ possession, in terms of a Town record. MR. CARVIN-Well, again, I'm just saying that we would request this figure, and hopefully this will aid in getting to a fairly accurate number. 1 realize that it may not be exact, but I think if it's with a fairly tolerable rang., that I think that will give us at least a basis to make a determination. MR. FORD-So that we can t.ry to determine the impact on the land, and potentially on the water, could we have something more specific, as far as the determination on the wat.er table? Under four feet gives me great concern, when we start talking about catch basins and storage, whatever, and pipes underground, and trenches and so forth. MR. NACE-We will have an actual test pit and soil, stormwater report. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Well, just continuing in that vein, the foundation or footings for these buildings, do you have any rough idea on how deep they may be going? MR. BROCK-Yes. They're four and a half to five feet. MR. CARVIN-Okay. So actually according, if the water table is under four feet, you're going to go into the water table? MR. BROCK-I can't say the water table's under four feet, that's an estimate. Jim asked me one day about how deep is it, and I said about four feet, and that's where that number came from. MR. CARVIN-I think what I would like is some test holes, then. I would like something fairly accurate. MR. NACE-Sure. From an engineering standpoint, it's not. unusual to construct footings below water table. MR. FORD-But drainage ditches and catch basins and other sort of things, that would be a little unusual. MR. CARVIN~Well, especially when you've also indicated that t.he soil drainage is rather poor. So, I mean, if you're putting a building on it and you've got a water table that's fairly high, and a drainage problem that is fairly low, you may be asking for problems, and I think we would like to have some fairly accurate figures on that. MR. NACE-Sure. I think you'll see the drainage report shows that - 18 - .......... '--.-/ (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/29/95 ) we are taking an existing runoff situation and improving it. MR. CARVIN-Okay, but I agree that you probably are not covering any more or significantly less area. However, there is an increase in the height, and I would like to try to get an impact of how much water coming off, I mean, obviously, the further up you go, the more the velocity and so forth that the water comes down. All right. MR. FORD-Another thing I'm concerned with and would like documentation on would be some actual calculations resarding the changes in the pervious surfaces. MR. NACE-That will be addressed specifically in the drainage report. MR. FORD-Staff, I'm not familiar with what is referred to in this SEQRA relative to t.he Visual EAF Addendum in Section 617.2. MR. GORALSKI-In Part II they, when you consider visual impact, or aesthetic impacts, I think, is how it's listed, they recommend that you can refer to an addendum in the SEQRA Law which provides this Visual EAF, and I think we gave you a copy of it. MR. FORD-Is that something that we might request be completed? Is this something we should normally complete? MR. GORALSKI-Yes. through Part II. It's something you should review as you go MR. FORD-Okay. MR. MARTIN-It's a special supplement to the Part II, and the text is, if necessary, use the Visual EAF Addendum in Section 617.20, and that's in the estimate of you, as lead agent, as to whether you think that's necessary or not to go through that. MR. FORD-Thanks. MR. CARVIN-Okay. MR. FORD-Are we in a floodway? MR. CARVIN-Yes. MR. FORD-Okay. MR. CARVIN-Okay. On Section A, Question No. 14, "Does the present site include any scenic views known to be important to the community?" You've answered that no, but you've indicated, "however, scenic views from the adjacent propert.ies are at issue." Can you expand upon that a little bit, please. MR. NACE-I believe the question, normally, in a SEQRA review refers to scenic outlooks available to the public in general, okay. I answered no, that I am aware that there has been public opinion that we are going to be affecting views of the neighbors. So, therefore, I qualified my answer. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Section B, Question lE. I think this is the heart of the thing, "If the project is an expansion, indicate percent of expansion proposed", and I think that we've gone through the court. The court. has indicated that. the buildings as proposed are an expansion, and you've answered "NA, not applicable, no percentages". I think that is fairly critical that we have some kind of number there. MR. NACE-That is an expansion, that is the issue you're looking - 19 - -" -' (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/29/95) for the building? MR. CARVIN-I think it's an issue. that says that when you put the expansion, and therefore, I would number is as far as your expansion I think we building up, like to know percentage. have a court case that that is an exactly what your MR. NACE-We will modify that to include volume expansion. MR. CARVIN-Okay, and I would also ask, in that context, that you give me some kind of substantiation as to how you arrived at those numbers. MR. NACE-Yes, I'll give you complete documentation. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Same, B, Item G, "maximum vehicular trips generated per hour (upon completion of project)?" That is blank. Can you give me some explanation as to why that was left blank? MR. NACE-Again, we're looking at a no increase boat use, and this is was filled out as comparing to pre-existing conditions. MR. CARVIN-Okay, because we have asked for your best guess and your worst guess as far as the number of boats. Can you also give me a best guess and a worst guess as to the number of trips being generated currently? MR. NACE-Yes. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Item J, Project Description, "Linear feet of frontage along a public thoroughfare project will occupy is?" And you have 314 plus or minus feet. Can you give me a rough idea of what your tolerance, plus or minus, how much? How close are we to an accurate figure on that? MR. NACE-I will have to review that. Right off hand, know. That was filled out several months ago. Whether I scale to scale it or whether I used to the surveys. I don't used a MR. CARVIN-Okay. Well, I get nervous when I see, plus or minus, because it could be as short as an inch and as wide as a mile. MR. NACE-I will clarify that. MR. KARPELES-On this maximum vehicular trips generated per hour, I don't really understand that question. What are they asking for? Are they asking the fork trucks going back and forth, or are they asking? MR. MARTIN-No, I think in that case you would be talking, and in the case of this particular applicant, the patronage of the Marina, what will that generate in terms of cars, people, customers, clients to the Marina, if there's any potential for increased deliveries or something like that, fuel maybe or something like that, anything that would relate to vehicles traveling over the public rights-of-way to the site, and usually, like if you're dealing with a housing development, there's an assumed, accepted number. I don't know, Tom, if there'd be anything in the Institute of Traffic Engineers, I doubt it, for a mar i na use. MR. NACE-There is, I believe, for a general marina, this specific use. What we will do is document for arrived at the numbers there, and they will be based can come up with as best estimates, historically, for launch facilities. but you on use not for how we what we of boat MR. CARVIN-Well, I guess I need a little clarification here. - 20 - '- .-../ (Queensbury ZBA Meet.ing 11/29/95) Project Description, all right, "Physical dimensions and scale of project (fill in dimensions as appropriate) Total contiguous acreage owned or controlled by project sponsor", is 3.386 acres. "Project. acreage to be developed", and you have the same figure. How am I to interpret that? I meèn, am I to interpret that the whole acreage is going to be used as a marina, or should that just really specify how much the buildings or the project development would be? Does the Staff have any feel for how we should look at that? MR. MARTIN-Staff's oplnlon, it wo01d be the total marina use proposed and shown in the application. In other words, I think we have all three lots here, meaning the lot on the east side of Cleverdale Road, and the lots in betwèen Mason Road and Cleverdale Road. The proposal is for 13-3-21 and 20, and on the other side of the road, 13-3-19. Those three lots appear to be in the proposal for the marina development, between parking, building constrúction, and so on. It should be the total of those three lots. Is that reflected in that number, Tom? MR. NACE-No, I don't believe so. MR. MARTIN-Does that include the house lot? MR. NACE-Yes. I believe that includes both house lots. MS. CIPPERLY-The total owned, yes. MR. NACE-I will check t.hat. We will make sure that the project refers to the marina parcels, and the total contiguous acreage includes marina parcels plus the two residential parcels owned. So that number will be checked. MR. GORALSKI-Perhaps simply listing each tax map number and the amount of acreage for each tax map number, and how you determine that, whether it'~ by surveyor deed or tax màp, whatever it is. MR. CARVIN-All right. Again, I'm going to ask Staff if this is something of significance, Item Number 15, under Sect.ion B there. "Is project or any portion of project located in a 100yèar flood plain?" He has indicated yes. How should we judge that or value that? MR. MARTIN-Usually the impact of that is that it can affect design parameters for the building, the building permit, and they also obviously have an impact on your stormwater management planning as well. There may be special considerations needed for footings and so on, and it will likely affect his insurance, obviously, on his flood insurance. MR. CARVIN-Okay, again, then I would ask the applicant to be sure that we have adequate informat.ion with regard to that. MR. MARTIN-And there are various classes, I think, of flood zone, also. MR. NACE-That's correct. We will document it. MR. CARVIN-Okay. I'm going to ,"e-visit something we've already gone over, but pump outs, you currently pump out boats now do you? MR~ BROCK-Yes, we do. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Again, in your best guess, worst guess, in other words, I would like to know, approximately, what your pumping out facilities consist of, approximately what would be a maximum pump out. number and what would be a minimum pump out - 21 - '- (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/29/95) number, because again, you have answered, NA, and I would like to know exactly what we're dealing with here, as far as these pump outs, because that sewage and stuff has got to be either going in the ground or being hauled off site. MR. BROCK-It's hauled off. MR. CARVIN-It is hauled off site? MR. BROCK-It goes into a holding tank, the pump out goes into a holding tank, and the holding tank is taken off site. MR. CARVIN-Okay, above ground or below holding? MR. BROCK-Below ground. MR. CARVIN-Okay. What kind of holding tank is it? Is it metal? MR. BROCK-Just a concrete holding tank. MR. CARVIN-Concrete? All right. Is it totally sealed? no seepage, no drainage? There's MR. BROCK-No seepage, no drainage. There's a cap on the top, and every so often the truck comes and pumps it. out and takes it. awa y . MR. CARVIN-Okay. Do you know how long that that has been in use? MR. BROCK-Less than 10 years, I'm going to say, eight years or so. MR. CARVIN-Okay, and you can give us assurance that none of that is seeping into the ground as a disposal, that that is a? MR. BROCK-Yes. into the ground. new tank. I feel very comfortable ,that it's not That tank is in good condition. It's leaking a fairly MR. CARVIN-Okay. All right. I'm going to ask the Board if there's any additional questions that anybody has discovered or wants further clarification. Okay. What I'd like to do at this point. is, I know Bob Paling is here, Chairman of the Planning Board, and I know the Planning Board has met and gone over much of the same material. I would ask Bob to come to t.he microphone, and if you could give us what your concerns from the Planning Board might be. I understand, before you start, Bob, Bonnie, did you have a question? MRS. LAPHAM-Well, on the plans, there's a future above ground fuel t.anks, and I was just wondering what we're referring to here, and are you seeking approval for those now? MR. BROCK-The reason we put that, at the exist.ing time, we have two below ground fuel tanks, okay, and at some time, there may be regulation to bring t.hem above ground, and when they are to be replaced, they either have to be replaced, according to DEC, with double lined tanks or above ground tanks. That diagram shows, basically where the existing tanks are in the ground, I mean, within a 10 foot area, and our thoughts were, if we have to go to an above ground tank, we will put them in the same area, and then they have a containment system. That's with DEC Reg's, and we have permits and the tests on those tanks now, that are in there, that's just in case they have to be above ground tanks. We were going to show those on the drawing. MR. MARTIN-Just for the record, those constitute a structure and are subject to setback. - 22 - ~ ~ (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/29/95) MR. CARVIN-Okay, but that is not part of this application at this point. Is that correct? MR. MARTIN-That's my understanding, that they are not part of this application. MR. BROCK-No. We didn't propose those tanks. We just put them in in case we ever had to do it, and if there is a problem, we'd have to re-locate them. Right now, our existing tanks are in the ground in that area. MR. CARVIN-Then I would request that Staff indicate that on any maps or plot plans that are submitted to the Planning. MR. MARTIN-I think it's up to the applicant. It would be ffiZ position that the reference to the future tanks be stricken, if it's not part of this application. MR. CARVIN-Yes, or so designated, so we don't have a confusión in the future that we had a case that Planning Staff said it was okay, and we don't. MR. BROCK-Okay. We will strike them. MR. CARVIN-Okay, thank you. Before we get to Bob, any other questions from the Board? Okay. Welcome. BOB PALING MR. PALING-We were an involved agency, and last night we attempted to have a SEQRA discussion, but quite frankly it wasn't very productive, for a couple of reasons. Number One, we did not have access to all of the information. By'definition, we couldn't have a public hearing and we couldn't have complete information, but we went through it, and we came up with a few recommendation in re~ard to the items in the SEQRA review. However, I think the important thing here for us to comment on is that, is the type of information being received and how long we're going to receive it. We were asking some of the same questions you asked today but couldn't get answers for them, and when we came to our meeting last night, before we could start the meeting, we were handed 85 pages of information. A review of that kind of thing is impossible, and then to sit down and do a 5EQRA, that's just impractical. What 1 suggest, I guess, is twofold. Number One, that somehow you look to establishing a cut off date for the information coming in, whatever's a reasonable date, beyond that, don't take anymore information, and give yourselves time to review what you've got., and don't be put in the position like we were put in last night. The ot.her t.hing is that, is to get accurate information. We asked the same questions about dimensions of building, boat storage capacity, and so on, but no answers were forthcoming, so we were kind of at a loss to do anything. and the questions you raised are valid, but where are you going to get an accurate answer. You may just have to press for it and accept an answer one day. Then you can do a good SEQRA review. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Were there any areas' that we may have overlooked, having sat through and listened to our discussion this evening. is there anything that you feel that we should address in more detail? MR. PALING-In so far as Part I is concerned? MR. CARVIN-Yes. MR. PALING-No. I did not have anything you should ~ddress more. - 23 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/29/95) MR. CARVIN-Because what I'd like to do, obviously, when we get this information we certain, and I think the Planning Staff and Planning Board should be privy to this, because, obviously, we don't have a lot of these answers. I mean, I have a whole list of 12, 14, 15 items that we need supplemental information. So, as we get it, certainly we will pass it on to you and value your input. MR. PALING-It's the Part I only that's done by the applicant, and we would review it, and t.hen the accuracy would be attested to by staff or what not, but I wouldn't have asked any other additional ,questions than what you did tonight. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Are there any questions of this Board of the Planning? Do you need any clarification or seek any guidance? As I said, they are acting as a cOAsultant to the ZBA, and they also are an involved agency. MR. FORD-I think you made a good recommendation on the cut off date, and give us time for study and digestion. MR. CARVIN-Well, the cut off date, I think, is going to be determined by our meeting. In other words, I'm going to leave that up to the applicant, and then we'll have to dovetail, because we have to have a public hearing. MR. FORD-But we can't receive the material the afternoon of the meeting, that's all. MR. CARVIN-Well, if we receive it this afternoon, and we don't feel that we've had adequate time to review it, then we'll just have to delay that. So I think it's incumbent upon the applicant to get the information to us in a timely fashion. However, I think, because we still have the public input, there still may be issues that are going to be raised on whatever date we can determine. MR. MARTIN-It's been our past experience, because this happens oftentimes with the Planning Board, that you establish a mutually agreed upon date in the record, as to when the information should be submitted to our office by, and that way the applicant goes away with a thorough understanding of that, and yoU also. Like, for example, if your meeting were to be on the 13th, that we have that a week ahead, just as an example, or ten days or something like that. Then we have adequate time to hand deliver it to all the Board members. MR. CARVIN-All right. Well maybe we should determine, I would like to propose, I think, the 13th as our next meeting. MR. FORD-The ball's in their court, as far as supplying all this stuff. Why not find out from them. MR. NACE-There's a fairly good shopping list there. Some of the information that I've got to use to arrive at the answers and stuff I'm not sure how long it's going to take to get through that. Could you give us a day or two to respond with a schedule of when we feel we could adequately have those issues addressed for you. MR. CARVIN-Okay. I guess I don't have a problem with that, but I would hope that you could give us a rough idea so that we could get the legal advertising in a timely fashion. MR. NACE-Within a there's probably, and a half to pull asking for. day or two I will' give you, I imagine that it's going to take maybe two weeks or a week that information together in the format you're - 24 - ~ --/ (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/29/95) MR. CARVIN-Okay. Then I would ask you to, obviously, dovetail with the Planning Department, and we'll try to get to a date, and then I'll have to contact the Board and see, because we do have, unfortunately, other applications pending. $0 be prepared for a busy December. MR. GORALSKI-I think something should be clarified here. Are we talking only about a deadline fo)- information from the applicant, or are we talking about- public letters and that type òf thing also? MR. CARVIN-Well, no. I mean, we haven't even gotten to a public hearing. So, I mean, I can't see how we can put a deadline to letters. I mean, if a letter comes in on the day of our public hearing, then I don't have a problem with that. So I can't. stop public input, but I think what Mr. Paling is recommending is a very good idea. MR. MARTIN-We made every effort to get you copies of every letter we received. We gave you every letter we received, up through a week in advance of this meeting, and then we have a second additional packet we handed out to you tonight of all the letters since then through the mail that we received today. MR. CARVIN-Right. Well, I suspect that you'll probably have quite a few more because I'm sure that many of these folks came here tonight expecting to have some public input, and many of them mayor may not be able to be available whenever we schedule t.his meeting. 50 they may have to resort to writ.ing. MR. MARTIN-Well, just for the public's knowledge, every Böard member has a copy of every letter received. MR. CARVIN-Yes, and we will go through that. We'll address the letters at the public hearing. MR. MARTIN-And we're trying to get those to you as early in advance as we can. MR. CARVIN-But I think what Mr. Paling is recommending, that we have a list of incomplete items here that we would like to get from the applicant so that the Board has some time to study the information prior to that meeting, and I think that, you know, I don't have a problem if you can give us an idea about how long, you know, if it's going to take you a couple of days to figure out how long it's going to take you to acquire that, then we'll have to go forward from there. MR. the you you MARTIN-The other thing I might $uggest you do, Fred, record, and as a final point is, read through your make sure that we have corresponding lists that, you have 15 items, he has 15 items, and so on. just for list, so kno~, if MR. CARVIN-Well, I've been taking notes, and I'm not quite sure it's 100 percent, but we'll certainly have the minutes to go through. MR. PALING-Just one more comment, if I can, on what Jim said. You've got to take all the information that comes in, yes, but as a practical matter, if you, at seven o'clock, present someone with 85 pages, it.'s an extreme. If you're presented with one or two letters, sure, we can read that, but within the 85 pages, there was a packet that contained about 12 letters, and I think that's impractical, whether it's from the public or the applicant, to ask anybody to review that number of pages. 50 there's got to be a cut off, unless, when you get 10 letters in, you want to ,have another meeting. There should be an end. I don't see why it isn't practical to set a date at which, and I'm - 25 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/29/95) .not talking one or two letters, to set a date that any kind of bulk of information will not be used, after a certain date. MR. GORALSKI-Jon Lapper can correct me if I'm wrong, but think you can stop accepting written comment until the hearing's closed. I don't public MR. CARVIN-That's correct. MR. PALING-I just hope you're lucky, then, you don't get too many. MR. CARVIN-Well, we'll cross that bridge when we get to it. That's all I can say. MR. MARTIN-That's why we marked the point in the time line here of a week ago, to give you all the letters we had up through that point, which was considerable, at least you had a week to review those, and then we had a second submittal to you of the letters received since, that time. MR. MENTER~Maybe if there are some that come in the last minute, maybe they could just be dealt with differently. MR. CARVIN-Yes. If you can get them out to us within 24 hours, that gives us some time, and then anyt.hing 24 hours prior will be read into the record that night. MR. MARTIN-Yes. At least you've had a chance to deal with the majority of it directly. MR. CARVIN-Yes, okay. Well, again, I think that's not an insurmountable, but I do like the idea of trying to work something out with the applicant so that we can get the information to the Planning Board so that they would have some adequate time to go over it and hopefully give input there if need be. Okay. Anything else, Bob? MR. PALING-No. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Again, we appreciate your time and efforts on this. Thank you. All right. I still have one other letter that. I think was Teceived from the Lake George Park Commission, and I think everybody should have a copy of that, and I think I'm going to ask Mr. Thomas to read this into the record, because I think it is relevant to t.he SEQRA, and I believe the Lake George Park Commission is an involved agency. Is that correct? MR. MARTIN-That's correct. MR. CARVIN-Okay. and they have indicated some areas of concern that they would like us to look at, so I'd like to have that read into the record, please. MR. THOMAS-A letter dated November 22, 1995, regarding the Mooring Post Marina "Dear Jim: I thought it might be helpful to summarize some of the initial determinations the Commission staff has made in regard to this project. Also listed below are the key issues which need to be addressed under the SEQRA. I should point out that a complete application for the project has not been submitted. 1. Permit Application: The project requires a permit from the Commission prior to the construction of the quick launch building. Also, a marina permit for the facility is required from the Commission to replace the existing DEC permit. The applications are presently incomplete. 2. Permit Application PrQcessin~: This would be a major project under the Commission's regulations. The Commission's review of the proposed could take 90 days (more if a,hearing is required). The - 26 - -- --' (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/29/95) application has been incomplete for a long time. We have recom~ended to the applicant that he submit a select.ed alternative as soon as possible. 3. Project Design Considerations: The following are the significant areas of environmental concern which should be the subject of consideration in the SEQRA analysis: a. Visual impacts has been identified as an early issue. b. Potential water quality impacts from the project. It is our preliminary position that stormwater controls be designed in accordance with standards in the Commission's stormwater management 6 NYCRR 646-4. Commission staff has endorsed amendments to the standards which should be considered. c. The project application will need to address noise and odor impacts from the forklifts and tractors which t.ransport. the quick launch boats. d. Wastewater manage~ent. The current and proposed septic system should be evaluated. Boat washing facilities should be evaluated. e. Parking and vehicle traffic. f. Visual screening. g. Erosion controls and sedimentation. Erosion controls should be consistent with "New York State Guidelines for Urban Erosion and Sedimentation Controls." 4. Ramp/Wharf Relocation Plan: The wharf modification proposed would require a variance. This could be processed as part of the other applications with a decision rendered at the same time. Very truly yours, Michael P. White Executive Director" MR. CARVIN-Okay. I have a couple of questions, and I'm not quite sure if these are all germane. The permit application, I'm going to address these to Staff, that the Lake George Park Commission's referring to, is that germane or relevant to the SEQRA. MR. LAPPER-The permits are not germane to the SEQRA, necessarily. Those are other approvals that t.he Lake George Park Commission is saying that they have jurisdiction over, that the Zoning Board doesn't have to worry about, but in terms of SEQRA, you're looking at the impacts of the project, and the project is building these buildings whe)"e they are, the use of the site, and what permits are required to do this doesn't affect, in terms of SEORA, you're just looking at what's proposed to be constructed, the action is the building of this new marina. So you can do a SEQRA review, and whether or not building these buildings in the configuration that they're proposed means the Lake George ,Park Commission will or won't have t.o issue another permit or another variance, it's not the permit or the variance from the Park Commission that you have to look at. It's building the buildings. MR. CARVIN-Okay. All right. The project design considerations with regard to t.he SEORA analysis, I think that these are pretty germane to our, so, in other words, the visual impacts has been identified as an early issue. I think, does everybody understand what that is? All right. Do you need any further explanation from the applicant with regard to that? Do you think he's adequately addressed those issues? Okay. Again, potential water quality impact on the project, again, they're designating stormwate)" controls, and I think we have raised that issue;: and again, we've acknowledged that here. Obviously, the project application will need to address noise and odor, and I think we've spent some time, and you will get us additional information with regard to that. Obviously, wastewater management, the current, they've got the current and proposed septic system should be evaluated. I guess I'm not quite sure what they're asking for there. MR. MARTIN-I'm not aware of any proposed change, or Staff is not. I think the relevant comment in that Item d. might be the road washing, how that was going to be dealt with and the area assigned for that, and where t.he wastewater from that action is going to, how that's going to be handled. - 27 - (Queensbury Z8A Meeting 11/29/95) MR. CARVIN-Okay. MR. MARTIN-It might be especially a concern if it were on the east side of Cleverdale Road, because that's a direct shot there to the lake, so to speak. MR. CARVIN-Okay. facilities now? I'm assuming that there are boat washing MR. BROCK-We have an area that we wash boats in, a couple of different areas, and I guess if they want them designated, shown on the map, we can do that. MR. GORALSKI-That should probably also be included in the stormwater management plan. MR. MARTIN-Well, I think it goes above and beyond where the area is. It's how is the water handled, and the real concern is the detergents and that type of thing, how is that handled. MR. CARVIN-I would also like to tie that into some of the other numbers. In other words, I'd like to know approximately how many boats are being washed, again, high point, low point, and if there's going to be any increase in usage of that. So, again, if you could give us your best estimate with regard to the usage of the boat washing, because I think that has a direct impact on the stormwater and the whole nine yards or the wastewater. Again, Item e. is parking and vehicular traffic. Again, you're going to provide us with some information there. Visual screening, I know that you have indicated a berm, and I'm assuming that that's st.ill in the plans, is it? Okay. Are there any other items of screening or mitigating things that you're looking to do to try to reduce that impact? MR. NACE-The berm in conjunction with the landscaping, which is designed to create a visual buffer. MR. CARVIN-Okay. So you will have and have provided us with an adequate program there? MR. NACE-Yes, we have. MR. CARVIN-Erosion controls and sedimentation. I'm not, I'm sure I read it, but I don't remember it, the New York Guidelines for Erosion and Sediment controls. MR. GORALSKI-That's the general standards that are used, and they typically apply when, during site plan review the Planning Board requires that those guidelines be implemented. In the case of this project, it's probably going to be mainly during construction that those will be an issue. MR. CARVIN-Okay. I guess erosion control, would that have to do with shoreline erosion, those guidelines? MR. GORALSKI-These do with stormwater runoff. guidelines actually don't, they have more to runoff than, issues related to stormwater MR. CARVIN-Okay. It's primarily construction activities and not, we'll say, boating activities, wave erosion or things like that? MR. NACE-Construction and stormwater management. MR. CARVIN-And then Item Number Four, and I don't know if this is really, wharf modification, that's kind of news to me. Are you planning any wharf modification? - 28 - '-' '-" (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/29/95) MR. BROCK-I talked with one of the neighbors about possibly, they recommended that, I was here to re-do the ramp, okay, at the Planning Board, and got approval to re-do our boat ramp. I" was asked if when I re-did the ramp, would I consider moving it over to the center of the site, over away from the neighbor's property, and I said, yes, I would consider that, and I talked to the Park Commission about that, to see what would have to be done. This application was so far down the road that I didn't. want to confuse it by adding a modification to a dock to it, and if the buildings are, if, we go ahead with the buildings,' and the neighbors would like me to move the ramp, I will talk to the Park Commission and consider moving the ramp away from their property line. If it's approved by the Park Commission and everybody's happy with that, we'll do it, if it's not, then we wouldn't.. It's not something that had to be done. I would be doing it primarily t.o get the, basically I'll explain it to you. Our ramp is right down this side. Where the neighbor asked if· I would consider moving the ramp, over here, closer to the center, so that the tractor woùldn't be running alongside their house, and I said, yes, we would, but that would mean re-configuring these docks, okay, moving the ramp over there and putting'the docks over here, and I asked the Park Co~mission, and they said we can do the same amount of footage of the docks. Whatever I take off we could possibly move, but that would require a permit, and a wharf classification, and we were so far down the road with this project, we just did not add it to it, and if we can do that, we'd be glad to do it, but I don't want to confuse the issue~ MR. CARVIN-Okay. Well~ I guess nôt an issue before this Board at some point in the future. what I'm hearing is that it is this point, but it may be at MR. BROCK-Yes. MR. CARVIN-All right. I'm going to ask Staff, I'm not totally familiar, but if he comes in, ánd I realize he has t.o go to the Lake George Commission, but would that also require a variance again, because he's altering? Will that open up a whole neW can of worms, and will we have to go through another SEQRA if we are confronted with a wharf proposition? MR. MARTIN-If he doesn't meet the setbacks, obviously, or he's increasing the size of that. wharf, yes. MR. CARVIN-Well, I don't know what the setbacks are. MR. MARTIN-Twenty feet from the property lines. MR. GORALSKI-Yes, as it's projected into the lake. MR. CARVIN-All right. Could he conceivably meet that, I suppose? MR. MARTIN-I doubt it. I mean, there's not much room there now. MR. FORD-Your launch ramp there now is closer than 20 feet to the? MR. BROCK-It's right on the property line, but there is also a dock on the property line, okay. One of the existing docks is also on the property line, and it would be a re-configuration of those lots, and like I say, I can work with those the way they are. I do agree that it would be much beneficial if we would move that ramp away from the neighbor's house, it would be beneficial, and we're willing to try to do that. MR. CARVIN-Again, I'm going to come back. I mean, does that open up a whole new can of worms? Do we go right back to Square One, as far as t.he SEQRA is concerned? Because that's right on the - 29 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/29/95 ) lake. MR. MARTIN-Well, first of all, is it a part of this project? MR. CARVIN-It's not part of this project now. MR. MARTIN-Okay. MR. CARVIN-But I'm wondering if he, wanted to make it part, could we shorten up, and have that as part of this review? MR. MARTIN-Yes, you could, if it's his desire to include it, it would then be. MR. CARVIN-Well, that's my question. MR. MARTIN-It's really his question to answer. MR. her e , we ' r e about CARVIN-It seems that we're going through quite a process and fine, in three months time you want to move that ramp, back here, looking at another SEQRA. Now, I don't know you, and I have a lot of fun doing this, but. MR. 8ROCK-I guess what I would do is maybe we would sketch it in as part of the project, okay. If that is not holding the project up, and the neighbors are happy with it, we would go with that, okay, and then we'll go to the Park Commission afterward, if it's approved here, and the SEQRA's approved here, and ask for the permit. MR. MARTIN"-At application and get ti ng into an perspective of and so on. some point, if you being tinkering with this making substantial changes in it, now are you issue where other involved agencies, now, had one this application, and the County Planning Board, MR. CARVIN-That's what I'm asking you. Is it worth tinkering with, or do we leave it alone and make it. an issue when he comes bac k? MR. GORALSKI-You could consider it, that may be a mitigation measure to mitigate some of the impacts that have been discussed. MS. CIPPERLY-But you>re application, additional Area this. talking about an Area Variance Variance, in a re-configuration of MR. CARVIN-But what I'm saying is that, fine, we can move on this, but I know that if that's not part of the plan, you know, and again, I don't have any problem doing it, but I'm not quite sure if we can. MR. LAPPER-It can be added as an alternative, in a revised application, or just with the revised SEQRA, as an alternative to mitigate impacts of the neighbor. MR. CARVIN-I guess the only answer I am looking for is that if he comes back to move the wharf, that it would open up a whole new SEQRA Review. MR. LAPPER-Well, we can do the SEQRA Review now. MR. CARVIN-Well, that's for this. I mean, he doesn't have the wharf as part of the program. MR. MARTIN-If he wants to include it, then it'll have to be part of the SEQRA Review and part of your consideration. - 30 - '-- -...../ (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/29/95) MR. CARVIN-Okay. Well, again, I guess I'm going to ask him to make a determination on that pretty quick, MR. NACE-That will require some research on our part to find out what's involved. MR. CARVIN-Because if it's not, then I'm going to ask that that be designated that that is not part of this application, and that if you should come back, then we have to, we'll have to do the whole thing, and we'll do the SEQRA located on that. MR. GORALSKI-The other thing that should be pointed out, that is if that modification of t.he wharfs and the ramp is included and considered as a mitigation measure in the SEQRA, then that's something that's going to be required to be done prior to issuing a Certificate of Occupancy for this building. MR. CARVIN-I'm going to wants to pursue here. looking at here? Okay. leave it up to Does everybody the applicant what he understand what we're MR. MARTIN-Just before we leave that letter, Item A, Visual Impacts, and this is something that we asked for in a previous memo, I believe, as Staff. I think it might be a good idea, in light of the visual impact here, and the potential for having to go through that addendum to the EAF, and this is up to t.he Board, we may want to consider having an elevation provided that provides a perspective of those buildings from th~ Mason Road side. I know we have one that. looks like a north to south type of view, but what you would see if one is looking easterly, what is going to be the perspective of those two buildings with the berm, the landscaping, any architectural treatments that were envisioned for the side of the building, color of the building, those types of issues. That might be useful for you to get a perspective before you make a decision on the visual impact'. MR. CARVIN-Three dimensional? MR. MARTIN-I don't know three dimensional, but, you know~ an elevation. Usually the Planning Board, when considering an expansion of a nonconforming structure, likes to see an elevation óf the P)' oposa I . MR. CARVIN-Okay, and is it also possible, I know that I've seen these other, where you have a represent.ative person, standard six foot person is, in comparison. MR. MARTIN-I think that did show that on one of their. MR. GORALSKI-On their section drawing they did show that. showed a car. They MR. MARTIN-A car and a person~ but I'd like, I think it might be useful to have an elevation view of that entire property line, so to speak, along Mason Road. MR. CARVIN-Okay. I'm assuming that, because I don't find it in my packet, we've had no correspondence other than our lead agency status, as far as the APA? We've had no input, or is thère any correspondence? MS. CIPPERLY-There wasn't any in connection with the application it.self, other than saying they were not interested. MR. CARVIN-Okay, Ladies and Gentlemen, are questions of the applicant? Do you think we should go through this Visual EAF addendum? there any other should, you say we - 31 - ''--' --~ (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/29/95) MR. MARTIN-That's up to you as lead agent, if you feel that's relevant. MR. CARVIN-I've looked at this thing, and I find it totally confusing. I've got to be honest with you. MR. GORALSKI-The appropriate time to use that would be when you were discussing the aesthetic impact.s in Part II. MR. CARVIN-Well, I'm looking at yes and no answers, and they've got mileage, you know, qUinter, half mile. I mean, the' questions are excellent questions, but how do you answer them? MR. GORALSKI-If you're uncomfortable with using it, then I would use whatever method you feel comfortable with to determine if t.here are any impacts. MR. CARVIN-Well, again, as I said,! like the questions, and I've gone through the questions, but I don't understand what they're saying, distance between project and resource in miles, yet they ask, you know, would the project be visible from a parcel of land which is dedicated to and available to the public for use, enjoyment, appreciation of natural or manmade, scientific or seen qualities, and they want a quarter or half mile answer. MR. GORALSKI-Well, the other thing you could do is just use that as a guideline as you're considering the aesthetic impacts. You don't have to use that. ,specific form, but you might. just want to read through that, to get an idea of the questions you should be thinking about when considering aesthetic impacts. MR. MARTIN-I think something that's on point in this particular case is, you have a public body of water here, and on the eastern or western side of this peninsula, is this project going to be visible, like for somebody boat.ing in the water, for example, I think that's what that's trying to drive at. Given a quarter mile distance or half mile distance from the project, is this going to be visible. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Well, the only question, I've gone through this, and I had, you know, a site, area, lake, reservoir, or highway designated as scenic, and I guess I would like to know if there is an answer, has Lake George officially been designated scenic? MR. MARTIN-I think the best answer to that question would lie in the Master Plan. There are statements that address the visual qualities of the lakeshore area, the need to protect it. It's referenced in the purpose section of the Waterfront Residential zone, I believe, as a consideration. This is a Critical Environmental Area, and I think that played a large part in it, the visual qualities of the lakeshore area. I think it's clearly an environmental consideration, in ~ opinion. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Has everybody read that particular form? I think, at this point, I'd like to defer that, I think, until the public hearing. I really would. I mean, as I said, I have a little bit of a problem. I understand where you're coming from now, as far as this quarter, half mile business, but I think I'd like to get public input before we go through that. MR. MARTIN-Would you, as we're formulating our list here of needed items, is the elevation something you would want to have, or hold off until? MR. CARVIN-I think the elevation of the proposed buildings, absolutely. I think that is something that is, I mean, that's addressed in the SEQRA directly. Yes, I think that's a very good - 32 - ~ -/ (Cueensbury ZBA Meeting 11/29/95) idea. MR. FORD-Do you want it only from Mason Road? MR. CARVIN-Well, I don't know. What's the other one? Cleverdale. I'll leave it to the Board. I mean, does the Board want it from both sides, from both Mason and Cleverdale? MRS. LAPHAM-I'd like to see it from both sides. MR. THOMAS-I think Mason Road side, because there's other existing buildings on the Cleverdale side. MR. CARVIN-Definitely Mason Road. MR. MENTER-I think the Cleverdale Road side, the elevations of buildings behind other buildings, showing the other buildings. You'll show layers of buildings. I would say the Mason Road.side would be fine. MRS. LAPHAM-If you show it from the Cleverdale side, you'll get a feeling for t.he height. MR. CARVIN~Do you want them both? MR. MENTER-I would say Mason Road side. MR. CARVIN-Am I getting a consensus here that you want a view from both? MR. KARPELES-I think it would be good to have them from both, yes. MR. CARVIN-Okay. from Staff? The Board has spoken. Okay. Anything else MR. MARTIN-I'm just trying to keep it on point. MR. CARVIN-Bob, is there anything from Planning that you'd care to add at this point? MR. PALING-I think you're exactly right going for the elevation drawing. We would have asked for it. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Any other comment from the Board? MR. GREEN-Yes. I've got a quick question about this Visual EAF. It talks about an overlook or parcel of land in three or four different places down through here. Are you going to consider a boat sitting in the lake on a parcel of land an overlook? MR. CARVIN-If you're asking me, I don't have an answer for you. MR. MENTER-If that issue is one that's important to you, I mean, if it's pertinent to you what.'s visible here. MR. KARPELES~Well, one of the questions is, would the project be visible from a site, area, lake, reservoir, or highway designated as scenic. I think that's what Fred was asking. MR. GREEN-Okay, and we don't know if it's designated as scenic or nct? MR. CARVIN-I think Jim's roundabout answer is that the answer is, yes. It may not have a sign out there saying that the U.S. Government has designated this a national monument or something like t.hat. I think, from all the environmental impacts, that this has been deéignated as sensitive area that we should look at - 33 - '--- ~ (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/29/95) as scenic. Okay. I don't have anything else, and what I would ask is, and I've got a list here, and I hope that Staff has been keeping a list. So, certainly there's a number of items on this Part I that are incomplete. So certainly we can't move on the Part II, because we need this information. So my list is, I'm sure just a partial list. So I'll read what 1 have. MR. FORD-Read it slowly, so I can cross off on mine. MR. CARVIN-It's going to be real slow, because I don't have a whole lot of words here, but I have that we have a project change, Number One, with regard to the pipe across the road, that we will require and request information there. I have, and I don't know if this is something that we're requesting, but i have fire extinguishers. I'd like to try and get some kind of idea of what can or can't be done as far as mitigating any fire concerns out. there. MR. FORD-It's a plan for fire detection and an alarm system. MR. CARVIN-Okay. I like that terminology. All right. Certainly we need the update on the parking. We need accurate figures. I would also request and ask that I would like to know how many of those parking places are paved and delineated, and if you plan on paving and delineating any further, and I would like to know which ones you're looking at as grass, so that I have separate and dist.inct categories. okay. All right. The next item I have is a new Part I. In other words, a whole new Part I has to be completed and submitted, with all the updat.es. I guess this falls under the category of noise and odor, more regarding your diesel, your accommodation of vehicles t.here. I would like to know fairly accurately what types of vehicles these are, which one is going to go up and which one is going to go down, what type of impact it may have on noise, what type of impact it may have on odors. I would like to know the approximate age of these, the condition of what the expected life of one of these vehicles may be. I know we have addressed the beeper, in relation to that, in other words, if you've got some information as to, you know, if new ones are beepers, whether beepers will be used, whether beepers will not be used, now and in the future. Number 17, okay. I guess you're going to correct your existing public utilities. You had indicated no on that, and I guess we've decided that it should be yes. In relation to that, I would like to know if, in the new buildings, now I'm assuming that a boat can be charged. Now I don't know if the old buildings had electrical outlets where you charged batteries. I'm thinking in relationship to, and I'm not a boater, but I know trailers and campers sometimes have plug-ins. Did your old buildings have plug-ins, or were there electrical units that were used in the old buildings, and if so, are there going to be new ones in the new building, or the number. In other words, I want to know if there's going to be an increase in usage as far as electricity, where you may have five boats plugged in and now you're going to have ten boats, even though you had five in and five out. MR. BROCK-The boats that are in storage in quick launch buildings, they're neve,- plugged in to a dock side outlet. Boats do have that type of facility, but that's usually when they're at a dock some place in the water. We have not had boats plugged in, such as dock side use, in the previous buildings and we do not plan to have that in the new buildings. We do have receptacles in the old buildings and will have them in the new buildings, so if you wanted to plug in a vacuum cleaner or this or that, or anything hand type item or light or something like that, you could do it on a temporary basis, just like you would have in your garage. - 34 - ~ '-0../ (Queensbury ZBA Meet.ing 11/29/95) MR. CARVIN-Okay. Well, again, if you get a feel for what I'm looking for as far ,as the electrical use, or proposed new electrical use in the buildings. MR. FORD-What provision do you have for storage of the on-board batteries of the boats? MR. BROCK-They stay in the boats. We don't take them out. MR. FORD-Okay. They remain connected? MR. BROCK-During what period is that? MR. FORD-Winter storage. MR. BROCK-Winter storage we disconnect them. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Next. item I have I guess is t.he number of boats, and I think what I'm referring to there is this is that best case, worst case, and t.here's a number of items and issues that we would be looking for, the total number of boats in your best year and the total number of boats in your worst year. I would also like to try to include in that, I think I had, okay, the wash, the trips back and forth, the number of times the vehicles go across the road, best estimate, worst estimate. Something that we didn't address, but just has come to mind is trailers. When these boats come in, have you got facilities for the trailer storage, and I noticed in èomething that you had submitted that you were going to have indoor boat storage, and then something about outdoor trailer storage, and I wanted to make sure that I'm on the right track, that these are boat trailers, and not the little campers or other type, in other words, these will be directly related to the boat and boating i ndu~)t ry . MR. BROCK-Yes, boat trailers only. MR. CARVIN-Okay, and again, I'd like to try to get an idea of what the maximum number of trailers might be parked. I mean, we've been addressing cars, but those cars pull trailers, and I'd like to get a feel for how many trailers we may bé looking at. MS. CIPPERLY-It would probably be good to also state whether those are going to be taking up part of the parking area. MR. CARVIN-How that impact is going to be. Obviously, the stormwater management, wastewater management items. The big item is the volume issue, to try to come up with what the volume number of the pre-existing buildings were, and again, giving us a fairly concise, realizing that it probably will not be an accurate number, but I want to have a fairlY reasonable tolerance. I've got impervious. Does anybody know what I meant when I said impervious? MR. FORD-Actual calculations regarding the changes in impervious surfaces. We're looking for specificity on the parking spaces. MR. CARVIN-Yes. Visual impacts. Obviously, we're requesting an elevation view from both Cleverdale and Mason. I think the Planning Board's observations are very good. We will try to determine a cut off date. I think that's a very fair, to give us, all parties involved a fair amount of time. MR. NACE-I'll work with Staff in the next few days. MR. CARVIN-Yes, and certainly we'll schedule a meeting, but bear with us. got probably two meetings already in work with you in trying to As I understand it., we've December that will occupy - 35 - '-- (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/29/95) some of our time. All right. addressed under the other thing. got. What did I miss? Boat wash, That's pretty I guess that's much what I've MR. FORD-I've got some. The number of boats in winter storage and quick launch during the best and worst years, and winter stored and quick launched projected for '96 and beyond, specific measurements on the water table as a result of actual test borings, previous and projected pump out capabilities, one that yoU had, Fred, was the, and I don't know how to state this other than you were looking at, for tolerance and linear feet along the public thoroughfare, regarding the 314 plus or minus feet, and the acreage per tax map. MR. CARVIN-Right. Did you pick up, the project expansion, you're going to give us a percentage of what the new building is over the old building? MR. NACE-Yes. MR. FORD-And document the portion of the project located within the 100 year flood plain. MR. NACE-Yes. MR. PALING-I'd like to add just one thing. I didn't pick up that traffic circulation was addressed in total. In other words, the pattern of traffic on both sides of the street, as well as the connecting traffic, and the direction of it and so on. I think it would be valuable to have a traffic circulation estimate, or layout, I should say. MR. CARVIN-Yes. I know that that could be an issue. MR. PALING-And it should involve both sides. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Tom, have you got that one? MR. NACE-Yes, I do. MR. CARVIN-Okay. MR. KARPELES-Did we put to bed this 15 inch pipe that's coming across the road? MR. FORD-Yes, that was the very first one. MR. CARVIN-They've got to change the plan. MR. KARPELES-We're definitely going to change that? Because the way I understood it, if they continue to do it, it's got to go before the Town Board, and then we can't even have the SEQRA Review. MR. CARVIN-That's correct. MR. KARPELES-So that's definitely changed, that 15 inch pipe no longer coming across? MR. NACE-Allow us to look at sure I understand the legal process, but what we have said we can pull that back onto the the ramifications of that. I'm not ramifications of the notification if we need to, for legal reasons, west side of the railroad. MR. CARVIN-They're going to explore that. So if that's an issue, then we'll have to address that. If it's not, then they'll alter the plan. So they'll let us know on that. I can live with that. Jim, or Staff, do you have anything additional? - 36 - '-- -../ (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/29/95) MR. MARTIN-Just some minor things. Hedges should be noted on the plan. Number of vehicle trips before and after development, with quick launch facilities, I think vehicle trips, the patrons or customers. MR. CARVIN-I think that, we've asked for that information. MR. MARTIN-Okay. Acreage of project size, in terms of number of lots of each, description of pump out facilities proposed, as well as existing types and number of tanks for the septic, the reference to the future gas tanks should be stricken, or above grounds st.orage tanks, and the wharf issue is part, or is part of this application or not. That's it, above and beyond what you've already said. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Well, that's quite a list, and I'm sure you are aware, because we have no public hearing tonight, that when we do have a public hearing, there may be additional issues that may have t.o be addressed, okay. I do apologize to the public for the snafu, and all I can tell you is that you will have your opportunity to voice your opinions. If you can't make the meeting, then I would strongly suggest that you get your comments and opinions in writing to our Staff as soon as possible. MR. MARTIN-I do, again, want to emphasize that if you write a letter, the Board member does see that~ A copy of the letter is provided to each and every Board member, and also we will be re- doing the 500 foot notice again, as part of the notification process. It just won't be the legal ad this time. It will be both, as it normally is. MR. CARVIN-Okay, and if we have missed anything this evening, that you feel is relevant, we will welcome those comments at the public hearing, and you will be notified, and you will read about it in the newspaper. So, again, I do apologize for that snafu. The wheels of justice turn slowly, but they do turn. So, if the Board has any other questions, does Staff have any other questions? MR. LAPPER-You should make a motion to table. MR. CARVIN-All right. MOTION TO TABLE USE VARIANC~ NO. 82-1995 AND AREA VARIANCE NO. 83-1995 JOHN BROCK MOORING POST MARINA, Introduced by Fred Carvin who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Karpeles: For additional information from the applicant, ánd to allow him to revise the Long EAF Form Part I, as this application is deemed to be incomplete. Duly adopted this 29th day of November, 1995, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Green, Mr. Menter, Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Ford, Mr. Thomas, Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Carvin NOES: NONE MR. CARVIN-Then this application is tabled until such time as we can properly identify and advertise for the public hearing, and I want to thank everyone for coming this evening. MICHAEL O'CONNOR MR. O'CONNOR-Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask One question, that I be granted party status as to SEQRA, as a representative of - 37 - -...... - (Queensbury Z8A Meeting 11/29/95) (lost words) past lawsuits with immediate neighbors. There is a provision for a representative type person being granted party status. I appreciate very much, you've made a lot of progress tonight. I haté to tell you, though, there's a laundry list of other things that were wrong that I'm going to have to bring up at your next meeting. MR. CARVIN~I'm not saying that you won't be able to bring it up, because I welcome these comments, but unfortunately, my hands are tied from a legal snafu. MR. O'CONNOR-I think I can be granted party status. MR. CARVIN-Okay. I'm going to defer that to our legal counsel, and I will, if that is amenable with him, and we have no legal conflicts, then I do not have a problem with that. So I would, again, refer you to our legal counsel on that matter, and if it's okay with him and there's no problems, then you're in. JOHN SALVADOR MR. SALVADOR-Mr. Chairman, I have a question on procedure. I question the advisability of the Board having the benefit of the written comment before the public hea"ing. I am fearful that you might formulate an opinion before you have heard the whole story. I suggest that those letters be read at the public hearing before the public comment from the floor. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Well, as far as I know, as far as the Part I, I think any of this is public information that is available, if my understanding is correct on this, from the Planning Staff, so that if you have any questions or want to reviéw any of the material that we are looking at, it is public information, and I'm sure that Staff would have no problem sharing that information with you, that includes any letters that we receive from the public, and those letters will be and are available for any public review. MR. SALVADOR-Will copies be made available to anyone from the public? MR. CARVIN-Copies can be made available upon notification to the Staff. MR. SALVADOR-Jim, are you hearing this? MR. MARTIN-Yes. MR. CARVIN-All right. but if 4,000 people ask the public does have a we receive. Are we going to print 4,000 letters, no, for copies, we will provide them, so that right and access to any information that MR. MARTIN-We've already had several people in to review it. MR. SALVADOR-It's the order in which they have access. MR. CARVIN-Well, as soon as they get them, I guess, you know, we get them. MR. MARTIN-They're in the public record. MR. CARVIN-They're in the public record, and they will be put into the public record when I get to the public hearing. MR. MENTER-Maybe we should go into this a little what you were saying is was that we should not prior? more. I thi nk get the letters - 38 - ''-. -/ (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/29/95) MR. SALVADOR-Prior to the public hearing. It's part of the public hearing. Those people are submitting those letters in lieu of being present, and my fear is that you will foymulate an opinion before the háaring. That would not be correct, and I think the letters should be made known to everyone,before the public hearing, before the public comment period. MR. CARVIN-Well, as access, also. So, request that as any Queensbury, I have do. Board members, I mean, we are letters come in, a ,- ight to those we have a right of public provided those, and I would as a citizen of the Town of letters just as much as you MR. SALVADOR-I'm not questioning the order and the timeliness of your right. MR. CARVIN-Okay. MR. O'CONNOR-Mr. Chairman, I would ask that you continue the appearance of any subpoenas under which people ¡He' appear ing here tonight. MR. CARVIN-I have no idea about subpoenas. I'm not even going to get into that issue. I mean, I have no idea about subpoenas. MR. O'CONNOR-You're going to make people go through the process of serving and the expense, again, of paying for people that they subpoenaed? MR. CARVIN~Again, I'm only bound, we only advertised a Board meeting. We did not advertise a public meeting. If the subpoena was issued under the assumption of a public meeting, I apologize for that, but that.'s not. my problem. MR. O'CONNOR-Your notice to the people said it was going to be a public meeting. MR. CARVIN-It was not advertised in the newspaper. MR. O'CONNOR-I know it wasn't advertised in the newspaper, but your notice to the people was that it was a public meeting. MR. CARVIN-Again, I'm going to defer that question to our legal counsel, as far as the status of any subpoenas that have been issued. MR. O'CONNOR-Typically, a court will, you acting as a judicial body, will continue adjourned date. are a judicial the subpoena body, to the MR. CARVIN-I can't comment on that, because I don't have an apswer for you. We haven't even got a date. MR. O'CONNOR-You can do it to an unannounced adjourned date. MR. CARVIN-Yes. I appreciate your comments, but again, I'm going to refer you to our legal counsel, and if it is an issue, then we will address it. MR. O'CONNOR-If you don't advise people that t.hat they will be under continuing subpoena then under CPLR they aren't. If you're saying go ahead, re-subpoena them. are under subpoena at th. appearance, no to the people, MR. CARVIN-No. I'm not saying anything until I have a firm legal opinion on this, and that will probably not be reached tonight. MR. O'CONNOR-Do you have an opinion, Jon? - 39 - "- '.,/ (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/29/95) MR. LAPPER-The next meeting, we're going to be reviewing SEQRA, and the public comments are going to be about the SEQRA, and not. the Use Variance standards. So I don't think what you're talking about is applicable to the next meeting, the next public hearing. MR. O'CONNOR-I don't want to get into an argument. One of the lots in question that is here, that is affected by SEQRA, is affected by the testimony. It may throw that lot out entirely, like it did in 1988. MR. CARVIN-Well, again, I'm going to defer that conversation until a later point, and if there is a challenge there, then we'll address it. Otherwise, I'm going to move for adjournment. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Fred Carvin, Chairman - 40 -