Loading...
1996-05-13 SP ~ OR' [~JN A L '-'"' QUEENS BURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SPECIAL MEETING MAY 13, 1996 INDEX Use Variance No. 82-1995 Tax Map No. 13-3-19 13-2-20 13-2-21 John Brock Mooring Post Marina 1. Area Variance No. 83-1995 Tax Map No. 13-3-19 13-2-20 13-2-21 John Brock Mooring Post Marina 1. THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTHS MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES. "--, J (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/13/96) QUEENS BURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SPECIAL MEETING MAY 13, 1996 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT FRED CARVIN; CHAIRMAN CHRIS THOMAS, SECRETARY BONNIE LAPHAM THOMAS FORD DAVID MENTER ROBERT KARPELES WILLIAM GREEN EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR-JAMES MARTIN CODE COMPLIANCE OFFICER-JOHN GORALSKI ATTORNEY REPRESENTING ZBA-JON LAPPER STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI OLD BUSINESS: USE VARIANCE NO. 82-1995, AREA VARIANCE NO. 83-1995, TYPE I, JOHN BROCK - MOORING POST MARINA, OWNER: SAME. APPLICANT SEEKS TO CONSTRUCT AND USE NONCONFORMING, COMMERCIAL BOAT STORAGE BUILDINGS ON A PRE-EXISTING, NONCONFORMING SITE, AND SEEKS RELIEF FROM THE USE AND AREA REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 179 -16, WATERFRONT RESIDENTIAL - ONE ACRE (WR-1A) ZONE. LOCATION: WESTERN 'SIDE OF CLEVERDALE ROAD, NORTH OF THE INTERSECTION WITH MASON ROAD, TAX MAP NO. 13-3- 19, 13-2-20, 13-2-21 IN A WR-1A ZONE, CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL AREA, ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY (APA) AND LAKE GEORGE PARK COMMISSION (LGPC) JURISDICTION. TOM NACE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; JOHN BROCK, PRESENT MR. CARVIN-I'd like to kind of go over some of the ground rules before we start this evening. This is a public meeting, but there is no public hearing. The purpose of this meeting is for this Board to meet and review the environmental impact statement with regard to the Mooring Post. The only comments that we may want or receive from the general public is if it's' in response to a specific question asked by a Board member. Does everybody on the Board understand that? In other words, if you have a specific question of the applicant, or if someone in the audience, if they are willing to comment, you may ask the question, but it is not an open forum. Before we get down to the nitty gritty, I know a couple of Board members were not present at the last meeting, and I just wanted to verify with Bonnie and Bill if you've received the minutes, if you have read them and feel comfortable in moving forward with this particular application. MRS. LAPHAM-I've received them. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Do you feel comfortable? MRS. LAPHAM-Yes. MR. CARVIN-Okay. How about you, Bill? MR. GREEN-Yes. I also feel comfortable, after reading them. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Now, we have all received, and I'm assuming you all have received a lot of information. When last we met, we had requested certain information. We had left the public hearing open until May the 10th for written comments, and I'm assuming everybody - 1 - '.~ (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/13/96) has received and read those comments and additional material. MR. FORD-Yes. MR. THOMAS-Yes. MR. CARVIN-Okay. The first item, I guess, is do we have, or still have, I mean, when last we met, we came to the conclusion that we had a complete application. With the submission of any of the additional material, with the addition of any additional comments from the public, do we still have, and does this Board still feel, that we have a completed application and that we can go through the Part II of the SEQRA review? Does anyone have a problem not moving forward? Okay. Then it's still deemed a complete application. Now. Under the Part II, the first thing that I think we need to determine, and I think we have been under the premise, and I believe rightfully so, that this is what they classify and Unlisted Action, and I have gone through the criteria, under the SEQRA manual, and feel very comfortable that this does meet and fall under the Unlisted criteria, that this is not a Type I project. Does anyone have difficulty with this being an Unlisted Action? I'm going to just consult with Counsel. I'm assuming that Counsel has had an opportunity to review the record, and as I said, I have looked at this and feel very comfortable declaring this an Unlisted Action, and I'm assuming, does Counsel have any problem with that? MR. LAPPER-No, I concur with that, that it's Unlisted. MR. CARVIN-Now, under the Unlisted Action, and if I'm using incorrect terms here, just correct me. When we go through the Part II, we have, basically, three situations. As we go through the Part II, if there is no environmental impact, that is determined to be a negative condition, so that a negative response is no environmental impact. A conditioned negative declaration is that the plan as submitted may have an environmental impact, but that with mitigation, that environmental impact can be reduced to an insignificant or not meaningful condition. The third alternative is what we call a positive declaration, and that is where the impact of the project is extremely large or numerous, that mitigation will not be a solution, or that it cannot be mitigated down to an insignificant or very little impact, in which case, a positive declaration would mandate what we call an EIS, which is an Environmental Impact Statement, in which the applicant would have to point out both the positive and negative aspects of his project, as far as the environment is concerned. Does everyone understand what the criteria is for when we go through the Part II? Okay. Is there anything that you would care to add, Jon? MR. LAPPER-Not at this time. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Am I on track? falsehoods or strayed too far? I mean, I haven't said any MR. LAPPER-Pos dec., neg dec., or a condition neg. dec. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Now, has anyone gone through the environmental impact statement. Does anyone have any feelings, at least initially, or any comments that they would care to make at this point before I proceed to going through the second part? Are you comfortable, pretty comfortable? Okay. Now, if you would take out your Part II, I've gone through it, and I spent a lot of time with this, as I'm sure that all of us have. A general impression, and as I said, before we get down to the nuts and bolts, at least on illY part, I think that there would be an impact on the land. I think there could be, possibly, an impact on water. I think that there could be an impact on aesthetic resources. I think there possibly could be an impact on transportation, noise and odor, and a possible impact on the growth and character of the community or - 2 - ',-, --' (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/13/96) neighborhood. However, I have gone through, and I find that there are, a lot of these things are kind of tied togèther. So I'm not quite sure how I can really summarize this. I think, taken individually, none of them are terribly significant, but when taken in the aggregate, or total, then I think we do have a problem, but I think that all of these problems can be mitigated to a point where there is very little, if any, impact on the environment. I would like to propose, I guess just to start this conversation off, I'm presenting what I have developed as a possible plan. This plan is not set in concrete, but it is what I feel are prudent actions that this Board could take to mitigate down the possible environmental impacts, so that we could issue a conditioned negative declaration. MR. LAPPER-Mr. Chairman, are you planning on going through the Part II list first, or are you going to go through your recommendations and then go through the Part II list? MR. CARVIN-Well, we can do it either way, I think. MR. LAPPER-I'd recommend that you go through the list and get everyone's input, in terms of the impacts, and then come up with the mitigation. MR. CARVIN-All right. Then we will start on Page One, the Impact on the Land. Does anyone have any feel for that? MR. GORALSKI-Would you like me to read it? MR. CARVIN-Sure. MR. GORALSKI-IIWill the proposed action result in a physical change to the project site? NO YES II MR. KARPELES-The way I read this thing is, you should go through and do the answers first and then come back to that and say no or yes. MR. GORALSKI-You can do it that way if you'd like to. MR. FORD-I agree, because if any of them come up one way or the other, that guides you. MR. GORALSKI-I'll continue to read them. "Any construction on slopes of 15% or greater, or where the general slopes in the project area exceed 10%." I would say no. MR. CARVIN-No. Does everybody concur? MR. KARPELES-Right. MR. GORALSKI - II Construction on land where the depth to the water table is less than 3 feet. II MR. FORD-Yes. MR. CARVIN-That is a yes. MR. GORALSKI-Okay. MR. CARVIN-And I would indicate that that could be mitigated. MR. MENTER-I would agree with that. MR. THOMAS-How would you mitigate that? MR. CARVIN-Well, lets go through and lets, because a lot of this stuff ties all together. - 3 - ',----, (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/13/96) MR. THOMAS-Okay. MR. GORALSKI-"Construction of paved parking area for 1,000 or more vehicles." MR. CARVIN-No. MR. GORALSKI- "Construction on land where bedrock is exposed or generally within 3 feet of existing ground surface." MR. CARVIN-No. MR. GORALSKI- "Construction that will continue for more than one year or involve more than one phase or stage." MR. CARVIN-No. MR. GORALSKI- "Excavation for mining purposes that would remove more than 1,000 tons of natural material (i.e., rock or soil) per year." MR. CARVIN-No. I'm answering no. correct, just call me up short. If you find that I'm not MR. THOMAS-Lets go back to this construction one there. MR. CARVIN-Which one's that, the construction of one year? MR. THOMAS-Nobody's ever said if all these buildings were going to be put up at once, or if it was going to be done ~n steps or stages. MR. CARVIN-I think in his application he said a three month time frame. MR. GORALSKI-In Part I of the EAF I believe that's what it says. MR. CARVIN-Okay, Part I. Okay. MR. GORALSKI-"Construction or expansion of a sanitary landfill." MR. CARVIN-No. MR. GORALSKI-"Construction in a designated floodway." MR. CARVIN-I have a hard time with that one. I put, yes. Is that a floodway? MR. KARPELES-I don't agree with that. floodway. I don't think that's a MRS. LAPHAM-I don't agree. MR. FORD-I had that one checked. MR. CARVIN-As a yes? MR. FORD-I'm willing to listen MR. CARVIN-I was going to say, if Staff feels that this is not a floodway, then I don't have a problem. MR. GORALSKI-It's not a floodway. It's within a flood zone. MR. THOMAS-What's the difference? MR. GORALSKI-I believe, and I can't say that I'm an expert in this, that it depends on the frequency of the flooding. If the flooding would occur every 100 years, typically, or every 50 years, the - 4 - ',-, -./ (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/13/96) different zones that that is based on. You might want to ask Tom Nace. He may be able to explain it better. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Tom, would you care to comment? MR. NACE-For the record, my name is Tom Nace, representing the applicant. A floodwav is defined as the area of river flow necessary to pass flood waters, okay. So if you went down along Halfway Brook, the floodway would be the main channel where water is flowing, at a certain frequency floodway, be it 100 years or 500 years, whatever. The floodplain is that area which is covered by water during that period, during that frequency flood. So, for a 100 year flood, the floodµlain may be a much larger area than the floodway. The floodplain would be the area which has water on it. The floodwav would be a fairly narrow area in the center that is conveying water downstream. MR. CARVIN-Sort of like a Deer Crossing zone, next 25 miles. Yes. Okay. MR. THOMAS-Like the Mississippi back in '93. MR. NACE-Correct. There's a fairly narrow channel that's really passing water, but there is stagnant water standing, in the floodplain. MR. THOMAS-Yes. So I would say no on that one. MR. GREEN-Yes. MR. CARVIN-Does the Board feel comfortable saying no, do I have a consensus? MR. KARPELES-Yes. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Impactsll. Then the answer to that will be no. IIOther MR. GORALSKI-Okay. So you answered yes. MR. CARVIN-To the IIConstruction of a water tablell. MR. GORALSKI-That was IISmall to Moderate" impact, or "Potentially Large"? Since you said it can be mitigated, I would assume you mean there's a potential large impact. You don't need to answer Column 3 unless you. MR. CARVIN-Unless it's an impact? Then I would say, "Small to Moderate" impact from this project. MR. FORD-I said "Potentially Large". MR. CARVIN-How does anybody else feel about this? MR. KARPELES-I think it's small to moderate. Again, are we looking at something that is different from what we had when the other buildings were there? MR. CARVIN-Yes. We have to look at it as a new project, Bob. MR. KARPELES-I still think it's small to moderate. What was the depth to the water table? MR. FORD-It was two feet, plus or minus. MR. CARVIN-As I understand, that there'll be no cellars, that these will be built on slabs and/or poles? Would that be a correct assessment? - 5 - '-./ ',,--, (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/13/96) MR. BROCK-Right. MR. CARVIN-Okay. So it's not like we're digging a foundation, necessarily, into the water table. MR. GORALSKI-If you'd like my opinion, I think that, you know, to say there's a potentially large impact is not, I think that's certainly a reasonable response, and that it can be mitigated by a project change, meaning a stormwater management plan that would address that. MR. CARVIN-Okay, stormwater plan. that, Tom, small to moderate comfortable with that? Okay. impact? Are you comfortable with Does everyone feel MR. FORD-No. MR. KARPELES-Yes, I do. MR. THOMAS-I feel comfortable with a small to moderate. MR. CARVIN-Am I getting a consensus here of at least five to one? MR. MENTER-Yes, I do, also. MR. CARVIN-Okay, then I'm going to indicate that that is a small to moderate impact. Okay. We'll continue. MR. GORALSKI-I can go on to Number Two. MR. CARVIN-Yes. MR. GORALSKI-"Will there be an effect to any unique or unusual land forms found on the site? (i.e. cliffs, dunes, geological formations, etc.) NO YES" MR. CARVIN-I said, no. MR. KARPELES-Can we go back to the first question on Number One, where it says, "Will the proposed action result in a physical change to the project site?1I We read through the answers first, and then we were going to go back to that. MR. GORALSKI-Yes. We can go back. I just assumed, since you found that there was one. MR. FORD-The answer is yes. MR. GORALSKI-The answer is yes, because you found "Construction on land where the depth to water table is less than three feet". So the answer would be yes for that. MR. KARPELES-Yes, but we said small to moderate impact. MR. GORALSKI-Still, it's an impact. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Number Three, Impact on Water. MR. GORALSKI- "Will the proposed action affect designated as protected? (Under Articles 15, Environmental Conservation Law, ECL) NO YES" any water body 24, 25 of the MR. CARVIN-Okay. Well, go through the sub categories. MR. GORALSKI-Okay. "Developable area of the site contains a protected water body." The answer to that would be nO. MR. CARVIN-I said, no. - 6 - "- -..../ (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/13/96) MR. GORALSKI-IIDredging more than 100 cubic yards of material from channel of a protected stream. II MR. CARVIN-No. MR. GORALSKI-"Extension of utility distribution facilities through a protected water body. II MR. CARVIN-No. MR. GORALSKI - II Construction of a designated freshwater or tidal wetland" . MR. CARVIN-No. MR. GORALSKI-"Other impacts". So no at the top there. MR. CARVIN-I would say a No. MR. GORALSKI-Four, "Will proposed action affect any non-protected existing or new body of water? NO YES Examples: A 10% increase or decrease in the surface area of any body of water or more than a 10 acre increase or decrease?" MR. CARVIN-No. MR. GORALSKI-II Construction of a body of water that exceeds 10 acres of surface area. II MR. CARVIN-No. MR. GORALSKI-"Other impacts ". MR. CARVIN-Number Four, I'd say, is a No. Number Five. MR. GORALSKI - "Will the proposed action groundwater quality or quantity? NO YES require a discharge permit. II affect surface or Proposed action will MR. CARVIN-I don't believe so. MR. GORALSKI-No. "Proposed action requires use of a source of water that does not have approval to serve proposed (project) action. II MR. CARVIN-Again, no. MR. GORALSKI-IIProposed action requires water supply from wells with greater than 45 gallons per minute pumping capacity. II MR. CARVIN-Not that I'm aware of, no. MR. GORALSKI-" Construction or operation causing any contamination of a water supply system. II MR. CARVIN-Again, no. MR. GORALSKI-II Proposed action will adversely affect groundwater. II MR. CARVIN-Has anybody got a problem with that one? MR. FORD-Yes. MR. THOMAS-I think there's a small to moderate impact on that one, since the groundwater level is very high for three feet. MR. CARVIN-Okay. feel? Tom, we have a small to moderate. How do you - 7 - ',----, '--..-/ (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/13/96) MR. FORD-At least that at this point. MR. KARPELES-Well, I guess it's got to affect it to an extent, if the groundwater level is only two feet. So I'd say it's small to moderate, yes. MR. MENTER-Small to moderate is what I have. MR. GREEN-Yes, I think small to moderate, also. MRS. LAPHAM-Small to moderate. MR. CARVIN-I guess the consensus is small to moderate. MR. GORALSKI-Okay. ilLiquid effluent will be conveyed off the site to facilities which presently do not exist or have inadequate capacity. II MR. CARVIN-No. MR. GORALSKI-IIProposed action would use water in excess of 20,000 gallons per day. II MR. CARVIN-No. MR. GORALSKI-"Proposed action will likely cause siltation or other discharge into an existing body of water to the extent that there will be an obvious visual contrast to natural conditions. II MR. CARVIN-No. MR. GORALSKI - II Proposed action will require the storage of petroleum or chemical products greater than 1,100 gallons. II MR. CARVIN-No. MR. GORALSKI-IIProposed action will allow residential uses in areas without water and/or sewer services. II MR. CARVIN-Allow residential uses, no. MR. GORALSKI-IIProposed action locates commercial and/or industrial uses which may require new or expansion of existing waste treatment and/or storage facilities. II MR. CARVIN-No. Okay. I find just one small to moderate impact. MR. FORD-Can I get clarification on that storage of petroleum. MR. CARVIN-Okay. MR. FORD-What's the maximum storage capacity, if you can refresh my memory? MR. BROCK-My name is John Brock, the applicant. Where we're talking about doing the buildings, there is no storage, underground storage. We have one 275 gallon waste oil tank, but that's above ground, and on the oppositè side our gas tanks are a 3,000 gallon tank and a 1,000 gallon tank. That's on the lake side of Cleverdale Road. MR. CARVIN-Not on the project site. MR. BROCK-Not on the project site. MR. FORD-But it doesn't make reference, here, as to whether it's stored above ground or below ground. It says, "Requires the storage of petroleum or chemical products greater than 1100 gallons. II - 8 - \,..,...- (Queensbury ZBA Meeting '-' 5/13/96) MR. GREEN-Those are already there. MR. CARVIN-I was going to say, I think, if it was on the project site, I'd have a problem with that, but this is not on the project site. MR. BROCK-Yes. Those are existing, and it's 275 gallons. MR. FORD-Thank you. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Does everybody understand? comfortable with that? Is everybody MR. MENTER-I read that as the action causing the change. MR. CARVIN-Okay. So I do see one impact, in other words, "The proposed action will adversely affect groundwater, small to moderate impact", is that correct? MR. FORD-So our answer for Number Five is yes? MR. MENTER-Yes. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Number Six, John. MR. GORALSKI-Okay. I just want to make sure we're clear on, proposed action will require the storage of petroleum or chemical products greater than 1,100 gallons. There is, I believe it's 4,000 gallons of petroleum stored, at the marina property. MR. CARVIN-Not on the project site, however. MR. FORD-Across the road is a separate site? MR. GORALSKI-Are you considering that a separate site? MR. CARVIN-Well, that's what our intentions, and my impression has been right along. MR. GORALSKI-Okay. was all included. I just wanted to be sure. I believe that it MR. CARVIN-Okay. Well, if I'm incorrect on that, then I will stand corrected. MR. GREEN-But even so, aren't we supposed to base this on the new changes, not what's existing? MR. GORALSKI -The question is, "Will the proposed action require the storage of petroleum?" Now there's petroleum being stored there now. Just because we're building new storage buildings, not requiring the storage of petroleum, you can look at it that way. MR. KARPELES-Right. MR. CARVIN-I would be more uncomfortable with that if he was putting in new or other tanks. MR. GORALSKI-I guess that's my point. MR. CARVIN-So, I mean, I still feel that the answer to that is no. MR. GORALSKI-Okay. MR. MENTER-That was mY interpretation. MR. GORALSKI-Okay. Number Six. "Will the proposed action alter - 9 - ---./ -'- (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/13/96) drainage flow or patterns, or surface water runoff? NO YES Examples: Proposed Action would change flood water flows. II MR. CARVIN-Okay. What's the Board feel about that? MR. MENTER-There's certainly an impact. moderate on that. I have marked small to MR. GORALSKI-I believe flood water flows is different from stormwater. Okay. MR. CARVIN-Well, it also says, "or surface water runoff". MR. MENTER-Well, we're not talking about that specific question, I guess. MR. CARVIN-Well, no, Number Six. MR. GREEN-There was another dot there for drainage. MR. GORALSKI-Right. MR. CARVIN-Okay. This is flood water flow? MR. GORALSKI-Yes. You'll get to that. MR. CARVIN-I see, and flood water, we've determined that that's in a flood zone, but not necessarily a flood way. Is that correct? All right. Then the answer to that should be no? MR. MENTER-That would be no. MR. GORALSKI-"Proposed action may cause substantial erosion." MR. CARVIN-Okay. I have, yes. What's the Board feel? I guess the term "substantial". MR. FORD-Yes. MR. CARVIN-Bob? MR. KARPELES-I feel, no. I think he's putting in trenches to catch the, french drains to catch the runoff from the roof. I think that's going to be an improvement, if anything. MR. CARVIN-Okay. So you don't think there'd be any problems, any additional erosion? MR. KARPELES-Substantial erosion. MR. CARVIN-Substantial erosion. MR. MENTER-Explain it to me. What is their erosion scenario? Maybe I'm just interpreting it different than you. MR. CARVIN-Well, I'm looking at the stormwater runoff from the permeability, from a runoff. If there isn't some sort of plan to prevent that, I think we could have a case where we have substantial erosion. MR. GREEN-So you're saying the runoff just from the open space, not from the buildings? MR. CARVIN-No, from the whole site. MR. GREEN-See I'm basing, basically, my answer on this the same way that Mr. Karpeles, Bob, did, that, based on the plan presented, with the drainage ditches and everything else there, that I don't - 10 - ............ (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/13/96) '-'" think there would be a runoff problem. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Well, that's why we're here. MRS. LAPHAM-I feel there's a potential for problems with erosion, and for changing the existing drainage patterns, which is the next one. However, if the, what's proposed by the applicant is truly going to affect them, maybe it could be mitigated. MR. THOMAS-I agree with what Bill says, that the applicant has stated, and in the letter from Haanen Engineering dated May 9th, Number Two, the question was, respond to grading and drainage issues raised i~ the engineering comments. It states right here that they have, they will have complete grading plan. The plan will show all drainage from all buildings and work paths toward proposed infilt:Jf-ation trenches. So everything's going to go toward those infiltration trenches, and the berm along Mason Road, too, is going to keep everything within the confines of the project. So there won't be anything running out on Mason Road. So, it'll be on site disposal of any stormwater. So, I would say no. MR. CARVIN-Okay. So what is my vote, here? MR. FORD-I just want to address the word that I think it critical in this description, and that is "may cause". MR. KARPELES-Substantial, that's critical, too. MR. FORD-"May" indicates there is a possibility. MR. KARPELES-Well, how do you figure it's going to cause substantial difference? MR. FORD-Well, I don't know that it won't. Our most recent response indicates that the complete grading plan will be provided, and this plan will show. MR. GORALSKI-Maybe I could help here. Actually, I'm looking more at the next one, but even this one on erosion, certainly in any construction proj ect of this size, there's the potential for erosion. There's also, certainly, a change in the existing drainage patterns. Typically what happens in a project this size is that there's a site plan review where the Planning Board requires a detailed stormwater management plan, and erosion control measures to be designated on the plan and approved by the Planning Board. So that although there is a potentially large impact, that impact can certainly, not that it can certainly, but it certainly has mechanisms to mitigate that impact. So, although there may be a potentially large impact, it can certainly, you know, it can be addressed. MR. MENTER-Well, that's the next step. We're just going through the exercise and trying to determine, as a unit. MR. CARVIN-Where we have a problem and where we don't. MR. GORALSKI-Well, I guess what I'm saying is just because you say there's a potentially large impact doesn't meah that that impact is definitely going to happen. It just means there's a potentially large impact, and then you have to determine, then you go to Column 3 and say, can this impact be mitigated? MR. FORD-Thank you, that helped. MR. CARVIN-Okay. So that still brings me back to Square One, here. Have I got a consensus that this should be a no, that there will be, it says, this plan as proposed will not cause any substantial erosion. - 11 - . 'It ..,...~ oj -' ',-../ (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/13/96) MR. KARPELES-You've got my vote. MR. THOMAS-Yes. Why don't you take a straw poll here. MR. CARVIN-How many say it's a no, raise your hand, please. Four? Okay. Who feels that it might have an impact? All right. I've got a vote of four to three. MR. THOMAS-Okay. That's a majority. MR. CARVIN-So that's a no. MR. GORALSKI-"Proposed Action is incompatible with existing drainage patterns." MR. MENTER-I would say, yes. MR. THOMAS-Yes. MR. CARVIN-I have a yes. MR. FORD-So do I. MR. THOMAS-I would say it's, would you say it's small to moderate? MR. CARVIN-No. I've got a Number Three. MR. LAPPER-Potentially Large, but Number Two. MR. CARVIN-Potentially Large. MR. KARPELES-I don't really understand that question, "Proposed Action is incompatible with existing drainage patterns." MR. MENTER-It's going to change the current patterns. MR. KARPELES-Well, anything would change the patterns. MR. GORALSKI-That's right. MR. CARVIN-And that's why we have to determine whether it's going to be small, medium, or large. MR. GREEN-No, but does "incompatible" indicate that it, sure it's going to be different, as you said, but I look at "incompatible" and say that it's not going to work, with the existing patterns, with the surrounding area. I feel that it will work with the patterns of the surrounding area. Sure, it's going to change it on site, but. MR. FORD-So you're looking at drainage patterns as all through that neighborhood? MR. GREEN-Exactly, and we're looking at the general environment of the area. I mean, if you want to say incompatible with the existing drainage on the site, sure, it's got to be different, because the buildings are all different and he's putting in the trenches and everything else. MR. CARVIN-Okay, but we've had testimony, and correspondence to indicate that the patterns that are there now were not there before, and that the patterns there now are worse than. MR. GREEN-Well, that's quite possible because he removed a bunch of structures and some berming and what have you. I mean, he's just up in the air, now. MR. CARVIN-Chris, what are your feelings? - 12 - "----' -./ (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/13/96) MR. THOMAS-Really this really doesn't apply, because if he's going to put in a new kind of drainage and grading, this really doesn't apply. MR. CARVIN-I think it does. MR. GORALSKI-I believe that new grading and drainage would be the mitigation measure. MR. GREEN-All right, if you want to look at it that way, fine, but I'm looking at the plan finished, with the drainage in place, and according to that plan, the way 1 look at it, those drainage patterns would be compatible with the area, when it's finished. ~ I P MR. MENTER-My interpretation would be that the proposed action would include the proposed drainage. So it would not be part of the mitigation. MR. GORALSKI-I don't believe that you have a completed stormwater management plan that has been approved by either the Town Engineer or the Planning Board or anyone who would traditionally that. MR. MENTER-Well, that's something that we're raising the flag on that, but it's still proposed. Whatever he's got on there is the proposed action. So we may be saying right now, that is enough, yes, or it's not enough. MR. CARVIN-Well, I think the potential is, if we put 162 foot long building parallel to Mason Road, that's 34 feet or 35 feet tall, that the water running off that, I think, is going to be diverted more toward Mason Road than where it currently is going down the center of the lot, which is the pattern right now. I spent a lot of time out there, Saturday, watching water. MR. KARPELES-Well, I think that the square footage is more indicative of the drainage pattern than the cubic footage. I think it has pretty much the same square footage in the new building as we have in the old buildings. MR. CARVIN-No, I'm talking a drainage pattern, in other words, the water exiting the property. MR. KARPELES-Well, you've got a certain plot of land that's a certain size, and so much water falls on it, and so much area is permeable, and so much isn't, and the construction is in square footage. MR. MENTER-But where it goes is the issue. MR. CARVIN-Is the issue. MR. KARPELES-Yes. Well, so much water has got to run off that lot before and some of it's got to run off now. MR. CARVIN-I think if we put that building, that we're putting that water closer to Mason Road than we are toward keeping it on the lot. MR. THOMAS-You've got to remember. There's going to be a six foot berm, supposedly, between Mason Road and the building. MR. CARVIN-I'm still saying that I think that it's incompatible with the existing drainage pattern. MR. THOMAS-I don't even think it's germane to, I don't think the question is relevant right now, or at all. MR. LAPPER-If I could just make a comment. I think that part of - 13 - , . --../ "----' (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/13/96) the problem is that the Board is, in each of your minds, you're thinking toward mitigation measures, in terms of the stormwater management plan that's been suggested but hasn't been drafted yet. So I think that perhaps we're just getting a little bit ahead of ourselves in terms of, first you have to determine that there's a potential significant impact, and then you make a project change, like requiring a stormwater management plan, which we all, from what I'm hearing, you all expect that this will be able to be mitigated, but that you first have to make the determination that there's an issue here, because of the water table and the size of the buildings that are going on, and then come back to a mitigation measure. MR. GREEN-I've got a question for Tom. Some place, and I have been reading this so much for the last couple of weeks I could be totally out of line here, but some place I thought I read in one of your reports that there'd be enough, I don't know what I want to say, drainage on the site to hold more, some amount more than the 50 year storm amount that's fallen, or that most of the water is designed to stay on the site, and by a great number of times more than what the average rain has been, or something along that line? MR. NACE-Okay. When we first looked at the drainage, we looked at it under the context of what the Town requires for a site plan, which is that any change in the site, any change in the permeable area, has to be accounted for in the drainage system that you put in. So that runoff off the site, after you're done with the project, has to be equal to or less than the peak runoff before the site is developed, before you did your project. With those numbers, I totally ignored infiltration, and with the trenches that we proposed in the original site plan, there was, I think 10 times the amount of storage alone for a 50 year storm, without any infiltration, okay, and therefore we believe very firmly that even what was originally proposed will help mitigate some of the existing problems that are there. Okay. More of the details, obviously, can be worked out with the complete plan, but we anticipate that there'll be less runoff than exists now. MR. GREEN-So that's basically, that's where I'm basing most all of my runoff decisions on, according to their plan as it is now. There's going to be lesser amounts than there was already.' MRS. LAPHAM-But I think, weren't we just instructed to look at it as it is now, because there has not been a storm water plan, or management put into effect, so we don't have a plan to look at? So, therefore, I felt it could cause a very substantial impact, and it would seem to me that it's going to be the most permeable now because there's nothing there and the buildings are gone, and the minute you add a building, it's going to change, and then something will have to be done, because of the potential impact. MR. GREEN-And what Mr. Nace is saying is, according to what they've even planned, with the trenches, they're 10 times greater than whatever rain has fallen in the (lost words) . MRS. LAPHAM-But that hasn't been approved. that. So we can't consider MR. GREEN-But that's the plan that's before us, and we're deciding whether it's approved or not. MRS. LAPHAM-Well, not here. MR. GREEN-Not here, but you have to base it on something. MR. KARPELES-We're talking about a proposed action, and he's presenting a proposed action. - 14 - '-", J (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/13/96) MR. GREEN-Right. That's his action. MR. KARPELES-That's what we're deciding on. MR. CARVIN-Dave, what do you think? MR. MENTER-I think there's a definite possibility of impact. MR. CARVIN-Tom? MR. FORD-Agreed, MR. CARVIN-Chris? MR. THOMAS-No. MR. CARVIN-Well, lets put it to a vote. How many think that there will be a no, in other words, a no response to this question, raise your hands? Three. How many think that there will be a small to moderate, or potentially large, a yes answer, I guess? Okay. Small to moderate, potentially large, or can be mitigated? MR. GORALSKI-If I could clarify something, it's not an "or" for can be mitigated. It's small to moderate, or potentially large. If it's potentially large, then you go to Number Three, can it be mitigated by a project change. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Then I think it's potentially large, and yes, I think it can be mitigated. MR. GREEN-By a project change. So you're saying that his trenches are not up to what you believe is necessary. MR. CARVIN-I think a project change will make the existing drainage pattern more compatible. " MR. GORALSKI-If I could jump in one more time here, it's not necessarily, in my opinion, that his trenches are inadequate. Their engineering report that you reviewed at the last meeting, Rist-Frost had some comments that needed to be addressed. There was also some comments made by another engineer, questioning some details in the report. Certainly a mitigation measure such as requiring that the Town's engineer and the Planning Board approve a complete and detailed stormwater management plan, at site plan review, would be a mitigation measure that could be imposed, to deal with this particular impact. That way, then, it wouldn't be a matter of whether or not you believe one person's assessment of the impact. You then have the Town's consulting engineer and the Planning Board reviewing it and making a decision based on the practices that they typically use for commercial projects. MR. MENTER-So what you're saying is that it makes sense to look at it as something that is yet to be determined. MR. LAPPER-And that's potentially large. MR. CARVIN-Potentially large. MR. MENTER-I would say yes. MR. FORD-Yes. MR. CARVIN-And I would say it's potentially large. Okay. MR. FORD-So the ,answer to Number Six is yes. MR. CARVIN-Well, we've got one more. "Proposed Action will allow development in a designated floodway". - 15 - ...../ "--- (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/13/96) MR. GORALSKI-And the answer to that would be no. MR. CARVIN-The answer, I think, is no. So we do have a yes on that. Number Six is a yes. Impact on Air. MR. GORALSKI-Right. "will the proposed action affect air quality? Proposed action will induce 1,000 or more vehicle trips in any given hour. II MR. CARVIN-No. MR. GORALSKI-"Proposed action will result in the incineration of more than 1 ton of refuse per hour. II MR. CARVIN-No. MR. GORALSKI- "Emission rate of total contaminants will exceed 5 lbs. per hour or a heat source producing more than 10 million BTU's per hour. II MR. CARVIN-No. MR. GORALSKI-IIProposed action will allow an increase in the amount of land committed to industrial use. II MR. CARVIN-No. MR. GORALSKI-II Proposed action will allow an increase in the density of industrial development within existing industrial areas. II MR. CARVIN-No. MR. GORALSKI-"Other impacts II MR. CARVIN-Okay. I have a negative declaration on that Impact on Air. Does everybody agree? MR. THOMAS-Yes. MR. FORD-Yes. MR. CARVIN-Impact on Plants and Animals. MR. GORALSKI - "Will the proposed action affect any threatened or endangered species? NO YES Reduction of one or more species listed on the New York or Federal list, using the site, over or near site or found on the site. II MR. CARVIN-No. MR. GORALSKI-"Removal of any portion of a critical or significant wildlife habitat." MR. CARVIN-No. MR. GORALSKI- "Application of pesticide or herbicide more than twice a year, other than for agricultural purposes." MR. CARVIN-No. Number Eight. Any other impacts, anyone? Number Nine. I have a negative to MR. GORALSKI-IIWill Proposed Action threatened or non-endangered species? would substantially interfere with any shellfish or wildlife species?" substantially affect non- NO YES Proposed Act ion resident or migratory fish, MR. CARVIN-No. - 16 - '-' (Queensbury ZBÁ Meeting 5/13/96) .J MR. GORALSKI-IIProposed Action requires the removal of more than 10 acres of mature forest (over 100 years of age) or other locally important vegetation. II MR. CARVIN-No. Number Nine I have as a negative. MR. FORD-Agreed. MR. CARVIN-Number Ten. MR. GORALSKI-IIWill the Proposed Action affect agricultural land résources? NO YES The proposed action would sever, cross or limit access to agricultural land. II MR. CARVIN-No. MR. GORALSKI-IIConstruction activity would excavate or compact the soil profile of agricultural land. II MR. CARVIN-No. MR. GORALSKI-liThe proposed action would irreversibly convert more than 10 acres of agricultural land or, if located in an Agricultural District, more than 2.5 acres of agricultural land. II MR. CARVIN-No. MR. GORALSKI-liThe proposed action would disrupt or prevent installation of agricultural land management systemsll. MR. CARVIN-No. MR. GORALSKI-IIOther Impacts.1I MR. CARVIN-Any other impacts, anyone? I have a negative declaration. Number Eleven. Impact on Aesthetic Resources. MR. GORALSKI-IIWill the proposed action affect aesthetic resources? NO YES Proposed land uses, or proj ect components obviously different from or in sharp contrast to current surrounding land use patterns, whether man made or natural. II MR. CARVIN-What's the Board's feeling on this one? MR. MENTER-I'd say that's going to be a yes. MR. THOMAS-Yes. MRS. LAPHAM-Yes. MR. CARVIN-I think that's a yes. MR. THOMAS-How big of a yes? MR. GORALSKI-Moderate or potentially large? MRS. LAPHAM-Potentially huge. MR. THOMAS-Potentially large. MR. CARVIN-Does everybody feel potentially large? Okay. Is there any opposition? MR. KARPELES-I'm still trying to figure out what they're saying. They're saying proposed land uses or project components obviously different from or in sharp contrast to current surrounding land use, in other words, that you don't consider what that is being used as, was béing used as in the past? It's just the surrounding - 17 - ,'"-" ~-.-' (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/13/96) use? It's no different from what it was in the past, but that's not what we're supposed to be considering. Is that right? MR. CARVIN-I think that's, at least in illY opinion, that's pretty, it's a pretty sharp contrast. MR. LAPPER-Even if you compared what was around in the past, that was when they had the small buildings, not the one long 200 some odd foot building along Mason Road that's proposed. MR. KARPELES-Okay. We'll go ahead. MR. CARVIN-So we've got a number of potentially large? MR. FORD-Yes. MRS. LAPHAM-Yes. MR. MENTER-Yes. I think that's safe to say. MR. GORALSKI-Do you want to go to Column Three, can the impact be mitigated by project change, or do you want to wait and go through the rest of these first? MR. CARVIN-Well, I feel that it can, but lets wait, because maybe it can't. MR. GORALSKI-Okay. visible to users of significantly reduce that resource." "Proposed land uses, or proj ect components aesthetic resources which will eliminate or their enjoyment of the aesthetic qualities of MR. CARVIN-Okay. Again, what's the Board's feeling on this one? MRS. LAPHAM-Potentially large. MR. THOMAS-Yes. MRS. LAPHAM-That's illY feeling. MR. CARVIN-Bill? MR. GREEN-Yes. I would say, as it stands now, it has to be large, yes. MR. CARVIN-Any opposition to that? MR. FORD-I just want to go back to a seminar that I attended, where they were talking, and I just want to make sure that this either does or does not address that issue of a specific aesthetic resource, where people might be drawn to a given area, specifically to look at some natural beauty at that particular site, and this could impact that. Is this the appropriate place for that to be viewed that way, or am I not making it clear? MR. LAPPER-Well, you're referring to one that's a little bit farther down. It's right, almost there, the scenic views known to be important in the area, I think, which is another separate consideration under this. MR. GREEN-Fred, I'd like to just change mine. I think that's small to moderate, act~ally, the more I think about it here. MR. KARPELES-Who are the users of the aesthetic resources that this is going to reduce their enjoyment of? MR. GREEN-See, and I'm even like right along here with Fred and Tom. I'm not even sure it does. I'm going to have to say, no. - 18 - ",-" .....,.. (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/13/96) MR. CARVIN-I think it does. MR. KARPELES-Who are these users? That's what I have a problem with. MRS. LAPHAM-Well, to me, the people that live there. MR. KARPELES-Users of aesthetic resources which will eliminate or significantly reduce their enjoyment of. MR. MENTER-I would interpret the neighbors as being users. MR. GREEN-See, but it's not going to eliminate it and it's not going to significantly reduce it. MR. MENTER-In my interpretation, it would. MR. GREEN-Not mine. MR. KARPELES-Not mine. MR. GREEN-I've got to change it even to no, the more I sit here and argue about it. MR. CARVIN-Well, how many feel that it's a potentially large impact? MR. MENTER-I do. MR. FORD-I do. MR. CARVIN-I guess we've got five to two. MR. KARPELES-I guess so. MR. GORALSKI-Okay. IIproject components that will result in the elimination or significant screening of scenic views known to be important to the area. II MR. CARVIN-Boy, that's a toughie. Has anyone got a feel for this? MR. MENTER-I kind of interpret it like John did, that the user sort of defined how you read that. To me, it's not a spot where people would travel to take in the view. Not that there's not users of that aesthetic resource, but it's not known in the area. MR. CARVIN-Sort of like Prospect Mountain, where you go to the top of Prospect Mountain. MR. MENTER-Well, that would be an extreme example, yes. MR. CARVIN-So that this is not a destination point. MR. MENTER-That was my interpretation of the relationship between those two questions. MR. FORD-And in that seminar, that was the point that was made. MR. CARVIN-I would say no to that. MR. MENTER-That's what I said. MR. THOMAS-Well, in that context, I would go along with a no. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Are we on the right context with that? I think that seems to be the impression I'm getting. MRS. LAPHAM-Is that the only context that you take it in? - 19 - '-.-/ (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/13/96) MR. CARVIN-No. That's why we're here. If you've got another context, I'd be more than glad to hear it. MRS. LAPHAM-Well, I went to the same seminar, and I remember hearing that, and I remember disagreeing with it at the time because, while it may not be a scenic destination that you travel to, people going by in boats look at the shoreline. It does look much pleasanter. It has small little houses they're just green. The neighbors are users of that view, and it's certainly going to have a significant and potentially large impact, I think, on both the neighbors and passers-by in boats, passers-by in cars that might be going there just to visit, whatever, neighbors or relatives, their boats, because it's certainly going to change their perception. MR. CARVIN-Certainly, the question is not well worded. There's no doubt about that. MR. FORD-I agree with all of those concerns. I just go back to, is this a scenic view that the people would come to? MRS. LAPHAM-I mean, how many people go there in their boats. MR. GREEN-Yes, but you don't go specifically there to look right there. I can see your argument, possibly, with the one above it, but not for a scenic designated area. MR. FORD-We know why people drive up Prospect Mountain. MR. LAPPER-Well, you've already determined that there's a potentially large visual impact here, so that, not that it's not important, but even if you can't agree on that, there's already a significant impact here, potentially large, that's going to have to be mitigated. MR. CARVIN-Do I have a consensus that we can comfortably put a II no II on that? MR. MENTER-I would say no. MR. KARPELES-No. MR. THOMAS-I'll go along with a no. MR. CARVIN-All right. So that, lets see, Number Eleven, I have two major impacts as a yes. MR. FORD-So it's a yes. MR. CARVIN-Impact on Historic and Archeological Resources. MR. GORALSKI-"Will proposed action impact any site or structure of historic, pre-historic or paleontological importance? NO YES Proposed Action occurring wholly or partially within or substantially contiguous to any facility or site listed on the State or National Register of historic places. II MR. CARVIN-I have, no. MR. GORALSKI- "Any impact to an archeological site or fossil bed located within the project site. II MR. CARVIN-No. MR. GORALSKI-IIProposed Action will occur in an area designated as sensitive for archaeological sites on the NYS Site Inventory." MR. CARVIN-No. Another negative on that one. Number Thirteen. - 20 - "--'" .-..../ (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/13/96) MR. GORALSKI-IIImpact on Open Space and Recreation Will Proposed Action affect the quantity or quality of existing or future open spaces or recreational opportunities? The permanent foreclosure of a future recreational opportunity. II MR. CARVIN-No. MR. GORALSKI-IIA major reduction of an open space important to the community. II MR. CARVIN-No. MR. GORALSKI-IIOther impacts ". MR. CARVIN-Any other impact anyone? MR. MENTER-No. MR. FORD-Can I just think about that for a second? I'm looking at the major reduction in the open space, looking at the impact of, I was looking at the added boats as potentially having an impact on open space, that being the water, particularly Sandy Bay. I guess I can go with a no. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Then I have a negative declaration on Number 13. Fourteen? MR. GORALSKI-1I14. Will Proposed Action impact the exceptional or unique characteristics of a critical environmental area (CEA) established pursuant to subdivision 6 NYCRR 617.4 (g) ? NO YES List the environmental characteristics that caused the designation of the CEA. Proposed Action to locate within a CEA?" The answer is yes, that is within the Lake George Park CEA. MR. FORD-Right. MR. GREEN-Can we get those characteristics? Does anybody have a general idea of what they are? MR. CARVIN-617.14. John, do you know if they've upgraded these paragraphs to this, because I'm not coming up with the same. MR. GORALSKI-Yes, it is, but you're not going to find that list in there. MR. LAPPER-Right, in the SEQRA Regs. That was a separate designation of Lake George as a Critical Environmental Area, not, the SEQRA Regs provide for designating, and then pursuant to the SEQRA Regs it was designated. MR. CARVIN-Well, I know when I went through the, when they were preparing this thing, which was wonderful reading, and I don't want to tell anybody the ending of this, it seems to me that they had an awful lot of controversy on that one, on this whole thing here, and on how to tackle that. MR. CARVIN-Okay. So we have a yes on this, and unfortunately, I don't see any indication whether we can mitigate that. Is that something that can be or cannot be mitigated? MR. GORALSKI-Just a minute. It's right in here. MR. CARVIN-Okay. I see. I jumped down here. MR. GREEN-So by designating this a Critical Environmental Area, they basically are calling this a natural resource, a natural? MR. KARPELES-Well, it says, will the proposed action impact the - 21 - --' (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/13/96) exceptional or unique characteristics. list what would impact it, right? So I guess we've got to MR. FORD-It seems to me that we're trying to list the rationale for it being designated a CEA. MR. GORALSKI-I can read, this is a "Notification of Designation of a Critical Environmental Area." It's addressed to Steve Borgos, Supervisor, Town of Queensbury. "On May 11, 1988, the Lake George Park Commission adopted Rules and Regulations promulgated as part of 645 and 646 of Title 6NYCRR. The regulations took effect on June 3, 1988. A notice of adoption of these rules and regulations is enclosed. Section 645-3 pertains to State Environmental Quality Review Act, specifically 645-3.8 of these rules'.. . designates the waters of Lake George all land lying under such waters, and within 500 feet of the mean high water mark of such waters and wetlands located adjacent to the waters of Lake George, and all land within 500 feet of such wetlands to be a Critical Environmental Area pursuant to Paragraph (h) of Section 617.4 of this Title.' In accordance with the requirements of 6 NYCRR 617.4 (h) (2), notice is hereby given that the Lake George Park Commission has established a Critical Environmental Area as described above and in 6 NYCRR 645-3.8." MR. GREEN-But it still doesn't say why. MR. MENTER-It doesn't list the characteristics, though. MR. GREEN-It just says that it's within 500 feet. MR. THOMAS-I think the environmental characteristic would be the lake itself. MR. GREEN-I guess. MR. CARVIN-I was going to say. It's designated the lake. MR. THOMAS-Yes, it's just a lake. That's it. MR. CARVIN-Right, not our call. MR. THOMAS-Yes. MR. GREEN-So for that matter, then, well, I guess because it's within 500 feet of the lake. Okay. MR. KARPELES-Well, will it impact it? MR. GREEN-Yes. "Will the proposed action impact the exceptional or unique". So how does it impact it? MR. GORALSKI-Criteria for Determining Significance. give a specific list. It doesn' t MR. GREEN-So these following questions are considering the lake itself, the resource, the lake and 500 feet around it. That is the resource that's referred to in these questions. MR. MENTER-The lake. MR. GREEN-Okay. MR. GORALSKI-I don't have a list, a specific list of the environmental characteristics that cause the designation of a C.E.A. That was the notification of designation that was provided to the Town of Queensbury. MR. LAPPER-I would recommend that we just answer the questions. In - 22 - '-' (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/13/96) ......,I terms of the reduction of quality, we know we're talking about the lake and the 500 feet adjacent to it, in terms of visual character, water quality, etc. MR. GORALSKI-Okay. "Proposed action to locate within the CEA?" The answer to that is, yes. It is located within a CEA. MR. MARTIN-So is the impact of that location small or potentially large? MR. FORD-I have potentially large. MR. CARVIN-Yes. MR. THOMAS-Yes. MRS. LAPHAM-I have to say potentially large. MR. CARVIN-We've got four that feel comfortable on potentially large. MR. GREEN-I'm leaning more toward small. MR. CARVIN-All right. Then I will ask for a raise of hands for those who feel that this is a potentially large impact. We've got four. MR. GORALSKI-"Can the impact be mitigated by a project change?" MR. CARVIN-Yes. Again. I think we're going to leave that until we get into the mitigation. MR. GORALSKI-Okay. the quantity of the "Proposed Action will result in a reduction in resource?" MR. CARVIN-I would say no. MR. GORALSKI-Okay. the quality of the "Proposed Action will result in a reduction in resource?" MR. CARVIN-Yes. I would say potentially large impact. MR. FORD-Agreed. MR. MENTER-I'll agree with that, too. MR. THOMAS-Yes. I'll go along with the large. MR. GORALSKI-"Proposed Action will impact the use, function or enjoyment of the resource?" MR. MENTER-I would say no. MR. THOMAS-Those are the two toughest, right there, on the whole thing. MR. CARVIN-Yes. MR. GREEN-I'd say no to that, definitely. MR. FORD-I think it has an impact on the resource, this Critical Environmental Area. MR. MENTER-The use, function or enjoyment of the resource? MR. FORD-Yes, people in the neighborhood. MR. KARPELES-How about all the people that own the boats, they get - 23 - .---./ '- (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/13/96) the use of enjoyment. the resource, right? That increases the So it effects it. It makes it positive. use, the MRS. LAPHAM-The neighbors that live move their location, their property. I tend to agree with Tom. I think impact. there live there. They can't The boats can move elsewhere. there is a potentially large MR. CARVIN-Okay. What have we got, two potentially large, Chris? MR. THOMAS-I'd vote potentially large. MR. CARVIN-Dave? MR. MENTER-I would say, no. MR. CARVIN-No impact? MR. MENTER-I would say no impact. MR. CARVIN-Bob? MR. KARPELES-No impact. MR. CARVIN-Bill? MR. GREEN-No impact. MR. CARVIN-I've got to say it's potentially large. I think that more boats could impact the use and the function and the enjoyment of the resource. I've got to say potentially large impact. Okay. So we have a positive declaration on that, and we'll determine whether it can be mitigated or not. Okay. Impact on Transportation. MR. GORALSKI-"Will there be an effect to existing transportation systems? NO YES Alternation of present patterns of movement of people and/or goods. II MR. THOMAS-Every thing's going to move the same, because everything's on the interior. I don't see any new entrances or exits to this project. I think they're re-using the same. So I would say that would be a no. MRS. LAPHAM-Are they talking about the project, or are they talking about the neighborhood in general? MR. CARVIN-Now remember, it's always the impact. MR. THOMAS-The impact of the project. MR. CARVIN-The impact of the project. MRS. LAPHAM-Yes, on the neighborhood. MR. CARVIN-Well, no, on the alteration of present patterns of movements of people and/or goods. Will this have a significant impact on either traffic or the movement of people or goods? MR. FORD-We look at the potential for an increase in quick launch, we're talking about movement of goods. It's my interpretation. MR. CARVIN-Also possible upheaval. MR. MENTER-I would say that even if the movement that is going to change is going to be within the site itself, the proximity to where the residence could make that have an effect. So I think it could have an impact, even though it's internal to the property. - 24 - ~ "-" (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/13/96) MR. GREEN-I think that might come in to like, noise or fumes or what have you, later, because that's what's flowing off the site. MR. CARVIN-I think this is the transportation. I think this is the road systems. The next question is, obviously, "Will proposed action result in major traffic problems. II MR. MENTER-Okay. Yes. MR. THOMAS-If the present patterns are not going to change, the amount in that pattern will change, but they're not asking that. They are asking if the pattern itself will change, and that is no. MR. FORD-So you don't see alteration as an increase or decrease? MR. THOMAS-I see an alteration as a different ingress or egress to the property. MR. MENTER-But a quantity would not be a pattern change. MR. THOMAS-I don't think this is a quantitative question. That's my opinion. MR. CARVIN-You're interpreting it, if they were to put another entrance? MR. THOMAS-If there's another entrance, you know, changing entrances, like putting an outlet road onto Mason Road or something like that, that would change the pattern. MR. FORD-What about alteration of parking on site? Wouldn't that impact the present patterns of movement? MR. CARVIN-Well, does that fall under traffic problems? MR. FORD-No, existing transportation systems. MR. THOMAS-Yes. See we're talking transportation system, which would be the roadways, the Town, County, State highways. MR. MENTER-I would say that the quantitative aspect of it could make it have an effect on the existing transportation system, i.e. Cleverdale Road. MR. FORD-Increase in traffic? MR. MENTER-Yes. I think there's a potential for that. That's how I would answer that. MR. CARVIN-Bob, what do you think? MR. KARPELES-I'd have to say no. MR. CARVIN-Bill? MR. GREEN-I'd have to agree that there is a potential for a change of patterns, small. MR. CARVIN-Bonnie? MRS. LAPHAM-Well, at the expense of sounding really dense, when I looked at this at home, and tried to answer this question, I didn't understand it, and I'm still not sure I understand it, and I'd like to hear from Staff and Jon, on how we're supposed to interpret this. MR. GORALSKI-I think that, you know, there are two questions under Number Fifteen, Alteration of the present patterns of movement of - 25 - -/ '~ (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/13/96) people and goods, and Proposed Action will result in major traffic problems, especially the second one, you know, is very general. Major traffic problems can be anything. It can be access. It can be number. It can be anything related to traffic. MRS. LAPHAM-But it's the one before that. MR. GORALSKI-The one before alteration of the present patterns of movement of people and/or goods? MR. GREEN-See, I have to look at it and say that, since in theory there might be more boats there, I consider a number of trips across the road a part of the traffic pattern. So that, in theory, potentially, could be an increase in the traffic pattern. MR. GORALSKI-And that's certainly reasonable way to approach that question. MRS. LAPHAM-Okay, and if we look at it that way, then I think there is an impact. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Are we looking at a small to moderate, or a potentially large? MR. GREEN-I would say small. MRS. LAPHAM-I would say it could be large, depending on the number of changes that come about. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Dave? MR. MENTER-I would say potentially large, to play it safe. MR. CARVIN-Bob? Well, you're a no, right? MR . KARPELES - I'm a no, going to be increase convinced me of that. because I just can' t agree that there's in the number of boats. Nobody's ever MR. CARVIN-Tom? MR. FORD-Yes. MR. CARVIN-Yes what? MR. FORD-Potentially large impact on transportation. MR. CARVIN-Chris? MR. THOMAS-No. MR. CARVIN-You have a no? MR. THOMAS-I have a no. MR. CARVIN-Well, I've got two noes, three potentially large, and one small to moderate. We're talking just the alteration of present patterns of movement of people and/or goods. Is that correct? MR. THOMAS-Right. MR. CARVIN-All right. I had marked down small to moderate. You're dealing with an unknown, here. So, I mean, it's not something that we can give a definitive answer to. I think the point is that there's five of us who think that there is going to be some sort of impact. - 26 - ,-,. (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/13/96) ......,/ MR. GREEN-Some change, yes, possibly. MR. CARVIN-I guess because there's three of you who feel that there's a potentially large impact, I think that that's the way we should go. MR. FORD-In as much as we don't know how much, I'd rather err on that side. MR. CARVIN-All right, then it would be a potentially large impact. "Proposed action will result in major traffic problems." MR. GREEN-I have to say, no. MR. CARVIN-You don't think there'll be any traffic problems, Bill? MR. GREEN-Not maior traffic problems. MR. CARVIN-Okay. How about you, Dave? MR. MENTER-No, major traffic problems, no. MR. CARVIN-Bob? MR. KARPELES-No. MR. CARVIN-Tom? MR. FORD-No. MR. THOMAS-Small to moderate. MR. CARVIN-I had small to moderate, but I've got four noes. MRS. LAPHAM-I hate to do this, but I think potential for large because Cleverdale Road has traffic problems now, and this project would probably exacerbate the existing problems. MR. CARVIN-Well, it still comes down three to four. I agree with you, Bonnie. MR. FORD-All right. Wait a minute. Run that by me again, Bonnie. MRS. LAPHAM-I said I think Cleverdale Road has traffic problems as it exists right this minute, and if you do this project, it's just going to exacerbate those problems, and there is potential for major traffic problems, as defined by Cleverdale Road. No, I don't think you're going to have Times Square, and, you know, Broadway and 42nd Street or Route 9, but for that little road, you're going to have problems I think, with people going up and down the road. If you increase the number of boats, then you increase the number of people that are going to be patronizing, and you increase the number of cars, which has to increase the traffic, and boat trailers. MR. FORD-I'd change to a yes. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Small to moderate or potentially large? Believe me, these are not the way I'd ask these questions, but. MRS. LAPHAM-I think it's going to be large for Cleverdale Road. MR. CARVIN-You said small to moderate, Chris? MR. THOMAS-Yes. MR. CARVIN-Yes. potentially large. I feel small to moderate. Tom, it's back to you. I've got one - 27 - -' (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/13/96) MR. FORD-Small to moderate. That's as far as I can change from my no. MR. CARVIN-I guess we have a small to moderate. In any event, we have a positive declaration on 15. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Number Sixteen. If Impact on Energy 16. will proposed action affect the community's sources of fuel or energy supply? NO YES Proposed Action will cause a greater than 5% increase in the use of any form of energy in the municipality. If MR. CARVIN-No. MR. THOMAS-No. MR. GORALSKI-If Proposed Action will require the creation or extension of an energy transmission or supply system to serve more than 50 single or two family residences or to serve a major commercial or industrial use. If MR. CARVIN-No. MR. GORALSKI-IfOther impactslf. MR. FORD-I need to raise a question. On the 5% increase in the use of any form of energy, does that include the increase in the use of petroleum products? MR. GORALSKI-It would, yes, but 5% of the use in the municipality. MR. CARVIN-You're talking 50,000 people, 35,000 anyway. MR. FORD-Okay. We're looking at the total municipality then. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Impact on Energy I have as a negative. Noise and Odor Impacts. Okay. MR. GORALSKI- IfWill there be objectionable odors, noise or vibration as a result of the Proposed Action? NO YES Blasting within 1,500 feet of a hospital, school or other sensitive facility. If MR. CARVIN-Not that I'm aware of. No. MR. GORALSKI-If Odors will occur routinely (more than one hour per day) .If MR. FORD-Yes. MR. CARVIN-Okay. How about you, Chris, how do you feel? MR. THOMAS-I would say yes, and I would go, small to moderate. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Tom? MR. FORD-Yes, and at least small to moderate. MR. CARVIN-Bob? MR. KARPELES-No. I think they're insignificant compared to the odors on the roads going, and the boats. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Dave? MR. MENTER-Yes. I'd say there's a potential small to moderate. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Bill? MR. GREEN-No. I can't agree with that. - 28 - \_/ (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/13/96) '-" MR. CARVIN-Okay. You don't think there'll be any impact? MR. GREEN-No. MR. CARVIN-All right, Bonnie? MRS. LAPHAM-A small to moderate, yes. MR. CARVIN-Looks like small to moderate. MR. GORALSKI-IIProposed Action will produce operating noise exceeding the local ambient noise levels for noise outside of structures. II MR. CARVIN-Does anybody want to take a shot at this one? The applicant has given us and taken noise calibrations. My personal feeling is small to moderate, leaning to potentially large. MR. KARPELES-My opinion is that there's going to be a lot more noise received by that property than there is going to be sent out by that property. I've been around the lake long enough to know that most of the noise comes from the boats rather than from the people in vehicles going by. MR. CARVIN-So you'd say no impact? MR. KARPELES-I'd say no impact. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Anyone else? Tom? MR. FORD-Yes. MR. CARVIN-Well, how about you, Dave? over. We'll let Tom mull that MR. MENTER-Yes. I think the change, I think it would have a small to moderate, potential for a small to moderate increase. I don't necessarily think potentially large at this point in time. MR. CARVIN-Chris? MR. THOMAS-Yes, with a small to moderate. MR. CARVIN-Small to moderate. Bonnie? MRS. LAPHAM-I'd say yes, with a moderate increase. MR. CARVIN-Small to moderate. MRS. LAPHAM-Well, could I say moderate, and not small? MR. CARVIN-Well, they don't have a column there. MRS. LAPHAM-Because I think it's bigger than small, but it's not huge, in the middle. Small to moderate. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Bill? MR. GREEN-No, I'm stuck on this local ambient noise levels, and I'm kind of along with Bob. I don't think it's going to be any large, out of the way noise. MR. CARVIN-Well, I've got a count of small to moderate. MR. GORALSKI-Okay. IIProposed Action will remove natural barriers that would act as a noise screen." MR. CARVIN-No. So I have a positive declaration on that one. - 29 - ,~ "'--' (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/13/96) Impact on Health, Public Health. MR. GORALSKI- "Will Proposed Action affect public health and safety? NO YES Proposed Action may cause a risk of explosion or release of hazardous substances (i.e. oil, pesticides, chemicals, radiation, etc.) in the event of accident or upset conditions, or there may be a chronic low level discharge or emission." MR. CARVIN-I don't know, does anybody want to take a shot at this? MR. MENTER-Well, in this category, I would certainly, I'm just trying to figure out exactly where to stick this, but my concern would be the explosion part of that, the fire hazard. I'm not sure if that would be, would fall under that or be added. So, assuming that that would be added, it looks like this one is more referring to hazardous substances, and to me, I don't believe this would increase the risk. MR. CARVIN-I've got to believe this is more of a chemical type of situation, sort of like a Three Mile Island, I would think. MR. FORD-What about oil? MR. MENTER-Well, it mentions oil. MR. FORD-Petroleum. MR. CARVIN-I'm thinking maybe oil refinery. Who knows? MR. FORD-Oil as in engine oil. MR. CARVIN-Motor oil, gasoline. MR. THOMAS-Gasoline. MR. CARVIN-But it says, in the event of accidental or upset conditions. Am I to read that as earthquake, or natural disaster? MR. FORD-Or tipping over and upsetting a gas can. MR. CARVIN-Or where there may be a chronic low level discharge or emission. MR. MENTER-I would interpret that as more of an act of God type of scenario. MR. CARVIN-All right. Lets move on to "Proposed Action may result in the burial of ' hazardous wastes' in any form (i . e . toxic, poisonous, highly reactive, radioactive, irritating, infectious, etc.)" I think we can say no to that. "Storage facilities for one million or more gallons of liquified natural gas or other flammable liquids." I think we can say no to that. "Proposed action may result in the excavation or other disturbance within 2,000 feet of a site used for the disposal of solid or hazardous waste", and I have a no on that. MR. GORALSKI-"Other impacts". MR. CARVIN-"Other impacts", and I think, Dave, you have an "Other impact", you think that there would be a small to, well, I don't know, maybe potentially large? MR. MENTER-No, I'd. say potentially large. MR. GORALSKI-And what is that impact? MR. MENTER-I would say that the potential increased potential for fire, fire hazard, impact would be an wi th the increased - 30 - \- (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/13/96) ........,I condensed storage of boats. MR. CARVIN-Does anyone else agree? MR. THOMAS-I would go along with that one. MR. FORD-I agree. MR. KARPELES-I agree. MR. CARVIN-Well, again, now we've got to get down to small to moderate or potentially large. MR. FORD-Well, I believe if we're talking about potential for fire hazard, both with the storage of that amount of fuel and that amount of fuel aboard boats, I think the potential is great. MR. CARVIN-I agree. MR. FORD-If you have one, you have the potential for it being substantial. MR. CARVIN-I think we have a pretty large building there that could really become a. MR. MENTER-Just because of sheer number of boats in that confined space. MR. CARVIN-Do I have a concurrence of potentially large? MR. THOMAS-Yes. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Potentially large. We're going to go back to Number One, the proposed action. I think that this is a positive, Number 18 is a positive, so I think it really doesn't matter whether we answer yes or no. MR. THOMAS-What about the first one under there? MR. CARVIN-That's what I'm saying. MR. THOMAS-We already covered the risk of explosion under "Other impacts", explosion and fire. So I would go with a no. MR. CARVIN-Yes. I could live with a no. MR. MENTER-I would, also. MR. FORD-As long as we've got it covered the other way, that's fine with me. MR. CARVIN-"Impact on the Growth and Character of the Community". MR. GORALSKI-Okay. "Impact on Growth and Character of Community or Neighborhood 19. Will proposed action affect the character of the existing community? NO YES The permanent population of the city, town or village in which the project is located is likely to grow by more than 5%?" MR. CARVIN-I don't know. Can Cleverdale grow by 5%? MR. THOMAS-Only if you add another level. MR. CARVIN-A lot of them are trying. going to say no. I want to tell you. I'm MR. GORALSKI-Okay. "The municipal budget for capital expenditures or operating services will increase by more than 5% per year as a - 31 - ---" (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/13/96) result of this project." MR. CARVIN-I'd like to think that the taxes are going up, but I don't think so. MR. GORALSKI-"Proposed action will conflict with officially adopted plans or goals." MR. THOMAS-I would say a small to moderate on that one, looking at the Master Plan. MR. CARVIN-I was going to say, the Master Plan would indicate that we have, I'm assuming the Master Plan isn't officially adopted or is it just a wish list? Is that an officially adopted plan or goal? MR. MARTIN-It's been adopted. MR. CARVIN-It has been adopted? MR. MARTIN-In '87. MR. CARVIN-Officially. MR. MARTIN-'89, May of ' 89. MR. CARVIN-Then I would say it probably has a small to moderate impact. Do I have a consensus? MR. THOMAS-Yes. MR. FORD-Yes. MR. CARVIN-Okay. MR. GORALSKI- "Proposed Action will cause a change in the density of land use." MR. MENTER-I think there's a potential for that. MR. FORD-I believe there is, also. MR. THOMAS-Yes, I'll go along with that, small to moderate. MR. FORD-In fact, you're getting a greater concentration of boats, trailers, people using cars, all of that increases the density. MR. MENTER-There's certainly a potential for that. MR. CARVIN-But is it small to moderate or potentially large? MR. THOMAS-I would say small to moderate, because the (lost word) only looking for an increase of about 300 square feet on the footprint. MR. LAPPER-But we're also talking about cubic feet. MRS. LAPHAM-It could be large. MR. CARVIN-So I've got a small to moderate and I've got a large. Bill? MR. GREEN-I've got to go small, here. MR. CARVIN-Dave? MR. MENTER-I think small to moderate. - 32 - '- -/ (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/13/96) MR. CARVIN-Bob? MR. KARPELES-Small to moderate. MR. CARVIN-Tom? MR. FORD-Potentially large. MR. CARVIN-I've got a small to moderate. I've got four on that. I have a consensus that we've got a problem there, I guess. II Proposed Action will replace or eliminate existing facilities, structures or areas of historic importance to the community. II I'd say no. MR. GORALSKI-"Development will create a demand for additional community services (e.g. schools, police and fire, etc.)" MR. CARVIN-I'm going to say no. I said no. I don't know if anybody else wants to challenge that? "Proposed Action will set an important precedent for future projects. II MR. FORD-Yes, sir. MR. THOMAS-I think it will set a precedent for future projects, and I think it's a very large impact, because there are, I think Mrs. Wetherbee said there was nine and a half or ten and a half marinas, eight in a half marinas watching this, just in the Town of Queensbury, along the lake. MR. KARPELES-I feel that every action should be taken as an individual, whatever we do should not set a precedent. MR. CARVIN-Okay. So that's a no, I'm assuming. MR. KARPELES-Right. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Bill? MR. GREEN-Small to moderate or less. MR. CARVIN-We don't have an "or less", but I can put small to moderate. MR. GREEN-I'm leaning toward no, because, as Bob said, I try to look at everything individually, and the next guy comes in, he's going to be judged on his own merits. So, I'm leaning closer to no. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Well, I'll reserve. Bonnie? MRS. LAPHAM-I was thinking, it depends on how I interpret it. If you interpret it this way, the way Bill has just said, and I agree, every project should be looked at as an individual, yes, this is a very small impact. However, the other marinas may be thinking that we are setting a precedent here. They may approach the issue as if we have set a precedent, and we'd be hearing endless cases. So there's a potential, I think, for that. MR. CARVIN-Small to moderate or potentially large? MRS. LAPHAM-I'm just not sure. MR. CARVIN-But you think there will be an impact? MRS. LAPHAM-I think there will be an impact, as how I may react to the impact will be small to moderate. MR. CARVIN-Dave? - 33 - -/ (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/13/96) MR. MENTER-Correct me if I'm wrong, but precedence does carry some legal weight, doesn't it? I think there's definitely an impact here. In the scope of things, probably small to moderate. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Tom? MR. FORD-I certainly concur that everyone who comes before us, that project needs to be judged on its own merits. That isn't a question here. It's a question of establishment of a precedent. This does, and it is potentially very large, as we look at the Lake George basin. MRS. LAPHAM-I think I'd like to change, I needed it explained properly, I guess. I'd like to change it to large. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Bill? MR. GREEN-The most I can do is small to moderate. MR. CARVIN-All right. Well, I've got three on potentially large. So I think potentially large impact seems to be the one we're coming down on, and I agree with Chris. I think this has got the potential, you know, this could be an important. MR. THOMAS-It's just not in the Town or community of Queensbury, but it's the adjoining towns also of Fort Ann and Lake George, that the other towns could be watching us and say, well, they did it there, why can't we do it here, and then there we go right in to court with it. MR. CARVIN-Okay. So I've got a potentially large impact there. "Proposed Action will create or eliminate employment", and according to the applicant, we have a net zero, here. So I would say no. MR. FORD-The answer to 19 is yes. MR. CARVIN-The answer to 19 is yes. Okay. MR. GORALSKI-Number 20. Do you want me to read Number 20? "Is there or is there likely to be public controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts? NO YES" I would say no, but I don't think I'd go very far. I guess that's a yes. MR. THOMAS-I would say so. MR. CARVIN-Okay. On the back page, you go through 11 pages of this stuff, and then on the 12th page they tell you how you're supposed to interpret it. Okay. Certainly we have a number of Yes answers, and I want to thank the Board for taking the time to go through this. I think we've kind of zeroed in on some specific areas. Okay. On Page 12, if you will take a look, now that we have evaluated the importances of the impacts, our instructions are to briefly describe the impact, describe how the impact can be mitigated or reduced to a small to moderate impact by project changes, "To answer the questions of importance consider: The probability of the impact occurring The duration of the impact Its irreversibility, including permanently lost resources of value Whether the impact can or will be controlled The regional consequences of the impact Its potential divergences from local needs and goals Whether known objections to the project relate to this impact." Now these are some of the criteria that we need to move forward. As I said, we've identified a number of issues and a number of areas with regard to this project, and I think I'm going to start by saying, if I can be so bold, I think the one that all of us seem to be in concurrence with the most, and I don't want to imply that we are in total agreement here, is basically the visual impact of this particular project on the community. I have - 34 - ,"-. (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/13/96) -/ a plan, or a program that I would like to present to the Board as my solutions to mitigate, hopefully many, if not most, or all of the impacts that we have identified. If you will bear with me, this is Plan A on how to mitigate at least the visual impact, and I think, as a secondary result, that we will be able to mitigate many, if not most or all of the other areas. Now if you take a look at the project map, as opposed to what the applicant has proposed, I'm taking that big building, the applicant had proposed a building here, a building here, and a very large building parallel to Mason Road. The numbers are in our blue book. We're talking total building volume of somewhere about 670,000 cubic feet, and we are looking at a footprint of somewhere around 21,700. Now these buildings that I'm putting here are pretty close to what was originally there. In that, I have two buildings which are 30 by 100, and I have two buildings which are 30 by 78, and here I have a building which is 102 by 104. Now, the applicant has requested on his big building, I think it's an eaves height of 30, with a peak of 34 or 35. All of these buildings will be 25 to the eaves, with 28 to the peak. Now the peak on this building runs in the center, and these are lean to types. In other words, these would be open, open, open and open. The distance here is 55 feet. The distance here is 55 feet. I think that this should be sufficient to allow the applicant to move his boats and equipment into for access. Now, the square footage or the footprint of these four buildings amounts to 21,288. Now the applicant, in his blue binder, has indicated 21,721. Staff notes indicated 21,285. Are you aware of that? The original staff notes that we were given, somebody came up with a calculation of 21,285. MR. GORALSKI-I wasn't aware of that. MR. CARVIN-Okay. That's what was existing. Now I don't think we've ever been able to prove what was existing, and we've testimony giving us all sorts of figures, but my net difference, on this particular project, is 450 square feet, from the maximum of what the applicant was requesting, which essentially is a shed. Now, the cubic volume of this project, in totally, comes to 564,132 cubic feet. Now what this boils down to is that that represents approximately a 43% expansion over what the applicant's number that he said that he had there, and his number, okay, his number is 394 existing, I'm talking his volume of pre-existing was 394,807. He is proposing 669,320. So my figure comes in at roughly 564, which is roughly a 43% expansion of the building. So, Number One, I would reduce down the height of the buildings. In other words, the applicant's big building was 34 feet. None of these buildings would be in excess of 28 feet, at the peak. I think by breaking it up this way, we take this massive wall off Mason Road. We also move the building into here. Another item that I would propose is no outside storage. In other words, any boats on this particular site are in these buildings. Now the problem that we have is that we've always had conflicting numbers as to how many boats are on this particular site, but my feeling is that if we grant the 43% expansion of the building, and take away the outside storage, that we, in essence, are compensating that, so that, theoretically, probably in actuality, the applicant will have buildings and will be able to service approximately the same number of boats that he currently has. MR. FORD-When you refer to outside storage, Fred, are you referring to storage at any time, or winter storage? MR. CARVIN-No, both winter and summer. will be contained in these buildings. Any storage on this lot MR. FORD-No boats on trailers or blocks outside? MR. CARVIN-No outside storage. Now the applicant has indicated, and his request is that he wants to run a more efficient, that this - 35 - -/ "---' (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/13/96) building will allow him a more efficient use of, to run his business. I think by giving him, essentially, the same area, expanding these buildings and taking away the outside storage, that we give the applicant, basically, what he's looking for to break up this massive wall that which I know ~ find objectionable. I also think some of the secondary things that fallout of this is that, I think we now can control the stormwater runoff, because I spent a lot of time out there, over this weekend, in the rain, watching water. Now this end of the property is the high end. Obviously, this is the low end. The applicant has put a ditch here and there is an opening here, in this area here. The water runs down hill. Even I know that, and I'm not even an engineer, but it does flow in both directions, so that I did notice and I did observe water running toward Cleverdale, hit t ing here and moving down to a culvert which was down Cleverdale Road, and I did observe the water running here, down Mason Road. I also observed a culvert down here, which is about, and I'm estimating, about one to two feet above the road level. So that that culvert is not even functioning even in the rain because it sits above the water, and as a result, the water is forced across the street, and again, I'm not an engineer, but this is just my observation. I think that maybe the Town can look at this, and again, I don't know if Mason Road is a dedicated Town road, but it seems to me that there is room for us, as the Town to make sure that the water, the culvert or some place, comes off this property and goes into here. There is a very large mound here, so that the water can't go over that mound. It either has to go this way or that way. So I think that, by putting the buildings this way, and I think what was happening before was that these buildings were perpendicular to Mason Road, in fact (lost words) because the water was going this way and bumped into buildings and slowed it down. So, of course, when you unfortunately if you take out these buildings, the water is going to go faster. So if we put these buildings this way, I think we can slow that water down, and keep the water here, on the lot, and take care of it properly. I also think that this berming along here and the landscaping is another aspect that we need to address. I think if we put the berm and landscaped this, we could make this a pretty nice looking project. Now, I've also got in here fire alarm systems. I think that we can put fire, in other words, we can request that the applicant put in all the current, meet all the current fire codes and have him put in what is called a dry fire hydrant. Again, I'm not an engineer, but I know a dry fire hydrant, as I understand it, is useable by anybody in this area. In other words, this fire hydrant would be connected to the lake, and if there's a fire anywhere in that vicinity, they could draw water off that. So I think that we could have what they call a dry fire hydrant put there, hooked up to the lake. Now, noise, I think that we can put a request that any mufflers or resonators or any noise suppression devices be put on any of the forklifts or any of the vehicles there. In other words, the applicant has given us the statistics where he thinks he thinks that he can lower down the sound volume, and I think that by doing it this way, we would probably space the sound out, so I don't think it's going to be as concentrated, but I think we can have him put some noise suppression devices on. As I said, the stormwater, by doing it this way, I think we can address, we can really look at the plan, landscaping, future lighting. The applicants have indicated that they wanted, I've got yard lighting shall be built and mounted, medium intensity flood lights with tops and sides cut off, in other words, to have that impact that that light be shown down to give him the ability to light this area but not be intrusive upon the neighborhood. So, again, I think the lighting is an issue that we can address fairly comfortably. Now, the other item that has been brought up is the parking. I don't have an answer for you, I really don't, but I know the Bolton Landing marina project has been thrown at us as a possibly solution, and in the Bolton Landing, all the Bolton Landing folks said that they reserved the right to re- visit the parking, and that's what I want to do. I want to reserve - 36 - '-" (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/13/96) J the right for us to monitor the parking out there. I think that if we put that in there and we find that the parking is becoming a problem, that we still reserve the right to take a look at that. Normal operations. I know some folks figured that because of this bigger building, and so forth, that he's going to be running longer and later. Well, again, the applicant has indicated his normal hours of operation, I think, eight a.m. to nine p.m., and I think we can put that in there. Normal operations will be eight to nine p.m. Now, the permeability is another issue that has been brought up. When I was out there the other day, I did notice quite a bit of blacktop and cement in different combinations, I didn't find crushed gravel, or I found that gravel was primarily where the old buildings were occupied. What I would like to suggest, and again, I think if we go along with this plan we can create green areas, that we can come up with a definite seeding plan. We can come up with a definite figure for permeability, but more importantly, I think if we say that the only impermeable material that he can use is crushed gravel or crushed stone, then I think he'd still be able to use his machinery, and I think that the crushed gravel is, even though it's classified as impermeable, probably is a better solution than blacktop or cement. So I think that if we put in there as a condition that the only nonpermeable or impermeable material be that crushed gravel or crushed stone, that that would increase or at least mitigate a lot of the permeability issues. Does anybody have any questions? That's pretty much the plan. Now, we've eliminated a couple of the Area Variances. We are 30 feet off Mason Road. So he does not require any Area Variances from here. We are only 10 feet off the side line. So he still would require an Area setback from the side lines. This is five feet from his existing building, because that is fire code. To put a building out there, he has to be five feet from this side, and put it three feet off this property line. Now he's indicated trees here and trees up around there, and we're talking no more than four to five trees. That's it, and I don't think that these are quite accurate. They indicate trees here, and there are trees there, but I notice that this tree is substantially forward of this building. So I know that this tree is out of the picture, and I also suspect, although I won't be able to verify, that these two trees may be a little bit further to this side, so that they may not be affected, but in any event, the total number of trees that are impacted here is about a half a dozen, and I think that if we take these trees out, that the planting of the landscaping and other trees, that that can be put back together fairly easily. So I'm not really concerned about the (lost words) these trees. MR. FORD-Fred, what stacking capacity are you recommending? MR. CARVIN-I don't really care. I really don't care. He's got 25 foot eaves and 28 foot height. If he can put three racks in there, more power to him. If he can only get two in there, fine. I really don't want to get down to boat count. I don't want the neighbors out there counting boats and I don't want the Board out there counting boats and I don't want Jim Martin getting a phone call every few minutes going out there and saying it's 37 boats and he's only supposed to have 36. If he keeps this inside, I don't care. If he can put 500 boats in there, fine, but he has no outside storage. We're out of the boat counting business, and I think that by getting him the expansion of the buildings, and taking away, I use that term, the outside storage, he stays the same. He stays the same. He now has an efficient, or more efficient, buildings to do his business, and that's what he's been saying all along. Does the Board have any questions? Is there anything on there that I haven't addressed? MR. THOMAS-There's a couple I have, but first I'd like to congratulate you on this layout that you have. It looks like you put a lot of time and thought into it, and it looks like a very good plan. My first question is the 102 by 104 foot building. - 37 - " -....../ (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/13/96) Ingress and egress out of that building is in which direction? MR. CARVIN-Okay. This is closed. The entrance will be here, so there is, he's indicated that 104 is probably the limit, because there will be an aisle, a center aisle here, and he needs roughly so much center aisle. MR. THOMAS-Okay, but the door opening is to the west. MR. FORD-To the west. MR. CARVIN-Correct. MR. THOMAS-Okay. The other buildings you said are a lean to configuration? MR. CARVIN-Right. Open here and open here, facing each other. MR. THOMAS-The openings are facing each other, three sided. MR. CARVIN-North, south. Three sided, correct. MR. THOMAS-Yes, the two sides and what you would call the back. They would not be a flat roof. They would be a sloped roof, a pitched roof, okay, and the pitch going away from the opening. MR. CARVIN-Correct. MR. FORD-Totally open on those facing fronts. MR. CARVIN-This would be, I guess, totally open, totally open. This would be closed, and again the slope, the water would be running this way and into this area, and it would be running into this area, and it would be running into this area which are both green. So we've got green area, green area, and this center area would be green area. MR. THOMAS-Okay. So what you're saying is that all the runoff from the roof would go into a green area, rather than a drywell system. MR. CARVIN-Correct. MR. THOMAS-So that the drywell system that the applicant has indicated on his set of plans. MR. CARVIN-This is not set in stone. If there's mitigation that you want to put there, I've got no problem with that. MR. THOMAS-Well, will the green area accept all the water on a 50 year storm? MR. CARVIN-I don't know. I think that it'll accept it better than piece over here. MR. GORALSKI-I think once again, as I stated earlier, possibly as an additional mitigation measure or condition, you could require that a detailed stormwater management plan be submitted an approved by the Town Consulting Engineer and the Planning Board at the Site Plan Review stage. MR. MARTIN-And the detail for that would be not just a no increase in rate to the pre~development condition, but also a no increase in volume off the site. MR. CARVIN-I mean, we can put those stipulations in. MR. THOMAS-You're saying green space between the buildings, but with these vehicles that are quick launching these boats running - 38 - "'--' (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/13/96) .......¡' back and forth across it. MR. CARVIN-There should be no need to come into this area. Here's your drive area. Here's your dri ve area here, and here's your drive area here. MR. THOMAS-Okay. MR. MARTIN-The other thing is, you do have to maintain, one of those two green areas would have to be used for the re-Iocation of a septic system, because the other green area is the one just east of the main building, along Cleverdale Road, Fred, if you could point that out, just east of the main building. There's an open space in front of that building, and that could be another potential area for berming as well, and some more landscaping. MR. CARVIN-Now, one of the things is visibility. In other words, the neighbors back here said that, gee whiz, we have a visibility problem. I went out, and I can honestly tell you that there's no visibility from this house over here. There is a house right here which may have a problem, and then there's Friehoffers, which is the garage, but as I looked at it, the Friehoffer house is over the hill. MR. THOMAS-Who's house is it next to Freihoffer's? MR. CARVIN-I think that's Mr. Brock's. NEIGHBORS-The other way is also Friehoffer' s. They have two houses. There's Brock's, Frederick's, and then Friehoffers. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Well, I'm just saying that this house right on the corner probably would have, if there is any impact, would have the most. MR. THOMAS-Would that be Mr. Brock's house? MR. CARVIN-I don't know. Is that your house right on the corner? MR. BROCK-Yes. MR. THOMAS-So we don't worry about that one, do we? MR. CARVIN-Well, you have to worry about it. He's a resident of the community. MR. MARTIN-I think that's where the berming, Chris, would help in that regard. MR. CARVIN-I've got to tell you. I mean, this is going to be, I mean, there are existing trees here. So that these trees are not going to be removed. So I think that there isn' t much visual impact because these trees are already there, and they're going to have a lot of problems. MR. THOMAS-What about the residential lot there? MR. CARVIN-This lot? MR. THOMAS-Yes. MR. CARVIN-All right. We're not even getting anywhere near it. He will need relief of side, because we're three feet off that. MR. THOMAS-Right. MR. CARVIN-But we're not invading that residential lot whatsoever. - 39 - -...,./ (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/13/96) MR. THOMAS-What about water coming off the roof on that, because you said the ridge runs east and west, coming, MR. CARVIN-No, the ridge runs on center, three foot. MR. THOMAS-What about the water running off that onto that lot? If it's three feet I think it may spray over. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Well, again, I'm sure that we could address that with eaves and down flows. MR. THOMAS-With gutters? MR. CARVIN-With gutters, but using it as a storage place. major impact unless he were residence. also this is his lot, and he's been So, I mean, there shouldn't be any to sell that lot and use it as a MR. THOMAS-It looks good to me. MR. CARVIN-Are there any other questions? MR. MENTER-I have some additional concerns of my own. MR. CARVIN-That's, essentially, what I've come up with. entertain any questions, thoughts, comments. I will MR. MENTER-Well, probably everybody does. I have some additional concerns that you didn't address the way ~ would have addressed them. I don't know, should we discuss this in light of the SEQRA? MR. CARVIN-Yes. I think we have to look at, we have, here's the way I see this. These are our options. Now we have indicated that we have some environmental impacts. Now if we can' t mitigate these, as the instructions say, down to a reasonable level, or tolerable or whatever it is. MR. GREEN-Do they have to only be mitigated to small to moderate, because on this Page 12, it only said you had to look at them if you looked at them as potentially large. MR. GORALSKI-That's correct. MR. CARVIN-But we have a couple, some potentially large. MR. MARTIN-You have to mitigate them to a small or moderate level. MR. CARVIN-Also, if we can't come up with a mitigation, then it stands as a positive, and as I said, then it moves forward from there, and I am very emphatic that if this Board cannot come up with a solution, and I'm not saying that we won't, then I think we should positive dec it. Now as I said, this is a plan that I've been working on, that has been developed. I don't know if it's the answer or not, and that's why I'm presenting it to the Board with my explanation as to what I think it will possibly do. MR. KARPELES-I just want to make sure I understand something. A small to moderate impact does not have to be mitigated? MR. MARTIN-Correct. MR. MENTER-And a large impact has to be mitigated down to a small or moderate. MR. GREEN-My other question is, is before we really get too far along on this, is this acceptable to Mr. Brock? MR. CARVIN-I don't think it's up to him to be acceptable. It's up - 40 - "'- ' (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/13/96) ,.....,/ to us to determine whether we have an environmental impact. We have, and it's up to us to come up with a plan to mitigate that. This is not lets make a deal. MR. KARPELES-No, but I think that we would be interested in what his opinion is. MR. GREEN-I mean, if he wants to say, no, I will not do that, then we shouldn't bother wasting the time to go through it. That's illY opinion. MR. CARVIN-Okay. We can ask Mr. Brock, if you'd come to the microphone. I mean, you don't have to answer it, unless somebody else has got another solution here, this is just my. MR. BROCK-The way you've outlined it and conditioned it, I'm not sure I could, I'm not sure I could live with it the way it is. I'm not saying it couldn't be massaged slightly or something along that line and made to work. I think, you know, there are some things that might be able to be made or, just a couple of things, you know, like moving the septic. That might be possible. Having the building five feet from the other building, I think with the runoff coming off both buildings in the five feet, and the people that go to my restroom and down that aisle, they have to walk right between those buildings. There's some things, I think, that would have to be done. The heights are pretty low. I'm not sure what I could get in there, primarily winter storage. Even if I cut down on the number of boats that I put in there in the summer, I could never get enough storage in in the winter, if I couldn't put anything at all outside. There are several things that you mentioned that I don't think, I'm not saying they're impossible to work with or do something to work with, I'm not sure, as far as the runoff, I think, Tom, can they handle the runoff? MR. NACE-Yes. MR. GREEN-I guess my next question is, if Mr. Brock is finished with his first comments, is that, if this may be somewhat acceptable, is that a new application, and should we have that in front of us rather than the other? MR. LAPPER-I want to address that because, just in terms of the procedure, where we are is making a SEQRA determination, there've been potentially large and small to moderate environmental impacts that have been identified, and now, go back to the three choices. A negative declaration is no longer a choice because these impacts have been identified. So the two choices are a positive declaration, means that the applicant has to prepare an environmental impact statement, or if the Board can agree on a conditioned negative declaration with conditions that would mitigate to small to moderate impacts all of the potentially large impacts that were identified, then the Board is conditioning this, is saying that the project as modified, the project which was applied for as modified by these conditions would then have a negative declaration. So that it's not a question of the applicant re-submitting a new application. Now that doesn't mean that if Mr. Brock is sitting here saying, hey, 95% of this is fine, but there's one thing that just doesn't work and you want to listen to him, I mean, there's certainly the opportunity for that, but it's not a case of asking him to go back and revise his application. MR. GREEN-See, sure, this plan that Fred has come up with sounds all well and good, and it possibly may mitigate a number of our large to moderate problems, but I don't think I can answer those questions based on a plan that was put up 15 minutes ago. MR. LAPPER-This doesn't have to be all of the mitigation, though, because the Board still has to go through the potentially large - 41 - -./ (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/13/96) impacts that were identified, and other members of the Board may come up with other issues that you'll have a discussion. MR. GREEN-I mean, we're, like, totally changing the whole thing here. MR. LAPPER-I think what the Chairman is saying is that, as it was presented, because of the large building along Mason Road, there's a significant impact. So he's made a proposal that if you move the building, the large building, to the center of the parcel, and put buildings perpendicular to Mason Road, that's his proposal to mitigate it. It doesn't mean that the Board agrees with that, and that's something that would be discussed and voted on, but that's one member's proposal to mitigate. There could be other mitigations. MR. CARVIN-And what I'm also saying is that if we can't come to some kind of mitigation between now and the 21st, it's got to be positive dec'd, and that's where we are, and we have a time line of the 21st, one week from today, and that's why, like I said, I mean, if somebody's got other ideas or other mitigations, I mean, we've agreed that we can mitigate these things. This is where we have to come up with the mitigations. If we can't come up with the mitigations, then it stands. MR. MENTER-This is, of course, very specific. The other thing that we could do is describe some more general parameters, in terms of setbacks and heights and that type of thing and say, yes, you can do it, if you stay this far from the property lines, and if your heights are no more than this, and if you have no more than so many running feet of the wall and anyone section along the back road, and if you do this and that and the other thing, you know, containing it the way you feel you need to, and still giving them some latitude in terms of operation and design of the thing, that may be a little more difficult. MR. CARVIN-Again, I think we want to be cautious, because if we give them too broad of a thing, we'll end up with the same plan again. MR. MENTER-Yes. I agree. MR. CARVIN-So, I mean, we have to be specific, yet we have to be specific. MR. FORD-I have two or three comments. First, my compliments to you, Fred. You've put in an enormous quantity of time and effort, and I applaud that. I like the idea that it gets away from neighbors having to do boat counts or any other kind of surveillance, neighbor against neighbor. I think this is a peaceful solution, not just of the current discussion, but leading to greater peace in the future. I think that it is a much more appealing solution, to me, and I see a couple of ways of proceeding, one to go down through this and determine the extent to which we can impact our concerns on the SEQRA with this plan. I suppose an alternative would be that we go to a workshop format. MR. CARVIN-I don't think we're going to have the time. I think we've got until the 21st. I mean, I don't know when we could put a workshop together. MR. GORALSKI-If you could meet between now and the 21st in a workshop format, but. MR. LAPPER- Yes, and the applicant could agree to extend the deadline, by agreement. That is also permissible under SEQRA. SO we could discuss that in terms of that 20 day deadline. - 42 - '~ (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/13/96) -'" MR. FORD-This has such potential, and if we could get that kind of agreement, it would seem to me that that might be a route we would want to go. We've spent an enormous amount of time on the previous application, and we've had some rather major modifications thereof, and I think it warrants taking a very close look at it. MR. LAPPER-Is that the Board's determination, that we should ask the applicant for permission to extend that 20 day SEQRA deadline? MR. MENTER-I would say that right now what we should do is press on with the concerns that we have, look at it in light of the SEQRA, and maybe in the next hour we can make some ground that we don't anticipate right now. MR. CARVIN-I think, as I said, there are a couple of things that I'm pretty, I feel I'm pretty immovable on. I want to be fair to Mr. Brock. I think, again, this plan is fair, because we are giving him larger buildings, and that's what the whole thing is, but it's not as large as what he is proposing. I think if we go with what he is proposing, in that configuration, along Mason Road, I think, I know I'd certainly have a hard time with it. I mean, certainly, if we want to mitigate it downward, I don't have a problem making the project smaller, but I think that, I don't know how much more upward revision we would be looking at. We might be talking one or two feet. MR. FORD-Could we get a reaction from the applicant? MR. LAPPER-A reaction in terms of extending? MR. FORD-Yes, because I would prefer that that come from him, if that's the course of action he wishes to pursue, otherwise, we've got what we've got, and we can go right along with it. MR. LAPPER-Well, I think Dave's point is correct, though, that we have to have a discussion of all of the other impacts, and see, you know, go back through the SEQRA where there were large impacts and discuss each of those and see if other Board members come up with other mitigation measures. MR. CARVIN-Well, the only one that I had was. MR. GORALSKI-Well, the first one would be Number, Question Six. MR. FORD-Did we not have a potentially large one under the water table? MR. CARVIN-No. MR. MENTER-No. MR. CARVIN-That was small to moderate. MR. FORD-That was just mine. MR. GORALSKI-Right. That was small to moderate. "Proposed Action is incompatible with existing drainage patterns." MR. CARVIN-Okay. As I had indicated, my feeling on this is that the existing drain pattern, as I observed it, I had outlined, and I think that this plan or a plan similar to this will actually probably put it back closer to what it was, keeping the water essentially on the property, which is where it should be, and as I said, in addition to that, I think if we mitigate the impermeable substance or material to be just the crushed gravel and take out the blacktop and the cement and all that sort of stuff, that even though crushed gravel is considered impermeable, I feel that there is a much better chance of it soaking through that than it would be - 43 - . -"', q "', " -..........1 -- (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/13/96) reducing the volume? MR. CARVIN-And the configuration. MR. KARPELES-Yes. MR. MENTER-And changing the configuration. MR. KARPELES-Well, he's saying, the configuration, he doesn't like it so fixed, a fixed configuration. Isn't that what you said? MR. MENTER-No. I'm just saying that there's, it's sort of a, it's quite a drastic change, not that that's the point, but the end result could be very much like this, but slightly different, and I would just getting at. MR. KARPELES-As soon as you get into that, then you've got to say, well, how much are we going to let him change? MR. MENTER-Well, we're pretty much into that. I mean, that's what you're going to come to. MR. CARVIN-Well, again, I think that comes up under the Use and the Area. I mean, in other words, if he comes back with a plan that is within a tolerable level. I mean, if it comes back at 70% or 64% or 45%, I mean, then you have to weigh. MR. MENTER-Right, and that tolerable level's objective, as far as we're concerned. MR. CARVIN-And if his plan, you know, is out of line, then it's out of line, but I think what this is, this is the maximum plan that we feel, or I feel anyway, would allow us to move forward as far as the environmental. That's not to say, again, like I said, a foot or two here or there might not still not have any impact, but when you start getting beyond that, then I think we start, at least as far as I'm concerned, going over the line. Then I have a real problem with it. MR. FORD-I believe we have modified the original proposal. You have done that. We have reviewed that, in terms of your proposal, as it mitigates our original concerns. We have indicated that it, we've been able to mitigate each of the major impacts on the environment with this. I believe it is the appropriate time toss this proposal back to the applicant and we would then review any modifications that he would return with. MR. CARVIN-We don't have the time for that, though. MR. FORD-Okay. MR. CARVIN-What I'm saying is that this plan has undergone scrutiny that, if the applicant goes to this plan, environmentally, he would have no impact. This is not a public hearing. RICHARD FRANKEL MR. FRANKEL MR. FRANKEL- I understand that. My name is Richard Frankel, and I'm an attorney with the law firm of (lost words) in Schenectady. I'm representing the applicant on legal matters pertaining to this. We're willing to stipulate to extending the period of time for review for the purpose of bringing to the Board some modifications, trying to keep in line with some of the suggestions that have been made to mitigating some of the environmental impacts that the Board has determined. - 57 - --.. '..../ (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/13/96) it is that is impacting the environment and mitigate that. MR. CARVIN-Right. MR. MENTER-Okay. This is not final approval. Were it to get by this step, he would still have to come back and say: okay, this is what I'm thinking, and go for the Use and Area Var1ances. MR. CARVIN-Well, I don't know. MR. MARTIN-Well, you still have some latitude, should something in your review of the Use or Area Variance dictate a further change, there's latitude to do that, and then you have to decide if that change materially changes your SEQRA outcome. Then you would go back and re-open your SEQRA review, but if it does not, then you can move forward, but you're not locked into a very specific, hard and fast, concrete design now as you go through your Use and Area Variance review. The same holds true with the Planning Board at site plan review. MR. MENTER-So, in effect, you can go back and modify your SEQRA? MR. MARTIN-Yes. Well, you can modify the plan, and then you have to decide if that modification is a material change to your SEQRA determination. If it is not, you go forward. If it is, then you go back and you look at how that particular change may have impacted your SEQRA determination. So, you know, you're not bound by this, without any change from this point on. MR. CARVIN-No. We do have to be sensitive to the environmental impacts of any major changes. MR. MARTIN-Well, I think you have to get to the point where you feel in your mind that you've addressed it, and if it takes you getting to a very specific level on some of those issues, then that's what it takes. MR. MENTER-What are the guidelines for, say we approve this. The applicant comes back with a modified plan. Okay. Do we need to compare it to SEQRA before we go through the hearings for Use and Area? How does that work, technically? MR. MARTIN-I think you always have to be mindful, as you go through your review of the Use Variance and Area Variance, that this is within the parameter or an acceptable range that I approve for SEQRA, as a member of the lead agency. If you feel, at any point in that time, that a change has gone so far as to take it outside of that acceptable range, then you have to re-open the SEQRA review, and it's hard to tell at this point. Maybe something will happen in the future that dictates that, maybe it won't. MR. GORALSKI-I guess probably the bottom line is that you cannot approve a project that is not in keeping with your SEQRA determination. So if you get to a point where you're about to approve the project, and it is slightly different from your SEQRA determination, then you'd have to look at that SEQRA determination and decide whether or not you need to modify your determination. MR. MENTER-Okay. Well, how does everybody else feel on this? It's my general feeling, that makes a little bit of a difference. MR. CARVIN-So what are you telling me, Dave? MR. MENTER-I'm just telling you that that's. MR. KARPELES-Well, what are you saying? Are you saying if he comes back with something else that's the same volume as this, that you would consider it? Isn't that what we're really doing, is just - 56 - -- (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/13/96) MR. CARVIN-Okay. Does anybody believe that we have not satisfied all the criteria for reducing all of these to at least a small to moderate impact. MR. THOMAS-I think it's been brought down to a small to moderate impact on all points. MR. FORD-I agree. MR. KARPELES~Well, I didn't agree that most of them were large to begin with, but I think you have reduced any that YOU thought were large. MR. CARVIN-A well noted point, I might add. MR. KARPELES-Other than the fire suppression. MR. CARVIN-Dave, is there any alterations, modifications, changes, that we haven't addressed or should address? MR. MENTER-I think we've addressed the SEQRA issues. I'm kind of torn here. I'm a little, I think the end result of this plan is right on the mark, in terms of the things that need to be mitigated and the means toward that. As I stated before, though, I'm a little uncomfortable with the specificity of that proposal. I'm not really convinced that we could not outline the parameters that we came to with this proposal, in terms of setbacks, heights, use and all the other peripheral requirements. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Well, as I said, I can tell you how I developed my numbers and where I think that the fairness lies, and that's what I've tried to do, in other words, is draw from all of the available information, and the way I quite literally came to a lot of these numbers is off what the applicant had given, going through the testimony that had been presented, and making what I hope is a prudent or rash man's decision. MR. MENTER-And I agree with your nu~bers. numbers. I do agree with the MR. CARVIN-As I said, as far as the configuration, a foot here or a foot there, in some instances, does equate a pretty large volume increase or decrease. MR. MENTER-Well, my approach would be to use the same gross figures, and I do understand where they came from, and I agree that that is, that's a logical approach to it. Use the same gross figures, use the same usage in that there would be no outside storage. Perhaps define the parameters something like, there would be no buildings, or no walls, no contiguous walls over, say, 30 feet, and 35 feet, whatever the dimension of those would be, or possibly something in excess of that a little bit, along the western boundary. MR. CARVIN-Well, again, I mean, it becomes a balloon. I've got to tell you. I mean, I'm not sure, if you're going to stay with the same types of dimensions, if you poke it one place, it's going to pop out some place else. I guess my point being that, you know, if you feel that, we can either go down or up in size, well, fine. As I said, I might have some leeway, but I don't know if it's going to be significant enough to change, because you start bumping into the 30, you know, if you want to start granting, you know, you could probably move them closer to Mason Road, or you could move them farther. MR. MENTER-Right, but I think if you back up, what we're looking about is environmental impacts, and we don't need to define, completely, what it's going to look like. We need to define what - 55 - '-' --/ (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/13/96) MR. GORALSKI-I think if you have, first of all, if you create a landscape berm, it's more of a residential look than a six foot high fence is, and it also, I just think it's more in keeping with the character of the neighborhood. MR. THOMAS-To me, a six foot berm is a big lump of dirt. It's got height and width to it. MR. GORALSKI-Maybe you want to eliminate the berm but provide the landscaping. MR. THOMAS-Provide like cedars, you know, a cedar hedge row or something like that, rather than a berm. MR. GORALSKI-I guess it would be illY suggestion that some type of landscaping be provided in front of that building to soften the effect of that new building. MR. CARVIN-Can we refer this to site plan and/or the Beautification Committee? MR. GORALSKI-If you want to make that part of the, you know, that's something that should be included in the site plan review, I think that would be appropriate. MR. CARVIN-Okay, and subject to the Beautification Committee, and would they have an interest in doing something like that? MR. GORALSKI-If you'd like to, sure. MR. LAPPER-But that there has to be some visual buffer from the east side of the building. MR. CARVIN-Yes. They've submitted an architectural landscaping plan that I think we can hold them to, and then have it all subject to site plan. MR. LAPPER-But they haven't submitted it for that side, because you just re-Iocated the building. MR. CARVIN-Okay. MR. GORALSKI-And one other thing, it may be a technical issue that I'm not sure of, but the applicant may need to provide an easement to the fire company to utilize the hydrant. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Would that be in the deed, would it? Anything else, John? Okay. MR. GORALSKI-That's all I have. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Does anybody have any other, I mean, we've gone through the form again. MR. GREEN-Did we look at Question 20 there? MR. MARTIN-Question 20 does not have a standard to apply to it. It's left that way purposely. It's just simply a yes or no answer. That can still remain yes, and it doesn't necessarily warrant an EIS. ' MR. CARVIN-Okay. other comments, proposed here. Again, I'm going to ask anyone if they have any plans, programs, modifications to what I have MR. FORD-I just want to address that issue of the precedent. I believe it is an important and positive precedent. - 54 - ..../ (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/13/96) ," ~ MR. GORALSKI-The fire house is right at the intersection of Cleverdale Road and 9L. MR. CARVIN-About a mile. miles. I was going to say, no more than two MR. GORALSKI-And certainly the addition of the dry fire hydrant is a substantial increase in protection compared to what's there now, because the, especially during the winter, the fire company has to gain access to the lake, either drill or cut through the ice to get to the lake. So having the dry fire hydrant there makes a huge difference. MR. MENTER-Well, that would certainly be sufficient to reduce it to small to moderate impact, to me, and it can always be re-visited at a later date. MR. THOMAS-I'm fine with that. MR. FORD-I really wanted that fire suppression addressed, but under the circumstances, with that hydrant that has the potential for use in the neighborhood, not just on the Marina site, it brings it into a small to moderate impact, for me. MR. MARTIN-Usually a hydrant of that nature is good for 1,000 feet. So you're talking about a radius of 1,000 feet from that hydrant and all properties. MRS. LAPHAM-I feel better about it now. That brings it to small to moderate to me. MR. GREEN-Yes. That's a good idea. Sure. MR. CARVIN-What's next, John? Do we have any other? MR. FORD-Impact on the Growth and Character. MR. CARVIN-Was that small to moderate, or potentially large? MR. GORALSKI-"Proposed Action will set an important precedent for future projects", was potential large impact. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Well, I think by showing this, this project, I think just by our very nature of review, that I think we've brought this down to, and I hate to use the term "minimum", but certainly a well reviewed, I would hope, situation. So that this is something that future marinas, that they can comply with this, and we can meet a lot of these criteria, I'm not positive that I have a problem moving ahead with them, but I think that we would have more of a cause for a precedent if we were to allow the project as it stands, and again, that was my thinking here, in relation to this particular proposal. Does that make any sense? Any comments? Do you think that this will alleviate, or at least mitigate to a? MR. GORALSKI-I think, if you're willing to listen, I have a couple of things you might want to consider. MR. CARVIN-Absolutely. MR. GORALSKI-One of them is to include, on the landscape plan, that a berm along Cleverdale Road, in front of the new 104 foot wide, I believe, building be constructed similar in size and landscaping to the berm that is designed on the Mason Road side, to additionally create a visual buffer for the new building. MR. THOMAS-Would a fence do the same thing, rather than go with a berm? Like instead of a berm, a six foot high fence, a basket- weave type or something? - 53 - .......... '-I (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/13/96) with the most current NFPA requirements and the New York State Fire and Building Code shall be installed in each boat storage building. The alarm shall be connected to a central monitoring agency, fire extinguishers that conform to the most current NFPA requirements shall be located in each building. Additionally, a dry fire hydrant shall be installed from Lake George to the east side of Cleverdale Road, in conformance with NFPA standard 1231 Section B (5) Dry Fire Hydrants, and approved by the North Queensbury Volunteer Fire Company. I wanted the fire folks to really take a serious look at that, because I do feel fire is a very major concern. MR. MENTER-Yes. I was thinking along the lines of a, when I initially wrote this up and wrote down illY criteria, I thought that a fire suppression system was really what was called for here. Not being familiar with the engineering aspects of it, you know, specifics in terms of getting to effectiveness, but it seems like an automatic suppression system makes a heck of a lot more sense than an alarm system. MR. LAPPER-Maybe you should address that to the engineer. MR. MENTER-Well, Tom, have you, I imagine you'll get to that. MR. FORD-That's exactly where I'm coming from. MR. MENTER-But to me, an alarm system is nice, but it doesn't do anything for you when you're talking about such close proximities. MR. NACE-I'm not afire suppression expert, let me start by stating that, but as far as I know, the options are a dry system with a fire pump somewhere, and that requires construction of a fairly large storage tank to provide the water for the fire pump. I don't think he would be able to get enough water available to fight a fire without a tank large enough that it would stand out on the property. The other is a (lost words) type system is effective in fighting that type of fire. I presume one of these systems like they use in a canopy at a gas station. To cover that kind of area with one of these systems would be prohibitively expensive. I don't have facts and figures. MR. KARPELES-The newest sprinkler systems, they don't even use tanks anymore. They just use a diesel fire pump. MR. NACE-I know, but we'd need a source of water for that. MR. KARPELES-You've got a lake. MR. NACE-Okay. Then we'd have to put a fire pump down in the lake. I'm not sure about the practicality of that. MR. KARPELES-I agree with that. That's one recommendation I really think should be taken care of very seriously. MR. CARVIN-What's your pleasure, folks? I mean, does the Town have any problem with the dry hydrant? MR. GORALSKI-To be honest with you, I thought that having a central station monitoring the alarm and providing an immediate source of water for fire apparatus when they arrive was a reasonable solution to the problem. The buildings themselves are metal. They are all noncombustible buildings. I guess all I can say is when you talk about having a central monitoring station and having an available source of water for the fire company when they arrive, I just don't think that you need any more than that. MR. CARVIN-And how far, approximately, is the fire house? - 52 - ,",,' (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/13/96) --,' larger part of his business, having perhaps limited growth in another area of the business. MR. GORALSKI-I see one notation that he stores 20 to 25 trailers at anyone time. MR. MENTER-See, and it wouldn't be illY intention to further limit that part of the business. MR. GORALSKI-I know that you were trying to avoid getting into going up there and counting every weekend. MR. LAPPER-I have a suggestion that maybe what Fred mentioned, about reserving the right to review parking at some point in the future might cover this, if it turned out that there was a congestion problem, whether it's from people that are there for the day both to store their, or to bring their boat. So maybe it's not necessary as a separate condition. MR. CARVIN-How does the Board feel about that? iJ¡' MR. MENTER-That's fine with me. At this point, I'm not interested in even making, necessarily, that separate condition, because I was under a misunderstanding. MR. LAPPER-So you're withdrawing that? MR. MENTER-Yes. MR. CARVIN-Okay. this? Transportation, is anybody uncomfortable with MR. GREEN-I guess you're basically saying since you've somewhat limited the number of boats, the number of times across the road is now going to be reduced or back to, closer to its original amount? MR. GORALSKI-Closer to the existing. MR. MARTIN-Levels. MR. FORD-Within acceptable levels, which would bring it to small to moderate impact. I agree with that. MR. CARVIN-Again, do we have a consensus here? MR. GREEN-Yes. MR. THOMAS-Yes. MR. CARVIN-Noise and odor. it? That was a small. I don't think that was the case, was MR. GORALSKI-II Impact on Health Other II Increased fire hazard due to condensed storage of boats. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Again, my suggestion there is to stipulate that the applicant bring all the buildings up to the New York State Fire Code, and by putting in that dry fire hydrant, I not only think that we at least provide for an adequate fire defense for the Marina, but also other residences on Cleverdale. So I think that by putting that in there, that we actually serve a lot of people. MR. GORALSKI-Now, when you you also, I know there was about requiring an alarm, station. say up to New York State Fire Codes, are some discussion in the previous meeting it be tied into a central monitoring MR. CARVIN-Well, the way I had, the fire alarm system conforming - 51 - '- .-.,; (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/13/96) MR. MENTER-I think with regard to traffic, I'd like to see that there would be no public boat launch, also, because that could have a large impact on traffic, which is something that is uncontrollable by the structure or the facility or anything. MR. CARVIN-Okay. What do you mean by no public boat launching? MR. MENTER-Well, I'm not sure. You said you don't do any public boat launching, right? Do you do a tremendous amount of it? I thought that that was something that. MR. BROCK-We do have a public launch that, you know, I have people 'that launch their boat and they leave their car and trailer while they're out, you know, for the day or the weekend. MR. MENTER-Did we discuss numbers on that? MR. BROCK-That varies. It depends on the weekend. You get a real nice weekend, you get quite a bit of that. You don't, you don't get much at all. MR. MENTER-On a real nice weekend, quite a bit of it would be? MR. BROCK-Probably 25 boats. MR. MENTER-Okay. MRS. LAPHAM-Can that be written in, the banning of the public launch? MR. MENTER-It could be, but my approach was that I didn't, my belief was that it was not a large part of the business, and my goal was to prevent it from becoming a larger part of the business than it was in the past. MR. CARVIN-The only thing that I think we might address would be the parking of the trailers after the public launch. In other words, I think that that could be tied with the no outside boat storage and/or trailers. So that by precluding the storage of the trailers that in essence will, I mean, he can put them in the buildings I suppose, but on the other hand, he still has the ability to operate a public launch. I don't think we can really address that issue. MRS. LAPHAM-I would want to see, if we decreased the volume for the boat storage and so forth, an attempt to try to make up the capacity by doing more public launch. MR. CARVIN-Yes. Well, that's why I'm saying, I think we might want to stipulate that there'll be no boat trailers outside, and I don't care if he can put them inside. That's fine. MRS. LAPHAM-Yes. Okay. I would feel better. MR. CARVIN-Does Staff have any problems with that? Do you have anything, Jim? MR. GORALSKI-Can you give us a minute? MR. CARVIN-Okay. MR. GORALSKI-I guess that I, personally, am not completely clear on what the extent of the public boat launch is now. Okay. MR. MENTER-Well, my original thought was that if that is not a part of his business at this point, which for some reason my thinking was that it wasn't, and I was apparently wrong in that, but my thinking was that I would be concerned if it were to become a - 50 - '"'~ (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/13/96) I've never heard of a fork truck sending off a harmonic inside a building. The way you'd mitigate sound is by putting masks between the source and the recipient, and the building acts as masks. MR. ~REEN-~d you could even insulate those walls somehow, put up mat lnsulatlon around them, if you're worried about the sound getting louder inside the building, you put up a fiberglass mat or something, and that's going to suck that sound right up inside the building. MR. CARVIN-Well, lets return to the Critical Environmental Areas. MR. GREEN-Okay. I guess to summarize, I'm not certain that it's going to increase the visibility from the lake, but it would I . ' would say, lt would decrease or make a better view from Mason Road. So you're solving one problem, but I'm not sure you're not creating another problem. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Dave, what's your feeling? MR. MENTER-Are we addressing only proposed action to locate within a CEA? MR. CARVIN-I'm looking for the mitigation. mitigate this thing. I mean, if we can't MR. MENTER-Well, I think we have mitigation primarily here. The concern with reduction of quality of the resource as well as function, enjoyment, and impact of the use to me were both in quantity of use, and I think that this proposal would pretty much limit the potential for increase in the use, in the terms that X was concerned about anyway, by limiting the number of boats that could be used at the site. So, in that sense, it mitigates it. The visibility question, I also have from the east side, but I certainly don't believe that the created impact would be a large impact. So, in that sense, it doesn't create a new issue that's going to interfere, for me anyway. So I guess the answer to the question is yes. MR. CARVIN-In other words, as this as an alternative? MR. MENTER-Yes, by virtue of the fact that it would limit volume, use. It would mitigate these concerns. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Do I have a consensus? MR. THOMAS-Yes, you do. MR. CARVIN-I've got four? transportation? All right. Okay. What do we have, MR. GORALSKI-Transportation. "Alteration of present patterns of movement of people and/or goods." MR. CARVIN-Well, again, my point in putting it this way is that, essentially, it's returning back to what was there, and I think by setting it up as I have indicated, with the drive aisles on the two sides and the center, that hopefully that will mitigate and certainly reduce the patterns, and yet at the same time increase the permeability. By limiting the volume on the buildings to where it is, I think, again, we are resolving the, the whole issue is the fear that the bigger buildings create more boats which creates more people which creates more parking and so forth, and again I think that the main mitigation here is that the traffic pattern is essentially the same, so it's really not altering it tremendously, but I think that we're keeping the volume of business about where it is, so that we're not really going to have a major impact. - 49 - \'-"' '-.....I (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/13/96) MR. GREEN-And that statement would also apply to the original design, from the water. MR. FORD-Could we get clarification on this Critical Environmental Area? If we're talking within 500 feet of that mean highwater, isn't that entire peninsula a CEA? MR. MARTIN-Yes. MR. FORD-So our structure, our proposal, is in, on a part of a Critical Environmental Area. MR. GORALSKI-Right. MR. FORD-So we don't need to be looking at it exclusively from the water standpoint. MR. GORALSKI-Correct. MR. GREEN-I didn't say exclusively. I'm just trying to point out that it may be more visible from the lake than the first design. It's obviously going to have a better impact from Mason Road, I guess. That's my opinion. MR. KARPELES-Yes. I agree with Bill. I think that the important thing is the view from the lake, and I went up there this morning specifically taking these pictures up with me to see whether you could see that building the way it was originally proposed from the lake, from either side, and I came to the conclusion that if you can see it, it's going to be mighty minor. It isn't going to be a major impact. So I appreciate what you're doing here. I think that you're trying to satisfy everybody, but I'm not convinced, in my own mind, that the original proposal isn't better, and I say that because I think it blocks off whatever noise you would get from inside there. There's a building around it, and it would hide whatever boats, the activity in the boathouse. MR. GREEN-Yes. I have to agree with Bob, that I think we may end up with more noise almost being channeled out toward Mason Road down those alleyways, rather than being somewhat contained inside an area here, but we weren't doing sound. MR. CARVIN-Well, no, I need mitigation. MR. MARTIN-Well, I think there's a couple of things to bear in mind. You have an open site right now where the noise is, you know, uninhibited with the operation of the tractors, and also, in mY opinion, I don't know that you're going to see an outright reduction of that tractor going through that metal building as being exactly quiet. MR. KARPELES-I don't know what you mean? MR. MARTIN-I think when you begin to run that tractor at its operating throttle, inside of that metal building, and the sound begins to bounce around in there. MR. KARPELES-Inside the building certainly. MR. MARTIN-Yes, it could be potentially louder. MR. KARPELES"'"No. MR. CARVIN-You mean the big building, Jim? MR. MARTIN-Yes. MR. KARPELES-That doesn't happen, unless you get a harmonic, and - 48 - '.....- --' (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/13/96) buildings. You'd be mitigating it both ways. MR. CARVIN-I'm bringing the buildings down, while trying to maintain visibility to conduct business on essentially the same footprint and so forth. So there's nobody can poke a hole in that at this point, or have a problem with that? What else do we have, John? MR. GORALSKI-Okay. "Impact on Critical Environmental Areas Proposed Action to locate within the CEA Proposed Action will result in a reduction in the quality of the resource? Proposed Action will impact the use, function or enjoyment of the resource?" MR. CARVIN-Okay, and again, I think by going this way and taking away the outside boat storage that we actually, in essence, limit the number of boats to a number that's fairly close to what's going on right there, so that we should have very little, if any, increase in impact. I think that if we put that, the plan as proposed, with the outside storage, not only do we end up with a huge building, or buildings, but he still has the capability of outside storage, and I think that that is something that is, would have a total, I think all the neighbor's arguments about all the rest, the noise, the gas, the oil, the whole thing comes into play, and I think by limiting this application to these buildings that we, in essence, are limiting the number of boats to no more or no less than what's going on there, because we are giving him, roughly, a 40 to 45 percent expansion, over the buildings, which should compensate for the boats corning inside. Does anybody disagree or have any other thoughts on how to mitigate that further? MR. THOMAS-I think it'll bring it down. MR. GORALSKI-I think another thing you want to keep in mind is probably one of the reasons that Lake George was designated as a Critical Environmental Area was because of the scenic beauty, and as you discussed in the aesthetic portion of the EAF, you felt that that impact was mitigated by the re-arrangement of the building and the smaller buildings. MR. FORD-I believe that the proposal is, it brings it within the acceptable, an acceptable range. So really it's in the small to moderate impact area, in my opinion. MR. GREEN-We decided the lake was the resource, so we were supposed to be looking at it, visually, fpom the lake? MR. CARVIN-No. It's not a visibility situation. It's an impact on the lake. MR. GORALSKI-No. I think it's both. I think there are several factors. Obviously, we could not find a specific list of reasons why it was designated a Critical Environmental Area, but you can assume that there were several reasons, water quality, the scenic beauty, among some of the other things, habitats, that type of thing, that all went into that designation. , MR. GREEN-Well, okay. I'll stick with my first train of thought, then I think, that I think we're going to increase the visibility from the lake, if anything. It's got to be more visible, just because it's closer, and we're taking down some of those trees. MR. CARVIN-Well, actually, that's not totally correct because the visibility, if you take a look at the photograph, the aerial, and you will note that where I am proposing to put the big building, anyway, that the only visibility from the lake is going to be directly on and Mr. Brock's boathouse and docks are right there, so that if there's any visibility impact, it's already on the water. - 47 - '- (Queensbury ZBA Meeting ....../ 5/13/96) wouldn't see anything but a portion of that wall. This gives you a different perspéctive entirely. I like it. MR. GORALSKI -On 11 Proposed land uses or proj ect components obviously different or in sharp contrast to current surrounding land use patterns whether man made or natural 11 , is the Board saying that Mr. Carvin's option is bringing that down to small to moderate, or eliminating it completely? MR. MENTER-I would say yes. MR. FORD-I would say bring it to small to moderate, personally. MR. MENTER-Either way. MR. THOMAS-Yes. I said small to moderate right from the start. This configuration would mitigate it down to small to moderate. MRS. LAPHAM-I'm still not sure, but small to moderate. MR. KARPELES-I don't have any problems with that, but I'm not convinced that the other one wasn't small to moderate. MR. GREEN-I would have to say that this would have almost no real visual impact, even at the small to moderate end, because I'm kind of the same way Bob was, that I put the first one at small to moderate. So, in my opinion, this would have llQ impact. MR. KARPELES-There's a visual EAF addendum. We never went through that. Isn't that something that would address this? Because it looks to me, on this thing, that the visual impact is supposed to be from something that's a scenic site or designated as a scenic site, and the road is not a scenic site. MR. CARVIN-I think that's just supplemental, Bob, to whether there is an impact. MR. KARPELES-I think that's supposed to clear it up, to make sure we don't get bogged down in something like this, that is really not an important consideration, as far as I'm concerned. I think if you're affecting the views of hundreds and hundreds of people, that's one thing, but if you're, it's questionable as to whether you're improving the view or making the view worse by the way he had it before. You're certainly getting rid of the view of all those boats that are laying allover the place. MR. CARVIN-I think that kind of comes under the next one there, 11 Proposed land uses or proj ect components visible to users of aesthetic resources... .11, and I think by putting it this way, that we not only enhance the visibility aspects, but we also take the boats off the rest of the lot and put them under cover. MR. KARPELES-Yes, if you agree that's a potential large impact, which I don't agree with. MR. CARVIN-And again, that's my personal feeling. MR. MENTER-Either way, though, the resulting impact is, at worst, small to moderate. I agree. I think it addresses both of those aesthetic resource issues. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Now the only thing that I think I should point out is that under this section is the height, because I am lowering down the total size of the project by roughly 20, 25%, if we go on a volume issue, and again, I think that that only enhances this visibility aspect. MR. FORD- It also is further improved by the relation of the - 46 - ~ (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/13/96) MR. GORALSKI-Right. There you go. MR. FORD-So lets proceed to another major area. MR. GORALSKI-Okay. The next one, I believe, is Number 11, Impact on Aesthetic Resources. "Proposed land uses or project components obviously different from or in sharp contrast to current surrounding land use patterns, whether man-made or natural." MR. CARVIN-Well, again, my point would be that that building 162 feet long, 104 feet wide and 35 feet long, is in sharp contrast to the surrounding areas. I mean, that's point blank. MR. MENTER-Yes, to me, the expanse of that wall was the primary characteristic of that. MR. CARVIN-Yes, and again, I think the mitigation, what I'm looking at is that if you take a look at any of those, they are less than the width of a house which, theoretically, is a residential area. You could probably put four houses or at least certainly two of them 60 feet long there, and it would have, I think this is a much lesser impact. I'm open to suggestions. I mean, if there's other ways that you can configure that, I'm certainly willing to listen to it, because it comes down to a case of getting all the little pieces into the ball, because you've got height and volume, square footage, and everything else. Does anybody have anything different? MR. THOMAS-No. I think the arrangement of these buildings in red would take the potential large impact and mitigate it down to a small or moderate impact, as far as Question Number 11 is concerned, the aesthetic resources. Like you say, it looks like the end of a house, a 28 foot high house, which would probably be a little taller than a two story house, a normal two story house. MR. GORALSKI-The maximum height in the Waterfront Residential zone is currently 35 feet for anything. MR. THOMAS-So I would say anybody going along Mason Road would be really looking at the end of a two story house, and I think that knocks it down from a large to a, there is still an impact, all right, but it does knock it down to a small or moderate, from a large. MR. GREEN-What's your space, there, from one to the next, Fred? MR. CARVIN-Fifty five feet between the interior area. MR. GREEN-The alleyway there, you might say? MR. CARVIN-Fifty eight. MR. MENTER-Fifty eight and then green space, right, in the center. MR. CARVIN-I think it's 58. MR. FORD-I believe that that addresses the, appropriately, the concern about Mason Road. MR. MARTIN-The other thing there, he is adhering to the 30 foot front yard setback, also. MR. FORD-When you compare the impact, the visual impact, along Mason Road of those structures, as compared to the other, I think that's addressed well here in Mr. Nace's response to our concern of last week, where we asked for a rendering, front on, from Mason Road, and we were so close that with a structure as large as the one proposed before, it couldn't be done. You were so close, you - 45 - ,-,/ "~ (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/13/96) blacktop or cement. MR. MARTIN-And again, I think an important issue on this is if you stipulate to pre-existing rate and volume being adhered to, that'll also provide some additional mitigation. MR. MENTER-And then in parenthesis, all subject to approval and review by the Town Engineer. MR. CARVIN-Right. MR. GORALSKI-And the Planning Board. MR. MENTER-Right. MR. CARVIN-That's essentially what I had under, I haven't written this up definitively. I've got just notes here. MR. MENTER-That would address that to me. satisfactorily take care of that one. I mean, that would MR. GREEN-So, just again, how are we going to mitigate that stormwater runoff? MR. CARVIN-Well, how does this sound. The stormwater management plan will be submitted by the applicant and approved by the Town of Queensbury Planning Board during site plan review of the project which must, at a minimum, provide for no increase in the rate and volume of stormwater runoff from the site compared to the existing stormwater runoff conditions of the site. MR. MENTER-Does that include review and approval by the Town Engineer? MR. CARVIN-We can certainly put that in, yes, during the site plan review. MR. KARPELES-Why couldn't that same wording be used to mitigate the existing plan? MR. CARVIN-Well, that's not an option. I mean, we can't put that in if there's no impact. MR. KARPELES-On the existing plan, the plan that he has submitted? MR. CARVIN-Yes. MR. KARPELES-The same wording that you used for this could be used for that. In other words, he has to submit a plan that's going to be approved by the Town Engineer. MR. CARVIN-But not under the environmental impact, because it either has no impact, or it does have an impact, and you'd be correct, I believe. MR. GORALSKI-I think what Mr. Karpeles is saying is that you could take the plan that was proposed by the applicant and give it the same condition, which may be accurate. MR. MENTER-Well, it doesn't negate the fact that we saw a potential impact. MR. GORALSKI-But there are other impacts that also have to be looked at, in concert with simply the stormwater, but I think you're right. I think you're probably right. MR. FORD-I like that stipulation, regardless of which one we're addressing. - 44 - ..-" (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/13/96) MR. CARVIN-I appreciate that. I truly do. I don't know what time constraints vou are under, but this Board is under a tremendous time constraint, because our agenda for this month, and probably going into June, is pretty loaded, and for me to try to line up all of these Board members in one direction is extremely difficult. Now, I don't know what time frame you're looking at to allow us, or you want to come back, but I know this month is out of the question, and then we have a 30 day period after that. So I don't know what your construction time frame might look like. MR. FRANKEL-I've just been told we could be back here in a week. MR. CARVIN-I'm saying in a week's no good, because we've got five meetings this month. MICHAEL O'CONNOR MR. O'CONNOR-Mr. Chairman, how about a meeting with Staff? MR. CARVIN-That's still got to come back before the Board. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay, I know I'm speaking out of turn, and I apologize. I won't speak if you don't want me to speak. MR. CARVIN-No. I'm going to keep it under control, I hope. MR. O'CONNOR-I think you made a lot of progress, and I think we could probably get even closer to everybody putting their arms around something, if I even suggest a workshop type meeting with either Staff and one or two of the Board members, or however you want to do it, but I think there's some nice things up there. There's some questionable things up there, and some things that could be given, to add up there, maybe some things that could be taken away from up there. Everybody's not going to be happy, but at least there could be some middle of the road. " MR. CARVIN-Again, as I said, I don't have a real challenge with that. The only challenge I have is my calendar, and I'm assuming the Board member's calendars, and I can pretty much tell you that this month is shot. So, I mean, unfortunately, we don't turn around on a dime. MR. GORALSKI-What we could do, possibly, is have like a 30 day extension, and try to. MR. CARVIN-Well, I'm just outlining that we've got a meeting Wednesday. We have a meeting next Wednesday and Thursday, and I've carried over at least three applications into next month, under a 60 day, and I don ',t know what kind of, unfortunately, I wish I had all day to spend on the Mooring Post, but we have 21 applications this month, of which, probably a half a dozen or more are up in Cleverdale. Okay. So, I mean, I'd love to, but I'm going to tell you, it's going to be 30 to 60 days before this Board's going to be able to sit on it. MR. O'CONNOR-Alternatively, as I understand it, you're saying to the applicant, this is how we would neg dec it, with these conditions, that seem to pass the muster with the majority of the Board, and we go forward, come in with those plans, or you're saying, if those-are totally unacceptable to you, you're going to pos dec, and he's still going to come in with plans. I don't think you're saying anything different to the applicant, the applicant can react accordingly. MR. CARVIN-I want to get as much information put in, but I'm just saying, in a week or two weeks, it ain't going to happen. MR. MARTIN-It's an especially bad time of the month, as the agendas - 58 - '- (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/13/96) '-" go. MR. O'CONNOR-If either myself or Mr. Frankel spoke, you wouldn't be getting anything done within a month anyway. MR. CARVIN-Yes. Well, I mean, the applicant has indicated a willingness to waive the 20 day situation, and I appreciate that, and I would love to grab that, and I'm willing to grab that, but it's not going to happen within a couple of weeks. I mean, this Board will not meet on this issue probably until some time in June. MR. GORALSKI-Thirty days would be June 19th. Thirty days from the twentieth would be June 19th. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Well, again, Counsel, I mean, if the applicant is willing to leave this open, are we under any time constraints to come back on this, because of scheduling? MR. LAPPER-Well, I would probably feel more comfortable agreeing to extending the deadline to a date certain, rather than leave it indefinite. MR. FRANKEL-Mr. Chairman, I think we would rather have a date set as well. MR. CARVIN-Yes, I would, too, but as I said, I've got a real problem here. MR. BROCK-Mr. Chairman, could I just make a couple of small comments about the plan, and see what the Board thinks? It'll only take a couple of minutes, if you wouldn't mind. MR. CARVIN-Does anybody have a problem with that? MR. THOMAS-No. MR. GREEN-I'd like to hear that, actually. MR. MENTER-Go for it. MR. BROCK-The plan is totally different, I've got to go along with that, and I guess it boils down to trying to be able to live with something that's going to work and satisfy the Board and myself and the neighbors. Nobody's going to be totally happy. Only a couple of things I see, that I know I would like the buildings higher. Obviously, you, the Board, doesn't want that. I feel that this building here is too close to this building, and that if it were just slide 10 or 15 feet more, you know, like this way, even if this house had to be slide away, over into the lot, okay, it would be easier to do some landscaping. It would also, we have our restrooms right back here, and the customers, they have to be open 24 hours for the customers. They have keys. It would give a better area to walk through, which could be screened any way you want, on a planting diagram, however you wanted to do it. The only other thing came up of giving up the storage, or the ramp, or, well you call it public launch. The only other thing I would need possibly to make this work would be, during the winter time, to be able to store boats between these buildings back in here, okay, and that could be screened with all the trees you have there, because they'll be on the ground. During the winter, there's nobody there. The boats are put there on a one time basis, and they're gone in the spring, okay. So there wouldn't be any increased traffic. They stay there for like six months, eight months. If those are a couple of items that, something that I might be able to make function. MR. CARVIN-My position is that I have a very difficult time moving - 59 - '--" ,-- (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/13/96) that building into the residential lot. If that was zoned the same, I wouldn't have half the problem, because it's your lot, but unfortunately that lot is zoned residential, and as a result, even though you're using it for whatever, I think we're opening up a real precedent by putting that building, straddling it between two different zones. So, my feeling is that I would have a very difficult time moving the building over onto that other lot, unless you can get the Town Board to change that to that, and then you can combine it with your total lot there, and then, obviously, you'd have a lot of maneuverability, but I think we're opening up a real can of worms if we start crossing those lots. So I think the easiest thing for us to do would be to grant the setback relief of at least three feet, and as far as the outside winter storage, I guess I don't have as much a problem with that as long as it's cleared by a certain time frame. In other words, if we say that you can't start putting winter storage until, I don't know, October or something like that. MR. BROCK-Yes, it would be October. MR. CARVIN-And they'd have to be out by May 1st, too, you know, some reasonable. MR. BROCK-Most people pick their boats up by Memorial Day. They start coming for their boats or coming to the lake this month, getting ready for the Memorial Day weekend. MR. CARVIN-But again, I guess I have, personally, again, I guess I have a little bit of flexibility with the winter storage, but definitely the summer storage, no. MR. BROCK-When you say no boats outside, do you mean the boats, the show boats that are over here in front, that I have parked over here, like right now, that are new boats for sale, or do you mean, are you talking about, like, the quick launch boats? MR. CARVIN-Well, I mean, a boat outside is a boat outside. So, I mean, that would include those. MR. BROCK-And that's this lot, not across the street. right? Is that MR. CARVIN-That's the site, there. MR. BROCK-This site? MR. CARVIN-That site. MR. BROCK-Okay, not. MR. LAPPER-Mr. Chairman, there might be a legal issue for, a pre- existing use is the sale of new boats, and that's different from storage of other people's boats. If he displays new boats for sale, and has been doing that in front of the sales building, that might be something for the Board to consider, if that's an existing use. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Well, again, we could probably stipulate that any "for sale" boats have to be duly noted. MR. LAPPER-You could limit it to a number, you know, in front of that building, five boats, whatever. MR. CARVIN-Does anybody have a problem with limiting, you know, "for sale" boats, as outside? MR. THOMAS-Just outside, but no customer boats outside. - 60 - (Queensbu;Y ZBA Meeting 5/13/96) ~ MR. CARVIN-No customer boats. MR. GREEN-Yes. Limit the no customer boats, I think it's a better approach. MRS. LAPHAM-And the winter storage be confined to in between those two buildings. MR. CARVIN-Yes. MRS. LAPHAM-Not spread out. MR. BROCK-Yes. Right here in the back lot, between the buildings. MRS. LAPHAM-Yes. MR. BROCK-Lets put it this way, not anything out this way. I'm talking about between the buildings, just this space in here, which is sheltered by all these trees, so no one's going to see them from any site. MR. CARVIN-Does anybody have problems with that, or want to modify that? MR. THOMAS-I would just like to ask Mr. Brock. What would be the tallest boat that would be stored there, I mean, other than a sail boat, a power boat? I mean, would you put one of those, like a 33 foot Hatteras back there? MR. BROCK-No. I can't bring those across the street. The real big boats, I have to have outside, right along the road here. There's, like, seven spots there that I store big boats. I'm talking boats that would probably be like a 28 to a 30 foot boat, so that when the shrink wrap of the tarp was on it, the top of that boat would be, I'm going to say 20 feet to, it would be well below the eaves of the building. MR. MENTER-Are you talking stacking them? MR. BROCK-No, no. I'm talking, what you do is you have the boat, and then you have to put, the boat won't be very high. It'll be just sitting right on the ground, but then you put a tarp over it. Then you have to build like an A frame. MR. THOMAS-Okay. So the snow slides. MR. BROCK-So the snow slides. That's the only thing, the only thing that would be higher would be the pitch of the tarp. MR. CARVIN-Everyone understand? MRS. LAPHAM-I understand, but isn't an appropriate time, neighborhood thought of that. I mean, I'm getting confused. I was thinking, maybe this probably but I'd want to know what the That would be a lot later, I know. MR. CARVIN-Well, I think that it could fall under the Use, in other words that, environmentally, we want to look at what the environment is. If he had winter storage there, with the increased building, would there be an impact, environmentally? Now I want to keep that separate, because that may be addressed under the Use issue, later on, we might have to limit it later on. I don't know, but I think I want to try to limit it to the environment. So, I mean, how does everybody feel about winter storage? Does Staff have any input or thought? MR. MARTIN-How about the grassed area between the building? Would that be one grassed area between those two center buildings? - 61 - ~ ~ (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/13/96) MR. BROCK-In back here? I mean, I would park them on there if, you know, because they're going to be sheltered anyway, and they're all going to be out of there in the spring. You don't get a lot of bigger boats in there, okay, let me tell you. Okay. When you start spacing them and you start putting the tarps on them, you know, so that the snow can slide without going on the next boat, you don't get a lot. MR. THOMAS-I like the idea of a time frame for putting them in and getting them out by. MR. BROCK-I could agree with that. That should be. I agree with you there. It should be something, if it's going to be winter storage, people start bringing their boats in in October, and they're taking them out in May. The ice goes out some time in April, and people are picking their boats up through the month of May. They'd have to be out of there by Memorial Day. MR. THOMAS-Because we're looking at this unusual May where we've having a lot of were stored over the permeable areas, there. month of May. This is an rain, and if those boats you might have problems MR. BROCK-These are going to be impermeable. MR. THOMAS-Yes, well, the grass there between the two buildings. MR. BROCK- I'd have to make sure they were off of the grass or something. MR. THOMAS-Sticking with the environmental thinking here. MR. CARVIN-Is there any other comments that you would care to make, John, in regard to this? MR. BROCK-No. The only other thing I wanted is height, and I know how you feel about that. MR. CARVIN-You bet. MR. BROCK-The drive area, when you're talking gravel, that can be very difficult. I'm going to have to have a concrete pad to drive on for the equipment. I'll never be able to service these buildings because actually what happens is, you're gravel will settle a little bit. You'll get some potholes, and if you're moving with that fork truck and a boat on that, and you drop into a pothole, you're just going to bump something and either do damage to the boat or damage to, if the boat should fall, you know, somebody's going to get hurt. There's got to be a real smooth surface, and I'm only talking in between these buildings here, in this building here, and down through here, okay, that's where you're going to be doing the traveling. MR. GORALSKI-I think your purpose for that was to be sure that there was enough area to infiltrate stormwater. Is that correct? MR. CARVIN-That's correct. MR. GORALSKI-Okay. I think that if Tom can design a stormwater management or, Mr. Brock's engineer can design a stormwater management system that would accommodate the paved surfaces, then it's inconsequential. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Does anybody have a problem, because we have to have the permeability studied anyway. MR. MARTIN-And we would, as Staff, recommend you treat even the graveled area as impervious because that's what will happen to it - 62 - '- (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/13/96) ~ over time anyhow. So I don't think, I think the safety issue may, in that instance, a real consideration. If you get a soft condition under that fork truck, it could be, potentially, a dangerous situation, and we're not gaining anything, from a technical standpoint, in terms of stormwater. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Well, the only thing I want to make sure is that we have green area, because if we move that building up next to the other building, we certainly will be losing green area there. MR. MARTIN-But, conversely in my opinion, I would stipulate to no outside storage on that grassed area between the buildings. MR. CARVIN-At any time, in winter or summer. MR. MARTIN-Between the middle buildings, for the same reason we just talked about. I mean, John knows he had a problem there (lost words) that's why he brought in all that gravel. The storage of boats on soft ground is not advised. MR. FORD-I would like to have it stipulated about a specific area for the display of the new boats for sale, in the final proposal, so we know what area we're really talking about. MR. BROCK-We're talking about the area on this side of the road? MR. FORD-That's correct. MR. CARVIN-All right. Anything else, John? MR. BROCK-No. That pretty much does it. MR. CARVIN-Essentially, all we're looking at is the winter storage. MR. BROCK-Yes, paving this area, the winter storage, the new boats over here, okay. MR. CARVIN-Otherwise the dimensions of the buildings and the siting of the buildings are, I know you're not comfortable with it. MR. BROCK-I don't like it, but I hear you. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Mike? I'm not opening up a public hearing. MR. O'CONNOR-Well, as Mr. Brock said, what is there is completely different, and I, in fairness to the people I represent, would like to have the opportunity to comment. What is there is completely different from what has been proposed, what public notice has gone out. You've introduced a couple of elements here tonight that have not been talked about before. The two that I'd mention specifically would be day launching. If you go back through the minutes, you will see that there has been conversations that there would be no day launching. MR. CARVIN-Okay. I'm not even going to, all I want is environmental situations. MR. O'CONNOR-Well, where are those people going to park? MR. CARVIN-Well, again, we've addressed that under the environmental. By doing this, I think that, and I've noted that we will reserve the right to monitor the parking and traffic flow. MR. O'CONNOR-The major environmental thing, from your comment, was that you're not going to limit, put any limit on the number of quick launch boats that could be within these buildings or the old buildings. - 63 - -- (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/13/96) MR. CARVIN-Again, I think by limiting it to this volume, and taking away that outside storage, that in turn satisfies many of those situations that you've brought up. MR. O'CONNOR-I understand the testimony that has been given, you talk about 10 foot wide stalls, many of them only eight feet tall. If you compare that to what you've done, you're talking 180 quick launch boats, which if an entrepreneur wants to try and get the maximum out of this site, that's what he's going to use. His application, from the very beginning, was that a maximum of 130 to 140. All of a sudden you're giving him another potential 40 boats for quick launch. MR. CARVIN-Again, that may more of a relevant issue to the Use, because all I want, and what I am addressing here is that these buildings, and I, to be very honest with you, if all of the boats are inside, and he has capacity for 300 boats, they're inside. I mean, it has no environmental impact. I'm just making a figure up, Mike. I'm just saying that I don't think that that building, these buildings here are significantly greater than what has occurred on that site. MR. O'CONNOR-These buildings are not larger? MR. CARVIN-They're 43% larger, but there's no outside storage. MR. O'CONNOR-You just gave outside storage. MR. CARVIN-No, for the winter. MR. 0' CONNOR-You could easily put the 130 to 180 quick launch inside those buildings, and you've got Building Number One which is now being converted to sales. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Well, again, we're getting argumentative here. MR. O'CONNOR-At this point, the only point that I'd make for your record is that you mentioned in the very beginning, you have no concept as to how parking will be solved, and until you have some understanding of that, environmentally, I don't think you can say yes or no. It's nice to say that we'll re-visit it if there's problems, but you're going to be back, and the applicant is going to be back, I've got my buildings up, my money's spent, and we've got a problem. You've got to address it today. MR. CARVIN-Well, I'm hoping that we have, but in any event, I don't know if parking is a specific, and I think parking comes under the traffic, or broad area, right? MR. NACE-Mr. Chairman, if I might. We, in the submission we made to you Friday, addressed the parking as an overflow, (lost words) is necessary. MR. LAPPER-By using the boat storage buildings? MR. O'CONNOR-Except the storage buildings where the parking is. That's where the parking was. MR. LAPPER-They propose to use the boat storage buildings, the first floor of the four boat storage buildings in the back for parking. That was part of the submission. MR. CARVIN-Yes. Again, I think the parking can be monitored and addressed. I don't think, from an environmental standpoint, the parking, using this plan, is going to be essentially the same. Okay. All right. I stand at the crossroads of indecision here, ladies and gentlemen. - 64 - '- (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/13/96) ".....,/ MR. FORD-Then lets send it to conference. MR. CARVIN-Did the applicant ever tell us the time frame, or did we want to try to establish a date, I mean, while I've got a full Board here. If we're going to try to zero in on this and send it to, I mean, if the applicant is willing to, or if you're satisfied that we can move forward. MR. BROCK-You're talking a time frame for the outside storage? MR. CARVIN-Well, in other words, to confab with Staff and the neighbors. MR. BROCK-I'm satisfied with doing the concrete, doing outside storage and just a few show boats. I'm satisfied, if that's acceptable to the Board. I might not be happy, but I'll live with it. I don't need an extension, if that's the case. We can proceed at your schedule. MR. CARVIN-Okay, Jon, what would you recommend? MR. LAPPER-You'd have to have a formal motion that incorporates all of these and also identifies the impacts that are being mitigated. MR. CARVIN-All right. MR. LAPPER-One suggestion would be to ask the applicant to stipulate to give the Board until May 31st to make its SEQRA determination, and then at your regular meeting, the motion could just be drafted and voted on at a regular meeting. It shouldn't take too long. MR. CARVIN-Is the applicant willing to do that, due to the lateness of the hour? MR. BROCK-Yes. I would be willing to have you do that. this is pretty much it, with no further submission. I guess MR. CARVIN-This is pretty much over. MR. BROCK-I'd be willing to do that. MR. CARVIN-Okay, then for the record, I'm going to put, this is so that when we draft a motion, and hopefully I've got everybody on the same page here. Okay. This is the conditioned negative declaration items that I feel will mitigate the environmental impacts that have been disclosed during the SEQRA review. Number One, all new buildings cannot exceed a maximum of 25 feet height at the eaves, and 28 foot height at the peak. Number Two, the boat storage buildings shall be configured from the proposal submitted by the applicant as follows. One building, 102' by 104', with the 102 foot long side running parallel to the north wall of the existing maintenance building and set back a minimum of 50 feet from Cleverdale Road property line, five feet from the existing maintenance building, and a minimum of 135 feet from the Mason Road property line, and three feet from the residential line. One building 30 feet by 100 feet parallel to the northerly most property line, and set back 10 foot from the northerly most property line, and 30 feet from the Mason Road property line. One building 30' by 78', parallel to the northerly most property line and set back 95' feet from the northerly most property line, and 30 feet from the Mason Road property line. One building, 30' by 78' , parallel to the northerly most property line, and set back a minimum of 183' from the northerly most property line, and a minimum of 30' from Mason Road property line. One building, 30' by 100', parallel to the northerly most property line, and set back a minimum of 268 feet from the northerly most property line, and a - 65 - -- (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/13/96) minimum of 30 feet from the Mason Road property, and a minimum of 10 feet from the property line designated as N85 54 feet 50 inches west on Map 47066-C1 by Haanen Engineering dated 9/13/95, and revised 3/7/96. Certainly we will get accurate figures as to the distances between the buildings, and I come up with the following. If these buildings are built to the configurations and to the height, we should be looking at an approximate cubic volume of 564,132 cubic feet. Since the new boat storage buildings will have a greater volume than the former storage buildings, no outside storage of boats shall be permitted on the project site from May. MR. LAPPER-Memorial Day weekend. MR. THOMAS-Yes. It changes every week, every year. MR. FORD-June 1st. MR. THOMAS-Yes. Say it has to be from June 1st to maybe October. MR. GORALSKI-Actually, it would be the other way around. It would be September whatever, to. MR. MARTIN-No, he's say when it's not allowed. MR. LAPPER-Should not be allowed. MR. CARVIN-When it's not allowed. MR. THOMAS-When it's not allowed, from June 1st, I would say, until October 15th, is probably when you start putting them back in there. MR. BROCK-October 1st, They close their camps. in October. that weekend. A lot of people come up. That's a long weekend, that first weekend MR. THOMAS-So that's June, July, August, and September. four months that they're not there. That's MR. CARVIN-Then seven months winter storage. MR. THOMAS-Then you're going to have to move it back to May 15th to October 15th, to get five months. MR. CARVIN-May 15th to October 15th? MR. BROCK-I have so many people that won't show up before the holiday weekend, Memorial Day weekend. That's the thing. October 15th I could live with, because I could work around that, I just won't pull them out. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Then what did we say, May 1st to? MR. THOMAS-No, June 1st. MR. CARVIN-June 1st to October 15th. MR. THOMAS-To October 15th. So that gives you June, July, August, September, and half of October. There's four and a half months. MR. CARVIN-All right. Any winter storage of boats will be limited to the space between the buildings and not on any green areas, and again, we can clarify that, I think. This is just for the record, to kind of get an idea of how I want to write this. MR. LAPPER-So this is not the resolution? MR. CARVIN-It's not the resolution. This is just to get everything - 66 - "'-' (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/13/96) .....,/ on the record, so that I know what I'm looking to do, so that the storage will be between the two, the storage buildings, and not on any green areas. MR. MARTIN-Just so we're clear on that, so we can stipulate, since that is going to be a paved area, I would even go so far as to say that should be marked and painted on the pavement as to what that limit is to be, so we're clear, and when he goes out there, and we see, I'm saying the area between those buildings, that's going to be the limit of the storage? I would say that that should go even so far as to mark it on the pavement. That's as a fine point for you to consider. MR. CARVIN-Yes, I think that between the buildings, to be delineated. MR. MARTIN-Yes, that would be fine. MR. CARVIN-A fire alarm system conforming to the most current. MR. THOMAS-Before you go any farther, how far forward would be the limit? MR. CARVIN-Well, I'm not really, I'm thinking that I would be hesitant, and I'm going to tell the Board this right now, I would be hesitant, for winter storage, to put boats in here. I don't have a problem here, and I don't have a problem here. I do have a problem in here. MR. THOMAS-How about, what about getting a fire vehicle in there if you had to? MR. CARVIN-That's what I'm saying. If we have boats in here, it would be hard to get a fire vehicle in here. MR. THOMAS-Yes. You won't be able to get them between the first and second and third and fourth building, if you have boats stored in there. MR. CARVIN-Well, what I'm saying is this one in here I would like to keep open. MR. THOMAS-Okay. MR. CARVIN-I don't have a problem with winter storage here and here. NEIGHBOR-How are the fire trucks going to get to that building, if boats are stored? MR. CARVIN-They may come in here or off Mason Road. NEIGHBORS-(Lost words) boats in front of the building. How do you get into that building? MR. CARVIN-Does everybody see what I'm saying? Does anybody have a problem with that? MR. THOMAS-Yes. I agree with you. Would you want to get into the buildings? MR. FORD-There's going to be space for fire fighters to get in. MR. CARVIN-I think if we leave that open, we should have enough space to get fire equipment and fire fighters. MR. THOMAS-Is that going to be plowed in the winter time? - 67 - -'- (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/13/96) MR. BROCK-It usually is. MR. THOMAS-Is it? What are you going to do with the snow? If you've got boats stacked in there, what are you going to do with the snow? MR. BROCK- If we've got boats in here, I won't be plowing that because. MR. THOMAS-No, because the boats are in there. MR. BROCK-I'll be pushing it off into here. Right now, we push the snow out across the street, and here we pile it right down along here. We'll still do the same thing. MR. THOMAS-Okay. So you pile it on that residential lot. MR. BROCK-We've got room right in here. That's what we do right now. MR. THOMAS-Okay. MR. CARVIN-Okay. The fire alarm system, I know I had read in before, lets see, the fire alarm system conforming to the most current NFPA requirements shall be installed with the dry fire hydrant being installed from Lake George, and also an easement be written into the deed to the fire companies. All forklift trucks and tractors used for the moving of boats shall be equipped with mufflers and resonators to reduce noise, and will not be equipped with activated warning horns, and any and all efforts to dampen that noise should be taken by the applicant. A stormwater management plan shall be submitted by the applicant and approved by the Town of Queensbury Planning Board during site plan review of the project which must, at a minimum, provide for no increase in the rate and volume of stormwater runoff from the site, compared to the existing stormwater runoff conditions of the site. The proposed landscaping plan prepared by Miller Associates Landscaping Architects and Haanen Engineering dated 9/28/95 shall be installed with the addition of a four foot high earth berm to extend the full length of the new building located along Cleverdale Road, directly east of the largest boat storage building, and shall be landscaped with planted material similar in size, number and species to those proposed along Mason Road. This revision shall be submitted to the applicant and approved by the Town of Queensbury Planning Board during site plan review, and also input from the Town of Queensbury Beautification Committee should be sought. Any future yard lighting shall be building mounted, medium intensity flood lamps with top and side cutoff visors to reduce light impacts on adjacent properties. We reserve the right to monitor parking and traffic flow, and the normal operations of the Marina will be from eight a.m. to nine p.m.. Outside storage for "For Sale" boats, do you want to put a limit on it, shall we say, five, ten? MR. THOMAS-How many boats are out there now? MR. BROCK-On that side of the street? MR. THOMAS-With your "For Sale" boats on that side of the street? MR. BROCK-Probably six. MR. THOMAS-Limit it to six. MR. CARVIN-I was going to say, six. MR. THOMAS-No more than six. MR. LAPPER-On the west side of Cleverdale Road. - 68 - --..' (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/13/96) '-'" MR. CARVIN-Okay. Any boats for sale must be designated For Sale and may be stored outside on the west side of Cleverdale Road. MR. FORD-By the buildings. MR. THOMAS-By the buildings. MR. CARVIN-When we put down, I'll figure it out. straight. We'll get it MR. MENTER-This is only practice. MR. want more add? CARVIN-Yes, and this is not a motion, by the way. So I just to make sure I'm getting everything, and will be limited to no than six boats. Is there anything that I've missed or should Okay. MR. 0' CONNOR-How about clapboard siding, vertical? clapboard siding on the exposed side. Vertical MR. CARVIN-Well, that has really nothing, I don't think, to do with the environment. MR. THOMAS-Yes, that's not environmental. MR. MENTER-You got everything that I had. MR. 0' CONNOR-I got everything. MR. CARVIN-Bonnie, anything that you want to add or comment? MRS. LAPHAM-No. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Bill? MR. GREEN-No. You seem to have seem to have attacked everything here. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Dave, are you comfortable? MR. MENTER-I reserve the right to modify your motion later. MR. CARVIN-Well, the motion will be made in a cleaned up form. I just wanted to make sure I got all the main points here. Bob, anything that you? MR. KARPELES-No. MR. CARVIN-Tom? MR. FORD-No. I want those new boats confined more than just on the west side, because there's a substantial area there where they could be spread out. I don't know how to designate that, in front of that building. MR. CARVIN-I'll figure it out, but we're only limiting it to six. Anything, Chris? MR. THOMAS-Yes. The only thing, I brought it up before, was when you were talking about the berm in front of the 102' by 104' building, instead of a berm, maybe just a cedar hedge road. I don't see why you should have them put a lump of earth in front of that place. A cedar hedge row would do the same thing. MR. CARVIN -Okay. landscaping? So you don' t want a berm? You just want MR. THOMAS-Yes, just landscaping, because that's all you're really - 69 - ,.......",. (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/13/96) doing is blocking the building from the view. MR. LAPPER-You should specify the height of the cedars, if that's what you want. MR. THOMAS-The building's going to be, what, 28 at the peak? MR. CARVIN-Twenty-eight at the peak. MR. THOMAS-I would say eight feet. MR. CARVIN-Eight feet cedars? MR. THOMAS-As you sit down and look up over eight feet, you're going to be, that should have it blocked. MR. CARVIN-Well, landscaping to include at least eight foot. MR. THOMAS-Yes. MR. CARVIN-Okay. MR. THOMAS-That's the only thing I would have. I can't see going through the expense of putting a berm in there. MR. CARVIN-Okay. The applicant has indicated a willingness to give us until May 31st to draw an appropriate motion. I would recommend, we've got, what, one meeting this week and two next week. MR. THOMAS-Yes, the 15th and 22nd and 23rd. MR. GREEN-Fred, I probably won't be here for that second meeting next week. MRS. LAPHAM-That's Thursday the 23rd, I won't be, either. MR. CARVIN-Do you want a separate meeting with us, or do you want to try to combine? MR. THOMAS-Do it at the regular meeting the 22nd. MR. MENTER-Yes. MR. THOMAS-It'll only take, 15, 20 minutes. MR. MARTIN-It literally should be passing a resolution. MR. KARPELES-Yes, that ought to be real quick, I would think. MR. CARVIN-All right. Am I hearing the 22nd? MR. GREEN-Thursday of next week I won't be able to make it. MR. CARVIN-Okay, well, how about Wednesday the 22nd? MR. GREEN-Wednesday's fine. MR. CARVIN-Will I have at least six folks? MRS. LAPHAM-Wednesday's fine. I won't be here the 23rd, either. MR. CARVIN-Okay, 23rd you're gone, Bill, you're gone the 23rd. Dave, is the 22nd? MR. MENTER-Yes, the 22nd's good. MR. CARVIN-Okay, Bob? - 70 - \....-. (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/13/96) -' MR. KARPELES-As far as I know, yes. MR. THOMAS-Fine, I'm here for both. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Well, the 23rd poses a problem, because if Tom and Bill and Bonnie aren't going to be here. Okay. Then I will tentatively set that motion for the 22nd. Okay. Does Staff have any problems, questions? MR. GORALSKI-No, that's fine. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Is there anything that we have missed? I'm very serious on this, because this will be the motion, essentially, just polished up and cleaned up. MR. LAPPER-We will think about it, and if we have any recommendations, they'll get to you before the motion. MR. CARVIN-Okay. MR. MENTER-Yes. I think the only thing you need to include each of the items that we need to mitigate from the SEQRA, right? MR. CARVIN-Yes. I mean, it'll be put into a finalized form, if there's any questions, but, I mean, this will be, pretty much, the guts of the motion. ¡;;i MR. MENTER-Yes, that's everything, I think. MR. CARVIN-With the exception of some of the dimensions, but those will be the dimensions, as far as I'm concerned. I'm not opening, but you have a question. I'll ask you the question, if you've got a question. NEIGHBOR-I just wonder, environmentally, how these are going to be sealed in the winter time, the boats? MR. BROCK-More than likely, they'd be tarps. MR. CARVIN-Okay. for adjournment. If there's no other questions, then I will move This is the environmental impact. MR. MARTIN-There'll be another public hearing with the Use Variance. MR. CARVIN-See, when the Use Variance comes up, that'll be the starting point. MR. MARTIN-Actually you're looking at the potential for even three more public hearings. You'll have one at the Area Variance and then one at Site Plan. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. Does this include Lot 13-2-20? MR. CARVIN-The meeting is adjourned. MR. O'CONNOR-Does this include the 50 foot residential lot, because I think it has to? MR. CARVIN-No. MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. CARVIN-It does? MR. O'CONNOR-It does. MR. LAPPER-I don't remember the number, but. - 71 - ~- (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/13/96) MR. CARVIN-Okay. That's the one that, well, okay. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Fred A. Carvin, Chairman - 72 - , , ~