The URL can be used to link to this page

1996-05-01 SP o R f VI N A l QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SPECIAL MEETING MAY 1ST, 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. '- .......,/ (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/1/96) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF' APPEALS SPECIAL MEETING MAY 1, 1996 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT FRED CARVIN, CHAIRMAN CHRIS THOMAS, SECRETARY THOMAS FORD ROBERT KARPELES DAVID MENTER MEMBERS ABSENT WILLIAM GREEN BONNIE LAPHAM EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR-JAMES MARTIN CODE COMPLIANCE OFFICER-JOHN GORALSKI ATTORNEY REPRESENTING ZBA-JON LAPPER TOWN ENGINEER-WILLIAM LEVANDOWSKI NEW BUS INESS: USE VARIANCE NO. 82-1996 AND AREA VARIANCE NO. 83-1995 SEQRA TYPE I JOHN BROCK - MOORING POST MARINA OWNER: SAME APPLICANT SEEKS TO CONSTRUCT AND USE NONCONFORMING COMMERCIAL BOAT STORAGE BUILDINGS ON A PRE-EXISTING, NONCONF'ORMING SITE, AND SEEKS RELIEF' FROM THE USE AND AREA REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 179-16, WATERFRONT RESIDENTIAL - ONE ACRE (WR-IA) 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-IA ZONE, CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL AREA, ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY (APA) AND LAKE GEORGE PARK COMMISSION (LGPC) JURISDICTION. MR. CARVIN-I'd like to take a minute and maybe review where we are with regard to the Mooring Post application. This is a three part, and possibly a four part, step. Part I is to get through what we call the SEQRA, which is the environmental impact study, and that's essentially what we're going to be addressing this evening. Part II will be the Use Variance, which has a separate set of criteria, and Part III will be the Area Variance, which again has a separate set of criteria. Part IV, may be, if we get down Parts I, II, and III, a site plan review. Now the SEQRA involves basically two par t s . The rei sPa r t A , w h i chi s s u bm i t t e d and fill e d 0 uta n d completed by the applicant. Part B is what this Board looks at in determining if there is an env i ronmental impact. Now we have notified all the relevant agencies, as far as the environmental impact study is concerned, and it has been determined that this Board has what is called Lead Agency Status. So it is up to this Board to make those determinations wi th regard to the SEQRA. Before I continue, this meeting is advertised from a time frame of seven to eleven, and if for some reason, we start approaching that eleven o'clock and, hopefully, we will have a public hearing this evening, if for some reason that public hearing is still going on, the meeting will be adjourned, and another date to continue the public hearing will be established. Now when we last met regarding the first part of the SEQRA, which was the part filled out by the applicant, and it was disclosed that there were a number of items t hat we rem i s sin g from t hat a p p 1 i cat ion. We had ask e d the applicant to research and provide this Board with that missing information. We have been in receipt of his response, and again, we have forwarded these responses to the appropriate interested agencies. This information also has been on record for public - 1 - -- "-- (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/1/96) review. Where we stand tonight is that I'm going to review the information with the interested agencies to make sure that we do have a complete application. I will then poll this Board to determine if they feel we have a complete application, and once that particular situation has been determined, then I will open up the public hearing. Now the ground rules for the pub1iç hearing ar'e that we are only going to listen to comments relating to the SEQRAand the SEQRA application, and any questions or conunents are to be directed to the Board, and es~entially what we are looking to do is determine or disclose information that this Board is not aware of with regard to the SEQRA. If for some reason I find that a speaker is getting into areas that are not relevant or inappropriate to the SEQRA review, I will ask them to refrain from those comments until the appropriate time. Now there will be other public hearings with regard to this issue. As I said, there will be a public hearing with the Use Variance, the Area Variance, and, if it goes to site plan, and I'm assuming it probably will, there will be a public hearing at the site plan, so that the public will have a number of oppor tuni ties to expr es s thei r op i nions and present whatever information or facts that they have. Now the public hearing, at this point, is closed. So I cannot entertain, and will not entertain, any comments from the public. Now, I think where I would like to begin is that I'm assuming that all the Board members have received the information that has been submitted, and I think I'm going to kick it over to Staff, to see if Staff has any comments, in other words, if you are satisfied that the information tha t we've reques ted has been prov i ded, and if you have any additional questions or comments that need to be made at this point. MR. GORALSKI-It appears, after going through the minutes and going through the additional submission, that substantially all of the comments and questions that were asked at the last meeting have been addressed. One notable exception is that the Board discussed elevations from both Mason Road and Cleverdale Road. The elevation that we received and is being displayed now is from Mason Road. I don't know, I'm not really sure, when you read the minutes, if there was a consensus as to whether or not you wanted both or just one. That would be the one issue that I'd say might be outstanding. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Well, I'm going to going to ask the Board, do you understand, in other words, in reviewing the minutes, we did, I believe, ask for elevations both from Cleverdale and Mason Road. MY reading of the minutes and illY. interpretation was that we were more interested in, certainly we had a unanimous opinion on the Mason Road side. I think it was somewh~t split on the Cleverdale. We do not have, as far as I know, any elevations from the Cleverdale side, and again, I'm going to ask the Board if that is something that you feel is relevant or needed to help you make a determination as far as Part lIon the SEQRA is concerned. I don't know if the applicant has any of those elevations from the Cleverdale side. TOM NACE MR. NACE-Would you like me to address the Board? MR. CARVIN-If you would. MR. NACE-Sure. For the record, my name is Tom Nace, with Haanen Engineering. With me is John Brock, the applicant. We did not have drawing elevations from Cleverdale. We have, we believe, in the response to you verbally addressed the fact that it is well screened from Cleverdale Road and is really not visible. We've also shown pictures from Cleverdale Road to illustrate the screening. - 2 - '-' -....../' (Queensbury ZBA Meeting, 5/1/96) MR. CARVIN-Again, I'll ask the Board to note that we do not have elevations from Cleverdale, and I don't know if it's significant at this point. We do have all sorts of information and elevations from Mason Road. MR. GORALSKI-The other thing I'd just like to add is that our review of the items that were submitted were in a quantitative nature, simply checking to see that the questions were addressed, and we did not do a qualitative review, meaning we did not make any determinations to how well those questions were addressed. We left that up to the Board. Rist-Frost did do an engineering review of the project, and you have a letter from Bill Levandowski with their response. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Befor~ I get to Bill's letter, I think I'm going to ask, I see Bob Paling from the Town of Queensbury Planning Board. If you could come to the microphone. I'm assuming, Bob, that you have be~n in receipt of all the additional information, and I know that the Planning Board has been acting in liaison with the Planning Board. BOB PALING MR. PALING-Yes, I have. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Do you have any comments or questions with regard to the adequacy of the information that we requested? MR. PALING-The only thing I noticed was that the Visual EAF wasn't done. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Well, I think the Visual EAF is something that we do. Is that correct? MR. MARTIN-That's the responsibility of you, as you go through Part I I . MR. CARVIN-Yes. Okay. MR. MARTIN-It's your option, if you want to go through that exercise. MR. CARVIN-Yes. So that's not something that would normally come from the applicant. MR. PALING-Otherwise, right noW, I don't have any questions. No. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Any additional comments or anything that you feel should be supplied that is not? MR. PALING-No. MR. CARVIN-Okay. I appreciate it. Thank you. Okay. We also sent the information to the Lake George Park Commission, and I'm going to ask, I don't know, is there a representative from the Lake George Park Commission? I don't think there's anyone here. LADY, LGPC COMMISSIONER LADY-There are two Commissioners here. I don't know if Mike White is going to come or not. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Are you authorized to make comments with regard to this? LADY-No, just to listen. MR. CARVIN-Okay. - 3 - -" ',----, (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/1/96) LADY-You did get the letter from Mike. MR. CARVIN-Right, I was going to say. LADY-Those are the concerns that we have. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Then I will ask the Secretary to read the Lake George Park Commission letter into the record. MR. THOMAS-A letter dated April 30, 1996, regarding Mooring Post Marina comments on potential environmental impacts, "Dear Mr. Martin: Thank you for providing an opportunity to comment on the additional information supplied by Haanen Engineering regarding the above project. These are the Commission staff comments and track thos e in our ear Ii er let ter of November 22, 1995. As you are aware, the Commission is an involved agency pursuant to SEQRA because a permit is required prior tQ the construction of the quick launch buildings and for the operation of a Class A Marina. Our goal therefore is to identify the significant issues which the Commission will be required to consider before rendering SEQRA findings and a decision. The newly provided information, while helpful in understanding the project, is not sufficient to support a Negative Declaration under SEQRA.There remains the potential for large and significant impacts, such as visual and audio effects, water quality impacts from non point sources, odors from machine exhaust, congestion and e,ffects on neighborhood character which the design does not adequately mitigate. It is foreseeable that the combined effects of these impacts will have a significant cumulative impact on the neighborhood character and the resources of the Lake George Park which would prevent the Commission from making the SEQRA findings necessary for issuance of a permi t. Accordingly, it is requested that the Town, as SEQRA lead agency, either issue a Positive Declaration or request further information and/or mitigation measures including examination of alternative designs. Specifically, the following items present potential impacts: Visual Impacts: The size of the proposed buildings is substantially out of scale with the character of the neighborhood. The resulting architectural dominanCe and aesthetic impact is exacerbated by the minimum setback of buildings from residences and residential lots. Little or no transition or buffer area is proposed. The mitigation measures such as berming and screening are insufficient to reasonably mitigate this impact. Alternative sizing and siting should be evaluated.' Stormwater Controls: The Lake George Park Commission has proposed design standards to mitigate potential impacts of stormwater runoff from development. Generally, there is insufficient information provided to fully evaluate compliance with the stormwater design standards. However, it appears seasonally high groundwater condi tions on si te wi 11 limit the potential to comply with requirements and that the proposed design will not retain and infiltrate stormwater consistent with the standards for previously developed areas of development sites. Based upon the limited information available, the boat washing area is inadequate. A technical evaluation of the proposed stormwater plan is being prepared to more fully evaluate this aspect. Noise and Odor impacts: The description of the forkl i it and tractor equipment used at the si te is helpful. However, odors and times of operation have not been addressed. The report states that reduction of noise can be achieved with mufflers and resonators. It would be helpful to know what the current noise level is in decibels so that the actual noise reduction can be evaluated. Wastewater ManaRement: The current system has not been evaluated. Erosion and Sedimentation Controls: A Construction schedule should be prepared which includes controls to be used during construction. NeiRhborhood Character: The project involves the construction of a 21,721 sq. ft. triple tier facility to replace a single tier facility of similar square footage. This expansion produces the real potential for an increase in activity at the site including the number of quick launch shuttles, daily - 4 - >-> ...-' (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/1/96) duration of shuttle activities, attendant noise, traffic, and general commotion. This has the potential for a potentially large cumulative impact on the neighborhood's remaining tranquility and will further disrupt enjoynlent of adjacent residential properties and natural resources known to be of local and regional importance. We appreciate the opportunity to comment and hope it contributes favorably to the process. Very truly yours, Michael P. White, Executive Director" MR. CARVIN-Okay. Now, I would like to remind the Board, and I do thank the Lake George Park Commission for their input on this particular situation. Many of these issues have been and are being and hopefully will be addressed by this Board as we go through the Part II. Now it is this Board's responsibility to determine the actual environmental impact, all right. In other words, we do not necessarily have to agree or disagree with what the Lake George Park Commission has indicated, as far as positive or negative declarations are concerned. Now, again, I think we can look at these, and I think these are issues that, it's each one of you to determi ne whether we've got s u f f i ci ent i nforma t i on to deem a complete application, all right. Now the only real question I have, I think, is with regard to the stormwater controls, and we have a letter, we have asked Rist-Frost Associates, we had sent a lot of the Haanen Engineering information to Rist-Frost, and I believe William Levandowski is here who prepared the letter summarizing what Rist-Frost has found. So, again, I would ask, Chris, if you'd read that into the record. MR. THOMAS-A letter dated April 29, 1996, regarding the Mooring Post Marina, Zoning Variance Supplementary Information "Dear Mr. Martin: We have performed a review of the above referenced supplementary information for zoning variance and have the following engineering comments: Existing and proposed contours and floor elevations are not shown on the plan. We cannot determine direction of stormwater flow or changes that may result from the proposed layout of the new buildings or berm construction. Plan does indicate that test pits and percolation tests were performed. The concept of providing infiltration trenches to accommodate slight increased runoff from the increased impervious area is acceptable. The EAF appears to be complete. Permeable area is noted. Existing and proposed utilities should be shown. Landscape plan indicates planting details and addition of a berm along Mason Road. No clearing isnotèd. A constructlon sediment control plan conforming to regulations should be referenced. Only one handicapped access parking location is noted for 107 total parking spaces. Three are required per NYS regulations. Please call if you have any questions. Very truly yours, RIST-FROST ASSOCIATES, P.C. William J. Levandowski, P.E. Senior Vice President &: Director of Technical Services" MR . CAR V I N - 0 k a y . I don't t h ink the r e 's any 0 the r i n t ere s t e d agencies. I think we've covered them all, have we? Okay. I will ask the' Board if you have questions of any of the supplemental material that we have received? Does anybody have any questions, at this point, of any of the submissions at all? MR. THOMAS-No. MR. MENTER-I have one question. I had a similar comment, Tom, on the decibel. You gave a reduction in decibel number, but you didn't give an original. MR. NACE-We gave the tractors with the addition of the muffler, the Walker Muffler. It goes to, I believe, 71 db's. The addition of resonators with the muffler results in somewhere between 5 and 15. Now that's a big range, but I believe that deperids on the particular throttles and the operating conditions, and the particular engines, but that was the range that was given to us by - 5 - -/ "--- (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/1/96) the manufacturer of the resonator. It was somewhere between 5 and 15 db's, below the 71 that the muffler will keep it to. MR. MENTER-Seventy-one will be the result of the muffler? MR. NACE-Tha t ' s correct. MR. MENTER-What is the current decibels? MR. NACE-The current, we do not know. We only know that from the manufacturer, the Waìker is guaranteed or stated to us that the maximum with the addition of the muffler would be 71. MR. MENTER-So there's something you can do, but you have no idea what it'll do. MR. NACE-No. My guess is that it will be somewhere in the 75 range, but that's only a guess. The point is that we're willing to add a muffler which would bring it down to 71, and if we want to go beyond that, it's possible. A resonator exists. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Does Staff have any questions or want anything expanded? MR. MARTIN-We're all set. MR. CARVIN-Okay. MR. KARPELES-The fire extinguishers. One of these proposed boat storage buildings doesn't show one. I'm just wondering if that was intentional? MR. NACE-I have to look at the site plan to make sure. We've shown one her e in the corner between, these ar e open shed bu i 1 dings. These two are open shed buildings. So the one in the corner would be availabl~ for either building, and then we have two in the big building and 6ne, this will be open. It just goes in.. So there's one right inside. MR. KARPELES- I've got another ques t i on, too. It's detail, but I think you probably should correct it. A is actually labeled. just a minor Your Section MR. NACE-They're backwards. We noticed that after we did the plan. I apologize. MR. CARVIN-Okay. I have one question of Staff, in the report that we received, and it has to do with the building volume. Has Staff or did Staff or can Staff verify the numbers, or can you may expand on how these numbers were acquired? MR. NACE-I'll be glad to sit down with Staff and let them come to the same synopsis I did, but,what I did to get atthose numbers, as I think I explained in the information, we have no actual measure of heights of those five pre-existing buildings that were torn down. What I did is came up to the Assessor's Office. They had some pictures that were available. Mr. Brock had pictures that were available from different, all different per~pectives. I took what known heights we had in those pictures, from buildings that are still there and we could measure, and based on those heights, and I think in one case based on the door height that we knew, I was able to extrapolate to the peak and the eaves of the buildings, and, you know, quité frankly, it's the best estimate based on the available information, but I would certainly be glad to sit down with Staff and show them where I arrived at the numbers. MR. CARVIN-Okay. How about the proposed building, is that a pretty straight forward calculation, standard length, width? - 6 - '-'" ...../ (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/1/96) MR. NACE-The calculation, once you lock in the area and the eaves and peak height, the calculation is a straight forward calculation. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Has Staff had an opportunity to verify that? MR. MARTIN-I would agree with that, that it's a ~traight forward calculation. Obviously, you're calculating for cubic area. We did not have even that amount of information available when we made some rough es t ima tes ear 1 y on about the size of the or i g inal buildings. I think his process was somewhat more involved than ours was. He had some pictures he could reference, and he has the owner of the faci 1 i ty that he can reference. We made some assumptions on eaves height. That's the best we could do. I think these numbers are as accurate as you could get, if you assume that those eaves heights and peak heights are accurate. Like I said, we didn't have as good information as he accessed for those calculations. MR. CARVIN-Okay. fairly compatible, range, I guess? We 11 , the numb e r s that yo u did r un, a I' e the s e I mean, are we within an acceptable tolerance MR. MARTIN-Yes, that might be a good way to term it. That's true. You're looking at basically an increase here of about, what 270,000 cubic feet. That's about in the range that we came up with. It's certainly an increase, a substantial increase. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Well, again, I just, it's been a long time since I took my math courses, so to be very honest with you, I don't know how to calculate volume anymore, and I just w~nted to make sure that we are in the ballpark anyway. MR. MARTIN-Yes. These are in the ballpark. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Now, obviously, you've had an opportunity to review all the material. You've had an opportunity to review the new Long Form. Would you consider this to be a complete and full application, as far as the Part A, the first part is concerned? MR. MARTIN-From a Staff's point of view, yes. MR. CARVIN-Okay. So you feel that there's no additional information that you feel should be required or acquired, and that this Board has sufficient information, or should have sufficient information to render some sort of decision with regard to the environmental impact? MR. MARTIN-I would say that you have enough information here to begin going through the Assessment Form. You may run into a particular question where you, as a Board, feel that more information is needed, but I think you have the information here to begin that process. MR. CARVIN-Okay. I will note the Lake George Park Commission's recommendations and we will take those into consideration under QJ!I.. review. I will ask Planning if having a review of whatever information do you feel that we've got sufficient enough information to make a valid determination? MR. PALING-What you're asking, I have a little problem with. MR . CAR V I N - Well, i f you' d jus t tell us w h at the pro b 1 em is. mean, I don't have anything to hide, Bob, I really don't. MR. PALING-I think it's best for me to say, no comment. MR. CARVIN-Okay. So you're going to leave it to our discretion as - 7 - ~,J '--... (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/1/96) lead agency? I mean, all I'm asking, Bob, is if you have anything that you feel is insufficient or is lacking in this application that should be provided, that is instrumental in our moving forward? If not, I mean, if we have sufficient information to make a well and meaningful and balanced decision as far as the Part II. MR. PALING-I've been through all the things that you have. I didn't realize that anyone was going to ask me for an official answer in regard to anything within that. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Well, it's not necessarily an official, but we've asked that, we value your input. I mean, it's going to be this Board's determination as to the actual outcome, but, you know, certainly we are looking for assistance from the Planning, and if in your conversations. MR. PALING-There's nothing out of line that I saw, except the Visual EAF, as I mentioned earlier. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Right. I mean, we're not going to get into the merits of whether the information is correct or not. That'll come under the Part II, but as long as there's nothing missing. Okay. All righty, gentlemen. I'm going to ask you gentlemen, it's on our shoulders, here. I mean, have you got enough information, with all the stuff that's been submitted, that we can deem this a complete application? Now, once we deem this a'complete application, the clock starts runntng, as far as our determination is concerned. We have 20 days fr~m the determination of a complete application to render our environmental impact study. Now, if you feel that we have enough information, I would ask you to say that we have enough information, that you feel comfortable moving forward. If you have any questions at this point, of either the applicant or any of the information that has been so far submitted, I would ask you to put it out on the table right now. I'll start with you, Chris. MR. THOMAS-I feel comfortable moving forward with this application. I have no questions of anyone, and I think it's a complete application. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Tom? MR. PORD-When,wlll we address the Cleverdale? MR. CARVIN-Well, again, I think that if you feel that that is relevant and pertinent, and a major issue, in other Words, that you need that information to render a decision, then, certainly, you have to come to that decision. MR. FORD-I do, and I have. MR. CARVIN-Okay. MR. FORD-And I need that, the view and the elevations and so for from Cleverdale. MR. MENTER-From the other side? MR. FORD-From the other side, seeing. the opposite side from what , we re MR. CARVIN~Okay. How about ypu, Bob? MR. KARPELES-I'm satisfied. MR. CARVIN-Dave? MR. MENTER-Yes. I certainly believe that we could go along and consider the application with the information that we have. - 8 - ~ ,.,./ (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/1/96) MR. CARVIN-Okay. Tom, if this information is provided to us during the course of our 20 days? MR. FORD-I'll review it. MR. CARVIN-You'll review it. Okay. KARL KROETZ MR. KROETZ-I'm wearing a hearing aid, and 1'm having trouble hearing, as well as other people without hearing aids? I think if you either speak up or at least get the microphone closer to you, maybe the people who are not hearing well migh~ have a chance to understand you. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Well, I apologize for the sound system. However, these are taping mics and not necessarily amplification microphones, so that these are primarily for our machine there, but [ will take that and we will try to speak louder. MR. KROETZ-Thank you. MR. FORD-Thanks for that suggestion. MR. CARVIN-Okay. I don't have any real problems. I believe we've got sufficient information to move forward. I'm going to ask Counsel, should we put this to a vote and would it be just a simple majority to deem this, I mean, with Torn's reservation? MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. CARVIN-So all we would need is just a motion and a simple majority of four? MR. LAPPER-A complete application for the purposes of review. MR. CARVIN-Right. MR. CARVIN-Okay. MOTION TO ACCEPT THE INFORMATION AS SUBMITTED WITH REGARD TO THE MOORING POST ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STUDY. AND THAT WE DEEM THIS TO BE A COMPLETE APPLICATION. ALLOWING US TO PROCE~D WITH OUR REVIEW OF THE PART II OF THAT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT, Introduced by Fred Carvin who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Karpeles: Duly adopted this 1st day of May, 1996, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Menter, Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Carvin NOES: Mr. Ford ABSENT: Mr. Green, Mrs. Lapham MR. CARVIN-Okay. So we have four votes in favor, so that we have now deemed this as a complete application. I would ask the applicant, within the next few days, and as soon as possible, to provide the Cleverdale graphics to this Board, okay. Now, having deemed this as a complete application, this Board has 20 days to render a review of the Part II of the Environmental Impact Statement. What this allows me to do at this point is to open up a public hearing. Now, as I said earlier, the purpose of this public hearing is restricted only to items relating to SEQRA, and I reserve, as Chairman, the right and ability to ask any speaker who is not addressing these issues to hold those comments until the appropriate time. I'm not quite sure how I'm going to do this. I think I will recognize Mr. O'Connor first, if that is. - 9 - -.-/ '---' (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/1/96) MICHAEL O'CONNOR MR. O'CONNOR-That's not my preference. MR . CAR V I N - 0 k a y . The n I w i 11 wa it, but I wi 11 0 pen the pub li c hearing, and I will recognize individuals by hand who wish to come to the microphone and make comments regarding the SEQRA and the relevant material enclosed therein. Is there anyone wishing to be heard with regard to this SEQRA application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED JOHN SALVADOR MR. SALVADOR-My name is John Salvador. I'm a resident of North Queensbury. It was stated earlier that the applicant has provided a stormwater management plan. MR. CARVIN-That is my understanding. MR. SALVADOR-To what standards has that plan been prepared. MR. CARVIN-I'm not quite sure I understand your question. MR. SALVADOR-Normally, there's a Code requirement that he must meet in this regard. I'd like to know who's code this plan complies with. MR. CARVIN-I guess I still am unclear as to what you're asking. Who's Code? The Code as outlined in the Environmental Impact. MR. SALVADOR-It's my understanding he has prepared a design, a plan to mitigate stormwater. MR. CARVIN-He has given us information with regard to stormwater. It is up to this Board to determine whether that significant impact, and if we need mitigation, then this Board determine that at the appropriate time. the is a will MR. SALVADOR-Then what do you measure your judgement against, how do you judge that there are significant impacts? What are the parameters that you use? Where do they come from? MR. MARTIN-It may be best if Bill were to address that. MR. CARVIN-Okay. I'll address the question to Mr. Levandowski. BILL LEVANDOWSKI MR. LEVANDOWSKI-Our review is based on a consideration of the stormwater runoff from the proposed development against what existed before. Essentially, we're talking about a very minor increase in impermeable area, a few hundred square feet, I believe. We've reviewed it on the basis of whether or not the off site drainage would change from the new development compared to the previous development, and our conclusion is, at least in concept, that it will not change significantly. MR. SALVADOR-What storm incidents have you used? MR. CARVIN-Well, wait a minute. I would have you address any of the qu~stions to this Board, okay. Do you have àny figures that may dispute what is in the record, so far? MR. SALVADOR-I don't know what's in the record. MR. CARVIN-The record is available for public review. I mean, if you have something that this Board, if we have information here, - 10 - "- ......",' (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/1/96) and we feel that this is a complete application, and you have information that is contrary to that, that I want to hear, but I'm not going to get involved with a nitpicking where and how and why did we come to these particular determinations. Each one of us will do that in the appropriate time, in other words, as far as the environmental impact is concerned. So, again, I'm going to ask you if you have specific items which you can substantiate, then I would entertain that, but we are not going to get involved in a nit picking situation. MR. MARTIN-To answer the question posed, it was a 50 year storm event. MR. CARVIN-Okay. MR. SALVADOR-That's what I don't understand. Where does that come from? Does the Town have an Ordinance that requires the applicant to design to this parameter, a 50 year storm event? That's all I'm asking. MR. CARVIN-Are you asking if we've got a guideline? I think that each member has to address those. MR. MENTER-And I think the answer to that question you just asked is, at this point, no. MR. MARTIN-I can answer, the policy that is used, and I stress that it is a policy, the only stormwater regulation that exists within the Town, as I know it, is in the Subdivision Regulations. It has been the policy of the Planning Board, who usually deals with this issue, to take that standard and apply it to site plan review, and that's typically what is done when, Rist-Frost reviews those stormwater plans, and that policy, basically, is the pre- development runoff rate, and I stress the word "rate". It is not volume. The pre-development rate cannot be exceeded by the post development runoff rate, and that is the standard, and I will look up the storm event that it's contained in the Subdivision Regulations. MR . CAR V I N - Well, I g u e s s mY que s ti 0 n to S t a f f is, we h a v e a set criteria here that we have to go through and determine, and that's what we base our determination on, is that correct, what the applicant has presented and what we feel is correct in relation to these questions. MR. GORALSKI-Yes. MR. CARVIN-And is that not the procedure? MR. GORALSKI-Yes, it is. MR. LEVANDOWSKI-It's important to note, here, that we're reviewing the propos ed deve lopmen t agai ns t what was ther e befor e, not a vacant site. That's very important. MR. CARVIN-That's correct. Does everybody on the Board understand that? All right. Do you have any addi tional questions or comments? MR. SALVADOR-Jim's looking up the storm event for a subdivision. MR. MARTIN-Fifty year storm for retention and detention basins. I believe it's a 50 year event, and they have a runoff coefficient of not less than .35 is used. MR. SALVADOR-And that's for a subdivision? MR. MARTIN-That's in subdivisions, and that is the only place. - 11 - --" (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/1/96) MR. SALVADOR-But nothing in the Code pertaining to Marinas? MR. MARTIN-Correct. MR. SALVADOR-Okay. Well, thank you. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Thank you. Anyone else wishing to be heard? LOU STONE, REPRESENTING LAKE GEORGE ASSOCIATION MR. STONE-My Lou Stone. I live in North Queensbury, but tonight I am representing the Lake George Association. Kathy Vilmar who would have normally presented, who is on our staff, is awaiting surgery and couldn't be here tonight. I believe the connnents I'm going to make are on point, Mr. Chairman, as you specified. LGA's Land Use Connnittee's on position on the current marina proposal has four components. An Env i ronmental Impact Statement is needed, applicant must submit plans and update the Marina's wastewater system, applicant must submit stormwaterplans for the property. While we understand revised submitted plans have been submitted, they may not go far enough, and we oppose expansion of a nonconforming quick launch facility in a residential area. The LGA questions why the Town believes it needs to move forward with the project when the applicant has a lawsuit pending against the Town. The LGA has reviewed the materials submitted, and has the following preliminary connnents, and this letter will be followed up with the letter to the ZBA. The following numbered connnents refer to the additional project materials submitted for the applicant by Haanen Engineering in their letter dated March 16, 1996, which was relevant to SEQRA. Number Nine in that letter says that the runoff from boat washing ac,ivities will now be directed to the proposed infiltration trench. Fifty percent of the boats receive full washing in the spring. What kind of detergent/wash material is used? Number Ten states the number of trailers that will be stored on premises at one time, that is 20 to 25 trailers. Does the space for the trailers include the parking area ear marked with 130 proposed car spaces? Number Eleven talks about the visual impact on Lake George, and that is that the pro j ec t will not have any visual impact when viewed from the waters of Lake George. Where is the proof of this besides a few tall trees? Is there a visual imp act ana I y s i son the pro j e c t, 0 r i s t his the 0 pin ion 0 f the applicant? Number Twelve talks about the amount of traffic generated by the Marina. The applicant says that the traffic will not increase because on weekdays there will be between 20 to 30 cars per day, on weekends between 60 to 70 cars per day, and on holiday weekends, between 90 to 100 cars per day. Compare these figures with what is given for Number Five. Number Five talks about the number of boats from the Mooring Post Marina that are expected to be using Lake George at anyone time. Week days, it is eight to sixteen boats~ On weekends it is 20 to 33 boats, and for a holiday weekend it's 50 boats. It's probable that the numbers given for the amount of traffic at the Marina and the number of boats expected should be a little closer on a few answers. The number of boats most likely should be higher. The LGA reviewed the amended Environmental Assessment Form and have the following connnents. A1(2) That the total acreage of the project area has been downsized from 3.386 acres to 2.77 acres. Does this reduction in acreage change the variance in any way, as it relates to area and the expansion? Is this reduction in lot size going to trigger some other criteria of the Town Zoning Ordinance? MR. CARVIN-Can I stop you there? MR. STONE-Yes. MR. CARVIN-Does the Staff have any connnent wi th regard to that question? In other words, the acreage was reduced down to 2.77. I want to knock these out as we get to them. That's irrelevant. - 12 - "--' -....../ (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/1/96) The rest of it we've already heard. MR. MARTIN-I believe where that difference is corning from is that they are taking out the two residential lots that are compared to Tax Map No. 13-2-19 and 13-3-18. MR. CARVIN-Okay, and that second part of that question, was this downsizing going to have any effect? MR. STONE-Was it going to trigger any other criteria of the Zoning Ordinance. MR. CARVIN-It does not appear. MR. MARTIN-Not that I've come across, no. MR. CARVIN-All r,ight. Your next question. MR. STONE-BI, Project Description, why the change to 273 feet from 314 feet on the amount of linear frontage along the public road? MR. CARVIN-Can you reference where that is in our information, please? MR. STONE-Bl. MR. MENTER-Page 3. MR. MARTIN-I think that would, again, be associated with the elimination of the residential lots. MR. CARVIN-Okay. this is the new, BI, Physical Dimensions, now again, remember, because we've asked them to revise this. MR. STONE-I believe this is based on, I think Cathy based this on the new. MR. CARVIN-Yes. Well, that's why we have a new one, because we asked the same questions, and that's why we have the new one. MR. STONE-Well, she reviewed the amended Assessment Form. That's where these corne from. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Well, again, I want to try and knock out what I can where I can. MR. STONE-Absolutely. Okay. She's got it as B E, and I don't know if she left out something, because I don't have the form in front of me, but it asks for the percent of pro j ect expans i on. The applicant replies that there is no proposed expansion of use. MR. CARVIN-That's the old application. The applicant has indicated a 69% increased based on the building volume. MR. STONE-That's what, that's my next statement, that the 69% answer is based on volume. This is in direct contrast of the Town's determination that there is an expansion of use, and is part of the recent zoning. MR. CARVIN-No. That is incorrect. The Town's position has always been that the building has expanded. We have yet to determine if there's an expansion of use. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. CARVIN-And all we have is just an expansion of the building which is indicated by the fact that the applicant has indicated that there's at least a minimum of 69% percent increase in - 13 - ----' ',~ (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/1/96) building. MR. STONE-I stand corrected. B(I)(f) asks about the number of off street parking spaces existing and proposed. Both existing and proposed are answered at 107 parking spaces, 41 spaces less than the 148 proposed and existing a few months back. In the last seven years, parking spaces have increased from 24, yes 24, to 148 and down to 107~ Whatever the figure, if it's more than 24, then these spaces are not grandfathered. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Now does Staff have any comn1ent? I think we've gone through this parking space calculation a couple of times, and I think the applicant has addressed that he's used grass areas and non delineated, and I'm assuming that this 107, and correct me if I'm wrong, are delineated parking spaces. Is that correct or incorrect? MR. NACE-That 107 includes ßrassed area för parking. MR. CARVIN-That also includes grassed areas. MR. NACE-That's total what has been used and what will be used. MR. CARVIN-Okay, and I think, again, it will become a matter of this Board 'to determine whether the total impact, as far as the parking and relation to the Environmental Impact Study is significant. MR. STONE-B(l) No. 12 asks if surface liquid waste disposal is involved, and the applicant replies no. Any increase in use means an increased use in the septic system, an increase in the volume of wastewater. Does the Town plan to look more closely at the existing system, given the fact it's located so close to the lake and it's 11 years old? MR. CARVIN-Okay. Well, I don't know if I have a total answer, but I believe, from previous conversations, that applicant, and again, I don't want to put words in anybody's mouth, if I'm incorrect, let me know, but as I understand it, the waste is primarily generated from the pump outs of the boats. MR. NACE-The tank that is in close proximity to the lake is a holding tank, tl~ed only for boat pump out. MR. CARVIN-Right, and you're not expanding that. the capacity is the same. If there is an increase not saying that there is or isn't, it just might being pumped out more. Is that a fair assessment? Okay. So that in us e, and I'm result in that MR. NACE-That's a fair statement. MR. CARVIN~Okay. MR. STONE-B(1)(16) asks if the The applicants answered, N/A. more boats comes more people, waste. project would generate solid waste. There will be more boats, and with with more people comes more solid MR. CARVIN-Okay. Well, again, that will be a determination of this Board as to whether it's relevant or not relevant as far as the SEQRA is concerned. MR. STONE-All we ask is that you consider it. MR. CARVIN-Yes. MR. S TONE - B ( 1 )( 21) ask s i f the pro j e c t will be b u i 1 t , and i n c rea s e in energy use, and the applicant replied no. Again, any increase - 14 - -- .-J (Queens bury ZBA Meeting 5/1/96) in the use will bring with it increased energy use. Those are some of the questions that, you've said it's complete. Those are some of the answers they've given. Two other things. Under ths section that asks about other approvals required, and I know you read a letter from the Park Conunission tonight, but the fact that the Marina expansion needs a permit from the Lake George Park Conunission has been left out, the fact this facility has no current permit from the Park Conunission. The Park Conunission has requested the applicant submit information to him to, so they can begin their review along with the Town, and I recognize they made their position tonight. MR. CARVIN-And I think that's another issue that we have addressed in the past, if memory serves correct. So we, again, as a Board, are aware of those particular issues. Thank you. MR. STONE-Then I'll go on to C( 11) question of demand for communi ty service for the project, and the applicant replies no. More boats mean more people and more people using the lake and associated facilities mean more recreation on the lake. Perhaps these large buildings and added storage buildings mean more police and fire services are needed. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Again, we are aware of these particular situations, and each Board member will determine the relevance. MR. STONE-All right. The rest of my conunents will concern future public hearings. Thank you. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Thank you. Anyone else wishing to be heard? WILLIAM WETHERBEE MR. WETHERBEE-My name is Bill Wetherbee. I live on Mason Road in Cleverdale, directly west of the Mooring Post Marina and the proposed facilities expansion project which we are here tonight considering. All of the exquisitely worded responses and assurances prepared by and for the applicant in this project, and all of the carefully packaged and pictured representations of the project cannot conceal one simple and enduring truth. This proposa I gives new mean i ng to the def i ni t i on 0 f env i r onmental overburden and excess. The proposed expansion of facilities and use envisioned by the buildings would be environmentally hostile to us and our neighbors and to an area which already struggles from and is imperiled by a neglect of the essential balance between people and the environment. The project would add a new and decisive dimension of an environmental distress to an area already in critical need of more protection, not more development. Moreover, while being represented as a solution, it, in actuality, fashions and creates a countless number of problems. It makes a mockery of the balance implicit in the provisions which apply to pre-existing nonconforming entities. No amount of verbal camouflage and pictorial illusion can dispel the environmental damage inherent in this proposal. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Excuse me, Mr. Wetherbee. specific purposes? Do you have any MR. WETHERBEE-Yes, sir. I'm coming to that. My response pertinent to the environment following that introduction will parallel of an unsigned memo prepared by an unknown Staff Member of the Department of Community Development. It is also undated, includes 14 items, and encompasses four pages. It is entitled, Note To File. I assume you are all familiar with it, since it was prepared for you, and parallels environmental concerns that are expressed in the SEQRA. MR. CARVIN-Can you reference that letter, so that we might look at - 15 - -.../ (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/1/96) it? MR. WETHERBEE-It's called "Note To File". It's a four page, undated, unsigned Department of Community Development. MR. CARVIN-Do have a copy by any chance? Because we have a lot of Notes to File. MR. WETHERBEE-Note To File, Application No. Use Variance No., etc., Area Variance, etc. There's no date. There's no signature. There's no auth~rship, there's no identification whatsoever. So I cannot help you beyond that. MR. MARTIN-These were the Notes to File from last year prepared by Sue Cipperly, before the November meeting. MR. CARVIN-Okay, and I'm looking at the head here. MR. WETHERBEE- I t "Impact on Water", starts wi th "Impact on Land", "Impact on Air", etc., etc. continues wi th MR. CARVIN-I think a lot of this was brought up when we originally reviewed the first application. MR. WETHERBEE-That is correct, and we have no opportuni ty to respond to these environmental concerns. MR. CARVIN-No. We responded at the last meeting, and we asked for updated information, and we have received that updated information here. MR. WETHERBEE-I see. MR. CARVIN-So I, don't want to go over what we did last time. If you've got something that's relevant to what we currently have. MR. WETHERBEE-Yes, I do. MR. CARVIN-Okay. If you could give me that, I'd appieciate it. MR. WETHERBEE-Fine. I'll start wit~ Impact on Land, and although I am not an engineer, I wi 11 speak to the issue of runoff and distribution of water, with all due respect to the corrnnents that we have heard her e befo~ e from Mr. Levandowsk i . I be 1 i eve I understood him to say that the conclusion was that there would be no greater impact of any significant nature then heretofore had been the case. I think what the statement overlooks is that there was already a problem prevalent on the property with respect to the disposal of rain water and fluids of that nature, and runoff. There never has been an adequate situation in that regard, and it has worsened, even though there are no buildings on the property, as he indicated. Two weeks ago, I don't know, you correct me and stop me if this is irrelevant. Two weeks ago, during a rainy period, it was necessary for the applicant to bring a back hoe and evacuate water from the site onto Mason Road. In the process, significant quantities of silt and discolored water, which had the tell tale traces of petroleum distillates, were carried down Mason Road onto adjacent properties and into the lake. That's the present condition. The trench remains. There was also an improvised effort to construct a dam to divert water fro~ the site onto our property. This, fortunately, failed, but you can still see where the effort was made to dam the property. I guess our concern is that if the property already is in distress, and if the ability to handle the water on the site is already irisufficient, we do not under stand how add i ng a burden to tl1 i s will, thereby, contribute to a solution to the problem. MR. CARVIN-Okay. I'm going to stop you there. I'm going to ask - 16 - ,-. ......" (Queens bury ZBA Meeting 5/1/96) Mr. Levandowski, having heard these comments, and understanding the project as you do, is there any reason to believe that, if the project were to go forward, in essentially it's present form, that these problems could not be mitigated? MR. LEVANDOWSKI-I'm not familiar with the existing conditions that Mr. Wetherbee refers to. If the existing site is causing problems presently, or did in the past when the previous buildings were there, that's a different situation. If there are concerns, and I have concerns, and we've pointed them out in our 1 etter, that perhaps the placement of the new buildings, in different locations, and along with possible minor grading changes that may be associated with those, had the potential for causing some off site drainage changes, these could easily be mitigated to continue the conditions that existed before the new development. However, none of these things that I'm talking about have the ability to go back and cause or cure previous problems that already exist. MR. CARVIN-Okay. said? Okay. Does everybody on the Board understand what he MR. LAPPER-Mr. Chairman, some of these factual issues certainly would be appropriate later on to have the applicant address, to have the applicant's enginee~ address, in terms of what they had to do, damming something up. I mean, that's something, those are relevant new facts. MR. CARVIN-Right. As I said, I want to develop only the information that's pertinent to the environmental impact, and we are certainly well aware of the wastewater. I mean, these are not new issues, and we are certainly taking your comments to heart, and I think, again, I'm going to refer it to each of the Board members to make a determination as to the impact. If this Board feels that the impact is significant, then we will positive dec this particular environmental impact study. If we feel that it is not a pertinent issue, based upon all the information that we can acquire, and believe me, we've got a ton of it, then we'll negative. If we think that we can condition it, in other words, that we think we have a problem here, but it can be mitigated, then we also have that option. So, again, we're taking your comments to heart, but I want to try to keep it as factual. I don't want to get off into areas that are hearsay or that' are not relevant to this particular situation. MR. WETHERBEE-Are you suggesting that what I just said was hearsay a little while ago? MR. CARVIN-No. I'm not saying that it's hearsay. MR. WETHERBEE-Well, I was wondering what the context of your commentary was. MR. CARVIN-Well, I'm just saying that we are aware of the stormwater issues. I f you have documentation or numbers that dispute concrete, or you have a method of coming up with items that are different than what has been presented, that we would appreciate. Now, as I said, you've raised an issue. I've referred it to our engineer, and he's given you ~is opinion as to what the solution or what that condition may, how that may be resolved, and I think, if I'm putting this in the most simplest terms, is that, at this point, I don't think there's any problems that we can't, at this point, resolve with some sort of engineering. MR. LEVANDOWSKI-I'm not sure you understand me Correctly. I can't comment on the existing conditions that are out there. I'm just not fami 1 iar wi th that, and I can't make the statement that, through a detailed design, we can mitigate those kinds of problems, ok a y . I'm jus t not sur e . I t ma y bet hat we can. I t ma y bet hat - 17 - -/ (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/1/96) we can't, but I think that probably could be addressed better as Mr. Lapper suggested by the applicant's engineer. We can, I'm fairly confident, mitigate problems that would be caused by specific locations of the néw building, in terms of on-site grading and preservation df on-site drainage paths, which is not to say that the existing drainage conditions are acceptable or not. We can just be comfortable that we can continue that that won't get any worse. MR. CARVIN-Okay. MR. WETHERBEE-Okay, and at the risk òf verbal overkill, that's exactly my point. I think the assumptions are being made by many people that everything is "okay now", and that, therefore, all that has to be done is to take care of what's going to happen with the massive expansion that's going to occur, and our point, as residents who are witnessing what's going on now, is that everything is not "okay now". So we start from that assumption, which is basically the basic assumption I'm hearing made now, I think is invalid, but I'm not an engineer, but I just heard Mr. Levandowski say, he was not aware of what's going on now, nor the conditions that exist on the site at this time, nor the water that is being transferred from that site into Lake George. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Anything else, sir? MR. WETHERBEE-Yes. I'd like to discuss the matter of noise, and the commentary that has taken place previously here and this evening with respect to the forklift. The massive forklift will be put into place and into operation, as a resul~ of this proposal if it were to go forward. Contrary to that which has been said, my wife will later speak to this via a letter, contrary to that which has been said, there will not be a "small increase" in the use of the forklift, the diesel forklift that has been on the site for some time. There's been no need for the use of that. What is there to lift? Everything's been on the ground. Everything's been on one level. It has not been used. It would be placed into considerably continual use if this proposal goes forward, and I'm not an expert on decibels, but in recent weeks, the machine has been started on a number of occasions. Normal conversation in our back yard ceases. It ceases, when it is in idle. That's in idle. It hasn't been lifting anything, because there's nothing to lift. When one of these goes into the lift cycle, based upon my experience from listening to it Bold Marina in Bolton Landing, the decibel level raises significantly. This is non-scientific, but I can tell you the use of this in the vicinity of those who live near the Marina will be intrusive. It will be continual, and it will significantly increase, not a small increase, but a significant increase, in the amount of noise and disruption. I might also add, if I can switch that into consideration air, it hyperventilates, plumes, a black smoke when it starts up, and continues to spew them out for some time thereafter. While it is just in idle. This is not someth i ng whi ch we have been accus tomed to, contrary to the notion that has been advanced by the applicant. It has been turned on in other years, but not on a continual, daily basis and left on. Yes, I do want to respond to that, and answer it. We believe, therefore, that the noise and impact will be significant. I also want to respond to the aesthetic issue, which I believe is consistent within the context of environmental. The Not~ to Staff, which you say has already been addressed, makes reference to the fact that people who live on the west side of Cleverdale exercise only the tendency to view matters to the west. Nothing could be further from the truth. For the nearly 40 years that we have owned our property, we have shared a view to th~ east which has been substantial. We have been able to see the Buck Mountain, Pilot Knob range without any major problem, and so have our neighbors. I realize that this is sometimes misrepresented as ~he only issue, and we don't mean to suggest that it is, but we do believe it is an - 18 - ","-, "-,,,' (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/1/96) issue. We have been told by the local Board of Assessment Review that our views to the east and west are inherent in the value of our property. I have consulted with other Assessors from other Boards of Assessment Reviews, and they tell me that property value is related to view. This proposal, if it goes forward, would essentially expunge that view and treat us to sheet metal, rather than that which we have enjoyed for nearly 40 years. We feel that is an excessive imposition, and not one which should be handed to us as a consequence of this proposal. Finally, since most of the other impacts, you say, have already been discussed, which confuses me, but nonetheless, I will respond to the matter of public health, which is an environmental concern. The expansion which is projected will put more boats in a I:I10re concentrated area then heretofore has been tDe case. It will concentrate vessels in stacks, one on top of the other, whereas, heretofore, they have been on one floor, and in separate facilities. This means more fiberglass, more gasoline, more batteries, and more electrical connections in a more concentrated area then, heretofore, has been the case. I believe it is safe to say that the problems created and the volatility inherent in fiberglass and in gasoline and in batteries is substantial, and that once a fire begins, with those kinds of volatile materials, it is extremely difficult to control and prevent its growth. We stand to be considerably more at risk as a resul t of this proposal, because of the concentration of greatly added numbers of boats, gasoline stored on the site, in the boats, and all of the concurrent amenities that accompany those vessels. These are some of the matters to which I feel We have a right to respond, environmentally, and which you say they've been addr es s ed . I'm no t awar e that they have. At the November 29 th meeting, we were not permitted to respond to this, and I am unaware of any other occas ions when we were permi t t ed to respond. So I did want to respond to those, and try to at least set some of the record straight with respect to our perspectives on the Note to Staff, as it relates to the environmental concerns. Thank yciu. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Thank you. Anyone else? ROBERT EVANS DR. EVANS-Members of the Board, my name is Robert Evans. My wife, Chery I and our four ch i ldren have 1 i ved as a neighbor of the Mooring Post since 1984. We're immediate neighbors of the Wetherbees, and I border the Mooring Post, unfortunately directly on the west, and also' on the south. The main comments would be aesthetics, aesthetics, aesthetics. I have pictures. I want you to hear it again, and again. When I walk out to get my paper, when I look to the east, I see the Pilot Knob mountains, the morning sun. Now, if this building goes through, I'll be looking out over a football field of plastic~ down my road, as high as you can see, the hi g h est tel e p h 0 new ire, p 1 as tic, a 11 a c r os s my pro per t y , unacceptable. Yes, I know when I came to the ar ea there was a Marina there. It was a small, rustic, we'd take the Polands back in a minute. It was neat, well kept. They were great neighbors. There's always been a marina. We've always been there, going over, etc., and it's been nothing but creeping expansion since Mr. Brock took over, it's unacceptable. Mr. Martin is getting tired of hearing us come down, but I need to at least, before you stop me, set a little bit of the ground rules. MR. CARVIN-We're not dealing with the expansion. with the environment. We're dealing DR. EVANS-Well, the environment is key in regard to the expansion. I've been to Florida two or three times to study these buildings, and until you see the volume of these buildings and stand next to them, and I've brought pictures I want to show you that you need to see. They are mammoth. They don't fit in our area. Mr. Brock's volume. He's very skiddish in his report with regard to volume. - 19 - --./ (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/1/96) Volume is key. We dispute the facts in regard to height. They're nine foot at the eaves, and I've never had a twenty-five or thirty foot building in front of my house. Twenty feet, measured by old photographs, from the wires, buses, other buildings that have been there. Granted, from the volume the Town is using, that's at least a two fold volume expansion. Using our figures, it's a three fold volume expansion. The cubic feet is incredible. MR. CARVIN-Do you have a number? DR. EVANS-My wife doe's, and she'll br i ng those numbers to you. I'm going to show you just the impact, and my wife will bring up and show you some of the numbers that we've been dealing with. This gives him an expansion, agaih, remember, he has one floor built of boa ts that he has s tor ed in the pas t year s . He now has the potential to put up a three or four story building, three to four stories of boats, and I'll show you pictures toptove that, from some of the marinas in Florida. He can go from lOt boats, which he currently has now, and I have pictures to show you. This winter, I have walked the property weekly, counted the boats, 90, 92,100, always less than 100, and as my pictures will demonstrate that property ismaxed out. Showing you he's going to 300 boats based on volume, where is he going to put them? Where is he going to put the parking? I mean, iri 1988 when we were here before the Zoning Board, in his own testimony, 24 parking spots, and he says he's going to 107 with trailers. It's ridiculous. Where's the fact? Where's the fiction? Look at the history of this project. The Zoning Board in 1988 looked at it and looked at the numbers. The numbers have changed from meeting to meeting, to project to project. Again, look at some of the facts. I'm going to show you some pictures of the Marina on a weekend. It is absolutely jammed, and there is no way he's going to put as many parking spots down on that grassy area as I can show you from that picture. I count 20 max, and he's got dozens and dozens and dozens. It doesn't fit. I'll show you those pictures in a second. Also, where he's done his test boring si tes, they're not in front of my property. My property is the lowest property. That's what the site should be. I mean, when I seethe last storm, and will show Mr. Levandowski and the members of the Board, it's been flood water in front of his Marina. He has filled in all the properties around where those previous buildings were. He plans on walling it off. He's filled it in, and I dispute the square footage in regard to permeability. He's absolutely, it's been a swimming pool all winter and it's pond all spring. He had the gall to dig up a trench in front of my home, and I was able to watch the water flood out our street, our property, with an oil s'lick across the top of it, it is disgusting. It is unacceptable, and I think he needs to re-bore test holes along my property line. Visual Impact. I also took pictures that I need to show you of some of the communities in Florida, so you get a feeling of what this building looks like in a community like our s . It' sarno n s t r 0 sit y . I n F lor i d a, noway can you par k un de r these spaces. MR. CARVIN-I realize where you're going to know is, what's happening up thêre. figures are for the Mooring Post. I'm what's happening in Fort Lauderdale. with this, and all I want I want to know what your not really concerned about DR. EVANS-No, but you need to look at these pictures to experience the volumes. MR. CARVIN-I want to see the pictures, I truly do, and that's all I want to see. DR. EVANS-That's what you'll see. MR. CARVIN-I mean, if you've got the numbers that, we've got what his numbers are and how he calculated it. What we want to do is - 20 - "-- -./ (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/1/96) see your numbers and how you calculated it, and then this Board will determine what the environmental impact will be. DR. EVANS-The last thing, according to site plan, he shows trees along my property line. ,That's ridiculous. They're dead. They're dying. They don't exist. That needs to be examined. Washing his boats. He's washing, the wash from the boats, the soap suds, he's washing them allover the place. A control plan of where that soap is going is of great concern to us. Dock spaces. The increase is based on volume and number of boats, which is very key to this project. Where's he going to put these boats when he puts them in the water, or there's a storm and they're coming back? I greatly dispute the figures that he brought in with regard to the number of boats he uses, where the boats come from. He rents all those dock space. There's no way that he can dock those boats and put them on the property. It is completely in adequate, in regard to a traffic study, and th'at's boats alo.ne. The cars is incredible. My conment is, without question it's an expanding area. The height alone is double by the Town, triple by our figures. The visual impact is incredible. I don't pay the taxes or choose to live where I am looking at this building, which never existed, one floor going to three floors. You don't have to be a nuclear scientist to see that he's going to triple or double the size of his proJect. It doesn't fit. It's an expansion. He's requesting variances. I.'m tired of the creeping expansion. He knows what he bought, a nonconforming property. I know what I bought when I originally moved into there, a rustic building. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Variance issues. I think this is getting into the Use and Area DR. EVANS-And I agree, and my conment to you is just, is for you to be responsible and responsive to us, and I appreciate it. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Now if you would give us the numbers, I'd appreciate it. I don't know, Jon, would it be a good idea to maybe review what we have to look at, in other words, what our criteria is here, about positive and negative declaration, as far as the environmental impact study is concerned? MR. LAPPER-You mean yo~ want to look at the Part II? MR. CARVIN-Well, no, what I'm saying is that maybe to review what our responsibilities are, as far as what we're looking at. MR. LAPPER-Are you asking about making a determination of significance? MR. CARVIN-Well, what I'm saying is that this Board, when we look at we, and I don't· want to make light of this. This Board is well aware of all of these issues. We have been wrestling with these issues, quite literally, for months now, several months. MR. LAPPER-You' re asking, I guess, for a synopsis of what a determination of significance is? MR. CARVIN-Right, what we have to look at and what ~his means with relationship to the SEQRA review. MR. LAPPER-Okay. The simplest answer is from the DEC prepared SEQRA Handbook. A Determination of Significance is the critical step in the SEQRA process in which it is decided whether an environmental impact statement must be for an action classified as Type I or Unlisted. The Lead Agency must decide whether a proposed action may have a significant effect upon the environment and require the preparation of an EIS, or whether such action will not have a significant effect on the environment and require the preparation of a negative declaration. There's also the - 21 - -' -~ (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/1/96) possibility of a conditional negative declaration, where, project is modified with conditions imposed by the Board, then not have a significant impact. if the it will MR. CARVIN-Okay. Does everybody understand what we're trying to accompl ish here wi th regard to the SEQRA? A determination of significance is outlined on our Part II, which are, essentially, Impact on Land, Impact on Water, Impact on Air, Impact on Plants and Animals, Agricultural Land Resources, Impact on Aesthetic Resources, Historic/Archeological Resources, Impact on Open Space and Recreation, Impact on Critical Environmental Areas, Impact on Transportation, Energy, Noise and Odor, Public Health, Growth and Character of the Communi ty or the Neighborhood. Now what these are are the areas that we have to review. If we feel that there is a significant impact, then we say that there is a significant impact which is declared a positive declaration, in other words, we say, yes, this project has a problem, which kicks it to the next level, which mandates what we call an Environmental Impact Study, which, as I understand it, is a very lengthy and costly procedure, but it does address all of these issues in great detail, and that's if we feel that there is a significant impact. If this Board feels that there is not a significant impact, or no impact, then we can issue on each, we have quite literally, there's several pages of questions here. We can declare what is called a negative, in other words, that ther e is no impac t . However, we, now have a th i I'd choice, which is what we called conditiöned negative declaration, which is not a pos i ti ve declaration, and it's not a negati ve declaration. What it essentially is, is that it says that there is an impact. However, it can be resolved or mitigated, and what we will do is that we will go through, once we get the public hearing all done, this Board will sit down and go through all of these, in a public forum, and we will go through each of ~hese questions and come up with these answers. Now if we come up with an answer that requires a, what we call a conditioned negative declaration, we'll give him the alternatives. If we go through and we feel that there is, all we need is essentially one positive declaration, and that would, on any of these areas, would require the EIS. Is that incorrect? I see you shaking your heads over there. MR. GORALSKI-If you determine that there is potentially one significant environmental impact that cannot be mitigated, then you would require an EIS. MR . CAR V I N -Ok a y , and t ha t 's w hat we a I' e try i ng to doh ere, so again, what we have to base our decisions are the public input, which should be based, in fact, on what the applicant has given us, as based on what he perceives the facts to be. So, again, I am trying not to get into the areas of the Use and the Area, because they have a whole separate set of criteria that we have to look at. Okay. Does everybody understand where we're trying to go with this? I'm hoping that that's helpful. All right. Does anybody else have either something new or significant? DAVID KENNY MR. KENNY-David Kenny, resident of Queensbury. I guess one question, about the noise of the forklift. Does he have the right to use that, the way the property exists today? I gue~s that is, if he wants to start moving boats there tomorrow, 100 boats with a forklift, and this project gets denied, can he do that? Is there a noise ordinance in Queensbury, or anything else, to stop him from using the forklift on the property the way it exists today? MR. CARVIN-I'm going to answer that is that he has a pre-existing nonconforming right to the use of the Marina, and he has been using a forklift, so !IlY. feeling, and it's my feeling alone, is that he would have a right to use that forklift, but what we have to look at is the environmental impact of what was there and what is being - 22 - ''"-- '-' (Queens bury ZBA Meeting 5/1/96) proposed, and is that going to have a significant increase. In o the r w 0 r d s , h e i s pr 0 p 0 sin gap r 0 j e c t wh i chi s , by all appearances, greater than what was there, and what this Board has to determine is that if this goes forward, will that have a significant environmental impact over and above what he is currently allowed. MR. KENNY-I agree with that. The visual I could see, 100%, but we're talking about the noise impact. He's stating, it's true, that he's not going to store anymore boats. He's increasing his volume of other areas, but the boat storage, he's going to store the same amount of boats he's stored in there, I don't know if that's true or not. That's the statements we're going by, but if he decides to move all those existing boats, if he has the right to with a forklift now, which he doesn't, (lost words) he uses a trailer, because they're all on one level. My question is, can he, if he decides, to use the forklift, if he bought a forklift now. Most marinas use forklifts today, even on the ground. Up in Long Island, they all use forklifts to run the boats all over the proper ty. They don't us e the old t ro 11 ey sys terns anymore. They use forklifts, and my question is, can he use that forklift, and if he can, I think the noise issue is probably pretty much not that much of an issue, because he'll be doing it anyway, outside of the building, rather than inside. So we can make him, the two things he said, a muffler and a resonator, plus have the forklift used inside, I think that would have to be looked at rather than having that forklift outside right now, at seven o'clock in the morning. That's just my, you know, if he has the right. If he doesn't have the right to use the forklift, that's a whole other issue, but if he has the right to use the forklift. MR. BROCK-A ramp can't handle that fork truck. it's not steep enough. It won't fit, and MR. KENNY-That's what you have to look at. It's only significant if he can't use it today. If he can, I guess we have a possibility of making a better situation. I don't know. I don't know if he has that right. I guess you have to find that out. MR. CARVIN-That we'll have to find out in the next couple of days, I hope. MR. KENNY-Before you really move on it. MR. CARVIN-Right. Okay. Thank you. Yes, ma'am. JUDY WETHERBEE MRS. WETHERBEE-I don't know if this will be of any help or not, but here's a picture. Judy Wetherbee, and I live across the street from the Marina, and I have a picture here of one of the (lost word) just before it was taken down, and beside it is a piece of equipment that took it down. I discovered that the flat bed that that piece of equipment was brought to that area on is three foot nine inches high. Legally, you can only transport that type of equipment on a highway if it is under 13' 6". So, obviously, if the flat bed is three foot nine, then the piece of equipment, or, excuse me, the eaves, if you look at the picture, have got to be between nine and ten feet high, closer to nine. MR. CARVIN-Okay. I would refer that information to Staff. It may aid them in verifying the volume calculation. I'm assuming that's what you're making reference to. MRS. WETHERBEE-Yes, right. MR. CARVIN-Okay. As I said, I mean, the applicant is only going on his best information, and any new and additional information that - 23 - '"--, (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/1/96) will aid. MRS. WETHERBEE-I just had a picture, that day, just before that particular building came down, and they were all pretty much the same height. So, it's helpful, there it is. MR. MARTIN-Thank you. MRS. WETHERBEE-this business of the noise and forklifts and all, it goes back to the last meeting when a few people asked the question, how many pieces of diesel equipment do you have on the property, Mr. Brock, and he answered two pieces of diesel equipment, but never, until this spring, has one piece of diesel equipment ever been used. It couldn't even be stored in the building. It was half in and half out of the building, because it is so large. There was absolutely no way to use it. He has used it now to remove a new boat, and that sort of thing, but my point is, this whole Board was under the impression that there wasn't going to be much of an increase in diesel, because he said he had two pieces of die s e 1 e qui pm en 1. We 11, it' sob v i 0 u sly t w ice as much no i s e and twice as much odor, he has only used one piece of equipment, up until now, and now suddenly you're going to be using two. So I think that's just something that you should think about when you consider odor. The Robertsons get odor in their house. They get it all summer long. Now if they get twice as much, there's twice as much. There's a lot more. As I say, it's never been used at this Marina. Now he owned it for a long time, and maybe it was used some plàce else, but as far as the Marina at Cleverdale, it has not been used until this spring, and we all know when it's being used now. There, again, when we first came, it was an electric winch that was used. There was obviously no noise, no smell. Then it was gasoline type equipment, okay. We went along with that. Then it was a small diesel equipment. We'd go along with that. This is just too much in the way of odor and noise, if this big piece of equipment is allowed to be used, and the only reason to do this is when you've got boats statked high. So, that's my point on that. The other thing is the noise, and people saying, well, we'll put mufflers on, and whatever th~t other word is they'll use. I don't know, mufflers would be put on to lessen the noise. That's very true. It would probably lessen the noise outdoors, but as soon as this equipment goes in a metal building like the one proposed over there, with metal stacks, it's going to be like a drum. You go to the Bolton Landing Marina. It's just very difficult to even carryon a conversation, and area stores have even complained of the noise that reverberates from that building because whenever you take anything into a metal building that has metal stacks, and you're moving boats around, it's going to reverberate like a drum, and it just seems too bad that we will have to 1 isten to that. We could stand it when it was on one story. Pine, but to enclose and use this noisy equipment, mufflers, anything else on it, it's still going to be very, very noisy, and the question about hazards and all and the fire extinguisher, it's wonderful to have fire éxtinguishers there, but who's around in the winter time to use the fire extinguisher if a fire breaks out then? There's just a few of us that live there year round. Very few employees in the winter time there. I don't think that buildings as close and large as these are going to be able to not be a fire hazard, and back in 1988, it was considered a fire hazard when this came before ~his Board, and the other thing about the parking, I don't know if this is still in the plans because they change so much, but at one point there was talk about, and the boats came out to let people store their cars in that area. I've talked to many insurance companies, and they say if they know of that happening, they'll cancel their insurance. They don't want people or other vehicles in a boat storage barn, other than boats, and the people that, obviously have to take the boats out. The other thing is, all these people to boat people. People that come, I worked at the Marina for a while, and my sori worked there for - 24 - '- .-/ (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/1/96) years. We know that more than one car often comes for a boat. Dad comes the first time. Then mom comes with the kids. Then the friends that are going to operate the boat come in their car or cars. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Do you have any substantiating numbers to indicate that the 107 parking spaces that Mr. Brock has indicated is either significantly large or significantly under what you feel is adequate, and how did you acquire those numbers? MRS. WETHERBEE-I didn't come up with the numbers. I'm just coming, where I'm saying more than one person for each boat. It's not written in stone, but many times, it was my observation when I worked there, that there could be easily three cars, sometimes more, for one boat. MR. CARVIN-Okay, but three cars will fit on 107 spaces pretty easy. MRS. WETHERBEE-Well, not everybody's there using their boats on a Fourth of July weekend. MR. CARVIN-Well, that's what I'm asking. How many is "everybody"? MRS. time. WETHERBEE- I don't know because the This is what I'm trying to say. numbers change all the MR. CARVIN-Well, that's what we're trying to determine. MRS. WETHERBEE-Also, has anything been taken into consideration of parking for the people, the residents who live in the apartment upstairs, over the Marina? MR. CARVIN-Well, again, I think this Board is well aware of the conditions of the parking, and as I'm saying, if you've got specifics, we would like to hear that. MRS. WETHERBEE-Well, I'm sorry, I think it should be addressed. don't. It's jus t a concern, and MR. CARVIN-Well, believe me, it is a concern of ours, too, and we will be addressing that, but as I said, if you have some specifics, then we would certainly entertain and would like to see those specifics. Okay. Thank you. Is there anybody else? KARL KROETZ MR. KROETZ-My name is Karl Kroetz. I understand that the impacts that you're looking for, that's what you want, the impacts. Now the impacts are caused, in my estimation, by the number or the increase in boats, and that's what I want to address, because as late as today, there's been statements made that there will be no more increase in boat storage at the Marina, and I would like to talk about that, in a way that you haven't heard me talk about it before. I just want to ask you, did you not get my letter of November 20th which talked about volume, there's pages of calculations. I think you have that, I hope you do, but that is talking about volume alone which says that, to make a long story short, that there will be 102% increase in volume, but that doesn't tell you how many boats. MR. CARVIN-Well, wait a minute. Lets look at the numbers there. All right. You've got some specifics, and the applicant is giving us some specifics. So lets take a look at how you came to your number, and we can enter that. MR. KROETZ-I'll tell you what I want to do, rather than even talk about this, I have a better way to present this that is simpler, - 25 - ~ (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/1/96) more straightforward, and in my estimation cannot be disputed. MR. CARVIN-Well, lets tackle your letter first. Lets take a look at that. MR. KROETZ-It was November 20th. MR. MARTIN-Section Five in your white three ring binder. MR. KROETZ-The back two pages of calculations, two separate pages of calculations, two separate pages of type written material. This was done in conjunction with Jim Martin. It establishes the parameters that we were going to use. MR. MARTIN-It's right before the Frances Martin letter and right after the John Schroder letter. I think we used the same system. Again, it depends on the. MR. GORALSKI-Some of the assumptions that you make. MR. MARTIN-Yes. MR. KROETZ-You have it, don't you, Jim? MR. MARTIN-Yes, I do. MR. KARPELES-It's nine letters from the end. MR. MARTIN-It's a handwritten set of calculations attached to a type written letter. MR . CAR V I N - I ' ve got it. November the 20th, or we Okay. I'm looking at a letter dated received it November the 20, 1995. MR. MARTIN-That's the one. MR. CARVIN-Okay. the roof trusses, All right. You're assuming 10 foot height under 29 feet, 24 feet. MR. KROETZ-This was done in conjunction with Jim Martin. MR. CARVIN-You have come up with 169,000 square feet. MR. KROETZ-The volume increase of the new buildings is 222,000 cubic feet, which works out to be 102% increase in volume. So, in other words, you could have double the volume. This is useable volume. You could put in twice as many boats. That was the point that was made in this, and was substantiated, a~ I said, with what we thought was very correct figures, and I know you don't have the time to go into it. MR. CARVIN-Well, I'm looking at some, your numbers appear to be under what the applicant is showing, if I'm reading this correct. Volume comparison on the new building, and correct me if I'm wrong, I'm showing your figure to be 439,4941 MR. KROETZ-That's correct. MR. CARVIN-And the old buildings at 217,210. MR. KROETZ-Yes, sir. MR. CARVIN-All right. Now the applicant is indicating that the old buildings are 394, and the new building is 669. MR. KROETZ-My goodness. MR. CARVIN-Well, he's got a larger building than what you have, and - 26 - '",-, ~ (Queens bury ZBA Meeting 5/1/96) a larger existing. MR. KROETZ-Now you know why I don't want to talk about it. MR. CARVIN-Okay, but your assumptions are based on 10 foot heights? Is that correct, and 29 and 24? MR. KROETZ-Jim, you remember me doing them? MR. MARTIN-Yes, I do. MR. KROETZ-And they were based on, the basis of calculations, A, B, C, D, and E. If anyone of those are wrong. MR. MARTIN-No. Those were the same assumptions that I used at the time. I think it was back, even, in October or early November that we looked at that. MR. KROETZ-Right, it comes out to 102%, but look, here's what I want you to consider, because these are open to challenges only in perception of what is a useable volume. Now here's what I'd like you to look at. The old buildings, whatever their square footage, the total square footage of the old bui Idings equal the square footage of the new buildings. That's not in dispute. That's correct within a couple of square feet. You all agree with that. You must agree with that, Jim, within a couple of square feet. The total, the three new buildings, total square footage, is within a couple of square feet of the total square footage of the demolished building. MR. CARVIN-You're talking footprint. MR. KROETZ-I'm talking footprint. MR. MARTIN-Yes, footprint. MR. CARVIN-That I don't have a problem with. MR. KROETZ-That's what I wanted to be sure, we started off correctly. So what I'm suggesting is that you take boats, of any size, and put them in the ground floor of these three new buildings, as many as you can get in, that, then, is equal to the same number of boats that were stored in the old five buildings. Nobody can dispute that you're going to be able to put about the same number of boats in three buildings as you can in five buildings, if the square footage is the same. Now I have to ask you to accept that. Is there any doubt in your mind that you can't put the same number of boats in the same square foot area? I don't think it's a stretch of imagination. If you put boats in this building, and jam them in here, and then I give you three other buildings, one third the size of this, and put boats in there, they' r e go i ng to be abou t the same number of boats. All r i gh t. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Well, I can agree with that in theory, assuming that all the boats are of equal size and dimensions. MR. KROETZ-That's what we're talking about. I said, take any boats you want from the old building. Take the old building. the boats that were in the old building, put them in the same area as the three buildings. size Take size MR. CARV IN-Okay. I 'm goi ng environmental impact. Okay. and I appreciate the numbers. to ask you to br i ng You've been giving us thi s to the the numbers, MR. KROETZ-Okay. I will right now. If you don't accept that, then you won't accept the conclusion, but for a minute, bear with me, then. You're going to get approximately almost exactly the same - 27 - --- - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/1/96) numb e r 0 f boa t sin the new b u i 1 din g s t hat you had i nth e old buildings. Now, I'm going to ask you that this requires no divisions, no multiplications. We don't have to ask anybody's opinion or anything else. What we want to do now is put boats on the second floor and the third floor of each building. Now these are 20 foot bays in which you can put two boats in. You can put two eight foot boats in it or nine foot boats in it. You just count the bays. What you're doing is count the number of boa~s you could put in the second floor and third floor of Building Number A. I've got photocopies of this, there's Building Number A, there's Building Number B, has two floors in it. So you fill the second floor of Building Number B. You fill the second floor of Building Number C, and of course, as r said, they're going to fill the two upper stories of Building A. All you've got to do is count those boats that you put in the second and third floor, and that is the number of additional boats that the new buildings will handle over the old buildings, and it's as simple as that. Nobody has to talk about size of boats or anything else. You have the bottom, ground floor, filled up with all of the boats that were contained in the five buildings. What's left is the upper buildings where you're going to store boats, and all you've got to do is count the number of pockets, and I've done that for you, and it is 81. So, we're going to have 81 more boats stored in the new buildings than what was stored in the old building. Today, in the newspaper, it said, we're going to have the same number of boats stored in the new buildings as we had in the old. That was a statement in to day's newspaper. I just showed you that we can, by using common sense, and know how to count up to 100. That's all you've got to know how to do, and count the number of boats that are on the second floor, second level of Building A, and the third floor of Building A, and of course the second floor in Buildings Band C. So that you can, I made copies of that for you, because I've heard so much about, well, the boats we have now are smaller, or bigger, depending on who you ask, you get a different answer as to how many boats were s tor e d . I don' t car e how ma n y boa t s we res tor e d . I t doe s n 't ma k e any di fference. It's the same square footage on the bottom, on the ground floor. So you fill the ground floor up, and that's the same number of boats you had in the old buildings. Add the number of ones on the second floor and thi rd floor, thos e ar e the additional boats. Now, I calculated one other thing for you, and that's very simple. If you count, now, the slots that are in the ground floor, where the structural steel is to hold the boats, add them in, you'll have 130 boats that every single one of them can be quick launched, and that's the key. The aisle is kept open. I have noted in my calculations a statement, concerning that 130, the aisle is open, because you've got to get at each boat, and the aisle lets you get in each boat, at each boat. So my statement of 130 total quick launch leaves the aisle empty. They can still load that up with more boats. That's additional boats, but I'm claiming that you'll have 130 total quick launch, which is a big, big number, and nobody that I know of can dispute that, because all you've got to do is count the number of columns, which is 20 foot. Each bay, 20 foot bay, will hold two boats, and that's all I've done, and I have a few more copies, and that's all I wanted to say. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Anyone else wishing to be heard? BILL WETHERBEE, JR. MR. WETHERBEE, JR-Good evening. My name is Bill Wetherbee. I'm the son of Bill and Judy Wetherbee. I understand that the SEQRA is trying to look at the project prior to and after, as far as impacts? MR. CARVIN-That's correct. MR. WETHERBEE, JR-I'd like to just mention something that was - 28 - '--- -- (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/1/96) alluded to earlier today. The fork truck that we are all speaking of will be used solely for lifting the boats from the hydraulic trailer into the pigeon coops. That fork truck will not be able to go down to the ramp and di s pense the boat into the water. The reason for that is the Mooring Post has a ramp. It does not have a ledge drop. If you go to Bolton Landing and you watch the fork trucks operate, they need the deep water to drop the boat. The ramp that the Mooring Post has, the hydraulic tractor which is attached to the trailer is still required to put that boat in the water. So when you talk about the use of equipment, prior to and after this project, the fork truck will almost double the use on that property. They will still need the trailer and tractor to get the boat from the lake to the fork truck. Then they will use the fork truck to get it from the trailer to the pigeon hole. That fork truck, that last thing about the fork truck, again, is the noise that has never been operated inside a building, 70 decibel figures that he referred to the muffler are registered from the outside. I'm sure there's a standard, industrial from a distance from the fork truck outside. It is not required to be done inside, and that will be louder. Thank you very much. MR. CARVIN-Thank you. Anyone else wishing to be heard? BILL HENDERSON MR. HENDERSON-My name is Bill Henderson, and my dad and I used to own what is now the Mooring Post Marina, and we stored, at that time, up to, I guess we ran up to as high as 229 boats, but not all on the premises. We rented garages. We rented barns, to place them, but those 229 boats, I would say that perhaps 25 of them d idn' t go into the wa t e r every year, for one reason or another, somebody died. So lets say that we put in about 200 boats. The way the Mooring Post is setting up their quick launch, I don't think they will approach that number of boats in the lake at any one time, because some of them will be boats that are in storage for people that have camps. The quick launch boats, on the average I would say probably maybe a third of them are in every day, and you figure it out, it will not compare to what we put in the water for the whole summer. The other thing is that the number of boats that can be stored in these new bui Iding, it isn't cut and dr ied that you can get so many boats in each floor. The boats will vary in size. The volume does not come into play here. Supposing you have a 16 or 18 foot boat that's occupying a space that you could get maybe a 25 or 30 foot boat in. You've lost a lot of useable space. The result is that you cannot possibly figure that so many boats will be on each floor of each building, and come up with a total like has been brought up here today. I don't think I have anything else that is pertinent to the present situation. Thank you. MR. CARVIN-Thank you. I'm sorry, Cheryl, I thought you'd spoken. Okay. For the record, we have been handed a number of documents from Cheryl Evans. CHERYL EVANS MRS. EVANS-My name is Cheryl Evans and I live on Mason Road, and what I'd like to do first is go a little bit out of order from the sheet that I had given you, the f ron t sheet, becaus e we wer e talking about the water runoff. First of all, this is a picture of the old buildings in Cleverdale. That really details it, the best I can do. The pink part is the way the buildings used to be, just to give you an idea, you know, the spacing between the buildings. So, what Mr. Brock had done, as soon as the buildings came down, he had gone in and excavated the land in between the buildings. I'm thinking to about two feet soil in between these buildings, and he just hauled it out. We had called the Town, I guess it was okay for him to do it. So now you have two feet of dirt that was kind - 29 - --- (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/1/96) of all uneven and unable, really, to drive through the buildings. He had taken them out, Mr. Crandall had taken it, and we're talking about truck loads, it took him a couple of days to do it. Then he put this burlap down, I don't knOw what he did toit. He put some filter paper, maybe, then he put some crushed stone down. So now it's a little bit lower than the old buildings. So now every time it ra i ns , all the water jus t comes all the way down to the Cleverdale, down to the southern end of the property. Before, there was a problem, but not as great as there is now. I really feel, I'm outdoors all the time. I'm outside. Before when we had the buildings, there wasn't a problem at all because all the water runoff came off and went in between the buildings. So then he excavated, and every time it floods, you can see it pooling. There's pools allover the place. Another place it pools is the maintenance where he works on boats. Before that, when it rained, you'd have to pump it out, and he always pumped it out on nlY back lot. You could see the hose and all the water and the oil and whatever you'd see, would come down on the corner of my property. Every once and a while I'd go out and take the hose and just throw it on the side. He always threw it on my back lot. So now we have (lost word) maintenance building, and now we have flooding where the old buildings were. Here are the pictures of, every time it rains, when we'd have a torrential downpour, we'd get this flooding allover Mason Road. Mr. Wetherbee exþlained, I'm happy about how he had just come in and built a trench on Mason Road. I was kind of glad that he did. What was happening, you'll see in these pictures, the water comes down the side, most of the water, not only from the property line but from the building in the back that still exists, it's now considered a showroOm, comes out, totally floods our whole back corner, then it comes down on the side of my property and floods out my children's play yard. Now there's going to be a question about, what about my shed and whatever. What I have done is put gutters on, and I have water management, where it comes down and dug up all of the stones, and the water table there is lower because we built it up, and all the water that comes running off, all mY. water comes down and either goes into the land or it goes down into, you know, because we had it excavated to come down. So this is all water coming from Mr. Brock's property. I'm just going to show you some pictures of the effects every time it floods, I'm talking about when we have torrential rains, you know, real downpour. MR. FORD-When were these taken? MRS. EVANS-These were taken last week. Just recently, Mr. Brock had put a trench on the back. I think he was trying to get rid of the water behind the building, when he built, Jim called it a french drain, on the side of the building. That's why you have water, now, from that Cleverdale Road, which it helps from Mason Road, since he had done that. I was just a little concerned about the old building, some kind of gutters or something to take care of that water~because that's where the majority of the water really falls into. It's a big building. I'm going to just name each topic, and if it falls into this group that we're in, just let me know, stop me any time. Okay. The visual impact, as you know, Page 2 is the visual of one of the buildings, the top page, this is the top front page, the list of what I'm going to be going through. MR. CARVIN-Okay. This is the Bolton Landing, is it? MRS. EVANS-Bolton Landing with all the information on the back. Now the second page is a building from Lake Placid, and I figure, I'm in the picture there, I'm five foot, three, so if you kind of add it up, that's about a twenty foot building, or if you even take the door and consider that a six foot door and just kind of double, so we're talking about twenty foot something, height of the building. That's the building that's going to go along side my - 30 - '-' ----^ (Queens bury ZBA Meeting 5/1/96) property where, the southern end of the property. The reason why I'm concerned about this building is because, on the plans, if you can see where those two trees are, that's where my boat shed is, and if you look at this picture outside the window, on the upstairs it's going to be totally blocked by that building. MR. FORD-What two trees are you referring to? MRS. EVANS-About right here. The window is about right here. So we're talking a shed, my boat shed is right here. The road is only 1 ike 10 feet. I was looking at this drawing, and as somebody mentioned it didn't look that bad. Well, it wouldn't look that bad if you were out in the middle of the lake, off the peninsula, because that's how far it's really kind of looking, but if you take where the road is, which the road is only about 10 feet wide, this is where our properties are, right here. This is Mr. Kladis, from this point, I'm pretty sure, up to this point. That's his whole back, or front, whatever you want to look atit, yard. This whole building blocks his whole property. You'll notice on the tax map, you know, at 30 feet tall. So he's not goi.ng to get anything. He's just going to get a big wall. The Wetherbee's are going to be totally blocked. My property over here, which is a separate deeded lot from my property on the waterfront, there's a boat shed right here. I'm planning on putting an apartment above. We're grandfathered or whatever. This is a totally separate lot, on the tax map. So I just wanted to point that out. I think the visual is so important, but the second important thing is what it's going to do to the community, that it hasn't already, not to mention all the (lost words), but the impact is going to be more people and everything. On to his other buildings. These next to letters are letters from Fran Heisler and also from Terry Ryan, and let me know if you want me to stop. MR. CARVIN-Well, I want to know how this is tying in to the environmental impact. MRS. EVANS-That's what I was wondering, if this would fit in. They made a couple of comments about how busy they are on a weekend or how many boats go out and how many boats come in, and I have some conflicting reports of what they actually submitted. They were submitting two letters here stating that, you know, they had so many boats. Even though they had maybe 200 quick launch, maybe only a quarter of them would go out. So the reason I was wondering if this would fit in is because that's what you're really basing it on. MR. CARVIN-Well, I think what you're saying is that there may be more use which will be incumbent upon more fumes and so forth. I'm just looking for how this ties in. I mean, we understand all the calculations for boats, and there's probably 50 or 75 people in here, and we could probably all calculate and come up with 50 or 75 different boat answers, but I think the point is that we understand that we have a volume issue. I think the Board members will have to determine in their own mind how significant that is in relation to our environmental impact study. MRS. EVANS-Okay. Then the question is, are they going to look at these two letters to help you influence making the decision, and if there's going to be an impact? MR. CARV IN-We 11, aga in, I can't answer that because each of one these Board members will have to make that determination when we go through the Part II. There won't be any public comment during the Part II, but the fireworks will be really interesting to see the difference of opinions on this Board, and that's what we have to resolve. I mean, we're gathering information right now, and I'm trying to just keep it focused on the environmental impacts, and what I'm honestly and truly looking for are issues that have not - 31 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/1/96) been raised. I mean, we've got the parking. We've got the stormwater runoff. We've got all of, so far, I haven't heard anything new, and I'm not discrediting any comments that I'm hearing tonight, but nobody has come up, yet, and said that the thing is sitting on a waste dump, and that there's PCB's buried there. In other words,' things, now, I'm not putting any ideas, because if you say that, I want to see proof. MRS. EVANS-Come on a rainy day. MR. CARVIN-Well, I'm just saying, this is what we're essentially, looking for, but we are entertaining the comments, and I'd appreciate, you know, as I said, you're substantiating an issue that we are aware of, and what I'm looking for is that, I understand what the applicant has given us, and what I'm looking for are things like, at least I'm looking for. I don't know what the rest of the Board's looking for, are your volume numbers. He's given us a volume number. Well, you've given us a calculation, in other words, and I guess ~ like to maybe address that issue. I mean, it's really nice, but what does it all mean, and if you could walk us through that. MRS. EVANS-Okay. Another thing I just want to mention. You might be interested in these letters, because when I was going through the file, he had mentioned that all these studies were done on marinas and the quick launch and the rack storage boats. Most of those studies, all of those studies weren't in a residential area like Cleverdale. They were commercial buildings for rack. 'They wer e on the ocean. They wer e on the Gr ea t Lakes. Cl everdal e is unique, and i~'s very quaint, and that's the way we'd like to keep it. If he does what he's about to do, there's going to be more people, and there's going to be more crime. It's just not going to be the right, if you bring more people, you're going to have more wanderers, wondering what's going on in Cleverdale, and more people initiates more crime, I think. So what I would like to do, if you don't think that these letters are really, I mean, he has a thing stating that, you know, the percentage of usage. MR. CARVIN-Well, you've given us the information, and the Board I'm sure, I know I will read all of this before I make a determination. So, you've given us your side, and this is what, essentially, we're looking for. MRS. EVANS-Let me just tell you, real quick, on Terry Lyons. She sent a letter, a year ago, stating that she had 20 to 30 boats dur i ng a typ i cal weekday, 80 on a weekend and 98 on a ho 1 i day weekend. Then she wrote, this year, changing her story, 10 to 20 boats on a typical weekday, 30 to 40 on the weekends, versus the 80, and then 60 on a holiday weekend. It just seems like they, you know, all of a sudden the numbers have changed because they're concerned about the parking. I think if you have quick launch, you have parking. I didn't have a picture of the area down in Dunham's Bay, is it Parillo's, down by Dunham's Bay? On the weekend, that place is so loaded with cars, they're on the road. They're all over the place. So here you have an instance where you have an instance where you only have 90's in the summer, and quick launch is quick launch. People want to get on their boat and they want to go. It's so limited. You have lake water, you're on the lake. You don't stock your boat for the year. You don't use the boat. It's just too much money. You're talking about between $600 and $1,000 for dock rental on the lake. That's the point I was trying to make there, and also Bob Kladis, who's a next door neighbor, sent fax stating that he did 80 on the weekends, but just to give you an idea, people use their boats. So when we start talking about Mr. Brock's numbers, they're going to be used. Nobody's going to not use their boats. So you want to talk about the cubic capacity? - 32 - '-' -./ (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/1/96) MR. CARVIN-Well, you've presented us a document with some figures on cubic capacity. MRS. EVANS-Okay. just made two changes with Mr. Nace's calculation. Number One, the first change I had made is I changed, he used a 10 foot eaves, and on his application, in the book here, he has ev~rything at 10 foot at the eaves and then 11 foot, and the height's at 26 foot, and I hope I can change those numbers for you when I talk to you tonight. Ten foot at the eaves versus nine foot. I just gave you a calculation of the difference in the cubic feet. Also, what I had done is, he was adding his cubic foot in the middle of the aisle at only one story, ten foot eaves. Those qui c k I au n c h s tor ag e b u i I din g s, the big 0 net hat we' r eta I kin g about, is 55 feet in the middle, and you're able to get racking, I guess they're called racks, storage racks. They're able to put them in and rack them three high just like the rest of them. I talked to the marinas down in Plorida. I talked to the guy who bui I tit, and he said, ,i f you want to get the max out of thi s building, that's what you can do. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Can I cut to the quick here? Can you give me what, as Mr. Kroetz, he had, you know, the cubic square footage of the old buildings and his calculations of the new buildings, and he came up with 102% increase. Can you, you've given us a lot of numbers here. Can you tell me what your total, what you're calculation indicates the total square footage or cubic square footage for the 0 I d and the new, and what your i ncr ease number might come out to be? MRS. EVANS-It's more than Karl's, because he did not include the middle aisle, I did. I wish I had a calculator. I will submit it. MR. CARVIN-Okay. I'm assuming you have a rough idea of what the increase is, the total increase? MRS. EVANS-I would say it increases by, he said 100%. I would say like 200 or 300, just by visualizing going from one story to three stories. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Well, do you have a number or don't you? MRS. EVANS-I don't have a number. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Then why don't you calculate the number and get it to us. Okay. MRS. EVANS-So, just to conclude, more room, more boats, more traffic by land and water, more people, and the reason why I think it's very important to consider the volume is because of the way boats are priced out at. Everybody differs, but even for quick launch, they might just do it for square foot. MR. CARVIN-Well, again, I'm going to ask you how this is relevant to an environmental impact statement. MRS. EVANS-The volume of people. MR. CARVIN-Okay, but you've given us the volume of people. MRS. EVANS-Okay. I think the bottom line here is the volume is tripling, so you're going to have more ,people, more cars, more than ever. I just have some notes here, I don't know if you're interested in them, but factual information pertaining to the Mooring Post Marina as based on the Variances. These are just, again, numbers. Mr. Brock did quote, in 1988, that he only had 25 parking spots. Mrs. Poland stated that she did not park on the waterfront, and I happened to see her this winter. - 33 - -.-/ (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/1/96) MR. CARVIN-Okay. I guess, what paper are we on now? MR. FORD-The one with Number One on it, single sheet. MRS. EVANS-Yes. MR. CARVIN-Okay. I've got it. MRS. EVANS-I was just talking with Mrs. Poland at Christmas time, and she did have probably 25 to 30 parking spaces, and she did park on the waterfront. So she always thought about the runoff going into the water, and she also mentioned that it was very wet on that land, there's like a little stream that comes down. That's hearsay, but she mentioned 160 boats for winter, and figure out about 52 quick launch boats. When she bought it from Mr. Henderson, it's also stated he had between 120 and 130 when she bought the business. What I had done with this paper right here, just to get an idea, where is he putting all these boats. So those pink areas are where the boat sheds were, and then these things right here, they're boats, and what I had done, I had put boats in the buildings, and they're pretty close, because I put them in, and then I kind of looked at my calculat~ons, how many, you know, I broke it down for square foot. All these boats on here, the winter storage is 102 boats. This is it, 102 boats. He had boats in the middle, which he really couldn't do, by the time he had the business. I mean, but they were like lopsided. It looked like a run through. So my question is, how is he having 120 to 130 quick launch? How are you going to get this boat or even this boat? You'd have to take them all out. Now he stated, in his 1988 testimony, that the building, the boats were eight foot wide and they just couldn't fit in the building, and basically I couldn't really use these buildings because I couldn't get the boats in. So, now we're talking about 102 boats here. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Is this a use issue, or is this, again, I'm trying to get it back on track here. You've proved your point that we may have a potential for more boats, which leads to a lot of other things. MRS. EVANS-Which would be okay, but I think another point, too, is on the Heisler letter, he made a comment of saying there's 200 boats stored under cover. MR. CARVIN-I don't want to get into a he said, she said situation here, okay, but how does that tie in? In other words, we've got some information, and I'm not quite sure the number of boats is an issue that the SEQRA addresses directly. I'm not saying it's not an issue. I'm just saying that I don't remember, in any of the material that 1 have, that we have to come up with a number of boats with regard to the SEQRA. We do have to try to establish a relevant number, and then we have to determine whether there's the potential for an increase, and how great of an impact is that increase going to have on the environment, if there is, indeed, going to be an increase. MRS. EVANS-Well, right here proves that the increase is going to be, Mrs. Poland quick launched at 50 to 52. You know he's not doing 120, by the looks of this. MR. CARVIN-So what you're saying is that there is a potential for an increase? MRS. EVANS-There is double, triple an increase, that's what I'm saying. MR. CARVIN-Okay. MRS. EVANS-So you have that, where are you parking the cars? Now - 34 - ",,--,....-I (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/1/96) he claims he has 107 cars parking. I don't get it. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Well, can you give me the number, based upon your maximum number of boats, what he should have? In other words, he's saying that he can adequately maintain the environment with 107 parking places. I don't want to put words in your mouth. You're saying that, well, wait a minute, his actual use is going to require 150 parking spaces, 195 parking spaces? What is your calculation to the actual number that we should be looking at, and how much of an increase is that, or decrease? MRS. EVANS-I really think you should take a look at Mrs. Poland's number s, the qu i ck 1 aunch. Lake Geor ge has ru 1 i ng wher e they define quick launch, and I talked to Jim about this, no matter how many boats you have, you should only have 20 that end up being qui ck 1 aunch, becaus e the impac t , I mean, befor e it us ed to be winter storage. Now you have a summer storage, that you have the summer people that live on the lake. Another impact that you might be interested in. MR. CARVIN-Well, again, I'm going to quote here, lets see, uthe use of one parking space for everyone and a hal f quick launch customers is a relatively conservative number. According to the studies conducted by the International Marina Institute and published in a dry stack marina handbook, second edition copy enclosed' Attachment H, the marinas who felt that their customer parking was sufficient had a an average of 45% parking spaces, i.e. parking spaces equals 45% of quick launch spaces, and this equates to one parking space for every 2.2 quick launch customers.u Now this is what the applicant is basing hi..§. numbers on. I just want to find out what you're basing your numbers on. MRS. EVANS-Well, what I'm basing it on are, what are they really basing it on? MR. CARVIN-He says right here. He's basing it on the drive, stack marina. MRS. EVANS-Where were the studies done? MR. CARVIN-Well, I'm saying, I mean, he's quoted and sectioned and referenced, and he's saying that he's using a more conservative number, that if he wanted, I mean, he's quoting, and I'm assuming it's a reputable source. Now, I don't know. That's up to the Board to determine whether it's a reputable source or not, and he's saying that his 1.1 is obviously 50 percent, and I don't want to put words, I'm not arguing his case, all right, but, I mean, using my convoluted logical, technically he could only go the 57 or 58 parking places. MRS. EVANS-Now, this may be hearsay, but I was down in Florida and talked to this marina that has tried to stack, and he, I'm a very trusting person. I hope you believe that. He mentioned that he had 60 boats, or 60% of his boats went out on the weekends. This is down in Florida on Long Bow Key, Braydenton. MR. CARVIN-Okay. I don't mean to keep going around in a circle here. I mean, we're on the environmental. A lot of this may be relevant under the Use or Area criteria. So I'm not discounting what you're giving me, but I need to get us focused here, because, otherwise, we're going to run out of time. MRS. EVANS-Okay. One more thing. There's many uses on property. We have two apartments. We have a new showroom. he has done is made that big building a showroom. this What MR. CARVIN-Now wait a minute. Give me the quick synopsis. How does the showroom affect the environment? I mean, you're saying - 35 - '- -../ (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/1/96) it's a use, and that doesn't say environment. It's relevant to the use. MRS. EVANS-Then he has to build a big building that is aesthetically displeasing. MR. CAR V IN-Aes thet i cs, I'll agr ee with you. Okay, and you've proven your point because you've given us plenty of documentation, and things that we can consider and look at. MRS. EVANS-Okay. Gotcha. All right. Okay. So we don't want to talk about quick launch or boats. MR. CARVIN-Only if you can tell me what the increase or decrease off his numbers are. MRS. EVANS-I do have it. The increase would be, because I figured it out. He's gone from 92 boat storage to 271. MR. CARVIN-Is that current, or is that what you can project into the new building? MRS. EVANS-That's what I projected into these new buildings. MR. CARVIN-Okay. MRS. EVANS-First of all, I'd just like to say that these storage buildings can store four stories high, depending on what kind of boats you put in them. I'm looking at the volume of the building, and thinking, lets talk about volume of the building. What can I put in there? What's the max to put into these buildings? So when you break it down, lets look at Building Number One. The height of the boats, I mean, you can get, say that you're only going to put three stories in, but you can actually put four stories at eight feet high, seven feet high, two sixers on top. So now we're talking about more boats. MR. CARVIN-Okay. We've established that. MRS. EVANS-No. I'm talking about in the building. MR. CARVIN-Well, you've given us the volume, and again, we've had a number of calculations, and I think you've given us that in here some place, haven't you? MRS. EVANS-Right, but I'm talking about the boats, the increase from 92 covered boat storage, to 271. MR. CARVIN-Okay. MRS. EVANS-The next page after the proposed quick launch. MR. FORD-Proposed winter storage capacity? MRS. EVANS-Yes. There's some environmental impact on the back page, before and after the effect (lost words) Mooring Post, and you can just read that at your leisure. Okay. I just want to sum this up. Should we talk about fire protection? That's environmental. I'm very concerned about that. I'm just going to give you a little story. On my way home, on Thursday night, a fire truck was coming down Mason Road. I was coming the other way. I got in front of Bob Kladis' house, who is two houses up. The Wether bees are right next to my house, if you remember where we live, and the Kladis' are next door. I got in front of Kladis' house, and both the fireman and myself just looked at each other like, where do we go? So what he had to do, he had to back all the way up, I would have been willing to back up, but I couldn't really see with the lighting, and stuff, it was at night. He had to back - 36 - '- --" (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/1/96) up past my property in order for me to get in. That road is so narrow that you can barely get two cars through. The fire hazard that I foresee here, how are they going to get into the buildings from Mason Road? You're going to have fire trucks, how are you going to get into this place? You come in that one alleyway, coming in between the two buildings off of Cleverdale Road. You get in there, you're going to have an explosion. If you have a fire in there, it's going to take out, usually, when you take a boat out of the water, they're supposed to be 95% filled with gas. So you're going to have all this, I mean, it's going to be a catastrophe, and also I have a story here. You can read this, where there's been a catastrophe that's already happened, and also in this packet you can just get idea of basically what's happening, and they really require sprinkler systems, down in Florida, it's mandatory. I don't know why the Fire Marshal didn't really pick up on that, NFPA, and here's another one, too. Would you like to see this letter (lost words). It was pertaining to a building that was already established. I guess Mr. O'Connor talked to (lost words). I think when you build a new building and you look at homes right next door, you consider the fire hazard, the safety of my kids and the neighbors, and my concern is, even on that street. If there's fire trucks at both ends of the street, and something happens to Bob, medically, you'd never be able to get down the road, or an ambulance wouldn't be able to come into the road. That's a big concern with me. Thank you. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Well, we thank you for the information, and if you'll get us those figures on the volume, I'd appreciate it. MICHAEL O'CONNOR MR. O'CONNOR-Mr. Chairman, for the purpose of your record, I'm Michael O'Connor, from the law firm of Little & O'Connor. I'm here representing Donald Wheeler, his wife, and other neighbors in the immediate area of this proposed project. With me is Thomas Jarrett who is a professional engineer. I'll try to make my comments not repetitious. Purposely, I wanted to be clean up, if you would, as opposed to going through everything and short stopping everybody who lives in the immediate area, and try to give the Board a feeling of what they think the actual impacts in their environment will be with this proposed project. I think the Board has tried to look at this to see what impacts they may reasonably expect. I'm a little surprised, based on some of the reports that you have from your own engineer and from the Lake George Commission, that you deemed the application to be complete at this stage. Basically, I think your own engineer has indicated to you that he really doesn't know the drainage of the site. He only knows the calculations and perhaps the feasibility of handling the potential increase. He is not aware of the environs on which that will be set. When you do an environmental assessment, you're supposed to look at the total project, and probably a good example, even in your own history, this Board's own history, is when you looked at the Docksider on Glen Lake, which was a pre-existing structure, which was being expanded within the building, not even beyond its own foundation. At that time, you required a complete new septic system. You required a complete new drainage in the existing parking lot that was not being disturbed on iota during the proposed construction within the building. I'm not sure where you're coming from. You seem to be limiting yourself to review simply of what the applicant says he is going to be doing, as opposed to what he says he has already done, as opposed to the site. You're supposed to do your environmental assessment based upon the site. If you've got a water problem up there, and you encourage the construction of anything further, that encourages the further impact of that water problem, even the existence of it. You have violated your own review. Let me make a couple of comments, and you've also limited, apparently, to thoughts of, this is only an expansion of volume of building. Before I do that, though, I'm not sure if this is really - 37 - ".....-...... ~ (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/1/96) what you've asked for, as far as being a visual for Mason Road. As I understand it, and I may be wrong, this is if the Mason Road were an open field, entirely to the south of the property. This is looking northeast. I think the actual exposure on Mason Road, at most, is right here, which is less than a quarter of what you've been given as a facial or as the Mason Road exposure. This is the, I think it's, they've changed the figures so many times, I'm not sure, 162 feet long. This is the distance, is 162 feet long. That's the warehouse. That's the wall that these people across the street are going to be looking at. In their backyards, they aren't going to be standing down here looking up Mason Road. I don't think that's a fair rendering or a fair response to what you wanted, and I think that you probably ought to have something with some type of scale to it, as to, what will those people see when they stand on Mason Road that's 10 feet wide, with maybe 10 to 15 feet into the building, a building 34 feet high. Envision yourself right here, standing 10 feet away from that wall, looking at a wall 34 feet high, three times the height of that wall, probably, in excess. I don't think that's even 10 feet. If you're looking for a scale rendering, this is not a good idea. If you notice the change between the filing in November and the filing now, they've changed the acreage. They've gone from 3.3 acres down to, I think, 2.77 acres. The reason that they did that, and we weren't able to question that before, is they took out this house that Mr. Brock lives in, which was part of the acreage they had before. They've also taken out the acreage of these two single family homes, or single residential lots. They have not taken out, though, the square footage of this, if I'm correct, 13,320 is still included, and in fact they're showing parking on that. Now I think that's essential, or is an important issue for you to be aware of. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Then I'm going to stop you right there. does Staff feel about that? What MR. MARTIN-They kept in 13,220. It is true that those two other residential lots, or actually there are three, because I think there's two lots that exist on the west side of Cleverdale Road where that house is, this is in for a Use Variance. If they wish to expand on that lot, it would require a Use Variance to do that. MR. CARVIN-Okay. My question is, is there a significant change in the application? Is the applicant incorrect in his 2.77 designation on our form, or should that be adjusted? MR. MARTIN-No, 2.77 is accurate. MR. O'CONNOR-I think he's included it. I'm just pointing it out to you that he's included a residential lot. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Then I just want to make sure that we have a complete application. This is your point. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. Well, there's a contradiction within the application where he sáys the only expansion is the expansion in volume. MR. CARVIN-Well, I'm just pointing out that, I want to make sure that we've got the right information on this application, and, apparently, that 2.77, if I'm correct on that figure, is a correct figure, then. MR. O'CONNOR-It is. the application. I accept it as being what is the subject of MR. CARVIN-Okay. MR. O'CONNOR-I have an actual survey by Coulter & McCormack, and the parcel on the lakeside, by this calculation, is .64 of acres, - 38 - "-- .-.J (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/1/96) right here. The parcel that was outside of the three lots, was .197. This particular lot was .16. If you add that .16 and that .197 and that .64, you come up to their 2.77, which I presume is the way that they did their calculation. I'll submit that to you. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Well, what you're doing is just verifying their calculation, then? MR. O'CONNOR-Well, in part, okay, but their application says that they're only expanding in volume. There is, of record, a decision in 1988. MR. CARVIN-I'm going to bring you back. I think that we re looking at the environmental impact, and it's just not limited to volume. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. Well, I thought when you were correcting other people that you were kind, of getting to that. MR. CARVIN-I want to know exactly where we have conflicts with the information. MR. O'CONNOR-All right. Let me finish that, if you will. I'd like to submit, for the record, the 1988 decision which denied a variance to use this particular lot for commercial purposes. So if anything has been done on that lot since 1988, it's been illegal, and there is no grandfathering. You should be looking upon everything that's proposed on that lot as a proposed change of character, which is an environmental issue. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Are you saying that we should remove that from the calculation of the 2.77? MR. O'CONNOR-No, that's his application. He can apply for a variance for the whole Point if he wants to. That's his application. I can't tell him wþat to apply for. This is the 1988 decision. It, in fact, refers to both lots, even by tax map number, all right, in this paragraph right there. What that does, though, I th i nk, is through you into a quandary as to how he's talking about permeability. Okay, because I think he's put everything into one ball of wax. MR. CARVIN-Well, wait a minute. Do we have a permeability problem here? MR. O'CONNOR-I think we may, because you've got two separate lots on side of the road, and as I did calculations from both E & A's and one E & Amystifies me a little bit, because apparently he has decreased the size of the building, and I'm not sure, or pavement. I'm not sure where that is, because the maps and the plans all look alike, but there is a difference. Now one, and there's got to be some presumptions. I just don't think he had the information, as to what percentage of buildings and pavement is on this side, what percentage of green space is on this side. It changes greatly the calculations that were submitted in November, because he used these areas as a green space, and they are residential lots. I think he's partially corrected that, but I think, for you to make a fair environmental determination, you have to confirm it as to what is on each side of the road, and that's not something that's before you, in the information that you have. MR. CARVIN-Okay. I'm going to ask Staff, is that something that we should have before us, or is relevant to the SEQRA Review? MR. MARTIN-In terms of the permeable area? MR. CARVIN-Yes. MR. MARTIN-Yes. - 39 - ''-..-, - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/1/96) MR. CARVIN-Okay, and where would that be on this chart? would I have to look for that information? Where MR. MART IN- I f you 1 ook at the s econdpage of the Par t I, in the chart there where they say, roads, buildings and other paved surfaces, there's a square footage number gi ven, presently and after completion. MR. CARVIN-Okay. MR. MARTIN-There is an increase in the paved area, or area under building. So that would obviously be a decrease in the permeable area. MR. CARVIN-Okay, and do we have a calculation, I think Mr. O'Connor may have a valid point. Do we have a calculation? How would you interpret, do we take the both lots as a single, in other words, because one's across the road, or is it just indigenous to that one side, as far as the permeability calculation? MR. MARTIN-Well, there's no changes proposed on the east side of Cleverdale Road. All the development or changes, as I understand them, are to occur in the area between Mason Road and Cleverdale Road. MR. O'CONNOR-I get development rights from having extra green space across the road from my site? MR. MARTIN-No, it's not one parcel. MR. CARVIN-Okay, and to the best of your knowledge, have you run a calculation based upon this plan, as far as permeability on the one side? MR. MARTIN-We accepted the numbers given in this chart here as the decrease in permeable area. MR. CARVIN-Okay, acceptability? but is he still within the bounds of MR. MARTIN-No, he wasn't to start with, and if he makes it worse, then he's certainly not afterwards. MR. CARVIN-Okay. So should this also be included as a variance? MR. MARTIN-Correct. Yes. MR. CARVIN-Okay, but we should note that there is, all right, then for the Boards, we should note that theré is an increase in the nonpermeable surface, and I think it's incumbent upon the Board to determine whether that 300 square feet increase is significant, when we get to that section on the Part If. I think it's incumbent upon the appl icant, if a var iance is needed for permeabi 1 i ty, to have the proper forms submitted for that. MR. LEVANDOWSKI-Which drastically. will effect storm management plans MR. CARVIN-Okay. MR. O'CONNOR-That's my point. You don't have information. Let me go through my calculations. MR. CARVIN-Well, we have the information I think I need to point out what is the importance, or if we need additional information. So you're point is duly noted, that we have an increase, or decrease in permeability. - 40 - ~ ......,/ (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/1/96) MR. O'CONNOR-I also think that you have to look at the application with the possibility that the Area Variance will not be approved for the residential lot, as well as if it is approved residential lot, because that changes the calculation greatly. It also, and you've got the issue of parking. You conceivably take out 15 parking spots, or 10 different parking spots there. If there's not justification for that variance, you can't simply look at this and say, I'm only going to look at the. MR . CAR V I N - Well, I can' t put the car t be for e the h 0 r s e , e i the r , Mike. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. Go back to my definition, reasonable impacts. Okay. It's reasonable that this variance may not be granted, as to that use of that buffer lot which is residential now, and if that's not used, you might as well take it into consideration when you're doing your environmental. MR. CARVIN-Okay, and I think the Board should dul y note that. Before we get lost in the shuffle, here. Have you made a note of the permeability variance? MR. MARTIN-Yes. MR. CARVIN-And that will be addressed, I'm assuming? MR. MARTIN-Yes. That was always understood. That's not new information, to me, that there's an increase in impervious area. MR. O'CONNOR-I think it's drastic. Well, I made a couple of assumptions that they're up to 75%. I may be wrong. I don't know where the buildings lie. I don't know where their calculations were, as to impermeable parking area. Tom has a point, too, that when we do, in permeability, we typically count the areas parked on, whether it's grassed or not grassed, and I don't know, you don't if it's overflow, but if it's regularly used and compacted, I think the definition of permeable area is compacted soil, and you could look at that and see, but I don't know how that calculation was made, and you can't determine it from this, because there's no showing of green space. Typically, you will get a map that shows you green space, a separate map, not necessarily color green, it doesn't have to be colored, but there was a map that was coded as to how they made the calculations of green space. I'm sitting here with an engineer, we can't calculate as to what they've done or not done. That's a reasonable request to make. To go on a little bit, the other point which I think you should be aware of when you talk a b 0 ute n vir 0 n s , you s h 0 u 1 d 1 00 kat the Ma s t e r P I an for t his particular area of the Town. The section that deals with Neighborhood One, North Queensbury has some specific statements which I think are guidelines, perhaps contrary to what you are being asked to do here. It speaks about marina development on Lake George, located in residential neighborhoods, and as a pre- existing, nonconforming use. It's on Page 30, as I understand it, of the Master Plan. The sun~ary of the statements that were made in that plan was boat storage in residential areas should be limited. The gist of this is that it should not be encouraged. People should be allowed to exist as they've existedi but the idea of noncon formi ty, the (1 os t word) us e is nonconformi ng, is that some day they probabl y will go ou t of bus ines s . Some day they probably will become so economically unfeasible to operate that they wi 11 pass on and the use wi 11 become conforming to the neighborhood. That is an impact upon the neighborhood, an impact upon the character of the neighborhood. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Now I 'm going to ask you, okay, we're talking about the parking and the applicant has indicated 107 parking spaces. Do you have a feel for what kind of impact, number wise or percentage wise, that we would be looking at, if this project were to go through? - 41 - -- '-' (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/1/96) MR. O'CONNOR-I don't think you have enough information. There's a couple of things that he didn't do. He didn't tell you that he's got two apartments there, which under our code say that you need four spots, two for each apartment, and he says he's being conservative, 1.5 boats per parking spot. That's in the code, and I've argued that, whether they're berthed at wet birth or dry berth, that's what our codes say. You have a minimum parking of 1.5 or one spot per 1.5 boats. I'm not sure how he arrived at the five space for showroom or store, and as I understand it, recently, this building here has been taken out of storage capacity and put into showroom capacity, which by itself would probably generate 34 to 36 parking spots. MR. CARVIN-Okay, but do you have a riumber? Give me a feeling for whether we've got a significant impact or an impac~ that can be mitigated. MR. O'CONNOR-On this site, I think you've got a significant impact. I don't think there's room for the required parking. MR. CARVIN-Well, what is the required parking? MR. O'CONNOR-You're going to have overflow parking on the streets that's going to be bothersome to the neighborhood. MR. CARVIN-Give me a number, Mike. places. I mean, I've got 107 parking MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. I would have to guess that you're some place, 143, probably 150 minimum, and of that, I think you're going to knock out this row of parking, because it's on a residential lot. MR. CARVIN~Okay and you calculated the 150 based on? MR. O'CONNOR-Based on the figures that he gave, 107, added four for the apar~ment, and I added 32 for that showroom that they've now set up, at one, one hundred per one hundred square feet, I think is the code. I also have a question, if you take a look at the surveys they've submitted. These are industry type surveys. I don't really understand all the gist of them, but you will see that these are, there's some real highs and lows. There's one party in there that says that his parking is 108%, he needs 108% of parking spots, times the number of stalls he has. I'm not real comfortable with the figures, that they've taken what is a 45% as an average, they have to be able to use that. I don't think that that study by itself, without knowing where the marinas are and who the people were that submi tted and what not, and how it compares to this operation, how you can really draw, I know in Bolton where they had 160 parking spots, or 160 stalls, they made them do much more. The same thing would go with, I think there's a potential impact on the lake here, as to the number of wet slips. I'm confused as to the number of wet slips that they've shown. If you go back to the DEC permit, they had 25 wet slips at that time, small, small wet slips. I'm not sure when it was, 1983, I think, or something of that nature. If you look at the averages of the industry that they're talking about here, they're talking about, they should have at least 11 wet slips for just ordinary service, for putting boats in and taking boats out, 11 wet slips for the size of the average boat that they use. I don't know if they have those on hand, based upon the information. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Well, again, I'm going to come back, what is your determination of the increase and how significant is that increase, in relation to this project? MR. O'CONNOR-I think the increase of anything over what Kathy Poland had when she sold the Marina in 1985, her testimony was uncontradicted. She had 50 quick launch boats. Mr. Henderson - 42 - \..- -./ (Queens bury ZBA Meeting 5/1/96) testified something about 200 boats, but he was comparing winter storage for 219 boats, putting them in once at winter time, and not on a daily basis for summer storage. I don't think you can confuse that testimony. I think the only, the real testimony are the people that you have here that don't have an interest, was that of the Polands who said that they had 50 wet storage and about 160, 52, I think is what she said, and 160 dry storage in the winter time, and anyth i ng over and above tha tis an expans ion, in our position. MR. CARVIN-Okay. I'm not arguing the expansion. tie the expansion to the environmental impact. just need to MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. Every boat over and above that is four trips in and out of the water, on a daily basis for quick launch. If they're talking that they have 60% of their customers show up, it's 60% of 130, which is what he's requesting, as opposed to 60% of 50. It's not a real, I haven't done a mathematical calculation of it, but it's a very simple calculation. He's got a .ramp that goes down past, immediately adjacent to a residence. He's talked about changing that. He's talked about his tow truck that goes in and out. The one he prefers to use is actually diesel. If you look at what is submitted to you, that's going to be a deck that people sit on at supper time, 20 feet from that ramp, with that tow truck going back and forth. If you're going back and forth another 30 times, that's going to be bothersome. If you have another 30 cars that are up there now, when this thing gets fully developed, as opposed to what it presently is, that's going to be a lot more traffic on that little road. You don't have a traffic study. You don't know what that road level of service is. You don't have a background noise study. They couldn't tell you what the noise of the tractor was without the muffler, but they don't even have an ambient background noise. What's 70 decibels like, and why do they measure it at, the tractor, I think, at 50 feet, when it's going within five feet of a property line? Did they factor in the noise that that tractor will cause when it gets inside the building? That's a real problem. We've heard people testify to that. It gets amplified when it's in that building. You don't have any of that material. MR. CARVIN-Okay, but what I want to know is that we have noise there now, how much of an increase are we going to have if this project goes forward? I mean, are we going to have a 10 percent? Is it a linear projection? MR. O'CONNOR-That's what a traffic study, or that's what a noise study would give you. I'm not a noise engineer, and I think that's the burden of the applicant to show you, that he is not going to have a significant. MR. CARVIN-Well, no, the applicant, I think, is saying that there's going to be no increase over what he has currently. Now, that becomes this Board's responsibility, based upon this information, to make that determination, whether there will be or is an increase, and how significant it isto the environmental impact. MR. O'CONNOR-I've got a real problem with you accepting a bald statement from an applicant. MR. CARVIN-Well, I have no choice, because you haven't given me a hard figure over what the applicant is saying. MR. O'CONNOR-I beg to differ. That is your providence. It is r igh t. I've been on both sides of the tabl e many times. never come into a project of this significance, and this neighborhood (PROBLEM WITH TAPE. SOME LOST WORDS.) TOM JARRETT your I've type - 43 -- -.../ (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/1/96) MR. JARRETT-My name is Tom Jarrett, like to speak from a letter dated Boar d . I '11 try to be b I' i e f . highlight some specific comments March 16th. Professional Engineer, and I'd Apri 1 30th, addr es s ed to the I f you go to Page Two, I'll regarding a submission made on MR. MENTER-Tom, I'll tell you. I think most of the Board members are missing Page Two. 50 you may have to modify your approach a little. MR. JARRETT-Okay, and I will certainly try to limit my comments to those pertaining to 5EQRA issues. First and foremost, I believe the calculations submitted were insufficient to determine the significance of runoff from the sites, both rate and volume. There were some numbers submitted regarding volume. I still don't believe they were sufficient to document ~ompliance with your normal site plan review procedures. There is a berm along Mason Road proposed that will apparently divert runoff toward the east. It is not clear to me whether drainage patterns on the Marina site will be changed or whether pre-existing patterns will be maintained. My cursory review of the area suggests that there is a drainage divide on the Marina site, and that some runoff flows toward the east shore of Cleverdale, whereas the remainder flows toward the west shore of Cleverdale. B,efore and after drainage patterns and (lost words) should be submitted for review, as there is potential for significant change in impacts. During recent site visits, the shallow drainage ditch was evident at ~he southwestern portion of the Marina property, and that is on the Mas9n Road side, which was apparently dug to improve drainage conditions at that corner of the property. The ditch outlets on Mason Road, and runoff was observed to have been flowing across Mason Road. The runoff is also believed to be impacting downstream properties. This situation is not (lost word) and should be addressed in the stormwater management plan in terms of current conditions, and in terms of how the new plan wi 11 impact, presumably improve that situation. Residents in this area of Cleverdale, as well as the Town of Queensbury, have discussed concerns relating to stormwater runoff along Cleverdale Road, and then they suggest that aJong Cleverdale Road, in the area encompassing the Marina, not just the Marina itself, that whole stretch of Cleverdale Road. The stormwater management plan for this site should address the current stormwater runoff impacts from Cleverdale Road and Lake George, as well as how those impacts will be affected following site alteration. It's not clear from the current plans how that will be addressed. Infiltration trenches as proposed are a viable concept, and have mer i t. However, ther e will be over flow f I' om thos e trenches at times, either during frozen ground conditions in the winter, or during design storms, storm events that exceed a design storm. Unclear from the plans how that runoff, that excess runoff will be handled, and I think that has a potential to significantly impact the adjoining property. MR. CARVIN-Excuse me. Can any of these be mitigated? MR. JARRETT-For the most part I believe, yes, they can. I don't believe it's been shqwn how they could b~ mitigated, but I believe for th,e most part they can be mitigated. The new infiltration trenches are designed to handle runoff from roof areas. This plan can reduce the amount of runoff from the site, but appears not to address the potentially contaminated runoff from the work and travel areas on the site. A better alternative would be to utilize treatment and/or infiltration systems for runoff from surfaces that are potentially subject to contamination from grease, oil, chemicals, etc. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Is that a suggested mitigation, is it? MR. JARRETT-I certainly think it should be evaluated by the - 44 - "--' ...../ (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/1/96) applicant. I would suggest that it is much better to deal with contaminated stormwater runoff in your mitigation plan, as opposed to clean, relatively clean water from the roof. A boat washing area is shown on the plan. However, it is not clear how the runoff from the washing operations will be handled. Wash water can be contaminated and has the potential to significantly impact Lake George. Wash water runoff should be managed to minimize impacts to water supplies, and the alternatives include limiting the use of and type of chemicals, routing wash water through an oil-water separator, and/or infiltrating the effluent from the oil-water separator. MR. CARVIN-Okay. I'm assuming that you're making reference, at least vicariously, to the fact that there's going to be more boats, therefore, more washing, and so forth? Because I don't believe, and correct me if I'm wrong, that there's any change in the location of where you're currently washing the boats. MR. NACE-There is (lost word) the fact that it will be taken out back to a more inferior portion of the site. MR. JARRETT-In deference to the applicant, I'm not familiar with what the prior operations were. I'm just commenting on the significance of the boat washing area. That's the extent of the comments of my SEQRA issues. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Well, I'm going to trot out .Q..YL engineer, now. Mr. Levandowsk i, I know you've had an oppor tun i ty to rev i ew Mr. Jarrett's letter, and I know that you have indicated, I think agreeing with him on a couple of issues. Do you take exception or is there 'any comments that you'd care to make with regard to the engineering studies here? MR. LEVANDOWSKI-Pretty much the comments that Tom Jarrett made and t hat we ma de are pre t t Y con s i s ten t . Ag a in, 0 n e 0 f the bas i c differences is whether we accept the existing operation as being a viable one, and only address the impact of the larger building, or we go and look at the basic capabilities of the site to take care of the storm drainage issues, but we pretty much concur on the differences between the pre-development and the post development. MR. CARVIN-Does Staff have any comment with regard to any of this? MR. MARTIN-No. The typical approach to these things is, it does take several tries at this to come up with an acceptable design. It's typical in this situation, Rist-Frost reviews. There's an exchange between the applicant's engineer. Sometimes that can take several exchanges befor e we come to a po i n t wher e the des i gn propos ed has addr es s ed the i r concerns. Th is is not unus ual . I would recommend that course of action be followed, that we have a design that's submitted that is acceptable to the reviewing engineer. MR. CARVIN-Do either one of you have any problems, if this program were to go forward, that any environmental situation there right now would either be degradated or improved, or could be mitigated, as far as its impact? MR. LEVANDOWSKI-I think that's unknown, from my point of view. MR. JARRETT-Again, I can't answer that. I could go either way, depending on what the applicant proposes. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Does anybody on the Board have any questions with regard to this issue? MR. MARTIN-Yes. I think it should be pointed out that, typically, - 45 - ,~ ---" (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/1/96) in review of these situations, like at a Planning Board level, the pre-development situation is accepted as being the case, and the project only deals with the change from pre-development to post development. If there's a problem there right now, the policy has been that, you know, you don't necessarily try and fix that problem with the post development project. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Well, I just don't want to, like the doctors, do no more harm. MR. MART IN - No. Th at's c e r t a i n 1 y t rue. You' r e not sup p 0 sed to mak e it worse. MR. O'CONNOR-I think the ZBA has treated this differently, and I'll go back to the Docksider as the precedent, and I could go back to a couple of others. I think, environmentally, you can't ignore the environments of the project, when you're reviewing. MR. MARTIN-Well ,the Docksider is not a point on point comparison. The Docksider was a physical expansion of the building as well. It did change. MR. O'CONNOR-It was on the footprint. MR. MARTIN-I disagree. I was on the Planning Board at the time, and I remember that being an expansion. MR. O'CONNOR-I'm in total disagreement. My point is, I don't know if would work or not work. I don't know if Tom Jarrett knows it'll work. I don't think Bill Levandowski knows it'll work. You're supposed to know, though, before you determine whether or not, what type of impact you have, that you have something that works. I'll leave that issue, and I'll go on to a couple of others that we don't seem to have talked about yet, and that's hours of operation. How is this going to affect people at night? What type of lighting is there going to be? How is that going to affect in their living environment? What type of security lighting is there going to be on the two buildings? MR. CARVIN-Can you tell me how this' is going to, what are we looking at, your best numbers, over what i~ already existing? MR. O'CONNOR-Right now, there are no buildings up there, and there's no exterior lighting that is bothersome to the people. You've got to step back a little bit and take a look at the application based upon the fact that you have a vacant field there now with external storage. We went through that whole issue. We went to court on that issue, and the court said that that was not a like kind replacement, and that the buildings were taken down not as an act of nature, but were taken down by choice, by' this par~icular applicant. That's what got us into the whole application process that we're in now. We argued for two years whether or not we needed a variance or didn't need a variance, and once the court made a determination that we needed, I think we need to take a look at the site as it is. I don't think you can go back and make a lot of presumptions as to what was there or what wasn't there, and I'll stand on that. You can do what you've got to do. We also heard disc~ssion a~out elimination of the day launching, and I haven't seen that inc6rporated into. this, which I would think would also have some type Qf impact, traffic wise, and parking wise, and I didn't include that in my calculations. We were into this before, I submitted a statement of findings that was like conditions that were put upon the approv~l in the B61ton Marina case. I would ask the Board to seriously consider each of those, because I think each of those has some significant environmental impact in affording the neighborhood some protection if you're going to go forward with this project. The biggest thing that you're going to come to, though, and that you're going to have to - 46 - '--- --/ (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/1/96) wrestle with is the size of this warehouse. That is not in keeping with the character of that neighborhood. It is not in keeping with the residences that are there. Regardless of what is used, regardless of the number of boats that you're going to put into it, or not, those people are going to walk out and see a bui lding 34 feet high, 160 feet long, and if they're unfortunate enough to get an angle corner, they're going to get more of it. That is not like those buildings which you have heard had eaves of nine or ten feet in height, and perhaps a peak of eighteen feet to thirty feet. I think you've all seen footprints of those prior buildings. During the summer time, for the mos t par t, the ar eas between the bu il dings weren't widely used. I don't even know that, there's a difference between looking at those little tiny sheds, the back of those sheds off Mason Road, and looking at this warehouse. This is like going down to Valcour ~nd sitting next to the warehouse at Valcour, or if you ride up by the Yard Arm Marina, take a picture 75 feet away from that building, looking at that wall. 'That's what you're going to put into this neighborhood. If you don't think that that changes the character of the neighborhood, I don't know how you're looking at it from an environmental point of view. That's a significant part of what you're review is going to be, as to the character of the neighborhood and the character of that portion of Town. That's my comments. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Very good. Thank you. Anyone else wishing to be heard? MARY ARTHUR BEEBE MRS. BEEBE-I'm Mary Arthur Beebe. I'm Executive Director of the Lake George Association. I heard you asking for something new that hadn't been brought up, and I wasn't hear earlier. So I would like to know, has anyone talked about the Zebra Muscles? MR. CARVIN-That's the first I've heard of them. MRS. BEEBE-Okay. Well, you're asking for things that might effect the environment. This is an environmental thing that might effect the operation of this Marina, and that change in operation could have a very significant effect on the lake itself. Again, I've just been to two national conferences about Zebra Muscles, and I've seen them close up, and in February we had some people from the United States Sea Grant here to teach us about how you protect your boats from Zebra Muscles. Their directions were, it's pretty difficult to keep them out of the lake. Almost virtually impossible to keep them out of the lake. They are now in Glen Lake, prettj close to us, and they are in Lake Champlain. I expect it will not be long before they are found in Lake George, and in areas particularly where it's more conducive to them. The maintenance practices that are required to use teflon type paint on your boats, those would have to be applied. I assume that this Marina is going to do maintenance practices. They will have to be applied frequently. They're highly (lost word). The other thing is that you have to run your engine to keep your engine's motor from being clogged and destroyed. You have to run 140 degree water through your engine every day, to kill the little invisible villagers that get, that spread into your engine and set up a house there and grow into these Zebra Muscles. They're so small you can't even see them. You just have to trust that they're there and try and keep them out. It's even been suggested that if you can't put your boat in the lake and take a nice boat trip every day, that you should do this when it is in dry stock, inside the storage facility or at dry dock, or at the dock. Either one of those is going to create a very bi~ change in the operation of a Marina, in order to protect the' investment. I'm very concerned about the noise, where this hot water is going to be discharged. Hot water is known and defined to be a pollutant under the Environmental Conservation Law. That is because it makes bad things grow, - 47 - --..../ (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/1/96) bacteria, algae, weeds. That water is going to have to go somewhere. This problem is going to need to be addressed. I think that it is a new problem that you need to bring up. It's too late to go into it in detail, bu,t it's very possible to obtain information, what little there is, from the Sea Grant people. We all know about the difficulty, and what Zebra Muscles will do to water intake pipes in the lake. They will clog them up so much that they will cease to function. That could also cause additional fire hazards in the area. I think that all of those things need to be looked at and looked at seriously. MR. CARVIN-Okay. I just have a question. Zebra Musc¡es, are they just normally indigenous to boats that are stored in Marinas, or could that affect anyone on the lake? MRS. BEEBE-It could affect all boats. MR. CARVIN-Okay. MRS. BEEBE-But the ones housed in a Marina, usually the Marina does mai.ntenance. One of the methods to try to deter the production is the cleaning. You have to use the hot water. Any boats in an outside area should be steam cleaned before they're put in, and when they're there, in order to keep them from being ruined by Zebra Muscles. MR. CARVIN-Okay, but should that be a policy and procedure that other boat owners on the lake should also take advantage of? MRS. BEEBE-They'll have to do something. If you're going to have a whole bunch of boats in one small area at this Marina, it will have to be addressed. They don't have to clean their motors every day now, I mean, when they're sitting there in the warehouse, but they should, in order to keep this problem from ruining their boats, and once those little villagers are in there, they live a long time in the water. MR. FORD-Mary Arthur, what's that source again, please? MRS. BEEBE-U.S. Sea Grant. numbers. Thank you. I can get you addresses and phone MR. CARVIN-Okay. Anyone else? JOHN SALVADOR MR. SALVADOR-John Salvador, again. Mr. O'Connor tried to give you a de fin i t i on 0 f an E IS. From w hat I c an r e colI e c t , and I don' t have it in front of me, but 617 does say, in the definition of an EIS, that is it a quantitative report\ not a rhetorical dissertation, a q~antitative report. That's why I asked about the standards to which we're supp6sed to mitigate a stormwater problem. The same with noise, to what standards are we going to mitigate from? We have noise, we have noise., but what are we going to, to what degree are we going to mitigate it? You have to have some standards. That's the purpose of an EIS, to define those. I'd like to talk about parking. Before I,get into that, Mrs. Evans mentioned something about roads, and the adequacy of roads to handle emergency equipment. The citizens of this State, North Queensbury, Warren County, pay very heavy tax money for these roads to be safe and operable, at all times. Now our Highway Superintendent has an obligation to open all roads by use, and I think that's probably what Mason Road is. I don't think it's a dedicated road. He has an obligation, if that's been in use, in public use for 10 years, to open it to three rides. Now if that's a problem, that's not the applicant's problem. That's a problem of Town Administration, and we pay taxes, and those roads are subsidized through a CHIPS program. ,All the people of the State - 48 - ""-, .J (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/1/96) 60ntribute to the maintenance of the roads in this Town, and we have an obligation to keep those roads open, safe, and operable on behalf of the public. It's not Mr. Brock's problem. With regard to parking, I have þeen in contact with the Glens Falls Transit Authority, and it's my aim to try to get public transportation into North Queensbury. Everyone èlse has it, and this Town pays, what is it, Jim, $20,000 a year, subsidizing Glens Falls Transit Authority? MR. MARTIN-I think it's something in that range. MR. SALVADOR-Something in that order, and we get not a stick of service beyond this building in North Queensbury. Now they are thinking about supplying public transportation to Whitehall from Glens Falls, and it could go right up Bay Road here, circle around and down Ridge, onto 149 and over to Whitehall. There's no reason why we can't have some kind of a spur up the Cleverdale Road, and we have plenty of property available in our area, and I'm sure Mr. Brock would be willing to work out some kind of an arrangement, either shuttle bus or this spur, to bring those people to his Marina, providing there's a problem, providing a problem, and parking becomes a breaking point for this permit. I'm sure we can work something out. Mr. Champagne is supportive of this public transport~tion. The only thing we'll have to worry about is those buses don't have diesel engines in them, but maybe we can take care of that, okay, and all Mr. Brock will have to do is provide a turn around for the bus, but I think we have a solution to a potential parking problem. I'd like to have you consider that in your EIS. We talked about a stormwater problem, and it's cropped up here with definitions and all. This Board should be aware that a sewer project is underway in North Queensbury. Test holes have been dug. The engineers are laying out base lines on the roads. They're working. Site surveys are being made. Property boundary surveys are being made, and the sewer project is moving ahead. We have federal funding for it. Queensbury' s on the 1 ist. It's all designed practically and laid out. Now, I'll bet you this sewer project could arrive before his permit. If it does, he's not going to need any waste water facilities on site, and those waste water facilities could be used for a stormwater management program. That should be considered in your program. Tomorrow morning at 9:30, there's a meeting at the Warren County Center on this sewer project, and I hope the Town will be represented. I understand Mr. Champagne is on vacation. MR. MARTIN-Yes. MR. SALVADOR-I hope the Town will be represented. We talked about views. I wonder if there's some way to measure a view. Is there such a thing as a view impact meter, or are we just dealing with people's perceptions of what a view is or what a beautiful view is? I haven't heard that these people that are complaining about a loss ofa view, that they have any kind of an easement that protects this view. I mean, what do they expect from Mr. Brock? Does he have an obligation to protect their view? Where is this? So, again, how do we measure this, and if we're going to mitigate a view impact, where do we start? We talked about quick launch and the Lake George Park Commission. I've read their regulations, and quick launch is allowed from residential property at no limit. To the best of mY knowledge, Mr. Brock sits on residentially zoned property. There shOuld be no limit, the way the regulations are written, to that activity, from the Lake George Park Commission's point of view. That's what their regulations say. You talked about hot waièr being a pollutant. You don't think our guests take showers in cold water, do you? We've been doing it for years. I have not heard that this is a pollution problem, okay. I just have never heard it before. Zebra Muscl es we' te talki ng about. I understand Zebra Musclès devour milfoil. Maybe it's a trade off. Well, they work pretty heavily on macrophytes. We talked about - 49 - '-/ (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/1/96) crime beiog increased because of boaters. Is there some kind of an analysis available, because if there is, we pay heavy taxes to the Warren County Sheriff's Department to take care of this, and that's where that problem should be taken, not to the applicant who is involved in a Marina operation. Do we have some kind of a measure, because that's what you have to analY4e, a quantitative analysis. I guess that's it. Thank you. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Thank you for your comments. Yes, sir? LOUIS STONE MR. STONE-Louis Stone again, speaking for himself. I believe, I have faith in our governmental system. I believe you five gentlemen and whoever is not here have heard about as much as you can hear on this particular subject. I would like you to spend the next 20 days go ing over th i s i nforma t ion, and when you do your analysis of the SEQRA, you will honestly and forthrightly come to a reasonable conclusion. Thank you. MICHAEL O'CONNOR MR. O'CONNOR-Michael O'Connor, again, and I just want to be sure that on the record I have said that it is our request that you do a positive declaration, and that you require a DEIS, and pick up on the points that we've talked about. The one point that I perhaps overlooked and I think is part of your EIS is that there should have been, in this particular project, a discussion, an open discussion, of alternatives, and from time to time we've even had a neighborhood meeting here that the Supervisor called, and it was just for parties, not the lawyers, and tried to work out some al terna t i ves on how you go between the one s tory and the three story or the three tiered deck. It never got off the ground, and I've never heard anythiDg from the applicant, except for a statement, it's not economical. I don't think you have anything in there as to whether or not, in fact, you could. In fact, I think in the early beginning, some of the neighbors did a design of open sheds, kind of like the two smaller buildings, and put them around the perimeter of the property, and came close, in numbers, to what was there, they thought, when the Polands were oper~ting it. Those alternatives really have not been explored. They w6uld be required to be explored if he did ask for a DEIS. It's the same thing if you look through the material that was given to you. There's a statement in there ~hatit's not economically feasible to discontinue use of the diesel tow vehicle and go to electric or go to gas, just a bold statement. There's no analysis of that that you can have to determine what is economical, considering the different elements of what you're weighing, the impact of cost as opposed to maybe the quietness of the other type vehicle and the other type ope~ation,and again, that would be taken into account, also, if you did a comparis6n in a sound study, as to what is the sound of the electric or the diesel, as opposed to gas, all three, and you might be able to condition, if you're going to condition something, saying that in the particular areas, that only certain equipment be used or only certain mechanical equipment, motor equipment be used, of one nature, whi¿his reasonable when you have somebody that's' her e befor e you ask i ng you to exer c i se your discretion and grant variances. This is part of why you're doing this SEQRA review. You're not simply sitting here and looking at somebody who's here as a matter of right. They have to show you that there's a balancing act, and that they are coming to the t~ble in good faith, and they are meeting their end of the balancing act. The views that were talked about, just two points, specifically, on views. The views that we're talking about, nobody expected that there would be an unblemished view, but they're in a residential neighborhood. They expectéd, at the most, to have typical residential interruptions of that view. They don't have easements. They acknowled&ethey don't h~ve easements, but if you had a 5,000 - 50 - "-- --" (Queens bury ZBA Meeting 5/1/96) square foot house, two story house across the street from you, it's alot different than a 34 foot high, 162 foot warehouse building. Hot water is a pollutant. I think the Sagamore found out when they got fined for dischargin~ theit air conditioning directly into the lake, and I think that's the same thing. If they're going to become modern, they should be telling you how they're going to have water and oil separator on the boat wash, the same as if you have an automobile dealership. You'd make them give you water and oil separators. If they're going to have this, they be required to have hot water type application on a regular basis. What are they going to do with it? That's an environmental issue. MR. CARVIN-Mr. Salvador, thi's is your third time. something new and significant. I t better be MR. SALVADOR-On the subject of stormwater, this Board should know that last summer w~ met at North Queensbury in the Firehouse, many of the people ;in this room, and it was impressed upon us that a need for the Town to have a stormwater management plan, ~he need was impressed upon us, and we sat and listened to the experts, and it was made quite clear to us that stormwater runoff is a source of non point pollution, and this was evidenced by the fact that there were 80 new milfoil sites discovered in the lake, okay. The first question.l asked was, where are these sites? At that time, they didn't even know who had the list, and I still haven't seen the 80 sites. Jim, are you aware of these 80 sites? I understand it's grown to 120 now. MR. MARTIN-I've heard of that number. map, but in fairness, thåt's something every day. I've not seen a location don't deal in, obviously, MR. SALVADOR-So we really don't know that stormwater runoff in North~ueensbury, okay, is causing the growth of milfoil. We don't know that. At least we don't know where the 80 sites are. You should know that. Thank you. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Anyone else wishing to be heard? JUDY WETHERBEE MRS. WETHERBEE-I just wanted to agree with what we said before. We'd very much like to talk to Mr. Brock and show him th~t we are willing to let him go back to the five buildings that were, the square footage of the buildings that he had before, and obviously put out in a more efficient way to get boats in and out. None of us want to put him out of business. MR. NACE-Okay. For the record, Tom Nace and John Brock. There were quite a few questions brought up this evening, quite a few concerns voiced. I would think that most of these we have addressed in the submittal that we have beföre you. There is quite a bit of discussion between the "increased use", and the volume of the buildings and how the two are related. One issue that we would like to bri.ng up and put to bed is the fact that we would be willing to, much as the Marina in Bolton Landing has done, come up with numbers tha~ we are willing to live with and limit the number of boats that we are going to store, winter storage, quick launch storage, and actually the number of boats in the water at anyone tîme. We feel that doing that should put tö rest some of the issues of, well, our building's bigger, therefore we can store thr~e times as many boats as we've had in the past. So, I'd like to put that issue on th~ table for discussion. Maybe tonight, at future meetings, but we are certainly willing to limit those numbers, so that our use is a maximum number. It can be numbers, or figures that are reported to the Town on a daily log that the Marina operator keeps, the very same as Bolton does, that's open for inspection by the Town. We feel that doing that will take some - 51 - ",,- __,¡i (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/1/96) of the issue of volume versus use and resolve it. Okay. Obviously, volume still has an environmental impact issue, with regard to visual impact, and that, obviously, this Board's going to have to deal with. A couple of other things, we would like to go on record as reserving the right to dispute, in the future, the fact that the Lake Ceorge Park Commission is an involved agency, and we would be requiring a permit for the project. Okay. I don't want to get into any discussion. You've obviously heard their comments. As much as possible, we will respond to you regarding their comments, but we're just reserving that futl\re right to dispute their involvement. That's, I guess really the meat of what I've got. There are a bunch of things that I would like the opportunity to sit down and respond to you in a logical fashion what has been discussed tonight. I don't know what format you want that to take. MR. CARVIN-Well, the format, as it stands right now, is that we are under a 20 day time constraint. This Board has to wrestle with the environmental SEQRA report, and, again, without sounding redundant, our Part II has a number of sections. MR. LAPPER-Mr. Chairman, the Board determines, information is required, that. just one point on the 20 day period. If after the public hearing, that more you could pass a resolution rescinding MR. CARVIN-I was going to get to that, assuming that we still have a completed application, and assuming that we have a completed application, then we have 20 days to go through the SEQRA questions, and we, essentially, have three responses. If we feel that it is a positive declaration, then that will mandate the EIS. If it's a negative declaration, there's no problem with the environment. If it's a conditional negative declaration, that means that there may be a problem that we think can be mitigated, and this Board will have to wrestle with those issues as they come forward. If we feel that this will mitigate it, and you feel that that is not the case, then we'll have to cross that bridge when we get to it. It's either a positive, in which case we go to the EIS, or the conditions are imposed. We've had a number of comments this evening suggesting possible alternatives and situations. I don't know how this Board feels, but once the public hearing is closed, then we will schedule a me~ting. There will be no public hearing at that meeting. It will be a public meeting, and if we have specific questions of the. applicant, or anyone else in the room, then we can ask them, but it's not going to be a case where we are going to be asking fot public iriput as to what this Board deems is appropriate as far as the SEQRA is concerned. So I don't know if that answers your questions. Are we going to have private conversations? No. MR. NACE-No. I'm simply saying that there is a bunch of stuff here, we can respond tonight, verbally, or we can put it together in a written response, if you'd prefer. MR. CARVIN-I would ask you, because we're coming up to the magic hour of eleven, I would ask, you've pretty much given us your side here. I mean, if there is anything in here that you want to expand or change, I think that should be made known. MR. NACE-No. It's more clarification to address some of the issues that were raised. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Well, again" I think 1 haven't seen any new issues. So, I mean, I think, personally, you've addressed everything, and I've heard all the commentary, . and now I've got to sift through it and do, as Mr. Stone has indicated, the balancing act of, you know, how much of an impact do we have. So, again, you've got the microphone. The public hearing is open. If you've - 52 - '-- -./ (Queens bury ZBA Meeting 5/1/96) got something you want us to hear, or you want to expand, in relation to the SEQRA, lets have it now. MR. NACE-Okay. I think we addressed the elevation from Cleverdale Road that was supposedly lacking. I think we verbally addressed that. The stormwater, we have, in the report you'll see, addressed the. MR. FORD-Maybe I missed that. Could you refer back to when you addressed that and how you addressed that? MR. NACE-Okay. When we responded during the earlier stage of the public hearing. We addressed it verbally in the material you have in front of you, state that there is a very good screening of trees on the back of, or the property line, there's a good screening of trees along this property line. In your packet, you have photog raphs that wer e taken from ou t her e on C 1 everdal e Road looking at those trees. There are boats, when the pictures were taken, were some boats stored behind the trees. It was very difficult to see those. You can see that the trees are high. They have good cover all the way up. I think we also have here some aerial photographs that were taken that will also show, this is looking down on the previous buildings. Here's that screening of trees. You can barely see, there are three buildings there. You can barely even see them. Now this is obviously an aerial photograph, but it shows that those are there at an upper level. Two other photographs that you have show that those, the trees also screen it from the ground at Cleverdale Road. MR. FORD-Did I misunderstand that you wère going to provide us with a rendering? MR. NACE-We can. that. Correct? Yes. The discussion was that you would like MR. FORD-Yes. MR. NACE-Okay. We will provide a rendering, but I'm saying that I think that it's very well screened. Okay. The stormwater, the cal cula t ions that you have in your packet show that we have addressed the increase in impermeable area, okay, the increase in hard, let me take the words "impermeable area" out, because that's also used in your codes for green space, but we have taken care of the increase in hard surfaces, runoff for a 50 year storm. Our trenches take that into account, in storage area alone. We store lOt imes the amount that comes of f the 50 year storm in the trenches. So that starts to, also, help alleviate some of the existing problems. I agree that, through the site plan process and as we go through the environmental and zoning issues, there are some elevations in drainage patterns that we can supply that will help clarify, and Tom Jarrett did have some good suggestions that I think we can very easily institute to help even further in taking care of the existing problems of storm drainage. One of the issues that came up was the residential lot, okay, and the change in permeable area and how that figured into the calculations. The difference between, what you had in front of you in November and what you have in fr~nt of you now is that we've eliminated this lot and this lot from any of those. Now we are using the existing lot here, one lot here that Mike O'Connor claims it's residential use, and we do not agree' that it is residential use. There is an approved site plan, in 1973, for corrmercial buildings on that lot. We'll be glad to supply you with these. I'm not familiar with all of the aspects of the '88 zoning denial for that, but I rather suspect that it had other issues tacked on that were maybe responsible for the denial of the project. This lot has been used, over the years, for the boat business. Trailers have been stored o~ it. Out back, there's been storage on it. We don't agree that that's a residential lot. With the noise issue, we do not have - 53 - -~ (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/1/96) existing levels, either ambient or for the existing tractors and forklift. We can provide those if you like. Our contention is that with the circulation pattern and use of the equipment, that first of all, we're maybe increasing the use, or certainly are increasing the use of the forklift. We're also reducing the use of the diesel tractor, tow tractor. The forklift now will be used primarily in the buildings. It will be bringing the boats out and setting them in the cradl~, where the tractbr, trailer will pick them up. 'That's going to be a fairly efficient operation. You're not going to have to move boats to get at other boats that are s tor ed beh i nd them. Ther efor e, the opera t i onal time wi 11 be somewhat decreased, not very greatly, but it will be decreased, and the area that the tractors are going to be operating in will be in the interior of the site, buffered by the two shed buildings from having that noise off Mason Road. Again, I think that we can put the volume is~ue of the building to rest by agreeing on the maximum storage. Okay. There were some arguments presented regarding, by Mr. Kroetz, regarding the volume of the building and how many boats could be fit in. Two of the things that he was missing was the fact that with the buildings you can't compare the footprint of the old buildings on one floor, compared to the new buildings, because we're losing, in the new buildings, we're losing storage area in that center aisle. Okay. That's just circulation aisle, that is not quick launch storage, and we will arrive at the numbers with you that we'll lock into that will absolutely not allow storage in that center aisle, for quick launch use. MR. CARVIN-Well, let me cut you short at this point. I think that I'd like to poll the Board. Maybe I can shorten this up, because I've got a decision to make here. Number One, I need to kind of find out from the Board if they're still comfortable that we have a completed application. Is there anything that you feel that has been presented this evening that would change your opinion that we have a completed application, that you need additional information, from the applicant with regard to the SEQRA, or if you still feel we have, or you have sufficient information to go through the Part I I, and I' mas s urn i n g t hat you a 11 are f am i 1 i a r wit h the Par t I I and what is required? So, before I close the public hearing, I'm going to ask whether we still have a completed application, or should we deem this an incomplete application, until we are provided with the additional information that you feel is necessary based upon the testimony that you've heard this evening? Does anybody have a feel? Chris? MR. THOMAS-After listening to the public comments, and the fact that, you know, that people are going to supply us with more information, and more numbers, that we don't have a complete application. There are some places on the first part that were marked "Not Applicable" that are applicable, that I have found, and I would like to change my mind and say that we don't have a complete applicatiofi. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Dave? MR. MENTER-I believe we do. I think the application's complete, and would warrant progressing, you know, going into the Part II, in light of the fact that specific issues could be addressed by the applicant. I think it's complete. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Bob? MR. KARPELES-I haven't changed my mind. MR. CARVIN-You think you've got enough? MR. KARPELES-I think we've got a complete application here. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Tom? - 54 - ',,- ~ (Queens bury ZBA Meeting 5/1/96) MR. FORD-I feel even more strongly that we do not have a complete application. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Well, I feel that we do. So, what that means, basically, if I were to put it to a vote, which I have not, I'm assuming that we would hav~ a three to two, which is a no action, which means that our previous motion would stand. Now, that kind of gives you an idea of where we're coming from. That leaves me the option of continuing the public hearing. In which case, I would adjourn the meeting. I would put a time limit on any written responses, that any additional public hearing or comments be in writing, submitted to our Planning Staff no later than May the 10th. Now, if I leave the public hearing open, and you gentlemen have specific items that I think you feel you want to address in the next 20 days, that gives the public 10 days to get us the information, or I can put it to a vote, and see if we actually do have a completed application. I'm going to leave it to the Board, at this point. How do you want to do this? Those are our options at this point. Dave, any thpughts? MR. MENTER-I think it makes sense to leave it open, at this point. I don't have any spe~ific issues that I would ask to be addressed by anyone other than maybe the applicant. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Do you want to put this to a vote to see if we still have a complete application? MR. MENTER-Do we need to do that? MR. CARVIN-I don't know. I'm just assuming that we'd have a three to two. MR. MENTER-Yes. MR. CARVIN-But I don't ~now that for a fact. I'm just listening to the cormnents, and if you want to have a vote on this, we can have a vote. MR. MENTER-I, personally, don't,see a need to have a vote. MR. CARVIN-Okay, but you would like to keep the public hearing open, if we do have a completed application? MR. MENTER-Yes. I'd like to keep it open for a period of time. That makes the most sense to me. MR. CARVIN-How about you, Bob? MR. KARPELES-I meeting open. writing, and I meeting's open much sense. really don't see any necessity to keep the public I don't see why they couldn't respond to us in don't see where it makes any difference whether the or not. As far as voting, it doesn't seem to make MR . MENTER-We 11, if the pub Ii c meet i ng is open, you can accept written. MR. CARVIN-Yes. We won't have another verbal dialogue, but they will have 10 days to respond, or if we have specific requests from the applicant. MR. KARPELES-Can we receive correspondence if the meeting's closed? MR. GORALSKI-There's a difference between a public meeting and a public hearing. MR. CARVIN-So we will have a public meeting within the next 20 days - 55 - "--- """ (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/1/96) to go through the Part II, if we deem this a complete application. MR. KARPELES-But if we close the pub1 ic meeting, could we sti 11 receive correspondence from them? MR. CARVIN-No. public. ¡ If I close it tonight, then tha{'s it, from the MR. MENTER-He's talking about keeping it open for another 10 days in case of any written correspondence. MR. CARVIN-For written correspondence. MR. KARPELES-Yes. Okay. MR. CARV IN-Bu t we s till have the 20 days, in other words, that gives us 10 days to review and come up with our SEQRA review, but as I said, I 'massuming that we do not have a majority to overturn the epplication. What is your feeling, Tom? MR. FORD-I'd like to keep the public hearing open. MR. CARVIN-For the 10 days? MR. FORD-Yes. MR. CARVIN-All right. MR. THOMAS-I'd like to keep it open for the 10 days. I don't think you're going to need to take a vote, because it's going to be a three to two. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Is everybody satisfied that we do have a complete application? MR. MENTER- I f someone would 1 ike to make a mot ion on the vote they could do that, too, right now, and if no one's going to do that, then I would assume that everybody's satisfied with the previous vote. MR. CARVIN-Then I will make a motion that the public hearing, so far, that we application, as far as the Mooring environmental impact statement. I would we still determine, after still have a completed Post, as far as its ask for a second. MR. MENTER-I'll second it. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Does everybody underštand what I'm asking? MR. KARPELES-Could you go over that again? MR. CARVIN-Okay. I'm saying that, my motion is that we have a completed application. MR. GORALSKI-You don't need to make that motion, because you already have a motion saying you have a completed application. MR. CARVIN-Okay, but should I have a negative motion, then, in other words, to overturn it? MR. LAPPER-No. You should just have a motion on the public hearing, keeping it open. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Then I'll withdraw my motion. we will keep the public hearing open. I will move that MOT I ON THAT WE WILL KEEP THE PUBL I C HEAR I NG OPEN FOR WR I TTEN COMMENTS ONLY. UNTIL AND INCLUDING. MAY 10. 1996. AND THAT WE WILL - 56 - '\",...- --../ (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/1/96) ESTABLISH A PUBLIC MEETING TO REVIEW THE PART I I OF THE SEQRA REVIEW AT SOME POINT AFTER MAY THE 10TH AND PRIOR TO MAY THE 21ST. WHICH I BELIEVE IS OUR ULTIMATE CUT OFF DATE. AND THAT ANY CORRESPONDENCE FROM THE PUBLIC BE ADDRESSED TO THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT. WITH COPIES BEING MADE AVAILABLE AS SOON AS POSSIBLE TO THE BOARD MEMBERS., Introduced by Fred Carvin who moved for its adoption, seconded by David Menter: If there's any specific information that we want or would like the public to address, or missing information that we feel we might like to have, in other words, if there's a wish list from anyone in the room that we'd like to have them respond, to identify the information that we feel we need, that they'll have 10 days to get it, specifically, to provide a rendering from Cleverdale Road and Mason Road, elevations and drainage patterns and other measures to address existing problems with the drainage, to the extent possible; provide existing noise levels~ proposal for maximum storage, both winter and quick launch, hours of operation, noise and traffic, water and oil separator, and we will meet for the Part II review between now and the 21st. Duly adopted this 1st day of May, 1996, by the following vote: MR. CARVIN-Okay. Now, is there any specific information, Tom, that you want or would like the public to address with regard to any missing information that you feel that you might like to have, and I'm going to ask you, Chris, the same thing. In other words, if you've got a wish list, from anyone in the room, that you'd like to have them respond, to identify the information that you feel you need, that they'11 have 10 days to get it. MR. MART IN-We 11, I was keep i ng a 1 is t, as Tom was goi ng through. I heard a commitment to provide a rendering, if that's still the Board's desire, from Cleverdale Road, and I would suggest that this time it be done from a perspective of actually standing on the road. Elevations and drainage patterns, and other measures to address existing problems with the drainage. Provide existing noise levels, maximum storage, a proposal for maximum storage, both winter and quick launch, and I want to see how you're going to do that one. That was all I had. MR. BROCK-If you're saying you have a complete application, how can you ask for something? MR. CARVIN-Well, we're asking. I doesn't necessarily mean we're going to get it. We're asking the public. The Board has determi ned, befor e, that we had enough i nforma t i on. They jus t would like to have some additional information, if it's available within the next 20 days. MR. LAPPER-You've determined that it's complete for the purposes of review. MR. CARVIN-That's correct. MR. MENTER-I would also, Mike had a good point. I think that, from the west, not to make you run around, but I think it would make sense to have a rendering from straight on, rather than looking northeast, from Mason Road. I think that makes sense. MR. CARVIN-Okay. We've got kind of a long motion here. MR. FORD-I've got some other, you haven't got to provide, but Staff needs to provide us with Page Two of Mr. Jarrett's letter. MR. GORALSKI~Yes. MR. MARTIN-Yes. That's because Mr. Jarrett, in his effort to - 57 - -.../ (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/1/96) conserve paper, put Page Two on the back of Page One, and when our Secretary ran it through the copier, there was no. That's the explanation behind that, but we will provide you with Page Two. MR. FORD-Hours of operation, lighting. Are we going to address the noise and traffic? Number of wet slips. MR. CARVIN-Are you asking in relation, come back to the environmental. Is this information that you feel is very relevant in you rendering a decision as far as the Part II? MR. FORD-Yes. MR. CARVIN-Okay, but you've got the information. If it doesn't show up, you still would have to move forward on it. MR. FORD-Well, I can move forward, but I'd like to get what I'd like to get. Do we have a firm number on the parking spots? MR. NACE-We've always been firm on 107 parking spots, presently and proposed. W~'re not changing that. MR. FORD-Okay. MR. CARVIN-Then I would ask for a second. MR. FORD-Seconded. MR. MARTIN-Just to be sure. I'm a stickler about these things. I now have a list of seven things, provision of a rendering, from Cleverdale now, ~nd Mason Road, a revised Masori Road tende~ing, elevations in drainage patterns and other measures to address existing problems, exis:t;ing problems, not jUst that which comes with post development, but the ones that exist today. You did say existing. MR. NACE-We wi 11 additional space. existing problems. take We care wi 11 of the do as regulations much as we for can the proposed to mitigate MR. MARTIN-Okay. That's why I'm doing this, so we're all clear. MR. CARVIN-Okay, and I want to emphasize that we'd like to get, we're mandating that this be within the 10 days, and that, if at some point after the 10 days, the rest of the Board looks atit and still feels that they don't have enough information, we still can say that this is an incomplete application. MR. BROCK-Can I make one comment on the water? Jim, when you were up there with a group of people looking at the runoff, right? MR. MARTIN-Yes, a municipal project for Cleverdale Road. MR. BROCK-Municipal project, I pointed oUt that we had a collection of water in the back corner of the property, since the property bought by the Evans' has been raised, since they've filled that lot, and at that time, you told me that the property should pitch no more than three inches to the road. MR. MARTIN-Yes. Well, one and a half percent grade, yes. MR. BROCK-Right. So the only change in that property is the fact that it now pitches, from where the water was gathering, three inches to the road, okay. I haven't changed that, and I talked to you about that before we did any of that, and you told me that's what I should do. - 58 - "y. ~' (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/1/96) MR. MARTIN-That's the standards we use in new development, new subdivisions. MR. BROCK-All right. I just wanted to be sure that, you know, the reason that those trenches were put in is the water due to the property being raised, collected in the back of the building, with this winter, I had three inches of pipes. All the boats were frozen in. We had to chop them out of the block of ice to get them out of the building. I asked Jim what I could do about that, and he told me that the property should pitch three inches to the road, and what I did is just took the mound out, wheie the center of my lot was low, I took the mounds out between the center of the lot and the road. We dug a trench out there. It now pitches three inches. We did nothing to the back property, where the water problem was. All I did is pitch it, and I was instructed that that was the right way to do it by Jim. So I want to get that out, because it got to sound like I was trying to run the water off on everybody else's property, and that's not true. I pitched it to the road just like I was told to do. MR. FORD-Could I ask if other members getting any additional information in Muscles? . are at all interested the next 10 days on in the MR. CARVIN-I feel that I have sufficient information. MR. THOMAS-No. MR. FORD-Water and oil separation. MR. MARTIN-Elevations and drainage patterns and other measures to address existing problems to the extent possible. Provide existing noise levels. Propose a maximum storage level, for winter time and quick launch, hours of operation now, lighting, noise and traffic. I think we addressed the background noise. You want proposed, Tom, within the building, what it would be? MR. KARPELES- I thought we had lighting. lighting? What do we want on MR. NACE-You do have lighting. MR. KARPELES-Yes. What do we want other than what we have? MR. CARVIN-Okay. MR. FORD-And that's projected lighting, right? MR. NACE-The location of lights are shown, and the description that says what type of lights they are. MR. MARTIN-Okay, and then that would come off. MR. BROCK-Do you have any projections on what the foot candle level ought to be? MR. NACE-No. It's all interior to the site. It's not a perimeter where it would spill on to adjacent property. MR. CARVIN-Okay. MR. MARTIN-And then a water and oil separator. So that gives me a total of eight items. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Does everybody understand the motion? The public hearing is still open for written connents only until May the 10th, and we will schedule a public hearing, or public meeting I guess, between now and the 21st. Okay. - 59 - ......../ (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/1/96) MR. GORALSKI-Before you vote, let me just, because Maria is not here and we've had a long time between when you started this motion and when you finished it. The motion is that the public hearing will remain open until May 10, 1996, for written comments only, and you are further requesting that the applicant address the eight items that Jim just listed. MR. CARVIN-That's correct, and then that we will meet for the Part II review between now and the 21st. MR. GORALSKI-Okay. MR. CARVIN-And as an aside, and not part of the motion, that if sometime after the closing of the public hearing on May the 10th, that this Board discovers that there still is insufficient information, we still can rendet a vote declaring it an incomþlete application. All right. So we're not giving up that prerogative, especially if there's additional information. MR. FORD-It's complete now. We've rendered that, but we get more information, and it m~ybecome incomplete? MR . CAR V IN - Sur e . Who k now s w hat the pub I i c m i g h t w r i t e , t hat's what we've been trying to find here all night. I mean, we found out about the Muscles, right? Who knows what comes in the mail between now and the 10th. MR. KARPELES-Fred, how about the items that were raised by our engineer, as far as the utilities should be, what did you say about the utilities? MR. LEVANDOWSKI-Yes. If there's any proposed utilities between among the new buildings, I'd be interested in knowing what they're proposed tö be, bUried or overhead, primarily buried. MR. KARPELES-Did you have something else that you were concerned about? MR. LEVANDOWSKI-No, that's pretty much what we were interested in. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Then I would ask for a vote. AYES: Mr. Menter, Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Ford, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Carvin NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Green, Mrs. Lapham MR. O'CONNOR-I'm not sure of the applicant's response to my question, and I think, are they asking for a Use Variance for that particular lot or have they said they don't think a Use Variance is necessary? Because I don't see that ðn the table as part of the application. I think a determination has to be made. I know the response is that, in 1973, it was part of a site plan, that lot was included as part of a site plan applicatiÐn, but I think that's an issue that you ought to determine. MR. CARVIN-I think if you put that in writing and get it to us by the 10th, we'd be able to look at that. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. The other question I had, is there a starting point here that we know that, again, I think the applicant and, the neighbors have basically said that they all understand that there will be a Marina operation there of some nature. What are we starting at as far as what the desire or the agreed, stipulated amount, and maybe some people will go home, amount of boats for winter storage, amount of boats for quick launch and amount that - 60 - ~~ ~ (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/1/96) are at wet storage. MR. GORALSKI-That was one of the things that was on that list. You're asking if they could tell you that now? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. MR. BROCK-We'll put it in writing to the Board. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. MR. MARTIN-And those three categories, winter time, full year storage, quick launch and wet storage at the dock? MR. NACE-No, winter storage, quick launch storage, and number of boats actually in the water at anyone time. MR. MARTIN-Okay. MR. BROCK-And you wanted to know the number of slips available for quick launch, number of slips available, and the number of slips in the water, we'll show that we have enough in water storage for the boats, as they come back. MR. CARVIN-Okay. MR. O'CONNOR-I think to fairly calculate the parking, you re also going to want to know how many separate uses they have on the property. MR. CARVIN-I just want to get through the environmental. MR. O'CONNOR-I'll get you my laundry list, but I mean, they've got at least three other uses, now, that they haven't calculated into that formula. MR. CARVIN-Okay. MR. MARTIN-John, are the apartments actively being rented? MR. BROCK-One is being used by a single employee. ,There's one car there. It's there when he works and it's there when he stays. So it's the same car. MR. MARTIN-And the other apartment? MR. BROCK-The other apartment is not being actively used. It hasn't been for at least the past two years. MR. CARVIN-Okay. I'm going to move that this meeting be adjourned, and again, like I said, the public hearing is open for written comments only. Okay. Meeting is adjourned. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITT~D, Fred A. Carvin, Chairman - 61 -